text: UFDC Home | Help | RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS HIDE Copyright Table of Contents Editor's Page Obituary of J. Raymond William... The Deltona Project: Cultural Resource... Advertising A Technological and Functional... Prehistoric Land Use in West-Central... Preshitoric Chert Procurement and... Advertising The Old Okahumpka Site (8LA57):... Advertising Occupational Nexus Modeling in... Advertising A Belle Glade Earthwork Topology... C.B. Moore on the Ocklawaha River:... The Dunford Collection A Century of Burial Removals at... Advertising Reviews About the Authors Advertising Group Title: Florida anthropologist Title: The Florida anthropologist ALL VOLUMES CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE Full Citation STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00099 Material Information Title: The Florida anthropologist Abbreviated Title: Fla. anthropol. Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 24 cm. Language: English Creator: Florida Anthropological SocietyConference on Historic Site Archaeology Publisher: Florida Anthropological Society. Place of Publication: Gainesville Frequency: quarterly[]two no. a year[ former 1948-]quarterlyregular Subjects Subject: Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida ( lcsh )Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida ( lcsh ) Genre: periodical ( marcgt ) Notes Summary: Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology. Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1- May 1948- Record Information Bibliographic ID: UF00027829 Volume ID: VID00099 Source Institution: University of Florida Holding Location: Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location. Resource Identifier: oclc - 01569447lccn - 56028409 issn - 0015-3893 Table of Contents Copyright Copyright Table of Contents Table of Contents Editor's Page Page 172 Page 173 Obituary of J. Raymond Williams Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 The Deltona Project: Cultural Resource Management In the Hillsborough River Basin Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Advertising Page 188 A Technological and Functional Analysis of Hernando Projectile Points Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Prehistoric Land Use in West-Central Peninsular Florida: A Vew from the South Prong I Site (8HI418) Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 Page 207 Page 208 Page 209 Page 210 Preshitoric Chert Procurement and Mobility Strategies on the Lake Wales Ridge Page 211 Page 212 Page 213 Page 214 Page 215 Page 216 Page 217 Page 218 Page 219 Page 220 Page 221 Page 222 Page 223 Advertising Page 224 The Old Okahumpka Site (8LA57): Late Prehistoric Iconography and Mississippian Influence in Peninsular Florida Page 225 Page 226 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 Page 231 Page 232 Page 233 Page 234 Page 235 Page 236 Page 237 Advertising Page 238 Occupational Nexus Modeling in the Interior Central Gulf Coast of Florida Page 239 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Advertising Page 248 A Belle Glade Earthwork Topology and Chronology Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 C.B. Moore on the Ocklawaha River: No Place for a Gopher Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Page 265 Page 266 The Dunford Collection Page 267 Page 268 Page 269 Page 270 Page 271 Page 272 Page 273 Page 274 A Century of Burial Removals at the U.S. Military Cemeteryat Fort Meyers (8LL1758): Historical and Archaelogical Perspectives Page 275 Page 276 Page 277 Page 278 Page 279 Page 280 Page 281 Page 282 Page 283 Page 284 Page 285 Page 286 Page 287 Advertising Page 288 Reviews Page 289 Page 290 Page 291 About the Authors Page 292 Page 293 Page 294 Advertising Page 295 Page 296 Page 297 Page 298 Full Text COPYRIGHT NOTICE 2000 Florida Anthropological Society Inc. The Florida Anthropological Society Inc. holds source text of the Florida Anthropologist considered the copyright holder for the text these publications. all rights to the and shall be and images of The Florida Anthropological Society has made this publication available to the University of Florida, for purposes of digitization and Internet distribution. The Florida Anthropological Society reserves all rights to this publication. All uses, excluding those made under "fair use" provisions of U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107 are restricted. Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional information and permissions. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Volume 49 Number 4 December 1996 SPECIAL ISSUE: IN MEMORY OF J. RAYMOND WILLIAMS TABLE OF CONTENTS Editor's Page. Robert J. Austin 172 OBITUARY J. Raymond Williams. Dana Ste. Claire 174 ARTICLES The Deltona Project: Cultural Resource Management in the Hillsborough River Basin. Richard W. Estabrook and Christine L. Newman 179 A Technological and Functional Analysis of Hernando Projectile Points. Dana Ste. Claire 189 Prehistoric Land Use in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast: A View from South Prong I (8111418). James M. Welch and William C. Prentiss 201 Prehistoric Chert Procurement and Mobility Strategies on the Lake Wales Ridge. Robert J. Austin 211 The Old Okahumpka Site (8LA57): Late Prehistoric Iconography and Mississippian Influence in Peninsular Florida. Jeffrey M. Mitchem 225 Occupational Nexus Modeling in the Interior Central Gulf Coast of Florida. Heather Lea Clagett 239 A Belle Glade Earthwork Typology and Chronology. William Gray Johnson 249 C.B. Moore on the Ocklawaha River: No Place for a Gopher. Cynthia L. Cerrato 261 The Durnford Collection. Annette L. Snapp 267 A Century of Burial Removals at the U.S. Military Cemetery at Fort Myers (8LL1758): Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Joan Deming, Janet S. Mathews, Marion M. Almy, and Lee Hutchinson-Neff 275 REVIEWS Purdy: How to Do Archaeology the Right Way. Nancy Marie White 289 Safron and Brown: The Domain of the Calusa. Brent R. Weisman 291 About the Authors 292 Acknowledgment of Reviewers 294 Cover: The Malleability of Material Culture by Scott Mitchell Copyright 1996 by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. ISSN 0015-3893 U f r Ld 1^-^ y sYn^^ EDITOR'S PAGE This issue of The Florida Anthropologist is dedicated to the memory of J. Raymond Williams whose premature passing in November, 1995 at the age of 59 deeply affected all who considered him a friend and colleague. The original idea for this issue was Dana Ste. Claire's. Knowing that Ray's health was failing, Dana called me in the Spring of 1995 and suggested a special issue in Ray's honor. I immediately agreed and we decided that the papers should consist of invited contributions from Ray's former students at the University of South Florida (USF). Several factors entered into our decision about who to invite to contribute. First, we wanted to include former students from throughout Ray's career. Second, we wanted the papers to represent a diverse range of topics. And third, we wanted authors who would be willing to commit to a tight schedule because we hoped to be able to present the finished product to Ray in person. While we were unable to achieve this last goal, I believe we produced a volume of papers that Ray would have been honored to receive (although, had he known what we were up to, I am certain he would have protested our effort). As Dana's obituary, and the dedications and acknowledgments scattered throughout the following papers, attest, Ray Williams was loved and respected by all of his students. A truly humble man, he avoided the limelight, content instead to let his students take center stage. And while he certainly had his own research interests, Ray was primarily a teacher, and his greatest lasting legacy is his students. Many of the papers in this issue are based on thesis projects conducted by the authors while they were students at USF. Others are based on research conducted since the authors graduated. They have all been influenced by the values and work ethic that Ray instilled in each of us. As Jim Welch and Bill Prentiss have stated so eloquently in their acknowledgment to Ray, there is no greater testimony that we can give than to acknowledge the extent to which Ray continues to influence our lives and careers. The first article by Rich Estabrook and Chris Newman provides a brief history of one the largest and most influential archaeological projects undertaken at USF during Ray's career. Conducted in the shadow of the State of Florida's 1-75 Bypass Project during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Deltona Project never achieved the professional recognition that the more highly publicized 1-75 Project did. Nonetheless, it resulted in several important excavations that contributed significantly to our understanding of the prehistoric occupation of the Hills- borough River Basin, and in many ways augmented and built on the results of its better known counterpart. Rich and Chris provide a synopsis of the inception and six-year progress of the project, and candidly discuss its successes as well as its shortcomings. Dana Ste. Claire's contribution is based on his Master's research at USF and involves the analysis of Hernando projec- tile points recovered during excavation of the Rock Hammock site. This site was one of five that were excavated by USF as part of the Deltona Project. Dana presents a detailed reconstruc- tion of Hernando manufacturing behavior based on fine-grained technological and spatial analyses of manufacturing debris and production rejects. Using a variety of quantitative techniques, Dana also attempts to determine if Hernando points were used to tip arrows or atlatl darts. He concludes by discussing the chronological position of Hernando points in Florida prehistory. In their paper on the South Prong I site, Jim Welch and Bill Prentiss utilize data from Welch's Master's research at USF to test three competing models of interior land use during the prehistoric period. The South Prong I site was excavated by Welch in 1981 as part of the AMAX Project, a large-scale mitigative excavation of two sites in southeastern Hillsborough County. If the Deltona Project labored in the shadow of 1-75, AMAX was similarly overshadowed (albeit unjustly) by Deltona. Three major archaeological projects occurring in Hillsborough County at roughly the same time fostered a climate of healthy competition among the USF students who worked on them. Located in an area where chert resources are not abundant, the South Prong I site provides an important contrast to the dense lithic scatters that characterized the 1-75 and Deltona projects. As Welch and Prentiss's paper demon- strates, the ability of a site to contribute to our understanding of prehistory is not necessarily contingent on the number of artifacts that are present. Instead, it is based on the archae- ologist's ability to use the data that are available to test hypothe- ses designed to explain the past. My own contribution is based on research conducted for my dissertation. It incorporates data gathered from an analysis of lithic artifacts from private collections along the Lake Wales Ridge in south-central Florida. The main goal of the analysis was to identify the various lithic raw materials that were being imported into the region. These data were then used to test a model of decreasing mobility during the post-Archaic Period. Jeff Mitchem's paper focuses on an analysis of artifacts from the Old Okahumpka Mound in Lake County, which was excavated by C.B. Moore in the late 1890s. After briefly describing the artifacts, Jeff proceeds to compare them to similar materials from other late prehistoric mounds in Florida and the greater Southeast. He then goes on to offer some interpretive comments regarding the site's chronological placement, the iconography represented by these artifacts, and the relationship of this site to what has been termed the South- eastern Ceremonial Complex. Heather Clagett's Masters research on settlement clustering in the interior of south Florida is the subject of her contributed paper. She applies Milanich's occupational nexus model to late prehistoric sites in Polk, Hardee, DeSoto, and eastern Manatee EDITOR'S PAGE 173 County in an effort to identify clusters of sites on the landscape that might suggest settlement and cultural continuity. Her data indicate that such clustering does exist for late prehistoric sites in southern Hardee, eastern Manatee, and DeSoto Counties, in other words, within the Peace River region, and that these site clusters are associated with diverse sets of microenvironments. The types of sites domiciliary mounds, burial mounds, platform mounds, middens, villages, and campsites argue strongly for occupation of this interior region by an indigenous population rather than periodic forays by native peoples from other regions such as the Gulf coast. Bill Johnson continues his work on Belle Glade earthworks in south Florida with his paper. Based on his own research, as well as the work of Sears, Carr, and others, Bill develops a typology of earthwork types. Using radiocarbon dates and ceramic data, primarily from Fort Center, he attempts to arrange the various earthwork types in a chronological se- quence. These are then incorporated into a modified Belle Glade chronology for south Florida. The next two papers are historical pieces that provide interesting insights into the early archaeology of Florida. Cynthia Cerrato's article focuses on Clarence B. Moore and his explorations along the Ocklawaha River in a shallow-draft steamboat, the Alligator. While less well-known than the famous Gopher, Moore used this vessel to navigate the narrow, winding Ocklawaha in search of mounds to excavate. In addition to a photograph of the Alligator, Cynthia has unearthed information from the State archives and Moore's original notes describing the vessel and its use. In her article, Annette Snapp discusses the artifacts recovered by Col. Charles Durnford at Key Marco in 1895, which are currently housed at the British Museum in Oxford, England. These are the very artifacts that piqued the interest of Frank Cushing and resulted in his visiting and excavating a portion of this famous site in 1896. In addition to describing the artifacts and providing photographs of some of the pieces, Annette places Durnford and his collection within a historical context that examines the nature of archaeology in the late nineteenth century. She notes that Durnford did not offer wild speculations about his finds, as was common practice at that time, but instead presented objective descriptions that were published in a timely manner. He also donated his collection to the British Museum so that future scholars would have access to these remarkable artifacts. Finally, Joan Deming, Jan Mathews, Marion Almy, and Lee- Hutchinson-Neff present the results of an excavation of a mid- nineteenth century military cemetery in Fort Myers that was conducted to mitigate impact resulting from the construction of a highway. The Fort Myers cemetery is yet another example of how historical documents can be misleading. Government records and newspaper accounts indicated that the skeletal remains interred in the cemetery had been "moved" to a new location in the 1880s. However, archaeological evidence of the cemetery still existed in 1993, including skeletal elements left behind by the company contracted to disinter the remains. Detailed historical research by Jan Mathews provides informa- tion on the demographic composition of those who were buried in the cemetery and analysis of the remaining skeletal elements provides limited but potentially useful information that contrib- utes to a growing body of knowledge regarding mid-nineteenth century skeletal populations. In many ways, this article is a fitting conclusion to the contributed papers because the excavation was done within a non-academic, cultural resource management (CRM) frame- work. Ray Williams was instrumental in developing the cultural resource management program at USF. A philosophical cornerstone of the program, and of Ray's teaching, was that CRM can be, indeed must be, more than just the salvaging of artifacts. He taught us that archaeology done in a CRM context should be designed in such a way that it can contribute to a better understanding of our common heritage. While this is sometimes a difficult challenge, it is not an impossible one as the Deltona Project, the AMAX project, and the Fort Myers cemetery excavation amply demonstrate. Reviews by Nancy White and Brent Weisman, and cover art by Scott Mitchell, round out this all-USF issue. I hope you enjoy it. ROBERT J. AUSTIN U OF F LIBRARY OBITUARY J. RAYMOND WILLIAMS 1936-1995 Those who knew him, and there were many who called him friend, remember J. Raymond Williams for his kind and gentle manner, his calm, steady approach to life and discipline, and as one of Florida's most successful and dedicated archaeologists. In a profession that passionately consumed him for nearly four decades, Ray always found the time in his busy schedule to help others. His colleagues and former students at the University of South Florida (USF) can relate countless stories of the kindness he extended them, from the many times he filled in for his fellow professors to the buying of dinners for graduate students who were struggling financially. He was an enormously patient man, too; always ready with a smile and a positive word, even on the worst of days, seeing the good in the bad when it was often hard for others to do so. Ray spent innumerable hours of his personal time coaxing along graduate students who were late with their theses, carefully nudging them from time to time with telephone calls and polite written reminders, sometimes tracking them down across the continent when they seemed to have disappeared from the face of the earth. More than once he bent the rules a little to allow some of his lost flock back into the program after their lengthy episodes of soul-searching. It was this special devotion to his students that made Ray loved by all who worked under him. Ray Williams was a mentor extraordinaire, playing the role unpretentiously. In each student, no matter how rough the candidate, Ray saw an aspiring anthropologist, someone that would one day contribute to the field in his or her own way. With great personal investment, Ray would guide his students through the thick of the graduate program, offering encourage- ment in big and little doses along the way. Term papers were never returned with red lines marked through them. Instead, Ray offered detailed written comments on how to improve the work or the idea, along with a suggestion that the student try again. It was evident to all that Ray cared more about the success of his students than he did his own. Above all else, he encouraged individuality, forcing his students to think as professionals long before they were degree. At a time when major professors were, by protocol, listed as senior authors on papers and departmental reports, Ray never once insisted that his name be included on a report that a student had written. This "academic generosity," as Roger Grange calls it, allowed students to make great leaps toward professionalism by encouraging them to put forth their own ideas, ideas for which they knew they would be held academically and professionally accountable. Ray was just as interested in the personal growth of his students as he was in their professional development. For those who strayed academically or personally, Ray always seemed to offer the right words to lead them back to the main path. His open-door policy was widely known and often used because students were comfortable with Ray's genuine, caring demean- or. Always a good listener, Ray never refused to lend a sympa- thetic ear to their problems, or offer good advice when asked. Ray's enthusiasm for archaeology was contagious and he was quick to share it with those who desired to know more about the field. On more than one occasion, he kindled the fires of non- majoring undergraduates, some of whom had come to know only the futility of pursuing a career in anthropology no matter how great their interest. I was one of the fortunate few, rescued from the waning days of a directionless English degree, that became convinced during an introductory anthropology class with Ray that I could make a respectable living doing archaeolo- gy if my heart desired. Later, he created a special, paid, under- graduate internship so that I could continue my studies in the Anthropology Department. The position was virtually paid for with money out of his own pocket something he thought I never knew and something I will never forget. It was important to Ray to encourage students to follow their J. RAYMOND WILLIAMS 175 hearts into their profession because decades earlier he had been influenced in the same way by his mentor, the late Dr. Carl Chapman. Students of Ray will recall the photograph of a somber Chapman that hung over Ray's desk for years. Ray's interest in anthropology developed while he was a student at Kirksville State Teaching College in Missouri in the late 1950s, but it was not until he enrolled in the graduate program under Chapman at the University of Missouri that the "archaeology bug" bit. Ray was born in Centralia, Missouri, October 30, 1936. He met the former Myrle Bastian (now Borgers) at Kirksville State in 1956 and they married in 1959, a year after Ray received his B.S. in History. After teaching high school history locally, Ray was accepted in the University of Missouri's graduate program in Anthropology. Myrle commuted to Columbia during that first year, then moved there in 1964, the same year that their only child, Mike, was born. Ray also received his M.A. degree that year and went on to earn his Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Missouri in 1971. His dissertation on The Baytown Phases in the Cairo Lowland of Southeast Missouri, which was eventually published as a monograph, is recognized as the definitive work on the subject and continues to be consulted by Midwestern archaeologists studying the late prehistoric period. Myrle remembers well the lonesome life of the spouse of a dedicated graduate student and archaeologist. She made long treks to visit Ray during the summer field seasons at Van-Meter and other Osage sites in Missouri. But the distance ultimately took its toll and the two went their separate ways in the late 1960s. Myrle Borgers still finds archaeology fascinating, and when I spoke to her recently she had just finished, fittingly enough, Carl Chapman's classic work on the Indians of Missouri. While working on his Ph.D., Ray interviewed with Roger Grange at an American Anthropological Association meeting for a newly created position at the University of South Florida, where Grange practically had operated a one-man department since 1965. Roger could have hired anyone, but he selected the scholarly gentleman from Missouri. Roger recalls that he was most impressed with Ray's easy-going personality, a quality that he and Roger shared and one that would later characterize USF's entire anthropology department. That department was unique in that it was not plagued with the internal conflicts that typify some larger academic programs. It seems only fitting that Ray's torch was passed on to yet another gentle, but profession- ally dedicated scholar, Brent Weisman, who in 1995 became part of the USF anthropology family. Ray was officially hired by USF in 1969, two years before he received his Ph.D. Almost immediately he began running field schools around Florida while Roger continued his summer research in Michigan. In 1973, the two developed the Public Archaeology Track for the Applied Anthropology graduate program at USF, the first of its kind in the nation. Joan Deming remembers that during the formative'years of the program, Ray used university buildings and walls to teach archaeological methods, troweling down the sides of structures to expose profiles and teaching students how to use a transit and other equipment on campus. In his quiet but exacting way, Ray shaped the lives of his students and sent into the world genera- tion after generation of adept archaeologists and cultural resource management professionals. That first wave of graduate students included Marion Almy, Joan Deming, and Harry and Jackie Piper, who pioneered a higher level of archaeological consulting in the state. Later students achieved positions in federal, state, and local agencies in Florida and elsewhere, while many others went on to have successful careers in academia or private consulting. Beyond a commitment to his students, Ray's career was filled with contributions to the profession. He served as President (1977-1978), Secretary (1981-1983), and Director (1989-1992) of the Florida Anthropological Society; as Chair of the Anthro- pological Sciences Section of the Florida Academy of Sciences (1983-1984); as Assistant Secretary-Treasurer (1987-1989) and Secretary-Treasurer (1989-1991) of the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA); and as Editor of the SOPA newsletter (1981-1984). He also was a founding member and officer of the Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, perhaps the most effective partnership between professional and avocational archaeologists in the state. His exceptional efforts to bring archaeology to the public earned him the Florida Anthropo- logical Society's Ripley P. Bullen Award in 1995. Always trying to stay abreast of the profession, Ray spent 1979 through 1980 working with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and at the offices of the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. Always a teacher of the profession and not just a professional teacher, Ray carried his message to other institutions throughout his career including California State University during the summer of 1970, as an American Anthropological Association Visiting Lecturer in 1975, and as a tenured professor at the State University of London in 1985 and 1992. Ray's eclectic interests in life reflected the Renaissance man he really was. He had a fondness for Baroque music, loved the opera, cherished antique books that chronicled the early years of anthropological thought, had a keen eye for good art, adored museums of any kind, and traveled widely to experience the archaeology of other regions of the world. Ray died on November 5, 1995 at the age of 59 after a long illness in Lake St. Louis, Missouri where he had just returned to be with his family for the final part of his life journey. He is survived by five sisters, his son, Mike, daughter-in-law, Michelle, and two grandchildren, Tara and Alex. Ray viewed his illness as nothing more than an inconvenience, and even in his final months he continued to read M.A. theses and helped plan Florida Archaeology Week events. A true gentleman and scholar, and a friend to all, Ray Williams will remain in the hearts and minds of all who knew him for a long time to come. Information used in compiling this obituary was obtained from Myrle Bastian Borgers, Joan Deming, Roger Grange, and Mike Williams. The photograph of Ray is from the files of the University of South Florida's Anthropology Department and was obtained courtesy of Nancy White. DANA STE. CLAIRE JSF campus, 1974. A familiar scene: Ray contemplating the cos- mos, coffee and cigarettes close at hand. Summer, 1989. Ray and Roger Grange at Roger's retirement party, April 1994. Ray posing on the hood of a field truck after a long day of digging shovel tests in Orange County, 1983. Ray and student assistant John Claflin at the Maximo Beach site, Summer 1973. Excavating at the South Prong I site, 1981. A fine example of early hominid behavior USF anthropology lab, 1978. Ray with students, 1979 Summer Field School. Ray demonstrating his unique root-cutting technique. Rock Hammock, 1981 Summer Field School. Class of 1986. From left to right: Beth Horvath, Bill Johnson, Ray, Bill Prentiss, Rich Estabrook. Ray and students excavating at the Maximo Beach site, 1973 Summer Field School. Ray, Penny Seabury, and George Ballo performing in public somewhere in Tampa, 1987. I i-I Urban archaeologists at Fort Brooke, Tampa, 1978 Summer Field School. Liz Fisher, second from left; Ray in center; Bob Austin, far right; others unidentified. Nature Boy cavorting in the woods, time and place unknown. Ray becomes aware of unsolicited contribu- tion of rabbit ears by Dana Ste. Claire. 1978 Summer Field School, Fort Brooke, Tampa. Photographs courtesy of Robert Austin, Cynthia Cerrato, Rich Estabrook, Bill Johnson, Dana Ste. Claire, Penny Seabury, and USF Anthropology Department. Photo layout and design by Octavo Design and Production. One life, a gleam of time between two eternities Carlyle Marion M. Almy Robert J. Austin Cynthia L. Cerrato Heather Lea Clagett Joan Deming Richard W. Estabrook Lee Hutchinson-Neff William Gray Johnson Janet S. Mathews Scott Mitchell Jeffrey M. Mitchem Christine L. Newman William C. Prentiss Dana Ste. Claire Annette L. Snapp Brent R. Weisman James M. Welch Nancy Marie White The following individuals and organizations donated funds or services towards the publication of this issue of The Florida Anthropologist. Joan Deming The Florida Archaeological Council Octavo Design and Production THE DELTONA PROJECT: CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN RICHARD W. ESTABROOK' AND CHRISTINE L. NEWMAN2 'Janus Research, P.O. Box 919, St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Email: janusres@ix. netcom. cor 2Florida Bureau ofArchaeological Research, C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey, 501 Boating Club Road, St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Between the spring of 1979 and the winter of 1984, the University of South Florida (USF) conducted a cultural resource assessment of 12,570 hectares (5200 acres) in northeast Tampa for the Deltona Corporation. The property would eventually become the location of the Tampa Palms residential devel- opment, but the project was known to all who worked on it simply as the Deltona Project. Over a period of six years this study resulted in the identification of nine archaeological sites, the excavation of five of these sites, the authorship of five major reports, five Master's theses, and no less than ten papers and presentations, and the training of five graduate interns and scores of undergraduate students. One common thread bound the project together James Raymond (Ray) Williams, Professor of Anthropology at USF (Figure 1). Ray served as the project's Principal Investigator and as supervisor, teacher, and mentor to those students who were lucky enough to participate in the investigations. In this article we chronicle the events of the project and the effect it has had on the archaeology of west-central Florida. Ray Williams encouraged his students to use innovative field and laboratory techniques and many of these have now become standard practice in cultural resource management. As the last two graduate students to work on this project, we offer both an "insider's view" and a historical perspective of the Deltona Project. This is, of course, the Reader's Digest version of events. It differs from the collection of scholarly works and reports on the Deltona Project in two very important ways. First, it is consid- erably shorter. Second, it is the first time anyone has discussed in print all of the various components of the project. We did not intend this as a reevaluation or reinterpretation of the findings of these studies. We will leave that to the respective research- ers. Our goal here is merely to tell the tale, as best we remem- ber it. The Deltona Project was the University of South Florida's "other" major archaeological project. During the late 1970s and early '80s, the Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management (now the Division of Historical Resourc- es) and the Florida Department of Transportation conducted archaeological testing and excavations at a number of prehistoric sites in west-central Florida, mostly within Hillsborough County. Sites like Harney Flats, Diamond Dairy, Wetherington Island, and Titus Church, are but a few of the many that were investigated during this extensive project associated with the proposed construction of the Interstate 75 Tampa bypass. With a few notable exceptions (e.g., USF graduates Marion Almy, Barry Wharton, Elizabeth Fisher, and Ken Hardin), the Principal Investigators and Project Archaeologists for these testing and excavation projects were sent down from Tallahassee to direct the field work. But most of the field and laboratory crews were USF students. USF also served as a base of operations for many of these projects. It housed the field laboratory that was used for the initial washing, processing, labeling, and analysis of the recovered materials before they were transported to Tallahassee for further analysis. George Ballo, now Administrator of the Cultural Resources section of the Florida Department of Transportation, supervised the lab. Many of the students who eventually worked on the Deltona Project gained valuable experience as field and lab technicians on the 1-75 Bypass Project. At roughly the same time as the 1-75 Bypass Project was begun, a second cultural resource management project was taken on by USF. The Deltona Project did not have what were considered at the time to be "huge" state and/or federal budgets. It was performed with what can only be described as much more modest means. Field school students, typically eager undergraduates with little or no formal archaeological training, made up the crews. The Project Archaeologists were graduate students looking to satisfy the internship portion of their degree requirements and find a thesis topic. All of the graduate student supervisors were hired by the Anthropology Department as graduate assistants. For those of you unfamiliar with the hierarchy of university departments, graduate assistants are the underpaid and unappreciated minions that actually do things at universities. Other USF graduate students helped out, either as paid assistants or as unpaid volunteers. Interested people from the University and Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society members also pitched in. But, by and large, the brunt of the hardest and most physically demanding work fell to the field school students. It was these hardy souls who dug the shovel tests, excavated the units, drew the soil profiles, and braved the insects, sun, and rain, all in the interest of archaeology (and a passing grade). The Deltona Project began simply and ended simply. USF was first contacted by the Deltona Corporation in the latter part of 1978 and work continued until the last Phase III report was THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 49 NO. 4 DECEMBER 1996 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Figure 1. Ray Williams in the University of South Florida Archaeology Lab, circa 1979. Photograph courtesy of Adrienne Shoffstall. submitted in December of 1984. The entire project consisted of a Phase I predictive model, Phase II site testing, and two major Phase III excavations. The Deltona Project relied on the talents of a great many people. At first the project was directed jointly by Roger Grange and Ray Williams. But, as time passed, the major administrative responsibilities fell to Ray Williams. Mildred Fryman, currently a historical consultant in Tallahas- see, wrote and researched the property's historical background. Lance Rom served as the first graduate intern in 1979 and he conducted the preliminary testing at many of the sites on the Deltona property. Lance is now a Forest Service archaeologist in South Dakota. Dana Ste. Claire, now Director of the Division of Anthropological Research for the Museum of Arts and Sciences in Daytona Beach, and Robert Austin, now with Janus Research in St. Petersburg, oversaw the initial series of Phase III site excavations during the summer of 1981. The authors supervised the second series of Phase III excavations during the summer of 1983. Several other now well-established archaeologists worked on the project as struggling undergradu- ate or graduate students. These included William Prentiss, now with the Cultural Resource Heritage Office at the University of Montana; Eugene Romanski, now a private consultant in southern California; William Johnson, now with the Desert Research Institute in Nevada; John Whitehurst, District Archae- ologist with the Bureau of Land Management in Wyoming; and Elizabeth Horvath, now with Archaeological Consultants, Inc. in Sarasota. In the following narrative we will touch on three salient aspects of the Deltona Project. First, we discuss what Tampa Palms was then and what it has become now. Each of the three project phases are then briefly described, and short descriptions of each of the sites are presented. We conclude with some discussion about where the Deltona Project took us, and where we still need to go. Tampa Palms: Then and Now Tampa Palms is a 12,570 hectare (5200 acre) development situated in northern Hillsborough County (Figure 1). During the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the Deltona Project was being conducted, little development had occurred in this portion of the county, and zones of longleaf pine forests and xerophytic oaks interspersed with hardwoods, swamp forests, bayheads, cypress swamps, marshlands, and prairies could easily be identified. Today, approximately three thousand homes, two shopping centers, a professional plaza, and an elementary school stand on the relatively flat terrain where archaeologists once roamed. Tampa Palms has become the heart of New Tampa, an upscale residential and commercial enclave north of the City of Tampa and west of Interstate 75. Drainage for the area, although altered by development, is provided by Cypress Creek to the west, Trout Creek to the east, and the Hillsborough River to the south. It is likely that these or similar major drainage systems were present during prehis- toric times. This portion of the county drains south into the Hillsborough River. The Hillsborough flows west and then south to empty into Tampa Bay near downtown Tampa. During heavy summer rains, run-off from the area is moderate to slow. Much of the flatwoods can have ankle-deep standing water on it for several days to several weeks at a time. During the dry winter months, many of the ephemeral ponds dry up, and water for people and animals is only available in the major creeks and drainages. The soils in this region formed during stands of higher sea level, at a time when this portion of Florida was ocean floor. These broad, flat areas of sandy marine sediments also contain narrow, relict sand-dune features. Most of the low knolls and ridges run north-south, parallel to the coastline. These ridges are composed of better-drained soils. They also contain the larger live oak hammocks within which many of the sites discovered on the Deltona Project were discovered. These hammocks, with their cool, shading canopies provided by majestic grandfather oaks and relatively sparse understory vegetation, have provided many millennia of Floridians with highly desirable places to live. Outcrops of chert are common to northeastern Hillsborough County. Exposures can be found along the Hillsborough River and in the Cow House Creek area. The many quarry and lithic workshops that have been recorded and investigated in this area THE F)oRiiDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) THE DELTONA PROJECT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA Scale 0 .5 1 2 0 .5km 6.5.i~kmn Figure 2. Map showing the limits of the Deltona Corporation's Tampa Palms development and the locations of archaeological sites discussed in the text. I, ( A 8HI559 A 8HI557 A8HI452 A 8HI556 8HI558 8HI307 A 8HI6 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) attest to the importance of these chert resources throughout prehistory. The Deltona Project The size and scope of the Tampa Palms development required that the Deltona Corporation apply for a series of special permits, as the project was considered a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). This meant that the construction of a project of such size and complexity would affect the entire character of the area, including archaeological sites and historic buildings. Consequently, the Deltona Corporation was required to submit an Application for Development Approval (ADA) to regional and state permitting agencies. An archaeological and historical investigation, or cultural resource assessment, was performed by USF for the Deltona Corporation as part of the application process. The Deltona Project was divided into three basic parts called "phases." Since the project was a product of the '70s, it used the federal nomenclature of the time. Phase I was a background and records study and did not involve any fieldwork. Phase II included shovel testing and surface inspection to locate sites as well as some limited testing to determine their importance. Phase III investigations included excavation and detailed analysis of the sites that were considered to be of regional significance. Two separate Phase III excavations were conducted: one during the summer of 1981 and another during the summer of 1983. Phase I In early 1979, Roger Grange, Mildred Fryman, and Ray Williams began the Phase I investigation of the Tampa Palms project area. The Phase I study included a historic overview written by Mildred Fryman, a prehistory synthesized by Ray Williams, and a predictive model constructed by Roger Grange (Grange et al. 1979). Fryman's research suggested little historic use of the area prior to the Civil War. Subsistence farming during the late nineteenth century was suggested for some parts of the property, but no individual homesteads could be identi- fied. By 1906, a road had been established (Grange et al. 1979:11). It entered the property from the west, crossing Cypress Creek south of where State Road 581 currently crosses, and extended to the northeast to follow the route now taken by State Road 581. As late as 1983, this road was still visible as a line of oak trees that extended behind a 1920s frame-vernacular structure that was situated near State Road 581 and east of Cypress Creek. It was after this structure that one of the prehistoric sites was named (the Ranch House site, 8HI452). Phase II The Phase II study began soon after Phase I was completed. Lance Rom and a hearty group of USF students began the survey as a field school in the summer of 1979. In July and August, these students braved the palmettos and ankle-deep water to discover and access nine archaeological sites. Five sites (8HI307, 8HI320, 8HI380, 8HI452, and 8HI534) had been previously recorded. Rom's crew discovered four new sites (8HI556, 8HI557, 8HI558, and 8HI559) during that hot, wet field season. Once the digging was complete, the artifacts were washed, dried, labeled, and sorted at the USF Archaeology Laboratory. Rom originally evaluated seven of the nine sites as significant, and therefore eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Rom 1979:7). However, after discussing the importance of these sites with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), it was decided that only four of the sites contained important information not found at other sites in the region. Sites 8HI452, 556, 557, and 558 were subsequently determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Since preservation of the sites was not possible within the Deltona Corporation's development plan, excavation to mitigate the project's impact to these sites was planned. The Priscilla site (8HI559) had not been adequately tested during the summer of 1979 due to high water at the site. Limited testing was recommended to help make a final determination about the site's National Register eligibility. Phase III Excavations at the Rock Hammock site (8HI556) and the Tampa Palms site (8HI557), and test excavations at the Priscilla site (8HI559), were conducted as part of the USF 1981 summer field school. Robert Austin and Dana Ste.Claire served as co- site supervisors with Ray Williams as the Principal Investigator. Work began on June 15, 1981. The first week was spent getting the field equipment ready, setting out the preliminary site grids and mapping, and finalizing the schedule of the summer's activities. Four weeks were spent excavating the Rock Ham- mock site, and the remaining five weeks was spent at both Tampa Palms and Priscilla. Sixteen full-time students and one part-time student spent four and a half days a week in the field, and one-half day attending lectures and classes on Florida prehistory and archaeological methods. Several nights each week were devoted to lab work. Rain days also were spent in the lab. Full-time field work by the students ended on August 21. Bob and Dana, assisted by graduate students Chris Newman and Beth Horvath, finished the analysis and report writing over the next nine months, with a final report submitted in June of 1982 (Austin and Ste. Claire 1982). Federal involvement in the project in 1982 led to the require- ment that the remaining two sites (8HI452 and 8HI558), considered significant by the SHPO, be either listed on, or determined eligible for listing on, the National Register. Official requests for Determinations of Eligibility were completed by Ray Williams and Dana Ste. Claire during the summer of 1982. Both sites were determined eligible for listing later that same year. A Memorandum of Agreement (a document outlining what was to be done at each site) between Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the lead agency, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) was completed late in 1982. Work at the Marita (8HI558) and Ranch House (8HI452) sites began in May of 1983. Richard Estabrook and Chris Newman THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) ESTABROOK AND NEWMAN served as co-supervisors for the field school. They were assisted by graduate students Bill Johnson and Diane Boyle and a crew of 11 undergraduates. Excavation at the Marita site started first. Five weeks were spent there before the project focus shifted to the Ranch House site. Part of the field school stayed behind at the Marita site, while several "volunteers" spent a week cutting transects with machetes and axes and setting the grid at the Ranch House site. The 1983 field school was run in much the same way as the 1981 field school, with four days a week of field work and a one day lab and lecture session. The field work was complete by July 15. The next six weeks were spent preparing the results of the ceramic and stone tool analyses from the Marita site materials to complete a preliminary report (Newman and Estabrook 1983). The analysis and final report on both sites was completed in December of 1984 (Estabrook and Newman 1984). The Deltona Sites The Deltona Project included many sites. Some were exca- vated; others were just shovel tested. Still others were visited briefly with little or no additional work, as they represented kinds of sites that are common to the area. This section provides brief descriptions of all the sites and discusses their importance to our understanding of the prehistory of this area. Figure 1 shows the locations of the sites discussed below. The Planted Pine site (8HI307), discovered and recorded in June of 1966 by Roger Grange, was relocated and assessed by Lance Rom in 1979. The site is situated in a stand of planted pine along the west bank of Cypress Creek. It lies between Cypress Creek and the Marita Site (8HI558), the latter some 250 m (760 feet) distant to the west. The site was tested using 50-cm-in-diameter shovel tests placed at 12.5 m intervals along transects spaced 25 m apart. This investigation revealed the site to be a moderately dense lithic scatter spread along the creek bank a site type that is the norm, not the exception, in northeastern Hillsborough County. The only real surprise (to the site's investigators, at least) was the recovery of a single sand-tempered-plain sherd during the testing. This find changed everything. Rom's interpretation of the site changed from that of a common lithic scatter to an agricultural settlement-base camp, or some sort of special-use extractive camp (Rom 1979:62). The suggestion also was made that this site could be a task-specific activity area associated with the larger Marita site to the west. In his Phase II survey report, Rom (1979:8) felt the Planted Pine site to be significant. Since the Deltona Corporation planned to develop the area, Rom recommended further testing be conducted to determine the site's specific function and identify its relation- ship, if any, to the Marita site. This was never done. The State Historic Preservation Officer decided that this site contained information that was redundant in the archaeological record. Since there were better examples of this type of site in the area, and since this particular site did not contain any special class of artifact or feature, additional testing or excavation of the site was not considered necessary. The Unnamed site (8HI320) was recorded in the late 1970s by Karlis Karklins, now an archaeologist with Parks Canada, then a student at USF. Karklins described the site as a lithic work- shop, but did not assign it to any cultural or temporal period. Despite an intensive effort to relocate this site, Rom's field crews could never find it. Rom believed the site to have been destroyed by road construction and/or drainage ditch mainte- nance activities. The Trout Creek Road site (8HI380) was a sparse, highly disturbed, Archaic Period site, with no known functional classification. Rom did not test this site because it was outside the proposed construction limits (Rom 1979:63). The site was within the right-of-way for the 1-75 Bypass Project, and was evaluated by Calvin Jones during the cultural resource assess- ment survey for that project. Jones (1979) determined that the site was not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and indicated that it did not warrant any further work. The Ranch House Site (8HI452) is, or at least was, a large multi-component site that extended along the eastern bank of Cypress Creek. Although recorded as a single site, it was, in reality, a series of several sites that extended roughly north- south along a relict sand dune that paralleled Cypress Creek. The Ranch House site was first recorded by Karlis Karklins during an investigation conducted during the construction of State Road 581. He called it the Eight Mile Strip site, likely after the long, straight run made by the newly constructed state highway. This road cuts diagonally across the northern portion of the site. Rom's 1979 investigation included shovel testing and the excavation of 17 1 x 2 m units in three different portions of the site. From these excavations, Rom recovered several bifacial tools and several thousand waste flakes. Two of the bifaces are bases of Florida Archaic Stemmed points, Levy and Newnan varieties (Rom 1979:Figure 10:D-E). One specimen was classified as an "Unidentified Projectile Point Tip" (Rom 1979:Figure 10F), but later in the report it is identified as a Bolen Plain projectile point (Rom 1979:64). Due to its large size and it geographic position within the environment, Rom concluded that this site represented a Middle to Late Archaic base camp (ca. 5,000-2,000 B.C.). The site was determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and Phase III excavation was recommended. The Phase III excavations were conducted in the summer of 1983. Three concentrations of artifacts were defined south of State Road 581 and these were designated Areas A, B, and C. Area A proved to be somewhat of a disappointment. A sparse artifact scatter dating to the Middle to Late Archaic periods, with some suggestion of minor use during the Woodland Period, was identified during testing. Area B contained the most extensive deposits. Evidence for Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian site uses were identified. Area C, a dense cluster of sand-tempered pottery and thermally altered stone, likely resulted from a single site occupation during the early Woodland Period (Estabrook 1986). The Rogers Hammock site (8HI534) is situated in a small pine/palmetto rise east of the famous Buck Hammock site (8HI6). It was first recorded by students from USF during the TEE DELToNA PRmTEer THE FLORIDA ANrHROPOWGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) 1970s. The site lies north of the USF Biology Study Area and access to the site was made by traveling through this area. Fifty-centimeter-square shovel tests placed at 50 m intervals along transects were used to test the site. The recovery of a single Florida Archaic Stemmed projectile point and numerous flakes placed this site in the Archaic Period. While lack of time and resources kept Rom from testing this site further (Rom 1979:66), he believed that its information potential was suffi- cient enough to warrant its inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (Rom 1979:8). However, after consultation with the SHPO, this site was determined to be not eligible for listing and was never excavated. The Rock Hammock site (8HI556) was situated in the south- central portion of the Tampa Palms property. Of the nine sites investigated during Rom's survey, it is the site that is located closest to the Hillsborough River. In 1979, Rock Hammock was tested by using a combination of shovel tests, 1 x 1, 1 x 2, and 2 x 2 m excavation units. A Hernando projectile point, a single sand-tempered-plain sherd, and several hundred flakes suggested a Florida Transitional affiliation for the site (Rom 1979:67). Rom proposed that Rock Hammock functioned as a lithic reduction workshop or a lithic quarry camp, although it is unclear what Rom believed the real differences were between these two site "types." Obvious outcrops of Tampa Formation limestone at Rock Hammock differentiate this site from all others identified on the Tampa Palms property. In the eastern portion of the site, exposures of poorly silicified limestone were encountered on the surface and up to 40 cm below surface. The outcrops were inspected by Sam Upchurch, then a geologist at USF. While Upchurch believed a chert source was located nearby, no chert could be located among these exposures (Austin and Ste. Claire 1982:133). The USF 1981 summer field school focused roughly one-half of its efforts at Rock Hammock. Dana Ste. Claire discusses some of the major findings from this site in an article in this issue. Suffice it to say here that Rom's identification of the site as a lithic workshop proved accurate. This important site functioned as a stone-tool manufacturing and hafting location, used by small work groups to replace worn, broken, or lost hunting gear (Austin and Ste. Claire 1982:172). However, it was probably occupied during the early Manasota Period rather than the Transitional Period (Ste. Claire, this issue). The Tampa Palms site (8HI557) is situated south of State Road 581 and east of an extensive wetland that separates this site from the Ranch House site. Archaeological deposits extended along both sides of a dirt trail that ran through the area. When first discovered, the site was covered in saw palmetto and scrub oaks. Rom's 1979 testing included nine 2 x 2 m test units in addition to the transect shovel tests that first identified the site. The Phase II testing at Tampa Palms recovered four Florida Archaic Stemmed points, a scraper, a knife base, an unidentifiable projectile point tip, and several hundred waste flakes. Based on these materials, as well as the size of the deposits, Rom identified the Tampa Palms site as a base camp possibly occupied on a year-round basis (Rom 1979:88). Excavations at the Tampa Palms site during the summer of 1981 revealed the site to be a seasonally occupied, residential base camp. Three subareas, designated A, B, and C, were investigated. Austin and Ste. Claire (1982:126-127) were able to further subdivide activities that occurred in Area A. Loci used for the manufacture of hunting implements (hafted bifaces), heavy woodworking activities, and expedient flake-tool manufacturing were identified. These loci followed a U-shaped pattern across the site, with a central area containing large quantities of waste flakes, but no tools. The site was apparently occupied periodically by small groups of foragers throughout the Early and Middle Archaic periods. Limited use of the loci during later prehistoric and early historic periods was also identified (Austin and Ste. Claire 1982:128). The Marita site (8HI558) encompassed approximately five hectares (two acres) and was located some 400 m west of Cypress Creek. Artifacts recovered from the site suggest that use began during the Late Archaic Period, ca. 2000 to 500 B.C. The primary occupation of the site occurred during the Manasota and Weeden Island-related periods (500 B.C. to A.D. 1200). Phase III excavation was conducted in 1983 leading to the conclusion that the site was a temporary, intermittently occupied, extractive camp. There did not appear to be a dominant activity occurring at the site, but rather, a variety of activities such as tool maintenance, perhaps butchering activi- ties, and food preparation (Estabrook and Newman 1984; Newman 1985). The Priscilla site (8HI559) was discovered east of State Road 581 along Trout Creek Road. Apart from the recovery of 30 flakes from a 50-cm-in-diameter shovel test, flooding at the site prevented Rom's crews from testing the site further or establish- ing its boundaries. These tasks were left for the 1981 field school. That summer conditions were dry enough to allow Austin and Ste. Claire to test the site. They determined it to be a limited-use camp site. Evidence for the processing of meat, bone, and wood was identified on many of the flake tools. They also determined that the site was probably occupied during the Late Archaic Period, roughly 3000 to 500 B.C. (Austin and Ste. Claire 1982:67-68). In addition to these nine sites, 41 non-site loci were identified during the 1979 field school. These were locations where only a single waste flake was found on the surface or in a shovel test, and adjacent tests did not recover any artifacts. The distribution of non-site loci reflected the distribution of the larger prehistoric sites. None were found in areas considered to be of low site potential. Thirteen were discovered in moderate site potential areas, and twenty-eight were found in areas that were considered to be of high archaeological site potential (Rom 1979:54). This may be less of a pattern then it seems as just over two-thirds (87) of the testing transects were placed in high potential areas and only 43 transects were placed in areas of moderate site potential. No transects were placed through areas considered to be of low site potential. Many other sites surround the Deltona property, and some, including the USF Village site (Williams and Estabrook 1988; Williams and Ward 1986) and the Cowhouse East Head and West Head sites (Torp 1991), have been the focus of recent THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) ESTA3ROOK AND NEWMAN Tan DELTONA PROJECT investigations. One site, known as Buck Hammock, stands out as a premier site of the region. First excavated during the 1930s as a WPA project, Buck Island contains evidence of occupation from the Archaic through Contact periods (Bullen 1952:75-79). Buck Hammock lies just south of the Tampa Palms property on land now owned by USF. The site itself is a small upland rise in the middle of an extensive wetland system associated with the Hillsborough River. The upland areas around the site are currently being used by USF as a golf course. Access to Buck Hammock is limited during the wet season, but is possible during the dry season. The Things We Did Right (and Where We Went Wrong) Lithic Studies Tampa Palms is located in one of the richest chert-bearing regions of Florida. As a result, the Phase II and Phase III projects spent an inordinate amount of time and energy on the study of the production and maintenance of stone tools. These studies included various production, maintenance, use-wear, and debitage analyses. It could be said that there are at least 100 pieces of debitage recovered for every pot sherd or chipped- stone tool recovered in Hillsborough County, and the analysis of debitage, otherwise known as waste flakes or flaking debris, became a major focus (read obsession) of these projects. Stone-tool manufacture is a subtractive process. You envision the tool you would like to create within the stone, and then remove all the odd bits from around it. The process of stone- tool manufacture is often broken down into stages, with names like blank, preform, and projectile point/knife given to the useful pieces that are left over. Sometimes a piece broke in some unexpected way and was cast off. It is the study of these discarded pieces, especially the investigation of the reasons why things broke, that provides insight into the range of production activities undertaken at a particular site or at a specified area within a site. Use-wear studies investigate the chips, scratches, and rubbings along the edges of stone tools in order to determine how the tools were used. In some cases, even the kinds of materials worked can be inferred from these microscopic traces. This technique was employed, to a greater or lesser extent, on all phases of the Deltona Project. The main technique that was employed was the low-power approach. Low-power use wear employs a binocular microscope with a relatively low magnifica- tion range (10x to 70x), which enables the analyst to observe and record the various patterns of damage that are present along the edges and surfaces of a tool. These patterns are then compared to published descriptions and photographs or to modern replica stone tools that have documented use traces, and functional inferences are made. A low-power approach was adopted mainly due to circum- stance USF had a low magnification, stereozoom microscope available. The equipment and expertise necessary to perform high-power use-wear studies were unavailable at USF at the time. High-power use-wear analysis uses microscopes with magnification in the range of 50x to 400x fitted with specially equipped light sources that transmit light at both 900 and 450 angles, relative to the tool surface. Employing magnification of this scale allows the analyst to view the most minute traces of wear on stone tools. Time was another critical factor. High- power use-wear studies take a great deal more time to conduct than low-power studies. Of course the study of stone tool use wear was only one of several new avenues of study employed during the various phases of the project. Sam Upchurch's development of the quarry cluster concept (Upchurch et al. 1982) allowed us for the first time to be able to address questions concerning the movement of stone between outcrop/quarry and site, and between one region within the state and another. Detailed investigations into the manufacture of stone tools provided us with the various waste flake (debitage), manufacture failure, and reduction sequence (continuum) analysis techniques that are now commonly used on even the smallest archaeological surveys. Our site descriptions have moved from a simple reporting of a "large number of chips and some broken, half-finished tools" to a careful consideration of a large number of prehistoric activi- ties. It is now possible to tell, with some degree of confidence, what kinds of stone tools were being made, where the raw material for those tools was coming from, what the various stone tools and flakes were being used for, and to what extent the technique of thermal alteration (heat-treatment) was being used and where. With the wide-spread use of these kinds of analyses, we are now beginning to address questions of land- scape use, settlement mobility, and assemblage variability (e.g., Austin, this issue; Estabrook and Williams 1992; Welch and Prentiss, this issue). Ceramic Studies Little pottery was recovered during the Deltona Project. Of the five sites where Phase III excavation occurred, ceramic components were present at only two: Rock Hammock and the Marita site. Several sherds were recovered from the upper levels at the Ranch House site, and one sherd was recovered from the unexcavated Planted Pine site. The paucity of pottery at the Deltona sites left little room for ceramic study other than typological determination. At Rock Hammock all pottery (85 sherds) was found within the first two levels (0-20 cmbs) providing little opportunity for analysis of temporal or spatial patterns. The Marita site presented a different situation. Enough pottery was recovered to actually conduct a detailed study. In addition to a reasonable number of recovered sherds (366), the pottery was distributed both vertically and horizontally across the site; a virtual ceramic bonanza for this part of Hillsborough County. Typological determinations were made based upon physical properties, with the dominant ware category being sand- tempered plain. Other types identified at the site included Orange Plain, St. Johns Plain, St. Johns Check Stamped, St. Andrews Complicated Stamped, Pinellas Plain, and a variety of incised and punctated wares (Estabrook and Newman 1984:105- 108). Analysis of sherd thicknesses indicated a decrease in vessel-wall thickness through time. ESTABROOK AND NEWMAN THE DELTONA PROJECT THE FLORIDA ANrsmoPoLoGssr 1996 VOL. 49(4) Flotation Considerable resources, and many, many long Saturday afternoons, were spent processing samples of sediments from the Marita and Ranch House sites using a technique called flotation, or water separation. The process involved placing samples into a flotation mechanism (a metal barrel) where a continuous flow of water was introduced into the bottom of the flotation drum via a water hose and shower head. The agitation of the water caused the heavier materials and sand to fall to the bottom of a bucket insert, where the larger fragments were caught in a screen (297 micron/US Standard Sieve #50) and the sand passed through to collect on the bottom of the drum. Countless hours were spent floating, drying, and carefully weighing and measuring each sample. We even added charred exotic seeds to selected samples to test our recovery rates. While the test was deemed successful (a greater than 89% recovery rate), the recovery of identifiable, prehistoric plant remains was not as fruitful. The countless hours were in vain. Only two seed remains were identified and both probably represent modern floral material deposition. Soils Analysis A battery of chemical tests were performed on soil samples taken from excavation units at the Marita and Ranch House sites. Excavated soils from all levels were tested for pH range. The results ranged from 4.0 to 6.5 indicating high to moderate acidity. Our hopes of finding correlations between pH values and high concentrations of artifacts were quickly quashed when the results were tallied. No such correlation existed. The results for the chemical testing for phosphate content were a different matter. Tests were conducted on many of the samples from the Ranch House site and all of the samples from the Marita site. While no correlation between phosphate content and artifact recovery was found at the Ranch House site, the results from the Marita site proved interesting. A total of 96% of the ceramics and 68% of the utilized stone implements were recovered from areas with high phosphate content, strongly suggesting a direct correlation between high phosphate concen- tration and major activity areas (Estabrook and Newman 1984:153-160). Conclusion In many ways, the Deltona Project was a reflection of Ray Williams's approach to teaching he led without pulling, giving students enough "rope" to allow them to be creative and innovative in binding the elements of their site analyses togeth- er, but just short of enough with which to hang themselves. Ray allowed his students to develop their own research interests, without ever imposing his personal predilection for pottery analysis. He sometimes provided the direction, often provided the necessary books and journals, and always provided the encouragement and guidance each student required to develop and pursue his or her own goals. The Deltona Project was not without its difficulties. In hindsight, there were many things that likely would have been done differently had we known then what we know now. Flotation on such a vast scale would have been abandoned in favor of dry fine screening of selected samples. Chemical testing of soils would have been included within the context of a sedimentological study, with a great deal more emphasis placed on geological site-formation processes. On the other hand, a great many things would have been done the same. Acknowledgments Funding for all phases of the Deltona Project was provided by the Deltona Corporation under contract with the University of South Florida, Tampa. The hard work of a great many people went into making these projects the successes that they became. The authors would especially like to thank all of the field crew students from each of the three field seasons who braved the elements to recover a small, yet irreplaceable part of Florida's heritage. To all of them - May there always be a moon over the Ranch House! References Cited Austin, Robert J., and Dana Ste. Claire 1982 The Deltona Project: Prehistoric Technology in the Hillsborough River Basin. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Report Number 12, Tampa. Bullen, Ripley P. 1952 Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Report of Investigations Number 8, Tallahassee. Estabrook, Richard W. 1986 Archaeological Excavations at the Ranch House Site (8-Hi-452), Hillsborough County, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of An- thropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Estabrook, Richard W., and Christine Newman 1984 Archaeological Investigations at the Marita and Ranch House Sites, Hillsborough County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Report Number 15, Tampa. Estabrook, Richard W., and J. Raymond Williams 1992 Analysis of Lithic Materials from the Rattlesnake Midden Site (8HI981), Tampa Bay, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45:39-51. Grange, Roger T. Jr., Mildred Fryman, and J. Raymond Williams 1979 A Phase I Study of the Deltona Corporation Property on State Road 581 in Hillsborough County, Florida. Report prepared for the Delton Corporation by the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Jones, B. Calvin 1979 Recommendations for Archaeological Phase II (Test) and Phase III (Salvage) Excavations of Sites Located Along Interstate 75 in Hills- borough County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Newman, Christine Lee 1985 Archaeological Investigations at the Marita Site: A Transitional Through Historic Period Site. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropolo- gy, University of South Florida, Tampa. Newman, Christine L., and Richard W. Estabrook 1983 A Preliminary Report of Archaeological Investigations at the Marita Site (8-Hi-558) Hillsborough County, Florida. Report prepared for the Deltona Corporation by the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Rom, Lance 1979 A Phase 2 Archaeological Assessment Survey of the Deltona Corpora- tion's Tampa Palms Development. Report prepared for the Deltona Corporation by the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Torp, Lyle 1991 Archaeological Investigations at the Cowhouse East Head and Cowhouse West Head Sites. Report prepared for the Southwest Florida THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) ESTABROOK AND NEWMAN THE DELTONA PROJECT Water Management District by the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G. Nuckels 1982 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Report on file, Department of Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Williams, J. Raymond, and Dorothy Ward 1986 A Report of Testing for Archaeological Sites at High Probability Locations on the University of South Florida Campus, South ofFletcher Avenue. Report on file, Office of the Vice President for Administrative Affairs, University of South Florida, Tampa. Williams, J. Raymond, and Richard W. Estabrook 1988 Archaeological Investigations at the USF Village site (8H12187), Hillsborough County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Report Number 16, Tampa. The Museum Of Florida's Art And Culture A cultural institution dedicated to the artists of Florida whose work is visually linked to Florida's history, heritage or environment. HOURS * Museum hours are 9 a.m. 5 p.m. Monday through Friday * Guided tours of exhibitions are available for groups by reservation. Call (941) 655-0392. LOCATION The Museum is located South of Sebring on Hwy. 98, 2 blocks east of Hwy. 27. THE MUSEUM STORE The Old Florida Trading Co. is a source for arts, crafts and books with a Florida theme. See our Museum Angels. -----0------ EXHIBIT SCHEDULE August September. 1996 The Randle / Sheffield Collection of Seminole photographs from late 1930. October November December. 1996 The best of the Florida Masters, work from the permanent collection. January February 16, 1997 The Highwaymen Revisited. Paintings by black Florida artists who were the beginning of the Indian River School. February 21 March, 1997 Vanishing Florida. Photography by Chica Stracener. 13300 U.S. 98, Sebring, FL 33870 PH: (941) 655-0392 FX: (941) 655-3240 Interet: http://www.954.com/AARF/mofac E Mail: email@example.com A TECHNOLOGICAL AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF HERNANDO PROJECTILE POINTS DANA STE. CLAIRE Division of Anthropological and Archaeological Research, The Museum of Arts and Sciences, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 E-mail: email@example.com During the summer of 1981, the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida (USF) conducted excavations to mitigate impact at three archaeological sites on the Del- tona/Tampa Palms development property in northern Hills- borough County (see Estabrook and Newman, this issue, for an overview of the Deltona project). These investigations, carried out under the direction of J. Raymond Williams, Robert J. Austin, and the author, were designed to provide data pertaining to prehistoric settlement and technology in the Central Peninsu- lar Gulf Coast archaeological region of Florida and, in particu- lar, to yield data regarding the prehistoric inland occupation of the Hillsborough River Basin. One site, Rock Hammock (8HI556), was the subject of intensive archaeological excavation (Austin and Ste. Claire 1982:129-193; Ste.Claire 1982). Cultural deposits at Rock Hammock were characterized by Hernando projectile points (Bullen 1975:24) and related production debris. This paper focuses on the technological and functional analyses of these projectile points. Comparative data from other Hernando projectile points, mainly specimens from the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) and USF's Department of Anthropology collections, also are presented in an effort to resolve the question of whether this point type represents an early use of the bow and arrow in Florida. Finally, some comments regarding the temporal placement of Hernando points in Florida prehistory are presented. Site Location and Description Located approximately .4 km from the Hillsborough River, the Rock Hammock site occupies a unique spatial-ecological position within an environmental transition zone between an oak hammock and a bordering swamp forest. Earlier archaeological testing (Rom 1979) indicated that the most dense concentration of stone implements and associated debitage was confined to a small area of the site along a sandy apron which bordered the most extreme southern margin of the hammock. It was in this lower portion of the hammock that extends into the swamp that the 1981 excavations were conducted. The excavation strategy at Rock Hammock focused on the exposure of large, contiguous areas to determine areal patterns of flake discard and manufacture debris distribution. In all, 103 m2 were excavated, representing approximately 20% of the total site area. A total of 13,882 artifacts were recovered including 47 Hernando blanks, reforms, and projectile-point forms, 141 utilized and modified flakes, and over 13,000 pieces of lithic debitage. A relatively small ceramic assemblage (85 sherds) included St. Johns Plain, sand-tempered plain, and limestone-tempered plain pottery. The ceramics and Hernando projectile points were used to assign the site's principal occupation to sometime during the Transitional through Weeden Island periods (Austin and Ste. Claire 1982:169), although the absence of sand-and-fiber- tempered pottery suggests that site occupation may have occurred no earlier than 500 B.C. or so. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Rock Hammock was utilized throughout this entire time period (Austin and Ste.Claire 1982:168-173). A more plausible scenario is that the site experienced intensive use during a relatively brief span of time sometime between 500 B.C. and A.D. 800. Also recovered were one Pinellas projectile point (Bullen 1975:8) and three Pinellas-like blanks that exhibited differential patination. These implements probably are the result of later prehistoric groups visiting the site and scavenging previously discarded flakes for use as Pinellas point blanks (Austin and Ste.Claire 1982:169-170). A single radiocarbon date of 410 50 B.P. (cal. A.D. 1425-1505) may confirm use or occupation of Rock Hammock during the late precolumbian phase of the Safety Harbor Period (Milanich 1994:389; Mitchem 1989:557- 567). The large amount of debitage, and the high proportion of cortex material (33.3%), indicated that a chert source was located nearby. However, examinations of limestone exposures at the site and in the nearby swamp by USF Geologist Sam Upchurch proved inconclusive with regard to the availability of chert at the site due to insufficient silicification of the limestone (Sam Upchurch, personal communication, 1981). The limestone is part of the Tampa Member of the Hawthorn Group, which is a productive chert-bearing deposit exploited heavily during prehistoric times. Cow House Slough, a dense prehistoric site where Tampa Limestone chert was quarried, is located less than 3 km away (Chance 1981, 1982; Chance and Misner 1984). Lithic material from the Rock Hammock assemblage was identified by Upchurch as having originated in the Tampa Member of the Hawthorn. Thus, it is likely that a chert source is, or was, located nearby. Technological Analysis: Variations in Production Technique and Manufacturing Behavior Models of biface reduction have been presented by several investigators (e.g., Callahan 1979; Collins 1975; Muto 1971) and are based primarily on experiments in the production of DECEMBER 1996 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 49 No. 4 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Figure 1. Hernando projectile points from the Rock Ha projectile points or generic bifaces. Although terms differ slightly among investigators, a general model of biface reduc- tion is apparent and includes several "stages" in the biface- reduction continuum: procurement of raw material, core preparation and reduction, primary shaping of blanks, secondary thinning, final shaping and edge retouch. To this continuum, some would add use, repair, reuse, and final discard (e.g., Collins 1975). While some lithic analysts reject the notion that flintknappers manufacture stone tools in discrete stages (e.g., Shott 1996), the stage concept remains a useful tool for analyzing lithic assemblages. Because toql production is a subtractive process wherein stone is reduced, or "thinned," through the removal of flakes using percussion or pressure, the stone worker operates within a relatively fixed technological framework once a specific tool form has been chosen for production. Within the confines of this framework, variation is due to differences in manufacturing technique, raw-material differences, flint-knapping skill, and the vagaries of individual decision making. The Hernando Reduction Continuum Because of its relatively narrow temporal and spatial para- meters, the Rock Hammock site is significant with regard to the analysis of cultural materials recovered from a lithic workshop site. Analysis of data from the site revealed a primary activity set: the reduction of stone into a single, final product group, that of Hernando projectile points (Figure 1). Manufacture debris (i.e., blanks, reforms, and debitage) characteristic of all but the earliest (procurement) stage of the lithic-reduction process were almost exclusively associated with the production of this point type. The lithic-reduction continuum at Rock Hammock was determined through a detailed analysis of rejected lithic debris, mainly discarded blanks and reforms, and laterally frac- tured projectile-point forms. In an attempt to gain insights into the specific lithic- manufacturing activities which occurred at Rock Hammock, a reduction-continu- um model was established through the use of thinning indices. A thinning index is derived by dividing the weight of a biface by its surface area (Johnson 1979). Thus, an overall measure of thinning is achieved: the smaller the thinning-index value, the thinner the artifact. The use of thinning-index values facilitates the place- ment of bifaces within a production tra- jectory and, moreover, provides the means for controlling intuitive assump- tions made purely on the basis of form. The various stages of the lithic-reduc- tion sequence were represented at Rock mmock site. Hammock activity areas by an assem- blage of rejected blanks, reforms, and projectile-point forms (Appendix I). Rejection was caused, in large part, by undesired morphology or the occurrence of an inadvertent production failure. Each production failure was plotted by its corresponding thinning- index value. Production stages were then identified by the clustering of thinning-index values (Figure 2). Through the identification of principal clusters, a Hernando projectile-point reduction model was achieved. Figure 2 reveals a cluster of thinning-index values at four points which are related to different stages in the lithic-reduction continuum. Early-stage blanks (large flakes removed from cores that have undergone little or no modification) are represented by a mean thinning index of 1.80. Intermediate blanks (large flakes that exhibit modification through lateral-margin shaping) cluster Frequencies X = .69 III = 1.39 .75 .95 1.15 1.35 1.55 1.75 1.95 2.15 2.35 Thinning Index Midpoint Values Figure 2. Distribution of thinning-index values in the Hernando reduction continuum. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) . .55 HERNANDO PROJECTILE-POINT TECHNOLOGY AND FUNCTION around a mean value of 1.39. Late-stage reforms have a mean index of 1.06. The final product group of this continuum, that of several late-stage Hernando pro- jectile-point forms, reveals a mean thin- ning-index value of .69. This group includes a high frequency of basally notched, late-stage reforms with a mean r. thinning-index value of .74. These late- stage reforms do not characterize fin- ished projectile points per se in that additional work was required for their completion. They are, however, represen- tative of the final stages of the Hernando continuum. The final product group value of .69 closely approximates a mean thin- ning-index value of .75 calculated for 34 complete Hernando points from the col- lections of the Florida Museum of Natu- ral History in Gainesville and the Univer- sity of South Florida's Department of Anthropology (see Appendix II), indicat- Figure 3. Hern ing that the terminal-continuum group at completed project Rock Hammock is well within the range of completed Hernando projectile points. A tabulation of identifiable portions of completed, but broken, Hernando projectile points from these same collections shows similar indices (Appendix II). Production Technique Once the various stages of the reduction continuum were isolated, manufacture rejects were analyzed to determine specific techniques within each stage. It was postulated that a deviation from the general continuum model and/or variation in the specific techniques applied during the reduction sequence might reflect variation in stone-working behavior which would distinguish this particular manufacturing tradition as temporally and geographically unique. In fact, such variation was observed in the Rock Hammock assemblage. The following is an overview of the specific manufacturing techniques that were found to be characteristic of the Hernando projectile-point production sequence at Rock Hammock. Comparison of this sequence with those from other sites dominated by Hernando projectile points and associated production debris would be useful in determining whether these techniques represent a set of behaviors associated with a single, localized group, or a more generalized and wide-spread Hernando manufacturing tradition. Raw-Material Acquisition and Core Reduction. As noted previously, no chert sources were identified in the immediate vicinity of Rock Hammock, although one is suspected. Similar- ly, no debitage indicative of quarrying activities was present in the Rock Hammock assemblage. While no large cores or hammerstones were recovered, a large proportion of the debitage consisted of primary and secondary decortication flakes (33.3% of the total flake assemblage), implying that some core ando reduction continuum: a) blank; b) preform; c) nearly :tile point. reduction may have taken place at the site. The specific techniques used to accomplish these tasks, however, remain unknown. Primary-Stage Reduction Technique. Preliminary thinning of Hernando projectile-point blanks (Figure 3a) involved the technique of alternate-margin unifacial thinning, where one face of one margin was unifacially thinned, and then the alternate face of the opposite margin underwent the same process. Unifacial preparation was a manufacturing step that facilitated bifacial thinning of the blanks by steepening the margins to allow subsequent bifacial reduction to occur in a more con- trolled fashion. This stage involved primarily the use of a hard hammer. Secondary-Stage Technique. Following the initial stages of blank preparation, a series of successively reduced reforms (Figures 3b and 4a, b) were manufactured utilizing both hard- and soft- (bone and antler) hammer techniques. During the later stages of this intermediate preform-reduction sequence, basal thinning was performed to facilitate notching. Basal Notching. Notching occurs symmetrically along the basal edges of Hernando points and was accomplished by the use of pressure flaking. Notches were expanded by alternately turning the preform over and applying pressure to the back of a previously created notching-flake scar. The flakes that resulted from this activity are very distinctive and can be used to identify notching techniques from a general debitage assemblage (see Austin 1986 for a description and discussion of this debitage type). Hernando notching occurs almost exclusively in pairs and was probably accomplished through use of a pointed bone or antler pressure flaker. Tertiary Soft-Hammer Technique. Basal notching was not the final step in the Hernando manufacturing process. Subsequent STE. CLAIRE THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Figure 4. Late-stage Hernando reforms: a) notching failure fracture; c) lateral-snap fracture. soft-hammer thinning was performed after notching and before final pressure retouch along the margins. This was indicated by the predominance of late-stage Hernando points with notches present which were rejected due to lateral fracture (Figure 1). Rejection due to a notching failure is also evident on one late- stage preform (Figure 4a), thus demonstrating at what stage notching occurred. It is possible that basal notching by pressure is similar to bifacial fluting in that both are important steps in a particular manufacturing sequence. Final retouch may have been impractical in both instances until these critical steps had been accomplished. Thermal Alteration. The technology of thermal alteration is absent in the Rock Hammock lithic assemblage. An analysis of over 100 Hernando points and point fragments from other sites in the FLMNH and USF collections showed the occurrence of only two thermally altered Hernando implements. Heat-treat- ment technologies, which reached their peak in Florida during the Archaic Period, decreased significantly during post-Archaic periods. This decrease in the use of thermal alteration correlates with an observable reduction in projectile-point size and weight through time (Ste. Claire 1987). The use of smaller, thinner blanks, such as those used during the manufacture of Hernando points, appar- ently did not necessitate the use of heat treatment in order to achieve a desired final product. Preconceptions of Tool Form Group Manufacturing Behavior Hernando projectile-point manufactur- ing behavior was studied in view of specific decisions made on the part of the manufacturers concerning the acceptance and rejection of potentially salvageable forms of fractured late-stage Hernando points. Certain laterally snapped speci- mens display basal portions, with notch- ing complete, that have a substantial amount of their blade portions remaining which would allow for minimal shaping into functional, albeit smaller, pointed e; b) direct corner projectile forms (Figure 1). To determine if the occurrence of unsalvaged basal fragments represents preconceptions on the part of the manufacturers regarding a desired final tool form, dimensional data from the comparative Hernando sample were analyzed. It was postulated that if a par- ticular size, shape, or form was preferred by Hernando projec- tile-point manufacturers, then minimal variability should be reflected within this sample. Hence, the standard deviation and variance should be low, and the coefficient of variation (i.e., the standard deviation as a proportion of the mean) also should be low. A comparison of length, width, and thinning-index data compiled for the sample of Hernando projectile points and the Product Group I rejects from Rock Hammock (Table 1) indicate that while the mean thinning-index values are nearly identical, the Rock Hammock implements possess a larger average length and smaller average width than the combined FLMNH and USF samples. In other words, the Rock Hammock assemblage is slightly longer and narrower than the comparative sample. However, the coefficients of variation are low in both assem- blages indicating that length and width variations within each sample are not great. These data suggest that while a general size-weight relationship may have been preferred by Hernando projectile- Table 1. Dimensional and thinning-index data for Hernando projectile points. Length Width Thinning Index Collection N Avg. SD CV N Avg. SD CV N Avg. SD CV Rock Hammock 5 6.13 .92 .15 5 2.38 .33 .14 6 .74 .09 .12 FLMNH & USF Sample 41 4.50 .63 .14 45 2.94 .36 .12 50 .76 .09 .12 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) STE. CLAIRE HERNANDO PROJECTILE-POINT TECHNOLOGY AND FUNCTION Figure 5. Horizontal distribution of debitage and manufacturing debris spatially isolated, single-event, biface reduction episode (Feature 1). point makers, as evidenced by the similarities in thinning-index values between Rock Hammock and the comparative sample, regional variations in size and form did occur. At Rock Ham- mock, for example, prehistoric flintknappers tried to produce a particular form longer and thinner while still maintaining the desired size-weight relationship. It is evident that Hernando projectile points were manufactured with an overall precon- ceived shape (and possibly weight) in mind, surely a reflection of aesthetic expression and/or functional requirements. Individual Manufacturing Behavior When it became apparent during field investigations at Rock Hammock that one of several lithic concentrations was a representing a specialized, spatially isolated, chipping station, special excava- tion methods were applied. A board-and-string grid subdivided into 10 x 10 cm squares was constructed and laid over the feature to assist in preserving intra-feature provenience. The entire feature was mapped and subsequently removed in 10 x 10 cm blocks and the excavated soil was sifted through 3.2 mm (1/8 in) mesh screen. The feature (Figure 5), broadly elliptic in shape, measured approximately 110 cm in length, 70 cm in width, and extended to a depth of 12 cm below ground surface, with the bulk of the material occurring between 5 and 10 cm below surface. A total of 1776 artifacts were recovered from the feature including 1741 pieces of debitage, four blanks, and two reforms, one of which was found in two matching pieces within the lithic con- STE. CLAIRE HERNANDO PROJECTILE-POINT TECHNOLOGY AND FUNCTION ThE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL 49(4) Figure 6. Horizontal distribution of debitage weights in Feature 1. centration. The feature was located in a remote area of the site where artifact density was typically low and was, thus, relative- ly isolated from the other major activity areas. Based on the condensed and patterned distribution of its contents, it is believed that the concentration represents the deposition of material resulting from a single manufacturing episode (Austin and Ste.Claire 1982:139-143). In an effort to determine patterns of spatial organization on the part of the individual flintknapper, an analysis of the spatial distribution of the flake debris in the feature was conducted using methods developed by Newcomer and Sieveking (1980). Based on the analysis of experimentally derived scatters, they concluded that the most important variable affecting the size and shape of these scatters is the position of the knapper. In general, the farther the knapper's body is from the ground, the more diffuse the scatter of flakes will become. The two extremes are represented by a seated position on the ground which results in a concentrated cluster of flakes, and a standing position which results in a very diffuse flake distribution with large numbers of flakes which fly forward of the knapper. Furthermore, flake- scatter patterns which result from sitting on seats of varying heights are characterized by roughly circular patterns of flake dispersal. These patterns were delineated through the analysis of flake-weight distribution and this method was applied to the Rock Hammock feature (Figure 6). Application of Newcomer and Sieveking's method shows that the knapper who produced the lithic debris in the feature was facing in a southwesterly direction while working, with most of the flakes traveling in that direction. The knapper was probably seated on the ground or on a low seat of some sort as evidenced by the relatively dense concentration of debris. The knapper's legs and body prevented the flakes from flying in any other direction. Broken blanks and reforms were dropped in the center of the cluster or tossed to the south. One preform was dropped to the north, or to the right side of the knapper, after fracture occurred. Behavioral Displacement ofBifaces An interesting, and very human, form of behavior on the part of the Rock Hammock flintknappers was revealed by observing the distribution of matching fragments of nearly completed projectile points across the site. Matching fragments were recovered on Rock Hammock several meters from each other, usually with one fragment found at a defined chipping station. Excessive bioturbation was ruled out as a possible cause because of the large distances between fragments and the absence of any soil discolorations or other evidence of such activity. Fracture displacement, where flakes or biface fragments are fractured away at a distance from the source of manufacture upon percussion, was also considered unlikely because of the amount of force that would be needed to displace the biface fragments. Instead, it is suggested that this phenomenon was caused by what is termed "behavioral displacement," whereby knappers displayed their frustration at fracturing nearly complete imple- ments by "excessively" discarding one or more of the remaining fragments (Austin and Ste.Claire 1982:187). This phenomenon was recognized in Florida as early as 1959 when Bullen and Dolan, reporting on the Johnson Lake site in Marion County, noted that "quite obviously the workman, nearly finished with a fine artifact, had struck a final chip and, because of a flaw in the chert, broke the blade...the nicely finished base dropped among the growing pile of debris beside him while the other part, probably with a few choice words, THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) STE. CLAIRE HERNANDO PROIECnLE-POINT TECHNOLOGY AND FUNCTION was thrown some distance away...this must have occurred at least twice" (Bullen and Dolan 1959:80). A similar occurrence of "tossing behavior" is reported by Daniel and Wisenbaker (1987:106-107) at Harney Flats, a Paleoindian site in Hills- borough County. Another plausible explanation for these displaced bifaces is that the biface fragments are broken pieces of completed projectile points that fractured during use, perhaps during hunting. The tips subsequently were transported back to the site in animals that were killed, while the remaining broken basal portions, still hafted to the projectile shaft, would have been carried back, as well. The tip portions would have been discarded during on-site butchering activities, while at another location, the bases were removed from the hafts of the arrows or darts and discarded in preparation for the attachment of new projectile points. However, the general absence of use wear, hafting wear, or impact fractures on Rock Hammock projectile- point forms seems to argue against this hypothesis. Functional Analysis: Atlatl Dart or Arrow Point? The term "projectile point" is a functionally ambiguous term which subsumes all spear points, atlatl dart tips, and arrow- heads. Although Hernando projectile points have been referred to as arrowheads in the archaeological literature (e.g., Milanich 1994:203; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:129; Tesar 1994:75), systematic testing of Hernando attributes has not been conducted to determine their intended function. Several investigators have conducted studies designed to determine whether or not archaeological or ethnographic specimens were arrows or dart points. Independent criteria have been used in these tests that would, theoretically, provide general formulas for determining projectile function. These include Thomas's (1978) dart point and arrowhead equations and Shott's (1993) reapplication of Thomas's classification function, Van Buren's (1974) weight/length differentiations, Corliss's (1972) projectile-point neck-width indices, and Fenenga's (1953) weight-distribution study. These analyses are briefly described here. Thomas (1978) considered four variables in his analysis: length, width, thickness, and neck width. These variables were incorporated into a discriminant analysis which is a statistical procedure that uses independent variables to assign individual specimens to one or more previously defined classes which, in this case, included ethnographically documented dart and arrow points. If a high proportion of specimens are classified correctly using these independent criteria, equations are generated that enable specimens of unknown function to be assigned to one of the two classes. The raw variable values for an unknown projectile point are substituted into the two equations and the one that produces the higher value indicates the appropriate classification. The application of this method on the sample of known projectile-point types resulted in an overall accuracy of 86%, which Thomas felt was satisfactory for an archaeological application of this method. Thomas (1978:471) states that while the relatively larger arrows tended to have larger arrowheads, the correlation is not strong and he urged caution when making such inferences. He adds that these classifications should be tested against independent data before the categories are considered final. Shott (1993) applied Thomas's classification function to archaeological materials from eastern North America. His study demonstrated that Thomas's formulae can be used to distinguish arrow points from dart and spear points in archaeological projectile-point assemblages. But he also noted that an inter- mediate and functionally ambiguous class of projectile points would be difficult to address analytically using this method. G. E. Van Buren (1974), in an exhaustive work that describes and differentiates many projectile-point types, categorized arrowheads and atlatl darts by their corresponding attributes with weight as the principal criterion. After an examination of numerous ethnographic specimens, Van Buren arrived at a basic weight value for separating the two projectile-point types: arrowheads, weighing less than 17 gm (with associated varia- tions for longer points) and dart points, weighing more than 20 gm. Thickness attributes also were coupled with weight for point-type differentiation. Generally, arrowhead hafting-area thicknesses did not exceed .48 cm. Corliss (1972) demonstrated that the change from spear to bow usage is reflected in the reduction of stem or neck widths of stone points. His operational model proposed that the distribution of projectile-point neck widths will be bimodal based on the assumption that the bimodality is the result of the introduction of the bow. Fenenga (1953), expanding on research conducted by Kidder (1938), used weight as his principal criterion for distinguishing between dart points and arrowheads. Fenenga contended that weight is a function of length, width, and thickness, plus form and the specific gravity of the material used, and that weight was a desired or required constant which could be achieved by varying one or more of the other attributes. Samples from archaeological sites located in the western regions of North America, as well as ethnographic specimens, were analyzed and classified by weight. On the basis of the resulting distribution, Fenenga defined small- and large-point traditions, with weights of projectile points clustering around one of two modes. The distribution range for the small-point tradition shows a modal preference for projectile points weighing between .5 and 1.5 gm with an upper limit of 3.5 gm. The range for large points was defined by a minimum weight of 4.5 gm and a modal weight of 9 gm. Fenenga also suggested a functionally ambiguous intermediate range which was defined by a weight distribution of 2.1 through 7.4 gm. Application of Classification Methods to Hernando Projectile Points An analysis of Hernando projectile points was conducted using the classification methods discussed above. In addition to the projectile points from Rock Hammock (Appendix I), Hernando points from the FLMNH and USF collections also were included in the analysis (see Appendix II). The various classification methods produced conflicting results. When the projectile data are applied to Thomas's STE. CLAIRE HERNANDO PROJECTILE-POINT TECHNOLOGY AND FUNCTION THE FLORIDA ANrHRoPoLoGISr 1996 VoL. 49(4) equations, Hernando points emerge as atlatl dart tips. Similarly, the mean weight value of 5.55 gm for complete Hernando projectile points falls at the lower end of Fenenga's (1953) range for what he terms the large-point tradition or the atlatl dart class. However, the mean weight value is well below the maximum value of 17 gm proposed by Van Buren (1974:21) for his arrow-point class threshold. Furthermore, the small Her- nando stem width (.84 cm) seems to correlate with Corliss's (1972) assumption that a change from atlatl use to use of the bow and arrow will be reflected by a reduction in the neck widths of stone points. Thomas (1978:471) acknowledged that his classification system might be subject to temporal and spatial fluctuations, and while Shott (1993) successfully used Thomas's equations, he noted that functionally ambiguous implements would be difficult to classify. Along these same lines, Seeman (1992:42) has suggested that Thomas's formulae may not have application to bifaces manufactured during a period of transition from dart to arrow. Fenenga (1953:321) suggested that implements with weights that fell into his intermediate weight category might represent efforts at a compromise between the two traditions. Thus, the somewhat ambiguous results may indicate that Hernando projectile points were manufactured as multifunctional implements, serving as tips for both darts and arrows. This implies that atlatl and bow use were contemporaneous at one time. An explanation also is sought for the sudden decrease of projectile-point size and weight, the concomitant decrease of thermal-alteration technologies, and the introduction of the basal-notching tradition at the end of the Transitional Period. If a distribution of thermal alteration use is compared with projectile-point weight and size through time, Hernando points occur initially at a point of sudden decrease of all of these attributes (Ste. Claire 1987). A non-random sample of projectile points chosen to reflect representative types was analyzed in an effort to examine the continuum of decreasing projectile-point dimensional attributes through time (Table 2). A group of Archaic stemmed points shows a mean thinning index of 1.35, while a sample of Pinellas points, most often associated with the use of the bow and arrow (e.g., Milanich 1994:265, 340, 394) possesses a substantially smaller mean thinning index of .52. The mean thinning-index value of .76 calculated for the large sample of Hernando points clearly approaches the lower end of this range. Table 2. Comparison of mean weight and thinning-index values for Florida Archaic Stemmed, Hernando, and Pinellas projectile points. Projectile Weight Thinning Point Type N (gm) Index Florida Archaic Stemmed 10 22.42 1.35 Hernando 51 5.55 a .76 Pinellas 10 1.53 .52 1 Mean weight calculated from 35 complete specimens. The abrupt decrease in projectile-point weight and thinning index during the Woodland Period in Florida is demonstrated, and best characterized, by Hernando projectile-point forms, and this trend may indeed reflect the introduction of the bow and arrow. When this introduction occurred in Florida is difficult to say, but it is generally accepted that the bow and arrow was adopted in eastern North America as a delivery system for projectile points sometime during the first millennium A.D. (Shott 1993:435). Odell (1988) suggests that this introduction may have occurred earlier, nearer to the turn of the millennium, or possibly as early as 2000 B.C. Throughout eastern North America, a shift from notched or stemmed to triangular projectile points occurred between A.D. 500 and A.D. 800, and this shift is commonly associated with the use of the bow and arrow in this region (e.g., Blitz 1988:131; Christenson 1986; Griffin 1978:254; Hall 1980; Justice 1987:224-229; Muller 1986), as well as other areas of the continent (Patterson 1992; Webster 1980). The Florida variant of this triangular-point tradition is the Pinellas point (Bullen 1975:8), a projectile-point type produced during the latter part of this same period and one which is almost always associated with a bow-and-arrow technology. But triangular points in many areas of eastern North America are preceded by notched projectile points that are smaller than earlier types of similar form (Shott 1993:425), and these transitional types seem to suggest that the bow and arrow was introduced earlier than the production of small, triangular projectile points. It is possible, as Shott (1993:438) suggests, that hunting tool kits changed by expansion, rather than replacement, when the bow- and-arrow technology was made available. That is, existing forms of projectile-point traditions may have undergone reduction to accommodate the functional requirements of a new technology. Hernando points may reflect such an adaptation or, as Hall (1980:436) explains, a shift of dimensions within an older pattern. The Hernando projectile-point form could be interpreted as a translation of atlatl point into arrow point, emerging as a comparatively smaller point within a well- established basal- and corner-notched projectile-point tradition which developed during the Late Archaic through Transitional periods in Florida, its form reflecting the cultural and techno- logical constraints imposed by such a tradition. Perhaps, as Bullen (1975:3) suggested, it is a refinement of the earlier basally notched (barbed) Culbreath point. This modification could have taken place rapidly in response to the introduction of a new technology although the data seem to suggest a gradual transition from atlatl to arrowhead. Both explanations are viable, and more data are needed to determine the true function of Hernando projectile points. Temporal Placement of Hernando Projectile Points Hernando points are thought to have first appeared during the Florida Transitional Period (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:62), and it is the latter part of this period where they first emerged based on Bullen's (1975:24) chronological placement of this point type. Bullen based this assumption in part on Hernando points found at the Canton Street site in St. Petersburg (Bullen THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 196 VoL. 49(4) STE. CLAIRE HERNANDO PROJECTILE-POINT TECHNOLOGY AND FUNCTION et al. 1978), where ceramics assignable to the late Transitional Period (ca. 900-600 B.C.) were recovered. Using Canton Street and other site data, Bullen (1975:24) suggested that Hernando points best correlate with the period ca. 500 B.C.-A.D. 200. Sears (1982), using ceramic inventories, mound and midden patterning, and in some cases, radiocarbon dates from Fort Center in south Florida, assigns a Hernando point assemblage recovered there to a similar period (ca. 450 B.C.-A.D. 200), although later contexts for Hernando points also are described for this site (Steinen 1982). Austin (1996:69, Figure 7) reports that a Hernando point at the Dead Cow site on the Kissimmee River was found in association with sand-and-fiber-tempered sherds. A similar sand-and-fiber-tempered component at the nearby Orange Hammock midden was radiocarbon dated at 2870 50 B.P. (cal. 1170-910 B.C.) (Austin 1996:72). At a freshwater snail midden in the Ocala National Forest, a single Hernando point was recovered from a similar sand-and-fiber- tempered context (Bullen and Bryant 1965:28). Purdy's (1981:44) assignment of Hernando points as beginning in the late Preceramic Archaic Period is probably too early. Almy (1982) correlates Hernando points found at Cypress Creek in Hillsborough County with the period ca. 500 B.C.- A.D. 700 based on ceramics recovered from the site, research in the Central Gulf Coast area, information from other sites in Florida, and personal communication with Calvin Jones. Her extension of Bullen's (1975:24) temporal range for Hernando points from A.D. 200 to A.D. 700 was based on a recognition that Hernando points had been recovered from later contexts in Florida. Hernando projectile points have been identified with Weeden Island and related Woodland Period cultures throughout Florida (e.g., Luer and Almy 1982; Milanich 1974, 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Steinen 1982), and have been recovered from contexts dating as late as A.D. 860 (Milanich 1974; 1994:202-203). The latest temporal association for this projectile-point type is reported by Steinen (1982:Table 6.3) who lists several Hernando points from Midden A at Fort Center that he believes were deposited during Sears's Period III (or sometime between A.D. 600-800 and A.D. 1200-1400) based on ceramic seriation. No radiocarbon dates are associated with Midden A and no additional information is provided regarding the exact proveniences of the projectile points within this feature. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if Hernando points were being used throughout the entire range of time encompassed by Sears's Period III. To my knowledge, there is no firm evidence from any other sites in Florida that would support a post-A.D. 900 terminal date for the manufac- ture and use of Hernando projectile points. Based on the available archaeological literature, it appears that Hernando points have a broad temporal distribution in Florida, from the Transitional through the Weeden Island and related periods (ca. 1000 B.C.-A.D. 900), thus making difficult the task of isolating a specific culture period for which Hernando points are diagnostic. This problem was illustrated recently by Farr (1995) who conducted a comprehensive search of the Florida Site File in Tallahassee for site-specific information concerning the correct chronological placement of this distinc- tive projectile point. Hemando points are unambiguously associated with sand-and- fiber-tempered components throughout central and southern Florida, including sites located in both interior and coastal regions of the state. This ceramic type is a classic diagnostic marker for the Transitional Period (Bullen 1959, 1971). It appears that Hernando points became popular in later times in north Florida (Milanich 1994:101). Radiocarbon dates from the Sycamore site (Milanich 1974; 1994:197-204) suggest that the Hernando projectile-point tradition continued in north Florida through the Weeden Island period (ca. A.D. 860). It also is possible that these points were salvaged from earlier contexts by later cultures, a prehistoric behavior demonstrated for this region of Florida (Ste. Claire 1987:205). Salvaging might also explain the presence of Hernando points in relatively late (i.e., Period III) contexts at Fort Center. Conclusion This paper has described the Hernando projectile-point manufacturing techniques practiced at a single site, Rock Hammock, in the Hillsborough River Basin of west-central Florida. The data suggest that Rock Hammock flintknappers attempted to produce Hernando projectile points within a narrowly defined range of length and width parameters while at the same time maintaining a desired size-weight relationship. This size-weight relationship is presumed to be related to implement function. Analysis suggests that Hernando points may have been used to tip both atlatl darts and arrows, and so may reflect the technological transition from atlatl to bow and arrow in Florida. Data presented in this paper also suggest that Hernando points were manufactured during a lengthy cultural continuum, from the Transitional through Weeden Island and related cultural periods (ca. 1000 B.C.-A.D. 900), throughout north, central, and south Florida. Additional radiocarbon dating of sites with well defined Hernando projectile-point horizons is necessary to more closely determine the spatial and temporal boundaries of the Hernando projectile-point tradition. Acknowledgments The author thanks colleague and friend Robert Austin for his editorial contributions and discussions related to the development of ideas contained in this paper; this article reflects many shared ideas. Bob also produced several of the graphics for this paper. Artifact photos are by George Ballo. Rich Estabrook read an earlier draft of this paper and provided helpful comments and references. Thanks are extended to Nancy Marie White and Tim R. Lewis of the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, for their recent assistance in processing a Rock Hammock charcoal sample for radiocarbon dating; USF's Department of Anthropology sponsored the date. Finally, the author expresses his deepest gratitude to the late J. Raymond Williams, longtime mentor and friend, for his continuous support and direction in helping this archaeologist become what he was always meant to be. What began as an archaeological foray into the backwoods of Hardee County some twenty years ago with Ray and a barefooted and talkative Barry Wharton has since become a lifelong passion. A belated thanks, Ray, for this special gift. References Cited Almy, Marion M. 1982 Archaeological Excavations at the Cypress Creek Site (8HI471): An STE. CLAIRE HERtNANDO PROJECI~ILE-POINT TEcHNoOoGY AND FUNCnION THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Inland, Short-Term, Multi-Period Aboriginal Occupation in Northern Hillsborough County, Florida. Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeo- logical Reports, Number 4. Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. Austin, Robert J. 1986 The Experimental Reproduction and Archaeological Occurrence of Biface Notching Flakes. Lithic Technology 15:96-100. 1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and Subsistence Data from the Kissimmee River Valley: Archaeological Evidence for Belle Glade Occupation. The Florida Anthropologist 49:65-87. Austin, Robert J., and Dana Ste.Claire 1982 The Deltona Project: Prehistoric Technology in the Hillsborough River Basin. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Report No. 12, Tampa. Blitz, J. H. 1988 Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America. North American Archaeologist 9:123-145. Bullen, Ripley P. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 6:43-53. 1971 The Transitional Period of Southern Southeastern United States as Viewed from Florida, or the Roots of the Gulf Tradition. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 13:63-70. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points (Revised Edition). Kendall Books, Gainesville. Bullen, Ripley P., and William J. Bryant 1965 Three Archaic Sites in the Ocala National Forest, Florida. The William L. Bryant Foundation Report No. 6. Bullen, Ripley P., and E. M. Dolan 1959 The Johnson Lake Site, Marion County, Florida. The Florida Anthro- pologist 12:77-94. Bullen, Ripley P., Walter Askew, Lee M. Feder, and Richard L. McDonnell 1978 The Canton Street Site, St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 9, Gainesville. Callahan, Errett 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7:1-180. Chance, Marsha A. 1981 Wetherington Island: An Archaic Lithic Procurement Site in Hills- borough County. The Florida Anthropologist 34:109-119. 1982 Phase II Investigations at Wetherington Island: A Lithic Procurement Site in Hillsborough County. Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeo- logical Reports, No. 3. Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. Chance, Marsha A., and Elizabeth J. Misner 1984 Archaic Lithic Procurement at Wetherington Island, Hillsborough County, Florida. Report prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration by the Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee. Christenson, Andrew L. 1986 Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: An Exploratory Study. Plains Anthropologist 31:109-128. Collins, Michael B. 1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by Earl Swanson, pp. 15-34. Mouton Publishers, The Hague. Corliss, David W. 1972 Neck Width of Projectile Points: An Index of Cultural Continuity and Change. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, No. 29, Pocatello. Daniel, I Randolph, Jr., and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, NJ. Farr, Grayal E. 1995 Hernando: Recent Contributions to the Understanding of a Distinctive Prehistoric Projectile Point. Graduate student paper on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Fenenga, Franklin 1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to Their Functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:309-323. Griffin, James B. 1978 The Midlands and Northeastern United States. In Ancient Native Americans, edited by J. D. Jennings, pp. 221-279. Freeman, San Francisco. Hall, R. L. 1980 An Interpretation of the Two-Climax Model of Illinois Prehistory. In Early Native Americans: Prehistory, Demography, Economy, and Technology, edited by D. L. Browman, pp. 401-462. Mouton Publish- ers, The Hague. Johnson, Jay K. 1979 Archaic Biface Manufacture: Production Failures, A Chronicle of the Misbegotten. Lithic Technology 8:25-35. Justice, N. D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy 1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 35:34-58. Milanich, Jerald T. 1974 Life in a 9th Century Indian Household, a Weeden Island Fall-Winter Site on the Upper Apalachicola River, Florida. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 4:1-44. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Muller, J. 1986 Archaeology of the Lower Ohio Valley. Academic Press, Orlando. Muto, Guy R. 1971 A Technological Analysis of the Early Stages in the Manufacture of Lithic Artifacts. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, Pocatello. Newcomer, M. H., and G. de G. Sieveking 1980 Experimental Flake Scatter Patterns: A New Interpretive Technique. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:345-352. Odell, George H. 1988 Addressing Prehistoric Hunting Practices Through Stone Tool Analysis. American Anthropologist 90:335-356. Patterson, Leland W. 1985 Distinguishing Between Arrow and Spear Points on the Upper Texas Coast. Lithic Technology 14:81-89. 1992 Current Data on Early Use of the Bow and Arrow in Southern North America. La Tierra 19:6-15. Purdy, Barbara A. 1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology: A Study of the Flnworking Technique of Early Stone Implement Makers. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Rom, Lance 1979 A Phase 2 Archaeological Assessment Survey of the Deltona Corpora- tion's Tampa Palms Development in Northeastern Hillsborough County, Florida. Report prepared for the Deltona Corporation, Inc. by the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Sears, William H. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Seeman, M. F. 1992 The Bow and Arrow, The Intrusive Mound Complex, and a Late Woodland Jack's Reef Horizon in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Cultural 1996 VOL. 49(4) STE. CLAIRE HERNANDO PROJECTILE-POINT TECHNOLOGY AND FUNCTION Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by M. Seeman, pp. 41-51. MCJA Special Paper No. 7. Kent, Ohio. Shott, Michael J. 1993 Spears, Dart, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the Upper Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 58:425-443. 1996 Stage Versus Continuum in the Debris Assemblage from Production of a Fluted Biface. Lithic Technology 21:6-22. Ste. Claire, Dana 1982 RockHammock: Hernando Projectile PointManufacturing Technologies in the Hillsborough River Basin. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropol- ogy, University of South Florida, Tampa. 1987 The Development of Thermal Alteration Technologies in Florida: Implications for the Study of Prehistoric Adaptation. The Florida Anthropologist 40:187-208. Steinen, Karl T. 1982 Other Nonceramic Artifacts. In Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin by William H. Sears, pp. 68-110. Universi- ty Press of Florida, Gainesville. Tesar, Louis D. 1994 Johnson Sand Pit (8LE73): An Analysis and Comparative Review of a Paleoindian through Early DeptfordBase Camp in Leon County. Florida Archaeological Reports 32, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee. Thomas, David Hurst 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43:461-472. Van Buren, G. E. 1974 Arrowheads and Projectile Points with a Classification Guidefor Lithic Artifacts. Arrowhead Publishing Company, California. Webster, Gary S. 1980 Recent Data Bearing on the Question of the Origins of the Bow and Arrow in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 45:63-66. Appendix I. Examples of Hernando reduction continuum. Specimen No. Product Length Width Stem Width Weight Surface Thimnng Group (cm) (cm) (cm) (gm) Area Index 8HI556-116-11 IV 7.05 3.55 .. 33.00 19.25 1.71 8HI556-57-1 IV 5.75 3.85 .. 27.10 16.75 1.62 8HI556-65-74 m 7.10 4.10 .. 32.20 24.00 1.34 8HI556-45-1 m 5.10 3.30 .. 17.90 13.50 1.33 8HI556-113-1157 II 7.71 3.85 .. 27.85 21.50 1.30 8HI556-153-1 II 5.75 2.95 .. 11.40 10.65 1.07 8HI556-116-2 II 5.50 2.90 .. 13.25 13.00 1.02 8HI556-63 I 5.72 2.40 .42 9.40 10.50 .90 8HI556-C-2A-2 I 5.10 2.00 .59 4.80 6.50 .74 8HI556-74 I 7.55 2.90 .58 12.70 17.50 .73 8HI556-12-7' I .... .71 2.70 3.75 .72 8HI556-45/56 I 5.90 2.25 .60 6.10 8.63 .71 8H1556-189-190 I 6.40 2.35 .. 5.45 8.75 .62 a Basal fragment. Appendix II. Hernando projectile point data. Specimen No. Length Width Stem Width Weight Surface Thinning (cm) (cm) (cm) (gm) Area Index A-166-102289-A A-166-102289-A-B A-166-102289-A-ALA.F A-166-102289-A-949 A-166-102289-A-2237 A-166-102289-0677 A-166-102289-2839 A-166-102289-4970 A-166-102289-7383 A-612-A-7-41 A-612-A-7-58 Bayshore DPM-B Becker BD-17 A Becker BD-17 B Becker BD-17 C 4.89 4.95 4.02 4.25 3.95 4.40 3.95 4.15 3.89 5.82 4.79 4.32 4.45 3.02 3.35 3.55 3.22 2.60 2.85 2.79 3.09 2.60 3.30 3.62 3.12 3.12 4.95 6.69 6.05 4.22 3.89 6.00 5.10 5.25 4.52 3.95 4.09 8.69 8.60 5.40 4.75 7.25 8.50 6.94 5.69 5.54 6.81 5.88 5.31 6.38 6.00 5.69 12.25 10.75 7.38 6.38 STE. CLAIRE HERNANDO PROJECTILE-POINT TECHNOLOGY AND FUNCTION Appendix H (Continued). Specimen No. Length Width Stem Width Weight Surface Thining (cm) (cm) (cm) (gm) Area Index Becker 382.1-6 4.62 2.90 .70 4.69 6.19 .76 Becker 382.1-7 4.70 2.40 .82 5.19 6.91 .75 Becker 382.1-16 3.82 2.85 .75 3.22 5.50 .59 Becker 382.1-26 3.22 3.05 1.10 3.60 5.00 .72 Becker 382.1-37 5.15 3.55 .. 8.55 9.13 .94 Becker 382.1-42 4.90 3.00 1.05 6.25 8.25 .76 Becker 382.4 4.82 2.72 .75 5.29 7.43 .71 Becker 382.5-A 3.95 2.92 .92 5.19 6.19 .84 GA Flint River 1 4.85 3.30 1.25 7.00 9.38 .75 GA Flint River 2 .. 2.90 1.09 4.29 5.69 .75 Mathews 7572 3.95 3.10 .80 5.29 6.50 .81 Pecan BR A-4541 4.92 2.85 .78 4.69 7.69 .61 Pecan BR 8456 5.35 3.59 1.31 10.52 12.87 .82 Pecan BR 102316 A .. 2.81 .65 4.30 6.63 .65 Pecan BR 102316 B 4.25 .. .85 4.82 6.19 .78 Pecan BR 102316 C 3.75 .. .82 3.30 5.06 .65 Phillipi 11694 .. 3.50 1.09 6.72 7.69 .87 USF A14-12 3.95 2.85 1.05 4.25 5.75 .74 USF C62-8 4.20 2.70 .69 4.85 6.06 .75 USF G15-11 4.75 3.19 .95 7.59 8.50 .89 USF UNLBLD-15 .. 2.40 .85 3.45 4.63 .76 USF ST 2-10 4.95 2.55 .85 5.39 7.19 .75 USF 8HI113-3 5.80 2.62 .85 6.25 8.75 .71 USF-9 4.75 2.92 .92 6.60 8.31 .79 102212-A-4400 .... .85 3.15 4.29 .73 102289-A2992-3 4.22 2.82 .72 4.70 6.38 .74 102289-A954-4 4.12 2.80 .65 3.10 5.50 .56 102289-A958-5 4.65 2.45 .70 4.70 6.44 .73 102421-A-1819 3.50 2.02 .45 2.50 4.06 .62 8-A-414-102312 5.50 3.25 1.00 7.30 10.04 .73 8-HE-6-92611A .. 3.10 .75 8.28 11.06 .75 8-HE-6-92515 .. 2.68 .60 5.01 6.69 .75 8-HE-6-92611B .. 2.28 .61 4.15 4.87 .85 8-MR-57-135 5.62 3.00 .75 8.51 9.69 .88 8-MR-57-104312 4.90 2.92 .95 4.71 7.21 .65 Average 4.49 2.94 .84 5.55 6.95 .76 N 43 47 51 35' 51 51 SComplete specimens only. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 19w Vo. 4M4) PREHISTORIC LAND USE IN WEST-CENTRAL PENINSULAR FLORIDA: A VIEW FROM THE SOUTH PRONG I SITE (8HI418) JAMES M. WELCH' AND WILLIAM C. PRENTISS2 Cultural Heritage Resource Office, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 E-Mail: 'email@example.com; email@example.com In 1949, Gordon Willey described the "flatwoods" of west- central and northwest Florida as "a rather poor lowland sustaining pine, palmetto, and wiregrass, and dotted with cypress ponds." He suggested that this environmental context likely could not sustain agriculture without modem mechanized methods. He contrasted the flatwoods with adjacent coastal, riverine, and upland zones, which he felt offered much higher potential for production of subsistence resources. Despite this characterization, recent archaeological research has documented that this environmental zone was occupied repeatedly by prehistoric populations. Debate continues, however, regarding the nature of this occupation. Some favor the coast as the center of major evolutionary change (Padgett 1976), while others have argued for independent cultural complexity evolving in the interior of Florida (Wharton and Williams 1980). Despite the creation of alternative hypotheses (Johnson 1981), there has been little resolution of this debate. Excavation of the South Prong I site (8HI418) in southeastern Hillsborough County (Welch 1983) provides an opportunity to test the competing hypotheses from a single-site perspective. Although a single site cannot provide a complete picture of regional settlement patterns, it can provide a window into land- use patterns if the temporal span of site occupation is long enough. South Prong I features temporally diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon dates spanning the Paleoindian through Safety Harbor periods. It also features a relatively substantial assem- blage of lithic tools and debitage and ceramics allowing inferences to be made regarding occupational variation and stability. The following discussion provides a review of the three principal hypotheses purported to explain land use in interior Gulf Coast Florida, as well as the excavation and environmental context of South Prong I, descriptive results of the artifact analyses, and an additional test of the original conclusions utilizing lithic tool assemblage size and diversity relationships. Implications are drawn regarding the utility of the three hypotheses for understanding interior Gulf Coast prehistory and recommendations are made for future research into cultural evolution and hunter-gatherer foraging strategies. Land Use in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast Region: Multiple Hypotheses There have been several hypotheses and arguments advanced concerning settlement patterning within the interior portions of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast Archaeological Region. These include the Hinterland Hypothesis (Padgett 1976), the Heartland Hypothesis (Wharton and Williams 1980), and the Marginal Flatwoods Hypothesis (Johnson 1981). Padgett (1976:41) proposed the existence of three environmen- tal areas which include Coastal, Riverine, and Hinterland Zones. A land-use model was presented which suggested that each of these environmental zones contains archaeological sites which reflect different socio-economic activities (Padgett 1976:42-43). The South Prong I site is located within the northeastern reaches of the Hinterland Zone. This zone is defined as the area drained by the headwaters and tributaries of the Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers. Furthermore, the land is typically flat and low with soils not conducive to maize agricul- ture (Padgett 1976:43). Following Padgett (1976), it is proposed as a working hypothesis that South Prong I reflects a "Hinter- land Zone...used exclusively as a hunting territory, with perhaps some minor collecting activities taking place" (Padgett 1976:43). This hypothesis implies that the landscape of the Interior Peninsular Gulf Coast region was perhaps used system- atically by coastally based peoples who shifted from an immedi- ate-return to a delayed-return collecting system during the period encompassed by the late Pleistocene through the late Holocene. Immediate-return hunter-gatherers make frequent residential moves, consume foods gathered daily, maintain flexible social groupings, and avoid the binding long-term commitments for trade that are seen among agriculturalists and more "complex" hunter-gatherers (Binford 1980; Hayden 1981; Woodburn 1980, 1982). Late Pleistocene and early Holocene hunter-gatherers in Florida may have been organized in a somewhat similar manner (Milanich 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Delayed-return hunter-gatherers make few residential moves, rely on stored food during some seasons of the year, assert extensive property rights including ownership of crucial resource-collecting locales, and enter into various binding commitments for exchange, marriage, property access, etc. (Hayden 1992, 1995; Price and Brown 1985; Woodburn 1980, 1982). Middle to late Holocene peoples of Florida may have fit this pattern to a significant degree (Milanich 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). If this was the case, then we should expect to see systematic change in land-use patterns throughout this time reflecting this change. South Prong I, with its long sequence of occupations, may VoL. 49 No. 4 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 1996 Tin FLORwDA ANTHROPOLOGIST~ DECEMBER 1996 VOL. 49 NO. 4 TH LRD NHOOOGS 96VL 94 reflect this change in hunting and gathering patterns with evidence for a shift from highly mobile foraging with an immediate-return subsistence strategy (cf. Chatters 1995) to one of specialized group foraging with processing for transport to a residential base elsewhere as in a delayed-return strategy (cf. Binford 1980). The second settlement system and related subsistence technolo- gy pattern postulated for the area is the Heartland Hypothesis by Wharton and Williams (1980). The view expressed by these authors is not a structured hypothesis as such, but rather is a repudiation of Padgett's (1976) Hinterland Hypothesis. The basic thrust of their argument is that this inland region was not a "cultural backwater" used only for hunting purposes, but was the scene of relatively complex prehistoric lifestyles. It was suggested "that significant cultural groups were in residence on a year-round basis, and that they were participating in the same cultural evolutionary development taking hold elsewhere in the region such as the emergence of more effective systems of agricultural production, and the rise of nonegalitarian (or ranked) social organization" (Wharton and Williams 1980:215). Under this scenario, and as a second working hypothesis, South Prong I would reflect more varied utilization perhaps reflecting systemic change within the region rather than focused usage for "hinterland" activities such as hunting. If South Prong I is assumed to be at the center of major cultural changes, then the pattern of land use reflected at the site should alter significantly from one of small-band foraging (e.g., Binford 1980), to collecting (e.g., Price and Brown 1985), and ultimately sedentary village life (e.g., Widmer 1988). Based upon extensive research on the physiographic location and density of archaeological sites in west-central peninsular Florida, Johnson (1981) advanced the hypothesis that the pine- flatwoods region was never heavily occupied by aboriginal populations. Formally stated: ...since the pine flatwoods physiographic region is considered to have been a marginal environment in terms of exploitation potential, the exploitation and settlement of this environment by aboriginal populations would have been likewise marginal...reflecting the proposition that in any arbitrarily defined tract of land containing 5000 or more acres which occurs in the Peace River Valley or other inland areas of the region and which also contains pine flatwoods as the major (by area) ecological community, the prehistoric archaeological site density will be equivalent to one site per 1380 acres of land [Johnson 1981:11]. Though recent cultural resource management surveys employ- ing more advanced recovery techniques (i.e., close-interval shovel tests and sieving through 6.4-mm-mesh screens) have found higher site densities (Robert Austin, personal communica- tion, 1996), the idea that site density and by inference, human occupation, varied with ecological zonation retains some validity. Johnson (1981:17) argued that the subsistence technolo- gies known or suspected to have been employed in the area suggest environmental marginality in terms of utilization and settlement. Johnson's argument does not negate the possibility that significant cultural changes occurred in the Interior Peninsula Gulf Coast region. Rather, it merely suggests that patches (cf. Smith 1991; Winterhalder 1981) of expected low energetic return from subsistence foraging in environmental zones such as the pine flatwoods, merely received less regular or intense usage throughout the prehistoric period. The conten- tion that low-return patches will receive less frequent and intense occupation than those featuring high return is supported strongly within the field of evolutionary ecology (Charnov 1976; Smith 1991; Stephens and Krebs 1986). Under this scenario, and as a third alternative hypothesis, South Prong I may reflect prehistoric land-use patterns condi- tioned by local ecological and economic zonation. If, as suggested by the paleoenvironmental review (below), the Inland Peninsular Gulf Coast region has been relatively stable, and by extension, consistently of lower utility in comparison to coastal and lowland areas since the mid-Holocene, then land-use patterns also may have remained stable at this site location despite major cultural changes in nearby coastal or interior areas. The South Prong I Site The South Prong I site was excavated in 1981 by a crew of five individuals under the direction of James M. Welch and the supervision of J. Raymond Williams (Welch 1983). A total of 113 1 x 1 m square units were excavated. The South Prong I site is geographically located on the northern margin of the South Florida Basin (Figure 1). Physio- graphically, the site lies within the Terraced Coastal Lowlands Province and is underlain by the clays, limestones, and dolo- mites of the Hawthorn Group. Chert, or silicified limestone, that was utilized in lithic tool manufacture was often obtained from the Hawthorn Group. The South Prong I site lies in a well-drained location, with at least four separate soil types present. The dominant soil type, in terms of surface area, is Pomello fine sand. The South Prong I site is located on slopes leading down to the South Prong of the Alafia River (Figure 2). It occurs at an elevation of 24.6 to 29.2 m (80 to 95 ft) above mean sea level. The dominant vegetation is pine flatwoods and pasture. Originally, longleaf and slash pine flatwoods predominated but logging activity and subsequent conversion to semi-managed range land have eliminated most of the native overstory species. Sea level has risen substantially in the past. There was an average rise of almost 1 m per century from about 15,000 B.P. to 5000 B.P. (Reading 1978:14). This sea-level rise, which is associated with glacial retreat, coupled with increased precipita- tion were perhaps the major factors affecting the environment of the Tampa Bay area during the Holocene (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1981:27). A summation of the palynological and sedimentological data examined by Daniel and Wisenbaker (1981:35) allowed them to make several conclusions which are applicable to the South Prong I site. From 5000 B.P. to modem times, the vegetation slowly evolved into longleaf pine forests, hammocks, marshes, and cypress swamps which are typical of present-day peninsular Florida. The oak and herb flora were gradually displaced by pine and bayhead forest, and as the climate warmed and moistened, modern forest and swamp 1996 VOL. 49(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST WELCH AND PRENTISS PREHISTORIC LAND USE IN WE5T-CEWFRAL FLORIDA Figure 1. Location of South Prong I site in Hillsborough County, Florida. landscape became prevalent. With this vegetative association came a faunal community similar to that encountered now in undisturbed portions of central Florida. Dating South Prong I Excavations at South Prong I failed to identify any distinct sedimentary units that could be linked to specific cultural components or time periods. Thus, a combination of diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon dates were utilized to define the temporal and cultural parameters of the occupations indicated in the arbitrarily excavated 10 cm levels at the site (Welch 1983). The presence of Bolen and Greenbriar projectile points suggests that the initial occupation of the site may have occurred during the late Paleoindian Period, dating approximately 8,000 to 7,500 B.C. according to Milanich (1994:53-59). Florida Archaic Stemmed points indicate occupations during the middle to late stages of the Archaic Period or about 5000 to 1000 B.C. (Bullen 1975:6, 32; Milanich 1994:75-104). Bullen (1975:3-4) also states that this point type may have extended into the later Florida Transitional Period, or until about 500 B.C. Also indicative of Late Archaic Period use of the site (3000 to 1000 B.C.) are Culbreath projectile points. Post-Archaic occupations appear to have occurred during the Florida Transitional, Weeden Island, and Safety Harbor periods as indicated by Hernando, O'Leno, Bradford/Westo, and Pinellas projectile * LOCATION OF STE points. Ceramic artifacts from the site suggest continuous reoccupations from the Orange phase of the late Archaic through the Safety Harbor Period (Mitchem and Welch 1983). The vertical distribution of the excavated projectile points from South Prong I (Table 1) indicates that several may have been recovered from disturbed contexts since they appear to be out of place stratigraphically. Welch (1983) notes that pasture clearing and borrow-pit activities in addition to the effects of bioturbation have resulted in some degree of lithic mixing at the site. The recovery of a Bolen point, temporally diagnostic of the earliest occupation of the site, from the same excavation level as a Pinellas point, which is diagnostic of the most recent site occupations, is an example of the degree of disturbance affecting the site. This type of association also may reflect late prehistoric scavenging of artifacts from other, much older sites (cf. Camilli and Ebert 1992). Evidence of root and/or rodent disturbance has been recorded in the excavation units producing two Culbreath points and also the Bradford/Westo-like point. The provenience for the Greenbriar and two of the Archaic Stemmed points also must be considered suspect in so much as all were recovered from the borrow-pit area of the site. Thus, natural and cultural factors influencing the vertical distribution of the temporally diagnostic projectile points recovered from South Prong I would appear to place serious limitations on the potential for recognizing distinct occupation components from any of the temporal periods suggested by the projectile points. Radiocarbon dating offers little resolution to the problem of stratigraphic mixing. Although three radiocarbon dates were obtained (2150 +/- 90 B.P., 1190 +/- 50 B.P., and 220 +/- 60 B.P.), none could be linked with distinctive cultural occupa- tion areas or natural soil horizons. Further, the most recent date appears to be the result of a natural event unrelated to cultural occupation of the site (Welch 1983). Lithic Artifact Analysis The South Prong I lithic artifact analysis attempted to identify functional and technological variation on a stratigraphic and inter-unit basis. The overwhelming result of the study was the recognition of relative homogeneity in the tool and flake types represented (Ballo and Welch 1983). Most important was the recognition that lithic reduction was limited primarily to later stage tool manufacture, modification, and resharpening. Discarded tools were often heavily retouched and extensively utilized. Ballo and Welch (1983) argue that the overall homo- geneity of the site's lithic assemblage in reference to manufac- ture, resharpening, and tool-use strategies is suggestive of limited variation in the nature of the occupations of the site. Thus, despite stratigraphic mixing, it is possible to hypothesize occupational stability at South Prong I. The following discussion provides an overview of the lithic artifacts from the site in order to provide some support for the latter conclusion. As horizontal spatial analyses have been relatively inconclusive, the discussion focus is on a description of site assemblage contents. A total of 3288 flaked-stone artifacts were recovered from 111 of the 113 units excavated at South Prong I. This includes 3113 pieces of debitage and 175 tool forms recovered from excava- PREHISTORIC LAND USE IN WEST-CENTRAL FLOREDA WELCH AND PRENTISS THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VoL. 49(4) Figure 2. Topographic map of the South Prong I site showing its location in relation to the South Prong of the Alafia River. Table 1. Crosstabulation of projectile-point types and excavation levels at South Prong I. Bolen Greenbriar Archaic Culbreath Stemmed Diminutive Bradford/ Pinellas Stemmed Westo Florida Spike-ke Stemmed Biface 12 2 1 1 Excavation Levels ( 0- 15 cm) ( 15- 30 cm) (30- 45 cm) (45- 60 cm) (60- 75 cm) (75- 90 cm) (90-105 cm) (105-120 cm) 1996 VOL. 49(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1 1 Totals 2 1 WELCH AND PREN'rIss PREHISTORIc L~n UsE IN WEsT-CENThAL FLORIDA tion. Additionally, some 50 tool forms recovered by Martin (1976) during the original site survey also were examined. Silicified limestone accounts for 80.31% of the total debitage recovered from the site while silicified coral accounts for the remaining materials. Thermally altered debitage comprises 49.41% of the total excavated debitage assemblage; 43.08% of the silicified limestone debitage is thermally altered while 75.02% of the silicified coral debitage is heat treated. A total of 47 primary decortication flakes, 561 secondary decortication flakes, and 2493 non-decortication flakes was recovered from the site. Shatter was only minimally represented (N = 12). These data suggest a reduction focus on later stages of tool production and resharpening utilizing silicified limestone as the primary raw-material type. These activities likely involved the produc- tion of late-stage blanks and reforms, and final modification and maintenance of completed tool forms. The earlier manufac- turing stages are postulated to have occurred elsewhere, possibly at or near a source of raw material. The somewhat finished tool forms may have been transported from these areas to the South Prong I site for further finishing work. Projectile points, utilized flakes, and numerous biface tip, stem, and midsection fragments are the most common tool forms recovered. Expedient-use flake tools dominate the assemblage. Use-wear analysis indicates that these tools were used in cutting and scraping activities on soft materials such as meat, skin, or soft wood and also hard materials including bone, antler, or hard wood. It also was observed that a number of projectile points at the site functioned as knives, scrapers, and drills or perforators. In addition, a substantial number of these points displayed evidence of resharpening which was probably related to the conservation of lithic resources as might be expected at a site located some distance from a raw-material source. Unifacial and bifacial tools other than projectile points were only minimally represented. No heavy duty cutting, chopping, or scraping implements were recovered. In order to better comprehend results of the functional analysis, these artifacts were grouped into broad functional categories based on a classification system developed by Winters (1969) and modified by Austin and Ste. Claire (1982). General-utility tools comprise 57.71% of the total excavated tools from the site and consequently represent the largest functional category. A total of 101 individual tool forms were assigned to this category which included scraping tools (60.40%), cutting tools (35.64%), and multi-use cut- ting/scraping tools (3.96%). Utilized flakes dominate, compris- ing 77.23% of the total assemblage within this general-utility tool classification. Projectile points, other bifaces, unifaces, modified flakes, and various bifacial fragments utilized in cutting and scraping activities constitute the balance of artifacts included within this category. The second major functional category of excavated tools is hunting implements which accounts for 23.43% of the site total. The third functional category consists of fabrication and processing implements, accounting for 5.13% of the tool assemblage. The last category is miscellaneous tools accounting for 13.71% of the total excavated tools. Ballo and Welch (1983) do not recognize any distinct patterning to the vertical distribution of functional tool types. In other words, the functional tool types appear to be randomly distributed throughout the excavated levels of the site. Site activities reflected by debitage and tools are considered to include hunting, butchering, skinning, and processing of game animals, maintenance and repair of lithic tools, and the produc- tion and maintenance of bone, wood, or antler tools. Based upon these results, Ballo and Welch (1983) argue that the South Prong I site functioned primarily as a hunting camp throughout its occupation. However, it must be recognized that activities conducted at the site do not always accurately reflect primary site function. For example, Nunamiut Eskimo (Alaska) hunters will play cards, work on tools and art objects, and prepare food while occupying sites that function as caribou-intercept hunting stands (Binford 1978a, 1978b). The archaeological record resulting from these activities may not directly reflect the primary activity conducted that of gathering information on caribou herd movements prior to actual kill events. Similarly, Lillooet and Shuswap (British Columbia) deer-hunting camps typically contain intense root-processing and roasting refuse, as camas and spring beauty roots gathered by women sustained the hunting families during their spring alpine hunting trips. As the same groups shifted to canyon bottoms for intensive mid- summer salmon fishing, deer, acquired during alpine hunting trips, were transported and processed for consumption at these sites leaving an archaeological record of intensive deer process- ing at sites that functioned primarily as fishing camps (Diana Alexander, personal communication, 1989; Hayden 1992). These examples suggest that caution must be used when inferring site function from archaeological remains. A complete understanding of any site's function may require not only a comprehensive perspective on local site-formation processes, but also on the role of that site within a regional system. Returning to South Prong I, whether hunting was the primary activity undertaken or not, an important conclusion from the lithic analysis is that of occupational stability as suggested by the low variation in debitage, use wear, and retouch on stone implements. Further, despite stability, it would appear that no single occupation of South Prong I was of any extended duration or featured any sizable population given the low ratio of artifacts to both site size and time depth of potential occupations (compare to the Harney Flats site, for example [Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987]). Assemblage Size and Diversity The analyses of Ballo and Welch (1983) and Mitchem and Welch (1983) suggest a pattern of occupation at South Prong I associated with repeated, short-term use by small groups possibly focused on activities associated with hunting. Thus, Welch (1983) concluded that the site functioned primarily as a hunting camp, perhaps not unlike the logistical hunting camps documented by Binford (1978a, 1980). These conclusions were based on a reconstruction of activity types from the analysis of individual artifacts. They can be further tested through an analysis of assemblage size and diversity relationships. Thomas (1988, 1989) and others (cf. Bobrowski and Ball 1989; Grayson 1985; Jones et al. 1983; Leonard and Jones PREinsToRic LAND UsE iN WEgr-CENTRAL F)LORmA WELCH AND PRENTISS THE FLORIDA A!wrimol'oLoGIsr 1996 VOL. 49(4) 1989) have commented on the importance of recognizing the effects of sample size on assemblage diversity. These research- ers document that as assemblage sizes increase so too will assemblage diversity. Thomas (1988, 1989) argues that rates of accumulation will affect patterns of assemblage diversity. Thus, residential occupations featuring lengthier stays at a single place and higher populations will produce a pattern of higher diversity at lower assemblage sizes than will a pattern of diurnal use, as might be expected at a single-incident animal butchery or plant- procurement site. Thomas predicts an intermediate pattern for logistical camps focused on specific activities. The relationships between assemblage sizes and artifact diversity for the three types of occupations are illustrated in Figure 3. The predictions of Thomas's model assume an important "all things equal" caveat. Certainly there are many factors which could cause deviations from these predictions: short-term activ- ities could be more diverse than expected; residential camps could have been reused as logistical camps or hunting locations; artifacts may have been scavenged by later occupants; to name just a few. However, if we view the model predictions as a continuum of variation, then it may be possible to recognize some general patterns (Thomas 1989). In reference to the occupations at South Prong I and the three land-use hypotheses presented previously, repeated occupation featuring a combination of logistical use and long-term residen- tial occupation, as might be expected under the Wharton and Williams (1980) scenario, should produce an assemblage size/diversity pattern lying between logistical and residential. Conversely, under Padgett's (1976) model, we might expect a pattern of shifting use ranging between diurnal and logistical, but perhaps most strongly oriented towards diurnal usage. Finally, under Johnson's (1981) hypothesis, we might expect a consistent pattern of reoccupation either associated with diurnal Figure 3. Assemblage size and diverstiy model (after Thomas 1989). or logistical occupation. Given the presence of a point resource, or key resource procurement locale (Wandsnider 1992) such as the Alafia River, and local well-drained sandy soils, it is perhaps most likely that occupations at this place should be focused resource-procurement camps as might be expected under the logistical occupation scenario. Thus, assemblage size/diversity relationships should most closely fit the logistical profile. A test of these predictions was conducted by collecting assemblage size and diversity data from individual excavation units at South Prong I. Ideally, the data-collection units would have been further divided by stratigraphic zones. However, the lack of definable stratigraphy and mixing of temporal diagnos- tics at the site prohibits this more fine-grained approach. Therefore, each excavation unit was viewed as a sample of the full range of occupations at South Prong I. Sample size and diversity data were derived from the lithic tool (not debitage) assemblages in each excavation unit (raw data presented in Ballo and Welch 1983:122-125). Functional tool types were defined on the basis of tool form and use-wear characterization (Ballo and Welch 1983:125). The Ballo and Welch (1983:125) classification employs both tool form bifacee, uniface, projectile point, etc.) and use-wear-based functional characterization (knife, scraper, etc.) in order to produce composite descriptions for each type (projectile point/scraper, modified flake/knife, etc.). Variation in ceramic types was excluded in order to avoid mixing functional and stylistic variables (Dunnell 1978, 1995; Neiman 1995). Diversity was calculated using the Shannon- Weaver Index (Shannon and Weaver 1949; see also Bobrowski and Ball 1989). The index combines measures of evenness and richness in a single measure of heterogeneity in samples and has been criticized for its problem of sample-size dependence (Pielou 1975, 1977). As our analysis focuses on distribution slope rather than absolute variation between individual scores, the index is considered an acceptably valid measure of diversity. The resulting data were plotted and tested for statistical signifi- cance (Table 2, Figure 4). The correlation between sample size and diversity is statistical- ly significant (r = .86822, p = .00001). The plotted regression line indicates a pattern closely approximating Thomas's (1989:86) logistic profile in Figure 3. This suggests that lithic tools accumulated at a rate consistent with the prediction of the logistical occupation model. Assuming all things equal, this adds further support to the conclusions drawn by Welch (1983) that the site was formed through a pattern of consistent reoccupation by small groups of people with specific task orientations. Most critically, this analysis provides tentative confirmation of a pattern of site occupational history, independent of methods requiring stratigraphically defined "components" (Camilli 1983; Ebert 1992). Conclusions The analysis of lithic debitage and tools indicates that South Prong I may have functioned primarily as a logistical hunting camp throughout its occupation. It appears that the uses of the site included aspects of hunting such as the butchering, skin- THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) WELCH AND PRENTISS PREHISTORIC LAND UsE IN WEST-CENTRAL FLORIDA Table 2. Excavation unit tool data. Total number of tools (N) and diversity (D) calculated utilizing a typology incorporating functional and morphological variation (see Ballo and Welch 1983:125). Excavation Unit N D Excavation Unit N D SO/E21 S9/E1O S9/Ell S9/E101 S9/E192 SlO/ElO SlO/Ell S10/E21 S20/El 1 S20/E21 S201E31 S20/E151 S201E71 S29/E161 S29/E162 S30/E1 S30/Ell S30/E21 S30/E31 S30/E41 S30/E62 S30/E72 S30/E132 S30/E162 S30/E1362 S40/E11I S40/E21 S401E31 S50/E1 S50/El1 S50IE21 S50/E30 S50/E31 S50/E41 S50/E151 S51IE31 S60/1E S60/E41 S60/E101 S60/E130 S60/E131 S61/E130 S61/E131 S68/E22 S69/E19 S69/E20 S69/E21 S69/E22 S70/E1 S70/E20 S70/E21 S70/W20 S70/W40 S71/E22 S89/E60 S89/E61 S90/E21 S90/E60 S90/E61 S90/E91 S90/E121 S90/W20 S90/W40 S120/E91 S130/E1 S130/E21 S130/W20 S150/E21 N11/E101 N18/E1 N41/EO N41/E1 N41/W1 N41/W2 N42/E1 N42/W1 N42/W2 N43/EO ning, and processing of game animals, along with the produc- tion and maintenance of bifacially worked stone tools and also non-stone tools such as bone, antler, and/or wood. This conclusion supports Johnson's (1981) Marginal Flatwoods Hypothesis regarding prehistoric land-use patterns in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region. The site's cultural assemblage indicates a pattern of numerous occupations for short periods of duriation by small populations who deposited an artifact assemblage that reflects a hunting economy. Though it is currently impossible to recognize temporally specific compo- nents, the homogeneous nature of the overall assemblage may reflect the same general pattern of site use from the late Paleoindian through Safety Harbor periods. The conclusion regarding stability of land use at South Prong I does not mean that other places in the interior Gulf Coast region were not being utilized differently as evidenced by various mounds, earthworks, and small habitation sites featuring middens, post molds, and features (Robert Austin, personal communication, 1996; Clagett, this issue). If the South Prong I site was most intensely occupied from the Middle Archaic through Safety Harbor periods, and if it indeed did serve as some form of logistical camp, this may suggest that some form(s) of delayed-return hunting and gathering may have been important in Gulf Coast Florida beginning at a relatively early time. As already noted, delayed-return subsistence strategies are often typical of so-called "complex" hunter- gatherers. Hayden (1995) has argued that complex hunter- gatherers provide the logical place to look for origins of domestication and the evolution of more complex societies as represented, for example, in the southeastern United States by the various Mississippian cultures (including the Safety Harbor culture of Gulf Coast Florida). Florida archaeologists might wish to reexamine the Central Gulf Coast region Middle Archaic as a critical time period associated with the rapid evolution of a socio-politically heterogeneous hunter-gatherer culture relying at least partially on a delayed-return subsistence strategy (see also Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:57). These conclusions have a number of implications for Florida archaeology. First, they provide little resolution for the hinter- land-heartland debate. If anything, they add complexity as it would appear that some places may have been consistently utilized for the same activities despite change in the role of those activities within cultural systems (cf. Binford 1978a:496). In other words, it is clear that major cultural changes occurred in central Florida during the Holocene (cf. Marquardt 1992; Milanich 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Widmer 1988) which may have affected the roles of different foraging strate- gies within overall cultural systems. However, the actual activities conducted at places such as South Prong I may have changed little and thus may or may not be directly informative of changes occurring elsewhere. Does this mean that places such as South Prong I are of lower utility than others, perhaps in coastal or riverine contexts? Absolutely not. Recent research (cf. Chatters 1995; Chatters and Prentiss n.d.; Cobb and Garrow 1996; Prentiss 1996) suggests that culture change cannot be studied in isolated geographic contexts. For example, Chatters (1995) argues that the logistically organized collector settlement/subsistence strategy (delayed-return) recognized from Nevada to Alaska spread from isolated experimental contexts following the extinction of immediate-return systems between 4000 and 3500 B.P. Prentiss (1996) and Prentiss and Welch (n.d.) argue that the abandonment of intermontane-basin plant-resource subsis- tence strategies at 1200 B.P. on the northwestern Plains was not due to local changes, but to the relatively sudden appearance of village-based horticulture in the Middle Missouri region to the east and the spread of bow-and-arrow technology into the region from the north. Cobb and Garrow (1996) point out the impor- tance of considering the effects of regional variation on local Woodland and Mississippian cultures in northwest Georgia. These are only a few examples of the many which support the WELCH AND PRENTISS PREHIsTORIC LAND UsE iN WEsT-CENTRAL ftowimA THE FLORIDA ANrssRoPoLoGIsr 1996 VoL 49(4) Figure 4. I excavation contention without refer wide geogr if not imp (Chatters 19 forms of ec on the coas where. In o ignore any A second models der explaining f region. Tho evolutionari 1977), evol understanding during cultu D 16 t- v r a t Y 0.8 (1981) Marginal Flatwoods Hypothesis can be restated as the Marginal Value Theorem (Charnov 1976) which predicts "that a forager should remain in a patch as long as the expected returns from the next unit of foraging time in the patch are higher than expected returns from searching for and exploiting other patches" (Kaplan and Hill 1992:180). Patches are spatially restricted foraging locales containing key resources under the more broad umbrella of habitat. All environments can be characterized by degrees of patchiness in reference to specific resources. A patchy environment contains a high degree of geographic variation in quantity and quality of various resourc- es. Definition of patch size and structure may vary with resources exploited, landscape ecology, and predator type. Smith (1991), for example, defines two habitats (marine and terrestrial) and four patches (sea ice, saltwater, freshwater, and terrestrial) for the Inujjuamiut of Hudson Bay. Winterhalder Acknowledgments We would like to express our gratitude to a number of persons for their contributions to this article. We thank Kelly Ehrmantraut, Karma Cochran, and Christine McGoohan for their assistance in the preparation of text and figures. We thank Bob Austin, Rich Estabrook, and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. We appreciate Bob Austin's infinite patience in waiting for this manuscript. Finally, while this short article is by no means an adequate tribute, the contributions of Ray Williams to our personal and professional growth and development cannot be overstated. He variously served as our professor, supervisor, mentor, guide, and above all, friend during the nearly 20 years that we had the privilege and pleasure of his acquaintance. Ray continuously encouraged us to gain experience and pursue research interests both within and outside of Florida. He knew that it was vital for students to be as well prepared as possible, both in terms of education and experience, in order to contribute in (1981) defines ten patch types (closed black spruce forest, muskeg, peat bog, etc.) within the boreal forest habitat of the northern Ontario Cree. If we could define the pine flatwoods as one of a num- 1 ber of patch types in the Gulf Coast region (per- haps also including riverine lowlands, freshwater, 1 saltwater, and mangrove swamps as other patch- 3 es), we might eventually create hypothetical rankings for net return per patch and thereby make 9 general predictions regarding expected use intensi- ty. If the pine flatwoods represent a relatively low- ranking patch, then we might expect fewer visits and shorter stays than in other more highly ranked patches, all things being equal. Florida archaeolo- gists may wish to test the Marginal Value Theo- 34 4 rem as a precise means of predicting prehistoric I i_ I __ __ land-use decisions; and the possibility that patch- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 use decisions varied depending upon context and time period. Number The South Prong I site provides an important Lithic tool diversity and number relationship from South Prong window into long-term land-use practices in the n units. interior Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region. The research conducted at this site strongly suggests a stable pattern of land use in portions of this region that change cannot be understood or explained throughout much of the Holocene period. Though faunal and erence to the effects of variation viewed across a floral data are not present to allow the study of subsistence aphic scale. Though sources of change are difficult resource procurement, processing, and transport decisions, lithic possible to identify in the archaeological record artifacts imply a pattern of logistical organization and hunting >95), we must recognize that the exploration of new activities. This means that larger base camps and villages onomic organization could have occurred first either undoubtedly existed in other areas, either coastal or interior. It t or the interior of Florida and then spread else- also means that while populations grew, base camps became order to understand this process, we cannot afford to permanent villages, and subsistence production intensified geographic component of the archaeological record, between the early and late Holocene, activities at certain key important implication concerns the success of places, such as South Prong I, changed little. We do not know, ived from evolutionary ecology in predicting and however, whether the role of the subsistence strategies repre- 'oraging behavior in the Central Peninsular Florida sented at South Prong I within larger socio-economic systems ugh partially at theoretical odds with the macro- was stable or whether it varied as a consequence of changes ly inspired comments above (cf. Gould and Eldredge occurring elsewhere in the region. Understanding of variation utionary ecology may be useful for predicting and in local subsistence strategies as a component of broader scale ng land-use decisions made by human foragers organizational change is critical for developing accurate rally stable periods in Florida prehistory. Johnson's explanatory models of long-term culture change. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) WELCH AND PRENTISS PREHISTORIC LAND USE IN WEST-CENTRAL FLORIDA their chosen discipline. A wise person once said that the greatest legacy we can leave behind is not one of granite markers or bronze plaques or statues; it is the effect and influence that we have on other people's lives, who will always carry a little bit of us forward in time through their actions, deeds, words, and memories. As such, the greatest testimony we can give to Ray Williams is the fact that he still guides us everyday, and that the lessons we have learned from him will always be with us. References Cited Austin, Robert J., and Dana Ste. Claire 1982 The Deltona Project: Prehistoric Technology in the Hillsborough River Basin. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Report No. 12, Tampa. Ballo, George R., and James M. Welch 1983 Lithics. In Mitigative Excavations of the South Prong I Site, 8-Hi-418, and the Cates Site, 8-Hi-425, Hillsborough County, Florida, by James M. Welch, pp. 54-140. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology Archaeological Report No. 13, Tampa. Binford, Lewis R. 1978a Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1978b Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43:330-361. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20. Bobrowski, Peter T., and Bruce F. Ball 1989 The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 4-12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bullen, Ripley P. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points (Second Edition). Kendall Books, Gainesville. Camilli, Eileen L. 1983 Site Occupational History andLithic Assemblage Structure:An Example from Southeastern Utah. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropolo- gy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Camilli, Eileen L., and James I. Ebert 1992 Artifact Reuse and Recycling in Continuous Surface Distributions and Implications for Interpreting Land Use Patterns. In Space, Time and ArchaeologicalLandscapes, edited by Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider, pp. 113-136. Plenum Press, New York. Charnov, Eric L. 1976 Optimal Foraging: The Marginal Value Theorem. Theoretical Popula- tion Biology 9:129-136. Chatters, James C. 1995 Population Growth, Climatic Cooling, and the Development of Collector Strategies on the Southern Plateau, Western North America. Journal of World Prehistory 9:341-400. Chatters, James C. and William C. Prentiss (Editors) n.d. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Intensification. Volume in preparation. Cobb, Charles R., and Patrick H. Garrow 1996 Woodstock Culture and the Question of Mississippian Emergence. American Antiquity 61:21-38. Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-lndian Site. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Farmingdale, New York. Daniel, Randy, and Michael Wisenbaker 1981 Test Excavations at 8-Hi-450D: An Inland Archaic Occupation in Hillsborough County, Florida. Florida Division of Historical Resourc- es, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Interstate 75 Highway Phase I Archaeological Reports No. 1, Tallahassee. Dunnell, Robert C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43:192-202. 1995 Comments. Current Anthropology 36:777-778. Ebert, James I. 1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Gould, Stephen J., and Niles Eldredge 1977 Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsid- ered. Paleobiology 3:115-151. Grayson, Donald K. 1985 The Paleontology of Hidden Cave: Birds and Mammals. In The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2. Gatecliff Shelter, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 99-126. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 59(1), New York. Hayden, Brian 1981 Research and Development in the Stone Age: Technological Transitions Among Hunter-Gatherers. Current Anthropology 22:519-548. 1992 Conclusions: Ecology and Complex Hunter-Gatherers. In A Complex Culture of the British Columbia Plateau, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 525-564. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 1995 A New Overview of Domestication. In Last Hunters First Farmers, edited by T. Douglas Price and Anne Birgitte Gebauer, pp. 273-300. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Johnson, Robert E. 1981 Archaeological Site Density within the Peace River Valley, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Jones, George T., Donald K. Grayson, and Charlotte Beck 1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Assemblag- es. In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, edited by Robert C. Dunnell and Donald K. Grayson, pp. 55- 73. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Anthropological Papers Number 72. Kaplan, Hillard, and Kim Hill 1992 The Evolutionary Ecology of Food Acquisition. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, edited by E.A. Smith and B. Winter- halder, pp. 167-202. Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Leonard, Robert D., and George T. Jones (Editors) 1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. Marquardt, William H. (Editor) 1992 Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies Monograph Number 1. University of Florida, Gainesville. Martin, John D. 1976 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Borden Big Four Mine Properties in Southeastern Hillsborough County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Report No. 3, Tampa. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 The Archaeology ofPrecolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Mitchem, Jeffrey M., and James M. Welch 1983 Ceramics. In Mitigative Excavations of the South Prong I Site, 8-Hi- 418, and the Cates Site, 8-Hi-425, Hillsborough County, Florida by James M. Welch, pp. 141-167. University of South Florida, Depart- ment of Anthropology, Archaeological Report No. 13, Tampa. Neiman, Fraser J. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramics. American Antiquity 60:7-36. Padgett, Thomas J. 1976 Hinterland Exploitation in the Central Gulf Coast-Manatee Region During the Safety Harbor Period. The FloridaAnthropologist29:39-48. Pielou, E.C. 1975 Ecological Diversity. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 1977 Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. WELCH AND PRENTISS PREHISTORIC LAND USE IN WEST-CENTRAL FLOREDA THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 Voi.. 49(4) Prentiss, William C. 1996 Variation in Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies During Long Term Cultural Stasis: A Test Using Northwestern Plains Data. Paper presented at the 61st annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Prentiss, William C., and James M. Welch n.d. Late Prehistoric Resource Intensification on the Northwestern Plains: An Evolutionary Perspective. In Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Intensifi- cation, edited by James C. Chatters and William C. Prentiss. Volume in preparation. Price, T. Douglas, and James A. Brown (Editors) 1985 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. Academic Press, New York. Purdy, Barbara A. 1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology: A Study of the Flintknapping Technique ofEarly Florida Stone Implement Makers. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Reading, H.G. 1978 Facies. In Sedimentary Environments and Facies, edited by H.G. Reading. Elsevier North-Holland, Inc., New York. Shannon, C.E., and W. Weaver 1949 The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Smith, Eric A. 1991 Inujjuamiut Foraging Strategies. Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Stephens, David W., and John R. Krebs 1986 Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Thomas, David H. 1988 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 3. Survey and Additional Excava- tions. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 66(2), New York. 1989 Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Cultural Geography. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 85-91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wandsnider, LuAnn 1992 The Spatial Dimension of Time. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider, pp. 257-284. Plenum Press, New York. Welch, James M. 1983 Mitigative Excavations of the South Prong I Site, 8-Hi-418, and the Cates Site, 8-Hi-425, Hillsborough County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Report No. 13, Tampa. Wharton, Barry R., and J. Raymond Williams 1980 An Appraisal of Hardee County Archaeology: Hinterland or Heartland? Florida Scientist 43:215-220. Widmer, Randolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Volume 113, Washington D.C. Winterhalder, Bruce 1981 Foraging Strategies in the Boreal Forest: An Analysis of Cree Hunting and Gathering. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies, edited by B. Winterhalder and E.A. Smith, pp. 66-98. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Winters, Howard D. 1969 The Riverton Culture: A Second Millennium Occupation of the Wabash Valley. Illinois Archaeological Survey Monograph No. 1 and Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations No. 13. Springfield, Illinois. Woodburn, James 1980 Hunter-Gatherers Today and Reconstruction of the Past. In Soviet and Western Anthropology, edited by E. Gellner, pp. 95-117. Duckworth, London. 1982 Egalitarian Societies. Man 17:431-451. 1996 VOL. 49(4) THE FLoRMA ANIIEROPOLOGIST PREHISTORIC CHERT PROCUREMENT AND MOBILITY STRATEGIES ON THE LAKE WALES RIDGE ROBERT J. AUSTIN Janus Research, P.O. Box 919, St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 E-mail: janusres@ix. netcom. com The purpose of this paper is to present the results of an analysis of lithic artifacts from a poorly studied region of south- central Florida the Lake Wales Ridge of Polk and Highlands Counties. The archaeological data base for this study consists of lithic artifacts derived exclusively from private collections. This was necessary, in part, because of the relative absence of controlled archaeological excavations by professionals in the study area. What these collections lack in the way of precise stratigraphic controls is compensated for by the quantity of artifacts available for study and the geographic range of sites represented by the collections. Distributional studies of projec- tile points in Florida and elsewhere have demonstrated the utility of using private collections to arrive at patterns of prehistoric land use and chert procurement (e.g., Dunbar and Waller 1983; Goodyear et al. 1983; Waller and Dunbar 1977), as well as the testing of specific hypotheses (e.g., Luchterhand 1970; Sassaman et al. 1988). In this paper I present a descrip- tive summary of spatial and temporal patterns of raw-material use, and then use these data to test a hypothesis of changing settlement mobility. The Study Area The archaeological collections analyzed for this study all come from sites that are located on a physiographic feature known as the Lake Wales Ridge (Figure 1), an extension of the Central Highlands (White 1970). The ridge begins near the common comer of Polk, Osceola, Orange, and Lake Counties and extends south for a distance of about 137 km, ending a few kilometers north of Venus in Highlands County. The maximum elevation is approximately 91 m (300 ft) above mean sea level (AMSL) near the town of Lake Wales. The ground surface is irregular and relief is the result of three influences: solution of the underlying limestone by ground water, aeolian reworking of surface sand, and stream erosion (White 1970:120-121). Environmentally, the area is relatively xeric with moderately well- to excessively well-drained sands supporting sand pine and scrub forest communities (Abrahamson et al. 1984; Carter et al. 1989). Water resources consist primarily of large, circular lakes and wetlands most of which are believed to be the result of sinkhole activity (Bishop 1956:6, 32; Stewart 1966:65; White 1970:118-120) that predates by many thousands of years the first arrival of humans to the area. The sinkholes eventually became "plugged" with silt and sand and so are characterized as surface-water lakes that are dependent on rainfall to maintain their levels (Adams and Stoker 1985; Belles and Martin 1984; Hammett 1981; Stewart 1966:72-76). For the most part, the lakes are geographically confined to the Intraridge Valley, a narrow, steep-walled lowland that extends from the north shore of Lake Livingston near Frostproof south to Lake Placid. No large rivers or streams exist on the ridge although some smaller drainages such as Josephine Creek are present. Seep springs occur along both flanks of the ridge and are the result of lateral movement of groundwater from areas of higher to lower elevation (Bishop 1956:47-48; Carter et al. 1989:12). Chert Resources Distribution of Chert in Florida Most of the chert that was exploited by prehistoric native peoples in Florida is restricted in its areal extent to the Ocala Uplift and the Chattahoochee Incline, geomorphic features that encompass much of the central peninsula of the state and portions of the Big Bend area of the panhandle, respectively. Silicified limestone deposits tend to be discontinuous and localized, with exposures occurring in stream channels or in coastal areas where water action has removed overlying sediments, in sinkholes that have breached chert-bearing limestones, and on hills and ridges where erosion of the overlying sandy sediments have exposed near-surface limestone. Several aboriginal quarry sites are known to be present in inundated contexts in the Gulf of Mexico (Goodyear et al. 1980, 1983; Upchurch et al. 1982a; Warren 1968) providing indirect evidence of offshore chert outcrops. No major chert exposures are known for the area south of a line running through central Manatee, central Hardee, and northwest Polk Counties (Lane et al. 1980; Tom Scott, personal communication, 1993; Upchurch et al. 1982a), although small, isolated exposures may be present (E.C. Pirkle, personal communication, 1993). According to Upchurch et al. (1982b), this restricted range is the result of three factors: 1) the distribution of silicious Hawthorn clays, 2) the juxtaposition of suitable limestone deposits with the Hawthorn, and 3) conditions of geological uplift. Since most of the chert in Florida appears to be the result of silica replacement of limestone, the limestone must be in close stratigraphic proximity to the source of silica (i.e., the Hawthorn clays) for this replacement to occur. Thus, the THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 1996 VOL. 49 NO. 4 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Scale 0 5 10 Km 0 5 10 Mi Polk Upland r ll 6_0o- t .-J *^ 9 1' rI /l t-' -Lake Wales Ridge Figure 1. Map showing the Lake Wales Ridge in south-central Florida and the locations of sites represented in the study collection. Key to site names: LL=Lake Livingston, BBL=Big Blade, APE=Avon Park Estates, L=Lockaby, J=Javelin Creek, EP=Edgewater Point, M=Moiser, CP=Coral Point, C=Christensen, B=Beck, BB=Blueberry, BP=Bear Point, SLP=South Lake Placid, BH=Bear Hollow, HW70=Highway 70, RR=Rozier Road. 1 I \ p V. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) AuSTIN Lmuc Pnocu MEN'r AN~ MOBILITY geographic distribution of the Hawthorn, and the juxtaposi- tion of suitable limestone deposits beneath it, are both necessary for chert to form. Uplift of the strata is also necessary to accelerate weathering of the Hawthorn clays, increase the potential for vertical precipitation of silica- enriched ground water, and expose the underlying lime- stones to the effects of replacement. These factors coincide and achieve their maximum expression along the Ocala Uplift and Chattahoochee Incline and tend to be absent elsewhere. Potential for Chert in the Study Area Both geological and archaeological investigations indicate that surface exposures of chert are nonexistent along the southern Lake Wales Ridge. In his study of the ground- water resources of Highlands County, Bishop (1956) provides geological data derived from over 400 well borings conducted along the ridge. The published boring logs indicate the presence of chert at depths ranging from ca. 90-180 m (300-600 ft) below ground surface (Bishop 1956:15, 79-113). The extreme depth of the overlying sands, clays, and gravels on the Lake Wales Ridge makes it highly unlikely that these cherts were ever exploited by prehistoric native peoples. The shallowest occurrence of chert in any of the boring logs (5.5-7.6 m) is at a well located 7.5 kms west of Lake Annie, which is located near the southern terminus of the ridge (Bishop 1956:106). Although relatively shallow from a geological perspective, this depth would still have been prohibitive for prehistoric peoples using primitive digging tools. Over the past few years, several individuals have in- Fi formed me of possible limestone outcrops along the re margins of some of the lakes located on the ridge. I visited U1 two of these outcrops in order to verify whether or not As limestone, and perhaps chert, was indeed present. In both cases, the outcrops turned out to be poorly consolidated deposits of sandstone with no evidence of silicification. During a recent survey of Highlands County (Janus Research 1995), nodules of what appeared to be a sandy, siliceous stone were observed in roadside cut banks in two locations. Samples of this material were collected, subjected to acid and scratch tests, and examined microscopically. The samples turned out to be silicified sandstone and/or sandy dolostone. Materials and Methods The study collections includes formal tools (hafted bifaces, biface fragments, small unifaces), flake tools, cores and core fragments, and a small amount of lithic debitage. All artifacts were collected from the surface of 16 sites located on the Lake Wales Ridge in Highlands County and southern Polk County. The locations of these sites are shown in Figure 1. Although the geographic provenience of most of the surface-collected artifacts is good, the exact proveniences of individual items in two of the collections was not always present. For this reason, the artifacts from four sites located near to one another (Big Blade, Avon gure 2. Map showing the geographic location of the study area in nation to chert quarry clusters in Florida (modified from church et al. 1982a:Figure 1 and Goodyear et al. 1983:Figure 8). sterisks indicate quarry clusters discussed in the text. Park Estates, Lockaby, and Javelin Creek) have been combined into a single assemblage (Avon Park Estates). Similarly, the artifacts from two sites on Lake Jackson (Edgewater Point and Mosier) also have been combined into a single Lake Jackson assemblage. Identification of the source locations of the raw materials used to manufacture the artifacts found at these sites was accom- plished using a method developed by geologist Sam Upchurch. The method uses rock fabric, fossil content, and the presence of secondary inclusions such as quartz sand, pyrite, or calcite crystals to assign individual specimens to one of several "quarry clusters." These quarry clusters represent geographic areas where chert outcrops share similar characteristics related to their environment of deposition (see Upchurch et al. 1982a for a complete discussion of the quarry-cluster method). The geo- graphic distribution of the major chert quarry clusters are shown in Figure 2. Table 1 lists the quarry-cluster cherts identified during this project, the geological formations with which they are associated, and the criteria used to distinguish between them.' gg Chert Quarry Clusters 1 Turtlecrawl Point 2 Hillsborough River* 3 Peace River* 4 Caladesi* 5 Upper Withlacoochee* 6 Brooksville* 7 Lake Panasoffkee* 8 Inverness 9 Ocala* 10 Gainesville* 11 Lower Suwannee* 12 Santa Fe* 13 Wacissa 14 Upper Suwannee 15 Alapaha River 16 Swift Creek Swamp 17 Marianna 18 Wrights Creek AUSTIN LrrnIC PtOCUitEMENT AND MOBurry 2" ,, J THE FLORIDA ANrimoPoLOGiSr 1996 VoL 49(4) Table 1. Chert types in the study collection and criteria used in their identification. HAWTHORN GROUP PEACE RIVER FORMATION (PR) Peace River Quarry Cluster (PR) Opal-rich chert, dark gray to brown in color with abundant phosphate pellets and quartz sand. Very fine grained and brittle. Opal content gives this chert a natural luster. Corticates easily. HAWTHORN GROUP TAMPA LIMESTONE MEMBER (T) Caladesi Quarry Cluster (C) Hillsborough River Quarry Cluster (HR) Cow House Creek Chert (CHC) Type 3 Chert (T3) Type 4 Chert (T4) Type 5 or Bay Bottom Chert (BB) Typically dark gray, black, or brown, some cherts are light gray. Usually a wackestone fabric, some packstones. Often contains abundant peloids and quartz sand. Fossils (Peneropolids, Sorites) present in some samples. Void filling with chalcedony is also common. Color is variable, but tends towards browns, tans, and medium to dark grays. Banding beneath the outer cortex is common. Usually a wackestone or mudstone fabric with a relatively fine-grained texture. Fossil content is variable but appears to be more abundant in outcrops around Tampa Bay. Voids and burrows filled with chalcedony and quartz crystals are common. Several subtypes have been identified and these are described below. Contains common to abundant charophyte oogonia. May be fine or coarse grained. Quartz sand is not common. Restricted to outcrops in the Cow House Creek, Flint Creek, and Harney Flats areas of northeastern Hillsborough County. A peloidal wackestone or packstone; gray, brown, or tan in color. Translucent, fine-grained texture with few fossils. Quartz sand may or may not be present. Common around Tampa Bay and along the lower Hillsborough River. A fossiliferous packstone or grainstone. Peneropolids are abundant, quartz sand may or may not be present. Opaque, relatively coarse-textured material, gray, brown, or tan in color. Very common around Tampa Bay and along the lower Hillsborough and Alafia rivers. A peloidal packstone with large areas of chalcedenous void filling. Sometimes chalcedony is clear and translucent giving the chert a clotted or splotchy appearance. Occasional fossils including Peneropolids and Sorites. Sand is present in varying amounts ranging from rare to abundant. Color is variable and can be white, brown, light gray to dark gray. SUWANNEE FORMATION (SU) Brooksville Quarry Cluster (B) Withlacoochee Quarry Cluster (W) Ocala/Gainesville/Lake Panasoffkee Quarry Clusters (O/G/LP) Lower Suwannee Quarry Cluster (LS) Relatively light colored, light gray, pale tan, or pink. Vuggy, grainstone or packstone fabric. Abundant, very small fossils; Miliolids, Dichtochonus, and Echinoids are diagnostic. Quartz sand is common to abundant. Color tends to be darker than Brooksville Quarry Cluster, dark gray to reddish-brown. Grainstone fabric with abundant Miliolids, Echinoids, and occasional Orbitoid foraminifera. Quartz sand is not common. Calcite crystals in some samples. OCALA FORMATION CRYSTAL RIVER BIOZONE (CR) Packstone or grainstone fabric. Presence of large Orbitoid foraminifera, particularly Lepidocyclina, is diagnostic. Pectin molds are also common. No quartz sand. Difficult to distinguish between the three quarry-cluster cherts with a small sample, although variation in the abundance of Orbitoids has been suggested as a defining criterion by Upchurch et al. (1982a:122, 124). Defined by Upchurch et al. (1982a:116-118) as having a packstone fabric with small, widely spaced Orbitoid foraminifera and minor secondary porosity. Samples collected from outcrops near Lake Pannasoffkee are similar in fabric and fossil content (Rich Estabrook, personal communica- tion, 1993). 1996 VOL. 49(4) TnE FOoIDA ANI~mOPOUXoGSw Lrnmc PROCUREMENT AND MOBILITY Archaeological specimens were examined under a Bausch and Lomb Stereo-Zoom Seven binocular microscope with a magnifi- cation range of 10x-70x. Specimens were compared to geo- logical samples in the master chert type collection at the University of South Florida's Geology Department.2 Additional chert samples from known source locations available at the laboratory of Janus Research and in the personal possession of the author also were used as references. Specific artifacts that proved particularly difficult to identify were submitted to Upchurch for verification of chert type/quarry cluster origin. In cases where there was indecision regarding the accurate assignment of a specimen, it was classified as "unidentified." Approximately one-third of the artifacts were hafted bifaces that could be assigned to standard normative types that have broad cultural/temporal associations. Type identifications were accomplished using standard reference works (e.g., Bullen 1975; Powell 1990; Purdy 1981; Robinson 1979). These type identifications provided the basis for the analysis of temporal patterns although a cautionary note is necessary. Many of the examined bifaces exhibit evidence of edge modification and resharpening sometimes bordering on the extreme. This made the accurate identification of conventional projectile-point types a difficult process since these modifications had in many cases altered the diagnostic characteristics on which such an identifi- cation is based. In addition, there appears to have been a high degree of recycling of lithic materials within presumed contem- poraneous assemblages as well as diachronically. For example, broken biface fragments often were reworked into functional hafted implements that resemble Middle Archaic types except for their reduced size. Some of these recycled implements also exhibit evidence of resharpening. The end result is a hafted biface that may exhibit none, or at best only some, of the characteristic traits used to define traditional projectile-point types (cf. Tesar 1994). Some specimens simply defy any attempt to place them in any projectile-point classification system currently in use in Florida. As with the raw-material identifications, uncertain specimens were assigned to an "unidentified" category. Analysis Results Raw-Material Provenience The number of artifacts that were assigned to the various chert-bearing formations is shown in Table 2 which is arranged by site. As this table shows, Tampa Limestone cherts have the greatest representation at just over 42%. Silicified coral also is relatively common with nearly 23 % of all artifacts manufactured from this material. Although some of the largest and best known coral quarries are found in the Withlacoochee Quarry Cluster (Suwannee Formation), silicified coral also is common through- out the Hillsborough River Quarry Cluster (Tampa Limestone). Since currently there is no way to distinguish between corals derived from these two geological formations, artifacts manufac- tured from silicified coral have been assigned to a separate category. Next in abundance are the Suwannee cherts at almost 19%, followed by the Crystal River (Ocala Formation) cherts Table 2. Number of artifacts assigned to major chert- bearing formations. Site data are arranged geographically from north to south. Formation Site' PR T SU CR SC UIDC Totals LL 1 18 22 3 17 7 68 APEd 0 11 14 0 14 12 48 M' 0 10 6 0 4 5 25 f' 0 29 8 5 25 5 72 CP 0 14 4 2 5 4 29 C 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 B 0 32 9 2 13 13 69 BB 4 0 1 0 3 0 8 BP 0 40 7 1 14 6 68 SLP 0 8 4 0 4 7 23 BH 0 19 3 0 4 2 28 HW70 0 28 17 0 13 3 61 RR 1 4 0 0 2 0 7 Totals 7 214 95 13 116 64 509 Percent 1.38 42.04 18.66 2.55 22.79 12.57 100.00 SSee Figure 1 for key to abbreviations. b See Table 1 for key to abbreviations. cUnidentified. d Includes artifacts from four sites (BBL, APE, L, and JC) SExact proveniences for these artifacts are not known, although all come from the Lake Wales Ridge. f Includes artifacts from two sites (EP and M). at about 2.5%, and finally the phosphatic, opaline Hawthorn cherts at about 1.4%. Sixty-four specimens (12.57%) could not be identified as to source. Table 3 provides a more detailed breakdown by quarry cluster, and for the Hillsborough River cherts, by type or subcluster. Bay Bottom chert (also known as Type 5 chert), Type 3 and 4 cherts, and cherts from the Caladesi Quarry Cluster together represent a Tampa Bay procurement zone since most of the known outcrops of these cherts occur around Tampa Bay and along the lower reaches of the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers (Goodyear et al. 1983:Figures 11-13). Cow House Creek chert is restricted in its geographic distribution to the upper Hillsborough River region with outcrops occurring at Cow House Creek, Flint Creek, and Harney Flats (Upchurch et al. 1982a:74, 141). The remainder of the artifacts cannot at present be assigned to any specific chert type or subcluster, and are hereafter referred to as "generic" Hillsborough River chert. What is immediately obvious from this new arrangement of the data is that a large geographic range of chert sources was exploited, from the Gulf coast and Tampa Bay north and east to Pasco, Hernando, and Polk Counties. A second observation is that no single source area dominates these assemblages. There is a relatively even distribution of artifacts between the lower and upper Hillsborough River subareas, Brooksville and Withla- coochee Quarry Clusters, and Silicified Coral categories. Of particular interest, given its relatively close geographic associa- tion with the ridge, is the near absence in the study collection AUSTIN 216 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Table 3. Number of artifacts assigned to chert quarry clusters and subtypes. Quarry Clusters/Chert Types' Sitesb PR HR' T3 T4 BB CHC C W B O/G/LP LS SC UID Totals LL 1 11 1 1 1 3 1 16 6 3 17 7 68 APEd 6 1 2 1 1 12 2 11 12 48 Me 7 1 2 4 2 4 5 25 L' 17 8 4 1 7 3 2 25 5 72 CP 6 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 5 4 29 HPE 1 1 1 3 B 15 2 7 0 7 4 5 1 1 13 13 69 BB 4 1 3 8 BP 22 2 7 4 5 4 3 1 14 6 68 SLP 6 1 1 2 2 4 7 23 BH 13 1 2 3 3 4 2 28 HW70 16 1 1 6 4 12 5 13 3 61 RR 1 2 1 1 2 7 Totals 7 122 3 9 38 20 22 62 33 10 3 116 64 509 Percent 1.38 23.97 .59 1.77 7.47 3.93 4.32 12.18 6.48 1.96 .59 22.79 12.57 100.00 a See Table 1 for key to abbreviations. b See Figure 1 for key to site abbreviations. c "Generic" Hillsborough River Quarry Cluster chert; cannot be assigned to a specific subtype. d Includes artifacts from four sites (BBL, APE, L, and JC) SExact proveniences for these artifacts are not known, although all come from the Lake Wales Ridge. f Includes artifacts from two sites (EP and M). of the opal-rich cherts from the Peace River Quarry Cluster. Also of interest is the comparatively high representation of Bay Bottom chert. Of the identifiable types of Tampa Limestone chert (exclusive of the generic Hillsborough River specimens), Bay Bottom is the most common, and in fact is present in small but consistent amounts in all but four of the analyzed collec- tions. The low proportion of cherts derived from the Crystal River biozone of the Ocala Formation indicates that source areas to the north of Pasco, Hernando, and Polk Counties were exploited only minimally. Small outcrops of Crystal River limestone are present in the Rock Ridge region of northwestern Polk County (Stewart 1966:36; Upchurch et al. 1982a:Figure 14), and Stewart (1966:36-37) reports that chert lying at the interface between the Crystal River and overlying Suwannee limestones contains fossils diagnostic of both formations. These isolated occurrences of Crystal River cherts within the Withlacoochee Quarry Cluster suggest that cherts in the study collection containing diagnostic Crystal River fossils may have been quarried from more nearby sources. However, only one specimen in the study collection contains fossils diagnostic of both the Crystal River and Suwannee formations. I conclude from this that other Crystal River cherts in the collection were not obtained from these source areas but were instead imported from more distant locales, probably the Ocala, Gainesville, or Lake Panasofkee Quarry Clusters. When the sites are arranged in geographic order from north to south, there is a predictable pattern of decreasing occurrence of Suwannee Formation cherts in the collections from more southerly locations (Figure 3). Artifacts from Avon Park Estates (APE) and the Livingston Lake (LL) sites exhibit high propor- tions of Suwannee Formation cherts (32.35% and 27.4%, respectively), which is understandable since they are located much closer to the source locations for these cherts than are the sites farther south. With one exception, Suwannee cherts occur at the intervening sites in proportions ranging between 10-17% of the site totals. The pattern is almost exactly the reverse for Tampa Limestone cherts, with increasing representation of these materials at the more southerly sites. This is due, in part, to the nature of a closed number system that must by definition sum to 100% so that as the proportion of one type decreases, the others must increase. However, given that both chert types are non-local, it is interesting that it is the Suwannee cherts that decrease with distance and not the Tampa Limestone cherts. Silicified coral appears to vary randomly between the sites. Temporal Patterning Using only temporally diagnostic hafted bifaces, the study collection was partitioned by cultural/temporal period in order to observe any patterning in chert procurement through time. The various diagnostic bifaces identified in the study collection, and their cultural/temporal assignments, are shown in Table 4. Raw data are presented in Table 5. When these data are examined several interesting patterns emerge. The first and most obvious is the virtual dominance of Tampa Limestone cherts among the Early Archaic side-notched artifacts.' More specifi- AusTIN Lmnc PROcU EMENT AND MoaILrrY Sites LL APE LJ CP B BP SLP BH HW70 0 20 40 60 80 10 Percent of Total S Tampa M Suwannee I Sil. Coral M Other Figure 3. Proportional representation of raw-material types between sites. Sites are arranged geographically from north (top) to south (bottom). Three sites (BB, C, and RR) are not included because of small sample sizes. Table 4. Hafted-biface types identified in the study collection and their cultural/temporal associations. Culture Period Time Period Hafted Biface Types Early Archaic, 10,000-9000 B.P. Bolen Plain Bolen Horizon Bolen Beveled Greenbrier Early Archaic, 9000-7000 B.P. Kirk Kirk Horizon Sumter Hardee Beveled Middle-Late Archaic 7000-3000 B.P. Newnan Marion Putnam Levy Culbreath Post-Archaic 3000-250 B.P. Hernando Westo Jackson Pinellas cally, of ten specimens identified as either Bolen Plain, Bolen Beveled, or Greenbrier, seven (70%) were manufactured from Bay Bottom (Type 5) chert and two were manufactured from generic Hillsborough River chert. The high incidence of Bay Bottom chert in Paleoindian assemblages has been noted by Goodyear et al. (1983), and its presence in the Early Archaic collection from the Lake Wales Ridge indicates that rising sea levels had not yet inundated all of these outcrops. While the temporal placement of Sumter and Hardee Beveled points is somewhat problematic because of limited stratigraphic data, Bullen (1975:33, 36) and Milanich (1994:64) assign them to the Early Archaic. The Kirk point, however, is a well documented, Early Archaic type throughout the southeastern U. S. (Walthall 1980:52-54). At Harney Flats in Hillsborough County, Kirk pro- jectile points were found in an intermedi- ate stratigraphic position above the side- notched Bolen points and below the more common stemmed Archaic forms such as Newnan, Marion, and Putnam (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:35-36). What is noticeable in the study collection is that there was a shift away from the Tampa Bay area as a primary source location as indicated by the decline in frequency of Tampa Limestone cherts and an increase in the proportions of Suwannee Forma- tion cherts and silicified coral among the Early Archaic stemmed forms. The Middle Archaic assemblage is notable for the wide range of raw-materi- al types represented, and particularly the high proportion of silicified coral. Nearly 27% of the Middle Archaic projectile points were manufactured from this mat- erial, accounting for 60% of all silicified coral projectile points in the study collection. The pattern for the post-Archaic remains one of rather even distribution between Tampa and Suwannee cherts, but the use of silicified coral drops to only 16.7%. Peace River cherts do not make an appearance before the Middle Archaic and are only minimally represented from then on. Mobility and Lithic Procurement Several archaeologists have suggested that high residential mobility should be recognizable in the archaeological record by an increase in raw-material diversity under the assumption that mobile populations would have had access to a wider range of raw-material source areas (Amick 1984; Binford 1979; Good- year 1979; Sassaman et al. 1988; Shott 1986; Vierra 1982). Conversely, less mobile populations would have had more restricted access to a variety of raw-material sources and, therefore, raw-material diversity should be comparatively low with an increased emphasis on local resources. The data resulting from the raw-materials analysis of temporally diagnos- tic hafted bifaces were used to test these propositions for the Lake Wales Ridge. Measuring Assemblage Diversity Measuring diversity is a tricky exercise, although numerous quantitative techniques have been developed to do so (see review in Bobrowsky and Ball 1989). When archaeologists discuss diversity they are usually referring to a dual concept that incorporates measures of both richness and evenness (Peet 1974). Richness refers to the number of taxa, species, or types AUSTIN Lnrmc PROCUREMENTFI AND MoBE~rry Table 5. Number of temporally diagnostic hafted bifaces assigned to major chert-bearing formations by culture period. Formations' Culture Period PR T SU O SC UID TOT Early Archaic, Bolen Horizon 0 9 0 0 0 1 10 Early Archaic, Kirk Horizon 0 1 6 1 3 1 12 Middle Archaic 2 25 25 6 24 7 89 Late Archaic 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Post-Archaic 1 4 6 0 4 3 18 Unidentified 1 12 3 0 9 3 28 Totals 4 52 41 7 40 15 159 Percent 2.52 32.70 25.79 4.40 25.16 9.43 100.00 SSee Table 1 for key to abbreviations. Assemblage A B C D E Raw Material Types Assemblage B Percent 100 so 80 40 so ~ i __ 100 --- ------ ------------------ D E Figure 4. Hypothetical artifact distributions illustrating the concepts of richness (R) and evenness (E). Assemblage A contains more raw-material types than assemblage B and so is considered "richer," but individual specimens in assem- blage B are more equally distributed between types than in assemblage A where one type dominates; thus, assemblage B is considered more "even" than assemblage A. that are present in the population (or archaeological assemblage) of interest, and so is essentially a measure of variety. In Figure 4, assemblage A is "richer" than assemblage B because it contains more raw-material types (5 as compared to 4 in assemblage B). Evenness refers to the proportional distribution of individuals between the taxa, species, or types represented within a population or assemblage. Referring again to Figure 4, the proportional abundance of the various raw-material types differs dramatically between the two assemblages. In assem- blage B individual specimens (artifacts) are equally distributed between the four raw-material types, while in assemblage A 60% of all specimens have been assigned to a single type. Thus, despite the fact that assemblage B contains fewer raw-material types than assemblage A, B is considered more "even" than A. A single measurement that attempts to take into account both richness and evenness is referred to as heterogeneity (Peet 1974:287-288). A number of different formulae have been developed to quantify heterogeneity, but despite the appeal of representing a bivariate relationship with a single quantitative measure, Bobrowsky and Ball (1989:7) caution against the use of heterogeneity measures since they tend to mask the important individual properties of richness and evenness. Therefore, in this study I have chosen to use relatively simple, intuitively understandable, and analytically independent measures of both richness and evenness. Interpretation of assemblage diversity is achieved by plotting the resulting values on a bivariate graph. Using this approach, it is possible to preserve the individual properties of richness and evenness while simultaneously observing how both contribute to overall assemblage diversity. Two assumptions underlie analyses of assemblage diversity: 1) that the individual specimens have all been classified to the same taxonomic level, and 2) that the categories (taxa or types) are mutually exclusive (Peet 1974:286). In order to meet these assumptions, I have chosen to compare cultural/temporal assemblages on the basis of quarry-cluster assignments since this is the lowest taxonomic level to which all specimens can be unambiguously assigned. The "unidentified category" is not used since it is not possible to know if the individual specimens assigned to this category represent as yet unidentified chert Percent 100 60 --- Go- 20 *-------- 20 0 -_- -- A - o mr A B C Raw Material Types 1996 VOL. 49(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Lrrmc PROCUREMENT AND MOBILnY types, or are perhaps atypical examples of chert types from quarry clusters already represented in the study collection. Similarly, all hafted bifaces that could not be assigned to a specific cultural/temporal period were eliminated from this analysis. I have chosen to calculate richness (R) as a simple proportion: R = (n, + N) 10, where ni = the number of raw-material types (quarry clusters) present in an assemblage, and N = the maximum number of raw-material types identified in the study collection. A simple estimate of evenness (E) is the standard deviation of the proportional abundance of types within an assemblage (Fager 1972). The standard deviation is a measure of the dispersion of values around the mean of a population; the larger the standard deviation, the greater the spread of values around the mean. A small standard deviation indicates that population values closely approximate the mean. In the case of raw-material types, the mean value calculated for each assem- blage provides an estimate of an even distribution of individual specimens between all eight raw-material types. The degree to which the actual distribution of individual specimens differs from this theoretically even distribution is expressed by the standard deviation. Because the raw data consist of counts of specimens assigned to each raw-material type (i.e., nominal data), the absolute values of the mean and standard deviation of each assemblage are directly affected by the sizes of the samples making it difficult to make direct comparisons between assemblages of different sizes. A standardized measure of dispersion, known as the Coefficient of Variation (CV), can be used to represent evenness in place of the standard deviation. It is calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the assemblage mean (Shennan 1990:44-45); the lower the CV, the closer the proportional abundance of types in an assemblage approximates the mean and the more even the distribution. The CV is subtracted from a constant (10) to create a measure of evenness that increases as the distribution of raw-material types in an assemblage becomes more even. Thus, the formula for evenness is E = 10 (s +- a,), where s, = the standard deviation of the absolute abundance of raw-material types in an assemblage and a, = the mean. To illustrate the application of these formulae, richness and evenness measures have been calculated for the hypothetical assemblages in Figure 5, assuming a sample size of 100 specimens for each assemblage. For assemblage A: R = 10, E = 8.84; for assemblage B: R = 8, E = 9.44. Temporal Variation in Raw-Material Diversity In Table 6, calculated measures of richness and evenness are presented for four cultural/temporal periods. Because the Late Archaic Period is represented by only two specimens, these have been combined with the Middle Archaic specimens to create a Middle-Late Archaic assemblage. A bivariate plot of these data is presented in Figure 5. As examination of the data and figure demonstrates, the Middle-Late Archaic projectile-point assemblage is the most diverse since it contains more raw-material types (high richness) and individual specimens are more evenly distributed between Table 6. Richness and evenness values for temporally diagnostic hafted bifaces. Culture Period N QC' R Mean Std. E Early Archaic, Bolen Horizon 9 1 1.30 1.13 2.98 7.35 Early Archaic, Kirk Horizon 11 5 6.30 1.38 1.41 8.98 Mid-Late Archaic 84 8 10.00 10.50 9.57 9.09 Post-Archaic 15 4 5.00 1.88 2.26 8.79 ' Quarry clusters represented in the assemblage. the eight raw-material types. On the other hand, the Early Archaic, side-notched assemblage is the least diverse, with all of the specimens coming from a single quarry cluster, the Hillsborough River. The Early Archaic, stemmed-point assem- blage displays an increase in raw-material diversity, but it is still less diverse than the Middle-Late Archaic group. The post- Archaic assemblage is positioned near the middle of the graph. Only 4 of the 8 quarry clusters are represented in this assem- blage, which results in a moderately low richness measure (.5), but the distribution of specimens between these four types is relatively even with 14 of the 15 specimens assigned to 3 of the quarry clusters. This results in a moderately high evenness measure of 8.79. While these data seem to indicate an increase in raw-material diversity during the Middle-Late Archaic Period and a subse- quent decrease during the post-Archaic, several researchers have indicated that sample size can affect class richness (e.g., Jones et al. 1983; Kintigh 1984, 1989), with larger samples having a greater chance of containing more classes. One way to approach this problem is to develop an expectation for richness based on sample size. Kintigh (1984, 1989) has developed a method for doing this by generating simulated assemblages of various sample sizes. The aggregate information obtained from these multiple simulations yields a statistical estimate (i.e., a mean or average value) of richness for specific sample sizes. These are then plotted on a log-linear graph and the actual richness values Richness 12 10 Mid-Late Archaic 8 Kirk Poet-Archaic 4 2 Bolen SI- I i 0 2 4 6 Evenness 8 10 12 Figure 5. Bivariate plot of richness (R) and evenness (E) measures for hafted biface assemblages representing four cultural/temporal periods. AUSTIN THE FLORIDA ANruRoroLoGisT 1996 VoL. ~(4) for the archaeological samples are com- pared to the expected richness values. The method is operationalized using the DIVERS program (Kintigh 1994). Two hundred simulated samples were random- ly generated for sample sizes ranging from 1 to 100. The resulting mean (ex- pected) values are indicated by the center line in Figure 6. The dashed lines indi- cate the 90% confidence interval around the means of the simulated samples, i.e., the range within which 90% of all the random simulations fell. The actual rich- ness values for each cultural-temporal assemblage of projectile points also are shown (richness in this figure is repre- sented simply by the number of raw- material types present in a sam- ple/assemblage). Data points that are located above the confidence band are in the upper 5% of the random simulations and can be said to have higher than ex- pected richness, while those that are below the band are in the lower 5% and can be said to have lower than expected richness (see Kintigh 1989 for a full explanation of the method and its use). As Figure 6 demonstrates, the Middle- Late Archaic assemblage is above the 90% confidence band indicating that raw- material richness is greater than would be Figure 6. Relationship between number of raw-material types (richness) and sample size for the four cultural/temporal assemblages of projectile points. Sample sizes have been plotted on a logarithmic scale to produce a more interpretable plot. Note than the Middle-Late Archaic assemblage lives above the 90% confidence interval for the simulated assemblage mean and that the Early Archaic, Bolen Horizon assemblage lies well below the confidence band indicating higher and lower than expected richness values for these two assemblages, respectively. expected given its sample size. On the other hand, the Early Archaic side-notched assemblage is well below the richness value that would be expected for its sample size. Both the Early Archaic stemmed-point and the post-Archaic assemblages lie within the 90% confidence band, although the post-Archaic assemblage is below the mean value for its sample size and is very near the lower limit of the confidence band. This suggests that richness for this assemblage is somewhat lower than expected for its sample size. Discussion In general, these results support a hypothesis of residential mobility during the Middle to Late Archaic Period. The low diversity of raw-material types in the Early Archaic side- notched artifacts may reflect the effect of exploratory visits to the interior from the Central Gulf Coast region. Initial forays into the interior would probably have been limited, with early groups remaining "tethered" to lithic and other resources within their home range. Eventually, as use of the interior intensified, a new catchment area would have been established and new chert resources would have been exploited. This apparently occurred relatively early in the Archaic Period as indicated by the more diverse array of chert types among the Early Archaic stemmed-point group. The data also support (albeit tentatively) the hypothesis of reduced access to chert sources during the Post-Archaic Period, presumably as a result of increased sedentism. Further support for this conclusion is provided by controlled test excavations at several post-Archaic Belle Glade sites on the Lake Wales Ridge and along the Kissimmee River which indicate a reduced reliance on stone as a raw material for tool production (Austin n.d.). This is not surprising given the added cost of procuring a distant resource within a sedentary or semi-sedentary settle- ment system. Further Thoughts on Lithic Procurement and Settlement Patterns The data presented here provide a basis for considering several other aspects of the prehistory of this little known part of the state. One of the first questions that can be addressed with these data is related to the temporal and geographic origins of the Native Americans who first occupied the Lake Wales Ridge. The archaeological evidence indicates that people were occupying the region during the Early Archaic Period as evidenced by the presence of Bolen and Greenbrier projectile points in the study collection. Recent radiocarbon dates from the Page/Ladson site in north Florida indicate a date range of 10,200-9700 B.P. (8250-7850 B.C.) for Bolen points there (Dunbar et al. 1988:444, 449). This corresponds well with the evidence from Warm Mineral Springs in Sarasota County and . Bolen 20 50 100 5 10 Sample Size 90% Interval Plotted 1996 Vol. 49(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST AUsTIN Lrrmc PROCUItEMENT AND MODIUTY the Cutler Fossil site in Dade County where radiocarbon dates on the order of 10,300 and 9300 B.P. were obtained from cultural strata believed to be associated with Greenbrier and Bolen projectile points, respectively (Carr 1986; Cockrell and Murphy 1978). The fact that many of the early side-notched points in the study collection (as well as many of the Middle Archaic projectile points) have been found by collectors beneath existing lake waters implies that lake levels were lower during these early periods. Sediment cores from several lakes located in the Central Highlands, including some along the Lake Wales Ridge, indicate that organic sedimentation was not occurring in many of these lakes prior to 8500 B.P. Instead, deep deposits of aeolian sand are present that are assumed to have drifted into the dry lake bottoms during periods of increased aridity, with surface water apparently limited to shallow grassy marshes (Watts 1971, 1975; Watts and Hansen 1988). This relative scarcity of surface water prior to 8500 B.P. no doubt limited the attractiveness of the area for human habitation. Significant- ly, no Suwannee, Simpson, or related lanceolate-shaped points assignable to the Paleoindian Period have yet been reported for the ridge area. If such sites do exist, they are probably limited in number and restricted to locations around these former marsh shorelines, well below modem lake levels. Regarding the geographic origin of the earliest inhabitants of south Florida, several theories have been advanced. Some archaeologists have suggested north Florida as a likely source of population influx (e.g., Clausen et al. 1979:612-613) while others have pointed to the southwest coast (e.g., Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:184). The chert provenience data tend to support a Central Gulf Coast origin as nearly all of the side- notched, Early Archaic hafted bifaces were manufactured from Bay Bottom chert from the Tampa Bay region. By the time of the Middle Archaic, a wide range of chert types and chert source locations were being exploited by the native people inhabiting the ridge. The procurement range that is implied by the chert types present in the study collection is quite large, on the order of 80-100 km at a minimum. Archaic projectile points also exhibit a high degree of resharpening and recycling (Austin n.d.), and overall tool size is relatively small for the types represented, with mean size values generally falling at the low end of the size ranges provided for these types by Bullen (1975; cf. Austin n.d.). There also is evidence of scavenging of broken tool forms and waste flakes from previ- ously occupied sites. Scavenging, recycling, excessive tool maintenance, and overall small tool size are characteristic elements of raw-material conservation. Taken together, these data indicate a technology that was organized to adapt to conditions of low lithic resource availability, high transport costs, and limited site duration (Kuhn 1991). Later, post-Archaic, Belle Glade populations are assumed to have practiced a more sedentary lifestyle resulting in larger sites that exhibit greater artifact density, midden formation, and the use of burial mounds (Austin 1987, 1992, 1996). The south- central interior of Florida is one of the few regions of the state without direct access to durable raw materials of any kind. The trade-off for adopting a more sedentary lifestyle would have been a reduction in direct access to chert, shell, or shark teeth. Indirect access via exchange would have been the only other procurement alternative. The combination of reduced raw- material diversity exhibited by the data presented here, in combination with the documented presence of items such as marine shell and shark teeth at interior sites (e.g., Austin 1996; Steinen 1982), suggest that exchange systems functioned, in part, to supply the raw materials necessary to compensate for reduced access to stone. Conclusions It must be stressed that the results of this study are prelimi- nary in nature due to small sample sizes. Additional tests using larger samples that include lithic debitage from controlled contexts are required before the conclusions can be fully accepted. Nonetheless, the study has resulted in the identifica- tion of several significant patterns of prehistoric chert procure- ment that have the potential to contribute to a better understand- ing of prehistoric adaptation to the xeric upland environment of the Lake Wales Ridge. To summarize briefly, the results indicate that 1) the earliest occupation of the Lake Wales Ridge probably occurred during the Early Archaic Period; 2) the region's earliest inhabitants may have originated in the Tampa Bay area; 3) use of the ridge area intensified during the Middle Archaic Period, with highly mobile groups of hunter-gatherers ranging over a sizeable geographic area; and 4) sedentary or semi-sedentary occupation of the ridge during the post-Archaic, Belle Glade Period reduced access to lithic resources farther north creating an opportunity for the development of exchange systems. Notes SThe use of the term "formation" in the context of this paper is based on biostratigraphic distinctions rather than lithostratigraphic ones since, for the most part, it is fossil content that enables one to associate a particular chert sample with a source location. Geologically, however, the two types of stratigraphic separation are distinct and mutually exclusive. For example, the Ocala Formation of Eocene limestones (a lithostratigraphic unit) is separated into three biostratigraphic units (or biozones) on the basis of differing fossil content, of which only the most recent, Crystal River biozone contains significant chert deposits. Similarly, the Tampa Limestone is separated from the phosphatic sands and clays of the upper Hawthorn for the purposes of distinguishing the cherts associated with each unit, although geologists include it lithologically as a basal "member" of the Miocene age Hawthorn Group (cf. Scott 1992). 2 This collection is now housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. 3 Some archaeologists (e.g., Milanich 1994:53-59; Purdy 1981:24-26) assign side-notched projectile points to the late Paleoindian Period while others (e.g., Goodyear 1982; Tuck 1974; Widmer 1988.62-63) assign them to the Early Archaic. Although stratigraphic data from Harney Flats seem to suggest that Bolen projectile points were used contemporaneously with lanceolate-shaped Suwannee and Simpson points (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:33-35), Dunbar and his colleagues have yet to find such an association in their excavations on the Aucilla River (e.g., Dunbar et al. 1988). Moreover, no Pleistocene fauna have been recovered in association with the Aucilla Bolen Horizon despite the fact that faunal preservation appears to be quite good at this site. Therefore, in spite of the early dates associated with side-notched projectile points in Florida, they appear to represent an early Holocene adaptation. Consequently, I have assigned them to the Early Archaic Period. Lrrmc ftocultEmENT AND MOBnxry AUSTIN THE FLORIDA ANrHRoPoLoGIsT 1996 VOL. 49(4) Acknowledgments My interest in lithic scatter sites was developed during my undergraduate and graduate studies at the University of South Florida in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Ray Williams was my advisor during that time. More than that, he was a confidant and friend. While I doubt that Ray ever shared my intense interest in lithic scatters, he gave me the opportunity to pursue my passion, overlooked my headstrong (some might say "stubborn") tendencies, and offered constant encouragement and support. His patience and guidance turned an inveterate artifact collector into a committed archaeologist. I will be forever grateful. The artifacts used in this study came from the collections of Anne Reynolds, Don McClure, Mike Mosier, Philip Beck, and April Felt. The interest and generosity of these individuals is greatly appreciated. Sam Upchurch provided me with guidance, advice, and encouragement throughout this study. Figure 1 was drafted by Dawn Van De Putte. References Cited Abrahamson, Warren G., Ann F. Johnson, James N. Layne, and Patricia A. Peroni 1984 Vegetation of the Archbold Biological Station, Florida: An Example of the Southern Lake Wales Ridge. Florida Scientist 47:209-250. Adams, D. Briane, and Yvonne E. Stoker 1985 Hydrology of Lake Placid and Adjacent Areas, Highlands County, Florida. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investiga- tion Report 84-4149, Washington, D.C. Amick, Daniel S. 1984 Designing and Testing a Model of Raw Material Variability for the Central Duck River Basin, Tennessee. In Prehistoric Chert Exploita- tion: Studies from the Midcontinent, edited by Brian M. Butler and Ernest E. May, pp. 167-184. Occasional Paper No. 2, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbon- dale. Austin, Robert J. 1987 Prehistoric and Early Historic Settlement in the Kissimmee River Valley: An Archaeological Survey of the Avon Park Air Force Range. The Florida Anthropologist 40:297-300. 1992 A Review of Archaeological Research in the Kissimmee Region of Florida. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and Subsistence Data from the Kissimmee River Valley: Archaeological Evidence for Belle Glade Occupation. The Florida Anthropologist 49:65-87. n.d. Organizational Responses to Resource Scarcity: An Economic Analysis ofLithic Resource Use in South-Central Florida. Ph.D. dissertation in preparation. Belles, Roger G., and Edward G. Martin 1985 Hydrology of Lake June-in-Winter, Highlands County, South Central Florida. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investiga- tion, Open File Report 84-4303, Washington, D.C. Binford, Lewis R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technol- ogies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255-273. Bishop, Ernest W. 1956 Geology and Ground Water Resources of Highlands County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 15, Talla- hassee. Bobrowsky, Peter D., and Bruce F. Ball 1989 The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 4-12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bullen, Ripley P. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points (Second Edition). Kendall Books, Gainesville. Carr, Robert S. 1986 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Fossil Site (8Da2001) in Southern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 39:231-232. Carter, Lewis J., Douglas Lewis, LeRoy Crockwell, and Juan Vega 1989 Soil Survey of Highlands County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Clausen, C.J., A.D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J.A. Holman, and J.J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Springs, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:609-614. Cockrell. W.A., and Larry Murphy 1978 Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6:1-13. Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale. Dunbar, James S., Michael K. Faught, and S. David Webb 1988 Page/Ladson (8Je591): An Underwater Paleo-Indian Site in Northwest- ern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 41:442-453. Dunbar James S., and Ben I. Waller 1983 A Distribution Analysis of Clovis/Suwannee Paleo-Indian Sites of Florida A Geographic Approach. The Florida Anthropologist 36:18- 30. Fager, E.W. 1972 Diversity: A Sampling Study. American Naturalist 106:293-310. Goodyear, Albert C. 1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleoindian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series 156. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 47:382-395. Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, and Mark J. Brooks 1980 Turtlecrawl Point: An Inundated Early Holocene Archaeological Site on the West Coast of Florida. In Holocene Geology and Man in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, Florida, edited by Sam B. Upchurch, pp. 24-33. Southeastern Geological Society Guidebook No. 22, Tallahassee. Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, Mark J. Brooks, and Nancy N. Goodyear 1983 Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Tampa Bay Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 36:40-66. Hammett, K. M. 1981 Hydrologic Description of Lake Jackson, Sebring, Florida. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation. Open File Report 81-494, Washington, D.C. Janus Research 1995 The Archaeological Resources of Highlands County. Florida. Report prepared for the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners by Janus Research, St. Petersburg. Jones, George T., Donald K. Grayson, and Charlotte Beck 1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Surface Assemblages. In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, edited by Robert C. Dunnell and Donald K. Grayson, pp. 55-73. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Anthro- pological Papers 72. Kintigh, Keith W. 1984 Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Sinmulated Assemblages. American Antiquity 49:44-54. 1989 Sample size, Significance, and Measures of Diversity. In Quanifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 25-36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1994 Toolsfor QuantitativeArchaeology: Programsfor QuantitativeAnalysis in Archaeology. Computer software and documentation privately published and distributed by Keith W. Kintigh, Tempe, AZ. Kuhn, Steven L. 1991 "Unpacking" Reduction: Lithic Raw Material Economy in the Mouster- ian of West-Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:76-106. Lane, Ed, Michael S. Knapp, and Tom Scott 1980 Environmental Geology Series Fort Pierce Sheet. Florida Department THE noREDA ANTH~opouo~tsT 1996 VOL. 49(4) AusTIN Lrrrnc PROCUREMENT AND MornLrrY of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Map Series No. 80, Tallahassee. Luchterhand, Kubet 1970 Early Archaic Projectile Points and Hunting Patterns in the Lower Illinois Valley. Illinois State Museum, Reports of Investigation No. 19, Springfield. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich Jerald T. and Charles Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. Peet, Robert K. 1974 The Measurement of Species Diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:285-307. Powell, John 1990 Points and Blades of the Coastal Plain. American Systems of the Carolinas, Inc., West Columbia, S.C. Purdy, Barbara A. 1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Robinson, George D. 1979 Outlines and Other Data on West Central Florida Projectile Points. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, St. Petersburg. Sassaman, Kenneth E., Glen T. Hanson, and Tommy Charles 1988 Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter-Gatherer Range in the Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7:79- 94. Scott, Thomas M. 1992 A Geological Overview of Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Open File Report No. 50, Tallahassee. Shennan, Stephen 1990 Quantifying Archaeology (Second printing). Academic Press, San Diego. Shott, Michael 1986 Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15-51. Steinen, Karl T. 1982 Other Nonceramic Artifacts. In Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin, by William H. Sears, pp. 68-110. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Stewart, Herbert G. 1966 Ground Water Resources of Polk County. Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 44, Tallahassee. Tesar, Louis D. 1994 What Do You Call This Point? The Florida Anthropologist 47:287-294. Tuck, James A. 1974 Early Archaic Horizons in Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 2:72-80. Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G. Nuckels 1982a Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Report on file, Department of Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa. 1982b Silicification ofMiocene Rocks from Central Florida. In Symposium on the Miocene of the Southeastern United States, edited by Thomas M. Scott and Sam B. Upchurch, pp. 251-284. Florida Bureau of Geology, Special Publication No. 25, Tallahassee. Vierra, Robert K. 1982 Typology, Classification, and Theory Building. In Essays on Archaeo- logical Typology, edited by Robert Whallon and James A. Brown, pp. 162-175. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois. Waller, Ben I. and James Dunbar 1977 Distribution of Paleo-Indian Projectiles in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 30:79-80. Walthall, John A. 1980 Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, University. Warren, Lyman O. 1968 Caladesi Causeway: A Possible Inundated Paleo-Indian Workshop. The Florida Anthropologist 21:92-94. Watts, William A. 1971 Postglacial and Interglacial Vegetation History of Southern Georgia and Central Florida. Ecology 52:676-690. 1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from Lake Annie, South Central Florida. Geology 3:344-346. Watts, W. A., and Barbara C.S. Hansen 1988 Environments of Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 307-324. Telford Press, New Jersey. White, William A. 1970 The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin No. 51, Tallahassee. Widmer, Randolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. AUSTIN Lrtmc PROCUREMENT AND MOBILIrY HOW TO DO ARCHAEOLOGY THE RIGHT WAY Barbara A. Purdy "Provides a sense of what it really means to be a professional archaeolo- gist, how we go about doing that which we do, and the benefit to the broader public from our doing what we do in the manner in which we do it.... Will help improve the public's understand- ing of the fragile nature of archaeologi- cal resources."-Louis D. Tesar, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida Department of State 68 b&w photographs, 10 drawings, 4 maps, I diagram. Cloth, $29.95 INDIAN ART OF ANCIENT FLORIDA Barbara A. Purdy Photographs by Roy C. Craven, Jr. "A superb book-and one that is long overdue.... A fine sampling of a unique native American artistic heri- tage is laid out before you, in text and in pictures, in this exciting book." -Gordon R. Willey, Peabody Museum, Harvard University 8 1/2 X 11. 116 color photographs, 9 figures. Cloth, $34.95 FIFTY YEARS OF SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY: SELECTED WORKS OF JOHN W. GRIFFIN Edited by Patricia C. Griffin "This volume of essays not only charts the trajectory of a distinguished Floridian's remarkable career, it also chronicles much that has happened in North American archaeology over the past sixty years.... No practitioner of American archaeology has influenced the directions and content of re- search in Florida more than lohn Griffin. His work not only shaped ar- chaeology in Florida, it also influ- enced the development of the field of historical archaeology in gen- eral."-Kathleen Deagan, Curator of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History 14 b&w photographs, 14 figures, 7 tables. Cloth, $39.95 Illustrations from How to Do Archaeology the Right Way. FLORIDA INDIANS AND THE INVASION FROM EUROPE lerald T. Milanich "An exciting book... combining ar- chaeology and history to reconstruct events and lifeways of ethnic groups so quickly devastated by the European presence."-Nancy White. University of South Florida 29 b&w photographs, 10 drawings, 35 maps. Cloth, $29.95 FORT MOSE: COLONIAL AMERICA'S BLACK FORTRESS OF FREEDOM Kathleen Deagan and Darcie MacMahon "An excellent publication.... In clear and simple language the authors show how the people of Fort Mose were in- strumental in shaping Spanish interna- tional policy on slavery and providing inspiration for slaves throughout the New World."-Mark R. Barnes, Senior Archaeologist, National Park Service 11 X 8 1/2. 125 color. 84 b&w photo- graphs. Cloth, $24.95 Paper, $9.95 From the Ripley P. Bullen Series- A HISTORY OF THE TIMUCUA INDIANS AND MISSIONS John H. Hann "An extraordinary scholarly work... Ithatl will immediately make every- thing else written about the Timucua and the Spanish mission system in La Florida out-of-date. This will be the ba- sic scholarly reference for students of Florida history and historical archaeol- ogy."-lerald T. Milanich, Florida Museum of Natural History 5 maps. Cloth. $49.95 BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF NATIVE AMERI- CAN ADAPTATION IN THE SPANISH BORDERLANDS Edited by Brenda I. Baker and Lisa Kealhofer "An important addition to the growing literature on American Indian-Euro- pean contact in North America. offer- ing fresh perspectives on the variability of native societies' responses to con- tact.'-from the Foreword by Jerald T. Milanich. Florida Museum of Natural History 22 figures, 29 tables. Cloth. $49.95 ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE MID-HOLOCENE SOUTHEAST Edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson "With this important volume, the edi- tors serve notice that old characteriza- tions of the cultures of the Archaic pe- riod have been buried under the back dirt of new excavations and new inter- pretations ... It places the Archaic cultures squarely at the forefront of ar- chaeological theory.-from the Foreword by lerald T. Milanich. Florida Museum of Natural History 10 b&w photographs. 79 drawings. tables, maps. Cloth. $60.00 POLITICAL STRUC- TURE AND CHANGE IN THE PREHISTORIC SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES Edited by lohn F. Scarry "We now realize that to understand the origin of the state, we must first under- stand the development of the chief- dom. And nowhere in the world is the study of chiefdoms being pursued as vigorously as in the Southeast. Com- bining tantalizing bits of ethnohistory with painstaking archaeology, the scholars of this region are adding greatly to our understanding of the chiefdom as a political form. The present volume, which is the work of outstanding specialists in the region. is a striking example of the rich fruit being yielded by this research." -Robert L. Cameiro. Curator of Anthropology. American Museum of Natural History 42 figures, I tables. Cloth. $49.95 Coming this Spring-- SIXTEENTHCENITRY ST. AUGUSTIE: THE PEOPLE AND THEIR HOMES Albert Manucy "Greatly enriches our knowledge of Spanish Florida.... Describes the six- teenth century Native American and European occupants of St Augustine. the circumstances which brought them together, and the city, fortifications and houses in which they dwelt. Nothing else like this has been written ... en- larges substantially upon the cultural meaning of people, place, and hearth."-Eugene Lyon. Director. Center for Historic Research. Fagler College. St Augustine SIThel first and only comprehensive historical and anthropological synthe- sis of America's first European colony ... landl a great story. Thereae very few scholars who can achieve this kind of precisely accurate, broadly syn- thetic. and wonderfully readable book---Kathleen Deagan. Curator of Anthropology Florida Museum of Natural History 80 line drawings. 5 maps. I table. Cloth, $24.95 UNVRT P THE OLD OKAHUMPKA SITE (8LA57): LATE PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY AND MISSISSIPPIAN INFLUENCE IN PENINSULAR FLORIDA JEFFREY M. MITCHEM Arkansas Archeological Survey, P. O. Box 241, Parkin, Arkansas 72373-0241 E-mail: jmitchem@comp. uark. edu The Old Okahumpka Site (8LA57) was a sand burial mound excavated by Clarence B. Moore in the 1890s, during one of his frequent digging forays into Florida (Moore 1895:542-543)'. Referring to it as "Mound Near Old Okahumpka, Lake Coun- ty," he described it as a low mound whose height had been reduced by cultivation (1895:542). The mound was one of several similar ones investigated by Moore in the area, all of which were low mounds containing secondary burials (Moore 1895; Willey 1949:557). Artifacts included stone, shell, copper, and ceramic objects. Moore (1895:542) stated that the mound was located in an orange grove about one half-mile (.8 km) northwest of Old Okahumpka (Figure 1), and that it was totally demolished by his crew. When the site was recorded in the Florida Site File by John M. Goggin in 1951, only a general vicinity location could be plotted. The modern town of Old Okahumpka was established on the site of a Seminole Indian village of the same name (variously spelled Okeehumkee, Okehumpkee, or Okihumpky), which was reportedly the home of Micanopy (chief of the Alachua band of Seminoles) when the Second Seminole War broke out in 1835 (Allen 1936:2, 14; Covington 1993:33). Troops under General Abraham Eustis engaged in a skirmish with Seminoles near there on March 30, 1836 (Mahon 1967:156). When Henry B. Plant built his Jacksonville-to-Tampa railroad line through the area in the late nineteenth century, a railway station was located at Okahumpka (Gannon 1993:55-56; Williamson 1939:5). It was also the last landing place for steamboats traveling up the Oklawaha River (Brinton 1978:92; Kennedy et al. 1929:45; Kramer 1959; Williamson 1939:4-5). Although his usual steamboat was the Gopher, Moore used a special shallow-draft boat, the Alligator, for his work on the Oklawaha (Cerrato, this issue). A local history book made reference to Moore's work in the area, somewhat inaccurately: "Thirty-two years ago the Smithsonian Institute sent the steamboat Alligator with Professor Moore, Doctors Miller and Walker, and a crew of men to open the Indian mounds in that vicinity. They spent six weeks at the work and found many different kinds of valuable Indian relics" (Kennedy et al. 1929:46). Moore was not affiliated with the Smithsonian, nor was he a professor. Moore's Excavation of Old Okahumpka Moore noted that the mound was about 40 ft (12.2 m) in diameter, with a height of no more than 2 ft (.6 m), but the majority of human bones (all apparently secondary burials) and artifacts were located at a depth of 3-4.5 ft (.9-1.4 m) below the highest part of the mound. It was unstratified, composed of brownish sand, with some "scattered bits of charcoal and fire- places" (Moore 1895:542). The number of individuals buried in the mound was not recorded, and Moore made no mention of keeping any of the human remains. All of the excavated artifacts were in direct contact with human bones, with some probably worn as personal adornment when the corpses were bundled or stored prior to burial (Moore 1895:542-543). Artifacts A relatively small number of artifacts were recovered during Moore's excavations. In addition to many chert debitage fragments, a single chert projectile point, nine stone celts, an unrecorded number of pottery sherds, three copper objects, some preserved bark and fiber, and fewer than 100 marine shell beads were mentioned by Moore (1895:542-543). Most of the artifacts ended up at the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation in New York City (which is now part of the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institu- tion). A few objects are curated at the Springfield Science Museum in Springfield, Massachusetts. Records at the Florida Site File in Tallahassee indicate that the artifacts in Springfield were accessioned on July 13, 1912. Table 1 lists the artifacts and their present repository (when known). Moore provided some information about associations of artifacts with individual burials. Of the stone celts, seven were among the general mass of human bones, with two of these apparently associated with a single individual (Moore 1895:542). An eighth celt, made of sandstone, was found accompanying another individual, who also had a copper ornament in association. The final celt, described by Moore (1895:543) as "a polished stone hatchet," was with a single individual who also was accompanied by shell beads. The sherds that Moore recovered were both plain and red- VOL. 49 No. 4 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 1996 TBE FLOPJDA ANITIROPOLOGMS DECEMBER 1996 VOL. 49 No. 4 TEE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGJSr 1996 yin.. *~6) Figure 1. Locations of the main sites discussed in the text. Map drawn by Charles B. Poe. painted or slipped. The red sherds may have been St. Johns Red on Buff or Dunns Creek Red. Both of these types are composed of the characteristic chalky St. Johns paste typical of the St. Johns River basin, but which is also found in other parts of Florida (Goggin 1948b:7,1952:102-103; Mitchem 1986:69-70). Moore (1895:Figure 91; reproduced as Figure 2 here) illustrated only one artifact from Old Okahumpka, a rim sherd with incised decoration and a human-head adorno. He received this object from a man who had plowed it up from the surface of the mound (Moore 1895:543). John Goggin (1949) examined this sherd, noting that it was not of the chalky St. Johns paste, but was sand tempered. He classified it as Weeden Island Incised, but noted that other researchers had considered it Fort Walton Incised. This sherd and its decoration are discussed more thoroughly later in this paper. Moore (1895:543) noted that the shell beads he found were all of marine gastropods. Most were probably made from the columellae of whelks (Busycon sp.). Fifty-six beads accompa- nied a single individual (who also had a polished stone celt in association). Moore (1895:543) also pointed out that a few small beads were found with a copper-covered wooden cylinder and bones stained green from contact with the copper. These are probably the 14 shell beads and 6 stained human bones (Table 1) in the Springfield Science Museum in Springfield, Massachu- setts. The copper objects are of special interest. Moore (1895:543) reported three copper artifacts from the site, all of which were in direct association with human bones. First was the copper- covered piece of wood found with stained bones and the small shell beads mentioned previously. Goodman (1984:42) identified this object as a copper-covered reed bead, although there is no indication that she actually saw the artifact. Unfortunately, it is not recorded in the collections of either the National Museum of the American Indian or the Springfield Science Museum. Moore described the second object as "...a heavy bead of copper .7 of one inch by .6 of one inch, in contact with a human lower jaw which formed part of a bunched burial" (Moore 1895:543). The burial was 18 inches (45.7 cm) beneath the surface. The bead is probably what is described as a large, spiral, copper bead (Catalog No. 17/144) in the collections of the National Museum of the American Indian. The third copper artifact Moore found was part of a sheet copper ornament with repouss6 decoration (Figure 3). This object was illustrated and described in an article by Goggin (1949). The embossed design depicts portions of the lower half of the body of a dancing person. Moore did not illustrate or tRoyal NORTH 0 100 KILOMETERS THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 19 VoL. a4) MITCHEM OLD OKAHIJMPKA SITE AND PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY Table 1. Artifacts from the Old Okahumpka site (8LA57) and their present repositories. Figure 2. Vessel fragment from the Old Okahumpka site (from Moore 1895:Figure 91). Length between farthest left and right points is approximately 8 cm. Courtesy of Library, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. describe the decoration on the plate, but did provide some other information. It was found associated with a burial, and was accompanied by some bark and fibrous material, a sandstone celt, and a chert core (Moore 1895:543). The catalog card (Catalog No. 17/145) from the National Museum of the American Indian indicates that the fibrous material still exists, and is described as braided fiber. Moore noted that the copper sheet was bent and crumpled at one end, and he believed that it was already incomplete when buried, but two edges were intact. He gave measurements of 2.8 inches (7.1 cm) by 6 inches (15.2 cm) for the artifact (Moore 1895:543). Dating the Site The final sentence in Moore's description of the Old Oka- humpka site noted that the mound was probably prehistoric in age (Moore 1895:543). Although the mound did not yield many artifacts, those that were recovered can be used to arrive at a rough date of construction, and also can be used to identify some broader cultural connections of the people interred there. Of the artifacts excavated by Moore, the most useful for chronological purposes is the decorated copper plate (Figure 3). There is no doubt that the figure depicted on this artifact is what has been variously termed an "eagle being" (Waring and Holder 1945:Figure 6), "kilted dancer" (Phillips and Brown 1978:207), or "winged being" (Brown 1982; Waring 1977b:40-47). This motif is characteristic of the Mississippian-period family of religious iconography collectively referred to as the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (Galloway 1989). Southeastern Description Numerous chert flakes 1 Projectile point 1 Chert core 8 Ground and polished stone celts (Catalog #17/1816) 1 Sandstone celt (Catalog #17/1563) Numerous plain and red-painted/slipped pottery sherds 2 Pottery sherds, vessel rim with incised decoration and human-head adorno (Catalog #17/285) Small shell disc beads (Catalog #17/1112) Cylindrical shell beads (Catalog #17/1113) Large cylindrical shell beads (Catalog #17/1114) 14 Shell beads (Accession #746, Catalog #18155.2) 1 Large spiral copper bead (Catalog #17/144) 1 Long tubular copper-covered wooden cylinder 1 Sheet-copper ornament with embossed design, preserved braided fiber (Catalog #17/145) 6 Copper-stained human bone fragments (Accession #746, Catalog #18155.1) Repository Unknown Unknown Unknown NMAI, SP NMAI, SP Unknown NMAI, SP NMAI, SP NMAI, SP NMAI, SP SSMb NMAI, SP Unknown NMAI, SP SSMb 1 National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution b Springfield Science Museum Ceremonial Complex iconography first appeared in the southern United States at the beginning of the Mississippian period (ca. A.D. 900), but reached a peak of popularity between about A.D. 1200 and 1450 (Bense 1994:195-197; Muller 1989:13-18). Estimating a date for the Old Okahumpka mound can be accomplished by comparing it to other Florida sites that have yielded copper objects with Southeastern Ceremonial Complex designs, including Lake Jackson (8LE1), Grant Mound (8DU14), Mount Royal (8PU35), and the Tatham Mound (8CI203) (Figure 1). Mound 3 at Lake Jackson, which con- tained a number of copper plates depicting dancing figures along OLD OKAHUMPKA SITE AND PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY MITCHEM THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Figure 3. Embossed copper plate fragment from the Old Okahumpka site. Approximately 7.1 cm wide by 15.2 cm long. Courtesy of the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution (Negative number 38435). Photograph by Carmelo Guadagno. with other Southeastern Ceremonial Complex artifacts, was radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1240-1476 (Jones 1982:20-21; Milanich 1994:372-373). Grant Mound apparently dates to the period A.D. 800-1300 (Thunen and Ashley 1995:6). Based on dates from sites outside of Florida with identical artifacts, Milanich (1994:269) suggests a date range of A.D. 1050-1150 for Mount Royal. Thunen and Ashley (1995:7) note that a Mount Royal projectile point, probably from Cahokia (Illinois), would imply a date of approximately A.D. 1050, based on identical points from Mound 72 at Cahokia (Fowler 1991:14). The lower stratum of the Tatham Mound, dated by four radiocarbon samples, including an AMS date on a copper- covered wooden object (Figure 4) obtained after the completion of Mitchem's (1989:523-527) dissertation, most likely dates to the period A.D. 900-1150. Three of the four dates from Tatham are calibrated (Stuiver and Pearson 1993), while the fourth was uncali- brated because the sample consisted of marine-shell beads (the other three were of charred wood). The dates from Lake Jackson, Grant, and Mount Royal are apparently uncalibrated, so comparison between these sites and the precontact stratum at Tatham is suspect. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to say that a range of A.D. 900-1300 is a reasonable estimate for the age of the copper plate from Old Okahumpka. Another artifact from the site aids in establishing a time period for the site. It is the rim sherd with incised decora- tion and an applied human-head adorno (Figures 2 and 5). Goggin (1949) classified this as Weeden Island Incised, but the incised and punctated decoration is too sloppily execut- ed in comparison to typical Weeden Island Incised (Willey 1949:411-419). Goggin (1949:36) noted that other research- ers had identified the sherd as Fort Walton Incised, and it could indeed be considered to fall within the range of John Scarry's (1985:219, Figure 7c) Fort Walton Incised, var. Safety Harbor. The sherd would more accurately be described as Safety Harbor Incised. Willey (1949:557), in discussing probable cultural affiliations of the Lake County area, noted that the archaeological data from the region reveal Gulf Coast influ- ences. He pointed out that Goggin (1947b:124, Figure 11) initially included the county as part of the central Florida area, but later decided that it was better considered a subdivision of the Gulf Coastal area (Goggin 1948a). Willey (1949:557) considered it as a transitional area between the St. Johns and Gulf Coast areas. The sherd is probably from a vessel obtained by exchange with Safety Harbor groups to the west. The identification of the sherd as Safety Harbor Incised is supported by a nearly identical vessel fragment (Figures 6 and 7) from the Briarwoods site (8PA66) in Pasco County (Mitchem 1985). The Briarwoods site (Figure 1) was a small, sand, Safety Harbor burial mound that was disturbed by pothunting and construction activity in 1980. Salvage excavations by the University of South Florida recovered remains of approximately 82 individuals and a small number of artifacts (Mitchem 1985). The vessel fragment is a rim sherd with a burnished surface and a human- head adorno on the exterior. Traces of black paint or sooting are present on the adorno. There also are two concentric, curved, roughened or abraded areas to the left of the adorno. The positioning of these abraded areas is similar to that of the incised bands filled with punctations on the Old Okahumpka sherd. While the similarity may be coincidence, the geographic- al proximity of the Old Okahumpka site to the Safety Harbor culture area supports the argument that the sherd from Old Okahumpka was from a vessel obtained from Safety Harbor people. The Briarwoods site dates from the Pinellas Phase (A.D. 1100-1500) of the Safety Harbor culture (Milanich 1994:389; THE FnoREDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) OLD OKAHUMPKA SITE AND PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY Mitchem 1989:561-563). The reader should note that I changed my estimation of the ending date for the Engle- wood Phase and the beginning date for the subsequent Pinellas Phase from A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1100 after comple- tion of my dissertation (Mitchem 1989). This was based on the radiocarbon date of the copper-covered wooden baton from Tatham and a reconsideration of the scant evidence from other sites with Englewood components (Mitchem 1989:559-561). If the sherd with adorno from Old Okahumpka is accepted as Safety Harbor Incised, it allows us to propose a slightly more restricted date range for the site. Combining the Pinellas Phase date range with that proposed for the copper plate suggests a range of A.D. 1100-1300 for the construc- tion of the Old Okahumpka mound. Mississippian Iconography and Influence in Peninsular Florida The foregoing discussion of the Old Okahumpka site sets the stage for a more general discussion of Mississippian influence in the peninsular portion of Florida. Old Okahum- pka is a good example of a small, seemingly insignificant site that yielded information of importance for interpreting aboriginal cultural relations in late prehistoric Florida. We are indeed fortunate that Clarence B. Moore chose to report and publish his findings, and that the artifacts were curated in museum collections. The Old Okahumpka copper plate, although incomplete, exhibits a number of recognizable traits. The figure appears to be dancing, is wearing a "fringed kilt," a double belt or sash, and cuffed moccasins, and is holding what may be a knife or blade in its right hand (Hamilton et al. 1974:157- 159, Figure 97; Phillips and Brown 1978:207). Phillips and Brown (1978:Figure 217) and Hamilton et al. (1974:157- 159) note the remarkable similarity of the Old Okahumpka specimen to two other copper plates, one from the Spiro site in Oklahoma, and the other from an unidentified site in Jackson County, Alabama. They are all oblong-shaped, they depict kilted dancers facing the right side of the plates, and all are wearing double belts or sashes and cuffed mocca- sins. However, the Old Okahumpka plate is the only one of the three where the dancer holds a knife. The fact that the Old Okahumpka plate is very similar to one from the Spiro site is interesting because of the great similarity of one of the plates from Mount Royal to one from Spiro. Excavated and illustrated by Moore (1894a:32, Figure 1), the Mount Royal specimen is square, and depicts four "forked eyes" and blades, alternating around a central boss of concentric circles. Hamilton et al. (1974:Figure 54c) and Phillips and Brown (1978:Figure 270) illustrate an almost identical specimen from Spiro. There is virtually no doubt that they were manufac- tured by the same person, or that the second one was made by someone who had seen the plate that was produced first. Hamilton et al. (1974:Figure 53a) also illustrate another square plate from Spiro that has a similar arrangement of elements. The possible Spiro connection also is evident at the Tatham Figure 4. Radiograph of copper-covered wooden baton from Burial 109 at the Tatham Mound. The flaring end with the peg carved in the wood is at the lower left in this photograph. The object near the middle of the baton is an attached rib fragment. Length of baton is 19 cm. Photograph by William R. Maples. Mound in Citrus County. The Tatham Mound consisted of two strata, with the upper stratum containing a minimum of 338 individuals (Hutchinson 1991, personal communication, 1995) dating to the period A.D. 1525-1550, based on associated European artifacts (Mitchem and Leader 1988). The lower stratum contained a minimum of only 28 individuals (Hutchin- son 1991, personal communication, 1995), dating from the period A.D. 900-1150. It is this precontact stratum which is of concern here. Four copper objects were excavated from the lower stratum of the Tatham Mound, all in direct association with primary burials (Mitchem 1989:419-433). One adult (Burial 105), of indeterminate sex, was wearing a simple, copper ear spool on the right ear, with a convex central portion and a row of raised, embossed dots around the edge (Mitchem 1989:428, Figure 19). An almost exact duplicate was found by Moore (1894b:142, Figure 7) at the Mount Royal site. MITCHEM THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Figure 5. Photograph of vessel fragment from the Old Okahumpka site. Length between farthest left and right points is approximately 8 cm. Courtesy of the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution (Specimen number 17/285). Photograph by David Heald. Approximately 2.4 gm of galena were found near the cranium of Burial 105, and there were about 330 shell beads on the right wrist and legs. There also was a second, isolated cranium lyingin the chest area. Burial 105 also had a mass of embossed copper and organic material (possibly including textile pseudo- morphs and cordage) in the shoulder area. A radiograph of this object (Figure 8) revealed that it was an embossed copper plume ornament (Milanich 1994:404-406; Mitchem 1989:420-428, Figures 19 and 20). Both ends and parts of the edges were missing, with the remaining portion measuring about 23 cm long. It was curved, and had a "notch" or sudden narrowing of width a few centimeters from the base. The location of the ornament suggests that it was worn in the hair, probably in a bun at the back of the head as depicted on copper plates and cutouts from Spiro (Brown 1996:Figure 2-109; Hamilton 1952:Plate 73; Hamilton et al. 1974:150, Figures 50 and 88; Phillips and Brown 1978:191, Figures 249 and 250). Similar copper plume ornaments have come from Spiro (Brown 1996:Figure 2-117, Table 2-166; Burnett 1945:Plate 73; Hamilton 1952:52-53, Plates 71, 74, 75, and 77; Hamilton et al. 1974:150, Figures 91 and 92), the Etowah site in Georgia (Moorehead 1979:68; Thomas 1985:306, Figure 188; Waring 1996 VOL. 49(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MITCHEM OLD OKAHLIMPKA SITE AN]) PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY 0 1 2 3 4 5cm Figure 6. Vessel fragment from the Briarwoods site. Drawing by Mary Lee Eggart, Louisiana State University. and Holder 1945:17; Willoughby 1979:43-44, Figure 19), and Lake Jackson (Jones 1982:18). Less than 5 cm to the immediate east of Burial 105, a circular copper plate was recovered (Milanich 1994:404-405; Mitchem 1989:419-420, Figure 18). Measuring 23 cm in diameter, it had a small (ca. .5 cm diameter) hole in the center, and had a mass of organic material preserved on its upper surface. One edge was bent, but the plate was otherwise intact. A radiograph of the plate (Milanich 1994:405) revealed that it had been repaired in two places by attaching patches of sheet copper using rivets of rolled sheet copper. The radiograph also revealed a row of small, raised, embossed dots around the edge. The complete skeleton of a human infant (Burial 133) was beneath the plate. Bones of a juvenile were also found in the immediate vicinity, but it was not possible to determine whether they were associat- ed with the plate (Mitchem 1989:479-483). It should be mentioned that the skeleton of an adult female (Burial 102) was lying parallel to Burial 105, with the copper plate between the two. Burial 102 was oriented with her head to the north, while Burial 105 was oriented opposite, with the head to the south. Accompanying Burial 102 were two almost identical ground and polished stone celts. A third celt, 177 shell beads, and 24.2 gm of galena also may have been associated with Burial 102. The uncertainty was due to the presence of the burial of a juvenile (Burial 93) 10 cm above Burial 102 (Mitchem 1989:474-475). Nearby, the primary interment of an adult female (Burial 109) had a copper-covered wooden baton in the chest area. Based on examination of preserved wood cells, Lee A. Newsom (personal communication, 1988) was able to identify the wood as cypress (Taxodium sp.). A radiograph (Figure 4) of the object revealed that one end was intact, while the other was largely destroyed. It was 19 cm long, symmetrical, and had a peg carved from the wood at the flared end. Preserved fibrous material may have originally been tied to this peg. Most of the wood was removed and used for an AMS radiocarbon date (2a range of cal AD 992-1228 [Beta-30452]). The shape of the object resembles batons or maces depicted in shell engravings (Phillips and Brown 1978:153), sheet-copper plates (Hamilton et al. 1974:Figure 93; Waring and Holder 1945:Figure 31-w), and, most interesting, on Safety Harbor pottery vessels (Luer 1993:Figures 2 and 5; Mitchem 1989:Figure 5; Mitchem et al. 1985:190, Figures 7 and 8). The shape is reminiscent of a wooden celt handle and (less convincingly) a mace-shaped club from Key Marco (Gilliland 1975:Plates 81b and 86), as well as the handle ends of some monolithic axes (Brehm and Smother- man 1989; Waring 1977a; Waring and Holder 1945:Figure 3f- k). The size of the Tatham specimen precludes its use as a mace, club, or celt handle. It was undoubtedly a symbolic (or socio- technic) artifact, and probably included hair or some other fibrous material tied to the peg on the end for a streamer effect, as depicted in some copper plates (Thomas 1985:Plate 17; Waring and Holder 1945:Figure 31, p). It is noteworthy that the person accompanied by the baton was female, perhaps support- ing the hypothesis that at least some of the beings depicted in Mississippian copper and shell art were female (Brown 1982; Thomas 1995). The copper material from Old Okahumpka, Mount Royal, and Tatham would fall into what Knight (1986:677-678) termed the "warfare/cosmogony complex" Mississippian iconic family. The "long nosed god" masks from the Grant Mound would also fall within this category (Goggin 1952:Plate 9a-b; Williams and Goggin 1956). As defined by Knight (1986:675), these artifacts and the particular artwork on them would have denoted specific supernatural meanings to the people who possessed them, in the contexts of rituals or on occasions when they were displayed. But the question arises whether any of the late prehistoric cultures in peninsular Florida (the Fort Walton and Pensacola regions of northwest Florida are not included in this discussion) were truly Mississippian, and if not, why. To address these questions, it is first necessary to define the term "Mississippi- an." Knight (1986:677) prefers the generalized definition by Griffin (1985:63), which is broader and more inclusive than another widely cited definition by Smith (1978:486). It is appropriate to reproduce Griffin's definition in its entirety. The Mississippian societies of the Eastern United States may be identified as those which: [1] Developed many cultural innovations over much of the cultural- ly defined Southeast between A.D. 700 and 900. [2] Added these disparate innovations to local cultural inventories by contact between neighboring and distant groups. [3] Increased in population, resulting from an augmented energy input from a more effective agronomy. [4] Constructed planned permanent towns and ceremonial centers, villages and subsidiary support hamlets, farmsteads, and other extractive camps. [5] Had regional and temporal variations of a hierarchical social, political, and religious structure. [6] Participated in an area-wide belief system that integrated and emphasized the complex interaction of the spirit world and man, and ritualized these concepts in an elaborate symbolic iconography on marine shells, copper, ceramics, and stone. [7] Had an extensive trade network, of rivers and trails, over which manufactured symbolic and mundane items and raw materials were moved either to neighboring or distant societies. [8] Reached an area-wide cultural crest between A.D. 1200 and MITCHEM OLD OKAHumpIKA SrrE AND PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY ~... 4 Figure 7. Photograph of vessel fragment from the Briarwoods site. Photograph by the author. MITCHEM OLD OKAHUMPKA SITE AND PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY 1500, and slowly receded to less formally organized and con- trolled groups of the post-A.D. 1700 colonial period [Griffin 1985:63; numbers added for emphasis]. It is beyond the scope of this paper to present a complete examination of this issue. Instead, the bulk of the following discussion will pertain to a consideration of the participa- tion of peninsular Florida populations in the "area-wide belief system" described in [6] above. Widmer (1989) described what he termed the South Florida Ceremonial Complex for the Calusa-dominated area of south Florida. He noted certain striking differences between the iconography of south Florida and what is commonly considered typical of the Southeastern Ceremo- nial Complex (1989:172). He highlighted the probable Hopewellian origin of many of the portrayals of animals, while acknowledging some attenuated Mississippian influences. Much the same can probably be said for the Safety Harbor culture area north of the Calusa-controlled region (Milanich 1994:390). Mount Royal, Old Okahumpka, and Tatham are the southernmost sites in Florida that contain copper artifacts bearing Southeastern Ceremonial Complex iconography. Farther south in the St. Johns drainage, central Florida, and in the Gulf Coastal Plain, these objects are absent. Widmer (1989:169) notes that, with the exception of copper ear- spools, native copper artifacts are generally lacking in south Florida. The Safety Harbor culture can be used as an example for interpreting the sparse distribution of Southeastern Ceremo- nial Complex artifacts in peninsular Florida. When Safety Harbor decorated pottery is examined, it will be noted that human and animal representations are rare. In addition to the occasional human-head adorno (discussed above), there are two general naturalistic motifs that occur fairly often: human hands and birds. Human hands have been noted on vessels from one of the Wilson Mounds (8SO70 or 8SO77) (Luer 1993:Figure 3), Aqui Esta (8CH68) (Luer 1985:Fig- ure 3c), Tierra Verde (8PI51) (Sears 1967:Figure 8:1; Warren et al. 1965), Tatham (8CI203) (Mitchem 1989:Figure 5), Picnic (8HI3) (Milanich 1994:408), and other Safety Harbor sites, exclusively from burial contexts. At Tatham and Tierra Verde, the hands were combined with depictions of maces or batons. Bird symbolism on Safety Harbor pottery most often consists of bird feet (Luer 1993:Figures 3 and 5; Willey 1949:Figure 63e), with occasional adorno heads (Mitchem 1989:Figure 7) or stylized feather depictions (Willey 1949:Figure 64). The vessel from Wilson exhibits both bird feet and human hand appliques (Luer 1993:Figure 3). Willey (1949:479-482), Luer (1985:Figures 1-3, 1993:Figure 2), and Luer and Almy (1987:311-315) discuss decorative traits of Safety Harbor Incised and related Safety Harbor pottery types, noting the Mississippian influence that is evident. Rands (1957) has noted that the hand-and-eye motif is widespread in the New World, from Peru to the Northwest Coast, though not in continuous distribution. The hand symbol in Florida may be indigenous rather than derived from Mississippian origins. Even Figure 8. Radiograph of embossed copper plume ornament from Burial 105 at the Tatham Mound. Length of ornament when bent end is straightened is approximately 23 cm. Radiograph by William R. Maples. though the hand motif occurs in association with the mace or baton symbol in at least two cases (Tatham and Tierra Verde), this does not support the argument that all aboriginal depictions of hands in Florida are evidence of Mississippian influence. In addition, most (but not all) "typical" Southeastern Ceremonial Complex hand depictions include an eye, either on the hand or nearby (Fundaburk and Foreman 1985:Plates 38 and 113). The late prehistoric bird symbolism in peninsular Florida is quite different from "typical" Southeastern Ceremonial Complex portrayals, and appears to be more of an indigenous develop- ment out of Weeden Island (Milanich et al. 1984:163-184) and even earlier, Hopewell-related motifs (Webb and Baby 1957:102-108; Widmer 1989:172; Willey 1948). The difference is highlighted in the south Florida crested-bird ornaments, many made of European-derived metal, and the painted and carved depictions of birds from Key Marco (Gilliland 1975:Plates 34, 61, and 127, 1989:Plate 20; Goggin 1947a; Rau 1878). Most of these depictions portray Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Gore 1995). While woodpeckers are common motifs in Southeastern MITCHEM OLD OKAAUMPKA SrrE AND PREmISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL 49(4) Ceremonial Complex artwork (Waring and Holder 1945:Figure 5), the Florida depictions are executed in a unique style. A south Florida style, carved woodpecker pin from the Etowah site in Georgia is made from marine turtle shell and had shark teeth accompanying it (Larson 1993), supporting its coastal Florida origin. Although Etowah is considered a center of Southeastern Ceremonial Complex art objects, other bird and woodpecker depictions on artifacts from the site (in marine shell and copper) are stylistically distinct from the south Florida depictions (Brain and Phillips 1996:132-175). Clearly, Safety Harbor pottery shows Mississippian influence, but it is attenuated or "watered-down." The extreme paucity of Southeastern Ceremonial Complex iconography on items of marine shell, copper, and stone from peninsular Florida is also noteworthy, although it is possible that additional artwork was on wood that has not survived. The Lack of True Mississippian Cultures in Peninsular Florida The Safety Harbor culture serves as an example to illustrate how cultural groups in peninsular Florida interacted with Mississippian cultures to the north and west, while also presenting the opportunity to offer an interpretive hypothesis about why the peninsular Florida groups did not become fully "Mississippianized." The Safety Harbor culture area extends from roughly Char- lotte Harbor on the south to the Withlacoochee River in Citrus County on the north (Milanich 1994:390). There is some evidence that the eastern boundary should be extended farther east than it is in the map published by Milanich (but see article by Clagett, this issue). Prior to the development of the Safety Harbor culture, the entire region was occupied by Weeden Island-related groups. In fact, many Safety Harbor sites have Weeden Island components underlying the Safety Harbor occupations (Milanich 1994:227). There is little doubt that Safety Harbor groups were direct descendants of Weeden Island-related populations. There is no evidence of an influx of immigrant populations nor is there any indication of depopulation of the region at the end of the late Weeden Island Period. Weeden Island-related cultures in the North Peninsular Coast and Manasota regions (as defined by Milanich 1994:206) were spread over diverse habitats, with the largest settlements along the Gulf coast. But riverine areas and interior wetlands also supported sizable populations (Milanich 1994:205-227). Weisman (1986:20) has noted that around A.D. 600 some Weeden Island-related habitation sites in the Cove of the Withlacoochee area (at the northern end of the Safety Harbor culture area) began to shift away from purely riverine adapta- tions to drier locations. He postulated that this shift may have been related to the development or increased reliance on horticulture, but there is as yet no archaeological evidence for this. Sometime around A.D. 900, the Weeden Island cultural system changed, and the people began producing Englewood and related pottery types, followed by the more typical Safety Harbor types (Willey 1949:472-486). These cultural changes were undoubtedly the result of Mississippian influences, possibly coupled with general climatic and environmental changes. But what was the nature of the influences, and why didn't the Weeden Island cultures become fully Mississippian? Phillips and Brown (1978:206-208) suggested that the Mount Royal site might have served as "a center of dispersal in the marine shell trade" (1978:207). To support their contention, they note the huge number of "killed" Busycon shells recovered by Moore from the mound, many of which came from the same individuals who were buried with copper objects. They go on to speculate that the richly accompanied burials may have been entrepreneurs in the shell trade who were exchanging marine shells for finished copper objects (Phillips and Brown 1978:207- 208). Large numbers of Busycon and other marine whelk shells are often recovered from Safety Harbor burial contexts as well (Mitchem 1989), and many of these also may have been destined for exchange with Mississippian groups in the interior Southeast. The people buried at the Tatham Mound and other Safety Harbor sites in the area between Tampa Bay and the Withlacoochee River were probably heavily involved in the shell trade, and they may have been dealing directly with the St. Johns people at Mount Royal. The copper objects at both Tatham and the Old Okahumpka site may have been obtained from entrepreneurs at Mount Royal, who had received the finished copper objects in exchange for shells they had shipped north or west. The ultimate destination may have been the Spiro site, although a number of intermediaries were probably involved. In fact, it is likely that the many elaborate engraved shells and copper artifacts found at Spiro were manufactured elsewhere (Schambach 1988:8, 1993). The Lake Jackson site (Jones 1982) also may have been part of this long-distance network. The proximity of Mount Royal to both Tatham and Old Okahumpka argues for that route of shipment, rather than direct contact of Safety Harbor and Oklawaha River peoples with Lake Jackson. The lack of Southeastern Ceremonial Complex artifacts from the region north of the Withlacoochee River supports this hypothesis. But if the Safety Harbor groups (and the St. Johns drainage groups as well) were directly involved in a Mississippian trade network, why were the effects on artifact styles and other aspects of their culture so attenuated? The answer may lie in environmental factors, specifically rivers. Rivers in peninsular Florida tend to be of either the spring-fed or blackwater types, which do not flood and deposit alluvium (Estevez et al. 1984). In contrast, rivers in the interior South- east and the Mississippi Valley tend to flood seasonally, creating alluvial floodplains which are prized as cropland to this day (Foti 1993j Saucier 1974). Mississippian groups sought such areas, which were well-suited for intensive maize agriculture. In fact, Larson (1972) suggested that some of the widespread warfare among Mississippian groups was due to competition for prime alluvial bottomlands. Gary Shapiro (1986) observed that rivers in Florida tended to be used as sociopolitical boundaries during Mississippian time, whereas rivers in the interior Southeast and Mississippi Valley THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) MITCHEM OLD OKAIIUMPKA SITE AND PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY were generally centers of Mississippian polities. He found that this model was supported by site distributions in the Apalachee area in northern Florida, as well as by subsequent historical and archaeological research (Hann 1988). The model is apparently valid for at least the northern Safety Harbor area as well, where the Withlacoochee River forms the northern boundary of the Safety Harbor culture area (Mitchem 1989:571-572). When Mississippian influences reached west peninsular Florida around A.D. 900, it was ecologically impossible for the proto- Safety Harbor groups (or very late Weeden Island peoples) to adopt intensive maize agriculture. Suitable expanses of alluvial soils did not exist in the area. Recent stable isotope research on skeletal remains from several Safety Harbor populations has confirmed that these people were not eating large quantities of maize (Dale L. Hutchinson, personal communication, 1996). The predominant settlement pattern of Safety Harbor groups north of Tampa Bay was one of very small settlements scattered throughout the swamps and along rivers. This dispersed settlement pattern was well-adapted to exploit efficiently the various botanical and faunal resources in the region. So in addition to the lack of alluvial soils for intensive maize agricul- ture, the populations were well-adapted to their environment with its abundant wild resources, leaving no reason to resettle in nucleated settlements. The only communal earthwork structures in the region were isolated burial mounds (Mitchem 1988), probably used by kin-based groups. The lack of a nucleated or hierarchical settlement system in the northern Safety Harbor area makes it unlikely that a chiefdom level of social organization was operating in this region. But alternatively, the presence of large settlements with platform mounds (Luer and Almy 1981) in the Circum-Tampa Bay and South-Central subareas (Milanich 1994:394-400) of the Safety Harbor culture area does indicate that chiefdoms were present in these coastal regions. Historical accounts of the 1567 visit of Pedro Menendez de Avil6s to Tocobaga (Solis de Meris 1964:223-229) strongly support the existence of a hierarchical chiefdom sociopolitical system in the Tampa Bay area during the Bayview phase (A.D. 1567-1725), although it is difficult to determine how long such chiefdoms had been in existence. When Griffin's (1985:63) definition of Mississippian society is examined in light of what is known about the Safety Harbor culture, the first two and last two points (numbers 1, 2, 7, and 8) are indeed seen as characteristic. But the other four (numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6) are not demonstrable using currently available archaeological data, with the possible exception of number 5 for the Bayview Phase. The reasons discussed for the failure of Mississippian culture to influence Safety Harbor culture more thoroughly are probably also valid for the upper St. Johns River basin and other parts of peninsular Florida. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex artifacts from Tatham, Old Okahumpka, Mount Royal, and other sites in northern peninsular Florida are the result of exchange, probably associated with the marine-shell trade. At this point, we can only speculate about whether the Mississippi- an religious meanings and ritual significance of these items traveled to Florida with them, or whether they were viewed instead as symbols of status or wealth. The artifacts from the Old Okahumpka site reveal that Safety Harbor groups and those in the St. Johns basin were involved in the same long-distance exchange networks. Notes There is some disagreement about the date of publication of this work and others by Moore. The date often cited for the Oklawaha paper is 1896. However, a list of his publications compiled by Moore cites itas 1895, and that date is used in this paper. Acknowledgments The evolution of this paper began in the 1980s, while I was conducting my doctoral research and writing my dissertation at the University of Florida. Although I had received my Master's degree (based on research in Idaho) from the University of South Florida under Ray Williams' direction, he was also very helpful and supportive of me during my dissertation-writing period. Ray read and commented on several chapters, and also provided some hard-to-get information and access to collections. This paper is intended as a tribute to that spirit of mentoring. Many others deserve thanks for help. From the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation (before it became part of the Smithsonian Institution), Ellen Jamieson and Ruth S. Taylor were helpful in obtaining photographs and collection information. From the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, Shilice Clinkscales granted permission to publish two photographs. Carol Spawn of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia granted permission to publish an illustration from one of Clarence Moore's figures from the Academy's journal. Charles B. Poe prepared Figure 1. Mary Lee Eggart of Louisiana State University did the drawing in Figure 6. William R. Maples of the Florida Museum of Natural History kindly took the radio- graphs in Figures 4 and 8. Portions of the research reported here were supported by grants to Jerald T. Milanich from the Division of Parks and Recreation, Florida Department of Natural Resources. Piers Anthony also supported the Tatham Mound research and some of the related background research. Robert H. Gore and Bob Austin helped in various ways. I am grateful to all of these individuals. This paper was improved by discussions with my colleague Frank F. Schambach, and by the comments and suggestions of several anonymous reviewers. References Cited Allen, L. 1936 History of Lake County. Russell L. Fuller, editor. Federal Writers' Project, American Guide, Orlando. Bense, Judith A. 1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War I. Academic Press, San Diego. Brain, Jeffrey P., and Philip Phillips 1996 Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric South- east. Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge. Brehm, H. C., and Travis Smotherman 1989 Tennessee's Aboriginal Art: The Monolithic Axe. Mini-Histories, Nash- ville. Brinton, Daniel G. 1978 A Guide-book of Florida and the South, for Tourists, Invalids and Emigrants. 1978 facsimile edition. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Originally published 1869. G. Maclean, Philadelphia. Brown, Catherine 1982 On the Gender of the Winged Being on Mississippian Period Copper Plates. Tennessee Anthropologist 7:1-8. Brown, James A. 1996 The Spiro Ceremonial Center: The Archaeology of Arkansas Valley Caddoan Culture in Eastern Oklahoma. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 29. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. MITCHEM OLD OKAHUMlPKA SITE AND PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY THE FLORIDA Ar.mmoPoLoGisT 1996 VOL 49(4) Burnett, E. K. 1945 The Spiro Mound Collection in the Museum. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation Vol. 14. New York. Covington, James W. 1993 The Seminoles of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Estevez, Ernest D., Bradley J. Hartman, Randy Kautz, and Elizabeth D. Purdum 1984 Ecosystems of Surface Waters. In Water Resources Atlas of Florida, edited by Edward A. Fernald and Donald J. Patton, pp. 92-107. Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Foti, Thomas 1993 The River's Gifts and Curses. In The Arkansas Delta: Land of Paradox, edited by Jeannie Whayne and Willard B. Gatewood, pp. 30-57. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. Fowler, Melvin L. 1991 Mound 72 and Early Mississippian at Cahokia. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 1-28. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 2. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Fundaburk, Emma Lila, and Mary Douglass Foreman (editors) 1985 Sun Circles and Human Hands: The Southeastern Indians Art and Industry. Reprinted. Southern Publications, Fairhope, Alabama. Originally published 1957, Emma Lila Fundaburk, Luverne, Alabama. Galloway, Patricia (editor) 1989 The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Gannon, Michael 1993 Florida: A Short History. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Gilliland, Marion Spjut 1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 1989 Key Marco's Buried Treasure: Archaeology and Adventure in the Nine- teenth Century. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Goggin, John M. 1947a Manifestations of a South Florida Cult in Northwestern Florida. Ameri- can Antiquity 12:273-276. 1947b A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Flori- da. American Antiquity 13:114-127. 1948a Culture and Geography in Florida Prehistory. Ph.D. dissertation, De- partment of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven. 1948b Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Bulletin No. 1. Gainesville Anthropological Association, Gainesville. 1949 A Southern Cult Specimen from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 2:36-38. 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology, Florida. Publications in Anthropology No. 47. Yale University, New Haven. Goodman, Claire Garber 1984 Copper Artifacts in Late Eastern Woodlands Prehistory. Edited by Anne-Marie Cantwell. Center for American Archeology, Evanston, Illinois. Gore, Robert H. 1995 Cushing's "Bird God of War" Solving a Key Marco Mystery. The Florida Anthropologist 48:194-199. Griffin, James B. 1985 Changing Concepts of the Prehistoric Mississippian Cultures of the Eastern United States. In Alabama and the Borderlands from Prehistory to Statehood, edited by R. Reid Badger and Lawrence A. Clayton, pp. 40-63. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Hamilton, Henry W. 1952 The Spiro Mound. The Missouri Archaeologist 14:1-88. Hamilton, Henry W., Jean Tyree Hamilton, and Eleanor F. Chapman 1974 Spiro Mound Copper. Memoir No. 11. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia. Hann, John H. 1988 Apalachee: TheLand Between the Rivers. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Hutchinson, Dale L. 1991 Postcontact Native American Health and Adaptation: Assessing the Impact of Introduced Diseases in Sixteenth-Centuy Gulf Coast Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Jones, B. Calvin 1982 Southern Cult Manifestations at the Lake Jackson Site, Leon County, Florida: Salvage Excavation of Mound 3. Midcontinetal Journal of Archaeology 7:3-44. Kennedy, Willian T., Lillian D. Vickers-Smith, Elizabeth Rock Quirk, and Arthur H. Cawston (Editors) 1929 History of Lake County, Florida: Narrative and Biographical. The Record Company, St. Augustine. Knight, Vernon James, Jr. 1986 The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion. American Antiquity 51:675-687. Kramer, F. C. W., Jr. 1959 Memories of Passenger and Cargo Boats on the Inland Lakes. Lake County Then and Now 2(3):5. Larson, Lewis H. 1972 Functional Considerations of Warfare in the Southeast During the Mississippi Period. American Antiquity 37:383-392. 1993 An Examination of the Significance of a Tortoise-Shell Pin from the Etowah Site. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 169-185. Archaeological Report No. 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Luer, George M. 1985 Some Comments on Englewood Incised, Safety Harbor Incised, and Scarry's Proposed Ceramic Changes. The Florida Anthropologist 38:236-239. 1993 A Safety Harbor Incised Bottle with Effigy Bird Feet and Human Hands from a Possible Headman Burial, Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46:238-250. Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy 1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida Anthropologist 34:127-155. 1987 The Laurel Mound (8So98) and Radial Burials with Comments on the Safety Harbor Period. The Florida Anthropologist 40:301-320. Mahon, John K. 1967 History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon J. Knight, Jr., Timothy A. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle 1984 McKeithen Weeden Island: The Culture of Northern Florida, A.D. 200- 900. Academic Press, Orlando. Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1985 Excavation of the Briarwoods Site (8-PA-66), Pasco County, Florida. Florida Scientist 48:161-165. 1986 Comments on Some Ceramic Pastes of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast. The Florida Anthropologist 39:68-74. 1988 Some Alternative Interpretations of Safety Harbor Burial Mounds. Florida Scientist 51:100-107. 1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Arhaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Mitchem, Jeffrey M., and Jonathan M. Leader 1988 Early Sixteenth Century Beads from the Tatham Mound, Citrus County, Florida: Data and Interpretations. The Florida Anthropologist41:42-60. Mitchem, Jeffrey M., Marvin T. Smith, Albert C. Goodyear, and Robert R. Allen 1985 Early Spanish Contact on the Florida Gulf Coast: The Weeki Wachee and Ruth Smith Mounds. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves: Essays in Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks, edited by Kenneth W. Johnson, Jonathan M. Leader, and Robert C. Wilson, pp. 179-219. Florida 1996 Vo. 49(4) THE FLOREDA ANTHROPOLX;GSgr MITCHEM OLD OKAHUMPKA Sim AND PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY Journal of Anthropology Special Publication No. 4. Florida Anthropolo- gy Student Association, University of Florida, Gainesville. Moore, Clarence B. 1894a Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part I. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:5-128. 1894b Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part II. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:129-246. 1895 Certain Sand Mounds of the Ocklawaha River, Florida. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:517-543. Moorehead, Warren King 1979 Exploration of the Etowah Site in Georgia. In Etowah Papers, edited by Warren King Moorehead, pp. 1-6, 68-106, 151-178. Reprinted. Charley G. Drake, Union City, Georgia. Originally published 1932, Yale University Press, New Haven. Muller, Jon 1989 The Southern Cult. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by Patricia Galloway, pp. 11-26. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Phillips, Philip, and James A. Brown 1978 Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Part 1. Paperback edition. Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge. Rands, Robert L. 1957 Comparative Notes on the Hand-Eye and Related Motifs. American Antiquity 22:247-257. Rau, Charles 1878 Observations on a Gold Ornament from a Mound in Florida. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1877:298-302. Washington, D.C. Saucier, Roger T. 1974 Quaternary Geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 6. Fayetteville. Scarry, John F. 1985 A Proposed Revision of the Fort Walton Ceramic Typology: A Type- Variety System. The Florida Anthropologist 38:199-233. Schambach, Frank F. 1988 The Archaeology of Oklahoma. The Quarterly Review ofArchaeology 9(4):5-9. 1993 Some New Interpretations of Spiroan Culture History. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 187-230. Archaeological Report No. 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Sears, William H. 1967 The Tierra Verde Burial Mound. The Florida Anthropologist 20:25-73. Shapiro, Gary 1986 Rivers as Centers, Rivers as Boundaries: Florida Variations on a Mississippian Theme. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Smith, Bruce D. 1978 Variation in Mississippian Settlement Patterns. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 479-503. Academic Press, New York. Soils de Meras, Gonzalo 1964 PedroMenindezdeAvilis, Adelantado, Governor and Captain-General of Florida. Memorial. Translated by Jeannette Thurber Connor. Reprinted. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Originally published 1923, Florida State Historical Society, DeLand. Stuiver, Minze, and Gordon W. Pearson 1993 High-Precision Bidecadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950-500 BC and 2500-6000 BC. Radiocarbon 35:1-23. Thomas, Cyrus 1985 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Reprinted. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Originally published 1894, Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-91, pp. 3-742, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Thomas, Larissa 1995 Women in Mississippian Iconography. Abstract. SoutheasternArchaeo- logical Conference Bulletin 38:39. Knoxville, Tennessee. Thunen, Robert L., and Keith H. Ashley 1995 Mortuary Behavior Along the Lower St. Johns: An Overview. The Florida Anthropologist 48:3-12. Waring, Antonio J., Jr. 1977a Monolithic Axes. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works ofAnto- nio J. Waring, Jr. (revised edition), edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 78-86. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 58. Harvard University, Cambridge. 1977b The Southern Cult and Muskhogean Ceremonial. In The Waring Pa- pers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr. (revised edition), edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 30-69. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 58. Harvard University, Cam- bridge. Waring, Antonio J., Jr., and Preston Holder 1945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States. American Anthropologist 47:1-34. Warren, Lyman O., Francis Bushnell, and Gerard Spence 1965 Six Contributions to the Hand Motif from the Safety Harbor Burial Mound on Cabbage Key, Pinellas County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 18:235-238. Webb, William S., and Raymond S. Baby 1957 The Adena People No. 2. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus. Weisman, Brent 1986 The Cove of the Withlacoochee: A First Look at the Archaeology of an Interior Florida Wetland. The Florida Anthropologist 39:4-23. Widmer, Randolph J. 1989 The Relationship of Ceremonial Artifacts from South Florida with the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by Patricia Galloway, pp. 166- 180. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Willey, Gordon R. 1948 A Prototype for the Southern Cult. American Antiquity 13:328-330. 1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113, Washington, D.C. Williams, Stephen, and John M. Goggin 1956 The Long Nosed God Mask in Eastern United States. The Missouri Archaeologist 18(3):1-72. Williamson, ----- (No first name given) 1939 Excerpts from Florida 7Tmes Union and Citizen, Special Edition, February 1898. P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History, University of Florida, Gainesville. Willoughby, Charles C. 1979 Notes on the History and Symbolism of the Muskhogeans and the People of Etowah. In Etowah Papers, edited by Warren King Moore- head, pp. 7-66. Reprinted. Charley G. Drake, Union City, Georgia. Originally published 1932, Yale University Press, New Haven. MITrCHEM OLD OKAHUMPKA SrrE AND PREHISTORIC ICONOGRAPHY THE FISHING HERITAGE OF GULF COASTAL FLORIDA Six Thousand Years of fishing Tradition The story begins where land meets sea. From the Calusa Indians to modern fisherfolk, explore our Gulf Coast fishing heritage. A traveling exhibit from The Florida Museum of Natural History Witness A Legend SApalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve Apalachicola, FL September 10-October 3, 1996 Cedar Key State Museum Cedar Key, FL October 15-November 7, 1996 St. Petersburg Museum of History St. Petersburg, FL November 19-December 12, 1996 Florida Adventure Museum Punta Gorda, FL December 23, 1996-February 28, 1997 Museum of the Islands Pine Island, FL March 11-April 3, 1997 I Smallwood Store Museum Chokoloskee, FL April 15-May 9, 1997 Illustrations by Merald Clark With the Calusa as the inspiration,The Florida Museum of Natural History proudly offers an exhibit that travels through Florida's exciting past. For more information, please contact the Traveling Exhibits Office at (352)392-1721 HUMANITIES l5-' 2E Eyr. T- R 33e9S-3 OCCUPATIONAL NEXUS MODELING IN THE INTERIOR CENTRAL GULF COAST OF FLORIDA HEATHER LEA CLAGETI' Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com The number of archaeological investigations undertaken in the interior region of Florida's Central Gulf Coast is much less than in other areas of the state. The majority of work done in this region is the result of cultural resource management surveys and excavations, many involving the counsel and advice of Ray Williams. During the 1980s and '90s, this region was interpret- ed as the heartland of a variant to the archaeological culture known as Safety Harbor (Deming and Williams 1994; Wharton and Williams 1980; Willis and Johnson 1980). Moreover, it was observed that sites identified as Safety Harbor appear to cluster on the landscape (Deming and Williams 1994; Willis and Johnson 1980). Williams believed the area to have been inhabited by an extension of the Safety Harbor culture, based on the presence of diagnostic ceramic types (Wharton and Williams 1980). In Jeffrey Mitchem's 1989 dissertation, the area was described as a regional variant of Safety Harbor. Mitchem asserted that the existing data were insufficient to truly define this interior variant (Mitchem 1989). An extensive literature review undertaken for the present study has shown that the data are still insufficient for these purposes (Clagett 1995). However, despite the lack of evidence necessary to assign a specific cultural affiliation to sites located in the interior Central Gulf Coast region, the existing database does lend itself to testing the hypothesis that sites in the interior Central Gulf Coast region dating from A.D. 800 to A.D. 1725 form settlement clusters on the landscape (Clagett 1995). The current study seeks not to define the culture or cultures manifest in the interior, but instead attempts to reveal and quantify observable settlement patterns present in the region. In order to provide a measure of temporal control, the sampling of sites was limited to those that may have been occupied during the Safety Harbor Period, A.D. 800-1725. This sample consists of sites identified on Florida Site File forms and in cultural resource management reports as being of the Safety Harbor culture or period. These cultural-temporal assignments are based on the presence of diagnostic artifacts at individual sites, primarily ceramics, and occasionally radiocarbon dates. An underlying assumption is that the sites included in this study have been accurately identified with regard to their cultural- temporal placement. Within the framework of the current study, it is important to note that archaeology undertaken anywhere must be built upon prior investigation and interpretation. This study is an attempt to build on a limited data set and interpretations provided in earlier works. By quantifying these data and subjecting them to a statistical test based on the relative distance between each site, it may be possible to support an argument that a cultural relationship exists between sites. The results of this study demonstrate that sites dating from A.D. 800 to A.D. 1725 in the interior Central Gulf Coast region do form settlement clusters and that these clusters are associated with specific microenvironments. Once again, questions concerning cultural affiliation still exist and cannot be addressed through the current data base. However, at the very least, if cultural interpretations for the sites in the sample are correct, characteristics of both the Safety Harbor and Glades cultures appear at sites in this region. The Model To test Deming and Williams's (1994) hypothesis of settlement clustering, an occupational nexus model developed by Jerald Milanich (1978) was employed. The occupational nexus model was developed utilizing five types of Cades Pond archaeological sites. These are: 1) mound with semicircular earthwork and adjacent village; 2) mound with adjacent village located within .5 km; 3) mound with associated village within .5 to 1.5 km; 4) specialized site with dense but localized midden accumulations not indicative of the full range of site activities; and 5) camp sites represented by a diffuse midden (Milanich 1978:166). Milanich (1978) noted that the geographical locations of Cades Pond sites appear to lie in clusters or groups, each of which contain one or more Type 2 or 3 sites. The earlier clusters also contain at least one Type 1 site, and Type 5 sites occur in all clusters. It was suggested that nearest-neighbor analysis could be used to quantify these clusters (Milanich 1978:167). The pattern formed by these clusters is one of related or connected sites occupying a restricted geographic locale, which is relevant to both the social and natural environments (Milanich 1978:167). For example, villages always bordered lakes, ponds, swamps, or marshes, allowing for maximum accessibility to aquatic flora and fauna. This pattern is almost identical to that which exists in the interior Central Gulf Coast region (Clagett 1995:2). Milanich's model resulted in the definition of six Cades Pond occupational nexuses, each of which he believed functioned as separate political units, but which were bound together by social organization, shared beliefs, and economic ties (Milanich 1978:170). Milanich believed the nexus model VOL. 49 No. 4 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 1996 DECEMBER 1996 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 49 No. 4 THE aoRIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VoL. 49(4) Figure 1. Locational map of the study area. could be tested quantitatively for the Cades Pond region and applied to other areas of the state, such as the Lake Okeechobee Basin between ca. 500 B.C. and A.D. 1000 or later. The Study Area The definition of the study area is derived from Mitchem's (1989) description of the Interior Variant of Safety Harbor. Mitchem originally described the inland area as consisting of Polk and Hardee counties, the eastern half of DeSoto County, and possibly portions of Highlands County. As shown in Figure 1, the study area for the current research includes all of Polk, Hardee, and DeSoto counties. A small section of eastern Manatee County also was included because the sites in this area resemble sites in the interior more closely than contemporane- ous sites on the coast (Clagett 1995:27-29). Highlands County was not included as it was determined that the sites in this county are related to the Belle Glade culture, as opposed to Safety Harbor (Austin 1996). A number of microenvironments exist within this broad study area. These are presented in Table 1. Each of the generalized microenvironments lie within all four counties which comprise the study area. Inhabitants of this interior region would have had access to diverse resources contained within all of these microenvironments. Upland areas would have provided deer, raccoon, rabbit, opossum, skunk, bobcat, foxes, and rodents. 0 150 300 Kilometers f---1 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 19 VOL. 49(4) CLAGEIT OCCUPATIONAL NExus MODELING Table 1. Microenvironments and resources within the study area (United States Department of Agriculture 1983a, 1983b, 1984, 1989). Microenvironment Floral, Faunal, and Potable Water Resources Uplands Turkey oak, live oak, longleaf pine, slash pine, saw palmetto, prickly pear, indiangrass. White-tailed deer, squirrel, turkey, bob- white quail, raccoon, rabbit, opossum, skunk, bobcat, gray and red foxes. Flatwoods Slash pine, longleafpine, water oak, saw palmetto, wax myrtle, bay, cypress, maple and gum, with sawgrass and fern as ground cover. Same faunal inhabitants as in the uplands with the addition of wading birds in low areas. Potable water available from small streams passing through these areas. Freshwater Marsh/River Water oak, cypress, cabbage palm, sweet gum, hickory, red maple, sawgrass, sedges and other water-tolerant plants. Waterfowl such as cranes, herons, and ducks, reptiles, amphibians, otter. Potable water year round. Cypress Swamp Sweet bay, sweet gum, cypress, various pines, hickory, water oak, magnolia, cedar, an understory of cattail, royal and cinnamon fern, and a variety of aquatic plants. Numerous species of waterfowl, wood- pecker, otter, alligator and other reptiles, amphibians. Potable water year round. Wild herbaceous plants, grasses, legumes, and hardwood trees yielding nuts, fruit, buds, bark, and foliage provided floral resources. Rivers, swamps, and wetland areas provided a wealth of wading birds, reptiles, otter, and freshwater fishes, as well as sedges, rushes, and reeds. It is important to note that the majority of sites in the sample are located along the conver- gences of at least two different microenvironments. Surely these locations were intentional. Chert outcrops within the study area are relatively rare, as most deposits are deeply buried. However, lithic resources were available at Peace River, Hillsborough River, and Withla- coochee River outcrops. Peace River chert does not appear to have been utilized much outside the Peace River Valley. This phenomenon is likely a result of the poor flaking ability of this chert (Upchurch et al. 1982). Peace River chert often contains large earthy inclusions and has a high opal content which makes it brittle (Robert Austin, personal communication, 1996). The Research Design The data set of 28 sites was compiled from the extant litera- ture as well as the Florida Site File. Before sites could be included in the data set, two specific criteria had to be met: 1) sites must be located in either Hardee, Polk, DeSoto, or eastern Manatee counties; and 2) sites must exhibit an occupation which dates somewhere between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1725. These dates represent the time span for the late prehistoric and protohistoric periods in the cultural chronology for the Central Gulf Coast region as defined by Willey (1949) and correspond to the Safety Harbor culture period as defined by Mitchem (1989). Each recorded site within the study area which has been assigned to this time period was included in the sample to increase statistical confidence. Many of the sites also contain evidence for earlier occupation and thus may have earlier inception dates. Table 2 provides an inventory of each site in the data set (see also Clagett 1995). The majority of sites in the data set were surveyed and excavated as a result of cultural resource management projects. The AMAX Chemical Corporation Pine Level Mine project, phases one and two, and the CF Industries Property project, phases one and two, accounted for the excavation of many of the sites in the data set. A large number of sites dating from the Paleoindian through Weeden Island periods lie within the study atea. Because these sites do not exhibit occupations between A.D. 800-1725, they were not included in the data set and thus do not appear on the map of the study area. Further, a number of sites dating to this period have been recorded since the conclusion of this research. This study is meant only as a preliminary investigation into the region during the chosen time period. There is no magic number of discovered sites which guarantee an accurate occupational history for a study area (Schiffer 1987:341). Thus, archaeologists are limited, yet obligated to working with the data at hand. Although not as intensively surveyed as the coast, large expanses of land within the study area boundaries, i.e., the corporate properties mentioned previously, have been subjected to pedestrian survey, subsurface testing, and excavation. It is believed that a sufficient percentage of land has been investigat- ed to mitigate any biases related to area and sample size which may impact this study (Clagett 1995:37). UTM coordinates for each site were entered into the Geo- graphic Information System, MapInfo. Maps of the study area were produced depicting the locations of all 28 sites. Based on the requirement of a square study area for use of the nearest- neighbor statistic, two equilateral quadrats measuring 4900 km2 were defined (Figure 2). The use of a square increases statistical confidence by assuring more accurate coverage of the study area (Clark and Evans 1954). The northern quadrat consists of seven sites lying within Polk County. These sites include: the Lake Marion I site (8P02), a sand burial mound; the Frostproof Mound (8P07), also a sand burial mound; the Singletary site (8P013), a sand burial site; the Nalcrest site (8P015), a short- term campsite; the Raulerson Mound (8P0123), a sand mound; the Philip Mound (8PO446), a ramped sand mound; and the Haines City River site (8P01036), a midden. The southern quadrat consists of 21 sites in Hardee, DeSoto, and Manatee counties. Site types represented within this quadrat include: eight domiciliary mounds, five sand burial mounds, one temple mound, one site with erected earthworks, two village CLAGETT OCCUPAnoONAL NEXUS MonELmG THE FLORIDA ARrHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Table 2. Archaeological sites included in the data set. Site Name Northern Quadrat Raulerson Mound Haines City River Frostproof Mound Phillip Mound Nalcrest Lake Marion I Singletary Southern Quadrat Bostwick Mound Airstrip Village 4a Airstrip Village 4b Mizell Mound "A" Mizell Mound "B" Mizell Mound "C" Cunningham Mound Keen Mound Complex Sugarbowl Mound Orchard-Fenceline Brandy Branch Village No Name Carlton Ranch No. 1 Cowboy Mound Ona Road Mound Breton Mound Little Mound Welch Mound Davis Mound Pine Level Pine Level 2 Site Number Date Site Type Reference 8P0123 8P01036 8P07 8P0446 8P015 8P02 8P013 8HR52 8MA181 8MA181 8DE31 8DE32 8DE33 8DE34 8HR149 8MA64 8HR11 8DE4 8MA65 8HR5 8HR15 8HR17 8HR18 8HR19 8HR16 8HR1 8DE2 8DE3 500 B.C.-A.D. 1500 500 B.C.-A.D. 1500 A.D. 500-1567 A.D. 800-1600 A.D. 900-1725 A.D. 1500-1567 A.D. 1500-1567 5000 B.C.-A.D.1600 5000 B.C.-A.D. 1500 5000 B.C.-A.D. 1500 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1500 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1500 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1500 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1500 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1600 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1500 500 B.C.-A.D. 1500 100 B.C.-A.D. 1500 100 B.C.-A.D. 1700 A.D. 200-1500 A.D. 800-1500 A.D. 800-1500 A.D. 800-1500 A.D. 800-1600 A.D. 900-1500 A.D. 1400 A.D. 1450-1700 A.D. 1500 sand mound midden sand burial mound sand mound with ramp campsite sand burial mound sand burial site temple mound with associated village village village sand domiciliary mound sand domiciliary mound linear sand domiciliary mound sand burial/domiciliary mound mound complex and earthwork linear sand mound campsite village 2 sand burial mounds mound and midden sand domiciliary mound sand domiciliary mound sand domiciliary mound sand domiciliary mound sand domiciliary mound sand burial mound sand burial mound sand burial mound Mitchem 1989:140 Florida Site File Goggin 1948:7-8; Mitchem 1989:139 Benson 1967; Karklins 1974; Mitchem 1989:141-145 Bullen and Beilman 1973; Mitchem 1989:140 Allerton et al. 1984; Mitchem 1989:138 Mitchem 1989:137 Cordell 1992; Wharton and Williams 1980 Piper and Piper 1981; Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985; Willis and Milanich 1977 Piper and Piper 1981; Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985; Willis and Milanich 1977 Piper and Piper 1981; Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985 Mitchem 1989:211; Piper and Piper 1981; Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985 Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985 Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985 Janus Research/Piper Archaeology 1994 Willis and Johnson 1985 Wharton 1977 Piper and Piper 1981; Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985 Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985 Milanich and Martinez 1975; Piper et al. 1982 Deming and Williams 1994; Wood and Williams 1976 Deming and Williams 1994; Wood and Williams 1976 Deming and Williams 1994; Wood and Williams 1976 Deming and Williams 1994; Wood and Williams 1976 Deming and Williams 1994; Wood and Williams 1976 Bullen 1954 Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985 Florida Site File THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Site Types Located in Study Area * Domiciliary Mounds * Sand Burial Mounds * Temple Mounds A Village Sites 0 Sites with Earthworks ' Linear Sand Mounds * Campsite X Sand Burial Site m Midden Figure 2. Map depicting the locations and types of sites within the study area. The large squares represent quadrats subjected to nearest-neighbor analysis. sites, two linear sand mounds, and one short-term campsite (Clagett 1995). Euclidean distances from each site to its nearest neighbor were obtained employing MapInfo tools. Utilizing the nearest- neighbor method, the distances obtained via MapInfo were subjected to nearest-neighbor analysis which is defined below. Only one tie to a nearest neighbor was severed between quadrats: 8PO13 in the northern quadrat and 8HR11 in the southern quadrat. The site distributions in both quadrats were used to test the null hypothesis that site locations are randomly distributed across the landscape. The Nearest-Neighbor Statistic The nearest-neighbor statistic measures only the amount of departure from randomness. The technique was developed by ecologists to describe the distributions exhibited by populations of organisms in their natural environments, which occur in an infinite variety of patterns (Clark and Evans 1954:445). Use of the statistic gained widespread attention in ecology and gradual- ly its usage spread to other disciplines. In archaeology, nearest- neighbor analysis has been applied to describe site distributions (Plog 1974; Washburn 1974; Zubrow 1971), as a means of CLAGE1r OCCUPATIONAL NEXUS MODELING CLAGETT OCCUPATIONAL NEXUS MODELING THE FLORIDA ANrmioPoLoGIsr 1996 VoL 49(4) quantifying artifact distributions on living floors (Whallon 1974), and as a means of evaluating burial patterns within an archaeological site (Pinder et al. 1979; Stickel 1968). Upham (1982) used the technique in a study of regional organization of fourteenth-century western pueblo societies. The procedure for nearest-neighbor analysis consists of obtain- ing the distance, irrespective of direction, from each individual to its nearest neighbor. The mean distance to nearest neighbors which would be expected in a random distribution is then calculated. The resulting ratio of observed mean distance to expected mean distance equals the measure of departure from randomness, the Rn statistic (Clark and Evans 1954:447). The Rn statistic will fall within a range of values from 0 to 2.1491. In a completely random distribution, R = 1. Ideally, values between 1 and 0 indicate a clustered distribution, and values ranging from 1 to 2.1491 denote a uniform distribution. Results The computed Rn value for the northern quadrat of 1.08 falls within the range of random matching. The range of random matching is that range which hovers around 1.0 and decreases inversely with sample size. An Rn value which falls within this range cannot be interpreted as indicating significant clustering or regularity because, if large numbers of truly random distribu- tions were analyzed, 90% of their Rn values would lie within this range. Thus, an Rn value of 1.08 for a sample size of seven would seem to indicate a random distribution (Figure 3). However, it is important to consider the fact that any random location pattern is the product of a complex interaction of a variety of forces. The combination of these forces has arranged the points (sites) in such a way as to match those on a randomly generated map. To assume that the locations of these sites are entirely random is to reject the idea that there are more subtle explanations (Pinder et al. 1979). All but one of the seven sites are located within close proximi- ty to water. Further, all of these sites typically lie at the intersection of at least two of the previously defined micro- environments. These locations would have provided access to a wide variety of both terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna. Although the same types of microenvironments are present in both quadrats, it is possible that the natural environment in the northern quadrat is sufficiently different from the southern quadrat so as to affect the results of the nearest-neighbor analysis. The Rn value for the southern quadrat differed considerably from that of the northern quadrat. The Rn value of .4 for the southern quadrat indicates a high degree of clustering and is significant at the 99.5% confidence interval. As with sites in the northern quadrat, sites in the southern quadrat are all located in close proximity to a water source and straddle the intersections of at least two different microenvironments. However, environ- ment and resource availability are not the only forces that influence site location. Any number of social, symbolic, and economic factors may contribute to where people choose to camp and/or live. The difference in sample sizes between the two quadrats may S1.5------------------ 1 reg iarit S1.4- S1.23 --- t Range S10- random S 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8 90 match 0 9- Number of points __ z Increasingly significant clustering 0.50 0.4 -- -- 0.3- --- -- -- - 0.73 Figure 3. Significance graph for testing Rn values (from Pinder et al. 1979:439). account for some of the differences between Rn values. Since clustering appeared to be present in the southern quadrat, some measure of clustering also was expected for the northern quadrat. The fact that such clustering was not revealed by the nearest-neighbor analysis may be due to the small number of sites contained in the northern quadrat. Undoubtedly, as more sites are discovered and recorded in this interior region, distance between sites will change, prompting a shift in Rn values. It is important to remember that nearest-neighbor analysis represents an initial step from which cautious interpre- tations can be made (Pinder et al. 1979). Discussion The results of this study indicate that significant site clustering is present in at least the southern half of the region during the time frame A.D. 800 to A.D. 1725. One or more settlement systems, influenced in part by access to specific resources, were at work. As evidenced by the ceramic assemblages recorded for these sites, the area was utilized extensively by people whose cultural remains indicate influences from the Safety Harbor culture and possibly the Glades culture. Long-term occupation THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) CLAGETT OCCUPATIONAL NEXUS MODELING is evidenced by the fact that most sites in the sample also contain components dating back to the preceramic Archaic (see Table 2). Occupation intensity also is evidenced by the sites themselves. Temple mounds and earthwork construction are indicative of more than just short-term site usage. It is possible that some of the domiciliary mounds were constructed for seasonal use, as they usually occur in areas where seasonal flooding is common. Burial mound location does not seem to subscribe to any detectable pattern. These mounds are located in association with site clusters as well as at some distance from any one site cluster. However, as more sites are discovered in this region, a detectable pattern may emerge. It may be the case that specific kin groups utilized certain burial mounds. All of the sites in the data set are located in close proximity to water and are situated at the intersection of at least two different ecological zones, or microenvironments. Thus, site locations allowed for the exploitation of a broad range of terrestrial as well as aquatic flora and fauna. Potential year- round availability of these resources and evidence of long-term occupation indicate that people may have occupied the region throughout the year. That is not to say that people were com- pletely sedentary within this interior region. On the contrary, it is more likely that while some structures were permanent, many people moved around the landscape in response to any number of social, ideological, economic, and/or resource procurement needs. This movement about the landscape could be another contributing factor to the presence of Glades ceramics at sites included in the sample. Culture Area Boundaries There has long been an attempt in Florida archaeology to draw boundary lines marking the geographic extent of particular prehistoric cultures. Most often, ceramic type frequencies have been utilized to demarcate these cultural boundaries. It is obvious, by examining the site distribution in the interior, that the drawing of such lines is not possible. Although the majority of the sites within the sample were defined as Safety Harbor by the archaeologists who recorded them, at least nine sites in the sample are possibly affiliated with other cultures. There is ceramic evidence for influence from surrounding regions within the artifact assemblages of all sites in the sample (Clagett 1995). It is difficult to determine whether the presence of specific ceramic types indicates occupation, interaction, or trade. Milanich (1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980) has suggested that small amounts of non-local ceramics in burial or other ceremonial contexts are more likely to indicate trade. Problems in addressing this in the present study include the size and limitations of the data base. A larger sample is necessary in order to more clearly define aboriginal settlement and cultural affiliation in this area. Moreover, it is clear that the second phase of the occupational nexus model is not applicable at present. In the Cades Pond region, Milanich was able to make statements about specific clusters because each site within each cluster represented the same culture. This may or may not be the case in the interior region of the Central Gulf Coast. However, the fact that significant clustering of sites that are roughly contemporaneous with one another was revealed in the southern quadrat suggests that some similarities to the Cades Pond region may exist. These clusters of sites may have been bound together by social and economic ties while at the same time functioning as separate political units. Further research is necessary to test this hy- pothesis. Conclusions The purpose of this study was to test a hypothesis regarding the nonrandom distribution of late prehistoric and protohistoric archaeological sites in the interior Central Gulf Coast region through the application of nearest-neighbor analysis. The research hypothesis was confirmed for the southern study quadrat where significant clustering was demonstrated; howev- er, the null hypothesis of random site distribution could not be rejected for the northern quadrat. The small number of sites included in this quadrat is suspected to be a factor in the inability of the nearest-neighbor analysis to identify site clusters there. Another may be the presence of sites from two adjacent culture areas. From what is known thus far, no grand cultural scheme can be constructed for the interior region of the Central Gulf Coast. What is apparent is that the sites in this region form clusters on the landscape and can be linked to specific microenvironments. The data and the results of this study do support Ray Williams's basic hypothesis: People were not venturing into the area sporadically for specific goods. They were inhabiting the area, utilizing its rich resources, constructing temple mounds and other earthworks, and burying their dead. The results have not ruled out the possibility that Safety Harbor peoples were the primary inhabitants of this region. Therefore, it may be possible that this interior region is a variant of Safety Harbor as originally proposed by Wharton and Williams (1980) and reinforced by Mitchem (1989). It has been suggested that the presence of Glade ceramics at some sites is the result of social, political, or economic interaction with this nearby culture area rather than occupation by Glade peoples. It is unrealistic to believe that inhabitants of this region did not share economic and perhaps social and symbolic links with their neighbors. However, the cultural affiliations of the sites in this region, and the degree to which their inhabitants interacted with other culture areas, can only be confirmed or refuted by further investigation. There may exist unrecorded burial and temple mounds in the region, as well as a host of village and camp sites, the addition of which will undoubtedly alter the results presented here. It is hoped that this study will ignite a resurgence in the use of settlement pattern studies in Florida archaeology, as well as new methods for addressing questions about the past. Acknowledgments Sincere gratitude is extended to the spirit of J. Raymond Williams, without whose guidance and patience this research could not have evolved. Thanks also CLAGETT OCCUPATIONAL NEXUS MODELING THE FLORIDA AwrrntoPOwGxsr 1~6 VOL. 4~(4) go out to Bob Austin and anonymous reviewers for needed constructive criticism. A special thank you is extended to Richard Meadows for his tireless editing, constructive comments, and heartfelt support. References Cited Allerton, D., George M. Luer, and Robert S. Carr 1984 Ceremonial Tablets and Related Objects from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 37:5-54. Austin, Robert J. 1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and Subsistence Data from the Kissimmee River Valley: Archaeological Evidence for Belle Glade Occupation. The Florida Anthropologist 49:65-87. Benson, Carl A. 1967 The Philip Mound: A Historic Site. The Florida Anthropologist 20:118- 132. Bullen, Ripley P. 1954 The Davis Mound, Hardee County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 7:97-102. Bullen, Ripley P., and Lawrence E. Beilman 1973 The Nalcrest Site, Lake Weohyakapka, Florida. The Florida Anthropol- ogist 26:1-22. Clagett, Heather 1995 New Interpretations on Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Occupation in the Interior ofFlorida's Central Gulf Coast. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Clark, P.J., and F.C. Evans 1954 Distance to Nearest Neighbor as a Measure of Spatial Relationships in Populations. Ecology 45:445-452. Cordell, Ann 1992 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability in Southwest Florida. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 105-189. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville. Deming, Joan, and J. Raymond Williams 1994 Phase II Test Excavations at Six Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Located on the CF Industries Property, Hardee County, Florida. Reported submitted to C.F. Industries by Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota. Goggin, John M. 1948 Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Bulletin No. 1, Gainesville Anthropological Association, Gainesville. Janus Research/Piper Archaeology 1994 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for Goose Pond Road (County Road 663A) Bridge Replacement over Horse Creek, Hardee County, Florida. Report prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, District 1 by Janus Research, St. Petersburg. Karklins, Karlis 1974 Additional Notes on the Philip Mound, Polk County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 35:34-58. Milanich, Jerald T. 1978 Two Cades Pond Sites in North-central Florida: The Occupational Nexus as a Model of Settlement. The Florida Anthropologist 31:151-173. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Milanich, Jerald T., and Carlos A. Martinez 1975 Archaeological and HistoricalResources ofthe Carlton Ranch Property, Hardee County, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 1, Department of Social Sciences, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Pinder, D.A., I. Shimada, and D. Gregory 1979 The Nearest-Neighbor Statistic: Archaeological Application and New Developments. American Antiquity 44:430-445. Piper, Harry M., and Jacquelyn G. Piper 1981 Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of Seven Sites Located on AMAX Properties, Manatee and DeSoto Counties, Florida. Report prepared for Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. by Piper Archaeological Research, St. Petersburg. Piper, Harry M., Kenneth W. Hardin, and Jacquelyn G. Piper 1982 Limited Excavations at 8Hr5, An Archaeological Site Located on Mississippi Chemical Corporation Property in Hardee County, Florida. Report prepared for the Mississippi Chemical Corporation by Piper Archaeological Research, Inc., St. Petersburg. Plog, Frederick 1974 Settlement Patterns and Social History. In Frontiers in Anthropology, edited by M.J. Leaf, pp. 68-91. Van Nostrand, New York. Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Stickel, E.G. 1968 Status Differentiation at the Rincon Site. In University of Calrfornia Archaeological Survey, Annual Report, 1968, pp. 209-261. United States Department of Agriculture 1983a Soil Survey of Manatee County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C. 1983b Soil Survey of Polk County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C. 1984 Soil Survey of Hardee County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C. 1989 Soil Survey of DeSoto County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C. Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G. Nuckels 1982 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Report on file, Department of Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Upham, S. 1982 Polities and Power. Academic Press, New York. Washburn, D.K. 1974 Nearest Neighbor Analysis of Pueblo I-II Settlement Patterns Along the Rio Puerco of the East, New Mexico. American Antiquity 39:315-335. Whallon, Robert 1974 Spatial Analysis of Occupation Floors II: the Application of Nearest Neighbor Analysis. American Antiquity 39:16-34. Wharton, Barry R. 1977 Salvage Investigations at the Orchard Fenceline Site, 8Hrll, Hardee County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropol- ogy, Archaeological Report No. 5, Tampa. Wharton, Barry R., and J. Raymond Williams 1980 An Appraisal of Hardee County Archaeology: Hinterland orHeardand? Florida Scientist 43:215-220. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Col- lections 113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Willis, Raymond F., and Robert E. Johnson 1980 AMAXPine Level Survey: An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Properties in Manatee and DeSoto Counties, Florida. Report submitted to Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. by the Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1985 Draft Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV-Supplemental Information Document Section 11. Archaeological/Historical Resources. Submitted to AMAX Chemical Corporation by Environmental Service and Engineering, Inc., Gaines- ville. Willis, Raymond F., and Jerald T. Milanich 1977 Archaeological and Historical Resources of the Farmland Industries, Inc. Properties, Hardee County, Florida. Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Miscellaneous Project Report Series 10, Tallahassee. THE ftommD ANTHIROPOio;IS 1996 VOL. 49(4) CLAGETr OCCUPATIONAL NEXUS MODELING 247 Wood, Lewis N., and J. Raymond Williams 1976 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the CF Mining Corporation Property in Northwestern Hardee County, Florida. Report submitted to the CF Mining Corporation by the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Zubrow, Ezra 1971 Carrying Capacity and Dynamic Equilibrium in the Prehistoric Southwest. American Antiquity 36:127-138. S. .. yes, but what was the context?" The exact, full wording of that reference is as close as your phone: Back issues of The F1ondra AnthiApoloSst -- going back close to a half century are available at the Graves Museum of Archaeology and Natural History 481 South Federal Highway Dania, FL 33004 Phone (305)925-7770 FAX (305)925-7064 Sole agents for back issues of The Florida Anthropologist A BELLE GLADE EARTHWORK TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY WILLIAM GRAY JOHNSON Desert Research Institute, P.O. Box 19040, Las Vegas, Nevada 89132 E-mail: email@example.com Florida's Belle Glade archaeological culture occupied the Lake Okeechobee and Kissimmee River regions from as early as 1000 B.C. to sometime in the 1700s. Large, impressive earthworks are Belle Glade hallmarks. William Sears's (1971, 1974, 1982) archaeological investigations at Fort Center (Figure 1) serve as the most comprehensive research of a Belle Glade earthwork site. He documented a complex of mounds, ditches, borrows, and embankments that form the basic elements of all Belle Glade earthworks. Generally speaking, these earthwork ele- ments occur in combination forming a sort of earthwork architecture, but sometimes an element is found in isolation. The various forms and combinations have been grouped by Carr (1985) into three types: circular earthworks, circular-linear earthworks, and linear ridges. Three additional types, square- rectangular earthworks, borrows, and mound groups, are added here. In addition, I have modified Carr's (1985) terminology by referring to "circular earthworks" as "circular ditches" and by replacing the term "embankment" with "ridge." I also recognize two types of circular-linear earthworks, types A and B. Five of the seven types discussed in this paper can be temporally ordered based on chronological information from Fort Center and other Belle Glade sites. An examination of the elements that make up the various Belle Glade earthworks provides a back- drop for discussing earthwork types. Elements of Belle Glade Earthworks Mounds Mounds are certainly ubiquitous features in the Belle Glade culture area. They are found singly, in groups, and in combina- tion with other elements. Mounds have been identified as habitation sites, burial sites, and architectural elements. Habitation loci are easily identified because their content consists almost entirely of accumulated midden materials. Burial mounds and architectural elements, on the other hand, are intentional earthen constructions that can prove difficult for archaeologists to identify. For instance, Carr (1973:14) identi- fied a sand mound in Martin County, 8MT29, as a likely burial mound. Subsequent excavations by Williams (1975:35) revealed only a single sherd associated with the mound; he concluded it was not utilized for burial purposes. However, burial mounds are known from Willey's (1949) research at the Belle Glade type site (8PB40) and Big Mound City (8PB48), Sears's (1982) excavations at Fort Center (8GL13), and Williams's (1975) fieldwork at Barley Barber II (8MT28), as well as other sites listed in the Florida Site File. The mounds vary in content, size, and shape. Associated materials range from mostly pottery (at Barley Barber II) to an incredible array of artifacts including nested shells, shell dippers, concentrations of scattered human teeth, projectile points, trade ceramic wares and, in later mounds (such as Fort Center's Mound B), objects made from gold, silver, copper, and brass. Mounds that are considered to be architectural elements include the crescent-shaped mound and mound/pond at the Circle Canal site (8GL33; also called the Caloosahatchee Circle), and the small sand mound located inside the "Great Circle" at Fort Center (Carr 1985:299). The crescent-shaped mound at the Circle Canal site is probably the most obvious of these architectural elements (Figure 2a). Its shape, coupled with its presence within a circular ditch, suggests that this feature was purposely fashioned as part of the overall site rather than as a haphazard addition. Ditches Ditches are obvious features on aerial photographs. Some are associated with a berm on one or both sides; others have no discernible berm. They have been typed by form as circular (Figure 2) and square-rectangular (Figure 3). Most of the circular ditches have small unexcavated sections that Sears (1982:175) refers to as "causeways." He postulates that they functioned as access points across the ditches to their interiors (Sears 1982:186). One such causeway is visible at the Circle Canal (Figure 2a). The West Okeechobee Circle, 8GL57, may have modified causeways attached to long, linear embankments (Figure 2b). However, the North Fisheating Creek Circle, 8GL75, appears to lack causeways (Figure 2c). Johnson (1994) identified one square and two rectangular ditches on the east side of the Kissimmee River in Okeechobee County (80B28-30). Each displays ditch-and-berm construction with unexcavated segments, or causeways, similar to the circular ditches described above. The rectangular ditches have linear embankments leading to their centers (Figure 3a-b). The square one (Figure 3c) is near a mound that contained only Belle Glade Plain sherds. If the mound is coeval with the square ditch, then this type of earthwork was developed after circular ditches. A third type of ditch has been recognized in south Florida by function. These are canals and they were documented as early as the nineteenth century (Kenworthy 1883). A summation of these features is provided by Luer (1989). His work reveals that THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 49 NO. 4 DECEMBER 1996 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) 11. . M ound u 500 1500 1000 500 -. - Figure 1. Diagram (from Sears 1982:Figure 1.1) and aerial photograph (CJF-12-42, 4-23-40) of Fort Center (8GL13). (8GL13). 1-4~tel I.R ; I" 1isa? " 1~0 Figure 2. Examples of Belle Glade circular ditches: a) Circle Canal (8GL33), BUO-3D-152, 3-8-49; b) West Okeechobee Circle (8GL57), BUO-2T-109, 3-2-57; c) North Fisheating Creek Circle (8GL75), BUO-2T-150, 3-2-57. THE FLOREDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) JOHNSON BELLE GLADE EARTHWORKS Figure 3. Square-rectangular earthworks located along the Kissimmee River: a) Ft. Kissimmee Earthwork (80B28), CYW-4H- 178, 1-26-53; b) Fulford Earthworks (80B29), CYW-3C-23, 2-27-44; c) Clemens Square (80B30), CYW-5C-7, 4-13-44. canals vary in length and depth, but all appear to have func- tioned for facilitating canoe travel (Luer 1989:126). Wheeler (1995:278) concurs with this interpretation based on his analysis of the canals at Ortona. s Borrows Borrows are not well documented in the Belle Glade culture _ area. Two types are recognized: geometric-shaped (Figure 4) and effigy (Figure 5). Many of the geometric-shaped borrows are circular such as the round feature at 8GL50, the Lakeport Circle Ditch (Figure 4, top). These round borrows are found in association with at least three other sites: Fort Center, Daugher- ty (8HG3), and the Maple Mound (8HN5). In addition, Carr (1985:300) notes their presence in conjunction with two circle ditches near Fisheating Creek (8GL12 and 8GL38). Although it 'd is not possible to verify one at South Lake Mounds (8HN33) because modem land-use practices have obliterated most of the site, a round borrow appears on the 1957 aerial photograph (Figure 4, bottom). At this same site, a crescent-shaped feature also is evident. At Fort Center, Sears (1982:131,133) document- ed crescent-shaped borrows around Mounds 1 and 2. Their shapes are recognizable on aerial photographs of Tony's Mound (8HN3), but whether they are borrows or embankments is not known. Two effigy borrows have been documented in the region: the Pestle Earthwork (Figure 5, top) and the Oxer Borrow (Figure 5, bottom). Available data preclude dating either. Buchner's (1992) research at the Oxer Borrow has found no cultural materials to date; however, morphological characteristics suggest Belle Glade origins. Embankments Figure 4. Geometric-shaped borrows in association with Embankments are one of the most common types of Belle earthwork sites: top) Lakeport Circle Ditch (8GL50), BUO- Glade earthworks. Most are linear, but curved embankments are 1D-73, 1-2-49; bottom) South Lake Mounds (8HN33), BUO- common as well. They rarely occur in isolation. Most often 2T-65, 3-2-57. JOHNSON BELLE GLADE EARTHWORKs THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Figure 5. Effigy-shaped borrows: top) Pestle Earthwork (8GL43), BUO-1T-195, 3-2-57; bottom) Oxer Borrow (8GL79), BUO-1D-41, 12-5-48. they connect the other elements into their various architectural forms (Figure 6). Linear embankments usually terminate in mounds. Carr (1975:15) indicates that the Lakeport Earthworks (8GL26) consist of two parallel linear embankments extending from a sand mound (Figure 6a). These meet a curved embank- ment that forms a "nearly perfect half circle" which surrounds a habitation mound (Carr 1975:15-18). At Tony's Mound, Allen (1948) documented nine linear embankments attached to a curved embankment. All appear to have mounds at their terminal ends (Figure 6b). At the Lonesome Island Group (Figure 6c), a pair of parallel linear embankments lead to a mound (8HG634). Linear embankments that do not terminate in mounds include the Highlands Linear Ridge (8HG13), Highlands Parallel Ridges (8HG636), and the Whitehurst Mound (80B32). No artifacts were found at any of these sites. I have suggested a riverine function for these embankments for they seem to be associated with the Kissimmee River (Johnson 1991:102). Curved embankments are not known to occur in isolation. They form enclosures around other mounds, such as is found at the Ortona site (8GL4) where a curved embankment forms an enclosure for the largest mound (Carr et al. 1995:235). They also serve to connect linear embankments, such as those described above. Sears (1982:200) believes that the linear embankments at Fort Center served as planting surfaces for maize crops. However, Johnson and Collins (1993) have argued that the soils at this site are too poor for annual production of maize. If viewed as architectural elements, linear and curved embankments are connectors much like hallways serve to connect rooms. Definitions of Earthwork Types Seven earthwork types are recognized in this study: circular ditches, circular-linear earthworks (types A and B), linear embankments, square-rectangular earthworks, borrows, and mound groups. Each type is defined on the basis of the elements discussed above. Figure 6. Examples of linear and curved embankments: a) Lakeport Earthworks (8GL26), BUO-2T-150, 3-2-57; b) Tony's Mound (8HN3), BUN-5D-133, 2-23-49; c) Lonesome Island (8HG634), CYW-3C-95, 2-27-44. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) JOHNSON BELLE GLADE EAaTHwoIUCs Circular Ditches Borrows This type of earthwork is composed of a ditch in a circular shape. It is usually accompanied by at least one mound located in its interior. Circular ditches vary in size, shape, and associat- ed elements (Figure 7). The smallest is 61 m in diameter and the largest is 366 m in diameter (Carr 1985:289). Their shape is almost a complete circle. Exceptions include the two small overlapping circles within the "Great Circle" at Fort Center. Associated elements vary widely. Some, such as Fort Center's "Great Circle" (Figure 7a) and the nearby Lakeport Circle (Figure 7b), have circular borrows associated with the outside rims of the circles. These elements appear to be additions. Only one, the West Okeechobee Circle, has linear features attached directly to it (Figure 7c). It may be a form that is transitional between the circular ditches and the circular-linear earthworks. Still other circular ditches have interior features such as the crescent-shaped mound and mound/pond at the Circle Canal (Figure 7d). Circular-Linear Earthworks (Types A and B) Mounds, embankments, borrows, and ditches can all be found at these types of earthworks. Mounds are located at the terminal ends of linear and curved embankments. Geometric-shaped borrows can be found enclosing mounds and attached to the rims of curved embankments. Ditches connect borrows and may help to define embankments. Two types of circular-linear earthworks are recognized for chronology building. Type A consists of a curved embankment with a linear embankment attached. The linear embankment terminates in a habitation mound. Another mound, usually a dense midden mound that is oblong in shape, is located opposite the curved embankment (Figure 8). Type B is the same as Type A with additional linear embankments attached to the curved embankment, forming spokes (Figure 9). Linear Embankments These earthworks generally terminate in a mound, but some (e.g., Highlands Linear Ridge, Highlands Parallel Ridges, and the Whitehurst Mound) are known to occur alone without other associated elements. These latter embankments are not used for chronology building. Linear embankments that terminate in mounds that are not part of circular-linear earthworks are found at Fort Center and Big Mound City. Similar structures occur at the Palmdale Earthworks, the South Lake Mounds, the Lone- some Island Group, and Ortona (Figure 10). Square-Rectangular Earthworks This earthwork type is composed of ditches arranged in the shape of a square or rectangle. Linear embankments are present in the interiors of the two rectangular-shaped earthworks that have been recorded. Borrows are excavated areas that have geometric or effigy shapes. The former occur in association with other earthworks while the latter occur alone. Mound Groups This is an association of mounds within a circumscribed area. The mounds can occur with or without other earthwork elements. When accompanied by other elements, such as the canals and linear and curved embankments at Ortona, the mound group is obscured. Only one mound group, Buck Island, is without other associat- ed earthworks. The group consists of at least ten mounds within a 1.6 km (1 mi) radius. This same spatial pattern is repeated at the Lonesome Island Group, Ortona, and Fort Center. Howev- er, canals and large linear and curved embankments at Ortona obscure the spatial distribution of mounds that otherwise appear so similar to the Buck Island and Lonesome Island groups. Fort Center can be considered a mound group that is similarly obscured by all the datable earthworks. Chronological Placement of Earthwork Types Five of the seven earthwork types are used for chronology building: the mound group, circular ditches, the two types of circular-linear earthworks, and linear embankments that terminate in mounds. Chronological placement of square- rectangular earthworks and borrows has not been determined at this time. The only temporally diagnostic artifacts that can be remotely associated with either of these earthwork types are the Belle Glade Plain sherds from a mound near Clemens Square (80B30). Mound groups such as Buck Island (8HG613-622) and Lonesome Island (8HG623-634) initially consisted of one or two mounds as evidenced by semi-fiber-tempered ceramics. More mounds were added through time, eventually forming the mound group. At Fort Center, ditches, embankments, and borrows accompanied the developing mound group. Sears (1982:193) indicates that the circular ditches were coeval with the earliest mounds. His excavation data also indicate that the two types of circular-linear earthworks developed next, while linear embankments that terminate in mounds and are not part of circular-linear earthworks were created last. Mound Groups Mound groups span the entire Belle Glade cultural sequence and some acquired other diagnostic earthwork elements. Habitation mounds are among the earliest, if not the earliest, earthworks known in the Okeechobee Basin. Johnson (1990) located two such early mounds in Highlands County at the Lonesome Island Group (8HG625 and 8HG631) and Sears (1982:140) identified three at the Fort Center site (Mound 3, JOHNSON BELLE GLADE EARTHWORKS THE FLORIDA ANThROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL 49(4) C'O b. Lakeport Circle a. rort Center 0 c. West Okeechobee Circle d. Circle Canal meters 0 122 Figure 7. Scaled drawings of circular ditches: a) Fort Center, 8GL13; b) Lakeport Circle, 8GL50; c) West Okeechobee Circle, 8GL57; d) Circle Canal, 8GL33. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) JOHNSON BELIE GLADE EARTHWORKS Figure 8. Scaled drawings of Type A circular-linear earthworks: a) Summer Earthworks, 8HN26; b) Kissimmee Circle, 80B31; c) Lakeport Earthworks, 8GL26; d) Nicodemous Earthworks, 8GL9. Mound 12, and Midden B; see Figure 1). All are associated with semi-fiber-tempered ceramics indicating a Transitional Period occupation. At Fort Center's Mound 3, measuring 60 x 20 m, at least three temporally distinct ceramic assemblages were documented. The earliest, the third oldest on the entire site (Sears 1982:136), places its initial use in the Transitional Period, or Sears's Period I. The latest represents the most intensive use of the mound with "about a foot of midden over the entire mound; it con- tained several thousand sherds in the portions excavated" (Sears 1982:136). A radiocarbon date provides evidence of its use into the seventeenth century (Sears 1982:116). The mid-period of Mound 3 use is thought to be coeval with the main occupation of the mound-pond ceremonial complex (Sears 1982:136) which dates from A.D. 200 to about A.D. 600-800 (Sears 1982:186). Circular Ditches The earliest radiocarbon date associated with a circular ditch is from the "Great Circle" at Fort Center (Figure 1). Sears (1982:116) obtained a date of 450 B.C. 105 years (1-3556) from midden fill within the circle near its junction with a midden beside Fisheating Creek. He concluded that the ditch was built prior to this date. Earlier construction of two other circular ditches at Fort Center are indicated by Fairbanks's excavations that showed that the "Great Circle" overlies two smaller, overlapping circular ditches (Sears 1982:177-178). Stratigraphic evidence shows clearly that these smaller ditches JOHNSON BELLE GLADE EARTHWORKS THEFLOIDAANHROOLOIST196 VL 4(M \ - 0 O o8,6 ONo CTY a. Big Mound City (after Willey 1949) meters 0 122 c. Maple Mound b.Tony's Mound Figure 9. Scaled drawings of Type B circular-linear earthworks: a) Big Mound City, 8PB48 (after Willey 1949); b) Tony's Mound, 8HN3; c) Maple Mound, 8HN5. were built prior to the "Great Circle," thus indicating an estimated age "not later than 500 B.C." (Sears 1982:178). Sears (1982:185) suggests the earliest date for these structures could be 800 to 1000 B.C. Circular-Linear Earthworks At the Fort Center site (Figure 1), Mound 2 and its associated linear embankment, the curved embankment (NOTE: shown only in the photograph, not shown in the accompanying illustration), and Mound 3 together form the Type A circular- linear earthwork (see Figures 6a and 8c for another example of the Type A earthwork). Mounds 1 and 5, and their associated linear embankments were added to the Type A form to create the Type B circular-linear earthwork (see Figure 7a). Sears's (1982:133-137) excavations at Fort Center provide information THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) C:= BELLE GLADE EARTHWORKS oO b. South Lake Mounds a. Palmdale Earthworks meters 0 122 c. Lonesome Island Group 0 0 I -- ------ i oo0 L \, d. Ortona Figure 10. Scaled drawings of linear embankment sites: a) Palmdale Earthworks, 8GL76; b) South Lake Mounds, 8HN33; c) Lonesome Island Group (partial), 8HG634; d) Ortona (partial), 8GL4. JOHNSON N THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) that can be used to generalize to other such structures in the Basin. Sears's data from Mounds 2 and 3 at Fort Center indicate that the Type A circular-linear earthwork is apparently a habitation structure. These data suggest that the mound with the linear embankment (Mound 2) served as a habitation site while the oblong mound (Mound 3) was used for refuse disposal. The linear embankment attached to Mound 2 was bisected near its midpoint by a tractor-cut that exposed strata which demonstrated that the embankment consists of a single structure rather than two parallel ones. It connects to a curved embankment that was interpreted by Sears (1982:132) to be a modem cattle path; however, when this circular feature is compared to other circular-linear earthworks in the Basin, its prehistoric origin seems clear (cf. Figures 1 and 7a). The Type B circular-linear earthwork was apparently meant to accommodate additional habitation spaces for the people occupying this structure. At Fort Center, the additions of Mounds 1 and 5, and their associated linear embankments, to the curved embankment created the Type B circular-linear earthwork. Excavations at Mound 1 revealed that it was a habitation site. Based on the thinness and uniformity of the midden deposit, Sears (1982:132-133) concluded that the mound was used for "a single structure for a relatively short period of time in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century." Mound 5 was not excavated because it was mostly destroyed by a modem dirt road, but Sears's (1982:136-137) observation of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery from the surface allowed him to date its use to sometime after A.D. 1000. Its similarity to Mounds 1 and 2 led him to believe that it also served as a single-house platform (Sears 1982:137). Based on Sears's (1982) chronological information obtained from the mounds that I have identified as being associated with Types A and B of the circular-linear earthwork form, the Type A earthwork's origins can be traced to the Transitional Period as indicated by semi-fiber-tempered sherds from the lowest levels of Mound 3. The curved embankment, the linear embank- ment, and Mound 2 (i.e., the most distinctive elements of the Type A circular-linear earthwork) date later. An accumulation of material in Mound 3 during Sears's Period II (A.D. 200- 600/800), provides evidence that the Type A circular-linear earthwork was fully formed sometime after A.D. 200. The addition of Mounds 1 and 5 and their associated linear embank- ments form the Type B circular-linear earthwork and were established sometime after A.D. 1000 (Sears 1982:130-133, 136-137). Linear Embankments Terminating in Mounds The two examples of this earthwork type at Fort Center are Mound 8 and the UF Mound (Figure 1). Mound 8 apparently was not excavated (Sears 1982:137). The UF Mound, on the other hand, was excavated over parts of two seasons (Sears 1982:142). Sears (1982:143-145) indicates that construction of the mound and linear embankment took place during his Period IV (A.D. 1200-1400 to A.D. 1700). Materials found in them, including a pipe fragment and a semi-fiber-tempered sherd, are attributed by Sears to mound fill. He does not consider them to be appropriate temporal markers. Instead, a drilled gold nugget bead and a blue glass bead found in the topsoil are considered by him to be good indicators of the mound's chronological position (Sears 1982:144). A Proposed Belle Glade Chronology Using the radiocarbon dates and ceramic data discussed above, the five earthwork types can be arranged in a chronological sequence. Mound groups contain the earliest materials (semi- fiber-tempered ceramics) and they continued to be occupied throughout the history of the Belle Glade culture. Circular ditches appear at some sites in association with the earliest mounds. At Fort Center, the circular ditches are older than 450 B.C. and may be as old as 1000 B.C. Type A circular-linear earthworks were fully formed before A.D. 1000 and Type B circular-linear earthworks date after A.D. 1000. Linear embank- ments that terminate in mounds and are not part of circular- linear earthworks are apparently later still and could represent earthwork activities dating strictly to the historic period. Table 1 presents a modification of Willey's (1949) Belle Glade I and II cultural chronology and Widmer's (1988) definition of the Transitional Period. Sites containing semi-fiber-tempered ceramics diagnostic of the Transitional Period, include two mounds in the Lonesome Island Group. Based on mound group similarities, the Buck Island Ranch Group, the Palmdale Earthworks, and Ortona are likely to have Transitional Period components as well. Sears (1982:185) provides evidence that the early mounds are coeval with circular ditches at Fort Center. However, rather than using the term "Transitional Period," which would suggest continuity with occupations in the St. Johns region, he formulated his own chronology that placed them in his Period I. By doing so, Sears aided his efforts to establish a non-Florida population as the base of cultural developments within the Basin. I believe that the crux of Sears's argument for distinguishing early Belle Glade settlement from the Transitional Period occupation of the St. Johns region is the presence of circular ditches (an earthwork feature not found in the St. Johns area). However, the Lonesome Island investigations document early mounds containing semi-fiber-tempered wares without circular ditches (Johnson 1990, 1991). Thus, I have argued that Transi- tional Period populations from the St. Johns region expanded into the previously uninhabited Belle Glade region rather than invoking migratory populations from South America (Johnson 1991:187-188; cf. Sears 1974, 1982). According to Widmer (1988:73), the end of the Transitional Period is marked by the replacement of semi-fiber-tempered wares by exclusively sand-tempered-plain ceramics. Bullen (1959:44) correlates the close of the Transitional Period in the Okeechobee Basin with the appearance of Belle Glade ceramics. However, diagnostic Belle Glade earthworks appear earlier than Belle Glade ceramics. Thus, a Belle Glade-Transitional Period is proposed for those sites that have circular ditches and habitation mounds with semi-fiber-tempered ceramics. TRiE noRiDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) JOHNsON BELLE GLADE EARmwomcs Table 1. Proposed Belle Glade chronology. Year Culture Period Temporal Markers 1700 Linear embankments terminating in mounds; Belle Glade IIb European materials 1500 Type B circular-linear earth- works; St. Johns Check- Stamped ceramics; Belle 1000 Belle Glade Plain Ha Glade Plain dominant 500 500 Type A circular-linear earthworks; Belle Glade A.D. 200 Belle Glade Ib Plain ceramics B.C. 100 500 Belle Glade Ia Sand-tempered ceramics IT Transitional/ Mounds; circular ditches; 1000 Belle Glade-Transitional semi-fiber-tempered ceramics Willey's (1949) Belle Glade I Period encompasses the use of Glades Plain and Belle Glade Plain ceramics with a minority of Glades decorated wares. This definition is modified to begin with the change in technology from semi-fiber-tempered ceramics to the first fully sand-tempered ceramics at ca. 500 B.C. The appearance of the distinctive Belle Glade Plain ceramics at ca. A.D. 200 provides a temporal distinction that probably coincides with the development of a new form of Belle Glade earthwork: the Type A circular-linear earthwork. As such, Belle Glade I is divided into Belle Glade Ia and Belle Glade Ib. The former is marked by the technological change from semi-fiber-tempered ware to sand-tempered plain and the continued use of circular ditches. The latter is identified by the appearance of Belle Glade Plain ceramics and Type A circular- linear earthworks. Willey's (1949:125) identification of the Belle Glade II Period is based on a decrease in Glades decorated wares, the continued use of Glades Plain and Belle Glade Plain ceramics, and the introduction of St. Johns Check Stamped (which he refers to as Biscayne Check Stamped). The distribution of Glades decorated wares in the region is limited to the Belle Glade type site. However, the presence of St. Johns Check Stamped serves as an excellent chronological marker with wide applicability to the Okeechobee Basin region. Sears's (1982:136) use of St. Johns Check Stamped for dating Mound 5 after A.D. 1000 provides the basis for dating the Type B circular-linear earthworks. In addition, Belle Glade Plain ceramics began to dominate the ceramic assemblage at Fort Center at this time. Thus, the transition from Belle Glade Ib to Belle Glade II is marked by the appearance of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery, Type B circular-linear earthworks, and the predominance of Belle Glade Plain ceramics. The appearance of linear embankments terminating in mounds and not associated with circular-linear earthworks indicates another fundamental change in Belle Glade settlements. These are associated with the appearance of artifacts made from European-derived materials. Belle Glade Plain ceramics continued to gain in popularity over sand-tempered-plain wares during this time. Thus, Belle Glade II can be divided into sub- periods. Belle Glade IIa represents the period of introduction of St. Johns Check Stamped ceramics, the development of Type B circular-linear earthworks, and the relative increase in Belle Glade Plain ceramics at the expense of sand-tempered-plain wares. The Belle Glade lib Period is associated with linear embankments that are not associated with circular-linear earthworks, the continued increase in Belle Glade ceramics, and the introduction of European materials. Based on the data presented here, the dates for these periods follow: the Transitional and Belle Glade-Transitional periods run from approximately 1000 B.C. to 500 B.C.; Belle Glade Ia encompasses the period from 500 B.C to approximately A.D. 200; Belle Glade Ib covers the time from A.D 200 to ca. A.D. 1000; Belle Glade IIa from ca. A.D. 1000 to sometime in the early Colonial Period; and Belle Glade IIb is limited to the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Conclusions This study has identified seven Belle Glade earthwork types which are defined by their associated earthwork elements: circular ditches, circular-linear earthworks (types A and B), linear embankments, square-rectangular earthworks, borrows, and mound groups. Five of these earthwork types are used for distinguishing periods and subperiods within the Belle Glade cultural sequence. The mound groups span the entire chronolog- ical sequence. Circular ditches help define the beginning of the sequence while linear embankments are associated with the latest manifestations of Belle Glade culture. The A and B forms of the circular-linear earthwork type are used to distinguish between two major subdivisions within the post-Transitional Belle Glade Period. Acknowledgments Data for this article were derived from the West Okeechobee Basin Project which was funded by a grant from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Historic Preservation Grants-in-Aid Program. The Desert Research Institute funded some of my time spent preparing this manuscript as well as the costs of the photographs. References Cited Allen, Ross 1948 The Big Circle Mounds. The Florida Anthropologist 1:17-21. JOHNSON BE=L GiADE EARTHWORnS THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Buchner, C. Andrew 1992 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey at the Proposed Glades County Landfill Site, Florida. Garrow and Associates, Inc., Memphis. Bullen, Ripley P. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 6:43-53. Carr, Robert S. 1973 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Martin Plant Site in Martin County, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 9, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. 1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Lake Okeechobee. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 22, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. 1985 Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 38:288-301. Carr, Robert S., David Dickel, and Marilyn Masson 1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Ortona Earthworks and Mounds. The Florida Anthropologist 48:227-263. Johnson, William G. 1990 A Report of Investigations on the West Okeechobee Basin Archaeologi- cal Survey. Ms on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 1991 Remote Sensing and Soil Science Applications to Understanding Belle Glade Cultural Adaptations in the Lake Okeechobee Basin, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1994 Early Aerial Photography: A Remote Sensing Technique used to Detect Prehistoric Earthworks in the Kissimmee River Basin. The Florida Anthropologist 47:269-279. Johnson, William Gray, and Mary E. Collins 1993 Can Soil Evidence Prove that Prehistoric Maize was not the Basis for Complex Cultural Developments in the Lake Okeechobee Basin? In Proceedings of the First International Pedo-Archaeology Conference, February 16-20, 1992, edited by J.E. Foss, M.E. Timpson, and M.W. Morris, pp. 157-160. Special Publication 93-04, Agricultural Experi- ment Station, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Kenworthy, Charles J. 1883 Ancient Canals in Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1881:631-635. Luer, George M. 1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of Tribute and Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist 42:89-130. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Precolumbian Archaeology of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Sears, William H. 1971 Food Production and Village Life in Prehistoric Southeastern United States. Archaeology 24:322-329. 1974 Archaeological Perspectives on Prehistoric Environments in the Okeechobee Basin Savannah. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past, edited by Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 347-351. Miami Geological Society, Memoir 2, Miami. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Wheeler, Ryan J. 1995 The Ortona Canals: Aboriginal Canal Hydraulics and Engineering. The Florida Anthropologist 48:265-281. Widmer, Randolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on Florida's Southwest Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 42, New Haven. Williams, J. Raymond 1975 Excavations at Two Small Mounds in Martin County, Florida. Miscellaneous Report Series Number 21, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. THE~ F)LOREDA ANTHROPOLOGwSI 1996 VOL. 49(4) C.B. MOORE ON THE OCKLAWAHA RIVER: NO PLACE FOR A GOPHER CYNTHIA L. CERRATO Osceola National Forest, P.O. Box 70, Olustee, Florida 32072 In 1992, I conducted an archaeological research project at Davenport Landing in the Ocala National Forest (ONF). This small, high bluff is in the northernmost part of the forest, on the southern bank of the Ocklawaha River. Since preliminary testing in 1991 yielded prehistoric ceramics and lithics, the goals of the project's first phase were to determine the site's time period, function, and significance in American prehistory and to delineate the site's boundaries. The second phase of this project was to investigate an earthwork on the bluff. The earthwork resembled a small volcano and was approximately 12 m in diameter. The central "pit" was at least 1 m deep with ridges 1- 2 m high. The ONF Archeologist, Ray Willis, and I believed this earthwork was C.B. Moore's Davenport Mound. Although the Davenport Mound was recorded on the Florida Site File as being 3.2 km west of this bluff, Moore's maps and notes showed the mound to be at Davenport Landing. Traveling by boat, I surveyed the river for 6.4 km west of Davenport Landing and found no additional bluffs, only inundated swamps. The earthwork excavation did reveal small fragments of human remains, a few exotic goods, and hematite-impregnated sand (Cerrato 1994). Prior to the fieldwork, I spent several weeks researching the prehistory and history of Davenport Landing and the sur- rounding 8 km. This work included an intensive study of the Ocklawaha River. While I was collecting data at the Department of Environmental Protection in Tallahassee, Joe Knetsch, Senior Management Analyst II with the Division of State Lands, told me about the Alligator, the subject of this paper. Clarence B. Moore Clarence B. (C.B.) Moore is a well-known name to both professional and avocational Southeastern archaeologists (Figure 1). Born in 1852, to a wealthy Philadelphia family, Moore began excavating mounds and middens in the southeastern United States in 1891. He continued this work for over 20 years. Although lacking by today's standards, Moore's archaeo- logical work was "state of the art" for the 1890s. He took detailed notes, recording strata, the positions of interments, and providing descriptions of artifacts. Most important, Moore shared his artifacts and information with the general public. He donated most of his collection to museums, and quickly published his excavation reports (Milanich 1994:6). His biggest collection was given to the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. In 1929, against Moore's personal choice, the collection was sold to the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation in New York (Wardle 1987:119 [1956]). Some of the collection, along with Moore's original field notes, remains there today (Davis 1987). Considering the era in which Moore worked, there was a limited choice of transportation modes. Since most of Moore's "excavations were at coastal or riverine sites, he traveled by water. To reach his destinations, Moore employed the Gopher, a ster-wheel steamboat (Figure 2). The Gopher was 30.5 m (100 ft) long, about 6 m (20 ft) wide, and normally "carried a captain, a pilot, an engineer, a crew of five men, six men to dig, and special guests" (Morse and Morse 1983:21). Moore's Southeastern excavations began in Florida. From 1891 to 1895, he excavated sites along the St. Johns and Ocklawaha Rivers (Moore 1894a, 1894b, 1896, 1987a [1891], 1987b [1894], 1987c [1895]). While working in eastern Florida, Moore used the city of Palatka as a home base. There he supplied his boat, hired workers to dig, and gathered informa- tion about possible sites to excavate. Although Moore's highest education level was a B.A. from Harvard University (Williams 1991:76), he was known as "Doctor" Moore to Florida locals (Swift 1903:48). With a steamboat, Moore had a home and laboratory that he could take with him to all the sites "that were within reach of water navigable by the Gopher (Milanich 1994:5). But one place the Gopher could not reach was the Ocklawaha River. For this unique waterway, a special boat was needed. The Ocklawaha River The Ocklawaha is one of Florida's major rivers. It is a tributary of the St. Johns River and, like the St. Johns, flows northward. Currently, it serves as the northern and western borders of the Ocala National Forest (Dorian 1984:1). There are many variations of the spelling of the river's name including "Oclawaha," "Oklawaha," "Ocklewaha," "Ochlawaha," and "Okalewaha." Although modern maps use "Oklawaha," the preferred spelling by the local population is "Ocklawaha." The name is supposedly derived from the Timucuan Indian word "Ockli-Waha," meaning either "great river" (Livingston 1991:85) or "crooked/tortuous" (Dowda 1939:87). The second meaning seems more appropriate when looking at the river's shape. The Ocklawaha is 121 km in length and consists of "hairpin bends," "rapid flows" and "frequent narrow passage- ways between walls of massive cypress trunk" (Mitchell 1947:129). Its width varies from 6.7-53 m and it is only .6 m deep in some places (Mueller 1983:7). The Ocklawaha's shape was best described in 1947 by C. Bradford Mitchell: "the Ocklawaha is the dark jugular vein but a vein so weirdly VOL, 49 No. 4 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 1996 DECEMBER 1996 VOL. 49 No. 4 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIgr THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) Figure 1. Clarence B. Moore's Harvard Graduation Portrait, Class of 1873. Photograph courtesy of the Harvard University Archives. contorted and looped that distance doubles and redoubles itself for any navigator who takes a boat on it" (Mitchell 1947:118). The Ocklawaha's headwaters are in Lake County at a chain of lakes composed of Lake Apopka, Lake Griffin, Lake Dora, Lake Eustis, and Lake Yale. From there it flows north through Lake County, into Marion county, and ends in Putnam County at the St. Johns River (Figure 3). The Ocklawaha gets half its upstream flow from the lake chain and the other half from Silver Springs Run (Carr 1965:1; Livingston 1991:10). It is a blackwater, flowing river and, although its water is clear of sediment, it is stained with tannic acid from leaves and other organic matter (Ewel 1990:3). The Ocklawaha River is almost bankless. Its swift current meanders between tree-lined swamps that are usually inundated. Natural bluffs, such as Davenport Landing, are few and far between. Though these descriptions paint a dreary picture of the Ocklawaha, it also has been described as the "sweetest water- lane in the world" (Lanier 1973:20). At the turn of the century, tourists flocked to see this dark, contorted river and the interior swamps of Florida. Traveling from Palatka to Silver Springs via the Ocklawaha was considered a must to make one's vacation complete (Mitchell 1947). Yet, a jaunt down this unusual river, for tourists and archaeologists, had to be on a specially designed riverboat an "Ocklawaha Steamer." Tim LOREDA ANTtiROPOLOGNTT 1996 VOL. 49(4) CERRATO C.B. MooRE's OCKLAWAHA RIVERBOAT * -1 '-I.--. Figure 2. The Gopher, Moore's stern-wheel steamboat. Photograph courtesy of Ray Willis and Sam Brookes, United States Forest Service. Ocklawaha Steamboats An Ocklawaha steamer "looked like a not-yet completed houseboat erected on a rowboat shaped hull" (Mueller 1983:7). The boats had a blunt bow and a small, low pilot house towards the front. To avoid hitting low-hanging limbs, the smokestack was short and squat, and it "looked like a rather deep bucket sitting on the roof" (Mitchell 1947:126). Since the boats traveled the Ocklawaha at night transporting tourists and goods from Palatka to Silver Springs, a brazier or iron pot was mounted on the pilot house roof. Using pitch-pine or "lighter wood" for fuel, these "searchlights" cast an eerie red glare on the dark river throughout the night (Mitchell 1947:145-146; Mueller 1983:9). The Ocklawaha steamers had two decks: the lower for freight and machinery and the upper for passengers. The most unique feature of these riverboats was the method of propulsion a recessed stern paddlewheel. Measuring "about one fourth of the width of the vessel, it [the paddlewheel] was almost completely enclosed in the center of the hull and superstructure" (Mueller 1983:7). With the Ocklawaha's narrow passageways and sharp bends, the steamers were restricted in size. The maximum size for these vessels was just over 7 m wide (23.5 ft) and 27 m (89 ft) long. The Ocklawaha steamers carried passengers and freight from Palatka to Silver Springs from 1868 to the 1920s, until the railroads and newly designed water vessels led to their demise (Mitchell 1947; Mueller 1983). The Alligator Since C.B. Moore's Gopher could not travel the waters of the Ocklawaha, he needed a "recessed sternwheeler" to pursue his excavations. That boat was the Alligator (Figure 4). It was constructed in Norwalk, Florida, by Captain Howard in 1888. Originally, the Alligator (registration number 106613) was 17.4 m (57 ft) long, 5.7 m (18.7 ft) wide with a 1.1 m (3.5 ft) draft. The original tonnage was 22.42 metric tons (24.71 gross tons). The length of the steamer was increased twice: in 1890 to 21.6 m (71 ft) and in 1897 to 24.8 m (81.4 ft). Its maximum tonnage went to 62.59 metric tons (69 gross tons) (Mueller 1983:14). A second listing for the Alligator shows the year it was built as 1893 (Mueller 1983:33). In an unnumbered notebook, C.B. Moore wrote the "Cruise of the Alligator" in which he chron- icled his survey of the Ocklawaha for possible excavation sites from March 5 to April 7, 1891 (Moore 1987a [1891]). Based on Moore's notes, the earlier date is assumed to be correct. In a 1903 narrative, F.R. Swift describes the Alligator as a small version of an Ocklawaha steamer that was "built expressly for the Doctor and only draws a foot and a half of water, CERRATO C.B. MOORE'S OCKLAWAHA RIVERBOAT TH LRDAATRPLOIT19 VL 94 Silver SIts. M A R Heather hfand H SUM TER MAP OF THE OCKLAWAHA X IadiclefSon.d Mound. Sc.l Jr.. 181 5 Figure 3. C.B. Moore's 1895 map of the Ocklawaha River (from Moore 1896). 1996 VOL. 49(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST CERRATO C.B. MooRE's OCKLAWAHA RIVERBOAT Figure 4. C.B. Moore's Alligator on the Ocklawaha River circa 1900. Photograph courtesy of the Florida State Archives. loaded" (Swift 1903:48). The lower hull was designed for artifact analysis and storage, and also contained a photographic laboratory. Moore would come to Florida with his crew: a captain, an engineer, a steward, and a cook. His waiters and field diggers were hired in Palatka. Moore also kept two dogs with him (Swift 1903:48-49). Just how long Moore owned the Alligator is not known. He used the boat for "several years" to "pursue his hobby of excavating all the Indian shell mounds he could find on the Ocklawaha and the St. Johns" (Mueller 1983:14). Florida state records have the ship registered to a "Doctor Clarence B. Moore" but no dates are given (Mueller 1983:35). In 1910, the Alligator "disappears from the records. This means that she was abandoned or lost...or is no longer listed under that name" (Edward Mueller, personal communication, 1993). Currently, the Florida State Archives has photographs of two different Ocklawaha steamers called the Alligator. Edward A. Mueller, author of Ocklawaha River Steamboats, verified that the steamboat pictured in this paper is Moore's Alligator. The other boat was most likely a different vessel (versus an altered variation of the same vessel) and probably "was never docu- mented or registered" (Edward Mueller, personal communica- tion, 1993). There is one small piece of additional information about C.B. Moore, the Ocklawaha River, and the Alligator. Since Moore was such a prolific researcher and writer, and since he traveled on a floating research center, one might think that Moore's life was all work and no play. According to F.R. Swift, that is not the case. One afternoon Swift rescued the Alligator, which was wedged between two banks, with his boat, the Lela Bell. He then "joined hands" with Moore for two weeks and enjoyed playing the "usual Philadelphia game of poker" with the "Doctor" and some "friends" (Swift 1903:49). Conclusion Although C.B. Moore wrote copious volumes on his archae- ological excavations, there seems to be a paucity of information about him or his personal life. While working in eastern Florida, Moore used the City of Palatka as a home base for several years, yet research of historic documents and 1890s newspapers failed to produce records that the noted archaeol- ogist was ever there (Cerrato 1994:46-47). The information about C.B. Moore and the Alligator in this paper is not meant to add to our archaeological knowledge of Florida. It is, however, meant to provide some insight into the man who contributed so much to our knowledge of Florida's prehistory. Like many other archaeologists who are indebted to CERRATO C.B. MOORE'S OCKLAWAHA RIVERBOAT THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 Vo.. 49(4) C.B. Moore, I would like to know more about C.B., the man. Any additional, obscure information about C.B. Moore would be greatly appreciated by this author. Acknowledgments The data used for this paper was originally collected while I worked on my M.A. thesis. Therefore, I would like to thank those individuals who provided information and support for the Davenport Archaeological Project. First, I am indebted to Ranger Jim Thorsen, Seminole Ranger District, and Ranger Jerry Clutts, Lake George Ranger District, for allowing this project to become a reality and for allowing me to utilize their staff and equipment. I wish to thank Ray Willis, Principal Investigator for the project, for entrusting Davenport to me and for his guidance and support. The seed from which this paper developed was provided by Joe Knetsch, who casually mentioned to me that C.B. Moore had an Ocklawaha riverboat. I thank Edward Mueller for his research and verification of Moore's Alligator. Foremost, I wish to thank Ray Williams for his constant guidance and support in my education, this paper, and my career. Ray unselfishly spent many hours assisting me with this and several other projects and helped me to reach my goals. He will always be cherished as my mentor and dear friend. References Cited Carr, Marjorie Harris 1965 The Ocklawaha River Wilderness. The Florida Naturalist 38:1-3. Cerrato, Cynthia L. 1994 Davenport: A Prehistoric Village and Mound Site in the Ocala National Forest. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Davis, Mary B., compiler 1987 Field Notes of Clarence B. Moore's Southeastern Archaeological Expeditions, 1891-1918: A Guide to the Microfilm Edition. Huntington Free Library, Museum of the American Indian, New York. Dorian, Allen W. 1984 Cultural Resources Overview Ocala National Forest, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee. Dowda, R.B. 1939 The History of Palatka and Putnam County. R.B. Dowda, Palatka, Florida. Ewel, Katherine C. 1990 Swamps. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and John J. Ewel, pp. 281-323. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Lanier, Sidney 1973 Florida: Its Scenery, Climate, and History. 1973 facsimile of 1875 edition. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Livingston, Robert J. 1991 Introduction. In The Rivers of Florida, edited by Robert J. Livingston, pp. 1-16. Springer-Verlag, New York. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Mitchell, C. Bradford 1947 Paddle-Wheel Inboard: Some of the History of Ocklawaha River Steamboating and of the Hart Line. American Neptune 7:115-166. Moore, Clarence B. 1894a Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part I. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:5-128. 1894b Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part I. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:129-246. 1896 Certain Sand Mounds of the Ocklawaha River, Florida. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:518-543. 1987a [1891] Field notes, unnumbered notebook, "The Cruise of the Alli- gator." Compiled by Mary B. Davis, Huntington Free Library, Museum of the American Indian, New York. 1987b [1894] Field notes, notebook #6, roll #1. Compiled by Mary B. Davis. Huntington Free Library, Museum of the American Indian, New York. 1987c [1895] Field notes, notebook #8, roll #2. Compiled by Mary B. Davis. Huntington Free Library, Museum of the American Indian, New York. Morse, Dan F. and Phyllis A. Morse 1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New York. Mueller, Edward A. 1983 Ocklawaha River Steamboats. Mendelson Printing Company. Jack- sonville, Florida. Swift, F.R. 1903 Florida Fancies. G.P. Putnam and Sons, New York. Wardle, H. Newell 1987 [1956] Clarence Bloomfield Moore (1852-1936). Reprinted in Field Notes of Clarence B. Moore's Southeastern Archaeological Expeditions 1891-1918: A Guide to the Microfilm Edition, compiled by Mary B. Davis, pp. 11-15. Huntington Free Library, Museum of the American Indian, New York. Williams, Stephen 1991 Fantastic Archaeology. University Press of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) THE DURNFORD COLLECTION ANNETTE L. SNAPP Linacre College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX13JA, England E-mail: annette. snapp@linacre. oxford. ac. uk I was in Florida, last April, tarpon fishing, and had been drawn down in the course of this pursuit to the neighborhood of the settlement of Marco a few frame houses on the south-east coast [of Key Marco], collected near the pass of the same name through the reef [Durnford 1895:1032]. With these words, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Day Durnford, a retired British military officer, began his article for the November 1895 issue of The American Naturalist. Entitled, "The Discovery of Aboriginal Netting Rope and Wood Imple- ments in a Mud Deposit in Western Florida," Durnford's article includes a description of the location, environment, recovery, types of materials, and artifacts he found at what is now known as the Key Marco site at present day Marco Island, Florida (Figure 1). Within a few short months, on July 17, 1895, Lt. Col. Durnford donated this collection of unusual artifacts from southwest Florida to the British Museum in London, England. Thanks to Jonathan King, current Curator of the North Ameri- can Collections at the British Museum's Museum of Mankind, I had the opportunity in 1993 and 1994 to study the Durnford Collection from the Key Marco site. Still in amazingly pristine condition, the Durnford collection provides information not only on an early Florida culture, but also on the development of Florida archaeology. The State of Archaeological Theory in the 1890s Archaeology in the United States near the turn-of-the-century was not much past its infancy. The many mounds located in Ohio and throughout the Mississippi River Valley, as well as Florida, were explained through the knowledge of existing North American cultures. Armchair speculation about Native American cultures was fueled by the ethnocentric descriptions of the various cultures provided by early European explorers. This resulted in "Interpretations of the mounds [which] varied from sober discourse to bizarre speculation" (Willey and Sabloff 1980:20). It was during this period of archaeology that the Myth of the Moundbuilders of North America took shape. This myth ...held that the multitude of mounds or ruins, which were constantly being discovered in Ohio and other frontier areas as the colonists pushed to the west, could not have been built by the savages who were residing in these areas. Instead, they must have been erected by a civilized race that had disappeared a long time ago [Willey and Sabloff 1980:20]. Those who held this viewpoint generally asserted that the missing Moundbuilders had emigrated to Mexico to explain their disappearance (Silverberg 1970:63). By 1840, "There was no shortage of philosophers trying to prove that the Mound Builders had been Israelites, Phoenicians, Malays, Irishmen, or members of some other immigrant group" (Silverberg 1970:74). The source of the theory of the Moundbuilders can be under- stood partially by reviewing the early history of the United States. In 1539, Hernando de Soto explored the southeastern United States, including Florida. Few explorers followed immediately and it was over 100 years before Europeans returned to locations originally visited by de Soto (Milanich and Milbrath 1989:77-78). During the time between de Soto's travels and the next European explorers, repercussions from the contact of de Soto caused a great decline in population and a resulting social collapse: ...they found far fewer Indians than de Soto had reported, and nowhere did they find the large, bellicose chiefdoms that de Soto had encountered. In some cases the Indians had forgotten a level of social complexity that their ancestors had attained...Since the Indi- ans themselves had no memory of their ancestors' attainments, it is little wonder that the nineteenth-century American intellectuals created an elaborate mound-builder myth to explain the existence of the great earthen mounds that dot the southern landscape mounds and artifacts manufactured by the people of the southern chiefdoms [Milanich and Milbrath 1989:78]. The creators of this myth asserted that the Moundbuilders were a great, knowledgeable people who emigrated to Mexico for one reason or another, and they considered the extant North American people incapable of having constructed the mounds. By creating the Myth of the Moundbuilders, Europeans could more freely substantiate their view that the Native Americans were "children" or "child-like," requiring European guidance and counsel, and allowing Europeans to take control over the land and people of North America. It was not until the Classificatory-Descriptive Period in Ameri- can archaeology (1840-1914) that the Myth of the Mound- builders was successfully challenged (Willey and Sabloff 1980:35). Dominated by descriptions of archaeological materials and the development of rudimentary classification systems, this period also focused much interest on the people who constructed the prehistoric mounds. "Were they a 'lost race' of Mound- builders or simply the ancestors of the Indians?" (Willey and Sabloff 1980:35). In 1894, Cyrus Thomas published Report of the Mound VOL. 49 No. 4 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 1996 DECEMBER 1996 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 49 No. 4 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL 49(4) Atlantic Tamp Ocean S Tampa \ A"""i Gulf of Mexico Lak Okeechobee \0 Fort 0' Myers Naples Key Marco --- , * 0 30 60 / km o Figure 1. Location of Key Marco in southern peninsular Florida. Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. This report helped to lead the way to a definitive understanding of the Moundbuilders as ancestors of the Native American Indians rather than a lost race of peoples (Willey and Sabloff 1980:41-42). Still, it would take years before all archaeologists and the general public accepted Thomas's conclusions. The State of Archaeological Methods in the 1890s Archaeological field methods in the 1890s left much to be desired, reflecting an emergent rather than an established field of inquiry. In England, General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt- Rivers already had developed a highly scientific approach to archaeological excavation, including the meticulous recording of the precise locations (vertically and horizontally) of uncovered artifacts. While this would later become standard practice in American archaeology, even the best American archaeologists of the 1890s did not include such precise methods in their field work. As Marion Gilliland notes: Excavations were still in the nature of treasure hunts. Earth was tossed out by the shovelful and discarded without sifting. Only complete and recognized curios were kept, and most ended up in private collections from which they were often discarded as rubbish when the first owner died. Very few ended up in museums, and those that did were usually exhibited as individual items with no thought given to placing them in any kind of developmental or chronological order [Gilliland 1989:5]. This lack of archaeological standards, procedures, methods, and substantive theory formed the basis for the archaeological work conducted in Florida during this time period. Southwest Florida and Key Marco In the 1890s, conditions in southwest Florida made travel by any means other than boat difficult at best. The area was essentially a vast wilderness, sparsely populated by early settlers. In November of 1894, the railroad line reached West Palm Beach on the eastern side of the state, but ended at Punta Gorda on Charlotte Harbor on the west coast (Tebeau 1980:287). Travel was easiest via waterways as roads were few, usually poorly maintained, and subject to flooding during heavy afternoon rainstorms. When dry, the roads were equally impassable due to the loose, sandy nature of the soils. Despite traveling difficulties, many visitors were lured by the exotic nature of Florida. By the 1890s, the state had already established a tourist population. Tarpon fishing, game hunting, alligator hunting, and bird hunting for the valuable feathers used in ladies' hats brought many visitors to Florida. Others sought out the warm climate for health reasons. Located approximately 24 km south of Naples on the west coast of Florida, Key Marco is one of the many barrier islands which form the Ten Thousand Islands area of southwest Florida in the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1). The area is subtropical in nature and Key Marco lies at the edge of this subtropical area, which borders the more temperate climate farther north. Environmentally, this area of the Florida Gulf Coast consists of a shoreline, many lagoons, and mangrove-covered islands. Milanich and Fairbanks state that: These coastal lagoons, fed by drainage from the interior and sheltered from the coastal winds, offer a rich and broad range of resources...As they frequently open to the sea, the lagoons serve as a zone of interchange between inland species and marine species [Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:17]. Living in this area, the native peoples fished, hunted, and gathered along the coastal lagoons. Non-marine animals were available within the lagoon system or nearby, including deer, raccoon, turkey, bear, rabbits, and turtles (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:16-17). This environment also created an unusual opportunity for preservation. As Barbara Purdy (1991:37) notes of the preser- vation characteristics of the Key Marco site, there are "...per- manently saturated peaty soils ensuring anaerobic ('foul-smell- ing') conditions that retard decomposition." Due to the preserv- ing aspects of these peaty soils, artifacts fashioned from organic materials such as wood and fibers were recovered from what many archaeologists feel is one of the most important sites in North America. Artifacts fashioned from organic materials represent a great portion of the material culture of prehistoric peoples, yet they are usually the first items to decay and deteriorate at an archaeological site. The unique environment of Key Marco and its special properties preserved many artifacts which otherwise would have been lost. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1996 VOL. 49(4) SNAPP THE DEI1NFORD COLLECTION Glades Culture Area Our current understanding of the Key Marco site indicates that it is found within the Glades culture area, which comprises all of south Florida east and south of the Okeechobee and Caloosa- hatchee regions (Figure 2). The Glades culture was character- ized by the possibly seasonal use of both coastal and inland wetland habitats for subsistence. Coastal areas in particular appear to have been most heavily utilized, especially when associated with rivers which drain interior wetlands (Milanich 1994:298). The Glades culture began about 500 B.C. and is recognized archaeologically by the presence of sand-tempered-plain pottery. Use of this pottery prevailed until European contact. Slight differences in the manufacture of sand-tempered-plain pottery through time provide a convenient means for the categorization of different manifestations of the Glades culture through time. Due to the lack of quality stone, people of the Glades culture possessed a tool kit unlike those of most other areas of Florida. Wood, shell, and bone were used instead because of their ready availability (Milanich 1994:300-302). Figure 2. Location of Glades culture area (after Milanich 1994:278). The Durnford Collection The Durford collection contains examples of shell-tool tech- nology, as well as the fibers, wood, and sand-tempered-plain pottery. The use of these cultural materials at Key Marco reflects the Glades culture as does a reliance on a water-based subsistence. In April of 1895, Lt. Col. C.D. Durnford could be found tarpon fishing near the settlement of Naples, in present-day Collier County. Cushing describes well the chain of events leading to the involvement of Lt. Col. Durnford at the Key Marco Site: Early in the spring of 1895, Captain W.B. Collier, of Key Marco, southwestern Florida, found, while digging garden-muck from one of the little mangrove-swamps that occur, like filled-up coves, among the low-lying shell-banks surrounding his shore-island home, several ancient wooden articles and some pieces of netted cordage. He did not recognize as of artificial origin the first found of these objects so softened were they by decay, so like the water-soaked fragments of rotten timber and rootlets everywhere encountered in the muck. But the twine-like appearance of some of the seeming root-strands that clung to his digging tools, and the discovery, a little later, of a beautifully shaped and highly polished ladle or cup made from the larger portion of a whelk or conch shell, led him to believe that the strands were actual cordage, and that a noticeably curious block of wood, which had been sliced through by his spade and cast aside, was really an article fashioned by man. A few days later, Mr. Charles Wilkins, of Rochester, N.Y., chanced to sail down from the little winter resort of Naples, some fifteen miles north of Key Marco, to seek tarpon, and thus to hear of this find. Another guest at Naples, a traveler of wide experience and an accomplished scholar withal, Lieutenant-Colonel C.D. Durnford, of the British Army, had organized, a few days previously, an amateur expedition to explore an ancient canal and several small burial mounds near by. In this expedition, Mr. Wilkins had joined. He was therefore much interested in what he heard at Marco, and passed a day in digging there on his own account. He found close to the place that had been opened by Captain Collier and his men, other remains, including portions of two wooden cups one of them somewhat charred another shell ladle, several pierced conch tool-heads, and a fairly well-preserved animal figure-head of carved wood. When told by him of these finds, Colonel Durnford, accompanied by his courageous wife, immediately set forth for Marco [Cushing 1896:329]. The discovery by Durnford of the Key Marco artifacts is unusual and remarkable because of the nature of the site. Buried as they were in the mucky peat of the mangroves, few may have paused long enough to recognize these muddy objects as cultural artifacts. After reaching Key Marco, Durnford excavated two nearly square areas next to the location where earlier artifacts had been found. Within those two squares, he found rope, netting, fragments of gourd, wooden blocks, a wooden trencher, float pegs fastened together with cord, some fish spines, billets of wood, small pieces of black pottery, shell tools, wooden slats, two small plaques of thin wood, and a pierced shell, all under .75 meters (2.5 feet) of muck (Durnford 1895:1035-36). Figure 3 shows the northeast area of Key Marco, including the area that was eventually excavated by Cushing. The early excava- tions within this area, including those by Durnford, are illustrat- ed in Figure 4. In an effort to preserve the artifacts as he traveled with them, Durford kept the collection moist until reaching Philadelphia, where by chance he met Frank Hamilton Cushing. After seeing Caloosahatchee Region SNAPP THE DURNFORD COLLECTION Contact Us | Permissions | Preferences | Technical Aspects | Statistics | Internal | Privacy Policy © 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.All rights reserved. Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs