Vertebrate Fauna from the Refuge Fire Tower Site (8WA14): a Study of Coastal Subsistence in the Early Woodland Period Ariana Slemmens Lawson

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 Vertebrate Fauna from the Refuge Fire Tower Site (8WA14): A Study of Coastal Subsistence in the Early Woodland Period Ariana Slemmens Lawson

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

VERTEBRATE FAUNA FROM THE REFUGE FIRE TOWER SITE (8Wa14): A STUDY OF COASTAL SUBSISTENCE IN THE EARLY WOODLAND PERIOD

BY ARIANA SLEMMENS LAWSON

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2005

The Members of the Committee approve the thesis of Ariana Slemmens Lawson defended on August 19, 2005

______Rochelle Marrinan Professor Directing Thesis

______Glen Doran Committee Member

______Michael Russo Committee Member

Approved:

______Dean Falk, Chair, Anthropology Department

______Joseph Travis, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Rochelle Marrinan, Glen Doran, and Michael Russo comprised an incredibly patient thesis committee. Thank you for your guidance, criticism, suggestions, and humor; each is greatly appreciated. In particular, I owe a debt of gratitude to Rochelle Marrinan who initiated the agreement between the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge and Florida State University’s Department of Anthropology to continue to archive and conduct research on the Refuge Fire Tower Site archaeological assemblage, and who also elicited funding from the Archaeology General Development Fund in the Florida State University Foundation for the radiocarbon dating. I am grateful to the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge for the opportunity they have provided for this and future research. Thank you to David S. Phelps, whose recollections and notes regarding his own investigations of the Refuge Fire Tower Site helped in my reconstruction of the history of the site; Camm Swift who provided information about preliminary analyses of fauna from the Refuge Fire Tower Site and several other Gulf Coast archaeological sites; and James Miller and Judith Bense who participated as students in the excavation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site and provided helpful suggestions during my search for information about the site. An enormous amount of faunal data went into this thesis and I wish to thank all those students whose work contributed to this body of knowledge, including Alyssa Krause, Robert Ajwang′, Carissa Lindsley, and Nicole Valdez, who identified fauna from the Refuge Fire Tower. Previously unreported faunal identifications from Bird Hammock (8Wa52) were conducted by Margaret Averill, Allison Diefenderfer, Lynn Fister, and Amy Gusick, Cindy Maur, and Rob van Hoose. Rochelle Marrinan and Tanya Peres identified the fauna from Snow Beach (8Wa30). Thank you especially to Rochelle Marrinan for providing these valuable data. I am definitely grateful to Roger C. Smith and Robert S. Taylor, with whom I worked professionally throughout this thesis process, and who were incredibly understanding and accommodating when it came to juggling my academic and professional needs. Thank you both for your support and flexibility. Finally, thanks to Chuck, Jen, Della, Claire, Robin, Mom, Dad, Erin, and Meghan for putting up with my unprofessional rants the rest of the time.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii ABSTRACT...... xii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 The Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 1 Zooarchaeological Potential of the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 2 Goals of Thesis ...... 4 Thesis Outline ...... 5

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7 Regional Chronology & Culture History...... 7 Late Archaic Period ...... 7 Woodland Period ...... 8 Woodland Period Subsistence...... 14 Coastal Settlement Patterning...... 18 Midden Types ...... 19

CHAPTER 3. SITE CONTEXT ...... 25 Modern Environment & Distribution of Resources...... 25 Previous Archaeological Investigations...... 33 Surveys and Excavation...... 33 Site Stratification & Material Culture...... 35

CHAPTER 4. ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS...... 44 Sample Selection...... 44 Identification...... 46 Quantification ...... 46 Sample Adequacy ...... 49 Determinants of Seasonality ...... 49 Radiocarbon Dating ...... 50

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS ...... 52 Identified Taxa...... 54 Mammals...... 54 Birds...... 57 Reptiles ...... 58 Cartilaginous & Bony Fishes...... 59 Sample Adequacy ...... 59 Biodiversity & Biomass...... 60 Diversity & Equitability...... 65 Invertebrate Fauna ...... 66 Botanical Remains ...... 68

CHAPTER 6. SITE INTERPRETATION...... 69 Taphonomic Processes & Sources of Bias...... 69 Intersite Comparisons ...... 72 Catchment Areas...... 74 Prey Selection ...... 78 Capture Techniques ...... 79 Processing & Consumption...... 84 Site Seasonality...... 94 Marine Catfish ...... 98 Seatrout ...... 99 Red Drum...... 99 Black Drum...... 100

CHAPTER 7. REGIONAL SITE COMPARISONS...... 101 Comparative Data Set ...... 101 Faunal Comparisons...... 109 Vertebrate Fauna...... 109 Invertebrate Fauna ...... 115 Diversity and Equitability...... 117 Prey Capture, Processing & Consumption...... 119 Paleobotanical Material ...... 120 Seasonality ...... 121 Biases ...... 121

CHAPTER 8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 124 Summary of Fauna from the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 124 Regional Subsistence Pattern...... 128 Conclusions...... 130

APPENDIX A: ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA FROM 8Wa14...... 131 APPENDIX B: ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA FROM 8Wa52...... 169 APPENDIX C: ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA FROM 8Wa30...... 178

REFERENCES ...... 187

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 206

v LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Sample provenience and excavation data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 44

Table 2. Radiocarbon dated samples from the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 51

Table 3. Summary of zooarchaeological data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 53

Table 4. Taxa identified at the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 55

Table 5. Distribution of taxa at the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 56

Table 6. Diversity and equitability at the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 66

Table 7. Catchment areas indicated by identified taxa at the Refuge Fire Tower Site..... 75

Table 8. Seasonality data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 95

Table 9. Summary of contemporary archaeological sites in the Deptford/Swift Creek culture region...... 102

Table 10. Summary of comparative sample data...... 103

Table 11. Summary of comparative zooarchaeological data...... 106

Table 12. Taxa identified at contemporaneous archaeological sites...... 111

Table 13. Diversity and equitability at contemporaneous archaeological sites...... 118

Table A.1. Regression values used in minimum meat weight estimations...... 137

Table A.2. Taxa ranked by minimum edible meat weight (all samples combined) ...... 138

Table A.3. Diversity and equitability in FS # 710 ...... 141

Table A.4. Diversity and equitability in FS # 729 ...... 142

Table A.5. Diversity and equitability in FS # 753 ...... 143

Table A.6. Diversity and equitability in FS # 541 ...... 144

Table A.7. Diversity and equitability in FS # 759 ...... 145

Table A.8. Diversity and equitability in FS # 793 ...... 145

Table A.9. Diversity and equitability in FS # 801 ...... 146

vi Table A.10. Diversity and equitability in FS # 815 ...... 147

Table A.11. Diversity and equitability in FS # 824 ...... 147

Table A.12. Diversity and equitability in FS # 391 (Feature 1) ...... 148

Table A.13. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 710 (-90L10, Zone II, Level 2) ...... 155

Table A.14. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 729 (-100L10, Zone II, Level 2) ...... 157

Table A.15. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 753 (-100l10, Zone II, Level 2a)...... 159

Table A.16. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 541 (-60L10, Zone II, Level 3) ...... 160

Table A.17. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 759 (-100L10, Zone III, Level 1) ...... 162

Table A.18. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 793 (-40R110, Level 1) ...... 163

Table A.19. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 801 (-40R110, Level 2) ...... 164

Table A.20. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 815 (-40R110, Level 3) ...... 165

Table A.21. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 824 (-40R110, Level 4) ...... 167

Table A.22. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 391 (Feature #1) ...... 168

Table B.1. Zooarchaeological data from Snow Beach – S170-180, E10-20 Unit Composite (Levels A-C)...... 170

Table B.2. Zooarchaeological data from Snow Beach – S170-180, E0-10 Unit Composite (Levels A-E)...... 172

Table B.3. Zooarchaeological data from Snow Beach – Feature # 1 ...... 177

Table C.1. Zooarchaeological data from Bird Hammock – Unit Composite (160L45) ..181

Table C.2. Zooarchaeological data from Bird Hammock – Unit Composite (100L60) ..184

vii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Deptford culture region in Florida. From Milanich (1994:113)...... 10

Figure 2. Swift Creek and Santa Rosa – Swift Creek culture regions in Florida. From Milanich (1994:143)...... 11

Figure 3. Profile of a shell midden. From Whittaker and Stein (1992:35)...... 23

Figure 4. Profile of the Refuge Fire Tower midden (Phelps 1968-1970: Photo # 452-55)...... 24

Figure 5. Location of the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 26

Figure 6. View southeast from fire tower of pine scrub, salt marsh, and sea grass beds (Phelps 1968-1970: Photo # 452-1)...... 28

Figure 7. Topographic map of the Refuge Fire Tower Site (Phelps 1968-1970)...... 34

Figure 8. Location of excavation units and sample proveniences at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Adapted from original field notes and maps (Phelps 1968-1970)...... 36

Figure 9. Partial stratigraphic profile of the L10 excavation trench, east wall. Adapted from original field notes and drawings (Phelps 1968-1970, Phelps et al. 1968-1970)...... 37

Figure 10. Baked clay figurine (a), and “pot scatter” (b) from the Refuge Fire Tower Site (Phelps 1968-1970: Photos # 556-1, 452-52c)...... 40

Figure 11. Possible postmolds in the floor of -70L10, Zone II, Level 2, facing north (Phelps 1968-1970, Photo # 452-53)...... 41

Figure 12. Possible postmolds in the floor of -90L10, Zone II, Level 2, facing northeast (Phelps 1968-1970, Photo # 452-56)...... 41

Figure 13. Troweling Feature 1, -80L20, facing west (Phelps 1968-1970: Photo # 452- 22)...... 42

Figure 14. Unidentified fraction in each sample...... 52

Figure 15. Relationship between number of taxa and MNI in each sample...... 61

Figure 16. Relationship between NISP and MNI in each sample...... 61

Figure 17. Percentages of NISP by class in each sample...... 62

viii

Figure 18. Percentages of MNI by class in each sample...... 63

Figure 19. Percentages of biomass by class in each sample...... 64

Figure 20. Oysters in -70L10, Zone II, Level 1, facing east (Phelps 1968-1970, Photo # 452-36)...... 67

Figure 21. Comparison of primary data from water floated and ¼-in screened samples from the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 71

Figure 22. Representation of vertebrate fauna unidentifiable to species...... 80

Figure 23. Possible methods of fish procurement at the Refuge Fire Tower Site: (a) gill net (from O’Connor 2000:143), and (b) dip net (from Reitz and Wing 1999:266).. 81

Figure 24. Element representation among mammals identified at the Refuge Fire Tower Site...... 85

Figure 25. Hyperostoses exhibiting cut marks (photograph by the author, 2005)...... 86

Figure 26. Black drum vertebral column in -90L10, Zone II, Level 1 (Phelps 1968-1970: Photo # 452-52b)...... 88

Figure 27. Percentage of burned fauna in each sample...... 90

Figure 28. Ethnographic depictions of seething or smoking fish on hurdles over fire (from Swanton 1946: Plate 54)...... 91

Figure 29. Postmolds in the floor of -60L10, Zone II, Level 2 (Phelps 1968-1970: Photo # 452-12)...... 93

Figure 30. Ethnographic depiction of Timucuan Indians smoking meat (from Hulton 1977)...... 93

Figure 31. Ethnographic depiction of boiling fish (from Swanton 1946: Plate 54)...... 94

Figure 32. Location map of archaeological sites in the Deptford/Swift Creek culture region...... 104

Figure A.1. Calibration of radiocarbon age to calendar years – FS # 539...... 132

Figure A.2. Calibration of radiocarbon age to calendar years – FS # 715...... 133

Figure A.3. Calibration of radiocarbon age to calendar years – FS # 732...... 134

Figure A.4. Percentages of burned fauna in each sample...... 135

Figure A.5. Percentages of minimum edible meat weight in each sample...... 139

Figure A.6. Standard length estimates of marine catfish – FS # 710...... 149

Figure A.7. Standard length estimates of seatrout – FS # 710...... 150

Figure A.8. Standard length estimates of black drum – FS # 710 ...... 151

Figure A.9. Standard length estimates of red drum – FS # 710...... 152

Figure A.10. Distribution of marine catfish standard lengths – FS # 710 ...... 153

Figure A.11. Distribution of seatrout standard lengths – FS # 710 ...... 153

Figure A.12. Distribution of red drum standard lengths – FS # 710 ...... 154

Figure A.13. Distribution of black drum standard lengths – FS # 710...... 154

Figure B.1. Percentages of NISP, MNI, and biomass at Snow Beach...... 170

Figure C.1. Percentages of NISP, MNI, and biomass at Bird Hammock...... 179

x ABSTRACT

David S. Phelps, of Florida State University, excavated the Refuge Fire Tower Site between 1968 and 1970 during a regional study of prehistoric settlement patterning on Florida’s northern Gulf Coast. A preliminary report of these excavations and subsequent citations characterized the site as a seasonally occupied special-use site for the procurement of fish and shellfish. A number of large, articulated fish recovered from the midden led Phelps to further speculate that particular species of fish were targeted and filleted at the site, possibly for trade inland. This remains unverified, however, as in- depth analysis of fauna from the Refuge Fire Tower Site has not been reported to date. The purpose of this thesis was to test Phelps’ characterization of the Refuge Fire Tower Site through zooarchaeological analysis of fauna from the midden. I proposed that use of the Refuge Fire Tower Site for fish and shellfish procurement and processing during the spring, summer, and fall months would be reflected in the modal class sizes of fish remains from the midden, and that specialization would be evidenced by large numbers of particular fish species and/or repeated size ranges of fishes. I also suggested that, if indeed a special-use procurement site, patterns of vertebrate exploitation at the Refuge Fire Tower Site would differ from those of contemporaneous coastal village sites in the region, and instead resemble subsistence patterning of coastal campsites. Vertebrate fauna from ten midden samples and one feature were analyzed. Problems encountered in this study included limited excavation data, an incomplete artifact assemblage, and biased archaeological recovery techniques. Results of the analysis indicate the Refuge Fire Tower Site was not a specialized resource procurement site, but rather a small habitation site occupied nearly year-round during the Late Deptford and Early Swift Creek periods. Quantified analysis of vertebrate fauna the site indicates resource exploitation focused on marine resources, mainly fish, and, to a much smaller degree, terrestrial and freshwater fauna. Though several large fish were identified in the samples analyzed, a wide range of fish sizes was present in each sample, suggesting a broad pattern of marine fish exploitation in the estuary, bay, and offshore. Articulated fish vertebral columns suggest overabundance, possibly associated with feasting. Subsequent comparison of the data with contemporaneous sites in the Deptford/Swift Creek culture region revealed a relatively uniform pattern of coastal subsistence throughout, with minor differences reflecting local environmental resource variability.

xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

This study presents an analysis and interpretation of select samples of vertebrate fauna from the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge Fire Tower Site (8Wa14), an archaeological site on Florida’s northwest Gulf Coast. A two-foot thick large earthen/shell midden evidences the site’s main occupation during the Early Woodland period, though an underlying artifact scatter suggests an initial brief occupation during the Late Archaic. A surface scatter atop the midden is related to a nearby Mississippian period burial mound. The Refuge Fire Tower midden is described in the archaeological literature as the remnants of a seasonal special-use site (Milanich 1994:144-145) despite the fact that investigation of the midden has been only marginally reported (Phelps 1967, 1969a, 1969b, 1969c) and quantitative zooarchaeological analysis of fauna from the midden is lacking. In this study, I seek to test the functional interpretation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site as a seasonal special-use site using zooarchaeological analysis of vertebrate fauna from the midden.

The Refuge Fire Tower Site

Intensive archaeological investigation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site occurred between 1968 and 1970 and is discussed in depth in Chapter 3. In the only published report of the excavations, principal investigator David S. Phelps (Phelps 1969a:15-16) estimated fish remains constituted ninety-five percent of the vertebrate faunal material recovered from the midden, with mammals, reptiles and birds comprising the remaining five percent. He later reported that fish and shellfish remains constituted ninety-five percent of the faunal material recovered from the midden and contributed more than ninety-eight percent of the dietary meat intake (Phelps 1969c:3-4). A subsequent unpublished master’s thesis (Shannon 1979) characterized the site as a Late Deptford/Early Swift Creek shell midden, seasonally utilized for the exploitation of coastal fish and shellfish. These characterizations made their way into several important publications on southeastern archaeology, bolstering acceptance of the Refuge Fire Tower Site as a seasonally occupied marine resource procurement station. Milanich (1994:144-145)

1 included the Refuge Fire Tower Site in his discussion of coastal shell middens that “may represent special-use sites used for collecting shellfish and for fishing” during the Swift Creek phase. Conclusions about subsistence activities at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, however, are simply impressions gleaned from field observations during excavation, and were not based on specific quantitative analysis. Whether fauna from the Refuge Fire Tower midden represent artifacts of a fish and shellfish procurement camp removed from the main habitation site, or whether they are simply the daily dietary remains of a small group of coastal dwellers who continuously occupied the site is unknown. The key to determining how the Refuge Fire Tower Site fits into the Early Woodland landscape lies in zooarchaeological analysis of fauna from the site.

Zooarchaeological Potential of the Refuge Fire Tower Site

Investigation of faunal remains from archaeological sites facilitates the assessment of environmental, cultural, and social aspects of past livelihoods. Archaeofauna, however, has historically been one of the least studied of prehistoric material types, despite its potential wealth of information. The information upon which modern subsistence theories are constructed is based largely on compilations of simple presence/absence lists of species recovered from archaeological sites, or what have commonly been referred to as “laundry lists.” In the past, this information was gathered secondarily to studies whose main foci were ceramic and lithic assemblages from archaeological sites. Many researchers failed to recognize the potential of zooarchaeological studies to yield additional, if not more accurate, information about daily activities. Such studies were inherently biased by collection methods that failed to adequately control for the minute size of the remains and by analytical inexperience dealing with archaeofaunal material (see Reitz and Wing 1999; Payne 1972; and Shaffer 1992 for further discussion). Growing archaeological interest in cultural ecology in the late 1960s and early 1970s prompted investigators to probe more intensely the relationship between human economic behavior and the environment (Binford 1968; Flannery 1972, 1973; Harris 1968; Lee 1969; Yesner 1980). Increased recognition of the value of zooarchaeological

2 data has resulted in refined collection, identification, and analysis techniques. Methodological advances over the last several decades have now made it possible to do more than simply list the midden constituents. Zooarchaeological analysis, with its potential to tell us not only what types of food resources were procured, but in what relative quantities; how food resources were processed; the seasons during which resources were exploited at the site; and the frequency of repeated usage of the site, has provided greater insight into the function and extent of subsistence activities at many archaeological sites (Brown and Wing 1979, Erlandson 1988, Grayson 1984, McCutcheon 1992, Meehan 1977, Quitmyer and Jones 2000, Reitz and Wing 1999, Reitz et al. 1987). Zooarchaeological data, combined with information about other artifact types recovered from the midden, depositional patterning within the midden, and ethnohistoric accounts of coastal subsistence activities provide a strong basis for the interpretation of prehistoric activities at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. However, there are several problems with the Refuge Fire Tower Site data. In the decade preceding Phelps’ investigation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site, the archaeological community had begun critically evaluating excavation and sampling techniques, voicing the need for more consistent and systematic recovery methodology (Payne 1972, Reitz and Wing 1999; Wing and Brown 1979, Wing and Quitmyer 1992). Excavation strategies used at the Refuge Fire Tower Site are representative of this transition, as evidenced by a switch early in the excavation from ½-in to ¼-in screen sizes and the application of water flotation to selected samples. Unfortunately, shellfish from the midden was sampled less systematically, usually hand-picked from ¼-in screen. Thus, rigorous evaluation of the invertebrate contribution to subsistence or subsistence- related activities was rarely possible. Although a sample of invertebrate remains was retained during excavation from the Refuge Fire Tower Site, quantitative treatment is not possible. In the years immediately following the excavations, valuable provenience information was lost during undocumented analyses of the faunal assemblage by Camm Swift, a graduate student in Florida State University’s Department of Biology. In 1970, Phelps left Florida State University (FSU) for a position in the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University (ECU), taking the entire Refuge Fire Tower

3 Site archaeological collection with him. Various analyses ensued, including a ceramic analysis (Shannon 1979) and continued unpublished work by Swift on vertebrate samples from the Refuge Fire Tower Site and other Gulf Coast sites. In the early 1990s, Byrd (1994:144) analyzed fish vertebrae from a water floated sample of unknown provenience for inclusion in his regional subsistence study. In 2000, ECU returned Phelps’ Gulf Coast archaeological collections, including that of the Refuge Fire Tower Site, to FSU’s Department of Anthropology. In 2003, Swift returned several shipments of faunal materials and zooarchaeological data to FSU, though none was from the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Although the majority of ceramics and lithics from the Refuge Fire Tower Site are now located in FSU’s Archaeological Collections, some specimens have not been located. Only a fraction of the zooarchaeological assemblage has been recovered, with only a small portion retaining any record of its provenience. In 2004, an agreement was formed between the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge and FSU’s Department of Anthropology to archive and conduct research on the Refuge Fire Tower Site archaeological assemblage.

Goals of Thesis

The purpose of this study is to determine whether quantitative analysis of vertebrate fauna from the midden would support Phelps’ characterization of subsistence practices at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. I intend to test Phelps’ interpretation of the site as a fish and shellfish procurement station through the application of zooarchaeological methods of analysis using selected vertebrate samples from the site. To this end, I analyzed vertebrate fauna from nine midden samples and one feature from the Refuge Fire Tower Site. I used these data to reconstruct the prehistoric landscape and make inferences about diet breadth, seasonality, sedentism, and resource procurement technology. I then compared this information to zooarchaeological data from other Deptford and Swift Creek archaeological sites in the region, and constructed a model of coastal subsistence during the Early Woodland period.

4 Thesis Outline

The following is a summary of the information contained in this thesis. Chapters 2 through 4 provide theoretical, physical, and methodological backgrounds. In Chapter 2, I review the archaeological literature. I outline a regional cultural chronology and describe Woodland period subsistence patterns based on current archaeological evidence, and discuss coastal settlement patterning in relation to site types, site configurations, and site locations. In Chapter 3, I place the Refuge Fire Tower Site in two contexts. First, I present an environmental setting with a description of the local landscape and current distribution of plant and animal resources. Second, I recount the history of archaeological investigations of the Refuge Fire Tower Site, reviewing field excavation and collection procedures. Chapter 4 outlines the zooarchaeological methods used in this study, beginning with a description of each sample and my rationale for their selection. Identification and quantification procedures are described, and the analytical methods I used to infer information from the data are discussed. Chapter 5 presents the results of my zooarchaeological analysis. I discuss the taxa identified and the range and distribution of species recovered from the site in terms of biodiversity and biomass contributions. These data are the foundation for Chapter 6, where I infer catchment areas from habitat characteristics of the identified taxa. I also present inferences regarding seasonality, possible technology and subsistence strategies, and taphonomic processes surrounding the formation of the archaeological deposits. An assessment is made here of the adequacy of the samples chosen for analysis, the accuracy of the information derived from them, and possible sources of bias. Finally, I compare samples from different proveniences, investigating significant differences among samples. In Chapter 7, I compare data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site to subsistence information from other Deptford and Swift Creek sites in the region (Byrd 1995; Hale and Quitmyer 1985; Nanfro 2004; Phelps 1969a; Phelps 1969c; Quitmyer et al. 1985). I briefly summarize zooarchaeological data from Bernath (8Sr986), Hawkshaw (8Es1287), Third Gulf Breeze (8Sr8), Bird Hammock (8Wa30), Snow Beach (8Wa52), Ulmore Cove (8Wa30), and Kings Bay (9Cam171a); then contrast this information with the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Finally, in Chapter 8, I summarize the results of this analysis and present

5 a regional model of Early to Middle Woodland period coastal subsistence practices, combining the data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site with those from contemporaneous archaeological sites on the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts.

6 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Regional Chronology & Culture History

Prehistoric Northwest Florida witnessed the appearance, transition, replacement, and abandonment of numerous culture types, from the end of the Archaic period until European contact. Pertinent to this study are the Late Archaic Norwood culture, and Deptford, Swift Creek, and Santa Rosa – Swift Creek cultures that progressively inhabited the region in the Early and Middle Woodland phases.

Late Archaic Period The Late Archaic period was ushered in by the stabilization and arrival of essentially modern environmental conditions in the southeastern United States around 3,000 B.C. (Watts and Hansen 1988). Around this time, prehistoric human populations began to diverge culturally along major physiographic boundaries, as technological adaptation to Florida’s varied environments became more fine-tuned (Milanich 1994:85). Ceramic technology appeared in Florida by at least 2,200 B.C., possibly earlier (Sassaman 2002:403). Fiber-tempered Orange series ceramics along northeast Florida’s St. Johns River valley were likely the first to appear in Florida (Bullen 1972, Russo 1992). Initially undecorated, fiber-tempered ceramics soon bore geometric designs and punctations (Milanich 1994:86). Late Archaic culture in the panhandle region is sometimes referred to as Norwood based on early ceramics that are sandier than the Orange wares and exhibit stick-impressed decoration (Phelps 1965). Norwood ceramics are not well dated (Sassaman 2002:405), however, and knowledge of the Norwood culture is limited, likely as a result of Gulf Coast sea level rise and site inundation. Phelps’ field notes describe a thin artifact scatter unerlying the Refuge Fire Tower midden as Norwood. Since Phelps’ departure from Florida State University, further research into the Norwood expression in northwest Florida has been limited. Despite the implications for cooking, storing, and plant processing that accompanied the introduction of ceramic technology in northern Florida (Smith 1986), its arrival had no apparent implications for subsistence practices in the region (Brose

7 1979:141-142), as Archaic populations continued to reside mainly in wetland locales along the coast, venturing into upland forested regions briefly and only seasonally. Increasing size and density of coastal settlements during the Late Archaic indicates significant population growth (Milanich 1994:87).

Woodland Period The Woodland period in eastern North America began between 1200 B.C. and 1000 B.C., and lasted until approximately A.D. 1000 (Anderson and Mainfort 2002; Bense 1994:110; Stuvier et al. 1998). The period is divided into three phases: Early, Middle, and Late, based on changes in archaeological material culture reflective of changing social conditions. During the Early Woodland, the use of pottery became widespread in the region and the number of chipped stone tool types increased in number and decreased in size. Separate culture groups manifested, differentiating themselves by local variation in ceramic manufacturing and decorative techniques. The emergence and growth of ritualized ceremonialism to the west and north, at places such as Mandeville, Adena, and Hopewell influenced the construction of huge mound centers that tethered smaller satellite villages (Anderson and Mainfort 2002). Throughout the Middle Woodland, increased domestication of chenopodium, sunflower, marsh elder, and squash in the Eastern Woodlands spurred population growth and fueled participation in Hopewell ceremonialism (Smith 1992). The relationship of Hopewell to the ceremonial complexes that emerged in the extreme southeast at this time, particularly northern Florida, is debatable. In the 1960s, William Sears outlined what he perceived to be a series of Hopewell-related ceremonial complexes through which prehistoric peoples in northern Florida progressed in the Early and Middle Woodland periods (Sears 1962). These included the Deptford Yent Complex and the Swift Creek Green Point Complex. Sears based these complexes on shared salient lifestyle characteristics inferred from archaeological data reported from a handful of mound sites in northern Florida, mainly excavated by C. B. Moore in the period between 1893 and 1918. Brose’s (1979) more recent reanalysis of Moore’s early excavation data suggests Woodland ceremonialism in northern Florida operated independent of the true Hopewell.

8 Brose argued that “Florida Hopewell” should not be considered an extension of the Ohio and Illinois Valley Hopewell. He views the various culture groups in Florida between 100 B.C. and A.D. 500 whose artifact assemblages contain exotic or Hopewellian-like materials as the manifestation of an emergent system of social structure maintenance among similar socio-ethnic groups adapting to localized subsistence resource zones. Brose proposed that in response to growing populations, a regional socioeconomic ceremonial network emerged in which particular lineages within each locale controlled the flow of exotic materials borrowed from neighboring Hopewell groups in Alabama, Mississippi, northern Georgia, and Tennessee (Brose 1979:149). Ceremonial exchange between the Florida groups functioned to facilitate access to resources from different environmental zones. Among the Woodland Period cultures, particularly Deptford, Swift Creek, and Santa Rosa – Swift Creek, radiocarbon dates indicate considerable temporal overlap (Milanich 1994:143). The Deptford culture grew directly out of the Late Archaic populations that resided in south-central Georgia and along Florida’s northern Gulf Coast. In Florida, Deptford first emerged around 700 B.C. along the eastern Gulf Coast (Figure 1), extending as far south as Tampa Bay, and had spread to the western Gulf Coast by about 200 B.C. (Bense 1994:111). Late Archaic populations to the east (south of Jacksonville, in central Florida) and in southern Florida were also transformed around this time (Milanich 1994:243-322). Deptford sites are distinguished archaeologically by the presence of quartz sand/grit and clay tempered ceramics decorated by means of stamping with carved and cord-wrapped wooden paddles prior to firing. Many Deptford ceramics are plain, but decorative designs include simple and linear check-stamped, simple linear stamped, brushed, fabric-impressed, and stick-impressed (Milanich 1994:129-133). In north-central Florida, the Deptford culture persisted until its transformation into the Weeden Island culture around A.D. 300 (Milanich 1994:164). In Georgia and northern Florida, Deptford was supplanted by the Swift Creek and Santa Rosa – Swift Creek cultures.

Figure 1. Deptford culture region in Florida. From Milanich (1994:113).

The Swift Creek culture first appeared in central and southern Georgia around 100 B.C., where it developed out of the indigenous Deptford culture (Thomas and Campbell 1985, 1990). Swift Creek material culture is distinguished by complicated stamped wares influenced by the Mandeville complex in central Georgia (Milanich 1994:148). Ceramics exhibiting curvilinear and rectilinear designs, sometimes with animal motifs, gradually replaced the preceding plain and check stamped Deptford wares and became the ceramic hallmark of Swift Creek culture (Bense 1992). Bone and stone tool production diversified and increased in intensity during the Swift Creek phase (Milanich 1994:145). Swift Creek archaeological sites are most concentrated in the Coastal Plain, along the Gulf Coast of northern Florida, the lower piedmont of central Georgia, and throughout the Alabama, Apalachicola, and Altamaha River systems (Elliot 1998:19). Swift Creek ceramics have been identified at archaeological sites as far away as Tennessee, Alabama, and along the Atlantic Coast of South Carolina, however, indicating

10 the culture imparted considerable influence beyond its heartland. In central and northern coastal Georgia, ceramic assemblages indicate some local Deptford, Cartersville, and Connestee culture groups coexisted with the new Swift Creek culture, whose ceramics featured intricate concentric designs and animal motifs (Ashley 1998; Snow and Stephenson 1990). The Swift Creek culture quickly spread into the Florida panhandle west of the Aucilla River (Figure 2) from Georgia’s southeast coast (Thomas and Campbell 1985, 1990). The small number of Swift Creek sites identified in northeast Florida are restricted to the St. Johns River Valley and between the St. Johns River and the Atlantic Coast in Duval County (Ashley 1992). Swift Creek ceramics have been identified only in small numbers at archaeological sites in southern Florida (Milanich 1994:142).

Figure 2. Swift Creek and Santa Rosa – Swift Creek culture regions in Florida. From Milanich (1994:143).

11 In the Florida panhandle, Swift Creek ceramics are found as far west as the eastern Alabama border. West of the Apalachicola and Chatahoochee Rivers, though, Swift Creek ceramics are often found mixed with and/or overlying a Santa Rosa ceramic variant believed to be related to the Marksville culture of the Gulf Coast Mississippi River Valley (Bense 1992). Archaeological sites in this region are thus termed Santa Rosa – Swift Creek. The Santa Rosa – Swift Creek culture region appears to represent an interface between Swift Creek cultures to the east and Marksville cultures to the west (Anderson 1998:295; Milanich 1994:150-151). Anderson (1998:278-280) suggests that the strategic placement of Swift Creek sites along two major trade arteries, the Chatahoochee River and the Altamaha/Ocmulgee/Oconee river systems, functioned to control access to goods from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts including conch and whelk shell, mica, greenstone, steatite, and galena, to Hopwellian centers in the Ohio and Havana River valleys. Major centers along these routes, including Block-Sterns, Mandeville, Shaw, and Kolomoki, may have functioned to tether smaller satellite centers distributed among river valleys. Milanich (1994:148) notes that the representation of Swift Creek and Santa Rosa – Swift Creek sites along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts is not as visible as in the upland interior and suggests the scarcity of recorded Swift Creek sites along the coast may reflect incomplete survey data. Bense (1992, 1998) disagrees, pointing out that extensive surveys along the panhandle coast and in the adjacent interior reveal a paucity of Santa Rosa – Swift Creek period sites inland and a larger number along the Gulf Coast. Further site analysis by Bense points to clustering of Swift Creek sites on the coast. Clusters generally consisted of one large midden surrounded by several nearby smaller middens, indicating an orientation toward coastal living with short-term ventures into the interior for special-purpose activities. It is possible that populations living at coastal site (ring middens) functioned similarly to interior mound centers by directing trade and communication over subregions (Anderson 1998:289). Bense (1994:6) has proposed that ring middens in northwest Florida may have been “the precursors and equivalents of mound center plazas and square grounds,” thus serving similar purposes. Given the degree of localized environmental adaptation occurring at the time, other coastal midden sites may represent

12 procurement loci for the collection of bulk fish and shell for trade with groups from other resource zones. Though major shell-processing loci have yet to be identified, bulk trade of fish fillets has been speculated to account for the recovery of marine fish remains at inland sites such as Block-Sterns (8Le148) (e.g., Jones et al. 1998). Fish bone from Block-Sterns, however, suggests whole fish or steaks were transported rather than boneless fillets. Milanich (1994:144-145) categorizes Swift Creek archaeological sites in three types: 1) inland villages in fertile forested river valleys, 2) coastal villages, and 3) coastal special-use sites. Inland and coastal villages usually consist of horseshoe or ring-shaped middens, sometimes associated with burial mounds, and are probably occupied year- round. Swift Creek material culture is distinguished by complicated stamped wares influenced by the Mandeville complex in central Georgia (Milanich 1994:148). Ceramics exhibiting curvilinear and rectilinear designs, sometimes with animal motifs, gradually replaced the preceding plain and check stamped Deptford wares and became the ceramic hallmark of Swift Creek culture (Bense 1992). The production of bone and stone tools also diversified and increased in intensity during the Swift Creek phase (Milanich 1994:145). By around A.D. 100, the growing human population had exceeded the coastal carrying capacity of Florida’s Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Large sedentary villages soon began appearing inland in the interior forests, along the fertile valleys of the same rivers whose coastal floodplains had previously been occupied (Milanich 1994:87). A marked decline in pan-regional interaction by A.D. 400 resulted in the transformations of first the Swift Creek and later the Santa Rosa – Swift Creek culture in Florida and Georgia (Anderson 1998:298). In northern Florida and southern Georgia, ceramic evidence shows the Swift Creek culture changed in situ, developing into the Weeden Island culture around A.D. 300 (Milanich 1994:164-167). Weeden Island transformed a vast portion of Florida, enveloping the various similar socio-ethnic groups into a larger regional complex. Despite changes in culture and settlement patterning during the Early and Middle Woodland phases, subsistence strategies along Florida’s northwest coast remained constant, with fishing, hunting, and gathering the dominant economic lifestyle until the end of the Swift Creek phase, circa A.D. 350 (Milanich 1994: 95-98, 112).

13 As populations increased during the Middle Woodland, so did dependence on agriculture as a means of subsistence. Settlement patterns began to shift with the establishment of large villages in the interior forests and river valleys where regularly flooded soils were better suited to plant cultivation (Milanich 1994:142). In Florida and along the Gulf Coast, however, ceremonial participation in the Hopewell was delayed, probably because the richness of wild plant and animals in the region year-round did not necessitate interaction outside the region (Scarry 1986). By the Late Woodland period, however, population growth had overwhelmed the provisioning abilities of Hopewellian ceremonialism (Anderson 1998:297). As maize agriculture intensified and territorial warfare became widespread, hierarchical organization emerged. Around A.D. 900, the remaining Santa Rosa-Swift Creek in northwest Florida, from the Aucilla River west to Mobile Bay, transitioned into the Fort Walton culture. Throughout the southeast, previously mobile egalitarian groups settled at mound centers located inland and along major river valleys, and micro-regional variants appeared based on local resource exploitation, agriculture, and small-scale community politics (Milanich 1994:159-160).

Woodland Period Subsistence

Humans have systematically exploited coastal resources since at least the Middle Stone Age in South Africa (125,000 BP). By the Middle Paleolithic, humans in southern Europe had adapted entire lifeways to maritime subsistence economies. It was not until the Holocene epoch, however, that particular culture groups became entirely dependent on marine resources (Yesner 1980). In the United States, coastally oriented lifeways are often attributed only to indigenous groups of the Pacific Northwest. Prehistoric groups in the coastal Southeast, however, were also highly dependent on marine resources. Throughout much of Florida’s prehistory, human social organization was characterized by large settlements along the coast and smaller special-use sites in the interior upland forests, with movement between oscillating seasonally. A diet based largely on marine resources in the spring and summer was supplemented by year-round foraging and hunting in adjacent forests and hammocks throughout the fall and winter. This pattern began during the Paleoindian period and continued through the Archaic and

14 Woodland periods in northwest Florida until the advent of agriculture in the Late Woodland/Early Mississippian periods. In their synthesis of Woodland period subsistence studies, Jackson and Scott (2002:461) found that deer, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel, and turkey were “the most ubiquitous taxa, regardless of site location or temporal affiliation, suggesting their core importance in the meat diet” of prehistoric peoples inhabiting the non-riverine, interior Southeast, while deer, “the single and pervasive large mammal in the Southeast for much of Holocene, is unarguably the single most important taxon for its contribution of meat and fat to the diet, in addition to bone and hide as raw materials for clothing, implements, and ornaments”. Though secondary to marine fish and shellfish at riverine and coastal sites, these taxa are often prominent among riverine and coastal faunal assemblages, too. Deptford and Swift Creek subsistence patterns on both the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts are thought to be very similar: a diet based heavily on marine resources and supplemented by terrestrial mammals and turtles (Milanich 1994:111-154). Only a handful of studies contribute to current knowledge of Deptford and Swift Creek subsistence, however. Byrd (1994) analyzed fauna from Deptford, Swift Creek, and Santa Rosa – Swift Creek components at four sites in northwest Florida: Bernath (8Sr986), Third Gulf Breeze (8Sr8), Ulmore Cove (8WA32), and Bird Hammock (8Wa30). Not unexpectedly, he found a heavy reliance on marine resources at each site. He reports that mammals (mainly deer) and reptiles (mainly turtles) were much less prominent, and that bird remains (nearly all wild turkey) were scarce (Byrd 1994:50-52). In general, MNI values at these sites were dominated by jack and sheepshead, followed by black drums, red drums, and sea catfishes (Byrd 1994:57). The dominance of his samples by large fish, in particular, led Byrd to conclude that the Deptford and Swift Creek people were utilizing focused capture techniques such as weirs, spears, and lines. He also found evidence at Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove to support Phelps supposition (1969a:16) of filleting large fish to transport inland for trade purposes (Byrd 1994:70-71). In contrast with Byrd’s subsistence data, faunal data Hawkshaw (8Es1287) on the Gulf Coast and from Kings Bay (9Cam171a), a contemporary Atlantic Coast site, revealed an abundance of small fish indicating mass capture techniques in shallow inshore marine waters, such as by nets or poison (Hale and Quitmyer 1985, Quitmyer

15 1985, Reitz 1982a). Unlike fauna from each of the sites Byrd studied (¼ in screened, excavated samples), the Hawkshaw and Kings Bay data were derived from fine-screened column samples, suggesting differences in the sizes of fish remains recovered may reflect sample bias rather than subsistence practices. However, faunal research at Greenfield (8Du5543), an Atlantic Coast site where ¼ in screening was employed, suggested small fish were captured in large numbers there, too (DeFrance 1993). The prominence of shellfish in the Southeast prehistoric diet is debatable. Archaeologists have long held that marine and freshwater shellfish constituted substantial portions of prehistoric coastal and riverine diets (Claasen 1991, Parmalee and Klippel 1974, Yesner 1980). Hutchinson (2004:150) found data supporting this, identifying pathological conditions characteristic of nutritional disease in nearly 30% of the pre- contact, non-agricultural human populations along Florida’s Gulf Coast, which he attributed to anemia caused by intestinal parasites ingested with uncooked marine fish and shellfish. Zooarchaeological data from the Florida-Georgia Atlantic Coast indicate that intensive harvesting of hard clams (Mercenaria spp.) by prehistoric cultures eventually resulted in over-exploitation, as evidenced by diminished age structures of mollusk populations (Quitmyer and Jones 2000). Other studies, however, indicate that the contribution of invertebrates to the diet of prehistoric coastal populations may not have been as high as previously believed (Quitmyer 1985; Erlandson 1988). Cumbaa (1976) believes the emphasis placed on shellfish by archaeologists is an erroneous assumption based on the sheer visibility of shellfish remains compared to those of vertebrate fauna in midden contexts. Cumbaa and others (Watt and Merrill 1963) point out that the meat, protein, and caloric returns of shellfish when compared to those of fish, reptiles, and marine and terrestrial mammals are not sufficient to form the base of a daily diet. Ethnographic studies of modern coastal hunter-gatherers indicate seafoods constitute only fifteen to twenty percent of the dietary caloric intake (Meehan 1977). In addition, Stein (1992:9) points out that shellfish remains from archaeological sites have been deposited not as the result of direct subsistence when used as bait, as construction material, or as raw material for tool manufacture. Less research has been conducted on the contribution of arthropods, such as crabs and shrimp, to the prehistoric diet, due mainly to poor preservation of such remains in archaeological

16 contexts. Crab remains were identified, however, from the Swift Creek occupation at Kings Bay on the Atlantic Coast (Quitmyer 1985). Evidence of agriculture from Swift Creek sites in Florida is rare (Anderson 1998:284), and the archaeological record indicates that plant domestication was used only to supplement hunting and gathering (Hutchinson 2002, Hutchinson et. al 1998; Sears 1962). The absence of agriculture in northern Florida in the first half of the Woodland Period is interesting, as Ruhl (2000:190-191) notes that by this time, other southeastern groups to the north and in the Midwest had begun cultivating gourds, squash, small grains, and starchy seed plants. At Swift Creek sites along both the Florida Gulf Coast and the Atlantic Coast, archaeobotancial remains, when recovered, are low in density and generally consist of wild fruits, nuts and ruderal species rather than cultigens (Ruhl 2000:194; Wagner 1995). Ruhl (2000) recently compiled a list of Swift Creek and Santa Rosa – Swift Creek sites known to have produced archaeobotancial remains. Along the Gulf Coast, Bernath (8Sr986), Bird Hammock (8Wa30), and Overgrown Road (8Gu38) all produced botanical remains. These remains consist mainly of hickory nut fragments, though “wild fruits such as persimmon and grape, and a small array of commensal species such as grasses, euphorbs, and mints“ were also identified at Bernath (Ruhl 2000:192). Hickory was also exploited in the interior at Block-Sterns (8Le148) and Hartfield (8Le120a). Other plant remains identified at the latter include persimmon, holly, oak, grape, gum, acorn, walnut, sassafras, knotweed, corn, squash, and legumes. Squash is more commonly found at upland interior sites, though a single possible squash/gourd seed was recovered from a coprolite at the Refuge Fire Tower Site on the Gulf Coast (Phelps in Milanich 1994:144). Unfortunately, this specimen was lost in an airplane crash before it could be confirmed (Phelps, personal communication). A possible corn cob was recovered from Bird Hammock, though this too is unconfirmed and cannot be found (Nanfro 2004: personal communication). Other plant remains recovered in low quantities from Swift Creek sites in upland Georgia and Alabama include (but are not limited to) sunflower, chenopodium, maygrass, purslane, amaranth, and mulberry.

17 Given the excellent faunal preservation from both Deptford and Swift Creek contexts within the Refuge Fire Tower midden, this data presents a valuable opportunity to test the accuracy of and build upon current models of Early Woodland subsistence.

Coastal Settlement Patterning

Understanding the spatial distribution of archaeological sites on the prehistoric landscape is critical to interpreting daily choices and activities. Various concepts and theories have been proposed to explain why prehistoric humans chose to live where they did, how they subsisted, and how they interacted within a range of environments. Central place theory and optimal foraging theory are widely used for these purposes. Central place theory is often used to reconstruct prehistoric settlement patterning among egalitarian societies. Initially developed for use with geographic and biological studies, archaeologists have adapted central place theory to describe the placement of major settlement sites upon the landscape, and the hierarchical distribution of subsidiary sites based on the movement of resources and cultural interaction between major centers and satellite sites. Binford (1980) theorized that major residential bases were intentionally located along large freshwater drainages with specialized sites “clustered around them in a radiating organization strategy,” and that site spacing between drainages was territorial. Steponaitis (1981) built on central place theory through the addition of environmental observation, postulating that settlement site size correlated directly with availability of resources and productivity in the immediate surrounding environment. Recent GIS research in southern California (Brewster et al. 2003) supports models using central place theory. There, the distribution of coastal shell middens from the period AD 700 – 1200 correlates directly with distance to water and to other archaeological sites, with major residential centers located within 100 meters of freshwater and smaller camp sites located within in 5,000 meters of the major residential centers. More specialized site types, or limited activity locales, correlated less with catchment size and distance to water, and more with distance to the littoral zone. Optimal foraging theory holds that humans tend to exert the least amount of energy necessary to obtain sustenance (Perlman 1980). On this premise, the least cost- expensive species will be exploited most frequently, while expensive species will only be

18 exploited when the less expensive targets are unavailable or upon depletion (Winterhalder and Smith 1981). Humans operating according to optimal foraging theory often establish a base(s) of operations strategically situated between a range of high and low yielding environments to eliminate travel costs and to buffer the subsistence base in case of natural disaster or depletion in one or the other catchment locales. Another aspect of settlement patterning currently under debate in the southeastern United States is the concept of sedentism. The term sedentary has been used in the archaeological literature to describe two different concepts: settlement permanence and site size (Rafferty 1985). The evaluation of settlement permanence generally seeks to identify the length of time over which a site was occupied. By definition, a permanent settlement is everlasting, constantly occupied without change in population size or boundaries. To describe any site as permanent is not exactly accurate, however, as population size can fluctuate and site boundaries expand and contract over time. Archaeologically, settlements referred to as permanent are generally those that are occupied year-round for more than one year. The evaluation of site permanency as related to site size seeks to characterize the intensity and frequency of occupation at a site on the basis of physical parameters and types of activities occurring at the site. The term semi- sedentary has been used to refer to those “communities whose members shift from one to another fixed settlement at different seasons or who occupy more or less permanently a single settlement from which a substantial proportion of the population departs seasonally to occupy shifting camps” (Binford 1980:13).

Midden Types In the southeastern United States, prehistoric coastal settlements tended to favor bays and freshwater confluences in nutrient-productive upwelling zones where low-cost resources (e.g., shellfish) are abundant and dependable, a pattern that has been recognized worldwide (Yesner 1980). Many of these sites are located in close proximity to a variety of ecological biomes, availing the inhabitants to a wide range of alternative resources that may be exploited at different times of the year or in emergency situations. These coastal settlements, campsites, and procurement sites are often manifested in the archaeological record as shell middens located close to both freshwater and marine contexts. Marine shell middens are generally located along coastlines and at the mouth of rivers.

19 Freshwater shell middens tend to be smaller than their marine counterparts, likely due to more circumscribed shellfish resource distribution, and are usually located along upper portions of rivers and interior river valleys. Many prehistoric middens contain mixed freshwater and saltwater shell assemblages. Similar to earthen middens found in the interior, shell middens contain a range of materials relating to daily activities, including faunal refuse, ceramics, and lithic debitage. The archaeological distinction between an earthen midden and a shell midden is not always clear. It seems that near rivers and especially along coastlines, prehistoric middens containing shell are often referred to as shell middens regardless of the percentage of the midden’s volume actually constituted by shell. The size and shape of a shell midden can often be used to distinguish habitation sites from procurement sites and ceremonial sites from secular sites. In the southeast region, shell middens generally take one of three forms: accretional circular or linear middens; ring, horseshoe, or U-shaped middens; and small midden dumps (Milanich 1994:144-145). In his discussion of Swift Creek archaeological site types, Milanich noted that village middens, both inland and coastal, are usually ring or horseshoe-shaped. These are perhaps the most intensely researched middens types in northwest Florida, containing shell so densely packed that their “well-shaped ridges” are still visible today (Stephenson et. al 2002:343). Southeastern archaeologists generally view shell rings as the location of permanent village sites (Milanich 1994:145), where family units disposed of food remains daily in individual piles around a central plaza area. Continuous dumping in this manner is hypothesized to have eventually formed a contiguous ring around the plaza (Bense 1994). Three Swift Creek ring middens and nine Santa Rosa – Swift Creek ring middens have been identified in northwest Florida (Stephenson et. al 2002:342-343). Bernath (8Sr986), Third Gulf Breeze (8SR8), Horseshoe Bayou (8Wl36), and Bird Hammock (8Wa30) each exemplify horseshoe-shaped village middens on the Early Woodland coast (Bense 1969, 1994; Byrd 1995; Penton 1970; Nanfro 2004; Tesar 1973). Late Swift Creek horseshoe-shaped middens have also been identified along rivers in the interior of southern Georgia (see Snow 1977). Derivatives of the ring midden

20 configuration have been identified at preceding Archaic period sites and at later Weeden Island sites in northern Florida (Stephenson et al. 2002:345). Two functions of community planning have been proposed for the ring-shaped midden configuration. Stephenson et. al (2002:345) believe midden rings are the result of intentionally situating individual house structures surrounding either a sterile plaza area such as at Bernath (Bense 1998), or around a plaza containing burials and surrounded by associated mounds such as at Strange Bayou (8By121) (Moore 1901). Russo’s (2004) research, however, on Late Archaic period shell middens (2,700 to 1,000 B.C.) in Florida and South Carolina led him to speculate a deliberate sociopolitical function of shell rings. He hypothesized that ring middens were planned constructs, the configurations of which indicate past social and spatial organization of sodalities at each site. Whether these groups were kin-based, age-based, gender-based, or alliance-based remains unknown. Investigations by Russo and Heide (2002) showing that refuse at most shell rings was deposited after large feasting events, and not as the result of daily meal accumulation, support this hypothesis. In addition, several middens in South Carolina and a single midden in Florida actually consist of conjoined rings constructed at the same time (Saunders 2004). Horseshoe-shaped middens appear to share the same functionality as ring middens. Their incomplete circular configuration has been explained as the result of post-depositional erosion by wave action or purposeful disconnection to serve as a plaza entryway (Brewster et. al 2003). Shell middens can also take the form of linear or circular sheet middens and midden dumps. Sheet middens often do not contain significant amounts of shell relative to the amount of soil and non-shell (vertebrate) faunal material in the midden matrix. Sheet middens have been variously interpreted as seasonal campsites and special-use sites. Midden dumps, considerably smaller in extent and more limited in the types and variety of materials they contain, are generally interpreted as short-term campsites or special-use sites. These sites functioned quite differently from shell rings and accretional sheet middens whose volumetric matrices are made up almost entirely of shell. Under Milanich’s classification system (1994:144-145), the Refuge Fire Tower Site, a circumscribed linear midden, most closely resembles a special-use site. However, archaeological research at Hawkshaw, a coastal Deptford midden in northwest Florida,

21 has shown that linear middens also supported villages (Bense 1985). An alternative to Milanich’s classification system which is based on presumed site function and midden configuration, is Jones’ (1999) categorization of middens based on surface area, configuration, volume, shape, and material content. The configuration and location of the Refuge Refuge Fire Tower Site, a linear midden parallel and close to the shore, fits Jones’ categorization of a small village midden. Care must be taken when evaluating and interpreting coastal midden sites, as categorical labels are often misleading. It is my opinion that accretional or linear middens, midden dumps and, less frequently, ring middens, are misrepresented in the archaeological literature as shell middens, when they often contain a comparatively small percentage of shell as opposed to soil, bone, or other material matrix. The Refuge Fire Tower Site, for example, has been referred to since its initial investigations as a shell midden. However, careful scrutiny of photographs from the 1967-1970 field excavations reveal that the midden actually consists of dark, organically stained earth with thinly scattered vertebrate fauna and small deposits of invertebrate shell. This is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, which compare the different profiles of a shell midden and the earthen midden at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Given the inherent bias associated with the title shell midden (Stein 1992:6-11), I would suggest that sites, such as the Refuge Fire Tower Site, that contain a proportionately small amount of shell be more appropriately termed earthen middens containing shell or shell-bearing sites after Stein (1992:6). This approach may be applicable to other important Deptford and Swift Creek sites commonly referred to as shell middens, despite very little shell. Such sites include Hawkshaw, Bernath, Third Gulf Breeze, and Bird Hammock.

Figure 3. Profile of a shell midden. From Whittaker and Stein (1992:35).

Figure 4. Profile of the Refuge Fire Tower midden (Phelps 1968-1970: Photo # 452- 55).

Whether the result of spatial functionality or sociopolitical planning, middens have the potential to yield valuable information about prehistoric lifeways. Some goals of shell midden research include: (1) reconstructing the relative importance of consumed foods, (2) inferring ecology and environmental change based on habitat characteristics, (3) delineating shoreline migration, (4) constructing culture histories based on artifact sequences, and (5) identifying depositional and post-depositional processes (Ambrose 1967; Stein 1992). Data derived from shell midden research also form the basis for inferences about technology relative to food capture and processing. In this thesis, I will explore several of these topics in an attempt to better understand the scope of daily activities at the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

24 CHAPTER 3. SITE CONTEXT

Modern Environment & Distribution of Resources

The Refuge Fire Tower Site is located at Latitude 30° 06’ 00” N and Longitude 84° 10’ 00” W, on the southeast edge of the St. Mark’s National Wildlife Refuge in Wakulla County, Florida (Figure 5). The site, an elliptical shell midden approximately 300 ft long by 150 ft wide, is situated on a relict sand dune along the estuarine shoreline of Apalachee Bay. The dune height averages 10 to 12 ft above mean sea level; the highest point of the mound reaches 19 ft above sea level. The Refuge Fire Tower Site is located on the western edge of the Ocala Uplift District, a physiographic region extending west from the Ochlockonee River east to the Suwannee River, and south through the center of the state to Tampa Bay (Myers and Ewel 1990:38-42). This highly diverse region is characterized by mixed hardwood forests, pine flatwoods, and sandy hills; rolling karst plains in the north grade into sandy flatwoods along the coast. Twenty miles to the west lies the Apalachicola Delta District, which extends east from the Ochlockonee River west to the Yellow River, and north just below and parallel to the Florida-Georgia state border. The influence of the Apalachicola River in this region is evidenced by a landscape featuring relic deltas, ridges, plains, lagoons and barrier islands. Soils in this region are highly variable. Sediments along the coast of the Big Bend region contain a mixture of entisols and histisols deposited during the Shoal River Formation in the early Miocene. These organic peats and thin sands are underlain by marl and limestone, and as a result are poorly drained (Myers and Ewel 1990:37, 44-45). Spodosol soils lie approximately five miles to the northeast and twenty miles to the west. Also poorly drained sands, these soils are underlain by more nutritive sandy subsoil more conducive to flatwoods growth. Today these spodosols support the Apalachicola National Forest and numerous commercial crops. Low wave energy along the coastline has resulted in the deposition of little sandy sediment offshore, allowing the establishment of an extensive salt marsh system. Vegetation at the confluence of the Ocala Uplift and

Figure 5. Location of the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

26 Apalachicola Delta Districts consists mainly of pine flatwoods and mixed hardwood swamps. The native plant community in the intertidal zone is dominated by extensive stands of black needle-rush (Juncus roemerianus) and smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). Major waterways in the region include the St. Marks, Aucilla, and Ochlockonee Rivers, all of which drain into the Apalachee Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. The Aucilla and St. Mark’s Rivers are spring-fed, with headwaters in northern Florida. The calcareous St. Marks River is the closest source of flowing fresh water; approximately 2.5 miles west of 8Wa14. It is alkaline in nature (pH 7.0-8.2) and supports a dense growth of submerged plants (Myers and Ewel 1990:401-404). The Aucilla River, 10 miles east of 8Wa14, is a faster flowing calcareous/sand-bottomed stream. The Ochlockonee River, a sand- bottomed stream whose headwaters originate in Georgia, spills into the bay approximately 25 miles southwest of 8Wa14. Both the Aucilla and Ochlockonee Rivers feature swiftly flowing waters ranging from circumneutral to acidic in nature (pH 5.7-7.4) due to inflow from swamp discharge and surface runoff below their headwaters. Both support a wide variety of plants and immature insects. The Refuge Fire Tower Site is currently bounded along the north, east, and west by several small freshwater lakes and ponds separated by artificial dikes and stretches of patchy pine and palmetto forests. These standing bodies of water are the result of recent habitat restoration projects conducted by the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge (Miller 1970:18). Given the low relief in this area, it is reasonable to assume that similar lakes and ponds naturally dotted the landscape during prehistoric occupation. Twenty-five feet southwest of the site, muddy flats and sea grass beds border the edge of the Apalachicola estuary, an extensive salt marsh system that extends nearly a mile into Apalachee Bay on the Gulf of Mexico. The sloping ground surface in the lower left-hand corner of Figure 6 is the southwest edge of the midden. The estuary experiences two unequal high and low tides each day (Livingston 1990:555) with an average tidal range of 73 cm (Montague and Wiegert 1990:483). Water temperature, warmest in August and coolest between December and February, varies most during the winter months (Livingston 1984:1261).

Figure 6. View southeast from fire tower of pine scrub, salt marsh, and sea grass beds (Phelps 1968-1970: Photo # 452-1).

The floral and faunal composition of the salt marsh/estuary system is influenced by fluctuating salinity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and water levels. Rivers and streams in this region experience peak water flow in late winter and early spring. Annual flooding between January and April results in lowered salinity at freshwater/saltwater confluences. Conversely, evapotranspiration during the summer months combined with low water flow in October and November, increases salinity levels (Leitman et al. 1991; Livingston 1990). The interface between freshwater and saltwater restricts the number of species that can survive, as inhabitants must be highly tolerant of rapidly changing environmental conditions. While species diversity in the salt marsh is low, species abundance is relatively high.

28 Inshore benthic productivity is highest in the estuarine ecosystem in the late summer and early fall months (Livingston 1984:1263-1265). Rainfall in northwest Florida is heaviest between July and August (Livingston 1984:549). Runoff from heavy rainfall and flooded springs results in reduced salinity and increased nutrient levels optimal for the production of phytoplankton upon which benthic macrophytes subsists. As the abundance of macrophytes increases throughout the summer, so does the distribution and diversity larval and juvenile fish. Species diversity and richness peak around September – October, at which time falling water temperatures force larger fish to migrate offshore. Salt marsh creeks provide the ideal protected habitat for juvenile fish and shellfish, drawing manatees and an array of birds to feed. Most birds that inhabit the salt marsh are migratory (Montague and Wiegert 1990). Wading birds that frequent the salt marsh include herons and bitterns (Ardeidae), egrets, ibis, wood storks (Mycteria americana), and limpkins (Aramus sp.). Sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) graze on land but are dependent on water resources in the region for nesting. Diving birds such as the anhinga (Anhinga anhinga), common loon (Gavia immer), grebes (Podicipedidae), and cormorants (Phalacrocorax sp.). Wood ducks (Aix sponsa), teals (Anas discors), mallards (Anas platyrhncos), and other paddling ducks are common around freshwater lakes and ponds, while the barred owl (Strix varia), kingfishers (Alcedinidae), eagles, hawks, kites, and osprey frequent a wide range of swamps, forests, and shorelines in the region. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), ubiquitous throughout most of North America, are abundant in the hardwood hammock. Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus), and the hipsid cotton rat (Sigmodon hipsidus), one of the most common rodents in the refuge, are common in the woodland forest and grassy fields (Whittaker 2002; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980:38). Mammals that traverse mixed forests, pine scrub, and freshwater swamps include boB.C.ats (Lynx rufus), opossums (Didelphis virginianus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), Eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrels (S. niger), and numerous species of rats and mice (Sigmodontidae). The marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris) prefers bottomlands along swamps, lake borders, and coastal waterways. Mink (Mustela vison), northern river otters (Lutra canadensis), and round-tailed muskrats (Neofiber alleni) den

29 and hunt for prey along rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, and marshes in the region (Whittaker 2002). Reptiles common to the region include alligators, snakes, frogs, anoles, and numerous turtle species. Along the northern Gulf coast, American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) can be found in almost any body of fresh and brackish water, and have even been seen basking along sandy shorelines and just offshore. Alligators hibernate in dens during the winter, emerging in April to mate (Behler and King 1979:429). Species of snake currently found within the wildlife refuge include the corn snake (Elaphe guttata), rat snake (Elaphe obsolete), scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea), racer (Coluber constrictor), and the eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980:43). All are found in pine flatwoods or the hardwood hammock except the corn snake, which inhabits wooded areas along freshwater courses (Behler and King 1979). Several members of the pond, marsh, and box turtle family (Emydidae) are common to the region, including the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), the cooter or pond slider (Trachemys sp.), the chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia), and the diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). Box turtles are generally terrestrial and prefer moist forested areas, but move into swamps during the summer months and will wander through wet meadows, pastures, and flood plains looking for food. Cooters and pond sliders commonly inhabit shallow ponds, soft-bottomed lakes with dense vegetation, and sluggish streams and rivers. They commonly bask in the sun and sometimes wander for short distances on land. Chicken turtles are also frequent baskers, though they prefer tidal and mud flats, lagoons, and salt marsh estuaries where they nest in sandy dune ridges. The diamondback terrapin is also a salt marsh dweller. Emydids nest between April and July. Mud and musk turtles inhabit a wide range of environments. The striped mud turtle (Kinosternon bauri) frequents terrestrial and aquatic habitats similar to those of marsh and box turtles, such as cypress swamps, ponds, and wet meadows. Stinkpots (Sternotherus odoratus), on the other hand, are strictly aquatic, preferring the muddy bottom of quiet, slow-moving freshwater lakes, streams, and rivers. Kinosternids nest between September and June. The largest of the freshwater turtles, the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and the alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temmincki), inhabit

30 the soft mud bottoms of deep rivers, oxbows, and sloughs, and occasionally enter brackish water. Snapping turtles nest between April and June. Five species of sea turtle inhabit Florida’s Gulf waters: loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and the Atlantic Ridley (Lepidochelys kempi). Sea turtles are most frequently seen inshore during mating and nesting season, April – August (Fritts et al. 1983:388). The critically endangered hawksbill and ridley rarely nest on Florida’s beaches. Freshwater mollusks can be found in the St. Marks River, Ochlocknee, and Aucilla Rivers. Among marine shellfish common in the region is the American oyster (Crassostrea virginica), abundant in estuaries and behind barrier islands in Apalachicola Bay where they form reefs, or beds, on firm substrates such as offshore sandbars and shallow mud flats (Stanley and Sellers 1986:708). Calico scallops (Argopecten gibbus) are common on sandy seafloors as shallow as five feet. Bay scallops (Argopecten irradians amplicostatus) are found in seagrass meadows in nearshore waters and shallow sandy or muddy bays (Florida Marine Research Institute 1998) . Rays and skates also inhabit shallow sand and mud substrates where they feed on hard-shelled mollusks, primarily clams and oysters. Cownos rays (Rhinpoterus bonasus) were the most abundant species of ray captured during recent sampling of Apalachicola Bay (Carlson et al. 2003). Other species of rays common along the Gulf Coast include the southern stingray (Dasyatis americana), the Atlantic stingray (D. sabina), the smooth butterfly ray (Gymnura micrura), and the spotted eagle ray (Aetobatus narinari) is often found near the surface of coastal waters. Rays commonly hover above flats at the edge of seagrass beds, while skates often bury themselves in shallow mud and sand along the Florida panhandle. Some rays and skates are solitary while other travel in schools; nearly all migrate to warmer waters offshore or south in large schools along Florida’s west coast in the winter (Gilbert and Williams 2002). The most abundant sharks captured during recent sampling of Apalachicola Bay were the Atlantic sharpnose (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), the blacktip (Carcharhinus limbatus), and the bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo) (Carlson et al. 2003). The bull shark (C. leucas), dusky shark (C. obscurus), sandbar shark (C. plumbeus), tiger shark

31 (Galeocerdo cuvier), the sand tiger (Carcharias taurus), and the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) are also found in inshore waters along Florida’s Gulf Coast (Gilbert and Williams 2002). Of these, only the bull shark has been known to enter fresh water, sometimes ascending large rivers, including the Apalachicola River. A wide range of fishes inhabit the marine waters at the edge of the Refuge Fire Tower Site. The types, size, and species of fishes found in the estuary vary seasonally according to periods of spawning, water temperature, and varying salinity levels (Livingston 1984). Juveniles of many species of fish spend the first two years of life in protected estuarine waters before moving offshore (Reitz 1982). Conversely, many adult species spend most of their lives offshore or leave the estuary to spawn offshore in the late fall and winter. Adults of several species, including marine jack, sheepshead, and drums, do not normally inhabit the estuary but will periodically invade the area in search of food. Atlantic spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), and various drums and croakers (Sciaenidae) live in the estuary year- round or move inshore from the bay in warm months to feed on oyster beds (Gilbert and Williams 2002). Fishes commonly found in the estuary year-round include mullet (Mugil sp.), marine catfishes (Ariidae), flounders (Paralichthyes sp.), ladyfish (Elops saurus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), menhaden (Brevoortia sp.), herrings (Clupeidae), threadfins (Polydactylus sp.) and pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides). A recent inventory of the Ochlocknee River identified forty-eight species of fish dominated by sunfishes (Lepomis sp.), bass (Micropterus sp.), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), minnows and killifishes (Fundulus sp.), and shiners (Notropis sp.) (Leitman et al. 1991). Larger freshwater fish common in the region include the bowfin (Amia calva), found in slow-moving and still bodies of water with much vegetation (Gilbert and Williams 2002:89-90); pikes (Esocidae), and alligator and longnose gars (Lepisosteus sp.). Gars inhabit all types of freshwater and will occasionally enter brackish bays and estuaries, too (Gilbert and Williams 2002:87-88).

32 Previous Archaeological Investigations

Surveys and Excavation The initial investigation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site was conducted by Gordon Willey in 1940 (Willey 1949:273-275) and consisted only of surface collection. John W. Griffin, John M. Goggin, and Hale G. Smith also visited the site in 1946 (Goggin 1947:273, Griffin 1947:183) and made surface collections. Based on these collections, the site was preliminarily classified as a prehistoric shell midden and officially recorded on the Florida Master Site File in 1946. Interest at this time, however, focused mainly on the nearby St. Marks Wildlife Refuge Cemetery Site (8Wa15), a Fort Walton period burial mound constructed atop the edge of the midden on the southeast end of the dune ridge, and further investigation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site was not initiated. Excavation of the Cemetery Site by Hale Smith in 1950 included several test units clustered around the fire tower that should formally be considered part of 8Wa14. Analysis of the materials recovered from these excavations (Johnson 1969) did not include faunal quantification and will not be reviewed in this thesis. David S. Phelps, Professor of Archaeology at Florida State University, conducted topographic mapping and archaeological excavation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site between 1967 and 1970 (Figure 7). The investigation was undertaken as part of a regional survey designed to provide more information regarding patterns of prehistoric occupation in Florida’s northwest Gulf Coast region. This thesis examines fauna recovered during Phelps’ excavations. Description of the methods used in the recovery and processing of data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site is based on personal communication and information gathered from the field notes, maps, and photographs (David Phelps, personal communication 2004; 8Wa14 Field Notebook: 1967 – 1970, Florida State University, Department of Anthropology, Tallahassee). Phelps excavated twelve 10 ft x 10 ft test units and five 5 ft x 5 ft test units at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Unit axes were designated by distance in feet of the southeast corner of each unit from the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey benchmark at the base of the fire tower. Early test units were initially dug arbitrarily, in 6 in levels. Later test units were excavated stratigraphically according to changes in soil or material

Figure 7. Topographic map of the Refuge Fire Tower Site (Phelps 1968- 1970).

34 content. Cultural material was collected using shovels in the top six inches, or “plow zone,” and using trowels for all other levels. Artifacts were processed through a combination of techniques. All excavated material was screened through ½-in or ¼-in hardware mesh screen. The samples chosen for this study were those processed by Phelps’ students through ¼-in mesh. I did not analyze any of the material that was screened through ½-in mesh, as the provenience of these samples could not be definitively identified. Feature materials, excavated stratigraphically, were floated using hand-held mesh (of unknown gauge) in water-filled buckets.

Site Stratification & Material Culture Phelps began his excavations by opening several adjacent excavation units in what was perceived to be the center of the midden, approximately 25 ft south of the fire tower. These units eventually formed an excavation trench running north to south and comprised of 10 ft x 10 ft excavation units -50L10, -60L10, -70L10, -80L10, - 90L10, -100L10, and -110L10 (Figure 8). Upon encountering Feature #1 in the southwest corner of unit -80L10, Phelps opened two adjacent 10 ft x 10 ft units (- 80L20 and -80L30) perpendicular to the west side of the trench to fully expose the feature. To delineate the midden boundaries, Phelps also placed three additional 10 ft x 10 ft units north and northeast of the fire tower (units 30L10, 40L10, and 40R50), and four 5 ft x 5 ft units east and southeast of the fire tower (units -40R110, -85R80, - 140R80, and -210R80). The location of unit -85R80 on the unit location map suggests it was either assigned an incorrect numeric designation in the field, or incorrectly plotted on the map. Unit -210R80 is not shown on the unit location map. Figure 9 illustrates the east wall profile of the main excavation trench at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, as depicted in field maps. Zone designations were added by myself based on stratigraphic descriptions recorded in the field notebook. The top 6 in below surface roughly corresponded to the disturbed humic layer and was termed Zone I. Modern disturbance in this zone was attributed to the construction of the fire tower in 1935. Minimal amounts of shell and bone were recovered from Zone I. The midden became apparent 4 to 6 in below the ground surface, and extended 18 to 24 in below surface. This stratum, Zone II, was greasy and blackish brown in appearance, containing moderately to densely packed shell and bone. Stratification within Zone II

35 Unit 40L10 Unit 40R50

Unit 30L10

Fire Tower

Unit -40R110 (FS# 793, 801, 815, 824) Unit -50L10

Unit -60L10 (FS# 541) Unit -80L20 Unit -70L10

Unit -80L30 Unit -80L10

Unit -90L10 Unit -85R80 Feature #1 (FS# 710) (FS# 391) Unit -100L10 (FS# 729, 753, 759)

Unit -110L10

Unit -14R80

0 20 40 Feet

Provenience from which no fauna was analyzed.

Provenience from which select vertebrate samples were analyzed.

Figure 8. Location of excavation units and sample proveniences at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Adapted from original field notes and maps (Phelps 1968-1970).

Zone I – humus; thin shell scatter; small amount of bone, ceramics, and lithics. Zone II – greasy blackish brown sand; moderate to dense distribution of bone, ceramics, and lithics. Zone III – mottled orange and white sand; thin scatter of ceramics and lithics; no fauna.

Figure 9. Partial stratigraphic profile of the L10 excavation trench, east wall. Adapted from original field notes and drawings (Phelps 1968-1970, Phelps et al. 1968-1970).

37 could not be visually discerned. Zone III, the midden sub-stratum, was characterized by a thin scatter of fiber-tempered ceramics and steatite vessel fragments in white sand underlying the midden. No shell or bone was reported from Zone III. Zone III was mottled throughout by culturally sterile orange sand. Earthen midden containing shell, bone, ceramics, and lithics was encountered in each of the units. Though stratigraphic levels and zones were difficult to identify during excavation, the distribution of material remains throughout the site later helped to delineate occupation levels. The field specimen (FS) catalog from Phelps’ excavation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site lists 834 samples, each sorted by material (e.g., lithic, ceramic, bone, shell, etc.). I retained the original FS numbers for reference in this study. At the time this study was undertaken, only the ceramic material had been subjected to intense analytical treatment (e.g., Shannon 1979). Lithics, including exotic minerals such as mica, galena, and hematite, were preliminarily sorted by according to tool type and manufacturing stage by students shortly after excavation. Phelps noted that expanded- base projectile points and blades recovered were “typical of the size and shape range” of Swift Creek phase stone tools (Phelps 1969c:4-6). These stone tools have not received further analytical treatment, however, and will not be discussed in this study. Over 20,000 ceramic sherds were recovered from the Refuge Fire Tower Site by Phelps. An attempt at thermoluminescent dating of several samples was unsuccessful due to methodological and laboratory error (Miller 1970:21-23). Shannon (1979) developed a master seriation of ceramics for the site through analysis of ceramic temper, manufacture, and decorative motifs from each level. He found that ceramics at the site date from the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland periods, representing Norwood, Late Deptford, Early Swift Creek, and Fort Walton phases. Fiber-tempered ceramics and steatite bowl fragments from Zone III evidence a Norwood occupation in the Late Archaic that predated the midden. Ceramic frequencies from the lower levels of Zone II indicate initial deposition of the midden in Late Deptford times. Deptford period artifacts were most concentrated one to two feet below surface in the northern and westernmost units. Accumulation of midden materials continued through the Early Swift Creek period. Swift Creek deposits overlying the Deptford stratum show that subsequent stages of midden accumulation occurred atop the original Deptford deposits and spread out in all

38 directions, conforming to the natural surface of the dune ridge. The material contents of the central and southern units are primarily Early Swift Creek in content and extend from the surface to two feet below surface. Though plain wares constituted the majority of sherds in each level, the transition from Late Deptford into Early Swift Creek is evidenced by an initially large number of simple and linear check stamped wares diminishing vertically as the number of curvilinear, complicated, incised, and punctated wares increased. The replacement of Late Deptford wares and decorative motifs by Early Swift Creek types appears to have been constant and continuity in ware types and decorative motifs throughout the midden suggests consistent use of the site by people with the same cultural affiliation. Profile analysis of outlying unit -40R110 reveals the thickness of each zone diminishing as the midden tapers off on all sides. Fort Walton period ceramics associated with the nearby Cemetery Site were recovered only from the surface of the Refuge Fire Tower Site. A fragmentary baked clay figurine (Figure 10a) similar to those found at other Swift Creek sites, including Third Gulf Breeze (Phelps 1969c:6), and associated with the Yent and Greent Point complexes (Brose 1979; Walthall 1975) was also recovered from the midden. In addition, three “pot scatters” (Figure 10b) from the midden were reconstructed to revealed tall, cylindrical vessels with conoidal and tetrapodal bases, and crenellated and scalloped rim treatments. Decorative motifs on each are characteristic of the Early Swift Creek phase (see Milanich 1994:146-148). Several features were identified within the midden, including burned areas of conglomerated shell and fauna, fire pit and hearth features, and numerous possible postmolds encountered at the bottom of Zone II in the sand underlying the midden (Figures 11 and 12). Most contained charcoal. Cross-sectioning during excavation and post-excavation examination of the wall profiles revealed the features to be intrusive into Zone III. If indeed the remains of posts, they likely supported structures that sat atop the midden and around which refuse accumulated. Two lines of postmolds were identified running northeast to southwest through unit -70L10 at the bottom of Zone II, Level 2 (Figure 11). Postmolds at the same elevation in unit -80L20 may be a continuation of these lines (Phelps et al. 1968- 1970:97). A semi-circle of postmolds crosses the two lines, running north and east

39 outside unit -70L10. Possible postmolds in unit -90L10 indicate a circular structure approximately seven feet in diameter once stood in the location (Figure 12). A burned pit feature was apparent in the center of the structure. Unit -60L10 also contained a burned pit feature or hearth, flanked by what appear to be four or five large supporting posts and perhaps three or more subsequent or replacement posts. The extent of the pit and the diameter of the postmolds in unit -60L10 were much greater than those of the features identified in units -90L10 and -80L20.

a b

Figure 10. Baked clay figurine (a), and “pot scatter” (b) from the Refuge Fire Tower Site (Phelps 1968-1970: Photos # 556-1, 452-52c).

Figure 11. Possible postmolds in the floor of -70L10, Zone II, Level 2, facing north (Phelps 1968-1970, Photo # 452-53).

Figure 12. Possible postmolds in the floor of -90L10, Zone II, Level 2, facing northeast (Phelps 1968-1970, Photo # 452-56).

41 Biological remains were well preserved at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, allowing for the recovery of an extensive amount of animal bone and shell remains. Except for culturally modified shell, however, most invertebrate specimens were discarded in the field (see spoil pile in Figure 13). In addition, non-culturally modified bones from Zone I in units from the L10 trench were also discarded in the field (Phelps et al. 1968- 1970:105). A small amount of organic material including acorns, charred hickory nut fragments, and a single squash or gourd seed extracted from a coprolite (Phelps in Milanich 1994:144) was recovered. The latter was inadvertently destroyed shortly after excavation, and could not be included in this study (Phelps, personal communication 2004).

Figure 13. Troweling Feature 1, -80L20, facing west (Phelps 1968-1970: Photo # 452- 22).

42 In the summer/fall of 1969, all vertebrate materials excavated up to that point were combined and sorted according to class (e.g., mammal, reptile, fish, etc.). This level of analysis was not uncommon at that time. Only fish remains were analyzed beyond the level of class, by graduate student Camm Swift in the Department of Biology at Florida State University. Unfortunately, all provenience and collection information for the vertebrate materials up to that point were lost in the process, precluding spatial analysis of the distribution of animal remains in the midden. Consequently, the samples chosen for this study represent excavations conducted after the fall of 1969. For the purpose of this thesis, the artifact data and the fauna that are available are sufficient to produce an understanding of the classes, age, and size of fauna exploited at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, along with the seasonal and chronological periods of occupation at the site, and possible methods utilized in the procurement and processing of food resources.

43 CHAPTER 4. ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS

Sample Selection

Ten samples of vertebrate remains from the Refuge Fire Tower Site were analyzed for this study (Table 1). The number of complete vertebrate samples available for analysis was limited due to the compromised nature of the faunal assemblage (discussed in the previous chapter). Each of the samples analyzed came from the midden. With the exception of unit –40R110, intact vertebrate samples were only available from the L10 excavation trench (Figure 8), from which five samples were analyzed: FS # 710, 729, 753, 541, and 759. From unit -40R110, vertebrate samples from four consecutive levels were analyzed: FS # 759, 793, 801, and 815 (Phelps did not assign zone designations in this unit). I chose to include these samples in the study to examine whether or not changes in deposition could be detected over time. Feature # 1 was the only feature available for analysis. I chose to analyze and compare this sample with the general midden samples to determine whether Feature # 1 represented specific activities. Provenience and excavation descriptions for each sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample provenience and excavation data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

Depth (ft) Projected Culture 3 FS # Excavation Unit Strata Below Surface Volume (ft ) Represented 391 -80L10 & -80L20 Feature #1 undefined -- * 710 -90L10 Zone II, Level 2 1.0 - 1.5 50.0 Swift Creek 729 -100L10 Zone II, Level 2 1.0 - 1.5 50.0 Swift Creek 753 -100L10 Zone II, Level 2a undefined -- * 541 -60L10 Zone II, Level 3 1.5 - 2.0 50.0 Deptford 759 -100L10 Zone III, Level 1 1.5 - 2.0 50.0 Late Archaic 793 -40R110 Level 1 0.0 - 0.5 12.5 * 801 -40R110 Level 2 0.5 - 1.0 12.5 * 815 -40R110 Level 3 1.0 - 1.5 12.5 Swift Creek 824 -40R110 Level 4 1.5 - 2.0 12.5 * * Sample for which cultural time period could not be attributed from ceramic analysis (after Shannon 1979).

44 FS # 391 contained the vertebrate fauna from Feature #1, a pit with black soil matrix that appeared near the base of Zone II, Level 1 and continued into the upper portion of Level 2. The feature spanned the southeast corner of unit -80L10 and the southwest corner of unit -80L20, with irregular dimensions approximating 4 ft x 7 ft. The maximum thickness of Feature # 1 was 1.43 feet. The feature was contained on all sides by midden; two crushed ceramic vessels, numerous stone tools, a bone flaker, a bone awl, and cut antler were all reportedly recovered from the midden surrounding the feature (Phelps et al. 1968-1970:19, 26; Phelps 1968-1970: April 20, 1968 and May 11, 1968 Maps). In the northeast corner of unit -80L10, below the depth at which Feature # 1 extended, was a conglomeration of fused shell. Feature # 1 was hand troweled along its discernable contours and processed separately from the surrounding matrix. FS # 541 contained vertebrate fauna from Zone II, Level 3 of unit -60L10. Six levels were excavated in this 10 x 10 ft unit: Zone I; Levels 1, 2, 2a, and 3 of Zone II; and Zone III. Ceramics from this provenience indicate Zone II, Level 3 (FS # 541) accumulated during the Late Deptford phase (Shannon 1979:425). Field notes and maps contradict this, however, describing this level as consisting of white sand from which simple stamped sherds and steatite fragments were recovered (Phelps 1968-1970, Phelps et al. 1968-1970:90-91). FS # 793, 801, 815, and 824 contained the vertebrate fauna from Levels 1 – 4, respectively, in unit -40R110. I included each of these samples in my analysis. A fifth level in this unit contained no fauna. This 5 x 5 ft unit was located in the west-central portion of the midden, with a fairly level ground surface at about 17.5 ft above mean sea level. The elevation of the midden drops off considerably just east of the unit. A single possible postmold, one ft in diameter and containing a large amount of charcoal, extended one ft into the culturally sterile orange sand at the base of Level 5. Numerous irregular black soil intrusions into the sand in Levels 4 and 5 contained shell from the upper levels and were attributed to rodent burrows and tree roots. Field notes record a fire line ditch cutting into Level 1 in the northeast corner of unit -40R110. Of the samples processed by water flotation, only FS # 710 remained intact. This sample contained the vertebrate fauna from 10 x 10 ft unit -90L10. Four levels were excavated from this unit: Zone 1, two levels in Zone II, and one level in Zone III. I chose

45 the sample from Zone II, Level 2 (FS #710) for analysis. Ceramics from FS # 710 indicate deposition of the sample during the Early Swift Creek phase. A large dark pit extended from the base of this level into Zone III. A large articulated fish, a bone awl, and a crushed ceramic vessel were recovered from the level just above this sample. Contiguous to FS # 710 was FS # 729, in unit -100L10. Four levels were also excavated from this unit: Zone 1, two levels in Zone II, and one level in Zone III. Of these, Zone II, Level 2 (FS # 729) was deposited during the Early Swift Creek phase and contained a large amount of fauna that I included in my analysis. FS # 753 (Zone II, Level 2a) contained vertebrate fauna from the level just below FS # 729, and was also analyzed. Ceramics from this provenience were too fragmentary and indistinguishable to determine the cultural period of deposition (see Shannon 1979). However, the underlying level (Zone II, Level 4) was determined to be of Late Archaic origin. I also included the vertebrate fauna from this level (FS # 759) in my analysis. The depths of these levels were not recorded in the field notebook.

Identification

I conducted the identification and analysis of six faunal samples: FS # 710, 729, 753, 759, 793, and 815. The other four samples: FS # 391, 541, 801, and 729; were identified by undergraduate students in the spring 2003 Paleonutrition course (ANT 4125) at Florida State University, under the supervision of Rochelle Marrinan. I checked each of these samples for accuracy and consistency before their inclusion in this study. Each specimen was identified to the lowest possible taxonomic category using the Department of Anthropology’s zooarchaeological comparative collection at Florida State University and various reference manuals (Gilbert et al 1981; Gilbert 1990; Hulbert 2001; Kozuch and Fitzgerald 1989; Olsen 1968; Sobolik and Steele 1996). Specimens that were not readily identified in this manner were taken to the Florida Museum of Natural History’s Environmental Archaeology Laboratory for further comparison.

Quantification

Specimens were counted according to the number of individual specimens present (NISP) and the minimum number of individuals represented (MNI) was calculated. A

46 brief description of each specimen was recorded, including the anatomical element represented, its side and completeness. Aspects of pathology and human modification were also recorded. Determination of heat alteration was difficult because much of the sample was stained by organic material in the midden. Therefore, heat alteration was noted only for those fragments exhibiting obvious charring or calcination. Weight in grams was recorded for the total number of specimens of each taxon. Linear measurements were only taken to differentiate between species based on size or when necessitated by specific quantitative formulae in the derivation of secondary data for interpretation. I conducted all linear measurements and allometric calculations. All analysis forms are currently on file in the Archaeological Collections at Florida State University. Because MNI and NISP have the potential to overrepresent easily recognizable species (Jackson and Scott 2002), I also evaluated the prominence of each taxa of animal on the basis of meat weight contribution. Using data gathered from reference specimens at the Florida Museum of Natural History (Table A.1), I estimated biomass for each taxon to infer minimum meat weight contributions. These estimations account for only the meat that would be expected to adhere to the specimen recovered, and not the total amount of meat that would be contributed by the complete carcass of the animal. I used biomass values from Hale and Marrinan (1987) and the following formula (from Reitz and Wing 1999:72):

Y=aXb; or log Y=log a + b (log X) Y = estimated sample biomass (g) contributed by specimens in archaeological sample X = bone weight (g) of archaeological sample a = Y intercept b = slope

To assess the heterogeneity of the zooarchaeological assemblage, I constructed diversity and equitability indices for each sample using the Shannon-Weaver index (Shannon and Weaver 1949) and the Sheldon Index (Sheldon 1969). Based on ecological principles of species richness, diversity and equitability, the Shannon-Weaver (also known as Shannon-Weiner) Index is commonly used in ecological studies to estimate

47 diversity in particular locales or regions. Originally borrowed from information theory, this method of analysis has been applied in subsistence studies to assess zooarchaeological assemblages (Cruz-Urribe 1988). By measuring the species richness, or number of taxa, in a sample against the relative abundance of each taxon within the sample, the diversity, or the “amount of uncertainty of predicting the identity of an individual picked at random from the community, i.e. the heterogeneity of the sample” (Reitz and Wing 1999:105), is figured. The resulting index (H') for each sample produced a number between zero (0.00) and five (5.00). The higher the index, or the closer the number is to five, the greater the diversity of the sample. The formula and values I used to calculate diversity are as follows:

s H' = ∑ (pi) (Log pi) H' = informational content of the sample i = 1 (diversity index) th pi = relative abundance of the i taxon within the sample s = total number of taxa

I then used the calculated diversity (H') of each sample to determine equitability, or the degree to which taxa are equally abundant, by scaling H' against the theoretical maximum. The resulting index (V') for each sample produced a number between zero (0.00) and one (1.00). The higher the index, the more even the distribution of taxa, with 1.00 representing a completely even distribution. The formula and values I used to calculate equitability are as follows:

V' = H' / Log S H' = diversity index S = number of species in community (theoretical maximum)

Only those taxa that contributed both MNI and biomass values were included in the calculation.

48 Sample Adequacy

An underlying concern of zooarchaeological research is the accuracy of primary data in reflecting the entire range of species utilized at an archaeological site. According to the concept of diminishing returns (Wing and Brown 1979:118-121), a point may be reached at which the identification of additional archaeological specimens does not result in the identification of any new species. In the tropical and semi-tropical regions of the southeastern United States the point of diminishing returns has been estimated between 150 MNI per site (Walker 1992b:305) and 200 MNI per site (Chaplin 1971:16; Wing and Brown 1979), and as high as 1500 MNI per site (Quitmyer 1985:35). To assess the adequacy of the samples used in this study, I plotted the relationships between the number of taxa and MNI, and also between the MNI and NISP for each sample.

Determinants of Seasonality

The basic presence or absence of particular animal species within the midden was insufficient to ascertain specific seasons of capture. To supplement this information, I attempted to assess growth patterns in animals with determinant growth. In the case of mammals, most specimens were too fragmentary to assess fusion sequences in long bones and wear patterns of teeth. In the absence of determinant growth or other seasonal indicators, I analyzed species exploitation according to periods of optimum yield. Fish remains proved to be the most useful in this endeavor. For example, most fishes that inhabit Apalachee Bay and the estuarine/salt marsh can be found in varying numbers throughout the year. While species diversity in the estuary varies little throughout the year, the relative abundance and age classes of any given species in the estuary differs throughout the annual cycle (Dahlberg and Odum 1970). Species presence and abundance are related to spawning, feeding activities, water temperature, and salinity. Spawning and feeding correlate directly with water temperature and salinity which, in turn, are seasonally influenced by increased and decreased freshwater output from rivers, streams, and springs. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, these trends can be predicted fairly accurately, based on environmental data and biological life histories. On this premise, Wang and Raney (1971) have shown that the analysis of

49 modal population structures in archaeological assemblages more accurately infers seasonality than presence/absence. Measurements of otolith circumference and annuli are frequently used to infer size and age classes of fish by running allometric regression formulas that estimate the standard length (SL) of each fish represented by the measured specimens (Simons 1986). The small number of otoliths recovered from 8Wa14, however, were fragmentary, in poor condition, and often not identifiable to species. Buckmeier et al. (2001) have proposed other methods of analysis that accurately reconstruct age classes to within one year of actual age (Buckmeier et al. 2001). As an alternative to otolith analysis, I employed measurements of atlas widths to estimate the standard lengths (SL) in millimeters of three different species of Sciaenidae (drums): sea trout, black drum, and red drum (Figures A.6 – A.11). I also calculated the standard lengths of marine catfish using measurements of the mediolateral width of pectoral spine articulating surfaces, following Russo (1991). These results were compared to modern trawl data and biological histories to ascertain age classes and determine seasons of capture.

Radiocarbon Dating

To supplement the temporal chronology suggested by Shannon’s ceramic study (Shannon 1979), I chose to subject three samples to standard radiometric analysis for carbon dating. Each sample consisted of oyster shell recovered from the midden. The Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory conducted radiometric analyses of the samples between April and May 2005, including acid-etch pretreatment and two-sigma calendar calibrations. Table 2 summarizes the sample information and the results of the radiometric analyses. Calendar calibration charts for each sample are provided in Appendix A (Figures A.1 – A.3). Because the samples produced 13C/12C rations more typical of fresh water habitat than marine (due to their close proximity in Apalachicola Bay to the mouth of the St. Marks River), Beta Analytic calibrated the samples using a freshwater scenario. The samples were marine, however. As a result, the measured radiocarbon ages more accurately reflect the age of the samples than the conventional radiocarbon ages.

50 Table 2. Radiocarbon dated samples from the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

Sample Measured 13C/12C Conventional Lab Designation Provenience Material Radiocarbon Age Ratio Radiocarbon Age 2-Sigma Calibration

Cal BC 2140 to 1880 Beta - 204419 FS # 539 oyster (Crassostrea virginica ) 3340 +/- 50 BP -7.4 o/oo 3630 +/- 50 BP (Cal BP 4090 to 3070)

Cal BC 1430 to 1120 Beta - 204420 FS # 715 oyster (Crassostrea virginica ) 2750 +/- 60 BP -7.0 o/oo 3050 +/- 60 BP (Cal BP 3380 to 3070)

Cal BC 1620 to 1390 Beta - 204421 FS # 732 oyster (Crassostrea virginica ) 2910 +/- 50 BP -6.9 o/oo 3210 +/- 60 BP (Cal BP 3570 to 3340)

51 CHAPTER 5. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

Ten samples from the Refuge Fire Tower Site were analyzed in this study, including one feature and fill from nine arbitrarily defined levels. The total analyzed assemblage was comprised of 15,466 bone fragments representing forty-four taxa and weighing a total of 7,623.6 grams (Table 3). The majority of bone recovered was highly fragmented. As a result, 1.3 - 47.5 percent of the samples by NISP, and 0.2 - 12.5 percent of the samples by weight were unidentifiable to class or more specific taxon (Figure 14). Factors that likely contributed to fragmentation include food processing, trampling, weathering, and archaeological excavation.

% of NISP Unidentifiable % of Weight (g) Unidentifiable 100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

Percentage 40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

0 3 4 91 1 29 5 59 01 15 2 3 7 8 # 7 # 8 S FS # FS # 7 FS FS # 541 FS # 7 FS # FS # 793 F FS # FS # 8 Sample

Figure 14. Unidentified fraction in each sample.

52 Table 3. Summary of zooarchaeological data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

Depth Below # of Total Biomass Worked/ FS # Excavation Unit Provenience Surface NISP Taxa MNI Weight (g) (g) Butchered Burned 391 -80L10 & -80L20 Feature #1 unknown 2,133 21 39 654.3 8,053.74 5 126 710 -90L10 Zone II, Level 2 1.0' - 1.5' 7,864 43 246 3,038.3 29,681.09 84 1,297 729 -100L10 Zone II, Level 2 1.0' - 1.5' 1,450 26 67 1,059.3 11,937.13 55 198 753 -100L10 Zone II, Level 2a unknown 376 17 23 172.5 2,535.16 3 84 759 -100L10 Zone III, Level 1 1.5' - 2.0' 224 15 16 198.8 2,722.35 2 39 541 -60L10 Zone II, Level 3 1.5' - 2.0' 2,146 23 59 765.2 9,591.13 14 227 793 -40R110 Level 1 0.0' - 0.5' 314 16 24 507.3 6394.54 7 17 801 -40R110 Level 2 0.5' - 1.0' 529 18 35 691.6 8,899.29 9 16 815 -40R110 Level 3 1.0' - 1.5' 642 17 29 446.1 5,961.90 54 95 824 -40R110 Level 4 1.5' - 2.0' 102 15 18 90.2 1,862.15 0 2 Total 15,780 44 -- 7,624.1 87,638.48 233 2,101

53 Identified Taxa

Five classes of vertebrate animals were identified at the Refuge Fire Tower Site: Mammalia, Aves, Reptilia, Osteichthyes, and Chondrichthyes. Table 4 lists the taxonomic and common names of the animals identified. The distribution of identified taxa in each sample is depicted in Table 5.

Mammals Mammals were identified in every sample from the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Of the six genera identified, deer remains were most frequently encountered followed by opossum, rabbits, and raccoons. Less frequently encountered mammals were the hispid cotton rat, recovered from less than half the samples, and mink, which was identified in only one sample. Small mammals were most frequently identified by teeth, mandibles/maxillae, and long bones. Post-cranial elements such as ribs, vertebrae, metapodials, carpals, tarsals, metacarpals, metatarsals, and phalanges were more frequently recovered from medium and large-sized mammals. Unfused epiphyses indicative of subadult individuals were infrequent. Unfused deer bones consisted of two metacarpals, one radius, and one unidentified long bone fragment. A single unfused raccoon tibia was also identified. Noticeably absent from the mammalian assemblage were marine mammals including porpoises (Tursiops truncatus) and manatees (Trichechus manatus). Small rodents and aquatic mammals were scarce: hispid cotton rat remains were identified in less than half the samples, despite the fact that the woodlands and swamp abound with numerous rodent species. Mink was only identified in one sample despite the various species of aquatic mammals that frequent the rivers, lakes, streams, and marsh edges in the region. Also absent was the black bear (Ursus americanus). Though the refuge currently does not host bears, studies suggest that small bear populations could have been sustainable here year-round, particularly in surrounding upland swamp areas, given sufficient pine-palmetto flatwoods and saw palmetto berries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980:28-29).

54 Table 4. Taxa identified at the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

Taxanomic Name Common Name Taxanomic Name Common Name

Mammalia mammals Osteichthyes bony fishes Sigmodon hipsidus hipsid cottom rat Lepisosteus spp. gars Mustela vison mink Amia calva bowfin Sylvilagus sp. rabbits Elops saurus ladyfish Didelphis virginiana eastern opposum Clupeidae herrings Procyon lotor raccoon Siluriformes marine and freshwater catfishes Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer Ictaluridae freshwater catfishes Ariidae marine catfishes Aves birds Ariopsis felis hardhead catfish Ardea herodias great blue heron Bagre marinus gafftopsail catfish Gavia immer common loon Opsanus sp. toadfishes Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey Mugil sp. mullet Prionotus sp. sea robin Reptilia reptiles Centropomus sp. snook Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass Chelydra serpentina snapping turtle Caranx sp. jacks Macroclemys temmincki alligator snapping turtle Sciaenidae/Sparidae porgies, drums, and croakers Kinosternidae mud and musk turtles Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead Chrysemys sp. cooters and pond sliders Sciaenidae drums and croakers Deirochelys reticularia chicken turtle Cynoscion sp. seatrout Malaclemys terrapin diamondback terrapin Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker Terrapene carolina eastern box turtle Pogonias cromis black drum Chelonidae sea turtles Sciaenops ocellatus red drum Crotalus adamanteus eastern diamondback rattlesnake Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish Scombridae mackerels Chondrichtheys cartilaginous fishes Paralichthyes sp. lefteye flounders Lamniformes sharks Acanthostracion quadricornis scrawled cowfish Charcharhinidae requiem sharks Tetraodontidae puffers Rajiformes rays and skates Sphoeroides dorsalis marbled puffer Rhinopteridae cownose rays Diodontidae porcupinefishes Chilomycterus schoepfi striped burrfish

55 Table 5. Distribution of taxa at the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

Feature L10 Trench -40R110 #1 Taxa FS 391 FS 710 FS 729 FS 753 FS 541 FS 759 FS 793 FS 801 FS 815 FS 824 Mammalia xxxxxxxxx Sigmodon hipsidus xx x Mustela vison x Sylvilagus sp. xxx x x x Didelphis virginiana xxx xxx Procyon lotor xxx xx Odocoileus virginianus xxx xxxxxx Aves xxxxxxxxxx Ardea herodias x Gavia immer x Meleagris gallopavo x Reptilia Testudines xxxxxxxx x Chelydra serpentina xx xxx Macroclemys temmincki xx Kinosternidae xxxx xx Chrysemys sp. x Deirochelys reticularia xx Malaclemys terrapin xxx Terrapene carolina xx Chelonidae xx Alligator mississippiensis xxxx Serpentes xxx x x Crotalus adamanteus x Osteichthyes xxxxxxxxxx Lepisosteus spp. xxxxx x x Amia calva xx Elops saurus xxxxxx Clupeidae x Siluriformes xx Ictaluridae x Ariidae xxxxxx xxx Ariopsis felis xx Bagre marinus xx xx Opsanus sp. xxxxx x Mugil sp. xxxxx xxxx Prionotus sp. xxx Centropomus sp. xx Micropterus salmoides x Caranx sp. xxxxx xxxx

56 Table 5, continued.

Feature L10 Trench -40R110 #1 Taxa FS 391 FS 710 FS 729 FS 753 FS 541 FS 759 FS 793 FS 801 FS 815 FS 824 Sciaenidae/Sparidae xx x Archosargus probatocephalus xxxxxxxxxx Sciaenidae xxxxxx Cynoscion sp. xxxxxxxxxx Micropogonias undulatus xx Pogonias cromis xxxxxxxxxx Sciaenops ocellatus xxxxx xxxx Chaetodipterus faber xxxxx xxx Scombridae x Paralichthyes sp. xxxxx xx Acanthostracion quadricornis x Tetraodontidae x Sphoeroides dorsalis x Diodontidae xxxxxxxxxx Chilomycterus schoepfi x Lamniformes x Charcharhinidae xxx Rajiformes xx x x Rhinopteridae x

Birds Birds were identified in every sample from the Refuge Fire Tower Site. One migratory species, the common loon, was identified in FS # 710. The common loon migrates south into Florida in late October, returning north again in January. Common loon can be found searching for food in shallow freshwater, brackish water, and coastal ocean waters between November and April (Alden et al. 1998:301). Also identified in FS # 710 was the great blue heron, a species common to northern Florida year-round. The great blue heron is a shallow-water wading species that feeds on fish and crustaceans and nests along beaches and the shores of freshwater lakes in the spring; it is not particularly adept on land (Fritts et al. 1983). Another permanent inhabitant of northern Florida, the wild turkey is common throughout pine flatwoods in the region. Wild turkey was identified only in FS # 541. Each sample analyzed contained unidentifiable bird remains.

57 The common loon was identified by one tibiotarsus and one carpometacarpus, and the great blue heron was identified by three humerii. A single spur identified the wild turkey as a male. Unidentified bird remains consisted mainly of longbone fragments and vertebrae, though one cranial fragment, a sternum fragment, a partial scapula, a cuneiform, and a phalanx were also identified. FS # 710, the water floateded sample, produced the widest range of element types. All bird fragments appeared to belong to mature individuals. The small percentage of bird remains encountered was not unexpected, given the frailness of bird bone. However, the limited number of bird species identified was unexpected. Given the variety of habitats surrounding the site, it was expected that a larger number of freshwater and saltwater wading and diving birds would be identified. Despite a recent serious decline in the number of wading birds in Florida, herons and egrets continue to nest in the vicinity of the Refuge Fire Tower Site. In addition, Headquarters Pond, adjacent to the site, hosted a large heron breeding site as recently as 1982; two other breeding sites were located within 15 kilometers of the Refuge Fire Tower Site (Nesbitt et al. 1982:416-419). Presumably, large populations of permanent and migratory birds would also have inhabited the area during the Woodland period.

Reptiles Turtles were the most prominent reptiles recovered. Turtles identified include the snapping turtle, alligator snapping turtle, diamondback terrapin, cooters/pond sliders, chicken turtle, eastern box turtle, mud/musk turtles, and sea turtle. Recent summer censuses identified all but the alligator snapping turtle and cooters/pond sliders within the refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980:47). No tortoises or softshell turtles were identified. Turtle remains not identified to more specific taxonomic levels were identified in all samples except FS # 815. Turtles were most often identified by carapace fragments, though long bones, plastron, and cranial fragments were also recovered. Neurals and peripherals were generally whole and well preserved. Pleurals were also well preserved, though many were broken perpendicular to their lateral fusion lines. Because turtle shells most easily disarticulate along fusion sequences, I presume these breaks occurred post-depositionally, not the result of human processing. Two sea turtle individuals were identified, both

58 determined to be immature based on their comparatively diminutive sizes and low degrees of bone porosity. Less abundant reptile remains at the Refuge Fire Tower Site were alligator and snake. Alligator teeth, dermal scutes, and vertebral articulating surfaces, along with snake vertebrae, were identified throughout the L10 trench and also in unit -40R10. Eastern diamondback rattlesnake was the only snake identified to species type, in a single sample from the L10 trench.

Cartilaginous & Bony Fishes Cartilaginous fishes were identified in five samples: 541, 710, 729, 753, and 815. These included cownose rays, unidentified rays, and skates identified by dental plates, vertebrae, and tail spines. Requiem shark (Charcharhinidae) teeth and vertebrae were also recovered, including one fossilized shark tooth, along with several vertebrae unidentifiable to a particular family of shark. Bony fishes were identified in every sample from the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Of the twenty-four taxa identified, four were found in each sample: sheepshead, seatrout, black drum, and porcupinefishes. Each sample analyzed also contained unidentifiable bony fish remains. Nine recurrent bony fish taxa were found in over half the samples: gar, ladyfish, sea catfish, toadfish, mullet, jack, red drum, spadefish, and flounder. Less frequently encountered taxa were bowfin, herring, freshwater catfish, searobin, snook, largemouth bass, Atlantic croaker, mackerels, scrawled cowfish, and puffers. Vertebrae were the most common bony fish elements in the assemblage, followed by spines, mandibles/maxillae/premaxillae, neurocranial fragments, and ribs. Swollen cleithrum pneumatics of jack, and spinous processes of large black drum and spadefish were highly visible in the assemblage, but no more prevalent than the same unswollen elements belonging to smaller species and individuals. A number of gar scales (n = 135) were identified in FS # 710.

Sample Adequacy

To assess the adequacy of the samples chosen for this study, the relationship between the number of taxa and MNI was plotted for each of the ten samples (Figure 15). The MNI in the general level samples ranged from seventeen to 246. The MNI in Feature

59 # 1 was thirty-nine. Estimating the point of diminishing returns at an MNI of 200 suggests an NISP of 6,000 per sample is needed to thoroughly represent the number and type of species utilized at 8Wa14. The NISP for all the samples except FS # 710 were drastically lower than this, ranging from 402 to 2,146 in samples from the central portion of the midden, and from 102 to 642 in outlying unit -40R110. However, the arc depicted in Figure 15 suggests an accurate reflection of the nature of the sample was achieved. This is supported by a second indicator of sample adequacy, the direct correlation between MNI and NISP (Wing and Brown 1979:120), as depicted in Figure 16.

Biodiversity & Biomass

Fifty-eight vertebrate taxa were identified in this study, forty-four of which contributed MNI values. General patterns were detected in both NISP and MNI distributions (Figures 17 and 18). Fish consistently produced the highest NISP (43.4 – 93.9 percent), followed by unidentified vertebrates, reptiles, mammals, and birds. The highest percentage of NISP contributed by reptiles was 20.4 percent; by mammals was 11.8 percent; and by birds was 3.1 percent. Fish also contributed the largest MNI, between 56.3 and 90.2 percent in each sample. Reptiles and mammals were fairly evenly represented in MNI counts, constituting 3.4 – 18.8 percent and 3.7 to 18.8 percent, respectively. Birds contributed the least MNI, between 1.5 and 6.3 percent. To determine biomass contributions, minimum edible meat weight was calculated for each of the major vertebrate taxa (Figure 19). Meat weight contributions from each class of animal were relatively consistent across all samples (Figure A.5). Fish contributed the largest amount of meat in each sample (55.6 – 88.2 percent), generally followed by mammals (6.7 – 28.5 percent), reptiles (0.7 – 21.0 percent), and birds (0.4 – 4.9 percent). Table A.2 ranks each taxa by their contributions of minimum edible meat weight from all samples combined. Jack alone constituted 12.7 percent of the total meat weight. Black drum constituted another 6.6 percent; deer constituted 6.4 percent; porcupine fishes constituted 3.2 percent; and mullet constituted 3.0 percent. All other animal species contributed less than three percent each to the total estimated biomass.

60 50

a 40

Number of Tax Number 10

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 MNI

Figure 15. Relationship between number of taxa and MNI in each sample.

9000 8000 7000 6000 5000

NISP 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 MNI

Figure 16. Relationship between NISP and MNI in each sample.

61 Mammalia Aves Reptilia Osteichthyes/Chondrichthyes Vertebrata

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

Percentage NISP of 30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

91 10 29 41 53 59 93 01 15 24 3 7 7 5 7 7 7 8 8 8 # # # # # # # # # # S S S S S S S S S S F F F F F F F F F F

Sample

Figure 17. Percentages of NISP by class in each sample.

62 Mammalia Aves Reptilia Osteichthyes/Chondrichthyes

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0 Percentage MNI of 30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

# 391 # 710 # 729 # 541 # 753 # 759 # 793 # 801 # 815 # 824 S S S S S S S S S S F F F F F F F F F F

Sample

Figure 18. Percentages of MNI by class in each sample.

Mammalia Aves Reptilia Osteichthyes/Chondrichthyes

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0 s

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0 Percentage of Biomas of Percentage 20.0

10.0

0.0

15 24 8 8 # # S S FS # 391 FS # 710 FS # 729 FS # 541 FS # 753 FS # 759 FS # 793 FS # 801 F F

Sample

Figure 19. Percentages of biomass by class in each sample.

64 Diversity & Equitability

The combination of each of the ecosystems surrounding the Refuge Fire Tower Site – salt marsh, riverine, hardwood hammock, pine scrub and sandy beach – creates high species richness for the immediate locale. However, salt marshes and estuaries are generally characterized by low species diversity. At coastal prehistoric sites, a small number of taxa contribute the largest portion of meat to the diet despite utilization of a wide range of animals. This pattern of low diversity and low equitability is particularly common at tropical and semi-tropical sites where shellfish, particularly oysters, are often the major meat contributors (Reitz and Wing 1999:233-234). Thus, it was theorized that use of the Refuge Fire Tower Site for the exploitation of specific prey types would be evidenced by low diversity and either low or high equitability, whereas a more general pattern of resource extraction from all available locales would result in an assemblage exhibiting high diversity and high equitability. The diversity and equitability of each vertebrate sample was measured according to the calculated MNI and estimated biomass. For the purpose of discussion, diversity and equitability values were arbitrarily defined. Diversity values less than 1.5 were deemed low; diversity values ranging from 1.5 – 3.5 were deemed moderate; and values greater than 3.5 were deemed high. Equitability values less than 0.25 were deemed low; values ranging from 0.25 – 0.75 were moderate; and values greater than 0.75 were high. Table 6 lists the diversity and equitability values for each sample; the complete indices are presented in Tables A.3 – A.12. Midden sample diversity was moderate when measured by both MNI (2.2805 – 2.8420) and biomass (1.4419 – 2.8082). Equitability measures according to MNI were high (0.7281 – 0.9849), and moderate to high when measured by biomass (0.4989 – 0.8383). Feature # 1 (Table A.12) also exhibited moderate diversity (MNI: 2.2805, biomass: 2.2493) and high equitability (MNI: 0.7491, biomass: 0.7388) using both measures.

65 Table 6. Diversity and equitability at the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

Diversity (H') Equitability (V') FS # Excavation Unit Provenience MNI Biomass MNI Biomass 391 -80L10 & -80L20 Feature #1 2.2805 2.2493 0.7491 0.7388 710 -90L10 Zone II, Level 2 2.7214 2.8082 0.7281 0.7513 729 -100L10 Zone II, Level 2 2.7168 2.6984 0.8440 0.8383 753 -100L10 Zone II, Level 2a 2.7132 2.3510 0.9576 0.8298 759 -100L10 Zone III, Level 1 2.5933 2.2124 0.9849 0.8383 541 -60L10 Zone II, Level 3 2.8420 2.3927 0.8829 0.7433 793 -40R110 Level 1 2.5896 2.0777 0.9340 0.7494 801 -40R110 Level 2 2.6883 1.4419 0.9301 0.4989 815 -40R110 Level 3 2.4462 2.3312 0.8634 0.8228 824 -40R110 Level 4 2.6588 1.7426 0.9818 0.6435

Invertebrate Fauna

Though invertebrate fauna could not be accurately quantified, several shellfish samples preliminarily inspected indicate harvesting of both marine and brackish water bivalves and gastropods. Marine species identified include eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), Atlantic bay scallop (Argopecten, cf. irradians), lightning whelk (Busycon contrarium), Florida crown conch (Melongena corona), Florida horse conch (Pleuroploca gigantean), northern quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria), and southern quahog (Mercenaria campechiensis). Carolina marsh clam (Polymesoda caroliniana) and common rangia (Rangia cuneata) were harvested from fresh and brackish waters, likely at the mouth of the river (Rehder 1981). Shellfish were consumed at the Refuge Fire Tower Site; whether they were a significant dietary staple is difficult to say. Broken shell was scattered throughout the midden, and field notes and excavation records reference small concentrations of calico scallops and eastern oysters observed within the midden (Figures 4 and 20). These likely represent the remains of individual meals. The habitat in this region is ideal for the establishment of large colonies of oysters which, along with scallops, are important staples of the local modern shell fishing industry. In addition, other fish and shellfish

66 species identified at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, including drums, crown conch, and lightning whelk, prey heavily on oysters, especially during oyster spawning (Schlesselman 1955).

Figure 20. Oysters in -70L10, Zone II, Level 1, facing east (Phelps 1968-1970, Photo # 452-36).

Other invertebrates likely eaten but not identified in the zooarchaeological assemblage were crab and shrimp. Blue crabs and stone crabs prey on oyster beds along the beach and in the estuary, and shrimp is one of the most abundant macrophytes in the estuary, at the base of the trophic structure. Although no shrimp or crab remains were recovered from 8Wa14, remains of this type are commonly lost using ¼ in screens (Quitmyer 1985:87).

67 Botanical Remains

No botanical remains were identified in any of the samples analyzed in this study. The paucity of botanical remains from the Refuge Fire Tower Site may indicate poor botanical preservation or that plant materials were not consumed at the site. Phelps, however, reported recovering a single squash/gourd seed from the Refuge Fire Tower Site (Phelps in Milanich 1994:144), and charred hickory and acorn nuts from throughout the midden (Phelps, personal communication). The squash/gourd seed could not be accounted for at the time this study was conducted. It has been suggested at other archaeological sites that prehistoric people collected acorns and hickory nuts for their meat pulp and milk. Bense (1985:137) describes the process of extracting pulp and oil from nuts in her discussion of subsistence practices at Hawkshaw (8Es1287). The mano and milling stone recovered from the Refuge Fire Tower Site may have been used to this end.

68 CHAPTER 6. SITE INTERPRETATION

In the previous chapter, I presented primary zooarchaeological data derived from the analysis of selected vertebrate faunal samples from the Refuge Fire Tower Site. In this chapter, I investigate spatial patterning at the Refuge Fire Tower Site through comparison of faunal data from Feature # 1 with data from three spatially distinct areas of the midden: the L10 Trench, Unit -40R110, and Feature # 1; and offer an interpretation of the site based on aspects of site catchment, prey selection, technology, and procurement scheduling. I begin with a brief summary of factors that may have influenced deposition and archaeological recovery.

Taphonomic Processes & Sources of Bias

Construction of the fire tower five years prior to the first archaeological investigation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site appears to have impacted only the immediate footprint of the tower. Soil disturbance and waterlines encountered in unit 40R50 were associated with a residence formerly located immediately north of the unit. No other evidence of modern disturbance was reported (Phelps et al. 1968-1970). Several irregularly shaped stains were identified at the base of the midden near the bottom of Zone II and in Zone III. These were interpreted during excavation as likely resulting from tree roots or rodent burrowing. Scavenging, however, does not appear to have significantly impacted the zooarchaeological assemblage. The samples exhibited no evidence of rodent gnawing. Several articulated black drum and jack skeletons found in Levels 1 and 2 of Zone II fall within the size range of individuals that Wing and Quitmyer (1992) scavenged from a midden site by raccoons. Their presence suggests that midden debris accumulated fairly quickly, burying food remains before scavengers could remove them from the site. Continuous human presence at the site also may have kept scavenging animals at bay. Heat alteration and chemical leaching, the most common factors influencing the accuracy of biomass estimates, appear to have been insignificant occurrences in this study. Calcium carbonate from shell in the midden promoted preservation and prevented the leaching of organic nutrients from the bone. Less than one quarter of each sample was

69 heat altered (Figure A.4). Burning occurred more frequently than calcination, though this may simply reflect the fact that calcined bone is less likely to survive other taphonomic processes than burned bone. The main source of bias influencing the outcome of this research stemmed from collection methodology. A shift in screening protocol from ½-in to ¼-in screening by the field crew early in the project did not affect the results of this study. All samples analyzed were collected after this point and employed ¼-in screens in their recovery, except FS # 710, which was subjected to water separation. However, at the time of excavation, zooarchaeology was still an emerging field of study, and it is likely that much fauna was not initially recognized and discarded. In addition, research has shown that even ¼ in sample data are generally inadequate for evaluating the influence of natural and cultural variables on species exploitation because many small bone fragments are lost in the screening process, skewing the results toward the recovery of fragments from larger individuals (Reitz 1982a, Payne 1972, Shaffer 1992, Wing and Quitmyer 1992). Comparison of the different recovery rates produced by two contiguous samples illustrates the range of fauna missed in the utilization of the latter methodology (Figure 21). FS # 710 and 729 came from adjacent units in Zone II, Level II of the midden. The materials from FS # 710 were water-separated; FS # 729 was dry-screened through ¼ in wire mesh. As expected, the greatest difference between the samples was in the rate of recovery of materials smaller than ¼ in (6.35 mm). The NISP in the water-separated sample was more than five times greater than the NISP of the screened sample. The number of taxa identified in the water-separated sample was nearly twice as large as that of the screened sample. Twenty more MNI-contributing taxa were identified in the water- separated sample than in the screened sample; nine were not identified in any other sample from the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Finally, the MNI, total weight, and estimated biomass were nearly three times higher in the water-separated sample. Despite the sheer increase in the number of specimens recovered through water-separation, the relative percentages of heat altered specimens and biomass contributions by each class of animals varied little between the two samples, suggesting the overall information values produced by the two recovery methods were nearly equal.

70 NISP MNI # of Taxa

9000

7864 8000

7000

6000

5000 Representation

4000

3000

2000 1450

1000 246 42 67 26 0 FS # 710 (water-floated) FS # 729 (1/4-in dry-screened) Sample

Figure 21. Comparison of primary data from water floated and ¼-in screened samples from the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

71 Intersite Comparisons

Each of the samples analyzed in this thesis came from the midden. The four samples from the L10 trench (FS # 710, 729, 541, and 759) represented the complete vertebrate components of 6-in levels dating to the Late Archaic, Deptford, and Swift Creek culture periods. One sample from the L10 trench (FS # 753) could not be assigned to a specific culture period. FS #391, also from the L10 trench (FS #391), represented the vertebrate fauna from Feature #1. Although no time period could be attributed to Feature #1, its location between intact Swift Creek midden deposits indicates its use during the same period. The four samples from Unit -40R110 span the entire depth of the midden (FS # 793, 801, 815, and 824). Only one sample from Unit -40R110 could be dated. FS # 815 was deposited during the Swift Creek phase. No major differences were noted between samples from the Deptford and Swift Creek occupation levels in the L10 Trench. Furthermore, no significant differences were noted between the samples from the L10 Trench and Unit -40R110. In each of the samples analyzed, fish constituted the highest percentages of NISP, followed by unidentified vertebrates, reptiles, mammals, and birds. MNI and biomass were also dominated by fish; mammals and reptiles contributed roughly similar percentages, while birds contributed the least MNI and biomass. The samples analyzed from Unit -40R110 represent four continuous levels from the base of the midden to the midden surface. Field maps indicate the midden strata in this unit accumulated concurrent with midden deposits from the L10 Trench area. MNI, NISP, and biomass percentages from each sample in Unit -40R110 approximate those from the L10 Trench samples. Although Unit -40R110 was one quarter the size of the excavation units in the L10 Trench, the relative volume of vertebrate fauna from the Unit -40R110 samples (by NISP and weight) was similar to the volume of vertebrate fauna recovered from samples from the larger units. Noticeably different, however, were the reversed temporal trends in Unit -40R110. NISP data from Unit -40R110 show increasing percentages of fish and bird elements and decreasing percentages of mammal and reptile elements through time. The percentages of vertebrate fragments unidentifiable to class also increased over time in Unit -40R110 (Figure 14).

72 I expected the faunal data from Feature # 1 to differ significantly from the midden samples. However, this was not the case. NISP, MNI, biomass, and diversity and equitability values calculated for Feature # 1 mirrored those of the general level samples. I propose two explanations for this similarity. First, Feature # 1 could represent the remains of a food storage pit rather than a hearth or trash pit. Alternatively, Feature # 1 may not represent a feature at all, but rather the leveling off of an uneven dune surface through continuous midden deposition over time. During excavation, Phelps noted numerous pits throughout the midden which he interpreted as trash pits (Phelps et al. 1968-1970). Archaeologically, hearths and pits are distinguished from surrounding midden by changes in soil coloration, soil consistency, and artifact content. Prehistorically, hearths and pits functioned quite differently, however. Fires contained in hearths were used for ceramic production, tool production, and cooking-related activities. Excavated hearths generally contain greater amounts of charcoal and burned food remains than the midden. Often, extended periods of high heat caused shell and bone to fuse with the surrounding matrix, resulting in a concreted artifact mass. Indications that Feature #1 was not a hearth include the fact that no conglomerate burned fauna were recovered from the feature, even though several such areas were recognized at the site. Feature #1 also contained little charcoal. In addition, given the smaller amount and narrower range of faunal materials survivable under such conditions, I would expect lower diversity and equitability values from a hearth compared with surrounding midden. Within middens, pits containing disposed of food remains may have been covered with sediment to control smell and keep scavenging animals away. Other archaeological refuse pits may have been left uncovered until filled to capacity (therefore representing the remains of several meals), or were periodically burned so that the same pit could be used continuously. If Feature # 1 was a refuse pit into which food remains were tossed, I would expect the contents of FS # 391 to have produced a larger volume and/or greater diversity of vertebrate materials than the midden samples. However, this was not the case. Had Feature # 1 functioned as a food storage pit, over time the pit eventually would have collapsed or fallen out of use and surrounding midden materials caved in

73 (Stein 1992). This would account for the different coloration where the pit used to exist, while explaining why the feature’s contents did not differ from the surrounding midden. The warm and humid Florida environment would have hindered preservation of any botanical materials remaining in the pit, but the surrounding shell would have promoted bone preservation. A similar effect would have resulted from the filling of a natural ground surface contour over time, such as a natural dune ridge upon which midden materials accumulated. Natural troughs or depressions present on the dune surface would have acted as catch basins for midden material as it was deposited over time.

Catchment Areas

The estuarine, riverine, and wooded environments surrounding the Refuge Fire Tower Site created a complex environmental matrix that is reflected in the archaeofauna from the midden. Table 7 lists the catchment areas exploited by the site’s inhabitants, as inferred from life history data of species identified in the zooarchaeological samples. These areas reflect environmental locales located within a two and a half mile radius of the Refuge Fire Tower Site and include the ocean, terrestrial hammock/pine scrub, and freshwater sources. To further isolate catchment locales, marine taxa in Table 7 were also listed according to microhabitats with different salinity and turbidity levels. Because different species within the same class often inhabit quite different environments, taxa that could not be identified to a particular family, genus, or species (i.e. “Unidentifiable fishes”, “Unidentifiable mammals”, etc.) were not assigned to catchment areas. “Unidentifiable” remains only accounted for 44.8 percent of the total sample biomass. The remaining biomass was contributed by marine taxa (42.2 percent), terrestrial pine scrub/hardwood hammock taxa (8.6 percent), and freshwater taxa (4.4 percent). Despite the proximity of the Refuge Fire Tower Site to the St. Marks River, its tributaries, and numerous lakes and ponds, animals reliant upon freshwater habitats were negligible in the zooarchaeological assemblage. Animals likely obtained from the St. Marks River included mink, common loon, snapping turtles, alligator snapping turtles, and alligators (1.9 percent of the total sample biomass). Cooters, pond sliders, and great

74 Table 7. Catchment areas indicated by identified taxa* at the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

y r

u t s

E /

h s r e l a r a o t M h Biomass % of s % of t s a l y f o f Pine Scrub/Hardwood Hammock (g) Total Marine a a Biomass (g) Total C S B O 3 White-tailed deer 5,601.4 6.4 1 Jacks xx 11,104.6 12.7 Common raccoon 853.0 1.0 2 Black drum x x x 5,758.1 6.6 Rabbits 469.4 0.5 Sciaenids & sparids xxxx 4,256.1 4.9 Eastern opposum 391.3 0.4 4 Porcupinefishes & puffers x x x x 2,824.2 3.2 Eastern box turtle 131.1 0.2 5 Mullet x x 2,597.5 3.0 Cotton rat 23.9 0.0 6 Sheepshead x x 1,937.6 2.2 Eastern diamondback rattlesnake 23.6 0.0 7 Seatrout x x 1,405.0 1.6 Wild turkey 10.9 0.0 8 Marine catfishes x x x 1,154.4 1.3 Total: 7,504.6 8.6 9 Sand flounders x x 1,163.3 1.3 Red drum x x x x 983.7 1.1 Toadfishes xxxx 878.3 1.0 Rivers, Freshwater Swamps, Streams, Lakes, Ponds Atlantic spadefish x x 669.7 0.8 10 Gars 1,092.2 1.3 Sea turtles (juvenile) x x 578.0 0.7 Snapping turtle 939.4 1.1 Skates and rays x x x x 433.7 0.5 Mud & musk turtles 701.2 0.8 Sharks xxxx 393.7 0.5 American alligator 401.5 0.5 Diamondback terrapin x 259.0 0.3 Alligator snapping turtle 305.4 0.4 Chicken turtle x 105.9 0.1 Great blue heron 112.1 0.1 Searobin xxx 95.3 0.1 Cooters/pond sliders 103.9 0.1 Snook x x 88.0 0.1 Largemouth bass 49.0 0.1 Ladyfish x x x x 51.7 0.1 Bowfin 43.4 0.0 Atlantic croaker x x 27.8 0.0 Common loon 41.8 0.0 Mackerels x x x 10.1 0.0 Mink 23.9 0.0 Scrawled cowfish x x x 8.5 0.0 Freshwater catfish 6.4 0.0 Herrings x x x 4.9 0.0 Total: 3,820.2 4.4 Total: 36,789.1 42.2

Habitat Not Ascribed * Numbers to the left of the taxa name indicate the top ten Unidentified fishes 29,325.5 33.6 biomass-contributing taxa. Unidentified mammals 5,746.6 6.6 Unidentified reptiles 3,055.8 3.5 x = normal habitat. Unidentified birds 948.2 1.1 = not normal habitat, but animal can sometimes be found here. Total: 39,076.1 44.8

Total: 87,190.0 100.0 75 blue heron were likely taken from freshwater creeks, ponds, and lakes (0.2 percent). Gar and catfish, two of the most common freshwater fishes found at prehistoric riverine and coastal sites (White 2003), were identified at the Refuge Fire Tower Site along with bowfin and largemouth bass. Though these fishes would have been available in the river and its tributaries year-round, they constituted only 1.2 percent of the total sample biomass from the site. A composite biomass from all of the freshwater animals totaled only 4.4 percent of the total biomass. Several of the animals considered indicative of freshwater habitats can also be found in brackish and marine environments. Of the freshwater fishes identified, only the bowfin is strictly freshwater: alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula), spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), and less frequently, largemouth bass will range into brackish and marine water. Alligators and snapping turtles are also known to range into brackish water, and alligators are frequently seen in coastal marine waters in the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge. Each of these animals may have been taken from the salt marsh during periods of low salinity. In this case, biomass contributed by freshwater animals would be reduced to 1.3 percent of the total sample biomass. Deer, raccoons, rabbits, opposum, box turtles, cotton rats, eastern diamondback rattlesnakes, and wild turkeys from the hardwood hammock and pine scrub surrounding the Refuge Fire Tower Site contributed nearly twice as much biomass as freshwater fauna, though these animals still constituted only 8.6 percent of the total sample biomass. White-tailed deer, the third largest individual contributor of biomass at the site, constituted most of the biomass in this category (6.4 percent). By far, the largest percentage of vertebrate fauna at the Refuge Fire Tower Site was extracted from Apalachee Bay. Bony fishes dominated this category (40.1 percent of the total sample biomass), although cartilaginous fishes (1.0 percent), sea turtles (0.7 percent), and two species of turtle that inhabit the salt marsh (0.4 percent) were also identified. Each of the taxa included in this category inhabit the salt marsh/estuary at some point in their life cycles. Most may also be found along sandy stretches of the coast. However, sea turtle remains from the Refuge Fire Tower Site indicate exploitation of the non-estuarine coastline may have been non-systematic. While the remains of juvenile sea turtles that spend their developmental months in protected salt marshes and shallow

76 seagrass beds were identified, their adult counterparts that inhabit inshore waters along sandy beaches were not. Approximately half of the marine fishes identified move from shallow estuarine waters to deeper bay and offshore waters, either seasonally or as they mature, identified archaeologically by their age/size. Two possibilities are suggested by the occurrence of non-estuarine fishes in the zooarchaeological assemblage: 1) distance to the bay from the coastline at the Refuge Fire Tower Site may have been decreased due to fluctuating sea levels, or 2) occupants of the Refuge Fire Tower Site were regularly fishing in the bay and/or offshore. Sea level rise along Florida’s Gulf Coast from the Late Holocene until present- day has not been a linear process. Archaeological investigations of shell middens from Caloosahatchee region along the central Gulf Coast, as far south as Onion Key (8Mo49) in Monroe County (Griffin 1988) and as far north as Paradise Point (8Fr71) in Franklin County (Braley 1982), revealed evidence of episodic and cyclical fluctuations in sea level over the last thousand years (Missimer 1973; Stapor et al. 1991; Walker 1992b; Widmer 1986). At the Wightman midden (8Ll54) (Walker et al. 1994), stratigraphic analysis showed that between 1,050 – 50 B.C. mean sea level was 30 – 60 cm lower than it is today, and that between A.D. 100 – 600 mean sea level had risen to at least 70 – 80 cm above the present state. Further analysis showed that mean sea levels again fell 30 – 60 cm below today’s levels between A.D. 450 – 850, after which time they rose to the current sea level. Each rise/fall episode is estimated to have occurred over as little as one hundred years time. More recent radiocarbon sampling from the northern Gulf of Mexico (Balsillie and Donoghue 2004) corroborates these data. These data suggest that mean sea level along the coast of Apalachicola Bay during the Early Wooldand period was 2.5 ft (70 – 80 cm) above the current mean sea level. The marsh edge is currently located approximately 25 ft (10 m) from the base of the midden. Though the elevational gradient southward from the edge of the dune upon which the site is located is relatively low, the sharp rise in elevation along the slope of the dune would have kept the marsh edge from coming much closer. So while sea level rose, the edge of the marsh would not have encroached much further. Distances of the marsh- estuary and estuary-bay interfaces from the Refuge Fire Tower Site, however, would have greatly decreased, reducing the size of the marsh (Brinson et al. 1995). A narrower

77 estuary and shorter distance to bay would have had implications for prey selection and methods of capture used by the inhabitants of the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

Prey Selection

Marine fishes were the most abundant vertebrate food source in samples analyzed from the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Jacks and black drum were the highest individual contributors of biomass, constituting 12.7 percent and 6.6 percent of the total sample biomass, respectively. The amount of biomass contributed by jacks and black drum alone suggest intensive harvesting of these particular fishes. Deer and reptiles supplemented the diet. Small to medium-sized mammals, birds, and freshwater fishes do not appear to have been targeted and may only have been hunted opportunistically. Aside from the large percentage of jack and drum, the percentage of certain fish remains from the site mirrors both modern commercial and scientific sampling data from the area. Recent stratified random sampling of Apalachicola Bay showed that mullet, seatrout, and red drum accounted for only 6.1, 2.4, and 0.4 percent, respectively, of the total catch by MNI (FWC 2000a). At the Refuge Fire Tower Site, these species constituted 30.1, 13.0, and 3.7 percent of the total fish MNI in FS # 710 (Table A.13). These fishes contributed similar percentages to the total identifiable fish biomass: 3.0, 1.6, and 1.1 percent (Table A.2). Three of the most abundant fish at the Refuge Fire Tower Site – seatrout, black drum, and red drum – are today three of the most valuable market fishes from the Gulf of Mexico (Johnson and Seaman 1986; Reagan 1985; Sutter et al 1986). Some fish species that produced large NISP and MNI values at the Refuge Fire Tower Site may not have been targeted for consumption. Puffers, for example, secrete a substance toxic to humans (Gilbert and Williams 2002:571-575). Though inedible, puffers may have been caught so that their toxin could be harvested for the capture of other fish in slow-moving streams and lakes. Noticeably absent from the samples were small schooling fishes common in shallow bays and estuaries. In the same random sampling study of Apalachicola Bay, pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and several other species of baitfish constituted 62.3 percent of the total number of fish caught (FWC 2000a).

78 However, no pinfish or spot were identified in any of the samples from the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Other small fish expected from the assemblage but not identified included pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera), anchovies (Anchoa spp.), and menhaden (Brevoortia spp.).

Capture Techniques

Given the large portion of the faunal assemblage comprised of marine animals, I felt it necessary to explore the various methods that may have been used in obtaining resources from the sea. Methods and tools used in prey capture correspond closely to biological (O’Connor 2000) and behavioral (Reitz and Wing 1999:262-269) characteristics of the targeted animals. Daily fish movements into, within, and out of bays and estuaries are associated with feeding habits that correlate predictably with changing tides and water temperature. The prehistoric occupants of the Refuge Fire Tower Site would have maximized their hunting and gathering efforts through careful observation of these habits, and tailored their fishing techniques to the morphological and behavioral characteristics of their desired prey. Though small schooling fishes were not identified in the vertebrate faunal samples, they probably were exploited at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. The remains of many small fish were recovered from each sample, but were not identifiable to species: 19.6 – 71.6 percent by of each sample by NISP, and 15.2 – 63.8 percent of each sample by weight (Figure 22). Most were vertebrae and cranial elements, notoriously difficult to identify to specific taxa when from very small fish (Marrinan, personal communication 2005; Russo, personal communication 2005). With mouth morphology too small to take hook and line (Reitz and Wing 1999:269), these fish may have been collected from the salt marsh using hand-held dip nets (see Figure 23b). Among identified species, allometric measurements of fish from FS # 710 (Figures A.6 – A.11) suggest the majority were larger than would be easily captured using dip nets. Spears may have been used to capture large fish in shallow water. Night- time spear-fishing in shallow water is reportedly an effective technique for catching sand flounders (Gilbert and Williams 2002:550). Weirs and fine-mesh nets could also have

79 Bony Fish NISP Wt (g) 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0

Percentage 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

1 0 9 1 3 93 01 5 4 39 81 82 # # 8 # # S S # 71 S # 72 S # 54 S # 75 S S S F F F F F FS # 759 FS # 7 F F F Sample

All Classes Combined NISP Wt (g) 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0

Percentage 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

91 10 29 41 53 59 93 01 15 24 3 7 7 5 7 7 7 8 8 8 # # # # # # # # # # S S S S S S S S S S F F F F F F F F F F Sample

Figure 22. Representation of vertebrate fauna unidentifiable to species.

a b

Figure 23. Possible methods of fish procurement at the Refuge Fire Tower Site: (a) gill net (from O’Connor 2000:143), and (b) dip net (from Reitz and Wing 1999:266).

been used to capture a range of animals above a certain size. Larson (1980:81-103), in his discussion of elasmobranch remains from archaeological sites, argues that shallow-water weirs would have been the most effective means of trapping and containing potentially dangerous rays and sharks while Kozuch (1993) suggests clubs wielded standing in shallow water or seated in a canoe would have effectively stunned sharks and allowed their capture. A modern account of shark capture reported successful mass captures of small schooling sharks using gill nets (Clark 1963:63). A more size-specific method of capture (Figure 23a), gill nets hung vertically in the water snare only those fish small enough to penetrate the net and large enough to become entangled by their gills (O’Connor 2000:140). Crown conch columellas recovered throughout the midden may have served as net weights, a function that has been stipulated at other prehistoric sites, including

81 8Ok5 (Mikell 1992), and at nearby Bird Hammock (Nanfro 2004:71). Allometric size data from FS # 710 also supports the use of gill nets. Nearly ninety-six percent of the catfish and sciaenids from FS # 710 (n = 66) measured between 42.74 – 383.08 mm SL, a narrow SL range indicating fishes this size were targeted, possibly using gill nets. Three of the most abundant taxa by MNI – toadfish, seatrout, and puffers – fall within this size range. Gill nets may have been used to capture these fish and others that prey heavily on grassbed crustaceans and mollusks throughout the summer and fall (Livingston 1984:1263-1265). A preliminary report of fauna from the Refuge Fire Tower Site noted that jack, drum, sheepshead, and spiny box fish were the preferred species of capture at the site and were “much larger than their modern [counterparts]” (Phelps 1969c:4). Comparison of the remains of each of these species from the samples analyzed with modern specimens, however, indicate the archaeological fishes all fall within current normal size ranges. Given that excavation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site was conducted by students training in archaeological field techniques, it is likely that large fish bones encountered during excavation simply stood out more and were more frequently noted than smaller, more ubiquitous remains. Of the fish specimens measured from FS # 710, only a small percentage (4.35 percent; n = 3) represents extremely large individuals: black drum ranging in SL from 639.30 – 1,426.48 mm. Large predatory fishes such as this were presumably caught using hook-and-line in spring or summer months when they are more likely to enter bays to feed on spawning arthropods, mollusks, and other fishes; or during drought periods when salinity is higher. Hook-and-line fishing is ineffective in capturing herbivorous fish or small-mouthed fish such as mullet, but the method is ideal for procuring larger predatory fish such as mature sciaenids (Reitz and Wing 1999:269). Hook-and-line fishing would explain the low representation of small herbivorous fish and domination of the assemblage by large carnivorous fish. It is possible that the site’s inhabitants were collecting small fish from the estuary, but using them as baitfish to capture larger predacious fish rather than as a food source. Capture of both bait and prey could have occurred in the same location on the same trip, a practice common among fishermen today. Hooks may also have been baited with

82 shellfish, a practice known ethnographically from Lake Ponchartrain, Florida, and also postulated at Bird Hammock (Nanfro 2004:71; Riser 1987). Reitz (1982a:81), however, cautions against the assumption of intensive hook and line fishing when archaeological assemblages are dominated by large fish. She has shown a strikingly high correlation between the hook and line inference and archaeological recovery using ¼-in screens. She proposes instead that a predominance of small fish species and young individuals of larger species indicates the use of fine-mesh nets for capture. Hook and line fishing and various nets may also have been utilized from canoes in Apalachicola Bay (see Blanchard 1999). In Florida, dugout canoes have been identified at ninety-four prehistoric sites and sixty-three sites of unknown time period, mainly in lakes and rivers (Florida Master Site File, February 2005). Forty-one canoes recently found lining the edge of Newnans Lake in north central Florida date between 2,300 and 5,000 B.P., showing prehistoric navigation of Florida’s waterways as early as the Late Archaic period (Wheeler et al. 2003). Within the panhandle region, two prehistoric canoes, 8Je1014 and 8Je1561, were found in the Wacissa and Aucilla Rivers, respectively. Canoe travel in the bay and offshore could account for the large black drum and adult jack that typically prefer coastal reefs to shallow estuaries. Canoes might also explain the presence of sexually immature sea turtles in the faunal assemblage. Adult sea turtles only nest along wide swaths of sandy beach during nightly high tides between May and August (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2000b; Behler and King 1979:475-476). Hatchlings just two inches in length immediately make their way into the bay and offshore. Though juvenile sea turtle movements are not well documented, most researchers agree juveniles probably spend several “lost years” offshore, only returning inshore at the onset of sexually maturity to mate and lay eggs. Sea turtle remains at the Refuge Fire Tower Site were from individuals considerably larger than hatchlings, but comparatively smaller than sexually mature individuals. The implication is that juvenile sea turtles were being hunted in the bay or offshore using seacraft and spears. The different methods of prey capture discussed here indicate varying levels of human effort and cooperation. Spearfishing, dip-netting, and shellfish collection are all techniques accomplishable by lone individuals. Weirs and large nets, however, would

83 have required collective construction, maintenance, and collection efforts (Reitz 1982b). Alligator and sea turtle captures were also likely group efforts, due to the strength and large size of the prey. Lone individuals could easily have procured birds, mammals, and all other reptiles exploited.

Processing & Consumption

Aspects of a faunal assemblage that provide clues to understanding how food may have been processed include cut and butchering marks, bony element representation, and thermal alteration (Reitz and Wing 1999:157-159; Steele 2003). Evidence of butchering was lacking at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, though fracture patterns in the mammalian assemblage indicate marrow extraction. Cut marks were noted only on fish remains. Reptile and bird remains gave no indication of food processing techniques. The following is a discussion of processing techniques and possible methods of consumption at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Mammalian remains from the Refuge Fire Tower Site gave no indication of butchering, though spiral fractures noted on medium and large sized mammalian long bones were of the type produced during breakage for marrow extraction (Reitz and Wing 1999: Figure 6.6). While it has been suggested that fractures of this type commonly occur in archaeological assemblages but can rarely be attributed to marrow extraction (Haynes 1983; Miller 1975), it is possible that appendages were removed from the deer carcass to facilitate removal of the pelt, followed by the meat and then marrow. Historically, deer and opossum have been heavily hunted for their meat, and the pelts of deer, raccoon, mink, and rabbit were highly valued and widely traded (Whittaker 1996). In the processing of skinning an animal, appendages are usually cut off and discarded, a process that may be reflected by a disproportionately high number of fore and hind leg elements (i.e. carpals, tarsals, metacarpals, metatarsals, and distal ends of long bones) compared to other bony elements. Representation of these elements was especially high for white- tailed deer ( Figure 24). Fish remains provided the most information on food processing at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Pneumatized fish bone, also known as hyperostoses or tilly bones (Konnerth 1966), were identified in each of the samples analyzed. Cut marks (Figure 25) were noted

Sigmodon hipsidus Didelphis vigriniana 40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

20 20 15 15 10 Representation (NISP) Representation Representation (NISP) 10 5 5 0 0 ra ic e e e b g lla ial ib n xilla nial Rib elv i R Teeth ra te P Teeth tebra elvic bo alan ran er P g /Ma C Ver /Max C le Longbone Ph V Lon /Phalang ible al arsal/ Mandib Mand Element pal/Tars Element pal/T ar C Car

Sylvilagus sp. Procyon lotor 40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10 Representation (NISP) Representation Representation (NISP) Representation 5 5

0 0

l l th ib ic e th a ra ib ic ne illa ia g i R an R bone ee xilla bo Tee ax r Pelv g T a ran rteb Pelv g C ertebra alan C n V Ve o halange le/M Lon L P dib n arsal/ Ph arsal/ Ma Mandible/M al/T al/T Element p Element Car Carp

Mustela vison Odocoileus virginianus 40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15 presentation (NISP) presentation presentation (NISP) presentation e e 10 Figure 24. Element representation among mammals identified at the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

Figure 25. Hyperostoses exhibiting cut marks (photograph by the author, 2005).

86 on pneumatized fish bone from all but one sample (FS # 824). Cut pneumatics (n = 231) constituted 0.9 to 11.9 percent of the fish NISP (Tables A.13 – A.22). In perciformes, these distinctive bone tumors develop as fish mature (Olsen 1969; von Driesch 1994) to support buoyancy and in reaction to changing seawater salinity ratios (Meunier and Desse 1994). Among species of the family Sparidae (i.e. Atlantic spadefish), the supraoccipital commonly swells. Among Carangidae (i.e. jacks), cleithra, ribs, pterygiophores, and vertebral processes are all known to pneumaticize (Smith-Vaniz et al. 1995). Tiffany et al. (1980) and Hulbert et al. (2001) warn against identifying all hyperostoses as belonging to Carangidae, citing the occurrence in numerous other fish families. Though most hyperostoses at the Refuge Fire Tower Site were suspected to be black drum or jack, the majority could not be identified to genus. Hyperostoses are commonly recovered from Apalachicola delta shell middens, though examples with evidence of human alteration have only been noted at one other site, the Van Horn Creek shell mound (8Fr744) (White 2003:25-26). At Van Horn Creek, a Late Archaic shell mound, the pneumatized bones were interpreted as representing intentional collection for an unknown purpose because “they [were] so common and useful looking that they must have been collected for something” (White 2003:25). Cut hyperostoses from the Refuge Fire Tower Site, however, represent food waste that accumulated from the cleaning and filleting of fish. Field notes from excavation of the Refuge Fire Tower Site describe articulated vertebral columns of several black drum and possibly jack encountered in Zone II, Level 1 of at least three units: -70L10, -80L10, and -90L10. Photographs of these remains in situ (Figure 26) show intact pneumatized vertebral processes like those that were cut. Phelps (1969c:4) suggested the number of articulated columns identified was much larger than the field notebook indicated and interpreted their presence as indicative of filleting, possibly in preparation for smoke-drying on racks. Fish filleting generally entails laterally slicing the flesh on one side of the body just behind the gill, and removing the meat in one theoretically boneless piece (a fillet) by slicing back from the gill to the tail along the spine and pectoral fins, holding the cutting implement flat against the fish body. The process is then repeated on the other side of the body. After filleting, the spine often remains intact and is thrown out with the head and

Figure 26. Black drum vertebral column in -90L10, Zone II, Level 1 (Phelps 1968- 1970: Photo # 452-52b).

the tail. Becuase bone is not desirable in a cut of meat, care is generally taken to avoid cutting into the rib cage. However, lower vertebral processes, protruding in a roughly 125° angle from the vertebrae, are often separated from the vertebral bodies during filleting and must be manually removed from the meat. The cut hyperostoses and non- pneumatized bone from the Refuge Fire Tower Site may represent these inadvertent inclusions, removed and discarded in the midden. Alternatively, the hyperostoses, quite hard and dense, may reflect separation of the meat from the spine through a simple chopping motion using a sharp implement. Whichever processing method was used, it does not appear to have been restricted to particular types or sizes of fish. An abundance of spinous processes separated from the

88 vertebrae were identified in each of the samples analyzed. Though bone disarticulation was expected in the zooarchaeological assemblage, this pattern occurred in all size groups, not just in small and fragile bone. In addition, several non-pneumatized fragment from marine catfish were recovered exhibiting the same cut patterns as the hyperostoses (Figure 25, left-hand corner). The restriction of cut marks to pneumatized bone may reflect greater preservation of larger, denser bone. Chemical and physical alterations to bone caused by heating and burning are related to specific temperature thresholds and the duration of time over which temperatures are maintained. In archaeological assemblages, static groundwater levels and varying acidic and alkaline levels in the soil make it difficult to identify exact temperature or rates of thermal alteration (McCutcheon 1992). As a result, it was only possible to determine which bone fragments had been thermally altered; extent or degree of exposure could not be determined. Between 3.0 and 22.3 percent of the samples analyzed exhibited evidence of thermal alteration (Figure 27). Given the amount of charcoal and dark staining noted in Feature # 1, and because fragile heat altered bone is often destroyed through screening, it was expected that the largest percentages of heat altered specimens would come from Feature # 1 (FS # 391) and the water floated sample (FS # 710). Surprisingly, the rate of recovery of heat-altered specimens in both samples was similar to the rate of recovery produced by dry screening. Mammals consistently produced the highest percentage of heat-altered specimens, while birds generally exhibited the least amount of thermal alteration, up to 16.7 percent in the screened samples and 40.0 percent in the floateded sample (Figure A.4). Though the bony fish category produced the second highest amount of heat-altered specimens, the overall percentage of burned or charred fish remains was still relatively low. Based on this, two methods of fish processing are postulated at the Refuge Fire Tower Site: smoke-curing and boiling. As the following discussion will show, fish may have been smoked whole or filleted. Fatty portions of animal meat, particularly fish, spoil rapidly upon exposure to air after death (Rice 1975). Natural air-drying takes two to six weeks depending on weather and the size/thickness of the fish (Cutting 1955, 1965). When air temperatures are too

89 % Non-burned % Burned 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% Percentage NISP of 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

391 710 729 541 753 759 793 801 815 824

Sample FS #

Figure 27. Percentage of burned fauna in each sample.

high, however, fish may grow mold and go bad before they have sufficiently dried (Jason 1965:39). Smoke curing as a method of preservation removes moisture from tissues through dehydration, retarding decomposition (Rice 1975). In the ethnographic record, meat preserved in this fashion kept six months to a year without spoiling (Hudson 1976:300). Filleting prior to smoke curing would have further reduced deterioration by increasing the rate of surface dehydration through the exposure of cut tissue (Wing and Brown 1979:63). Wing and Quitmyer’s (1992) re-creation of taphonomic processes on Florida coastal midden sites has shown that the remains of raw filleted fishes survive less frequently than those of whole cooked fishes due to the faster breakdown of tissues that bind the skeleton together. Articulated fish remains within the midden showed no evidence of filleting, indicating not all fish were filleted prior to cooking. Historic sources (Swanton 1946:368-369) suggest that among contact period Native Americans,

90 meat was not always removed from the skeleton prior to cooking and that animals were often not even gutted, but cooked whole. Whether whole or filleted, roasting fish directly on or above a fire would char the skin and outer flesh, but not necessarily the bones. This practice has been proposed at other Gulf Coast archaeological sites (Marquardt 1992:22). The Southeastern Indian practice of drying all types of meat, fruits, and vegetables atop hurdles (Figure 28) and turning spits over fire have been documented ethnographically (Swanton 1946:376-381). Along the Gulf Coast, green hickory was preferred for seething fish and oysters because of the flavor and aroma it lent to the meat (Hudson 1976:300).

Figure 28. Ethnographic depictions of seething or smoking fish on hurdles over fire (from Swanton 1946: Plate 54).

91 Although no such apparatuses were found at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, several discolored features containing burned remains, including Feature # 1, likely represent small hearths that could have been used in drying meat. The circular feature in unit -60L10 (Figure 29) may represent a larger version of this. This feature consists of a cluster of postmolds, each approximately 1 ft in diameter, flanking or encircling the burned remains of a hearth with nearly a four ft radius. Figure 30 shows an ethnographic rendition of the southern Florida Timucuan Indians smoking an assortment of fish, reptiles, and mammals over a fire upon a structure the size of which approximates the - 60L10 feature. Perhaps more important than how the articulated fish remains entered the midden is why they did. Food is generally considered a valuable commodity, whether it is for personal consumption or trade purposes. The recovery of so many large whole fish in a trash context could be taken to mean several things. The discarded fish may have been diseased and deemed not suitable for consumption. In the event that fishing or collection events resulted in large numbers of fish, it may be expected that some fish spoiled before they could be processed. Or the discarded fish may point to periods of abundance during which fish were so numerous and readily available that one or two dropped fish would not have bothered anyone. Another plausible explanation for the presence of so many large articulated fish remains, perhaps with the greatest implications for interpreting the behavior of the site’s inhabitants, is feasting. Congregations of people at the site for the purpose of feasting, whether ritually, ceremonially, or for civic functions, could have prompted mass-capture fishing events, both of large and small fishes. The articulated fish remains in the Refuge Fire Tower midden may represent an overabundance of food at such events. Two additional methods of food preparation suggested by the assemblage are boiling and pit steaming. Reconstructed ceramic vessels from the Refuge Fire Tower Site (Shannon 1979: Plates 7 and 8) are similar to types documented ethnographically to have been used in boiling soup (Figure 31). The large number of small unidentified and unburned bone fragments could have resulted from marrow extraction, where grease was scraped from fractured mammalian long bones and larger bones were ground into smaller fragments for boiling soup stock (Vehik 1977). Smaller animals not conducive to filleting

Figure 29. Postmolds in the floor of -60L10, Zone II, Level 2 (Phelps 1968-1970: Photo # 452-12).

Figure 30. Ethnographic depiction of Timucuan Indians smoking meat (from Hulton 1977).

Figure 31. Ethnographic depiction of boiling fish (from Swanton 1946: Plate 54).

and/or smoke curing, including small fish, may have been boiled whole. This method of food preparation may account for the absence of arthropod remains. Broiling, boiling, and whole raw consumption would have left little or no remains of small arthropods like crab and shrimp. Such remains could also have been steamed in shallow pits of the type noted by Phelps throughout the midden.

Site Seasonality

An important aspect of this study was determining the seasons during which the Refuge Fire Tower Site was occupied. As previously shown, habitat preferences and feeding preferences can be used to determine environmental locales from which resources were procured. This information, in conjunction with other aspects of life

94 history data such as migration patterns, species availability, and predictable growth patterns, was used to discern seasonal periods of resource exploitation at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. This data is briefly summarized in Table 8.

Table 8. Seasonality data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site.

Taxa Seasons Indicated by Species Presence/Absence Common loon October - January. Porcupinefishes Spring - fall. Toadfish Spring - fall. Skates & rays March - November.

Taxa Seasons Indicated by Bone Fusion Sequences Raccoon Summer/fall. White-tailed deer Summer/fall.

Taxa Seasons Indicated by Periods of Optimum Yield Oysters Early spring - summer. Scallops Late spring - early fall. White-tailed deer Fall/winter.

Animals with narrow habitat and feeding preferences generally make the best bioindicaters (Reitz and Wing 1999:86) Many of the species identified in this study, however, would have been available to the site’s occupants year-round. For example, though turtles, snakes, and alligators hibernate or den in the winter months, each is known to emerge during warm spells or during moderately cool winters. While adult sea turtles have been used to infer seasonality at other archaeological sites, as they only come inshore during mating and nesting season, between April and August (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2000b), the sea turtle specimens identified from the Refuge Fire Tower Site, were all subadult individuals who may have inhabited shallow bay waters year-round (i.e., Behler and King 1979:475-482; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2000b). Limited seasonality data were inferred from a small group of animals and invertebrates identified at the Refuge Fire Tower Site: loon, deer, raccoon, oysters, and scallops.

95 Though the modern routes of migratory birds and the times of year at which they arrive and depart northern Florida are well-documented (Nesbitt et al. 1982), it is not known whether these same flyways were in existence during the Early Woodland period. A limited number of bird specimens were recovered from the Refuge Fire Tower Site and very few could be identified to species. The wild turkey and great blue heron specimens were all from adult individuals that could have been captured in the vicinity year-round. The common loon, however, only inhabits northern Florida between October and January, indicating capture in the late fall or early winter. Long bone fusion sequences, commonly used to assess age at death in mammals (Reitz and Wing 1999:182-184), provided limited information regarding seasonality. Most mammalian long bones recovered were already fused. The small number of unfused deer and raccoon elements identified indicate age at death of subadult individuals during the summer or fall months. Ethnographic accounts from the southeast report heaviest reliance on deer in the late fall and winter months corresponding to the deer’s rutting season – late September through November – when defenses are more relaxed (Hudson 1976:274-277). Meat yield would have been optimal at this time of year, when deer congregate in oak forests to feed on fallen acorns and quickly gain excess weight. Incremental growth analysis of invertebrate shell was not an option because the samples available for analysis were limited, in fragmentary condition, and not believed to be representative of the range of invertebrate remains actually deposited in the midden. However, other recent zooarchaeological studies have stipulated seasonal exploitation of invertebrates, otherwise available year-round, based on periods of optimum yield (Byrd 1994, Hale and Quitmyer 1985, Nanfro 2004, Walker 1992a). From the Refuge Fire Tower Site, oysters and scallops posed the best potential to provide seasonality data in this manner. Oysters generally yield the greatest amount of meat just before spawning in March and the lowest amount in the summer months (Rockwood and Mazek 1977), while protein percentages increase in oysters in the spring, remain constant through the summer, and drop in the late fall (Borgstrom 1962:121). In scallops, fat and protein are highest in February and lowest in June. Russo’s (1991:205-210) study of modal class sizes of Florida bay scallops (Argopecten irradians concentricus) in central Gulf Coast archaeological assemblages suggests that the scallop’s annual growth cycle precludes

96 profitable harvesting from late fall to early spring, as only a small number of large scallops are available during those seasons. Though oysters and scallops could have been collected from Apalachicola Bay year-round, meat and protein yields would have been optimal late winter through early summer for oysters, and late spring to early fall for scallops. Many of the fish species identified would have been available in shallow coastal or estuarine waters year-round, including mullet, sheepshead, and seatrout (Gilbert and Williams 2002). I suggested earlier that large jack and black drum from the midden might indicate offshore fishing. Alternatively, these fishes could have been captured during drought months when these fish are known to invade estuarine waters in search of food. Fishes most helpful in determining seasons of capture were those whose migratory patterns indicate warm-weather exploitation at the Refuge Fire Tower Site: gar, porcupinefishes, toadfishes, and skates and rays. Gars generally inhabit estuarine waters only during spring and summer months when heavy rainfall and increased output from the St. Marks and Ochlockonee Rivers decreases the salinity in the estuary. In the eastern gulf, porcupinefishes, particularly striped burrfish, feed over shallow seagrass beds in the summer and move offshore in the winter (Gilbert and Williams 2002:575-578). Though earlier discussion raised the possibility of fishing by canoe in the bay and offshore, burrfish are not commonly taken by hook and line. These fish were likely captured inshore during warm-weather months. In addition, toadfish also leave inshore waters for deeper water in the winter. Toadfish would not likely have been caught fishing by canoe in the winter either, as they bury themselves in the seafloor and remain torpid until spring (Smolowitz 1997). Most skates and rays also migrate to deeper water in the fall. Recent catch and release surveys in Apalachicola Bay report rays and skates only between the months of March and November (Carlson et al. 2003). Though the remains of skates and rays were identified in nearly all of the samples, the cow-nosed ray was the only torpediniforme identified to species at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Gulf migration of the cow-nosed ray is highly predictable according to changing isotherms and the amount of sunlight penetrating the ocean’s surface (Clark 1963, Gilbert and Williams 2002:79-80, Weinard et al. 2000). In the fall, schools of up to 10,000 rays begin migrating clockwise along the

97 coast to the Yucatan, Mexico, disappearing completely from northern Florida in the winter, not to return until the spring. In an attempt to further isolate seasons of capture, four marine fish species were chosen for in depth assessment of seasonality based on their prominence in the zooarchaeological assemblage and the availability of life history data. The age distributions of hardhead catfish and three species of sciaenid: seatrout, black drum, and red drum, were evaluated from FS # 710 (Figures A.10 and A.11). Standard lengths (SL) of catfish were inferred from measurements of the mediolateral breadth of pectoral spine articulating surface. Sciaenid SL was inferred from measurements of vertebral atlas centrum widths. Each of the species chosen for this task are found over the continental shelf throughout the Gulf of Mexico either near shore or in inshore waters. Growth patterns of all five species are fairly well documented, along with seasonal niche migration patterns. Seatrout inhabit the estuary year-round. Hardhead catfish are commonly found in shallow bays and estuaries spring through fall, but move to shallow coastal waters in the winter. Red drum generally inhabit deeper bay and nearshore waters, but will invade shallow bays in search of food in the spring and summer, and during drought conditions when salinity is lower. Black drum range throughout bays, estuaries, and nearshore waters year-round.

Marine Catfish The growth rates of marine catfish vary considerably according to locale. Adult catfish spawn in shallow bays and estuaries between May and August and migrate to shallow open ocean waters with the onset of cooler temperatures in November. Rising water temperature in February prompts their return inshore. Along the northern Gulf Coast, marine catfish reach sexual maturity shortly after the end of the first year, between 150 – 250 mm standard length (Muncy and Wingo 1983:4). The prediction of growth patterns after sexual maturity is difficult because of limited growth during winter months. With a life expectancy of two to five years, most attain a maximum length of 610 mm (Gilbert and Williams 2002:185-187). Marine catfish from FS # 710, ranged in SL from 171.76 – 313.30 mm. All were older than one year of age. These catfish would have been available in the estuary, bay

98 and inshore waters between February and November. The absence of juvenile catfish, available in the estuary throughout the summer and early fall, suggests adult catfish were captured offshore in winter months or targeted inshore during warmer months using gill nets.

Seatrout Seatrout in Florida rarely leave the estuary, though their movement within the estuary oscillates seasonally. Seatrout spawning occurs in the spring. Larval and juvenile seatrout remain near the sea bottom where they feed on bottom-dwelling mysids. Around 50 mm, seatrout begin to school; by 70 mm they begin feeding on larger shrimp and fish mid-water and near the surface (Johnson and Seaman 1986). Due to population isolation, growth patterns and rates of maturity vary by estuary. From northwest Florida to Cedar Key, seatrout mature at 180 – 210 mm SL. (Klima and Tabb 1959; Moody 1950, Tabb 1960). Seatrout in this region measure approximately 130 mm by the end of the first winter and 240 mm by the end of the second winter. Because growth slows dramatically or stops completely in winter months, these may be assumed to be the lengths of seatrout by the end of their first and second years, respectively. Seatrout from FS # 710 ranged in SL from 76.17 – 383.08 mm. Approximately 37.0 percent of (n = 8) the individuals measured less than 130 mm SL and were less than one year of age. An additional 48.2 percent (n = 15) measured between 130 and 240 mm SL and were less than two years of age. The remaining 14.8 percent (n = 4) were over two years of age, measuring over 240 mm SL. Seatrout would have been available for exploitation in the estuary year-round, and the schooling habit of seatrout from the age group represented would have made capture using nets fairly easy during spring and summer months when shrimp populations explode. No seasonal data could be inferred from the seatrout remains.

Red Drum Adult red drum frequent deep bays and estuarine waters along the Gulf Coast. This species is highly seasonal, entering bays in the spring to feed on schools of shrimp and small fish at the edge of seagass meadows (Bass and Avault 1975), and retreating to warmer gulf waters in the winter. Along the west coast of Florida, red drum spawn in coastal inlets between September and October (Yokel 1966). Juveniles develop among

99 the seagrass beds of shallow bays and estuaries, moving further offshore as they mature. In the lower Ochlocknee River, juvenile red drum were approximately 71 mm SL in March, 109 mm in April, 147 mm in May, and 216 mm in June (Reagan 1985). Along the northern Gulf Coast, one year old red drum averaged 300 – 340 mm SL; two years averaged 530 – 540 mm SL; three year olds averaged 630 – 640 mm SL; four year olds averaged 750 mm SL; and five year olds averaged 840 mm SL. Red drum from FS # 710 ranged in SL from 111.30 – 245.96 mm; all were juveniles less than one year old. Estimating a growth rate of approximately 30 mm SL per month in juvenile red drum, these individuals were collected between the months of April and July.

Black Drum Black drum are commonly found in both nearshore waters and inshore bays and estuaries of northwest Florida year-round (Sutter et al. 1986). Black drum mature by the end of their second year. Data from the Texas Gulf Coast approximates the SL of black drum to be 160 – 250 mm at the end of the first year of life; 310 – 370 at the end of the second year; 415 mm at the end of the third year; and 600 mm at the end of the fourth year (Pearson 1929; Simmons and Breuer 1962; Marcello and Strawn 1972). After the fourth year, black drum grow at a rate of about 50 mm SL per year. Black drum from FS # 710 ranged in SL from 42.74 – 1,426.48 mm. Seventy percent of the individuals were juveniles less than one year of age. Individuals from this age group approximated the entire SL range of the other two sciaenid groups. Osburn and Matlock (1984) found little movement out of the bay by black drum younger than three years. Preferring the nutrient rich and muddy waters of tidal creeks and channels, juveniles would have been easily harvestable near shore year-round. The remaining three individuals were estimated to be 5 years old (639.30 mm SL); 18 years old (1,258.25 mm SL); and twenty-one years old (1,426.48 mm). Adult black drum, less tolerable of low salinities, move from the bay to deeper gulf waters around age four (Osburn and Matlock 1984). No seasonal data could be inferred from the black drum remains, though the three largest individuals support earlier discussion of the likelihood of offshore fishing from canoes.

100 CHAPTER 7. REGIONAL SITE COMPARISONS

The purpose of this thesis was two-fold: 1) to test previous hypotheses about the nature of subsistence and occupation at the Refuge Fire Tower Site using modern zooarchaeological methods of analysis; and 2) to use this information in conjunction with faunal data from other archaeological sites to model coastal subsistence practices throughout the Deptford/Swift Creek culture region. The first goal was accomplished through analysis and interpretation of primary and secondary faunal data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site, as discussed in previous chapters. In this chapter, I present zooarchaeological data sets from seven contemporaneous archaeological sites, and compare and contrast them with faunal data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site to develop a regional subsistence model. Sites were selected for comparison based on site location, shared culture periods, and availability of faunal data. Given that the inhabitants of each site shared similar cultural traits and lived in roughly the same environments, I theorized that the occupants of each site would have utilized similar subsistence and procurement strategies, and that differences between data sets would reflect differences in site type and function.

Comparative Data Set

Tables 9 and 10 summarize the sites selected for comparison in this study. Similar excavation techniques and analytical methods were employed in the recovery, analysis, and interpretation of fauna from each site. Though periods of occupation ranged from the Late Archaic through modern historic periods at these sites, the data presented here are from Deptford, Swift Creek, and Santa Rosa – Swift Creek components only. Each site is located in or on the edge of a mixed hardwood hammock, within four miles of a major river or tributary (Figure 32). Sites chosen from northwest Florida include Hawkshaw (8Es1287) on a bluff overlooking the north shore of Pensacola Bay; Bernath (8Sr986) from the north shore of Mulatto Bayou on Escambia Bay; and Third Gulf Breeze (8Sr8) from the south shore of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. In the panhandle region, Snow Beach (8Wa52), Bird Hammock (8Wa30), and Ulmore Cove (8Wa34) are

101 Table 9. Summary of contemporary archaeological sites in the Deptford/Swift Creek culture region.

Site Name Site Configuration Site Type Culture Periods Represented* Archaeological Investigations

Hawkshaw linear shell middenvillageB Deptford (radiocarbon dated at ense (1985) (8Es1287) AD 0 ± 50, AD 260 ± 60). Bense & Quitmyer (1985)** Hale & Quitmyer (1985)**

Bernath horseshoe-shaped village / sociopolitical Santa Rosa - Swift Creek Bense (1994) (8Sr986) shell ring center (radiocarbon dated at AD 350 ± Phillips (1992) 50, AD 670 ± 60). Byrd (1995)**

Third Gulf horseshoe-shaped village / sociopolitical Deptford → Weeden Island, Phelps 1967-68 (unpublished) Breeze (8Sr8) shell ring center Pensacola. Tesar (1973) Byrd (1995)**

Snow Beach shell ring campsite / fish & Deptford → Late Swift Creek, Allen (1954) (8Wa52) shellfish procurement Fort Walton. Brock 1966 (unpublished) station Phelps (1969)

Bird Hammock horseshoe-shaped villageBEarly → Late Swift Creek, ense (1969) (8Wa30) shell ring Early Weeden Island. Penton (1970) Byrd (1995)** Nanfro (2004)**

Ulmore Cove linear shell middencampsite / fish & Late Archaic → Early Swift Phelps (1969) (8Wa34) shellfish procurement Creek. station Byrd (1995)**

Kings Bay linear shell midden village Late Archaic → present. Adams (1985) (9Cam171a) Quitmyer (1985)**

* Data compared in this study are from Deptford, Swift Creek, and Santa Rosa - Swift Creek components only. ** Reported zooarchaeological data.

102 Table 10. Summary of comparative sample data.

Culture Period(s) Represented by Site Name Sample Type Archaeological Recovery Technique Zooarchaeological Samples

Hawkshaw Deptford 3 features 1/16" water floatation (8ES1287)

Bernath Santa Rosa - Swift Creek 2 features, 4 units 1/4" dry-screened (8SR986)

Third Gulf Deptford, Santa Rosa - Swift Creek unknown 1/4" dry-screened Breeze (8SR8)

Snow Beach Deptford, Early & Late Swift Creek 2 units 1/4" dry-screened (8WA52)

Bird Hammock Early & Late Swift Creek 4 features, 1 midden level, 2 5'x5' units 1/4" dry-screened (8WA30)

Ulmore Cove Deptford, Early Swift Creek 5 midden levels 1/4" dry-screened (8WA34)

Fire Tower Late Deptford, Early Swift Creek 1 feature, 9 midden levels 1/4" dry-screened, water-floation Site (8WA14)

Kings Bay Swift Creek 4 features (6% of each by weight), 1/16" water floatation (9Cam171a) 1 midden column sample

103

ALABAMA Kings Bay (9Cam171a) Bernath (8Sr982) GEORGIA

FLORIDA Bird Hammock Ulmore Cove (8Wa30) Atlantic Third Gulf (8Wa34) Breeze (8Sr8) Ocean Hawkshaw (8Es1287) Refuge Fire Snow Beach Tower (8Wa14) (8Wa52)

Gulf of Mexico

0100200 Kilometers

Figure 32. Location map of archaeological sites in the Deptford/Swift Creek culture region.

104 each located within two miles of the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Bird Hammock and Snow Beach are each located on the western edge of Apalachicola Bay just south of the mouth of the St. Marks River. Northwest of Snow Beach, also on the edge of Apalachicola Bay, is Ulmore Cove. Kings Bay (9Cam171a), in southern Georgia, was the only site selected for comparison from the Atlantic Coast. Physiographically, Hawkshaw, Snow Beach, and Ulmore Cove are all situated along sandy bays, while Bernath, Kings Bay, and the Refuge Fire Tower Site lie adjacent to high marshes. Third Gulf Breeze, located on the south shore of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula, is directly exposed to the Gulf of Mexico. Bird Hammock is located the furthest inland, approximately two miles from the gulf shoreline. Fauna from each of the archaeological sites was systematically collected during separate archaeological investigations of each site (see Table). Irvy Quitmyer analyzed and reported on the fauna from both Hawkshaw (Bense and Quitmyer 1985) and Kings Bay (Adams 1985). John Byrd’s analyses of vertebrate fauna from Deptford, Swift Creek, and Santa Rosa – Swift Creek components at Bernath, Third Gulf Breeze, Bird Hammock, and Ulmore Cove were the subject of his doctoral dissertation (Byrd 1994). To supplement Byrd’s data in this comparison, I included Claire Nanfro’s (2004) more recent analysis of vertebrate and invertebrate fauna from features in the Late Swift Creek component at Bird Hammock, in addition to unpublished data from corresponding midden samples. The latter, along with an unpublished compilation of faunal analyses from Snow Beach, were conducted by students in the Paleonutrition course at Florida State University under the supervision of Rochelle Marrinan in Fall 1998. The Snow Beach fauna was recovered during excavation of the site by Florida State University students under the supervision of Donald Crusoe in 1970 (Rochelle Marrinan, personal communication). Table 11 summarizes the zooarchaeological data from each site. The unpublished data from Snow Beach and Bird Hammock are further detailed in Appendices B and C, respectively. Through previous archaeological investigations, five of the sites selected have been interpreted as village locations: Hawkshaw (Bense 1985, Bense and Quitmyer 1985), Bernath (Bense 1994, Phillips 1992), Third Gulf Breeze (Tesar 1973), Bird Hammock (Bense 1969, Penton 1970), and Kings Bay (Adams 1985). Three of the village sites are ring middens: Bernath, Third Gulf Breeze, and Bird Hammock. Bernath

105 Table 11. Summary of comparative zooarchaeological data.

# of Total Weight Site Name Sample Provenience Sample Type NISP % MNI % Taxa (g) Biomass (g) %

Hawkshaw Feature 443 Vertebrate 3,552 24.2 111 2.4 34 634.13 7,984.35 36.2 (8ES1287) Invertebrate 11,113 75.8 4,544 97.6 17 80,659.04 14,079.66 63.8 Feature 455 Vertebrate 4,232 42.6 123 11.1 30 1,100.89 13,114.70 46.7 Invertebrate 5,691 57.4 986 88.9 9 17,875.06 14,938.14 53.3 Feature 489 Vertebrate 1,824 41.8 53 10.8 19 284.28 2,861.05 42.5 Invertebrate 2,539 58.2 439 89.2 6 9,618.49 3,878.69 57.5 Total Vertebrate 9,608 33.2 287 4.6 35 2,019.30 23,960.10 42.1 Invertebrate 19,343 66.8 5,969 95.4 -- 108,152.59 32,896.49 57.9 All Fauna 28,951 100.0 6,256 100.0 -- 110,171.89 56,856.59 100.0 Data summarized from Bense (1985:338-342).

Bernath Unit 110N, 105E (Lv 1-6) Vertebrate 108 0.8 6 0.9 4------(8Sr986) Invertebrate 13,600 99.2 685 99.1 3------Unit 110N, 138E (Lv 3&5) Vertebrate 87 100.0 2 100.0 2------Invertebrate 00.0 0 0.0 0------Unit 90N, 145E (Lv 1-4) Vertebrate 476 100.0 21 100.0 9------Invertebrate 00.0 0 0.0 0------Unit 93N, 150.2E (Lv 1) Vertebrate 52 100.0 4 100.0 3------Invertebrate 00.0 0 0.0 0------Unit 94N, 150.2E (Lv 4-5) Vertebrate 26 83.9 6 75.0 3------Invertebrate 5 16.1 2 25.0 1------F 11 (Lv 1) Vertebrate 12 85.7 2 66.7 2------Invertebrate 2 14.3 1 33.3 1------Feature 14A Vertebrate 515 100.0 9 100.0 8------Invertebrate 00.0 0 0.0 0------Feature 14B Vertebrate 442 100.0 10 100.0 8------Invertebrate 00.0 0 0.0 0------Total Vertebrate 1,718 11.2 60 8.0 15 ------Invertebrate 13,607 88.8 668 89.3 3 ------All Fauna 15,325 100.0 748 97.3 18 ------Data summarized from Byrd (1994:40-42).

Third Gulf Unit 190L50, Lv 3-7 Vertebrate 10,696 99.8 24 82.8 15 ------Breeze (8Sr8) Invertebrate 26 0.2 5 17.2 1 ------Total All Fauna 10,722 100.0 29 100.0 16 ------

Data summarized from Byrd (1994:39).

106

Table 11, continued.

# of Total Weight Site Name Sample Provenience Sample Type NISP % MNI % Taxa (g) Biomass (g) %

Bird Hammock Unit -50R15, Lv 1-4a Vertebrate 4,063 99.7 113 93.4 28 ------(8Wa30) Invertebrate 12 0.3 8 6.6 4 ------Unit -50R20, Lv 1-4a Vertebrate 3,018 99.1 102 87.9 24 ------Invertebrate 26 0.9 14 12.1 3 ------Total Vertebrate 7,081 99.5 226 91.1 33 ------Invertebrate 38 0.5 22 8.9 4 ------All Fauna 7,119 100.0 248 100.0 37 ------

Feature 1b Vertebrate 640 75.2 34 24.3 19 517.7 6,375.5 96.3 Invertebrate 211 24.8 106 75.7 5 1,626.0 246.6 3.7 Feature 2b Vertebrate 1,213 88.3 50 41.0 23 570.2 8,429.2 94.9 Invertebrate 160 11.7 72 59.0 6 2,672.3 452.1 5.1 Feature 3b Vertebrate 347 81.5 15 68.2 14 126.9 2,090.6 98.2 Invertebrate 79 18.5 7 31.8 1 199.6 39.3 1.8 Feature 4b Vertebrate 1,416 77.1 47 33.6 23 1,228.6 15,310.8 97.9 Invertebrate 420 22.9 93 66.4 5 1,791.7 322.9 2.1 Feature 5b Vertebrate 4,585 84.6 67 78.8 28 681.0 8,882.1 99.1 Invertebrate 833 15.4 18 21.2 5 356.6 84.4 0.9 Total Vertebrate 8,201 82.8 439 58.0 37 3,197.1 41,088.2 97.3 Invertebrate 1,703 17.2 318 42.0 7 6,573.5 1,145.3 2.7 All Fauna 9,904 100.0 757 100.0 44 9,770.6 42,233.5 100.0

Unit -160L45c Vertebrate 1,354 44.7 192 36.1 48 7,015.1 60412.02 89.6 Invertebrate 1,676 55.3 340 63.9 9 10,302.4 6982.83 10.4 Unit 100L60c Vertebrate 6,564 93.1 207 51.6 48 9,233.8 95276.06 98.1 Invertebrate 485 6.9 194 48.4 12 3,661.2 1836.39 1.9 Total Vertebrate 7,918 78.6 399 42.8 48 16248.9 155688.08 94.6 Invertebrate 2,161 21.4 534 57.2 12 13963.6 8819.22 5.4 All Fauna 10,079 100.0 933 100.0 70 30212.5 164507.30 100.0

aData summarized from Byrd (1994:35-37). bData summarized from Nanfro (2004:Appendices 6-11). cData courtesy of Rochelle Marrinan, Florida State University.

107

Table 11, continued.

# of Total Weight Site Name Sample Provenience Sample Type NISP % MNI % Taxa (g) Biomass (g) %

Snow Beach Unit S170-180, E10-20 (Levels A-C) Vertebrate 5,757 26.5 156 27.3 25 8,837.4 105,365.06 40.9 (8Wa52) Unit S170-180, E0-10 (Levels A-E) Vertebrate 15,386 70.9 398 69.6 42 14,323.2 147,808.45 57.4 Unit S170-180, E0-10 (Feature #1) Vertebrate 566 2.6 18 3.1 14 285.8 4,474.73 1.7 Total Vertebrate 21,709 100.0 572 100.0 45 23,446.4 257,648.24 100.0

Data courtesy of Rochelle Marrinan, Florida State University.

Ulmore Cove Unit 190L50, Lv 3-7 Vertebrate 414 62.5 35 24.0 17 ------(8Wa34) Invertebrate 248 37.5 111 76.0 7 ------Total All Fauna 662 100.0 146 100.0 24 ------

Data summarized from Byrd (1994:38).

Refuge Fire FS # 710 (-90L10, Zone II, Level 2) Vertebrate 7,864 49.8 246 44.0 43 3,038.8 29,681.09 33.9 Tower (8Wa14) FS # 729 (-100L10, Zone II, Level 2) Vertebrate 1,450 9.2 67 12.0 26 1,059.3 11,937.13 13.6 FS # 753 (-100L10, Zone II, Level 2a) Vertebrate 376 2.4 26 4.7 17 172.5 2,535.16 2.9 FS # 541 (-60L10, Zone II, Level 3) Vertebrate 2,146 13.6 59 10.6 23 765.2 9,591.13 10.9 FS # 759 (-100L10, Zone III, Level 1) Vertebrate 224 1.4 16 2.9 15 198.8 2,722.35 3.1 FS # 793 (-40R110, Level 1) Vertebrate 314 2.0 24 4.3 16 507.3 6,394.54 7.3 FS # 801 (-40R110, Level 2) Vertebrate 529 3.4 35 6.3 18 691.6 8,899.29 10.2 FS # 815 (-40R110, Level 3) Vertebrate 642 4.1 29 5.2 17 446.1 5,961.90 6.8 FS # 824 (-40R110, Level 4) Vertebrate 102 0.6 18 3.2 15 90.2 1,862.15 2.1 FS # 391 (Feature # 1) Vertebrate 2,133 13.5 39 7.0 21 654.3 8,053.74 9.2 Total Vertebrate 15,780 100.0 559 100.0 44 7624.1 87638.48 100.0

Kings Bay Artesian Well Area - Column Sample All Fauna -- -- 278 3.1 33 700 -- -- (9Cam171a) Artesian Well Area - Feature 6 All Fauna -- -- 3,487 38.3 46 15,800 -- -- Big Cedar Area - Feature 1 All Fauna -- -- 325 3.6 22 14,600 -- -- Bluff Area - Feature 23 All Fauna -- -- 1,670 18.3 31 12,000 -- -- Poisonberry Area - Feature 22 All Fauna -- -- 3,350 36.8 46 15,400 -- -- Total All Fauna -- -- 9,110 100.0 178 58,500.0 -- --

Data summarized from Quitmyer (1985:36).

108 and Third Gulf Breeze are further speculated to have functioned as sociopolitical centers to which groups from around the region gathered for trade and/or ceremonial purposes (Bense 1994). Occupation of these two sites occurred during the Santa Rosa – Swift Creek phase. Third Gulf Breeze’s main occupation also occurred during the Santa Rosa – Swift Creek phase, though earlier Deptford peoples had briefly occupied the site, too. Deptford was the main period of occupation at Hawkshaw, but was only a minor component at Third Gulf Breeze and Kings Bay, however, and was absent completely from Bernath and Bird Hammock. Swift Creek deposits were the main components at Bird Hammock and Kings Bay. Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove have each been interpreted as seasonal campsites and possibly as specialized marine resource procurement stations (Allen 1954; Byrd 1994:74-77), Investigations of Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove were the least intensive of all the sites discussed in this chapter. Both sites bear striking similarity to the temporal deposition of material culture at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. At both Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove, midden deposition began during the Deptford phase and continued into the Swift Creek. Deptford materials were most substantial at Ulmore Cove, where Deptford strata were twice as dense as Swift Creek strata. Snow Beach more closely approximated the Refuge Fire Tower Site, with brief utilization in the Late Deptford intensifying through the Early and Late Swift Creek phases.

Faunal Comparisons

Vertebrate Fauna NISP and MNI from each site indicate a vertebrate diet heavily reliant upon marine resources. At Bernath, Third Gulf Breeze, Bird Hammock, and Ulmore Cove, vertebrate NISP and MNI were dominated by fish, followed by mammals, reptiles, and birds (Byrd 1994:44-50; Nanfro 2004:42-51). The pattern was nearly the same at Hawkshaw, Snow Beach, and Kings Bay, where slightly more reptilian than mammalian remains were identified (Hale and Quitmyer 1985:142-145; Adams 1985:80-85; Appendix B). With respect to biomass, fish again dominated the vertebrate assemblage at each of the sites except Kings Bay, where fish contributed the highest biomass (up to ninety percent) in approximately half the samples and mammals contributed the highest

109 biomass (up to eighty-four percent) in the other half (Quitmyer 1985:86). At each of the other sites, mammals or reptiles contributed the second highest biomass, followed by birds, and amphibians. A core group of animals were identified fairly frequently (Table 12), while some species were only identified at sites bordering particular environmental locales. Each of the sites produced fish remains from a variety of marine contexts including tidal creeks, estuaries, bays, nearshore, and offshore. A small group of fish taxa were repeatedly exploited at sites across the Deptford/Swift Creek culture region, including jacks, sheepshead, black drum, red drum, mullet, seatrout, catfishes, and gars. The largest number of freshwater fishes were recovered from Bird Hammock. As suspected, a wide range of fish were identified at the Hawkshaw, Bird Hammock, and Kings Bay village sites. Unexpectedly, however, a similar number of fish taxa were identified at the Snow Beach campsite, while Bernath and Third Gulf Breeze produced significantly more limited fish data, comparable to those from Ulmore Cove. Given that gafftopsail and sea catfish are two of the most commonly occurring and abundant zooarchaeological species at coastal Swift Creek sites (White 2003), it was expected that they would constitute a fairly significant percentage of the taxa at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. However, marine catfish contributed less than three percent of the total fish biomass in all but one sample (FS #753: 14.2 percent), and only 1.6 percent of the total vertebrate biomass. Marine catfish maintain a relatively high abundance in inshore waters along the northern Gulf Coast shore, particularly over mud and submerged sand flats where seagrass beds support high invertebrate populations like shrimp and crab. Such an environment currently exists at the Refuge Fire Tower Site and many of the species identified also depended on estuarine invertebrates, suggesting its presence in the past. In addition, modern angler and trawl data from inshore waters along the northern Gulf Coast report marine catfish constituting nearly ten percent of springtime saltwater fish catches, ranking second and third in species abundance (Muncy and Wingo 1983:8- 9). So why, then, did marine catfish constitute such a small part of the faunal assemblage at the Refuge Fire Tower Site? One possibility is cultural preference or, in this case, non-preference. Among modern commercial and sport fisherman, marine

110 Table 12. Taxa identified at contemporaneous archaeological sites.

Campsites Villages Refuge Fire Bird Taxa Tower Site Snow Beach Ulmore Cove Hawkshaw Bernath Third Gulf Hammock Kings Bay (8Wa14) (8Wa52) (8Wa34) (8Es1287) (8Sr986) Breeze (8Sr8) (8Wa30) (9Cam171a) Mammalia x x xxx x Rodentia x Sciurus niger xxx Sigmodon hispidus xxxxx Soricidae x Mustela vison x xx Ondatra zibethicus x Sylvilagus sp. xx x x x Didelphis virginiana x xxx xx Procyon lotor x xx xxx Mephitis mephitis x Felis sp. x Lynx rufus x Vulpes fulva x Odocoileus virginianus x xxxxxx x Ursus americanus x x Aves x x xxxx x Gavia immer xx x Podiceps auritus xx Podilymbus podiceps x Phalacrocorax auritus x Ardeidae x Ardea herodias xx Cathartes aura x Butorides striatus x Anatidae xx Anas americana xx Anas discors x Anas fulvigula x Rallus longirostris x Meleagris gallopavo x xxx xx Mergus sp. x Reptilia x Alligator mississippiensis xxx x x Testudines x xxxxxx x Chelydra serpentina xx xxx Macroclemys temmincki x Kinosternidae xx x x Chrysemys sp. xx Deirochelys reticularia x Emydidae xx

111 Table 12, continued.

Campsites Villages Refuge Fire Bird Taxa Tower Site Snow Beach Ulmore Cove Hawkshaw Bernath Third Gulf Hammock Kings Bay (8Wa14) (8Wa52) (8Wa34) (8Es1287) (8Sr986) Breeze (8Sr8) (8Wa30) (9Cam171a) Malaclemys terrapin x xxxx x Terrapene carolina x xxxxxx Gopherus polyphemus xx Trionyx sp. xx Chelonidae xx x Iguanidae xx Amphiuma means xx x Serpentes xx x x Colubridae xx xx Coluber constrictor x Viperidae xx x Agkistrodon sp. x Crotalus adamanteus x Plethodon glutinosis x Notophthalmus viridescens x Anura xxx Rana/Bufo x Rana sp. x Osteichthyes x xxxxxx x Accipenser spp. x Lepisosteus spp. x xxxx x x Amia calva x Elops saurus xx x x x Clupeidae xxxx Brevoorita sp. xx Siluriformes xxxx Ictaluridae x xx Ariidae x x xxxx x Ariopsis felis xx x x x Bagre marinus xx x x x Opsanus sp. xx x Lepomis microlophus x Mugil sp. x xxx xx x Prionotus sp. xx Centropomus sp. xx Epinephelus sp. x Strongylura sp. x Fundulus sp. xx Micropterus salmoides x Pomatomus saltatrix xx xx Caranx sp. x xxxxxx Lobotes surinamensis x Chloroscrombus chrysurus x

112 Table 12, continued.

Campsites Villages Refuge Fire Bird Taxa Tower Site Snow Beach Ulmore Cove Hawkshaw Bernath Third Gulf Hammock Kings Bay (8Wa14) (8Wa52) (8Wa34) (8Es1287) (8Sr986) Breeze (8Sr8) (8Wa30) (9Cam171a) Sciaenidae/Sparidae x x Archosargus probatocephalus x xxxxxx x Calamus sp. xxx Sciaenidae xx x x Bairdiella chrysoura xx Cynoscion sp. xx xx x x Leiostomus xanthurus xx Menticirrhus sp. x Menticirrhus saxatilis x Micropogonias undulatus xx x x x Pogonias cromis x xxxxxx Sciaenops ocellatus x xxxxxx x Stellifer lanceolatus x Chaetodipterus faber xx x Scombridae x Trichiurus lepturus x Peprilus sp. x Peprilus alepidotus x Bothidae x x Paralichthyes sp. xxxx Trincetes sp. x Acanthostracion quadricornis x Tetraodontidae x Sphoeroides dorsalis x Diodontidae xx Chilomycterus schoepfi xx x Balistes sp. x Chondrichthyes x Squaliformes x Lamniformes x Charcharhinidae xx x Rajiformes xx x Rhinopteridae x Balanus sp. x Crustacea Callinectes sapidus x Penaeus sp. x Brachyura sp. xx Mollusca x Gastropoda xx x Littorina sp. xx Nassarius vibex x Melongena corona xxx x Busycon contrarium xx x

113 Table 12, continued.

Campsites Villages Refuge Fire Bird Taxa Tower Site Snow Beach Ulmore Cove Hawkshaw Bernath Third Gulf Hammock Kings Bay (8Wa14) (8Wa52) (8Wa34) (8Es1287) (8Sr986) Breeze (8Sr8) (8Wa30) (9Cam171a) Naticidae x Polinices duplicatus x Bivalvia x Pelecipoda x x x Pholadidae x Tellina sp. x Rangia cuneata x xxx x Mercenaria mercenaria xxx Polymesoda caroliniana xxx Andara ovalis x Crassostrea virginica x xxx x Chlamys sp. x Argopecten irradians xxx Cardita floridana x Noetia ponderosa x

catfish are considered nuisances. They commonly become entangled in nets by their spines and slimy mucus secretions make catfish difficult and dangerous to handle, due to the toxicity of spine punctures (Muncy and Wingo 1983:3-4). Given the areas of the site that were sampled, residents of the Refuge Fire Tower Site seem to have consciously avoided marine catfish. White-tailed deer was the dominant mammal at each of the archaeological sites, followed by raccoon and opossum (Byrd 1994:50; Nanfro 2004:85; Hale and Quitmyer 1985:147). Rabbits, squirrels, and rats were frequently identified, though they never contributed considerable biomass at any of the sites. The greatest number of mammals were identified at Bird Hammock, including three species not identified at any other site: lynx (Lynx rufus), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and the common muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Black bear remains were only identified at Bird Hammock and nearby Ulmore Cove. These findings may be attributed to Bird Hammock’s forested location, further inland (2 miles) than any of the other sites. Mink were only identified at sites

114 located very near river mouths: Bird Hammock, the Refuge Fire Tower Site, and Kings Bay. Red fox (Vulpes fulva) was identified only at Bernath. Reptilian remains at each of the sites generally consisted of box turtles, snapping turtles, and terrapins, though other species of turtles were present in varying numbers. At In the Late Swift Creek component at Bird Hammock, sea turtles rivaled deer for domination of feature biomass (Nanfro 2004:51) Sea turtle remains were recovered from only two other sites: Snow Beach and the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Alligators, when present, constituted large portions of the reptilian biomass. As with muskrat, alligators were only identified at sites very near river mouths, in protected bay areas (Bernath, Snow Beach, Ulmore Cove, and the Refuge Fire Tower Site). Amphibians were only identified at three sites: Hawkshaw, Bird Hammock, and Kings Bay, with the greatest number of species at the latter. Their contributions to the faunal assemblages were negligent. Very few bird remains were identified at Bernath, Third Gulf Breeze, Bird Hammock, and Ulmore Cove, where “turkey was the primary [avian] species represented” (Byrd 1994:52). Despite the low volume of bird remains recovered, a greater number of bird species were identified than mammalian species, particularly at Bird Hammock, Snow Beach, and the Refuge Fire Tower Site where turkeys, ducks and various wading birds were identified. This may be due in part to the proximity of each of these sites to each other and what were likely widespread freshwater lakes and ponds in the past (see Chapter 3). This limited pattern of recovery for bird remains likely reflects two things. First, fragile bird remains are less likely to survive regular taphonomic processes than larger, denser types of bone. Second, birds may have been hunted opportunistically (Nanfro 2004; Chapter 6, this volume). Given the abundance of more readily obtainable food sources through focused capture techniques, hunting efforts may have been reserved for animals with potentially higher rates of return (such as fish) and greater caloric or meat yields (such as mammals and reptiles).

Invertebrate Fauna Preliminary excavation data from Snow Beach, Third Gulf Breeze, and the Refuge Fire Tower Site indicate that oyster was the dominant shellfish at each site,

115 followed by crown conch and busycon; and that scallops were most frequently recovered at Third Gulf Breeze where coquina “was [also] an important part of the diet” (Phelps 1969c:3). The more recent analysis of invertebrate fauna from Snow Beach supports this. Invertebrates from two excavation units at Snow Beach constituted 48.4 and 63.9 percent of the total MNI, though only 1.9 and 6.2 percent of the total biomass (Appendix B). Invertebrate fauna from Third Gulf Breeze and the Refuge Fire Tower Site have yet to be quantified. Quantified invertebrate data has been reported for the Hawkshaw, Bernath, Bird Hammock, and Kings Bay village sites. Shellfish were considered a “steady source of food” at Hawkshaw where invertebrates (mainly American oyster) constituted no less than 81.0 percent of the feature MNI (Hale and Quitmyer 1985:138-140), and between 12.0 and 47.0 percent of the feature biomass according to minimum meat weight estimates, rivaling fishes for prominence (Hale and Quitmyer 1985:147-148). Within the Hawkshaw midden context, both vertebrate and invertebrate fauna were scarce (Hale and Quitmyer 1985:137). Shellfish are also thought to have been a dietary staple at Bernath (Bense 1985), where invertebrate data from one unit (Byrd 1994) revealed rangia comprising over 70.0 percent of the shellfish MNI and oyster comprising nearly 30.0 percent. Where present, shellfish constituted between 33.3 percent and 99.1 percent of the MNI at Bernath. However, invertebrate remains were recovered in only half the units from which Byrd analyzed fauna and in neither of the two features he analyzed (see Table 11). Byrd also reported that “shellfish were exploited heavily at [Third Gulf Breeze, Bird Hammock, and Ulmore Cove], with oyster being the most ubiquitous species” (Byrd 1994:77). MNI percentages constituted by shellfish in midden units from these sites are 17.2 percent, 8.9 percent, and 76.0 percent, respectively (Table 11). Percentages of total biomass constituted by invertebrates at Bernath, Third Gulf Breeze, the Early Swift Creek component at Bird Hammock, and Ulmore Cove have not been reported. In comparison, Nanfro’s (2004) analysis showed that shellfish constituted 42.0 percent of the feature MNI, but only 1.4 – 2.7 percent of the feature biomass (Nanfro 2004). Midden samples from the same area produced similar results: shellfish constituted 57.2 percent of the MNI and 5.4 percent of the biomass (Appendix C). Though biomass was not calculated for the Early Swift Creek portion of the Bird Hammock midden, shellfish constituted only 8.9

116 percent of the MNI from midden samples there (Byrd 1994:35-37). Whether these differences are indicative of spatial use at the site, increasing shellfish consumption over time, archaeological recovery bias, or analytical skill is unknown. The Swift Creek components at Kings Bay produced the highest invertebrate proportions, where invertebrates (again, mainly shellfish) constituted between 55.6 and 95.9 percent of the total MNI, and between 36.6 and 88.8 percent of total sample biomass (Quitmyer 1985:80-88). It is speculated, however, that the prominence of invertebrates in the Kings Bay diet may have been greater if the site’s occupants were intensively harvesting non-shellfish invertebrates such as shrimp. Although supporting archaeological evidence is scarce, shrimp mandibles were frequently recovered from fine-screened samples at Kings Bay. The column sample from this site, although low, did not contribute the lowest MNI or biomass figures.

Diversity and Equitability Diversity and equitability indices (Table 13) were available for comparison from three of the village sites: Hawkshaw (Bense 1985:329), Bird Hammock (Nanfro 2004:62- 64), and Kings Bay (Quitmyer 1985:89-91). For comparative purposes, I will discuss diversity values according to the same arbitrary definitions I applied to the Refuge Fire Tower Site data in Chapter 3. At Hawkshaw, diversity and equitability were only calculated for three features, as fauna were limited and isolated mainly to features at the site. On average, diversity at Hawkshaw was slightly lower than at Bird Hammock and Kings Bay, though well within the ranges exhibited at the other two sites: low to moderate. Equitability measures generally corresponded to the diversity of species at each site. As with diversity, equitability was low at Hawkshaw, dramatically lower than Bird Hammock and Kings Bay, indicating disproportionately high abundances of a small number of taxa. Kings Bay showed moderate equitability, suggesting some species were noticeably but not grossly more abundant than others. Bird Hammock and the Refuge Fire Tower Site exhibited moderate to high equitability, suggesting focused utilization of particular species was least pronounced at these sites. At Hawkshaw, Bird Hammock, and Kings Bay, invertebrate data were included in the diversity and equitability calculations. Invertebrate data were not incorporated into

117 Table 13. Diversity and equitability at contemporaneous archaeological sites.

Archaeological Site # of Taxa Diversity Classification Equitability Classification Hawkshaw 71 0.78 - 1.12 (quantifier unknown) low 0.19 - 0.29 (quantifier unknown) low (8Es1287)

Bird Hammock (MNI) low - moderate (MNI) 46 0.5297 - 2.2363 0.7401 - 0.8718 high (8Wa30) 0.6717 - 1.7850 (Biomass) low 0.3381 - 0.9691 (Biomass) moderate - high

Kings Bay 46 0.92 - 2.26 (economic species)low - moderate 0.31 - 0.71 (economic species) moderate (9Cam171a)

Refuge Fire Tower 2.4462 - 3.4772 (MNI) moderate 0.7281 - 0.9849 (MNI) high 44 (8Wa14) 1.4419 - 2.8082 (Biomass) moderate 0.4989 - 0.8383 (Biomass) moderate - high

Diversity Definition Equitability Definition

0.0 - 1.5 = low 0.0 - 0.25 = low 1.5 - 3.5 = moderate 0.25 - 0.75 = moderate 3.5 - 5.0 = high 0.75 - 1.0 = high

118 the Refuge Fire Tower Site indices. I suspect, given the low density of shell in the midden indicated by field notes, photographs, and plot maps, that the addition of invertebrate data to diversity and equitability calculations for the Refuge Fire Tower Site would not significantly alter these results, except perhaps differentiate Feature # 1 which contained a lower concentration of bone and shell than the surrounding midden. Overall, the differences in diversity and equitability among three of the village sites (Hawkshaw, Bird Hammock, and Kings Bay) are insignificant. The similarity of the Refuge Fire Tower Site data to the Bird Hammock data lends support to the classification of the Refuge Fire Tower Site as a small village or semi-permanent campsite where a wide range of activities occurred. Lacking diversity and equitability data for the other sites discussed in this chapter, I hesitate to base any conclusions on this data, other than to speculate differences in spatial patterning based on site function. Given the specialized procurement status accorded Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove, I would expect these two sites to exhibit low to moderate diversity and low equitability. Based on the Hawkshaw and Kings Bay data, diversity and equitability at Bernath and Third Gulf Breeze would likely fall into the low to moderate range for both measures.

Prey Capture, Processing & Consumption Each of the sites was located near a river, in close proximity to a hardwood forest. Even so, foraging and collecting along freshwater and in the forests seemed to have taken on a supplementary role. Bird Hammock exhibited the highest crossover potential. Many of the taxa recovered in small numbers and from only a handful of sites were identified at Bird Hammock, including black bear, lynx, skunk, muskrat, mink, alligators, sea turtles, amphibians, and numerous bird species. The diversity of Bird Hammock’s vertebrate faunal assemblage may be attributed to its location further inland than any of the other sites; given a longer walk to the ocean, the inhabitants of Bird Hammock apparently chose to exploit more local resources as well. Although regression values were available at the time of his analysis, Byrd chose to estimate dietary meat contributions through comparison of the archaeological specimens with modern representatives. He noted that most of the fish bones recovered from Bernath, Third Gulf Breeze, Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove were from especially large individuals, estimating none of the fish recovered weighed less than one pound

119 (Byrd 1994:57). He further estimated the mullet, jack, and drums all weighed over two pounds, and that some jack and drums weighed over twenty pounds, concluding that large fish were targeted through the use of weirs in shallow bay water. Byrd also noted a significantly larger percentage of fish cranial elements than post-cranial elements in the Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove midden samples, which he interpreted as the discarded remains of filleted fish whose edible portions were transported from the site. These findings would seem to support Phelps’ supposition that large fish were targeted, filleted, and transported inland (Byrd 1994:70-71). I point out however, that these remains were recovered using ¼-in screens. Smaller fauna, particularly post-cranial fish remains, were likely present but not collected during excavation. Although mammal remains were not as prominent as fish, percussion scars and spiral fractures were observed on deer remains from Bernath, Third Gulf Breeze, Bird Hammock, and Ulmore Cove (Byrd 1994:61-65), indicating marrow extraction at each of these sites. Cut marks, however, were noted on less than 0.4 percent of the assemblage from these sites (Byrd 1994:66). While no cut marks were identified on mammalian remains from the Refuge Fire Tower Site, spiral fractures were also noted on deer long bones, and up to 11.9 percent of the fish assemblage bore evidence of filleting (Chapter 5, this volume).

Paleobotanical Material Paleobotanical data have only been quantified from Hawkshaw and Bernath. At Hawkshaw, wood comprised 96.2 percent of the analyzed midden flora and 96.8 percent of the analyzed feature flora (Bense and Quitmyer 1985:133). Much of the botanical material appeared to represent campfire remains: twigs, sticks, and large pieces of charcoal. Only 3.3 percent of the floral assemblage were edible plant remains, consisting of hickory nuts, acorns, and unidentified seeds. Charred wood analysis at Bernath indicated pine, oak, and hickory woods were used (Ruhl 2000:191-192). In addition to hickory nuts and acorns, Bernath also produced wild fruit remains (persimmon and grape), grasses, euphorbs, and mint. Acorns and hickory nuts were identified at each of the sites; charred acorns and hickory nuts were identified at Bird Hammock and the Refuge Fire Tower Site. The single gourd/squash seed from the Refuge Fire Tower Site

120 cannot be taken as evidence of the use of cultigens, as it was likely harvested from the wild whenever available.

Seasonality Summer and fall exploitation is hypothesized at Hawkshaw, though exploitation during the spring and fall seasons could not be discounted. Fish species identified at Hawkshaw, available in varying numbers throughout the year, would have been most abundant in the summertime (Hale and Quitmyer 1985:157-160). Young-of-year fishes and bay scallops also suggest summertime exploitation, while acorn and hickory nut processing would have been most optimal at Hawkshaw in the fall (Bense and Quitmyer 1985:132-137). Byrd’s analysis of deer bone fusion sequences indicates year-round occupation at both Third Gulf Breeze and the Early Swift Creek component at Bird Hammock, and spring through fall occupation at Bernath (Byrd 1994:74-77). Nanfro’s (2004:58-61) analysis of shellfish from two features and one midden sample in the Late Swift Creek component at Bird Hammock indicates scallop harvesting between June and November. At Kings Bay, year-round exploitation during the Swift Creek phase is indicated by the recovery of quahog clams in all phases of growth from both feature and midden samples (Quitmyer 1985:69). Further analysis is needed to determine seasonality at the two special-use sites. Ulmore Cove reportedly produced no mammalian remains from which seasonality could be inferred (Byrd 1994:74). As with Bernath, Third Gulf Breeze, and Bird Hammock, however, modal size classes of fish were not assessed at Ulmore Cove. At the time of this study, seasonality of the Snow Beach assemblage had not yet been assessed. Acorn and hickory nuts were harvesting at each of the sites likely took place in the late summer and fall.

Biases Data on the impact scavenging animals may have had on the assemblages was only available from Bernath, Third Gulf Breeze, Snow Beach, and Ulmore Cove (Byrd 1995:69) where, as at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, scavenging was believed to be minimal. Archaeological recovery methods are the most likely factors that may have

121 biased this study. The main biases influencing the outcome of this research are recovery technique and identification skill. Byrd (1994:70-71) cited the prominence of cranial elements and a paucity of fish vertebrae in the assemblages he analyzed as indicative of the sites’ occupants removing the fish heads and smoking the remaining portions to be later transported as bulk trade items. As with early interpretations of the Refuge Fire Tower Site assemblage, this statement was probably based on actual visibility of faunal remains in the excavation context and the laboratory. The fact that Byrd did not quantify or identify fish vertebrae to taxa in his analyses biased his results from the beginning, precluding the identification of a large number of small schooling fishes, reptiles, and birds. Identification bias appears evident at the Refuge Fire Tower Site where the number of otoliths in the faunal assemblage is small and those otoliths recovered are relatively large, suggesting smaller otoliths were not recognized and discarded with shell in the field. With the exception of Hawkshaw and Kings Bay, cultural material from each of the sites discussed here were ¼-in screened. Over the last several decades, zooarchaeological researchers have concluded that ¼-in screen recovery is insufficient, and that optimal recovery is best achieved through the use of 1/16-in mesh screens (Wing and Quitmyer 1983; Reitz 1982a; Wing and Brown 1979:119-120). Zooarchaeological research in southern Florida has shown that the most abundant species recovered at archaeological sites often constitute the smallest remains (Russo 1991:220). For example, Russo (1991) determined that archaeological collection using screens larger than 1/16-in would have precluded the recovery of the majority of MNI-indicating elements at Horr’s and Marco Island. At Hawkshaw, it was estimated that only 11.0 percent of the fish vertebra were recovered using 1/4-in screen, as opposed to 88.0 percent recovered using 1/16-in screen (Hale and Quitmyer 1985:157-161). These conclusions are further compounded by the recovery of shrimp remains from Kings Bay through 1/16-in screens. This was the case at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, where comparison of different recovery rates produced by two contiguous samples showed that NISP and MNI increased exponentially when hand flotation was used instead of ¼-in screening (Chapter 6, this volume). The number of faunal remains smaller than ¼ in (6.35 mm) nearly doubled the number of taxa identified, and nearly tripled the estimated biomass when

122 compared with the contiguous sample. A valuable finding, however, was that the relative percentages of biomass contributed by each class of animals in the two samples did not change.

123 CHAPTER 8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The goals of this thesis were: 1) to determine whether zooarchaeological data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site support the previous interpretation by the site’s excavator, David S. Phelps, of specialized site use for fishing and shellfish collection, and 2) to compare the faunal data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site to contemporaneous archaeological sites in the region to investigate coastal patterns of Early to Middle Woodland period subsistence. I proposed that use of the Refuge Fire Tower Site for fish and shellfish procurement and processing during the spring, summer, and fall months would be reflected in the modal class sizes of fish remains from the midden, and that specialization would be evidenced by large numbers of particular fish species and/or repeated size ranges of fishes. I also suggested that, if indeed a special-use procurement site, patterns of vertebrate exploitation at the Refuge Fire Tower Site would differ from those of contemporaneous coastal village sites in the region, and instead resemble subsistence patterning of coastal campsites.

Summary of Fauna from the Refuge Fire Tower Site

While previous ceramic analysis indicated that midden accumulation at the Refuge Fire Tower Site began during the Early Woodland period in the Late Deptford phase (Shannon 1979), radiocarbon dates produced in this study suggest an earlier commencement, in the Early Deptford or possibly during the Norwood phase of the Late Archaic. A dearth of reliable radiocarbon dates for Archaic and Deptford sites in this region suggests ceramics Shannon identified as Late Deptford and Early Swift Creek may actually be earlier. Regardless, midden deposition at the Refuge Fire Tower Site continued through the Middle Swift Creek phase, after which the site was entirely abandoned. The configuration and location of the Refuge Fire Tower Site, a linear shoreline midden, fits currently accepted categorical interpretations of a special-use site (Milanich 1994:143-145) and/or a small village midden (Jones 1999). Structural evidence, including numerous postmolds; patterns of faunal deposition, including several “hearth/trash pits” contained within the midden; and seasonality data derived from modal size analyses

124 indicate activities at the Refuge Fire Tower Site were related to daily occupation and subsistence such as at a small village rather than a seasonally occupied, specialized procurement site. Sample comparisons revealed no significant differences between samples based on either period of deposition or location. Samples from both Deptford and Swift Creek occupation levels produced similar rates of NISP, MNI, and biomass. Comparison of the samples from the spatially distinct L10 Trench and Unit -40R110 also revealed no significant differences. Feature # 1, which I initially believed represented a specialized short-term event, unexpectedly produced a wide range of animal remains at rates comparable to those from the general level samples. Overall, the samples did show a slight increase in the size of bone fragments in the midden over time, accompanied by a slight decrease in NISP. This shift appears minor, however, and I believe it represents nothing more than the migration of smaller fragments downward through the midden matrix over time. Continuity in the recovery rates of vertebrate fauna from the upper and lower levels of the Refuge Fire Tower midden supports the theory that shifting cultural traditions in the southeast did not influence subsistence and economic strategies during the Early to Middle Woodland periods. Mammals, reptiles, and freshwater fish species identified in the samples indicate the prehistoric landscape surrounding the Refuge Fire Tower Site was similar to that which exists today: pine scrub and hardwood hammock interspersed with freshwater lakes and ponds. Rising sea level data presented in Chapter 3, however, suggests the salt marsh/estuary may not have extended as far into the gulf as it does today, potentially shortening the distance from shore to bay. A preliminary assessment of the Refuge Fire Tower Site fauna led Phelps to report that fish and shellfish together constituted over ninety-five percent of the dietary materials recovered (Phelps 1969a:16) and that mammals, reptiles, and birds combined constituted only five percent of the total faunal assemblage (Phelps 1969b:9). The vertebrate samples analyzed in this study, however, exhibited moderate species diversity and moderate to high equitability, meaning that the assemblage was comprised of a fairly wide range of animal types and that distribution of those animals throughout the samples was fairly even.

125 The majority of species, identified, however, did come from one particular locale: the ocean. Fishes from the salt marsh/estuary dominated the samples, although bay and offshore fishes were also exploited. On average, marine taxa constituted over seventy percent of the NISP, MNI, and biomass. To a much lesser extent, terrestrial mammals and reptiles were systematically collected from the hardwood hammock and pine flatwoods, along with freshwater fishes and turtles, birds, and aquatic mammals. Exploitation of terrestrial and freshwater resources may have been opportunistic. Since invertebrate remains from the Refuge Fire Tower Site could not be accurately quantified, the extent of the contribution of shellfish to subsistence at the Refuge Fire Tower Site remains unknown. Preliminary inspection of shell collected showed that the site’s inhabitants exploited marine bivalves and gastropods from shallow water just below the low-tide line, including Florida crown conch, lightning whelk, Florida horse conch, northern quahog, southern quahog, eastern oyster, and calico scallop. Carolina marsh clam and common rangia indicate freshwater mollusks were harvested from fresh and/or brackish water. As with terrestrial and freshwater resources, shellfish and decapods (crabs) may have constituted a small but constant portion of the prehistoric diet at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. The wide range of animal exploitation at the Refuge Fire Tower Site reflects what may have been a conscious effort to avoid over-exploiting particular resources within the catchment area, or may simply reflect the dietary tastes of the site’s inhabitants. It does not support, however, Phelps’ and Byrd’s suppositions of site specialization, or my initial speculation of intensive fishing for inland trade purposes. Had the Refuge Fire Tower Site’s occupants been performing specific activities or using the site for the collection of specific food resources, the ensuing diversity and equitability values would have been much lower. In addition, the size range of fishes exploited, greater than previously thought (Phelps 1969a, 1969c), suggests earlier impressions of the site were highly influenced by a small number of extraordinarily large fish remains, and that exploitation was not as specialized as once believed. This study also revealed a much wider size range of fishes exploited and a greater volume of small fish remains than previous research indicated. Though the majority of small fishes were unidentifiable to genus, numerous small-sized herbivorous and juvenile

126 predatory fishes would have been available and abundant in the seagrass beds just steps from the midden. These data, in conjunction with ethnohistoric descriptions of indigenous subsistence practices, also provided insight into prehistoric technology, methods of food procurement, and possible preparation techniques. Capture techniques used by the sites inhabitants may have included fine-mesh nets, dip nets, gill nets, weirs, spears, and hook-and-line. Fine-mesh nets and dip baskets were likely used to collect small schooling fishes and juveniles of larger species from the salt marsh, both for consumption and to be used as bait in the capture of larger predatory fish. Large black drum, jack, and sea turtle remains suggest canoes were used to exploit larger prey in the bay and offshore. Smoking and smoke curing were likely methods of meat preparation employed at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, as indicated by the distribution of postmolds and burned hearth features throughout the midden. Several shallow pits and hearths contained concreted and/or burned conglomerations that indicate continuous low heat, such as would be necessary for steaming fish, shellfish, and vegetables. Cylindrical cooking vessels reconstructed from the midden debris probably aided in the preparation of broth and the extraction of oils from nuts. Salting and sun-drying are possibilities suggested by the ethnographic literature. Cut hyperostoses may have been the byproduct of filleting, but could also have resulted from simply chopping the lower portion of the body away from the vertebral column. These specimens were found in almost all samples from the Refuge Fire Tower Site, though not in numbers one would expect if the inhabitants were filleting large numbers of fish for trade. Perhaps the most interesting data with regard to food preparation and consumption were the numerous articulated fish vertebral columns recovered from throughout the midden and initially reported by Phelps (1969a:16) as evidence of filleting. I suggest, however, that the articulated black drums and jacks indicate filleting was not a common occurrence at the Refuge Fire Tower Site. Other possibilities for food preparation suggested by the articulated remains are that fish may not have been gutted prior to cooking, that the site’s occupants may have avoided consuming diseased fish, and that overabundance may have led to fish spoiling before they could be prepared. They may also be taken as evidence of a social function that has long been touted as a

127 redistribution measure among more or less egalitarian groups of people: ceremonial feasting (Dietler and Hayden 2001). Contradicting earlier postulation of seasonal utilization of the Refuge Fire Tower Site (see Chapters 1 and 2), seasonality data gleaned from this study indicates exploitation occurred nearly year-round, from April through January. Such a pattern of multi-season exploitation has also been identified at Cathead Creek (9Mc36) and Kings Bay (9Cam171a) on the Atlantic Coast (Reitz and Quitmyer 1988). Offshore movement by toadfishes and seasonal migration of skates and rays indicate marine exploitation at the Refuge Fire Tower Site during the spring and summer, while mammalian long bone fusion sequences indicate deer and raccoon were captured during the summer/fall months. The common loon was the only indicator of human presence during the winter months (October – January). Modal size analysis of selected catfish and red drum indicated fishing in the estuary or shallow bay waters between April and July, and February through November, respectively. Furthermore, the possibility of late winter occupation cannot be excluded. Though no seasonal data could be inferred from seatrout or black drum modal size data, all of the seatrout analyzed and most of the black drums would have been available in the estuary or shallow bay waters year-round. Numerous other species of animals identified would also have been available in the vicinity year- round.

Regional Subsistence Pattern

In the previous chapter, I presented faunal data from five village sites and two campsites/special-use sites in the Deptford/Swift Creek culture region. I did not seek to change existing characterizations of these sites, but to create a framework within which faunal data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site could be evaluated for similarities and differences in regard to coastal subsistence and settlement patterning. Results of this comparison revealed a relatively uniform pattern of animal exploitation at coastal Deptford/Swift Creek sites, with no significant differences in subsistence at ring-shaped or linear villages. This pattern consisted of a diet in which marine fishes, particularly estuarine and bay species of bony fish, dominated NISP, MNI, and biomass. Limited invertebrate data indicates shellfish, mainly oyster, rangia, and

128 scallops, were also important and likely dietary staples. Slight variations in the types of animals exploited at each site may reflect cultural tastes but are more likely the result of differential niche exploitation, capture techniques, or environmental variability. Deposition patterns and subsistence data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site most closely resembled those at Hawkshaw, although each of the villages studied exhibited similar rates of resource procurement. Invertebrate exploitation was highest at Kings Bay, the only site compared from the Atlantic Coast. As at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, speculations about specialized exploitation at Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove seem to have been exaggerated, likely based on the visual prominence of certain animal remains in the midden. Sampling bias and recovery data from the Refuge Fire Tower Site, Hawkshaw, and Kings Bay indicate Byrd’s supposition that large fish dominated the Gulf coast assemblages was incorrect. Better collection techniques (1/16-in screening) and more in-depth faunal analyses at other sites and of fauna from Bird Hammock and Snow Beach indicate a broad range of species were exploited and a wide size range of fishes were collected. Byrd’s instincts may not have been entirely wrong, however. Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove possess great potential for elucidating subsistence and settlement practices at coastal campsites, especially with regard to seasonality and specialized resource procurement. Insufficient research data currently exist from Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove to determine whether particular taxa were purposefully targeted at these locations at specific times of year. Further analysis of vertebrate and invertebrate remains from the two sites should shed light on this. Paleobotanical data from the sites, though limited, support the theory that while culture groups in the interior piedmont were cultivating bottle gourds, squash, grains, and starchy seed plants, coastal Early Woodland groups remained independent of agricultural demands, harvesting acorns, hickory nuts, and wild fruits and tubers as needed. Though coastal Early Woodland sites would not have found agriculture necessary given the high productivity of their environment, they would likely have been receptive to trading smoked fish for plant foods. The possible corncob from Bird Hammock is likely indicative of regional trade patterns rather than cultivation. Abandonment of Snow Beach and Ulmore Cove, and the Refuge Fire Tower Site following Swift Creek occupation reflects a regional trend of movement inland to areas more conducive to agriculture.

129 Conclusions

Because the actual demography of the Refuge Fire Tower Site is unknown, it is difficult to determine how well the vertebrate fauna analyzed in this study would have satisfied the nutritional needs of the site’s inhabitants. Two dietary aspects of the Refuge Fire Tower Site remain unclear: the invertebrate component and the botanical component. However, the predictability of resource availability associated with coastal living would have supported a sedentary lifestyle. It is likely that the inhabitants of the Refuge Fire Tower Site were dependent upon Apalachee Bay’s marine resources as a predictable food source and scheduled procurement activities around warm weather exploitation of fish and shellfish. Though shellfish were likely a staple at the Refuge Fire Tower Site, it may be inferred from regional site data that marine fish constituted the bulk of the prehistoric diet, supplemented by terrestrial mammals and turtles. Fish were likely smoke-cured and stored for later consumption along with hickory nuts, acorns, and various wild plants. Possible sources of sample bias encountered in this study include archaeological recovery methodology and incompleteness of the artifact assemblage. As discussed in Chapter 3, I reconstructed much of the provenience and excavation information from limited and fragmentary notes, photographs, maps, and logs from the Refuge Fire Tower Site to the best of my ability. Based on the numerous undocumented studies of this assemblage and movement of the collection over the past several decades, however, the possibility exists that samples used in this study may be incomplete. In addition, with the exception of the Snow Beach data, I had no control over how the comparative archaeological site data (discussed in Chapter 7) were recovered, processed, and reported. Finally, a possible flaw in this study is the assumption that the samples analyzed from the Refuge Fire Tower Site approximate the composition of the vertebrate fauna consumed at the site, and that the relative abundance of taxa and individuals represented in the samples accurately reflect their dietary importance. This assumption, however, is one that most zooarchaeological researchers must make before any type of inferences or interpretations can be made.

130

APPENDIX A:

ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA FROM

THE REFUGE FIRE TOWER (8Wa14)

131 CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS (Variables: C13/C12=-7.4:lab. mult=1) Laboratory number: Beta-204419 Conventional radiocarbon age: 3630±50 BP 2 Sigma calibrated result: Cal BC 2140 to 1880 (Cal BP 4090 to 3830) (95% probability) In tercep t data Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve: Cal BC 1970 (Cal BP 3920) 1 Sigma calibrated result: Cal BC 2040 to 1920 (Cal BP 3990 to 3870) (68% probability)

3630±50 BP Shel l 3800

3750

3700

3650

3600

3550 Radiocarbon age (BP) age Radiocarbon

3500

3450

3400 2200 2150 2100 2050 20 0 0 1950 1900 1850 1800 Cal BC References: Database used INTCAL98 Calibration Database Editorial Comm ent Stuiver, M., van der Plicht, H., 1998, Radiocarbon 40(3), pxii-xiii INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Stuiver, M., et. al., 1998, Radiocarbon 40(3), p1041-1083 Mathematics A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2), p317-322 Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory 4985 S.W. 74th Court, Miami, Florida 33155 Tel: (305)667-5167 Fax: (305)663-0964 E-Mail: [email protected]

Figure A.1. Calibration of radiocarbon age to calendar years – FS # 539.

132 CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS (Variables: C13/C12=-7:lab. mult=1) Laboratory number: Beta-204420 Conventional radiocarbon age: 3050±60 BP 2 Sigma calibrated result: Cal BC 1430 to 1120 (Cal BP 3380 to 3070) (95% probability) In tercep t data Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve: Cal BC 1310 (Cal BP 3260) 1 Sigma calibrated result: Cal BC 1400 to 1250 (Cal BP 3350 to 3200) (68% probability)

3050±60 BP Shel l 3250

3200

3150

3100

3050

3000 Radiocarbon age (BP) age Radiocarbon 2950

2900

2850

2800 1450 14 0 0 1350 1300 1250 1200 1150 1100 Cal BC References: Database used INTCAL98 Calibration Database Editorial Comm ent Stuiver, M., van der Plicht, H., 1998, Radiocarbon 40(3), pxii-xiii INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Stuiver, M., et. al., 1998, Radiocarbon 40(3), p1041-1083 Mathematics A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2), p317-322 Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory 4985 S.W. 74th Court, Miami, Florida 33155 Tel: (305)667-5167 Fax: (305)663-0964 E-Mail: [email protected]

Figure A.2. Calibration of radiocarbon age to calendar years – FS # 715.

133 CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS (Variables: C13/C12=-6.9:lab. mult=1) Laboratory number: Beta-204421 Conventional radiocarbon age: 3210±60 BP 2 Sigma calibrated result: Cal BC 1620 to 1390 (Cal BP 3570 to 3340) (95% probability) In tercep t data Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve: Cal BC 1490 (Cal BP 3440) 1 Sigma calibrated result: Cal BC 1520 to 1420 (Cal BP 3470 to 3370) (68% probability)

3210±60 BP Shel l 3400

3350

3300

3250

3200

3150 Radiocarbon age (BP) age Radiocarbon 3100

3050

3000

2950 1640 1620 16 0 0 1580 1560 1540 1520 1500 1480 1460 1440 1420 1400 1380 1360 Cal BC References: Database used INTCAL98 Calibration Database Editorial Comm ent Stuiver, M., van der Plicht, H., 1998, Radiocarbon 40(3), pxii-xiii INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Stuiver, M., et. al., 1998, Radiocarbon 40(3), p1041-1083 Mathematics A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2), p317-322 Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory 4985 S.W. 74th Court, Miami, Florida 33155 Tel: (305)667-5167 Fax: (305)663-0964 E-Mail: [email protected]

Figure A.3. Calibration of radiocarbon age to calendar years – FS # 732.

134 FS #710 (-90L10, Zone II, Level 2) FS #729 (-100L10, Zone II, Level 2)

100% 100%

80% 80%

60% 60% 40.00 39.48

40% 40% 30.00 Percentage 21.36 Percentage 16.45 21.43 13.03 12.79 13.66 20% 20% 11.11 10.81 12.48

0% 0%

) 7) ) ) 2) 9) 80 50) =49) =56) 194) n =798 1288) n (n= (n= 14 B (n=2) ( n (n=39 = B (n=111 A (n (n=1 M (n=4 R F ( M ( al RA F UV tal (n= UV ot o T T Class Class

FS #391 (Feature #1) FS #753 (-110L10, Zone II, Level 2a)

100% 100%

75.00 80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 27.75 40% 22.89 Percentage 22.22 Percentage 22.22 17.80 20% 14.00 20% 7.69 5.56 5.91 0.00 0.00 0% 0%

) ) ) 133) 0) 2 2 =3 = 92 (n=18) (n=12) (n=39) n n= = (n=50) n= ( (n ( (n=34) (n M B V ( B l RA F (n=2014) U M RA F (n=53) V ta tal U o To T Class Class

FS #541 (-60L110, Zone II, Level 3) FS #759 (-100L10, Zone III, Level 1)

100% 100%

80% 80% 60% 60% 40% Percentage 40%

21.43 Percentage 20.00 20% 12.20 14.29 22.22 18.95 9.26 10.42 10.58 14.29 14.71 20% 12.00 0% 0% 1) 16) 28) ) ) ) ) =54) = 1 1 2 9) 6) 9 n 20 (n 2146) = = = 2 = 3 B (n=7) ( n= n n n = n = M (n=4 A V ( ( ( ( n ( (n R (n= U B A ( V l F al M R F a ot U ot T T Class Class

M = Mammals, B = Birds, RA = Reptiles and Amphibians, F = Cartilaginous and Bony Fishes, UV = Unidentified Vertebrata, Total = All Classes Combined.

Figure A.4. Percentages of burned fauna in each sample.

135

FS #793 (-40R110, Level 1) FS #801 (-40R110, Level 2)

100% 100%

80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 40% Percentage Percentage 13.51 20% 20% 6.25 5.41 7.14 4.14 2.38 0.00 2.13 2.74 4.00 3.02 0.00 0% 0% ) ) 8) 4) ) 0) ) = =75) (n= (n=7 (n=1) (n=94 (n (n=17 B (n B F M (n=2 A V M (n=5 RA (n=4) UV R F (n=328) U tal (n=529) Total To Class Class

FS #815 (-40R110, Level 3) FS #824 (-40R110, Level 4)

100% 100%

80% 80%

60% 60%

33.33 40% 40% Percentage Percentage

16.67 16.89 14.80 20% 10.00 20% 9.09 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 0% ) 0) 1) ) 77) 0) n= n=1) n= =0) =0) =2) ( ( ( n= (n=95 (n= n n n B ( l ( ( M RA F a M (n=0) B A F tal (n=2 UV (n=16) ot R UV ( T To Class Class

M = Mammals, B = Birds, RA = Reptiles and Amphibians, F = Cartilaginous and Bony Fishes, UV = Unidentified Vertebrata, Total = All Classes Combined.

Figure A.4., continued.

136 Table A.1. Regression values used in minimum meat weight estimations.

Taxon* Slope (b) Y-intercept (a)

Mammalia 0.90 1.12 Aves 0.90 1.04 Testudines 0.67 0.51 Serpentes 1.01 1.17 Alligator 0.89 0.91 Osteichthyes 0.81 0.90 Lepisosteus spp. 0.79 0.85 Amia calva 0.79 0.85 Elops saurus 0.79 0.85 Siluriformes 0.95 1.15 Opsanus sp. 0.79 0.85 Mugil sp. 0.79 0.85 Prionotus 0.79 0.85 Centropomus sp. 0.79 0.85 Epinephelus sp. 0.79 0.85 Pomatomus saltatrix 0.79 0.85 Micropterus salmoides 0.83 0.93 Caranx sp. 0.88 1.23 Lobotes surinamensis 0.79 0.85 Archosargus probatocephalus 0.92 0.96 Sparidae/Sciaenidae 0.83 0.93 Sciaenidae 0.74 0.81 Cynoscion sp. 0.74 0.81 Micropogonias sp. 0.74 0.81 Pogonias cromis 0.74 0.81 Sciaenops ocellatus 0.74 0.81 Chaetodipterus faber 0.83 0.93 Scombridae 0.83 0.93 Paralichthyes sp. 0.89 1.09 Acanthrostracion quadricornis 0.79 0.85 Tetraodontidae 0.79 0.85 Balistes sp. 0.79 0.85 Diodontidae 0.79 0.85 Chilomycterus schoepfi 0.79 0.85 Chondrichthyes 0.86 1.68

Note: Values for Slope (b) and Y-intercept (a) from Hale and Marrinan (1987).

* Biomass figures for taxa not listed here were calculated according to the values listed for the next highest taxanomic category.

137 Table A.2. Taxa ranked by minimum edible meat weight (all samples combined).

Rank Taxa Biomass (g) % of Total Rank Taxa Biomass (g) % of Total 1 Osteichthyes, Unidentified 29,102.4 33.4 30 Malaclemys terrapin 259.0 0.3 2 Caranx sp. 11,104.6 12.7 31 Siluriformes 223.2 0.3 3 Pogonias cromis 5,758.1 6.6 32 Charcharhinidae 215.3 0.2 4 Mammalia, Unidentified 5,746.6 6.6 33 Lamniformes 178.4 0.2 5 Odocoileus virginianus 5,601.4 6.4 34 Serpentes, Unidentified 169.5 0.2 6 Sciaenidae/Sparidae 3,459.5 4.0 35 Terrapene carolina 131.1 0.2 7 Diodontidae 2,773.3 3.2 36 Ardea herodias 112.1 0.1 8 Testudines, Unidentified 2,886.3 3.3 37 Deirochelys reticularia 105.9 0.1 9 Mugil sp. 2,597.5 3.0 38 Chrysemys sp. 103.9 0.1 10 Archosargus probatocephalus 1,937.6 2.2 39 Prionotus sp. 95.3 0.1 11 Cynoscion sp. 1,405.0 1.6 40 Centropomus sp. 88.0 0.1 12 Paralichthyes sp. 1,163.3 1.3 41 Bagre marinus 55.7 0.1 13 Lepisosteus spp. 1,092.2 1.3 42 Elops saurus 51.7 0.1 14 Sciaenops ocellatus 983.7 1.1 43 Micropterus salmoides 49.0 0.1 15 Aves, Unidentified 948.2 1.1 44 Amia calva 43.4 0.0 16 Chelydra serpentina 939.4 1.1 45 Gavia immer 41.8 0.0 17 Opsanus sp. 878.3 1.0 46 Micropogonias undulatus 27.8 0.0 18 Procyon lotor 853.0 1.0 47 Tetraodontidae 25.3 0.0 19 Ariidae 809.2 0.9 48 Mustela vison 23.9 0.0 20 Sciaenidae 796.5 0.9 49 Sigmodon hispidus 23.9 0.0 21 Kinosternidae 701.2 0.8 50 Crotalus adamanteus 23.6 0.0 22 Chaetodipterus faber 669.7 0.8 51 Chilomycterus schoepfi 17.5 0.0 23 Chelonidae 578.0 0.7 52 Rhinopteridae 17.4 0.0 24 Sylvilagus sp. 469.4 0.5 53 Meleagris gallopavo 10.9 0.0 25 Rajiformes 416.3 0.5 54 Scombridae 10.1 0.0 26 Alligator mississippiensis 401.5 0.5 55 Acanthostracion quadricornis 8.5 0.0 27 Didelphis virginiana 391.3 0.4 56 Sphoeroides dorsalis 8.5 0.0 28 Macroclemys temmincki 305.4 0.4 57 Ictaluridae 6.4 0.0 29 Ariopsis felis 289.5 0.3 58 Clupeidae 4.9 0.0 Total 87,190.1 100.0

138 FS # 710 (-90L10, Zone II, Level 2) FS # 729 (-100L10, Zone II, Level 2)

Cartilaginous Cartilaginous Mammals Fishes Mammals 11.9% Fishes Birds 1.3% 17.5% 1.2% 0.5%

Birds Reptiles 1.6% 6.8%

Reptiles 7.4%

Bony Fishes Bony Fishes 72.1% 79.5%

FS # 753 (-100L10, Zone II, Level 2a) FS # 391 (Feature #1)

Mammals Mammals Birds Cartilaginous 7.2% Birds 6.7% 1.4% Fishes 4.9% 1.8% Reptiles Reptiles 3.8% 3.6%

Bony Fishes Bony Fishes 82.4% 88.2%

FS # 541 (-60L10, Zone II, Level 3) FS # 759 (-100L10, Zone III, Level 1)

Cartilaginous Mammals Fishes 11.8% Mammals Birds 2.2% 17.1% 0.5%

Reptiles 3.8% Birds 3.0%

Reptiles 21.0% Bony Fishes Bony Fishes 81.7% 58.9%

Figure A.5. Percentages of minimum edible meat weight in each sample. 139 FS # 793 (-40R110, Level 1) FS # 801 (-40R110, Level 2)

Mammals 16.3% Mammals 28.5% Birds 0.5%

Reptiles 13.4% Birds 0.4%

Bony Fishes Reptiles 15.5% Bony Fishes 55.6% 69.8%

FS # 815 (-40R110, Level 3) FS # 824 (-40R110, Level 4) Mammals Cartilaginous Mammals Birds 12.4% Fishes 8.1% 1.5% Birds 0.5% Reptiles 1.9% 2.2% Reptiles 0.7%

Bony Fishes Bony Fishes 84.4% 88.2%

Figure A.5. continued.

140 Table A.3. Diversity and equitability in FS # 710.

Minimum Meat Weight Estimate

Scientific Name MNI pi Logepi piLogepi (g) pi Logepi piLogepi Sigmodon hipsidus 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 6.18 0.0004 -7.8240 -0.0030 Mustela vison 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 23.92 0.0015 -6.5023 -0.0096 Sylvilagus sp. 3 0.0123 -4.3982 -0.0543 113.98 0.0071 -4.9477 -0.0349 Didelphis virginiana 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 149.61 0.0093 -4.6777 -0.0434 Procyon lotor 2 0.0082 -4.8036 -0.0395 561.58 0.0348 -3.3581 -0.1169 Odocoileus virginianus 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 1,768.23 0.1096 -2.2109 -0.2422 Ardea herodias 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 112.14 0.0069 -4.9762 -0.0346 Gavia immer 3 0.0123 -4.3982 -0.0543 41.84 0.0026 -5.9522 -0.0154 Chelydra serpentina 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 262.94 0.0163 -4.1166 -0.0671 Macroclemys temmincki 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 14.11 0.0009 -7.0131 -0.0061 Kinosternidae 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 218.48 0.0135 -4.3051 -0.0583 Chysemys sp. 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 103.87 0.0064 -5.0515 -0.0325 Deirochelys reticularia 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 78.71 0.0049 -5.3185 -0.0259 Malaclemys terrapin 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 111.97 0.0069 -4.9762 -0.0345 Terrapene carolina 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 103.87 0.0064 -5.0515 -0.0325 Chelonidae 2 0.0082 -4.8036 -0.0395 136.80 0.0085 -4.7677 -0.0404 Alligator mississippiensis 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 228.74 0.0142 -4.2545 -0.0603 Serpentes 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 112.75 0.0070 -4.9618 -0.0347 Lepisosteus spp. 2 0.0082 -4.8036 -0.0395 560.00 0.0347 -3.3610 -0.1166 Amia calva 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 34.88 0.0022 -6.1193 -0.0132 Elops saurus 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 4.90 0.0003 -8.1117 -0.0025 Ictaluridae 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 6.36 0.0004 -7.8240 -0.0031 Ariopsis felis 6 0.0247 -3.7009 -0.0914 256.42 0.0159 -4.1414 -0.0658 Bagre marinus 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 36.71 0.0023 -6.0748 -0.0138 Opsanus sp. 39 0.1605 -1.8295 -0.2936 651.41 0.0404 -3.2089 -0.1295 Mugil sp. 65 0.2675 -1.3186 -0.3527 1,254.80 0.0778 -2.5536 -0.1985 Centropomus sp. 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 4.90 0.0003 -8.1117 -0.0025 Micropterus salmoides 4 0.0165 -4.1044 -0.0676 48.96 0.0030 -5.8091 -0.0176 Caranx sp. 10 0.0412 -3.1893 -0.1312 3,877.99 0.2403 -1.4259 -0.3426 Archosargus probatocephalus 9 0.0370 -3.2968 -0.1221 545.09 0.0338 -3.3873 -0.1144 Cynoscion sp. 28 0.1152 -2.1611 -0.2490 659.24 0.0408 -3.1991 -0.1307 Micropogonias sp. 2 0.0082 -4.8036 -0.0395 11.82 0.0007 -7.2644 -0.0053 Pogonias cromis 10 0.0412 -3.1893 -0.1312 1,761.85 0.1092 -2.2146 -0.2418 Sciaenops ocellatus 8 0.0329 -3.4143 -0.1124 370.20 0.0229 -3.7767 -0.0866 Chaetodipterus faber 2 0.0082 -4.8036 -0.0395 212.13 0.0131 -4.3351 -0.0570 Scombridae 3 0.0123 -4.3982 -0.0543 10.14 0.0006 -7.4186 -0.0047 Paralichthyes sp. 4 0.0165 -4.1044 -0.0676 589.26 0.0365 -3.3104 -0.1209 Acanthostracion quadricornis 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 8.47 0.0005 -7.6009 -0.0040 Tetraodontidae 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 25.32 0.0016 -6.4378 -0.0101 Diodontidae 14 0.0576 -2.8542 -0.1644 666.77 0.0413 -3.1869 -0.1317 Lamniformes 1 0.0041 -5.4968 -0.0226 304.31 0.0189 -3.9686 -0.0748 Rajiformes 5 0.0206 -3.8825 -0.0799 86.74 0.0054 -5.2214 -0.0281 Total Sample 243 1.0000 -- -2.7214 16,138.37 1.0000 -- -2.8082

MNI Diversity H' = 2.7214 Biomass Diversity H' = 2.8082 MNI Equitability V' = 0.7281 Biomass Equitability V' = 0.7513

141 Table A.4. Diversity and equitability in FS # 729.

Minimum Meat Weight Estimate

Scientific Name MNI pi Logepi piLogepi (g) pi Logepi piLogepi Sigmodon hipsidus 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 11.53 0.0023 -6.0748 -0.0141 Sylvilagus sp. 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 74.93 0.0151 -4.1931 -0.0634 Didelphis virginiana 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 46.87 0.0095 -4.6565 -0.0441 Procyon lotor 2 0.0299 -3.5099 -0.1048 74.93 0.0151 -4.1931 -0.0634 Odocoileus virginianus 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 349.28 0.0705 -2.6521 -0.1870 Aves 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 58.84 0.0119 -4.4312 -0.0526 Chelydra serpentina 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 154.77 0.0312 -3.4673 -0.1083 Kinosternidae 2 0.0299 -4.2064 -0.1256 162.43 0.0328 -3.4173 -0.1120 Malaclemys terrapin 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 63.04 0.0127 -4.3662 -0.0556 Alligator mississippiensis 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 63.65 0.0128 -4.3583 -0.0560 Crotalus adamanteus 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 23.59 0.0048 -5.3391 -0.0254 Lepisosteus spp. 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 84.89 0.0171 -4.0687 -0.0697 Elops saurus 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 4.90 0.0010 -6.9078 -0.0068 Ariidae 8 0.1194 -2.1253 -0.2538 216.48 0.0437 -3.1304 -0.1368 Opsanus sp. 2 0.0299 -3.5099 -0.1048 45.93 0.0093 -4.6777 -0.0434 Mugil sp. 3 0.0448 -3.1055 -0.1391 342.15 0.0691 -2.6722 -0.1845 Caranx sp. 3 0.0448 -3.1055 -0.1391 979.75 0.1977 -1.6210 -0.3205 Archosargus probatocephalus 5 0.0746 -2.5956 -0.1937 181.44 0.0366 -3.3077 -0.1211 Cynoscion sp. 4 0.0597 -2.8184 -0.1683 212.21 0.0428 -3.1512 -0.1350 Pogonias cromis 2 0.0299 -3.5099 -0.1048 616.13 0.1244 -2.0843 -0.2592 Sciaenops ocellatus 2 0.0299 -3.5099 -0.1048 110.52 0.0223 -3.8032 -0.0848 Chaetodipterus faber 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 52.99 0.0107 -4.5375 -0.0485 Paralichthyes sp. 2 0.0299 -3.5099 -0.1048 200.54 0.0405 -3.2065 -0.1298 Diodontidae 19 0.2836 -1.2602 -0.3574 675.54 0.1363 -1.9929 -0.2717 Rajiformes 1 0.0149 -4.2064 -0.0628 147.26 0.0297 -3.5166 -0.1045 Total Sample 67 1.0000 -- -2.7168 4,954.59 1.0000 -- -2.6984

MNI Diversity H' = 2.7168 Biomass Diversity H' = 2.6984 MNI Equitability V' = 0.8440 Biomass Equitability V' = 0.8383

142 Table A.5. Diversity and equitability in FS # 753.

Minimum Meat Weight Estimate

Scientific Name MNI pi Logepi piLogepi (g) pi Logepi piLogepi Mammalia 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 182.41 0.1540 -1.8708 -0.2880 Aves 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 123.08 0.1039 -2.2643 -0.2352 Kinosternidae 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 14.11 0.0119 -4.4312 -0.0528 Lepisosteus spp. 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 14.64 0.0124 -4.3901 -0.0543 Elops saurus 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 11.67 0.0099 -4.6152 -0.0455 Ariidae 2 0.0870 -2.4418 -0.2123 14.24 0.0120 -4.4228 -0.0532 Opsanus sp. 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 20.17 0.0170 -4.0745 -0.0694 Mugil sp. 2 0.0870 -2.4418 -0.2123 56.30 0.0475 -3.0470 -0.1448 Caranx sp. 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 50.15 0.0423 -3.1630 -0.1339 Archosargus probatocephalus 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 21.33 0.0180 -4.0174 -0.0723 Cynoscion sp. 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 72.32 0.0610 -2.7969 -0.1707 Pogonias cromis 2 0.0870 -2.4418 -0.2123 41.75 0.0352 -3.3467 -0.1179 Sciaenops ocellatus 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 244.68 0.2065 -1.5775 -0.3258 Chaetodipterus faber 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 29.88 0.0252 -3.6809 -0.0928 Paralichthyes sp. 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 14.19 0.0120 -4.4228 -0.0530 Diodontidae 4 0.1739 -1.7493 -0.3042 229.09 0.1934 -1.6430 -0.3177 Carcharhinidae 1 0.0435 -3.1350 -0.1363 44.70 0.0377 -3.2781 -0.1237 Total Sample 23 1.0000 -- -2.7132 1,184.71 1.0000 -- -2.3510

MNI Diversity H' = 2.7132 Biomass Diversity H' = 2.3510 MNI Equitability V' = 0.9576 Biomass Equitability V' = 0.8298

143 Table A.6. Diversity and equitability in FS # 541.

Minimum Meat Weight Estimate

Scientific Name MNI pi Logepi piLogepi (g) pi Logepi piLogepi Sigmodon hipsidus 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 6.18 0.0014 -6.5713 -0.0091 Sylvilagus sp. 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 37.89 0.0085 -4.7677 -0.0406 Procyon lotor 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 21.52 0.0048 -5.3391 -0.0258 Odocoileus virginianus 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 800.80 0.1800 -1.7148 -0.3086 Melagris gallopavo 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 10.87 0.0024 -6.0323 -0.0147 Chelydra serpentina 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 64.54 0.0145 -4.2336 -0.0614 Serpentes 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 5.47 0.0012 -6.7254 -0.0083 Lepisosteus spp. 2 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 215.06 0.0483 -3.0303 -0.1465 Elops saurus 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 25.32 0.0057 -5.1673 -0.0294 Clupeidae 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 4.90 0.0011 -6.8124 -0.0075 Ariopsis felis 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 33.03 0.0074 -4.9063 -0.0364 Bagre marinus 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 10.33 0.0023 -6.0748 -0.0141 Opsanus sp. 8 0.1379 -1.9812 -0.2733 126.01 0.0283 -3.5649 -0.1009 Mugil sp. 6 0.1034 -2.2692 -0.2347 316.87 0.0712 -2.6423 -0.1882 Prionotus sp. 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 14.64 0.0033 -5.7138 -0.0188 Caranx sp. 5 0.0862 -2.4511 -0.2113 1,214.31 0.2729 -1.2986 -0.3544 Archosargus probatocephalus 5 0.0862 -2.4511 -0.2113 351.13 0.0789 -2.5396 -0.2004 Cynoscion sp. 2 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 122.28 0.0275 -3.5936 -0.0987 Pogonias cromis 3 0.0517 -2.9623 -0.1532 399.80 0.0898 -2.4102 -0.2165 Sciaenops ocellatus 2 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 62.56 0.0141 -4.2616 -0.0599 Chaetodipterus faber 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 38.56 0.0087 -4.7444 -0.0411 Paralichthyes sp. 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 69.93 0.0157 -4.1541 -0.0653 Diodontidae 9 0.1552 -1.8630 -0.2891 285.04 0.0641 -2.7473 -0.1760 Charcharhinidae 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 44.70 0.0100 -4.6052 -0.0463 Rajiformes 1 0.0172 -4.0628 -0.0700 168.14 0.0378 -3.2754 -0.1238 Total Sample 58 1.0000 -- -2.8420 4,449.88 1.0000 -- -2.3927

MNI Diversity H' = 2.8420 Biomass Diversity H' = 2.3927 MNI Equitability V' = 0.8829 Biomass Equitability V' = 0.7433

144 Table A.7. Diversity and equitability in FS # 759.

Minimum Meat Weight Estimate

Scientific Name MNI pi Logepi piLogepi (g) pi Logepi piLogepi Didelphis virginianus 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 14.10 0.0097 -4.6356 -0.0450 Procyon lotor 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 159.33 0.1098 -2.2091 -0.2426 Odocoileus virginiana 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 68.57 0.0473 -3.0512 -0.1442 Aves 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 81.87 0.0564 -2.8753 -0.1622 Chelydra serpentina 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 405.18 0.2792 -1.2758 -0.3562 Deirochelys reticularia 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 27.23 0.0188 -3.9739 -0.0746 Alligator mississippiensis 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 85.62 0.0590 -2.8302 -0.1670 Elops saurus 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 4.90 0.0034 -5.6840 -0.0192 Ariidae 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 8.74 0.0060 -5.1160 -0.0308 Centropomus sp. 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 83.08 0.0573 -2.8595 -0.1637 Archosargus probatocephalus 2 0.1250 -2.0794 -0.2599 173.74 0.1197 -2.1228 -0.2542 Cynoscion sp. 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 26.66 0.0184 -3.9954 -0.0734 Pogonias cromis 2 0.1250 -2.0794 -0.2599 148.30 0.1022 -2.2808 -0.2331 Diodontidae 1 0.0625 -2.7726 -0.1733 163.77 0.1129 -2.1813 -0.2462 Total Sample 16 1.0000 -- -2.5993 1,451.09 1.0000 -- -2.2124

MNI Diversity H' = 2.5993 Biomass Diversity H' = 2.2124 MNI Equitability V' = 0.9849 Biomass Equitability V' = 0.8383

Table A.8. Diversity and equitability in FS # 793.

Minimum Meat Weight Estimate

Scientific Name MNI pi Logepi piLogepi (g) pi Logepi piLogepi Sylvilagus sp. 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 64.30 0.0209 -3.8680 -0.0808 Didelphis virginianus 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 87.46 0.0284 -3.5614 -0.1013 Odocoileus virginiana 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 1,013.29 0.3294 -1.1105 -0.3658 Aves 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 25.92 0.0084 -4.7795 -0.0403 Chelydra serpentina 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 51.99 0.0169 -4.0804 -0.0690 Macroclemys temmincki 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 291.31 0.0947 -2.3570 -0.2232 Kinosternidae 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 131.60 0.0428 -3.1512 -0.1348 Mugil sp. 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 30.20 0.0098 -4.6254 -0.0454 Caranx sp. 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 134.66 0.0438 -3.1281 -0.1369 Archosargus probatocephalus 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 54.13 0.0176 -4.0399 -0.0711 Cynoscion sp. 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 35.99 0.0117 -4.4482 -0.0520 Micropogonias undulatus 1 0.0417 -3.1773 -0.1324 15.96 0.0052 -5.2591 -0.0273 Pogonias cromis 2 0.0833 -2.4853 -0.2071 681.47 0.2215 -1.5073 -0.3339 Sciaenops ocellatus 2 0.0833 -2.4853 -0.2071 41.75 0.0136 -4.2977 -0.0583 Chaetodipterus faber 3 0.1250 -2.0790 -0.2599 81.58 0.0265 -3.6306 -0.0963 Diodontidae 5 0.2083 -1.5688 -0.3268 334.62 0.1088 -2.2182 -0.2413 Total Sample 24 1.0000 -- -2.5896 3,076.23 1.0000 -- -2.0777

MNI Diversity H' = 2.5896 Biomass Diversity H' = 2.0777 MNI Equitability V' = 0.9340 Biomass Equitability V' = 0.7494

145

Table A.9. Diversity and equitability in FS # 801.

Minimum Meat Weight Estimate

Scientific Name MNI pi Logepi piLogepi (g) pi Logepi piLogepi Didelphis virginianus 1 0.0286 -3.5543 -0.1016 79.13 0.0142 -4.2550 -0.0605 Odocoileus virginiana 2 0.0571 -2.8630 -0.1636 1,005.40 0.1807 -1.7109 -0.3092 Aves 1 0.0286 -3.5543 -0.1016 43.57 0.0078 -4.8536 -0.0380 Kinosternidae 2 0.0571 -2.8630 -0.1636 113.10 0.0203 -3.8971 -0.0792 Terrapene carolina 1 0.0286 -3.5543 -0.1016 27.23 0.0049 -5.3185 -0.0260 Cheloniidae 1 0.0286 -3.5543 -0.1016 441.21 0.0793 -2.5345 -0.2010 Lepisosteus sp. 1 0.0286 -3.5543 -0.1016 52.22 0.0094 -4.6670 -0.0438 Ariidae 1 0.0286 -3.5543 -0.1016 1.76 0.0003 -8.1117 -0.0026 Mugil sp. 1 0.0286 -3.5543 -0.1016 27.79 0.0050 -5.2983 -0.0265 Prionotus sp. 1 0.0286 -3.5543 -0.1016 48.05 0.0086 -4.7560 -0.0411 Caranx sp. 6 0.1714 -1.7638 -0.3024 2,209.14 0.3971 0.0000 0.0000 Archosargus probatocephalus 3 0.0857 -2.4569 -0.2106 159.48 0.0287 -0.9236 -0.0265 Cynoscion sp. 1 0.0286 -3.5543 -0.1016 72.06 0.0130 -4.3428 -0.0562 Pogonias cromis 3 0.0857 -2.4569 -0.2106 625.92 0.1125 -1.1848 -0.1333 Sciaenops ocellatus 3 0.0857 -2.4569 -0.2106 249.19 0.0448 -3.1055 -0.1391 Chaetodipterus faber 2 0.0571 -2.8630 -0.1636 77.62 0.0140 -4.2687 -0.0596 Paralichthyes sp. 1 0.0286 -3.5543 -0.1016 74.06 0.0133 -4.3200 -0.0575 Diodontidae 4 0.1143 -2.1689 -0.2479 256.51 0.0461 -3.0769 -0.1419 Total Sample 35 1.0000 -- -2.6883 5,563.44 1.0000 -- -1.4419

MNI Diversity H' = 2.6883 Biomass Diversity H' = 1.4419 MNI Equitability V' = 0.9301 Biomass Equitability V' = 0.4989

146 Table A.10. Diversity and equitability in FS # 815.

Minimum Meat Weight Estimate

Scientific Name MNI pi Logepi piLogepi (g) pi Logepi piLogepi Mammalia, medium 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 91.59 0.0532 -2.9337 -0.1562 Odocoileus virginiana 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 178.59 0.1038 -2.2653 -0.2352 Aves 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 112.14 0.0652 -2.7303 -0.1780 Alligator mississippiensis 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 23.45 0.0136 -4.2977 -0.0586 Serpentes 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 19.39 0.0113 -4.4830 -0.0505 Ariidae 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 10.33 0.0060 -5.1160 -0.0307 Mugil sp. 4 0.1379 -1.9812 -0.2733 95.60 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1606 Prionotus sp. 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 32.56 0.0189 -3.9686 -0.0751 Caranx sp. 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 45.68 0.0266 -3.6268 -0.0963 Archosargus probatocephalus 2 0.0690 -2.6736 -0.1844 46.21 0.0269 -3.6156 -0.0971 Cynoscion sp. 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 120.35 0.0700 -2.6593 -0.1861 Pogonias cromis 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 421.19 0.2449 -1.4069 -0.3445 Sciaenops ocellatus 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 19.75 0.0115 -4.4654 -0.0513 Chaetodipterus faber 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 29.81 0.0173 -4.0570 -0.0703 Paralichthyes sp. 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 76.12 0.0443 -3.1168 -0.1379 Diodontidae 9 0.3103 -1.1702 -0.3632 365.72 0.2126 -1.5483 -0.3292 Rajiformes 1 0.0345 -3.3668 -0.1161 31.54 0.0183 -4.0009 -0.0734 Total Sample 29 1.0000 -- -2.4462 1,720.02 1.0000 -- -2.3312

MNI Diversity H' = 2.4462 Biomass Diversity H' = 2.3312 MNI Equitability V' = 0.8634 Biomass Equitability V' = 0.8228

Table A.11. Diversity and equitability in FS # 824.

Minimum Meat Weight Estimate

Scientific Name MNI pi Logepi piLogepi (g) pi Logepi piLogepi Sylvilagus sp. 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 37.89 0.0249 -3.6929 -0.0920 Odocoileus virginiana 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 64.30 0.0423 -3.1630 -0.1338 Aves 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 27.73 0.0182 -4.0063 -0.0731 Testudines 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 41.49 0.0273 -3.6009 -0.0983 Lepisosteus sp. 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 20.17 0.0133 -4.3200 -0.0573 Amia calva 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 8.47 0.0056 -5.1850 -0.0289 Ariidae 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 2.80 0.0018 -6.3200 -0.0116 Opsanus beta 2 0.1111 -2.1973 -0.2441 22.78 0.0150 -4.2000 -0.0629 Mugil sp. 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 45.93 0.0302 -3.4999 -0.1057 Caranx sp. 2 0.1111 -2.1973 -0.2441 803.26 0.5284 -0.6379 -0.3371 Archosargus probatocephalus 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 38.17 0.0251 -3.6850 -0.0925 Cynoscion sp. 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 35.99 0.0237 -3.7423 -0.0886 Pogonias cromis 2 0.1111 -2.1973 -0.2441 241.65 0.1590 -1.8389 -0.2923 Sciaenops ocellatus 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 57.61 0.0379 -3.2728 -0.1240 Diodontidae 1 0.0556 -2.8896 -0.1605 71.93 0.0473 -3.0512 -0.1444 Total Sample 18 1.0000 -- -2.6588 1,520.17 1.0000 -- -1.7426

MNI Diversity H' = 2.6588 Biomass Diversity H' = 1.7426 MNI Equitability V' = 0.9818 Biomass Equitability V' = 0.6435

147 Table A.12. Diversity and equitability in FS # 391 (Feature 1).

Minimum Meat Weight Estimate

Scientific Name MNI pi Logepi piLogepi (g) pi Logepi piLogepi Sylvilagus sp. 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 113.98 0.0286 -1.5436 -0.0441 Didelphis virginiana 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 14.10 0.0035 -5.6550 -0.0200 Procyon lotor 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 35.61 0.0089 -4.7217 -0.0422 Odocoileus virginianus 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 379.33 0.0951 -2.3528 -0.2238 Aves 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 115.27 0.0289 -3.5439 -0.1024 Kinosternidae 2 0.0513 -1.2899 -0.0661 61.52 0.0154 -4.1734 -0.0644 Malaclemys terrapin 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 84.03 0.0211 -3.8585 -0.0813 Serpentes 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 5.47 0.0014 -6.5713 -0.0090 Lepisosteus spp. 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 145.22 0.0364 -3.3132 -0.1207 Elops saurus 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 11.67 0.0029 -5.8430 -0.0171 Ariidae 2 0.0513 -1.2899 -0.0661 88.55 0.0222 -3.8077 -0.0845 Opsanus sp. 4 0.1026 -2.2769 -0.2335 37.15 0.0093 -4.6777 -0.0436 Mugil sp. 8 0.2051 -1.5843 -0.3250 324.51 0.0814 -2.5084 -0.2041 Caranx sp. 2 0.0513 -1.2899 -0.0661 1,371.44 0.3439 -1.0674 -0.3671 Archosargus probatocephalus 3 0.0769 -2.5652 -0.1973 93.70 0.0235 -3.7508 -0.0881 Cynoscion sp. 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 116.45 0.0292 -3.5336 -0.1032 Pogonias cromis 2 0.0513 -1.2899 -0.0661 617.22 0.1548 -1.8656 -0.2888 Sciaenops ocellatus 2 0.0513 -1.2899 -0.0661 47.24 0.0118 -4.4397 -0.0526 Chaetodipterus faber 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 101.26 0.0254 -3.6730 -0.0933 Paralichthyes sp. 1 0.0256 -3.6652 -0.0940 139.15 0.0349 -3.3553 -0.1171 Diodontidae 2 0.0513 -1.2899 -0.0661 84.89 0.0213 -3.8490 -0.0819 Total Sample 39 1.0000 -- -2.2805 3,987.76 1.0000 -- -2.2493

MNI Diversity H' = 2.2805 Biomass Diversity H' = 2.2493 MNI Equitability V' = 0.7491 Biomass Equitability V' = 0.7388

148 (mm) - Pectoral Estimated Estimaged Spine Articulating Standard Length Age Surface Width (mm) (years) 6.30 171.76 1+ 6.53 182.04 1+ 6.59 184.75 1+ 6.61 185.66 1+ 6.64 187.03 1+ 6.79 193.92 1+ 6.79 193.92 1+ 6.84 196.24 1+ 6.90 199.04 1+ 7.04 205.62 1+ 7.25 215.65 1+ 7.55 230.29 1+ 7.68 236.75 1+ 8.08 257.04 1+ 8.49 278.50 1+ 8.71 290.29 1+ 8.99 305.56 1+ 9.13 313.30 1+ Drawing courtesy of Michael Russo. n = 18 Mean Standard Length = 223.74 mm Minimum Standard Length = 171.76 mm b Maximum Standard Length = 313.30 mm Allometric formula: Y = aX transformed Y = log a + b (logX) log a (Y) = 1.62 b (slope) = 0.94

Regression values from Russo (1991).

Image modified from Stock Assessment (2003b). Length depictions following Reitz and Wing (1999:366 Figure A3.3).

Figure A.6. Standard length estimates of marine catfish – FS # 710.

149

Measurement Estimated Estimaged (mm) - Atlas Standard Length Age Width (mm) (years) 4.56 76.17 <1 5.10 94.54 <1 5.23 99.24 <1 5.82 121.98 <1 5.83 122.39 <1 5.94 126.88 <1 5.96 127.71 <1 5.97 128.12 <1 Allometric formula: Y = aXb 6.03 130.62 1 - 2 transformed Y = log a + b (logX) 6.08 132.72 1 - 2 log a (Y) = 1.93 6.43 147.86 1 - 2 b (slope) = 0.61 6.57 154.13 1 - 2 6.64 157.32 1 - 2 Regression values from Reitz and Quitmyer (1987). 6.69 159.61 1 - 2 6.83 166.12 1 - 2 6.94 172.76 1 - 2 7.04 176.12 1 - 2 7.05 176.60 1 - 2 7.65 206.76 1 - 2 7.72 210.43 1 - 2 7.78 213.59 1 - 2 8.02 226.49 1 - 2 8.10 230.87 1 - 2 9.05 285.98 2 - 3 9.16 292.72 2 - 3 9.56 317.90 2 - 3 10.53 383.08 2 - 3 n = 27 Mean Standard Length = 179.21 mm Image modified from Stock Assessment (2003d). Minimum Standard Length = 76.17 mm Length depictions following Reitz and Wing Maximum Standard Length = 383.08 mm (1999:366 Figure A3.3).

Figure A.7. Standard length estimates of seatrout – FS # 710.

150

Measurement Estimated Estimaged (mm) - Atlas Standard Length Age Width (mm) (years) 3.38 42.74 <1 3.73 51.69 <1 3.95 57.73 <1 4.03 60.01 <1 5.11 94.90 <1 5.57 112.07 <1 8.14 223.08 <1 13.73 639.30 5 - 6 Allometric formula: Y = aXb 19.50 1258.25 18 - 19 transformed Y = log a + b (logX) 20.81 1426.48 21 - 22 log a (Y) = 1.93 b (slope) = 0.61 n = 10 Mean Standard Length = 396.63 mm Regression values from Reitz and Quitmyer (1987). Minimum Standard Length = 42.74 mm Maximum Standard Length = 1426.48 mm

Image modified from Stock Assessment (2003a). Length depictions following Reitz and Wing (1999:366 Figure A3.3).

Figure A.8. Standard length estimates of black drum – FS # 710.

151

Measurement Estimated Estimaged (mm) - Atlas Standard Length Age Width (mm) (years) 5.55 111.30 <1 7.51 199.52 <1 8.29 241.44 <1 8.37 245.96 <1

n = 4 Mean Standard Length = 199.56 mm Minimum Standard Length = 111.30 mm Allometric formula: Y = aXb Maximum Standard Length = 245.96 mm transformed Y = log a + b (logX) log a (Y) = 1.93 b (slope) = 0.61

Regression values from Reitz and Quitmyer (1987).

Image modified from Stock Assessment (2003c). Length depictions following Reitz and Wing (1999:366 Figure A3.3).

Figure A.9. Standard length estimates of red drum – FS # 710.

152 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 Standard Length (mm) 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Atlas Width (mm)

Figure A.10. Distribution of marine catfish standard lengths – FS # 710.

1500 1400 1300

) 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400

Standard Length (mm Length Standard 300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Atlas Width (mm) black drum

Figure A.11. Distribution of seatrout standard lengths – FS # 710.

153

1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400

Standard Length (mm) 300 200 100 0 0123456789101112131415161718192021222324 Atlas Width (mm)

Figure A.12. Distribution of red drum standard lengths – FS # 710.

1500 1400 1300

) 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400

Standard Length (mm Length Standard 300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Atlas Width (mm)

Figure A.13. Distribution of black drum standard lengths – FS # 710.

154

Table A.13. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 710 (-90L10, Zone II, Level 2).

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of Worked/ % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Butchered Total Burned Total

Mammalia, Small Unidentifiable small mammals 3 0.04 -- -- 0.4 0.01 11.53 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mammalia, Medium Unidentifiable medium mammals 40 0.51 -- -- 17.7 0.58 349.28 1.18 0 0.00 6 0.46 Mammalia, Large Unidentifiable large mammals 52 0.66 -- -- 98.6 3.25 1,638.66 5.52 0 0.00 6 0.46 Mammalia, Indeterminate Size Unidentifiable mammals 73 0.93 -- -- 30.8 1.01 575.04 1.94 1 0.45 25 1.93 Sigmodon hipsidus Hispid cotton rat 2 0.03 1 0.41 0.2 0.01 6.18 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mustela vison Mink 2 0.03 1 0.41 0.9 0.03 23.92 0.08 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sylvilagus sp. Rabbit 6 0.08 3 1.22 5.1 0.17 113.98 0.38 0 0.00 3 0.23 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 7 0.09 1 0.41 6.9 0.23 149.61 0.50 0 0.00 4 0.31 Procyon lotor Raccoon 17 0.22 2 0.81 30.0 0.99 561.58 1.89 0 0.00 3 0.23 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 18 0.23 1 0.41 107.3 3.53 1,768.23 5.96 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Mammals 220 2.80 9 3.66 297.9 9.80 5,198.01 17.51 1 50.00 47 3.62

Aves Unidentifiable birds 33 0.42 -- -- 20.8 0.68 323.17 1.09 0 0.00 9 0.69 Ardea herodias Great blue heron 2 0.03 1 0.41 6.5 0.21 112.14 0.38 0 0.00 1 0.08 Gavia immer Common loon 3 0.04 3 1.22 2.2 0.07 41.84 0.14 0 0.00 1 0.08 Total Birds 38 0.48 4 1.63 29.5 0.97 477.15 1.61 0 0.00 11 0.85

Testudines Unidentifiable turtles 250 3.18 -- -- 132.6 4.36 835.80 2.82 0 0.00 37 2.85 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 13 0.17 1 0.41 23.6 0.78 262.94 0.89 0 0.00 2 0.15 Macroclemys temmincki Alligator snapping turtle 1 0.01 1 0.41 0.3 0.01 14.11 0.05 0 0.00 1 0.08 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 37 0.47 1 0.41 17.9 0.59 218.48 0.74 0 0.00 3 0.23 Chysemys sp. Cooter or pond slider 1 0.01 1 0.41 5.9 0.19 103.87 0.35 0 0.00 0 0.00 Deirochelys reticularia Chicken turtle 7 0.09 1 0.41 3.9 0.13 78.71 0.27 0 0.00 1 0.08 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 5 0.06 1 0.41 6.6 0.22 111.97 0.38 0 0.00 0 0.00 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 7 0.09 1 0.41 5.9 0.19 103.87 0.35 0 0.00 1 0.08 Chelonidae Sea turtles 2 0.03 2 0.81 8.9 0.29 136.80 0.46 0 0.00 0 0.00 Alligator mississippiensis American alligator 21 0.27 1 0.41 18.1 0.60 228.74 0.77 0 0.00 3 0.23 Serpentes Unidentifiable snakes 32 0.41 1 0.41 8.0 0.26 112.75 0.38 0 0.00 2 0.15 Total Reptiles 376 4.78 11 4.47 231.7 7.63 2,208.03 7.44 0 0.00 50 3.86

Osteichthyes Unidentifiable bony fishes 3,276 41.66 -- -- 953.2 31.37 7,640.80 25.74 0 0.00 379 29.22 Lepisosteus spp. Gars 185 2.35 2 0.81 40.3 1.33 560.00 1.89 0 0.00 71 5.47 Amia calva Bowfin 11 0.14 1 0.41 1.2 0.04 34.88 0.12 0 0.00 3 0.23 Elops saurus Ladyfish 1 0.01 1 0.41 0.1 0.00 4.90 0.02 0 0.00 1 0.08 Siluriformes Marine and freshwater catfishes 53 0.67 11 4.47 12.2 0.40 214.80 0.72 0 0.00 11 0.85 Ictaluridae North American catfishes 1 0.01 1 0.41 0.3 0.01 6.36 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ariidae Sea catfishes 23 0.29 5 2.03 6.3 0.21 114.65 0.39 0 0.00 0 0.00

155

Table A.13, continued.

Minimum % o f % o f % o f Me at We ight % o f Worked/ % o f % o f Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP To t a l MNI To t a l Weight (g) To t a l Estimate (g) To t a l Butchered To t a l Burned To t a l Ariopsis felis Hardhead catfishes 72 0.92 6 2.44 14.7 0.48 256.42 0.86 0 0.00 5 0.39 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfishes 11 0.14 1 0.41 1.9 0.06 36.71 0.12 0 0.00 1 0.08 Opsanus sp. Toadfishes 512 6.51 39 15.85 48.8 1.61 688.05 2.32 0 0.00 28 2.16 Mugil sp. Mullet 791 10.06 65 26.42 111.9 3.68 1,347.57 4.54 0 0.00 78 6.01 Centropomus sp. Snook 2 0.03 1 0.41 0.1 0.00 4.90 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 15 0.19 4 1.63 2.0 0.07 48.96 0.16 0 0.00 1 0.08 Caranx sp. Jacks 115 1.46 10 4.07 186.7 6.14 3,877.99 13.07 0 0.00 19 1.46 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 133 1.69 9 3.66 58.5 1.93 669.55 2.26 0 0.00 14 1.08 Sparidae/Sciaenidae Porgies, drums, and croakers 253 3.22 -- -- 96.3 3.17 1,220.14 4.11 0 0.00 93 7.17 Sciaenidae Drums and croakers 102 1.30 47 19.11 20.6 0.68 364.97 1.23 0 0.00 5 0.39 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 221 2.81 28 11.38 45.8 1.51 659.24 2.22 0 0.00 38 2.93 Micropogonias sp. Atlantic croaker 3 0.04 2 0.81 0.2 0.01 11.82 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pogonias cromis Black drum 99 1.26 10 4.07 172.9 5.69 1,761.85 5.94 0 0.00 8 0.62 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 47 0.60 8 3.25 21.0 0.69 370.20 1.25 0 0.00 6 0.46 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 16 0.20 2 0.81 11.7 0.39 212.13 0.71 0 0.00 3 0.23 Scombridae Mackerels 6 0.08 3 1.22 0.3 0.01 10.14 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Paralichthyes sp. Sand flounders 177 2.25 4 1.63 32.9 1.08 589.26 1.99 0 0.00 22 1.70 Acanthostracion quadricornis Scrawled cowfish 3 0.04 1 0.41 0.2 0.01 8.47 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Tetraodontidae Puffers 13 0.17 1 0.41 0.8 0.03 25.32 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 Diodontidae Porcupinefishes 35 0.45 13 5.28 48.6 1.60 649.30 2.19 0 0.00 3 0.23 Chilomycterus schoepfi Striped burrfish 3 0.04 1 0.41 0.5 0.02 17.47 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Bony fishes 6,179 78.57 216 87.80 1,890.0 62.21 21,406.85 72.12 0 0.00 789 60.83

Lamniformes Sharks 38 0.48 1 0.41 1.5 0.05 178.42 0.60 0 0.00 3 0.23 Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks 13 0.17 1 0.41 1.0 0.03 125.89 0.42 0 0.00 1 0.08 Rajiformes Rays and skates 6 0.08 5 2.03 0.5 0.02 69.36 0.23 0 0.00 3 0.23 Rhinopteridae Cownose rays 1 0.01 1 0.41 0.1 0.00 17.38 0.06 1 1.72 1 0.08 Total Cartilaginous Fishes 58 0.74 6 2.44 3.1 0.10 391.05 1.32 1 50.00 8 0.62

Unidentified Vertebrata 993 12.63 -- -- 586.1 19.29 -- -- 0 0.00 392 30.22

Total Sample 7,864 100.00 246 100.00 3,038.3 100.00 29,681.09 100.00 2 100.00 1,297 100.00

156

Table A.14. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 729 (-100L10, Zone II, Level 2).

Minimum % o f % o f Weight % o f Me at We ight % o f Worked/ % o f % o f Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP To t a l MNI To t a l (g) To t a l Estimate (g) To t a l Butchered To t a l Burned To t a l

Mammalia, Small Unidentifiable small mammals 7 0.48 -- -- 3.3 0.31 77.03 0.65 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mammalia, Medium Unidentifiable medium mammals 4 0.28 -- -- 1.6 0.15 40.15 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mammalia, Large Unidentifiable large mammals 19 1.31 -- -- 33.2 3.13 615.21 5.15 0 0.00 6 3.03 Mammalia, Indeterminate Size Unidentifiable mammals 3 0.21 -- -- 6.2 0.59 135.88 1.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sigmodon hipsidus Hispid cotton rat 1 0.07 1 1.49 0.4 0.04 11.53 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sylvilagus sp. Rabbit 5 0.34 1 1.49 3.2 0.30 74.93 0.63 0 0.00 1 0.51 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 2 0.14 1 1.49 1.9 0.18 46.87 0.39 0 0.00 1 0.51 Procyon lotor Raccoon 4 0.28 2 2.99 3.2 0.30 74.93 0.63 0 0.00 1 0.51 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 11 0.76 1 1.49 17.7 1.67 349.28 2.93 0 0.00 3 1.52 Total Mammals 56 3.86 6 8.96 70.7 6.67 1,425.81 11.94 0 0.00 12 6.06

Aves Unidentifiable birds 9 0.62 1 1.49 3.2 0.30 58.84 0.49 0 0.00 1 0.51 Total Birds 9 0.62 1 1.49 3.2 0.30 58.84 0.49 0 0.00 1 0.51

Testudines Unidentifiable turtles 62 4.28 -- -- 31.0 2.93 315.65 2.64 0 0.00 9 4.55 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 10 0.69 1 1.49 10.7 1.01 154.77 1.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 21 1.45 2 2.99 11.5 1.09 162.43 1.36 0 0.00 1 0.51 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 6 0.41 1 1.49 2.8 0.26 63.04 0.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 Alligator mississippiensis American alligator 2 0.14 1 1.49 4.3 0.41 63.65 0.53 0 0.00 1 0.51 Serpentes Unidentified snakes 8 0.55 -- -- 1.9 0.18 26.40 0.22 0 0.00 1 0.51 Crotalus adamanteus Eastern diamondback rattlesnake 2 0.14 1 1.49 1.7 0.16 23.59 0.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Reptiles 111 7.66 6 8.96 63.9 6.03 809.53 6.78 0 0.00 12 6.06

Osteichthyes Unidentifiable bony fishes 684 47.17 -- -- 665.2 62.80 5,709.41 47.83 0 0.00 106 53.54 Lepisosteus spp. Gars 11 0.76 1 1.49 3.7 0.35 84.89 0.71 0 0.00 4 2.02 Elops saurus Ladyfish 1 0.07 1 1.49 0.1 0.01 4.90 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Siluriformes Marine and freshwater catfishes 1 0.07 -- -- 0.4 0.04 8.36 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.51 Ariidae Sea catfishes 40 2.76 8 11.94 12.3 1.16 216.48 1.81 0 0.00 4 2.02 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfishes 2 0.14 1 1.49 0.2 0.02 4.32 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Opsanus sp. Toadfishes 7 0.48 2 2.99 1.7 0.16 42.83 0.36 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mugil sp. Mullet 136 9.38 3 4.48 21.6 2.04 343.49 2.88 0 0.00 4 2.02 Caranx sp. Jacks 19 1.31 3 4.48 39.1 3.69 979.75 8.21 0 0.00 1 0.51 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 28 1.93 5 7.46 18.6 1.76 233.32 1.95 0 0.00 2 1.01 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 37 2.55 4 5.97 9.9 0.93 212.21 1.78 0 0.00 2 1.01 Pogonias cromis Black drum 135 9.31 2 2.99 41.8 3.95 616.13 5.16 0 0.00 23 11.62 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 6 0.41 2 2.99 4.1 0.39 110.52 0.93 0 0.00 0 0.00

157

Table A.14, continued.

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight % of Worked/ % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total Estimate (g) Total Butchered Total Burned Total Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 1 0.07 1 1.49 2.2 0.21 52.99 0.44 0 0.00 0 0.00 Paralichthyes sp. Sand flounders 36 2.48 2 2.99 9.8 0.93 200.54 1.68 0 0.00 1 0.51 Diodontidae Porcupinefishes 48 3.31 19 28.36 51.1 4.82 675.54 5.66 0 0.00 1 0.51 Total Bony Fishes 1,192 82.21 53 80.60 881.8 83.24 9,495.69 79.55 0 0.00 149 75.25

Rajiformes Rays and skates 2 0.14 1 1.49 1.2 0.11 147.26 1.23 1 33.33 0 0.00 Total Cartilaginous Fishes 2 0.14 1 1.49 1.2 0.11 147.26 1.23 1 33.33 0 0.00

Unidentified Vertebrata 80 5.52 -- -- 38.5 3.63 -- -- 2 66.67 24 12.12

Total Sample 1,450 100.00 67 100.00 1,059.3 100.00 11,937.13 100.00 3 100.00 198 100.00

158

Table A.15. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 753 (-100l10, Zone II, Level 2a).

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of Worked/ % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Butchered Total Burned Total

Mammalia, Indeterminate Size Unidentifiable mammal 4 1.06 1 4.35 8.6 4.99 182.41 7.20 0 0.00 3 3.57 Total Mammals 4 1.06 1 4.35 8.6 4.99 182.41 7.20 0 0.00 3 3.57

Aves Unidentifiable birds 7 1.86 1 4.35 7.2 4.17 123.08 4.85 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Birds 7 1.86 1 4.35 7.2 4.17 123.08 4.85 0 0.00 0 0.00

Testudines Unidentifiable turtles 8 2.13 -- -- 4.1 2.38 81.39 3.21 0 0.00 2 2.38 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 1 0.27 1 4.35 0.3 0.17 14.11 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Reptiles 9 2.39 1 4.35 4.4 2.55 95.50 3.77 0 0.00 2 2.38

Osteichthyes Unidentifiable bony fishes 99 26.33 -- -- 53.6 31.07 742.38 29.28 0 0.00 30 35.71 Lepisosteus spp. Gars 2 0.53 1 4.35 0.4 0.23 14.64 0.58 0 0.00 1 1.19 Elops saurus Ladyfish 2 0.53 1 4.35 0.3 0.17 11.67 0.46 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ariidae Sea catfishes 7 1.86 2 8.70 3.7 2.14 69.15 41.19 0 0.00 1 1.19 Opsanus sp. Toadfishes 3 0.80 1 4.35 0.6 0.35 19.74 0.78 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mugil sp. Mullet 11 2.93 2 8.70 2.2 1.28 56.54 2.23 0 0.00 3 3.57 Caranx sp. Jacks 3 0.80 1 4.35 16.9 9.80 468.32 18.47 0 0.00 0 0.00 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 6 1.60 1 4.35 2.0 1.16 29.99 1.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 1 0.27 1 4.35 3.2 1.86 75.71 2.99 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciaenidae 4 1.06 2 8.70 1.1 0.64 41.75 1.65 0 0.00 2 2.38 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 5 1.33 2 8.70 1.1 0.64 41.75 1.65 0 0.00 2 2.38 Pogonias cromis Black drum 9 2.39 1 4.35 12.0 6.96 244.68 9.65 0 0.00 4 4.76 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 1 0.27 1 4.35 0.7 0.41 29.88 1.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 Paralichthyes sp. Sand flounders 3 0.80 1 4.35 0.5 0.29 14.19 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 Diodontidae Porcupinefishes 8 2.13 4 17.39 13.0 7.54 229.09 9.04 0 0.00 2 2.38 Total Bony Fishes 164 43.62 19 82.61 111.3 64.52 2,089.47 82.42 0 0.00 45 53.57

Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks 1 0.27 1 4.35 0.3 0.17 44.70 1.76 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Cartiliaginous Fishes 1 0.27 1 4.35 0.3 0.17 44.70 1.76 0 0.00 0 0.00

Unidentified Vertebrata 191 50.80 -- -- 40.7 23.59 -- -- 0 0.00 34 40.48

Total Sample 376 100.00 23 100.00 172.5 100.00 2535.16 100.00 0 0.00 84 100.00

159

Table A.16. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 541 (-60L10, Zone II, Level 3).

Mi nimum % o f % o f Weight % o f Me at We i ght % o f Worked/ % o f % o f Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP To t a l MNI To t a l (g) To t a l Estimate (g) To t a l Butchered To t a l Burned To t a l

Mammalia, Small Unidentifiable small mammals 1 0.05 -- -- 0.3 0.04 8.90 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mammalia, Medium Unidentifiable medium mammals 8 0.37 -- -- 4.3 0.56 97.75 1.02 0 0.00 1 0.05 Mammalia, Large Unidentifiable large mammals 10 0.47 -- -- 7.3 0.95 157.39 1.64 0 0.00 1 0.05 Sigmodon hipsidus Hispid cotton rat 1 0.05 1 1.69 0.2 0.03 6.18 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sylvilagus sp. Rabbit 4 0.19 1 1.69 1.5 0.20 37.89 0.40 0 0.00 1 0.05 Procyon lotor Raccoon 2 0.09 1 1.69 0.8 0.10 21.52 0.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 15 0.70 1 1.69 44.5 5.82 800.80 8.35 0 0.00 2 0.09 Total Mammals 41 1.91 4 6.78 58.9 7.70 1,130.43 11.79 0 0.00 5 0.23

Aves Unidentifiable birds 6 0.28 -- -- 1.9 0.25 36.62 0.38 0 0.00 1 0.05 Melagris gallopavo Turkey 1 0.05 1 1.69 0.5 0.07 10.87 0.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Birds 7 0.33 1 1.69 2.4 0.31 47.48 0.50 0 0.00 1 0.05

Testudines Unidentifiable turtles 49 2.52 -- -- 28.1 3.67 295.55 3.08 0 0.00 4 0.19 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 3 0.14 1 1.69 2.9 0.38 64.54 0.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 Serpentes Unidentifiable snakes 2 0.09 1 1.69 0.4 0.05 5.47 0.06 0 0.00 1 0.05 Total Reptiles 54 2.52 2 3.39 31.4 4.10 365.56 3.81 0 0.00 5 0.23

Osteichthyes Unidentifiable bony fishes 1,536 71.58 -- -- 462.1 60.39 4,250.46 44.32 0 0.00 188 8.76 Lepisosteus spp. Gars 42 1.96 2 3.39 12 1.57 215.06 2.24 0 0.00 6 0.28 Elops saurus Ladyfish 11 0.51 1 1.69 0.8 0.10 25.32 0.26 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clupeidae Herrings 2 0.09 1 1.69 0.1 0.01 4.90 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ariidae Sea catfishes 40 1.86 3 5.08 10.9 1.42 193.00 2.01 0 0.00 4 0.19 Ariopsis felis Hardhead catfishes 2 0.09 1 1.69 1.7 0.22 33.03 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfishes 4 0.19 1 1.69 0.5 0.07 10.33 0.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 Opsanus sp. Toadfishes 30 1.40 8 13.56 6.1 0.80 127.68 1.33 0 0.00 2 0.09 Mugil sp. Mullet 117 5.45 6 10.17 19.6 2.56 328.65 3.43 0 0.00 3 0.14 Prionotus sp. Sea robin 1 0.05 1 1.69 0.4 0.05 14.64 0.15 0 0.00 0 0.00 Caranx sp. Jacks 55 2.56 5 8.47 49.9 6.52 1,214.31 12.66 0 0.00 2 0.09 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 56 2.61 5 8.47 37 4.84 439.28 4.58 0 0.00 1 0.05 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 18 0.84 2 3.39 4.7 0.61 122.28 1.27 1 100.00 1 0.05 Pogonias cromis Black drum 59 2.75 3 5.08 23.3 3.04 399.80 4.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 5 0.23 2 3.39 1.9 0.25 62.56 0.65 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 1 0.05 1 1.69 1.5 0.20 38.56 0.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 Paralichthyes sp. Sand flounders 15 0.70 1 1.69 3 0.39 69.93 0.73 0 0.00 0 0.00

160

Table A.16, continued.

Minimum Meat % of % of Weight % of Weight Estimate Worked/ % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total (g) Total (g) % of Total Butchered Total Burned Total Sphoeroides dorsalis Marbled puffer 1 0.05 1 1.69 0.2 0.03 8.47 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 Diodontidae Porcupinefishes 16 0.75 8 13.56 16.5 2.16 276.57 2.88 0 0.00 2 0.09 Total Bony Fishes 2,011 93.71 50 84.75 652.2 85.23 7,834.82 81.69 1 100.00 209 9.74

Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks 1 0.05 1 1.69 0.3 0.04 44.70 0.47 0 0.00 1 0.05 Rajiformes Rays and skates 4 0.19 1 1.69 1.4 0.18 168.14 1.75 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Cartiliaginous Fishes 5 0.23 2 3.39 1.7 0.22 212.84 2.22 0 0.00 1 0.05

Unidentified Vertebrata 28 1.30 -- -- 18.6 2.43 -- -- 0 0.00 6 0.28

Total Sample 2,146 100.00 59 100.00 765.2 100.00 9,591.13 100.00 1 100.00 227 100.00

161

Table A.17. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 759 (-100L10, Zone III, Level 1).

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of Worked/ % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Butchered Total Burned Total

Mammalia, Indeterminate Size Unidentifiable mammals 1 0.45 -- -- 9.6 4.83 201.39 7.40 0 0.00 1 2.56 Mammalia, Small Unidentifiable medium mammals 1 0.45 -- -- 0.8 0.40 21.52 0.79 0 0.00 0 0.00 Didelphis virginianus Eastern oppossum 1 0.45 1 6.25 0.5 0.25 14.10 0.52 0 0.00 0 0.00 Procyon lotor Raccoon 1 0.45 1 6.25 7.4 3.72 159.33 5.85 1 100.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 1 0.45 1 6.25 2.9 1.46 68.57 2.52 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Mammals 5 2.23 3 18.75 21.2 10.66 464.91 17.08 1 100.00 1 2.56

Aves Unidentifiable birds 7 3.13 1 6.25 4.6 2.31 81.87 3.01 0 0.00 1 2.56 Total Birds 7 3.13 1 6.25 4.6 2.31 81.87 3.01 0 0.00 1 2.56

Testudines Unidentifiable turtles 5 2.23 2 12.50 2.2 1.11 53.63 1.97 0 0.00 2 5.13 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 1 0.45 1 6.25 45.0 22.64 405.18 14.88 0 0.00 0 0.00 Deirochelys reticularia Sea turtle 1 0.45 1 6.25 0.8 0.40 27.23 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Alligator mississippiensis American alligator 2 0.89 1 6.25 6.0 3.02 85.62 3.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Reptiles 9 4.02 3 18.75 54.0 27.16 571.66 21.00 0 0.00 2 5.13

Osteichthyes Unidentifiable bony fishes 95 42.41 -- -- 58.5 29.43 796.89 29.27 0 0.00 12 30.77 Elops saurus Ladyfish 1 0.45 1 6.25 0.1 0.05 4.90 0.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ariidae Sea catfishes 7 3.13 1 6.25 2.3 1.16 44.02 1.62 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 2 0.89 1 6.25 0.2 0.10 4.32 0.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 Centropomus sp. Snook 1 0.45 1 6.25 3.6 1.81 83.08 3.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sparidae/Scianidae Drums/Porgies 18 8.04 -- -- 3.7 1.86 81.58 3.00 0 0.00 6 15.38 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 11 4.91 2 12.50 13.5 6.79 173.74 6.38 0 0.00 2 5.13 Sciaenidae Drums and Croakers 4 1.79 3 18.75 2.5 1.26 76.64 2.82 0 0.00 1 2.56 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 3 1.34 1 6.25 0.6 0.30 26.66 0.98 0 0.00 2 5.13 Pogonias cromis Black drum 3 1.34 2 12.50 6.1 3.07 148.30 5.45 0 0.00 2 5.13 Diodontidae Porcupinefishes 8 3.57 1 6.25 8.5 4.28 163.77 6.02 0 0.00 4 10.26 Total Bony Fishes 153 68.30 9 56.25 99.6 50.10 1,603.91 58.92 0 0.00 29 74.36

Unidentified Vertebrata 50 22.32 -- -- 19.4 9.76 -- -- 0 0.00 6 15.38

Total Sample 224 100.00 16 100.00 198.8 100.00 2,722.35 100.00 1 100.00 39 100.00

162

Table A.18. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 793 (-40R110, Level 1).

Minimum Meat % of % of Weight % of Weight Estimate % of Worked/ % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total (g) Total (g) Total Butchered Total Burned Total

Mammalia, Large Unidentifiable large mammals 10 3.18 -- -- 24.9 4.91 474.88 7.43 0 0.00 2 11.76 Mammalia, Medium Unidentifiable medium mammals 8 2.55 -- -- 8.5 1.68 180.50 2.82 0 0.00 3 17.65 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 2 0.64 1 4.17 3.8 0.75 87.46 1.37 0 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 15 4.78 1 4.17 57.8 11.39 1,013.29 15.85 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sylvilagus sp. Rabbit 2 0.64 1 4.17 2.7 0.53 64.30 1.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Mammals 37 11.78 3 12.50 97.7 19.26 1,820.43 28.47 0 0.00 5 29.41

Aves Unidentifiable birds 2 0.64 1 4.17 1.3 0.26 25.92 0.41 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Birds 2 0.64 1 4.17 1.3 0.26 25.92 0.41 0 0.00 0 0.00

Testudines Unidentifiable turtles 49 15.61 -- -- 64.5 12.71 515.71 8.06 0 0.00 1 5.88 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 2 0.64 1 4.17 2.1 0.41 51.99 0.81 0 0.00 0 0.00 Macroclemys temmincki Alligator snapping turtle 2 27.50 1 4.17 27.5 5.42 291.31 4.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 11 8.40 1 4.17 8.4 1.66 131.60 2.06 0 0.00 3 17.65 Total Reptiles 64 20.38 3 12.50 102.5 20.21 990.61 15.49 0 0.00 4 23.53

Osteichthyes Unidentifiable bony fishes 115 36.62 -- -- 175.7 34.63 1,942.07 30.37 0 0.00 7 41.18 Mugil sp. Mullet 3 0.96 1 4.17 1 0.20 29.51 0.46 0 0.00 0 0.00 Caranx sp. Jacks 5 1.59 1 4.17 4.1 0.81 134.66 2.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 4 1.27 1 4.17 3.8 0.75 54.13 0.85 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciaenidae Drums and Croakers 7 9.50 2 8.33 9.5 1.87 205.83 3.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 1 0.32 1 4.17 0.9 0.18 35.99 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 1 0.32 1 4.17 0.3 0.06 15.96 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pogonias cromis Black drum 18 5.73 2 8.33 47.9 9.44 681.47 10.66 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 2 0.64 2 8.33 1.1 0.22 41.75 0.65 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 3 0.96 3 12.50 3.7 0.73 81.58 1.28 0 0.00 0 0.00 Diodontidae Porcupinefishes 10 3.18 5 20.83 21 4.14 334.62 5.23 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Bony Fishes 169 53.82 17 70.83 269.0 53.03 3,557.58 55.63 0 0.00 7 41.18

Unidentified Vertebrata 42 13.38 -- -- 36.8 7.25 -- -- 0 0.00 1 5.88

Total Sample 314 100.00 24 100.00 507.3 100.00 6,394.54 100.00 0 0.00 17 100.00

163

Table A.19. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 801 (-40R110, Level 2).

Mammalia, Large Unidentifiable large mammals 9 1.70 -- -- 18.7 2.70 366.99 4.12 0 0.00 1 6.25 Didelphis virginana Eastern opposum 2 0.38 1 2.86 3.4 0.49 79.13 0.89 0 0.00 1 6.25 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 17 3.21 2 5.71 57.3 8.29 1,005.40 11.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Mammals 28 5.29 3 8.57 79.4 11.48 1,451.52 16.31 0 0.00 2 12.50

Aves Unidentifiable birds 4 0.76 1 2.86 2.3 0.33 43.57 0.49 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Birds 4 0.76 1 2.86 2.3 0.33 43.57 0.49 0 0.00 0 0.00

Testudines Unidentifiable turtles 67 12.67 -- -- 82.2 11.89 606.69 6.82 0 0.00 2 12.50 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 9 1.70 2 5.71 6.7 0.97 113.10 1.27 0 0.00 0 0.00 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 1 0.19 1 2.86 0.8 0.12 27.23 0.31 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cheloniidae Sea turtles 17 3.21 1 2.86 51.1 7.39 441.21 4.96 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Reptiles 94 17.77 4 11.43 140.8 20.36 1,188.23 13.35 0 0.00 2 12.50

Osteichthyes Unidentifiable bony fishes 221 41.78 -- -- 224.2 32.42 2,366.00 26.59 0 0.00 5 31.25 Lepisosteus spp. Gars 1 0.19 1 2.86 2 0.29 52.22 0.59 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ariidae Sea catfishes 1 0.19 1 2.86 0.6 0.09 12.28 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mugil sp. Mullet 3 0.57 1 2.86 0.9 0.13 13.44 0.15 0 0.00 0 0.00 Prionotus sp. Sea robin 1 0.19 1 2.86 1.8 0.26 48.05 0.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 Caranx sp. Jacks 46 8.70 6 17.14 98.5 14.24 2,209.14 24.82 0 0.00 1 6.25 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 15 2.84 3 8.57 12.3 1.78 159.48 1.79 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 4 0.76 1 2.86 2.3 0.33 72.06 0.81 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pogonias cromis Black drum 15 2.84 3 8.57 42.7 6.17 625.92 7.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 7 1.32 3 8.57 12.3 1.78 249.19 2.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 2 0.38 2 5.71 3.3 0.48 77.62 0.87 0 0.00 0 0.00 Paralichthyes sp. Sand flounders 6 1.13 1 2.86 3.2 0.46 74.06 0.83 0 0.00 0 0.00 Diodontidae Porcupinefishes 6 1.13 4 11.43 15 2.17 256.51 2.88 0 0.00 3 18.75 Total Bony Fishes 328 62.00 27 77.14 419.1 60.60 6,215.97 69.85 0 0.00 9 56.25

Unidentified Vertebrata 75 14.18 -- -- 50.0 7.23 -- -- 0 0.00 3 18.75

Total Sample 529 100.00 35 100.00 691.6 100.00 8,899.29 100.00 0 0.00 16 100.00

164

Table A.20. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 815 (-40R110, Level 3).

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Worked Total Burned Total

Mammalia, Medium Unidentifiable medium mammals 3 0.47 1 3.45 4.0 0.90 91.59 1.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mammalia, Large Unidentifiable large mammals 11 1.71 -- -- 24.7 5.54 471.44 7.91 0 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 3 0.47 1 3.45 8.4 1.88 178.59 3.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Mammals 17 2.65 2 6.90 37.1 8.32 741.62 12.44 0 0.00 0 0.00

Aves Unidentifiable birds 6 0.93 1 3.45 6.5 1.46 112.14 1.88 0 0.00 1 1.05 Total Birds 6 0.93 1 3.45 6.5 1.46 112.14 1.88 0 0.00 1 1.05

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator 1 0.16 1 3.45 1.4 0.31 23.45 0.39 0 0.00 0 0.00 Serpentes Unidentifiable snakes 2 0.31 1 3.45 1.4 0.31 19.39 0.33 0 0.00 1 1.05 Total Reptiles 3 0.47 2 6.90 2.8 0.63 42.84 0.72 0 0.00 1 1.05 3 Osteichthyes Unidentifiable bony fishes 192 29.91 -- -- 127.2 28.51 1,494.98 25.08 0 0.00 38 40.00 Ariidae Sea catfishes 4 0.62 1 3.45 2.8 0.63 53.06 0.89 0 0.00 1 1.05 Mugil sp. Mullet 21 3.27 4 13.79 4.3 0.96 96.19 1.61 0 0.00 0 0.00 Priontus sp. Searobins 1 0.16 1 3.45 1.1 0.25 32.56 0.55 0 0.00 1 1.05 Caranx sp. Jacks 1 0.16 1 3.45 1.2 0.27 45.68 0.77 0 0.00 0 0.00 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 6 0.93 2 6.90 3.2 0.72 46.21 0.78 0 0.00 1 1.05 Sparidae/Sciaenidae Drums/porgies 174 27.10 -- -- 191.4 42.91 2,157.80 36.19 0 0.00 28 29.47 Sciaenidae Sciaenids 4 0.62 2 6.90 2.4 0.54 74.36 1.25 0 0.00 1 1.05 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 9 1.40 1 3.45 4.6 1.03 120.35 2.02 0 0.00 2 2.11 Pogonias cromis Black drum 15 2.34 1 3.45 25.0 5.60 421.19 7.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 1 0.16 1 3.45 0.4 0.09 19.75 0.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 1 0.16 1 3.45 1.1 0.25 29.81 0.50 0 0.00 1 1.05 Paralichthyes sp. Sand flounders 8 1.25 1 3.45 3.3 0.74 76.12 1.28 0 0.00 2 2.11 Diodontidae Porcupinefishes 18 2.80 9 31.03 23.5 5.27 365.72 6.13 0 0.00 2 2.11 Total Bony Fishes 455 70.87 23 79.31 391.5 87.76 5,033.76 84.43 0 0.00 77 81.05

165

Table A.20, continued.

Minimum % o f % o f Weight % o f Me at We i ght % o f % o f % o f Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP To t a l MNI To t a l (g) To t a l Estimate (g) To t a l Worked To t a l Burned To t a l Rajiformes Rays and skates 1 0.16 1 3.45 0.2 0.04 31.54 0.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Cartilaginous Fishes 1 0.16 1 3.45 0.2 0.04 31.54 0.53 0 0.00 0 0.00

Unidentified Vertebrata 160 24.92 -- -- 8.0 1.79 -- -- 0 0.00 16 16.84

Total Sample 642 100.00 29 100.00 446.1 100.00 5,961.90 100.00 0 0.00 95 100.00

166

Table A.21. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 824 (-40R110, Level 4).

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of Worked/ % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Butchered Total Burned Total

Mammalia Unidentifiable mammals 2 1.96 -- -- 2.0 2.22 49.08 2.64 0 2.64 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 1 0.98 1 5.56 1.5 1.66 37.89 2.03 0 2.03 0 0.00 Sylvilagus sp. Rabbit 2 1.96 1 5.56 2.7 2.99 64.30 3.45 0 3.45 0 0.00 Total Mammals 5 4.90 2 11.11 6.2 6.87 151.27 8.12 0 8.12 0 0.00

Aves Unidentifiable birds 2 1.96 1 5.56 1.4 1.55 27.73 1.49 0 1.49 0 0.00 Total Birds 2 1.96 1 5.56 1.4 1.55 27.73 1.49 0 1.49 0 0.00

Testudines Unidentifiable turtles 3 2.94 1 5.56 1.5 1.66 41.49 2.23 0 2.23 0 0.00 Total Reptiles 3 2.94 1 5.56 1.5 1.66 41.49 2.23 0 2.23 0 0.00

Osteichthyes Unidentifiable bony fishes 20 19.61 -- -- 13.7 15.19 245.89 13.20 0 13.20 0 0.00 Lepisosteus spp. Gars 1 0.98 1 5.56 0.6 0.67 20.17 1.08 0 1.08 0 0.00 Amia calva Bowfin 1 0.98 1 5.56 0.2 0.22 8.47 0.45 0 0.45 0 0.00 Ariidae Sea catfishes 1 0.98 1 5.56 0.9 1.00 18.05 0.97 0 0.97 0 0.00 Opsanus sp. Toadfishes 3 2.94 2 11.11 0.7 0.78 22.11 1.19 0 1.19 0 0.00 Mugil sp. Mullet 10 9.80 1 5.56 1.7 1.88 45.36 2.44 0 2.44 0 0.00 Caranx sp. Jacks 22 21.57 2 11.11 31.2 34.59 803.26 43.14 0 43.14 0 0.00 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 3 2.94 1 5.56 2.6 2.88 38.17 2.05 0 2.05 0 0.00 Sciaenidae Sciaenids 1 0.98 1 5.56 0.8 0.89 32.98 1.77 0 1.77 0 0.00 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 1 0.98 1 5.56 0.9 1.00 35.99 1.93 0 1.93 0 0.00 Pogonias cromis Black drum 4 3.92 2 11.11 11.8 13.08 241.65 12.98 0 12.98 0 0.00 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 1 0.98 1 5.56 1.7 1.88 57.61 3.09 0 3.09 0 0.00 Diodontidae Porcupinefishes 2 1.96 1 5.56 3.0 3.33 71.93 3.86 0 3.86 0 0.00 Total Bony Fishes 70 68.63 14 77.78 69.8 77.38 1,641.65 88.16 0 0.00 0 0.00

Unidentified Vertebrata 22 21.57 -- -- 11.3 12.53 -- -- 0 0.00 2 100.00

Total Sample 102 100.00 18 100.00 90.20 100.00 1,862.15 100.00 0 100.00 2 100.00

167

Table A.22. Zooarchaeological data from FS # 391 (Feature #1).

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of Worked/ % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Butchered Total Burned Total

Sylvilagus sp. Rabbits 6 0.28 1 2.56 5.1 0.78 113.98 1.42 0 0.00 0 0.00 Didelphis virginiana Eastern Opossum 1 0.05 1 2.56 0.5 0.08 14.10 0.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 Procyon lotor Raccoon 1 0.05 1 2.56 1.4 0.21 35.61 0.44 0 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 10 0.47 1 2.56 19.4 2.97 379.33 4.71 0 0.00 4 3.17 Total Mammals 18 0.84 4 10.26 26.4 4.03 543.01 6.74 0 0.00 4 3.17

Aves Unidentified birds 12 0.56 1 2.56 6.7 1.02 115.27 1.43 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Birds 12 0.56 1 2.56 6.7 1.02 115.27 1.43 0 0.00 0 0.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 28 1.31 -- -- 9.3 1.42 140.89 1.75 0 0.00 3 2.38 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 6 0.28 2 5.13 2.7 0.41 61.52 0.76 0 0.00 0 0.00 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 3 0.14 1 2.56 4.3 0.66 84.03 1.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Serpentes Unidentified snakes 2 0.09 1 2.56 0.4 0.06 5.47 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Reptiles 39 1.83 4 10.26 16.7 2.55 291.91 3.62 0 0.00 3 2.38

Osteichthyes Unidentified bony fishes 1,643 77.03 -- -- 417.3 63.78 3,913.48 48.59 0 0.00 97 76.98 Lepisosteus spp. Gars 17 0.80 1 2.56 7.3 1.12 145.22 1.80 0 0.00 1 0.79 Elops saurus Ladyfish 3 0.14 1 2.56 0.3 0.05 11.67 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ariidae Sea catfishes 20 0.94 2 5.13 4.8 0.73 88.55 1.10 0 0.00 3 2.38 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 12 0.56 4 10.26 1.3 0.20 36.50 0.45 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mugil sp. Mullet 122 5.72 8 20.51 20.2 3.09 336.77 4.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 Caranx sp. Jacks 46 2.16 2 5.13 57.3 8.76 1,371.44 17.03 0 0.00 1 0.79 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 42 1.97 3 7.69 6.9 1.05 93.70 1.16 0 0.00 6 4.76 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 21 0.98 1 2.56 4.4 0.67 116.45 1.45 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pogonias cromis Black drum 58 2.72 2 5.13 41.9 6.40 617.22 7.66 0 0.00 3 2.38 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 5 0.23 2 5.13 1.3 0.20 47.24 0.59 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 1 0.05 1 2.56 4.8 0.73 101.26 1.26 0 0.00 0 0.00 Paralichthyes sp. Sand flounders 20 0.94 1 2.56 6.5 0.99 139.15 1.73 0 0.00 1 0.79 Diodontidae Porcupinefishes 4 0.19 2 5.13 3.7 0.57 84.89 1.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Bony Fishes 2,014 94.42 30 76.92 578.0 88.34 7,103.54 88.20 0 0.00 112 88.89

Unidentified Vertebrata 50 2.34 -- -- 26.5 4.05 -- -- 0 0.00 7 5.56

Total Sample 2,133 100.00 39 100.00 654.3 100.00 8,053.74 100.00 0 0.00 126 100.00

168

APPENDIX B:

ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA FROM

SNOW BEACH (8Wa52)

169 S170-180, E10-20 Unit Composite (Levels A-C)

% NISP % MNI % Biomass

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0

Percentages 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

ls ata Birds Fishes amma rtebr M & Amph. t. . Ve ep id R n U Taxa

S170-180, E0-10 Unit Composite (Levels A-E)

% NISP % MNI % Biomass

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0

Percentages 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

es rata Birds ish F rteb Mammals Ve . id Rept. & Amph. Un Taxa

Figure B.1. Percentages of NISP, MNI, and biomass at Snow Beach.

170

S170-180, E0-10 Unit Composite (Feature #1)

% NISP % MNI % Biomass

$100.0 $90.0 $80.0 $70.0 $60.0 $50.0 $40.0

Percentages $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $0.0

. ls ds h es ta a ir p h ra m B m is b m A F te a er M t. & . V ep id R n U Taxa

Figure B.1, continued.

171 Table B.1. Zooarchaeological data from Snow Beach – S170-180, E10-20 Unit Composite (Levels A-C).

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Worked Total Burned Total

Mammalia, Indeterminate Size Unidentified mammals 121 2.10 -- -- 149.53 1.69 2,383.72 2.26 4 66.67 24 6.61 Didelphis virginiana Eastern Opossum 2 0.03 2 1.28 1.59 0.02 39.93 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sylvilagus sp. Rabbit 2 0.03 1 0.64 2.30 0.03 55.66 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 67 1.16 3 1.92 367.26 4.16 5,351.51 5.08 1 16.67 7 1.93 Total Mammals 192 3.34 6 3.85 520.68 5.89 7,830.82 7.43 5 83.33 31 8.54

Aves Unidentified birds 18 0.31 -- -- 13.79 0.16 222.33 0.21 0 0.00 0 0.00 Gavia immer Common loon 2 0.03 2 1.28 8.61 0.10 144.83 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant 1 0.02 1 0.64 1.40 0.02 27.73 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cathartes aura Turkey vulture 2 0.03 2 1.28 1.30 0.01 25.92 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Birds 23 0.40 5 3.21 25.10 0.28 420.82 0.40 0 0.00 0 0.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 226 3.93 -- -- 248.99 2.82 1,274.80 1.21 0 0.00 12 3.31 Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise 3 0.05 1 0.64 10.10 0.11 148.90 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 7 0.12 1 0.64 3.20 0.04 68.94 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 4 0.07 2 1.28 11.71 0.13 164.41 0.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 42 0.73 3 1.92 45.30 0.51 406.99 0.39 0 0.00 0 0.00 Trionyx sp. Softshell turtles 27 0.47 2 1.28 55.70 0.63 467.44 0.44 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chelonidae Sea turtles 82 1.42 3 1.92 232.20 2.63 1,216.54 1.15 0 0.00 5 1.38 Total Turtles 391 6.79 12 7.69 607.20 6.87 3,748.02 3.56 0 0.00 17 4.68 Serpentes Unidentified snakes 2 0.03 1 0.64 0.70 0.01 9.63 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Snakes 2 0.03 1 0.64 0.70 0.01 9.63 0.01 0 0 0 0 Total Reptiles 393 6.83 13 8.33 607.90 6.88 3,757.65 3.57 0 0.00 17 4.68

Osteichthyes Unidentified bony fishes 1,966 34.15 -- -- 1,633.66 18.49 11,821.18 11.22 0 0.00 109 30.03 Ariidae Sea catfishes 43 0.75 8 5.13 26.55 0.30 449.64 0.43 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 8 0.14 1 0.64 6.72 0.08 121.90 0.12 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mugil sp. Mullet 144 2.50 2 1.28 23.88 0.27 385.66 0.37 0 0.00 8 2.20 Prionotus sp. Searobins 1 0.02 1 0.64 2.46 0.03 289.63 0.27 0 0.00 0 0.00

172 Table B.1, continued.

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Worked Total Burned Total Carangidae Jacks 1 0.02 -- -- 0.10 0.00 5.13 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Caranx sp. Jacks 2,403 41.74 28 17.95 5,263.47 59.56 73,235.14 69.51 1 16.67 190 52.34 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 48 0.83 6 3.85 131.74 1.49 1,412.99 1.34 0 0.00 1 0.28 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 7 0.12 2 1.28 2.58 0.03 78.45 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 Lepisosteus spp. Gars 5 0.09 2 1.28 5.56 0.06 117.11 0.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pogonias cromis Black drum 171 2.97 9 5.77 290.09 3.28 2,583.89 2.45 0 0.00 5 1.38 Chaetodipterus faber Spadefish 68 1.18 68 43.59 181.79 2.06 1,996.42 1.89 0 0.00 1 0.28 Bothidae Sand flounders 20 0.35 2 1.28 5.80 0.07 125.73 0.12 0 0.00 0 0.00 Lobotes surinamensis Atlantic tripletail 1 0.02 1 0.64 37.48 0.42 336.06 0.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Bony Fishes 4,886 84.87 130 83.33 7,611.88 86.13 92,958.94 88.23 1 16.67 314 86.50

Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks 3 0.05 2 1.28 3.80 0.04 396.84 0.38 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Cartilaginous Fishes 3 0.05 2 1.28 3.80 0.04 396.84 0.38 0 0.00 0 0.00

Unidentified Vertebrata 260 4.52 -- -- 68.00 0.77 -- -- 0 0.00 1 0.28

Total Sample 5,757 100.00 156 100.00 8,837.36 100.00 105,365.06 100.00 6 100.00 363 100.00

173 Table B.2. Zooarchaeological data from Snow Beach – S170-180, E0-10 Unit Composite (Levels A-E).

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Worked Total Burned Total

Mammalia, Indeterminate Size Unidentified mammals 44 0.29 -- -- 83.3 0.58 1,407.93 0.95 2 66.67 3 0.50 Rodentia Rodents 3 0.02 2 0.50 0.9 0.01 23.92 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sylvilagus sp. Rabbit 1 0.01 1 0.25 0.4 0.00 11.53 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 5 0.03 2 0.50 11.3 0.08 233.22 0.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 Procyon lotor Raccoon 3 0.02 2 0.50 9.0 0.06 190.03 0.13 0 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 78 0.51 3 0.75 388.2 2.71 5,625.36 3.81 0 0.00 7 1.16 Total Mammals 134 0.87 10 2.51 493.1 3.44 7,491.99 5.07 2 66.67 10 1.66

Aves Unidentified birds 393 2.55 -- -- 54.8 0.38 780.35 0.53 0 0.00 2 0.33 Ardea herodias Great blue heron 1 0.01 1 0.25 1.2 0.01 24.10 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Anatidae Canards, ducks, geese, and swans 3 0.02 1 0.25 2.7 0.02 50.41 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Anas discors Blue-winged teal 1 0.01 1 0.25 0.5 0.00 10.87 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cathartes aura Turkey vulture 13 0.08 2 0.50 16.9 0.12 267.53 0.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 Gavia immer Common loon 3 0.02 1 0.25 6.3 0.04 108.99 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 Meleagris gallopavo Turkey 1 0.01 1 0.25 2.4 0.02 45.29 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mergus sp. Mergansers 1 0.01 1 0.25 1.4 0.01 27.73 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Podicepedidae Grebes 4 0.03 1 0.25 1.7 0.01 33.09 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Podiceps auritus Horned grebe 8 0.05 2 0.50 2.5 0.02 47.00 0.03 0 0.00 1 0.17 Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe 4 0.03 1 0.25 1.8 0.01 34.86 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant 3 0.02 1 0.25 5.4 0.04 94.73 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Birds 435 2.83 13 3.27 97.6 0.68 1,524.96 1.03 0 0.00 3 0.50

Testudines Unidentified turtles 160 1.04 -- -- 158.6 1.11 942.33 0.64 0 0.00 18 90.00 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 6 0.04 1 0.25 8.9 0.06 136.80 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise 1 0.01 1 0.25 2.7 0.02 61.52 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 30 0.19 2 0.50 16.8 0.12 209.39 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chrysemys sp. Cooters and pond sliders 72 0.47 2 0.50 212.0 1.48 1,144.58 0.77 0 0.00 1 0.17 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 21 0.14 2 0.50 25.0 0.17 273.29 0.18 0 0.00 1 0.17 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 3 0.02 1 0.25 10.1 0.07 148.90 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 Trionyx sp. Softshell turtles 3 0.02 1 0.25 5.6 0.04 100.30 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chelonidae Sea turtles 10 0.06 2 0.50 28.3 0.20 296.96 0.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Turtles 306 1.99 12 3.02 468.0 3.27 3,314.06 2.24 0 0.00 20 3.32

174 Table B.2, continued.

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Worked Total Burned Total Serpentes Unidentified snakes 8 0.05 -- 0.00 2.6 0.02 36.23 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Colubridae Colubrids 8 0.05 1 0.25 1.4 0.01 19.39 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Viperidae Vipers 23 0.15 1 0.25 22.4 0.16 318.97 0.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Snakes 39 0.25 2 0.50 26.4 0.18 374.60 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 Alligator mississippiensis American alligator 6 0.04 1 0.25 15.9 0.11 203.82 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Reptiles 351 2.28 15 3.77 510.3 3.56 3,892.48 2.63 0 0.00 20 3.32

Osteichthyes Unidentified bony fishes 9,399 61.09 -- -- 5,447.6 38.03 31,356.40 21.21 1 33.33 445 78.76 Lepisosteus spp. Gars 15 0.10 1 0.25 11.0 0.08 200.77 0.14 0 0.00 1 0.01 Elops saurus Ladyfish 17 0.11 1 1.2 0.01 34.88 0.02 0 0.00 1 0.01 Ariidae Sea catfishes 88 0.57 6 1.51 30.4 0.21 511.36 0.35 0 0.00 6 0.04 Ariopsis felis Hardhead catfish 8 0.05 -- -- 4.3 0.03 79.76 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 5 0.03 -- -- 1.9 0.01 36.71 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mugil sp. Mullet 1,749 11.37 71 17.84 241.4 1.69 2,511.99 1.70 0 0.00 76 13.45 Prionotus sp. Searobins 13 0.08 2 0.50 13.7 0.10 238.79 0.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 Centropomus sp. Snook 1 0.01 1 0.25 2.4 0.02 60.31 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Epinephelus sp. Hinds 1 0.01 1 2.2 0.02 56.30 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish 1 0.01 1 0.25 0.3 0.00 11.67 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Carangidae Jacks 44 0.29 -- -- 89.2 0.62 2,024.52 1.37 0 0.00 0 0.00 Caranx sp. Jacks 1,202 7.81 163 40.95 6,518.8 45.51 88,403.11 59.81 0 0.00 11 1.95 Lobotes surinamensis Atlantic tripletail 1 0.01 1 0.25 3.8 0.03 86.70 0.06 0 0.00 1 0.18 Sparidae Porgies 26 0.17 -- -- 5.0 0.03 92.05 0.06 0 0.00 1 0.18 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 149 0.97 10 2.51 190.0 1.33 1,979.03 1.34 0 0.00 4 0.71 Sciaenidae Drums and croakers 172 1.12 -- -- 35.0 0.24 540.27 0.37 0 0.00 3 0.53 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 983 6.39 13 3.27 31.8 0.22 503.26 0.34 0 0.00 5 0.88 Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 7 0.05 4 1.01 2.7 0.02 81.14 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pogonias cromis Black drum 255 1.66 5 1.26 278.2 1.94 2,505.10 1.69 0 0.00 3 0.53 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 31 0.20 3 0.75 25.5 0.18 427.41 0.29 0 0.00 4 0.71 Chaetodipterus faber Spadefish 74 0.48 73 18.34 225.3 1.57 2,470.54 1.67 0 0.00 1 0.18 Bothidae Lefteye flounders 59 0.38 2 0.50 12.2 0.09 243.70 0.16 0 0.00 3 0.53 Balistes sp. Triggerfishes 3 0.02 1 5.7 0.04 119.44 0.08 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Bony Fishes 14,303 92.96 359 90.20 13,179.6 92.02 134,575.19 91.05 1 33.33 565 93.70

175 Table B.2, continued.

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Worked Total Burned Total Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks 5 0.03 1 0.25 3.0 0.02 323.84 0.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Cartilaginous Fishes 5 0.03 1 0.25 3.0 0.02 323.84 0.22 0 0.00 0 0.00

Unidentified Vertebrata 158 1.03 -- -- 39.6 0.28 -- -- 0 0.00 5 0.83

Total Sample 15,386 100.00 398 100.00 14,323.2 100.00 147,808.45 100.00 3 100.00 603 100.00

176 Table B.3. Zooarchaeological data from Snow Beach – Feature # 1 (S170-180, E0-10).

Minimum Meat % of % of % of Weight Estimate % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total (g) Total Worked Total Burned Total

Mammalia, Indeterminate Size Unidentified mammals 1 0.18 -- -- 1.80 0.63 44.64 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 3 0.53 1 5.56 20.20 7.07 393.38 8.79 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Mammals 4 0.71 1 5.56 22.00 7.70 438.03 9.79 0 0.00 0 0.00

Aves Unidentified birds 5 0.88 -- -- 1.30 0.45 25.92 0.58 0 0.00 0 0.00 Podiceps auritus Double-crested cormorant 2 0.35 1 5.56 0.60 0.21 12.83 0.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Birds 7 1.24 1 5.56 1.90 0.66 38.75 0.87 0 0.00 0 0.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 11 1.94 -- -- 13.00 4.55 176.34 3.94 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 5 0.88 1 5.56 1.20 0.42 35.73 0.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 1 0.18 1 5.56 0.80 0.28 27.23 0.61 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Turtles 17 3.00 2 11.11 15.00 5.25 239.30 5.35 0 0.00 0 0.00 Colubridae Colubrid snakes 1 0.18 1 5.56 0.40 0.14 5.47 0.12 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Snakes 1 0.18 1 5.56 0.40 0.14 5.47 0.12 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Reptiles 18 3.18 3 16.67 15.40 5.39 244.77 5.47 0 0.00 0 0.00

Osteichthyes Unidentified bony fishes 412 72.79 -- -- 159.50 55.81 1,795.71 40.13 0 0.00 17 58.62 Lepisosteus spp. Gars 1 0.18 1 5.56 0.10 0.03 4.90 0.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 Elops saurus Ladyfish 1 0.18 1 5.56 0.10 0.03 4.90 0.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ariidae Sea catfishes 5 0.88 -- -- 1.60 0.56 31.18 0.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 1 0.18 1 5.56 0.70 0.24 14.22 0.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mugil sp. Mullet 77 13.60 3 16.67 12.50 4.37 228.30 5.10 0 0.00 10 34.48 Caranx sp. Jacks 25 4.42 4 22.22 65.50 22.92 1,542.74 34.48 0 0.00 0 0.00 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 5 0.88 2 11.11 4.10 1.43 58.04 1.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciaenidae Drums and croakers 2 0.35 -- -- 0.50 0.17 23.29 0.52 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pogonias cromis Black drum 6 1.06 1 5.56 1.40 0.49 49.90 1.12 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Bony Fishes 535 94.52 13 72.22 246.00 86.07 3,753.18 83.88 0 0.00 27 93.10

Unidentified Vertebrata 2 0.35 -- -- 0.50 0.17 -- -- 00.00 26.90

Total Sample 566 100.00 18 100.00 285.80 100.00 4,474.73 100.00 0 0.00 29 100.00

177

APPENDIX C:

ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA FROM

BIRD HAMMOCK (8Wa30)

178 -160L45 Unit Composite (Vertebrate Data Only)

% NISP % MNI % Biomass

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 Percentages 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

. ds h ir p rata B Am Fishes teb Mammals & Ver ept. R Taxa

-160L45 Unit Composite (Vertebrate & Invertebrate Data)

% NISP % MNI % Biomass

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0

Percentages 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

rata Birds mph. A Fishes eb ert Mammals Vertebrata v In Rept. & Taxa

Figure C.1. Percentages of NISP, MNI, and biomass at Bird Hammock.

179 100L60 Unit Composite (Vertebrate Data Only)

% NISP % MNI % Biomass 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0

Percentages 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

s al ph. Birds m brata mm A Fishes te er Ma V ept. & R Taxa

100L60 Unit Composite (Vertebrate & Invertebrate Data)

% NISP % MNI % Biomass 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0

Percentages 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

ls ds h. es ta ta a ir p h a ra m B m is br b m A F te te a er er M & V v t. In ep R Taxa

Figure C.1, continued.

180 Table C.1. Zooarchaeological data from Bird Hammock – Unit Composite (-160L45).

% of % of Weight % of Biomass % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total (g) Total (g) Total Burned Total Butchered Total Mammalia, Large Probably deer or bear 125 0.92 -- 0.00 172.1 2.45 2,705.22 4.48 38 4.03 0 0.00 Mammalia, Medium Probably raccoon or opossum 12 0.09 -- 0.00 3.8 0.05 87.46 0.14 3 0.32 0 0.00 Mammalia, Small Probably rabbit or squirrel 4 0.03 -- 0.00 0.4 0.01 11.53 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mammalia Unidentified mammal 37 0.27 -- 0.00 14.7 0.21 295.52 0.49 10 1.06 0 0.00 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 11 0.08 1 0.52 12.6 0.18 257.24 0.43 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits 17 0.13 3 1.56 12.9 0.18 262.74 0.43 0 0.00 0 0.00 Rodentia Rodents 5 0.04 -- 0.00 0.5 0.01 14.10 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciurus cf., carolinensis Probably grey squirrel 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.2 0.00 6.18 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciurus niger Fox squirrel 3 0.02 1 0.52 1.3 0.02 33.31 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.1 0.00 3.31 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cetacea Probably dolphin 2 0.01 1 0.52 110.8 1.58 1,820.06 3.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Canidae Probably domestic dog 1 0.01 1 0.52 6.1 0.09 133.91 0.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ursus sp. Bear 1 0.01 1 0.52 23.4 0.33 449.05 0.74 0 0.00 0 0.00 Procyon lotor Raccoon 4 0.03 2 1.04 8.7 0.12 184.32 0.31 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk 1 0.01 1 0.52 1.4 0.02 35.61 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 Lynx rufus Bobcat 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.8 0.01 21.52 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Artiodacytla Probably deer 4 0.03 -- 0.00 13.5 0.19 273.72 0.45 0 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 249 1.84 5 2.60 1,966.9 28.04 24,232.83 40.11 15 1.59 1 12.50 Total Mammals 479 3.537 19 9.90 2,350.2 33.50 30,827.60 51.03 66 7.01 1 12.50

Aves Unidentified birds 44 0.32 -- 0.00 27.4 0.39 415.29 0.69 3 0.32 0 0.00 Anas americana American widgeon 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.3 0.00 6.83 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Anas fulvigula Mottled duck 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.9 0.01 18.55 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Rallus longirostris Clapper rail 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.1 0.00 2.51 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey 7 0.05 1 0.52 48.8 0.70 702.20 1.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Birds 54 0.40 4 2.08 77.5 1.10 1,145.38 1.90 3 0.32 0 0.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 755 5.58 -- 0.00 499.2 7.12 2,031.63 3.36 70 7.43 0 0.00 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 3 0.02 1 0.52 2.0 0.03 50.31 0.08 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud or musk turtles 120 0.89 7 3.65 49.9 0.71 434.24 0.72 5 0.53 1 12.50 Emydidae Box and water turtles 7 0.05 0.00 18.0 0.26 219.30 0.36 0 0.00 0 0.00 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 145 1.07 8 4.17 289.3 4.12 1,409.62 2.33 6 0.64 0 0.00 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 25 0.18 2 1.04 29.5 0.42 305.34 0.51 0 0.00 0 0.00 Trachemys sp. Pond slider 18 0.13 2 1.04 74.3 1.06 566.97 0.94 0 0.00 0 0.00 Deirochelys reticularia Chicken turtle 17 0.13 2 1.04 24.2 0.34 267.40 0.44 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cheloniidae Sea turtles 488 3.60 5 2.60 1,616.6 23.04 4,464.41 7.39 1 0.11 0 0.00 Total Turtles 1,578 11.65 27 14.06 2,603.0 37.11 9,749.21 16.14 82 8.70 1 12.50

181 Table C.1, continued.

% of % of Weight % of Biomass % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total (g) Total (g) Total Burned Total Butchered Total Colubridae Non-poisonous snakes 18 0.13 1 0.52 5.6 0.08 78.64 0.13 2 0.21 0 0.00 Viperidae Poisonour snakes 2 0.01 1 0.52 1.8 0.03 24.99 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Snakes 31 0.23 2 1.04 9.4 0.13 131.44 0.22 4 0.42 0 0.00 Alligator mississipiensis American alligator 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.1 0.00 2.24 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Reptiles 1,610 11.89 30 15.63 2,612.5 37.24 9,882.89 16.36 86 9.13 1 12.50

Siren lacertina Greater siren 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.4 0.01 5.47 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Anura Frogs and toads 11 0.08 1 0.52 1.0 0.01 13.80 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Amphibians 12 0.09 2 1.04 1.4 0.02 19.28 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 8,387 61.94 0.00 1,137.4 16.21 8,816.37 14.59 458 48.62 1 12.50 Accipenser sp. Sturgeon 5 0.04 1 0.52 13.4 0.19 241.52 0.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 Lepisosteus sp. Gar 88 0.65 1 0.52 23.3 0.33 378.06 0.63 40 4.25 0 0.00 Amia calva Bowfin 3 0.02 1 0.52 1.6 0.02 43.19 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 Elops saurus Ladyfish 36 0.27 1 0.52 2.2 0.03 55.89 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clupeidae Herrings 5 0.04 1 0.52 0.3 0.00 11.13 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Siluriformes All catfishes 67 0.49 -- 0.00 10.8 0.15 191.32 0.32 6 0.64 0 0.00 Ictaluridae Freshwater catfishes 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.1 0.00 2.24 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ariidae Marine catfishes 175 1.29 16 8.33 40.1 0.57 665.25 1.10 22 2.34 0 0.00 Arius felis Hardhead catfish 61 0.45 -- 0.00 13.6 0.19 238.16 0.39 8 0.85 0 0.00 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 20 0.15 -- 0.00 12.2 0.17 214.80 0.36 3 0.32 0 0.00 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 32 0.24 4 2.08 3.1 0.04 73.79 0.12 0 0.00 0 0.00 Caranx sp. Probably jack crevelle 82 0.61 4 2.08 113.1 1.61 2,494.87 4.13 7 0.74 0 0.00 Micropterus sp. Basses 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.6 0.01 11.31 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Lepomis microlophus Red-ear sunfish 2 0.01 2 1.04 0.5 0.01 9.71 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sparidae Porgies 1 0.01 -- 0.00 0.1 0.00 1.91 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Calamus penna Sheepshead porgy 3 0.02 1 0.52 0.1 0.00 1.91 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 98 0.72 3 1.56 68.6 0.98 775.21 1.28 3 0.32 0 0.00 Sciaenidae Drums 19 0.14 -- 0.00 2.9 0.04 85.54 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 120 0.89 13 6.77 28.6 0.41 465.28 0.77 3 0.32 0 0.00 Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 3 0.02 2 1.04 0.7 0.01 29.88 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Pogonias cromis Black drum 40 0.30 3 1.56 45.2 0.64 652.83 1.08 1 0.11 0 0.00 Sciaenops ocellatus Redfish 91 0.67 14 7.29 33.5 0.48 523.04 0.87 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 1 0.01 1 0.52 2.6 0.04 63.99 0.11 1 0.11 0 0.00 Mugil spp. Mullet 1,058 7.81 61 31.77 170.4 2.43 1,894.48 3.14 46 4.88 1 12.50 Bothidae Flounder family 152 1.12 4 2.08 29.4 0.42 533.13 0.88 2 0.21 0 0.00 Total Bony Fishes 10,551 77.92 135 70.31 1,754.4 25.01 18,474.79 30.58 600 63.69 2 25.00

182

Table C.1, continued.

% of % of Weight % of Biomass % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total (g) Total (g) Total Burned Total Butchered Total Squaliformes Sharks 2 0.01 1 0.52 0.3 0.00 44.70 0.07 0 0.00 1 12.50 Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks 1 0.01 1 0.52 0.1 0.00 17.38 0.03 0 0.00 1 12.50 Total Cartilaginous Fishes 3 0.02 2 1.04 0.4 0.01 62.08 0.10 0 0.00 2 25.00

Unidentified Vertebrata Unid. Vertebrate fragments 832 6.14 -- 0.00 218.7 3.12 -- 0.00 187 19.85 2 25.00

Total Vertebrate Sample 13,541 100.00 192 100.00 7,015.1 100.00 60,412.02 100.00 942 100.00 8 100.00

Decapoda Probably blue crabs 2 0.12 1 0.29 0.2 0.00 9.05 0.23 1 50.00 0 0.00 Menippe mercenaria Stone crab 1 0.06 1 0.29 1.4 0.01 44.65 1.12 1 50.00 0 0.00 Total Crabs 3 0.18 2 0.59 1.6 0.02 53.70 1.35 2 100.00 0 0.00

Gastropoda Marine gastropods 62 3.70 11 3.24 416.8 4.05 309.27 7.77 0 0.00 2 100.00 Gastropods cf., Melongena Probably conch 2 0.12 2 0.59 58.8 0.57 51.03 1.28 0 0.00 0 0.00 Littorina irrorata Marsh periwinkle 3 0.18 3 0.88 1.5 0.01 1.01 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Melongena corona Crowned conch 195 11.63 124 36.47 4,282.3 41.57 1,336.21 33.55 0 0.00 0 0.00 Busycon sp. Whelks 1 0.06 2 0.59 142.6 1.38 154.14 3.87 0 0.00 0 0.00 Fasciolaria sp. Tulips 2 0.12 2 0.59 65.6 0.64 3.49 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 Bivalvia Unid. freshwater bivalves 823 49.11 -- 0.00 406.3 3.94 567.57 14.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 Argopectin irradians Bay scallops 170 10.14 72 21.18 837.5 8.13 594.07 14.92 0 0.00 0 0.00 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 309 18.44 67 19.71 2,883.1 27.98 474.31 11.91 0 0.00 0 0.00 Polymesoda caroliniana Carolina marsh clam 33 1.97 16 4.71 202.0 1.96 271.29 6.81 0 0.00 0 0.00 Rangea cuneata Common rangia 73 4.36 39 11.47 1,004.3 9.75 166.72 4.19 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Mollusks 1,673 99.82 338 99.41 10,300.8 99.98 3,929.12 98.65 0 0.00 2 100.00

Total Invertebrate Sample 1,676 100.00 340 100.00 10,302.4 100.00 3,982.83 100.00 2 100.00 2 100.00

183 Table C.2. Zooarchaeological data from Bird Hammock – Unit Composite (100L60).

% of % of % of % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total Biomass (g) Total Burned Total Butchered Total Mammalia, Large Probably deer or bear 117 1.78 -- 0.00 347.8 3.77 5,095.62 5.35 17 9.09 0 0.00 Mammalia, Medium Probably raccoon or opossum 15 0.23 -- 0.00 12.9 0.14 262.74 0.28 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mammalia, Small Probably rabbit or squirrel 6 0.09 -- 0.00 2.4 0.03 57.83 0.06 1 0.53 0 0.00 Mammalia Unidentifiable mammal frags. 7 0.11 -- 0.00 5.4 0.06 119.99 0.13 0 0.00 0 0.00 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 27 0.41 4 1.93 46.9 0.51 839.57 0.88 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits 29 0.44 4 1.93 32.0 0.35 595.16 0.62 0 0.00 0 0.00 Rodentia Rodents 6 0.09 -- 0.00 1.4 0.02 35.61 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Geomys pinetis Pocket gopher 2 0.03 1 0.48 1.8 0.02 44.64 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Neofiber alleni Round-tailed muskrat 1 0.02 1 0.48 0.7 0.01 19.08 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciurus carolinensis Grey squirrel 2 0.03 1 0.48 0.7 0.01 19.08 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciurus niger Fox squirrel 2 0.03 1 0.48 0.9 0.01 23.92 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat 1 0.02 1 0.48 0.2 0.00 6.18 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Procyon lotor Raccoon 29 0.44 3 1.45 72.6 0.79 1,244.06 1.31 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mustelidae Skunks, weasels, mink 1 0.02 -- 0.00 1.3 0.01 33.31 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mustela vison Mink 1 0.02 1 0.48 0.8 0.01 21.52 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Lynx rufus Bobcat 4 0.06 1 0.48 17.0 0.18 336.82 0.35 0 0.00 0 0.00 Artiodacytla Probably deer 72 1.10 -- 0.00 176.0 1.91 2,760.33 2.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 328 5.00 8 3.86 2,619.0 28.36 31,356.09 32.91 18 9.63 1 25.00 Total Mammals 650 9.9025 26 12.56 3,339.8 36.17 42,871.57 45.00 36 19.25 1 25.00

Aves Unidentifiable birds frags. 53 0.81 -- 0.00 58.2 0.63 824.29 0.87 2 1.07 0 0.00 Gavia immer Common loon 1 0.02 1 0.48 2.1 0.02 40.11 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Podilymbus podiceps Pied-bill grebe 1 0.02 1 0.48 0.4 0.00 8.87 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ardea herodias Great blue heron 1 0.02 1 0.48 2.3 0.02 43.57 0.05 4 2.14 0 0.00 Cygnus columbianus Tundra swan 2 0.03 2 0.97 3.6 0.04 65.50 0.07 4 2.14 0 0.00 Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk 2 0.03 1 0.48 7.7 0.08 130.83 0.14 4 2.14 0 0.00 Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey 9 0.14 3 1.45 48.8 0.53 702.20 0.74 4 2.14 0 0.00 Rallus longirsotris Clapper rail 2 0.03 2 0.97 0.8 0.01 16.67 0.02 4 2.14 0 0.00 Grus canadensis Sandhill crane 2 0.03 1 0.48 5.6 0.06 97.92 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Birds 73 1.11 12 5.80 129.5 1.40 1,929.95 2.03 22 11.76 0 0.00

Testudines Unidentifiable turtle frags. 427 6.51 -- 0.00 427.1 4.63 1,830.02 1.92 30 16.04 0 0.00 Testudines cf., Cheloniidae Probably sea turtles 13 0.20 -- 0.00 16.3 0.18 205.19 0.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 7 0.11 1 0.48 10.8 0.12 155.74 0.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud or musk turtles 51 0.78 4 1.93 28.3 0.31 296.96 0.31 2 1.07 0 0.00 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 203 3.09 12 5.80 449.9 4.87 1,894.91 1.99 3 1.60 0 0.00 Deirochelys reticularia Chicken turtle 20 0.30 2 0.97 29.2 0.32 303.25 0.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 6 0.09 2 0.97 23.4 0.25 261.44 0.27 0 0.00 0 0.00

184 Table C.2, continued.

% of % of % of % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total Biomass (g) Total Burned Total Butchered Total Cheloniidae Sea turtles 293 4.46 6 2.90 1,004.9 10.88 3,246.55 3.41 4 2.14 0 0.00 Total Turtles 1,020 15.54 27 13.04 1,989.9 21.55 8,194.06 8.60 39 20.86 0 0.00 Serpentes Unidentifiable snake frags. 7 0.11 -- 0.00 2.3 0.02 32.01 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Colubridae Non-poisonous snakes 31 0.47 1 0.48 24.9 0.27 354.95 0.37 0 0.00 0 0.00 Viperidae Poisonous snakes 2 0.03 -- 0.00 0.7 0.01 9.63 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Crotalidae Rattlesnakes 7 0.11 1 0.48 5.4 0.06 75.81 0.08 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Snakes 47 0.72 2 0.97 33.3 472.40 0.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 Alligator mississipiensis American alligator 1 0.02 1 0.48 2.6 0.03 40.67 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Reptiles 1,068 16.2706 30 14.4928 2025.8 21.5783 8707.131774 9.13885 39 20.8556 0 0

Anura Frogs and toads 2 0.03 2 0.97 0.8 0.01 11.02 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Anura cf., Rana Probably frogs 1 0.02 -- 0.00 0.2 0.00 2.72 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ranidae All frogs 1 0.02 -- 0.00 0.4 0.00 5.47 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Rana sp. Frogs 1 0.02 -- 0.00 0.7 0.01 9.63 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Frogs 5 0.08 2 0.97 2.1 28.83 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Siren lacertina Greater siren 2 0.03 1 0.48 0.9 0.01 12.41 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Amphibians 7 0.11 3 1.45 3.0 0.01 41.24 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00

Osteichthyes Unidentifiable bony fish frags. 2,879 43.86 -- 0.00 1,768.3 19.15 12,604.35 13.23 34 18.18 1 25.00 Lepisosteus sp. Gar 7 0.11 1 0.48 11.9 0.13 219.38 0.23 0 0.00 0 0.00 Amia calva Bowfin 13 0.20 1 0.48 2.9 0.03 69.91 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 Elops saurus Ladyfish 3 0.05 1 0.48 0.2 0.00 8.01 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ariidae Marine catfishes 66 1.01 9 4.35 28.7 0.31 484.16 0.51 1 0.53 0 0.00 Arius felis Hardhead catfish 60 0.91 -- 0.00 31.5 0.34 528.93 0.56 3 1.60 0 0.00 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish 7 0.11 -- 0.00 5.7 0.06 104.25 0.11 1 0.53 0 0.00 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 9 0.14 4 1.93 0.9 0.01 27.10 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Caranx sp. Probably jack crevelle 325 4.95 35 16.91 1,222.2 13.24 20,262.14 21.27 11 5.88 0 0.00 Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish 1 0.02 1 0.48 0.6 0.01 19.51 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 Lobotes surinamensis Tripletail 1 0.02 1 0.48 1.3 0.01 36.50 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 111 1.69 13 6.28 147.8 1.60 1,570.73 1.65 1 0.53 0 0.00 Sciaenidae Drums 5 0.08 -- 0.00 5.2 0.06 131.78 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciaenidae cf., Sciaenops Probably redfish 4 0.06 -- 0.00 3.5 0.04 98.31 0.10 2 1.07 0 0.00 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 48 0.73 6 2.90 17.3 0.19 320.74 0.34 1 0.53 0 0.00 Pogonias cromis Black drum 11 0.17 3 1.45 41.4 0.45 611.76 0.64 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sciaenops ocellatus Redfish 67 1.02 10 4.83 80.9 0.88 1,004.34 1.05 1 0.53 0 0.00 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 23 0.35 23 11.11 79.4 0.86 1,020.60 1.07 2 1.07 0 0.00 Mugil spp. Mullet 512 7.80 18 8.70 84.2 0.91 1,070.29 1.12 0 0.00 0 0.00

185 Table C.2, continued.

% of % of % of % of % of % of Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP Total MNI Total Weight (g) Total Biomass (g) Total Burned Total Butchered Total Bothidae Flounder family 107 1.63 4 1.93 29.1 0.32 528.28 0.55 0 0.00 0 0.00 Diodontidae Puffers 13 0.20 5 2.42 2.1 0.02 53.83 0.06 1 0.53 0 0.00 Total Bony Fishes 4,272 65.08 135 65.22 3,565.1 38.61 40,774.89 42.80 58 31.02 1 25.00 Squaliformes Sharks 5 0.08 1 0.48 11.4 0.12 1,020.79 1.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Cartilaginous Fishes 5 0.08 1 0.48 11.4 0.12 1,020.79 1.07 0 0.00 0 0.00

Unidentified Vertebrata Unidentifiable bony frags. 489 7.45 -- 0.00 163.9 1.78 -- 0.00 32 17.11 2 50.00

Total Vertebrate Sample 6,564 99.91 207 98.55 9,233.8 99.64 95,276.06 100.00 187 100.00 4 100.00

Decapoda Probably blue crab 1 0.21 1 0.52 1.5 0.04 47.25 2.57 -- 0.00 -- 0.00

Mollusca Unidentified mollusks 31 6.39 0 0.00 18.5 0.51 17.61 0.96 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Gastropoda Unid. Marine gastropods 31 6.39 1 0.52 0.8 0.02 0.98 0.05 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Gastropoda Unid. Freshwater gastropods 3 0.62 0 0.00 228.2 6.23 80.97 4.41 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Littorina irrorata Marsh periwinkle 16 3.30 14 7.22 7.9 0.22 4.83 0.26 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Polinices sp. Moon snail 1 0.21 1 0.52 10.5 0.29 195.73 10.66 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Melongena corona Crowned conch 13 2.68 11 5.67 224.2 6.12 99.67 5.43 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Busycon sp. Whelks 5 1.03 4 2.06 101.0 2.76 115.77 6.30 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Fasciolaria sp. Tulips 1 0.21 1 0.52 67.2 1.84 3.61 0.20 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Euglandina rosea Rose snail (terrestrial) 2 0.41 2 1.03 1.9 0.05 0.67 0.04 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Bivalvia Unid. freshwater bivalves 1 0.21 1 0.52 3.6 0.10 22.82 1.24 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Bivalvia Unid. Marine bivalves 12 2.47 0 0.00 45.9 1.25 128.83 7.02 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Aequipecten irradians Bay scallop 27 5.57 13 6.70 211.0 5.76 532.04 28.97 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 288 59.38 117 60.31 1,924.9 52.58 320.54 17.45 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Polymesoda caroliniana Carolina marsh clam 3 0.62 2 1.03 16.7 0.46 34.27 1.87 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Mercenaria sp. Quahog clam 39 8.04 19 9.79 619.0 16.91 204.58 11.14 -- 0.00 0 0.00 Rangea cuneata Common rangia 11 2.27 7 3.61 178.4 4.87 26.24 1.43 -- 0.00 0 0.00 All Mollusks 484 99.79 193 99.48 3,659.7 99.96 1,789.14 97.43 -- 0.00 0 0.00

Total Invertebrate Sample 485 100.00 194 100.00 3,661.2 100.00 1,836.39 100.00 -- 0.00 0 0.00

186 REFERENCES

Adams, William Hampton (editor) 1985 Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality, Volume 2: Zooarchaeology. University of Florida, Department of Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 2, Gainesville.

Alden, Peter, Rick Cech, and Gil Nelson 1998 National Audubon Society Field Guide to Florida. Chanticleer Press, Random House, New York.

Allen, Glenn J. 1954 Archaeological Excavations in the Northwest Gulf Coast of Florida. Master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Ambrose, W. R. 1967 Archaeology and Shell Middens. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 2:169-187.

Anderson, David G. 1998 Swift Creek in a Regional Perspective. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp. 274- 300. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anderson, David G., and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. 2002 An Introduction to Woodland Archaeology in the Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp.1-99. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Ashley, Keith 1992 Swift Creek Manifestations along the Lower St. Johns River. Florida Anthropologist 45:127-138.

1998 Swift Creek Traits in Northeastern Florida: Ceramics, Mounds, and Middens. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp. 197-221. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Balsillie, James H., and Joseph F. Donoghue 2004 High Resolution Sea-level History for the Gulf of Mexico Since the Last Glacial Maximum. Florida Geological Survey, Report of Investigations No. 103. Manuscript on file, Department of Geological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

187 Bass, R. J., and J. W. Avault, Jr. 1975 Food Habits, Length-Weight Relationship, Condition Factor and Growth of Juvenile Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellata) in Louisiana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104:35-45.

Behler, John L., and F. Wayne King 1979 Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.

Bense, Judith A. 1969 Excavations at Bird Hammock Site (8Wa30), Wakulla County, Florida. Master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

1985 Hawkshaw: Prehistory and History in an Urban Neighborhood in Pensacola, Florida. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Reports of Investigation Number Seven. Pensacola, Florida.

1992 Santa Rosa – Swift Creek in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the 49th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Little Rock.

1994 Configuration of the Bernath Ring Midden Site (8Sr986) Near Pensacola, Florida: Introduction of a New Explanation for Ring Midden Sites. Paper presented at the 51st Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Lexington.

1998 Santa Rosa – Swift Creek in Northwestern Florida. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp. 247-273. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Bense, Judith A., and Irvy R. Quitmyer 1985 Results of Prehistoric Investigations: Subsistence Remains. In Hawkshaw: Prehistory and History in an Urban Neighborhood in Pensacola, Florida, pp. 133-136. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Reports of Investigation Number Seven. Pensacola, Florida.

Binford, Lewis R. 1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Susan R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 313-341. Aldine, Chicago.

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.

Blanchard, Charles 1999 Analogy and Aboriginal Canoe Use in Southwest Florida. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 23-42. Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 14.

188 Bogucki, Peter C. 1999 The Origins of Human Society. Blackwell Publishers, Inc: Malden.

Borgstrom, Georg 1962 Shellfish Protein – Nutritive Aspects. In Fish as Food, Vol. II, edited by Georg Borgstrom, pp. 115-148. Academic Press, New York.

Braley, Chad O. 1982 Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of the Paradise Point Site (8Fr71), St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Franklin County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc. Athens, Georgia.

Brewster, Alice, Brian F. Byrd, and Seetha N. Reddy 2003 Cultural Landscapes of Coastal Foragers: An Example of GIS and Drainage Catchment Analysis from Southern California. Journal of GIS in Archaeology 1:49-60.

Brinson, Mark M., Robert R. Christian, and Linda K. Blum 1995 Multiple States in the Sea-Level Induced Transition from Terrestrial Forest to Estuary. Estuaries 18(4): 648-659.

Brose, David 1979 An Interpretation of the Hopewellian Traits in Florida. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N’omi Greber, pp. 141-149. Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.

Buckmeier, David L., Elise R. Irwin, Robert K. Betsill and John A. Prentice 2001 Validity of Otoliths and Pectoral Spines for Estimating Ages of Channel Catfish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22(3): 934-942.

Bullen, Ripley P. 1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida. Florida Anthropologist 25(2):9-33.

Byrd, John 1995 Differential Subsistence Patterns in the Swift Creek Phase. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Knoxville, Tennessee.

1994 The Zooarchaeology of Four Gulf Coast Prehistoric Sites. Doctoral thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

189 Carlson, John K., Ivy E. Baremore, Dana M. Bethea 2003 Shark Nursery Grounds and Essential Fish Habitat Studies: Gulfspan Gulf of Mexico – FY03, Cooperative Gulf of Mexico States Shark Pupping and Nursery Survey. Report submitted to NOAA Fisheries / Highly Migratory Species Office, SFD Contribution PCB-03/06. Performed by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, Florida.

Claasen, Cheryl 1991 Gender, Shellfishing, and the Shell Mound Archaic. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 276-300. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Clark, Eugenie 1963 Massive Aggregations of Large Rays and Sharks in and near Sarasota, Florida. Zoologica 48:61-66.

Cruz-Urribe, Kathryn 1988 The Use and Meaning of Species Diversity and Richness in Archaeological Faunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 15(2):179-196.

Cumbaa, Stephen L. 1976 A Reconsideration of Freshwater Shellfish Exploitation in the Florida Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 29:49-59.

Cutting, C. L. 1955 Fish Saving. Leonard Hill, London.

1965 Smoking. In Fish as Food, Vol. III, edited by Georg Borgstrom, pp. 55-100. Academic Press, New York.

Dahlberg, Michael D., and E. P. Odum 1970 Annual Cycles of Species Occurrences, Abundance, and Diversity in Georgia Estuarine Fish Populations. American Naturalist 83(2): 382-392.

DeFrance, Susan D. 1993 Faunal Material from the Greenfield Site (8DU5543), Duval County, Florida. Report on file at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Dietler, Michael, and Brian Hayden (editors) 2001 Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

190 Elliot, Daniel T. 1998 The Northern and Eastern Expression of Swift Creek Culture: Settlement in the Tennessee and Savannah River Valleys. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp. 19-35 University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Erlandson, J. M. 1988 The Role of Shellfish in Coastal Economies: A Protein Perspective. American Antiquity 53:102-109.

Flannery, Kent. V. 1972 The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426.

1973 Archaeology with a Capital “S”. In Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, edited by C. L. Redman, pp. 47-53. Wiley and Sons, New York.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2000a Fisheries-Independent Monitoring Program 2000 Annual Data Summary Report. Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida.

2000b Sea Turtles: Nomads of the Deep. In Sea Stats. Division of Marine Fishes.

2001 Fishing Lines: Angler’s Guide to Florida Marine Resources. Fourth edition. Edited by J. Schratwieser. Division of Marine Fishes.

Florida Marine Research Institute 1998 Bay Scallops: Underwater Canaries. In Sea Stats. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Fritts, T.H., A.B. Irvine, R.D. Jennings, L.A. Colliem, W. Hoffman, and M.A. McGehee 1983 Turtles, Birds, and Mammals in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and Nearby Atlantic Waters. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-82/65.

Gilbert, B. Miles, Larry D. Martin, and Howard G. Savage 1981 Avian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Inc. Columbia, Missouri.

Gilbert, B. Miles 1990 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Inc., Columbia, Missouri.

Gilbert, Carter R., and James D. Williams 2002 National Audubon Society Field Guide to Fishes: North America. Second edition. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.

191 Goggin, John M. 1947 Manifestations of a South Florida Cult in Northwest Florida. American Antiquity 12(4):273-276.

Grayson, Donald K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Griffin, John W. 1947 Comments on a Site in the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, Wakulla County, Florida. American Antiquity 13(2):182-183.

1988 Archeology of the Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Hale, Stephen H., and Rochelle A. Marrinan 1987 Fort Matanzas Spreadsheet for Excel. On file, Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Hale, Stephen H., and Irvy R. Quitmyer 1985 Results of Prehistoric Investigations: Faunal Remains. In Hawkshaw: Prehistory and History in an Urban Neighborhood in Pensacola, Florida, edited by Judith A. Bense, pp. 137 – 161. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Reports of Investigation Number Seven. Pensacola, Florida.

Harris, Marvin 1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Crowell, New York.

Haynes, G. 1983 Frequencies of Spiral and Green-bone Fractures on Ungulate Limb Bones in Modern Surface Assemblages. American Antiquity 48(1):102-114.

Hulbert, Richard C., Jr. 2001 The Fossil Vertebrates of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Hulbert, Richard C., Jr., Camm Swift and Elizabeth S. Wing 2001 Cartilaginous and Bony Fishes. In The Fossil Vertebrates of Florida, edited by Richard C. Hulbert, Jr., pp. 75-108. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Hulton, Paul 1977 The Work of Jacques LeMoyne de Morgues: A Hugenot Artist in France, Florida, and England, 2 volumes. British Museum Publications Limited, London.

Hudson, Charles 1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

192 Hutchinson, Dale L. 2002 Foraging, Farming, and Coastal Biocultural Adaptation in Late Prehistoric North Carolina. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2004 Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Hutchinson, Dale L., Clark Spencer Larsen, Margaret J. Schoeninger, and Lynette Norr 1998 Regional Variation in the Pattern of Maize Adoption and Use in Florida and Georgia. American Antiquity 63(3):397-416.

Jackson, H. Edwin, and Susan L. Scott 2002 Woodland Faunal Exploitation in the Midsouth. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. pp. 461-482. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Larson, Lewis H. 1980 Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeastern Coastal Plain during the Late Prehistoric Period. Ripley P. Bullen Monographs in Anthropology and History, No. 2. The Florida State Museum. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Jason, A. C. 1965 Drying and Dehydration. In Fish as Food, Vol. III, edited by Georg Borgstrom, pp. 1-52. Academic Press, New York.

Johnson, Darlene R., and William Seaman, Jr. 1986 Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) – Spotted Seatrout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.43). Performed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

Johnson, Jay Kermit 1969 Two Sites on the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge. Honor’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Jones, Paul L. 1999 Volumetric Analyses of Selected Shell Midden and Shell Mound Sites at Charlotte Harbor, Florida. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 75-83. Florida Anthropological Society Publications No. 14.

193 Jones, Calvin B., Daniel L. Penton, and Louis D. Tesar 1998 1973 and 1994 Excavations at the Block-Sterns Site, Leon County, Florida. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 223-246. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Klima, E. F., and D. C. Tabb 1959 A Contribution to the Biology of the Spotted Weakfish, Cynoscion nebulosus (Cuvier), from Northeast Florida, with a Description of the Fishery. Florida Board Conservancy Marine Research Laboratory Technical Service 30.

Konnerth, A. 1966 Tilly Bones. Oceanus 12(2):6-9.

Kozuch, Laura 1993 Sharks and Shark Products in Prehistoric South Florida. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies Monograph No. 2. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Kozuch, Laura, and Cherry Fitzgerald 1989 A Guide to Identifying Shark Centra from Southeastern Archaeological Sites. Southeastern Archaeology 8(2):146-157.

Lee, R. B. 1969 !Kung Bushman Subsistence: An Input-output Analysis. In Contributions to Anthropology: Ecological Essays, edited by D. Damas, pp. 73-94. National Museums of Canada Bulletin 230, Ottawa.

Leitman, Helen M., Melanie R. Darst, and Jeffrey J. Nordhaus 1991 Fishes in the Forested Flood plain of the Ochlockonee River, Florida, During Flood and Drought Conditions. Water Resources Investigations Report 90-4202. U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee.

Livingston, Robert J. 1984 Trophic Response of Fishes to Habitat Variability in Coastal Seagrass Systems. Ecology 65(4):1258-1275.

1990 Inshore Marine Habitats. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and John L. Ewel, pp. 549-573. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Marcello, R. A., and R. K. Strawn 1972 The Cage Culture of Some Marine Fishes in the Intake and Discharge of a Steam- electric Generating Stations, Galveston Bay, Texas. Texas A&M University Sea Grant Collection. TAMU-SG-72-306.

194 Marquardt, William H. 1992 Recent Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations in Southwest Florida. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt and Claudine Payne, pp. 9-58. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1. University of Florida, Gainesville.

McCutcheon, Patrick T. 1992 Burned Archaeological Bone. In Deciphering a Shell Midden, edited by Julie K. Stein, pp. 347-370. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.

Meehan, B. 1977 Man Does Not Live by Calories Alone: The Role of Shellfish in a Coastal Cuisine. In Sunda and Sahul: Prehistoric Studies in Southeast Asia, pp. 493-531. Academia Press, New York.

Meunier, F. J., and J. Desse 1994 Histological Structure of Hyperostotic Cranial Remains of Pomadasys hasta (Osteichthyes, Perciformes, Haemulidae) From Archaeological Sites of the Arabian Gulf and the Indian Ocean: Fish Exploitation in the Past. W. Van Neer. Tervuren, Annales du Musee Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques 274:47-53.

Mikell, Gregory A. 1992 8Ok5: A Coastal Weeden Island Village in Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53(3-4):151-171.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Miller, George J. 1975 A Study of Cuts, Grooves, and Other Marks on Recent and Fossil Bone: II Weathering, Cracks, Fractures, Splinters, and Other Similar Natural Phenomena. In Lithic Technology, Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson, pp. 211-226. Mouton Publishers, The Hague.

Miller, James J. 1970 Thermoluminescent Dating of Ceramics from the Refuge Tower Site. Honor’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Missimer, Thomas M. 1973 Growth Rates of Beach Ridges on Sanibel Island, Florida. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 23:383-388.

195 Montage, Clay L., and Richard G. Wiegert 1990 Salt Marshes. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and John L. Ewe, pp. 481-516. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Moody, W. D. 1950 A Study of the Natural History of the Spotted Trout, Cynoscion nebulosus, in the Cedar Key, Florida, Area. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 12(3):147-171.

Moore, C. B. 1901 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast, Part I. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:419-497.

Muncy, Robert J., and William Wingo 1983 Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Sea Catfish and Gafftopsail Catfish. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report No. 82(11.5). Performed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

Myers, Ronald L., and John J. Ewel (editors) 1990 Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Nanfro, Claire E. 2004 An Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Bird Hammock Site (8Wa30). Master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Nesbitt, Stephen A., John C. Ogden, Herbert W. Kale II, Barbara W. Patty, and Lesley A. Rowse 1982 Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies: 1976-1978. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-81/49.

O’Connor, Terry 2000 Hunting and Fishing: People as Predators. In The Archaeology of Animal Bones, edited by Terry O’Connor, pp. 131-146. Texas A&M University Anthropological Series No. 4. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Olsen, Stanley J. 1968 Fish, Amphibian and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites: Part I Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. LVI, No.2. Harvard University, Cambridge.

1969 Hyperostotic Fish Bones From Archaeological Sites. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 24:1-3.

196 Osburn, H. R., and G. C. Matlock 1984 Black Drum Movement in Texas Bays. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:523-530.

Parmalee, P. W., and W. E. Klippel 1974 Freshwater mussels as a prehistoric food resource. American Antiquity 39(3):421- 434.

Payne, Sebastian 1972 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias: The Results of Some Sieving Experiments. In Papers in Economic Prehistory: Studies by Members and Associates of the British Academy Major Research Project in the Early History of Agriculture, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 49-64. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pearson, J. C. 1929 Natural History and Conservation of Redfish and Other Commercial Sciaenids on the Texas Coast. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 44:129-214.

Penton, Daniel Troy 1970 Excavations in the Early Swift Creek Component at Bird Hammock (8Wa30). Master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Perlman, S. W. 1980 An Optimum Diet Model, Coastal Variability, and Hunter-Gatherer Behavior. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3:257-310. Phelps, David S. 1965 The Norwood Series of Fiber-Tempered Ceramics. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 2:65-69.

1967 Prehistory of North Central Florida: Final Report. Prepared for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

1969a Swift Creek and Santa Rosa in Northwest Florida. University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Notebook 1(6-9):14-24.

1969b Final Report: Investigation of Two Prehistoric Ceremonial Sites, 1967-1969. Prepared for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

1969c Swift Creek and Santa Rosa in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Phelps, David S. (supervisor) 1968 – 1970 Original photographs and maps of the Refuge Fire Tower Site (8Wa14) archaeological excavations. Photographs on file, Florida State University, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Collections, Tallahassee.

197 Phelps, David S., Judith Bense, James Miller, Jay Johnson, Brenda Brown, J. Saunders, Daniel T. Penton 1968 – 1970 Original unpublished field notes from the Refuge Fire Tower Site (8Wa14) archaeological excavations. Field notebook on file, Florida State University, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Collections, Tallahassee.

Phillips, J. C. 1992 Bernath (8Sr986): A Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Site on Mulatto Bayou in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the 49th annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Little Rock, AR.

Quitmyer, Irvy R. 1985 Aboriginal Subsistence Activities in the Kings Bay Locality. In Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality, Volume 2: Zooarchaeology, edited by William Hampton Adams, pp. 73-91. University of Florida, Department of Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 2, Gainesville.

Quitmyer, Irvy R., and Douglas S. Jones 2000 The Over-Exploitation of Hard Clams (Merceneria spp.) from Five Archaeological Sites in the Southeastern United States. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3):158-166.

Rafferty, Janet E. 1985 The Archaeological Record on Sedentariness: Recognition, Development, and Implications. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, edited by Michael B. Shiffer , p. 113-247. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando.

Reagan, Roland E. 1985 Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Red Drum. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.36). Performed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

Rehder, Harald A. 1981 National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Seashells. First edition. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. 1982a Availability and Use of Fish along Coastal Georgia and Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 1:65-88.

1982b Vertebrate Fauna from Four Coastal Mississippian Sites. Journal of Ethnobiology 2:39-61.

198 Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Irvy R. Quitmyer 1987 Faunal Remains from Two Coastal Georgia Swift Creek Sites. Southeastern Archaeology 7(2):95-108.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., Irvy R. Quitmyer, Stephen Hale, Sylvia Scudder, Elizabeth S. Wing 1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 52(2):304- 317.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rice, E. E. 1975 Effects of Post-mortem Handling. In Nutritional Evaluation of Food Processing, second edition, edited by R. Harris and E. Karmas. AVI, Westport, Connecticut.

Riser, G. 1987 The Quave Ceramic Collection: Mississippian Presence on the North Shore of Lake Ponchartrain. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, New Orleans.

Rockwood, C. E., and W. F. Mazek 1977 Seasonal Variations in Oyster Meat Yields in Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Sciences 27(2):346-347.

Russo, Michael 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study from Horr’s Island. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

1992 Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Mary’s Region of Northeast Florida and Southeast Georgia. Florida Anthropologist 45:107-126.

2004 Notes on South Carolina and Florida Shell Rings. Manuscript on file, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Russo, Michael, and Greg Heide 2002 The Joseph Reed Shell Ring. The Florida Anthropologist 55(2):135-155.

Ruhl, Donna 2000 Archaeobotany at Bernath (8Sr986) and other Santa Rosa/Swift Creek- Related Sites in Coastal and Non-Coastal Southeastern U.S. Locations. Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3):191-202.

199 Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2002 Woodland Ceramic Beginnings. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 398-420. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Saunders, Rebecca 2004 Stratigraphy at the Rollins Shell Ring Site: Implications for Ring Function. The Florida Anthropologist 57(4):249-270.

Scarry, Margaret C. 1986 Change in Plant Procurement and Production during the Emergence of the Moundville Chiefdom. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Schlesselman, G. W. 1955 The Gulf Coast Oyster Industry of the United States. Geographic Review 45(4): 531-541.

Sears, William H. 1962 Hopewellian Affiliations of Certain Sites on the Gulf Coast of Florida. American Antiquity 28(1):5-18.

Shaffer, Brian S. 1992 Quarter-Inch Screening: Understanding Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains. American Antiquity 57(1):129-136.

Shannon, Claude E., and Warren Weaver 1949 The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois, Urbana.

Shannon, George Ward, Jr. 1979 Ceramic Transitions on the Gulf Coastal Plain in the Early Centuries of the Christian Era. Master’s thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Florida Atlantic University Libraries, Boca Raton.

Sheldon, A. L. 1969 Equitability Indices: Dependence on the Species Count. Ecology 50:466-467.

Simmons, E. G., and J. P. Breuer 1962 A Study of Redfish, Sciaenops ocellata, and Black Drum, Pogonias cromis. Public Institute for Marine Science, University of Texas 8:184-211.

Simons, Erika H. 1986 A Guide to Identifying Otoliths from Archaeological Sites. Southeastern Archaeology 5(2):138-145.

200 Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,500 – 500 B.P. In Advances in World Prehistory, vol. 5, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close, pp. 1-92. Academic Press, Orlando.

1992 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. In Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture in Eastern North America, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 267- 279. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Smith-Vaniz, W., L. S. Kaufman and J. Glowack 1995 The Nature History of Fish Hyperostosis: Cellular Bone within an Acellular Skeleton. Marine Biology 121:573-580.

Smolowitz, R. 1997 Bacteria Pericarditis: A New Disease of Toadfish. Biology Bulletin 193:270-271.

Snow, Frankie 1977 An Archaeological Survey of the Ocmulgee Big Bend Region. South Georgia College, Occasional Papers from South Georgia 3, Douglas.

Snow, Frankie, and Keith Stephenson 1990 Hartford: A 4th Century Swift Creek Mound Site in the Interior Coastal Plain of Georgia. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Mobile.

Sobolik, Kristin, and D. Gentry Steele 1996 A Turtle Atlas to Facilitate Archaeological Identification. Fenske Companies, Rapid City, South Dakota.

Stanley, Jon G., and Mark A. Sellers 1986 Species Profile: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – American Oyster. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.64). Performed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

Stapor, Frank W. Jr., Thomas D. Mathews, and Fonda E. Lindfors-Kearns 1991 Barrier-Island Progradation and Holocene Sea-Level History in Southwest Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 7(3):815-838.

Steele, Teresa E. 2003 Using Mortality Profiles to Infer Behavior in the Fossil Record. Journal of Mammology. 84(2):418-430.

Stein, Julie K. 1992 The Analysis of Shell Middens. In Deciphering a Shell Midden, edited by Julie K. Stein, p. 1-15. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.

201

Stephonson, Ketih, Judith A. Bense, and Frankie Snow 2002 Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek of the South Atlantic. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 318-340. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1981 Settlement Hierarchies and Political Complexity in Nonmarket Societies: The Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico. American Anthropologist 83(2): 320- 363.

Stock Assessment Group 2003a Species Account: Black Drum (Pogonias cromis). Submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute. Electronic document, http://research.myfwc.com, accessed February 2005.

2003b Species Account: Sea Catfishes (Ariidae). Submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute. Electronic document, http://research.myfwc.com, accessed February 2005.

2003c Species Account: Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute. Electronic document, http://research.myfwc.com, accessed February 2005.

2003d Species Account: Spotted Seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus). Submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute. Electronic document, http://research.myfwc.com, accessed February 2005.

Stuvier, Minze, Paula R. Reimer, Edourd Bard, J., Warren Beck, G. S. Burren, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Johannes van der Plicht, and Marco Spurk 1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000 – 0 cal B.P. Radiocarbon 40(3):1041-1083.

Sutter, Frederick C., Richard S. Waller, and Thomas D. McIlwain 1986 Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Black Drum. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.51). Performed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

Swanton, John R. 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.

Tabb, D. C. 1960 The Spotted Seatrout Fishery of the Indian River Area, Florida. Florida Board of Conservation Technical Service 33:11-18.

202 Tesar, Louis D. 1973 Archaeological Survey and Testing of Gulf Islands National Seashore, Part I: Florida, edited by Hale G. Smith. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University. Thomas, Prentice M., and L. Janice Campbell 1985 The Deptford to Santa Rosa – Swift Creek Transition in the Florida Panhandle. The Florida Anthropologist 38(1-2):110-119.

1990 Santa Rosa – Swift Creek Culture on the Northwest Florida Coast: The Horseshoe Bayou Phase. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Mobile.

Tiffany, W. J., R. E. Pelham, and F. W. Howell 1980 Hyperostosis in Florida Fossil Fishes. Florida Scientist 43:44-49.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge: Forestry Management and Non-Game Wildlife, Final Report. U.S. National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, Gainesville.

Vehik, S. C. 1977 Bone Fragments and Bone Grease Manufacturing: a Review of Their Archaeological Use and Potential. Plains Anthropologist 22(75):169-182.

von Dreisch, A. 1994 Hyperostosis in Fish. Fish Exploitation in the Past. W. Van Neer. Tervuren, Annales du Musee Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques 274:37-45.

Wagner, G. 1995 The Prehistoric Sequence of Plant Utilization in south Carolina. Paper presented at the 52nd Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Walker, Karen Jo 1992a The Zooarchaeology of Charlotte Harbor’s Maritime Adaptation: Spatial and Temporal Perspectives. Master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.

1992b The Zooarchaeology of Charlotte Harbor’s Maritime Adaptation: Spatial and Temporal Perspectives. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt and Claudine Payne, pp. 265-366. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Walker, Karen J., Frank W. Stapor, Jr., and William H. Marquardt 1994 Episodic Sea Levels and Human Occupation at Southwest Florida’s Wightman Site. The Florida Anthropologist 47(2):161-179.

203 Walthall, John A. 1975 Ceramic Figurines, Porter Hopewell, and Middle Woodland Interaction. The Florida Anthropologist 28:125-140.

Wang, Johnson C. S., and Edward C. Raney 1971 Distribution and Fluctuations in the Fish Fauna of the Charlotte Harbor Estuary, Florida. Charlotte Harbor Estuarine Studies, Mote Marine Laboratory, New City Island. Sarasota, Florida.

Watt, B. K. and A. L. Merill 1963 Composition of Foods. Agricultural Handbook No. 8, United States Department of Agriculture.

Watts, William A., and Barbara C. S. Hansen 1988 Environments in Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 307-323. Caldwell, Jew Jersey: Telford.

Weinard, Daniel C., C. Fred T. Andrus, and M. Ray Crook, Jr. 2000 The Identification of Cownose Ray (Rhinoptera bonasus) as a Seasonal Indicator Species and Implications for Ccoastal Mississippian Subsistence Modeling. Southeastern Archaeology 19(2):156-162.

Wheeler, Ryan J., James J. Miller, Ray M. McGee, Donna Ruhl, Brenda Swann, and Melissa Memory 2003 Archaic Period Canoes from Newnans Lake, Florida. American Antiquity 68(3):533-551.

Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1996 National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Second edition. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.

Whittaker, F. H. and Stein, Julie K. 1992 Shell Midden Boundaries in Relation to Past and Present Shorelines. In Deciphering a Shell Midden, edited by Julie K. Stein, pp. 25-42. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.

White, Nancy Marie 2003 Testing Partially Submerged Shell Middens in the Apalachicola Estuarine Wetlands, Franklin County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1):15-45.

Widmer, Randolph J. 1986 Prehistoric Estuarine Adaptation at the Solana Site, Charlotte County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

204 Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Wing, Elizabeth S. and Antoinette B. Brown 1979 Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric Foodways. Studies in Archaeology Series. Academic Press, New York.

Wing, Elizabeth S. and Irvy R. Quitmyer 1983 Recovery of Animal Remains from Archaeological Contexts. Paper presented to the 48th Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.

1992 A Modern Midden Experiment. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt and Claudine Payne, pp. 367-374. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Winterhalder, Bruce, and Eric Alden Smith 1981 Optimal Foraging Strategies and Hunter-Gatherer Research in Anthropology. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archaeological Analyses, edited by Bruce Winterhalder and Eric Alden Smith, pp. 13-35. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Yesner, David R. 1980 Maritime Hunter-gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory. Current Anthropology 21(6):727-735.

Yokel, B. J. 1966 A Contribution to the Biology and Distribution of the Red Drum, Scianeops ocellata. Master’s thesis. University of Miami, Coral Gables.

205 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ariana Slemmens Lawson was born on June 3, 1979 in St. Louis, Missouri. She grew up and attended high school in Alton, Illinois. Ariana completed her senior year of high school at the St. Petersburg Junior College in Florida in 1997. She earned her Bachelor’s of Science Degree from Florida State University in 2000, majoring in Anthropology with a minor in Biology. In 2005, Ariana earned her Master’s of Science Degree in Anthropology from Florida State University. Ariana worked at the Southeast Archeological Center from 1999 to 2003 as an Archaeological Field Technician and Museum Technician. She also held a Graduate Teaching Assistantship at Florida State University in 2002 and 2003, and has worked in the Florida Division of Historical Resources from 2003 until the present. She currently administers State and Federal Historic Preservation Grants through the Grants and Education Section of the Bureau of Historic Preservation in Tallahassee, Florida.

206