Society for American Archaeology !"#$%&'()*$+",'#+-'./"'0.*-,')1'23.*#4'3+'5$6/#")4)7, 5*./)$8&9:' ;"7/#+'<='>='?)@",'#+-' ()/+';='A%0/"# 0)*$6":' 5B"$36#+'5+.3C*3.,D' E)4='FGD'H)='I'85J$=D'IKKL9D'JJ='ILGMINI O*P43&/"-'P,:' Society for American Archaeology 0.#P4"'Q2>:' http://www.jstor.org/stable/40035905 . 566"&&"-:'IIRGKRIKGG'GS:TI Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org. Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity. http://www.jstor.org
BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL IN ARCHAEOLOGY Meghan C. L. Howey and John M. O'Shea This paper considers the archaeological study of ritual and explores the interrelationships that exist between ideologically meaningful accounts of ritual and the material representations of ritual practice that remain for archaeological evaluation. Specifically, the paper addresses the development and antiquity of the Midewiwin ritual, a ceremonial complex that is known historically throughout the Great Lakes region. The serendipitous discovery of a linkage between the Mide origin tale of Bear's Journey and the layout of the Late Prehistoric earthwork enclosures of northern Michigan provides an opportunity to document how a ritual system is represented in the archaeological record and to evaluate how the understanding of the archaeology is altered by having access to the meaning underpinning the ritual performance. The research provides unambiguous evidence for the prehistoric antiquity of the Mide ceremony and illustrates the contribution archaeology can make to understanding the long-term processes of ritual practice and change. Este trabajo considera el estudio arqueologico de rituales y explora las existentes inter relaciones entre las consideraciones ideologic amente significativas de actos rituales y las representaciones materiales de las prdcticas de rituales que encontramos y evaluamos arqueologicamente. Especificamente, se enfoca en el desarrollo y antigiiedad del ritual de Midewiwin, un complejo ceremonial que se es conocido historicamente en las regiones proximas a los Great Lakes. El descubrimiento casual de la relacion entre la narrativa de origen Bear's Journey y el patron arquitectonico de los recintos de tierra ubicados en el norte de Michigan ofrece una oportunidad para documentar como un sistema ritual se manifiesta en los restos arqueologicos, y de ahi se evalua como es que el entendimiento arqueologico se modifica con el acceso a los significados culturales que apuntalan los actos rituales. Esta investigacion ofrece evidencias para evaluar la antigiiedad prehistorica de la ceremonia Mide, y hace una demostracion de los beneficios de como la arqueologia apoya el entendimiento de procesos asociados a las prdcticas rituales y la transformacion de ritos al largo plazo. perennial problem in archaeology is how to identify and understand ritual and ritual behavior. It is one of those "evergreen" truisms that when archaeologists encounter patterns in their data that cannot be easily attributed to such factors as subsistence, warfare, or trade, calling it "ritual activity" is the reflexive explanation. Implicit in this treatment is the idea that ritual is primarily intangible, elusive, and unknowable. These ideas have contributed to a widely accepted view in archaeology that the serious study of religion and ritual is subjective or impossible. This sentiment has a long history in the field, as expressed by Christopher Hawkes in 1954 who presented a ladder of inference in which religion was entirely outside of the feasible and acceptable realm of archaeological inquiry (Hawkes 1954:162). This attitude still permeates much archaeological work, as there are fewer rigorous and systematic considerations of ritual aspects in constructions of the past than there should be given the pervasiveness of ritual and religion in human societies. When archaeologists do venture into the realm of ritual, many tend to draw heavily on ethnographic and historic sources for their interpretations; "it is commonplace for archaeological material to be interpreted directly in terms of either ethnology, folklore, iconography, or astronomy" (Brown 1997:470). These are viewed as superior sources of information about ritual since they are derived from living people who can describe intangible beliefs and cosmologies. This, in fact, is in line with Hawkes' 50-year-old position, in which he advised the prehistoric archaeologist that the only way one could conduct an effective study of ritual and reliMeghan C. L. Howey and John M. O'Shea Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 481091079 (email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org) American Antiquity, 71(2), 2006, pp. 261-282 CopyrightÂ© 2006 by the Society for American Archaeology 261
262 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006 Figure 1. North Central Lower Michigan Earthwork Cluster. Enclosures date to late Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric (ca. A.D. 1200-1600). gion was to "show some real connection between this modern and that prehistoric" (Hawkes 1954:162; italics original). When archaeologists confront material remains they interpret as clearly holding ritual significance, such as rock art, cave paintings, or monumental constructions, they scour historical and ethnographic sources to find an analogy that will magically unlock the meaning behind the image or the structure. Indeed, finding this meaning is the main goal of interpretive studies of past ritual; the critical aspect of studying past ritual is to "gain access to the meanings of these activities" (Whitley and Keyser 2003:391). Some archaeologists value "meaning" so much that they suggest (in cases where no parallel can be found) that the archaeologist should develop an understanding of latent ritual meaning through self-reflection or emoting (Barrett 1994:6, 71). In this paper we describe recent research in the Upper Great Lakes region of North America and a document that helped us unlock the meaning of prehistoric ritual activities. We examine how this document fits the archaeology on the ground, and explore the implications of this linkage, both for establishing the precontact antiquity of an important historic Native rite and for understanding the archaeology of the site that is associated with the ritual. With this case we show that while ethnohistorical accounts can bring new depth to models of prehistoric ritual, explanations of past ritual can be derived from archaeological data alone. The ritual in question is the well-known Midewiwin and the archaeological sites associated with it are the earthwork enclosures of Northern Lower Michigan (Figure 1). We examine the association of one of these earthwork sites, the Missaukee Earthworks (20MA11-12), with the narrative of Bear's Journey in the Ojibwa Midewiwin. The Midewiwin The Midewiwin is a ceremonial complex whose importance among the Algonquinspeaking people of the Great Lakes region is noted frequently
Howey and O'Shea] BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL 263 throughout the historical era. The Midewiwin played an important role in the survival of Native culture in the face of the destructive effects of European contact, epidemic disease, and Christianization efforts from the late seventeenth through early twentieth centuries (Angel 2002). Elements of the Midewiwin remain important among many Native people today. In fact, the Three Fires Midewiwin Society headed by Grand Chief Bawdwaywidun Banaise (Edward Benton-Banai) is a present-day descendant of the Midewiwin Society (Goulais 2000). "The Three Fires Lodge is a contemporary movement of spiritual revival, renewal, maintenance and strengthening of the original teaching ceremonies and prophecies of the Algonquin nations of the Anishinabe nation" (Benton-Banai 2005). The Midewiwin: A Preor Postcontact Development? There has been uncertainty about the antiquity of the Midewiwin. Was it an indigenous, precontact development, or a post-European contact nativistic development? Several early ethnographers who regarded it as indigenous pointed to reports in the Jesuit Relations of a cross seen by Father Jacques Marquette in the Mascouten-Miami village on Fox River in 1673 (Thwaites 1896-1901:59: 103). They argued that this was a cross of the 4th degree of the Midewiwin (Hoffman 1891; Kinietz 1947). Working in the 1960s, ethnohistorian Harold Hickerson disputed the role these scholars assigned to this cross and from his own study of the Jesuit Relations he concluded that the cross was in fact a Christian cross since "never did any Jesuit in the western Great Lakes region mention a cross in any context other than with respect to his own activities or teachings" (Hickerson 1962:418). Using additional historical evidence (such as the fact that the first definite mention of the Midewiwin in colonial accounts didn't occur until 1714 in relation to the Potawatomi at Detroit [Hickerson 1963:76]), Hickerson argued that "all indication is that the Midewiwin was developed at approximately the turn of the 18th century" (Hickerson 1962:418). Hickerson's argument for a post-European contact origin of the Midewiwin has been the widely accepted position (Aldenderfer 1993; Dewdney 1975; Schlesier 1990; Spindler 1978). While Hickerson's work is widely accepted among EuroAmerican scholars, many Ojibwa "consider his theories to be culturally arrogant as well as inaccurate" (Angel 2002:68). In this paper, we revisit the question of the roots of the ceremony and its potential antiquity, and specifically, is there evidence to suggest the practices have their origins in pre-European contact times? Our intent is not to re-enter the debate on ethnohistorical sources, but rather to present the results of new archaeological research that may have an important and heretofore unsuspected bearing on the question. Midewiwin among the Ojibwa (Chippewa) While the Midewiwin is known among all of the Algonquianspeaking groups of the Great Lakes region, the rites as practiced among the Ojibwa are of particular relevance for the present study. A picture of the historical Ojibwa Midewiwin ritual and organization emerges from late nineteenthand early twentieth-century ethnographic studies among the Ojibwa (Densmore 1929; Hoffman 1891; Kidder 1994 ; Kinietz 1947; Landes 1968; Warren 1984 ). The following discussion is not an exhaustive explanation of Mide rites; instead, we aim to provide the necessary background information for investigating its potential precontact origins (for a more detailed account of the historical Midewiwin among the Ojibwa see Angel 2002). The historical era Midewiwin functioned as the ultimate means of recovering health and "the Midewiwin among the Chippewa has been recognized as best exemplifying the relation of man to the supernatural forces" (Kinietz 1947:174). The Midewiwin was "more than just another ceremony, for it provided an institutional setting for the teaching of the world view (religious beliefs) of the Ojibwa people" (Angel 2002:48). The Midewiwin ceremony had two main elements: an initiation rite and a healing ritual (Angel 2002: 14). The Midewiwin Society (Grand Medicine Society) as observed at the end of the nineteenth century consisted of an indefinite number of members (mide) of both sexes (Hoffman 1891:164). Members were a "representative body of men (and women) drawn from all cohering kinsegments of the village organism" (Hickerson 1963:79). The Midewiwin Society was graded into four or eight distinct degrees, depending on local custom, and
264 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006 members were initiated into and passed through these degrees at semi-annual meetings (Densmore 1929). The Midewiwin ceremonial meetings lasted several days and were directed by "priests" (Mideg), who did most of the singing and speaking. These Mide officials had been blessed by the Mide manidoog (spirits) and were highly educated in Midewiwin origin narratives, sacred teachings, and medicinal practices (Angel 2002:181). These ceremonial meetings included both public and private components. The entire community participated in dancing, feasting, and the construction of the Mide Lodge. The execution of religious rituals for Mide candidates was directed by Mideg and occurred inside the Mide Lodge to maintain privacy and exclude non-initiates. Kidder's informant Charles Kawbawgam (an Ojibwa chief living near Marquette, Michigan during 1893-1895) emphasized the privacy of the Mide lodge, stating "the Mide operations are not performed out of doors. A Grand Medicine Lodge, or at least the frame of one, has to be built" (Kidder 1994:56 ). William Warren, a historian whose mother was an Ojibwa and whose father was EuroAmerican, was fluent in Ojibwa and English. He worked in the Leech Lake and Red Lake areas of Minnesota in the 1830s and 1 840s. Warren found it frustrating to uncover more about the practices conducted in the Mide Lodge. He says, This important custom is still shrouded in mystery, even to my own eyes, though I have taken much pains to inquire, and made use of every advantage, possessed by speaking their language perfectly, being related to them, possessing their friendship, and intimate confidence has given me, and yet I frankly acknowledge that I stand as yet, as it were, on the threshold of the Me-da-we lodge [Warren 1984:65-66 . While private and shrouded in mystery, a sense of the ceremonies within the Mide lodge does emerge in the ethnographic and historic accounts. Inside the lodge Mide candidates advanced from one degree to another by giving gifts to older members and by undergoing an initiation involving moral instructions, learning the names and uses of medicinal plants, and learning the narratives of the origin and development of the Mide rites (Kidder 1994 ); Landes 1968). This act of learning esoteric and inaccessible information was a critical component of initiation into the Midewiwin religious system. Each degree of the society had a specific kind of medicine bag and during initiation spirit power was "shot" at a candidate by other Mide members from medicine bags with white shells (mi'gis) (Densmore 1929). It was through the power of the mi'gis (white shells) "shot" into candidates that they became blessed by the Mide manidoog (spirits) (Angel 2002:181). The major ceremonial objects involved in the initiation ceremonies were the mi'gis (white shells), medicine bags, water drums, gourd rattles, and, of course, birch bark scrolls incised with characters. Tobacco was an important offering item at all of these ritual events. Birch bark scrolls were kept by Mideg and these held diagrams for the conduct of Midewiwin rites, Midewiwin songs, the origin narratives, as well as the records of the society (Densmore 1929; Hoffman 1891; Landes 1968; Warren 1984 ). Only initiated members of the Midewiwin knew how to record and interpret these birch bark scrolls. These scrolls were critical to the practice and persistence of the Midewiwin and were considered sacred and powerful by the Ojibwa. These mnemonic scrolls "held a unique, cherished place in Ojibwa regard" (Landes 1968:223). Warren describes the critical role these scrolls played in the persistence of the Midewiwin ceremonial and Ojibwa life in general. "In the Me-da-we rite is incorporated most that is ancient amongst them (Ojibwa) songs and traditions that have descended not orally, but in hieroglyphics, for at least a long line of generations" (Warren 1984:67 [ 1 885]). He further notes that "certain rules to guide their course in life were given them at the same time, and are represented in hieroglyphics" (Warren 1984:67 ). Midewiwin Origin Narratives Origin narratives are a critical component of the Midewiwin ceremonial complex. These narratives have been recorded on birch bark scrolls and maintained through oral traditions. The telling of a version of the origin of the Midewiwin was required at every Midewiwin ceremony. "Midewiwin origin narratives were (and still are) recited by Mide elders during each Midewiwin ceremony" (Angel 2002:47).
Howey and O'Shea] BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL 265 Two different accounts of the origin of the Midewiwin are recorded in the major works on the Ojibwa (Densmore 1929; Dewdney 1975; Hoffman 1891; Kinietz 1947; Landes 1968; Warren 1984 ). Both tales begin with a great Supernatural recognizing the plight of the Indian and both discuss a servant of this higher spirit delivering the Midewiwin to the Ojibwa as an answer to their plight; the rite provides the Ojibwa with a means to recover health. One version indicates Mi'nabo'zho was the servant who delivered the Midewiwin; another version has Bear as the servant delivering the Midewiwin to the Ojibwa.1 The version of the Mi'nabo'zho story heard by Hoffman at Read Lake in 1887 is as follows: When Mi'nabo'zho, the servant of Dzhe Manido, looked down upon the earth he beheld human beings, the Anishinabeg, the ancestors of the Ojibwa. They occupied the four quarters of the earth the northeast, the southeast, the southwest, and the northwest. He saw how helpless they were, and desiring to give them the means of warding off the diseases with which they were constantly afflicted, and to provide them with animals and plants to serve as food and with other comforts, Mi'nabo'zho remained thoughtfully hovering over the center of the earth, endeavoring to devise some means of communicating with them, when he heard something laugh, and perceived a dark object appear upon the surface of the water to the west. He could not recognize its form, and while watching it closely it slowly disappeared from view. It next appeared in the north, and after a short lapse of time again disappeared. Mi'nabo'zho hoped it would again show itself upon the surface of the water, which it did in the east. Then Mi'nabo'zho wished that it might approach him, so as to permit him to communicate with it. When it disappeared from view in the east and made its reappearance in the south, Mi'nabo'zho asked it to come to the center of the earth that he might behold it. Again it disappeared from view, and after reappearing in the west Mi'nabo'zho observed it slowly approaching the center of the earth when he descended and saw it was the Otter, now one of the sacred manidos of the Midewiwin. Then Mi'nabo'zho instructed the Otter in the mysteries of the Midewiwin and gave him at the same time the sacred rattle to be used at the side of the sick; the sacred Mide drum to be used during the ceremonial of initiation and at sacred feasts, and tobacco, to be employed in invocations and making peace. The place where Mi'nabo'zho descended was an island in the middle of a large body of water and the Mide who is feared by all the others is called Minisinoshkwe (He-who-liveson-the-island). Then Mi'nabo'zho build Mide'wigan (sacred Mide lodge) and taking his drum he beat upon it and sang a Mide song, telling the Otter that Dzhe Manido had decided to help the Anishinabeg, that they might always have life and an abundance of food and other things necessary for their comfort. Mi'nabo'zho then took the Otter into the Mide'wigan (sacred Mide lodge) and conferred upon him the secrets of the Midewiwin and with his Mide bag shot the sacred migis into his body that he might have immortality and be able to confer these secrets to his kinsmen, the Anishinabeg [Hoffman 1891:166-167]. Landes recorded the story of Bear delivering the Midewiwin. She noted that the " tale always opened with a statement that the Earth-Supernatural called the Shell-Covered One, or simply Shell, brooded over the olden Indian's unhappy plight and sought aremedy" (Landes 1968:96). Shell's answer to this plight was to call on servitor Bear to organize Midewiwin. Shell sent Bear on a journey to deliver the Midewiwin to the Indians. Shell gave Bear the mide "pack of life" to "deposit at various stations" throughout his journey and at the end of his travels Bear revealed the Midewiwin to the Indian Cutfoot who taught it to others (Landes 1968:97). Her informant Will Rogers or Hole-in-the Sky told her the following condensed version of Bear's travels with the mide "bundle of life": Our Grandfather (Bear) was engaged to take these (mide) beliefs to the Indian. So he started off. He built a manito lodge, and set the manitos down in their proper positions: "From here you will reach out to give the Indians what they need." (This was the lodge on Earth's bottom layer, where Shell stayed and where guardian spirits of Midewiwin had had their council.)
266 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006 He reached up, grabbed a layer of Earth, tore a hole through it, and built a manito lodge. He placed the manitos there. (And so on as above, through the third layer. Then he tore a hole through the fourth layer "on which we sit".) He lay there with his head sticking out. He lay four days (mide years), unable to decide upon a plan of travel. (Then he went east as told before, reaching the great body of water.) Then he walked out onto the water. After traveling a bit, he saw something and went up to it. It was a big white shell. He climbed onto it, and manito shells of every size stuck all over him. Then he went to the country where he found the Frenchmen's river. There he rested, stationed a manito, and proceeded straight to Narrow Bough Point. Here he reared, looking west for Indians but found none. 'Then here will be where the Indian will talk about his needs" [Landes 1968:103-104]. Scholars have posited temporal and geographical factors as the explanation for the existence of these accounts with different deliverers of the Midewiwin (Angel 2002; Dewdney 1975). In our study of these two accounts we have come to focus on another factor in these differing accounts. The Mi' nabo' zho origin story contains more focus on the sacred objects and ritual paraphernalia involved in the Midewiwin ritual, mentioning all of the major material aspects of the Midewiwin ceremonial, including the mi'gis (white shells), medicine bags, sacred rattles, the Mide Lodge, tobacco, and the Mide drum to play Mide songs. In contrast, the Bear origin tale only mentions the Mide Lodge, medicine bags (mide pack), and the mi'gis (white shells). This pattern of objects continues in the Bear origin account recorded by Dewdney and Hoffman and the Mi 'nabo 'zho origin story recorded by Warren and Kinietz (Dewdney 1975:23-25; Hoffman 1891:172173; Kinietz 1947:186; Warren 1984 ). These two accounts provide complementary narratives of the origin of two distinct aspects of the Midewiwin. One details the ritual practices on the ground and the other presents a tale of the higher-level divine recognition of the need for and the origin and delivery of the Midewiwin to the Ojibwa people. Thus, the Mi' nabo' zho origin story reflects the practice and performance of the Midewiwin rites while the Bear tale, the tale of "the great mystery of Midewiwin" (Landes 1968:95), reflects the philosophical underpinning of those rites. Hoffman (working at the Red Lake and White Earth reservations in Minnesota in 1887, 1888, and 1 889) heard both of these versions of the origin of the Midewiwin and recognized their complementarity and connection, stating "that there have been joined together two narratives" (Hoffman 1 89 1 : 174). Hoffman illustrates this by showing that two pictorial representations, one depicting the Bear origin story and another depicting the Mi'nabo'zho origin story, fuse together (Hoffman 1891:174; Figure 2). In his examination of these two depictions, Hoffman shows that the Bear origin story intersects with the Mi' nabo' zho origin story at a 90 degree angle the Bear Origin story is vertical (toward the sky) and the Mi' nabo' zho origin story lies flat (on the ground) (Hoffman 1891:174; Figure 2). This complementarity signifies the order and distinct aspects encapsulated in these two origin tales, with Bear delivering the great mystery of Midewiwin, while Mi' nabo' zho delivers the on-the-ground Midewiwin ritual practices (Figure 2). Modern performances, mentioned above, focus primarily on the on-the-ground aspects of the Midewiwin and they credit Mi'nabo'zho as the deliverer of the Midewiwin (cf. Benton-Banai 1988). In historical times, there were two deliverers who brought forth two different aspects of the Midewiwin to the Ojibwa, the mystery (beliefs) and the materiality (rules for the performance of rites). Recent Archaeological Research in North Central Lower Michigan Renewed interest in the earthwork enclosures of north central Lower Michigan and recent excavations at a pair of these enclosures, the Missaukee Earthworks (20MA 11-12), has revealed data that parallels the tale of the origin and delivery of the great mystery of Midewiwin. These sites may be a prehistoric material record of Bear's travels with the mide pack mentioned in the Midewiwin origin narrative (Landes 1968). Earthwork Enclosures Earthwork enclosures are a common feature in the archaeological landscape of Michigan. In the early
Howey and O'Shea] BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL 267 Figure 2. Hoffman's (1891:174) illustration of the joining of the two Midewiwin origin narratives. "A" represents the origin narrative in which Bear is the deliverer of the Midewiwin, while "B" depicts the Mi'nabo'zho origin story. twentieth century, Hinsdale (1931) reported more than 100 enclosures in Michigan. These enclosures were part of the repertoire of the region's inhabitants by Early Woodland times (Beld 1993) and became particularly common in the centuries immediately preceding European contact. These enclosures share a common form, being circular ditch and embankment enclosures with planned entry ways. Depending on geographic and temporal factors, they range from 30 m to 120 m in diameter (Milner and O'Shea 1998:198). A lack of systematic investigation has hindered current understandings of the functions and roles of earthworks in their broader social context. This is particularly true for the cluster of Late Prehistoric earthworks in north central Michigan (Figure 1 ). This cluster includes a pair of enclosures on the Missaukee County Preserve, one along Mosquito Creek, four along the Rifle River, the WaltersLinsenman Earthwork in Ogemaw, and the Mikado Earthwork in Alcona County, as well as others reported but now not locatable and/or destroyed (Figure 1) (Carruthers 1969; Cleland 1965; Cornelius and Moll 1961; Dustin 1932; Greenman 1926a, 1927; Moll etal. 1958). The extant data indicate that many, if not all, of these northern earthworks date to the late Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric (between A.D. 1200 and 1600; Milner and O'Shea 1998). While limited excavations have been conducted at a number of these sites, they have yet to be treated in a systematic way so that their role within the broader social and regional context could be examined. Missaukee Earthworks Recent archaeological research by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA) has been aimed at understanding the regional and social context of these enclosures by investigating one set of enclosures from this cluster, the Missaukee Earthworks site (Site Number: 20MA1112). The site consists of a pair of circular ditch and bank structures in Missaukee County, Michigan (Figure 1 ); they date to the late Late Woodland/Late
268 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006 Prehistoric period ca. A.D. 1200 (A.D. 1200 Â± 75; Fitting 1970:244). The site lies about 20 km southwest of Michigan's largest inland lake system, Houghton (80 km2) and Higgins Lake (39 km2). Between the lake and the earthworks lies the headwater region of the Muskegon River, Michigan's fifth-largest river. Higgins Lake is its source and it drains into Lake Michigan. The large Dead Swamp is located in its watershed near Higgins and Houghton Lake (Fitting 1970). The earthworks were constructed on top of the highest feature on the landscape, a glacial esker. At the top of this esker is a shallow basin-shaped area. It is here that the two earthworks were constructed 653.5 meters apart on an eastwest line (Figure 3). An unusual upland spring and adjoining wetland lie immediately to the southwest of the eastern earthwork (Figure 3). Each enclosure originally had two entrances and the alignment of these entrances suggests that the earthworks were linked and contemporaneous. One opening on each roughly aligns with the other and the second opening on each enclosure aligns in the same direction (the azimuth of the western one is 336Â¡ and the eastern one is 334Â¡; Marshall 1990). The westernmost earthwork was assigned State site number 20 MA 1 1 and the easternmost earthwork 20 MA 12 (Figure 3). In addition to the earthworks, the zone contains a pair of conical mounds located symmetrically at opposite ends of the site (Greenman 1926b). The area also contains hundreds of abandoned subterranean storage pits (all of these pits that have been excavated have been empty). Some of these pits occur in small clusters of 4 to 10 pits, while a large concentration of more than one hundred pits was reported in the central portion of the site (Greenman 1926a:2). A common feature of previous archaeological investigations conducted at the northern earthworks has been a focus on the interior areas of the enclosures. Prior investigations at the Missaukee Earthworks (20MA1 1-12) have shown that there was no palisade surrounding either enclosure, and that there were no definite structures, such as habitation dwellings, inside the enclosures, weakening the argument that the site functioned as a defensive or habitation site (Cleland 1965; Greenman 1926a, 1927). The excavations did, however, provide tantalizing evidence for the ritual use of the enclosures, such as the placement of an inverted ceramic vessel in one of the entry ways, the east gate of the western enclosure (20MA11) (Greenman 1926a:5-6). Recent Archaeological Work at the Missaukee Earthworks Recent investigations by UMMA attempted to broaden the focus of inquiry by examining the space outside of the earthwork circles. Extensive shovel testing around the two Missaukee enclosures revealed a pattern of concentrated and localized activity. Shovel tests revealed small clusters of dense cultural debris separated by extensive areas with no cultural debris (Figure 3). This pattern of discrete dense cultural debris areas, separated by large areas devoid of material, suggests a structured and prescribed use of space in the area around the earthworks. The analysis of materials from excavation at three of these dense debris loci suggests that the spatially bounded activity areas outside the earthworks had distinctive functions. Two loci high in cultural debris were excavated outside of the eastern enclosure (20MA12); one on a rise to the northwest of the eastern earthwork (20MA12) (A) and another west of the entrance to the eastern earthwork (20MA12) and near the unusual upland spring (B) (Figure 3). Test excavations were also conducted on an area high in cultural debris south of the western enclosure (C) (20MA11) (Figure 3). Areas A and B outside the eastern enclosure (20MA12) produced no food debris (Figure 3). These two locales have identical densities of ceramics (.005 kg/liter) and the average orifice diameter of vessels from these two locales around 20MA12 is similar (Table 1). Further, no grinding implements were found in either Area A or B (Table 1). This lack of grinding stones, along with the lack of food debris, suggests that there was no food preparation in either of these locales. Similarities between these two locales outside the eastern earthwork (20MA12) are not evident in other material and spatial realms. Excavations in Area B, just west of the entrance to the eastern earthwork and near the spring, revealed a series of superimposed hearths (Figure 3). Fire cracked rock (FCR) was abundant throughout this area but it occurred in particularly dense concentrations northwest of the hearths. The density of FCR across Area B is .073 kg/liter, .012 kg/liter higher than
Howey and O'Shea] BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL 269 Figure 3. Details of the Missaukee Earthworks (20MA11-12). A, B, and C represent the location of excavations conducted in high density cultural material zones identified during shovel testing (note: these are not scalar representations of excavated areas). Area A and .065kg/liter higher than the excavation area south of the western enclosure, Area C (Table 1). In addition to this higher weight density, there are notably more pieces of FCR per liter of excavated soil in this area than Area A and the average weight of the FCR pieces is much lower in this area (B) (47.06 g) (Table 1 ). These data suggest that FCR was important to the activity conducted in Area B and that it was used in multiple firing events because FCR gets smaller with re-use and re-firing. This evidence suggesting multiple firing events fits with the presence of the superimposed hearths. The lithic assemblages from Area A and Area B are also distinct. B if aces were more common in Area A than in Area B by the spring (Table 2). The assemblage from Area B includes micro-blades not found in Area A. Flakes, on average, are shorter in Area A than in Area B (Table 2). There is also a striking difference between Area A and Area B in terms of the proportion of lithics made on two distinct Michigan chert sources, Bayport chert from the Saginaw Bay area and Norwood chert from northwestern Michigan along northern Lake Michigan (Table 3). These sources of raw material are important, since both varieties are high quality and both were transported a considerable distance (~ 1 20 km to Norwood and ~ 1 00 km to Bayport). Area B contains significantly more Bayport chert and significantly less Norwood chert than Area A (Table 3). The abundant and small fire cracked rock at Area B along with the lack of food remains, the presence of superimposed hearths, specialized lithics, distinct proportions of Michigan lithic raw materials, its proximity to the spring and entrance to the earthwork, all suggest a function that was both specialized and recurrent at this location (Figure 3). While no clear evidence of a structure was observed in Area B, all our evidence is consistent with the presence of a small sweat lodge at this location. Excavations in Area A revealed a very abrupt falloff in the scatter of cultural remains, with cultural debris limited to an area of 6 x 7 m (Figure
270 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006 Table 1 . Fire Cracked Rock, Ceramics, and Grinding Stones. A: B^ C: 20M A 1 2 Northern/ 20M A 1 2 Southern/ 20M A 1 1 Southern/ Structure Station Sweat Lodge Station Cooking Station FCR Weight Density (kg/liter) .061 .073 .008 Average weight for piece of FCR (g) 94.30 47.06 156.34 FCR Count Density (# pieces/liter) .065 .156 .005 Ceramic Weight Density (kg/liter) .005 .005 .027 Average Orifice Diameter (cm) 26.9 22.5 34 N = 9 N=13 N = 2 Maximum Orifice Diameter (cm) 31 30 34 Grinding Stone Presence Absent Absent Present 3). This limited distribution of materials suggests the presence of a small structure or enclosed space where distinct activities occurred. Area A is also associated with a cluster of cache pits that falls outside the cultural debris area (see Figure 5 below). Preliminary test excavation in Area C, south of the western earthwork (20MA1 1), revealed abundant pottery from larger vessels than in the locales around the eastern enclosure and a possible handgrinding stone (Table 1) (Figure 3). While limited excavations in this area restrict our ability to make conclusions, the patterns are certainly suggestive. Ceramic density at Area C is five times higher than in the two locales around the eastern enclosure (Areas A and B) (20MA 1 2) (Table 1 ). The two vessels recovered in Area C have identical orifice diameters (34 cm). This orifice diameter is larger than that of any vessel recovered in the Areas A and B around 20MA12 (Table 1) (Figure 3). Although excavations were much more extensive in Areas A and B around the eastern enclosure, no grinding stones were found (Table 1). Taken together, these findings suggest Area C was used for food preparation, although no food remains were encountered. Future research will focus on expanding excavations in Area C and documenting the other highconcentration locale identified in shovel testing northwest of this western enclosure (20MA11) (Figure 3). The results of this testing program suggest that the earthworks, along with nearby mounds and clusters of cache pits, constituted a coherent ritual precinct (Howey and O'Shea 2002; Howey 2004). The layout of the ritual precinct at the Missaukee Earthworks involved (1) spatially distinct activityspecific "stations" outside the earthworks that were repetitively utilized, (2) large clusters of cache pits (for storage/provisioning), and (3) open space inside the earthworks, which presumably was the locus of distinct ritual action (Howey 2004; Howey and O'Shea 2002; O'Shea 2003). Bear's Journey at the Missaukee Earthworks? While attempting to understand the layout of the Missaukee Earthworks site, we noted a striking parallel with the narrative of the origin and delivery of the great mystery of Midewiwin. It is possible that the layout of the Missaukee Earthworks ritual precinct represents a prehistoric material record of Bear's travels with the mide pack in the origin story of the delivery of the great mystery of Midewiwin (Landes 1968). While Hoffman's and Dewdney's recorded accounts of the Bear origin story share many elements with the version told to Landes by Will Rogers or Hole-in-the Sky at Red Lake reservation near Bemjim, Minnesota in 1932-1933, the story told to Landes and the associated sketch of Bear's travels with the mide pack (Landes 1968: 107) provide a detailed comparative source for our archaeological case. Figure 4 shows this diagram. The starting point for the comparison is this map of Bear's travels with the mide pack, a diagram that would have been presented during the teaching of the origin narrative during Midewiwin ceremonies (Figure 4). Will Rogers or Hole-in-the Sky sketched this diagram and narrated this drawing of Bear's travels with the mide pack as follows: Here [at A] is where Bear emerged from the Earth's center. Then he went down under the water and came out here [at B] at a place called
Howey and O'Shea] BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL 271 Table 2: Lithic Length, Tools, and Bipolar Reduction. A: B: 20M A 1 2 Northern/ 20M A 1 2 Southern/ Structure Station Sweat Lodge Station Average Length (cm) 14.23 15.58 N = 787 N = 536 Length Significance Test: MannWhitney p = .000 % Bifaces N = 14 N = 5 16.5% 6.4% % Other Tools N = 7 1 N = 73 83.5% 93.6% Biface Significance Test : Fischer's exact/? = .053 % Bipolar Reduction N = 109 N = 94 17.0% 21.8% % Non-Bipolar Reduction N = 533 N = 338 83.0% 78.2% Bipolar Significance Test : Fischer's exact p = .056 Table 3: Lithic Raw Material. A: B: 20M A 1 2 Northern/ 20M A 1 2 Southern/ Structure Station Sweat Lodge Station % Bayport (All Lithics) N = 65 N = 77 8.3% 14.4% % Norwood (All Lithics) N = 1 12 N = 16 14.2% 3.0% % Other Material (All Lithics) N = 610 N = 443 77.5% 82.6% All Lithics Significance Test: Pearson Chi-Square p = .000 % Bayport (Bayport and Norwood Only) N = 65 N = 77 36.7% 82.8% % Norwood (Bayport and Norwood Only) N = 1 12 N = 16 63.3% 17.2% Bayport and Norwood Significance Test : Fischer's exact p = .000 "Big Earth." This is somewhere in the east, where he saw the daylight [eastern quarter of the] world. He reared up [at C] and went down to the ocean [at D]. There he looked north. He saw whitecaps and didn't dare cross. He saw the Point, looked out from it, but discerned nothing. He went to the south Point, saw nothing, and returned to here [D] at the ocean. He touched the water with his right hand, but noticed no effect [on the water's behavior]. He tried his left hand, but it too made no difference. The Great Lion [an evil mighty water monster] happened to be ashore in the south. Bear asked him, "Will you help me? I can't get across." [Lion, characteristically jealous and touchy, was especially so with Bear, resenting his appointment as the Supernatural's emissary.] "Oh you do want help! You, so brave, so strong!" He touched the water with one hand and [for he was the great water spirit] it became calm and smooth as glass. Bear said, "Thank you!" He made four steps, and the water did not bend. He thought, "I will go under" and walked along the ocean bottom [towards E]. After a distance, it looked light so he rose [at F] and saw that it was calm. He saw [G] and took it for a rocky island. Close up, he saw it was manito migis [the mystic shell]. He climbed out on it and rolled about and finally stood up. It sounded then as though icicles were clinking on him. [At H] he continued west, swimming atop the ocean [Landes 1968:108].
272 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006 Figure 4. Diagram of Bear's travels with the mide pack used during the teaching of the mide origin myth as recounted by Will Rogers or Hole-in-the Sky (Landes 1968:107). It is presented here as it was oriented in original publication. The original labeling is annotated to facilitate reading.
Howey and O'Shea] BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL 273 Figure 5. Side-by-side comparison of the diagram of Bear's travels with the mide pack (Figure 4; Landes 1968:107) and the schematic of the Missaukee Earthworks (20MA11-12) Ritual Precinct. Both figures are oriented north-south. To facilitate reading, the original labeling has been deleted and retyped verbatim.
274 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006 Bear's travel cycle continued until Bear reached the last station and cured an Indian (Landes 1968:108). This narration expands on the condensed version of Bear's delivery of the Midewiwin Rogers gave verbally. By referencing a physical diagram of Bear's travels, Rogers was able to elaborate on the tale. This suggests the central role such material renderings played in the preservation and presentation of the origin narrative. What is particularly striking about Rogers 's drawing is the way in which the journey is represented in the drawing; it encompasses two large circles with a circular path between them, and a series of prescribed stops or locations along this cyclical path at which particular events are enacted or recounted (Figure 4). The drawing is also a map with a definite axis of orientation. The role of this map is significant as it is reproduced on scrolls and on the ground for the teaching of the Midewiwin origin narrative, sacred space is circumscribed for a re-enactment of Bear's original journey. When the plan of the Missaukee precinct is compared to Rogers 's diagram, as illustrated in Figure 5, the similarities are remarkable. The respective size of the circles, the route of travel between the two circles, the location of water, the topographic setting and even the directional orientation of the features, all match. Along the projected pathway between the enclosures there are specific activity areas or stations and these appear to be repeatedly used (Figure 5). There are other similarities between Rogers's travel narrative and drawing and the layout of the Missaukee Earthworks. Bear begins his travels in a large circle labeled Our Earth, "what we are sitting on." Within this sphere is a drawing of a mountain. Bear exits east and travels clockwise to the Big Earth, sketched as another large sphere. At Missaukee, there is a western earthwork (20MA11) that has a large boulder in its center (Figure 5). This boulder brings a physicality to this enclosure, and is possibly an emblem of Our Earth, "what we are sitting on"; the boulder is the counterpart of the mountain in the ethnographic drawing. This enclosure has an eastern exit, just as Bear exited east when he left Our Earth, "what we are sitting on." Bear then travels east to "Big Earth." At Missaukee there is another enclosure east of the western enclosure. While the two enclosures are similar in diameter, the eastern enclosure (20MA12) is larger, with a diameter of 53 meters versus a 48 meter diameter for the western enclosure (20MA1 1) (Marshall 1990). Moreover, the ditch and embankment of the eastern enclosure (20MA12) is more substantial in both height and width than the western enclosure (20MA11). This corresponds with "Big Earth" lying east of Our Earth, "what we are sitting on," in the ethnohistoric diagram (Figure 5). The travel continues with Bear leaving "Big Earth" to the west and looking into the Surrounding Ocean. He travels to lookout "points" to the north and south of the Surrounding Ocean. Seeing nothing he returns to the ocean and, with Lion's help, he continues westward into the Surrounding Ocean. Outside the entrance of the eastern enclosure (20MA12) is the upland spring and associated wetland area corresponding to the location of the Surrounding Ocean. Furthermore, at Missaukee the ground rises notably to the north and south of the eastern enclosure (20MA12) and the spring, paralleling the location of the lookout points north and south of "Big Earth" and the Surrounding Ocean in Bear's journey (Figures 3 and 5). Throughout Bear's travels from Our Earth, "what we are sitting on" to "Big Earth," and through the Surrounding Ocean, he stops at specific activity areas or stations, including the Ocean bottom. Bear repeatedly returns to some of these activity areas. Outside of the enclosures we found dispersed activity areas or "stations," and this pattern matches the pattern of discrete stops in the ethnographic account and diagram of Bear's journey. We also have archaeological evidence that at least one, and likely all, of these "stations" were used repeatedly (Figure 5). From this comparison, we suggest that the Missaukee enclosure precinct was a material representation of Bear's journey, rendered on a monumental scale. There are a number of potential implications of this possibility, but the parallelism between the Rogers's map and the Missaukee plan is very striking (Figure 5). Discussion The numerous parallels among the narrative, diagram, and site suggest that the earthworks are a materialization of the tale of the origin and delivery of the great mystery of Midewiwin by the servitor Bear. As such, this aspect of the Midewiwin ceremonial complex must predate European con
Howey and O'Shea] BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL 275 tact. This does not mean that the particular ritual context and meaning in this prehistoric setting was exactly the same as in historic times. In fact, differences are to be expected because the historical Midewiwin had to adapt to new conditions brought on by European contact, and ritual meaning is likely to change over centuries of such upheaval. In particular, the historic ceremonial complex's heavy emphasis on medicine rather than general wellbeing seems to be a response to the destructive diseases brought by European colonizers. Yet, the fundamental role and structure of Bear bringing the great mystery of Midewiwin does have prehistoric origins. Its persistence from prehistoric to historic times has several implications, both specific and general. Monument to Scroll: Implications for the Historical Development of the Midewiwin Establishing a link between the depiction of Bear's Journey as represented in the Mide scrolls and sketchings and the Missaukee Earthwork site has important implications for understanding the Mide ceremony and its historical development among the populations occupying the Upper Great Lakes. First, and foremost, the earthworks demonstrate the antiquity of Bear's Journey and this decisively defeats the ethnohistorical argument that the ritual was a consequence of European contact and interaction with French Christian missionaries. The unambiguous dating of the earthworks to the preEuropean era makes it clear that the Mide ceremony, or at least Bear's Journey, has precontact roots. While the content and meaning of the ritual may change over time and may differ from that known in the historic period, it is clear that Bear's origin narrative was present by A.D. 1200-1400. While the archaeology does not speak to the details of the Mide lodge and its symbolism, the identification of this prehistoric layout of Bear's journey provides an important starting point for understanding the development of the Mide ceremony as it evolved to accommodate the new realities and needs of the contact era. A question that emerges when considering the connection between Bear's journey and the Missaukee Earthworks is why was a rite that was historically represented on birch bark scrolls originally represented in a nonportable monumental form? The recognition that the Missaukee Earthworks are a material representation of Bear's journey does not, in and of itself, account for the location, monumental scale, or function of the ritual site. Thus, we have to ask what was it about the late prehistoric period that motivated such monumental constructions and why did this change in the contact era? We have argued elsewhere that the ritual embodied in the earthworks was a response to the dispersal of maize agriculture along the coasts of the Great Lakes in the Late Prehistoric era, which necessitated a realignment of inland, nonagricultural, hunting and gathering groups (O'Shea 2003). Periodic aggregations of dispersed foraging populations and newly agricultural groups from coastal regions would have promoted resource pooling and exchange, as well as facilitated critical contacts and social integration. Similar patterns of periodic aggregation for exchange and ritual renewal are common to tribal social systems (cf. Adler and Wilshusen 1990; Renfrew 2001 ; Spielmann 2002). For such an intertribal system to operate, the location where a rite was to be held (such as the reenactment of Bear's journey) would have to be at predictable and well-defined locations. The creation of a monument creates such a place, because ceremonial monuments provide a standardized, durable, and symbolically potent context for the periodic aggregation and interaction of dispersed communities (cf. Bernardini 2004; Bradley 1998; Cameron 2001; Dillehay 1990; Jackson 1991; Johansen 2004; Judge 1989; Malville and Malville 2001; Toll 2001). Our research at the Missaukee Earthworks suggests these enclosures functioned as just such a regional aggregation location, where dispersed groups of inland foragers and coastal fanners periodically came together for social and economic motives (Howey and O'Shea 2002; Milner and O'Shea 1998; O'Shea and Milner 2002; O'Shea 2003). The results of the recent archaeological work at the site continue to support this interpretation, with clear evidence for the long-distance travel to the site from widely dispersed portions of lower Michigan, the presence of substantial storage facilities, and the absence of any long-term habitation at the enclosures or their immediate vicinity (work discussed above). The monumental scale of the enclosures and the evidence for long-distance travel to the constructed
276 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006 ritual precinct highlights that this rite was an important, if not central, ritual activity among the region's Late Prehistoric peoples and similarly establishes the prehistoric roots for the regional aggregation rituals, which has been asserted by both Native oral tradition and archaeology (cf. McPherron 1967; Trigger 1976:85-90). While the prehistoric ritual system operated at fixed locations like the Missaukee Earthworks and at set times, a postcontact representation of such rites among the uprooted and displaced Native American populations would necessarily have operated differently. Thus, in precontact times, when the ritual supported economic and social integration between territorially distinct groups, people came to special places, places commemorated by monumental constructions that permanently altered the landscape (Johansen et al. 2004). In postcontact times when displacement and alienation from territories was greater, the special place would be created on site, where community members were present and when there was a need for the ritual benefits of the Midewiwin. The local creation of the ritual space was made possible through the medium of the scrolls. This transformation of Bear's travels as materialized in a monumental ritual precinct into a sketched rendition of that landscape on birch bark scrolls was accompanied by the addition of a second ritual story featuring Mi'nabo'zho as the servant delivering the Midewiwin. This story directly relates to the curing rituals associated with the modern Midewiwin societies. The discontinuous portrayal of these two accounts on the birch bark scrolls, often drawn at right angles to one another, has already been noted, as has the emphasis on small items that are ascribed healing powers in the second account (Hoffman 1 89 1 : 174; Figure 2). The theme in the second text is portability, not permanence and monumentality. While the prehistoric re-enactment of Bear's Journey required travel to the ritual site, the historic scrolls provide a portable blueprint that allowed ritual to be performed wherever the people were. A Midewiwin lodge could be constructed anywhere and without a great deal of organized labor or advanced preparation. Similarly, while the rite was shared widely, and priests (Mideg) from differing villages might be called upon to participate, the ritual tended to be community based. Rather than integrating widely dispersed and territorially distinct groups, the healing and integration were now focused on the existing aggregation of community members. Although the focus of the historic ritual evolved, Bear's Journey was retained, as were some of the earlier economic elements, which persist in the gifting practices and prescriptions of the modern ceremony. This developmental sequence makes sense given the stresses encountered by Native communities in the Upper Great Lakes following European contact. The early contact era in the Upper Great Lakes was a "world of fragments" where preexisting prehistoric systems had been "shattered" by brutal Iroquois warfare that had pushed refugee populations into the area and by large losses of life from epidemics of European-introduced diseases (White 1991:1). The stable territorial system of prehistory had broken down, and formerly dispersed populations were forced to concentrate in large villages in locations that were distant from fierce neighbors and facilitated participation in the fur trade with the French (White 1991:1 1). These villages were multiethnic centers, as refugees aggregated in these settlements. With previously separate, and in some cases enemy, groups having to live side by side as neighbors and kinspeople in these villages, prior understandings of traditional territorial systems were challenged and redefined, contributing to the ongoing disintegration of these systems (White 1991 : 14). Throughout the historic era Native populations were increasingly alienated from their former lands and constricted in their territorial claims and use, until the establishment of the reservations in the 1 850s, like Lac Vieux Desert, where one of the historic accounts of the Mide ceremony was collected (Hoffman 1891). All of these historical factors encouraged a shift from a territorially based rite of creation and renewal, seen in the prehistoric record at Missaukee, to the portable curing and healing ceremony seen in the historic and modern periods. Healing ceremonies became the focus of the Midewiwin ceremony as Native groups "attempted to deal with those forces that threatened their existence" (Angel 2002:74). Why was Bear's Journey retained in the Mide scrolls and ritual sketchings? Archaeology does provide some evidence for why Bear's Journey persists. First, given the monumental scale of earth
Howey and O'Shea] BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL 277 work construction, and the effort involved in travel to the site, the re-enactment of Bear's Journey was a big deal (if not THE big deal) to the prehistoric inhabitants, and as such the linking of the newer rites to this older practice would provide necessary legitimization to newer practices. This is clear in the historical development of the rite. Bear's Journey begins as a creation rite or re-enactment, then becomes the vehicle for bringing people specific items for the curing rite. Bear's Journey provides both the ideological justification and source of legitimacy for the curing practice. Assuming this historical trajectory of the Midewiwin is generally accurate, it reveals several points of significance for the study of ritual in general. Most obviously it suggests that ritual and traditions do, in fact, change over time, and that this pattern of change is firmly tied to the changing needs and challenges faced by the society at large. This case study demonstrates that ritual was a vital element used by communities to manipulate and cope with the material and social challenges of their world. This fact does not necessarily assert a causal priority to ritual or to any other aspect of culture, but rather it substantiates the notion that changes in the various components of society will inevitably result in compensatory changes elsewhere, and indicates that ritual practice is as susceptible to this process as any other material or organizational aspect of culture. A second observation, which again recalls evolutionary processes, is that although rituals can change, sometimes radically (cf. Aldenderfer 1993; Schachner 2001), the change is rarely something constructed wholly from new cloth. In the present case, what was essentially an account of creation was transformed and an elaborated healing ceremony was grafted on to it. Over time, the healing ceremony became the core of the ritual and the origin tale was progressively deemphasized and in some cases omitted. It seems likely that one reason for this pattern of incorporation and transformation is that the earlier practice provided a level of familiarity as well as authority to the new, evolving postcontact Midewiwin practices. This case suggests that archaeologists and ethnohistorians should consider the long-term history of ritual practices. This case highlights that while the meaning of rituals and symbols from differing ritual practices cannot be assumed to remain the same, physical elements themselves will frequently recur, as their maintenance helps naturalize and legitimize evolving ritual practices (cf. Arnold 2002; Buikstra and Charles 1999; Van Dyke 2004). Scroll to Monument: Implications for Prehistory If the linkage of Bear's Journey to the Missaukee Earthworks provides these important insights into the historic and modern practice of the Midewiwin, it must have even more important implications for our understanding of prehistory, or at least that would be the expectation. However, the ethnohistoric information regarding Bear's Journey did not transform our previous, archaeologically based interpretation of the ritual nature of Missaukee. Rather, this ethnohistoric information animated already recognized patterns and deepened our understanding of the ritual nature of the Missaukee Earthworks and the larger social setting that encouraged ritual aggregations at the site that was developed by archaeological work alone. This specific case bolsters the general assertion that "it is not necessary to know the precise symbolic meaning of a ritual, or the precise manner in which it was performed, to infer some of its social significance" (Fogelin 2005). With the linkage of the site to Bear's Journey, we now know the story that underlies the site and its construction. The accounts confirm that the design of the site, its orientation, its layout, and construction were done according to a single plan. We had proposed that the two enclosures at Missaukee were linked and contemporary based on the alignment of their entrances; with the addition of ethnohistoric information, it is now certain that the two enclosures formed part of the same ritual precinct. Each enclosure represents one of the two earths in Bear's travels. These ethnohistoric data confirm the idea that these earthworks were constructed together as pairs and they were used simultaneously in the same ritual practices. Prior to encountering the ethnohistoric correlates with Bear's travels, we had suspected that the boulder in the western enclosure was significant, but we did not know whether the boulder had been intentionally placed in the center of this enclosure or not. The information from Bear's Journey confirms that it is indeed an intentional placement and an important part of the ritual precinct at Missaukee. It was placed in the center of the western enclosure
278 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006 (20MA11) for a reason, to symbolize the enclosure's role as Our Earth, "what we are sitting on." While we had noted that the eastern enclosure (20MA12) was larger and that the ditch and embankment of this enclosure were more substantial in height and width, we did not know that this was an integral part of the ritual precinct. With the ethnohistoric information, we now understand that the eastern enclosure (20MA12) is larger since it represents the "Big Earth." Further, the ethnohistoric data have revealed that there may be more importance behind the actual location of the Missaukee Earthworks (20MA 11-12) than we had at first assumed. We had noted the unusual location of the enclosures on a high glacial esker, in a basin, and next to an unusual upland spring. The ethnohistoric data confirm that the spring and the high ground were vital, active elements of the larger ritual precinct, because they represent the Surrounding Ocean and Bear's lookout points. In addition to deepening our working model of Missaukee, the ethnohistoric data suggest some new directions for research. In particular, the location of G on Bear's travels merits future investigation (Figures 4 and 5). During Bear's travels with the mide pack, he saw G "and took it for a rocky island. Close up, he saw it was manito migis (the mystic shell). He climbed out on it and rolled about and finally stood up" (Landes 1968: 108). This statement suggests that a large boulder or important activity station may be located in a position between the two enclosures in a location similar to where G appears in Bear's travels. Further, the account mentions ritual paraphernalia that could potentially be recovered archeologically, such as migis shells and the mide pack itself. While all of these observations are useful, they deepen existing archaeological explanations, rather than provide new knowledge about the site or the ritual. The Mide ceremony was clearly in a state of flux when it was recorded historically, so while we can match elements "on the ground" with those on the scrolls and sketches, we cannot securely assume anything in particular about the specific ritual activities conducted at Missaukee based on these historical accounts. We were able to develop our archaeologically based ritual interpretation of the site because ritual is more than just intangible spiritual elements; that is, rituals entail on-the-ground practices (Brown 1997; Marcus 2005; Marcus and Flannery 1994, 2004; Renfrew 1994; Rappaport 1979). This was our starting point: ritual practices produce patterned physical remains, and, thus, the ritual practices at Missaukee left material remains that we were able to find, investigate, and understand (cf. Fogelin 2005). In fact, because ritual activity in human practices typically involves distinctive attributes such as formalism, traditionalism, invariance, rulegovernance, sacral symbolism, and performance (Bell 1997:138), the ritual practices at Missaukee left patterned material traces that were readily interpretable. Other Earthwork Enclosures in North Central Lower Michigan Before the UMMA excavations at the Missaukee Earthworks, a broad understanding of the earthwork enclosures and their role in the Late Prehistoric had been proposed (Milner and O' Shea 1998). The new archaeologically and ethnohistorically informed understanding of the Missaukee Earthworks as a coherent ritual precinct opens new avenues for future research on other earthworks in the cluster of late Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric earthworks in north central Michigan (Figure 1). In particular, the ethnohistoric evidence confirming that the two enclosures at Missaukee were intentionally coupled to form a single ritual precinct suggests to us that pairing could be a common aspect of the earthworks in north central Michigan. A "twinning" of the enclosures in north central Michigan had actually been suggested previously (Moll et al. 1958:5), and when one looks at these enclosures, all of them do seem to be paired. In some cases, like Missaukee and the Rifle River earthworks, each of the enclosures in the pair currently exists, and in other cases, like Mikado, Mosquito Creek, and Walters-Linsenman, one or both of the enclosures have been destroyed by modern land-clearing activities (Figure 1). In addition to the pairing, we found that like Missaukee, each pair of enclosures is associated with a water feature. We also found that the eastern enclosure was the larger of the pair at the Rifle River enclosures in Ogemaw County (Figure 1). Furthermore, a large boulder was associated with one enclosure at the Rifle River enclosures. Burial mounds have also been reported outside other northern enclosures (Moll et al. 1958:6). Since no
Howey and O'Shea] BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL 279 exterior work has been conducted at any of these northern enclosures, we cannot confirm the presence of "stations" at these sites, but this might be another major similarity. The research program at Missaukee may provide a template for future fieldwork with a focus on the space outside these other northern enclosures. While still preliminary, these similarities and the likelihood that future systematic work at these enclosures will uncover additional links suggest that these other enclosures served a similar function during the late Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric as the one we have modeled for the Missaukee Earthworks. The important periodic ritual aggregations entailing the reenactment of Bear's Journey could have occurred cyclically at these different earthwork sites. Perhaps different territorial groups in the Upper Great Lakes hosted different annual rounds of ritual aggregations at their respective earthwork. Or alternatively, perhaps these earthworks were used sequentially for ritual activities throughout the duration of the Late Prehistoric period. What is clear right now is that the correspondence between archaeological and ethnohistoric data at Missaukee and the similarities among these earthworks suggest that Missaukee is not an isolated phenomenon but was part of a larger regional network. This regional network was a response to the unique social and environmental context of the late Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric in northcentral Lower Michigan and the participants in this network crafted and maintained a ritual system focused on ceremonial monumental centers (Howey 2003; O'Shea 2003). Conclusions This case study provides an example of how archaeology can study ritual. It has shown how archaeological evidence can contribute to longstanding historical and ethnohistorical debates and that past ritual can be studied rigorously. Our case shows that the Bear's Journey portion of the Midewiwin rite has existed as a major focus of Native ritual activity since at least A.D. 1200. Obviously no historical document could demonstrate such an assertion. The archaeological record allowed us to establish time depth and this has altered the historical understanding of the Midewiwin ceremony and contributed new insights into its development during the contact era. By critically considering how our understanding of the past was altered when the meaning behind the Missaukee Earthworks was revealed by the Midewiwin ethnohistoric data, we found that such new knowledge, while certainly animating the archaeological finds, had surprisingly little impact on our broader understanding of the society in the past. These results speak generally to archaeology and the study of ritual in the past. In particular, this case suggests that archaeologists do not have to rely on ethnohistorical data to study ritual and that the oft-stated goal of finding the meaning of past rituals is overrated. This case shows that the archaeologist can study ritual and that ethnographic or historical evidence is not required to do so. Ritual practice is detectable and interpretable archaeologically because ritual practice itself is inherently structured and repetitive (Marcus 2005). Historical evidence is not required to identify the material and spatial patterning that are necessary residues and components of ritual practice (Marcus 2005). The ability to incorporate historical or ethnographic accounts can, however, render these patterns more animate and potent, providing details not available in the archaeological record alone. Ethnohistoric data can also serve to highlight directions for future research and reveal symbolism previously unconsidered. Finally, our case suggests that accessing the meaning of past ritual activity should not be the primary objective in studying past ritual. Rigorous archaeological investigations can contribute substantial knowledge about past ritual activities and this knowledge is available to the archaeologist even without "access to the meanings of these activities" (Whitley and Keyser 2003:391). Archaeology should contribute to the investigation of the long-term processes of ritual practice and change. Through such investigations archaeology can contribute fresh understandings of the social, economic, and ideological contexts of societies in the past. Acknowledgments. We would like to thank the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology for funding the field research at the Missaukee Earthworks. Dr. Bob Whallon and all of the students who dealt with the rain, cold, and mosquitoes to work on this project deserve special thanks. We are very grateful to Dr. Joyce Marcus for her extremely helpful
280 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006 comments on drafts of this paper. We'd like to express our gratitude to Melissa Clark for her help with the figures. Thanks also go to Kenny Sims who translated the abstract into Spanish. We also thank the editor Dr. Michael Jochim, Dr. Ed Jackson, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the research presented in this paper. We are, of course, responsible for all data and conclusions presented in this paper. References Cited Adler, Michael A., and Richard H. Wilshusen 1990 Large-Scale Integrative Facilities in Tribal Societies: Cross-Cultural and Southwestern US Examples. World Archaeology 22:133-146. Aldenderfer, Mark 1993 Ritual, Hierarchy, and Change in Foraging Societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12:1-40. Angel, Michael 2002 Preserving the Sacred: Historical Perspectives on the Ojibwa Midewiwin. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg. Arnold, Bettina 2002 A Landscape of Ancestors: The Space and Place of Death in Iron Age West-Central Europe. In The Space and Place of Death, edited by H. Silverman and D. Small, pp. 129-144. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 1 1 . Arlington, Virginia. Barrett, John C. 1 994 Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Beld, Scott 1993 Site 20IA37 (Arthursburg Hill Earthworks), Lyons Township, Ionia County, Michigan. In Lyons Township Archaeological Survey, edited by Scott Beld, pp. 3-82. Submitted to Office of the State Archaeologist, report No. S:92-3 13. Copies available from Office of the State Archaeologist, Lansing, Michigan. Bell, Catherine 1997 Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Benton-Banai, Edward 1988 The Mishomis Book The Voice of the Ojibway. Red School House Publishers, St. Paul. 2005 The Three Fires Midewiwin Lodge http://www.geocities.com/sundancer_gurl/Midewiwin.html, accessed February 15, 2004. Bernardini, Wesley 2004 Hopewell Geometric Earthworks : A Case Study in the Referential and Experiential Meaning of Monuments. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:331-356. Bradley, Richard 1998 The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. Routledge, London. Brown, James 1997 The Archaeology of Ancient Religion in the Eastern Woodlands. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:465^4-85. Buikstra, Jane, and Douglas Charles 1999 Centering the Ancestors: Cemeteries, Mounds, and Sacred Landscapes of the Ancient North American Midcontinent. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 201-228. Blackwell, Oxford. Cameron, Catherine M. 200 1 Pink chert, projectile points, and the Chacoan regional system. American Antiquity 66:79-101. Carruthers, Peter J. 1969 The Mikado Earthwork 20AA5. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Cleland, Charles 1 965 Copy of unpublished field notes from Michigan State University Field School at Missaukee Earthworks (20MA11-12) and Boven Earthworks. Copy on file, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Cornelius, Eldon, and Harold W. Moll 1961 The Walters-Linsenman Earthwork Site. The Totem Pole 44(9):l-9. Densmore, Frances 1 929 Chippewa Customs. Bulletin No. 86, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Dewdney, Selwyn 1 975 The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Dillehay, Tom D. 1 990 Mapuche Ceremonial Landscape, Social Recruitment and Resource Rights. World Archaeology 22:223-241. Dustin, Fred 1 932 Report on the Indian Earthworks in Ogemaw County, Michigan. Scientific Publications 1 . Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Fitting, James E. 1970 Archaeology of Michigan: A Guide to the Prehistory of the Great Lakes Region. Natural History Press, New York. Fogelin, Lars 2006 History, Ethnography, and Essentialism: The Archaeology of Religion and Ritual in South Asia. In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by E. Kyriakidis. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles, in press. Goulais, Bob 2000 Three Fires Midewiwin Lodge. Anishinabek News (November). Nipissing First Nation, Ontario. Greenman, Emerson F. 1926a Original field notes from the excavations in Missaukee County, Michigan, From July 1st to September 1 5th 1 925 and also July 1 st to October 20th, 1 926. Unpublished Manuscript on file, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1926b Michigan Mounds, With Special Reference to Two in Missaukee County. In Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, Vol. 7, pp. 1-9. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1 927 The Earthwork Enclosures of Michigan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Hawkes, Christopher 1 954 Wenner-Gren Foundation Supper Conference: Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropologist 56(2): 155-168. Hickerson, Harold 1962 Notes on the Post-Contact Origin of the Midewiwin. Ethnohistory 9(4):404-423. 1963 The Sociohistorical Significance of Two Chippewa Ceremonials. American Anthropologist 65(l):67-85. Hinsdale, Walter B. 1931 Archaeological Atlas of Michigan. Michigan Handbook Series No. 4. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Howey and O'Shea] BEAR'S JOURNEY AND THE STUDY OF RITUAL 281 Hoffman, William J. 1 89 1 The Midewiwin or "Grand Medicine Society" of the Ojibwa. In 7th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1885-1886, pp. 143-300. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. Howey, Meghan L. 2003 The View from Inside: The Impact of New Research at the Cut River Mounds Site (20RO1), Houghton Lake, MI. Paper presented at the 49th Midwest Archaeological Conference, Milwaukee. Howey, Meghan L., and John M. O'Shea 2002 Thinking Outside the Circle: New Research at Michigan's Missaukee Earthworks. Paper presented at the 48th Midwest Archaeological Conference, Columbus. 2004 Assessing Ritual Practices: A Stylistic Analysis of Ceramics from a Series of Earthworks in North Central Lower Michigan. Manuscript on file, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Jackson, H. Edwin 1991 The Trade Fair in Hunter-Gatherer Interaction: The Role of Intersocietal Trade in the Evolution of Poverty Point Culture. In Between Bands and States, edited by Susan Gregg, pp. 265-286. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 9. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Johansen, Kasper Lambert, Steffen Terp Laursen, and Mads Kahler Hoist 2004 Spatial Patterns of social organization in the Early Bronze Age of South Scandinavia. Journal of Anthropological A rchaeology 23:3 3-5 5 . Johansen, Peter G. 2004 Landscape, Monumental Architecture, and Ritual: A Reconsideration of the South Indian Ashmounds. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:309-330. Judge, W. James 1 989 Chaco Canyon-San Juan Basin. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, edited by Linda Cordell and George Gumerman, pp. 209-262. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. Kidder, Homer 1 994 [ 1 9 1 0] Ojibwa Narratives: Of Charles and Charlotte Kawbawgam and Jacques Le Pique, 1893-1895, edited by Arthur P. Bourgeois. Wayne State University Press, Detroit. Kinietz, W Vernon 1947 Chippewa Village: The Story of Katikitegon. Bulletin 25, Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills. Landes, Ruth 1968 Ojibwa Religion and the Midewiwin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Malville, J. McKim, and Nancy J. Malville 2001 Pilgrimage and Periodic Festivals as Processes of Social Integration in Chaco Canyon. Kiva 66:327-344. Marcus, Joyce 2006 Rethinking Ritual. In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by E. Kyriakidis, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles, in press. Marcus, Joyce, and Kent Flannery 1 994 Ancient Zapotec Ritual and Religion: An Application of the Direct Historical Approach. In Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, edited by Colin Renfrew and Ezra Zubrow, pp. 55-74. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2004 The Coevolution of Ritual and Society: New C14 Dates from Ancient Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101:18257-18261. Marshall, James 1990 Map of the Missaukee Earthworks (20MA11-12). Copy on file, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. McPherron, Alan 1 967 The Juntunen Site and The Late Woodland Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area. Anthropological Papers No. 29. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Milner, Claire McHale, and John M. O Shea 1998 The Socioeconomic Role of Late Woodland Enclosures in Northern Lower Michigan. In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Robert Mainfort and Lynne P. Sullivan, pp. 181-201. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Moll, Harold W, Norman G. Moll, and Eldon S. Cornelius 1958 Earthwork Enclosures in Ogemaw, Missaukee, and Alcona Counties. The Totem Pole 41(3): 1-19. O'Shea, John M. 2003 Inland Foragers and the Adoption of Maize Agriculture in the Upper Great Lakes of North America. Before Farming: The Archaeology of Old-World HunterGatherers 2(3): 1-21 . O'Shea, John M., and Claire McHale Milner 2002 Material Indicators of Territory, Identity, and Interaction in a Prehistoric Tribal System. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited by W. Parkinson, pp. 220-226. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. Rappaport, Roy A. 1979 Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. North Atlantic Books, Richmond, California. Renfrew, Colin 1 994 The Archaeology of Religion. In Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, edited by Colin Renfrew and Ezra Zubrow, pp. 47-54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2001 Production and Consumption in a Sacred Economy: The Material Correlates of High Devotional Expression at Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity 66:14-25. Schachner, Gregson 2001 Ritual Control and Transformation in Middle-Range Societies: An Example from the American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:168-194. Schlesier, Karl 1990 Rethinking the Midewiwin and the Plains Ceremonial Called the Sun Dance. Plains Anthropologist 35: 1-27. Spielmann, Katherine 2002 Feasting, Craft-Specialization and the Ritual Mode of Production in Small-Scale Societies. American Anthropologist 104:195-207 . Spindler, Louise S. 1978 Menominee. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 708-724. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Thwaites, Rueben G. (editor) 1896-1901 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France 1610-1791. vol. 59, Section 3rd:100-107. Burrows Brothers, Cleveland. Toll, H. Wolcott 200 1 Making and Breaking Pots in the Chaco world. American Antiquity 66:56-78. Trigger, Bruce 1976 The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal. Van Dyke, Ruth 2004 Memory, Meaning, and Masonry: The Late Bonito
282 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 2, 2006] Chacoan Landscape. American Antiquity 69:41 3^4-3 1 . Warren, William W. 1 984 [ 1 885] History of the Ojibway People. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul. White, Richard 1 99 1 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815. Cambridge University Press, New York. Whitley, David S., and James D. Keyser 2003 Faith in the Past: Debating an Archaeology of Religion. Antiquity 77:385-393. Notes 1 . In his work in the Leech Lake and Red Lake areas of Minnesota in the 1830s and 1840s, Warren recorded a Mi'nabo'zho origin narrative (Warren 1984 ). Hoffman, working at the Red Lake and White Earth reservations in Minnesota in 1887, 1888, and 1889, heard both accounts. Landes (1968) did ethnographic work in the summer of 1932 and 1933 at two Ojibwa communities with two primary informants. She worked with Mrs. Wilson at the Manitou Reserve near Emo, Ontario and Will Rogers or Hole-in-the Sky at Red Lake reservation near Bemjim, Minnesota. She recorded the Bear version of the Midewiwin origin story from Will Rogers or Hole-in-the Sky at Red Lake reservation. Dewdney (1975) worked with informant Jim Red Sky at Shoal Lake Reserve in the Lake-of-the-Woods region between 1960 and 1969. He recorded a Bear version of the Midewiwin origin story almost identical to the one recounted to Landes by Will Rogers or Hole-in-the Sky at Red Lake reservation in the early 1930's (Dewdney 1975:23-25). Kinietz (1947) did his work in 1939 and 1940 at Katikitegon village at Lac Vieux Desert where he was told the Mi'nabo'zho origin account. Received February 28, 2005; Revised August 2, 2005; Accepted August 15, 2005.
EXCAVATIONS AT THE CITRUS RIDGE COMPONENT OF PINELAND SITE COMPLEX By MELISSA AYVAZ A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014
Â© 2014 Melissa Ayvaz
For my family
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project could not have been completed without the support of many people . I would like to thank my friends and family, especially my mom and Aunt Marty & Uncle Heinz, for their encouragement during my thesis research. I woul d also like to thank Ann S. Cordell, Susan D. deFrance, Jennifer Haney, Sue Ellen Hunter, William H. Marquardt, Andrea Palmiotto, the staff and volunteers at the Randell Resear ch Center ( especially Cindy Bear, Polly Eldred, Linda Heffner, Margie Nanney , La and Gary Vinson ) , Gypsy Price, Irvy Quitmyer, David Reed, Donna L. Ruhl , Kenneth J. Sassaman, Sylvia Scudder, Victor D. Thompson, Karen J. Walker, Allysha P. Winburn, and Michael Wylde .
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 2 CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ................................ .......... 14 3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH IN THE SOUTH PASTURE AREA ................................ .. 21 4 EXCAVATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS ................................ ........................... 28 Community Participation ................................ ................................ ......................... 28 Excavation Methods ................................ ................................ ............................... 29 Bioarchaeo logical Excavation Methods ................................ ................................ .. 31 Artifact Analysis Methods ................................ ................................ ........................ 3 3 Zooarchaeological Excavation and Analysis Methods ................................ ............ 34 5 STRATIGRAPHY AND RADIOCARBON DATING ................................ ................. 38 6 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 50 Results of Bioarchaeological Analysis ................................ ................................ .... 50 Results of Artifact Analysis ................................ ................................ ..................... 51 Results of Zooarchaeological Analysis ................................ ................................ ... 56 7 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATIONS ................................ .............................. 65 8 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 74 APPENDIX A PROPOSAL FOR FIELDWORK SUBMITTED TO THE RANDELL RESEARCH CENTER RESEARCH AND COLLECTIONS COMMITTEE ................................ ... 76 B CATALOG FOR FLMNH ACCESSION ANT 2011 3 PINELAND (8LL33) CITRUS RIDGE, EXCAVATIONS N 3 AND N 4 ................................ ..................... 79 C ................................ . 94
6 D EXCAVATI ON FORMS FOR PROVENIENCES CONTAINING HUMAN BONE .. 105 E SUPPLEMENTAL ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL TABLES ................................ ......... 109 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 120 BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 124
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Bulk samples collected from Excavation N 4, approximate volumes derived from spatial information recorded on field forms, all samples water screened through 1/4 inch, 1/8 inch, and 1/16 inch mesh. ................................ ................. 37 5 1 Radiocarbon dates from Citrus Ridge, Excavations N 1, N 3, and N 4. ............. 44 6 1 Invertebrate and v ertebrate faunal remains identified from Stratum III, proveniences N 4 88.5, 1/8 inch screen and N 4 88.5/10, 1/4 inch screen. Approximate total volume 43.75 L. ................................ ................................ ..... 60 6 2 Invertebrate and vertebrate faunal remains identified from Stratum V, proveniences N 4 90, 1/8 inch screen and N 4 90 1, 1/4 inch screen. Approximate total volume 43 L. ................................ ................................ .......... 62 A 1 Catalog for FLMNH Accession ANT 2011 3, Pineland (8LL33) Citrus Ridge, Excavations N 3 and N 4. ................................ ................................ ................... 79 C 1 ANT 2011 3 human remains inventory and provenience data. ........................... 95 E 1 Pineland (8LL33) South Pasture, Trench 11A, Stratum 4, 3.5 4.0 horizontal. Invertebrate and vertebrate faunal remains identified from samples ANT 92 11 65/9, 75 80 cmbs, 1/4 inch screen, and ANT 92 11 65/11, 85 90 cmbs, 1/4 inch and 1/16 inch screens. ................................ ........ 109 E 2 Pineland (8LL33) Citrus Ridge, Excavation N 4, Stratum III. Identified faunal remains from the following proveniences and screen sizes: N 4 88 2, 1/8 inch; N 4 88.5, 1/8 inch; and N 4 88.5/10, 1/4 inch. ................................ ... 112 E 3 Pineland (8LL33) Citru s Ridge, Excavation N 4, Stratum IV. Identified faunal remains from the following proveniences and screen sizes: N 4 89, 1/8 inch; and N 4 89.5, 1/8 inch. ................................ ................................ ...... 114 E 4 Pineland (8LL33) Citrus Ridge, Excavation N 4, Stratum V. Identified faunal remains from the following proveniences and screen sizes: N 4 89 1, 1/4 inch; N 4 90, 1/8 inch; and N 4 90 1, 1/4 inch. ................................ ................ 115 E 5 Pineland (8LL33) Citrus Ridge, Excavation N 4, Stratum VII. Identified faunal remains from the following provenience and screen size: N 4 91.5, 1/8 inch. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 118
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Location of Pineland Site Complex in southwest Florida (reprinted from Marquardt, William H. 2013. The Pineland Site Complex: Theoretical and Cultural Contexts. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, p. 2, Figure 1). ................................ ................................ ......... 17 2 2 Map of the Pineland Site Complex showing locations of sites, site components, and excavations (1988 1995). Drawn in 1.5 m contour intervals by C. Torrence and S.E. Hunter (reprinted from Walker and Marquardt 2013. Excavations and Chronostratigraphy at the Pineland Site Complex, 1988 1995. In The Archaeology of Pine land: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, p.56, Figure 3). ................................ ................................ ...................... 18 2 3 Hypothesized reconstruction of the Pineland Site Complex circa A.D. 1700 histories, and archaeological excavations (reprinted from Marquardt and Wa lker 2013. The Pineland Site Complex: An Environmental and Cultural History. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, p. 845, Figure 17). ................................ ................................ ................. 19 2 4 Elevation map of Pineland Site Complex derived from LiDAR data (reprinted from Thompson et al. 2014. A Remote Sensing Perspective on Shoreline Modification, Canal Construction, and Household Trajectories at Pineland Archaeological Prospection 21, p. 7, Figure 3A). ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 20 3 1 Photograph of articulated ribbed mussels (RM) and surfclam (SC) shells within Stratum 4 of Trench 11A (reprinted from Walker and Marquardt 2013. Excavations and Chronostratigraphy at the Pineland Site Complex, 1988 1995. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, p. 129, Figure 68). ................................ ................................ ................. 25 3 2 Citrus Ridge soil profile, horizontal scale is compressed (reprinted from Scudder 2013. Soils and Landscapes: Archaeopedology at Pineland. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, p. 234, Figure 6). ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 26
9 3 3 Close up of Pineland South Pasture area showing locations of previous research including the two 1990 1 x 1 m units N 1 (S616/E800) and N 2 (S634/E821) (map created by A. Palmiotto, used with permission). ................... 27 5 1 Excavation N 1 (S616 E800) East and South Profiles (Walker and Marquardt 2013. Excavations and Chronostratigraphy at the Pineland Site Complex, 1988 1995. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest F lorida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by W. H. Marquardt and K. J. Walker, p. 135, Figure 72). ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 45 5 2 Excavation N 4 West and North Profile Drawings. Numbers on left show depth below the master site datum in the Pineland Elevation System (described in Walker and Marquardt 2013:53 59), Roman numerals indicate identified strata, filled triangles indicate location of extracted sedim ent samples, and sequential Arabic numbers indicate plotted specimens (drawing by M. Ayvaz and S.E. Hunter). ................................ ............................. 46 5 3 Excavation N 4 West Profile Photograph (photo by M. Ayvaz). .......................... 47 5 4 Excavation N 4 North Profile Photograph (photo by M. Ayvaz). ......................... 48 5 5 Excavation N 3 North and East Profile Drawings. Numbers on the right indicate depth (cm) below the unit datum (drawing by M. Ayvaz and S. E. Hunter). ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 49 5 6 Excavation N 3 North Profile Photograph; note sea turtle plastron in middle of image (photo by M. Ayvaz). ................................ ................................ ................ 49 C 1 Left foot, with possible assignment of phalanges. Scale is in cm. ..................... 96 C 2 Right foot, with possible assignment of phalanges. Scale is in cm. ................... 96 C 3 Left fifth metatarsal, with evidence of healed periostitis (arrow). Scale is in cm. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 98 C 4 The shaft of an unidentified metatarsal, showing evidence of healed periostitis (arrow). Scale is in cm. ................................ ................................ ...... 98 D 1 Excavation form for N 3 83.5. ................................ ................................ ........... 105 D 2 Excavation form for N 3 84. ................................ ................................ .............. 106 D 3 Excavation form for N 3 84, continued. ................................ ............................ 107 D 4 Excavation form for N 3 84.5. ................................ ................................ ........... 108
10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts EXCAVATIONS AT THE CITRUS RIDGE COMPONENT OF PINELAND SITE COMPLEX By Melissa Ayvaz December 2014 Chair: William H. Marquardt Major: Anthropology Archaeological excavations were conducted at the Citrus Ridge component of Pineland Site Complex in 2011 to address the hypothesis that a major hurricane impacted the site and its Native American inhabitants during the 4 th Century A.D. This thesis situates the project within cultural and environmental contexts and discusses pr evious research relevant to the current study. The complexity of deposits encountered, along with an unexpected discovery in the uppermost strata, led the project t o evolve into a more generalized, multi temporal look at the historical ecology of Citrus Ridge. Based on the analysis of stratification, artifacts, faunal assemblages, and radiocarbon dates, Citrus Ridge is determined to be a partly anthropogenic and part ly natural landform containing cultural deposits that range from A.D. 160 to A.D. 1260.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Historical ecology is the guiding framework for this study. B uilding upon the principle that environment exist in a dialectical, mutually constitutive relation with one another. Together, culture and environment form a totality that can be studied regionally and throu empirical, and holistic study of human societies in their dynamic environmental a rdt 2013:5 ). Accordingly, interdisciplinary research was conducted to frame this study. The initial aim of this project was to explore the idea that a hurricane impacted and was recor ded in the stratigraphic archive of archaeologica l deposits in coastal southwest The results of this study contribute to an archaeological archive of cultural and environmental contexts at the Pineland Site Complex. The pr oposal to the members of the Randell Research Center Research & Collections Committee in 2011 prior to conducting fieldwork at Pineland described the project as narrow in scope. While the test units excavated were indeed small, the concepts to be investiga ted were anything but narrow. Two units were excavated on the high point of Citrus Ridge. Excavation N 3 was terminated due to the discovery of articulated human remains. Excavation N 4 was placed adjacent to Excavation N 3. No human remains were encounter ed and this unit was excavated to culturally sterile deposits at 125 cm below surface. Ten strata were identified and 5 radiocarbon dates were collected, yielding a date range of A.D. 160 to A.D. 1260. Faunal assemblages identified from shell midden deposi ts dating from A.D. 330 450 indicate taxa with an overall higher salinity and deeper water range than that of present day Pine Island
12 Sound and support the Roman Warm Period climatic contexts described for this temporal period (Walker 2013 ; M arquardt and Walker 2013 ) . Tropical cyclones, known as hurricanes when formed in the Atlantic Ocean and phenomena, and when they make landfall, are the most deadly and co stly to people (El sner and Kara 1999). Intense wind, rain, and storm surges (when landfall is made) are measurable factors associated with these extreme weather events. Even with modern instruments recording a wealth of real time data, the massive scale of tropical cyclones makes it a challenge to forecast these variables (Elsner and Kara 1999). Regular scouring and reworking by tides, wind , and rain, combined with local variability in coastal geography and bathymetry, can quickly blur or completely erase the physical eviden ce of paleo storms in coastal sediments, even those produced by extreme weather events ( Liu 2004 ). For this reason, efforts to trace the occurrence of past storm events require careful selection of natural laboratories that fit particular criteria and miti gate these potentially confounding factors. Paleotempestology is the field of study concerned with understanding prehistoric storms, usually past tropical cyclones ( Jessen et al. 2008; Murnane and Liu 2004; Nott 2004 ). Paleotempestologists use proxy varia bles in natural sediment archives to extend the record of hurricanes and typhoons farther back in time than that covered by modern instruments and historic al documents. Merging aspects of paleolimnology, historical documents, climatology, archaeology, his tory, sedimentology, pedology, coastal hydrology, chemistry , and biology, paleotempestology is intrinsically inter disciplinary and relies on multiple line s of evidence. Paleotempestologists aim to create a long term
13 record of storms to evaluate past varia tions in extreme weather phenomena, within the context of broader global paleo climate conditions. For archaeologists, the recognition of even a single storm event is of interest in establishing environmental and cultural contexts. Because archaeologists are concerned primarily with behaviors of human beings, our field laboratories are both culturally and naturally constituted. Although the initial aim of this project involved investigating evidence for a major hurricane, the complexity of deposits encount ered, along with an unexpected discovery in the uppermost strata, inescapably led the project to evolve into a more generalized, multi temporal look at the historical ecology of Citrus Ridge.
14 CHAPTER 2 CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND The Pineland S ite Complex (hereafter, Pineland) is located in coastal southwest Florida (Figure 2 1) . The site is situated on the northwest coast of Pine Island, directly abutting and overlooking the broad and shallow Pine Island Sound. Protected from the Gulf of Mexico to the west by barrier islands and fed by the freshwater discharge from the Myakka, Peace, and Caloosahatchee rivers, the estuarine habitat is a sensitive gauge of salinity and temperature thresholds for the many plant and animal species residing in its p rotected waters. Its Native American inhabitants, known as the Calusa at the time of European contact, lived off of these productive waters since at least 5 , 000 years ago (Marqua rdt 1992). Investigators Willia m H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker have realiz ed the potential for recovery of environmental information in concert with cultural information . Extensive archaeological testing at Pineland coupled with integration of documentary evidence has shown that the site was the town of Tampa at the time of Span ish contact . Second in size and influence only to the Calusa capit a l of Mound Key, Pi neland was occupied for nearly 1,700 years from ca. A. D. 50 to 1710 (Marquardt and Walker ed. 2013) . This region , known archaeologically as the Caloosahatchee culture area , has been the subject of archaeological investigations for over a century. When Frank Hamilton Cushing first visited the area we now know as Pineland in 189 5 and 1896 , he remarked on and documented its extensive series of mounds and water features (Fi gure s 2 2 and 2 3) . Bisecting the two large mound complexes, a central canal (8LL34) connected the site to the more protected waters to the east of Pine Island. The
15 construction of this monumental water feature allowed the Calusa to pass freely to the rive rine networks of the interior Florida mainland by circumventing the dangerous high energy wa ters to the north of the island (Marquardt and Walker 2012). A series of smaller water features were distributed throughout the site complex. One smaller canal dive rged from the central canal, passin g to the north of the partly natural and partly anthropogenic land feature known as Citrus Ridge and surrounding the site s only known bu rial context, Smith Mound (8LL36). The people liv ing at the site were not static en tities on the landscape over this duration, as temporal and spatial distributions of site use patterning have shown (Marquardt and Walker 2013 ). The focus of this study takes place relatively early in the ogical sequence. Before the mounds an d wate r features existed, early inhabitants lived along shifting shoreline s , making episodic use of the ever changing, but always relatively e levated topography of the linear landforms now known as Citrus Ridge and Surf Clam Ridge . The Citrus Ri dge is roughly 200 meters in length and is oriented northwest to southeast parallel to the shoreline, reaching from 1.5 to 2.5 meters above mean sea level along its central summit. Along with the more subtle Su rf Clam Ridge, the two are t he only elevated f eature s in the otherwise low lying area known as the South Pasture (Figures 2 2 and 2 4). The research reported in this thesis is focused on the Citrus Ridge feature. The ridge has both natural and anthropogenic aspects. It has been of interest to visiting geologists, including Rhodes Fairbridge, Frank Stapor, and Thomas Missimer, who all noted that the topography of the ridge is reminiscent of a beach ridge geomorphologic feature (Walker et al. 1995). Their observations, however, were based solely on surface
16 topography and were made prior to archaeological study. By integrating studies of chronostratigraphy (Cordell 2013; Walker and Marquardt 2013 ), pedoarchaeology (Scudder 2013), and auger survey (Godw in 2013), current knowledge paints a far more complex composition (Marquardt and Walker 2013 ). There has been a question of when the feature originated (Walker and Marquardt 2 013: 134). Based on excavations and assessments of charred fuel wood assemblages, inhabitants cleared the shoreline mangrove vegetation (Marquardt and Walker 2013: 807) . Clearing of the mangroves would have improved visibility of and accessibility to the sound and increased breeze flow, thus making it a more comfortable place to live. However, the loss of protective mangrove habitat would have rendered the low lying, resulting cultural landscape far more susceptible to the damaging effects of winds and storm surge that are associated with high intensity hurricanes , thus setting the stage for recording both environmental and cultural events/episodes .
17 Figure 2 1. Location of Pineland Site Complex in southwest Fl orida ( reprinted from Marquardt , William H. 2013 . The Pineland Site Complex: Theoretical an d Cultural Contexts. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, p. 2, Figure 1 ).
18 Figure 2 2. Map of t he Pineland Site Complex showing locations o f sites, site components, and excavations (1988 1995). Drawn in 1.5 m contour intervals by C. Torrence and S.E. Hunter ( reprinted from Walker and Marquardt 2013 . Excavations and Chronostratigraphy at the Pineland Site Complex, 1988 1995. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, p.56, Figure 3).
19 Figure 2 3. Hypothesized r econstruction of the Pineland Site Complex circa A.D. 1700 based on topographic maps, F. H. Cushing sketches and descriptions, oral histories, and archaeological excavations ( reprinted from Marquardt and Walker 2013 . The Pineland Site Complex: An Environmental an d Cultural History. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by W illiam H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, p. 845, Figure 17 ).
20 Figure 2 4. Elevation map of Pineland Site Complex derived from LiDAR data ( reprinted from Thompson et al . 2014 . A Remote Sensing Perspective on Shoreli ne Modification, Canal Construction, and Household Trajectories at Pineland Archaeological Prospection 21, p. 7, Figure 3A ).
21 CHAPTER 3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH IN THE SOUTH PASTURE AREA Walker observed indications o f a hurricane within archaeological strata during excavations in the South Pas ture area of the site in 1992 (Walker and Marquardt 2013: 125 130) . Trench 11A, a 25 meter long trench was excavated perpendicular to Citrus and Surf Clam ridges (Walker and Marquardt 2013:Figure 67 ) . Sandwiched within the stratigraphic layers was a thin, sandy lens containing an abundance of high salinity faunal remains that stood out in stark contrast to the assemblages typical of the site complex . Extending throug hout the entire tre nch, Stratum 8 was unique in its concentration of pen shell ( Atrina sp.) , green sea urchin ( Lytechinus variegatus ) , green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) bones , and Atlantic surf clam shells ( Spissula solidissima ) many of which were articulated (Figure 3 1) . A pair of these articulated surf clams (FLMNH catalog number ANT 92 11 67/2, Beta 60769) returned a 2 sigma calibrated radiocarbon date range of A.D. 2 90 580 . The presence of articulated bivalves is not unique within coastal zooarchaeological midden assembla ges; however, it is the abundance in relation to the broad horizontal distribution of these remains in such a discrete layer that makes them so noteworthy. These fauna are all associated with a high salinity, deeper water, surf habitat, presumably swept i n from the barrier islands, west of Pineland, carried across the sou nd in a storm surge. Pen shells and other of these fauna are known to wash ashore in great numbers after storms (Edic 1996: 53). Additionally, several bottle nose dolphin vertebrae were reco vered from another area of the site dating to the same time and stratigraphic seque nce (Walker and Marquardt 2013: 103 105). It is only through comparison with the extensive supply of accumulated data from analysis of the multiple
22 components of the site tha t such anomalies can be recognized. The field of paleotempestology relies on such anomalous stratigraphic signatures to document storms in the past. This stratum has thus been referred to as a storm surge lens. The interpretation of the stratum above the storm surge lens has been problematic. Overl ying the lens is a deposit l argely composed of sand, Stratum 4 , which seems t o contain elements of the storm surge as well as som e cultural midden constituents. Abundant southern marshclams ( Polymesoda maritima ) and ribbed mussels ( Geukensia demisssa ) , both inhabitants of black mangrove forests, were observed in addition to more typical midden shells and artifacts . Recognizing the need for a more detailed understanding of the strat Trench 11A in 1995 and placed a small 50 x 50 cm column sample adjacent to the excavated trench for future zooarchaeological analysis. Illustrated in Figure 67, the column sample was taken at the 3.5 4.0 meter horizontal mark (Walker and Marquardt 2013: 128) ; it was extracted in 5 cm increments from the surface to a depth of 100 cm below surface (FLMNH catalog #s ANT 92 11 65/1 through 92 11 65/13). One possible interpretation of Stratum 4 is that it might first have been transported as backwash, cut from the Citrus Ridge , and subsequently developed into a black mangrove wetland . Two 1990 1 x 1 meter test pits at Citrus Ridge document at least two strata consisting of shell midden that serve as possible candidates for the c ultural debris contained in s hells from the lower of these two middens returned a 2 sigma cal radiocarbon date range of A.D. 220 49 0, overlapping with the date of A.D. 290 580 from the storm surge lens.
23 The testing of the storm surge hypothesis was the primary reason to return to Citrus Ridge, where only minimal excavations had been conducted previously. These earlier studies were confined to an augering transect, two 1 x 1 m test pits excavated at 10 cm intervals, and a soil transect (Figure 3 2). Pedoarchaeologist Sylvia Scudder of the Florida Museum of Natural History conducted the soils analysis (Scudder 2013). Scudder found that th e ridge was comprised in large part of fine sands, aeolian in origin (Scudder 2013 :239) . The two uppermost s and stratum, her A horizon, was not typical of unmodified A horizons elsewhere. Based on soil chemistry and other characteristics, Scudder suggested that Stratum 1 was piled atop the lower sequence of strata. She further suggested that the sand resulted from the construction of the water feature observed by Cushing, located in the area immediately to the north of Citrus Ridge. When planning this project, I contacted Scudder, who was enthusiastic about my returning to an area of the site that she still considered a mystery. While my targeted goal was to explore the storm surge hypothesis, unexpected findings in the uppermost strata allowed for a viable explanation to the m ystery of the upper sandy stratum . Because o ne possible origi n for have be en storm backwash cut from the Citrus Ridge, faunal samples from this context were analyzed over the course of this project to better characterize it s constituents and for comparison with the results of analyzed samples from the lower deposits of Citrus Ridge . Unfortunately , no bulk samples had been taken from the 1990 work . I opened a small excavation located near both Excavation N 1 (S618 E800) , the northern most of the 1990 test units at Citrus Ridge , soil transect (see Scudder 2013:Figure 5 for transect location) with the primary objective to sample and analyze
24 faunal samples from the Citrus Ridge deposits for comparison with the analyzed fauna Stratum 4 samples. My ove rarching goal was to compare the zooarchaeological assemblages and stratigraphic profiles of all these areas to determine whether they contain evidence related to one or more storm surge deposit(s).
25 Figure 3 1. P hotograph of articulated ribbed mussel s (RM) and surfclam (SC) shells within Stratum 4 of Trench 11A ( reprinted from Walker and Marquardt 2013. Excavations and Chronostratigraphy at the Pinel and Site Complex, 1988 1995. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by W illiam H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, p. 129, Figure 68 ).
26 Figure 3 2. Citrus Ridge soil profile, horizontal sca le is compressed ( reprinted from Scudder 2013. Soils and Landscapes: Archaeop edology at Pineland. I n The Archaeolo gy of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by W illiam H. Marquardt and K aren J. Walker, p. 234, Figure 6) .
27 Figure 3 3 . Close up of Pineland South Pasture area showing locations of previous research including the two 1990 1 x 1 m units N 1 (S616/E800) and N 2 (S634/E821) (m ap created by A. Palmiotto , used with permission ) .
28 C HAPTER 4 EXCAVATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS Community Participation Marquardt and Walker have fostered an awareness and appreciati on of Native American heritage and history with their long term vision for the stewards hip of Pineland guiding principle throughout the course of the Citrus Ridge project both durin g excavation and analysis. The new interpreted Calusa Heritage Trail, where people visited the site daily. Interacting with visitors while excavating was not only educational but also enjoyable. Visitors to the site included local community members, government officials, donors, instructors, seasonal residents, national and international tourists, people of all ages from children to elderly, visually impaired, boy scouts, archaeologists, and other visiting scien tists. Involvement of the community was also a major component of the project planning. Members of the local community are enthusiastic supporters of archaeology, very curious about the cultural and environmental history of the region, and eager to partic ipate in new discoveries. Cindy Bear, RRC Coordinator of Programs and Services, scheduled and synchronized 15 project volunteers whose contribution to the study was invaluable. This volunteer workforce consisted of 12 local community members and 3 archaeol ogy graduate students: Jennifer Haney (Penn State), Andrea Palmiotto (UF), and Michael Wylde (UF). Volunteers assisted in excavation by classifying materials recovered from the 1/8 inch mesh screen into broad categories, collecting bulk samples, and helping open and secure the test units daily. The weekly schedule consisted of 4 field days and 1
29 laborat maintains a taxonomically organized, regionally representative zoological comparative collection as well as a regional ceramic comparative collection. Volunteers were familiarized with the use of comparative collections, trained in material identification techniques, and then they assisted in the preliminary sorting of faunal samples from Trench 11A. Volunteers also assisted in the bagging of processed bulk samples. All materials re covered during excavation were assigned FLMNH catalog numbers on these days. Excavation Methods Previous research at Citrus Ridge was conducted mainly to assess the age and character of the ridge feature in a broad s ense. Two 1 x 1 meter test pits (S616 E8 00 and S618 E821) were e xcavated in 1990 ( Walker and Marquardt 2013: 134 136 ). In May of 2011 Drs. Marquardt and Walker relocated the northernmost of the 1990 1 x 1 meter excavation units (S616 E800) on Citrus Ridge. No operation designations were assigned to the two 1 x 1 meter test pits that were excavated at Citrus Ridge in 1990. The decision to retroactively assign the Citrus Ridge component an operation designation to fit with the Pineland provenience convention was made by Walker, Marquardt, and Ayvaz prior to the 2011 excavation. The next available alphabetic label was Operation N, following Operation M at Browns Complex Mound 5 (Wylde 2013). The excavation units referred to by grid coordinates of S616 E800 and S618 E821 have thus been assigned Excavat ion N 1 and Excavation N 2, respectively. Notations on documents curated at the FLMNH reflecting these designations are made in brackets to denote this recent, retroactive change.
30 An initial 1 x 2 meter excavation unit oriented north to south was placed directly south of Excavation N 1. This 1 x 2 meter unit located at grid coordinates S619 E800 was designated Excavation N 3. The intent was to use the stratigraphic profiles of Excavation N 1 to guide and anticipate midden deposits targeted for collection and analysis. The unexpected discovery of human remains in Excavation N 3 necessitated the opening of Excavation N 4, an additional 1 x 1 meter unit located at S618 E799. The excavation strategy was designed to capture subtle stratigraphic signatures. To this end, the units were excavated in arbitrary 5 cm levels. Becau se the excavations were small, three dime n sional mapping of individual specimens was used extensively. In addition to individually mapping, or plotting, all noteworthy artifacts including po ttery rim sherds individual bone specimens and notable sediment samples were also mapped when recognized in situ . All sediments recovered from the general 5 cm levels were screened through 1/8 inch mesh and sorted in the field by trained volunteers. Materials recovered and retained were classified into the following categories: pottery, shell artifacts, bone artifacts, stone artifacts, historic al artifacts, shell, bone, charred plant, and concretions. Breaking from previous conventions at the Pineland Site Complex, all shell was retained from Excavations N 3 and N 4. Bulk samples were also strategically collected for zooarchaeological analysis. Excavation forms were completed for each 5 cm level. These forms include a plan view sketch of the unit, coo rdinates of individually mapped specimens, dimensions of bulk samples collected, artifact types, listing and relative abundance of faunal sp ecies especially invertebrates and observations regarding the depositional
31 sediments and matrix. Photographs were ta ken of each completed level. Profile drawings and final photographs from all cardinal directions were completed at the end of the excavations. Representative sediment samples were collected from each of the observed strata, artifacts were collected from pr ofiles, and shell specimens were collected for radiocarbon analysis. Both excavation units were properly back filled and documented upon completion of the project. Realizing the importance of long term curation for archaeological collections, care was ta ken to catalog all samples in the field. An accession number was obtained from FLMNH Anthropology Division Registrar Elise LeCompte before excavations began. All recovered materials and associated documentation (including analysis forms, field notes, phot ographs, maps, sketches, and profile drawings) are curated in the South Florida Archaeology collections at the FLMNH under accession number ANT 2011 3. Bioarchaeological Excavation Methods On May 19, 201 1, the second day of excavation , a human mola r (ANT 2011 3 2) wa s recovered in the screen from L evel 82, a context only 24 cm below surface. Drs. Marquardt and Walker were immediately informed of the tooth. Since it appeared the molar was not found in association with any other human remains it was consider ed an isolated find and not a burial. Excavation continued. On May 25, 2011 , a highly utilized shell hammer (ANT 2011 3 5/6) was recovered 10 cm to the north of several fragile and crumbling, though suspiciously hum an looking, vertebral fragments ( ANT 2011 3 5/7 and ANT 2011 3 5/10 ). A large sea turtle plastron fragment (ANT 2011 3 30/3) was encountered in the same level, extending into the north profile of the unit. Continued excavation in the southeast corner of the unit at the same 5 cm level uncovered s everal
32 elements that appeared to be human pedal bones (ANT 2011 3 6/11). Marquardt and Walker were contacted and excavation was halted. Walker noted that sea turtle phalanges can look surprisingly similar to human phalanges. The highly acidic, sandy matri x greatly affected bone preservation confounding our ability to assess the differences in cortical bone structure that charac terize reptile versus mammal. Because sea turtle had been found in the same level, and there was no previous indication that Citrus Ridge contained burials, it seemed possible that the phalanges were turtle. Surrounding the possible human bones were definite animal bones (ANT 2011 3 6/11). A mid shaft portion of the ulna of a large wading bird was found in addition to a large bird cor acoid (possibly from the same individual). S hark teeth, a deer metatarsal, opossum dentition, fish, non marine turtle, and snake elements were all found commingled with the human looking bones . These potential human remains where transported by Walker to the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville, Florida on May 26, 2011 where she compared them with human specimens in the Environmental Archaeology Program lab . While waiting to hear back from Dr. Walker regarding the possible human bone, excavat ion continued in the northern 1 x 1 meter of the unit . Later that day, Walker confirmed that some of the bone was indeed human. Recognizing that we had found the remains of at least one mostly articulated human foot, digging ceased and Marquardt contacted the Florida State Archaeologist , Ryan Wheeler. To avoid delaying the project, a new excavation strategy was devised. Rather than completely re locating the excavation area, a new 1 x 1 meter unit, Excavation N 4, was opened adjacent to the
33 northwest porti on of the current 1 x 2. No human remains w ere encountered in Excavation N 4 . Artifact Analysis Methods Cataloging and laboratory analysis of artifacts were conducted at the Randell ouse l aboratory on Tuesdays. Field cataloging was com pleted by me and RRC volunteer Polly Eldred. General observations and descriptions were made along with counts of the materials present. In an effort to reduce wasted materials and to protect the integrity of collected samples for future reference, archival quality 4 mm bags were used in the field. FLMNH catalog numbers were written directly on the field bags and these were curated at the FLMNH in boxed/ trayed artifact collections directly from the field (following FLMNH fumigation standar ds). Intense Florida humidity can encourage the growth of molds on artifacts stored in plastic bags and care was taken to avoid this obstacle. Once cataloged and inventoried, bagged samples were carefully left open and allowed to air dry, first in the gara ge/wet laboratory with no climate control other than an electric fan. After about a week they were moved into the climate controlled dry lab where they continued to air dry. This method prevented the growth of mold on most of the recovered samples. Artifa cts were cleaned and labeled at the FLMNH by University of Florida Lauren also assisted in the excavations and laboratory analysis at Pineland. Artifacts were washed or dry brushed depending on the level of adhesion of sediments and other subjective factors. All artifacts with apparent residue, soot, or staining were minimally handled and were not washed. All artifacts with evidence of mold growth were washed
34 using a sof t brush and gently flowing water. FLMNH catalog numbers were labeled on dry artifacts using India ink P igma pens atop a layer of acryloid suspended in B 72 lacquer. Pottery was separated into greater than and less than 1. 5 cm fractions, following Cordell ( 2013). All pottery greater than 1. 5 cm was analyzed for type based on a macroscopic assessment of paste composition and Cordell verified identifications. All artifacts were counted and weighed. The non pottery component of the artifact assemblage from Exca vations N 3 and N 4 at Citrus Ridge is quite limited. Identifications and descriptions of bone artifacts were made following Walker (2000) and Patton (2013). Shell artifacts were assessed following Marquardt (1992). Lithic artifacts were not subjected to d etailed analysis. Zooarchaeological Excavation and Analysis Methods Unlike most of the deposits at Pineland, Citrus Ridge contains very little of what would typically be referred to as shell midden. It is primarily composed of sand. Based upon stratigrap hic descriptions from previous work at Citrus Ridge, it was known that two shell midden layers were present. These two strata were described as relatively thin less than 10 cm in thickness, and not uniformly distributed horizontally. Because of this, the u sual strategy of collecting a 50 x 50 cm column sample in 10 cm increments would not necessarily be the most appropriate sampling strategy to assess the nature of the faunal assemblages at Citrus Ridge. Furthermore, the targeted interest of this study was investigating the spatial and temporal distribution of animal remains at Citrus Ridge from a sedimentary perspective rather th an an exclusively dietary one. To address the storm surge hypothesis, the
35 possibility that the presence of animal remains in thes e deposits was the result of natural and not necessarily anthropogenic processes had to be considered. By incorporating the analyses of faunal data collected using multiple sampling methods, the discrete vertical and horizontal stratigraphic contexts of re covered animal remains were maintained while data could be combined to address questions at various scales. Multiple collection strategies were integrated to capture the greatest amount of faunal data at the most effective scale of analysis. The decision was made to use screens with a 1/8 inch mesh for the general levels, primarily to rec over most small bone fragments. Stewart and Wigen (2003) show that the use of 1/8 inch screens (2.8 mm) in combination with 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) fractions is an effective met hod to capture taxa with smaller identifiable elements. Recognizing the importance of invertebrate fauna for dietary contributions, as a raw material for the production of tools and ornaments, as a potential source of radiocarbon dates, and as a refined pr oxy for environment/ecology, all shell was retained from the 1/8 inch scr een. Additionally, the use of three dimensional mapping of individual bone and shell specimens was employed extensively. These specimens were assigned unique provenience distinctions and corresponding FLMNH catalog numbers. Bulk samples were also collected for fine screened zooarchaeological analysis. The flexibility of the Level/Locus system established at t he Pineland Site ( Walker and Marquardt 2013: 59) was utilized for recognizing and mapping samples to be collected in their entirety for faunal analysis. One of the benefits of the Level/Locus system is the ability to recognize and record emerging strata on the horizontal plane as they appear vertically. In consultation with Walker, I decided to collect from Excavation
36 N 4 the entirety of each of the two shell layers described from Excavation N 1. In all, 17 bulk samples were collected from Excavation N 4 (Table 4 1) . These samples were water screened through graduated, stacked neste d sieves at the Randell Research inch, 1/8 inch, and 1/16 inch were collected. Specific samples from Citrus Ridge were selected for detailed zooarchaeological analysis upon completion of the excavation. Addi tionally, two samples from Trench assemblages from Citrus Ridge. Analysis was conducted in the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory at the FLMNH. All samples were analyzed s eparately to maintain contextual integrity and to allow for meaningful spatial and temporal interpretation. Each provenience was initially sorted according to taxonomic class. Specific elements were separated to facilitate use of comparative specimens in t he identification phase. Identifications were made in reference to comparative specimens. Verification of valid taxonomic nomenclature was made referencing the Integrated Taxonomic Information System ( www.itis.gov ) just before final submission of this document . Reference was made to the methods and procedures of deFrance and Walker ( 2013 ). All identified taxa were counted, resulting in the number of identified specimens (NISP) and weighed (to the tenth of a gram) with the exception of the following taxa: Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Mollusc a, Actinopterygii, and Vertebrata these taxa were weighed but not counted . Minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) were assessed based on duplication of elements relative to symmetry and size and relative percentages of total MNI were assessed .
37 Table 4 1. Bulk samples collected from Excavation N 4, approximate volumes derived from spatial information recorded on field forms, all samples water screened through 1/4 inch, 1/8 inch, and 1/16 inch mesh. ANT Catalog # Provenience Stratum Approx. Volume (L) Field Date Date Wet screened Comments 2011 3 20/10 N 4 88.5/10 III 6.25 6/8/2011 6/13/2011 2011 3 20/11 N 4 88.75 IV 3.13 6/8/2011 6/13/2011 West 1/2 2011 3 20/12 N 4 88.75 IV 3.13 6/8/2011 6/13/2011 East 1/2 2011 3 21/7 N 4 89 IV 6.25 6/8/2011 6/13/2011 West 1/2 2011 3 21/8 N 4 89 IV 6.25 6/8/2011 6/13/2011 East 1/2 2011 3 22 1 N 4 89.5 1 V 13 6/11/2011 6/13/2011 Entire locus taken as bulk sample 2011 3 23 1 N 4 90 1 V 13 6/13/2011 6/15/2011 Entire locus taken as bulk sample 2011 3 23 2 N 4 90 2 V 6.5 6/15/2011 6/15/2011 Entire locus taken as bulk sample 2011 3 24/3 N 4 90.5/3 V 6.25 6/15/2011 6/15/2011 from upper 5 cm 2011 3 24/4 N 4 91/4 V 6.25 6/15/2011 6/18/2011 from lower 5 cm 2011 3 24/5 N 4 91/5 V 12.5 6/15/2011 6/29/2011 NW 1/4 2011 3 24/6 N 4 91 V 25 6/15/2011 6/29/2011 South 1/2 2011 3 25/10 N 4 91.5/10 VII 12.5 6/16/2011 6/18/2011 2011 3 26/3 N 4 92/3 VII 12 6/16/2011 6/18/2011 2011 3 26/3 N 4 92/3 VII 0.5 6/16/2011 6/18/2011 SW portion concreted area only 2011 3 27/1 N 4 92.5/1 VIII 12 6/17/2011 6/29/2011 2011 3 27/1 N 4 92.5/1 VIII 0.5 6/17/2011 6/29/2011 "mangrove" area
38 CHAPTER 5 STRATIGRAPHY AND RADIOCARBON DATING Excavation proceeded down to a depth of approximately 1.5 meters below the ground surface where culturally sterile deposits were encountered . Final profile drawings and photographs were completed on June 19, 2011. Ten strata were recognized and described on profile drawings an d in photographs. Descriptions of the strata were compiled from excavation forms, field observations and notes, and analyses, with reference to previous work, photographs, and profile drawings. Munsell color observations were made under even lighting condi tions at the South Florida Archaeology range of the FLMNH in August of 2011. The designations were made from observations of bagged sediment samples collected directly from the profiles. See curated digital records for high resolution images of sand grains from each stratum. Four samples of mari ne shell were submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. (Miami, FL) for conventional radiocarbon dating. All dates given below reflect corrections made for the local marine reservoir effect. One sample of human bone was subm itted for radiocarbon dating by accelerated mass s p ectroscopy (AMS). See Table 5 1 . The stratifi cation of Excavation N 4 was very similar to that of Excavation N 1 (Walker and Marquardt 2013:134 136; Godwin 2013: 177 222; Scudder 201 3: 233 234, 237 240). See Figure 5 1 showing Excava tion N 1 East and South Profile Drawings , Figure 5 2 showing Excavation N 4 West and North Profile Drawings , and Figures 5 3 and 5 4 showing Excavati on N 4 West and North Profile Photographs. Profile drawings were created by graph drawings . Due to circumstances, Hunter was unable to incorporate resulting in some discrepancies between the original drawings and the graphic
39 renderings as well as the lack o f a legend. One of the inconsistencies is that Hunter reassigned plotted specimen numbers. Artifact bags at FLMNH will be changed to reflect the specimen numbers presented in Figures 5 2 and 5 4 . Stratum I was observed in Excavations N 3 and N 4. It is ch aracterized by gray (10YR6/1) fine san d, approximately 40 cm in depth. This stratum correlates to Stratum I from Excavation N 1 (Walker and Marquardt 2013: 134 ). Analyses by both Scudder and Godwin suggest that this stratum represents re de posited sediment s (Godwin 2013: 212; Scudder 2013: 239). A single southern quahog clam ( Mercenaria campechiensis ) shell (ANT 2011 3 4/5, Beta 306000) was submitted for standard radiocarbon dating, returning a conventional radiocarbon age of 2090 +/ 30 BP with a 2 sigma ca librated calendar range of A.D. 160 370, placing the shell from Stratum I in the Caloosahatchee I period. Areas of shell, bone, and charred wood were distributed in various areas horizontally, all following the same vertical contour appearing as a possible surface ( see Figures 5 5 and 5 6 showing Excavation N 3 Profile Drawing and Photograph ). Historic al artifacts recovered from Stratum I consist of 1 piece of iron, 1 fragment of lead shot, and 6 metal fragments. Very little disturbance was noted. The preh istoric artifact assemblage recovered consists of 98 Sand tempered Plain sherds, 2 Belle Glade Plain sherds, 1 St. Johns Plain sherd, 19 lithic artifacts, 1 piece of ochre, and 2 lightning whelk ( Busycon sinistrum ) hammers. Invertebrate species include: oy ster ( Crassostrea virginica ), lightning whelk, pear whelk ( Busycotypus spiratus ), tulips ( Fasciolaria sp.), crown conch ( Melongena corona ), shark eye ( Neverita duplicata ), southern quahog, giant cockle ( Dinocardium robustum ), horse conch ( Triplofusus gigant e us ), wormsnails (Vermetidae), and landsnails ( Polygyra sp.). Bone from this
40 stratum includes: deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), bird (Pelicaniformes), raccoon ( Procyon lotor ), bony fish, and a large fragment of plastron (ANT 2011 3 30/3) from a green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ). A sea turtle plastron bone was also found in Excavation N 1. Only the individually mapped faunal specimens from this stratum were taxonomically identified, though all recovered bone was examined for human remains, because a human m olar and a human pedal phalanx were also recovered from this stratum. Excavation of unit N 3 was terminated before encountering Stratum II. Descriptions of the remaining strata are only from Excavation N 4. Stratum II can also be compared to Stratum II f rom Excavation N 1. It is characterized by dark gray (10YR4/1) fine sand ranging in depth from 20 to 40 cm , more densely consolidated/compacted than Stratum I. A single quahog shell (ANT 2011 3 34/3, Beta 306003) was submitted for radiocarbon dating, retur ning a conventional radiocarbon age of 1410 +/ 40 BP with a 2 sigma calibrated calendar range from A.D. 900 1050, placing Stratum II in the Caloosahatchee IIB period. This shell was selected from the middle of the stratum at Level 86 and is documented in the N 4 North Profile (Figure 5 2) as Specimen #16. It is also shown in the N 4 North Profile Photograph (Figure 5 4). Bone preservation is poor, shell concentration is slight, and there are many small roots. The shell that is present consists of mainly li ghtning whelk, horse conch, quahog, and oyster. Artifact density in this stratum is also slight: 40 Sand tempered Plain sherds, 1 Belle Glade Plain sherd, 1 shell artifact, and 2 lithic artifacts were recovered. Stratum III is a sandy shell midden. It co rresponds to Stratum III from Excavation N 1. The soil is grayish brown/tan fine sand (10YR5/2) interspersed with differentially
41 dense concentrations of shell, bone, and charred plant remains . This stratum follows a slightly irregular, undulating surface, emerging at the bottom of Level 86.5 and continuing to the bottom of Level 89 it ranges from ap proximately 10 to 25 cm in thickness . Six small lightning whelk shells (ANT 2011 3 19 1, Beta 306001) were submitted for radiocarbon dating, returning a conventi onal radiocarbon age of 1970 +/ 30 BP with a 2 sigma calibrated calendar range from A.D. 330 510, placing Stratum III in the Caloosahatchee I late period. The thin shell midden includes charre d plant materials. Invertebrate remains have a somewhat eroded surface texture. S pecies include: surf clam some articulated , crushed pen shell, sea urchin , crown conch, and lightning whelk. Vertebrate fauna represented inclu de: green sea turtle and shark. Detailed faunal data are presented in Chapter 6. Artifacts from this stratum include 14 Sand tempered Plain sherds. Stratum IV appears to correspond with the stratigraphic profiles from Excavation N 1; however, the description of constituents recovered differs. Stratum IV is characterized by a light gray (10YR6/1) fi ne sand mottled with areas of white sand and flecks of charcoal with slight shell and bone inclusions. No radiocarbon date was obtained from this stratum. There are many intrusive roots and the soil is damp. Bone is highly concreted and the preservation i s poor. The artifact assemblage from Stratum IV consists of 21 Sand tempered Plain sherds 14 of which are likely from the same vessel (ANT 2011 3 22/1, ANT 2011 3 22/2, ANT 2011 3 22/3, 2011 3 33/3, 2011 3 33/4, 2011 3 33/5), 1 lithic artifact , and 2 bone artifacts. Stratum V is a shell midden that is consistent with the lower shell layer, also Stratum V, from Excavation N 1. Since the stratifi cation of Excavation N 4 was so
42 consistent with that of Excavation N 1, the radiocarbon date associated with Stratu m V from Excavation N 1 has been used as a proxy for the date of Stratum V in Excavation N 4. An assemblage of marine gastropod shells (ANT 90 8 30/1, Beta 52361) returned a 2 sigma calibrated radiocarbon date range from A.D. 220 490, placing Stratum V in the Caloosahatchee I period. The overall matrix of Stratum V is a dense shel l midden; roughly 10 cm in thickness, packed with dark grayish brown/tan (10YR4/2) fine sand, concreted vertebrate fauna, charred plant remains, and pottery. Mollusk shells are mos tly whole and have a reddish orange coating/staining. S pecies include: lightn ing whelk, tulips ( Fasciolaria sp. ), crown conch, oysters (Ostreidae), Atlantic surf clam, and pen shell. Vertebrate species recovered include: goliath grouper ( Epinephelus itajara ), shark ( Carcharhinidae ), and bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ). The material culture assemblage consists of 21 Sand tempered Plain sherds 3 of which (ANT 2011 3 23 1/1) cross mend and have shell inclusions that ceramic specialist, Ann Cordell, iden tified as a miscellaneous category observed from other contemporaneous excavations at the Pineland Site. Stratum VI is vertically oriented in the profile and is not truly a stratum at all. Mixed, somewhat jumbled sediments characterize this band with cons tituents similar to Strata V through IX. Stratum VI appears to be a tree or root mold that interrupts the surrounding horizontal stratification. Descriptions of Excavation N X are roughly equivalent to the rest of strata from Excavat ion N 1. Stratum VII is a black (10YR2/1), organic rich, densely compacted clayey sand layer approximately 10 cm thick; situated directly below Stratum V, except where interrupted by Stratum VI. A single quahog shell (ANT 2011 3 25/8, Beta 306002) was
43 sub mitted for radiocarbon dating, returning a conventional radiocarbon age of 2010 +/ 30 BP with a 2 sigma calibrated calendar range from A.D. 260 450, placing Stratum VII in the Caloosahatchee I period and essentially coeval with Stratum V. Artifacts recov ered consist of 18 Sand tempe red Plain sherds and 1 bone net mesh gauge. Stra tum VIII is an approximately 10 cm thick layer of white (10YR8/1) fine sand mottled with concentrated areas of black/dark gray (10YR3/1) fine sand. Dense, black, clayey concretion s (ANT 2011 3 29/1 and ANT 2011 3 29/2) containing oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) and ribbed mussel many arti culated, interrupt this stratum. Three Sand tempered Plain sherds were recovered. Stratum IX is characterized by grayish brown (10YR5/2) sand, var ying from 5 to 10 cm in thickness, with no artifacts and very little fauna; black concretions described for Stratum VIII continue into this stratum. Stratum X appears at the top of Level 93.5 as white (10YR8/1) fine sand containing no artifacts; concretions do not continue into this stratum. General excavation ceased at the bottom of Level 93.5. Five sub surface cores we re taken using an Oakfield split spoon soil probe . White, fine sand interspersed with bands of yellow white sand contin ued to a depth of 30 cm below Level 93.5. The water table was not encountered.
44 Table 5 1. Radiocarbon dates from Citrus Ridge, Excavations N 1, N 3, and N 4. FLMNH AN T Cat. No. Provenience Material Measured 14 C age 13 C adjusted age Lab No. 2 sigma cal 1 sigma cal 2011 3 4/5 N 3 83/5, Stratum I Mercenaria campechiensis shell 1700 +/ 30 BP 2090 +/ 30 BP Beta 306000 AD 160 370 AD 230 330 2011 3 6/11 N 3 84/11, Stratum I/II interface human bone 570 +/ 30 BP 840 +/ 30 BP Beta 320867 AD 1160 1260 AD 1170 1220 2011 3 34/3 N 4 87, North Profile #3, Stratum II Mercenaria campechiensis shell 1000 +/ 40 BP 1410 +/ 40 BP Beta 306003 AD 900 1050 AD 960 1030 2011 3 19 1 N 4 88 1, Stratum III Busycon sinistrum shells 1550 +/ 30 BP 1970 +/ 30 BP Beta 306001 AD 330 510 AD 370 450 90 8 30/1 S616 E800 [N 1] Level 87, Stratum V marine gastropod shells 1620 +/ 60 BP 2040 +/ 60 BP Beta 52361 AD 220 490 AD 280 430 2011 3 25/8 N 4 91.5/8, Stratum VII Mercenaria campechiensis shell 1670 +/ 30 BP 2010 +/ 30 BP Beta 306002 AD 260 450 AD 330 420
45 Figure 5 1. Excavation N 1 (S616 E800) East an d South Profiles ( Walker and Marquardt 2013 . Excavations and Chronostratigraphy at the Pineland Site Complex, 1988 1995. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by W. H. Marquardt and K. J. Walker, p. 135, Figure 72 ).
46 Figure 5 2. Excava tion N 4 West and North Profile Drawings. Numbers on left show depth below the master site datum in the Pineland Elevation System (describe d in Walker and Marquardt 2013: 53 59), Roman numerals indicate identified strata, filled triangles indicate location of extracted sedi ment samples, and sequential Arabic numb ers indicate plotted specimens (d rawing b y M. Ayvaz and S. E. Hunter) .
47 Figure 5 3. Excavation N 4 West Profile Photograph (photo by M. Ayvaz) .
48 Figure 5 4. Excavation N 4 North Profile Photograph (photo b y M. Ayvaz) .
49 Figure 5 5. Excava tion N 3 North and East Profile Drawings. Numbers on the right indicate dep th (cm) below the unit datum (d rawing b y M. Ayvaz and S. E. Hunter) . Figure 5 6. Excavation N 3 North Pr ofile Photograph; n ote sea turtle plastron in middle of image (photo by M. Ayvaz) .
50 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS This section provides an overview of the findings from Excavations N 3 and N 4. Catalogs, relevant reports by specialists involved in this project, high resolution images of sedimen on the identification of charred plant remains from the 1/8 inch screened general levels of Excavations N 3 and N 4 and additional data are presented in the appendices to this docum ent and are curated at the FLMNH under accession ANT 2011 3. Results of Bioarchaeological Analysis Bioarchaeological analysis of the Citrus Ridge human skeletal remains was conducted by University of Florida and C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory graduate an alyst, Allysha Powanda Winburn during the 2012 Spring academic semester . Summarizing indings, approximately 50 identified fragments of human bone recovered are consistent wi th one individual, possibly interred in a pit burial dug into Stratum II . Based upon the superposition of the left pedal elements above those of the right foot and the location of cervical vertebrae, it is possible that the individual was placed into a pit in a flexed position . A small (3.20 gram) sample of t he right talus (ANT 2011 3 6/11) was submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. for AMS radiocarbon dating. Care was taken to ensure that the bone was minimally damaged and the sample extracted was as small as po ssible. The sample returned a conventional radiocarbon age of 840 +/ 30 BP with a 2 sigma calibrated calendar range of A.D. 1160 1260, p lacing the burial at th e very end of Caloosahatchee IIB or the beginning of Caloosahatchee III. Luer and Wheeler, in th eir study of the Pine Island Canal (8LL34) , attributed the inception of water feature
51 construction to this time p eriod (Luer and Wheeler 1997 ). T he burial date can be seen to reflect the incept ion of the construction of the water feature to the north of Ci trus Ridge . Interestingly, the date is also contemporaneous with the use of Smith Mound (8LL36), the known sand burial mound at the site. Stratigraphically associated with these human remains at the Stratum I/II interface are pottery, lithic materials, and two shell artifacts , in addition to unmodified shell and animal bone. Although no distinct pit was observed, an abundance of charcoal mottling was noted in the surrounding sand matrix and Ayvaz observed that the area sounded hollow while excavating. Se e Appendix D for copies of excavation forms that show the plan view maps and three dimensional measurements for the proveniences containing human bone. Most of the pottery is Sand tempered Plain with exceptions including an undecorated St. Johns body sherd (ANT 2011 3 3/2) and a Belle Glade Plain body sherd (ANT 2011 3 6/6). Lithic mater ials include very small undiagnostic chert debitage and flakes. T wo shell hammers (ANT 2011 3 5/6 and ANT 2011 3 6/1) were made from lightning whelk and are very worn from u se and erosion. An ochre stained whelk columella fragment (ANT 2011 3 6/9) represents another shell artifact possibly associated with the burial . Unmodified shell concentrations cons isting of lightning whelk, pear whelk, tulip, quahog clam, crown conch and oyster are interspersed throughout the unit, all in approximately the same horizontal distribution, possibly following a surface. Results of Artifact Analysis Pottery comprises the majority of the material culture assemblage from Excavations N 3 and N 4. However, it is not a very diverse assemblage; all but 4 of the
52 217 analyzed sherds can be classified as Sand tempered Plain. Three Belle Glade Plain sherds were recovered: two (ANT 2011 3 1 and ANT 2011 3 6/3) from Stratum I and one (ANT 2011 3 15/2) from Stratum II. A single St. Johns Plain sherd (ANT 2011 3 3/2) was found associated with Stratum I in Level 82.5 of Excavation N 3. Twenty one of the Sand tempered Plain sherds are rims. A sooty residue was observed on 7 of the Sand tempered Plain sherds col lected. Several of the Sand tempered Plain sherds from Stratum I have a paste tempered with quartz and limestone inclusions that Cordell has observed in some other contexts from Pineland (Cordell 2013 : 432 ). She recognizes this as a sub division of Sand tem pered Plai n and refers to the category as Quantifications of this sub type are not included in this report because systematic microscopic paste analysis was not a part of this study. Presence is noted in the comments fiel d within the catalog (Appen dix A ). One decorated sherd (ANT 2011 3 11) was recovered from Stratum I. One sherd with a mend hole (ANT 2011 3 16/4) was recovered from Stratum I. An added benefit of applying the Level/Locus system, in combination with the zooarchaeological sampling s trategy, was the ability to assign materials collected within the arbitrary 5 cm general levels to discrete strata after excavation. Stratigraphic assignments of all specimens recovered from the levels situated along the stratigraphic interfaces were made using information from excavation forms, field and analysis notes, profile drawings, and photographs. Because Strata III and V were excavated as bulk samples, it was fairly straightforward to figure out the stratigraphic association of the surrounding matr ix i.e. the portion of the sample that was screened through 1/8 inch mesh with the general level. All artifacts from the general levels were analyzed and
53 results are included in this report. Unfortunately, this sampling method means that all potentially id entifiable artifacts in the unanalyzed bulk samples are not included in these results. These unanalyzed samples constitute the majority of Strata III and V. Use of 1/8 inch screens for recovery of materials from the general levels produced a great deal o f fragmentary pottery far smaller in size than the 1.5 cm diameter that is considered the standard for ceramic identification by microscopic analysis. Rather than completely dismiss this information, the quantification of this data can be seen as rather in teresting, from a sedimentary perspective. Alas, the incomplete analysis of bulk samples from Strata III and V impairs the comparison of fragmentary pottery from these contexts in this study. However, the relatively uninterrupted horizontal division of Str ata I and II provides an opportunity to examine their ceramic constituents in some detail. The following quantifications are from only Excavation N 4. The total amount of greater than (>) 1.5 cm sherds from Stratum I is 61, weighing 505.57 grams. The less than (<) 1.5 cm sherds total 187, weighing 121.62 grams. Stratum II contained 41 sherds > 1.5 cm weighing 305.37 grams and 177 sherds < 1.5 cm weighing 114.46 grams. Overall, the counts and weights of fragmented, < 1.5 cm sherds are roughly equivalent between the two strata, while the number and weight of > 1.5 cm sherds is approximately 20 % greater in Stratum I than Stratum II. An interesting pottery assemblage was encountered in Stratum IV. Emerging first as a cluster within a darkly stained matrix of sand along the south profile of Level 89.5, 11 sherds (ANT 2011 3 22/1, ANT 2011 3 22/2, and ANT 2011 3 22/3) were mapped on the excavation form. Several related sherds that extended into the south profile wall were collected during final profile drawings (ANT 2011 3 33/3, ANT 2011 3 33/4, and
54 ANT 2011 3 33/5). It is possible that these sherds all belong to the same vessel. Field photographs taken on June 8, 2011 show the stacked, vertical orientation of the sooted sherds within the profile and extending north into the horizontal plane (Figure 6 1). Three large Sand tempered Plain sherds (ANT 2011 3 23 1/1), mapped during the collection of a bulk sample, cross mend and contain shell incl usions that ceramic specialist Ann Cord ell identified as a miscellaneous paste category observed from other contem poraneous excavations at Pineland . Three shell artifacts were recovered from N 3 and N 4. Two of these were from Excavation N 3 and are likely associated with the burial described ab ove (also see ). As with all materials recovered in association with the burial, these artifacts are stratigraphically assigned to the Stratum I/II interface. A single lightning whelk Type F hammer (ANT 2011 3 5/6) was recovered from the provenience N 3 83.5/6. It was found 20 cm to the north of a hum an cervical vertebra (ANT 2011 3 5/7, provenience N 3 83.5/7 ). The human vertebra was recovered at a depth of 65 cm below datum and the shell hammer was recovered at 62 cm below datum . This artifact is extremely eroded. The hammer weighs 38.93 grams. The only other gastropod artifact recovered from this project was also fashioned of lighting whelk a Type C hammer (ANT 2011 3 6/1) weighing 144.94 grams. This artifact, despite extensive erosion, shows clear evidence of extensive use. The size and heft of the reduced whelk shell indicate that it would have been quite a large implement at the beginning stage of the shell tool sequence . This shell artifact was found in association with the recovered human pedal elements (ANT 2011 3 6 /11, 2011 3 6/15, and 2011 3 6/17) . The hammer was recovered within
55 5 25 cm of these human bones. The artifact was recovered at a depth of 68 cm below datum and the human bones were encountered from 65 68 cm below datum. One unmodified lighting whelk shell (ANT 2011 3 6/9) containing a fragment of red ochre was also found near these human remains. The only other shell artifact recovered from this project is a lso the only shell artifact identified from Excavation N 4. It was collected from the provenience N 4 87 2 and is associated with Stratum III. It is a net weight (ANT 2011 3 17 2/1) made of a ponderous ark ( Noetia ponderosa ), weighing 11.15 grams; it is co ated with reddish orange staining. The preservation is extremely poor it is fragile and crumbling. Four bone artifacts were identified from this project, all from Excavation N 4. Three of these artifacts were found in Level 89 and assigned to Stratum IV. A piece of burned mammal bone (ANT 2011 3 21), likely deer, has been polished and snapped. It weighs 1.11 grams and could represent tool manufacture debitage or a broken implement. Two point ed bone artifacts were also recovered from this level. One (ANT 2 011 3 21/2) is finely honed to a point and shows a medial groove identifying the source material as deer metapodial. This point weighs 1.72 grams and is broken distally, preventing specific identification. It likely represents an item of fishing tackle: ei ther a spear or leister point, part of a composite barb, or a bi poi nt throat gorge. Another point ed bone artifact (ANT 2011 3 21) was found in Level 89. It weighs 0.74 grams and is also broken distally. Unlike the bone implement described above, the finis hed end of this artifact comes to a rather blunt point. The surface texture is irregular, possibly due to erosion or use wear.
56 A single bone artifact was found in Level 91.5 of Excavation N 4 , situating it within Stratum VII. This artifact is a net mesh g auge (ANT 2011 3 25/4) weighing 9.72 grams, measuring 2.2 cm wide by 5.5 cm long , and made of sea turtle (Chelondiae) carapace or plastron. One edge is smoothed and finished while the other end appears to be broken. Net mesh gauges are typically 35 mm, 30 mm, or 18 mm in width. These gauges would have be en used to makes nets with mesh openings of 70 mm, 60 mm, and 36 mm, respectively (Walker 1992: 238 239). Although this artifact does not fall perfectly into one of the three size categories that have been re cognized archaeologically in this region, it is close to the smallest of the gauges and closely fits other morphological and functional descriptions. Results of Zooarchaeological Analysis A total of 7,967 vertebrate and invertebrate faunal specimens were t axonomically identified over the course of this project. See Appendix E for supplemental tables for all taxa identified during this study. Linking these identifications together in meaningful ways proved challenging. Samples were prioritized for analysis b ased on their stratigraphic contexts. Recognizing that analysis was intended primarily to characterize the faunal assemblages of the lower shell midden layers, only individually mapped bone fragments from the uppermost strata were taxonomically identified. Vertebrate fauna identified from Strata I and II include: deer, the long bone of a large wading bird, raccoon mandible with dentition, bony fish, and a fragment of plastron (ANT 2011 3 30/3) from a green sea turtle. A sea turtle plastron bone was also rec overed from the 1 possibly from the same individual turtle.
57 Vertebrate fauna associated with Strata III through VII recovered from the 1/8 inch screen as well as in situ mapped bone from the general levels was identified during the UF graduate course, Zooarchaeology ANG5126. P lotted specimens , not surprisingly, represented some of the most interesting animal remains recovered. The vomer of a goliath grouper, the vertebral epiphysis of a bottlenose dolphin, the unfused per ipheral of a sea turtle, and thirteen articulated shark v ertebrae were among these discretely provenienced remains. Several bulk samples associated with Strata III through VII were analyzed to varying levels over the course of this project. Unfortunately, the sampling strategy of collecting bulk samples for faunal analysis from discrete stratigraphic contexts, although beneficial to the overall project objective, led to difficulty making meaningful comparisons between analyzed samples. D etailed d ata from a dditional identified samples are curated with project documents at FLMNH but are not presented in this rep ort. Supplemental tables in Appendix E summarize taxonomic identifications from Citrus Ridge and Trench 11A Stratum 4 samples. They represent combined totals by stratum. The data presented i n Tables 6 1 and 6 2 represent the most comparable samples from Strata III and V. These particular samples were selected for comparison because of their roughly equivalent volumes and contexts as best representative of Strata III an d V. Although not typically considered important in shell midden zooarchaeology, volume was considered a significant variable in the case of this midden with its sparse shell content volume is used as a control for the overall density of t he matrix. The data presented in Table 6 1 for Stratum III reflects all invertebrate and
58 vertebrate fau na identified from the 1/8 inch screened general level N 4 88 .5 ( approximately 37.5 L ) and the Â¼ inch screened bulk sample N 4 88.5/10 ( approximately 6.25 L. The data presented in Table 6 2 for Stratum V shows invertebrate and vertebrate fau na identified from the 1/8 inch screened general level N 4 90 (approximately 30 .5 L ) and the Â¼ inch s creened bulk sample N 4 90 1 (approximately 13 L ). The approxima te total volume o f the Stratum III samples was 43.75 L . The approximate total volume of Stratum V samples was 43 L . The invertebrate and vertebrate faunal assemblage from Stratum V is illustrated to be considerably more dense and diverse than the assembla ge from Stratum III. A total number of 2,931 specimens was identified from Stratum V, representing 64 taxa. A minimum number of 1,106 individuals were identified based on assessment of the relative size and symmetry of skeletal elements. The total weight o f this assemblage was approximately 7,446 grams. In contrast, 750 specimens were identified from Stratum III, representing 44 taxa. A minimum number of 318 individuals were identified. The total weight of this assemblage was approximately 2,098 grams. Ove rlap between Strata III and V assemblages is reflected by a total of 34 identified taxa, comprised of 18 invertebrate and 18 vertebrate classifications. While there is an overlap in the presence of these taxa, the proportion of mollusks represented in the Stratum V deposits is significantly higher than for those identified from Stratum III. The exception to this trend is the relatively high proportion of crown conch, shark eye, and surf clam identified from Stratum III. The minimum number of individuals (MN I) of overlapping fauna from both strata is roughly equivalent, with the exception of more pinfish and sea catfish represented in Stratum V.
59 Differences in the presence of animals identified from Strata III and V are summarized below. Invertebrate taxa ide ntified from only Stratum III include: 1 ark shell ( Barbatia sp.), 1 coffee snail, and 1 bruised nassa. Vertebrate taxa identified from only Stratum III include: gafftopsail catfish, lemon shark, oyster toadfish, cotton rat, and green sea turtle. Inverteb rate taxa identified only from Stratum V include: flyspeck and variable ceriths, cross bared venus, eastern white slippersnail, crested oyster, liptooth snails, seila, and southern marsh clams. Unidentifiable bivalve fragments were quantified for Stratum V but were combined with unidentified mollusk quantifications for Stratum III. Vertebrate taxa identified only from Stratum V include the vertebral epiphysis of a bottlenose dolphin and many types of bony fish including: crevalle jack, common snook, spotted sea trout, red grouper, gag grouper, snapper, pig fish, black drum , and red drum.
60 Table 6 1. Invertebrate and vertebrate faunal remains i dentified from Stratum III, proveniences N 4 88.5, 1/8 inch screen and N 4 88.5/10, 1/4 inch screen. Approxi mate total volume 43.75 L. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Neverita duplicata shark eye 10 3.14 13 26.05 Busycon sinistrum lightning whelk 43 13.52 90 424.21 Busycotypus spiratus pearwhelk 13 4.09 16 40.24 Nassarius vibex bruised nassa 1 0.31 1 0.12 Melongena corona crown conch 156 49.06 293 331.14 Fasciolaria sp. tulips 10 3.14 18 15.43 Melampus sp. melampus 1 0.31 1 0.10 Gastropoda gastropods 224.08 Total Gastropoda Total gastropods 234 73.58 432 1061.37 Mytilidae mussels 8 2.52 19 2.23 Barbatia sp. ark 2 0.63 2 0.49 Noetia ponderosa ponderous ark 1 0.31 1 4.83 Carditamera floridana broad ribbed cartidid 1 0.31 1 0.11 Anomalocardia auberiana pointed venus 2 0.63 2 0.26 Crassostrea virginica eastern oyster 9 2.83 23 50.86 Ostreidae oysters 1 0.31 8 9.86 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 31 9.75 134 194.24 Mercenaria campechiensis southern quahog 2 0.63 8 107.65 Total Bivalvia Total bivalves 57 17.92 198 370.53 Mollusca mollusks 341.82 Total Mollusca Total mollusks 291 91.50 630 1773.72 Menippe mercenaria Florida stone crab 1 0.31 7 7.55 Total Decapoda Total crab, shrimp, lobsters 1 0.31 7 7.55 Cirripedia barnacles 2 0.63 8 0.56 Total Cirripedia Total barnacles 2 0.63 8 0.56 Lytechinus variegatus green sea urchin 1 0.31 10 0.04 Echinoidea sea urchins 1 0.31 13 2.30 Total Echinioidea Total sea urchins 2 0.63 23 2.34 Total Invertebrata Total invertebrates 296 93.07 668 1784.17 cf. Negaprion brevirostris compare with lemon shark 1 0.31 1 0.50 Carcharhinidae requiem sharks 1 0.31 18 3.20 Rajiformes rays/skates 1 0.31 1 0.50 Total Chondrichthyes Total cartilagenous fishes 3 0.94 20 4.20
61 Table 6 1. Continued. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Ariopsis felis hardhead catfish 1 0.31 2 0.40 Bagre marinus gafftopsail catfish 1 0.31 2 0.40 Ariidae sea catfishes 2 0.63 10 1.59 Opsanus tau oyster toadfish 1 0.31 1 0.42 Opsanus sp. toadfish 2 0.63 9 2.30 Epinephelus itajara goliath grouper 1 0.31 1 6.18 Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead 1 0.31 3 0.80 Lagodon rhomboides pinfish 2 0.63 3 <0.0 Mugil sp. mullet 1 0.31 1 0.50 Mugilidae mullets 2 0.63 2 0.61 Chilomycterus schoepfi striped burrfish 1 0.31 1 0.23 Diodontidae burrfishes, porcupinefishes 1 0.31 7 0.50 Actinopterygii ray finned fishes 25.60 Total Actinopterygii Total ray finned fishes 16 5.00 42 39.53 Chelonia mydas green sea turtle 1 0.31 2 45.00 Testudines turtles 14 2.60 Total Testudines Total turtles 1 0.31 16 47.60 Anatidae ducks, geese, swans 1 0.31 3 0.60 Total Aves Total birds 1 0.31 3 0.60 Sigmodon hispidus hispid cotton rat 1 0.31 1 0.07 Total Mammalia Total mammals 1 0.31 1 0.07 Vertebrata vertebrates 27.70 Total Vertebrata Total vertebrates 22 6.87 82 119.70 Total Invertebrata and Vertebrata Total invertebrates and vertebrates 318 100.00 750 1903.87
62 Table 6 2. Invertebrate and vertebrate f au nal remains i dentified from Stratum V, proveniences N 4 90, 1/8 inch screen and N 4 90 1, 1/4 inch screen. Approximate total volume 43 L . Taxon Common Name Coun t (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Cerithium eburneum ivory cerith 1 0.09 1 0.14 Cerithium muscarum flyspeck cerith 4 0.36 4 0.42 Cerithiidae ceriths 2 0.18 2 0.13 Seila sp. seila 1 0.09 1 0.18 Crepidula plana eastern white slippersnail 2 0.18 2 0.10 Neverita duplicata shark eye 7 0.63 9 15.42 Busycon sinistrum lightning whelk 168 15.19 262 1274.99 Busycotypus spiratus pearwhelk 105 9.49 148 503.90 Melongena corona crown conch 319 28.84 689 1283.83 Fasciolaria sp. tulip 72 6.51 141 304.94 Polygyra sp. liptooth snail 17 1.54 17 0.55 Gastropoda gastropods 835.71 Total Gastropoda Total gastropods 698 63.11 1276 4220.31 Mytilidae mussels 110 9.95 573 58.72 Arcidae arks 1 0.09 1 0.74 Noetia ponderosa ponderous ark 1 0.09 1 4.73 Crassostrea virginica eastern oyster 170 15.37 258 574.68 Ostreola equestris crested oyster 7 0.63 14 10.89 Ostreidae oysters 268 188.55 Carditamera floridana broad ribbed cartidid 3 0.27 4 4.90 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 55 4.97 175 302.51 Polymesoda maritima southern marshclam 3 0.27 4 0.43 Anomalocardia auberiana pointed venus 1 0.09 2 0.52 Chione cancellata cross barred venus 1 0.09 1 0.90 Mercenaria campechiensis southern quahog 3 0.27 42 582.52 Bivalvia bivalves 252.32 Total Bivalvia Total bivalves 355 32.10 1343 1982.41 Mollusca mollusks 893.89 Total Mollusca Total mollusks 1053 95.21 2619 7096.61 Menippe mercenaria Florida stone crab 1 0.09 4 2.60 Decapoda crab, shrimp, lobsters 1 0.09 6 1.39 Total Decapoda Total crab, shrimp, lobsters 2 0.18 10 3.99 Balanus sp. acorn barnacle 2 0.18 10 0.35 Cirripedia barnacles 5.89 Total Cirripedia Total barnacles 2 0.18 10 6.24
63 Table 6 2. Continued. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Lytechinus variegatus green sea urchin 2 0.18 69 4.12 Total Echinoidea Total sea urchins 2 0.18 69 4.12 Total Invertebrata Total invertebrates 1059 95.75 2708 7110.96 Carcharhinus sp. grey sharks 1 0.09 5 5.14 Carcharhinidae requiem sharks 1 0.09 1 <0.0 Rajiformes rays/skates 1 0.09 1 0.40 Total Chondrichthyes Total cartilagenous fishes 3 0.27 7 5.54 Ariopsis felis hardhead catfish 5 0.45 19 5.14 Ariidae sea catfishes 2 0.18 23 3.34 Opsanus sp. toadfish 2 0.18 5 1.63 Centropomus undecimalis common snook 1 0.09 2 7.96 Epinephelus guttatus red grouper 1 0.09 1 0.14 Epinephelus itajara goliath grouper 1 0.09 1 24.10 Mycteroperca microlepis gag grouper 1 0.09 1 1.46 Caranx hippos crevalle jack 1 0.09 2 0.75 Lutjanus sp. snapper 1 0.09 2 0.30 Orthopristis chrysoptera pigfish 1 0.09 1 0.02 Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead 1 0.09 10 3.44 Lagodon rhomboides pinfish 12 1.08 40 0.93 Cynoscion nebulosus spotted sea trout 1 0.09 6 0.53 Pogonias cromis black drum 1 0.09 2 2.95 Sciaenops ocellatus red drum 1 0.09 12 8.02 cf. Mugil cephalus compare with black mullet 1 0.09 1 0.18 cf. Mugil curema compare with silver mullet 1 0.09 1 0.15 Mugil sp. mullet 1 0.09 6 2.42 Chilomycterus schoepfi striped burrfish 3 0.27 50 5.42 Diodontidae burrfishes, porcupinefishes 1 0.09 4 0.65 Actinopterygii ray finned fishes 88.37 Total Actinopterygii Total ray finned fishes 39 3.52 189 157.90 Cheloniidae sea turtle 1 0.09 3 2.40 Testudines turtles 1 0.09 19 11.42 Total Testudines Total turtles 2 0.18 22 13.82 Aythya sp. diving ducks 1 0.09 1 2.05 Anatidae ducks, geese, swans 1 0.09 1 1.20 Total Aves Total birds 2 0.18 2 3.25 Tursiops truncatus bottlenose dolphin 1 0.09 3 7.62 Total Mammalia Total mammals 1 0.09 3 7.62
64 Table 6 2. Continued. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Vertebrata vertebrates 7.40 Total Vertebrata Total vertebrates 47 4.24 223 188.13 Total Invertebrata and Vertebrata Total invertebrates and invertebrates 1106 100.00 2931 7446.44
65 CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATIONS The results from Excavations N 3 and N 4 at Citrus Ridge articulate with and supplement previous investigations at Pineland. These findings contribute to our overall understanding of the complex cultural and environmental history of this coastal site complex. Although narrow in spatia l scope, the information gathered from these excavations opens a wide temporal window into the history of Citrus Ridge, in particular. Situated betwee n the Central and South Pasture areas , the elevated landform has been a mystery to investigators. Excavati ons N 3 and N 4 addressed many of the questions regarding the nature of this subtly elevated feature and it pedoarchaeological study of Citrus Ridge , she contextualizes the feature and questions its origins: Calusa canals and modern pasture ponds flank the long sides of this small rise. Is it simply a spoil bank thrown up during canal or pond construction, or is its core an old beach ridge or dune, much attenuated by human use and/or continued sedimentati on through time? (Scudder 2013 : 231) The following discussion synthesizes data from multiple lines of evidence to suggest interpretations. By incorporating results of previous research conducted at Citrus Ridge with the findings from this study particularly the acquisition of radiocarbo n dates and the results of excavation and analysis methods, in concert with discoveries from recen t geophysical testing this discussion offer s The oldest date from the ridge, A.D. 160 370 (Beta 306000) , comes from Excavati on N 4 Stratum I . This stratum corresponds to Stratum 1 from Excavation N 1, auger transect (Godwin 2013: 195) dge soil profile (Scudder s (2013: 239) favored explanation for the layer was that it was re -
66 east of the Ridge, from the remnants of the n ortheastern edge of the Ridge. Excavation methods devised primarily to recover data from the two shell strata had the unforeseen advantage of meticulously documenting the discovery and recognition of a human burial before it was greatly disturbed. The decision to excavate in arbitrary 5 cm levels and to map individual bone specimens resulted in a detailed record of the horizontal distribution of human bone fragments relative to non human bone and other cultural materials within Excavation N 3. Excavation forms, photographs, and field not es archive the chronology and process of identification. Much information resulted from this unexpected find. An assemblage of animal bone (ANT 2011 3 6/11), red ochre (ANT 2011 3 6/9), and two lightning whelk hammers (ANT 2011 3 5/6 and ANT 2011 3 6/1) r ecovered in close proximity to human vertebral and pedal elements could be interpreted as burial inclusions. An assessment of skeletal elements relative to symmetry and spatial distribution, both vertical and horizontal, suggests that the individual was in terred into a pit burial in a flexed position. The superposition of articulated left pedal bones above articulated right pedal bones suggests that the individual was oriented facing west, toward Pine Island Sound. Furthermore, the chronostratigraphic cont ext of the burial helps resolve the most stratum . A minimal sample of the right talus bone (ANT 2011 3 6/11, Beta 320867) was submitted for AMS radiocarbon dating and returned a conventional radiocarbon range of A.D. 1160 126 0 (2 sigma cal). This establishes that the individual lived at the temporal interface between the end of the
67 Caloosahat chee IIB period (A.D. 800 1200 ) and t he Caloosahatchee III (A.D. 1200 1350 ) period s . While the r adiocarbon date of A.D. 900 1050 (2 sigma cal, Beta 306003) associated with Stra tum II situate s this deposit in the Caloosahatchee IIB period , the artifact assemblage does not necessarily support this chronological assignment . Cordell assigns the upper s and s trata to Caloosahatchee I b ased on the pottery assemblage (Cordell 2013:432, Table 22). However, she identified two Belle Glade Plain sherds in the assemblage, on in Level 79 and one in Level 83. T he quahog selected for radiocarbon analysis was recovered from middle of the stratum i n unit N 4 and was located approximately 2 m to the northeast and approximately 20 cm deeper than th e burial in unit N 3 and seems to be securely a ssociated with Stratum II. The Belle Glade sherds and the radiocarbon date together suggest that Stratum II r eflects Caloosahatchee IIB activity in addition to Caloosahatchee I . The Caloosahatchee IIB period is contemporaneous wi th dates from Smith Mound (8LL36), the sand mound that . Caloosahatchee II B is also the hypothesized time period associated with the creation of water features and canals that came to define Calusa architecture. The super , indicate that the uppermost sands of Citrus Ridge were deposited by human effort. The very name, Citrus Ridge, indicates human modification. The feature was named for the c itrus grove that was maintained on the ridge from at least 1944 (though likely eve n earlier) until it was removed in 2 004 (Walker and Marquardt 2013: 134). The planting, growth, and
68 maintenance of citrus trees doubtless affected the stratification of the ridge, especially the uppermost stratum. Scudder noted that modern fertilization aff ected the chemical profile at Citrus Ridge, though she suggests that modern agriculture does not explain the overall profiles (Scudder 2013: 239) . Surprisingly, disturbance from modern citrus trees did not seem to be encountered during the excavation of uni ts N 3 and N 4. The uppermost 10 15 cm did include some historical artifacts, though the sparse shell surface described in Chapter 5 seems to mark the occurrence of in situ archaeological sediments. O ne possible interpretation is that the Caloosahatchee II B/III radiocarbon date associated with the burial is a proxy for the date of construction for the canal located directly north of the ridge. The placement of a primary burial at the interface of the upper two strata supports this interpretation . Recent ge ophysical investigations at Pineland offer insight that relates directly to Canal Construction , based remote sensing techniques conducted at Citrus Ridge (Thompson et al. 2014). Their findings indirectly support the explanation o f the re deposited origin of the upper sediments of the ridge given above. A combination of soil resistivity and ground penetrating radar (GPR) concentrated on the area north of Citrus Ridge reveals traces of what the authors a] now filled secondar 9). Beyond providing an additional line of evidence for presence of the hypothesized water feature, Thompson and colleagues also found tantalizing signatures suggesting the buried remains of several str uctures. Patterns of high amplitude reflections
69 characteristic of architectural remains were observed at two different depth slices, at approximately 32 41 cm below surface and at 88 97 cm below surface. Although the maps provided in the publication do not show the exact location of the their testing area relative to excavation units N 1, N 3 and N 4, it is likely that these depths relate to strata described in this study. It is possible that the Caloosahatchee I midden deposits of Excavation N 4 Strata III , IV, V, and VII are related to these potential domestic structures. Strata III, IV, V, and VII are inter related. The radiocarbon date ranges corresponding to these four strata overlap significantly. Stratum III dates to A.D. 330 510 (2 sigma cal., Beta 306001), coeval with the radiocarbon date of A.D. 290 580 (2 sigma cal, Beta 60 769) from articulated surf clam shells associated with the storm surge lens observed in Trench 11A. Stratum IV appears to be associa ted with Stratum III. This mostly sand matrix is manifested consistently below the shell layer of Stratum III, but also extends up vertically, effectively packed around the shell rich deposits of Stratum III. Dense cultural midden deposits of Strata V and VII mark the earliest evidence of human occup ation at Citrus Ridge. Radiocarbon dates from these strata are essentially contemporaneous, with Stratum V dating to A.D. 280 430 (2 sigma cal, Beta 52361) and Stratum VII dati ng to A.D. 260 450 (2 sigma cal, Beta 306002). Comparisons of invertebrate and v ertebrate fauna identified from these strata illustrate the greater density and dive rsity of Stratum V constituents relative to the less dense and diverse assemblage from Stratum III. Although the samples selected for analysis were of comparable volumes, S tratum V yielded 2,931 NISP weighing 7,446 grams contrasted with the Stratum III totals of 750 NISP weighing 2,098 grams. While
70 preliminary observations during excavation indicated that the faunal assemblage of Stratum III was composed of more high salinit y taxa than Stratum V, this premise was not confirmed by analysis. Interestingly, the faunal assemblage identified from Stratum V indicates an overall deeper water and higher salinity environment than most identified deposits from P ineland. H igher sea leve l during the Roman Warm Period is a possible contributing factor in the explanation of these faunal remains. Climatic contexts have been a fundamental focus of resea rch at Pineland and in the Caloosahatchee Culture Area and have been integrated into archae ological interpretations (deFrance and Walker 2013, Marquardt and Walker 2013) . Walker details environmental contexts in Chapter 2 of The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 (2013). The findings from Strata III, IV, V, and VII at Citrus Ridge fall within the Caloosahatchee I (A.D. 1 to A.D. 550) time frame di scussed by Walker (2013:38 39) . Walker describes several deposits that are consistent with storm surge washover dating to the same temporal period from sites along the Florida coast of the Gulf of Mexico. She postulates a correlation between higher sea surface temperatures and the occurrence of major hurricanes during this period. Methods of paleotempestology rely on the observation and analysis of stratigraph ic anomalies as preserved in natural archives. Methods of archaeology also rely on observations of stratified deposits as archives; however, for archaeologists the archives that they investigate are culturally constituted. Merging the efforts of these disc iplines, archaeotempestology could foster a hybrid vigor by using the strengths of both fields to resolve the temporal and spatial archive of past hurricanes. The initial
71 ago were broadly distributed horizontally along the 25 m long Trench 11A. Familiarization with the patterned stratigraphic orientation of cultural deposits across the Pineland Site allows for the ability to recognize when an anomalous layer is encountered. While we had not expected to find direct evidence of the storm surge deposited at Citrus Ridge, the constituents of the upper of the two shell midden layers may be cause to re examine this assumption. It is conceivable that the constituents of Stratum III are composed of a mixture of midden sediments from Stratum V and debris transported with a storm surge. P article settling velocities associated with turbidity currents characteristic of high energy storm surge water flows predict that larger particles will settle out of suspension as soon as the energy holding them diminishes (Woodruff et al. 2008: 393) . This happens at the farthest extent of wave flow. It is th e same principle that causes shells to be deposited along the shore line on the beach as the ti de recedes. In storm surges, this happens on a much larger and more complex scale. Sediments deposited by hurricane produced storm surges have been preserved in the sediments of coastal lakes and marshes, back barrier lagoons, and sinkholes. The constitue nts of these sediments are examined for evidence of transport, through study of particle sorting, grain size , and morphology (Donnelly and Webb 2004; Jessen et al. 2008; Lane et al. 2011; Liu 2004; Liu and Fearn 1993; Woodruff et al. 2008 ), inclusions of m acro and microfossils such as leaves, foraminifera, dinoflagellates, diatoms, phytoliths and sponge spicules ( Donnelly and Webb 2004; Lane et al. 2011; Liu 2004; Lu and L iu 2005). Analysis of archaeological strata can contribute to these methods. Archaeol ogical strata, although composed of cultural material and subject to
72 anthropogenic processes, are equally subject to the physical processes involved in a storm surge impact. Alternatively, it is possible that the differentially distributed sediments of St rata III and IV are not re worked by environmental forces ; rather, they represent midden detritus deposited either selectively or arbitrarily by anthropogenic means. The irregular distribution of Stratum III may reflect an ephemeral period of activity. The difference in appearance, compaction, and distribution between Stratum III and Stratum V might have more to do with circumstances of preservation rather than deposition. Further studies building upon the remote sensing work of Thompson et al. should inves tigate the potential for architectural remains in relationship to the shell midden deposits of Citrus Ridge. Although the results of this study do not contribute directly to the hurricane hypothesis, they do not rule out the possibility that Trench 11A , St ratum 4 is composed of re deposited sediments carried across South Pasture by hurricane related storm surge action. Likewise, while not unequivocally confirming the occurrence of a hurricane impact, these findings do not rule out the possibility that Citru s Ridge was impacted by a major hurricane. Future research models targeting evidence of paleo storms within archaeological contexts should incorporate geological testing methods of paleotempestology in both cultural and non cultural contexts. An effective approach would incorporate geological survey and sampling methods including subsurface coring along broad horizontal transects. Acknowledging that the mutually constitutive cultural and natural character of archaeological assemblages complicates their incl usion in these methods, the potential for these assemblages to contribute to the developing
73 paleotempestological record of past hurricanes should be explored in future investigations. Even the strata at the bottom of the excavation, nearly void of cultural material, offer surprising information. Positioned below the dense cultural midden of Stratum VII, and just above the sterile white sands of Stratum X, is a black, organic rich deposit concreted with oyster, marsh clams ( Polymesoda maritima ) , and ribbed mu ssels . Preliminary observations of the constituents and clustering of this concretion appear to be consistent with desiccated mangrove root habitat. Future analyses could be conducted on these samples to test for the trace remains of wood for identificatio n and procurement of a radiocarbon date. It would be interesting to establish a temporal and ecological baseline to examine the relationship between cultural and pre cultural contexts at the inception of Citrus Ridge. It has been posited that habitants cleared mangrove habitat during their earliest occupation at the site. Finding evidence of mangrove habitat directly associated with subsequent cultural deposits is an intriguing possibility. B y incorporating multiple lines of evidence at Citrus Ridge this project addresses construction, or is its core an old beach ridge or dune, much attenuated by human use and/or continued sedi 231). The a nswer is that it is likely all of the above .
74 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION The results of this study contribute to an archaeological archive of cultural and environmental contexts at the Pineland Site Complex. The results of r adiocarbon dating, stratification , b ioarchaeological, artifactual, and zooarchaeological analyses from Excavations N 3 and N 4 provide insight into the pre history of Citrus Ridge. When viewed in concert with results of previous and recent research at the site, the findings presented here en hance these other interpretations. The proposal drafted to the members of the Randell Research Center Research & Collections Committee in 2011 prior to conducting fieldwork at Pineland described the project as narrow in scope. While the test units excavate d were indeed small, the concepts to be investig ated were anything but narrow. Although the initial aim of this project involved investigating evidence for a major hurricane, the complexity of deposits encountered, along with an unexpected discovery in the uppermost strata, inescapably led the project to evolve into a more generalized, multi temporal look at the historical ecology of Citrus Ridge. Two units were excavated on the high point of Citrus Ridge. Excavation N 3 was terminated due to the discove ry of articulated human remains. Excavation N 4 was placed adjacent to Excavation N 3. No human remains were encountered and this unit was excavated to culturally sterile deposits at 125 cm below surface. Ten strata were identified and 5 radiocarbon dates we re collected, yielding a date range of A.D. 160 to A.D. 1260. Faunal assemblages identified from shell midden deposits dating from A.D. 330 450 indicate some taxa with an overall higher salinity and deeper water range than that of present day Pine Island S ound and support the Roman Warm Period climatic contexts described for this temporal period. Though the results of this study do not
75 provide definitive evidence to confirm the hurricane hypothesis, the findings are not inconsistent with expected sedimentar y signatures of a major storm surge. Results of stratum is re deposite d sed iment associated with a previously hypothesized Native American constructed small canal, a segment of the unique water scaping tha t partially define s Calusa architecture at Pineland and across the broader Caloosahatchee culture region.
76 APPENDIX A PROPOSAL FOR FIELDWORK SUBMITTED TO THE RANDELL RESEARCH CENTER RESEARCH AND COLLECTIONS COMMITTEE Date: May 3, 2011 To: William H. Marquardt, Director, Randell Research Center Karen J. Walker, Chair, RRC Research & Collections Committee Cindy Bear, Coordinator, RRC at Pineland From: Melissa Ayvaz, UF/FLMNH Anthropology Graduate Student Re: Proposal to undertake archaeological field work at the Citrus Ridge at the Pineland Site Complex (8LL33) I propose to conduct an archaeological excavation at the Citrus Ridge component of the Pineland Site Complex beginning May 18, 2011 with an anticipated end date of June 10, 2011 not to extend b eyond June 18, 2011. The study is intended to test the hypothesis that at least one high intensity hurricane, dating roughly to the 4 th century analysis are intended to be a portion of my Masters thesis in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Florida, chaired by William H. Marquardt. The investigation will be narrow in scope with the focus on relocating, documenting, and sampling deposits closely associated in time with the postulated storm(s). It will specifically target the area close to the northern most of the two small 1990 test units. As noted by previous researchers, excavation and auger transect profiles from Trench 11A in the South Pasture and the C itrus Ridge components of the site complex exhibit unique characteristics suggestive of one or more hurricane related storm surges. Primary evidence for this event is noted in Stratum 8 of the Trench 11A profile. Stratum 8 is characterized by the presence of a thin sandy lens of surf clam shells (some articulated), sea urchin remains, pen shells, and green sea turtle bones. These remains are all of fauna associated with high salinity littoral habitats, presumably swept in from the barrier islands to the we st. A pair of articulated surf clam shells from this context was radiocarbon dated to A.D. 290 580 cal (Beta 60769). Overlying the lens is a deposit of largely sand, Stratum 4, that seems to contain elements of this same lens as well as some cultural midde n constituents. pedoarchaeological analysis of Citrus Ridge, she noted a pattern that she interprets as the result of wave s Stratum 4 is that it might be storm backwash cut from the Citrus Ridge. I am currently analyzing fine screened samples from this context in order to better characterize it and to compare the results to analyzed samples from the Citrus Ridge deposits. Unf ortunately no bulk samples were taken in the 1990 work. Therefore, I propose to open a new, small
77 excavation located near both the northern most of the 1990 test units at Citrus Ridge samples from the Citrus Ridge deposits for comparison with the analyzed Stratum 4 samples. My overarching goal is to compare the stratigraphic profiles of all these areas to address the hypothesis that they contain evidence related to one or more storm sur ge deposit(s). This project will follow the protocols established for the Pineland Site Complex, including the use of the operation and associated proveniencing system. As such, this proposal also serves as my request for an operation designation for this project, if it is accepted. I also plan to request an accession number from the Anthropology Registrar, Elise LeCompte, at the FLMNH for the resulting collections, which will be curated in the South Florida archaeological collections at the museum. My i ntended work plan is as follows; 1 Sometime prior to the May 18 th start date; Drs. Marquardt and Walker will relocate the northernmost 1990 Citrus Ridge excavation unit and select a location to place my new 1x2 meter unit. 2 Weekly work schedule a. Tuesday is lab day. Work will be focused at the Ruby Gill House. 5 6 volunteers will work in the garage on washing and cataloging artifacts following museum archival standards and guidelines. On these days, Melissa, also will make use of the RRC comparative zooarchaeolo gical collection for on going analysis. The goal is to have all recovered artifacts washed and cataloged by the end of the excavation. b. Fieldwork will run Wednesdays through Saturdays, from 8am 4pm, with a lunch break. This schedule will be flexible in resp onse to weather. c. Sundays and Mondays off. 3 Fieldwork will begin Wednesday, May 18 th . The excavation will proceed in 10 cm levels (and 5 cm levels, as needed, down to the water table whereupon augering will be employed to sample deeper deposits. The overall strategy is intended to capture subtle stratigraphic signatures. As the unit is small, there will be one primary excavator, usually myself. Two volunteers will assist with screening and bagging materials. 4 All recovered information will be systemati cally recorded on excavation forms. In addition, I will maintain a field notebook. 5 Digital and black and white 35mm film photographs will be taken of all cleaned levels and profiles and will be recorded in a photo log. 6 Zooarchaeological samples will be col lected with consultation from Karen Walker. 7 Detailed profile drawings will be made when the excavation is completed. In addition to recording all exposed materials, representative soil and radiocarbon samples will be selected from the profile wall for lat er analysis. 8 The unit will be properly back filled upon project completion; this task will be documented.
78 9 All recovered materials and all associated documentation (including analysis forms, field notes, photographs, maps, sketches, and profile drawings) w ill be curated in the South Florida Archaeology and Environmental Archaeology c ollections at the FLMNH. While I intend to complete and supervise most of this work by myself, I am appreciative that Drs. Marquardt and Walker have offered to take turns stayi ng on site to provide guidance for the entirety of the endeavor. Additional support has also been offered by Cindy Bear, the onsite coordinator of the RRC, who will help coordinate volunteers, and Michael Wylde, who has graciously offered his experienced f ield assistance. The results of this investigation have the potential to provide information at a scale and resolution rarely accessible to archaeologists. Storms occur over such short time xperiences. This chronological sequence. The possible implications of this research have relevance both within and beyond the Caloosahatchee region ranging from topi cs of land use, ecology, local and global climate change, sea level fluctuations, resiliency and response to disaster. I appreciate the time and opinions of the committee members and look forward to any questions or suggestions related to this proposal. Sincerely, Melissa Ayvaz
79 APPENDI X B CATALOG FOR FLMNH ACCESSION ANT 2011 3 PINELAND (8LL33) CITRUS RIDGE, EXCAVATIONS N 3 AND N 4 Table A 1. Catalog for FLMNH Accession ANT 2011 3, Pineland (8LL33) Citrus Ridge, Excavations N 3 and N 4. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 1 N 3 81.5 I pottery 28 residue on 1 sherd 2011 3 1 N 3 81.5 I lithics 2 2011 3 1 N 3 81.5 I metal 6 2011 3 1 N 3 81.5 I shell 2011 3 1 N 3 81.5 I bone some burned 2011 3 1 N 3 81.5 I charred plant 2011 3 2 N 3 82 I pottery 70 2011 3 2 N 3 82 I lithics 5 definite [flakes], 9 possible: 1 looks like fossil bead blank 2011 3 2 N 3 82 I metal 1 lead shot 2011 3 2 N 3 82 I shell 2011 3 2 N 3 82 I bone some human 2011 3 2 N 3 82 I charred plant 2011 3 2 N 3 82 I concretions 2011 3 2 N 3 82 I bone 3 1 human tooth and 2 possible human bones (phalange and rib/clavicle?) 2011 3 2/1 N 3 82/1 I bone 2011 3 2/2 N 3 82/2 I pottery 1 residue 2011 3 2/3 N 3 82/3 I shell concentration 2011 3 2/3 N 3 82 I sediment sample associated with shell concentration 2011 3 3 N 3 82.5 I pottery 51 2011 3 3 N 3 82.5 I shell 2011 3 3 N 3 82.5 I bone some burned 2011 3 3 N 3 82.5 I charred plant 2011 3 3 N 3 82.5 I sediment sample associated with shell 2011 3 4 N 3 83 I pottery 94 2011 3 4 N 3 83 I lithics 10 2011 3 4 N 3 83 I shell 2011 3 4 N 3 83 I bone 2011 3 4 N 3 83 I charred plant 2011 3 4 N 3 83 I sediment sample associated with shell 2011 3 4/1 N 3 83/1 I bone 2
80 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 4/2 N 3 83/2 I pottery 1 2011 3 4/3 N 3 83/3 I bone 1 2011 3 4/4 N 3 83/4 I pottery 1 2011 3 4/5 N 3 83/5 I shell 1 Removed for radiocarbon dating 9/13/11 (84.45g) 2011 3 4/6 N 3 83/6 I bone 1 2011 3 4/7 N 3 83/7 I pottery 2 1 rim, 1 body 2011 3 4/7 N 3 83/7 I bone 2 bird 2011 3 4/8 N 3 83/8 I bone 2011 3 5 N 3 83.5 I pottery 74 2011 3 5 N 3 83.5 I shell 2011 3 5 N 3 83.5 I bone 2011 3 5 N 3 83.5 I charred plant 2011 3 5 N 3 83.5 I stone 4 2011 3 5 N 3 83.5 I sediment sample associated with shell 2011 3 5/1 N 3 83.5/1 I bone 1 2011 3 5/2 N 3 83.5/2 I shell 2011 3 5/3 N 3 83.5/3 I pottery 1 2011 3 5/4 N 3 83.5/4 I pottery 1 2011 3 5/5 N 3 83.5/5 I/II pottery 1 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 5/6 N 3 83.5/6 I/II shell artifact 1 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 5/7 N 3 83.5/7 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; human vertebra, fragmentary 2011 3 5/8 N 3 83.5/8 I/II bone 1 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 5/9 N 3 83.5/9 I/II shell 1 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 5/10 N 3 83.5/10 I/II bone 1 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 5/11 N 3 83.5/11 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; some human 2011 3 6 N 3 84 I pottery 107 2011 3 6 N 3 84 I shell 2011 3 6 N 3 84 I bone some human 2011 3 6 N 3 84 I charred plant 2011 3 6 N 3 84 I stone 2011 3 6 N 3 84 I fulgerite 2011 3 6 N 3 84 I concretions 2011 3 6 N 3 84 I sediment sample associated with shell 2011 3 6/1 N 3 84/1 I/II shell artifact, bone 1 stratigraphic interface
81 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 6/2 N 3 84/2 I/II pottery 1 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 6/3 N 3 84/3 I/II pottery 1 stratigraphic interface; Belle Glade 2011 3 6/4 N 3 84/4 I/II shell 1 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 6/5 N 3 84/5 I/II shell 1 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 6/6 N 3 84/6 I/II pottery 1 stratigraphic interface; decorated? 2011 3 6/7 N 3 84/7 I/II bone 2 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 6/8 N 3 84/8 I/II pottery 3 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 6/9 N 3 84/9 I/II shell 1 stratigraphic interface; ochre stained? 2011 3 6/10 N 3 84/10 I/II pottery 1 stratigraphic interface; rim 2011 3 6/11 N 3 84/11 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; assemblage, some human; taken to Gainesville 5/26/11 to ID 2011 3 6/12 N 3 84/12 I/II pottery 1 stratigraphic interface; sand tempered 2011 3 6/13 N 3 84/13 I/II stone 1 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 6/14 N 3 84/14 I/II bone 1 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 6/15 N 3 84/15 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; human: left metatarsal. taken to Gainesville 5/26/11 to ID 2011 3 6/16 N 3 84/16 I/II bone 1 stratigraphic interface; fish 2011 3 6/17 N 3 84/17 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; assemblage, some human 2011 3 6/18 N 3 84/18 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; assemblage, some human 2011 3 6/19 N 3 84/19 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; human 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 I/II pottery 15 stratigraphic interface 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 I/II shell stratigraphic interface 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; some human 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 I/II charred plant stratigraphic interface 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 I/II concretions stratigraphic interface 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 I/II sediment sample stratigraphic interface; associated with shell 2011 3 7/1 N 3 84.5/1 I/II pottery stratigraphic interface
82 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 7/2 N 3 84.5/2 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; large fish vertebra 2011 3 7/3 N 3 84.5/3 I/II pottery stratigraphic interface; rim 2011 3 7/4 N 3 84.5/4 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; possible bird or tibia? 2011 3 7/5 N 3 84.5/5 I/II pottery stratigraphic interface; body, incised 2011 3 7/6 N 3 84.5/6 I/II pottery stratigraphic interface; body 2011 3 7/7 N 3 84.5/7 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; bird? 2011 3 7/8 N 3 84.5/8 I/II bone stratigraphic interface; human 2011 3 8 N 4 81 I pottery 7 2011 3 8 N 4 81 I metal 1 iron 2011 3 8 N 4 81 I shell 2011 3 8 N 4 81 I bone 2011 3 9 N 4 82 I pottery 26 2011 3 9 N 4 82 I stone ochre? 2011 3 9 N 4 82 I shell 2011 3 9 N 4 82 I bone 2011 3 9 N 4 82 I charred plant 2011 3 10 N 4 83 I pottery 41 2011 3 10 N 4 83 I lithic 1 2011 3 10 N 4 83 I shell 2011 3 10 N 4 83 I bone 2011 3 10 N 4 83 I charred plant 2011 3 10 N 4 83 I sediment sample associated with shell 2011 3 10/1 N 4 83/1 I pottery 2011 3 10/2 N 4 83/2 I charred wood in matrix 2011 3 10/3 N 4 83/3 I pottery 1 2011 3 11 N 4 84 I pottery 83 2011 3 11 N 4 84 I shell 2 bags 2011 3 11 N 4 84 I bone 2011 3 11 N 4 84 I charred plant 2011 3 11/1 N 4 84/1 I lithic 1 2011 3 11/2 N 4 84/2 I shell 1 Pleuroploca gigantea 2011 3 11/3 N 4 84/3 I shell 1 with sediment 2011 3 11/4 N 4 84/4 I bone 1 2011 3 11/5 N 4 84/5 I pottery 1
83 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 11/6 N 4 84/6 I bone 2 2011 3 11/6 N 4 84/6 I charred wood 2011 3 11/7 N 4 84/7 I bone 1 2011 3 11/8 N 4 84/8 I pottery 1 2011 3 11/9 N 4 84/9 I bone 2 2011 3 11/10 N 4 84/10 I pottery 1 2011 3 11/11 N 4 84/11 I bone 1 shark tooth 2011 3 11/12 N 4 84/12 I pottery? 1 2011 3 11/13 N 4 84/13 I bone 1 2011 3 11/14 N 4 84/14 I pottery 1 rim 2011 3 12 N 4 84.5 I pottery 35 2011 3 12 N 4 84.5 I shell 2011 3 12 N 4 84.5 I bone 2011 3 12 N 4 84.5 I charred plant 2011 3 12/1 N 4 84.5/1 I shell 1 2011 3 12/2 N 4 84.5/2 I bone 1 2011 3 13 N 4 85 II pottery 43 2011 3 13 N 4 85 II lithic 1 2011 3 13 N 4 85 II shell 2011 3 13 N 4 85 II bone 2011 3 13 N 4 85 II charred plant 2011 3 13/1 N 4 85/1 II shell 2011 3 13/2 N 4 85/2 II shell 1 2011 3 13/3 N 4 85/3 II shell 1 2011 3 13/4 N 4 85/4 II shell 1 2011 3 13/5 N 4 85/5 II shell 1 2011 3 13/6 N 4 85/6 II shell artifact? 1 2011 3 13/7 N 4 85/7 II bone 1 2011 3 13/8 N 4 85/8 II pottery 1 2011 3 13/9 N 4 85/9 II sediment sample 2011 3 14 N 4 85.5 II pottery 35 2011 3 14 N 4 85.5 II shell 2011 3 14 N 4 85.5 II bone 2011 3 14 N 4 85.5 II charred plant 2011 3 14 N 4 85.5 II stone 3 2011 3 14/1 N 4 85.5/1 II pottery 1 2011 3 14/2 N 4 85.5/2 II bone mammal 2011 3 15 N 4 86 II pottery 24
84 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 15 N 4 86 II shell 2011 3 15 N 4 86 II bone 2011 3 15 N 4 86 II charred plant 2011 3 15/1 N 4 86/1 II pottery 1 2011 3 15/2 N 4 86/2 II pottery 1 2011 3 15/3 N 4 86/3 II pottery 1 2011 3 15/4 N 4 86/4 II pottery 1 2011 3 16 N 4 86.5 II pottery 46 2011 3 16 N 4 86.5 II shell 2011 3 16 N 4 86.5 II bone 2011 3 16 N 4 86.5 II charred plant 2011 3 16/1 N 4 86.5/1 II charred wood 2011 3 16/2 N 4 86.5/2 II pottery 2011 3 16/3 N 4 86.5/3 II lithic 1 2011 3 16/4 N 4 86.5/4 II pottery 1 2011 3 16/5 N 4 86.5/5 II pottery/bone? 1 2011 3 16/6 N 4 86.5/6 II shell 1 2011 3 16/7 N 4 86.5/7 II pottery 1 2011 3 16/8 N 4 86.5/8 II pottery 1 2011 3 17 N 4 87 II pottery 52 2011 3 17 N 4 87 II shell 2011 3 17 N 4 87 II bone 2011 3 17 N 4 87 II charred plant 2011 3 17/1 N 4 87/1 II pottery 1 2011 3 17/1 N 4 87/1 II charred wood 1 2011 3 17/2 N 4 87/2 II pottery 1 and fragments 2011 3 17/3 N 4 87/3 II pottery 1 2011 3 17/4 N 4 87/4 II pottery 1 2011 3 17/5 N 4 87/5 II seed 2011 3 17 1 N 4 87 1 III pottery 2011 3 17 1 N 4 87 1 III shell 2011 3 17 1 N 4 87 1 III bone 2011 3 17 1 N 4 87 1 III charred plant 2011 3 17 1/1 N 4 87 1/1 III shell 1 2011 3 17 2 N 4 87 2 III pottery 2011 3 17 2 N 4 87 2 III shell 2011 3 17 2 N 4 87 2 III bone 2011 3 17 2 N 4 87 2 III charred plant
85 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 17 2/1 N 4 87 2/1 III shell artifact? 1 2011 3 17 2/2 N 4 87 2/2 III charred wood 2011 3 17 2/3 N 4 87 2/3 III shell quahog 2011 3 17 2/4 N 4 87 2/4 III shell lightning whelk with sediment 2011 3 18 N 4 87.5 III pottery 24 2011 3 18 N 4 87.5 III shell 2011 3 18 N 4 87.5 III bone 2011 3 18 N 4 87.5 III charred plant 2011 3 18/1 N 4 87.5/1 III pottery 1 body 2011 3 18 1 N 4 87.5 1 III pottery 4 2011 3 18 1 N 4 87.5 1 III shell 2011 3 18 1 N 4 87.5 1 III bone 2011 3 18 1 N 4 87.5 1 III charred plant 2011 3 18 1/1 N 4 87.5 1/1 III pottery 1 body, with residue 2011 3 18 1/2 N 4 87.5 1/2 III sediment sample 2011 3 18 1/3 N 4 87.5 1/3 III sediment sample 2011 3 19 N 4 88 III pottery 2011 3 19 N 4 88 III shell 2011 3 19 N 4 88 III bone 2011 3 19 N 4 88 III charred plant 2011 3 19/1 N 4 88/1 III pottery 1 2011 3 19/2 N 4 88/2 III shell 2011 3 19/2 N 4 88/2 III sediment sample associated with shell 2011 3 19/3 N 4 88/3 III shell 2011 3 19/3 N 4 88/3 III sediment sample associated with shell 2011 3 19/4 N 4 88/4 III shell 2011 3 19/4 N 4 88/4 III sediment sample associated with shell 2011 3 19/5 N 4 88/5 III charred wood 2011 3 19/6 N 4 88/6 III sediment sample 2011 3 19 1 N 4 88 1 III pottery 4 2011 3 19 1 N 4 88 1 III shell waterscreened, needs to be sorted also includes concreted materials and bone; 6 Busycon sinistrum removed 9/12/11 for radiocarbon dating. 2011 3 19 1 N 4 88 1 III bone 2011 3 19 1 N 4 88 1 III charred plant
86 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 19 1/1 N 4 88 1/1 III shell 2011 3 19 2 N 4 88 2 III pottery 1 2011 3 19 2 N 4 88 2 III shell waterscreened, needs to be sorted also includes concreted materials and bone 2011 3 19 2 N 4 88 2 III bone 2011 3 19 2 N 4 88 2 III charred plant 2011 3 19 2 N 4 88 2 III sediment sample associated with shell 2011 3 20 N 4 88.5 III pottery 2011 3 20 N 4 88.5 III lithic 1 2011 3 20 N 4 88.5 III shell waterscreened, needs to be sorted also includes concreted materials and bone 2011 3 20 N 4 88.5 III bone 2011 3 20 N 4 88.5 III charred plant 2011 3 20 N 4 88.5 III concretions and associated sediment 2011 3 20/1 N 4 88.5/1 III shell 2011 3 20/1 N 4 88.5/1 III sediment sample associated with shell 2011 3 20/2 N 4 88.5/2 III bone 2011 3 20/3 N 4 88.5/3 III pottery 1 2011 3 20/4 N 4 88.5/4 III sediment sample 2011 3 20/5 N 4 88.5/5 III sediment sample 2011 3 20/6 N 4 88.5/6 III charred wood 2011 3 20/7 N 4 88.5/7 III bone 2 sea turtle peripheral 2011 3 20/8 N 4 88.5/8 III bone 2011 3 20/8 N 4 88.5/8 III charred wood 2011 3 20/9 N 4 88.5/9 III charred wood 2011 3 20/10 N 4 88.5/10 III bulk sample waterscreened 2011 3 20/11 N 4 88.5/11 III bulk sample, West 1/2 waterscreened 2011 3 20/12 N 4 88.5/12 III bulk sample, East 1/2 waterscreened 2011 3 21 N 4 89 IV pottery 2011 3 21 N 4 89 IV bone artifact? 2011 3 21 N 4 89 IV lithic 1 2011 3 21 N 4 89 IV shell waterscreened, needs to be sorted also includes concreted materials and bone
87 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 21 N 4 89 IV bone 2011 3 21 N 4 89 IV charred plant 2011 3 21 N 4 89 IV concreted fauna 2011 3 21/1 N 4 89/1 IV pottery 1 2011 3 21/2 N 4 89/2 IV bone artifact 1 2011 3 21/3 N 4 89/3 IV shell 2011 3 21/4 N 4 89/4 IV pottery 1 2011 3 21/5 N 4 89/5 IV pottery 1 2011 3 21/6 N 4 89/6 IV charred wood 2011 3 21/7 N 4 89/7 IV bulk sample, West 1/2 waterscreened 2011 3 21/8 N 4 89/8 IV bulk sample, East 1/2 waterscreened 2011 3 22 N 4 89.5 IV pottery with sediment [?] 2011 3 22 N 4 89.5 IV shell waterscreened, needs to be sorted also includes concreted materials and bone 2011 3 22 N 4 89.5 IV bone with sediment [?] 2011 3 22 N 4 89.5 IV charred plant 2011 3 22/1 N 4 89.5/1 IV pottery 7 2011 3 22/2 N 4 89.5/2 IV pottery 3 2011 3 22/3 N 4 89.5/3 IV pottery 1 2011 3 22/4 N 4 89.5/4 IV shell concentration and associated sediment 2011 3 22/5 N 4 89.5/5 IV sediment sample 2011 3 22/6 N 4 89.5/6 IV shell 1 2011 3 22 1 N 4 89.5 1 V bulk sample waterscreened. Entire locus was taken as a bulk sample, aside from plotted specimens; includes sediment sample. 2011 3 22 1/1 N 4 89.5 1/1 V bone 1 shark vertebra 2011 3 22 1/2 N 4 89.5 1/2 V sediment sample penshell in matrix 2011 3 22 1/3 N 4 89.5 1/3 V bone 1 large fish vertebra 2011 3 22 1/4 N 4 89.5 1/4 V pottery 1 2011 3 23 N 4 90 V pottery 3 2011 3 23 N 4 90 V shell waterscreened, needs to be sorted also includes concreted materials and bone 2011 3 23 N 4 90 V bone
88 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 23 N 4 90 V charred plant 2011 3 23 N 4 90 V concreted fauna 2011 3 23/1 N 4 90/1 V bone 2 dolphin epiphyses 2011 3 23/2 N 4 90/2 V pottery 2011 3 23/3 N 4 90/3 V bone goliath grouper vertebra; with sediment 2011 3 23/4 N 4 90/4 V pottery 1 2011 3 23 1 N 4 90 1 V bulk sample waterscreened. Entire locus was taken as a bulk sample, aside from plotted specimen; includes sediment sample. 2011 3 23 1/1 N 4 90 1/1 V pottery 3 articulating sherds, 2 incised 2011 3 23 2 N 4 90 2 V bulk sample waterscreened. Entire locus was taken as a bulk sample, aside from plotted specimen. 2011 3 24/1 N 4 91/1 V pottery 1 body 2011 3 24/2 N 4 91/2 V pottery 1 rim 2011 3 24/3 N 4 90.5/3 V bulk sample waterscreened 2011 3 24/4 N 4 91/4 V bulk sample waterscreened 2011 3 24/5 N 4 91/5 V bulk sample, NW 1/4 waterscreened 2011 3 24/6 N 4 91/6 V bulk sample, S 1/2 waterscreened 2011 3 25 N 4 91.5 VII pottery very dark/black 2011 3 25 N 4 91.5 VII shell waterscreened, needs to be sorted also includes concreted materials and bone 2011 3 25 N 4 91.5 VII bone 2011 3 25 N 4 91.5 VII charred plant 2011 3 25/1 N 4 91.5/1 VII pottery 1 body 2011 3 25/2 N 4 91.5/2 VII sediment sample "dark grey" 2011 3 25/3 N 4 91.5/3 VII pottery 1 body 2011 3 25/4 N 4 91.5/4 VII bone artifact 1 net mesh gauge 2011 3 25/5 N 4 91.5/5 VII lithic 1 possibly shell 2011 3 25/6 N 4 91.5/6 VII sediment sample "black" 2011 3 25/7 N 4 91.5/7 VII pottery 1 rim
89 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 25/8 N 4 91.5/8 VII shell 1 Mercenaria campechiensis. Removed 9/12/11 for radiocarbon dating (55.44g). 2011 3 25/9 N 4 91.5/9 VII sediment sample black concretion 2011 3 25/10 N 4 91.5/10 VII bulk sample waterscreened 2011 3 26 N 4 92 VII pottery 2011 3 26 N 4 92 VII shell needs to be sorted 2011 3 26 N 4 92 VII bone 2011 3 26 N 4 92 VII charred plant 2011 3 26 N 4 92 VII unsorted 2011 3 26/1 N 4 92/1 VII pottery 1 body 2011 3 26/2 N 4 92/2 VII sediment sample 2011 3 26/3 N 4 92/3 VII bulk sample waterscreened 2011 3 27 N 4 92.5 VIII pottery 9 body 2011 3 27 N 4 92.5 VIII shell 2011 3 27 N 4 92.5 VIII charred plant 2011 3 27 N 4 92.5 VIII unsorted 2011 3 27/1 N 4 92.5/1 VIII bulk sample waterscreened 2011 3 27/2 N 4 92.5/2 VIII bulk sample "concretion" waterscreened 2011 3 27/3 N 4 92.5/3 VIII bulk sample "mangrove area" waterscreened 2011 3 27 1 N 4 92.5 1 X shell 2011 3 27 1 N 4 92.5 1 X bone 2011 3 27 1 N 4 92.5 1 X charred plant? 2011 3 27 1 N 4 92.5 1 X unsorted 2011 3 27 1/1 N 4 92.5 1/1 X charred wood 2011 3 27 1/2 N 4 92.5 1/2 X pottery 1 body 2011 3 27 2/1 N 4 92.5 2/1 X sediment sample 2011 3 27 3/1 N 4 92.5 3/1 X sediment sample 2011 3 27 4/1 N 4 92.5 4/1 X sediment sample 2011 3 27 5/1 N 4 92.5 5/1 X sediment sample 2011 3 27 6/1 N 4 92.5 6/1 X sediment sample 2011 3 28 N 4 93 X shell 2011 3 28 N 4 93 X bone 2011 3 28 N 4 93 X charred plant 2011 3 28/1 N 4 93/1 X shell 1 Busycon sinistrum , reddish
90 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 28/2 N 4 93/2 X sediment sample 2011 3 28/3 N 4 93/3 X sediment sample 2011 3 28/4 N 4 93/4 X bulk sample "concretion" waterscreened 2011 3 29 N 4 93.5 X bone 2011 3 29 N 4 93.5 X charred plant? 2011 3 29 N 4 93.5 X concretions 2011 3 29/1 N 4 93.5/1 X concretion 2011 3 29/2 N 4 93.5/2 X concretion 2011 3 29/3.1 N 4 93.5/3 below X oakfiled auger 0 10 cm, EMPTY BAG: nothing in auger 2011 3 29/3.2 N 4 93.5/3 below X oakfiled auger 10 20 cm 2011 3 29/3.3 N 4 93.5/3 below X oakfiled auger 20 30 cm 2011 3 29/4.1 N 4 93.5/4 below X oakfiled auger 0 10 cm, EMPTY BAG: nothing in auger 2011 3 29/4.2 N 4 93.5/4 below X oakfiled auger 10 20 cm 2011 3 29/4.3 N 4 93.5/4 below X oakfiled auger 20 30 cm 2011 3 29/5.1 N 4 93.5/5 below X oakfiled auger 0 10 cm 2011 3 29/5.2 N 4 93.5/5 below X oakfiled auger 10 20 cm 2011 3 29/5.3 N 4 93.5/5 below X oakfiled auger 20 30 cm 2011 3 29/6.1 N 4 93.5/6 below X oakfiled auger 0 10 cm 2011 3 29/6.2 N 4 93.5/6 below X oakfiled auger 10 20 cm 2011 3 29/6.3 N 4 93.5/6 below X oakfiled auger 20 30 cm 2011 3 29/7.1 N 4 93.5/7 below X oakfiled auger 0 10 cm 2011 3 29/7.2 N 4 93.5/7 below X oakfiled auger 10 20 cm 2011 3 29/7.3 N 4 93.5/7 below X oakfiled auger 20 30 cm 2011 3 30/1 N 3 82.5 North Profile #1 I shell Neverita duplicata 2011 3 30/2 N 3 82 North Profile #2 I shell Busycon sinistrum and Neverita duplicata 2011 3 30/3 N 3 83.5 North Profile #3 I bone sea turtle 2011 3 31/1 N 3 84 East Profile #1 I pottery 1 body
91 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 31/2 N 3 84 East Profile #2 I shell 1 Busycon sinistrum (columella) 2011 3 31/3 N 3 83.5 East Profile #3 I shell 1 Busycon sinistrum 2011 3 31/4 N 3 83.5 East Profile #4 I bone 1 Homo sapiens , Left talus 2011 3 32/1 N 4 82.5 West Profile #1 I shell 1 Busycon sinistrum 2011 3 32/2 N 4 83.5 West Profile #2 I shell 2 Fasciolaria sp. And other 2011 3 32/3 N 4 86.5 West Profile #3 II shell 1 Busycon sinistrum 2011 3 32/4 N 4 86.5 West Profile #4 II pottery 1 body 2011 3 32/5 N 4 88 West Profile #5 III shell 1 Spisula solidissima 2011 3 32/6 N 4 88 West Profile #6 III shell 1 Melongena corona 2011 3 32/7 N 4 88 West Profile #7 III shell 1 Mercenaria campechiensis (eroded) 2011 3 32/9 N 4 88.5 West Profile #9 V shell 1 Mercenaria campechiensis (eroded) 2011 3 32/10 N 4 89.5 West Profile #10 VI shell 1 Busycon sinistrum 2011 3 32/11 N 4 89 West Profile #11 VI shell 3 Melongena corona (2), Busycon sinistrum (columella) 2011 3 32/12 N 4 90 West Profile #12 V shell 2 Melongena corona , Neverita duplicata 2011 3 32/13 N 4 87.5 West Profile #13 III shell 1 Noetia ponderossa 2011 3 33/1 N 4 86 South Profile #1 II shell 1 Busycon sinistrum 2011 3 33/2 N 4 88 South Profile #2 III shell 1 Pleuroploca gigantea 2011 3 33/3 N 4 89 South Profile #3 IV pottery 1 body 2011 3 33/4 N 4 89.5 South Profile #4 IV pottery 1 body 2011 3 33/5 N 4 90 South Profile #5 IV pottery 1 body 2011 3 33/6 N 4 91.5 South Profile #6 V shell
92 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 33/7 N 4 87 South Profile #7 III charred wood 2011 3 34/1 N 4 83.5 North Profile #1 I shell 1 Mercenaria campechiensis 2011 3 34/3 N 4 86 North Profile #3 II shell 1 Mercenaria campechiensis. Removed 9/12/11 for radiocarbon dating (68.24g). 2011 3 34/4 N 4 87 North Profile #4 II shell 1 columella (P.g.?) 2011 3 34/5 N 4 87 North Profile #5 II shell 1 Mercenaria campechiensis 2011 3 34/6 N 4 89 North Profile #6 III shell 1 Melongena corona 2011 3 34/7 N 4 86.5 North Profile #7 II pottery 1 body 2011 3 34/8 N 4 90.5 North Profile #8 V shell 1 Fasciolaria sp. 2011 3 34/9 N 4 90.5 North Profile #9 V shell 1 Fasciolaria sp. 2011 3 34/10 N 4 91 North Profile #10 V shell 1 Busycon spiratus 2011 3 35/1 N 4 88 East Profile #1 III bone 1 turtle 2011 3 35/2 N 4 91 East Profile #2 V shell 1 Mercenaria campechiensis 2011 3 36/1 N 3 83.5 West Profile #1 I shell 1 Busycon sinistrum (tip) 2011 3 36/2 N 3 82.5 West Profile #2 I shell 1 Fasciolaria sp. 2011 3 36/3 N 3 82.5 West Profile #3 I shell 1 Busycon sinistrum 2011 3 36/4 N 3 82.5 West Profile #4 I shell 6 Busycon spiratus and oyster 2011 3 36/5 N 3 84 West Profile #5 I shell 1 Mercenaria campechiensis 2011 3 37/1 N 4 82 North Profile I sediment sample 2011 3 37/2 N 4 85.5 North Profile II sediment sample 2011 3 37/3 N 4 88.5 North Profile III sediment sample 2011 3 37/4 N 4 90 North Profile IV sediment sample
93 Table A 1. Continued. ANT Catalog# Provenience Stratum Description Count Comment 2011 3 37/5 N 4 91 North Profile V sediment sample 2011 3 37/6 N 4 90.5 West Profile VI sediment sample 2011 3 37/7 N 4 92 North Profile VII sediment sample for a better Str. VII sample see 2011 3 25/6 from N 4 91.5/6 2011 3 37/8 N 4 93 North Profile VIII sediment sample com bined from the two locations marked on profile 2011 3 37/9 N 4 92.5 North Profile IX sediment sample 2011 3 37/10 N 4 93.5 North Profile X sediment sample 2011 3 38 surface historic artifact 1 sunglass lens, located ~1 m SE of the SE corner of N 3 2011 3 39 Plotted Specimen #1* pottery STP body 1 *See WHM field notes, recovered 5 cmbs by WHM and KJW during relocation of S616 W800 [N 1] 2011 3 40 Plotted Specimen #2* pottery STP sherds: 1 rim, 1 body 2 *See WHM field notes, recovered 5 cmbs by WHM and KJW during relocation of S616 W800 [N 1]
94 APPENDIX C ANT 2011 3: Human remains from Citrus Ridge, Pineland Site Complex, FL Little is known about the skeletal biology of the pre contact people inhabiting the Pineland Site Complex (8LL33, Pineland, FL). As legal and ethical concerns dictate that archaeological excavations at Pinel and deemphasize the disturbance of known burial mounds, few human skeletal remains have been collected from the site. Even fewer have been recovered from in situ burial contexts (Hutchinson n.d. ). Thus, any data that may be gleaned from the skeletal evid ence represent rare and exciting opportunities to learn about the biology, pathology, demography, mortuary practices, and subsistence adaptations of the pre contact people of Pineland. While the human remains associated with Florida Museum of Natural Hist ory accession ANT 2011 3 are few and fragmentary, they can nonetheless contribute to this growing body of knowledge. ANT 2011 3 Human Remains Florida Museum of Natural History accession ANT 2011 3 includes fragmentary human skeletal remains recovered from Excavation N 3, a 1 x 2 meter unit on Citrus Ridge, Pineland, FL. Portions of Citrus Ridge constitute a naturally occurring land feature; portions of the feature are anthropogenic, and date to between ca. 160 and ca. 1260 A.D . (Ayvaz n.d. , Walker and Mar quardt n.d. ). These dates roughly correspond to the chronological subperiods of Caloosahatchee I through Caloosahatchee IIB ca. 500 B.C. through c a. 800 1200 A . D . ( as informed by ceramic sequences; Cordell n.d. ). From 19 May 2011 through 30 June 2011, human remains were collected from Excavation N 3, originating from proveniences between 0.25 and 0.48 meters below surface . The human remains recovered from Citrus Ridge include an upper third molar, fragments of cervical and lumbar vertebrae, elements o f the left and right ankle and foot, and several small, undiagnostic osseous fragments. A full provenience list and inventory of the ANT 2011 3 remains appear in Table 1 . All skeletal elements match human exemplars, except for those small and/or undiagno stic elements which preclude conclusive classification (these are labeled in Table 1 possible, but hypothetical side assignments are presented in Figures 1 and 2 . Over all, the human remains are in poor to fair condition. Minimum Number of Individuals One. This assemblage contains no duplicated skeletal elements, and all elements match in their overall size, developmental profile, and pattern of muscle markings. Addi tionally, most elements share a taphonomic signature and associated proveniences: portions of the right foot were found articulated in situ ; other pedal remains were closely spatially associated. The upper third molar was recovered approximately 1.5 mete rs to the north; while this tooth was not directly associated with the articulated remains, it may still originate from the same individual, and does not increase the minimum number of individuals.
95 Table C 1. ANT 2011 3 human remains inventory and pro venience data. ANT Catalog# Provenience Date Element Condition Count Wt (g) 2011 3 2 N 3 82 5/19/11 U pper molar (M3) Whole 1 0.82 2011 3 2 N 3 82 5/19/11 P roximal phalanx (foot) Whole 1 0.58 2011 3 2 N 3 82 5/19/11 P ossible phalanx Fragment 1 1.15 2011 3 5/7 N 3 83.5/7 5/21/11 C ervical vertebrae Fragments >5 3.48 2011 3 5/11 N 3 83.5/11 5/25/11 P roximal phalanx (foot) Fragment 1 0.54 2011 3 5/11 N 3 83.5/11 5/25/11 M etatarsal shaft Fragments 2 4.55 2011 3 5/11 N 3 83.5/11 5/25/11 R ight metatarsal 1 Fragments 2 2.26 2011 3 5/11 N 3 83.5/11 5/25/11 P ossible metatarsal base Fragment 1 0.5 2011 3 5/11 N 3 83.5/11 5/25/11 P ossible human remains Fragments 2 0.26 2011 3 6 N 3 84 5/26/11 D istal phalanx (foot) Whole 1 0.16 2011 3 6 N 3 84 5/26/11 P ossible vertebra Fragment 1 0.38 2011 3 6 N 3 84 5/26/11 P ossible human remains Fragments 10 4.1 2011 3 6/11 N 3 84/11 5/26/11 Right c alcaneus >3/4, frag 2 35.9 2011 3 6/11 N 3 84/11 5/26/11 R ight talus >3/4 1 20.82 2011 3 6/11 N 3 84/11 5/26/11 L eft metatarsal 5 Shaft 1 4.16 2011 3 6/11 N 3 84/11 5/26/11 P roximal phalanges (foot) Whole 2 1.69 2011 3 6/11 N 3 84/11 5/26/11 I ntermediate phalanx (foot) Whole 1 0.39 2011 3 6/11 N 3 84/11 5/26/11 D istal phalanx 1 Fragment 1 0.14 2011 3 6/11 N 3 84/11 5/26/11 S esamoid Whole 1 0.11 2011 3 6/11 N 3 84/11 5/26/11 P ossible human remains Fragments >5 3.47 2011 3 6/15 N 3 84/15 5/26/11 L eft metatarsal 1 >3/4, frag 2 10.23 2011 3 6/15 N 3 84/15 5/26/11 A ssociated fragments Fragments >5 0.51 2011 3 6/17 N 3 84/17 5/25/11 L eft distal phalanx 1 Whole 1 1.23 2011 3 6/18 N 3 84/18 5/26/11 R ight intermediate cuneiform >3/4 1 2.09 2011 3 6/18 N 3 84/18 5/26/11 R ight navicular <1/2 1 1.95 2011 3 6/18 N 3 84/18 5/26/11 P roximal phalanx 1 >3/4 1 1.61 2011 3 6/18 N 3 84/18 5/26/11 I ntermediate phalanx (foot) Whole 1 0.16 2011 3 6/18 N 3 84/18 5/26/11 S esamoid Whole 1 0.15 2011 3 6/18 N 3 84/18 5/26/11 P ossible human remains Fragments >5 0.87 2011 3 6/19 N 3 84/19 5/26/11 L umbar vertebrae Fragments >5 5.87 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 5/26/11 P roximal phalanx 1 Fragment 1 0.38 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 5/26/11 P roximal phalanges (foot) >3/4 3 1.7 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 5/26/11 I ntermediate phalanx (foot) >3/4 1 0.23 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 5/26/11 P ossible metatarsal bases Fragments 2 0.44 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 5/26/11 S esamoid Whole 1 0.19 2011 3 7 N 3 84.5 5/26/11 P ossible human remains Fragments >5 2.27 2011 3 7/8 N 3 84.5/8 5/26/11 R ight cuboid Whole 1 8.99 2011 3 31/4 N 3 83.5 East Profile #4 6/30/11 L eft talus >3/4 1 24.25
96 Figure C 1 . Left foot , with possible assignment of phalanges . Scale is in cm. Figure C 2 . Right foot , with possible assignment of phalanges . Scale is in cm. Sex Probable male. While the absence of such informative skeletal elements as the os coxae precludes a definitive sex determination, measurements of the left talus fall above the sectioning contact South Dako ta Native Americans; pre contact Southwestern Native Americans), suggesting that this individual was male.
97 Ancestry Probable Native American. Because of the fragmentary nature of these remains, the ancestry of the deceased individual cannot be determined definitively. However, the remains were recovered from the Pineland archaeological site, in the context of the partly anthropogenic, pre contact Citrus Ridge feature ( dating to between 160 and 1260 A.D .). In addition to being infiltrated by ro otlets and sandy sediments, the skeletal elements are degraded, eroded, soil stained, and broken postmortem; these taphonomic characteristics suggest interment for a period of many years, if not centuries. Finally, the upper third molar exhibits the moder ate to marked occlusal wear typically seen in pre contact Native American populations. Thus, it is likely that these remains represent a Native American individual . Age Adult. The roots of the upper third molar are fully formed, with closed apices. Ac cording to Mincer et al. (1993), this degree of development typically occurs in individuals over the age of 18 years. Additionally, the moderate to occlusal surface and the marked interproximal wear facet indicate that the tooth was erupted and individual was somewhat older than 18 years of age at death. Stature As no complete long bones are present, the stature of this indi vidual cannot be determined. Trauma and Pathologies While no evidence of perimortem trauma (trauma occurring at or near the time of death) is visible in these remains, a pathological condition affecting this individual during life is observable. Two of t he ANT 2011 3 skeletal elements a fragmentary left fifth metatarsal ( Figure 3 ) and an unidentified metatarsal shaft fragment ( Figure 4 ) exhibit evidence of periostitis. Periostitis, an osteoblastic reaction of the periosteal membrane surrounding a bon e, membrane to lift from the bone surface, stimulating bone growth (Mann and Hunt 2005:183). Periostitic lesions typically appear as layers of porous, woven bone externa cortical surface (Ortner 2003:206), and can be identified as either active or healing, based on their morphology. Active lesions exhibit coloration and texture that are distinct from the underlying bone surface; healed lesions appear less distinct, and show evidence of remodeling (Mann and Hunt 2005). While it numbers among the suite of pathologies incurred by such disease syndromes as syphilis, periostitis is a non specific term: it may refer to secondary bone formation due to systemic d isease, or to primary bony reaction at the site of an injury or infection (Ortner 2003). Judging by the remodeled appearance of the periostitic lesions in these remains, they are likely healing/healed (see Figures 3, 4 ).
98 Figure C 3. Left fifth meta tarsal, with evidence of healed periostitis (arrow). Scale is in cm. Figure C 4. The shaft of an unidentified metatarsal, showing evidence of healed periostitis (arrow). Scale is in cm. Burial Data The close spatial association of the ANT 2011 3 remains, in particular the elements of the left and right feet, suggest that these skeletal elements originate from the same individual. The in situ articulation of several pedal elements indicates that this ligaments had not decomposed at the time of his deposition, suggesting a primary interment ( sensu Duday 2006). Additionally, the proveniences of the left and right feet in relation to the horizontal provenience of the vertebral elements approximately correspond with their expected anatomical position within a flexed posture. Duday (2006) suggests that when the pedal elements of archaeologically recovered remains are elevated with respect to the rest of the skeleton, b urial within a pit is indicated. During excavation of these remains, the bones of the right foot were encountered in level N 3 83.5, at the level of the associated cervical vertebrae. Lumbar vertebrae were encountered in the
99 next lowest level, N 3 84. W hile this evidence is by no means conclusive, the slightly elevated vertical provenience of the right foot suggests that this individual may have been interred in a pit. The taphonomic state of these remains indicates long term interment. The skeletal ele ments are degraded, eroded, soil stained, and infiltrated by rootlets and sandy sediments. As Hutchinson (2004) reports in his synthesis of Florida bioarchaeology, burial in sand is detrimental to human remains: in addition to being acidic, sandy sedimen ts allow water percolation, contributing to the rapid decomposition of organic materials. Plant activity, groundwater chemicals, and activity by human and non human animals can also contribute to poor skeletal preservation. The poor to fair condition of these remains is consistent with the poor preservation of much skeletal material excavated from southwest Florida sand mound contexts (Hutchinson 2004). Associated with these remains are pottery, lithic materials, and two shell artifacts in addition to unmodified shell and animal bone (Ayvaz, n.d. ). Most of the pottery is sand tempered, with exceptions including an undecorated St. Johns body sherd (ANT 2011 3 3/2) and a Belle Glade bo dy sherd (ANT 2011 3 6/6). undiagnostic chert debitage and flakes. The two shell artifacts (ANT 2011 3 4/6 and ANT 2011 3 (1992) typology. Bo th are made from lightning whelk ( Busycon sinistrum ) and show considerable wear from use and erosion. These two shell artifacts were encountered in close spatial proximity to the cervical vertebra e and pedal elements, respectively. An ochre stained whelk body whorl fragment (ANT 2011 3 6/9) represents another possible artifact associated with these materials. Unmodified shell concentrations consisting of lightning whelk, pear whelk, tulip, hard clam, crown conch and oyster are interspersed throughout the unit, all in approximately the same horizontal distribution, possibly following a surface. Animal bones in these two strata are diverse, including many species of ray finned fishes, reptiles including snake, sea turtle and other unidentified turtle, bird including duck and an unidentified large wading bird, and mammal represented by raccoon and deer. These associated materials will be discussed further in future reports, including the Ayvaz manuscript currently in preparation. AMS Date On 17 April 20 12, the right talus (ANT 2011 3 6/11: N 3 84/11) was removed from this assemblage, photographed and documented appropriately, and sent to Beta Analytic Inc. (Miami, FL) for radiocarbon dating via accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). This skeletal element was chosen because of its in situ provenience in articulation with another bone of the right foot (calcaneus ANT 2011 3 6/11: N 3 84/11) and its close spatial relationship with the other recovered foot bones. It is thus considered r epresentative of the entire skeletal individual. The decision to d ate the bone directly was influenced by its stratig raphic position: t he burial is located at the transition between Strata I and II. Standard radi ocarbon dating was undertaken on marine s hell from each of these strata, returning dates of Cal. A.D. 160 370 and Cal. A.D. 900 1050 (2 sigma calibration), respectively. Previous excavations at Citrus Ridge revealed that Stratum I may have been secondarily deposited atop Stratum II (Walker and M arquardt, n.d. ). The early date of Stratum I provided by the current research (Cal. A.D. 160 370; Ayvaz, n.d. ) supports this interpretation. However, it was believed that determining the date of the burial itself would clarify the overall interpretation of the formation of Strata I and II.
100 On 14 May 2012, Beta Analytic Inc. submitted a Report of Radiocarbon Dating Analyses to the Florida Museum of Natural History. The sampled right talus (ANT 2011 3 6/11: N 3 84/11) returned a date of Cal. A.D. 1160 126 0 ( Beta 320867; 2 sigma calibration). This date is particularly interesting because it straddles the Caloosahatchee IIB (A.D. 800 1200)/Caloosahatchee III (A.D. 1200 1350) boundary. Very few Caloosahatchee III contexts from the Pineland Site have been ex cavated. The date of the right talus represents the most recent date returned by materials recovered from the Citrus Ridge feature; the interval between the Stratum I date and the burial date (ca. 160 and ca. 1260 A.D.) represents the widest known tempora l range of the feature. The late date of the burial, in stark contrast with the early date of the stratum directly overlying it, supports the interpretation that the Stratum I sediments were removed from another, earlier context within the site complex, an d piled atop Stratum II. The secondary deposition of Stratum I may have occurred soon after the deposition of the deceased individual, or concurrently with his placement atop or within the sediments of Stratum II. The timing of the Stratum I deposition i s also coincident with the creation of the water feature directly north of Citrus Ridge; it is generally accepted that the Pineland Canal was constructed ca. A.D. 1000 1200 (Luer and Wheeler 1997) and that other water features date to the same time period. Discussion It is important to place the fragmentary ANT 2011 3 remains within the context of other burials recovered from contemporary Florida sites. As the Pineland Site Complex represents a Calusa occupation, the ANT 2011 3 remains can be viewed as pa rt of a greater Calusa burial tradition. Indeed, many aspects of this interment are consistent with the commonly cited rhetoric surrounding Calusa burial practices. use burial mounds knowledge of these practices is limited. But how much do we really know about Calusa burial practices duri ng Caloosahatchee I IIB, the chronological periods represented by Citrus Ridge? archaeological record? Unfortunately, our understanding of this purported pattern is hind ered by the extremely small sample of contemporary Calusa human remains. A minimum number of 18 individuals have been excavated previously from the Pineland Site Complex; of these, the majority are represented by fragmentary, isolated skeletal and dental elements; only one previously excavated Pineland burial represents an intact individual (Hutchinson n.d. ). Well documented, meticulously excavated human skeletal remains from other contemporary Calusa sites are similarly scarce. These sites include Buck Key (human skeletal remains: n=5; Hutchinson 1992), Galt Island, (n=4; Hutchinson 1990), and Useppa Island (n=6; Hutchinson 2004). Still, comparisons are possible among the ANT 2011 3 remains and the small samples of remains from contemporary Calusa sites. The ANT 2011 3 remains were recovered from a partly anthropogenic sand ridge feature; evidence suggests that contemporary Calusa interred their dead within sand burial mounds at Buck Key (Hutchinson 1992) and elsewhere at the Pineland Site Complex (Hutchinson n.d. ). The interment of the ANT 2011 3 remains was likely primary; Hutchinson (1992, 1999) reports instances of primary inte rment at Buck Key and on Useppa Island. The flexed positioning inferred for the ANT 2011 3 remains is also consistent with evidence of flexed Calusa burials at sites such as Buck Key (Hutchinson 1992), Useppa
101 Island (Hutchinson 1999), and Pine Island 8 (M oore 1900 1 ). The ANT 2011 3 artifact assemblage associated with the burial context includes non local ceramics, lithics and shell artifacts that are consistent with other known burial contexts from Caloosahatchee II sites. Viewed within a broader regional context, sites dating to the same period share similarities with these Calusa sites. At the nearby, contemporaneous Aqui Esta site, a sand mound also contained human burials (Hutchinson 2002). According to the report of Collins (1929), the Captiva Islan d site also featured a sand mound with both flexed primary interments and secondary bundle burials. Bullen and Bullen (1976) report that a majority of burials excavated from the sand mound at the Palmer site were primary interments, many of them flexed. Thus, although there is but scant evidence of the comprehensive Caloosahatchee II mortuary pattern proposed by Widmer (1988), the limited southwest Florida coastal evidence does support the idea of a local mortuary tradition; and the regional evidence sugg ests that this tradition may have been shared by the nearby peoples of Caloosahatchee I and Caloosahatchee IIA/B era Florida. The healed periostitis of the ANT 2011 3 metatarsals can also be viewed in the context of greater Florida bioarchaeology. Frequen cies of periostitis vary among pre contact Florida populations, with proliferative bone reactions affecting anywhere from 6% to 58% of individuals in various Florida Gulf Coast skeletal samples (Hutchinson 2004:114). In his 1922 survey of pre contact Flor periostitis observed in Native Floridian remains. In contrast, Hutchinson (2004) reports low rates of periostitis in adult skeletal remains from Palmer Mound: only 1% of Palmer adults exhibit signs of active periostitis; 3% show evidence of healing periostitis. Interpreting pre contact periostitis proves even more difficult than identifying frequency serves, although even he acknowledges that his evidence is far from conclusive. Other researchers have been equally eager to pinpoint an infectious cause for the periostitis observed in Native Floridian remains: in the periostitic lesions of skeletal rem ains from the Palmer Mound, Bullen (1972) finds evidence of systemic infection she diagnoses as syphilis; in his reanalysis of the Palmer data, Hutchinson (2004) makes a similar claim. The pitfall of diagnosing periostitis and other these skeletal health indicators are by definition non specific (Mann and Hunt 2005, Ortner 2003). When observing periostitis in any set of skeletal remains, it is difficult to disc riminate a systemic from a localized origin; an interpretation of the former is strengthened by evidence of periostitic lesions throughout the skeleton particularly in the cranium and the long bones of the leg (Bullen 1972, Hutchinson 2004). In the case of ANT 2011 3, the remains are simply too may have been a systemic infection ( e.g. , syphilis) or a local one ( e.g. , direct puncture injury to the foot). Co nclusions The fragmentary human remains accessioned into the Florida Museum of Natural History as ANT 2011 3 represent an adult individual, probably a Native American male. Occlusal tooth wear is moderate to marked. Stature is unknown. There is no evid ence of perimortem trauma. 1 Please note, however, that Moore does not provide dates for this mound, and that portions date are proto contact.
1 02 During life, this individual suffered a local or systemic infection that resulted in the development and subsequent healing of periostitis in two bones of the foot. His interment within a partly anthropogenic sand feature likel y represents a primary flexed burial. Subsequent to his deposition between ca. 1160 and1260 A.D., sediments from an earlier context at the Pineland Site Complex were piled atop the Citrus Ridge feature in which he was interred, possibly during the constru ction of a water feature. from skeletal remains originating from other pre contact Native American sites in Florida. Further research on the ANT 2011 3 remains ( e.g. , isotope analysis, comprehensive analysis of associated faunal remains) may reveal more details of the lifeways of this individual. But even this preliminary bioarchaeological analysis provides information that can enrich our understanding of health and disease in pre contact populations. Likewise, the data from the ANT 2011 3 burial context contribute to a growing understanding of the burial practices of the Calusa people. And while our grasp on the patterning of this burial tradition may be less clear than previous authors recognized ( e.g. , Widmer 1988), the recovery of these remains helps to bring the pattern into sharper focus. The ANT 2011 3 burial represents a link between the Pineland Site Complex and other contemporary Calusa burial sites, reinfo rcing past and current speculation about a regionally continuous burial tradition for the pre contact Calusa. Every connection we make between and among Caloosahatchee I IIB interment sites deepens our appreciation for Calusa mortuary customs and their i deas of local and regional group identity. E ven fragmentary rem ains if excavated carefully, documented in situ , and analyzed within their regional and temporal context can shed light on the lifeways and mortuary practices of past peoples. Allysha Powanda Winburn, M.A. Graduate Analyst, C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory WORKS CITED Ayvaz, M. n.d. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Florida. Manuscript in preparation. Bullen, A.K. 1972 Paleoepidemiology and distribution of prehistoric treponemiasis (syphilis) in Florida. Florida Anthropologist 25:133 174. Bul len, R.P., and A.K. Bullen 1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropologist 29:1 55.
103 Collins, H.B., Jr. 1929 ians of Florida. Smithsonian Institution, Explorations and Field Work for 1928 . Washington, D.C. 151 156. Cordell, A. n.d. Technological investigation of pottery variability at the Pineland Site Complex. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710. Marquardt, W.H. and K.J. Walker, eds. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies. University of Florida, Gainesville. Manuscript in preparation. 383 544. Duday, H. 2006 Archaeology of Death). In Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains . R. Gowland and C. KnÃ¼sel, eds. Oxbow Books, Ltd. Oxford, U.K. 1922 The Anthropology of Florida . Publications of the Florida State Historical Society. Deland, FL. Hutchinson, D.L. 1990 Human Skeletal Remains from Galt Island . Report on file at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Gainesville, FL. 1992 Prehistoric burials from Buck Key. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. W.H. Marquardt, ed. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies Monograph 1:411 422. University of Florida, Gainesville. 1999 Precolumbian human skeletal remains from Useppa Island. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island . W.H. Marquardt, ed. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies Monograph 3:139 147. University of Florida, Gainesville. 2002 Osteological analysis of the Aqui Esta mound population. In Archaeology of Upper Charlotte Harbor, Flori da . G.M. Luer, ed. Florida Anthropological Society Publication 15:183 193. 2004 Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change . University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL. n.d. Precolumbian human skeletal remains from the Pineland site complex . In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710. W.H. Marquardt and K.J. Walker, eds. Institute of Archaeology and
104 Paleoenvironmental Studies. University of Florida , Gainesville. Manus cript in preparation. 373 382. Luer, G.M. and R. J. Wheeler 1997 How the Pine Island Canal worked: Topography, hydraulics, and engineering. Florida Anthropologist 50: 115 131. Mann, R.W. and D.R . Hunt 2005 Photographic Regional Atlas of Bone Disease: A Guide t o Pathologic and Normal Variation in the Human Skeleton . Second edition. Charles C . Thomas. Springfield, IL. Marquardt, W.H. 1992 Shell Artifacts from the Caloosahatchee Area. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. W.H. Marquardt, ed. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies Monograph 1:191 227 . University of Florida , Gainesville . Mincer, H.H., E.F. Harris, and H.E. Berryman 1993 The A.B.F.O. study of third molar development and its use as an estimator of chronological age. Journal of Forensic Sciences 38:379 390. Moore, C.B. 1900 Certain antiquities of the Florida west coast. The Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of P hiladelphia 11:351 394. Ortner, D.J. 2003 Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains . Second edition. Academic Press, Elsevier. San Diego, CA. Steele, D.G. 1976 The estimation of sex on the basis of the talus and calcaneus. A merican Journal of Physical Anthropology 45:581 588. Walker, K.J. and W.H. Marquardt n.d. Excavations and Chronostratigraphy at the Pineland Site Complex: 1988 1995. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 17 10. W.H. Marquardt and K.J. Walker, eds. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies. University of Florida , Gainesville. Manuscript in preparation. 53 154.
105 APPENDIX D EXCAVATION FORMS FOR PROVENIENCES CONTAINING HUMAN BONE Figure D 1. Excavation form for N 3 83 .5.
106 Figure D 2. Excavation form for N 3 84.
107 Figure D 3. Excavation form for N 3 84, continued.
108 Figure D 4. Excavation form for N 3 84.5.
109 APPENDIX E SUPPLEMENTAL ZOOARCH AEOLOGICAL TABLES Table E 1. Pineland (8LL33) South Pasture, Trench 11A, Stratum 4, 3.5 4.0 horizontal. Invertebrate and vertebrate faunal remains identified from samples ANT 92 11 65/9, 75 80 cmbs, 1/4 inch screen, and ANT 92 11 65/11, 85 90 cmbs, 1/4 inch and 1/16 inch screens. Taxon Comm on Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Littorina angulifera mangrove periwinkle 1 0.08 1 0.96 Modulus modulus buttonsnail 1 0.08 1 0.18 Vermetidae wormsnails 29 2.42 35 8.05 Cerithium sp . cerith 6 0.50 6 0.12 Cerithidea scalariformis ladder hornsnail 16 1.34 16 4.84 Cerithidea sp . hornsnail 21 1.75 21 0.75 Cerithiidae ceriths 8 0.67 8 3.46 Neverita duplicata shark eye 1 0.08 1 0.44 Urosalpinx tamapaiensis Tampa drill 3 0.25 3 0.70 Busycon sinistrum lightning whelk 58 4.85 158 356.95 Busycotypus spiratus pearwhelk 20 1.67 25 60.85 Melongena corona crown conch 69 5.76 140 143.97 Nassarius sp . nassa 5 0.42 5 0.26 Fasciolaria tulipa true tulip 4 0.33 7 8.54 Fasciolaria sp. tulip 15 1.25 29 25.60 Olivella mutica variable dwarf olive 1 0.08 1 0.03 Marginella sp . marginella 1 0.08 1 0.01 Boonea sp . impressed odostome 1 0.08 1 0.01 Melampus sp. melampus 55 4.59 55 11.96 Polygyra sp . liptooth 244 20.38 244 5.67 Gastropoda gastropods 319.39 Total Gastropoda Total gastropods 559 46.69 758 952.74 Mytilidae mussels 56 4.68 154 51.87 Anadara transversa transverse ark 3 0.25 3 0.04 Atrina sp. penshell 1 0.08 5 6.79 Pinnidae penshell 1 0.08 24 3.91 Argopecten sp . scallops 3 0.25 17 17.74 Crassostrea virginica eastern oyster 88 7.35 172 505.37 Ostreola equestris crested oyster 7 0.58 9 3.56 Ostreidae oysters 210.14 Carditamera floridana broad ribbed cartadid 1 0.08 1 0.16 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 9 0.75 40 65.19
110 Table E 1. Continued. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Polymesoda maritima southern marshclam 357 29.82 658 121.15 Anomalocardia auberiana pointed venus 9 0.75 14 2.56 Chione cancellata cross barred venus 1 0.08 2 0.53 Mercenaria campechiensis quahog clam 1 0.08 6 243.36 Transenella conradina Conrad's transenella 6 0.50 12 0.16 Parastarte triquetra brown gemclam 4 0.33 8 0.03 Bivalvia bivalves 133.73 Total Bivalvia Total bivalves 547 45.68 1125 1366.29 Mollusca mollusks 328.78 Total Mollusca Total mollusks 1106 92.37 1883 2319.03 Menippe mercenaria Florida stone crab 1 0.08 1 0.16 Brachyura true crabs 1 0.08 2 0.15 Total Decapoda Total crab, shrimp, lobsters 2 0.17 3 0.31 Balanus sp. acorn barnacle 16 1.34 63 10.81 Total Cirripedia Total barnacles 16 1.34 63 10.81 Lytechinus variegatus green sea urchin 3 0.25 28 4.71 Total Echinoidea Total sea urchins 3 0.25 28 4.71 Total Invertebrata Total invertebrates 1127 94.13 1977 2334.70 Carcharhinus limbatus blacktip shark 1 0.08 1 0.07 Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Atlantic sharp nose shark 1 0.08 1 0.28 Rajiformes rays/skates 2 0.17 3 0.34 Chondrichthyes cartilagenous fishes 1 0.08 5 0.11 Total Chondrichthyes Total cartilagenous fishes 5 0.41 10 0.80 Lepisosteus sp. slender gar 1 0.08 3 0.19 Lepisosteidae gars 1 0.08 3 0.11 Clupeidae herring 2 0.17 13 0.09 Ariopsis felis hardhead catfish 3 0.25 13 3.83 Bagre marinus gafftopsail catfish 3 0.25 6 3.12 Ariidae sea catfishes 3 0.25 64 3.26 Opsanus sp . toadfish 2 0.17 7 1.86 Centropomus undecimalis common snook 1 0.08 2 5.41 Orthopristis chrysoptera pigfish 1 0.08 7 0.15 Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead 1 0.08 4 1.52 Lagodon rhomboides pinfish 23 1.92 49 0.48 Sparidae/Scianidae porgies/drums 1 0.08 36 1.19
111 Table E 1. Continued. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout 2 0.17 3 2.41 Cynoscion sp. trout 3 0.25 12 2.84 Leiostomus sp . spot 2 0.17 4 0.08 Sciaenops ocellatus red drum 2 0.17 3 1.58 Scianidae drums 1 0.08 5 0.93 Mugil sp. mullet 2 0.17 15 2.65 Paralichthys lethostigma southern flounder 1 0.08 2 0.59 Paralichthyes sp . flounder 1 0.08 1 0.04 Chilomycterus schoepfi striped burrfish 1 0.08 1 0.06 Diodon hystrix porcupinefish 1 0.08 1 0.53 Actinopterygii ray finned fishes 17.54 Total Actinopterygii Total ray finned fishes 58 4.82 254 50.46 Colubridae nonpoisonous snakes 1 0.08 1 0.01 Total Serpentes Total snakes 1 0.08 1 0.01 Gavia immer common loon 1 0.08 1 1.34 Aves birds 2 0.17 16 3.01 Total Aves Total birds 3 0.25 17 4.35 Muridae mice, rats, voles 1 0.08 2 0.02 Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 1 0.08 1 2.77 Mammalia mammal 1 0.08 2 0.55 Total Mammalia Total mammals 3 0.25 5 3.34 Vertebrata vertebrates 73.38 Total Vertebrata Total vertebrates 69 5.81 287 132.34 Total Invertebrata and Vertebrata Total invertebrates and vertebrates 1197 100.00 2264 2467.04
112 Table E 2. Pineland (8LL33) Citrus Ridge, Excavation N 4, Stratum III. Identified faunal remains from the following proveniences and screen sizes: N 4 88 2, 1/8 inch; N 4 88.5, 1/8 inch; and N 4 88.5/10, 1/4 inch. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Neverita duplicata shark eye 9 4.57 12 24.86 Busycon sinistrum lightning whelk 33 16.75 72 321.87 Busycotypus spiratus pearwhelk 9 4.57 9 30.07 Melongena corona crown conch 72 36.55 137 178.31 Fasciolaria sp . tulips 4 2.03 5 3.77 Gastropoda gastropods 125.09 Total Gastropoda Total gastropods 127 64.47 235 683.97 Mytilidae mussels 4 2.03 11 1.22 Crassostrea virginica eastern oyster 9 4.57 23 50.86 Barbatia sp. ark 2 1.02 2 0.49 Noetia ponderosa ponderous ark 1 0.51 1 4.83 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 19 9.64 70 118.11 Anomalocardia auberiana pointed venus 2 1.02 2 0.26 Mercenaria campechiensis southern quahog 1 0.51 4 61.84 Total Bivalvia Total bivalves 38 19.29 113 237.61 Mollusca mollusks 86.36 Total Mollusca Total mollusks 165 83.76 348 1007.94 Cirripedia barnacles 2 1.02 8 0.56 Total Cirripedia Total barnacles 2 1.02 8 0.56 Echinoidea sea urchins 2 1.02 26 4.30 Total Echinoidea Total sea urchins 2 1.02 26 4.30 Total Invertebrata Total invertebrates 169 85.79 382 1012.80 cf. Negaprion brevirostris lemon shark 1 0.51 1 0.50 Carcharhinidae requiem sharks 2 1.02 19 3.20 Rajiformes rays/skates 1 0.51 1 0.50 Total Chondrichthyes Total cartilagenous fishes 4 2.03 21 4.20 Ariopsis felis hardhead catfish 1 0.51 2 0.40 Bagre marinus gafftopsail catfish 1 0.51 2 0.40 Ariidae sea catfishes 3 1.52 9 1.59 Opsanus tau oyster toadfish 1 0.51 1 0.42 Opsanus sp. toadfish 3 1.52 10 2.90 Epinephelus itajara goliath grouper 1 0.51 1 6.18 Lutjanus sp. snapper 1 0.51 1 0.20 Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead 2 1.02 4 0.80
113 Table E 2. Continued. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Lagodon rhomboides pinfish 2 1.02 3 <0.0 Mugil sp. mullet 1 0.51 1 0.50 Mugilidae mullets 2 1.02 2 0.61 Chilomycterus schoepfi striped burrfish 1 0.51 1 0.23 Diodontidae, cf. Chilomycterus schoepfi burrfishes, compare with striped burrfish 1 0.51 5 0.60 Diodontidae burrfishes, porcupinefishes 1 0.51 7 0.50 Actinopterygii ray finned fishes 31.02 Total Actinopterygii Total ray finned fishes 21 10.66 49 46.35 Cheloniidae, cf . Chelonia mydas sea turtle, compare with green sea turtle 1 0.51 2 45.00 Testudines turtles 0.51 14 2.60 Total Testudines Total turtles 1 1.02 16 47.60 Anatidae ducks, geese, swans 1 0.51 3 0.60 Total Aves Total birds 1 0.51 3 0.60 Sigmodon hispidus hispid cotton rat 1 0.51 1 0.07 Total Mammalia Total mammals 1 0.51 1 0.07 Vertebrata vertebrates 27.20 Total Vertebrata Total vertebrates 28 14.73 90 126.02 Total Invertebrata and Vertebrata Total invertebrates and vertebrates 197 100.00 472 1138.82
114 Table E 3. Pineland (8LL33) Citrus Ridge, Excavation N 4, Stratum IV. Identified faunal remains from the following proveniences and screen sizes: N 4 89, 1/8 inch; and N 4 89.5, 1/8 inch. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Decapoda crab, shrimp, lobsters 1 3.33 2 0.40 Total Decapoda Total crab, shrimp, lobsters 1 3.33 2 0.40 Lytechinus variegatus green sea urchin 1 3.33 2 <0.0 Total Echinoidea Total sea urchins 1 3.33 2 <0.0 Total Invertebrata Total invertebrates 2 6.67 4 0.40 Carcharhinidae requiem sharks 2 6.67 8 9.00 Total Chondrichthyes Total cartilagenous fishes 2 6.67 8 9.00 Ariopsis felis hardhead catfish 6 20.00 17 3.80 Ariidae sea catfishes 2 6.67 6 1.40 Opsanus sp. toadfish 1 3.33 1 0.20 Centropomus undecimalis common snook 1 3.33 1 1.50 Mycteroperca microlepis gag grouper 1 3.33 1 1.30 Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead 1 3.33 2 0.10 Lagodon rhomboides pinfish 4 13.33 12 0.40 Pogonias cromis black drum 2 6.67 4 0.20 Mugil sp. mullet 2 6.67 3 0.80 Diodontidae burrfishes, porcupinefishes 2 6.67 12 1.00 Actinopterygii ray finned fishes 34.00 Total Actinopterygii Total ray finned fishes 22 73.33 59 44.70 Testudines turtle 1 3.33 13 9.70 Total Testudines Total turtles 1 3.33 13 9.70 Anatidae ducks, geese, swan 2 6.67 6 5.60 Total Aves Total birds 2 6.67 6 5.60 Mammalia mammals 1 3.33 2 1.40 Total Mammalia Total mammals 1 3.33 2 1.40 Vertebrata vertebrates 27.50 Total Vertebrata Total vertebrates 28 93.33 88 97.90 Total Invertebrata and Vertebrata Total invertebrates and vertebrates 30 100.00 92 98.30
115 Table E 4. Pineland (8LL33) Citrus Ridge, Excavation N 4, Stratum V. Identified faunal remains from the following proveniences and screen sizes: N 4 89 1, 1/4 inch; N 4 90, 1/8 inch; and N 4 90 1, 1/4 inch. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Cerithidea sp . hornsnail 1 0.06 1 0.05 Cerithiidae ceriths 2 0.11 2 0.13 Cerithium eburneum ivory cerith 2 0.13 2 0.54 Cerithium lutosum variable cerith 2 0.13 2 0.19 Cerithium muscarum flyspeck cerith 2 0.13 2 0.33 Crepidula plana eastern white slippersnail 1 0.06 1 0.07 Neverita duplicata shark eye 13 0.74 13 23.42 Busycon sinistrum lightning whelk 234 13.36 342 1409.52 Busycotypus spiratus pearwhelk 155 8.85 224 703.84 Fasciolaria sp . tulips 116 6.62 182 327.82 Melongena corona crown conch 447 25.51 876 1537.71 Polygyra sp. liptooths, flatcoils, etc. 14 0.80 14 0.51 Gastropoda gastropods 1011.08 Total Gastropoda Total gastropods 989 63.24 1661 5015.21 Mytilidae mussels 113 6.45 592 61.79 Argopecten irradians bay scallop 1 0.06 2 4.26 Crassostrea virginica eastern oyster 253 14.44 379 803.62 Ostreola equestris crested oyster 14 0.80 17 16.14 Ostreidae oysters 455 274.58 Carditamera floridana broad ribbed cartidid 2 0.13 3 4.10 Dinocardium robustum Atlantic giant cockle 1 0.06 4 8.45 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 70 4.00 123 357.15 Polymesoda maritima southern marshclam 5 0.29 6 0.74 Anomalocardia auberiana pointed venus 2 0.13 3 0.81 Chione cancellata cross barred venus 1 0.06 1 0.36 Mercenaria campechiensis southern quahog clam 4 0.23 23 338.27 Bivalvia bivalves 544.42 Total Bivalvia Total bivalves 466 29.79 1608 2414.69 Mollusca mollusks 809.34 Total Mollusca Total mollusks 1445 93.03 3269 7429.90 Menippe mercenaria Florida stone crab 1 0.06 2 2.14 Decapoda crab, shrimp, lobsters 1 0.06 6 1.39 Total Decapoda Total crab, shrimp, lobsters 2 0.12 8 3.53
116 Table E 4. Continued. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Cirripedia barnacles 36 2.05 107 6.69 Total Cirripedia Total barnacles 36 2.30 107 6.69 Lytechinus variegatus green sea urchin 3 0.17 69 4.53 Total Echinoidea Total sea urchins 3 0.19 69 4.53 Total Invertebrata Total invertebrates 1684 95.64 3453 7444.65 Carcharhinidae requiem sharks 1 0.06 1 <0.0 Carcharhinus sp. grey sharks 1 0.06 5 5.14 Rajiformes rays/skates 1 0.06 1 0.40 Total Chondrichthyes Total cartilagenous fishes 3 0.18 7 5.54 Ariopsis felis hardhead catfish 11 0.63 30 8.04 Bagre marinus gafftopsail catfish 2 0.13 5 1.78 Ariidae sea catfishes 3 0.17 23 5.70 Opsanus tau oyster toadfish 1 0.06 1 0.48 Opsanus sp. toadfish 3 0.19 5 1.63 Centropomus undecimalis common snook 1 0.06 3 9.44 Epinephelus guttatus red hind 1 0.06 1 0.14 Epinephelus itajara goliath grouper 1 0.06 1 24.10 Mycteroperca microlepis gag grouper 1 0.06 1 1.46 Caranx hippos crevalle jack 1 0.06 1 <0.0 Lutjanus sp. snapper 1 0.06 2 0.30 Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead 4 0.23 15 5.35 Lagodon rhomboides pinfish 12 0.68 36 1.04 Cynoscion nebulosus spotted sea trout 1 0.06 2 0.43 Cynoscion sp . sea trout 1 0.06 3 0.57 Mugil cephalus black mullet 1 0.06 1 0.18 Mugil curema silver mullet 1 0.06 1 0.15 Mugil sp. mullet 1 0.06 5 2.18 Pogonias cromis black drum 2 0.11 2 2.95 Sciaenops ocellatus red drum 6 0.34 16 9.68 Chilomycterus schoepfi striped burrfish 4 0.23 68 7.64 Diodontidae burrfishes, porcupinefishes 1 0.06 4 0.10 Actinopterygii ray finned fishes 104.38 Total Actinopterygii Total ray finned fishes 60 3.79 226 187.72 Cheloniidae, cf. Chelonia mydas sea turtles, compare with green sea turtle 1 0.06 2 2.40 Testudines turtles 1 0.06 19 11.42 Total Testudines Total turtles 2 0.12 21 13.82
117 Table E 4. Continued. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Aythya sp . diving ducks 1 0.06 1 2.05 Anatidae ducks, geese, swans 1 0.06 1 1.20 Total Aves Total birds 2 0.12 2 3.25 Tursiops truncatus bottlenose dolphin 1 0.06 2 7.30 Total Mammalia Total mammals 1 0.06 2 7.30 Vertebrata vertebrates 36.32 Total Vertebrata Total vertebrates 68 4.27 508 253.95 Total Invertebrata and Vertebrata Total invertebrates and vertebrates 1752 100.00 3961 7698.60
118 Table E 5. Pineland (8LL33) Citrus Ridge, Excavation N 4, Stratum VII. Identified faunal remains from the following provenience and screen size: N 4 91.5, 1/8 inch. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Cerithium muscarum flyspeck cerith 4 1.59 4 0.24 Cerithium eburneum ivory cerith 1 0.40 1 0.10 Crepidula sp. slipper snail 4 1.59 4 0.51 Neverita duplicata shark eye 7 2.78 8 9.42 Busycon sinistrum lightning whelk 25 9.92 41 154.85 Busycotypus spiratus pearwhelk 3 1.19 5 19.53 Melongena corona crown conch 34 13.49 54 106.65 Fasciolaria sp. tulip 8 3.17 11 20.96 Melampus sp . melampus 1 0.40 1 0.03 Polygyra sp. liptooth snail 6 2.38 6 0.15 Gastropoda gastropods 132.64 Total Gastropoda Total gastropods 93 36.91 135 445.80 Argopecten sp. scallop 1 0.40 4 2.84 Nuculana sp. nutclam 1 0.40 1 0.10 Mytilidae mussels 40 15.87 73 10.55 Crassostrea virginica eastern oyster 63 25.00 102 401.81 Ostreola equestris crested oyster 4 1.59 6 4.38 Ostreidae oysters 62.89 Carditamera floridana broad ribbed cartidid 2 0.79 2 1.87 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 7 2.78 23 34.40 Polymesoda maritima southern marshclam 1 0.40 1 0.06 Mercenaria campechiensis southern quahog 1 0.40 12 44.78 Bivalvia bivalves 52.41 Total Bivalvia Total bivalves 120 47.63 224 616.09 Total Mollusca Total mollusks 213 84.54 359 1061.89 Decapoda crab, shrimp, lobsters 1 0.40 1 0.06 Total Decapoda Total crab, shrimp, lobsters 1 0.40 1 0.06 Balanus sp. acorn barnacle 20 7.94 100 3.67 Total Cirripedia Total barnacles 20 7.94 100 3.67 Lytechinus variegatus green sea urchin 1 0.40 180 4.64 Total Echinoidea Total sea urchins 1 0.40 180 4.64 Invertebrata invertebrates 555.90 Total Invertebrata Total invertebrates 235 93.28 640 1626.16 Carcharhinidae requiem sharks 1 0.40 1 0.30 Total Chondrichthyes Total cartilagenous fishes 1 0.40 1 0.30
119 Table E 5. Continued. Taxon Common Name Count (MNI) % of Total MNI Count (NISP) Weight (g) Ariidae sea catfishes 4 1.59 13 3.02 Centropomus undecimalis common snook 1 0.40 1 5.50 Lutjanus sp. snapper 1 0.40 1 <0.0 Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead 1 0.40 3 3.76 Lagodon rhomboides pinfish 2 0.80 8 0.20 Cynoscion sp. sea trout 1 0.40 2 0.70 Sciaenops ocellatus red drum 1 0.40 1 0.60 Mugil sp. mullet 1 0.40 4 0.59 Diodontidae burrfishes, porcupinefishes 1 0.40 9 0.88 Actinopterygii ray finned fishes 58.65 Total Actinopterygii Total ray finned fishes 13 4.39 42 73.90 Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise 1 0.40 1 0.72 Testudines turtles 1 0.40 11 5.70 Total Testudines Total turtles 2 0.80 12 6.42 Anatidae ducks, geese, swans 1 0.40 17 7.90 Total Aves Total birds 1 0.40 17 7.90 Vertebrata vertebrates 13.81 Total Vertebrata Total vertebrates 17 6.39 72 102.33 Total Invertebrata and Vertebrata Total invertebrates and vertebrates 252 100.00 712 1728.49
120 LIST OF REFERENCES Cordell, Ann 2013 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability at the Pin eland Site Complex. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, pp. 38 3 543. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University of Florida, Gainesville. Donnelly, J. P. and Webb, T. 2004 Ba ck Barrier Sedimentary Records of Intense Hurricane L andfalls in the Northeastern United States, in Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Future. Columbia University Press, New York. Edic, Robert F. 1996 Fisherfolk of Charlotte Harbor, Florida . Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville. Elsner, J . B. and Kara, A. B. 1999 Hurricanes of the North Atlantic: Climate and Society . Oxford University Press, New York. Godwin, Carol 2013 Auger Surveys of th e Pi neland Site Complex. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A .D. 50 1710 , edited by W illiam H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, pp. 177 226. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University of Florida, Gainesville. Jessen, C. A., Rundgren, M., Bjorck, S., Andresen, C. S., and Conley, D. J. 2008 Va riability and Seasonality of North Atlantic Climate During the E arly Holocene: Evidence from Faroe Island Lake S ediments. The Holocene 18, 6: 851 860. Lane, P., Donnelly, J. P., Woodruff, J. D., Hawkes. A. D. 2011 A Decadally Resolved Paleohurricane R e cord Archived in the Late Holocene Sediments of a Florida S inkhole. Marine Geology 287: 14 30. Liu, K b. 2004 Paleotempestology: Principles, Methods, and Examples from Gulf Coast Lake S ediments, in Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, a nd Future. Columbia University Press, New York. Liu, K b. and Fearn, M.L. 1993 Lake Sediment Record of Late Holocene Hurricane Activities from C oastal Alabama. Geology 21: 293 296.
121 Lu, H Y., Liu, K b. 2005 Phytolith Assemblages as Indicators of Coasta l E nvironmental Changes and Hurricane Overwash D eposition. The Holocene 15,7: 965 972. Luer, George M. and Ryan J. Wheeler 1997 How the Pine Island Canal Worked: Topography, Hydraulics, and Engineering. The Florida Anthropologist 50: 115 131. Marquardt, Wil liam H. 1992 Shell Artifacts from the Caloosahatchee Area. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa , edited by W illiam H. Marquardt, pp. 191 227. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1. University of Florida, Gainesville. 2013 The Pineland Site Complex: Theo retical an d Cultural Contexts. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest F lorida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, pp. 1 22 . Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University of Florida, Gainesville. Marquardt, William H. and Karen J. Walker 2013 The A rchaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 . Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University of Florida, Gainesville. 2013 The Pineland Site Complex: An Envir onmental a nd Cultural Histor y. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by W illiam. H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, pp. 793 920 . Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University of Florida, Gaines ville . Murnane, R. J. and Liu, K b., editors. 2004 Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Future. Columbia University Press, New York. Nott, Jonathan 2004 Palaeotempestology: the Study of Prehistoric Tropical Cyclones A Review and Implications for Hazard Assessment. Environment International 30: 433 447. Patton, Robert B. 2013 The Temporal Contexts of Precolumbian Shell Artifacts from Southwest Florida: A Case Study of Pineland. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, pp. 545 584. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University of Florida, Gainesville.
122 Scudder, Sylvia 2013 Soils and Landscapes: Archaeo pedology a t the Pineland Site. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, pp. 227 252. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University o f Florida, Gainesville. Stewart, Kathlyn M. and Rebecca J. Wigen 2003 Screen Size and the Need for Reinterpretation: A Case Study from the Northwest Coast. In Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History (2003)44(1): 27 34. Thompson, Victor, William H. Marquardt, and Karen J. Walker 2014 A Remote Sensing Perspective on Shoreline Modification, Canal Construction , Southwestern Gulf Coast. Archaeological Prospection 21: 1 15. Walker, Karen J., Frank W . Stapor Jr., and William H. Marquardt 1995 Archaeological Evidence for a 1750 1450 B. P. Higher Than Present Sea Journ al of Coastal Research 17:205 218. Walker, Karen J. and William H. Marquardt 2013 Excavations and Chronostratigraphy at the Pin eland Site Complex, 1988 1995. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by W illiam. H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, pp. 53 154. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University of Florida, Gainesville. Walker, Karen J. 2000 The Material Culture of Precolumbian Fishing. Southeastern Archaeology ( 19)1 Summer: 24 45. 2013 The Pineland Site Complex: En vironmental Contexts. I n The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 1710 , edited by W illiam . H. Marquardt and K aren . J. Walker, pp. 23 52. Institute of Archaeology an d Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University of Florida, Gainesville. Woodruff, J.D., Donnelly, J.P. Mohrig, D., and Geyer, W.R. 2008 Reconstructing R elati ve Flooding Intensities Responsible for Hurricane Induced D eposits from Laguna Playa Grande , Vieques, Puerto Rico. Geology 36: 391 394.
123 Wylde, Michael 2013 Complex, Pine Island, Florida. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology. University of Florida , Gainesville .
124 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Melissa Ayvaz grew up in New Hampshire where she benefited from the guidance of many fantastic educators. Inspired by a high school course called Scientist as Humanist taught by Mr. Young, Melissa has always strived to balance explanation with under standing. She learned about anthropology from her high school guidance counselor, Mrs. Onion. Coastal environments and the histories of peoples and places have always fascinated Melissa. She has conducted archaeological fieldwork at numerous sites in the s outheastern United States and worked as an archaeological curatorial assistant at the Florida Museum of Natural History since 2006 . Melissa degree with a major in Anthropology and a minor in Religion (focus on Eastern texts and beli efs ) from the Uni versity of Florida in 2007 . After completion of her m degree at the University of Florida , Melissa intends to pursue a career in museum archaeology.