Citation
Remote sensing and soil science applications to understanding Belle Glade cultural adaptations in the Okeechobee Basin

Material Information

Title:
Remote sensing and soil science applications to understanding Belle Glade cultural adaptations in the Okeechobee Basin
Creator:
Johnson, William Gray
Copyright Date:
1991
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Aerial photography ( jstor )
Bones ( jstor )
Corn ( jstor )
Cultural evolution ( jstor )
Decorative ceramics ( jstor )
Ditches ( jstor )
Earthworks ( jstor )
Embankments ( jstor )
Glades ( jstor )
Social evolution ( jstor )
Miami metropolitan area ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
24915799 ( oclc )
AHZ0677 ( ltuf )
0026109920 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













REMOTE SENSING AND SOIL SCIENCE APPLICATIONS TO UNDERSTANDING BELLE GLADE CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS
IN THE OKEECHOBEE BASIN



















By

WILLIAM GRAY JOHNSON


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1991


































Copyright 1991

by

William Gray Johnson















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


If not for the generous contributions of my friend and

confidant, Bob Ulshaf er, this dissertation would not have been accomplished. His camper provided a roof over my head while

I was in the f ield and his four-wheel drive vehicle got me out of some rough country. Furthermore, his assistance in the field was invaluable. Naming a site after him was a minor reward for all his help. I only wish he had lived to see the completion of this dissertation.

Jerald T. Milanich, my committee chairman, deserves

special praise as he was instrumental in focusing my attention on the archaeology of the Lake Okeechobee Basin. His knowledge of the area and his support for my project were outstanding. The encouragement and support of committee members, Drs. Mary Collins, Marvin Harris, William Keegan, William Marquardt, and Michael Moseley, are also greatly appreciated.

Dr. Helen Armstrong, Chief Librarian of the Map and Imagery Library on the University of Florida campus, was especially helpful in assisting me with the aerial photograph collections. Her generous contributions of time and knowledge are applauded.

Support from Highlands Hammock State Park in the form of free use of their facilities was greatly valued. Park

iii









managers, Peter Anderson and Valinda Nichols, along with the

rest of the Park I s personnel are thanked f or their cooperation and generosity.

Special thanks go to my informants for their time, patience, and knowledge of the local geography. Jeff and Debbie Clemens, Larry Luckey, John Pullen, Charlie Wilson, and George and Peggy Wedgworth are among those who were especially helpful. In addition, John Fitzpatrick and the staff at the

Archbold Biological Station are acknowledged for their role in my documentation of the sites on Buck Island Ranch.

Finally, I want to thank the staff at the Florida

Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, for believing in my project and the Florida Historic Preservation Advisory Council for funding it. State Historic Preservation

Officer George Percy deserves the highest praise for his part in securing project research funds.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


pag~e


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. ABSTRACT .


CHAPTERS


1 INTRODUCTION. 2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previous Research .
Theoretical Perspectives. .
Theoretical Perspectives on Belle Glade Culture


* 6

* 6
* 13
* 23


Discussion


3 THE BELLE GLADE CULTURE AREA .

Environmental Background. . .
Culture History .
Summary of Cultural Adaptations
Settlements. .
Archaeological Assemblage
Major Sites. . . .
Settlement Patterns. . .
social organization. . .
Belief Systems .
Subsistence. . . .


4 MAIZE AND SOILS IN SOUTH FLORIDA.

Precolumbian Maize in South Florida
The Antillean Route: A Not-so-Likely The Soils at Fort Center: Not P
Maize. . . . . .
Fort Center. . . .
The Circular Ditches .
The Maize Pollen . . . * - *
Evidence of Complexity at Fort
Testing Sears' Model: A
Application to Ar
Interpretation. . .


Course


roduct ive Center


f or


soil Science ch aeo logical


iii


. . . . . . . . . viii


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26


. . . . . . 28


55










Morphological Descriptions . . . . . . .
Laboratory Analyses . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . : * * * * * ' * *
Ethnohistoric Evidence: Conflicting Accounts .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 REMOTE SENSING, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD AND
METHODS . . . . . o o . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background and Literature Review . . o . . o
Aerial Photographs . . o o . . . . . . o .
Pedestrian Survey and Informant Interviews
Laboratory Analysis . . . . . o . . . . . . .


LAB


6 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Sites . . . . . . . . . . . .
Okeechobee County . . . . . .
Highlands County . . . . . .
Glades County . . . . . . . .
Hendry County . . . . . . . .
Updated Sites . . . . . . . . . .
Highlands County . . . . . .
Glades County . . . . . . . .
Hendry County . . . . . . . .
Negative Data . . . . . . . . . .


. . . . . . . 87


87 87
104 123 133 1 1 9;
135
140 145 152

153

153 158 160 162 163
164 166 166
174 174 178


7 DISCUSSION OF EARTHWORKS .


Mounds . . . . . . . . . Ditches . . . . . . . . Borrows . . . . . . . . Embankments . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . .
Mound Groups . . .
Circular Earthworks
circular-Linear Eart
Linear Embankments Borrows . . . . . . Chronological Summary .


works


8 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . .

Belle Glade Archaeology . . . .
Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . .
Maize in South Florida . . . . .
Theoretical Considerations . . .
Future Research . . . . . . . .


. . . . . . . . 180


180 185 186 187 189










APPENDIX

MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED SOILS 191 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210


vii















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

REMOTE SENSING AND SOIL SCIENCE APPLICATIONS TO UNDERSTANDING BELLE GLADE CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS IN THE OKEECHOBEE BASIN

By

William Gray Johnson

May 1991


Chairperson: Jerald T. Milanich Major Department: Anthropology

Remote sensing, in the form of early aerial photographs, was utilized to locate and describe types of aboriginal

earthworks in the Okeechobee Basin. These data, combined with a review of the relevant literature and the Florida Master Site Files, provide the basis for a typological classification of the earthworks. The typology is compared with chronological information derived from the Fort Center site to provide a synthesis of the culture history of the Basin. Data from analysis of soils at the Fort Center site suggest that maize played at best a minor role in the development of the Basin's aboriginal cultures.


viii















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


The archaeology of the Okeechobee Basin has been described as "one of the most unknown and enigmatic in all of Florida" (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:181, see Figure 1) . Although much has been done in the last decade (e.g., Hale 1984, 1989; Sears 1982), the nature of the aboriginal occupation of the Basin remains debated and, at least somewhat, enigmatic. This is especially true of the extraordinary earthworks found there.

This dissertation attempts to synthesize what is known about the archaeological settlements in the region and provide a framework for understanding the changes apparent in the aboriginal earthworks associated with the Belle Glade culture, the precolumbian and early colonial period peoples who occupied the Basin. In addition, the question of maize agriculture as a subsistence base for the Belle Glade people is addressed through a study of soils at Fort Center.

Previous archaeological research in the Okeechobee Basin has proved that precolumbian sites can be located by reviewing aerial photographs for large earthworks, mounds and middens (Carr 1975). However, this method can yield erroneous data if not coupled with a pedestrian survey (cf. Clausen 1980).


















































* c,.


Figure 1.


The Okeechobee Basin and Key Sites (Source: Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:168).









3

Thus, these methods were combined with informant interviews to provide a comprehensive survey of this archaeological ly little known part of Florida.

Early black and white aerial photographs were reviewed in order to find aboriginal sites within the project area. Figure 2 provides an example. Photographs are available in stereo pairs at the Map Library located on the University of Florida campus. The earliest were taken in 1938 and provide coverage of the area prior to the changes in vegetation that

resulted from extensive flood control. Large earthwork sites, such as Fort Center, Tony's Mound, and others are easily discernible. Mound sites, on the other hand, are not so easily found, but can be identified with the aid of a stereoscope.

A ground-truthing pedestrian survey of the sites and potential sites followed. Unfortunately, time constraints! access to private properties, and limited manpower inhibited

my ability to ground-truth all of the sites and potential sites found during the review of aerial photographs. Still, the project resulted in the recording of 38 previously unrecorded sites and provided new information for nine previously recorded sites.

These data, combined with a review of relevant literature and the Florida Master Site Files, provide the basis for a discussion of the basic elements that make up the 40 known earthworks in the Lake Okeechobee Basin, and their change from





























































Figure 2.


Early Aerial Photograph (BUN-5D-133) of Tony's Mound (8Hn3).









5
one form or type to another. This study provides a modification of Belle Glade chronology and sheds light on Belle Glade

origins. Also, the application of early aerial photography to remote sensing archaeological sites is addressed.

The question of maize agriculture in South Florida has been debated for decades. Maize pollen from the Fort Center site provides the most convincing evidence to date of its use

among the Belle Glade peoples. However, an examination of the soils at Fort Center, specifically the purported planting surface, indicates that maize could not be grown there in any substantial quantity. Chapter 4 details the maize question and provides evidence to support this statement.















CHAPTER 2
PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS


Previous Research


The foundations for our understanding of the Belle Glade

culture are attributable to John Goggin (1940, 1947, 1952, n.d.a). His work on the Glades archaeological area incorporated research within the Okeechobee Basin as a sub-area. Previously, Matthew Stirling (1936:355) designated the Glades archaeological area as "the region between the Kissimmee and

Indian rivers and all of the peninsula from Lake Okeechobee to the Florida keys." Stirling (1935, 1936) believed the entire

area was an archaeological unit that had been home for the Calusa. Other than the exceptional quality of wood carvings

found by Cushing (1897) at the Key Marco site, he noted the material culture of the area was "characterized by the use of an inferior grade of pottery, perforated shell hoes, shell plummets, antler adze sockets, and bone projectile points" (Stirling 1936:355).

A.L. Kroeber (1939) considered South Florida to be a distinct culture area in his study of cultural and natural areas of North America. He too noted the quality of wood carvings found by Cushing (1897) but, due to the lack of










7
additional finds, he characterized the culture as a poorer phase of the Southeastern type.

Thus, Goggin's work in the area in the 1940s was, for all practical purposes, a pioneering endeavor. His use of

Stirling's (1935, 1936) "Glades archaeological area" was modified to include all of tropical Florida--with a northern

boundary stretching from Boca Grande Pass on the west coast to just below Ft. Pierce on the east coast. Within this area, he recognized three sub-areas: the Tekesta sub-area, the Calusa sub-area, and the Okeechobee sub-area and three culture periods: Glades I, II, and III (Goggin 1947:119-120).

At Fort Center, Goggin realized the distinctiveness of the Belle Glade earthworks, noting that the site "has few parallels" (1952:52). His analysis of the materials recovered from Fort Center and from the nearby Platt site, coupled with Rita Porter's (1952) analysis of Belle Glade Plain rim sherds

provided a ceramic sequence "remarkably like that from the Belle Glade Midden" (Goggin 1952:65). In addition, he was the first archaeologist to recognize the significance of aerial photographs as a remote sensing technique for locating archaeological sites in the Basin (Goggin 1952:52).

Goggin (n.d.a) also amassed a great deal of the ethnohistoric documentation on the South Florida natives. Writing

of the people living around Lake Okeechobee, Goggin (n.d.a:56) states, "The affiliations of the people around Lake Okeechobee are uncertain but it is possible that they were Calusa."1









8

However, his article with William Sturtevant recognized them as a distinct tribe called the Mayaimi (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964:181).

Gordon Willey's (1949) report on the excavations at the

Belle Glade type site and Big Mound City earthworks (conducted by Matthew Stirling under the Works Projects Administration in the 1930s) provides a cultural chronology specific to the Basin. His scheme introduced the Belle Glade I and II

periods. Unfortunately, this scheme received little attention from subsequent researchers.

William Sears' (1966:17-18) early work on culture areas in South Florida distinguished the Okeechobee Basin from the

Glades archaeological area as a separate cultural region. Later, Sears (1967) referred to the Okeechobee Area as the Belle Glade area, a name change that Griffin et al. (1979:28) found agreeable. Carr and Beriault (1984) prefer the term

Okeechobee Area but basically agree with the objective and are not so concerned with the semantics. For the purposes of this dissertation, Belle Glade area, Okeechobee Basin and Okeechobee Area are used interchangeably.

Outside the purely culture area designation arguments, Sears' (1982) book on the excavations at Fort Center and his

articles (Sears 1971, 1977; Sears and Sears 1976) provide a culture chronology distinct from previous work in the area. His is a four-period chronology that separates cultural developments at the Fort Center site. Sears (1982:193-201)










9
recognizes these developments from their relatively simple beginnings to the later complex interactions between the Belle Glade culture and the Calusa. Furthermore, he concludes that terraforming and the presence of maize pollen at Fort Center indicate that cultural development within the Basin was based on maize agriculture.

The identification of precolumbian maize pollen at Fort

Center has led to vigorous debate among researchers interested in the implications of maize agriculture among the South Florida natives. Henry Dobyns (1983) uses this information in combination with other lines of evidence to argue that

agriculture was practiced among the Calusa--a position that enabled him to bolster his population density estimates for the Calusa. Jerald Milanich (1987) responds to Dobyns (principally because Dobyns argued that de Soto's landing was

actually south of Tampa Bay and in Charlotte Harbor) by taking Dobyns' (1983) evidence to task and refuting each point.

However, Milanich (1987:180) admits that the Fort Center maize pollen is clearly a major bit of evidence that cannot be refuted. On the other hand, Milanich and Ruhl (1986) indicate that maize may not have served as a dietary staple f or the Belle Glade culture.

William Keegan (1987) addresses the issue as it relates to Sears' (1971, 1982) hypothesized route of movement for the origins of maize at Fort Center. His research leads him to

believe that maize could not have been introduced to South









10

Florida via the Antilles until maize was already well established in the Eastern Woodlands (circa A.D. 1000). However,

Donald Lathrap (1987) takes exception to Keegan's view, noting that a preservation bias could exist in the archaeological record especially if maize were used in its green corn form.

The question of maize agriculture among the Belle Glade culture continues to generate much debate. In chapter 4 1 summarize current knowledge on this subject and present new data from soil science applications to provide evidence that favors Milanich and Ruhl's (1986) view.

Other research that addresses subsistence among the Belle Glade culture includes Stephen Hale's (1989) dissertation and

a journal article (Hale 1984). Both focus on zooarchaeological analysis of faunal remains from Fort Center and other sites within the Okeechobee Basin. Hale's research provides

baseline data on faunal resource utilization and addresses the issue of maize agriculture. In addition, Hale provides an analysis of Belle Glade settlement pattern and argues that earthwork sites are in predictable locations.

Robert Carr's (1975) technical report on a survey of the lake margin and a later article (Carr 1985) provide insights on the circular earthworks of the area. Carr (1973, 1975, 1985) was instrumental in demonstrating the effectiveness of early aerial photographs as a remote-sensing application to study Belle Glade earthworks (although John Goggin used this technique in the 1940s, as indicated by his notes on archaeo-









11

logical site f ile cards at the Florida Museum of Natural History). Carr also provided some guidelines for research in the Martin County portion of the Basin (Carr 1973).

In addition to these archaeologists, a number of researchers working elsewhere have addressed issues related to the Belle Glade culture area. John Griffin's (Griffin et al.

1982; Griffin 1988) work in Southeast Florida and the Everglades and William Marquardt's (1986, 1988) and Randolph Widmer's (1988) work in Southwest Florida have discussed the relationships between these areas and the Belle Glade region.

Griffin et al. (1982) specifically consider the question of maize agriculture among the Southeast Florida natives

because of Sears' (1982) evidence of maize use among the Belle Glade peoples. They conclude that no evidence exists to suggest maize was grown there (Griffin et al. 1982:230). They do find evidence for trade between the peoples who inhabited the Granada site and the Belle Glade culture in the form of Belle Glade Plain pottery, but they cannot specify the items

that were traded from Southeast Florida to the Okeechobee Basin (Griffin et al. 1982:392).

In his synthesis of the archaeology of Everglades National Park, Griffin (1988:48-65) provides a comprehensive overview of the spatial and chronological relationships between the various culture areas of South Florida. In his conclusions, he indicates the archaeology shows more affini-









12
ties with the Southeast coast than any other area (Grif fin 1988: 322).

Marquardt's (1986, 1988) examination of the Calusa social formation indicates tributary relationships between the

various native groups of South Florida. Specif ically, he

highlights the ethnohistoric documentation indicating that a bread is made from roots in the interior of Florida and that

roots were brought to the Calusa on the Southwest Florida coast. While the exact nature of the relationship between the Calusa and the inhabitants of the Belle Glade area is not clear, some form of distribution of goods from the Basin to the coast is certainly suggested.

In The Evolution of the Calusa, Widmer (1988:274-276) discusses the role of this bread in terms of demographic distinctions between the Okeechobee Basin inhabitants and the

coastal Calusa population. Based on population estimates provided by Fontaneda (1945), he determines at least a sixfold difference in population size between the two groups. He then argues that the demographic imbalance provided a military advantage to the coastal Calusa that enabled them to force the Belle Glade peoples to pay tribute for not being raided (Widmer 1988:275).

These works provide a wide array of thought on the archaeology of the Okeechobee Basin. In the next two sections, I examine theoretical perspectives as they have









13
developed in the discipline and as they have been applied to the study of the Belle Glade culture.


Theoretical Perspectives


The archaeologists who have worked in the Basin have arrived at markedly different conclusions about the cultural

developments that took place. Two schools of thought are evident: historical particularism and cultural ecology. A short history of these theoretical orientations within a

framework of cultural evolutionism provides a backdrop for discussing the conclusions that have been offered and suggesting alternative strategies.

Cultural evolution has been a prominent topic of study

for anthropologists since the beginning of the discipline. Probably the dominant form is one that has been labeled cultural evolutionism. Leslie White (1959:vii) states that the theory of cultural evolution dominated most of cultural

anthropology during the last three or four decades of the nineteenth century. It was advanced by scientists to replace the theory of creation as provided by Judeo-Christian theology. At its most basic level, cultural development was seen as a linear progression from simple to complex. Lewis Henry Morgan's (1877) work provided the stage model for the evolution of human society. He recognized three distinct stages

that all human groups progress through: savagery, barbarism, and civilization.









14

However, during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, a reaction against evolutionism developed in both the United States and

Germany. In the U.S., Franz Boas led the attack and instilled the ideas of cultural relativity in his students. In Germany, the nonevolutionist school of thought was led by Fritz

Graebner and his colleagues. Their work promoted diffusion as an interpretation of similarities between cultures in noncontiguous areas, rather than independent development.

Rathje and Schiffer (1980:302) state that "the attack against cultural evolutionism was led by Franz Boas, who helped establish the conceptual scheme we now call historical particularism. This perspective identified several basic historical processes that were used to explain specific

instances of change. Among the processes identified were migration, diffusion, and rarely, invention.

Bower (1986:66) points out that the "historical particularist view rests on the assumption that cultural traits, or

customs, are 1) independent of one another; and, 2) present in any given culture as a result of fortuitous contact with donor cultures and the preferences of the recipients." Unfortunately, such assumptions require that any explanation fit within the parameters of individual histories and do not allow for

broad generalizations. Thus, historical particularism has largely fallen out of favor.










15

According to White (1959:viii) , antievolutionism reached its peak during the l920s, but began subsiding and set the stage for a comeback of cultural evolutionary theory in the late 1940s. He quotes the News Bulletin of the American Anthropological Association (1948) as stating that at the annual meeting of the Association at Albuquerque in December, 1947, "a reawakening of interest in the problem of cultural evolution . . . was noticeable."1 A number of articles

followed on the theory of cultural evolution (White 1959:viii cites Jacobs 1948; Hoebel 1958; Lesser 1952; Steward 1953, 1955; and Childe 1951).

White (1959:ix) states that he "absorbed the antievolutionist doctrines of the Boas school as a graduate student. But as he began to teach, he found, first, that he could not defend this point of view, and later that he could no longer

hold it. In due time he cultivated the theory of evolution in a course called Evolution of Culture,. . . and has attacked the position of the antievolutionists in a number of articles." White (1959) then summarized mid-twentieth century cultural evolutionist theory in The Evolution of Culture.

Since then, cultural evolutionism has provided the basis

for most archaeological and ethnological work on societal complexity (Gailey and Patterson 1987:3). This model views societies as entities that develop through a linear progression of stages. White (1959) believed societal complexity could be viewed as a sequence of evolutionary stages that









16

could be documented historically and archaeological ly. He defined each stage in terms of four components --techno logical, sociological, ideological, and sentimental or attitudinal--in which the technological component was the basis and determinant of cultural systems (White 1959:18).

Julian Steward (1951:380), on the other hand, suggested

the term "levels of sociocultural integration" rather than stages of cultural evolution. He states, "the concept of levels of integration does not presuppose any evolutionary sequence." Rather, it is "a methodological tool for dealing with cultures of different degrees of complexity." He

referred to his approach as a multilinear theory of evolution that "seeks cross-cultural regularities and explanations but presupposes no universal schemes" (Steward 1965:733).

According to Hatch (1973:114), "the key to Steward's ideas about culture is his concept of ecology." Steward

(1955:30) states, "The principal meaning of ecology is 'adaptation to environment.' Thus, cultural ecology is the

study of the relationship between culture and the natural environment.

Steward's model distinguished between the culture core-those features most closely related to subsistence and

economic activities--and the secondary features of culture that are not strongly tied to the core but "are determined to a greater extent by purely cultural-historical factors--by random innovations or by diffusion" (1955:37). Thus, it was









17

the relationship between the core and the environment that was the most important determinant of cultural systems.

Galley and Patterson (1987:3) state, "Cultural evolutionism differentiated society from the natural world, and culture . . . mediated the relationship between them." Furthermore, they note that parallel developments in positivist forms of Marxist social theory began focusing on the use of resources

and technology as determinants of cultural development. Both schools saw societies developing through a linear progression of stages, and stages were defined in terms of variations in the base and corresponding superstructural forms (Gailey and Patterson 1987:3).

However, problems in the positivist models began to

surface in the late 1950s (Gailey and Patterson 1987:3). Rowe (1962) challenged the base- superstructure model. Leach (1954) pointed out that linear models of development could not account for the internal destruction of state institutions by their subjects. And, Adams (1956) highlighted the reductionist nature of state-formative models and believed they were unable to account for the dynamics of historically specific cases.

The results of these critiques led to the creation of two distinct lines of thought: cultural materialism, as described by Harris (1968, 1979), and a strand of evolutionist thought which gave primacy to political dynamics (Fried 1967; Service

1962). The former retained the distinction between nature and









18

culture and continued to emphasize the primacy of the culture core--what Harris (1979) calls the infrastructure. The

latter, on the other hand, has challenged the economic

determinism of the earlier evolutionists, but retained the notion of linear development. The outcome of these lines of

thinking has been a slight revision in the sequence of stages, i.e., to band, tribe, chiefdom, and state, as developed by Service (1962).

During this period, anthropological archaeology accepted evolution as an integral part of its program, largely through

the efforts of Binford (1962, 1965). The so-called "newle archaeology stressed an emphasis on explaining processual change scientifically. Explicit goals, the identification of

cultural and natural formation processes, and a move away from detailed descriptions of artifacts and artifact categories were its hallmarks.

Systems theory, as promoted by Kent Flannery (1968, 1972) was an outgrowth of this movement. Borrowing largely from ecology, systems theorists viewed cultural change as a process tending towards equilibrium. According to Gailey and Patterson (1987:4-5), it retained the idea of determination by the political level and erased the distinction between nature and culture. This model abstracted individuals from historical and social conditions and conceived of them as components of a system, interchangeable with each other and with those in other systems. Transformation of these systems is viewed as









19
a product of f actors other than human action--especially human action as shaped by class, gender, ethnicity, and other

dimensions of social life. Thus, culture, as created by

humans in a social division of labor, is irrelevant to the analysis (Gailey and Patterson 1987:5).

During the 1970s, a modified form of the systems model, called catastrophe theory, was adopted (Gailey and Patterson 1987:5). This form was created for dealing with crises. Colin Renfrew (1978, 1979) provided some of the best examples

of catastrophe theory arguing that crises or catastrophes occur in the absence of continuous political and economic expansion. Gailey and Patterson (1987:18) note that the model appeared in Great Britain following a period of profound economic crisis.

At the same time, cultural materialism took on a more important role in the development of anthropological theory.

Harris (1979) produced his seminal work on the subject leading to vigorous debate on the primacy of the infrastructure in determining cultural systems.

Interestingly, and almost simultaneously, two new schools of thought emerged. Both sought to explain cultural development from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective. These schools of thought are sociobiology--as most profoundly stated by Bateson (1985)--and cultural selectionism--as named by Rindos (1984).









20

Cultural selectionism argues for a Darwinian perspective on the evolution of culture principally because it serves as the basis for understanding evolutionary processes in modern

biology. Robert Dunnell (1980:36) states, "Modern evolutionary biology is relevant because it is in biology that the scientific theory of evolution has been developed and because biologists have argued its applicability to human phenomena under the label of sociobiology" (e.g. , Wilson 1975, 1978) (italics original]. But perhaps the strongest argument for

supporting a Darwinian perspective on cultural evolution comes from an approach that Dunnell (1980:36) has aptly named the

evolution of the "human capacity for culture. 11 This approach, while essentially biological, merges at its extremes with both cultural evolution and sociobiology. Its basic tenets are to

be found in the assumption that the human capacity for culture evolved within a biological context and, therefore, was

subjected to the same evolutionary forces that affect all biological organisms. As such, this approach is necessarily immersed in the Darwinian perspective.

One of the most recent advocates of the cultural selectionists school of thought comes from Robert Boyd and Peter

Richerson (1985). Although trained as ecologists, they became interested in the dearth of Darwinian models in the social sciences. They noted the use of analogies from biology and

concepts such as adaptation, but were surprised by the lack of any "systematic theoretical argument for cultural behavior









21

that paralleled the Darwinian theory of biologists" (Boyd and Richerson 1985:vii). The result of their work, the dual inheritance model, seeks to provide such a systematically consistent argument.

This model views culture as the transmission of traits from one generation to the next via the mechanism of social learning. In this view, culture is defined "in terms of people's mental state (the "emic" concept of anthropology or

the "cognitive" of social psychology)" (Boyd and Richerson 1985:36). The authors believe "that it is important to exclude behavior and the products of behavior from the

definition of culture because behavior is contingent upon both patterns of thought and feeling and environmental circumstances" (Boyd and Richerson 1985:36).

The importance of excluding behavior and the products of behavior, i.e., traditional definitions of culture in materialist paradigms, from their definition of culture is to provide a focus on social learning as a mechanism that evolutionary forces can act upon. In their words, "Only by

distinguishing culture from behavior can we see clearly how social learning interacts with environmental contingencies to produce behavior" (Boyd and Richerson 1985:36). This then provides the basis for their dual inheritance model. The cultural repertoire is analogous to the genotype and social learning provides the means to produce phenotypes. it is argued that social learning has the properties of an inheri-










22

tance system and that random variation, drif t, and natural selection provide the mechanisms of cultural variability.

Cultural materialists likely feel comfortable with the cultural selectionist school of thought. It, unlike sociobiology, does not invoke genetic control over the development of human cultural systems but does provide a strong metaphor from the natural sciences for explaining social science phenomena. However, unlike the ecology school of thought from which cultural materialism grew, cultural selectionism argues that

cultural evolution is the result of a natural evolutionary process (Rindos 1984:38). Where cultural ecology views

culture change as a result of non-equilibrium conditions, cultural selectionism argues that all human behavior is

determined by the interaction of two inheritance systems--one genetic and the other cultural.

Rindos (1984:23) points out that there are weaknesses inherent in the cultural ecology school of thought, especially in the branch known as systems theory. He finds that even though cultural ecologists take a basic materialist view of the development of agriculture the weaknesses in the paradigm force proponents to argue in terms of intent and teleology.

Intent emerges as the ultimate cause in explaining

origins or evolution of systems because systems theory forces explanation into a course of action requiring choices. Once

choice is invoked, intent becomes an inherent part of the explanation. Teleology results when explanations within










23
systems theory allow us to place emphasis on equilibrium/stability, resulting in difficulty explaining any change,

or on change, providing us with a situation in which the mechanism of change is not inherently specifiable; thus we can choose one that best fits our prejudices (Rindos 1984:24).

Cultural selectionism, on the other hand, seeks to

identify functional or proximate modes of explanation and separate them from evolutionary or ultimate modes of explanation. The emphasis is placed on variability, heritability, and differential fitness in explaining changes in learned behaviors.

Evolutionary models such as cultural selectionism may prove beneficial for cultural evolutionists. However, their application at this time is very limited. Among researchers

of the Belle Glade culture, materialist strategies, especially cultural ecology, dominate our current understanding. However, historical particularism is also strong.


Theoretical Perspectives on Belle Glade Culture


Historical particularism and cultural ecology are the dominant theoretical approaches to the study of the precoluubian history of the Lake Okeechobee Basin. These views lead

to markedly different conclusions about cultural developments. In this section, the various researchers and their approaches are contrasted to provide a focus for the approach taken in this dissertation.









24

Sears (1977:6-7, 1982:191) views the introduction of maize agriculture and a settled village economy as having come to South Florida's interior from Venezuela via the Antilles.

This introduction, according to Sears, comes in the form of migration, the earliest of which was prior to 500 B.C. He recognizes similar designs and similar manufacturing techniques on the pottery of this time, as well as the terraforming techniques that enabled savannah agriculture. As time progressed, Sears believes that "the society here [at the Fort Center site] developed a complex ceremonial center within a

century or two of the beginning of the Christian era" (1977:7). By A.D. 1000, the ceremonial center was abandoned and dwellings moved to small, single house mounds, each with

an adjacent linear earthwork up to 1200 ft long and 100 ft wide. This, he believes, was due to continued contact with the South American population (Sears 1977:7-9, 1982:200). To further substantiate his claim of a South American origin for

cultural developments in South Florida, he cites Granberry (1971; see also Granberry 1989 for a recent update) for the origin of the Timucuan language (a language group that

dominated north-central Florida prior to European contact and that is presumed to be similar to the language of South Florida) from Venezuela.

Thus, for Sears, the migration of a South American

population via the Antillean route explains cultural development in South Florida's interior. Such an explanation is









25

typical of a historical particularist strategy. It provides a comprehensive explanation for the presence of complexity in

a given area without having to explain the reasons for the development of that complexity in its original setting.

Bridging the historical particularist approach and the

cultural ecology school of thought is Robert Carr's (1975, 1985) research in the area. In his study of the area Is circular earthworks, he invokes a diffusionist argument for their origin in Southeast Florida (Carr 1985:300). on the

other hand, he notes that all of the circular earthworks occur in inundated environments that are located adjacent to elevated hammocks or other upland environments. Thus, he reasons that Sears' assertion that the earthworks functioned

for draining garden plots has to be rethought in terms of other environmental contingencies (Carr 1985:299).

Gordon Willey's ecological approach focuses on a diet based on wild foods (Willey 1949:71, 129). Moreover, he

believes that the environmental conditions of the area are not suited for agriculture, especially in aboriginal times (Willey 1949:17). Indeed, he concludes "The area is not now, nor was it in the past, well-suited for maize" (1949:18).

Stephen Hale (1984:183), who also takes an ecological approach to the understanding of Belle Glade cultural adaptations, has found that portions of the Belle Glade earthworks are aligned with the direction of surface water flow and may

represent a method of drainage for agricultural production.









26

Though his work on the zooarchaeological materials from Fort Center and other sites in the Basin provides abundant data on the use of wild foods, he advocates an agricultural subsistence for the Belle Glade peoples prior to A.D. 1545 (Hale 1984:183). Subsequently, Hale (1989:187-191) has retreated from this position.

The question of maize among the South Florida natives has been discussed at length. Most of these arguments center around ethnohistoric documentation and/or archaeological

research. In all cases, the specific arguments can be said to take a materialist approach [though Sears' (1971, 1982) work on the subject is certainly couched in a historical particularist strategy].


Discussion


The conclusions about cultural development are typical of the approaches represented. Historical particularists will invariably see diffusion as the source for culture change and will often invoke migration theories to explain why and how

such change took place. Ecologically-minded researchers will cite the high productivity of the natural environment and assume the development of complex social phenomena as a natural outcome. Such ecological approaches fall neatly in the cultural materialist school of thought, which is basic to the research approach reported here. However, the present









27
study departs from the strictly ecological school in its approach to adaptation.

Adaptation appears in the title of this dissertation for two reasons. First! it emphasizes the relationship between culture and nature, and second, it draws attention to a

materialist approach. In the former, adaptation does not refer to an equilibrium between cultural and natural systems as it so often does in ecological models. Rather, it refers to the juxtaposition of a cultural system in concert with a

natural system. Adaptation in this view becomes a methodological tool for a materialist paradigm. The following chapters

are consistent with this position and provide results that will change interpretations of the Belle Glade culture.
















CHAPTER 3
THE BELLE GLADE CULTURE AREA



Environmental Background


The Okeechobee Basin geographical area is bounded by the

Western Flatlands (Davis 1943:43-48), the Allapattah Flats and the Big Cypress Swamp (DeLorme 1987:102,113-114). According to Brooks (1974:256), the area of the lake is dependent upon water level and varies from 560 to 730 square miles (1450 1890 kin2) . The total area of the watershed (including the lake surface) is over 4500 square miles (11,655 kin2). Of this, the Kissimmee River accounts for about 3000 square miles. The basin itself, excluding the lake, can be said to encompass between 3940 square miles (10,200 kin2) and 3770 square miles (9760 kn2 ) depending on water level of the lake.

If one excludes the Kissimmee River, then the area of the basin drops to between 940 square miles (2430 kin2) and 770 square miles (1990 kin2) .

However, there is good evidence to include Lake Kissimmiee and the Kissimmnee River drainage in this cultural area.

Precolumbian cultural affinities represented in burial mounds, earthworks, and ceramics are found as far north as Lake Tohopekaliga (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:26). Similarly,









29

both the Kissimmee River drainage and the Basin are characterized by relatively poor, sandy soils (composed of quartzitic sands developed over calcareous marine deposits), relatively

low elevations with little relief, and numerous ponds and sloughs. outcrops of silicified limestone, or chert, which

were often exploited by aboriginal peoples as raw material sources for the manufacture of stone tools, do not occur in

the area (cf. Lane 1980; Lane et al. 1980). The closest known outcrops lie to the west along the Peace River (Upchurch et al. 1982). The vegetation cover consists primarily of pine and palmetto flatlands, wet prairies and occasional hammocks of live oak usually mixed with cabbage palm. Cypress swamps are found bordering larger lakes and ponds and a wide assortment of wildlife exists in the area.


Culture History


The region was first inhabited during at least the

Transitional period, c. 1000 B.C. - 500 B.C. (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:23). Evidence for an earlier Archaic period

population is found nearby in the upper St. Johns "from north of Palatka to well down opposite the Indian River region" (Sears 1977:3). However, no sites in the Okeechobee Basin have been assigned to this period. The earliest occupations

came from the Fort Center site (8G113), where semi-fiber tempered ceramics have been found in limited numbers (Goggin

1952:58; Griffin 1952:329; Sears and Sears 1976:53; Sears









30

1982:26). According to Sears (1977:7; 1982:192-193), this initial occupation is coeval with the construction of the earliest of the Okeechobee Basin's spectacular earthworks-i.e., the circular ditches.

Following the Transitional period is the Belle Glade period, c. 500 B.C. - A.D. 1700 (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:23). During this period, cultural activities in the Okeechobee Basin increase dramatically suggesting the greatest cultural complexity in South Florida centered around this inland territory (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:181). Several

researchers have attempted to build a chronology for this area but the lack of comprehensive surveys coupled with very limited excavations leaves this region of Florida one of the most poorly known regions of the state.

To date, the most comprehensive chronology for the Belle Glade culture area was developed by Sears (1971, 1977, 1982) based on his work at the Fort Center site. A combination of stratigraphy, seriation, and radiocarbon dates allowed him to develop a four-period chronology beginning with Period I and ending with Period IV. These periods are roughly coeval with

the Transitional period as defined by Bullen (1959, 1970) , and the Belle Glade I and II periods as defined by Willey (1949:70-72).

Sears' (1982:26,185) Period I from c. 800 - 1000 B.C. to A.D. 200 most closely fits the Transitional period definition. At the early end of Period I, Sears (1982:192-193) notes small









31
populations of perhaps one or two families living along the

riverbank on small house mounds with f ish and turtle being particularly important to the diet. Only semi-fiber tempered

pottery was in use during this time but by the end of this period most of the pottery was the sand-tempered plain ware.

Distinguishing this period from the Transitional period is the presence of the circular ditches. Sears (1982:193-194)

believes the ditches functioned as drained fields for maize cultivation.

Sears' (1982:26-31,186-189) Period II, from A.D. 200 to about A.D. 600-800, is coeval with the Belle Glade I period, except that there are no Glades decorated wares at Fort Center. Griffin (1988:126) notes that sand-tempered plain pottery is dominant at this time but is accompanied by the appearance of Belle Glade Plain ware. The latter increases in its popularity throughout Period II. Furthermore, trade wares are present representing influence from Deptford, Crystal River, Cartersville, Pasco and St. Johns areas to the north.

According to Willey (1949:125), evidence for the Belle Glade I period consists of Belle Glade Plain and Glades Plain (sand-tempered plain) ceramics with small percentages of Glades decorated wares (see also Widmer 1988:87-88). There are no defining dates associated with the Belle Glade I period but, by inference, Widmer (1988:87) provides a terminal date at A.D. 900 - 1000.









32

The Belle Glade II period is defined by the presence of

Belle Glade Plain and Glades Plain ceramics coupled with a lack of Glades decorated wares and the appearance of St. Johns (Biscayne) Check Stamped (Willey 1949:125). Sears'

(1982:27,31,189-190) Periods III and IV most closely resemble this period. Period III lasts from A.D. 600 - 800 to A.D. 1200 - 1400 and is characterized as a period of time which experienced minimal cultural change (Sears 1982:199). Griffin (1988:126) indicates that sand-tempered plain pottery continued to decrease while Belle Glade Plain increased.

Period IV, on the other hand, is described as a time of excelled craftsmanship, revived focus for authority, and participation in a larger social system than the one existing

on the site. The introduction of linear embankments occurs in this period as well as the first appearance of European

objects and artifacts made from European-derived materials. In addition, Griffin (1988:126) notes that only a small amount of sand-tempered plain ceramics accompany the large amount of Belle Glade Plain ware. Furthermore, new rim forms, particularly expanded flat and comma shaped varieties appear (Griffin 1988:126). Sears (1982:200) believes that during this period Fort Center was part of the sixteenth and seventeenth-century Calusa domain.

Little is known about the terminus of Belle Glade culture. Few ethnohistoric accounts exist and only one is widely publicized. Fontaneda's (1945:13) account of the









33

sixteenth century South Florida native groups ref ers to a people who lived around a large lake known as the Mayaimi. His narrative provides scanty information on population

density, subsistence, environment, and political affiliations with the coastal Calusa. Some Belle Glade sites, including Ortona (8Gl5), Belle Glade (8PB41), and Fort Center (8G113), contain European artifacts and European-derived raw materials

such as silver, iron, and gold. Thus, there exists ample evidence to suggest Belle Glade participation in a larger economy than existed solely in the Okeechobee Basin.

The demise of the Belle Glade peoples was surely linked to their participation in this larger economy. The introduction of European diseases is documented throughout the

southeastern U.S. and is considered a major cause in the death of the South Florida native groups. It is thought by many researchers that by the time the Seminoles entered into this

part of Florida, all of the South Florida aborigines were extinct.


Summary of Cultural Adaptations


Settlements


Archaeological sites in the Okeechobee Basin include earthworks (Allen 1948; Carr 1975:14-36; McGoun 1987, 1988; Sears 1982:130-183; Willey 1949:73-77), burial mounds (Carr 1973:14; Sears 1982:130-183; Willey 1949:20-23; Williams

1975:15-34), and habitation mounds or middens (Goggin 1952;









34
Sears 1982:130-183; Willey 1949:19-20) Among the more

spectacular sites are the large earthworks found in the open

savannah, often bordering creeks or major environmental zones (see Hale 1984:181). These include circular ditches, linear embankments, and combined mound and embankment complexes.

Sears (1982:185) provides evidence indicating that the circular ditches are the earliest earthworks at Fort Center, dating earlier than 450 B.C. His research demonstrates that some of the habitation middens are coeval with the ditches. Habitation mounds are believed to have been built during his

Periods I and II (Sears 1982:186,195-199) and again during his Period IV, but the latter include linear embankments (Sears 1982:199-201). Burials in mounds date to his Period I, possibly II, and IV (Sears 1982:140-141,200-201). Willey

(1949:125) was unable to ascertain the date of the burial mound at the Belle Glade site, but believed it was coeval with the habitation mound. Williams (1975:33-34) obtained a

radiocarbon date of 200 B.C. under one of the burials he excavated, but he believes the date is erroneous.

The combined mound and embankment complex known as Big

Mound City is thought to have been laid out according to a master plan, although no conclusions have been made as to whether it was built all at once (Willey 1949:73-77). However, a collection from one of the mounds at the site indicates it is coeval with the late period of occupation at

the Belle Glade site. At least 21 mound and embankment









35

complexes have been identified and include Barley Barber I (8Mt19, Carr 1973); the Big Circle Mounds, also known as Tony's Mound (8Hn3, Allen 1948); the Boynton Mound Complex (8PB100 - Jaffe 1976; McGoun 1987, 1988); Cowbone Prairie, also known as Hendry Earthworks (8Hn25), L-8 Earthworks; Lakeport Earthworks (8G126); Little Cypress Slough; Maple Mound (8Hn5); Nicodemous Earthworks (8G19); Ortona (8G15); South Mound City, also known as Big Gopher (Hale 1984:181); Benchmark 24 Earthworks; Pepper Earthworks (Hale 1989); Fort Center (8G113, Sears 1982); Kissimmee Circle Earthworks (8G139); South Lake Mounds (8Hn33), and Summer Earthworks (8Hn26). In addition, Johnson (1990) lists the Kissimmee Circle (80b31), Lonesome Island (8Hg634), and Palmdale Earthworks (8G176) as mound and embankment complexes.

Some of these sites have yielded European artifacts, such as the Ortona Mound in Glades County (Goggin n.d.a:679), indicating a colonial period occupation. Most, however, have not been dated.


ArchaeoloQical Assemblage


The defining ceramic assemblage for Belle Glade culture is the presence of Belle Glade Plain and Glades Plain wares. Lithic tools such as stemmed projectile points are found at some of the sites, e.g. Fort Center (Steinen 1982:75-76) and Belle Glade (Willey 1949:34, Plate 6), but not at others, e.g. Barley Barber sites (8Mt19, 28, 29, Carr 1973; Williams 1975).









36

Wooden artifacts have been found at two Belle Glade sites, Fort Center (Sears 1982:38-58) and Belle Glade (Willey

1949:53-59), and with further research in the area may be found at others. The currently limited distribution of wooden artifacts precludes them from being considered part of the defining archaeological assemblage. Similarly, other artifact categories have been found to have a limited distribution.

At the Fort Center site, Steinen (1982:68-102) has

identified the nonceramic artifacts. These include eight

morphological categories of sharks' teeth, six types of bone artifacts, chipped stone points and blades, ground stone celts, hones, and grinding stones, shell and stone plummets,

shell adzes, celts, axes, and gouges, and chert and quartz debitage.

The morphological categories of sharks' teeth represent two classes of tools. The first is triangular-shaped,

asymmetrical, serrated, and has bilateral wear patterns, and the second is tapering, usually symmetrical, and lacks cusps.

Similarly, the six categories of bone artifacts represent only five types of tools. Of the five, only one has been classified into a functional type: fids.

Comparable nonceramic assemblages are known from only two other sites in the Okeechobee Basin: the Belle Glade type site (Willey 1949:34-53) and the Platt site (Goggin 1952:55) . Willey (1949:69) reports socketed and bi-pointed bone projectile points, bone pins, shell picks, adzes, and hammers, shell









37
celts, conch shell drinking cups, shell and stone plummets,

stone pipes and tubes, and chipped stone projectile points were recovered from Belle Glade. In addition, fossil shark

teeth, porpoise teeth, and possible bear teeth are in the Belle Glade site assemblage (Willey 1949:45). At the Platt site, Goggin (1952:55) found chipped stone projectile points,

shell picks, gouges, and celts, shell and stone plummets, bone points and pins, and an antler adze socket. However, none were found in sufficient quantity to indicate significant temporal differences (Goggin 1952:55).

A recent paper on some of these artifact types, specifically the bone points and shell and stone plummets, indicate

fishing technology (Walker 1989). Long considered representative of terrestrial technology and/or ceremonial regalia, Walker (1989) presents a convincing argument that these artifact types represent two parts of a composite fish hook.

The importance of her argument for South Florida artifact assemblages is to focus attention on fishing technology.

Chronological distinctions in Belle Glade ceramics have

been hampered by a lack of decorative motifs on surfaces. Virtually all Belle Glade wares are plain. However, Sears (1982:112) provides a seriation based on relative amounts of plain ceramics. Semi-fiber tempered wares are earliest and are gradually replaced by sand tempered wares. St. Johns Plain pottery appears abruptly and relatively abundant at an

early date, but dissipates rapidly with the introduction of









38

Belle Glade Plain. Minor amounts of St. Johns Plain continue to be used throughout the occupation at Fort Center. Belle Glade Plain ceramics are initially a minor component of the total ceramic assemblage, but become the dominant type at the expense of sand tempered wares.

In addition to Sears' (1982:112) seriation of ceramic types, he indicates that some technological distinctions are related to chronological differences. Specifically, he

provides a seriation based on rim forms that shows flat lip rims are the dominant form throughout much of the occupation

at Fort Center (Sears 1982:113). These are superseded by expanded flat rims late in the occupation. This work apparently builds on Porter I s (1952) analysis of rim f orms f rom the Platt site.

The presence of monitor or platform type ceramic pipes at Fort Center are thought to provide a good chronological

indicator because the pipes are said to be very similar to those from Marksville sites (Sears 1982:117), known to be a

Hopewellian culture dating from Middle Woodland times. Sears, (1982:117) associated radiocarbon dates place the pipes in his Period II.

One other major category of Belle Glade artifacts that serve as good chronological indicators are the artifacts derived from European contact. These have been discussed by Willey (1949), Sears (1982), and Leader (1985). Their usefulness as indicators of sixteenth and seventeenth century









39
period activities has not gone unnoticed, but their origin and form have been the focus of most analyses.

At the Belle Glade site, Willey (1949:59-61) identified gold, silver, and copper beads, an iron spike and iron

fragments, a lead plummet, four types of glass beads, and European-made ceramics. Sears' (1982:59-67) work with the collection from Fort Center categorized the metal artifacts as symbol badges, disc-shaped ornaments, a cast gold jaguar, silver and copper plates, and miscellaneous gold and silver pieces. Sears (1982:59) states, "It is apparent that the metal specimens were made from metal of Spanish origin, reworked in most cases into Indian forms." Leader's (1985) work on the Fort Center collection focused on this statement.

In his quest to discern the origins of these materials he grouped the artifacts by morphological characteristics into the following categories: disks, domes, beads, hemisphere and cones, plaques, and miscellaneous fragments. His conclusions

confirm Sears' (1982:59) statement (but noted that some of the artifacts were actually made by South and, perhaps, Middle American natives; the Spaniards were evidently shipping the artifacts with other booty to Spain when the materials were salvaged from shipwrecks by the Florida natives.)

Of all the artifacts made from European-derived materials the symbol badges have drawn the most attention. The Fort Center symbol badges are made of heavy slabs or ingots of silver, 1/16 inch thick, cut into tablet forms and etched with









40
native designs. Sears (1982:60) states they are larger and heavier than others found in South Florida.

Allerton et al. (1984) have summarized the distribution of these badges and have found they are concentrated around

Lake Okeechobee. Leader (1985:81) states, "the ethnic origin of the metal artifacts from the Fort Center metal collection

is American aborigine." Unfortunately, activity areas of manufacture have not been identified. As such, no one has been able to ascertain the culture group. However, their known distribution clustering in the Lake Okeechobee Basin and the largest and heaviest coming from Fort Center strongly suggests they are Belle Glade artifacts and should be considered part of the defining archaeological assemblage.


Maior Sites


Major sites in the Belle Glade culture area have been identified by Carr (1975). His survey is one of the most comprehensive listings of archaeological and historic sites in the Lake Okeechobee Basin, but it was limited to areas that were to be inundated by the Army Corps of Engineers proposal to raise the regulation range of Lake Okeechobee from 13.5 15.5 feet above mean sea level to 15.5 - 17.5 feet. His

survey lists 16 precolumbian sites including mounds, middens, and earthworks.

An even more comprehensive listing of precolumbian sites

in the Okeechobee Basin can be found on a map provided by Hale









41
(1984:181). However, even his figure does not include

earthworks such as Barley Barber 1 (8Mt19, Carr 1973:9-11), West Okeechobee Circle (8G157, Carr 1985:295-297), and others. As such, there is not a complete list of all major sites in the Belle Glade culture area. To date, eight circular

earthworks, 17 circular-linear earthworks, nine linear embankment sites, and six miscellaneous earthwork sites are known to be in the Okeechobee Basin. Of these, major excavations have been limited to the Belle Glade and Big Mound City

sites (both in the 1930s, see Willey 1949) and the Fort Center site (in the 1960s, see Sears 1971, 1977, 1982).


Settlement Patterns


As for settlement practices, Sears (1982:184-190) indicates a Belle Glade cultural adaptation to the open savannah with artificially raised areas occupied during flooding. The focus of occupation takes place at large sites

(such as Fort Center) , though Sears (1982:175) acknowledges occupation of "the small midden sites on higher land throughout the sand country." On the other hand, Willey finds Belle

Glade affinities extending from the Okeechobee Basin to all of South Florida, from the Florida Keys (Willey 1949:26 cites Goggin n.d.a) to Melbourne (Ferguson 1951:36-39) and the southwest coast (Willey 1949:124-125). However, he believes

the Belle Glade peoples differ significantly from the east coast groups and states, "the most likely guess would be that









42
Belle Glade was a village of the Calusa domain, presumably occupied by a people related to them" (Willey 1949:127). Thus, his scenario depicts a wider range of adaptation to a number of environments than does Sears.


Social Organization


A discussion of social organization provided by Sears (1982:1919-201) indicates that an egalitarian population inhabited the Fort Center site during his Period I. This was followed by a marked degree of social stratification in subsequent periods. Trade with other Florida groups is

apparent by the number of exotic artifacts he found. Furthermore, the presence of maize pollen and the earthworks suggests to him that the Fort Center inhabitants had periodic contact

with a South American population (and, indeed, trace their ancestry to this population). Inclusion of the Fort Center peoples within the sphere of colonial period Calusa hegemony is believed to have occurred in the final aboriginal occupation of the Fort Center site, i.e. his Period IV.

Goggin and Sturtevant (1964:180-182, 195-197) suggest Calusa hegemony occurs early in the cultural development of the South Florida native groups. Indeed, they hint at the possibility of the Belle Glade peoples representing an inland population of the Calusa culture. However, theirs appears to be a minority view.











Belief Systems


only a minimal discussion of beliefs has been presented. Sears (1982:42,58) suggests that the Fort Center inhabitants

had strong totemic belief s (as represented by carved wooden figures of animals and birds) . He also argues for a belief in an afterlife (as represented by burial practices). Such

beliefs would not be surprising given the material remains found in the Belle Glade culture area. Subsistence


Based on what is known from the above, the diet of the

Belle Glade peoples has been interpreted to be either one based on wild foods (Willey 1949:71,129) or one based on maize agriculture supplemented with an abundance of wild foods, especially turtle (Sears 1982:184-201). However, Walker's (1989) recent analyses of fishing technology has alerted the

archaeological community to the potential contribution from aquatic resources; an area of subsistence activities that needs further exploration in the Okeechobee Basin. Hale

(1984:183) concurred with Sears (1982) noting that the planting surfaces he identified are aligned with the surface water flow facilitating drainage for agricultural production.

However, Hale (1989) has subsequently retreated from this position. Analysis of the soils of one of the alleged

planting surfaces (reported hence) indicates it could not









44
support annual harvests of maize. In the following chapter I explore the question of maize in detail.














CHAPTER 4
MAIZE AND SOILS IN SOUTH FLORIDA


Maize was obviously an important cultigen in the development of certain New World cultures. Richard MacNeish (1970) studied the evolution of this cultigen in the Tehuacdn Valley

of Mexico and concluded that settlement changes coincided with increased reliance on maize. According to MacNeish

(1972:500), the use of more productive hybrids of maize coupled with increased interactions between developing areas caused changes in settlements rather than the reverse. Similarly, Sears (1982) believes maize was an important basis for cultural change within the Lake Okeechobee Basin of South

Florida. However, the presence of maize in South Florida, has led to much debate over its use, importance, origins, and chronology.



Precolumbian Maize in South Florida


Evidence for precolumbian maize use in South Florida is limited to maize pollen documented at the Fort Center site by Sears and Sears (1976; see also E. Sears 1982). At the site, Sears found numerous pollen grains in a variety of contexts including at least one excellent precolumbian context dating

between A.D. 100 and 500. Strips of white pigment adhering to 45









46
a wooden carving that was f ound at the bottom of a pond provided this context (Sears 1982:122; Milanich 1987:177). Other contexts from which maize pollen was found are soil samples from earthworks and coprolites. On the basis of size and exine pattern, Sears and Sears (1976:54) distinguish the maize pollen grains from other grasses. In addition, they believe the size range of the maize pollen grains from Fort Center eliminates the possibility that they could be modern corn pollen.

In addition to the maize pollen, Sears (1982:171-173) identified lime deposits at the Fort Center site that were created by burning shell. He hypothesizes that the creation of the lime was directly related to the processing of dried maize into a mush (Sears 1982:173).

Sears (1982) believes the earthworks at Fort Center served as planting surfaces for maize cultivation. The

origins of the maize and the earthworks are believed to be the result of a migration of peoples from South America. Sears

(1977:6-7, 1982:191) suggests four possible routes for such contact, but feels the most likely one was from Venezuela through the Antilles (Figure 3). He notes similar ceramic manufacturing techniques and stylistic elements on pottery between South Florida and Venezuela, as well as similarity between terraforming techniques (presumably related to agriculture). His excavations at the Fort Center site

indicate the development of complex mortuary activities within





























































Figure 3.


Hypothesized routes for maize origins in South Florida (after Sears 1971).









48
a century or two of the beginning of the Christian era

(1977:7). By A.D. 1000, the mortuary center was abandoned and individual houses were placed on small, single house mounds,

each with an adjacent linear earthwork up to 1200 feet long and 100 feet wide. This innovation, Sears believes, was due to continued contact with the South American population (1977:7-9, 1982:200).

Thus, for Sears, the migration of a South American

population with the knowledge of maize cultivation in wet savannah environments explains cultural development in South

Florida's interior. This interpretation provides a comprehensive explanation for the origin of the maize and the earthworks but has left a myriad of questions in its wake.


The Antillean Route: A Not-so-Likely Course


Perhaps the most difficult problem with Sears' chronology and origins of maize in South Florida is its early arrival, as much as 1000 years prior to its presence in the Eastern Woodlands. William Keegan (1987) addresses this issue and concludes that present evidence indicates the introduction of maize into South Florida via the Antilles could not have occurred until maize was already well established in the Eastern Woodlands (circa A.D. 1000).

According to Keegan (1987:331), human groups arrived in the Greater Antilles by 4000 B.C. These peoples were aceramic, non-agricultural hunter-gatherers who exploited terrestri-









49
al and marine resources. Their way of life changed with the

arrival of the agricultural Arawakan- speaking population. The Arawakan-speakers, also known as the Tainos, began their

expansion into the Antilles from eastern Venezuela around 200300 B.C. (Haviser 1989). Their arrival into the northernmost

parts of the Antilles, i.e. the Bahamas and Cuba, was not until A.D. 600 - 700. As with other parts of the Antilles,

the initial colonization period diet included cultivated roots and tubers with terrestrial animals and a relatively minor contribution from marine resources. Shortly after colonization, a rapid shift to increased reliance on marine resources occurred but root crops remained the dietary staple and maize did not appear until late in precolumbian times (Keegan 1987:333).

Keegan (1987:336) concludes that the available evidence indicates that the Antilles was not the source of this cultigen in South Florida. However, he points out that this conclusion concerns only one of four possible contact avenues

hypothesized by Sears (1977) for the arrival of maize in South Florida and that little is known of the precolumbian history

of western Cuba. That region may yet be implicated in "a more direct trans-Caribbean jump from Central or South America to south Florida" (Keegan 1987:339).











The Soils at Fort Center: Not Productive for Maize


Regardless of Keegan's (1987:339) assertion that alternative routes of entry remain unexplored (allowing for the possibility of a direct entrance of maize into South Florida) , a problem closer to the location of the pollen has been discovered. Analysis of the soils from one of the circular

earthworks at Fort Center has yielded information on their potential to support annual harvests of maize. Fort Center


The Fort Center archaeological site is located in Glades County, Florida (Figure 4). It was first reported by a professional archaeologist when Goggin (1952) investigated it and the nearby Platt site. At Fort Center, Goggin recorded four middens, three small mounds, a large sand mound and its associated platform, a large circular canal or ditch, a ridge with refuse on its surface, and a restricted concentration of nineteenth century artifacts (Goggin 1952:50). The latter presumably mark the location of Fort Center, a small block house established at the site during the Seminole wars. Also

recorded were several pairs of earth ridges, two with terminal mounds, another small mound, and a long narrow ridge in the

prairie to the east. Goggin and Sturtevant (1964:197) suggest that these earthworks, and similar ones elsewhere in the Lake

Okeechobee Basin, were built by the coastal-dwelling Calusa as ritual centers.
































































Figure 4.


Location of Fort Highway Map 1984).


Center (Source: General











Sears (1971, 1974, 1977, 1982), on the other hand, suggests that the original inhabitants of the Lake Okeechobee

Basin (the Belle Glade culture) migrated from the northern part of South America sometime before 500 B.C. According to

Sears (1982:192), continued contact with the mother population resulted in the adoption of a variety of economic behaviors,

one of which was the practice of draining fields for producing maize. He states "the economic system supporting the center . . . acquired stability through dependable maize crops" (1982:197). Sears believes this economic system was accomplished in the wet savannah environment by the creation of planting surfaces, formed by the excavation of ditches, for growing a stable, dependable maize crop. Initially the

ditches served to drain fields but later they were designed to create raised fields. Hale (1984:183) suggests that this was a response to rising water levels in the Basin. According to Sears (1982:178,191-201), such a system sustained the economy of these people for over a two thousand year period.

His evidence for this belief is twofold. First is the presence of the circular and linear embankments at the Fort

Center site (Figure 5) and second, the identification of maize pollen grains from a number of contexts at the site (E. Sears

1982:118-129), including at least one grain from a soil sample from the Great Circle ditch. The former suggests to Sears the ability of the inhabitants to have practiced drained and raised field agriculture, while the latter provides evidence




























































Figure 5.


Schematic drawing of the Fort Center site (after Carr 1985:290).









54

of the presence of maize. Combined with other evidence

regarding the social complexity of the precolumbian inhabitants, these data form the basis for Sears' (1982:178, 191-201) conclusions that the earthworks were used as agricultural plots.


The Circular Ditches


Among the various earthworks at the Fort Center site are

two remnant circular ditches each of which have a diameter approximately 140 m across. These are enclosed by a much larger circular ditch referred to as the Great Circle (Sears

1982:175). Excavations revealed that the remnant ditches were built prior to the Great Circle (Milanich 1968), but it is not known how much earlier, nor which of them was dug first. Radiocarbon dating of midden materials found in the base of

the Great Circle ditch date to 450 B.C. + 105 years (Sears 1982:116). Thus, Sears (1982:178) states all three circular ditches were completed by then.

Sears (1982:6) believes these ditches functioned as drainage ditches to enable food production. The basis for this belief comes from his observation that "ditch bases were dug below the hardpan so that water would drain across the

hardpan and into the ditch, drying the surrounding area" (1982:6). He finds additional support for this belief in "the need for drained garden plots if agriculture was to be

practiced in this environment and by the presence of maize










55
pollen in soil samples from points inside the ditches and the [nearby] contemporaneous midden" (Sears 1982:186).


The Maize Pollen


Evidence for maize in the diet consists of maize pollen grains found in coprolites, white pigment samples applied to wooden carvings, and soil samples from several of the earthworks at Fort Center (E. Sears 1982:120). The maize pollen

grains, specifically those from coprolites and the pigment, lead Milanich (1987:177) to conclude "that maize was being cultivated at Fort Center sometime during the period ca. A.D. 100-500."1 However, Milanich and Ruhl (1986:2) state that the importance of maize within the Belle Glade people's diet is uncertain. They conjecture that it might have been grown and used for special purposes rather than as a dietary staple.


Evidence of Complexity at Fort Center


Sears' excavations documented numerous artifacts, long distance trade, increased population through time, extensive earthworks, and complex ceremonial activity areas. These

features suggest a fairly high degree of complexity when compared to the contemporary cultures of the rest of South Florida (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:181).

Among the artifacts found at the Fort Center site are a number of intricately carved wooden objects, including a

series of animal figures which formed an elaborate burial









56

platform. Similar wooden objects have been documented by Willey (1949) at the Belle Glade site, also located in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Additionally, numerous wooden carvings were uncovered by Cushing (1895, 1897) on the southwest coast of Florida, but Sears (1982:58) believes they do not have any

real resemblance or relationship to the wooden objects from Fort Center [but see Schwehm (1983) for an alternative explanation . Nevertheless, the craftsmanship of all the

carvings appears to reflect a degree of craft specialization.

Evidence for long distance trade includes the presence of non-local artifacts including chipped stone tools, Deptford, Crystal River, Cartersville, Pasco and St. Johns ceramic

types, marine shell tools, sharks' teeth and European-derived items. All indicate participation in a wider economy than just the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Most of these materials indicate trade with coastal dwelling populations. Sears

(1982:32) suggests "at least fringe participation in the Hopewell phenomenon" because of the presence of ceramic types which co-occur with the strictly ceremonial Yent complex. Sears (1982:32) also lists Deptford series sherds, Deptford copies on chalky paste, and Crystal River series specimens as evidence of the Yent complex at Fort Center. Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:84) agree that similarities with materials of the Yent complex suggests trade between the Woodland peoples

to the north (e.g., Adena, Hopewell, Cartersville, Copena, early Weeden Island) and the South Florida peoples. However,









57

one must keep in mind that Sears (1962) def ined the Yent complex and may be biased in his interpretations.

Increases in population through time are also apparent at the site, according to Sears (1982:193). He believes "that there were not more than one or two families on the site at any one time" during his Period I (approximately 1000 B.C. to

A.D. 200) but that number increases up to three-fold during his Period II (Sears 1982:193-195). Moreover, Sears

(1982:197) suggests that this increase coincides with the participation of additional peoples in the economic activities at Fort Center. Numerous small sites throughout the savannah region were occupied by peoples who, according to Sears (1982:197), were supported by the economic system at the Fort Center site. Finally, population density at the site drops back to one or two families during the last period of occupation, Period IV (Sears 1982:200). However, Sears

(1982:200-201) believes that the inhabitants at that time were part of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Calusa domain. Thus, a considerable increase in the population which participated in the Fort Center economy can be discerned through time.

While most population estimates were derived by midden

deposits on house mounds, the burial population of the Mounds A and B and charnel pond complex provided reinforcement for Sears' estimates (Sears 1982:175). This mortuary area was

treated as a single unit by Sears because "one could not be









58
investigated without disturbing at least one other" (Sears 1982:147) . Furthermore, an earthen embankment surrounding Mound B "continues on at both ends to Mound A, thereby tying

both mounds and the pond into a unit" (Sears 1982:148). Thus, Sears (1982:147-148) believes it is important to treat the area as a single unit.

Mound A, the shorter of the two, yielded midden materials, indications of two to four dwelling units, ceremonial artifacts, and lime deposits. The midden materials contained the usual assortment of faunal remains [although Hale (1984:177) notes a larger amount of deer bone than found at a similar deposit elsewhere at the site] and ceramic sherds but also included shell tools, pipes, some stone grinding tools,

and a few other items with no "meaningful clusters or associations" (Sears 1982: 171) . The lime deposits, created from burned shells, and the pipes, limited to this one mound (save

f or the f ew f fragments f ound at the UF Mound and Mound 3, Sears 1982:34), led Sears (1982:175) to believe that the people living on Mound A were ceremonial specialists. Their services "providing lime for treatment of their corn and probably pipes and tobacco, 11 are thought to have been performed for the people who "lived elsewhere, in the small middens sites on higher land throughout the sand country" (Sears 1982:175).

Mound B and the charnel pond, on the other hand, served principally for mortuary activities. Approximately 150

burials were recovered from the pond along with numerous









59

carved wood figures, midden materials, and coprolites. The

wood f figures are thought to be the remains of a charnel platform that collapsed after a fire destroyed its structural integrity (Sears 1982:167). Another 150 burials, many with

grave goods, and mud-streaked sand were documented in Mound B. Sears (1982:157) believes the mud-streaked sand occurred when

skeletal remains were retrieved from the pond, after the charnel platform collapsed, and placed in Mound B.

The extensive earthworks and complex ceremonial activity areas documented at the site attest to a highly organized population. The circular and linear ditches accompanied by mounds, middens, and a charnel pond provide ample evidence of large-scale work projects that could only be accomplished by an organized labor force. Thus, it is not surprising that Sears' discovery of maize pollen at the site led him to believe that the inhabitants could only have developed such a

highly complex society on the stability of maize cultivation. However, Feldman (1980:4) cautions that "once a trait has been found in the archaeological record, any number of additional features are often assumed to have been present from that date forward. For example, the presence of maize at a site-however small the amount recovered--is often assumed to indicate that the subsistence of the site was based on efficient maize farming."









60

Testing Sears' Model: A Soil Science Application to Archaeological Interpretation


Soil science applications to archaeological interpretation have concentrated on comparisons between natural soils and human influenced soils (e.g., Collins and Shapiro 1987).

Such applications have proven useful in avoiding misidentification of natural formations as cultural. In this test of Sears' model of maize-based complexity, soil science applications are utilized to identify-the limitations of the archaeologist's interpretations.

Soil samples were taken from one of the remnant circular

ditch formations in order to examine the potential of the soils associated with the earthwork to support long-term maize agriculture (Figure 5). Three column soil samples were removed with a bucket auger. These bisected the ditch with

column #1 removed from the berm of the earthwork, #2 taken from the bottom of the ditch, and #3 from outside of the ditch. Each was excavated to 188 cm below the surface, the maximum depth that the bucket auger could reach. These

resulted in a profile view of the ditch and its associated berm (Figure 6).


Morphological Descriptions


Morphological descriptions of each field specimen were conducted prior to preparing the samples for laboratory analyses. These included horizon designation, moist Munsell































BERM


DITCH


Ap


Ab Eb
Bhb


Figure 6.


Ap
E

Bh Bh/E


Schematic profile view of Columns 1-3 (not to scale).


SBw
c









62

color, structure (Soil Survey Staff 1981), and any other observable characteristics (Table 1). Unfortunately, removal of the samples with a bucket auger and immediate storage in specimen bags resulted in some disturbance to them. Thus, structure was reported only as to type. However, careful storage and handling of the specimens prevented mixing and,

therefore, structure disturbance should not be considered a threat to the reliability of the data. Laboratory Analyses


Four soil analyses were performed on the samples: organic carbon content; pH in water, and in potassium chloride and in calcium chloride solutions; particle-size distribution (Soil

Survey Staff 1984); and aluminum content (Rhue and Kidder 1984). These data, along with data obtained from the morphological descriptions, provide a general basis for classifying the soils and making some interpretations about their formation.


Discussion


Based on the available data and recent mapping of the county (Soil Survey Staff 1989), the soils associated with the ditch belong to the order Spodosols. Spodosols are characterized as naturally infertile (Soil Survey Staff 1975:333). This is due, at least in part, to their high acidity. Figure

7 provides evidence of the highly acid nature of the soils













Table 1. Morphological characteristics of soils.


Column #1
Depth Horizon Moist Colors Structure Roots
----------------------------------------------------------18 Apl 10YR 3/1 subangular blocky abundant
31 Ap2 . moderate
46 Ap3 " granular; * few
61 Ap4 ; *
71 Ap5 It
81 Ap6 7.5YR 3/0 single-grain none
89 Abl .
102 Ab2 It
112 Ab3 1OYR 3/1 some
122 Ebl 10YR 5/1 .
130 Eb2 lOYR 4/1 none
147 Bhb 10YR 2/1 subangular blocky; **
155 Bwbl 10YR 3/2 single-grain
170 Bwb2 1OYR 4/4 " some
183 Bwb3 none
188 Bwb4

Column #2
----------------------------------------------------------18 Ap 10YR 3/1 subangular blocky abundant
31 El 10YR 4/1 some
46 E2 . none
61 E3 10YR 3/4
74 E4 single-grain
86 E5 10YR 4/4 .
102 Bhl 10YR 5/4 subangular blocky; **
119 Bh2 10YR 4/3 . **
135 Bwl 10YR 6/3 . **
152 Bw2 . **
163 Cl 10YR 6/2 single-grain
178 C2 10YR 7/2
188 C3 10YR 7/1

Column #3
----------------------------------------------------------18 Ap lOYR 3/1 subangular blocky abundant
31 El 10YR 4/1 none
48 E2 IOYR 5/1
61 Bhl 1OYR 5/1 ; **
w/ 1OYR 2/1
74 Bh2 1OYR 2/1 . **
86 Bh/E 10YR 2/1 ; **
w/ lOYR 7/2
104 B'hl 1OYR 2/2 . **
119 B'h2 1OYR 3/2 ; **
137 Bh3 IOYR 3/2 ; **
150 Bw lOYR 4/3 ; **
163 Cl 10YR 6/3 single-grain
175 C2 1.
188 C3 lOYR 7/2
--------------------------------------------------------� fragmented cemented spodic horizon found in matrix.
� * occurs in single-grain matrix.





















0

-25

-50

-75

-100

-125

-150.

-175

-200


pH
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1314


As measured in 0- H20 0- KCI a - CaCl2


0 0 0


0 0
I I 00 00


0 0
4 0

00
Ill

A t 0A Cc A


COLUMN 2
pH
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


As measured in o - H20 0- KCI A - CaC12


pH
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


As measured in o- H20
o - KCI a - CC12


Horizon
Ap El
E2 E3 E4 E5
Bhl
Bh2 Bwi
Bw2
C1 C2 C3






Horizon
Aol E1
E2 Bhl
Bh2
8h/E
B'h 1 B'h2 Bh3 Bw C1 C2 C3


Figure 7.


pH distribution of soils in water, potassium chloride, and calcium chloride solutions.


COLUMN 1


Horizon
Apl
AD2
Ap3
Ap4 Ap5 Ao6 Abl
Ab2
Ab3 Ebl
Eb2
Bhb Bwbl Bwb2
Bwb3


0

-25

-50

-75

-100

-125

-150

-175

-200-


M0


,2,




//


\0 ,AoO


COLUMN 3


-25

-50

-75

-100

-125

-150

-175

-200.


0 0

AtD
\Cal
DA c \I"I Alft


I MI I I\
o A I It o 1,


I , ,


I3 I I . I I I i I









65

tested. Nowhere in the soil columns is the pH value higher than 4.9. Darrel Metcalfe and Donald Elkins (1980:340) state that maize will not grow adequately below pH 5.5. Furthermore, Clyde Evans and E.J. Kamprath (1970) indicate that acidic mineral soils, such as these, combined with the

presence of exchangeable aluminum, yield poor maize growth. Figure 8 provides evidence of the very high concentrations of aluminum in these soils. While not providing the amount of exchangeable aluminum, this figure does suggest that aluminum toxicity could be a problem for maize. As such, the likelihood that the earthworks could support maize cultivation for

the long time span suggested by Sears (1982:191-201) is not very high without considerable amendments.

Evans and Kamprath (1970:894) indicate that maize growth can be improved on acidic mineral soils, such as these by liming the soil. This practice, along with fertilizing, would have resulted in good maize growth. Sears believes the

residue in the ditches could have served as a source of fertilizer. He states, "The muck that accumulates in the ditches, particularly after a flood, is practically protoplasmic, wiggling with great quantities of fish and amphibian small-fry and eggs. The nitrogen content at least should be

most useful in maize growing, and the tiny bones might provide some phosphorus. Certainly the ditches had to be cleaned occasionally if they were to function" (1982:189).













66




COLUMN 1
Aluminum (mg/kg)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0 I I I Horizon
0 Apl
-25 *- Ap2
(D Ao3
-50 m-- p
. ~Ap4 o" mAp5
rD -75-0" 5 a Ap 6
UAb1
-100- n Ab2
Ab3
-125-i Eb1
M Eb2
" -150 " . Bhb
3 Bwbl
-175 / Bwb2
Bwb3
-200 Bwb4


COLUMN 2
Aluminum (mg/kg)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0 I I Horizon
* Ao
-25- /El
- -50-- E2
E3
" -75-- E4
0
:E E5
--100 �Bhl

o -125 - Bh2

- 150 - -w2
-175 *. - CI

C2
-200 C3



COLUMN 3
Aluminum (mg/kg)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100
0 1 1 Horizon

-25j/ Ap 1
El


-75 Bh2

-100- 3'hI
� B'h 2
-125.'
m In B h3
---150-R 8w
-175 R C
C2
-200 C3


Figure 8. Al distribution in columns 1-3.









67
But, if the ditches were cleaned occasionally and if this cleaning resulted in a preference towards dumping the debris

from the ditch into the interior of the earthwork (as would be the case if the residue caught in the ditches was being used as fertilizer), then a pattern in the particle-size distribution of the upper levels of the column located on the berm

(i.e. column #1) would reflect the particle-size distribution of the lower levels of the column located inside the ditch (i.e. column #2). That is to say, if the ditch were cleaned

periodically and excavated below the Bh (spodic horizon) as suggested by Sears (1982:6), then the particle-size distribution found in the lower levels of column #2 should be the same as that found in the upper levels of column #1. However, instead of periodic cleaning, the particle-size distribution

of column #1 reflects a single episode of activity which built the ditch. This can be viewed graphically in Figure 9.

Figure 9C, column #3, the column taken outside the ditch, provides a model for what the others looked like prior to excavation of the ditch. Its particle-size distribution shows a trend towards an increase in the percentage of the larger

particles (i.e. vcs + cs) and a trend toward a decrease in the smallest particles (i.e. fs + vfs and silt + clay) with increasing depth. This pattern is even more pronounced in the lower levels of column #2 (Figure 9B) . Thus, if periodic cleaning of the ditch resulted in excavation below the Bh, then a substantial increase in the percentage of the larger




















A. COLUMN 1


0

-25

-50

-75

-100

-125

-150

-175

-200-


Particle-size (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
I I


* I I I I



/ I
** A
** A
\


T

0

0%


* - ctcy+silt A - VCS+CS 0- ms
0 - fs+vfs


U
U
U
/
U
U
U U
U
U U U
/
U
U
U
U


B. COLUMN 2 Particle-size (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


00
-25
7- -50-5
0

1 -00 S-125

" -150

-175 -200 C COLUMN 3


A I A 0 t 1 A T
N I


A 0 A A A\ \


\ \\


, - clay+silt �- VCS+CS
o- ms U- fs+vfs


U U U
U U
7
U
'7


Particle-size (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 50 70


0

-25 - /
-50 * t ,"

-75 7

-100
\ / /
-125 --150

A A
-175
-/ 2C/


� - clay+silt �- VCS+CS o- ms
a- fs+vfs


U
/ K

U U U

U
/
U
U
U
U
U


Horizon
Apl
Ap2
Ap3 Ap4 Ap5 Ap6
Abl
Ab2 Ab3
Ebl
Eb2
Bhb
Bwbl Bwo2
Bwb3


Horizon
AD
El
E2 E3 E4 E5
Bhl
Bh2 9w1 Bw2
CI C2 C3


Horizon
Apl E1
E2 BhI Bh2
Bh/E
B'hl
B h2 Bh3
Bw C1
C2 C3


Figure 9.


Particle size distribution of columns 1-3 (where vcs = very coarse sand, cs = coarse sand, ms = medium sand, fs = fine sand, vfs = very fine sand).


I i : :










69

particles should be evident in the top layers of column ji (Figure 9A). However, the particle-size distribution for column #1 reveals an almost mirror image of particle-size distribution between the Ab and the Ap horizons. That is to say, the Abl and the Ap6 are almost identical. Likewise, the Ab2 and the Ap5 are very similar. This "mirror image"

correlation continues with the AW and Ap4, the El and Ap3, the E2 and Ap2, and the Bh and Apl layers. Nowhere in this profile are there substantial increases in the larger particles as would be expected if periodic cleaning of the ditches had occurred.

supporting evidence for this model is provided by the graphic illustration of the distribution of organic carbon content for each column. Figure 10 provides a comparison of

the distribution of organic carbon content among the three columns and indicates the highest percentage is located

between 75 and 100 cm below the surface in column 1. Although it is evident that column 3 also shows a high percentage of organic carbon deep in the soil profile, note that it coincides with the Bh horizon. This is because the Bh horizon is defined as a horizon with an accumulation of organic matter (Soil Survey Staff 1975). However, the high percentage of

organic carbon in column I coincides with the Ap6. (Note that this horizon has the lowest concentration of aluminum content

within the Ap and Ab horizons of column 1 [Figure 8] and, therefore removes the possibility that a Bh horizon was






















Organic Carbon (%)
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00


.SJ














-5�








I
� S !C
5--


Organic Carbon (%)

0.50 0.75 1.00


/�



/

C-

o/


.25 1.50
Horizon

Ap El
E2 Shl Bh2
5h/E
B'h1 S'h 2
23
2w 01 C2 C3


Organic carbon distribution of columns 1-3.


COLUMN 1


U

-25

-50

-75

-100

-125

-150

-175

-200


COLUMN 2


0.00
0

-25

-50

-75

-100

-125

-150

-175- -/

-200


1.50
- Horizon
Apl
Ap2
Ao3 Ap4 Ap5
AoS Ab 1 Ab2 Ab3 Eo1
ED2 Bh b wo1 Bwb2 Bwb3


1.50
- Horizon
Ap El
E2 E3 E4 E5
2hl1
Bh2 Ewl
2 w2
CI C2
03


COLUMN 3


0.00 0.25
0


-25


-75,

-100

-125

-150

-175.

-200-


Figure 10.









71
mistakenly identified as an Ap horizon.) Thus, I argue that

the ditch is the result of an excavation that began with removal of the A horizon and subsequent discard on top of the

old ground surface (effectively beginning the berm) . This was followed by excavation of the E and Bh horizons, which were heaped on top of the A horizon. Subsequent pedogenetic

processes resulted in the accumulation of organic carbon, creating an artificially thickened Ap horizon as seen in column 1. Further proof of this scenario is provided by the

traces of the Bh (as seen in Table 10) in the Ap3 and Ap4 horizons. This evidence, in conjunction with the particlesize distribution data, supports the model of a single episode of activity rather than periodic cleaning of the ditch. An important archaeological implication of this is the amount of labor involved in construction of the ditch. While it is not possible to determine the exact number of individuals nor the

amount of time it took to construct, the model suggests an organized labor force over a relatively short period.

As for the liming of the fields, Sears (1982:171-174,178) identified lime deposits on the site that are contemporaneous with the use of the Great Circle. These deposits were found associated with the Mound A midden deposits. Conceivably, they could represent lime processing activity areas for

artificially raising the pH of the soils within the Great Circle, but liming without fertilizing would still result in

poor maize growth. On the other hand, liming with fertilizing









72
should have left some evidence of the fertilizer--e.g., the large accumulations of midden materials at the site. since these could easily have served as a source of fertilizer, one could expect that some would have been found within the alleged planting surf aces. However, Sears (1982:176-177) indicates that repeated attempts to find materials within the

Great Circle were made by surf ace inspection and excavation but nothing was ever f ound. Thus, the evidence indicates that neither lime nor fertilizer was used within the Great Circle to prepare the soils for maize cultivation.

Finally, Sears (1982:186) states that the ditches were dug through an impermeable hardpan (i.e. the term that Sears uses for the spodic horizon) in order to drain the planting surface. However, this analysis of the soils reveals that doing so results in additional aluminum in the upper horizons

of the soil (Figure 8) well within the rooting zone. As such, Sears' explanation for the ditching would have a net result of adding toxins to the surface prior to planting maize. Thus,

soil science data indicate the circular earthworks were not planting surfaces for "a stable, dependable maize crop," but must have served some other purpose(s).


Ethnohistoric Evidence: Conflicting Accounts


Perhaps the strongest evidence challenging Sears' (1982)

belief that maize served as the dietary mainstay comes from an eyewitness account of life in sixteenth century South Florida.









73
Do. d'Escalante Fontaneda, a shipwreck survivor, lived among South Florida's natives for 17 years from 1548 to 1565. His memoir, focusing on the Calusa of southwest Florida, provides some details on subsistence activities within the Okeechobee Basin. He refers to a bread made from roots as the common food most of the time except when the lake rises in some seasons so high that the roots cannot be reached and they are "for some time without eating this bread" (Fontaneda 1945:13). He does not mention maize at all. Sears (1982:201) acknowledges this problem, but questions whether Fontaneda would have recognized maize if he had seen it.

Of course, there were probably many things Fontaneda did not recognize and could not describe, but one must wonder why it is that both the Narvdez and de Soto entradas described maize in Florida years before Fontaneda lived among the Calusa. Milanich (1987, 1989) believes this is because both of these Spanish explorations landed in present-day Tampa Bay, well north of the South Florida aboriginal groups that Fontaneda described. On the other hand, Dobyns (1983)

believes that Narvdez and de Soto landed in Charlotte Harbor and described maize use among the Calusa. In either case, Fontaneda surely would have known about maize by the time he had written his memoir. If maize had been as important in the Calusa diet as Dobyns (1983) contends, how could Fontaneda have omitted it?











Discussion


Such an argument might go on indefinitely except for the

fact that of all the archaeological research conducted in South Florida only the Fort Center site has produced any evidence for maize (save that which has been found in Seminole Period contexts). On the southwest coast, the few systematic

attempts to recover plant remains have produced no evidence of maize (Marquardt et al. 1985). Similarly, Margaret Scarry (1982) found none on the southeast coast. Indeed, John

Griffin (1988:298) remarks that there is no evidence for maize cultivation in the Caloosahatchee or Everglades archaeological areas. Based on the maize pollen at Fort Center, Milanich (1987:177) accepts that it was present at the site sometime

during the period ca. A.D. 100-500. But, whether it was

present before or after that he feels is speculative.

Milanich and Ruhl (1986:2) point out that the importance of maize within the Belle Glade people's diet is uncertain.

Johnson and Collins (1989) concur with Milanich .(1987) that the maize pollen found at Fort Center indicates maize was grown at the site but believe that the circular earthworks were not dug to create planting surfaces for a stable, dependable maize crop. Following Milanich and Ruhl (1986:2), they believe the maize grown at Fort Center must have served some other purpose(s) other than a dietary staple.

In addition, Carr (1985:299) notes that all of the

circular earthworks are located near elevated hammocks or









75
other upland environments that could have naturally offered the same drainage characteristics that Sears (1982) believes

the ditches offered. Indeed, the only advantage that the ditches offered was the accumulation of organic sediments that could serve as a source of nutrients for Sears' hypothesized

planting surfaces (Carr 1985:299) and that advantage apparently was not realized.

on the other hand, Donald Lathrap's (1987) study of the

introduction of maize into precolumbian eastern North America questions current wisdom and warns us "not to be overly skeptical of the presence of maize in situations where its preservation is a matter of chance, such as in 'Green Corn' utilization." Such skepticism may well be pertinent since some ethnohistoric evidence for "Green Corn" use exists. For

instance, Oviedo (1959:2) is apparently speaking of green corn use among the Taino of the Greater Antilles when he says "when the ears are tender they are eaten almost like milk."

Furthermore, Lathrap (1987) outlines a plausible early introduction of maize which conforms to Sears' (1982) hypothesis of its introduction into Florida and takes exception to Keegan's (1987) view that maize could not have passed through the Antilles prior to the arrival of the Taino. Lathrap

(1987:347) notes that navigation in the Circum-Caribbean is well documented as early as 3100 B.C. and that the early maize in the Southeast discussed by Sears (1982) had a totally different origin from the maize that was utilized by Missis-










76

sippian societies. Furthermore! he believes that a

two-pronged entry of maize agriculture into the eastern United States may well explain the heterosis and success of Midwest Hybrid Maize (1987:347).

Mainstream opinion on this topic, however, has been at odds with Lathrap. Walton Galinat (1985) has provided a recent summary of the domestication and diffusion of maize into North America (north of Mexico) and while he readily admits that isolation of races of maize and subsequent

heterosis from reconvergence of divergent populations accounts for the Corn Belt Dent variety (what Lathrap is calling the Midwest Hybrid Maize), the origins of the heterosis are to be found in the introduction by the Spanish explorers of white

dent corn from Mexico blending with the Northeastern Flint variety (originating as Maize de Ocho in the Southwest around A.D. 200 - 700).


Summary


The soil data presented here strongly support a view that is contradictory to Sears' model. Periodic cleaning of the ditches, fertilizing the planting surface, and the effects of

digging below the hardpan are the main elements of Sears' model that have been addressed. Soil science applications to each element indicate annual harvests of maize were not

possible from the planting surface identified by Sears (1982). These, however, do not refute the presence of maize pollen at









77

the site nor do they suggest that maize was never grown at the site. Rather, the soil science data modify Sears' model in two fundamental ways. First, they indicate the role of maize

in the Belle Glade peoples diet was probably more akin to Milanich and Ruhl's (1986) view that maize was not a dietary staple and second, they suggest that Sears' purely functional interpretation of the earthworks is incorrect.

In the case of the latter, Goggin and Sturtevant's

(1964:194-197) view that the earthworks were ceremonial is certainly the most reasonable interpretation at this time. A

cursory inspection of the literature on drained and raised fields in South America (Denevan 1970; Denevan et al. 1987; Farrington 1985; Smith et al. 1968) reveals morphological similarity throughout the areas studied. In no case do these agricultural fields resemble the Belle Glade earthworks. Indeed, the only earthworks that are morphologically similar are those in the midwestern United States. Current research on them supports a ceremonial interpretation (e.g., Brose and Greber 1979).

As to the former, Sears' model lacks corroborative

evidence to support his arguments. If Lathrap (1987) is

correct in his assertion that a preservation bias exists because of "Green Corn" utilization, then we must look for corroborative evidence in the pollen record. If possible,

phytolith analysis should be undertaken as well. As long as

the Fort Center maize pollen stands alone as evidence, the










78

ability to interpret the role of maize in the Belle Glade culture is compromised.















CHAPTER 5
REMOTE SENSING, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD AND LAB METHODS


The methods used for obtaining data on the Belle Glade

culture area involved a background and literature review, a review of aerial photographs, a pedestrian survey for groundtruthing sites found on the aerial photographs and informant

interviews. The background and literature review amassed data from all over the Basin, but the review of aerial photographs, pedestrian survey, and informant interviews were limited to an area on the west side of the lake as part of the West Okeechobee Basin Project (Figure 11) . These methods, as well as the methods used for obtaining data from the field and for

laboratory analysis of the collected data, are explicated here.


Background and Literature Review


The background and literature review provided a frame of reference for evaluating archaeological sites. Pertinent

references on the precolumbian archaeology of the area were consulted. Furthermore, a review of the Florida Master Site

File provided information on all known archaeological sites in the project area.





























































Figure 11. West Okeechobee Basin Project Area.









81

Unfortunately, many of the known sites in the project area were recorded on the basis of scanty information and recorded locations, at times, are vague. Thus, a conscious

effort was made to obtain exacting information on recorded sites that were lacking vocational data.

Early maps of the project area were checked for information on aboriginal site locations, early homesteads, and military roads. The original survey maps (Florida State

Archives 1837) were considered the best early maps for this information. one aboriginal site, the Old Venus Mound (8Hgl) , two historic homesteads, and numerous military roads were discovered by this method. However, only the Old Venus Mound was surveyed while in the field and, as such, the homesteads

and military roads were not given site numbers and do not appear in the results section.


Aerial Photographs


The review of aerial photographs proved most enlightening as not only were 10 previously unrecorded sites found but significant additional information on the architecture of six previously recorded sites was obtained. As stated in the introduction, early aerial photographs are available in

stereopairs at the Map Library on the University of Florida campus. Reviewing these involved locating the project area on an index, retrieving the pertinent photographs, and viewing them.









82

Earthwork sites were easily discerned and plotted on USGS quadrangle maps. Stereoscopes were employed at this stage to provide detail on the sites. Whenever a possible mound was

found the stereoscopes were used to aid in deciding whether or not it should be plotted.

Once a site was identified and plotted, later aerial photographs of the site were viewed for additional detail. These provided remarkably more information than could any one photograph because portions of a site not visible in one were often visible in another. Many factors are responsible for this variation and include, but are not limited to, the time

of day the photograph was taken, season the photograph was taken, angle of the camera, and moisture conditions at the site. Thust the best image of any one site is a composite from many photographs.

overall, this remote sensing application is most useful in relatively flat, savannah areas of the Basin. Forest

cover, regardless of habitat, obscures manifestations of

cultural activity. Thus, in areas of forest cover, this method is useful only in cases of known site locations.


Pedestrian Survey and Informant Interviews


The fieldwork was conducted via a pedestrian survey

coupled with informant interviews. The pedestrian survey included the employment of judgmentally placed shovel tests.

Informant interviews included contacting landowners and other









83

knowledgeable persons during the fieldwork portion of the proj ect.

Subsurface tests included shovel tests and bucket auger tests. The shovel tests were approximately 50 cm in diameter

and were dug in 20 cm levels. The matrix f rom each was

screened through 1/4-inch hardware mesh and, for some levels, through 1/16-inch window screen. (The addition of the

1/16-inch fraction was requested by the zooarchaeology

department personnel at the Florida Museum of Natural History, the repository for the faunal remains.) However, artifact analysis is based solely on the 1/4-inch fraction.

Soil from each shovel test was described in the field notebook. The color of contrasting zones and their thicknesses were noted. All were dug to culturally sterile soil unless groundwater seepage or soil conditions prevented it. The

tests were placed judgmentally unless more than one was dug at a site. In those cases, additional shovel tests were placed on a grid pattern with spacing of the subsurface tests depending on the local conditions.

In the event that cultural materials were recovered in a shovel test no attempt was made to delineate the subsurface boundaries of the site. Rather, the tests served as a sample

of the materials from the site for comparative purposes as well as document information on the site's integrity and possible function.









84

The bucket auger tests, on the other hand, were generally used to obtain soil samples from sites. However, there were cases in which the bucket auger was used to test whether or not cultural materials were present at a particular locale.

The bucket auger is an 8 cm in diameter coring device that allows quick removal of a soil core. The soil was not

screened when using this method. Rather, the soil is poured from the coring device onto a tarp and visually examined for the presence or absence of cultural materials. If any

cultural materials were found, they were noted and a site number was assigned. On the other hand, if no cultural materials were found, the location was not considered a site.

Thus, the accuracy of this method is limited by the variability in cultural material content at a site. A site that is characterized by a relatively high density of cultural

materials is easily discernible with the use of the bucket auger. However, sites that are characterized by a low density of cultural materials (i.e., no cultural materials found in the bucket auger sample) were not identified as sites. Therefore, caution must be observed when determining whether or not a locale is a site with this method.

When the auger tests were used in this manner they were

placed judgmentally on the site. Once cultural materials were encountered (usually within the first 5 cm), the presence of

materials was noted, the site named, and the matrix poured back into the auger test hole. If no cultural materials were









85

encountered, the test was dug below the dark colored soils to what appeared to be culturally sterile soils and then backfilled. Generally, only one such test was excavated at each locale.


Laboratory Analysis


Laboratory analysis of the materials collected from this survey involved separating the specimens from each provenience into four gross categories. These categories are lithics, ceramics, animal bone, and soil samples.

The lithics were measured across their longest axis and

grouped into the following categories: very small (<1 cm) , small (1-2 cm) , medium (2-4 cm) , large (4-6 cm) , very large (6-8 cm), and extra large (8-10 cm). They were then counted and, based on the presence or absence of cortex, were classified into primary flakes (those flakes with cortex completely covering the dorsal surface), secondary flakes (those flakes

with little cortex on the dorsal surface) , and tertiary flakes (those flakes with no cortex on the dorsal surface).

The ceramics were compared with typology collections at the Florida Museum of Natural History and subjected to

microscopic analysis (when warranted) in order to determine their typological classification. Each sherd was measured across its longest axis and grouped into the following

categories: very small (<1 cm) , small (1-2 cm) , medium (2-4 cm) , large (4-6 cm) , very large (6-8 cm) , and extra large









86

(8-10 cm). They were then counted and are reported in the results section as total number of sherds/nuinber of rim sherds in that total.

The animal bones were examined for obvious diagnostic elements (e.g., Lepisosteus spp. vertebra and scales, Odocoileus virginianus astragali, etc.) and species observed in the assemblages are noted. However, no attempt was made to

provide a full analysis of the materials. Instead, they were weighed by provenience (note that some weights are skewed by the presence of impurities, usually concretions) for comparative information on relative density of deposits.

The soil samples were subjected to either morphological

analysis or pH analysis. Morphological analysis was reserved for auger samples from two of the earthworks. It is used to

describe the soil horizons, thereby providing insight on their cultural manipulation. Analysis of pH, on the other hand, was utilized at a number of the sites to provide a means of checking for possible preservation bias. The readings are

based on an E.M. System Soil Tester.















CHAPTER 6
RESULTS


A total of 38 previously unrecorded archaeological sites were discovered in this survey. In addition, the review of aerial photographs revealed significant new data on nine previously recorded sites. These are described in this section.

A discussion of the previously unrecorded sites is included in the section New Sites and the previously recorded sites are listed under the heading Updated Sites. These are

followed by the section Negative Data, which provides information on the field inspection of two localities that were thought to have mound features based on inspection of aerial

photographs, but the pedestrian survey revealed they did not.


New Sites


Okeechobee County

80b27 WedgEorth Mound. The Wedgworth Mound is located in

Township 33S, Range 35E, Section 25 (Figure 12). The site was located via informant interview and consists of a large sand mound measuring 48 m north-south by 50 m east-west and is at least 2 m high. It was reported to the author by the owner,

Mr. George Wedgworth, via Dr. William H. Marquardt of the








88

I/7 "'"FLGPIDA,.


-. - ,.LCATION
'32
52 I _ .
,/ . .,.
I , . ,. . __ " .-ra k r



".Jl.-.I.,\


-43
1. 5.t' 0i" ; 1__ KILOM ETER



Figure " 12. Wedgort (8,27 and_, TensCur 8b
M n - - - - - - - - - - - -
C7
0 2 7

", "--- ,' 2 " / -._ --"


\, � , 5 . , 3 ', . '
.~~ ,1, MILE-_ (



Fiur 12.- Wegot "8b7 and Teni C.ou0r2 8,b34 � . ; .o u n ds-. , .









89

Florida Museum of Natural History. Inspection of aerial

photographs before and after fieldwork revealed no earthworks in the vicinity.

one of two shovel tests yielded a few highly deteriorated bone fragments and a single sherd. The sherd is the type Dunn's Creek Red, suggesting St. Johns period cultural affiliations. The bone fragments are not identifiable and their condition precludes duration. Since it has been

documented that soil acidity can affect bone preservation (see Gordon and Buikstra 1981), the soil pH was obtained. it

revealed that soil acidity is probably not responsible for the poor condition of the bone as the pH registered neutral (at

6.9).

The mound probably did not serve as a habitation site.

Its large size coupled with its lack of preserved faunal remains suggests alternative functions.

It is thought that additional testing may reveal other cultural affiliations however, based on the limited data available, the site's contents and its presence near the Fort Drum Creek drainage suggests a cultural boundary between the Belle Glade and St. Johns regions.

80b34 Tennis Court Mound. The Tennis Court Mound is located in Township 33S, Range 35E, Section 24 (Figure 12). The site was located via informant interview and consists of a small oval mound measuring approximately 15 m in diameter and is at most 0.5 m high. It, like the Wedgworth Mound, was









90
reported to the author by Mr. George Wedgworth. Inspection of aerial photographs was done after fieldwork and revealed no earthworks in the vicinity.

One of two shovel tests produced one flake at a depth of

60 cm below the surface (cmbs) . Furthermore, these tests revealed what appeared to be a buried midden stain in the soil prof ile between 45 and 90 cmbs. No animal bone was discovered nor does the soil pH (6.9) suggest that soil acidity has created a preservation bias. As such, it is dif ficult to determine the function(s) of this mound.

At this time, no specific cultural affinities can be discerned but the presence of the flake and the buried midden stain strongly suggest that the mound is precolumbian.

80b28 Fort Kissimmee Earthworks. The Fort Kissimnmee Earthworks are located in Township 34S, Range 31E, Section 11

(Figure 13). The site was located via remote sensing (aerial CYW-4H-178) and consisted of a large rectangular shaped ditch

with rounded corners measuring approximately 500 m north-south by 265 mn east-west. The northwest corner of the rectangle opened to a bend in the Kissimmiee River such that water could

flow from the River into the ditch. Two einbankmnents measuring approximately 110 m each were located within the interior of the rectangular earthwork and may have terminated at mounds.

Unfortunately, this site was not visited during the field survey. Access is restricted by the Kissimmnee River on one

side and the Kissimmnee Canal on the other. Aerial photographs















I-:,, ,
-.-"---/"~ ~~~~~~ -, ---------I---- - -. - :


-7C
QJADRANGLE LOCATION
\ - . "N_/ - . ., , - . . - _

3--R



4







. .i " .'::L=1. 6'.


Sl>,, ' l,'. K ' 1 .<- ;N'
\ 46
"F.X 4 I









(K >-/ 2" /- /




- 1 " ,- ---.5 0 1 MIL


N
itz 49X





.~0 1 MILE
.5 0 1 KILOMETER


N


Fort Kissimmee Earthworks (80b28).


Figure 13.










92

reveal that construction of the Kissimmee Canal resulted in destruction of about 2/3 of the site leaving only the northwest corner of the earthwork intact (aerial 12055-174-126). (Note that figure 13 suggests the northwest corner of the site was destroyed by the canal; this is not the case. Instead, it is the only portion of the site that is intact. The problem

with the f igure is due to an error in placement of the Kissimmee Canal by the U.S.G.S.) The embankments and most of

the ditch were dug through during excavation of the canal (see Figure 14).

The limited data on this site do not allow for definitive statements of its origin, much less its function. However, its overall morphology, especially in light of the data on the next two sites, suggests it originates with Belle Glade cultural activities.

80b29 Fulford Earthworks. The Fulford Earthworks are located in Township 34S, Range 32E, Section 31 (Figure 15). The site was located via remote sensing (aerial CYW-4H-117) and consists of a large rectangular shaped ditch with rounded

corners measuring approximately 230 m north-south by 170 m east-west. In addition, a linear ditch extends from the southwest corner of the earthwork approximately 200 m west connecting the earthwork to the Kissimmee River. Similar to the Fort Kissimmee Earthworks, an embankment measuring

approximately 100 m is located within the interior of the earthwork and may terminate at a mound.




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E8CTKRYDP_88AW0Y INGEST_TIME 2017-07-20T21:04:03Z PACKAGE UF00102735_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

REMOTE SENSING AND SOIL SCIENCE APPLICATIONS TO UNDERSTANDING BELLE GLADE CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS IN THE OKEECHOBEE BASIN By WILLIAM GRAY JOHNSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1991

PAGE 2

Copyright 1991 by William Gray Johnson

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS If not for the generous contributions of my friend and confidant, Bob Ulshafer, this dissertation would not have been accomplished. His camper provided a roof over my head while I was in the field and his four-wheel drive vehicle got me out of some rough country. Furthermore, his assistance in the field was invaluable. Naming a site after him was a minor reward for all his help. I only wish he had lived to see the completion of this dissertation. Jerald T. Milanich, my committee chairman, deserves special praise as he was instrumental in focusing my attention on the archaeology of the Lake Okeechobee Basin. His knowl edge of the area and his support for my project were outstand ing. The encouragement and support of committee members, Ors. Mary Collins, Marvin Harris, William Keegan, William Marquardt, and Michael Moseley, are also greatly appreciated. Dr. Helen Armstrong, Chief Librarian of the Map and Imagery Library on the University of Florida campus, was especially helpful in assisting me with the aerial photograph collections. Her generous contributions of time and knowledge are applauded. Support from Highlands Hammock State Park in the form of free use of their facilities was greatly valued. Park iii

PAGE 4

managers, Peter Anderson and Valinda Nichols, along with the rest of the Park's personnel are thanked for their cooperation and generosity. Special thanks go to my informants for their time, patience, and knowledge of the local geography. Jeff and Debbie Clemens, Larry Luckey, John Pullen, Charlie Wilson, and George and Peggy Wedgworth are among those who were especially helpful. In addition, John Fitzpatrick and the staff at the Archbold Biological Station are acknowledged for their role in my documentation of the sites on Buck Island Ranch. Finally, I want to thank the staff at the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, for believing in my project and the Florida Historic Preservation Advisory Council for funding it. State Historic Preservation Officer George Percy deserves the highest praise for his part in securing project research funds. iv

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ABSTRACT CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS iii viii 1 2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 6 4 Previous Research ... Theoretical Perspectives Theoretical Perspectives Discussion ...... on Belle Glade Culture 3 THE BELLE GLADE CULTURE AREA Environmental Background .. Culture History ..... Summary of Cultural Adaptations Settlements ...... Archaeological Assemblage Major Sites .... Settlement Patterns Social Organization Belief Systems Subsistence .... MAIZE AND SOILS IN SOUTH FLORIDA Precolumbian Maize in South Florida .. The Antillean Route: A Not-so-Likely Course .. The Soils at Fort Center: Not Productive for Maize . . . . Fort Center ..... The Circular Ditches The Maize Pollen . . .. Evidence of Complexity at Fort Center ... Testing Sears' Model: A Soil Science Application to Archaeological Interpretation. ........ V 6 13 23 26 28 28 29 33 33 35 40 41 42 43 43 45 45 48 50 50 54 55 55 60

PAGE 6

Morphological Descriptions . . . 60 Laboratory Analyses. . . . . . 62 Discussion . . . . . . 62 Ethnohistoric Evidence: Conflicting Accounts. 72 Discussion. . . . . . 74 Summary . . . . . . . . . 7 6 5 REMOTE SENSING, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD AND LAB METHODS 79 Background and Literature Review. . . . 79 Aerial Photographs. . . . . . 81 Pedestrian survey and Informant Interviews 82 Laboratory Analysis . . . . . . . 85 6 RESULTS New Sites . . . . . . . . . Okeechobee County ............. Highlands County .......... Glades County. . ......... Hendry County ....... Updated sites . . . . . . . Highlands County .... Glades County. .......... Hendry County .. Negative Data .............. 7 DISCUSSION OF EARTHWORKS Mounds . Ditches Borrows . . . . . . . . . Embankments . . . . . summary . . . . . Mound Groups . . ...... Circular Earthworks. . .. Circular-Linear Earthworks Linear Embankments ....... Borrows ........ Chronological Summary .. 8 SUMMARY Belle Glade Archaeology .. Remote Sensing .............. Maize in South Florida .. Theoretical Considerations .. Future Research ............... vi 87 87 87 104 123 133 135 135 140 145 152 153 153 158 160 162 163 164 166 166 174 174 178 180 180 185 186 187 189

PAGE 7

APPENDIX MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED SOILS REFERENCES . . . . . . . ..... BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. vii 191 197 210

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy REMOTE SENSING AND SOIL SCIENCE APPLICATIONS TO UNDERSTANDING BELLE GLADE CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS IN THE OKEECHOBEE BASIN By William Gray Johnson May 1991 Chairperson: Jerald T. Milanich Major Department: Anthropology Remote sensing, in the form of early aerial photographs, was utilized to locate and describe types of aboriginal earthworks in the Okeechobee Basin. These data, combined with a review of the relevant literature and the Florida Master Site Files, provide the basis for a typological classification of the earthworks. The typology is compared with chronologi cal information derived from the Fort Center site to provide a synthesis of the culture history of the Basin. Data from analysis of soils at the Fort Center site suggest that maize played at best a minor role in the development of the Basin's aboriginal cultures. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The archaeology of the Okeechobee Basin has been de scribed as "one of the most unknown and enigmatic in all of Florida" (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980: 181, see Figure 1). Although much has been done in the last decade (e.g., Hale 1984, 1989; Sears 1982), the nature of the aboriginal occupa tion of the Basin remains debated and, at least somewhat, enigmatic. This is especially true of the extraordinary earthworks found there. This dissertation attempts to synthesize what is known about the archaeological settlements in the region and provide a framework for understanding the changes apparent in the aboriginal earthworks associated with the Belle Glade culture, the precolumbian and early colonial period peoples who occupied the Basin. In addition, the question of maize agriculture as a subsistence base for the Bell~ Glade people is addressed through a study of soils at Fort Center. Previous archaeological research in the Okeechobee Basin has proved that precolumbian sites can be located by reviewing aerial photographs for large earthworks, mounds and middens (Carr 1975). However, this method can yield erroneous data if not coupled with a pedestrian survey (cf. Clausen 1980). 1

PAGE 10

2 / Figure 1. The Okeechobee Basin and Key Sites (Source: Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:168).

PAGE 11

3 Thus, these methods were combined with informant interviews to provide a comprehensive survey of this archaeologically little known part of Florida. Early black and white aerial photographs were reviewed in order to find aboriginal sites within the project area. Figure 2 provides an example. Photographs are available in stereo pairs at the Map Library located on the University of Florida campus. The earliest were taken in 1938 and provide coverage of the area prior to the changes in vegetation that resulted from extensive flood control. Large earthwork sites, such as Fort Center, Tony's Mound, and others are easily discernible. Mound sites, on the other hand, are not so easily found, but can be identified with the aid of a stereo scope. A ground-truthing pedestrian survey of the sites and potential sites followed. Unfortunately, time constraints, access to private properties, and limited manpower inhibited my ability to ground-truth all of the sites and potential sites found during the review of aerial photographs. Still, the project resulted in the recording of 38 previously unrecorded sites and provided new information for nine previously recorded sites. These data, combined with a review of relevant literature and the Florida Master Site Files, provide the basis for a discussion of the basic elements that make up the 40 known earthworks in the Lake Okeechobee Basin, and their change from

PAGE 12

Figure 2. 4 Early Aerial Photograph (BUN-5D-133) of Tony's Mound (8Hn3).

PAGE 13

5 one form or type to another. This study provides a modifica tion of Belle Glade chronology and sheds light on Belle Glade origins. Also, the application of early aerial photography to remote sensing archaeological sites is addressed. The question of maize agriculture in South Florida has been debated for decades. Maize pollen from the Fort Center site provides the most convincing evidence to date of its use among the Belle Glade peoples. However, an examination of the soils at Fort Center, specifically the purported planting surface, indicates that maize could not be grown there in any substantial quantity. Chapter 4 details the maize question and provides evidence to support this statement.

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS Previous Research The foundations for our understanding of the Belle Glade culture are attributable to John Goggin (1940, 1947, 1952, n.d.a). His work on the Glades archaeological area incorpo rated research within the Okeechobee Basin as a sub-area. Previously, Matthew Stirling (1936:355) designated the Glades archaeological area as "the region between the Kissimmee and Indian rivers and all of the peninsula from Lake Okeechobee to the Florida keys." Stirling (1935, 1936) believed the entire area was an archaeological unit that had been home for the Calusa. Other than the exceptional quality of wood carvings found by Cushing (1897) at the Key Marco site, he noted the material culture of the area was "characterized by the use of an inferior grade of pottery, perforated shell hoes, shell plummets, antler adze sockets, and bone projectile points" (Stirling 1936:355). A.L. Kroeber (1939) considered south Florida to be a distinct culture area in his study of cultural and natural areas of North America. He too noted the quality of wood carvings found by Cushing ( 1897) but, due to the lack of 6

PAGE 15

7 additional finds, he characterized the culture as a poorer phase of the Southeastern type. Thus, Goggin's work in the area in the 1940s was, for all practical purposes, a pioneering endeavor. His use of Stirling's (1935, 1936) "Glades archaeological area" was modified to include all of tropical Florida--with a northern boundary stretching from Boca Grande Pass on the west coast to just below Ft. Pierce on the east coast. Within this area, he recognized three sub-areas: the Tekesta sub-area, the Calusa sub-area, and the Okeechobee sub-area and three culture periods: Glades I, II, and III (Goggin 1947:119-120). At Fort Center, Goggin realized the distinctiveness of the Belle Glade earthworks, noting that the site "has few parallels" ( 1952: 52) His analysis of the materials recovered from Fort Center and from the nearby Platt site, coupled with Rita Porter's (1952) analysis of Belle Glade Plain rim sherds provided a ceramic sequence "remarkably like that from the Belle Glade Midden" (Goggin 1952: 65). In addition, he was the first archaeologist to recognize the significance of aerial photographs as a remote sensing technique for locating archaeological sites in the Basin (Goggin 1952:52). Goggin (n.d.a) also amassed a great deal of the ethno historic documentation on the South Florida natives. Writing of the people living around Lake Okeechobee, Goggin (n.d.a:56) states, "The affiliations of the people around Lake Okeechobee are uncertain but it is possible that they were Calusa."

PAGE 16

8 However, his article with William Sturtevant recognized them as a distinct tribe called the Mayaimi (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964: 181) Gordon Willey's (1949) report on the excavations at the Belle Glade type site and Big Mound City earthworks (conducted by Matthew Stirling under the Works Projects Administration in the 1930s) provides a cultural chronology specific to the Basin. His scheme introduced the Belle Glade I and II periods. Unfortunately, this scheme received little attention from subsequent researchers. William Sears' (1966:17-18) early work on culture areas in South Florida distinguished the Okeechobee Basin from the Glades archaeological area as a separate cultural region. Later, Sears (1967) referred to the Okeechobee Area as the Belle Glade area, a name change that Griffin et al. (1979:28) found agreeable. Carr and Beriault (1984) prefer the term Okeechobee Area but basically agree with the objective and are not so concerned with the semantics. For the purposes of this dissertation, Belle Glade area, Okeechobee Basin and Okee chobee Area are used interchangeably. Outside the purely culture area designation arguments, Sears' (1982) book on the excavations at Fort Center and his articles (Sears 1971, 1977; Sears and Sears 1976) provide a culture chronology distinct from previous work in the area. His is a four-period chronology that separates cultural developments at the Fort Center site. Sears (1982:193-201)

PAGE 17

9 recognizes these developments from their relatively simple beginnings to the later complex interactions between the Belle Glade culture and the Calusa. Furthermore, he concludes that terraforming and the presence of maize pollen at Fort Center indicate that cultural development within the Basin was based on maize agriculture. The identification of precolumbian maize pollen at Fort Center has led to vigorous debate among researchers interested in the implications of maize agriculture among the South Florida natives. Henry Dobyns ( 1983) uses this information in combination with other lines of evidence to argue that agriculture was practiced among the Calusa--a position that enabled him to bolster his population density estimates for the Calusa. Jerald Milanich ( 1987) responds to Dobyns (principally because Dobyns argued that de Soto's landing was actually south of Tampa Bay and in Charlotte Harbor) by taking Dobyns' ( 1983) evidence to task and refuting each point. However, Milanich (1987:180) admits that the Fort Center maize pollen is clearly a major bit of evidence that cannot be refuted. On the other hand, Milanich and Ruhl (1986) indicate that maize may not have served as a dietary staple for the Belle Glade culture. William Keegan (1987) addresses the issue as it relates to Sears' (1971, 1982) hypothesized route of movement for the origins of maize at Fort Center. His research leads him to believe that maize could not have been introduced to South

PAGE 18

10 Florida via the Antilles until maize was already well estab lished in the Eastern Woodlands (circa A.O. 1000). However, Donald Lathrap (1987) takes exception to Keegan's view, noting that a preservation bias could exist in the archaeological record especially if maize were used in its green corn form. The question of maize agriculture among the Belle Glade culture continues to generate much debate. In chapter 4 I summarize current knowledge on this subject and present new data from soil science applications to provide evidence that favors Milanich and Ruhl's (1986) view. Other research that addresses subsistence among the Belle Glade culture includes Stephen Hale's (1989) dissertation and a journal article (Hale 1984) Both focus on zooarchaeo logical analysis of faunal remains from Fort Center and other sites within the Okeechobee Basin. Hale's research provides baseline data on faunal resource utilization and addresses the issue of maize agriculture. In addition, Hale provides an analysis of Belle Glade settlement pattern and argues that earthwork sites are in predictable locations. Robert Carr's (1975) technical report on a survey of the lake margin and a later article (Carr 1985) provide insights on the circular earthworks of the area. Carr (1973, 1975, 1985) was instrumental in demonstrating the effectiveness of early aerial photographs as a remote-sensing application to study Belle Glade earthworks (although John Goggin used this technique in the 1940s, as indicated by his notes on archaeo

PAGE 19

11 logical site file cards at the Florida Museum of Natural History). Carr also provided some guidelines for research in the Martin County portion of the Basin (Carr 1973). In addition to these archaeologists, a number of re searchers working elsewhere have addressed issues related to the Belle Glade culture area. John Griffin's (Griffin et al. 1982; Griffin 1988) work in Southeast Florida and the Ever glades and William Marquardt' s ( 1986, 1988) and Randolph Widmer's {1988) work in Southwest Florida have discussed the relationships between these areas and the Belle Glade region. Griffin et al. (1982) specifically consider the question of maize agriculture among the Southeast Florida natives because of Sears' (1982) evidence of maize use among the Belle Glade peoples. They conclude that no evidence exists to suggest maize was grown there (Griffin et al. 1982:230). They do find evidence for trade between the peoples who inhabited the Granada site and the Belle Glade culture in the form of Belle Glade Plain pottery, but they cannot specify the items that were traded from Southeast Florida to the Okeechobee Basin (Griffin et al. 1982:392). In his synthesis of the archaeology of Everglades National Park, Griffin {1988:48-65) provides a comprehensive overview of the spatial and chronological relationships between the various culture areas of South Florida. In his conclusions, he indicates the archaeology shows more affini

PAGE 20

12 ties with the Southeast coast than any other area (Griffin 1988:322). Marquardt's (1986, 1988) examination of the Calusa social formation indicates tributary relationships between the various native groups of south Florida. Specifically, he highlights the ethnohistoric documentation indicating that a bread is made from roots in the interior of Florida and that roots were brought to the Calusa on the Southwest Florida coast. While the exact nature of the relationship between the Calusa and the inhabitants of the Belle Glade area is not clear, some form of distribution of goods from the Basin to the coast is certainly suggested. In The Evolution of the Calusa, Widmer ( 1988: 274-276) discusses the role of this bread in terms of demographic distinctions between the Okeechobee Basin inhabitants and the coastal Calusa population. Based on population estimates provided by Fontaneda (1945), he determines at least a six fold difference in population size between the two groups. He then argues that the demographic imbalance provided a military advantage to the coastal Calusa that enabled them to force the Belle Glade peoples to pay tribute for not being raided (Widmer 1988:275). These works provide a wide array of thought on the archaeology of the Okeechobee Basin. In the next two sec tions, I examine theoretical perspectives as they have

PAGE 21

13 developed in the discipline and as they have been applied to the study of the Belle Glade culture. Theoretical Perspectives The archaeologists who have worked in the Basin have arrived at markedly different conclusions about the cultural developments that took place. Two schools of thought are evident: historical particularism and cultural ecology. A short history of these theoretical orientations within a framework of cultural evolutionism provides a backdrop for discussing the conclusions that have been offered and suggest ing alternative strategies. Cultural evolution has been a prominent topic of study for anthropologists since the beginning of the discipline. Probably the dominant form is one that has been labeled cultural evolutionism. Leslie White (1959:vii) states that the theory of cultural evolution dominated most of cultural anthropology during the last three or four decades of the nineteenth century. It was advanced by scientists to replace the theory of creation as provided by Judea-Christian theol ogy. At its most basic level, cultural development was seen as a linear progression from simple to complex. Lewis Henry Morgan's (1877) work provided the stage model for the evolu tion of human society. He recognized three distinct stages that all human groups progress through: savagery, barbarism, and civilization.

PAGE 22

14 However, during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, a reaction against evolutionism developed in both the United States and Germany. In the U.S., Franz Boas led the attack and instilled the ideas of cultural relativity in his students. In Germany, the nonevolutionist school of thought was led by Fritz Graebner and his colleagues. Their work promoted diffusion as an interpretation of similarities between cultures in noncon tiguous areas, rather than independent development. Rathje and Schiffer ( 1980: 302) state that "the attack against cultural evolutionism was led by Franz Boas, who helped establish the conceptual scheme we now call historical particularism. This perspective identified several basic historical processes that were used to explain specific instances of change. Among the processes identified were migration, diffusion, and rarely, invention. Bower (1986:66) points out that the "historical partic ularist view rests on the assumption that cultural traits, or customs, are 1) independent of one another; and, 2) present in any given culture as a result of fortuitous contact with donor cultures and the preferences of the recipients." Unfortunate ly, such assumptions require that any explanation fit within the parameters of individual histories and do not allow for broad generalizations. Thus, historical particularism has largely fallen out of favor.

PAGE 23

.. 15 According to White (1959:viii), antievolutionism reached its peak during the 1920s, but began subsiding and set the stage for a comeback of cultural evolutionary theory in the late 1940s. He quotes the News Bulletin of the American Anthropological Association ( 1948) as stating that at the annual meeting of the Association at Albuquerque in December, 1947, "a reawakening of interest in the problem of cultural evolution was noticeable." A number of articles followed on the theory of cultural evolution (White 1959:viii cites Jacobs 1948; Hoebel 1958; Lesser 1952; Steward 1953, 1955; and Childe 1951). White ( 1959: ix) states that he "absorbed the antievo lutionist doctrines of the Boas school as a graduate student. But as he began to teach, he found, first, that he could not defend this point of view, and later that he could no longer hold it. In due time he cultivated the theory of evolution in a course called Evolution of Culture, ... and has attacked the position of the antievolutionists in a number of arti cles." White ( 1959) then summarized mid-twentieth century cultural evolutionist theory in The Evolution of Culture. Since then, cultural evolutionism has provided the basis for most archaeological and ethnological work on societal complexity (Gailey and Patterson 1987:3). This model views societies as entities that develop through a linear progres sion of stages. White (1959) believed societal complexity could be viewed as a sequence of evolutionary stages that

PAGE 24

16 could be documented historically and archaeologically. He defined each stage in terms of four components--technological, sociological, ideological, and sentimental or attitudinal--in which the technological component was the basis and determi nant of cultural systems (White 1959:18). Julian Steward (1951:380), on the other hand, suggested the term "levels of sociocultural integration" rather than stages of cultural evolution. He states, "the concept of levels of integration does not presuppose any evolutionary sequence." Rather, it is "a methodological tool for dealing with cultures of different degrees of complexity." He referred to his approach as a multilinear theory of evolution that "seeks cross-cultural regularities and explanations but presupposes no universal schemes" (Steward 1965:733). According to Hatch ( 1973: 114) "the key to Steward's ideas about culture is his concept of ecology." Steward (1955:30) states, "The principal meaning of ecology is 'adaptation to environment.'" Thus, cultural ecology is the study of the relationship between culture and the natural environment. Steward's model distinguished between the culture corethose features most closely related to subsistence and economic activities--and the secondary features of culture that are not strongly tied to the core but "are determined to a greater extent by purely cultural-historical factors--by random innovations or by diffusion" (1955:37). Thus, it was

PAGE 25

17 the relationship between the core and the environment that was the most important determinant of cultural systems. Gailey and Patterson ( 1987: 3) state, "Cultural evolution ism differentiated society from the natural world, and culture mediated the relationship between them." Furthermore, they note that parallel developments in positivist forms of Marxist social theory began focusing on the use of resources and technology as determinants of cultural development. Both schools saw societies developing through a linear progression of stages, and stages were defined in terms of variations in the base and corresponding superstructural forms (Gailey and Patterson 1987:3). However, problems in the positivist models began to surface in the late 1950s (Gailey and Patterson 1987:3). Rowe ( 1962) challenged the base-superstructure model. Leach ( 1954) pointed out that linear models of development could not account for the internal destruction of state institutions by their subjects. And, Adams {1956) highlighted the reduction ist nature of state-formative models and believed they were unable to account for the dynamics of historically specific cases. The results of these critiques led to the creation of two distinct lines of thought: cultural materialism, as described by Harris {1968, 1979), and a strand of evolutionist thought which gave primacy to political dynamics (Fried 1967; Service 1962). The former retained the distinction between nature and

PAGE 26

18 culture and continued to emphasize the primacy of the culture core--what Harris ( 1979) calls the infrastructure. The latter, on the other hand, has challenged the economic determinism of the earlier evolutionists, but retained the notion of linear development. The outcome of these lines of thinking has been a slight revision in the sequence of stages, i.e., to band, tribe, chiefdom, and state, as developed by Service (1962). During this period, anthropological archaeology accepted evolution as an integral part of its program, largely through the efforts of Binford ( 1962, 1965) The so-called "new" archaeology stressed an emphasis on explaining processual change scientifically. Explicit goals, the identification of cultural and natural formation processes, and a move away from detailed descriptions of artifacts and artifact categories were its hallmarks. Systems theory, as promoted by Kent Flannery (1968, 1972) was an outgrowth of this movement. Borrowing largely from ecology, systems theorists viewed cultural change as a process tending towards equilibrium. According to Gailey and Patter son (1987:4-5), it retained the idea of determination by the political level and erased the distinction between nature and culture. This model abstracted individuals from historical and social conditions and conceived of them as components of a system, interchangeable with each other and with those in other systems. Transformation of these systems is viewed as

PAGE 27

19 a product of factors other than human action--especially human action as shaped by class, gender, ethnicity, and other dimensions of social life. Thus, culture, as created by humans in a social division of labor, is irrelevant to the analysis {Gailey and Patterson 1987:5). During the 1970s, a modified form of the systems model, called catastrophe theory, was adopted (Gailey and Patterson 1987: 5). This form was created for dealing with crises. Colin Renfrew {1978, 1979) provided some of the best examples of catastrophe theory arguing that crises or catastrophes occur in the absence of continuous political and economic expansion. Gailey and Patterson ( 1987: 18) note that the model appeared in Great Britain following a period of profound economic crisis. At the same time, cultural materialism took on a more important role in the development of anthropological theory. Harris (1979) produced his seminal work on the subject leading to vigorous debate on the primacy of the infrastructure in determining cultural systems. Interestingly, and almost simultaneously, two new schools of thought emerged. Both sought to explain cultural develop ment from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective. These schools of thought are sociobiology--as most profoundly stated by Bateson (1985)--and cultural selectionism--as named by Rindos (1984).

PAGE 28

20 Cultural selectionism argues for a Darwinian perspective on the evolution of culture principally because it serves as the basis for understanding evolutionary processes in modern biology. Robert Dunnell (1980:36) states, "Modern evolution ary biology is relevant because it is in biology that the scientific theory of evolution has been developed and because biologists have argued its applicability to human phenomena under the label of sociobiology" (e.g., Wilson 1975, 1978) [italics original]. But perhaps the strongest argument for supporting a Darwinian perspective on cultural evolution comes from an approach that Dunnell (1980:36) has aptly named the evolution of the "human capacity for culture." This approach, while essentially biological, merges at its extremes with both cultural evolution and sociobiology. Its basic tenets are to be found in the assumption that the human capacity for culture evolved within a subjected to the biological context and, therefore, was same evolutionary forces that affect all biological organisms. As such, this approach is necessarily immersed in the Darwinian perspective. One of the most recent advocates of the cultural selec tionists school of thought comes from Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson (1985). Although trained as ecologists, they became interested in the dearth of Darwinian models in the social sciences. They noted the use of analogies from biology and concepts such as adaptation, but were surprised by the lack of any "systematic theoretical argument for cultural behavior

PAGE 29

21 that paralleled the Darwinian theory of biologists" (Boyd and Richerson 1985:vii). The result of their work, the dual inheritance model, seeks to provide such a systematically consistent argument. This model views culture as the transmission of traits from one generation to the next via the mechanism of social learning. In this view, culture is defined "in terms of people's mental state (the "emic" concept of anthropology or the "cognitive" of social psychology)" (Boyd and Richerson 1985: 36). The authors believe "that it is important to exclude behavior and the products of behavior from the definition of culture because behavior is contingent upon both patterns of thought and feeling and environmental circumstanc es" (Boyd and Richerson 1985:36). The importance of excluding behavior and the products of behavior, i.e., traditional definitions of culture in materi alist paradigms, from their definition of culture is to provide a focus on social learning as a mechanism that evolutionary forces can act upon. In their words, "Only by distinguishing culture from behavior can we see clearly how social learning interacts with environmental contingencies to produce behavior" (Boyd and Richerson 1985:36). This then provides the basis for their dual inheritance model. The cultural repertoire is analogous to the genotype and social learning provides the means to produce phenotypes. It is argued that social learning has the properties of an inheri

PAGE 30

22 tance system and that random variation, drift, and natural selection provide the mechanisms of cultural variability. Cultural materialists likely feel comfortable with the cultural selectionist school of thought. It, unlike sociobi ology, does not invoke genetic control over the development of human cultural systems but does provide a strong metaphor from the natural sciences for explaining social science phenomena. However, unlike the ecology school of thought from which cultural materialism grew, cultural selectionism argues that cultural evolution is the result of a natural evolutionary process (Rindos 1984:38}. Where cultural ecology views culture change as a result of non-equilibrium conditions, cultural selectionism argues that all human behavior is determined by the interaction of two inheritance systems--one genetic and the other cultural. Rindos {1984:23) points out that there are weaknesses inherent in the cultural ecology school of thought, especially in the branch known as systems theory. He finds that even though cultural ecologists take a basic materialist view of the development of agriculture the weaknesses in the paradigm force proponents to argue in terms of intent and teleology. Intent emerges as the ultimate cause in explaining origins or evolution of systems because systems theory forces explanation into a course of action requiring choices. Once choice is invoked, intent becomes an inherent part of the explanation. Teleology results when explanations within

PAGE 31

23 systems theory allow us to place emphasis on equilibri um/stability, resulting in difficulty explaining any change, or on change, providing us with a situation in which the mechanism of change is not inherently specifiable; thus we can choose one that best fits our prejudices (Rindos 1984:24). Cultural selectionism, on the other hand, seeks to identify functional or proximate modes of explanation and separate them from evolutionary or ultimate modes of explanation. The emphasis is placed on variability, heritability, and differential fitness in explaining changes in learned behaviors. Evolutionary models such as cultural selectionism may prove beneficial for cultural evolutionists. However, their application at this time is very limited. Among researchers of the Belle Glade culture, materialist strategies, especially cultural ecology, dominate our current understanding. However, historical particularism is also strong. Theoretical Perspectives on Belle Glade Culture Historical particularism and cultural ecology are the dominant theoretical approaches to the study of the precolum bian history of the Lake Okeechobee Basin. These views lead to markedly different conclusions about cultural developments. In this section, the various researchers and their approaches are contrasted to provide a focus for the approach taken in this dissertation.

PAGE 32

24 Sears ( 1977: 6-7, 1982: 191) views the introduction of maize agriculture and a settled village economy as having come to South Florida's interior from Venezuela via the Antilles. This introduction, according to Sears, comes in the form of migration, the earliest of which was prior to 500 B.C. He recognizes similar designs and similar manufacturing tech niques on the pottery of this time, as well as the terraform ing techniques that enabled savannah agriculture. As time progressed, Sears believes that "the society here [at the Fort Center site] developed a complex ceremonial center within a century or two of the beginning of the Christian era" (1977:7). By A.O. 1000, the ceremonial center was abandoned and dwellings moved to small, single house mounds, each with an adjacent linear earthwork up to 1200 ft long and 100 ft wide. This, he believes, was due to continued contact with the South American population (Sears 1977:7-9, 1982:200). To further substantiate his claim of a South American origin for cultural developments in South Florida, he cites Granberry (1971; see also Granberry 1989 for a recent update) for the origin of the Timucuan language (a language group that dominated north-central Florida prior to European contact and that is presumed to be similar to the language of South Florida) from Venezuela. Thus, for Sears, the migration of a South American population via the Antillean route explains cultural development in South Florida's interior. Such an explanation is

PAGE 33

25 typical of a historical particularist strategy. It provides a comprehensive explanation for the presence of complexity in a given area without having to explain the reasons for the development of that complexity in its original setting. Bridging the historical particularist approach and the cultural ecology school of thought is Robert Carr's (1975, 1985) research in the area. In his study of the area's circular earthworks, he invokes a diffusionist argument for their origin in Southeast Florida (Carr 1985:300). On the other hand, he notes that all of the circular earthworks occur in inundated environments that are located adjacent to elevated hammocks or other upland environments. Thus, he reasons that Sears' assertion that the earthworks functioned for draining garden plots has to be rethought in terms of other environmental contingencies (Carr 1985:299). Gordon Willey's ecological approach focuses on a diet based on wild foods (Willey 1949:71, 129). Moreover, he believes that the environmental conditions of the area are not suited for agriculture, especially in aboriginal times (Willey 1949:17). Indeed, he concludes "The area is not now, nor was it in the past, well-suited for maize" (1949:18}. Stephen Hale (1984:183), who also takes an ecological approach to the understanding of Belle Glade cultural adapta tions, has found that portions of the Belle Glade earthworks are aligned with the direction of surface water flow and may represent a method of drainage for agricultural production.

PAGE 34

26 Though his work on the zooarchaeological materials from Fort Center and other sites in the Basin provides abundant data on the use of wild foods, he advocates an agricultural subsis tence for the Belle Glade peoples prior to A.O. 1545 (Hale 1984:183). Subsequently, Hale (1989:187-191) has retreated from this position. The question of maize among the South Florida natives has been discussed at length. Most of these arguments center around ethnohistoric documentation and/or archaeological research. In all cases, the specific arguments can be said to take a materialist approach [though Sears' (1971, 1982) work on the subject is certainly couched in a historical particu larist strategy]. Discussion The conclusions about cultural development are typical of the approaches represented. Historical particularists will invariably see diffusion as the source for culture change and will often invoke migration theories to explain why and how such change took place. Ecologically-minded researchers will cite the high productivity of the natural environment and assume the development of complex social phenomena as a natural outcome. Such ecological approaches fall neatly in the cultural materialist school of thought, which is basic to the research approach reported here. However, the present

PAGE 35

27 study departs from the strictly ecological school in its approach to adaptation. Adaptation appears in the title of this dissertation for two reasons. First, it emphasizes the relationship between culture and nature, and second, it draws attention to a materialist approach. In the former, adaptation does not refer to an equilibrium between cultural and natural systems as it so often does in ecological models. Rather, it refers to the juxtaposition of a cultural system in concert with a natural system. Adaptation in this view becomes a methodolog ical tool for a materialist paradigm. The following chapters are consistent with this position and provide results that will change interpretations of the Belle Glade culture.

PAGE 36

CHAPTER 3 THE BELLE GLADE CULTURE AREA Environmental Background The Okeechobee Basin geographical area is bounded by the Western Flatlands (Davis 1943: 43-48) the Allapattah Flats and the Big Cypress swamp (DeLorme 1987:102,113-114). According to Brooks (1974:256), the area of the lake is dependent upon water level and varies from 560 to 730 square miles (1450 1890 km 2 ) The total area of the watershed (including the lake surface) is over 4500 square miles (11,655 km 2 ) Of this, the Kissimmee River accounts for about 3000 square miles. The basin itself, excluding the lake, can be said to encompass between 3940 square miles (10,200 km 2 ) and 3770 square miles (9760 km 2 ) depending on water level of the lake. If one excludes the Kissimmee River, then the area of the basin drops to between 940 square miles (2430 km 2 ) and 770 square miles (1990 km 2 ). However, there is good evidence to include Lake Kissimmee and the Kissimmee River drainage in this cultural area. Precolumbian cultural affinities represented in burial mounds, earthworks, and ceramics are found as far north as Lake Tohopekaliga (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980: 26). Similarly, 28

PAGE 37

29 both the Kissimmee River drainage and the Basin are character ized by relatively poor, sandy soils (composed of quartzitic sands developed over calcareous marine deposits), relatively low elevations with little relief, and numerous ponds and sloughs. Outcrops of silicified limestone, or chert, which were often exploited by aboriginal peoples as raw material sources for the manufacture of stone tools, do not occur in the area (cf. Lane 1980; Lane et al. 1980). The closest known outcrops lie to the west along the Peace River (Upchurch et al. 1982). The vegetation cover consists primarily of pine and palmetto flatlands, wet prairies and occasional hammocks of live oak usually mixed with cabbage palm. Cypress swamps are found bordering larger lakes and ponds and a wide assort ment of wildlife exists in the area. Culture History The region was first inhabited during at least the Transitional period, c. 1000 B.C. 500 B.C. (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:23). Evidence for an earlier Archaic period population is found nearby in the upper st. Johns "from north of Palatka to well down opposite the Indian River region" (Sears 1977:3). However, no sites in the Okeechobee Basin have been assigned to this period. The earliest occupations came from the Fort Center site (8Gl13), where semi-fiber tempered ceramics have been found in limited numbers (Goggin 1952:58; Griffin 1952:329; Sears and Sears 1976:53; Sears

PAGE 38

1982:26). 30 According to Sears (1977:7; 1982:192-193), this initial occupation is coeval with the construction of the earliest of the Okeechobee Basin's spectacular earthworksi.e., the circular ditches. Following the Transitional period is the Belle Glade period, c. 500 B.C. A.O. 1700 (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:23). During this period, cultural activities in the Okeechobee Basin increase dramatically suggesting the greatest cultural complexity in south Florida centered around this inland territory (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:181). Several researchers have attempted to build a chronology for this area but the lack of comprehensive surveys coupled with very limited excavations leaves this region of Florida one of the most poorly known regions of the state. To date, the most comprehensive chronology for the Belle Glade culture area was developed by Sears (1971, 1977, 1982) based on his work at the Fort Center site. A combination of stratigraphy, seriation, and radiocarbon dates allowed him to develop a four-period chronology beginning with Period I and ending with Period IV. These periods are roughly coeval with the Transitional period as defined by Bullen (1959, 1970), and the Belle Glade I and II periods as defined by Willey ( 1949: 70-72) Sears' (1982:26,185) Period I from c. 800 1000 B.C. to A.O. 200 most closely fits the Transitional period definition. At the early end of Period I, Sears (1982:192-193) notes small

PAGE 39

31 populations of perhaps one or two families living along the riverbank on small house mounds with fish and turtle being particularly important to the diet. Only semi-fiber tempered pottery was in use during this time but by the end of this period most of the pottery was the sand-tempered plain ware. Distinguishing this period from the Transitional period is the presence of the circular ditches. Sears {1982:193-194) believes the ditches functioned as drained fields for maize cultivation. Sears' {1982:26-31,186-189) Period II, from A.O. 200 to about A.O. 600-800, is coeval with the Belle Glade I period, except that there are no Glades decorated wares at Fort Center. Griffin (1988:126) notes that sand-tempered plain pottery is dominant at this time but is accompanied by the appearance of Belle Glade Plain ware. The latter increases in its popularity throughout Period I I. Furthermore, trade wares are present representing influence from Deptford, crystal River, Cartersville, Pasco and St. Johns areas to the north. According to Willey (1949:125), evidence for the Belle Glade I period consists of Belle Glade Plain and Glades Plain (sand-tempered plain) ceramics with small percentages of Glades decorated wares (see also Widmer 1988:87-88). There are no defining dates associated with the Belle Glade I period but, by inference, Widmer (1988:87) provides a terminal date at A.O. 900 1000.

PAGE 40

32 The Belle Glade II period is defined by the presence of Belle Glade Plain and Glades Plain ceramics coupled with a lack of Glades decorated wares and the appearance of st. Johns (Biscayne) Check Stamped (Willey 1949: 125). Sears' (1982:27,31,189-190) Periods III and IV most closely resemble this period. Period III lasts from A.O. 600 800 to A.O. 1200 1400 and is characterized as a period of time which experienced minimal cultural change (Sears 1982: 199). Griffin (1988:126) indicates that sand-tempered plain pottery contin ued to decrease while Belle Glade Plain increased. Period IV, on the other hand, is described as a time of excelled craftsmanship, revived focus for authority, and participation in a larger social system than the one existing on the site. The introduction of linear embankments occurs in this period as well as the first appearance of European objects and artifacts made from European-derived materials. In addition, Griffin (1988:126) notes that only a small amount of sand-tempered plain ceramics accompany the large amount of Belle Glade Plain ware. Furthermore, new rim forms, particu larly expanded flat and comma shaped varieties appear (Griffin 1988:126). Sears (1982:200) believes that during this period Fort Center was part of the sixteenth and seventeenth-century Calusa domain. Little is known about the terminus of Belle Glade culture. Few ethnohistoric accounts exist and only one is widely publicized. Fontaneda's (1945:13) account of the

PAGE 41

33 sixteenth century south Florida native groups refers to a people who lived around a large lake known as the Mayaimi. His narrative provides scanty information on population density, subsistence, environment, and political affiliations with the coastal Calusa. Some Belle Glade sites, including Ortona (8Gl5), Belle Glade (8PB41), and Fort Center (8Gl13), contain European artifacts and European-derived raw materials such as silver, iron, and gold. Thus, there exists ample evidence to suggest Belle Glade participation in a larger economy than existed solely in the Okeechobee Basin. The demise of the Belle Glade peoples was surely linked to their participation in this larger economy. The introduc tion of European diseases is documented throughout the southeastern U.S. and is considered a major cause in the death of the South Florida native groups. It is thought by many researchers that by the time the Seminoles entered into this part of Florida, all of the South Florida aborigines were extinct. Summary of Cultural Adaptations Settlements Archaeological sites in the Okeechobee Basin include earthworks (Allen 1948; Carr 1975:14-36; McGoun 1987, 1988; Sears 1982:130-183; Willey 1949:73-77), burial mounds (Carr 1973:14; Sears 1982:130-183; Willey 1949:20-23; Williams 1975:15-34), and habitation mounds or middens (Goggin 1952;

PAGE 42

Sears 1982:130-183; Willey 1949:19-20). 34 Among the more spectacular sites are the large earthworks found in the open savannah, often bordering creeks or major environmental zones (see Hale 1984:181). These include circular ditches, linear embankments, and combined mound and embankment complexes. Sears (1982:185) provides evidence indicating that the circular ditches are the earliest earthworks at Fort Center, dating earlier than 450 B.C. His research demonstrates that some of the habitation middens are coeval with the ditches. Habitation mounds are believed to have been built during his Periods I and II (Sears 1982:186,195-199) and again during his Period IV, but the latter include linear embankments (Sears 1982: 199-201). Burials in mounds date to his Period I, possibly II, and IV ( Sears 1982: 140-141, 200-201) Willey ( 1949: 125) was unable to ascertain the date of the burial mound at the Belle Glade site, but believed it was coeval with the habitation mound. Williams (1975:33-34) obtained a radiocarbon date of 200 B.C. under one of the burials he excavated, but he believes the date is erroneous. The combined mound and embankment complex known as Big Mound City is thought to have been laid out according to a master plan, although no conclusions have been made as to whether it was built all at once (Willey 1949:73-77). However, a collection from one of the mounds at the site indicates it is coeval with the late period of occupation at the Belle Glade site. At least 21 mound and embankment

PAGE 43

35 complexes have been identified and include Barley Barber I ( 8Mt19, Carr 1973) ; the Big Circle Mounds, also known as Tony's Mound (8Hn3, Allen 1948); the Boynton Mound Complex (8PB100 Jaffe 1976; McGoun 1987, 1988); Cowbone Prairie, also known as Hendry Earthworks (8Hn25), L-8 Earthworks; Lakeport Earthworks (8Gl26); Little Cypress Slough; Maple Mound (8Hn5); Nicodemous Earthworks (8Gl9); Ortona (8Gl5); South Mound city, also known as Big Gopher (Hale 1984:181); Benchmark 24 Earthworks; Pepper Earthworks (Hale 1989); Fort Center (8Gl13, Sears 1982); Kissimmee Circle Earthworks (8Gl39); South Lake Mounds (8Hn33), and summer Earthworks (8Hn26). In addition, Johnson (1990) lists the Kissimmee Circle (8Ob31), Lonesome Island (8Hg634), and Palmdale Earthworks (8Gl76) as mound and embankment complexes. Some of these sites have yielded European artifacts, such as the Ortona Mound in Glades County (Goggin n.d.a:679), indicating a colonial period occupation. Most, however, have not been dated. Archaeological Assemblage The defining ceramic assemblage for Belle Glade culture is the presence of Belle Glade Plain and Glades Plain wares. Lithic tools such as stemmed projectile points are found at some of the sites, e.g. Fort Center (Steinen 1982:75-76) and Belle Glade (Willey 1949:34, Plate 6), but not at others, e.g. Barley Barber sites (8Mt19, 28, 29, Carr 1973; Williams 1975).

PAGE 44

36 Wooden artifacts have been found at two Belle Glade sites, Fort Center (Sears 1982:38-58) and Belle Glade (Willey 1949: 53-59) and with further research in the area may be found at others. The currently limited distribution of wooden artifacts precludes them from being considered part of the defining archaeological assemblage. Similarly, other artifact categories have been found to have a limited distribution. At the Fort Center site, Steinen (1982:68-102) has identified the nonceramic artifacts. These include eight morphological categories of sharks' teeth, six types of bone artifacts, chipped stone points and blades, ground stone celts, hones, and grinding stones, shell and stone plummets, shell adzes, celts, axes, and gouges, and chert and quartz debitage. The morphological categories of sharks' teeth represent two classes of tools. The first is triangular-shaped, asymmetrical, serrated, and has bilateral wear patterns, and the second is tapering, usually symmetrical, and lacks cusps. Similarly, the six categories of bone artifacts represent only five types of tools. Of the five, only one has been classi fied into a functional type: fids. Comparable nonceramic assemblages are known from only two other sites in the Okeechobee Basin: the Belle Glade type site (Willey 1949: 34-53) and the Platt site (Goggin 1952: 55) Willey (1949:69) reports socketed and bi-pointed bone projec tile points, bone pins, shell picks, adzes, and hammers, shell

PAGE 45

37 celts, conch shell drinking cups, shell and stone plummets, stone pipes and tubes, and chipped stone projectile points were recovered from Belle Glade. In addition, fossil shark teeth, porpoise teeth, and possible bear teeth are in the Belle Glade site assemblage (Willey 1949:45). At the Platt site, Goggin (1952:55) found chipped stone projectile points, shell picks, gouges, and celts, shell and stone plummets, bone points and pins, and an antler adze socket. However, none were found in sufficient quantity to indicate significant temporal differences (Goggin 1952:55). A recent paper on some of these artifact types, specifi cally the bone points and shell and stone plummets, indicate fishing technology (Walker 1989). Long considered representa tive of terrestrial technology and/or ceremonial regalia, Walker (1989) presents a convincing argument that these artifact types represent two parts of a composite fish hook. The importance of her argument for South Florida artifact assemblages is to focus attention on fishing technology. Chronological distinctions in Belle Glade ceramics have been hampered by a lack of decorative motifs on surfaces. Virtually all Belle Glade wares are plain. However, Sears (1982:112) provides a seriation based on relative amounts of plain ceramics. Semi-fiber tempered wares are earliest and are gradually replaced by sand tempered wares. st. Johns Plain pottery appears abruptly and relatively abundant at an early date, but dissipates rapidly with the introduction of

PAGE 46

38 Belle Glade Plain. Minor amounts of St. Johns Plain continue to be used throughout the occupation at Fort Center. Belle Glade Plain ceramics are initially a minor component of the total ceramic assemblage, but become the dominant type at the expense of sand tempered wares. In addition to Sears' ( 1982: 112) seriation of ceramic types, he indicates that some technological distinctions are related to chronological differences. Specifically, he provides a seriation based on rim forms that shows flat lip rims are the dominant form throughout much of the occupation at Fort Center ( Sears 19 8 2 : 113) These are superseded by expanded flat rims late in the occupation. This work appar ently builds on Porter's (1952) analysis of rim forms from the Platt site. The presence of monitor or platform type ceramic pipes at Fort Center are thought to provide a good chronological indicator because the pipes are said to be very similar to those from Marksville sites (Sears 1982:117), known to be a Hopewellian culture dating from Middle Woodland times. Sears' (1982:117) associated radiocarbon dates place the pipes in his Period II. One other major category of Belle Glade artifacts that serve as good chronological derived from European contact. Willey (1949), Sears (1982), indicators are the artifacts These have been discussed by and Leader ( 1985). Their usefulness as indicators of sixteenth and seventeenth century

PAGE 47

39 period activities has not gone unnoticed, but their origin and form have been the focus of most analyses. At the Belle Glade site, Willey (1949:59-61) identified gold, silver, and copper beads, an iron spike and iron fragments, a lead plummet, four types of glass beads, and European-made ceramics. sears' (1982:59-67) work with the collection from Fort Center categorized the metal artifacts as symbol badges, disc-shaped ornaments, a cast gold jaguar, silver and copper plates, and miscellaneous gold and silver pieces. Sears {1982:59) states, "It is apparent that the metal specimens were made from metal of Spanish origin, reworked in most cases into Indian forms." Leader's {1985) work on the Fort Center collection focused on this statement. In his quest to discern the origins of these materials he grouped the artifacts by morphological characteristics into the following categories: disks, domes, beads, hemisphere and cones, plaques, and miscellaneous fragments. His conclusions confirm Sears' (1982:59) statement (but noted that some of the artifacts were actually made by South and, perhaps, Middle American natives; the Spaniards were evidently shipping the artifacts with other booty to Spain when the materials were salvaged from shipwrecks by the Florida natives.) Of all the artifacts made from European-derived materials the symbol badges have drawn the most attention. The Fort Center symbol badges are made of heavy slabs or ingots of silver, 1/16 inch thick, cut into tablet forms and etched with

PAGE 48

native designs. 40 Sears (1982:60} states they are larger and heavier than others found in South Florida. Allerton et al. (1984) have summarized the distribution of these badges and have found they are concentrated around Lake Okeechobee. Leader (1985:81) states, "the ethnic origin of the metal artifacts from the Fort Center metal collection is American aborigine." Unfortunately, activity areas of manufacture have not been identified. As such, no one has been able to ascertain the culture group. However, their known distribution clustering in the Lake Okeechobee Basin and the largest and heaviest coming from Fort Center strongly suggests they are Belle Glade artifacts and should be consid ered part of the defining archaeological assemblage. Major Sites Major sites in the Belle Glade culture area have been identified by Carr (1975). His survey is one of the most comprehensive listings of archaeological and historic sites in the Lake Okeechobe~ Basin, but it was limited to areas that were to be inundated by the Army Corps of Engineers proposal to raise the regulation range of Lake Okeechobee from 13.5 15. 5 feet above mean sea level to 15. 5 17. 5 feet. His survey lists 16 precolumbian sites including mounds, middens, and earthworks. An even more comprehensive listing of precolumbian sites in the Okeechobee Basin can be found on a map provided by Hale

PAGE 49

(1984:181). 41 However, even his figure does not include earthworks such as Barley Barber I (8Mt19, Carr 1973:9-11), West Okeechobee Circle (8Gl57, Carr 1985:295-297), and others. As such, there is not a complete list of all major sites in the Belle Glade culture area. To date, eight circular earthworks, 17 circular-linear earthworks, nine linear embankment sites, and six miscellaneous earthwork sites are known to be in the Okeechobee Basin. Of these, major excava tions have been limited to the Belle Glade and Big Mound City sites (both in the 1930s, see Willey 1949) and the Fort Center site (in the 1960s, see Sears 1971, 1977, 1982). Settlement Patterns As for settlement practices, sears (1982:184-190) indicates a Belle Glade cultural adaptation to the open savannah with artificially raised areas occupied during flooding. The focus of occupation takes place at large sites (such as Fort Center), though Sears (1982:175) acknowledges occupation of "the small midden sites on higher land through out the sand country." On the other hand, Willey finds Belle Glade affinities extending from the Okeechobee Basin to all of South Florida, from the Florida Keys (Willey 1949:26 cites Goggin n. d. a) to Melbourne (Ferguson 1951: 36-39) and the southwest coast (Willey 1949:124-125). However, he believes the Belle Glade peoples differ significantly from the east coast groups and states, "the most likely guess would be that

PAGE 50

42 Belle Glade was a village of the Calusa domain, presumably occupied by a people related to them" (Willey 1949: 127). Thus, his scenario depicts a wider range of adaptation to a number of environments than does Sears. Social Organization A discussion of social organization provided by Sears {1982:1919-201) indicates that an egalitarian population inhabited the Fort Center site during his Period I. This was followed by a marked degree of social stratification in subsequent periods. Trade with other Florida groups is apparent by the number of exotic artifacts he found. Further more, the presence of maize pollen and the earthworks suggests to him that the Fort Center inhabitants had periodic contact with a South American population (and, indeed, trace their ancestry to this population). Inclusion of the Fort Center peoples within the sphere of colonial period Calusa hegemony is believed to have occurred in the final aboriginal occupa tion of the Fort Center site, i.e. his Period IV. Goggin and Sturtevant (1964:180-182, 195-197) suggest Calusa hegemony occurs early in the cultural development of the South Florida native groups. Indeed, they hint at the possibility of the Belle Glade peoples representing an inland population of the Calusa culture. However, theirs appears to be a minority view.

PAGE 51

43 Belief systems Only a minimal discussion of beliefs has been presented. Sears (1982:42,58) suggests that the Fort Center inhabitants had strong totemic beliefs (as represented by carved wooden figures of animals and birds). He also argues for a belief in an afterlife (as represented by burial practices). Such beliefs would not be surprising given the material remains found in the Belle Glade culture area. Subsistence Based on what is known from the above, the diet of the Belle Glade peoples has been interpreted to be either one based on wild foods (Willey 1949:71,129) or one based on maize agriculture supplemented with an abundance of wild foods, especially turtle (Sears 1982:184-201). However, Walker's (1989) recent analyses of fishing technology has alerted the archaeological community to the potential contribution from aquatic resources; an area of subsistence activities that needs further exploration in the Okeechobee Basin. Hale (1984:183) concurred with Sears (1982) noting that the planting surfaces he identified are aligned with the surface water flow facilitating drainage for agricultural production. However, Hale ( 1989) has subsequently retreated from this position. Analysis of the soils of one of the alleged planting surfaces (reported hence) indicates it could not

PAGE 52

44 support annual harvests of maize. In the following chapter I explore the question of maize in detail.

PAGE 53

CHAPTER 4 MAIZE AND SOILS IN SOUTH FLORIDA Maize was obviously an important cultigen in the develop ment of certain New World cultures. Richard MacNeish (1970) studied the evolution of this cultigen in the Tehuacan Valley of Mexico and concluded that settlement changes coincided with increased reliance on maize. According to MacNeish (1972:500), the use of more productive hybrids of maize coupled with increased interactions between developing areas caused changes in settlements rather than the reverse. Similarly, Sears (1982) believes maize was an important basis for cultural change within the Lake Okeechobee Basin of South Florida. However, the presence of maize in South Florida, has led to much debate over its use, importance, orig ins, and chronology. Precolumbian Maize in South Florida Evidence for precolumbian maize use in South Florida is limited to maize pollen documented at the Fort Center site by Sears and Sears (1976; see also E. Sears 1982). At the site, Sears found numerous pollen grains in a variety of contexts including at least one excellent precolumbian context dating between A.O. 100 and 500. Strips of white pigment adhering to 45

PAGE 54

46 a wooden carving that was found at the bottom of a pond provided this context ( Sears 1982: 122; Milanich 1987: 177) Other contexts from which maize pollen was found are soil samples from earthworks and coprolites. on the basis of size and exine pattern, Sears and Sears (1976:54) distinguish the maize pollen grains from other grasses. In addition, they believe the size range of the maize pollen grains from Fort Center eliminates the possibility that they could be modern corn pollen. In addition to the maize pollen, Sears (1982:171-173) identified lime deposits at the Fort Center site that were created by burning shell. He hypothesizes that the creation of the lime was directly related to the processing of dried maize into a mush (Sears 1982:173). Sears ( 1982) believes the earthworks at Fort Center served as planting surfaces for maize cultivation. The origins of the maize and the earthworks are believed to be the result of a migration of peoples from South America. Sears (1977:6-7, 1982:191) suggests four possible routes for such contact, but feels the most likely one was from Venezuela through the Antilles (Figure 3). He notes similar ceramic manufacturing techniques and stylistic elements on pottery between South Florida and Venezuela, as well as similarity between terraforming techniques (presumably related to agriculture). His excavations at the Fort Center site indicate the development of complex mortuary activities within

PAGE 55

Figure 3. 47 c:::= lJ ., I : ().:. ,~ . ... I\ '. .. 0-~ 'i1 0 r/'>, ,; Hypothesized routes for maize origins in South Florida (after Sears 1971).

PAGE 56

48 a century or two of the beginning of the Christian era (1977:7). By A.O. 1000, the mortuary center was abandoned and individual houses were placed on small, single house mounds, each with an adjacent linear earthwork up to 1200 feet long and 100 feet wide. This innovation, Sears believes, was due to continued contact with the South American population (1977:7-9, 1982:200). Thus, for Sears, the migration of a South American population with the knowledge of maize cultivation in wet savannah environments explains cultural development in South Florida's interior. This interpretation provides a comprehen sive explanation for the origin of the maize and the earth works but has left a myriad of questions in its wake. The Antillean Route: A Not-so-Likely Course Perhaps the most difficult problem with Sears' chronology and origins of maize in South Florida is its early arrival, as much as 1000 years prior to its presence in the Eastern Woodlands. William Keegan (1987) addresses this issue and concludes that present evidence indicates the introduction of maize into South Florida via the Antilles could not have occurred until maize was already well established in the Eastern Woodlands (circa A.O. 1000). According to Keegan (1987:331), human groups arrived in the Greater Antilles by 4000 B.C. These peoples were aceram ic, non-agricultural hunter-gatherers who exploited terrestri

PAGE 57

49 al and marine resources. Their way of life changed with the arrival of the agricultural Arawakan-speaking population. The Arawakan-speakers, also known as the Tainos, began their expansion into the Antilles from eastern Venezuela around 200300 B.C. (Haviser 1989). Their arrival into the northernmost parts of the Antilles, until A.O. 600 700. i.e. the Bahamas and Cuba, was not As with other parts of the Antilles, the initial colonization period diet included cultivated roots and tubers with terrestrial animals and a relatively minor contribution from marine resources. Shortly after coloniza tion, a rapid shift to increased reliance on marine resources occurred but root crops remained the dietary staple and maize did not appear until late in precolumbian times (Keegan 1987:333). Keegan (1987:336) concludes that the available evidence indicates that the Antilles was not the source of this cultigen in South Florida. However, he points out that this conclusion concerns only one of four possible contact avenues hypothesized by Sears (1977) for the arrival of maize in south Florida and that little is known of the precolumbian history of western Cuba. That region may yet be implicated in "a more direct trans-Caribbean jump from Central or South America to south Florida" (Keegan 1987:339).

PAGE 58

50 The Soils at Fort Center: Not Productive for Maize Regardless of Keegan's (1987:339) assertion that alterna tive routes of entry remain unexplored (allowing for the possibility of a direct entrance of maize into South Florida), a problem closer to the location of the pollen has been discovered. Analysis of the soils from one of the circular earthworks at Fort Center has yielded information on their potential to support annual harvests of maize. Fort Center The Fort Center archaeological site is located in Glades County, Florida (Figure 4). It was first reported by a professional archaeologist when Goggin (1952) investigated it and the nearby Platt site. At Fort Center, Goggin recorded four middens, three small mounds, a large sand mound and its associated platform, a large circular canal or ditch, a ridge with refuse on its surface, and a restricted concentration of nineteenth century artifacts (Goggin 1952: 50). The latter presumably mark the location of Fort Center, a small block house established at the site during the Seminole wars. Also recorded were several pairs of earth ridges, two with terminal mounds, another small mound, and a long narrow ridge in the prairie to the east. Goggin and Sturtevant (1964:197) suggest that these earthworks, and similar ones elsewhere in the Lake Okeechobee Basin, were built by the coastal-dwelling Calusa as ritual centers.

PAGE 59

0 6 kilometer~ Figure 4. GLADES COUNTY Lake Okeechobee 51 Location of Fort Center (Source: General Highway Map 1984).

PAGE 60

52 Sears (1971, 1974, 1977, 1982), on the other hand, suggests that the original inhabitants of the Lake Okeechobee Basin (the Belle Glade culture) migrated from the northern part of South America sometime before 500 B.C. According to Sears (1982:192), continued contact with the mother population resulted in the adoption of a variety of economic behaviors, one of which was the practice of draining fields for producing maize. He states "the economic system supporting the center acquired stability through dependable maize crops" (1982:197). Sears believes this economic system was accom plished in the wet savannah environment by the creation of planting surfaces, formed by the excavation of ditches, for growing a stable, dependable maize crop. Initially the ditches served to drain fields but later they were designed to create raised fields. Hale (1984:183) suggests that this was a response to rising water levels in the Basin. According to Sears (1982:178,191-201), such a system sustained the economy of these people for over a two thousand year period. His evidence for this belief is twofold. First is the presence of the circular and linear embankments at the Fort Center site (Figure 5) and second, the identification of maize pollen grains from a number of contexts at the site (E. Sears 1982:118-129), including at least one grain from a soil sample from the Great Circle ditch. The former suggests to Sears the ability of the inhabitants to have practiced drained and raised field agriculture, while the latter provides evidence

PAGE 61

600 FT 183 M Figure 5. 53 0 ~ ;;. --:., pond 0 mound re Schematic drawing of the Fort Center site (after Carr 1985:290).

PAGE 62

54 of the presence of maize. Combined with other evidence regarding the social complexity of the precolumbian inhabit ants, these data form the basis for Sears' (1982:178, 191-201) conclusions that the earthworks were used as agricultural plots. The circular Ditches Among the various earthworks at the Fort Center site are two remnant circular ditches each of which have a diameter approximately 140 m across. These are enclosed by a much larger circular ditch referred to as the Great Circle (Sears 1982:175). Excavations revealed that the remnant ditches were built prior to the Great circle (Milanich 1968), but it is not known how much earlier, nor which of them was dug first. Radiocarbon dating of midden materials found in the base of the Great Circle ditch date to 450 B.C. 105 years (Sears 1982:116). Thus, Sears (1982:178) states all three circular ditches were completed by then. Sears (1982:6) believes these ditches functioned as drainage ditches to enable food production. The basis for this belief comes from his observation that "ditch bases were dug below the hardpan so that water would drain across the hardpan and into the ditch, drying the surrounding area" (1982:6). He finds additional support for this belief in "the need for drained garden plots if agriculture was to be practiced in this environment and by the presence of maize

PAGE 63

55 pollen in soil samples from points inside the ditches and the (nearby] contemporaneous midden" (Sears 1982:186). The Maize Pollen Evidence for maize in the diet consists of maize pollen grains found in coprolites, white pigment samples applied to wooden carvings, and soil samples from several of the earth works at Fort Center (E. Sears 1982:120). The maize pollen grains, specifically those from coprolites and the pigment, lead Milanich (1987:177) to conclude "that maize was being cultivated at Fort Center sometime during the period ca. A.O. 100-500." However, Milanich and Ruhl (1986:2) state that the importance of maize within the Belle Glade people's diet is uncertain. They conjecture that it might have been grown and used for special purposes rather than as a dietary staple. Evidence of Complexity at Fort Center Sears' excavations documented numerous artifacts, long distance trade, increased population through time, extensive earthworks, and complex ceremonial activity areas. These features suggest a fairly high degree of complexity when compared to the contemporary cultures of the rest of South Florida (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:181). Among the artifacts found at the Fort Center site are a number of intricately carved wooden objects, including a series of animal figures which formed an elaborate burial

PAGE 64

56 platform. Similar wooden objects have been documented by Willey (1949) at the Belle Glade site, also located in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Additionally, numerous wooden carvings were uncovered by Cushing (1895, 1897) on the southwest coast of Florida, but Sears (1982:58) believes they do not have any real resemblance or relationship to the wooden objects from Fort center [but see Schwehm (1983) for an alternative explantion]. Nevertheless, the craftsmanship of all the carvings appears to reflect a degree of craft specialization. Evidence for long distance trade includes the presence of non-local artifacts including chipped stone tools, Deptford, Crystal River, Cartersville, Pasco and St. Johns ceramic types, marine shell tools, sharks' teeth and European-derived items. All indicate participation in a wider economy than just the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Most of these materials indicate trade with coastal dwelling populations. sears ( 1982: 32) suggests "at least fringe participation in the Hopewell phenomenon" because of the presence of ceramic types which co-occur with the strictly ceremonial Yent complex. Sears (1982:32) also lists Deptford series sherds, Deptford copies on chalky paste, and Crystal River series specimens as evidence of the Yent complex at Fort Center. Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:84) agree that similarities with materials of the Yent complex suggests trade between the Woodland peoples to the north (e.g., Adena, Hopewell, Cartersville, Copena, early Weeden Island) and the South Florida peoples. However,

PAGE 65

57 one must keep in mind that Sears (1962) defined the Yent complex and may be biased in his interpretations. Increases in population through time are also apparent at the site, according to Sears (1982:193). He believes "that there were not more than one or two families on the site at any one time" during his Period I (approximately 1000 B.C. to A.O. 200) but that number increases up to three-fold during his Period II (Sears 1982:193-195). Moreover, Sears ( 1982: 197) suggests that this increase coincides with the participation of additional peoples in the economic activities at Fort Center. Numerous small sites throughout the savannah region were occupied by peoples who, according to Sears (1982:197), were supported by the economic system at the Fort Center site. Finally, population density at the site drops back to one or two families during the last period of occupa tion, Period IV (Sears 1982: 200). However, Sears (1982:200-201) believes that the inhabitants at that time were part of the sixteenthand seventeenth-century Calusa domain. Thus, a considerable increase in the population which partici pated in the Fort Center economy can be discerned through time. While most population estimates were derived by midden deposits on house mounds, the burial population of the Mounds A and Band charnel pond complex provided reinforcement for Sears' estimates (Sears 1982:175). This mortuary area was treated as a single unit by Sears because "one could not be

PAGE 66

58 investigated without disturbing at least one other" {Sears 1982: 14 7) Furthermore, an earthen embankment surrounding Mound B "continues on at both ends to Mound A, thereby tying both mounds and the pond into a unit" (Sears 1982: 148). Thus, Sears (1982:147-148) believes it is important to treat the area as a single unit. Mound A, the shorter of the two, yielded midden materi als, indications of two to four dwelling units, ceremonial artifacts, and lime deposits. The midden materials contained the usual assortment of faunal remains [although Hale {1984:177) notes a larger amount of deer bone than found at a similar deposit elsewhere at the site] and ceramic sherds but also included shell tools, pipes, some stone grinding tools, and a few other items with no "meaningful clusters or associations" (Sears 1982:171). The lime deposits, created from burned shells, and the pipes, limited to this one mound (save for the few fragments found at the UF Mound and Mound 3, Sears 1982:34), led Sears (1982:175) to believe that the people living on Mound A were ceremonial specialists. Their services "providing lime for treatment of their corn and probably pipes and tobacco," are thought to have been performed for the people who "lived elsewhere, in the small middens sites on higher land throughout the sand country" (Sears 1982:175). Mound Band the charnel pond, on the other hand, served principally for mortuary activities. Approximately 150 burials were recovered from the pond along with numerous

PAGE 67

59 carved wood figures, midden materials, and coprolites. The wood figures are thought to be the remains of a charnel platform that collapsed after a fire destroyed its structural integrity (Sears 1982:167). Another 150 burials, many with grave goods, and mud-streaked sand were documented in Mound B. Sears (1982:157) believes the mud-streaked sand occurred when skeletal remains were retrieved from the pond, after the charnel platform collapsed, and placed in Mound B. The extensive earthworks and complex ceremonial activity areas documented at the site attest to a highly organized population. The circular and linear ditches accompanied by mounds, middens, and a charnel pond provide ample evidence of large-scale work projects that could only be accomplished by an organized labor force. Thus, it is not surprising that Sears' discovery of maize pollen at the site led him to believe that the inhabitants could only have developed such a highly complex society on the stability of maize cultivation. However, Feldman (1980:4) cautions that "once a trait has been found in the archaeological record, any number of additional features are often assumed to have been present from that date forward. For example, the presence of maize at a sitehowever small the amount recovered--is often assumed to indicate that the subsistence of the site was based on efficient maize farming."

PAGE 68

60 Testing Sears' Model: A Soil Science Application to Archaeo logical Interpretation Soil science applications to archaeological interpreta tion have concentrated on comparisons between natural soils and human influenced soils (e.g., Collins and Shapiro 1987). Such applications have proven useful in avoiding misidentification of natural formations as cultural. In this test of Sears' model of maize-based complexity, soil science applica tions are utilized to identify the limitations of the archae ologist's interpretations. Soil samples were taken from one of the remnant circular ditch formations in order to examine the potential of the soils associated with the earthwork to support long-term maize agriculture (Figure 5). Three column soil samples were removed with a bucket auger. These bisected the ditch with column #1 removed from the berm of the earthwork, #2 taken from the bottom of the ditch, and #3 from outside of the ditch. Each was excavated to 188 cm below the surface, the maximum depth that the bucket auger could reach. These resulted in a profile view of the ditch and its associated berm ( Figure 6) Morphological Descriptions Morphological descriptions of each field specimen were conducted prior to preparing the samples for laboratory analyses. These included horizon designation, moist Munsell

PAGE 69

61 BERM 1 Ap Ab Eb Bhb Bw Figure 6. DITCH 3 Ap -E 2 -/ Bh _AJ2 / --Bh / E / ---E / '---/ B'h -/ -/ Bw -Bh ......... --C --B ----C Schematic profile view of Columns 1-3 (not to scale).

PAGE 70

62 color, structure (Soil survey Staff 1981), and any other observable characteristics (Table 1). Unfortunately, removal of the samples with a bucket auger and immediate storage in specimen bags resulted in some disturbance to them. Thus, structure was reported only as to type. However, careful storage and handling of the specimens prevented mixing and, therefore, structure disturbance should not be considered a threat to the reliability of the data. Laboratory Analyses Four soil analyses were performed on the samples: organic carbon content; pH in water, and in potassium chloride and in calcium chloride solutions; particle-size distribution (Soil survey Staff 1984) ; and aluminum content (Rhue and Kidder 1984). These data, along with data obtained from the morpho logical descriptions, provide a general basis for classifying the soils and making some interpretations about their forma tion. Discussion Based on the available data and recent mapping of the county (Soil Survey Staff 1989), the soils associated with the ditch belong to the order Spodosols. Spodosols are character ized as naturally infertile (Soil Survey staff 1975: 333). This is due, at least in part, to their high acidity. Figure 7 provides evidence of the highly acid nature of the soils

PAGE 71

63 Table 1. Morphological characteristics of soils. Colwm #1 Depth Horizon Moist Colors Structure Roots -----------------------------------------------------18 Apl l0YR 3/1 subangular blocky abundant 31 Ap2 It moderate 46 Ap3 granular; few 61 Ap4 ; 71 Ap5 " 81 Ap6 7.5YR 3/0 single-grain none 89 Abl 102 Ab2 " 112 Ab3 l0YR 3/1 some 122 Ebl l0YR 5/1 130 Eb2 l0YR 4/1 none 147 Bhb l0YR 2/1 subangular blocky; ** 155 Bwbl l0YR 3/2 single-grain 170 Bwb2 lOYR 4/4 some 183 Bwb3 none 188 Bwb4 ColWDD #2 -----------------------------------------------------18 Ap l0YR 3/1 subangular blocky abundant 31 El l0YR 4/1 some 46 E2 none 61 E3 l0YR 3/4 74 E4 single-grain 86 ES l0YR 4/4 102 Bhl l0YR 5/4 subangular blocky; ** 119 Bh2 l0YR 4/3 ** 135 Bwl l0YR 6/3 ** 152 Bw2 ** 163 Cl l0YR 6/2 single-grain 178 C2 l0YR 7/2 188 C3 l0YR 7/1 ColWDD #3 18 Ap l0YR 3/1 subangular blocky abundant 31 El l0YR 4/1 none 48 E2 l0YR 5/1 61 Bhl l0YR 5/1 ** w/ l0YR 2/1 74 Bh2 l0YR 2/1 ** 86 Bh/E l0YR 2/1 ** w/ l0YR 7/2 104 B'hl l0YR 2/2 ** 119 B'h2 l0YR 3/2 ; ** It 137 Bh3 l0YR 3/2 ; ** 150 Bw l0YR 4/3 ** 163 Cl l0YR 6/3 single-grain 175 C2 188 C3 lOYR 7/2 ---------------------------------------------------* fragmented cemented spodic horizon found in matrix. ** occurs in single-grain matrix.

PAGE 72

64 COLUMN 1 pH 0 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 0 H orizon 0 0 As m easu r ed i n A p1 2 5 I I o H 2 0 Ap2 0 00 Ap 3 r:, I I o K CI s o 0 0 Ap 4 I/ :r0 0 ,. A p S r:T 0 0 r:, 7 5 A o6 0 o 6 A b1 ::e ? ~ Ill 1 00 <1 q Ab2 C: Ab3 0 0 0 -125 0 0 Eb1 n a. 0 r:, /I / Eb2 -;:;-150 <>:o Bhb OA 3 A I 8wb1 ~ -175 Cl) A 8wb2 II I 0)6 B w b3 -2 00 CO LU MN 2 p H 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 o H or i zon a. 0 A s measured in Ap -25 II I oH 2 0 E1 0 a.o r:, \ 'O -50 CO i:>. o K CI E2 :r11 / dJA ,. EJ r:T Il l r, -75 E 4 0 "' ::e = E S -100 \I UI C& B h 1 C: /\ Bh 2 0 -125 o"-.. n r, dJ Bw1 -;:;1 50 II Bw2 ~ 3 &>0 C 1 17 5 II I t:,. OO C 2 ,;. 00 -200 C 3 COLUMN J pH 0 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 1 4 o r-! o ri zon As meas u re d i n A pl 2 5 0 a, o H 2 0 0 "'i-o o E l r, \\ \ o K C I E2 'O -50 "<:O 5= / // A Co C 1 2 4D B h1 r:T Al Bh2 r, 7 5 <:o 0 I\ Bh / E ::e I\ Ill -100 (l) t:,. B h1 C: \"' B h2 ::l. -125 om 0 I \\ n BhJ r:, 0 &> I II -;:;-150 0 l>.O B w I I I 2, 0 d) C 1 -1 75 I i 0 C2 2 001 I 0 &> CJ Figure 7. pH distribution of soils in water, potassium chloride, and calcium chloride solutions.

PAGE 73

65 tested. Nowhere in the soil columns is the pH value higher than 4.9. Darrel Metcalfe and Donald Elkins (1980:340) state that maize will not grow adequately below pH 5.5. Furthermore, Clyde Evans and E.J. Kamprath (1970) indicate that acidic mineral soils, such as these, combined with the presence of exchangeable aluminum, yield poor maize growth. Figure 8 provides evidence of the very high concentrations of aluminum in these soils. While not providing the amount of exchangeable aluminum, this figure does suggest that aluminum toxicity could be a problem for maize. As such, the likeli hood that the earthworks could support maize cultivation for the long time span suggested by Sears (1982:191-201) is not very high without considerable amendments. Evans and Kamprath (1970:894) indicate that maize growth can be improved on acidic mineral soils, such as these, by liming the soil. This practice, along with fertilizing, would have resulted in good maize growth. Sears believes the residue in the ditches could have served as a source of fertilizer. He states, "The muck that accumulates in the ditches, particularly after a flood, is practically protoplas mic, wiggling with great quantities of fish and amphibian small-fry and eggs. The nitrogen content at least should be most useful in maize growing, and the tiny bones might provide some phosphorus. Certainly the ditches had to be cleaned occasionally if they were to function" (1982:189).

PAGE 74

66 COL UMN 1 Al u mi n um ( m g/kg) 0 1 0 0 200 JOO 400 500 60 0 700 800 9 00 1 000 0 H or iz on --.......... Ap 1 0 2 5 A p2 "' A;:i 3 5 0 "Ap 4 ::r CT --A p5 f1I -7 5 Ap 6 0 :i: ; A b 1 II) -10 0 Ab 2 C :::i. Ab 3 a 12 5 ,i Eb1 n .'-------f1I E b2 ,...._ n 1 5 0 ---B hb 3 / B w b1 175 I 8wb 2 3w b3 -2 00 Bwb4 CO L UMN 2 Aluminum ( mg/kg) 0 1 00 2 00 J OO 4 00 500 6 0 0 70 0 8 00 900 1000 o Ho riz on 25 A p I E 1 0 "' \ -0 50 E2 ::r CT EJ / "' -75 ---E 4 0 :i: E S II) 1 00 B h1 C :::i. Bh2 a -1 25 n "' 9w1 ,...._ 1 50 I 6w 2 n 3 .._, C1 -1 75 C2 20 0 C J C OL U M N 3 Alu minum ( m g /kg ) 0 100 20 0 JOO 40 0 500 600 700 800 900 iCOO 0 H o r i zo n 2 5 Ap1 0 E1 "' i E2 ::r --.........._ 3h 1 CT 3h2 "' 75 ./" 0 Sh/ E :i: "' "' 10 0 8 '17 1 C B h2 .., 0 125 n Bh3 "' 15 0 8w 2, C1 I 1 7 5 C2 C J 200 Figure 8. Al distribution in columns 1-3.

PAGE 75

67 But, if the ditches were cleaned occasionally and if this cleaning resulted in a preference towards dumping the debris from the ditch into the interior of the earthwork (as would be the case if the residue caught in the ditches was being used as fertilizer), then a pattern in the particle-size distribu tion of the upper levels of the column located on the berm (i.e. column #1) would reflect the particle-size distribution of the lower levels of the column located inside the ditch (i.e. column #2). That is to say, if the ditch were cleaned periodically and excavated below the Bh (spodic horizon) as suggested by Sears (1982:6), then the particle-size distribu tion found in the lower levels of column #2 should be the same as that found in the upper levels of column #1. However, instead of periodic cleaning, the particle-size distribution of column #1 reflects a single episode of activity which built the ditch. This can be viewed graphically in Figure 9. Figure 9C, column #3, the column taken outside the ditch, provides a model for what the others looked like prior to excavation of the ditch. Its particle-size distribution shows a trend towards an increase in the percentage of the larger particles (i.e. vcs + cs) and a trend toward a decrease in the smallest particles (i.e. fs + vfs and silt + clay) with increasing depth. This pattern is even more pronounced in the lower levels of column #2 (Figure 9B) Thus, if periodic cleaning of the ditch resulted in excavation below the Bh, then a substantial increase in the percentage of the larger

PAGE 76

68 A COLUMN 1 P a rt ic l e-s iz e (%) 0 10 2 0 30 4 0 50 6 0 7 0 80 0 H ori zo n A pl .. A p2 2 5 I I I D .. Ap J r:, I I I \ -0 .. A p 4 :T -5 0 \ I I I Ap 5 CT CD 7 5 .. / Ap6 0 ... Ab1 :le .. I -100 I \ Ab 2 en , C: '!' AbJ a -l2 r i Eb 1 n c l o y+s i lt r:, I I E b 2 150 : v c s + cs S hb n 2, / I ms I 8wb 1 . f s +vf s Bwb2 175 I I I \ .. B wb.3 20 0 B CO L UMN 2 Partic l e-s iz e (% ) 0 10 20 30 40 5 0 60 7 0 80 0 Horizon .. Ap -25 I I I E 1 D i I r:, I I E2 -0 :T -5 0 I I I I .. E3 CT I I I E4 C, 75 .. I 0 I I I E S :le \ \ I / en -100 / Bh1 C: I \ \ c l o y+s i l t Bh2 0 .. -1 25 I \ I .. vcs+c s I (') 8w 1 r:, I I I m s I 8w2 n 1 5 0 .. f s +v fs 2, ' C 1 .. / I \ 1 75 C 2 ,i CJ -200 C COL UM N 3 0 e, -0 :i' CT 0 :le "' 0 n r:, n 2, Figure 9. 0 10 20 P arti c l e-s ize (%) .3 0 40 50 60 7 0 80 0 +-........ ----if---+--+ --+---+---r----j J-; or i zon 25 50 7 5 -100 -12 5 150 1 75 200 I .. I I \ I . \ I .. I I I "\ I I I \ I .. / "' I / I ' / I clo y+s il t A p l El E2 Bh1 Bh2 Bh /E B'h1 B'h 2 BhJ Bw C1 C2 CJ / \ I I .. I \ I . \ \ .. \ I .. I I v cs +c s ms fs+vfs I I "I Particle size distribution of columns 1-3 (where vcs = very coarse sand, cs= coarse sand, ms= medium sand, fs = fine sand, vfs = very fine sand).

PAGE 77

69 particles should be evident in the top layers of column #1 (Figure 9A) However, the particle-size distribution for column #1 reveals an almost mirror image of particle-size distribution between the Ab and the Ap horizons. That is to say, the Abl and the Ap6 are almost identical. Likewise, the Ab2 and the Ap5 are very similar. This "mirror image" correlation continues with the Ab3 and Ap4, the El and Ap3, the E2 and Ap2, and the Bh and Apl layers. Nowhere in this profile are there substantial increases in the larger parti cles as would be expected if periodic cleaning of the ditches had occurred. supporting evidence for this model is provided by the graphic illustration of the distribution of organic carbon content for each column. Figure 10 provides a comparison of the distribution of organic carbon content among the three columns and indicates the highest percentage is located between 75 and 100 cm below the surface in column 1. Although it is evident that column 3 also shows a high percentage of organic carbon deep in the soil profile, note that it coin cides with the Bh horizon. This is because the Bh horizon is defined as a horizon with an accumulation of organic matter (Soil Survey Staff 1975). However, the high percentage of organic carbon in column 1 coincides with the Ap6. (Note that this horizon has the lowest concentration of aluminum content within the Ap and Ab horizons of column 1 [Figure 8] and, therefore removes the possibility that a Bh horizon was

PAGE 78

COLUMN 1 0 C1) "O :r <:T C1) 0 :E u, 0 n r, n 2, Organic Carbon (%) 0 00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0 r---+----+------t----+-----,,-----, Horizon -25 -so -75 -100 -125 -150 17 5 -200 /. ---I ------__..,.,.. -------------/. ~ Ap1 Ap2 Ao3 Ap4 Ap5 Ao6 Ab1 Ab2 Ab3 Ec1 E::2 Bhb Bwbl 8wb2 Bwb3 COLUMN 2 Organic Carbon (%) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0 Horizon -25 Ap 0 .,.,,,,,,"' El -50 E2 a---E3 -75 0 I E4 :E ES -100 I ti) C "2h1 a -125 __Bh2 n r, -150 I 8w1 2w2 2, C1 -175 I C2 CJ -200 COLUMN 3 0 "O :r a"' 0 :E Ill C 0 n n Organic Ccrbon (%) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0 75 1.00 1 .50 -r---+---+----+---+----+-----, Hor i zon 1.25 0 -25 -50 -75 -100 -125 -l5Ct -175 -2 00 -----I --_:__. = -------. .------:::::::-_-_---~-=- I -----,,.------, I Ap El E2 8h1 Bh2 Sh/E B'hl S'h2 B~.3 3w C 1 C2 C3 70 Figure 10. Organic carbon distribution of columns 1-3.

PAGE 79

71 mistakenly identified as an Ap horizon.) Thus, I argue that the ditch is the result of an excavation that began with removal of the A horizon and subsequent discard on top of the old ground surface (effectively beginning the berm). This was followed by excavation of the E and Bh horizons, which were heaped on top of the A horizon. Subsequent pedogenetic processes resulted in the accumulation of organic carbon, creating an artificially thickened Ap horizon as seen in column 1. Further proof of this scenario is provided by the traces of the Bh (as seen in Table 10) in the Ap3 and Ap4 horizons. This evidence, in conjunction with the particlesize distribution data, supports the model of a single episode of activity rather than periodic cleaning of the ditch. An important archaeological implication of this is the amount of labor involved in construction of the ditch. While it is not possible to determine the exact number of individuals nor the amount of time it took to construct, the model suggests an organized labor force over a relatively short period. As for the liming of the fields, Sears (1982:171-174,178) identified lime deposits on the site that are contemporaneous with the use of the Great Circle. These deposits were found associated with the Mound A midden deposits. Conceivably, they could represent lime processing activity areas for artificially raising the pH of the soils within the Great Circle, but liming without fertilizing would still result in poor maize growth. On the other hand, liming with fertilizing

PAGE 80

72 should have left some evidence of the fertilizer--e.g., the large accumulations of midden materials at the site. Since these could easily have served as a source of fertilizer, one could expect that some would have been found within the alleged planting surfaces. However, Sears (1982:176-177) indicates that repeated attempts to find materials within the Great Circle were made by surface inspection and excavation but nothing was ever found. Thus, the evidence indicates that neither lime nor fertilizer was used within the Great circle to prepare the soils for maize cultivation. Finally, Sears (1982:186) states that the ditches were dug through an impermeable hardpan (i.e. the term that Sears uses for the spodic horizon) in order to drain the planting surface. However, this analysis of the soils reveals that doing so results in additional aluminum in the upper horizons of the soil (Figure 8) well within the rooting zone. As such, Sears' explanation for the ditching would have a net result of adding toxins to the surface prior to planting maize. Thus, soil science data indicate the circular earthworks were not planting surfaces for "a stable, dependable maize crop," but must have served some other purpose(s). Ethnohistoric Evidence: Conflicting Accounts Perhaps the strongest evidence challenging Sears' (1982) belief that maize served as the dietary mainstay comes from an eyewitness account of life in sixteenth century South Florida.

PAGE 81

73 Do. d'Escalante Fontaneda, a shipwreck survivor, lived among South Florida's natives for 17 years from 1548 to 1565. His memoir, focusing on the Calusa of southwest Florida, provides some details on subsistence activities within the Okeechobee Basin. He refers to a bread made from roots as the common food most of the time except when the lake rises in some seasons so high that the roots cannot be reached and they are "for some time without eating this bread" (Fontaneda 1945:13). He does not mention maize at all. Sears (1982:201) acknowl edges this problem, but questions whether Fontaneda would have recognized maize if he had seen it. Of course, there were probably many things Fontaneda did not recognize and could not describe, but one must wonder why it is that both the Narvaez and de Soto entradas described maize in Florida years before Fontaneda lived among the Calusa. Milanich (1987, 1989} believes this is because both of these Spanish explorations landed in present-day Tampa Bay, well north of the south Florida aboriginal groups that Fontaneda described. On the other hand, Dobyns ( 19 8 3) believes that Narvaez and de Soto landed in Charlotte Harbor and described maize use among the Calusa. In either case, Fontaneda surely would have known about maize by the time he had written his memoir. If maize had been as important in the Calusa diet as Dobyns (1983} contends, how could Fontaneda have omitted it?

PAGE 82

74 Discussion such an argument might go on indefinitely except for the fact that of all the archaeological research conducted in South Florida only the Fort Center site has produced any evidence for maize (save that which has been found in Seminole Period contexts). On the southwest coast, the few systematic attempts to recover plant remains have produced no evidence of maize (Marquardt et al. 1985). Similarly, Margaret Scarry (1982) found none on the southeast coast. Indeed, John Griffin (1988:298) remarks that there is no evidence for maize cul ti vat ion in the Caloosahatchee or Everglades archaeological areas. Based on the maize pollen at Fort Center, Milanich (1987:177) accepts that it was present at the site sometime during the period ca. A. D. 100-500. But, whether it was present before or after that he feels is speculative. Milanich and Ruhl (1986:2) point out that the importance of maize within the Belle Glade people's diet is uncertain. Johnson and Collins (1989) concur with Milanich (1987) that the maize pollen found at Fort Center indicates maize was grown at the site but believe that the circular earthworks were not dug to create planting surfaces for a stable, dependable maize crop. Following Milanich and Ruhl (1986:2), they believe the maize grown at Fort Center must have served some other purpose(s) other than a dietary staple. In addition, Carr ( 1985: 2 99) notes that all of the circular earthworks are located near elevated hammocks or

PAGE 83

75 other upland environments that could have naturally offered the same drainage characteristics that Sears (1982) believes the ditches offered. Indeed, the only advantage that the ditches offered was the accumulation of organic sediments that could serve as a source of nutrients for Sears' hypothesized planting surfaces (Carr 1985:299) and that advantage apparent ly was not realized. on the other hand, Donald Lathrap's (1987) study of the introduction of maize into precolumbian eastern North America questions current wisdom and warns us "not to be overly skeptical of the presence of maize in situations where its preservation is a matter of chance, such as in 'Green Corn' utilization." such skepticism may well be pertinent since some ethnohistoric evidence for "Green Corn" use exists. For instance, Oviedo (1959:2) is apparently speaking of green corn use among the Taina of the Greater Antilles when he says "when the ears are tender they are eaten almost like milk." Furthermore, Lathrap (1987) outlines a plausible early introduction of maize which conforms to Sears' (1982) hypothe sis of its introduction into Florida and takes exception to Keegan's (1987) view that maize could not have passed through the Antilles prior to the arrival of the Taina. Lathrap (1987:347) notes that navigation in the Circum-caribbean is well documented as early as 3100 B.C. and that the early maize in the Southeast discussed by Sears ( 1982) had a totally different origin from the maize that was utilized by Missis

PAGE 84

76 sippian societies. Furthermore, he believes that a two-pronged entry of maize agriculture into the eastern United States may well explain the heterosis and success of Midwest Hybrid Maize (1987:347). Mainstream opinion on this topic, however, has been at odds with Lathrap. Wal ton Galinat ( 1985) has provided a recent summary of the domestication and diffusion of maize into North America (north of Mexico) and while he readily admits that isolation of races of maize and subsequent heterosis from reconvergence of divergent populations accounts for the Corn Belt Dent variety (what Lathrap is calling the Midwest Hybrid Maize), the origins of the heterosis are to be found in the introduction by the Spanish explorers of white dent corn from Mexico blending with the Northeastern Flint variety (originating as Maize de Ocha in the Southwest around A.O. 200 700). Summary The soil data presented here strongly support a view that is contradictory to Sears' model. Periodic cleaning of the ditches, fertilizing the planting surface, and the effects of digging below the hardpan are the main elements of Sears' model that have been addressed. Soil science applications to each element indicate annual harvests of maize were not possible from the planting surface identified by Sears (1982). These, however, do not refute the presence of maize pollen at

PAGE 85

77 the site nor do they suggest that maize was never grown at the site. Rather, the soil science data modify Sears' model in two fundamental ways. First, they indicate the role of maize in the Belle Glade peoples diet was probably more akin to Milanich and Ruhl's (1986) view that maize was not a dietary staple and second, they suggest that Sears' purely functional interpretation of the earthworks is incorrect. In the case of the latter, Goggin and Sturtevant' s (1964:194-197) view that the earthworks were ceremonial is certainly the most reasonable interpretation at this time. A cursory inspection of the literature on drained and raised fields in South America (Denevan 1970; Denevan et al. 1987; Farrington 1985; Smith et al. 1968) reveals morphological similarity throughout the areas studied. In no case do these agricultural fields resemble the Belle Glade earthworks. Indeed, the only earthworks that are morphologically similar are those in the midwestern United States. current research on them supports a ceremonial interpretation (e.g., Brose and Greber 1979). As to the former, Sears' model lacks corroborative evidence to support his arguments. If Lathrap ( 1987) is correct in his assertion that a preservation bias exists because of "Green Corn" utilization, then we must look for corroborative evidence in the pollen record. If possible, phytolith analysis should be undertaken as well. As long as the Fort Center maize pollen stands alone as evidence, the

PAGE 86

78 ability to interpret the role of maize in the Belle Glade culture is compromised.

PAGE 87

CHAPTER 5 REMOTE SENSING, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD AND LAB METHODS The methods used for obtaining data on the Belle Glade culture area involved a background and literature review, a review of aerial photographs, a pedestrian survey for ground truthing sites found on the aerial photographs and informant interviews. The background and literature review amassed data from all over the Basin, but the review of aerial photographs, pedestrian survey, and informant interviews were limited to an area on the west side of the lake as part of the West Okeecho bee Basin Project (Figure 11). These methods, as well as the methods used for obtaining data from the field and for laboratory analysis of the collected data, are explicated here. Background and Literature Review The background and literature review provided a frame of reference for evaluating archaeological sites. Pertinent references on the precolumbian archaeology of the area were consulted. Furthermore, a review of the Florida Master Site File provided information on all known archaeological sites in the project area. 79

PAGE 88

Highlands Okeechobee lake Okeechobee I _/ _L _,_ KILOMETERS 0 28 Figure 11. West Okeechobee Basin Project Area. 80

PAGE 89

81 Unfortunately, many of the known sites in the project area were recorded on the basis of scanty information and recorded locations, at times, are vague. Thus, a conscious effort was made to obtain exacting information on recorded sites that were lacking locational data. Early maps of the project area were checked for informa tion on aboriginal site locations, early homesteads, and military roads. The original survey maps (Florida State Archives 1837) were considered the best early maps for this information. One aboriginal site, the Old Venus Mound (8Hgl), two historic homesteads, and numerous military roads were discovered by this method. However, only the Old Venus Mound was surveyed while in the field and, as such, the homesteads and military roads were not given site numbers and do not appear in the results section. Aerial Photographs The review of aerial photographs proved most enlightening as not only were 10 previously unrecorded sites found but significant additional information on the architecture of six previously recorded sites was obtained. As stated in the introduction, early aerial photographs are available in stereopairs at the Map Library on the University of Florida campus. Reviewing these involved locating the project area on an index, retrieving the pertinent photographs, and viewing them.

PAGE 90

82 Earthwork sites were easily discerned and plotted on USGS quadrangle maps. Stereoscopes were employed at this stage to provide detail on the sites. Whenever a possible mound was found the stereoscopes were used to aid in deciding whether or not it should be plotted. Once a site was identified and plotted, later aerial photographs of the site were viewed for additional detail. These provided remarkably more information than could any one photograph because portions of a site not visible in one were often visible in another. Many factors are responsible for this variation and include, but are not limited to, the time of day the photograph was taken, season the photograph was taken, angle of the camera, and moisture conditions at the site. Thus, the best image of any one site is a composite from many photographs. Overall, this remote sensing application is most useful in relatively flat, savannah areas of the Basin. Forest cover, regardless of habitat, obscures manifestations of cultural activity. Thus, in areas of forest cover, this method is useful only in cases of known site locations. Pedestrian Survey and Informant Interviews The fieldwork was conducted via a pedestrian survey coupled with informant interviews. The pedestrian survey included the employment of judgmentally placed shovel tests. Informant interviews included contacting landowners and other

PAGE 91

83 knowledgeable persons during the fieldwork portion of the project. Subsurface tests included shovel tests and bucket auger tests. The shovel tests were approximately 50 cm in diameter and were dug in 2 O cm levels. The matrix from each was screened through 1/4-inch hardware mesh and, for some levels, through 1/16-inch window screen. (The addition of the 1/16-inch fraction was requested by the zooarchaeology department personnel at the Florida Museum of Natural History, the repository for the faunal remains.) However, artifact analysis is based solely on the 1/4-inch fraction. Soil from each shovel test was described in the field notebook. The color of contrasting zones and their thickness es were noted. All were dug to culturally sterile soil unless groundwater seepage or soil conditions prevented it. The tests were placed judgmentally unless more than one was dug at a site. In those cases, additional shovel tests were placed on a grid pattern with spacing of the subsurface tests depending on the local conditions. In the event that cultural materials were recovered in a shovel test no attempt was made to delineate the subsurface boundaries of the site. Rather, the tests served as a sample of the materials from the site for comparative purposes as well as document information on the site's integrity and possible function.

PAGE 92

84 The bucket auger tests, on the other hand, were generally used to obtain soil samples from sites. However, there were cases in which the bucket auger was used to test whether or not cultural materials were present at a particular locale. The bucket auger is an 8 cm in diameter coring device that allows quick removal of a soil core. The soi 1 was not screened when using this method. Rather, the soil is poured from the coring device onto a tarp and visually examined for the presence or absence of cultural materials. If any cultural materials were found, they were noted and a site number was assigned. On the other hand, if no cultural materials were found, the location was not considered a site. Thus, the accuracy of this method is limited by the variabili ty in cultural material content at a site. A site that is characterized by a relatively high density of cultural materials is easily discernible with the use of the bucket auger. However, sites that are characterized by a low density of cultural materials (i.e., no cultural materials found in the bucket auger sample) were not identified as sites. Therefore, caution must be observed when determining whether or not a locale is a site with this method. When the auger tests were used in this manner they were placed judgmentally on the site. Once cultural materials were encountered (usually within the first 5 cm), the presence of materials was noted, the site named, and the matrix poured back into the auger test hole. If no cultural materials were

PAGE 93

85 encountered, the test was dug below the dark colored soils to what appeared to be culturally sterile soils and then back filled. Generally, only one such test was excavated at each locale. Laboratory Analysis Laboratory analysis of the materials collected from this survey involved separating the specimens from each provenience into four gross categories. These categories are lithics, ceramics, animal bone, and soil samples. The lithics were measured across their longest axis and grouped into the following categories: very small (<1 cm), small {l-2 cm), medium (2-4 cm), large (4-6 cm), very large (6-8 cm), and extra large (8-10 cm). They were then counted and, based on the presence or absence of cortex, were classi fied into primary flakes (those flakes with cortex completely covering the dorsal surface), secondary flakes (those flakes with little cortex on the dorsal surface), and tertiary flakes (those flakes with no cortex on the dorsal surface). The ceramics were compared with typology collections at the Florida Museum of Natural History and subjected to microscopic analysis (when warranted) in order to determine their typological classification. Each sherd was measured across its longest axis and grouped into the following categories: very small (<1 cm), small (1-2 cm), medium (2-4 cm), large (4-6 cm), very large (6-8 cm), and extra large

PAGE 94

( 8-10 cm) 86 They were then counted and are reported in the results section as total number of sherds/number of rim sherds in that total. The animal bones were examined for obvious diagnostic elements (e.g., Lepisosteus spp. vertebra and scales, Odocoil eus virginianus astragali, etc.) and species observed in the assemblages are noted. However, no attempt was made to provide a full analysis of the materials. Instead, they were weighed by provenience (note that some weights are skewed by the presence of impurities, usually concretions) for compara tive information on relative density of deposits. The soil samples were subjected to either morphological analysis or pH analysis. Morphological analysis was reserved for auger samples from two of the earthworks. It is used to describe the soil horizons, thereby providing insight on their cultural manipulation. Analysis of pH, on the other hand, was utilized at a number of the sites to provide a means of checking for possible preservation bias. based on an E.M. System Soil Tester. The readings are

PAGE 95

CHAPTER 6 RESULTS A total of 38 previously unrecorded archaeological sites were discovered in this survey. In addition, the review of aerial photographs revealed significant new data on nine previously recorded sites. section. These are described in this A discussion of the previously unrecorded sites is included in the section New Sites and the previously recorded sites are listed under the heading Updated Sites. These are followed by the section Negative Data, which provides informa tion on the field inspection of two localities that were thought to have mound features based on inspection of aerial photographs, but the pedestrian survey revealed they did not. New Sites Okeechobee County 80b27 Wedgworth Mound. The Wedgworth Mound is located in Township 33S, Range 35E, Section 25 (Figure 12}. The site was located via informant interview and consists of a large sand mound measuring 48 m north-south by 50 m east-west and is at least 2 m high. It was reported to the author by the owner, Mr. George Wedgworth, via Dr. William H. Marquardt of the 87

PAGE 96

) N ~ '; \ F'LG~ i D.:.. ~ .. ( \ ~ 30 31 88 --==--==:J1-c:S=--==--===-0-------------_;1 MILE --==---==- =s __________ KILOMETER Figure 12. Wedgworth (80b27) and Tennis Court (80b34) Mounds.

PAGE 97

Florida Museum of Natural History. 89 Inspection of aerial photographs before and after fieldwork revealed no earthworks in the vicinity. one of two shovel tests yielded a few highly deteriorated bone fragments and a single sherd. The sherd is the type Dunn's Creek Red, suggesting st. Johns period cultural affiliations. The bone fragments are not identifiable and their condition precludes curation. Since it has been documented that soil acidity can affect bone preservation (see Gordon and Buikstra 1981), the soil pH was obtained. It revealed that soil acidity is probably not responsible for the poor condition of the bone as the pH registered neutral (at 6. 9) The mound probably did not serve as a habitation site. Its large size coupled with its lack of preserved faunal remains suggests alternative functions. It is thought that additional testing may reveal other cultural affiliations however, based on the limited data available, the site's contents and its presence near the Fort Drum Creek drainage suggests a cultural boundary between the Belle Glade and st. Johns regions. 80b34 Tennis court Mound. The Tennis Court Mound is located in Township 33S, Range 35E, Section 24 (Figure 12). The site was located via informant interview and consists of a small oval mound measuring approximately 15 min diameter and is at most 0.5 m high. It, like the Wedgworth Mound, was

PAGE 98

90 reported to the author by Mr. George Wedgworth. Inspection of aerial photographs was done after fieldwork and revealed no earthworks in the vicinity. One of two shovel tests produced one flake at a depth of 60 cm below the surface (cmbs). Furthermore, these tests revealed what appeared to be a buried midden stain in the soil profile between 45 and 90 cmbs. No animal bone was discovered nor does the soil pH (6.9) suggest that soil acidity has created a preservation bias. As such, it is difficult to determine the function(s) of this mound. At this time, no specific cultural affinities can be discerned but the presence of the flake and the buried midden stain strongly suggest that the mound is precolumbian. 8Ob28 Fort Kissimmee Earthworks. The Fort Kissimmee Earthworks are located in Township 34S, Range 31E, Section 11 (Figure 13). The site was located via remote sensing (aerial CYW-4H-178) and consisted of a large rectangular shaped ditch with rounded corners measuring approximately 500 m north-south by 265 m east-west. The northwest corner of the rectangle opened to a bend in the Kissimmee River such that water could flow from the River into the ditch. Two embankments measuring approximately 110 m each were located within the interior of the rectangular earthwork and may have terminated at mounds. Unfortunately, this site was not visited during the field survey. Access is restricted by the Kissimmee River on one side and the Kissimmee Canal on the other. Aerial photographs

PAGE 99

,--.. \ \ I ~/ N () .. . . ,:_ / ,, .5 0 1 MILE --===---==:::::lll-C:::=--==--===--------------. 5 0 1 KILOMETER ---==---=:::1--=:::::i--==---==-------Figure 13. Fort Kissimmee Earthworks (80b28). 91

PAGE 100

92 reveal that construction of the Kissimmee Canal resulted in destruction of about 2/3 of the site leaving only the north west corner of the earthwork intact (aerial 12055-174-126). (Note that figure 13 suggests the northwest corner of the site was destroyed by the canal; this is not the case. Instead, it is the only portion of the site that is intact. The problem with the figure is due to an error in placement of the Kissimmee Canal by the U.S.G.S.) The embankments and most of the ditch were dug through during excavation of the canal (see Figure 14). The limited data on this site do not allow for definitive statements of its origin, much less its function. However, its overall morphology, especially in light of the data on the next two sites, suggests it originates with Belle Glade cultural activities. 80b29 Fulford Earthworks. The Fulford Earthworks are located in Township 34S, Range 32E, Section 31 (Figure 15). The site was located via remote sensing (aerial CYW-4H-117) and consists of a large rectangular shaped ditch with rounded corners measuring approximately 230 m north-south by 170 m east-west. In addition, a linear ditch extends from the southwest corner of the earthwork approximately 200 m west connecting the earthwork to the Kissimmee River. Similar to the Fort Kissimmee Earthworks, an embankment measuring approximately 100 m is located within the interior of the earthwork and may terminate at a mound.

PAGE 101

Figure 14. River "' Kissimmee Canal Kissimmee canal and Earthwork Sites. 93

PAGE 102

94 ./ X 4 : 7; .. ~,.J;, >. SI QU A DRA N G L E L D CATIO 1 .5 0 1 MILE --===--==-c::==--==:i-c:::::=------------. s O 1 KILOMETER ---==---==-c::::l--==---===-------N Figure 15. Fulford Earthworks (80b29).

PAGE 103

95 Unfortunately, most of this site was covered by fill from the dredging of the Kissimmee Canal and was bisected by a modern ditch that forms the boundary of the Canal fill (Figure 14). As such, much of the site is no longer visible. Only the northeast corner and eastern side of the earthwork remain undisturbed. In this area, the embankment extends from the east side to the interior of the site. However, it is cut off by the modern ditch at about 20 m. It cannot be discerned past the ditch because of the fill but is thought to be intact. One shovel test placed in approximately the center of the earthwork (where the mound, if there ever was one, might be) revealed only that the earthwork must have been flooded many times prior to the dredging of the Kissimmee Canal. Obviously stratified grey and tan sands lie under 20 cm of grey sand containing small shell fragments (what appears to be the fill). The fill covers the rest of the site such that one can only discern its outline by the presence of cabbage palms that are growing on the earthwork's edges. The edges were created by digging ditches and piling the dirt to form a berm on the inside of the earthwork [much like Sears' (1982:175) description of the construction of the Great Circle at Fort Center]. Soil profiles provide some insight to construction of the berm and suggest considerable time has elapsed since then (see Appendix). None of the three shovel tests nor any of the seven bucket auger tests yielded artifacts nor were any found on the

PAGE 104

96 surface of the site. However, the shape of the earthwork and its apparent similarity to the construction of the Great Circle at Fort Center strongly support a Belle Glade origin for it. 8Ob30 Clemens Square and Mound. The Clemens Square and Mound site is located in Township 35S, Range 32E, Section 22 (Figure 16}. The site was located via remote sensing and informant interview (aerial CYW-SC-7}. It consists of a large square-shaped ditch with squared corners measuring approxi mately 200 m on a side. The mound part of the site is located approximately 300 m northeast of the square and measures approximately 36 m north-south by 32 m east-west at a maximum elevation of 0.5 m above the surrounding terrain. Between these lies a small unnamed pond that appears to be a circular shaped borrow. One shovel test (ST 11} was dug in the mound and yielded ceramics and one flake. A summary of the materials retrieved from the shovel test is presented in Table 2 Table 2. Materials recovered from ST 11. Level Materials 1 2/0 very small and 8/0 small Belle Glade Plain sherds 2 1 very small tertiary flake; 2/0 small and 1/0 medium Belle Glade Plain sherds 3 1/ o small and 1/ o medium Belle Glade Plain sherds

PAGE 105

Ii ,1 .: \ ,:' \ "'"'-\./' ---.J'; i i ,. , + --~ ~ ~ 4 -=-6 _____ ...._...,, l:I ___ .' _..... ._., .------1---W-in-d/" 5 1 ~""1$ / ,.__ ") ~ = LO R I~ \ :: ) i .. \ ~ : ( ~/ \ \ l l .. i i , L (\/ 1 \ Q \ -, ~2 r ~ -) 1' // ; ~ 9 i 42 I \ ,/ / I I ), I. f . (,.,.+. ,.,. \ ~ Q _ ,.--@sob 3 o . ~ /;j:o~~ = ~ . ... _ ~: ...;:-: I' : I / .5 0 1 MILE --===--==-ic:==---==--==------------N s 0 1 KILOMETER ---==---=::::11--=:::J--==--===--------Figure 16. Clemens Square and Mound (8Ob30). 97

PAGE 106

98 The presence of the sherds and flake support an interpre tation of the mound as a habitation locus but its proximity to the earthwork and lack of animal bone suggest it may have served some other purpose(s). It should be noted that the pH from the first and second levels indicate almost neutral soils (readings for both levels are 6.7) thus suggesting that soil acidity is not a factor in preservation of animal bones. As such, the mound is considered an integral part of the site, but not necessarily the main focus for activities. Bucket auger tests taken from the northeast corner of the earthwork provide some insight to the possible function of the earthwork (see Appendix). Data on construction are limited to the observation that the berm is located on the outside of the earthwork (opposite of the construction of the Great Circle at Fort Center) Given the apparent connection between the mound and the earthwork, the construction of the earthwork, and the circu lar-shaped borrow that lies between them, the site is consid ered to be representative of Belle Glade cultural activities. The ceramics indicate the site was occupied during the Belle Glade periods while the flake indicates contact with resources to the north and/or west, probably through trade with people in those areas. 80b31 Kissimmee Circle. The Kissimmee Circle is located in Township 36S, Range 33E, Section 5 (Figure 17). The site was located via remote sensing and appears on the aerial

PAGE 107

.. ,, \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ " ,, ", i'. ;f,J i i a , \\ \\ : 17 \\ ,, o \_ 11 r .. .. . .. ... ,... -. Jasing ~ ~ : s fu .. > -J ~:" ~ .~ \ 6M 40 .. ,.. / ..... N I ... \ __ I \ 5 5 0 _a \ \ ~ \ 16 / j I I I 1 KILOMETER Figure 17 Kissimmee Circle (80b31) 99 .....:.... . ~ 1 MILE

PAGE 108

100 photographs as a semi-circular arch with a linear embankment attached along the northern portion of it (aerial CYW-2C-15). A road (now replaced by Highway 98) was built on top of the linear embankment such that it practically cut the site in half. Field inspection of the area revealed nothing left of the embankment or road nor could any part of the arch be made out. A comparison of several aerial photographs of the site over a couple of decades reveals that the old road (and thus, the linear embankment) was located to the east of present day Highway 98. The arch is probably still in existence but is buried under fill from construction of the Kissimmee canal. Unfortunately, the linear embankment (or what was left of it after the road was built on top of it) probably was used for fill in the construction of Highway 98. Based on similar sites and how they appear on the aerial photographs, the arch probably was composed of a crescent shaped embankment. Its appearance is very similar to 8Gl26, the Lakeport Earthworks. Given this, the site is considered to be representative of Belle Glade cultural activities. 8Ob32 Whitehurst Mound. The Whitehurst Mound is located in Township 35S, Range 32E, Section 9 (Figure 18). The site was located via informant interview and later found on an aerial photograph (aerial CYW-5C-10). It consists of a linear embankment approximately 150 m long (northwest-southeast) by 25 m wide and at least 1.0 m above the surrounding terrain.

PAGE 109

18 N ---_ 18 -..,. ... .. -~ .. ,:,s:;,?..-. :.~: .. -. ,. ,_ ... .. ... -: ... ,,. "l ~4 -4 . s s -.... . .... 0 0 ~ -..:.~ ... -!a. .-;;; -=.Figure 18. Whitehurst Mound (80b32). -,.._ --.. "'; ~\ \ F L ORIDA \ "/ 'I. \) 101 QUADRANGLE LDCA TI DN I. -1 ....;;.,..,.1-\ ...... 1 ..;:;,. " ,, .. ,. j :::. I .. .,;;;... 1o, 1 MILE 1 KILOMETER

PAGE 110

102 Two shovel tests (ST 9 & 10) yielded no cultural materi als nor were any found on the surface. This lack strongly suggests the site was not utilized for habitation purposes. Rather, this mound and two like it (8Hg13 and 8Hg636) must have had some other function. Their proximity to the Kissim mee River suggests some sort of riverine orientation but data are lacking to conjecture anymore than this. Based on Goggin's recordation of the Highlands Linear Ridge site (8Hg13} that he found on aerial photographs and Carr's subsequent update of the Florida Master Site File for the same, the Whitehurst Mound must be a precolumbian earth work. It likely can be attributed to Belle Glade cultural activities but anymore than this cannot be ascertained at this time. 8Ob33 Underhill Sawgrass Pond Site. The Underhill Sawgrass Pond site is located in Township 35S, Range 32E, Section 11 (Figure 19). The site was located via informant interviews and consists of a midden mound (or house mound) that measures 31 m north-south by 40 m east-west and has a maximum elevation of approximately 1.0 m above the surrounding terrain. Subsequent inspection of aerial photographs indi cates a linear embankment is associated with this site (aerial DSL-2CC-62). One shovel test (ST 7) in the midden mound yielded an amazingly large quantity of animal bones but no artifacts (at least none in the 1/4" fraction). The weights of recovered animal bones are presented in Table 3.

PAGE 111

. ~ .;,. ) / ( / I I N Figure 19. \__ ( ) ,. > \ I )4 +'!' ( _ _ \ ...._ ) 5 0 J I ~ , ?SW 1 n d m1 I I : > 5.] ,, 0 103 ., 0 l'l,'___ ....._. 0 /,' 1. i /,' I/ t i 0 nd 4~ / 1 I/ .. // 1 MILE =--===--==------------.5 0 KILOMETER c::::JI-=~==-------Underhill Sawgrass Pond Site (80b33).

PAGE 112

104 Table 3. Weights of animal bones recovered from ST 7. Level 1 2 Materials 1190 g of animal bones ( 260 g in 1/ 4" fraction; 930 gin 1/16" fraction) 1167 g of animal bones ( 3 62 g in 1/ 4" fraction; 805* gin 1/16" fraction) indicates weight concretions. includes impurities--usually The extraordinary amount of animal bones indicates this site functioned as a habitation site. Species represented in the faunal assemblage include (but are not limited to) members of the order Testudines (turtle), Squamata: Serpentes (snake), members of the family Rodentia (rodents), and members of the Class Aves (birds). The soil pH measured 6.0 for the first level and 5 .1 for the second. Thus, if soil acidity has contributed any bias to the representativeness of the faunal assemblage it has been towards decreasing the amount in the lower level. The lack of artifacts is probably only due to sampling error. Additional tests at the site would likely yield Belle Glade Plain ceramics as other sites like this one have. This assumption coupled with the linear embankment discovered on the aerial photograph indicates this site is attributable to Belle Glade cultural activities. Highlands County Buck Island Ranch Group. The Buck Island Ranch Group of sites consists of a cluster of midden mounds located at the

PAGE 113

105 southern end of the 10,000 acre Buck Island Ranch, a cattle ranch currently leased by the Archbold Biological Station to study the effects of the cattle ranching industry on the Lake Okeechobee Basin ecosystem (Figure 20). The sites were found via informant interviews. Subsequent inspection of aerial photographs revealed no earthworks associated with the group. The sites are typically covered with cabbage palms and are often referred to as cabbage palm heads or raised ham mocks. The cabbage palm head designation does not always imply that a site exists at a locale--i.e., there are cabbage palm heads that are not sites. On the other hand, the raised hammock designation always refers to aboriginal sites. This is because the raised hammocks are obvious mounds that are elevated at least 0.5 m above the surrounding terrain. As such, I attempted inspection of all cabbage palm heads on this part of the ranch. Those that were obviously mounds ( elevated 0.25 m above the surrounding terrain) were marked as sites. Those that were 0.25 m or less in elevation were tested with a bucket auger. If cultural materials were found, the cabbage palm head was designated as a site and the materials were returned to the bucket auger hole. Only one site was shovel tested. The following narratives provide the particulars on each site. 8Hg613 Childs Site. The Childs site is located in Township 38S, Range 31E, Section 33 (Figure 20). It is the largest site of the group at approximately 100 m long (south

PAGE 114

N 106 \Vinrlr r;28 .5 0 1 MILE --===--==-ic:::=:Jlll-==--===------------ --==---==- 5::=i-~::::::1--==-o ---------1 KILOMETER Figure 20. Buck Island Group (8Hg613 622).

PAGE 115

107 west-northeast) by 60 m wide and at least 1.0 m high. The site was the first of the sites that my informant, Dan Childs, showed me, hence the name. No testing was done. 8Hg614 Flat Rock. The Flat Rock site is located in Township 38S, Range 31E, Section 34 (Figure 20). It is composed of two adjacent cabbage palm heads, one slightly larger than the other, that together measure approximately 85 m long (southwest-northeast) by 30 m wide and about 0.25 m high. The larger of the two has flat limestone exposed on the surface, hence the name. Its presence is obviously not natural and is similar to the limestone pavement Willey (1949:21) discusses at the Belle Glade type site. My infor mant indicated that another such site is located on the Buck Island Ranch. Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain loca tional information from him because of time constraints. Since the site met only the minimum requirements of height, a bucket auger test was placed in each of the cabbage palm heads. Both produced faunal remains within the first 5 cm. In neither case was this material collected. 8Hg615 Kidney Site. The Kidney site is located in Township 38S, Range 31E, Section 34 (Figure 20). It measures approximately 60 m long (northeast-southwest) by 30 m wide and 0.5 m high. The site is roughly kidney shaped, hence the name. No testing was done. 8Hg616 New Salvador. The New Salvador site is located in Township 38S, Range 31E, Section 33 (Figure 20). It is

PAGE 116

108 approximately 50 m long (northwest-southeast) by 30 m wide and just barely 0.25 m high. As such, I placed a bucket auger test in it and found animal bone (including snake vertebrae and fish skull bone--probably Amia calva) at about 25 cmbs. None of this material was collected. 8Hg617 Burned Palm. The Burned Palm site is located in Township 38S, Range 31E, Section 34 (Figure 20). It is approximately 30 min diameter and is obviously a mound. The palms on the site suffered from a fairly recent burn, hence the name. Though the site is obviously a mound, I decided to place a bucket auger test in it to be sure it was pre columbian. It yielded some animal bone and a potsherd within 10 cm of the surface. None of this material was collected. 8Hg618 Road Site. The Road site is located in Township 38S, Range 31E, Section 27 (Figure 20). It is approximately 30 min diameter and is about 0.25 m high. A bucket auger test revealed animal bone (including turtle and fish) in the first five cm. None of this material was collected. 8Hg619 Nokato. The Nokato site is located in Township 38S, Range 31E, Section 34 (Figure 20). It is approximately 45 min diameter and is obviously a mound (well above the 0.25 m height). No testing was done. 8Hg620 A.T. (Pos). The A.T. (Pos) site is located in Township 38S, Range 31E, Section 34 (Figure 20). It is approximately 60 m long (northwest-southeast) by 40 m wide and is obviously a mound (well above the 0. 25 m height) However,

PAGE 117

109 it being one of the first I encountered I used the bucket auger and found animal bone within the first 5 cm. None of these materials was collected. 8Hg621 Bob Cat. The Bob Cat site is located in Township 38S, Range 31E, Section 27 (Figure 20). It is approximately 30 min diameter and about 0.25 m high. A bucket auger test revealed animal bone and a polished bone within the first 5 cm. None of these materials was collected. 8Hg622 circle T. The Circle T site is located in Township 38S, Range 31E, Section 35 (Figure 20). It is approximately 32 m north-south by 28 m east-west and has a maximum elevation of 0.5 m above the surrounding terrain. A shovel test (ST 21) was dug in the site and yielded ceramics and an extraordinary amount of animal bone. A summary of the materials retrieved from the shovel test is presented in Table 4. The presence of the Belle Glade Plain sherds indicates that this site is attributable to Belle Glade cultural activities. The extraordinary amount of animal bones coupled with the sherds indicates the site functioned for habitation purposes. Species represented in the faunal assemblage include (but are not limited to) members of the order Tes tudines (turtle), Squamata: Serpentes (snake), and members of the Class Osteicthyes (bony fish). Given this, it seems highly probable that all of the Buck Island Ranch sites are Belle Glade sites.

PAGE 118

Table 4. Level 1 2 3 4 5 110 Materials recovered from ST 21. Materials 2/0 very small, 1/0 small, and 3/0 medium Belle Glade Plain sherds; 1802 g of animal bones (492 gin 1/4" fraction; 1310 gin 1/16" fraction) 1/0 very small and 1/0 small Belle Plain sherds; 4140 g of animal (1720 gin 1/4" fraction; 2420 gin fraction) Glade bones 1/16" 1/0 small Sand Tempered Plain sherd; 460* g of animal bones (1/4" fraction only) 8 g of animal bones (1/4" fraction only) 1 g of animal bones (1/4" fraction only) indicates weight concretions. includes impurities--usually Lonesome Island Group. The Lonesome Island Group of sites consists of a cluster of midden mounds located south of Lake Istokpoga and east of the Lake Wales Ridge (Figures 21 and 22). The sites were found via remote sensing and informant interviews. Inspection of aerial photographs revealed a linear earthwork that terminated in a mound associated with the group (aerial CYW-3C-95). Subsequent field search for this site found that it was obliterated by the development of a citrus grove. However, informant interviews indicate a number of mounds still in existence. These, like the Buck Island Ranch sites, are typically covered with cabbage palms and are often referred to as cabbage palm heads. As with the Buck Island Ranch sites, the presence of a cabbage palm head does not always imply that a site exists at a locale i.e., there are cabbage palm heads

PAGE 119

I / . ) 46 ....... _ 'r-1 I . T 37 S r .5 1 N Figure 21. I I I 111 QUADRANGLE LOCATION .. .. J .. ......... .. ........... ... . ......... ....... u: v ...... .. . . ... ..... \ ..... .... .. . j . i : . . 1 ~1 1 ~ 1 \ 11 : l i l !I I I i j.Hg62~ ~> _,,,---------i : il :I \ ~ : : II ,,/ ./ ( j / 1 f I < ) : l / \!l:l . I I 4 JJ I \: \, ~ / 8Hg625 f.: : I u ) s~2 i f ; o \ BHg626 o l lj I i / 8 Hg 6 2 7 \ t I [ ./ ,Jt 1 j ( '.. l t ~0 n,! r:---. \ 'r i r \ \ 1 I .. n ii lj ,, vQ \ ) ) ( 1' . ( ~------: i~ l \_ h >~ I ,, \ i : : ,~ -:=d~ _ .. (l ~ ,/ l 7 ,_ 1 .. . j ( l i i I ,, i: JJ : I ,: ~ ' I ~ ~l : : I i ; ~ ,'., ... . .. .. .. , ,,,, ., ., .. ,nn "" """" t ""'"~"'"',,i0 ,11 111 ~, ,., .,., .,, ,.,;, ,. .,,~ .. .. ;,~ ; 8 M } ~ 0 1 MILE =--==-----------.5 0 KILOMETER -==--11::::1-==-------Lonesome Island Group (8Hg623 630).

PAGE 120

I ; .. "' ' '" """ '" """' ' """ N 8Hg631 0 .5 1 Figure 22. ----, \_ 32 (~ ~--l ~ ) ---... \ 0 l j X 3/ I i l l 1 MILE ==--===--------------0 KILO M ETER .5 c=i-==--==-------Lonesome Island Group {8Hg631 634). 112

PAGE 121

113 that are not sites. Furthermore, at least two of the sites in this group are completely lacking in any trees. Finding them was only possible by my informants leading me to them. Most of the sites in this group were shovel tested although not all of them. The following narratives provide the particulars on each site. 8Hg623 Bob Ulshafer Site. The Bob Ulshafer site is located in Township 37S, Range 31E, Section 30 (Figure 21). It is approximately 30 min diameter and is obviously a mound. Due to time constraints, it was never tested but my infor mants, Bobby Scarborough and his son, Robert, state that they have observed animal bone and ceramics at the site. 8Hg624 Picnic Table Site. The Picnic Table site is located in Township 37S, Range 31E, Section 30 (Figure 21). It is approximately 20 min diameter and is obviously a mound. However, like the Bob Ulshafer site, it was never tested and its listing as a site is based on my informant's knowledge of it. 8Hg625 Lonesome Island III. The Lonesome Island III site is located in Township 37S, Range 31E, Section 30 (Figure 21). It is approximately 42 m north-south by 49 m east-west with a maximum elevation of 0.5 m. The site is treeless and could not have been found without informant assistance. A shovel test (ST 12) was dug in the site and yielded ceramics and a fairly large amount of animal bone. A summary

PAGE 122

114 of the materials retrieved from the shovel test is presented in Table 5. The presence of the semi-fiber tempered sherds strati graphically below Belle Glade Plain sherds documents early use Table 5. Level 1 2 3 Materials recovered from ST 12. Materials 3/0 very small, 12/0 small, 8/0 medium, and 2/0 large Belle Glade Plain sherds; 330 g of animal bones (40 gin 1/4" frac tion; 290* gin 1/16" fraction) 2 very small chert spalls; 1/0 small Belle Glade Plain sherd; 3/0 medium semi-fiber tempered sherds; 330 g of animal bones (42 gin 1/4" fraction; 330* gin 1/16" fraction) 1 small tertiary flake; 697 g of animal bones (82 g in 1/4" fraction; 615* in 1/16" fraction) indicates weight concretions. includes impurities--usually of this site during the Transitional period followed by Belle Glade period cultural activities. The chert indicates contact with resources to the north and/ or west, probably through trade with people in those areas. The animal bones coupled with the ceramics and lithics indicate the site functioned as a habitation mound. Species represented in the faunal assemblage include (but are not limited to) members of the order Testudines (turtle), Squamata: Serpentes (snake), members of the Class Osteicthyes (boney fish), and Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) The soil pH measured 6. 6 for

PAGE 123

115 the first level, 6.2 for the second, and 6.0 for the third. Thus, soil acidity appears not to have contributed any bias to the representativeness of the faunal assemblage. 8Hg626 Lonesome Island II. The Lonesome Island II site is located in Township 37S, Range 31E, Section 30 (Figure 21). It is approximately 35 m north-south by 55 m east-west and has a maximum elevation of about 0.25 m. A shovel test (ST 13) was dug in the site and yielded ceramics and a large amount of animal bone. A summary of the materials retrieved from the shovel test is presented in Table 6. Table 6. Level 1 2 Materials recovered from ST 13. Materials 2/0 very small, 9/0 small, 3/0 medium, and 1/0 large Belle Glade Plain sherds; 1372 g of animal bones (262 g in 1/4" fraction; 1110* gin 1/16" fraction) 1/0 small Belle Glade Plain sherd; 977 g of animal bones (172* gin 1/4" fraction; 805* gin 1/16" fraction) indicates weight concretions. includes impurities--usually The presence of Belle Glade Plain sherds indicates Belle Glade cultural activities. The animal bones coupled with the ceramics indicate the site functioned as a habitation mound. Species represented in the faunal assemblage include (but are not limited to) members of the order Squamata: Serpentes (snake), Lepisosteus spp. (gar fish), and Amia calva (bowfin). Interestingly, the soil pH measured 4.7 for the first level and 4.6 for the second. Thus, soil acidity may have contrib

PAGE 124

116 uted a bias to the representativeness of the faunal assem blage. Modern use of the site has resulted in it being covered by cow dung. The soil has an acrid smell and abso lutely no ground-cover vegetation is growing on the site. It seems likely that this is responsible for the acidic pH readings. As such, the amounts of animal bones (especially in the 1/4" fraction from l~vel 1) may be an artifact of modern land-use and not reflect the intensity of occupation by the Belle Glade people. 8Hg627 Mineral Lick Site. The Mineral Lick site is located in Township 37S, Range 31E, Section 30, (Figure 21). It is approximately 25 min diameter and is obviously a mound. Due to its use as a mineral lick for the Scarborough family's cattle, it was never tested but the Scarboroughs state that they have observed animal bone and ceramics at the site. 8Hg628 Miss Reynolds Site. The Miss Reynolds site is located in Township 37S, Range JOE, Section 25 (Figure 21). It is approximately 70 min diameter and is obviously a mound. Local amateur archaeologists have dug extensively in the mound leaving much of it turned inside out. Ceramic sherds and animal bone can be seen in the backdirt piles that cover much of the site. According to the Scarboroughs, Ms. Ann Reynolds is a local amateur and is responsible for organizing excava tion projects at this and other sites in the area. Unfortu nately, I was unable to meet with her while working in this part of the project area.

PAGE 125

117 8Hg629 Scarborough Mound. The Scarborough Mound is located in Township 37S, Range JOE, Section 36 (Figure 21). The Scarboroughs report that the site actually consists of at least two mounds, but while I was in the field I saw only one. It is approximately 27 min diameter and is at least o.s m high. One large depression at the top revealed a number of sherds and animal bones. As at the Miss Reynolds site, local amateurs dug here. According to the Scarboroughs, the group included Ms. Reynolds and some others from Tampa. A number of interesting finds were reported by the group to the Scarboroughs, including a baby skeleton, and an unidentified piece of corroded metal. These went with the Tampa group back to Tampa. Due to time constraints, no shovel testing was attempted at this site but based on its similarity to the sites in the vicinity, it is surely of Belle Glade origin. 8Hg630 Scarborough Home Site. The Scarborough Home site is located in Township 37S, Range JOE, Section 36 (Figure 21). My informant, Bobby Scarborough, reports that his house is located on top of some mounds that he poured fill dirt over prior to construction. He stated that the mounds are men tioned in a history text written by Park Devane (1979). Of course, no shovel testing was attempted for to do so would require digging up my informant's yard. However, based on his description and the other sites in this area this site is most likely Belle Glade in origin.

PAGE 126

118 8Hg631 Lonesome Island. The Lonesome Island site is located in Township 37S, Range 31E, Section 29 (Figure 22). It is approximately 44 m north-south by 35 m east-west and has a maximum elevation of about 1.0 m. A shovel test (ST 4) dug in the site yielded ceramics and a fair amount of animal bone. A summary of the materials retrieved from the shovel test is presented in Table 7. Table 7. Materials recovered from ST 4. Level 1 2 3 4 Materials fill dirt no cultural materials 1/0 very small, 12/0 small, 15/2 medium, and 2/1 large Belle Glade Plain sherds; 230 g of animal bones (40 gin 1/4" frac tion; 190* gin 1/16" fraction) 3/0 very small, 22/0 small, 20/2 medium, 2/0 large, and 1/0 very large Belle Glade Plain sherds; 1925 g of animal bones (370 g in 1/ 4 11 fraction; 1555* g in 1/ 16 11 fraction) 1 small chert spall; 1/ 0 medium semi-fiber tempered sherd; 892 g of animal bones ( 102 g in 1/ 4 11 fraction; 790* in 1/ 16" fraction) indicates weight concretions. includes impurities--usually The presence of the semi-fiber tempered sherds strati graphically below Belle Glade Plain sherds documents early use of this site during the Transitional period followed by Belle Glade period cultural activities. The chert indicates contact with resources to the north and/ or west, probably through trade with people in those areas. The animal bones coupled with the ceramics and lithics indicate the site functioned as

PAGE 127

119 a habitat ion mound. Species represented in the faunal assemblage include (but are not limited to) members of the order Testudines (turtle), Squamata: Serpentes (snake), members of the Class Osteicthyes (bony fish) including Lepisosteus spp. (gar fish) and Amia calva (bowfin), and Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer). The soil pH measured 5.5 for the third level and 6.8 for the fourth (no reading is available for the first or second level). Thus, soil acidity may have contributed a bias to the representa tiveness of the faunal assemblage in the third level but not the fourth. 8Hg632 Smoak Site. The Smoak site is located in Township 37S, Range 31E, Section 32 (Figure 22). It is approximately 28 m north-south by 24 m east-west and about 0.25 m high. Two shovel tests (ST 5 & 6) yielded very few sherds and a very small amount of animal bones. Both are shallow as the deposit is thin in comparison with the other sites in the area. A summary of the materials retrieved from the shovel tests is presented in Table 8. The presence of Belle Glade Plain sherds indicates Belle Glade cultural activities. The animal bones coupled with the ceramics indicate the site functioned as a habitation mound. Species represented in the faunal assemblage include (but are not limited to) members of the Class Osteicthyes (bony fish) possibly Amia calva (bowfin). Analysis of the soil pH reveals it is fairly close to neutral ( 6. o) and likely has not

PAGE 128

Table 8. Level 5-1 6-1 120 Materials recovered from ST 5 & 6. Materials 1/0 small STP sherd; 1/1 small Belle Glade Plain sherd; 12 g of animal bones (1/4" fraction only) 1/0 small Belle Glade Plain sherd; 254 g of animal bones (4 gin 1/4" fraction; 250* gin 1/16" fraction) indicates weight concretions. includes impurities--usually affected representativeness of the faunal assemblage. 8Hg633 Dence Road Site. The Dence Road site is located in Township 37S, Range 31E, Section 28 (Figure 22). It is approximately 25 min diameter and about 0.25 m high. The early aerial photographs reveal a site in this location but, due to time constraints, no shovel tests were excavated. However, animal bones, including snake and turtle, were observed on the surface (not collected). The site appears to be similar to the other sites in this group and is therefore most likely to be of Belle Glade origin. 8Hg634 Linear embankment and mound. The Linear embank ment and mound site was located in Township 37S, Range 31E, Section 29 (Figure 22). Today a citrus grove is located there. The site was located via remote sensing and appears on the aerial photographs as an approximately 330 m long linear embankment that terminates in a mound (aerial CYW-3C-95}. A second mound was located approximately 230 m west of the linear. No trace of either could be found except for one

PAGE 129

121 small tertiary flake located in one of the furrows of the grove. An aerial photograph from 1974 reveals the site was barely visible by that time (aerial 12055-174-89) and by 1986 it was obliterated (aerial of this section in the Highlands County tax assessors office). 8Hg635 Highlands Hammock Site. The Highlands Hammock site is located in Township 35S, Range 28E, Section 6 (Figure 23). This location is within the Highlands Hammock State Park. Park personnel provided directions to the site, as well as some history of it. Apparently the maintenance staff found it during the early 1930s when they were hauling fill for the construction of cottage road ( a small dirt road in the southwest part of the park). Human bones were discovered in the fill and returned to the mound which was then left undisturbed. The mound measures approximately 20 min diameter and about 0. 5 m in elevation. A rather large depression is visible for most of the north end of the mound, probably the result of the fill dirt removed by the maintenance staff. A shovel test (ST 3) placed in the highest part (the south end of the site) yielded one small st. Johns Plain sherd. No additional bones were found nor was any attempt made to do so. The documentation on the mound by park personnel indicate the site is a burial mound. The sherd provides evidence of a St. Johns period chronology, but does not preclude the possibility of Belle Glade cultural activities.

PAGE 130

.. ~ 30 ,:/ I ~-, ~ .,,)~ ; F o rd _ I _, / ( (_ I ~o Jiii2 ( \ ~ '--,, _, \ -~ : ----+83 1 : / .' I 0 / i i p, : i I f I '/ I ( __ 6 r -... ; I / . N Figure 23. ARK .5 0 ==---====---===--------------MILE 5 0 1 KILOMETER =-ic=:i-==--==~------Highlands Hammock Site (8Hg635). 122

PAGE 131

123 As such, the limited data do not indicate a cultural boundary. 8Hg636 Highlands Parallel Ridges. The Highlands Parallel Ridges site is located in Township 36S, Range 33E, Section 29 (Figure 24). It was located via remote sensing and appears on the aerial photographs as two parallel ridges measuring approximately 200 m long (aerial CYW-2C-13). A possible crescent shaped earthwork can be seen on the same aerial about 350 m northwest of the ridges. Unfortunately, this site was not visited due to problems with obtaining permission to enter the property. However, its similarity to the Highlands Linear Ridge site (8Hg13--located approximately 1.5 km to the north) and the Whitehurst Mound (80b32--mentioned earlier in this report) suggests it is likely not a habitation site. Rather, these sites probably have some sort of riverine orientation as they are all in the proximity of the Kissimmee River. Glades County 8Gl75 North Fisheating creek Circle. The North Fisheating Creek Circle is located in Township 40S, Range 32E, Section 28 (Figure 25). The site was located via remote sensing and appears on the aerial photographs as two concen tric circles (aerial BU0-2T-150). The inner one appears whole whereas the outer one appears open on its south side (where it borders the Fisheating Creek floodplain). The outer circle measures approximately 275 m in diameter. Unfortunately, this site was not visited due to problems with obtaining permission

PAGE 132

" " , ... _ 4 0 -" N \\ ,, ,, , 1 Figure 24. 124 ...... 0 5 1 MI L E ==~-===--==------------. 5 0 1 KILOMETER 11:=::::J-==--=~------Highlands Parallel Ridges (8Hg636).

PAGE 133

N 125 --=:=:::J--==-c:s=--=:=:::J--=:::::i.o _____________ ..;, MILE --==---==-s=:i-~=:1--==iio _________ KILOMETER Figure 25. North Fisheating Creek Circle ( 8Gl 75) and Lakeport Circle Ditch (8Gl50).

PAGE 134

126 from the property owners to enter the property. However, the aerial photographs suggest that this site is like the other circular earthworks in the Okeechobee Basin and is composed of ditch and berm construction. Based on Sears' (1982) work at Fort Center, this site probably has a habitation mound associated with it. 8Gl76 Palmdale Earthworks. The Palmdale Earthworks are located in Township 41S, Range JOE, Section 2 (Figure 26). The site was located via remote sensing and appears as two linear embankments probably terminating in mounds and two additional mounds south of these (aerials BUO-3O-122 & BUO-lT-184). The mounds and embankments lie within an area 650 m east-west by 400 m north-south. Based on the informa tion gathered from the Lonesome Island Group, this site likely represents more than one period of occupation. However, no field data were gathered because permission to enter the property was not obtainable at the time of the survey. Should permission be obtained in the future, one should note that another site (8Gl56--the West Fisheating Creek Mound) is located due south and is probably related in much the same way as are the many mounds of the Lonesome Island Group and the Buck Island Ranch Group. 8Gl77 Mulberry Mound. The Mulberry Mound is located in Township 39S, Range 33E, Section 14 (Figure 27). It was located via informant interviews and consists of a midden mound (or house mound) that measures 58 m north-south by 103

PAGE 135

/ .s N Figure 26. 5 I / -l I / u ' , II I ,/ .... ~-1 \ 0 0 \) 127 C U ADRANGLE LOCATION 1 MILE 1 KILOMETER Palmdale Earthworks (8Gl76).

PAGE 136

128 m east-west and has a maximum elevation of approximately 1.0 m above the surrounding terrain. Subsequent inspection of aerial photographs revealed no earthworks associated with this site. One shovel test (ST 20) yielded ceramics and a fairly large amount of animal bone. A summary of the materials retrieved from the shovel test is presented in Table 9. Table 9. Materials recovered from ST 20. Level Materials 1 11/ 3 small, 12 / 2 medium, and 1/ O large Belle Glade Plain sherds; 1 small and 1 large chunk of burnt limestone; 1 shell tool fragment (scraper?); 430 g of animal bones and 217 g of shell {l/4" fraction only) 2 1 very small chert spall; 2/0 very small, 9/2 small, 4/0 medium, and 2/1 large Belle Glade Plain sherds; 1250* g of animal bones and 867 g of shell (1/4" fraction only) 3 2/0 small and 2/0 medium Belle Glade Plain sherds; 1/ o medium STP sherd; 5 medium chunks of limestone; 1265* g of animal bones and 192 g of shell ( 1/ 4" fraction only) 4 2/0 small Belle Glade Plain sherds; 302* g of animal bones and 24 g of shell {1/4 11 fraction only) indicates weight concretions. includes impurities--usually The presence of Belle Glade Plain sherds indicates Belle Glade cultural activities. The chert indicates contact with resources to the north and/or west, probably through trade with people in those areas. The shell tool is made from a marine shell {probably sunray venus--Macrocallista nimbosa}

PAGE 137

129 ._ .: i: 14 5 0 1 MILE =--===--==-----------. 5 0 KILOMETER =-.:=-==--==-------N Figure 27. Mulberry (8Gl77) and Pearce (8Gl78) Mounds.

PAGE 138

130 indicating contact with coastal resources, probably through trade with the coastal dwelling populations. The limestone, on the other hand, is local and its presence in the site is not readily explained. Little, if anything, is known of limestone processing though it does occur (e.g. Willey's (1949:21) description of the limestone "pavement" at the Belle Glade site]. As such, its presence in the site may represent such processing. The animal bones coupled with the artifacts indicate the site functioned as a habitat ion mound. The large quantity of shell in the faunal remains differentiates this site from others in this report. is a type of freshwater mussel. separated from the weights of For the most part, the shell Weights for the shell are the animal bones so that comparisons between this site and others are not misconstrued. Species represented in the faunal assemblage include (but are not limited to) members of the order Testudines (turtle), members of the family Rodentia (rodents), and members of the Class Osteicthyes (bony fish) including Lepisosteus spp. (gar fish) and Amia calva (bowfin). 8Gl78 Pearce Mounds. The Pearce Mounds are located in Township 39S, Range 33E, Section 24 (Figure 27}. They were located via informant interviews and subsequent inspection of aerial photographs revealed no earthworks associated with them. The site consists of two mounds and numerous borrows covering an area at least 500 m by 500 m. One of them is taller than the other at perhaps 2 to 3 min height. The

PAGE 139

131 other occupies more area and appears to have been built in successive stages. Given the immensity of the site (and the time constraints of the day) I decided not to shovel test. However, I believe future testing at the site will reveal these mounds to be Belle Glade in origin. 8Gl 79 oxer Borrow. The Oxer Borrow is located in Township 40S, Range JOE, Section 6 (Figure 28}. It was located via remote sensing and appears on the aerial photo graphs as an anthropomorphic shaped borrow pit complete with a head, body, and arms (aerial BUO-1D-41). Subsequent field inspection revealed a barely discernible linear depression (the body portion of the borrow} located in a pasture. This portion is visible by a change in the grass that grows within it. My informant, Mr. Brad Oxer, states that it tends to hold standing water during the rainy season. The rest of the borrow is no longer discernible as the head and arms have been obliterated by modern agricultural practices. However, Mr. Oxer revealed that a sand feature in the woods (located just northwest of where the head used to be and in alignment with the body) could be explained by the borrow. It is approxi mately 30 min diameter and not even 0.25 m high. According to Mr. oxer, this sand feature has always puzzled him, his father, and his grandfather ever since his grandfather discovered it and used it for a garden. As such, a single shovel test ( ST 14} was dug in the sand feature but no cultural materials were found.

PAGE 140

J 1 / : -';'I, ,,,,, ~:n ,'cv , ~;, _. -, II \ \ I I 6J ,, ,,. ,, ,,.~ ,, ,, ; ( J ) ( , '.J 1 1 \ -~ . ... . . .. ., ~ _ \ \ .. \ :\ I ) \ 31 \ '
PAGE 141

133 The Oxer Borrow remains an enigma. Only one other site is known that is similar, 8Gl43--the Pestle Earthworks. Like the Oxer Borrow, the Pestle Earthworks is (or was when it was recorded) barely discernible as it is only several inches lower than the surrounding terrain. However, it shows up clearly on some of the early aerial photographs (aerial BUO-lT-195) but not others. This suggests that the ability to discern the site depends on wet conditions--i.e. when wet conditions prevail, the site is visible. Furthermore, the Pestle Earthworks has a definite pestle shape (but it is unlike those wooden artifacts that have been described as double-ended pestles for this region). As such, the oxer Borrow is reported as a precolumbian site. Hendry County 8Hn43 Basilan Crescent. The Basilan Crescent site is located in Township 43S, Range 34E, section 15 (Figure 29). It was located via remote sensing and appears on the aerial photograph as a crescent shaped ridge (aerial BUN-2-27). This same crescent shape appears on the 1970 quadrangle indicating the site is a park. Subsequent field inspection reveals that it is now part of a pasture and grass field. There is no indication that the area is or was a park. South of the crescent ridge are several small wood frame houses that are accessed by a paved road named Basilan Crescent. This road follows the curve of the crescent ridge to about its midpoint

PAGE 142

134 --==--==- 5:::::::::::..-==--==::iio _______________ l MILE .5 0 l KILOMETER N Figure 29 Basilan Crescent {8Hn43).

PAGE 143

135 where it terminates into a dirt drive. No testing was done at the site. While no artifacts were observed, the shape of the ridge is similar to other earthworks in the region. Furthermore, Carr's documentation of 8Hn28, Clewiston Mounds (available in the Florida Master Site File), indicates a mound and linear embankment just south of the ridge. Interestingly, the linear embankment is oriented toward the crescent as are many of the linear embankments at Fort Center and Tony's Mound sites. As such, I believe the Basilan Crescent is the remains of a large precolumbian earthworks site that has been greatly altered by the development of the town of Clewiston. Updated Sites Highlands county 8Hgl Old Venus Mound. The Old Venus Mound site is located in Township 39S, Range 29E, Section 14 (Figure 30). This site was originally recorded by John Goggin as a sand mound. Two human teeth are recorded as coming from the mound but no artifacts. The location of the site is not on the Florida Master Site File U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. However, it was found on the early plat maps (Florida State Archives 1837). Thus, the need for an update was apparent. During the field portion of this project I visited the mound and found that it is now bisected by Old Road 8 (listed on U.S.G.S. map as Highway 17) and surrounded by citrus

PAGE 144

J~ N J \ I / \ \ 11 @) --==--=::::i-::::::=--===--===-0---------------1 MILE -==--==-:=l~~-===-0---------1 KILOMETER Figure 30. Old Venus Mound (8Hgl). 136 0

PAGE 145

137 groves. The main portion of the mound is located on the east side of the road and encompasses an area 26 m north-south by 19 m east-west and is at least 3 m high. Surface inspection of the area revealed three medium sand tempered plain sherds, 1 unidentifiable bone, and 1 fossil tooth (probably shark). In addition, two pieces of rusted metal were found but cannot be temporally identified. A discussion with Mr. Richard Sutton, the property manager for the citrus grove, revealed that the owner, Mr. Crews, has never allowed anyone to dig in the mound. As such, what remains of the mound is free from vandalism. However, wear and tear from citrus grove activities has eroded the sides. Mr. Sutton expressed his concern for the damage and believes the mound should be excavated by professionals. But, he is committed to preserving the mound if a professional excavation cannot be conducted. 8Hg2 Albritton and Pullen Mounds. The Albritton and Pullen Mounds (formerly Albritton Mound) are located in Township 39S, Range 29E, Section 4 (Figure 31). This site was recorded by John Goggin as a flat-topped sand mound located three miles NW of Old Venus. No information on artifacts from the site is provided. Furthermore, its location is not on the Florida Master Site File U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. A discussion with a knowledgeable resident of Old Venus, Mrs. Shelly Johnston, provided information on the whereabouts of the Albritton family and led to my finding the current

PAGE 146

" \ N a I I I I I -.. \I I ..;:..;: I 1 Figure 31. Q9 I ( \ -'.. '. '\ \\. \, '\. \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \~ ..... ,;.., I I I \ I /_ I .-__. \ 34 : '.. _/2 ' . '\, \ ) '\ 90 . .:.: ~ ~ ; '\ .. BM 89 : --r ~ /, __ \ y ~, \ 138 <~ QUADRANGLE LOCATIO .. ;, ,,, 866 -------:;f--1--~---=----+-11 \ \ \ ) \ /' I / \ 5 IIIIC=--=::::::i--===-0---------------1 MILE .5 =--==-i:::::=:..i:::::i--::::::10 _________ KILOMETER Albritton and Pullen Mounds (8Hg2).

PAGE 147

139 owner of the mound, Mr. John Pullen. He volunteered to take me to the mound as well as another located nearby. The flat-topped sand mound described by Goggin as the Albritton Mound is roughly oval in shape and measures approximately 20 min diameter. Mr. Pullen reports that his sons removed a human skull from it some years ago and that he had them return it. This activity probably explains the small depressions on the surface. The other mound, now named the Pullen Mound, is located north and west of the Albritton Mound. It is discernible by a borrow pit that is 25 m north-south by 18 m east-west and about o. 25 m deep. One shovel test (ST 15) yielded a few sherds and a chert spall. A summary of the materials retrieved from the shovel test is presented in Table 10. Table 10. Materials recovered from ST 15. Level 1 2 3 5 Materials 2/0 very small, 3/0 medium, and 1/0 medium STP sherds 3/0 small STP sherds 1/0 very small, 2/0 small, 1/0 medium, and 1/0 large STP sherds 1 small chert spall The sherds and chert suggest the Pullen mound is a habitation site. No cultural group or period can be discerned on the basis of the assemblage. However, the site's lack of Belle Glade Plain ceramics suggests that the site is not attributable to Belle Glade cultural activities. could represent a cultural boundary. Thus, it

PAGE 148

140 8Hg3 Daugherty Site. The Daugherty site is well docu mented and its location secured on the Florida Master Site File U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. The reason for updating this site is that the review of aerial photographs coupled with information obtained from James Marshall (personal communica tion) has revealed a feature of the site that has never been documented (aerial CYW-2C-40). It is a circular borrow located due south of the site across Highway 98 (Figure 32). This sort of geometric shaped borrow has only casually been mentioned at other sites in the Okeechobee Basin (cf. Sears 1982:175; Carr 1985:300). Thus, my initial reaction was skeptical. However, due to the efforts of this project, similar borrows are found at the Fort Center site (8Gl13), Clemens Square and Mound (8Ob30), the Lakeport Circle Ditch (8Gl50), and Maple Mound (8Hn5). Their function, while still unknown, apparently served as an accessory to the main body of the site (that is, in all cases, the circular borrows appear to be appendages to the sites). Glades County 8Gl13 Fort Center. Fort Center is the best documented site in the Okeechobee Basin because Goggin (1952), Sears (1971, 1977, 1982) and a host of others have contributed their observations on it to the literature. And yet, the review of aerial photographs has revealed two features, one of which has received only minor attention (Sears 1982:175; Carr 1985:300),

PAGE 149

I \ I -',r --42'T ) 3 3 ... --I::!-,.. , ,, \\ . \\ ..;> I\ II II -26 .) I I I I I I .} 1 r I. I' I r I I I I I I I I \. I :< 39 I ( ~ 141 QUADRANGLE L OCATION 1 ,, / ( I /. , .1/ I t If II II 1 5 0 1 MILE --===--==--===--==--===------------. 5 0 1 KILOMETER ---==---=:::i--=::J--=:1--==-------N Figure 32. Daugherty Site (8Hg3).

PAGE 150

142 and one of which has never been documented. The features are circular borrows (Figure 33) like the one at the Daugherty site. The smaller of the two is attached to the Great Circle along the southern rim. Carr (1975:23, 1985:290) erroneously depicts the feature as a mound. Milanich and Ruhl (1986) make the same mistake. However, an aerial photograph of the site clearly indicates the feature is a borrow (FMNH 1966: Negative 6). A second one is located along the southern edge of the arch that connects the three linear embankments on the east side of the site. This borrow is not obviously circular on a number of the photographs I have reviewed, but is clearly circular on a very early aerial of the site that dates to 1940 (aerial CJF-12-42). Again, their function remains unknown, but the annular features are considered important new data in documenting the range of features associated with the Belle Glade earthworks. 8Gl33 Circle Canal. The Circle Canal site is well documented and its location secured on the Florida Master Site File U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps (Figure 34). The reason for updating this site is that the field survey revealed its location is now the location of a residential subdivision. Unfortunately, much of the ditch has been obliterated by the development. However, the southeast portion of it remains intact. Interestingly, there is no berm associated with the ditch indicating that not all of the circular ditches were built like the one at Fort Center.

PAGE 151

143 . t : 5 0 1 MILE 5 0 1 KILOMETER N Figure 33. Fort Center {8Gll3).

PAGE 152

: x,9 : I I ----------2 1 -----.---t : I --------. ,. __ . 18 . ,< : 'xt7 ,,; -.:,-; .. l ; { i I -.. ;__,,,,,,,. 1 . ii I : 22 r 1::> f --, I \ I I iJ ; ) I ,' .. , '._ l 144 ... : ..1 AOR;.N-3 L:: :... OSA 7 1J: I : I ') I I I ~ ---. :J,.. _ I -'Xt6 c-' ) ( ~ 1 <" ; / :, ) (,_}, t6X ( I (. ~ I ) / .. .,
PAGE 153

145 8Gl50 Lakeport circle Ditch. The Lakeport Circle Ditch is well documented and its location secured on the Florida Master Site File U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. The reason for updating this site is that the review of aerial photographs has revealed a feature of the site that has received only minor attention in the literature (cf. Carr 1985:300; aerial BUO-2D-117). It is a circular borrow attached to the ditch on its west side (Figure 25). Similar borrows have been documented as a result of this project at Fort Center (8Gll3), Clemens Square and Mound (8Ob30), the Daugherty site (8Hg3), and Maple Mound ( 8Hn5) As with the other borrows, the function remains unknown but it is considered important new data in understanding the range of features associated with the Belle Glade earthworks. Hendry County 8Hn5 Maple Mound. The Maple Mound is well documented and its location secured on the Florida Master Site File U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. The reason for updating this site is that the review of aerial photographs has revealed several features of the site that have never been documented. In addition, the review indicated there are discrepancies between Goggin' s documentation of possible features at the site and Deming's subsequent observation that no such features are observable. First, the features that have never been documented consist of two linear embankments that appear to terminate in

PAGE 154

146 mounds, three circular borrows, and what appears to be a canal connecting two of the borrows (Figure 35). These are not all apparent on all the photographs. The circular borrows and the canal are visible on the earliest aerial photograph of the site dating to 1938 (aerial BUN-2-47). The two linear embankments are visible on two photographs, BUN-5O-115 for the one that extends to the east and BUN-2T-87 for the one that extends to the west. Both appear to terminate in mounds and at least one has a crescent ridge that serves as a partial enclosure. The features of the site that Goggin cited as possible are a crescent ridge south of the mound and a parallel ridge extending north from the pond. Neither were observed by Deming when she visited the site in 1977. However, the aerial photographs clearly indicate that the crescent ridge feature did exist at one time. The parallel ridge feature is probably the canal that I have already discussed but may be a ridge instead. The crescent ridge feature is observable on most of the aerial photographs I have already listed and, interesting ly, is visible as late as 1974 (aerial 12051-174-143). The same is true for the canal/ridge and at least one of the linear embankments, i.e., the one that extends to the west. As such, I suspect that the reason Deming did not observe these features in the field is because they probably were rather ephemeral features when built and subsequent modern agricultural practices have obscured what remains of them. My

PAGE 155

147 1 / ;..c . I .. '. f 5 0 1 MILE 5 0 1 KILOMETER N Figure 35. Maple Mound ( 8Hn5)

PAGE 156

148 experience from this project revealed that it is almost an impossible task to find many of these features unless one has the aid of an aerial photograph while in the field. Thus, the aerial photographs are an invaluable tool when conducting research in this part of the state. As with the other sites, the function of the borrows remains unknown but they are considered important new data in understanding the range of features associated with the Belle Glade earthworks. The linear embankments and crescent ridge features are known from other sites (e.g., Lakeport Earth works, Fort Center, and Big Mound City) but, at this time, their function is debatable. The present condition of this site is not known for it was not visited during the field portion of this project. 8Hnll Stitt Site. The Stitt site is located in Township 43S, Range 33E, Sections 1 and 11 (Figure 36). This site was originally recorded by John Goggin as a ridge leading from a mound. Its location is listed as general vicinity on the Florida Master Site File U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. Thus, the need for an update was apparent. No artifacts are recorded in association with the ridge but the implication is that the ridge is precolumbian in its origin. However, an aerial photograph reveals that the northern terminus of the ridge bends and meets with Ninemile Canal (aerial BUO-2-90). This is unlike any of the linear embankments recorded by this project and thus its origin was

PAGE 157

149 i,SHA ?:~El~._ 13 ,' ,.: .. .5 0 1 MILE .5 0 1 KILOMETER N Figure 36. Stitt Site (8Hnll).

PAGE 158

thought to be recent. 150 During the field portion of this project I visited the site and met with the owner, Mr. William Stitt. He reports that after Goggin visited the site he was shown a map detailing the land-altering activities of Hamilton Disston's many drainage projects in the area. This map shows that Hnll is part of Disston's projects and not a precolumbian earthwork. Furthermore, Mr. Stitt reports that he found a side of a dredgeline bucket on the ridge. Thus, the Stitt site is explainable in terms of relatively modern activities. 8Hn33 South Lake Mounds. The South Lake Mounds are well documented and their location secured on the Florida Master Site File U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. This site was originally recorded by Robert Carr and is described as having a possible linear ridge associated with it. The reason for updating this site is that the review of aerial photographs has revealed not one but two linear embankments associated with the site (aerials BUO-3D-35, BUO-2T-65, and BUO-2-69). Figure 37 shows the two linear embankments, each terminating in a mound, a crescent ridge and mound, and three other mounds. This earthwork-mound complex was visited during the field portion of this project and inspection of the site revealed the midden (marked as midden B by Carr) was intact and parts of the crescent ridge could be discerned. A human tooth was found and collected from the surface of the crescent ridge near what appears to be a mound in its center. The linear embankments and the other mounds, however, could not be seen. These have

PAGE 159

.5 N Figure 37. .. / 1 -: : :: ~ ; : :, :. :} H 5 I 0 0 I ~ South Lake Mounds 151 t -31 f (/\ (':l : l . . .. 1 MILE 1 KILOMETER ( BHn3 3)

PAGE 160

152 likely been obliterated by modern agricultural activities as the entire site is surrounded by sugar cane fields. Negative Data The review of aerial photographs revealed two localities with possible mounds: Dinner Bay and Curry Island. Dinner Bay is located on the Basinger NW quadrangle map. It is a rather swampy area that drains into the Kissimmee River. Two possible mounds were found on aerial CYW-3C-52 in and around this feature. Field inspection revealed one is a small tree-island (much like the ones that are ubiquitous in the Everglades) and the other is a small cypress head. Two bucket auger tests in the tree-island yielded no cultural materials. Inspection of the cypress head revealed no dry areas for testing. The surrounding area was also inspected but no other areas warranted testing. The second area, curry Island, is located on the Fish eating Bay quadrangle map. It consists of a sand spit at the mouth of Fisheating Creek. One possible mound was found on aerial BU0-2D-117 near the center of the island but this proved erroneous as field inspection revealed no mounds on the island. There were, however, two slightly elevated areas that were considered worthy of shovel tests (ST 18 and 19) but these did not yield any cultural materials.

PAGE 161

CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION OF EARTHWORKS Mounds, ditches, borrows, and embankments are the basic elements of Belle Glade settlements. Generally, several occur in combination, but sometimes one is found in isolation. Variations in size, shape, and associations probably represent functional differences as well as chronological distinctions. Mounds Mounds are certainly the most ubiquitous features in the Belle Glade culture area. They are found singley (e.g., the Mulberry Mound), in groups (e.g., the Lonesome Island Group), or in combination with the other elements. They have been identified as habitation sites, burial sites, and architectur al elements. Habitation loci are easily identifiable because their content is almost entirely accumulated midden materials. Burial mounds and architectural elements, on the other hand, are intentional earthen constructions and can prove difficult for archaeologists to identify. Habitation mounds are among the earliest, if not the earliest, cultural features known in the Okeechobee Basin. I located at least two such mounds (i.e., Lonesome Island and Lonesome Island III), and Sears (1982:140) identified three at 153

PAGE 162

154 the Fort Center site (i.e., Mound 3, Mound 12 and Midden B). All are associated with semi-fiber tempered ceramics indicat ing a Transitional period occupation. At Fort Center, sears (1982:185) provides evidence that the early mounds are coeval with the circular ditches at the site. Rather than considering them to be Transitional period occupations, he distinguished them from the Transitional period sites in the St. Johns region and formulated his own chronology that placed them in his Period I. By doing so, Sears aided his efforts to establish a non-Florida population as the base of cultural developments within the Basin. The crux of Sears' argument is the linkage of the early mounds with the circular ditches. However, this project has revealed that early mounds in the Okeechobee Basin occur in isolation from circular earthworks. Thus, the St. Johns region concept of Transitional period populations can be applied to the Basin with a modification for those Transition al period sites linked to circular earthworks. Habitat ion mounds continue to be constructed and occupied throughout the precolumbian aboriginal occupation of the Okeechobee Basin. Sears ( 1982: 184) notes their continuity and suggests that their continued use can be attributable to social and economic adjustments to an environment that is often prone to flooding. Distinguishing between the earliest and latest habitation mounds is relatively easy because the earliest contain semi-fiber tempered ceramics and the latest

PAGE 163

155 contain European-derived materials. However, distinguishing between those occupied during the intervening 2000 years is not an easy task. As stated earlier, Willey ( 1949: 125) indicates that Belle Glade I can be distinguished from Belle Glade II by the presence of small percentages of Glades decorated ceramic types. Sears' (1982:112) four-period chronology is marked by changes in relative amounts of semi fiber tempered, sand tempered plain, St. Johns Plain, and Belle Glade Plain wares. Unfortunately, Willey's (1949:125) temporal marker for Belle Glade I is restricted to the Belle Glade type site. Data from this survey coupled with what is known from the Fort Center site and Barley Barber sites reveal an absence of the Glades decorated wares for the rest of the Basin. Sears (1982:32) acknowledges Willey's temporal marker, as well as its lack at Fort Center, but believes the small quantities of Glades decorated wares at Belle Glade probably do not consti tute a meaningful indicator of chronological differences. Indeed, he notes that the sample may represent less than 1% of the total ceramic assemblage from Belle Glade (Sears 1982:32). Intentional earthen mounds that served as burial sites and/or architectural elements are sometimes difficult to discern as such. For instance, Carr (1973:14) identified a sand mound, 8Mt29, as a likely burial mound though he found no artifacts associated with it. Subsequent excavations by Williams (1975:35) revealed only a single sherd associated

PAGE 164

156 with the mound; he concluded it was not utilized for burial purposes. However, burial mounds are known from the Belle Glade type site (Willey 1949), Fort Center (Sears 1982), and Barley Barber II (Williams 1975), as well as others listed in the Florida Master Site File. These vary in content, size, and shape. Associated materials range from mostly pottery (at Barley Barber II) to an incredible array of artifacts includ ing nested shells, shell dippers, concentrations of scattered human teeth, projectile points, trade ceramic wares and, later, historic period objects made from gold, silver, copper, and brass (at Fort Center's Mound B). None of the informa tion available on burial mounds indicate their use as early as the Transitional period, but they obviously were used after wards. Sears' (1982:186) dates for Mound B place its use during Period II (A.D 200 6/800). He then argues that the mound was unused for 1000 years before being used again when historic graves and artifacts were placed in the top of the mound (Sears 1982:162). Mounds that are considered architectural elements include the crescent-shaped mound and mound/pond at the Circle Canal site (also known as the Caloosahatchee Circle) and the small sand mound located inside the "Great Circle" at the Fort Center site (Carr 1985:299). The crescent-shaped mound at the Circle Canal site is probably the most obvious of these architectural elements. Its shape coupled with its presence within the circular ditch suggests that the feature was

PAGE 165

157 purposely fashioned as part of the overall site rather than a haphazard addition. At the same site, Carr (1985:299) believes the mound/pond may represent the locus of mortuary-related activities. Unfortunately, the contents of both the crescent mound and the mound/pond are unknown. A similar mound found within the "Great Circle" at Fort Center was excavated by Sears (1982:176}. It contained no artifacts, and, consequently was considered to be a spoil remnant from one of the older, small ditches. Carr (1985:299) questions this explanation in light of the mound/pond located at the Circle Canal site and suggests that Sears was too hasty in his judgment. Thus, an explanation that views these mounds as architectural elements seems more appropriate. They help define space within the circular earthworks and add to their overall morphology. There is certainly evidence that burial and habitation mounds are architectural elements as well. Numerous linear embankments terminate in habitat ion mounds, huge midden mounds are found in predictable locations within the circular-linear earthworks, and a few mounds have been found that contain only one artifact. Such examples illustrate a level of architec tural design in the construction of the Belle Glade earthworks. Carr (1985:289) recognizes three types of designs: linear ridges, circular-linear earthworks, and circular earthworks. These are discussed at length in the summary section of this chapter.

PAGE 166

158 Ditches Ditches are one of the most obvious features observable on aerial photographs. Some are associated with a berm on one side; others have no discernible berm. The earliest dated ditch is the "Great circle" at Fort Center. Sears {1982:116) obtained a radiocarbon date of 450 B.C. 105 years {I-3556) from midden fill within the circle near its junction with a midden beside Fisheating Creek. He concluded that the ditch was built prior to this date. Earlier proveniences for the construction of two other circular ditches at Fort Center are indicated by Fairbanks' that showed that the (in Sears 1982:177-178) excavations "Great overlapping circular ditches. Circle" overlay two smaller Stratigraphic evidence shows clearly that they were built prior to the "Great Circle," thus indicating an estimated age "not later than 500 B.C." Sears (1982:185) suggests the earliest date for these structures could be 800 to 1000 B.C. Numerous circular ditches have been documented in the Lake Okeechobee Basin and beyond (Carr 1985). Most are not completely circular, having small unexcavated sections. These unexcavated segments form what Sears (1982:175) calls "cause ways." He believes they functioned as access points across the ditches to their interiors (Sears 1982: 186) Sears' (1982) work at Fort Center rejects Goggin and Sturtevant's (1964) explanation of the earthworks as ceremonial; he instead, concludes they functioned as drainage for horticul

PAGE 167

159 tural production of a stable and dependable maize crop. However, Carr (1985:299) questions Sears' total rejection of ceremonialism in light of the mound/pond at the circle Canal site (as was discussed earlier) and soil analysis of one of the ditches at Fort Center indicates the earthwork could not support annual maize harvests (see Chapter 4). As such, the function of the ditches is still undecided. Square and rectangular ditch earthworks also have been identified in this study. The three examples described are located along the east side of the Kissimmee River. They are evenly spaced approximately 6.5 km apart. Each earthwork has ditch-and-berm construction with unexcavated segments ( "cause ways") similar to the circular earthworks. The two rectangu lar ditches have linear embankments leading to their centers and the square one is associated with a circular borrow and mound. The mound contained only Belle Glade Plain sherds, suggesting the earthwork is later than the circular earth works. Unfortunately, how much later was not determined. A similar rectangular earthwork has been identified by Hale (1989:98,100, the Pepper Earthworks). However, it differs from the above in two fundamental ways: it is a raised earthwork (rather than a ditch) and it has a linear embankment emanating from its north side. Hale (1989:98) considers it to be more similar to the semicircular earthworks. Canal ditches in South Florida were documented as early as the nineteenth century (Kenworthy 1883). A more recent

PAGE 168

160 summation is provided by Luer (1989). His work reveals that they vary in length and depth, but all appear to have func tioned for facilitating canoe travel (Luer 1989:126). However, a possible canal ditch located by this survey at the Maple Mound (8Hn5) and the one known at the Daugherty site (8Hg3) suggest that not all canal ditches were expressly designed for this purpose. At the Daugherty site, the canal extends a short distance inland from the Kissimmee River floodplain to the base of the largest mound (Williams I). Today, it is dry and appears capable of holding water only when the river overflowed its banks. Furthermore, its orientation towards a large circular borrow (identified by this project) suggests its design is more architectural than economic. Similarly, the possible canal ditch at the Maple Mound connects two circular borrows just north of the main mound. This ditch could hardly be considered a feature that facilitated canoe travel. However, neither of these ditches is a canal like those documented by Luer (1989). They are not as long as those identified by Luer (1989:97), nor do they connect sites. Rather, both are thought to be architectural features of the sites. Borrows Borrows are not well documented in the Okeechobee Basin and, prior to this project, have only been considered architectural features at one site, Fort Center. Two types are

PAGE 169

161 recognized: geometric-shaped and effigy. Many of the geomet ric-shaped borrows are circular. They are found in associa tion with at least five sites: Fort Center (8Gl13), Daugherty (8Hg3), Clemens Square and Mound (8Ob30), the Lakeport Circle Ditch (8Gl50), and Maple Mound (8Hn5). Carr (1985:300) notes the presence of three of them in conjunction with three circle ditch sites near Fisheating Creek, but considers them to be ponds rather than geometric-shaped borrows. The other geometric-shape borrows are the crescent-shaped enclosures that surround Mounds 1 and 2 at Fort Center (Sears 1982: 131,133) Their shape is recognizable on the aerial photographs of one other site, Tony's Mound, but it is not known for certain whether those at Tony's Mound are borrows or embankments. Carr is to be commended for recognizing one of the two effigy borrows documented in the reg ion (i.e. the Pestle Earthworks). As stated earlier, the Pestle Earthworks look like a pestle but not like the wooden artifacts that have been called double-ended pestles found in this region. On the other hand, the Oxer Borrow, looks like an anthropomorphic figure. Available data preclude dating them or even relating them to a particular site. However, their overall morphologi cal characteristics suggest they should be considered Belle Glade earthworks.

PAGE 170

162 Embankments Embankments are one of the most common types of Belle Glade earthworks. They appear to be connectors for all of the other elements discussed. Most are linear, but curved embankments are common as well. Unfortunately, embankments are probably the most fragile of the elements and often have not survived modern land-use practices associated with agriculture and cattle-raising. Linear embankments usually terminate in mounds. Sears (1982:4) documented five such embankments at the Fort Center site. Allen (1948) shows nine at Tony's Mound, and Willey (1949) indicates there are also nine at Big Mound City. Some linear embankments do not terminate in mounds. Goggin recorded one of them as the Highlands Linear Ridge (8Hg13), which Carr subsequently reexamined. Carr's study indicates that there may be a terminal mound at the earthwork's northern end, but he could not verify it. Sears (1982:200) believes the embankments at Fort Center served as planting surfaces for maize crops. However, the soils are too poor within the Great Circle for annual produc tion of maize and by inference it is suggested that the same is true for the linear embankments. Overall morphology suggests they are causeways. At the Lonesome Island Group, only one house mound has a linear embankment leading to it. It may signify special use or status.

PAGE 171

163 Sears' (1982:190) documentation of the contents of the house mounds that have linear embankments at Fort Center indicates they were occupied during Period IV of his chronolo gy (but may also have been occupied earlier as well). At least one (Mound 3) contained "historic objects of Spanish origin or reworked from Spanish metal." Such high status objects support an interpretation of the linear embankments as associated with special activities. Other embankments have been called crescent-shaped ridges. Two were documented by Carr (1975:28-33) at Nicodem ous Earthworks (8Gl9). These are attached to linear embank ments, at least one of which terminates in a mound. A similar crescent and linear association appears at Summer Earthworks (8Hn26) and at Lakeport Earthworks (8Gl26). Another form of the crescent embankment is similar to the crescent borrows documented at Fort Center. At the Ortona site a crescent-shaped embankment forms an enclosure for the largest mound. The same occurs at several of the Big Mound City mounds. However, it is thought that some of the enclo sures at the Big Mound City site are crescent-shaped borrows. Summary Mounds, ditches, borrows, and embankments are the basic elements of Belle Glade earthworks. Their various forms and combinations have been grouped by Carr ( 1985) into three types: circular earthworks, circular-linear earthworks, and

PAGE 172

linear ridges. 164 Three additional types, square/rectangular earthworks, borrows and mound groups, are added here. In addition, a modification of Carr's (1985) terminology is used in this study. The term embankment replaces the term ridge, and two types of circular-linear earthworks (types A and B) are recognized. Based on Sears' ( 1982) work at Fort Center, circular earthworks are the earliest and linear embankments the latest. The following developmental sequence places circular-linear earthworks and geometric borrows in between. Square/rectangular earthworks, on the other hand, cannot be fitted within this continuum at the present time; none were present at Fort Center. Their form has no local antecedents, nor have any successors been identified. The mound groups, though not readily identifiable at Fort Center, appear to have been occupied throughout the Belle Glade periods. Mound Groups Only one mound group, Buck Island Ranch Group, has no associated earthworks (see Figure 20). Ten mounds, 8Hg613622, make up this group. Artifacts were recovered from only one, the Circle T site (8Hg622). Belle Glade Plain sherds indicate it was occupied during the Belle Glade periods. However, its similarity to mound groups that have yielded semi-fiber tempered sherds suggests Transitional Period dates might apply to at least some of the mounds at Buck Island.

PAGE 173

165 The Lonesome Island Group represents a mound group like Buck Island except that a single linear embankment was associated with the group (see Figures 21 and 22). Twelve mounds (8Hg623-634) have been identified, two of which yielded semi-fiber tempered sherds as well as Belle Glade Plain sherds. Thus, an occupation history that encompasses the Transitional and at least part of the Belle Glade periods can be surmised. Other mound groups like Lonesome Island include the Palmdale Earthworks (8Gl76), South Lake Mounds (8Hn33), and Ortona (8Gl5). A map of the Ortona site, presumably made by Goggin, shows at least 15 mounds in addition to the largest mound and its associated linear embankment (Anonymous n.d.). In the site description in the Florida Master Site File, Carr recorded five mounds at the South Lake Mounds site and indicates that a possible linear embankment is associated with it. The research done for this dissertation shows that there are actually two linear embankments at South Lake Mounds. In addition, Carr records Belle Glade Plain ceramics, human bone, and a copper oval ornament from this site. The Palmdale Earthworks consist of at least two mounds in addition to the two linear embankments identified here. A third mound, 8Gl56, might be part of this group.

PAGE 174

166 Circular Earthworks Circular earthworks vary in size, shape, and associated elements (Figure 38). The smallest is 61 min diameter and the largest is 366 m (Carr 1985:289). Their shape is almost always a complete circle. Exceptions include the two small overlapping circles within the "Great Circle" at the Fort Center site (see Figure 5). Associated elements vary widely. Some, such as the "Great Circle" at Fort Center and the nearby Lakeport Circle, have circular borrows associated with the outside rim. These elements appear to be additions to the circular ditches as though they were added afterwards. Interestingly, they appear attached to other earthwork forms providing some sort of continuity to the various forms (see Figures 38A and B). Others have interior features (Figure 38D). Only one, the West Okeechobee Circle, has linear features attached directly to it (Figure 38C). It is thought to be a form that is midway between the circular earthworks and the circular-linear forms. Circular-Linear Earthworks The circular-linear earthworks can be grouped into two types. Type A is the initial form consisting of a semi circular embankment (although some may be ditches) with a linear embankment attached. The linear embankment terminates in a habitation mound. Another mound, usually a dense midden mound that is oblong in shape, is located opposite the semi

PAGE 175

A. Fort Center C. \-Jest Okeechobee Circle m~s 0 122 Figure 38. Circular Earthworks 167 B. Lakeport Circle D. Circle Canal

PAGE 176

168 circular embankment (see Figure 39). Type Bis the same as type A with additional linear embankments attached to the rim of the semi-circular form (see Figure 40). The attached embankments alter the type A form in a fundamental way. However, the attached embankments can always be discerned from the initial embankment of the type A form by their shorter length and usually shorter width. In addition, the initial linear embankment of the type A form usually appears at a break in the semi-circle (exceptions being noted at Fort Center and summer Earthworks). At the Fort Center site (Figure 41), Mound 2 and its associated linear embankment, the attached semi-circular embankment, and Mound 3 form the type A circular-linear earthwork. The addition of Mounds 1 and 5 and their associat ed linear embankments create the type B circular-linear earthwork. Sears' (1982:133-137) excavations at Fort Center provide information that can be used to generalize to other such structures in the Basin. Utilizing the data gathered from Mounds 2 and 3, the type A circular-linear earthwork is apparently a habitation structure. The data are scanty but suggest that the mound with the linear embankment (Mound 2) served as a habitation site while the oblong mound (Mound 3) was for refuse. At Mound 2, Sears' (1982:133) limited excavation revealed only 8 sherds: 6 sand-tempered plain, 1st. Johns Plain, and 1 Belle Glade Plain. The attached embankment was bisected

PAGE 177

Figure 39. A . Summer Earthworks C. Lakeport Earthworks meters -------, 0 122 : -.. _/; '' ' B. Kissimmee Circle D. Nicodemous Earthworks Type A Circular-Linear Earthworks. 169

PAGE 178

Figure 40. ~ , -0 ---. --,.-... ,.0 A. Big t-bund City (after Willey 19 4 9) B. Ton y 's 1'bund meters 0 122 C. Maple Mound Type B Circular-Linear Earthworks. 170

PAGE 179

Q Mound 12 ._, 17 Mound 3 1000 Mound l Mound 5 0 o soo __ ---= _.., 1500 L C 1000 C C 500 L Figure 41. Map of the Fort Center Site (Sears 1982:4). 171

PAGE 180

172 near its midpoint by a tractor-cut but only demonstrated that it was a single structure and not two parallel ones. The semi-circular embankment was written off by Sears (1982:132) because he considered it to be a cattle path and not a prehistoric structure (cf. Figures 5 and 41). Mound 3, measuring 200 x 60 feet, yielded at least three temporally distinct ceramic assemblages. The earliest is the third oldest on the entire site (Sears 1982:136), placing its ~nitial use in Period I. The latest represented the most intensive use of the mound with "about a foot of midden over the entire mound; it contained several thousand sherds in the portions excavated" (Sears 1982:136). In addition, a radio carbon date indicates continued use of the mound into the seventeenth century (Sears 1982: 116). The mid-period of Mound 3 use is thought to be coeval with the main occupation of the mound-pond ceremonial complex (Sears 1982:136). The type B circular-linear earthwork is apparently meant to accommodate additional habitation spaces for the people occupying the structure. At Fort Center the additions of Mounds 1 and 5 and their associated linear embankments to the semi-circular embankment create the type B circular-linear earthwork. Excavations at Mound 1 reveal that it was a habitation site. Based on the thinness and uniformity of the midden deposit, Sears (1982:132-133) concluded that the mound was used for "a single structure for a relatively short period of

PAGE 181

173 time in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century." Mound 5 was not excavated because it was mostly destroyed by a modern dirt road, but Sears' (1982:136-137) observation of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery from the surface allowed him to date its use after A.O. 1000. Its similarity to Mounds 1 and 2 leads him to believe that it also served as a single house platform (Sears 1982:137). Based on Sears' (1982) work on the mounds that form types A and B of the circular-linear earthwork, it appears the earthwork's origins can be traced to very early cultural developments in the Okeechobee Basin. Semi-fiber tempered sherds from the lowest levels of Mound 3 indicate its use as early as Sears' Period I. Whether or not the semi-circular embankment and its attached linear embankment and mound (i.e., the most distinctive elements of type A circular-linear earthworks) date this early cannot be stated with any certain ty. Indeed, the only certainty of the age of those features that can be established at Fort Center is that they date earlier than Mounds 1 and 5 and their associated linear embankments. Because Sears (1982:130-133, 136-137) indicates they were established sometime after A.O. 1000 and he docu ments an accumulation of material in Mound 3 during Period II, it seems likely that the type A circular-linear earthwork is fully formed by sometime after A.O. 200 and before A.O. 1000. Type B, then, dates after A.O. 1000.

PAGE 182

174 Linear Embankments Linear embankments terminating in mounds that are not part of circular-linear earthworks are also found at Fort Center (Figure 38A) and Big Mound City (Figure 40A). Similar linear embankments occur at Palmdale Earthworks, South Lake Mounds, Lonesome Island Group, and Ortona (Figure 42). The two at Fort Center are Mound 8 and the UF Mound. Mound 8 apparently was not excavated (see Sears 1982:137). The UF Mound, on the other hand, was excavated over parts of two seasons (Sears 1982:142). Sears (1982:143-145) indicates that construction of the mound and linear embankment took place during Period IV. Materials found in them, including a pipe fragment and a semi-fiber tempered sherd, are attributed to mound fill and are not considered appropriate temporal markers. Instead, a drilled gold nugget bead and a blue glass bead found in the topsoil are considered good indicators of the mound's chronological position (Sears 1982:144). Other than the information provided by Sears, little is known about these sites. However, the Ortona site is known to have had European materials associated with it. Thus, the evidence points to their construction and use in at least the latest part of Belle Glade history. Borrows Geometric-shaped and effigy borrows are the two types of borrows found in the Belle Glade Area (Figure 43). The two

PAGE 183

175 0 B. South Lake Mounds A Palmdale Earthworks 0 0 meters C. Lonesome Island Group (partial) ,.......-----, 0 122 0 0 0 C 0 1 : 0 ~ J~-:_-_-_---~ D. Ortona (partial) Figure 42. Linear Embankment Sites.

PAGE 184

oj1 0 A. Daugherty B. Oxer Borrow C. Pestle Earthworks meters o~-1-22 Figure 43. Geometric-shaped and Effigy Borrows. 176

PAGE 185

177 effigy borrows are not associated with any other cultural features and cannot be dated. Geometric-shaped borrows, on the other hand, occur at earthwork sites. Three are document ed at Fort Center; two are circular and one is crescent-shaped (Figure 38A). One of the circular borrows is located on the south rim of the circular earthwork and the other on the south rim of the circular-linear earthwork. borrow surrounds Mound 1. The crescent-shaped Each borrow is associated with an element that is fairly well dated. However, determining the date of the borrow based on the date of its associated element could prove spurious. The circular borrows associated with the circular earthwork and the circular-linear earthwork appear attached to their southern rims (Figure 38A), suggesting they were created after the earthworks. How much later is unknown. On the other hand, Sears (1982:131) argues that the crescent-shaped borrow surrounding Mound 1 was the source of the fill for Mound 1. Thus, the crescent-shaped borrow is considered to be coeval with Mound 1 (providing a sixteenth or seventeenth century date for its construction). Other crescent-shaped borrows are thought to exist at Tony's Mound, Big Mound City, and other type B circular-linear earthwork sites. Aerial photographs of those sites reveal crescent-shaped features that appear very similar to the one at Fort Center. Unfortunately, the distinction between borrows and embankments cannot be ascertained from aerial

PAGE 186

178 photographs. As such, the Fort Center crescent-shaped borrow is the only one that can be discussed with any certainty. Other circular borrows have been documented at Daugherty, Clemens Square and Mound, Maple Mound, and Lakeport Circle sites. Of these, the Lakeport Circle site is known only for its circular earthwork suggesting an early date for the circular borrow. The Maple Mound, on the other hand, is a circular-linear earthwork suggesting a date after A.O. 200 for the circular borrows. Daugherty and Clemens Square and Mound are not firmly dated at this time. Chronological Summary Settlements of the Belle Glade culture are recognized as consisting of five types: mound groups, circular earthworks, circular-linear earthworks, linear embankments, and square/rectangular earthworks. This study shows that mound groups contain the earliest materials (semi-fiber tempered ceramics) and, at some mound groups, the latest earthworks (linear embankments). These suggest occupation of this type of settlement continued throughout the history of the Belle Glade culture. Circular earthworks are the earliest form of Belle Glade earthworks. At Fort Center, the circular earthwork is associated with mounds that contained semi-fiber tempered ceramics. However, the same is true of at least part of the

PAGE 187

179 type A circular-linear earthwork at Fort Center. Whether or not both earthworks were in use at the same time is uncertain. The evidence compiled here indicates that type A circu lar-linear earthworks were fully formed before A.D. 1000 and type B circular-linear earthworks date after A.D. 1000. Linear embankments that are not part of circular-linear earthworks are apparently later still and could represent earthwork activities dating strictly to the historic period. The square/rectangular earthworks remain an enigma. Their chronological placement cannot be discerned at this time. Geometric-shaped borrows, on the other hand, appear to date as early as the Transitional Period and continue to be used as late as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

PAGE 188

CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY Conclusions are reached on four areas of anthropological inquiry based on the data gathered by this study. These cover specific issues for researchers interested in the precolumbian history of the Lake Okeechobee Basin as well as more general issues. A modification of Belle Glade chronology is suggested and some light is shed on Belle Glade cultural origins. In addition, the application of soil science methodologies provide new data on the question of precolumbian maize cultivation in South Florida. More general issues are the remote sensing method of early aerial photography and the theoretical considerations for interpreting the archaeology of this region. Belle Glade Archaeology Sears' ( 1982) Periods I IV are site-specific for interpreting temporal distinctions at Fort Center. Willey's (1949) Belle Glade I and II periods were intended for use as an area-wide culture chronology, but are ill-defined for the whole of the Okeechobee Basin. These chronologies combined 180

PAGE 189

181 with the data presented in this study provide a refined version of Willey's (1949) chronology (see Table 11). The Transitional period, as defined by Bullen (1959), begins the cultural chronology in the Basin. Sites containing semi-fiber tempered pottery are found during this time. Two mounds in the Lonesome Island Group and three mounds at Fort Center have Transitional period components. Based on the similarities between the Lonesome Island Group and other mound groups, e.g., Buck Island Ranch Group, Palmdale Earthworks, and Ortona, some of the mounds at those sites are likely to have Transitional period components as well. Bullen' s ( 1959: 44) chronology correlates the close of the Transitional period in the Okeechobee Basin with the appear ance of Belle Glade ceramics. However, diagnostic Belle Glade earthworks are earlier than Belle Glade ceramics. At Fort Center, Sears (1982:116) has dated the circular earthworks prior to 450 B.C. and the first Belle Glade ceramics at A.O. 200 (Sears 1982:112). Thus, a Belle Glade-Transitional period is introduced for those sites, such as Fort Center, that have circular earthworks and habitation mounds with semi-fiber tempered ceramics. Willey's (1949) Belle Glade I period definition encom passes the use of Glades Plain and Belle Glade Plain ceramics with a minority of Glades decorated wares. This definition requires modification for two reasons. First, Glades decorat ed wares have only been found at one site in the Basin, the

PAGE 190

A.D. B.C. 182 Table 11. Belle Glade Chronological Chart. Year 1700 1500 1000 500 100 100 500 1000 Culture Period Belle Glade IIb Belle Glade IIa Belle Glade Ib Belle Glade Ia Transitional/ Belle Glade Transitional Temporal Marker Linear embankments, European materials st. Johns Check Stamped ceramics, Type B CircularLinear earthworks, Belle Glade Plain ceramics dominant Belle Glade Plain ceramics, Type A Circular-Linear earthworks Sand-tempered ceramics Semi-fiber tempered ceramics, Circular earthworks Belle Glade type site, and, second, Glades Plain wares (sand tempered plain) pre-date Belle Glade Plain by as much as 700 years (Sears 1982:112). Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:23) identify the Belle Glade period as present as early as c. 500 B.C. In so doing, they recognize the distinctiveness of Belle Glade culture even though Belle Glade ceramics do not appear in the Okeechobee

PAGE 191

183 Basin until much later. Thus, the Belle Glade I period can be said to begin with the change in technology from semi-fiber tempered ceramics to the first fully sand tempered ceramics. The appearance of the distinctive Belle Glade Plain ceramics at c. A.D. 200 provides a temporal distinction that probably coincides with the development of a new form of Belle Glade earthwork: the type A circular-linear earthwork. As such, Belle Glade I can be divided into Belle Glade Ia and Belle Glade Ib. The former is marked by the technological change from semi-fiber tempered ware to sand tempered plain and the continued use of circular earthworks and the latter applies to the appearance of Belle Glade Plain ceramics and type A circular-linear earthworks. Willey's (1949:125) identification of the Belle Glade II period is based on the lack of Glades decorated wares, the continued use of Glades Plain and Belle Glade Plain ceramics, and the introduction of st. Johns Check stamped. Setting aside the issue of Glades decorated wares, the presence of St. Johns Check Stamped appears to be an excellent chronological marker. Sears' (1982:136) use of st. Johns Check Stamped for dating Mound 5 after A.D. 1000 provides the basis for dating the type B circular-linear earthworks. In addition, Belle Glade Plain ceramics begin to dominate the ceramic assemblage at Fort Center at this time. Thus, the transition from the Belle Glade Ib period to the Belle Glade II period is marked by the appearance of st. Johns Check Stamped pottery at Belle

PAGE 192

184 Glade sites, type B circular-linear earthworks, and the predominance of Belle Glade Plain ceramics. The appearance of linear embankments that are not associated with circular-linear earthworks indicate another fundamental change in Belle Glade settlements. These are associated with the appearance of artifacts made from European derived materials. Belle Glade Plain ceramics continue to gain in popularity over sand tempered plain wares during this time. Thus, the Belle Glade II period also can be divided into sub-periods. Belle Glade IIa represents the period of introduction of st. Johns Check Stamped ceramics, the develop ment of type B circular-linear earthworks, and the relative increase in Belle Glade Plain ceramics at the expense of sand tempered plain wares. The Belle Glade IIb period is associat ed with linear embankments that are not associated with circular-linear earthworks, the continued increase in Belle Glade ceramics, and the introduction of European materials. Based on the data presented here, the dates for these periods follow: the Transitional and Belle Glade-Transitional periods run from approximately 1000 B.C. to 500 B.C., Belle Glade Ia encompasses the period from 500 B.C to approximately A.O. 200, Belle Glade Ib covers the time from A.D 200 to c. A.O. 1000, Belle Glade IIa from c. A.O. 1000 to sometime in the early colonial period, and Belle Glade IIb is limited to the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

PAGE 193

185 The incorporation of the Transitional period in the above chronology provides an extant model for the Belle Glade culture area. In addition, it implies the origins of the Belle Glade peoples are found in the indigenous populations that inhabited many of the other areas of Florida, in opposi tion to Sears' (1982) argument that the Belle Glade culture traces its ancestry to a migrant population. Sears (1982) based much of this argument on the similarity between agricul tural earthworks in Venezuela and the earthworks of the Okeechobee Basin. However, human adaptation to many of Florida's environments has resulted in a variety of earthworks from simple to complex. Most do not evoke migration theories. Thus, a view that the Belle Glade peoples' ancestry is attributable to the same precolumbian peoples as the rest of Florida's aboriginal inhabitants is supported here. Remote Sensing The research documented here indicates the necessity of consulting early aerial photographs prior to conducting fieldwork in this part of the state. Early aerial photo graphs, rather than later ones, are important for this kind of research because they provide images of the area prior to modern land-use practices that obliterated much of the sites. Faint traces of sites can be seen on recent aerial photo graphs, but most sites cannot be located without reviewing the early photographs.

PAGE 194

186 Outside of the Lake Okeechobee Basin, this remote sensing technique could prove useful for locating and identifying a variety of sites from both precolumbian and colonial periods. Human land altering activities, such as prehistoric mounds and historic forts, are recognizable in some places. Generally speaking, their identification using this method varies with forest cover. Maize in South Florida The question of maize in south Florida has been addressed by applying soil science methodology to one of the purported planting surfaces. The identification of earthwork construc tion, type of soil, and mineral content indicate Sears' (1982) belief that the Belle Glade earthworks served as planting surfaces for dependable maize crops is wrong. However, that maize was present, based on pollen evidence, is not refuted. Soil science methodology, while helpful in addressing archaeological problems, has its limitations. The archaeolo gist utilizing soil data cannot conclude that an archaeologi cal culture did or did not ever grow maize. Indeed, the pollen evidence for some contexts at Fort Center is convincing albeit perplexing for South Florida researchers. Neverthe less, the application of soil science methodology in addressing the function of Belle Glade earthworks provides archaeology with an avenue for further research. The combina tion of the two disciplines appears to benefit both.

PAGE 195

187 Theoretical Considerations A cultural materialist strategy is implicit throughout this study of Belle Glade cultural adaptations to the Okeechobee Basin. Adaptation is viewed as a blend of culture and nature in concert with one another rather than the stimulus response dichotomy of a system striving for equilibrium. This view of adaptation assumes cultural practices (on an evolu tionary scale) will tend to minimize energy expenditure for net energy gain. Thus, a conclusion about annual harvests of maize can be made based on identifying the inability of soils to support such harvests. Furthermore, migrations need not be invoked to explain cultural developments within the Okeechobee Basin. In this light, Sears' {1982) argument for a migratory population as the ancestral group from which the Belle Glade culture emerged appears to be incorrect. If one concedes that Transitional period populations, with roots firmly established in the Late Archaic, occupy the nearby St. Johns River Valley and have affinities throughout Florida, then one would have to believe the earliest occupation of the Okeechobee Basin is likewise. On the other hand, the Transitional period popula tions of the st. Johns River Valley (and their affiliates throughout Florida) could also trace their ancestry to the migrants from South America. Sears {1982:194) insinuates the latter though he recognizes the "little evidence for contact during Period I with other Florida cultures, let alone

PAGE 196

188 cultures farther away." No such evidence for an extra mainland U.S. origin for St. Johns River cultures has been provided. The simplistic logic that lies behind Sears' ( 1982) migration theory fails under close scrutiny. Although it is not stated, the presence of maize pollen at Fort Center requires an origin and a mode of transport to reach South Florida. Thus, Sears' strategy requires a search for an extra-Florida culture that can provide both. However, the strategy begs a myriad of questions: Why did the source population migrate? Why did they target the Okeechobee Basin? How did they bypass the Antilles and why would they? Fortu nately for Sears, the historical particularist strategy does not require answering such questions. In fact, it does not require they be asked at all! These questions loom larger than the explanatory power of the migration. A view that targets Transitional period cultures of Florida as the ultimate origin of the initial human occupation of the Basin is not only more palatable but also more parsimo nious. The only question that needs to be addressed is why the earlier Archaic period populations did not inhabit the Basin when they were present on both coasts (cf. Beriault et al. 1981; Carr 1986). The answer, while not known, is likely to be found in environmental data on the habitability of the Basin prior to 1000 B.C.

PAGE 197

189 Future Research This study provides a testable cultural chronology for the Okeechobee Basin, sheds some light on Belle Glade cultural origins, and uses soil science methodologies to study Belle Glade subsistence activities. These have laid foundations for future research. Certainly, testing and refinement of the cultural chronology should be a priority. Building on Sears' (1982) chronological framework for the Fort Center site can be accomplished by testing similar earthworks elsewhere in the Basin. Unfortunately, many of them are eroding from modern agricultural practices and some have been completely destroyed. Thus, any future research in the region should incorporate an educational program to enlist the aid of the local communities in preservation efforts. Further research concerning Belle Glade cultural origins needs to focus on the environmental parameters of the Basin that allowed for the earliest successful human exploitation. Questions about the Basin's paleoecology should be framed around the relatively late arrival of humans. Soil science methodologies applied to the vast expanse of histosols south of the lake would likely prove useful in such an endeavor. Since the role of maize in the Belle Glade people's diet can still be debated, future research must search for corrobo rative evidence at other earthwork sites in the Basin. The few grains of maize pollen found at Fort Center cannot be the sole determinant for arguing anything about its origin or

PAGE 198

function. order. 190 As such, pollen studies at similar sites are in

PAGE 199

APPENDIX MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED SOILS Morphological analysis of selected soils was performed to provide additional data for understanding two of the earthwork sites on this project, 8Ob29 and 8Ob30. Figure 44 A and B provide schematic drawings of the soils locations relative to the berms of the earthworks. Based on these data, inferences on construction sequences of the two sites are made. 8Ob29 Fulford Earthworks Berm: Hor. Depth Texture Color Structure Cons. Cone. Apl 15 scl 10YR6/6 sbk fi yes Ap2 45 scl 10YR5/2 sbk fr no Ap3 70 SC 10YR7/6 sbk fi yes Ap4 95 fs 10YR5/2 sbk vfr no Ab 115 fs 10YR4/1 sg no Btb 125 SC 10YR6/8 ma yes Interior: Hor. Depth Texture Color Structure Cons. cone. A 35 fs 10YR4/1 sbk vfr no E 50 fs 10YR7/2 sbk fr no Bt 55 SC 10YR7/1 ma no Key to abbreviations: Hor. = Horizon, Cons. = Consistence, Cone. = Concretions, fs = fine sand, sc = sandy clay, sg = single grained, sbk = subangular blocky, ma= massive, fr= friable, vfr = very friable, and fi = firm. Construction of the berm at this site appears to have occurred in two episodes. The first episode placed the Ap3 {originally a Bt horizon located where the ditch is now) and Ap4 {originally an A horizon that capped the latter) horizons 191

PAGE 200

0 25 50 75 00 25 0 25 A. FULFORD EARTHWORKS 6.5 m C e n t 1. m e t e r s INI'ERIOR B. CLEMENS SQUARE < 6.5 m INI'ERIOR 50 n t i 75 m ,oo j I 125 l > BERM DITCH too wet to test Figure 44. Schematics of Ditch and Berm Construction. 192

PAGE 201

193 on top of the Ab (the original surface). This was followed by a second episode (possibly the result of cleaning the ditch) that placed the Apl and Ap2 horizons on top of the berm. These horizons also appear to have been an A and Bt original ly. However, the Ap2 has much more clay in it then its counterpart (the Ap4). This suggests a great deal of illuvia tion of clay has taken place since the last episode of construction or, alternatively, the Ap2 was composed of more clay particles than its counterpart when it was an A horizon in the ditch. The alternative probably makes more sense because after the first episode of construction the A horizon forming in the ditch would constantly be inundated by clay runoff from what is today identified as the ApJ but at the time would have been the top of the berm. The importance of these alternatives is the latter suggests that a fairly long time interval elapsed between construction episodes and the former suggests that a fairly long time interval has elapsed since construction of the earthwork. Interestingly, the soil profile description from a shovel test placed in another part of this berm reveals a standard profile (A, E, Bw, Bt) supporting a position that a great deal of pedogenetic activity has taken place on the berm since its construction. However, I do not believe any definitive statements can be made at this time.

PAGE 202

194 8Ob30 Clemens Square Interior: Hor. Depth Texture Color Structure Cons. Cone. Ap 20 fs 10YR2/l sbk fr no A/E 30 fs 10YR4/1 sbk vfr no E 45 fs 10YR8/2 sbk vfr no Bt 60 SC 10YR5/2 ma no Ditch: Hor. Depth Texture Color Structure Cons. Cone. Ap 30 fs 10YR3/1 sbk fr no E 40 fs 10YR5/2 sbk vfr no Bt 65 SC 10YR6/1 ma no Berm: Hor. Depth Texture Color Structure Cons. cone. Apl 20 sl 10YR3/3 sbk fi no Ap2 50 fs 10YR3/l sbk vfr no E 70 fs 10YR6/2 sbk vfr no Bt 95 SC 10YR5/1 ma no Exterior: Hor. Depth Texture Color Structure Cons. Cone. Ap 20 fs 10YR2/1 sbk fr no A/E 25 fs 10YR3/1 sbk fr no E 40 fs 10YR5/2 sbk fr no Bt 65 SC 10YR5/6 ma no Key to abbreviations: Hor. = Horizon, Cons. = Consistence, Cone. = Concretions, fs = fine sand, sc = sandy clay, sl = sandy loam, scl = sandy clay loam, sbk = subangular blocky, sg = single grained, ma = massive, fr = friable, vfr = very friable, and fi = firm. The berm at this earthwork has no identifiable buried A horizon indicating pedogenetic processes have significantly altered the profile since construction. This suggests a considerable period of time has elapsed since then. Unfortu nately, it leaves little data for inferring construction sequences of the earthwork. However, the soi 1 data do provide some interesting information on the earthwork--i. e., con struction of the berm has resulted in little change to the

PAGE 203

195 soils within the interior of the earthwork. If one assumes the profile from the exterior is representative of the typical soil profile in the area, then the most significant change to the soil profile within the earthwork is the lighter color of the E horizon. This provides evidence that illuviation of materials has increased within the earthwork suggesting it holds water after periods of inundation. Interestingly, the berm has a curve in it that appears to funnel water from the hammock into the interior of the earthwork (Figure 45). Perhaps, the earthwork was designed for holding water.

PAGE 204

196 '\II ,1,,, \I/ 1/ '\ I I \ \ I I \\ I meters 6 26 Figure 45. Schematic of Clemens Square.

PAGE 205

REFERENCES Adams, Robert Mee. 1956 Some Hypotheses on the Development of Early Civilizations. American Antiquity 21:227-232. Allen, Ross 1948 The Big Circle Mounds. The Florida Anthropologist 1:17-21. Allerton, David, George M. Luer, and Robert S. Carr 1984 Ceremonial Tablets and Related Objects from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 37:5-54. American Anthropological Association 1948 News Bulletin 2:2. Anonymous n.d. Archaeology and Physiography of Ortona. Map on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. Baetson, Patrick 1985 Sociobiology and Human Politics. In science and Beyond ed. bys. Rose and L. Appignanesi, pp. 79 102. Oxford: Blackwell. Beriault, John, Roberts. Carr, Jerry Stipp, Richard Johnson, and Jack Meeder 1981 The Archeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34:39-58. Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology and Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31:203-210. Bower, John 1986 In Search of the Past: An Introduction to Archaeology. Chicago: Dorsey Press. 197

PAGE 206

Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: Brooks, 1974 University of Chicago Press. H.K. Lake Okeechobee. In Environments of South Florida Present and Past, Revised Edition, ed. by P.J. Gleason, pp. 256-286. Miami: Miami Geological Society Memoir 2. Brose, Davids., and N'omi Greber 1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. Bullen, Ripley P. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Newsletter 6:43-53. 198 1970 The Transitional Period of Southern Southeastern United States as viewed from Florida, roots of the Gulf Tradition. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 13:63-70. Carr, Roberts. 1973 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Martin Plant Tract in Martin County, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 9, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. 1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Lake Okeechobee. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 22, Bureau of Historic sites and Properties, Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. 1985 Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 38:288-301. Carr, Robert S., and John G. Beriault 1984 Prehistoric Man in South Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past, Revised Edition, ed. by P.J. Gleason, pp. 1-14. Miami: Miami Geological Society Memoir 2. Childe, V. Gordon 1951 Social Evolution. London: Watts and Co. Clausen, Carl J. 1980 Cultural Resources Survey of Portions of the Port Labelle Development Tract, Glades and Hendry

PAGE 207

Counties, Florida. Project Report No. 107, CCC Enterprises, North Port, Florida. Collins, Mary E., and Gary Shapiro 199 1987 Comparisons of Human-influenced and Natural Soils at the San Luis Archaeological Site, Florida. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51:171-176. Cushing, Frank H. 1895 A Preliminary Examination of Aboriginal Remains Near Pine Island, Marco, West Florida. American Naturalist 29:1132-1135. 1897 Exploration of Ancient Key Dwellers' Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Proceedings, American Philosophical Society 35:329-448. Davis, John H. Jr. 1943 The Natural Features of Southern Florida. Tallahassee: Bulletin 25, Florida Geological Survey. DeLorme Mapping Company 1987 Florida Atlas and Gazetteer. Freeport, Maine: DeLorme Mapping Company. Oenevan, William M. 1970 Aboriginal Drained-Field Cultivation in the Americas. Science 169:647-654. Denevan, William M., K. Mathewson, and G. Knapp 1987 Pre-Hispanic Agricultural Fields in the Andean Region. oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, No. 359{ii). Devane, Park 1979 DeVane's Early Florida History, Vol.I & II. Sebring: Sebring Historical Society. Dobyns, Henry F. 1983 Their Number Become Thinned. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Dunnell, Robert c. 1980 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 3, ed. by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 35-99. New York: Academic Press. Evans, Clyde E. and E.J. Kamprath 1970 Lime Response as Related to Percent Al Saturation, Solution Al, and Organic Matter Content. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 34:893-896.

PAGE 208

200 Farrington, Ian 1985 Prehistoric Intensive Agriculture in the Tropics, Vol. I and II. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, No. 232. Feldman, Robert A. 1980 Aspero, Peru: Architecture, Subsistence Economy, and Other Artifacts of a Preceramic Maritime Chiefdom. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Ferguson, Vera Masius 1951 Chronology at South Indian Field. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 45. New Haven: Yale University Press. Flannery, Kent V. 1968 The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for Inter-regional Interaction in Formative Times. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, ed. by E.P. Benson, pp. 79-110. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 1972 The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. In Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 3, pp. 399-426. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc. Florida 1966 Museum of Natural History Negative 6 in Fort Center files. taken on 24 August 1966, Florida History, Gainesville. Aerial photograph Museum of Natural Florida State Archives 1837 Plat Maps for Townships 37 through 43 South, and Ranges 27 through 32 East. On file with Florida State Archives, R.A. Gray Building, Tallahassee. Fontaneda, Do. d'Escalante 1945 Memoir of Do. d'Escalante Fontaneda, Respecting Florida, Written in Spain about the Year 1575. Translated by Buckingham Smith and edited by David O. True. Glade House, Coral Gables, Florida. Fried, Morton H. 1967 The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House. Gailey, 1987 Christine w., and Thomas c. Patterson Power Relations and State Formation. In Power Relation and State Formation ed. by c.w. Gailey and T.C. Patterson, pp. 1-26. Washington DC: Archaeology Section/American Anthropology Association.

PAGE 209

201 Galinat, Walton C. 1985 Domestication and Diffusion of Maize. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, ed. by Richard I. Ford, pp. 245-278. Ann Arbor: Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 75. General 1984 Goggin, 1940 1947 Highway Map Glades County, Florida. Prepared by the state Topographic Bureau for the Division of Transportation Planning, State of Florida, Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee. John M. The distribution of pottery wares in the glades archaeological area. New Mexico Anthropologist 4:22-33. A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13:114-127. 1952 Archaeological Notes on Lower Fisheating creek. The Florida Anthropologist 4:50-66. n.d.a The Archaeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. Ms. on File, P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville. n.d.b A Tentative Formulation of Pottery Types for the Glades Area. Mimeograph on file, University of Florida Lab of Anthropology, Gainesville. Goggin, 1964 John M., and William c. Sturtevant The Calusa: A Stratified, Non-Agricultural Society (with notes on sibling marriage). In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdock, ed. by Ward H. Goodenough, pp. 179219. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gordon, Claire c., and Jane E. Buikstra 1981 Soil pH, Bone Preservation, and Sampling Bias at Mortuary Sites. American Antiquity 46:586-571 Granberry, Julian 1971 Report-Final Collection of Texts, Vocabulary Lists, Grammar, of Timucua for Publication. Philadelphia: Yearbook of the American Philosophical Society (1970), pp. 606-7.

PAGE 210

202 1989 A Grammar and Dictionary of the Timucua Language. Horseshoe Beach, Florida: Horseshoe Press. Griffin, John w. 1952 Prehistoric Florida: A Review. In Archeology of Eastern United States, ed. by J.B. Griffin, pp. 322-334. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1988 The Archeology of the Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee. Griffin, John W., James J. Miller, and Mildred L. Fryman 1979 A Survey of the Archaeology and History of Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Interagency Archaeological Services, Atlanta. Griffin, John W., Sue B. Richardson, Mary Pohl, Carl D. McMurray, C. Margaret Scarry, Suzanne K. Fish, Elizabeth S. Wing, L. Jill Loucks, and Marcia K. Welch 1982 Excavations at the Granada Site, Vol. 1. Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee. Griffin, John W., and Hale G. Smith 1948 The Goodnow Mound, Highlands County, Florida. Florida Park Service Contributions to Archaeology of Florida, No. 1, Florida Board of Forestry and Parks, Tallahassee. Hale, Stephen 1984 Environmental Exploitation around Lake Okeechobee Southeastern Archaeology 3:173-187. 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. Harris, Marvin 1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. 1979 Cultural Materialism. New York: Vintage Books. Hatch, Elvin 1973 Theories of Man and Culture. New York: Columbia University Press. Haviser, J.B. 1989 Preliminary Results from Test Excavations at the Hope Estate Site (Sm026), St. Martin. Paper

PAGE 211

203 presented to the 13th International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, July. Hoebel, E. Adamson 1958 Man in the Primitive World. New York: McGraw-Hill. Jacobs, Melville 1948 Further comments on Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology. American Anthropologist 50:564-568. Jaffe, 1976 Howard Preliminary Report on a Midden Mound and Burial Mound of the Boynton Mound Complex (8/PB56). The Florida Anthropologist 29:145-152. Johnson, William G. 1990 A Report of Investigations on the West Okeechobee Basin Archaeological Survey. Ms on file, Florida Museum of Natural History, Department of Anthropology, Gainesville. Johnson, William G., and Mary E. Collins 1989 Soils at Fort Center. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Jacksonville. Keegan, William F. 1987 Diffusion of Maize from South America: The Antillean Connection Reconstructed. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands ed. by W.F. Keegan, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 7. Kenworthy, Charles J. 1883 Ancient Canals in Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1881:631-635. Kroeber, A. L. 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas in Native North America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lane, Ed 1980 Environmental Geology Series: West Palm Beach Sheet. Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 100, Tallahassee. Lane, Ed, Michaels. Knapp and Tom Scott 1980 Environmental Geology Series: Fort Pierce Sheet. Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 80, Tallahassee.

PAGE 212

204 Lathrap, Donald W. 1987 The Introduction of Maize in Eastern Prehistoric North America: The View from Amazonia and the Santa Elena Peninsula. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands ed. by W.F. Keegan, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 7. Leach, Edmund 1954 Political Systems of Highland Burma: A study of Kachin Social Structure. Boston: Beacon Press. Leader, 1985 Jonathan M. Metal Artifacts from Fort Center: Aboriginal Metal Working in the Southeastern United States. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Lesser, Alexander 1952 Evolution in Social Anthropology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 8:134-146. Luer, George M. 1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of Tribute and Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist 42:89-130. MacNeish, Richards. ed. 1970 The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, vol. 3. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1972 The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, vol. 5. Austin: University of Texas Press. Marquardt, William H. 1986 The Development of Cultural Complexity in Southwest Florida: Elements of a Critique. Southeastern Archaeology 5:63-70. 1988 Politics and Production among the Calusa of South Florida. In History, Evolution and Social Change ed. by Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn, pp. 161-188. New York: st. Martin's Press. Marquardt, William H., H. Stephen Hale, C. Margaret Scarry, and Karen Jo Walker 1985 Environmental and Cultural Change in Southwest Florida: Some Preliminary Results from Josslyn Island. Paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Birmingham, Alabama.

PAGE 213

205 McGoun, William E. 1987 Ancient Farmers around the Everglades. Paper presented at the 39th Annual meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Clearwater. 1988 More About Those Ancient Farmers. Paper presented at the 40th Annual meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Winter Park. Metcalfe, Darrel S., and Donald M. Elkins 1980 Crop Production: Principles and Practices, 4th edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Milanich, Jerald T. 1968 Excavations on the Fort Center Great Circle Ditches, Glades County, Florida. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Gainesville. 1987 Corn and Calusa; De Soto and Demography. In Coasts, Plains and Deserts, Essays in Honor of J. Ruppe, ed. by Sylvia Gaines, pp. 173-184. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 38. Tempe. 1989 Hernando De Soto and the Expedition in Florida: An Overview. The Florida Anthropologist 42:303-316. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Milanich, Jerald T., and Donna L. Ruhl 1986 Fort Center and the Belle Glade Culture, Florida. Weston, Connecticut: Pictures of Record, Inc. Morgan, Lewis Henry 1877 Ancient Society. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Oviedo, 1959 Porter, 1952 Gonzalo Fernandez de Natural History of the West Indies. Translated by Sterling A. Stoudemire, University of North Carolina Studies in the Romance Language and Literature No. 32. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press [Orig. 1526.] Rita K. An Analysis of Belle Glade Plain Rim Sherds from Two Fisheating Creek Sites. The Florida Anthropologist 4:67-75.

PAGE 214

206 Rathje, William L., and Michael B. Schiffer 1980 Archaeology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Renfrew, Colin 1978 Trajectory, Discontinuity, and Morphogenesis: The Implications of Catastrophe Theory for Archaeology. American Antiquity 43:59-76. 1979 Systems Collapse as Social Transformation: Catastrophe and Anastrophe in Early State Societies. In Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to Culture Change ed. by Colin Renfrew and Kenneth Cooke, pp. 481-506. New York: Academic Press. Rhue, R.D. and G. Kidder 1984 Procedures used by the IFAS extension soil laboratory and interpretations of results. Cooperative Extension Service Circular No. University of Florida, Gainesville. Rindos, David testing Florida 596, 1984 The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rowe, John Howland 1962 Stages and Periods in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 18:40-54. Scarry, c. Margaret 1982 Paleoethnobotany of the Granada Site. In Excavations at the Granada Site ed. by John Griffin, pp. 181-248. Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. Schwehm, Alice Gates 1983 The Carved Wood Effigies of Fort Center: A Glimpse of South Florida's Prehistoric Art. Unpublished M.F.A. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Sears, 1982 Elsie O'R. Pollen Analysis. In Fort Center edited by W.H. Sears, pp. 118-129. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida. Sears, Elsie O'R., and William H. Sears 1976 Preliminary Report on Prehistoric Corn Pollen from Fort Center, Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 19:53-56. Sears, William H. 1962 Hopewellina Affiliations of Certain Sites on the Gulf Coast of Florida. American Antiquity 28:5-18.

PAGE 215

1966 Everglades National Park, Archaeological Base Mapping, Part I. Ms on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 207 1967 Archaeological Survey in the Cape Coral Area at the Mouth of the Caloosahatchee River. The Florida Anthropologist 20:93-102. 1971 Food Production and Village Life in Prehistoric Southeastern United States. Archaeology 24:322-329. 1974 Archaeological Perspectives on Prehistoric Environments in the Okeechobee Basin Savannah. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past ed. by P.J. Gleason, pp. 347-351. Miami: Miami Geological Society, Memoir 2. 1977 Seaborn Contacts Between Early Cultures in Lower Southeastern United States and Middle through South America. In The Sea in the Pre-Columbian World, ed. by E. Benson, pp. 1-15. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida. Service, Elman R. 1962 Primitive Social organization. New York: Random House. Smith, Clifford T., William M. Denevan, and Patrick Hamilton 1968 Ancient Ridged Fields in the Region of Lake Titicaca. The Geographical Journal 134:353-367. soil survey staff 1975 Soil Taxonomy. Washington, DC: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Agriculture Handbook No. 436. 1981 Soil Survey Manual. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1984 Procedures for Collecting Soil Samples and Methods of Analysis for Soil Survey. SSIR No. 1, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1989 A Special Soil Survey Report, Maps, and Interpretations, Glades County, Florida. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Gainesville.

PAGE 216

208 Steinen, Karl T. 1982 Other Nonceramic Artifacts. In Fort Center, ed. by W.H. Sears, pp. 68 110, Gainesville: University Presses of Florida. Stirling, Matthew 1935 Smithsonian Archeological Projects Conducted under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 193334. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1934, pp. 371-400. 1936 Florida Cultural Affiliations in Relation to Adjacent Areas. In Essays in Anthropology in Honor of Alfred L. Kroeber, ed. by Robert H. Lowie, pp. 351-357. Berkeley: University of California Press. Steward, Julian 1951 Levels of Sociocultural Integration. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7:374-390. 1953 Evolution and Process. In Anthropology Today ed. by A.L. Kroeber, pp. 313-326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1955 Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 1965 Some Problems raised by Roger C. Owen's "The Patrilineal Band." American Anthropologist 67:732734. Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G. Nuckels 1982 Method of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. On file, Department of Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Walker, 1989 Karen Jo Artifacts of a fishy Nature: Charlotte Harbor's Prehistoric Etuarine Fishing Technology. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa. Widmer, Randolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. White, Leslie A. 1959 The Evolution of Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.

PAGE 217

Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. New Haven: Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 42. Williams, J. Raymond 209 1975 Excavations at two small mounds in Martin Co., Florida. Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Miscellaneous Report Series Number 21, Tallahassee. Wilson, E.O. 1975 Sociobiology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1978 On Human Nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

PAGE 218

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH William Gray Johnson earned an Associate of Arts degree from Miami Dade Community College in 1977. He received the Bachelor of Arts degree in the department of Sociology and Anthropology at Florida International University in 1979. A joint effort between the University of Florida and Florida International University allowed him to participate in a field school under the direction of Dr. Jerald T. Milanich. A Master of Arts degree in the public archaeology track of the applied anthropology program at the University of South Florida was obtained in 1986. While at the University of South Florida he worked as a graduate assistant in charge of the archaeology laboratory. Before graduating, he taught introductory courses in anthropology and archaeology at Florida International University. Upon entering the doctoral program at the University of Florida he worked as a research assistant for Dr. Milanich at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Later he taught introductory courses in archaeology and anthropology at Central Florida Community College and Santa Fe Community College. He is currently operating his company, Cultural Resources Assistance, Inc. 210

PAGE 219

T. Milanich, Chair of Anthropology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. r,; 7 ( of soil Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. //1 / 1 :/t._ j' ~<---.J Marvin Harris Graduate Research Professor of Anthropology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. fA j, _j, (,_;__ 2 J{c:_.,~ William F. Keegan 1 Assistant Professor of Anthropology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. \ /' ~ ( \ \ /. .,,,,,------. Q\ID ,( uu ~ ~ \ \ . cc < ~ William H. Marqtiardt Associate Professor of Anthropology

PAGE 220

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 1/' 1 ;c l ck_ r ; Michael E. Moseley Professor of AnthropologYi This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Anthropology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. May 1991 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 221

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA \I\ II\\\\\\ \\I \\I \\\II \\\II \I \11\111\\11\ Ill\\\ I\\ 1\111 \\ 11\111 \ 3 1262 08553 4906