Citation
Gathering Places

Material Information

Title:
Gathering Places Histories of Material and Social Interaction at Late Archaic Shell Mounds in Florida
Creator:
Gilmore, Zachary I
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (431 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Anthropology
Committee Chair:
SASSAMAN,KENNETH EDWARD,JR
Committee Co-Chair:
GILLESPIE,SUSAN D
Committee Members:
WALLIS,NEILL JANSEN
JAEGER,JOHN M
Graduation Date:
12/19/2014

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Archaeology ( jstor )
Cultural anthropology ( jstor )
Decorative ceramics ( jstor )
Eggshells ( jstor )
History of technology ( jstor )
Hunter gatherers ( jstor )
Paleoanthropology ( jstor )
Pottery ( jstor )
Shell middens ( jstor )
Social interaction ( jstor )
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
archaeology -- archaic -- hunter-gatherer -- pottery -- shell-mound
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Anthropology thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
This dissertation examines the role of extralocal aggregation events in hunter-gatherer social dynamics by detailing the history of interaction that transpired at a Late Archaic (ca. 4700 to 3600 cal B.P.) shell mound complex in northeast Florida. Hunter-gatherers have long been evaluated by anthropologists within evolutionary frameworks that emphasize long-term ecological adaptation and downplay the significance of historical contingency. Such perspectives have constrained the types of narratives constructed for Archaic societies in the Southeast and resulted in frequent portrayals of the regional shell mounds as inconsequential accumulations of food waste. I develop an alternative approach that envisions mounds as emergent historical processes punctuated by countless material and social gathering events. I contend that through these gatherings people drew on traditions and memories of the past to forge relationships and communities that would persist into the future. This approach is applied to the events that unfolded at the Silver Glen complex in the middle St. Johns River valley using three related research strategies. First, I analyze its depositional history, focusing on how the emplacement of various substances and artifacts altered the landscape and structured the relations among different people, places, and times. Next, I discuss techno-stylistic analyses of Orange pottery from the complex (the oldest such technology in Florida) to better understand the types of activities conducted at mound and nonmound contexts. Finally, I employ two sourcing techniques (neutron activation analysis and petrography) to determine the geographic origins of pots and estimate the social scale of the events in which they participated. The results demonstrate that the mounds at Silver Glen hosted larger-scale, more extravagant social gatherings than other contemporary places. These events included feasting and ritualized deposition, and they attracted diverse people and pots from an area spanning hundreds of kilometers. I argue that by accumulating vessels with distinct affiliations and bundling them together in monumental contexts, the varied constituents gathered at Silver Glen forged enduring relationships centered on periodic mound-centered interactions. I further suggest that the unprecedented scale of these communities was enabled, at least in part, by the appearance of pottery as a preferred medium of long-distance exchange. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: SASSAMAN,KENNETH EDWARD,JR.
Local:
Co-adviser: GILLESPIE,SUSAN D.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2016-12-31
Statement of Responsibility:
by Zachary I Gilmore.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Embargo Date:
12/31/2016
Resource Identifier:
974007346 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2014 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 GATHERING PLACES : HISTORIES OF MATERIAL AND SOCIAL INTERACTION AT LATE ARCHAIC SHELL MOUNDS IN FLORIDA By ZACKARY I. GILMORE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLME NT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2 © 2014 Zackary I. Gilmore

PAGE 3

3 To Val

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the many people and i nstitutions that helped to make this research possible. I could not have asked for a better, more supportive committee. Ken Sassaman sparked my interest in Florida archaeology and taught me the significance of history for people across all times and plac es. Ken has always been exceedingly generous with his time and resources, and he has been an incredible mentor and friend throughout my time at the University of Florida . For that, I will always be grateful. Susan Gillespie has had a great influence on my graduate career by instilling within me the importance of social theory. I truly appreciate her continual willingness to closely read my work and provide thoughtful commentary. This dissertation is filled with ideas and concepts learned in her classes and developed through our conversations. theory and quantitative science that inspired me to undertake this research project. Along the way, Neill provided invaluable technical guidance and fr eely shared unpublished data that were vital to the completion of this research. And finally, John Jaeger brought a needed outside perspective to the pottery provenance study. His extensive knowledge of Florida geology has had a very substantial and posi tive impact on my work. I am also indebted to a number of fellow students and professional colleagues. Ann Cordell taught me virtually everything that I know about ceramic petrography and always set aside time for me to use her lab space and equipment . She was always willing to answer questions and make suggestions and there is no way that I could have conducted this research without her . I am also grateful to Rich Estabrook and the Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) for generously donating the time,

PAGE 5

5 equipment, and expertise that were necessary to carry out the GPR surveys. A number of field school students and lab volunteers spent countless hours helping me collect the data that went into this dissertation . Among those who went above and beyon d what could have been expected of them include Andrea Bartnick, Jessica Bartnick, CeCe Benitez, Inti nibaw Bogari, Alisa French, Sacha Geltzer, Ryan Hopewell, Rachel Kalisher, Val Segui, Domenique Sorresso, Nic Stephenson, Dale Torres, Shaun West, and Ed Zegarra . I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge my fellow graduate students at the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology (LSA) who inspired and helped develop many of the ideas contained in this dissertation. In particular , I thank Asa Randall, and Ginessa Mahar. Johns Archaeological Field School directed by Ken Sassaman. Site access was generously granted by members of the Juniper Club. Much of this work was supported by the Hyatt and Cici Brown Endowment for Florida Archaeology. A number of the pottery samples that I analyzed were made available by the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). I am grateful for the willingness of those overseeing the collections including Neill Wallis, Donna Ruhl, and Ann Cordell to not only provide me access to artifacts from Silver Glen but also to permit me to conduct destructive analyses when requested. F unding for the initial stages of the provenance research was provided by a John Griffin Grant from the Florida Archaeological Council (FAC). The bulk of the subsequent analyses was funded by a National Science Foundation (NSF) dissertation improvement grant (NSF award #1302813) and an NSF s ponsored subsidy for

PAGE 6

6 conducting neutron activation analysis (NAA) at the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) Archaeometry Laboratory. Finally, and most sincerely, I want to thank my wife Val Solomon. Throughout the long process of my graduate education, Val has been always willing to assume the risks involved with my fledgling academic career and she has made innumerable personal sacrifices on my behalf. support and confidence in me has been unwavering even as my expected graduation date was pushed farther and farther into the future. Without her constant love and encouragement, I would not be where I am and this d issertation would not have been possible. I cannot express how grateful I am for her.

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: GATHERING PLACES ................................ .............................. 17 Monumental Discord in the Archai c Southeast ................................ ....................... 18 Place and Community History ................................ ................................ ................. 23 Orange Pottery and the Gathering History at Silver Glen ................................ ....... 26 Outline and Organization ................................ ................................ ........................ 32 2 ANONOMYZING PERSPECTIVES AND CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ................................ ................................ ........ 39 ................................ ................................ ...................... 39 Hunter Gatherer Timelessness ................................ ................................ ............... 42 Archaic Narratives in the Southeast ................................ ................................ ........ 48 ................................ ....... 52 The Mount Taylor Period (7400 4600 cal B.P.) ................................ ................ 53 The Orange Period (4600 3500 cal B.P.) ................................ ......................... 70 3 MATERIAL GATHERING EVENTS ................................ ................................ ........ 88 ................................ .............. 108 The Eventfulness of Things ................................ ................................ .................. 112 Technological Production (Making Things) ................................ ..................... 118 Exchange (Circulating Things) ................................ ................................ ....... 121 Deposition (Emplacing Things) ................................ ................................ ....... 123 Material Biographies, Itineraries, and Genealogies ................................ .............. 127 Gathering Histories and Communities in Place ................................ ..................... 130 4 LATE ARCHAIC DEPOSITIONAL HISTORIES AT SILVER GLEN ...................... 135 The Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ .................... 136 The Silver Glen Complex Archaeological Overview and Background ................ 139 Depositional Events and the Making of the Silver Glen Complex ......................... 141

PAGE 8

8 Moun t Taylor Precedents ................................ ................................ ............... 143 Orange Interventions ................................ ................................ ...................... 146 Discussion: History in Place ................................ ................................ .................. 171 5 ORANGE POTTERY VARIATION AND THE MULTIPLE MODES OF LATE ARCHAIC INTERACTION AT SILVER GLEN ................................ ...................... 197 Technofunction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 199 Technological Style ................................ ................................ ............................... 203 Orange Pottery Background ................................ ................................ ................. 208 Sampling and Methods ................................ ................................ ......................... 213 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 217 Paste Characteristics ................................ ................................ ..................... 217 Manufacturing Techniques ................................ ................................ ............. 220 Vessel Shapes and Sizes ................................ ................................ ............... 220 Surface Treatment ................................ ................................ .......................... 226 Use Alteration ................................ ................................ ................................ . 230 Summary and Discussion ................................ ................................ ..................... 233 6 ORANGE PERIOD GATHERINGS ................................ ................................ ....... 263 NAA Sampling and Methods ................................ ................................ ................. 264 NAA Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 269 Petrography Sampling and Methods ................................ ................................ ..... 276 Petrography Results ................................ ................................ ............................. 277 Summary and Discussion ................................ ................................ ..................... 284 7 GATHERING HISTORY AT SILVER GLEN ................................ .......................... 311 .................... 311 Emergent Places, Emergent Communities ................................ ........................... 318 Directions for Future Research ................................ ................................ ............. 326 APPENDIX A RADIOCARBON DATA ................................ ................................ ......................... 330 B POTTERY ATTRIBU TE DATA ................................ ................................ ............. 335 C POTTERY MOTIFS ................................ ................................ .............................. 352 D POTTERY COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE ................................ ................ 357 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 376 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 431

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Culture history of northeast Florida. ................................ ................................ ... 38 5 1 ................................ ........... 238 5 2 Number of analyzed vess el lots by spatial context. ................................ .......... 238 5 3 Orange pottery inventory tabulated by temper category and spatial context. ... 239 5 4 Orange po ttery inventory tabulated by lip form category and spatial context. .. 240 5 5 Summary statistics on Orange pottery lip thickness (mm), wall thickness (mm), and orifice diameter (cm) tabulated by spatial context. .......................... 241 5 6 Orange pottery inventory tabulated by surface decoration and spatial context. 242 5 7 Frequency of var ious forms of use alteration tabulated by spatial context. ...... 242 6 1 Number of vessel lots sampled for NAA and petrographic analysis by spatial context. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 290 6 2 C lays sampled for NAA. ................................ ................................ ................... 291 6 3 Summary descriptions of variability in the chemical composition groups inferred from NAA. ................................ ................................ ............................ 292 6 4 Mean and standard deviations of elemental concentrations in each composition group. ................................ ................................ ........................... 293 6 5 Pottery chemical composition group assignment by spatial context. ................ 294 6 6 Summary statistics for important elements distinguishing CG3 from the other chemical composition groups and linking it to southwest Florida.. .................... 294 6 7 Summary descriptions of variability in petrographic paste categories. ............. 295 6 8 Petrographic paste categories by spatial context. ................................ ............ 296 6 9 Petrographic paste categories by NAA group. ................................ .................. 296 A 1 Late Archaic radiocarbon assays from Silver Glen. ................................ .......... 331 B 1 Orange pottery attribute data. ................................ ................................ ........... 336 B 2 Key to headings and abbreviations for pottery attribute data. ........................... 350

PAGE 10

10 D 1 P ottery provenience, type, and group membership. ................................ ......... 358 D 2 Key to headings and abbreviations for pottery provenience, type, and group membership data. ................................ ................................ ............................. 366 D 3 Mahalanobis distance based probabilities of group membership for Composition Group 1 (CG1) members. ................................ ............................ 367 D 4 Mahalanobis distance based probabilities of group member ship for Composition Group 2 (CG2) members. ................................ ............................ 368 D 5 Mahalanobis distance based probabilities of group membership for Composition Group 3 (CG3) members. ................................ ............................ 369 D 6 Mahalanobis distance based probabilities of group membership for unassigned specimens. ................................ ................................ .................... 371 D 7 Mahalanobis distance based probabilities of group membership for clay samples. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 374

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Select Middle Late Archaic sites in Florida. ................................ ....................... 86 2 2 Late Archaic shell mound and shell ring footprints in peninsular Florida. ........... 87 4 1 Maps showing the reconstructed and current topographies of the Silver Glen Complex and the locations of various sites and excavation loci. ...................... 179 4 2 Sketch map of Silver Glen Springs showing the extent of shell deposits and shell removal in 1935.. ................................ ................................ ...................... 180 4 3 Preceramic Thornhill Lake phase domestic deposits and artifacts from . . ................................ ................................ .......................... 181 4 4 Map of 8LA1E showing the locations of auger tests and test units along with the current distribution of shell in relation to the estimated boundaries of the mound prior to 20 th century shell mining.. ................................ ......................... 182 4 5 Mineralized root masses beneath . 183 4 6 Map of Locus B at 8LA1W showing the locations of excavated test units and surveyed GPR grids. ................................ ................................ ........................ 184 4 7 Locus B. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 185 4 8 Horizontal distribution of Late Archaic pit features in the block excavatio ns at ................................ ................................ ............................ 186 4 9 Drawing and photograph showing the excavated cross section of Feature 38 ................................ ................................ ................... 187 4 10 Drawing and photograph showing the excavated cross section of Feature ................................ ................................ ............ 188 4 11 Excavated vertical profile of the (2 m wide) east wall of TU58/59 at 8LA Locus B showing a stratified Orange period pit capped with dense banded mystery snail ( Viviparus georgianus) shell.. ................................ ..................... 189 4 12 Graph showing the relative abundance of vertebrate faunal r emains from the middle St. Johns basin.. ................................ ................................ ................... 190

PAGE 12

12 4 13 Excavated vertical profile of the (2 m s Locus B showing an Orange period pit feature intersecting preexisting Mount Taylor cultural deposits.. ................................ ................................ ................... 191 4 14 Excavated vertical profile of the (4 m s Locus B showing a number of massive, overlapping Orange period pits.. ....... 192 4 15 Chronologically ordered vertical profiles of Orange period pits from Silver Glen Run's Locus B. ................................ ................................ ......................... 193 4 16 for five contiguous grids.. ................................ ................................ .................. 194 4 17 Map of site 8MR123 (2011) suspected Orange settlement.. ................................ ............................. 195 4 18 55 cmbs and 114 ime slices. ................................ ................................ ........ 196 5 1 Examples of Orange Incised and Tick Island Incised varieties of Orange pottery. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 243 5 2 Map of the Silve r Glen complex showing the locations of Orange contexts sampled for pottery analysis.. ................................ ................................ ........... 244 5 3 Multiplot showing the probability distributions of 2 sigma calibrated radiocarbon assays from v arious Late Archaic, site 8LA1 contexts sampled for Orange pottery analysis. ................................ ................................ ............. 245 5 4 Multiplot showing the probability distributions of 2 sigma calibrated radiocarbon assays from various Lat e Archaic, site 8MR123 contexts sampled for Orange pottery analysis. ................................ ............................... 246 5 5 Reconstructed portion of an Orange Plain vessel from Locus B at 8LA1W. . .... 247 5 6 Rim profiles of selected Orange Incised vessels from the north ridge at 8LA1E. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 248 5 7 Rim profiles of Orange Plain vessels from the north ridge at 8LA1E. . .............. 249 5 8 Rim profiles of selected Orange Plain vessels from 8LA1W. ............................ 250 5 9 Rim profiles of selected Orange Incised and Tick Island In cised vessels from 8LA1W. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 251 5 10 Rim profiles of selected Orange vessels from 8LA1E SR, the 8MR123 VL, and 8MR123 MD. ................................ ................................ ............................. 252

PAGE 13

13 5 11 Absolute frequency of Orange vessel lip thicknesses from mound contexts (8LA1E NR and 8MR123 MD) at Silver Glen. ................................ .................. 253 5 12 Absolute frequency of Orange vessel lip thicknesses from nonmound contexts (8LA1E SR, 8LA1W, and 8MR123 VL) at Silver Glen. ....................... 253 5 13 Absolute frequency of Orange vessel rim thicknesses from mound contexts (8LA1E NR and 8MR123 MD) at Silver Glen. ................................ .................. 254 5 14 Absolute frequency of Orange vessel rim thicknesses from nonmound contexts (8LA1E SR, 8LA1W, and 8MR123 VL) at Silver Glen. ....................... 254 5 15 Absolute frequency of Orange vessel rim orifice diameter from mound contexts (8 LA1E NR and 8MR123 MD) at Silver Glen. ................................ .... 255 5 16 Absolute frequency of Orange vessel orifice diameter from nonmound contexts (8LA1E SR, 8LA1W, and 8MR123 VL) at Silver Glen. ....................... 255 5 17 Select Orange Incised pottery sherds from the north ridge at 8LA1 East. . ....... 256 5 18 Select Tick Island Incised sherds from the north ridge at 8LA1E. . .................... 257 5 19 Select Orange pottery sherds from the 8MR123 Mound. . ................................ 258 5 20 S elect Orange pottery sherds from 8LA1W. . ................................ .................... 259 5 21 Select Tick Island Incised sherds from 8LA1W. ................................ ................ 260 5 22 Close up photographs of Orange pottery incisions. . ................................ ......... 261 5 23 Relative frequency of surface treatments by spatial context at Silver Glen . ..... 261 5 24 Examples of various forms of use alteration observed on Orange vessels at Silver Glen. . ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 262 6 1 Map showing the locations of clays sampled for NAA. ................................ ..... 297 6 2 Orange pottery thin section showing fiber voids encrusted with calcareous material tho ught to have resulted from deposition in a shell rich context. ........ 298 6 3 Biplot of the first two p rincipal components, along with vectors showing the relative influence of each element. . ................................ ................................ .. 299 6 4 Biplot of principal component 2 and principal component 4, along with vectors showing the relative influence of each element. ................................ ... 300 6 5 Bivariate plot of iron and sodium showing separation of pottery composition groups. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 301

PAGE 14

14 6 6 Distribution of chemical composition groups across Silver Glen spatial contexts. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 302 6 7 Bivariate plot of principal component 1 and principal component 2 showing the relationships among pottery groups and the positions of cla y samples from northeast Florida and southwest Florida. ................................ .................. 303 6 8 Bivariate plot of pr incipal component 2 and principal component 4 showing the relationships among pottery groups and the positions of clay samples from northeast Florida and southwest Florida. ................................ .................. 304 6 9 Maps showing the respective concentrations of iron (Fe), sodium (Na), antimony (Sb), and uranium (U) across clays samples sampled for NAA. ....... 305 6 10 Orange pottery thin section showing dense fiber voids with intact Spanish moss fibers. . ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 306 6 11 Ternary diagrams showing variation by petrographic paste category in bulk composition and temper materials. . ................................ ................................ .. 307 6 12 Aplastic constituents useful for distinguishing among petrographic paste groups. . ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 308 6 13 Ternary diagrams showing variation by context in bulk composition and temper materials. . ................................ ................................ ............................. 309 6 14 Ternary diagrams showing variation by chemical composition group in: bulk composition and temper materials. ................................ ................................ ... 310 C 1 O range Incised pottery motifs from Silver Glen. ................................ ............... 353 C 2 Tick Island Incised pottery motifs from Silver Glen. ................................ .......... 356

PAGE 15

15 Abstract of Disserta tion Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy G ATHERING PLACES : HISTORIES OF MATERIAL AND SOCIAL INTERACTION AT LATE ARCHAI C SHELL MOUNDS IN FLORIDA By Zackary I. Gilmore December 2014 Chair: Kenneth E. Sassaman Major: Anthropology This dissertation examines the role of extralocal aggregation events in hunter gatherer social dynamics by detailing the histor y of interaction that tran spired at a Late Archaic (ca. 47 00 to 3600 cal B.P. ) shell mound complex in northeast Florida. H unter gatherer s have long been evaluated by anthropologists within evolutionary frameworks that emphasize long term ecological adaptation and downplay the sign ificance of historical contingency . Such perspectives have constrained the types of narratives constructed for Archaic societies in the Southeast and resulted in frequent portrayals of the regional shell mounds as inconsequential accumulations of food was te. I develop an alternative approach that envisions mounds as emergent historical processes punctuated by countless material and social gathering events. I contend that through these gatherings people drew on traditions and memories of the past to forge relationships and communities that would persist into the future. This approach is applied to the events that unfolded at the Silver Glen complex in the middle St. Johns River valley u sing three related research strategies. First, I analyze its depositio nal history , focusing on how the emplacement of various substances and artifacts altered the landscape and structured the relations among

PAGE 16

16 different people, places, and times. Next, I discuss techno stylistic analyses of Orange pottery from the complex (t he oldest such technology in Florida) to better understand the types of activities conducted at mound and nonmound contexts. F inally, I employ two sourcing techniques (neutron activation analysis and petrography) to determine the geographic origins of pot s and estimate the social scale of the events in which they participated . T he results demonstrate that the mounds at Silver Glen hosted larger scale, more extravagant social gatherings than other contemporary places . These events included feasting and ritual ized deposition, and they attracted diverse people and pots from an area spanning hundreds of kilometers. I argue that by accumulating vessels with distinct affiliations and bundling them together in monumental contexts, the varied c onstituents gath ered at Silver Glen forged enduring relationships centered on periodic mound centered interactions . I further suggest that the unprecedented scale of these communities was enabled, at least in part, by the a ppearance of pottery as a preferred medium of lo ng distance exchange.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: GATHERING PLACES Archaeologists are increasingly recognizing the important role of intercultural interactions and alterity in stimulating and directing cultural change (e.g., Alt 2006; Carr 2006 ; Cobb 2005; Dillehay 2007; Holly 2005; Sassaman 2010, 2011a; Thomas 1999 b; Wright 2014 ) . At multiple times and locations in pre Columbian North America , powerful places developed that actively promoted social and material interaction by gathering diverse people, things, and ideas into an arena of common engagement. In fact, current data show that many of the largest and most iconic sites, including those at Chaco (Cameron and Duff 2008; Lekson and Cameron 1995), Cahokia (Alt 2006; Pauketat and Alt 2004 ; Slater et al. 2014 ), and Poverty Point (Kidder 2010 a , 2011; Sassaman 2005; Spivey et al. 2015 ), all served as centers of regional integration where disparate participants were drawn together for purposes of exchange, ritual, and monument constru ction. The convergences fostered by these places produced new types of social formations and affected the historica l trajectories of entire regions. A similar type of integrative role has been hypothesized for many of the c onstructions (e.g., Claassen 2010; Randall 2010; Sassaman 2010; Sassaman and Randall 2012; Saunders 2004a, 2004 b) . However , a number of factors, including the advanced age of these structures, their primarily shell composition, and the presumed simplicity of their builders , have led some to question their significance beyond matters of basic subsistence and ecological adaptation (e.g., Crothers and Bernbeck 2004; Hamilton 1999; Marquardt 2010a, 2010b; White 2004). In this study, I examine shell mound inter actions using a fundamentally different conception of place than those typically applied to Archaic contexts, one that envisions

PAGE 18

18 mounds and other integrative places as emergent historical processes punctuated by innumerable material and social gathering ev ents. Specifically, I employ this alternative perspective in investigating the history of social gathering and community dynamics that played out at one Late Archaic Orange period shell mound site, the Silver Glen complex in northeast Florida. This comple x boasts the remains of a remarkable array of Archaic depositional contexts that include monumental shellworks, deeply stratified midden deposits, and hundreds of well defined cultural features. The scale and diversity of these contexts attest to several millennia of virtually uninterrupted hunter gatherer social interaction at the site. If approached as a dynamic gathering place for countless human and nonhuman actors rather than a static setting for the playing out of universal evolutionary principles, Silver Glen offers a valuable opportunity for constructing a detailed Archaic social history that goes well beyond the generalized, ecocentric accounts typically put forward for small scale nonagricultural societies. To this end, s tarting from the defaul t position that all people inhabit worlds that are meaningful to them , I investigate how shared meanings were produced, maintained, and transformed through multiple scales of material and social engagement in this particular location. In doing so, my prima ry goals are twofold: 1) to determine the kinds and scales of communities implicated in the construction of the complex, and 2) to better understand the practices and other human scale events through which communal relationships were achieved and reworked Archaic past. Monumental Discord in the Archaic Southeast As early as 8,000 years ago (Claassen 2010:Table 2.1; Randall 2013), Middle Archaic hunter gatherers in multiple areas of the eastern United States, includ ing the

PAGE 19

19 Midwest, the Midsouth, and portions of the South Atlantic slope, began depositing shellfish remains along riverbanks and coastlines in unprecedented quantities, a practice that would persist in some locations for millennia afterward. The end result was a series of hundreds of massive shell heaps that would eventually serve as the defining Mound s revealed a great deal of scalar, morphological, and compositional variability among shell mounds both within and between different areas of the Southeast. This diversity points to a broad range of mound functions and meanings and has largely discredited the idea of the Shell Mound Archaic as a single, uniform cultural tradition (Sassaman 2010:43). Nevertheless, shell mounding peoples from throughout the region have all been subject to many of the same presumptions, generalizations, and interpretive debate s. Traditional accounts of the Shell Mound Archaic in the Midwest and Midsouth have linked it directly to a global scale mid Holocene climatic trend known as the l has been so basic to the conceptualization of social and technological development during the Archaic that entire culture histories are contained within the period bracketed by this read warming trends helped create highly productive aquatic biomes such as shoals, lakes, and marshes where shellfish and other resources could be easily and intensively exploited. This led to regional population increases and encouraged the repeated and, in some cases, semi permanent occupation of certain ultra productive locations, ultimately giving rise to the oversized, yet wholly quotidian, piles of domestic refuse that archaeologists

PAGE 20

20 dt and Watson 2005; Milner and Jefferies 1998; Peacock 2002; Smith 1986). Recently, Moore (2015; Moore and Thompson 2012) has attempted to reorient attention toward the cultural meanings inherent in all types of shell mound practices. Using data from Kent constructed over time via daily domestic practices and larger scale ritual events, with both contributing to the development of these sites as persistent, historically charged places. Claassen (1996, 2010) goes even farther, arguing that shell mounds in this region were not places of long term inhabitation at all but rather public ceremonial centers where people aggregated periodically for mortuary feasts and other rituals geared toward social renewal and rebalance. As evidence, Claassen points to, among other things, the monumental scale of the sites in question, the common occurrence of burials and caches, signs of repeated and intensive short term encampments, and a general dearth of everyday proces sing tools in mound deposits. For Claassen, these huge concentrations of shell have less to do with localized subsistence pursuits or ecological imperatives and more to do with issues of social excess and ritual complexity among mid Holocene societies. Pa rallel debates have unfolded regarding the origins and functions of shell mounds in parts of the lower Southeast, including Florida. Large scale shell deposition began in the St. Johns River valley of Florida at ca. 7400 B.P. and continued for roughly thre e thousand years (Randall 2013; Sassaman and Randall 2012), while massive shell (Russo 2006). As in the case above, the standard view of Archaic shell mounding in

PAGE 21

21 Florida paints it as a straightforward adaptation to shifts in natural environmental conditions, in this case sea level rise and the concomitant onset of artesian spring flow. gatherer inhabitants responded in lock step by pouring into the St. Johns River valley and mapping onto the distribution of newly abundant resources, especially shellfish (Miller 1992, 1998). Shell mounds, in this line of thinking, accreted gradually at resource ri ch locations through everyday, nondiscursive practices of refuse disposal, whereas later shell rings reflect efforts to repurpose excess waste by arranging it in ways that help address practical ecological challenges (Marquardt 2010a, 2010b). Not surprisi ngly, ongoing research has produced evidence indicating a much more varied and complex version of mounding origins than this environmental stimulus begets cultural response emp loyed diverse data sets (i.e., depositional, mortuary, zooarchaeological, ceramic, and radiocarbon) to rebut portrayals of Archaic shell mounds as simple domestic garbage dumps, presenting them instead as intentionally constructed monuments, potent sociopo litical resources, and/or the settings of integrative ceremonial events (e.g., Randall 2010; Russo 1994, 2004; Saunders 2004a, 2004b; Sassaman 2010; Sassaman and Randall 2012). These interpretive disagreements stem, at least in large part, from the overall ahistorical character of most archeological approaches to Archaic places. Southeastern archaeologists, like those in many other regions, have traditionally evaluated Archaic sites based on gradualist, evolutionary models (see Sassaman 2004a), a tendency t hat has substantially impacted the kinds of narratives that have been generated for this

PAGE 22

22 period. These renderings are typically heavily influenced by outdated preconceptions regarding the simplicity of hunter gatherer societies, the determinative role of t he natural environment, and the inherent limitations of the archaeological record. Consequently, they tend to be hyper generalized and to operate at spatial and temporal scales far beyond the experiences and agencies of individual human actors. This perspe ctive is epitomized by the ecofunctionalist accounts of shell mound origins described above. More recent approaches that eschew traditional evolutionary categories in favor of largely synchronic evaluations of shell mound meanings and ritual significance p rovide a valuable corrective to still prevalent materialist accounts by ratcheting down the analytical scale and illuminating previously neglected aspects of Archaic social lives. Most, however, suffer from the same generalizing propensities and dearth of localized historical detail as their more ecologically minded counterparts. In both cases, a predominant focus on static representations and the final forms of Archaic mounds has had the effect of collapsing complex depositional histories and rendering she ll matrix places largely interchangeable What is needed in order to transcend these conventional accounts is more in depth investigation of the histories of individual mounds and related Archaic places . The relatively few regional examples that have been s ubjected to intensive study (e.g., Aten 1999; Moore 2015 ; Randall and Sassaman 2005; Russo 1991; Russo and Heide 2002; Sanger and Thomas 2010; Saunders 2002, 2004b; Thompson 2007) indicate that mounds were constructed for a variety of purposes, fostered di fferent types of interaction, and underwent significant material and symbolic transformations over the course of their respective histories . Instead of mutually exclusive alternatives, prevailing

PAGE 23

23 models that present Late Archaic shell mounds as either grad ual accumulations of domestic refuse or vacant ceremonial monuments might best be viewed as constituting two ends of a continuum of possibilities . The point at which any particular place falls along this continuum cannot be determined by forcing it into a preconceived , decontextualized category (e.g., midden vs. mound or practical vs. ritual) . It requires reconstructing the history of interactions conducted in a specific place, including the range of social constituents (human and nonhuman) that were gather ed there, the relationships that were established and referenced, and the events through which these relationships were achieved and transformed . Place and Community History As stated above, this study employs a fundamentally different conception of place than the one typically brought to bear on Archaic shell mounds. According to this perspective, places are essential components of human social life in every cultural setting. Much more than mere backdrops or containers for human action , places participat e in mutually constitutive relationships with people via a process that Basso hrough various acts of place making from the building of a house to the planting of a garden people continuously give shape and significan ce to the world around them (Jordan 2003; Zedeño and Bowser 2009). In this way, places, along with the landscapes and regions into which they articulate, are products of the movements and interactions initiated by people (Giddens 1984:118 119; Ingold 2000: Chapter 11). At the same time, however, places are also active contributors to processes of social reproduction and change . They structure our basic experience of space and time by directing movements (e.g., Barrett 1994), affording particular activities a nd interactions (Ingold 2000:192; Richardson 2003), sedimenting

PAGE 24

24 sociopolitical relations (Bender 1993; de Certeau 1984; Rodman 1992), and durably memorializing past events and traditions (Basso 1996; Küchler 1999; Van Dyke and Alcock 2003). By facilitating shared experiences and memories, places also play critical roles in the negotiation and maintenance of various forms of social identity (e.g., Joyce placemaking is a wa y of constructing the past, a venerable means of doing human history, it is also a way of constructing social traditions and, in the process, personal and social identities. We are, in a sense, the place All places are gatherings (Case y 1996; Heidegger 1977). They are unique assemblages ( sensu De Landa 2006; Deleuze and Guattari 2004) of innumerable material and immaterial entities, including people, things, substances, histories, languages, and ideas (Casey 1996). And like all assembla ges, the social efficacy of a place derives from its ability to draw in and establish connections among these various constituents. This point is perhaps most explicitly considered by phenomenologist Martin Heidegger, who employs the example of a bridge ex tending across a stream to illustrate the gathering power of place. For Heidegger (1977), the bridge was not simply added to a preexisting place; it rather created the place as such by drawing together the land and the water at that particular location. In does not just connect banks that are already there . The banks emerge as banks only as the bridge crosses the stream. The bridge designedly causes them to lie across from each other (Heidegger 1977:330). Thus, rather than merely exi sting as a functional object or abstract symbol, the bridge itself establishes an effectual gathering or assembly of things in space in other words, a place.

PAGE 25

25 Archaeologists reap the benefits of the gathering power of historical places, which concentrate an d arrange cultural materials in the more or less discrete locations that we gloss as sites. Each of the individual artifacts and features that archaeologists encounter contributes to the overall character of the larger place in which it is enmeshed (Gosden 2012; Halperin 2014; Thomas 1999a). Each constituent is itself a gathering, with its own combination of material affordances, histories, and associations that help define the way that a place is experienced and culturally valued (Latour 2005; Pauketat 201 3a). Different kinds of places gather specific types of materials, things, and activities manner that provides archaeologists with the material patterning required to m ake historical inferences. At a larger scale, individual places also articulate to form more people and things between them (Ingold 2000:Chapter 11). Consequently, place s are aptly conceived as convergence points for multiple, nested scales of relationships (see Lefebvre 1991:86), from singular artifacts and substances at the micro level to entire cultural landscapes at the macro. Understanding a place fully requires cons ideration of all these various scales. Importantly, as is the case with assemblages more generally, the relations achieved in place are always tenuous (see De Landa 2006). Places are constantly in a state of flux and subject to the effects of all manner of historically contingent events, be they ecological, demographic, or cultural. During the course of such events, various actors (both human and nonhuman) are repositioned and the relationships among them are altered, resulting in new interactions and histo rical potentialities. The construction of

PAGE 26

26 a monument, for example, constitutes an event with the capacity to change the character of an entire landscape by reorienting the movement of people and things, galvanizing social and political relations, and rewor based system of references (e.g., Barrett 1999). Similarly far reaching transformations may be affected by any number of other place altering events such as the importing of foreign objects, the adoption of a new technology , a devastating hurricane, or the drying up of a lake. Fortunately for archaeologists, most places, especially those with long histories of occupation, are accretional in nature; they are cumulative palimpsests ( sensu Bailey 2007) that , although variably p reserved, provide a material record of the Bradley 2002; Olivier 2001). Thus, in addition to facilitating the convergence of various contemporary things in a single loc ation, places also, in effect, gather and concentrate multiple distinct times (Olivier 2001). For the ancient inhabitants of archaeological places, ever present reminders of the past would have served as potent resources for interpreting present conditions and planning for future ones. For archaeologists, access to the successive, superimposed iterations of a place provides nothing less than a window into the continually shifting compositions and structures of past communities ( sensu Harris 2012, 2013), alo ng with potential insight into the events responsible for their reconfiguration. Orange Pottery and the Gathering History at Silver Glen The construction of some of the biggest and most elaborate shell mound complexes in Florida coincided with the appearan technology, a fiber 1 for the regional culture history). Orange pottery has historical roots in the Stallings wares of

PAGE 27

27 South Carolina and Georgia, the oldest pott ery making tradition in North America. Following its initial development at around 5000 cal B.P. 1 (based on Stoltman 1966), pottery technology quickly spread south via existing exchange networks (Sassaman by ca. 4700 cal B.P. (Russo et al. 1993) and the middle St. Johns River valley no more than two centuries later (Sassaman 2003a). In the latter region, the earliest sizeable pottery assemblages, and the most intricately decorated ones, were confined to the few (perhaps only four) locations that featured Orange period shell mounds. The condensing of to that point widespread mound centered activities in these select locations, along with the sudden, seemingly wholesale incorporation of pottery into the materi al repertoire of mounded places, evince a dramatic reorganization of the Late Archaic cultural landscape. This restructuring also included changes in settlement layout, exchange patterns, and mortuary practices, further evidence of a regionwide shift in so cial and material entanglements at around this time. Here, I examine the nature of these far reaching Late Archaic transformations from the perspective of the Silver Glen complex, the northernmost of four known Orange mound centers in the middle St. Joh ns basin. Its extensive archaeological deposits are arranged along an approximately 1 km long spring run that drains into remains register at least 8,000 years of pre Columbi an social life and include multiple mounds and ridges, along with a remarkable variety of less conspicuous deposits and 1 All dates throughout the dissertation are reported in calibrated years before present (cal B.P.). Wh en referring to a specific radiocarbon assay or group of assays, the entire 2 sigma calibrated age range is used unless otherwise noted.

PAGE 28

28 features (Randall et al. 2011; Sassaman et al. 2011). By the beginning of the Late Archaic period, Silver Glen was already a place with a long and materially conspicuous hydrological features. Late preceramic hunter gatherers occupied this location repeatedly, establishing a series of successive residential s ettlements south of the spring run and erecting a sand mortuary mound to its north. During the subsequent Orange Period, early pottery makers radically altered the Silver Glen landscape by constructing two massive shell mounds that Jeffries Wyman (1875:38) referred to as builders of these mounds also dug hundreds of oversized roasting pits and set up a series of small encampments in various areas along the run. Great quanti ties of Orange pottery were deposited across these different contexts in a highly structured manner. I rely on this remarkable material record to construct an eventful, human scale history of Late Archaic interaction and community formation at the complex. archaeological remains constitute not just an inert record of past practices but, in fact, represent the actual material conditions within which its Late Archaic inhabitants carried o ut various projects and interactions (following Barrett 2001). From this perspective, these materials are recognized as having played an active and integral role in the Late Archaic gatherings being investigated. It follows that the communities whose histo ries I hope to illuminate were not restricted to groups of interacting people but instead comprised the entire place based assemblage , which included a whole host of effectual actors, both human and not ( sensu Harris 2012, 2013). The respective social

PAGE 29

29 con ditions presented by these various place based communities were determined by the composition and arrangement of their constituent members (i.e., people, ancestors, artifacts, mounds, etc.). Over the course of the Late Archaic period, members were repeated ly added, removed, and repositioned as people and materials moved into and about the complex. Consequently, the character of the place was continually altered, My aim here i s to provide a clear and cogent account of these ever evolving mound centered communities at Silver Glen, one that sheds light on the actual experiences and decisions of the people who participated in them. I do this using the ibed above (see Chapter 3 for a more in depth discussion). range from individual artifacts and features at the lower end to monumental depositional undertakings and r egional scale aggregations on the upper. Employing a variety of analytical techniques, I focus on uncovering the spatial and temporal relations established by particular material events and evaluating their impact on the larger community (i.e., assemblage) , as revealed by reinforced or reworked patterns of subsequent practice and interaction. Modelling these various material and social phenomena as events understood here simply as convergent happenings with historical consequences highlights the potential r ole of even localized agents and occurrences as catalysts for larger historical change. It also draws attention to the temporal confluence realized in each of these happenings as they were interpreted and acted on in accordance with memories of the past an d anticipations of the future. Further, by linking individual events together through time and examining the various

PAGE 30

30 genealogies and itineraries that converged in a particular place, it is possible to recognize far reaching historical processes such as soc ial transformation, intensification, ritualization, and the like without losing sight of the varied experiences and agencies that these processes entailed at the local scale. This account is thus a history of gathering in place. I argue that the Orange period shell mounds at Silver Glen Springs were venues for and the material remains of repeated extralocal gathering events that integrated people and materials from across peninsular Florida and possibly beyond. I further maintain that particip ants in these gatherings engaged in feasting, monument building, and other ritualized practices that distance relationships. The apparent communal nature of these mound ga therings constitutes a significant departure from the preceramic ones that immediately preceded them, which frequently singled out particular individuals and groups by way of lavish burial treatments and rare, exotic objects. I suggest that the reworking o f local and regional interaction networks indicated by these transformations were tied, at least in part, to the introduction of pottery technology and may also have involved an influx of nonlocal people into the Middle St. Johns valley. My focus throughou t this narrative is on the scale and organization of Orange period mound centered communities and, in particular, the specific material practices and other gathering events by which they were achieved and sustained at Silver Glen Springs. My conclusions a re supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence, beginning with data related to the shaping of the complex itself. An important development in recent archaeological thought is the growing acceptance that all deposition, from routine

PAGE 31

31 refuse disposal to the overt performance s often involved in monument construction, is structured according to the cultural at play in a given context (Mills and Walker 2008; Pollard 2001; Thomas 2012). Cross culturally, deposition is one of the pr imary means by which places are made and cultural values are materialized (e.g., Dawdy 2006: Dillehay 2007; Jordan 2003). At Silver Glen, the varied deposits of shell and other materials that adorn and divide the complex provide valuable clues regarding th e varying scales and organizations of the communities who gathered there. I approach these deposits not as incidental or interchangeable garbage piles but rather as the ordered remains of historically informed and future oriented decisions on the part of t gatherer inhabitants. Among the questions I focus on are: What specific depositional practices were implicated in the construction and use of different areas of the Silver Glen complex? How was deposition used to demarcate distinct social fields by fram ing certain areas or orient ing movement around the complex ? What were the relationships of individual depositional contexts to each other and to the complex as a whole? And finally, to what extent, and for what purpose(s), were Silver Glen deposits other places and times ? The sizeable Orange pottery assemblages from the complex provide substantial methodological advantages for addressing these and other questions. As archaeologists have long been aware, potte ry designs and modifications provide a wealth of evidence regarding the material and social endeavors for which vessels were manufactured as well as the tasks in which they were actually employed (Braun 1983; Skibo 1992, 2013). Technological and stylistic attributes of pots also frequently encode information allowing archaeologists to distinguish between distinct cultural traditions,

PAGE 32

32 social identities, and communities of practice (Bowser and Patton 2008; Degoy 2008; Gosselain 1998). With these factors in mi nd, I use patterned variations in the Orange pottery at Silver Glen to investigate the range and organization of the practices conducted there as well as the identities and relations of the parties involved. In addition, the raw materials used in pottery m anufacturing are frequently traceable back to the locations or regions from which they were acquired via chemical and mineralogical sourcing techniques (Glowacki and Neff 2002; Neff 1992; Stoltman 2001). Sourcing analyses are powerful tools for archaeologi sts interested in writing narrative histories in the absence of written records because they permit the reconstruction of the actual movements of materials (along with the people transporting them) across ancient landscapes and between particular places. They thus provide the kind of quantitative data needed to lend scientific credence to now popular biographical and network based renderings by revealing the sequences of events and social entanglements in which objects were implicated over the course of th eir social lives (Hodder 2012; Jones 2004; Joy 2009). In the case at hand, neutron activation analysis (NAA) and petrography are used to determine the origins of vessels and thereby al gatherings. Together with the depositional evidence discussed above, these pottery data provide a sound basis for an alternative, more nuanced and I would argue more convincing narrative of Late Archaic shell mound interactions than those typically put forward. Outline and Organization This study begins with a review of current perspectives on and understandings of Archaic shell mounds in Florida before outlining an alternative theoretical approach that

PAGE 33

33 centers historical events and place based gather ings as keys to understanding the dynamics of mound communities. This approach is then applied to depositional and ceramic data (related to technological style and provenance) from Silver Glen, according to which a synthetic narrative of Orange period shel l mound interactions is ultimately drawn. In Chapter 2, I consider some of the traditional anthropological assumptions commonly brought to bear on the study of pre Modern and nonagricultural societies and discuss the severe restrictions that they have plac ed on archaeological narratives of the instrumental in maintaining a sharp divide between Western civilization and a primitive m aking practices of nonliterate peoples worldwide. I suggest that many of the pejorative connotations attached to this term are assumed to lack historical consciousness, long term foresight, and the overall cultural wherewithal to transcend the determinative power of their natural surroundings. These general topics are used as an entry point into a more specific discussion regarding the highly generalized and largely ahistorica l character of the archaeological accounts typically constructed for groups in the Archaic southeast. The chapter concludes with valley and an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the dominant archaeological approaches currently employed in this and neighboring regions. Chapter 3 outlines the more human scale and history centered perspective adopted in the present study. Rather than viewing history as a detached, objective past

PAGE 34

34 or restricting it to written records, I define it broadly to include all the culturally ubiquitous and infinitely diverse means by which people draw on the past in order to establish relationships in the present and for the future. With this definition in mind, I go on to argue that one effective way to construct archaeological histories that are more relevant to actual past human experience is to focus on the identification and linking together of specific historical events. Introducing the maintain that past events are accessible to archaeologists in the form of artifacts, features, and cultural deposits, all of which constitute historically contingent and consequential intersections of various materi al and immaterial entities. The final section of Chapter 3 discusses the important role of place in gathering and positioning these various entities in meaningful ways. I review genealogical, biographical, and itinerary based methods for constructing event ful histories of place and make the case that these provide a veritable window into the interactions and internal workings of relational, place based communities through time. With the necessary background and theoretical framework established, the remaini ng four chapters focus on the empirical results of my investigation of Late Archaic interaction at the Silver Glen complex. Chapter 4 provides a history of Archaic deposition and landscape modification at the complex. It begins with a basic outline of the I then consider in detail the various depositional traditions and strategies that were implicated in the construction and repeated reshaping of the complex by Archaic hunt er gatherers between ca. 8000 and 3000 B.P. The beginning of this interval marks the earliest evidence for large scale digging and deposition at Silver Glen Springs, an event

PAGE 35

35 that prefaced more than three millennia of subsequent preceramic engagement with this location. I discuss these developments in terms of the historical precedents they set for making inhabitants after ca. 4500 B.P. I suggest that the d atop preexisting mortuaries in order to draw on the authority of the ancestral past, even while implementing profound future oriented transformations of the material and social landscape. I also examine an assemblage of huge roasting pits that were likel y used to provision mound centered feasts, arguing that through time the digging and infilling of these oversized features became important social events in their own right. Throughout Chapter 4, I focus on identifying the various times, places, peoples, a nd materials that were bundled together in particular depositional episodes and linking these together to In Chapter 5, I turn my attention to the Orange pottery assemblages from Silve r Glen, and, in particular, to what patterned variation in the technological styles of these pots indicates regarding the kinds of social gatherings in which they were involved. I preface this discussion with a review of current knowledge regarding the man ufacture, circulation, and chronology of Orange pottery in northeast Florida. I then present data related to numerous metric, formal, and decorative attributes of Orange vessel lots from five distinct and temporally overlapping contexts at Silver Glen. Spa tial disparities in vessel size, surface decorations, and use wear patterns suggest that the two shell mounds were the sites of larger scale and more culturally diverse gatherings than other areas of the complex. These pottery data are thus consistent with those from the broader region that support the notion that Orange shell mounds were places of social

PAGE 36

36 aggregation and feasting. I contend that Orange pots, by way of their consumption at ritually charged communal events and structured deposition in various contexts, were instrumental in both creating mounds as particular kinds of places and in negotiating and maintaining the networks of relationships associated with them. Chapter 6 presents new data related to the chemical and mineralogical sourcing of O range pottery from Silver Glen. Pottery samples from the complex and clay reference samples from throughout Florida and southern Georgia were subjected to both NAA and petrographic analysis. These analyses were designed to reveal the geographic origins of Orange vessels from Silver Glen and, by extension, the scales and orientations of the Late Archaic gatherings that took place there. The chemical data people and pots from diverse locations, including some from more than 200 km to the southwest. The same data indicate a more limited range of participants in the activities that occurred in nonmound contexts and suggest that they were all relatively local in scope. These resu lts are largely corroborated by petrographic data obtained from pottery and clay thin sections. As with the chemical analysis, the thin section data show that the highest diversity in naturally occurring aplastics and culturally added tempers occurs in pot tery assemblages from the two mounds. While less conclusive in terms of linking pots to a specific source location, the petrographic results are largely consistent with the provenance determinations made using NAA. Finally, Chapter 7 employs all of these l ines of evidence in conveying an eventful history of Late Archaic interaction at Silver Glen Springs. As already discussed, I approach this history as one of social gathering at multiple scales. At the largest scale

PAGE 37

37 were the regional aggregation events dur ing which droves of people and pots from reaching, momentous occurrences subsumed countless smaller ones in the form of individual shell deposits, features, and artifacts, eac h with their own referential connections to other times, places, people, and traditions. The repeated bundling and rebundling of all of these materials in the context of communal feasts helped condense an entire regional scale network of relations into a s ingle location. Over time, these events recreated the Silver Glen complex as a broadly influential place of ritual and gatherer groups. The data generated in this study (especially those obtained via NAA and petrographic analysis) thus provide the most compelling evidence yet that Orange shell mounds, like late preceramic ones, were important, large scale gathering places. In this case, however, mound centered gatherings were geared toward the establishment and maintenance of cohesive macrocommunities, a far cry from the apparently fragmented and status marking mound interactions of the immediately preceding period. I argue that this shift was facilitated, at least in part, by the introduct ion of pottery, which disrupted existing exchange networks based on rare and exotic materials by providing a novel and universally accessible medium with which to build alternative long distance alliances. I conclude with a discussion of the limits of the current study and suggest directions for future research.

PAGE 38

38 Table 1 1. Culture history of northeast Florida. Period Years (cal B.P.) Paleoindian 13,500 11,700 Early Archaic 11,700 7400 Mount Taylor Early Mount Taylor phase (Middle Archaic) 7400 5 700 Mount Taylor Thornhill Lake phase (Late Archaic) 5700 4600 Orange (Late Archaic) 4600 3500 St. Johns I 3500 1250 St. Johns II 1250 500

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 2 ANONOMYZING PERSPECTIVES AND CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF LATE ARC H AIC PAST patent misnomer. The term was originally coined in the nineteenth century (Wilson 1851) as a simple temporal marker, intended to distinguish literate societies from those predating the advent of written records. S ince that time, however, it has acquired a number of additional, more value laden, connotations that have contributed to the caricaturing of countless non Western peoples and the devaluing of their relationships with their own pasts. Many archaeologists st udying so situation by restricting their focus to macroscale evolutionary processes and producing hyper generalized accounts that ascribe little causal power to events and practices commensurate with actual human experience. difference between literate and nonliterate peoples but has, in effect, produced a troubling dichotomy between people with history and those supposedly without it . Of those relegated to th e latter group, I suggest that hunter gatherers have been the most generalized and parodied in anthropological literature , a situation that has repeatedly result ed in over generalized, assumption filled treat ments of Archaic societies in the Southeast . I then discuss the current state of knowledge regarding Late Archaic Orange p eriod hunter gatherers in Florida and examine how dominant, largely ahistorical approaches have impeded archaeological understanding o f their lives . Problem s past

PAGE 40

40 events and processes associated with a given tim e period or other phenomenon (social group, place, institution, etc.). Alternatively, history also commonly refers not to the past itself , but rather to a representation of some past development, usually in the form of a was originally used to mark a deficiency in the represented history of a time period or cultural group due to a lack of written historical records (Wilson 1851). Literate societies have frequently been contrasted with peoples relying primarily on oral acc ounts or other means of preserving their pasts, which are often seen as less reliable and durable than written descriptions (Henige 1974; Vansina 1985). According to some scholars, accurate history presupposed writing, because it was only through written r ecords that people were able to take events out of their contexts and analyze competing accounts (Cole 2001:103 citing Goody and Watt 1963; Goody 1977). Anthropologists have long been complicit with such views, as historic and prehistoric archaeologies are widely accepted as being characterized by distinct research questions, methodologies, and narrative scales due to perceived disparities between written sources and other types of archaeological evidence ( Trigger 2006:498) . A growing number of researchers, however, now recognize the serious problems associated with maintaining a sharp distinction between historic and prehistoric pasts (e.g., Cobb 2005; Lightfoot 1995; Schmidt and Mrozowski 2013). Segregating the past in this way ultimately results in the o versimplification and devaluing of non Western forms of historical practice. It helps perpetuate dichotomies Strauss 1966:233) that uncritically divide the world into people who embrace historical change and people who deny i t . In the process, whole or .

PAGE 41

41 Ohnuki Western historical traditions stemmed from a subconscio us Eurocentric belief that nonliterate peoples did not have their own histories but instead existed in a state of virtual stasis for millennia prior to colonial contact (see also Wylie 1995). Sassaman (2010:1 2) explains that such an image of prehistoric p eople was necessary to satisfy the modern Western need for a foil, a primitive benchmark against which modern human progress could be measured and its means justified (see also Cobb 2005; ent not just the time period before writing but also became the epitome of simplicity, backwardness, and a lack of cultural development. The privileging of written accounts over other kinds of history making has resulted in in the production of bland, gen eralized historical narratives that portray nonliterate and preliterate peoples as culturally conservative and largely unchanging from the mere absence of a particular type of represented history to also implying a deficiency in the objective histories of many non Western societies. In other words, what began as an epistemological distinction between written and oth er forms of historical evidence has since developed into an ontological division between peoples with dynamic, complex pasts and those stuck in never ending cycle s of monotony. For this coming under attack by an ever growing num ber of archaeologists (e.g., Bradley 2002; Lightfoot 1995; Lucas 2005:Chapter 5; Pauketat and Loren 2005; Sassaman 2010; Schmidt and Patterson 1995; Schmidt and Mrozowski 2013).

PAGE 42

42 Hunter Gatherer Timelessness use as a mere temporal marker is clearly demonstrated by popular use of the term in relation to contemporary, living peoples whose pasts have been watered down, ignored, or denied entirely. MacEachern (2013), for ex ample, writes about how, in the absence been simplistically and invariably linked to the long term environmental record of the lake rather than the multitude of special an d day to day practices through which they engage with and represent their pasts. This perspective has led to widespread assumptions regarding the ahistorical character of African societies and a view of their 2013:127). In similar veins, Lederman (1986) laments the treatment of New Guinea existing in ecological equilibrium and lacking their own int ernal dynamism, while Whitehead (2003) argues that indigenous Amazonian histories continue to be widely No group of people, however, has been more susceptible to such characterizations than those glossed as hu nter gatherers. Since virtually the inception of the discipline, hunter gatherers have provided anthropologists with the ultimate sensu Fabian 1983), a category of people so far removed from Western ways of living and thinking about the world that they could serve as the necessary baseline for evaluating different levels of cultural development (Barnard 2004; Bettinger 1991:2) . Although the label itself refers only to a particular subsistence strategy, this strategy has been structurally linked to a number of other sociocultural characteristics to form a

PAGE 43

43 generalized model of hunter gatherers used to differentiate them from supposedly more advanced cultural forms. One of the most persistent and effective ways of distancing hunter gatherers has been to relegate them, either explicitly or implicitly, to a state of perpetual timelessness, that is, to locate them somewhere outside of history. In traditional evolutionary and neoevolutionary schemes, hunter gatherers, in their various semantic iterations ( invariably ensconced on the bottom rung of the ladder of progress, positioned as far as possible from the cultural achievements of Western civilization (e.g., Fried 1967; Morgan 1877 ; Service 1962 ). Built i nto these schemes was the notion that hunter gatherers had somehow escaped the forces of social evolution and remained in of hunter gatherers was thus thought to pro vide anthropologists with their most see also Barnard 2004). In this way, anthropologists relegated not only past groups but also all living hunter gatherers to a time dis tinct from, and primitive in relation to, their own (Fabian 1983). While no contemporary social scientist would argue for the idea of living peoples as evolutionary holdovers, the ahistorical, or at least temporally segregated, character of hunter gatherer treatments has persisted. For the past several decades, anthropological accounts have tended to privilege broad scale environmental factors over context specific historical ones in explanations of hunter gatherer behavior, reflecting a perspective that ha research among Great Basin hunter gatherers contributed strongly to his influential

PAGE 44

44 extraction of energy from the , ideology , and social organizat i on were considered to be subject to the unpredictable contingencies of history and therefore of secondary importance. While Steward saw the culture core as the foundation of all societies, this was especially true for hunting and gathering peoples, who, in his view, simpler in content and form, a nd whose institutions were most extensively patterned gatherers and the constraints imposed by their natural environments provided the basis for sweeping cross cultural generalizations regarding the nature of their societies. These were formalized in Man the Hunter conceptually linked hunting and gathering with a number of social and demographic characteristics including egalitarianism, low population density, lack of territoriality, a minimum of food storage, and band level organization , all of which were viewed as adaptive necessities for nonagricultural populations (Lee and Devore 1968). The e nduring impacts of this formulation were the ecofunctionalist orientation of most hunter gatherer research and the corresponding homogenization of social and cultural differences regardless of spatiotemporal context (Yengoyan 2004). For the present discuss forager model is that, in directly linking hunter gatherer lifeways with environmental

PAGE 45

45 variables, history was removed from the equation and the people in question were rendered ti meless . Perhaps the most glaring evidence of this has been the repeated, often uncritical, attempts by both archaeologists and ethnographers to draw parallels between small [ pre ] historic) past. Common among nineteenth century cultural evolutionists, this tendency was resurrected in full force during the 1960s and 70s when data such as those generated by the Kalahari project (Lee 1976; 1979) were helping to paint modern hunter gatherers nonagricultural group back to the dawn of humanity. These comparisons relied largely on ecological and technological parallels and necessarily excluded or atte mpted to filter histories of interaction between hunter gatherers and farming socie ties (e.g., Headland and Reid 1989; Wilmsen 1983,1989; Woodburn 1988), modern African groups continue to form the basis for many assumptions regarding the social, political, and historical lives of hunter gatherers in all times and places . The imag e of the ahistorical hunter gatherer has been reproduced more recently by various neo Darwinian approaches, the most influential of which has been behavioral ecology. With roots in animal behavior studies, behavioral ecology is concerned primarily with hum an environment interactions and is focused on the differential persistence of behavioral variations over time. It assumes that humans possess an innate desire to reproduce and therefore relies on the biological concepts of fitness and

PAGE 46

46 adaptation in devisin g models (e.g., optimal foraging) against which to compare and denying the rol e of e xtra environmental considerations in influencing hunter gatherer decision making, the b ehavioral ecology approach is deliberately reductionist, preferring to focus on specific material elements of hunter gatherer economies (Winterhalder 2001). In practice, this means that contingent historical and ideological factors are usually downplayed o r ignored entirely, resulting in broad generalized explanations of cultural forms. Cultural change, where acknowledged at all, is generally only dealt with at the macro scale and is attributed to external adaptive pressures rather than any inherent cultura l dynamism. While a number of pointed critiques have been leveled at this perspective (e.g., Bamforth 2002; Ingold 2000:Chapter 2; Pauketat 2001; Tëmkin and Eldridge 2007), behavioral ecology continues to frame the bulk of hunter gatherer research, especia lly in archaeological contexts (cf. Holly 2013; Moss 2011; Sassaman and Holly 2011; Sassaman 2010). Many hunter gatherers have also been depict ed as timeless by their perceived lack of historical consciousness and long term foresight . This line of thinkin g has been return systems, in which activities are oriented exclusively toward the present and efforts are directed toward obtaining resources to be used almost immediately, and delayed re turn systems, in which activities are also oriented toward the past and future and resource investments are made that will not yield a return for some time. This distinction has important ramifications for not only subsistence pursuits but also social orga nization, as immediate return systems preclude the existence of formalized rules and institutions

PAGE 47

47 that bind people into relationships of long term dependency. According to Woodburn, hunter gatherers may have either immediate or delayed return systems, whi le all agricultural societies are, by definition, rooted in a system of delayed returns. Despite his insistence that immediate return hunter gatherers are the rarer of the two types, and that their socioeconomic strategies may reflect active resistance to historical encapsulation by outsiders rather than anything inherent to hunting and gathering itself particular pan hunter gatherer conception of time, one that is largely ahistor ical. Ingold, (1988, 1999) for example, maintains that all hunter gatherer relationships are mediated by an ethos of personal autonomy, one that prevents them from entering into any commitment or obligation that extends beyond the moment at hand (for relat ed arguments, see Crothers and Bernbeck 2004). In a similar vein, Martin (1993) resurrects the view of hunter consciousness did not develop until the Neolithic period when, for the first time, peop le detached themselves from their environments and started bending them to their own will (see also Bradley 2005; Suzman 2004) . While differing in their details and emphases, all of these perspectives have positioned hunter gatherers as essentially outsid e of time and history. Not only have they been represented as changeless over centuries or millennia but they are also depicted as having virtually no knowledge of or interest in their own pasts and, therefore, no basis for imagining a future different fro m the present. In this way, the actions of hunter gatherers have been reduced to mindless behaviors and deprived of all effective agency (Feit 1994; Sassaman 2012). As a result , and in contrast to all other

PAGE 48

48 kinds of human societies, hunter gatherers contin ue to be most often studied and explained within evolutionary rather than historical frameworks ( Sassaman 2004 a ). Archaic Narratives in the Southeast The presumptions of cultural stasis and historical indifference associated with (pre)historic people in g eneral, and hunter gatherers in particular , have had a major impact on the kinds of archaeological narratives typically constru cted for the Archaic p eriod in the Southeast. These factors have resulted in a litany of abbreviated and hyper generalized accoun ts of Archaic societies that, overall, exhibit a dehumanized Sandwiched between the pioneering first settlers of the New World and the elaborate agricultural societies of later (pre)hi story, the Archaic p eriod (11,500 3200 B.P.) has long been viewed as lengthy transitional stage in the gradual evolution from simple to complex social forms in the eastern U.S. Encompassing a vast geographic area and more than 8,000 years, the Archaic was, from its inception, delimited more by what it lacked, namely horticulture, pottery, and sedentary village life, than any perceived cultural advancements or common characteristics (Ritchie 1932) . Despite the fact that all of these hallmarks of complexity h ave now been identified, in one form or another, within the traditional bounds of the Archaic, these discoveries have done little to dislodge the dominant narrative portraying it as a period of relative cultural simplicity, passivity, and stasis. One of th e most persistent themes in Archaic narratives, much like hunter gatherer studies more broadly, is the notion of adaptation (Emerson and McElrath 2009). This focus was established early on by Joseph Caldwell (1958) who, in his influential monograph Trend a nd Tradition in the Eastern United States , posited that the

PAGE 49

49 Archaic was, in general, characterized by a gradual trend toward greater economic efficiency. He suggested that as Archaic hunter gatherers moved into new environments, they adapted over time by d eveloping new strategies and technologies that made them more adept at exploiting local resources. This adaptive process state that once reached, obviated the need for fu rther economic innovation and enabled subsequent nonutilitarian cultural elaborations such as mounds and extravagant grave instrumental to the conceptualization of the Archaic as a period of incremental adjustments to environmental variables, still exert a substantial influence on Archaic interpretations (e.g., Dye and Watson 2010; Jefferies 200 9 ). The primary causal role attributed to the natural environment and concomitant fo rces of adaptation in most accounts of the Archaic is reflected in the temporal structur ing of the period into Early, Middle, and Late subdivisions. Each of these subdivisions corresponds with a broad climatic trend , with the onset of the Early Archaic coi nciding with a sharp increase in global temperatures at the end of what is called the Younger Dryas, the Middle Archaic with a warmer than average period known as the Hypsithermal, and the Late Archaic with the establishment of largely modern climactic con ditions (Anderson and Sassaman 2012:71 76). The reality of these climactic developments on global and regional scales are largely beyond question and, on the surface, dividing the Archaic in this way seems fairly benign and perhaps even useful for specifyi ng a particular time frame. Problems arise, however, when these broad trends are used to explain archaeological patterns at subregional or local scales, as

PAGE 50

50 research has shown that their effects were highly uneven and variably experienced (Claassen 2010:Cha pter 5; Kidder and Sassaman 200 9 ; McElrath and Emerson 2009). Moreover, even where local data are available, it remains unclear the extent to which these climatic phenomena were manifest at temporal scales commensurate with actual human perception and deci sion making. Nevertheless, as Anderson and Sassaman primary basis for both describing and explaining Archaic variation across most of the Because most of t he environmental shifts to which archaeologists are privy in Archaic contexts play out over long temporal scales, in viewing Archaic cultures as nothing more than ecological adaptations, explanations are necessarily limited to the slow, gradual processes o f evolution. There is, in these accounts, virtually no role afforded to historical processes and events occurring at the scale of human experience. Moreover, the ecofunctionalist bent of most Archaic research restricts the individuals and communities in qu estion to a merely reactive position relative to their natural surroundings, providing them no active part in the constitution of their own lived worlds. People and places, in this view, become largely interchangeable, as local histories and ideologies are subordinated to universal ecological principles. Resulting archaeological narratives are almost invariably abbreviated, generalized renderings that contrast markedly with the bulk of those constructed for subsequent periods . These portrayals of the Archa ic, which until recently dominated the archaeological literature, could be attributed to the inherent restrictions of the material record. It could, for example, be reasoned that due to the muddying effects of temporal

PAGE 51

51 distance, Archaic deposits lend thems elves more to the study of temporally and spatially expansive trends than contingent, rapidly transpiring events and processes, especially given the dearth of material culture often presumed to exist among hunter gatherer groups in the first place. This ex planation fails, however, to account for the disproportionate attention paid to earlier and less materially conspicuous Paleoindian groups in regional syntheses (Sassaman 2010:6). To the contrary, Emerson and McElrath (2009) argue convincingly that it is n ot because of the nature of the data but rather in spite of increasing evidence that slow moving and largely faceless Archaic narratives continue to represent the norm. In their view, Archaic research across the region has been hampered by preconceived not ions rooted in an evolutionary ontology and informed by simplistic , flawed analogies with living groups of what hunter gatherer socialities and material cultures are supposed to look like. Unfortunately, this perspective remains entrenched despite now exte nsive evidence from throughout the region of the rich, complex, and dynamic character of Archaic histories (e.g., Blessing 2015 ; Claassen 2010; Gilmore 2015 ; Kidder 2010 a , 2011; Moore 2015 ; Randall 2010; Russo 2004, 2008; Sassaman 2006, 2010; Spivey et al. 2015 ). The entire Archaic period in the Southeast has thus been reduced to what Randall (2010:22 development that, due to its incommensurability with dominant ontologies, is neglected or denied en tirely in grand narratives, thereby depriving it of its historical significance.

PAGE 52

52 (Prufer 2001 :195), with the burden of proof continually resting with those looking to challenge such presumptions. These views are reflected in and perpetuated by state and regional syntheses that homogenize the Archaic by portraying it everywhere as the playing out o f the same gradual evolutionary processes, with little regard for context specific cultural differences or historical contingencies. Unfortunately, these mostly anonymous Archaic narratives are not exceptional but merely representative of broader tendencie s in the construction of non Western and premodern histories. Late Archaic The Late Archaic Orange period ( 4 600 3500 cal B.P.) in northeastern Florida was, according to current evidence, a vibrant and variable time . During this roughly 1,1 00 year interval, the St. Johns River valley and adjacent Atlantic coastline were home to diverse groups of hunter gatherers who witnessed repeated social and material transformations that substantially affected both their everyday and ceremonial lives . N ever theless , traditional and still influential archaeological narratives of the Archaic in this area depict it in much the same manner as those constructed throughout the broader Southeast as a protracte d and largely undifferentiated stage on the inevitable path to farming and sociopolitical complexity . A consistent thread running through these accounts is the determinative role attributed to the natural environment . Archaic traditions are genera lly evaluated solely in terms of their practical adaptive value , and cultural change is almost invariably linked to the pressures exerted by fluctuations in objective ecological conditions , leaving little room for cultural or social factor s . Resulting narr atives are mostly vague accounts that generalize over large stretches of time and space while show ing little regard for the kinds of context specific details needed to provide insight into the actual lived experiences of Archaic

PAGE 53

53 people . In this way, length y stretches of Archaic histor y in the St. Johns region have ( sensu Harvey 1989) and their variability obscured . Over the past two decades , however, archaeological perspectives have begun to slowly shift as research in this a rea has intensified and a number of notable discoveries have made it increasingly difficult to sustain t raditional , deterministic views of its Archaic past . Newer approaches have help ed reinsert people into Archaic narratives by ascrib ing greater historica l import to factors such as social context , agency , and ideology . Many of them, however, continue to suffer from the same time flattening tendencies as their more ecologically minded counterparts (Randall 2013) . In both cases , an overall lack of attention to the particulars of individual places and events, along with a simplistic model of change through time, has impeded construction of Late Archaic histories at a truly human scale. The Mount Taylor Period (7400 4600 cal B.P.) Orange p eriod hunter gatherers in northeastern Florida occupied a landscape rife with the remains of people and events that preceded them . At that time, the most visible remnants of the past would have been those left behind during what archaeologists now refer to as the Mount Taylor Period (7400 4600 cal B.P.) . This period, spanning parts of the Middle and Late Archaic, has been reviewed comprehensively elsewhere ( Beasley 2008; Endonino 2010; Randall 2010 ; Wheeler et al. 2000) . Here, I provide only a brief outline focused on the histo rical precedents established by Mount Taylor people that most directly influenced subsequent Orange developments and drawing attention to the enduring preconceptions that have structured and, in many case s, inhibited our understanding of past .

PAGE 54

54 Mount Taylor shell deposition b ackground and traditional interpretations . The Mount Taylor archaeological culture , as defined by Goggin (1947; 1952:40 43) was . It is distinguished by a suite of a rtifact types including a number of shell, bone, antler , and stone tools, including a characteristic lithic hafted biface , the Newnan point (Bullen 19 68 : Wheeler and McGee 1994 ; Wheeler et al. 2000 ) . Mount Taylor sites also frequently contain a broad range of vertebrate faunal remains that suggest a subsistence strategy focused primarily on the acquisition of freshwater fish, turtle, and other aquatic resources (Blessing 2011a, b; Quitmyer 2001; Russo et al. 1992; Sassaman 2003b ) . A variety of Mount Taylor site types and configurations have been delineated including wet sites and ones that are shell free (Randall 2013). The most conspicuous examples of Mount Taylor material culture, however, are the countless shell matrix sites (primarily banded mystery snai l [ Viviparus georgianus ], apple snail [ Pomacea paludosa ], and various freshwater bivalves [ Unionidae s p p.] ) that dot the banks of the St. Johns and surrounding bodies of water . T he beginning of the Mount Taylor period is marked by the first appearance of shell deposits at ca. 7400 cal B.P. (Randall 2013) . Over the following 3,000 years , hundreds of diverse shell matrix places were constructed , ranging from vast, visually imposi ng mounds and ridges to the topographically subtle deposits Wyman (1875: 8 11) d escribe s . These shell constructions vary greatly in size, shape, c omposition , and apparent function . While some accumulated slowly and contain abundant evidence of sustained domestic occupation , others were erected rapidly during communal events involving feasting,

PAGE 55

55 formal ceremony, and sometimes, interment of the dead (Randall 2010; Sassaman and Randall 2012) . In many cases, however , variation between shell mounds may well have been equaled or e ven exceeded by that occurring within them , with multiple examples exhibiting complicated construction sequences and dynamic histories of occupation that included multiple transitions between quotidian and overt ceremonial use (e.g., Aten 1999; Randall et al. 2011; Randall and Sassaman 2005; Sassaman et al. 2011) . In line with conventional thinking regarding hunter gatherer simplicity as well as broader regional views on the Archaic , Mount Taylor depositional traditions ha ve been most often interpreted a s straightforward adaptations to loca l ecolog ical conditions. Accordingly, n onrandom patterning in the composition or configuration of shell matrix sites is typically explained as a result of natural taphonomic processes , habitual discard behaviors , or str aightforward attempt s to deal with a practical ecological challenge (e.g., Crothers and Bernbeck 2004; Marquardt 2010a; Milanich 1994; White 2004) . Marquardt (2010a :567 ) , for example, most shell mound constructions and other p al eo engineering projects were undertaken to solve practical problems or to respond to opportunities or challenges presented by abrupt climate changes H e posits a number large shell dep osits in a single location, suggesting that mounds may variously represent efforts at providing a buffer against flooding, retain ing an adequate supply of freshwater, or isolat ing food waste and thereby avoiding offensive odors, flies, animals, and disease s (Marquardt 2010a:561) . Marquardt (2010a: 555 558 ; 2010b:261 ) further maintains that the massive sediment free deposits of shell that others have interpreted as evidence for feasting or intentional monument construction (e.g., Aten 1999:140;

PAGE 56

56 Randall and S assaman 2005:101; Russo 2004:43; Schwadron 2010:126) could be more easily explained as resulting from secondary refuse disposal, postdepositional scavenging by sea birds, and/or inadequate archaeological reporting of mound constituents . W hile not complete l y denying the possibility that some mounds may have been ritual ly or political ly significan t , he is, nevertheless, adamant that claims of such cannot be taken seriously until it is proven that mounds were not , in fact , just oversized domestic middens arran ged in order to address basic practical concerns . Th e fundamental premise of this argument t hat archaeologists must disprove has helped set up an unproductive, and ultimately unsustainabl e, dichotomy b etween these two archaeological categories . For its proponents , middens are simple accumulations of domestic debris, a result of the practical, largely unreflexive, activities of waste disposal . M ounds, on the other hand, are large , purposefu l constructions associated with a variety of non utilitarian, ritual practices that include feasting, monument building, mortuary ceremonialism, and identity signaling . Conceived in this way , mound and midden constitute mutually exclusive and internally ho mogeneous classes of phenomena roughly equivalent to s acred/profane, ritual/practical, and symbolic/utilitarian . These dichotomous categories, with roots in modern Cartesian thought, have long hindered archaeological understanding of non Western and (pre)h istoric societies for whom such rigid distinctions are not likely to have existed ( e.g., Bradley 2005; Br ü ck 1999; Fowles 2013; Pauketat 2013a ) . R ecapitulating them in this context serves only to oversimplify the motivations and practices of past actors.

PAGE 57

57 T here are also significant problems with explaining shell mound characteristics based entirely on a pan notion of practicality . Framing interpretations in terms of practical reason requires accepting that there is a universal logic to human actions that transcends the cultural and historical circumstances at play in a given context (Walker 2002) . For hunter gatherers, this logic is generally assumed to involve a desire to maximize material benefits while minimizing corresponding cost s . The trouble with these assumptions is that, as Sahlins (1976:164) recognized almost forty years ago, material effectiveness, practicality, does not exist in any absolute ords, practical logic and cultural meaning cannot be separated because the former is simply an extension of the latter (see also Brück and Goodman 1999; Hutson and Stanton 2007; Walker 2002) . As for Mount Taylor mounds , while they were undoubtedly involved in addressing practical challenges, determining whether those involved distancing refuse from living spaces, formalizing social or political relations, memorializing a historical event, communicating with ancestors, or some other task entirely can be acco mplished only by examining the precedents for and consequences of depositional decisions as they played out with in a specific set of historical circumstances. A ttempts to pigeonhole Mount Taylor shell deposits into idealized categories , along with interpre tations that focus exclusively on their perceived adaptive functions , have had the unfortunate consequence of obscuring depositional variability across time and space . Too often, functional evaluations are made on the basis of a static final form r ather than taking into account all of the various events and processes that contributed to its development through time (Sassaman and Randall 2012) . In the

PAGE 58

58 process , lengthy and often complex histories of mound construction and interaction are collapsed and time the moment in which its final form was achieved . Mounds with similar shapes thus become interchangeable . In contrast, w hen Mount Taylor shell sites are examined closely and diac hronically , it becomes clear that few, if any, of them conform neatly to as formulated above . Instead, m ost investigated examples either cut across these categories altogether or show evidence for shifting between functions and meanings over the course of their use lives ( Randall 2010 ; Randall et al. 2014; Sassaman and Randall 2012 ) . Depositional variability has also been masked by those who assume a straightforward, predictable relationship between environmental stimuli and cultural response s . As a lready noted, regional archaeological narratives have long tied Archaic cultural developments to global scale climatic phenomena such as the Younger Dryas and Hypsithermal . Adopting a similar perspective , Marquardt (2010 b) hypothesizes direct links between various Archaic shell deposits and a series of climate fluctuations gleaned from sea level data collected off the coast of Denmark (Tanner 1993 ) . ratcheting down the temporal scale to better u nderstand the cultural human scale climate changes is a worthy one . However , even looking past the potential issues involved in employing Danish sea level data to explain archaeological patterns in the southeastern U.S., his attempts t o establish one to one correlations between environmental and cultural changes (a strategy elsewhere ] ) simply recapitulate outdated notions of hunter gatherer societies passively and

PAGE 59

59 uniformly adapting to their natural surroundings (cf. Lightfoot et al. 2013 ; Thompson and Waggoner 2013 ) . Such interpretations automatically and uncritically designate shell mounding a purely reactive enterprise . They also show little regard for the v ariable ways in which environmental changes would have been construed and acted on based on the distinct cultural proclivitie s and historical experiences of the people implicated (cf. 2015 ) . Ultimately, it makes little sense to ( as Marquardt suggests ) seek finer grained temporal data on paleoclimatic shifts , only to make gross spatial generalizations regarding the ir manifestation and effects across diverse cultural contexts . Fortunately, over the past two decades , the middle St. Joh ns basin ha s been the focus of extensive archaeological research conducted in accordance with an alternative, history centered perspective . One important outcome of this work has been the recent subdivision of the Mount Taylor period into two distinct phas phase ( 7400 5700 cal B.P. 5700 4600 cal B.P. ), based primarily on observed changes in mortuary traditions and exchange practices (Beasley 2008; Endonino 2008, 2010) . In depth investigations at a number of mounds and other places have helped to fill in the historical details of each of these phases . Overall, this research has resulted in a much more nuanced and dynamic picture of Mount Taylor societies , one that contrasts markedly with the mor e common ecofuncti o nalist characterizations just discussed . The Early Mount Taylor phase (7400 5 7 00 cal B.P.) . Beginning with the advent of intensive shellfishing and shell deposition along the St. Johns River at ca. 7400 cal B.P. (Randall 2013), the Ear ly Mount Taylor phase saw the establishment of a

PAGE 60

60 number of regional traditions that persisted in one form or another for millennia afterward. These traditions were initiated in the context of sweeping transformations in demography and ecology that were tr iggered by the inundation of large sections of the river valley due to rising seas (Miller 1998). They involved the creation of innumerable historical places that referenced preexisting ways of life, while also creating unprecedented arenas for the negotia tion of cultural categories amid the newly reconfigured material and social landscape. Because a number of these Mount Taylor traditions had a direct bearing on the practices and interactions of subsequent Orange populations in the region, they are worth considering in some detail here. It is widely accepted that the primary catalyst for the initiation of Archaic shell deposition along the St. Johns was the onset of artesian spring flow (Miller 1992, 1998) . Sea level rise during the early mid Holocene led to ever increasing pressure within the many springs . According to Miller (1992 , 1998) the increased surface water generated by these springs helped to establish the S t. Johns River in its current configuration and contributed to the formation of highly productive aquatic biomes, which drew unprecedented numbers of people into the river valley . He argues that these newcomers mapped directly onto resource rich areas, eve ntually producing the massive piles of inedible shellfish remains that we see today . In this scenario , spring flow not only established the necessary ecological conditions for shell accumulation but also provided the basis for the entire riverine way of li fe espoused by Mount Taylor peoples . data . Since his narrative of Mount Taylor origins was put forward, a considerable

PAGE 61

61 amount of research has been conducted that paints a fa r more complicated picture of human spring interaction than the one he envisioned . 2015 ) has convincingly rebutted the idea of initial spring flow as a scale shellfishing and largely determined the subsequent trajectories of Mount Taylor societies . 2015 ) demonstrates that, due to disparities in spring elevation, conduit depth, and connectedness to the underlying aquifer, the onset of spring flow in Florida was asynchronous and spatially heterogeneous, making the notion of a sudden valley wide response exceedingly unlikely . He also provides data suggesting that the water chemistry of most Florida springs renders them less than optimal habitat s for supporting the kinds of shellfish that compose M ount . The direct connection between spring flow, increased ecological productivity, and shell deposition is also questionable based on archaeological evidence . As noted by 2015 ), the oldest shell mounds in the St. Johns River valley are not associated with spring locales, and, in fact, spring side shell deposition does not occur until perhaps a full millennium later . Moreover, at a number of springs the earli est deposits consist of largely shell free middens, indicating an extensive period of 2011; Sassaman 2003b) . All of these considerations point to a great deal of ecol ogical and cultural heterogeneity at the beginning of the Mount Taylor, and together, they effectively undermine the dominant narrative positing a simple cause and effect relationship between spring flow and large scale shell deposition.

PAGE 62

62 Using the most up to date evidence, Randall (2013) has identified two distinct scale, configuration, and content of deposits. Marking the beginning of Episode I (ca. 7400 to 6350 cal B.P .), t he earliest shell deposits in the river valley were associated with a number of small settlements . The best studied example is Hontoon Dead Creek Village (8VO215), a roughly linear site consisting of five topographically subtle and regularly spaced ho use mounds, sometimes referred to as Randall 2007) . Ranging from 13 to 25 m eters in their longest dimension and rising only 40 to 50 centimeters above the surrounding terrain, testing of two of the nodes indicate that they were constructed i n a series of small depositional episodes (manifested as alternating thin layers of whole and crushed shell) , probably corresponding to successive occupations and abandonments . They contain abundant evidence for everyday living including food remains, char coal, various tools, crushed shell surfaces, and areas of primary and secondary deposition . Radiocarbon assays date t he earliest of these occupations to near the beginning of the Mount Taylor period at ca. 7300 cal B.P. (Randall 2007) . Subsequently, use of pattern with the oldest deposits occurring at the northern end of the site and later Mount Taylor, Orange, and post Archaic deposits increasing to the south . As Randall (2011 :129 ) notes , th is extended his tory of occupation suggest that places to dwell, the structure and spatiality of early residential sites were reproduced over the course of many years, if not generations. Additional Early Mount Taylor settlements are likely to be fo und at the bases of the region s oldest shell mounds . Dozens of these linear or crescent shaped ridges

PAGE 63

63 were constructed in the Middle St. Johns region during the Mount Taylor period, with extant examples measu ring more than 100 m eters in length and approxi mately 5 meters tall (Randall 2010) . While most of these were severely impacted by 20 th century shell mining, investigation s of two intact ones , Hontoon Dead Creek Mound (8VO21 4 ; located just north of Hontoon Dead Creek Village) and Live Oak Mound (8VO41), have reveal ed elaborate and eventful depositional histories (Randall and Sassaman 2005; Sassaman 2003b ) . Limited excavations and coring at these locations show very similar stratigraphic sequences consisting of three distinct depositional macrounits (Sass aman and Randall 2012) . The basal component s of both ridges consist of midden deposits similar in scale , structure, and content to the just described s ettlement . At each site, this submound midden was covered over by 1.5 to 2 containing virtually no soil matrix and very small quantities of vertebrate fauna and other artifacts . Sassaman and Randall (2012) interpret these massive shell layers as intentional and rapidly s , used to seal off defunct domes tic spaces and mark a symbolic transition in use of the sites . Subsequently, series of thin alternating layers of burned and unburned shell were laid down atop the se shell cap s . Occurring as depositional couplets, these successive light and dark deposits r esemble the stacked living surfaces identified in other Mount Taylor locations but lack the food remains and artifacts generally associated with residential sites . They may instead indicate a number of periodic communal events during which people gathered to renew mound surfaces , reaffirm social relationships, and mark special occasions (Sassaman and Randall 2012) . Stratigraphic and r adiocarbon dat a indicate that both ridges were

PAGE 64

64 constructed relatively rapidly given their size , with the bulk of the depositi on taking place over perhaps o nly a few hundred years (Randall 2013; Sassaman and Randall 2012). Episode II (ca. 6350 5700 cal. B.P.) saw the cessation of deposition at these early monuments and the concomitant construction of two very different types of Early Mount Taylor mound s (Randall 2013) . O ne of these is exemplified by Harris Creek site (8VO24) , located on Tick Island in the Middle St. Johns River . In contrast to the shell ridges just discussed , which yielded no evidence for burials , Harris Creek w as a dedicated Middle Archaic mortuary . This sprawling mound complex was once 10 meters tall and covered more than five acres prior to being mined for shell (Moore 1999) . In the early 1960 s, Bullen conducted salvage operations at the site, removing 175 bur ials from the basal Mount Taylor component (Jahn and Bullen 1978) . His excavation results were reported in detail by Aten (1999) and have since been summarized elsewhere (e.g., Randall 2010 , 2011 ; Sassaman 2010:68 69; Tucker 2009) . Lik e the shell ridges d escribed above, the creation of the Harris Creek mortuary involved the repurposing of a former residential site . At some point following the settlement abandonment, a shell ridge was constructed over it that served as a foundation for two successive mort uaries . First, a number of bodies were placed atop and within this ridge and then covered over with white sand . Directly above this mortuary component , a black charcoal rich layer was found with postholes and other features that Aten (1999:147) interpret s as the remains of a charn e l house . multi burial mortuary deposi t . A dditional layers of shell and earth were then deposited later in the Mount Taylor and subsequent periods . The basic layout and orientation of the o riginal ridge was maintained throughout this process (Randall 2011) . Isotopic analysis of

PAGE 65

65 human bone indicate that the burials included both local and nonlocal individuals with some having spent the early portions of their lives to t he north, perhap s as far away as Tennessee and Virginia ( Quinn et al. 2008; Tucker 2009 ) . Evidence suggests that similar Mount Taylor mortuaries may exist within the cores of other mound complexes in th e region, including Silver Glen (8LA1 /8MR123 ), Old Enterprise (8VO55), and Orange M ound (8OR1) . Also constructed during this interval were a number of linear or crescent shaped mounds that, while similar in configuration to Episode I ridges, contain ample evidence for residential activities (Randall 2013). Known examples of these later ridges , including those at the Silver Glen and Thornhill Lake complexes, occur along major water bodies such as wetlands, channel segments, and spring runs and include. Extensive risingly, that the ridge there is situated atop a preexisting assemblage of large shell processing pits (Randall 2013; Sassaman and Randall 2011). At some point around 6000 B.P., the entire 200 x 75 m area encompassed by the pits was rapidly capped off wi th a layer of tan/brown sand, an event that made way for subsequent use of the site as a persistent place of dwelling. The first settlements there probably consisted of distinct shell nodes similar to those at Hontoon Dead Creek Village (discussed above). Over time, however , r epeated occupation s resulted in a complex amalgamation of sand and shell deposits interspersed with apparent living surfaces containing abundant vertebrate fauna and other domestic debris . Eventually reaching more than 3 m in height , t he original layout of the ridge was maintained throughout this process (Randall 2010, 2013; Sassaman and Randall 2011).

PAGE 66

66 The Thornhill Lake phase (5 7 00 4 6 00 cal B.P.) . The builders of various Early Mount Taylor shell mound s took advantage of the abundan t historical resources available to them by appropriating long standing traditions of place making and tailoring them to fit particular set s of social and ecological circumstances . By ca. 5 7 00 cal B.P., many of the se traditional practices had been transfor med and new strategies of landscape manipulation and social networking were adopted , a development signaling the beginning of the Thornhill Lake phase (Beasley 2008; Endonino 2008, 2010) . T his period was characterized by a general continuation of Early Mou nt Taylor domestic practices , includ ing a predominant reliance on aquatic resources, repeated occupation of linear settlements along riverbanks , and use of a similar range of lithic and shell tools . While many Early Mount Taylor places were abandoned at th is time, active mounding was continued at several locations near major physio logical features such as spring pools , lakes, and stream channel confluences ( Randall 2013) . What distinguishe d the Thornhill Lake phase was a novel mortuary tradition centered on the construction of primarily sand burial mounds and increased participation in extraregional exchange networks (Beasley 2008; Endonino 2008) . During this phase, conical burial mounds were constructed at a number of locations in the middle St. Johns Riv er valley and along the adjacent Atlantic coastline . Composed mostly of sand, t hese mounds constituted the first largely earthen monuments in the region, although they also frequently incorporated deposits of shell and other materials and may have been ant icipated by sand layers in earlier Mount Taylor shell mounds . Impossible to dismiss as mere refuse piles, the dating of these structures effectively laid to rest any lingering doubts regarding the existence of Archaic

PAGE 67

67 monuments in Florida. While most, or p erhaps all, Thornhill Lake sand mounds served as mortuaries, they vary greatly in terms of their internal structures and content s . For example, t he Bluffton burial mound (8VO23) , one of the best known in the region , was apparently constructed in a single e vent around a central burial (Randall and Tucker 2012; Sears 1960) . As was the case at the earlier Harris Creek mortuary site, this male individual was emplaced atop a preexisting shell midden that had apparently been burned and then covered by a meter thi ck deposit of brown sand . Successive mantles of shell, black muck deposited on top of the sand . The entire core of the mound was then capped with up to two meters of old shell midden mined from e lsewhere and apparently deposited in basket loads (Sears 1960) . Sears (1960) , t he excavator of the central burial , argued based on stratigraphic evidence that the mound must have been constructed rather quickly . A radiocarbon assay obtained on human bone f rom the burial returned a 2 sigma calibrated age range of 5660 5320 cal B.P., with a median age of 5520 cal B.P . (Randall and Tucker 2012). This apparently eventful construction contrasts in important ways with the outwardly similar Mound A (8VO58) at the Thornhill Lake complex . Th e latter was originally excavated by C. B. Moore (1999) in the late nineteenth century and was recently further investigated by Endonino (2008, 2010) . One of a pair of conical sand mounds at the complex, Mound A, much like its counterpart at Bluffton, began with the burning of s hell atop an old domestic midden . Charcoal from the top of this midden returned a 2 sigma date range of 4840 4550 cal B.P. (Endonino 2008) . Subsequently, approximately 1 meter of white sand then 1.5 meters of brown sand with some shell

PAGE 68

68 was deposited on top of the midden . Collectively, these sand layers contained at least 42 burials, likely interred over an extended period of time . Another 46 centimeter layer of white sand was then deposited followed by an additional 15 centimeters of brown sand (Moore 1999:210) . Mound A at Thornhill thus differs from the one at Bluffton not only in the details of its stratigraphic sequence but also in the temporality of deposition and the number of burials in volved. The two also diverge in terms of the artifacts included in grave s . S and burial mounds frequently contain rare objects and exotic materials, often in association with particular burials . These include chipped stone from northern and west central Flo rida (Endonino 2007, 2010), Strombus gigas celts with origins in south Florida (Wheeler and McGee 1994; Wheeler et al. 2000), bannerstones from the piedmont and coastal plain of Georgia (Randall 2010; Sassaman and Randall 2007), and groundstone beads from the Midsouth (Endonino 2010; Randall 2010) . The central burial at Bluffton, however, while occasioning the construction of an entire mound, was not interred with any durable grave goods . In contrast, buried with a shell and stone beads (Moore 1999:278) . Caches of bannerstones were also recovered from the roughly contemporaneous Tomoka Mound complex (8VO81) on the Atlantic coast , al though apparently not in association with any specific human remains (Piatek 1994) . This singling out particular individuals represents a significant departure from earlier Mount Taylor mortuary practices , such as those exhibited at Harris Creek, where lar ge numbers of mostly undifferentiated interments point to relatively inclusive and egalitarian burial rites (Randall 2011).

PAGE 69

69 Shifting Perspectives on Mount Taylor Deposition . As is clear in the se examples, t he deposition of shell, sand, and other materials constituted an important mode of historical practice for Mount Taylor societies . According to Sassaman and Randall (2012 :56 ) , depositional acts during this time that drew on metaphors of the past in order to chart a part icular course for the future . The interest of Mount Taylor people in their own past is perhaps most apparent in the repeated siting of shell and sand mounds over the top of prior places of residence . This practice undoubtedly imbued mounds with historical significance (Randall 2011), a quality that would have contributed to the legitimacy and social influence of the events that took place there (Bell 1992:122 123) . In this way, old places served as important historical resources for the institution and main tenance of new ones . T he potency of these submound deposits is evinced by the substantial buffers that were constructed over them , in the form of the thick shell and described above , as well as in the repeated social gatherings and depositional renewals t hat their construction entailed . Sassaman (2013 ; Sassaman and Randall 201 2 ) hypothesizes that the mounding of shell was, from the beginning, a reference to the pre Mount Taylor tradition of interring the dead in mortuary ponds . He suggests that as surface water expanded and dry land became increasingly scarce, shell mounds, whether or not they actually contained burials, may have been built as symbolic inversions of subaqueous mortuaries, with shell standing in for water as the primary burial me dium . In this scenario, the capping events at mounds such as Hontoon Dead Creek Mound and Live sites of

PAGE 70

70 everyday living and helped transform them into communal ceremonial loci . The cycl ical deposits subsequently emplaced atop these caps (manifested archaeologically as the light and dark couplets described above) evince the repeated reconvening and reiterating of resulting mound centered communities (Sassaman and Randall 2012:68) . Regardl ess of whether one agrees with the details of th ese interpretation s , it is clear at this point that Mount Taylor deposition was , at least in many cases, much more than an unintentional and inconsequential means of garbage disposal . Presumptions regarding t he slow accumulation rates, interchangeability, and exclusively mundane character of mounded deposits are no longer justifiable based on contemporary data . The massive scales and rapid temporalities implicated in the erection of some mounds point to moment ous construction events involving large groups of people . Moreover, t he highly structured nature of mound deposits , their referencing of past practices and places , and the incorporation of exotic materials and ancestral remains all hint at the role of thes e places in the making and projecting forward of historical narratives . Importantly, their significance in this regard far outlasted the projects of their builders and even the Mount Taylor period itself, as the materials deposited during th is interval end ured to serve as powerful historical resource s for those who encountered and interacted with them for millennia thereafter . The Oran ge Period (4600 3500 cal B.P. ) The Orange p technology at ca. 46 00 cal B.P . Based on mostly superficial continuities in shell deposition and basic subsistence practices, archaeological consensus has long been that the appearance of pottery came with few, if any, significant changes in the lifeways haic hunter gatherers . Milanich (1994:86), for example, remarks

PAGE 71

71 assemblages except for the absence or presence of fiber tempered pottery wherever Late Archaic sites are fo We now know this to not be the case . The arrival of pottery in northeastern Florida , in fact , coincided with a number of cultural transformations including substantial changes in monument building, mortuary practices , settlement , exchange, and multi ple non ceramic technologies . When these shift s are examined closely , the continued influence of earlier Mount Taylor ideas, practices , and materials is unmistakable . However , it is also clear that , during the Orange period , these conventional principles a nd traditions were once again adjusted to address the concerns of an ever shifting social and material landscape . Orange in t ime and s pace . The Orange period is delineated based primarily on pottery technology (d iscu sse d in detail in Chapter 5) . Orange distinguished by its organic fiber (usually Spanish moss [ Tillandsia usneoides ]) temper . Technologically , i t is c losely related to Stallings wares , another fiber tempered tradition centered in the Savannah River Valley and coastal regions of Georgia and South Carolina (Sassaman 1993) . Current data suggest that pottery was probably first developed along the Georgia co ast sometime prior to 5000 B.P. northern Atlantic coast , the St. Johns River valley, and eventually to other parts of the state ( Sassaman 2004 b ) . T he earliest secure radiocarbon assay asso ciated with Orange pottery comes from the coastal Cock Fight site near the mouth of the St. Johns , with a 2 sigma range of 4870 to 4570 cal B.P. (Russo et al. 1993) . From there, data suggest that pottery reached the Middle St. Johns basin by at least 4500 cal BP

PAGE 72

72 ( Sassaman 2003a ; Appendix A ) . This area of northeastern Florida has yielded a majority of the largest and most d iverse assemblages and is generally considered to be the heartland of Orange pottery production . In the Middle St. Johns, Orange p ottery continued to be manufactured and used until around 3600 years ago, when fiber tempered wares were largely replaced by sp i cul e tempered vessels belonging to the St. Johns tradition . The overall distribution of Orange pottery, however, is much mor e extensive . In the east, it has been found from southern Georgia coast ( DesJean 1985 ) down through the St. Johns and Indian River drainages to the Lake Okeechobee area . Similar f iber tempered sherds are also frequently recovered along the Gulf Coast from Pensacola Bay all the way south to the Ten Thousand Islands region (Schwadron 2010) . In the panhandle and along the northern Gulf Coast, fiber tempered wares are often referred their frequently sandier pastes and occasionally divergent surface treatments (Phelps 1965) . However, a number of archaeologists have elected to stop using the Norwood moniker due to difficulties in distinguishing it from Orange and other related types . Milanich (1994:97) suggests including tempered pottery under the label Orange , while others pr efer using the type neu northeast Florida ( e.g., Campbell et al. 2004; White 2003 ; 2004 ) . The timing of s pread into the northwestern part of the state is not yet well established , although the few radiocarbon dates that do exist (see Appendix A) suggest that i ts arrival there postdated its a doption on the Atlantic C oast by at least a few centuries (cf. White 2004:13 14) . A similar delay is generally assumed, although not verified, for the

PAGE 73

73 movement of pottery into southwestern Florida . The broad distribution of Orange potter y, while hinting at historical interactions among far flung groups, likely precludes any notion of a unified Orange culture or people . Orange p laces and l andscapes in n ortheast ern Florida . During the Orange p eriod, st ate site file data show a marked increase the number of sites in northeastern Florida relative to preceding period s (Sassa man et al. 2000) . It is unclear , though, whether this increase relates to a demographic upswing in the region or simply reflects the high er visibility of Orange sites compared to preceramic ones that typically contain fewer diagnostic artifacts . Early mode ls of Orange settlement , relying mostly on historical data and faulty assumptions regarding the inherent limitations of a shellfish based diet (e.g., Cumbaa 1976), posited high levels of residential mobility that involved seasonal movement between the St. Johns and the coast (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980 :154 ) . More recently, using the incremental growth structures of various shellfish and fish remains , Russo et al. (1993) demonstrate multi seasonal or perhaps year round occupation of Orange sites in the coas tal Timucuan preserve . Similar results were obtained at Groves Orange Midden (8VO2601) in the m iddle St. Johns Valley based on botanical and hydrological evidence (Russo et al. 1992) . In the upper St. Johns, a network of small sites was found to collective ly constitute a year round Late Archaic settlement system (Sigler Eisenberg et al. 1 985) . Together, these studies suggest that coastal and riverine zones were inhabited by distinct populations on an at least semi permanent basis . While not rul ing out subs tantial mobility with in these zones, it does cast serious doubt on models proposing regular seasonal transhumance between them.

PAGE 74

74 Upon quick inspection, Orange groups in the Middle St. Johns basin appear to have constructed a similar range of sites as their Mount Taylor counterparts, including sprawling shell mounds, relatively low, subtle shell fields, and small shell free sites with presum ed specialized functions . While very little information exists regarding the latter, the shell fields dating to this per iod, for the most part, constitute the remains of Orange habitation sites . Like those of their predecessors, Orange settlements were generally positioned near the river and usually close to productive wetlands and marshes (Randall et al. 2011:39) . Because only a few of these sites have been investigated in detail, little is known about the everyday domestic liv es of Orange peoples . The data that do exist, however , suggest a number of significant divergences from Mount Taylor traditions . All known Orange se ttlements along the Middle St. Johns appear to have been relatively ephemeral , hinting at small co residential groups and/ or frequent settlement relocations . They typically consist of thin deposits of shell and other materials , and none have produced direc t evidence (e.g., post molds, wall trenches, house pits, etc.) for substantial architecture . Stratigraphic evidence from multiple riverine sites (e.g., Bullen 1969; Randall 2007; Sassaman 2003b ) suggest s that some locations were occupied repeatedly over ti me; however, no known examples developed into the expansive tell like mounds of debris recorded at some preceramic settlements (e.g., Sassaman and Randall 2011) . In terms of settlement layout, our best evidence comes from Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) , wher e excavations and a ground penetrating radar (GPR ) survey were conducted by the St. Johns Archaeological Field School from 2000 to 2001 ( Sassaman 2003b ) . They revealed a series of four clusters of pit features and dense cultural deposits that Sassaman in terprets as the remains of probable habitation

PAGE 75

75 structures. The clusters range from 3.5 to 7.5 meters across . They are regularly spaced roughly eight meters apart and arranged in an arcuate , or semi circular , pattern with a projected diameter of 34 meters . Similarly configured Orange residential spaces are indicated by GPR and excavation data from the Silver Glen complex, approximately 35 kilometers to the north of Blue Spring (Randall et al 2011; Sassaman et al. 2011; C hapter 4 of this dissertation) . These arcuate/circular living spaces contrast sharply with the consistently linear settlement layouts of their immediate predecessors in the region . As one would expect, Orange habitation sites typically contain a variety of subsistence remains and objects invo lved in carrying out the routine tasks of everyday life . Zooarchaeological assemblages indicate a general continuation of Mount Taylor subsistence strategies with a primary focus on aquatic resources, including freshwater shellfish, fish, and turtle (Bless ing 2011a; Russo et al. 1992; Sassaman 2003b ) . Terrestrial fauna such as deer, various small mammals, birds, and snakes also occur, but in much lower quantities . These sites are rich in mostly undecorated Orange pottery and are associated with a number of new hafted biface types including Culbreath, Lafayette, Clay, and Levy varieties (Bullen 1968; Milanich 1994) . Bone tools, including splinters, awls, and pins are frequently found at Orange sites . Although still present , the frequency of other non ceramic forms of material culture, namely marine shell and lithic tools, appear to have drop ped off precipitously between late preceramic and Orange times (e.g., Gilmore 2011; Sassaman 2003b ). In addition to residential sites , Orange groups also continued the wel l established regional tradition of piling shell up to form larger scale, more permanent places on the landscape . During this period, a number of these massive features were constructed in

PAGE 76

76 the Middle St. Johns valley and along the Atlantic coas t . Of these, coastal shell rings, due to their relatively intact conditions, have yielded the most detailed information regarding Orange mounding traditions . The term s hell ring refers to a ny large shell feature that enclose s a largely shell free interior space , oft en labeled a mostly to the Late Archaic period (5000 3000 cal BP), dozens of these so called rings have been identified along the coastline of the Southeastern U.S. between Mississippi and South Carolina, with most occurring in South Caroli na, Georgia, and Florida ( see Russo 2006 for a comprehensive review ). Despite their shared categorization, the se structures actually vary widely along a number of dimension they exhibit diverse shapes (including circles, ovals, U shapes, and arcs) and sizes (ranging from 30 to 250 meters in diameter and from 1 to 6 meters in height). The y also vary in composition. While most rings are composed primarily of oyster shell, there are major differences in the proportions other shellfish species, sand, artifacts, and vertebrate faunal remains . None have so far been found to contain burials . These discrepancies reflect important differences among the respective depos itional histories of rings, with some having been formed accretionally thr ough the gradual buildup of domestic materials , some rapidly via large scale depositional events, and still others as some combination of both processes (Thompson 2007 ; Thompson and Andrus 2011 ) . As a group, shell rings in peninsular Florida are distinguis hed from those in other regions by their fairly consistent shapes and large sizes . While shell rings in South diameters of 64 and 53 meters, those in Florida are general ly horseshoe or U shaped and average a remarkable 178 meters in length (Russo 2006:24) .

PAGE 77

77 southwestern coast boasts two massive shell ring complexes, Bonita (8LL717) and (8CR208) , as well as an undetermined number of smaller rings th at span the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods (Schwadron 2010) . Both Bonita and shaped shell rings along with conical sand and shell mounds. may overlap temporally with the very beginning of Orange pottery production in the region (Russo 1991, 2004, 2006) . Approximately 130 kilometers to the north of Bonita , the Hill Cottage midden (8SO2) at the Palmer site (Bullen and Bullen 1976; Sarney 1994) is another large U shaped ring, similar in shape and scale to those further south but lacking the associated shell and sand mounds . The basal portions of this ring lack pottery but its upper deposits contain abundant fiber tempered sherds and multiple dat es place it squarely within the Orange period . On the opposite side of the peninsula , dir ectly east of Lake Okeechobee, the Joseph Reed shell ring (8MT13) is a large, semi circular example that lack s fiber tempered pottery and dat es to near the end of the Late Archaic ring building tradition (Russo and Heide 2002) . . Oxeye (8DU7478) , located near the mouth of the St. Johns River, ring (with basal dates of ca. 4800 cal BP) and the only one that resembles a true circle (Saunders and Russo 2011) . The other two, Rollins (8DU7510) and Guana (8SJ2554) , are both large, roughly horseshoe shaped rings that date to the Orange period and contain substantial quanti ties of fiber te mpered pottery ( Russo et al. 2002; Saunders 2004 a , 2004b ; Saunders and Russo 2011 ) . Rollins consists of one central hexagonal ring measuring 250 meters across and 7 meters tall, along

PAGE 78

78 attached to it . Like most Archaic mound s along the St. Johns , the main ring at Rollins was constructed atop, and in the same basic configuration as , a preexisting domestic midden . T he bulk of the ring is composed of massive deposits of clean oyster shell that, cont r asting shellfish taxa aside , are not unlike those making up Mount Taylor shell caps . These deposits lack natural soil development, have low levels of fragmentation, and exhibit a dearth of domestic debris , suggest ing that their emplacement involved episodes of rapid , large scale depos ition ( Saunders 2004a ) . Radiocarbon assays further indicate that the ring was erected quickly (probably over less than 100 years) , beginning around 3800 cal B.P. and suggest that its shape was intentionally maintained throughout th is process (Saunders 2004 a; Saunders and Russo 2011 ) . Construction of t he Guana shell ring, 40 km to the south of Rollins , began at around 3600 cal B.P . , and culminated in a U shaped ring measuring 170 m long and up to 1.2 m thick . F ewer details exist regarding constructi on history, although limited excavation data indicate that , like Rollins, it was built atop an earlier Orange domestic site (Russo et al. 2002) . Deposits at both these rings contain relatively few artifacts overall but large quantities of Orange pottery , a majority of which features elaborately incised decorations (Russo et al. 2002; Saunders 2004b; Saunders and Wrenn 2014; Wrenn 2012). While coastal shell rings have garnered consistent , if sometimes limited, research over the past three decades, consider ably less recent attention has been devoted to Orange mounds in the middle St. Johns River Valley . This period saw a significant reorganization of regional mounding activities, as by 4600 cal B.P., most of the dozens of existing Mount Taylor mounds were se emingly abandoned , and the active

PAGE 79

79 piling of shell appears to have ceased at all but a few (perhaps as little as four) locations . These four Orange mound complexes (from north to south Silver Glen Run, Harris Creek, Old Enterprise, and Orange Mound) are ro ughly evenly spaced, approximately 40 k ilometers apart . At each of them , preexisting Mt. Taylor ridges were built up and appended , resulting in huge multi lobed complexes that, based on their shape, scale, and age, would likely be described as rings if not for their interior riverine locations . Although all but one of these complexes was severely affected by 20th century shell mining, pre mining descriptions of them , and in some cases archaeological testing of their intact remnants , have provided important information regarding their forms, compositions, and histories of use . The Silver Glen complex the primary focus of this dissertation contains the remains of two Orange mounds, both of which were among the biggest prehistoric structures recorded in the re gion . At the mouth of the spring run, Orange groups mounded shell atop a pre ceramic linear mortuary ridge and transformed it into a massive U shaped mound measuring 8 to 10 meters tall and more than 200 meters lon g (Randall 2014; Sassaman et al. 2011) . Dur ing the same period, another very large mound was constructed around the boil of the spring, again on top of a preexisting mortuary (Potter 1935; Randall et al. 2011) . At Harris Creek, the elaborate Mount Taylor mortuary deposits discussed above were cover ed over and expanded to form an immense and complicated shell landscape that Moore (1999:90), writing in the late premining configuration is unknown, Randall ( 2010:217, 2 014), based on historic descriptions, old aerial photographs, and recent LiDAR data, suggests that Orange

PAGE 80

80 deposits there likely formed a ring like structure consisting of two distinct ridges . Nineteenth century descriptions of Old Enterprise by Wyman (1875 ) indicate that it originally comprised a large central dome from which two perpendicular ridges extended (see also Randall 2010:220 , 2014; Wheeler et al. 2000) . Unfortunately, the entire terrestrial portion of the complex was destroyed by mining , making i t impossible to know what, if any, cultural deposits underlay its Orange component . And finally, Orange Mound, the only ( mostly ) intact example in the river valley, is a large crescent shaped structure measuring more than 150 meters in length and upwards of 6 meters at its apex . Although only sparsely investigated, excavations there by Moore (1999:98 104) revealed that it too consist ed of thick Orange deposits overlying a preceramic mortuary . Like shell rings on the coast, a ll of these riverine mound comp lexes have produced copious quantities of mostly decorated Orange pottery . In addition, all four are or at least were originally surrounded by extensive shell fields, suggesting that mound centered activities were not always restricted to mounds themselves . Objects , p ersons, and i nteractions at Orange m ounds . Unlike their Mount Taylor counterparts, Orange mound deposits are apparently completely devoid of burials , and as a result , almost nothing is known of what Orange mortuary practices entail ed . The only secure Orange burials that have been found were uncovered within northeastern coast . O f the five in situ burials that were excavated, four were interred in a flexed position , one was buried extended and face down , and n one were accompanied by grave goods (Janus Research 1995:56 58) . M idden burials ha ve not been found elsewhere despite a number of substantial excavations into Orange

PAGE 81

81 domestic deposits . The dearth of Orange buria ls in mound contexts is made more interesting by the fact that at least three of the four known Orange mounds were emplaced directly atop preexisting Mount Taylor mortuaries . Given that most other (i.e. non mortuary) Mount Taylor mounds in the region were seemingly avoided by Orange p eople (the one exception being the Bluffton site [8VO22]), the intensive reuse of these particular places may signal the ir distinct status as the repositories for the ancestors . Orange mounds (including coastal rings) also dive rge from earlier examples by their lack of unusual and exotic object s , as no bannerstones, groundstone artifacts , or concentrations of beads have been recovered from Orange contexts . This parallels the more general decrease in nonlocal materials (primarily marine shell and lithic artifacts) noted above . What Orange mounds contain instead are copious amounts of techno stylistically diverse fiber tempered pottery . The deposition of this potter y appears to have been at least broadly structured, with decorated sherds showing up disproportionally at mounds compared to contemporary non mounded sites in the same regions (Gilmore 2011; Sassaman 2003a , 2004 b ; Saunders 2004a, 2004 b ; Saunders and Wrenn 2014 ) . At three of the four Orange mounds in the middle St. Johns r egion, decorated bone pins have also been found that bear carved linear motifs patently reminiscent of those found incised on fiber tempered pots (Wheeler 1994) . The apparently planned configurations of many Orange mounds and rings have made them difficult to dismiss as unintentional refuse piles . They are, nevertheless, subject to many of the same interpretive debates as the ir Mount Taylor counterparts , with m ost seek ing to explain them in terms of everyday, practical activities conducted within local subs istence economies (e.g. , Marquardt 2010a , 2010b ) . Across the broader

PAGE 82

82 region, archaeologists frequently point to the frequent presence of practical tools and food remains in suggesting that shell rings accreted slowly through the routine disposal of domesti c refuse . Trinkley (1985:112), for example , process appears to be one of house middens, deposited in a rough circle, gradually that the circu lar shape of many rings relates to the egalitarian ethos of their builders . Alternatively, Edwards (1965) hypothesize s that the unenclosed Sewee Shell Ring (38CH45) in South Carolina may have functioned as a fish weir . More recently , Marquardt (2010a, b) h as posit ed that some rings, including those on St. Catherines and St. Simon s I slands in Georgia, accumulated during periods of relatively low sea level and served as water catchment devices. In this scenario, the interior of a ring was of shell surrounding it was a result of people depositing their garbage at a distance in order to avoid contamination (Marquardt 2010b:564). Others reject the idea of shell rings as gr adual accumulations of domestic refuse or as simple practical implements, arguing instead that at least some rings were monuments, carefully planned and rapidly constructed during the course of integrative feasting events . Strong evidence for rapid, large scale deposition at sit es like Rollins seems to substantiate th ese interpretation s (Saunders 2004a; Saunders and Russo 2011) . In addition, Saunders (2004b) and Sassaman (2004b) both point to the disproportionate number of decorated Orange pottery vessels a t mounds and rings as an indication that these were highly social contexts, utilized by large, diverse groups of people . Russo (2004) argues that intra ring disparities in height and volume may reflect

PAGE 83

83 power differences among ring users . He notes that ring segments with the highest volume are consistently those predicted to be high status positions according to (1991) discussion of social space theory . If rings were indeed feasting locales , then according to Russo, these segments were probably occupi ed by relatively successful groups who possessed the ability to amass the greatest amounts of food . Based on s of Orange mounds along the St. Johns River (especially 8LA1E at Silver Glen), Sassama n and Randall (2012) hypothesize that these structures may reflect the arrival and cultural accommodation of a new people into the region . They note that although t hese dualistic mounds present a striking contrast with earlie r , mostly linear and conical ex amples in the river valley (the precer a mic mound at Hontoon Island North [8VO202] notwithstanding) , they may have historical precedent s in shell rings along the Atlantic coast (e.g., Sanger 2008) . Disagreement thus centers on the scale and temporality of t he social interaction said to have occurred at Orange shell mounds , namely whether they were utilized constantly by one or a few local groups in the course of everyday activities or intermittently by a number of geographically distant and socially diverse peoples for specialized ritual purposes . Of course shell ring sites need not have functioned as either localized villages or regional ceremonial centers but may instead hav e fulfilled both roles . As Russo (2002:85; 2004:29) points out, because some period of habitation occurs whether a place occupied once a year at an annual ceremony or year round in the context of a permanent settlement, the mere presence of daily refuse is not sufficient to designate a site as exclusively quotidian . lo shell rings, for example, both show signs of year round occupation while also exhibiting

PAGE 84

84 evidence for large scale feasts (Russo 1991; Thompson and Andrus 2011). Russo maintains c occupational histories must be determined on an individual, site specific basis (Russo 2002:85) . takes a diachronic perspective, emphasizing that shell ring function is likely t o have shifted, or perhaps even alternated, between residential and ceremonial foci through time. He hypothesizes that many rings may have begun as unassuming circular settlements and only later took on a greater ritual significance as they matured and bec ame more prominent features on the landscape . Instead of mutually exclusive alternatives , then, prevailing models that present Late Archaic shell mounds as either gradual accumulations of domestic refuse or vacant ceremonial monuments might best be viewed as constituting two ends of a continuum of possibilities. Thus, r ather than further exegesis regarding the collective significance, what are needed are more in depth investigations of the historical entanglements of particular mounds and rings . R ecent interpretations of Orange shell deposits that recognize their roles and meanings beyond basic subsistence concerns constitute an important step toward illuminating how various archaeological local es were actually experienced by the people who built a nd lived among them . However, as noted in the introduction, the authors of these more humanistic renderings have unfortunately tended to follow their eco centric colleagues in treating mounds as singular, static objects rather than vibrant places, continua lly made and remade through time in accordance with shifting conditions . In Chapter 3, I outline a perspective that draws attention toward the specific acts and events through which places were constructed

PAGE 85

85 and engaged with , as well as the different modes o f interaction that they helped foster . Using this approach , I hope to transcend typical generalized accounts and construct a history sensitive to the ways that Archaic people drew on their own past experiences to make sense of their present and move toward a particular future.

PAGE 86

86 Figure 2 1. Select Middle Late Archaic sites in Florida .

PAGE 87

87 Figure 2 2. Late Archaic shell mound and shell ring footprints in p eninsular Florida (* i ndicates preceramic mounds . Footprint outlines a dapted from Bullen and Bullen 1976, Randall 2014, and Russo 2006 ) .

PAGE 88

88 CHAPT ER 3 GATHERING EVENTS As detailed in the previous chapter, archaeologis ts have tended to either ignore (pre)historic histories entirely or to engage them exclusively at scales far beyond the scope of human experience . These approaches have resulted in repeated archaeological accounts in which macro level explanations dominate and actual people remain largely invisible . Here, I outline an alte rnative approach that, following Pauketat (2001) and others (e.g., Holly 2013; Hirsch 2007; Sassaman 2010), views history as an always ongoing process of cultural construction, something people actively do rather than merely observe from a distance or repr esent in writing . In doing so, I advocate for a bottom up perspective focusing attention on the specific events and narrative sequences by which the history making process was moved forward in particular contexts. Important to this approach is the idea tha t events are accessible to archaeologists in the form of artifacts, features, and places, which not only exist as the conspicuous effects of eventful occurrences but, due to their realization of relationships between various gathered constituents, may be c onsidered important events in their own right (Hicks 2010). I contend that by identifying the components and internal structures of these material gathering events and linking them together through time, archaeologists can construct more complete, convinci ng, and humanized historical narratives, even when dealing with the distant past. Toward Eventful (Pre)histories The outdated idea that European contact in the New World spawned the first punctuated, dramatic transformations in indigenous societies otherw ise characterized by millennia of harmony and continuity is clearly no longer tenable. Recent research

PAGE 89

89 demonstrate s that many of the large scale, eventful occurrences thought to have been largely a product of modernity, including wars, famines, abandonment s, migrations, pilgrimages, and religious movements, also played out in various contexts in the premodern past (Cobb 2005; Sassaman 2010). Furthermore, there is growing recognition among archaeologists of the transformative potential of smaller, everyday h appenings and practices in relation to broader historical developments. Too often, however, especially when hunter gatherers are involved, these kinds of historical variables are ignored in favor of the kinds of sweeping, monolithic explanations described above. What is needed if archaeologists are to advance beyond these watered down accounts and achieve at least a basic understanding of past human experience is a rejection of unrealistic ecofunctional models that paint (pre)historic re than food getting, gene Sundstrom 2012:8) and an acknowledgement that, wherever people are concerned, history matters. The approach employed here recognizes history not as a fixed, objective past wholly detached from the present, but rather as a powerful social and political resource, one that is continually produced and reproduced according to the concerns of the present and plans for the future. Following from this, instead of a static representation or objective reality , history is conceived as a form of social practice, an individual or . O ne effective way for archaeologists to access this engagement in particular contexts, and begin to construct more humanized (pre)historic nar ratives, is through the identification and linking together of specific material events .

PAGE 90

90 Practicing History Since the Enlightenment, traditional Western conceptions of history have been rooted in the principle of historicism, the idea that the past is bo unded and isolated from the present. This perspective opened up the study of history as an object, something real and concrete that could be examined from a distance (Hirsch and Stewart 2005). While anthropologists and historians have tended to accept this view as a cultural universal, it is now widely recognized as a very particular product of Western modernity (Dawdy 2010; Fogelson 1989; Hirsch and Stewart 2005; Koselleck 2004). It not only may have been an t 2005:265). The recognition of the cross cultural peculiarity of this historicist perspective has led to a signi ficant shift in focus for understanding the varied ways in which the past has been constructed and employed in various cultural contexts. This shift has contributed t o a broad reconceptualization of history in more active terms, as a form of social practice (e.g., Cameron and Duff 2008; Gillespie 2008; Holly 2013; Morphy 1995; Pauketat 2001, 2003; Sassaman 2010 ; Wallis and Randall 2014 ). That trend is continued here, a for the following discussion construction highlights both the dynamic, malleable character of the past as well as the durable links that bind the past and present together in all forms of human practice. And

PAGE 91

91 second, centerin history, that is, on the engagements and negotiations among social actors involved in various forms of historical production. Pauketat (2013a:55) makes a very similar argument, sugges Significantly, particularly for archaeologists relying exclusively on material evidence, the social interactions through which history is set in motion involv e a variety of effectual actors, both human and nonhuman. This point has led to a great deal of recent discussion and often disagreement extension to nonhuman entities (as reviewed in Gardener 2004; Robb 2010 ). Gel l (1998) was one of the first to seriously advance the idea of nonhuman agency, arguing interaction with humans. In his view, although material things lack the intentionality of their human counterparts, they constitute agents insofar as they affect the world around agency has been criticized for subordinating the role of nonhuman actors and for privileging human intentions in agentive processes (e.g., Boivin 2008:Chapter 4; Gosden 2001; Ingold 2011a:213 214; Jones and Boivin 2010) . More recent treatments of this topic have tended to put humans and nonhumans on more equal footing by even fu According to this line of thinking, and the position adopted here, agency is not a characteristic of individual actors at all (human or not) but rather of the relationships and interactions between them (Rob cited

PAGE 92

92 and now timely example, when a shooting takes place, it is neither the gunman nor the given context. Similarl cannot be solely attributed to either human decision making nor simple mechanical failure but instead must be understood as emerging out of the interactions of people, materials, energy, an d contingent events, all of which converged to form a its parts. In both examples, the idea of agency as a universal quality of individuals is rejected in favor of the view t hat it is defined in particular historical contexts and is Latour 2005). This is not to say that humans and non humans have identical or even equivalent roles in historica l process (see Robb 2004; cf. Olsen 2010, 2012; Whitmore becomes the ability to make a difference, to alter existing relationships, to affect the course of history (P afforded by the interactions between humans and things during various forms of historically situated social practice (Barrett 2000; Pauketat 2013a:30). One of the biggest conceptual impedim ents to the archaeological construction of human scale (pre)histories has been a neglect of social practice in favor of human behavior . Far more than mere semantics, the ontological distinction between practices and behaviors entails important difference s in the kinds of questions that archaeologists ask, the methods that they employ, and even the manner in which they conceive of the

PAGE 93

93 approaches in archaeology includ ing traditional culture history and cultural ecology as well as more recent neo Darwinian perspectives such as behavioral ecology and selectionism. What all of these approaches have in common is the causal primacy that they attribute to some larger, usuall selection). For culture historians this determinative system is society, while for cultural ecologists and neo Darwinists it is the natural environment. In both cases, human behaviors and their material produ cts are viewed as adaptive mechanisms to be evaluated in terms of their contribution to the system as a whole. This fundamental concern with function subordinates the context specific manner in which behaviors are executed or objects are formed (i.e., thei r style) to their practical usefulness as universally defined by the analyst (Barrett 2001; Pauketat 2001). Consequently , behaviors are typically treated as undifferentiated, normative activities carried out in essentially the same manner and for the same reasons across broad expanses of space and time (Barrett 2001) . Following from this, research questions are generally limited to those that are beyond the scope of actual human experience, and cultural change tends to be explained monolithically, in terms of macro (e.g., environment, demography, technology, etc.) rather than human decision making . In contrast, a focus on social practice is first and foremost concerned with the integration of human action and larger structural influence s. While not denying the existence or significance of factors beyond the scale of individual lived experience (see Robb 2013; Robb and Pauketat 2013), a practice centered perspective views the relationship between these structures and human action as mutua lly constitutive rather than deterministic. As succinctly and now famously stated by Giddens (1984:25)

PAGE 94

94 structural properties of social systems are both medium and outcome of the practices osed to the behavior based approaches just discussed, structures have no a priori existence independent of their instantiation in social practice (Giddens 1984:25; Joyce and Lopiparo 2005) . While a focus on behaviors typically precludes any consideration of agency or power, these topics are vital for any study of practice. This is because behaviors are environmental systems in which they exist (Barrett 2001). Practices , o n the other hand, are carried out by knowledgeable, intentional agents occupying particular social and material contexts and possessing disparate abilities to affect change (Ortner 2001; see doxa ). Moreover, where as within most behavioral models, space and time are viewed as neutral and measurable backdrops of action, practices create their own intersubjective spacetimes based on the kinds and scales of social connections that they achieve (Munn 1986). Instead of a dapting to some pre existing natural environment, therefore, people are recognized as actively creating their worlds through various modes of inhabitation (Ingold 2000:Chapter 10) . A practice perspective thus involves a crucial ontological shift from obje ctive time things, memories, ideas, and such at particular times and points on the landscape (Casey 1996; see below). This shift has important implications for actual a rchaeological practical functions of past activities, but also the precise manner in which they were carried out (i.e., their style), the different types of agency in volved, and the different

PAGE 95

95 relationships created and referenced in the process (Barrett 2001; Dobres 2000; Munn 1986) . It also means that archaeological remains can no longer be viewed as the mere ognized as comprising the dynamic, historically constituted material conditions in which past practices were executed (Barrett 2001). Most importantly for the present discussion, in contrast to behaviors, which are essentially interchangeable and therefor e timeless, practices are inherently historical . As already alluded to, each practice unfolds through real time via human engagement with a particular social and material world (Barrett 2001; Bourdieu 1977) . Moreover, practices are not conducted in isolati on but are instead always influenced by events that preceded them and play a role in shaping those that follow. In this way, individual practices are linked together to form chains of action related to longer term social projects. These projects include pr otracted material undertakings such as crafting and monument building, which provide a historical basis for creating and maintaining social identities and for positioning people within social networks (DeMarrais 2013; Robb 2012). They are carried out withi activity with established rules regulating appropriate forms of participation and performance, which are themselves products of historical interaction (Robb 2004, 2010). They also capable of affe cting large scale historical change by altering the material conditions of future undertakings (Barrett 1994; Joyce and Lopiparo 2005) or by exposing existing cultural categories to novel, potentially transformative, historical circumstances (Sahlins 1985; Sewell 2005) . Thus, instead of being a consequence of

PAGE 96

96 some larger external process or entity, according to this perspective, practices themselves are the historical processes of concern (Pauketat 2001:74) . Critically, however, history is not conceptualize d or employed in the same manner across all cultural contexts. Ethnographic and archaeological research ha ve instead shown that the ways and extent to which peoples construct and engage with their pasts var y widely. This has led to growing focus on more co nscious forms of question. In contrast to traditional Western notions of history which isolate the past, the concept of historicity concentrates attention on the continual social production of pasts and futures within a constantly shifting present (Hirsch and Stewart 2005). It also recognizes the creative and political aspects of historical production. Lambek (2002:7) emphasizes this creative dimension using the Aristotelia n term in Madagascar. He argues that through their particular artistic means, the possessed the past into the present and lending it agency. For the Sakalava and many other non Western peoples, the past is not static or understanding the present and anticipating t he future. In archaeology, focus on ancient historicities has been framed as the study of potential advantage in the examination of various historical engagements due to the lengthy timescales at their disposal. In addition, many of the material things accessible to archaeological analysis are of the kind that play a key role in bridging the past and

PAGE 97

97 present because of their durability relative to human lives (Jones 2007) . Together with an abundance of recent ethnographic studies, archaeologists engaging in this type of research have illuminated a broad range of material practices through which histories were constructed and made meaningful in ancient and non Western cont exts (e.g., Barrett 1999; Bradley 2002; Dillehay 2007; Gosden and Lock 1998; Hendon 2010; Holly 2013; Sassaman and Randall 2012; Van Dyke 2013) . Material histories and mnemonics are likely to have been especially prolific and culturally significant in the absence of written records (Bradley 2003; Lillios 2003). Connerton (1989:76) argues that writing mental energies previously invested in the construction and preservation of [other] wa s indeed the case, then the introduction of written records may be expected to have substantially curtailed other types of historical practice, a development that has probably hindered the recognition of these practic es by Western anthropologists. The Significance of Events One effective means for inserting real people into (pre)historic narratives, irrespective of time period or cultural type, is to focus on the identification and articulation of specific history maki ng events. As phenomenal happenings that people live through, interpret, and act on, events furnish the moments according to which time itself is culturally structured and around which memories are organized and made meaningful. They are the concrete, on t he ground occurrences through which larger historical processes are made manifest and intersect with actual human lives. As such, events comprise the inflection points in any historical trajectory. Depriving a people or place of events, therefore, effectiv ely flattens and homogenizes its history by reducing

PAGE 98

98 its temporal existence to gradual undifferentiated process or, worse yet, mere duration. Too many archaeological accounts without the advantage of written evidence suffer from a complete absence of event ful occurrences. As discussed above, these tend to be organized around geographically extensive, slow moving trends that are beyond the scale of human perception or agency. At the scale of the individual lifespan, then, (pre)historic groups are portrayed a s existing in a default state of virtual stasis, with change occurring only gradually and emanating exclusively from external, usually evolutionary, forces. Centering events in archaeological analysis and interpretation helps to animate otherwise faceless narratives by foregrounding human experience, interaction, and decision making in explanations of historical dynamics. the extinction of the dinosaurs to the cooking of a me al. For my purposes, an event is defined only slightly less broadly as a contingent happening or practice that has an effect on (i.e., contributes to or influences) subsequent happenings or practices. While events of this type may theoretically transpire a t almost any scale, the ones of interest here are limited to those commensurate with human experience and response (see 2015 ). This definition, along with the implications that it entails, are strongly influenced by the ideas of MarshalI Sahlins and, following him, historian William Sewell. cultural categories in a specific historical context, as expressed in the interested action of the historic agents,

PAGE 99

99 sists of the intersection of contingent happenings or actions (including all of the details and circumstances of their occurrence) and preexisting, culturally defined structures (Sahlins 1985, 1991). For Sahlins, structures are categories of meaning that p rovide the frame of reference within which history is ordered and experienced. In any engagement with the real world (including everything from intercultural encounters to the routine practices of everyday life), these categories are put at risk because ob jective conditions often do not conform to cultural expectations. In such cases (i.e., events), existing structural relationships are subject to re evaluation and may be transformed. Thus, in his famous example, Captain tituted an unprecedented intersection of people, things, and ideas that could not be fully accommodated within existing Hawaiian structures. The contradictions that resulted from this encounter ultimately forced a reworking of traditional cultural categori es during which the various parties implicated in events is that by foregrounding interpretation, analytical emphasis shifts away from either the details of the initial oc currence or the preexisting structural conditions, instead 4:377) definition of structure as the rules and resources recursively implicated in the reproduction of social systems, Sewell makes eventful change to be applicable outside of instances of intercultural contact, structure must be conceptualized as plural and as corresponding to different spheres of social

PAGE 100

100 practice rather than to distinct societies. Otherwise, structure, viewed as singular and coherent, lacks the internal dif necessary to give rise to transformative events (Sewell 2005:205 207). Second, existence, Sewell argues that str uctures are better understood as sets of mutually sustaining virtual actual resources (consisting of the real material objects and qualities used to enhance or maintain whenever structure i s intersecting, because schemas are transposab le to novel social contexts, and because resources are polysemic and unpredictable (Sewell 2005:139 143). By redefining event effectively overcomes much of the cri reifying structure as a monolithic, all encompassing entity corresponding to an entire society (e.g., Ohnuki Tierney 1995; Robb and Pauketat 2013). Furthermore, his emphasis on the role of material resources i n initiating and subsequently reflecting eventful change has made it attractive to archaeologists investigating events in the (pre)historic past (e.g., Beck et al. 2007; Bolender 2010; Thompson et al. 2013). With this reworked conception of structure in mi nd, Sewell (2005:227) defines takes place frequently and generally with few l asting effects. Because local structures

PAGE 101

101 articulate with other, larger scale ones, however, there is always the potential for even small ruptures to bring about a further cascading series of ruptures that result in the transformation of structure. These ru ptures become eventful when they reach the point at which repair becomes difficult and novel rearticulation is possible. Conceived in this recognized as notable by contempo raries, and that (3) results in a durable notion of events adopted here. First, events always involve unique convergences or the unfolding of an event. At one level, various tangible elements intersect in the playing out of a contingent happening or practice. These elements comprise the objec tive details of the occurrence and may consist of a range of material constituents including people, things, substances, and places, as well as more transient variables like weather conditions, sounds, and odors. As noted by Sewell (2005:227), convergent e pisodes of this kind occur frequently with little or no lasting effect. In order for them to become eventful, these happenings must further intersect larger scale structural influences so as to achieve some broader, more enduring historical impact. Whereas for Sahlins the structures in question are coherent, overarching systems of meaning, for Sewell they (more realistically) comprise a diverse range of emergent material and immaterial agents that exist at varying scales and condition distinct spheres of pr actice. These potentially include a whole host of factors including material aspects of place and landscape, political and economic arrangements, social networks, memories, traditions,

PAGE 102

102 beliefs, and so on, all of which momentarily converge in events. Events therefore, according to this view, occur at the confluence of numerous moving parts, including all of the various elements involved in a contingent happening as well as the full range of factors contributing to its experience and interpretation in a given context. Second, both Sahlins and Sewell agree that for something to be considered eventful, it must have effects that extend beyond the time and place of its initial occurrence. Such effects are manifest in reinforced or altered patterns of practice or m eaning. In framing events as convergent occurrences, capable of impacting the things around them, some obvious connections become apparent between this concept and the notion of agency as outlined above. And indeed, events may be usefully thought of as inv constituents that determines its outcome and lasting consequences (Sewell 2005:223). According to Sahlins (1991:47), how exactly these consequences play out, how relatively small scale happenings become amplified so as to achieve a broader scale n Gilmore and 2015 ). In his view, one answer to this perceived enigma lies in the fact that small incidents are frequently interpreted such that they become metonymic representations of higher order cultural categories, thus providing them with a much broad er historical influence than would otherwise be the case (Sahlins 1991). This is the process, for example, by which individual events such as the voyage of the Mayflower or the Boston Tea Party transcend their original historical contexts and come to serve as broad symbols of national identity (Dolgin and Magdoff 1977).

PAGE 103

103 Among archaeologists interested in similar questions, focus has recently centered on the complex social and material entanglements at play in various eventful sequences. Every decision or p ractice draws people into a vast network of associations and dependencies, connecting them to countless other people, places, materials, practices, and temporalities, such that even a seemingly isolated event in one part of the network is capable of produc ing big effects that reverberate throughout the entire system (Hodder 2012). These ramifications are sometimes swift and far reaching, as can be seen in various instances of technological innovation. The invention of the gas powered automobile, for example dependence, transformed labor relations and factory dynamics, necessitated an updated road system, established a new s ymbol of affluence, created the new profession of auto mechanic, and so on. Alternatively, the effects of numerous small events can also sometimes aggregate through time to produce unanticipated, large scale patterns. Robb (2013:662) discusses this cumulat ive transformative process in this idea in explaining the Neolithic transition i n Europe, which he argues occurred as a result of the unintended consequences of countless decisions (e.g., what to eat, what tools to use, how long to remain in the same location) made by individuals and communities with diverse motivations and experience s. These decisions, especially those related to plant cultivation, ultimately locked people into new material and social relationships that overlapped and reinforced each other, making any return to a

PAGE 104

104 mergent, continent wide process of or social group, can nonetheless be understood only by considering the localized practices (i.e., events) from which it emanated (Ro bb 2004, 2013). they are defined here, are not restricted to those relatively rare moments of broad scale transformation wrought by revolutions, disasters, intercultural contacts , and the like (cf. Beck et al. 2007; Sewell 2005). They also include the stuff of everyday experience, the routine occurrences that help connect past, present, and future in chains of human action (Carr 1986: 24; Hirsch 2007; Sansi 2013). As historical pr ocesses that draw on the memories and material consequences of what preceded them and have the ability to structure what follows, every social practice has at least the potential to be eventful. This includes everything from grand historical interventions ( sensu Sassaman 2012) down to the mundane, habitual tasks of daily living. Whether or not this potential is fulfilled depends largely on the narrative sequence(s) in which a particular practice becomes enmeshed. This is because events are not objectiv e, freestanding entities waiting to be discovered, but are instead created and interpreted as such within narratives (Fogelson 1989:141; Meskell 2008; Trouillot chron ologically ordered (though not necessarily linear) story that is unified by a common sensu Pluciennik 1999:654). Narratives can be written or spoken, but they can also be performed (e.g., de Certeau 198 4:115 130; Hill and Wright 1988) or constructed materially (e.g., Kidder 2011;

PAGE 105

105 Randall 2010: Santos Granero 1998). They are what connect events together and give discourse (Wh ite 1987:16). Further, it is the narrative that determines the types and scales of happenings deemed eventful in the first place. Obviously, an occurrence that is pivotal to the playing out of one narrative may be entirely inconsequential to another. Thus, a story of European colonization may be filled with dramatic events such as intercultural encounters, battles, and forced migrations, while the story of a particular ceramic pot may, in contrast, consist of a series of comparatively innocuous technical pr actices such as selecting a raw material and applying a surface treatment. In each case, the relevant events are defined and ordered in relation to the larger narrative. Importantly, this holds equally true whether one is discussing the narratives construc ted by people in the distant past or those put forth by archaeologists in the present (Joyce 2002; Pluciennik 1999). Some may insist that opening up the event, as a historical category, to include micro scale, everyday happenings diminishes the utility of the concept. I would argue that this is the case only considered to be an adequate explanation for its occurrence. The argument being advanced here is that the difference between a big event wi th far reaching effects and a small one with a relatively limited impact is primarily one of scale, not of kind. Rather than making arbitrary distinctions between what does and does not constitute an event in a contextual vacuum, then, the primary issues o f concern in this view become: What were the events implicated in a specific development or process? How were they

PAGE 106

106 connected across time and space? Who were the principal constituents involved? What were the effects of these events and how were they achi eved? Foregrounding events in this way offers a number of advantages in the construction of archaeological narratives. Perhaps most obviously, it is a valuable strategy for accessing phenomena and patterns that are invisible at larger scales. This, in many ways, parallels the justification offered by microhistorians for their bottom up approach to historical reconstruction (e.g., Maddox 2008:34 ; Walton et al. 2008:4 ). he bird's eye view of history m ay be elegant and appear encompassing in its presentation of the chronological composed of a variety of discontinuous social experiences, each of which may give rise even when reduced to a few typical traits to a new, a different historical narrative centered (in the words of Maddox 2008) centered on the notion that experiences and actions at the local scale are never entirely reducible to the abstract macro processes to which they are frequently attributed (Hodder 2000:26; Koselleck 2004:110; Sewell 2005:219, 227; Walton et archaeological metanarratives, this perspective highlights the active role that individuals and communities play in the formation of their own histories. Importantly, however, the study of events does not preclude consideration of larger scale phenomena. History is not a simple linear process in which one event neatly follows another in a straightforward sequence of cause and effect. It instead

PAGE 107

107 consists of a number of crosscutting scales and temporalities such that a small, localized development may be affected by countless other events and processes, some of which directly preceded it and others that were set in motion centuries or millennia in advance (Hodder 2012 98 101; Robb 2013; Robb an d Pauketat 2013). A compelling historical narrative must take into account all of these disparate scales and structuring variables. Events, as the convergence points of phenomena operating at varying magnitudes and levels of abstraction, lend themselves to this kind of multiscalar examination. An event centered archaeology is therefore not incompatible with questions of so researchers to confront the often diverse manners in which the abstract, macro scale processes to which archaeologists so frequently defer were made manifest in the lives and experiences of actual people. Moreover, events in general can be said to possess a nested or fractal quality (Cobb 2015 ; Sewell 2005:260), such that all individual events are actually components of larger, more temporally and spatially expansive ones, a trait that further facilitates the consideration of multiple scales. Events also provide windows into ancient historicities. When people experience and ac t on events, they do so, according to Koselleck (2004:259), in relation to a anticipation and planning). Both arise within particular cultural and historical contexts and constantly shift in accordance with the concerns and conditions of an ever changing present. In the context of an event, the space of experience and horizon of expectation inters ect, as a happening is evaluated simultaneously in terms of prior experiences and

PAGE 108

108 future expectations. This intersection affords valuable insights into historicities of the people involved. This is similar to the argument made by phenomenologist Edmund Hus serl, who maintains that all temporal phenomena including routine, habitual practices (1964) , retentions and protentions 30). While this event induced merging of past, present, and future is often immediate and largely subconscious, it can be much more deliberate and drawn out. Dawdy (2006), for example, discuss es how decisions regarding the treatment of debris in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans fused concerns about historical meaning and social attachments to place with considerations of perceived future vulnerabilities. In this way, the event In short then, an eventful archaeology has the potential to transcend typical distanced, impersonal renderings and bring us closer to understan ding the details and diversity of actual human experience in the relatively distant past. It also provides insight into the ways that individual actors and practices contributed to the larger scale processes that have more typically constituted the focus o f (pre)historic research. While contributions to the broader social sciences (Hegmon 2013). Archaeologists attempting to construct eventful histories of people occupying the distant past are at the mercy of their enduring material traces. This means having to

PAGE 109

109 grapple with not only a lack of written evidence and presumptions of cultural simplicity, but also the frequently obfuscating nature of the archaeological record itself. This has idea that the further on e moves back in time, the less accessible historical events and processes (especially the small scale ones) become to archaeological investigation. In this view, it does not matter whether or not people in the distant past initiated or responded to the kin ds of eventful change observable in the contemporary world because, even if they did, those events and their effects are not recoverable. While this attitude has long been implicit in many archaeological accounts, it has been formalized over the past few d Time perspectivism, as defined by Bailey (1983, 2007, 2008), is based on two primary ideas. The first is the notion that different timescales bring into focus different behaviors and proces ses and thus require different concepts and explanatory principles on the part of researchers. Hence, Bailey (2007) suggests that as temporal distance increases from the object of study, the details will become more and more distorted until they disappear completely, while, at the same time, larger scale patterns may be revealed that would have been invisible from a more intimate vantage point. In his view, scale phenomena did not exist in the deeper past and have similar impa ct on past lives to what we observe in the context of our own but that these phenomena are much more difficult to investigate in earlier periods because of this posi tion is perhaps preferable to the idea expressed in some closely related lines of thinking of small scale events as mere epiphenomena in relation to larger scale

PAGE 110

110 processes (e.g., Binford 1982; Braudel 1996[1949]:21), it nevertheless places similarly severe limits on the kinds of historical narratives possible outside of the recent past. The second foundational premise of time perspectivism relates the distorting effects of temporal distance to the methodological challenges posed by the palimpsest nature of the archaeological record (Bailey 1983, 2007, 2008; Binford 1981; Foley the material traces of which are partially destroyed or reworked because of the process of superimp potential difficulties for their interpreters because , as they accrete over time, a certain amount of mixing is inevitable, leading to a loss of resolution with regard to the orig inal pattern. As a result, chronological relationships, especially contemporaneity, can usually be established only within a certain often substantial margin of error (Bailey 2007, 2008; Sullivan 2008). What most archaeological deposits reveal, then, are n ot individual 110). The upshot of this for advocates of time perspectivism is that archaeologists deali ng with the often vast timescales of (pre)history should not focus the on day to day lives and phenomenal experiences of individuals, nor rely on social theory developed by ethnographers studying the contemporary world, but should rather investigate broade r scale (usually ecological ) phenomena using methods and principles more commensurate with the relatively coarse resolution of their observations (Bailey 2007; Binford 1981; Murray 1999, 2008). In many respects, this epistemological stance has the unfortun ate effect of (1954)

PAGE 111

111 cultural phenomena open to archaeological investigation in deep time contexts (Gilmore 2015 ). Gavin Lucas (2005) has provided one of the mo st direct and effective rebuttals to view of the archeological record stems from their exclusively chronological conception of time. He agrees that chronological resolution becomes more challenging as time abilities to access short term events in the past. To illustrate this point, he uses the example of two burials, one Neolithic and o ne Roman (Lucas 2005:48). While the Roman burial, because of its relatively young age, may be able to be dated more precisely, Lucas maintains that this is only relevant for objective, chronological time. In real, experiential time, it is p robable that tha t the events that resulted in these features unfolded at similar timescales and moreover, that their duration is no different than what might be experienced in a similar event today. The same could be said of a Paleolithic butchering episode or instance of archaeological record is rife with evidence for events of the same ilk and order of those observable in contemporary settings regardless of our ability to assign them to a precise point in time. For him, just be cause archaeologists have access to larger time periods than other related disciplines, there is nothing intrinsic about archaeological evidence that requires correspondingly macro scale units of analysis. Where chronological challenges do sometimes arise is in the conjoining of events to form diachronic narratives. The extent of these issues, however, will largely depend on the type of narrative being constructed. Archaeologists are increasingly forgoing

PAGE 112

112 simple linear narratives in favor ones focused on t he intersection of multiple scales and temporalities in particular places or developments (e.g., Dawdy 2010; Gilmore and 2015 ; Olivier 2001; Owoc 2005; Robb and Pauketat, ed. 2013). These accounts tend to rely less on precisely dating indi vidual events than on reconstructing the network of relationships within which certain events became possible and attained historical significance. That is not to say that these kinds of narratives are entirely independent of chronological concerns but mer ely that the pessimism with which time perspectivists seem to approach the archaeological record is not always justified. Moreover, if events are conceived not simply as momentary happenings but rather as intersections between happenings and broader struct ures, then the ability to pinpoint a single date for such phenomena becomes impossible, as events become his view, is its 2005:97), since that is what is necessary to consider its effects on the intersection of past experience and future expectation in a specific context. Fort unately, this modest level of relative chronological control is eminently achievable across many archaeological settings . The Eventfulness of Things The material things to which archaeologists have access are not just reflective of past events, however; th ey also may usefully be considered events in their own right. A ccording to Prown (1996), artifacts are , in fact, the only class of event that occurred in the past but remain observable in the present. And like all events, artifacts do not merely exist, the y happen. Understanding how things happen begins with a recurring

PAGE 113

113 theme in recent materiality discussions, the notion of things in motion (e.g., Hahn and Weiss, ed. 2013; Hicks 2010; Hodder 2012; Ingold 2011a, b; Joyce 2012; Joyce and Gillespie, ed. n.d.; Pauketat 2013a) . According to this line of thinking, people, materials, and other entities all exhibit distinct pathways of movement. Through time, individual pathways crosscut others forming complex, ever changing webs of association. The different catego ries of material culture (i.e., artifacts, features, and places) studied by archaeologists constitute nodes of intersection within these webs. They are material gatherings of multiple moving parts, variously bringing together people, materials, techniques, traditions, memories, and beliefs (Heidegger 1971; Ingold 2011 a ) . Conceived in this way, material things constitute important inflection points within larger historical webs of relationships (Pauketat 2013a:27) . It is important to keep in mind, however, that these relationships are always tenuous and that things are never truly static. They change hands and shift between contexts, along the way acquiring associations with new people and events. They are also subject to processes of accumulation, dissolut ion, recombination, and decay. Even when an object appears unchanging over long stretches of time, as is often the case at the scale of human observation, its specific articulations with other things, people, and places are always in flux (Fowler 2013:32). Consequently, rather than enduring as stable objects, things are more appropriately envisioned as emerging through time as series of contingent gathering events ( sensu Casey 1996; Hicks 2010; Strathern 1990) . This view of material things as intersections of multiple interacting constituents can be traced to the writings of Heidegger (1971). Using the example of a ju g, Heidegger references the original German meaning

PAGE 114

114 in emphasizing the status of things as convergences o f various materials in motion. emphasizing the composite, relational nature of things and their roles within larger networks of interaction. One of the most influential has be en Actor Network Theory (ANT), championed by Latour (2005). Latour stresses the relational character of social life. For him, like Heidegger, things are not coherent singular objects but rather heterogeneous gatherings, nodes of intersection within larger networks of interaction. In this model, each of these nodes constitutes a unique event out of which relational, (Sansi 2013). While innovative and widely referenced, critiqued for being too static and consequently, ahistorical (e.g., Harris 2013; Ingold 2011, 2012; Sansi 2013). As an alternative, Ingold (2007a; 2011a) offers up the notion ist at certain points, they occur pre existing entities (i.e. nodes), meshworks are instead composed of intertwining lines of movement, a model that Ingold argues more accur ately conveys the dynamic flow of actual social life. The views expressed by Latour and Ingold provide a sound basis for nature of their arguments and frequently opaque langu age make these ideas difficult to implement directly in archaeological research. More grounded and accessible ways of conceptualizing this notion are provided by the closely related and archaeologically rchaeologists, assemblages are

PAGE 115

115 usually thought of as groups of things (i.e., artifacts), but individual things may be thought of as assemblages as well ( Joyce and Pollard 2010; Lucas 2012) . The general notion of assemblages has roots in the philosoph y of H eidegger discussed above and has been expounded upon more recently by Deleuze and Guattari (2004) and De Landa (2006). In general, assemblages may be defined as vibrant groupings of diverse elements, whether human or not, capable of affecting the things ar ound them (Bennett 2010: 23 24 ; Deleuze and Guattari 2004 ). Assemblages can thus be social but they can also be material, auditory, or even chemical. They are the outcomes of dynamic added, of the interaction of its various constituents and cannot be reduced to the summed capabilities of its individual parts (Bennett 2010:24; De Landa 2006:37; Fowler 2 013:22). Assemblages are also nested, as each component is itself also an assemblage with its own histories, emergent properties, and abilities (Fowler 2013:23). There are obvious overlaps between this concept and the Heideggerian notion of the t discussed. Archaeologically, modeling material things as assemblages not only conveys their status as dynamic, eventful gatherings but also allows consideration of their origins and histories of articulation with larger scale gatherings such as caches, b urials, places, and communities (e.g., Conneller 2011; Fowler 2013; Harris 2013). Largely paralleling the concept of assemblages is that of bundles. Traditional ceremonial bundles, made by animistic societies worldwide (Zedeño 2008), are composed of multip le items held together by a wrapping. According to Zedeño (2008:364)

PAGE 116

116 when two or more objects are combined, their interactive capabilities integrate to become a new object the bu ndle the essential qualities of any individual component but from the relationships established by combining and position ing different materials i n a particular context (Pauketat 2013a, b). Recognizing the bundle like qualities of all people, things, and places, Pauketat (2013a, b) and others (Hodder 2012:7; Keane 2005) have usefully extended the concept to include virtually all manner of material phenomena. Like assemblages, bundles require movement, and are never truly static. According to Pauketat (2013a:39), to bundle is always to move and reposition things, to alter their relationships and corresponding affordant qualiti es. Consequently, bundles are most aptly viewed as ongoing processes rather than finished states. The bundling process is historically pervasive, and occurs in the context of every social project (Pauketat 2013b:38 ; see Hodder 2012:28 for similar ideas ). P auketat (2013a) illustrates this process using the example of a carriage ride by Charles Dickens through an Illinois features and sensory encounters to produce a unique and memorable experience. Material things are special kinds of bundles in that the associations that they achieve often ( although not always) play out at temporalities that make them appear enduring to the people who make and interact with them (Hodder 2012:7) . The sedimentation of relationships is, in fact, the explicit impetus behind many material practices, such as caching and monument construction. That being said, even the most durable material bundles are subject to not only the constant physical effects of weathering and decay

PAGE 117

117 but are also susceptible to repeated re experience, reinterpretation, and re contextualization ( sensu Thomas 1991) as the social conditions surrounding them change through time (e.g., Bender 1993). Though subtly different, all of t materiality (in the words of Knappett 2012) share a few major themes. A critical one for the eventful conception of archaeological materials espoused here is that things are not the inert, fixed objects that they ha ve generally been assumed to be. They are instead throughout their existence as they gain or lose constituent parts, move into and out of relationships, and shift between dis parate contexts and systems of meaning. Equally important is the emphasis on interaction. As composite, relational phenomena, things have social efficacy that emerges out of interactions among their different components. Individual things are also enmeshed within ever larger networks or relational fields containing other things, people, and places that, at their broadest extent, comprise the totality of social life (Hodder 2012). It is the shifting relations among the various players in these networks that constitute the ebbs and flows of historical process. relative boundedness of the phenomena under consideration. As noted above, the notion of the bundle implies some sort of wrapping or discrete margin. Following from this, I use the term bundle when referring to the different materials, qualities, and referents that are combined within more or les s discrete artifacts or features. Conversely, assemblages, while also at least loosely bounded in some sense, typically

PAGE 118

118 exhibit boundaries that are more permeable and shifting. Consequently, I employ the assemblage concept when referring to the gathering s constituted by various places, communities, and the like. It should be kept in mind, however, that these ideas have similar theoretical genealogies and , in many ways, may be used interchangeably. Like all events, things also have effects on those around them. These effects are conditioned by the physical properties of things themselves, often discussed in terms of 79 ; see also Jones 2007; Pauketat 2013a). Different materials (e.g., stone vs. clay vs. wood) possess different sensor y qualities that affect their potentialities for use in particular tasks and social projects. In other words, things, due to their physical disparities, vary in their agentive capabilities. Recently, a number of scholars have advocated for additional focus on the affordances of materials themselves rather than concentrating exclusively on the forms and social roles of finished artifacts (e.g., Hodder 201 2 :33; Ingold 2007b; Joyce 2012). Affordances, however, do not exist independent of a particular social co ntext (Boivin 2008:167; Robb 2012). The effective potentialities of things depend on their position in networks of interaction with other things, places, and people, a position that is established in the context of various material practices. Three cultura lly ubiquitous categories of material practice in which things play a very active role in human social life are technological production, exchange, and deposition. Technological P roduction ( M aking T hings) Contrary to traditional perspectives, (referred to Pfaffenberger [1992]), technology is more than a collection of objects, and it is also not all about harnessing nature and extracting resources. Technology is a historical and social process engendered by the crafting and using of things in a particular context. It

PAGE 119

119 is geared toward not only material ends, but social and religious ones as well. In making and interacting with things, people themselves are likewise made or remade in particular ways (Dobres 2000 , 2010; Lemmonier 1992; Miller 2005; Warnier 2009). Technical choices emanate from the shared experiences of people occupying common material and social contexts . Because of this, technical traditions often play a major role in the formation and demarcation of social identities (Dietler and Herbich 1998 ; Gosselain 1998 ). Jones (2005; 2007:81) explains that artifacts are situated in previous acts of the same kind. As the durable residues of past actions, older things serve as powerful precedents that structure the production and use of new ones, thereby perpetuating technical traditions and shared forms of practice . Furthermore, shared participation in technical activities also helps to creat e the intersubjective meanings and social memories around which communities of various types cohere. Pfaffenberger (1999; 2001) illustrates this point using Trobriand yam storehouses. He interprets the importance of these structures as lying not in their s torage capabilities, or in their role as visible symbols of chiefly authority (as proposed by Malinowski), but rather in the shared experiences and personal transformations facilitated by communal participation in their construction. In this way , according to Ingold (2000:318), technical In addition to being an integral player in identity formation, making things also actively channels the responses and activities of the people who subsequently interact with them (Gell 1998; Gosden 2005). As explained by Robb (2012), this occurs as a

PAGE 120

120 result of design features that are built into things and provide cues as to their appropriate use. While the connection between design and use has long been accepted recently been recognized as relating to social function as well. Gell (1 998:74), for attaching people to certain things and draws them into the social projects that these things entail (see also DeMarrais 2013). As a case in point, he refers to the ability of an elaborately decorated pillow or blanket to coax an otherwise uncooperative child into their bed. According to Robb (2012), the design characteristics of things build on their edge regarding likely contexts of use and user response, thereby increasing their social efficacy. Choices regarding what technological activities in which to engage also have important effects that play out at scales beyond the experiences and anticipati ons of individual people. As discussed above, decisions such as what kinds of tools to make, what kind of houses to build, and how many resources to devote toward food production span broad stretches of space and time ( Gillespie 2012; Hodder 2012). These entanglements operate such that a seemingly small change in one arena of material practice can have consequences that reverberate through many additional spheres of life. Moreover , commitments to particular material strategies overlap with others and require investments that compound over time, making any return to a previous strategy increasingly difficult (Hodder 2012:169; Robb 2013). Hodder (2012:172 773), for instance, writes t hat the initial adoption of pottery technology at Ç atalh ö y ük not only led

PAGE 121

121 to reduced use of clay balls in cooking but also contributed to transformations in household size and organization, the scheduling of other economic activities, and the size and orie ntation of social networks. As a result, once pots were committed to, reverting to prepottery technologies would have meant undoing a vast array of economic and social relations and abandoning major material investments that cut across numerous facets of l ife. Exchange ( C irculating T hings) Recognition of the social efficacy of things has had a major impact on the anthropological study of exchange. Much of the recent thinking on this topic can be traced to Mauss (1990 [1925]) who, in The Gift , attempts to u nderstand one particular form of exchange gifting and, in particular, why the acceptance of a gift obligates a ven when it has been abandoned by 12). Weiner the inalienability of a gift from its giver. She expla ins reciprocal exchange networks as practice of exchanging some items while concomitantly retaining those whose symbolic prominence is important for maintaining personal or group identities. What these discussions underscore is that, due to the enduring qualities of people that remain attached to circulated materials, exchange plays a critical role in mediating human relationships and identities (Miyazaki 2010; Wallis 2011 :15). In addition to retaining a connection to particular people, exchanged things also provide tangible links to distant events, times, and places. Material things operate at

PAGE 122

122 temporalities that contrast with, and often far exceed, human lifespans and per sonal recollections (Hodder 2012:60; Jones 2007). Because of this, things frequently act as potent mnemonics for not only recalling but actually re experiencing aspects of past interactions and events ( Arnold et al. 2008 ; Mills and Walker, ed. 2008). In ma ny demonstrated by the inflated prices of modern antiques that can be connected to a 2000:81) things also carry with them enduring associations with the locations of their origin and subsequent movements. While some may be identified with a specific place, others are simply recognized as being nonlocal or exotic (Wallis 2011) . In both cas es, the referential qualities of things allow people to transcend the restrictions imposed by a single interactive context. As a result, the circulation of things does much more than simply allocate resources or satisfy economic needs. It enacts relationships between people and things, between the past and present, and between various places across landscapes of interaction. Chapman (2000a; Chapman and Gaydarska 2007 fol lowing Strathern 1988:161 things builds relationships and positions social actors in larger networks of interaction. Although his focus is largely restricted to the exchange of de liberately fragmented artifacts and bodies, similar relationships are also realized through the circulation of whole objects that exist as parts of sets or as representations of broadly recognizable styles (Brittain and Harris 2010).

PAGE 123

123 The details of these relationships in a given cultural context play a key role in the constitution of different varieties of social persons. Archaeological considerations of Strathern argues that unlike bounded Western individuals, Melanesian persons are distributed and relational, arising out of the social connections forged via participation in a socially and spatially expansive gift exchange economy. While it is important that Melanesian dividuals not be uncritically transplanted into other times and places instrumental in expa nding the range of possibilities open to archaeological considerations of personhood in the past (see also Gell 1998; Wagner 1991) . Her research also demonstrate s that, due to its critical role in long distance interaction and identity formation, exchange provides archaeologists with valuable insight into the ways in which past peoples constructed and navigated their social worlds. Deposition ( E mplacing T hings) Whereas exchanging things effectively extends relationships across space and time, deposition co ncentrates them in place. Unfortunately, most of the materials deposited outside the purview of formal contexts such as burials or caches have archaeological value of such deposits has been most often evaluated in terms of their ability to inform on the original activities that produced them rather than any potential significance the depositio nal acts themselves may have held. Recently though, a growing number of archaeologists ( e.g., Chapman 2000b, 2000c; McNiven 2013;

PAGE 124

124 Pollard 2008; Thomas 1999 ; Villagran 2014 ) have critiqued the application of concepts such as rubbish in non Western contexts. Chapman (2000c) points out that the term betrays two culturally specific, ideological assumptions, neither of which should be uncritically applied to (pre)historic contexts: 1) that rubbish constitutes something that was once active and dynamic but is now because of its ineffectual position within society, rubbish should be separated from processes of the living. An extensive literature now exists arguing that deposition is not merely reflective of social practice bu t in fact is social practice, worthy of study in its own right (e.g., Gillespie 2008 , n.d. ; Joyce and Pollard 2010; McNiven 2013; Mills and Walker 2008, ed.; Pollard 2001; Richards and Thomas 1984; Thomas 1999). As Pollard (2001, 2008) argues, all depositi on, even routinized non discursive forms, is structured to the extent regarding what is appropriate in different contexts (cf. Garrow 2012). This aesthetic can be e xpected to permeate virtually every decision affecting depositional practice, including the types, qualities, and arrangements of buried materials, the location and temporality of their emplacement, and the bodily dispositions of those participating (Polla rd 2001:318). However, while all cultural deposits are important loci of social negotiation, deposition is at least occasionally used as a very conscious and deliberate strategy for making material statements about the world, often regarding the history an d identity of places or the nature of social and political relations (Randall 2011). Araucanian groups in southern Chile, for example, constructed mounds during elaborate mortuary ceremonies whose layered soils were intended to represent and

PAGE 125

125 maintain the c ontinuity of relations between the living and the dead (Dillehay 2007:166). Likewise, the mixing of human bone and various objects in the ditches at the Neolithic Etton enclosure in Britain was a conscious strategy used to forge a sense of community among otherwise dispersed groups (Pollard 2008:58). As Pollard (2008:44) suggests, Far from passive and lifeless products of waste disposal, then, deposited materials have repeatedly been shown to actively participate in social life in a number of ways, including evoking memories related to specific events and places (Dawdy 2006; Jordan 2003), setting precedents for future pr actices ( Gillespie 2010; Moore 1986; Thomas 1999), and creating or reinforcing social relationships (Cameron 200 2 ; Chapman 2000a; Gillespie 2008; Murray and Mills 2013; Pauketat and Alt 2004) . This rably fix relations between things (along with their referents) and cement them in a particular place, a very literal form of deposition helps to establish, reinforce, and repr oduce the identities of people, things, and place in relation to each other (Chapman 2000a, 2000c) . The agencies exerted by deposited materials derive from a variety of sources, beginning with the highly social and performative nature of many depositional events, which gathered together diverse combinations of people and materials at important times and places, thereby generating shared experiences and cultivating social memories. This contributes to what Bell (1992) argues to be one of the primary effects of ritualized action in general, the production of agents oriented in a particular way (see

PAGE 126

126 also Joyce 2008). As discussed above, agentive power also sometimes emanates from the deposited materials themselves, particularly those whose origins, histories, or physical characteristics reference distant entities (Pollard 2008; Weiner 1992). Quite often, however, depositional potency derives less from the inherent power of particular objects and substances and more from the relations created by their combinatio n and arrangement in a specific context. While things all have their own predepositional meanings and associations, once bundled with other materials in a given location, those initial meanings may be transformed or even overridden completely by the power of the assemblage as a whole (Pollard 2001:330; Stahl 2008:171). Thus, diverse depositional practices that have all too frequently been glossed as simple acts of refuse disposal might, at least in some instances, be more accurately described as processes o f refuse transposal . Transposal, in this sense, refers to the propensity for some forms of deposition to affect the symbolic recontextualization ( sensu Thomas 1991) of an object or set of objects from one cultural category to another. So, while a Neolithic pot or stone tool may have initially been valued primarily in terms of its practical use, once it was broken and deposited within a ditched enclosure alongside other tools, pots, and human bone, it was transformed into a symbol of community cohesion (Poll ard 2008). In summary, things can be considered eventful to the extent that they consist of the dynamic convergence of distinct material and immaterial constituents, remain in motion throughout much of their existence, and have substantial lasting effects on the things and conditions that surround them. Things intersect the lives of humans in the context of different material practices and projects, many of which are accessible to archaeological examination and interpretation. Various human thing engagement s,

PAGE 127

127 including those constituted in technological production, exchange, and deposition, all serve to reposition people, things, and places within broader networks of interaction, thereby shifting the relationships on which personal and social identities are based. The upshot of this line of thinking for archaeologists is that it is no longer tenable to view material culture items as singular, stable objects with fixed associations and representational meanings. They should instead be approached as relational assemblages or bundles with active social histories, shifting meanings, and context dependent agencies . Material Biographies, Itineraries, and Genealogies A number of different strategies are available for archaeologists attempting to construct eventful so cial histories using exclusively nonliterary evidence. One recently popular method ology (following Kopytoff 1986) has been to compose biographical accounts of objects, resembling in structure and narrative style those written for people. Object biographies highlight the fact that as things change hands, moving between places and social contexts, their place in relational networks shifts, resulting in new meanings and agencies . Through time, they accumulate their own distinctive histories of travel and inter action, comparable to those accrued by humans during the course of their social lives (Appadurai, ed. 1986; Gosden and Marshall 1999). A biographical between different as recognizable objects, continuing through their participation in various social is advantageou s in revealing the varied ways that particular things became entangled in

PAGE 128

128 the lives of people and in tracing their shifting values and social effects as they move between social fields (Gillespie n.d. ; Hoskins 2006). The biography metaphor, however, is not without its limitations. Archaeological beginning to end (Joy 2009). More commonly, researchers are forced to assemble from multiple artifacts of the same general class (Dant 2001; Joy 2009:545) . as neat or unidirectional as those of humans. The historically significant events in the life of a material thing begin long before its birth as a coherent object, extending at minimum back to the gathering of raw materials and other things used for its manufacture (Joyce 2012 ; Joyce and Gillespie n.d. ). Things also rarely have clear cut moments of death. As discussed above, depositio n does not always indicate removal from social life, and deposited materials are frequently disinterred and given new purpose in subsequent contexts (Gillespie n.d. ; Joyce 2012). The individual components of things also have their own histories and referen tial meanings that must be taken into account. In addition, their durability means that things frequently persist across many human lifetimes, along the way undergoing multiple rebirths and reconfigurations ( Gillespie n.d.; Joy 2009; Joyce 2012). Conseque ntly, in place of object biographies, some have suggested the y (Hahn and Weiss 2013; Joyce 2012; Joyce and Gillespie n.d.). For Joyce (2012:124), this notion better captures what it is archaeologists actually do, which is transformation, beginning before there is an object as such with enlistment of raw

PAGE 129

129 materiality and continuing after discard through the physical alteration of some thing into eraries have no discrete beginnings or ends but rather allow archaeologists to track the entanglements of materials indefinitely into the past and all the way up to their recent engagements with archaeologists and museum collections (e.g., Gillespie n.d. ) . Primary focus expands from just the individual object itself to include the mechanisms and pathways through which materials were circulated , as well as the social effects of various movements and stoppages ( Gillespie n.d.; Joyce 2012 ; Joyce and Gillespie n.d. ). This allow s for the incorporation of numerous partial object histories into larger itineraries of movement . The ultimate goal of such an approach seems to be a comprehensive, albeit usually composite, account of the total social transactions and r elationships participated in by the thing(s) in question. A different, yet closely related, method for constructing eventful accounts of Pauketat and Alt 2005; Thomas 1999). Rather than following the movement of individual things across space, this approach centers on the tracking of homologous practices (e.g., pottery decorating, mound building, mortuary techniques) through time. Within such a genealogy, each iteratio n of the practice(s) in question constitutes the socially negotiated and historically consequential decisions of actors occupying a specific context (Pauketat and Alt 2005). These individual practices are connected together via memories and material vestig es of past practices, along with anticipations of future ones. Archaeologically constructed genealogies are, therefore, actually eventful histories related to the origin, reproduction, and transformation of particular institutions, practices, and material forms (Harding 2005). They provide access to the long term

PAGE 130

130 material trajectories of different fields of action (Robb 2010). For archaeologists, a genealogical approach makes it possible to recognize and evaluate historical processes such as intensification , complexification, and ritualization according to empirically documented and context specific lineages of practices rather than relying on universal benchmarks or trait lists (e.g., Owoc 2005; Stahl 2008). Pauketat and Alt (2005) illustrate the effectiven ess of this method in their examination of early Mississippian post setting practices around Cahokia. By recording variation among hundreds of archaeological postmolds and linking them together across time and space, they discovered patterned differences t hat ultimately revealed the role of seemingly insignificant post Mississippian culture . Gathering Histories and Communities in Place Biographical, itinerary, and genealogical approaches provide distinct, yet related (and I would argue complementary), methods for assembling human scale histories of engagement between people and things. They are all concerned primarily with movement and interaction through time, differing mainly in whether analyti cal focus is directed toward individual objects themselves, the mechanisms and routes of their travels, or the practices through which they were created and transformed. Where all of these foci converge, both in terms of interactions in the past as well as material evidence in the present, are in various socially and historically constituted places. Histories of place are always histories of gathering. Places are points of convergence for countless things in motion, potent amalgamations of disparate entitie s, including substances, objects, and bodies as well as memories, traditions, identities, and ideas. According to Casey (1996:26):

PAGE 131

131 Place is the generatrix for the collection, as well as the recollection, of all that occurs in the lives of sentient beings, and even for the trajectories of inanimate things. Its power consists of gathering these lives and things, each with its own space and time, into one arena of common engagement . In other words, places are heterogeneous assemblages whose effective capabi lities emerge out of the combining and positioning of diverse constituents in a particular setting. Like all assemblages, places are always ongoing processes. They are continually made and remade through localized engagement between human and nonhuman acto rs (Barrett and Ko 2009; Tilley 2004). Every act of material production, consumption, exchange, or deposition constitutes a convergent event within the gathering history of the place (i.e., assemblage) as a whole. Furthermore, the various material things ( e.g., artifacts, features, and deposits) implicated in these place making events are themselves gatherings , replete with their own properties, associations, and (Halperin 2 014) . The durability of many gathered materials means that places are typically chock full of the residues of the past practices through which they were created having to confr ont its own archaeology as the material remains of its past piled up practices and constrain others by facilitating particular interpretations, directing movement, and providin g symbolic cues that demarcate appropriate forms of interaction (Barrett 1999, 2001; Richardson 1982). In this way, particular places and the broader human action that is (Thomas 2001:174).

PAGE 132

132 For archaeologists, places, especially those with extended histories of occupation, gather and concentrate all of the biographical and genealogical relations established by innumerable things and practices into a single location . In doing so, they permit access into the histories of social gathering and interaction out of which different kinds of communities emerged and changed through time (e.g., Fowler 2013:Chapter 5). I residential unit or a natural and stable social group (cf. Kolb and Snead 1997). Nor does he idea of a shared identity (cf. Isbell 2000). Communities are instead relational entities, the emergent results of various forms and scales of interaction, ranging from the day to day dealings of inhabitants of the same village to the sporadic contacts b etween participants in large scale religious gatherings. Thus, rather than natural and preexisting things that people have , communities, in this sense, are something that people actively do in conjunction with other people and things via various forms of s ocial practice (Varien and Potter 2008; Yaeger and Canuto 2000). They are comprised of all manner of interacting phenomena, including not only humans but also various animals, things, and places (following Fowler 2004; Harris 2012, 2013). Opening up the co mmunity concept in this way provides archaeologists a more realistic basis with which to consider social dynamics by acknowledging the significant historical roles played by non human actors. It highlights the ability of material things to mediate relation ships and establish communal ties between people in the absence of face to face interaction (Harris 2012). Place figures prominently into community dynamics not because communities necessitate co residence but because the interactions on which they depend require

PAGE 133

133 some form of co presence (Harris 2012). The artifacts, features, and deposits that make up archaeological places evince distinct moments of such interaction. By determining the kinds of relationships that these things helped to enact and linking th em together through time, it is possible to ascertain the kinds of communities facilitated by interactions in a given place, track fluctuations in their composition and scale through time, and identify the specific events responsible for these shifts (e.g. , Owoc 2005). Using terminology from De Landa (2006), Harris (2013) discusses multiple axes of variation along which communities can be evaluated and their differences probed across space and time. These include the relative heterogeneity of a community, t he density of the relations it implicates (what De Landa [2006:6 7] refers to as relative In the present study , I examine the mutually constitutive processes of place making and community formation at the Silver Glen complex in northeast Florida . Comprising multiple shell monuments, mortuary contexts, intensiv e resource processing locales, and residential spaces, the Silver Glen landscape registers an elaborate and eventful history of Archaic interaction . During the Late Archaic Orange period, t his history included innumerable acts of excavation and deposition that repeatedly transformed the physical landscape, in the process reworking preexisting relationships and altering broadly shared frames of reference . It also included countless movements of people and things (most notably fiber tempered ceramic vessels) into the complex, many of them having travers ed long distances . Each of these individual e pisodes

PAGE 134

134 constituted a significant gathering event , bringing together not only a range of materials and things but al so a variety of times and places via the cultural values and traditions they referenced, the biographies of their constituent parts , and the enduring memories that they helped produce . They also contributed to the larger gathering events through which mound centered communities were created, sustained, an d reconfigured . In the following chapters, I attempt to construct a Late Archaic for the Silver Glen complex by identifying and linking together the discrete material events constituted by the various artifacts, deposits, and features u ncovered there . My goal is to illuminate the different kinds and scales of communities that assembled at Silver Glen during the Late Archaic and better understand the historical processes behind their geneses and transformations .

PAGE 135

135 CHAPTER 4 LATE ARCHAIC DEP OSITION AL HISTOR IES AT SILVER GLEN As already noted , the Silver Glen complex is one of four known Orange period mound centers in middle St. Johns River valley. Only sporadically visited by archaeologists in the twentieth century, Silver Glen has seen seven recent seasons of that have uncovered an elaborate array of cultural deposits at the complex that provide an almost unbroken record of approximately 7 , 000 years of pre Columbian indigenous history. During the Late Archaic period , activities at Silver Glen involved the construction and use of an assortment of temporally overlapping contexts by communities of various size and composition. The sheer scale of some of these contexts point to status as an important place of gathering during this interval and their diversity provide s a virtually unparalleled opportunity for investigating the various kinds of mound centered interactions engaged in by Orang e period hunter gatherers. In this chapter, I attempt to take advantage of this potential by constructing a narrative history of the multi scalar depositional events that contributed to the creation of Silver Glen as a widely influential place of regiona l integration. After providing a basic description of the environmental setting, configuration , current condition, and previous archaeological investigations, I examine the state of Silver prior to the introduction of pottery technology. I then discuss in detail how the complex was repeatedly and dramatically transformed via a number of depositional undertakings that included the construction of two massive shell mounds, the digging and inf illing of hundreds of huge roasting pits,

PAGE 136

136 and the transient occupation of a number of small circular encampments. I suggest that each of the depositional acts implicated in these transformations brought together different combinations of people, materials , places, and times that to some extent altered community relations and helped remake the place as one of communal ritual and remembrance . The Environmental Setting The physical environment e xperienced by Florida Archaic inhabitants was heavily influe nced by t he state geological history. As summarized by Scott (1997, 2011), the Florida platform (roughly half of which forms the current terrestrial portion of the state) has a geologic basement composed of Mesozoic and pre Mesozoic rocks . At t he beginning of the Paleocene ( approximately 65 mya) , or perhaps earlier, carbonate sediments came to dominate deposition on the platform , eventually resulting in a thick mantle of limestone, dolostone, and evapor i tes that covered virtually its entire expa nse . This carbonate layer houses the massive Floridan Aquifer System, the source countless artesian springs and much of its potable water (Miller 1997) . As discusse d above, springs were important cultural and ecological resources for pre Columbian peoples throughout the state, and their initial flow ha s been posited as the primary impetus behind a mid Holocene influx of migrants into the St. Johns valley (Miller 1992, 1998) . carbonate lithology is also responsible for its d istinctive karstic terrain , which features abundant solution features such as sinkholes, caves, conduits, and fractures . Near the beginning of the Miocene (approximately 25 mya), a dramatic uplift of the Appalachians resulted in a marked increase in silici clastic sediment ation across Florida that continued up to the Quaternary , albeit interspersed with additional periods of substantial carbonate deposition. Miocene to Holocene

PAGE 137

137 sediments now blanket the entire platform, ranging from less than 1 m thick in s ome areas to more than 300 m in others (Scott 1997, 2011). The se heterogeneous near surface deposits were the primary source of the various clays, quartz sands, and heavy minerals used by pre Columbian potters . cuts through these surficial deposits along a 500 Atlantic coastline from southern Brevard County to Jacksonville . The St. Johns is unusual among rivers in the northern hemisphere in that it flows from south to north . It has an extremely low gradient (<0.02 m per kilometer) (Miller 1998:28) , resulting in low flow velocities and a smaller than expected discharge rate given its substantial breadth. This low gradient also means that the river is highly responsive to se a level changes and is tidally influenced over most of its length. Its exceedingly slow moving currents have resulted in a n abundance of backwater e nvironments and expansive lakes (Miller 1998:67). These productive aquatic environs are especially charact eristic of the middle portion of the St. Johns River , which stretches from Lake Monroe in the south to Lake George in the north. :104 ), this segment of the river juts to the west and cuts into the underlying limestone (Schmidt 1997). It is fed by a number of sizeable springs and features a litany of old channels, lagoons, and lakes that speak to th compl icated hydrological history. Paleoclimatic data and a rchaeological site distributions suggest that the general parameters of the present hydrological regime were likely in place by at least 7 , 000 years ag o (Randall 2010 ; Randall et al. 2011:15 ; Watts et al. 1996 ) .

PAGE 138

138 The Silver Glen complex is distributed along a 1 km long spri ng run at the intersection of Lake, Marion, and Volusia counties in the middle St. Johns valley. This spring run is fed by the first magnitude (indicating > 100 ft 3 water sec ond discharge rate) Silver Glen Springs econd largest body of fresh water. Currently, land rises steeply from 1.0 to 4.0 m in absolute elevation both north and south of the run before levelling off , although this topography has been greatly altered by anthropogenic activities , including both an cient shell deposition and modern shell removal (Randall et al 2011; Sassaman et al. 2011 ; see below ) . The soils surrounding the complex are diverse and range from excessively drained to poorly drained (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1975; U.S. Department of Agriculture 1979). They support a diverse array of native vegetation including various oaks, pines, cypress trees, gumtrees, and saw palmetto, along with a host of other trees, shrubs, and grasses. Upland forests and wetlands bordering the spring run are home to a number of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and gastropods that were exploited by the a ). The unique hydrological regime presented by the confluence of the spring run, lake, and tidally inf luenced river provide s habitat for a wide range of aquatic fauna including manatee, otter, alligator, turtle and scores of species of both freshwater and marine fish ( Bass and Cox 1985). Importantly, it also supports abundant shellfish populations, includ ing Viviparus georgianus (banded mystery snail) , Pomacea paludosa (Florida apple snail), and freshwater bivalve (Unionidae) , which form the primary constituents of freshwater shell matrix sites along the St. Johns River .

PAGE 139

139 The Silver Glen Complex Archaeolo gical Overview and Background The Silver Glen c omplex , as originally configured (Figure 4 1, top) , compris ed a n extraordinary array of pre Columbian cultural features that included some of the largest shell deposits in Florida. The remains of these featur es are arranged along both the southern and northern banks of the spring run. Although t he complex is broken into three separate sites , 8LA1, 8LA4242, and 8MR123 , its division is more a function of archaeological reporting procedures than any hard and fas t boundaries in the distribution of cultural remains . Due to its massive size and archaeological complexity , t he largest of these sites , 8LA1, has been divided into two areas, 8LA1 East (8LA1E) and 8LA1 West (8LA1W) , in order to ease communication (follow ing Sassaman et al. 2011) . 8LA1W is further subdivided into four distinct archaeological loci (Loc us A Locus D ). Site 8LA1 is confined to the area south of the run on the property of the Juniper Club, a private organization, while 8MR123 and 8LA4242 are located north of the run, within the boundaries of the Ocala National Forest. Prior to the twentieth century, the most visually imposing parts of the complex would have been two gigantic, multilobed shell mounds one at the mouth of the spring run and the repeatedly by 19 th century naturalists and antiquarians, who marveled at their impressive scale and apparent antiquity ( Bartram 1942:44; LeBaron 1884:774; Wyman 1875:38 39 ). Wyman (187 5 :39 ) describe s the huge U shaped mound at 8LA1E as forming three sides of a hollow square with a maximum height of 20 to 25 feet (6 to 7.6 m) and exhibiting a deep, shell free interior. His excavations there in the 1860s yielded 1875:40). Of the mound at 8MR123, Wyman (1875 :39 ) states that

PAGE 140

140 shell around the source . Two other prominent aboveground shell deposits apparently went unnoticed by nineteen th century visitors to the complex. These deposits, Locus A at 8LA1W and 8LA4242, form roughly linear ridges situated on either side of the run , approximately midway between th e spring pool and Lake George. Locus B and Locus C at 8LA1W are two topographi cally subtle, yet elaborately stratified, areas of shell deposition located on ridge noses overlooking the run west of Locus A. Locus D is a subsurface shell free midden still f a rther to the west. Like most of the large shellworks in the middle St. Johns Valley , the mounds at Silver Glen were severely impacted by shell mining in the first half of the twentieth century. South of the spring run, mining began in 1923. At 8LA1E, shell was dug out down to the level of the water, and in some cases below, and s old for a sum of $17,000 (Sassaman et al. 2011:1). At the same time, the shell ridge at 8LA1W was reduced to a series of discontinuous escarpments and isolated remnants (Sassaman and Randall 2011:121). In the northern half of the complex, minin g between the 1920s and 1940s removed virtually the entire aboveground portions of the 8MR123 mound and the ridge at 8LA4242 (Randall et al. 2011:18). Fortunately, intact subsurface deposits remain at most of these locations. The only substantial shell d eposits to escape mining activities were those at Locus B and Locus C , which are manifest only subtly on the surface. Perhaps because of its denuded postmining condition , the Silver Glen complex received only s cant archaeological attention during the twe ntieth century. Some general observations were made of the mound at 8MR123 by visitors from the Civilian Conservation Corps as it was being mined, and a rough sketch map was produced

PAGE 141

141 (Potter 1935; Figure 4 2). Potter (1935) and Taylor (1935) also noted a number of mostly Archaic artifacts as well as the presence of human burials at the site. In 1990, two 1 x 1 m test units were excavated into remaining basal strata at 8MR123 by Florida State University researchers , revealing approximately three meters of intact mounded deposits . This work yield ed four radiocarbon assays that suggest that at least the lower component of the mound was erected during the preceramic Thornhill Lake phase (Marrinan et al. 1990). In the 1950s, John Goggin and others collected pottery samples from the ground surface and water surrounding 8LA1E that are now housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History . Otherwise, the southern half of the complex had remained completely unstudied by archaeologists until recent investigations b y the and 2013, LSA researchers and participants in its St. Johns Archaeological Field School directed by Kenneth Sassaman conducted extensive surveys and detailed stratigr aphic excavations across the entire complex (Randall et al. 2011; Sassaman et al. 2011) . I was directly involved in these investigations for five of the seven field seasons, during The rem ainder of this chapter relies on the results of this field research in outlining a historical narrative of the depositional strategies and events that factored into the making and remaking the complex during the Late Archaic. Depositional Events and the Ma king of the Silver Glen Complex As noted above , the Silver Glen complex contains deposits that span most of the past 7,000 years; however, radiocarbon data (Appendix A) indicate that most of the boveground components were emplaced during the Archaic period . A summary of th e Archaic depositional

PAGE 142

142 sequence in this location goes as follows: T he first large scale shell deposition began as early as 6500 cal B.P. and culminated in the Early Mount Taylor Locus A . During this same period, a morphologically similar and likely coeval ridge was erected directly across the spring run from Locus A at 8LA4242 , although its precise chronological position is unknown . As occupation of thes e paired structures was winding down at around 5700 cal B.P. , a Thornhill phase sand and shell mortuary was established at 8MR123 and a small residential settlement one that would be serially reoccupied over the next thousand years Locus B. An additional preceramic mortuary was founded at 8LA1E but little is known regarding its configuration and age . During the Orange period, the mortuary deposit s at 8LA1E and 8MR123 were built up and appended with huge quantities of shell , resulti ng in the enormous multilobed mounds described by Wyman and others. At the same time, hundreds of massive roasting pits were dug, filled in , and encased with shell at Locus B and Locus C, and a number of apparently ephemeral , circular encampments were oc cupied around the complex. Here , I concentrate primarily on the Orange period landscape developments at the complex . I n particular, I consider the different depositional strategies engaged in by the during this time , the temporal, sp atial, and social relationships that these strategies achieved , and their effects on the composition and structure of the Late Archaic communities tied to Silver Glen. Before delving into these topics, however, I provide a brief discussion of the late pre ceramic Silver Glen landscape as it would have been encountered at the outset of what we know as the Orange period .

PAGE 143

143 Mount Taylor Precedents By Orange times, the area surrounding Silver Glen Springs , l ike m uch of the Middle St. Johns valley , was far fr om pristine. It was rather teaming with the material remains of millennia of past domestic and ceremonial activities in the form of eye catching mounds and ridges, buried features and deposits, and countless scattered artifacts. The remarkable concentrat ion of these remains at Silver Glen and similar places was surely one of the most significant attractors for the vast quantities of people and materials that converged there during the Orange period. Early Mount Taylor shell ridges . Two of the most obvio us preceramic structures that would have confronted early Orange visitors of Silver Glen are the Positioned directly across from one another, e ach consists of a roughly 75 m wide shell ridge stretchin g for approximately 200 m along the edge of the spring run. Their original heights are unknown, although Locus A ridge retains a total of 3 m of intact vertical deposits ( Randall 2013; Sassaman and Randall 2011:121). As discussed briefly in C hapter 2, ex cavations at Locus A indicate that the first Mount Taylor activities there involved the digging of numerous large pits along the run (Randall and Sassaman 2012). The entire pitted area was then capped off with a mantle of tan/brown sand. Atop this sand, a series of individual house platforms were constructed and occupied . O ver time , the sand and shell nodes resulting from these residential activities began to overlap, eventually resulting in a complex mounded palimpsest of intersecting surfaces and domes tic d eposits . Radiocarbon assays from upper and lower Locus A strata show that sometime between 6300 and 5940 cal B.P. (Randall 2013). After this interval, th ere are

PAGE 144

144 few signs of continued Archaic period activity at Locus A, suggesting more than a millennium of abandonment prior to the onset of the Orange period. Thornhill Lake phase mortuaries . Immediately preceding the onset of Orange period activities at the comple x were Thornhill Lake phase deposits at 8MR123. The sprawling mound that surrounded the spring pool prior to h istoric shell mining began as an earthen mortuary deposit . Multiple i n situ burials were uncovered during mining operations in this area, and hu man remains have been routinely encountered since that time (Potter 1935; Randall et al. 2011:35 38). The original dimensions and height of the mortuary mound are unclear; however, recent excavations reveal that it was composed primarily of brown and yell ow sand that was then capped with a lens of dense freshwater shell. Charcoal samples yielded radiocarbon age estimates of 5850 5590 cal B.P. for the sand and 5590 5320 cal B.P. for the shell cap , situating these deposits relatively early in the Thornhill Lake phase (Randall et al. 2011; Randall 2013). During this same period, additional large quantities of shell were deposited around the spring pool and along the run (see detailed descriptions in Randall et al. 2011) . In at least some spots, t hese shell deposits would grow to reach a height of more than 3 m above the surrounding terrain (based on Marrinan et al. 1990) . The presence of a human interment in shell deposits at 8LA1E hints at the possible presence of an additional preceramic mortuary facility in that portion of the complex (Sassaman 2011b). The location of th e burial, which was exposed by erosion and subsequently reburied , places it within what were, prior to the twentieth century, the basal deposits of the northern ridge of 8LA1 shaped mo und. The burial is now situated within an expansive area of dense concreted shell that parallels the southern

PAGE 145

145 bank of the spring run. Given th is when the mound was intact , its highly concreted condition, and its resemblance in size and shape to intact Mount Taylor ridges, it is likely that the eventual U shaped monument was most likely preceded by a roughly linear preceramic mortuary . Preceramic Locus B . The final area of preceramic deposition that is likely to have impacted subsequent Orange ideas and activities is Between approximately 5800 and 4600 cal B.P., Locus B was the site of repeated small scale settlements and abandonments by Thornhill Lake phase hunter gatherers . Sratigraphically, this occupational sequence is manifested as a series of crushed shell living surfaces with intervening thin layers of dark, organic rich sand s that are largely shell and artifact free (Figure 4 3 a ; see also Gilmore 2011 ) . At least one of the surfaces appears to have been formalized through the laying down and burning of clay rich sediment prior to the commencement of shell deposition. A number of pit features of various sizes and shapes descend from the habitation surfaces . Both the pits and s urface deposit s contain abundant material residues of everyday living including tools and ornaments made from stone, bone, and shell, along with charcoal, vertebrate faunal remains, and paleofeces (Figure 4 3 b, c ; Gilmore 2011). Once again, the last of these habitation deposits was capped with a thick layer of mostly whole freshwater gastropod and bivalve shell. The final result of these various depositional activities was a relatively discrete shell node, similar in many respects to those found at the Hontoon Dead Cre ek Village site (described in C hapter 2). Reaching approximately 1 m in height at its apex, this anthropogenic deposit is responsible for most of the modest topographic relief currently visible at Locus B .

PAGE 146

146 In summary, by the beginning of the Orange perio d, the upland areas both north and south of the Silver Glen Springs run were covered with the remains of thousands of years of preceramic habitation and ceremony. Among the most conspicuous ruins were two expansive shell ridges, two large scale mortuary f acilities, and the accumulated residues of a repeatedly occupied settlement. Although it is possible (and perhaps likely) that none of these places were utilized without interruption into the Orange period, they all played active roles in the momentous ev ents of that era. Orange Interventions into the interactions and decision In some cases, such as Locus A and 8LA4242, ancest ral deposits were apparently actively avoided . Not to be confused with ignorance of or indifference toward the past, the dearth of Orange activity at such prominent points on the landscape instead likely reflects the lingering social power of such places and corresponding efforts to maintain an appropriate cultural boundary or buffer around them ( sensu Munn 1996). A number of other Mount Taylor shell ridges and mounds in the Middle St. Johns also remained seemingly untouched even as substantial Orange de posits accrued only a few tens of meters away (Randall 2007; Randall and Sassaman 2010). This treatment of defunct historical places contrasts sharply with that bestowed on sites such as 8LA1E, 8MR123, and to a lesser extent Locus B, where the past was d irectly and persistently engaged by Orange peoples via repeated acts of excavation, circulation, and deposition. The perpetrators of these events that point abundant historical resources to help gather different people, places, a nd times together into an arena of common engagement . In doing so, they durably altered

PAGE 147

147 the significantly impacted the historical trajectory of the broader region. Monumental transformations (8LA1E and 8MR123) . The most dramatic landscape transformations instigated by Orange groups at Silver Glen involved the construction of the massive shell mounds at 8LA1E and 8MR123 . As already noted, both mounds were severely impacted by historic shell mining, which removed a vast majority of their aboveground deposit s. Nevertheless, premining descriptions of these monuments, along with extensive testing of their intact remnants , have revealed a great deal regarding the respectiv e configurations, contents, and socia l histories . Today, few obvious signs exist of the 8LA1E mound that once dominated the Silver Glen landscape. However, a comprehensive auger survey conducted in 2007 as part of the St. Johns Archaeological Field School largely confirm ed c (Figure 4 4; Sassaman 2011b:37) . A total of 84 a uger tests were conducted at a 20 m interval across all open portions of the site and observations were recorded on the presence/absence of shell, the depth and condition (crushed, whole, burned) of shell, and the presence/absence of nonshell midden (Sassaman 2011b:38 39) . These tests reveal ed the footprint of a sprawling U shaped shell construction paralleling the spring run in its longest d imension and opening toward the west. Composed primarily of freshwater gastropod and bivalve shell , t he mound is estimated to have stretched for 300 m along the run and to have approached 200 m in width. According to Wyman (1875 :39 ), it originally exceed ed 8 m in height at its apex in the northeastern corner of the site. In stark contrast to the mound itself, its interior, which Wyman (1875:39)

PAGE 148

148 described forming between the two ridges, was found to be virtually shell free. A uger tests alo ng the banks of Silver Glen Run and Lake George , in the area , revealed shell deposits as deep as 2.5 m below the modern surface. Given the concreted state of these basal deposits and their position well be low the current water table, it is likely that they were deposited during preceramic times, perhaps as part of a Mount Taylor (mortuary?) ridge that fronted the spring run (Sassaman 2011b) . Excavation of four test units and numerous core samples in the mo undisturbed deposits. They instead uncovered a compl icated amalgam of shell, sand, and artifacts that were most likely displaced and redeposited during the course of shell mining (Sassaman 2011b) . E xcavated art ifacts from this area consist mostly of ornately decorated Orange pottery sherds (discussed in detail in C hapters 5 and 6), hundreds of more of which have been collected from the surrounding ground surface, nearby tree throws, and from the shallow waters o f the adjacent spring run and lake. Seven radiocarbon assays obtained from soot adhering to the exterior surfaces of Orange sherds and from charred Spanish moss fibers preserved within their fabric indicate that Orange ge began as early as 4600 cal BP and persisted until at least 3800 cal B.P. (Appendix A; Sassaman 2003b). Since 2007, a variety of archaeological techniques have been brought to bear on the study of , including augering/soil probing, gro und penetrating radar (GPR) survey, and test unit excavation (Sassaman 2011b). Initial a uger tests demonstrate d that unlike the north ridge where Orange deposits were emplaced over a

PAGE 149

149 preexisting Mount Taylor ridge, the south ridge was constructed directly atop the Late Archaic ground surface (Sassaman 2011b:40) . This was corroborated through excavation of 10 2 x 2 m excavation units along the south ridge that showed an expansive, yet discontinuous , layer of shell overlying shell free sand. Excavation s u n covered few artifacts in the shell deposits save for a modest amount of mostly plain Orange pottery. Underneath the shell, a maze of mineralized roots , including entire palm root balls , were encountered in the underlying sand (Figure 4 5) . These are thou ght to have result ed from water percolating through overlying shell deposits and bringing down calcium carbonate minerals that covered and ultimately preserved the structures of subterranean root systems . The abundance of both linear hardwood roots and ba sketball sized root balls may be an indication that a number of trees were deliberately felled in this area in preparation for the emplacement of shell (Sassaman 2011b:90). Charcoal from a basal pit feature uncovered near the center of the south ridge yie lded an age estimate of 4060 to 3830 cal B.P. (Sassaman 2011b :60), suggesting the possibility that the south ridge may have been a relat ively late addition to the 8LA1 E monument. B ecause it was truncated by shell mining, this height is i mpossible to know ; however, Wyman (1875) is clear that it was s maller than its northern counterpart. Even f ewer details exist regarding Orange contributions to the 8MR123 mound north of the spring run . Orange activity at the mound is clearly indicated by the a bundant fiber tempered sherds that have been recovered from the surface around the spring pool incised decorations (see C hapters 5 and 6 below). However, while t es t unit excava tions

PAGE 150

150 into surviving remnants of the mound (Marrinan 1990; Randall et al. 2011) have yielded extensive evidence for large scale shell deposition during the preceramic Thornhill Lake phase , intact Orange deposits have been intersected in only one location, near the eastern margin of the spring pool . There, excavations revealed a highly concreted shell deposit that did not yield any Orange artifacts but did return a radiocarbon age estimate of 4 410 4 080 cal B.P., well within the Orange period (Randall et al. 2011:107) . Ten meters away, a subaqueous radiocarbon sample obtained with a bucket auger at a depth of approximately 2.5 m below the current surface returned a temporally overlapping age estimate of 4520 4240 cal B.P. (Randall et al. 2011:107). These da ta imply that more than two meters of shell were deposited at 8MR123 during the Orange period, at approximately the same time that large scale deposition was also taking place at 8LA1E . At 8MR123, Orange depositional efforts, when added to the preexistin g sand mortuary and expansive shell deposits, culminated in the vast and visually Given their extremely denuded postmining condition, fashioning a traditional linear narrative of the constructi on and use of the 8LA1E and 8MR123 mounds is impossible. been removed by recent activity. Neverthele ss, an enlightening, albeit partial, account can be pieced together of the various Orange period constituents that were gathered in these locations and the relationships that were achieved in the course of particular depositional events. The fact that por tions of both mounds were grafted onto preexisting mortuary facilities suggests a deliberate attempt to connect with ancestors

PAGE 151

151 through renewal of a deep seeded depositional tradition. T hroughout the Mount Taylor period, mounds and ridges in the middle St. Johns Valley were almost invariably superimposed over former places of everyday living enduring social importance to descendant communities (Randall 2010; Sassaman and Randall 2012) . During the Orange period, a substantial s hift occurred as most preceramic sites were apparently actively avoided even in cases when the landscape surrounding them was intensively occupied. The only exceptions were a few s elect places, like Silver Glen, where temporal boundaries were collapsed an d the past was once again engaged through strategic deposition at a historically significant location. The architects of the first Orange period additions to 8LA1E and 8MR123 were, in this way, strongly influenced by the material remains of what came befo re them . T hey also , however, set an effective precedent for fu ture activities in these places, which, over the next five centuries , involved social gathering s during which copious amounts of shell and pottery were deposited onto the ever growing monument and into the water alongside it. The respective temporalities involved in the construction of the two mounds are unknown; however, the sheer scale of the structures speaks to the extraordinary nature of the social gatherings that they must have facilitated . This is especially evident when the mounds are considered in relation to contemporary places of everyday living . As discussed in C hapter 2, these aspects of Orange settlements point to a dominant tradition of small co residential groups and/or high lev els of residential mobility . By comparison, the Orange period mounds at Silver Glen stand out as disproportionately massive and permanent features on the Late Archaic landscape. Their construction

PAGE 152

152 would have required the assembly of unusually large and d iverse groups of people, repeated returns to the same place over a very long period of time, or, perhaps most likely, some combination of the two . The unique (for this spatiotemporal context) social conditions fostered by the mounds are evinced by high fr equencies of elaborately and boldly decorated pottery when compared to other kinds of contemporary sites, a situation that has also been noted in reference to other Orange mounds in the region (e.g., Gilmore 2011; Sassaman 2004a; Saunders 2004a, 2004b). W hile this dispa rity is discussed in detail in C hapter 5, suffice it to say here that these sorts of context restricted stylistic embellishments may be a sign of the relative ly high degree of cultural divers ity and ritual significance implicated in mound ce ntered interactions at Silver Glen (e.g., Mills 1989, 2007; Spielmann 2004) . patently dualistic configuration of 8LA1E. The or ganization of social space into a U is a common cross cultural means of bringing together two discrete groups in to a common sociality , with leadership positions typically situated at the closed end of the U ( Grøn 1991). 8LA1E s two parallel ridges are asy mmetrical and artifactually distinct , with the north ridge exhi biting a higher maximum height and width , a higher frequency of Orange pottery, and a larger proportion of decorated vessels than its southern counterpart. Pointing to these factors as well as a number of seemingly anomalous cultural transformations that accompanied the adoption of pottery in the Middle St. Johns valley , Sassaman and Randall (2012) hypothesize shape may in fact reflect a dual social organization resulting from th e coalescence of indigenous (Mount Taylor) people and extralocal

PAGE 153

153 migrants, likely originating from asymmetries may relate to the differential abilities of established and newly arrived groups to amass the social and material resources involved in mound construction (following Russo 2004; Saunders 2004b) . These possibilities are considered further in subsequent chapters. mounds, it is clear that they functioned as important nexus points for extended Late Archaic communities . They were gathering places where broad scale relations were condensed and negotiated . The symbolic renewal of preceramic depositional traditions and the super imposition of Orange mounds over old m ortu aries would have been effective strategies for connecting the present to the past and thereby helping legitimize the dramatic social and material transformations that were underway across the region at th e time. T he unprecedented scale of the mounding project s undertaken points to the contribution of innumerable individual depositional events , each of which drew on memories of the past while simultaneously helping establish a durable material framework that would p ersist far into the future . Pit e vents and place making at Locus B . At the same time that vast quantities of shell were being heaped on the surface at 8LA1E and 8MR123, equally impressive (Gil more 2011) . Fortunately, the relative inconspicuousness of meant that they were spared the destructive effects of shell mining suffered by other parts of the complex. As a result , Locus B provide s the basis for a much more nuance d

PAGE 154

154 archaeological account than that possible just discussed shell mounds. Locus B (Figure 4 6 ) occupies a relatively flat, well drained ridge nose approximately half a kilometer southwest of 8LA1E and 80 m south of the spring run. As noted above, it consists of a small, roughly crescent shaped shell node and the extensive subsurface cultural deposits that surround it. The shell node itself opens toward the spring run and rises only about a meter above the surrounding landscape at its highest point. A close interval auger survey in 2008 showed that the aboveground shell at Locus B was deposited atop a relatively flat sand surface and that the site s current topographical configuration is almost entirely the product of anthropogenic act ivities conducted during the Late Archaic period (Gilmore 2011:174). Between 2007 and 2013, a total of 81 m 2 of test unit excavation s were conducted at Locus B, revealing well preserved and highly stratified deposits dynamic depos itional history and shifting relationship to the broader Silver Glen landscape. Three distinct depositional patterns were found to have existed at Locus B over the course of the Late Archaic period ( Figure 4 7 ; Gilmore 2011:249 252 , 2015 ) . The earliest s ubstantial deposition in this area of the complex was centered in the location of the shell node. As already discussed, this portion of Locus B was utilized during the late preceramic Thornhill Lake phase as the site of a small scale, intermittent settlem ent. The deposits making up this component include at a series of stacked occupational surfaces lined with thin layers of freshwater bivalve shell mixed with occasional vertebrate fauna and a variety of tools and debitage made of stone, bone, and marine sh ell. A number of small pits were dug down from these surfaces and infilled

PAGE 155

155 with similar materials. Just west of the shell node, dense deposits of vertebrate faunal and paleofeces are also thought to date to this same period. T he broad variety and relative ly high frequency of artifacts and features suggest a domestic, residential use of Locus B during this interval. The second depositional pattern began c oincident with the appearance of Orange pottery at ca. 46 00 cal B.P. , and transformed Locus B f rom a sma ll settlement to a specialized shellfish processing local e replete with scores of massive, overlapping pits (Table 4 1) . These pits are mostly distributed across a gently sloping area just off the western edge of Locus B's shell node, although isolated exa mples have also been uncovered farther to the east and west. Similar Orange period pits have also been 8MR123 shell mound (Randall et al. 2011) ; however, the relatively l imited excavations in these areas make direct comparisons to Locus B difficult. The pits at Locus B are, for the most part, densely packed , and they frequently intersect , many apparently having been dug one on top of another (Figure 4 8 ) . The scale of the se features dwarfs virtually anything found either before or after in the complex's 8 , 000 plus years of prehistoric occupation. Most examples measure between 70 and 120 cm in diameter and many exceed 1 m in depth. The largest is well over 2 m wide and more than 1 m deep, exhibiting an estimated volume of over 2.5 m 3 . Pit shape varies considerably, ranging from broad, deep basins to narrow, straight sided shafts (Gilmore 2011 , 2015 ). The fill in the Locus B pits also varies widely. Several of the pits have l enses of bright orange oxidized sand, charcoal, and concreted whole mussel shell lining their bottoms, suggesting that at least some of them were used for roasting shellfish. None

PAGE 156

156 contain a substantial quantity of either vertebrate fauna or artifacts, save for modest amounts of fragmented and undecorated Orange fiber tempered pottery. While all the pits contain some quantity of shell, the frequency, composition, condition (i.e., degree of crushing, burning, and weathering), and structure of shell deposits i s quite heterogeneous. Some are filled primarily with sand and contain only a trace of shell, while others appear to have been infilled in one massive depositional episode. The most striking features, however, are those containing layer after layer of shel l of different types and conditions, a situation indicative of multiple discrete depositional acts. Deposition into one large pit , Feature 38 (Figure 4 9 ) , for example, began with a thick layer of dense whole, banded mystery snail ( Viviparus georgianus ) th at over time became concreted. A 20 cm thick layer of crushed and burned mussel shell was then deposited before the pit was finally topped off with sand and another layer of whole and crushed mystery snail. In another example , Feature 104 (Figure 4 10 ) , in filling began with the deposition of a 20 cm layer of mixed shell (including apple snail [ Pomacea ], mystery snail, and bivalve) followed by a layer of unusually large whole apple snails. A thin lens of mostly shell free sand was then either emplaced or sim ply allowed to accumulate in the still open feature. Subsequently, another layer of whole apple snail was laid down, followed directly by a layer of whole paired and unopened mussel shells. On top of the mussels was a thin stratum of very dark, almost blac k, organically enriched sand, and finally, a layer of lighter brown sand. While virtually every pit contains a unique fill sequence, the constituents of individual layers are replicated across pits, suggesting that they may have been combined according to particular

PAGE 157

157 "recipes" or "g rammars" in different locations; however, no consistent pattern has yet been discerned. Shortly following the cessation of large scale pit digging (at ca. 3900 cal B.P.), a large quantity of whole Viviparus shell was deposited a cross the surface of Locus B, an event that marked another major transition in the site's history (Figure 4 1 1 ) . This "shell cap" (the third depositional pattern at Locus B) forms a 30 50 cm thick, mostly homogeneous stratum of unconsolidated shell that in many places contains little or no soil matrix. Like the pits below it, this stratum contains only sparse vertebrate fauna and artifacts aside from a small amount of fiber tempered pottery. In contrast to the undecorated sherds from the pits, however, many of those recovered from this overlying deposit exhibit the curvilinear incisions and punctuations typical of a relatively rare variety of Orange pottery called Tick Island Incised ( Griffin 1945 ). The overall homogeneity of the deposit, the lack of evidenc e for trampling, and the paucity of vertebrate fauna all indicate that this layer of shell was emplaced relatively rapidly, probably in the course of one or a few large scale depositional acts. Importantly, the shell cap is virtually coextensive with the p its underlying it and in some places appears to have infilled open pits, in effect turning what must have been a pocked, uneven surface into a relatively flat and smooth one. This mantle of shell is not unlike the ones that have been found to cover discont inued Mount Taylor habitation sites (Randall 2010; Sassaman 2010; Sassaman and Randall 2012) and perhaps constitutes yet another renewal of a long lived tradition of ritually marking transitions in the use of a place by capping it with clean, whole shell.

PAGE 158

158 Unfortunately, because they are ubiquitous in many regions and may appear largely interchangeable upon cursory examination, pit features are, more often than not, lumped together and given little weight in archaeological interpretations. Pit fill, in parti cular, which is generally assumed to be unrelated to a feature's primary function, is prone to being dismissed as mere secondary refuse, a result of casual discard into a convenient receptacle. As Chapman (2000 b :61) notes, the "humble pit" represents a cla ss of feature that has been "much maligned, ignored, or otherwise maltreated" in many archaeological narratives. With regard to Locus B, the tendency to undervalue pit deposits is exacerbated by a general reluctance on the part of many regional archaeologi sts to attribute a cultural significance to shellfish beyond their status as an abundant subsistence resource (e.g., Crothers and Bernbeck 2004; Marquardt 2010a, b; Trinkley 1985). Based on this firmly entrenched perspective, pit deposits such as those unc overed at Locus B are unlikely to be investigated for any purpose beyond the reconstruction of Late Archaic dietary habits (cf. Blessing 2015; Gilmore 2015) . In contrast, I would argue that acts of pit digging and deposition represented more than the mindl ess repetition of subsistence related behaviors, conducted for the same reasons and in the same manner independent of context. Instead, like all social pr ojects , they reflect the historically conditioned decisions of knowledgeable and intentional actors oc cupying particular material and social settings. As such, it should come as little surprise that, at least occasionally, pit related practices constituted important historical events with substantial roles in processes of cultural categorization and meanin g production.

PAGE 159

159 Multiple attributes of Locus B pits suggest that they held significance beyond their practical utility as, initially, shell roasting facilities and, subsequently, refuse containers. Most obvious is their size. While several contemporary shell matrix sites in the broader region include shell filled pits (e.g., Blessing 2015; Janus Research 1995; Saunders 2004 a ; Trinkley 1985), the extraordinary size and frequency of those at Locus B set them apart from other documented feature assemblages. The sheer scale of digging and shellfish processing suggested by the pits seems out of proportion with the everyday subsistence requirements of small kin based hunter gatherer groups occupying a diverse and productive environment. With no evidence suggesting, and presumably little need for, long term storage at the site, an alternative possibility is that the pits were geared toward the rapid production of great amounts of food, perhaps for consumption at the periodic feasting events hypothesized to have taken place at the nearby shell mounds (i.e., 8LA1E and 8MR123). The content of the pits also suggests a meaning beyond the purely mundane. Unlike some earlier instances of ritualized deposition in the same region (e.g., Endonino 2008; Wheeler et al. 2000), the Locus B pits are not marked by an abundance of unusual or exotic objects, save for one modified deer mandible that was likely part of a mask and a few marine shell disk beads found scattered across multiple features. They are instead distinguished more by a paucity of many materials frequently found within general midden deposits throughout the region (e.g., Russo et al. 1992; Sassaman 2003 a ; Sassaman and Randall 2011), including vertebrate fauna, lithic/marine shell tool s and debitage, and paleofeces. As shown in Figure 4 12 , t he frequency of bone recovered from 260 liters of analyzed fill from the Locus B pits is only a tiny fraction of

PAGE 160

160 that observed in contemporaneous domestic midden deposits from the same region. This virtual absence of vertebrate fau na supports the notion that the contents of the Locus B pits do not represent a random sample of general midden materials, but rather an intentionally selected subsample , one largely restricted to shellfish remains. If the pits had instead been infilled t hrough casual acts of refuse disposal, one would expect them to contain a more complete cross section of the diverse materials employed in everyday domestic tasks. As noted above, the bulk of the pit deposits is composed of shell that varies considerably in terms of both size and condition and was combined in a unique manner in every excavated pit, often resulting in elaborate stratified fill sequences. At a roughly coeval site in South Carolina, Trinkley (1985) interpreted similarly layered (although sub stantially smaller) pits as containing the remains of successive meal dumps. In this scenario, the pits were used repeatedly for roasting shellfish that were removed, consumed, and then disposed of back into the pits before the next batch was processed. Pr esumably, this sequence was repeated until the pits were topped off and another had to be dug. At least three factors render this interpretation inadequate for explaining the layered pit fills at Locus B. First, evidence for roasting (heat oxidized sand, b urned shell, large charcoal lumps), where it exists, occurs in only a single layer lining the bottoms of pits. Based on Trinkley's hypothesis, one would expect a layer of thermal alteration between every individual shell stratum. Second, three of the excav ated pits at Locus B contained strata composed of whole, unopened, and unburned bivalve shells, indicating that they were neither cooked nor consumed. And finally, pit deposition at Locus B appears to have taken place rapidly, with very little time

PAGE 161

161 elapsin g between the deposition of the first layer and the last. Almost all the shell layers within the pits sit directly on top of one another with no intervening sediment accumulation or soil formation. Moreover, none of the more than two dozen massive pit feat ures either excavated or encountered in profiles at Locus B show any evidence of having collapsed in on themselves. Based on firsthand experience excavating test units into the site's soft unconsolidated sand, if left open, pits would have been subject to structural failure during the first substantial rainfall. The fact that not a single excavated example did fail suggests that they were infilled almost immediately, not over a protracted period as implied in the "meal dump" scenario. An interpretation more consistent with the archaeological evidence is that the pits were infilled soon after they were dug, perhaps as part of a single continuous depositional process involving a variety of materials selected from a number of different sources. The short period of time indicated between pit digging and pit filling at first seems at odds with the highly weathered condition of the shell composing some pit deposits. In addition, the diverse combinations of shellfish species, along with frequent disparities in the e xtent of weathering, burning, and crushing between layers in the same pit, make it unlikely that all the shell in the pits underwent the same process of collection, roasting, and consumption prior to immediate deposition. It instead points to a diverse arr ay of predepositional taphonomic histories in which some materials were deposited soon after harvesting, some after they were processed and consumed, and still others only after they had been left out in the elements for some length of time. The fact that materials with such diverse histories ended up in the same features negates the likelihood of casual discard and instead suggests that they were intentionally

PAGE 162

162 selected for a particular purpose and combined in meaningful ways. It is possible that individual shells composing the pit deposit layers derived from specific important events such as feasts or other communal ceremonies and had to be dealt with in a particular manner (see Walker 1995). These residues may have been stockpiled for some period of time b efore their inclusion in a pit. If so, then the layered pits may have served as "bundled" histories (as discussed in C hapter 3) , used for linking particular events together and ordering them to form complex historical narratives. Like all bundles, it was n ot so much the inherent value of the substances themselves (in this case individual shell deposits) but rather the symbolic transposal achieved via their combination that made them meaningful. In effect, these deposits would have constituted inverted, subt erranean shell mounds, homologous to the countless above ground monuments that marked and structured the Late Archaic landscape. However, unlike above ground mounds, which rely on being seen and interacted with for much of their effect, the underground "mo unds" at Locus B were completely obscured even as they were constructed. One might question what the point was of building a subterranean monument that no one would ever see. Part of the answer to this question may be provided by Küchler (1999) and others (e.g., Gillespie 2008; Hendon 2010:113; Mills 2008) who argue somewhat paradoxically that the memory of an event can be heightened or reinforced through symbolic acts of forgetting, which include the destruction or concealment of associated objects. Based on this idea, the deposition and burial of residues from important occurrences such as feasts or other ceremonies may have functioned to memorialize these events, as well as the places where they transpired. This is the basic idea used

PAGE 163

163 by Thomas (1999 b :72; 2000:80) to explain the common Neolithic practice of siting monuments atop assemblages of old infilled pits, some of which had been dug generations earlier. However, in this case, while the burial of shell deposits may well have enhanced particular memori es, the distributional data show that many of the Locus B deposits were in fact re exposed and viewed as new pits were dug that intercut old ones. These would have been encountered by Late Archaic people in much the same way that they are by modern archaeo logists in profile, with the entire sequence of deposits made visible and begging for interpretation. Far from ancillary, it is this aspect of the Locus B pits that I argue holds the key to understanding their eventfulness. As already discussed, the featur es in question were sited in a location that had been used previously by preceramic people as a small scale settlement. The first Orange period pits excavated at Locus B would have intersected deposits from this earlier occupation (Figure 4 1 3 ), granting t heir diggers access to a relatively distant past and perhaps adding another layer of meaning to the massive scale roasting activities taking place there. As this practice was repeated through time, Orange pits also began to intersect each other, exposing m aterial reminders of more recent people and occurrences (Figure 4 1 4 ) . Eventually, as these features covered the site, the encountering of old infilled pits must have become the expected outcome of, and probably even added motivation for, continued digging . The cumulative effects of these repeated material engagements can be seen by examining diachronic changes in pit deposition practices. When dated pits are placed in chronological order, a pattern emerges that shows increasing depositional complexity thro ugh time (Figure 4 1 5 ). While the earliest pits appear to have been filled in one or a few distinct episodes, the

PAGE 164

164 later ones (e.g., Features 38 and 104) exhibit more elaborate sequences of shell and earth. In addition, most of the pits with the most comple x layered fills exhibit no basal oxidation or any other evidence that they were ever used for roasting. As soon as the first pit was excavated and infilled at Locus B, it would have exerted a structuring influence on all subsequent digging in that location due to its enduring material presence and the memories it facilitated. As time elapsed and old pits were uncovered with growing frequency, pit deposition may have become an increasingly deliberate effort to write a particular history into the Locus B land scape, with the knowledge that it would eventually be uncovered by subsequent digging. By the final stages of large scale pit digging at the site, a number of pits appear to have been dug for the explicit purpose of receiving shell deposits. At this point, pits were no longer just a means of memorializing other events such as mounding and feasting ceremonies. They instead became important events in their own right, gaining influence by citing ( sensu Jones 2005) already well established shell mound tradition s but altering them in important and strategic ways. Unlike their aboveground counterparts, which were susceptible to being observed and experienced by anyone within a certain distance of them, the buried mounds at Locus B would have allowed the site's Ora nge period inhabitants to regulate the timing and circumstances of their opening (much like a traditional bundle or modern time capsule ), possibly in ways that heightened their impact. Like more traditional monuments, while memorializing and relying on the authority of the past, the Locus B pit deposits were oriented primarily toward achieving a particular future by preconfiguring a lasting point of reference into the landscape. Depositional practices, in this context, were part of a deliberate strategy, or

PAGE 165

165 "intervention" (Sassaman 2012), geared toward the production of future memories (cf. Eves 1996). Circular living: . The immense shellworks at 8LA1E and 8MR123 , along with the sprawling assemblage of h ypertrophic pits at Locus B , provide tantalizing clues as to gatherings and projects , events that drew large quantities of people and materials into the complex . These locations , however, have yielded very few signs of the kinds of rout ine activities associated with day to day habitation. Even if Orange period Silver Glen was a designated ceremonial center, sparsely populated outside of special occasions, people would still have needed to sustain themselves for the duration of their vis its. Consequently, even in the absence of long term occupation, one would still expect to find substantial traces of domestic activity such as food remains , hunting implements, cutting and processing tool s, and the like. So far, t he best evidence for suc h activities has come in the form of circular arrangements of materials and features found scattered across less conspicuous areas of the complex. In 2010, a GPR survey was conducted across areas of the south ridge at 8LA1E, the technical parameters of which are detailed by Sassaman (2011b). In short, GPR was deployed in two ways and with two distinct goals in mind . First, a series of 30 m north south transects, spaced 10 m apart, w as surveyed in hopes of delineating the northern edge of the southern ri dge of the 8LA1E mound. The results of these efforts were ambiguous, as the edge of the shell deposits was found to be non linear and discontinuous, likely due to historic mining and other recent landscape m odifications (Sassaman 2011b:69). Second, and m ost pertinent to the present discussion, GPR

PAGE 166

166 was also deployed across five contiguous grids (ranging from 20 x 30 m to 7 x 10 m) near the center of the south ridge. In this case, for each grid, the GPR unit was pulled along north south transects s paced 50 cm apart. The orientation of the t ransects w as then turned 90 degrees and perpendicular east west data were collected in the same manner. different depths that would help shed lig ht on the horizontal and vertical arrangement of subsurface shell deposits along the south ridge (Sassaman 2011b:68 69). Figure 4 16 shows the time slice at 47 55 cmbs for the five contiguous grids. The colors represent different degrees of reflectivity with blues indicating low reflectivity, yellows and greens intermediate reflectivity, and yellows and reds high reflectivity. As shown in the figure, four clusters of highly reflective anomalies were found that each measure approximately 5 10 m in diameter. Interestingly, the distribution of these anomalies is clearly patterned and appears to form an arc that, if projected out to form a complete circle, would exhibit a diameter of 80 m and contain a total of 16 17 clusters, spaced some 15 m apart (Sassaman 2011b:73). Ground truthing of these results was attempted though a combination of coring and controlled excavations . These efforts revealed that the GPR anomalies coincide with more or less discrete areas of dense shell that was depos ited both atop the sand y substrate and into a number of pit features (Sassaman 2011b) . A likely albeit admittedly un confirmed at this point e xplanation for the observed patterning is that these deposits resulted from one or more short term encampments tha t were occupied near the onset of shell mounding in this part of 8LA1E . A single radiocarbon assay from one of the shell filled pits suggests that this encampment would have been active at

PAGE 167

167 around 4060 to 3830 cal B.P. (Sassaman 2011b:60). E xcavated shell deposits contain ed mode st amount s of vertebrate fauna and mostly plain Orange pottery sherds, but no clear domestic features (e.g., hearths, post molds, house floors, etc.) were discovered . T his could indicate a non domestic origin for these deposits or , alternatively , may simply reflect the ephemeral nature of the occupation in question . In either case, a roughly circular organization of social space would be consistent with what we know about Orange cultural traditions from other locations , both within and outside the middle St. Johns region ( e.g., Russo 2004; Sassaman 2003a ; Saunders 2004a ). A similarly arranged residential space has been inferred north of the shell mound at 8MR123 (Figure 4 17) . Using data from shovel tests and stratigraphic excavati ons , Randall et al. (2011) document ed an arcuate pattern of large Orange pottery sherds in this location with an interior diameter of approximately 7 0 m. Inside this arc, only crumb sherds were recovered, suggesting the possibility of an interior plaza ar ea that was intentionally kept clean. The arc itself provides strong evidence for presence of Orange architecture. S ubsurface testing of the arc revealed a series of regularly spaced voids measuring approximately 25 to 30 m. A test unit sited just outsi de of one of these voids revealed a number of large Orange potte r y sherds lying flat at the same elevation , along with a small shell filled feature believed to represent an infilled post hole. Randall et al. (2011:207) interpret these data as evidence tha t the test unit intersected the remains of an Orange period domestic structure of unknown dimensions. They hypothesize that this was but one of a number of such structures that were arranged around small plazas

PAGE 168

168 evinced by the aforementioned voids . They f urther suggest that these individual house clusters were, in turn, organized around the much larger plaza mentioned above. These data from 8MR123 provide some of the strongest evidence yet for sustained, village like habitation of Silver Glen during the O range period. In terms of size and circular layout, the inferred 8MR123 village closely resembles the just in the presence of shellfish remains. Whereas the possible en campment at 8LA1E was defined largely according to the distribution of dense shell, the 8MR123 village is characterized by an almost complete absence of shellfish, a fact highlighting the need for greater attention to shell free components at Orange period sites (Randall et al. 2011:207). Unfortunately, the precise chronological relationship to between these two contexts is unknown ; however, a radiocarbon assay from a pit feature that was located near the 8MR123 village and contain ed incised fiber tempered pottery returned an age estimate of 3560 to 3360 cal B.P., placing it somewhat later in the Orange period (Randall et al. 2011:128). Yet another potential Orange residential area at Silver Glen is located in what is now an open, plowed field just In 2011, a GPR survey was conducted across two contiguous 30 x 30 m grids (shown in Figure 4 6) that together span most of the cleared portion of the field. As at 8LA1E south ridge, the G PR unit was depl oyed along grid transects in two perpendicular directions (N S and E W) , and time slices were obtained for various depths below the Locus B surface. Two of these time slices (42 51 cmbs and 114/115 124 cmbs) are shown in Figure 4 1 8 . They reveal a number of highly reflective subsurface anomalies,

PAGE 169

169 many of which appear to be arranged into circles with diameters ranging from 12.5 m to 17.75 m. The best defined of these c ircular patterns is located in the southern half of Grid 1 and is clearly visible from a pproximately 30 cm bs to 75 cmbs. At least three additional circular arrangements are apparent across the two grids in time slices exceeding 100 cmbs. Between 2010 and 2013, six 2 x 2 m test units were excavated in the area of the shallowest circular patt ern in Grid 1. Two of these units were positioned so as to intersect GPR anomalies at the northern and southern margins of the circle, while the surprisingly, the anomalies themselves were found to consist of densely packed shell rich pit features that that were dug into a fine sandy substrate. The exposed pits showed a range of size and morpholog y . While most were relatively small and consistent with typical domestic storag e and/or food preparation, at least one (Feature 54/55) along the southern margin resembl ed the massive basin shaped roasting pits found f a rther south at Locus B (see Gilmore 2011: 269 ) . The pits also varied significantly in the amounts of shell and other materials that they contained. While virtually all pits held some quantity of shell, bone, and fiber tempered pottery, none shell layer covering the pits suggests that these features , like others at the sit e, may have received a shell cap at the end of their use life . I f this w ere indeed the case , however, much of the overlying shell must have been displaced by decades of recent plowing. Excavations in the interior of the circle revealed it to be virtually shell free and devoid of any signs of Late Archaic occupation, although numerous features were uncovered that belong to later St. Johns

PAGE 170

170 period groups. Charcoal from two of the pit features (Feature 54 and Feature 90) yielded almost identical radiocarbon assays (4140 3900 cal BP and 4150 3980 cal BP, respectively) that overlap significantly with other areas of Locus B as well as the While comparable in overall layout, the circular patterns of features at Locus B the 8MR123 village . Even when considered in relation to the individual household clusters at 8MR123, the Locus B examples do not measure up , although the scalar contrasts in th i s cas e are much less dramatic . If the circles at Locus B are , in fact, i ndicative of Orange period residential activities , then the settlements that they represent must have been exceedingly small and temporary . Excavations revealed no obvious signs of a rchitecture and the restricted circumferences of the feature patterns would have allowed for only a few domestic structures, even if they were small and closely spaced. Moreover, the artifact densities within and around the pit features are relatively low when compared to the rich middens found at other Orange domestic sites in northeast Florida (e.g., Janus Research 1995; Russo et al. 1992; Russo et al. 1993:55 56; Sassaman 2003 a). While the precise duration and periodicity of the activities responsible for the observed circular patterns at Locus B are unknown, t he sporadic and overlapping distribution of the circles suggests repeated occupations of the site over the course of the Orange period . Given the limited size of the feature clusters, along with the low density of cultural materials contained within them , it is likely that these occupations were relatively short lived encampments rather than long lived villages .

PAGE 171

171 If accepted as places of Orange period domestic habitation, the circular patterned dep offer important clues regarding the structure and historical significance of Orange period social interactions at Silver Glen. All three sites contain artifacts and features associat ed with routine domestic tasks but lack the dense midden deposits that result from long term residence in the same location. Thus, rather than sustained occupation, the data are more consistent with a series of scattered, ephemeral encampments such as one would expect to arise in the context of periodic aggregation events. At Locus B, these encampments apparently consisted of a number of spatially distinct clusters of features surrounding small open plazas, while in the other two locations individual clust ers may have been integrated into larger, more inclusive formations. As already noted, t he consistently circular arrangement and clean interiors in all three cases contrasts markedly with roughly linear M ount T aylor settlements such as that at Silver Glen . However, as Sassaman (2011 b :73) points out, they are strongly reminiscent of contemporary shell rings found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts , perhaps signalling the importance of nonlocal influences at the complex (more on this in Chapter 6) . Regardless of their genealogical origins , though, what is important here is that these circular encampments, and the larger events to which they contributed, constituted Discuss ion: History in Place The Late Archaic landscape at Silver Glen is not easy to reconcile with the slow moving, gradualist narratives typically put forward for Archaic hunter gatherers . Even a cursory examination of the complex in its current condition sho uld quickly dispel any notion that its immense cultural deposits could have resulted from random or unreflexive

PAGE 172

172 discard behaviors or that they were dictated solely by ecological imperative. To the contrary , when considered from a historical, human scaled perspective , the picture that emerges at the complex is one filled with significant, historically contingent moments of transformation. These moments are inscribed in the landscape in the form of countless deposits of shell and other materials which Late Archaic peoples used to erect monuments, create spatial and temporal boundaries, and establish novel relationships and commun ity structures . We can also see in various depositional events some of the strategies used by Orange period groups to construct th eir own historical narratives by coopting preceramic places and using them as effective resources for instituting new material and social realities. Thus, a s the physical landscape at Silver Glen was modified, so too was the identity of the place and the relations among those gathered there. From a distanced perspective, t he productive natural environment presented by the Silver Glen Springs watershed was probably a necessary precondition for many of the Late Archaic cultural developments that transpired there. The spring run and lake almost certainly furnished many of the raw materials used in the construction of the aggregations argued to have taken place there would have been possible in the absence abundant local subsistence resources. However, at the s c ale of actual human decision making, ecological conditions alone are woefully inadequate for explaining the material evidence at hand. While the area surrounding Silver Glen is particularly resource rich, it is but one of a number of large springs feeding into the lake and nearby river channel, any one of which would have provided Late Archaic groups with similar

PAGE 173

173 ecological advantages. Moreover, Orange period hunter gatherers engaged with the Silver Glen landscape in a manner that was highly systematic , and yet, decidedly nonoptimal if guided primarily by subsistence pursuits. The elevated ridges at Locus A and 8LA4242, which served as very successful and long term settlement s for preceramic inhabitants of the site, were left virtually untouched. Meanwhile, massive amounts of shell were piled around the vent of the spring, an area that , based on current spring ecology data , would not have presented high quality shellfish habi tat . What this suggests is that something other than food and efficiency must have been driving depositional decisions at the complex. I would argue that this alternative motivating agent was history . Orange period people chose this pa rticular location as a center of social gathering not because of the adaptive advantages it offered but due to the abundant and conspicuous historical resources available there. Drawing on more than 3 , 000 years of shell mounding tradition, these groups de liberately superimposed their own mounds atop existing mortuaries, building them up and eventually creating some of the largest pre Columbian monuments anywhere in Florida. The technological and compositional diversity present within Orange pot tery assemb lages fro m these monuments (detailed in C hapters 5 and 6) indicate that mounding events attracted participants representing multiple cultural groups from across a broad geographic expanse . This is consistent with other evidence, including the ephemeral na ture of the encampments found strewn about the complex and overall dearth of Orange period domestic debris , in suggesting that Silver in the context of punctuated moments of intensive occupation rather than through the protra cted efforts of a residential population . By

PAGE 174

174 gathering copious amounts of shell, pottery, and other materials and depositing them in meaningful ways , mounding participants helped achieve durable connections between the past and present and among the vario us contemporary constituencies involved. mounds were reiterated in pit centered practices at Locus B. By gathering diverse materials and holding them together in particular confi gurations, pits, in many respects, constitute depositional bundles par excellence. As Thomas (2012:5) notes, "the filled pit is a stable context within which a series of biographies terminate and are 'bundled together.'" At Locus B, hundreds of oversized p its bundle together layers of fill that acted as indexes of mound centered consumption events. However, unlike traditional portable bundles that accrue power by changing hands and moving between places, pits are fixed in space but circulate through time a s they are excavated through layer after layer of past deposits. Crossculturally, digging into the earth is frequently thought to have involved the transgression of an important boundary between the past and the present or between this world and another (e .g., Chapman 2000 b ; Darvill 2012; Davies and Robb 2004; Knight 1989; Kunen et al. 2002; Pauketat 2008; Thomas 1999 a ). Rather than a neutral form of refuse disposal, then, pit deposition at Locus B may have constituted a quite literal "exchange with the anc estors" as old materials were removed and new ones put in their place (Chapman 2000 b :64). These transactions , clearly visible as intersecting strata , would have permitted those gathered at Silver Glen to re experience even tful sequences of the past while also providing a durable medium (much like aboveground shell mounds) for relating their own historical narratives to future diggers at the site. In this way, i t is quite possible that

PAGE 175

175 the depositional sequences within Locu s B pits reproduced , in microcosm, many of th e historical and social relations ach ie ved within the nearby mounds. Importantly, the Orange period deposits at Silver Glen (both above and below ground ) had real historical consequences at multiple scales . As already touched on with regard to Locus B, each depositional act set a precedent for all that followed in the same location material traces that affected the decisions of the groups that followed them , so too did initial Orange deposits influence how subsequent activities and interactions at the complex would be executed and organized. This helps to explain how various cultural boundaries (e.g., the division between 8LA1 d south ridge) and discrete activity areas ( e.g., the space encompassed by Locus B pit s ) at the complex could be implemented and maintained over a period of centuries without the inherent stability of either a permanent resident population or institutional ized political structure . Over time, adherence to established depositional traditions resulted in a highly structured Late Archaic landscape at Silver Glen, one featuring a number of materially and functionally distinct contexts. In this way, the deposit s themselves helped define parameters of interaction for those gathered at the complex . At a larger scale , the massive mounding projects at 8LA1E and 8MR123 , along with the large scale pit digging, shellfish processing, and structured deposition conducted at Locus B , helped to redefine the entire complex as a locus of ritual and rememb rance for Orange people, a place where the past could be accessed and employed as a social resource in the present. Writing in reference to Mississippian burial rituals, Pauke tat (2010:14) urges arch a eologists to more seriously consider the

PAGE 176

176 who attended In the case at hand, the mi ssing persons of interest include members of any number of far flung communities spread across peninsular Florida . This means that, a t the same time these events were durably inscribed into the Silver Glen Run landscape , they were also incorporated into th e bodily memories of geographically and socially diverse participants ( sensu Connerton 1989). These memories would have provided the basis for macroscale communal relationships that would extend well beyond the complex i tself and far outlast any individua l gathering event . In this way , Orange period deposition not only affected material conditions in this particular location but also transcended the local by interjecting Silver Glen, as a specific kind of place, into the social memories of peoples subsequ ently dispersed throughout the broader region. In short , rather than a mere environmental proxy or a redundant record of broad scale behavioral trends , what provide is an eventful, context dependent history of Late Archaic s ocial gathering s and interaction s . The material consequences of these gatherings permanently shifted the frames of reference according to which the complex was experienced and remembered at both local and regional scales . While some of the basic outlines of these events can be gleaned from the depositional strategies involved, many of the ir details are obscured by the currently denuded condition . Fortunately , additional material evidence exists that can help fill in a number of the gaps . I n th e following two chapters , I turn to the most common class of (nonshell) material culture found within deposits, fiber tempered Orange pottery. Due to virtually infinite malleability

PAGE 177

177 and penchant for preserving evidence for the various activities implicated in its manufacture and use, these vessels provide a valuable window into the actual practices conducted within relationships of the people who gather ed within them .

PAGE 178

178 Table 4 1. Feature Shape L. x W. (cm) Depth (cm) Cult. Hist. Affiliation Dep. Pattern C 14 A ge E stimate ( cal B.P. ) 1 1 basin 25 (dia.) 14 Orange 2 4 basin 45 x 27 10 Orange 2 14 basin 17 x 12 8 Orange 2 15/65/95 basin 223+ x 215+ 85 Orange 2 4410 4100 16 basin 100+ x 90+ 80? Orange 2 17 amorphous 45 x 22 20 Thornhill? 1 25 amorphous 38 x 30 28+ Thornhill? 1 26 cylinder 103+ x 82+ 65+ Orange 2 4520 4300 27 cylinder 1 00+ ( dia. ) 50+ Orange 2 33 cylinder 100 x 66 84 Orange 2 4230 3980 34 basin 87 x 83 12 Orange 2 35 basin 82 x 74 16 Orange 2 36 basin 120+ x 80+ ~90 Orange 2 3980 3830 37 basin 55 x 34 19 Orange 2 4080 3850 38 cone 120 x 72+ 94 Orange 3? 4140 383 0 41 basin inde. inde. Orange 2 42 cylinder 100+ ( dia. ) inde. Orange 2 45 cylinder 71 x 58 70 Orange 2/3? 48 basin 230 x 135+ 42 Thornhill 1 4860 4650 49 basin 54 x 23 20 Thornhill 1 50 cylinder 45 x 43 31 Thornhill 1 4840 4580 51 cylinder 140+ x 100+ 102 Orange 2 52 basin 67 x 27 65 Orange/St. Johns? 2/3? 54/55 basin 227+ x 134+ 50+ Orange 2 4140 3900 64 basin 50 x 43 16 Orange 2 66 cylinder 117 x 79 66 Orange 2 90 cylinder 56 x 47+ 75 Orange n/a 4150 3980 91 basin 74 x 64 29 Orange n /a 94 basin 72 x 58 i nde Orange 2 104 cylinder 151+ x 70+ 106 Orange 2 4080 3880 121 basin 70 x 60 13 Orange n/a 187 cylinder 128 x 43+ 85 Orange 2 196 basin 104+ x 100+ 33 Orange 2 197 basin 114+ x 49+ 27 Orange 2 198 basin 77 x 59+ 33 Orange 2 199 cylinder 106 x 90+ 46 Orange 2 4810 4450 1 Based on the total 2 sigma range of AMS radiocarbon assays (Appendix 1).

PAGE 179

179 Figure 4 1. Maps showing the reconstructed and current topographies of the Silver Glen Complex and the locations of various sites and excavation loci. Topographic reconstruction adapted from Randall ( 2014).

PAGE 180

180 Figure 4 2. Sketch map of Silver Glen Springs showing the extent of shell deposits and shell removal in 1935. Image adapted f rom Potter ( 1935).

PAGE 181

181 Figure 4 3. Pr eceramic Thornhill Lake phase domestic deposits and artifacts from . A) photograph and generalized stratigraphic drawing of the north profile of Test Unit 46 . B ) select stone and bone tools and ornaments . C) a burned out lightning whelk ( Bus ycon contrarium ) vessel. Photographs courtesy of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology.

PAGE 182

182 Figure 4 4. Map of 8LA1E showing the locations of auger tests and test units along with the current distribution of shell in relation to the estimated bou ndaries of the mound prior to 20 th century shell mining. Adapted from Sassaman ( 2011b).

PAGE 183

183 Figure 4 5. Photograph courtesy of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeolo gy.

PAGE 184

184 Figure 4 6 . Map of Locus B at 8LA1W showing the locations of excavated test units and surveyed GPR grids .

PAGE 185

185 Figure 4 7 . Schematic showing the Late Archaic depositional sequence at 8LA1W Locus B .

PAGE 186

186 Figur e 4 8 . Horizontal distribution of Late Archaic pit features in the block excavations Elevations listed in meters below datum.

PAGE 187

187 Figure 4 9 . Drawing and photograph showing the excavated cross section of Feature 38 from 8 Photograph courtesy of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology.

PAGE 188

188 Figure 4 10 . Drawing and photograph showing the excavated cross section of Feature Photograph courtesy of the Laboratory of Southeastern A rchaeology.

PAGE 189

189 Figure 4 1 1 . Excavated vertical profile of the (2 m wide) e ast wall of TU58/59 at a stratified Orange period pit capped with dense banded mystery snail ( Viviparus georgianus ) shell. Photograph courtesy of the Labor atory of Southeastern Archaeology.

PAGE 190

190 Figure 4 12. Graph showing the relative abundance of vertebrate fauna l remains from the pits at 8LA1 middle St. Johns basin. Blue Spring Midden B ( 8VO43 ) dat a obtained from Sassaman ( 2003a ) and Groves Orange Midden ( 8VO2601 ) data from Russo et al. ( 1992 ).

PAGE 191

191 Figure 4 1 3 . Excavated vertical profile of the (2 m Locus B showing an Orange period pit feature intersecting preex isting Mount Taylor cultural deposits. Photograph courtesy of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology.

PAGE 192

192 Figure 4 1 4 . Excavated vertical profile of the (4 m wide) north wall of TU38/39 at Orange period pits. Photograph courtesy of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology.

PAGE 193

193 Figure 4 1 5 . Chronologically ordered (from top left to bottom right) vertical profiles of Orange period pits from Silver Glen Run's Locus B.

PAGE 194

194 Figur e 4 1 6 . the 47 five contiguous grids. The red line indicates the projected arc of dense shell anomalies. Image a dapted from Sassaman ( 2011b:720) .

PAGE 195

195 Figure 4 1 7 . (2011) suspected Orange settlement. Map adapted from Randall ( 2011:206).

PAGE 196

196 Figure 4 1 8 . 55 cmb s and 114 124 cmbs W hite lines indicate the outlines and diameters of circular arrangements of dense shell anomalies.

PAGE 197

197 CHAPTER 5 ORANGE POTTERY VARIATION AND THE MULTIPLE MODES OF LATE ARCHAIC INTERACTION AT SILVER GLEN The introduction of p ottery technology into Late Archaic material repertoire had significant repercussions for the hunter gatherer societies involved as well as the archaeologists who study them. Once adopted in earnest by Orange period groups , pottery manufacture w ould have entailed engagement with new sets of raw materials and tools , the establishment of new relationships between experienced potters and apprentices, and the imposition of new labor obligations on the various individuals and groups implicated in its production . A s a durable and universally accessible container technology, pottery also would have had substantial effects on the everyday cooking , serving , and consumption practices of the people who adopted it. Moreover, the almost infinite malleability of clay would have rendered it a powerful new medium for the expression of personal and social identity, the marking of social boundaries, and the maintenance of exchange relations with distant people and places. In all of these ways (and undoubtedly man y others), the adoption of pottery repositioned people and things within existing webs of relationships and locked them into novel entanglements ( sensu Hodder 2012) that cut across multiple spheres of life. One of the most important aspects of pottery th at distinguishes it from many other classes of material culture (e.g., most lithic, bone, and shell tools) is that it is an additive technology, meaning that most of the actions that contributed to the manufacture and subsequent modification of a pot are d urably recorded in the finished product (Barnett and Hoopes 1995) . Because of this, pots and potsherds encode a great deal of information regarding intended and actual use s, its geographic origins, and the identit ies and relationships of its ma ker (s) . I n many ways, pottery thus

PAGE 198

198 constitutes the quintessential artifactual bundle, capable of bringing together any number of raw materials, material practices, technical traditions, and social identities and arranging them in meaningful ways . F or its original users, this distinctive additive quality would have enhanced s historical and social value in various forms of interaction . For archaeologists, it means that the physical attributes of pots can be studied to determine the material functi ons and social roles served by disparate vessels and assemblages, as well as the larger places in which they were consumed and deposited. Orange pottery vessels were prominent and active components of the Late Archaic communities who gathered at Silver Gle n. In this chapter, I examine spatially patterned variation in these vessels in order to illuminate the actual practices and interactions in which they were involved and to better understand their varied role(s) across distinct Orange period contexts. To accomplish this, I focus on two commonly employed concepts in archaeological studies of ancient ceramics technofunction and technological style which together allow me to infer not only the nature of the activities in which pots they were em ployed but also provide insight into the social conditions surrounding their production and use . My r esults show a number of clear disparities among contemporary Orange contexts in terms of the varieties, sizes, and uses of the fiber tempered pots that th ey contain. I use these patterns to argue that Orange pottery played an active and integral role in partitioning the complex into functionally distinct arenas of practice with differing levels of social exclusivity. I further maintain that pottery deposi

PAGE 199

199 shell mounds, was part of a deliberate strategy for sedimenting relationships among the diverse constituents who gathered there. Technofu n ction Research on pottery technofunction is concerned with determi ning both the intended and actual use of pots (Skibo 1992:33). One of t he fundamental principles behind this notion is that the pottery vessels recovered by archaeologists w ere manufactured and used as tools for a particular purpose (Braun 1983 ; Rice 1987 :208, 1996; Skibo 1992, 2013:27 ). As such, pots are assumed to have been designed and crafted in ways that make them more appropriate for carrying out some tasks and less appropriate for others. Since the 1980s, a large number of materials science, ethno archaeology, and experimental archaeology studies have been devoted to demonstrating which physical properties of pottery vessels render them most effective for use in particular tasks (e.g., Bronitsky and Hamer 1986; Pierce 2005; Reid 1989; Skibo 1992; 19 97 ; Skibo et al. 1989 ) . The information gleaned from this research has made it possible to infer the function ( s ) for which archaeological potter y w as intended at the time of its manufacture. As Linton (1944:370) pointed out 70 years ago, while it may not always be possible to know how archaeological pottery was ultimately used , it is often relatively easy to determine the uses for which it was suitable. When the actual use of a pot is ascertainable, it is usually due to the presence of some kind of direc t alteration generally in the form of accretional residues or patterned surface attrition. As with pottery design features, interpretations of archaeological use alteration have been greatly aided by experimental and ethnoarchaeological studies of particular pottery activities and their effects on the vessels involved (e.g. Arthur 2002; Skibo 1992; Skibo et al. 1997) .

PAGE 200

200 The most basic material functions of pottery can be divided into three broad categories: storage, transformation or processing (e.g., cooking, fermenting , etc. ), and transfer or transport ( including everything from serving a meal to long distance exchange ) (Rice 1987:208) . Within each of these categories , there are an almost infinite number of variations based on factors such as whethe we re wet or dry, whether it was intended to be heated from the inside or outside , the duration and intensity of its use, the distance of intended transport, and so on. Archaeologists frequently consider a number of compositional and formal attributes when attempting to distinguish between these functions, including the kind s of clay and tempering materials that w ere used (Bronitsky and Hamer 1986; Rye 1976; Skibo et al. 1989) , the basic form of the vessel ( Frink and Harry 2008; Linton 1944; Reid 1989) , vessel size and wall thickness (Blitz 1993; Rice 1987 ) , its permeability and porosity (Rice 1987:230 230) , and the range of surface treatments exhibited (Pierce 2005 ; Schiffer et al. 1994; Skibo et al. 1997) . Each of these variables aff properties, and all have proven useful in assessing the potential of archaeological vessels for completing different tasks. Unfortunately, even taking into account all these potential sources of inference, assigning an individual sherd or vessel a specific function is rarely a straightforward endeavor. Wallis (2011:139) discusses two potential complicating factors. First, it is often the case that decisions related to one physical attribute of a vessel can have cons equences that affect multiple performance characteristics. The addition of organic temper, for example, may increase vessel portability and ease forming difficulties but it also renders pottery less durable and decreases heating efficiency as compared to

PAGE 201

201 various mineral alternatives (Skibo 1992:139; Skibo et al. 1989). As a result, finished vessels will almost invariably comprise a number of technical compromises that, in many instances, may preclude a simple functional designation. A second, closely rel ated issue is that m any vessels were likely multifunctional (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979; Skibo 1992), meaning that they would have been designed to be generally effective for carrying out a range of tasks. E ven in cases where pots were designed for a special ized purpose, this would not preclude their expedient or improvisational use in alternative situations (Wallis 2011 : 38) . Some scholars have also questioned a number of the b asic assumptions and methods that underlie technofunctional inferences (Fienman 1 989; Gosselain 1998 , 2008 ; van der Leeuw 1993; van der Leeuw et al. 1991) . Gosselain (1998 :80 ) , in particular, rejects the constraints associated with pottery manufacture restrict a pott degree that universal generalizations can be made regarding design characteristics and function al intent . Based on ethnographic research in Africa, Gosselain (1998) maintains that there are virtually always multiple viable alternati ves for addressing production challenges. Rather than simple material necessity, he emphasizes the multifaceted nature of technological choices and their dependen ce on cultural proclivities and social context . Gosselain (1998:81) is also highly critical of the experimental data on which many technofunctional inferences are based, which he argues were mostly obtained in laboratory settings and under While acknowledging the validity of these concerns, I nevertheless fin d the concept of technofunction useful, so long as it is kept in mind that basic material

PAGE 202

202 concerns form but one of potentially many factors that informed technical decisions. While it is clear that particular pottery design feature s better afford certain functions than others, it is certainly not the case that these characteristics determine or vice versa. For this reason, i t is imperative that technofunctional inferences intended function s be balanced with direct evi dence of the activities in which they were actua lly employed . One of t he most common form s of use alteration consists of various residues that adher e to pottery surfaces . Many types of residues have been identified and used to infer the function(s) of pot s , including interior food residues ( e.g., Heron and Evershed 1993; Reber and Evershed 2004; see discussion in Rice 1996:144 147) , traces of organic resins used for sealing (e.g, Eerkens 2002; Reber and Hart 2008) , and external soot from use over fire (e.g ., Hally 1983; Sassaman 1993; Wallis 2011) . In addition to residues, different forms of vessel attrition have also been found useful in determining function. Th is include s surface abrasion from activities such as stirring, scraping, and beating that were conducted during routine food preparation or cleaning (Hally 1983; Skibo 1992; Skibo et al. 1997) as well as pitting related to thermal shock or chemical cor rosion (Arthur 2002; Hally 1983 ). Yet another commonly observed example of use wear, at least in certain areas, is the mend hole. Mend holes reflect an attempt to repair a broken vessel by drilling holes on either side of a fracture that can then then be used to lace the pot back together. Data related to mend holes are not only a useful indicator o f breakage rates and the cultural value attached to certain pots (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979; Senior 1994; Wallis 2007, 2011:180 181) but also may have important

PAGE 203

203 technofuncti o nal implications given that this kind of repair would likely hinder abili ty to complete certain tasks (e.g., storing or cooking with liquids ). Technological Style While the concept of technofunction can be informative , pottery manufacture and use are obviously not geared toward achieving only material ends. Cross culturally , pottery play s important roles in a wide range of social, political, and ritual projects as well. Examining these aspects of technological practice requires consideration of the and its various archaeological applications. Prior to th e 1980s, archaeologists frequently defined style in opposition to technology ( see reviews in Hegmon 1992 ; Rice 1996 ). According to a number of processualist perspectives , style was re stricted to those (presumably few) components of material culture that w ere not wholly determined by technological constraints (e.g., Binford 1965 ; Dunnell 197 8 ) . In this view, style was largely passive and epiphenomenal , and its archaeological importance was limited to the insight it offered into the spatiotemporal distribut ion of broad behavioral trends . This passive conception was directly challenged by Wobst (1977) and others (e.g, W ie ssner 198 3 ; Hegmon 1986) who argued instead that stylized practices and objects were actively involved in processes of information exchange . According to Wobst (1977) , because style is a relatively expensive form of communication, the messages it encode s are by necessity simple , straightforward , and geared toward maximizing efficiency. He also suggested that stylistic communication was most useful, and therefore most likely to be found, in highly visible and socially diverse contexts. These specific popular functionalist and systems theory idea s , have been h arshly critiqued (e.g., D ietl er and Herbich 1989,

PAGE 204

204 1 998 ; see discussion in Hegmon 1992 ). Nevertheless, the active view of style that this theory espouses was unquestionably innovative and remains influential in current archaeological considerations of the topic . More recent treatments of with technology , with many scholars recognizing that style itself is not without function . Style is increasingly recognized as a ubiquitous and important component of soci al practice (e.g., Dietler and Herbich 1998; Hegmon and Kulow 2005). As such, it both emerges out of existing structural conditions and also has the potential to impact those conditions. As Hegmon (1998 :265 ) argues, style unquestionably does something , e ven if the functions it performs are not as neat and straightforward as some would prefer . In different contexts, stylized practices and their material products may be variously used to communicate cultural meanings and values, define social boundaries an d hierarchies, perpetuate traditions and communities, or express cultural and personal identities . In each of these ways, style address es a practical concern that is no less real or significant than those typically investigated during the course of tradit ional technofunctional research . A closely related advancement in archaeological thinking in this regard has been the widespread realization that style is not restricted to the final superficial or decorative steps in technological production. Instead, as Gosselain ( 1998:82 ) puts it, if style is reside in every stage of the manufacturing process and thus in every technical feature (see also Le monnier 1992, 1993; Stark 1998 ). This is the basic premise behind the concept of technological style (Lechtman 1977) . Proponents

PAGE 205

205 of this idea assume that technical goals can always be met in multiple ways and that choices (both conscious and habitual) ar e ultimately tied to the social contexts in which crafts are learned and executed (Gosselain 1998:83). Following from this, e very technical act is subject to stylistic analysis that has the potential to illuminate the social conditions in which it was ca rried out. Developed in the 1970s, the notion of technological style did not catch on broadly until the 1990s. Since that time, i t has had an especially large impact on archaeological studies of pottery by opening up every step of the manufacturing proce ss -from clay preparation to forming techniques, surface treatment and firing methods to stylistic inquiry ( e.g., Gosselain 1998 , 2000 ; Hegmon et al. 2000; Hosler 1996; Wallis 2011) . The concept of technological style has had a great deal of influence on t he search for social boundaries in the archaeological record (see papers in Stark, ed. 1998) . Much of this stems from ethnographic research indicating that the early stages of technological production, in which materials are being shaped and manipulated f or what seems like basic functional reasons, are generally more stable and reliable indicators of social identity than the finishing decorative elements that have traditionally received the bulk of stylistic attention . In pottery studies, forming techniqu es, in particular, have been found to correlate with social boundaries and be less subject to situational modification than other steps of the manufacturing process ( Arnold 1998: Degoy 2008; Gosselain 2000, 2011 ; Reina and Hill 1978:230; van der Leeuw et a l. 199 1 ) . This conservatism is usually attributed to the embodied memories and deeply ingrained motor habits involved in shaping clay (Gosselain 2000; Wallis 2011:243), although Gosselain (2011 :221 ) has recently suggested that it may instead reflect more

PAGE 206

206 deliberate efforts by potters to maintain both their group affiliation and the bonds that they developed with the ir potting mentors. An important related concept that deals with the relationship between potting and social boundaries s of ( a s developed by Lave and Wenger 1991). Communities of practice are groups of practitioners whose sense of group identity is rooted in a shared repertoire of practices (Bowser and Patton 2008: Gosselain 2011 ; Stark et al. 2008 ). These com munities develop out of the common experiences and aesthetic sensibilities of craftspeople brought up in a particular learning environment (Bowser and Patton 2008). They depend on the repeated renewal of traditional technological practices to maintain the bonds between their members. In theory, distinct communities of practice should produce pottery assemblages with archaeologically detectable differences in technological style. While this is indeed the case in some contexts, the relationship between t echnological style and group identity is complicated by a number of factors. Communities of practice, lik e other cultural phenomena, are rarely reducible to the neat, bounded entities that archaeologists often envision (Gosselain 2008, 2011). They are ra ther in a constant state of flux as people move around, enter different relationships, and develop new bonds and allegiances . These communities also operate at divergent and overlapping scales, meaning that while one particular stylistic element may corre spond to a single household or co residential community, another may be shared among the members of an entire linguistic group (Degoy 2008; Hegmon 1992, 1998; Weissner1983). Another potential complication is that techno stylistic choices (along with their material products ) may be determined by a number of additional factors , including life stage and skill level

PAGE 207

207 of the potter, individual taste, political aims, natural environmental conditions , and many others (Bowser and Patton 2008; Degoy 2008). Importan tly, especially for the case at hand, style is also heavily important on social context, and the context of consumption is often just as significant as the context of production ( David and Kramer 2001:175; Gosselain 2011). Technical traditions are constan tly reevaluated during practice, especially in the context of interaction between diverse and unrelated social groups (Gosselain 2008, 2011; Wobst 1977). It is i n such pluralistic circumstances ( the kind that would typically arise during large scale, soci ally inclusive gatherings, feasts, pilgrimages, etc.) , that the link between highly visible stylistic elements and group identity may be most pronounced due to the heightened awareness of technical difference (w hat Bowser and Patton [ 2008:106 ] refer to as ) likely to be elicited. In the end, what all these issues indicate is that the relationship between stylistic differences and social boundaries is not usually a simple one but instead hinges on a number of interacting, contingen t and context specific variables. In the present study, my focus is on what intrasite variation in Orange pottery indicate s regarding the various kinds of activities and interaction s that were engaged in . Together, the concepts of technofunction and technological style provide a basis for inferring the kinds of practices that were conducted, the material and social circumstances surrounding them, and their role in the larger gathering events at the compl ex . It is important to note that the division between these two notions is more heuristic than actual given the inseparability of material and social projects in real life interactions. Nevertheless, ba sed on how their

PAGE 208

208 traditional usage in archaeology, I find both ideas helpful for discussing the multiple facets of technological practice. Orange Pottery Background As already noted, Orange pottery is the earliest such technology in Florida with an estimated date range of 4700 3600 cal BP. It was manufactu red and used by Late Archaic hunter gatherers across most of Florida as well as a few locations in extreme southern Georgia. Existing radiocarbon data and technological parallels indicate that Orange technology arose out of out of interaction with makers of Stallings pottery who occupied the coastal regions of Georgia and South Carolina (Sassaman 1993, 2004). First utilized along the northeast coast of Florida, fiber tempered pottery was rapidly adopted by groups in the adjacent St. Johns River Valley and from there, eventually spread throughout most of the state (Milanich 1994:86 104). Orange pottery is a low fired earthenware. It is most easily identified by its distinctive organic fiber temper that was typically burned out during the firing process , le aving a light and porous ceramic body permeated by a dense maze of hollow vesicles. The most common tempering material was Spanish moss ( Tillandsia usneoides ) , although palmetto fronds may also have been used in some contexts ( Brain and Peterson 1971 ; Sim pkins and Allard 1986). In vessels with reduced cross sectional firing cores , carbonized remnants of fiber remain trapped inside vessel walls, providing a valuable source of carbon for directly dating pottery samples (e.g., Phelps 1966; White and Estabroo k 1994; see below). A variety of other aplastic materials have been found in conjunction with organic fiber in Orange pottery including quartz sand, freshwater sponge spicules, and limestone (Cordell 2004); however, the extent to which these materials wer e intentionally added to pottery pastes or rather existed as natural

PAGE 209

209 constituents of local clay resources is still debated (see Cordell and Koski 2003; Rolland and Bond 2003). A number of forming techniques have been hypothesized to have been employed in Orange pottery manufacture. Based on simple visual inspection of vessels from multiple sites, Bullen (1955; 1972) argues for a combination of hand mo delling and coiling, with the former representing the dominant technique until relatively late in the Oran ge period (see also Sears and Griffin 1950). Skibo and colleagues (1989), on the other hand, note the substantial height of some fiber tempered vessels in suggesting that slab construction was the likeliest method used to make early pottery across the sou theastern U.S. The first rigorous investigation of Orange pottery forming techniques was recently reported by Endonino (2013 ; see Sanger 2013 and Trinkley 1986 for similar research on fiber tempered Stallings pottery ) . Using radiographic images of experi mental pottery sherds, Endonino demonstrates that different ways of forming a fiber tempered vessel result in distinct patterns of f iber orientation, with hand modeling and slab construction yielding random orientations and coiling resulting in a dominant pottery from Silver Glen, Tick Island, and Bluffton were formed using a combination of hand modeling and coiling. Interestingly, he also notes a possible correlation between forming techniques and surface decoration . All of the decorated vessels that were sampled had apparently been formed through coiling, while the plain vessels were mostly hand modeled (Endonino 2013). Data from a number of assemblages indicate th at Orange vessels were composed mostly of shallow, straight sided, and flat bottomed basins but also included

PAGE 210

210 rectangular trays, bowls with straight or incurvate walls, and restricted mouthed jars (Bullen 1972; Ferguson 1951; Gilmore 2011; Griffin and Smit h 1954; Hemmings and VonBurger 1975; Janus Research 1995; Sassaman 2003 a ; Saunders 2004 b ; Wrenn 2012). Within all these general morphological types, there is a great deal of variation in vessel size, wall thickness, and lip form. Following Griffin (1945), Orange pottery has traditionally been divided into three distinct types based primarily on surface decoration. These types include : 1) Orange Plain; 2) Orange Incised , characterized by broad range of rectilinear incised motifs; and 3) Tick Island Incised , characterized by curvilinear by punctations (Figure 5 1) . For many years, it was thought that these distinct types were reflective of successive chronological stages in the development of Orange technology. Thus, usi ng stratigraphic observations from several sites across Florida, Bullen (1955, 1972) divided the Orange period into five distinct subperiods (shown in Table 5 1) based on observed differences in surface treatment, vessel form, and temper. In brief, during the earliest subperiod, Orange 1 (4000 3650 rcybp), pottery consisted exclusively of hand modeled vessels, including plain shallow basins and rectangular containers with thin walls and rounded lips. Orange 2 (3650 3450 rcybp) retained the same basic vess el shapes as Orange 1 but also saw the first instances of surface decorations, including incised horizontal lines and concentric diamonds as well as T ick Island Incised motifs. Plain pottery also remained common. Orange 3 (3450 3250 rcybp) was characteri zed by larger straight sided vessels with thicker walls and a broader range of lip morphologies. Decorations consisted of relatively complex rectilinear incised decorations, some with punctations or ticks but no classic T ick I sland

PAGE 211

211 I ncised designs. Orange 4 (3250 3000 rcybp) saw a simplification of incised motifs along with the first coiled vessels and a mixture of quartz sand and fiber in Orange pots. And finally, Orange 5 (3000 Period , e time during which Orange pottery was completely replaced by chalky St. Johns wares. b ) study in which seven sooted Orange Incised sherds from sites in the m iddle St. Johns River v alley returned dates ranging from approximately 4100 to 3600 rcybp. According to the complex rectilinear motifs exhibited by these sherds would have had them all assigned to the Orange 3 subperiod , mea ning that they all should postdate 3450 rcybp. Subsequent other regions of Florida (Cordell 2004; Saunders 2004 b ). Together, t hese investigations have effectively collap demonstrating the coevalness of virtually the full range of Orange pottery variability. W hat Bullen interpreted as gradual technological evolution over time has thus instead been demonstrated as largely cont emporary variation across space. Consequently, Sassaman (2003b) suggests that alternative explanations of Orange pottery variation , including fun ctional differences and ethnic diversity, should be seriously considered. Few studies have been conducted that explicitly address the social and political dimensions of Orange potte ry production . The little that has been written on this subject is directed almost exclusively toward mound centered questions , with a number of scholars suggest ing that the ornately d ecorated pottery recovered from several Orange

PAGE 212

212 period mounds was manufactured for and deposited during large scale feasting events (Russo 2004; Sassaman 2004a; Sassaman and Randall 2012; Saunders 2004a, 2004b; Saunders and Wrenn 2014). Citing Hayden ( 1995 , 2001), Russo (2004) argues that these feasts were likely competitive affairs, conducted by transegalitarian peoples vying for prestige and competitive advantage through the amassing of great quantities of food and other materials . According to Russo (20 environment and Alternatively, Saunders and Wrenn (2014) posit a more communal picture of Orange feasting events . Using data from the nearby Rollins and Guana shell ring sites on applications of Orange pottery decorations within these sites, as well as the consistent disparities that exist between them, in arguing that their respective pottery assemblages were produced by two distinct communities of potters. In their view, this indicates either that feasting was conducted at an intracommunity s cale or that the host community was responsible for supplying all the pottery to be used. In either case, they maintain that social demand for intricate, high quality vessels to be used in communal rituals would likely have necessitated the existence of d edicated craft specialists (Saunders and Wrenn 2014:198). In both of these scenarios (competitive feasting and communal ritual), the emphasis is on the use of early pottery as serving (rather than cooking) vessels in highly diverse and public contexts (se e also Sassaman 2004a) . Very little explicit attention has been paid to pottery use in off mound locations, although there

PAGE 213

213 seems to be a tacit assumption that vessels in these contexts were employed in various household level domestic activities. Sampling and Methods The Silver Glen complex, due to the variety of contemporary Late Archaic places that it encompasses , is a particularly appropriate site for examining the different ways that pottery was employed across distinct Orange period contexts. This st udy incorporates pottery data from Silver Glen collections curated at the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology at the University of Florida and at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Analyzed samples were selected from five discrete contexts within t he Silver Glen complex (Figure 5 2): 1) 8LA1 NR); 2) 8LA1 SR); 3) 8LA1 and Locus C (8LA1W ); 4) the 8MR123 mound (8MR123 MD); and 5) the proposed village site at 8MR123 (8MR123 VL). The pot tery assemblages from 8LA1E NR and 8LA1E SR are treated as distinct populations due to the readily observable techno stylistic differences they exhibit , as well as because of the apparently distinct depositional histories . In contrast , Locus B and Locus C assemblages are combined because of the ir similar depositional sequences and due to the lack of a clear cut boundary between the two areas . A total of 40 Late Archaic radiocarbon assays from the complex indicate that although these co ntexts came on line at different times and show varied durations of use , all of them , with the possible exception of 8MR123 VL, overlapped temporally during the Orange period (Figures 5 3 and 5 4) . Sample sizes (shown in Table 5 2 ) vary widely across thes e contexts and generally reflect the disparate scales of the overall assemblages from which they were drawn.

PAGE 214

214 A vessel unit analysis was employed for this study. Sherds were separated into vessel lots using a variety of criteria including surface treatment , paste characteristics, rim form and thickness, orifice diameter, and overall vessel shape . Provenience was also taken into account, and no vessel lots were formed from sherds found more than 30 m apart given the absence of cross mends that exceeded this distance . Each vessel lot was analyzed individually, and attribute data were recorded that relate to technological choices made during various stages of the manufacturing process including paste preparation, forming and finishing techniques, and surface treatment (see Appendix B for the raw attribute data) . Temper is an important variable for inferring function because it can be used by potters to manipulate a number of clay characteristics including workability, susceptibility to shrinkage and cracking during drying, firing behavior, porosity, bulk density, and thermal properties (Rice 1987 :74 ; Rye 1976 :113 121 ). In this case, in addition to the organic fiber found within all Orange pottery, the incidence of other possible tempering materials, includin g quartz sand, and sponge spicules, and other aplastics, were recorded using a binocular microscope. More detailed information regarding paste composition was obtained via petrographic inspection of pottery thin sections (discussed in C hapter 6). As dis cussed above Orange pottery temper is also useful for determining the forming technique that was used to shape a (2013) experimental research, the dominant orientation of fiber vesicles were recorded through simple visual examination of the broken edges and eroded surfaces of sherds. These were used to infer whether vessels were coiled, molded, or pieced together in slabs.

PAGE 215

215 Where possible, formal variation was evaluated for each vessel lot according to several vari ables, including lip form and thickness, rim form and thickness, orifice diameter, and overall vessel shape. Lip and rim form were coded using the system developed by Sassaman (1993) for fiber tempered Stallings pottery from Georgia and South Carolina. R im thickness was measured at a distance of 3 cm from the vessel lip. Orifice diameter was estimated using a standardized rim chart for all vessels with five percent or more of the rim circumference present. In addition, vessel profiles were drawn for all examples with at least 3 cm of the rim intact. These morphological characteristics are potentially informative with regard to the identification of distinct technological traditions as well as for evaluating the suitability of particular vessels for compl eting various cooking, serving, and storage tasks (Hally 1986; Rice 1987). In addition, metric variation may reveal important differences in the size of social groups involved in these tasks (Blitz 1993) and possibly the physical distance between pots and the people intended to view them (Mills 2007). In terms of surface treatment, each vessel was characterized as Orange Plain, Orange Incised, or Tick Island Incised based on the descriptions of these categories provided above. Like various formal attribu tes, it is possible that particular surface motifs were linked to deep seeded cultural traditions and related social identities, although ethnographic research suggests that these kinds of decorative elements are more often employed consciously in specific social situations (Gosselain 1998 ; see also Jones and Mills 1991 ). Consequently, var iation in decorative styles may reveal a great deal regarding the nature of different social contexts and the relationships that existed between the people who gathered a t them (Wobst 1977). While surface treatment is

PAGE 216

216 often seen as merely decorative, experimental data suggest that these finishes may also have been used to manipulate a number of performance characteristics, most importantly vessel wall permeability (Schiff er et al. 1994). Polishing, burnishing, and smoothing result in relatively less permeable surfaces, a characteristic that would have increased the conductivity needed to sustain boiling temperatures, but also would have increased susceptibility to thermal shock. Texturing, on the other hand, increases surface permeability, making it more difficult to sustain boiling but also decreasing susceptibility to thermal shock (Schiffer et al. 1994). Consideration of surface treatment patterns can therefore also h elp to infer vessel function. Direct evidence of how vessels were employed was sought by recording incidences of various types of use alteration, including sooting, surface oxidation, mend holes, and physical attrition. The presence and location of soot was noted for all vessels as evidence for use directly over fire (Hally 1983 ; Sassaman 1993:143 ). Additional evidence for direct heat cooking was obtained by noting oxidation patterns within pottery cores. Oxidation occurs as the organic matter within cl ay is burned completely out in an oxidizing environment , usually resulting in a light buff or orange color (Hally 1983). Some amount of surface oxidation usually occurs during the firing of pottery; however, marked disparities in the level of oxidation be tween pottery bases and rims , or between the exterior and interior surfaces of sherds, may be an indication that vessels were also used for direct heat cooking over fires. And finally, a ll instances of mend holes were noted and taken into account when co nsidering vessel function and general cultural significance (based on Senior 1994; Wallis 2007 , 2011 ).

PAGE 217

217 Results D ata related to vessel design choices and use alteration were compared among the five Silver Glen contexts listed above , revealing pattern ed techno stylistic distinctions across largely coeval areas of the complex. The results of this analysis provide a strong basis for inferring the intended and actual uses of Orange pottery across various Silver Glen places, as well as the nature of the s ocial interactions in which they were employed. The most consistent and glaring differences are those that NR and 8MR123 MD) and various nonmound contexts . Consequently, and because of the small potte ry samples available from some areas of Silver Glen, statistical comparisons are made largely between mounds and nonmounds, even where data are provided for each individual context. In terms of both techno stylistic attributes and composition (examined in C hapter 6) the vessels from 8LA1E nonmound contexts (8LA1W and 8MR123 VL) than the ones from the mounds. In addition, the 8LA1E SR sherds were recovered from basal deposits and pit features that may well have predated the elevated portion of this part of the mound. As a result, for comparative purposes, the south ridge area of the 8LA1E mound is hereafter lumped together with the nonmound contexts. Paste Characteristics Basic paste categories from Silver Glen are shown in Table 5 3. Orange vessel lots from all five Silver Glen contexts are tempered with relatively large amounts of Spanish moss, as evidenced by the high density of hollow vesicles run ning through out them . This is consistent with Orange pot tery from across northeast Florida, which overall, seems to be less variable in terms of fiber content than closely related Stallings

PAGE 218

218 wares to the north (e.g., Sassaman 1993). Overall, the pastes of the Silver Glen vessels are very fine grained with only a few examples exhibiting large inclusions of quartz or other aplastics. M ost sherds do exhibit some visible sand grains, although it is generally difficult to tell whether these were natural to the raw clays being utilized or added intentionally as a tem per (more on this in Chapter 6). The most obvious disparity in paste composition relates to the presence and absence of freshwater sponge spicules. As shown in Table 5 3, vessels containing more than trace amounts of spicules make up a slight majority of all analyzed Orange vessels . These vessels were identified direct observation of spicules under the microscope. Spatially, spicule rich vessels are shell mounds , with mound a ssemblages exhibiting 74.3 % spiculate vessels compared to only 30.3 % among nonmound assemblages, 2 (1, N = 357) = 69.16, p = <.001 . Organic fiber temper is a characteristic of many early pottery technologies around the world (e.g., Griffin 1972; Kaner 2009; Pesonen and Leskinen 2009; Reichel Dolmatoff 1972; Roosevelt 1995; Sassaman 1993) . Kaner (20 09) suggests that this may indicate a symbolic or material connection between early pottery and plant use, while a number of other scholars have proffered various potential functional advantages for adding fiber to pottery pastes (e.g., Marrinan 1975:93 94 ; Reid 1989; Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Skibo 1992:139 ; Waring 1968 ). Experimental studies have shown that fiber temper can provide a sort of endoskeleton that prevents slumping and deformation during the manufacturing process (Skibo et al. 1989) . Fiber te mpered vessels also tend to be lighter and may be less susceptible to breakage upon impact, characteristics that

PAGE 219

219 may have been especially important to Archaic hunter gatherers with relatively high levels of mobility and the frequent need for expedient cont ainers ( Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Skibo et al. 1989). At the same time, the increased porosity of fiber tempered pottery lessens its heating effectiveness , thereby reduc ing its utility in direct heat cooking (Reid 1989). Some of the difficulty involved in cooking with porous Orange vessels may have been mitigated by applying a sealant such as pine pitch to finished pots or through the smoothing or burnishing of vessel surfaces. Another option would have been adding a mineral temper, like quartz sand, whic h is a better conductor than clay and thus may help improve . It is possible that sponge spicules, with their silicate composition, may have performed a similar function, although if that was indeed the case, then there must have been a areas of the complex. Ultimately, tempering practices, like all technical acts, constitute complex cultural negotiations that are typica lly influenced by a number of personal, social , and material factors. The ubiquity of fiber temper across Silver Glen indicates shared participation in a far reaching tradition by the various people who gathered at the complex. At the same time, a series of technological choices resulted in marked spatial disparities at the complex with mounds receiving a disproportionately high number of chalky, spicule rich vessels compared to other contemporary places within the complex. Whether this reflects purely f unctional distinctions between contexts or the differential involvement of various potting communities across distinct places cannot be established with paste data alone. What is immediately clear, however, is that the Late Archaic spatial

PAGE 220

220 boundaries inst ituted at Silver Glen via shell deposition were reiterated through the patterned consumption and deposition of Orange pots with distinct paste characteristics . Manufacturing Technique s A vast majority of the analyzed vessel lots from Silver Glen exhibit do minant fiber orientations that are parallel to rim of the pot , suggesting that they were formed via coiling (based on Endonino 2013) . Only one vessel lot (from Locus B at 8LA1W) was found to have randomly oriented fiber vesicles likely to be a sign of han d mo delling or slab construction. Given the extensive technological and stylistic diversity present in the Silver Glen assemblages, as well as the fact that their collective temporal range spans multiple centuries, these data are not reconcilable with Bul coiling was adopted only near the end of the Orange cultural sequence . The data are, found at Silver Glen and the Harris Creek site were, in fac t, coiled. The disparity in this respect between these two mound centers and the nearby Bluffton site , where most of the Orange pottery appears to have been molded (Endonino 2013) , may hint at the presence of multiple distinct Late Archaic potting traditi ons in the middle St. Johns valley or alternatively, it may suggest that Orange pottery intended for deposition at one of the large mound centers was manufactured differently than that destined for other kinds of places. Regardless, it does not appear tha t forming techniques played a significant role in distinguishing between different social constituents or in demarcating spatial divisions within the Silver Glen complex. Vessel Shapes and Sizes Efforts to assign Orange vessel lots to specific vessel types (e.g., bowls, jars, bottles, plates, etc.) have been hampered to a large extent by the typically small vessel

PAGE 221

221 portions that are available for study. Most vessel lots are composed of only one or two sherds , and only a few examples exist that provide a complete lip to base profile. Moreover, Orange pottery is frequently highly irregular with vessels often exhibiting undulating surfaces and crooked orifice outlines. That being said, a vast majority of the analyzed vessel lots from all Silver Glen cont exts are consistent with the shallow, straight sided, and flat bottomed bowls that have been identified within other Orange assemblages throughout the region (e.g., Bullen 1972; Ferguson 1951; Jenks 2006; Saunders 2004b; Wrenn 2012) . One of the most compl ete specimens from the complex (Vessel LB26 ; Figure 5 5) exemplifies this type. Recovered from Locus B at 8LA1W, this Orange Plain vessel is a roughly circular bowl with very slightly incurvate walls that round into a flat base. It measures 11.3 cm in he ight and has 8.3 mm thick walls measured at 3 cm below the lip. Another example from the north ridge at 8LA1E exhibits a very similar shape and measures 8.3 cm tall and features 10.8 cm thick walls. It is possible that a number of the apparently round ve ssel portions lacking bases actually belonged to taller , jar shaped vessels ( such as the complete Orange pot reported on by Hemmings and VonBurger [1975]) rather than shallow bowls. Jars, however, seem to be a relatively rare type among Orange assemblages . Aberrant vessel types at Silver Glen include square or rectangular trays as well as elongated oval or boat shaped bowls . Trays were inferred on the basis of rim sherds that show no perceivable curvature along the lip. Of the eight identified examples of this vessel type, five were recovered from 8LA1W, two from the north ridge at 8LA1E, and one from the 8MR123 mound. The six boat shaped vessels that were identified are split evenly between the 8LA1W and 8LA1E n orth r idge assemblages. In addition, two

PAGE 222

222 vessels, both from 8LA1W, have short lug handles projecting out from their rims. All of these minority types have been previously recognized at other Orange period sites in the middle St. Johns region (e.g., Bullen 1955, 1972; Jenks 2006). None of them occur at Silver Glen in sufficient numbers to allow for the recognition of meaningful spatial patterning across the various contexts being considered . Within this limited range of vessel types, there is still a substantial amount of formal variation. As can be seen in the rim profiles (Figures 5 6 to 5 10), most vessels exhibit vertical or slightly out flaring walls. Rims are primarily straight or incurvate, although, of the latter type, only a few examples would have curved inward far enough to have sig nificantly restrict ed S everal different lip forms are represented in the assemblage (Table 5 4) . While s imple rounded and f lattened lip morphologie s are most common, beveled, flanged, and tapered varieties are also well represented. Again, these morphological distinctions are distributed fairly evenly across both mound and nonmound contexts , and no spatial patterning is readily apparent . Where clear intercontextual differences do exist is in the metric data related to vessel thickness and size (Table 5 5). Lip thickness was measured only for vessel lots with flattened rims due to the difficulty of locating a consistent terminus point for other lip t ypes . Thus, only 31 vessel lots in total were assessed according to this variable. Nevertheless, the data indicate that, within this subset, vessels from the two mounds ( = 10.8 mm ) have a significantly higher average lip thickness than those from the three nonmound contexts ( = 6.3 mm t [ 27 ] = 3.52, p < .01 ; Figures 5 11 and 5 12 ) . An identical pattern exists with regard to rim thickness, with mound

PAGE 223

223 vessels ( = 9.6 mm ) exhibiting significantly thicker rims than those from the other areas ( = 8.0 mm ; t [ 109 ] = 4.75 , p < .0 0 1 ; Figures 5 13 and 5 14 ) . A total of 69 of the analyzed Silver Glen vessel lots retain an adequat e portion of their rim circumference to permit estimation of their orifice diameter. Yet again, the data indicate that vessels from the mounds ( = 24.8 cm ) were, on average, significantly larger than their nonmound counterparts ( = 21.3 cm ; t [ 59 ] = 1.63, p < .1 ; Figures 5 15 and 5 16 . In this case, the difference between the two context types is largely a product of outliers within the assemblages . While the respective modal orifice diameters of the mound and non mound vessels are very similar, the two mounds have yielded unusually large vessels that are not found anywhere else at the complex and 8LA1W has produced a number of anomalously small vessels that are apparently absent at the mounds. In summary then , dat a related to lip thickness, rim Orange period mounds received predominantly larger, thicker walled pottery vessels than did other contemporary places at the complex. The formal characteristics discussed above offer potential clues regarding the material functions of these vessels and specifically, whether or not they were likely to have been employed in particular methods of cooking . Vessel form has substantial effects on a number of variables related to the performance of a cooking pot including its heating effectiveness, the rate at which its contents lose heat, thermal shock resistance, and the ease with which vessel contents can be manipulated (Sassaman 1993:141). Dir ect heat cooking, in which pots are placed directly atop a fire, relies on conduction to achieve cooking temperatures. Rapid and efficient heating is facilitated

PAGE 224

224 by thin vessel walls, which transfer heat more readily (Braun 1983), and rounded bases that a llow for better oxygen flow to the heat source (Hally 1986:280). Heat loss, in this method of cooking, can be minimized by constricting the orifice of a vessel, thereby reducing the orifice diameter:volume ratio and trapping heat inside the pot (Hally 198 6:280; Sassaman 1993:142). Thermal shock resistance, defined as the ability to withstand rapid changes in temperature, can be maximized by maintaining a regular wall thickness and by avoiding sharp angles at the bases and rims of vessels ( Rye 1981:27 ) . A n ideal direct heat cooking pot, therefore, would be a thin walled vessel with a rounded base, constricted orifice, and regular wall thickness. Indirect heat cooking, on the other hand, is conducted by inserting heated objects (usually stones or baked cla y objects) into a liquid filled pot in order to achieve a boil. This method relies on pottery attributes that promote insulation rather than conduction . Such attributes include thick vessel walls and a thick, flat base for preserving and radiating the in ternal source of heat (Reid 1989; Schiffer and Skibo 1987). A higher orifice diameter :volume ratio is also generally required , one that allows for the necessary manipulation and cycling of heated objects (Reid 1989; Schiffer and Skibo 1987). Based on thes e technofunctional p rinciples , it would seem that the hundreds of fiber tempered bowls found at Silver Glen were far more suited to indirect heat cooking tha n for use over fire. Most of the examined vessels, and especially those found at the two mounds , f eature thick walls and flat bases that would have slowed the conduction of heat from the outside. In addition, the broad, open orifices would also have allowed heat to escape quickly, a fact that would have further hindered efforts to a chieve or sustain high temperatures using direct heat methods. Neverthe less, despite

PAGE 225

225 extensive excavations at the complex, no concentrations of fire cracked rock or baked clay objects have been discovered that would point to extensive engagement in stone boiling or related activities. As already noted, the heating effectiveness of these vessels may have been enhanced through other means , such as temper ing strategies (e.g., adding sponge spicules) or surface treatments , that could have rendered pots servic eable, if still not truly ideal, for cooking over fire. The fact that the same basic bowl shape dominates the assemblages across all Silver Glen contexts may be an indication that Orange pots were intended for general usage . If so , then their designs may have been geared more toward functional versatility than maximizing their efficiency with respect to any one type of task. In contrast to the largely redundant pottery shapes , marked spatial disparities in vessel size and wall thickness at Silver Glen m ay reflect important differences in the social conditions surrounding pottery consumption among various parts of the complex. Ethnographic evidence from diverse contexts shows that special occasions involving relatively big groups of people often involve the use of larger than normal pots for purposes of brewing, cooking, and serving (e.g., Longacre 1985 :344 ; Deal 1998; DeBoer and Lathrap 1979). These instances are corroborated by archaeological evidence showing a link between anomalously large vessels an d communal feasting in the Mississippian Southeast (Blitz 1993 ) and pre Columbian Southwest ( Mills 1999). In the case at hand, if it is assumed that the social scale of consumption at different Silver Glen contexts was matched by the size of the pots empl oyed, then it is clear that the scale social events than did other types of places. This seems to support the notion that mounds were indeed places of larg e scale

PAGE 226

226 gathering , made and used by Late Archaic communities for purp oses of feasting and ritual. The activities carried out at various processing and habitation locales, in contrast, appear to have involved relatively modest sized groups the kind more typically associated with Archaic societies in the Southeast . Surface T reatment The Orange pottery from Silver Glen exhibits a diverse array of decorations and other surface treatments . O f the 357 vessel lots examined, 113 ( 37.1 % ) are Orange Plain (i.e., undecorated ), 193 ( 54.1 % ) are Orange incised, 41 ( 11.5 % ) are Tick I sland Incised, and 10 ( 2.8 % ) have eroded exterior surfaces that preclude surface treatment evaluation (see Table 5 6). These numbers almost certainly underestimate the actual proportion of Orange Plain vessels present in the sample due to the difficulty of assigning undecorated body sherds to definitive vessel lots. Virtually all the noneroded vessels that were examined show signs of smoothing on both interior and exterior surfaces . Only eight of them exhibit obvious burnishing facets, with a majority of those limited to the interior surfaces of vessels. ecorated vessels display a broad range of distinctive motifs composed o f var ied combination s of incisions and punctations (see Figures 5 1 7 to 5 2 1 for examples ; see Appendix C for moti f drawings ) . The execution of various decorative techniques varies widely in terms of the straightness of lines, the regularity of spacing, and the overall symmetry of designs, perhaps indicating that multiple skill levels and age groups were involved. A t Silver Glen, as at other Orange sites, a majority of pots one or more parallel lines running along the rim just below the lip. F a rther down vessel walls, Orange I ncised motifs c onsist of both simple designs , involving the repetition of a single

PAGE 227

227 rectilinear element (e.g. vertical, horizontal, or oblique line) , as well as more complex ones that i ncorporate multiple elements into often elaborate geometric patterns . The latter inclu de cross hatching , chevrons, nested triangles and diamonds , and a whole host of other configurations . T wo anomalous vessels , both from 8LA1E NR ( vessels NR114 and NR117; Figure 5 17a, b) exhibit a series of short ticks running along incised lines, a patte rn reminiscent of numerous sherds from northern Atlantic Coast and the u pper St. Johns region (Ferguson 1951; Janus Research 1995 ; Wrenn 2012 ) , but one that is relatively rare among m iddle St. Johns sites . A number of the Silver Glen motifs are divided into horizontal zones, usually demarcated by vertical or oblique lines. Overall, the remarkable diversity displayed by these Orange Incised vessels is such that virtually no two of them bear precisely the same design. Far less diversity is present Tick Island Incised vessels, which, in general, conform very closely to the original type description put forward by Griffin (1945). Like those described elsewhere, Silver Glen examples exhibit horizontally zoned motifs centered on la rge spiraled incisions surrounded by backgrounds of tightly space punctations. Individual z ones are separated by two or more oblique lines and vessels typically exhibit two or more prologue lines running along their lips . Only o ne sland Incised sherds deviates significantly from this general template (vessel JC NR1; Figure 5 18c). Recovered from 8LA1E NR , it features two vertically stacked spirals stacked that are separated by two horizontal incised lines and surrounded by small, i ntermittent panels of punctations . This unique motif was applied to an unusual globular bowl, further setting it apart from other, related vessels at the complex. Across Florida, Tick Island Incised is a relatively

PAGE 228

228 rare type among Orange varieties . It i s found only in the m iddle St. Johns Valley and limited quantities. The 41 vessels that have been uncovered at Silver Glen are by far the most that have been recorded in any si ngle location. D ecorations on both Orange Incised and Tick Island Incised pots are largely restricted to the exterior surfaces of vessel walls. One exception from 8LA1E NR (vessel M MR7 ) has a series of parallel vertical lines that begin on its walls bu t continue down onto the bottom of the pot and eventually converge at its base. In addition, six vessels have decorated lips (see Figure s 5 17c and 5 21d for examples) . Lip d ecorations are most often found on vessels with flattened and thi ckened lips, an d they tend to conform stylistically to the larger wall decorations on the same vessels. Like temper categories and vessel size, pottery surface decoration shows strong spatial patterning at Silver Glen . Of the 172 noneroded vessels examined from the co Late Archaic mounds, 143 (83.1 %) bear some form of surface decoration, while 29 (16.9 %) are plain . Among the vessels from nonmound contexts, 91 (52.0 %) are decorated, and 84 (48.0 %) are plain , indicating a statistically significant disparity a cross the complex ( 2 [ 1, N = 347 ] = 38.27, p = <.001 ) . Additional patterning is evident in the distribution of various types of decoration. Of the decorated vessels at the mounds, 126 (88.1 %) exhibit Orange Incised motifs and 17 (11.9 %) show Tick Islan d Incised designs. At all other contexts, 67 vessels (73.6 %) are Orange Incised and 24 vessels (26.4 %) are Tick Island Incised. Once again, this pattern is statistically significant ( 2 [1, N = 234] = 8.17, p = <.01 ) . Interestingly, excluding their sur face treatment, decorated vessels from nonmound contexts conform more closely to the

PAGE 229

229 plain vessels in the same locations in terms of both technology and size than they do to the spicule rich decorated vessels from the mounds. Beyond the details of the deco rations themselves , there also appears to be a spatial disparity in the application of incised and punctated motifs . A large majority of decorated sherds from 8LA1W and the other nonmound contexts show raised ridges of clay lining the edges of each design element ( see Figure 5 22) , indicating that the designs were applied when the clay was still wet stylus. This attribute was also noted by Bullen (1955, 1972) when discussing the Orange pottery assemblage from the nearb y Bluffton site and may be characteristic of pottery manufactured locally in the middle St. Johns Valley. A number of the incised these ridges of clay ; however, many others from these locations were decorated after they had reached a leather hard state, resulting in sharper, more self contained incisions. These spatial discrepancies offer further clues regarding the nature of Silver 7 ) ideas regarding the link between heightened stylistic expression and increas ed social distance are accepted, then the may be attributed to the relatively diverse range of cultural constituencies involved in mound centered events. Further, the larger vessel sizes at the mounds would have provided a more expansive canvas with which to convey stylistic information and would have increased the visibility of these messages across longer physical distances (Mills 2007). The smaller and less decorated pottery at nonmound contexts would, in turn, seem to reflect the relatively restricted scope of participation in the interactions at these more intimate

PAGE 230

230 locations. T he fact that the spatial differences at Silver Glen enco mpass not only the frequency and style of surface decorations but also extend to the mode in which they were applied helps to corroborate these perceived spatial distinctions . These surface treatment disparities have a temporal component as well, although the situation was likely much more complicated than Bullen ( 1955, 1972) imagined . Assays obtained directly from the exterior soot and charred organic temper of several sherds demonstrate convincingly that el a borately decorated vessels dominated pottery co around 4600 cal B.P. and continued throughout the Orange period . In contrast, the first few centuries of intensive pit digging and shellfish processing undertaken at Locus B involve d exclusively plain pottery . It was o nly late in depositional history, when digging was discontinued and the pits themselves were capped in shell ( at ca. 4000 cal B.P.) , that decorated v essels appeared in substantial numbers in this area. Thes e data are consistent with the idea that the 8LA1E mound was, from the very beginning , a place of convergence for multiple distinct groups whose identities were, at least in part, reflected in the ornate and diverse pottery that they compiled. Most of the coeval activities at Locus B, on the other hand, were probably carried out by a relatively restricted , and perhaps localized , subset of participants among whom identity signaling would have been less of a concern . The subsequent appearance of decorated s herds this dramatic transformation of the 8LA1W landscape. Use Alteration Multiple forms of use alteration were ( Table 5 7; Figure 5 24) . Some of these, including various signs of t hermal and

PAGE 231

231 mechanical attrition, were noted but were difficult to quantify and interpret due to their relative rarity and the small vessel portions available for study. Others, such as internal and external re sidues and mend holes, are much more informative. One of the most common signs of use is the soot found adhering to the exterior surfaces of numerous vessels. In total, 32 (9.0 %) of the 357 analyzed vessel lots exhibit at least a trace of exterior soot. In general, soot is distributed along vessel rims, although in a few cases it extends all the way up onto the lip. T he frequency of soot , like several of the pottery attributes already discussed, is patterned spatially across the complex. The assemblage contain a total of 2 8 (15. 6 %) sooted vessels , while vessels at nonmound contexts produced a total of only 4 ( 2.2 %) instances of soot . A similar pattern exists with regard to interior residues, with 20 ( 11.2 %) of the mound vessels and only 4 (2.2 %) of the nonmound vessels exhibiting charred remains on their interior surfaces. Th ese mound nonmound disparit ies (which , in both cases, are statistically significant, 2 [ 1, N = 357 ] = 19 .77 , p = <.001 and 2 [1, N = 357] = 11.43 , p = <.001 ) are unlikely to be a result of postdepositional taphonomic processes , as all sampled contexts co ntain dense shell deposits that are favorable for organic preservation . If anything, the sherds recovered from the mounds, many of which were displaced during mining operations and redeposited in shell poor locations, would be expected to have endured the most destructive conditions. As a sure sign of direct use over fire, the prevalence of sooting on mound deposited vessels, along with its virtual absence in other areas of the complex, would seem to indicate a distinct suite of cooking practices in monumental contexts. A

PAGE 232

232 number of vessels from 8LA1W, however, show thickened zones of oxi dation and apparent thermal attrition on their bases, suggesting that they too were subjected to a direct heat source. It is possible that , instead of indirect versus direct heat cooking, differential soot accumulation at Silver Glen may relate to the man ner in which pots were positioned in relation to the fire. Soot typically accrues where the top of a flame makes contact with a vessel. C onseq uently, in cases where pots especially small , shallow ones such as those found at 8LA1W were placed directly ont o the coals of large fires, it is likely that soot would not have been deposited (Hally 1983:10). Throughout the complex, the widespread evidence of Orange pots being used over fires defies technofunctional expectations based on vessel shapes and thicknes s and may be yet another sign of their functional versatility. I nterior residues have great potential to reveal much more detail regarding the actual kinds of substances being heated and consumed at the complex. Their analysis, however, was beyond the sc ope of this study. A total of eleven sherds from distinct vessel lots have holes drilled near their rims, presumably reflecting attempts to mend broken pots . In three of these, drilling was stopped before completely perforating the vessel wall , perhaps a sign of irreparable structural failure during the drilling process . Nine of the vessels with mend holes were 8LA1W. The small sample sizes in this case make statistical comparisons impossible. Nonetheless, the higher proportion of mend holes at the mounds may well be an indication of the elevated cultural value bestowed on the larger, more intricately decorated, and more techno stylistically diverse vessels deposited in these monumental

PAGE 233

233 locations. Overall, this and other use alteration patterns help further substantiate other forms of pottery data that show marked disparities other contexts. Summary and Discussion T he techno stylistic a nd use alteration data presented here do not permit many pottery. They do, nevertheless , allow for two compelling inferences regarding Orange pottery use at Silver Glen. Fi rst, it is clear that the different depositional contexts described in C hapter 4 were also subjected to distinct patterns of pottery consumption during the course of various Late Archaic social events. And second, numerous lines of pottery evidence provid e strong support for the notion mounds were the sites of larger scale, more socially diverse interactions than other contemporary locations within the complex. To summarize the patterns that were uncovered, the pottery as semblages from all five Silver Glen contexts were dominated by shallow, straight sided bowls that would not have been ideal for direct heat cooking but were likely versatile enough to be employed in a wide range of cooking and serving tasks. This general consistency in vessel form, however, is belied by sharp intercontextual contrasts based on a number of other pottery attributes. Pottery from the two mounds contains all of the temper categories present in other parts of the complex but also includes a la rge quantity of otherwise rare spicule tempered vessels. In addition, mound vessels are on average significantly larger, thicker, and more likely to be decorated than vessels from nonmound contexts. Vessels from the mounds also exhibit a higher frequency of some forms of use alteration, including soot and mend holes , indicating a distinct range of

PAGE 234

234 activities in these locations . Among nonmound contexts, Locus B at 8LA1W is unique in showing a diachronic move from exclusively plain to mostly decorated vess els, a shift that corresponded with a major transition in how the site was utilized. Many of the decorated vessels eventually employed in this area exhibit Tick Island Incised motifs, a rare type at all but a few locations in the middle St. Johns Valley. Overall, these data highlight major functional and social boundaries within the complex during the Orange period and provide strong evidence for the occurrence of large scale public gatherings It is important to keep in mind, tho ugh, that pottery is not merely a reflection of Late Archaic social conditions that existed at Silver Glen , but instead would have played an instrumental role in helping create them. bundling capabilities. As already discussed, every piece of pottery bundles together numerous raw materials and traditional practices as well as the various techno stylistic choices made by a potter operating in a particular context. The nature of pottery technology is such that most of entities brought together during manufacture of a vessel are readily observable in the finished product. Moreover, t he durability of fired clay means that the relations established among these assorted constituents may persist over long periods of time, even after pots are broken and dispersed , thus rendering pottery a potentially powerful material referent capable of influencing future practices and interactions . At Silver Glen, t he consumption and deposition of pottery contributed significantly t o Late Archaic social history . E ach pot bundled together a range of clays, tempers, technical attributes , and styles , resulting in an overall assemblage with

PAGE 235

235 a n array of sizes, colors, textures, and decorative qualities. Much like the shell deposition strategies discussed in the previous chapter, t he patterned use and discard of these assorted pots played an active part in determining the way that Silver Glen was inhabited and experienced . This fact becomes more apparent when the complex is approached as an ever unfolding historical process and not evaluated exclusively in terms of its static final form . As other s have pointed out with regard to coastal shell rings (e.g., Russo 2004 ; Saunders and Wrenn 2014) , Orange period shell mounds were not just constructed as venues for large social gatherings; they were actually built during the course of these gatherings as the remains of feast s and other ritual events were assembled in place . In the case at hand, t he first pots employed in each of t he Silver Glen to creation as a specific kind of place and set a precedent for future activities there . Over time, continued adherence to established conventions of pottery use (along with shell dep osition and other place making activities) resulted in designated , materially distinct loci that were reserved for different spheres of social practice including domestic habitation, shellfish processing, and public ceremony. It was the spatial segregatio n of these various endeavors that ultimately culminated in the highly structured monumental landscape observed by modern archaeologists. association with multiple levels of social identity means that its circulation and accumulation constituted effective means for manipulat ing relationships and build ing connections between people and places. and processing spaces, t he generally homogeneous vessel forms and tempers , along with a relative dearth of surface decorat ion, points to interaction s among members of

PAGE 236

236 one or perhaps a few closely related potting communities. If it is assumed that these contexts were populated by local residents of middle St. Johns valley (a suspicion that seems to be confirmed by the sourcin g data presented in Chapter 6) , then it is possible that they reflect the activities of the circumscribed group s acting as stewards or hosts of the nearby mound centered feasting events. Conversely, the incredible techno stylistic diversity exhibited by the pottery deposited in the mounds themselves hint at participation on a much more expansive social scale. The exaggerated sizes of the mound pots along with their elaborately incised exteriors suggest that these vessels were manufactured specifically fo r conspicuous public consumption and were not simply domestic cooking pots conscripted for use in an alternative social environment. Evidence of repair among these vessels reflects not only the time an effort that went into their production but also the i mportance of the social projects for which they were intended. Similar disparities between Orange period mounds and nonmound places have been noted elsewhere in northeast ern Florida . As discussed above, multiple circumstances have been posited to accoun t for this widespread pattern , includ ing a model in which self in terested aggrandizers compet ed for power through the accumulation of food and prestige linked pottery (Russo 2004) and , alternatively, one in which circumscribed groups of highly trained spec ialists provision ed ritual centers with huge quantities of pottery characterized by standardized forms and designs (Saunders and Wrenn 2014). In contrast to these scenarios , t he picture that emerges at Silver Glen is one of broad scale , largely egalitaria n participation in communally oriented ritual gatherings. As at other Orange mounds in the region , the massive quantity of food

PAGE 237

237 remains, the oversized and elaborately decorated pottery, and general scalar contrasts with other types of contemporary places provide strong evidence for large scale feasting events . During the course of these events, individuals and groups with distinct geographic origins and cultural affiliations came together and deposited copious amounts of ornate pottery in a single locatio n. The inclusive (and decidedly nonspecialized) nature of these activities is apparent from not only the diversity of compositions and styles represented but also in the broad range of skill levels displayed in vessel forms and decorations . In bundling th ese diverse vessels together in monumental contexts, relationships among far flung people and places would have been established and made tangible in a very public forum . The outcome of these efforts was a durable, albeit ever evolving , macrocommunity bas ed on repeated aggregation and shell mounds. Thus, both depositional evidence ( discussed in C hapter 4) and data related to pottery technology and style indicate that Silver Glen was indeed the site of periodic gathering events. These gatherings involved feasting and ritualized depositional acts that integrated diverse groups and helped maintain a heterogeneous mound centered community. The next chapter focuses on defining the social and geographical scale of these communal rel ation s through examination of pottery compositional data. It incorporates Information gleaned from chemical and mineralogical sourcing techniques in order and to better understan broader Late Archaic landscape.

PAGE 238

238 Table 5 1 . Sub period Temper Forming Technique Vessel Morphology Surface Treatment Orange 1 F iber H and mold ed R ound flat bott omed basins; rectangular containers; occasional lugs; rounded lips P lain Orange 2 F iber H and mold ed R ound flat bottomed basins; rectangular containers; occasional lugs; rounded lips P lain, incised concentric diamonds, Tick Island Incised motifs Orange 3 F iber H and mold ed R ound flat bottomed basins; rectangular containers; rare miniature vessels with i ncurving rims and round mou ths; rare lugs; relatively thick vessel walls; rounded lips; thickened, flat lips C omplex incised rectilinear designs occasionally bordered by ticks; rare punctations; incised and punctated lips Orange 4 F iber and quartz sand H and mold ed and coil ed r ound, flat bottomed basins; mostly straight sided vessels but occasionally in c urvate E xtremely simple incised rectil inear designs Orange 5 F iber and quartz sand ; some chalky sherds H and molding and coil ed R ound bowls and basins E xtremely simple incised rectilinear designs; rare triangular punctations Table 5 2. Number of analyzed vessel lots by spatial context. 8LA1E NR 8LA1E SR 8LA1W 8MR123 MD 8MR123 VL Total Vessel lots 14 9 10 147 30 21 35 7

PAGE 239

239 T able 5 3. Orange pottery inventory tabulated by temper category and spatial context. VESSEL FREQUENCY 8LA1E NR 8LA1E SR 8LA1W 8MR123 MD 8MR12 3 VL Total F iber 10 2 13 7 4 36 F iber and sand 1 21 6 85 8 14 134 F iber and spicules 2 112 1 10 14 1 138 F iber, sand, & spicules 6 1 39 1 2 49 Total 149 10 147 30 21 357 ROW % Fiber 27.8 5.6 36.1 19.4 11.1 100.0 Fiber and sand 15.7 4. 5 63.4 6.0 10.4 100.0 Fiber and spicules 81.2 81.2 7.2 10.1 0.7 100.0 Fiber, sand, & spicules 12.2 2.0 79.6 2.0 4.1 100.0 Total 41.7 2.8 41.2 8.4 5.9 100.0 COLUMN % Fiber 6.7 20.0 8.8 23.3 19.0 10.1 Fiber and sand 14.1 60.0 57.8 26.7 66.7 37.5 Fiber and spicules 75.2 10.0 6.8 46.7 4.8 38.7 Fiber, sand, & spicules 4.0 10.0 26.5 3.3 9.5 13.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Defined by the presence of greater than a trace amount of sand size quartz grains under microscopic examinatio n. 2 Defined by the presence of greater than a trace amount of freshwater sponge spicules under microscopic examination

PAGE 240

240 Table 5 4. Orange pottery inventory tabulated by lip form category and spatial context. VESSEL FREQUENCY 8LA1E NR 8LA1E SR 8LA1W 8MR123 MD 8MR123 VL Total B eveled 3 -1 1 -5 B eveled exterior 7 -9 --16 B eveled interior 6 -3 --9 Do uble flanged --1 --1 F langed exterior 1 -1 1 -3 F langed interior 4 1 9 4 -18 F lattened 13 1 14 2 1 31 R ounded 16 2 22 3 1 44 R ounded exterior 21 1 27 4 2 55 R ounded interior --3 --3 T apered 6 -9 --15 Total 77 5 99 15 4 200 ROW % B eveled 60.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 100.0 B eveled exterior 43.8 0.0 56.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 B eveled interior 66.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 Do uble flanged 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 F langed exterior 33.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 100.0 F langed interior 22.2 5.6 50.0 22.2 0.0 100.0 F lattened 41.9 3.2 45.2 6.5 3.2 100.0 R ounded 36.4 4.5 50.0 6.8 2.3 10 0.0 R ounded exterior 38.2 1.8 49.1 7.3 3.6 100.0 R ounded interior 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 T apered 40.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total 38.5 2.5 49.5 7.5 2.0 100.0 COLUMN % B eveled 3.9 0.0 1.0 6.7 0.0 2.5 B eveled exterior 9.1 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 8.0 B eveled interior 7.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 Do uble flanged 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 F langed exterior 1.3 0.0 1.0 6.7 0.0 1.5 F langed interior 5.2 20.0 9.1 26.7 0.0 9.0 F lattened 16.9 20.0 14.1 13.3 25.0 15.5 R ounded 20.8 40.0 22.2 20.0 25.0 22.0 R ou nded exterior 27.3 20.0 27.3 26.7 50.0 27.5 R ounded interior 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 T apered 7.8 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 7.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

PAGE 241

241 Table 5 5. Summary statistics on Orange pottery lip thickness (mm), wall thickness (mm), an d orifice diameter (cm) tabulated by spatial context. 8LA1E NR 8LA1E SR 8LA1W 8MR123 MD 8MR123 VL Total Lip t hickness 1 n 13 1 14 2 1 31 M ean 11.1 5.5 6. 4 8.6 4.8 Standard dev. 4.0 0.0 0.9 4.0 0.0 M inimum 7.2 5.5 3.9 5.8 4.8 M aximu m 19.6 5.5 17.0 11.4 4.8 Rim ( w all) t hickness 2 n 66 3 39 9 2 119 Mean 9.6 9.1 7.9 9.7 8.9 Standard dev. 2.0 1.9 1.6 2.5 1.4 Minimum 5.4 7.0 3.9 5.8 7.9 Maximum 15.3 10.5 11.7 13.8 9.9 Orifice d iameter 3 n 37 3 24 3 2 69 Mean 24.8 28.7 20.3 24.7 22.0 Standard dev. 8.1 6.4 9.1 13.6 2.8 Minimum 10.0 24.0 6.0 14.0 20.0 Maximum 48.0 36.0 36.0 40.0 24.0 1 Measured for all vessel lots with flattened lips. 2 Measured 3 cm below the lip. 3 Estimated using a standardi zed rim chart for all vessel lots with at least five percent of the rim circumference intact.

PAGE 242

242 Table 5 6. Orange pottery inventory tabulated by surface decoration and spatial context. VESSEL FREQUENCY 8LA1E NR 8LA1E SR 8LA1W 8MR123 MD 8MR123 VL Total Orange Plain 25 7 67 4 10 113 Orange Incised 106 3 57 20 7 193 Tick Island Incised 12 -22 5 2 41 Eroded 6 -1 1 2 10 Total 149 10 147 30 21 357 ROW % Orange Plain 22.1 6.2 59.3 3.5 8.8 100.0 Orange Incised 54.9 1.6 14.0 10.4 3.6 100.0 Tick Island Incised 29.3 0.0 53.7 12.2 4.9 100.0 Eroded 60.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 100.0 Total 41.7 2.8 41.2 8.4 5.9 100.0 COLUMN % Orange Plain 16.8 70.0 45.6 13.3 47.6 31.7 Orange Incised 71.1 30.0 38.8 66.7 33.3 54.1 Tick Isla nd Incised 8.1 0.0 15.0 16.7 9.5 11.5 Eroded 4.0 0.0 0.7 3.3 9.5 2.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 5 7. Frequency of various forms of use alteration tabulated by spatial context. 8LA1E NR 8LA1E SR 8LA1W 8MR123 MD 8MR123 VL Total Soot 23 1 3 5 -32 Interior residue 18 -3 2 1 24 Mend holes 5 -2 2 -9

PAGE 243

243 Figure 5 1. Examples of Orange Incised and Tick Island Incised varieties of Orange pottery. Illustrations courtesy of Ryan Hopewell.

PAGE 244

244 Figure 5 2. Ma p of the Silver Glen complex showing the locations of Orange contexts sampled for pottery analysis . 1) 8LA1 East north ridge . 2) 8LA1 East south ridge . 3) 8LA1 West Locus B/Locus C . 4) 8MR123 mound . and 5) 8MR123 village . Topographic reconstruction adapte d from Randall ( 2014).

PAGE 245

245 Figure 5 3. Multiplot showing the probability distributions of 2 sigma calibrated radiocarbon assays from various Late Archaic , site 8LA1 contexts sampled for Orange pottery analysis .

PAGE 246

246 Figure 5 4. Multiplot showing the probability distributions of 2 sigma calibrated radiocarbon assays from various Late Archaic , site 8MR123 contexts sampled for Orange pottery analysis .

PAGE 247

247 Figure 5 5. Reconstructed portion of an Orange Plain vessel from Locus B at 8LA1W. Artifact held in the collections of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology. Photograph courtesy of the author.

PAGE 248

248 Figure 5 6. Rim profiles of selected Orange Incised vessels from the north ridge at 8LA1E. (Vessel interiors oriented to the right.)

PAGE 249

249 F igure 5 7. Rim profiles of Orange Plain vessels from the north ridge at 8LA1E. (Vessel interiors oriented to the right).

PAGE 250

250 Figure 5 8 . Rim profiles of selected Orange Plain vessels from 8LA1W. (Vessel Interiors oriented to the right.)

PAGE 251

251 Figure 5 9. Rim profiles of selected Orange Incised (top row) and Tick Island Incised (bottom row) vessels from 8LA1W. (Vessel Interiors oriented to the right.)

PAGE 252

252 Figure 5 10 . Rim profiles of selected Orange vessels f rom 8LA1E SR , the 8MR123 VL , and 8MR123 MD . (8LA1E and 8MR123 V L profiles are all from Orange Plain vessels. Vessel interiors are oriented to the right.)

PAGE 253

253 Figure 5 11. Absolute frequency of Orange vessel lip thicknesses from mound contexts (8LA1E NR and 8MR123 MD) at Silver Glen. Figure 5 12. Absolute frequency of Orange vessel lip thicknesses from nonmound contexts (8LA1E SR, 8LA1W, and 8MR123 VL) at Silver Glen. 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Frequency Lip Thickness (mm) Mounds 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Frequency Lip Thickness (mm) Nonmounds

PAGE 254

254 Figure 5 1 3 . Absolute frequency of Orange vessel rim thicknesses from mound contexts (8LA1E NR and 8MR123 MD) at Silver Glen. Figure 5 1 4 . Absolute frequency of Orange vessel rim thicknesses from nonmound contexts (8LA1E SR, 8LA1W, and 8MR123 VL) at Silver Glen. 0 5 10 15 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Frequency Rim Thickness (mm) Mounds 0 5 10 15 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Frequency Rim Thickness (mm) Nonmounds

PAGE 255

2 55 Figure 5 1 5 . Absolute frequency of Orange vessel rim orifice diameter from mound cont exts (8LA1E NR and 8MR123 MD) at Silver Glen. Figure 5 1 6 . Absolute frequency of Orange vessel orifice diameter from nonmound contexts (8LA1E SR, 8LA1W, and 8MR123 VL) at Silver Glen. 0 2 4 6 8 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Frequency Orifice Diameter (cm) Mounds 0 2 4 6 8 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Frequency Orifice Diameter (cm) Nonmounds

PAGE 256

256 Figure 5 1 7 . Select Orange Incised pottery sherds fro m the north ridge at 8LA1 East. A B) rectilinear motif with tick marks. C K) other rectilinear motifs. Artifacts held in the collections of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology and the Florida Museum of Natural History. Photographs courtesy of the a uthor.

PAGE 257

257 Figure 5 1 8 . Select Tick Island Incised sherds from the north ridge at 8LA1E. A B) typical Tick Island Incised motif. C) anomalous curvilinear motif. Artifacts held in the collections of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology and the Fl orida Museum of Natural History. Photographs courtesy of the author.

PAGE 258

258 Figure 5 19 . Select Orange pottery sherds from the 8MR123 Mound. A B ) Orange Plain. C) Tick Island Incised . D G) Orange Incised . Artifacts held in the collections of the Florida Museum of Natural History. Photographs courtesy of the author.

PAGE 259

259 Figure 5 2 0 . Select Orange pottery sherds from 8LA1W. A F ) Orange Incised. G H) Orange Plain. Artifacts held in the collections of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology . Photographs courtesy of the author.

PAGE 260

260 Figure 5 2 1 . Select Tick Island Incised sherds from 8LA1W. A E) rim sherds. F ) rim with lug handle. Artifacts held in the collections of the Laborat ory of Southeastern Archaeology . Photographs courtesy of the author.

PAGE 261

261 Figure 5 22. Close up photographs of Orange pottery incisions. A) wet clay incisions with raised ridges. B) dry clay incisions. Artifacts held in the collections of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology. Photographs courtesy of t he author. Figure 5 2 3 . Relative frequency of surface treatments by spatial context at Silver Glen. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 8LA1E-NR 8LA1E-SR 8LA1W 8MR123-MD 8MR123-VL Percent Orange Plain Orange Incised Tick Island Incised

PAGE 262

262 Fig ure 5 2 4 . Examples of various forms of use alteration observed on Orange vessels at Silver Glen . A B) soot. C E) mend holes . F) therma l attrition. G ) mechanical attrition. Artifacts held in the collections of the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology. Photographs courtesy of the author.

PAGE 263

263 CHAPTER 6 PERIOD GATHERINGS The s hell deposition and pottery attribute data reveal a great deal regarding the content and organization of Orange period interactions at Silver Glen, but they are unable to directly address the social and geographic scale of these events . As discussed in C h apter 2, one of the primary disagreements that separat es competing interpretation s of Archaic mounds is whether they accreted gradually as a result of persistent occupation by local populations or were constructed rapidly during the course of extralocal ag gregation events. Material sourcing analyses have the potential to resolve aspects of this debate by allowing archaeologists to trace the movement of nonlocal materials (and by extension the people transporting them) into local mound complexes. In this w ay, the spatial extent of the mound centered interaction networks can be defined and the scale of participation in mound construction can be estimated. When it comes to sourcing pottery , two related techniques neutron activation analysis (NAA) and ceramic petrography have been particularly successful in linking archaeological samples to specific source locations based on nuances in chemical and mineralogical composition . While these techniques (especially NAA) have been employed less commonly in the Southe ast than in some other regions (most notably the American Southwest and Mesoamerica), numerous recent studies have demonstrated their effectiveness and enormous potential for investigating indigenous southeastern histories (e.g., Smith 1998; Steponaitis et al. 1996; Wallis 2010, 2011). This chapter presents the results of NAA and petrographic analysis of Orange pottery from Silver Gle n as well as raw clay samples from Florida and Georgia. The results from both techniques indicate that the greatest composi tional diversity occurs in pottery from the

PAGE 264

264 a substantial quantity of the mound pottery was likely manufactured hundreds of kilometers from Silver Glen, while nonmound assemblages were m uch more local in scope. This pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that Orange period mounds were important convergence points for the various human and nonhuman actors involved in expansive Late Archaic networks of interaction. NAA Sampl ing and Meth ods A total of 288 of the vessel lots that were analyzed for techno stylistic variability (see C hapter 5) were sampled and subjected to NAA (Table 6 1) . As discussed in C hapter 5, these vessel lots were recovered from five distinct Orange period contexts at Silver Glen : two shell mounds (8LA1E NR and 8MR123), a specialized pit digging and shellfish processing area (8LA1W), and two likely habitation spaces (8LA1E SR and 8MR123 VL). Variations in sample size among these contexts reflect the disparate sizes of the broader assemblages from which they were drawn. In addition to the pottery, 20 natural clay sources were also sampled and submitted for NAA. These samples were extracted from the m iddle St. Johns River v alley and from preselected areas where Late Archaic period connec tions with the St. Johns region have been previously hypothesized, including the adjacent Atlantic coastline (Sassaman 2013; Sassaman and Randall 2012), the northern peninsular Gulf Coast (McFadden and Palmiotto 2012) , and southwest Fl orida (Cordell 2004). Data from 57 additional Florida and Georgia clays that were analyzed during separate research projects by Neill Wallis and Keith Ashley were also incorporated into this study, bringing the total number of clay reference samples to 7 7 (Table 6 2 ; Figure 6 1).

PAGE 265

265 N eutron activation analysis is a bulk chemical technique used to characterize the elemental constituents of a material. In brief, t his technique involves placing a small, usually powdered, sample into a nuclear reactor core wher e it is bombarded with neutrons. This bombardment results in a small fraction of the nuclei being transformed into unstable radioactive isotopes that decay at a known rate. While decaying, isotopes emit gamma rays with characteristic energies that can be m easured to determine the quantities of the various elements present in the sample ( Glascock et al. 200 4 ) . The analytical precision of NAA (Bishop et al. 1982:292; Rice 1987:397), along with its small sample requirements and simple preparation procedures ( Glascock 1992), have made it the disciplinary standard for the chemical characterization of pottery pastes (Pollard and Heron 2008:50). This level of precision is particularly important for provenance studies in peninsular Florida where most clays are com positionally similar due to their ultimate derivation from the same southern Appalachian protolith (Bell 1924:118 119; Scott 1990:325). Resulting chemical distinctions among clays are often subtle and difficult to measure. Fortunately, though, patterned variation does exist and multiple researchers have effectively distinguished between local and nonlocal vessels at Florida sites (Rice 1980; Smith 1998; Wallis et al. 2010). long and successful track record, some researchers have ra ised questions regarding the validity of ceramic pro venance conclusions drawn from NAA based primarily on statistical and methodological concerns (Flannery et al. 2005; Sharer et al. 2006; Stoltman and Mainfort 2002; Stoltman et al. 2005). While the stati stical objections have been thoroughly rebutted (Neff et al. 2006), concerns regarding some inherent limitations of bulk chemical techniques do have merit. Most of

PAGE 266

266 the potential issues relate to the unique itineraries (as d efined in C hapter 3) of pots and their constituent raw materials and the inability of NAA to isolate the chemical signatures of natural raw clays from those created by cultural tempers, absorbed residues , and diagenesis ( Stoltman et al. 2005) . Fortunately, multiple studies have shown th at the chemical impacts of most tempers are not so severe as to completely obscure the signature of the unaltered clays (Neff et al. 1988, 1989) . T he effects of some of the more obfuscating tempering materials (e.g., shell) can also be factored out mathem atically (Cogswell et al. 1998) . Further, if the chemical profiles of pots can be matched with natural geological source materials, then the idea of contamination becomes less plausible (Neff and Glowacki 2002). Perhaps the best way to ensure the validit y of chemical provenance determinations, however, is to pair NAA with a complimentary compositional technique such as petrography or x ray diffraction (XRD). For this study, all pottery and clay samples were sent to the University of Missouri Research Rea ctor (MURR) Archaeometry Laboratory for NAA. Pottery sherds were sampled by cutting off an approximately 2 x 2 cm fragment using a diamond tipped rotary saw. Raw clays were molded into rectangular tiles, fired in an electric kiln, and cut in the same man ner. procedures, which have been explained in detail elsewhere (Glascock 1992; Neff and Glowacki 2002) and will therefore be described only briefly here . First, the outer surface of each sample w as abr aded with a silicon carbide burr in order to remove any slips or paints as well as adhering residues and soil. Each sample was then washed with de ionized water , dried, and crushed into a powder before being subjected to a total of two irradiations (one s hort and one long) and three gamma counts using high purity

PAGE 267

267 germanium detectors. Together, these methods allow ed for the detection of 33 elements, the concentrations of which were tabulated in parts per million The raw data were then subjected to quantita tive analyses with two primary goals. The first of these was to identify within the pottery data discrete compositional groups assumed to correspond to distinct source locations . According to Glascock (1992:16): compositional hyperspace described by the measured elemental concentrations. An individual group is characterized by the location of its centroid and the unique correlations of the element concentrations with one another. Decisions about whether to assign specimens to a particular compositional group should be based on the overall probability that the measured concentrations for a specimen could have been obtained from that group. The second goal was then to make source determination s by linking these pottery groups to clay reference samples with known proveniences (Glascock 1992:16). The ourcing is possible as long as there exists some qualitati ve or quantitative, chemical or mineralogical difference between natural sources that exceeds the qualitative or citing Weigand et al. 1977 ). Inferences regarding provenance are also som etimes attempted in the absence of raw material sampling, making it impossible to pinpoint precise source locations. In such cases, researchers often attempt to determine which vessel groups assumption that things (in this case, pottery vessels) are most common closest to where they originate (Bishop et al. 1982; Neff and Glowacki 2002). Although frequently relied

PAGE 268

268 on by necessity , experts caution against placing too m uch faith in conclusions based entirely on this principle (Neff and Glowacki 2002). In this case, two related methods were employed to divide the pottery into distinct compositional groups. First, a series of simple bivariate scatterplots were created, each of which showed the position of pottery data points in relation to two individual elements. These were used to isolate preliminary groupings of samples that consistently clustered together across multiple plots. In order to visualize more than two e lements simultaneously, the data were also reduced to princip al components and a series of princip al component biplots were produced . Princip al components analysis (PCA) is a multivariate statistical technique designed to decrease the dimensionality of co mplex sets of data . It involves transforming the data using eigenvector methods in order to determine the direction and magnitude of maximum variance in hyperspace 2 (Glascock 1992:17 ; Glascock et al. 2004:98 99 ). PCA is a standard and extremely useful too l for finding patterns in NAA research because it simplifies the data , providing a new basis for describing the entire distribution, without sacrificing much information (Glascock 1992:18). It is also advantageous in that it allows the results of both Q m ode analysis, which deals with variables (i.e., elements), and R mode analysis, which focuses on objects (i.e., individual analyzed samples) to be displayed on the same set of princip al component (PC) axes (Baxter 1992, 1994; Neff 1994; 2002) . In this way , 2 The first principal component (PC) is a linear combination of the original variables and is oriented in the direct ion of maximum variance . T he second PC is calculated to lie in the direction of remaining variance, with the additional constraint that it must be perpendicular to the first PC. The third PC lies in the direction of maximum remaining variance after the v ariance attributed to the second PC has been removed and is orthogonal to the first two PCs. This procedure continues until the number of PCs is (Glascock 1992: 17 18 ; see also Neff 2002 for a complete mathematic al explanation of PCA ).

PAGE 269

269 interrelationships between specific elements may be discovered and used in defining compositional groups . Once preliminary groups were formed using elemental and PC plots , the statistical validity of these groups was evaluated using Mahalanobis distance (MD) 3 . Taking into account the variances and covariances in a multivariate group, MD permits calculation of the probability that a particular sample belongs to a defined group (Bishop and Neff 1989; Glascock 1992; Glascock et al. 2004). The one major lim itation of this measure is that it requires that the number of group members exceed the number of elements being considered by at least one. However, when dealing with small group sizes, MD can still be calculated by substituting PC scores for the raw dat a , provided that enough components are used to subsume 90 percent (Glascock et al. 2004). Based on MD scores, the preliminary compositional groups were refined by adding , subtracting, and moving individual samples. The finali zed groups were then compared to the clay data in order to make source determinations , and the distribution s of group members were compared across the various Silver Glen contexts. NAA Results The analyses carried out at MURR yielded measurements for 33 el ements. Ultimately, three of these were removed from the data set in order to avoid introducing 3 The Mahalanobis distance of a specimen from a group centroid (Bieber et al. 1976, Bishop and Neff 1989) is defined by: , where y is the 1 x m array of logged elemental concentrations for the specimen of interest, X is the n x m data matrix of logged concentrations for the group to which the point is being compared with being i ts 1 x m centroid, and is the inverse of the m x m variance : covariance matrix of group X .

PAGE 270

270 artificial biases , unrelated to pottery provenance, into the grouping procedures. As is usually the case with North American assemblages, nickel (N i ) was pres ent in smaller than detectable quantities in a majority of the submitted samples and was, as a result , excluded from all quantitative analyses. In the end, c alcium (Ca) and strontium (Sr) were also discarded due to concerns that levels of these elements h ad been impacted by the depositional environments of sampled pottery sherds. In a study of Woodland period pottery from Florida and Georgia, Wallis (2011:96) found that these elements were most elevated among assemblages from shell middens and generally d iminished among samples from nonshell contexts. He attributes this pattern to the fact that, as water soluble elements, calcium and strontium are subject to leaching and transferal from surrounding shell matrix into the pores of permeable, low fired potte ry (Wallis 2011:96). In the present study, the various sampled contexts all contain some amount of shell; however, the precise nature of the original depositional environments is in many cases unknown due to historic landscape modifications. Nonetheless, t hin sections from analyzed sherds (discussed in detail later in this chapter) show that fiber voids are frequently lined with calcareous material almost certain to have been introduced postdepositionally (Figure 6 2) . Consequently, as a precaution, a ma thematical correction was used to remove calcium and strontium from the samples and to compensate for their diluting effects on the other elements. As defined by Cogswell et al. (1998:64) and Steponai tis et al. (1988), the following correction was impleme nted:

PAGE 271

271 where is the corrected concentration of a given element in parts per million (ppm), e is the measured concentration of that element in ppm, and c is the concentration of elemental calcium in ppm. Quantitative anal yses were conducted on the data related to the remaining 30 elements . The PCA results are highly informative in revealing the elements most responsible for compositional variation across the samples . The first five PCs account for approximately 82.5 % of the total variation in the data set. P rincip al component 1 has roughly equal contributions from a number of elements, such as z inc (Zn), m anganese (Mn), c obalt (Co) , rubidium (Rb), cesium (Cs), and iron (Fe), as well as the rare earth elements europium ( Eu) and samarium (Sm). P rincip al component 2 is dominated by s odium (Na) but is also substantially impacted by potassium (K) and manganese. P rincip al component 3 has primary contributions from manganese, potassium, rubidium, arsenic (As) and cesium. P ri ncip al component 4 has a range of important contributors including u ranium (U), cesium, antimony (Sb), rubidium, zirconium (Zr), and hafnium (Hf). And finally, P rincip al component 5 has a very strong input from a rsenic (As) along with lesser and roughly e qual contributions from several other elements. In the end , three primary composition groups (CG1 CG3; Table 6 3) were recognized among the Silver Glen pottery samples . As can be seen in multiple PC biplots (Figures 6 3 and 6 4), the first two groups hav e generally similar chemical profiles with CG1 (n=33) exhibiting slightly higher levels of most elements when compared to CG2 (n=46). Cobalt, rubidium, and cesium are especially abundant in CG1 relative to CG2. The only exceptions to this general pattern are manganese, arsenic,

PAGE 272

272 zirconium, and hafnium, all of which show higher concentrations in CG2 than CG1. Comparatively, CG3 (n=73) is characterized by substantially lower concentrations of most elements, and is especially deficient in iron and chromium. Th is group, however, exhibits the highest levels of three elements (sodium, antimony, and uranium) of any of the composition groups. CG3 consistently stands out as the most chemically distinct of the three groups tends to show the least amount of internal v ariation, as can be seen in the standard deviations reported in Table 6 4 . Consequently, CG3 samples tend to cluster tightly and show the most separation of the three groups across PC biplots and elemental bivariate plots (e.g., Figure 6 5). M ahalanobis distance measurements confirm the veracity of these groupings, with no assigned sample having more than a 6.1 percent chance of belonging to either of the other two composition groups. Importantly, these tests help corroborate the distinctiveness of CG3 b y showing that every sample in the group has a 0.0 percent chance of belonging to any other group. MD values are also helpful in showing that, of the 136 unassigned samples, 92 have at least some chance of belonging to one or more of the three composition groups , even though they cannot be statistically included, while 44 are chemical outliers with a <0.1 percent chance of belonging to any of the defined groups. The chemical variation reflected in these data is distributed across the Silver Glen complex in patterned and potentially significant ways (Table 6 5 ; Figure 6 6) . The two mounds at 8LA1E NR and 8MR123 MD show remarkably similar proportions of the various composition groups . Overall , the y exhibit the most chemical diversity , being the only two cont exts with members of all three composition groups. CG3 is restricted exclusively to the mounds and makes up a large majority the assigned sherds from

PAGE 273

273 these locations. Both mounds also contain representatives of CG1 and CG2 al beit in much smaller numbers as well as large quantities of unassigned sherds. The respective samples from the three n on mound contexts each exhibit a subset of the total range of chemical variation found at the mounds. The assigned sample s from Locus B and Locus C at 8LA1W are virtua lly evenly divided between CG1 and CG2 . 8LA1W also contains a relatively high proportion of unassigned sherds, similar to that exhibited at the mounds. In general, the probabl e habitation sites at 8MR123 VL and 8LA1E SR exhibit the least amount of compos itional diversity. All assigned sherds from both of these contexts (including all 10 of the analyzed samples from 8LA1E S R) belong to CG2. Half of the sherds from 8MR123 VL remain unassigned to any group. Examining the NAA data from the clays helps to shed some light on the origins of geological history to some extent limits the magnitude of chemical differences found in the age and condition of these deposits varies and significant patterned variations have been d iscovered (Wallis et al. 2014) . In general, most elements occur in the highest concentrations nearest their original lithological source in the southern Appalachians and decrease gradu ally toward the south . Some important exceptions to this trend are calcium and strontium , both of which are most abundant in clays in south Florida (probably due to the shallowness of the limestone platform in that area) and drop off as one moves north. There are also marked concentrations of some elements in discrete areas such as iron along the northern Atlantic coast as well as

PAGE 274

274 antimony and uranium (probably due to extensive phosphate deposits) near Tampa Bay 4 (Wallis et al. 2014) . When the pottery dat a are examined in relation to these clay patterns, it is clear that CG1 and CG2 are generally consistent with local clays found in the St. Johns River valley and Atlantic coastal regions of northeastern Florida. As is usually the case due to cultural mani pulation of potting materials, most of the clay samples cannot be included directly in any of the pottery groups, although one clay from coastal Volusia County (ZIG341) does fit comfortably within the statistical boundaries of CG1. Nevertheless, like CG1 and CG2, the clays from northeastern Florida are relatively enriched in most elements, including especially iron. Moreover, several of these clays cluster tightly with CG1 and CG2 pottery samples across multiple bivariate plots of PC and elemental data (e .g., Figure 6 7 and Figure 6 8) . C omposition Group 3, on the other hand, possesses a chemical profile that is characterized by anomalously high levels of sodium, antimony, and uranium, along with very low levels of iron. None of the analyzed clays from no rtheast Florida show similar chemical profiles. The only clays that do were collected (see Table 6 6) . In that region, this particular suite of traits is repeated across seven samples ( NJW342, NJW363, NJW364, ZIG326, ZIG330, ZIG332, and ZIG339 ) that range from Tampa Bay south to Charlotte Harbor (Figure 6 9). Once again, these clay samples do not fit neatly within 4 Chemical disparities between clays in northeast Florida and southwest Florida make sense given the y. The comparatively high concentrations of iron and most other elements in northern Florida can be linked to clay deposits that were transported southward relatively recently by fluvial and marine currents from the southern Appalachians. The iron defici ent clays further south are generally associated with older Miocene age sediments associated with the Hawthorne Group, which is shallower and more frequently exposed on the southern part of the peninsula. Southwest Florida is also rich in phosphate deposi ts, which may help to explain the elevated amounts of uranium found in clays from that region (Scott 1997; McClellan and Eades 1997).

PAGE 275

275 the statistical parameters of CG3 . In this case, that is largely because the concentrati ons of all clay elements in the CG3 pottery group are substantially diluted by the high concentration of silica sponge spicules present in these sherds (quantified and discussed later in this chapter). Removing the spicules would likely bring the CG3 elem ental values in Table 6 6 much more in line with those exhibited by the clays from southwest Florida. Even with sponge spicules, multiple clays from that region still consistently cluster with CG3 when the data are plotted graphically . The NAA results thu s provide strong evidence that much of the Orange pottery found at as likely imported from outside of northeastern Florida. Further, comparisons between pottery and clay composition s indicate that the likeliest point of origin for a large proportion of these vessels is located more than 200 Pottery recovered from the three nonmound contexts, on the other hand, is entirely consistent with clays found locall y in the middle St. Johns valley and nearby Atlantic coastline, although it is possible that some of the large number of unassigned samples from 8LA1W may yet be linked to nonlocal sources. T hese patterns have potentially important implications for our un derstanding of the scale and organization of Late Archaic social landscapes, as they suggest an expansive, regional scale catchment area for the events that occurred at Orange period mounds, one that contrasts markedly with other contemporary types of plac es. The results of the petrographic analys e s (discussed below) help to not only corroborate these NAA findings but also shed additional light on the mineralogical source of some of the identified chemical signatures.

PAGE 276

276 Petrography Sampl ing and Methods T he petrographic component of this study was designed to illuminate compositional similarities and differences among previously established gross paste categories and to evaluate the provenance inferences made on the basis of NAA data. To these ends, 75 of the 288 vessels sampled for NAA were also thin sectioned and point counted under a petrographic microscope . In deciding which vessels to include in the petrographic analysis , multiple factors were taken into account, beginning with the size of the sherds in question . As noted in Chapter 5, many of the designated vessel lots consist of only a single sherd, and a number of these w ould not have been large enough to sample for both NAA and petrographic analysis without destroying the entire specimen. As a r esult, some vessels were excluded from the petrography study simply because they were too small . Conscious efforts were also made to capture the entire range s of spatial , techno stylistic, and compositional variation present at the complex. Consequently, the petrographic sample includes vessels from all five of the Orange period contexts at Silver Glen (see Table 6 1 for a breakdown of the number of vessels analyzed per context). It also cuts across the different decorative types (i.e., Orange Plain, Ora nge Incised, and Tick Island Incised) and the various gross paste categories identified via standard microscopy (outlined in Chapter 5). Twenty clays from across peninsular Florida were also sampled for the petrographic component of this study (see Table 6 2) . They were thin sectioned after firing and subjected to the same analytical processes as the pottery. All t hin sections were professionally prepared and cut to a standard thickness of 30 µ (0.03 mm) by Spectrum Petrographics Inc. I analyzed the thi n sections and collected point count data using the petrographic microscope and mechanical stage

PAGE 277

277 housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History Ceramic Technology Laboratory. In general, I followed the point counting procedures outlined by Stoltman (1989 , 1991, 2001) . A 1 mm by 1 mm counting interval was used throughout the analysis. Each point encountered at the stop of the stage was assigned to one of the following categories: void, matrix, fiber void (with or without intact fiber), bio genic silica (s ponge spicule, diatom, or phytolith), ferric concretion, miscellaneous organic material , and very fine through very coarse quartz and other mineral constituents. Identifications were typically made using the 10X objective, but the 25X and 40X objectives w ere also sometimes used to verify the presence of minute constituents such as siliceous microfossils. Grain size was estimated using an eyepiece micrometer in reference to the Wentworth Scale (Rice 1987:38). In those instances when fewer than 150 points were counted (n = 8), the thin sections were rotated 180 degrees on the mechanical stage and recounted (following Pluckhahn and Cordell 2011; Stoltman 2001:306). The presence and relative quantity of some extremely small constituents , as well as those occ urring in very low frequencies , were no t always reflected in the point count data. In those cases , the standardized comparis on chart created by Stoops (2003:48) was used for estimating particle abundance. Petrography Results Like NAA, petrographic analys es revealed a great deal of compositional diversity Not surprisingly, e xamination of each thin section showed an extremely porous ceramic fabric permeated by countless circular or linear v oids (depending on the orientation of the cut) , some of which still contain ed the charred remains of Spanish moss fibers (Figure 6 10) . Beyond clay matrix and fiber , the analyzed sherds vary widely in the frequency and size of different

PAGE 278

278 inclusions. S ome of the primary cons tituents identified include silt sized to medium quartz grains, sponge spicules, and ferric concretions. Mica, d iatoms, phytoliths, limestone, and miscellaneous organic matter were also identified , albeit in smaller amounts . Additional mineral constituen ts that were observed only rarely include feldspar (plagioclase and micro c line), epidote, hornblende, and kyanite. Following Cordell (2004) and my own preliminary observations of paste variation within the assemblage (see Chapter 5) , I divided the petrogra phy sample into three gross paste cateogries ( nonspiculate, intermediate , and spiculate) on the basis of sponge spicule content. The relationships between these categories are represented graphically in the ternary diagrams in Figure 6 11. The nonspicult ate (NSP) category (n = 43) is composed of vessels containing between 0 and 2.6 percent sponge spicules, while intermediate (INT) vessels exhibit 3.3 8.0 percent spicule content, and spiculate (SP) vessels 10.4 26.1 percent . As already alluded to, disagr eement exists regarding the extent to which the spicules found in pre Columbian pots throughout Florida were natural constituents of exploited clays as opposed to being intentionally added as a tempering material (Cordell and Koski 2003; Rolland and Bond 2 003). It was long assumed that all of the many thousands of spiculate vessels, which cut across several pottery traditions and were produced from the Late Archaic p eriod through European contact, were manufactured with naturally spicule rich clays in the St. Johns region and then exported into other areas as exchange wares (e.g., Crusoe 1971:40; Mitchem 1986:93 94; Cordell 1984 :162 164 ). However, despite now extensive testing of Florida clays ( Cordell 1984; Rolland and Bond 2003; Wallis 2011; this study), no natural deposits have been identified that even approach the high spicule content found in

PAGE 279

279 many archaeological pots herds (cf. Borremans and Shaak 1986; Cordell and Koski 2003; Rice 1987:409) . Given this fact, along with ethnographic docume ntation of s picule tempering among modern Amazonian peoples (e.g., Heckenberger et al. 1999), it is probable that the rich vessels a ssigned to the SP category , and possibly some of the INT vessels , were a product of cultural tempering pr actices . The trace amounts of spicules found in some NSP vessels, on the other hand, are more likely to reflect natural and incidental inclusions within raw clays. These gross paste categories were further partitioned based primarily on disparities in th e frequency of quartz sand (Table 6 7 ). The NSP category was divided into four paste groups, with NSP1 (n = 8) registering 0.5 2.9 percent sand, NSP2 (n = 20) 3.4 10.1 percent , NSP3 (n = 13) 11.4 21.7 percent , and NSP4 (n = 2) 25.1 25.4 percent . The INT samples were similarly split into three paste groups with INT1 (n = 2) containing 0 2.2 percent sand, INT2 (n = 3) 7.3 10.3 percent , and INT3 (n = 1) 18.3 percent . The SP group was left intact because, while it s members do vary to some extent in sand cont ent (with a total range of 0.6 9.2 percent ), there are no obvious natural breaks in the data that would justify subdividing the larger gross paste category . Like sponge spicules, sand may exist as either a natural constituent of clay or be added to potter y as a temper. In general, quartz grains falling into silt or very fine Wentworth size class es are considered to be natural , while fine to very coarse grains are attributed to tempering decisions (Rice 1987:411; Stoltman 1989, 1991). However, these assum ptions are not always accurate, and determining the origin of sand inclusions is especially challenging in places such as Florida where sandy soils dominate across most contexts (Rice 1987:411). In the case at hand, silt through fine grains are most

PAGE 280

280 commo n in almost every sample, with medium grains occurring less frequently, and larger grains only rarely. Grain size comparisons among the paste groups were facilitated by calculating a sand size index (SSI) 5 for each specimen ( after Stoltman 2001:314). Mea n SSI scores for the different paste groups indicate relatively consistent sand grain sizes, even across groups with varying quantities of sand. The one glaring exception is the SP group, which produced a mean SSI score substantially lower than the others , thus indicating a divergent paste recipe , a distinct geological source , or some combination of both . Even if both sponge spicules and quartz sand are assumed to be cultural tempers , other components of the point count data (Figure 6 12) suggest that th e se substances were added to distinct raw clay resources . In addition to elevated spicule content, the SP group exhibits a relatively high frequency of other siliceous microfossils, including diatoms and phytoliths , both of which are virtually absent amon g the NSP and INT groups. These fossils are usually considered to be natural clay constituents and have been found broadly useful for distinguishing between pots that originated from different geological source s (e.g., Cordell and Deagan 2013:104; Pluckha hn and Cordell 2011:297; Quinn 2013:53,140; Wallis 20 11 :124). S piculate vessels are also characterized by a relative abundance of ambient organic matter (outside of fiber voids) , although it is not clear whether this resulted from the selective exploitat ion of organic rich clays or whether an other organic temper was employed in conjunction with Spanish moss fibers. The NSP group, on the other hand, exhibits relatively frequent mica 5 Following Stoltman (2001:314) SSI was calculated by assigning each counted sand grain a score based on its size class ac cording to the Wentworth Scale . The scores for the entire specimen were then summed and divided by the total number of counted sand grains, resulting in a single index that can be used to compare variation in overall sand size across specimens. In this case, very fine grains were sco red as 0.5, fine as 1, medium as 2, coarse as 3, very coarse as 4, and anything larger as 5.

PAGE 281

281 inclusions and ferric concretions, both of which are comparatively rare i n the SP sherds. Together, these data provide strong evidence that NSP and SP vessels are composed of both separate clay matrices and distinct tempering materials. The distribution of the different paste groups across the Silver Glen landscape helps to c orroborate my preliminary observations (reported in Chapter 5) regarding the structured nature of Orange pottery deposition at the complex . As illustrated in Figure 6 1 , whi le NSP vessels dominate in all nonmound contexts dating to the same interval (see Table 6 8 for a full breakdown of paste group allocations by context) . The small number of INT vessels is split between the two mounds and 8LA1W. Within the NSP and INT gro ups, there is no obvious patterning in the spatial distribution of the subgroups based on sand content, with members of NSP1 NSP3 and INT1 INT3 distributed over a range of mound and nonmound contexts. Because of their widespread occurrence, t he various con stituents used to distinguish among the paste groups at Silver Glen do not allow for conclusive provenance determinations on their own . Prior to this study, f reshwater sponge s picules ha d been recorded in natural clays from two regions of Florida, the St. Johns valley and along the southern gulf coast (Cordell and Koski 2003; Rolland and Bond 2003; Wallis et al. 2014) . Those results were repeated here , with 5 of the 15 point counted clays from northeastern Florida register ing between 0.5 and 4.5 percent s picules and 2 of the 6 southwest Florida clays containing 2.2 percent and 8.5 percent respectively. As already noted , these proportions fall far short of those observed in so , making it exceedingly unlikely that unaltered clay i nclusions are

PAGE 282

282 responsible for the large quantities of spicules found in the SP group from Silver Glen . An alternative source may be peat beds and mucky soil deposits, many of which are known to be rich in spicules and other biosilicates (Davis 1946; Espenshade 1983 , Schwandes and Collins 1994; Wallis, personal communication 2014 ) . These deposits would have provid ed indigenous potters a virtually limitless range of potential sources for acquiring spicule rich tempering materials. If at least some pots were tempered with peat or muck , that would help to explain the extremely high frequency of organic detritus found in many of the SP sherds. That would also mean that s picules themselves cannot be looked at as an index of any specific sour ce location or region , therefore limiting their utility in provenance research. T he same , of course, could be said of other constituents such as quartz grains and organic matter . The only two commonly observed mineral constituents that may offer some clu es as to are mica and ferric concretions. The relatively high proportions of these inclusions in sherds from Silver Glen are consistent with the pottery and clays from northern Florida that were analyzed for this and other studies (e.g., Cordell and Deag a n 2013; Wallis 2011; Wallis et al. 2014). Conversely, their relative paucity in SP sherds conforms to the expected and observed composition s of clays from further south, where most mineral inclusions are typically depleted due to the se c increased distance their original southern Appalachian source (Wallis et al. 2014). While the petrographic data alone are incapable of isolating a precise point of origin for it is important to point out that they are en tirely consistent with the provenance conclusions drawn from NAA. As was the case with NAA, an even cursory examination of the petrographic data reveals a clear distinction

PAGE 283

283 between the two mounds and all other Silver Glen contexts. A direct comparison of the two datasets (Table 6 9 ; Figure 6 14) shows that the SP paste group largely corresponds with the likely nonlocal chemical composition group CG3. The fact that the SP group also comprises one CG2 vessel and several others that were left unassigned bas ed on NAA indicates that spicules were probably added to a variety of raw clay resources ones associated with both local and imported vessels . All nonmound contexts at Silver Glen, conversely, are dominated by vessels belonging to the NSP gross paste grou p, which match es up closely with the combined memberships of the presumably local composition groups CG1 and CG2. The petrographic data also help to shed light on the source of the chemical differences separating CG1 and CG2. Petrographic point counts ind icate that CG2 vessels contain a significantly higher average proportion of quartz than their CG1 counterparts ( t [24] = 2.02, p < .05). Quartz tempers have been shown to have a diluting effect on most elements in bulk chemical profiles because, with the e xception of trace amounts of zirconium and hafnium (which occur in the zircons frequently associated with quartz sands) , NAA does not detect the chemical constituents of quartz (Neff et al. 1989:66; Steponaitis et al. 1996). And indeed, according to the N AA results discussed earlier in this chapter , CG2 is characterized by lower concentrations of most elements than CG1. The only four exceptions to this pattern are zirconium , hafnium, manganese, and arsenic, all of which occur in larger amounts in CG2 than both the other composition groups. Moreover , correlation coefficients demonstrate that zirconium ( r [ 75 ] = .51 ) and hafnium ( r [ 75 ] = .57 ) are the only measured elements that exhibit a positive correlation with quartz content . Recent compositional analyse s of pottery from

PAGE 284

284 the lower St. Johns region using LA ICP MS have found that these elements are linked to a series of heavy mineral inclusions, including monazites, zircons and rutiles, commonly associated with sands in northeastern Florida (Wallis and Kam enov 2013). In fact, this part of the state has been mined for such minerals since the 20 th century (Olsen et al. 1990:252 253). Together, t hese data s trongly suggest that the primary difference between CG1 and CG2 lies not in their respective clay chem istries or distinct provenances but rather in the amount of quartz that each contains . Given their largely overlapping distributions across elemental and PC bivariate plots, it is likely that these groups reflect the application of slightly different temp ering practices to otherwise similar pottery pastes . Summary and Discussion To summarize the pottery composition component of this study , 288 pottery samples from five Orange period contexts at Silver Glen were submitted for NAA and compared to the chemi cal data from a total of 75 clays. The results indicate that at least three distinct chemical composition groups are represented , with t wo of these groups (CG1 and CG2) exhibiting chemical profiles consistent with clays found near Silver Glen and other ar eas of northeastern Florida. The other composition group (CG3) clusters the most tightly and is clearly the most distinct of the three according to bivariate plots of princip al components and various individual elements. The only analyzed clays that matc h the unusual chemical composition of these CG3 samples originated more than outhern gulf coast, indicating that a substantial number of Silver Glen vessels may have been imported into the complex ove r a considerable distance . Importantly, it appears as if deposition of these potentially foreign vessels was restricted entirely massive shell

PAGE 285

285 mounds. Overall, pottery from the mounds contains the most compositional diversity, while that from each of the temporally overlapping nonmound contexts exhibits a subset shell mounds were the sites of larger scale, more socially inclusive social gatherings than other contemporary places at the comple x gatherings that implicated people and things from across much of Florida. In general, the petrography results help to corroborate the conclusions drawn from NAA . Point count data show that the presumably non local CG3 vessels also possess distinct mineralogical compositions characterized by relatively large proportions of sponge spicules, diatoms, and other biosilicate constituents. Moreover, CG1 and CG2 vessels exhibit a relatively high frequency of mica and ferric concretions similar to previously analyzed samples from north ern Florida . T hese materials are much sparser i n CG3 vessels , a trait shared with clays from the southern half of the state . The petrographic results have also helped clarify the relati onship between CG1 and CG2 by showing that their chemical differences may be linked to a dispari ty in sand content, one possibly resulting from alternative tempering practices. Not surprisingly, the petrographic analysis proved to be an indispensable comp l e ment to the chemical characterization study. There are a few additional factors worth considering with regard to the pr ovenance determinations just discussed. First, it is possible, and perhaps probable , that composition groups CG1 and CG2 comprise a number of different clay resources from northeast Florida. Both groups show a great deal of internal heterogeneity and the potential area from which they could have originated includes not only the entire St.

PAGE 286

286 Johns River valley but also a lengthy stretch of the Atlantic coastline. Unfortunately, clay differences across this broad expanse are so subtle that clear cut distinctions between individual source locations are not currently possible based on the chemical and mineralogical techniques employed here. Couple this with the fact that nearly half of the analyzed samples remain unassigned to any of the three defined composition groups, and it seems exceedingly likely that far more than three distinct clays are e. It should also be pointed out that the proposed link between CG3 and southwest Florida is supported , at least i ndirectly, by a range of non compositional archaeological data. The fact that a ll CG3 vessels, without a single exception, were recovered f rom mound deposits may reflect a situation in which pots transported over hundreds of kilometers were restricted to certain ritualized interactive contexts due to the elevated cultural value attached to objects with such distant origins . There is evidence that this pattern repeats itself at other Orange mounds in the middle St. Johns region including Harris Creek, Old Enterprise, and Orange Mound , which all appear to contain Orange pottery assemblages dominated by large, elaborately decorated vessels that contrast clearly with the kinds of pottery found at neighboring nonmound sites (based on observations in Jenks 2006; Moore 1999; Wyman 1875 ) . Interaction with southwest Florida groups may also be reflected in uncanny similarities between the mound at the mouth of Silver Glen Run and the two Late Archaic shell rings documented along the southern Gulf Coast (described in Chapter 4) . These r ings, especially the one at Bonita Bay, are very similar in shape, size, and orientation to the one at 8LA1E but are ot Although large Orange pottery

PAGE 287

287 assemblages have not been recovered from these sites, the parallels they exhibit with Silver Glen are unlikely to be coincidental. In addition , the distribution of Tick Island Incised pottery , which occurs only in the middle St. Johns valley and along sections of suggests that Late Archaic groups centered in and around Silver Glen may have had a greater affinity with peoples to the west than with the more geographically proximate groups occupying the Atlantic Coast . When all these factors are combined with the compositional data, a very strong argument emerges for the movement of pottery, and likely people, between s outhwest Florida and the Silver Glen com plex . W hereas Chapter 5 focused primarily on how Orange pottery from Silver Glen bundled different stylistic and technological traditions, this chapter has focused on the convergences facilitated first, among the various materials and substances implicated in the manufacture of every pot and second , among the countless individual vessels that were assembled at The raw materials combined during pottery manufacture undoubtedly afforded a range of material tasks (e. g., cooking, serving, and transport, among other tasks ) in the technofunctional sense described above. But they also afforded certain special forms of interaction and history making among both localized groups and much broader scale mound centered communi ties. Each type of clay and tempering material would have possessed its own unique physical properties, historical associations, and cultural meanings, all of which were durably fused together during the crafting of a pot. As a result of this creative pro cess, traditions were invented or renewed , identities were expressed , and material precedents were established that would persist far into the future . The gathering

PAGE 288

288 together and communal consumption of vessels with diverse compositions, forms, and biograp hies would have constituted a momentous occasion for the various participants in these events. It is likely that spicule or sand tempering would have been just as effective a symbol of cultural affiliation as surface decorations. By accumulating vessels with recognizably distinct origins and binding them together in monumental contexts, the multiple social constituencies gathered at Silver Glen were thus able to forge enduring relationships between people and places that spanned most of the state of Flori da. The results of the archaeometric sourcing analyses provide invaluable insight into this community building process by revealing the scale of the social connections that were achieved in different contexts and, in some cases, helping to demarcat e pathwa ys of interaction between specific regions. These types of techniques offer archaeologists the most direct means of tracing the movement of people and things across landscapes as well as into and out of various relationships. Because of this, scientific re object biographies and understanding the role of material things and substances in past social lives (Joy 2009: 545; see also Hodder 2012:58 59; Jones 2004; Joyce 2012). In this case, NAA and petrography reveal that the mounds at Silver Glen attracted both local pottery and vessels that were manufactured hundreds of kilometers away from the site. While a number of different mechanisms ( e.g., a series of down the line exchanges, residential mobility, or otherwise ) could theoretically be responsible for the movement of vessels over long distances, the vast quantity of imported vessels at Silver Glen , along with their restriction to monumental contexts, suggests that the pots in que stion were accumulated through repeated extralocal aggregations of both people

PAGE 289

289 and pottery. In this way, pottery helped to enchain people and places across Florida and contributed to the development and maintenance of a regional scale macrocommunity based on mound centered interactions.

PAGE 290

290 Table 6 1. Number of vessel lots sampled for NAA and petrographic analysis by spatial context. 8LA1E NR 8LA1E SR 8LA1W 8MR123 MD 8MR123 VL Total NAA 125 10 103 30 20 288 Petrography 20 6 30 10 10 76

PAGE 291

291 Table 6 2 . Clays sampled for NAA. ANID Provenience ANID Provenience KHA032 Grant Mound (8DU14) NJW347 South of site 8PI2 KHA033 Deen's Landing NJW348 Pinellas County KHA088 Site 8LE151 NJW349 Site 8SM136 KHA089 Site 38CH42 NJW350 6 mi fr om site 8CO17 KHA091 Amelia Island NJW351 1.5 mi from Luraville KHA122 Silver Glen (8LA1/8MR123) NJW352 15 mi east of site 8SU85 KHA123 Salt Springs (8MR2322) NJW353 Kolomoki (9ER1) NJW315 New Smyrna. NJW354 Kolomoki (9ER1) NJW316 Old Enterprise ( 8V O55 ) NJW355 Kolomoki (9ER1) NJW317 Grant Mound (8DU14) NJW356 Torreya State Park NJW318 Oxeye Island NJW357 Torreya State Park NJW319 Grand Shell Ring (8DU1) NJW358 Goat Shed NJW320 Amelia Island Airport NJW359 Pottery Cave NJW321 Little Talbot Islan d NJW360 Tour Cave NJW322 St. Mary's River NJW361 Willis Landing, Brothers River NJW323 Osceola Forest NJW362 Bishop Harbor site (8MA150) NJW324 Cabin Bluff Shell Ring NJW363 Palma Sola Bay (8MA22/140) NJW325 Cabin Bluff Shell Ring NJW364 Maximo Park NJW326 China Hill, Telfair County ZIG324 * Brevard County NJW327 Coffee Bluff (9TF115) ZIG325 * Brevard County NJW328 Coffee Bluff (9TF115) ZIG326 * Charlotte County NJW329 Jekyll Island (south) ZIG327 * Oxeye Island NJW330 Jekyll Island (north) ZIG328 * Ba nk of St. Johns River NJW331 Clay Hole Island, Altamaha R. ZIG329 * Silver Glen (8LA1/8MR123) NJW332 Lower Sansavilla, Altamaha R . ZIG330 * Near Boca Grande IX NJW333 Lower Sansavilla, Altamaha R. ZIG331 * Near Olga NJW334 Site 8CO17 ZIG332 * Manatee Count y NJW335 2 miles NE of 8CO17 ZIG333 * North of Ocala NJW336 Leslie Mound FS 10 ZIG334 * Salt Springs (8MR2322) NJW337 Ichetucknee Springs ZIG335 * Salt Springs (8MR2323) NJW338 Cat Island (8DI29) ZIG336 * Silver Glen (8LA1/8MR123) NJW339 Big Shoals, Suwan nee River ZIG337 * Shell Bluff Site NJW340 Site 8HI476A ZIG338 * Little Salt Spring (8SO18) NJW341 Hillsborough River ZIG339 * Warm Mineral Springs NJW342 Fish Creek site (8HI105) ZIG340 * Tomoka State Park NJW343 San Luis (8LE4) ZIG341 * Bulow Creek State Park NJW344 San Luis (8LE4) ZIG342 * Groves Orange (8VO2601) NJW345 O'Connell site (8LE157) ZIG343 * Halifax Creek NJW346 Wynn Haven site (8OK239) *Indicates clay samples that were also thin sectioned and examined petrographically.

PAGE 292

292 Table 6 3. Summary descriptions of variability in the chemical composition groups inferred from NAA.

PAGE 293

293 Table 6 4 . Mean and standard deviations of elemental concentrations in each composition group. CG 1 (n = 3 3 ) CG 2 (n = 46) CG3 (n = 7 3 ) Element Mean (ppm) Standard deviation Mean (ppm) Standard deviation Mean (ppm) Standard deviation Na 2147.07 1065.65 1299.93 748.12 3903.12 683.20 Al 92013.41 25911.06 87624.47 23516.34 58330.86 7501.31 K 7 985.54 8349.26 4036.46 1601.00 6539.38 1257.03 Sc 16.60 5.48 15.40 5.14 8.01 1.34 Ti 6246.30 920.68 6116.64 812.46 4878.14 576.42 V 93.76 25.66 84.84 28.91 82.52 15.51 Cr 114.83 37.60 110.39 35.97 69.75 7.82 Mn 127.31 166.64 352.4 7 399.79 83.92 36.38 Fe 37424.76 12142.36 34095.54 13089.36 13076.55 4176.80 Co 5.11 1.77 3.94 1.74 2.27 0.68 Zn 58.35 31.27 47.12 32.19 22.19 8.80 As 4.16 2.11 5.15 2.71 4.53 4.18 Rb 41.68 39.03 18.59 8.70 17.30 3.03 Zr 218.86 44.55 275.36 66.71 260.00 55.63 Sb 0.32 0.12 0.31 0.09 0.44 0.18 Cs 3.93 1.36 2.30 1.68 1.60 0.40 Ba 367.84 97.06 308.98 124.07 210.46 43.25 La 47.07 12.49 40.60 12.88 27.63 4.26 Ce 96.57 29.50 84.12 25.40 57.70 8.41 Nd 40.28 13.01 34.32 10.10 24.29 3.57 Sm 8.06 2.37 6.74 1.97 4.86 0.74 Eu 1.58 0.52 1.27 0.42 0.83 0.15 Tb 1.02 0.37 0.86 0.29 0.61 0.12 Dy 5.66 2.30 4.86 1.50 3.38 0.48 Yb 3.82 2.53 2.97 0.81 2.13 0.32 Lu 0.55 0.39 0.44 0.13 0.36 0 .06 Hf 8.42 1.90 10.61 2.49 9.29 1.88 Ta 1.30 0.23 1.26 0.18 0.94 0.12 Th 14.19 2.85 14.18 2.67 9.64 1.12 U 3.74 1.78 3.78 1.91 5.23 2.17

PAGE 294

294 Ta b le 6 5 . Pottery chemical composition group assignment by spatial context. CG1 CG2 CG3 Unassigned: Probable CG1 or 2 Unassigned: Probable CG1, 2, or 3 Unassigned: Outliers 1 Total Mounds 8LA1E NR 6 2 63 -34 2 125 8MR123 MD 3 1 10 -9 7 30 Nonmounds 8LA1E SR -10 --9 7 30 8LA1W 24 23 -14 24 18 103 8MR123 VL -10 --7 3 20 Total 33 46 73 14 74 48 288 1 Includes samples with a <0.1 % chance of belonging to any of the defined compositional groups. Table 6 6. Summary statistics for important elements distinguishing CG3 from the other chemic al composition groups and linking it to southwest Florida. All values in parts per million (ppm). Iron (Fe) Sodium (Na) Antimony (Sb) Uranium (U) Mean St. Dev Mean St. Dev Mean St. Dev Mean St. Dev CG1 (n=33) 3742 4 .76 12142.36 2147.07 1065.65 0.32 0 .12 3.74 1.78 CG2 (n=46) 34095.54 13089.36 1299.93 748.12 0.31 0.09 3.78 1.91 CG3 (n=73) 13076.55 4176.80 3903.12 683.20 0.43 0.18 5.23 2.17 Clays NE FL (n=24) 25072.10 14601.46 6062.04 6090.04 0.41 0.30 5.10 3.60 Clays SW FL (n=14) 22013.05 15856.53 1 6496.92 26155.63 1.08 1.19 17.66 21.26

PAGE 295

295 Table 6 7 . Summary descriptions of variability in petrographic paste categories. Paste Group N Fiber voids Quartz sand Mean SSI* Mica** Sponge spicules Diatoms** Phytoliths** Ferric lumps** NSP1 8 2 0.0 37.5 % 0.5 2.9 % 1.38 rare to sparse 0.0 2.6 % absent absent to sparse sparse to common NSP2 20 20.2 38.5 % 3.4 10.1 % 1.26 rare to sparse 0.0 1.3 % absent to rare absent to rare sparse to common NSP3 13 17.2 43.5 % 11.4 21.7 % 1.04 rare to sparse 0 .0 2.2 % absent absent to rare absent to common NSP4 2 25.1 25.4 % 25.9 29.1 % 1.04 absent to rare 0.0 0.5 % absent absent absent INT1 2 28.3 32.6 % 0.0 2.2 % 1.5 rare to sparse 4.6 6.5 % sparse Sparse sparse INT2 3 21.5 30.9 % 7.3 10.3 % 1.13 absent 3.3 8.0 % absent to sparse absent to sparse absent to rare INT3 1 30.6 % 18.3 % 1.24 absent 5.4 % absent absent absent SP 26 19.5 38.0 % 0.6 9.2 % 0.92 absent 10.4 26.1 % rare to common rare to common rare to sparse * Sand size index calculated as des cribed by Stoltman (2001:314) but with very fine grains counting as 0.5, fine as 1, medium as 2, coarse as 3, very coarse as 4, and anything larger as 5. 2% = rare, 2 10% = sparse, 10 30% = common, and >30% = abundant

PAGE 296

296 Table 6 8 . Petrographic paste categories by spatial context. NSP1 NSP2 NSP3 NSP4 INT1 INT2 INT3 SP Total Mounds 8LA1E NR -2 1 --1 1 15 20 8MR123 MD 1 1 1 --1 -6 10 Nonmounds 8LA1E SR -2 3 ----1 6 8LA1W 6 11 5 2 2 1 -3 30 8MR123 VL 1 4 3 ----1 9 Total 8 20 13 2 2 3 1 26 75 Table 6 9 . Petrographic paste categories by NAA group . Paste group NAA CG1 NAA CG2 NAA CG3 NAA unassigned NAA o utliers Total Nonspiculate NSP1 1 1 -4 2 8 NSP2 5 7 -5 3 20 NSP3 2 6 -3 2 13 NSP4 -2 ---2 Total n onspic ulate 8 16 -12 7 43 Intermediate INT1 1 --1 -2 INT2 -1 1 1 -3 INT3 ----1 1 Total interme d iate 1 1 1 2 1 6 Spiculate SP -1 16 6 3 26

PAGE 297

297 Figure 6 1. Map showing the locations of clays sampled for NAA. (Includes clays sampled specifically for this study as well as those previously analyzed by Neill Wallis and Keith A shley. )

PAGE 298

298 Figure 6 2. Orange pottery thin section showing fiber voids encrusted with calcareous material thought to have resulted from deposition in a shell rich context. Image is with cross polarized light at 10 0 X magnification. Photograph courte sy of the author

PAGE 299

299 Figure 6 3. Biplot of the first two princip al components, along with vectors showing the relative influence of each element. Ellipses represent 90 percent confidence level for membership in compositional groups CG1, CG2, and CG3.

PAGE 300

300 Figure 6 4. Biplot of princip al component 2 and princip al component 4, along with vectors showing the relative influence of each element. Ellipses represent 90 percent confidence level for membership in compositional gro ups CG1, CG2, and CG3.

PAGE 301

301 Figure 6 5. Bivariate plot of iron and sodium showing separation of pottery composition groups .

PAGE 302

302 Figure 6 6. Distribution of chemical composition groups across Silver Glen spatial contexts .

PAGE 303

303 Figure 6 7 . Bi vari ate plot of princip al component 1 and princip al component 2 showing the relationships among pottery groups and the positions of clay samples from northeast Florida and southwest Florida. Ellipses represent 90 percent confidence level for membership in com positional groups CG1, CG2, and CG3.

PAGE 304

304 Figure 6 8 . Bi variate plot of princip al component 2 and princip al component 4 showing the relationships among pottery groups and the positions of clay samples from northeast Florida and southwest Florid a. Ellipses represent 90 percent confidence level for membership in compositional groups CG1, CG2, and CG3.

PAGE 305

305 Figure 6 9 . Maps showing the respective concentrations of iron (Fe) , sodium (Na) , antimony (Sb) , and uranium (U) across clays sam ples sampled for NAA.

PAGE 306

306 Figure 6 10. Orange pottery thin section showing dense fiber voids with intact Spanish moss fibers. Image is with plain polarized light at 4 0 X magnification. Photograph courtesy of the author.

PAGE 307

307 Figure 6 1 1 . T ernary diagrams showing variation by petrographic paste category in: A) sponge spicules, diatoms, phytoliths, ferric concretions, and other sand size minerals. spiculate intermediate nonspiculate 100% matrix 100% fiber 100% other aplastics spiculate intermediate nonspiculate 100% fiber 100% sand 100% spicules A B

PAGE 308

308 Figure 6 12. Aplastic constituents useful for distinguishing among petrographic paste groups. A) sponge spicules (plain polarized light at 25 0 X), B) diatoms (plain polarized light at 40 0 X), C) phytolith (plain polarized light at 40 0 X), D) mica (cross polarized light a t 40 0 X), E) ferric concretions (plain polarized light at 10 0 X), and F) ambient organic material (plain polarized light at 25 0 X). Photographs courtesy of the author.

PAGE 309

309 Figure 6 1 3 . Ternary diagrams showing variation by context in: A) bulk composit ion and includes quartz, sponge spicules, diatoms, phytoliths, ferric concretions, and other sand size minerals. 8LA1E NR 8LA1E SR 8LA1W 8MR123 MD 8MR123 VL 100% matrix 100% fiber 100% other aplastics 8LA1E NR 8LA1E SR 8LA1W 8MR123 MD 8MR123 VL 100% fiber 100% sand 100% spicule A B

PAGE 310

310 Figure 6 1 4 . Ternary diagrams showing variation by chemical composition group in: A) bulk co sponge spicules, diatoms, phytoliths, ferric concretions, and other sand size minerals. CG1 CG2 CG3 100% matrix 100% fiber 100% other aplastics CG1 CG2 CG3 100% fiber 100% sand 100% spicules A B

PAGE 311

311 CHAPTER 7 GATHERING HISTORY AT SILVER GLEN T he Orange period mounds at Silver Glen were the sit es of repeated gathering events that dramatically transformed the Late Archaic landscape and integrated people and materials from across peninsular Florida. In virtually every respect , these monuments and their surroundings de fy traditional evolutionary a ssumptions regarding simplicity and conservatism that have for so long permeated anthropological treatments of hunter gatherer societies. Far from a mere static backdrop or undifferentiated accretion of subsistence refuse, the Silver Glen landscape bespea ks a dynamic social history punctuated by significant moments of human and material interaction. The nature of these events was dictated not by any broad scale ecological imperative or preordained trend toward agriculture and complexity but rather by the decisions of real people occupying specific contexts . By assembling people and things with distinct affiliations and bundling them together in monumental contexts, the diverse constituents gathered at Silver Glen effectively intervened ( sensu Sassaman 201 2) in the course of their own histories. The culmination of these efforts was a pronounced shift in the orientation and objectives of extralocal aggregation events and the creation of an enduring macr o community based on periodic mound centered interaction s between otherwise scattered hunter gatherer groups . The Structure and Composition of Orange Gatherings The Late Archaic gathering s evidenced by the material remains at Silver Glen played out at multiple interrelated scales. The largest of these , both in terms of the ir physical size and the breadth of the connections that they achieved, occurred at the The status of these mounds as transcendent historical

PAGE 312

312 places is clearly indicated by their emplacement directly atop preexisting Mount Taylor mortuaries. In these locations , the boundary between past and present was collapsed as soon as the first Orange period shell deposits were laid down . Drawing on more than 3,000 years of shell mounding tradition, the historic al potency of the se places was further heightened as each successive deposit was added to them. Shell, during this time, served as a versatile and powerful substance that cut across many different spheres of meaning, being used variously as a staple food, building material, burial medium, and material mnemonic. From the earliest stages of the Mount Taylor period, inhabitants of the middle St. Johns Valley had also commonly employed shell deposition as an effective means for durably inscribing their own hi storical narratives into the local landscape (Randall 2010; Randall et al. 2014; Sassaman 2010; Sassaman and Randall 2012). Thus, as participants in mounding events gathered and arranged various materials in place , they simultaneously succeeded in gatheri ng and concentrating multiple distinct times , some distant and others relatively recent . Eventually, these most expansive pre Columbian monuments, one surroundi source and the other positioned at its intersection with Lake George. Multiple lines of evidence support the notion that mound centered gatherings entailed large scale feast s and other ritualized activities. If it is assumed that most or all of the shellfish represented at the mounds was consumed by the Orange period hunter gatherers who assembled there, then these locations would seem to satisfy one of the most persistently cited cross cultural material correlates of feasting copious amo unts of low diversity food remains ( e.g., Hayden 2001; Lev Tov and McGeough 2007; Kirch

PAGE 313

313 2001; Pauketat et al. 2002; Van der Veen 2003) . In this case, shellfish remains were deposited in a rigidly structured manner and at highly conspicuous points on the l andscape, suggesting that an element of performance may have been involved. This conclusion is further supported by Orange pottery data from the complex. The high proportion of elaborately decorated contemp orary nonmound sites both within the complex and throughout the broader region. The enormous quantity and unusually large size of these vessels hints at t he large scale and inclusive nature of the gatherings in which they were involved. Likewise, the var ied styles and paste recipes represented speaks to the social diversity of these events. Moreover, t he elevated cultural value attached to mound vessels is apparent from the relatively high frequency of mend holes they exhibit, along with the apparently c areful, structured manner (based on the respective distributions of decorated and undecorated pots) in which they were incorporated into the surrounding shell deposits (based on Walker 1995) . Together, these data suggest that Silver mounds hosted a series of public, ritually charged consumption events that contrast ed markedly with the small scale of the routine subsistence practices evinced elsewhere in northeast Florida during the Orange period. Geochemical analysis of the pottery helps to strength en the conclusion that mound centered gatherings were larger and more culturally diverse than those conducted at other kinds of places . Mound vessels show a broader range of elemental variation than those from any other Silver Glen context. In addition, one pottery compositional group (inferred from the NAA data) that occurs only at the two shell mounds exhibits a chemical profile that is clearly different from all others at the complex

PAGE 314

314 but matches up very closely with a group of clay reference samples fr om southwest Florida, more than 200 km distant. Conversely, all of the assigned vessels from nonmound contexts appear to have local origins. P etrographic point counts of pottery thin sections help to solidify these provenance inferences . They indicate t hat in addition to a divergent clay composition, the nonlocal vessels from the mounds are also characterized by different tempering materials, meaning that their distinctiveness is tied to both geographic and cultural variables . When combined with the NA A data, t hese sourcing results thus indicate that the social networks that converged at Silver Glen encompassed a broad swath of the state of Florida from the middle St. Johns region south to Charlotte Harbor. It is also entirely possible, although not cu rrently demonstrable, that these interactions also incorp orated pots and people from nearby Atlantic c oast al sites . Interestingly, however, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Tick Island Incised pottery motifs, which occur in the middle St. Johns Valley and along the Gulf Coast, are entirely absent in assemblages from Atlantic c oastal sites. At the same time, soapstone vessel s , which were transported from their sources in South Carolina and Georgia (Sassaman 1993; Sassaman and Randall 2007) down the Atlantic coas tline and into Orange period sites near the headwaters of the St. Johns (e.g., Ferguson 1951; Raymer et al. 2005) , have not yet been discovered in the middle section of the river valley . These patterns may be a sign long distance intera ctions were oriented primarily toward the west during this interval. In conjunction with the integrative events that took place at the mounds themselves, a series of related , albeit smaller, gatherings unfolded at 8LA1W. Following a brief period of abando nment ( likely not longer than a century) at the end of

PAGE 315

315 the Thorhnill Lake phase, Locus B was reoccupied during the Orange period as a specialized processing locale. The hypertrophic scale of the digging that took place in this location undoubtedly reflect s the massive quantities of shellfish that were processed assortment of oversized roasting pits . The intensity and scope of these efforts seem wholly disproportionate with the everyday subsistence needs of individual hunter gatherer groups a nd was instead probably geared toward provisioning the repeated feasts centered at the nearby mounds. The functions of these pits, nevertheless, extended fa r beyond their role in food preparation , and the relationship val shell mounds should not be interpreted as a simple sacred:secular or ritual:domestic dichotomy . As at the 8LA1E and the 8MR123 mounds , the activities at Locus B facilitated a tangible intersection between the past and present as pit digging continuall y re exposed preceramic deposits as well as the fills of older roasting pits. In this context , the intricate ly layered sequences of shell, sand, and ash found within many of the pits would have acted as materialized narrative histories, allowing diggers a nd other participants to not only recollect but actually re experience aspects of past feasting events. In this way, the filled pits essentially constituted inverted, subterranean shell mounds , and much like their aboveground counterparts they brought tog ether not only various people, objects, and substances but also disparate times and traditions. In contrast to the pottery recovered from the more conventional mounds , however, most of the vessels that were deposited into Locus B pits are undecorated an d composed of local raw materials , suggest ing that participation in this preliminary step of the ritual process was limited to participants from northeast Florida . The fact

PAGE 316

316 that the features in question are positioned back off the water in a far less expo sed location than the mounds themselves may be an additional sign of the relative exclusivity of these events . These factors hint at the possibility that local groups (whether or not they resided within the bounds of the complex ) may have acted as more or less permanent gatherings that took place there. Orange period Silver Glen was thus a gathering place in every sense of the term. Despite little evidence for a sizeable resident population, the materially prominent history repeatedly drew in large numbers of culturally diverse people over a period of centuries. These massive convergent events were composed of innumerable smaller ones in the form of individual features, deposit s , and artifacts, each of which possessed its own distinct suite of material constituents, historical associations, and cultural meanings. Among these were the aforementioned pits that transcended temporal boundaries and indexed entire narrative sequences of past interactions as well as many hundreds of pottery vessels with designs and materials that referenced distant places and diverse identities. In bringing these all of these disparate entities together and arranging them in particular depositional co ntexts, participants in various gathering events were able to forge communal relationships among individuals and groups who otherwise would have been widely dispersed across much of Florida . There is evidence that the Silver Glen complex was not unique in its capacity for gathering but was rather wrapped up in broader region wide processes of community construction at a macro level . As discussed in Chapter 2, there are three additional

PAGE 317

317 known Orange period mound complexes in the middle St. Johns Valley . Th e immense size and multilobed morphology of the mounds at these complexes are comparable to t h ose observed at Silver Glen, as are their highly decorated Orange pottery assemblages. These parallels, along with the roughly equidistant spacing of the sites re lative to each other, point to the intriguing possibility that all four complexes served similar integrative functions within the Late Archaic social landscape. These types of broadly influential ceremonial centers, which at least occasionally hosted gath erings that dwarfed their respective resident population s , have been identified among both small and larger scale societies elsewhere in the Eastern Woodlands . Notable examples include Late Archaic Poverty Point (Kidder 201 0 a ; Spivey et al. 2015) , the Woo dland period Marksville and Troyville site s in Louisiana (Davis 2005 ; Rees and Lee 2015 ) , various Adena and Hopewell mounds in the Midwest ( Carr and Case 2006; Clay 1998) , and, of course, Mississippian Cahokia (Alt 2006; Pauketat 2004) . At all of these p laces including Silver Glen expansive communities of people and things coalesced around shared cosmological beliefs , ritual practices, and monumental spatial referents, thus giving rise to what Dillehay (2007:50 51) refers to as ies In the case at hand, repeated social gathering s constituted successive instances of the cosmunity centered at Silver Glen. These communal consumption events helped to establish lasting connections between participants by drawing on historical resources of the place itself and by providing a powerful sensual experience that would persist in the minds and bodies of all who attended. Encompassed within these events were a number of mutually reinforcing material practices that included the mounding of shell on a remarka ble scale , the digging and structured infilling of hundreds

PAGE 318

318 of massive pits , and the bundling of countless pottery vessels with diverse technological styles and material compositions in meaningful depositional contexts. Each of these practices resulted in a n effectual and durable material symbol of convergence and solidarity . Importantly, there is no clear evidence that the feasts or other events conducted at Silver Glen were overtly competitive or designed to advance the positions of power hungry aggrandi zers as has been hypothesized for other so called 1995 , 1996 , 2001 ). Instead, the primary aim in this case appears to have been widespread social integration. Emergent Places, Emergent Communities It is tempting t o employ this understanding of Silver Glen as a basis for generalizing across time and space about the role of Archaic mounds throughout Florida and the broader region. However, neither the long lived practice of mounding nor any individual monument itsel f existed as a static, monolithic entit y with fixed meanings and social functions. To the contrary, the composition of and motivations behind mounds and shell deposition in general continually evolved through time, even though they may appear outwardly si milar when observed from a distanced or synchronic perspective. Consequently, rather than stable objects , mounds are most aptly approached as dynamic assemblages of interacting parts. And like all assemblages, constituents are added or removed and as the material and social conditions surrounding them change through time (De Landa 2006:28; see also Pauketat 2013a:39) . Viewed in this way, it is not surprising that evidence from Silver Glen reveals a number of s ubstantial shifts in the nature of mounds and the communities they helped spawn over the course of the Late Archaic period .

PAGE 319

319 The most obvious and dramatic transformation during this interval occurred at the transition between the late preceramic Thornhill Lake phase and subsequent Orange period. As discussed in detail in Chapter 2, Thornhill Lake mortuary mounds are unique are composed primarily of sand. These s and mound s frequently contain recognizably exoti c objects and materials, including marine shell celts, bannerstones (made from soapstone and other materials) , and groundstone beads , often in association with particular burials. In this way, the mounds constructed by Thornhill Lake phase hunter gatherer s s ingled out particular individuals and related corporate groups . This is particularly clear at Bluffton where an entire mound was constructed around a single central burial (Sears 1960). In other places, certain burials included elaborate grave goods, in cluding literal bundles of foreign and ritually significant materials (Moore 1894; Randall 2010:187) . Disparities among burial treatments at this time would seem to indicate that not everyone had equal access to these exotic materials. So, while mound cen tered gatherings just prior to the Orange period are likely to have involved large numbers of people, these events were apparently configured so as to highlight the status of only a few. The outset of the Orange period (at ca. 4700 cal B.P.) came with a ra dical reorientation of the interactions conducted at mounds along the St. Johns River . Mound building in general was consolidated and restricted to only a few select locations, each of which saw the construction of one or more massive shell monuments. N o ne of the se Orange mounds have yielded the kinds of exotic materials and prestigious burial treatments that had characterized the preceding era. In fact, as already noted, Orange period mound deposits have produced no evidence for human

PAGE 320

320 interments of any k ind. Instead they are chock full of the broken remnants of thousands of elaborately decorated pottery vessels. While stylistic differences in pottery motifs may have enabled participants to distinguish among different gathered constituent s , it is unlikel y that they would have cultivated the kind of status distinctions apparent at multiple Thornhill Lake phase sand mounds. A number of potential factors could have contributed to th is transformation. It is feasible that shifts in the natural environment cou ld have helped to destabilize existing political structures and prompted people to concentrate their resources and information by assembling at a handful of prominent aggregation centers. However, there are no obvious signs in subsistence or settlement re cord over this interval that would support a major environmental change, at least at the local scale . Another possibility involves an influx of new personnel into the Middle St. Johns basin. This scenario is perhaps more compelling than the first due to the seemingly dramatic reorganizations of mortuary practices, settlement layout, and exchange patterns that transpired at the beginning of the Orange period. Nevertheless, apparent continuities in subsistence strategies, settlement distribution, and other traditional lifeways would argue against any scenario involving widespread population replacement. At both Blue Spring Midden B a gap of perhaps a century or more betwe en Thornhill Lake phase abandonment and Orange period reoccupation, this interval does not seem to have entailed any substantial reworking of subsistence or technological practice, outside of the obvious introduction of pottery .

PAGE 321

321 In terms of cooking efficie ncy, it is unlikely that the extremely thick, porous vessels characteristic of the earliest stages of Orange pottery use would have provided significant advantages over preexisting container technologies, which included pits, baskets, and vessels made from wood and shell . Nevertheless, i n trying to understand observed shifts in mound centered interactions, the novel social affordances ( sen s u Gibson 1986) offered by pottery s hould not be overlooked. In contrast to earlier exchange objects, the raw materials for making pottery are broadly distributed and would have been readily accessible to virtually all Late Archaic people. This new technology may have helped erode existing power structures based on control over the acquisition of rare, exotic materials and reinforced through lavish burial ceremonies. Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 5, pottery is an additive technology and vessels are easily manipulable throughout the manufacturing process. As such, they constitute readily decipherable artifactual bundles, capable of condensing various meanings , traditions, and places via their incorporation of distinct materials, technological styles and histories of use. U nlike neighboring regions where the earliest pottery consisted of plain domestic cooking vessels (Sa ssaman 1993) , pottery appears to have entered into the middle St. Johns in the form of well made, highly decorated vessels restricted initially to mounded contexts. It appears that these ornate vessels rapidly replaced other, nonlocal materials as the lon g distance trade item of choice, disrupting existing exchange networks and reorienting interaction in new directions that entailed more inclusive and egalitarian participation in extraregional gathering events. These developments resulted in the rapid aba ndonment of most preceramic mounds and the corresponding establishment of a few large scale integrative mound centers.

PAGE 322

322 At a large scale, pottery adoption itself may thus help to explain, a least in part, both why and how regional scale macrocommunities dev eloped around a series of Orange period monuments. The addition of pottery to the expansive assemblages constituted by Late Archaic networks of exchange and interaction repositioned various constituents including people, substances (i.e., clay, sand, and shell), and mounds themselves in relation to each other. As a result, existing political structures were dissolved, new alliances were formed, and the entire assemblage underwent a radical reconfiguration . These transformative processes were aided by the nature of the events in which pots were incorporated. Mound centered feasting events would have created a powerful synesthetic experience for all who attended, cementing shared memories of these events in their minds and bodies of culturally and geograph ically diverse groups of participants ( Eves 1996; Holtzman 2006; Sutton 2001). In addition, the superimposing of these events and their material remains atop preceramic mortuaries may have been a way of building communal bonds by asserting a shared histor y. As Kujit (1996:316) puts it important function within communities by encouraging participation in a powerful communal act that symbolically and physically links community members in a logica l and articulate form, leads to the development of new or extension of existing networks, The reconfigured communities spawned at Silver Glen and other mound centers at the beginning of the Orange period were thus the concatenation of multiple intermingled processes and events, all of which promoted a sense of collective identity.

PAGE 323

323 T his research also sheds light on a number of consequential events that unfolded over the course of the Orange period. Most of th ese were relatively small in scale and their individual historical impacts were more incremental than revolutionary. This type of event was epitomized by the digging and infilling of pits at Locus B (described in detail in Chapter 4) , acts that at first u nintentionally , and eventually deliberately , left behind durable material signature s that substantially influenced subsequent practices and interactions at the site . Additional examples include the countless consumption and deposition events involving pot tery and shell that over time structured the Silver Glen landscape and helped to establish links between particular people, places, and times. There were also larger , more dramatic occurrences that affected much more rapid material and social change. At ca. 3800 cal B.P., the complex underwent at least two major transformations. First, the pits at Locus B were capped with a massive layer of shell, effectively terminating centuries of intensive digging and shellfish processing. At approximately the same time, the mound at 8LA1E was converted from a roughly linear ridge or possibly L shaped mound to an enormous U shaped shell ring through the construction of the south ridge. As is often the case, the catalyst behind these events is not known. While the dual configuration of the modified mound may indeed signal the arrival of a new people (as hypothesized by Sassaman and Randall [2012]), the fact that the entire (admittedly small) pottery sample from the south ridge was manufactured with lo cal raw materials would not seem to support this notion. Another possibility is that these transformations stemmed from preexisting internal fissures or contradictions within mound centered communities at the complex. While these conflicts may have been mask ed for a time by the regular communal gatherings

PAGE 324

324 described above, the construction of the south ridge at 8LA1E may signal the rise of competing factions near the close of Orange period activities at the site . It is interesting that these massive landscape alterations coincided with the appearance of a radically different pottery style in the region Tick Island Incised. Regardless of their trigger, however, these developments permanently altered the character of Silver Glen as a place and the nature of the interactions that took place there. The end of the Late Archaic period has been a subject of considerable recent discussion by researchers working throughout the Southeast ( e.g., Anderson and Sassaman 201 2:107 111; Kidder 2006; Kidder and Sassaman 2009; see papers in Thomas and Sanger 2010) . In general, this period appears to have been marked by broad scale restructuring of the cultural landscape that involved the abandonment of many sites and regions, the disintegration of long distance exchange networ ks, and sharp declines in monument building and public ritual expression , although these developments did not transpire uniform ly across all areas (see papers in Thomas and Sanger 2010) . At Silver Glen, the close of the Orange period (at ca. 3500 cal B.P. ) involved the cessation of active shell mounding, large scale pit digging, and Orange pottery use. Occupation of the complex during the subsequent St. Johns I period (ca. 3500 1250 cal B.P.) , evidenced only by a widespread smattering of undecorated spicu late tempered pottery, was far less intensive and apparently did not involve the continued use of Archaic mounds. Around the Southeast, similar events hav e been widely attributed to the unusually volatile climatic conditions that characterized the latter half of the fourth millennium B.P. , which result ed in catastrophic floods, dramatic river avulsions, and rapid alterations in sea level (Anderson 2001; Kidder 2006, 2010 b ;

PAGE 325

325 Marquardt 2010b). N one of these have been demonstrated with certainty to have affec ted people occupying the middle St. Johns Valley . Nevertheless , as Anderson and Sassaman (2012:111; see also Anderson 2010; Sassaman 2010) point out , due to the interconnectedness of Late Archaic societies, localized disruptions in one area may have had repercussions that impacted entire networks of interaction. One final factor to consider regarding the end of the Orange period at Silver Glen is the burgeoning pilgrimage center that developed at Poverty Point during this interval. Prior to ca. 3600 c al B.P., long distance interaction across the Southeast was organized according to a number of distinct , albeit interrelated , exchange networks and aggregation places (Anderson and Sassaman 2012:87 93; Sassaman 2010) . Shortly after that time , these indivi dual networks were collapsed into one massive center of macro regional interaction , as Poverty Point became perhaps the single ritual attractor for groups across the Southeast and beyond (Spivey et al. 2015). The demise of large scale Late Archaic gatheri ng at Silver Glen coincides at least roughly with the initiation of mound building and the first large scale convergences of people and materials at Poverty Point. This temporal correspondence , when combined with the fact that early St. Johns pottery sher ds with unequivocal Florida origins have been excavated at Poverty Point (Hays and Weinst ei n 2004) , hint at the possibility that mound centered communities at Silver Glen were ultimately subsumed within this larger network at the end of the Late Archaic pe riod . To conclude, the Late Archaic period at Silver Glen was a vibrant time punctuated by a series of nested gathering events that played out at multiple scales. These events were initiated by the decisions of hunter gatherers occupying specific

PAGE 326

326 materi al and social contexts, and they impacted the historical trajectory of an entire region. A pproaching this and related places as emergent process es reorients focus from their final form s and static, representational meanings toward the shifting relationshi ps facilitated by the various gatherings and dispersals that comprise their histor ies . In a world defined by movement, combining such a dynamic, relational perspective with quantitative sourcing techniques, helps reveal those moments when various material s, people, and places intersected and were repositioned within broader networks of interaction and meaning. In this case, such a moment was facilitated by the introduction of pottery, a potent new technology that undermined preexisting channels of interact ion and permanently transformed the entangled relationships between Late Archaic people and their mounded landscapes. Directions for Future Research There are a number of potential avenues of research that would help to further advance our understanding of the role of gathering places in the community dynamics of Late Archaic hunter gatherers in the Southeast . The conclusions that I drew regarding Silver Glen could be further substantiated in multiple ways. One of the strengths of the present study was th e intensity and duration of the fieldwork that was conducted at Silver Glen, a situation that yielded an unusual abundance of not only stratigraphic data, but also radiocarbon and analytical samples, especially where Archaic sites are concerned. Despite t his fact, a number of critical areas of Orange have received only limited archaeological attention. Continued work at each of these locations would help situate them more securely within site wide and regional chronologies, along with providing additional pottery samples for sourcing analyses.

PAGE 327

327 Verifying the late date for the south ridge with more radiocarbon assays is particularly important, given the potential clarity th construction history and shifting social role. It would also be valuable to apply the sourcing techniques used in this study to pottery samples from Orange period sites in southwest Florida. This would not only he lp to strengthen the case for Late Archaic interactions between these areas but also shed light on the direction(s) of movement between them. Limited fiber tempered pottery collections from southwest Florida are currently on hand at the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) and could be supplemented with additional fieldwork. Another worthwhile research strategy would be to expand the scale of analysis to include other Orange period sites in the middle St. Johns River valley. All four of the known mound sites seem to share some basic artifactual, morphological, and scalar similarities, yet little is known about the chronological or functional relationships that existed among them. Orange Mound (8OR1) , in particular, has the potential to answer a nu mber of significant questions concerning the rate of construction and internal structure of mounds from this period, as it is the only one of the four to have survived largely intact. The southernmost position of Orange Mound means that investigations the re would provide an opportunity to bracket the entire middle section of the river valley , given the work that has already been conducted at Silver Glen. Ironically, despite its near pristine condition, less is known about Orange Mound and its surroundings than any of the other mound centers in this region . The other two mound sites Harris Creek (8VO24) and Old Enterprise (8VO55) were both largely destroyed by shell mining operations in the first half of the 20 th century . N evertheless, Silver Glen

PAGE 328

328 has dem onstrated the wealth of information that can be gleaned from such sites, even after their aboveground deposits have been largely denuded. Moreover, a sizeable collection of artifacts from Harris Creek (including several hundred Orange pottery sherds) is h oused at the FLMNH that c ould provide the basis for a valuable comparative study between that mound complex and Silver Glen (see Jenks 2006 for the results of a preliminary study of pottery from Harris Creek ) . At an even larger scale, this line of researc h would benefit from conducting a parallel study of pottery adoption and circulation among the Late Archaic Stallings groups who occupied the Savannah River Valley . As noted in Chapter 2, fiber tempered pottery technology was likely developed originally i n South Carolina and Georgia before spreading to Florida along preexisting exchange routes (Sassaman 2004a). Despite this clear historical connection, the manner and contexts in which pottery was initially incorporated into existing frameworks of interact ion appears to contrast sharply between these two regions , as the earliest Stallings pottery was exclusively undecorated and employed primarily in small scale domestic activities . Provenance research geared toward illuminating patterns of pottery producti on and circulation along the Savannah River has the potential to reveal a great deal regarding the scale and organization of early Stallings potting communities. It would also help to document and better understand the historical processes involved in the transition between plain and decorated wares and the concomitant spread of pottery into more public and overtly ceremonial contexts (e.g., the mortuary deposits on Stallings Island). For this project, I would advocate sampling broadly across a number of sites that collectively span Early Stallings and Classic Stallings times, as well as the collection of

PAGE 329

329 clay reference samples along the lower and middle stretches of the river. Together with work already conducted at Silver Glen, this research would great ly increase our knowledge of the community structures and interactions of pottery making societies.

PAGE 330

330 APPENDIX A RADIOCARBON DATA

PAGE 331

331 Table A 1. Late Archaic radiocarbon assays from Silver Glen. Sample Number Site Prov. Material Me asured 14C Age BP 13C/12C Ratio Conventional 14C Age BP 2 sigma Cal BP Reference 333280 8LA1 Feature 150 charcoal 3160 ± 30 25.3 3160 ± 30 3440 3350 This report 295207 8MR123 Feature 2 (base) charcoal 3 21 0 ± 30 24.5 3 22 0 ± 30 3560 3360 Randall et al. 2011 359195 8MR123 Vessel MMR11 fiber temper 31 8 0 ± 30 13.1 3 38 0 ± 30 3690 3560 This report 264443 8LA1 Feature 36b charcoal 3570 ± 40 23.9 3590 ± 40 3980 3830 Sassaman et al. 2011 264446 8LA1 Feature 38m charcoal 3590 ± 40 25.0 3590 ± 40 3980 38 30 Sassaman et al. 2011 255903 8LA1 Feature 1 charcoal 3610 ± 40 25.8 3600 ± 40 4060 4050 3990 3830 Sassaman et al. 2011 350128 8LA1 Vessel NR29 fiber temper 3450 ± 30 15.8 3600 ± 30 3980 3840 This report 371786 8MR123 Vessel MMR09 fiber temper 3 490 ± 3 0 16.7 3 630 ± 3 0 4070 4040 3990 3870 This report 264444 8LA1 Feature 37 charcoal 3630 ± 40 24.1 3640 ± 40 4080 3850 Sassaman et al. 2011 318440 8LA1 Feature 104 charcoal 3660 ± 30 26.0 3640 ± 30 4080 4040 4000 3880 This Report 357845 8LA1 Vessel LB 61 (Feature ) f iber temper 3500 ± 30 16.4 3640 ± 30 4080 4040 4000 3880 This report 357844 8LA1 Vessel LB54 (Feature 38) f iber temper 3490 ± 30 15.9 3640 ± 30 4080 4040 4000 3880 This report 347058 8LA1 Vessel NR16 soot 3670 ± 30 26.9 3640 ± 30 4080 4 040 4000 3880 This report 347693 8LA1 Vessel NR16 f iber temper 3510 ± 30 15.9 3660 ± 30 4080 3900 This report

PAGE 332

332 Table A 1 . continued Sample Number Site Prov. Material Measured 14C Age BP 13C/12C Ratio Conventional 14C Age BP 2 sigma Cal BP Referenc e 264445 8LA1 Feature 38b charcoal 3670 ± 40 25.1 3670 ± 40 4140 4120 4100 3890 Sassaman et al. 2011 166671 8LA1 Vessel 12 soot 3690 ± 60 25.8 3680 ± 60 4160 3850 Sassaman 2003 285043 8LA1 Feature 54 charcoal 3690 ± 40 25.9 3680 ± 40 4140 4120 4100 3 900 Sassaman et al. 2011 318438 8LA1 Feature 90E charcoal 3700 ± 30 24.2 3710 ± 30 4150 4110 4100 3980 This Report 264442 8LA1 Feature 33 charcoal 3730 ± 40 24.1 3740 ± 40 4230 4190 4190 3980 Sassaman et al. 2011 295208 8MR123 TU1 V charcoal 3810 ± 40 4410 4080 Randall et al. 2011 255904 8LA1 Feature 15 charcoal 3820 ± 40 24.3 3830 ± 40 4410 4140 4120 4100 Sassaman et al. 2011 297933 8MR123 Auger 4 1 (240 260 cmbs) uncharred seed 388 0 ± 40 21.2 3940 ± 40 5990 5320 Randall et al. 2011 350129* 8LA 1 Vessel NR29 soot 3930 ± 30 23.0 3960 ± 30 4520 4470 4450 4410 4370 4360 This report 264441 8LA1 Feature 26 charcoal 3960 ± 40 24.5 3970 ± 40 4520 4390 4370 4350 4320 4300 Sassaman et al. 2011 166672 8LA1 Vessel 6 soot 4020 ± 60 25.2 4020 ± 60 4800 4 770 4630 4380 Sassaman 2003

PAGE 333

333 Table A 1. continued Sample Number Site Prov. Material Measured 14C Age BP 13C/12C Ratio Conventional 14C Age BP 2 sigma Cal BP Reference 166673 8LA1 Vessel 27 soot 4060 ± 40 24.4 4070 ± 40 4810 4760 4640 4430 Sassama n 2003 371783 8LA1 Feature 199N charcoal 4110 ± 30 26.1 4090 ± 30 4810 4760 4700 4670 4650 4520 4460 4450 This report 318439 8LA1 Feature 100N charcoal 4110 ± 30 25.6 4100 ± 30 4810 4760 4700 4670 4650 4520 4460 4450 This Report 285042 8LA1 Feature 50 charcoal 4180 ± 40 24.8 4180 ± 40 4840 4580 Sassaman et al. 2011 285041 8LA1 Feature 48 charcoal 4240 ± 40 25.4 4230 ± 40 4860 4800 4760 4700 4670 4650 Sassaman et al. 2011 297935 8MR123 Auger 8 6 (205 215 cmbs) uncharred seed 4270 ± 40 26.8 42 4 0 ± 4 0 4870 4620 Randall et al. 2011 38184 8MR123 Morgan House Level 29 charcoal 4320 ± 9 0 5290 4620 Marrinan et al. 1990 38186 8MR123 Morgan House Level 6 charcoal 4470 ± 100 5450 4840 Marrinan et al. 1990 285045 8LA1 TU46 VIa charcoal 4490 ± 40 24.9 4 490 ± 40 5300 4970 Sassaman et al. 2011 38183 8MR123 FSU TU2 Level 13 charcoal 4 640 ± 140 5650 4880 Marrinan et al. 1990

PAGE 334

334 Table A 1. continued Sample Number Site Prov. Material Measured 14C Age BP 13C/12C Ratio Conventional 14C Age BP 2 sigma Cal BP Reference 295210 8MR123 TU2 IIIB charcoal 4 740 ± 40 25.4 4 730 ± 40 5590 5320 Randall et al. 2011 297934 8MR123 Auger 7 3 (200 210 cmbs) charred nutshell 4 740 ± 40 25.5 4 730 ± 40 5590 5320 Randall et al. 2011 285046 8LA1 TU46 XIa charcoal 4940 ± 40 24.4 4950 ± 40 5740 5600 Sassaman et al. 2011 296262 8MR123 TU2 IVA charcoal 4940 ± 40 25.5 4950 ± 40 5850 5590 Randall et al. 2011

PAGE 335

335 APPENDIX B POTTERY ATTRIBUTE DATA

PAGE 336

336 Table B 1. Orange pottery attribute data. Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient 1 Su rf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ext Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1E NR JC NR001 FAN/S PA INP RD IN 8.2 A A 15.8 unusual globular shape; rectilinear and curvilinear incisions 8LA1E NR JC NR002 FAN/S PA INP RD ST 10.5 20.0 9 A B 100.9 rectilinear and curvilinear incisions 8LA1E NR JC NR003 FAN/S PA INP RD ST 10.0 A B 29.0 possible soot on exterior 8LA1E NR JC NR004 FAN/S PA INR BI ST 8.8 28.0 7 B A 19.2 scraping facets on interior 8LA1E NR JC NR005 FA N/S PA INR RE ST 12.0 26.0 10 A P 52.0 coil joint apparent on interior; soot on exterior near lip 8LA1E NR JC NR006 FAN/S PA INR FI/T/D ST 7.8 A A 27.7 deep vertical scraping facets on interior; incised lip; non circular vessel boat or oval shaped 8LA1E NR JC NR007 FAN PA INR PR ST 8.4 32.0 5 A B 17.7 possible sooted exterior 8LA1E NR M NR001 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 10.8 18.0 14 T T trace residue on exterior rim and interior base; vessel height 82.8 mm; scraping facets on interior 8LA1E NR M NR002 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 15.2 38.0 7 A P burnished interior 8LA1E NR M NR003 FAN/S PA INR A A 8LA1E NR M NR004 FAN/S PA INR XF/D 16.9 A A 8LA1E NR M NR005 FAN/S PA INP RE ST 8.1 20.0 6 A B 8LA1E NR M NR006 FAN/S PA INR P T 8LA1E N R M NR007 FAN/S PA PL XF 9.8 ST 9.3 A A 8LA1E NR M NR008 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 12.3 48.0 5 A A 8LA1E NR M NR009 FAN/S PA INR A A burnished interior; very thick wall (~20 mm) 8LA1E NR M NR010 FAS PA INC T A 8LA1E NR M NR011 FAS PA INP A A 8LA1E NR M NR012 FAN PA INR A A very fine incisions 8LA1E NR M NR013 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 10.4 A A very fine incisions 8LA1E NR M NR014 FAN/S PA INR XF/T 16.1 A A very deep incisions 8LA1E NR M NR015 FAS PA INR BI ST 8.3 26. 0 5 A A

PAGE 337

337 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1E NR M NR016 FAN/S PA INR A A very fine incisions 8LA1E NR M N R017 FAN/S PA PL BI ST 9.5 22.0 13 A A scraping facets on interior 8LA1E NR M NR018 FAN/S PA INR BI ST 9.6 18.0 12 A A irregular lip morphology 8LA1E NR M NR019 FAN/S PA INR BE/D ST 11.5 30.0 6 A A decorated lip 8LA1E NR M NR020 FAN/S PA INR A A 8LA1E NR M NR021 FAN/S PA INR A A very thick wall (>17 mm) 8LA1E NR NR001 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 9.6 26.0 9 A A 48.7 8LA1E NR NR002 FAN/S PA INR RD ST 9.9 36.0 7 B B 71.6 possible coil joint apparent on interior 8LA1E NR NR003 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 9.0 22.0 10 B B 49.8 mend hole 18.4 mm from lip 8LA1E NR NR004 FAN/S PA INR XF/T 19.6 ST 13.7 A A 26.8 8LA1E NR NR005 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 9.1 38.0 6 B A 50.6 highly irregular lip form and profile curvature ; mend hole 17.7 mm from lip; deep scr aping facets on interior; raised ridges of clay along incisions 8LA1E NR NR006 FAN/S PA INR A A 29.6 deep, thin incisions; interior scraping facets 8LA1E NR NR007 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 9.9 20.0 7 A A 20.8 possible coil joint apparent on interior; men d hole 19.7 mm from lip 8LA1E NR NR008 FAN PA INP A A 3.0 rectilinear incisions 8LA1E NR NR009 FAN/S PA PL FI ST 7.9 22.0 6 A B 24.9 possible coil joint apparent on interior 8LA1E NR NR010 FAN/S PA PL XF/T 7.9 ST 7.6 20.0 10 A A 22.7 8LA1E NR N R011 FAN/S PA INR BV ST 10.4 24.0 7 A A 21.6 8LA1E NR NR012 FAS PA INR XF 8.2 ST 9.1 A P 64.7 soot on exterior rim; spalling on interior 8LA1E NR NR013 FAN/S PA INR RD ST 7.4 18.0 6 A A 13.1 completely oxidized at bottom of sherd 8LA1E NR NR014 FAN /S PA INR XF 7.2 ST 10.8 24.0 7 A A 23.2 eroded surfaces

PAGE 338

338 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1E NR NR015 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 9.6 26.0 9 A A 48.7 reduced interior; possible coil joint apparent on interior 8LA1E NR NR016 FAN/S PA INR RD ST 14.2 28.0 5 A P 33.4 thick soot on exterior rim 8LA1E NR NR017 FAN/S PA INR RD ST 9.1 22.0 7 A B 28.0 8LA1E NR NR018 FAN/S PA INR RD ST 8.8 A A 21.1 highly eroded surfaces 8LA1E NR NR019 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 8.0 22.0 9 A A 13.5 highly eroded surfaces 8LA1E NR NR020 FAN/S PA INR FE/T ST 8.9 A A 6.9 8LA1E NR NR021 FAS PA INR BV ST A A 9.1 8LA1E NR NR022 FAN/S PA INR BE ST 7.1 10.0 15 A A 12.2 8LA1E NR NR023 FAS/S PA INR BE A A 5.7 8LA1E NR NR024 FAN/S PA INR RD ST 9.8 12.0 15 B A 37.8 irregular curvature 8LA1E NR NR025 FAN/S PA INR PR ST 8.4 36.0 8 A A 15.9 highly eroded surfaces; mend hole 10.8 mm from lip 8LA1E NR NR026 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 12.6 A A 16.2 8LA1E NR NR027 FAN/S PA INR BE ST 9.8 A A 13.7 no discernable curvature possible rectangular vessel 8LA1E NR N R028 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 11.0 A A 23.3 possible coil joint on interior; irregular lip; no discernable curvature possible rectangular vessel 8LA1E NR NR029 FAN/S PA INR RD ST 15.3 A B 86.8 reduced interior 8LA1E NR NR030 FAN/S INR A A 13.0 8LA1E NR NR031 FAS INR A A 21.1 highly eroded surface; pitting near base 8LA1E NR NR032 FAN/S INR A A 20.1 8LA1E NR NR033 FAN/S INR A A 2.4 very thin walled; possible coil joint on interior 8LA1E NR NR034 FAN/S INR A A 36.1 deep scraping facets on interior; thin, highly irregular incisions 8LA1E NR NR035 FAN PA INR A A 36.3 thin irregular incisions

PAGE 339

339 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1E NR NR036 FAN/S PA INR A A 19.1 slightly recurvate body; thin deep incisions 8LA1E NR NR037 FAN/S INR A A 21.3 8LA1E NR NR038 FAN/S PA INR A A 13.2 very thick body (12.4 mm); mostly eroded surfaces 8LA1E NR NR039 FAN/S PA INR A A 29.7 8LA1E NR NR040 FAS INR A A 15.8 8LA1E NR NR041 FAN/S PA INR A A 16.6 8LA1E NR NR042 FAN/ S PA INR B A 24.6 very dense, hard sherd 8LA1E NR NR043 FAN/S PA INR B A 39.3 oxidation thickens at base 8LA1E NR NR044 FAS PA INR A A 6.4 8LA1E NR NR045 FAN/S PA INR B A 20.6 eroded surfaces; completely oxidized at base 8LA1E NR NR046 FAN/S PA INR A A 11.1 8LA1E NR NR047 FAS PA INR A P 62.6 exterior oxidation thickens at base; exterior soot near base 8LA1E NR NR048 FAN/S PA INR A A 12.5 8LA1E NR NR049 FAS PA INR A A 18.1 eroded exterior surface 8LA 1E NR NR050 FAN/S PA INR A A 7.8 eroded exterior surface 8LA1E NR NR051 FAN/S PA INR A A 5.0 8LA1E NR NR052 FAS INR A A 8.3 one really wide incision 8LA1E NR NR053 FAN/S INR A A 2.1 8LA1E NR NR054 FAN/S PA ER RE ST 9.0 A A 7.4 8LA1E NR NR055 FAN/S PA INC A A 7.8 8LA1E NR NR056 FAN PA INR A A 4.3 8LA1E NR NR057 FAN PA INC A A 4.0 8LA1E NR NR058 FAN/S PA INP A A 4.0 rectilinear incisions with punctations 8LA1E NR NR059 FAN/S PA PL BI IN 7.4 A A 16.8 very eroded exterior surface 8LA1E NR NR060 FAS PA ER BE IN 13.0 B A 34.6 eroded surfaces 8LA1E NR NR061 FAN/S PA PL PR ST 7.3 A A 18.0

PAGE 340

34 0 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1E NR NR062 FAS PA PL RD A A 3.3 8LA1E NR NR063 FAN PA PL PR ST 8.0 A A 7.6 8LA1E NR NR064 FAN PA PL RE/T ST 5.4 32.0 6 B A 26.0 8LA1E NR NR065 FAS PA PL A B 90.3 thermal attrition on exterior base 8LA1E NR NR066 FAN PA PL A A 3.3 8LA1E NR NR067 FAS PA PL BV A A 4.0 8LA1E NR NR068 FAN PA PL FI A A 7.4 8LA1E NR NR069 FAN PA PL PR 16.0 10 A B 11.1 8LA1E NR NR070 FAN PA PL B A 5.0 8LA1E NR NR071 FAN/S PA PL A B 49.4 thickened exterior oxidation near base 8LA1E NR NR072 FAN/S PA PL A A 46.3 thick basal sherd 8LA1E NR NR073 FAS PL A A 5.2 8LA1E NR NR074 FAN/S PA PL A A 5.4 8LA1E NR NR075 FAS PL A A 20.7 8LA1E NR NR076 FAN/S PA PL A A 24.9 flat basal sherd 8LA1E NR NR077 FAS/S PA PL A A 31.5 possibly burnished interior and exterior 8LA1E NR NR078 FA N/S PA PL A A 6.3 8LA1E NR NR079 FAN/S PA PL RE ST 5.7 A A 23.7 undulating surfaces 8LA1E NR NR080 FAN/S ER A A 34.0 extremely thick basal sherd 8LA1E NR NR081 FAS PA PL RE ST 11.1 A A 20.2 8LA1E NR NR082 FAS ER A A 10.1 ver y hard and gritty 8LA1E NR NR083 FAN/S PA ER RD ST 6.7 A A 6.5 eroded surfaces 8LA1E NR NR084 FAN/S PA INR FI IN 10.1 A A 8.8 8LA1E NR NR085 FAS/S PA INR RD ST 10.8 B P 27.2 non circular vessel possibly boat or oval shaped; soot along exter ior rim 8LA1E NR NR086 FAN/S PA INR A B 17.4 thickened exterior oxidation and thermal attrition near base 8LA1E NR NR087 FAN/S PA INR A A 8.1 8LA1E NR NR088 FAN/S INR A A 12.3

PAGE 341

341 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1E NR NR089 FAS/S PA INR A A 10.5 8LA1E NR N R090 FAN/S PA INR A A 28.8 eroded surfaces 8LA1E NR NR091 FAN/S PA INR A A 18.8 eroded surfaces 8LA1E NR NR092 FAN/S PA INR A A 22.7 raised ridges of clay along incisions 8LA1E NR NR093 FAN/S PA INR XF 10.2 ST 11.3 A B 19.8 non circu lar vessel possibly boat or oval shaped 8LA1E NR NR094 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 11.5 A A 18.1 8LA1E NR NR095 FAN/S PA INR XF 12.8 ST 8.8 26.0 9 B A 52.0 8LA1E NR NR096 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 10.9 A A 27.3 8LA1E NR NR097 FAN/S PA INR XF 8.3 ST 7.0 A A 7.5 8LA1E NR NR098 FAN/S PA INR XF 7.9 A A 8.3 8LA1E NR NR099 FAN/S PA INR A A 21.8 very hard, dense sherd 8LA1E NR NR100 FAN/S PA INR BE ST 10.2 A A 18.0 8LA1E NR NR101 FAN/S PA INR RD IN 9.2 18.0 8 A A 18.9 8LA1E NR NR102 FAN/S PA INR RD IN 6.4 10.0 13 P B 7.7 8LA1E NR NR103 FAN/S PA INR BI/T/D ST 10.2 22.0 9 A A 31.3 incised lip 8LA1E NR NR104 FAN/S PA INR BE ST 9.0 34.0 5 A A 14.9 8LA1E NR NR105 FAS/S INR A A 37.3 very hard, dense sherd; wide incisions 8LA1E NR NR106 FAN/S INP A A 16.1 rectilinear incisions with punctations 8LA1E NR NR107 FAN/S PA INR A A 30.6 8LA1E NR NR108 FAN/S PA INR B B 38.3 8LA1E NR NR109 FAN/S PA INC A A 5.6 very thick curvilinear incisions 8LA1E NR NR110 FAN /S PA INR A A 14.6 8LA1E NR NR111 FAN/S PA INR A A 29.2 hard dense sherd; irregular incisions 8LA1E NR NR112 FAN/S PA INR RE A A 14.6 8LA1E NR NR113 FAN/S PA INR A A 20.5 8LA1E NR NR114 FAN/S PA INR A A 10.0 rectilinear incisions with ticks 8LA1E NR NR115 FAN/S PA INR XF 10.4 IN 9.6 26.0 5 A A 16.6

PAGE 342

342 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1E NR NR116 FAN/S PA INR A A 18.4 8LA1E NR NR117 FAN/S PA INR XF 9.3 ST 10.4 A B 12.1 rectilinear incisions with ticks 8LA1E NR NR118 FAN/S PA INR A A 23 .8 8LA1E NR NR119 FAN/S PA INR A A 12.8 8LA1E NR NR120 FAN/S PA INR A A 11.6 possible mend hole 8LA1E NR NR121 FAN/S PA ER PR ST 8.3 A A 7.0 8LA1W LB LB001 FAS PA INP RD ST 9.3 28.0 7 A A 57.5 smoothed interior 8LA1W LB LB002 FAS PA INR XF 3.9 22.0 19 A A 50.7 8LA1W LB LB003 FAN INC A A 7.9 8LA1W LB LB004 FAS PA INP RD A A 13.2 8LA1W LB LB005 FMS PL RD A A 2.8 thin, elongated punctations 8LA1W LB LB006 FAS INC A A 15.1 sherds refit 8LA1W LB LB007 FA S INR A A 1.9 cross hatched incisions 8LA1W LB LB008 FAS/S INR A A 3.7 8LA1W LB LB010 FAS PA INR RE A A 15.4 8LA1W LB LB011 FAS PUN A A 4.7 large punctations 8LA1W LB LB012 FAS/S INR A A 6.3 8LA1W LB LB013 FAS INR A A 7.8 8LA1W LB LB014 FAS PA INR RD IN 6.6 A A 8.5 cross hatched incisions 8LA1W LB LB015 FAN PA INR RE 26.0 6 A A 10.7 8LA1W LB LB016 FAS PA INP RE IN 8.9 30.0 11 A A 180.0 lug handle; burnished interior and exterior; possibly oval or boat shaped vessel 8LA1W LB LB017 FAN/S PA INR RE 14.0 7 A A 2.0 8LA1W LB LB018 FAS PA INR RE A A 4.5 8LA1W LB LB019 FAS PA INR RI ST 7.5 A A 6.3 8LA1W LB LB020 FAS/S PA INR RE A A 2.8 8LA1W LB LB021 FAS PA INR RD ST 24.0 7 A A 6 .4 8LA1W LB LB022 FAS PA INP RD ST 8.9 A A 7.6 rounded protuberance on rim (possible lug) 8LA1W LB LB023 FAS PA INP XF/D 17.0 ST 8.8 30.0 7 A A 29.1 8LA1W LB LB024 FAS INC A A 6.8 8LA1W LB LB025 FAS/S PA PL RE/T ST 6.3 A A 17.8 trace sp icules

PAGE 343

343 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1W LB LB026 FAS/S RA PL RE ST 8.3 A A 107.7 thermal spalling on base; moderate spicules 8LA1W LB LB027 FAS PA PL FI ST 8.0 A A 16.8 possible coil join t along rim 8LA1W LB LB028 FAS PA PL RD A A 4.8 burnished interior and exterior; s traight wall possible rectangular vessel 8LA1W LB LB029 FAS PA PL XF 4.6 A A 5.2 8LA1W LB LB030 FAS PA PL FI ST 7.0 A A 7.8 8LA1W LB LB031 FAS PA PL BE IN 9.0 A A 12.3 burnished interior and exterior 8LA1W LB LB032 FAS PA PL PR A A 1 .4 8LA1W LB LB033 FAS PA PL XF 5.2 ST 6.2 34.0 5 A A 26.6 no curvature on walls rectangular vessel 8LA1W LB LB034 FAS PA PL RE 8.0 9 A A 1.6 8LA1W LB LB035 FAS PA PL PR ST A A 3.5 8LA1W LB LB036 FAS PL RE ST A A 1.7 8LA1W LB LB037 FA S PA PL RI EX 6.0 15 A A 2.3 8LA1W LB LB038 FAS PA PL BE A A 1.7 8LA1W LB LB039 FAS PA PL BE A A 0.9 8LA1W LB LB040 FAS PA PL BI ST A A 6.1 no wall curvature rectangular vessel 8LA1W LB LB041 FAS PA PL RE A A 5.8 8LA1W LB LB 042 FAS/S PA PL RE 6.0 9 A A 0.7 8LA1W LB LB043 FAS/S PA PL RE A A 8.0 8LA1W LB LB044 FAS PA PL RD 16.0 6 A A 2.1 8LA1W LB LB045 FAS/S PA PL FI IN 9.7 A A 17.2 8LA1W LB LB046 FAS/S PA PL RE IN A B 1.9 8LA1W LB LB047 FAS PA PL RE A A 2.5 8LA1W LB LB048 FAS PA PL BE/T A A 1.8 8LA1W LB LB049 FAS PA PL XF/T 7.5 ST 5.9 A A 5.0 8LA1W LB LB050 FAS/S PA PL FD/T A A 4.3 8LA1W LB LB051 FAS PA PL XF 4.5 A A 1.5 8LA1W LB LB052 FAS PA PL RE IN A A 2.3

PAGE 344

344 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1 W LB LB053 FAS PA PL FI ST 7.4 20.0 8 A A 12.1 8LA1W LB LB054 FAS PA PL FI IN 9.8 36.0 6 A A 75.0 8LA1W LB LB055 FAS PA PL BV IN A A 1.7 8LA1W LB LB056 FAS PA PL FI/T A A 0.9 8LA1W LB LB057 FAS/S PA PL RD ST 7.3 16.0 7 A A 9.5 8LA1W L B LB058 FAS/S PL RE A A 1.5 8LA1W LB LB059 FAS PA PL FI ST 3.9 10.0 11 A A 4.0 8LA1W LB LB060 FAS PA PL RD ST 7.3 A A 8.8 8LA1W LB LB061 FAS PA PL FI/T IN 6.1 A A 9.4 8LA1W LB LB062 FAS PA PL BE A A 1.0 8LA1W LB LB063 FAS PA PL PR IN 7.2 A A 60.1 8LA1W LB LB064 FAS/S PA PL RE A A 4.3 8LA1W LB LB065 FAS/S PA PL XF 6.0 20.0 5 A A 6.6 8LA1W LB LB066 FAS PA PL XF 5.3 12.0 5 A A 2.5 8LA1W LB LB067 FAS PL RD A A 3.8 8LA1W LB LB068 FAS/S PA PL RD A A 2.3 8LA1W LB LB069 FAS/S PA PL RE A A 2.5 8LA1W LB LB070 FAS PA INR RD ST 18.0 6 A A 3.8 8LA1W LB LB071 FAS INR A A 3.3 8LA1W LB LB072 FAN/S INC A A 6.3 abundant spicules 8LA1W LB LB073 FAS INC A A 3.4 8LA1W LB LB074 FMS /S PUN A A 1.3 8LA1W LB LB075 FAS/S INR A A 5.7 8LA1W LB LB076 FAS PA INR XF 6.2 ST A A 1.8 8LA1W LB LB077 FAS PA PL BE ST 6.7 A A 8.8 straight walled rectangular vessel 8LA1W LB LB078 FAS/S PA PL FE/T A A 6.3 very broad f langed lip 8LA1W LB LB079 FAS/S PA INR XF 4.4 ST A A 5.1 straight walled rectangular vessel 8LA1W LB LB080 FAS/S PA INR BE ST 8.7 B A 19.6 deep, thick incisions; large diameter vessel 8LA1W LB LB081 FAS INR A A 9.6 very broad incisions 8 LA1W LB LB082 FAS PA INR XF 7.5 ST 7.8 16.0 17 A A 39.9 highly eroded exterior surface 8LA1W LB LB083 FAS PA INR PR IN 8.1 A A 11.4

PAGE 345

345 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1W LB LB084 FAS PA INR RE ST A A 3.1 8LA1W LB LB085 FAS/S INR A A 1.8 eroded interior surface 8LA1W L B LB086 FAS/S INR A A 3.1 8LA1W LB LB087 FAS PA INR XF 5.4 A A 1.9 8LA1W LB LB088 FAS/S PA INC RD IN 24.0 15 A A 24.6 eroded interior surface 8LA1W LB LB089 FAS INR A A 2.1 8LA1W LB LB09 FAS/S INR A A 6.6 8LA1W LB LB090 FAS/S PA INR RD ST 10.0 10 A A 4.7 8LA1W LB LB091 FAS INC A A 19.2 very deep irregular incisions 8LA1W LB LB092 FAS/S PA INR FI/D IN 7.6 A A 30.4 unusual "tire track' incised pattern 8LA1W LB LB093 FAS/S PA ER RD ST A A 6.4 straight wal led rectangular vessel 8LA1W LB LB094 FAS INR A A 4.8 8LA1W LB LB095 FAS PA PL RE ST A A 0.9 8LA1W LB LB096 FAS PA PL RE A A 4.0 8LA1W LB LB097 FAS PA INR RD IN 7.1 A A 26.3 8LA1W LB LB098 FAS/S PA INR BE ST 11.4 30.0 8 A A 4 38.6 8LA1W LB LB099 FAN/S PA PL PR IN 9.4 A A 18.0 mend hole 15.3 mm from lip 8LA1W LB LB100 FAS/S RA INR A A 7.8 8LA1W LB LB101 FAS PA INR PR IN 6.0 A A 5.3 horizontal and oblique lines 8LA1W LB LB102 FAS/S INR A A 10.5 8LA1W LB LB103 FAS/S PA PL RD IN 9.4 A A 12.0 8LA1W LB LB104 FAS PA PL BE A A 4.2 8LA1W LB LB105 FAS PA PL PR IN 7.0 A B 12.1 8LA1W LB LB106 FAS/S PA PL RD A A 5.9 8LA1W LB LB107 FAS INR A A 5.3 oblique lines in V pattern 8LA1W LB L B108 FAS/S PA PL XF/T 8.2 IN A A 4.7 8LA1W LB LB109 FAS/S PA PL RD A A 3.5 exterior smoothing facet apparent 8LA1W LB LB110 FAN/S PA PL PR B A 3.7 8LA1W LB LB111 FAN PA PL XF 4.3 IN 11.7 A A 35.0

PAGE 346

346 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1W LB LB112 FAN PA PL BE A A 4 .9 possible mend hole 8LA1W LB LB113 FAN/S INP A A 4.2 8LA1W LB LB114 FAN/S PL A A 29.3 8LA1W LB LB115 FAN/S INR A A 31.5 8LA1W LB LB116 FAN/S PA PL PR IN 7.3 A A 61.8 8LA1W LC LC001 FAS/S PA INP A A 19.5 highly erode d exterior surface 8LA1W LC LC002 FAS INR A A 3.7 8LA1W LC LC003 FAN/S PA INP RE A A 1.9 8LA1W LC LC004 FAS PA INP RE IN 8.0 A A 114.4 non circular vessel oval /boat shaped 8LA1W LC LC005 FAS INR A A 0.7 8LA1W LC LC006 FAS P A INR BI IN A A 5.4 8LA1W LC LC007 FAS/S PA INR A A 5.2 8LA1W LC LC008 FAS PA INP A A 7.9 highly eroded exterior surface 8LA1W LC LC009 FAS INR A A 3.1 8LA1W LC LC010 FAS PA INR A A 3.1 8LA1W LC LC011 FAS PA INR A A 1.2 8LA1W LC LC012 FAS PA INR A A 0.6 8LA1W LC LC013 FAS PA PL A A 16.8 8LA1W LC LC014 FAS PA INR A A 4.5 8LA1W LC LC015 FAN PA INP RE IN 7.6 A A almost complete vessel in hundreds of sherds; highly eroded exterior surface 8LA1W LC LC016 FAS PA INR A A 3.0 8LA1W LC LC017 FAS PA INR RE A A 3.1 8LA1W LC LC018 FAS PA INR BE A A 3.7 8LA1W LC LC019 FAN PA INR A A 8.6 highly eroded exterior surface 8LA1W LC LC020 FAS PA INP RI ST 10.3 A A 11.4 non circular vessel oval /boat shaped 8LA1W LC LC021 FAS PA INC A A 31.5 8LA1W LC LC022 FAS INR A A 3.4 8LA1W LC LC023 FAS PA PL A A 3.1

PAGE 347

347 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8LA1W LC LC024 FAS INR A A 1.2 8LA1W LC LC025 FAS PA PL A A 3.7 flat basal sher d 8LA1W LC LC026 FAS PA PL RD ST 6.0 32.0 8 A T 17.2 8LA1W LC LC027 FAN/S PA INR B A 8.9 8LA1W LC LC028 FAS/S PA INR A A 19.7 variable wall thickness 8LA1W LC LC029 FAS/S INR A A 1.7 8LA1W LC LC030 FAS PA PL BI IN 8.3 A A 19. 2 large diameter vessel 8LA1W LC LC031 FAN PA INR RE A A 6.1 8MR123 MR M MR001 FAN/S PA INR RD ST 13.8 40.0 7 A A burnished interior; undulating lip 8MR123 MR M MR002 FAN/S PA INR RD ST 9.3 A A 8MR123 MR M MR003 FAN/S PA INR RD A B m end hole 12.1 mm from lip 8MR123 MR M MR004 FAN/S PA INR A A 8MR123 MR M MR005 FAN/S PA INR A A large section of body and base 8MR123 MR M MR006 FAN/S PA INR RE ST 10.3 14.0 6 A A 8MR123 MR M MR007 FAN/S PA INR A A incised base ; completely oxidized at base 8MR123 MR M MR008 FAN/S PA INR A A 8MR123 MR M MR009 FAN/S PA INR B B 8MR123 MR M MR010 FAN/S PA PL BV IN 7.9 A P smoothing facets on interior 8MR123 MR M MR011 FAN PA INP A A 8MR123 MR M MR012 FAN PA PL XF 5.8 ST 7.6 A A very slight curvature possible rectangular vessel 8MR123 MR M MR013 FAN/S PA INR XF 11.4 ST 9.7 A B 8MR123 MR M MR014 FAN/S PA INR FI A A 8MR123 MR M MR015 FAN/S PA INR FI ST 10.9 A B 8MR123 MR M MR016 FAN PA PL FI A A 8MR123 MR M MR017 FAS PA INR A A unusual discontinuous incisions 8MR123 MR M MR018 FAN/S PA INR B A 8MR123 MR M MR019 FAS PA INR A A 8MR123 MR M MR020 FAS PA PL A A possible basal sherd

PAGE 348

348 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8MR123 MR M MR021 FAN PA INP A A possibly same vessel as M MR22 8MR123 MR M MR022 FAN PA INP A A possibly same vessel as M MR21 8MR123 MR M MR023 FAN/S PA INP A A 8MR123 MR M MR024 FAN PA INC A A 8MR123 MR M MR025 FAS PA INR RE ST 1 2.3 A A 8MR123 MR M MR026 FAN PA INR FI A A 8MR123 MR M MR027 FAS PA ER FE 20.0 8 A A very dense hard sherd; eroded exterior 8MR123 MR M MR028 FAN/S PA INR RE A A partially drilled mend hole 8.3 mm from lip 8MR123 MR M MR029 FAN PA INR RE IN 5.8 A A 8MR123 MR M MR030 FAS PA INR A A 8MR123 VL MR001 FAS PA INR A A 2.8 8MR123 VL MR002 FAS PA PL A A 54.9 highly eroded exterior surface 8MR123 VL MR003 FAN PA PL RE A A 1.9 trace spicules 8MR123 VL MR004 FAS INC A A 0.3 1 possible curvilinear incision 8MR123 VL MR005 FAS PA PL A A 6.0 8MR123 VL MR006 FAS PA ER RE B A 4.3 highly eroded exterior surface 8MR123 VL MR007 FAN PA PL A A 4.2 highly eroded exterior; trace spicules 8MR 123 VL MR008 FAS RA PL A A 46.1 flat basal sherds 8MR123 VL MR009 FAS PA INR A A 0.6 raised ridges of clay along incisions 8MR123 VL MR010 FAS PA PL A A 3.7 trace spicules 8MR123 VL MR011 FAS INR A A 2.5 8MR123 VL MR012 FAS PA PL RD ST 9.9 20.0 10 A A 22.4 burnished interior and exterior 8MR123 VL MR013 FAS PA INR A A 13.0 8MR123 VL MR014 FAS/S INR A A 1.1 8MR123 VL MR015 FAS INR A A 0.6 8MR123 VL MR016 FAS INR A A 2.8

PAGE 349

349 Table B 1. continued Site Locus Ves# Temper Fiber 1 Orient Surf Treat Lip Form Lip 2 Thk (mm) Rim Form Rim 3 Thk (mm) Orif 4 Diam (cm) % Orif Int Res Ex. Res Wt (g) Notes 8MR123 VL MR017 FAN/S PA PL XF 4.8 ST 7.9 24.0 8 A A 42.1 8MR123 VL MR018 FAS PA PL A A 30.5 flat basal sherds 8MR123 VL MR019 FAS PA ER A A 7.1 eroded interior and exterior surfaces 8MR123 VL MR020 FAS PA INP A A 1.8 highly eroded interior and exterior su rfaces 8MR123 VL MR021 FAN PA PL A A 2.8 1 Fiber orientation was recorded for all vessels with intact lips, bases, or some other morphological characteristic allowing f or the sherd to be oriented. 2 Lip thickness was recorded for all vessels with in tact flattened lips. 3 Rim thickness was measured 3 cm below the lip. 4 Orifice diameter was estimated for all vessels with 5 percent of lip circumference intact.

PAGE 350

350 Table B 2. Key to headings and abbreviations for pottery attribute data. Heading Entry Descr iption Site site number Locus Silver Glen locus LB 8LA1 West Locus B LC 8LA1 West Locus C MR 8MR123 Mound NR 8LA1 East north ridge SR 8LA1 East south ridge VL 8MR123 Village Ves# Zack Gilmore's vessel number Temper temper co nstituents visible under binocular microscope FAN fiber abundant, no visible aplastics FAS fiber abundant, visible aplastics /S suffix indicating visible sponge spicules Fiber Orient predominant orientation of fiber temper PA parallel to lip RA random Surf Treat surface treatment INR incised rectilinear INC incised curvilinear INP incised and punctated PUN punctated PL plain ER eroded Lip Form BE beveled exterior BI beveled interior BV beveled FD double flang ed FE flanged exterior FI flanged interior PR tapered RD rounded RE rounded exterior RI rounded interior XF flattened /D suffix indicating decorated lip /T suffix indicating thickened lip Lip Thk lip thickness (recorded for flatten ed lips only)

PAGE 351

351 Table B 2. continued Heading Entry Description Rim Form EX excurvate IN incurvate ST straight Rim Thk rim thickness (measured 3 cm below lip) Orif Diam ip circumference intact % Orif percentage of lip circumference intact Int Res internal residue A absent B possible P present T trace Ext Res A absent B possible P present T trace Wt. total weight of vessel

PAGE 352

352 APPEND IX C POTTERY MOTIFS

PAGE 353

353 Figure C 1. Orange Incised pottery motifs from Silver Glen. (R indicates motif was drawn from rim sherd.)

PAGE 354

354 Figure C 1. continued

PAGE 355

355 Figure C 1. continued

PAGE 356

356 Figure C 2. Tick Island Incised pottery motifs from Silver Glen. (R indicated motif was drawn from rim sherd.

PAGE 357

357 APPENDIX D POTTERY COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE

PAGE 358

358 Table D 1. Pottery provenience, type, and group membership. MURR anid Vessel number Site Locus Pottery type C composition group Paste group ZIG001 LB001 8LA1W LB TII unassigned NC2 ZIG002 LB002 8LA1W LB OI unassigned ZIG003 LB003 8LA1W LB TII CG2 ZIG004 LB004 8LA1W LB TII un outlier ZIG005 LB006 8LA1W LB TII CG2 NC2 ZIG006 LB008 8LA1W LB OI CG2 ZIG007 LB009 8LA1W LB OI unassigned ZIG008 LB010 8LA1W LB OI un outlier ZIG009 LB011 8LA1W LB TII unassigned ZIG010 LB012 8LA1W LB OI CG1 ZIG011 LB013 8LA1W LB OI CG1 ZIG012 LB014 8LA1W LB OI CG1 I1 ZIG013 LB015 8LA1W LB OI unassigned ZIG014 LB016 8LA1W LB TII un outlier NC2 ZIG015 LB019 8LA1W LB OI C G2 ZIG016 LB021 8LA1W LB OI CG1 ZIG017 LB022 8LA1W LB TII CG1 NC2 ZIG018 LB023 8LA1W LB TII CG1 NC3 ZIG019 LB024 8LA1W LB TII CG1 ZIG020 LB025 8LA1W LB OP CG2 ZIG021 LB026 8LA1W LB OP un outlier ZIG022 LB027 8LA1W LB OP unassigned NC1 ZIG023 L B028 8LA1W LB OP unassigned NC1 ZIG024 LB029 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG025 LB030 8LA1W LB OP un outlier NC1 ZIG026 LB031 8LA1W LB OP CG1 NC2 ZIG027 LB033 8LA1W LB OP CG2 NC1 ZIG028 LB040 8LA1W LB OP un outlier ZIG029 LB041 8LA1W LB OP CG2 I2 ZIG03 0 LB043 8LA1W LB OP CG2 NC2 ZIG031 LB045 8LA1W LB OP un outlier ZIG032 LB049 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG033 LB053 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG034 LB054 8LA1W LB OP CG1 NC2 ZIG035 LB057 8LA1W LB OP un outlier ZIG036 LB060 8LA1W LB OP CG1 NC2 ZIG037 LB061 8LA1W LB OP CG1 NC1 ZIG038 LB063 8LA1W LB OP unassigned NC2 ZIG039 LB064 8LA1W LB OP CG1 ZIG040 LB065 8LA1W LB OP CG1

PAGE 359

359 Table D 1. continued MURR anid Vessel number Site Locus Pottery type Composition group Paste group ZIG041 LB067 8LA1W LB OP un outlier ZIG042 LB070 8LA1W LB OI unassigned ZIG043 LB072 8LA1W LB TII un outlier C1 ZIG044 LB075 8LA1W LB OI CG1 ZIG045 LB077 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG046 LB078 8LA1W LB OP CG1 ZIG047 LB079 8LA1W LB OI unassigned ZIG048 LB080 8LA1W LB OI CG1 NC3 ZIG049 LB081 8LA1W LB OI CG1 ZIG050 LB082 8LA1W LB OI CG1 ZIG051 LB083 8LA1W LB OI CG2 ZIG052 LB086 8LA1W LB OI unassigned ZIG053 LB088 8LA1W LB TII un outlier C1 ZIG054 LB090 8LA1W LB OI CG2 ZIG055 LB091 8LA1W LB TII CG2 NC4 ZIG056 LB 092 8LA1W LB OI CG1 NC2 ZIG057 LB093 8LA1W LB ER unassigned ZIG058 LB094 8LA1W LB OI CG1 ZIG059 LB096 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG060 LB097 8LA1W LB OI CG1 ZIG061 LB098 8LA1W LB OI un outlier ZIG062 LB099 8LA1W LB OP unassigned C1 ZIG063 LB100 8L A1W LB OI un outlier ZIG064 LB101 8LA1W LB OI un outlier ZIG065 LB102 8LA1W LB OI CG2 ZIG066 LB103 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG067 LB104 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG068 LB105 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG069 LB106 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG070 LB107 8LA1W LB OI CG1 ZIG071 LB108 8LA1W LB OP un outlier ZIG072 LB109 8LA1W LB OP CG2 ZIG073 LB110 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG074 LB111 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG075 LB112 8LA1W LB OP unassigned ZIG076 LB113 8LA1W LB TII unassigned ZIG077 LB114 8L A1W LB OP CG1 ZIG078 LB115 8LA1W LB OI CG2 ZIG079 LC001 8LA1W LC TII un outlier NC3 ZIG080 LC002 8LA1W LC OI un outlier

PAGE 360

360 Table D 1. continued MURR anid Vessel number Site Locus Pottery type Composition group Paste group ZIG081 LC003 8LA1W LC TII CG2 ZIG082 LC004 8LA1W LC TII unassigned NC2 ZIG083 LC005 8LA1W LC OI CG2 ZIG084 LC006 8LA1W LC OI CG2 ZIG085 LC007 8LA1W LC OI CG2 ZIG086 LC008 8LA1W LC TII CG2 NC3 ZIG087 LC009 8LA1W LC OI un outlier ZIG088 LC010 8LA1W LC OI unassigned ZIG089 LC011 8LA1W LC OI unassigned ZIG090 LC012 8LA1W LC OI CG2 ZIG091 LC013 8LA1W LC OP unassigned ZIG092 LC014 8LA1W LC OI CG1 ZIG093 LC015 8LA1W LC TII unassigned I1 ZIG094 LC016 8LA1W LC OI unassigned ZIG095 LC017 8LA1W LC OI CG2 ZIG096 LC018 8LA1W LC OI unassigned ZIG097 LC019 8LA1W LC OI unassigned NC1 ZIG098 LC020 8LA1W LC TII unassigned NC3 ZIG099 LC021 8LA1W LC TII CG2 NC4 ZIG100 LC022 8LA1W LC OI unassigned ZIG101 LC023 8LA1W LC OP CG2 ZIG102 LC024 8LA1W LC OI unassigned ZIG103 LC025 8LA1W LC OP unassigned ZIG104 NR001 8LA1E NR OI CG3 C1 ZIG105 NR002 8LA1E NR OI CG3 C1 ZIG1 06 NR003 8LA1E NR OI CG3 C1 ZIG107 NR004 8LA1E NR OI CG3 C1 ZIG108 NR005 8LA1E NR OI unassigned I2 ZIG109 NR006 8LA1E NR OI CG3 C1 ZIG110 NR007 8LA1E NR OI CG3 C1 ZIG111 NR008 8LA1E NR TII unassigned C1 ZIG112 NR009 8LA1E NR OP unassigned NC3 ZIG113 NR010 8LA1E NR OP CG3 C1 ZIG114 NR011 8LA1E NR OI unassigned C1 ZIG115 NR012 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG116 NR013 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG117 NR014 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG118 NR015 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG119 NR016 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG120 NR017 8LA1E N R OI unassigned

PAGE 361

361 Table D 1. continued MURR anid Vessel number Site Locus Pottery type Composition group Paste group ZIG121 NR018 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG122 NR019 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG123 NR020 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG124 NR021 8LA1E NR OI CG1 ZIG125 NR022 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG126 NR023 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG127 NR024 8LA1E NR OI CG3 C1 ZIG128 NR025 8LA1E NR OI unassigned C1 ZIG129 NR026 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG130 NR027 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG131 NR028 8LA1E NR OI CG3 C1 ZIG132 NR029 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG133 NR030 8LA1E NR OI CG3 C1 ZIG134 NR031 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG135 NR032 8LA1 E NR OI CG3 ZIG136 NR033 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG137 NR034 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG138 NR035 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG139 NR036 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG140 NR037 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG141 NR038 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG142 NR039 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG143 NR04 0 8LA1E NR OI CG1 ZIG144 NR041 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG145 NR042 8LA1E NR OI un outlier NC2 ZIG146 NR043 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG147 NR044 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG148 NR045 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG149 NR046 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG150 NR047 8LA1E NR OI u n outlier I3 ZIG151 NR048 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG152 NR049 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG153 NR050 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG154 NR051 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG155 NR052 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG156 NR053 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG157 NR054 8LA1E NR ER un outlier ZIG158 NR055 8LA1E NR TII CG3 ZIG159 NR056 8LA1E NR OI CG1 ZIG160 NR057 8LA1E NR TII CG2

PAGE 362

362 Table D 1. continued MURR anid Vessel number Site Locus Pottery type Composition group Paste group ZIG161 NR058 8LA1E NR TII CG1 ZIG162 NR059 8LA1E NR OP CG3 ZIG163 NR060 8LA1E NR ER unassigned ZIG164 NR061 8LA1E NR OP CG3 ZIG165 NR062 8LA1E NR OP unassigned ZIG166 NR063 8LA1E NR OP CG2 ZIG167 NR064 8LA1E NR OP un outlier NC2 ZIG168 NR065 8LA1E NR OP unassigned ZIG169 NR066 8LA1E NR OP CG3 ZIG170 NR067 8LA1E NR OP un outlier ZIG171 NR068 8LA1E NR OP unassigned ZIG172 NR069 8LA1E N R OP unassigned ZIG173 NR070 8LA1E NR OP CG1 ZIG174 NR071 8LA1E NR OP CG3 ZIG175 NR072 8LA1E NR OP CG3 ZIG176 NR073 8LA1E NR OP unassigned ZIG177 NR074 8LA1E NR OP CG3 ZIG178 NR075 8LA1E NR OP unassigned ZIG179 NR076 8LA1E NR OP unassigned ZIG180 NR077 8LA1E NR OP un outlier ZIG181 NR078 8LA1E NR OP un outlier ZIG182 NR079 8LA1E NR OP un outlier ZIG183 NR080 8LA1E NR ER CG3 ZIG184 NR081 8LA1E NR OP unassigned ZIG185 NR082 8LA1E NR ER un outlier ZIG186 NR083 8LA1E NR ER unassigned ZIG187 NR084 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG188 NR085 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG189 NR086 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG190 NR087 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG191 NR088 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG192 NR089 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG193 NR090 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG194 NR091 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG195 NR092 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG196 NR093 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG197 NR094 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG198 NR095 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG199 NR096 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG200 NR097 8LA1E NR OI CG3

PAGE 363

363 Table D 1. continued MURR anid Vessel number Site Locus Pottery type Composition group Paste group ZIG201 NR098 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG202 NR099 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG203 NR100 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG204 NR101 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG205 NR102 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG206 NR103 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG207 NR104 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG208 SR001 8LA1E SR OP CG2 NC2 ZIG209 SR002 8LA1E SR OP CG2 NC2 ZIG210 SR003 8LA1E SR OI CG2 NC3 ZIG211 SR004 8LA1E SR OI CG2 NC3 ZIG212 SR005 8LA1E SR OP CG2 C1 ZIG213 SR006 8LA1E SR OI CG2 NC3 ZIG214 SR007 8LA1E SR OP CG2 ZIG215 SR008 8LA1E SR OP CG2 ZIG216 SR009 8LA1E SR OP CG2 ZIG217 SR010 8LA1E SR OP CG2 ZIG218 MR001 8M R123 VL OI un outlier NC3 ZIG219 MR002 8MR123 VL OP CG2 NC3 ZIG220 MR003 8MR123 VL OP unassigned ZIG221 MR004 8MR123 VL TII CG2 ZIG222 MR005 8MR123 VL OP CG2 ZIG223 MR006 8MR123 VL ER unassigned ZIG224 MR007 8MR123 VL OP CG2 ZIG225 MR008 8MR123 VL OP un outlier ZIG226 MR009 8MR123 VL OI unassigned ZIG227 MR010 8MR123 VL OP CG2 NC2 ZIG228 MR011 8MR123 VL OI un outlier NC1 ZIG229 MR012 8MR123 VL OP unassigned C1 ZIG230 MR013 8MR123 VL OI CG2 NC2 ZIG231 MR014 8MR123 VL OI CG2 ZIG232 MR015 8MR123 VL OI unassigned ZIG233 MR016 8MR123 VL OI CG2 ZIG234 MR017 8MR123 VL OP CG2 NC2 ZIG235 MR018 8MR123 VL OP unassigned ZIG236 MR019 8MR123 VL ER CG2 NC3 ZIG237 MR020 8MR123 VL TII unassigned NC2 ZIG238 M NR001 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG23 9 M NR002 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG240 M NR003 8LA1E NR OI unassigned

PAGE 364

364 Table D 1. continued MURR anid Vessel number Site Locus Pottery type Composition group Paste group ZIG241 M NR004 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG242 M NR005 8LA1E NR TII CG3 C1 ZIG243 M NR006 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG244 M NR007 8LA1E NR OP CG3 ZIG245 M NR008 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG246 M NR009 8LA1E NR OI un outlier ZIG247 M NR010 8LA1E NR TII CG1 ZIG248 M NR011 8LA1E NR TII CG3 C1 ZIG249 M NR012 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG250 M NR013 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG251 M NR014 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG252 M NR015 8LA1E NR OI unass igned ZIG253 M NR016 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG254 M NR017 8LA1E NR OP unassigned ZIG255 M NR018 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG256 M NR019 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG257 M NR020 8LA1E NR OI CG3 ZIG258 M NR021 8LA1E NR OI unassigned ZIG259 M MR001 8MR123 MR MD OI CG3 C 1 ZIG260 M MR002 8MR123 MR MD OI CG3 I2 ZIG261 M MR003 8MR123 MR MD OI un outlier ZIG262 M MR004 8MR123 MR MD OI CG3 ZIG263 M MR005 8MR123 MR MD OI unassigned C1 ZIG264 M MR006 8MR123 MR MD OI CG3 C1 ZIG265 M MR007 8MR123 MR MD OI CG3 C1 ZIG266 M MR008 8MR123 MR MD OI CG3 ZIG267 M MR009 8MR123 MR MD OI CG3 C1 ZIG268 M MR010 8MR123 MR MD OP unassigned NC1 ZIG269 M MR011 8MR123 MR MD TII unassigned NC2 ZIG270 M MR012 8MR123 MR MD OP un outlier ZIG271 M MR013 8MR123 MR MD OI un outlier ZIG272 M MR014 8MR123 MR MD OI CG1 ZIG273 M MR015 8MR123 MR MD OI CG3 ZIG274 M MR016 8MR123 MR MD OP unassigned ZIG275 M MR017 8MR123 MR MD OI un outlier ZIG276 M MR018 8MR123 MR MD OI CG3 ZIG277 M MR019 8MR123 MR MD OI CG1 ZIG278 M MR020 8MR123 MR M D OP unassigned ZIG279 M MR021 8MR123 MR MD TII CG1 ZIG280 M MR022 8MR123 MR MD TII un outlier C1

PAGE 365

365 Table D 1. continued MURR anid Vessel number Site Locus Pottery type Composition group Paste group ZIG281 M MR023 8MR123 MR MD TII unassigned NC3 ZIG282 M MR024 8MR123 MR MD TII unassigned ZIG283 M MR025 8MR123 MR MD OI unassigned ZIG284 M MR026 8 MR123 MR MD OI un outlier ZIG285 M MR027 8MR123 MR MD ER CG2 ZIG286 M MR028 8MR123 MR MD OI CG3 ZIG287 M MR029 8MR123 MR MD OI un outlier ZIG288 M MR030 8MR123 MR MD OI unassigned Note: The raw data from the NAA and petrographic analysis are avai lable upon request from the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology at the University of Florida.

PAGE 366

366 Table D 2. Key to headings and abbreviations for pottery provenience, type, and group membership data. Heading Entry Description MURR anid NAA analytical identification number assigned by MURR Vessel Number Zack Gilmore's vessel number Site site number Locus Silver Glen locus LB 8LA1 West Locus B LC 8LA1 West Locus C MR 8MR123 Mound NR 8LA1 East north ridge SR 8LA1 East south rid ge VL 8MR123 Village Pottery type OP Orange Plain OI Orange Incised TII Tick Island Incised ER Eroded Composition group NAA chemical composition group CG1 Composition Group 1 CG2 Composition Group 2 CG3 Composition Group 3 un assigned unassigned sample un outlier unassigned sample with < 0.1 percent chance of belonging to any of the defined groups Paste Group petrographic paste group C1 Chalky 1 I1 Intermediate 1 I2 Intermediate 2 I3 Intermediate 3 NC1 Noncha lky 1 NC2 Nonchalky 2 NC3 Nonchalky 3 NC4 Nonchalky 4

PAGE 367

367 Table D 3 . Mahalanobis distance based probabilities of group membership for Composition Group 1 (CG1) members. Anid CG1 CG2 CG3 ZIG010 17.768 0.000 0.000 ZIG011 61.949 0.133 0.061 ZIG012 17.909 0.063 0.000 ZIG016 30.474 0.006 0.000 ZIG017 46.910 0.231 0.000 ZIG018 61.633 0.000 0.009 ZIG019 14.193 0.005 0.000 ZIG026 18.981 0.000 0.000 ZIG034 11.609 0.346 0.000 ZIG036 81.629 0.609 0.000 ZIG037 85.186 0.000 0.000 ZIG039 25.627 0.000 0.000 ZIG040 81.077 0.001 0.000 ZIG044 56.858 4.132 0.018 ZIG046 95.475 3.670 0.026 ZIG048 85.757 0.103 0.064 ZIG049 99.893 2.497 0.187 ZIG050 38.374 0.003 0.046 ZIG056 35.734 0.121 0.000 ZIG058 73.111 0.047 0.000 ZIG060 88.355 2.861 0.342 ZIG07 0 77.340 0.004 0.000 ZIG077 42.571 0.351 0.002 ZIG092 77.908 1.722 0.001 ZIG124 4.727 0.000 0.024 ZIG143 47.196 0.000 0.307 ZIG159 37.799 0.000 0.000 ZIG161 13.603 0.000 0.000 ZIG173 66.556 0.128 0.000 ZIG247 58.184 0.000 0.064 ZIG272 10.153 0.000 0.000 ZIG277 4.922 0.000 0.000 ZIG279 9.962 0.000 0.000

PAGE 368

368 Table D 4 . Mahalanobis distance based probabilities of group membership for Composition Group 2 (CG2) members. Anid CG1 CG2 CG3 ZIG003 0.011 82.532 0.000 ZIG005 0.066 71.914 0.000 ZIG006 2.065 51.331 0.000 ZIG015 0.131 86.486 0.000 ZIG020 0.234 77.010 0.000 ZIG027 2.811 52.475 0.000 ZIG029 0.763 64.632 0.000 ZIG030 0.026 80.517 0.000 ZIG051 0.033 1.009 0.000 ZIG054 0.019 7.948 0.000 ZIG055 0.072 16.699 0.000 ZIG065 0.139 95.648 0 .000 ZIG072 0.004 11.515 0.000 ZIG078 0.009 70.585 0.002 ZIG081 0.044 87.352 0.000 ZIG083 0.131 73.204 0.000 ZIG084 0.690 89.305 0.000 ZIG085 0.433 86.939 0.000 ZIG086 0.186 32.885 0.000 ZIG090 0.002 35.060 0.000 ZIG095 0.041 31.813 0.000 ZIG099 0.309 40.763 0.233 ZIG101 0.539 82.207 0.001 ZIG160 3.824 30.178 0.000 ZIG166 0.027 13.311 0.000 ZIG208 0.004 62.884 0.000 ZIG209 0.005 45.821 0.000 ZIG210 0.001 15.182 0.000 ZIG211 0.026 10.450 0.000 ZIG212 0.009 10.305 0.000 ZIG213 0.052 60.709 0.000 ZIG214 0.006 96.640 0.000 ZIG215 0.058 63.711 0.000 ZIG216 0.088 61.486 0.000 ZIG217 0.103 73.520 0.001 ZIG219 0.040 34.308 0.000 ZIG221 0.115 9.692 0.000 ZIG222 0.006 37.150 0.000 ZIG224 0.032 47.004 0.000 ZIG227 0.004 68.673 0.000 ZIG230 0.007 0.468 0.000 ZIG231 0.005 81.926 0.000 ZIG233 5.528 65.066 0.000 ZIG234 0.391 89.601 0.009 ZIG236 0.012 18.984 0.000 ZIG285 0.259 26.314 0.001

PAGE 369

369 Table D 5 . Mahalanobis distance based probabilities of group membership for Composition Group 3 (CG3 ) members. Anid CG1 CG2 CG3 ZIG104 0.005 0.000 50.054 ZIG105 0.008 0.000 18.580 ZIG106 0.006 0.000 17.547 ZIG107 0.002 0.001 10.341 ZIG109 0.017 0.000 44.186 ZIG110 0.014 0.000 60.610 ZIG113 0.002 0.000 28.778 ZIG116 0.001 0.000 89.205 ZIG117 0.003 0.000 53.789 ZIG118 0.017 0.000 62.206 ZIG121 0.005 0.000 21.239 ZIG122 0.007 0.000 84.996 ZIG123 0.002 0.000 30.693 ZIG125 0.003 0.000 7.291 ZIG127 0.008 0.000 10.221 ZIG130 0.002 0.000 74.119 ZIG131 0.001 0.000 96.167 ZIG133 0.003 0.000 26 .104 ZIG135 0.002 0.000 16.110 ZIG138 0.001 0.007 38.173 ZIG139 0.004 0.000 94.728 ZIG140 0.001 0.000 93.585 ZIG141 0.001 0.000 61.885 ZIG142 0.002 0.000 8.999 ZIG144 0.004 0.000 51.667 ZIG148 0.001 0.000 99.036 ZIG149 0.001 0.000 58.394 ZIG151 0 .005 0.000 22.276 ZIG153 0.001 0.000 70.131 ZIG158 0.002 0.000 77.199 ZIG162 0.001 0.000 8.542 ZIG164 0.645 0.000 50.958 ZIG169 0.316 0.016 39.794 ZIG174 0.022 0.000 61.953 ZIG175 0.003 0.000 3.037 ZIG177 0.003 0.000 9.763 ZIG183 0.013 0.000 12.17 1 ZIG187 0.042 0.000 14.467 ZIG188 0.138 0.000 61.372 ZIG189 0.027 0.000 83.878 ZIG190 0.011 0.000 68.217 ZIG191 6.121 0.000 69.424 ZIG192 0.004 0.000 97.938 ZIG194 0.002 0.000 62.153 ZIG195 0.004 0.000 95.008 ZIG196 0.213 0.000 53.621 ZIG197 0.0 04 0.003 72.297

PAGE 370

370 Table D 5 . continued Anid CG1 CG2 CG3 ZIG198 0.016 0.000 99.755 ZIG199 0.004 0.000 14.704 ZIG200 0.021 0.000 53.889 ZIG201 0.482 0.000 1.891 ZIG203 0.041 0.000 4.766 ZIG205 0.075 0.000 99.783 ZIG207 0.215 0.000 3.037 ZIG239 3 .468 0.000 56.174 ZIG242 0.005 0.000 79.649 ZIG244 2.499 0.000 19.950 ZIG248 0.171 0.000 3.351 ZIG251 0.008 0.000 10.181 ZIG253 0.051 0.000 99.637 ZIG255 0.089 0.000 97.012 ZIG256 0.178 0.000 88.207 ZIG257 0.005 0.000 55.454 ZIG259 0.181 0.000 58. 887 ZIG260 0.002 0.000 85.531 ZIG262 0.001 0.000 5.051 ZIG264 0.004 0.000 8.618 ZIG265 0.013 0.000 74.976 ZIG266 0.113 0.000 48.683 ZIG267 4.252 0.000 56.022 ZIG273 0.022 0.000 8.717 ZIG276 0.012 0.000 30.935 ZIG286 0.062 0.000 72.699

PAGE 371

371 Table D 6 . Mahalanobis distance based probabilities of group membership for unassigned specimens. Anid CG1 CG2 CG3 ZIG001 0.015 0.455 0.000 ZIG002 0.948 8.302 0.000 ZIG004 0.003 0.011 0.000 ZIG007 1.043 81.940 5.339 ZIG008 0.009 0.071 0.000 ZIG009 0.734 2.856 0.001 ZIG013 3.344 0.222 0.000 ZIG014 0.086 0.000 0.000 ZIG021 0.027 0.019 0.002 ZIG022 44.931 26.254 0.000 ZIG023 6.707 50.084 0.000 ZIG024 3.258 2.964 0.000 ZIG025 0.060 0.000 0.000 ZIG028 0.109 0.000 0.000 ZIG031 0.020 0.000 0.000 ZIG032 5.031 97.944 0.000 ZIG033 68.358 6.717 0.000 ZIG035 0.005 0.082 0.000 ZIG038 0.812 0.002 0.000 ZIG041 0.005 0.056 0.000 ZIG042 2.538 0.033 0.000 ZIG043 0.005 0.000 0.002 ZIG045 0.559 0.009 0.000 ZIG047 0.444 0.000 0.000 ZIG052 0.261 1.708 0.000 ZIG053 0.012 0.300 0.000 ZIG057 99.164 23.279 0.046 ZIG059 11.140 2.821 0.031 ZIG061 0.012 0.000 0.003 ZIG062 0.016 14.364 0.048 ZIG063 0.013 0.007 0.000 ZIG064 0.097 0.002 0.000 ZIG066 1.775 0.057 0.000 ZIG067 0.027 17.654 0.000 ZIG068 1.172 83.3 48 0.000 ZIG069 10.921 99.989 0.000 ZIG071 0.017 0.001 0.000 ZIG073 0.008 62.695 0.014 ZIG074 8.460 57.733 0.000 ZIG075 3.302 19.376 0.000 ZIG076 0.041 0.617 0.000 ZIG079 0.091 0.032 0.000 ZIG080 0.032 0.001 0.000 ZIG082 29.019 48.708 0.000 ZIG08 7 0.001 0.004 0.000 ZIG088 5.191 0.232 0.000

PAGE 372

372 Table D 6 . continued Anid CG1 CG2 CG3 ZIG089 0.360 4.679 0.000 ZIG091 0.073 5.201 0.000 ZIG093 0.278 8.027 0.000 ZIG094 1.371 0.774 0.000 ZIG096 0.355 4.125 0.000 ZIG097 0.784 1.069 0.000 ZIG098 91.897 99.710 0.013 ZIG100 0.379 0.000 0.000 ZIG102 0.008 19.921 0.000 ZIG103 27.001 59.288 0.029 ZIG108 0.075 0.000 1.216 ZIG111 0.643 0.000 0.000 ZIG112 0.107 0.309 0.000 ZIG114 0.000 0.000 0.534 ZIG115 0.007 0.000 0.003 ZIG119 0.156 0.000 0.000 ZIG120 1.878 0.000 0.540 ZIG126 0.089 0.000 0.000 ZIG128 0.006 0.000 0.106 ZIG129 0.003 0.000 0.000 ZIG132 0.026 0.000 0.000 ZIG134 0.030 0.033 0.000 ZIG136 0.051 0.000 0.299 ZIG137 0.002 0.002 0.000 ZIG145 0.052 0.000 0.001 ZIG146 0.675 0.000 0 .000 ZIG147 0.019 0.000 0.000 ZIG150 0.014 0.000 0.000 ZIG152 2.511 0.000 0.000 ZIG154 0.003 0.000 0.028 ZIG155 0.017 0.001 0.000 ZIG156 0.801 0.000 0.056 ZIG157 0.001 0.000 0.000 ZIG163 0.165 0.000 1.799 ZIG165 12.474 53.312 0.000 ZIG167 0.042 0 .000 0.000 ZIG168 0.859 0.533 0.000 ZIG170 0.026 0.000 0.000 ZIG171 0.035 0.124 0.000 ZIG172 0.421 0.000 0.000 ZIG176 0.025 10.275 0.000 ZIG178 0.027 0.100 0.000 ZIG179 0.014 8.408 0.004 ZIG180 0.006 0.010 0.000 ZIG181 0.009 0.000 0.000 ZIG182 0. 002 0.001 0.000 ZIG184 0.586 0.035 0.000 ZIG185 0.002 0.000 0.005

PAGE 373

373 Table D 6 . continued Anid CG1 CG2 CG3 ZIG186 0.536 0.000 0.018 ZIG193 0.003 0.000 0.269 ZIG202 0.013 0.000 0.000 ZIG204 0.500 0.000 0.085 ZIG206 0.327 0.000 0.848 ZIG218 0.030 0.004 0.000 ZIG220 0.046 0.484 0.000 ZIG22 3 0.011 4.616 0.000 ZIG225 0.016 0.062 0.000 ZIG226 0.097 0.102 0.000 ZIG228 0.011 0.097 0.000 ZIG229 0.879 0.269 0.000 ZIG232 4.806 0.287 0.000 ZIG235 0.061 13.043 0.000 ZIG237 0.001 2.038 0.000 ZIG238 3.421 0.000 3.524 ZIG240 0.458 0.000 0.000 ZIG241 0.274 0.000 0.001 ZIG243 22.691 0.000 48.997 ZIG245 8.206 0.000 0.330 ZIG246 0.027 0.000 0.034 ZIG249 0.886 0.000 0.000 ZIG250 3.564 0.000 0.300 ZIG252 0.813 0.000 0.000 ZIG254 0.113 0.000 0.001 ZIG258 0.139 0.000 0.725 ZIG261 0.035 0.000 0 .022 ZIG263 2.615 0.000 0.346 ZIG268 0.184 0.000 0.297 ZIG269 0.183 13.617 0.000 ZIG270 0.019 0.015 0.000 ZIG271 0.030 0.000 0.073 ZIG274 0.464 0.000 0.000 ZIG275 0.024 0.000 0.000 ZIG278 0.015 0.166 0.000 ZIG280 0.011 0.000 0.000 ZIG281 0.264 0. 000 2.238 ZIG282 0.010 3.544 0.000 ZIG283 0.108 0.000 3.752 ZIG284 0.004 0.000 0.000 ZIG287 0.006 0.000 0.000 ZIG288 3.512 0.014 0.000

PAGE 374

374 Table D 7 . Mahalanobis distance based probabilities of group membership for clay samples. Anid CG1 CG2 CG3 K HA032 0.082 0.000 0.000 KHA033 0.006 0.001 0.000 KHA088 0.013 0.000 0.000 KHA089 0.014 0.000 0.000 KHA091 0.060 0.000 0.000 KHA122 0.000 0.000 0.000 KHA123 0.031 0.000 0.000 NJW315 0.299 0.000 0.000 NJW316 0.011 0.001 0.000 NJW317 0.032 0.008 0.00 0 NJW318 0.003 0.000 0.000 NJW319 0.127 0.337 0.000 NJW320 0.173 0.000 0.000 NJW321 1.150 0.000 0.000 NJW322 0.002 0.001 0.000 NJW323 0.000 0.000 0.000 NJW324 0.003 0.000 0.000 NJW325 1.145 0.000 0.000 NJW326 0.016 0.000 0.000 NJW327 0.068 0.000 0.000 NJW328 1.082 0.433 0.000 NJW329 0.589 0.000 0.000 NJW330 0.012 0.751 0.000 NJW331 2.029 0.032 0.000 NJW332 0.003 0.000 0.000 NJW333 0.002 0.000 0.000 NJW334 0.067 0.000 0.000 NJW335 0.003 0.000 0.000 NJW337 0.000 0.000 0.000 NJW338 0.007 0. 000 0.000 NJW339 0.101 0.000 0.000 NJW340 0.000 0.000 0.000 NJW341 0.001 0.197 0.000 NJW342 0.000 0.000 0.000 NJW343 0.126 0.000 0.000 NJW344 0.385 0.001 0.000 NJW345 0.143 0.000 0.000 NJW346 0.003 0.000 0.000 NJW347 0.002 0.000 0.000 NJW348 0.00 1 0.000 0.000 NJW349 0.000 0.002 0.000 NJW350 0.000 0.000 0.000 NJW351 0.013 0.000 0.000 NJW352 0.002 0.000 0.000 NJW353 0.072 0.000 0.000 NJW354 0.001 0.000 0.000 NJW355 0.000 0.000 0.000

PAGE 375

375 Table D 7 . continued Anid CG1 CG2 CG3 NJW356 0.005 0 .347 0.000 NJW357 0.006 0.001 0.000 NJW358 0.002 0.000 0.000 NJW359 0.054 0.000 0.000 NJW360 0.302 0.000 0.000 NJW361 0.026 0.046 0.000 NJW362 1.542 0.000 0.000 NJW363 0.000 0.000 0.000 NJW364 0.000 0.000 0.000 ZIG324 0.003 0.000 0.000 ZIG325 0.0 07 0.000 0.000 ZIG326 0.001 0.000 0.000 ZIG327 0.003 0.000 0.000 ZIG328 0.042 0.000 0.000 ZIG329 0.004 0.000 0.000 ZIG330 0.000 0.000 0.000 ZIG331 0.208 0.000 0.000 ZIG332 0.479 0.000 0.000 ZIG333 0.988 0.003 0.000 ZIG334 0.023 0.000 0.000 ZIG335 0.003 0.000 0.000 ZIG337 0.038 0.000 0.000 ZIG338 0.004 0.000 0.000 ZIG339 0.015 0.000 0.000 ZIG340 1.626 0.000 0.000 ZIG341 12.065 0.000 0.000 ZIG342 0.014 0.000 0.000 ZIG343 3.926 0.000 0.000

PAGE 376

376 LIST OF REFERENCES Adler, Michael A., and Richard H. Wilshusen 1990 Large Scale Integrative Facilities in Tribal Societies: Cross Cultural and Southwestern US Examples. World Archaeology 22(2):133 146. Alt, Susan M. 2006 The Power of Diversity: Settlement in the Cahokian Uplands . In Leadership and Polity i n Mississippian Society , edited by B. M. Butler and P. D. Welch, pp. 289 308. Occasional Paper No. 33. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman 2012 Recent Developments in Southeastern Archaeology: From Colonization to Complexity . SAA Press, Washington, D.C. Appadurai, Arjun 1986 Introduction: Commodities and Politics of Value . In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective , edited by A. Appadurai, pp . 3 62. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Appadurai, Arjun (editor) 1986 The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Arnold, Dean E. 1998 Ancient Andean Ceramic Technology: An Ethnoarchaeolo gical Perspective . In Andean Ceramics: Technology, Organization, and Approaches , edited by Izumi Shimada, pp. 353 367. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Technology, Supplement to vol. 15, 1998. Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, University o f Pennsylvania of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. Arnold, Michael, Christopher Shepherd, and Martin Gibbs 2008 Remembering Things. The Information Society 24(1):47 53. Arthur, John W. 2002 Pottery Use Alteration as an Indicator of Socioeconom ic Status: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Gamo of Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9:331 355. Aten, Lawrence E. 1999 Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island, Florida: Ripley P. Bullen's 1961 Excavation at the Harris Creek Sit e. The Florida Anthropologist 52:131 200. Bailey, Geoff 1983 Concepts of Time in Quaternary Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 12(165 192).

PAGE 377

377 2007 Time Perspectives, Palimpsests, and the Archaeology of Time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2 6(2):198 223. 2008 Time Perspectivism: Origins and Consequences . In Time in Archaeology: Time Perspectivism Revisited , edited by S. Holdaway and L. Wandsnider, pp. 13 30. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Bamforth, Douglas B. 2002 Evidence and Me taphor in Evolutionary Archaeology. American Antiquity 67:435 452. Barnard, Alan 2004 Hunter Gatherers in History, Archaeology and Anthropology: Introductory Essay . In Hunter Gatherers in History, Archaeology and Anthropology , edited by A. Barnard, pp. 1 13. Berg, Oxford. Barrett, John C. 1994 Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900 1200 B.C. Blackwell, Oxford 1999 The Mythical Landscapes of the British Iron Age . In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives , e dited by W. Ashmore and B. Knapp, pp. 253 265. Blackwell, Oxford. 2000 A Thesis on Agency . In Agency in Archaeology , edited by M. A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 61 68. Routledge, London. 2001 Agency, the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archae ological Record . In Archaeological Theory Today , edited by I. Hodder, pp. 141 164. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Barrett, John C., and Ilhong Ko 2009 A Phenomenology of Landscape: A Crisis in British Landscape Archaeology? Journal of Social Archaeology 9:275 294 . Bartram, John 1942 Diary of a Journey through the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida (annotated by Francis Harper). In Transactions of the American Philosophical Society . Vol. XXXIII, Part 1, Philadelphia. Bass, D. Gray and David Cox 1985 River Habitat an d Fishery Resources of Florida . In Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources , edited by William Seaman, pp. 121 187. Florida Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Kissimmee, Florida.

PAGE 378

378 Basso, Keith H. 1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Langu age among the Western Apache . University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Baxter, Michael J. 1992 Archaeological Uses of the Biplot: A Neglected Technique? In Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology , edited by Gary Lock and J. Moffe tt, pp. 141 148. Tempvs Reparatvm, Archaeological and Historical Associates, Oxford. 1994 Exploring Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Beasley, Virgil R. 2008 Monumentality During the Mid Holocene in the Upper and Middle St. Johns River Basins, Florida, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Beck, Robin A., Douglas J. Bolender, James A. Brown, and Timothy K. Earle 2007 Eventful Archaeology: The Place of Space in Structural Tra nsformation. Current Anthropology 48:833 860. Bell, Catherine 1992 Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice . Oxford University Press, New York. Bell, Olin G. 1924 A Preliminary Report on Clays of Florida . In Florida State Geological Survey, Fifteenth Annual Report 1922 1923 , pp. 54 261. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee. Bender, Barbara 1993 Stonehenge -Contested Landscapes (Medieval to Present Day) . In Landscape: Politics and Perspectives , edited by B. Bender, pp. 245 279. Berg, Providence. Bennett, Jane 20 10 Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things . Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina. Bettinger, Robert L. 1991 Hunter Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory . Plenum Press, New York. Binford, Lewis R. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31:203 210.

PAGE 379

379 1981 Behavioral Archaeology and the Pompeii Premise. Journal of Anthropological Research 37:195 208. 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5 31. Bishop, Ronald L., and Hector Neff 1989 Multivariate Analysis of Compositional Data in Archaeology . In Archaeological Chemistry IV , edited by R. O. Allen, pp. 576 586. Advances in Chemistry Series 220. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. Bishop, Ronald L. , Robert L. Rands, and George R. Holley 1982 Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective . In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory , edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 275 330. Academic Press, New York. Blessing, Meggan E. 2011a Zoo archaeological Assemblage . In Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Silver Glen Springs Recreational Area in the Ocala National Forest, Florida , by A. R. Randall, M. E. Blessing and J. C. Endonino, pp. 173 194. Technical Report 13. Laboratory of Southeast ern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2011b Zooarchaeological Assemblage . In Archaeological Investigations at Salt Springs (8MR2322), Marion County, Florida , by J. O'Donoughue, K. E. Sassaman, M. E. Blessing, J. B. Talcott and J. C. Byrd, pp. 65 85. Technical Report 11. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2015 Pits for the Ancestors . In The Archaeology of Events: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Pre Columbian Southeast , edited by Z. I. Gilmore and J. O'Donoughue. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, in press. Blitz, John 1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58:80 96. Boivin, Nicole 2008 Material Cultures, Material Minds . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bolender, Douglas J. 2010 Toward an Eventful Archaeology . In Eventful Archaeologies: New Approaches to Social Transformation in the Archaeological Record , edited by D. J . Bolender, pp. 3 14. State University of New York Press, Albany.

PAGE 380

380 Borremans, Nina T and Graig D. Shaak 1986 Preliminary Report on Investigations of Sponge Spicules in Florida "Chalky" Paste Pottery. . In Papers in Ceramic Analysis, Ceramic Notes No. 3 , e dited by Prudence M. Rice, pp. 125 132. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bowser, Brenda J. 2008 Learning and Transmission of Pottery Style: Women's Life Histories and Communities of Practice in the Ecuadorian Amazon . In Cultural Transmission and Material Culture: Breaking Down Boundaries , edited by Miriam T. Stark, Brenda J. Bowser and Lee Horne, pp. 105 129. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Bowser, Brenda J., and John Q. Patton 2008 Learning and Transmission of Pottery Style: Women's Life Histories and Communities of Practice in the Ecuadorian Amazon . In Cultural Transmission and Material Cu lture: Breaking Down Boundaries , edited by Miriam T. Stark, Brenda J. Bowser and Lee Horne, pp. 105 129. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Bradley, Richard 2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places . Routledge, London. 2002 The Past in Prehistoric Soci eties . Routledge, London. 2003 The Translation of Time . In Archaeologies of Memory , edited by R. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock, pp. 221 227. Blackwell, Malden, MA. 2005 Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe . Routledge, London. Brain, Jeffrey P. and Drexel A. Peterson 1971 Palmetto Tempered Pottery. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 13:70 76. Braudel, Fernand 1996[1949] The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, Vol. 1 . University of California Press, Berkel ey. Braun, David P. 1983 Pots as Tools . In Archaeological Hammers and Theories , edited by James A. Moore and Arthur S. Keene, pp. 108 134. Academic Press, New York.

PAGE 381

381 Brittain, Marcus, and Oliver Harris 2010 Enchaining Arguments and Fragmenting Assumption s: Reconsidering the Fragmentation Debate in Archaeology. World Archaeology 42(4):581 594. Bronitsky, Gordon, and R. Hamer 1986 Experiments in Ceramic Technology: The Effects of Various Tempering Materials on Impact and Thermal Shock Resistance. American Antiquity 51:89 101. Broughton, Jack M., and James F. O'Connell 1999 On Evolutionary Ecology, Selectionist Archaeology, and Behavioral Archaeology. American Antiquity 64(1):153 165. Brown, James A., and Robert K. Vierra 1983 What Happened in the Middle A rchaic? Introduction to an Ecological Approach to Koster Site Archaeology . In Archaic Hunter Gatherers in the American Midwest , edited by J. L. Phillips and J. A. Brown, pp. 165 195. Academic Press, New York. Brück, Joanna 1999 Ritual and Rationality: Som e Problems of Interpretation in European Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 2(3):313 344. Brück, Joanna, and Melissa Goodman 1999 Introduction: Themes for a Critical Archaeology of Prehistoric Settlement . In Making Places in the Prehistoric Worl d: Themes in Settlement Archaeology , edited by J. Bruck and M. Goodman, pp. 1 19. UCL Press, London. Bruegel, Martin 2006 The Social Relations of Farming in the Early American Republic: A Microhistorical Approach. Journal of the Early Republic 26(4):523 5 53. Bullen, Ripley P. 1955 Stratigraphic Tests at Bluffton, Volusia County Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 8(1):1 16. 1968 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points . Florida State Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1969 Exc avations at Sunday Bluff, Florida . Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences, No. 15. University of Florida, Gainesville. 1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida . In Fiber Tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern C olumbia: Its Origins, Context, and Significance , edited by Ripley P. Bullen and James B. Stoltman, pp. 9 33. Florida Anthropological Society Publications, No. 6, Gainesville.

PAGE 382

382 Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Bullen 1976 The Palmer Site . Florida Anthropo logical Society Publications 8. Florida Anthropological Society, Gainesville. Cameron, Catherine M. 1995 Migration and Movement of Southwestern Peoples. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14:104 124. 2002 Sacred Earthen Architecture in the Northern S outhwest: The Bluff Great House Berm. American Antiquity 67(4):677 695. Cameron, Catherine M., and Andrew I. Duff 2008 History and Process in Village Formation: Context and Contrasts from the Northern Southwest. American Antiquity 73(1):29 57. Campbell, L. Janice, Prentice M. Thomas Jr, and James H. Mathews 2004 Fiber Tempered Pottery and Cultural Interaction on the Northwest Florida Gulf Coast . In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast , pp. 129 149. University Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Carr, Christopher 2006 Scioto Hopewell Ritual Gatherings: A Review and Discussion of Previous Interpretations and Data . In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction , edited by C. Carr and D. T. Case, pp. 463 47 9. Springer, New York. Carr, Christopher and D. Troy Case (editors) 2006 Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction . Springer, New York. Carr, David 1986 Time, Narrative, and History . Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Casey, Edward S. 1996 How to Get From Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time . In Senses of Place , edited by S. Feld and K. H. Basso, pp. 13 52. School of American Research, Santa Fe. Chapman, John 2000a Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places, and Broke n Objects in the Prehistory of Southeastern Europe . Routledge, London. 2000 b Pit Digging and Structured Deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66:61 87.

PAGE 383

383 c and Copper Age Settlements in Central and Eastern Europe . In Neolithic Orkney in Its European Context , edited by A. Ritchie, pp. 347 362. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Chapman, John, and Bisserka Gaydarska 2007 Parts and Who les: Fragmentation in Prehistoric Context . Oxbow Books, Oxford. Claassen, Cheryl 1996 A Consideration of the Social Organization of the Shell Mound Archaic . In Archaeology of the Mid Holocene Southeast , edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 235 258. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2010 Feasting with Shellfish in the Southern Ohio Valley: Archaic Sacred Sites and Rituals . The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Clay, R. Berle 1998 The Essential Features of Adena Ritual a nd Their Implications. Southeastern Archaeology 17(1):1 21. Cobb, Charles R. Premodern World. American Anthropologist 107(4):563 574. 2015 Mississippian Microhistories and Sub Mo und Moments . In The Archaeology of Events: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Pre Columbian Southeast , edited by Z. I. Gilmore and J. O'Donoughue. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, in press. Cogswell, James, Hector Neff, and Michael Glascock 199 8 Analysis of Shell Tempered Pottery Replicates: Implications for Provenance Studies. American Antiquity 63:63 72. Cole, Jennifer 2001 Forget Colonialism?: Sacrifice and the Art of Memory in Mada ga scar . University of California Press, Berkeley. Conneller , Chantal 2011 An Archaeology of Materials: Substantial Transformations in Early Prehistoric Europe . Routledge, London. Connerton, Paul 1989 How Societies Remember . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

PAGE 384

384 Cordell, Ann S. 1984 Ceramic Technology at a Weede n Island Period Archaeological Site in North Florida . Papers in Ceramic Analysis, Ceramic Notes No. 2. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. 2004 Paste Variability and Possible Manufacturing Origi ns of Late Archaic Fiber Tempered Pottery from Selected Sites in Peninsular Florida . In Early Pottery:Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast , edited by Rebecca Saunders and Christopher T. Hays, pp. 63 104. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Cordell, Ann S. and Kathleen A. Deagen 2013 Paste Variability and Clay Resource Utilization at the Fountain of Youth Site, St. Augustine, 8SJ31 . In Life among the Tides: Recent Archaeology on the Georgia Bite , edited by Victor D. Thomp son and David Hurst Thomas, pp. 95 117. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Number 98. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Cordell, Ann S. and Steven H. Koski 2003 Analysis of a Spiculate Clay from Lake Monroe, Volu sia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(2):113 124. Crothers, George M., and Reinhard Bernbeck 2004 The Foraging Mode of Production: The Case of the Green River Archaic Shell Middens . In Hunters and Gatherers in Theory and Archaeology , edited b y G. M. Crothers, pp. 401 422. Occasional Paper No. 31. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Crusoe, Donald 1971 A Study of Aboriginal Trade: A Petroglyphic Analysis of Certain Ceramic Types from Florida and Georgia. The Florida Anthropologist 24(2):31 44. Cumbaa, Stephen L. 1976 A Reconsideration of Freshwater Shellfish Exploitation in the Florida Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 29:49 59. Dant, Tim 2001 Fruitbox/Toolbox: Biography and Objects. Auto/Biog raphy IX(1 & 2):11 20. Darvill, Timothy 2012 Sounds from the Underground: Neolithic Ritual Pits and Pit Clusters on the Isle of Man . In Regional Perspectives on Neolithic Pit Deposition: Beyond the Mundane , edited by Hugo Anderson Whymark and Julian Thoma s, pp. 30 42. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

PAGE 385

385 David, Nicholas and Carol Kramer 2001 Ethnoarchaeology in Action . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Davies, Paul and John G. Robb 2004 Scratches in the Earth: The Underworld as a Theme in British Prehistory, with P articular Reference to the Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age. Landscape Research 29:141 151. Davis, John H. 1946 The Peat Deposits of Florida: Their Occurrence, Development, and Uses . State of Florida Department of Conservation, Geological Bulletin No. 30. The Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee. Davis, Norman 2005 Celestial Alignments at the Marksville Site . In The William G. Haag Honorary Symposium , edited by Paul Farnsworth, Charles H. McNutt and Stephan Williams, pp. 64 94. Occasional Paper 26. Anth ropological Research Center, University of Memphis, Memphis. Dawdy, Shannon Lee 2006 The Taphonomy of Disaster and the (Re)Formation of New Orleans. American Anthropologist 108(4):719 730. 2010 Clockpunk Anthropology and the Ruins of Modernity. Current A nthropology 51(6):761 793. Deal, Michael 1998 Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Highlands . University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. DeBoer, Warren R. and Donald Lathrap 1979 The Making and Breaking of Shipibo Conibo Ceramics . In Ethnoarchaeol ogy: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology , edited by Carol Kramer, pp. 102 138. Columbia University Press, New York. DeBoer, Warren R., and Linea Sundstrom 2012 Introduction . In Enduring Motives: The Archaeology of Tradition and Religion in Native America , edited by L. Sundstrom and W. R. DeBoer, pp. 1 11. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. de Certeau, Michel 1984 The Practice of Everyday Life . University of California Press, Berkeley.

PAGE 386

386 Degoy, Laure 2008 Technical Traditions and Cultur al Identity: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Andhra Pradesh Potters . In Cultural Transmission and Material Culture: Breaking Down Boundaries , edited by Miriam T. Stark, Brenda J. Bowser and Lee Horne, pp. 199 222. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. De Landa, Manuel 2006 A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity . Continuum, London. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari 2004 A Thousand Plateaus . Continuum, London. DeMarrais, Elizabeth 2013 Understanding Heterarchy: Crafting a nd Social Projects in Pre Hispanic Northwest Argentina. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23(3):345 362. DesJean, Thomas 1985 The Archaic Stage Occupation at Kings Bay: An Overview In Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Local ity, vol. I , The Kings Bay and Devils Walkingstick Sites , edited by William Hampton Adams, pp. 17 34. Reports of Investigations 1. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dietler, Michael, and Ingrid Herbich 1989 Tich Matek: The Te chnology of Luo Pottery Production and the Definition of Ceramic Style. World Archaeology 21:148 164. 1998 Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries . In The Archaeology of Social Boun daries , edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 232 263. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Dillehay, Tom D. 2007 Monuments, Empires, and Resistance: The Araucanian Polity and Ritual Narratives . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dobres, Marcia Anne 2 000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining A Practice Framework for Archeology Blackwell, Oxford. 2010 Archaeologies of Technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34:103 114.

PAGE 387

387 Dolgin, Janet L., and JoAnn Magdoff 1977 The Invisible Event . In Symbolic A nthropology: A Reader in the Study of Symbols and Meanings , edited by J. L. Dolgin, D. S. Kemnitzer and D. M. Schneider, pp. 351 363. Columbia University Press, New York. Dunnell, Robert C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiqu ity 43:192 202. Dye, David H. 1996 Riverine Adaptation in the Midsouth . In Of Caves and Shell Mounds , edited by K. C. Carstens and P. J. Watson, pp. 140 158. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Dye, David H. and Patty Jo Watson 2010 Primary Fore st Efficiency in the Eastern Woodlands of North America. Early Georgia 38(2):159 167. Edwards, William E. 1965 A Preliminary Report on the Sewee Mound Shell Midden, Charleston County, South Carolina. Manuscript on file, South Carolina Institute of Archaeo logy and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Eerkens, Jelmer 2002 The Preservation And Identification of Pinon Resins by GC MS in Pottery from the Western Great Basin. Archaeometry 44(1):95 105. Emerson, Thomas E. and Dale L. McElrath 2 009 The Eastern Woodlands Archaic and the Tyranny of Theory . In Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity across the Midcontinent , edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath and A. C. Fortier, pp. 23 38. SUNY Press, Albany, NY. Endonino, Jon C. 2007 A Reev aluation of the Gainesville, Ocala, and Lake Panasoffkee Quarry Clusters. The Florida Anthropologist 60:77 96. 2008 The Thornhill Lake Archaeological Research Project: 2005 2008. The Florida Anthropologist 61:149 165. 2010 Thornhill Lake: Hunger Gatherer s, Monuments, and Memory, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2013 Examining Orange Period Vessel Forming Methods through Experiment and Radiography: Implications for Chronology, Technology, and Function. The Florida Anthropologist 66:5 21.

PAGE 388

388 Espenshade, Christopher T. 1983 Ceramic Ecology and Aboriginal Household Pottery Production at Teh Gautheir Site, Florida, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville . Eves, Richard 1996 Remembrance of Things Passed: Memory, Body, and the Politics of Feasting in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea. Oceania 66:266 277 Fabian, Johannes 1983 Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object . Columbia University Press, Ne w York. Feinman, Gary M. 1989 Tinkering with Technology: Pitfalls and Prospects for Anthropological Archaeology . In Pottery Technology: Ideas and Approaches , edited by Gordon Bronitsky, pp. 217 220. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Feit, Harvey 1994 Th e Enduring Pursuit: Land, Time, and Social Relationships in Anthropological Models of Hunter Gatherers and in Subarctic Hunters' Images . In Key Issues in Hunter Gatherer Research , edited by E. S. Burch and L. J. Ellanna, pp. 421 439. Berg, Oxford. Ferguso n, Vera Masius 1951 Chronology at South Indian Fields, Florida . Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 45, New Haven, Connecticut. Flannery, Kent V., Andrew K. Balkansky, Gary M. Feinman, David C. Grove, Joyce Marcus, Elsa M. Redmond, Robert G. Reynolds, Robert J. Sharer, Charles S. Spencer and Jason Yaeger Model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(32):11219 11223. Fogelson, Raymond D. 1989 The Ethnoh istory of Events and Nonevents. Ethnohistory 36:133 147. Foley, Robert A. 1981 A Model of Regional Archaeological Structure. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47:1 17. Fowler, Chris 2004 The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach . Ro utledge, London.

PAGE 389

389 2013 The Emergent Past: A Relational Realist Archaeology of Early Bronze Age Mortuary Practices . Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fowles, Severin M. 2013 An Archaeology of Doings: Secularism and the Study of Pueblo Religion . School for A dvanced Reserch Press, Santa Fe. Fried, Morton H. 1967 The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology . Random House, New York. Frink, Lisa and Karen G. Harry 2008 The Beauty of "Ugly" Eskimo Cooking Pots. American Antiquity 73:103 120. Gardener, Andrew 2004 Introduction: Social Agency, Power, and Being Human . In Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Agency, Power, and Being Human , edited by A. Gardener, pp. 1 15. UCL Press, London. Garrow, Duncan 2012 Odd Deposi ts and Average Practice. A Critical History of the Concept of Structured Deposition. Archaeological Dialogues 19(02):85 115. Gell, Alfred 1998 Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory . Oxford University Press, Oxford. Gibson, James 1979 The Ecological A pproach to Visual Perception . Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey. Giddens, Anthony 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration . University of California Press, Berkeley. Gillespie, Susan D. 2008 History in Practice: Ritu al Deposition at La Venta Complex A . In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices , edited by B. J. Mills and W. H. Walker, pp. 109 136. School for Advanced Research, Santa Fe. 2010 Inside and Outside: Residential Burial at Formative Period Chalcatz ingo, Mexico. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 20(1):98 120. 2012 The Entanglement of Jade and the Rise of Mesoamerica. Patty Jo Watson Distinguished Lecture . Paper presented at the 111th Annual Meeting of the American Ant hropological Association, San Francisco.

PAGE 390

390 . In Things in Motion , edited by Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, in press. Gilmore, Zackary I. 2011 Silver Glen Run, Locus B (8LA1 West) . In St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2007 2010: Silver Glen Run (8LA1) , edited by K. E. Sassaman, Z. I. Gilmore and A. R. Randall. Technical Report 12. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropo logy, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2015 Subterranean Histories: Pit Events and Place Making in Late Archaic Florida . In The Archaeology of Events: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Pre Columbian Southeast , edited by Z. I. Gilmore and J. O'Donou ghue. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, in press. Gilmore, Zackary I., and Jason O'Donoughue 2015 Introduction: The Enigma of the Event . In The Archaeology of Events: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Pre Columbian Southeast , edited by Z. I. Gi lmore and J. O'Donoughue. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, in press. Gilmore, Zackary I. and Jason O'Donoughue (editors) 2015 The Archaeology of Events: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Pre Columbian Southeast . University of Alabama Press, Tu scaloosa. Glascock, Michael D. 1992 Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at M URR by Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics . In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology , edited by Hector Neff, pp. 11 26. Prehistory Press, Madison. Glascock, Michael D., Hector Neff and Kevin J. Vaughn 2004 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics for Pottery Provenance. Hyperfine Interactions 154:95 105. Glowacki, Donna M. and Hector Neff (editors) 2002 Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations . Monograph 44. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Goggin, John M. 1947 A Prel iminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13:114 127. 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archaeology, Florida . Yale University Press, New Haven.

PAGE 391

391 Goody, Jack 1977 The Domestication of the Savag e Mind . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Goody, Jack, and Ian Watt 1963 The Consequences of Literacy: Comparative Studies in Society and History 5:304 345. Gosden, Chris 2001 Making Sense: Archaeology and Aesthetics. World Archaeology 33(2):163 167 . 2005 What Do Objects Want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(2):193 211. 2012 Extended and Condensed Relations: Bringing Together Landscapes and Artefacts . In Image, Memory, and Monumentality: Archaeological Engagements with the Material W orld: A Celebration of the Academic Achievements of Professor Richard Bradley , edited by A. M. Jones, J. Pollard, M. J. Allen and J. Gardiner, pp. 127 135. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Gosden, Chris, and Gary Lock 1998 Prehistoric Histories. World Archaeology 30( 1):2 12. Gosden, Chris, and Yvonne Marshall 1999 The Cultural Biography of Objects. World Archaeology 31(2):169 178. Gosselain, Olivier P. 1998 Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball . In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries , edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 79 106. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 2000 Materializing Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3):187 217. 2008 Mother Bella Was Not a Bella . In Cultural Transmission and Material Cultu re: Breaking Down Boundaries , edited by Miriam T. Stark, Brenda J. Bowser and Lee Horne, pp. 150 177. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Saharan Africa . In Investigating Arch aeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and Transmission , edited by Benjamin W. Roberts and Marc Vander Linden, pp. 211 227. Springer, New York.

PAGE 392

392 Griffin, James B. 1945 The Significance of Fiber Tempered Pottery of the St. Johns Area in Flori da. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 35(7):218 223. Griffin, John W. 1972 Fiber Tempered Pottery in the Tennessee Valley . In Fiber Tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern Columbia: Its Origins, Context, and Significance , e dited by Ripley P. Bullen and James B. Stoltman, pp. 34 36. Florida Anthropological Society Publications, No. 6, Gainesville. Griffin, John W. and Hale G. Smith 1954 The Cotten Site: An Archaeological Site of Early Ceramic Times in Volusia County, Florida . Florida State University Studies 16:27 60. Grøn, Ole 1991 A Method for Reconstruction of Social Structure in Prehistoric Societies and Examples of Practical Application . In Social Space: Human Spatial Behavior in Dwellings and Settlements, Proceedings o f an Interdisciplinary Conference , edited by O. Gron, E. Engelstad and I. Lindblom, pp. 100 117. Odense University Press, Denmark. Hahn, Hans Peter and Hadas Weiss 2013 Introduction: Biographies, Travels and Itineraries of Things . In Mobility, Meaning and the Transformations of Things , edited by Hans Peter Hahn and Hadas Weiss, pp. 1 14. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Hahn, Hans Peter and Hadas Weiss (editors) 2013 Mobility, Meaning, and the Transformations of Things . Oxbow Books, Oxford. Hally, David J. 1983 Use Alteration of Pottery Vessel Surfaces: An Important Source of Evidence for the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 4:3 26. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51:2 67 295. Halperin, Christina T. 2014 Circulation as Placemaking: Late Classic Maya Polities and Portable Objects. American Anthropologist 116(1):110 129. Hamilton, Fran E. 1999 Southeastern Archaic Mounds: Examples of Elaboration in a Temporally Fluctuati ng Environment? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:344 355.

PAGE 393

393 Harding, Jan 2005 Rethinking the Great Divide: Long Term Structural History and the Temporality of Event. Norwegian Archaeological Review 38:88 101. Harris, Oliver J. T. 2012 (Re)assemb ling Communities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Online first publication, DOI 10.1007/s10816 012 9138 3. 2013 Relational Communities in Prehistoric Britain . In Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things , edited by C. Watts, pp. 173 18 9. Routledge, New York. Harvey, David 1989 The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change . Blackwell, Oxford. Hawkes, Christopher 1954 Archeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropo logist 56:155 168. Hayden, Brian 1995a Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities . In Foundations of Social Inequality , edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 15 86. Plenum Press, New York. 1996 Feasting in Prehist oric and Traditional Societies . In Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective , edited by Polly Wiessner and Wulf Schiefenhovel, pp. 127 146. Berghahn Books, Oxford. 2001 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting . In Fe asts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power , edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 23 64. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Hays, Christopher T., and Richard A. Weinstein 2004 Early Pottery at Pov erty Point: Origins and Functions . In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast , edited by Rebecca Saunders and Christopher T. Hays, pp. 150 168. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Headland, Thomas, and Lawre nce Reid 1989 Hunter Gatherers and Their Neighbors from Prehistory to the Present. Current Anthropology 30(1):43 66.

PAGE 394

394 Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Peterson , and Eduardo Goes Neves 1999 Village Size and Permanence in Amazonia: Two Archaeological Exa mples from Brazil. Latin American Antiquity 10(4):353 376. Hegmon, Michelle 1986 Information Exchange and Integration on Black Mesa, Arizona, A.D. 931 1150 . In Spatial Organization and Exchange: Archaeological Survey on Northern Black Mesa , edited by Step hen Plog, pp. 256 281. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:517 536. 1998 Technology, Style, and Social Practices: Archaeological Approaches . In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries , edited by Miriam T. Stark, pp. 264 279. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2013 The Archaeology of the Human Experience. The SAA Archaeological Record 13(5):16 19. Hegmon, Michelle and Stephanie Kulow 2005 Painting as Agency, Sty le as Structure: Innovations in Mimbres Pottery Designs from Southwest New Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(4):313 334. Hegmon, Michelle, Margaret C. Nelson and Mark J. Ennes 2000 Corrugated Pottery Technological Style, and Populatio n Movement in the Mimbres Region of the American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 56:217 240. Heidegger, Martin 1971 Building, Dwelling, Thinking . In Poetry, Language, Thought , pp. 141 161. Harper Colophon Books, New York. 1977 Basic Writin gs . Harper & Row, New York. Hemmings, E. Thomas and Don L. VonBurger 1975 An Orange Plain Vessel from Enterprise, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 28(1):14 16. Hendon, Julia A. 2010 Houses in a Landscape: Memory and Everyday Life in Mesoamerica . Duke University Press, Durham, NC

PAGE 395

395 Henige, David P. 1974 The Chronology of Oral Tradition: Quest for Chimera . Clarendon Press, Oxford. Heron, Carl and Richard P. Evershed 1993 The Analysis of Organic Residues and the Study of Pottery Use . In Archaeological M ethod and Theory , Vol. 5, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 247 284. University of Arizona Press, Tucson . Hicks, Dan 2010 The Material Culture Turn: Event and Effect . In The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies , edited by D. Hicks and M. C. Beardr y, pp. 25 98. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hill, Jonathan D. and Robin M. Wright 1988 Time, Narrative, and Ritual: Historical Interpretations from an Amazonian Society . In Rethinking History and Myth: Indigenous South American Perspectives on the Past , edited by J. D. Hill, pp. 78 105. University of Illinois Press, Urbana Hirsch, Eric 2007 Valleys of Historicity and Ways of Power among the Fuguye. Oceania 77:158 171. Hirsch, Eric, and Charles Stewart 2005 Introduction: Ethnographies of Historicity. H istory and Anthropology 16(3):261 274. Hodder, Ian 2000 Agency and Individuals in Long Term Processes . In Agency in Archaeology , edited by M. A. Dobres and J. Robb, pp. 21 33. Routledge, London. 2012 Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships betwee n Humans and Things . John Wiley & Sons, New York. Holly, Donald H. 2005 The Place of "Others" in Hunter Gatherer Intensification. American Anthropologist 107:207 220. 2013 History in the Making: The Archaeology of the Eastern Subarctic . AltaMira Press, L anham, MD. Holtzman, Jon D. 2006 Food and Memory. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:361 378.

PAGE 396

396 Hoopes, John W. and William K. Barnett 1995 The Shape of Early Pottery Studies . In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies , edit ed by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes, pp. 1 7. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Hoskins, Janet 2006 Agency, Biography, and Objects . In Handbook of Material Culture , edited by Christopher Tilley, Webb Keane, Susanne Kuechler Fogden, M ike Rowlands and Patricia Spyer, pp. 74 84. Sage, London. Hosler, Dorothy 1996 Technical Choices, Social Categories and Meaning Among the Andean Potters of Las Animas. Journal of Material Culture 1:63 92. Husserl, Edmund 1964 The Phenomenology of Interna l Time Consciousness . Translated by James S. Churchill. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Hutson, Scott R., and Travis W. Stanton 2007 Cultural Logic and Practical Reason: the Structure of Discard in Ancient Maya Houselots. Cambridge Archaeological J ournal 17(02):123 144. Ingold, Tim 1988 Notes on the Foraging Mode of Production . In Hunters and Gatherers, Volume 1: History, Evolution, and Social Change , edited by T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn, pp. 269 285. Berg, Oxford. 1999 On the Social Rel ations of the Hunter Gatherer Band . In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunter Gatherers , edited by R. B. Lee and R. Daly, pp. 399 410. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2000 T he Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling, and Skill . Routledge, London. 2007a Lines: A Brief History . Routledge, London. 2007b Materials against Materiality. Archaeological Dialogues 14(1):1 16. 2011a Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description . Routledge, London. 2011b Introduction . In Re drawing Anthropology: Materials, Movements, Lines , edited by T. Ingold, pp. 1 20. Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington, VT. 2012 Toward an Ecology of Materials. Annual Review of Anthropology 41(1):427 442.

PAGE 397

397 Isbell, William 2000 What We Should Be Studying . In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective , edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 243 266. Routledge, London. Jahn, Otto L., and Ripley P. Bullen 1978 The Tick Island Site, St. Johns River, Florida . Florida Anthropological Society Pu blications, No. 10, Gainesville. Janus Research 1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Summer Haven Site (8SJ46), an Orange Period and St. Johns Period Midden Site in Southeastern St. Johns County, Florida . Janus Research, St. Petersburg, Florida. Jef feries, Richard W. 2009 Holocene Hunter Gatherers of the Lower Ohio River Valley . University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Jenks, Clifford Joseph 2006 Rethinking Culture History in Florida: An Analysis of Ceramics from the Harris Creek Site (8VO24) on Tic k Island in Volusia County, Florida, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Jones, Andrew 2004 Archaeometry and Materiality: Materials Based Analysis in Theory and Practice. Archaeometry 46(3):327 338. 20 05 Lives in Fragments?: Personhood and the European Neolithic. Journal of Social Archaeology 5:193 224. 2007 Memory and Material Culture . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jones, Andrew M., and Nicole Boivin 2010 The Malice of Inanimate Objects: Mat erial Agency . In The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies , edited by D. Hicks and M. C. Beaudry, pp. 334 351. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jones, Kevin T. and Michelle Hegmon 1991 The Medium and the Message: A Survey of Information Conveyed by Material Culture in Middle Range Societies . Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Jordan, Peter D. 2003 Material Culture and Sacred Landscape: The Anthropology of the Siberian Khanty . AltaMira Pr ess, Walnut Creek, CA.

PAGE 398

398 Joy, Jody 2009 Reinvigorating Object Biography: Reproducing the Drama of Object Lives. World Archaeology 41(4):540 556. Joyce, Rosemary A. 2002 The Languages of Archaeology: Dialogue, Narrative, and Writing . Blackwell, Oxford. 200 7 Building Houses: The Materialization of Lasting Identity in Formative Mesoamerica . In The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology , edited by R. A. Beck, pp. 53 72. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 33. Southern Illi nois University, Carbondale. 2008 Practice in and as Deposition . In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices , edited by B. J. Mills and W. H. Walker, pp. 25 39. School for Advanced Research, Santa Fe. 2012 Life with Things: Archaeology and Materi ality . In Archaeology and Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future , edited by D. Shankland, pp. 119 132. Berg, London. Joyce, Rosemary A., and Susan D. Gillespie n.d. Making Things out of Objects that Move . In Things in Motion , edited by Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, in press. Joyce, Rosemary A. and Jeanne Lopiparo 2005 Postscript: Doing Agency in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(4):365 374. Joyce, Rosemary A. and Joshua Pollard 2010 Archaeological Assemblages and Practices of Deposition . In The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies , edited by Dan Hicks and Mary Carolyn Beaudry, pp. 291 309. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kaner, Simon 2009 Long Term Innovation: Ap pearance and Spread of Pottery in the Japanese Archipelago . In Ceramics Before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery Among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter Gatherers , edited by Peter D. Jordan and Marek Zvelebil, pp. 93 119. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Kea ne, Webb 2005 Signs Are not the Garb of Meaning: On the Social Analysis of Material Things . In Materiality , edited by D. Miller, pp. 182 205. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.

PAGE 399

399 Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter G atherer Lifeways . Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 2000 Elements of a Behavioral Ecological Paradigm for the Study of Prehistoric Hunter Gatherers . In Social Theory in Archaeology , edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 63 78. University of Utah Press, S alt Lake City. Kidder, Tristam R. 2006 Climate Change and the Archaic to Woodland Transition (3000 2500 cal BP) in the Mississippi River Basin. American Antiquity 71(2):195 231. 2010 a Hunter Gatherer Ritual and Complexity: New Evidence from Poverty Poin t, Louisana . In Ancient Complexities: New Perspectives in Precolumbian North America , edited by S. M. Alt, pp. 32 51. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2010b Trend, Tradition, and Transition at the End of the Archaic . In Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern Archaic? , edited by David Hurst Thomas and Matthew C. Sanger, pp. 23 32. Anthropological Papers No. 93. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 2011 Transforming Hunter Gatherer History at Poverty Point . In Hunter Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process , edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. H. Holly, pp. 95 119. University of Arizona Press, Tucson . Kidder, Tristam. R., and Kenneth E. Sassaman 2009 The View from the Southeast . In Archaic Societies: Diversity a nd Complexity across the Midcontinent , edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath and A. C. Fortier, pp. 667 694. State University of New York Press, Albany Kirch, Patrick V. 2001 Polynesian Feasting in Ethnohistoric, Ethnographic, and Archaeological Context s . In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power , edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 168 184. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Knappett, Carl 2008 The Neglected Networks of Material Agency: Artefacts, Pictures, and Texts . In Material Agency: Towards a Non Anthropocentric Approach , edited by C. Knappett and L. Malafouris, pp. 139 156. Springer, New York. Knight, Vernon James 1989 Symbolism of Mississippian Mounds . In Powhatan's Mantle: India ns in the Colonial Southeast , edited by P. H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov and W. T. Hatley, pp. 279 291. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

PAGE 400

400 Kolb, Michael J. and James E. Snead 1997 It's a Small World after All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organizat ion in Archaeology. American Antiquity 62:609 628. Kopytoff, Igor 1986 The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process . In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective , edited by A. Appadurai, pp. 64 91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Koselleck, Reinhart 2004 Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time . University of Columbia Press, New York. Küchler , Susanne 1999 The Place of Memory . In The Art of Forgetting , edited by A. Forty and S. Kuchler, pp. 53 72. Berg , Oxford. Kunen, Julie L., Mary Jo Galindo and Erin Chase 2002 Pits and Bones: Identifying Maya Ritual Behavior in the Archaeological Record. Ancient Mesoamerica 13(02):197 211. Lambek, Michael 2002 The Weight of the Past: Living with History in Mahajang a, Mada ga scar . Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger 1991 Situated Learning : Legitimate Peripheral Participation . Cambridge Un i versity Press, Cambridge. Latour, Bruno 1999 . Ha rvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 2005 Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor Network Theory . Oxford University Press, Oxford. Le Baron, J. Francis 1884 Prehistoric Remains in Florida . In Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution , pp. 771 790. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Lechtman, Heather 1977 Style in Technology: Some Early Thoughts . In Material Culture: Style, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology , edited by Heather Lechtman and Robert S. Merrill, pp. 3 20. Americ an Ethnological Society, St. Paul, MN.

PAGE 401

401 Lederman, Rena 1986 Changing Times in Mendi: Notes Towards Writing Highland New Guinea History. Ethnohistory 33(1):1 30. Lee, Richard B. 1976 Introduction . In Kalahri Hunter Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and their Neighbors , edited by R. B. Lee and I. Devore, pp. 3 24. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 1979 The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lee, Richard B., and Irven Devore (editors) 1968 Man the Hunter . Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago. Lefebvre, Henri 1991 The Production of Space . Translated by Donald Nicholson Smith. Blackwell, Oxford. Lekson, Stephen H., and Catherine M. Cameron 1995 The Abandonment of Chaco Canyon, the Mesa Verde Migr ations, and the Reorganization of the Pueblo World. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14(2):184 202. Lemonnier, Pierre 1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology . Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1993 Introduction . In Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic , edited by Pierre Lemonnier, pp. 1 35. Routledge, London. Levi Strauss, Claude 1966 The Savage Mind . University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lev Tov, Justin and Kevin McGeough 2 007 Examining Feasting in Late Bronze Age Syro Palestine through Ancient Texts and Bones . In The Archaeology of Food and Identity , edited by Katheryn C. Twiss. Occasional Paper No. 34. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Lightfoot, Kent G. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2):199 217.

PAGE 402

402 Lightfoot, Kent G., Rob Q. Cuthrell, Chuck J. Striplen, and Mark G. Hylkema 2013 Rethinking the Study of Landscape Management Practices Among Hunter Gatherers in North America. American Antiquity 78(2):285 301. Lillios, Katina T. 2003 Creating Memory in Prehistory: The Engraved Slate Plaques of Southwest Iberia . In Archaeologies of M emory , edited by R. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock, pp. 129 150. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Linton, Ralph 1944 North American Cooking Pots. American Antiquity 9:369 380. Longacre, William A. 1985 Pottery Use Life among the Kalinga, northern Luzon, the Philippines . In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics , edited by B. A. Nelson, pp. 334 346. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Lucas, Gavin 2005 The Archaeology of Time . Routledge, Oxford. 2012 Understanding the Archaeological Record . Cambridge University Pres s, Cambridge. Maddox, Richard 2008 Lived Hegemonies and Biographical Fragments: Microsteps toward a Counterhistory of the Spanish Transition from Dictatorship to Democracy . In Small Worlds: Method, Meaning, and Narrative in Microhistory , edited by J. Broo ks, C. R. N. DeCorse and J. Walton, pp. 15 35. School for Advanced Research, Santa Fe. Martin, Calvin Luther 1993 In the Spirit of the Earth: Rethinking History and Time . Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. MacEachern, Scott 2013 Time on the Timel ess Continent: History and Archaeological Chronologies in the Southern Lake Chad Basin . In Big Histories, Human Lives: Tackling Problems of Scale in Archaeology , edited by J. Robb and T. R. Pauketat, pp. 123 144. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa F e. Marquardt, William H. 2010a Shell Mounds in the Southeast: Middens, Monuments, Temple Mounds, Rings, or Works? American Antiquity 75(3):551 570.

PAGE 403

403 2010b Mounds, Middens, and Rapid Climate Change during the Archaic Woodland Transition in the Southeaster n United States . In Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern U.S. Late Archaic? , edited by D avid H. Thomas and M atthew C. Sanger, pp. 253 272. Anthropological Papers No. 93. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Marquardt, William H., and Patty Jo Watson 2005 Green River Shell Mound Archaic: Conclusions . In Archaeology of the Middle Green River Region, Kentucky , edited by W. H. Marquardt and P. J. Watson, pp. 629 649. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 5, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville. Marrinan, Rochelle A. 1975 Ceramics, Molluscs, and Sedentism: The Late Archaic Period on the Georgia Coast , Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesvi lle. 1990 Test Excavations at Silver Glen Springs, Florida (8MR123) . Miscellaneous Report Series Number 2. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Mauss, Marcel 1990 [1925] The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies . W. W. Norton, New York. McClellan, Guerry H. and James L. Eades 1997 The Economic and Industrial Minerals of Florida . In The Geology of Florida , edited by Anthony F. Randazzo and Douglas S. Jones, pp. 139 154. University Press of Florida, Gain esville. McElrath, Dale L., Andrew C. Fortier and Thomas E. Emerson 2009 An Introduction to the Archaic Societies of the Midcontinent . In Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity across the Midcontinent , edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath and A. C . Fortier, pp. 3 21. State University of New York Press, Albany. McFadden, Paulette S., and Andrea Palmiotto 2012 Archaeological Investigations at Bird Island (8DI52), Dixie County, FL . Technical Report 14. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Departme nt of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. McNiven, Ian 2013 Ritualized Middening Practices. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(4):552 587.

PAGE 404

404 Meskell, Lynn 2008 Memory Work and Material Practices . In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices , edited by B. J. Mills and W. H. Walker, pp. 233 243. School for Advanced Research Press, Sante Fe. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charl es H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology . Academic Press, New York. Miller, Daniel 2005 Materiality: An Introduction . In Materiality , edited by D. Miller, pp. 1 50. Duke University Press, Durham. Miller, James A. 1997 Hydrogeology of Florida . In The Geol ogy of Florida , edited by Anthony F. Randazzo and Douglas S. Jones, pp. 69 88. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Miller, James J. 1992 Effects of Environmental Change on Late Archaic People of Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45:100 1 06. 1998 An Environmental History of Northeast Florida . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Mills, Barbara J. 1999 Ceramics and the Social Contexts of Food Consumption in the Northern Southwest . In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction , edited by James M. Skibo and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 99 114. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2007 Performing the Feast: Visual Display and Suprahousehold Commensalism in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 72:210 239. 2008 Remembering while Forget ting: Depositional Practices and Social Memory at Chaco . In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices , edited by Barbara J. Mills and William H. Walker, pp. 81 108. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Mills, Barbara J., and William H. Wal ker (editors) 2008 Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices . School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.

PAGE 405

405 Milner, George R., and Richard W. Jefferies 1998 The Read Archaic Shell Midden in Kentucky. Southeastern Archaeology 17:119 132. Mitchem, Jeffery M. 1986 Analysis of Ceramics from the South Prong I Site (8hi418), Hillsborough County, Florida . In Papers in Ceramic Analysis, Ceramic Notes No. 3 , edited by Prudence M. Rice, pp. 81 111. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laborator y, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. Miyazaki, Hirokazu 2010 Gifts and Exchange . In The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies , edited by D. Hicks and M. C. Beaudry, pp. 246 264. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Moore, Clarence Bloomfield 1999 The East Florida Exp e ditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore . Edited by J. M. Mitchem. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Moore, Henrietta L. 1986 Space, Text, and Gender: An Anthropological Study of the Marakwet of Kenya . Cambridge University Press, Cambr idge. Moore, Christopher R. 2015 Hunter Gatherer Histories: The Role of Events in the Construction of the Chiggerville Shell Midden . In The Archaeology of Events: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Pre Columbian Southeast , edited by Z. I. Gilmore and J . O'Donoughue. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, in press. Moore, Christopher R., and Victor D. Thompson 2012 Animism and Green River Persistent Places: A Dwelling Perspective of the Shell Mound Archaic. Journal of Social Archaeology 12(2):264 284. Morgan, Lewis Henry 1977 [1877] Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization . Gordon Press, New York. Morphy, Howard 1995 Landscape and the Reproduction of the Ancestral Past . In Anthropolo gy of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space , edited by E. Hirsch and M. O'Hanlon, pp. 184 209. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Moss, Madonna 2011 Northwest Coast: Archaeology as Deep History . SAA Press, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 406

406 Munn, Nancy D. 1986 The Fame of Gaw a: A Symbolic Study of Value Transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) Society . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1996 Excluded Spaces: The Figure in the Australian Aboriginal Landscape. Critical Inquiry 22(3):446 465. Murray, Tim 1999 A Return to the 'Pompeii Premise' . In Time and Archaeology , edited by T. Murray, pp. 8 27. Routledge, New York. 2008 Paradigms and Metaphysics, or "Is This the End of Archaeology as We Know It?" . In Time in Archaeology: Time Perspectivism Revisited , edited by S. H oldaway and L. Wandsnider, pp. 170 180. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Murray, Wendi Field, and Barbara J. Mills 2013 Identity Communities and Memory Practices: Relational Logics in the US Southwest . In Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals , Things , edited by Christopher Watts, pp. 135 153. Routledge, London. Needham, Stuart , and Tony Spence 1997 Refuse and the Formation of Middens. Antiquity 71(271):77 90. Neff, Hector 1994 RQ mode Princip al Components Analysis of Ceramic Compositional D ata. Archaeometry 36:115 130. 2002 Quantitative Techniques for Analyzing Ceramic Compositional Data . In Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations , edited by Don na M. Glowacki and Hector Neff, pp. 15 36. Monograph 44. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Neff, Hector (editor) 1992 Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology . Prehistory Press, Madison. Neff, H ector, Ronald L. Bishop and Edward V. Sayre 1988 A Simulation Approach to the Problem of Tempering in Compositional Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:159 172. 1989 More Observations on the Problem of Tempering in Com positional Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:57 69.

PAGE 407

407 Neff, Hector, Jeffrey Blomster, Michael D. Glascock, Ronald L. Bishop, M. James Blackman, Michael D. Coe, George L. Cowgill, Richard A. Diehl, Stephen Houston, Arth ur A. Joyce, Carl P. Lipo, Barbara L. Stark and Marcus Winter 2006 Methodological Issues in the Provenance Investigation of Early Formative Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 17(1):54 76. Neff, Hector, and Donna M. Glowacki 2002 Ceramic Sourc e Determination by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis in the American Southwest . In Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations , edited by Donna M. Glowacki and Hector Neff, pp. 1 14. Monograph 44. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. O'Donoughue, Jason 2011 Environmental and Archaeological Contexts . In Archaeological Investigations at Salt Springs (8MR2322), Marion Coun ty, Florida , by J. M. O'Donoughue, K. E. Sassaman, M. E. Blessing, J. B. Talcott and J. C. Byrd. Technical Report 11. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2015 Beyond the Event Horizon: Mo ments of Consequence(?) in the St. Johns River Valley . In The Archaeology of Events: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Pre Columbian Southeast , edited by Z. I. Gilmore and J. O'Donoughue. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, in press. Ohnuki Tiern ey, Emiko 1990 Introduction: The Historicization of Anthropology . In Culture through Time: Anthropological Approaches , edited by E. Ohnuki Tierney, pp. 1 25. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 1995 Structure, Event, and Historical Metaphor: Rice and Ide ntities in Japanese History. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 30(1):227 253. Olivier, Laurent 2001 Duration, Memory, and the Nature of the Archaeological Record . In It's About Time: The Concept of Time in Archaeology , edited by H. Karlsson, pp. 61 70. Bricoleur Press, Goteborg. Olsen, Bjornar 2010 In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the Ontology of Objects . Altamira Press, Lanham, MD. 2012 Symmetrical Archaeology . In Archaeological Theory Today , edited by I. Hodder. 2nd ed. Polity, Cambri dge.

PAGE 408

408 Ortner, Sherry B. 2001 Commentary: Practice, Power, and the Past. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(2):271 278. Owoc, Mary Ann 2005 From the Ground Up: Agency, Practice, and Community in the Southwestern British Bronze Age. Journal of Archaeological M ethod and Theory 12:257 281. Pauketat, Timothy R. 2001 Practice and History in Archaeology. Anthropological Theory 1(1):73 98. 2003 Materiality and the Immaterial in Historical Processual Archaeology . In Essential Tensions in Archaeological Method and Th eory , edited by T. L. VanPool and C. S. VanPool, pp. 41 53. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2004 Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2008 Founders' Cults and the Archaeology of the Wa kan da . In Me mory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices , edited by Barbara J. Mills and William H. Walker, pp. 61 79. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. 2010 The Missing Persons in Missi ssi ppian Mortuaries . In Mississippian Mortuary Practices: Beyond Hi erarchy and Representationist Perspective , edited by Lynne P. Sullivan and Robert C. Mainfort, pp. 14 29. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 2013a An Archaeology of the Cosmos: Rethinking Agency and Religion in Ancient America . Routledge, London. 2013b Bundles of/in/as Time . In Big Histories, Human Lives: Tackling Problems of Scale in Archaeology , edited by J. Robb and T. R. Pauketat, pp. 35 56. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Pauketat, Timothy R. and Susan M. Alt 2004 The Making and Meaning of a Mississippian Axe Head Cache. Antiquity 78:779 797. 2005 Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Archaeology of Culture Making. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):213 236. Pauketat, Timothy R., Lucretia S. Kelly, Gayle J. F ritz, Neal H. Lopinot, Scott Elias, and Eve Hargrave 2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia. American Antiquity 67:257 279.

PAGE 409

409 Pauketat, T imothy R. and D iana D iPaolo Loren 2005 Alternative Histories and North American Archaeology . In North American Archaeology , edited by T imothy R. Pauketat and D iana D iPaolo Loren, pp. 1 29. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Peacock, Evan 2002 Shellfish Use During the Woodland Period in the Middle South . In The Woodland Southeast , edited by D. G. Anderson and R . C. Mainfort, pp. 444 460. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Pesonen, Petro and Sirpa Leskinen 2009 Pottery of the Stone Age Hunter Gatherers in Finland . In Ceramics Before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery Among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter Gather ers , edited by Peter D. Jordan and Marek Zvelebil, pp. 299 318. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Pfaffenberger, Bryan 1992 Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491 516. 1999 Worlds in the Making: Technological Activities and the Construction of Intersubjective Meaning . In The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views , edited by M. A. Dobres and C. R. Hoffman, pp. 147 164. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2001 Symbols Do Not Create Meaning -Activities Do: Or, Why Symbolic Anthropology Needs the Anthrpology of Technology . In Anthropological Perspectives on Technology , edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 77 86. University of New Mexico Press, Albequerque. Phelps, David Sutton 1965 The Norwo od Series of Fiber Tempered Ceramics. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 2:65 69. 1966 Early and Late Components of the Tucker Site. The Florida Anthropologist 19:11 38. Piatek, Bruce J. 1994 The Tomoka Mound Complex in Northeast Florida. So utheastern Archaeology 13(2):109 118. Pierce, Christopher 2005 Reverse Engineering the Ceramic Cooking Pot: Cost and Performance Properties of Plain and Textured Vessels. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12:117 157.

PAGE 410

410 Pirkle, William A. 1971 The Offset Course of the St. Johns River, Florida. Southeastern Geology 13:39 59. Pluciennik, Mark 1999 Archaeological Narratives and Other Ways of Telling. Current Anthropology 40:653 678. Pluckhahn, Thomas J. and Ann S. Cordell 2011 Paste Characterization of Weeden Island Pottery from Kolomoki and its Implications for Specialized Production. Southeastern Archaeol o gy 30(2):288 310. Pollard, Joshua 2001 The Aesthetics of Deposition. World Archaeology 33(2):315 333. 2008 Deposition and Material Agency in th e Early Neolithic of Southern Britain . In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices , edited by B. J. Mills and W. H. Walker, pp. 41 59. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Pollard, A. Mark, and Carl Heron 2008 Archaeological Chemistry . RS C Publishing, London. Potter, Alden L. 1935 The Remains at Silver Glen Springs . In Some Further Papers on Aboriginal Man in the Neighborhood of the Ocala National Forest , edited by A. E. Abshire, A. L. Potter, A. R. Taylor, C. H. Neil, W. H. Anderson, J. I. Rutledge and S. B. Johnson, pp. 13 14. Civilian Conservation Corps, Company 1420, Ocala Camp, Florida F5. Prown, Jules David 1996 Material/Culture: Can the Farmer and the Cowman Still be Friend . In Learning from Things: Method a nd Theory of Material Culture Studies , edited by W. David Kingery, pp. 19 31. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Prufer, Olaf 2001 The Archaic of Northeastern Ohio . In Archaic Transitions in Ohio and Kentucky Prehistory , edited by O. Prufer, S. E. Peddle and R. S. Meindl, pp. 183 209. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. Quinn, Rhonda L., Bryan Tucker, and John Krigbaum 2008 Diet and Mobility in Middle Archaic Florida: Stable Isotopic and Faunal Evidence from the Harris Creek Archaeological Site (8Vo24), Tick Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2346 2356.

PAGE 411

411 Quinn, Patrick Sean 2013 Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery and Related Artefacts in Thin Section . Archaeopress, Oxford. Quitmyer, Irvy R. 2001 Zooarchaeological Anal yses . In Phase III Mitigative Excavation at the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53), Volusia County, FL. By A rchaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota, FL, and Janus Research, Fort Myers, FL., pp. 6 1 6 25. Report Submitted to U.S. Department of Transportat ion Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, and Florida Department of Transportation District Five, Deland, FL. Randall, Asa R. 2007 St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2005: Hontoon Island State Park . Technical Report 8. Laboratory of Southeast ern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2010 Remapping Histories: Preceramic Archaic Community Construction a long the Middle St. Johns River, Florida . Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Uni versity of Florida, Gainesville. 2011 Remapping Archaic Social Histories a long the St. Johns River in Florida . In Hunter Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process , edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. H. Holly, pp. 120 142. University of Arizona Press, Tucson . 2013 The Chronology and History of Mount Taylor Period (ca. 7400 4600 cal B.P.) Shell Sites on the Middle St. Johns River, Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 32(2):193 217. 2014 LiDAR Aided Reconnaissance and Reconstruction of Lost Landscapes: An Exampl e of Freshwater Shell Mounds (ca. 7500 500 CAL B.P.) in Northeast Florida, USA. Journal of Field Archaeology 39(2): 162 179 . Randall, Asa R., Meggan E. Blessing, and Jon C. Endonino 2011 Cultural Resource Assessment Sur v ey of Silver Glen Springs Recreation al Area in the Ocala National Forest, Florida . Technical Report 13. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Randall, Asa R., and Kenneth E. Sassaman 2005 St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2003 2004: Hontoon Island State Park . Technical Report Series No. 4. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 412

412 2010 (E)Mergent Complexities During the Archaic in Northeast Florida . In Ancient Complexities: New Perspectives in Pre Columbian North America , edited by Susan M. Alt, pp. 8 31. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2012 2012 Field School Summaries: St. Johns Archaeological Field School: Silver Glen Springs Run. The Florida Anthro pologist 65:248 250. Randall, Asa R., Kenneth E. Sassaman, Zackary I. Gilmore, Meggan E. Blessing, and Jason M. O'Donoughue 2014 Archaic Histories beyond the Shell "Heap" on the St. Johns River . In New Histories of Pre Columbian Florida , edited by N. J. W allis and A. R. Randall, pp. 18 37. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Randall, Asa R., and Bryan Tucker 2012 A Mount Taylor Period Radiocarbon Assay from the Bluffton Burial Mound (8VO23). The Florida Anthropologist 65(4):219 225. Raymer, L. E., M. Sheffield, Steven H. Koski and J. W. Joseph 2005 Cultural Resources Survey and Phase II Site Assessment, Three Forks Marsh Conservation Area, Brevard County, Florida . Technical Report 1257. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, GA. Reber, Eleanora A. and Richard P. Evershed 2004 How Did Mississippians Prepare Maize? The Application of Compound Specific Carbon Isotope Analysis to Absorbed Pottery Residues from Several Mississippi Valley Sites. Archaeometry 46(4):19 33. Reber, Eleanora A. and John P. Ha rt 2002 Pine Resins and Pottery Sealing: Analysis of Absorbed adn Visible Pottery Residues from Central New York State. Archaeometry 50(6):999 1017. Rees, Mark A., and Aubra L. Lee 2015 On the Monumentality of Events: Refiguring Late Woodland Culture Hist ory at Troyville . In The Archaeology of Events: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Pre Columbian Southeast , edited by Zackary I. Gilmore and Jason O'Donoughue, pp. 160 195. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Reichel Dolmatoff, G. 1972 The Cult ur a l Context of Early Fiber Tempered Pottery in Northern Columbia . In Fiber Tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States a nd Northern Columbia: Its Origins, Context, and Significance , edited by Ripley P. Bullen and James B. Stoltman, pp. 1 8. Florida Anthro pological Society Publications, No. 6, Gainesville.

PAGE 413

413 Reid, Kenneth C. 1989 A Materials Science Perspective on Hunter Gatherer Pottery . In Pottery Technology: Ideas and Approaches , edited by Gordon Bronitsky, pp. 167 180. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado . Reina, Rubin E. and Robert M. Hill II 1978 The Traditional Pottery of Guatemala . University of Texas Press, Austin. Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook . University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1980 Trace Elemental Characterization of W eeden Island Pottery: Implications for Specialized Production. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:29 35. 1996 Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style, and Origins. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:133 163. Richards, Colin , and Jul ian Thomas 1984 Ritual Activity and Structured Deposition in Later Neolithic Wessex . In Neolithic Studies: A Review of Current Research , edited by R. Bradley and J. Gardiner. British Archaeological Reports 133, Oxford. Richardson, Miles 2003 Being in the Market Versus Being in the Plaza: Material Culture and the Construction of Material Reality in Spanish America In The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture , edited by S. M. Low and D. Lawrence Zuniga, pp. 74 91. Malden, MA, Blackwell. Ritchie, William A. 1932 The Lamoka Lake Site: The Type Station of the Archaic Algonkin Period in New York. Researches and Transactions 7(4). New York State Archeological Association, Lewis H. Morgan Chapter, Rochester. Robb, John E. 2004 The Extended Artefact an d the Monumental Economy: A Methodology for Material Agency . In Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement Of Mind With The Material World , edited by E lizabeth DeMarrais, C hris Gosden and C olin Renfrew, pp. 131 139. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Resear ch, Cambridge. 2010 Beyond Agency. World Archaeology 42:493 520. 2012 What Do Things Want? Object Design as a Middle Range Theory of Material Culture . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, TN.

PAGE 414

414 2013 Mater ial Culture, Landscapes of Action, and Emergent Causation: A New Model for the Origins of the European Neolithic. Current Anthropology 54(6):657 683. Robb, John E., and Timothy R. Pauketat 2013 From Moments to Millennia: Theorizing Scale and Change in Hum an History . In Big Histories, Human Lives: Tackling Problems of Scale in Archaeology , edited by J. Robb and T. R. Pauketat, pp. 3 33. SAR Press, Santa Fe. Robb, John E., and Timothy R. Pauketat (editors) 2013 Big Histories, Human Lives: Tackling Problems of Scale in Archaeology . School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Rodman, Margaret C. 1992 Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivocality. American Anthropologist 94:640 656. Rolland, Vicki L. and Paulette Bond 2003 The Search for Spiculate Clays near Aboriginal Sites in the Lower St. Johns River Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(2):91 111. Roosevelt, A. C. 1995 Early Pottery in the Amazon: Twenty Years of Scholarly Obscurity . In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies , edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes, pp. 115 131. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Russo, Michael 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study from Horr's Island. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. The Case from Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13:93 109. 2002 Architectural Features at Fig Island . In The Fig Isl and Ring Complex (38CH42): Coastal Adaptation and the Question of Ring Function in the Late Archaic , edited by R. Saunders, pp. 85 97. Report prepared for the South Carolina Department of Archives and History under grant #45 01 16441. 2004 Measuring Shell Rings for Social Inequality . In Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , edited by J on L. Gibson and P hillip J. Carr, pp. 26 70. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2006 Archaic Shell Rings of the Southeast U.S. U.S. Nationa l Historic Landmark Theme Study submitted to the National Park Service, Washington D.C.

PAGE 415

415 2008 Late Archaic Shell Rings and Society in the Southeast U.S. SAA Archaeological Record 8:18 22. Russo, Michael, Ann S. Cordell, and Donna L. Ruhl 1993 The Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve: Phase III Final Report . SEAC Accession No. 899, Florida Museum of Natural History. Submitted to t he Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida, Contract CA 5000 9 8011. Copies available fr om the Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee. Russo, Michael, and Gregory Heide 2002 The Joseph Reed Shell Ring. The Florida Anthropologist 55(2):67 88. Russo, Michael, Gregory Heide, and Vicki L. Rolland 2002 The Guana Shell Ring. Historic Preser vation Grant No. F0126. Florida Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Resources, Tallahassee. Russo, Michael, Barbara Purdy, Lee A. Newsom, and Ray M. McGee 1992 A Reinterpretation of Late Archaic Adaptations in Central East Florida: Orange Midden (8 VO 2601). Southeastern Archaeology 11:95 108. Rye, O. S. 1976 Keeping Your Temper Under Control. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11(2):106 137. 1981 Pottery Technology . Taraxacum Manuels in Archaeology 4. Taraxa cum, Washington, D.C. Sahlins, Marshall 1976 Culture and Practical Reason . University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1981 Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom. Special Publication No. 1, Association for the Study of Anthropology in Oceania. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 1985 Islands of History . University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1991 The Return of the Event, Again: With Reflections on the Beginnings of the Great Fijian War of 1843 to 1855 between the Kingdoms of Bau and Rewa In Clio in Oceania: Toward a Historical Anthropology , edited by A letta Biersack, pp. 37 99. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Sanger, Matthew C. 2008 Paired Rings -Shared and Divergent Historie s amongst Late Archaic Shell Rings . Paper presented at the 65th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.

PAGE 416

416 Sanger, Matthew C., and David Hurst Thomas 2010 The Two Rings of St. Catherines Island: Some Preliminary Results from the St. Catherines and McQueen Shell Rings of the American Southeast . In Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern U.S. Late Archaic? , edited by David Hurst Thomas and Matthew C. Sanger, pp. 45 69. Anthropological Papers Number 93. A merican Museum of Natural History, New York. Sanger, Matthew, James Thostenson, Morgan Hill and Hannah Cain 2013 Fibrous Twists and Turns: Early Ceramic Technology Revealed through Computed Tomography. Applied Physics A: Materials Science & Processing 111 (3):829 839. Sansi, Roger 2013 The Latour Event: History, Symmetry, and Diplomacy. Social Anthropology 21(4):448 461. Santos Granero, Fernando 1998 Writing History into the Landscape: Space, Myth, and Ritual in Contemporary Amazonia. American Ethnologist 25(2):128 148. Sarney, Elizabeth Davis 1994 Hill Cottage Midden Revisited: A Reassessment of the Late Archaic Period Marine Shell Midden at the Palmer Site. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology . University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2000 Agents of Change in Hunter Gatherer Technology . In Agency in Archaeology , edited by M arcia A nne Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 148 168. Ro utledge, London. 2003a St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2000 2001: Blue Spring and Hontoon Island State Parks . Technical Report 4. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2003b New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56:5 13. 2004a Common Origins and Divergent Histories in the Early Pottery Traditions of th e American Southeast . In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast , edited by R. Saunders and C. T. Hays, pp. 23 39. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

PAGE 417

417 2004b Complex Hunter Gatherers in Evolution and History: A North American Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(3):227 280. 2005 Poverty Point as Structure, Event, Process. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(4):335 364. 2006 People of the Shoals: Stallings Culture of the Savannah Rive r Valley University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2010 The Eastern Archaic, Historicized . AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD. 2011a History and Alterity in the Eastern Archaic . In Hunter Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process , edited by K. E. Sassaman and D . H. Holly, pp. 187 208. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. 2011b Mouth of Silver Glen Run (8LA1 East) . In St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2007 2010: Silver Glen Run (8LA1) , by Kenneth E. Sassaman, Zackary I. Gilmore and Asa R. Randall, pp. 35 99. Technical Report 12. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville 2012 Futurologists Look Back. Archaeologies 8(2):250 268. 2013 Drowning out the Past: How Humans Historicize Water as Water Histo ricizes Them . In Big Histories, Human Lives: Tackling Problems of Scale in Archaeology , edited by J. E. Robb and T. R. Pauketat, pp. 171 191. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Sassaman, Kenneth E., Zackary I. Gilmore, and Asa R. Randall 2011 S t. Johns Archaeological Field School 2007 2010: Silver Glen Run (8LA1) . Technical Report No. 12. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Sassaman, Kenneth E., and Donald H. Holly (editors) 20 11 Hunter Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process . The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Sassaman, Kenneth E., and Jason M. O'Donoughue 2015 In the Unlikely Event: Method for Temporalizing the Experience of Change . In The Archaeology of Events: Cult ural Change and Continuity in the Pre Columbian Southeast , edited by Z. I. Gilmore and J. M. O'Donoughue. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, in press. Sassaman, Kenneth E., and Asa R. Randall 2007 The Cultural History of Bannerstones in the Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 26:196 211.

PAGE 418

418 2011 Silver Glen Run, Locus A (8LA1 West) . In St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2007 2010: Silver Glen Run (8LA1) , by K. E. Sassaman, Z. I. Gilmore and A. R. Randall, pp. 121 169. Laboratory of Southe astern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2012 Shell Mounds of the Middle St. Johns Basin, Northeast Florida . In Early New World Monumentality , edited by R. L. Burger and R. M. Rosenswig, pp. 53 77. University Pre ss of Florida, Gainesville. Sassaman, Kenneth E., J. Christian Russell, and Jon C. Endonino 2000 St. Johns Archaeological Project Phase I: A GIS Approach to Regional Preservation Planning in Northeast Florida . Technical Report 3. Laboratory of Southeaster n Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida Gainesville. Saunders, Rebecca 2002 The Fig Island Ring Complex (38CH42): Coastal Adaptation and the Question of Ring Function in the Late Archaic . Grant 45 01 16441, South Carolina Departme nt of Archives and History, Columbia. 2004a The Stratigraphic Sequence at Rollins Shell Ring: Implications for Ring Function. The Florida Anthropologist 57(4):249 268. 2004b Spatial Variation in Orange Culture Pottery: Interaction and Function . In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast. , edited by R. Saunders and C. T. Hays, pp. 40 62. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Saunders, Rebecca, and Michael Russo 2011 Coastal Shell Middens in Florida: A View fro m the Archaic Period. Quaternary International 239:38 50. Saunders, Rebecca, and Margaret K. Wrenn 2014 Crafting Orange Pottery in Early Florida: Production and Distr i bution . In New Histories of Pre Columbian Florida , edited by N. J. Wallis and A. R. Rand all, pp. 183 202. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record . University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Schiffer, Michael B. and James M. Skibo 1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28:595 622.

PAGE 419

419 Schiffer, Michael B., James M. Skibo, Tamara C. Boelke, Mark A. Neupert and Meredith Aronson 1994 New Perspectives on Experimental Archaeology: Surface Treatments and Thermal Response of the Clay Cooking Pot. American Antiquity 59:197 217. Schmidt, Peter R., and Stephen A. Mrozowski (editors) 2013 The Death of Prehistory . Oxford University Press, Oxford. Schmidt, Peter R., and Thomas C. Patterson 1995 Introduction: From Constructing to Maki ng Alternative Histories . In Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology and History in Non Western Settings , edited by P. R. Schmidt and T. C. Patterson, pp. 1 24. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Schmidt, Walter 1997 Geomorpho logy and Physiography of Florida . In The Geology of Florida , edited by Anthony F. Randazzo and Douglas S. Jones, pp. 1 12. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Schwadron, Margo 2010 Prehistoric Landscapes of Complexity: Archaic and Woodland Period Sh ell Works, Shell Rings, and Tree Islands of the Everglades . In Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern U.S. Late Archaic? , edited by D. H. Thomas and M. C. Sanger, pp. 113 148. Anthropological Papers No. 93. American Museum of Nati onal History, New York. Schwandes, L. P. and M. E. Collins 1994 Distribution and Significance of Freshwater Sponge Spicules in Selected Florida Soils. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 113(3):242 257. Scott, Thomas M. 1990 The Lithostrat igraphy of the Hawthorn Group of Peninsular Florida . In Phosphate Deposits of the World , edited by William Burnett and S. R. Riggs, pp. 325 336. Open File Report 36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1997 Miocene to Holocene History of Florida . In Th e Geology of Florida , edited by Anthony F. Randazzo and Douglas S. Jones, pp. 57 67. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2011 Geology of the Florida Platform -Pre Mesozoic to Recent . In Gulf of Mexico Origin, Waters, and Biota: Volume 3, Geology , ed ited by Noreen A. Buster and Charles W. Holmes, pp. 17 31. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

PAGE 420

420 Sears, William H. 1960 The Bluffton Burial Mound. The Florida Anthropologist 13:55 60. Sears, William H. and James B. Griffin 1950 Fiber Tempered Pottery of the Southeast . In Prehistoric Pottery of the Easten United States , edited by James B. Griffin. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Senior, Louise M. 1994 The Estimation of Prehistoric Values: Cracked Pot Ideas in Archaeo logy . In Expanding Archaeology , edited by James M. Skibo, William H. Walker and Axel E. Neilson, pp. 92 110. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Service, Elman 1962 Primitive Social Organization . Random House, New York. Sewell, William H. 2005 Logi cs of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation . University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Sharer, Robert J., Andrew K. Balkansky, James H. Burton, Gary M. Feinman, Kent V. Flannery, David C. Grove, Joyce Marcus, Robert G. Moyle, T. Douglas Price, Elsa M. Redmond, Robert G. Reynolds, Prudence M. Rice, Charles S. Spencer, James B. Stoltman and Yaeger Jason 2006 On the Logic of Archaeological Inference: Early Formative Pottery and the Evolution of Mesoamerican Societies. Latin American Antiquity 17(1):90 103. Sigler Eisenberg, Brenda, Ann S. Cordell, Richard W. Estabrook, Elizabeth Horvath, Lee A. Newsom, and Michael Russo 1985 Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report 27 .DA. Simpkins, Daniel L. and Dorothy J. Allard 1986 Isolation and Identification of Spanish Moss Fiber from a Sample of Stallings and Orange Series Ceramics. American Antiquity 51:102 117. Skibo, James M. 1992 Pottery Function: A Use Alteration Perspective . Plenum, New York. 1997 Ceramic Surface Treatment and Abrasion Resistance: An Experimental Study. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:311 317. 2013 Understanding Pottery Function . Springer, New York.

PAGE 421

421 Skibo, James M., Michael B. Schiffer and Kenneth C. Reid 1989 Organic Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 54:122 146. Slater, Philip A., Kristin M. Hedman, and Thomas E. Emerson 2014 Immigrants at the Mississippian Polity of Cahokia: Strontium Isotope Evidence for Pop ulation Movement. Journal of Archaeological Science 44:117 127. Spivey, S. Margaret, Tristam. R. Kidder, Anthony L. Ortmann, and Lee Arco 2015 Pilgrimage to Poverty Point? In The Archaeology of Events: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Pre Columbian S outheast , edited by Z. I. Gilmore and J. O'Donoughue. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, in press. Smith, Betty A. 1998 Neutron Activation Analysis of Ceramics from Madeville and Swift Creek . In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Cultu re , edited by J. Mark Williams and Dan T. Elliot, pp. 112 129. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to De Soto, 10,500 500 B.P. Advances in World Archaeology 5:1 92. Stahl, Ann B. 2008 Dogs, Pythons, Pots, and Beads: The Dynamics of Shrines and Sacrificial Practices in Banda, Ghana, 1400 1900 CE . In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices , edited by B. J. Mills and W. H. Walker, pp. 159 186. School for Advanc ed Research Press, Santa Fe. Stark, Miriam T. 1998 Technical Choices and Social Boundaries in Material Culture Patterning: An Introduction . In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries , edited by Miriam T. Stark, pp. 1 11. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washin gton. Stark, Miriam T. (editor) 1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries . Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Steponaitis, Vincas P., M. James Blackman, and Hector Neff 1996 Large Scale Patterns in the Chemical Composition of Mississippian P ottery. American Antiquity 61(3):555 572. Steward, Julian 1938 Basin Plateau Sociopolitical Groups . Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 422

422 1955 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear E volution . University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Stoltman, James B. 1966 New Radiocarbon Dates for Southeastern Fiber Tempered Pottery. American Antiquity 31:872 874. 1989 A Quantitative Approach to the Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Thin Sections. Amer ican Antiquity 54:147 160. 1991 Ceramic Petrography as a Technique for Documenting Cultural Interaction: An Example from the Upper Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 56:103 120. 2001 The Role of Petrography in the Study of Archaeological Ceramics . In Earth Sciences and Archaeology , edited by Paul Goldberg, Vance T. Holliday and C. Reid Ferring, pp. 297 326. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Stoltman, James B., and Robert C. Mainfort 2002 Minerals and Elements: Using Petrography to Reconsid er the Findings of Neutron Activation in the Compositional Analysis of Ceramics from Pinson Mounds, Tennessee. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27(1):1 33. Stoltman, James B., Joyce Marcus, Kent V. Flannery, James H. Burton and Robert G. Moyle 2005 P etrographic Evidence Shows that Pottery Exchange between the Olmec and their Neighbors Was Two Way. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(32):11213 11218. Stoops, Georges 2003 Guidelines for Analysis and Description of Soil and Regolith Thin Sections . Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. Strathern, Marilyn 1988 The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia . University of California Press, Berkeley 1990 Artefacts of History: Events and the Interp retation of Images . In Culture and History in the Pacific , edited by J. Siikala, pp. 25 44. Finnish Anthropological Society, Helsinki. Sutton, David 2001 Remembrance of Repasts: An Anthropology of Food and Memory . Berg, New York.

PAGE 423

423 Suzman, James 2004 Hun ting for Histories: Rethinking Historicity in the Western Kalahari . In Hunter Gatherers in History, Archaeology, and Anthropology , edited by A. Barnard, pp. 201 216. Berg, Oxford. Tanner, William F. 1993 An 8000 Year Record of Sea Level Change from Grain Size Parameters: Data from Beach Ridges in Denmark. Holocene 3:220 231. Taylor, Allen R. 1935 Shell Tumuli at Silver Glenn Springs . In Some Further Papers on Aboriginal Man in the Neighborhood of the Ocala National Forest , edited by A. E. Abshire, Alden L . Potter, Allen R. Taylor, Clyde H. Neil, Walter H. Anderson, John I. Rutledge and Stevenson B. Johnson, pp. 14. Civilian Conservation Corps, Company 1420, Ocala Camp, Florida F5. Tëmkin, Ilya, and Niles Eldredge 2007 Phylogenetics and Material Cultural Evolution. Current Anthropology 48(1):146 154. Tilley, Christopher 2004 The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology . Berg, Oxford. Thomas, David Hurst and Matthew C. Sanger (editors) 2010 Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happen ed to the Southeastern Archaic? American Museum of Natural History, New York. Thomas, Julian 1999a An Economy of Substances in Earlier Neolithic Britain . In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory , edited by J. E. Robb, pp. 70 89. Center for A rchaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 26. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1999 b Understanding the Neolithic . Routledge, London. 2000 The Identity of Place in Neolithic Britain: Examples from Southwest Scotland . In Neolithic Orkney in its European Context , edited by Anna Ritchie, pp. 79 87. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. 2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape . In Archaeological Theory Today , edited by I. Hodder, pp. 165 186. Polity and Blackwell, Malde n, MA. 2006 Action, Temporality, and Being. Norwegian Archaeological Review 39(1):80 81.

PAGE 424

424 2012 Some Deposits are More Structured Than Others. Archaeological Dialogues 19(02):124 127. Thomas, Nicholas 1991 Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, an d Colonialism in the Pacific . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Thompson, Victor D. 2007 Articulating Activity Areas and Formation Processes at the Sapelo Island Shell Ring Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 26(1):91 107. Thompson, Victo r D., and C. Fred T. Andrus 2011 Evaluating Mobility, Monumentality, and Feasting at the Sapelo Island Shell Ring Complex. American Antiquity 76:315 343. Thompson, Victor D., John A. Turck, Amanda D. Roberts Thompson, and Chester B. DePratter 2013 Entangl ing Events: The Guale Coastal Landscape and the Spanish Missions . In Life among the Tides: Recent Archaeology of the Georgia Bight , edited by V. D. Thompson and D. H. Thomas, pp. 423 439. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers, Number 98 . American Museum of Natural History, New York. Thompson, Victor D., and James C. Waggoner (editors) 2013 The Archaeology and Historical Ecology of Small Scale Economies . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Thornton, Thomas F. 2008 Being and Place among the Tlingit . University of Washington Press, Seattle. Tilley, Christopher 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments . Berg, Oxford. Trigger, Bruce G. 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought . 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Trinkley, Michael B. 1985 The Form and Function of South Carolina's Early Woodland Shell Rings . In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology , edited by R. S. Dickens and H. T. Ward, pp. 102 118. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscalo osa. 1986 Indian and Freedman Occupation at the Fish Haul Site (38BU805), Beaufort County, South Carolina . Research Series 7. Chicora Foundation, Columbia, S.C.

PAGE 425

425 Trouillot, Michel Rolph 1995 Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of the Past . Beacon Press, Boston. Tucker, Bryan 2009 Isotopic Investigations of Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the St. Johns River Drainage, Florida. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. United State s Department of Agriculture 1975 Soil Survey Report Maps and Interpretations: Lake County Area, Florida . Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Washington. 1979 Soil Survey of Marion County Area, Florida . Department of Agriculture Soil Conse rvation Service, Washington. van der Leeuw, Sander E 1993 Giving the Potter a Choice: Conceptual Aspects of Pottery Techniques . In Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Culture Studies since the Neolithic , edited by Pierre Lemonnier, pp. 238 2 88. Routledge, London. van der Leeuw, Sander E., Dick A. Papousek and Anick Coudart 1991 Technical Traditions and Unquestioned Assumptions: The Case of Pottery in Michoacan. Techniques & Culture (17 18):145 173. Van der Veen, Marijke 2003 When Is Food a Luxury? World Archaeology 34(3):405 427. Van Dyke, Ruth 2013 Ritual, Timelessness, and Lived Experience in the Pueblo World . In Big Histories, Human Lives: Tackling Problems of Scale in Archaeology , edited by J. Robb and T. R. Pauketat, pp. 193 206. Schoo l for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Van Dyke, Ruth M., and Susan E. Alcock 2003 Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction . In Archaeologies of Memory , edited by R. M. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock, pp. 1 13. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA. Vansina, Jan 1985 Oral Tradition as History . University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

PAGE 426

426 Varien, Mark D., and James M. Potter 2008 The Social Production of Communities: Structure, Agency, and Identity . In The Social Construction of Communities: Agency, Structure, and Identity in the Prehispanic Southwest , edited by M. D. Varian and J. M. Potter, pp. 1 18. AltaMira, London. Villagran, Ximena S. 2014 A Redefinition of Waste: Deconstructing Shell and Fish Mound Formation among Coastal Groups of Southern Brazil. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36(0):211 227. Vom Bruck, Gabriele 1997 A House Turned Inside Out: Inhabiting Space in a Yemeni City. Journal of Material Culture 2:139 172. Wagner, Roy 1991 The Fractal Person . In Big Men and Great Men: The Personification of Power in Melanesia , edited by Marilyn Strathern and Maurice Godelier, pp. 159 173. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Walker, William H. 1995 Ceremonial Trash? In Expanding Archaeology , edited by James M. Skibo, William H. Walker and A. E. Nielson , pp. 67 79. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2002 Stratigraphy and Practical Reason. American Anthropologist 104(1):159 177. Wallis, Neill J. 2007 Defining Swift Creek Interaction: Earthenware Variability at Ring Middens a nd Burial Mounds. Sout heastern Archaeology 26(2):212 231. 2008 Networks of History and Memory: Creating a Nexus of Social Identities in Woodland Mounds on the Lower St Johns River, Florida. Journal of Social Archaeology 8(2):236 271. 2011 The Swift Creek Gift . University of A labama Press, Tuscaloosa. Wallis, Neill J., Matthew T. Boulanger, Jeffrey R. Ferguson and Michael D. Glascock 2010 Woodland Period Ceramic Provenance and the Exchange of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped Vessels in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2598 2611. Wallis, Neill J., Zackary I. Gilmore, Ann S. Cordell, Keith H. Ashley, Thomas J. Pluckhahn, and Michael D. Glascock

PAGE 427

427 2014 Clay Chemistry and Mineralogy in Florida and Georgia: Implications for Pottery Provenance . Poste r presented at the International Symposium on Archaeometry, Los Angeles. Wallis, Neill J., and George D. Kamenov 2013 Challenges in the Analysis of Heterogeneous Pottery by LA ICP MS: A Comparison with INAA. Archaeometry 55(5):893 909. Wallis, Neill J., and Asa R. Randall 2014 Introduction: New Approaches to Ancient Florida . In New Histories of Pre Columbian Florida , edited by Neill J. Wallis and Asa R. Randall, pp. 1 17. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Walton, John, James G. Brooks, and Christ opher R. N. DeCorse 2008 Introduction . In Small Worlds: Method, Meaning, and Narrative in Microhistory , edited by J. Brooks, C. R. N. DeCorse and J. Walton, pp. 3 12. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Waring, Antonio J., Jr. 1968 The Bilbo Sit e, Chatham County, Georgia . In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr , edited by Stephan Williams, pp. 152 197. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Warnier, Jean Pier re 2009 Technology as Efficacious Action on Objects...and Subjects. Journal of Material Culture 14(4):459 470. Watts, William A., Eric C. Grimm and T. C. Hussey 1996 Mid Holocene Forest History of Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolin a . In Archaeology of the Mid Holocene Southeast , edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 28 56. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Weigand, Phil C., Garman Harbottle and Edward V. Sayre 1977 Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: M esoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory , edited by Timothy K. Earle and Jonathon E. Eriksen, pp. 15 34. Academic Press, New York. Weiner, Annette B. 1992 Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping While Giving . Univer sity of California Press, Berkeley. Wheeler, Ryan J. 1994 Early Florida Decorated Bone Objects: Style and Aesthetics from Paleo Indian through Archaic The Florida Anthropologist 47(1):47 60.

PAGE 428

428 Wheeler, Ryan J., and Ray M. McGee 1994 Technology of Mount Tayl (8VO2601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47:350 379. Wheeler, Ryan J., Christine L. Newman, and Ray M. McGee 2000 A New Look at the Mount Taylor and Bluffton Sites, Volusia County, with an Outline of the Mount Taylor Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 53:132 157. White, Hayden 1987 The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation . Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. White, Nancy Marie 2003 Late Archaic in the Apalachicola/Lower Chattahoochee Valley, Northwest Florida, Southwest Georgia, and Southeast Alabama. The Florida Anthropologist 56(2):69 90. 2004 Late Archaic Fisher Foragers in the Apalachicola Lower Chattahoochee Valley, Northwest Florida, South Ge orgia/Alabama . In Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , edited by J. L. Gibson and P. J. Carr, pp. 10 25. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. White, Nancy Marie and Richard W. Estabrook 1994 Sam's Cutoff Shell Mound an d the Late Archaic Elliott's Point Complex in the Apalachicola Delta, Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47:61 78. White, William A. 1970 The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula . Geological Bulletin No. 51. Bureau of Geology, Division of Int erior Resources, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee. Whitehead, Neil 2003 Introduction . In Histories and Historicities in Amazonia , edited by N. Whitehead, pp. vii xx. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NB. Whitmore, Christopher 200 7 Symmetrical Archaeology: Excerpts from a Manifesto. World Archaeology 39(4):546 562. Wiessner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2):253 276. Wilmsen, Edwin N. 1983 The Ecology of Illusion: Anthropological Foraging in the Kalahari. Reviews in Anthropology 10(1):9 20.

PAGE 429

429 1989 Land Filled with Flies: A Political Economy of the Kalahari . University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Wilson, Daniel 1851 The Archaeology and Pre Historic Annals of Scotland . Sutherland and Knox, Edin b urgh . Winterhalder, Bruce 2001 The Behavioural Ecology of Hunter Gatherers . In Hunter Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective , edited by C. Panter Brick, R. H. Layton and P. Rowley Conwy, pp. 12 38. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge. Woodburn, James 1982 Egalitarian Societies. Man 17:431 451. 1988 African Hunter Gatherer Social Organization: Is It Best Understood as a Product of Encapsulation? In Hunters and Gatherers, Vol. 1: History, Evolution, and Social Change , edite d by T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn, pp. 31 64. Berg, New York. Wobst, H. Martin 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange . In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin , edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 317 342. Anthropologic al Papers, no. 61. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wrenn, Margaret 2012 Designing Pots: Determining Orange Incised Design Variation and Distribution at the Rollins Shell Ring Site and the Guana Shell Ring Site in Florida . Unpubl ished M.A. thesis, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University. Wright, Alice P. 2014 History, Monumentality, and Interaction in the Appalachian Summit Middle Woodland. American Antiquity 79(2):277 294. Wylie, Alison 1995 Alterna tive Histories: Epistemic Disunity and Political Integrity . In Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology and History in Non Western Settings , edited by P. R. Schmidt and T. C. Patterson, pp. 255 272. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Wyman, Jeffries 1875 Fresh Water Shell Mounds of the St. Johns River, Florida . Memoirs of the Peabody Academy of Science 1(4), Salem, MA.

PAGE 430

430 Yaeger, Jason, and Marcello A. Canuto 2000 Introducing an Archaeology of Communities . In The Archaeology of Com munities: A New World Perspective , edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 1 15. Routledge, London. Yengoyan, Aram A. 2004 Anthropological History and the Study of Hunters and Gatherers: Cultural and Non cultural . In Hunter Gatherers in History, Archaeo logy, and Anthropology , edited by A. Barnard, pp. 57 77. Berg, Oxford. Yoffee, Norman (editor) 2007 Negotiating the Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archaeological Research . University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Zedeño, María 2008 Bund led Worlds: The Roles and Interactions of Complex Objects from the North American Plains. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15(4):362 378. Zedeño, María Nieves, and Brenda J. Bowser 2009 The Archaeology of Meaningful Places . In The Archaeology o f Meaningful Places , edited by B. J. Bowser and M. N. Zedeno, pp. 1 14. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

PAGE 431

431 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Zackary I. Gilmore was born and grew up in Bowie, Texas. He began his college career at Texas A&M University where he r eceived a B.A. in a nthropology in 2003. After a brief , yet immanently motivational, stint working as a roughneck on an oil rig, Zack returned to school the following year at Southern Illinois University, receiving an M .A. in anthropology in 2007. Later t hat same year, he entered the graduate program at the University of Florida (UF) where he obtained a Ph.D. in anthropology in 2014. Zack is currently Lab Manager at the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology at UF. He is married to Valerie Solomon and li ves in Gainesville, Florida.