Citation
The Florida anthropologist

Material Information

Title:
The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title:
Fla. anthropol.
Creator:
Florida Anthropological Society
Place of Publication:
Gainesville
Publisher:
Florida Anthropological Society.
Frequency:
Quarterly[<Mar. 1975- >]
Two no. a year[ FORMER 1948-]
quarterly
regular
Language:
English
Edition:
Volume 72 Number 2, June 2019
Physical Description:
v. : ill. ; 24 cm.

Subjects

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

Notes

Summary:
Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
v. 1- May 1948-
General Note:
Cumulative index: Vols. 1-24, no. 2, 1948-June 1971. 1 v.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Florida Anthropologist Society, Inc. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
609502567 ( OCLC )
56028409 ( LCCN )
0015-3893 ( ISSN )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
The
Florida
Anthropologist
Volume 72, Number 2, June 2019
PUBLISHED BY FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY


The Florida Anthropologist is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc. 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 ah 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 Editor 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 Editor.
Publications for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style
guide (on-line at www.fasweb.org) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editor with specific
questions. The journal is formatted using Adobe In Design. All manuscripts must be submitted via email to the journal Editor in
final form in Microsoft Word format. Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to the mailing of the next issue.
The post office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when “temporary hold” orders exist. Such mail is returned to the
Society postage due. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year.
Officers of the Society
President. Emily Jane Murray, 8 Mulvey St. Apt. B, St. Augustine, FL 32084 (president@fasweb.org)
First Vice President: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239 (lvp@fasweb.org)
Second Vice President: Rebecca O’Sullivan, 4202 East Fowler Ave., SOC 110, Tampa FL 33620 (2vp@fasweb.org)
Recording Secretary: John Simon-Suarez, 8 Mulvey St. Apt. B, St. Augustine, FL 32084 (secretary@fasweb.org)
Membership Secretary: Dorothy Block, 306 NE 1st Avenue #202, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 (membership@fasweb.org)
Treasurer: Joanne Talley, P.O. Box 788, Hobe Sound, FL 33475 (treasurer@fasweb.org)
Directors at Large: Maranda Kies, Jen Knutson, and Nigel Rudolph
Immediate Past President: Jason Wenzel
Newsletter Editor: Jeff Moates, 4202 East Fowler Ave, SOC 110, Tampa FL 33620 (newsletter@fasweb.org)
Journal Editorial Staff
Editor: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239 (editor@fasweb.org)
Assistant Editor: Dorothy Block, 306 NE 1st Avenue #202, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 (editor@fasweb.org)
Technical Editor: Laura Dean, 3020 Cambridge Dr., Sarasota, FL 34232 (laura@runjikproductions.com)
Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304
Editorial Review Board
Albert C. Goodyear,
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (goodyear@sc.edu)
Jeffrey M. Mitchem,
Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (jmitcheml@yahoo.com)
Nancy Marie White,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100 (nmw@usf.edu)
Robert J. Austin,
P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (roc_doc@verizon.net)
NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial Review Board members, the review comments of others knowledgeable in a
manuscript’s subject matter are solicited as part of our peer review process.
VISIT FAS ON THE WEB: fasweb.org
LIKE AND FOLLOW: facebook.com/FloridaAnthropologicalSociety/


The Florida
Anthropologist
Volume 72, Number 2
June 2019
Table of Contents
From the Editors
Articles
A Possible Proto-Underwater Panther: Late Archaic/Woodland Carved Bone
in the Northern Everglades 54-66
Christian Davenport
The Archaeology of the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (8PB220)
Palm Beach County, Florida 68-126
Ryan J. Wheeler, Donna Ruhl, Arlene Fradkin, Fredrick J. Rich
About the Authors 128
Florida Anthropological Society 2019 Awards 130-134
Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893


FROM THE EDITORS
We are pleased to bring you Volume 72 Number 2 of The Florida Anthropologist.
With a focus on the northern Everglades, this issue also honors FAS awards recipients of 2019.
Enjoy!
George M. Luer, Ph.D., Editor
Dorothy A. Block, M.A., Assistant Editor
Laura Dean, Technical Editor
Recent back issues can be purchased through the FAS website fasweb.org/publication-sales/
The journal digital archive is available through the University of Florida Library http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00217
The Florida Anthropologist Fund is designed
to support production of The Florida
Anthropologist, the scholarly journal,
published by the Florida Anthropological
Society since 1947.
Donations are accepted from individuals,
CORPORATIONS, AND FOUNDATIONS.
Inquiries and gifts can be directed to:
Joanne Talley, FAS Treasurer
P. O. Box 788
Hobe Sound, FL 33475
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY IS ANON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE. CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX-DEDUCTIBLE AS
PROVIDED BY SECTION 170 OF THE CODE.
VOL. 72 (2)
The Florida Anthropologist
June 2019


A POSSIBLE PROTO-UNDERWATER PANTHER: LATE ARCHAIC/WOODLAND CARVED
BONE IN THE NORTHERN EVERGLADES
Christian Davenport1
*Paim Beach County Historic Preservation Office, 2300 North Jog Road, West Palm Beach, FL 33411 cdavenpo(d)pbcgov org
Introduction
In this article, I describe and interpret carved bone artifacts from the Hutchinson site (8PB17041) in western Palm Beach
County. The artifacts likely date to sometime in the Late Archaic to Early or Middle Woodland periods (ca. 1000 B.C. to A.D.
500). Ethno-historic and other data are presented through a lens of cognitive archaeology in an effort to assign meaning to these
artifacts, which may depict an early form of Underwater Panther. While depictions of this being are well known from the historic
and Mississippi periods, they also are found in the Woodland period (e.g., Lepper and Frolking 2003:159-160) and possibly earlier.
Panthers and Prototypes
Wheeler (2011) makes the case that panthers were an
important symbol for native people living in the southeastern
United States, including Florida. The Hutchinson carved bone
artifacts are part of a broad tradition of zoomorphic art that
includes many kinds of animals, such as reptiles and birds, as
well as mythological or compound creatures.
Across the southeastern United States in Mississippian
times, and among historic period tribes of southern Canada,
the Underwater Panther is a common mixed-attribute animal
often depicted with horns, hair, scales and a long, sometimes
forked tail. Panthers and Underwater Panthers are different,
with Underwater Panther being a mythological creature with
panther-like attributes (see Note #11 in Wheeler 2011).
Here, I suggest that the Hutchinson carving may represent
a proto-Underwater Panther or similar creature in the pantheon
of south Florida native people. Perhaps we are seeing an
ancient version of an archetypal mythological creature, not
exactly Underwater Panther, but something that has some
similarities and some shared origins in the past. There are lots
of challenges to making such a connection, especially since
the Hutchinson piece is incomplete, the site’s single date is
very early, and the carving is part of a broader tradition of
zoomorphic carving. Nonetheless, I describe the Hutchinson
carvings and present literature bearing on native beliefs about
Underwater Panther.
Site Discovery
In 2016, a surface scatter of prehistoric artifacts was
observed by Belle Glade resident Roy Stewart Stein in a
harvested sugarcane field owned by Wedgworth Farms, Inc.
The author, working for the Palm Beach County Historic
Preservation Office, was contacted, and Wedgworth Farms
gave permission for archaeological investigations. The site
was named for Warner Hutchinson, the late grant writer for
the Lawrence E. Will Museum of the Glades, in Belle Glade.
The site’s location is approximately 8 km (5 mi) east of Belle
Glade (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Hutchinson Site Location in Palm Beach County
(approximate for reference only).
Fieldwork was carried out from December 2016 until
the field was inundated for rice cultivation in May 2017.
Controlled and uncontrolled surface collecting revealed a
surface scatter covering approximately 0.8 hectare (2 acres).
The site consisted of midden deposits containing shell tools
and ceramics. Archaeological investigations were limited
to 0.4 hectare (1 acre), where the densest concentration of
artifacts was observed.
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
The Florida Anthropologist
54


55
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Figure 2. Block Excavation and Living Floor, Hutchinson Site.
This plan shows Test Units 3.1 through 3.40, Levels 5 through 7, 45 to 60 cm below datum. Note star symbols marking
where the three fragments of the carved bone zoomorphic/spiral artifact were found in Test Units 3.21, 3.22, and 3.26.


Davenport
Early Everglades Bone Motifs
56
Table 1. Radiocarbon Date from the Hutchinson Site (8PB17041). Measured and conventional ages are in radiocarbon
years before present (B.P.; present = A.D. 1950). Ages and 813C year corrections are rounded to the nearest ten.
Calibrated dates were supplied by Beta Analytic, Inc. Table entries use the Intcall3 database. One sigma age ranges
have 68% probability; two sigma age ranges have 95% probability.
Material, Provenience,
Lab ID#
Measured,
Uncorrected Age
B.P., 1 Sigma
813C (o/oo)
and Value
in Years
Conventional,
Age B.P.,
1 Sigma
Calibrated Date
B.P., 2 Sigma
(cal BP)
Calibrated Date
B.C., 2 Sigma
(cal B.C.)
1. Charcoal, TU 3.2, Level 6,
Beta-459089
3480 +/- 30
-24.1 (0.9 x
16.4= 10)
3490 +/- 30
3840-3690,
3660-3650
1890-1740,
1710-1700
Hutchinson Site
At the Hutchinson site, plowing had disturbed the upper
40 cm of existing muck soil. Extensive subsurface testing
(62 test units) revealed intact cultural layers between 40
to 60 cm below the surface (b.s.), often 5 to 10 cm above
underlying caprock. Significant finds include an atlatl weight
(bannerstone), fiber-tempered sherds, and St. Johns I period
ceramics. The latter are chalky sherds, some with slight fiber-
temper, of the types St. Johns Plain and St. Johns Incised,
which support a time range of ca. 1000 B.C. to ca. A.D. 500.
A block excavation (Figure 2) consisting of 40 test units
(TU 3.1 through TU 3.40) exposed the boundaries of a possible
prepared and maintained living surface. This surface differed
from others in the area because it consisted of a 2 to 5 cm
thick, dark yellowish brown clay-like soil (10YR 4/6). It was
in stark contrast to surrounding black (10YR 2/1) muck soil.
Compared to the muck, the clay-like soil contained relatively
few artifacts. The contrast was interpreted to mean the clay¬
like area was a maintained surface, regularly swept clean of
food refuse and other debris by native people.
From this area, carbonized wood and bone samples were
collected and submitted for radiocarbon dating, including a
charcoal sample from TU 3.2, Level 6. TU 3.2 was part of
the 40 test unit block excavation (Figure 2). The charcoal
returned a 2-sigma date range of 3840 to 3650 calibrated years
before present (cal BP; present = A.D. 1950), or 1890 to 1700
cal B.C. (Table 1). While this date range may be accurate, it
appears to predate the ceramic assemblage. Bone samples did
not contain enough collagen for dating.
Artifacts found in this area include a small sand- and
fiber-tempered sherd as well as several plain sherds with
slightly spiculate paste (cf. Belle Glade Plain), supporting
habitation during a transition from the Late Archaic period
to the Woodland period. The most intriguing finds were four
intricately carved bone fragments in close proximity in the
living floor. Three of the fragments apparently came from
the same object, showing zoomorphic and spiral carving, and
were recovered from TU 3.21, 3.22, and 3.26. The fourth
carved fragment came from a bone pin in TU 3.24 (Figure 2).
Zoomorphic/Spiral Carved Bone
Two of these three fragments are small with curvilinear
designs, and the third has curvilinear designs plus a
zoomorphic effigy carved in the round. The fragment from
TU 3.21 (Figure 3a) is the largest of the three and bears both
curvilinear and zoomorphic motifs. It measures 34 mm long,
22.65 mm high, and 9.8 mm wide. It cross-mends with the
fragment from TU 3.22, as shown in Figure 3b. The piece
from TU 3.22 measures 20 mm long by 8 mm high. The third
fragment does not cross-mend with these other two, but its
curvilinear designs show that it probably came from the same
artifact. This third piece came from TU 3.26 and is 19.5 mm
long by 7.6 mm high (Figure 4).
One side of the zoomorphic fragment, side A (Figure 3c),
is well preserved while the other, side B (Figure 3c) is not.
This different preservation is likely a factor of bone type. Side
A is cortical bone, while side B is softer trabecular bone. The
cortical bone is 4 mm thick. The remaining trabecular bone is
5.8 mm thick.
The zoomorphic figure’s side A includes a torso and two
legs, each terminating with three toes. In Figure 3A, the head
of the animal was to the right, the tail to the left. The torso
length is 18.8 mm, with four rows of four punctations or dots
that extend to the top of the piece. These are bounded by three
vertical lines. Two are before the rear leg and one in line with,
or just in front of, the front leg. The legs were carved in low
relief, and small chips can be seen where bone was removed.
The photograph in Figure 3d is a view of the top of the
carving. It shows the zoomorphic form to be carved in the
round with some softer trabecular bone on the top and backside.
The zoomorphic element is the only portion of the carving
that extends across both sides of the bone. Despite their poor
preservation, side B’s front leg is clearly discernible, as are
rows of punctations or dots along the torso flanks. Though
missing, the rear leg was likely present when the piece was
whole, based on the breakage pattern.


57
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
The lower relief portion of the carving (Figure 3c) consists
of two spiral-like designs and a ring. Lines or bands carved
in relief form an “S spiral” shape. The spiral on the left is
smaller, with a radius of 3.85 mm. It consists of single spiral¬
like band or line. The larger spiral has a radius of 8.8 mm
and consists of two converging spiral-like bands. The distance
between the two centers of these spirals is 11.5 mm.
On the right side of the fragment is a small ring or circle,
carved in relief. The outside diameter of the circle is 3 mm,
while the central dimple has a diameter of 1.2 mm. Though
small and fragmentary, another possible ring appears to be
along the artifact’s bottom broken edge, between the two
spirals.
Figure 3. Zoomorphic/Spiral Artifact Fragments of Carved Bone, Hutchinson Site,
a: as found; b: cross-mended with fragment; c: front and back; d: top view.


Davenport
Early Everglades Bone Motifs
58
Figure 4. Spiral-Carved Bone Fragment, Hutchinson Site.
Carved Bone Pin
The fourth fragment of
decorated bone is part of a
pin (Figure 5) from TU 3.24
and appears to be made of
solid cortical bone. It is
so heavily modified that
the skeletal element from
which the piece was made
cannot be identified. The
pin measures 26 mm in
length. Its proximal end is
flattened and polished and
has a maximum diameter
of 5.2 mm. The distal
end has a diameter of 3.75
mm and appears to have
broken along the edge of a
grooved decoration. These
broken edges are rounded
and polished, suggesting
continued use after
breakage. It is decorated
with 25 incised lines on the
surface or face of the pin.
From the proximal to distal
end, its decoration consists
of six lines slanted left to
right. Next are 10 nearly
intersecting lines, which
can be grouped into five
sets of chevrons. Below
these are three more angled
parallel lines, similar to the
first six lines.
Figure 5. Carved Bone Pin Fragment from Test Unit 3.24,
Level 3, Hutchinson Site.
Interpretation of Motifs
The artistry on these portable artifacts relayed information
using cultural symbolism (Lovis 2001). While it is always
problematic to interpret the nature and meaning of prehistoric
symbolism, Hall (1976, 1977:515) offers basic methods for
this type of analysis:
There are few bases for making pan-continental
comparisons in United States prehistory. One is the
ecological approach emphasizing technology and
environmental adaptation.... One cannot ignore the
influence of geography, but there is much to be gained
also by giving due attention to the cognitive core
of cultures. Cognitive archaeology begins with the
assumption that we cannot really interpret prehistory
without making a conscious attempt to understand
the nature of humans as symbol-using social animals
affectively involved in a perceived world that they have
helped to create. [Hall 1977:515]
As such, artifacts with symbolic significance become
important in the prehistory of the larger region. Interpretations
of such artifacts include discussions of morphology,
ethnohistoric comparisons, and archaeological inferences.
Morphology based methods are descriptive and analytical
while ethnohistoric methods are explanatory and comparative.
With few exceptions, most of Florida’s native American
art dates to the Woodland, Mississippi, or post-contact periods
(Wheeler 1991, 1992, 1994, 2011:139-162; Wheeler and
Coleman 1996:49-63). Most earlier art in Florida (Wheeler
1991:49-63,1994) is geometric in design, not zoomorphic. The
earliest examples of geometric design are from Paleoindian
contexts and consist of zig-zags on a long bone midshaft, or
cross-hatching on ivory foreshafts (Dunbar and Webb 1996).
Wheeler and Coleman (1996:49-63) indicate that Archaic
period art consists of “complex arrangements of cross-
hatched or hatched bands in diamond and nested diamond
arrangements.” These are known mainly from sites along
the St. Johns River with a few examples from the Everglades.
Wheeler (1991) suggests that some geometric patterns might
have origins in the Early to Middle Archaic periods, reaching
their zenith at Tick Island (8V024) on Florida’s middle St.
Johns River.
Beginning in the Late Archaic period, two distinct artistic
traditions developed: the northern Geometric and the southern
Effigy (naturalistic) traditions, as defined by Wheeler (1991,
1992, 1994). Wheeler (1992) states that artifacts of the Effigy
tradition are found mostly in south Florida. He hypothesizes
that northern Geometric design motifs may extend southward
to occur on artifacts at sites on the eastern side of Lake
Okeechobee, in the northern Everglades (Figure 6). This
overlap may support Sassaman’s (2010) idea that groups of
different ancestry and cultural affiliation might have lived in
close proximity in Florida’s greater St. Johns River region.


59
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
The Hutchinson carved bone pin conforms to the northern
Geometric tradition and may represent a stylized snake
design, such as a rattlesnake tail with scales on a serpent’s
body. Furthermore, at Hutchinson site, examples of these
two traditions occur on the same zoomorphic/spiral carved
bone artifact found in situ in an intact living floor context.
Other examples of sites yielding decorated bone from non¬
ceremonial/non-mortuary contexts include Jupiter Inlet 1
(8PB34) (Wheeler et al. 2002:179, Figure 21) and Hontoon
Island (8VO202) (Purdy 1991:130, Figures 52 and 53).
Zoomorphic Figure
This carved bone artifact is fragmentary, so it is difficult
to assign function. However, as an art object, the carved bone
artifact doubtless served some symbolic function. Perhaps the
effigy form was thought to have power to control, appease,
protect from, give transformative power, or to embody a
supernatural being. The production and use of symbolic
objects is key to the perceived success of sympathetic magic
(Fox 1992:21-35).
Bone was a common medium for native artists, who
might have assigned it supernatural qualities. For example,
it might have been thought that bone retained the soul of the
animal it came from, called the “bone soul” (Claassen 2015).
It is possible that the Hutchinson zoomorphic figure depicts
the kind of animal whose bone was utilized to make the
carving. If so, it was likely a sizeable mammal. Bone is far
easier to modify when fresh (Lyman 1994), so perhaps a native
artisan removed the bone from a mammal carcass, and perhaps
promptly carved its likeness.
When analyzing decorated bone objects like the
Hutchinson zoomorphic figure, we can consider context,
function, medium, technique, and species identification. It is
perhaps not surprising that it is difficult to classify the animal
depicted using the Western taxonomic system of Linnaeus,
Legend
Northern Geometric Tradition
Southern Effigy Tradition
Figure 6. Carved Bone Art Style Areas of Florida (based on Wheeler 1992).


Davenport
Early Everglades Bone Motifs
60
which is certainly the case with many other small carved bone
animals and birds depicted in bone in Florida. That may mean
that our classification system is not completely commensurable
with the native Florida system. Regarding context, Wheeler
(1996:115, 135, 353, 358-359) interprets these small carved
pieces as very personal objects. Based on the Hutchinson
context, it seems as if this one was lost and broken (perhaps
stepped on after being lost) and this argues that the piece may
be more of a personal item rather than an object of communal
worship. This is important for interpretation, and contrasts
with wooden figurines and Mississippian ceramic vessels.
In the northern Everglades, only three mammals have
spots and more than two toes like the zoomorphic figure. These
are the spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), the Florida panther
cub (Puma concolor coryi), and the bobcat (Lynx rufus). The
spotted skunk has linear patches of white fur, rather than
circular spots, unlike the carving. The coat pattern of panther
cubs has approximately four spots in vertical rows, like the
carving. Sometimes a single or double row of interconnected
spots appears near the rear leg or shoulder, resembling the lines
shown on the carving. Bobcats also have spotted coats though
the spots are small and densely clustered along the flanks and
legs. The native artist worked to contain the spots to the body
of the animal depicted. These most closely resemble the spots
of a panther cub.
Non-mammal Everglades species with some resemblances
to the carving include the spotted turtle (Clemmys guttate),
Florida softshell turtle (Apalone ferox), greater siren (Siren
lacertina), barking tree frog (Hyla gratiosa), southern leopard
frog (Lithobates sphenocephalus), and American bullfrog
(Lithobates catesbeianus). The modem ranges of the spotted
turtle and barking tree frog are well north of Lake Okeechobee,
though perhaps they lived in the area in the past.
The greater siren served as food for native people at
the Hutchinson site. Sirens possess only front legs, unlike
the carving. The soft shell turtle has a spotted carapace and
was a food resource. It is possible vertical lines carved near
the figure’s legs symbolize the edges of the turtle’s shell.
However, since the zoomorphic figure is cylindrical, not disk
shaped, it is unlikely the animal depicted is a turtle.
Spot patterns and body forms of the bullfrog and leopard
frog resemble the carving. The figure’s toes may be most
telling. While frogs typically have five toes on rear legs and
four on the front, only three are visible to observers viewing
the animal in a natural pose. If the Hutchinson carving depicts
a frog, its rendering speaks to the careful observation of the
artisan. However, it may not be possible to classify the animal,
as noted above. Many of the animals depicted in Floridian and
Southeastern art may be composites or mythological beings.
Geometric Designs
The other motif carved into the bone piece is geometric.
Symbolically, spirals have wide interpretations, such as
signifying wind, water, whirlpools, night skies, and the soul
(Claassen 2015). Lankford (2011) takes a broad interpretation
of the “swirl cross,” which he says symbolizes the center or
underworld. The spirals on the Hutchinson site carving are
dextral (winding clockwise from the center outward).
Did the artist’s curvilinear patterns mirror design elements
found on contemporary ceramics or was the motif inherited
from older designs carved in bone? Salvaged artifacts from
Tick Island include sherds with incised spiral patterns (Jahn
and Bullen 1978:Figure 5). The Hutchinson bone carving and
a fiber-tempered Tick Island Incised rim sherd (apparently
dating to the Late Archaic Orange period, ca. 2000 to 1000
B.C.) (FLMNH 2019) from Tick Island have more in common
than just intertwined spirals. The bone carving has a boldly
carved ring, in relief, near the front foot of the animal figure,
plus possibly another ring just below the division between the
two spirals. A similar ring shape is on the Tick Island sherd
(Figure 7) and there are punctations or dots on the Tick Island
sherd as well.
Such similar motifs in different media suggest broad
meaning and understanding of the symbols. If the zoomorphic
form is meant to represent an aquatic animal like a frog or
turtle, then the spiral patterns may represent water. Rain and
water have been entwined with every aspect of the Everglades
environment for millennia.
Figure 7. Tick Island Incised Rim Sherd. Note spiral,
punctations, and ring motifs. This is a fiber-tempered
sherd in the Orange Series (from FLMNH 2019).
Archaeological Comparisons
Wheeler (2011:139-162) has established the importance
of the panther to Florida’s native people through discussion
of examples from the wider Mississippi and Woodland
periods and historic documents. If the Hutchinson bone
carving depicts a Florida panther, it may be early evidence of
veneration of the animal. The Padgett and Mahoney figurines
are carved wooden images, each kneeling and depicted as
wearing a panther cape or mantel. One was found on the
eastern side of Lake Okeechobee near Pahokee, not far from
the Hutchinson site. The other is from Palm Hammock in
Glades County, on the western side of the lake (Marquardt
2019; Wheeler 2011:139-162). Doubtless, the panther was an
important symbol for people living in the Lake Okeechobee
Basin, and Wheeler (2011) makes the case that panthers were
an important symbol for people living elsewhere in some parts
of the southeastern United States, including parts of Florida.


61
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
However, panthers and Underwater Panther are different
(see Note #11 in Wheeler 2011). Underwater Panther is a
mythological creature that has some panther-like attributes.
Lord (1989) reports a find that shares traits with the
Hutchinson zoomorphic figure. The Lyons-Lord carving
(Figure 8) is comprised of four pieces of bone recovered from
a looter pit in a site south of Miami, near modern-day Kendall,
Florida. Like the Hutchinson find, the Lyons-Lord zoomorphic
element is carved in relief. It has a backward facing head, four
legs and a tail. The tail and legs encircle the shaft of the bone
pin on which the creature is carved, resulting in a lifelike pose.
Similar to the Hutchinson carving, the feet of the Lyons-Lord
piece are rectangular with three toes. The tail’s decoration is
unlike the rest of the figure, having a herringbone pattern. The
punctates on the body have been placed randomly resulting in
a spotted appearance. The attributes of the Lyons-Lord figure
inspired Lord (1989) to interpret the carving as representing
a cat.
Comparing coat patterns of the Lyons-Lord and the
Hutchinson carvings shows distinctions. First, there are
far more spots on the Lyon-Lord piece and their random
placement resembles spots of a bobcat more than those of a
panther cub. The long tail of the Lyons-Lord carving more
closely resembles a panther’s tail. However, the only coat
marking on the tail of a panther is a darker tuff of fur at the
distal end, while a bobcat’s spotted coat pattern extends the
length of the tail. Based on the random punctates, which I
interpret to represent coat spots, the Lyons-Lord piece more
closely resembles a bobcat. Lord (1989) never made a specific
species identification other than suggesting it was some kind
of feline, comparing it to the Key Marco Cat.
The Key Marco Cat combines feline and anthropomorphic
elements which neither the Lord-Lyons nor the Hutchinson
pieces possess. Regarding the Marco statuette, Wheeler
(2011:139-162) makes the argument that the feline portions
were likely meant to represent a Florida panther. Archaeologist
Robert S. Carr, cited in Lord’s article, suggests the Lord-
Lyons carving depicts an opossum (Lord 1989). Opossum
coat patterns are more like amorphous blotches than definable
spots. Carr observed the tail to body ratio is too long for a
bobcat. Further, Carr notes the Lord-Lyons figure’s tail
partially wraps around the shaft of the pin, comparable to the
prehensile tail of an opossum.
Underwater Panther
Across the southeastern United States and among tribes of
southern Canada, the Underwater Panther is a common mixed-
attribute animal often depicted with horns, hair, scales and a
long, sometimes forked, tail. In at least one case the creature
has an anthropomorphic head (Gile 1995; Hultkrantz 1983:1-
22; Reilly 2004).
Depending on which tribal history is examined, the
Underwater Panther is either a stand-alone entity or the
counterpart of the Thunderbird (Gile 1995). Generally,
Underwater Panther is associated with water, capable of
causing storms, or drowning individuals (Gile 1995; Howard
Figure 8. Lyons-Lord Zoomorphic Carved Bone Pin
(front and back). Dashed lines indicate the continuation
of the figure onto the back, (from Lord 1989).


Davenport
Early Everglades Bone Motifs
62
1960). However, it is not maleficent in every case. Offerings
can be made to it for health, calm, prosperity and/or safe
passage across water (Brown and Brightman 1988; Gile 1995;
Howard 1960; Wheeler 2011).
The antiquity of the Underwater Panther myth and related
motifs is unknown. It is most prevalent during the Middle
Woodland through Mississippi periods (Howard 1960; Lepper
and Frolking 2003) but earlier origins are generally inferred
(Gile 1995). Lepper and Frolking (2003:159) note, “The
Underwater Panther is frequently depicted in the aboriginal
art of eastern North America and the motif has ancient roots.”
If the Hutchinson carving does depict Underwater Panther,
it is a very early rendering. Perhaps it could be a proto-
Underwater Panther or a similar creature, an ancient version of
an archetypal mythological being. It is not the Mississippian
Underwater Panther, but something that has similarities from
the distant past.
Most supportive of interpretations presented here are
ceramic vessel depictions of Underwater Panther. Such
vessels typically contain some zoomorphic form encircling an
area with its long tail and/or a spiral or wave motif. The best
examples of this motif come in the forms of bowls (Catalog
#237, 250, 251 in Townsend and Sharp 2004). The presence
of spirals (already described above and associated with watery
places) seems a very important connection. Other examples
on incised sherds from Illinois show a zoomorphic figure with
a human-like head and a long curving tail (Perino 1971:5-7).
The Underwater Panther is thought to be represented
on artifacts ranging from woven mats to beaded shoes to
pictographs, though it is most commonly shown on ceramics
or carved shells across North America (Reilly et al. 2004).
The largest example of a possible Underwater Panther symbol
is Alligator Mound (misnomer) in Ohio (Lepper and Frolking
2003). If Lepper and Frolking are correct that Alligator Mound
depicts Underwater Panther, we can infer its importance was
widespread, inspiring veneration in the form of monumental
construction.
Cosmology of Underwater Panther
Mississippian cosmological beliefs include three main
planes of existence with several tiers in each. The upper sky-
realm is home to thunderbirds, embodied as birds of prey
(Reilly et al. 2004). The middle or earth-realm is home to
humans and other animals. The underworld or underwater
realm is ruled by Underwater Panther, controller of fish,
snakes, and perhaps amphibians (Gile 1995; Reilly et al.
2004). The animals ruled by Underwater Panther predominate
in the modem Everglades and comprise the bulk of faunal
assemblages from archaeological sites in the Kissimmee-
Okeechobee-Everglades (KOE) region.
Following Reilly et al. (2004), Mississippian religious
cosmology includes the Milky Way seen in the night sky as
part of its upper realm. The Milky Way is followed by souls
of the deceased on their journey to the next plane of existence.
The sky path along the Milky Way, however, was not the only
way to reach the afterworld for Mississippian people. The
afterworld could be entered from the middle world (Earth) by
way of caves, lakes, rivers and streams (Reilly et al. 2004).
Considering the Everglades environment observed by
native people who lived and died at the Hutchinson site, perhaps
they considered Lake Okeechobee (the third largest freshwater
lake in the United States) with headwaters to the north, and
slow moving, shallow Everglades flowing southward, as a
portal to the next world. Lake Okeechobee is massive, so
large it is impossible to see one shore from another. When
viewed from the eastern shore, the sun appears to set into the
lake, while from the west, the sun seems to rise from the lake’s
waters. At night it is magnificent and inspiring.
By day, the waters of the lake appear black because
of the black muck lake bottom. This was first reported by
sailor-soldiers of the Second Seminole War who patrolled
Lake Okeechobee (Will 2002). At night, with the help of low
intensity light, one can see the lake bottom, a stark contrast.
This impressive disparity might have reinforced native
thinking about an underworld.
Considering environmental attributes of Lake Okeechobee
and the Everglades in terms of cosmological beliefs known for
aboriginal North America, the idea of a portal to the afterworld
being accessible from the region seems reasonable, although
speculative. Perhaps this can help interpret ethnographic
reports (Mykle 2002:15) and historic accounts (Will 2002:106)
of aboriginal underwater burials in Lake Okeechobee. Water
burials are generally interred to the north of major islands in
the lake (Davenport et al. 2011:40-41), in contrast to more
common southern terrestrial interment locations noted by Carr
(2002) on tree islands. Dead interred beneath the lake’s waters
might have sought a path to the next world.
Broad Ethnohistoric Comparisons
More examples of panthers and spirals come from areas
to the north. Wheeler (2011:139-162) has pointed to a De Bry
engraving (Figure 9) of Timucua headmen titled “Outina’s
Order of March” showing a leader (at Outina’s right) wearing
a panther cape (Lorant 1946:63). While the panther is the
apex predator of the region and would therefore make a fierce
talisman, could the use of the panther cape suggest its wearer
is the embodiment of Underwater Panther?
Could all three men be ceremonially dressed to represent
the principle planes of existence, which are discussed by Reilly
(2004)? If so, the figure on the left could represent Underwater
Panther wearing a feathered headdress on top of the panther
cape. Might these feathers represent the “horns” so common
in depictions of the Underwater Panther? The wearer of the
panther cape has spiral designs on his arms further supporting
this interpretation.
The man on Outina’s left has a bird of prey headdress, bird
talons in his earlobes, and a three-lobed striped cape possibly
representing tail feathers. Could this figure represent the
Thunderbird and the upper plane of existence? The figure in
the center, Chief Outina (in this interpretation placed between
upper and lower realms), could be a symbol (leader) of the
worldly realm. Perhaps De Bry’s depiction is an expression


63
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Figure 9. De Dry’s Engraving “Outina’s Order of March.” Note panther headdress and cape worn by leader at Outina’s
right (from Lorant 1946:63).
of New World cosmology. A case for comparison is the eagle
and jaguar warriors of the Aztec and Maya (Saunders 1998).
However, Milanich (in Morris 2004:2-11) has cautioned about
the use of De Bry engravings, since De Bry re-used many
elements from diverse sources.
Howard (1960) observed a Water Panther dance in
the 1950s performed by the Prairie Band of Potawatomi of
Kansas. Participants moved within the lodge in a clockwise
direction. It also should be noted that prior to modem water
control a clockwise gyer (water vortex movement within large
lakes) existed in Lake Okeechobee (Badiali 2000). Post-1928
water control research (Jin and Ji 2004) has modeled two gyers
spinning in opposite directions in the lake. Prehistorically, the
observance of water moving sediments and detritus within
Lake Okeechobee might have reinforced native people’s
supernatural explanations of the natural world.
Given the ubiquity of Underwater Panther mythos, and
the aquascape of the Everglades, it is possible that such beliefs
would be embraced by native inhabitants. The KOE region
contains numerous examples of prehistoric monumental
constructions clustered around its uplands. Smaller earthwork
sites like the Braddock Hundley Mound, Belle Glade Mound,
Vinegar Bend Mound, and the Democrat River sites are found
in the northern Everglades (Davenport et al. 2011:238-266)
and not confined to the “highland edges” that bounded the
Everglades. This reinforces the view the area within the
northern Everglades was just as important as the surrounding
uplands.
Environmental Perspectives
Worthy of consideration is the bathymetry and dynamism
of Lake Okeechobee, which is very large (with a typical
length of 50 km [31 mi]) and shallow (its average depth is
approximately 3 m [9 ft], and its maximum depth is 5.5 m
[18 ft]). The shallowness presents optimal conditions for the
formation of seiches (wind driven waves) (Chimney 2005; Jin
and Ji 2004; Ji and Jin 2006; Sepic and Rabinovich 2014).
Recent hurricanes have produced seiches with heights of
several meters, as the wind shifts direction and the water
changes from set-down to set-up (Chimney 2005).
As such, Lake Okeechobee can form monstrously large
and deadly waves, as occurred during the catastrophic 1928


Davenport
Early Everglades Bone Motifs
64
Okeechobee Hurricane. A seiche during the 1928 storm
reportedly crossed the lake at nearly 100 mph (Gross 1995;
Mykle 2002; Will 1990, 2002). This storm surge flooded
large areas with 2.1 to 3.6 m [7 to 12 ft] of water and laid
waste to communities as it roared 9.5 km (6 mi) beyond Lake
Okeechobee’s southern shore front, leaving approximately
2,500 dead (Will 2002). To grasp the power and destruction
this wave caused, one can envision the 2004 Tsunami in
Sumatra, bearing in mind that at Lake Okeechobee in 1928,
the wave was larger.
Archaeologically, there may be evidence of such a wave
affecting the region in the past. At the Belle Glade Mound
(8PB41), based on notes by field excavators Gene Stirling and
Lloyd Reichard in the 1930s, Willey (1949:21) reported that
“the first sand mound [of the Belle Glade Mound building
sequence] was partially destroyed by flooding.” In this layer,
they found many seemingly displaced human bones and
ceremonial objects apparently “carried from the mound by the
destructive waters” (Willey 1949:21). Above this layer were
“Two small habitation strata in the water-laid sand... [which]
imply that the flooding of the site was not all accomplished at
one time but was successive” (Willey 1949:21).
If these interpretations are correct, multiple storm events
impacted the site over time. During the 1928 hurricane, 30
people sought safety atop the Belle Glade Mound, a rare patch
of high-ground, as storm water flooded the region (Gross
1995). All who rode out the storm on the Belle Glade Mound
survived. They reported the top of the mound was submerged
by at least two feet of water (Gross 1995). If the disturbed
stratum Stirling noted in 1933 was evidence of a prehistoric
flood, it is not unthinkable that native people might attribute
it to a supernatural water deity. Smith and Fiore (2010)
describe an Underwater Panther called Mishebeshu by the
Anishinaabeg people of Canada:
While all waters are his domain and he may travel
through underground passages to any lake or swamp,
he favors certain places over others. Hence, his
mythology, like his presence, is most often located in
highly specific bodies of water. Often called “bad”
lakes, these places can be identified by their physical
characteristics, which may include dark or oddly
colored water... frequency of rough water conditions;
and the presence of whirlpools, strong currents, or
undertows. [Smith and Fiore 2010:65]
The waters of Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades display
color variations based on weather and light conditions and the
lake is legendary for its deadly storms and titanic waves. These
are phenomena that were often explained through Underwater
Panther or Water Cougar mythos, a cultural tradition among
Native Americans (e.g., Hudson 1976:144-146; Lepper and
Frolking 2003; Smith and Fiore 2010).
Conclusions
The Hutchinson carved bone artifacts are from the
northern Everglades and likely date to the Late Archaic
to Early or Middle Woodland periods (ca. 1000 B.C. to
A.D. 500). At present, Hutchinson site is one of the oldest
radiocarbon-dated sites in western Palm Beach County
and its carved bone fragments may be among the oldest
representational art in Florida. The highly skilled native artist
rendered the zoomorphic figure with four evenly spaced rows
of spots closely resembling coat markings of a Florida panther
cub. This zoomorphic figure was coupled with swirling spiral
patterns. Together, these artistic motifs may represent a proto-
Underwater Panther.
Carved bone artifacts from the Hutchinson site support
Wheeler’s hypothesis that artistic traditions overlap in the
northeast Everglades. Our work at Hutchinson site is part
of a growing body of data illuminating the importance of the
northern Everglades. Future researchers should be wary of
outdated, Calusa-centric archaeological interpretations that
treat the area as a backwater with populations subordinate
to coastal groups. Instead, a new era of scholarship should
recognize the importance of a region defined by human
relationships with water, a critically important element
possibly reflected in beliefs and symbolism.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Roy Stewart Stein of Wedgworth Farms
for sharing his discovery of the site. Wedgworth Farms, Inc.,
kept the site out of cultivation, allowing five months of field
investigation. Wedgworth Farms is exemplary for allowing
archaeological work on their land.
Field work was successful because of the hard work of
students and volunteers. Florida Atlantic University students
were supervised by Clifford Brown and Arlene Fradkin.
Florida Gulf Coast University students were supervised by
William Locascio. Students from Palm Beach State College
were supervised by Dorothy Block. Sara Ayers-Rigsby and
Mallory Fenn of the Florida Public Archaeology Network
volunteered in the field and promoted the work publically.
Florida Anthropological Society (FAS) members Joanne
Talley, Pat Jebb, and Mary Vanderlofske assisted in the field
and laboratory. A bequest of the late Sonja Gray, of the
Southeast Florida Archaeological Society, a chapter of FAS,
provided funding for the radiocarbon date.
Archaeologist Daniel Seinfeld encouraged me to move
forward with this paper. Archaeologist Ryan Wheeler of the
Peabody Institute of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, shared
his knowledge of prehistoric art motifs of Florida. Megan
Kassabaum at the University of Pennsylvania helped locate
information about Underwater Panther. Nathan Lawres
of the University of West Georgia shared his expertise.
Archaeologists George Luer and Dorothy Block, both of FAS,
kindly edited this paper, for which I am indebted.
Palm Beach County Planning Department helped facilitate
this investigation. My family nursed me through long, rough
field days and supported my endeavors.


65
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
References Cited
Badiali, Matthew J.
2000 Sedimentary Characteristics of Sugar Ridge
and their implications for Sediment Transport in Lake
Okeechobee, Florida. M.S. thesis. Department of Geology,
Florida Atlantic University.
Brown, Jennifer, and Robert Brightman
1988 The Orders of the Dreamed: George Nelson on Cree
and Northern Ojibwa Religion and Myth, 1823. Minnesota
Historical Society Press, St. Paul.
Carr, Robert S.
2002 The Archaeology of Everglades Tree Islands. In
Tree Islands of the Everglades, edited by Fred Skylar and
Arnold Van Der Valk, pp. 187-206. Academic Publishers,
Netherlands.
Chimney, Michael J.
2005 Surface Seiche and Wind Set-up on Lake
Okeechobee (Florida, USA) during Hurricanes Frances and
Jeanne. Lake and Reservoir Management 21(4):465-473.
Claassen, Cheryl
2015 Beliefs and Rituals in Archaic Eastern North America:
An Interpretive Guide. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Davenport, Christian, Gregory Mount, and George
“Boots” Boyer, Jr. (with contributions by Robert Austin,
Dorothy Block, and Matthew De Felice)
2011 The Boyer Survey, An Archaeological Investigation
of Lake Okeechobee. Report on file, Florida Master Site File,
Tallahassee.
Dunbar James S., and S. David Webb
1996 Bone and Ivory Tools from Paleoindian Sites in
Florida. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast,
edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 331-353.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH)
2019 FLMNH Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Orange
Series Fiber-Tempered Pottery. Electronic document, https://
www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/ceramiclab/galleries/orange/,
accessed May 9, 2019.
Fox, William
1992 Dragon Sideplates from York Factory, A New Twist
on an Old Tail. Manitoba Archaeological Journal
2(2):21 -35.
Gile, Marie A.
1995 The Thunderbird and Underwater Panther in the
Material Culture of the Great Lakes Indians: Symbols of
Power. M.A. thesis, Department of Human Environment and
Design, Michigan State University.
Gross, Eric
1995 Somebody Got Drowned, Lord: Florida and the
Great Okeechobee Hurricane Disaster of1928. Volumes I
and II. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Florida
State University, Tallahassee.
Hall, Robert
1976 Ghosts, Water Barriers, Com, and Sacred Enclosures
in the Eastern Woodlands. American Antiquity
41(3):360-364.
1977 An Anthropocentric Perspective for Eastern United
States Prehistory. American Antiquity 42(4):499-518.
Howard, James H.
1960 When they worship the Underwater Panther: A
Prairie Potawatomi Bundle Ceremony. Southwestern Journal
of Anthropology 16(2):217-224.
Hudson, Charles
1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville.
Hultkrantz, Áke
1983 Water Sprites: The Elders of the Fish in Aboriginal
North America. American Indian Quarterly 7(3): 1-22.
Jahn, Otto L., and Ripley P. Bullen
1978 The Tick Island Artifacts. In The Tick Island Site,
St. Johns River, Florida, edited by Adelaide K. Bullen and
Jerald T. Milanich, pp. 22-23, and Figures 1-60. Florida
Anthropological Society Publication #10, Gainesville.
Ji, Zhen-Gang, and Kang-Ren Jin
2006 Gyres and Seiches in a Large and Shallow Lake.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 32(4):764-775.
Jin, Kang-Ren, and Zhen-Gang Ji
2004 Case Study: Modeling of Sediment Transport
and Wind-wave Impact in Lake Okeechobee. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering ASCE Vol. 11:1055-1067.
Lankford, George. E.
2011 The Swirl-Cross and the Center. In Visualizing
the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the
Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, Kent F.
Reilly, and James Garber, pp. 251-278. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Lepper, Bradley T., and Tod A. Frolking
2003 Alligator Mound: Geoarchaeological and
Iconographical Interpretations of a Late Prehistoric Effigy
Mound in Central Ohio, USA. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 13(2): 147-167.


Davenport
Early Everglades Bone Motifs
66
Lorant, Stefan
1946 The New World: The First Pictures of America.
Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York.
Lord, James
1989 Zoomorphic Bone Pin From Dade County, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 42(3):263-264.
Lovis, William
2001 Clay Effigy Representations of the Bear and
Mishipishu: Algonquian Iconography from the Late
Woodland Johnson Site, Northern Lower Michigan.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 26( 1): 105-119.
Lyman, Lee
1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Marquardt, William H.
2019 The Padgett Figurine and Other Pre-Columbian
Wooden Statuettes From Florida. In Iconography and
Wetsite Archaeology of Florida s Watery Realms, edited
by Ryan J. Wheeler and Joanna Ostapkowitz, pp. 152-178.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Morris, Theodore (commentary by Jerald T. Milanich)
2004 Florida s Lost Tribes. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Mykle, Robert
2002 Killer 'Cane. Cooper Square Press, New York.
Perino, Gregory
1971 How Early is the Underground Panther Design
Element? Central States Archaeological Journal 18( 1 ):5-7.
Purdy, Barbara A.
1991 The Art and Archaeology of Florida s Wetlands.
CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Reilly, Kent E, III
2004 People of the Earth, People of the Sky: Visualizing
the Sacred in Native American Art of the Mississippian
Period. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian
Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F.
Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 125-138. Yale University
Press, New Haven.
Reilly, Kent E, James Garber, and Vincas P. Steponaitis
2004 Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms. University of
Texas Press, Austin.
Saunders, Nicholas J.
1998 Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the Americas.
Routledge, New York.
Sassaman, Kenneth
2010 The Eastern Archaic Historicized. AltaMira Press,
Walnut Creek, California.
Sepic, Jadranka, and Alexander Rabinovich
2014 Meteotsunami in the Great Lakes and on the Atlantic
coast of the United States generated by the "derecho” of June
29-30, 2012. Natural Hazards 74( 1 ):75-107.
Smith, Theresa S., and Jill M. Fiore
2010 Landscape as Narrative, Narrative as Landscape.
Studies in American Indian Literatures 22(4):58-80.
Townsend, Richard F., and Robert V. Sharp (editors)
2004 Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art
of the Ancient Midwest and South. Yale University Press,
New Haven.
Wheeler, Ryan J.
1991 Time, Space and Aesthetics: Decorated Bone
in Florida. Paper Presented at the 48th Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Jackson, Mississippi.
1992 Decorated Bone Artifacts, Florida Archaeology
and the Greater Southeast. Paper Presented at the 49th
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Little Rock,
Arkansas.
1994 Early Florida Decorated Bone Artifacts: Style and
Aesthetics from Paleo-Indian Through Archaic. The Florida
Anthropologist 47(l):47-60.
1996 Ancient Art of the Florida Peninsula: 500 B. C. to
A.D. 1763. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
2011 On the Trail of the Panther in Ancient Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 64(3-4): 139-162.
Wheeler, Ryan J., and Wesley F. Coleman
1996 Ornamental Bone Carving of Southern Florida:
Some Late Styles and their Associations. The Florida
Anthropologist 49(2):49-63.
Wheeler, Ryan J., James P. Pepe, and Wm. Jerald Kennedy
2002 The Archaeology of Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34).
The Florida Anthropologist 55(3-4): 157-196.
Will, Lawrence E.
1990 Okeechobee Hurricane and the Hoover Dike.
Glades Historical Society, Belle Glade.
2002 A Cracker History of Okeechobee. Glades
Historical Society, Belle Glade.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology #42, New Haven.




THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH (8PB220),
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Ryan J. Wheeler1, Donna Ruhl2, Arlene Fradkin3, Fredrick J. Rich4
1 Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover MA 01810 rwheeler handover. edu
2Florida Museum of Natural History, Environmental Archaeology, Dickinson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 ruhl(a)flmnh. ufl. edu
3Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, S0171, Boca Raton, FL 33431 afradkin(a)fau.edu
4Department of Geology and Geography, Georgia Southern University, PO. Box 8149, Statesboro, GA 30460 frich(a)georgiasouthern. edu
Introduction
In 1999 and 2000, our project at the Whitebelt 1 Circle-
Ditch (8PB220) was designed as a multidisciplinary study
of a circle-ditch site and to test archaeologist William Sears’
(1982) assertions about these unusual south Florida sites. The
project included: 1) site mapping; 2) auger and limited shovel
testing; 3) limited excavations to collect diagnostic artifacts,
to study stratification, and to collect specialized samples;
4) radiocarbon dating to determine site chronology; and 5)
analyses of pollen, archaeobotanical, and zooarchaeological
samples. Results are presented here, and comparisons are
made with other circle-ditch sites in south Florida.
Background
In 1989, Florida Atlantic University (FAU) archaeologist
and professor of anthropology Wm. Jerald Kennedy, as a
prelude to a more intensive survey, hired the senior author
to conduct a reconnaissance survey of Palm Beach County.
Ryan Wheeler drove around the county in FAU’s late 1980s
model Ford Taurus wagon with a list from the Florida Master
Site File. The goal was to revisit the county’s 77 known
archaeological sites.
The coastal sites had suffered considerable losses, but
some interior sites were well-preserved. The station wagon
endured a fair bit of off-road driving, including an excursion
to the South Florida Water Management District’s newly
established DuPuis Environmental Area1 and neighboring
J. W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. These public lands
preserved sites along the Loxahatchee Scarp, an upland area
rimming the northeast edge of the Everglades (Figure 1). These
areas proved too much for the Ford Taurus, and Kennedy had
to rescue Wheeler when the vehicle broke down after a 15-
mile off-road excursion to Big Mound City (8PB48).
More survey work in 1991 included an expanded field
crew and target properties, selected as a cross-section of
environments in the county. It was, however, the sites of the
Loxahatchee Scarp that were most interesting to us. They
were in timely need of further documentation and study
(Kennedy et al. 1991).
In 1999 and 2000, fieldwork in the DuPuis Management
Area was supported by the South Florida Water Management
District in collaboration with the Southeast Florida
Archaeological Society and colleagues from FAU and the
Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). This project
collected better information on four of seven sites along the
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
The Florida Anthropologist
68


69
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Loxahatchee Scarp (Figure 1). Each one is intriguing, and they
include midden deposits, sand mounds, complicated mound
and earthwork sites, and notably the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
that resembles the Great Circle (8GL22) at Fort Center (see
maps and aerial photograph of the Fort Center Great Circle in
Carr 1985:Figure 2 and Sears 1982:Figures 1.1 and 1.2).
The Whitebelt 1 site includes a large, circular ditch
excavated partly through a crescent-shaped hammock.
Several low rises or “islands” are in the area surrounded by the
ditch and hammock. The site was first recorded in the Florida
Master Site File by archaeologist Danny Clayton during a
1985 assessment of the property prior to state acquisition. The
site is clearly visible in aerial photographs (USDA 1940, CJF
6-90). The early aerial photographs show that the Whitebelt
1 Circle-Ditch is situated along the Loxahatchee Scarp, at the
northeast edge of the Everglades.
We made measured maps of each of the sites within the
DuPuis Management Area (Wheeler 2000a), augmenting
information already on file for nearby Big Mound City. In
2000, archaeologists Dan Hughes and Jim Pepe recorded
another scarp site, the Couse Midden (8PB10354) (Hughes
and Pepe 2001; Janus Research 2000) (Figure 1). The Big
Gopher (8PB6292) site, another earthwork and mound
complex, remains largely unstudied. We know little about the
deposits, cultural affiliations, or age of these sites, although
similar mound, semi-circular, and linear earthwork groups are
found throughout the Lake Okeechobee basin.
Loxahatchee Scarp
The Loxahatchee Scarp is an intermittent ridge that
forms a natural levee and ecotonal boundary that divides
the northeastern Everglades marsh from a wedge of upland
pinelands. The scarp is a 29 km (18 mi) long ridge or hammock
belt that extends from Port Mayaca toward the southeast,
jutting along the northeast margin of the Everglades, and
ending in the vicinity of Hungryland Slough. This ridge is
well-formed and obvious toward its northwest end, becoming
more dissected to the southeast where it meets the Allapattah
and Hungryland sloughs.
Environment and Habitats
The predominant soils of the Loxahatchee Scarp are poorly
drained, sandy, and flood-prone Myakka-Immokalee-Basinger
soils (McCollum etal. 1978:4-5). This soil association is more
typical of eastern Palm Beach County. Davis (1943:45, 63-64)
explains that this ridge or escarpment forms the border between
the Eastern Flatlands and the Everglades-Lake Okeechobee
Basin, and is an erosional remnant of the boundary between
the ancient Pamlico and Talbot sea terraces.
Harshberger’s (1914) early 1900s phytogeographic map
of south Florida includes vegetation around Lake Okeechobee
and the Loxahatchee Scarp. Along the lake’s southeastern
and western shores was extensive growth of custard-apple
(Annona glabra) (Harshberger 1914:map insert). By 1917,
this habitat was dramatically reduced by sugarcane and cash
crop cultivation (Small 1918). Adjacent to this area were
two arms of true Everglades (saw-grass). Along the highest
elevations of the Loxahatchee Scarp was an elongated, forested
area of slash pine (Pinus elliotii var. densa). Other species in
the semi-tropical flatwoods included cabbage palm (Sabal sp.)
and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens).
Numerous changes have occurred in and around Lake
Okeechobee since Harshberger’s travels and since precontact
times when native people occupied the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
site. Both cultural and natural phenomena have impacted this
terrain since precontact times, like elsewhere in the Atlantic
Southeast (e.g., Denevan 1992; Small 1929,1930). Which has
taken the greatest toll is debatable, be it fire, drainage canals,
deforestation, or agricultural fields. Which habitats existed
where and when reflects ecological parameters and historical
events (Cronon 1983).
While our study is too small to address the scope of pre¬
colonial ecosystems, archaeobotany and palynology are places
to begin. They can provide insights to the vegetation history
around the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. Remains of charred
wood and pollen can provide some usable indicators of past
habitats and possible successional changes. Succession of
plant communities occurred centuries ago just as they do today
(e.g., Myers and Ewel 1991; Wagner 2001; Walker 2000;
Walker 1991).
Archaeological Sites on the Scarp
Seven archaeological sites are known on the scarp (Figure
1), including the Couse Midden closest to Lake Okeechobee,
four DuPuis area sites, and Big Mound City and Big Gopher
to the southeast (e.g., Davenport et al. 2018; Hale 1984, 1989;
Wheeler 2000a). A number of small channels or sloughs
dissect this ridge, providing drainage for the pine flatwoods
and wetland mosaic to the north. In the past, these sloughs
might have provided a connection between the Everglades and
the Allapattah Flats. Some of the archaeological sites appear
to be close to these sloughs.
The movement of surface water in the area was radically
altered with the construction of major drainage features like
the St. Lucie Canal to the north, and the L-8 Levee and West
Palm Beach Canal to the south.2 Smaller drainage ditches in
the DuPuis Management Area and neighboring J. W. Corbett
Wildlife Management Area also have contributed to changes in
water dynamics, and these ditches have altered the vegetation
on and around the archaeological sites. David (1991:4) notes
that 1940 aerial photographs suggest that the dominant pre¬
drainage habitats were broadleaf marsh, wet prairie, cypress,
and low pine flatwoods, while areas above the 25 ft contour
were flatwoods supporting slash pine and wiregrass (Aristida
sp.). Recent modifications to the L-8 Levee by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers have attempted to recreate normal
water levels and do not seem to have adversely affected the
archaeological sites.
Belle Glade Culture
The Loxahatchee Scarp sites fall within the Belle
Glade culture area, a division of the broader “Glades Area.”


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
70
Archaeologists Stirling (1936:355) and Goggin (1947:119-
121) defined the area based on a shared pottery tradition and
an economic system founded on the collection of wild plant
and animal resources. Division of this area into geographic
regions was begun by Goggin (1949), and refined by Carr and
Beriault (1984:6) and Griffin (1988:133-134; 1989:189, 194-
195), who have named the area around Lake Okeechobee and
the Kissimmee River as the Lake Okeechobee or Belle Glade
culture area.
The Belle Glade culture area is characterized by
high percentages of Belle Glade Plain pottery in ceramic
assemblages, the presence of circular and linear earthwork
sites, and an economic reliance predominantly on freshwater
resources. Some temporal and geographic variation in ceramic
types is noted (Austin 1996; Block 2011). People in the
area procured goods from coastal areas, such as shark teeth,
marine shell tools, and some marine animal foods (Davenport
et al. 2011; Hale 1995; Luer 1989:116-121). It is unclear if
these items were secured through exchange or by visiting
neighboring areas. Hopewellian affiliations are suggested
by exotic goods and platform-style ceramic smoking pipes at
some sites (Austin 1993; Luer 1995; Ruhl 1981; Sears 1982).
During the period of European contact, materials salvaged
from Spanish vessels found their way into the interior, where
they were included with burials in sand mounds (Branstetter
1995; Luer 1994:182-184; Sears 1982:59-67).
Circle-Ditch Sites
The Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch is significant because it is a
rare, poorly understood type of site found in the area around
Lake Okeechobee (Carr 1985). A total of 18 circle-ditch sites
have been recorded, although many have been destroyed or
damaged by development, drainage, and agricultural activity
(Figure 2). Archaeologist George Luer and University of
Florida student Mindy Cummings (Cummings and Luer 1996)
prepared a literature review and aerial photographic study of
all known circle-ditch sites. Their data are summarized as
Table 1 and more details are included in Appendices A and B.
Our knowledge of circle-ditch sites is limited and often
includes data collected at Fort Center (Baker and Milanich
1967; Sears 1982:175-178). Archaeologists Robert S. Carr
(1975, 1985), Stephan Hale (1989:51-53, 56, 59-69), and
William Johnson (1991:98-100,166-167) have discussed some
of the other circle-ditches. Despite similarities, circle-ditch
sites are variable in their geographic distribution, association
with other features and sites, size, and morphology. The
majority of circle-ditch sites are in the prairie areas flanking
the west side of Lake Okeechobee. Other circle-ditches are
found to the north and west of the lake, with some examples
in southeast Florida and one at the north end of Pine Island on
the southwest Florida coast.
Circle-ditches often occur in marshy areas adjacent to
deeper creeks or streams. Hale (1984:180; 1989:192-193)
noted that many earthwork sites in southern Florida occur
at ecotonal boundaries. The placement of circle-ditches is
OSCEOLA PLAIN;
OKEECHOBEE PLAIN
ASTERN VALLE'
CALOOSAB^fC*^
IMMOKAL
EVERGLADES
ATL/Jmc COASTAL RIDGE
County Outlines ^
Circle Ditch Sites o
Physiographic Provinces
Figure 2. Known Circle-Ditch Sites in Florida.


71
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Table 1. Circle-Ditch Sites of South Florida. Data primarily from Cummings and Luer (1996); see Appendices A and B.
The 8DA2148 circle-ditch site was originally referred to as “the Miami Circle” (Carr 1981,1985). After the discovery of
the now well-known Miami Circle (comprised of cut holes in limestone bedrock at Brickell Point, 8DA12) in 1998, the site
name for 8DA2148 was changed to Miami Circle-Ditch to avoid confusion.
No.
Site Number
Site Name
Condition
Ownership
Diameter (m)
Associated Sites
1
DA 1642
Dade Circle
destroyed-
developed
private
180
unknown
2
DA2148
Miami Circle-
Ditch
destroyed-
developed
private
60
unknown
3
GL22
Great Circle, Fort
Center
good
state
366
Yes—midden, Fort Center
group
4
GL33
Caloosahatchee
Circle
destroyed-
developed
private
380
Yes—mounds, earthworks
5
GL38
Glades Circle
minor
SFWMD
150
unknown
6
GL50
Lakeport Circle
damaged-
developed
private
275
unknown
7
GL57
West Okeechobee
Circle A
damaged
Brighton
Reservation
120
Yes—linear earthworks
8
GL57
West Okeechobee
Circle B
damaged
Brighton
Reservation
60
Yes—linear earthworks
9
GL75
North Fisheating
Creek Circle
unknown
private
275
unknown
10
GL375
Inner Circle West,
Fort Center
good
state
140
Yes—Fort Center group
11
GL376
Inner Circle East,
Fort Center
good
state
140
Yes—Fort Center group
12
HN32
Hendry Circle
fair
private
180-215
No
13
LL42
Pine Island Circle
destroyed-
developed
private
“
Yes—mound
14
MT42
Martin Circle
poor
unknown
Yes—midden
15
OB31
Kissimmee Circle
destroyed-
dredging
unknown
-
-
16
OS1787
Lake Kissimmee
Circle
good
private
244
-
17
PB220
Whitebelt 1
good
SFWMD
275
Yes—midden
18
PB15312
Davenport Circle
unknown
unknown
200
unknown
consistent with this broader pattern of earthwork building
in the region. Hale (1984:180) notes that earthworks were
placed on the landscape based on soils, availability of aquatic
resources, and spacing of populations.
Of the circle-ditches with adequate data, 12 of 18 (75%
of the “circles”) are incomplete and open toward neighboring
aquatic features. In at least 50% of the cases, the circle-ditch
sites are associated with mounds, middens, or other cultural
features. This suggests that the circle-ditches were part of a
larger site plan (Cummings and Luer 1996).
The diameters of the circle-ditch sites vary considerably,
with one small example of 60 m and large examples like Fort
Center at 357 m and the Caloosahatchee Circle at 335 m.
The mean diameter for the group is 203 m, while the median
diameter is 213 m. Scatter plot and histogram charts of the
diameters indicate the majority of the circle-ditches are greater
than 180 m in diameter and their sizes distribute normally on
a bell curve (Cummings and Luer 1996). Measurements of


Wheeler, Rlhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
72
ditch width and depth have been made at only a few sites. In
cases for which data are available, it appears that the ditches
could hold significant volumes of water.
Early observations of circle-ditches suggested they
functioned in drainage (Wainwright 1918:30) or perhaps as
fortifications (Mackay 1845). This is similar to some early
observations of Florida canoe canals (Wheeler 1995:Figure
3). Sears (1982:178) argued that the Great Circle and its two
smaller inner circles at Fort Center were constructed to aid in
growing maize. He further suggested that the central “garden”
area of the circle could have been periodically enriched
with muck cleaned from the ditches. Sears (1982:122, 178)
asserted that maize pollen was identified from samples taken
from excavations in the Great Circle.
A debate over the presence of maize pollen at Fort Center
took several tacks, including the possibility of contamination,
the possibility that another graminoid pollen was misidentified
as maize, and questions about whether or not it is possible to
identify maize pollen without the use of scanning electron
microscopy. Thompson and co-workers (2013) have largely
settled the debate, concluding that Sears’ original hypothesis
about maize at Fort Center (and elsewhere in south Florida)
is incorrect. Earlier assessments by Johnson (1990) and Hale
(1989:70, 192-193) reached similar conclusions (also see
Kessel 1991).
Johnson (1991, 1993) used a soil science approach
to address Sears’ hypothesis about the agricultural use of
circle-ditch sites. Johnson (1991:60-62) used a bucket auger
to collect soils from one of the Fort Center circle-ditches.
Analysis indicated highly acidic mineral soils that would not
have been suitable for sustained maize horticulture. Johnson
(1991:67) found that the particle size distribution of soils in
and around the circle-ditch did not support Sears’ hypothesis
that the ditches were periodically cleaned to supply nutrients
for a central garden area.
Hale (1989:70, 192-193) returned to earlier explanations
of circle-ditch function, suggesting that they were involved in
drainage. He suggested that circle-ditches were constructed
to drain floodwaters away from settlements. This may be
the most likely explanation, since many circle-ditches are
associated with habitation sites, and the diameter, depth,
and width of the ditches would have been sufficient to alter
hydrological patterns within localized areas. Presumably,
spoil from excavation of the ditches might have been used
in habitation mound construction. Carr (1985:299-300)
concurred with Hale’s assessment of the circle-ditches, and
he noted that both habitation and ceremonial activities were
associated with these sites.
Circle-Ditches: Questions and Problems
Some archaeologists have hypothesized that circle-ditch
sites represent the earliest type of earthwork constructed in
south Florida (Hale 1989:69-70; Johnson 1991, 1996:255-
256, 258-259). This hypothesis is based on work conducted
by Sears at the Fort Center site along Fisheating Creek, where
a circle-ditch component is associated with midden deposits
that produced an uncorrected radiocarbon date of 450 B.C.
± 105 (Sears 1982:178). Sears (1982:185-186) believed the
Great Circle at Fort Center and other associated circle-ditches
were constructed between 1000 B.C. and 450 B.C. Until this
project, this hypothesis had not been tested at another circle-
ditch site.
As noted above, the only circle-ditch studied intensively
has been the Great Circle at Fort Center. Sears’ interpretations
of Fort Center hinged on his ideas about the relationship
between cultural complexity and maize horticulture, and the
origins of the Florida Archaic (Fathrap 1987:348-350). Sears
(1971) thought that the complex societies of south Florida,
encountered by the Spanish, had to have an economic base of
maize horticulture. He believed that he had identified maize
pollen in several samples from Fort Center. Sears speculated
that earthworks, like circle-ditches, might have been involved
in growing com, similar to raised fields that are widespread in
Middle and South America (cf. Denevan 1970).
Sears (1977) also thought that the Florida contact period
complex societies had roots dating back to the Florida Archaic
period and had origins in northern South America or elsewhere
in the Caribbean or Central America. While not explicit in his
1982 book about Fort Center, this migration theory is outlined
in his 1977 book chapter “Seaborne Contacts between Early
Cultures in Tower Southeastern United States and Middle
through South America” (Sears 1977). Sears believed that
the Florida Archaic not only had its origins in northern South
America, but that it maintained lines of communication with
that area, through which ideas and goods could pass. The
dates in Sears’ (1982:185-189, 192) regional chronology for
the Fake Okeechobee area often are derived from the timing
of events related to this hypothesis. For example, Sears’
(1982:185) Period I, when the circle-ditches were supposed to
have been built, began around 1000 B.C.
When we excavated at the Whitebelt 1 site, we anticipated
finding evidence of habitation dating to the late Archaic and
Florida Transitional periods, largely due to Sears’ assertion that
this is when circle-ditches were built and used. We expected
to find fiber-tempered and St. Johns Incised pottery associated
with the Florida Transitional period. We expected to obtain
radiocarbon dates from as early as 1000 B.C. or earlier. We
thought that we might find evidence that the circle-ditch was
involved in growing maize (though Wheeler and Ruhl thought
it unlikely). We did not find any of those things.
Fieldwork at Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
The 1999 and 2000 fieldwork at the Whitebelt 1 site was
designed as a multidisciplinary study. It included: 1) mapping
to capture the layout and size of the circle-ditch and related
site components; 2) auger and limited shovel testing to identify
areas for further investigation; and 3) limited excavations
to collect diagnostic artifacts, to study stratification, and to
collect samples for radiocarbon, pollen, archaeobotanical, and
zooarchaeological analyses.


73
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Topographic Mapping
Elevation data were collected from over 100 points,
allowing us to generate a topographic map of the site (Figure
3). This augments the tape and compass map that we made
in 1999. The circle-ditch itself was mapped as a feature
and several profiles across the ditch were made. Mapping
confirmed earlier observations on the ground (Figure 4), and
interpretation of aerial photographs, regarding the extent of
site features.
Auger Testing
Ten auger tests were made across the site with a 2.75-inch
diameter sand bucket auger, with special attention to testing
in the center of the circle-ditch and in the ditch itself. These
tests augment the 11 auger and shovel tests that we made
in 1999, and they support the interpretation of those earlier
data (Wheeler 2000a). It appears that the majority of cultural
deposits are on the hammock ridge portion of the site. Tests
in the western arc of the circle-ditch feature did not reveal
any substantial deposits of cultural material, and no cultural
material was encountered in the center of the site. Tests in the
southern part of the hammock ridge encountered bone, pottery,
and chert flakes.
Excavations
Excavations were made in the northern and southern
hammock ridge areas (Figure 5). Units were excavated in 10
cm levels and all materials were dry screened through !4-inch
hardware cloth. The northern excavation units were aligned in


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
74
Figure 4. Whitebelt 1 View to Northwest. This looks outward from near the center of the circle. In the lower right
corner is part of the central “low rise” shown in Figure 3. In the distance, an arc of lighter vegetation is a portion of the
circle-ditch. Nearest palms grow on another “low rise” and at the western tip of the northern hammock in Figure 3.
a north-south trench so that the stratification of the circle-ditch
feature could be observed. The southern excavation units
were aligned east-west to sample the midden area identified
by shovel testing in 1999. All units were part of a northing/
easting site grid, with datums in the southwest comer of units.
Trench 1. This east-west trench (Figures 3 and 6) was
excavated in the southern hammock ridge area. It consisted
of three 100 x 50 cm units (Units 7, 9, and 10), one 50 x 50
cm unit (Unit 8 W !4), and two 50 x 50 cm column samples
(Units 8 E Vi and 11). This location on the hammock ridge had
been targeted in 1999 for further study after auger and shovel
tests revealed a dense midden deposit in this area. Of the two
column samples, one was taken for archaeobotanical analysis
(Unit 8 E Vi) and one for zooarchaeological analysis (Unit 11).
Excavations in Trench 1 revealed cultural deposits of
more than 1 m thickness, characterized by mottled gray and
reddish-brown sandy soil with dense deposits of pottery sherds
and animal bones. Two distinctive strata were observed, both
containing pottery and faunal material. The upper stratum
(Zone 2) is a mottled gray sandy soil. The lower stratum
(Zone 3), possibly representing the initial occupation of this
site, is characterized by reddish-brown sandy soil. This Zone
3 stratum yielded chert flakes and flaked-stone tools. Below
Zone 3, we found four circular posthole stains of dark gray soil
(Features 3, 4, 5, 6) in the underlying sterile white to yellow
sand. These postholes formed a gentle arc and may represent
a portion of a stmcture. A projection based on this posthole
pattern indicates that such a stmcture would have been roughly
2.2 m (7.2 ft) in diameter.
Trench 2. A north-south trench (Figures 3 and 7) was
excavated across the swale of the circle-ditch feature. This
trench consisted of four 100 x 50 cm units (Units 1, 2, 3, and
5), one 50 x 50 cm unit (Unit 4 S V2), and one 50 x 50 cm
archaeobotanical sample (Unit 6 S V2). Cultural material was
infrequent and included some pottery sherds, chert flakes,
and calcined bone fragments. The distinctive profile of the
ditch feature was encountered, allowing for calculations of the
original depth and configuration of this portion of the circle-
ditch. The 50 x 50 cm archaeobotanical sample (Unit 6 S Vi)
was taken at the north end of this trench. The material was
removed in 10 cm levels and bagged for analysis.
Radiocarbon Samples
General collections of charcoal were made from 42
proveniences. While charcoal from features would be
preferable for radiocarbon dating, we did not find discrete
features containing sufficient charcoal. Instead, we collected
charcoal from general cultural deposits in our excavation
units. All charcoal samples were collected from 10 cm levels
within 100 x 50 cm units or 50 x 50 cm units. Additional
samples were selected from other proveniences.


75
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Figure 5. Whitebelt 1 Excavation in Circle-Ditch. This view of north-south Trench 2 looks to the northwest (south in
lower left). In the trench are Donna Ruhl (foreground) and Joanne Talley (in the distance).
At the screen are Thor Larsen and Phyllis Rundell.
Charcoal from Midden Contexts (Unit 10, in Trench 1).
Seven samples of charred material were selected from 10 cm
levels in this deepest unit dug into the midden in the hammock
at the southern end of the crescent-shaped ridge. Two major
strata were noted in these units, an upper layer of gray sandy
soil with midden material (Levels 1 through 5), and a lower
layer of compact reddish brown sand (Levels 6 through 11).
The date from the deepest level (L 10) is associated with a
series of postholes (Features 3, 4, 5). These postholes may
be related to the upper soil layer, where a similar date was
obtained.
Charcoal from Circle-Ditch Contexts (Units 3 and 5, in
Trench 2). Three samples of charred material were selected
from 10 cm levels in two units excavated in the bed of the
circle-ditch. These two units were placed where the ditch
was dug into the hammock. We selected this area for testing
because of the intimate association between the circle-ditch
and the hammock where midden was deposited. We hoped
that material from the midden had accumulated in the circle-
ditch, and this proved to be the case. Some charcoal, eroded
potsherds, and chert flakes were recovered from these units.
The oldest date was obtained from a unit closer to the center of
the swale and from a deeper context than the other two dates.
Collection of Specialized Samples
Pollen Samples. These were removed from excavations
in the north and south hammock-ridge areas. Samples
(approximately 30 g each) were taken from cleaned wall
profiles and stored in glass or plastic vials. Nine pollen
samples were collected from Unit 10, in Trench 1, on the
south hammock-ridge. Seven pollen samples were collected
from Unit 3, in Trench 2, on the bank of the north hammock-
ridge. The pollen samples were processed by Global Geolabs
of Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, and analysis was made by
co-author Rich.
Archaeobotanical Sample Collection. Two 50 x 50 cm
units were excavated for archaeobotanical analysis. In the
southern midden area, the east half of Unit 8, in Trench 1,
was removed in eight 10 cm levels for analysis, beginning at
17 cm below datum (cmbd) and ending at 97 cmbd. In the
circle-ditch, the south half of Unit 6, in Trench 2, was removed
in five 10 cm levels for analysis, beginning at 27 cmbd and
ending at 75 cmbd.
In addition, in Unit 10, Features 3, 4, and 5 were bagged
for archaeobotanical analysis. As archaeological plant
remains are highly differentially preserved, co-author Ruhl’s
intention was to collect representative samples from both
general deposits and selected features and to compare wet and
dry sediments found in the circle-ditch site.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
76
Zooarchaeological Sample Collection. In the midden
of the southern hammock, the east half of Unit 11, in Trench
1, was excavated as a 50 x 50 cm column sample. The unit
was removed in ten 10 cm levels, under the supervision of
zooarchaeologist Fradkin. All materials were bagged for
analysis. Faunal material was infrequent in Trench 2 in the
circle-ditch, so a sample was not collected there.
Results of Fieldwork
The auger testing and topographic work helped refine our
site model. The excavations produced good information about
stratification and the original configuration of the circle-ditch.
The discovery of a posthole pattern in the south hammock-
ridge is significant, since we have little information on
architecture for this culture region. Artifacts recovered were
similar to those found in 1999, including shark teeth and chert
(see below).
Site Configuration
Topographic mapping and examination of aerial
photographs revealed several major site components. The
circular ditch is most obvious on the western side of the site,
where it can be seen clearly in aerial photographs. The ditch
continues for 100 m into the northern hammock, where it
creates a bifurcation of the hammock. A small segment of ditch
was mapped on the eastern side of the site, where it cuts into
the hammock ridge. It is not clear if the southeastern quadrant
of the circle was ever dug, since this area is occupied by an
adjacent slough. The ditch was filled with water and supported
a distinctive growth of primrose willow. Measurements of the
ditch indicate that it is 18 to 19 m wide and 0.5 to 0.7 m deep
(see Table 2). Auger tests and excavations in the circle-ditch
indicate mottled gray sand filling the ditch to a maximum
depth of at least 1.5 m. Based on the area of a cross-section
of the ditch, calculated at 16.5 m2 in our profile, the maximum
capacity of the circle-ditch is 11,830.5 m3 (417,790.2 ft3 or
3,125,287.5 gallons), approximately 78,000 bathtubs full!
A horseshoe-shaped ridge dominates the eastern part of
the site. Collectively, the circle-ditch and the ridge give the
site its circular appearance. Hammock vegetation, including
palm and oak, occupies the ridge (David 1991:54-55). Thick
clumps of saw palmetto are found in some areas. The northern
part of the ridge is the largest; this is where the circle-ditch
intersects the ridge. Auger testing indicated sparse midden
deposits throughout the northern part of the ridge.
The eastern and southern portions of the horseshoe¬
shaped ridge exhibit three mounded areas, clearly shown by
clumps of vegetation in the aerial photographs. The mounded
area of the southernmost part of the ridge contains a dense
midden of faunal bone, with some pottery and other artifacts.
The mounded areas on the eastern side of the ridge are sandier
and support thick clumps of saw palmetto.
The interior of the site has at least three low areas, several
of which hold water. Most obvious is a low, ponded area
abutting the northern ridge. Lizard tail and aquatic plants
grow in this low area. Several elevated areas also are present
in the space enclosed by the ditch and ridge. The very center
of the circle is occupied by a small sand mound. Another
low mound is located to the northwest, where the circle-ditch
meets the horseshoe-shaped ridge. Low, broad rises are found
to the southwest and east as well.
Stratification
Auger testing indicated that most of the site is comprised
of mottled gray and brown sandy soils. Typical soil profiles
from excavation units and auger tests do not compare well with
the Immokalee fine sand described for the area (McCollum et
al. 1978:21, Sheet 11). This suggests an anthropogenic origin
for the soil. Stratification in the midden and circle-ditch
excavations is described below.
Midden. Four major stratigraphic zones were identified
in Trench 1 (Figure 6). Zone I is a recent accumulation of
gray sand (10YR 5/1) and humic material. This zone, ranging
in depth from 5 to 9 cm, exhibits considerable palm root
penetration. Small pellets of black sand occur throughout.
Pottery weights are low for Zone I, though some units,
especially to the west, have abundant faunal bone.
Zone II is gray (10 YR 5/1) to light gray (10 YR 7/1) mottled
sand. The upper portion of the zone exhibits considerable palm
root penetration. Charcoal flecks are common throughout.
The upper portion of the stratum ranges in thickness from 21
to 28 cm, while the lower part (Zone Ha) is 13 to 40 cm thick.
Pottery and bone frequencies increase considerably in Zone II,
and they begin to fall off in Zone Ha. The boundary between
the upper and lower parts of this zone is characterized by areas
of compact white sand.
Zone III is composed of brown to dark reddish brown
(2.4Y 2/4) sand. The upper elevation of this stratum is
variable. In Unit 8 (to the west) the top is encountered at 7.6 m
above mean sea level (AMSL), while in Unit 11 (to the east) it
Table 2. Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. Measurements of the circle-ditch feature (in meters) with calculated
estimates for different water levels.
Maximum Width of
Ditch (b,)
Width of Chan¬
nel Bottom (b2)
Depth of
Channel (h)
Water
Area (A)
Actual Circumference
Present
Water Volume of
Ditch
19
3
1.5
16.5 m2
717.0
11,830.5 m3
19
3
1.0
11.0 m2
717.0
7,887.0 m3
19
3
0.5
5.5 m2
717.0
3,943.5 m3


77
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 m TRENCH 1, SOUTH NALL
NHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH
8PB220
UNIT 10 UNIT 11
UNIT 9
UNIT 8
UNIT 7
L
J
Figure 6. Trench 1 Oriented East-West in Whitebelt 1 Midden. This is the south wall profile along the 183 North Line (west is
to the left, east is to the right). Unit 11 is between Units 9 and 10.
appears at 7.83 m AMSL. This gives Zone III the appearance
of a large pile or ridge. Bone and pottery are present in this
layer, but are less frequent than in Zone II. The only chert
artifacts recovered from Trench 1 come from Zone III.
Zone IV is a very pale brown (10YR 7/3) sand. It appears
at 7.27 m AMSL. Apparently sterile, it matches the description
of the C horizon of local soils (McCollum et al. 1978:21).
The two main strata suggest two occupation events,
both within the early Glades I period (500 B.C. to A.D. 500).
Ceramics are similar in both zones, though St. Johns Plain and
Belle Glade Plain make an appearance in Zone II. Chert flakes
and tools are found only in Zone III. Comparison of fauna
represented in each stratum suggests greater diversity in Zone
II, likely due to more bone in Zone II.
Circle-Ditch. Five stratigraphic zones were identified in
Trench 2 (Figure 7). Zone I is a recent accumulation of black
(10YR 2/1) muck with humic material. This zone ranges in
thickness from 3 to 18 cm. Artifacts were found only in the
units closer to the southern end of the trench, which abuts the
hammock ridge. This zone likely originated from recent plant
material growing in the filled-in bed of the circle-ditch.
Zone II is a thin layer (6 to 17 cm thick) of very pale brown
(10YR 7/4) sand. This is likely recent material washed into
the bed of the ditch. It probably came from the surrounding
hammock soil.
Zone III is mottled gray to very dark gray (10YR 3/1)
sandy soil. Items recovered include charcoal, chert flakes,
pottery, and rare calcined bone fragments. In Zone Ilia, at the
bottom of the layer, tight bands of red-brown clay and black
stained soil follow the original margins of the ditch bed. Zone
Illb was encountered only in Units 5 and 6, closer to the center
of the circle-ditch channel. This zone was brown (10YR 5/3)
with thin strata of black muck. Zones III, Ilia and Illb appear
to be older material from the surrounding hammock that filled
in the circle-ditch channel.
Zone IV is very pale brown (10YR 7/4) sand. Artifacts
were not recovered from this layer. It likely represents sterile
mineral sand underlying the site.
Zone V is a deposit of peaty black muck soil. Auger tests
revealed the presence of this muck on the eastern side of the
site as well. It appears to be a natural part of the local soil
formation, predating the construction of the circle-ditch.
Zone VI is brownish (5YR 2/1) sandy soil with frequent
iron concretions. It was only encountered in an auger test at
the bottom of Unit 5. This sand likely represents native soil of
the area into which the circle-ditch was constructed.
Interpretation of Radiocarbon Dates
We obtained ten radiocarbon dates (Table 3), seven from
Unit 10 in the midden (Trench 1) and three from Units 3 and 5
in the circle-ditch (Trench 2) (Wheeler 2001a). When plotted
to their 2 sigma calibrated ranges, the dates cluster nicely,
suggesting occupation of the site began around calibrated 500
B.C. and ended around cal A.D. 450 or 500 (Figure 8). This
places the site within the early Glades I period (500 B.C. to
A.D. 500), which preceded the late Glades I period (A.D. 500
to 700) (Carr and Beriault 1984:2; Griffin 1988:128; Widmer
1988:75).


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
78
Comparison of the dates from the circle-ditch with those
from the midden suggests that the circle-ditch feature was
constructed during the initial occupation of the site. It was
not a later addition. This means that the circle-ditch was an
integral part of the site plan.
The general chronological placement of the Whitebelt
1 site, based on these ten radiocarbon dates, is consistent
with the early Glades I period and the abundant plain, sand-
tempered pottery we found. The early end of the range is
supported by the near absence of ceramic types at the site that
are typical of the Florida Transitional period (St. Johns Incised
and sand- and fiber-tempered pottery) dating to 1000 B.C. to
500 B.C. (Bullen 1959). The late end of the range at the site
is supported by the low frequency of Belle Glade Plain sherds
and the lack of St. Johns Check Stamped sherds.
The dates from Whitebelt 1 are comparable to Sears’
(1982:178) single uncorrected date (450 B.C. +/- 105) for
the Great Circle at Fort Center, and his suggestion that circle-
ditch sites are associated with his “Period I,” ranging from
1000 B.C. to A.D. 200. Sears’ (1982:192-193) conjecture that
circle-ditch sites are associated with sand- and fiber-tempered
pottery and the Florida Transitional Period is not supported by
the dates and artifacts from Whitebelt 1.
Baker and Milanich (1967:20), in their report on
excavations at the Great Circle at Fort Center, discuss finds of
two sand- and fiber-tempered sherds along with sand-tempered
plain and St. Johns Plain sherds, and Hernando bifaces. They
interpreted these artifacts to suggest the Great Circle more
likely dated to the early Glades I period, ca. 500 B.C. Recent
work by Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012, 2014) adds to the
chronology for the Great Circle at Fort Center. They add three
dates similar to Sears’ date, as well as evidence for more recent
deposits in the vicinity of the circle-ditches.
Features
In Trench 1, four post molds were encountered in Units
10 and 11 (Features 3, 4, 5, 6). All were similar, consisting
of ashy, gray-black stained soil. The features were identified
in the lowest stratum of the site. The tops of the post molds
were noted around 7.32 m AMSL. Closer examination of the
stratification indicates they may be associated with a structure
floor in a higher stratum, around 7.67 m AMSL. The base of
the post molds terminated at 7.12 to 7.27 m AMSL. Although
preservation is poor, Ruhl identified pine charcoal from
Features 3 and 4, potentially remains of pine posts. Diameter
of the post molds ranged from 14 to 30 cm. These features
formed a tight arc describing about 60 degrees of a circle.
Projection of the circle suggests a structure of 2.2 m (7.2 ft)
diameter.
Structural remains are rare at sites in south Florida. When
post molds are found, they are often randomly patterned,
making structure identification difficult (Browning 1975:17-
20; Russo et al. 1991:317; Wheeler et al. 2002:166-167).
Handley (2001) documented a number of structures at the
Blue Goose midden in Indian River County. Several small
structures, ranging in diameter from 1.0 to 1.5 m, were
JIG)
JOCSI
< H- (N
ZMCÜ
O Ol
I— I 00
CO LÜ
UJ J
=20
oz
(NO
ItH
O
Z»-
UJ J
QZ LÜ
h- 00
LÜ
£
Q
1/3
Q
in
Q
O'
Figure 7. Trench 2 Oriented North-South in Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. This is the west wall profile along the 299.5 East Line (south is to the left, north is to the right).


79
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Table 3. Radiocarbon Ages and Dates from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
Lab No.
Unit
Level
Elevation
above
AMSL (m)
Measured
Radiocarbon
Age (RCYBP)
813C (o/oo)
Conventional
Radiocarbon
Age (RCYBP)
2 Sigma
Calibrated Date
Range
Midden, Trench 1
Beta-149481
10
4
7.87 m
2380 +/- 70
-25.5
2370 +/- 70
770-240 BC
Beta-149482
10
5
7.77 m
1750+/-70
-24.8
1760+/-70
AD 100-420
Beta-149484
10
6
7.68 m
2200 +/- 70
-25.9
2180+/-70
390-40 BC
Beta-149485
10
7
7.57 m
2320 +/- 60
-25.6
2310+/-60
500-210 BC
Beta-149486
10
8
7.46 m
2330 +/- 60
-24.8
2330 +/- 60
520-220 BC
Beta-149487
10
9
7.35 m
2680+/- 110
-24.5
2690+/- 110
1100-540 BC
Beta-149488
10
10
7.25 m
1880+/- 100
-25.6
1870+/- 100
60 BC-AD 400
Circle-Ditch, Trench 2
Beta-149479
3
7
7.30 m
1830+/- 70
-25.6
1820+/-70
AD 50-390
Beta-149480
3
8
7.21 m
1750+/- 70
-25.2
1750+/- 70
AD 110-430
Beta-149483
5
6
7.16 m
2170+/-70
-24.9
2170+/-70
390-40 BC
Figure 8. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from Whitebelt
I. Plot uses OxCal4 program (Bronk Ramsey 2009)
and IntCall3 calibration curve for northern hemisphere
(Reimer et al. 2013).
interpreted as remnants of cooking racks or hearth shelters
since they were associated with central hearths or cooking
pits, while others might have been pens or storage structures
(Handley 2001:110-113). Larger circular structures, ranging
in diameter from 3.5 to 11.25 m, were interpreted as residences
or communal structures (Handley 2001:113).
At Horr’s Island in southwest Florida, Russo (1991:342)
detected patterns of post molds and pits suggesting structures
with diameters of 4.2 to 4.8 m. In the Florida panhandle,
Scarry (1995) and Scarry and McEwan (1995) document and
compare Apalachee domestic architecture. Scarry (1995:206)
presents a list of oval and circular structures ranging in
diameter from 5 to 12 m. The diameter of the Miami Circle is
II.5m (Carr and Ricisak 2000:277), consistent with the larger
structures reported by Handley (2001) and Scarry (1995).
Overall, the Archaic structures of Horr’s Island, the
Malabar II period structures of the Blue Goose Midden, and
the Apalachee residential structures have similar sizes. This
suggests that the smaller 2.2 m diameter Whitebelt 1 post mold
pattern may represent a storage structure or cooking/smoking
rack. However, some small post mold patterns, interpreted as
Woodland and later household structures along the Mississippi
Gulf coast, range in diameter from 2.4 to 5.8 m (Greenwell
1984:131, 133, 141). This suggests that some smaller patterns
may represent house structures as well.
Material Culture Analyses
A total of 1,273 artifacts was recovered from the year
2000 excavations at the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (Tables 4 and
5). Materials were primarily from the midden deposit on the
south side of the site, though all classes of artifacts were found
in lower frequencies in the ditch excavation on the north side
of the site. The small portion of the ditch that we excavated
seemed to have accumulated artifacts through erosion from
adjacent midden deposits.
Pottery sherds, primarily sand-tempered plain, represent
the largest class of artifacts (n=l,208), although lithics (n=24),
shark teeth (n=17), and bone artifacts (n=24) were recovered.
In general, the artifact inventory is not surprising and supports
the radiocarbon dates that place the site in the early Glades
I period (500 B.C. to A.D. 500). The abundance of chert
flakes (n=23) is interesting, since the closest source of raw
materials is over 100 miles away, and perhaps farther when
considering terrestrial and aquatic trails. A small fragment
of a metamorphic stone celt or axe also is of interest, since
it represents exotic, non-Florida material. The collection
of shark tooth tools further suggests that the Whitebelt 1
inhabitants traveled to the shore or participated in an exchange
network that included raw materials from the seacoast.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
80
Table 4. Trench 1, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
Artifact distribution by weight (g).
Level
Zone
Lithic
Bone
Ceramic
Trench 1, Unit 7
1
I
-
136.4
2.9
2
II
-
157.0
61.9
3
II
-
156.5
355.5
4
II
-
59.1
48.9
5
Ha
-
26.7
3.4
6
Ha
-
28.5
15.9
Trench 1, Unit 9
1
I/II
-
90.4
11.8
2
II
-
199.1
2.1
3
II
-
111.5
-
4
Ila
-
114.1
110.0
Trench 1, Unit 10
1
I/II
-
12.4
6.4
2
II
-
124.4
275.6
3
II
-
143.2
428.9
4
Ila
-
79.6
56.1
5
Ila
-
74.7
44.1
6
III
10.5
102.5
24.3
7
III
4.4
29.0
100.1
8
III
5.9
16.0
140.5
9
III
-
1.8
22.1
10
III
0.3
0.3
71.4
11
IV
-
-
-
Ceramic Artifacts
A total of 1,208 pottery sherds came from the 10
excavation units at the site (Appendix C). Of these, 561
(46%) were smaller than 2 cm and were assigned to a “residual
plain” category, being too small for further classification. The
majority of the rest of the sherds (582 or 48%) were classified
as sand-tempered plain. This kind of pottery, sometimes
referred to as Glades Plain, is predominant in south Florida.
Examples from Whitebelt 1 were typical. They were poorly
fired, ranging in color from buff to black or dark brown, with
moderate to heavy inclusions of fine grit or larger quartz sand
grains.
Minor types occurred throughout the strata at the site,
including St. Johns Plain, Belle Glade Plain, at least one small
sand- and fiber-tempered sherd, and several unidentified plain
sherds. Among the unidentified plain sherds are 15 examples
of sandy St. Johns Plain (see Austin 1996:75). These are
sherds that have a “chalky” feel but also contain minor to
moderate inclusions of quartz sand grains (also see Luer and
Almy 1980:211; Mitchem 1986:86). St. Johns and Belle
Glade series ceramics can contain sponge spicules in the paste.
Such spicules can occur naturally in the clay used by native
people, but Rolland and Bond (2000) have suggested that the
addition of freshwater sponge spicules to pottery clays may be
a cultural practice designed to create greater cohesion during
vessel manufacture and use.
Fifty-two rim sherds were present in the collection
and examined for variations in lip and rim treatment and
indications of general vessel wall orientation, when possible.
Table 5. Trench 2, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
Artifact distribution by weight (g).
Level
Zone
Lithic
Bone
Ceramic
Trench 2, Unit 1
1
I
-
-
16.2
2
I/II
0.1
-
40.3
3
II/III
0.1
0.1
32.1
4
III
-
2.8
43.6
Trench 2, Unit 2
1
I
-
-
-
2
I/II
-
-
18.7
3
II/III
-
-
55.2
4
III
0.2
-
37.5
5
III
-
0.1
64.0
Trench 2, Unit 3
1
I
-
-
-
2
I/II
-
-
26.1
3
II
0.3
<0.1
25.0
4
III
<0.1
<0.1
82.1
5
III
<0.1
6.3
18.4
6
Ilia
1.0
0.1
22.3
7
IIIa/IV
-
1.0
29.8
8
IV
-
-
-
9
IIIa/V/V
-
-
1.8
Trench 2, Unit 4
1
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
11.7
3
-
-
-
20.3
4
-
-
0.3
75.4
5
-
-
0.9
18.3
Trench 2, Unit 5
1
I
-
-
-
2
I/II
-
-
-
3
II/III
-
-
9.1
4
III
-
-
6.8
5
III
-
<0.1
5.3
6
Ilia
1.4
-
28.4
7
IIIa/V
-
-
14.7
Wall orientation, rim form, and lip form were considered, with
either three or four variables recognized within each of these
categories (Figures 9 and 10, and Appendix D). Considerable
variation was observed, although most vessels walls were
vertical or slightly incurvate, with simple rim forms and
rounded lips (42%). Folded rims and rim sherds with beveled
or trimmed lips also were fairly common (23%). These folded
rims exhibit a great deal of variation, and sometimes appear
to have been elaborate. In some cases, the “fold” is merely
extruded clay on the inside of the vessel lip, while in other
cases the rim has a modeled appearance.
Folded rims are not typically noted among Glades area
ceramics, though other researchers have described them in
possibly early sites (Lee et al. 1993:46). The folded rims
discussed here are unlike the folded rims of Leon-Jefferson
ceramics, and they may simply be a byproduct of an attempt to
thicken the rim of the vessel. Functionally, folded or thickened
rims may have provided extra strength in these vessels. Both
Belle Glade Plain rim sherds in the collection have flat lips that
are characteristic of the type.


81
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Figure 9. Sherds and Profiles from Whitebelt 1.
See Appendix D for details.
The ceramic inventory from Whitebelt 1 is consistent
with the radiocarbon dates, placing the site in the early Glades
I period (500 B.C. to A.D. 500). Sites in the East Okeechobee
and Lake Okeechobee basin areas typically do not have
the incised Glades marker types that are characteristic of
the Everglades and Ten Thousand Islands (Pepe 1999:65).
There are, however, some temporal trends in the distribution
of the plain pottery types. For example, Belle Glade Plain
does not begin to dominate ceramic inventories until after
A.D. 900 (Austin 1996:75; Pepe 1999:65-68). Likewise,
St. Johns Check Stamped sherds begin to appear at sites in
the area around A.D. 1000 (Pepe in Kennedy et al. 1993:90).
The ceramic inventory of early sites is dominated by sand-
tempered plain pottery, as at Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
The presence of several examples of Belle Glade Plain is
consistent with Sears’ (1982:193) comment that this type made
its appearance during his Period I at Fort Center, sometime
between 450 B.C. and A.D. 200, though others hint at a much
later initial appearance of this type in certain areas (Austin
1996:75-76). White (1999:95) indicates that Belle Glade
Plain first appears in the Caloosahatchee Region ca. A.D. 500,
which seems consistent with a slightly earlier development in
the Lake Okeechobee basin. Luer (personal communication
2019) reports Belle Glade Plain pottery as early as A.D. 500 at
Big Mound Key, near Charlotte Harbor.
Lithic Artifacts
Jim Dunbar of the Florida Bureau of Archaeological
Research graciously examined the lithic artifacts from the
site, citing chert sources and noting use and artifact types.
Archaeologist Robert Austin also provided insights about
lithic sources. There were 23 chert or silicified coral artifacts
from Whitebelt 1 (Appendix E). The majority of these are
small chert flakes, though one micro tool was identified, along
with a blocky piece of a chert core, two chert bifaces, and one
biface fragment (Figure 11).
Figure 10. Sherds and Profiles from Whitebelt 1.
See Appendix D for details.
Sourcing of the chert based on the inclusion of
foraminifera fossils and other materials was difficult, since
many of the chert flakes and artifacts did not contain diagnostic
inclusions. Those specimens that did contain inclusions were
characteristic of cherts of the Ocala Limestone and the Tampa
Member of the Arcadia Formation. The former are closest at
Ocala Quarry Cluster, and the latter at the Hillsborough River
Quarry Cluster (Austin and Estabrook 2000; Upchurch et al.
1982:132-136).
Silicified coral flakes (n=5) of the genus Siderastrea
also were identified in the collection, pointing to the Upper
Withlacoochee and Hillsborough River Quarry clusters.
Cherts from the Bone Valley phosphate district/Peace River
Formation, while the closest chert source to Whitebelt 1, were
absent in the collection. Cherts at Whitebelt 1 are likely from
the Ocala and Hillsborough River Quarry Clusters, which
yield abundant raw material in the area of present-day Marion
and Hillsborough counties.
I 1 1 1 1 1 cm
0 2 4
Figure 11. Bifaces from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
BAR Cat. No. 00.140.116.1 (left) and 99.65.7.2 (right).


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
82
Technologically, the chert and coral flakes were typical
of lithic retouching activities, and perhaps to a lesser extent,
biface reduction. Some of the specimens are clearly percussion
flakes and show evidence of a prepared platform. At least
seven of the flakes and artifacts were heat altered, and several
show evidence of heat damage and crazing. Heat alteration of
chert became a common practice during the Middle Archaic
period. This practice changes the color and luster of chert and
makes it easier to flake.
The reworked triangular point is interesting since it
appears to have been originally a Hernando type biface that
had the base and basal tangs removed (Figure 11). Dunbar
detected a black substance on one side, perhaps some kind
of hafting mastic. Hernando bifaces were once thought to be
diagnostic markers of the Florida Transitional period (Bullen
1975:24), though further research has demonstrated that this
biface type dates to ca. 1000 B.C. through A.D. 900, probably
representing both atlatl dart and arrow projectiles (Ste. Claire
1996:196-197). Some examples, especially those that are
reworked, might have served as knives.
Two fragments of a flake of metamorphic rock were
identified (Cat. No. 00.140.083.6). In the field, there was
considerable speculation about them. At times we believed
it was exotic stone, charcoal, a hickory nut hull, or some type
of chert. The outer surface shows evidence of grinding and
polishing and the shapes of the pieces indicate that they are
shatter fragments, apparently from a ground stone celt or axe.
Under the microscope the metamorphic structure was more
apparent. Stone celts and axes are a rare artifact type, but do
occur at sites in the St. Johns River basin and south Florida.
Recent sourcing studies on examples of basaltic stone celts
found at the Miami Circle indicate origins in the vicinity of
Macon, Georgia (Dixon et al. 2000:336-337).
One pumice abrader was found (Wheeler 2006:Figure
8a). Analysis of pumice recovered from Florida sites indicates
that most of the clasts tested are potassium-rich, calc-alkaline
rhyolitic material, likely originating in the Veracruz area of
Mexico (Kish 2006). They include pieces from Fort Center,
the Miami Circle, and Whitebelt 1.
Shark Tooth Tools
Eighteen shark teeth were recovered from excavation
units in 2000 (Figure 12). These were identified taxonomically
using the zooarchaeological comparative collection at
FLMNH (Table 6). The teeth also were classified using the
modification typology developed by Richardson and Pohl
(1985:93-97), based on shark tooth tools from the Granada
site (8DA11), in Miami, with revisions by Kozuch (1993:25-
30) and Wheeler and McGee (1994:354, 356-357). Wear
patterns and modification types were identified with a Leica
30x binocular microscope (Table 7).
This assemblage is a small sample of shark tooth tools,
but it represents utilization of at least seven or more shark
species, including the sand or sandtiger shark (Odontaspis
taurus), which was not used for tooth tools at the Granada site.
Tooth modification primarily involves the grinding or abrasion
of the tooth root. Modification styles were much more diverse
Y i
f
r
v r
* f
a
b
c
d
/ >
f
r y
e
f
9
h
\ r
r
•
f T
1?
y v
t
m
j
r
n
Y
K
O
i
p
t r
q
0
2 4 6
OwitsfTWters Roil Muffiter
a to
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research
Figure 12. Shark Teeth from Whitebelt 1.
Unit/Level
Description
Count
Trench 1, Unit 7
2
Bone splinter, debitage
1
3
Bone splinters, deer
2
3
Negaprion brevirostris tooth
1
4
Bone artifact shaft fragment
1
4
Odontaspis taurus tooth
1
4
Negaprion brevirostris tooth
1
6
Negaprion brevirostris tooth
1
Trench 1, Unit 8
2
Galeocerdo cuvieri tooth
1
3
Bone artifact shaft frag., eroded
1
Trench 1, Unit 9
2
Carcharhinidae tooth
1
2
Negaprion brevirostris tooth
1
Trench 1, Unit 10
2
Antler bead fragment
1
2
Bone artifact shaft fragments
10
2
Odontaspis taurus tooth
1
2
Carcharhinus spp. tooth
1
3
Bone artifact shaft fragments
6
3
Odontaspis taurus tooth
1
4
Carcharhinus obscurus tooth
1
4
Carcharhinus spp. tooth
1
5
Bone artifact shaft fragment
1
5
Carcharhinus spp. tooth
1
6
Antler bead
1
6
Carcharhinus spp. tooth
1
6
Negaprion brevirostris tooth
1
6
Negaprion brevirostris tooth
1
Trench 2, Unit 3
6
Carcharhinus spp. tooth
1
Table 6. Bone and Shark Tooth Artifacts, Whitebelt 1
Circle-Ditch.


83
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
in samples from the Granada and Jupiter Inlet sites, perhaps
reflecting their larger sample sizes. Only one tooth from
Whitebelt 1 was perforated, and none had filed or cut roots.
In several cases, there was notable breakage and wear to the
root, likely the result of hafting in a handle and use of the
teeth under pressure. Wear patterns range from moderate edge
wear to heavy blunting and splintering of the tooth tip, and
occasionally include lateral striations across the tooth enamel.
Kozuch (1993:3) urges caution in assessing use wear as
distinct from the normal wear while in a shark’s mouth.
It is possible that the shark teeth in the Whitebelt 1 sample
were used for fine bone and woodcarving. Interestingly, the
two lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) teeth from Unit 10,
Level 6, may be from the same individual, possibly near one
another in the upper right portion of the jaw.
Shark teeth seem to have been selected for several
characteristics. The broader, serrated upper teeth of the
requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae and Carcharhinus spp.), tiger
shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri), and lemon shark (Negaprion
brevirostris) could have been used in carving or sawing. The
narrow, elongated teeth of Odontaspis taurus and the lower
teeth of Negaprion brevirostris appear to have been used
as drills or perforators, and they often have more extensive
spalling and tip wear.
Bone Artifacts
Bone artifacts were rare at Whitebelt 1. They include
several fragments of bone working debitage, the byproducts
of reducing larger mammal (probably deer) bones into tools
or tool blanks. They also include fragments of several bone
tools and two antler beads (Table 6). The bone tool fragments
all consisted of shaft sections, probably split sections of
deer metapodials. Several examples are highly burnished,
perhaps the result of fire polishing, as suggested by Mitchell
(1998:237-238).
The two antler beads represent an interesting, rare artifact
type (Figure 13). These round beads were cut from sections of
antlers or antler tines, perforated, and variably polished. Like
other antler artifacts, the beads seem fragile and may break
and degrade easily. The diverse shapes and high polish that
could be achieved by using antler might have been desirable.
Figure 13. Antler Beads from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
BAR Cat. No. 00.140.114.1 (left) and 00.140.83.5 (right).
Hughes and Pepe (2001) report a barrel-shaped bone or antler
bead from the Couse Midden, located on the Loxahatchee
Scarp just west of the DuPuis area (also see Janus Research
2000:124, 128-129). Mitchell (1998:227-229) reports one
complete antler bead and a possible antler bead blank from the
Narvaez/Anderson site in St. Petersburg. There is one antler
bead from the Miami Circle in Miami (Wheeler 2004:151).
Table 7. Shark Tooth Artifacts, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
Taxon
Element
Figure
Edgeworn
Carcharhinus spp.
upper right tooth
121
Galeocerdo cuvieri
tooth
12h
Negaprion brevirostris
upper right tooth
12j
Negaprion brevirostris
upper right tooth
12k
Edgeworn-Tip Worn
Odontaspis taurus
tooth
12a
Carcharhinus (cf. obscurus)
tooth
12m
Negaprion brevirostris
lower tooth
12q
Roots Broken-Edgeworn
Carcharhinus spp.
upper left tooth
12f
Negaprion brevirostris
lower tooth
12n
Roots Broken-Edgeworn-Tip Worn
Odontaspis taurus
tooth
12c
Carcharhinidae
lower tooth
12i
Carcharhinus spp.
upper right tooth
12g
Carcharhinus (cf. leucas)
tooth
12d
Negaprion brevirostris
lower tooth
12o
Roots Broken/Abraded-Edgeworn-Tip Worn
Odontaspis taurus
tooth
12b
Negaprion brevirostris
lower tooth
12p
Carcharhinus spp.
tooth
12e
Palynological Analysis
Samples of pollen and kerogen residues (the latter being
a kind of solid, insoluble, organic matter) were derived
from sediments collected at the Whitebelt 1 site and sent to
palynologist Rich in July 2001. The samples, prepared as
slides by Global Geolabs of Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada,
came from two areas of the site. Nine samples came from
the south wall of excavation unit 183N-274.5E (Unit 10,
Trench 1, in the south midden area). The nine samples were
collected every 10 cm from 70 to 110 cmbs in Unit 10. The
south midden samples were essentially barren, so that only
five of them were analyzed, leading to no conclusion based on
palynology. Seven pollen samples came from the west wall of
excavation unit 417N-299.5E (Unit 3, Trench 2, in the circle-
ditch). Significant changes in the palynological characteristics
of the samples from the circle-ditch led to the conclusion that
a demonstrable change in vegetation occurred there, probably
caused by construction of the ditch.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
84
Methods
The processing laboratory sieved samples so that two
populations were available for viewing. One population
consisted of palyniferous residues of particle size greater than
10 microns. The second population was kerogen residues of
particle size less than 10 microns.
Analytical procedure was standard, as followed by Rich
et al. (2000). Slides were scanned for presence and absence of
pollen and spores, and slides that had sufficient concentrations
were point-counted until at least 300 palynomorphs of
identifiable type were counted. Freshwater algal cysts,
including Ovoidites and Pseudoschizaea appear in the pollen
totals. They are usually not present in pollen sums. Rich et
al. (1982) and Rich and Pirkle (1994) have shown that these
two non-pollen genera are particularly valuable in assessing
the environmental characteristics of pollen-bearing sediments
from the southeastern United States. As such, these genera
were added to the pollen totals from Whitebelt 1. Notes were
made about the general characteristics of the residues. All
kerogen slides were observed, although they produced no
palynological information. Pollen and spores of embryophytes,
and most freshwater algal cysts, are larger than 10 microns.
Results
Trench 1 Samples. Pollen samples from the south wall of
Trench 1, Unit 10, in the south midden area, were all essentially
barren of pollen and spores. Insoluble residues consisted of
charcoal, with some humified plant materials and rare pollen
and spores, as follows. The sample from 70 cm had charcoal
only in coarse fraction (no kerogen slide was available) and
traces of Gramineae and Osmunda pollen. The sample from
80 cm had mostly charcoal in coarse fraction, with a trace of
Pinus pollen, with kerogen apparently being all charcoal. The
next sample, from 90 cm, consisted of very abundant charcoal
in coarse fraction as well as some fungal spores and humic
matter, a trace of Quercus pollen, and kerogen composed
of opaque detritus. The fourth sample, from 100 cm, was
comprised of abundant charcoal and humic fragments, some
fungal spores including Microthyriacites in coarse fraction,
traces of Pinus, Quercus, and Woodwardia pollen, and kerogen
opaque detritus. The fifth sample, from 110 cm, was very fine,
unstructured humic debris, with charcoal and fungal remains
in coarse fraction, a trace of Pinus pollen, and kerogen opaque
detritus. Almost no conclusions can be drawn from this
information, except that a change in hydroperiod or landcover
occurred at 100 cm. Background pollen and spores are all
types expected in such a location.
Trench 2 Samples. Pollen samples from the west wall
of Trench 2, Unit 3, associated with the circle-ditch feature,
produced more material. The samples demonstrate a profound
change in the type of landcover above 80 cm depth. The
presence of taxa at particular levels is indicated in Table 8.
Their actual relative abundances, expressed as percent, are
also shown in Table 8. The only taxon shown that is not in the
pollen total is Tetraporina, a probable freshwater algal cyst of
unknown affinity.
In all, there are 41 taxa that could be identified with
confidence. The only questionable ones are Cupressaceae
(white cedar type, one occurrence) and Sambucus (elderberry,
occurrences in six levels). The uncertainty comes from
the generally small size of all palynomorphs. Either the
environment of deposition, or the processing technique, or
both, resulted in all grains being unusually small. Thus, small
structural features, such as sculpturing and small germinal
apertures, were hard to see on some grains. The Nymphaea
grains, particularly, were about half the size one would expect,
and many of the pines were about 50 microns in length, as
opposed to the more normal 100 microns. Some species of
pines do produce such small pollen, but it is most unlikely
that they would have contributed to these sediments, so it was
assumed that all grains had shrunk. In the case of the shrunken
Sambucus-type grains, the germinal apertures were difficult to
distinguish.
Several taxa demonstrated significant increases or
decreases in abundance as a function of time, depth,
and perhaps disturbance of the landscape. These include
the Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae, grasses, waterlily
(Nymphaea), and the Asteroideae (insect-pollinated
composites). Other taxa are always present as background
elements, including Quercus, Pinus, and Gramineae (grasses).
These taxa are listed in Table 8, along with their relative
abundances as calculated at a particular depth. Graphs
illustrating their relative abundances are shown in Figure 14.
Interpretations
The flora of the circle-ditch is distinctly that of a wetland
in the southeastern United States. The background pollen,
such as pine, oak, and grasses, illustrate the local abundance
of those plants, which could have been upland or lowland
species. Some taxa are particularly indicative of a flooded or
moist surface. They include Nymphaea as well as Sagittaria,
Polygonum, and Polygala. All of these grow where soil
conditions are either damp, saturated, or flooded. None of
these taxa is present at 80 cm, but they all appear in differing
amounts from 70 cm to 20 cm. The fact that Nymphaea comes
in at 4.9% at 70 cm, and diminishes to .28% and .81% before
disappearing, suggests that flooding was most pronounced
early in time, and as the ditch gradually filled up, waterlilies
could no longer survive. A similar pattern is shown by
arrowhead, Sagittaria. It also is an aquatic macrophyte that
prefers flooded surfaces.
Because both waterlily and arrowhead are insect pollinated,
and have very limited pollen dispersal, it is almost certain that
their pollen came from in-place plants. The gradual upward
increase in the abundances of the two ferns Osmunda and
Woodwardia-type complement the demise of the waterlilies
and arrowhead, as both fern types would be expected to grow
on damp, but not necessarily flooded surfaces. The continuing
dampness of the ditch is further indicated by the presence of
the algal cysts Ovoidites and Pseudoschizaea. Both have been
used to indicate ancient wetland or moist ground conditions


85
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Table 8. Relative Abundances of Pollen, Spore, and Algal Cyst Taxa. These were encountered in Trench 2, Unit 3, west
wall samples from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (expressed as percent in each sample). T indicates trace amounts were found
but not counted.
Taxon
20 cm
30 cm
40 cm
50 cm
60 cm
70 cm
80 cm
Acer rubrum
0.28
Ambrosia
0.82
0.29
1.60
1.90
4.10
Asteroideae
2.30
4.40
4.90
4.10
2.20
5.20
T
Brasenia
0.54
Bryales
0.27
0.86
0.27
Caryophyllaceae
0.29
0.28
Castanea
0.28
Chenopodiaceae-Amaranthaceae
11.10
23.90
34.40
55.00
64.90
39.10
Clethra
0.28
0.27
0.29
Cupressaceae
0.29
Cypraceae
2.30
0.82
1.40
0.27
2.90
Decodon
0.29
Equisetum
0.58
Eriacea e
0.87
fenestrate composites
0.27
Fraxinus
0.29
Gramineae
3.10
7.40
6.60
8.10
8.30
7.30
Iva
0.28
0.29
Lachnanthes
0.29
Liliaceae
1.10
3.80
Liquidambar
0.29
Magnolia
0.27
0.29
0.28
0.29
Myrica
0.27
0.29
0.54
0.29
Nymphaea
0.81
0.28
4.90
Osmunda
8.80
7.70
8.40
5.70
4.40
4.40
T
Ovoidites
0.28
0.29
0.27
0.28
0.29
Pinus
9.40
3.80
9.20
6.80
7.50
6.70
T
Polygala
0.82
0.28
Polygonum
2.50
0.82
1.30
0.56
0.58
Pontederia
0.28
Pseudoschizaea
0.85
3.60
0.58
Pteridium
0.28
0.55
0.29
0.81
0.83
Quercus
16.50
15.10
12.10
5.40
1.90
5.20
Sagittaria
0.28
0.82
0.29
1.10
2.00
Salix
0.85
0.58
Sambucus (?)
1.40
0.55
0.58
0.27
0.28
0.29
Sparganium
0.29
Sphagnum
0.29
Taxodium
0.57
0.27
0.27
1.40
Umbelliferae
0.28
0.28
Woodwardia (?)
30.20
19.80
12.10
2.40
1.40
2.30
T
Xyris
0.28
0.29
0.58
unknowns
6.80
7.60
4.00
2.50
5.80
Tetraporina
4 ind.
1 ind.
1 ind.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
86
. Asteroideae Gramineae , Osmunda _ .... _ . Pseudoschizaea Taxodium
Ambrosia Cyperaceae Nymphaea Ovoidites Polygonum Sagittaria
20 cm
30 cm
40 cm
50 cm
60 cm
70 cm
80 cm
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 14. Relative Abundance of Selected Pollen Taxa by Percent in Each Level.
(see Rich et al. 1982; Rich and Pirkle 1994; Rich et al.
2000) such as one could easily find in roadside ditches in the
southeastern United States today.
The dramatic rise in the abundance of pollen of the
Chenopodiaceae and Amaranthaceae (combined here) can
be interpreted as a result of a change in the hydroperiod of
the ditch, or it may be due to local land disturbance. Cheno-
ams, as they are collectively called, are well known as weedy
invaders of broken ground. Early in the sedimentary history
of the site there were no cheno-ams. This suggests that they
simply did not grow at Whitebelt 1 before the ditch was dug.
After native people dug the ditch and it was flooded, the plants
began to appear, presumably on the disturbed surface occupied
by spoil. As occupation of the site continued, and as areas
adjacent to the ditch were inhabited, or perhaps cultivated by
native people, the weeds took over.
The pollen of cheno-ams is wind-borne and was carried
into the ditch in large amounts. Though we did not distinguish
species, there was considerable morphological variation in
the density of the pollen walls and distribution of germinal
apertures, so several species are probably indicated. The
grasses make a parallel increase in abundance with the cheno-
ams, further suggesting the development of a nearby weedy
surface covered by opportunistic herbs.
An additional point should be made relative to the
abundance of charcoal. Large charred cell masses and finely
divided charcoal are common in all samples, except the 80
cm sample from the west wall. In this sample, the insoluble
residue in both the coarse and fine fractions consisted mostly
of hyaline, isometric cells derived from the humification of
plant remains. There was very little charcoal. Structured cell
material is abundant in both fractions of the 70 cm sample,
though charcoal was more noticeable. From the 60 cm sample
to the top of the series, charcoal is common. The implication is
that either the decreasing hydroperiod indicated by the change
in vegetation led to drier conditions and greater susceptibility
to burning, or that fires were introduced to the site and became
common during occupation of the disturbed ground.
Archaeobotanical Analysis
Samples were collected to study plant use, past
environment, and archaeobotanical preservation at the site.
In May 2000, two field days were devoted to collecting
archaeobotanical samples from two locations adjacent to
excavations and based on previous auger testing (Wheeler
2000a). Samples were collected from Trench 1 in the south
midden (Unit 8, East Vz), Features 3, 4, and 5 (Unit 10), and
Trench 2 in the circle-ditch (Unit 6).
Methods
Both dry and wet samples were collected. Two moist
samples and five water-saturated samples came from the
circle-ditch, including two auger samples (Appendix F). Five
of these samples came from approximately 27 to 77 cm below
the surface (cmbs) in a 50 x 50 cm column section in Unit 6 in
the circle-ditch. Dry samples were collected from a 50 x 50
cm column (Unit 8) in the midden and from Features 3, 4, and
5 in Unit 10. Appendix F and Table 9 indicate where and how
these samples were collected and processed.
All samples were transported to the University of Florida
fumigation chamber before processing at FLMNH. There,
they were allowed to air dry (except N-3 to N-5). All but the
water-saturated samples were processed through large nested
screens with mesh sizes approximating U.S.A. standard testing
geological sieves (No. 5, No. 10, No. 18, and No. 40) with 4
mm, 2 mm, 1 mm, and .425 pm mesh openings.
The dry samples were sieved rather than floated or
water screened as studies show that reintroducing water to
dry sediment samples causes damage such as shattering of
charred materials, thereby preventing identification (Jarman
et al. 1972; Newsom 1999; Ruhl 1999a). Pre-drainage
conditions were generally wet or flooded most of the time, but
“occasionally a drought of two or more years’ duration would
occur and the glades would then become dried out” (Parker
1984:29). This hints that plant remains in these deposits might
have been impacted over time.
Once the large samples were processed into fractions,
they were further processed and sorted. The large fractions
(4 mm and 2 mm) were scanned, sorted into various


87
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Table 9. Data from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch Archaeobotanical Samples.
Bot#
FS#
Method
Context/
Edaphic
Condition
Sample
Volume
Charred
Wood
Weight (g)
Plant
Weight
Seed
Count
Seed Ct./
Plant Wt.
Seed
Ct./
Sample
Vol.
Bot# S-l
87
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
25 L
5.373
.128
9
70.31
.39
Bot# S-2
88
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
22 L
3.492
.015
3
200.00
.14
Bot# S-3
89
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
25 L
1.760
-
-
-
-
Bot# S-4
90
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
38 L
2.657
-
-
-
-
Bot# S-5
91
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
25 L
2.440
-
-
-
-
Bot# S-6
92
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
25 L
4.675
.002
2
1000.00
.08
Bot# S-7
131
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
39 L
3.101
-
-
-
Bot# S-8
132
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
3 L
.463
-
-
-
-
Bot# S-9
137
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
1 L
.164
.001
1
1000.00
1
Bot# S-10
133
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
1 L
.092
-
-
-
-
Bot# S-ll
134
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
1 L
.090
-
-
-
-
Bot# S-l2
135
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
1 L
-
-
-
-
-
Bot# S-l3
136
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
1 L
.204
-
-
-
-
Bot# S-l4
138
Dry sieved
Midden, sand
11 L
.843
.008
2
250.00
.18
Bot# N-l
103
Wet sieved
Ditch, wet silty sand
-2.5L
2.250
.102
1
9.80
.40
Bot# N-2
104
Wet sieved
Ditch, wet silty sand
~3 L
1.331
.001
1
1000.00
.33
Bot# N-3
105
Wet sieved
Ditch, wet silty sand
~3L
4.404
.015
2
133.00
.66
Bot# N-4
106
Wet sieved
Ditch, wet silty sand
~2.5 L
4.419
Wet
fragment
-
-
Bot# N-5
107
Wet sieved
Ditch, wet silty sand
~3 L
3.257
Wet
62 (wet)
-
-
TOTALS
232 L
41.015
.272
83+
-
-
components (e.g., seed, charred wood, marl, shell, and
bone), rebagged, and labeled. They were analyzed first and
used to determine further processing of the smaller fractions
(1 mm and .425 pm).
While all charred remains from the 4 mm and 2 mm
fractions were scanned and carefully sorted, only 10% by
weight of the 1 mm fraction was scanned for seeds, as charred
wood is much too small to identify at this level. After sorting
100% of the 4 mm and 2 mm fractions and 10% of the 1 mm
fraction, it was decided not to scan the .425 pm fraction for
this study, as the latter was scant (Appendix G). Instead, the
sort of the 1 mm fraction of the waterlogged materials was
increased. The time to process these finer fractions was
not deemed feasible with the limited results from the larger
fractions. Typically, these are used as a guide for the smaller
fractions that often contain more fragile remains. This allowed
a more holistic look at the samples to obtain a broader view of
the site from both the circle-ditch and midden areas. These 1
mm and .425 pm residuals have been boxed and inventoried
with the other analyzed materials (Ruhl 2001).
Next, the sorted botanical samples (S-l to S-14, N-l to
N-5) were examined for diagnostic features on seeds and other
non-wood remains using a dissecting microscope (lx to 14x).
Seed counts are often based on fragments and do not typically
indicate the exact number of seeds present. From each FS#
and Bot#, seeds were counted and weighed from the individual
fractions and recorded in Appendix G.
Seeds and wood fragments were identified following
typical archaeobotanical standards (e.g., Pearsall 1989). Seed
identification involves the use of various pictorial guides,
keys, manuals, and floras (e.g., Cronquist 1980; Davis 1943;
Delorit 1970; Delorit and Gunn 1986; Duncan and Duncan
1987; Godfrey and Wooten 1979, 1981; Hitchcock 1971;
Landers and Johnson 1976; Long 1974; Long and Lakela
1976; Martin and Barkley 1961; Morton 1979; Small 1933;
Wunderlin 1982, 1998). These are used in conjunction with
viewing vouchered plant collections (e.g., seeds, wood)
against the archaeobotanical remains for morphologically
distinct traits (e.g., hilum scars, shape, surface patterning).
These collections are housed at the University of Florida
Herbarium at FLMNH. All identifications were made to the
lowest possible taxonomic level.
Charred wood samples were identified based on three-
dimensional anatomy (i.e., transverse, radial, and tangential
views) with reference to comparative wood specimens, wood
slides, manuals, and standard keys (e.g., Kurz and Godfrey
1993; Nelson 1994; Panshin and deZeeuw 1980; Record
and Hess 1942-1948; Tomlinson 1980; Urling and Smith
1953). Magnifications varied from 70x to 140x depending on
anatomical features. Most identifications were made from the
4 mm samples as they provide the most reliable evidence for
anatomical features and traits, such as growth ring patterns (2 to
3 full growth rings) (Appendix G).


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
88
For quantitative purposes, 30 to 35 wood charcoal
fragments are recommended as a representative sample
(Scarry and Newsom 1992:383). Studies done in southwest
Florida sites indicate that the number of species present do not
increase much after 30 species of wood are identified (Scarry
and Newsom 1992:383). This number should be adequate for
Whitebelt 1, located in a more semi-tropical to temperate area,
where fewer species of trees exist compared to tropical habitats.
Unfortunately, the samples did not always contain this quantity
in the largest fraction (4 mm) of circle-ditch sub-samples, which
has been the case in other middens (e.g., Ruhl 1995, 1999a).
Because wood preservation was variable, the 2 mm
fractions of sorted charred wood were also sub-sampled
and selected fragments were analyzed when possible. As
noted above, normally only the 4 mm fraction woods were
sub-sampled (n=30 specimens) from a given sample (e.g.,
Pearsall 1989). The 2 mm wood fractions were small and only
allowed portions of the wood to be viewed and recorded. The
typical three-part (transverse, radial, and tangential views)
(e.g., Panshin and deZeeuw 1980) analysis of an individual
fragment from larger wood specimens was not always
feasible. Hence, a composite approach to these charred wood
fragments was developed and recorded with the intent of
keying traits from whatever wood view(s) were preserved. A
combination of these views (e.g., radial/tangential, transverse/
radial, transverse/tangential) hypothetically should facilitate
a composite identification when two or more views are
observable from smaller samples. This kind of analysis needs
to be carefully reconstructed and is limited, but has had some
success (Ruhl 2002). Unfortunately, preservation sometimes
hindered even this attempt to “fingerprint” the wood, as 30
fragments were not present in some samples.
Results
Approximately 41 grams of charred wood and 83+ seeds
were recovered from the 232 liters of soil processed (Table 10).
Identifications are in Appendix G, listing 20 taxa along with
remains that were not identifiable. The midden matrix yielded
scant seed remains, and thus there were few hints of plants in
the subsistence and foodways of the people who lived around
the circle-ditch. The majority of plant remains came from
water-saturated levels of the circle-ditch in the north portion of
the site. They represent plants that grew in the wetter slough
and low areas in and around the circle and the drier hammock
along the midden-rich ridges (Wheeler 2000a, 2001b). Some
water-saturated remains were not charred and may represent
modem flora. Yet, some charred remains suggest that these
may be part of the precontact inventory.
Wood Remains. Seven species of wood were identified.
Pine was dominant, followed by palm. Live oak, oak,
blueberry, maple, and persimmon were present from the
circle-ditch. These species inhabit mesic hammocks, scrub,
and flatwoods (Table 10). Charred softwood was a southern
hard pine (Pinus sp.) with diagnostic dentate ray tracheids.
Resins produced by this species make it an excellent wood for
fuel and strong for constmction purposes.
In ubiquity studies (Kadane 1988; Popper 1988), a ratio
represents the number of occurrences containing burned
remains (or at some sites the water-saturated remains) relative
to the overall number of proveniences being analyzed.
Unfortunately, not all of the appearances meet the criteria
for ubiquity analysis. Some samples were combined for the
ubiquity study (e.g., Feature 4 in Unit 10 was assigned four
FS#s [FSs 133-136], but was only approximately 10 cm in
depth, which is comparable to most other samples collected).
To generate Table 11, 16 of the 19 proveniences were
considered “distinct.” As such, Figure 15 is offered as
a provisional example of wood ubiquity with relative
significance of taxa. The dominant wood across the samples
was pine, present in 93.75% of proveniences (Figure 15).
Table 10. Archaeobotanical Taxa from Whitebelt I
Circle-Ditch.
Scientific Taxon
Common Name1
Gymnospermae
softwood
Pinus sp.
pine (cw)
Angiospermae
hardwood (cw)
cf. Arecaceae (Palmae)
palm family (cw, s)
Sabal palmetto
cabbage palm (cw)
Sabal sp.
palm (s, cw)
Serenoa repens
saw palmetto (s)
Eleusine indica
goosegrass (cs)
Panicum/Setaria sp.
panicgrass/bristlegrass (ds)
Scirpus sp.
bulrush (s)
Cladium sp.
sawgrass (s, cs)
Quercus cf. virginiana
live oak (cw)
Quercus sp.
oak (cw, possible galls)
cf. Quercus. sp.
oak (cw)
Acer sp.
maple (cw)
cf. Acer sp.
maple (cw)
Ampelopsis sp.
peppervine (s)
Parthenocissus sp.
Virginia creeper (s)
Hibiscus sp.
rosemallow (ms)
Passiflora sp.
passion flower (s)
Vacinnium sp.
blueberry/sparkleberry (cw)
Diospyros sp.
persimmon (cw)
Sambucus cf. canadensis
elderberry (s)
Scutellaria sp.
skullcap (cs)
Cucurbitaceae
cucurbit family
cf Leguminosae
legume family (s)
Dicotyledoneae
dicot-stem, fragments (cw)
Monoctyledoneae
monocot-stem,
root fragments (cw)
Plantae
Indeterminate fragments (cw, p)
1 cw=charred wood; s=seed, watersaturated; cs=charred seed; ds=dessicated seed;
ms=modem seed; p=other plant parts. Scientific names after Wunderlin 1998.


89
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
C
0J
a
cr
0>
fa
o
o
100%
Pmws sp. Sate/ sp.
18.75% 18.75%
12.50% 12.50%
Acer sp. Vaccinum sp. Quercus sp. Q. virginiana Diospyros sp.
Specific Taxa
Figure 15. Wood Ubiquity with Relative Significance of Taxa.
Only three species of wood were recovered from the
midden area (pine, palm, and oak), all common in the semi-
tropical flatwoods/scrub that exists today. Palm was recovered
from five samples in the midden area. Apparently, the general
habitat was much the same in the past, as wood species from
deeper levels were like those in upper levels. However, the
density and variety may vary and be difficult to discern in such
small samples.
Four of the five samples from the circle-ditch meet all
criteria for wood ubiquity. Here, six of the seven taxa identified
from these levels were recovered, including pine, oak, live oak,
persimmon, blueberry, and maple. These six woods offer both
direct and indirect evidence for potential exploited resources
and not just evidence of natural vegetation.
Charred wood remains from good archaeological contexts
tend to indicate their use as fuelwoods for primary fuel or
kindling. Hearth features often have multiple woods as many
were used to ignite versus stoking or fueling a fire. Each of
the seven woods from the midden area and the circle-ditch
could have been used as a fuel, although pine and oak are the
most commonly used species at precontact and contact period
sites in Florida (e.g., Masson and Scarry 1991; Newsom 1987,
1988, 1989, 1994, 1999; Ruhl 1993, 1995, 1999a, 1999b,
2000; Scarry 1985) due to their capacity to bum and sustain
heat (Little 1980).
Remains from the circle-ditch may be derived from run¬
off from higher ridge areas (where hardwood hammock might
have grown), and these remains contained Native American
sherds as well as charred and water-saturated plant remains.
We recovered sherds during sorting (Wheeler 2001b:3,13,20).
In addition, stems and roots of monocots, dicots, and other
higher-level taxa were noted, but could not be specifically
identified. Some species may be considered possible food
sources, such as Vacinnium sp. (blueberry/sparkleberry),
Diospyros sp. (persimmon), and the oaks (Quercus spp.),
because each bears edible plant parts (fmits or nuts), besides
having possible non-food uses (Table 11).
Pine is commonly found in archaeological sites throughout
the southeastern United States. It was used in many ways, such
as posts for stmctures, fuel for hearths, utensils, and dugout
canoes (Table 11). Many charred wood fragments from the
midden area were charred by very high-intensity fire as many
cells were destroyed throughout the wood fragments. This
is not surprising as pine can bum naturally at temperatures
around 600 to 800° C. Whether or not these charred pieces of
wood were specifically made into “charcoal” for intentional
fuel or were collected and cut could not be determined.
Unit 10’s Features 3 and 4 contained charred pine, perhaps
post fragments (Wheeler 2001a). Unfortunately, none of these
samples had remains from the 4 mm fraction and only limited
analysis could be done with the few wood fragments present.
One charred seed of Cladium sp. (sawgrass) was recovered
from Feature 4, and it might have been an incidental inclusion
in this feature given its small size and abundance in the area.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
90
Seed Remains. Modem, desiccated, water-saturated,
and charred fragments were identified and reflect precontact
plant communities that are similar to modem habitats. Some
potential economic uses of these taxa are in Table 11. Few
charred seed remains were recovered from midden samples. A
few modem seed fragments were from various depths (Tables
10 and 11, and Appendix G). One modem intmsion, Hibiscus
sp. (rosemallow) (FS 87.11), was from an upper level. While
walking around the site, we saw that this plant was relatively
abundant, in and bordering the circle-ditch. A partial,
desiccated Panicum/Setaria sp. seed (FS88.4) was recovered
from 27 to 37 cmbs.
Charred seed remains included: Eleusine indica, Serenoa
repens, Carya sp. (nut shell), cf. Leguminosae, Cladium
sp., Sabal sp., Scutellaria sp., Passiflora sp., Scirpus sp.,
and indeterminate plantae. Water-saturated and modem
seeds included: Sambucus sp., Cladium sp., Ampelopsis
sp., Parthenocissus sp., Passiflora sp., and Cucurbitaceae.
Waterlogged remains were charred and non-charred. Cladium
was recovered from both contexts and in both states of
preservation, showing its environmental dominance today
and presence in the past. One small fragment of a tentatively
identified Cucurbitaceae was recovered from FS 104.11.
The genera of the panicoid group of the family of grasses
(Graminae/Poaceae, including Panicum/Setaria) are very
similar in morphology. The hard membraneous floral bracts
that enclose the flowers adhere tightly to the grain, and
some species are indistinguishable. Of the approximately
600 species of Panicum from around the world, new species
have been described and others restudied morphologically,
cytologically, geographically, and phylogenetically (for
example compare Hitchcock and Chase 1910; Zuloaga and
Soderstrom 1985). Callen (1967:535) noted that Setaria
could be differentiated from Panicum by the “possession of
transverse lines of small cellulose ridges at right angles to
the strands of strengthening cells,” which are absent from
Panicum. Other grass specialists (e.g., Hall 1978; David Hall
personal communication 2001) indicate that both genera have
some species that possess similar ridging patterns. This limits
our ability to identify certain specimens, especially desiccated
and carbonized archaeological specimens, to a specific genus
and, hence, to compare them to other New World cereals.
Whether panicgrass or bristlegrass, these are both
common grasses found throughout the Everglades (e.g.,
Harshberger 1914; Small 1918, 1929). Many grasses, such
as Panicum/Setaria sp. are edible and were potentially used
as food in lean periods, if not more commonly collected (e.g.,
Moerman 1986, Swanton 1922, 1946) (Table 11). We have
recovered charred Panicum/Setaria sp. grains from precontact
sites on Horr’s Island in southwest Florida (Russo et al. 1991).
They also have been associated with hearths, suggesting their
potential precontact use. The preserved non-carbonized seed
from the midden area (FS 88.7) may reflect past plant use,
but requires further investigation. Potentially significant is the
relative abundance of Graminae pollen in Levels 6 through 8
of Unit 3, Trench 2, reported by Rich (2001, and Figure 14),
which are most abundant by percentage in those levels as well.
This abundance appears during the heaviest occupation at the
site and could reflect more than habitat data.
One small fragment of tentatively identified Cucurbitaceae
was recovered in FS 104.11 from the circle-ditch. This may
be the distal end of a bottle gourd seed (cf. Lagenaria sp.) and
is small. Gourds have been recovered from other precontact
contexts at Florida Gulf Coast sites, such as Key Marco,
Pineland (Old Mound), and Perico Island, and sites along the
St. Johns River (Austin et al. 2018; Gilliland 1975; Newsom
1987, 1994; Newsom and Scarry 2013). Few known wild
forms of this gourd exist, precluding comparative research
and specialized analysis of cultivation changes (Newsom
1987; Singh 1990:20-21; Singh and Dathan 1990). In Florida,
bottle gourds from archaeological sites are in need of further
research (e.g., Cutler 1975; Cutler and Blake 1976; Newsom
1987; Newsom and Scarry 2013).
As noted above, 9+ charred seed/nut shell remains (Indian
goosegrass, saw palmetto, cabbage palm, hickory, legume,
saw grass, skullcap, passion fruit, and a possible legume) were
recovered and 6+ genera represent water-saturated or modem
remains (cabbage palm, elderberry, sawgrass, peppervine,
Virginia creeper, rosemallow, and cucurbit). Table 11 indicates
that most charred plants had potential economic uses but may
not have been subsistence items. Many have medicinal uses
and are possible indirect indicators of disease and ailments that
could inform bioarchaeological research. Nevertheless, the
Sabal sp., Passiflora sp., Sambucus cf. canadensis, cf. Carya
sp., and the grasses Scirpus sp., Cladium sp., and Panicum/
Setaria sp. are edible resources. In addition, the indirect
evidence for Quercus sp. (oak), Vaccinium sp. (blueberry), and
Diospyros sp. (persimmon) make a wide array of collectible
and potentially managed foodstuffs.
Comments
Remains of no known cultivars were recovered. All
specimens that might have been used by native people at this
site appear to have been gathered from natural habitats in the
general vicinity. This may offer insight for future research
of possible plant husbandry in and around Lake Okeechobee.
Were Native American occupants of the site gatherers or did
they practice early stages of plant husbandry/manipulation
(e.g., grasses, cheno-ams, other species)?
The role of ditches and earthworks needs further attention
regarding possible horticultural practices in south Florida.
Grasses often have been considered food resources in lean
periods (Swanton 1922, 1946), but they might have been
an integral part of the diet in certain habitats. Grasses are
common in the area and were potential sources of vitamins
and other nutrients, and they had non-food uses.
Today in Florida, Eleusine indica (Indian goosegrass) is
known to be an introduced species (as perhaps is our Hibiscus
sp.) (Wunderlin 1998:106). Eleusine indica is an annual grass
from the Old World (Radford et al. 1964; Steyermark 1963)
and is an intrusive, non-native contaminant in precontact
period archaeological sites in the Eastern Woodlands (e.g.,
Hildebrand n.d.; Salimanth et al. 1995; Werth 1994).


91
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Table 11. Habitat and Potential Economic Uses Suggested for the Archaeobotanical Taxa Recovered at Whitebelt 1.
Scientific Taxon-Common Name
cw=charred wood; s=seed; p=other plant part
General Habitat
Possible Uses
Coniferales-C onifer (cw)
pine flatwoods
variable- fuel; wood- working, tannins,
resins; food-some bark
Pinus sp.-pine (cw)
pine flatwoods
variable-fuel, wood working, dugout canoes,
posts; tannins, resins; food-some bark, cones
Scirpus sp.
wetlands, swamps, seepage slopes, disturbed
areas, wet hammocks, wet pinelands, pond and
marsh edges; some species brackish to saline
coastal marshes
food-edible young shoots raw or cooked;
pollen and ground seed as flour
Cladium sp.
wetlands, swamps, brackish areas, bogs,
seepage slopes, marshes
food-edible young shoots-heart at base
of stem; basketry, stem used as medicine
blowing tube by Seminole, starvation/
survival food
Eleusine indica
disturbed habitats, introduced contact period
unknown
Setaria/Panicum sp.
flatwoods, sandhills, coastal hammocks,
disturbed wet habitats, swamps
food-edible kernels- considered by some as
starvation food source
Arecaceae (Palmae)-palm family (cw)
palm and hardwood hammocks, flatwoods
possible fuel
Sabal palmetto-cabbage palm (cw)
hammocks
food-edible fruit, terminal bud (cabbage-the
central bundles of leaf blades), pith, salt
source; fuel-wood, wood-working; fibers
Sabal sp.-palm (s, cw, p)
hammocks
same as above
Serenoa repens-saw palmetto (s, cw)
hammocks, low savannahs, disturbed settings
food-edible fruit and greens, terminal bud
edible; medicinal- for thyroid, infertility,
respiratory ailments, female tonic, prostate,
nerves and glands, digestion; fibers
Angiospermae-haidwood (cw, p)
semi-tropical and temperate hardwood
hammocks
variable -fuel, construction, food
Quercus cf. virginiana-live oak (cw)
hardwood hammocks and pine woodlands
food-edible nutmeats, seed oil for use in
cooking hominy or rice; wood-working,
gums, resins, fuel
Quercus sp.-oak (cw)
hardwood hammocks and pine woodlands
same as above
Acer sp.-maple (cw, p)
hardwood hammocks and pine woodlands
saps-glues; fuel, wood-working
Ampelopsis sp.(s)
floodplain forests, swamps, and hammocks
herb/spice
Parthenocissus sp.(s)
floodplain forests, swamps, and hammocks
medicinal?-leaf tea for poison sumac,
wounds; root tea diarrhea; berries toxic,
leaves possibly irritant
Hibiscus sp.
disturbed habitats, swamps, marshes,
hammocks
medicinal- mucilage in leaves and roots for
dysentery, lung, and urinary ailments
Passiflora sp.(s)
tropical hammocks, disturbed habitats, mesic
hammock, dry open hammocks (some species)
food-edible fruit; medicinal-flower infusion
with other plants used for insomnia
Vacinnium sp.-blueberry/sparkleberry (cw)
hardwood hammocks
food-edible berry; fuel wood
Diospyros sp.-persimmon (cw)
flatwoods, sandhills, and hammocks
food- edible fruit; fuel wood
Scutellaria sp. (s)
sandhills, disturbed habitats, flatwoods,
hammocks, dry bluff forests (some species)
medicinal-aerial parts in an infusion or
tincture for insomnia, anxiety; roots-
decoction used for gastric, chest and urinary
infections
Sambucus cf. canadensis (s)
wet open hammocks, floodplain, forests,
swamps, wet disturbed habitats
food-edible ripe fruit and flower-sauces,
wines, pectin high, high in Vitamin C and
A; medicinal-flowers used in teas, upper
respiratory ailments, anti-inflammatory;
leaves-ointments for bruises, sprains,
wounds; bark, constipation, arthritis
* Data compiled from Angier 1974; Ayensu 1981; Duke 1992; ENFO 1989; Foster and Duke 1990; Harshberger 1914; Haehle and Brookwell 1999; Fong 1974; Long and Lakela 1976;
Kurz and Godfrey 1993; Moerman 1986, 1998; Mohr 1896; Morton 1990; Mowrey 1986; Myers and Ewel 1991; Newsom 1987, 1988, 1989, 1994, 1999; Ody 1993; Peterson 1977;
Ruhl, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2001; Scarry 1985; Scarry and Newsom 1992; Small 1933; Swanton 1922, 1946; Tomlinson 1990; Wunderlin 1998).


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
92
Goosegrass grows in disturbed habitats and was
introduced to the Americas most likely via fodder during
early Spanish colonial explorations (Crosby 1972). It was
recovered archaeologically from 16th and 17th century Spanish
colonial contexts, such as at St. Augustine and St. Catherines
Island, Georgia (e.g., Reitz and Scarry 1985; Ruhl 1990,
1993). Escalante Fontaneda’s account (1945) and others (e.g.,
Connor 1923:205-206) attest to early contact in and around
the Lake Okeechobee area. Just how early this grass was
introduced is unknown.
Unlike the Hibiscus sp. seed remains, the Eleusine indica
seed was carbonized and suggests the possibility of a longer
presence in the soil (non-carbonized remains in such edaphic
settings and mesic habitats are very short lived). While both
were recovered from FS 87, the modem Hibiscus sp. seed may
be an incidental introduction from recent flowering plants,
while carbonized remains suggest an item remaining from
when the site was occupied. It also is possible that the burned
Indian goosegrass is the result of more recent bums. The
severe fires across eastern Florida in 1999 and 2000 might have
impacted the upper levels at the site, extending a level or two
below ground surface (FS 87 was recovered from a depth of
17 to 27 cmbs). This level appears to have been a transitional
zone containing both carbonized and non-carbonized remains
that might have migrated through the soil or were incidentally
included during excavation. Only one desiccated specimen
was recovered from deeper levels (FS 88) from the midden
area, where radiocarbon dates indicate site occupation from
ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 500 (Wheeler 2001a:2).
Faunal Analysis
Materials
Faunal materials came from the southern portion of the
site in the midden area. A column sample, measuring 50 x 50
cm for each 10 cm arbitrary level, was taken from Unit 11, in
Trench 1. Soil from each level was bagged and labeled, then
taken to the Archaeology Laboratory at the FAU Department
of Anthropology and water-screened through nested 4 mm, 2
mm, and 1 mm mesh sieves. Vertebrate remains from the 4
mm fraction were examined in this study.
Methods
Faunal analysis followed standard zooarchaeological
procedures (Quitmyer 1985; Reitz and Wing 2008). Specimens
were identified to the lowest taxon possible using comparative
collections in the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory
(EAL) at FLMNH and in the FAU Department of Anthropology.
For each specimen identified, a record was made of the bone
element represented, portion of element recovered (e.g.,
proximal, distal, and/or shaft), bilateral symmetry or side (right
or left), and any evidence of modification (burning, gnawing,
cutting, and/or polishing). Measurements were taken of all
identified ray-finned fish vertebrae (greatest medio-lateral
breadth of centrum) (Morales and Rosenlund 1979:44-45).
Using a skeletal dimensional allometric formula derived
from this same measurement taken on a series of modem
comparative specimens (Appendix H), the size range of the
fish represented was estimated (Casteel 1976:95-102; Reitz et
al. 1987; Wing and Brown 1979:127-129).
Quantification of faunal materials included a count of the
total number of fragments identified for each taxon (number of
identified specimens, NISP), estimates of the minimum number
of individuals (MNI) represented by the remains, weights of all
identified specimens, and estimates of the minimum amount of
usable meat weight provided by identified specimens.
All specimens were counted with the exception of
unidentified ray-finned fish remains and unidentified
vertebrate fragments, but these were included in the weights of
the remains. MNI determinations were based on the concept
of paired elements, axial elements, and individual size. Bone
weights were recorded of all identified specimens. These
weights, in turn, were converted into estimates of edible meat
by using skeletal mass allometric formulas generated from
weights taken on a series of modem comparative specimens
at EAL, FLMNH (Appendix I). In this study, estimation of
the relative abundance of each taxon was based on MNI and
minimum usable meat weight estimates.
Results
A total of 52 vertebrate taxa was identified. In general,
similar taxa were represented in the upper versus lower strata,
with the upper stratum having greater faunal diversity. In the
upper stratum, 48 taxa were identified, whereas 37 taxa were
recorded for the lower stratum. The greater number of taxa in
the upper layer is likely due to larger sample size. Differences
included pickerel, black crappie, mullet, lizard, box turtle,
chicken turtle, gopher tortoise, pied-billed grebe, opossum,
shrew, and rice rat exclusively in the upper stratum. Herring,
hardhead catfish, and gray fox were only in the lower stratum.
Fish and reptiles were the two most abundant classes
represented at Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch in terms of MNI and
minimum usable meat weight estimates. Fish constituted
55% of the total MNI and 28% of the total estimated meat
contribution. Reptiles (turtles, lizards, snakes, and alligator)
represented 23% of the MNI and 43% estimated meat
contribution. Amphibians, mammals, and birds were less
important, ranging from 2% to 11% of the MNI and from 1%
to 18% of the total minimum usable meat estimates in the
faunal assemblage.
Appendix J presents a list of taxa represented, comparing
upper versus lower strata, and their quantification. Table 12
gives summary tabulations, comparing total NISP, MNI, bone
weight, and meat weight calculations by vertebrate class for
the entire assemblage.
Descriptions of Taxa
Nearly all fishes identified are typically found in fresh
water and still occur in the lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams
of south Florida (Dineen 1984; Lee et al. 1980; Loftus and
Kushlan 1987; Page and Burr 1991). The most common fish


93
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Table 12. Zooarchaeology Totals by Vertebrate Class for Whitebelt 1, upper and lower strata combined (Levels 1 -10).
CLASS
NISP
NISP%
MNI
MNI%
Weight (g)
Weight0/»
Meat Weight (g)
Meat Wt%
Chondrichthyes
(Cartilaginous Fishes)
24
0.36
2
1.65
5.21
1.05
...
...
Actinopterygii
(Ray-Finned Fishes)
2830
42.18
66
54.55
132.84
26.85
2709.60
27.92
Amphibia (Amphibians)
165
2.46
10
8.26
15.90
3.21
1683.82
17.35
Reptilia* (Reptiles)
3419
50.95
28
23.14
276.35
55.85
4166.10
42.92
Aves (Birds)
5
0.07
2
1.65
0.49
0.10
11.53
0.12
Mammalia (Mammals)
267
3.98
13
10.74
64.05
12.94
1135.23
11.07
TOTALS
6710
100.00
121
100.00
494.84
100.00
9706.28
100.00
* Lizard and alligator not included in meat weight estimates.
in terms of MNI and minimum usable meat weight estimates
were gar {Lepisosteus spp.), bowfin {Amia calva), and North
American freshwater catfishes (Ictaluridae). The Florida gar
{Lepisosteus platyrhincus) is the most common species of gar
found in south Florida today (Dineen 1984:264; Loftus and
Kushlan 1987:180-182), though archaeological specimens
were identifiable only to the genus level. Likewise, several
species of freshwater catfishes are found in south Florida
(Dineen 1984:26-264; Loftus and Kushlan 1987:193-197), but
specimens could be identified only to the family level.
Several genera and species of the sunfish family
(Centrarchidae) were represented. Largemouth bass
{Micropterus salmoides) is the largest centrarchid in south
Florida (Dineen 1984:261; Loftus and Kushlan 1987:245) and
is still an important and popular sport and food fish today (Lee
etal. 1980:608; McClane 1978a:136). Black cmppie {Pomoxis
nigromaculatus) is also a popular freshwater panfish (McClane
1978a: 133). Red-ear sunfish {Lepomis microlophus), or shell-
cracker, has highly developed grinding teeth in its throat,
which are used for crushing snails, its favorite food (McClane
1978a:129-130; Thompson 1985:154-155).
Several freshwater fish infrequently represented include
pickerel {Esox spp.), lake chubsucker {Erimyzon sucetta),
and herring (Clupeidae). Although most herring species are
typically marine, two freshwater species occasionally occur
in south Florida’s lakes and rivers, where they travel in dense
schools (Dineen 1984; Lee et al. 1980:69-70; Loftus and
Kushlan 1987:185-187; Page and Burr 1991:35-36; Thompson
1985:35-37).
Several kinds of marine/brackish water fish were
represented among the faunal remains, though by only a
few specimens. Mullet {Mugil spp.), represented by two
vertebrae, was in the upper stratum. This fish enters coastal
rivers and may ascend fresh water for considerable distances
(Lee et al. 1980:779; Loftus and Kushlan 1987:264; McClane
1978b:265-266). Several cranial elements of hardhead catfish
{Ariopsis felis) were in the lower stratum. Although common
in Florida’s bays and estuaries, this species can tolerate a
wide salinity range and may enter fresh water in south Florida
(Lee et al. 1980:476; Loftus and Kushlan 1987:200; McClane
1978b:83-84).
The remains indicate that the fish caught by native people
varied in size, though the majority were small, suggesting that
they probably were taken en masse in nets. Vertebral breadths
of identified specimens ranged from 1.4 to 10.0 mm (Figure
16 and Table 13). Using a skeletal dimensional allometric
formula, these measurements translated into approximate
live weights of 28.9 g (1.02 oz) to 1.62 kg (3.57 lbs). Fishing
might have been in the nearby slough or Everglades southwest
of the site.
Several shark (Carcharhiniformes) teeth were too broken
to enable more precise identification. These teeth were
probably brought from the coast for eventual use as tools or
ornamental items. The absence of vertebrae may indicate that
shark meat was not part of the diet of Whitebelt 1 inhabitants.
Reptiles were overwhelmingly represented by turtles
and snakes. Turtle remains include carapace and plastron
fragments as well as cranial and postcranial skeletal elements.
Both fresh water and terrestrial turtles were identified. Fresh
water species are snapping {Chelydra serpentina), cooters/
sliders (Emydidae), Florida softshell {Apalone ferox), chicken
{Deirochelys reticularia), and mud {Kinosternon spp.) turtles.
Terrestrial turtles consisted of gopher tortoise {Gopherus
polyphemus) and box turtle {Terrapene Carolina). Turtles can
be caught in fishing nets or traps and collected by hand (Hale
1989:185).
Snake remains were numerous, constituting 36% of
NISP and 20% of the estimated minimum usable meat weight
contribution in the overall faunal assemblage. They consisted
of vertebrae and cranial elements. The most common snakes
represented were water snakes {Nerodia spp.). Other snakes
were mud snake {Farancia abacura) and the poisonous Florida
cottonmouth {Agkistrodon piscivorus). Snakes might have
been captured in fishing nets and/or clubbed with sticks (Hale


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
94
Figure 16. Number of Ray-Finned Fish Vertebrae by Size Class (n=369)
Taxon
Number of
Vertebra
Size Range (mm)
Estimated Total Body
Weight (g)
Lepisosteus spp.
88
2.1 -6.6
66.3 - 691.2
Amia calva
65
2.7-10.0
110.9-1618.1
Clupeidae
1
3.2
157.1
Erimyzon sucetta
3
3.2-3.6
157.1 - 199.9
Ictaluridae
18
2.4-5.6
87.2 -493.8
Siluriformes
1
5.4
458.4
Esox sp.
1
2.6
102.7
Mugil sp.
1
3.7
211.4
Lepomis spp.
165
1.4-4.3
28.9 -287.6
Micropterus salmoides
26
2.2-5.5
72.9 -475.9
TOTAL
369
Table 13. Ray-Finned Fish Size Estimates Based on Vertebral Breadth Measurements, Whitebelt 1.
1989:184). The large quantity of snake remains in association
with other subsistence remains strongly indicates that such
animals were intentionally exploited, presumably for food
(Fradkin 1978, 2004), and that they were part of the diet of
Whitebelt 1 inhabitants. Other kinds of reptiles represented,
though in much smaller quantities, include lizard (Lacertilia)
and American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis).
Amphibian remains include those of salamanders,
namely greater siren (Siren lacertina) and two-toed amphiuma
(Amphiuma means), and frogs (Rana spp.). Salamanders
might have been caught in fishing nets or by baited hook,
whereas frogs can be netted, speared, or collected by hand.
Mammals were represented by a relatively small number
of bone remains. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
was the largest mammal identified in the faunal assemblage.
Medium-sized mammals include opossum (Didelphis
virginiana) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Both
animals were probably clubbed or snared, whereas deer were
most likely hunted with spears.
An adult human (Homo sapiens) tooth was in Level 2. It
was a left lower premolar, very worn and also burnt.
Only one kind of bird was represented, the Pied-billed
grebe (Podilymbus podiceps). It is a small diving bird and
year-round resident in south Florida (Robertson and Kushlan
1984).
Modification of vertebrate remains consisted of burning
of a number of specimens. This evidence may be a result of
cooking practices and/or burning trash.


95
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Other Glades Period Everglades Sites
The Whitebelt 1 site is at the northeast edge of the
Everglades, and its zooarchaeological assemblage can be
compared to faunal remains from other coeval Everglades sites
in southeast Florida. Sites selected here for comparison are
Sheridan Hammock (8BD191) and Guy Bailey (8DA4752).
Both are interior sites on tree islands in the Everglades. These
sites are compared for the presence or absence of particular
animal taxa (Appendix K) and for the relative abundance
of taxa based on MNI and edible meat weight or biomass
estimations.
Sheridan Hammock (8BD191). Sheridan Hammock is in
southeastern Broward County in an area that was formerly part
of the eastern Everglades. The site is a black earth midden on
a former small tree island rise. Ceramics support a Glades
Illa-IIIb period habitation (A.D. 1200 to 1513) (Carr et al.
1994; Johnson et al. 1996). The cultural materials recovered
indicate that this was a campsite used primarily for subsistence
resource procurement. The density of the midden suggests
that the site was reoccupied over a period of years. Small
groups of people might have used this location as a short-term
stopover while traveling through the Everglades or they might
have occupied the site for more extended periods, possibly
on a seasonal basis, alternating with occupation of the coast
(Johnson et al. 1996).
The faunal assemblage analyzed came from a column
sample, measuring 50 x 50 cm for each 10 cm arbitrary level,
excavated in the most concentrated portion of the midden.
This sample was processed by flotation and divided into three
fractions: 6.4 mm (1/4 in), 3.2 mm (1/8 in), and 1.6 mm (1/16
in), which corresponds to three different size nested screens in
the flotation barrel (Johnson et al. 1996).
The zooarchaeological assemblage at Sheridan Hammock
indicates a subsistence economy focused primarily on local
fresh water resources. Fish and reptiles were the two most
abundant classes in terms of MNI and usable meat weight
estimations. Fish constituted 50% of total MNI and 44%
edible meat weight. Reptiles represented 36% MNI and 46%
meat weight. Amphibians, mammals, and birds were far less
important, each representing less than 7% of the total MNI
and usable meat in the total sample (Fradkin 1996). The most
common fish were gar, bowfin, and several genera and species
of the sunfish family. Reptiles included fresh water turtles,
such as snapping, mud, cooter/slider, and Florida softshell. Of
significance is the relatively large quantity of snake remains,
which constituted 23% of the estimated meat contribution of
the total assemblage (Fradkin 2004).
Guy Bailey (8DA4752). The Guy Bailey site is a small
black dirt midden on an Everglades tree island in northern
Miami-Dade County. Based on ceramics, the site dates to
the Glades Ila-llb periods (A.D. 750 to 1100) and represents
a short-term camp or resource procurement locus (Keel
1990:48,53,57).
Faunal remains were recovered from a single test unit
and were screened through 3.2 mm (1/8 inch) and 1.6 mm
(1/16 inch) mesh. Fresh water fish and reptiles predominated
in the zooarchaeological assemblage and species exploited
were similar to those at Sheridan Hammock. At Guy Bailey,
fish constituted 62% of the MNI and 36% of the biomass,
and reptiles contributed 22% MNI and 56% biomass. Snake
remains were abundant, accounting for approximately 28% of
the total estimated biomass (Keel 1990:53-56, 99).
Whitebelt 1 and Other Interior Everglades Sites
A comparison of faunal assemblages from these three
Everglades sites provides further insight into subsistence
patterns among Glades peoples in south Florida. At these
interior sites, inhabitants focused on local fresh water
resources.
The faunal assemblage at Whitebelt 1 is similar to those
from Sheridan Hammock and Guy Bailey, though Whitebelt 1
had greater diversity. At Whitebelt 1, 52 taxa were identified,
whereas 48 taxa were recorded for Sheridan Hammock and 36
taxa for Guy Bailey. Whitebelt 1 had a greater variety of fresh
water fish, and several more terrestrial taxa were represented,
though minimally, among the predominantly aquatic remains.
At all three interior sites, several remains of sharks and one
or two kinds of marine/brackish fish were represented, and
snakes constituted a significant percentage of the total faunal
assemblage.
The faunal assemblages from these sites do not provide
substantive information about seasonal or year-round
occupation. It has been suggested that pre-Columbian people
might have migrated between coastal and interior locales to
take advantage of seasonally available resources (Milanich
1994:310). Such conclusions cannot yet be supported or
negated by the available zooarchaeological evidence.
Thus, the faunal assemblage at the Whitebelt 1 Circle-
Ditch site indicates a hunter-fisher foraging subsistence
economy focused on the procurement and use of locally
available fresh water and terrestrial animal resources. The
site inhabitants fished and collected turtles and snakes in the
nearby freshwater sloughs and Everglades marsh and hunted
deer and captured smaller land animals in adjacent wooded
areas. Available faunal data do not provide substantive
evidence about the seasons in which the site was occupied
as the animals represented can be found in southeast Florida
year-round.
Artist’s Conception
We asked archaeologist and artist Merald Clark to
produce an artist’s conception of the Whitebelt 1 Circle-
Ditch. Figure 17 is Clark’s reconstruction, including the
pine flatwoods of the Loxahatchee Scarp, adjacent marsh of
the Everglades, the water-filled circle-ditch, and the higher
ground of the horseshoe-shaped enclosure with several
higher mounded areas, which might have been the focus of
occupation. The people and canoes give a sense of scale. The
trails and footpaths were inspired by camps and villages of the
Seminole. Clark’s artwork also has been used in interpretive
materials at the DuPuis Environmental Area.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
96
Figure 17. Reconstruction of Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch by Merald Clark.
Discussion
Remaining questions involve the relationship of
the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch to neighboring sites on the
Loxahatchee Scarp and the broader implications of circle-
ditch sites in south Florida.
Loxahatchee Scarp Sites
Earthworks are prominent features along the Loxahatchee
Scarp. Of the seven known sites shown in Figure 1 of this
article, four have earthworks. Both Big Gopher (8PB6292)
and Whitebelt 2 earthworks (8PB221) have sand mounds
surrounded by crescent-shaped embankments, with paired
linear earthworks emanating from them. Johnson’s
(1996:253, 257) typology would classify both of these as
linear embankment sites. They also have associated middens,
suggesting a residential aspect. Similar sites are widespread
in the area around Lake Okeechobee (Carr 1985; Hale 1984,
1989; Johnson 1996). Big Mound City (8PB48) has crescent
and linear earthworks on a more massive scale, with paired
linear earthworks and mounds radiating from a large, crescent¬
shaped earthwork, and a residential midden is present.
Big Mound City (Figure 18) is on the scale of other large
earthwork and mound complexes in the Lake Okeechobee area,
like Big Tony’s Mound, Ortona, and Fort Center (e.g., Carr
et al. 1995; Hale 1984, 1989; Johnson 1996). These would
be Type B circular-linear earthworks in Johnson’s (1996:253,
256) typology. The implication of previous work is that each
earthwork form has temporal significance (Johnson 1996:258-
259), though without radiocarbon dates to support this, it is
possible that these sites are part of a coeval settlement pattern.
Chronology of the Loxahatchee Scarp earthwork sites is
poorly known and few radiometric dates have been obtained.
Willey’s (1949:73-77) discussion of the 1930s excavation of
Big Mound City indicates that many of the mounds did not
produce artifacts, though Mound 4, the oblong midden, had
pottery, chert flakes, and balls of clay. Collections from Mound
9 indicate a late Glades occupation (post A.D. 1000) (Willey
1949:76). Recently, Lawres and Colvin (2017) present four
radiocarbon dates from Big Mound City’s midden-mound,
three of which cluster around cal A.D. 100 to 200. Limited test
excavations at Whitebelt 3/Mound House (8PB222) produced
sherds of Belle Glade Plain and St. Johns Plain, and one sherd
of St. Johns Check Stamped, suggesting a post A.D. 900-1000
date (cf. Austin 1996; Wheeler 2000a). Further work at the
Loxahatchee Scarp sites could determine their chronological
relationship.
The Loxahatchee Scarp site group may resemble site
clustering in other localities. At Fort Center, the circle-ditch
is close to the main earthwork and mound site. In several
cases, circle-ditches are in close proximity, but not considered
part of, other earthwork sites. It may be useful to compare
other clusters of sites. Perhaps the site clusters represent
different temporal occupations within a particular locality
spanning several centuries or longer. Alternatively, they could
represent different kinds of sites that were occupied at the
same time, perhaps for different purposes. Milner and O’Shea
(1998:198-199) have argued that earthwork enclosure sites in
northern lower Michigan are not defensive or ceremonial in
nature, but rather represent rendezvous points for interregional
exchange systems.


97
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
BIG MOUND CITY (8PB48)
J. W. CORBETT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA
1
//
!i
Inholding Owners:
A A Rocking Corp. et al.
B J. L. Daughtrey
C L. Hardin
D R. Rhoden
E C. Duffy
F C. Duffy
G J. M. Rhoden
H R. Churey
I C. Schnabel & J. C. Swilley
J R. L Daughtrey
K L. D. Daughtrey
L R. G. Beane
TOWNSHIP 41S; RANGE 39E; SECTION 30
SHOWING GOVERNMENT LOTS AND INHOLDINGS
CA.R.L. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
1997
FEET
Figure 18. Plan of Big Mound City (8PB48). From Wheeler and Newman (1997).
Other Circle-Ditches
Comparison of Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch to other circle-
ditches in south Florida reveals considerable variation. In
general, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch is similar in size and
configuration to the majority of circle-ditches. Aerial
photographs and reported site visits make it possible to
identify a number of variables that can be compared. These
variables include completeness of circle, diameter, presence
or absence of berms, association with other site components
(e.g., mounds, middens, other earthworks), proximity to
other sites, and environmental setting. Many of these were
addressed in data compiled by Cummings and Luer (1996),
as discussed earlier in this article. Two elements that seem
important in understanding the archaeology of circle-ditches
are their placement adjacent to natural water bodies and their
association with other sites (including other circle-ditches).
As already noted, many of the circle-ditch sites (n = 13, or
76%) are adjacent to rivers, lakes, marshes and sloughs. This
suggests that the ditches might have been functional, designed
to control water so that habitation could occur in these watery
locales.
Broader Patterns of Earthworks and Circle-Ditches
South Florida’s earthworks often elicit comparison to
Hopewell and Adena earthworks in other parts of the Southeast
and Midwest (Hall 1976:360-361; Luer 1995:304; Milanich
and Fairbanks 1980:182; Sears 1982:6, 145-147; Thompson
and Pluckhahn 2012, 2014). There are some similarities,
especially the earthen or shell enclosures surrounding
mounds. Circular enclosures appear to be a common element
of Hopewellian architecture (Mainfort and Sullivan 1998),
and similar structures are known from Middle Woodland sites
in Florida, including Crystal River and Fort Center (Bullen
1953:10, 12; Sears 1982:6, 145-147).


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
98
Typically, these structures are earthen berms that enclose
mounds or other ceremonial features. These enclosures,
however, do not typically have ditches.
Circle-ditch sites and other large crescent-linear
earthworks are often much larger than enclosure
embankments, but do seem to be related patterns of site layout
and architecture. Circle-ditch and crescent-linear earthworks
often are associated with habitation and mound features, as
well as borrows. Mainfort and Sullivan’s 1998 book Ancient
Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands illustrates the
diversity and extent of earthwork building traditions. The
contributing authors discuss many of the possible functions
and interpretations for such earthworks.
Comparison to some of these other sites could be useful in
interpreting south Florida’s circle-ditches. It is clear, however,
that environmental and cultural differences make comparisons
like this unwise at this point. Considering the limited research
into the archaeology of circle-ditch and crescent-linear
earthwork sites in Florida, it is probably best to acknowledge
south Florida as the center of another earthwork-building
tradition. Future studies of circle-ditch and crescent-linear
earthworks in south Florida may be able to draw comparisons
to other earthwork building traditions, but first we must
address questions of chronology, geographic distribution, and
the role of earthworks within sites and as parts of larger site
groups or clusters.
The horseshoe-shaped ridge component at Whitebelt
1, which contains the midden discussed above, is similar
to crescent-shaped hammock components at Big Gopher
(8PB6293), Whitebelt 2 (8PB221), and to some extent at
Whitebelt 3/Mound House (8PB222). The origin of these
ridges or islands is not clear. Are they natural features or
partially anthropogenic? The large size of some suggests they
may be natural features.
Similar crescent-shaped islands occur farther south in the
Everglades. The Madden Hammock site (8DA45) in Miami-
Dade County is described as a crude crescent, opening to the
southeast and east (Laxson 1957; Luer 2006:255, Appendix
I). A considerable midden deposit and “temple mound” occur
on the island. Goggin (1949:159-160) discusses the shape of
Madden Hammock, which he describes as 213 m (700 ft) long,
61 m (200 ft) wide, and 2.1 to 2.4 m (7 to 8 ft) high. Geologist
Gerald Parker suggested to Goggin in 1947 that these crescent¬
shaped Everglades island ridges were dune remnants formed
during low water periods of the late Wisconsin glaciation of
the Pleistocene Epoch.
Other sites in south Florida are associated with barchan
(crescent-shaped) dune formations. In southwest Florida, sites
occur on huge relic dunes on Horr’s Island, around Barfield
Bay (Lee et al. 1997; Russo et al. 1991). In coastal Palm
Beach County, the Jupiter Inlet 2 site (8PB35) and Riviera site
(8PB30) are on relic dunes (Wheeler et al. 2002:134-136, 138-
139). Considering the large size of the crescent-shaped islands
in the Loxahatchee Scarp area, this explanation makes sense.
Fort Center, Monumental Landscapes, Ritual,
and Circle-Ditch Sites
Recently, Pluckhahn and Thompson (2012) and Thompson
and Pluckhahn (2012, 2014) have revisited Fort Center and
dispensed with assertions for maize agriculture at the site.
This is significant, since most prior discussions of Belle Glade
earthworks began or ended with considerations of maize
agriculture. Also, they have used a multidisciplinary approach
to look at how the site’s creators modified the landscape. They
provide interesting ethnographic and archaeological analogy
to the Amazon, where earthworks also were constructed.
Based on archaeological and archaeobotanical evidence
they postulate a correlation between the use of fire for forest
clearing and the construction of the earliest earthworks (the
circle-ditches) at Fort Center (Thompson and Pluckhahn
2014:174). They suggest that Fort Center supported a larger
population than previously thought, based on time and
labor involved in creating the earthworks and evidence for
prolonged occupation. Thompson and Pluckhahn (2014:176-
177) conclude that earthworks and mounds at Fort Center
were multipurpose and that ideas and uses of these features
likely changed over time.
Regarding the Great Circle, they state that the function
was to control water. They say that it likely combined both
functional and symbolic elements, perhaps providing fish
during floods and helping to control water, and also expressing
beliefs related to water, water-control, and spaces for rituals
and ritual specialists. Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012:62-
63) discuss the symbolic and ritual aspects of the Fort Center
Great Circle in terms of “an event or rupture,” citing the
article “Eventful Archaeology” (Beck et al. 2007). That is,
construction of a massive ditch might have been something
new, something that altered the environment, with possible
changes in society and ritual, with impacts on the future.
Many of these ideas are supported at Whitebelt 1 Circle-
Ditch. We found considerable charcoal as well as an increase
in charcoal over time, perhaps associated with large-scale
fires as well as habitation. Our dates place the Whitebelt
1 Circle-Ditch within the same early time period, and our
topographic study identified small mounds, including one rise
in the center of the circle. Like the middens at Fort Center, in
proximity to the Great Circle, the dates and material culture at
Whitebelt 1 indicate a multicomponent site with a long period
of occupation.
Whitebelt 1 artifacts, especially the ceramics and Hernando
type bifaces, are like those recovered during excavations at the
Great Circle Ditch component of the Fort Center site in Glades
County (see Baker and Milanich 1967; Sears 1982). Close
examination of the Fort Center excavations and reading of the
field report by Baker and Milanich (1967) indicate that the
Great Circle at Fort Center, like the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch,
probably dates to the Glades I early period, ca. 500 B.C. to
A.D.500.
Recently, Lawres (2017) proposed an ontological model
for understanding monumental sites in the Lake Okeechobee
Basin. His model is based on three major themes, namely


99
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
relatedness, circularity, and place-centeredness. While one
may raise an eyebrow at models based on alignments, Lawres’
ideas resonate with our observations at Whitebelt 1 Circle-
Ditch and the work of Thompson and Pluckhahn at Fort Center.
Macro- and Microbotanical Considerations
It is not often that both macrobotanical and microbotanical
data come from a Florida site. These two data sets are not
expected to be directly equivalent or comparable. While
microbotanical and macrobotanical samples were not taken
from exactly the same loci and depths, they were very close.
Pollen samples from the midden all contained charcoal,
which also was reflected in the macrobotanical remains
(Appendix G). The amount of pine wood in our samples
suggests that the area had extensive pine flatwoods. Pollen
data support pine pollen rain through all levels sampled.
Unfortunately, we cannot differentiate among the many species
of southern hard pine, which would provide a more refined
picture of the landscape (see Richardson 1998 for this genus’
biogeography and Walker 2000 for a discussion of longleaf [R
palustris] and slash pine [R elliotti\ range).
The pollen profile from the midden’s Unit 10 indicates a
change in hydroperiod or landcover around the 100 cm level.
This is likely due to initial occupation of the site and attendant
changes in plant communities. Pollen remains (41 taxa) from
the circle-ditch reflect a wet habitat. Both microbotanical and
macrobotanical remains reveal a greater diversity of species
than in the midden, albeit macrobotanical remains are fewer
(15+ taxa). Charred remains of wood and seeds reveal that
upland mesic hammock was exploited, and artifacts in the
ditch sediments reveal that these were likely from run-off
or human-related activities. Minimally, five arboreal pollen
types (Acer rubrum, Liquidambar sp., Magnolia sp., Myrica
sp., and Quercus sp.) represent broad-leaved hammock trees,
and charred wood (Acer sp., Quercus sp., Diospyros sp.,
Quercus sp., Quercus virginiana, and Vacinnium sp.) adds a
few more taxa. They each have potential important economic
uses (Table 11). The presence of charred wood throughout
the levels sampled is an indicator of potential anthropogenic
associations, especially given absences of the same taxa from
the pollen record.
One conspicuous difference between the microbotanical
and macrobotanical assemblages is the presence of charred
seeds that tend to have some economic use, versus plant
species recorded in the pollen record that do not tend to have
economic uses. This potentially reveals the environmental
versus cultural implications of these remains. For example, if
some of the plants were brought to the site from other areas,
they may not be in the pollen record.
Another difference is the presence of Chenopodiaceae-
Amaranthaceae pollen and the absence of seeds from these
families. This group of plants is among those known as “camp
followers,” and include some of the earliest manipulated seeds
in the southeastern United States, referred to as the “eastern
agricultural complex” (e.g., Fritz 1993, 1997; Gremillion
1993; Scarry 2003; Smith 1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1987, 1992;
Smith and Cowen 1987). The presence of pollen at 70 cmbs
with a high relative abundance in upper levels (especially L-5
through L-7) likely indicates anthropogenic presence.
Radiocarbon dates from the circle-ditch Levels 6 through
8 date to ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 500 (Wheeler 2001a: 4), well
after the appearance of domesticated Chenopodium and other
plants (e.g., Iva sp.) of the starchy seed complex in the broader
southeastern United States. Thus far, in Florida precontact
sites, we have not seen any evidence for domestication or
even quasi-domestication where these genera have been
identified, though our samples are very small and often have
come from coastal sites (see Ruhl 2000 for a discussion on
this topic). It is significant to consider the potential role of
these plants in Florida. That is, why was the ditch built, and if
for hydrological/horticultural purposes, were these among the
plants used? Whether or not they reflect early stages of human
manipulation and cultivation or merely disturbance is not
known and requires archaeobotanical remains for evaluation.
Available data suggest they were not intentionally planted,
but this may be a misconception associated with differential
preservation and sampling.
Directions for Further Research
More fieldwork is needed to address questions about
circle-ditches and other earthworks in south Florida. Do all of
the circle-ditches date to the Glades 1 early period? Do circle-
ditches represent the earliest earthworks in south Florida?
What contributed to their construction and how did they
influence the building of other earthworks known throughout
the region?
Widmer (1988) has argued that the Calusa (or their
ancestors) were organized as a chiefdom by about A.D. 800,
but dating long-distance canoe canals and circle-ditches
suggests there was considerable social organization hundreds
of years before this (e.g., Carr et al. 2002). Centralized know¬
how and the ability to harness labor allowed people to create
earthworks. The spatial distribution of circle-ditches (like
canals and other earthworks) suggests an approach to south
Florida that crosses our perceived cultural boundaries.
In terms of Lawres’ (2017) ontological model, more dates
and survey work to locate sites is needed. The Calusa received
attention early on (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964), which has
continued, but it is difficult to understand the Calusa outside
the broader context of south Florida in its entirety. The
presence of exotic materials at Whitebelt 1, such as shark
teeth, chipped stone tools, and pumice, point to connections
throughout the region that need more attention. For years
we tended to think that there were few stone tools in south
Florida, but now we have evidence for lithic technology at
Fort Center (Austin 1997, 2015), the Miami Circle (Austin
2004), Ritta Island (Mount 2009), and Whitebelt 1, to name a
few. Austin (1997:595-600) has made an extensive argument
for inter-regional exchange in stone, shell, and shark teeth as a
factor in the development of the Belle Glade Culture.
The relationship between long-distance canoe canals and
circle-ditches is worth considering as well. In many ways,


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
100
they represent similar constructions focused on controlling
and modifying water, and ultimately, a means for travel and
transport. Are circle-ditches, which may be earlier than canals,
the source for some of the technological knowledge needed to
build canals?
Finally, a multidisciplinary approach is productive. We
learned from a combined palynological and archaeobotanical
investigation, and more studies using both approaches would
be productive in assessing past environments and the life-
cycles of circle-ditches and canals.
Conclusion
Mapping and testing of the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch site in
1999 and 2000 indicate that the site is over 275 m in diameter,
with the circular ditch describing 295 degrees of a full circle.
The ditch is 18 to 20 m across, with no evident banks or berms.
The center of the circle-ditch channel ranges from 30 to 70 cm
deep. Test excavations indicate that the ditch has been filled
in by the erosion of sandy soils and the build-up of organic
debris, and that the ditch originally had a maximum depth of
1.2 to 1.5 m. Cultural materials include ceramics typical of
the region, posthole features, lithic artifacts, modified shark
teeth, zooarchaeological remains (e.g., bone and mollusk
shell), as well as macrobotanical (e.g., seed, nut, wood) and
microbotanical (e.g., pollen, spore, algal cyst) remains.
Plant remains from the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch site
provide no evidence of cultivated species nor large enough
quantities of seed remains to look for morphometric or
anatomical hints at quasi-cultivation. It appears that an
opportunistic plant gathering strategy was employed through
time and that plant resources were obtained from multiple
habitats. Fresh water animal resources (especially bony
fishes, turtles, and snakes) dominated the faunal assemblage.
Future testing should include a more comprehensive strategy
to recover archaeobiological samples for a fuller evaluation of
the function of the site’s circle-ditch.
Notes
1. The DuPuis family of Miami acquired the western portion
of the property in 1955 and the eastern portion in 1972. The
property was managed as the White Belt Ranch, named
for a black and white breed of cattle. Groves of fruit trees
were planted along Kanner Highway in the late 1950s. The
1960s saw the construction of several buildings, cattle tanks,
additional roads and firebreaks, and an airplane landing strip.
John G. DuPuis, Jr. died in 1984. His widow, Susan DuPuis,
sold the property to the South Florida Water Management
District in 1986. The property has been managed as the DuPuis
State Forest, DuPuis Reserve, and DuPuis Environmental
Area, but is now managed as the DuPuis Management Area
(historical sketch based on information from the South Florida
Water Management District and informant interviews, also see
David 1991).
2. In 1902, the Southern States Land and Timber Company
acquired a large portion of the DuPuis area from the State of
Florida. The Hungryland Trail crossed the area soon after.
The massive St. Lucie Canal was constructed on the area’s
northern border in 1915, and Kanner Highway was built in the
1920s. Some logging occurred on the property in the 1930s.
The Chastain Ranch held much of the area by the mid-1940s,
when many roads and drainage ditches were constructed. The
L-8 Levee Canal, on the property’s southern border, was built
in 1954 as part of the Everglades drainage program.
Acknowledgments
For editing this paper, we acknowledge George Luer,
Dorothy Block, and Robert Austin. We thank George Luer
and Mindy Cummings for their data on southern Florida
circle-ditches, Jim Dunbar for examination of lithic artifacts,
and archaeologists Jim Pepe and Harry Iceland for assistance
in the field.
We acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the
following members of the Southeast Florida Archaeological
Society and Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, who volunteered their time in the field: Thor
and Grace Larsen, Joanne Talley, Scott Olsen, Jim Wright,
Phyllis Rundell, Gloria Fike, Ruth and Ernie Dumas, Sonya
Gray, Sally McKeigh, Caroline Duncan, Teresita Beebe,
Sylvia Ansay, Clare-Rue Morgan, Lucille Rights-Murtough,
Ted Lukas, and Anne Reynolds. Without the help of these
volunteers, the project could not have been done!
FAU graduate students Victor Longo and Heather Norby
assisted with collection and processing of the faunal samples.
We greatly appreciate the assistance of Drs. Elizabeth
Wing and Kitty Emery, who allowed access to the FLMNH
zooarchaeological comparative collection and provided
laboratory space as faunal and floral specimens were identified.
University of Florida student interns are thanked for helping
to process floral samples; they include Ben Burkley and Laura
Bresinski.
We are grateful to South Florida Water Management
District personnel Bert Trammel and Darla Fousek, who
helped with fieldwork and provided financial support for
this project. We would like to thank Wm. Jerald Kennedy,
who inspired this project and encouraged his students and
colleagues to investigate sites in our own backyard!


101
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
REFERENCES CITED
Austin, Robert J.
1993The Royce Mound: Middle Woodland Exchange
and Mortuary Customs in South Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 46(4):291-309.
1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and
Subsistence Data from the Kissimmee River Valley: *
Archaeological Evidence for Belle Glade Occupation.
The Florida Anthropologist 49(2):65-87.
1997 The Economics of Lithic-Resource Use In South-
Central Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
2004 Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Miami Circle
Excavations at Brickell Point. The Florida Anthropologist
57(l-2):85-131.
2015 The Ritual Uses of Lithic Raw Materials During the
Woodland Period, Fort Center, Southern Florida. Journal of
Field Archaeology 40(4):413-427.
Austin, Robert J., and Richard Estabrook
2000 Chert Distribution and Exploitation in Peninsular
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3): 116-130.
Austin, Robert J., Brad Lanning, Geoff DuChemin,
Kristina Altes, and Lee A. Newsom
2018 Perico Island Revisited. Paper presented May 12
at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological
Society, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Baker, Henry A., and Jerald T. Milanich
1967 Excavations at Ft. Center, Glades County, Florida.
On file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida Division
of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Beck, Robin A., Jr., Douglas J. Bolender, James A. Brown,
and Timothy K. Earle
2007 Eventful Archaeology. Current Anthropology
48(6):833-860.
Block, Dorothy
2011 Prehistoric Ceramic Analysis. In The Boyer Survey:
An Investigation of Lake Okeechobee, by C. Davenport, G.
Mount, and G. “Boots” Boyer, pp. 683-726. On file, Florida
Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
Branstetter, Laura
1995 The Montague Tallant Collection of Historic Metal
Artifacts. The Florida Anthropologist 48(4):291-298.
Bronk Ramsey, C.
2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates.
Radiocarbon 51(l):337-360.
Browning, William D.
1975 Archaeological Investigation at the Rocky Point
2 Site (8MT33). Miscellaneous Project Report Series 21.
Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Florida Division of
Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1953 The Famous Crystal River Site. The Florida
Anthropologist 6(l):9-37.
1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Newsletter,
Southeastern Archaeological Conference 6:43-53.
1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile
Points. Revised Edition. Kendall Books, Gainesville.
Callen, E. O.
1967 The First New World Cereals. American Antiquity
32:535-538.
Carr, Robert S.
1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Lake
Okeechobee. Miscellaneous Project Report Series, No. 22.
Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives,
History and Records Management, Tallahassee.
1981 Dade County Historic Survey, Final Report: The
Archeological Survey. Office of Community and Economic
Development, Metropolitan Dade County, Miami.
1985 Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 38(4):288-301.
Carr, Robert S., and John G. Beriault
1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida. Environments
of South Florida: Present and Past If edited by Patrick J.
Gleason, pp. 1-14. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables.
Carr, Robert S., Joe Davis, and Willard Steele
1994 A Phase II Archaeological Survey of Pembroke
Meadows, Broward County, Florida. AHC Technical Report
No. 95. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.,
Miami.
Carr, Robert S., David Dickel, and Marilyn Masson
1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Ortona
Earthworks and Mounds. The Florida Anthropologist
48(4):227-263.
Carr, Robert S., and John Ricisak
2000 Preliminary Report on Salvage Archaeological
Investigations of the Brickell Point Site (8DA12), Including
the Miami Circle. The Florida Anthropologist
53(4):260-284.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
102
Carr, Robert S., Jorge Zamanillo, and Jim Pepe
2002 Archaeological Profiling and Radiocarbon Dating
of the Ortona Canal (8GL4), Glades County, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 55(l):3-22.
Casteel, Richard W.
1976 Fish Remains in Archaeology and Paleo-
Environmental Studies. Academic Press, New York.
Connor, J. T.
1923 Pedro Menendez de Aviles. Florida State Historical
Society, DeLand.
Crosby, A.
1972 The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural
Consequences of1492. Greenwood Press, West Port.
Cronon, W.
1983 Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the
Ecology of New England. Hill and Wang, New York.
Cronquist, A.
1980 Vascular Flora of the Southeastern United States,
vol.l Asteraceae. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, N.C.
Cummings, Mindy T., and George M. Luer
1996 Circular Ditches in Southern Florida: Descriptions
and Aerial Photographic Data for Seventeen Ditches. On file
with G. Luer and R. Wheeler.
Cutler, H.
1975 Two Kinds of Gourds from Key Marco. In The
Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida by M. Gilliland.
University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Cutler, H., and L. Blake
1976 Plants from Archaeological Sites East of the
Rockies. American Archaeology Report Number 1,
University Microfiche, L.C. #49422.
Davenport, Christian, Sara Ayres-Rigsby, Andrew
Schneider, Daniel Benitez, and Victoria Lincoln
2018 Whitebelt Four (SPB223)/Couse Midden
(8PB10354) Salvage Investigation. Prepared for South Florida
Water Management District DuPuis Natural Area. On file,
Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.
Davenport, Christian, Gregory Mount, and George
“Boots” Boyer
2011 The Boyer Survey: An Investigation of Lake
Okeechobee. On file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological
Research, Tallahassee.
David, Peter G.
1991 DuPuis Reserve Environmental Assessment.
Technical Memorandum. Environmental Sciences Division,
Research and Evaluation Department, South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach.
Davis, John H., Jr.
1943 The Natural Features of Southern Florida,
Especially the Vegetation, and the Everglades. Bulletin #25,
Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.
Delorit, R. J.
1970 An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds.
Agronomy Publications, River Falls, Wisconsin.
Delorit, R. J., and C. R. Gunn
1986 Seeds of Continental United States Legumes
(Fabaceae). Agronomy Publications, River Falls.
Denevan, William M.
1970 Aboriginal Drained-Field Cultivation in the
Americas. Science 169:647-654.
1992 The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas
in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
82(3):369-385.
Dineen, J. Walter
1984 The Fishes of the Everglades. Environments of
South Florida: Present and Past If edited by Patrick J.
Gleason, pp. 258-268. Miami Geological Society, Coral
Gables, Florida.
Dixon, Jacqueline E., Kyla Simons, Loretta Leist,
Christopher Eck, John Ricisak, John Gifford,
and Jeff Ryan
2000 Provenance of Stone Celts from the Miami
Circle Archaeological Site, Miami, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 53(4):328-341.
Duncan, W., and M. Duncan
1987 The Smithsonian Guide to Seaside Plants of the
Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Fontaneda, Do d’Escalante
1945 Memoir of Do d’ Escalante Fontaneda Respecting
Florida, written in Spain about the Year 1575, edited by David
O. True, translated by Buckingham Smith. Glade House, Coral
Gables, Florida.


103
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Fradkin, Arlene
1978 Archeological Evidence of Snake Consumption
among the Aborigines of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
31(2, Pt. l):36-43.
1996 Animal Resource Use Among Early F[uman
Inhabitants of the (iRiver of Grass: ” The Faunal
Assemblages from the Everglades Archaeological Sites
of MacArthur #2 (8BD2591) and Sheridan Hammock
(8BD191). Report on file, Department of Anthropology,
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
2004 Snake Consumption among Early Inhabitants of
the River of Grass, South Florida, USA. Archaeofauna:
International Journal of Archaeozoology 13:57-69.
Fritz, G.
1992 Early and Middle Woodland period Paleoethnobotany.
In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited
by C.M. Scarry, pp. 39-56. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
1997 A Three-Thousand-Year-Old Cache of Crop
Seeds from Marble Bluff, Arkansas. In People, Plants,
and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by
K.J. Gremillion, pp. 42-62. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Gilliland, Marion S.
1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida.
University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Godfrey, R., and J. Wooten
1979 Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United
States. Monocotyledoneae. University of Georgia Press,
Athens.
1981 Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United
States. Dicotyledoneae. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Goggin, John M.
1947 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas
and Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13(2): 114-127.
1949 The Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern
Florida. Typescript dated 1949, with later additions. On file,
P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Goggin, John M., and William C. Sturtevant
1964 The Calusa: A Stratified, Nonagricultural Society
(notes on sibling marriage). Explorations in Cultural
Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George P. Murdock,
edited by Ward H. Goodenough, pp. 179-219. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Greenwell, Dale
1984 The Mississippi Gulf Coast. In Perspectives on Gulf
Coast Prehistory, edited by Dave D. Davis, pp. 125-155.
University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Gremillion, K.
1993 Crop and Weed in Prehistoric Eastern North America:
The Chenopodium Example. American Antiquity 58:496-509.
Griffin, John W.
1988 The Archeology of Everglades National Park: A
Synthesis. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological
Center, Tallahassee.
1989 Time and Space in South Florida: A Synthesis.
The Florida Anthropologist 42(3): 179-204.
Hale, H. Stephen
1984 Prehistoric Environmental Exploitation around Lake
Okeechobee. Southeastern Archaeology 3(2): 173-187.
1989 Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies and Settlement
Patterns in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of the South Florida
Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
1995 Prehistoric Faunal Subsistence Patterns of the Lake
Okeechobee Basin. The Florida Anthropologist 48(4):283-290.
Hall, David W.
1978 The Grasses of Florida. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville. University Microfilms
International, Ann Arbor.
Hall, Robert L.
1976 Ghosts, Water Barriers, Com, and Sacred Enclosures
in the Eastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41(3):360-364.
Handley, Brent M.
2001 The Blue Goose Midden (8IR15): A Malabar
II Occupation on the Indian River Lagoon. The Florida
Anthropologist 54(3-4): 103-121.
Harshberger, J.
1914 The Vegetation of South Florida, South of27° 3 V
North, Exclusive of the Florida Keys. Transactions of the
Wagner Free Institute of Science, Philadelphia.
Hildebrand, E.
n.d. Laboratory Guide to Archaeological Plant remains
from Eastern North America, https://pages.wustl. edu/fritz/
eleusine-indica-h accessed August 28, 2018.
Hitchcock, A. S.
1971 Manual of the Grasses of the United States (2
volumes). Dover Publications, New York.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
104
Hitchcock, A. S., and A. Chase
1910 The North American Species of Panicum.
Contributions from the United States National Herbarium,
Vol. 15. Smithsonian Institution, United States National
Museum. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Hughes, Daniel B., and James P. Pepe
2001 Preliminary Investigations at the Couse Midden
(8PB10354). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Florida Anthropological Society, St. Augustine.
Janus Research
2000 Gulfstream Natural Gas System Cultural Resources
Supplemental Report 2. Janus Research, St. Petersburg.
Jarman, H., A. Legge, and J. Charles
1972 Retrieval of Plant Remains from Archaeological
Sites by Froth Flotation. In Papers in Economic Prehistory,
edited by S. Briggs, pp.39-48. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Johnson, Robert E., B. Alan Basinet, and Robert J. Richter
1996 Archeological Data Recovery at Site 8BD2591
and Phase II Testing at Site 8BD191 at the Pembroke Falls
Development, Broward County, Florida. Report on file,
Florida Archeological Services, Inc., Jacksonville.
Johnson, William G.
1990 The Role of Maize in South Florida Aboriginal
Native Societies: An Overview. The Florida Anthropologist
43(3):209-214.
1991 Remote Sensing and Soil Science Applications to
Understanding Belle Glade Cultural Adaptations in the
Lake Okeechobee Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
1996 A Belle Glade Earthwork Typology and Chronology.
The Florida Anthropologist 49(4):249-260.
Johnson, W., and M. Collins
1993 Can Soil Evidence Prove that prehistoric Maize was
not the Basis for Complex Cultural Developments in the Lake
Okeechobee Basin? In Proceedings of the First International
Pedo-Archaeology Conference, February 16-20, 1992, edited
by J. Foss, M. Timpson, and M. Morris, pp. 157-160. Special
Publication 93-04, Agricultural Experiment Station, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Kadane, J. B.
1988 Possible Statistical Contributions to
Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical
Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant
remains, edited by C. Hastorf and V. Popper, pp. 206-214.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Keel, Frank J.
1990 A Comparison of Subsistence Strategies in Coastal
and Inland Sites. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department
of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Kennedy, Wm. J., Charles Roberts, Shih-Lung Shaw,
and Ryan Wheeler
1991 Prehistoric Resources in Palm Beach County:
A Preliminary Predictive Study. Prepared by Dept, of
Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, for Palm Beach
Zoning, Planning, and Bldg. Dept., West Palm Beach.
Kennedy, Wm. J., Ryan Wheeler, Linda Spears Jester,
Jim Pepe, Nancy Sinks, and Clark Wernecke
1993 Archaeological Survey and Excavations at the
Jupiter Inlet 1 Site (8PB34), Dubois Park, Palm Beach
County, Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida
Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
Kessel, Morton H.
1991 The Role of Maize in South Florida Aboriginal
Societies: A Comment. The Florida Anthropologist 44(1):94.
Kish, Stephen A.
2006 Geochemical and Petrologic Characterization of
Pumice Artifacts from the Miami Circle-Brickell Point
Archaeological Site Plus Other Sites in Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 59(3-4):209-240.
Kozuch, Laura
1993 Sharks and Shark Products in Prehistoric
South Florida. Monograph 2, Institute of Archaeology
and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Kurz, H., and R. Godfrey
1993 Trees of Northern Florida. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Landers, J. L., and A. S. Johnson
1976 Bobwhite and Quail Food Habits in the Southeastern
United States with a Seed Key to Important Foods.
Miscellaneous Publications, Tall Timbers Research Station,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Lathrap, Donald W.
1987 The Introduction of Maize in Prehistoric Eastern
North America: The View from Amazonia and the Santa
Elena Peninsula. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of
the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp.
345-371. Occasional Paper #7, Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Lawres, Nathan R.
2017 Materializing Ontology in Monumental Form:
Engaging the Ontological in the Okeechobee Basin, Florida.
Journal of Anthropological Research 73(4):647-694.


105
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Lawres, Nathan R., and Matthew H. Colvin
2017 Presenting the First Chronometeric Dates from Big
Mound City, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
70(1-2):61-71.
Laxson, Dan D.
1957 The Madden Site. The Florida Anthropologist
10(1-2): 1-16.
Lee, Arthur R. and John G. Beriault, with Walter
Buschelman and Jean Belknap
1993 A Small Site—Mulberry Midden, 8CR697—
Contributes to Knowledge of Transitional Period.
The Florida Anthropologist 46(l):43-52.
Lee, Arthur R., John G. Beriault, Jean Belknap, Walter M.
Buschelman, Annette L. Snapp, and John W. Thompson
1997 Salvage Excavations of an Archaic Period Special-
Purpose Site in Collier County. The Florida Anthropologist
50(1): 11-24.
Lee, David S., Carter R. Gilbert, Charles H. Hocutt, Robert
E. Jenkins, Don E. McAllister, and Jay R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North
Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Little, E. L.
1980 Common Fuelwood Crops. Communi-Tech
Associates, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Loftus, William F., and James A. Kushlan
1987 Freshwater Fishes of Southern Florida. Bulletin of
the Florida State Museum (Biological Sciences) 31 (4).
Long, Robert W.
1974 The Vegetation of Southern Florida.
The Florida Scientist 37:33-45.
Long, Robert W., and Olga Lakela
1976 A Flora of Tropical Florida. Banyan Books, Miami.
Luer, George M.
1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of
Tribute and Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist
42(4):89-130.
1994 A Third Ceremonial Tablet from the Goodnow
Mound, Highlands County, Florida; with notes on
some peninsular tribes and other tablets. The Florida
Anthropologist 47(2): 180-188.
1995 Pipe Fragments from Ortona, South Florida:
Comments on Platform Pipe Styles, Functions, and Middle
Woodland Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist
48(4):301-308.
Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery
of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 33(4):207-225.
Mackay, George
1845 U.S. Fieldnotes: Florida. Volume 84, pp. 55-60.
Township 54 South, Range 41 East. Florida State Archives,
Tallahassee.
Mainfort, Robert C., Jr., and Lynne P. Sullivan
1998 Explaining Earthen Enclosures. In Ancient Earthen
Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Robert C.
Mainfort, Jr. and Lynne P. Sullivan, pp. 1-16. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Martin, A. C., and W. D. Barkley
1961 Seed Identification Manual. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Masson, M., and C. M. Scarry
1991 Carbonized Seeds and Com Cobs from the Honey
Hill Site (8Da411): A Diachronic Glimpse of Plant Use in
Everglades Subsistence. In Historical and Archaeological
Investigations at the Honey Hill Site, Dade County,
Florida, by R. Carr, A. Felmley, and P. West. Report 25,
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami.
McClane, A. J.
1978a McClane s Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of
North America. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
1978b McClane s Field Guide to Saltwater Fishes of North
America. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
McCollum, Samuel H., Orlando E. Cruz, Leon T. Stem,
William H. Wittstruck, Richard D. Ford,
and Frank C. Watts
1978 Soil Survey of Palm Beach County Area, Florida.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, D.C.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Milner, Claire McHale, and John M. O’Shea
1998 The Socioeconomic Role of Late Woodland
Enclosures in Northern Lower Michigan. In Ancient Earthen
Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Robert C.
Mainfort, Jr. and Lynne P. Sullivan, pp. 181-201. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2006 Obituary: Dan D. Laxson. The Florida
Anthropologist 59(3-4):253-259.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
106
Mitchell, Scott
1998 Culturally Modified Bone. In The Narvaez/
Anderson Site (8Pi54): A Safety Harbor Culture Shell Mound
and Midden—AD 1000-1600, edited by Terrance L. Simpson,
pp. 202-251. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society,
Tampa, Florida.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1986Analysis of Ceramics from the South Prong Site
(8HI418), Hillsborough County, Florida. In Papers in
Ceramic Analysis, Ceramic Notes No. 3, edited by Prudence
M. Rice, pp. 81-109. Florida State Museum, Gainesville.
Moerman, D. E.
1986 Medicinal Plants of Native America. Museum of
Anthropology Technical Report #19, Research Report in
Ethnobotany, Contribution #2. University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
1998 Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press,
Portland, Oregon.
Morales, Arturo, and Knud Rosenlund
1979 Fish Bone Measurements: An Attempt to Standardize
the Measuring of Fish Bones from Archaeological Sites.
Steenstmpia, Copenhagen.
Morton, J. F.
1979 Wild Plants for Survival in South Florida. Fairchild
Tropical Garden, Miami.
Mount, Gregory J.
2009 Prehistoric Trade Networks in the Lake Okeechobee
Region: Evidence from the Ritta Island and Kreamer
Island Sites. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
Myers, R., and J. Ewel
1991 Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central
Florida Press, Orlando.
Nelson, G.
1994 The Trees of Florida: A Reference and Field Guide.
Pineapple Press, Sarasota.
Newsom, L.
1987 Analysis of Botanical Remains from Hontoon Island
(8VO202), Florida: 1980-1985 Excavations. The Florida
Anthropologist 40(l):47-84.
1988 The Paleoethnobotany of Windover (8BR246): An
Archaic Period Mortuary Site in Florida. Paper presented
at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Phoenix, Arizona.
1989Archaeobotanical Analysis. In Phase III
Archaeological Excavations at Edgewater Landing, Volusia
County, Florida, by Russo, M., A. Cordell, L. Newsom, and
R. Austin, pp. 73-83. Piper Archaeological Research, Inc.,
St. Petersburg, Florida.
1994 Archaeobotanical Data from Grove’s Orange
Midden (8VÓ2601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 47(4):404-417.
1999 Archaeobotanical Research at Shell Ridge Midden,
Palmer Site (8S02), Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 51(4):207-222.
Newsom, L., and C. M. Scarry
2013 Homegardens and Mangrove Swamps: Pineland
Archaeobotanical Research. In The Archaeology of
Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex,
A.D. 50-1710, edited by K. Walker and W. Marquardt,
pp. 253-304. Monograph 4, Institute of Archaeology
and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Page, Lawrence M., and Brooks M. Burr
1991 A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes: North America
North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Panshin, A. J., and C. deZeeuw
1980 Textbook of Wood Technology, 4th edition.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Parker, G.
1984 Hydrology of the Pre-drainage System of the
Everglades in Southern Florida. In Environments of South
Florida: Present and Past If edited by P. Gleason, pp. 28-37.
Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables.
Pearsall, D. M.
1989 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures.
Academic Press, New York.
Pepe, James P.
1999 Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34): A Test Case in the Use
of Ceramic Frequencies and Discriminant Analysis in
Determining Cultural Affinity. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Victor D. Thompson
2012 Integrating LiDAR data and conventional mapping
of the Fort Center site in south-central Florida: A comparative
approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 37(4):289-301.
â– %


107
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Popper, V.S.
1988 Selecting Quantitative Measurements in
Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany, edited
by C.A. Hastorf and V.S. Popper, pp. 53-71. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Quitmyer, Irvy R.
1985 Zooarchaeological Methods for the Analysis of
Shell Middens at Kings Bay. In Aboriginal Subsistence and
Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality, Vol 2:
Zooarchaeology, edited by William H. Adams, pp. 33-48.
University of Florida, Department of Anthropology, Reports
of Investigations #2, Gainesville.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell
1964 Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Record, S. J., and R. W. Hess
1942-1948 Keys to American Woods. In Tropical Woods
72:19-29; 73:23-42; 75:8-26; 76:32-47; 85:1-19; 94:29-52.
Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell,
C. Bronk Ramsey, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson,
H. Haflidason, I. Hajdas, C. Hatt, T.J. Heaton,
D. L. Hoffmann, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, B.
Kromer, S.W. Manning, M. Niu, R. W. Reimer,
D. A. Richards, E. M. Scott, J. R. Southon, R. A. Staff,
C. S. M. Turney, and J. van der Plicht
2013 IntCal 13 and Marine 13 Radiocarbon Age
Calibration Curves 0-50,000 Years cal BP.
Radiocarbon 55(4): 1029-1058.
Reitz, Elizabeth J., Irvy R. Quitmyer, H. Stephen Hale,
Sylvia J. Scudder, and Elizabeth S. Wing
1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology.
American Antiquity 52(2):304-317.
Reitz, E., and C. M. Scarry
1985 Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an
Example from Sixteenth Century Spanish Florida. Special
Publications Series No. 3, Society for Historical Archaeology.
Ann Arbor.
Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing
2008 Zooarchaeology. 2nd edition. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Rich, Fredrick J.
2001 Report on the Palynological Composition of
Samples from the Whitebelt Excavation. Typescript dated
October 8, 2001, on file with the author.
Rich, F. J., D. Keuhn, and T. D. Davies
1982 The Paleoecological Significance of Ovoidites.
Paly no logy 6:19-28.
Rich, F. J., and F. L. Pirkle
1994 Paleoecological Interpretations of the Trail Ridge
Sequence, and Related Deposits in Georgia and Florida,
Based on Pollen Sedimentation and Clastic Sedimentology.
In Sedimentation of Organic Particles, edited by A. Traverse,
pp. 287-310. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rich, F. J., A. Semaratedu, J. Elzea, and L. Newsom
2000 Palynology and Paleoecology of a Wood-bearing
Clay Deposit from Deepstep, Georgia. Southeastern Geology
39(2):71-80.
Richardson, D. (editor)
1998 Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Richardson, Sue B., and Mary Pohl
1985 The Bone Tool Industry from the Granada Site. In
Excavations at the Granada Site, edited by John W. Griffin,
pp. 83-170. Florida Division of Archives, History and
Records Management, Tallahassee.
Robertson, William, and James Kushlan
1984 The South Florida Avifauna. In Environments
of South Florida Present and Past If edited by Patrick J.
Gleason, pp. 219-257. Miami Geological Society, Coral
Gables.
Rolland, Vicki L., and Paulette Bond
2000 The Search for Spiculate Clays near Timucuan
Village Sites in the Lower St. Johns River. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society,
Fort Myers, Florida.
Ruhl, Donna L.
1981 An Investigation into the Relationships Between
Midwestern Hopewell and Southeastern Prehistory. Masters
thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
1990 Spanish Mission Paleoethnobotany and Culture
Change: A Survey of the Archaeobotanical Data and Some
Speculations on Aboriginal and Spanish Agrarian Interaction
in La Florida. In Columbian Consequences: Archaeological
and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands
East, edited by D. H. Thomas, pp. 555-580. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1993 Old Customs and Traditions in New Terrain:
A Look at the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century
Paleoethnobotanical Data from La Florida. In Foraging and
Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret
Scarry, pp. 255-283. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
108
1995 Paleoethnobotanical Investigations at Seminole
Rest. In Final Report on the Archaeological Investigations
at the Seminole Rest Site (CANA-063/8VO124) Canaveral
National Seashore, Volusia County, Florida, edited by
E. Horvath, pp.41-58. National Park Service, Southeast
Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1999a From Sugarberry to Pine: Results of the
Archeobotanical Investigations of Selected Samples from
Remnant Mound at the Shaw’s Point Site (8MA7) in the
De Soto National Memorial, Bradenton, Florida. Report on
file at National Park Service, SEAC ACC 1283, Southeast
Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1999b Wood Analysis of Fake Pithlachucco/Newnan’s
Fake Canoes (8AF4792). Report on file, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee.
2000 Archaeobotany of Bemath Place (8SR986) and
other Santa Rosa/Swift Creek-Related Sites in Coastal
and Non-Coastal Southeastern U.S. Focations. The Florida
Anthropologist 53(2-3): 190-202.
2001 Archaeobotanical Analysis of Selected Samples
from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (8PB220), DuPuis Reserve
Area. Paper on file, Environmental Archaeology Faboratory,
Florida Museum of Natural History (Temp Acc. #589).
2002 Archaeological Investigations of Selected Samples
from Remnant Mound. In Archeological Investigation of
De Soto National Memorial, edited by Margo Schwadron,
pp. 139-157. Technical Report #8, Southeast Archeological
Center, Tallahassee.
Russo, M., A. Cordell, L. Newsom, and S. Scudder
1991 Final Report on Horr s Island: The Archaeology
of Archaic and Glades Settlement and Subsistence Patterns.
Submitted to Key Marco Development, Marco Island,
Florida. On file, Florida Museum of Natural History,
Gainesville, Florida.
Salimanth, S. S., A. C. de Oliviera, I. P. Goden,
and J. L. Bennetzen
1995 Assessment of Genome Origins and Genetic
Diversity in the Genus Eleusine with DNA Markers.
Genome 38(4):757-763.
Scarry, C. M.
1985 Paleoethnobotany of the Granada Site. In
Excavations at the Granada Site, edited by John W. Griffin,
pp. 181-248. Florida Division of Archives, History and
Records Management, Tallahassee.
2003Patterns of Wild Plant Utilization in the prehistoric
Eastern Woodlands. In People and Plants in Ancient Eastern
North America, edited by Paul E. Minnis, pp. 50-104.
Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C.
Scarry, C. M., and L. A Newsom
1989 Archaeobotanical Research in the Calusa Heartland.
In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa,
edited by W.H. Marquardt, pp. 375-401. Institute of
Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1.
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Scarry, John F.
1995 Apalachee Homesteads: The Basal Social and
Economic Units of a Mississippian Chiefdom. Mississippian
Communities and Households, edited by J. Daniel Rogers
and Bruce D. Smith, pp. 201-223. University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.
Scarry, John F., and Bonnie G. McEwan
1995 Domestic Architecture in Apalachee Province:
Apalachee and Spanish Residential Styles in the Fate
Prehistoric and Early Historic Period Southeast. American
Antiquity 60(3):482-495.
Sears, William H.
1971 Food Production and Village Fife in Prehistoric
Southeastern United States. Archaeology 24(4):322-329.
1977 Seaborne Contacts between Early Cultures in
Fower Southeastern United States and Middle through
South America. In The Sea in the Pre-Columbian World,
edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 1-15. Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington, D.C.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the
Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.
Singh, A. K.
1990 Cytogenetics and Evolution in the Cucurbitaceae. In
Biology and Utilization of the Cucurbitaceae, edited
by D. M. Bates, R. W. Robinson, and C. Jeffrey, pp. 10-28.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Singh, A. K., and A. S. R. Dathan
1990 Seed Coat Anatomy of the Cucurbitaceae. In
Biology and Utilization of the Cucurbitaceae, edited by
D. M. Bates, R. W. Robinson, and C. Jeffrey, pp. 225-238.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca.


109
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Small, J. K.
1918 Narrative of a Cruise to Lake Okeechobee. In
The Florida of John Kunkel Small: His Species and Types,
Collecting Localities, Bibliography and Selected Reprinted
Works, by D. Austin, A. Cholewa, R. Lassiter, and B. Hansen.
Contributions of the New York Botanical Garden, Volume 18:
684-700. [Reprinted from The American Museum Journal,
Vol. XVIII, No. 8, pp.684-700.]
1929 From Eden to Sahara: Floridas Tragedy. Science
Press, Lancaster.
1930 Vegetation and Erosion on the Everglades Keys.
The Scientific Monthly 30:33-49.
1933 Manual of the Southeastern Flora, Volumes I and II.
Hafner Publishing, New York.
Smith, B.
1985a The Role of Chenopodium as a Domesticate in
Pre-maize Garden Systems of the Eastern United States.
Southeastern Archaeology 4:51-72.
1985b Chenopodium berkandieri spp. jonesianum:
Evidence for a Hopewellian Domesticate from Ash Cave,
Ohio. Southeastern Archaeology 4:107-133.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States :
From Dalton to DeSoto, 10,500-500B.P. In Advances in
World Archaeology 5, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close,
pp. 1-92. Academic Press, New York.
1987 The Independent Domestication of Indigenous
Seed Bearing Plants in Eastern North America. In Emergent
Horticultural Economics of the Eastern Woodlands, ed.
by W. F. Keegan, pp. 3-48. Occasional Paper 7, Southern
Illinois University Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Carbondale.
1992 Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture
in Eastern North America. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Smith, B., and C. W. Cowan
1987 Domesticated Chenopodium in Prehistoric Eastern
North America: New Accelerator Dates from Eastern
Kentucky. American Antiquity 52(2):355-357.
Ste. Claire, Dana
1996 A Technological and Functional Analysis of
Hernando Projectile Points. The Florida Anthropologist
49(4): 189-200.
Steyermark, J. A.
1963 Flora of Missouri. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
Stirling, Matthew W.
1936 Florida Cultural Affiliations in Relation to Adjacent
Areas. In Essays in Anthropology, presented to A. L.
Kroeber in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, pp. 351-357.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Swanton, John R.
1922 The Early History of the Creek Indians. Johnson
Reprint Corporation, New York.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States.
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin #137.
Washington, D.C.
Thompson, Peter
1985 Thompson s Guide to Freshwater Fishes. Houghton
Mifflin, Boston.
Thompson, Victor D., Kristen J. Gremillion,
and Thomas J. Pluckhahn
2013 Challenging the Evidence for Prehistoric Wetland
Maize Agriculture at Fort Center, Florida. American
Antiquity 78(1): 181-193.
Thompson, Victor D., and Thomas J. Pluckhahn
2012 Monumentalization and Ritual Landscapes at Fort
Center in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of South Florida.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31:49-65.
2014 The Modification and Manipulation of Landscape
at Fort Center. In New Histories of Pre-Columbian Florida,
edited by Neill J. Wallis and Asa R. Randall, pp. 163-182.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Tomlinson, P. B.
1980 The Biology of Trees Native to Tropical Florida.
Harvard University Printing Office, Allston.
Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom,
and Mark G. Nuckels
1982 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida
Cherts. Department of Geology, University of South Florida,
Tampa.
Urling, G., and R. Smith
1953 An Anatomical Study of Twenty Lesser Known
Woods of Florida. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy
of Sciences 16(3): 163-180.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
110
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)
1940 Palm Beach County black-and-white aerial
photograph, 1:40,000 (1 in. = 0.64 mi.), CJF 6-90. On file,
Map and Imagery Library, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Wagner, G.
2001 Landscapes of the Eye. Paper presented at the 24th
meeting of the Society for Ethnobiology, March 7-10, 2001,
Durango, Colorado.
Wainwright, R. D.
1918 Further Archaeological Exploration in Southern
Florida, Winter of 1917. The Archaeological Bulletin
9(4):28-32, 43-47.
Walker, K.
2000 Historical Ecology of the Southeastern Longleaf
and Slash Pine Flatwoods: A Southwest Florida Perspective.
Journal of Ethnobiology 20(2):269-299.
Walker, L.
1991 The Southern Forest: A Chronicle. University of
Texas Press, Austin.
Werth, C. R., K. W. Hilu, and C. L. Langer
1994 Isozymes of Eleusine (Graminae) and the Origin of
Finger Millet. American Journal of Botany 81(9): 1196-1197.
Wheeler, Ryan J.
1995 The Ortona Canals: Aboriginal Canal Hydraulics and
Engineering. The Florida Anthropologist 48(4):265-281.
2000a Cultural Resource Assessment of Four
Archaeological Sites at DuPuis Reserve, Palm Beach County.
Archaeological Exploration of DuPuis Reserve Part One.
Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
2000b Interim Report: Archaeological Excavations at the
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (8PB220), DuPuis Reserve Area.
Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
2001a Radiocarbon Dating Results from Whitebelt 1 Circle-
Ditch (8PB220), DuPuis Reserve Area. Report on file, Bureau
of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
2001b Artifact Analysis for Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
(8PB220), DuPuis Reserve Area. Report on file, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
2004 Bone Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell
Point (8DA12). The Florida Anthropologist 57(1-2): 133-158.
Wheeler, Ryan J., Wm. Jerald Kennedy, and James P. Pepe
2002 The Archaeology of Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34).
The Florida Anthropologist 55(3-4): 157-196.
Wheeler, Ryan J., and Ray M. McGee
1994 Technology of Mount Taylor Period Occupation,
Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):350-379.
Wheeler, Ryan J., and Christine L. Newman
1997 Summary of Site Components and Management
Recommendations for Big Mound City (8PB48), J. W.
Corbett Wildlife Management Area, Palm Beach County.
Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Archaeological
Survey. On file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.
White, Susan Lynn
1999 Technological Investigation of the Aboriginal
Pottery Excavated from Test Pit 1-3, Useppa Island. In The
Archaeology of Useppa Island, edited by W. H. Marquardt,
pp. 95-96. Monograph 3, Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Widmer, Randolph
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural
Chiefdom on the Southwest Coast of Florida. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Willey, G.
1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology #42, New Haven.
Wing, Elizabeth S., and Antoinette B. Brown
1979 Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric
Foodways. Academic Press, New York
Wunderlin, R.
1982 Guide to the Vascular Plants of Central Florida.
University Presses of Florida, Tampa.
1998 Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Zuloaga, F., and T. Soderstrom
1985 Classification of the Outlying Species of New World
Panicum (Poaceae: Paniceae). Smithsonian Contributions to
Botany No. 59. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
2006 Pumice Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell
Point (8DA12). The Florida Anthropologist 59(3-4): 191-208.


Ill
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Appendix A. Data for Circle-Ditch Sites. Diameter and arc were measured from aerial photographs. Radius, area, and
circumference are derived data. Compiled by Mindy Cummings and George Luer (1996), except the recent addition of
Davenport Circle.
Site Name
FMSF
Number
Diameter (d)
in meters
Diameter in
feet
Arc Degrees
Visible
(ADV)
% of Circle
Present
(ADV/360)
Radius (1/2 d
= r) in meters
Ideal
Circumference
(27tr) in meters
Actual
Circumference
Present (Ideal
% present) in
meters
Great Circle
GL22
357
1171
290
0.81
178.5
1121.5
908.4
Inner Circle West
GL375
213
699
-
-
106.5
669.2
-
Inner Circle East
GL376
223
732
-
-
111.5
700.6
Lakeport Circle
GL50
290
951
180
0.5
145
911.1
455.6
Glades Circle
GL38
152
499
360
1.0
76
477.5
477.5
Caloosahatchee
Circle
GL33
335
1099
325
0.9
167.5
1052.4
947.2
W. Okeechobee
Circle A
GL57
122
400
360
1.0
61
383.3
383.3
W. Okeechobee
Circle B
GL57
73
240
360
1.0
36.5
229.3
229.3
Hendry Circle
HN32
213
699
210
0.58
106.5
669.2
388.1
Dade Circle
DA 1642
187
614
360
1.0
93.5
587.5
587.5
Miami Circle-
Ditch
DA2148
61
200
-
-
30.5
191.6
Whitebelt 1
PB220
275
902
300
0.83
137.5
863.9
717.0
Pine Island
Circle
LL42
268
879
270
0.75
134
841.9
631.4
North Fisheating
Creek Circle
GL75
204
669
240
0.67
102
640.9
429.4
Lake Kissimmee
Circle
OS1787
253
830
210
0.58
126.5
794.8
461.0
Kissimmee
Circle
OB31
191
627
180
0.5
95.5
600.0
300.0
Martin Circle
MT42
400
1312
180
0.5
200
1256.6
628.3
Davenport Circle
PB15312
61
200
-
-
-
-
-


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
112
Appendix B. Circle-Ditch Sites of South Florida. Compiled by Mindy Cummings and George Luer (1996), except the
addition of Davenport Circle. Archival USDA aerial photos are on file at the University of Florida, Map and Imagery
Library, and online at PALMM.
Site Name
FMSF
Number
Associated
Sites
Connect
with
Shoreline
Status
Archival USDA
Aerial Photo or
Reference
Recent Aerial Photo
Great Circle
GL22
yes
yes
extant
BUO 2KK57 1968
301-57-HAP 84 1985
Inner Circle West
GL375
yes
-
extant
BUO 2KK57 1968
301-57-HAP 84 1985
Inner Circle East
GL376
yes
-
extant
BUO 2KK57 1968
301-57-HAP 84 1985
Lakeport Circle
GL50
unknown
yes
extant
BUO-1D-73 1949
301-59-HAP 84 1985
Glades Circle
GL38
unknown
yes
extant
BUO-2T-148 1957
301-57-HAP 84 1985
Caloosahatchee Circle
GL33
yes
yes
destroyed/
damaged
BUN-3T-125 1957
301-53-HAP 84 1985
West Okeechobee Circle A
GL57
yes
no
damaged
BUO-2T-109 1957
301-100-HAP 84 1985
West Okeechobee Circle B
GL57
yes
no
damaged
BUO-2T-109 1957
301-100-HAP 84 1985
Hendry Circle
HN32
no
yes
extant
BUN-3T-14 1957
-
Dade Circle
DA 1642
unknown
no
destroyed
Carr 1985:296-297
-
Miami Circle-Ditch
DA2148
unknown
no
destroyed
Carr 1985:298
-
Whitebelt 1
PB220
yes
yes
extant
CJF-6-90 1940
-
Pine Island Circle
LL42
yes
yes
destroyed
DCT-2C-66 1944
DCT-1LL-81
North Fisheating Creek
Circle
GL75
unknown
yes
extant
BUO 2KK 17 1968
301-59-HAP 84 1985
Lake Kissimmee Circle
OS1787
yes
yes
extant
DCU-6C-110 1944
-
Kissimmee Circle
OB31
unknown
yes
destroyed
CYW-2C-15 1944
-
Martin Circle
MT42
yes
yes
extant
EEP-3V-6 1958
-
Davenport Circle
PB15312
unknown
unknown
destroyed
-
-


113
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Appendix C. Ceramic Sherds by Units and Levels, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
Unit/Level
STP
St. Johns
Plain
Belle
Glade
Plain
Sand and
fiber-tempered
Unidentified Plain
Residual
Plain
Totals
Trench 1, Unit 7
1
3
2
18
2
5
3
78
2 w/ limestone
inclusions
27
4
17
5 sandy St. Johns
Plain
20
5
1
3
6
7
1
Subtotal
124
2
7
56
189
Trench 1, Unit 8
1
1 sandy St. Johns
Plain
2
6
3
Trench 1, Unit 8 West 1/2
3
18
20
4
1
4 sandy St. Johns
Plain
8
5
4
6
3
1
Subtotal
28
5
36
69
Trench 1, Unit 9
i
2
1
2
19
15
1
27
3
47
3
1
3 sandy St. Johns
Plain
100
4
32
68
Subtotal
100
29
1
1
3
195
329
Trench 1, Unit 10
i
6
2
44
6
21
3
34
1
52
4
13
17
5
6
20
6
11
1
5
7
30
4
12
8
39
25
9
5
5
10
1
1
Subtotal
189
8
4
158
359


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
114
Appendix C, continued.
Unit/Level
STP
St. Johns
Plain
Belle
Glade
Plain
Sand and
fiber-tempered
Unidentified Plain
Residual
Plain
Totals
Trench 2, Unit 1
1
1
2
2
9
13
3
9
13
4
11
6
Subtotal
30
34
64
Trench 2, Unit 2
1
2
2
3
7
8
4
10
10
5
7
10
Subtotal
26
28
54
Trench 2, Unit 3
1
2
2
3
7
3
4
13
20
5
3
7
6
5
6
7
4
2 w/ laminated paste
3
8
9
1
Subtotal
35
2
39
76
Trench 2, Unit 4
i
2
4
3
5
5
4
14
2 STP w/ chalky feel
6
5
7
4
Subtotal
30
2
15
47
Trench 2, Unit 5
i
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
5
7
9
1
Subtotal
20
1
21
TOTAL
582
40
5
i
19
561
1208




Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
116
Appendix D. Data for Rim Sherds Illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. STP = sand-tempered plain.
Figure
Type
Rim
Profile
Rim Form
Lip Form
Unit/Level
Trench
Unit
BAR Cat. No.
10a
STP
incurve
thin
round
183N 274.5EL8
i
10
00.140.116
10b
STP
excurve
simple
round
183N 272.5EL3
i
9
00.140.79
10c
STP
indet.
thick
round
415N 299.5E L3
2
1
00.140.68
lOd
STP
indet.
thick
round
183N 271.5E L3
1
8
00.140.52
lOe
STP
excurve
simple
round
416N299.5E L3
2
2
00.140.63
lOf
STP
excurve
thin
round
183N 272.5EL2
1
9
00.140.77
10g
St. Johns Plain
excurve
simple
round
183N 271.5EL4
1
8
00.140.71
lOh
STP
straight
thin
pointed
183N 274.5EL8
1
10
00.140.116
lOi
STP
straight
folded
cut
418N 299.5E L4
2
4
00.140.112
10j
STP
incurve
simple
round
183N274.5E L3
1
10
00.140.84
10k
STP
excurve
thick
round
183N 274.5E L7
1
10
00.140.115
101
STP
straight
thin
pointed
183N 274.5EL7
1
10
00.140.115
11a
STP
straight?
simple
flat
417N 299.5EL7
2
3
00.140.60
lib
STP
excurve
folded
flat
183N 271.5EL3
1
8
00.140.52
11c
STP
excurve
thick
flat
415N 299.5EL3
2
1
00.140.68
lid
STP
excurve
simple
flat
183N 272.5EL3
1
9
00.140.79
lie
Belle Glade Plain
straight
thin
flat
183N 274.5EL7
1
10
00.140.115
nf
Belle Glade Plain
excurve
simple
cut
183N 272.5EL2
1
9
00.140.77
ng
STP
straight
folded
pointed
183N274.5E L6
1
10
00.140.114
llh
STP
straight
thick
cut
183N 270.5E L3
1
7
00.140.33
Hi
STP
indet.
folded
round
183N 270.5E L3
1
7
00.140.33
nj
STP
excurve
folded
round
416N299.5EL4
2
2
00.140.64
Ilk
STP
indet.
folded
pointed
183N 270.5EL3
1
7
00.140.33
111
STP
indet.
thin
round
417N 299.5E L4
2
3
00.140.57
11m
STP
straight
folded
round
418N 299.5EL4
2
4
00.140.112
1 In
STP
vessel base
416N 299.5E L3
2
2
00.140.63
llo
STP
straight
folded
round
417N 299.5E L4
2
3
00.140.57


117
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Appendix E. Lithic Analysis and Sourcing Data.
Specimen #
Artifact
Type
Fossils or
Hallmarks
Yes/No
Description of features present
Lithic ID
Comments
00.140.056.2A
Proximal
flake
fragment
Yes
No foraminifera or other fossils are evident.
Inclusions appear to be quartz sand, a
characteristic of Tampa Member of the
Arcadia Formation
Likely Miocene,
Tampa Member
of the Arcadia
Formation
Ground platform percussion flake, 1 to
2 cm size range.
00.140.056.2B
Medial-
distal flake
fragment
No
However, its lithology is similar in color
and texture to one of the bands of chert in
specimen 00.140.116.1
Possibly Miocene,
Tampa Member
of the Arcadia
Formation
00.140.057.2
Medial-
distal flake
fragment
No
There are no foraminifera or other fossils
evident. There are no other distinguishing
hallmarks for identification.
Unknown
0 to 1 cm size range
00.140.058.1
Flake
?
This specimen is similar in color and texture
to specimen 00.140.114.3, which is silicified
coral. The corallites are not detectable in this
specimen.
Uncertain, possible
silicified coral
Heat exploded. 1 to 2 cm size range.
00.140.059.4
Medial-
distal flake
fragment
Yes
There are no foraminifera or other fossils
evident. However, unlike some of the other
specimens this chert is vuggy, has bands of
fine and medium grained chert, the cortex
and vugs are chalky, and there is no obvious
quartz sand content.
Most likely origin
is chert from
either the Eocene,
Ocala Limestone
or Oligocene,
Suwannee
Limestone
Uncertain if this specimen has been
thermally altered. It is of the 2 to 3 cm
size range.
00.140.064.2
Flake
No
Even though there are no diagnostic features,
the chert is similar to the white band of chert
located on the distal tip of the Hernando point
(00.140.116.1). This is non vuggy, white
chert.
Uncertain, possibly
Miocene, Tampa
Member of the
Arcadia Formation
Does not appear to be thermally
altered. 1 to 2 cm size range
00.140.067.1A
Proximal
flake
fragment
No
There are no foraminifera or other fossils that
can be identified. There appear to be ghosts
of foraminiferas but they are too obliterated
to be of any use for identification purposes.
There are no other distinguishing hallmarks
for identification.
Unknown
Non-thermally altered.
00.140.067.IB
Medial-
distal flake
fragment
No
There are no foraminifera or other fossils
evident. There are no other distinguishing
hallmarks for identification.
Unknown
00.140.068.3
Proximal
flake
fragment
?
This specimen appears to have totally
incorporated (surrounded) quartz sand and/
or crystal grains. Quartz sand suggests the
Tampa Member of the Arcadia Formation.
There are no foraminifera or other fossils
evident. This chert is white and not vuggy
which is similar to the Hernando point
(00.140.116.1).
Uncertain, possibly
Miocene, Tampa
Member of the
Arcadia Formation
This is the proximal section of a flake
1 to 2 cm in size range. It appears
to have been produced as a result of
pressure flaking.
00.140.083.6
Flake
(in two
pieces)
No
Does not appear to be chert and may be some
type of metamorphic rock. Two faces of the
outer flake appear to have been ground or
otherwise smoothed. Flake platform area
appears to have been formed by battering.
Unknown
This specimen is possibly from a
ground stone celt. 2 to 3 cm size range.
00.140.099.1
Flake
Yes
At least 3 foraminifera ghosts of
Lepidocyclina sp. of the size and shape found
in the Ocala Limestone. Also this chert is
vuggy and the voids are not lined with quartz
sand.
Likely Eocene
Ocala Limestone
chert
Ground platform is only partially
intact; it is a percussion flake, 2 to 3
cm size range.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
118
Specimen #
Artifact
Type
Fossils or
Hallmarks
Yes/No
Description of features present
Lithic ID
Comments
00.140.114.3
Blocky
chunk,
core
fragment
Yes
This specimen is very likely the colony¬
forming coral Siderastrea silecensis. It
surely is of the genus Siderastrea sp. There
is another genus but its extinct forms are
not documented in the Florida fossil record.
Silicified fossil coral of Siderastrea sp.
occurs in the Tampa Member of the Arcadia
Formation and is also documented as
occurring in the Suwannee Limestone.
Could have
originated from
the Suwannee
Limestone, or the
Tampa Member
of the Arcadia
Formation
The specimen has been heat-treated,
and battered along some of its surface.
The polyps (corallites) are most
visible on the cortex surface. The
silicified nature of the interior does not
prominently show the starburst pattern
of the corallites, which seems a bit
unusual.
00.140.115.1A
Biface
Fragment
?
This specimen is similar in color and texture
to specimen 00.140.114.3, which is silicified
coral. The corallites are not detectable in this
specimen.
Uncertain, possible
silicified coral
Probably a small fragment of a point.
Thermally altered, 1 to 2 cm size range
00.140.115.IB
Medial-
distal flake
fragment
Yes
Lepidocyclina sp. of the size and shape found
in the Ocala Limestone.
Eocene Ocala
Limestone
Heat exploded and crazed.
00.140.115.1C
Medial-
distal flake
fragment
Yes
Lepidocyclina sp. of the size and shape found
in the Ocala Limestone. Also a probable ghost
of a cone foraminifera, Dictyoconus sp., is
present.
Eocene Ocala
Limestone
00.140.115.ID
Medial-
distal flake
fragment
No
There are no foraminifera or other fossils
evident. There are no other distinguishing
hallmarks for identification.
Unknown
Not thermally altered, 1 to 2 cm size
range.
00.140.115.IE
Flake
No
There are no foraminifera or other fossils
evident. There are no other distinguishing
hallmarks for identification.
Unknown
Not thermally altered, 1 to 2 cm size
range.
00.140.115.IF
Medial-
distal flake
fragment
No
There are no foraminifera or other fossils
evident. There are no other distinguishing
hallmarks for identification.
Unknown
Not thermally altered, 1 to 2 cm size
range.
00.140.115.1G
Proximal
flake
fragment
?
This specimen is similar in color and texture
to specimen 00.140.114.3, which is silicified
coral. The corallites are not detectable in this
specimen.
Uncertain, possible
silicified coral
Thermally altered, 1 to 2 cm size range
00.140.115.1H
Micro
Tool
?
This specimen is similar in color and texture
to specimen 00.140.114.3, which is silicified
coral. The corallites are not detectable in this
specimen.
Uncertain, possible
silicified coral
The specimen is thermally altered
and heat crazed. It is 1 to 2 cm in size
range. It appears to have been used as a
perforator-drill.
00.140.116.1
Hernando
biface
Yes
No foraminifera or other fossils are evident.
Both the inclusions and the less consolidated
bands of silicified material appear to include
quartz sand, a characteristic of Tampa
Member of the Arcadia Formation, which is
very impure, containing copious amounts of
sand inclusions.
Likely Miocene,
Tampa Member
of the Arcadia
Formation
This specimen appears to have been
heat treated.
00.140.118.2
Flake
No
There are no foraminifera or other fossils
evident. There are no other distinguishing
hallmarks for identification.
Unknown
1 to 2 cm size range
99.65.007.2
Reworked
triangular
biface
No
No foraminifera evident. This is vuggy chert
but the voids appear to be lined with quartz
crystals rather than sand.
Unknown
Reworked biface that appears to have
hafting mastic adhering to its base on
one side. May have originally been a
Hernando then extensively reworked.


119
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Appendix F. Inventory of Archaeobotanical Samples from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
Botanical
Number
F.S.
Number
Description
No. of bags Collected/
Liters of soil
MIDDEN AREA
Bot# S-l
87
Midden, 17-27cmbs; rootlets, charred wood, bone, and gray sand,
183N271.5E
2 bags - 25 L
Bot# S-2
88
Midden, 27-37cmbs; charred wood, rootlets, bone, and gray sand,
183N271.5E
2 bags - 22 L
Bot# S-3
89
Midden, 37-47cmbs; palmetto rootlets lessening; charred wood, bone,
light and medium gay sand, 183N271.5E
2 bags - 25 L
Bot# S-4
90
Midden, 46-57cmbs; less rootlets, mottling slight, charred wood less but
present, bone, 183N271.5E
3 bags - 38 L
Bot# S-5
91
Midden, 57-67cmbs; lighter gray and medium brown gray mottled sand,
bone, charred wood as above, few rootlets, 183N271.5E
2 bags - 25 L
Bot# S-6
92
Midden, 67-75cmbs; brown gray sand, bone, charred wood as above and
few rootlets, 183N271.5E
2 bags - 25 L
Bot# S-7
131
Midden, 77-87cmbs; brown gray sand, 183N271.5E
3 bags - 39 L
Bot# S-8
132
Midden, 87-97cmbs; brown gray sand, 183N271.5E, above Feature-
posthole
2 bags - 3 L
Bot# S-9
137
Midden, Feature #3; 94-105cmbs?
1 bag - 1 L
Bot# S-10
133
Midden, Feature #4, 94-100cmbs,West 1/2
1 bag - 1 L
Bot# S-11
134
Midden, Feature #4, 100-105cmbs, West 1/2
2 bag - 1 L
Bot# S-l2
135
Midden, Feature #4, 105-1 lOcmbs, West 1/2
1 bag - 1 L
Bot# S-l3
136
Midden, Feature #4, 110-114cmbs, West 1/2
1 bag - 1 L
Bot# S-l4
138
Midden, Feature #5
2 bags - 1 L
CIRCLE-DITCH AREA
Bot# N-l
103
Ditch, 27-37cmbs; mottled dark grey and lighter gray sand, moist, 422
3 bags - ~2.5 L
Bot# N-2
104
Ditch, 37-47cmbs; more salt and pepper matrix throughout, moist
3 bags - -3 L
Bot# N-3
105
Ditch, 47-57cmbs; salt and pepper matrix throughout, moist
3 bags - ~3 L
Bot# N-4
106
Ditch, 57-67cmbs; mottled dark gray and light gray sand, some charred
wood
3 bags - ~2.5 L
Bot# N-5
107
Ditch, 67-77cmbs; dark gray and light gray circular mottling effect
throughout, some non-charred wood-like items
3 bags - ~3 L
Auger# 1*
101
67-80cmbs; dark brown and blackish crusty materials; slightly damp,
wet
1 bag - ~1 L
Auger# 2*
102
80-91cmbs; less of the blackish crusty material and more of a rusty
colored soil matrix, wet
1 bag - ~1 L
Samples not analyzed.


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
120
Appendix G. Archaeobotanical Inventory of Processed Samples and Identified Plant Taxa from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
Bg=bag; jr=jar; ea=each; cw=charred wood; cnm=charred nutmeat; cs=charred seed; ds=dessicated seed, ms=modern
seed, ws=water saturated seed, p=other plant parts.
Botanical
Number
FS
Number
FS/Lot #
Count1
Weight (g)
Fraction
Identification2
MIDDENAREA
Bot# S-l
87
87.1
23ea
5.108
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
87
87.2
6ea
.355
4mm
Sabal sp. (cw)
87
87.3
lea
.110
4mm
Coniferophyta (cw)
87
87.4
lbg
5.381
4mm
Residual-scanned for seed
87
87.5
lea
.001
1mm
Elusine indica (cs)
87
87.6
lbg
80.160
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
87
87.7
lbg
24.380
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
87
87.8
2ea
.010
2mm
Serenoa repens (cs)
87
87.9
2ea
.031
2mm
cf. Cary a sp. (cnm)
87
87.10
3ea
.073
2mm
Indeterminate Plantae (cs)
87
87.11
lea
.013
2mm
Hibiscus sp. (ms)
Bot# S-2
88
88.1
25ea
2.790
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
88
88.2
3ea
.153
4mm
Coniferophyta (cw)
88
88.3
2ea
.549
4mm
Plantae (cw)
88
88.4
lea
.009
2mm
Sabal sp. (s)
88
88.5
lbg
10.763
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
88
88.6
lea
.001
1mm
Cladium sp. (cs) broken
88
88.7
lea
.005
1mm
Panicum/Setaria sp. (ds)
88
88.8
lbg
37.650
1mm
Residual- 10% scanned for seed
Bot# S-3
89
89.1
8ea
.966
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
89
89.2
6ea
.591
4mm
Coniferophyta (cw)
89
89.3
2ea
.203
4mm
Plantae (cw)
89
89.4
lbg
8.280
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
89
89.5
lbg
40.140
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
Bot# S-4
90
90.1
20ea
1.833
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
90
90.2
lea
.021
4mm
Sabal sp. (cw)
90
90.3
2ea
.413
4mm
Plantae (cw)
90
90.4
7ea
.390
2mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
90
90.5
lbg
12.260
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
90
90.6
lbg
42.380
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
Bot# S-5
91
91.1
28ea
2.368
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
91
91.2
2ea
.072
4mm
Sabal sp. (cw)
91
91.3
lbg
.513
4mm
Residual-scanned for seed
91
91.4
lbg
12.450
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
91
91.5
lbg
29.330
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
Bot# S-6
92
92.1
26ea
3.568
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
92
92.2
2ea
.200
4mm
Sabal sp. (cw)
92
92.3
2ea
.907
4mm
Coniferophyta (cw)
92
92.4
lbg
4.025
4mm
Residual-scanned for seed
92
92.5
lbg
18.68
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
92
92.6
lea
-.001
1mm
Cladium sp. (cs)
92
92.7
lbg
19.060
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
92
92.8
lea
.001
1mm
Scirpus sp. (ms)


121
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Appendix G, continued.
Botanical
Number
FS
Number
FS/Lot #
Count1
Weight (g)
Fraction
Identification2
Bot# S-7
131
131.1
30ea
3.101
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
131
131.2
lbg
4.652
4mm
Residual-scanned for seed
131
131.3
lbg
22.990
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
131
131.4
lbg
46.875
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
Bot# S-8*
132
132.1
lea
.057
2mm
Quercus sp. (cw)
132
132.2
Ilea
.406
2mm
cf. Pinus sp. (cw)
132
132.3
lbg
.440
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
132
132.4
lbg
.988
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
Bot# S-9*
137
137.1
4ea
.164
2mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
137
137.2
lbg
.72
2mm
Residual scanned for seed
137
137.3
lbg
.92
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
Bot# S-10*
133
133.1
6ea
.092
2mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
133
133.2
lbg
.737
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
133
133.3
lbg
.90
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
Bot# S-11*
134
134.1
6ea
.092
2mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
134
134.2
lbg
.300
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
134
134.3
lea
.001
1mm
Cladium sp. (cs)
134
134.3
lbg
1.04
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
Bot# S-12*
135
135.1
lbg
.110
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
135
135.2
lbg
.81
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
Bot# S-13*
136
136.1
6ea
.204
2mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
136
136.2
lbg
.114
2mm
Plant residual-scanned for seed
136
136.3
lbg
.89
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
Bot# S-14*
138
138.1
15ea
.701
2mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
138
138.2
4ea
.032
2mm
Sabal sp. (cw)
138
138.3
2ea
.110
2mm
Gymnopsermae
138
138.4
2ea
.008
2mm
Indeterminate Plantae- (cs), (fragments- 1 cf.
Arecaceae, 1 cf. Leguminosae)
138
138.5
lbg
3.30
2mm
Plant residual-scanned for seed
138
138.6
lbg
4.56
1mm
Residual-10% scanned for seed
CIRCLE-DITCH AREA
Bot# N-l
103
103.1
26ea
1.785
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
103
103.2
4ea
.370
4mm
Gymnopsermae (cw)
103
103.3
lbg
1.653
4mm
Residual scanned for seed
103
103.4
lbg
10.722
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
103
103.5
2ea
.098
2mm
Pinus sp.- stem and root fragments (cw)
103
103.6
lea
.005
2mm
cf. Dicotyledoneae- stem, herbaceous
fragment (p)
103
103.7
lea
.102
2mm
cf. Leguminosae (cs)
103
103.8
lbg
22.86
1mm
Residual-100% scanned for seed
Bot# N-2
104
104.1
2ea
.101
4mm
Diffuse porous hardwood (cw)
104
104.2
28ea
1.23
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
104
104.3
lbg
.505
4mm
Residual- scanned for seed
104
104.4
lbg
2.109
2mm
Residual- scanned for seed
104
104.5
lea
.001
1mm
Scutellaria sp.(cs)
104
104.6
lbg
14.94
1mm
Residual-100% scanned for seed


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
122
Appendix G, continued.
Botanical
Number
FS
Number
FS/Lot #
Count1
Weight (g)
Fraction
Identification2
Bot# N-3
105
105.1
17ea
2.867
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
105
105.2
2ea
.225
4mm
Gymnospermae (cw)
105
105.3
3ea
.203
4mm
Vacinnium sp. (cw)
105
105.4
4ea
.535
4mm
Quercus virginiana (cw)
105
105.5
2ea
.071
4mm
Dio spy ros sp. (cw)
105
105.6
3ea
.179
4mm
Acer sp. (cw)
105
105.7
4ea
.172
4mm
Quercus sp. (cw)
105
105.8
lea
.061
4mm
Angiospermae-stem, indeterminate hardwood (cw)
105
105.9
2ea
.079
4mm
Angiospermae- diffuse porous hardwood (cw)
105
105.10
lbg
2.185
4mm
Residual- scanned for seed
105
105.11
lbg
9.11
2mm
Residual- scanned for seed
105
105.12
2ea
.015
4mm
Indeterminte Plantae (cs,p)
105
105.13
lea
.012
2mm
Dicotyledoneae- woody dicot root (cw)
105
105.14
Ijr
wet
4mm
Residual- scanned for seed
105
105.15
Ijr
wet
2mm
Residual- scanned for seed
105
105.16
Ijr
wet
1mm
Residual- scanned for seed
Bot# N-4
106
106.1
13ea
2.444
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
106
106.2
9ea
.986
4mm
Acer sp. (cw)
106
106.3
3ea
.465
4mm
Quercus virginiana (cw)
106
106.4
3ea
.343
4mm
Quercus sp. (cw)
106
106.5
2ea
.176
4mm
Vacinnium sp. (cw)
106
106.6
lbg
6.257
4mm
Residual- scanned for seed (cw)
106
106.7
lbg
8.894
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed (cw)
106
106.8
Ijr
wet
4mm
Residual- scanned for seed
106
106.9
Ijr
wet
2mm
Residual- scanned for seed
106
106.10
Ijr
wet
2mm
Cucurbitaceae (s)
106
106.11
lea
wet
1mm
Residual- scanned for seed
Bot# N-5
107
107.1
16ea
2.094
4mm
Pinus sp. (cw)
107
107.2
5ea
.515
4mm
Acer sp. (cw)
107
107.3
5ea
.266
4mm
Vaccinium sp. (cw)
107
107.4
lea
.058
4mm
Monocotyledoneae-stem (p)
107
107.5
3ea
.324
4mm
Unidentified Plantae (cw,p)
107
107.6
lea
wet
2mm
Passiflora sp. (ws,cs)
107
107.7
8ea
wet
2mm
Parthenocissus sp. (ws)
107
107.8
4ea
wet
2mm
Ampelopsis sp. (ws)
107
107.9
46ea
wet
1mm
Cladium sp. (ws)
107
107.10
lea
wet
1mm
Scirpus sp. (cs)
107
107.11
lea
wet
2mm
Sambucus sp. (ws)
107
107.12
lea
wet
2mm
Indeterminate Plantae (s,p)
107
107.13
Ijr
wet
2mm
Residual-scanned for seed
107
107.14
Ijr
wet
1mm
Residual-scanned for seed
1- Individual seeds were counted and a sub-sample of charred wood was taken from each 4mm sample. Where possible the charred wood sub-sample was N=30. In a few instances the
wood sample was taken from the 2 mm samples if they were large enough (three growth rings exhibited) to help obtain a representative sample.
2- Residual samples of 4 mm and 2 mm fractions contained primarily charred wood fragments (Plantae) that were too small for identification. All 4 mm and 2 mm fractions were scanned
100% for seed. The 1 mm fraction soil samples were sub-sampled. The sub-sample consisted of 10% (by weight) of the total weight of the 1 mm processed fraction. Some of the smaller
samples were 100% scanned for seeds. Each of these was scanned for identifiable seed remains.
* No 4 mm fraction was present.


123
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Appendix H. Allometric Formula Used for Ray-Finned Fish Size Estimates Based on Vertebra Measurements.
General Equation: log10y = log10 a + b( log10 x)
x = independent variable
y = dependent variable
a = y-intercept
b = slope
Ray-finned Fishes (Actinopterygii): log10y = 1.162 + 2.047 (log10x)
x = width (mm) of vertebra centrum
y = total body weight (g)
Source: Formula values from Wing and Brown (1979:128).
Appendix I. Allometric Formula Values Used in Meat Weight Estimates.
General Equation: log10 y = log10 a + b (log10 x)
x = bone or shell weight (grams)
y = meat weight (grams)
a = y-intercept
b = slope
Source: Formula values from Quitmyer (1985:39) and the Environmental Archaeology Files, Florida Museum of Natural History.
Taxon
loga
b
Taxon
loga
b
Actinopterygii (Ray-Finned Fishes)
1.38
0.89
Serpentes (Snakes)
1.06
0.94
Caudata (Salamanders)
2.07
0.56
Alligator mississippiensis (Alligator)
na
na
Anura (Toads/Frogs)
1.40
0.86
Aves (Birds)
1.24
0.84
Testudines (Turtles)
1.65
0.53
Mammalia (Mammals)
1.41
0.81
Lacertilia (Lizards)
na
na
*na = not available
Appendix J. Taxonomic List of Animals Identified at Whitebelt 1, with Quantification. From Column Sample 1, upper
and lower strata combined (Levels 1 through 10).
Scientific Name
Common Name
Up¬
per
Low¬
er
NISP
NISP%
MNI
MNI%
wt(g)
wt%
Meat
Wt(g)
Meat
Wt%
CARTILAGINOUS FISH
Carcharhiniformes
requiem sharks
X
X
24
0.35%
2
1.65%
5.21
0.83%
RAY-FINNED FISHES
Lepisosteus spp.
gar
X
X
1515
21.78%
5
4.13%
42.36
6.75%
820.58
8.45%
Amia calva
bowfin
X
X
713
10.25%
14
11.57%
45.27
7.21%
882.77
9.09%
Clupeidae
herrings
X
1
0.01%
1
0.83%
0.02
0.00%
0.74
0.01%
Erimyzon sucetta
lake chubsucker
X
X
5
0.07%
2
1.65%
0.07
0.01%
2.60
0.03%
Ictaluridae
N. Amer. catfishes
X
X
236
3.39%
23
19.01%
8.45
1.35%
193.89
2.00%
Ariopsis felis
hardhead catfish
X
4
0.06%
1
0.83%
0.13
0.02%
4.21
0.04%
Ariidae
sea catfishes
X
4
0.06%
0.06
0.01%
1.96
0.02%
Siluriformes
catfishes
X
X
59
0.85%
1.41
0.22%
39.89
0.41%
Esox spp.
pickerel
X
4
0.06%
1
0.83%
0.13
0.02%
4.32
0.04%
Mugil spp.
mullet
X
2
0.03%
1
0.83%
0.07
0.01%
2.43
0.03%
Lepomis microlophus
Red-ear sunfish
X
X
15
0.22%
4
3.31%
1.75
0.28%
43.63
0.45%
Lepomis spp.
Sunfish
X
X
209
3.01%
3
2.48%
4.29
0.68%
105.56
1.09%
Micropterus salmoides
largemouth bass
X
X
61
0.88%
10
8.26%
3.71
0.59%
90.41
0.93%
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
black crappie
X
2
0.03%
1
0.83%
0.07
0.01%
2.25
0.02%
Actinopterygii
ray-finned fishes
X
X
25.05
3.99%
514.36
5.30%


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle Ditch
124
Appendix J, continued.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Up¬
per
Low¬
er
NISP
NISP%
MNI
MNI%
wt(g)
wt%
Meat
wt(g)
Meat
Wt%
AMPHIBIANS
Amphiuma means
two-toed amphiuma
X
X
5
0.07%
2
1.65%
0.65
0.10%
163.95
1.69%
Siren lacertina
greater siren
X
X
78
1.12%
5
4.13%
10.15
1.62%
973.75
10.03%
Caudata
salamanders
X
X
69
0.99%
4.48
0.71%
525.37
5.41%
Rana spp.
true frogs
X
X
3
0.04%
3
2.48%
0.20
0.03%
6.93
0.07%
Anura
toads/frogs
X
X
10
0.14%
0.42
0.07%
13.82
0.14%
REPTILES
Chelydra serpentina
snapping turtle
X
X
8
0.12%
2
1.65%
3.73
0.59%
147.27
1.52%
Apalone ferox
Florida softshell
X
X
43
0.62%
2
1.65%
5.14
0.82%
237.52
2.45%
Kinosternon spp.
mudturtle
X
X
23
0.33%
5
4.13%
7.61
1.21%
311.20
3.21%
Kinostemidae
mud/muskturtles
X
X
196
2.82%
1
0.83%
33.55
5.35%
682.95
7.04%
Deirochelys reticularia
chicken turtle
X
1
0.01%
1
0.83%
0.23
0.04%
20.50
0.21%
Terr apene Carolina
boxturtle
X
1
0.01%
1
0.83%
0.41
0.07%
27.85
0.29%
Emydidae
cooters/sliders/box
X
X
6
0.09%
2
1.65%
3.28
0.52%
122.08
1.26%
Gopherus polyphemus
gopher tortoise
X
4
0.06%
1
0.83%
0.36
0.06%
35.87
0.37%
Testudines
turtles
X
X
1226
17.63%
84.41
13.45%
1235.33
12.73%
Alligator mississippiensis
American alligator
X
X
25
0.36%
2
1.65%
4.04
0.64%
Lacertilia
lizards
X
1
0.01%
1
0.83%
0.09
0.01%
Agkistrodon piscívoras
Florida cottonmouth
X
X
10
0.14%
3
2.48%
0.61
0.10%
7.81
0.08%
Viperidae
pit vipers
X
X
49
0.70%
12.69
2.02%
138.77
1.43%
Nerodia spp.
water snake
X
X
45
0.65%
5
4.13%
7.91
1.26%
89.11
0.92%
Farancia abacura
mud snake
X
X
3
0.04%
2
1.65%
1.12
0.18%
13.60
0.14%
Colubridae
colubrid snakes
X
X
84
1.21%
11.44
1.82%
125.59
1.29%
Serpentes
snakes
X
X
1694
24.36%
99.73
15.89%
970.65
10.00%
BIRDS
Podilymbus podiceps
pied-billed grebe
X
1
0.01%
1
0.83%
0.09
0.01%
2.30
0.02%
Aves
birds
X
X
4
0.06%
1
0.83%
0.40
0.06%
9.23
0.10%
MAMMALS
Didelphis virginiana
opossum
X
5
0.07%
1
0.83%
2.38
0.38%
56.94
0.59%
Soricidae
shrews
X
7
0.10%
2
1.65%
0.10
0.02%
3.98
0.04%
Homo sapiens
human
X
1
0.01%
1
0.83%
1.21
0.19%
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
gray fox
X
1
0.01%
1
0.83%
0.64
0.10%
17.91
0.18%
Odocoileus virginianus
white-tailed deer
X
X
13
0.19%
2
1.65%
10.30
1.64%
207.07
2.13%
Oryzomys palustris
rice rat
X
1
0.01%
1
0.83%
Rodentia
rodents
X
75
1.08%
5
4.13%
2.48
0.40%
60.46
0.62%
Small Mammalia
small mammals
X
53
0.76%
1.26
0.20%
35.94
0.37%
Medium Mammalia
medium mammals
X
14
0.20%
2.25
0.36%
55.01
0.57%
Large Mammalia
large mammals
X
X
39
0.56%
34.09
5.43%
495.48
5.10%
Mammalia
mammals
X
X
58
0.83%
9.34
1.49%
202.44
2.09%
MISCELLANEOUS
Tetrápoda
4-footed vertebrates
X
X
245
3.52%
15.21
2.42%
Vertebrata
vertebrates
X
X
117.61
18.74%
TOTALS
6955
100.00%
121
100.00%
627.66
100.00%
9706.28
100.00%


125
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (2)
Appendix K. Comparison of Vertebrate Taxa at Several South Florida Everglades Sites.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Whitebeit
Sheridan
Guy Bailey
CARTILAGINOUS FISHES
Galeocerdo cuvier
tiger shark
X
Carcharhinidae
requiem sharks
X
Carcharhiniformes
requiem sharks
X
Raj iformes/Myliobatiformes
skates/rays
X
RAY-FINNED FISHES
Lepisosteus spp.
gar
X
X
X
Amia calva
bowfin
X
X
X
Anguilliformes
eels
X
Clupeidae
herrings
X
Erimyzon sucetta
lake chubsucker
X
Ameiurus spp.
bullhead catfish
X
Ictaluridae
North American catfishes
X
X
Ariopsis felis
hardhead catfish
X
Ariidae
sea catfishes
X
Siluriformes
catfishes
X
X
Esox spp.
pickerel
X
Mugil spp.
mullet
X
X
Lepomis microlophus
redear sunfish
X
X
X
Lepomis spp.
sunfish
X
X
Micropterus salmoides
largemouth bass
X
X
X
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
black crappie
X
Centrarchidae
sunfishes
X
X
Carangidae
jacks
X
Sphyraena barracuda
great barracuda
X
Actinopterygii
ray-finned fishes
X
X
X
REPTILES
Chelydra serpentina
snapping turtle
X
X
X
Cheloniidae
hard-shelled sea turtles
X
Apalone ferox
Florida softshell turtle
X
X
X
Kinosternon spp.
mud turtle
X
X
Sternotherus spp.
musk turtle
X
Kinostemidae
mud turtles/musk turtles
X
X
X
Deirochelys reticularia
chicken turtle
X
X
Pseudemys spp.
cooter
X
Terr apene Carolina
box turtle
X
X
Trachemys spp.
slider
X
Emydidae
cooters/sliders/boxturtles
X
X
Gopherus polyphemus
gopher tortoise
X
Testudines
turtles
X
X
X
Alligator mississippiensis
American alligator
X
X
X
Lacertilia
lizards
X
X
Agkistrodon piscivorus
Florida cottonmouth
X
X
Viperidae
pitvipers
X
X
X
Nerodia spp.
water snake
X
X
X
Farancia abacura
mud snake
X
X
X
Colubridae
colubrid snakes
X
X
X
Reptilia
reptiles
X


Wheeler, Ruhl, Fradkin, Rich
Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch
126
Appendix K, continued.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Whitebelt
Sheridan
Guy Bailey
AMPHIBIANS
Amphiuma means
two-toed amphiuma
X
X
Siren lacertina
greater siren
X
X
X
Caudata
salamanders
X
X
Rana spp.
true frog
X
X
X
Anura
toads/frogs
X
X
BIRDS
Podilymbus podiceps
pied-billed grebe
X
X
Ardea hero dias
great blue heron
X
Anas spp.
marsh duck
X
Aves
birds
X
X
X
MAMMALS
Didelphis virginiana
opossum
X
X
Soricidae
shrews
X
X
Homo sapiens
human
X
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
gray fox
X
Lutra canadensis
river otter
X
Mustela vison
mink
X
Procyon lotor
raccoon
X
X
Carnivora
carnivores
X
Odocoileus virginianus
white-tailed deer
X
X
X
Neofiber alleni
round-tailed muskrat
X
Oryzomys palus tris
rice rat
X
Rodentia
rodents
X
X
X
Sylvilagus spp.
rabbit
X
X
Small Mammalia
small mammals
X
X
Medium Mammalia
medium mammals
X
X
Large Mammalia
large mammals
X
Mammalia
mammals
X
X
X
MISCELLANEOUS
Tetrápoda
four-footed vertebrates
X
X




ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Christian Davenport holds a B.A. (Franklin Pierce College, New Hampshire) and an M.A. (University of
Tennessee, Knoxville) in Anthropology focusing on zooarchaeology. He is currently working on is Ph.D. in
geosciences (Florida Atlantic University). Chris was awarded the Ripley Bullen Award by FAS in 2018 for
furthering good relations among professional and avocational archaeologists. He is the Historic Preservation
Officer/Archaeologist for Palm Beach County, Florida.
Arlene Fradkin is Professor in Archaeology in the Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University.
Her major area of expertise is zooarchaeology, the study of animal remains recovered from archaeological
sites. She has worked on many archaeological sites in the United States and abroad. Her research projects
focus primarily on pre-Columbian Native American, historic colonial, and early American archaeological
sites in the Southeast United States, especially Florida. She also has studied faunal assemblages from pre-
Columbian sites in Central and South America and from Roman and Byzantine sites in the Middle East.
Fred Rich earned a B.S. from the University of Wisconsin and a Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University.
His field area was Georgia’s Okefenokee Swamp, where he studied environments of peat deposition. He taught
geology at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology for nine years, and undertook paleoecological
analyses of coal-bearing units in Wyoming and North Dakota. In 1988, Fred returned to Georgia, becoming
a member of the Department of Geology and Geography, Georgia Southern University. He resumed work on
sediments of the Okefenokee Swamp and proceeded to hold a variety of positions in professional societies,
including what was to become AASP-The Palynological Society. Fred's work focuses on plant paleoecology.
Donna Ruhl is Florida Archaeology and Bioarchaeology Collections manager at the Florida Museum of
Natural History (FLMNH) and oversees the daily access, use, digitization, rehabilitation, and maintenance
of these holdings. Her research involves the documentation and analysis of Florida’s ancient dugout canoes,
including those exposed by severe drought. This is a collaborative effort between the Museum and other state
and local institutions and the private sector to document these unique artifacts. Donna holds a concurrent
appointment in Environmental Archaeology at FLMNH as a Research Associate in Archaeobotany where she
studies plant remains from southeastern U.S. archaeological sites (e.g., Florida: Useppa Island, Whitebelt
1 Circle-Ditch, Garden Patch; Georgia: St. Catherines Island shell rings) and more recently the U.S. Virgin
Islands (St. Croix).
Ryan Wheeler has a B.A. from Florida Atlantic University and a M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of
Florida. As Florida’s State Archaeologist, he led efforts to design and develop the Miami Circle Park,
commemorating a significant Tequesta site preserved through community efforts. He is a past editor of
The Florida Anthropologist (1999-2006), author of Treasure of the Calusa: the Johnson/Wilcox Collection
from Mound Key (2000), and co-editor, with Joanna Ostapkowicz, of Iconography and Wetsite Archaeology
of Florida's Watery Realms (2019). Ryan became the eight director of the Robert S. Peabody Institute of
Archaeology in 2012.
Vol. 72 (2)
The Florida Anthropologist
128




2019 FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY AWARDS
Lifetime Achievement Award
At the 71st Annual Meeting, FAS President Jason Wenzel
announced a Lifetime Achievement Award, on behalf of
the FAS Board, for Louis D. Tesar. The plaque is inscribed
“Presented to Louis D. Tesar for remarkable accomplishments
in protecting and preserving Florida’s archaeological heritage,
May 11,2019.”
Louis is a legend in his own time. He has had a dramatic
impact on Florida Archaeology. In the 1980s, he developed the
state’s Archaeological and Historic Preservation Compliance
Review Program and set standards and guidelines for
professional projects throughout Florida (Hardin 2002; Tesar
1982, 1990). For a decade, from 1983 to 1992, he served as
Editor of The Florida Anthropologist. For 35 years, from 1977
to 2012, Louis worked as a state archaeologist, in Tallahassee,
authoring and co-authoring more than 100 reports and articles.
He excelled in using a flatbed scanner and digital imagery to
document numerous artifacts.
Mr. Tesar grew up in the 1950s and early 1960s in coastal
Bay County, near Panama City in the Florida panhandle, where
he developed an early interest in Florida Archaeology. After
he was graduated from high school in 1964, Louis worked
as a marine technician for Texas A&M University. For an
anthropology class, Louis completed his first professional
archaeological report (Tesar 1965). He attended Gulf Coast
Community College, in Panama City, receiving an Associate
in Science degree in 1966. In 1967, Louis continued his
undergraduate studies at Florida State University, where he
was fortunate to work in the studio of ceramic artist Ivan
Gundrum, the famous replicator of Florida Indian pottery
vessels.
He earned a B.S. in Anthropology from Florida State
University in 1968. After graduation, he served in the U.S.
Peace Corps in Panama, Central America. He worked for two
and a half years with the Valiente Guaymi Indians, from 1968
to 1971 (Tesar 1974, 2002:124-126, 337-347, 355-400).
In 1973, Louis achieved an M.S. in Anthropology
from Florida State University. Working for the university
in 1973, Louis developed skills in site survey in the Gulf
Islands National Seashore. Next, he worked in Mississippi,
doing a survey of Jasper County and then excavations for the
Cottonlandia Foundation (Tesar 2002:133-147).
Tesar returned to Florida in 1976, and began the
excavation and report phase of the monumental Leon County
Bicentennial Survey (Tesar 1980). In 1977, he was hired as
a state archaeologist, conducting surveys and excavations,
and soon began to establish and administer the state’s review
and compliance program. In the 1980s, Louis was one of the
co-drafters of Florida’s Unmarked Human Burial Law (Tesar
1987), and he recommended historic preservation aspects for
state land acquisition (Environmentally Endangered Lands
Louis Tesar (right) is presented a Lifetime Achievement
by FAS President Jason Wenzel.
program, Conservation and Recreational Lands program) and
for Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning
process (e.g., Tesar 1986, 1989; Tesar et al. 1990).
While working for the State, Louis worked with many
colleagues, such as his friend the late archaeologist B. Calvin
Jones, as well as interested citizens in public archaeology
projects. They investigated many sites, such as the DeSoto
Winter Camp/Govemor Martin Site (Tesar and Jones 1989),
Block-Stems (Jones and Tesar 1996; Jones et al. 1998),
Waddells Mill Pond (Tesar 2006, 2009a; Tesar and Jones
2009), Mount Royal village area (Jones and Tesar 2001), and
Wakulla Springs Lodge site (Tesar and Jones 2004). As Editor
of The Florida Anthropologist, Louis assembled several
important thematic issues, such as the “First Spanish Period”
(1989) issue.
Louis also independently studied sites, such as Johnson
Sand Pit (Tesar 1994). He wrote popular articles about Florida
archaeology and frequently identified artifacts for the public
and scholars (e.g., Tesar 1993, 2007, 2015a, 2015b). Louis
also is known for scanning artifacts in high definition (Tesar
2009b), recently applying his skills to the analysis of carved
bone (Tesar 2016) and evidence of warfare in Pem (in press).
In 2018, Louis was honored with the creation of the Louis
Tesar Student Essay Contest, sponsored by the Panhandle
Archaeological Society. A prize of $1,000 was awarded
in June 2018 to Emilee McGann, a recent graduate of FSU
(Anonymous 2018).
It is with great admiration and respect that FAS presents a
Lifetime Achievement Award to Louis D. Tesar.
Vol. 72 (2)
The Florida Anthropologist
130


References Cited
Anonymous
2018 PAST Award Honors Archaeologist Louis Tesar.
Tallahassee Democrat, June 7.
Hardin, Kenneth W.
2002 Archaeological Significance: A Deconstruction of
the Florida Approach. In Thinking About Significance, edited
by Robert J. Austin, Kathleen S. Hoffman, and George R.
Bailo, pp 15-33. Florida Archaeological Council, Special
Publication #1, Riverview.
Jones, B. Calvin, Daniel T. Penton, and Louis D. Tesar
1998 1973 and 1994 Excavations at the Block-Stems Site,
Leon County, Florida. In A World Engraved: Archaeology
of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and
Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 222-246. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Jones, B. Calvin, and Louis D. Tesar
1996 Emergency Archaeological Salvage Excavation
within the Swift Creek Subarea of the Block-Stearns Site
(8LE148), Leon County, Florida: A Public Archaeology
Project. MS #0644, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.
2001 1983-1995 Survey, Salvage and Mitigation of
Archaeological Resources within the Mount Royal Site
(8PU35) Village Area, Putnam County, Florida. MS on file,
Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.
Tesar, Louis D.
1965 An Archaeological Survey of the West Peninsula
of St. Andrews Bay. MS #253, Florida Master Site File,
Tallahassee.
1974 A Valiente Guaymi Cayuco Hauling Junta. The
Florida Anthropologist 27(4): 133-144.
Louis Tesar excavating in 1975 for the Cottonlandia
Foundation at the Humber-McWilliams site (22CO601)
Clarksdale, Mississippi (from Tesar 2002:138-139,143).
1980 The Leon County Bicentennial Survey Report: An
Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of Leon County,
Florida. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties,
Miscellaneous Project Report Series #49, Tallahassee.
1982 Guidelines for Archaeological and Historical
Site Assessment Survey, Test Excavation, and/or Field
Methodology and Report Content for Projects Conducted in
the State of Florida. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and
Properties, Tallahassee.
1986 Historic Preservation and Florida’s Local
Government Comprehensive Planning Process. The Florida
Anthropologist 39(4):257-280.
1987 Chapter 872, Florida Statutes (“Offenses
Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves”) Amended: The Law
and Its Significance. The Florida Anthropologist
40(3):221-223.
1989 Preservation in Local Government Comprehensive
Planning: How Is It Working? In Growth Management
Studies Newsletter 4(3):3-4. Center for Government
Responsibility, University of Florida College of Law,
Gainesville.
1990 The Historic Preservation Compliance Review
Program of the Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources: A Guided to the Historic Preservation
Provisions of State and Federal Environmental Review
Laws. Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of
Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
1993 Collecting Artifacts - When, How and Where.
Florida Wildlife 47(1 ):20.
1994 Johnson Sand Pit (8LE73): An Analysis and
Comparative Review of a Paleoindian through Early
Deptford Base Camp in Leon County, Florida. Florida
Archaeological Reports 32. Bureau of Archaeological
Research, Tallahassee.
2002 Archaeology: A Personal Perspective. On file,
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
2006 Waddells Mill Pond Site (8JA65) Revisited: The
Results of B. Calvin Jones ’ 1973-1974 Investigation.
Report on file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research,
Tallahassee.
2007 An Archaeological Walk Through Time in Western
Northwest Florida. Report on file, Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
2009a Waddells Millpond Site (8JA65): An Assessment of
Its Swift Creek Complicated Stamp and Fort Walton Ceramic
Vessel Sherds. MS# 16736, Florida Master Site File.
Vol. 72 (2)
The Florida Anthropologist
131


A composite image of July 2000 showing (left to right) Louis, Calvin Jones, Tommy Abood, and landowners Paul and
Willanelle Wilcox studying maps of the Mount Royal site (8PU35) village area, in Putnam County, Florida (from Tesar
2002:317-318).
2009b Flatbed Scanner Imagery: An Archaeological
Documentation and Reporting Tool. Florida Bureau of
Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee.
2015a What Do You Call This?: An Informal Guide to
Identifying Native American Associated Artifacts Found in
Northwest Florida. Part I (Cultural Development), Part
II (Ceramics). On file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological
Research, Tallahassee.
2015b Lost and Found: The Cultural Material Heritage
of Mission San Luis (8LE4), Leon County, Florida: An
Illustrated Compendium of Example Artifacts and List of
Accessioned Artifacts with Scanned Images. On file, Florida
Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
2016 Vero Beach, Florida Engraved Depiction of A
Mammoth: The Engraving’s Antiquity Questioned. The
Florida Anthropologist 69(4): 174-182.
Tesar, Louis D., and B. Calvin Jones
1989 In Search of the 1539-40 de Soto Expedition
Wintering Site in Apalache. The Florida Anthropologist
42(4):340-360.
2004 Wakulla Springs Lodge Site (8WA329) In
Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park, Wakulla County,
Florida: A Summary of Eleven Projects and Management
Recommendations. MS#06602, Florida Master Site File,
Tallahassee.
2009 Waddells Millpond Site (8JA65): 1973-74 Test
Excavation Results. MS#16351, Florida Master Site File,
Tallahassee.
Tesar, Louis D., Jack Kostrzewa, and Lee A. Luis
1990 Historic Preservation Issues in Florida s
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Process:
Remembering the Past While Planning for the Future. A
guide to review and compliance under Chapter 163 and
9J-5. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee.
Vol. 72 (2)
The Florida Anthropologist
132


2019 FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY AWARDS
Theresa Schober (left) accepts the Bullen Award from
Jason Wenzel (center) and John Furey of SWFAS (right).
Ripley P. Bullen Award
At the FAS 71st Annual Meeting in Crystal River, FAS
President Jason Wenzel, presented the Ripley P. Bullen
Memorial Award to Theresa Schober. The plaque is inscribed:
“To Theresa Schober for furthering good relations among
avocational and professional archaeologists, May 11, 2019.”
Theresa was nominated for the Bullen Award by the
Southwest Florida Archaeological Society (SWFAS). She has
been an integral member of SWFAS since 1991, participating
in excavations and training many avocational members, both
in the field and at the SWFAS staffed and supported Craighead
Archaeological Laboratory at the Collier County Museum.
She has served SWFAS for three years as president, three
years as vice president, seven years as trustee, and many years
as the SWFAS Chapter Representative to FAS.
In addition to her leadership role in SWFAS, Theresa has
served two terms as FAS President, two terms as FAS 1st Vice
President, and four terms as FAS 2nd Vice President. In 2014,
Theresa received the FAS President’s Award recognizing
her contributions to public archaeology in Florida. In 2018,
SWFAS awarded her the Golden Trowel Award for her
contributions to Southwest Florida archaeology.
Always willing to work with FAS chapters, Theresa has
made many presentations to chapter members to promote
Florida archaeology. She has worked with SEFAS in
excavations at Mount Elizabeth, where she also involved and
trained a number of SWFAS avocational archaeologists.
Theresa is originally from western Canada and received
her B.S. degree in Archaeology from the University of
Calgary, her M.A. in Anthropology from the University of
Illinois-Urbana-Champaign. She is working on her Ph.D.
at the University of Florida and is currently the manager of
the Immokalee Pioneer Museum at Roberts Ranch. She has
directed or worked on archaeological excavations in Canada,
Mexico, Panama, and the United States.
Ms. Schober’s research has centered on the Calusa in
southwest Florida and her public archaeology outreach has
taken many forms. Her project at the Mound House on Ft.
Myers Beach saw her direct the restoration of the Mound
House, where she developed an exhibition, while assisting
in raising over four million dollars to fund them. She has
provided educator workshops through the Florida Humanities
Council.
Theresa leads and narrates tours to Mound Key in San
Carlos Bay to explain the role this outstanding site played in
the lives of the Calusa. Theresa has just completed a movie for
PBS named “Escampaba: The Kingdom of Carlos.” Filmed on
Mound Key and in St. Augustine, the film depicts the meeting
of King Carlos of the Calusa with Pedro Menendez de Aviles
in 1566 at Mound Key and it will be released in 2019.
In 2016, Theresa was co-curator of the “Art Calusa”
traveling exhibit that toured Florida and showcased the
work of contemporary Southwest Florida artists who depict
Calusa life. She produced an accompanying catalog of this
artwork. In 2017, with the Lee Trust for Historic Preservation
and Friends of Mound Key, Theresa helped organize the
symposium “Laboring in the Fields of the Lord, Southeastern
Indians and Spanish Missions.” The day-long presentations
of five Florida professors were filmed and live-streamed at
Florida Southwestern State College. Videos of each speaker
are available to the public on Schober’s website, heritage-
matter s.org.
Through her work, Theresa has continually emphasized
making archaeology available and understandable to both
the public and to avocational archaeologists. She has focused
attention on local archaeological programs that interest and
attract like-minded people to join us in preserving Florida’s
archaeological heritage. Theresa has shown that the
professional/avocational partnerships continue to flourish.
Vol. 72 (2)
The Florida Anthropologist
133


FAS thanks hosting members of CGCAS, FPAN West Central and Central Offices, AWIARE, and USF Anthropology Department.
Certificate of Achievement
The FAS Board presented four Certificates of Achievement
for the outstanding efforts to organize and present the 2018 FAS
Annual Meeting. These certificates acknowledge educational
outreach efforts in the Greater Tampa Bay area. The recipients
are Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society (CGCAS),
the Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) West
Central and Central Offices, Alliance for Weedon Island
Archaeological Research and Education (AWIARE),
and University of South Florida (USF) Anthropology
Department.
These organizations have demonstrated the importance of
collaborations to promote public outreach, preservation, and
student learning in various aspects of Florida anthropology
and archaeology, while engaging community members and
stakeholders. We also thank these recipients for organizing
the 2019 FAS Annual Meeting. These organizations and their
members are exemplary in showing how FAS chapters, public
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and academic departments
can work together to support the objectives and goals of FAS.
President’s Thank You - Pat Balanzategui
Jason Wenzel presented a card and gift certificate to Pat, who
retired this year from her long service as Membership Secretary.
Student Prizes & Grants
Dorothy Moore Student Grant
Robert Austin (right), Chair of the Student Grant Award
Committee, presented a check to Jessica Jenkins, grad
student, University of Florida. She applied for funds to obtain
radiocarbon dates from the Dan May site, which is part of her
larger project to identify and to date possible revitalization
efforts by Late Woodland populations in northern Florida.
President’s Thank You - Sarah Bennett
President Jason Wenzel acknowledged Sarah Bennett,
recently retired FAS Newsletter Editor. He thanked Sarah
for her 5 years of service. Sarah currently works in CRM
for SEARCH, based near Gainesville. Ms. Bennett received
her bachelor’s degree from Flagler College in 2010 and her
master’s degree from the University of West Florida in 2015.
She specialized in Spanish colonial archaeology, expanding her
field to include British colonial sites, municipal archaeology,
as well as archaeology curriculum development, education,
and interpretation.
Banquet Award Photos by Steve Koski
This year, the Arthur R. Lee Chapter Award and
the William C. Lazarus Award were not presented.
Vol. 72 (2)
The Florida Anthropologist
134


FAS CHAPTERS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Archaeological Society of Southern Florida
fasweb.org/assf/
Central Florida Anthropological Society
fasweb.org/cfas/
Central Gulf Coast Archaeology Society
fas web. org/cgcas/
Emerald Coast Archaeology Society
fasweb.org/ecas/
Gold Coast Anthropological Society
fasweb.org/gcas/
Indian River Anthropological Society
fasweb.org/iras/
Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
fas web. org/kvahc/
Palm Beach County Archaeological Society
fasweb.org/pbcas/
Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee
fasweb.org/past/
Pensacola Archaeological Society
fasweb.org/pas/
Southeast Florida Archaeological Society
fas web. org/sefas/
Southwest Florida Archaeological Society
fas web. org/ s wfas/
St. Augustine Archaeological Association
fasweb.org/saaa/
Time Sifters Archaeology Society
fasweb.org/tsas/
Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring Archaeological Society
fasweb.org/wmslssas/


JOIN THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Membership in FAS supports education initiatives statewide, including an annual conference,
student grants, Florida Archaeology Month, and more. Join today and you will receive our quarterly
newsletter and The Florida Anthropologist. Membership is open to all interested individuals who are
willing to abide by the FAS Statement of Ethics (available at fasweb.org/membership/).
Membership categories and rates:
Student: $15
Regular: $30
Family $35
Institutional: $30
Sustaining: $100
Patron: $1000
Benefactor: $2500
• Student membership is open to graduate, undergraduate, and high school students. A photocopy of
your current student ID must accompany payment
• Add $25 for foreign address
• Membership forms are also available at fasweb.org/membership/
• The Society publishes the journal The Florida Anthropologist and newsletters, normally quarterly and
sponsors an annual meeting hosted by a local chapter
Name
Address
City
State
Zip
Telephone
Email
FAS Chapter
I agree to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Florida Anthropological Society
Mail to:
Florida Anthropological Society
c/o FAS Membership Secretary
P O Box 1561 Boynton Beach, FL 33425






Florida Anthropological Society, Inc.
George M. Luer, Ph.D.
3222 Old Oak Drive
Sarasota, FL 34239
NON-PROFIT
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
TALLAHASSEE, FL
PERMIT NO. 329
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
Table of Contents
From the Editors
Articles
A Possible Proto-Underwater Panther: Late Archaic/Woodland Carved Bone
in the Northern Everglades 54-66
Christian Davenport
The Archaeology of the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (8PB220)
Palm Beach County, Florida 68-126
Ryan J. Wheeler, Donna Ruhl, Arlene Fradkin, Fredrick J. Rich
About the Authors 128
Florida Anthropological Society 2019 Awards 130
Cover: Artist Merald Clarke’s photoshop artwork depicting
The Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.
Back: Zoomorphic and spiral cross-mended carved bone
artifact from the Hutchinson Site.
Copyright 2019 by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
fcla fda yes
!-- Florida anthropologist ( Serial ) --
METS:mets OBJID UF00027829_00246
xmlns:METS http:www.loc.govMETS
xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink
xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
xmlns:daitss http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss
xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3
xmlns:sobekcm http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm
xmlns:lom http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm_lom
xsi:schemaLocation
http:www.loc.govstandardsmetsmets.xsd
http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitss.xsd
http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-4.xsd
http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcmsobekcm.xsd
METS:metsHdr CREATEDATE 2021-02-24T17:15:43Z ID LASTMODDATE 2021-02-23T08:41:37Z RECORDSTATUS COMPLETE
METS:agent ROLE CREATOR TYPE ORGANIZATION
METS:name UF,University of Florida
OTHERTYPE SOFTWARE OTHER
Go UFDC - FDA Preparation Tool
INDIVIDUAL
UFAD\renner
METS:dmdSec DMD1
METS:mdWrap MDTYPE MODS MIMETYPE textxml LABEL Metadata
METS:xmlData
mods:mods
mods:abstract type summary displayLabel Summary Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
mods:accessCondition 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.
mods:genre authority sobekcm serial
marcgt periodical
mods:identifier OCLC 609502567
LCCN 56028409
ISSN 0015-3893
mods:language
mods:languageTerm text English
code iso639-2b eng
mods:location
mods:physicalLocation Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
UFSPEC
mods:url access object in context https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00246
mods:name corporate
mods:namePart Florida Anthropological Society
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology
mods:note dates or sequential designation v. 1- May 1948-
Cumulative index: Vols. 1-24, no. 2, 1948-June 1971. 1 v.
mods:originInfo
mods:publisher Florida Anthropological Society.
mods:place
mods:placeTerm marccountry flu
mods:dateIssued marc point start 1948
end 9999
mods:edition Volume 72 Number 2, June 2019
mods:frequency Quarterly[]
Two no. a year[ FORMER 1948-]
marcfrequency quarterly
regular
mods:recordInfo
mods:recordIdentifier source UF00027829_00246
mods:recordCreationDate 750824
mods:recordOrigin Imported from (OCLC)01569447
mods:recordContentSource University of Florida
marcorg MUL
YUS
NSD
DLC
OCL
NST
EBZ
SYS
WAU
OCLCQ
mods:languageOfCataloging
English
eng
mods:relatedItem original
mods:physicalDescription
mods:extent v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
series
mods:part
mods:detail Enum1
mods:caption Volume 72 (2019)
mods:number 72
Enum2
Number 2 (June)
2
mods:subject SUBJ650_1 lcsh
mods:topic Indians of North America
Antiquities
mods:geographic Florida
Periodicals
SUBJ651_2
Antiquities
Florida
Periodicals
mods:titleInfo
mods:nonSort The
mods:title Florida anthropologist
abbreviated
Fla. anthropol.
mods:typeOfResource text
DMD2
OTHERMDTYPE SOBEKCM SobekCM Custom
sobekcm:procParam
sobekcm:Aggregation ALL
HISTORY
FHPC
UFIR
FLANT
IUF
IUFSPEC
sobekcm:MainThumbnail 00001thm.jpg
sobekcm:Wordmark FLANT
UF
UFIR
sobekcm:bibDesc
sobekcm:BibID UF00027829
sobekcm:VID 00246
sobekcm:EncodingLevel #
sobekcm:Publisher
sobekcm:Name Florida Anthropological Society.
sobekcm:PlaceTerm Gainesville
sobekcm:Source
sobekcm:statement UF University of Florida
sobekcm:SortDate 711126
sobekcm:serial
sobekcm:SerialHierarchy level 1 order 72 Volume 72 (2019)
2 Number 2 (June)
METS:amdSec
METS:digiprovMD DIGIPROV1
DAITSS Archiving Information
daitss:daitss
daitss:AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT PROJECT UFDC
METS:techMD TECH1
File Technical Details
sobekcm:FileInfo
sobekcm:File fileid JP21 width 5325 height 6979
JPEG1 630 826
JPEG2 855
JP22 5081 6894
JPEG3
JP23
JPEG4
JP24
JPEG5
JP25
JPEG6
JP26
JPEG7
JP27
JPEG8
JP28
JPEG9
JP29
JPEG10
JP210
JPEG11
JP211
JPEG12
JP212
JPEG13
JP213
JPEG14
JP214
JPEG15
JP215
JPEG16
JP216
JPEG17
JP217
JPEG18
JP218
JPEG19
JP219
JPEG20
JP220
JPEG21
JP221
JPEG22
JP222
JPEG23
JP223
JPEG24
JP224
JPEG25
JP225
JPEG26
JP226
JPEG27
JP227
JPEG28
JP228
JPEG29
JP229
JPEG30
JP230
JPEG31
JP231
JPEG32
JP232
JPEG33
JP233
JPEG34
JP234
JPEG35
JP235
JPEG36
JP236
JPEG37
JP237
JPEG38
JP238
JPEG39
JP239
JPEG40
JP240
JPEG41
JP241
JPEG42
JP242
JPEG43
JP243
JPEG44
JP244
JPEG45
JP245
JPEG46
JP246
JPEG47
JP247
JPEG48
JP248
JPEG49
JP249
JPEG50
JP250
JPEG51
JP251
JPEG52
JP252
JPEG53
JP253
JPEG54
JP254
JPEG55
JP255
JPEG56
JP256
JPEG57
JP257
JPEG58
JP258
JPEG59
JP259
JPEG60
JP260
JPEG61
JP261
JPEG62
JP262
JPEG63
JP263
JPEG64
JP264
JPEG65
JP265
JPEG66
JP266
JPEG67
JP267
JPEG68
JP268
JPEG69
JP269
JPEG70
JP270
JPEG71
JP271
JPEG72
JP272
JPEG73
JP273
JPEG74
JP274
JPEG75
JP275
JPEG76
JP276
JPEG77
JP277
JPEG78
JP278
JPEG79
JP279
JPEG80
JP280
JPEG81
JP281
JPEG82
JP282
JPEG83
JP283
JPEG84
JP284
JPEG85
JP285
JPEG86
JP286
JPEG87
JP287
JPEG88
JP288
JPEG89
JP289
JPEG90
JP290
METS:fileSec
METS:fileGrp USE archive
METS:file GROUPID G1 TIF1 imagetiff CHECKSUM d1d0bb74a9250b98f0cef07df6e8a6b4 CHECKSUMTYPE MD5 SIZE 111513736
METS:FLocat LOCTYPE OTHERLOCTYPE SYSTEM xlink:href 00001.tif
G2 TIF2 42216a3b0846319805b0d91c4bdb38bd 105108040
00002.tif
G3 TIF3 28af61c92a33a9d16497301aa13b641f 105106112
00003.tif
G4 TIF4 536ccbb6cfb11270398b7132f1bb6b9d 105106456
00004.tif
G5 TIF5 d849f67193d14af9eab8f17163cde7ce 105107416
00005.tif
G6 TIF6 d3b2f8adb4d6c8bbebd154dafae9522d 105107264
00006.tif
G7 TIF7 f3e6a8b5d8bd56d440d40e1179df9675 105108544
00007.tif
G8 TIF8 6bd75d8b28559f440d4e78ecec55d0a0 105108676
00008.tif
G9 TIF9 ee34fcf3bc3d98d2a0bd77d125432c40 105108980
00009.tif
G10 TIF10 b577635aee91b017888cd0b632f9a27a 105107676
00010.tif
G11 TIF11 922cd71aadeb759853f881aabbe1fb3a 105109196
00011.tif
G12 TIF12 3107d8c68435dbfe33c147467dff0c5e 105109028
00012.tif
G13 TIF13 e90c8692ab57225a7176a100c82e29fc 105108936
00013.tif
G14 TIF14 a6e0d6f7e304425fe527601f130c710d 105110108
00014.tif
G15 TIF15 813b983c1b7ff29245f1664c258f5684 105108500
00015.tif
G16 TIF16 434532f246529e50474342240528f9ad 105108148
00016.tif
G17 TIF17 dac9c5403ed79d744ea88bf8d3485f5e 105108236
00017.tif
G18 TIF18 ca13b47d2523d425536f4225e7e75fde 105103688
00018.tif
G19 TIF19 6fbb63500807063c09a1409fa9019dee 105107472
00019.tif
G20 TIF20 8232441c5c24b93066ada65ddea1ef56 105108856
00020.tif
G21 TIF21 ef9f04e23fe2bdf92ea36165385e7426 105108672
00021.tif
G22 TIF22 2418df78e4862bab88989cfe4bcffc49 105108392
00022.tif
G23 TIF23 babd9c9546cd8710841342b6737f8cd5 105108692
00023.tif
G24 TIF24 550c0aa9b48cfef7ac56ae95ca6e57bc
00024.tif
G25 TIF25 2cc217329ee4f23e255fd45f8cad7ab7 105108400
00025.tif
G26 TIF26 5ac368d119718c738456a82e32e172db 105109472
00026.tif
G27 TIF27 f2044ab83e8e2a9284a0f930f820cb4f 105108764
00027.tif
G28 TIF28 a928a4e53e3034c7eb880ae0276fa5b3 105108420
00028.tif
G29 TIF29 e062df2cdcf873fa50f8dfbf361d83b0 105108052
00029.tif
G30 TIF30 47354551fdaa0e196ff36adcaadfe3a5 105108632
00030.tif
G31 TIF31 a83977cef81a8a897fb5d4d3c574048f 105108276
00031.tif
G32 TIF32 433db5823fee4d3f8269aa232ccd2f32 105109104
00032.tif
G33 TIF33 daa875db1f36c0f11e73217f8449505e
00033.tif
G34 TIF34 e440f4009b232f5ff5148b14a0661f16 105108932
00034.tif
G35 TIF35 b75cd385e5877c09445f6e2b74a54d30 105109140
00035.tif
G36 TIF36 d670621257c8b3a4708a97a1193e2f79 105107148
00036.tif
G37 TIF37 7da4986c95fb0297aa4cb8595449f601 105108696
00037.tif
G38 TIF38 a76daaa7604d05e8b9725ff3116b18ec 105108596
00038.tif
G39 TIF39 63ce100d04ad9d03074f1df2ddfa7a24 105108452
00039.tif
G40 TIF40 258b13cd405656c07cea5d93417773df 105107828
00040.tif
G41 TIF41 66355a4e4a9cdf1767e7128e9cf3b8e7
00041.tif
G42 TIF42 5c73f735045e14e86a3d386886682593 105107528
00042.tif
G43 TIF43 b933ceb328e69c60a15a2516ce3fad0d 105108744
00043.tif
G44 TIF44 c527f8527a34c4fc43ebeba2911c167e 105108904
00044.tif
G45 TIF45 3660dee7c105c27c18c9024dfb30a3c1 105107376
00045.tif
G46 TIF46 8d3f93af0c9423587d37ed6565eaa136 105109204
00046.tif
G47 TIF47 dc09f4a2b37ee830a6d3e62e4f7efff6 105108352
00047.tif
G48 TIF48 f011b096309b52bbd9f6cfe318c3345a 105107928
00048.tif
G49 TIF49 4c8fc05d6544369bdb9f8dc22ee946c1 105109016
00049.tif
G50 TIF50 f612cf833b3927b4d81322095c104396 105109184
00050.tif
G51 TIF51 6f1d6480b47891c8acdc0baf1d74619b 105108220
00051.tif
G52 TIF52 fb3720c7d94046d436a6d0b74ba38d73 105108184
00052.tif
G53 TIF53 2464171a65625fbc4c887f68d77fa3f1 105107804
00053.tif
G54 TIF54 87090e2da6818920238d6b817b299c9c 105108016
00054.tif
G55 TIF55 d5602ad46b2299efb02b1b0636f9df35 105108304
00055.tif
G56 TIF56 3e7c3084c9d1dd3a3abc3f1c03a03a91 105108432
00056.tif
G57 TIF57 805db979f4211f61548a3acba1ad01d0 105107800
00057.tif
G58 TIF58 bfef26172fce6dc733190e7d182fbabb 105108348
00058.tif
G59 TIF59 8ed4a8992d89e35c1fcbf7ee3aac33d2 105107732
00059.tif
G60 TIF60 5376b24335523fa78a3b215fefe31291 105107984
00060.tif
G61 TIF61 7ce875442ee6ccf3295694b3574a812d 105107832
00061.tif
G62 TIF62 50eaee78348b417a0410622169f10b55 105107532
00062.tif
G63 TIF63 ce570c7899ecedc540598f99205c74d9 105107364
00063.tif
G64 TIF64 ff2ea2f3e606f06d39ec1c9eaf51e0ad 105106840
00064.tif
G65 TIF65 d9c22931958e15b7fb788df057bb090e 105106684
00065.tif
G66 TIF66 e3b8cc508ea1d7ba2d28d6a05bc60b76 105103692
00066.tif
G67 TIF67 1c6ef8ceccc0e955ab822eef01a41ddd 105106680
00067.tif
G68 TIF68 33383b8e241c4ecb7011db866ed90921 105107492
00068.tif
G69 TIF69 64266b154f5f10e1d978570884c94ff0 105107172
00069.tif
G70 TIF70 35c6fe74ade4535d893a6401f8eafb58 105107064
00070.tif
G71 TIF71 80dee72026d3749ea5859284c5b12ef3 105108048
00071.tif
G72 TIF72 12f1a39a284e6e48333e683eb8017a07 105107536
00072.tif
G73 TIF73 86b3e064701b7bf77981b8a9bca51670 105107356
00073.tif
G74 TIF74 b8bf24a767e330f93a13374aff8ea91d 105107484
00074.tif
G75 TIF75 494d6796bc8378d1832c540a1819d745 105107612
00075.tif
G76 TIF76 c3e3bf88a0d61293237bd920dc47e0e3 105106904
00076.tif
G77 TIF77 1f95c8ee5cf36ee69b46b084bcc6178d 105105768
00077.tif
G78 TIF78 e8ed23b14cc8b3d51c75aa8cac30eed1 105103700
00078.tif
G79 TIF79 44a623bcc5e09ddbf6172920e05a49de 105108480
00079.tif
G80 TIF80 9e3f9a4f22c25d2db63f74c60fb15f60 105103696
00080.tif
G81 TIF81 e05bcfcfc418060b6fc100fc393be004 105108516
00081.tif
G82 TIF82 406741d6ac5c52391a0f72a7b9e886bc
00082.tif
G83 TIF83 989049f7503ab92e05fd2fbfc4440c74 105108360
00083.tif
G84 TIF84 f7478a818f546efdb3b588a2cccbf464 105109032
00084.tif
G85 TIF85 ad5274c1bc40e11fac7cf527633db961 105109300
00085.tif
G86 TIF86 549c81e09f6e56981e0ceb87c8f470fc
00086.tif
G87 TIF87 14d617b8500f3a53afa27e99db8d0222 105106628
00087.tif
G88 TIF88 8ee5895900f298a0bccfba710c210ced
00088.tif
G89 TIF89 144374b1edc70b6a92e9579226a6f06f 105103684
00089.tif
G90 TIF90 c63060e2cdb2ebdd3d2b83c7cd5c2682 111512016
00090.tif
reference
imagejp2 27e90e7377a0cc87b3b32c441de3e9e0 4645505
00001.jp2
d49ea33cb33daa64e60fa4240a6fbf27 4378656
00002.jp2
8749bd8934f9d6a2efe8db42aafdaa47 4378661
00003.jp2
197bc26201c7cb1bf253c00ae4812afa 4378662
00004.jp2
b0466333f30580b585e5e39383590727 4378649
00005.jp2
dcf2976018ecc705a7c42e33b5217c79
00006.jp2
accfc2a9dd510cbedb250a6fb4eda5b3 4378659
00007.jp2
4797eb11b049fb91c36cd1b4f55c6eee 4378646
00008.jp2
ee2cd110544487d2285e351984964b53 4378657
00009.jp2
b7e6562a020f2532af6386f44c8dfcef
00010.jp2
9ce1fd05b1ee4e50f97e5e4c06202503 4378655
00011.jp2
e7b37463141496c0b9aeca6ccd378cc7 4378584
00012.jp2
839bb632dd2bf72bb523e98c119f9fec
00013.jp2
ca66995dededea819fd25846ff829010
00014.jp2
0b735b371e2dda2b4f104708e6e0d812 4378658
00015.jp2
320a728f85eff3204b829d721fdd164a
00016.jp2
a53b5e7ecbee5cb727bdf7a58569cb86 4378653
00017.jp2
8da1b7c26db16f31ee938e822558b904 4378652
00018.jp2
ceb9c70176336e2dcfe37c0e01459463
00019.jp2
afe07a445db42581e749fed1eb2a7982 4378620
00020.jp2
deeb3de3f58fd29ca74a4ef032ea0364
00021.jp2
e8ab207f9422d1ced9db5911c1080fbb 4378651
00022.jp2
9a2859a6b095731efc7f3a31575447b3
00023.jp2
a0fe0ce6ed9d266bf68727a6cc4148bb 4378645
00024.jp2
c4e0529bb2719dbd19f26a21916f9d7a
00025.jp2
c312c17900bd5d1e7ba409aedda1e793 4378586
00026.jp2
1e0e7a8d2c99dda13055636d3955853b
00027.jp2
758d6c93bf41a89274a7c633f15f6c9e 4378647
00028.jp2
32d61742392fa9a8ef158875daa40f24
00029.jp2
5a4b6fa40706e49f375a15760980d3c0 4378615
00030.jp2
6bdfd0258e08083e12c27203dd1d5d49
00031.jp2
45a5e0c82cb8d401efc4990f87eda0ab
00032.jp2
d32e5fdd09dcbd057c3aeed2eb3419e8
00033.jp2
a2e7ed2ac6d44e51804af3cd64dcd7c5 4378640
00034.jp2
bf4b7ff87dab9b340297df1fc8028247
00035.jp2
a22b004ea1771d0d8d25b1ddcaadb50a
00036.jp2
55fbdb7e378d3804477eaf2a1490507a 4378621
00037.jp2
81e3a80251eccec98cc70ea6478aa41c 4378610
00038.jp2
ca7a620f6bc8914f311eb16d39e6c05a 4378654
00039.jp2
ddb43f5c89301ce289e3c958b4b35e1b 4378660
00040.jp2
abb18e1d7b6242ae69ae7a129e7d2a14
00041.jp2
813e94fe1183721bed7adaface322e56
00042.jp2
33b21e2c081b1637ff5de0fa4afed86f
00043.jp2
995aa22686569222cb960be55238ce06
00044.jp2
3495648e0596f2c13ceaf4ebd691c4be
00045.jp2
7ac459ca3e5b31d90e34a2067b93b846
00046.jp2
5b16c3c41afa6b85b33ba473bf1777c7
00047.jp2
01a86cecff6a713e80997de14e876c3a
00048.jp2
83f0a3c7ef3f09a6029e8a2ff4dee31d
00049.jp2
4dcfa9474782ed3a23190a6d27771c7f
00050.jp2
835886768f6b33b57e55c4703f30c214 4378604
00051.jp2
bd850d29a882493c71b23f012371dffb 4378607
00052.jp2
1a830c3132700c4d4c6b66929540823b
00053.jp2
ca3cccba8f3192b44c8a50c6e559c4ae
00054.jp2
29bb6274c834128548eca8ca4a18eba4 4378639
00055.jp2
489850031392fc2970de1e424e1729d9
00056.jp2
9d33f938a2d80a86beac1006a9573e6a 4378625
00057.jp2
103566ca121cba61c298947ba0142a37
00058.jp2
fcb1350a750c9ddabf66da32ee761fc2 4378413
00059.jp2
28f983ec56c2eb066effa338c95724e8
00060.jp2
937227b4ecf38a9f129e964a424bc94c
00061.jp2
8b1aec40684f16462e53360a60501eff 4378641
00062.jp2
637385aeae5b18e0d52f3bdfa0a9eb80
00063.jp2
bae6938fb6efc6f3ea2678ce8e99dd74
00064.jp2
2e38afa8094b9c4533c8c62fd29aa131
00065.jp2
c5a6b960ccf8e3dda104ced693da5042
00066.jp2
536432e5f4164e9474498922a6fd0a51
00067.jp2
f7e393450abf42b70139b22ebec026af
00068.jp2
bd3b3fcf39b69fc4c746a887831a4f5d
00069.jp2
424a50eedef2550872f8466b8cce6f12
00070.jp2
fa4f304c1fd4afbb03ba6943b0237d47
00071.jp2
3df6910bb89e437d0b2a96e13d38abc4
00072.jp2
972cc0643c9d0c089b536153afe7bd87
00073.jp2
813f1dca9456c5ecf651cb1e3c2d1308
00074.jp2
8fa7db5b21a16581f9340dabd3692b15
00075.jp2
63bab9e7954ebbbc63c52b66fc2fad7a
00076.jp2
e8cb367d8c47fc94636a23afd3234ce8
00077.jp2
299a515af68afed1bc02190912a4a3b9 4378643
00078.jp2
9f7013910a9e8bcb4088c1b518409385
00079.jp2
e56f2916699d7d0c35da0da35188eb0d 4378632
00080.jp2
f625291f657d0be7570a2baf697ce386
00081.jp2
fff17b2ca1d4a6f06641706f65d28500
00082.jp2
87d1dd0b777bffc7fc5aa0c640c8012f
00083.jp2
7e062502fa6dc9ea27c69b0131fe5a47
00084.jp2
1195672e0a17c03a9f0cb0c7caf3037d
00085.jp2
65efd9db68160e7b097f3b5338f7ca97 4378631
00086.jp2
06b597c81fe62629482bfb9a4ccf69d3
00087.jp2
63a9a33f8eb4dfdd09d1d7a0285d442e 4378648
00088.jp2
487deab3ba9f5cf90eccd0ef1506dc18
00089.jp2
b70502141f2d43fe70f9c9dc5f0378f9 4645507
00090.jp2
imagejpeg 93f853941eafb47d432533681c4957a3 179538
00001.jpg
JPEG1.2 56d7447a88d450816ee426d5cc8b597d 69779
00001.QC.jpg
23cefb70a2963067ec058fb394372e4b 204214
00002.jpg
JPEG2.2 9627590155c57bc64b56cb148e984323 68107
00002.QC.jpg
5a308343f8ed008454c4895eef619d63 98626
00003.jpg
JPEG3.2 0b0ea10108ee23f78d0a643d3040c4ac 43006
00003.QC.jpg
5636645df51bd0aa61136dc533a85f44 119948
00004.jpg
JPEG4.2 54692d1260904a3ebdd2c08634eb61e8 47582
00004.QC.jpg
b139a5534aa6e244534ec1994d8eb3b9 189702
00005.jpg
JPEG5.2 9ff844cf3544d86782d7dac370be0596 64547
00005.QC.jpg
427d9090b2f963fb639a9b96da74b962 114678
00006.jpg
JPEG6.2 8a4800a068609e15a0d1f249867dc279 49947
00006.QC.jpg
d7e7046587d686f5725cada036426f8c 243544
00007.jpg
JPEG7.2 d6e850fd47c321d2c7e81ba52dd7aa95 76304
00007.QC.jpg
d6b6813dc3ab17750ed69703d834eebc 183380
00008.jpg
JPEG8.2 5b2efcbe968da07a1115ed515d2ed1de 67586
00008.QC.jpg
74463142a0a7d01416d29044e9c19de3 229261
00009.jpg
JPEG9.2 1969af02271541607900ca28327d6c72 74938
00009.QC.jpg
368465b7c56fca59b6f050bbe06ea3fb 180728
00010.jpg
JPEG10.2 b0b641abf00765b2b15e187b472cbd4e 62527
00010.QC.jpg
5ba9fc01d051b5c1612d0ecabb1d4e19 270686
00011.jpg
JPEG11.2 49dea45b07ead740960d528144362b9c 83411
00011.QC.jpg
b7f25b26fc814661e626d42ad3ec8cd1 219477
00012.jpg
JPEG12.2 870342ce7299e5fc052634b274c9e22b 74355
00012.QC.jpg
fcdcc2fe6f1cc3970f8262f9e1f6a035 274080
00013.jpg
JPEG13.2 623a7b78b1f6d4f1d1ca1193c4a9edd1 82692
00013.QC.jpg
9296ccf76e831596f196a82ff0adf00d 239886
00014.jpg
JPEG14.2 60f62ab747b57e00d06692dc51fff9c1 82901
00014.QC.jpg
ad3c83096eaa1b6c75d299800e8e5a01 258991
00015.jpg
JPEG15.2 2b9093c45cf8d915d1d4c2aefbb12525 78442
00015.QC.jpg
eb76e251484fc5a84f05c6aca5fb2da2 205931
00016.jpg
JPEG16.2 427c9b66c4ba2f574f0e9679c8be4a2f 69420
00016.QC.jpg
1f0723041ab34b1f7e08ce30437399e2 199678
00017.jpg
JPEG17.2 6833a11d3089e20b3ee0ce517818cbb7 69208
00017.QC.jpg
fbb253dfa1c6db2f94548c20ebc1b06b 47467
00018.jpg
JPEG18.2 f6acf65ab2e6a6d083510ba7253b70df 24602
00018.QC.jpg
b79b4f07537b913e19025e41e4ea76d4 188389
00019.jpg
JPEG19.2 a9a3e3f65b2e5b8d23cae6f5aed44721 64294
00019.QC.jpg
1142cc49b50e87f7821b8f414f4edbb3 268389
00020.jpg
JPEG20.2 5bd0ae153a416b0ceb42975e9e8788ea 80777
00020.QC.jpg
33427fb1ee5db9a7b2d9c938b39227f3 217163
00021.jpg
JPEG21.2 be98d655a15ed4ee47e4854a525c6523 72952
00021.QC.jpg
1d1ac8325cdf84d4f9b07aa9a39ad2f5 197522
00022.jpg
JPEG22.2 a39d54fe2215ec92e5d3567969d41ffb 71263
00022.QC.jpg
f67da9baf5076c392e8f3305a3dc5d7d 271219
00023.jpg
JPEG23.2 635a62d521bbd59f2c524d2f4dfdba6e 81563
00023.QC.jpg
77b917e07b006aa5f6866c9dff58c443 170200
00024.jpg
JPEG24.2 9c71de97fc4657c233d25c6c1f7ebd16 61856
00024.QC.jpg
862e1a6518d0582651031d67bff6492a 232046
00025.jpg
JPEG25.2 6efda2ee0e8ba80cf41e44d77363b645 73703
00025.QC.jpg
069dca328e005e5775b85ee6a757a936 250310
00026.jpg
JPEG26.2 ada38082c4281e1e1528ea5b4d430b50 80962
00026.QC.jpg
f7c1482ea3fdea17e643e6cbb4bc2115 250890
00027.jpg
JPEG27.2 adfea3a3ff182289ecc07ef7c248cbfb 77961
00027.QC.jpg
9c41dd5205fa19dde1e47e0a7c3ffdf5 206333
00028.jpg
JPEG28.2 49a26581e0581c8b13944033cab04ea7 69848
00028.QC.jpg
2acd8c77f621511a7b457e9ff160a37b 201778
00029.jpg
JPEG29.2 264dda45001678f9fc06c67621ee8a6d 68334
00029.QC.jpg
9464f734a0b95279d2168305d5312010 231285
00030.jpg
JPEG30.2 7b1f8d900fadf72df53101b586625a51 75774
00030.QC.jpg
927f4259b4d435e2b90a7272ce36237b 222261
00031.jpg
JPEG31.2 3dc83d9c9c3182277540fd02dbc980e1 72991
00031.QC.jpg
c138f361f545b898197990ea756cf1a0 216297
00032.jpg
JPEG32.2 c7cfa73a7ea459978127dcfebfee1d58 74429
00032.QC.jpg
d1395fc3f730f077436d86fdd96985e4 233677
00033.jpg
JPEG33.2 46ba7c217d0c4a43d6a2a90fad701f77 76344
00033.QC.jpg
92745c1dccb1dcfe5e5eeab9f2145ccc 236866
00034.jpg
JPEG34.2 f3ba0965dfc48008e689c191a350362c 77407
00034.QC.jpg
235195b646021564ba4208ec4adefc06 276528
00035.jpg
JPEG35.2 219d8088b28f1308d3b526c1e7461da3 82441
00035.QC.jpg
e72d1ab93cb26a567173b3badf510e91 160651
00036.jpg
JPEG36.2 a7fccd9d418a2ac1f707bed73aaf912f 60142
00036.QC.jpg
92b5f5bbc2f80502311afa48f02972ff 234616
00037.jpg
JPEG37.2 d25b0597297d246e554308f4e2827b96 75694
00037.QC.jpg
56998f499d6cacef259db9b492c6d488 237268
00038.jpg
JPEG38.2 1d92ef0c31326855b2b4aa22e186bbd8 76966
00038.QC.jpg
9ed00f845717a83bce3ccf5d1d9454f3 248262
00039.jpg
JPEG39.2 e3d8e2e3de2851b4b640e68a0ab55499 77018
00039.QC.jpg
3684988c60176a082d9838601b2885f1 192913
00040.jpg
JPEG40.2 41fad18e3e9e935132977b5bb8821490 64662
00040.QC.jpg
721a4848e3391146eb25a134ecd9dda6 283256
00041.jpg
JPEG41.2 f0400b0ff6f651de641104ff1d6301c4 84071
00041.QC.jpg
e5d59ea41656c1738064ac695adc3aeb 194429
00042.jpg
JPEG42.2 938eea71ed65f17d8739a0ff82233185 66459
00042.QC.jpg
1e1974a7e981c6bccd5c1fd5d0091f8b 263828
00043.jpg
JPEG43.2 fabc3f5495394e1dc83ee1b72869e051 78799
00043.QC.jpg
f5874950e1eff29db96f1c5e8dae3471 246956
00044.jpg
JPEG44.2 28a894cd5730697df121acb0c7e41790 79041
00044.QC.jpg
8b2285666f0c5e2ab38255840a5aa469 165253
00045.jpg
JPEG45.2 9e07287802094b28fe6558cda9c81e6e 59879
00045.QC.jpg
f5dd81b3439837559df9639a6c7b8be3 272864
00046.jpg
JPEG46.2 a596193cc0bade4c1bc1e209ec06728c 82632
00046.QC.jpg
471b67819ea4ca746b37297acf6caf5b 232756
00047.jpg
JPEG47.2 a4165f3d98d357c049f3c4dbe5d5188b 73326
00047.QC.jpg
8ef49977336205fd91bd0a52d6c61c0f 174485
00048.jpg
JPEG48.2 197fd3e80978bfb0f87f5084d67caf0d 63242
00048.QC.jpg
ed3b405b7689dad756658741188d1d47 273935
00049.jpg
JPEG49.2 cd29c013ec568dce2c8afb3f9ef25a63 82405
00049.QC.jpg
f6c6543a4391ee4cb1f148cbe33137ee 281863
00050.jpg
JPEG50.2 39399740bfbdca2dba13a3312a4746ca 83967
00050.QC.jpg
9166d5c25477e18b7b9973c61c98e951 235405
00051.jpg
JPEG51.2 2d2f0f51cd3885ba4bec42106b004922 74281
00051.QC.jpg
289bbd51d5322bae8cf5a226cc35696f 205359
00052.jpg
JPEG52.2 0f2370c152259f4eb440f692598c0496 69806
00052.QC.jpg
7f9bae2c76b8d5baf9d005503c9435e5 182747
00053.jpg
JPEG53.2 2385051d0decaefea9fb545938d9a4f3 64593
00053.QC.jpg
d39da35e0c7fe711b77982aceb8b3b47 198225
00054.jpg
JPEG54.2 51ee466184ff3ced2c4ad54fea58d8f5 67958
00054.QC.jpg
a9d2c6d8aff36c3edc600b874208ddef 216302
00055.jpg
JPEG55.2 57f467f6530ab6c5faaf15da4dca3b0c 71276
00055.QC.jpg
d28961f142871fc7dff74fa05c46390b 206864
00056.jpg
JPEG56.2 319db2d14b4e7ea8f6ea68d78fb01bb0 70894
00056.QC.jpg
6da11aeb2d8224356b68b17a092d7491 196254
00057.jpg
JPEG57.2 4c7b28eb90a18fa58040e0ddb6f5b880 66485
00057.QC.jpg
7db5b148859ec94a404722fb46d943bc 209344
00058.jpg
JPEG58.2 2fb734bd794289b830548936dab8f1c3 70397
00058.QC.jpg
57ff5b341415a1dd7f6876dbdba9451d 202036
00059.jpg
JPEG59.2 a536ac66ae53f3212eb4e3de23a3ee55 67671
00059.QC.jpg
b30790bbadfd8d80a67b6d09e9c93825 191884
00060.jpg
JPEG60.2 3ecf9bbc24ec1c18d62a9afb6daf12a6 65969
00060.QC.jpg
44b22b6422198a00e79d2940398a6749 194414
00061.jpg
JPEG61.2 6285234bcb9d2682620ecf4a96e46ca6 66997
00061.QC.jpg
ed02decc9bdf08785e5ace7967e82ee2 153677
00062.jpg
JPEG62.2 3063461dcc029b2475db88a22d0a0c2f 59920
00062.QC.jpg
ac7868a7ed71c0856c8ffe827c4d792e 154418
00063.jpg
JPEG63.2 d701914c254726464b31198b15ea1185 61033
00063.QC.jpg
e1ee7026357fa4e150d7c1bf8871f5c5 127634
00064.jpg
JPEG64.2 8256641eaef9c94dcef07f0c60c5751b 53205
00064.QC.jpg
0ee7e2d6da1d2f69bf00cb7f3fe60a6a 126308
00065.jpg
JPEG65.2 b7f35b215fb171283aad855992e384a2 51939
00065.QC.jpg
3ccc8cbc10a083ca12c59640fd1852f0 47258
00066.jpg
JPEG66.2 8326a2bcfdab97d20c50b43bca77a00a 24492
00066.QC.jpg
54bcf847888a2594d384a32149c0782c 158015
00067.jpg
JPEG67.2 af40d394d3b5e88352987198a9f2ddb0 59637
00067.QC.jpg
967c9385b790e88d9fcd15f784bb8968 177205
00068.jpg
JPEG68.2 53ffe7bd90a7cb7be3a9bc9f0e31bdbb 61649
00068.QC.jpg
c1035b2894769e25c8e95ad73d9ed2ca 173572
00069.jpg
JPEG69.2 afd36f659b3e7d07efbf921f72406644 60716
00069.QC.jpg
49201d02b4bd1f35f03fb9c81a57fd79 166206
00070.jpg
JPEG70.2 da48f862b6037deeae0fe486220f4df1 61147
00070.QC.jpg
67becc5fdd4a9f67d00eea843f2f8a55 198103
00071.jpg
JPEG71.2 0ce6a08c8b0d20250c2f7521d5b7952d 68560
00071.QC.jpg
b3faff2a81e985b3a9e225f0d2ab69d3 193045
00072.jpg
JPEG72.2 75a80373eb3de769e12c27e8e6a6f09c 66992
00072.QC.jpg
7a4c80f602e479d9f329e4d872eb7eb2 189668
00073.jpg
JPEG73.2 87bf70b1b30edd51647b89980b16ee32 65008
00073.QC.jpg
b0dfda7524107a3d4bc47925a9600e3a 179062
00074.jpg
JPEG74.2 5f8eb7790d42af2c42d71b3474498262 64548
00074.QC.jpg
7b2ea911077d3dc69ba81b672480000c 198490
00075.jpg
JPEG75.2 e30e17ea37c7ad209fc1aa20d2363bf4 70430
00075.QC.jpg
a7775d6e5df547a0bf92145db8346330 159226
00076.jpg
JPEG76.2 0ee0490a4b2341761b42a7779c60b4fb 58679
00076.QC.jpg
92bf3cb1e75041cd2c5e379c541e6457 113596
00077.jpg
JPEG77.2 2e715544773b242a147a65a00b24897c 45736
00077.QC.jpg
2834c2acec6d88079e48782a9f58733d 52874
00078.jpg
JPEG78.2 43b6d065d6ea911677b7d811eebfbc29 25802
00078.QC.jpg
b11c4dad4889d6b759e91f31fce1350f 225651
00079.jpg
JPEG79.2 6e104ebb5bc8a7cecdbeac0fd79c978e 73892
00079.QC.jpg
7d268c7abdfeb6e54246a92f109d9665 50387
00080.jpg
JPEG80.2 9b88cc870882ba31f86a812a797ba2e3 25284
00080.QC.jpg
601aa105bc07401b027f3017e84daefd 233819
00081.jpg
JPEG81.2 a76821687fff8ddbac4bbc2af3d0f959 74238
00081.QC.jpg
84da46c655d407674df90cd87b69e0af 217686
00082.jpg
JPEG82.2 86f1efa8954267a4d46f86fc5cf178ec 73458
00082.QC.jpg
b2044f65c113711194c18bc3469d9b10 179005
00083.jpg
JPEG83.2 660d1e588bfd5c7650231fab86b5efdf 65219
00083.QC.jpg
ec470474e60fd2a0ce8530a8f973968f 237213
00084.jpg
JPEG84.2 f150b716711b62fdaafcb3430d9fcb5c 77454
00084.QC.jpg
db157a27c185acfc5e107df0b6bc6ba8 216682
00085.jpg
JPEG85.2 d64cbe98a9e59e1e58f1a309b518b678 74986
00085.QC.jpg
c5cc8eeb96c48c8f0e4e717c56a82467 137627
00086.jpg
JPEG86.2 1b66f9f5e3fc87db32b327b663de2443 55360
00086.QC.jpg
07fd8f31052a225330c6fa6c46a69de3 130656
00087.jpg
JPEG87.2 55e8c6288564535912bebabef323cc04 51179
00087.QC.jpg
950193e6875a2ca7bccd6ccae47d077a 47711
00088.jpg
JPEG88.2 69bbf3188e32d131740b812a2a6109f6 24673
00088.QC.jpg
6b568cd7cc9bba24ff966ab6e2a0db67 31870
00089.jpg
JPEG89.2 884be7123085d5a606386fc863e3e182 21151
00089.QC.jpg
b361511d9d7902f068083504ddbf1601 144235
00090.jpg
JPEG90.2 8c11cf9d78836aefe5d96cc4223ef5b6 57334
00090.QC.jpg
THUMB1 imagejpeg-thumbnails 6ef3b07a4aa0964f103d6d77e342808b 36836
00001thm.jpg
THUMB2 7d2e9aef5f23f80a7ab150ded6a7a5a1 32785
00002thm.jpg
THUMB3 2b5b0010487af6435a5f358ab19eb5ce 26587
00003thm.jpg
THUMB4 b8125a536dd25d4a084ce8d932d2ae67 28249
00004thm.jpg
THUMB5 7ada68b5afb38b9401a96e8c8f1ab93e 31151
00005thm.jpg
THUMB6 95a072ce7af5d959aeda030c0fc0de49 29948
00006thm.jpg
THUMB7 964793a87c7a7081a1e8e44ffe0195b7 34617
00007thm.jpg
THUMB8 c5ffa3510ed6ae87ddf7707ee50ab373 34849
00008thm.jpg
THUMB9 7e2a206945ed382353cd0f22b434d0e5 35520
00009thm.jpg
THUMB10 eba1d48d9bec627e7fd8710f0bdfe6a0 31318
00010thm.jpg
THUMB11 db723c195c77bc9694ad40fdf57f4b5d 36159
00011thm.jpg
THUMB12 a288f42ca7bb0f8f39b5f86a3c643b8a 35343
00012thm.jpg
THUMB13 af0ccbe22f436169b82da690cb654572 35641
00013thm.jpg
THUMB14 73c11e721e575bb160f35f3950ff432c 38289
00014thm.jpg
THUMB15 fe1e30d75a81856bd1c808069f4044e9 34478
00015thm.jpg
THUMB16 bf4c0e7780e6bf0c8fbdc5b93704de2f 33605
00016thm.jpg
THUMB17 11a1e8aa4076eb62ce39f72a25883609 33626
00017thm.jpg
THUMB18 6e2530317fc803eccf7005044f4ed377 19434
00018thm.jpg
THUMB19 22030687ba03c839bfd437b9acc31692 31580
00019thm.jpg
THUMB20 9c1b9a527e7c9b6f36e0a2d71b2c7851 35514
00020thm.jpg
THUMB21 4aee0c2436c85f0c4e09c72a8561a544 34486
00021thm.jpg
THUMB22 fa030b9a7dd391fd0b6de27a7507e8a4 34081
00022thm.jpg
THUMB23 01111b685f62ebd6aa7a1f0e0fc15e01 35008
00023thm.jpg
THUMB24 082e8a1a8969ba05b73e1d412aaf40cb 31894
00024thm.jpg
THUMB25 a758b8d91486527748c88a3561dda050 34357
00025thm.jpg
THUMB26 24855bace7e64c0f0e0334f758e8ffac 37006
00026thm.jpg
THUMB27 cebe76b9d8a490c40ab7ef2492e63c5e 35042
00027thm.jpg
THUMB28 b78544588f135d0190e5aa6ef229fa8d 34034
00028thm.jpg
THUMB29 e120f4f6eea09ff1bd0dc46801d3ffe1 32841
00029thm.jpg
THUMB30 683bcfcf80f60c75044ef7a73dcf4e3a 34961
00030thm.jpg
THUMB31 268404ec445029675a8ec908ed5244d5 33966
00031thm.jpg
THUMB32 61dbe74a2a9c7f3d7b6b74aedb39d249 35900
00032thm.jpg
THUMB33 ef2c9cf474386cecea749de9bb1a16e3 35265
00033thm.jpg
THUMB34 328dd0b905d8f43643ff4cb739ae6001 35605
00034thm.jpg
THUMB35 b66b35172eee89dc3749024c5cd3a230 36103
00035thm.jpg
THUMB36 09a0b9ef3dbc6f5ccc29adaa05fa3d40 30722
00036thm.jpg
THUMB37 8fa0fc9b47dd7c602315af2f1b944c47 35059
00037thm.jpg
THUMB38 e62cb7dc9d67ff928cba065445958c51 34788
00038thm.jpg
THUMB39 7757d9c98da88cf7dcd993720b4bc81c 34268
00039thm.jpg
THUMB40 fea191ad5f52bd0c197dbb8fed00de65 32159
00040thm.jpg
THUMB41 4c729ca7e5e438021077144019cf80fa 36111
00041thm.jpg
THUMB42 049041840244e677959cf92e95229d21 32233
00042thm.jpg
THUMB43 50754fc8a9616d1301ae93f905f94b1e 34997
00043thm.jpg
THUMB44 f59926950bb259a52fc7065383b2da0e 35537
00044thm.jpg
THUMB45 89bb1d8574c8eceb91652ac5c8444a78 31237
00045thm.jpg
THUMB46 c8bfe6fce73a0b52cb14d8e4f085b4e6 36284
00046thm.jpg
THUMB47 adce8b8f4e709ed4a7c9795beb439ee8 34189
00047thm.jpg
THUMB48 ad84d14ed4f5db73c85adb15e0b276ed 32472
00048thm.jpg
THUMB49 4a2505eac7111a9d18c23ad093895bbe 35493
00049thm.jpg
THUMB50 65f56e2a1c07e16447aa44adc2e58672 36318
00050thm.jpg
THUMB51 cd6e43f4ed93c5d3138075583284c308 33286
00051thm.jpg
THUMB52 1c157fde762675e139319fc666270aea 33678
00052thm.jpg
THUMB53 db141fe8df88e9a13aaed425ccc6cee4 32480
00053thm.jpg
THUMB54 4ffb2b6625c5683ec662c826e07a80bf 33088
00054thm.jpg
THUMB55 5e588f0572b12d69dbf4b0834d794f1a 33930
00055thm.jpg
THUMB56 df280ef799f1f98ac499d082156915e4 34070
00056thm.jpg
THUMB57 d4e00a5eadb48af06425543b9e23dca9 32537
00057thm.jpg
THUMB58 e0e4b158dcdcc90deb233713746bd1bd 33804
00058thm.jpg
THUMB59 54048e874aaca702f8265f7124033daf 32437
00059thm.jpg
THUMB60 db4c10f429735a49bd5260f06788280e 32712
00060thm.jpg
THUMB61 f9cd98dc7b29194bd0711cdae9bd3f97 32342
00061thm.jpg
THUMB62 5c7e3aa2afc475f648988aba4eee6ee7 31491
00062thm.jpg
THUMB63 7b17a194a32774d18ee6799d6c14131c 31144
00063thm.jpg
THUMB64 4fa617af8c40b669162dffd78536370a 29111
00064thm.jpg
THUMB65 413348d147e370dcfc36bd660c32fdb3 28676
00065thm.jpg
THUMB66 94fb00d4ae77b4b3c74e3b686d291896 19432
00066thm.jpg
THUMB67 6853e789d207d4633635291745945732 28981
00067thm.jpg
THUMB68 37bd12c8ccf63a628ffdab616644f82c 31750
00068thm.jpg
THUMB69 1bec3b25b7dccf47ca0b81790aeeaabf 31113
00069thm.jpg
THUMB70 9c416668d34cb8e7988ac286a7500227 31041
00070thm.jpg
THUMB71 268c8959280f3f6194efd287aa8773ba 32818
00071thm.jpg
THUMB72 88a132d21ec0e313e5bfd3b53d6995ef 31720
00072thm.jpg
THUMB73 8aeaa51049b905bdf1a1c68f78d9a8f2 30932
00073thm.jpg
THUMB74 8fe6e201425a1ddb5b7aec87e134c8da 31704
00074thm.jpg
THUMB75 f4d2062179a4d4e3d122114726e744b2 32459
00075thm.jpg
THUMB76 75b0044e7e136487b1e80f08abe4ec33 30189
00076thm.jpg
THUMB77 e599c5ae1c3482a515e2c19a93930cb0 26438
00077thm.jpg
THUMB78 d4a0326ca1bf3c2385ecf35ced9b004f 19668
00078thm.jpg
THUMB79 e37d95fd5399366a38d13ac9dc9dea1d 34009
00079thm.jpg
THUMB80 eacb7401f7cc8d5e1db0cfe91b6b0461 19595
00080thm.jpg
THUMB81 5cb173c16eed88b47db75d45f27768f8 34453
00081thm.jpg
THUMB82 a409ad89d3cdb6afe981c4142c78cc40 34832
00082thm.jpg
THUMB83 95712f1826d0447ac2fb6574ac1e30b0 34075
00083thm.jpg
THUMB84 5e3cfe2e73d1ba05e114cbe9c81a5ebc 35783
00084thm.jpg
THUMB85 06246d944b698c7fe4d384ba4aa6ca56 36142
00085thm.jpg
THUMB86 3c63bb518bd214262e3e6340d0002d86 30297
00086thm.jpg
THUMB87 86a09afc4fa8f38ac6573a6bb74d8a32 28415
00087thm.jpg
THUMB88 cbf140f75d30ef52849af2484c38485d 19495
00088thm.jpg
THUMB89 aebdf8543c0d901e11b7989f0bde0753 18997
00089thm.jpg
THUMB90 c71384eb47d0c55861eb04270d73a6e6 31271
00090thm.jpg
TXT1 textplain 32150451dfec6014dc85606b517d83ea 218
00001.txt
TXT2 bf966fb17dcb4e6a2f8dc1022c68a3db 8190
00002.txt
TXT3 f0bd1355afe82e5bc803252c29fede56 1082
00003.txt
TXT4 4571deee3d4b4a80b9ddc367e41c64f2 2264
00004.txt
TXT5 67e939e95b95867fda2e47083868ecc3 7072
00005.txt
TXT6 250632aafaa87e43fa32679eb7785710 702
00006.txt
TXT7 5e786f6a58d92641d8ac98af82558c97 10412
00007.txt
TXT8 b4247c764070d650af94c0297413ea4e 1906
00008.txt
TXT9 98a6a4129ef95eccbf3ca80d20dba148 8024
00009.txt
TXT10 5bdf84c5322e8fce1571fe45aaf07277 4208
00010.txt
TXT11 b8f9526fbeb51369ac355a8fd4bbd642 11476
00011.txt
TXT12 66672628a814456bbfdca0915669e157 6718
00012.txt
TXT13 987dc070a7cbe8647fbf7b0bd2c4c981 12800
00013.txt
TXT14 2a616d4c87f613299565596b0950e751 4992
00014.txt
TXT15 c0388e40f24aa6b50310bc4079f4fc77 11922
00015.txt
TXT16 caa6ba69432a66f83d2a76a7c772161f 8030
00016.txt
TXT17 df9a91ad3ca18182d08dc9d021131f92 7664
00017.txt
TXT18 f3b25701fe362ec84616a93a45ce9998
00018.txt
TXT19 df7c24861917bf1d535ad8f976ae6a31 6282
00019.txt
TXT20 9dfd156e9160a4ff5281e05f0c1dcad0 12294
00020.txt
TXT21 47cd02fba5b4c70e80f2f72ef4cedff8 6798
00021.txt
TXT22 9bcc5f5a4f2ffa91023830b5381bc71e 5876
00022.txt
TXT23 fa9a6b0371231a421fcd06f35bfefd3d 12718
00023.txt
TXT24 ff4ba986a2d6653ec8f451aaf859e34d 2958
00024.txt
TXT25 8565556c6ce214eca3c3f59d12103137 6766
00025.txt
TXT26 058b9caa75b323f2e3cfaf4632cd488d 6034
00026.txt
TXT27 de5cdc4a78223016f809806844bd4be5 10980
00027.txt
TXT28 499e0fd54974f2632d5b1dc5b837823b 7336
00028.txt
TXT29 1e52f51d4a41430265c8489a8536bfda 7112
00029.txt
TXT30 84a220121aab652ef60b3c56503f5b90 8138
00030.txt
TXT31 4272d0803c988ae18ca5d2eac84aaebf 8758
00031.txt
TXT32 bcfeebdaba66cb7a1c95ab86ddeff40f 6744
00032.txt
TXT33 75b221e3a73723cab6796d7fea83e9fe 9188
00033.txt
TXT34 33e6211d5050fff66be30d4338737d6c 9554
00034.txt
TXT35 024adda4f06ba7b57c218cf86ec7e6fa 12654
00035.txt
TXT36 ad5717e8a28bead616c1936022fbbee5 3478
00036.txt
TXT37 51011798147ea68a66ae7490d884d4eb 9498
00037.txt
TXT38 b78c207fcca41ab9c3424aed3b6d708c 9512
00038.txt
TXT39 26b430e77e80df7391516be6845dcaf8 10686
00039.txt
TXT40 cfb8dfb24da525d5b7c9a871d62d539a 6876
00040.txt
TXT41 0af3cc15980639443615da1db7bb9936 13202
00041.txt
TXT42 6adb7624931c9cbee08938bbd98f8f01 8164
00042.txt
TXT43 2879d7212fbf8e586486d197032eb4ce 12032
00043.txt
TXT44 e1ed7dd9667a6d655f78830eb3cf341f 10156
00044.txt
TXT45 73b0479eb6fcebd69fb70edf6fb6bcb9 4452
00045.txt
TXT46 e8591e2bd90864d4b27cfdfe76d1c399 12306
00046.txt
TXT47 8ca5fc1b4dd780cf2f91185132a747c5 6952
00047.txt
TXT48 d906d511fe3203fabff5df3554516339 4816
00048.txt
TXT49 7b5ebe92e4dfa7cc12b737e4ef10a06f 12766
00049.txt
TXT50 8e303fe86e58dccb1367060c26599a81 13000
00050.txt
TXT51 a667add1ea9f618c6786ec30a4d2fcdf 10488
00051.txt
TXT52 772001f54830de99b03ba27a3916a310 7986
00052.txt
TXT53 d72776cc9a6223d99ae7427202ca4f24 7082
00053.txt
TXT54 4d1a1115879cf61599bd23dbaf5352d4 7974
00054.txt
TXT55 2fe027dd16a17197b4f357a8a0a7b910 8924
00055.txt
TXT56 ff40af9ed9e9a85825d53a7e5300c7b4 8034
00056.txt
TXT57 24992494ff35ca25fca3efd6d961cd0b 7630
00057.txt
TXT58 277ebe2fc803079515182f2f29acd434 8580
00058.txt
TXT59 1df1d0bbfaedc0ba12013bd893bfbcd4 8298
00059.txt
TXT60 3d3c82efbdc04872f90afa2b3fd2be5c 7300
00060.txt
TXT61 904b07168a2d77b6adb87c7ff98c5d97 7644
00061.txt
TXT62 efcbfa217f69554bdd90bed3db52b585 3438
00062.txt
TXT63 f0665ed642b00691c60625249ae0e402 3614
00063.txt
TXT64 3cb0b7ce7b04ac8973b155f2df81ede9 1768
00064.txt
TXT65 5ff26c0be2d4144886650e452028e20d 1436
00065.txt
TXT66
00066.txt
TXT67 f8e9177bd13ba16850675a80ef9dc81d 4118
00067.txt
TXT68 0b13bcf19895897da1546ca83593e936 7626
00068.txt
TXT69 010ea205bc1fbf302a994589cc33a516 7880
00069.txt
TXT70 54fe20c50556a3faeeaa00feae2f053a 4762
00070.txt
TXT71 52e997dadaf9ef19b3ecdbae6d55f5e8 5200
00071.txt
TXT72 ee0e7bd1f7b1f7b66eda09dbf38d8670 5334
00072.txt
TXT73 6ea994d137174990621319c62091eebd 6360
00073.txt
TXT74 c1342495bfe87f553152cb3eb4037917 5504
00074.txt
TXT75 70878a1266d0651972b009aea2ecda82 6328
00075.txt
TXT76 98a4152665343287ec072af1560c0de7 3798
00076.txt
TXT77 81776bb71f2b9df7cc7e74ef8efe3b2f 2194
00077.txt
TXT78
00078.txt
TXT79 14d0a6391e6d54dd196b793de23796da 6880
00079.txt
TXT80
00080.txt
TXT81 53c2564741e85364b17a8569c26c166e 9328
00081.txt
TXT82 450b481b0caa4ae40e218e306e9d3a57 7654
00082.txt
TXT83 c939de276924afd9ffab11867107a9f4 3940
00083.txt
TXT84 482c46f281fde500884a2179e2faa5c6 8130
00084.txt
TXT85 b1363282fd3818c7d56c4a7ee128f03c 5158
00085.txt
TXT86 c3d4b4c173eebab35ad0f00027766356 2024
00086.txt
TXT87 09ea1faf452e9b9d424f5344fc5d8b8e 2452
00087.txt
TXT88
00088.txt
TXT89
00089.txt
TXT90 60c4b6abe04cbcf590f5c3bbc862f6e4 1708
00090.txt
TXT1.2
TXT2.2
TXT3.2
TXT4.2
TXT5.2
TXT6.2
TXT7.2
TXT8.2
TXT9.2
TXT10.2
TXT11.2
TXT12.2
TXT13.2
TXT14.2
TXT15.2
TXT16.2
TXT17.2
TXT18.2
TXT19.2
TXT20.2
TXT21.2
TXT22.2
TXT23.2
TXT24.2
TXT25.2
TXT26.2
TXT27.2
TXT28.2
TXT29.2
TXT30.2
TXT31.2
TXT32.2
TXT33.2
TXT34.2
TXT35.2
TXT36.2
TXT37.2
TXT38.2
TXT39.2
TXT41.2
TXT42.2
TXT43.2
TXT44.2
TXT45.2
TXT46.2
TXT47.2
TXT48.2
TXT49.2
TXT50.2
TXT51.2
TXT52.2
TXT53.2
TXT54.2
TXT55.2
TXT56.2
TXT57.2
TXT58.2
TXT59.2
TXT60.2
TXT61.2
TXT62.2
TXT63.2
TXT64.2
TXT65.2
TXT66.2
TXT67.2
TXT68.2
TXT69.2
TXT70.2
TXT71.2
TXT72.2
TXT73.2
TXT74.2
TXT75.2
TXT76.2
TXT77.2 836c004848282ddbb0ba430a948381bf 592534
UF00027829_00246_pdf.txt
TXT78.2
TXT79.2
TXT80.2
TXT81.2
TXT82.2
TXT83.2
TXT84.2
TXT85.2
TXT86.2
TXT87.2
TXT88.2
TXT89.2
TXT90.2
G91 TXT91
G92 TXT92
PDF40 applicationpdf a605ef589babb4d750f6ab146abe8417 153730300
UF00027829_00246.pdf
METS40 unknownx-mets 208ce9cbf679d126654b82092278ad1d 116764
UF00027829_00246.mets
METS:structMap STRUCT1 physical
METS:div DMDID ADMID The ORDER 0 main
PDIV1 Front Cover
PAGE1 Page
METS:fptr FILEID
PAGE2
PDIV2 Table of Contents
PAGE3 i
PDIV3 the Editors 3 Chapter
PAGE4 53
PDIV4 A Possible Proto-Underwater Panther: Late ArchaicWoodland Carved Bone Northern Everglades 4
PAGE5 54
PAGE6 55
PAGE7 56
PAGE8 57
PAGE9 58 5
PAGE10 59 6
PAGE11 60 7
PAGE12 61 8
PAGE13 62 9
PAGE14 63 10
PAGE15 64 11
PAGE16 65 12
PAGE17 66 13
PAGE18 67 14
PDIV5 Archaeology Whitebelt Circle-Ditch (8PB220) Palm Beach County,
PAGE19 68
PAGE20 69
PAGE21 70
PAGE22 71
PAGE23
PAGE24 73
PAGE25 74
PAGE26 75
PAGE27 76
PAGE28 77
PAGE29 78
PAGE30 79
PAGE31 80
PAGE32 81
PAGE33 82 15
PAGE34 83 16
PAGE35 84 17
PAGE36 85 18
PAGE37 86 19
PAGE38 87 20
PAGE39 88 21
PAGE40 89 22
PAGE41 90 23
PAGE42 91 24
PAGE43 92 25
PAGE44 93 26
PAGE45 94 27
PAGE46 95 28
PAGE47 96 29
PAGE48 97 30
PAGE49 98 31
PAGE50 99 32
PAGE51 100 33
PAGE52 101 34
PAGE53 102 35
PAGE54 103 36
PAGE55 104 37
PAGE56 105 38
PAGE57 106 39
PAGE58 107 40
PAGE59 108 41
PAGE60 109 42
PAGE61 110 43
PAGE62 111 44
PAGE63 112 45
PAGE64 113 46
PAGE65 114 47
PAGE66 115 48
PAGE67 116 49
PAGE68 117 50
PAGE69 118 51
PAGE70 119 52
PAGE71 120
PAGE72 121
PAGE73 122
PAGE74 123
PAGE75 124
PAGE76 125
PAGE77 126
PAGE78 127
PDIV6 About Authors
PAGE79 128
PAGE80 129
PDIV7 Anthropological Society 2019 Awards
PAGE81 130
PAGE82 131
PAGE83 132
PAGE84 133
PAGE85 134
PDIV8 FAS Chapters
PAGE86 135
PDIV9 Back Matter
PAGE87 136
PAGE88 137
PDIV10
PAGE89
PAGE90
STRUCT2 other
ODIV1 Main
FILES1
FILES2
FILES3
FILES4
FILES5
FILES6
FILES7
FILES8
FILES9
FILES10
FILES11
FILES12
FILES13
FILES14
FILES15
FILES16
FILES17
FILES18
FILES19
FILES20
FILES21
FILES22
FILES23
FILES24
FILES25
FILES26
FILES27
FILES28
FILES29
FILES30
FILES31
FILES32
FILES33
FILES34
FILES35
FILES36
FILES37
FILES38
FILES39
FILES40
FILES41
FILES42
FILES43
FILES44
FILES45
FILES46
FILES47
FILES48
FILES49
FILES50
FILES51
FILES52
FILES53
FILES54
FILES55
FILES56
FILES57
FILES58
FILES59
FILES60
FILES61
FILES62
FILES63
FILES64
FILES65
FILES66
FILES67
FILES68
FILES69
FILES70
FILES71
FILES72
FILES73
FILES74
FILES75
FILES76
FILES77
FILES78
FILES79
FILES80
FILES81
FILES82
FILES83
FILES84
FILES85
FILES86
FILES87
FILES88
FILES89
FILES90
FILES91
FILES92



PAGE 1

The Florida Anthropologist Volume 72, Number 2, June 2019 PUBLISHED BY FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY

PAGE 2

The Florida Anthropologist is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc. 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 Editor 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 Editor. Publications for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style guide (on-line at www.fasweb.org) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editor with specific questions. The journal is formatted using Adobe In Design. All manuscripts must be submitted via email to the journal Editor in final form in Microsoft Word format. Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to the mailing of the next issue. The post office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when "temporary hold" orders exist. Such mail is returned to the Society postage due. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year. OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY President: Emily Jane Murray, 8 Mulvey St. Apt. B, St. Augustine, FL 32084 (president@fasweb . org) First Vice President: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239 (1 vp@fasweb.org) Second Vice President: Rebecca O'Sullivan, 4202 East Fowler Ave., SOC 110, Tampa FL 33620 (2vp@fasweb . org) Recording Secretary: John Simon-Suarez, 8 Mulvey St. Apt. B, St. Augustine, FL 32084 (secretary@fasweb.org) Membership Secretary: Dorothy Block, 306 NE 1st Avenue #202, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 (membership@fasweb.org) Treasurer: Joanne Talley, P.O. Box 788, Hobe Sound, FL 33475 (treasurer@fasweb.org) Directors at Large: Maranda Kles, Jen Knutson, and Nigel Rudolph Immediate Past President: Jason Wenzel Newsletter Editor: Jeff Moates, 4202 East Fowler Ave, SOC 110, Tampa FL 33620 (newsletter@fasweb.org) JoURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF Editor: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239 (editor@fasweb . org) Assistant Editor: Dorothy Block, 306 NE 1st Avenue #202, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 (editor@fasweb.org) Technical Editor : Laura Dean, 3020 Cambridge Dr., Sarasota, FL 34232 (laura@runjikproductions.com) Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304 EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD Albert C. Goodyear, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (goodyear@sc . edu) Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 723 73 (jmitchem l@yahoo.com) Nancy Marie White, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100 (nmw@usf . edu) Robert J. Austin, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (roc_doc@verizon.net) NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial Review Board members, the review comments of others knowledgeable in a manuscript's subject matter are solicited as part of our peer review process. VISIT FAS ON THE WEB: fasweb.org LIKE AND FOLLOW: facebook.com/FloridaAnthropologicalSociety/

PAGE 3

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Volume 72, Number 2 June 2019 FROM THE EDITORS ARTICLES TABLE OF CONTENTS A POSSIBLE PROTO-UNDERWATER PANTHER: LATE ARCHAIC/WOODLAND CARVED BONE IN THE NORTHERN EVERGLADES ..................................................................................................... 54-66 CHRISTIAN DAVENPORT THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH (8PB220) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 68-126 RYAN J WHEELER, DONNA RUHL, ARLENE FRADKIN, FREDRICK J RICH ABOUT THE AUTHORS .......................................................................................................................... 128 FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY 2019 A WARDS ...................................................................... 13 0-134 Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. ISSN 0015-3893

PAGE 4

FROM THE EDITORS We are pleased to bring you Volume 72 Number 2 of The Florida Anthropologist. With a focus on the northern Everglades, this issue also honors FAS awards recipients of 2019. Enjoy! George M. Luer, Ph.D., Editor Dorothy A. Block, M.A., Assistant Editor Laura Dean, Technical Editor Recent back issues can be purchased through the FAS website fasweb.org/publication-sales/ The journal digital archive is available through the University of Florida Library http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00217 VOL. 72 (2) The Florida Anthropologist Fund is designed to support production of The Florida Anthropologist, the scholarly journal, published by the Florida Anthropological Society since 1947. DONATIONS ARE ACCEPTED FROM INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, AND FOUNDATIONS. Inquiries and gifts can be directed to: Joanne Talley, FAS Treasurer P. 0. Box 788 Hobe Sound, FL 33475 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 50l(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX-DEDUCTIBLE AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 170 OF THE CODE . THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST JUNE 2019

PAGE 5

A POSSIBLE PROTO-UNDERWATER PANTHER: LATE ARCHAIC/WOODLAND CARVED BONE IN THE NORTHERN EVERGLADES CHRISTIAN DAVENPORT1 1Palm Beach County Historic Preservation Office, 2300 North Jog Road, West Palm Beach, FL 33411 cdavenpo@pbcgov . org Introduction In this article, I describe and interpret carved bone artifacts from the Hutchinson site (8PB 17041) in western Palm Beach County. The artifacts likely date to sometime in the Late Archaic to Early or Middle Woodland periods (ca. 1000 B.C. to A.D. 500). Ethno-historic and other data are presented through a lens of cognitive archaeology in an effort to assign meaning to these artifacts, which may depict an early form of Underwater Panther. While depictions of this being are well known from the historic and Mississippi periods, they also are found in the Woodland period ( e.g., Lepper and Frolking 2003: 159-160) and possibly earlier. Panthers and Prototypes Wheeler (2011) makes the case that panthers were an important symbol for native people living in the southeastern United States, including Florida. The Hutchinson carved bone artifacts are part of a broad tradition of zoomorphic art that includes many kinds of animals, such as reptiles and birds, as well as mythological or compound creatures. Across the southeastern United States in Mississippian times, and among historic period tribes of southern Canada, the Underwater Panther is a common mixed-attribute animal often depicted with horns, hair, scales and a long, sometimes forked tail. Panthers and Underwater Panthers are different, with Underwater Panther being a mythological creature with panther-like attributes (see Note #11 in Wheeler 2011). Here, I suggest that the Hutchinson carving may represent a proto-Underwater Panther or similar creature in the pantheon of south Florida native people. Perhaps we are seeing an ancient version of an archetypal mythological creature, not exactly Underwater Panther, but something that has some similarities and some shared origins in the past. There are lots of challenges to making such a connection, especially since the Hutchinson piece is incomplete, the site's single date is very early, and the carving is part of a broader tradition of zoomorphic carving. Nonetheless, I describe the Hutchinson carvings and present literature bearing on native beliefs about Underwater Panther . Site Discovery In 2016, a surface scatter of prehistoric artifacts was observed by Belle Glade resident Roy Stewart Stein in a harvested sugarcane field owned by Wedgworth Farms, Inc. The author, working for the Palm Beach County Historic Preservation Office, was contacted, and Wedgworth Farms gave permission for archaeological investigations. The site was named for Warner Hutchinson, the late grant writer for the Lawrence E. Will Museum of the Glades, in Belle Glade. The site's location is approximately 8 km (5 mi) east of Belle Glade (Figure 1 ). Lake Oke e chobee --_..,uelle * Hutchinson Site Glade 0 3 6 12 1 8 Palm Beach County 24 M ile s Jupiter West Palm Beach Boca Raton Figure 1. Hutchinson Site Location in Palm Beach County (approximate for reference only). Fieldwork was carried out from December 2016 until the field was inundated for rice cultivation in May 2017. Controlled and uncontrolled surface collecting revealed a surface scatter covering approximately 0.8 hectare (2 acres). The site consisted of midden deposits containing shell tools and ceramics. Archaeological investigations were limited to 0.4 hectare (1 acre), where the densest concentration of artifacts was observed. 2019 VOL. 72 (2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 54

PAGE 6

55 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Figure 2. Block Excavation and Living Floor, Hutchinson Site. This plan shows Test Units 3.1 through 3.40, Levels 5 through 7, 45 to 60 cm below datum. Note star symbols marking where the three fragments of the carved bone zoomorphic/spiral artifact were found in Test Units 3.21, 3.22, and 3.26. 29 * 28 14 • 10 0 • 0 • 5 --0 6 7 * Scraper Projectile Point/ Knife Tip /> Antler Pedicel
PAGE 7

DAVENPORT EARLY EVERGLADES BONE MOTIFS 56 Table 1. Radiocarbon Date from the Hutchinson Site (8PB17041). Measured and conventional ages are in radiocarbon years before present (B.P.; present= A.O. 1950). Ages and o13C year corrections are rounded to the nearest ten. Calibrated dates were supplied by Beta Analytic, Inc. Table entries use the Intcal13 database. One sigma age ranges have 68% probability; two sigma age ranges have 95% probability. Material, Provenience, Measured, o13C (o/oo) Conventional, Calibrated Date Calibrated Date Lab ID# Uncorrected Age and Value AgeB.P., B.P., 2 Sigma B.C., 2 Sigma B.P., 1 Sigma in Years 1 Sigma (cal BP) (cal B.C.) 1. Charcoal, TU 3.2, Level 6, 3480 +/30 -24.1 (0.9 X 3490 +/30 3840-3690, 1890-1740, Beta-459089 16.4 = 10) 3660-3650 1710-1700 Hutchinson Site At the Hutchinson site, plowing had disturbed the upper 40 cm of existing muck soil. Extensive subsurface testing ( 62 test units) revealed intact cultural layers between 40 to 60 cm below the surface (b.s.), often 5 to 10 cm above underlying caprock. Significant finds include an atlatl weight (bannerstone), fiber-tempered sherds, and St. Johns I period ceramics. The latter are chalky sherds, some with slight fiber temper, of the types St. Johns Plain and St. Johns Incised, which support a time range of ca. 1000 B.C. to ca. A.D. 500. A block excavation (Figure 2) consisting of 40 test units (TU 3.1 through TU 3.40) exposed the boundaries ofa possible prepared and maintained living surface. This surface differed from others in the area because it consisted of a 2 to 5 cm thick, dark yellowish brown clay-like soil (l0YR 4/6). It was in stark contrast to surrounding black (1 0YR 2/1) muck soil. Compared to the muck, the clay-like soil contained relatively few artifacts. The contrast was interpreted to mean the clay like area was a maintained surface, regularly swept clean of food refuse and other debris by native people. From this area, carbonized wood and bone samples were collected and submitted for radiocarbon dating, including a charcoal sample from TU 3.2, Level 6. TU 3.2 was part of the 40 test unit block excavation (Figure 2). The charcoal returned a 2-sigma date range of3840 to 3650 calibrated years before present (cal BP; present= A.D. 1950), or 1890 to 1700 cal B.C. (Table 1). While this date range may be accurate, it appears to predate the ceramic assemblage. Bone samples did not contain enough collagen for dating. Artifacts found in this area include a small sandand fiber-tempered sherd as well as several plain sherds with slightly spiculate paste ( cf. Belle Glade Plain), supporting habitation during a transition from the Late Archaic period to the Woodland period. The most intriguing finds were four intricately carved bone fragments in close proximity in the living floor. Three of the fragments apparently came from the same object, showing zoomorphic and spiral carving, and were recovered from TU 3.21, 3.22, and 3.26. The fourth carved fragment came from a bone pin in TU 3.24 (Figure 2). Zoomorphic/Spiral Carved Bone Two of these three fragments are small with curvilinear designs, and the third has curvilinear designs plus a zoomorphic effigy carved in the round. The fragment from TU 3.21 (Figure 3a) is the largest of the three and bears both curvilinear and zoomorphic motifs. It measures 34 mm long, 22.65 mm high, and 9.8 mm wide. It cross-mends with the fragment from TU 3.22, as shown in Figure 3b. The piece from TU 3.22 measures 20 mm long by 8 mm high. The third fragment does not cross-mend with these other two, but its curvilinear designs show that it probably came from the same artifact. This third piece came from TU 3.26 and is 19.5 mm long by 7.6 mm high (Figure 4). One side of the zoomorphic fragment, side A (Figure 3c), is well preserved while the other, side B (Figure 3c) is not. This different preservation is likely a factor of bone type. Side A is cortical bone, while side B is softer trabecular bone. The cortical bone is 4 mm thick. The remaining trabecular bone is 5.8 mm thick. The zoomorphic figure's side A includes a torso and two legs, each terminating with three toes. In Figure 3A, the head of the animal was to the right, the tail to the left. The torso length is 18.8 mm, with four rows of four punctations or dots that extend to the top of the piece. These are bounded by three vertical lines. Two are before the rear leg and one in line with, or just in front of, the front leg. The legs were carved in low relief, and small chips can be seen where bone was removed. The photograph in Figure 3d is a view of the top of the carving. It shows the zoomorphic form to be carved in the round with some softer trabecular bone on the top and backside. The zoomorphic element is the only portion of the carving that extends across both sides of the bone. Despite their poor preservation, side B's front leg is clearly discernible, as are rows of punctations or dots along the torso flanks. Though missing, the rear leg was likely present when the piece was whole, based on the breakage pattern.

PAGE 8

57 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) The lower relief portion of the carving (Figure 3c) consists of two spiral-like designs and a ring. Lines or bands carved in relief form an "S spiral" shape. The spiral on the left is smaller, with a radius of 3.85 mm. It consists of single spiral like band or line. The larger spiral has a radius of 8.8 mm and consists of two converging spiral-like bands. The distance between the two centers of these spirals is 11.5 mm. On the right side of the fragment is a small ring or circle, carved in relief. The outside diameter of the circle is 3 mm, while the central dimple has a diameter of 1.2 mm. Though small and fragmentary, another possible ring appears to be along the artifact's bottom broken edge, between the two spirals. Figure 3. Zoomorphic/Spiral Artifact Fragments of Carved Bone, Hutchinson Site. a: as found; b: cross-mended with fragment; c: front and back; d: top view.

PAGE 9

DAVENPORT EARLY EVERGLADES BONE MOTIFS 58 Figure 4. Spiral-Carved Bone Fragment, Hutchinson Site. Carved Bone Pin The fourth fragment of decorated bone is part of a pin (Figure 5) from TU 3.24 and appears to be made of solid cortical bone. It is so heavily modified that the skeletal element from which the piece was made cannot be identified. The pin measures 26 mm in length. Its proximal end is flattened and polished and has a maximum diameter of 5.2 mm. The distal end has a diameter of 3.75 mm and appears to have broken along the edge of a grooved decoration. These broken edges are rounded and polished, suggesting continued use after breakage. It is decorated with 25 incised lines on the surface or face of the pin. From the proximal to distal end, its decoration consists of six lines slanted left to right. Next are 10 nearly intersecting lines, which can be grouped into five sets of chevrons. Below these are three more angled parallel lines, similar to the first six lines. Figure 5. Carved Bone Pin Fragment from Test Unit 3.24, Level 3, Hutchinson Site. Interpretation of Motifs The artistry on these portable artifacts relayed information using cultural symbolism (Lovis 2001). While it is always problematic to interpret the nature and meaning of prehistoric symbolism, Hall (1976, 1977:515) offers basic methods for this type of analysis: There are few bases for making pan-continental comparisons in United States prehistory. One is the ecological approach emphasizing technology and environmental adaptation .... One cannot ignore the influence of geography, but there is much to be gained also by giving due attention to the cognitive core of cultures. Cognitive archaeology begins with the assumption that we cannot really interpret prehistory without making a conscious attempt to understand the nature of humans as symbol-using social animals affectively involved in a perceived world that they have helped to create. [Hall 1977:515] As such, artifacts with symbolic significance become important in the prehistory of the larger region. Interpretations of such artifacts include discussions of morphology, ethnohistoric comparisons, and archaeological inferences. Morphology based methods are descriptive and analytical while ethnohistoric methods are explanatory and comparative. With few exceptions, most of Florida's native American art dates to the Woodland, Mississippi, or post-contact periods (Wheeler 1991, 1992, 1994, 2011:139-162; Wheeler and Coleman 1996:49-63). Most earlier art in Florida (Wheeler 1991 :49-63, 1994) is geometric in design, not zoomorphic. The earliest examples of geometric design are from Paleoindian contexts and consist of zig-zags on a long bone midshaft, or cross-hatching on ivory foreshafts (Dunbar and Webb 1996). Wheeler and Coleman (1996:49-63) indicate that Archaic period art consists of "complex arrangements of cross hatched or hatched bands in diamond and nested diamond arrangements." These are known mainly from sites along the St. Johns River with a few examples from the Everglades. Wheeler (1991) suggests that some geometric patterns might have origins in the Early to Middle Archaic periods, reaching their zenith at Tick Island (8VO24) on Florida's middle St. Johns River. Beginning in the Late Archaic period, two distinct artistic traditions developed: the northern Geometric and the southern Effigy (naturalistic) traditions, as defined by Wheeler ( 1991, 1992, 1994). Wheeler (1992) states that artifacts of the Effigy tradition are found mostly in south Florida. He hypothesizes that northern Geometric design motifs may extend southward to occur on artifacts at sites on the eastern side of Lake Okeechobee, in the northern Everglades (Figure 6). This overlap may support Sassaman 's (2010) idea that groups of different ancestry and cultural affiliation might have lived in close proximity in Florida's greater St. Johns River region.

PAGE 10

59 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) The Hutchinson carved bone pin conforms to the northern Geometric tradition and may represent a stylized snake design, such as a rattlesnake tail with scales on a serpent's body. Furthermore, at Hutchinson site, examples of these two traditions occur on the same zoomorphic/spiral carved bone artifact found in situ in an intact living floor context. Other examples of sites yielding decorated bone from non ceremonial/non-mortuary contexts include Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34) (Wheeler et al. 2002: 179, Figure 21) and Hontoon Island (8VO202) (Purdy 1991: 130, Figures 52 and 53). Zoomorphic Figure This carved bone artifact is fragmentary, so it is difficult to assign function. However, as an art object, the carved bone artifact doubtless served some symbolic function. Perhaps the effigy form was thought to have power to control, appease, protect from, give transformative power, or to embody a Legend Northern Geometric Tradition Southern Effigy Tradition supernatural being. The production and use of symbolic objects is key to the perceived success of sympathetic magic (Fox 1992:21-35). Bone was a common medium for native artists, who might have assigned it supernatural qualities. For example, it might have been thought that bone retained the soul of the animal it came from, called the "bone soul" (Claassen 2015). It is possible that the Hutchinson zoomorphic figure depicts the kind of animal whose bone was utilized to make the carving. If so, it was likely a sizeable mammal. Bone is far easier to modify when fresh (Lyman 1994), so perhaps a native artisan removed the bone from a mammal carcass, and perhaps promptly carved its likeness. When analyzing decorated bone objects like the Hutchinson zoomorphic figure, we can consider context, function, medium, technique, and species identification. It is perhaps not surprising that it is difficult to classify the animal depicted using the Western taxonomic system of Linnaeus, Figure 6. Carved Bone Art Style Areas of Florida (based on Wheeler 1992).

PAGE 11

DAVENPORT EARLY EVERGLADES BONE MOTIFS 60 which is certainly the case with many other small carved bone animals and birds depicted in bone in Florida. That may mean that our classification system is not completely commensurable with the native Florida system. Regarding context, Wheeler (1996:115, 135, 353, 358-359) interprets these small carved pieces as very personal objects. Based on the Hutchinson context, it seems as if this one was lost and broken (perhaps stepped on after being lost) and this argues that the piece may be more of a personal item rather than an object of communal worship. This is important for interpretation, and contrasts with wooden figurines and Mississippian ceramic vessels. In the northern Everglades, only three mammals have spots and more than two toes like the zoomorphic figure. These are the spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), the Florida panther cub (Puma concolor coryi), and the bobcat (Lynx rufus). The spotted skunk has linear patches of white fur, rather than circular spots, unlike the carving. The coat pattern of panther cubs has approximately four spots in vertical rows, like the carving. Sometimes a single or double row of interconnected spots appears near the rear leg or shoulder, resembling the lines shown on the carving. Bobcats also have spotted coats though the spots are small and densely clustered along the flanks and legs. The native artist worked to contain the spots to the body of the animal depicted. These most closely resemble the spots of a panther cub. Non-mammal Everglades species with some resemblances to the carving include the spotted turtle (Clemmys guttate), Florida softshell turtle (Apalone ferox), greater siren (Siren lacertina), barking tree frog (Hyla gratiosa), southern leopard frog (Lithobates sphenocephalus), and American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus). The modem ranges of the spotted turtle and barking tree frog are well north of Lake Okeechobee, though perhaps they lived in the area in the past. The greater siren served as food for native people at the Hutchinson site. Sirens possess only front legs, unlike the carving. The soft shell turtle has a spotted carapace and was a food resource. It is possible vertical lines carved near the figure's legs symbolize the edges of the turtle's shell. However, since the zoomorphic figure is cylindrical, not disk shaped, it is unlikely the animal depicted is a turtle. Spot patterns and body forms of the bullfrog and leopard frog resemble the carving. The figure's toes may be most telling. While frogs typically have five toes on rear legs and four on the front, only three are visible to observers viewing the animal in a natural pose. If the Hutchinson carving depicts a frog, its rendering speaks to the careful observation of the artisan. However, it may not be possible to classify the animal, as noted above. Many of the animals depicted in Floridian and Southeastern art may be composites or mythological beings. Geometric Designs The other motif carved into the bone piece is geometric. Symbolically, spirals have wide interpretations, such as signifying wind, water, whirlpools, night skies, and the soul (Claassen 2015). Lankford (2011) takes a broad interpretation of the "swirl cross," which he says symbolizes the center or I underworld . The spirals on the Hutchinson site carving are dextral (winding clockwise from the center outward). Did the artist's curvilinear patterns mirror design elements found on contemporary ceramics or was the motif inherited from older designs carved in bone? Salvaged artifacts from Tick Island include sherds with incised spiral patterns (Jahn and Bullen 1978:Figure 5) . The Hutchinson bone carving and a fiber-tempered Tick Island Incised rim sherd (apparently dating to the Late Archaic Orange period, ca. 2000 to 1000 B.C.) (FLMNH 2019) from Tick Island have more in common than just intertwined spirals. The bone carving has a boldly carved ring, in relief, near the front foot of the animal figure, plus possibly another ring just below the division between the two spirals. A similar ring shape is on the Tick Island sherd (Figure 7) and there are punctations or dots on the Tick Island sherd as well. Such similar motifs in different media suggest broad meaning and understanding of the symbols. If the zoomorphic form is meant to represent an aquatic animal like a frog or turtle, then the spiral patterns may represent water. Rain and water have been entwined with every aspect of the Everglades environment for millennia. Figure 7. Tick Island Incised Rim Sherd. Note spiral, punctations, and ring motifs. This is a fiber-tempered sherd in the Orange Series (from FLMNH 2019). Archaeological Comparisons Wheeler (2011:139-162) has established the importance of the panther to Florida's native people through discussion of examples from the wider Mississippi and Woodland periods and historic documents. If the Hutchinson bone carving depicts a Florida panther, it may be early evidence of veneration of the animal. The Padgett and Mahoney figurines are carved wooden images, each kneeling and depicted as wearing a panther cape or mantel. One was found on the eastern side of Lake Okeechobee near Pahokee, not far from the Hutchinson site. The other is from Palm Hammock in Glades County, on the western side of the lake (Marquardt 2019; Wheeler 2011: 139-162). Doubtless, the panther was an important symbol for people living in the Lake Okeechobee Basin, and Wheeler (2011) makes the case that panthers were an important symbol for people living elsewhere in some parts of the southeastern United States, including parts of Florida.

PAGE 12

61 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) However, panthers and Underwater Panther are different (see Note #11 in Wheeler 2011). Underwater Panther is a mythological creature that has some panther-like attributes. Lord (1989) reports a find that shares traits with the Hutchinson zoomorphic figure. The Lyons-Lord carving (Figure 8) is comprised of four pieces of bone recovered from a looter pit in a site south of Miami, near modem-day Kendall, Florida. Like the Hutchinson find, the Lyons-Lord zoomorphic element is carved in relief. It has a backward facing head, four legs and a tail. The tail and legs encircle the shaft of the bone pin on which the creature is carved, resulting in a lifelike pose. Similar to the Hutchinson carving, the feet of the Lyons-Lord piece are rectangular with three toes. The tail's decoration is unlike the rest of the figure, having a herringbone pattern. The punctates on the body have been placed randomly resulting in a spotted appearance. The attributes of the Lyons-Lord figure inspired Lord (1989) to interpret the carving as representing a cat. Comparing coat patterns of the Lyons-Lord and the Hutchinson carvings shows distinctions. First, there are far more spots on the Lyon-Lord piece and their random placement resembles spots of a bobcat more than those of a panther cub. The long tail of the Lyons-Lord carving more closely resembles a panther's tail. However, the only coat marking on the tail of a panther is a darker tuff of fur at the distal end, while a bobcat's spotted coat pattern extends the length of the tail. Based on the random punctates, which I interpret to represent coat spots, the Lyons-Lord piece more closely resembles a bobcat. Lord ( 1989) never made a specific species identification other than suggesting it was some kind of feline, comparing it to the Key Marco Cat. The Key Marco Cat combines feline and anthropomorphic elements which neither the Lord-Lyons nor the Hutchinson pieces possess. Regarding the Marco statuette, Wheeler (2011:139-162) makes the argument that the feline portions were likely meant to represent a Florida panther. Archaeologist Robert S. Carr, cited in Lord's article, suggests the Lord Lyons carving depicts an opossum (Lord 1989). Opossum coat patterns are more like amorphous blotches than definable spots. Carr observed the tail to body ratio is too long for a bobcat. Further, Carr notes the Lord-Lyons figure's tail partially wraps around the shaft of the pin, comparable to the prehensile tail of an opossum. Underwater Panther Across the southeastern United States and among tribes of southern Canada, the Underwater Panther is a common mixed attribute animal often depicted with horns, hair, scales and a long, sometimes forked, tail. In at least one case the creature has an anthropomorphic head (Gile 1995; Hultkrantz 1983:122; Reilly 2004). Depending on which tribal history is examined, the Underwater Panther is either a stand-alone entity or the counterpart of the Thunderbird (Gile 1995). Generally, Underwater Panther is associated with water, capable of causing storms, or drowning individuals (Gile 1995; Howard I I •,• • A i,•,.,n, I, I 'o I I•: 0 : 0 ; :o~o : lo. I) 0 ,o • o IO: 0 ,.v o o .. ~' o; o g Ji , n o I) if II 8 Figure 8. Lyons-Lord Zoomorphic Carved Bone Pin (front and back). Dashed lines indicate the continuation of the figure onto the back. (from Lord 1989).

PAGE 13

DAVENPORT EARLY EVERGLADES BONE MOTIFS 62 1960). However, it is not maleficent in every case. Offerings can be made to it for health, calm, prosperity and/or safe passage across water (Brown and Brightman 1988; Gile 1995; Howard 1960; Wheeler 2011). The antiquity of the Underwater Panther myth and related motifs is unknown. It is most prevalent during the Middle Woodland through Mississippi periods (Howard 1960; Lepper and Frolking 2003) but earlier origins are generally inferred (Gile 1995). Lepper and Frolking (2003: 159) note, "The Underwater Panther is frequently depicted in the aboriginal art of eastern North America and the motif has ancient roots." If the Hutchinson carving does depict Underwater Panther, it is a very early rendering. Perhaps it could be a proto Underwater Panther or a similar creature, an ancient version of an archetypal mythological being. It is not the Mississippian Underwater Panther, but something that has similarities from the distant past. Most supportive of interpretations presented here are ceramic vessel depictions of Underwater Panther. Such vessels typically contain some zoomorphic form encircling an area with its long tail and/or a spiral or wave motif. The best examples of this motif come in the forms of bowls (Catalog #23 7, 250, 251 in Townsend and Sharp 2004 ). The presence of spirals ( already described above and associated with watery places) seems a very important connection. Other examples on incised sherds from Illinois show a zoomorphic figure with a human-like head and a long curving tail (Perino 1971:5-7). The Underwater Panther is thought to be represented on artifacts ranging from woven mats to beaded shoes to pictographs, though it is most commonly shown on ceramics or carved shells across North America (Reilly et al. 2004). The largest example of a possible Underwater Panther symbol is Alligator Mound (misnomer) in Ohio (Lepper and Frolking 2003). If Lepper and Frolking are correct that Alligator Mound depicts Underwater Panther, we can infer its importance was widespread, inspiring veneration in the form of monumental construction. Cosmology of Underwater Panther Mississippian cosmological beliefs include three main planes of existence with several tiers in each. The upper sky realm is home to thunderbirds, embodied as birds of prey (Reilly et al. 2004). The middle or earth-realm is home to humans and other animals. The underworld or underwater realm is ruled by Underwater Panther, controller of fish, snakes, and perhaps amphibians (Gile 1995; Reilly et al. 2004 ). The animals ruled by Underwater Panther predominate in the modern Everglades and comprise the bulk of fauna! assemblages from archaeological sites in the Kissimmee Okeechobee-Everglades (KOE) region. Following Reilly et al. (2004), Mississippian religious cosmology includes the Milky Way seen in the night sky as part of its upper realm. The Milky Way is followed by souls of the deceased on their journey to the next plane of existence. The sky path along the Milky Way, however, was not the only way to reach the afterworld for Mississippian people. The afterworld could be entered from the middle world (Earth) by way of caves, lakes, rivers and streams (Reilly et al. 2004). Considering the Everglades environment observed by native people who lived and died at the Hutchinson site, perhaps they considered Lake Okeechobee (the third largest freshwater lake in the United States) with headwaters to the north, and slow moving, shallow Everglades flowing southward, as a portal to the next world. Lake Okeechobee is massive, so large it is impossible to see one shore from another. When viewed from the eastern shore, the sun appears to set into the lake, while from the west, the sun seems to rise from the lake's waters. At night it is magnificent and inspiring. By day, the waters of the lake appear black because of the black muck lake bottom. This was first reported by sailor-soldiers of the Second Seminole War who patrolled Lake Okeechobee (Will 2002). At night, with the help of low intensity light, one can see the lake bottom, a stark contrast. This impressive disparity might have reinforced native thinking about an underworld. Considering environmental attributes of Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades in terms of cosmological beliefs known for aboriginal North America, the idea of a portal to the afterworld being accessible from the region seems reasonable, although speculative. Perhaps this can help interpret ethnographic reports (Mykle 2002: 15) and historic accounts (Will 2002: 106) of aboriginal underwater burials in Lake Okeechobee. Water burials are generally interred to the north of major islands in the lake (Davenport et al. 2011 :40-41 ), in contrast to more common southern terrestrial interment locations noted by Carr (2002) on tree islands. Dead interred beneath the lake's waters might have sought a path to the next world. Broad Ethnohistoric Comparisons More examples of panthers and spirals come from areas to the north. Wheeler (2011: 139-162) has pointed to a De Bry engraving (Figure 9) of Timucua headmen titled "Outina's Order of March" showing a leader (at Outina's right) wearing a panther cape (Lorant 1946:63). While the panther is the apex predator of the region and would therefore make a fierce talisman, could the use of the panther cape suggest its wearer is the embodiment of Underwater Panther? Could all three men be ceremonially dressed to represent the principle planes of existence, which are discussed by Reilly (2004)? Ifso, the figure on the left could represent Underwater Panther wearing a feathered headdress on top of the panther cape. Might these feathers represent the "horns" so common in depictions of the Underwater Panther? The wearer of the panther cape has spiral designs on his arms further supporting this interpretation. The man on Outina's left has a bird of prey headdress, bird talons in his earlobes, and a three-lobed striped cape possibly representing tail feathers. Could this figure represent the Thunderbird and the upper plane of existence? The figure in the center, Chief Outina (in this interpretation placed between upper and lower realms), could be a symbol (leader) of the worldly realm. Perhaps De Bry's depiction is an expression

PAGE 14

63 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Figure 9. De Bry's Engraving "Outina's Order of March." Note panther headdress and cape worn by leader at Outina's right (from Lorant 1946:63). of New World cosmology. A case for comparison is the eagle and jaguar warriors of the Aztec and Maya (Saunders 1998). However, Milani ch (in Morris 2004:2-11) has cautioned about the use of De Bry engravings, since De Bry re-used many elements from diverse sources. Howard (1960) observed a Water Panther dance in the 1950s performed by the Prairie Band of Potawatomi of Kansas. Participants moved within the lodge in a clockwise direction. It also should be noted that prior to modem water control a clockwise gyer (water vortex movement within large lakes) existed in Lake Okeechobee (Badiali 2000). Post-1928 water control research (Jin and Ji 2004) has modeled two gyers spinning in opposite directions in the lake. Prehistorically, the observance of water moving sediments and detritus within Lake Okeechobee might have reinforced native people's supernatural explanations of the natural world. Given the ubiquity of Underwater Panther mythos, and the aquascape of the Everglades, it is possible that such beliefs would be embraced by native inhabitants. The KOE region contains numerous examples of prehistoric monumental constructions clustered around its uplands. Smaller earthwork sites like the Braddock Hundley Mound, Belle Glade Mound, Vinegar Bend Mound, and the Democrat River sites are found in the northern Everglades (Davenport et al. 2011 :238-266) and not confined to the "highland edges" that bounded the Everglades. This reinforces the view the area within the northern Everglades was just as important as the surrounding uplands. Environmental Perspectives Worthy of consideration is the bathymetry and dynamism of Lake Okeechobee, which is very large (with a typical length of 50 km [31 mi]) and shallow (its average depth is approximately 3 m [9 ft], and its maximum depth is 5.5 m [ 18 ft]). The shallowness presents optimal conditions for the formation of seiches (wind driven waves) (Chimney 2005; Jin and Ji 2004; Ji and Jin 2006; Sepic and Rabinovich 2014). Recent hurricanes have produced seiches with heights of several meters, as the wind shifts direction and the water changes from set-down to set-up (Chimney 2005). As such, Lake Okeechobee can form monstrously large and deadly waves, as occurred during the catastrophic 1928

PAGE 15

DAVENPORT EARLY EVERGLADES BONE MOTIFS 64 Okeechobee Hurricane. A seiche during the 1928 storm reportedly crossed the lake at nearly 100 mph (Gross 1995; Mykle 2002; Will 1990, 2002). This storm surge flooded large areas with 2.1 to 3 . 6 m [7 to 12 ft] of water and laid waste to communities as it roared 9.5 km (6 mi) beyond Lake Okeechobee's southern shorefront, leaving approximately 2,500 dead (Will 2002). To grasp the power and destruction this wave caused, one can envision the 2004 Tsunami in Sumatra, bearing in mind that at Lake Okeechobee in 1928 the wave was larger. ' Archaeologically, there may be evidence of such a wave affecting the region in the past. At the Belle Glade Mound (8PB4 l ), based on notes by field excavators Gene Stirling and Lloyd Reichard in the 1930s, Willey (1949:21) reported that "the first sand mound [ of the Belle Glade Mound building sequence] was partially destroyed by flooding." In this layer, they found many seemingly displaced human bones and ceremonial objects apparently "carried from the mound by the destructive waters" (Willey 1949:21). Above this layer were "Two small habitation strata in the water-laid sand ... [which] imply that the flooding of the site was not all accomplished at one time but was successive" (Willey 1949:21 ). If these interpretations are correct, multiple storm events impacted the site over time. During the 1928 hurricane, 30 people sought safety atop the Belle Glade Mound, a rare patch of high-ground, as storm water flooded the region (Gross 1995). All who rode out the storm on the Belle Glade Mound survived. They reported the top of the mound was submerged by at least two feet of water (Gross 1995). If the disturbed stratum Stirling noted in 1933 was evidence of a prehistoric flood, it is not unthinkable that native people might attribute it to a supernatural water deity. Smith and Fiore (2010) describe an Underwater Panther called Mishebeshu by the Anishinaabeg people of Canada: While all waters are his domain and he may travel through underground passages to any lake or swamp, he favors certain places over others. Hence, his mythology, like his presence, is most often located in highly specific bodies of water. Often called "bad" lakes, these places can be identified by their physical characteristics, which may include dark or oddly colored water ... frequency of rough water conditions; and the presence of whirlpools, strong currents, or undertows . [Smith and Fiore 2010:65] The waters ofLake Okeechobee and the Everglades display color variations based on weather and light conditions and the lake is legendary for its deadly storms and titanic waves. These are phenomena that were often explained through Underwater Panther or Water Cougar mythos, a cultural tradition among Native Americans (e.g., Hudson 1976:144-146; Lepper and Frolking 2003; Smith and Fiore 2010). Conclusions The Hutchinson carved bone artifacts are from the northern Everglades and likely date to the Late Archaic to Early or Middle Woodland periods (ca. 1000 B.C. to A.D. 500). At present, Hutchinson site is one of the oldest radiocarbon-dated sites in western Palm Beach County and its carved bone fragments may be among the oldest representational art in Florida. The highly skilled native artist rendered the zoomorphic figure with four evenly spaced rows of spots closely resembling coat markings of a Florida panther cub. This zoomorphic figure was coupled with swirling spiral patterns. Together, these artistic motifs may represent a proto Underwater Panther. Carved bone artifacts from the Hutchinson site support Wheeler's hypothesis that artistic traditions overlap in the northeast Everglades. Our work at Hutchinson site is part of a growing body of data illuminating the importance of the northern Everglades. Future researchers should be wary of outdated, Calusa-centric archaeological interpretations that treat the area as a backwater with populations subordinate to coastal groups. Instead, a new era of scholarship should recognize the importance of a region defined by human relationships with water, a critically important element possibly reflected in beliefs and symbolism. Acknowledgments I am grateful to Roy Stewart Stein of Wedgworth Farms for sharing his discovery of the site. Wedgworth Farms, Inc., kept the site out of cultivation, allowing five months of field investigation. Wedgworth Farms is exemplary for allowing archaeological work on their land. Field work was successful because of the hard work of students and volunteers. Florida Atlantic University students were supervised by Clifford Brown and Arlene Fradkin. Florida Gulf Coast University students were supervised by William Locascio. Students from Palm Beach State College were supervised by Dorothy Block. Sara Ayers-Rigsby and Mallory Fenn of the Florida Public Archaeology Network volunteered in the field and promoted the work publically. Florida Anthropological Society (FAS) members Joanne Talley, Pat Jebb, and Mary Vanderlofske assisted in the field and laboratory. A bequest of the late Sonja Gray, of the Southeast Florida Archaeological Society, a chapter of FAS, provided funding for the radiocarbon date. Archaeologist Daniel Seinfeld encouraged me to move forward with this paper. Archaeologist Ryan Wheeler of the Peabody Institute of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, shared his knowledge of prehistoric art motifs of Florida. Megan Kassabaum at the University of Pennsylvania helped locate information about Underwater Panther. Nathan Lawres of the University of West Georgia shared his expertise. Archaeologists George Luer and Dorothy Block, both of FAS, kindly edited this paper, for which I am indebted. Palm Beach County Planning Department helped facilitate this investigation. My family nursed me through long, rough field days and supported my endeavors.

PAGE 16

65 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VoL. 72 (2) References Cited Badiali, Matthew J. 2000 Sedimentary Characteristics of Sugar Ridge and their implications for Sediment Transport in Lake Okeechobee, Florida. M.S. thesis. Department of Geology, Florida Atlantic University. Brown, Jennifer, and Robert Brightman 1988 The Orders of the Dreamed: George Nelson on Cree and Northern Ojibwa Religion and Myth , 1823. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul. Carr, Robert S. 2002 The Archaeology of Everglades Tree Islands. In Tree Islands of the Everglades, edited by Fred Skylar and Arnold Van Der Valk, pp. 187-206. Academic Publishers, Netherlands. Chimney, Michael J. 2005 Surface Seiche and Wind Set-up on Lake Okeechobee (Florida, USA) during Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne. Lake and Reservoir Management 21(4):465-473. Claassen, Cheryl 2015 Beliefs and Rituals in Archaic Eastern North America: An Interpretive Guide. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Davenport, Christian, Gregory Mount, and George "Boots" Boyer, Jr. (with contributions by Robert Austin, Dorothy Block, and Matthew De Felice) 2011 The Boyer Survey, An Archaeological Investigation of Lake Okeechobee. Report on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Dunbar James S., and S. David Webb 1996 Bone and Ivory Tools from Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 331353 . University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) 2019 FLMNH Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Orange Series Fiber-Tempered Pottery. Electronic document, https: // www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/ceramiclab / galleries / orange/, accessed May 9, 2019. Fox, William 1992 Dragon Sideplates from York Factory, A New Twist on an Old Tail. Manitoba Archaeological Journal 2(2):21-35. Gile, Marie A. 1995 The Thunderbird and Underwater Panther in the Material Culture of the Great Lakes Indians : Symbols of Power. M.A. thesis, Department of Human Environment and Design, Michigan State University. Gross, Eric 1995 Somebody Got Drowned, Lord: Florida and the Great Okeechobee Hurricane Disaster of 1928. Volumes I and II. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Hall, Robert 1976 Ghosts, Water Barriers, Corn, and Sacred Enclosures in the Eastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41(3):360-364. 1977 An Anthropocentric Perspective for Eastern United States Prehistory. American Antiquity 42(4):499-518. Howard, James H. 1960 When they worship the Underwater Panther : A Prairie Potawatomi Bundle Ceremony. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 16(2):217-224 . Hudson, Charles 1976 The Southeastern Indians . University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville . Hultkrantz, A.ke 1983 Water Sprites: The Elders of the Fish in Aboriginal North America . American Indian Quarterly 7(3) : 1-22. Jahn, Otto L., and Ripley P. Bullen 1978 The Tick Island Artifacts. In The Tick Island Site, St. Johns River, Florida, edited by Adelaide K. Bullen and Jerald T. Milanich, pp. 22-23, and Figures 1-60. Florida Anthropological Society Publication # 10, Gainesville . Ji, Zhen-Gang, and Kang-Ren Jin 2006 Gyres and Seiches in a Large and Shallow Lake. Journal of Great Lakes Research 32(4):764-775. Jin, Kang-Ren, and Zhen-Gang Ji 2004 Case Study : Modeling of Sediment Transport and Wind-wave Impact in Lake Okeechobee . Journal of Hydraulic Engineering ASCE Vol. 11: 1055-1067 . Lankford, George. E. 2011 The Swirl-Cross and the Center. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism , and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford , Kent F. Reilly, and James Garber, pp. 251-278. University of Texas Press, Austin. Lepper, Bradley T., and Tod A. Frolking 2003 Alligator Mound: Geoarchaeological and Iconographical Interpretations of a Late Prehistoric Effigy Mound in Central Ohio, USA. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13(2):147-167.

PAGE 17

DAVENPORT EARLY EVERGLADES BONE MOTIFS 66 Lorant, Stefan 1946 The New World: The First Pictures of America. Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York. Lord, James 1989 Zoomorphic Bone Pin From Dade County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 42(3):263-264. Lovis, William 200 l Clay Effigy Representations of the Bear and Mishipishu: Algonquian Iconography from the Late Woodland Johnson Site, Northern Lower Michigan. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 26(1): 105-119. Lyman, Lee l 994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, New York. Marquardt, William H. 2019 The Padgett Figurine and Other Pre-Columbian Wooden Statuettes From Florida. In Iconography and Wetsite Archaeology of Florida s Watery Realms, edited by Ryan J. Wheeler and Joanna Ostapkowitz, pp. 152-178. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Morris, Theodore (commentary by Jerald T. Milanich) 2004 Florida s Lost Tribes. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Mykle, Robert 2002 Killer 'Cane. Cooper Square Press, New York. Perino, Gregory 1971 How Early is the Underground Panther Design Element? Central States Archaeological Journal 18( 1 ):5-7. Purdy, Barbara A. 1991 The Art and Archaeology of Florida s Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Reilly, Kent F., III 2004 People of the Earth, People of the Sky: Visualizing the Sacred in Native American Art of the Mississippian Period. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 125-138. Yale University Press, New Haven. Reilly, Kent F., James Garber, and Vincas P. Steponaitis 2004 Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms. University of Texas Press, Austin. Saunders, Nicholas J. 1998 Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the Americas. Routledge, New York. Sassaman, Kenneth 2010 The Eastern Archaic Historicized. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Sepic, Jadranka, and Alexander Rabinovich 2014 Meteotsunami in the Great Lakes and on the Atlantic coast of the United States generated by the "derecho" of June 29-30, 2012. Natural Hazards 74(1):75-107. Smith, Theresa S., and Jill M. Fiore 2010 Landscape as Narrative, Narrative as Landscape. Studies in American Indian Literatures 22( 4):58-80. Townsend, Richard F., and Robert V. Sharp (editors) 2004 Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South. Yale University Press, New Haven. Wheeler, Ryan J. 1991 Time, Space and Aesthetics: Decorated Bone in Florida. Paper Presented at the 48th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Jackson, Mississippi. 1992 Decorated Bone Artifacts, Florida Archaeology and the Greater Southeast. Paper Presented at the 49th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Little Rock, Arkansas. 1994 Early Florida Decorated Bone Artifacts: Style and Aesthetics from Paleo-Indian Through Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 47(1):47-60. 1996 Ancient Art of the Florida Peninsula: 500 B.C. to A.D. 1763. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2011 On the Trail of the Panther in Ancient Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 64(3-4): 139-162. Wheeler, Ryan J., and Wesley F. Coleman 1996 Ornamental Bone Carving of Southern Florida: Some Late Styles and their Associations. The Florida Anthropologist 49(2):49-63. Wheeler, Ryan J., James P. Pepe, and Wm. Jerald Kennedy 2002 The Archaeology of Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34). The Florida Anthropologist 55(3-4):157-196. Will, Lawrence E. 1990 Okeechobee Hurricane and the Hoover Dike. Glades Historical Society, Belle Glade. 2002 A Cracker History of Okeechobee. Glades Historical Society, Belle Glade. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology #42, New Haven.

PAGE 19

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH (8PB220), PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA RYAN J. WHEELER1, DoNNA RuHL2, ARLENE FRADKIN3, FREDRICK J. RicH4 'Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover MA 01810 rwheeler@andover.edu 2Florida Museum of Natural History, Environmental Archaeology, Dickinson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 ruhl@flmnh.ufl.edu 3Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, SO 171, Boca Raton, FL 33431 afradkin@fau.edu 4Department of Geology and Geography, Georgia Southern University, PO. Box 8149, Statesboro, GA 30460.frich@georgiasouthern.edu Introduction In 1999 and 2000, our project at the Whitebelt 1 Circle Ditch (8PB220) was designed as a multidisciplinary study of a circle-ditch site and to test archaeologist William Sears' ( 1982) assertions about these unusual south Florida sites. The project included: 1) site mapping; 2) auger and limited shovel testing; 3) limited excavations to collect diagnostic artifacts , to study stratification, and to collect specialized samples; 4) radiocarbon dating to determine site chronology; and 5) analyses of pollen, archaeobotanical, and zooarchaeological samples. Results are presented here, and comparisons are made with other circle-ditch sites in south Florida. Background In 1989, Florida Atlantic University (FAU) archaeologist and professor of anthropology Wm. Jerald Kennedy, as a prelude to a more intensive survey, hired the senior author to conduct a reconnaissance survey of Palm Beach County. Ryan Wheeler drove around the county in FAU's late 1980s model Ford Taurus wagon with a list from the Florida Master Site File. The goal was to revisit the county's 77 known archaeological sites. \' The coastal sites had suffered considerable losses, but some interior sites were well-preserved. The station wagon endured a fair bit of off-road driving, including an excursion to the South Florida Water Management District's newly established DuPuis Environmental Area1 and neighboring J . W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. These public lands preserved sites along the Loxahatchee Scarp, an upland area rimming the northeast edge of the Everglades (Figure 1 ). These areas proved too much for the Ford Taurus, and Kennedy had to rescue Wheeler when the vehicle broke down after a 15mile off-road excursion to Big Mound City (8PB48). More survey work in 1991 included an expanded field crew and target properties, selected as a cross-section of environments in the county. It was, however, the sites of the Loxahatchee Scarp that were most interesting to us. They were in timely need of further documentation and study (Kennedy et al. 1991 ). In 1999 and 2000, fieldwork in the DuPuis Management Area was supported by the South Florida Water Management District in collaboration with the Southeast Florida Archaeological Society and colleagues from FAU and the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). This project collected better information on four of seven sites along the \\~ _____ t\\ LAKE • ))) .1i J ' ; J.•~> : : MARTIN COUNTY . . e e 8;B223 I PALM BEACll COUN'I:;-. 2019 VoL. 72 (2) m \II OKEECHOBEE '! }), 1/j ' 8PBI035~ _ . . I . ... 8PB222 / : ~ UPlJIS STATE RESERVE I I --, I '< • 8PB221 • • t'IJ..'l--0. ', i .. ~/ '' ; ~IRCLE-DITCH I J. W. CORBETT WMA (8PB220) _ .-, I . . '. i DIG MOUND CITY ',, : . (8P848) .. 1 • I . CANAL POINT EVERGLADES e BIGGOPHER (8PB6292) Figure 1. Archaeological Sites of the Loxahatchee Scarp. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 68

PAGE 20

69 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Loxahatchee Scarp (Figure 1 ). Each one is intriguing, and they include midden deposits, sand mounds, complicated mound and earthwork sites, and notably the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch that resembles the Great Circle (8GL22) at Fort Center (see maps and aerial photograph of the Fort Center Great Circle in Carr 1985:Figure 2 and Sears 1982:Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The Whitebelt 1 site includes a large, circular ditch excavated partly through a crescent-shaped hammock. Several low rises or "islands" are in the area surrounded by the ditch and hammock. The site was first recorded in the Florida Master Site File by archaeologist Danny Clayton during a 1985 assessment of the property prior to state acquisition. The site is clearly visible in aerial photographs (USDA 1940, CJF 6-90). The early aerial photographs show that the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch is situated along the Loxahatchee Scarp, at the northeast edge of the Everglades. We made measured maps of each of the sites within the DuPuis Management Area (Wheeler 2000a), augmenting information already on file for nearby Big Mound City. In 2000, archaeologists Dan Hughes and Jim Pepe recorded another scarp site, the Couse Midden (8PB10354) (Hughes and Pepe 2001; Janus Research 2000) (Figure 1). The Big Gopher (8PB6292) site, another earthwork and mound complex, remains largely unstudied. We know little about the deposits, cultural affiliations, or age of these sites, although similar mound, semi-circular, and linear earthwork groups are found throughout the Lake Okeechobee basin. Loxahatchee Scarp The Loxahatchee Scarp is an intermittent ridge that forms a natural levee and ecotonal boundary that divides the northeastern Everglades marsh from a wedge of upland pinelands. The scarp is a 29 km (18 mi) long ridge or hammock belt that extends from Port Mayaca toward the southeast, jutting along the northeast margin of the Everglades, and ending in the vicinity of Hungryland Slough. This ridge is well-formed and obvious toward its northwest end, becoming more dissected to the southeast where it meets the Allapattah and Hungryland sloughs. Environment and Habitats The predominant soils of the Loxahatchee Scarp are poorly drained, sandy, and flood-prone Myakka-Immokalee-Basinger soils (McCollum et al. 1978:4-5). This soil association is more typical of eastern Palm Beach County. Davis (1943:45, 63-64) explains that this ridge or escarpment forms the border between the Eastern Flatlands and the Everglades-Lake Okeechobee Basin, and is an erosional remnant of the boundary between the ancient Pamlico and Talbot sea terraces. Harshberger's (1914) early 1900s phytogeographic map of south Florida includes vegetation around Lake Okeechobee and the Loxahatchee Scarp. Along the lake's southeastern and western shores was extensive growth of custard-apple (Annona glabra) (Harshberger 1914:map insert). By 1917, this habitat was dramatically reduced by sugarcane and cash crop cultivation (Small 1918). Adjacent to this area were two arms of true Everglades (saw-grass). Along the highest elevations of the Loxahatchee Scarp was an elongated, forested area of slash pine (Pinus elliotii var. densa). Other species in the semi-tropical flatwoods included cabbage palm (Sabal sp.) and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). Numerous changes have occurred in and around Lake Okeechobee since Harshberger's travels and since precontact times when native people occupied the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch site. Both cultural and natural phenomena have impacted this terrain since precontact times, like elsewhere in the Atlantic Southeast (e.g., Denevan 1992; Small 1929, 1930). Which has taken the greatest toll is debatable, be it fire, drainage canals, deforestation, or agricultural fields. Which habitats existed where and when reflects ecological parameters and historical events (Cronon 1983). While our study is too small to address the scope of pre colonial ecosystems, archaeobotany and palynology are places to begin. They can provide insights to the vegetation history around the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. Remains of charred wood and pollen can provide some usable indicators of past habitats and possible successional changes. Succession of plant communities occurred centuries ago just as they do today (e.g., Myers and Ewe! 1991; Wagner 2001; Walker 2000; Walker 1991 ). Archaeological Sites on the Scarp Seven archaeological sites are known on the scarp (Figure 1 ), including the Couse Midden closest to Lake Okeechobee, four DuPuis area sites, and Big Mound City and Big Gopher to the southeast ( e.g., Davenport et al. 2018; Hale 1984, 1989; Wheeler 2000a). A number of small channels or sloughs dissect this ridge, providing drainage for the pine flatwoods and wetland mosaic to the north. In the past, these sloughs might have provided a connection between the Everglades and the Allapattah Flats. Some of the archaeological sites appear to be close to these sloughs. The movement of surface water in the area was radically altered with the construction of major drainage features like the St. Lucie Canal to the north, and the L-8 Levee and West Palm Beach Canal to the south.2 Smaller drainage ditches in the DuPuis Management Area and neighboring J. W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area also have contributed to changes in water dynamics, and these ditches have altered the vegetation on and around the archaeological sites. David (1991 :4) notes that 1940 aerial photographs suggest that the dominant pre drainage habitats were broadleaf marsh, wet prairie, cypress, and low pine flatwoods, while areas above the 25 ft contour were flatwoods supporting slash pine and wiregrass (Aristida sp.). Recent modifications to the L-8 Levee by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have attempted to recreate normal water levels and do not seem to have adversely affected the archaeological sites. Belle Glade Culture The Loxahatchee Scarp sites fall within the Belle Glade culture area, a division of the broader "Glades Area."

PAGE 21

WHEELER, RuHL, FRADKIN, RrcH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 70 Archaeologists Stirling (1936:355) and Goggin (1947:119121) defined the area based on a shared pottery tradition and an economic system founded on the collection of wild plant and animal resources. Division of this area into geographic regions was begun by Goggin (1949), and refined by Carr and Beriault (1984:6) and Griffin (1988:133-134; 1989:189, 194195), who have named the area around Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee River as the Lake Okeechobee or Belle Glade culture area. The Belle Glade culture area is characterized by high percentages of Belle Glade Plain pottery in ceramic assemblages, the presence of circular and linear earthwork sites, and an economic reliance predominantly on freshwater resources. Some temporal and geographic variation in ceramic types is noted (Austin 1996; Block 2011). People in the area procured goods from coastal areas, such as shark teeth, marine shell tools, and some marine animal foods (Davenport et al. 2011; Hale 1995; Luer 1989:116-121). It is unclear if these items were secured through exchange or by visiting neighboring areas. Hopewellian affiliations are suggested by exotic goods and platform-style ceramic smoking pipes at some sites (Austin 1993; Luer 1995; Ruhl 1981; Sears 1982). During the period of European contact, materials salvaged from Spanish vessels found their way into the interior, where they were included with burials in sand mounds (Branstetter 1995; Luer 1994:182-184; Sears 1982:59-67). County Outlines Circle Ditch Sites O Physiographic Provinces Circle-Ditch Sites The Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch is significant because it is a rare, poorly understood type of site found in the area around Lake Okeechobee (Carr 1985). A total of 18 circle-ditch sites have been recorded, although many have been destroyed or damaged by development, drainage, and agricultural activity (Figure 2). Archaeologist George Luer and University of Florida student Mindy Cummings (Cummings and Luer 1996) prepared a literature review and aerial photographic study of all known circle-ditch sites. Their data are summarized as Table 1 and more details are included in Appendices A and B. Our knowledge of circle-ditch sites is limited and often includes data collected at Fort Center (Baker and Milanich 1967; Sears 1982:175-178). Archaeologists Robert S. Carr (1975, 1985), Stephan Hale (1989:51-53, 56, 59-69), and William Johnson (1991:98-100, 166-167) have discussed some of the other circle-ditches. Despite similarities, circle-ditch sites are variable in their geographic distribution, association with other features and sites, size, and morphology. The majority of circle-ditch sites are in the prairie areas flanking the west side of Lake Okeechobee. Other circle-ditches are found to the north and west of the lake, with some examples in southeast Florida and one at the north end of Pine Island on the southwest Florida coast. Circle-ditches often occur in marshy areas adjacent to deeper creeks or streams. Hale (1984:180; 1989:192-193) noted that many earthwork sites in southern Florida occur at ecotonal boundaries. The placement of circle-ditches is s EVERGLADES Figure 2. Known Circle-Ditch Sites in Florida.

PAGE 22

71 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Table 1. Circle-Ditch Sites of South Florida. Data primarily from Cummings and Luer (1996); see Appendices A and B. The 8DA2148 circle-ditch site was originally referred to as "the Miami Circle" (Carr 1981, 1985). After the discovery of the now well-known Miami Circle (comprised of cut holes in limestone bedrock at Brickell Point, 8DA12) in 1998, the site name for 8DA2148 was changed to Miami Circle-Ditch to avoid confusion. No. Site Number Site Name Condition 1 DA1642 Dade Circle destroyeddeveloped 2 DA2148 Miami CircledestroyedDitch developed 3 GL22 Great Circle, Fort good Center 4 GL33 Caloosahatchee destroyedCircle developed 5 GL38 Glades Circle mmor 6 GL50 Lakeport Circle damageddeveloped 7 GL57 West Okeechobee damaged Circle A 8 GL57 West Okeechobee damaged Circle B 9 GL75 North Fisheating unknown Creek Circle 10 GL375 Inner Circle West, good Fort Center 11 GL376 Inner Circle East, good Fort Center 12 HN32 Hendry Circle fair 13 LL42 Pine Island Circle destroyeddeveloped 14 MT42 Martin Circle poor 15 OB31 Kissimmee Circle destroyeddredging 16 OS1787 Lake Kissimmee good Circle 17 PB220 Whitebelt 1 good 18 PB15312 Davenport Circle unknown consistent with this broader pattern of earthwork building in the region. Hale (1984: 180) notes that earthworks were placed on the landscape based on soils, availability of aquatic resources, and spacing of populations. Of the circle-ditches with adequate data, 12 of 18 (75% of the "circles") are incomplete and open toward neighboring aquatic features. In at least 50% of the cases, the circle-ditch sites are associated with mounds, middens, or other cultural features. This suggests that the circle-ditches were part of a Ownership Diameter (m) Associated Sites private 180 unknown private 60 unknown state 366 Yes-midden, Fort Center group private 380 Yesmounds, earthworks SFWMD 150 unknown private 275 unknown Brighton 120 Yes-linear earthworks Reservation Brighton 60 Yeslinear earthworks Reservation private 275 unknown state 140 YesFort Center group state 140 Yes-Fort Center group private 180-215 No private -Yesmound unknown -Yes-midden unknown --private 244 -SFWMD 275 Yes-midden unknown 200 unknown larger site plan (Cummings and Luer 1996). The diameters of the circle-ditch sites vary considerably, with one small example of 60 m and large examples like Fort Center at 357 m and the Caloosahatchee Circle at 335 m. The mean diameter for the group is 203 m, while the median diameter is 213 m. Scatter plot and histogram charts of the diameters indicate the majority of the circle-ditches are greater than 180 m in diameter and their sizes distribute normally on a bell curve (Cummings and Luer 1996). Measurements of

PAGE 23

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 72 ditch width and depth have been made at only a few sites. In cases for which data are available, it appears that the ditches could hold significant volumes of water. Early observations of circle-ditches suggested they functioned in drainage (Wainwright 1918 :30) or perhaps as fortifications (Mackay 1845). This is similar to some early observations of Florida canoe canals (Wheeler 1995:Figure 3). Sears (1982:178) argued that the Great Circle and its two smaller inner circles at Fort Center were constructed to aid in growing maize. He further suggested that the central "garden" area of the circle could have been periodically enriched with muck cleaned from the ditches. Sears (1982: 122, 178) asserted that maize pollen was identified from samples taken from excavations in the Great Circle. A debate over the presence of maize pollen at Fort Center took several tacks, including the possibility of contamination, the possibility that another graminoid pollen was misidentified as maize, and questions about whether or not it is possible to identify maize pollen without the use of scanning electron microscopy. Thompson and co-workers (2013) have largely settled the debate, concluding that Sears' original hypothesis about maize at Fort Center (and elsewhere in south Florida) is incorrect. Earlier assessments by Johnson (1990) and Hale (1989:70, 192-193) reached similar conclusions (also see Kessel 1991 ). Johnson (1991, 1993) used a soil science approach to address Sears' hypothesis about the agricultural use of circle-ditch sites. Johnson (1991:60-62) used a bucket auger to collect soils from one of the Fort Center circle-ditches. Analysis indicated highly acidic mineral soils that would not have been suitable for sustained maize horticulture. Johnson ( 1991 :67) found that the particle size distribution of soils in and around the circle-ditch did not support Sears' hypothesis that the ditches were periodically cleaned to supply nutrients for a central garden area. Hale (1989:70, 192-193) returned to earlier explanations of circle-ditch function, suggesting that they were involved in drainage. He suggested that circle-ditches were constructed to drain floodwaters away from settlements. This may be the most likely explanation, since many circle-ditches are associated with habitation sites, and the diameter, depth, and width of the ditches would have been sufficient to alter hydrological patterns within localized areas. Presumably, spoil from excavation of the ditches might have been used in habitation mound construction. Carr (1985:299-300) concurred with Hale's assessment of the circle-ditches, and he noted that both habitation and ceremonial activities were associated with these sites. Circle-Ditches: Questions and Problems Some archaeologists have hypothesized that circle-ditch sites represent the earliest type of earthwork constructed in south Florida (Hale 1989:6970; Johnson 1991, 1996:255256, 258-259). This hypothesis is based on work conducted by Sears at the Fort Center site along Fisheating Creek, where a circle-ditch component is associated with midden deposits that produced an uncorrected radiocarbon date of 450 B.C. 105 (Sears 1982:178). Sears (1982:185-186) believed the Great Circle at Fort Center and other associated circle-ditches were constructed between 1000 B.C. and 450 B.C. Until this project, this hypothesis had not been tested at another circle ditch site. As noted above, the only circle-ditch studied intensively has been the Great Circle at Fort Center. Sears' interpretations of Fort Center hinged on his ideas about the relationship between cultural complexity and maize horticulture, and the origins of the Florida Archaic (Lathrap 1987:348-350). Sears (1971) thought that the complex societies of south Florida, encountered by the Spanish, had to have an economic base of maize horticulture. He believed that he had identified maize pollen in several samples from Fort Center. Sears speculated that earthworks, like circle-ditches, might have been involved in growing corn, similar to raised fields that are widespread in Middle and South America ( cf. Denevan 1970). Sears ( 1977) also thought that the Florida contact period complex societies had roots dating back to the Florida Archaic period and had origins in northern South America or elsewhere in the Caribbean or Central America. While not explicit in his 1982 book about Fort Center, this migration theory is outlined in his 1977 book chapter "Seaborne Contacts between Early Cultures in Lower Southeastern United States and Middle through South America" (Sears 1977). Sears believed that the Florida Archaic not only had its origins in northern South America, but that it maintained lines of communication with that area, through which ideas and goods could pass. The dates in Sears' (1982:185-189, 192) regional chronology for the Lake Okeechobee area often are derived from the timing of events related to this hypothesis. For example, Sears' (1982: 185) Period I, when the circle-ditches were supposed to have been built, began around 1000 B.C. When we excavated at the Whitebelt 1 site, we anticipated finding evidence of habitation dating to the late Archaic and Florida Transitional periods, largely due to Sears' assertion that this is when circle-ditches were built and used. We expected to find fiber-tempered and St. Johns Incised pottery associated with the Florida Transitional period. We expected to obtain radiocarbon dates from as early as 1000 B.C. or earlier. We thought that we might find evidence that the circle-ditch was involved in growing maize (though Wheeler and Ruhl thought it unlikely). We did not find any of those things. Fieldwork at Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch The 1999 and 2000 fieldwork at the Whitebelt 1 site was designed as a multidisciplinary study. It included: 1) mapping to capture the layout and size of the circle-ditch and related site components; 2) auger and limited shovel testing to identify areas for further investigation; and 3) limited excavations to collect diagnostic artifacts, to study stratification, and to collect samples for radiocarbon, pollen, archaeobotanical, and zooarchaeological analyses.

PAGE 24

73 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) "440N 420N 400N 380N 360 N 340 N 320 N , , 300 N 01! I Q , , e, e,. LOW RISE E) WHITESEL T 1 CIRCLE DITCH 8PB220 Dupui s Reserve Area B a s e M ap; February. 1999 Topogr a phy: M ay, 2000 A.Datu m • Positive Auge r Test e N egative Auger T e s t a Shov e ! Test Bureau of An:.flnologk a l R1teard1 O M1lo n of H klorlul D-,,.,1m•nt of SUt1 .. ,.,,...., I ' a,o,.,.,_ ------I 280 N :i: 260 N ~o_,, <.) e, 240N ~o">J .,., /~ e,. -tl 11 "' q,'}~ .• 912 ~., .,. 220 N ' 0 ' 0 N ' ' ' \) 200 N • ' ' ' 0 ' ' ' ' \,. ' 1 8 0 N '2, w w w UJ w w w UJ UJ UJ w UJ UJ UJ w * 0 0 ';; Figure 3. Topographic Map of Whitebelt 1. Topographic Mapping Elevation data were collected from over 100 points, allowing us to generate a topographic map of the site (Figure 3). This augments the tape and compass map that we made in 1999. The circle-ditch itself was mapped as a feature and several profiles across the ditch were made. Mapping confirmed earlier observations on the ground (Figure 4), and interpretation of aerial photographs, regarding the extent of site features. Auger Testing Ten auger tests were made across the site with a 2.75-inch diameter sand bucket auger, with special attention to testing in the center of the circle ditch and in the ditch itself. These tests augment the 11 auger and shovel tests that we made in 1999 , and they support the interpretation of those earlier data (Wheeler 2000a). It appears that the majority of cultural deposits are on the hammock ridge portion of the site. Tests in the western arc of the circle-ditch feature did not reveal any substantial deposits of cultural material, and no cultural material was encountered in the center of the site. Tests in the southern part of the hammock ridge encountered bone, pottery , and chert flakes. Excavations Excavations were made in the northern and southern hammock ridge areas (Figure 5) . Units were excavated in 10 cm levels and all materials were dry screened through -inch hardware cloth. The northern excavation units were aligned in

PAGE 25

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 74 Figure 4. Whitebelt 1 View to Northwest. This looks outward from near the center of the circle. In the lower right corner is part of the central "low rise" shown in Figure 3. In the distance, an arc of lighter vegetation is a portion of the circle-ditch. Nearest palms grow on another "low rise" and at the western tip of the northern hammock in Figure 3. a north-south trench so that the stratification of the circle-ditch feature could be observed. The southern excavation units were aligned east-west to sample the midden area identified by shovel testing in 1999. All units were part of a northing/ easting site grid, with datums in the southwest corner of units. Trench 1. This east-west trench (Figures 3 and 6) was excavated in the southern hammock ridge area. It consisted of three 100 x 50 cm units (Units 7, 9, and 10), one 50 x 50 cm unit (Unit 8 W ), and two 50 x 50 cm column samples (Units 8 E and 11 ). This location on the hammock ridge had been targeted in 1999 for further study after auger and shovel tests revealed a dense midden deposit in this area. Of the two column samples, one was taken for archaeobotanical analysis (Unit 8 E ) and one for zooarchaeological analysis (Unit 11). Excavations in Trench 1 revealed cultural deposits of more than 1 m thickness, characterized by mottled gray and reddish-brown sandy soil with dense deposits of pottery sherds and animal bones. Two distinctive strata were observed, both containing pottery and faunal material. The upper stratum (Zone 2) is a mottled gray sandy soil. The lower stratum (Zone 3), possibly representing the initial occupation of this site, is characterized by reddish-brown sandy soil. This Zone 3 stratum yielded chert flakes and flaked-stone tools. Below Zone 3, we found four circular posthole stains of dark gray soil (Features 3, 4, 5, 6) in the underlying sterile white to yellow sand. These postholes formed a gentle arc and may represent a portion of a structure. A projection based on this posthole pattern indicates that such a structure would have been roughly 2.2 m (7.2 ft) in diameter. Trench 2. A north-south trench (Figures 3 and 7) was excavated across the swale of the circle-ditch feature. This trench consisted of four 100 x 50 cm units (Units 1, 2, 3, and 5), one 50 x 50 cm unit (Unit 4 S ), and one 50 x 50 cm archaeobotanical sample (Unit 6 S ). Cultural material was infrequent and included some pottery sherds, chert flakes, and calcined bone fragments. The distinctive profile of the ditch feature was encountered, allowing for calculations of the original depth and configuration of this portion of the circle ditch. The 50 x 50 cm archaeobotanical sample (Unit 6 S ) was taken at the north end of this trench. The material was removed in 10 cm levels and bagged for analysis. Radiocarbon Samples General collections of charcoal were made from 42 proveniences. While charcoal from features would be preferable for radiocarbon dating, we did not find discrete features containing sufficient charcoal. Instead, we collected charcoal from general cultural deposits in our excavation units. All charcoal samples were collected from 10 cm levels within 100 x 50 cm units or 50 x 50 cm units. Additional samples were selected from other proveniences.

PAGE 26

75 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Whitebelt 1 Excavation in Circle-Ditch. This view of north-south Trench 2 looks to the northwest (south in lower left). In the trench are Donna Ruhl (foreground) and Joanne Talley (in the distance). At the screen are Thor Larsen and Phyllis Rundell. Charcoal from Midden Contexts (Unit 10, in Trench J). Seven samples of charred material were selected from 1 0 cm levels in this deepest unit dug into the midden in the hammock at the southern end of the crescent-shaped ridge. Two major strata were noted in these units, an upper layer of gray sandy soil with midden material (Levels l through 5), and a lower layer of compact reddish brown sand (Levels 6 through 11 ). The date from the deepest level (L 10) is associated with a series of postholes (Features 3, 4, 5). These postholes may be related to the upper soil layer, where a similar date was obtained. Charcoal from Circle-Ditch Contexts (Units 3 and 5, in Trench 2). Three samples of charred material were selected from 10 cm levels in two units excavated in the bed of the circle-ditch. These two units were placed where the ditch was dug into the hammock. We selected this area for testing because of the intimate association between the circle-ditch and the hammock where midden was deposited. We hoped that material from the midden had accumulated in the circle ditch, and this proved to be the case. Some charcoal, eroded potsherds, and chert flakes were recovered from these units. The oldest date was obtained from a unit closer to the center of the swale and from a deeper context than the other two dates. Collection of Specialized Samples Pollen Samples. These were removed from excavations in the north and south hammock-ridge areas. Samples (approximately 30 g each) were taken from cleaned wall profiles and stored in glass or plastic vials. Nine pollen samples were collected from Unit 10, in Trench 1, on the south hammock-ridge. Seven pollen samples were collected from Unit 3, in Trench 2, on the bank of the north hammock ridge. The pollen samples were processed by Global Geolabs of Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, and analysis was made by co-author Rich. Archaeobotanical Sample Collection. Two 50 x 50 cm units were excavated for archaeobotanical analysis. In the southern midden area, the east half of Unit 8 in Trench 1 was removed in eight 10 cm levels for analysi;, beginning a~ 17 cm below datum ( cmbd) and ending at 97 cmbd. In the circle-ditch, the south half of Unit 6, in Trench 2, was removed in five 10 cm levels for analysis, beginning at 27 cmbd and ending at 75 cmbd. In addition, in Unit 10, Features 3, 4, and 5 were bagged for archaeobotanical analysis. As archaeological plant remains are highly differentially preserved, co-author Ruhl's intention was to collect representative samples from both general deposits and selected features and to compare wet and dry sediments found in the circle-ditch site.

PAGE 27

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 76 Zooarchaeological Sample Collection. In the midden of the southern hammock, the east half of Unit 11, in Trench 1 was excavated as a 50 x 50 cm column sample. The unit ;as removed in ten 10 cm levels, under the supervision of zooarchaeologist Fradkin. All materials were bagged for analysis. Fauna! material was infrequent in Trench 2 in the circle-ditch, so a sample was not collected there. Results of Fieldwork The auger testing and topographic work helped refine our site model. The excavations produced good information about stratification and the original configuration of the circle-ditch. The discovery of a posthole pattern in the south hammock ridge is significant, since we have little information on architecture for this culture region. Artifacts recovered were similar to those found in 1999, including shark teeth and chert (see below). Site Configuration Topographic mapping and examination of aerial photographs revealed several major site components. The circular ditch is most obvious on the western side of the site, where it can be seen clearly in aerial photographs. The ditch continues for l 00 m into the northern hammock, where it creates a bifurcation of the hammock. A small segment of ditch was mapped on the eastern side of the site, where it cuts into the hammock ridge. It is not clear if the southeastern quadrant of the circle was ever dug, since this area is occupied by an adjacent slough. The ditch was filled with water and supported a distinctive growth of primrose willow. Measurements of the ditch indicate that it is 18 to 19 m wide and 0.5 to 0.7 m deep (see Table 2). Auger tests and excavations in the circle-ditch indicate mottled gray sand filling the ditch to a maximum depth of at least 1.5 m. Based on the area of a cross-section of the ditch, calculated at 16.5 m2 in our profile, the maximum capacity of the circle-ditch is 11,830.5 m3 (417,790.2 ft3 or 3,125,287.5 gallons), approximately 78,000 bathtubs full! A horseshoe-shaped ridge dominates the eastern part of the site. Collectively, the circle-ditch and the ridge give the site its circular appearance. Hammock vegetation, including palm and oak, occupies the ridge (David 1991:54-55). Thick clumps of saw palmetto are found in some areas. The northern part of the ridge is the largest; this is where the circle-ditch intersects the ridge. Auger testing indicated sparse midden deposits throughout the northern part of the ridge. The eastern and southern portions of the horseshoe shaped ridge exhibit three mounded areas, clearly shown by clumps of vegetation in the aerial photographs. The mounded area of the southernmost part of the ridge contains a dense midden of fauna! bone, with some pottery and other artifacts. The mounded areas on the eastern side of the ridge are sandier and support thick clumps of saw palmetto. The interior of the site has at least three low areas, several of which hold water. Most obvious is a low, ponded area abutting the northern ridge. Lizard tail and aquatic plants grow in this low area. Several elevated areas also are present in the space enclosed by the ditch and ridge. The very center of the circle is occupied by a small sand mound. Another low mound is located to the northwest, where the circle-ditch meets the horseshoe-shaped ridge. Low, broad rises are found to the southwest and east as well. Stratification Auger testing indicated that most of the site is comprised of mottled gray and brown sandy soils. Typical soil profiles from excavation units and auger tests do not compare well with the Immokalee fine sand described for the area (McCollum et al. 1978:21, Sheet 11). This suggests an anthropogenic origin for the soil. Stratification in the midden and circle-ditch excavations is described below. Midden. Four major stratigraphic zones were identified in Trench 1 (Figure 6). Zone I is a recent accumulation of gray sand (1 OYR 5/1) and humic material. This zone, ranging in depth from 5 to 9 cm, exhibits considerable palm root penetration. Small pellets of black sand occur throughout. Pottery weights are low for Zone I, though some units, especially to the west, have abundant fauna! bone. Zone II is gray ( 1 OYR 5/1) to light gray ( 1 OYR 7 /1) mottled sand. The upper portion of the zone exhibits considerable palm root penetration. Charcoal flecks are common throughout. The upper portion of the stratum ranges in thickness from 21 to 28 cm, while the lower part (Zone Ila) is 13 to 40 cm thick. Pottery and bone frequencies increase considerably in Zone II, and they begin to fall off in Zone Ila. The boundary between the upper and lower parts of this zone is characterized by areas of compact white sand. Zone III is composed of brown to dark reddish brown (2.4Y 2/4) sand. The upper elevation of this stratum is variable. In Unit 8 (to the west) the top is encountered at 7.6 m above mean sea level (AMSL), while in Unit 11 (to the east) it Table 2. Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. Measurements of the circle-ditch feature (in meters) with calculated estimates for different water levels. Maximum Width of Width of ChanDepth of Water Actual Circumference Water Volume of Ditch (b1 ) nel Bottom (b2 ) Channel (h) Area (A) Present Ditch 19 3 1.5 16.5 m2 717.0 11,830.5 m3 19 3 1.0 11.0 m2 717.0 7,887.0 m3 19 3 0.5 5.5 m2 717.0 3,943.5 m3

PAGE 28

77 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) 0 0.5 eP10 Pll 1.0 UNIT 10 I I 1.5 2.0 m UNIT 11 UNIT 9 II Ila TRENCH 1, SOUTH WALL WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 8PB220 UNIT 8 UNIT 7 I I Ila UI Figure 6. Trench 1 Oriented East-West in Whitebelt 1 Midden. This is the south wall profile along the 183 North Line (west is to the left, east is to the right). Unit 11 is between Units 9 and 10. appears at 7.83 mAMSL. This gives Zone III the appearance of a large pile or ridge. Bone and pottery are present in this layer, but are less frequent than in Zone II. The only chert artifacts recovered from Trench 1 come from Zone III. Zone IV is a very pale brown ( 1 0YR 7 /3) sand. It appears at 7.27 mAMSL. Apparently sterile, it matches the description of the C horizon of local soils (McCollum et al. 1978 :21 ). The two main strata suggest two occupation events, both within the early Glades I period (500 B.C. to A.D. 500). Ceramics are similar in both zones, though St. Johns Plain and Belle Glade Plain make an appearance in Zone II. Chert flakes and tools are found only in Zone III. Comparison of fauna represented in each stratum suggests greater diversity in Zone II, likely due to more bone in Zone II. Circle-Ditch. Five stratigraphic zones were identified in Trench 2 (Figure 7). Zone I is a recent accumulation of black (l0YR 2/1) muck with humic material. This zone ranges in thickness from 3 to 18 cm. Artifacts were found only in the units closer to the southern end of the trench, which abuts the hammock ridge. This zone likely originated from recent plant material growing in the filled-in bed of the circle-ditch. Zone II is a thin layer (6 to 17 cm thick) of very pale brown ( 1 0YR 7 I 4) sand. This is likely recent material washed into the bed of the ditch. It probably came from the surrounding hammock soil. Zone III is mottled gray to very dark gray (l0YR 3/1) sandy soil. Items recovered include charcoal, chert flakes, pottery, and rare calcined bone fragments. In Zone IIIa, at the bottom of the layer, tight bands of red-brown clay and black stained soil follow the original margins of the ditch bed. Zone IIIb was encountered only in Units 5 and 6, closer to the center of the circle-ditch channel. This zone was brown (l0YR 5/3) with thin strata of black muck. Zones III, IIIa and IIIb appear to be older material from the surrounding hammock that filled in the circle-ditch channel. Zone IV is very pale brown (l0YR 7/4) sand. Artifacts were not recovered from this layer. It likely represents sterile mineral sand underlying the site. Zone V is a deposit of peaty black muck soil. Auger tests revealed the presence of this muck on the eastern side of the site as well. It appears to be a natural part of the local soil formation, predating the construction of the circle-ditch. Zone VI is brownish (5YR 2/1) sandy soil with frequent iron concretions. It was only encountered in an auger test at the bottom of Unit 5. This sand likely represents native soil of the area into which the circle-ditch was constructed. Interpretation of Radiocarbon Dates We obtained ten radiocarbon dates (Table 3), seven from Unit 10 in the midden (Trench 1) and three from Units 3 and 5 in the circle-ditch (Trench 2) (Wheeler 2001a). When plotted to their 2 sigma calibrated ranges, the dates cluster nicely, suggesting occupation of the site began around calibrated 500 B.C. and ended around cal A.D. 450 or 500 (Figure 8). This places the site within the early Glades I period (500 B.C. to A.D. 500), which preceded the late Glades I period (A.D. 500 to 700) (Carr and Beriault 1984:2; Griffin 1988:128; Widmer 1988:75).

PAGE 29

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKJN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH Comparison of the dates from the circle-ditch with those from the midden suggests that the circle-ditch feature was constructed during the initial occupation of the site. It was not a later addition. This means that the circle-ditch was an integral part of the site plan. The general chronological placement of the Whitebelt 1 site, based on these ten radiocarbon dates, is consistent with the early Glades I period and the abundant plain, sand tempered pottery we found. The early end of the range is supported by the near absence of ceramic types at the site that are typical of the Florida Transitional period (St. Johns Incised and sandand fiber-tempered pottery) dating to 1000 B.C. to 500 B.C. (Bullen 1959). The late end of the range at the site is supported by the low frequency of Belle Glade Plain sherds and the lack of St. Johns Check Stamped sherds. The dates from Whitebelt 1 are comparable to Sears' (1982:178) single uncorrected date (450 B.C. +/105) for the Great Circle at Fort Center, and his suggestion that circle ditch sites are associated with his "Period I," ranging from 1000 B.C. to A.D. 200. Sears' (1982:192-193) conjecture that circle-ditch sites are associated with sandand fiber-tempered pottery and the Florida Transitional Period is not supported by the dates and artifacts from Whitebelt 1 . Baker and Milanich (1967:20), in their report on excavations at the Great Circle at Fort Center, discuss finds of two sandand fiber-tempered sherds along with sand-tempered plain and St. Johns Plain sherds, and Hernando bifaces. They interpreted these artifacts to suggest the Great Circle more likely dated to the early Glades I period, ca. 500 B.C. Recent work by Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012, 2014) adds to the chronology for the Great Circle at Fort Center. They add three dates similar to Sears' date, as well as evidence for more recent deposits in the vicinity of the circle-ditches. Features In Trench 1, four post molds were encountered in Units 10 and 11 (Features 3, 4, 5, 6). All were similar, consisting of ashy, gray-black stained soil. The features were identified in the lowest stratum of the site. The tops of the post molds were noted around 7.32 m AMSL. Closer examination of the stratification indicates they may be associated with a structure floor in a higher stratum, around 7.67 m AMSL. The base of the post molds terminated at 7.12 to 7.27 m AMSL. Although preservation is poor, Ruhl identified pine charcoal from Features 3 and 4, potentially remains of pine posts. Diameter of the post molds ranged from 14 to 30 cm. These features formed a tight arc describing about 60 degrees of a circle. Projection of the circle suggests a structure of 2.2 m (7.2 ft) diameter. Structural remains are rare at sites in south Florida. When post molds are found, they are often randomly patterned, making structure identification difficult (Browning 197 5: 1720; Russo et al. 1991:317; Wheeler et al. 2002:166-167). Handley (2001) documented a number of structures at the Blue Goose midden in Indian River County. Several small structures, ranging in diameter from 1.0 to 1.5 m, were _J:J:(S) _JUN 78 .c t: 0 = c,, .c .... 0 .... .;!! .5 .c .... = 0 rJ) I .c t: 0 z '0 c,, .... = c,, c 0 M .c (.I = r..: c,, i... = l:)J)

PAGE 30

79 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Table 3. Radiocarbon Ages and Dates from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. Elevation Measured Conventional 2 Sigma Lab No. Unit Level above Radiocarbon o13C (o/oo) Radiocarbon Calibrated Date AMSL(m) Age (RCYBP) Age (RCYBP) Range Midden, Trench 1 Beta-149481 10 4 7.87m 2380 +/70 -25.5 2370 +/70 770-240 BC Beta-149482 10 5 7.77m 1750 +/70 -24.8 1760 +/70 AD 100-420 Beta-149484 10 6 7.68 m 2200 +/70 -25.9 2180+/-70 390-40 BC Beta-149485 10 7 7.57 m 2320 +/60 -25.6 2310+/-60 500-210 BC Beta-149486 10 8 7.46 m 2330 +/60 -24.8 2330 +/60 520-220 BC Beta-149487 10 9 7.35 m 2680+/-110 -24.5 2690 +/110 1100-540 BC Beta-149488 10 10 7.25 m 1880 +/100 -25.6 1870 +/100 60 BC-AD 400 Circle-Ditch, Trench 2 Beta-149479 3 7 7.30m 1830 +/70 Beta-149480 3 8 7.21 m 1750 +/70 Beta-149483 5 6 7.16 m 2170 +/70 '--R_Date Beta 149481 -.. --. R _Date Bela 149482 ----R_Date Beta 149484 R_Date Beta 149485 .. " R_Date Beta 149486 .. ------R _ Date Beta 14948" ~. R_Date Beta 149488 --R_Date Beta 149479 --R _ Da te Beta 149480 -----R _ Date Beta 149483 ---.. 2000 1500 1000 500 1 calB<.; 1 cal AD 501 Calibrated date (calBC/calAD) Figure 8. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from Whitebelt 1. Plot uses OxCal4 program (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and IntCal13 calibration curve for northern hemisphere (Reimer et al. 2013). interpreted as remnants of cooking racks or hearth shelters since they were associated with central hearths or cooking pits, while others might have been pens or storage structures (Handley 2001:110-113). Larger circular structures, ranging in diameter from 3 .5 to 11.25 m, were interpreted as residences or communal structures (Handley 2001: 113 ). At Horr's Island in southwest Florida, Russo (1991 :342) detected patterns of post molds and pits suggesting structures with diameters of 4.2 to 4.8 m. In the Florida panhandle, Scarry (1995) and Scarry and McEwan ( 1995) document and compare Apalachee domestic architecture. Scarry ( 1995 :206) presents a list of oval and circular structures ranging in diameter from 5 to 12 m. The diameter of the Miami Circle is 11.5 m (Carr and Ricisak 2000:277), consistent with the larger structures reported by Handley (2001) and Scarry (1995). -25 . 6 1820 +/70 AD 50-390 -25.2 1750 +/70 AD 110-430 -24.9 2170 +/70 390-40 BC Overall, the Archaic structures of Horr's Island, the Malabar II period structures of the Blue Goose Midden, and the Apalachee residential structures have similar sizes. This suggests that the smaller 2.2 in diameter Whitebelt 1 post mold pattern may represent a storage structure or cooking / smoking rack. However, some small post mold patterns, interpreted as Woodland and later household structures along the Mississippi Gulf coast , range in diameter from 2.4 to 5.8 m (Greenwell 1984: 131, 133, 141 ). This suggests that some smaller patterns may represent house structures as well. Material Culture Analyses A total of 1,273 artifacts was recovered from the year 2000 excavations at the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (Tables 4 and 5) . Materials were primarily from the midden deposit on the south side of the site, though all classes ofartifacts were found in lower frequencies in the ditch excavation on the north side of the site. The small portion of the ditch that we excavated seemed to have accumulated artifacts through erosion from adjacent midden deposits. Pottery sherds, primarily sand-tempered plain, represent the largest class of artifacts (n=l,208), although lithics (n=24), shark teeth (n=l 7) , and bone artifacts (n=24) were recovered. In general, the artifact inventory is not surprising and supports the radiocarbon dates that place the site in the early Glades I period (500 B.C. to A.D. 500). The abundance of chert flakes (n=23) is interesting, since the closest source of raw materials is over 100 miles away, and perhaps farther when considering terrestrial and aquatic trails. A small fragment of a metamorphic stone celt or axe also is of interest, since it represents exotic, non-Florida material. The collection of shark tooth tools further suggests that the Whitebelt 1 inhabitants traveled to the shore or participated in an exchange network that included raw materials from the seacoast.

PAGE 31

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 80 Table 4. Trench 1, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. Artifact distribution by weight (g). Level Zone Lithic Bone Trench 1, Unit 7 1 I 136.4 2 II 157 . 0 3 II 156 . 5 4 II -59 . 1 5 Ila 26.7 6 Ila 28 . 5 Trench 1, Unit 9 1 I/II 90.4 2 II 199 . l 3 II -111. 5 4 Ila 114 . 1 Trench 1, Unit 10 1 I/II 12.4 2 II 124.4 3 II 143.2 4 Ila 79 . 6 5 Ila 74 . 7 6 III 10 . 5 102 . 5 7 III 4.4 29. 0 8 III 5.9 16.0 9 III -1.8 10 IIl 0 . 3 0.3 11 IV -C e ramic Artifact s Ceramic 2.9 61.9 355.5 48.9 3.4 15.9 11.8 2 . 1 110 . 0 6.4 275 . 6 428 . 9 56. 1 44. 1 24.3 100.1 140 . 5 22 . 1 71.4 -A total of 1 , 208 pottery sherds came from the 10 excavation units at the s ite (Appendix C) . Of these , 561 ( 46%) were smaller than 2 cm and were assigned to a " residual plain" category , being too s mall for further cla s sification . The majority of the rest of the sherds (582 or 48%) were classified as sand-tempered plain. This kind of pottery , sometimes referred to as Glades Plain , is predominant in south Florida . Examples from Wh i tebelt 1 were typical. They were poorly fired, ranging in color from buff to black or dark brown , with moderate to heavy inclus i ons of fine grit or larger quartz sand grains . Minor types occurred throughout the strata at the site , including St. Johns Plain , Belle Glade Plain , at least one small sandand fiber-tempered sherd , and several unidentified plain sherds. Among the unidentified plain sherds are 15 examples of sandy St. Johns Plain (see Austin 1996 : 75). These are sherds that have a " chalky" feel but also contain minor to moderate inclusions of quartz sand grains (also see Luer and Almy 1980 :211; Mitchem 1986:86) . St. Johns and Belle Glade series ceramics can contain sponge spicules in the paste. Such spicules can occur naturally in the clay used by native people , but Rolland and Bond (2000) have suggested that the addition of freshwater sponge spicules to pottery clays may be a cultural practice designed to create greater cohesion during vessel manufacture and use . Fifty two rim sherds were present in the collection and examined for variations in lip and rim treatment and indications of general vessel wall orientation, when possible. Table 5. Trench 2, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. Artifact distribution by weight (g). Level Zone Lithic Bone Trench 2, Unit 1 1 I -2 I/II 0 . 1 3 II/III 0 . 1 0 . 1 4 III 2.8 Trench 2, Unit 2 1 I -2 I/II -3 II/Ill -4 III 0 . 2 5 III -0 . 1 Trench 2, Unit 3 1 I --2 I/II 3 II 0 . 3 < 0.1 4 III < 0.1 < 0 . 1 5 III < 0 . 1 6.3 6 IIIa 1.0 0 . 1 7 Illa/IV 1.0 8 IV -9 Illa/VIV -Trench 2, Unit 4 1 -2 -3 -4 -0.3 5 --0.9 Trench 2, Unit 5 1 I -2 I/II -3 II/III -4 III -5 III -< 0.1 6 Illa 1.4 -7 Ill a/V --Ceramic 16.2 40. 3 32.1 43 . 6 18.7 55 . 2 37 . 5 64.0 26.1 25 . 0 82.1 18.4 22 . 3 29 . 8 -1.8 11.7 20. 3 75.4 18.3 9.1 6.8 5 . 3 28.4 14.7 Wall orientation , rim form , and lip form were considered , with either three or four variables recognized within each of these categories (Figures 9 and 10, and Appendix D). Considerable variation was observed, although most vessels walls were vertical or slightly incurvate , with simple rim forms and rounded lips ( 42% ). Folded rims and rim sherds with beveled or trimmed lips also were fairly common (23% ). These folded rims exhibit a great deal of variation , and sometimes appear to have been elaborate . In some cases , the "fold" is merely extruded clay on the inside of the vessel lip, while in other cases the rim has a modeled appearance . Folded rims are not typically noted among Glades area ceramics , though other researchers have described them in possibly early sites (Lee et al. 1993 : 46). The folded rims discussed here are unlike the folded rims of Leon-Jefferson ceramics , and they may simply be a byproduct of an attempt to thicken the rim of the vessel. Functionally , folded or thickened rims may have provided extra strength in these vessels . Both Belle Glade Plain rim sherds in the collection have flat lips that are characteristic of the type.

PAGE 32

81 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Figure 9. Sherds and Profiles from Whitebelt 1. See Appendix D for details. The ceramic inventory from Whitebelt I is consistent with the radiocarbon dates, placing the site in the early Glades I period (500 B.C. to A.D. 500). Sites in the East Okeechobee and Lake Okeechobee basin areas typically do not have the incised Glades marker types that are characteristic of the Everglades and Ten Thousand Islands (Pepe 1999:65). There are, however, some temporal trends in the distribution of the plain pottery types. For example, Belle Glade Plain does not begin to dominate ceramic inventories until after A.D. 900 (Austin 1996:75; Pepe 1999:65-68). Likewise, St. Johns Check Stamped sherds begin to appear at sites in the area around A.D. 1000 (Pepe in Kennedy et al. 1993:90). The ceramic inventory of early sites is dominated by sand tempered plain pottery, as at Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. The presence of several examples of Belle Glade Plain is consistent with Sears' (1982: 193) comment that this type made its appearance during his Period I at Fort Center, sometime between 450 B.C. and A.D. 200, though others hint at a much later initial appearance of this type in certain areas (Austin 1996:75-76). White (1999:95) indicates that Belle Glade Plain first appears in the Caloosahatchee Region ca. A.D. 500, which seems consistent with a slightly earlier development in the Lake Okeechobee basin. Luer (personal communication 2019) reports Belle Glade Plain pottery as early as A.D. 500 at Big Mound Key, near Charlotte Harbor. Lithic Artifacts Jim Dunbar of the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research graciously examined the lithic artifacts from the site, citing chert sources and noting use and artifact types. Archaeologist Robert Austin also provided insights about lithic sources. There were 23 chert or silicified coral artifacts from Whitebelt 1 (Appendix E). The majority of these are small chert flakes, though one micro tool was identified, along with a blocky piece of a chert core, two chert bifaces, and one biface fragment (Figure 11 ). Figure 10. Sherds and Profiles from Whitebelt 1. See Appendix D for details. Sourcing of the chert based on the inclusion of foraminifera fossils and other materials was difficult, since many of the chert flakes and artifacts did not contain diagnostic inclusions. Those specimens that did contain inclusions were characteristic of cherts of the Ocala Limestone and the Tampa Member of the Arcadia Formation. The former are closest at Ocala Quarry Cluster, and the latter at the Hillsborough River Quarry Cluster (Austin and Estabrook 2000; Upchurch et al. 1982: 132-136). Silicified coral flakes (n=5) of the genus Siderastrea also were identified in the collection, pointing to the Upper Withlacoochee and Hillsborough River Quarry clusters. Cherts from the Bone Valley phosphate district/Peace River Formation, while the closest chert source to Whitebelt I, were absent in the collection. Cherts at Whitebelt 1 are likely from the Ocala and Hillsborough River Quarry Clusters, which yield abundant raw material in the area of present-day Marion and Hillsborough counties. I I cm 0 2 4 Figure 11. Bifaces from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. BAR Cat. No. 00.140.116.1 (left) and 99.65.7.2 (right).

PAGE 33

WHEELER, RuHL, FRADKIN, RrcH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 82 Technologically, the chert and coral flakes were typical of lithic retouching activities, and perhaps to a lesser extent, biface reduction. Some of the specimens are clearly percussion flakes and show evidence of a prepared platform. At least seven of the flakes and artifacts were heat altered, and several show evidence of heat damage and crazing. Heat alteration of chert became a common practice during the Middle Archaic period. This practice changes the color and luster of chert and makes it easier to flake. The reworked triangular point is interesting since it appears to have been originally a Hernando type biface that had the base and basal tangs removed (Figure 11). Dunbar detected a black substance on one side, perhaps some kind of hafting mastic. Hernando bi faces were once thought to be diagnostic markers of the Florida Transitional period (Bullen 1975:24), though further research has demonstrated that this biface type dates to ca. 1000 B.C. through A.D. 900, probably representing both atlatl dart and arrow projectiles (Ste. Claire 1996: 196-197). Some examples, especially those that are reworked, might have served as knives. Two fragments of a flake of metamorphic rock were identified (Cat. No. 00.140.083 .6). In the field, there was considerable speculation about them. At times we believed it was exotic stone, charcoal, a hickory nut hull, or some type of chert. The outer surface shows evidence of grinding and polishing and the shapes of the pieces indicate that they are shatter fragments, apparently from a ground stone celt or axe. Under the microscope the metamorphic structure was more apparent. Stone celts and axes are a rare artifact type, but do occur at sites in the St. Johns River basin and south Florida. Recent sourcing studies on examples of basaltic stone celts found at the Miami Circle indicate origins in the vicinity of Macon, Georgia (Dixon et al. 2000:336-337). One pumice abrader was found (Wheeler 2006:Figure 8a). Analysis of pumice recovered from Florida sites indicates that most of the clasts tested are potassium-rich, calc-alkaline rhyolitic material, likely originating in the Veracruz area of Mexico (Kish 2006). They include pieces from Fort Center, the Miami Circle, and Whitebelt 1. Shark Tooth Tools Eighteen shark teeth were recovered from excavation units in 2000 (Figure 12). These were identified taxonomically using the zooarchaeological comparative collection at FLMNH (Table 6). The teeth also were classified using the modification typology developed by Richardson and Pohl (1985:93-97), based on shark tooth tools from the Granada site (8DA 11 ), in Miami, with revisions by Kozuch (1993 :2530) and Wheeler and McGee (1994:354, 356-357). Wear patterns and modification types were identified with a Leica 30x binocular microscope (Table 7) . This assemblage is a small sample of shark tooth tools, but it represents utilization of at least seven or more shark species, including the sand or sandtiger shark ( Odontaspis taurus), which was not used for tooth tools at the Granada site. Tooth modification primarily involves the grinding or abrasion of the tooth root. Modification styles were much more diverse l'Y V r ., ,, ' ,, a b C d f , ' ., y .. .. e f g h ' #' ,, " ., " .., "' k y ,,, ,,, ,, -r TT m n 0 p y 'r q Figure 12. Shark Teeth from Whitebelt 1. Unit/Level Description Count Trench 1, Unit 7 2 Bone splinter, debitage 1 3 Bone splinters, deer 2 3 Negaprion brevirostris tooth 1 4 Bone artifact shaft fragment 1 4 Odontaspis taurus tooth 1 4 Negaprion brevirostris tooth 1 6 Negaprion brevirostris tooth 1 Trench 1, Unit 8 2 Galeocerdo cuvieri tooth 1 3 Bone artifact shaft frag., eroded 1 Trench 1, Unit 9 2 Carcharhinidae tooth 1 2 Negaprion brevirostris tooth 1 Trench 1, Unit 10 2 Antler bead fragment 1 2 Bone artifact shaft fragments 10 2 Odontaspis taurus tooth 1 2 Carcharhinus spp . tooth 1 3 Bone artifact shaft fragments 6 3 Odontaspis taurus tooth 1 4 Carcharhinus obscurus tooth 1 4 Carcharhinus spp. tooth 1 5 Bone artifact shaft fragment I 5 Carcharhinus spp. tooth 1 6 Antler bead 1 6 Carcharhinus spp. tooth 1 6 Negaprion brevirostris tooth 1 6 Negaprion brevirostris tooth 1 Trench 2, Unit 3 6 Carcharhinus spp. tooth 1 Table 6. Bone and Shark Tooth Artifacts, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch.

PAGE 34

83 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) in samples from the Granada and Jupiter Inlet sites, perhaps reflecting their larger sample sizes. Only one tooth from Whitebelt 1 was perforated, and none had filed or cut roots. In several cases, there was notable breakage and wear to the root, likely the result of hafting in a handle and use of the teeth under pressure. Wear patterns range from moderate edge wear to heavy blunting and splintering of the tooth tip, and occasionally include lateral striations across the tooth enamel. Kozuch (1993:3) urges caution in assessing use wear as distinct from the normal wear while in a shark's mouth. It is possible that the shark teeth in the Whitebelt 1 sample were used for fine bone and woodcarving. Interestingly, the two lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) teeth from Unit 10, Level 6, may be from the same individual, possibly near one another in the upper right portion of the jaw. Shark teeth seem to have been selected for several characteristics. The broader, serrated upper teeth of the requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae and Carcharhinus spp.), tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri), and lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) could have been used in carving or sawing. The narrow, elongated teeth of Odontaspis taurus and the lower teeth of Negaprion brevirostris appear to have been used as drills or perforators, and they often have more extensive spalling and tip wear. Bone Artifacts Bone artifacts were rare at Whitebelt 1. They include several fragments of bone working debitage, the byproducts of reducing larger mammal (probably deer) bones into tools or tool blanks. They also include fragments of several bone tools and two antler beads (Table 6). The bone tool fragments all consisted of shaft sections, probably split sections of deer metapodials. Several examples are highly burnished, perhaps the result of fire polishing, as suggested by Mitchell (1998:237-238). The two antler beads represent an interesting, rare artifact type (Figure 13). These round beads were cut from sections of antlers or antler tines, perforated, and variably polished. Like other antler artifacts, the beads seem fragile and may break and degrade easily. The diverse shapes and high polish that could be achieved by using antler might have been desirable. • "" • r cm Figure 13. Antler Beads from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. BAR Cat. No. 00.140.114.1 (left) and 00.140.83.5 (right). Hughes and Pepe (2001) report a barrel-shaped bone or antler bead from the Couse Midden, located on the Loxahatchee Scarp just west of the DuPuis area (also see Janus Research 2000:124, 128-129). Mitchell (1998:227-229) reports one complete antler bead and a possible antler bead blank from the Narvaez/ Anderson site in St. Petersburg. There is one antler bead from the Miami Circle in Miami (Wheeler 2004:151). Table 7. Shark Tooth Artifacts, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. Taxon Element Figure Edgeworn Carcharhinus spp. upper right tooth 121 Galeocerdo cuvieri tooth 12h Negaprion brevirostris upper right tooth 12j Negaprion brevirostris upper right tooth 12k Edgeworn-Tip Worn Odontaspis taurus tooth 12a Carcharhinus ( cf. obscurus) tooth 12m Negaprion brevirostris lower tooth 12q Roots Broken-Edgeworn Carcharhinus spp. upper left tooth 12f Negaprion brevirostris lower tooth 12n Roots Broken-Edgeworn-Tip Worn Odontaspis taurus tooth 12c Carcharhinidae lower tooth 12i Carcharhinus spp. upper right tooth 12g Carcharhinus ( cf. leucas) tooth 12d Negaprion brevirostris lower tooth 120 Roots Broken/Abraded-Edgeworn-Tip Worn Odontaspis taurus tooth 12b Negaprion brevirostris lower tooth 12p Carcharhinus spp. tooth 12e Palynological Analysis Samples of pollen and kerogen residues (the latter being a kind of solid, insoluble, organic matter) were derived from sediments collected at the Whitebelt I site and sent to palynologist Rich in July 2001. The samples, prepared as slides by Global Geolabs of Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, came from two areas of the site. Nine samples came from the south wall of excavation unit 183N-274.5E (Unit 10, Trench 1, in the south midden area). The nine samples were collected every 10 cm from 70 to 110 cmbs in Unit 10. The south midden samples were essentially barren, so that only five of them were analyzed, leading to no conclusion based on palynology. Seven pollen samples came from the west wall of excavation unit 417N-299.5E (Unit 3, Trench 2, in the circle ditch). Significant changes in the palynological characteristics of the samples from the circle-ditch led to the conclusion that a demonstrable change in vegetation occurred there, probably caused by construction of the ditch.

PAGE 35

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 84 Methods The processing laboratory sieved samples so that two populations were available for viewing. One population consisted of palyniferous residues of particle size greater than 1 O microns. The second population was kerogen residues of particle size less than 10 microns. Analytical procedure was standard, as followed by Rich et al. (2000). Slides were scanned for presence and absence of pollen and spores, and slides that had sufficient concentrations were point-counted until at least 300 palynomorphs of identifiable type were counted. Freshwater algal cysts, including Ovoidites and Pseudoschizaea appear in the pollen totals. They are usually not present in pollen sums. Rich et al. (1982) and Rich and Pirkle (1994) have shown that these two non-pollen genera are particularly valuable in assessing the environmental characteristics of pollen-bearing sediments from the southeastern United States. As such, these genera were added to the pollen totals from Whitebelt 1. Notes were made about the general characteristics of the residues. All kerogen slides were observed, although they produced no palynological information. Pollen and spores of embryophytes, and most freshwater algal cysts, are larger than 10 microns. Results Trench I Samples. Pollen samples from the south wall of Trench 1, Unit 10, in the south midden area, were all essentially barren of pollen and spores. Insoluble residues consisted of charcoal, with some humified plant materials and rare pollen and spores, as follows. The sample from 70 cm had charcoal only in coarse fraction (no kerogen slide was available) and traces of Gramineae and Osmunda pollen. The sample from 80 cm had mostly charcoal in coarse fraction, with a trace of Pinus pollen, with kerogen apparently being all charcoal. The next sample, from 90 cm, consisted of very abundant charcoal in coarse fraction as well as some fungal spores and humic matter, a trace of Quercus pollen, and kerogen composed of opaque detritus. The fourth sample, from 100 cm, was comprised of abundant charcoal and humic fragments, some fungal spores including Microthyriacites in coarse fraction, traces of Pin us, Quercus, and Woodwardia pollen, and kerogen opaque detritus. The fifth sample, from 110 cm, was very fine, unstructured humic debris, with charcoal and fungal remains in coarse fraction, a trace of Pinus pollen, and kerogen opaque detritus. Almost no conclusions can be drawn from this information, except that a change in hydroperiod or landcover occurred at 100 cm. Background pollen and spores are all types expected in such a location. Trench 2 Samples. Pollen samples from the west wall of Trench 2, Unit 3, associated with the circle-ditch feature, produced more material. The samples demonstrate a profound change in the type of landcover above 80 cm depth. The presence of taxa at particular levels is indicated in Table 8. Their actual relative abundances, expressed as percent, are also shown in Table 8. The only taxon shown that is not in the pollen total is Tetraporina, a probable freshwater algal cyst of unknown affinity. In all, there are 41 taxa that could be identified with confidence. The only questionable ones are Cupressaceae (white cedar type, one occurrence) and Sambucus (elderberry, occurrences in six levels). The uncertainty comes from the generally small size of all palynomorphs. Either the environment of deposition, or the processing technique, or both, resulted in all grains being unusually small. Thus, small structural features, such as sculpturing and small germinal apertures, were hard to see on some grains. The Nymphaea grains, particularly, were about half the size one would expect, and many of the pines were about 50 microns in length, as opposed to the more normal 100 microns. Some species of pines do produce such small pollen, but it is most unlikely that they would have contributed to these sediments, so it was assumed that all grains had shrunk. In the case of the shrunken Sambucus-type grains, the germinal apertures were difficult to distinguish. Several taxa demonstrated significant increases or decreases in abundance as a function of time, depth, and perhaps disturbance of the landscape. These include the Chenopodiaceae/ Amaranthaceae, grasses, waterlily (Nymphaea), and the Asteroideae (insect-pollinated composites). Other taxa are always present as background elements, including Quercus, Pinus, and Gramineae (grasses). These taxa are listed in Table 8, along with their relative abundances as calculated at a particular depth. Graphs illustrating their relative abundances are shown in Figure 14. Interpretations The flora of the circle-ditch is distinctly that of a wetland in the southeastern United States. The background pollen, such as pine, oak, and grasses, illustrate the local abundance of those plants, which could have been upland or lowland species. Some taxa are particularly indicative of a flooded or moist surface. They include Nymphaea as well as Sagittaria, Polygonum, and Polygala. All of these grow where soil conditions are either damp, saturated, or flooded. None of these taxa is present at 80 cm, but they all appear in differing amounts from 70 cm to 20 cm. The fact that Nymphaea comes in at 4.9% at 70 cm, and diminishes to .28% and .81 % before disappearing, suggests that flooding was most pronounced early in time, and as the ditch gradually filled up, waterlilies could no longer survive. A similar pattern is shown by arrowhead, Sagittaria. It also is an aquatic macrophyte that prefers flooded surfaces. Because both waterlily and arrowhead are insect pollinated, and have very limited pollen dispersal, it is almost certain that their pollen came from in-place plants. The gradual upward increase in the abundances of the two fems Osmunda and Woodwardia-type complement the demise of the waterlilies and arrowhead, as both fem types would be expected to grow on damp, but not necessarily flooded surfaces. The continuing dampness of the ditch is further indicated by the presence of the algal cysts Ovoidites and Pseudoschizaea. Both have been used to indicate ancient wetland or moist ground conditions

PAGE 36

85 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Table 8. Relative Abundances of Pollen, Spore, and Algal Cyst Taxa. These were encountered in Trench 2, Unit 3, west wall samples from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (expressed as percent in each sample). T indicates trace amounts were found but not counted. Taxon 20cm 30cm 40cm 50 cm 60cm 70cm 80cm Acer rubrum 0.28 Ambrosia 0.82 0.29 1.60 1.90 4.10 Asteroideae 2.30 4.40 4.90 4.10 2.20 5.20 T Brasenia 0.54 Bryales 0.27 0.86 0.27 Caryophyllaceae 0.29 0.28 Castanea 0.28 Chenopodiaceae-Amaranthaceae 11.10 23.90 34.40 55.00 64.90 39.10 Clethra 0.28 0.27 0.29 Cupressaceae 0.29 Cypraceae 2.30 0.82 1.40 0.27 2.90 Decodon 0.29 Equisetum 0.58 Eriaceae 0.87 fenestrate composites 0.27 Fraxinus 0.29 Gramineae 3.10 7.40 6.60 8.10 8.30 7.30 Iva 0.28 0.29 Lachnanthes 0.29 Liliaceae 1.10 3.80 Liquidambar 0.29 Magnolia 0.27 0.29 0.28 0.29 Myrica 0.27 0.29 0.54 0.29 Nymphaea 0.81 0.28 4.90 Osmunda 8.80 7.70 8.40 5.70 4.40 4.40 T Ovoidites 0.28 0.29 0.27 0.28 0.29 Pinus 9.40 3.80 9.20 6.80 7.50 6.70 T Polygala 0.82 0.28 Polygonum 2.50 0.82 1.30 0.56 0.58 Pontederia 0.28 Pseudoschizaea 0.85 3.60 0.58 Pteridium 0.28 0.55 0.29 0.81 0.83 Quercus 16.50 15.10 12.10 5.40 1.90 5.20 Sagittaria 0.28 0.82 0.29 1.10 2.00 Salix 0.85 0.58 Sambucus (?) 1.40 0.55 0.58 0.27 0.28 0.29 Sparganium 0.29 Sphagnum 0.29 Taxodium 0.57 0.27 0.27 1.40 Umbelliferae 0.28 0.28 Woodwardia (?) 30.20 19.80 12.10 2.40 1.40 2.30 T Xyris 0.28 0.29 0.58 unknowns 6.80 7.60 4.00 2.50 5.80 Tetraporina 4 ind. 1 ind. 1 ind.

PAGE 37

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 86 20 cm 30 cm 40cm 50cm 60 cm 70 cm 80cm Asteroideae Gramineae Ambrosia Cyperaceae 10 10 10 Nymphaea Osmunda Ovoidites 10 10 10 Prnus Pseudoschizaea Polygon um Sagittaria Taxodium 10 10 10 10 10 10 Figure 14. Relative Abundance of Selected Pollen Taxa by Percent in Each Level. (see Rich et al. 1982; Rich and Pirkle 1994; Rich et al. 2000) such as one could easily find in roadside ditches in the southeastern United States today. The dramatic rise in the abundance of pollen of the Chenopodiaceae and Amaranthaceae ( combined here) can be interpreted as a result of a change in the hydroperiod of the ditch, or it may be due to local land disturbance. Cheno ams, as they are collectively called, are well known as weedy invaders of broken ground. Early in the sedimentary history of the site there were no cheno-ams. This suggests that they simply did not grow at Whitebelt 1 before the ditch was dug. After native people dug the ditch and it was flooded, the plants began to appear, presumably on the disturbed surface occupied by spoil. As occupation of the site continued, and as areas adjacent to the ditch were inhabited, or perhaps cultivated by native people, the weeds took over. The pollen of cheno-ams is wind-borne and was carried into the ditch in large amounts. Though we did not distinguish species, there was considerable morphological variation in the density of the pollen walls and distribution of germinal apertures, so several species are probably indicated. The grasses make a parallel increase in abundance with the cheno ams, further suggesting the development of a nearby weedy surface covered by opportunistic herbs. An additional point should be made relative to the abundance of charcoal. Large charred cell masses and finely divided charcoal are common in all samples, except the 80 cm sample from the west wall. In this sample, the insoluble residue in both the coarse and fine fractions consisted mostly of hyaline , isometric cells derived from the humification of plant remains . There was very little charcoal. Structured cell material is abundant in both fractions of the 70 cm sample , though charcoal was more noticeable. From the 60 cm sample to the top of the series, charcoal is common . The implication is that either the decreasing hydroperiod indicated by the change in vegetation led to drier conditions and greater susceptibility to burning, or that fires were introduced to the site and became common during occupation of the disturbed ground. Archaeobotanical Analysis Samples were collected to study plant use, past environment, and archaeobotanical preservation at the site. In May 2000, two field days were devoted to collecting archaeobotanical samples from two locations adjacent to excavations and based on previous auger testing (Wheeler 2000a). Samples were collected from Trench 1 in the south midden (Unit 8 , East ), Features 3, 4, and 5 (Unit 10), and Trench 2 in the circle-ditch (Unit 6). Methods Both dry and wet samples were collected. Two moist samples and five water-saturated samples came from the circle-ditch, including two auger samples (Appendix F) . Five of these samples came from approximately 27 to 77 cm below the surface (cmbs) in a 50 x 50 cm column section in Unit 6 in the circle-ditch . Dry samples were collected from a 50 x 50 cm column (Unit 8) in the midden and from Features 3, 4, and 5 in Unit 10. Appendix F and Table 9 indicate where and how these samples were collected and processed. All samples were transported to the University of Florida fumigation chamber before processing at FLMNH. There, they were allowed to air dry (except N-3 to N-5). All but the water-saturated samples were processed through large nested screens with mesh sizes approximating U.S.A. standard testing geological sieves (No. 5, No. 10, No.18, and No. 40) with 4 mm , 2 mm, 1 mm, and .425 m mesh openings. The dry samples were sieved rather than floated or water screened as studies show that reintroducing water to dry sediment samples causes damage such as shattering of charred materials, thereby preventing identification (Jarman et al. 1972; Newsom 1999; Ruhl 1999a). Pre-drainage conditions were generally wet or flooded most of the time, but "occasionally a drought of two or more years' duration would occur and the glades would then become dried out" (Parker 1984:29) . This hints that plant remains in these deposits might have been impacted over time. Once the large samples were processed into fractions, they were further processed and sorted. The large fractions ( 4 mm and 2 mm) were scanned, sorted into various

PAGE 38

87 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Table 9. Data from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch Archaeobotanical Samples. Context/ Bot# FS# Method Edaphic Sample Condition Volume Bot# S-1 87 Dry sieved Midden, sand 25 L Bot# S-2 88 Dry sieved Midden, sand 22 L Bot# S-3 89 Dry sieved Midden, sand 25 L Bot# S-4 90 Dry sieved Midden, sand 38 L Bot# S-5 91 Dry sieved Midden, sand 25 L Bot# S-6 92 Dry sieved Midden, sand 25 L Bot# S-7 131 Dry sieved Midden, sand 39 L Bot# S-8 132 Dry sieved Midden, sand 3L Bot# S-9 137 Dry sieved Midden, sand IL Bot# S-10 133 Dry sieved Midden, sand I L Bot# S-11 134 Dry sieved Midden, sand I L Bot# S-12 135 Dry sieved Midden, sand 1 L Bot# S-13 136 Dry sieved Midden, sand 1 L Bot# S-14 138 Dry sieved Midden, sand 11 L Bot#N-1 103 Wet sieved Ditch, wet silty sand 2.5 L Bot# N-2 104 Wet sieved Ditch, wet silty sand 3 L Bot#N-3 105 Wet sieved Ditch, wet silty sand 3 L Bot# N-4 106 Wet sieved Ditch, wet silty sand 2.5 L Bot# N-5 107 Wet sieved Ditch, wet silty sand -3 L TOTALS 232 L components (e.g., seed, charred wood, marl, shell, and bone), re bagged, and labeled. They were analyzed first and used to determine further processing of the smaller fractions (1 mm and .425 m). While all charred remains from the 4 mm and 2 mm fractions were scanned and carefully sorted, only 10% by weight of the 1 mm fraction was scanned for seeds, as charred wood is much too small to identify at this level. After sorting 100% of the 4 mm and 2 mm fractions and 10% of the 1 mm fraction, it was decided not to scan the .425 m fraction for this study, as the latter was scant (Appendix G). Instead, the sort of the 1 mm fraction of the waterlogged materials was increased. The time to process these finer fractions was not deemed feasible with the limited results from the larger fractions. Typically, these are used as a guide for the smaller fractions that often contain more fragile remains. This allowed a more holistic look at the samples to obtain a broader view of the site from both the circle-ditch and midden areas. These 1 mm and .425 m residuals have been boxed and inventoried with the other analyzed materials (Ruhl 2001). Next, the sorted botanical samples (S-1 to S-14, N-1 to N-5) were examined for diagnostic features on seeds and other non-wood remains using a dissecting microscope (lx to 14x). Seed counts are often based on fragments and do not typically indicate the exact number of seeds present. From each FS# and Bot#, seeds were counted and weighed from the individual fractions and recorded in Appendix G. Charred Seed Wood Plant Seed Seed Ct./ Ct.I Weight (g) Weight Count Plant Wt. Sample Vol. 5.373 .128 9 70.31 .39 3.492 .015 3 200.00 .14 1.760 --2.657 ---2.440 -4.675 .002 2 1000.00 .08 3.101 . --.463 ---.164 .001 I 1000.00 1 .092 --.090 ----.204 --.843 .008 2 250.00 .18 2.250 .102 1 9.80 .40 1.331 .001 1 1000.00 .33 4.404 .015 2 133.00 . 66 4.419 Wet fragment --3.257 Wet 62 (wet) -41.015 .272 83+ --Seeds and wood fragments were identified following typical archaeobotanical standards ( e.g., Pearsall 1989). Seed identification involves the use of various pictorial guides, keys, manuals, and floras (e.g., Cronquist 1980; Davis 1943; Delorit 1970; Delorit and Gunn 1986; Duncan and Duncan 1987; Godfrey and Wooten 1979, 1981; Hitchcock 1971; Landers and Johnson 1976; Long 1974; Long and Lakela 1976; Martin and Barkley 1961; Morton 1979; Small 1933; Wunderlin 1982, 1998). These are used in conjunction with viewing vouchered plant collections ( e.g., seeds, wood) against the archaeobotanical remains for morphologically distinct traits (e.g., hilum scars, shape, surface patterning). These collections are housed at the University of Florida Herbarium at FLMNH. All identifications were made to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Charred wood samples were identified based on three dimensional anatomy (i.e., transverse, radial, and tangential views) with reference to comparative wood specimens, wood slides, manuals, and standard keys ( e.g., Kurz and Godfrey 1993; Nelson 1994; Panshin and deZeeuw 1980; Record and Hess 1942-1948; Tomlinson 1980; Urling and Smith 1953). Magnifications varied from 70x to 140x depending on anatomical features. Most identifications were made from the 4 mm samples as they provide the most reliable evidence for anatomical features and traits, such as growth ring patterns (2 to 3 full growth rings) (Appendix G).

PAGE 39

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 88 For quantitative purposes, 30 to 35 wood charcoal fragments are recommended as a representative sample (Scarry and Newsom 1992:383). Studies done in southwest Florida sites indicate that the number of species present do not increase much after 30 species of wood are identified (Scarry and Newsom 1992:383). This number should be adequate for Whitebelt 1, located in a more semi-tropical to temperate area, where fewer species of trees exist compared to tropical habitats. Unfortunately, the samples did not always contain this quantity in the largest fraction ( 4 mm) of circle-ditch sub-samples, which has been the case in other middens (e.g., Ruhl 1995, 1999a). Because wood preservation was variable, the 2 mm fractions of sorted charred wood were also sub-sampled and selected fragments were analyzed when possible. As noted above, normally only the 4 mm fraction woods were sub-sampled (n=30 specimens) from a given sample ( e.g., Pearsall 1989). The 2 mm wood fractions were small and only allowed portions of the wood to be viewed and recorded. The typical three-part (transverse, radial, and tangential views) ( e.g., Panshin and deZeeuw 1980) analysis of an individual fragment from larger wood specimens was not always feasible. Hence, a composite approach to these charred wood fragments was developed and recorded with the intent of keying traits from whatever wood view(s) were preserved. A combination of these views ( e.g., radial/tangential, transverse/ radial, transverse/tangential) hypothetically should facilitate a composite identification when two or more views are observable from smaller samples. This kind of analysis needs to be carefully reconstructed and is limited, but has had some success (Ruhl 2002). Unfortunately, preservation sometimes hindered even this attempt to "fingerprint" the wood, as 30 fragments were not present in some samples. Results Approximately 41 grams of charred wood and 83+ seeds were recovered from the 232 liters of soil processed (Table 10). Identifications are in Appendix G, listing 20 taxa along with remains that were not identifiable. The midden matrix yielded scant seed remains, and thus there were few hints of plants in the subsistence and foodways of the people who lived around the circle-ditch. The majority of plant remains came from water-saturated levels of the circle-ditch in the north portion of the site. They represent plants that grew in the wetter slough and low areas in and around the circle and the drier hammock along the midden-rich ridges (Wheeler 2000a, 2001 b ). Some water-saturated remains were not charred and may represent modem flora. Yet, some charred remains suggest that these may be part of the precontact inventory. Wood Remains. Seven species of wood were identified. Pine was dominant, followed by palm. Live oak, oak, blueberry, maple, and persimmon were present from the circle-ditch. These species inhabit mesic hammocks, scrub, and flatwoods (Table 10). Charred softwood was a southern hard pine (Pinus sp.) with diagnostic dentate ray tracheids. Resins produced by this species make it an excellent wood for fuel and strong for construction purposes. In ubiquity studies (Kadane 1988; Popper 1988), a ratio represents the number of occurrences containing burned remains (or at some sites the water-saturated remains) relative to the overall number of proveniences being analyzed. Unfortunately, not all of the appearances meet the criteria for ubiquity analysis. Some samples were combined for the ubiquity study (e.g., Feature 4 in Unit 10 was assigned four FS#s [FSs 133-136], but was only approximately 10 cm in depth, which is comparable to most other samples collected). To generate Table 11, 16 of the 19 proveniences were considered "distinct." As such, Figure 15 is offered as a provisional example of wood ubiquity with relative significance of taxa. The dominant wood across the samples was pine, present in 93.75% of proveniences (Figure 15). Table 10. Archaeobotanical Taxa from Whitebelt I Circle-Ditch. Scientific Taxon Common Name1 Gymnospermae softwood Pinus sp. pine (cw) Angiospermae hardwood (cw) cf. Arecaceae (Palmae) palm family ( cw, s) Sabal palmetto cabbage palm (cw) Sabal sp. palm (s, cw) Serenoa repens saw palmetto (s) Eleusine indica goose grass (cs) Panicum/Setaria sp. panicgrass/bristlegrass ( ds) Scirpus sp. bulrush (s) Cladium sp . sawgrass (s, cs) Quercus cf. virginiana live oak (cw) Quercus sp. oak (cw, possible galls) cf. Quercus. sp. oak (cw) Acer sp. maple (cw) cf. Acer sp. maple (cw) Ampelopsis sp. peppervine ( s) Parthenocissus sp. virginia creeper ( s) Hibiscus sp. rosemallow (ms) Passifl,ora sp. passion flower (s) Vacinnium sp. blueberry/sparkleberry ( cw) Diospyros sp. persimmon (cw) Sambucus cf. canadensis elderberry (s) Scutellaria sp. skullcap (cs) Cucurbitaceae cucurbit family cf. Leguminosae legume family (s) Dicotyledoneae dicot-stem, fragments (cw) Monoctyledoneae monocot-stem, root fragments (cw) Plantae Indeterminate fragments ( cw, p) ' cw=charred wood; s=seed, watersaturated; cs=charred seed; ds = dessicated seed; ms= modem seed; p = other plant parts. Scientific names after Wunderlin 1998.

PAGE 40

89 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VoL. 72 (2) 100% 93.75% 90% 80% 70% ;>-. 60% = = a'-50% -'0 40% 0 30% 20% 10% 0% Pinus sp. Sabal sp. Acer sp. Vaccinum sp. Quercus sp. Q. virginiana Diospyros sp. Specific Taxa Figure 15. Wood Ubiquity with Relative Significance ofTaxa. Only three species of wood were recovered from the midden area (pine, palm, and oak), all common in the semi tropical flatwoods/scrub that exists today. Palm was recovered from five samples in the midden area. Apparently, the general habitat was much the same in the past, as wood species from deeper levels were like those in upper levels. However, the density and variety may vary and be difficult to discern in such small samples. Four of the five samples from the circle-ditch meet all criteria for wood ubiquity. Here, six of the seven taxa identified from these levels were recovered, including pine, oak, live oak, persimmon, blueberry, and maple. These six woods offer both direct and indirect evidence for potential exploited resources and not just evidence of natural vegetation. Charred wood remains from good archaeological contexts tend to indicate their use as fuelwoods for primary fuel or kindling. Hearth features often have multiple woods as many were used to ignite versus stoking or fueling a fire. Each of the seven woods from the midden area and the circle-ditch could have been used as a fuel, although pine and oak are the most commonly used species at precontact and contact period sites in Florida (e.g., Masson and Scarry 1991; Newsom 1987, 1988, 1989, 1994, 1999; Ruhl 1993, 1995, 1999a, 1999b, 2000; Scarry 1985) due to their capacity to bum and sustain heat (Little 1980). Remains from the circle-ditch may be derived from runoff from higher ridge areas (where hardwood hammock might have grown), and these remains contained Native American sherds as well as charred and water-saturated plant remains. We recovered sherds during sorting (Wheeler 2001 b:3, 13, 20). In addition , stems and roots of monocots, dicots, and other higher-level taxa were noted, but could not be specifically identified. Some species may be considered possible food sources, such as Vacinnium sp. (blueberry/sparkleberry), Diospyros sp. (persimmon), and the oaks (Quercus spp.), because each bears edible plant parts (fruits or nuts), besides having possible non-food uses (Table 11). Pine is commonly found in archaeological sites throughout the southeastern United States. It was used in many ways, such as posts for structures, fuel for hearths, utensils, and dugout canoes (Table 11 ). Many charred wood fragments from the midden area were charred by very high-intensity fire as many cells were destroyed throughout the wood fragments. This is not surprising as pine can bum naturally at temperatures around 600 to 800 C. Whether or not these charred pieces of wood were specifically made into "charcoal" for intentional fuel or were collected and cut could not be determined. Unit 1 O's Features 3 and 4 contained charred pine, perhaps post fragments (Wheeler 2001a). Unfortunately, none of these samples had remains from the 4 mm fraction and only limited analysis could be done with the few wood fragments present. One charred seed of Cladium sp. (sawgrass) was recovered from Feature 4, and it might have been an incidental inclusion in this feature given its small size and abundance in the area.

PAGE 41

WHEELER,RUHL,FRADKIN,RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 90 Seed Remains. Modem, desiccated, water-saturated, and charred fragments were identified and reflect precontact plant communities that are similar to modem habitats. Some potential economic uses of these taxa are in Table 11. Few charred seed remains were recovered from midden samples. A few modern seed fragments were from various depths (Tables 10 and 11, and Appendix G). One modern intrusion, Hibiscus sp. (rosemallow) (FS 87.11), was from an upper level. While walking around the site, we saw that this plant was relatively abundant, in and bordering the circle-ditch. A partial, desiccated Panicum/Setaria sp. seed (FS88.4) was recovered from 27 to 37 cmbs. Charred seed remains included: Eleusine indica, Serenoa repens, Carya sp. (nut shell), cf. Leguminosae, Cladium sp., Sabal sp., Scutellaria sp., Passif/,ora sp., Scirpus sp., and indeterminate plantae. Water-saturated and modern seeds included: Sambucus sp., Cladium sp., Ampelopsis sp., Parthenocissus sp., Passiflora sp., and Cucurbitaceae. Waterlogged remains were charred and non-charred. Cladium was recovered from both contexts and in both states of preservation, showing its environmental dominance today and presence in the past. One small fragment of a tentatively identified Cucurbitaceae was recovered from FS 104.11. The genera of the panicoid group of the family of grasses (Graminae/Poaceae, including Panicum/Setaria) are very similar in morphology. The hard membraneous floral bracts that enclose the flowers adhere tightly to the grain, and some species are indistinguishable. Of the approximately 600 species of Panicum from around the world, new species have been described and others restudied morphologically, cytologically, geographically, and phylogenetically (for example compare Hitchcock and Chase 1910; Zuloaga and Soderstrom 1985). Callen (1967:535) noted that Setaria could be differentiated from Panicum by the "possession of transverse lines of small cellulose ridges at right angles to the strands of strengthening cells," which are absent from Panicum. Other grass specialists ( e.g., Hall 1978; David Hall personal communication 2001) indicate that both genera have some species that possess similar ridging patterns. This limits our ability to identify certain specimens, especially desiccated and carbonized archaeological specimens, to a specific genus and, hence, to compare them to other New World cereals. Whether panicgrass or bristlegrass, these are both common grasses found throughout the Everglades (e.g., Harshberger 1914; Small 1918, 1929). Many grasses, such as Panicum/Setaria sp. are edible and were potentially used as food in lean periods, if not more commonly collected ( e.g., Moerman 1986, Swanton 1922, 1946) (Table 11 ). We have recovered charred Panicum/Setaria sp. grains from precontact sites on Horr's Island in southwest Florida (Russo et al. 1991). They also have been associated with hearths, suggesting their potential precontact use. The preserved non-carbonized seed from the midden area (FS 88. 7) may reflect past plant use, but requires further investigation. Potentially significant is the relative abundance of Graminae pollen in Levels 6 through 8 of Unit 3, Trench 2, reported by Rich (2001, and Figure 14), which are most abundant by percentage in those levels as well. This abundance appears during the heaviest occupation at the site and could reflect more than habitat data. One small fragment of tentatively identified Cucurbitaceae was recovered in FS 104.11 from the circle-ditch. This may be the distal end of a bottle gourd seed ( cf. Lagenaria sp.) and is small. Gourds have been recovered from other precontact contexts at Florida Gulf Coast sites, such as Key Marco, Pineland (Old Mound), and Perico Island, and sites along the St. Johns River (Austin et al. 2018; Gilliland 1975; Newsom 1987, 1994; Newsom and Scarry 2013). Few known wild forms of this gourd exist, precluding comparative research and specialized analysis of cultivation changes (Newsom 1987; Singh 1990:20-21; Singh and Dathan 1990). In Florida, bottle gourds from archaeological sites are in need of further research (e.g., Cutler 1975; Cutler and Blake 1976; Newsom 1987; Newsom and Scarry 2013). As noted above, 9+ charred seed/nut shell remains (Indian goosegrass, saw palmetto, cabbage palm, hickory, legume, saw grass, skullcap, passion fruit, and a possible legume) were recovered and 6+ genera represent water-saturated or modern remains ( cabbage palm, elderberry, sawgrass, peppervine, Virginia creeper, rosemallow, and cucurbit). Table 11 indicates that most charred plants had potential economic uses but may not have been subsistence items. Many have medicinal uses and are possible indirect indicators of disease and ailments that could inform bioarchaeological research. Nevertheless, the Sabal sp., Passiflora sp., Sambucus cf. canadensis, cf. Carya sp., and the grasses Scirpus sp., Cladium sp., and Panicum/ Setaria sp. are edible resources. In addition, the indirect evidence for Quercus sp. ( oak), Vaccinium sp. (blueberry), and Diospyros sp. (persimmon) make a wide array of collectible and potentially managed foodstuffs. Comments Remains of no known cultivars were recovered. All specimens that might have been used by native people at this site appear to have been gathered from natural habitats in the general vicinity. This may offer insight for future research of possible plant husbandry in and around Lake Okeechobee. Were Native American occupants of the site gatherers or did they practice early stages of plant husbandry/manipulation ( e.g., grasses, cheno-ams, other species)? The role of ditches and earthworks needs further attention regarding possible horticultural practices in south Florida. Grasses often have been considered food resources in lean periods (Swanton 1922, 1946), but they might have been an integral part of the diet in certain habitats. Grasses are common in the area and were potential sources of vitamins and other nutrients, and they had non-food uses. Today in Florida, Eleusine indica (Indian goosegrass) is known to be an introduced species (as perhaps is our Hibiscus sp.) (Wunderlin 1998:106). Eleusine indica is an annual grass from the Old World (Radford et al. 1964; Steyermark 1963) and is an intrusive, non-native contaminant in precontact period archaeological sites in the Eastern Woodlands (e.g., Hildebrand n.d.; Salimanth et al. 1995; Werth 1994 ).

PAGE 42

91 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Table 11. Habitat and Potential Economic Uses Suggested for the Archaeobotanical Taxa Recovered at Whitebelt 1. Scientific Taxon-Common Name General Habitat Possible Uses cw=charred wood; s=seed; p=other plant part Coniferales-Conifer (cw) pine flatwoods variablefuel; woodworking, tannins, resins; food-some bark Pinus sp.-pine (cw) pine flatwoods variable-fuel, wood working, dugout canoes, posts; tannins, resins; food-some bark, cones Scirpus sp. wetlands, swamps, seepage slopes, disturbed food-edible young shoots raw or cooked; areas, wet hammocks, wet pinelands, pond and pollen and ground seed as flour marsh edges; some species brackish to saline coastal marshes Cladium sp. wetlands, swamps, brackish areas, bogs, food-edible young shoots-heart at base seepage slopes, marshes of stem; basketry, stem used as medicine blowing tube by Seminole, starvation/ survival food Eleusine indica disturbed habitats, introduced contact period unknown Setaria/Panicum sp. flatwoods, sandhills, coastal hammocks, food-edible kernelsconsidered by some as disturbed wet habitats, swamps starvation food source Arecaceae (Palmae)-palm family (cw) palm and hardwood hammocks, flatwoods possible fuel Sabal palmetto-cabbage palm (cw) hammocks food-edible fruit, terminal bud (cabbage-the central bundles ofleafblades), pith, salt source; fuel-wood, wood-working; fibers Sabal sp.-palm (s, cw, p) hammocks same as above Serenoa repens-saw palmetto (s, cw) hammocks, low savannahs, disturbed settings food-edible fruit and greens, terminal bud edible; medicinalfor thyroid, infertility, respiratory ailments, female tonic, prostate, nerves and glands, digestion; fibers Angiospermae-hardwood ( cw, p) semi-tropical and temperate hardwood variable -fuel, construction, food hammocks Quercus cf. virginiana-live oak (cw) hardwood hammocks and pine woodlands food-edible nutmeats, seed oil for use in cooking hominy or rice; wood-working, gums, resins, fuel Quercus sp.-oak (cw) hardwood hammocks and pine woodlands same as above Acer sp.-maple (cw, p) hardwood hammocks and pine woodlands saps-glues; fuel, wood-working Ampelopsis sp.(s) floodplain forests, swamps, and hammocks herb/spice Parthenocissus sp.(s) floodplain forests, swamps, and hammocks medicinal?-leaftea for poison sumac, wounds; root tea diarrhea; berries toxic, leaves possibly irritant Hibiscus sp. disturbed habitats, swamps, marshes, medicinalmucilage in leaves and roots for hammocks dysentery, lung, and urinary ailments Passiflora sp.(s) tropical hammocks, disturbed habitats, mesic food-edible fruit; medicinal-flower infusion hammock, dry open hammocks (some species) with other plants used for insomnia Vacinnium sp.-blueberry/sparkleberry ( cw) hardwood hammocks food-edible berry; fuel wood Diospyros sp.-persimmon (cw) flatwoods, sandhills, and hammocks foodedible fruit; fuel wood Scutellaria sp. (s) sandhills, disturbed habitats, flatwoods, medicinal-aerial parts in an infusion or hammocks, dry bluff forests (some species) tincture for insomnia, anxiety; rootsdecoction used for gastric, chest and urinary infections Sambucus cf. canadensis (s) wet open hammocks, floodplain, forests, food-edible ripe fruit and flower-sauces, swamps, wet disturbed habitats wines, pectin high, high in Vitamin C and A; medicinal-flowers used in teas, upper respiratory ailments, anti-inflammatory; leaves-ointments for bruises, sprains, wounds; bark, constipation, arthritis • Data compiled from Angier 1974; Ayensu I 98 I; Duke I 992; ENFO 1989; Foster and Duke 1990; Harshberger 1914; Haehle and Brookwell 1999; Long 1974; Long and Lakela 1976; Kurz and Godfrey 1993; Moerman 1986, 1998; Mohr 1896; Morton 1990; Mowrey 1986; Myers and Ewe! 1991; Newsom 1987, 1988, 1989, 1994, 1999; Ody 1993; Peterson 1977; Ruhl, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2001; Scarry 1985; Scarry and Newsom 1992; Small 1933; Swanton 1922, 1946; Tomlinson 1990; Wunderlin 1998).

PAGE 43

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 92 Goosegrass grows in disturbed habitats and was introduced to the Americas most likely via fodder during early Spanish colonial explorations (Crosby 1972). It was recovered archaeologically from 16th and 17th century Spanish colonial contexts, such as at St. Augustine and St. Catherines Island, Georgia (e.g., Reitz and Scarry 1985; Ruhl 1990, 1993). Escalante Fontaneda's account (1945) and others ( e.g., Connor 1923:205-206) attest to early contact in and around the Lake Okeechobee area. Just how early this grass was introduced is unknown. Unlike the Hibiscus sp. seed remains, the Eleusine indica seed was carbonized and suggests the possibility of a longer presence in the soil (non-carbonized remains in such edaphic settings and mesic habitats are very short lived). While both were recovered from FS 87, the modem Hibiscus sp. seed may be an incidental introduction from recent flowering plants, while carbonized remains suggest an item remaining from when the site was occupied. It also is possible that the burned Indian goosegrass is the result of more recent bums. The severe fires across eastern Florida in 1999 and 2000 might have impacted the upper levels at the site, extending a level or two below ground surface (FS 87 was recovered from a depth of 17 to 27 cmbs). This level appears to have been a transitional zone containing both carbonized and non-carbonized remains that might have migrated through the soil or were incidentally included during excavation. Only one desiccated specimen was recovered from deeper levels (FS 88) from the midden area, where radiocarbon dates indicate site occupation from ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 500 (Wheeler 2001a:2). Faunal Analysis Materials Fauna! materials came from the southern portion of the site in the midden area. A column sample, measuring 50 x 50 cm for each 10 cm arbitrary level, was taken from Unit 11, in Trench 1. Soil from each level was bagged and labeled, then taken to the Archaeology Laboratory at the FAU Department of Anthropology and water-screened through nested 4 mm, 2 mm, and 1 mm mesh sieves. Vertebrate remains from the 4 mm fraction were examined in this study. Methods Fauna! analysis followed standard zooarchaeological procedures (Quitmyer 1985; Reitz and Wing 2008). Specimens were identified to the lowest taxon possible using comparative collections in the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory (EAL) at FLMNH and in the FA U Department of Anthropology. For each specimen identified, a record was made of the bone element represented, portion of element recovered (e.g., proximal, distal, and/or shaft), bilateral symmetry or side (right or left), and any evidence of modification (burning, gnawing, cutting, and/or polishing). Measurements were taken of all identified ray-finned fish vertebrae (greatest medio-lateral breadth of centrum) (Morales and Rosenlund 1979:44-45). Using a skeletal dimensional allometric formula derived from this same measurement taken on a series of modem comparative specimens (Appendix H), the size range of the fish represented was estimated (Casteel 1976:95-102; Reitz et al. 1987; Wing and Brown 1979:127-129). Quantification of fauna! materials included a count of the total number of fragments identified for each taxon (number of identified specimens, NISP), estimates of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) represented by the remains, weights of all identified specimens, and estimates of the minimum amount of usable meat weight provided by identified specimens. All specimens were counted with the exception of unidentified ray-finned fish remains and unidentified vertebrate fragments, but these were included in the weights of the remains. MNI determinations were based on the concept of paired elements, axial elements, and individual size. Bone weights were recorded of all identified specimens. These weights, in tum, were converted into estimates of edible meat by using skeletal mass allometric formulas generated from weights taken on a series of modem comparative specimens at EAL, FLMNH (Appendix I). In this study, estimation of the relative abundance of each taxon was based on MNI and minimum usable meat weight estimates. Results A total of 52 vertebrate taxa was identified. In general, similar taxa were represented in the upper versus lower strata, with the upper stratum having greater fauna! diversity. In the upper stratum, 48 taxa were identified, whereas 37 taxa were recorded for the lower stratum. The greater number of taxa in the upper layer is likely due to larger sample size. Differences included pickerel, black crappie, mullet, lizard, box turtle, chicken turtle, gopher tortoise, pied-billed grebe, opossum, shrew, and rice rat exclusively in the upper stratum. Herring, hardhead catfish, and gray fox were only in the lower stratum. Fish and reptiles were the two most abundant classes represented at Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch in terms of MNI and minimum usable meat weight estimates. Fish constituted 55% of the total MNI and 28% of the total estimated meat contribution. Reptiles (turtles, lizards, snakes, and alligator) represented 23% of the MNI and 43% estimated meat contribution. Amphibians, mammals, and birds were less important, ranging from 2% to 11 % of the MNI and from 1 % to 18% of the total minimum usable meat estimates in the fauna! assemblage. Appendix J presents a list of taxa represented, comparing upper versus lower strata, and their quantification. Table 12 gives summary tabulations, comparing total NISP, MNI, bone weight, and meat weight calculations by vertebrate class for the entire assemblage. Descriptions ofTaxa Nearly all fishes identified are typically found in fresh water and still occur in the lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams of south Florida (Dineen 1984; Lee et al. 1980; Loftus and Kushlan 1987; Page and Burr 1991). The most common fish

PAGE 44

93 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VoL. 72 (2) Table 12. Zooarchaeology Totals by Vertebrate Class for Whitebelt 1, upper and lower strata combined (Levels 1 10). CLASS NISP NISP% MNI MNI% Chondrichthyes 24 0.36 2 1.65 (Cartilaginous Fishes) Actinopterygii 2830 42.18 66 54.55 (Ray-Finned Fishes) Amphibia (Amphibians) 165 2.46 10 8.26 Reptilia' (Reptiles) 3419 50.95 28 23.14 Aves (Birds) 5 0.07 2 1.65 Mammalia (Mammals) 267 3.98 13 10.74 TOTALS 6710 100.00 121 100.00 • Lizard and alligator not included in meat weight estimates. in terms of MNI and minimum usable meat weight estimates were gar (Lepisosteus spp.), bowfin (Amia calva), and North American freshwater catfishes (Ictaluridae). The Florida gar (Lepisosteus platyrhincus) is the most common species of gar found in south Florida today (Dineen 1984:264; Loftus and Kushlan 1987: 180-182), though archaeological specimens were identifiable only to the genus level. Likewise, several species of freshwater catfishes are found in south Florida (Dineen 1984:26-264; Loftus and Kushlan 1987: 193-197), but specimens could be identified only to the family level. Several genera and species of the sunfish family (Centrarchidae) were represented. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) is the largest centrarchid in south Florida (Dineen 1984:261; Loftus and Kushlan 1987 :245) and is still an important and popular sport and food fish today (Lee et al. 1980:608; McClane 1978a: 136). Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) is also a popular freshwater panfish (McClane 1978a: 133). Red-ear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), or shell cracker, has highly developed grinding teeth in its throat, which are used for crushing snails, its favorite food (McClane 1978a:129-130; Thompson 1985:154-155). Several freshwater fish infrequently represented include pickerel (Esox spp.), lake chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta), and herring (Clupeidae). Although most herring species are typically marine, two freshwater species occasionally occur in south Florida's lakes and rivers, where they travel in dense schools (Dineen 1984; Lee et al. 1980:69-70; Loftus and Kushlan 1987:185-187; , Page and Burr 1991 :35-36; Thompson 1985:35-37). Several kinds of marine/brackish water fish were represented among the faunal remains, though by only a few specimens. Mullet (Mugil spp.), represented by two vertebrae, was in the upper stratum. This fish enters coastal rivers and may ascend fresh water for considerable distances (Lee et al. 1980:779; Loftus and Kushlan 1987:264; McClane 1978b:265-266). Several cranial elements ofhardhead catfish (Ariopsisfelis) were in the lower stratum. Although common Weight (g) Weight% Meat Weight (g) Meat Wt% 5.21 1.05 ----132.84 26.85 2709.60 27.92 15.90 3.21 1683.82 17.35 276.35 55.85 4166.10 42.92 0.49 0.10 11.53 0.12 64.05 12.94 1135.23 11.07 494.84 100.00 9706.28 100.00 in Florida's bays and estuaries, this species can tolerate a wide salinity range and may enter fresh water in south Florida (Lee et al. 1980:476; Loftus and Kushlan 1987:200; McClane 1978b:83-84). The remains indicate that the fish caught by native people varied in size, though the majority were small, suggesting that they probably were taken en masse in nets. Vertebral breadths of identified specimens ranged from 1.4 to 10.0 mm (Figure 16 and Table 13). Using a skeletal dimensional allometric formula, these measurements translated into approximate live weights of28.9 g (1.02 oz) to 1.62 kg (3.57 lbs). Fishing might have been in the nearby slough or Everglades southwest of the site. Several shark (Carcharhiniformes) teeth were too broken to enable more precise identification. These teeth were probably brought from the coast for eventual use as tools or ornamental items. The absence of vertebrae may indicate that shark meat was not part of the diet ofWhitebelt 1 inhabitants. Reptiles were overwhelmingly represented by turtles and snakes. Turtle remains include carapace and plastron fragments as well as cranial and postcranial skeletal elements. Both fresh water and terrestrial turtles were identified. Fresh water species are snapping (Chelydra serpentina), cooters/ sliders (Emydidae ), Florida softshell (Apa/one ferox ), chicken (Deirochelys reticularia), and mud (Kinosternon spp.) turtles. Terrestrial turtles consisted of gopher tortoise ( Gopherus polyphemus) and box turtle (Terrapene carolina). Turtles can be caught in fishing nets or traps and collected by hand (Hale 1989:185). Snake remains were numerous, constituting 36% of NISP and 20% of the estimated minimum usable meat weight contribution in the overall faunal assemblage. They consisted of vertebrae and cranial elements. The most common snakes represented were water snakes (Nerodia spp.). Other snakes were mud snake (Farancia abacura) and the poisonous Florida cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus). Snakes might have been captured in fishing nets and/or clubbed with sticks (Hale

PAGE 45

WHEELER, RuHL, FRADKIN, Rtctt WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 94 250 0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.9 10.0-11.9 Fish Vertebral Breadth Size Classes (mm) Figure 16. Number of Ray-Finned Fish Vertebrae by Size Class (n=369) Taxon Number of Size Range (mm) Estimated Total Body Vertebra Weight (g) Lepisosteus spp. 88 2.1 6.6 66.3 691.2 Amia calva 65 2.7 10.0 110.91618.1 Clupeidae 1 3.2 157.1 Erimyzon sucetta 3 3.2 3.6 157 . 1 199.9 Ictaluridae 18 2.4 5.6 87.2 493.8 Siluriformes 1 5.4 458.4 Esox sp. 1 2.6 102.7 Mugil sp. 1 3.7 211.4 Lepomis spp . 165 1.4 4.3 28.9 287.6 Micropterus salmoides 26 2.2 5.5 72.9 475.9 TOTAL 369 Table 13. Ray-Finned Fish Size Estimates Based on Vertebral Breadth Measurements, Whitebelt 1. 1989: 184). The large quantity of snake remains in association with other subsistence remains strongly indicates that such animals were intentionally exploited, presumably for food (Fradkin 1978, 2004 ), and that they were part of the diet of Whitebelt 1 inhabitants. Other kinds of reptiles represented, though in much smaller quantities, include lizard (Lacertilia) and American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). Amphibian remains include those of salamanders, namely greater siren (Siren lacertina) and two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), and frogs (Rana spp.). Salamanders might have been caught in fishing nets or by baited hook, whereas frogs can be netted, speared, or collected by hand. Mammals were represented by a relatively small number of bone remains. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was the largest mammal identified in the faunal assemblage. Medium-sized mammals include opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Both animals were probably clubbed or snared, whereas deer were most likely hunted with spears. An adult human (Homo sapiens) tooth was in Level 2. It was a left lower premolar, very worn and also burnt. Only one kind of bird was represented, the Pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps). It is a small diving bird and year-round resident in south Florida (Robertson and Kushlan 1984). Modification of vertebrate remains consisted of burning of a number of specimens. This evidence may be a result of cooking practices and/or burning trash.

PAGE 46

95 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Other Glades Period Everglades Sites The Whitebelt 1 site is at the northeast edge of the Everglades, and its zooarchaeological assemblage can be compared to faunal remains from other coeval Everglades sites in southeast Florida. Sites selected here for comparison are Sheridan Hammock (8BD191) and Guy Bailey (8DA4752). Both are interior sites on tree islands in the Everglades. These sites are compared for the presence or absence of particular animal taxa (Appendix K) and for the relative abundance of taxa based on MNI and edible meat weight or biomass estimations. Sheridan Hammock (8BD191). Sheridan Hammock is in southeastern Broward County in an area that was formerly part of the eastern Everglades. The site is a black earth midden on a former small tree island rise. Ceramics support a Glades Illa-Illb period habitation (A.D. 1200 to 1513) (Carr et al. 1994; Johnson et al. 1996). The cultural materials recovered indicate that this was a campsite used primarily for subsistence resource procurement. The density of the midden suggests that the site was reoccupied over a period of years. Small groups of people might have used this location as a short-term stopover while traveling through the Everglades or they might have occupied the site for more extended periods, possibly on a seasonal basis, alternating with occupation of the coast (Johnson et al. 1996). The faunal assemblage analyzed came from a column sample, measuring 50 x 50 cm for each 10 cm arbitrary level, excavated in the most concentrated portion of the midden. This sample was processed by flotation and divided into three fractions: 6.4 mm (1/4 in), 3.2 mm (1/8 in), and 1.6 mm (1/16 in), which corresponds to three different size nested screens in the flotation barrel (Johnson et al. 1996). The zooarchaeological assemblage at Sheridan Hammock indicates a subsistence economy focused primarily on local fresh water resources. Fish and reptiles were the two most abundant classes in terms of MNI and usable meat weight estimations. Fish constituted 50% of total MNI and 44% edible meat weight. Reptiles represented 36% MNI and 46% meat weight. Amphibians, mammals, and birds were far less important, each representing less than 7% of the total MNI and usable meat in the total sample (Fradkin 1996). The most common fish were gar, bowfin, and several genera and species of the sunfish family. Reptiles included fresh water turtles, such as snapping, mud, cooter/slider, and Florida softshell. Of significance is the relatively large quantity of snake remains, which constituted 23% of the estimated meat contribution of the total assemblage (Fradkin 2004). Guy Bailey (8DA4752). The Guy Bailey site is a small black dirt midden on an Everglades tree island in northern Miami-Dade County. Based on ceramics, the site dates to the Glades Ila-Ilb periods (A.D. 750 to 1100) and represents a short-term camp or resource procurement locus (Keel 1990:48, 53, 57). Faunal remains were recovered from a single test unit and were screened through 3.2 mm (1/8 inch) and 1.6 mm (1/16 inch) mesh. Fresh water fish and reptiles predominated in the zooarchaeological assemblage and species exploited were similar to those at Sheridan Hammock. At Guy Bailey, fish constituted 62% of the MNI and 36% of the biomass, and reptiles contributed 22% MNI and 56% biomass. Snake remains were abundant, accounting for approximately 28% of the total estimated biomass (Keel 1990:53-56, 99). Whitebelt 1 and Other Interior Everglades Sites A comparison of faunal assemblages from these three Everglades sites provides further insight into subsistence patterns among Glades peoples in south Florida. At these interior sites, inhabitants focused on local fresh water resources. The faunal assemblage at Whitebelt 1 is similar to those from Sheridan Hammock and Guy Bailey, though Whitebelt 1 had greater diversity. At Whitebelt 1, 52 taxa were identified, whereas 48 taxa were recorded for Sheridan Hammock and 36 taxa for Guy Bailey. Whitebelt 1 had a greater variety of fresh water fish, and several more terrestrial taxa were represented, though minimally, among the predominantly aquatic remains. At all three interior sites, several remains of sharks and one or two kinds of marine/brackish fish were represented, and snakes constituted a significant percentage of the total faunal assemblage. The faunal assemblages from these sites do not provide substantive information about seasonal or year-round occupation. It has been suggested that pre-Columbian people might have migrated between coastal and interior locales to take advantage of seasonally available resources (Milanich 1994:310). Such conclusions cannot yet be supported or negated by the available zooarchaeological evidence. Thus, the faunal assemblage at the Whitebelt 1 Circle Ditch site indicates a hunter-fisher foraging subsistence economy focused on the procurement and use of locally available fresh water and terrestrial animal resources. The site inhabitants fished and collected turtles and snakes in the nearby freshwater sloughs and Everglades marsh and hunted deer and captured smaller land animals in adjacent wooded areas. Available faunal data do not provide substantive evidence about the seasons in which the site was occupied as the animals represented can be found in southeast Florida year-round. Artist's Conception We asked archaeologist and artist Merald Clark to produce an artist's conception of the Whitebelt 1 Circle Ditch. Figure 1 7 is Clark's reconstruction, including the pine flatwoods of the Loxahatchee Scarp, adjacent marsh of the Everglades, the water-filled circle-ditch, and the higher ground of the horseshoe-shaped enclosure with several higher mounded areas, which might have been the focus of occupation. The people and canoes give a sense of scale. The trails and footpaths were inspired by camps and villages of the Seminole. Clark's artwork also has been used in interpretive materials at the DuPuis Environmental Area.

PAGE 47

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 96 Figure 17. Reconstruction of White belt 1 Circle-Ditch by Merald Clark. Discussion Remaining questions involve the relationship of the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch to neighboring sites on the Loxahatchee Scarp and the broader implications of circle ditch sites in south Florida. Loxahatchee Scarp Sites Earthworks are prominent features along the Loxahatchee Scarp. Of the seven known sites shown in Figure 1 of this article, four have earthworks. Both Big Gopher (8PB6292) and White belt 2 earthworks (8PB22 l) have sand mounds surrounded by crescent-shaped embankments, with paired linear earthworks emanating from them. Johnson's (1996:253, 257) typology would classify both of these as linear embankment sites . They also have associated middens, suggesting a residential aspect. Similar sites are widespread in the area around Lake Okeechobee (Carr 1985; Hale 1984, 1989; Johnson 1996). Big Mound City (8PB48) has crescent and linear earthworks on a more massive scale, with paired linear earthworks and mounds radiating from a large, crescent shaped earthwork, and a residential midden is present. Big Mound City (Figure 18) is on the scale of other large earthwork and mound complexes in the Lake Okeechobee area, like Big Tony's Mound, Ortona, and Fort Center (e.g., Carr et al. 1995; Hale 1984, 1989; Johnson 1996). These would be Type B circular-linear earthworks in Johnson's (1996:253, 256) typology. The implication of previous work is that each earthwork form has temporal significance (Johnson 1996:258259), though without radiocarbon dates to support this, it is possible that these sites are part of a coeval settlement pattern. Chronology of the Loxahatchee Scarp earthwork sites is poorly known and few radiometric dates have been obtained. Willey's (1949:7377) discussion of the 1930s excavation of Big Mound City indicates that many of the mounds did not produce artifacts, though Mound 4, the oblong midden, had pottery, chert flakes, and balls of clay. Collections from Mound 9 indicate a late Glades occupation (post A.D. 1000) (Willey 1949:76). Recently, Lawres and Colvin (2017) present four radiocarbon dates from Big Mound City's midden-mound, three of which cluster around cal A.D. 100 to 200. Limited test excavations at Whitebelt 3 / Mound House (8PB222) produced sherds of Belle Glade Plain and St. Johns Plain, and one sherd of St. Johns Check Stamped, suggesting a post A.D. 900-1000 date (cf. Austin 1996; Wheeler 2000a). Further work at the Loxahatchee Scarp sites could determine their chronological relationship. The Loxahatchee Scarp site group may resemble site clustering in other localities. At Fort Center, the circle-ditch is close to the main earthwork and mound site. In several cases, circle-ditches are in close proximity, but not considered part of, other earthwork sites. It may be useful to compare other clusters of sites. Perhaps the site clusters represent different temporal occupations within a particular locality spanning several centuries or longer. Alternatively, they could represent different kinds of sites that were occupied at the same time, perhaps for different purposes. Milner and O'Shea (1998: 198-199) have argued that earthwork enclosure sites in northern lower Michigan are not defensive or ceremonial in nature, but rather represent rendezvous points for interregional exchange systems.

PAGE 48

97 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) BIG MOUND CITY (8PB48) J. W. CORBETT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA , , F.P.&L. R.O.W. ' ' ' ' I I , I (g I I I I I \. 0 0 :\}. .11 I A Inholding Owners: A A Rocking Corp. et al. B J . L . Daughtrey CL. Hardin DR. Rhoden EC. Duffy F C. Duffy G J. M. Rhoden HR. Churey ' : . I C . Schnabel & J. C. Swilley ,-.....----L--.-.-=~-,:;..l.,._......,_::f:--..::l~~-~..---,---.,.....,'1:-"-.,...--\\-ll-------JR. L . Daughtrey , K L . D. Daughtrey F.P.&L. R.O.W. , , toWNSffiP 41S; RANGE HE; SECTION so SHOWING GOVERNMENT LOTS AND INHOLDINGS ... -... D .. E F a H Mel FEET ------B I J LR. G . Beane K L C.A.R.L. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1997 Figure 18. Plan of Big Mound City (8PB48). From Wheeler and Newman (1997). Other Circle-Ditches Comparison of Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch to other circle ditches in south Florida reveals considerable variation. In general, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch is similar in size and configuration to the majority of circle-ditches. Aerial photographs and reported site visits make it possible to identify a number of variables that can be compared. These variables include completeness of circle, diameter, presence or absence of berms, association with other site components ( e.g., mounds, middens, other earthworks), proximity to other sites, and environmental setting. Many of these were addressed in data compiled by Cummings and Luer (1996), as discussed earlier in this article. Two elements that seem important in understanding the archaeology of circle-ditches are their placement adjacent to natural water bodies and their association with other sites (including other circle-ditches). As already noted, many of the circle-ditch sites (n = 13, or 76%) are adjacent to rivers, lakes, marshes and sloughs. This suggests that the ditches might have been functional, designed to control water so that habitation could occur in these watery locales. Broader Patterns of Earthworks and Circle-Ditches South Florida's earthworks often elicit comparison to Hopewell and Adena earthworks in other parts of the Southeast and Midwest (Hall 1976:360-361; Luer 1995 :304; Milani ch and Fairbanks 1980:182; Sears 1982:6, 145-147; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012, 2014). There are some similarities, especially the earthen or shell enclosures surrounding mounds. Circular enclosures appear to be a common element of Hopewellian architecture (Mainfort and Sullivan 1998), and similar structures are known from Middle Woodland sites in Florida, including Crystal River and Fort Center (Bullen 1953:10, 12; Sears 1982:6, 145-147).

PAGE 49

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 98 Typically, these structures are earthen berms that enclose mounds or other ceremonial features. These enclosures, however, do not typically have ditches. Circle-ditch sites and other large crescent-linear earthworks are often much larger than enclosure embankments, but do seem to be related patterns of site layout and architecture. Circle-ditch and crescent-linear earthworks often are associated with habitation and mound features, as well as borrows. Mainfort and Sullivan's 1998 book Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands illustrates the diversity and extent of earthwork building traditions. The contributing authors discuss many of the possible functions and interpretations for such earthworks. Comparison to some of these other sites could be useful in interpreting south Florida's circle-ditches. It is clear, however, that environmental and cultural differences make comparisons like this unwise at this point. Considering the limited research into the archaeology of circle-ditch and crescent-linear earthwork sites in Florida, it is probably best to acknowledge south Florida as the center of another earthwork-building tradition. Future studies of circle-ditch and crescent-linear earthworks in south Florida may be able to draw comparisons to other earthwork building traditions, but first we must address questions of chronology, geographic distribution, and the role of earthworks within sites and as parts of larger site groups or clusters. The horseshoe-shaped ridge component at Whitebelt 1, which contains the midden discussed above, is similar to crescent-shaped hammock components at Big Gopher (8PB6293 ), White belt 2 (8PB22 l ), and to some extent at Whitebelt 3/Mound House (8PB222). The origin of these ridges or islands is not clear. Are they natural features or partially anthropogenic? The large size of some suggests they may be natural features. Similar crescent-shaped islands occur farther south in the Everglades. The Madden Hammock site (8DA45) in Miami Dade County is described as a crude crescent, opening to the southeast and east (Laxson 1957; Luer 2006:255, Appendix I). A considerable midden deposit and "temple mound" occur on the island. Goggin (1949: 159-160) discusses the shape of Madden Hammock, which he describes as 213 m (700 ft) long, 61 m (200 ft) wide, and 2.1 to 2.4 m (7 to 8 ft) high. Geologist Gerald Parker suggested to Goggin in 194 7 that these crescent shaped Everglades island ridges were dune remnants formed during low water periods of the late Wisconsin glaciation of the Pleistocene Epoch. Other sites in south Florida are associated with barchan ( crescent-shaped) dune formations. In southwest Florida, sites occur on huge relic dunes on Horr's Island, around Barfield Bay (Lee et al. 1997; Russo et al. 1991). In coastal Palm Beach County, the Jupiter Inlet 2 site (8PB35) and Riviera site (8PB30) are on relic dunes (Wheeler et al. 2002: 134-136, 138139). Considering the large size of the crescent-shaped islands in the Loxahatchee Scarp area, this explanation makes sense. Fort Center, Monumental Landscapes, Ritual, and Circle-Ditch Sites Recently, Pluckhahn and Thompson (2012) and Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012, 2014) have revisited Fort Center and dispensed with assertions for maize agriculture at the site. This is significant, since most prior discussions of Belle Glade earthworks began or ended with considerations of maize agriculture. Also, they have used a multidisciplinary approach to look at how the site's creators modified the landscape. They provide interesting ethnographic and archaeological analogy to the Amazon, where earthworks also were constructed. Based on archaeological and archaeobotanical evidence they postulate a correlation between the use of fire for forest clearing and the construction of the earliest earthworks (the circle-ditches) at Fort Center (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2014:174). They suggest that Fort Center supported a larger population than previously thought, based on time and labor involved in creating the earthworks and evidence for prolonged occupation. Thompson and Pluckhahn (2014: 176177) conclude that earthworks and mounds at Fort Center were multipurpose and that ideas and uses of these features likely changed over time. Regarding the Great Circle, they state that the function was to control water. They say that it likely combined both functional and symbolic elements, perhaps providing fish during floods and helping to control water, and also expressing beliefs related to water, water-control, and spaces for rituals and ritual specialists. Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012:6263) discuss the symbolic and ritual aspects of the Fort Center Great Circle in terms of "an event or rupture," citing the article "Eventful Archaeology" (Beck et al. 2007). That is, construction of a massive ditch might have been something new, something that altered the environment, with possible changes in society and ritual, with impacts on the future. Many of these ideas are supported at White belt 1 Circle Ditch. We found considerable charcoal as well as an increase in charcoal over time, perhaps associated with large-scale fires as well as habitation. Our dates place the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch within the same early time period, and our topographic study identified small mounds, including one rise in the center of the circle. Like the middens at Fort Center in proximity to the Great Circle, the dates and material cultur~ at Whitebelt 1 indicate a multicomponent site with a long period of occupation. White belt 1 artifacts, especially the ceramics and Hernando type bifaces, are like those recovered during excavations at the Great Circle Ditch component of the Fort Center site in Glades County (see Baker and Milanich 1967; Sears 1982). Close examination of the Fort Center excavations and reading of the field report by Baker and Milanich (1967) indicate that the Great Circle at Fort Center, like the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch probably dates to the Glades I early period, ca. 500 B.C. t~ A.D. 500. Recently, Lawres (201 7) proposed an ontological model for understanding monumental sites in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. His model is based on three major themes, namely

PAGE 50

99 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) relatedness, circularity, and place-centeredness. While one may raise an eyebrow at models based on alignments, Lawres' ideas resonate with our observations at Whitebelt 1 Circle Ditch and the work of Thompson and Pluckhahn at Fort Center. Macro-and Microbotanical Considerations It is not often that both macro botanical and micro botanical data come from a Florida site. These two data sets are not expected to be directly equivalent or comparable. While microbotanical and macrobotanical samples were not taken from exactly the same loci and depths, they were very close. Pollen samples from the midden all contained charcoal, which also was reflected in the macrobotanical remains (Appendix G). The amount of pine wood in our samples suggests that the area had extensive pine flatwoods. Pollen data support pine pollen rain through all levels sampled. Unfortunately, we cannot differentiate among the many species of southern hard pine, which would provide a more refined picture of the landscape ( see Richardson 1998 for this genus' biogeography and Walker 2000 for a discussion of longleaf [ P palustris] and slash pine [P elliotti] range). The pollen profile from the midden's Unit 10 indicates a change in hydroperiod or landcover around the 100 cm level. This is likely due to initial occupation of the site and attendant changes in plant communities. Pollen remains ( 41 taxa) from the circle-ditch reflect a wet habitat. Both microbotanical and macrobotanical remains reveal a greater diversity of species than in the midden, albeit macrobotanical remains are fewer (15+ taxa). Charred remains of wood and seeds reveal that upland mesic hammock was exploited , and artifacts in the ditch sediments reveal that these were likely from run-off or human-related activities. Minimally, five arboreal pollen types (Acer rubrum, Liquidambar sp., Magnolia sp . , Myrica sp., and Quercus sp.) represent broad-leaved hammock trees, and charred wood (Acer sp., Quercus sp., Diospyros sp., Quercus sp., Quercus virginiana, and Vacinnium sp.) adds a few more taxa. They each have potential important economic uses (Table 11 ). The presence of charred wood throughout the levels sampled is an indicator of potential anthropogenic associations, especially given absences of the same taxa from the pollen record. One conspicuous difference between the microbotanical and macrobotanical assemblages is the presence of charred seeds that tend to have some economic use, versus plant species recorded in the pollen record that do not tend to have economic uses. This potentially reveals the environmental versus cultural implications of these remains. For example, if some of the plants were brought to the site from other areas, they may not be in the pollen record. Another difference is the presence of Chenopodiaceae Amaranthaceae pollen and the absence of seeds from these families. This group of plants is among those known as "camp followers," and include some of the earliest manipulated seeds in the southeastern United States, referred to as the "eastern agricultural complex" (e.g., Fritz 1993, 1997; Gremillion 1993; Scarry 2003; Smith 1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1987, 1992; Smith and Cowen 1987). The presence of pollen at 70 cmbs with a high relative abundance in upper levels ( especially L-5 through L7) likely indicates anthropogenic presence. Radiocarbon dates from the circle-ditch Levels 6 through 8 date to ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 500 (Wheeler 2001a: 4), well after the appearance of domesticated Chenopodium and other plants (e.g.,Iva sp.) of the starchy seed complex in the broader southeastern United States. Thus far, in Florida precontact sites, we have not seen any evidence for domestication or even quasi-domestication where these genera have been identified, though our samples are very small and often have come from coastal sites ( see Ruhl 2000 for a discussion on this topic). It is significant to consider the potential role of these plants in Florida. That is, why was the ditch built, and if for hydrological/horticultural purposes, were these among the plants used? Whether or not they reflect early stages of human manipulation and cultivation or merely disturbance is not known and requires archaeobotanical remains for evaluation. Available data suggest they were not intentionally planted, but this may be a misconception associated with differential preservation and sampling. Directions for Further Research More fieldwork is needed to address questions about circle-ditches and other earthworks in south Florida. Do all of the circle-ditches date to the Glades 1 early period? Do circle ditches represent the earliest earthworks in south Florida? What contributed to their construction and how did they influence the building of other earthworks known throughout the region? Widmer (1988) has argued that the Calusa ( or their ancestors) were organized as a chiefdom by about A.D. 800, but dating long-distance canoe canals and circle-ditches suggests there was considerable social organization hundreds of years before this (e.g., Carr et al. 2002). Centralized know how and the ability to harness labor allowed people to create earthworks. The spatial distribution of circle-ditches (like canals and other earthworks) suggests an approach to south Florida that crosses our perceived cultural boundaries. In terms ofLawres' (2017) ontological model, more dates and survey work to locate sites is needed. The Calusa received attention early on (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964), which has continued, but it is difficult to understand the Calusa outside the broader context of south Florida in its entirety. The presence of exotic materials at Whitebelt 1, such as shark teeth, chipped stone tools, and pumice, point to connections throughout the region that need more attention. For years we tended to think that there were few stone tools in south Florida, but now we have evidence for lithic technology at Fort Center (Austin 1997, 2015), the Miami Circle (Austin 2004), Ritta Island (Mount 2009), and Whitebelt 1, to name a few. Austin (1997:595-600) has made an extensive argument for inter-regional exchange in stone, shell, and shark teeth as a factor in the development of the Belle Glade Culture. The relationship between long-distance canoe canals and circle-ditches is worth considering as well. In many ways,

PAGE 51

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 100 they represent similar constructions focused on controlling and modifying water, and ultimately, a means for travel and transport. Are circle-ditches, which may be earlier than canals, the source for some of the technological knowledge needed to build canals? Finally, a multidisciplinary approach is productive. We learned from a combined palynological and archaeobotanical investigation, and more studies using both approaches would be productive in assessing past environments and the life cycles of circle-ditches and canals. Conclusion Mapping and testing of the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch site in 1999 and 2000 indicate that the site is over 27 5 m in diameter, with the circular ditch describing 295 degrees of a full circle. The ditch is 18 to 20 m across, with no evident banks or berms. The center of the circle-ditch channel ranges from 30 to 70 cm deep. Test excavations indicate that the ditch has been filled in by the erosion of sandy soils and the build-up of organic debris, and that the ditch originally had a maximum depth of 1.2 to 1.5 m. Cultural materials include ceramics typical of the region, posthole features, lithic artifacts, modified shark teeth, zooarchaeological remains ( e.g., bone and mollusk shell), as well as macrobotanical (e.g., seed, nut, wood) and microbotanical ( e.g., pollen, spore, algal cyst) remains. Plant remains from the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch site provide no evidence of cultivated species nor large enough quantities of seed remains to look for morphometric or anatomical hints at quasi-cultivation. It appears that an opportunistic plant gathering strategy was employed through time and that plant resources were obtained from multiple habitats. Fresh water animal resources ( especially bony fishes, turtles, and snakes) dominated the faunal assemblage. Future testing should include a more comprehensive strategy to recover archaeobiological samples for a fuller evaluation of the function of the site's circle-ditch. Notes 1. The DuPuis family of Miami acquired the western portion of the property in 1955 and the eastern portion in 1972. The property was managed as the White Belt Ranch, named for a black and white breed of cattle. Groves of fruit trees were planted along Kanner Highway in the late 1950s. The 1960s saw the construction of several buildings, cattle tanks, additional roads and firebreaks, and an airplane landing strip. John G. DuPuis, Jr. died in 1984. His widow, Susan DuPuis, sold the property to the South Florida Water Management District in 1986. The property has been managed as the DuPuis State Forest, DuPuis Reserve, and DuPuis Environmental Area, but is now managed as the DuPuis Management Area (historical sketch based on information from the South Florida Water Management District and informant interviews, also see David 1991). 2. In 1902, the Southern States Land and Timber Company acquired a large portion of the DuPuis area from the State of Florida. The Hungryland Trail crossed the area soon after. The massive St. Lucie Canal was constructed on the area's northern border in 1915, and Kanner Highway was built in the 1920s. Some logging occurred on the property in the 1930s. The Chastain Ranch held much of the area by the mid-1940s, when many roads and drainage ditches were constructed. The L-8 Levee Canal, on the property's southern border, was built in 1954 as part of the Everglades drainage program. Acknowledgments For editing this paper, we acknowledge George Luer, Dorothy Block, and Robert Austin. We thank George Luer and Mindy Cummings for their data on southern Florida circle-ditches, Jim Dunbar for examination of lithic artifacts, and archaeologists Jim Pepe and Harry Iceland for assistance in the field. We acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the following members of the Southeast Florida Archaeological Society and Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, who volunteered their time in the field: Thor and Grace Larsen, Joanne Talley, Scott Olsen, Jim Wright, Phyllis Rundell, Gloria Fike, Ruth and Ernie Dumas, Sonya Gray, Sally McKeigh, Caroline Duncan, Teresita Beebe, Sylvia Ansay, Clare-Rue Morgan, Lucille Rights-Murtaugh, Ted Lukas, and Anne Reynolds. Without the help of these volunteers, the project could not have been done! FAU graduate students Victor Longo and Heather Norby assisted with collection and processing of the faunal samples. We greatly appreciate the assistance of Drs. Elizabeth Wing and Kitty Emery, who allowed access to the FLMNH zooarchaeological comparative collection and provided laboratory space as fauna! and floral specimens were identified. University of Florida student interns are thanked for helping to process floral samples; they include Ben Burkley and Laura Bresinski. We are grateful to South Florida Water Management District personnel Bert Trammel and Darla Fousek, who helped with fieldwork and provided financial support for this project. We would like to thank Wm. Jerald Kennedy, who inspired this project and encouraged his students and colleagues to investigate sites in our own backyard!

PAGE 52

101 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) REFERENCES CITED Austin, Robert J. 1993 The Royce Mound: Middle Woodland Exchange and Mortuary Customs in South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46( 4):291-309. 1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and Subsistence Data from the Kissimmee River Valley: & Archaeological Evidence for Belle Glade Occupation. The Florida Anthropologist 49(2):65-87. 1997 The Economics of Lithic-Resource Use In SouthCentral Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2004 Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Miami Circle Excavations at Brickell Point. The Florida Anthropologist 57(1-2):85-131. 2015 The Ritual Uses of Lithic Raw Materials During the Woodland Period, Fort Center, Southern Florida. Journal of Field Archaeology 40( 4):413-427. Austin, Robert J., and Richard Estabrook 2000 Chert Distribution and Exploitation in Peninsular Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3): 116-130. Austin, Robert J., Brad Lanning, Geoff Du Chemin, Kristina Altes, and Lee A. Newsom 2018 Perico Island Revisited. Paper presented May 12 at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, St. Petersburg, Florida. Baker, Henry A., and Jerald T. Milanich 1967 Excavations at Ft. Center, Glades County, Florida. On file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Beck, Robin A., Jr., Douglas J. Bolender, James A. Brown, and Timothy K. Earle 2007 Eventful Archaeology. Current Anthropology 48(6):833-860. Block, Dorothy 2011 Prehistoric Ceramic Analysis. In The Boyer Survey: An Investigation of Lake Okeechobee, by C. Davenport, G. Mount, and G. "Boots" Boyer, pp. 683726. On file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. Branstetter, Laura 1995 The Montague Tallant Collection of Historic Metal Artifacts. The Florida Anthropologist 48( 4):291-298. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337-360. Browning, William D. 1975 Archaeological Investigation at the Rocky Point 2 Site (8MT33). Miscellaneous Project Report Series 21. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee. Bullen, Ripley P. 1953 The Famous Crystal River Site. The Florida Anthropologist 6(1):9-37. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Newsletter, Southeastern Archaeological Conference 6:43-53. 197 5 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Revised Edition. Kendall Books, Gainesville. Callen, E. 0. 1967 The First New World Cereals. American Antiquity 32:535-538. Carr, Robert S. 1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Lake Okeechobee. Miscellaneous Project Report Series, No. 22. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee. 1981 Dade County Historic Survey, Final Report: The Archeological Survey. Office of Community and Economic Development, Metropolitan Dade County, Miami. 1985 Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 3 8( 4):288-301. Carr, Robert S., and John G. Beriault 1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida. Environments of South Florida: Present and Past II, edited by Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 1-14. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables. Carr, Robert S., Joe Davis, and Willard Steele 1994 A Phase II Archaeological Survey of Pembroke Meadows, Broward County, Florida. AHC Technical Report No. 95. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc., Miami. Carr, Robert S., David Dickel, and Marilyn Masson 1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Ortona Earthworks and Mounds. The Florida Anthropologist 48(4):227-263. Carr, Robert S., and John Ricisak 2000 Preliminary Report on Salvage Archaeological Investigations of the Brickell Point Site (8DA12), Including the Miami Circle. The Florida Anthropologist 53( 4):260-284.

PAGE 53

WHEELER,RUHL,FRADKIN,RJCH WHJTEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 102 Carr, Robert S., Jorge Zamanillo, and Jim Pepe 2002 Archaeological Profiling and Radiocarbon Dating of the Ortona Canal (8GL4), Glades County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 55(1):3-22. Casteel, Richard W. 1976 Fish Remains in Archaeology and PaleoEnvironmental Studies. Academic Press, New York. Connor, J. T. 1923 Pedro Menendez de Aviles. Florida State Historical Society, DeLand. Crosby,A. 1972 The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Greenwood Press, West Port. Cronon, W. 1983 Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. Hill and Wang, New York. Cronquist, A. 1980 Vascular Flora of the Southeastern United States, vol.l Asteraceae. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. Cummings, Mindy T., and George M. Luer 1996 Circular Ditches in Southern Florida: Descriptions and Aerial Photographic Data for Seventeen Ditches. On file with G. Luer and R. Wheeler. Cutler, H. 1975 Two Kinds of Gourds from Key Marco. In The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida by M. Gilliland. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Cutler, H., and L. Blake 1976 Plants from Archaeological Sites East of the Rockies. American Archaeology Report Number 1, University Microfiche, L.C. #49422. Davenport, Christian, Sara Ayres-Rigsby, Andrew Schneider, Daniel Benitez, and Victoria Lincoln 2018 Whitebelt Four (8PB223)/Couse Midden (8PBJ 0354) Salvage Investigation. Prepared for South Florida Water Management District DuPuis Natural Area. On file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Davenport, Christian, Gregory Mount, and George "Boots" Boyer 2011 The Boyer Survey: An Investigation of Lake Okeechobee. On file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. David, Peter G. 1991 DuPuis Reserve Environmental Assessment. Technical Memorandum. Environmental Sciences Division, Research and Evaluation Department, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach. Davis, John H., Jr. 1943 The Natural Features of Southern Florida, Especially the Vegetation, and the Everglades. Bulletin #25, Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee. Delorit, R. J. 1970 An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications, River Falls, Wisconsin. Delorit, R. J., and C. R. Gunn 1986 Seeds of Continental United States Legumes (Fabaceae). Agronomy Publications, River Falls. Denevan, William M. 1970 Aboriginal Drained-Field Cultivation in the Americas. Science 169:647-654. 1992 The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82(3):369-385. Dineen, J. Walter 1984 The Fishes of the Everglades. Environments of South Florida: Present and Past 11, edited by Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 258-268. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, Florida. Dixon, Jacqueline E., Kyla Simons, Loretta Leist, Christopher Eck, John Ricisak, John Gifford, and Jeff Ryan 2000 Provenance of Stone Celts from the Miami Circle Archaeological Site, Miami, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53( 4):328-341. Duncan, W., and M. Duncan 1987 The Smithsonian Guide to Seaside Plants of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Fontaneda, Do d'Escalante 1945 Memoir of Do d' Escalante Fontaneda Respecting Florida, written in Spain about the Year 1575, edited by David 0. True, translated by Buckingham Smith. Glade House, Coral Gables, Florida.

PAGE 54

103 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Fradkin, Arlene 1978 Archeological Evidence of Snake Consumption among the Aborigines of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 31(2, Pt. 1):36-43. 1996 Animal Resource Use Among Early Human Inhabitants of the "River of Grass:" The Fauna/ Assemblages from the Everglades Archaeological Sites of MacArthur #2 (8BD259I) and Sheridan Hammock (8BD 191). Report on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 2004 Snake Consumption among Early Inhabitants of the River of Grass, South Florida, USA. Archaeofauna: International Journal of Archaeozoology 13:57-69. Fritz, G. 1992 Early and Middle Woodland period Paleoethnobotany. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C.M. Scarry, pp. 39-56. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1997 A Three-Thousand-Year-Old Cache of Crop Seeds from Marble Bluff, Arkansas. In People, Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by K.J. Gremillion, pp. 42-62. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Gilliland, Marion S. 1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Godfrey, R., and J. Wooten 1979 Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States. Monocotyledoneae. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1981 Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States. Dicotyledoneae. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Goggin, John M. 194 7 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13(2): 114-127. 1949 The Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. Typescript dated 1949, with later additions. On file, P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History, University of Florida, Gainesville. Goggin, John M., and William C. Sturtevant 1964 The Calusa: A Stratified, Nonagricultural Society (notes on sibling marriage). Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George P Murdock, edited by Ward H. Goodenough, pp. 179-219. McGraw-Hill, New York. Greenwell, Dale 1984 The Mississippi Gulf Coast. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by Dave D. Davis, pp. 125-155. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Gremillion, K. 1993 Crop and Weed in Prehistoric Eastern North America: The Chenopodium Example. American Antiquity 58:496-509. Griffin, John W. 1988 The Archeology of Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. 1989 Time and Space in South Florida: A Synthesis. The Florida Anthropologist 42(3): 179-204. Hale, H. Stephen 1984 Prehistoric Environmental Exploitation around Lake Okeechobee. Southeastern Archaeology 3(2): 173-187. 1989 Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies and Settlement Patterns in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of the South Florida Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1995 Prehistoric Faunal Subsistence Patterns of the Lake Okeechobee Basin. The Florida Anthropologist 48( 4):283-290. Hall, David W. 1978 The Grasses of Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor. Hall, Robert L. 1976 Ghosts, Water Barriers, Com, and Sacred Enclosures in the Eastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41(3):360-364. Handley, Brent M. 2001 The Blue Goose Midden (8IR15): A Malabar II Occupation on the Indian River Lagoon. The Florida Anthropologist 54(3-4):103-121. Harshberger, J. 1914 The Vegetation of South Florida, South of 2 7 31' North, Exclusive of the Florida Keys. Transactions of the Wagner Free Institute of Science, Philadelphia. Hildebrand, E. n.d. Laboratory Guide to Archaeological Plant remains from Eastern North America. https://pages.wustl.edu/fritz/ eleusine-indica-1, accessed August 28, 2018. Hitchcock, A. S. 1971 Manual of the Grasses of the United States (2 volumes). Dover Publications, New York.

PAGE 55

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 104 Hitchcock, A. S., and A. Chase 1910 The North American Species of Panicum. Contributions from the United States National Herbarium, Vol. 15. Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Hughes, Daniel B., and James P. Pepe 2001 Preliminary Investigations at the Couse Midden (8PB10354). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, St. Augustine. Janus Research 2000 Gulfstream Natural Gas System Cultural Resources Supplemental Report 2. Janus Research, St. Petersburg. Jarman, H., A. Legge, and J. Charles 1972 Retrieval of Plant Remains from Archaeological Sites by Froth Flotation. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by S. Briggs, pp.39-48. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Johnson, Robert E., B. Alan Basinet, and Robert J. Richter 1996 Archeological Data Recovery at Site 8BD2591 and Phase II Testing at Site 8BD 191 at the Pembroke Falls Development, Broward County, Florida. Report on file, Florida Archeological Services, Inc., Jacksonville. Johnson, William G. 1990 The Role of Maize in South Florida Aboriginal Native Societies: An Overview. The Florida Anthropologist 43(3):209-214. 1991 Remote Sensing and Soil Science Applications to Understanding Belle Glade Cultural Adaptations in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1996 A Belle Glade Earthwork Typology and Chronology. The Florida Anthropologist 49( 4):249-260. Johnson, W., and M. Collins 1993 Can Soil Evidence Prove that prehistoric Maize was not the Basis for Complex Cultural Developments in the Lake Okeechobee Basin? In Proceedings of the First International Pedo-Archaeology Conference, February 16-20, 1992, edited by J. Foss, M. Timpson, and M. Morris, pp. 157-160. Special Publication 93-04, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Kadane, J. B. 1988 Possible Statistical Contributions to Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant remains, edited by C. Hastorfand V. Popper, pp. 206-214. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Keel, Frank J. 1990 A Comparison of Subsistence Strategies in Coastal and Inland Sites. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Kennedy, Wm. J., Charles Roberts, Shih-Lung Shaw, and Ryan Wheeler 1991 Prehistoric Resources in Palm Beach County: A Preliminary Predictive Study. Prepared by Dept. of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, for Palm Beach Zoning, Planning, and Bldg. Dept., West Palm Beach. Kennedy, Wm. J., Ryan Wheeler, Linda Spears Jester, Jim Pepe, Nancy Sinks, and Clark Wernecke 1993 Archaeological Survey and Excavations at the Jupiter Inlet 1 Site (8PB34), Dubois Park, Palm Beach County, Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Kessel, Morton H. 1991 The Role of Maize in South Florida Aboriginal Societies: A Comment. The Florida Anthropologist 44( 1 ):94. Kish, Stephen A. 2006 Geochemical and Petrologic Characterization of Pumice Artifacts from the Miami Circle-Brickell Point Archaeological Site Plus Other Sites in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 59(3-4):209-240. Kozuch, Laura 1993 Sharks and Shark Products in Prehistoric South Florida. Monograph 2, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville. Kurz, H., and R. Godfrey 1993 Trees of Northern Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Landers, J. L., and A. S. Johnson 1976 Bobwhite and Quail Food Habits in the Southeastern United States with a Seed Key to Important Foods. Miscellaneous Publications, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. Lathrap, Donald W. 1987 The Introduction of Maize in Prehistoric Eastern North America: The View from Amazonia and the Santa Elena Peninsula. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp. 345-371. Occasional Paper #7, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Lawres, Nathan R. 2017 Materializing Ontology in Monumental Form: Engaging the Ontological in the Okeechobee Basin, Florida. Journal of Anthropological Research 73(4):647-694.

PAGE 56

105 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Lawres, Nathan R., and Matthew H. Colvin 2017 Presenting the First Chronometeric Dates from Big Mound City, Florida . .The Florida Anthropologist 70(1-2):61-71. Laxson, Dan D. 1957 The Madden Site. The Florida Anthropologist 10(1-2): 1-16. Lee, Arthur R. and John G. Beriault, with Walter Buschelman and Jean Belknap 1993 A Small Site-Mulberry Midden, 8CR697-Contributes to Knowledge of Transitional Period. The Florida Anthropologist 46(1):43-52. Lee, Arthur R., John G. Beriault, Jean Belknap, Walter M. Buschelman, Annette L. Snapp, and John W. Thompson 1997 Salvage Excavations of an Archaic Period Special Purpose Site in Collier County. The Florida Anthropologist 50(1):11-24. Lee, David S., Carter R. Gilbert, Charles H. Hocutt, Robert E. Jenkins, Don E. McAllister, and Jay R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980 Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Little, E. L. 1980 Common Fuelwood Crops. Communi-Tech Associates, Morgantown, West Virginia. Loftus, William F., and James A. Kushlan 1987 Freshwater Fishes of Southern Florida. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum (Biological Sciences) 31(4). Long, Robert W. 197 4 The Vegetation of Southern Florida. The Florida Scientist 37:33-45. Long, Robert W., and Olga Lakela 1976 A Flora of Tropical Florida. Banyan Books, Miami. Luer, George M. 1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of Tribute and Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist 42( 4):89-130. 1994 A Third Ceremonial Tablet from the Goodnow Mound, Highlands County, Florida; with notes on some peninsular tribes and other tablets. The Florida Anthropologist 47(2):180-188. 1995 Pipe Fragments from Ortona, South Florida: Comments on Platform Pipe Styles, Functions, and Middle Woodland Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist 48(4):301-308. 2006 Obituary: Dan D. Laxson. The Florida Anthropologist 59(3-4):253-259. Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy 1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 33(4):207-225. Mackay, George 1845 U.S. Fieldnotes: Florida. Volume 84, pp. 55-60. Township 54 South, Range 41 East. Florida State Archives, Tallahassee. Mainfort, Robert C., Jr., and Lynne P. Sullivan 1998 Explaining Earthen Enclosures. In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. and Lynne P. Sullivan, pp. 1-16. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Martin, A. C., and W. D. Barkley 1961 Seed Identification Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley. Masson, M., and C. M. Scarry 1991 Carbonized Seeds and Com Cobs from the Honey Hill Site (8Da411): A Diachronic Glimpse of Plant Use in Everglades Subsistence. In Historical and Archaeological Investigations at the Honey Hill Site, Dade County, Florida, by R. Carr, A. Felmley, and P. West. Report 25, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. McClane, A. J. 1978a McClane s Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. 1978b McClane s Field Guide to Saltwater Fishes of North America. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. McCollum, Samuel H., Orlando E. Cruz, Leon T. Stem, William H. Wittstruck, Richard D. Ford, and Frank C. Watts 1978 Soil Survey of Palm Beach County Area, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. Milner, Claire McHale, and John M. O'Shea 1998 The Socioeconomic Role of Late Woodland Enclosures in Northern Lower Michigan. In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. and Lynne P. Sullivan, pp. 181-201. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 57

WHEELER,RUHL,FRADKIN,JlrCH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 106 Mitchell, Scott 1998 Culturally Modified Bone. In The Narvaez/ Anderson Site (8Pi54): A Safety Harbor Culture Shell Mound and Midden-AD 1000-1600, edited by Terrance L. Simpson, pp. 202-251. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, Tampa, Florida. Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1986 Analysis of Ceramics from the South Prong Site (8HI418), Hillsborough County, Florida. In Papers in Ceramic Analysis, Ceramic Notes No . 3, edited by Prudence M. Rice, pp. 81-109. Florida State Museum, Gainesville. Moerman, D. E. 1986 Medicinal Plants of Native America. Museum of Anthropology Technical Report #19, Research Report in Ethnobotany, Contribution #2. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1998 Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. Morales, Arturo, and Knud Rosenlund 1979 Fish Bone Measurements: An Attempt to Standardize the Measuring of Fish Bones from Archaeological Sites. Steenstrupia, Copenhagen. Morton, J. F. l 979 Wild Plants for Survival in South Florida. Fairchild Tropical Garden, Miami. Mount, Gregory J. 2009 Prehistoric Trade Networks in the Lake Okeechobee Region: Evidence from the Ritta Island and Kreamer Island Sites. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Myers, R., and J. Ewel 1991 Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Nelson, G. 1994 The Trees of Florida: A Reference and Field Guide. Pineapple Press, Sarasota. Newsom, L. 1987 Analysis of Botanical Remains from Hontoon Island (8VO202), Florida: 1980-1985 Excavations. The Florida Anthropologist 40(1):47-84. 1988 The Paleoethnobotany of Windover (8BR246): An Archaic Period Mortuary Site in Florida. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix, Arizona. 1989 Archaeobotanical Analysis. In Phase Ill Archaeological Excavations at Edgewater Landing, Volusia County, Florida, by Russo, M., A. Cordell, L. Newsom, and R. Austin, pp. 73-83. Piper Archaeological Research, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida. 1994 Archaeobotanical Data from Grove's Orange Midden (8Vo2601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47( 4):404-417. 1999 Archaeobotanical Research at Shell Ridge Midden, Palmer Site (8SO2), Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 51(4):207-222. Newsom, L., and C. M. Scarry 2013 Homegardens and Mangrove Swamps: Pineland Archaeobotanical Research. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50-1710, edited by K. Walker and W. Marquardt, pp. 253-304. Monograph 4, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville. Page, Lawrence M., and Brooks M. Burr 1991-A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes: North America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Panshin, A. J., and C. deZeeuw 1980 Textbook of Wood Technology, 4th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. Parker, G. 1984 Hydrology of the Pre-drainage System of the Everglades in Southern Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past II, edited by P. Gleason, pp. 28-37. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables. Pearsall, D. M. 1989 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, New York. Pepe, James P. 1999 Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34): A Test Case in the Use of Ceramic Frequencies and Discriminant Analysis in Determining Cultural Affinity. Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Victor D. Thompson 2012 Integrating LiDAR data and conventional mapping of the Fort Center site in south-central Florida: A comparative approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 37(4):289-301. ..

PAGE 58

107 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Popper, V.S. 1988 Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany, edited by C.A. Hastorf and V.S. Popper, pp. 5371. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Quitmyer, Irvy R. 1985 Zooarchaeological Methods for the Analysis of Shell Middens at Kings Bay. In Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality, Vol. 2: Zooarchaeology, edited by William H. Adams, pp. 33-48. University of Florida, Department of Anthropology, Reports of Investigations #2, Gainesville. Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell 1964 Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Record, S. J., and R. W. Hess 1942-1948 Keys to American Woods. In Tropical Woods 72:19-29; 73:23-42; 75:8-26; 76:32-47; 85:1-19; 94:29-52. Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, H. Haflidason, I. Hajdas, C. Hatt, T.J. Heaton, D. L. Hoffmann, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, S. W. Manning, M. Niu, R. W. Reimer, D. A. Richards, E. M. Scott, J. R. Southon, R. A. Staff, C. S. M. Turney, and J. van der Plicht 2013 IntCal 13 and Marine 13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0-50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1029-1058. Reitz, Elizabeth J., Irvy R. Quitmyer, H. Stephen Hale, Sylvia J. Scudder, and Elizabeth S. Wing 1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 52(2):304-317. Reitz, E., and C. M. Scarry 1985 Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an Example from Sixteenth Century Spanish Florida. Special Publications Series No. 3, Society for Historical Archaeology. Ann Arbor. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing 2008 Zooarchaeology. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rich, Fredrick J. 2001 Report on the Palynological Composition of Samples from the Whitebelt Excavation. Typescript dated October 8, 2001, on file with the author. Rich, F. J., D. Keuhn, and T. D. Davies 1982 The Paleoecological Significance of Ovoidites. Palynology 6: 19-28. Rich, F. J., and F. L. Pirkle 1994 Paleoecological Interpretations of the Trail Ridge Sequence, and Related Deposits in Georgia and Florida, Based on Pollen Sedimentation and Clastic Sedimentology. In Sedimentation of Organic Particles, edited by A. Traverse, pp. 287-310. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rich, F. J., A. Semaratedu, J. Elzea, and L. Newsom 2000 Palynology and Paleoecology of a Wood-bearing Clay Deposit from Deepstep, Georgia. Southeastern Geology 39(2):71-80. Richardson, D. (editor) 1998 Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Richardson, Sue B., and Mary Pohl 1985 The Bone Tool Industry from the Granada Site. In Excavations at the Granada Site, edited by John W. Griffin, pp. 83-170. Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee. Robertson, William, and James Kushlan 1984 The South FloridaAvifauna. In Environments of South Florida Present and Past II, edited by Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 219-257. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables. Rolland, Vicki L., and Paulette Bond 2000 The Search for Spiculate Clays near Timucuan Village Sites in the Lower St. Johns River. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Fort Myers, Florida. Ruhl, Donna L. 1981 An Investigation into the Relationships Between Midwestern Hopewell and Southeastern Prehistory. Masters thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 1990 Spanish Mission Paleoethnobotany and Culture Change: A Survey of the Archaeobotanical Data and Some Speculations on Aboriginal and Spanish Agrarian Interaction in La Florida. In Columbian Consequences: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East, edited by D. H. Thomas, pp. 555-580. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1993 Old Customs and Traditions in New Terrain: A Look at the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Paleoethnobotanical Data from La Florida. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret Scarry, pp. 255-283. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 59

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 108 1995 Paleoethnobotanical Investigations at Seminole Rest. In Final Report on the Archaeological Investigations at the Seminole Rest Site (CANA-063/8VOJ 24) Canaveral National Seashore, Volusia County, Florida, edited by E. Horvath, pp.41-58. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. 1999a From Sugarberry to Pine: Results of the Archeobotanical Investigations of Selected Samples from Remnant Mound at the Shaw's Point Site (8MA 7) in the De Soto National Memorial, Bradenton, Florida. Report on file at National Park Service, SEAC ACC 1283, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. 1999b Wood Analysis of Lake Pithlachucco/Newnan's Lake Canoes (8AL4 792). Report on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 2000 Archaeobotany of Bernath Place (8SR986) and other Santa Rosa/Swift Creek-Related Sites in Coastal and Non-Coastal Southeastern U.S. Locations. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3): 190-202. 2001 Archaeobotanical Analysis of Selected Samples from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (8PB220), DuPuis Reserve Area . Paper on file, Environmental Archaeology Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History (Temp Acc. #589). 2002 Archaeological Investigations of Selected Samples from Remnant Mound. In Archeological Investigation of De Soto National Memorial, edited by Margo Schwadron, pp. 139-157. Technical Report #8, SoutheastArcheological Center, Tallahassee. Russo, M., A. Cordell, L. Newsom, and S. Scudder 1991 Final Report on Horr s Island: The Archaeology of Archaic and Glades Settlement and Subsistence Patterns. Submitted to Key Marco Development, Marco Island, Florida. On file, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida. Salimanth, S. S., A. C. de Oliviera, I. P. Goden, and J. L. Bennetzen 1995 Assessment of Genome Origins and Genetic Diversity in the Genus Eleusine with DNA Markers. Genome 38(4):757-763. Scarry, C. M. 1985 Paleoethnobotany of the Granada Site. In Excavations at the Granada Site, edited by John W. Griffin, pp. 181-248. Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee. 2003 Patterns of Wild Plant Utilization in the prehistoric Eastern Woodlands. In People and Plants in Ancient Eastern North America, edited by Paul E. Minnis, pp. 50-104. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. Scarry, C. M., and L. A Newsom 1989 Archaeobotanical Research in the Calusa Heartland. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W.H. Marquardt, pp. 375-401. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1. University of Florida, Gainesville. Scarry, John F. 1995 Apalachee Homesteads: The Basal Social and Economic Units of a Mississippian Chiefdom. Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Bruce D. Smith, pp. 201-223. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Scarry, John F., and Bonnie G. McEwan 1995 Domestic Architecture in Apalachee Province: Apalachee and Spanish Residential Styles in the Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Period Southeast. American Antiquity 60(3):482-495. Sears, William H. 1971 Food Production and Village Life in Prehistoric Southeastern United States. Archaeology 24( 4):322-329. 1977 Seaborne Contacts between Early Cultures in Lower Southeastern United States and Middle through South America. In The Sea in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 1-15. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Singh,A. K. 1990 Cytogenetics and Evolution in the Cucurbitaceae. In Biology and Utilization of the Cucurbitaceae, edited by D. M. Bates, R. W. Robinson, and C. Jeffrey, pp. 10-28. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Singh, A. K., and A. S. R. Dathan 1990 Seed Coat Anatomy of the Cucurbitaceae. In Biology and Utilization of the Cucurbitaceae, edited by D. M. Bates, R. W. Robinson, and C. Jeffrey, pp. 225-238. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

PAGE 60

109 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Small, J. K. 1918 Narrative of a Cruise to Lake Okeechobee. In The Florida of John Kunkel Small : His Species and Types, Collecting Localities, Bibliography and Selected Reprinted Works, by D. Austin, A. Cholewa, R. Lassiter, and B. Hansen. Contributions of the New York Botanical Garden, Volume 18: 684700. [Reprinted from The American Museum Journal, Vol. XVIII, No. 8, pp.684700.] 1929 From Eden to Sahara: Florida s Tragedy. Science Press, Lancaster. 1930 Vegetation and Erosion on the Everglades Keys. The Scientific Monthly 30:33-49. 1933 Manual of the Southeastern Flora, Volumes I and II . Hafner Publishing, New York. Smith, B. 1985a The Role of Chenopodium as a Domesticate in Pre-maize Garden Systems of the Eastern United States. Southeastern Archaeology 4:5172. 1985b Chenopodium berkandieri spp.jonesianum: Evidence for a Hopewellian Domesticate from Ash Cave, Ohio. Southeastern Archaeology 4:107-133. 1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to DeSoto, 10,500-500B.P . In Advances in World Archaeology 5, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close, pp. 1-92. Academic Press, New York. 1987 The Independent Domestication of Indigenous Seed Bearing Plants in Eastern North America. In Emergent Horticultural Economics of the Eastern Woodlands, ed. by W. F. Keegan, pp. 3-48. Occasional Paper 7, Southern Illinois University Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale. 1992 Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture in Eastern North America. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Smith, B., and C. W. Cowan 1987 Domesticated Chenopodium in Prehistoric Eastern North America: New Accelerator Dates from Eastern Kentucky. American Antiquity 52(2):355-357. Ste. Claire, Dana 1996 A Technological and Functional Analysis of Hernando Projectile Points. The Florida Anthropologist 49(4):189-200. Steyermark, J. A. 1963 Flora of Missouri. Iowa State Univ . Press, Ames. Stirling, Matthew W. 1936 Florida Cultural Affiliations in Relation to Adjacent Areas. In Essays in Anthropology , presented to A. L. Kroeber in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, pp. 351-357. University of California Press, Berkeley. Swanton, John R. 1922 The Early History of the Creek Indians. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York. 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States . Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin #137. Washington, D.C. Thompson, Peter 1985 Thompsons Guide to Freshwater Fishes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Thompson, Victor D., Kristen J. Gremillion, and Thomas J. Pluckhahn 2013 Challenging the Evidence for Prehistoric Wetland Maize Agriculture at Fort Center, Florida. American Antiquity 78(1):181-193. Thompson, Victor D., and Thomas J. Pluckhahn 2012 Monumentalization and Ritual Landscapes at Fort Center in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of South Florida. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31 :49-65. 2014 The Modification and Manipulation of Landscape at Fort Center. In New Histories of Pre-Columbian Florida, edited by Neill J. Wallis and Asa R. Randall, pp. 163-182. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Tomlinson, P. B. 1980 The Biology of Trees Native to Tropical Florida. Harvard University Printing Office, Allston. Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G. Nuckels 1982 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Department of Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Urling, G., and R. Smith 1953 An Anatomical Study of Twenty Lesser Known Woods of Florida. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 16(3):163-180.

PAGE 61

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RrcH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 110 USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) 1940 Palm Beach County black-and-white aerial photograph, 1 :40,000 (1 in. = 0 . 64 mi.), CJF 6-90. On file, Map and Imagery Library, University of Florida, Gainesville. Wagner, G. 2001 Landscapes of the Eye. Paper presented at the 24th meeting of the Society for Ethnobiology, March 7-10, 2001 , Durango, Colorado . Wainwright, R. D. 1918 Further Archaeological Exploration in Southern Florida, Winter of 1917. The Archaeological Bulletin 9(4):28-32 , 43-47. Walker, K. 2000 Historical Ecology of the Southeastern Longleaf and Slash Pine Flatwoods: A Southwest Florida Perspective. Journal of Ethnobiology 20(2):269-299. Walker, L. 1991 The Southern Forest: A Chronicle. University of Texas Press , Austin. Werth, C. R., K. W. Hilu, and C. L. Langer 1994 Isozymes of Eleusine ( Graminae) and the Origin of Finger Millet. American Journal of Botany 81 (9): 1196-1197. Wheeler, Ryan J. 1995 The Ortona Canals: Aboriginal Canal Hydraulics and Engineering. The Florida Anthropologist 48( 4):265-281. 2000a Cultural Resource Assessment of Four Archaeological Sites at DuPuis Reserve, Palm Beach County. Archaeological Exploration of DuPuis Reserve Part One. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 2000b Interim Report: Archaeological Excavations at the Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (8PB220), DuPuis Reserve Area. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 2001a Radiocarbon Dating Results from Whitebelt 1 Circle Ditch (8PB220), DuPuis Reserve Area. Report on file , Bureau of Archaeological Research , Tallahassee. 2001 b Artifact Analysis for Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch (8PB220), DuPuis Reserve Area. Report on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research , Tallahassee. 2004 Bone Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12). The Florida Anthropologist 57(1-2): 133-158. 2006 Pumice Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12). The Florida Anthropologist 59(3-4):191-208. Wheeler, Ryan J., Wm. Jerald Kennedy, and James P. Pepe 2002 The Archaeology of Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34). The Florida Anthropologist 55(3-4): 157-196. Wheeler, Ryan J., and Ray M. McGee 1994 Technology of Mount Taylor Period Occupation, Groves' Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47( 4):350-379. Wheeler, Ryan J., and Christine L. Newman 1997 Summary of Site Components and Management Recommendations for Big Mound City (8PB48), J. W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area , Palm Beach County. Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Archaeological Survey. On file, Florida Master Site File , Tallahassee. White, Susan Lynn 1999 Technological Investigation of the Aboriginal Pottery Excavated from Test Pit 1-3, Useppa Island. In The Archaeology ofUseppa Island, edited by W. H. Marquardt, pp. 95-96. Monograph 3, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville . Widmer, Randolph 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Coast of Florida. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Willey, G. 1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology #42, New Haven. Wing, Elizabeth S., and Antoinette B. Brown 1979 Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric Foodways. Academic Press, New York Wunderlin, R. 1982 Guide to the Vascular Plants of Central Florida. University Presses of Florida, Tampa. 1998 Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Zuloaga, F., and T. Soderstrom 1985 Classification of the Outlying Species of New World Panicum (Poaceae: Paniceae). Smithsonian Contributions to Botany No. 59. Smithsonian Institution Press , Washington, D.C.

PAGE 62

111 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Appendix A. Data for Circle-Ditch Sites. Diameter and arc were measured from aerial photographs. Radius, area, and circumference are derived data. Compiled by Mindy Cummings and George Luer (1996), except the recent addition of Davenport Circle. Actual FMSF Diameter ( d) Diameter in Arc Degrees % of Circle Radius (1/2 d Ideal Circumference Site Name Visible Present Circumference Present (Ideal Number in meters feet (ADV) (ADV/360) = r) in meters (2nr) in meters % present) in meters Great Circle GL22 357 1171 290 0.81 178.5 1121.5 908.4 Inner Circle West GL375 213 699 --106 . 5 669.2 -Inner Circle East GL376 223 732 --111.5 700 . 6 -Lakeport Circle GL50 290 951 180 0.5 145 911.1 455.6 Glades Circle GL38 152 499 360 1.0 76 477.5 477.5 Caloosahatchee GL33 335 1099 325 0.9 167 . 5 1052.4 947 . 2 Circle W . Okeechobee GL57 122 400 360 1.0 61 383.3 383.3 Circle A W. Okeechobee GL57 73 240 360 1.0 36.5 229 . 3 229.3 Circle B Hendry Circle HN32 213 699 210 0.58 106.5 669.2 388 . 1 Dade Circle DA1642 187 614 360 1.0 93. 5 587 . 5 587.5 Miami CircleDA2148 61 200 30.5 191.6 Ditch -Whitebelt 1 PB220 275 902 300 0 .83 137 . 5 863 . 9 717.0 Pine Island LL42 268 879 270 0 .75 134 841.9 631.4 Circle North Fisheating GL75 204 669 240 0.67 102 640.9 429.4 Creek Circle Lake Kissimmee OS1787 253 830 210 0 . 58 126.5 794.8 461.0 Circle Kissimmee OB31 191 627 180 0.5 95.5 600 . 0 300 . 0 Circle Martin Circle MT42 400 1312 180 o.5 200 1256 . 6 628 . 3 Davenport Circle PB15312 61 200 ----

PAGE 63

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 112 Appendix B. Circle-Ditch Sites of South Florida. Compiled by Mindy Cummings and George Luer (1996), except the addition of Davenport Circle. Archival USDA aerial photos are on file at the University of Florida, Map and Imagery Library, and online at PALMM. FMSF Associated Connect Archival USDA Site Name Number Sites with Status Aerial Photo or Recent Aerial Photo Shoreline Reference Great Circle GL22 yes yes extant BUO 2KK 57 1968 301-57-HAP 84 1985 Inner Circle West GL375 yes -extant BUO 2KK 57 1968 301-57-HAP 84 1985 Inner Circle East GL376 yes -extant BUO 2KK 57 1968 301-57-HAP 84 1985 Lakeport Circle GL50 unknown yes extant BUO-ID-73 1949 301-59-HAP 84 1985 Glades Circle GL38 unknown yes extant BUO-2T-148 1957 301-57-HAP 84 1985 Caloosahatchee Circle GL33 yes yes destroyed/ BUN-3T-125 1957 301-53-HAP 84 1985 damaged West Okeechobee Circle A GL57 yes no damaged BUO-2T-109 1957 301-100-HAP 84 1985 West Okeechobee Circle B GL57 yes no damaged BUO-2T-109 1957 301-100-HAP 84 1985 Hendry Circle HN32 no yes extant BUN-3T-14 1957 -Dade Circle DA1642 unknown no destroyed Carr 1985:296-297 -Miami Circle Ditch DA2148 unknown no destroyed Carr 1985:298 -Whitebelt 1 PB220 yes yes extant CJF-6-90 1940 -Pine Island Circle LL42 yes yes destroyed DCT-2C-66 1944 DCT-lLL-81 North Fisheating Creek GL75 unknown yes extant BUO 2KK 17 1968 301-59-HAP 84 1985 Circle Lake Kissimmee Circle OSI 787 yes yes extant DCU-6C-110 1944 -Kissimmee Circle OB31 unknown yes destroyed CYW-2C-15 1944 -Martin Circle MT42 yes yes extant EEP-3V-6 1958 -Davenport Circle PB15312 unknown unknown destroyed -

PAGE 64

113 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Appendix C. Ceramic Sherds by Units and Levels, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. St. Johns Belle Sand and Residual Unit/Level STP Plain Glade fiber-tempered Unidentified Plain Plain Totals Plain Trench 1, Unit 7 1 3 2 18 2 5 3 78 2 w/ limestone 27 inclusions 4 17 5 sandy St. Johns 20 Plain 5 1 3 6 7 1 Subtotal 124 2 7 56 189 Trench 1, Unit 8 1 1 sandy St. Johns Plain 2 6 3 Trench 1, Unit 8 West 1/2 3 18 20 4 1 4 sandy St. Johns 8 Plain 5 4 6 3 1 Subtotal 28 5 36 69 Trench 1, Unit 9 1 2 1 2 19 15 1 27 3 47 3 1 3 sandy St. Johns 100 Plain 4 32 68 Subtotal 100 29 1 1 3 195 329 Trench 1, Unit 10 1 6 2 44 6 21 3 34 1 52 4 13 17 5 6 20 6 11 1 5 7 30 4 12 8 39 25 9 5 5 10 1 1 Subtotal 189 8 4 158 359

PAGE 65

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 114 Appendix C, continued. St. Johns Belle Sand and Residual Unit/Level STP Plain Glade fiber-tempered Unidentified Plain Plain Totals Plain Trench 2, Unit 1 1 1 2 2 9 13 3 9 13 4 11 6 Subtotal 30 34 64 Trench 2, Unit 2 1 2 2 3 7 8 4 10 10 5 7 10 Subtotal 26 28 54 Trench 2, Unit 3 1 2 2 3 7 3 4 13 20 5 3 7 6 5 6 7 4 2 w / laminated paste 3 8 9 1 Subtotal 35 2 39 76 Trench 2, Unit 4 1 2 4 3 5 5 4 14 2 STP w / chalky feel 6 5 7 4 Subtotal 30 2 15 47 Trench 2, Unit 5 1 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 5 7 9 1 Subtotal 20 1 21 TOTAL 582 40 5 1 19 561 1208

PAGE 67

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 116 Appendix D. Data for Rim Sherds Illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. STP = sand-tempered plain. Figure Type Rim Rim Form Lip Form Unit/Level Trench Unit BAR Cat. No. Profile 1 Oa STP mcurve thin round 183N 274.5E L8 1 10 00.140.116 10b STP excurve simple round 183N 272.5E L3 1 9 00.140.79 10c STP indet. thick round 415N 299.5E L3 2 1 00.140.68 IOd STP indet. thick round 183N 271.5E L3 1 8 00.140.52 lOe STP excurve simple round 416N 299.5E L3 2 2 00.140.63 lOf STP excurve thin round 183N 272.5E L2 1 9 00.140.77 10g St. Jo hns P lain excurve simple round 183N 271.5E L4 1 8 00.140.71 !Oh STP straight thin pointed 183N 274.5E L8 1 10 00.140.116 1 Oi STP straight folded cut 418N 299.5E L4 2 4 00.140.112 lOj STP mcurve simple round 183N 274.5E L3 1 10 00.140.84 10k STP excurve thick round 183N 274.5E L7 1 10 00.140.115 I 01 STP straight thin pointed 183N 274.5E L7 1 10 00.140.115 Ila STP straight? simple flat 417N 299.5E L7 2 3 00.140.60 11 b STP excurve folded flat 183N 271.5E L3 1 8 00.140.52 llc STP excurve thick flat 415N 299.5E L3 2 1 00.140.68 11 d STP excurve simple flat 183N 272.5E L3 1 9 00.140.79 Ile B elle Glad e Plai n straight thin flat 183N 274.5E L 7 1 10 00.140.115 llf B e ll e Glade Plain excurve simple cut 183N 272.5E L2 1 9 00.140.77 1 lg STP straight folded pointed 183N 274.5E L6 1 10 00.140.114 llh STP straight thick cut 183N 270.5E L3 1 7 00.140.33 11 i STP indet. folded round 183N 270.5E L3 1 7 00.140.33 llj STP excurve folded round 416N 299 . 5E L4 2 2 00.140.64 11 k STP indet. folded pointed 183N 270.5E L3 1 7 00.140.33 111 STP indet. thin round 417N 299 . 5E L4 2 3 00.140.57 llm STP straight folded round 418N 299.5E L4 2 4 00.140.112 lln STP vessel base 416N 299.5E L3 2 2 00.140.63 110 STP straight folded round 417N 299.5E L4 2 3 00.140.57

PAGE 68

117 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Appendix E. Lithic Analysis and Sourcing Data. Artifact Fossils or Specimen# Type Hallmarks Description of features present Lithic ID Comments Yes/No OO. l 40.056 . 2A Proximal Yes No foraminifera or other fossils are evident. Likely Miocene, Ground platform percussion flake, 1 to flake Inclusions appear to be quartz sand, a Tampa Member 2 cm size range. fragment characteristic of Tampa Member of the of the Arcadia Arcadia Formation Formation 00.140 . 056.2B MedialNo However, its lithology is similar in color Possibly Miocene, distal flake and texture to one of the bands of chert in Tampa Member fragment specimen 00.140.116 . 1 of the Arcadia Formation 00.140.057 .2 MedialNo There are no foraminifera or other fossils Unknown 0 to I cm size range distal flake evident. There are no other distinguishing fragment hallmarks for identification. 00.140.058.1 Flake ? This specimen is similar in color and texture Uncertain, possible Heat exploded. I to 2 cm size range. to specimen 00.140.114.3, which is silicified silicified coral coral. The corallites are not detectable in this specimen. 00.140.059.4 Medial-Yes There are no foraminifera or other fossils Most likely origin Uncertain if this specimen has been distal flake evident. However, unlike some of the other is chert from thermally altered. It is of the 2 to 3 cm fragment specimens this chert is vuggy, has bands of either the Eocene, size range. fine and medium grained chert, the cortex Ocala Limestone and vugs are chalky, and there is no obvious or Oligocene, quartz sand content. Suwannee Limestone 00.140 . 064 . 2 Flake No Even though there are no diagnostic features, Uncertain, possibly Does not appear to be thermally the chert is similar to the white band of chert Miocene, Tampa altered. 1 to 2 cm size range located on the distal tip of the Hernando point Member of the (00.140.116.1) . This is non vuggy, white Arcadia Formation chert . 00.140.067.lA Proximal No There are no foraminifera or other fossils that Unknown Non-thermally altered. flake can be identified . There appear to be ghosts fragment of foraminiferas but they are too obliterated to be of any use for identification purposes . There are no other distinguishing hallmarks for identification. 00.140.067.lB MedialNo There are no foraminifera or other fossils Unknown distal flake evident. There are no other distinguishing fragment hallmarks for identification. 00 . 140 . 068 . 3 Proximal ? This specimen appears to have totally Uncertain, possibly This is the proximal section of a flake flake incorporated (surrounded) quartz sand and/ Miocene , Tampa 1 to 2 cm in size range. It appears fragment or crystal grains. Quartz sand suggests the Member of the to have been produced as a result of Tampa Member of the Arcadia Formation. Arcadia Formation pressure flaking . There are no foraminifera or other fossils evident. This chert is white and not vuggy which is similar to the Hernando point (00.140.116.1). 00.140.083.6 Flake No Does not appear to be chert and may be some Unknown This specimen is possibly from a (in two type of metamorphic rock. Two faces of the ground stone celt. 2 to 3 cm size range. pieces) outer flake appear to have been ground or otherwise smoothed. Flake platform area appears to have been formed by battering. 00.140.099 . 1 Flake Yes At least 3 foraminifera ghosts of Likely Eocene Ground platform is only partially Lepidocyclina sp. of the size and shape found Ocala Limestone intact; it is a percussion flake, 2 to 3 in the Ocala Limestone . Also this chert is chert cm size range. vuggy and the voids are not lined with quartz sand.

PAGE 69

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 118 Artifact Fossils or Specimen# Type Hallmarks Description of features present Lithic ID Comments Yes/No 00.140 . 114.3 Blocky Yes This specimen is very likely the colonyCould have The specimen has been heat-treated, chunk, forming coral Siderastrea silecensis. It originated from and battered along some of its surface . core surely is of the genus Siderastrea sp. There the Suwannee The polyps (corallites) are most fragment is another genus but its extinct forms are Limestone, or the visible on the cortex surface. The not documented in the Florida fossil record. Tampa Member silicified nature of the interior does not Silicified fossil coral of Siderastrea sp. of the Arcadia prominently show the starburst pattern occurs in the Tampa Member of the Arcadia Formation of the corallites, which seems a bit Formation and is also documented as unusual. occurring in the Suwannee Limestone. 00.140.115.IA Biface ? This specimen is similar in color and texture Uncertain, possible Probably a small fragment of a point. Fragment to specimen 00.140.114 . 3, which is silicified silicified coral Thermally altered, 1 to 2 cm size range coral. The corallites are not detectable in this specimen. 00 . 140.115.1B Medial-Yes Lepidocyclina sp. of the size and shape found Eocene Ocala Heat exploded and crazed . distal flake in the Ocala Limestone. Limestone fragment 00.140.115.IC Medial-Yes Lepidocyclina sp. of the size and shape found Eocene Ocala distal flake in the Ocala Limestone. Also a probable ghost Limestone fragment of a cone foraminifera, Dictyoconus sp., is present. 00 . 140 .115.ID MedialNo There are no foraminifera or other fossils Unknown Not thermally altered, 1 to 2 cm size distal flake evident. There are no other distinguishing range. fragment hallmarks for identification. 00.140.115 .lE Flake No There are no foraminifera or other fossils Unknown Not thermally altered, 1 to 2 cm size evident. There are no other distinguishing range. hallmarks for identification. 00.140 .115.IF MedialNo There are no foraminifera or other fossils Unknown Not thermally altered, I to 2 cm size distal flake evident. There are no other distinguishing range. fragment hallmarks for identification. 00.140.115.lG Proximal ? This specimen is similar in color and texture Uncertain , possible Thermally altered, 1 to 2 cm size range flake to specimen 00 . 140 . 114.3, which is silicified silicified coral fragment coral. The corallites are not detectable in this specimen. 00.140.115.lH Micro ? This specimen is similar in color and texture Uncertain, possible The specimen is thermally altered Tool to specimen 00.140.1 I 4.3 , which is silicified silicified coral and heat crazed . It is 1 to 2 cm in size coral. The corallites are not detectable in this range . It appears to have been used as a specimen. perforator-drill. 00.140.116.1 Hernando Yes No foraminifera or other fossils are evident. Likely Miocene , This specimen appears to have been biface Both the inclusions and the less consolidated Tampa Member heat treated. bands of silicified material appear to include of the Arcadia quartz sand, a characteristic of Tampa Formation Member of the Arcadia Formation , which is very impure , containing copious amounts of sand inclusions . 00 . 140 .118. 2 Flake No There are no foraminifera or other fossils Unknown 1 to 2 cm size range evident. There are no other distinguishing hallmarks for identification. 99 . 65.007.2 Reworked No No foraminifera evident. This is vuggy chert Unknown Reworked biface that appears to have triangular but the voids appear to be lined with quartz hafting mastic adhering to its base on biface crystals rather than sand . one side . May have originally been a Hernando then extensively reworked.

PAGE 70

119 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Appendix F. Inventory of Archaeobotanical Samples from Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. Botanical F.S. Description No. of bags Collected/ Number Number Liters of soil MIDDEN AREA Bot# S-1 87 Midden, 17-27cmbs; rootlets, charred wood, bone, and gray sand, 2 bags -25 L 183N271.5E Bot# S-2 88 Midden, 27-37cmbs; charred wood, rootlets, bone, and gray sand, 2 bags 22 L 183N271.5E Bot# S-3 89 Midden, 37-47cmbs; palmetto rootlets lessening; charred wood, bone, 2 bags -25 L light and medium gay sand, 183N271.5E Bot# S-4 90 Midden, 46-57cmbs; less rootlets, mottling slight, charred wood less but 3 bags -38 L present, bone, 183N27 l.5E Bot# S-5 91 Midden, 57-67cmbs; lighter gray and medium brown gray mottled sand, 2 bags -25 L bone, charred wood as above, few rootlets, 183N271.5E Bot# S-6 92 Midden, 6775cmbs; brown gray sand, bone, charred wood as above and 2 bags -25 L few rootlets, 183N271.5E Bot# S-7 131 Midden, 77-87cmbs; brown gray sand, 183N271.5E 3 bags -39 L Bot# S-8 132 Midden, 87-97cmbs; brown gray sand, 183N271.5E, above Feature2 bags -3 L posthole Bot# S-9 137 Midden, Feature #3; 94-105cmbs? 1 bag -1 L Bot# S-10 133 Midden, Feature #4, 94-l00cmbs,West 1/2 1 bag -1 L Bot# S-11 134 Midden, Feature #4, 100-105cmbs, West 1/2 2 bag -1 L Bot# S-12 135 Midden, Feature #4, 105-11 0cmbs , West l / 2 1 bag 1 L Bot# S-13 136 Midden, Feature #4, 11 0l l 4cmbs , West 1/2 1 bag 1 L Bot# S-14 138 Midden, Feature #5 2 bags 1 L CIRCLE-DITCH AREA Bot# N-1 103 Ditch, 27-37cmbs; mottled dark grey and lighter gray sand, moist, 422 3 bags ~2.5 L Bot# N-2 104 Ditch, 37-47cmbs; more salt and pepper matrix throughout, moist 3 bags -~3 L Bot#N-3 105 Ditch, 47-57cmbs; salt and pepper matrix throughout, moist 3 bags -~3 L Bot# N-4 106 Ditch, 57-67cmbs; mottled dark gray and light gray sand, some charred 3 bags ~2.5 L wood Bot# N-5 107 Ditch, 6777cmbs; dark gray and light gray circular mottling effect 3 bags -~3 L throughout, some non-charred wood-like items Auger# 1 * 101 67-80cmbs; dark brown and blackish crusty materials; slightly damp, 1 bag -~1 L wet Auger# 2* 102 80-91 cmbs; less of the blackish crusty material and more of a rusty 1 bag -~1 L colored soil matrix, wet * Samples not analyzed.

PAGE 71

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 120 Appendix G. Archaeobotanical Inventory of Processed Samples and Identified Plant Taxa from White belt 1 Circle-Ditch. Bg=bag; jr=jar; ea=each; cw=charred wood; cnm=charred nutmeat; cs=charred seed; ds=dessicated seed, ms=modern seed, ws=water saturated seed, p=other plant parts. Botanical FS FS/Lot # Count1 Weight(g) Fraction Identification2 Number Number MIDDEN AREA Bot# S-1 87 87.1 23ea 5 .108 4mm Pinus sp. (cw) 87 87 . 2 6ea . 355 4mm Sabal sp . (cw) 87 87. 3 lea .110 4mm Coniferophyta (cw) 87 87.4 lbg 5 .381 4mm Residual-scanned for seed 87 87.5 lea .001 1mm Elusine indica (cs) 87 87.6 lbg 80.160 1mm Residual-10% scanned for seed 87 87.7 lbg 24 . 380 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 87 87 . 8 2ea .010 2mm Serenoa repens (cs) 87 87. 9 2ea .031 2mm cf. Carya sp. (cnm) 87 87 .10 3ea .073 2mm Indeterminate Plantae (cs) 87 87.11 lea .013 2mm Hibiscus sp. (ms) Bot# S 2 88 88.1 25ea 2.790 4mm Pinus sp . (cw) 88 88.2 3ea .153 4mm Coniferophyta ( cw) 88 88.3 2ea .549 4mm Plantae (cw) 88 88.4 lea .009 2mm Sabal sp . (s) 88 88.5 lbg 10.763 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 88 88 . 6 lea .001 1mm Cladium sp . (cs) broken 88 88 . 7 lea .005 1mm Panicum / Setaria sp . (ds) 88 88 . 8 lbg 37.650 1mm Residual10% scanned for seed Bot# S-3 89 89.1 Sea .966 4mm Pinus sp . (cw) 89 89.2 6ea .591 4mm Coniferophyta (cw) 89 89 . 3 2ea . 203 4mm Plantae (cw) 89 89.4 lbg 8.280 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 89 89.5 lbg 40.140 1mm Residual 10% scanned for seed Bot # S-4 90 90.1 20ea 1.833 4mm Pinus sp. (cw) 90 90 . 2 lea .021 4mm Sabal sp . (cw) 90 90.3 2ea .413 4mm Plantae (cw) 90 90.4 7ea .390 2mm Pinus sp. (cw) 90 90.5 lbg 12.260 1mm Residual-I 0% scanned for seed 90 90.6 lbg 42.380 2mm Residual-scanned for seed Bot # S-5 91 91.1 28ea 2 . 368 4mm Pin us sp . (cw) 91 91.2 2ea .072 4mm Sabal sp . (cw) 91 91.3 lbg .513 4mm Residual-scanned for seed 91 91.4 lbg 12.450 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 91 91.5 lbg 29 . 330 1mm ResidualI 0% scanned for seed Bot # S-6 92 92. 1 26ea 3.568 4mm Pinus sp . (cw) 92 92.2 2ea . 200 4mm Sabal sp . (cw) 92 92 . 3 2ea . 907 4mm Coniferophyta (cw) 92 92.4 lbg 4.025 4mm Residual-scanned for seed 92 92 . 5 lbg 18.68 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 92 92.6 lea .001 1mm Cladium sp . (cs) 92 92. 7 lbg 19. 060 1mm ResidualI 0% scanned for seed 92 92 . 8 lea .001 1mm Scirpus sp . (ms)

PAGE 72

121 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Appendix G, continued. Botanical FS FS/Lot# Count1 Weight(g) Fraction ldentification2 Number Number Bot# S-7 131 131.l 30ea 3.101 4mm Pinus sp. (cw) 131 131.2 lbg 4.652 4mm Residual-scanned for seed 131 131.3 lbg 22.990 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 131 131.4 lbg 46.875 1mm ResidualI 0% scanned for seed Bot# S-8* 132 132.1 lea .057 2mm Quercus sp. (cw) 132 132.2 I lea .406 2mm cf. Pi nus sp. (cw) 132 132.3 lbg .440 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 132 132.4 lbg .988 1mm ResidualI 0% scanned for seed Bot# S-9* 137 137.1 4ea .164 2mm Pinus sp. (cw) 137 137.2 lbg .72 2mm Residual scanned for seed 137 137.3 lbg .92 1mm ResidualI 0% scanned for seed Bot# S-10* 133 133.1 6ea .092 2mm Pinus sp. (cw) 133 133.2 lbg .737 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 133 133.3 lbg .90 lrrim ResidualI 0% scanned for seed Bot# S-11 * 134 134.1 6ea .092 2mm Pinus sp. (cw) 134 134.2 lbg .300 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 134 134.3 lea .001 1mm Cladium sp. (cs) 134 134.3 lbg 1.04 1mm ResidualI 0% scanned for seed Bot# S-12* 135 135.1 lbg .110 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 135 135.2 lbg .81 1mm ResidualI 0% scanned for seed Bot# S-13* 136 136.1 6ea .204 2mm Pinus sp. (cw) 136 136.2 lbg .114 2mm Plant residual-scanned for seed 136 136.3 lbg .89 1mm Residual-I 0% scanned for seed Bot# S-14* 138 138.1 15ea .701 2mm Pinus sp. (cw) 138 138.2 4ea .032 2mm Sabal sp. (cw) 138 138.3 2ea .110 2mm Gymnopsermae 138 138.4 2ea .008 2mm Indeterminate Plantae(cs), (fragments1 cf. Arecaceae, 1 cf. Leguminosae) 138 138.5 lbg 3.30 2mm Plant residual-scanned for seed 138 138.6 lbg 4.56 1mm ResidualI 0% scanned for seed CIRCLE-DITCH AREA Bot# N-1 103 103.1 26ea 1.785 4mm Pin us sp. (cw) 103 103.2 4ea .370 4mm Gymnopsermae (cw) 103 103.3 lbg 1.653 4mm Residual scanned for seed 103 103.4 lbg 10.722 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 103 103.5 2ea .098 2mm Pinus sp.stem and root fragments (cw) 103 103.6 lea .005 2mm cf. Dicotyledoneaestem, herbaceous fragment ( p) 103 103.7 lea .102 2mm cf. Leguminosae (cs) 103 103.8 lbg 22.86 1mm Residual-I 00% scanned for seed Bot# N-2 104 104.1 2ea .101 4mm Diffuse porous hardwood (cw) 104 104.2 28ea 1.23 4mm Pinus sp. (cw) 104 104.3 lbg .505 4mm Residualscanned for seed 104 104.4 lbg 2.109 2mm Residualscanned for seed 104 104.5 lea .001 1mm Scutellaria sp. (cs) 104 104.6 lbg 14.94 1mm Residual-100% scanned for seed

PAGE 73

WHEELER, RUHL, FRADKIN, RICH WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 122 Appendix G, continued. Botanical FS FS/Lot # Count1 Weight(g) Fraction ldentification2 Number Number Bot# N-3 105 105.1 17ea 2.867 4mm Pinus sp. (cw) 105 105.2 2ea .225 4mm Gymnospermae (cw) 105 105.3 3ea .203 4mm Vacinnium sp. (cw) 105 105.4 4ea .535 4mm Quercus virginiana (cw) 105 105.5 2ea .071 4mm Diospyros sp. (cw) 105 105.6 3ea .179 4mm Acer sp. (cw) 105 105.7 4ea .172 4mm Quercus sp. (cw) 105 105.8 lea .061 4mm Angiospermae-stem, indeterminate hardwood (cw) 105 105.9 2ea .079 4mm Angiospermaediffuse porous hardwood (cw) 105 105.10 lbg 2.185 4mm Residualscanned for seed 105 105.11 lbg 9.11 2mm Residualscanned for seed 105 105.12 2ea .015 4mm Indeterminte Plantae ( cs,p) 105 105.13 lea .012 2mm Dicotyledoneaewoody dicot root (cw) 105 105.14 ljr wet 4mm Residualscanned for seed 105 105.15 ljr wet 2mm Residualscanned for seed 105 105.16 ljr wet 1mm Residualscanned for seed Bot# N-4 106 106.1 13ea 2.444 4mm Pinus sp. (cw) 106 106.2 9ea .986 4mm Acer sp. (cw) 106 106.3 3ea .465 4mm Quercus virginiana (cw) 106 106.4 3ea .343 4mm Quercus sp. (cw) 106 106.5 2ea .176 4mm Vacinnium sp. (cw) 106 106.6 lbg 6.257 4mm Residualscanned for seed (cw) 106 106.7 lbg 8.894 2mm Residual-scanned for seed (cw) 106 106.8 ljr wet 4mm Residualscanned for seed 106 106.9 ljr wet 2mm Residualscanned for seed 106 106.10 ljr wet 2mm Cucurbitaceae (s) 106 106.11 lea wet 1mm Residualscanned for seed Bot# N-5 107 107.1 16ea 2.094 4mm Pinus sp. (cw) 107 107.2 5ea .515 4mm Acer sp. (cw) 107 107.3 5ea .266 4mm Vaccinium sp. (cw) 107 107.4 lea .058 4mm Monocotyledoneae-stem (p) 107 107.5 3ea .324 4mm Unidentified Plantae (cw,p) 107 107.6 lea wet 2mm Passifiora sp. (ws,cs) 107 107.7 8ea wet 2mm Parthenocissus sp. (ws) 107 107.8 4ea wet 2mm Ampelopsis sp. (ws) 107 107.9 46ea wet 1mm Cladium sp. (ws) 107 107.10 lea wet 1mm Scirpus sp. (cs) 107 107.11 lea wet 2mm Sambucus sp. (ws) 107 107.12 lea wet 2mm Indeterminate Plantae ( s,p) 107 107.13 ljr wet 2mm Residual-scanned for seed 107 107.14 ljr wet 1mm Residual-scanned for seed 1-Individual seeds were counted and a sub-sample of charred wood was taken from each 4mm sample. Where possible the charred wood sub-sample was N=30. In a few instances the wood sample was taken from the 2 mm samples if they were large enough (three growth rings exhibited) to help obtain a representative sample. 2-Residual samples of 4 mm and 2 mm fractions contained primarily charred wood fragments (Plantae) that were too small for identification. All 4 mm and 2 mm fractions were scanned 100% for seed. The I mm fraction soil samples were sub-sampled. The sub-sample consisted of 10% (by weight) of the total weight of the 1 mm processed fraction. Some of the smaller samples were 100% scanned for seeds. Each of these was scanned for identifiable seed remains. * No 4 mm fraction was present.

PAGE 74

123 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Appendix H. Allometric Formula Used for Ray-Finned Fish Size Estimates Based on Vertebra Measurements. General Equation: log10 y = log10 a+ b( log10 x) x = independent variable y = dependent variable a = y-intercept b = slope Ray-finned Fishes (Actinopterygii): log10 y = 1.162 + 2.047 ( log10 x) x = width (mm) of vertebra centrum y = total body weight (g) Source: Formula values from Wing and Brown (1979:128). Appendix I. Allometric Formula Values Used in Meat Weight Estimates. General Equation: log10 y = log10 a + b (log10 x) x = bone or shell weight (grams) y = meat weight (grams) a = y-intercept b = slope Source: Formula values from Quitmyer (1985 : 39) and the Environmental Archaeology Files , Florida Museum of Natural History . Taxon log a b Taxon Actinopterygii (Ray-Finned Fishes) 1.38 0.89 Serpentes (Snakes) Caudata (Salamanders) 2 . 07 0 . 56 Alligator mississippiensis (Alligator) Anura (Toads/Frogs) 1.40 0.86 Aves (Birds) Testudines (Turtles) 1.65 0.53 Mammalia (Mammals) Lacertilia (Lizards) na na *na = not available log a b 1.06 0.94 na na 1.24 0.84 1.41 0.81 Appendix J. Taxonomic List of Animals Identified at Whitebelt 1, with Quantification. From Column Sample 1, upper and lower strata combined (Levels 1 through 10). Scientific Name Common Name UpLowNISP NISP% MNI MNI% Wt(g) Wt% Meat Meat per er Wt(g) Wt% CARTILAGINOUS FISH Carcharhiniformes requiem sharks X X 24 0.35% 2 1.65% 5.21 0 . 83% RAY-FINNED FISHES Lepisosteus spp . gar X X 1515 21.78% 5 4.13% 42.36 6.75% 820 . 58 8.45% Amia calva bowfin X X 713 10.25% 14 11. 57% 45 . 27 7 . 21% 882 . 77 9.09% Clupeidae herrings X 1 0.01% 1 0.83% 0.02 0.00% 0.74 0.01% Erimyzon sucetta lake chubsucker X X 5 0.07% 2 1.65% 0.07 0.01% 2.60 0 . 03% Ictaluridae N.Amer. catfishes X X 236 3.39% 23 19.01% 8.45 1.35% 193 . 89 2.00% Ariopsis felis hardhead catfish X 4 0.06% 1 0.83% 0.13 0.02% 4.21 0.04% Ariidae sea catfishes X 4 0.06% 0.06 0.01% 1.96 0.02% Siluriformes catfishes X X 59 0.85% 1.41 0 . 22% 39.89 0.41% Esox spp. pickerel X 4 0.06% 1 0.83% 0.13 0.02% 4.32 0.04% Mugil spp. mullet X 2 0.03% 1 0.83% 0 . 07 0 . 01% 2.43 0.03% Lepomis microlophus Red-ear sunfish X X 15 0.22% 4 3.31% 1.75 0.28% 43.63 0.45% Lepomis spp . Sunfish X X 209 3.01% 3 2.48% 4.29 0.68% 105.56 1.09% Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass X X 61 0.88% 10 8.26% 3 .71 0.59% 90.41 0.93% Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie X 2 0.03% 1 0.83% 0.07 0.01% 2.25 0.02% Actinopterygii ray-finned fishes X X 25.05 3.99% 514.36 5.30%

PAGE 75

WHEELER, RuuL, FRADKIN, Rieu WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE DITCH 124 Appendix J, continued. Scientific Name Common Name UpLowNISP NISP MNI MNI Wt(g) Wt% Meat Meat per er Wt(g) Wt% AMPHIBIANS Amphiuma means two-toed amphiuma X X 5 0.07% 2 1.65% 0.65 0.10% 163.95 1.69% Siren lacertina greater siren X X 78 1.12% 5 4.13% 10.15 1.62% 973.75 10.03% Caudata salamanders X X 69 0 . 99% 4.48 0.71% 525.37 5.41% Rana spp. true frogs X X 3 0.04% 3 2.48% 0.20 0.03% 6.93 0.07% Anura toads/frogs X X 10 0.14% 0.42 0.07% 13.82 0.14% REPTILES Chelydra serpentina snapping turtle X X 8 0.12% 2 1.65% 3.73 0.59% 147.27 1.52% Apa/one ferox Florida softshell X X 43 0.62% 2 1 . 65% 5.14 0.82% 237.52 2.45% Kinosternon spp. mudturtle X X 23 0.33% 5 4 . 13% 7.61 1.21% 311.20 3.21% Kinostemidae mud/muskturtles X X 196 2.82% 1 0 . 83% 33.55 5.35% 682 .95 7.04% Deirochelys reticularia chicken turtle X 1 0.01% 1 0 . 83% 0.23 0.04% 20.50 0 . 21% Terrapene carolina boxturtle X 1 0 . 01% 1 0 . 83% 0.41 0.07% 27.85 0.29% Emydidae cooters/sliders/box X X 6 0 . 09% 2 1 . 65% 3.28 0.52% 122.08 1.26% Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise X 4 0 . 06% 1 0 . 83% 0.36 0.06% 35.87 0.37% Testudines turtles X X 1226 17.63% 84.41 13.45% 1235 .33 12.73% Alligator mississippiensis American alligator X X 25 0.36% 2 1 . 65% 4.04 0.64% Lacertilia lizards X 1 0.01% 1 0 . 83% 0.09 0.01% Agkistrodon piscivorus Florida cottonmouth x X 10 0.14% 3 2.48% 0.61 0.10% 7.81 0.08% Viperidae pit vipers X X 49 0 . 70% 12. 69 2.02% 138.77 1.43% Nerodia spp. water snake X X 45 0.65% 5 4 . 13% 7 .91 1 . 26% 89.11 0.92% Farancia abacura mud snake X X 3 0.04% 2 1 . 65% 1.12 0 . 18% 13.60 0.14% Colubridae colubrid snakes X X 84 1.21% 11.44 1 . 82% 125.59 1 . 29% Serpentes snakes X X 1694 24 . 36% 99.73 15.89% 970.65 10.00% BIRDS Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe X 1 0.01% 1 0.83% 0.09 0.01% 2.30 0.02% Aves birds X X 4 0.06% 1 0 . 83% 0.40 0.06% 9.23 0.10% MAMMALS Didelphis virginiana opossum X 5 0.07% 1 0 . 83% 2.38 0.38% 56.94 0.59% Soricidae shrews X 7 0 . 10% 2 1.65% 0.10 0.02% 3.98 0.04% Homo sapiens human X l 0.01% I 0.83% 1.21 0.19% Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox X 1 0 . 01% 1 0 . 83% 0.64 0.10% 17.91 0.18% Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer X X 13 0.19% 2 1 . 65% 10.30 1.64% 207.07 2.13% Oryzomys palustris rice rat X 1 0.01% 1 0 . 83% Rodentia rodents X 75 1.08% 5 4.13% 2.48 0.40% 60.46 0.62% Small Mammalia small mammals X 53 0.76% 1.26 0 . 20% 35 . 94 0.37% Medium Mammalia medium mammals X 14 0.20% 2.25 0 . 36% 55.01 0.57% Large Mammalia large mammals X X 39 0 . 56% 34.09 5.43% 495.48 5.10% Mammalia mammals X X 58 0 . 83% 9.34 1.49% 202.44 2.09% MISCELLANEOUS Tetrapoda 4-footed vertebrates X X 245 3 . 52% 15.21 2.42% Vertebrata vertebrates X X 117.61 18.74% TOTALS 6955 100.00% 121 100.00% 627.66 100.00% 9706.28 100.00%

PAGE 76

125 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2019 VOL. 72 (2) Appendix K. Comparison of Vertebrate Taxa at Several South Florida Everglades Sites. Scientific Name Common Name Whitebelt Sheridan Guy Bailey CARTILAGINOUS FISHES Galeocerdo cuvier tiger shark X Carcharhinidae requiem sharks X Carcharhiniformes requiem sharks X Rajiformes/Myliobatiformes skates/rays X RAY-FINNED FISHES Lepisosteus spp . gar X X X Amia calva bowfin X X X Anguilliformes eels X Clupeidae herrings X Erimyzon sucetta lake chubsucker X Ameiurus spp . bullhead catfish X Ictaluridae North American catfishes X X Ariopsis felis hardhead catfish X Ariidae sea catfishes X Siluriformes catfishes X X Esox spp. pickerel X Mugil spp . mullet X X Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish X X X Lepomis spp. sunfish X X Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass X X X Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie X Centrarchidae sunfishes X X Carangidae jacks X Sphyraena barracuda great barracuda X Actinopterygii ray-finned fishes X X X REPTILES Chelydra serpentina snapping turtle X X X Cheloniidae hard-shelled sea turtles X Apalone ferox Florida softshell turtle X X X Kinosternon spp. mud turtle X X Sternotherus spp. musk turtle X Kinostemidae mud turtles / musk turtles X X X Deirochelys reticularia chicken turtle X X Pseudemys spp. cooter X Terrapene carolina box turtle X X Trachemys spp. slider X Emydidae cooters / sliders/boxturtles X X Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise X Testudines turtles X X X Alligator mississippiensis American alligator X X X Laceitilia lizards X X Agkistrodon piscivorus Florida cottonmouth X X Viperidae pitvipers X X X Nerodia spp . water snake X X X Farancia abacura mud snake X X X Colubridae colubrid snakes X X X Reptilia reptiles X

PAGE 77

WHEELER, RuHL, FRADKIN, Rrctt WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH 126 Appendix K, continued. Scientific Name Common Name Whitebelt Sheridan Guy Bailey AMPHIBIANS Amphiuma means two-toed amphiuma X X Siren lacertina greater siren X X X Caudata salamanders X X Rana spp. true frog X X X Anura toads/frogs X X BIRDS Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe X X Ardea herodias great blue heron X Anas spp. marsh duck X Aves birds X X X MAMMALS Didelphis virginiana opossum X X Soricidae shrews X X Homo sapiens human X Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox X Lutra canadensis river otter X Mustela vison mink X Procyon lotor raccoon X X Camivora carnivores X Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer X X X Neofiber alleni round-tailed muskrat X Oryzomys palustris rice rat X Rodentia rodents X X X Sylvilagus spp. rabbit X X Small Mammalia small mammals X X Medium Mammalia medium mammals X X Large Mammalia large mammals X Mammalia mammals X X X MISCELLANEOUS Tetrapoda four-footed vertebrates X X

PAGE 79

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Christian Davenport holds a B.A. (Franklin Pierce College, New Hampshire) and an M.A. (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) in Anthropology focusing on zooarchaeology. He is currently working on is Ph.D. in geosciences (Florida Atlantic University). Chris was awarded the Ripley Bullen Award by FAS in 2018 for furthering good relations among professional and avocational archaeologists. He is the Historic Preservation Officer/ Archaeologist for Palm Beach County, Florida. Arlene Fradkin is Professor in Archaeology in the Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University. Her major area of expertise is zooarchaeology, the study of animal remains recovered from archaeological sites. She has worked on many archaeological sites in the United States and abroad. Her research projects focus primarily on pre-Columbian Native American, historic colonial, and early American archaeological sites in the Southeast United States, especially Florida. She also has studied faunal assemblages from pre Columbian sites in Central and South America and from Roman and Byzantine sites in the Middle East. Fred Rich earned aB.S. from the University ofWisconsin and a Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University. His field area was Georgia's Okefenokee Swamp, where he studied environments of peat deposition. He taught geology at the South Dakota School of Mines and Techqology for nine years, and undertook paleoecological analyses of coal-bearing units in Wyoming and North Dakota. In 1988, Fred returned to Georgia, becoming a member of the Department of Geology and Geography, Georgia Southern University. He resumed work on sediments of the Okefenokee Swamp and proceeded to hold a variety of positions in professional societies, including what was to become AASP-The Palynological Society. Fred's work focuses on plant paleoecology. Donna Ruhl is Florida Archaeology and Bioarchaeology Collections manager at the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) and oversees the daily access, use, digitization, rehabilitation, and maintenance of these holdings. Her research involves the documentation and analysis of Florida's ancient dugout canoes, including those exposed by severe drought. This is a collaborative effort between the Museum and other state and local institutions and the private sector to document these unique artifacts. Donna holds a concurrent appointment in Environmental Archaeology at FLMNH as a Research Associate in Archaeobotany where she studies plant remains from southeastern U.S. archaeological sites (e.g., Florida: Useppa Island, Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch, Garden Patch; Georgia: St. Catherines Island shell rings) and more recently the U.S. Virgin Islands (St. Croix). Ryan Wheeler has a B.A. from Florida Atlantic University and a M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Florida. As Florida's State Archaeologist, he led efforts to design and develop the Miami Circle Park, • commemorating a significant Tequesta site preserved through community efforts. He is a past editor of The Florida Anthropologist (1999-2006), author of Treasure of the Calusa: the Johnson/Wilcox Collection from Mound Key (2000), and co-editor, with Joanna Ostapkowicz, of Iconography and Wetsite Archaeology of Florida's Watery Realms (2019). Ryan became the eight director of the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology in 2012. VoL. 72 (2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 128

PAGE 81

2019 FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY AWARDS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT A WARD A t the 7 1 st Annu a l Me e t i n g, FAS Pre s ident J a son Wen zel announced a L ifetime A chie vement Award , on behalf of the FAS Bo ard, for L oui s D . Tesar. The pla que is ins c ribed "Presented to Louis D . Tesar for remarkable accomplishments in protecting and preserving Florida's archaeological heritage, May 11, 2019 . " Louis is a legend in his own time. He has had a dramatic impact on Florida Archaeology . In the 1980s , he developed the state ' s Archaeological and Historic Preservation Compliance Review Program and set standards and guidelines for professional projects throughout Florida (Hardin 2002 ; Tesar 1982, 1990). For a decade, from 1983 to 1992, he served as Editor of The Florida Anthropologist. For 35 years , from 1977 to 2012, Louis worked as a state archaeologist, in Tallahassee, authoring and co-authoring more than 100 reports and articles. He excelled in using a flatbed scanner and digital imagery to document numerous artifacts . Mr. Tesar grew up in the 1950s and early 1960s in coastal Bay County , near Panama City in the Florida panhandle , where he developed an early interest in Florida Archaeology . After he was graduated from high school in 1964, Louis worked as a marine technician for Texas A&M University . For an anthropology class , Louis completed his first professional archaeological report (Tesar 1965) . He attended Gulf Coast Community College, in Panama City , receiving an Associate in Science degree in l 966 . In 1967, Louis continued his undergraduate studies at Florida State University , where he was fortunate to work in the studio of ceramic artist Ivan Gundrum , the famous replicator of Florida Indian pottery vessels. He earned a B.S . in Anthropology from Florida State University in 1968. After graduation, he served in the U.S. Peace Corps in Panama , Central America . He worked for two and a half years with the Valiente Guaymi Indians, from 1968 to 1971 (Tesar 1974 , 2062:124-126 , 337-347 , 355-400). In 1973, Louis achieved an M.S. in Anthropology from Florida State University . Working for the university in 1973 , Louis developed skills in site survey in the Gulf Islands National Seashore . Next, he worked in Mississippi , doing a survey of Jasper County and then excavations for the Cottonlandia Foundation (Tesar 2002: 133-14 7). Tesar returned to Florida in 197 6, and began the excavation and report phase of the monumental Leon County Bicentennial Survey (Tesar 1980) . In 1977, he was hired as a state archaeologist , conducting surveys and excavations , and soon began to establish and administer the state ' s review and compliance program. In the 1980s , Louis was one of the co-drafters of Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Law (Tesar 1987), and he recommended historic preservation aspects for state land acquisition (Environmentally Endangered Lands Louis Tesar (right) is presented a Lifetime Achievement by FAS President Jason Wenzel. program , Conservation and Recreational Lands program) and for Florida ' s Local Government Comprehensive Planning process ( e.g. , Tesar 1986, 1989 ; Tesar et al. 1990) . While working for the State , Louis worked with many colleagues , such as his friend the late archaeologist B. Calvin Jones , as well as interested citizens in public archaeology projects. They investigated many sites, such as the DeSoto Winter Camp / Governor Martin Site (Tesar and Jones 1989) , Block-Sterns (Jones and Tesar 1996; Jones et al. 1998) , Waddells Mill Pond (Tesar 2006, 2009a; Tesar and Jones 2009) , Mount Royal village area (Jones and Tesar 2001), and Wakulla Springs Lodge site (Tesar and Jones 2004). As Editor of The Florida Anthropologist, Louis assembled several important thematic issues , such as the "First Spanish Period" ( 1989) issue. Louis also independently studied sites, such as Johnson Sand Pit (Tesar 1994) . He wrote popular articles about Florida archaeology and frequently identified artifacts for the public and scholars (e . g . , Tesar 1993, 2007 , 2015a, 20156). Louis also is known for scanning artifacts in high definition (Tesar 2009b ), recently applying his skills to the analysis of carved bone (Tesar 2016) and evidence of warfare in Peru (in press) . In 2018, Louis was honored with the creation of the Louis Tesar Student Essay Contest, sponsored by the Panhandle Archaeological Society. A prize of $1,000 was awarded in June 2018 to Emilee McGann , a recent graduate of FSU (Anonymous 2018). It is with great admiration and respect that FAS presents a Lifetime Achievement Award to Louis D. Tesar. VOL. 72 (2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 130

PAGE 82

References Cited Anonymous 2018 PAST Award Honors Archaeologist Louis Tesar. Tallahassee Democrat, June 7. Hardin, Kenneth W. 2002 Archaeological Significance: A Deconstruction of the Florida Approach. In Thinking About Significance, edited by Robert J. Austin, Kathleen S. Hoffman, and George R. Ballo, pp 15-33. Florida Archaeological Council, Special Publication #1, Riverview. Jones, B. Calvin, Daniel T. Penton, and Louis D. Tesar 1998 1973 and 1994 Excavations at the Block-Sterns Site , Leon County, Florida. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 222-246. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Jones, B. Calvin, and Louis D. Tesar 1996 Emergency Archaeological Salvage Excavation within the Swift Creek Subarea of the Block-Stearns Site (8LE148), Leon County, Florida: A Public Archaeology Project. MS #0644, Florida Master Site File , Tallahassee. 2001 1983-1995 Survey , Salvag e and Mitigation of Archaeological Resources within the Mount Royal Site (8PU35) Village Area , Putnam County, Florida. MS on file , Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Tesar, Louis D. 1965 An Archaeological Survey of the West Peninsula of St. Andrews Bay. MS #253, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. 197 4 A Valiente Guaymi Cayuco Hauling Junta . The Florida Anthropologist 27( 4) : 133-144. Louis Tesar excavating in 1975 for the Cottonlandia Foundation at the Humber-Mc Williams site (22CO601) Clarksdale, Mississippi (from Tesar 2002:138-139, 143). 1980 The Leon County Bicentennial Survey Report: An Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of Leon County, Florida. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Miscellaneous Project Report Series #49, Tallahassee. 1982 Guidelines for Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment Survey, Test Excavation, and/or Field Methodology and Report Content for Projects Conducted in the State of Florida. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee. 1986 Historic Preservation and Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning Process. The Florida Anthropologist 39( 4):257-280. 1987 Chapter 872, Florida Statutes ("Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves") Amended: The Law and Its Significance. The Florida Anthropologist 40(3) : 221-223. 1989 Preservation in Local Government Comprehensive Planning: How Is It Working? In Growth Management Studies Newsletter 4(3) : 3-4. Center for Government Responsibility , University of Florida College of Law, Gainesville. l 990 The Historic Preservation Compliance Review Program of the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources : A Guided to the Historic Preservation Provisions of State and Federal Environmental Review Laws. Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources , Tallahassee. 1993 Collecting Artifacts When, How and Where. Florida Wildlife 47(1):20 . 1994 Johnson Sand Pit (8LE73): An Analysis and Comparativ e Review of a Paleoindian through Early Deptford Base Camp in Leon County , Florida. Florida Archaeological Reports 32. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 2002 Archaeology: A Personal Perspective. On file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 2006 Waddells Mill Pond Site (8JA65) Revisited: The Results of B . Calvin Jones' 1973-1974 Investigation. Report on file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 2007 An Archaeological Walk Through Time in Western Northwest Florida. Report on file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 2009a Waddells Millpond Site (8JA65): An Assessment of Its Swift Creek Complicated Stamp and Fort Walton Ceramic Vessel Sherds. MS# 16736, Florida Master Site File. VoL. 72 (2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 131

PAGE 83

A composite image of July 2000 showing (left to right) Louis, Calvin Jones, Tommy Abood, and landowners Paul and Willanelle Wilcox studying maps of the Mount Royal site (8PU35) village area, in Putnam County, Florida (from Tesar 2002:317-318). 2009b Flatbed Scanner Imagery: An Archaeological Documentation and Reporting Tool. Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 2015a What Do You Call This?: An Informal Guide to Identifying Native American Associated Artifacts Found in Northwest Florida. Part I (Cultural Development), Part 11 (Ceramics). On file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 2015b Lost and Found: The Cultural Material Heritage of Mission San Luis (8LE4), Leon County, Florida: An Illustrated Compendium of Example Artifacts and List of Accessioned Artifacts with Scanned Images. On file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 2016 Vero Beach, Florida Engraved Depiction of A Mammoth: The Engraving's Antiquity Questioned. The Florida Anthropologist 69(4): 174-182. Tesar, Louis D., and B. Calvin Jones 1989 In Search of the 1539-40 de Soto Expedition Wintering Site in Apalache. The Florida Anthropologist 42( 4):340-360. 2004 Wakulla Springs Lodge Site (8WA329) In Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park, Wakulla County, Florida: A Summary of Eleven Projects and Management Recommendations. MS#06602, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. 2009 Waddells Millpond Site (8JA65): 1973-74 Test Excavation Results. MS#16351, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Tesar, Louis D., Jack Kostrzewa, and Lee A. Luis 1990 Historic Preservation Issues in Florida s Local Government Comprehensive Planning Process: Remembering the Past While Planning for the Future. A guide to review and compliance under Chapter 163 and 9J-5. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. VOL. 72 (2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 132

PAGE 84

2019 FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY AWARDS RIPLEY P. BULLEN AWARD At the FAS 71'1 Annual Meeting in Crystal River, FAS President Jason Wenzel, presented the Ripley P. Bullen Memorial Award to Theresa Schober. The plaque is inscribed: "To Theresa Schober for furthering good relations among avocational and professional archaeologists, May 11, 2019." Theresa was nominated for the Bullen Award by the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society (SWFAS). She has been an integral member of SWFAS since 1991, participating in excavations and training many avocational members, both in the field and at the SWFAS staffed and supported Craighead Archaeological Laboratory at the Collier County Museum. She has served SWFAS for three years as president, three years as vice president, seven years as trustee, and many years as the SWFAS Chapter Representative to FAS. In addition to her leadership role in SWFAS, Theresa has served two terms as FAS President, two terms as FAS 1s t Vice President, and four terms as FAS 2nd Vice President. In 2014, Theresa received the FAS President's Award recognizing her contributions to public archaeology in Florida. In 2018, SWFAS awarded her the Golden Trowel Award for her contributions to Southwest Florida archaeology. Always willing to work with FAS chapters, Theresa has made many presentations to chapter members to promote Florida archaeology. She has worked with SEFAS in excavations at Mount Elizabeth, where she also involved and trained a number of SWFAS avocational archaeologists. Theresa is originally from western Canada and received her B.S. degree in Archaeology from the University of Calgary, her M.A. in Anthropology from the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign. She is working on her Ph.D. at the University of Florida and is currently the manager of the Immokalee Pioneer Museum at Roberts Ranch. She has directed or worked on archaeological excavations in Canada, Mexico, Panama, and the United States. Theresa Schober (left) accepts the Bullen Award from Jason Wenzel (center) and John Furey of SWFAS (right). Ms. Schober's research has centered on the Calusa in southwest Florida and her public archaeology outreach has taken many forms. Her project at the Mound House on Ft. Myers Beach saw her direct the restoration of the Mound House, where she developed an exhibition, while assisting in raising over four million dollars to fund them. She has provided educator workshops through the Florida Humanities Council. Theresa leads and narrates tours to Mound Key in San Carlos Bay to explain the role this outstanding site played in the lives of the Calusa. Theresa has just completed a movie for PBS named "Escampaba: The Kingdom of Carlos." Filmed on Mound Key and in St. Augustine, the film depicts the meeting of King Carlos of the Calusa with Pedro Menendez de Aviles in 1566 at Mound Key and it will be released in 2019. In 2016, Theresa was co-curator of the "Art Calusa" traveling exhibit that toured Florida and showcased the work of contemporary Southwest Florida artists who depict Calusa life. She produced an accompanying catalog of this artwork. In 2017, with the Lee Trust for Historic Preservation and Friends of Mound Key, Theresa helped organize the symposium "Laboring in the Fields of the Lord, Southeastern Indians and Spanish Missions." The day-long presentations of five Florida professors were filmed and live-streamed at Florida Southwestern State College. Videos of each speaker are available to the public on Schober's website, heritage matters.org. Through her work, Theresa has continually emphasized making archaeology available and understandable to both the public and to avocational archaeologists. She has focused attention on local archaeological programs that interest and attract like-minded people to join us in preserving Florida's archaeological heritage. Theresa has shown that the professional/avocational partnerships continue to flourish. VoL. 72 (2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 133

PAGE 85

FAS thanks hosting members of CGCAS, FPAN West Central and Central Offices, AWIARE, and USF Anthropology Department. CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT The FAS Board presented four Certificates o f Achievement for the outstanding efforts to organize and present the 2018 FAS Annual Meeting . These certificates acknowledge educational outreach efforts in the Greater Tampa Bay area. The recipients are Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society (CGCAS), the Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) West Central and Central Offices, Alliance for Weedon Island Archaeological Research and Education (AWIARE), and University of South Florida (USF) Anthropology Department. These organizations have demonstrated the importance of collaborations to promote public outreach , preservation, and student learning in various aspects of Florida anthropology and archaeology, while engaging community members and stakeholders. We also thank these recipients for organizing the 2019 FAS Annual Meeting. These organizations and their members are exemplary in showing how FAS chapters, public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and academic departments can work together to support the objectives and goals of FAS. STUDENT PRIZES & GRANTS Dorothy Moore Student Grant Robert Austin (right), Chair of the Student G ra n t Award Committee , presented a c he ck to Jessica Jenkins , grad student , University of Florida. She applied for funds to obtain radiocarbon dates from the Dan May site , which is part of her larger project to identify and to date possible revitalization efforts by Late Woodland populations in northern Florida . PRESIDENT'S THANK You -PAT BALANZATEGm Jason Wenzel presented a card and gift certificate to Pat, who retired this year from her long service as Membership Secretary. PRESIDENT'S THANK You -SARAH BENNETT President Jason Wenzel acknowledged Sarah Bennett , recently retired FAS Newsletter Editor. He thanked Sarah for her 5 years of service . Sarah currently works in CRM for SEARCH , based near Gainesville. Ms. Bennett received her bachelor ' s degree from Flagler College in 2010 and her master's degree from the University of West Florida in 2015 . She specialized in Spanish colonial archaeology, expanding her field to include British colonial sites , municipal archaeology, as well as archaeology curriculum development , education, and interpretation. Banquet Award Photos by Steve Koski This year, the Arthur R . Lee Chapter Award and the William C. Lazarus Award were not presented. VoL. 72 (2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 134

PAGE 86

FAS CHAPTERS 1. Archaeological Society of Southern Florida fasweb.org / assf / 2. Central Florida Anthropological Society fasweb.org / cfas / 3. Central Gulf Coast Archaeology Society fasweb.org / cgcas / 4. Emerald Coast Archaeology Society fasweb.org / ecas / 5. Gold Coast Anthropological Society fasweb . org / gcas / 6. Indian River Anthropological Society fasweb.org / iras / 7. Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy fasweb.org / kvahc / 8. Palm Beach County Archaeological Society fasweb.org / pbcas / 9. Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee fasweb . org / past / 10. Pensacola Archaeological Society fasweb.org / pas / 11. Southeast Florida Archaeological Society fasweb . org / sefas / 12. Southwest Florida Archaeological Society fasweb . org / swfas / 13. St. Augustine Archaeological Association fasweb.org / saaa/ 14. Time Sifters Archaeology Society fasweb.org / tsas / 15. Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring Archaeological Society fasweb.org / wmslssas /

PAGE 87

JOIN THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY Membership in FAS supports education initiatives statewide, including an annual conference, student grants, Florida Archaeology Month, and more. Join today and you will receive our quarterly newsletter and The Florida Anthropologist. Membership is open to all interested individuals who are willing to abide by the FAS Statement of Ethics (available at fasweb.org/membership/). Membership categories and rates: Student: $15 Regular: $30 Family $35 Institutional: $30 Sustaining: $100 Patron: $1000 Benefactor: $2500 • Student membership is open to graduate, undergraduate, and high school students. A photocopy of your current student ID must accompany payment • Add $25 for foreign address • Membership forms are also available at fasweb.org/membership/ • The Society publishes the journal The Florida Anthropologist and newsletters, normally quarterly and sponsors an annual meeting hosted by a local chapter ........................................................................................ Name Address Ci State Zi Tele hone Email FAS Cha ter __ I agree to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Florida Anthropological Society Mail to: Florida Anthropological Society c / o FAS Membership Secretary PO Box 1561 Boynton Beach, FL 33425

PAGE 90

FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. GEORGE M. LUER, PH.D. 3222 OLD OAK DRIVE SARASOTA, FL 34239 NON-PROFIT U.S. POSTAGE PAID TALLAHASSEE, FL PERMIT NO. 329 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED FROM THE EDITORS ARTICLES TABLE OF CONTENTS A POSSIBLE PROTO-UNDERWATER PANTHER: LATE ARCHAIC/WOODLAND CARVED BONE IN THE NORTHERN EVERGLADES ............................................................................................................. 54-66 CHRISTIAN DAVENPORT THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WHITEBELT 1 CIRCLE-DITCH (8PB220) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ......................................................................................................... 68-126 RYAN J. WHEELER, DONNA RUHL, ARLENE FRADKIN, FREDRICK J. RICH ABOUT THE AUTHORS ..................................................................................................................................... 128 FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY 2019 A WARDS ................................................................................ 130 Cover: Artist Merald Clarke's photoshop artwork depicting The Whitebelt 1 Circle-Ditch. Back: Zoomorphic and spiral cross-mended carved bone artifact from the Hutchinson Site . Copyright 2019 by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. ISSN 0015-3893