Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2019
The Social Landscape of Mound Field: Systematic Sampling and Material Culture Distribution at a Woodland Ring Midden- MHaleoy Suarna Mde sCseromplex
Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
THE SOCIAL LANDSCAPE OF MOUND FIELD: SYSTEMATIC SAMPLING AND
MATERIAL CULTURE DISTRIBUTION AT A WOODLAND RING MIDDEN-MOUND
COMPLEX
By
HALEY SARA MESSER
A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
2019 Haley Sara Messer defended this thesis on July 31, 2019. The members of the supervisory committee were:
Daniel J. Pullen Professor Directing Thesis
Kyle Killian Committee Member
Andrew Frank Committee Member
Michael Russo Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without my chair, Dr. Daniel Pullen. Dr. Pullen took me on sight unseen and has provided invaluable input and perspective to this project. His insight, patience, and kindness have ultimately led to the conclusion of this thesis and I am thankful to have had the opportunity to work with him. Dr. Mike Russo has guided me throughout this process and shared with me his seemingly endless knowledge about archaeology. Dr. Russo’s enthusiasm about the subject is contagious and inspiring and I am very lucky to have had his influence in the beginning of my career. Drs. Andrew Frank and Kyle Killian generously agreed to join my committee as outside members and have provided unique perspectives that have contributed greatly to this thesis. I have learned greatly from their feedback and I am very thankful for their service on my committee. Julie Duggins, Jeffrey Shanks, and Dr. Mary Glowacki have individually influenced my career thus far with their wisdom, support, and guidance, for which I am very thankful My friends and family have given me enormous support, encouragement, and insight for which I am indebted to them. Thank you for getting me here, Sean Collins, LaJuan Messer, Jeff Messer, Dianne Messer, Olivia Marino, Emily McLean, Alison Bruin, Chandler, Morty, and Isa.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...... vi List of Figures ...... vii Abstract ...... x
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Research Questions ...... 3 Question One: Landscape and Chronology of Midden Deposits ...... 3 Question Two: Social Inequality ...... 4 Chapter Outline ...... 4
2. BACKGROUND ...... 6
Archaeological History of Woodland Ring Middens...... 6 Archaeological Investigations at Mound Field ...... 10 Clarence B. Moore ...... 10 Gordon Willey ...... 13 National Park Service and Florida State University ...... 17
3. METHODS AND SAMPLE ...... 19
Survey Methodology ...... 20 Shovel Testing ...... 20 Topographic Mapping ...... 22 Laboratory Methodology ...... 22 Analysis ...... 24 Ceramic Analysis ...... 25 Surfer Mapping ...... 28
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 31
Midden Distribution and Topography ...... 31 Artifact Distributions ...... 33 Ceramic Distribution ...... 33 Bone Distribution ...... 34 Shell Distribution ...... 35 Distribution Discussion ...... 37 Ceramic Analysis Results ...... 42 Prestige Wares ...... 42 Non-prestige Wares ...... 44 Ceramic Analysis Discussion ...... 49
5. CONCLUSIONS...... 57
iv
Problems Encountered in this Study ...... 58 Future Research ...... 59
APPENDICES ...... 61
A. WEEDEN ISLAND CERAMIC DESCRIPTIONS ...... 61
References ...... 66
Biographical Sketch ...... 73
v LIST OF TABLES
4.1 Mound Field Ceramics Identified by Type ...... 49
4.2 Prestige vs. Utilitarian Wares from Mound Field ...... 49
vi LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Geographical ranges of Weeden Island and Swift Creek culture periods (Shanks 2015)...... 1
1.2 Locations of select Weeden Island and Swift Creek ring midden sites in northwest coastal Florida (Russo, Dengel, Shanks 2014)...... 2
2.1 Vessel excavated by Moore, which he described as “jar with eight lobes ‘killed,’ red ware, incised decoration” (National Museum of the American Indian Photo Archives Image #174543) ...... 11
2.2 Vessel excavated by Moore, which he described as “openwork jar representing a bird, perforation in base, red ware, incised decoration” (National Museum of the American Indian Photo Archives Image #174914)...... 11
2.3 Vessel excavated by Moore, which he described as “large globular jar with owl figure on top ‘killed,’ brown ware, incised decoration” (National Museum of the American Indian Photo Archives Image #173996)...... 12
2.4 Vessel excavated by Moore, which he described as as “jar ‘killed,’ brown ware, stamped decoration” (National Museum of the American Indian Photo Archives Image #173989) ...... 12
2.5 Willey’s Map of Mound Field (Willey 1949:57). Note north is to the right. Colorized and modified by Mike Russo to account for midden area cut off in Willey’s original map...... 14
2.6 Willey’s map updated by Mike Russo to reflect cardinal directions...... 15
2.7 Midden soil density map of Mound Field ring midden with approximated locations of Willey’s 1940 excavations...... 15
2.8 Weeden Island Incised sherd excavated by Willey. This artifact and others from Willey’s excavations at Mound Field are housed at the National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center in Tallahassee, FL ...... 16
2.9 Carrabelle Incised sherd excavated by Willey. This artifact and others from Willey’s excavations at Mound Field are housed at the National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center in Tallahassee, FL ...... 17
3.1 Shovel testing at Mound Field...... 19
3.2 Map of shovel tests completed at Mound Field ...... 21
3.3 Topographic map of Mound Field ...... 23
3.4 Topographic mapping at Mound Field ...... 24
vii
4.1 Midden thickness ...... 32
4.2 LiDAR topography ...... 32
4.3 Distribution of ceramics overlaying midden thickness map ...... 33
4.4 Distribution of faunal bone overlaying midden thickness map ...... 34
4.5 Shell thickness overlaying midden thickness map ...... 35
4.6 Shell thickness (grayscale) overlaid on topography ...... 36
4.7 Midden contour map with line indicating possible split between two sides of the ring midden oriented with the mound...... 37
4.8 Ceramic distribution with axis of division...... 39
4.9 Bone distribution with axis of division ...... 40
4.10 Shell distribution with axis of division ...... 40
4.11 Weeden Island Red sherd...... 42
4.12 Weeden Island Punctated sherd ...... 43
4.13 Wakulla Check Stamped rim sherd with mica inclusions...... 44
4.14 Wakulla Check Stamped sherd ...... 45
4.15 Carrabelle Incised rim sherd ...... 46
4.16 Carrabelle Incised sherd ...... 47
4.17 Carrabelle Punctated with fingernail punctations ...... 47
4.18 Swift Creek Complicated Stamped sherd ...... 48
4.19 Undecorated rim sherd with drilled hole ...... 48
4.20 Distribution of ceramic prestige wares overlaid on midden thickness ...... 50
4.21 Distribution of prestige wares on distribution of all ceramics ...... 51
4.22 Distribution of all elite objects ...... 52
viii 4.23 Distribution of prestige wares on distribution of all identified prestige wares excluding undecorated and UID decorated varieties...... 53
4.24 Prestige ware and shell distributions at Byrd Hammock North, Hare Hammock, and Stranges ring middens (Russo et. al 2017:82)...... 55
4.25 Prestige ware and shell distributions at Mound Field ...... 55
ix ABSTRACT
This thesis documents the results and interpretations of data collected in the systematic shovel test survey of the Mound Field site (8Wa8) in coastal northwest Florida. Mound Field is a
Weeden Island period circular midden site with an associated burial mound. The original gridded survey of the site took place in 2016 and additional topographic survey in 2018. This thesis seeks to identify the presence or absence of social stratification at the site through the analysis of archaeological data collected in shovel tests. Additionally, I use heuristic maps as a tool to recreate the deposition of the site and interpret the use of the landscape at the time of its occupation. This thesis determines that the Mound Field ring midden is characterized by very little intermixture of prestige items with utilitarian objects in the subsurface deposits. The data indicate the division of the ringed village into two distinct halves, each with similar archaeological deposits. The differential distribution of artifacts suggests some social stratification and intermixture of sacred and secular life.
x CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Woodland period (AD 100-1000) in northwest Florida was an era of evolving ritual activity and ceremonial practices. Burial mounds now dotted the landscape in association with small villages and larger complexes. Burials themselves became more elaborate throughout the period with specialized and valuable associated objects which shed light on the growing significance and complexity of ceremonial culture during the period. Ceramic technology became widespread and was incorporated into not only everyday life but also in ceremonial life.
The division of the Woodland period into three stages, early, middle, and late, in northwest Florida and southern Georgia correlates with culturally discrete peoples that occupied the landscape during those stages. The early Woodland was characterized by Deptford culture
(AD 100-300), the middle by the Swift Creek culture (AD 300-600), and the late by the Weeden
Island culture (AD 600-1000) (Figure 1.1 for the distribution of the latter two phases).
Figure 1.1 Geographical ranges of Weeden Island and Swift Creek culture periods (Shanks 2015). 1 Ring midden features appear in the coastal northwest Florida region during the Swift
Creek period and persist through the Weeden Island period (Figure 1.2). These site components are large, circular midden deposits presumably encircling villages with associated burial mounds.
Ring middens are identifiable in the coastal region because their shape is magnified by the topographic rise caused by dense shell deposits. Russo (2014: 21) defines ring middens as
“middle Woodland deposits of organic midden soils with variable amounts and kinds of shell and other debris averaging more than 120 meters in diameter but less than 1 meter in depth.”
Figure 1.2 Locations of select Weeden Island and Swift Creek ring midden sites in northwest coastal Florida (Russo, Dengel, Shanks 2014).
Mound Field (8Wa8) is a Weeden Island ring midden and mound site in Wakulla County,
Florida. The site is characterized by a burial mound and an associated circular midden which encircles the plaza and village component. Mound Field was initially utilized beginning in AD
650 until as late as AD 1000.
Archaeologists from the National Park Service (NPS) Southeast Archeological Center
(SEAC) and an archaeological field school at Mound Field from the Florida State University
Department of Anthropology conducted fieldwork at the site in the summer of 2016. The
2 fieldwork consisted of a systematic shovel test survey, phase III excavation, and topographic mapping. I participated in the fieldwork in 2016 and returned to the site in the summer of 2018 to complete the topographic map. I undertook this thesis project because there are intriguing, unanswered questions about ring midden sites that I want to address with the data collected at
Mound Field.
Research Questions
This thesis aims to answer two questions, one methodological and one theoretical. The first will address the landscape containing Mound Field and the development of the archaeological ring midden deposits through time. The second will seek to identify ceremonial and prestige areas within the ring midden based on artifact distributions. These questions ask what human behaviors may have contributed to the development and use of the Mound Field ring midden and plaza.
Question One: Site Distribution
How was the Mound Field ring midden constructed? Using a combination of shovel test stratigraphy, midden depth and thickness, radiocarbon and relative dating of ceramics, and topographic data obtained at each shovel test, I will reconstruct the site’s original ground surface below the ring and plaza; determine the chronology of deposits horizontally and vertically; and develop heuristic tools to observe the development of the ring midden over time. This section of the thesis relies heavily on the development of digital models as tools to interpret cultural behavior.
3 Question Two: Social Inequality
Can full or incipient social stratification be identified in the Mound Field ring? In this part of the thesis I analyze the distribution of ceramic artifacts categorized as elite, prestigious, or ceremonial in nature in contrast with everyday varieties of ceramics to identify potential non- random patterning that might suggest the presence of higher socially ranked individuals or areas of material processing for ceremonial events. This question is addressed using artifact data gathered from the systematic shovel test survey of Mound Field. Distribution maps reflecting the areas of the ring containing prestige or ceremonial objects in comparison with quotidian artifacts will be used to analyze patterning that might reflect particular behaviors or social hierarchies within the ring. Since the amount of midden at any one location may reflect differential access to resources, the thickness of midden deposits will be compared to areas where prestige or ceremonial objects are densest to determine possible correlations.
Chapter Outline
The following chapters in this thesis will address the research questions laid out in chapter one. Chapter two contains a historiography of ring midden archaeology in the Southeast and the history of research at Mound Field. The combination of the history of the site with the history of the greater field of research contextualizes the problems being addressed in this thesis.
Chapter three describes in detail the sample that will be used to address the research question.
This chapter provides a description of the methodology used in the data collection and analysis including field and laboratory procedures, ceramic typologies, and digital mapping methods.
Chapter four presents the data collected and analyzed in this study together with interpretations gathered from the results. An in depth-analysis discusses the data and postulates potential
4 narratives that the data reflect. Chapter five reflects on the implications of the interpretations made in chapter four. I consider the effectiveness of the methodology for the research questions.
This chapter returns the results of the study to their significance within the greater field of work, and it delves into future research directions.
5 CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
Archaeological History of Woodland Ring Middens
The first person to examine archaeologically the sites we now identify as ring middens was Clarence B. Moore in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries. Moore was an avocational archaeologist from Philadelphia who traveled throughout the southeastern United States surveying more than 500 mound sites known by local informants. His early archaeological investigations, although flawed through the lens of current standards, established the foundation of archaeology in the Southeast. Gordon Willey writes of Moore: “By faithfully publishing his findings he has left an invaluable record that forms the groundwork for any synthesis of Florida prehistory” (Willey 1949:21).
While Moore’s primary interests lay in collecting and cataloguing human remains and burial objects from mound contexts, he regularly referred to middens associated with the mounds and what he thought were village areas. Because of Moore’s interest in high quality, intact artifacts, he did not typically dig in midden contexts. He did not see value in the information that modern archaeologists seek in refuse piles. Many of his site descriptions noted the presence of middens but did not explore their purpose or contents further.
In some of his site descriptions, Moore described “domiciliary mounds,” which were large midden piles that he believed supported house structures (Moore 1901:424, 435, 436, 454,
455; Moore 1902:140, 175, 229, 281, 304, 348). Some of what Moore classified as domiciliary mounds were likely midden deposits that resulted in significant topographic rise. Moore noted
6 “shell deposits” and “shell heaps” as well as what he called “shell fields” (Moore 1901:433, 435,
496; Moore 1902:234, 274, 320, 349-351, 357; Moore 1918:536).
Moore (1918: 564) described the relationship between midden deposits and living areas at Byrd Hammock, a Woodland ring midden site in Wakulla County, Florida:
“The humps, rises, and low ridges between the two mounds proved to be places of abode, the sand being black from admixture of organic matter and containing quantities of marine shells, mainly of the oyster, fish-bones, fragments of turtle shell, bits of earthenware, etc., and being without burials so far as investigated.”
Moore described a “circular shell enclosure” or “circular midden” at four northwest Florida sites:
Mound near Bear Point, 8BY5; Cemetery at St. Andrews, 8BY23; Laughton’s Bayou Mound A,
8BY27; Mound near Baker’s Creek, 8BY29 (Dengel 2014; Moore 1902:175, 188, 196). These cursory notes by Moore are the first descriptions of Woodland ring middens.
Gordon Willey visited sites throughout Florida in the 1940s in the process of developing ceramic typologies. Willey relocated sites identified by Moore, creating a formal record of them, and establishing their cultural affiliations. Willey established the archaeological site numbering system in Florida and formalized the recording of sites previously visited by Moore. He created the first typologies of Florida ceramics and established relative chronologies that connected cultural affiliation and stratigraphic locations.
Willey often conducted excavations in non-mound contexts, exploring midden deposits and what he called “midden hills” (Willey 1949:56). While he recognized the significance of the midden and village components at Woodland sites, he failed to identify the circular shape of the connected middens that he observed. Willey was the first to scratch the surface of identifying features that would later be called ring middens. He thought they were either remnants of “old village fortifications” or of “only ceremonial significance” (1949:403).
7 In the decades following Willey’s observations of what we now classify as ring middens, archaeologists seldom identified or explored the presence of the rounded features. Phelps
(1969:19) considered ring middens a rare site type he titled “the infrequent circular midden embankment.” Percy and Brose appraised them as villages associated with mounds, a model carried forward by Bense (1994:172) and Milanich (1994:145) (Brose and Percy 1974; Percy and
Brose 1974).
Much of the work surrounding Woodland ring middens has focused less on function and social structure than on subsistence and temporal occupation patterns. Years of research classified the Byrd Hammock site as a consistently inhabited Swift Creek/Weeden Island site whose inhabitants relied on the terrestrial and aquatic resources that coalesced in the coastal region (Allen 1954; Bense 1969; Byrd 1994; Nanfro 2004; Penton 1970; Russo et al. 2014a).
Faunal analyses at ring midden sites over the last thirty years have largely determined that the midden deposits are the result of everyday subsistence activities, with varying identifications of seasonality and resource exploitation (Byrd 1994; Doran 1985; Mikell 1985;
Mikell and Pope 1996:143; Nanfro 2004.) In some cases archaeologists have suggested ceremonial and ritual activity taking place around ring middens in addition to quotidian activities
(Bense 1998:263-273; Nanfro 2004:53; Thomas and Campbell 1996:153, 158–159).
Bense (1969:3, 19) may have been the first to use the term “ring” to describe the features we now classify as ring middens when she referred to Byrd Hammock as “midden ring” or “a ring of midden enclosing a level plaza.” Percy and Brose (1974:11) described similar middens as
“U-shaped or ring middens in use from the Early Swift Creek through Early Weeden Island.”
These are the first known references to Swift Creek and Weeden Island middens as rings.
8 Much of the work relating to Woodland ring midden sites in the last two decades has been undertaken by the Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) on properties managed by
Tyndall Air Force Base and the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. Since the early 2000s
SEAC has investigated 10 ring midden sites in the Northwest Florida coastal region (Russo et al.
2006; Russo et al. 2009; Russo et al. 2010; Russo et al. 2011; Russo et al. 2014b; Russo et al.
2016).
Data analyzed by Russo et al. (2014a:130) indicate a pattern of elite wares in mixed contexts with everyday pottery at Weeden Island ring middens as well as presences of mica, foreign stone objects, ochre, and fragments of figurines or effigy vessels. The occurrence of these ritual objects in ring midden and plaza contexts suggests connections to activities related to the adjacent burial mounds. The confluence of these non-utilitarian objects have the potential to suggest the presence of an elite individual or specialized processing area for ritual activity.
More than twenty sites in the northwest Florida coastal region have been identified as either Swift Creek or Weeden Island ring middens, and few of them have been closely investigated. Ring middens are not the same as the “shell rings” of the Late Archaic. Woodland ring middens are made up of dense organic soil containing refuse like shell, fish bone, and broken ceramics while Archaic shell rings are comprised of dense amounts of shell that delineate the circular shape of the ring. With the lack of shell in some parts of a ring midden, the resulting low topography can deter the identification of the ring shape. In these cases, subsurface midden soil and artifact distribution can be better markers of a midden’s ring-shape (Bense 1998:267–
268; Russo et al. 2009:76, 91; 2011:61, 97; 2014a:127).
9 Archaeological Investigations at Mound Field
Clarence B. Moore
Moore visited Mound Field in 1901 at which time he excavated the majority of the mound. He uncovered 21 burials, some containing numerous individuals, which he described to be in states of poor preservation. He suggested that the mound had held many more burials, but they had decayed entirely. Moore located the regularly predictable cache of pottery in the eastern part of the mound in which there were 58 vessels in total, many that he described as “fine” wares. The assemblage of pots was varied, some elaborately incised and stamped, others formed in eccentric shapes and adorned with animal effigies (Figs. 2.1-2.4). Many of the vessels were intentionally “killed,” a ritual in which the pots were fired with deliberate holes in them, removing the pots from any utilitarian function (Moore 1901:439). Killed pots were ceremonial objects created to be interred in mounds (Moore 1902:306). Other artifacts excavated by Moore include four celts, a chert lancehead, mica, and two projectile points.
Moore described the mound as standing nine feet tall and 61 feet wide. He described a visible ramp and causeway to the mound, and little previous looting activity (Moore 1902:306).
Operating in line with his usual practices, Moore did not investigate beyond the mound at Mound
Field. While he described midden components at other sites, he did not recognize or note the midden present at Mound Field. His work, while significant, acknowledged only the burial component of the site, missing the large village area associated with the mound that later archaeologists would identify as a ring village (Moore 1902:306-320).
10
Figure 2.1 Vessel excavated by Moore, which he described as “jar with eight lobes ‘killed,’ red ware, incised decoration” (National Museum of the American Indian Photo Archives Image #174543).
Figure 2.2 Vessel excavated by Moore, which he described as “openwork jar representing a bird, perforation in base, red ware, incised decoration” (National Museum of the American Indian Photo Archives Image #174914).
11
Figure 2.3 Vessel excavated by Moore, which he described as “large globular jar with owl figure on top ‘killed,’ brown ware, incised decoration” (National Museum of the American Indian Photo Archives Image #173996).
Figure 2.4 Vessel excavated by Moore, which he described as “jar ‘killed,’ brown ware, stamped decoration” (National Museum of the American Indian Photo Archives Image #173989).
12 The focus of the project described in this thesis is far removed from the work that
Moore did at Mound Field. While his interests were in the mounds and little else, this project focuses on the village component of the site. The high-quality intact artifacts buried intentionally in the mound differ greatly from the fragmentary, discarded objects from which we seek to learn more about the people who lived at the site.
Gordon Willey
Gordon Willey visited Mound Field in 1940 as part of his goal to excavate in midden
contexts at the sites described by Moore earlier that century in his effort to better seriate the
ceramics in the region. He excavated in stratigraphic levels to develop chronologies associated
with each ceramic complex in order to establish the regional chronological record. Willey
chose to dig in midden contexts because the ceramics from Moore’s mound excavations were
not associated with stratigraphy.
Willey only excavated at a handful of the sites he visited, and Mound Field was one of
them. He did not return to excavate the mound, but rather placed his excavation units some 50
meters southwest of the mound in the midden that Moore had not identified. Willey recognized
areas of particular topographic rise as a result of the subsurface midden deposits which he
called “midden hills” (Willey 1949:57). We know today that the midden hills were part of a
subsurface circular midden and were not independent deposits. When comparing Willey’s map
in Figures 2.5 and 2.6 to the sub-surface ring midden map in Figure 2.7 one can see Willey’s
identification of individual midden deposits in comparison to what we now know is the
contiguous subsurface midden that form a circular midden feature.
Willey dug two 3 x 3 meter excavation units on midden deposits with a higher
topographic rise as well as two supplementary shovel test pits on lower ground (Fig. 2.5, Fig.
13 2.6; Fig 2.7). He described in detail the stratigraphic profiles of each excavation unit, recognizing the significance of the subsurface midden soils. His smaller shovel test pit, titled
“supplementary excavation 2” was placed in what we now know is the plaza encircled by the ring midden (Fig. 2.7).
From the midden units, Willey recovered faunal remains largely made up of fish bones and oyster shell, supplemented by terrestrial vertebrate fauna and conch and clam shells.
Ceramics were abundant in his larger pits, particularly in Pit I in which he unearthed approximately 4,800 individual pot sherds (Figs. 2.7, 2.8) (Willey 1949:56-63).
Figure 2.5 Willey’s Map of Mound Field (Willey 1949:57). Note north is to the right. Colorized and modified by Mike Russo to account for midden area cut off in Willey’s original map.
14
Figure 2.6 Willey’s map rotated by Mike Russo to reflect cardinal directions.
Figure 2.7 Midden soil density map of Mound Field ring midden with approximated locations of Willey’s 1940 excavations. 15 Willey used the stratigraphic data from these excavations to create soil profiles and to examine the chronology of the site. Using classic seriation techniques, Willey identified a shift from Swift Creek to Weeden Island and Carrabelle ceramic types. Ultimately he used these data in combination with that from other sites in the region to create a ceramic chronological typology for the Woodland period in Northwest Florida (Willey 1949:55-63). In that chronology both
Weeden Island and Carrabelle types constituted the Weeden Island Ceramic Series, with both varieties characterized by incised and punctated designs in contrast to the dominant stamped design pottery of the earlier Swift Creek series. See examples of Weeden Island and Carrabelle variety pottery types defined by Willey in Figures 2.8 and 2.9.
Figure 2.8 Weeden Island Incised sherd excavated by Willey. This artifact and others from Willey’s excavations at Mound Field are housed at the National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center in Tallahassee, FL.
16
Figure 2.9 Carrabelle Incised sherd excavated by Willey. This artifact and others from Willey’s excavations at Mound Field are housed at the National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center in Tallahassee, FL.
National Park Service and Florida State University
Data from Mound Field were used to establish the foundation of our frame of understanding of the Woodland period in Northwest Florida, yet it has received little attention from archaeologists since Willey’s excavations in the 1940’s. In 2016, as part of a theme study of ring midden sites along the Gulf Coast of northwest Florida, the National Park Service (NPS)
Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) began a shovel test survey at Mound Field to identify the boundaries of the site itself and of the ring midden feature. The Florida State University
Department of Anthropology 2016 archaeological field school led by Drs. Tanya Peres and
Geoffrey Thomas joined SEAC archaeologists in completing the 176 shovel tests to define site boundaries and material density distributions including pottery, midden soils, and shell. The field school then opened a trench in the northeast portion of the plaza and midden excavating nineteen
17 1m x 2m and 2m x 2m units and began topographic mapping of the ring midden. I, along with
SEAC archaeologists, returned to Mound Field in 2018 to complete the topographic mapping of the site, the results of which are presented below. This thesis is not the first report to result from these field studies. Schultz (2018) analyzed material from shell deposits excavated in the 2016 field school, determining the importance of oyster and select marine shellfish in Mound Field midden deposits. Merrick (2018) analyzed faunal material recovered in excavation units and suggested the possibility that the site operated as a fishery.
Woodland ring middens are a site type that has only recently been identified. Once seen as isolated and unconsolidated midden deposits (e.g., Moore 1918; Penton 1971), new methods for identifying their ring shape have resulted in the identification of at least fourteen ring villages formerly thought to have been scattered middens (Russo et al. 2014). Mound Field is, thus, just one Woodland ring midden site that has been misinterpreted in the past. The new data from
Mound Field present opportunities for more detailed analysis of the ring midden structure and the processes involved in its creation. Using these data in efforts to answer research questions with new perspectives and methodologies will contribute to the greater field of Woodland period research. In this thesis I examine the distributions of the Mound Field ring midden contents and analyze the social landscape of the site.
18 CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND SAMPLE
The data in this thesis are the result of my analysis of data collected in the 2016 and 2018 systematic shovel test survey of Mound Field (Fig. 3.1). This analysis largely excludes the block excavations placed in the ring by the FSU field school, which have been reported elsewhere
(Merrick 2018; Shultz 2018). Here I present the method and sampling strategies used to collect the survey used for material distribution mapping. I took part in the fieldwork in 2016 and 2018 and am responsible for the artifact analysis and digital modeling completed in this study.
Figure 3.1 Shovel testing at Mound Field.
19 Survey Methodology
Shovel Testing A total of 176 shovel tests were dug systematically throughout the site in a grid established using the cardinal directions. An artificial grid was created based on a datum arbitrarily placed in the approximated center of the site. Shovel tests were dug at 20 meter intervals and decreased to 10 and 5 meter intervals to more closely define the boundaries of the ring midden in places where the closest negative test to the midden was more than 5 or 10 meters from a positive midden test (Figure 3.2). The presence or absence of midden soil was recorded in each shovel test as well as the beginning and ending depths of the midden soil.
Shovel tests were dug in 30 x 30 centimeter squares in 10 centimeter arbitrary levels.
Tests were dug at least 20 centimeters beyond sterile soil. The contents of the shovel tests were screened using quarter-inch mesh and all cultural materials were bagged with their provenience information to be brought back to the laboratory for analysis. A standardized shovel test form was completed for each test with each level noted with information about depths, rough artifact identifications and counts, soil descriptions, the date of excavation, and the excavators’ names.
Bags of artifacts were assigned a unique field specimen (FS) number based on their individual provenience and then the information was logged in a central database.
Standard shovel testing methodology in the region is used to identify and bound archaeological sites. Guidelines from the State of Florida Division of Historical Resources require subsurface testing at 25 and 50 meter intervals depending on the probability of sites in the area determined by predictive modeling. Shovel tests are dug 50cm in diameter to at least 1m in depth (Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources 2001). Standard shovel
20 testing methodology does not incorporate intra-site shovel testing or digging in levels to identify subsurface patterns throughout known sites, as was done at Mound Field.
Figure 3.2 Map of shovel tests completed at Mound Field.
21 By digging systematic shovel tests, we have the ability to determine the vertical and horizontal distributions of midden components which demarcate the village area of the site. That is, assuming the midden materials mark the extreme horizontal distributions of village activities, then the distribution of the midden can provide the operative boundary of the village. The shovel tests were dug in arbitrary 10-centimeter levels in an effort to identify the density of the midden and the chronology of the site, and to recover data in a more precise context for radiocarbon analysis. Utilizing this method provides a broader perspective of the cultural deposits at the site than would be achieved through block excavations in one area given the same amount of labor.
In addition, we can use this systematic, wider coverage to identify areas of interest for future excavations through the production of material-specific distributions maps.
Topographic Mapping
A topographic map of the site was made using a Trimble M3 DR5 total station (Figure
3.3; Figure 3.4). Topographic points were taken at each shovel test and in areas where there were notable changes in the topography. The artificial grid was connected to the USGS grid to provide accurate elevation data. I conducted the mapping to determine if the topography itself adequately describes the village extent. The mound was not mapped at the time of this project, but an artificial representation of the mound’s location is used in the maps presented below.
Laboratory Methodology
Each day the artifacts bagged and tagged in the field were transported back to SEAC or to the FSU Department of Anthropology’s archaeology laboratory during the field school. Artifacts mostly pottery sherds, were washed lightly by hand to preserve soot for possible radiocarbon
22 dating using water and brushes. The artifacts were then laid out on trays to dry. Each FS was rough-sorted individually and then analyzed following National Park Service guidelines established in the Cataloging Manual for Archaeological Objects Vols. I, II, and III (National
Park Service 1990) and the Museum Handbook: Part II, Museum Records (National Park Service
2000).
Figure 3.3 Topographic Map of Mound Field.
23
Figure 3.4 Topographic mapping at Mound Field.
Analysis
The analysis of artifacts recovered in the shovel tests at Mound Field was undertaken by me, utilizing the methodology described below; these analyses form the core of this thesis.
Ceramic analysis is the major component of the artifact analyses in this project. Faunal material from the shovel test samples was not analyzed in detail but was sorted into two categories
(invertebrate/shell and vertebrate/bone) and measured for weight. Previous studies have analyzed faunal material from excavation units at Mound Field from the 2016 field season. Lithic artifacts were not analyzed by type but were measured for count and weight with the similar intention of
24 creating distribution maps. However, there were not enough lithics recovered to draw isopleths.
Only “prestige” lithics and mineral have been mapped in terms of point data.
Ceramic Analysis
Ceramic analysis was performed using standard methods for typological classification in the Southeast. Identifications of pottery types were made using the typologies originally published in Gordon Willey’s 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast . Ceramic artifacts were analyzed for surface decoration, shape, temper, and rim and lip treatments. All ceramics were classified as being sand tempered, which is standard for these types. Some sherds were classified with mica inclusions in addition to sand tempering. Detailed descriptions and definitions used to identify ceramic types in this study are located in Appendix A. The descriptions of pottery types are based primarily on those laid out by Willey (1949:353-495).
Pottery types identified in this assemblage include Weeden Island varieties, Carrabelle varieties,
Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, and Wakulla Check Stamped sherds. No differences between early (Swift Creek period) and late (Weeden Island series) Swift Creek varieties were made due to the paucity of the Swift Creek rim sherds needed to make the distinction.
It is important to discuss the distinction between early and late varieties of Swift Creek
Complicated Stamped ceramics when working with Woodland datasets. Swift Creek
Complicated Stamped designs originate in the Middle Woodland Swift Creek period and are called early variety Swift Creek during this stage. These sherds are decorated with intricate curvilinear designs cut precisely with notable attention to detail and motifs. Swift Creek
Complicated Stamped sherds are also a variety in the late Woodland Weeden Island Period, which leads to inherent confusion as the type is named after a different culture period. Swift
25 Creek Complicated Stamped Sherds in the Weeden Island Period are called the late variety and differ in design and their placement on vessels, usually restricted to just below the rim. Late variety Swift Creek ceramics are stamped with carved linear designs but are less precisely designed and less precisely applied than the early variety. The Swift Creek pottery described in this thesis was not assigned to either late or early variety Swift Creek Complicated Stamped.
Part of this thesis relies on the distinction between elite ceramic wares and utilitarian varieties. Ceramic wares in the Weeden Island period can potentially determine emergent social stratification through changes in individual status or ceremonial role. Certain varieties of
Weeden Island ceramics are associated with ritual activities or individual prestige because of their use in burial contexts because of their relative rarity, presumably due to the need for highly skilled artisans for their production. Types considered elite wares in this period are Weeden
Island varieties including Weeden Island Red, Weeden Island Incised, and Weeden Island
Punctated.
The Weeden Island period also saw the emergence of vessels created specifically with interment as their intended use. Some pots were “pre-killed,” meaning they were fired with holes in the base and some were effigy vessels made by highly skilled artisans. These are only found archaeologically in burial contexts. In contrast, the sherds commonly seen in midden contexts are of utilitarian varieties, highly fragmented, and are rarely intact vessels. However, evidence from
Weeden Island ring middens, often do reflect the presence of fragmented elite wares in midden contexts.
Prestige wares as a variety were first defined at the Weeden Island period McKeithen mound complex as “pottery found in sacred contexts” (Milanich et al. 1984). At McKeithen this meant vessels found in mounds. The assumption that all ceramic varieties in burial contexts are
26 prestige wares by default might be overstating the importance of all burial objects. Vessels uncovered in burial mounds are often complete, nonlocal, or elaborately decorated, there are also undecorated and presumably utilitarian vessels as well. The tendency to delineate elite vs. non- elite or prestige vs. non-prestige is part of the “Sacred-Secular” dichotomy first introduced by
Sears (1973) and employed at McKeithen (Milanich et al. 1984). This line of thought separates entirely the sphere of ceremonial, ritual, and mound-related activity from the everyday goings-on in the nearby village. The presence of prestige wares in midden and of utilitarian wares in mounds suggest that these two spheres were not likely so strictly separated, but were both intertwined parts of life.
The rarity of certain ceramic varieties outside of burial contexts is a defining factor in their definition as elite or utilitarian. The relegation of ceramic types that seem special, of higher quality or artistry, or otherwise uncommon to burial contexts suggests that their fate was intended for ceremony or for possession by higher-status individuals. These types are found in small quantities in midden contexts and are rarely intact. In fact, the objects found in midden contexts tend to be fragmented or broken pieces of elite or ceremonial objects. It is possible that so-called elite vessels were also used for utilitarian purposes. However, for the purposes of this study, prestige wares are defined according to the assumption that ceramic types found primarily in burial contexts are related to ceremony or higher-status individuals rather than common use.
Isolating prestige wares because of their seemingly specialized nature is valuable for investigating social distribution and stratification in the village area at Mound Field.
Weeden Island period sites see a combination of utilitarian and elite ceramic wares depending on the archaeological context. Elite wares during the period are classified as Weeden
Island varieties while Carrabelle varieties largely comprise the contemporaneous utilitarian
27 wares. Both Weeden Island and Carrabelle varieties exhibit designs made with punctations and incisions but differ in style and quality of implementation. Carrabelle ceramic varieties include
Carrabelle Incised and Carrabelle Punctated and are associated primarily with every day use.
Other utilitarian ceramic varieties include Wakulla Check Stamped, a type identified by its small square check stamp decoration, and Keith Incised, a type characterized by zoned diagonal cross hatching that forms diamond shapes (Willey 1949:411-428.)
The identification in midden deposits of elite wares and non-local trade goods typically found in burial contexts (mica, crystal quartz) might suggest the presence of a skilled individual performing specialized ritual or ceremonial tasks in the village area. These goods in midden contexts might also suggest the presence of higher status individuals, which leads to questions about emergent social stratification at Weeden Island sites.
Surfer Mapping The creation of maps reflecting the data is of particular importance in this study.
Distribution maps were created using Golden Software Surfer 15 mapping software by first creating a spreadsheet containing the data collected in the artifact analysis stage. The Surfer software created a grid using the x and y coordinate data associated with z data, including weights of specific categories of artifacts and midden thickness in different maps. The gridded data were processed using the statistical method “kriging” in which the software creates a relationship between the data points to reflect continuous contours based on horizontal and vertical data. Kriging is used largely for spatial analysis because of its core function of predicting intermediate values among data points.
Spatial analysis is a core tool used in this study, and is presented here in the form of isopleth or contour maps using bone, shell, ceramics, and midden thickness data to provide
28 predictions of the subsurface distributions of artifacts and midden soils. The contour lines function as artificial three-dimensional visual tools in a two-dimensional space to reflect quantitative data. These maps function as heuristic tools that reflect the generally circular shape of sub-surface ring midden, and by extension, the village that would otherwise not necessarily be visible on the ground surface.
The maps are representations of the patterns of the midden deposits that can be used to interpret social and cultural implications of the distributions of particular types of refuse.
“Only with the detailed mapping by archeologists of subsurface deposits of shell, ceramics, and other debris has the shape of the rings become observable. With these rings, mounds, and other features finally recorded with some detail more than one hundred years after their discovery, it becomes the task of the archeologist to link this archeological record of patterning to anthropologically important issues of settlement and social organization by means of examples, models, and bridging arguments” (Russo et. al 2009:106).
The mapping techniques used in this study have limitations. They are used in this case as a heuristic tool for spatial analysis, but kriging only creates an estimation of the values between data points, so the images are not necessarily a reflection of the original formation. This is an unavoidable sacrifice in archaeology as we are unable to fully excavate a site to see the ring midden in its exact shape. The maps give us the ability to analyze the landscape using systematic sampling.
The contours in the maps represent numeric levels of data to visually represent height and depth, creating an artificial 3D image. The kriging method is a heuristic tool, meaning that the settings have to be altered in each individual case to present a useful image. Kriging typically requires lower data points to be removed from the dataset to reduce noise, a byproduct of the software that causes a misrepresentation of the data. The minimum contour amounts represent
29 the smallest amount of data (in this case the lowest weight of shell in a shovel test) necessary to successfully provide an image of the subsurface ring. These minimum amounts were selected based on visual evaluations of each dataset. In this case, each map was assessed visually and altered to most clearly highlight the subsurface distribution shape.
30 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Here I present the results of the study and discuss interpretations. The results include distributions of ceramic, bone, and shell, and midden material. Further examination of the ceramic data is included with discussion of social implications of identified wares and distribution patterns.
Midden Distribution and Topography
Figure 4.1 represents the distribution of subsurface midden soil as measured by centimeter thickness in shovel tests compared to the topographic rendering of the same area.
Based on close interval shovel testing the midden distribution map presents a difference picture than presented by the LiDAR topographic map (Figure 4.2). Overall, the two maps are generally in agreement in their overall shapes, suggesting a strong correlation between midden deposits and topography—high and low topographies seem to match the general distribution of thick and shallow midden deposits. But while archaeologists might interpret the high spots on the topographic map as points with the thickest midden deposits, the comparison of midden density to topography shows that the two topographic highs lie adjacent to but are not isometric with the two thickest points of the midden (Figure 4.1). This suggests that topographic high points are not built exclusively from midden deposits, but may be underlain by natural or other cultural strata that elevates their surface beneath relatively thin layers of midden. The possibility that these locations represent the former locations of house mounds, next to which large amounts of midden refuse was placed may account for the juxtaposition of thick midden next to the high topographies.
31
Figure 4.1 Midden thickness.
Figure 4.2 LiDAR topography. 32 Artifact Distributions
Looking at the distribution of the three most abundant arti-ecofact categories, ceramics, bone and shell in comparison to the midden soil distribution map (Figures 4.3 to 4.5), a pattern of distribution become clearly evident. Rather than being a closed circle of dense midden as reflected in the midden soils map, the separate category maps suggest the circle was made with denser materials on the northeast and southwest sides of the circle with relatively small amounts of midden soil or artifacts on the northwest and southeast points.
Ceramic Distribution
The distribution of ceramic artifacts recovered from the ring midden at Mound Field provides visual information about the concentrations of pottery at the site (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3 Distribution of ceramics overlaying midden thickness map. 33 Ceramics are present throughout nearly all of the ring midden and have two to four particular areas of concentration. The areas of highest concentration in the ceramic maps are often the result of single individual shovel tests with high yields of ceramics. But the general ceramic distribution suggests a relatively equal balance of material between the northeast and southwest halves of the midden with one loci on either side reflecting high concentrations and two smaller anomalous dense loci outside of the main boundaries of the contiguous midden.
Bone Distribution
As might be expected, the distribution of vertebrate faunal material in the Mound Field midden corresponds with the midden distribution (Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.4 Distribution of faunal bone overlaying midden thickness map. 34 Like the ceramic maps, however, the bone maps indicate a few specific loci where the density is particularly concentrated. Additionally, the bone maps demonstrate the low presence of faunal material in the northwestern and southeastern areas of the ring midden where midden soil is thin. The bone maps indicate a division between the northeast and southwest sides of the midden, perhaps representing a village divided into two mirroring semicircular social groups.
Shell Distribution
Like the ceramic and bone distribution maps, the shell maps demonstrate two mirrored halves of the ring midden (Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.5 Shell thickness overlaid on midden thickness map
35 It is evident that a handful of shovel tests produced the individual loci of particularly dense concentrations. Closer interval testing may have helped define the distributions better. But the pattern is clear — the “ring” midden seems to be divided into two distinct halves.
Interestingly, the areas with high shell density do not necessarily correspond with areas of high topographic rise on topographic maps. One area of visible rise in the ground seems to be reflected in the shell density, but the other similarly dense shell area is not reflected in the topography (Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6 Shell thickness (grayscale) overlaid on topography.
36 Distribution Discussion
The distribution maps of midden soil, ceramics, shell, and bone all reflect low densities of material in the northwest and southeast areas of the ring midden. This subsurface patterning suggests that the ring midden might be divided in two semi-circular halves with an opening cutting through the plaza area encompassed by the midden (Figure 4.7).
Figure 4.7 Midden contour map with line indicating possible split between two sides of the ring midden oriented with the mound.
This division of the site into halves as indicated by the artifact, shell, and bone distributions suggests the possibility that the circular shape indicated by subsurface midden soils, and less so by topographic mapping may, in part, may result from natural erosion forces or
37 possibly farming activities in the early 20 th century that have served to move midden materials down and outward from their original loci. Equally likely, at least for the midden soil map, the closed circular shape may be an artifact of the Surfer Kriging program. Kriging tries to fill in gaps where collections were not made. But it cannot distinguish the lack of collection from a place where gaps in the data may be real. However, as Figure 3.2 indicates, all shovel tests in the two apparent gaps were either positive for midden soil or positive for artifacts. No negative tests resulted in the gap. More likely, the two apparent gaps result from the way the artifact and ecofact distribution maps were made, leaving out of their distribution renderings low-level of artifacts or fauna that served to obfuscated a clear ring picture. In fact, if we remove the lowest level contour from the midden soil map (Figure 2.1) a gap appears in the northwest just as it does in the artifact and fauna maps. And if we remove the next two lowest level contour lines the southeast gap also appears. From these data manipulations, I can conclude that the distribution of the midden, its artifacts, and its fauna all form a contiguous circle as defined by the limits of my data sets. But there are indeed less dense deposits on both the northwest and southeast points in the midden, strongly suggesting that a physical and probably social distinction existed in the village at the time the midden was accumulating.
The 3 to 4 loci of concentrated presences of artifacts across the different artifact distribution maps reflect some of the same shovel tests. These concentrations appearing in the same locations are significant as they represent potential activity areas where refuse from those activities may have been deposited nearby. These could have been food processing, cooking, oyster shucking, fish cleaning, or food preparation areas, which would have resulted in high concentrations of discarded material related to those activities. In transegalitarian societies these areas are often associated with the household. The presence of more than one highly
38 concentrated area on both sides of the ring midden might suggest the presence of different groups of people (e.g., clans) many up of a number of family households, though gender groups or sodalities who shared centralized food processing areas is another possibility.
The bisected circular midden might be the result of a village structure separated into two social halves that mirrored each other (Fig. 4.8, Fig. 4.9, Fig. 4.10). The low points in the midden, shell, bone, and ceramic distributions may have been areas less frequently occupied or simply openings that might have served as ingress/egres points or walkways for the village. The presence of two distinct semi-circles that made up the village structure might suggest the habitation of multiple clans.
Figure 4.8 Ceramic distribution with axis of division.
39
Figure 4.9 Bone distribution with axis of division.
Figure 4.10 Shell distribution with axis of division.
40 Why then non-cardinal halving of the circular village? Solar alignments have been identified at numerous sites in the Southeast including Cahokia, Kolomoki, McKeithen, Poverty Point, and
Shell Mound (Milanich et al. 1984; Pauketat 2013; Randall and Sassaman 2017; Sears 1956). The landscapes of these sites are laid out in ways that project the movement of the sun in alignment with the landscape on cosmologically significant events such as the winter solstice. The orientation of archaeological sites with cosmic events was a common practice in the
Southeastern prehistory and reflects the importance of ritual and religion in everyday lives. A number of archaeologists have linked the possible celestial orientation of Woodland ring villages to their associated burial mound (e.g., McFadden and Wallis 2018; Russo et al. 2014).The connection between the sacred world of the mounds and the secular world at the villages is evident in the landscape orientation in coherence with the cosmos and in the intermixture of ritual and quotidian artifacts found in both the burial mounds and in the village midden contexts.
It is possible that Mound Field’s axis of division is aligned with solar events and the ring midden/village area of the site was interconnected with the ritual activity of the mound. The small amount of elite objects present in midden contexts might be related to ceremonial activities that took place within the village. Figure 4.7 shows an approximated window for the path of the sun at sunrise on the Winter Solstice. The path follows the axis of division through the ring midden toward the mound. A number of variables affect this estimation. First, the degree of the sun’s travel is an estimation. Second, the center of the plaza at the time of occupation is unknown. Third, the location of the mound is likely not exactly as it was when the site was occupied. Looting activity and the near-entire excavation by Moore have altered the structure of the mound. It is possible that Moore’s crew rebuilt the mound adjacent to the original location and not in the exact same spot after they completed excavations. For these reasons, this map is suggesting a possibility that the Mound Field site as a whole was built in correspondence with 41 celestial patterns. The artifactual evidence that is presented later in this chapter suggests a connection between the activities that took place at the mound and inside the village surrounded by the midden.
Ceramic Analysis Results
Prestige Wares
Weeden Island Red sherds comprised the majority of prestige wares identified in the
Mound Field shovel test survey assemblage (Figure 4.11). Only nine ceramic objects were classified as prestige wares (Table 4.2). Eight of the prestige ware sherds from the assemblage were Weeden Island Red and one was positively identified as Weeden Island Punctated (Table
4.1).
Figure 4.11 Weeden Island Red sherd.
42 The distinctive red film decoration on Weeden Island Red sherds makes them easily identifiable (Appendix A). Weeden Island Red vessels exhibit different patterning of red decoration. Some varieties can be classified as Weeden Island Zoned Red in which the presence or absence of red film distinguishes the decorative pattern (Willey 1949:422).
The single Weeden Island Punctated sherd in the assemblage is a distinctive example of the type based on its fine punctations used to create larger patterns and the zoned nature of the decoration (Figure 4.12). It is possible that other artifacts classified as UID punctated, UID incised, or UID decorated are examples of prestige wares or but were too fragmentary to be definitively classified (Table 4.1).
Figure 4.12 Weeden Island Punctated sherd.
88% of the total weight of ceramics from the assemblage were classified as undecorated.
Some of these objects were possibly elite varieties including Weeden Island Plain, but I chose to withhold them from such classification without definitive decoration (Table 4.1). Weeden Island
43 Plain vessels are characterized by a single incision on the vessel shoulder, just below the rim
(Appendix A; Willey 1949:409). Many objects analyzed in this study exhibited this decoration, but, since the same decoration is seen in other types, it cannot be used to absolutely identify
Weeden Island Plain objects.
Non-prestige Wares
Wakulla Check Stamped was the second most commonly identified utilitarian variety
(Table 4.1). Figure 4.13 is an example of a Wakulla Check Stamped rim sherd with mica inclusions in the temper. This variety is common in the latter half of the Weeden Island period and continues into the Fort Walton period (Willey 1949:438). Figure 4.14 is a small but easily identifiable example of Wakulla Check Stamped based on its small but carefully implemented check pattern (Appendix A). It is possible that sherds classified as UID stamped or UID decorated are Wakulla Check Stamped but they were too fragmentary to be definitively classified.
Figure 4.13 Wakulla Check Stamped rim sherd with mica inclusions.
44
Figure 4.14 Wakulla Check Stamped sherd.
Carrabelle Incised and Punctated are distinctive utilitarian varieties in the Weeden Island
(Appendix A). In this assemblage I was conservative in identifying vessels as Carrabelle varieties because, like Weeden Island varieties, they are identifiable based on particular patterns and decorations and cannot be classified without decoration unique to the varieties. It is possible that sherds identified as UID Incised, UID Punctated, or UID Decorated are examples of
Carrabelle varieties but were too fragmentary for identification (Table 4.1).
Figure 4.15 is an example of a Carrabelle Incised sherd with upslanting projections on the rim. Carrabelle Incised patterns vary but are typically located in a band below the rim (Figure 4.16). Carrabelle Punctated sherds have a diverse series of patterns created with various implements (Appendix A). Figure 4.17 is an example of a fingernail punctated
Carrabelle sherd. Other varieties are punctated with hollow reeds, various shaped stick objects, and some are characterized by shallow round indents (Willey 1949:422-425).
45 Swift Creek Complicated Stamped varieties in the Weeden Island are reminiscent of the same type in the preceding Swift Creek period (Willey 1949:429-435). These are sherds decorated with carved paddles exhibiting curvilinear designs (Appendix A). Swift Creek
Complicated Stamped sherds were the most commonly identified utilitarian type in the Mound
Field shovel test survey assemblage (Figure 4.18). It is possible that sherds classified as UID stamped or UID decorated are Swift Creek Complicated Stamped but they were too fragmentary to be definitively classified (Table 4.1).
The vast majority of ceramics from the assemblage were classified as undecorated
(Figure 4.19). Some of these objects were possibly elite varieties including Weeden Island Plain, but I chose to withhold from classification overall without definitive decoration (Table 4.1).
Alternatively, undecorated sherds might be fragments of vessels with decoration elsewhere.
Undecorated sherds do not necessarily indicate entirely undecorated vessels. Undecorated sherds might also be fragments of effigy vessels which exhibit their design in the form of the vessel rather than in print on the vessel (Appendix A).
Figure 4.15 Carrabelle Incised rim sherd.
46
Figure 4.16 Carrabelle Incised sherd.
Figure 4.17 Carrabelle Punctated with fingernail punctations.
47
Figure 4.18 Swift Creek Complicated Stamped sherd.
Figure 4.19 Undecorated rim sherd with drilled hole.
48 Ceramic Analysis Discussion
Table 4.1 Mound Field Ceramics Identified by Type
Count % of Type Weight (g) Weight % of Total Count Total Prestige Wares
Weeden Island Red 86.43 0.36% 8 0.11%
Weeden Island Punctated 15.3 0.06% 1 0.01% Utilitarian Wares
Carrabelle Incised 60.2 0.25% 6 0.08%
Carrabelle Punctated 29.9 0.12% 5 0.07%
Wakulla Check Stamped 202.24 0.84% 31 0.41% Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 1607.53 6.66% 267 3.56%
Undecorated 21,414.53 88.77% 7,035 93.88%
UID Incised 330 1.37% 54 0.72%
UID Punctated 106.1 0.44% 22 0.29%
UID Stamped 265 1.10% 64 0.85%
Keith Incised 6 0.02% 1 0.01% Total 24,123.23 100% 7,494 100%
Table 4.2 Prestige vs. Utilitarian Wares from Mound Field
Weight Count % of Type Weight % of Total Count (g) Total
Prestige Wares 101.73 0.42% 9 0.12%
Utilitarian Wares 24,021.50 99.58% 7,485.00 99.88% Total 24,123.23 100% 7,494 100%
49 The distribution of prestige wares and elite objects quartz and mica at Mound Field does not correspond with high midden concentrations (Figure 4.22). At least four of the artifact proveniences are in the interior of the midden, just inside the plaza. This potentially suggests that prestige wares were being used in the plaza and were not discarded in the same way as normal objects. Perhaps elite wares were disposed of independently of utilitarian waste. If this is the case, it may or may not have been intentional. Elite objects might not have been used in connection with every day activities like eating and processing food and utilitarian items.
Therefore, they do not have the same pattern of discard as everyday items. The distribution away from high concentrations of midden might also suggest specialized use or production areas, but more data and examples of prestige wares are needed to make that claim.
Figure 4.20 Distribution of ceramic prestige wares overlaid on midden thickness. 50 The distribution of artifacts classified as prestige items does not appear to weigh heavier on either side of the ring midden (Figure 4.21). Two types of ceramics classified as prestige items were present in the assemblage. Eight Weeden Island Red sherds and one Weeden Island
Punctated sherd were identified, bringing the total of prestige ceramic sherds to nine. While these sherds were few, they were distributed throughout the site and not concentrated together. The artifact data and radiocarbon dates do not suggest whether or not one side of the midden developed before the other. So assuming that both halves of the village were occupied contemporaneously, the data so far suggest that each social segment had equal access to exotic resources.
Figure 4.21 Distribution of prestige wares on distribution of all ceramics.
51 The amount of prestige wares in Woodland ring middens is expected to be small in comparison to the utilitarian wares, however, Mound Field has a very low concentration in comparison to other sites of the same type. Prestige wares make up less than half a percent of the total ceramic weight.
Four fragments of quartz and three fragments of mica were collected and were distributed throughout the site, similar to the distribution of the prestige ceramics (Figure 4.22). These were the entirety of the elite, non-local objects typically associated with ritual activity or higher-status individuals. There was no evidence of ochre or the exotic stone objects that have been identified at other Woodland ring midden sites.
Figure 4.22 Distribution of all elite objects.
52 Figure 4.23 shows the distributions of prestige and non-prestige ceramics in relation to the greater pattern of ceramic distribution. The green dots represent all identifiable pottery types classified as non-prestige. Undecorated sherds and decorated sherds with unidentifiable types were removed from this dataset to avoid the presumption that these unclassified sherds are non- prestige wares. Many vessels classified as prestige wares are characterized largely or entirely by undecorated areas (Fig 2.3, Fig. 2.4). Some of the unclassifiable sherds were too small for any kind of identification, although they very well could have come from what would be considered prestige vessels.
Figure 4.23 Distribution of prestige wares on distribution of all identified prestige wares excluding undecorated and UID decorated varieties. 53 The green dots are a visual representation of the variation in the weights of non-prestige ceramics at each data point. Red dots represent individual prestige ware ceramics. The contour map in grayscale represents the distribution of all ceramics. This map is meant to be a visual tool to demonstrate the distribution of prestige and utilitarian ceramics in the context of the greater ceramic concentrations in the midden deposit. The data points where the total ceramic weight was less than 200g were removed in the total ceramic distribution map to show the areas of higher concentration and the broader distribution pattern. This creates bias as the prestige and non-prestige ware datasets include their entire sample, but the alterations in data are purely to provide a useful heuristic device.
This map demonstrates that heavier concentrations of decorated wares are toward the innermost deposit of the ring, just outside the plaza. These deposits are coming from activity taking place just inside the plaza.
Comparing the distribution of materials at the Weeden Island I period Mound Field with three other Weeden Island I period regional ring midden sites, Byrd Hammock, Hare Hammock, and Stranges Ring, it is evident that Mound Field is more balanced on either side of the axis of division than the other ring middens (Figure 4.24, Figure 4.25). These other sites share a dividing line through the plaza separating the northeast from the southeast half. But prestige ware ceramics are fewer at Mound Field and more evenly distributed on each side of the ring when compared to the other three Byrd Hammock and Hare Hammock, all of which have been identified as containing more prestige wares on one side of the ring versus the other (Russo et al.
2009, 2011, 2014, 2017).
54
Figure 4.24 Prestige ware and shell distributions at Byrd Hammock North, Hare Hammock, and Stranges ring middens (Russo et. al 2017:82).
Figure 4.25 Prestige ware and shell distribution at Mound Field.
The low concentration and equal distribution of elite objects in the Mound Field ring midden deposit suggests a largely egalitarian social structure. The artifact quantities and distributions do not reflect any kind of specialized ritual material processing areas, however, the areas of significantly denser artifact and ecofact deposits might suggest the locations of higher status individuals in control of food distribution. If the two topographic highs do indeed represent buried house mounds, the presence of mica detritus in each is suggestive of a ritual 55 specialist, with each topographic high being the closest midden loci of each segmented half of the village to the burial mound.
Prestige ware ceramics are relegated to the innermost portions of the midden, on the border with the plaza. The potential for solstitial alignment or any kind of linear division as an access point to the mound further implies that ceremonial activity was taking place in the village.
The admixture of prestige and utilitarian objects in the midden deposit suggests that everyday life intersected with ceremonial activity at the village. Materials might have been prepared or transferred in the domestic area before ceremony at the mound. In this example the sacred and secular realms are intermixed, indicating that the two spheres of actions might occurred in the same places at Mound Field.
56 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Mound Field is less shell-dense than other ring midden sites in coastal northwest Florida and is a good example of the misleading nature of topography for midden shape determination. It is possible that Woodland period non-shell bearing sites in other regions are true ring middens but are not identifiable topographically. It is largely possible that the Woodland ring midden site type is not unique to the northwest Florida coastal region but is widespread in the Southeast and has not been identified because of the lack of topographic rise. Without the implementation of systematic intra-site shovel test survey, circular village sites cannot be readily identified.
The Mound Field ring midden appears to be divided into two semi-circular halves possibly as a result of a socially segmented village structure. The openings or shallow midden areas on the northwest and southeast sides of the midden might indicate entrance points or paths and might be oriented as part of ritual activity associated with the mound, funerary activities, and memorial ceremonies. The apparent similarities in midden distribution and the relatively even patterning of elite objects throughout the site suggest socially symmetrical segmentation at
Mound Field.
The analysis of artifacts distributed throughout the site suggests the possibility of higher status individuals. Areas of higher refuse might indicate transegalitarian social order in which higher status individuals are in control of food distribution or have larger kin groups resulting in more waste in one location. The areas containing thick fauna deposits may be the result of year- round occupation, while other spots represent family or guests coming to visit only periodically, producing less refuse. It is possible that areas in the midden that have dramatically higher shell, bone, and ceramic densities were food processing areas or locations of particular individuals with 57 specialized skills but more data are needed to propose whether this is the case. Mound Field’s intermixture of artifacts in the ring midden suggests a transegalitarian village where ritual or ceremonial activity related to the mound was a part of regular life at certain times. In this example, fragments of sacred objects are in the same contexts as everyday items and discarded waste.
Problems Encountered in this Study
One original research question was what the original ground surface looked like when the site was first occupied, and how the site developed on the landscape. I intended to utilize radiocarbon dating to recreate the base of the midden deposits throughout the site to identify whether the site was originally setup as a ring or whether one area was used earlier than others.
The vast majority of faunal material in the ring midden is fish bone and oyster shell, both of which are not reliable sources for radiocarbon dating. Large mammal bone is the ideal sample for absolute dating in this context (Shanks 2018) but the archaeological assemblage did not contain the types of elements required for reliable dates. Additionally, the ceramic varieties identified in the midden are contemporaneous and cannot be used to identify any patterns in midden development.
The lack of dateable material required me to step back and reevaluate how to reconstruct the midden development without the ability to employ absolute dates or any other way to determine the beginning and contemporaneous stages throughout the ring’s development. Rather than reconstructing the development of the ring midden, I decided to analyze what the shape and layout might suggest about social behaviors.
The sample of ceramics defined as prestige wares is small. It is possible that this assemblage contained Weeden Island Plain sherds, which would be classified as prestige
58 ceramics. The methodology used in this study excluded the identification of Weeden Island types lacking decoration to prevent the misidentification of non-elite items as elite.
Inconsistency in the measurements of midden soil thickness during fieldwork was a problem in this study. Multiple crews conducted the shovel tests and some did not properly record midden thickness, which required some estimations based on profile sketches in the lab.
Ultimately because I could not link the various ten centimeter level collections to specific radiocarbon dates, this proved less of a problem than anticipated. But the fact should be known for future researchers.
Future Research
Mound Field has a wealth of research potential for the future. One interesting avenue would be returning to the site and opening larger-scale phase II excavation units in areas where shovel tests yielded unexpected or interesting information. The systematic shovel testing methodology is designed to inform where to best place future excavations and the results of this study provide information that leads to new questions like where we might find structures and whether any activities took place in the central plaza area.
A 3D scanning study is currently underway at the Southeast Archeological Center in which fingerprint scanning technology is being implemented to scan Swift Creek Complicated
Stamped sherds from sites located on Tyndall Air Force Base and Saint Marks National Wildlife
Refuge. This project is part of a larger push to include 3D scans of Swift Creek Complicated
Stamped sherds in a database shared with Woodland period researchers in the region to connect archaeological sites using paddle-matching. Another avenue for future research would be clay- sourcing of ceramic objects. Clay sourcing and paddle matching have the potential to inform us
59 about the movement of people and objects in relation to Mound Field and in the greater
Southeast region.
60 APPENDIX A
WEEDEN ISLAND CERAMIC DESCRIPTIONS
Type Decoration Example
Swift Creek Complicated Circular, rectangular, hexagonal, teardrop, scroll, Stamped Late Variety and triangular linear patterns Stamping limited to upper portion of vessel
61 Weeden Island Plain Highly smoothed/ burnished Thickened and folded rims with incised line along collar
Weeden Island Incised Incisions limited in bands or covering entire vessel Zoned sections of lines and punctations incorporated to create complex designs Highly polished lower half of vessel
62 Weeden Island Punctated Punctations of varying size and shape Punctations placed to create larger patterns
Weeden Island Zoned Red Red pigmentation applied in bands or zoned shapes such as chevrons, loops or triangles Incisions and Punctations outlining red zoned areas Highly Polished
63 Carrabelle Incised Grouped incised lines to form patterns Some collared rims
Carrabelle Punctated Decoration limited to bands around vessel below rim Patterned punctations from varying implements such as fingernails, hollow reeds, faunal bones, and sticks
64 Wakulla Check Stamped Entire vessel covered in thin lines intersecting to create small square patterns between 1 and 5 millimeters in size
65 REFERENCES
Allen, W. J. 1991 Soil Survey of Wakulla County Florida.
Andrefsky, William 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis . Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge United Kingdom.
Anderson, David G. and Robert C. Mainfort 2002 The Woodland Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Bense, Judith A. 1969 Excavations at the Bird Hammock Site (8Wa30), Wakulla County, Florida. Master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War I . Academic Press, New York.
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. Elliott. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Brose, David S. and George Percy 1974 An Outline of Weeden Island Ceremonial Activity in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the Thirty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.
Byrd, John Edward 1994 The Zooarchaeology of Four Gulf Coast Prehistoric Sites. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Doran, Glen H., and Bruce J. Piatek 1985 Archaeological Investigations at Naval Live Oaks, Studies in Spatial Patterning and Chronology in the Gulf Coast of Florida. Submitted to the National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center (CX5000-1-1039), Tallahassee.
Goodwin, Joshua M. 2017 When the Ocean Meets the Sky: An Analysis of Avian Remains from a Civic-Ceremonial Center on the Florida Gulf Coast. Master’s Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Knight, Vernon James, Jr. 2010 Mound Excavations at Moundville: Architecture, Elites, and Social Order . University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
66 Marquardt, William H. 2010 Shell Mounds in the Southeast: Middens, Monuments, Temple Mounds, Rings, or Works? American Antiquity 75(3):551–570.
Merrick, Megan D. 2018 Aquatic Resource Management on the Gulf Coast: Examining the Mound Field Site (8WA8) as a Woodland Period Fishery. Master’s Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Mikell, Gregory, L. Janice Campbell, and Prentice M. Thomas 1989 Archeological Site Recording and Testing at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. New World Research Report of Investigations No. 183. Submitted to National Park Service, Southeast Region (CX5000-8-0029) for Tyndall Air Force Base by New World Research, Ft. Walton, Florida.
Mikell, Gregory A., and Jane Pope 1996 Faunal Analysis and Coprolite Discussion. In Controlled Excavation at 8WL58, the Old Homestead Site. Completing the Compliance Process at Eglin Air Force Base, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton Counties, Volumes 26–20, edited by Prentice M. Thomas Jr., Maria L. Schleidt Penalva, L. Janice Campbell, and Mathilda Cox, pp. 132–147. Report of Investigations No. 284. Prentice Thomas and Associates, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Survey Report 9909 on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.
Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida . University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
1995 Recent Archaeological Research in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America 23:97-118.
1997 Archaeology of Northern Florida, A.D. 200-900: The McKeithen Weeden Island Culture. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2002 Weeden Island Cultures. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by Robert C. Mainfort and David G. Anderson, pp. 352-373. University Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon J. Knight Jr., Timothy A. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle 1984 McKeithen Weeden Island: The Culture of Northern Florida, A.D. 200–900 . Academic Press, Orlando.
Moore, Clarence B. 1902 (1999) Certain Aboriginal Remains of the NW Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama .
67 Pauketat, T.R. 2013 An Archaeology of the Cosmos: Rethinking Agency and Religion in Ancient America. Routledge, NewYork.
Penton, Daniel Troy 1970 Excavations in the Early Swift Creek Component at Bird Hammock (8Wa30). Master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee
Percy, George and David S. Brose 1974 Weeden Island Ecology, Subsistence and Village Life in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the Thirty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.
Peres, Tanya M., Geoffrey Thomas, Kelly Ledford, Megan Merrick, Dr. Kay Ueda, and Ash D. Brady 2017 Report on Archaeological Investigations at the Mound Field (8Wa8) Site, Wakulla County, Florida. Florida State University. Notes in Anthropology, no. 18. Copies available from Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Phelps, David Sutton 1969 Swift Creek and Santa Rosa in Northwest Florida. The Institute of Archeology and Anthropology Notebook 1(6–9):14–24.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J. 2003 Kolomoki: Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to 750. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2010 Practicing Complexity (Past and Present) at Kolomoki. In Ancient Complexities: New Perspectives in Precolumbian North America, edited by Susan M. Alt, pp. 52-72. University of Utah press, Salt Lake City.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J. and Ann S. Cordell. 2011 Paste Characterization Of Weeden Island Pottery From Kolomoki And Its Implications For Specialized Production. Southeastern Archaeology 30(2):288-310.
Randall, Asa R., and Kenneth E. Sassaman 2017 Terraforming the Middle Ground in Ancient Florida. Hunter Gatherer Research 3(1):9- 29
Raymond, Tiffany 2016 Testing for a Functional Relationship between Shell Rings and Flood-Prone Environments in the Yazoo Basin of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Master’s Thesis. Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, Mississippi State University.
Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing 2008 Zooarchaeology . Cambridge University Press, New York.
68 Russo, Michael 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study from Horr's Island. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
1994 Why We Don’t Believe in Archaic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We Should: The Case from Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2):93-109.
2004 Measuring Shell Rings for Social Inequality. In Signs of Power, the Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , edited by Jon L. Gibson and Philip J. Carr. pp. 26-70. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2006 Archaic Shell Rings of the Southeast U.S.: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. https://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/ArchaicShellRings.pdf
2008 Late Archaic Shell Rings and Society in the Southeast U.S. The SAA Archaeological Record 8(5):18-22.
2010 Shell Rings and Other Settlement Features as Indicators of Cultural Continuity Between the Late Archaic and Woodland Periods of Coastal Florida. In American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers, edited by D.H. Thomas and M.C. Sanger, pp. 113-136. American Museum of Natural History, New York
2014 Ringed Shell Features of the Southeast United States, Architecture and Midden. In The Cultural Dynamics of Shell-Matrix Sites. edited by M. Roksandic, S. Mendonca de Souza, S. Eggers, M. Burchell, and D. Klokler, pp. 21-39. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
2017 Initial Report on ARPA Permit STMNWR012114, Investigations at Mound Field, St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. Manuscript on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Russo, Michael, Carla S. Hadden, and Craig Dengel 2006 Archeological Investigation of the Bayview Site (8By137): A Weeden Island Ring Midden. Southeast Archeological Center submitted to Tyndall Air Force Base, Pensacola.
2009 Mounds and Rings at Hare Hammock : Tyndall Air Force Base. Southeast Archeological Center submitted to Tyndall Air Force Base, Pensacola.
Russo, Michael, and Craig Dengel 2010 The History and Status of Sites 8By7, 8By8, and 8By9 on and near Tyndall Air Force Base. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee. Submitted to Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, Florida.
Russo, Michael, Craig Dengel, Jeffrey Shanks, and Thadra Stanton 2011 Baker’s and Strange’s Mounds and Middens : Woodland Occupations on Tyndall Air Force Base. Southeast Archeological Center submitted to Tyndall Air Force Base, Pensacola.
69 Russo, Michael, Craig Dengel, and Jeffrey Shanks 2012 “Public Plazas as Mediating Loci at Woodland Ring/Mound Complexes in NW Coastal Florida” Paper presented at the 2012 Annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis. In Archeological Determinations of the Boundaries and Cultural Affiliations at the Hare Hammock 8By31 Site, pp. 183–200. Southeast Archeological Center submitted to Tyndall Air Force Base, Pensacola.
2014a “Northwest Florida Woodland Mounds and Middens: The Sacred and Not So Secular in New Histories of Pre-Columbian Florida , Neill J. Wallis and Asa. R. Randall, editors. Pp. 121–142, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Russo, Michael, Craig Dengel, Jeffrey Shanks, and Andrew McFeaters 2014b Archeological Determinations of the Boundaries and Cultural Affiliations at the Hare Hammock 8By31 Site. Southeast Archeological Center submitted to Tyndall Air Force Base, Pensacola. In Archeological Determinations of the Boundaries and Cultural Affiliations at the Hare Hammock 8By31 Site, pp. 183–201. Southeast Archeological Center submitted to Tyndall Air Force Base, Pensacola.
Russo, Michael, Jeffrey Shanks, Andrew McFeaters, and Thadra Stanton 2016 Archeological Testing and Mapping at Byrd Hammock, 8Wa30. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Russo, Michael, Margo Schwadron, and Emily M. Yates 2006 Archeological Investigation of the Bayview Site (8By137): A Weeden Island Ring Midden . Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee. Submitted to Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, Florida.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., Paulette S. McFadden, and Micah P. Monés 2014 “North Gulf Coastal Archaeology of the Here and Now” in New Histories of Pre- Columbian Florida , Neill J. Wallis and Asa. R. Randall, editors. Pp. 243–261, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Saunders, Rebecca 2002 The Fig Island Ring Complex (38CH42): Coastal Adaptation and the Question of Ring Function in the Late Archaic. Submitted to South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Grant No.45-01-16441.
Saunders, Rebecca, and Michael Russo 2011 Coastal Shell Middens in Florida: a View from the Archaic Period. Quaternary International 239(1-2):38-50.
Schultz, Julian E. 2018 An Analysis of Shell Dump Features from Mound Field (8Wa8), Wakulla County, Florida. Honors Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
70 Sears, William A. 1956 Excavations at Kolomoki Final Report. University of Georgia, Series in Anthropology 5 University of Georgia Press, Athens.
1963 The Tucker Site on Alligator Harbor, Franklin County, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum 9. University of Florida, Gainesville.
1973 The Sacred and Secular in Prehistoric Ceramics. In Variation in Anthropology: Essays in Honor of John C. McGregor, edited by Donald W. Lathrap and Jody Douglas, pp. 31–42. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana.
Shanks, Jeffrey 2015 It’s Not Just Garbage: Identifying Ceremony and Cosmology in Shell Middens. Proceedings of the Maritime Cultural Landscape Symposium 1:110-114. Washington, Wisconsin.
Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States 1970-1985. Annual Review of Anthropology 15:363-404.
Thompson, Victor D., and Fred T. Andrus 2011 Evaluating Mobility, Monumentality, and Feasting at the Sapelo Island Shell Ring Complex. American Antiquity 76(2):315-343.
Thompson, Victor D., and John E. Worth 2011 Dwellers by the Sea: Native American Adaptations along the Southern Coasts of Eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Research 19(1):51-101.
Thompson, Victor D., and John A. Turck 2009 Adaptive Cycles of Coastal Hunter-Gatherers. American Antiquity 74(2):255-278.
Wallis, Neill J. 2007 Defining Swift Creek Interactions: Earthenware Variability at Ring Middens and Burial Mounds. Southeastern Archaeology 26(2):212-231.
2008 Networks of History and Memory: Creating a Nexus of Social Identities in Woodland Period Mounds on the Lower St Johns River, Florida. Journal of Social Archaeology 8(2):236-271.
2011 The Swift Creek Gift: Vessel Exchange on the Atlantic Coast . University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2013 The Materiality of Signs: Enchainment and Animacy in Woodland Southeastern North American Pottery. American Antiquity 78:207-226.
71 Wallis, Neill J., Thomas J. Pluckhahn, and Michael D. Glascock 2016 Sourcing Interaction Networks of the American Southeast: NAA of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped Pottery. American Antiquity
Wallis, Neill J., and Asa R. Randall 2014 New Histories of Precolumbian Florida . University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Wright, Alice P. 2016 Local and "Global" Perspectives on the Middle Woodland Southeast. Journal of Archaeological Research 25:37-83.
72 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Haley S. Messer received a Bachelor of Science degree in Anthropology and International
Affairs from Florida State University in 2016. She continued her education at FSU in pursuit of a
Master of Science degree in Anthropology, which she earned in December 2019. During her time at FSU she has had many wonderful opportunities to grow professionally and personally and has formed lifelong relationships. She currently works for the National Park Service at the Southeast
Archeological Center. Haley loves spending time outdoors enjoying nature and indoors enjoying her cats.
73