THE APALACHEE AFTER SAN LUIS: EXPLORING CULTURAL HYBRIDIZATION

THROUGH CERAMIC PRACTICE

by

Michelle Marie Pigott

B.A., University of Central Florida, 2010

A thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology College of Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities The University of West Florida In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

2015

© 2015 Michelle Marie Pigott

The thesis of Michelle Pigott is approved:

______Jennifer A. Melcher, M.A., Committee Member Date

______Ramie A. Gougeon, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

______John E. Worth, PhD., Committee Chair Date

Accepted for the Department/Division:

______John R. Bratten, Ph.D., Chair Date

Accepted for the University:

______Richard S. Podemski, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School Date ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

So many different people have contributed to the development and ultimate completion of this thesis. I would first like to give thanks to my committee members. To Dr. Ramie Gougeon for being utterly patient with me as I neared the end of this wild ride and crammed my completed thesis into his email inbox. To Jennifer Melcher, who constantly had edits ready for me, was always the first person to hear a crazy idea, and was the sane voice in the room whenever John and I wanted to add another piece to this thesis. Finally, to Dr. John Worth, for first setting me on this path, opening opportunities to me, and always being available for invaluable advice and new ideas (and spontaneous science fiction discussions).

A special thanks is also in order for the excellent help from the Archaeology Institute, including Dr. Elizabeth Benchley and Karen Mims, as well as the Department of Anthropology’s

Cindi Rodgers and Juliette Moore, and UWF’s Scholarly and Creative Activities Committee; I wouldn’t have been able to travel or work as a grad assistant without them. Thank you to Norine

Carrol, who always thought of something I forgot I needed, and was incredibly helpful in all collections related questions. Thank you to Dr. Bonnie McEwan and Jerry Lee at Mission San

Luis, and Dr. Craig Sheldon and Dr. Kim Pyszka at Auburn University at Montgomery for their incredible hospitality and interest in my thesis. Thank you to Dr. Greg Waselkov and the

University of South Alabama for loaning out the Blakeley Park collection, and allowing me to do such extensive research on it. I’d also like to thank my fellow graduate students for their support and commiseration, especially Katie Brewer, Jackie Rodgers, Dani Mount, Jillian Okray, and

Melissa Maynard (thanks for the statistics book!).

Finally, I’d like to thank my friends and family. To E. Patrick Patch, my fiancé and companion, thanks for always listening to my woes and for all those motivatingly adorable iv bunny pictures. To all the folks at Tijuana Flats, thanks for the plethora of tacos and for being the most flexible part-time job any grad student could desire. I also have to thank Megan Barnett for providing a comfortable futon to crash on while I was in Auburn. Thank you to my sister

Carolyn, who also knows the trials of grad school, and my sister Eileen, who may be a bigger history nerd than I. Finally, I want to thank my parents, Don and Yvette Pigott, who upon first hearing their 7 year old daughter declare she wanted to be an archaeologist, taught her how to spell it, encouraged her dream, and helped bring her to where she is now.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

ABSTRACT ...... xi

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND THEORECTICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 1 A. Theoretical Framework ...... 2

CHAPTER II. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 7 A. Origins: The Late Mississippian ...... 7 B. Ancestral Creeks: Lamar and Moundville ...... 8 C. Mississippi and the Choctaw ...... 10 D. Pensacola and Fort Walton ...... 11 E. The Spaniards and Mississippian Collapse ...... 13 F. Descendants: Contact Period ...... 16 G. Apalachee in French Louisiana ...... 21 H. Mission Escambe: From Exiles in South Carolina to Vera Cruz, Mexico...... 26

CHAPTER III. DATA SET AND METHODS ...... 36 A. Data Set ...... 36 B. Data Collection Methods ...... 41 C. Detailed Analysis ...... 44 D. Rim Mode Classification ...... 45 E. Data Analysis Methods ...... 50

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS ...... 53 A. The Fusihatchee Settlement ...... 56 B. Mission San Luis de Talimali ...... 60 C. Mission San Joseph de Escambe...... 64 D. The Blakeley Park Village ...... 68 E. Chi-Square Testing ...... 72

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION ...... 76 A. Terms of Temper...... 78 B. Surface Treatments ...... 81 C. Modified Rims ...... 87 D. The Relationship of Surface and Temper ...... 88 E. The Relationship of Temper and Modified Rims ...... 90 F. Conclusions about the 18th Century Collections ...... 92

vi G. The Vehicles for Change ...... 93 H. Case for a Creolized People ...... 96

WORKS CITED ...... 98

APPENDICES ...... 108 A. Ceramic Typology ...... 109 B. Detailed Ceramic Analysis Form ...... 117 C. Chi-Square Distribution Critical Values ...... 119 D. Chi-Square Matrices ...... 122

vii LIST OF TABLES

1. Rim Type Categories ...... 46

2. Modified Rim Mode Descriptions ...... 47

3. Total Ceramics Examined in Weight and Count ...... 53

4. Total Number of Rim and Body Sherds by Site ...... 54

5. Incision Metrics at All Sites ...... 54

6. Temper by Site ...... 55

7. Fusihatchee Ceramics by Surface Treatment ...... 57

8. Fusihatchee Incision Metrics by Temper Type ...... 57

9. Fusihatchee Vessel Forms...... 58

10. San Luis Ceramics by Surface Treatment ...... 61

11. Incision Metrics at San Luis by Temper Type ...... 61

12. San Luis Vessel Forms...... 62

13. Mission Escambe Ceramics by Surface Treatment ...... 65

14. Mission Escambe Incision Metrics by Temper Type ...... 66

15. Mission Escambe Vessel Forms ...... 66

16. Blakeley Park Ceramics by Surface Treatment ...... 69

17. Blakeley Park Incision Metrics by Temper ...... 69

18. Blakeley Park Vessel Forms ...... 70

19. Lamar and Plaquemine Incised Styles from All Samples ...... 85

viii LIST OF FIGURES

1. Apalachee Migrations in 1704...... 20 2. Mobile Bay settlements ca. 1733, including St. Louis and the unnamed Apalachee settlement near the Perdido River...... 23 3. Map of Mobile Bay ca. 1778, showing the final location of the Apalachee in Mobile Bay, and various Native Americans including Yamasee, Tensaw, Mobilians, and Tawasas ...... 24 4. Spanish and Spanish-allied settlements near Pensacola Bay, 1698-1763 ...... 30

5. Detail of a map ca. 1771 illustrating remains of an “Old Spanish Fort,” i.e. Mission Escambe ...... 34 6. Sites utilized ...... 37

7. Excavations at Fusihatchee ...... 39

8. Excavations at San Luis 1984-2008 ...... 40

9. Modified rim mode descriptions ...... 48

10. Examples of rim sherd profile drawings ...... 50

11. All Fusihatchee modified rim modes by percent of weight ...... 59

12. Fusihatchee modified rim modes by vessel form by percent of weight ...... 60

13. All San Luis modified rim modes by percent of weight ...... 63

14. San Luis modified rim modes by vessel form by percent of weight ...... 64

15. All Mission Escambe modified rim modes by percent of weight ...... 67

16. Modified rim modes at Mission Escambe by vessel form by percent of weight ...... 68 17. All Blakeley Park modified rim modes by percent of weight ...... 71

18. Blakeley Park modified rim modes by vessel form by percent of weight ...... 72

19. Typical ceramics from the San Luis (8LE4) sample ...... 77

20. Temper distribution of total ceramics at the Apalachee sites, by percent of weight ...... 78

ix 21. Temper distribution of total ceramics at the 18th century sites, by percent of weight ..... 79 22. The regional proto-historic ceramic traditions of the Central Gulf Coast and Lower Southeast ...... 84 23. Land widths of incisions at Blakeley Park and Fusihatchee ...... 86 24. Rim fold lengths at all four sites ...... 87 25. The two planes of ceramic practice influence ...... 94

x ABSTRACT

THE APALACHEE AFTER SAN LUIS: EXPLORING CULTURAL HYBRIDIZATION THROUGH CERAMIC PRACTICE

Michelle Marie Pigott

After the destruction of their homeland in 1704, the Southeastern Apalachee dispersed across the Southeast, with two communities eventually settling along the Central Gulf Coast within 50 miles of each other. Residing in a complex cultural borderland created by constant

Native American migrations and European power struggles, the Apalachee experienced rapid culture change in the 18th century, as evidenced by their material remains at the archaeological sites of Mission San Joseph de Escambe in Northwestern Florida and Blakeley Park in Southern

Alabama. This thesis explores the nature of the cultural evolution the Apalachee experienced through a highly detailed ceramic analysis and includes a comparative analysis of both 18th century Apalachee settlements, as well as the sites of 17th century Apalachee Mission San Luis de Talimali and the late 18th century Creek village Fusihatchee. Making use of the theoretical perspectives of creolization, hybridity, and practice theory, it can be argued that 18th century

Apalachee ceramics reflect a hybridized ceramic practice, influenced by cultural history, geographic location, and social networks.

xi CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The Central Gulf Coast at the dawn of the 18th century was the stage for frenzied Native

American migrations, a result of more than a century of previous trade, violence, disease, and

European encroachment. As more European soldiers, clergymen, and colonists flowed into North

America, they quickly came into direct contact with native populations, resulting in rapid culture change on both sides. Protohistoric populations collapsed and coalesced into new culture groups, often fleeing their ancient homelands and developing cultural ties with new neighbors that would have otherwise never have been made. Pensacola and Mobile were frontier towns of two

European empires intent upon using the Americas for military and economic power. The region was a series of constantly changing cultural borderlands, made up of displaced Native Americans and new European arrivals.

Two Apalachee communities settled within the borderlands of Spanish and French influence on the Central Gulf Coast after fleeing a homeland destroyed by slave raids and

European-fueled wars. These two villages were the results of two very different journeys after the Apalachee Province collapsed in 1704. The French-allied Apalachee arrived in Mobile in early 1705 and coexisted with several other splintered native groups in Mobile Bay, also known as the petites nations, for half a century. The Spanish-allied Apalachee arrived in the area over ten years later, after living among the Creeks in English-controlled territory, and remained under

Spanish protection until 1763. Archaeological excavations of these two Apalachee sites provide a strong comparative study of culture change in the wake of European contact and the ensuing mass migrations. In particular, an analysis of ceramic remains may illustrate the distinctive nature of the Apalachee’s cultural evolution in the 18th century.

1

Theoretical Framework

How does one discuss the nature of Native American culture change in the 18th century

Southeast through the use of ceramic remains? This thesis makes use of two broad theoretical frameworks in an attempt to answer the above question. In the discussion of the nature of culture change in the American Southeast, the theoretical approaches of acculturation (Redfield et al.

1936) and world systems (Wallerstein 1974) were replaced by an analysis of culture contact through hybridized culture (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995; Lightfoot et al. 1998). In addition, practice theory, popularized by Giddens (1984) and Bourdieu (1977), was utilized to discuss ceramics as a result of fluid communal practices among interacting populations, as opposed to a stable marker of ethno-cultural identities.

In discussing culture change, past archaeological studies of the historic Southeast frequently made use of acculturation and assimilation to illustrate the nature of change in contact period Native American communities. As first defined in the 1930’s by Redfield, Linton, and

Herskovits (1936:149), the term acculturation describes the resulting “phenomena” experienced by one or both cultures after they first come into direct contact. It is important to note that this definition includes the possibility for subsequent change in both cultures and does not necessarily imply unidirectional assimilation. Acculturation became the standard paradigm bridging prehistoric and historic archaeology, and was frequently used by cultural historians and processual archaeologists alike to explain the changes in historic Native American assemblages, especially the inclusion of European artifacts (Lightfoot 1995:206). As acculturation became the norm for culture contact studies, the definition evolved to include implications of European colonial conquest and cultural assimilation to account for the rapid change in Native American assemblages (Ewen 2000:36-37).

2

The inclusion of these additional definitions of acculturation likely stemmed from the popular use of Wallerstein’s (1974) world systems theory and the core-periphery model in archaeological investigations. In acculturation studies, the dominant core (Europe) acculturates, and economically takes advantage of, the periphery (Native Americans) and semi-periphery

(colonists), who generate the necessary raw material for the core. When acculturation is used this way, it is easy to argue that contact period Native Americans existed in either a state of assimilation or resistance in relation to the European core. This assumes that they were passive recipients or deniers of change, and not independent agents in their cultural transformations.

Common arguments against core-periphery studies and acculturation warn of Eurocentrism, and point out that the current definition of acculturation leaves no room for the transmission of cultural ideas between two cultures, and instead favors European domination (Ewen 2000:37).

Additionally, core-periphery models in culture contact studies focus heavily on large scale perspectives (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995: 477) and ignore the potential for internally generated changes from individuals within their communities (Worth 2006:205).

In the perspective of this thesis, utilizing the term acculturation is especially problematic as the scope of the study involves relationships between several Native American societies and not only between European colonists and Native Americans. As the displaced Apalachee traveled across the 18th century Southeast, they encountered several Native communities including the Creeks, Mobilians, Choctaws, and Tensaws. Cultural exchange between the

Apalachee and these new neighbors would have been common and does not fall easily into the core-periphery model. This thesis argues that the Apalachee were not “acculturated” by their

Indian neighbors, but instead participated in a transmission of cultural practices that resulted in a hybridized Apalachee culture.

3

Therefore, this thesis rejects the convoluted definition of acculturation, and will instead discuss culture change with the concept of creolization: the development of a new hybrid of materials and cultural innovations as a result of culture contact (Lightfoot and Martinez

1995:474). In this definition, creolization does not specifically connote race, but rather a multiethnic cultural identity. Instead of focusing upon the dichotomy of “the acculturator” versus

“the acculturated,” creolization recognizes the unique nature of cultural exchange in contact situations, in which culture is transmitted by individuals and communities (Worth 2012:143).

After the diaspora of 1704, the Apalachee spread across the Southeast and interacted with several other Native American cultures, traversing several cultural frontiers, which through the lens of creolization acted as cultural transmission zones between diverse homelands and peoples

(Lightfoot and Martinez 1995:473-474). Creolization returns agency to the individual, whose choices in a community contribute to the development of a hybridized culture, without connotations of assimilation.

The role of the individual in the exchange of culture is central in practice theory, first discussed by Pierre Bourdieu (1977). In accordance with this theory, culture change and innovations develop as individuals consciously and unconsciously identify with a social group, and choose to maintain or make modifications to a daily practice. This daily practice, also referred to as habitus, is better described as the unconscious acceptance of a norm by a community of people who share a “social history” (Dobres and Hoffman 1994:222-223). One of the best ways to illustrate culture change in a community is through the examination of

“technology” (Dobres and Hoffman 1994:226). Within the context of this thesis, the

“technology” examined is ceramics.

4

In following the theory of practice, a group of potters would construct ceramics in a way that includes them in their community; this sequence of pottery manufacture identifies them as a part of a larger group of individuals (Gosselain 2000:189), but is subject to reflexive change from within (Dobres and Hoffman 1994:223). This sequence is referred to as the châine opératoire and is frequently used in ceramic studies (Crown 2007). A ceramic châine opératoire would include the procurement and preparation of clay, vessel forming, surface decorations, and firing. All of these steps are subject to change as individuals choose to innovate or borrow from foreign cultural practices.

Some studies of Southeastern Native American ceramics assign specific types and styles to particular cultural groups (Waselkov and Gums 2000; Cordell 2013) as a way to easily identify people in the archaeological record. Ceramics that do not fit the expected cultural pattern are attributed to trade or the presence of other ethnic groups at the site (Cordell 2013:88). This culture-history style of archaeology has become challenged by recent work (Harris 1999;

Michelaki 2007; Melcher 2011; Worth 2015), and will be also tested in this thesis. Instead of approaching ceramics as a direct implication of ethnic or cultural identity, ceramics should be used to identify the sequence of ceramic manufacture generated by individual potters whose behaviors reinforce a community of practice (Worth [2016]:29, 31-32). Utilizing ceramics in this way allows room for the possibility of change over time in ceramic traditions, produced through both innovation and introduction by outside communities. Additionally, it is the perfect lens through which to study and analyze hybridized ceramic assemblages such as those from Mission

Escambe and Blakeley Park.

A series of detailed ceramic analysis methods were developed, with input from committee members, to record the minute details of ceramic practices present in four

5 archaeological samples. The collections from Mission Escambe (8ES3473) and Blakeley Park

(1BA221) were the results of archaeological investigations during the past 14 years that explored the locations of the two post-diaspora Apalachee communities. Two additional ceramic collections, one from the 17th century Apalachee homeland community at Mission San Luis

(8LE4), the other from the 18th century interior Creek settlement of Fusihatchee (1EE191), served as comparative examples to assist in tracing the additions of new ceramic practices into the Apalachee repertoire. San Luis, an ancestral site for the later inhabitants of Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park, acted as the example of a “classic” Apalachee assemblage prior to the diaspora. Fusihatchee served as an example of a contemporaneous source of new ceramic practices evident in both Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park.

In the case of examining ceramics of post-diaspora Apalachee, these assemblages allow an in-depth study of ceramic practice with the unique advantage of also having substantial historic documents identifying the potters’ ethnic identity. By studying ceramic assemblages through the lenses of creolization and practice theory, this thesis will tackle these questions. Do ceramic styles truly represent tightly-bounded cultural identities that could not be mixed easily without a loss to that identity? Or do they represent a fluid and hybridized cultural practice that could shift with new patterns of social interaction while nonetheless maintaining distinctive social identity? How then, do new practices become incorporated in ceramic practices? And how can ceramics illustrate culture change in the 18th century Apalachee assemblages?

6

CHAPTER II

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Origins: The Late Mississippian

To understand the state of 18th century Native Americans in the Southeast, we have to look back a few centuries to the Late Mississippi Period (ca. 1200-1500), and the following

Early Contact Period (ca. 1500-1600). Many authors have wrestled with the subject of tracing the origins of historic groups and as such this chapter will only touch upon the dense literature developed in an attempt to define the ancestral domains of historically recorded people. Almost all Historic Native populations of the Southeast can be traced archaeologically through material culture to late Mississippian cultures. These connections are based almost wholly upon the belief that ceramic remains directly communicate cultural identity, an assumption that, as this thesis attempts to explain, can be problematic. Keeping this in mind, instead of describing specific “People” when dealing with prehistoric evidence, this chapter will discuss prehistoric culture groups as a series of regions with defined ceramic practices that interacted through more or less porous cultural boundaries.

Rising in the late proto-historic period, the Apalachee and their neighbors, the Creeks,

Choctaws, Mobilians, Tensaws, and Yamasees, were the descendants of at least five Late

Mississippian cultural groups. These groups were all variations upon the classic Mississippian culture, dominated by intensive maize agriculture and powerful mound building chiefdoms

(Hudson 1976:78-96) that experienced a period of rapid change before and during their first encounters with Europeans in the 16th and 17th centuries. Southeastern Mississippian cultures included: the Lamar culture in the heart of Georgia and eastern Alabama, that arose around 1350

(Hally 1994:147), the Moundville culture of northwestern Alabama, fluorescing around 1250

7

(Jenkins 2009:212), the Pensacola culture along the Central Gulf Coast of Alabama and the western Florida panhandle, beginning around 1200 (Harris 2003:258; Harris 2012:277), the neighboring Fort Walton culture area of northwest Florida, also beginning around 1200

(Marrinan and White 2007), and the Plaquemine culture area around the lower Mississippi River valley, also dating to sometime around 1200 (Rees 2010:176; Kidder 2007:199).

Ancestral Creeks: Lamar and Moundville

Late Mississippian communities in the interior Southeast where the Creek nation would later form included the large region of the Lamar and the smaller Moundville region. The Lamar culture area, as identified by ceramics, stretched across all of Georgia, into Alabama, South

Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee, and influenced ceramic styles in the Fort Walton region of Florida (Hally 1994:144,148). Typical ceramics of the Lamar series are identified by sand and grit tempered paste, featuring Lamar complicated stamping and incising (Appendix A).

The western extent of Lamar ceramics includes the late introduction of shell tempering, a trait common in other Mississippian assemblages, including Moundville, although anomalous in traditional Lamar ceramics (Knight 1994a:379). While the vast archaeological studies on

Moundville are beyond the scope of this thesis, it is important to note that as a large ceremonial complex, Moundville had a broad influence on Mississippian communities across Alabama, and southward to the Central Gulf Coast.

The dissolution of the Lamar and Moundville archaeological cultures is believed to have been the catalyst for the creation of the Creek Nation (Jenkins 2009:188), although it is difficult to pin down specific prehistoric cultures that can be directly linked to a heterogeneous confederation that developed after European incursions into the interior of the Southeast.

Variations in ceramic traditions and archaeological remains have led Vernon James Knight

8

(1994a) to divide the source groups of the Creeks into three separate Mississippian populations originally ruled by paramount chiefdoms: the Upper/Middle Coosa, the Lower Tallapoosa and the Lower Chattahoochee river valleys. Moundville cultures inside the Alabama and Black

Warrior River Valleys provided the final source populations, dispersing among both proto-Creek and proto-Choctaw populations (Regnier 2006:131-132). By the dawn of the 17th century, mass abandonment and migrations of multiple valleys, likely as a result of European occupation and disease, led to a population rise and concentration of political power in the aforementioned river valleys (Knight 1994a:384-385).

Developing out of the merging of populations in river valleys, the Historic Creek occupation ranged somewhere between south central Alabama, north and east through Georgia, and even into the Carolinas for certain periods. This massive expanse was made up of a combination several regional cultural groups, including the Tallapoosas, Abihkas, Alabamas, and

Apalachicolas, coarsely separated into Upper and Lower Creeks. The Lower Creeks, who rose out of the lower Chattahoochee Valley, were an amalgamation of descendants of prehistoric people of the valley and of an influx of refugees from as far away as the Atlantic coast (Worth

2000:267). The Upper Creeks included those who lived along Alabama’s Coosa, Tallapoosa, and

Alabama Rivers, another combination of descendants and displaced people of eastern Tennessee, northwestern Georgia, and parts of Mississippi (Waselkov and Smith 2000:242). By the 18th century, Creek settlements, heavily reliant on European trade, were prone to frequent resettlements that led the Creeks to interact with several other displaced people, through peaceful trade and violent episodes of war and slaving.

9

Mississippi and the Choctaw

By the Late Mississippian Period, the lower Mississippi River Valley was dotted with flat topped ceremonial mounds and large settlements, spreading eastward towards Mobile. The ceramic tradition known as the Plaquemine Series dominated the region, typified by a uniquely mixed paste of carbonized plants, bone, sand, grog, and some shell, decorated with fine incising or engraving (Barnett 2012:38-39). While the full extent of the Plaquemine culture’s influence in the lower Mississippi River Valley is still debated (Rees 2010; Livingood 2010), the ceramic tradition became dominant by 1250. The Plaquemine people made use of their fertile geography to cultivate maize and other plants intensively as a basis for their diet, while supplementing it with riverine sources. Over fifty large ceremonial centers have been identified in the Plaquemine region along the Natchez Bluffs and Yazoo Basin of modern Mississippi, demonstrating the wealth and power of this Mississippian region (Barnett 2012:40). Plaquemine chiefdoms existed well into the 16th century and were encountered by Spaniards in 1542 under the direction of

Hernando de Soto traversing the Mississippi River (Barnett 2007:5-12).

The historic descendants of the lower Mississippi valley chiefdoms are difficult to trace accurately, although Natchez and Choctaw Indians are the most obvious choice (Galloway

1995:53; Kidder 2007:201). By the end of the 16th century, the late Mississippian chiefdoms of the Lower Mississippi River Valley, northern Mississippi, and Moundville’s Black Warrior

River Valley in western Alabama, experienced a period of devolution and dispersal as a result of environmental pressures and European-introduced disease. The Mississippi and Black Warrior river valleys were abandoned as chiefdoms collapsed and populations coalesced into several small tribal communities in east central Mississippi. Far from fertile river valleys favored by the earlier Mississippians, this region became the source population of the Choctaws, one of the

10 most active and influential groups along the Central Gulf Coast during the contact period

(Galloway 1994:398-400). Other groups that likely emerged from these source populations included the large Natchez and Chickasaw tribes, as well as the Tensaw and Tunica (Barnett

2007:18-19). As was the case with the Creek confederation to the east, the Choctaw people existed as an amalgamation of several ethnic groups who developed into a large regional group sharing a series of Western Muskogean languages and ceramic styles in response to disruptive cultural changes.

Pensacola and Fort Walton

The Pensacola culture is a southern variant of Mississippian culture and is identified by its heavily shell tempered ceramics, frequently decorated with intricate incising. Known as the

Pensacola Series (Fuller and Stowe 1982), the ceramic assemblage is chronologically divided into two major phases in its heartland: Bottle Creek (1200-1400) and Bear Point (1450-1700).

The Pensacola assemblage has been found in a region roughly ranging from Choctawhatchee

Bay to Mobile Bay, and extends north along the Lower Alabama River. The major ceremonial center in the Pensacola region was the Bottle Creek site in the Mobile-Tensaw delta of Alabama.

It is the only multi-mound site within the Pensacola culture region (Harris 2012:277-278).

Several other ceremonial sites range across the Gulf Coast, including two large cemeteries in the

Pensacola Bay region (Harris 2003:259). In comparison to their Mississippian neighbors to the north, coastal Pensacola sites tended to be seasonal, taking advantage of the resources in bays, estuaries, barrier islands, and rivers at various times throughout the year. Agriculture was only employed sporadically, often as a supplement to the diet of the coastal Pensacola culture (Harris

2003:259).

11

A few historical references are made to the Pensacola culture by early Spanish explorers, filling in the gaps of archaeological remains. In particular, Pánfilo de Narváez’s calamitous expedition of 1528, recorded by Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, likely encountered those living in

Pensacola and Mobile Bay. The earliest Spanish documentation of Pensacola people by name is from Francisco Maldonado, who was conducting a maritime expedition to rendezvous with

Hernando de Soto in 1539 and recorded a deep bay with a large village named “Achuse” or

“Ochuse” (Hudson 1994:80). This same bay would be the destination for several future Spanish explorations, including the Tristán de Luna expedition and would be home to the various Spanish presidios of 17th and 18th century Pensacola.

Overlapping with the Pensacola cultural area, the Mississippian Fort Walton culture also thrived during the late prehistoric period. In the tradition of classic Mississippian cultures, the

Fort Walton culture comprised agriculturalists centered in the Apalachicola River Valley and the nearby Tallahassee Red Hills, typified by major platform mounds and paramount chieftains

(Marrinan and White 2007:292). Fort Walton sites are identified by their sand, grit, and/or grog tempered ceramics and a series of intricately incised and punctated vessels (Marrinan and White

2007:293-295). Fort Walton ceramics have been found as far west as Mobile Bay (Harris

2012:278) and north into central Georgia alongside Lamar ceramics (Worth 2000:268), perfectly illustrating the porous nature of Mississippian culture areas. The core of the Fort Walton region in the Tallahassee Hills region eventually developed into the province of Apalachee, encountered by Pánfilo de Narváez’s expedition and later by Hernando de Soto; it was known as one of the few powerful chiefdoms that successfully resisted Spanish military excursions in Florida

(Hudson 1994:79-80). However, they were eventually assimilated into the Catholic mission system of Spanish Florida in the 17th century.

12

The Spaniards and Mississippian Collapse

The end of the Mississippian Period coincided with the arrival of European explorers.

After Juan Ponce de Léon’s discovery of La Florida in 1513, the Spanish were keen to take control of the continent, initially expecting a similar land of riches they encountered in Central and South America. The early entradas by the Spanish provide the first historical records of the

Late Mississippian world. The first few expeditions and attempted colonies, led by Ponce de

Léon (1521), Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón (1526), and Panfilo de Narváez (1528) had disastrous ends, frequently resulting in near complete loss of life and funds (Milanich 1999:57-68). While these entradas were dangerous and expensive, the Spanish were only encouraged to continue, resulting in the extensive military expedition of Hernando de Soto.

De Soto’s excursion left a deep and damaging impact upon Late Mississippian people in the Southeast. Landing somewhere near Tampa Bay, De Soto and his soldiers marched north, making contact with several established chiefdoms including the province of Apalachee in northern Florida, Lamar chiefdoms in Central Georgia, Moundville groups in western Alabama,

Plaquemine chiefs along the Mississippi, and several other chiefdoms throughout South

Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas (Hudson 1994). De

Soto and his army relied upon native sources for food and other supplies, often resorting to kidnapping and ransacking, or occasionally destroying entire settlements in the process (Hudson

1994). The complex balance of power in the Mississippian culture region was disrupted by these unanticipated sieges, which sometimes resulted in the deaths of thousands of American Indians

(Hudson 1994:87). When the De Soto entrada ended in 1543, the Spaniards had traveled over

3,500 miles, never encountered a city rich with gold, and lost about half of their army, including

De Soto himself (Hudson 1994:99).

13

Not to be discouraged by the long and bloody campaign of De Soto, the Spanish attempted a colonization effort in 1559 in what is now Pensacola Bay. Led by Tristán de Luna, the expedition was made up of some 500 soldiers and 1,000 colonists, Spaniards and Native

Mexicans, with the hope of establishing a permanent colony in the “Achuse” bay to secure the region for the Spanish Crown (Hudson et al. 1989:33). Upon their arrival, much of the Central

Gulf Coast appeared depopulated, and although they expected to encounter the people described by De Soto’s chronicles, only a few small villages were noted, their inhabitants often fleeing the

Europeans upon sighting them (Harris 2003:263).

To avoid relying upon uncooperative native labor for food, the expedition packed several ships with supplies to support the colony and planned to connect the new settlement to the prosperous Indian province of Coosa in the Lamar culture area, first encountered by De Soto

(Hudson et al. 1989:32; Worth 2009:83). Unfortunately, the colonists quickly fell into a dangerous food shortage as a result of the sparse and hostile native population as well as a massive hurricane which destroyed several of the ships containing supplies only 5 weeks after their arrival (Hudson et al. 1989:34; Worth 2009:89-90). This food shortage led to a desperate expedition into the interior searching for friendly Indians to provide supplies. After settling briefly in a large abandoned town called Nanipacana situated on the Alabama River, the search inland recovered little food for the starving colony and the entire expedition was abandoned by

1561 (Hudson et al. 1989:36-42).

The Spaniards did not return for over 100 years, when in 1686 they found Pensacola Bay to be populated only by small fishing settlements of “Panzacola Indians” (Harris 2003:265-266).

When French explorers led by Pierre le Moyne d’Iberville entered Mobile Bay in the late 1690’s, they too encountered a scarce and scattered population, divided into multiple tribal communities,

14 or petites nations, significantly unlike the powerful chiefdoms described by De Soto and prehistoric archaeological evidence (Waselkov and Gums 2000:6-7). When Presidio Santa María de Galve was established in 1698, Pensacola Bay was devoid of any substantial native populations and the “Panzacola” had abandoned the area (Harris 2003:265-268).

The impact of early Spanish expeditions upon the Southeast in the 16th century, especially De Soto’s, was clearly devastating. However, it is important to note that there were several other factors contributing to the dissolution of the Mississippian world. Mississippian politics already existed in a cycle of growth, power, and decline. Several chiefdoms had collapsed or were in decline as a result of deteriorating trade networks, increasing warfare, and environmental fluctuations by the time of De Soto’s invasion (Knight 1994a:381-382). The breakdown of Mississippian chiefly societies led to aggressive competition for political power, often resulting in the fissioning of large settlements (Smith 2002:4-5). This may be the explanation for the multitude of small tribal communities encountered by the French in Mobile

Bay and the small fishing villages of Pensacola Bay. There is also increasing evidence that the severe winters of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1300-1850) negatively impacted North Americans relying upon agriculture (Foster 2012) and set off a population decline of major Mississippian settlements already in flux. An extreme drought from 1407 to 1476 has also been cited as a major contributing factor to the collapse of Moundville (Jenkins 2009:194) and likely had devastating effects across the Southeast. The De Soto entrada of 1539 and subsequent European expeditions and early settlements, simply tipped the scale to a region-wide collapse of the

Mississippian world and paved the way for the genesis of splintered historical Native American groups.

15

Descendants: Contact Period

The contact period of the Southeast defined the nature of historic native cultures. The

Apalachee and their neighbors were ultimately driven by the encroachment of Europeans in

North America and the resulting population destabilization and migrations. The Spanish, French, and English often pitted their Indian allies against their enemies, using Indian resources for economic and political gain. The Native Americans, in turn, learned to use their alignments with

European powers to their own benefit, resulting in numerous migrations, trade arrangements, and wars.

The establishment of two successful French outposts, Charlesfort (1562) and Fort

Caroline (1564), weakened Spain’s claim to the Southeast (Worth 2013:135). In response, Pedro

Menéndez de Avilés founded St. Augustine in 1565. After failing to dominate the region and its native people through military force, the Spanish developed a new model of colonization for the

Southeast from the tiny outpost of St. Augustine.

The success of Spanish colonization relied on assimilation of native societies, as opposed to eradicating them, and wove them into Spanish colonial administrations (Worth 2013:132).

Arriving in the Americas in 1587, Franciscan friars led an experimental colonization effort designed to shift Southeastern Native Americans into the Spanish colonial system and to convert them to Catholicism. The Franciscan approach, unlike earlier calamitous Jesuit efforts, involved voluntary conversion, minimal military presence, and preservation of native political structures, with friars serving as advisors and advocates for Indians within the colonial system (Worth

2013:138). The focus of Spanish missionization began with the chiefdoms of the Timucua, living nearby St. Augustine in the early 17th century. Timucuan chiefs eagerly accepted Catholic conversion and obedience to the Spanish crown in return for exotic gifts and prestige. The

16 success of Timucuan chiefdoms quickly proved the efficacy of the Franciscan method of colonization (Milanich 1999:107-108; Worth 1998a:36-37).

Saving souls and adding new subjects to the Spanish crown through the mission system also inherently provided a strong source of food and labor for the struggling Spanish colony.

Only a bare minimum of Spaniards resided in St. Augustine and Pensacola, and were nearly all military personnel. The small, predominantly military occupation contributed to the persistent need for outside food sources (Worth 2013:136). The Spaniards made use of a system that relied heavily upon their Indian neighbors’ food supply, which required a group of obliging and dependable Indians. The influence of missionaries guaranteed Spanish colonists a stable food source: the corn grown by missionized Indians.

During the missionization of the Timucua in the first half of the 17th century, the Spanish continually looked toward the distant Apalachee province as a prime candidate for conversion

(Worth 1998a:63-65). Prehistorically agricultural, the chiefdoms of Apalachee were perfect candidates for integration into the Spanish colonial mission system and by 1655 the Franciscans had established eight missions in Apalachee towns (Covington 1964:221). As was the case with the Timucua, vying chiefs saw conversion and the presence of Spanish friars in their village as a mark of prestige and actively competed for it (McEwan 2001:635). By the mid-17th century, the

Apalachee became essential to Spanish colonists, producing over 100,000 pounds of corn annually for St. Augustine (Worth 1998a:186).

The largest mission in the province, San Luis de Talimali, located just outside of modern downtown Tallahassee, was home to an estimated 1,500 people by 1700 (Hann and McEwan

1998:53). As both the seat of power for the indigenous chiefs and the Spanish Crown in the large

Apalachee Province, San Luis was a major economic center at the height of the mission system

17 and had several Spanish residents including friars, soldiers, and civilian families (Hann and

McEwan 1998:54-61). Later serving as a link between the two Spanish outposts of St. Augustine and Presidio Santa María de Galve, San Luis fulfilled Spain’s dream of a trans-peninsular corridor across La Florida controlled by the Spanish and their allies (Worth 1998a:76).

The successes of Spanish Florida drew in nearby Native populations, including the

Yamasee, mobile refugee Indians who coalesced along the South Carolina-Georgia border during the volatile mid-17th century (Worth 2004:245). Plagued by English-encouraged Westo Indian slavers, the Yamasee sought refuge in La Florida, settling across northern Florida in the 1670’s among Indian missions, including Apalachee Province, but frequently refused to convert to

Catholicism (Worth 2004:251). In response to a series of terrible coastal pirate raids, all the

Yamasee but those in Apalachee fled the region in the 1680’s, eventually to return to the coast of

Georgia and the Carolinas (Worth 2004:251). They had continual interactions with other Mission

Indians through both peaceful trading and violent slave raids as their alliances shifted between the English and Spanish colonies (Worth 2004:249).

In addition to ongoing slave raids, the Spanish mission system dealt with other difficulties including a large Apalachee rebellion in 1647. This uprising stemmed from unrest due to forced labor and restrictions of Apalachee traditions deemed “immoral” by Spanish missionaries, including the favorite pastime of stickball (Milanich 1999:126-128). Ill-treatment of Christian Apalachee by Spanish colonists and increasing demands for labor and resources by

Spanish officials, continued into the early 18th century (Hann 1988:227). Several thousand

Apalachee died from mid-17th century epidemics that spread through the closely linked missions

(Milanich 1999:158-160) and the relatively unguarded settlements along the western edge of the

18

Spaniard’s domain became targets of increasingly devastating slave raids by Creek, Yamasee, and Westo Indians (Milanich 1999:183-184).

At the outbreak of Queen Anne’s War in 1702, tensions between French, English, and

Spanish colonies reached fever pitch. Hearing plans of a joint French and Spanish attack on

English territory in the Carolinas, English Governor James Moore decided to take preemptive action, rousing a force of some 500 English soldiers and another 300-600 Creek, Yamasee, and other allied Indians to attack St. Augustine and its surrounding Timucua missions (Covington

1972:370-372). The fear and chaos resulting from the attack reverberated across Spanish Florida as the many isolated missions between San Luis and St. Augustine became a magnet to English- encouraged slave raiding after 1704. Thousands of Apalachee were estimated to have been enslaved during the attacks, as Mission Indians fled to St. Augustine or San Luis for protection

(Hann 1988:264).

By the summer of 1704 most of the missions along the road linking St. Augustine and

Pensacola were abandoned or destroyed, leaving the two remaining Spanish outposts, Pensacola and St. Augustine, as well as San Luis, vulnerable and isolated. In June of 1704, a massive group of Creek warriors and English soldiers launched a substantial attack on Apalachee Province, destroying the few remaining missions surrounding San Luis and capturing seven Spanish soldiers (Hann 1988:279). Rumor spread that a larger force of enemy Indians was returning for a final attack on San Luis itself, triggering a panicked mass abandonment of the region. By July

13th, Spanish officials ordered the desertion of Apalachee Province and burned San Luis themselves before the expected arrival of Creek warriors and retreated to St. Augustine (Hann

1988:280-282).

19

The Apalachee fleeing San Luis after its destruction fragmented into three groups; one travelled east with Spanish officials to St. Augustine, another west with other fleeing Indians towards the Santa María presidio in Pensacola for protection, and the last left for South Carolina with the Creeks, including both captives and exiles (Figure 1). The western and northern bands of Apalachee can be traced through history as the source populations of Mission Escambe and the Blakeley Park village, the two major sites discussed in this thesis.

FIGURE 1. Apalachee Migrations in 1704. (Map by author, 2015.)

20

Apalachee in French Louisiana

Late in July, 1704, some 800 weary Apalachee, Chacatos, and Yamasee made their way to the Pensacola Bay area from San Luis, briefly residing with the Spanish at Presidio Santa

María de Galve (Hann 1988:280-283). However, by the end of August almost all had moved on to settle with the French in Mobile Bay, enthusiastically welcomed by Louisiana governor Jean-

Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville. Soon after they arrived in French Mobile, the Apalachee were barraged by Spanish officials’ pleas to return to Pensacola. According to Bienville:

the governor of Pensacola offered very considerable presents to the chiefs … to make

them return which they refused saying that the French assisted their allies better than did

the Spaniards, the French furnishing arms, in addition to the fact that they were not

masters of their wives among the Spanish and that among the French they were at rest as

to that (Dunbar and Saunders 1929:25).

Contrary to popular belief, the Spanish did indeed give and allow firearms, including shotguns and arquebuses, in Mission Indian communities and often encouraged them to form militias to protect their villages (Worth 2007:51). Although likely antiquated and ill-supplied, firearms were enough of a presence in the Spanish mission system that they even appeared in a 1681 census of

Timucuan Mission Indians (Worth 1998b:136-137). However, Pensacola officials may not have had the resources to arm their allies sufficiently and after San Luis’s destruction, their hesitation to provide adequate arms would have appeared especially galling to the Apalachee after being subject to untold violence at the hands of the very well-armed Creeks.

21

Chafing under one final demonstration of the Spanish’s lack of concern for their well- being after a long list of other abuses, several hundred Apalachee decided to throw their lot in with a new ally that seemed more willing to provide the resources they desired. In fact, while the unfortunate band of Indians arrived in the French colony at the peak of a terrible yellow fever outbreak, Bienville happily provided the group with arms, seed corn, land for a village, and the spiritual resources of a Catholic priest (Waselkov and Gums 2000:27).

It is important to note that not all the Apalachee that made it to Santa María in 1704 abandoned the Spanish. In early 1705, a group of more than 120 Apalachee, led by Don Joseph de la Cruz de Cui, applied for supplies to establish a town along the Perdido River, northwest of

Santa María (Figure 2). In fact, when imploring the Apalachee in Mobile to return to Pensacola, the Spanish encouraged them to reunite with the Apalachee of the Perdido River settlement

(Worth et al. [2015]:8-9). While the historical records are scant, it is likely that this small

Apalachee village provided food and labor for the isolated Santa María presidio for several years prior to the incursion of French troops in 1719.

22

FIGURE 2. Mobile Bay settlements ca. 1733, including St. Louis and the unnamed Apalachee settlement near the Perdido River. (de Crenay 1733, Archives Nationales, Paris, France.)

The newly French-allied Apalachee settled in two small villages north of Mobile at the end of 1704, and remained there until Bienville moved Mobile to its present location along the northwestern shore of Mobile Bay in 1711. A new settlement, known as St. Louis in honor of their ancestral capital San Luis, was established just north of New Mobile that same year (Figure

2). In 1733, the Apalachee relocated their people to a final location near the mouth of the

Tensaw River, northeast of Mobile, to be closer to the new colonial outpost (Waselkov and

Gums 2001:27-28; Figure 3). Located in modern Blakeley State Park, this village’s cultural remains are a major focus of this thesis.

23

FIGURE 3. Map of Mobile Bay ca. 1778, showing the final location of the Apalachee in Mobile Bay, and various Native Americans including Yamasee, Tensaw, Mobilians, and Tawasas. (Sartine 1778, Birmingham Public Library Cartography Collection, Birmingham, AL.)

At the time of their arrival into the bay, several other Indian communities were already established in the vicinity of the French colony (Figures 2 and 3). Some, such as the Mobilians,

Choctaws, Tensaws (or Tensas), Pascagoulas, and Biloxis, were descendants of late

Mississippian cultures that had resided along the Central Gulf Coast for centuries. Others, such as the Chacatos, Yamasee, and Tawasas (or Taouachas), were refugee groups like the Apalachee, seeking French protection from slaving raids (Waselkov and Gums 2001:6-49). This series of fractured cultures, or petites nations, created a complex network of interaction, facilitating the exchange of goods, culture, and disease.

24

The French-allied Apalachee maintained a significant supportive role for French colonists in the early 18th century. Apalachee builders assisted in the relocation of Mobile and the construction of its new fort. Apalachee warriors assisted French soldiers to recover deserters and often were present for skirmishes between the French and their enemies. From their new village along the upper Mobile Bay, the Apalachee also maintained a ferry to Mobile from the trade road that led to Pensacola. They also continued the now century-old tradition of supplying food for their European allies in return for protection and luxury goods, often supporting the French through unstable years (Waselkov and Gums 2001:27-29).

The Apalachee also continued their Catholic traditions, which likely influenced

Bienville’s hospitality. Their village included a substantial church which was visited by a priest from Mobile each Sunday. He performed mass, marriages and baptisms, and presided over burials in the church’s graveyard. The Apalachee also annually celebrated the Feast of Saint

Louis, extending from traditions developed in San Luis de Talimali. The festival was known to be large and relatively extravagant and the Apalachee always invited French colonists and neighboring Indians to join in the celebration (McWilliams 1988:134-135).

The French-allied Apalachee remained in Mobile Bay with the French and the petites nations until the colony was ceded to the English in 1763. A result of the end of the French and

Indian War, and the Treaty of Paris, all Spanish holdings in Florida, and all of French Louisiana east of the Mississippi River, came under English control. This led to a final exodus for the western Apalachee and their Indian neighbors, who, with the French gone, would have no protection from Creek and English slave raids.

The Apalachee were among the first to petition French officials in Louisiana to move west of the Mississippi River, their reputation as a Christian nation of farmers again working in

25 their favor (Brasseaux 1981:100-101). By this time, Yellow Fever had devastated the French

Apalachee; the several hundred of 1704 had dwindled to a mere 80 villagers leaving Mobile Bay

(Brasseaux 1981:101). The tiny band of formerly French-allied Apalachee settled along the Red

River, in modern Rapides Parish, Louisiana, in September of 1763, and was soon joined by other

French-allied groups including the Mobilians, Pascagoulas, and Chacatos (Hunter 1994:5). A small irony lies in the fact that French Louisiana was also ceded to the Spanish crown as a result of the Treaty of Paris and the Apalachee, from 1763 to 1800, were once again under Spanish colonial dominion. Apalachee appear in colonial and early American documents sporadically after 1763, with a final historic mention in 1832 in the form of a petition to the United States of

America’s Secretary of State requesting an Indian Agent and monetary support (Covington

1964:224). A small descendant community of the Red River Apalachee exists today in

Louisiana, known as the Talimali Band of Apalachee Indians, and are currently campaigning for federal recognition (Hann and McEwan 1998:176).

Mission Escambe: From Exiles in South Carolina to Vera Cruz, Mexico

After the destruction of San Luis de Talimali in 1704, several thousand Apalachee succumbed to the well-armed Creeks and their English allies and were taken back to the English as slaves. An additional 1,300 (Hann 1988:269) abandoned the Spanish to join the Creeks who were returning to English Carolina, after it became apparent surrendering was the safest course of action, especially considering the poor state of Spanish mission defenses. The “free”

Apalachee settled in villages along the Savannah River among a series of displaced and conquered Indians known collectively as Savano Town (Ramsey 2008:110). The Apalachee and their fellow refugee Indians in these villages were treated as glorified captives; they were not permitted to leave, and were surrounded by Creek villages that monitored and controlled the

26 residents of Savano Town (Ramsey 2008:110-111). Despite their situation, the skills the

Apalachee developed while in the Spanish mission system, especially farming, ranching, and

European construction techniques, facilitated their development of social and economic networks with both the English and their Indian allies. The Apalachee became involved in the deerskin trade network among the Indians surrounding Charles Town and frequently intermarried with their Creek neighbors during the early 1700’s (Covington 1972:375-376).

The Apalachee suffered large bouts of population loss in English Territory; by 1715 only some 638 people, about half of the original population, remained. The Apalachee were still harassed by devastating Yamasee slave raids and endured frequent mistreatment by English settlers, while several more died from European diseases (Covington 1972:378). In 1715, the aftermath of the Yamasee War, a rebellion of Creek and Yamasee Indians against the English, led to the withdrawal of Creek and Yamasee settlements surrounding the Carolinas. Most of the

Yamasees sought refuge in Spanish Territory, returning to St. Augustine, where they were finally assimilated as Catholic Indians, while the Creeks retreated into western Georgia and central

Alabama (Worth 2004:250). This migration opened up the Apalachee living among the Creeks to diplomatic visits with the Spanish and the eventual return of some Apalachee exiles to Spanish

Florida (Worth et al. [2015]:9).

A young Apalachee chief, Juan Marcos Ysfani, left the Creek country in 1717 to meet with Spanish leaders in Pensacola to renew relationships between the Spanish and the Apalachee.

His diplomatic mission sent him, along with an Upper Creek chief known as Tixjana, all the way to Mexico City that year to meet the Viceroy of New Spain. Returning to Pensacola with the new title of “Governor of the Apalachees,” Juan Marcos led a group of Apalachee exiles from Creek country to Pensacola in 1718 (Worth et al. [2015]:9-10). Originally settling close to the Spanish

27 presidio of Santa María, the Apalachee sought to construct a mission, complete with a church, north of Pensacola at the mouth of the Escambia (or “Chiscas”) River (Harris 1999:60-61).

Named Nuestra Señora de la Soledad y San Luis, the settlement had over 100 villagers and attracted other displaced Apalachee in the area. This included the small community of Apalachee along the Perdido River, freed slaves from Creek country, and some Apalachee from Mobile Bay

(Worth et al. [2015]:10). Juan Marcos also established a small Apalachee community near the newly constructed Spanish Fort San Marcos de Apalache, just south of Tallahassee, in 1719, creating a network of supporting Apalachee villages alongside the two struggling Spanish outposts. The San Marcos de Apalache mission continued as an Apalachee settlement until the

1730s, when it was probably absorbed into a nearby Yamasee village (Worth et al. [2015]:12-13)

When the War of the Quadruple Alliance broke out in late 1719, Spain was faced with fighting off the English, French, Dutch, and Austrians. Fighting a war on this many fronts heavily weakened Spain’s position in the American Southeast. Seizing this opportunity, French troops from Mobile captured and occupied Santa María for three years (Coker 1999:14). The

Spanish retreated to St. Joseph Bay, 75 miles west of Fort San Marcos, and the Spanish-allied

Apalachee followed. A small mission was set up in the vicinity, presumably including Juan

Marcos’ Soledad community, and was inhabited until the end of the war in 1722 (Worth et al.

[2015]:12). Upon their return to Pensacola, the Spanish established a new presidio, Isla de Santa

Rosa, Punta de Sigüenza, on Santa Rosa Island. While the island location provided protection from mainland European and Indian attacks, the settlement was frequently bowled over by hurricanes (Coker 1999:17). During the occupation of Santa Rosa, there is little documentation concerning Juan Marcos and the Apalachee, although it can be presumed they returned to the

Soledad mission for the twenty-odd years before a new Apalachee settlement was established.

28

In the summer of 1741, Fray Marcos de Hita y Salazar, a seasoned chaplain of Santa

Rosa, submitted a petition for supplies needed for the establishment of a new mission, the “New

Pueblo of the Chiscas” (Worth et al. [2015]:14). Aside from basic furnishing for a church, he also requested rations from Santa Rosa for over 100 Indians. This new mission, later referred to as San Joseph de Escambe (Worth et al. [2015]:14-15), was established further up the Escambia

(“Chiscas”) River from the Soledad mission (Figure 4). The Apalachee of Soledad were the source population of the new mission, as by the 1750s, Juan Marcos is mentioned in official documents as the leader of Escambe (Worth et al. [2015]:16). One impetuous for their move may be the relocation of a Spanish brick kiln and warehouse with resident soldiers on the mainland, closer to Soledad, after a particularly destructive hurricane in 1740 (Coker 1999:17-18). Also, the arrival of Christian Yamasee Indians fleeing violence in St. Augustine in 1740 and the subsequent establishment of their mission on the western edge of the Escambia Bay (Figure 4), may have contributed to the Apalachee’s desire to move upriver (Worth et al. [2015]:16-17).

29

FIGURE 4. Spanish and Spanish-allied settlements near Pensacola Bay, 1698-1763. (Map by author, 2015.)

For the next twenty years, the Apalachee and the Yamasee existed as the two friendly mission populations associated with Spanish presence in Pensacola. They also had connections to broader regional communities across the Central Gulf Coast. In 1749, the Yamasee moved their settlement across the bay to the newly named San Antonio de Punta Rasa mission (Worth

2008:10). Punta Rasa’s new location along a trade road between Lower Creek Uchises and

Spanish Pensacola facilitated a brisk trade between the Yamasee and the English allied Indians without direct oversight by the Spanish (Worth et al. [2015]:19). Escambe’s northern location brought it in close contact with Upper Creek groups, especially the Tallapoosas, Abihkas, and

Alabamas, and the petites nations of Mobile Bay, no doubt including the French-allied 30

Apalachee at the mouth of the Tensaw River. The Tawasa, a similarly displaced group of

Indians, also had a small settlement some 10 miles upriver from Escambe (Figure 4). The town,

“Los Tobaces,” was later inhabited by Tallapoosa Creek Indians after a formal peace treaty was signed between the Indians and the Spanish in 1758 (Worth et al. [2015]:18-19,22). This settlement developed a strong trade relationship with the Apalachee and Spaniards to the south.

Mission Escambe was also located along a well-traveled trade road leading from Pensacola into

Upper Creek country (Figure 5) and became a nexus of trade involving not only interior Creek products, but also illicit trade of English and French goods (Dadiego 2014). The intensive trade at both missions continued into the 1750’s, especially with the addition of small garrisons of

Spanish soldiers inserted by the Pensacola governor, ironically intended to curb all illegal trading

(Worth et al. [2015]:19).

Later that decade, a final devastating series of hurricanes led the Spanish to build a new presidio on the mainland, San Miguel de Panzacola. The construction coincided with the arrival of a new governor, Miguel Román de Castilla y Lugo, and a cavalry unit led by Captain Luis

Joseph de Ullate (Worth et al. [2015]:20-21). The cavalry, which was intended to add a level of security to the presidio and its surrounding missions, was vastly under-funded and supplied thanks in part to the machinations of Governor Román. To avoid costly transport of horses from

Veracruz or Havana, for example, the governor chose to obtain horses from local Indians, trading watered down brandy worth only 6 or 7 pesos for horses in very poor condition (Worth et al.

[2015]:21).

No matter how decrepit the Spanish cavalry was, their presence, in conjunction with the construction of San Miguel, resulted strained relations between the Spanish and the Creeks to the north. While the aforementioned treaty in 1758 established peace among San Miguel and the

31 surrounding Indians, Governor Román planned to fortify Mission Escambe, the final outpost of

Spanish influence in the frontier, by placing 15 cavalry soldiers at the mission. Rumors spread to the Upper Creeks of much larger Spanish fortress being built at the small Apalachee mission that

Román personally had to quell before the delicate peace treaty was broken (Worth et al.

[2015]:22-23). Construction began in 1760 with the help of engineer Phelipe Feringan Cortés, to update and fortify the mission, including repairs to the church, and construction of a barracks, stables and stockade. It is not clear how complete the project was before a violent hurricane in

August 1760 flattened much of the village. All improvements virtually ceased; the contingent of soldiers was reduced to only nine men living in a house made nearly uninhabitable by the storm, and the defenses at the mission were virtually useless (Worth et al. [2015]:24-25).

In early 1761, relationships between the Creeks and the Spanish began to deteriorate after an incident involving Román’s infamously cheap trading tactics. When three Upper Creek

Indians arrived in San Miguel to trade deer meat, the governor gave them only half the amount of brandy they anticipated their goods were worth, and to add insult to injury, the bottles were heavily watered down. Upon complaining, the three men were violently abused verbally and physically by Román’s men before being thrown out of the presidio. On their way back home, the Creeks stopped at Punta Rasa and took out their anger upon the few Spaniards residing at the mission while the Yamasee were away hunting. The Creek trio killed three soldiers, a Spanish corporal, and his pregnant wife and daughter and then burned the mission to the ground. They also later robbed a Creek village along the Escambia, possibly Los Tobases, whose chief warned

Juan Marcos at Escambe that the garrison should be prepared for an attack from vengeful northern Creeks. Captain Ullate also implored Román that the cavalry garrison and its resources needed to be reinforced or removed, as they were clearly in imminent threat of an attack. Román

32 brushed aside these concerns: he was convinced the three Creek murderers were only worthless criminals that would be dealt with by their chief, and posed no real threat to the Spanish. The only improvement he permitted was to increase the Spanish soldiers at Escambe to 14 (Worth et al. [2015]:25-27).

On the evening of April 9th, 1761, a company of 28 Alabama Creek warriors, led by their war chief Mestizo, attacked Mission Escambe, while half of the Spanish cavalry were away on horseback. Mestizo himself had a grudge against a previous leader of the Spanish garrison who had manipulated him in a drunken trade sometime in 1760. As described later by witnesses to the incident, discovering the next day that he had traded his prized red waistcoat for watered down brandy, Mestizo confronted the soldier, who, in the escalating argument, threatened to kill

Mestizo if he didn’t leave. Mestizo was said to have spread his arms at this, saying “Well, kill me! Kill me, because if you don’t kill me now, I will come later to get my clothes, and I will kill you and whoever is with you!” (Worth et al. [2015]:22). Mestizo’s band of Alabama warriors killed two soldiers, scalped a third and left him for dead, and captured four more for ransom. As an aside, the soldier Mestizo would most liked to have killed was no longer stationed at Escambe and lived a long life; Mestizo never recovered his coat. The Creeks took anything of value, including horses, saddles, and 14 sets of weapons before setting the entire settlement on fire

(Figure 5). Clearly the Apalachee were not the target of the attack; all escaped into the nearby forest following their priest, Fray Antonio de Silva, and arrived in Pensacola a few days later

(Worth et al. [2015]:27).

33

FIGURE 5. Detail of a map ca. 1771 illustrating remains of an “Old Spanish Fort,” i.e. Mission Escambe. (Taitt 1771, Library of Congress Geography and Map Division, Washington, DC.)

After the attacks at both missions, the Apalachee and Yamasee relocated permanently to

San Miguel for protection and established a small joint settlement next to the presidio under the leadership of Yamasee chief Andrés Escudero (Worth et al. [2015]:30). The small Indian village lasted until 1763, when at the end of the French and Indian War, Spain handed Pensacola over to the English. Some 103 Apalachee and Yamassee, including the now elderly Juan Marcos, evacuated to Veracruz, Mexico with the Spanish. The last historic reference to the Pensacola

Apalachee and Yamassee describe the establishment of a small community, San Carlos de

34

Chachalacas, just north of Veracruz. Only 47 Apalachee and Yamasee remained by 1765, although there may be descendants in Mexico today (Worth et al. [2015]:31).

The experiences of the Apalachee after the destruction of their homeland mirror the trials of many other contemporaneous Native American groups. Traveling across the Southeast, the

Apalachee interacted with several cultures, including French and Spanish colonists, as well as mobile and displaced Indian communities, including the ubiquitous Creeks and Choctaws, and the Indians of Mobile’s petites nations. Unsurprisingly, the 18th century Apalachee developed a hybridized cultural identity, grown out of their migrations, interactions and adaptations across the Southeast, as is evident in their ceramic assemblage.

35

CHAPTER III

DATA SET AND METHODS

The experiences of the Apalachee in the 18th century with their various migrations and cultural interactions, present an opportunity to discuss the cultural hybridization that developed during European expansion. To examine and interpret cultural change in the past, archaeologists have few resources at their disposal. Ceramic remains tend to be the best preserved portions of archaeological assemblages, and provide the most robust data set. The sites of Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park, identified in the past 15 years, have produced substantial collections. These assemblages have the potential to illustrate what changes the Apalachee experienced, and how their experiences shaped, consciously or otherwise, their daily practices.

Data Set

The main Apalachee samples were drawn from two 18th century Apalachee settlements in the Central Gulf Coast (Figure 6). Mission San Joseph de Escambe, the community of Spanish allied Apalachee, was occupied from 1741 until its destruction in 1761. The Blakeley Park village, occupied by French allied Apalachee, had a comparable timeline: 1733 to 1763. The archaeological sites of Mission Escambe (8ES3473) and Blakeley Park (1BA221), provided a large data set to draw upon: a total of 18,859 grams of Native American ceramics were included in the Escambe collection and 12,518.5 grams from Blakeley Park. As is typical in Native

American collections, undecorated sherds made up the vast majority of ceramics at both sites; accounting for 72.6 percent in Escambe and 73.3 percent in Blakeley Park.

36

FIGURE 6. Sites utilized. (Map by author, 2015.)

Mission Escambe was discovered in 2009 during a University of West Florida summer field school led by John E. Worth. Utilizing a series of late 18th century maps in conjunction with modern satellite images, the mission’s location was identified atop a bluff along the

Escambia River near the modern rural community of Molino, Florida. The multi-component site produced material from an early prehistoric occupation, a large 19th century lumber mill complex, as well as the 18th century Apalachee mission and village (Worth et al. [2015]). The ceramics included in this study were the result of site-wide excavations from the first four years

(2009-2012) of field schools.

37

The other 18th century Apalachee site, located in Alabama’s Blakeley State Park, was excavated between 2001 and 2004, as part of a field methods class by the University of South

Alabama under the direction of Gregory Waselkov. The location of the settlement, along a bluff on the Tensaw River, is incredibly similar to Mission Escambe’s landform and is noted on several 18th century maps (Waselkov and Gums 2000:13). First excavated in 1977 by Noel

Stowe, the site includes several components: prehistoric shell mounds, a British plantation, an

Early American Period town, and trenches from a Civil War skirmish (Stowe 1978; Ivas

2005:20-21). The most recent investigation by the University of South Alabama was conducted to locate the Apalachee village and consequently produced a sizable collection of 18th century aboriginal and European ceramics. The Blakeley Park site may have also been the location of an earlier Tensaw occupation, which appears in 18th century maps of the area (Figures 2 and 3).

In addition to the assemblages from Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park, an assemblage of historic Upper Creek pottery from Fusihatchee (1EE191) was examined. Creek ceramic styles likely entered Apalachee pottery techniques during prolonged contact in the 18th century and early analysis revealed a surprisingly high amount of Creek-influenced ceramic types within the

Escambe and Blakeley Park collection. The Fusihatchee site, excavated under the direction of

Gregory Waselkov, John Cottier, and Craig Sheldon, was selected to form the base of a historic

Creek assemblage contemporaneous to the Apalachee villages of Escambe and Blakeley Park.

The large settlement, with over 20 excavated houses, had two major historic occupations: a late

17th century community and a later 18th century settlement from around 1750 to 1780

(Waselkov et al. 1990:1-2). Fusihatchee provided a sample of over 14,414 grams of rims and decorated ceramics, all selected from a small series of features dating to the later 18th century occupation (Figure 7).

38

FIGURE 7. Excavations at Fusihatchee. (Waselkov et al. 1990:4).

The final ceramic assemblage examined in this study came from the Apalachee capitol of

San Luis (8LE4). The site is located in the heart of modern Tallahassee, atop one of the major hills in the area, and was originally excavated in the 1940s by John Griffin (Boyd et al. 1951).

The collection used in this project is the product of extensive excavations conducted from the late 1980s and into the 2000s under Jerry Lee (2010) and Bonnie McEwan (2014). In particular, a sample of ceramics was selected from Feature 174, a large borrow pit dated to post-1680 just off the settlement’s main plaza (Figure 8). The 16,132 grams of rims and decorated ceramics examined from this site were utilized to illustrate the state of ceramic manufacture in a “classic”

Apalachee context.

39

FIGURE 8. Excavations at San Luis 1984-2008. (Map courtesy of Bonnie McEwan, 2015.)

The four samples utilized in this thesis represent various outcomes of human behavior over different lengths of time. The ceramics from Mission Escambe and the Blakeley Park settlement, the results of site-wide excavations, were the product of multiple daily practices from a small community of ethnic Apalachee villagers over the span of 20 to 30 years. In contrast, the

Fusihatchee and San Luis samples, recovered from filled trash pits, provide ceramics from a smaller sample of households, or perhaps a single household, accumulated over a short period of time. These contexts were chosen for the comparison of Fusihatchee and San Luis to maintain

40 strong control over the date ranges of the samples and thus provided ceramics from a tight date range of a few years, as opposed to the decades-long samples from Escambe and Blakeley Park.

Data Collection Methods

The goal of this thesis is to quantify change through detailed examinations of ceramic materials and to determine if a model can be produced for similar studies. Micro-stylistic attributes were recorded, including such detailed characteristics as incision widths and decoration depths, slip thickness, and rim treatment lengths. These minute details illustrate styles of ceramic manufacture that shift in accordance with time and space. These shifts may be the result of temporal or cultural changes that influence the knowledge or practice of potters. An Apalachee or Creek vessel from the 17th century hypothetically has a series of measurable attributes that may be different from those of later populations, especially when viewed as part of a larger population of contemporaneous vessels. Measuring ceramic features in assemblages like Mission

Escambe and Blakeley Park has the potential to illustrate the transformations in practices that potters experienced and then expressed in their ceramics. The introduction of new ceramic styles or techniques may come from interactions with other culture groups and while a detailed exploration of this process is beyond the scope of this thesis, new ceramic techniques may be assumed to have arrived at least in part as the result of trading and intermarriage. By developing quantifiable ceramic analysis methods, it may be possible to identify at least the source of the new ceramic styles present in the Apalachee pottery in Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park, ultimately permitting more detailed evaluation of the processes that led to these transformations in ceramic practice.

Previous research on historic Native American ceramic decorations and vessel forms, such as Ann Cordell’s work with Apalachee pottery from San Luis and Old Mobile (Cordell

41

2001), has focused on ceramic paste analysis and broad discussions of decoration and vessel types to illustrate change over time in ceramic assemblages. Cordell included measurements of incisions and punctations, but mainly focused upon the relationship between surface treatments, paste, and vessel form. The methods utilized in this project expanded upon many of Cordell’s techniques, especially the quantitative nature of the research, but avoided questions surrounding colonoware, chemical analysis, and detailed paste analyses dedicated to grog size and frequency.

Instead, the methods designed to collect the best relevant data from ceramic collections for this project included a micro-stylistic examination of sherd attributes, many of which have not been consistently utilized in past ceramic studies, combined with a macroscopic analysis of ceramic temper.

The ceramics included in this analysis were sherds with an identifiable surface decoration. Aside from temper, plain body sherds do not provide substantial information in terms of comparable characteristics and as a result were almost wholly excluded from direct examination for this project. However, undecorated sherds were included in the analysis of ceramic rim treatments, as they illustrate possible vessel forms and may demonstrate regional or socio-cultural differences. In the process of collecting data from Fusihatchee and San Luis, no plain sherds other than rims were recorded, thus no percentages of decorated and undecorated ceramics are reported independently for this thesis.

A series of quantifiable criteria was generated with input from thesis committee members

(Appendix B). Kept simple and informative, it was designed to measure detailed stylistic and technical characteristics present in the collections. General information was first recorded for each individual sherd, including weight, temper, decoration type, sherd thickness, type name, vessel form, and rim characteristics when applicable. Weight was recorded with a digital scale

42 after all sherds had been properly cleaned and dried. Sherd thickness was determined by measuring the width of the sherd with digital calipers; no other dimensions of the sherds were recorded unless it was a rim (which will be discussed below).

In terms of temper, five categories were used: sand/grit, shell (no grog), grog (no shell), shell and grog, and “other” (most often micaceous sand/grit, charcoal, bone or limestone).

Categorizations such as “sand and shell” were not used, as sand temper is generally ubiquitous across the Southeast and thus provides little diagnostic information in this context. Instead,

“sand” was altogether ignored for categorization purposes if additional temper types were recognized. The category of grit, defined as small gravel or pebbles, is combined with sand in this analysis, as most temper from the Gulf Coast does not contain the substantial amount of

“grit” more commonly identified in northern portions of the Southeast. However, it is important to note that grit was extremely common in the Upper Creek assemblage of Fusihatchee. In addition, as is the practice of the University of West Florida’s Archaeology Lab, a sherd had to contain three or more inclusions of a specific temper material to be identified as such. For example, a sherd with only two identified shell pieces or voids would not be labeled as a shell tempered sherd, however, if three or more shell pieces or voids were present, it would be recorded as shell tempered. More in-depth examinations of temper, such as grog size, number, or color, were started, however the process proved to be time consuming and was abandoned for this project after no statistically significant patterns emerged correlating the relationship between surface decorations and detailed temper characteristics. Future work in this area may nonetheless be worthwhile.

To assign traditional types to ceramics in all collections (Appendix A), the researcher used publications by Charles Fairbanks (1952), Richard Fuller and Noel Stowe (1982), Vincas

43

Steponaitis (1983), Tim Mistovich and Vernon James Knight (1986), John Worth (1992),

Gregory Waselkov and Bonnie Gums (2000), and more recent type revisions by Jennifer

Melcher (2011), and John Worth and Jennifer Melcher [2015]. Type names were assigned only if the surface decoration and temper could be matched confidently to a known defined type. This subjective process left a large number of sherds un-named, as many were too small or unusual to link to a specific Southeastern ceramic type. Those un-named sherds instead were identified stylistically (“sand tempered incised”) so that they might still contribute some relevant information to the project.

Detailed Analysis

The characteristics defined above are commonly recorded in many ceramic analyses, and provided a standard base of features to make use of for statistical comparisons. During initial data collection, it quickly became apparent that these few measures only provided a bare minimum selection of variables to draw upon. If the main research goal was to attempt to clearly define the variation present in the main Apalachee assemblages in contrast to external collections, a new set of characteristics would need to be defined. This new variety of stylistic observation sought to answer questions that came up through the preliminary data collection, as well as previous research, and were frequently added as it became apparent a new category was needed. This included a heavy focus on modified rim styles and surface decorations, recording minute measurements of incisions, and detailed rim mode descriptions.

Studying in detail ceramic decorations, previous researchers have utilized changing styles within specific ceramic types to denote passage of time. For example, in past studies examining

Lamar Bold Incised ceramics, it has been demonstrated that incisions on carinated bowls become thinner and more numerous the later the vessel is (Wynn 1990:53-54; Hally 1994:147-148). In

44 the case of Apalachee culture change, incisions were quantified not only to observe change over time, but also to locate the introduction of new styles from outside contemporaneous cultures, such as the Creeks or the Mobilians. The depth, width, and space between incisions were all carefully recorded with a digital caliper. If possible, the style of the incisions was also recorded

(rectilinear or curvilinear). In a similar level of detail, stamping style, including rectilinear, curvilinear, complicated, or check, was recorded alongside the average depth of the stamped decoration.

Additionally, the color (red, white, brown, or black) and thickness of slips was observed, attempting to average the slip thickness with a particular color. It was also extended to attempt to quantify the difference between Mission Red types, an Apalachee-Lamar nomenclature, and

Chicot Red, a Lower Mississippi Valley type (Appendix A). Finally, roughening was recorded, as well as the style of roughening (brushed, corncob marked, stippled, or some combination), but no depth was recorded as no statistically reliable information could be produced. Identifying micro-stylistic characteristics of surface decorations created both a set of features typical of specific regional styles in ceramics, as well as a measure of hybridization in the 18th century

Apalachee assemblages.

Rim Mode Classification

Aside from surface decoration, the primary characteristic analyzed was rim form. Rims were given particular attention as they have the potential to provide multitudes of data including vessel form, size, time period, and cultural distinctions. Previous research has demonstrated that examining rim modes can produce important data concerning change over time. For example, in prehistoric Lamar assemblages, rim fold widths are frequently used as markers of time periods and calendar dates (Kowalewski and Williams 1989:59-60). After meticulous research in a

45 number of regions it is now accepted that the width of Lamar rim folds increases as the date of the artifact decreases (Hally 1994:147-148). This study therefore carefully examined all characteristics of rim modes to examine change in chronological and regional ceramic traditions from the 17th to the 18th century.

During the course of analysis, it became apparent that in order to differentiate significant disparities in rim modes, a simple, but informative method had to be developed to identify various rim forms. Instead of relying upon a single-term description, a three- to four-word categorization method was created to provide the most informative name possible. This technique utilized a string of descriptive words to form a simple illustration of the observed rim sherd (Table 1).

TABLE 1 RIM TYPE CATEGORIES

Vessel Rim Curvature Rim Lip Style Rim Modification Mode Straight Rounded Simple Excurvate Flattened Thickened Incurvate Folded Pinched Punctated Fillet Strip/Appliqué Overhang

By breaking down the names of rim types into simple phrases, the cultural or regional implications of labelling a sherd a “pinched rim” could be avoided in case the other characteristics of the vessel were anomalous to the expected style. This method also allowed for accessible comparisons between collections. The first word in the descriptive string described the curvature of the sherd and vessel at the rim, the second was a description of the style of rim lip,

46 and finally any modified rim modes were added (Table 2). Resulting rim types included:

“straight rounded thickened,” “rounded excurvate folded and pinched,” “straight flattened simple,” and “excurvate rounded pinched appliqué.”

TABLE 2 MODIFIED RIM MODE DESCRIPTIONS

Modified Rim Mode Description Simple No modifications Thickened Without the obvious addition of a strip of clay, the rim is thicker than the rest of the vessel. Folded A form of thickening, where the edge of the rim is folded down on the outside of the sherd. Pinched A decoration created by the potter “pinching” the clay with their fingertips in a regular pattern. Punctated/Ticked A regular pattern of punctations or ticks made by a reed or other small implement. Stylistically separate from pinching. Fillet Strip/Appliqué The addition of a strip of clay along or near the rim, frequently accompanied by pinches or punctations/ticking. Overhang A small lip of clay at the edge of the rim, either as an intentional decoration or a result of finishing the rim, often in tandem with other rim modes.

When recording rim modes, the classification “thickened” was separated from the related forms “folded” and “fillet strip/appliqué,” a different tactic than employed by most other ceramic researchers who group all thickened rims together (Cordell 2001). Sherds were often thickened on one side or the other and were recorded as “interior” or “exterior” if it was noticed by the researcher. Another style, originally ignored during research, was later developed into the category “overhang,” after it was decided it may also have a similar significance as other rim modes. Best described as a small overhanging lip of clay at the edge of the rim, it was located on the outside or inside of the vessel, either as a decoration or a result of the process of thickening

47 the rim which was not smoothed over before firing (Figure 9). As with thickened rims, overhanging rims were also differentiated as “interior” or “exterior” treatments (Figure 9).

Exterior overhangs often occurred in tandem with other rim treatments, especially thickening and folding, and were either a conscious addition to the decoration, or occurred incidentally as a result of rim decoration.

FIGURE 9. Modified rim mode descriptions: (a) excurvate rounded pinched appliqué, 1EE191- 3762-001; (b) excurvate rounded folded and pinched with exterior overhang, 8LE4-12908-032d; (c) straight flattened exterior overhang; (d) excurvate rounded folded, 1BA221-10G-5000-001; (e) incurvate flattened thickened interior, 1EE191-1543-002-004; and (f) straight flattened punctated, 1BA221-10G-1866-007. (Photographs and figure by author, 2015.)

Extra measurements were recorded when rim sherds contained “special” characteristics such as appliqués or folds. When a rim fold was present, for example, the width of the fold from the rim edge was recorded, as was the thickness at its thickest point. Thickened rims, pinches, overhangs, and fillet strips/appliqués were treated in a similar manner. The distance between the rim lip to the first incision was also recorded on incised ceramics, in an attempt to average the

48 empty space between a plain rim and a decorative panel of incisions, and observe if there was a statistically valid difference between compared assemblages.

The final set of information rim sherds provided was the vessel form and orifice size.

Each vessel’s orifice was approximated using an orifice reference sheet, although some sherds were too small to estimate an accurate size. Finally, all rim sherds were traced and drawn in profile, to record the exact shape of the rim and to add a visual of particular rim types (Figure

10). Vessel forms were only recorded when the sherd was large enough to provide sufficient information, and were based on definitions by David Hally (1983, 1986). Unlike previous research which utilized a focus on rim modes principally to illustrate change over time, detailed analysis of rim forms in this project strove to identify varieties typical to specific assemblages, and in extension regions or cultures. In addition, the thorough focus on surface decorations was meant to quantify markers in ceramic styles that could be easily compared to other collections using the same data. In this way, it was possible effectively to compare assemblages from 17th century pre-diaspora Apalachee, 18th century Upper Creek, and 18th century Apalachee.

49

FIGURE 10. Examples of rim sherd profile drawings: (a) incurvate rounded thickened interior, 1BA221-10G-1862-004; (b) incurvate flattened simple, 1BA221-10G-1524-001; (c) excurvate rounded folded and pinched, 8LE4-12908-032a; and (d) excurvate rounded pinched appliqué with exterior overhang, 1EE191-4912-002c. (Figure by author, 2015.)

Data Analysis Methods

After the initial data collection phase, individual databases in Microsoft Access were constructed for each collection and included all the categories discussed above. As new additions were made throughout data collection, the final iteration of the databases resulted in a data table of over 34 individual characteristics recorded per sherd. The statistical analyses of all recorded data were conducted and illustrated through Microsoft Excel and Access. All collections were examined with the same methods and had the same characteristics recorded. Each individual sherd was recorded in the database with the site number and UWF project code, the provenience number, the catalog number, and a sub-catalog letter if more than one sherd was included (for

50 examples see Figures 9 and 10). All Microsoft Access databases are digitally maintained through

UWF’s Division of Anthropology and Archaeology

In order to illustrate and identify significant characteristics of each assemblage the statistical method known as the chi-square test was utilized. This statistical formula, developed as a test of abundance, is most useful to archaeologists in its ability to identify statistically relevant relationships between two mutually exclusive variables. By calculating the difference between an expected value, or the “null hypothesis,” and an observed outcome, and then comparing said calculation to an adjusted chi-square residual, the researcher can determine if the observed values are significant (Van Pool and Leonard 2011:239-241). Through this method, the recorded ceramic characteristics in this study can be analyzed in a mathematically thorough way, revealing relationships between attributes that may have been missed by a casual analysis.

To begin a chi-square test, the degree of freedom, represented as 휐 in the formula below, must be calculated. This number is calculated based on the size of the data table, and thus varies depending on the matrices constructed for each test, with R representing the number of rows in the table and C the number of columns as illustrated in the equation below. The degree of freedom is necessary to determine the critical value used to compare against the completed chi- square test and thus whether the observed attributes are statistically relevant (Van Pool and

Leonard 2011:241-242).

휐 = (푅 − 1)푥(퐶 − 1)

The chi-square formula is then put to use, where E is the expected value, and O is the observed value. In short, the chi-square value is the sum of the expected outcome subtracted from the observed outcome, squared, and then divided by the expected outcome (see formula below), this can all be done in one large data matrix.

51

2 (푂푖푗 − 퐸푖푗) 휒2 = ∑ 퐸푖푗

Once the final adjusted chi-square residual is calculated, it is then compared to the critical value, determined by the degree of freedom and the selected 훼 (Appendix C). For the purpose of this project, the 훼 value of 0.05 was used, meaning the calculation falls within the 95% confidence interval, appropriate for most archaeological analyses (Van Pool and Leonard

2011:120). If the critical value selected from 훼 is less than the calculated chi-square value, then the null hypothesis can be rejected, and it can be concluded that the relationship between the two variables is significantly greater than those expected by chance (Van Pool and Leonard

2011:242). In other words, this calculation quantifies the relationship between two attributes and determines statistically if those values have a connection significantly outside the realm of happenstance.

In addition to the more complex statistical analysis explained above, simple analyses set up in comparative histograms and pie charts were also utilized in Microsoft Excel. These simple comparisons were done as a first step in the process of identifying possible significant ceramic characteristics. In conjunction with the detailed statistics of the chi-squared test, specific patterns of significant relationships can be easily illustrated and discussed. By making use of a combination of these methods in all four collections, this thesis will be able best to discuss change through time in Apalachee ceramics.

52

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Following data collection and entry based on the previously determined guidelines discussed in chapter three, a series of base metrics from the four sampled collections was assembled. A total of 3,420 sherds weighing just over 39,000 grams of were examined during the course of this project (Table 3). The sample from each site consisted of decorated sherds and rim sherds; undecorated body sherds were not included.

TABLE 3 TOTAL CERAMICS EXAMINED IN WEIGHT AND COUNT

Site Total Examined Total Examined Average Sherd Size Sherds Sherds (in grams) (by count) (in grams) Mission Escambe 1,946 5,169.7 2.6 Blakeley Park 1,087 3,352.2 3.0 San Luis 219 16,132.9 73.6 Fusihatchee 174 14,414.8 82.8 Total 3,420 39,069.6

The average sherd size of each sample varied from site to site (Table 3). The ceramics from Fusihatchee and San Luis were both recovered from single-event trash pits, accounting for the large average size of the sherds. The ceramics examined from Mission Escambe and

Blakeley Park came from site-wide excavations, and resulted in a smaller average sherd size.

Rim sherd frequency was also affected by sampling bias. As a result, most of the discussion

(Chapter 5) compares site results by weight instead of count. Rims were more common in the comparative collections of San Luis and Fusihatchee, while body sherds dominated the assemblages at the two 18th century Apalachee sites (Table 4).

53

TABLE 4 TOTAL NUMBER OF RIM AND BODY SHERDS BY SITE

Site Rim Sherds Rim Sherds (in Body Sherds Body Sherds (in (by count) grams) (by count) grams) Mission Escambe 342 950.6 1,604 4,219.1 Blakeley Park 265 1,060.4 882 2,291.8 San Luis 179 9,560.4 40 6,572.5 Fusihatchee 111 7,671.8 63 6,743.0 Total 19,243.2 19,826.4

The site-specific data discussed below are separated into temper, surface treatment, detailed measurements of surface treatments, such as incision measurements (Table 5), vessel form, and rim measurements and types. Vessel forms were broken down into broad categories expanded from David J. Hally’s (1986) work on Southeastern morphological types: carinated bowl, flaring rim jar (Hally’s pinched rim jar, with or without pinches), simple bowl (Hally’s rounded bowl) and simple jar (a straight walled jar with an undecorated rim).

TABLE 5 INCISON METRICS AT ALL SITES

Site Average incision Average incision Average incision depth (mm) land width (mm) groove width (mm) Mission Escambe 0.4 3.6 1.2 Blakeley Park 0.3 2.0 0.9 San Luis 0.5 4.4 1.1 Fusihatchee 0.5 3.7 1.4 Overall average 0.4 3.4 1.1

When comparing temper by site (Table 6), sherds were placed in one of four categories: sand/grit tempered (no grog, no shell), shell tempered (no grog), grog tempered (no shell), and grog and shell tempered. Sand temper was implied to be present in all tempers, as the material is

54 naturally ubiquitous in clay deposits across the Central Gulf Coast. Shell and grog were treated as extra inclusions, as their use as culturally-derived temper was often related to regional preferences and was not always present across the region.

TABLE 6 TEMPER BY SITE

Sand tempered, Shell tempered, Grog tempered, Grog and shell Site no grog, no shell no grog no shell tempered

% of % of % of % of Weight Weight Weight Weight Wt Wt Wt Wt

Mission Escambe 2,247.5 43.5% 761.4 14.8% 1,677.7 32.4% 483.1 9.3% Blakeley Park 873.4 26.0% 1,272.5 38.0% 494.9 14.8% 711.4 21.2%

San Luis 837.7 5.2% 0.0 0.0% 15,295.2 94.8% 0.0 0.0%

Fusihatchee 13,253.8 92.0% 1,154.6 8.0% 6.4 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

Total 17,212.4 3,188.5 17,474.2 1,194.5

With regard to presenting surface decorations in this chapter, the categories “burnished” and “punctated” were treated as secondary characteristics. In other words, if a sherd was recorded to have incisions and was also burnished, it was included in the “incised” category.

However, if the sherd was only burnished or punctated, it was included in the “burnished only” or “punctated only” category. A similar method was employed for presenting data on modified rim modes. While rim types were recorded, as discussed in Chapter Three, by long strings of descriptive words, modified rim modes in this chapter were presented by the major rim mode: folded only, pinched only, folded and pinched, thickened, overhang, ticked/punctated, and appliqué. Pinching and punctations were again treated as secondary characteristics: appliqué

55 rims that were also pinched or punctated were included in the “appliqué” rim category, but if the rim was only pinched or only punctated, it was placed in the “pinched only” or “punctated only” category. It is also important to note that plain simple rims were not included in the presented data below, as they did not offer much diagnostic information.

The Fusihatchee Settlement

The assemblage of ceramics from Fusihatchee (1EE191) contained a total of 14,414.8 grams of decorated ceramics and rims. Examining temper by weight, sand/grit made up 92 percent of the total weight (Table 5); the remaining 8 percent of the sample was shell tempered sherds. A single grog tempered sherd accounted for less than 0.001 percent of the total weight of all sherds.

Over 88.5 percent of the total weight of decorated ceramics was roughened; the next most common surface decoration was incised, accounting for just 5.8 percent (Table 7). Punctated (3.8 percent), burnished (1.8 percent), slipped (0.1 percent), and stamped (less than 0.001 percent) contributed to the remaining 5.7 percent of the sample. Slip thicknesses at Fusihatchee had a recorded average thickness of 0.2 mm (with a range of 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm) and the average sherd thickness was 6.0 mm (with a range of 5.5 mm to 7.1 mm).

56

TABLE 7 FUSIHATCHEE CERAMICS BY SURFACE TREATMENT

Surface Total Sherds Total Sherds Total Sherds (in Total Sherds Decoration (by count) (percent of grams) (percent of count) weight) Roughened 49 46.2 % 10,210.4 88.5 % Incised 35 33.0 % 674.2 5.8 % Slipped 4 3.8 % 16.2 0.1 % Stamped 1 0.9 % 1.6 0.0 % Burnished only 5 4.7 % 206.2 1.8 % Punctated only 12 11.4 % 429.2 3.8 % Total 106 100.0 % 11,537.8 100.0 %

The average depth of incisions at Fusihatchee was 0.5 mm (with a range of 0.2 mm to

0.8), the average width between incisions was 3.7 mm (with a range of 1.1 mm to 6.1 mm), and the average groove width was 1.4 mm (with a range of 0.5 mm to 3.2 mm). Broken down by temper type, the average incision depth, land width, and groove width were highest among sand/grit tempered sherds (Table 8).

TABLE 8 FUSIHATCHEE INCISION METRICS BY TEMPER TYPE

Temper Average incision Average incision Average incision depth (mm) land width (mm) groove width (mm) Shell 0.2 1.9 1.3 No grog, no Shell 0.5 3.9 1.5 Total 0.5 3.7 1.4

Of the 114 sherds large enough to provide historic vessel form information, 45 percent of the total weight was identified as flaring rim jars, 2 percent was simple jars, 38.6 percent was carinated bowls, and the remaining 14.4 percent was simple bowls (Table 9). The average rim thickness at the lip of the vessel was 5.3 mm (with a range of 2.2 mm to 10 mm) and the average

57 rim thickness at its thickest point (this includes rim folds, appliqués and other thickened rims) was 6.7 mm (with a range of 3.2 mm to 10 mm). The average diameter of all vessel orifices at

Fusihatchee was 30.2 cm (with a range of 14 cm to 40 cm). Simple bowls had an average of 28.4 cm in diameter (with a range of 16 cm to 40 cm) and carinated bowls were slightly smaller at

20.9 cm in diameter (with a range of 14 cm to 40 cm). Flaring rim jar orifices averaged 18.5 cm in diameter (with a range of 14 cm to 40 cm), while simple jars had a diameter average of 26 cm

(with a range of 18 cm to 38 cm).

TABLE 9 FUSIHATCHEE VESSEL FORMS

Flaring Rim Jar Simple Jar Carinated Bowl Simple Bowl Total Count 45 4 55 10 114 Percent of Count 39.5 % 3.5 % 48.2 % 8.8 % 100.0 % Weight (grams) 3,846.8 168.8 3,290.0 1,228.8 8,534.4 Percent of Weight 45.0 % 2.0 % 38.6 % 14.4 % 100.0 %

Decorated appliqué rims, which included both pinched and punctated designs, were the most common modified rim mode style by weight at Fusihatchee, with 35 percent of the total weight (Figure 11). The second most common rim mode by weight was thickened rims, at 30 percent. The rim modes folded and pinched (12.3 percent), overhang (10.4 percent), and folded only (9.8 percent) were the next most common group of rim modes by total weight. Pinched only and punctated only rims were rare, but made up the final 2.4 percent of modified rim modes.

58

50 45 40 35.3 35 29.8 30 25 20 15 12.3 9.8 10.4 10

5 1.5 0.9 0 Folded Folded and Pinched Appliqué Punctated Thickened Overhang only Pinched only FIGURE 11. All Fusihatchee modified rim modes by percent of weight. (Figure by author, 2015.)

Separating rim modes into identifiable vessel forms (Figure 12), appliqué rims (35.4 percent), folded only rims (10 percent), and folded and pinched rims (12.4 percent) were identified solely on jars. Thickened rims were most common on bowl forms (26.6 percent on bowls, 3.3 percent on jars) and overhanging rims were almost completely related to bowls (10.3 percent on bowls, 0.001 percent on jars). One pinched only rim and one punctated only rim was recorded at Fusihatchee and both were identified as jar forms.

59

70.0 0.001 60.0 3.3 0.9 Overhang 50.0 Thickened 40.0 35.4 Punctated 30.0 10.3 Appliqué 1.1 20.0 12.4 Pinched only 26.6 10.0 10.0 0.0 Jar Bowl

FIGURE 12. Fusihatchee modified rim modes by vessel form by percent of weight. (Figure by author, 2015.)

Mission San Luis de Talimali

The selected sample of ceramics from Mission San Luis de Talimali (8LE4) included a total of 16,132.9 grams of sherds, including rims and decorated ceramics. Breaking the collection down into temper categories by weight, the assemblage was dominated by grog tempered ceramics at 94.8 percent of the total weight (Table 5). The remaining 5.2 percent accounted for sand/grit temper. Shell, and grog and shell tempering were absent from the sample.

Over 73.8 percent of the total weight of decorated ceramics at San Luis was complicated stamped; the next most common decoration was incised, at 16.8 percent (Table 10). Only 9.2 percent was burnished, and one roughened sherd accounted for the remaining 0.2 percent of the total weight of decorated ceramics. The average depth of stamped decorations on San Luis’s sherds was 0.4 mm (with a range of 0.1 mm to 1.1 mm). The average sherd thickness at San Luis was 6.1 mm (with a range of 3.3 mm to 9.4 mm). Slipped ceramics were absent from the sample;

60 researchers at San Luis cataloged all red-slipped ceramics as “Colonoware,” after observing red- slipping occurred mainly on these vessel forms (Vernon and Cordell 1993; Melcher 2011:19). It is possible that some of the ceramics at San Luis labeled colonoware were in fact native vessel forms, but a re-analysis of San Luis’s red slipped ware is beyond the scope of this thesis.

TABLE 10 SAN LUIS CERAMICS BY SURFACE TREATMENT

Surface Total Sherds Total Sherds Total Sherds (in Total Sherds Decoration (by count) (percent of grams) (percent of count) weight) Roughened 1 0.0 % 26.8 0.2 % Incised 36 31.7 % 1,744.6 16.8 % Slipped 0 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % Stamped 58 51.0 % 7,621.8 73.8 % Burnished only 19 16.8 % 944.1 9.2 % Punctated only 0 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 % Total 114 100.0 % 10,337.3 100.0 %

The average depth of incisions at San Luis was 0.5 mm (with a range of 0.1 mm to 6.2 mm), the average width between incisions was 4.4 mm (with a range of 1.3 mm to 7.1 mm), and the average groove width was 1.1 mm (with a range of 0.3 mm to 4.3 mm). Broken down by temper, the average incision depth, land width, and groove width were all highest among grog tempered ceramics (Table 11).

TABLE 11 INCISION METRICS AT SAN LUIS BY TEMPER TYPE

Temper Average incision Average incision Average incision depth (mm) land width (mm) groove width (mm) Grog 0.5 4.5 1.2 No grog, no Shell 0.4 3.8 0.9 Total 0.5 4.4 1.1

61

Of the 175 sherds large enough to provide vessel form information, 46.3 percent of the total weight was identified as flaring rim jars, 7.2 percent were simple jars, 35.7 percent were carinated bowls and the remaining 10.7 percent were simple bowls (Table 12). The average rim thickness at the lip of the vessel was 5.7 mm (with a range of 2.4 mm to 9.8 mm) and the average rim thickness at its thickest point was 7 mm (with a range of 2.6 mm to 13.9 mm). The average diameter of all vessel orifices at San Luis was 24 cm (with a range of 8 cm to 40 cm); simple bowls had an average diameter of 24.2 cm (with a range of 14 cm to 40 cm) and carinated bowls were slightly larger at 29.1 cm (with a range of 12 cm to 40 cm). Simple jars had an average diameter of 17.5 cm (with a range of 14 cm to 26 cm) and flaring rim jars averaged 23.3 cm

(with a range of 10 cm to 38 cm).

TABLE 12 SAN LUIS VESSEL FORMS

Flaring Rim Simple Jar Carinated Simple Bowl Total Jar Bowl Count 90 4 35 46 175 Percent of Count 51.4 % 2.3 % 20.0 % 26.3 % 100.0 % Weight (grams) 5,024.1 785.9 3,877.0 1,158.9 10,845.9 Percent of Weight 46.3 % 7.3 % 35.7 % 10.7 % 100.0 %

Folded and pinched rims were the most common modified rim mode at San Luis, at 33.4 percent of the total weight (Figure 13). The second most common rim mode was overhang rims, at 24.5 percent. Punctated rims comprised some 17.5 percent of the total weight, with thickened rims following at 10.2 percent. Folded only (7 percent) and pinched only (7.4 percent) rims had lowest frequency at San Luis.

62

50 45 40 35 33.4 30 24.5 25 20 17.5 15 10.2 10 7 7.4 5 0 0 Folded Folded and Pinched Appliqué Punctated Thickened Overhang only Pinched only

FIGURE 13. All San Luis modified rim modes by percent of weight. (Figure by author, 2015.)

Separating rim modes into identifiable vessel forms (Figure 14), folded and pinched rims

(33.3 percent), pinched only rims (7.4 percent), and folded only rims (7 percent) were solely found on jars. Overhang rims (19.2 percent on bowls, 5.5 percent on jars) and thickened rims

(8.9 percent on bowls, 1.3 percent on jars) dominated San Luis’s bowls by weight. Punctated rims were almost evenly distributed between the two vessel forms (9 percent on bowls, 8.4 percent on jars). The appliqué rim style was completely absent from the San Luis sample.

63

70.0

60.0 5.5 1.3 Overhang 50.0 8.4 Thickened 7.4 40.0 Punctated Appliqué 30.0 19.2 Pinched only 33.3 20.0 Folded and Pinched 8.9 Folded only 10.0 7.0 9.0 0.0 Jar Bowl

FIGURE 14. San Luis modified rim modes by vessel form by percent of weight. (Figure by author, 2015.)

Mission San Joseph de Escambe

Mission Escambe (8ES3473), including all Native American sherds collected from 2009-

2012, contained a total of 19,408 sherds, weighing over 18,859 grams. The examined sample, including rims and decorated sherds, comprised of 1,946 sherds, weighing 5,169.7 grams (Table

4); about 27.4 percent of the total assemblage by weight. Examining temper, sand/grit made up

43.5 percent of the total weight, 32.4 percent were grog tempered, only 14.8 percent were shell tempered, and just 9.3 percent were grog and shell tempered (Table 5).

Examining surface decorations by weight, the Escambe collection was dominated by roughened ceramics, at over 52.2 percent of the total weight (Table 13). The second-most common surface decoration was incised, at 20.5 percent. Stamped ceramics made up 10.5 percent of the decorated sherds, with 8.5 percent slipped, 6.6 percent burnished, and only 1.7

64 percent punctated. Escambe’s stamped sherds had an average decoration depth of 0.3 mm (with a range of 0.1 mm to 1.2 mm). Slip thicknesses at Escambe had a recorded average thickness of

0.2 mm (with a range of 0.1 mm to 1.7 mm) and the average sherd thickness was 6.3 mm (with a range of 1.6 mm to 13.9 mm).

TABLE 13 MISSION ESCAMBE CERAMICS BY SURFACE TREATMENT

Surface Total Sherds Total Sherds Total Sherds Total Sherds Decoration (by count) (percent of (in grams) (percent of count) weight) Roughened 885 53.4 % 2,355.4 52.2 % Incised 324 19.6 % 927.7 20.5 % Slipped 190 11.5 % 383.7 8.5 % Stamped 119 7.2 % 472.0 10.5 % Burnished only 95 5.7 % 300.2 6.6 % Punctated only 43 2.6 % 78.3 1.7 % Total 1,656 100.0 % 4,517.3 100.0 %

The average depth of incisions at Escambe was 0.4 mm (with a range of 0.1 mm to 3 mm), the average width between incisions was 3.6 mm (with a range of 0.6 mm to 7.8 mm), and the average groove width was 1.2 mm (with a range of 0.1 mm to 3.1 mm). Broken down by temper types, the average incision depth, land width and groove width were highest among shell and grog tempered and shell tempered ceramics (Table 14). Sand tempered and grog tempered sherds had incision measurements much closer to the site average.

65

TABLE 14 MISSION ESCAMBE INCISION METRICS BY TEMPER TYPE

Temper Average incision Average incision Average incision depth (mm) land width (mm) groove width (mm) Grog 0.4 3.3 1.3 Shell 0.6 3.6 1.4 Grog and shell 0.6 3.6 1.4 No grog, no shell 0.5 3.7 1.2 Total 0.4 3.6 1.2

Of the 158 sherds large enough to provide vessel form information, 21.3 percent of the total weight was identified as flaring rim jars, 17.8 percent was simple jars, 14.9 percent was carinated bowls, and 46.0 percent was simple bowls (Table 15). The average rim thickness at the lip of Escambe’s vessels was 5 mm (with a range of 0.8 mm to 9.7 mm), and the average rim thickness at its thickest point was 6.1 mm (with a range of 2.1 mm to 9.7 mm). The average diameter of all vessel orifices was 13.1 cm (with a range of 6 cm to 32 cm); simple bowls had an average of 16.4 cm in diameter (with a range of 8 cm to 32 cm), while carinated bowls averaged slightly smaller at 12.2 cm (with a range of 10 cm to 20 cm). Simple jars at Mission Escambe had an average orifice diameter of 10.8 cm (with a range of 6 cm to 24 cm), and flaring rim jars averaged 17.3 cm (with a range of 8 cm to 26 cm).

TABLE 15 MISSION ESCAMBE VESSEL FORMS

Flaring Rim Simple Jar Carinated Simple Bowl Total Jar Bowl Count 29 29 21 79 158 Percent of Count 18.3 % 18.3 % 13.4 % 50.0 % 100.0 % Weight (grams) 135.2 113.0 94.4 291.0 633.6 Percent of Weight 21.3 % 17.8 % 14.9 % 46.0 % 100.0 %

66

The most common modified rim mode at Escambe was overhang style rims at 25.6 percent of the total weight (Figure 15). Thickened rims made up 23.2 percent of the modified rims, folded and pinched rims were 20.3 percent of the collection, and pinched only rims were

18.5 percent of Escambe’s modified rims. Punctated, appliqué, and folded only rims consisted of the remaining 12.4 percent of the total weight of rim sherds.

50

45

40

35

30 25.6 25 23.2 20.3 20 18.5

15

10 7.9 5 2.5 2 0 Folded only Folded and Pinched only Appliqué Punctated Thickened Overhang Pinched

FIGURE 15. All Mission Escambe modified rim modes by percent of weight. (Figure by author, 2015.)

Separating the rim forms into identifiable vessel forms (Figure 16), folded and pinched rims were found only on jars (30.1 percent). Thickened rims (19.3 percent on bowls, 3.5 percent on jars) and punctated rims (4.4 percent on bowls, 0.6 percent on jars) were more commonly found on bowls. Overhang rims were distributed almost evenly between the two vessel forms:

22.3 grams in bowls and 32.3 grams in jars. Appliqué rims were rare at Escambe, but all 1.7 percent of the total weight was associated with jar forms.

67

70.0

60.0 14.0 Overhang 50.0 3.5 1.7 0.6 Thickened 40.0 14.4 Punctated Appliqué 30.0 9.6 Pinched only 20.0 Folded and Pinched 30.1 19.3 Folded only 10.0 4.4 0.0 2.4 Jar Bowl

FIGURE 16. Modified rim modes at Mission Escambe by vessel form by percent of weight. (Figure by author, 2015.)

The Blakeley Park Village

Blakeley Park (1BA221), including all Native American sherds collected from 2001-

2004, contained a total number of 4,606 sherds, weighing 12,518.5 grams. The examined sample, including rims and decorated sherds, provided a total of 1,087 sherds, weighing 3,352.2 grams; about 26.7 percent of the total weight of the collection. In terms of temper by weight, 26 percent of the sherds were sand/grit tempered, another 38 percent were shell tempered, only 14.8 were grog tempered, and 21.2 percent were grog and shell tempered (Table 5).

The most common surface decoration at Blakeley Park was roughened, at 37.9 percent of the total weight of decorated ceramics (Table 16). Slipped was a close second, at 34.5 percent.

Incised ceramics made 23.9 percent of the decorated ceramics by weight, with only 2 percent stamped, 1 percent punctated, and under 0.7 percent burnished. Stamped decorations at Blakeley

68

Park averaged 0.7 mm in depth (with a range of 0.3 mm to 2.5 mm). Slip thicknesses at Blakeley

Park had a recorded average thickness of 0.1 mm (with a range of 0.1 mm to 0.7 mm) and the average sherd width at Blakeley Park was 6.3 mm (with a range of 1.6 mm to 11.3 mm).

TABLE 16 BLAKELEY PARK CERAMICS BY SURFACE TREATMENT

Surface Total Sherds Total Sherds Total Sherds (in Total Sherds Decoration (by count) (percent of grams) (percent of count) weight) Roughened 255 27.5 % 975.1 37.9 % Incised 255 27.5 % 616.0 23.9 % Slipped 388 41.8 % 891.6 34.5 % Stamped 15 1.6 % 53.1 2.0 % Burnished only 6 0.6 % 19.2 0.7 % Punctated only 9 1.0 % 27.2 1.0 % Total 928 100.0 % 2,582.2 100.0 %

The average depth of incisions at Blakeley Park was 0.3 mm (with a range of 0.1 mm to

3.2 mm), the average width between incisions was 2.0 mm (with a range of 0.3 mm to 10.2 mm), and the average groove width was 0.9 mm (with a range of 0.2 mm to 3.5 mm). Broken down by temper types, grog and shell tempered ceramics had the finest incision groove widths, the narrowest land widths and the shallowest incision depths (Table 17). Grog tempered ceramics averaged measurements nearly opposite of grog and shell tempered sherds, while shell tempered and sand tempered sherds were closest to the site average.

TABLE 17 BLAKELEY PARK INCISION METRICS BY TEMPER

Temper Average incision Average incision Average incision depth (mm) land width (mm) groove width (mm) Grog 0.5 4.7 1.3 Shell 0.8 2.4 1.0 Grog and shell 0.3 1.6 0.8 No grog, no Shell 0.4 2.4 1.0 Total 0.3 2.0 0.9

69

Of the 211 sherds large enough to provide information about historic vessel forms (Table

18), 34.7 percent of the total weight was flaring rim jars and one simple jar rim made 0.4 percent of the total weight. Simple bowls dominated the total weight of the sample at 48.9 percent, and carinated bowls provided the final 16 percent. The average rim thickness at the lip of Blakeley

Park’s vessels was 5.3 mm (with a range of 2 mm to 10.8 mm) and the average rim thickness at its thickest point was 5.6 mm (with a range of 2 mm to 12 mm). The average diameter of all vessel orifices was 15.3 cm (with a range of 8 cm to 38 cm); simple bowls averaged 15.9 cm

(with a range of 8 cm to 34 cm), carinated bowls had an average of 21.5 cm (with a range of 12 cm to 38 cm) in diameter. Flaring rim jars averaged 14 cm (with a range of 8 cm to 26 cm), and the one simple jar was not large enough to supply an orifice diameter measurement.

TABLE 18 BLAKELEY PARK VESSEL FORMS

Flaring Rim Simple Jar Carinated Simple Bowl Total Jar Bowl Count 73 1 7 130 211 Percent of Count 34.6 % 0.5 % 3.3 % 61.6 % 100.0 % Weight (grams) 345.6 4.2 158.8 486.7 995.3 Percent of Weight 34.7 % 0.4 % 16.0 % 48.9 % 100.0 %

The most common modified rim mode at Blakeley Park was thickened rims, at 43.3 percent of the total weight (Figure 17). Overhang rims made up 19.4 percent of the modified rims and folded only rims were 18.2 percent of the collection. Punctated rims, folded and pinched rims, pinched rims, and appliqué rims consisted of the remaining 19.1 percent of the total weight.

70

50

45 43.3

40

35

30

25 19.4 20 18.2

15

10 8.1 8.5

5 1.7 0.8 0 Folded Folded and Pinched Appliqué Punctated Thickened Overhang only Pinched only

FIGURE 17. All Blakeley Park modified rim modes by percent of weight. (Figure by author, 2015.)

Separating rim modes into identifiable vessel forms by weight (Figure 18), folded and pinched rims (9.3 percent), pinched only rims (2 percent), and appliqué rims (0.9 percent) were found only on jars. Folded only rims (1.7 percent on bowls, 18.4 percent on jars) and punctated rims (1.7 percent on bowls and 7.4 percent on jars) were more common on jars. Thickened rims

(35.1 percent on bowls, 11.1 percent on jars) were most commonly associated with bowls.

Overhang rims were almost evenly distributed between jars (5.8 percent) and bowls (6.6 percent).

71

60.0

5.8 50.0 Overhang 11.1 6.6 40.0 Thickened 7.4 Punctated 30.0 0.9 2.0 Appliqué

9.3 Pinched only 20.0 35.1 Folded and Pinched Folded only 10.0 18.4

1.7 0.0 1.7 Jar Bowl

FIGURE 18. Blakeley Park modified rim modes by vessel form by percent of weight. (Figure by author, 2015.)

Chi-Square Testing

After a basic analysis of the accumulated data from this study was conducted, in-depth chi-square tests were performed to illustrate relationships between several variables within the samples. As discussed in the previous chapter, the chi-square test, a mathematical function based on data matrices, works to define statistically relevant relationships between variables. In the case of this thesis, modified rim mode treatments and surface treatments were compared with temper types to test if those characteristics would be statistically appropriate descriptors of the sampled assemblages. The weight in grams of each sherd was used in calculations as opposed to sherd count, as some samples had a lower sherd count than others. This procedure led to over 40 chi-square tests that are listed in Appendix D of this thesis.

72

The relationship between rim modifications and temper types was the first to be examined with a chi-square test. Beginning with Mission Escambe, the relationship between folded only rims and temper was calculated to be 5.01 (Table D1); less than the determined critical value of 7.81. Similarly, the chi-square test for appliqué style rims and temper types

(Table D4) was calculated to be well below the critical value at 4.52. This means that the relationship of these two modified rim modes and temper types was not more significant than what was expected by chance, and would not be an informative aspect of the Mission Escambe collection to compare against. However, the other rim modes tested with the chi-square formula

(overhang, thickened, punctated, pinched only, and folded and pinched) at Mission Escambe proved to be well over the determined critical value (Tables D2-3 and D5-7) and were considered to be relevant relationships in the Mission Escambe assemblage. The implications of these results will be discussed in the following chapter.

Chi-square testing of the Blakeley Park assemblage revealed the relationship of pinched only rims and temper was far below the calculated critical value (Table D16) and not considered a statistically significant aspect of the Blakeley Park sample. Appliqué rims were not present in the Blakeley Park collection and therefore were not included in the chi-square tests. Calculations of the remaining five modified rim modes and their relationships with temper did result in substantiating they were statistically relevant (Tables D14-15 and D17-19). The chi-square tests of rim modes and temper types from San Luis included only four rim modes; folded only, punctated, thickened, and overhang. All four categories were calculated higher than the critical value and thus were considered to be statistically relevant relationships (Tables D26-29).

When it came to test rim modes and temper types from the Fusihatchee collection, it was apparent that the calculations would be heavily skewed, as only two temper types were recorded

73 from the collection and all but two shell tempered sherds were sand/grit tempered. As a result, when calculating the statistical relationship between rim modes and tempers, only two modes, appliqué and thickened, clearly passed the critical value (Tables D36 and D38). A third calculation, pinched rims (Table D35), did exceed the critical value, but at a very inflated number. This is due to the fact that the only two shell tempered modified rim sherds were identified as pinched, and likely skewed the data matrix calculations.

The other set of variables examined through chi-square testing was surface treatments and temper types. All six surface treatments identified at Mission Escambe tested well over the critical value (Tables D8-13), again calculated to be 7.81. The relationship of all surface treatments and temper type at Mission Escambe were considered statistically relevant. Blakeley

Park followed a similar pattern, with all six relationships calculated well above the critical value

(Tables D20-25). When the same calculation was done for San Luis, only incised, stamped, and burnished sherds were calculated; as no slipped or punctated sherds were recorded and only one roughened sherd was identified in the sample. All three comparisons tested well over the critical value (Tables D30-32) and were considered relevant relationships within the San Luis collection.

Finally, from the Fusihatchee sample only roughened, incised, slipped, and punctated ceramics were included in the chi-square tests (Tables D40-44). Only one stamped sherd was recorded at

Fusihatchee and was therefore not included. All four categories tested well above the critical value and were considered relevant relationships within the Fusihatchee sample.

In short, the chi-square testing illustrated a few significant characteristics of each of the four sampled collections. The relationship between modified rim modes and temper type proved to be a significant aspect of every collection, although specific rim modes were clearly more relevant in the context of different sites (such as appliqué rims). The association between surface

74 treatments and temper types was relevant in all samples, and provided important comparative data useful to this thesis in describing the ceramics of each collection, discussed in the next chapter.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

75

The post-diaspora communities of Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park, with their substantial historical documentation concerning their location and ethnicity, provided an excellent opportunity to assess the efficacy of inseparably binding cultural identity to ceramic style. The detailed techniques discussed in chapter three, and the data produced (chapter four), provided ample material to tackle the issue of cultural change over time and the representation of ethnicity in ceramics.

Following the culture-history style of assigning specific ethnicities to ceramic practices in the archaeological record, the 18th century Apalachee settlements of Mission Escambe and

Blakeley Park should be expected to follow the characteristics of their ancestral community of

San Luis de Talimali, or at the very least to follow similar evolutionary trajectories as distinguished from contemporaneous non-Apalachee groups (Figure 19). The sample of ceramics from late 17th century San Luis, described in the previous chapter, can be characterized as mostly grog tempered, with a small inclusion of purely sand tempered ceramics. Complicated stamping was the most common surface decoration, although incising was present, and modified rims were typically folded and pinched. This example of “Apalachee-ness” originated from the center of the 17th century Apalachee world and was the culmination of a century of general stability. Thus, this “classic” Apalachee sample was compared against the assemblages of ceramics at the mid-18th century descendant communities.

76

FIGURE 19. Typical ceramics from the San Luis (8LE4) sample: (a) Jefferson complicated stamped var. Jefferson (8LE4-12908- 81b); (b) Jefferson check stamped var. Leon (8LE4-12908-84e); (c) Jefferson complicated stamped var. Early (8LE4-12908-77a); (d) Jefferson incised var. Columbia (8LE4-12908-61d); (e) Jefferson incised var. Ocmulgee Fields (8LE4-12908-61c); (f) Lamar incised var. Ocmulgee Fields (8LE4-12908-61a); (g) Jefferson complicated stamped var. Curlee (8LE4-12908-82a). (Photographs and figure by author, 2015.)

77

Terms of Temper

Temper type, frequently used as a marker of regional ethnicity (Deagan 1993; Saunders

1992; Waters 2005, 2009), is one of the most obvious areas of dissimilarity between San Luis and the 18th century Apalachee sites (Figure 20). At San Luis, the “classic” Apalachee sample, grog was the most common temper, at over 94 percent of the total weight of recorded ceramics.

Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park did have grog tempered sherds, but at much smaller percentages: at Escambe 32.4 percent of the total weight of ceramics was grog tempered and at

Blakeley only 14.8 percent of the total weight was grog. In fact, Mission Escambe’s most common temper was sand/grit, comprising 43.5 percent of the total weight, over 8 times higher than the percentage at San Luis. Blakeley Park’s dominant temper type was shell tempering, a material not even present in the San Luis sample.

100 94.8 90 80 70 60 Mission Escambe 50 43.5 38 Blakeley Park 40 32.4 30 26 San Luis 21.2 20 14.8 14.8 9.3 10 5.2 0 Grog Shell Grog and shell No grog, no shell

FIGURE 20. Temper distribution of total ceramics at the Apalachee sites, by percent of weight. (Figure by author, 2015.)

78

The inclusion of sand/grit tempering in Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park was one of the most significant changes from the practice traditions apparent at San Luis. Comparing the two 18th century Apalachee sites to the contemporaneous Creek site of Fusihatchee, a group of people who extensively interacted with the residents of both sites, the temper correlations are more subtle. Sand/grit temper was the most common temper material at both Fusihatchee and

Mission Escambe and second-most common at Blakeley Park (Figure 21). However, Fusihatchee produced some 13,253.8 grams of sand/grit sherds; 92 percent of the total weight of decorated ceramics at the site. This percentage alone is over twice the amount at Mission Escambe (43.5 percent) and more than 3 times that at Blakeley Park (26 percent).

100 92 90 80 70 60 50 43.5 Mission Escambe 38 Blakeley Park 40 32.4 26 Fusihatchee 30 21.2 20 14.8 14.8 8 9.3 10 0 Grog Shell Grog and shell No grog, no shell

FIGURE 21. Temper distribution of total ceramics at the 18th century sites, by percent of weight. (Figure by author, 2015.)

Shell tempering, present in both 18th century Apalachee sites and the most common temper at Blakeley Park, was also a typical temper type in earlier Creek assemblages, that

79

diminished after the Yamasee War of 1715 (Willey and Sears 1952:11; Knight 1994b:189;

Foster 2004:68). The Fusihatchee sample, dating to 1750-1780, had just 8 percent of its total ceramics identified as shell tempering, following this trend. The presence of shell temper at

Mission Escambe may be a result of interaction with earlier Blackmon Phase Creek groups while in exile in South Carolina (Knight 1994b:185,189), rather than as a result of encountering local

Pensacola-descendant Central Gulf Coast potters who also made shell tempered wares. The inhabitants of Blakeley Park, on the other hand, did not share a close relationship with the Creeks prior to 1715, and may instead have learned shell tempering practices from their new neighbors in Mobile Bay. It may be beneficial in the future to attempt to discern and quantify a difference between Blackmon Phase Creek shell tempering and Pensacola-descendant Central Gulf Coast shell tempering to trace through exactly which avenues the practice of shell tempering was introduced to the 18th century Apalachee.

Another tempering style included in the diverse assemblages of Mission Escambe and

Blakeley Park was grog and shell tempering, a variety that was not identified in either sample of

Fusihatchee or San Luis. The adoption of this particular temper type, which has been recorded in many Central Gulf Coast ceramic traditions (Appendix A), likely represents a regional practice the displaced Apalachee encountered from their new neighbors. It is significant that this temper style is more common in the Blakeley Park sample (21.2 percent of the total weight of ceramics); which falls within the cultural region of the Central Gulf Coast, than in Mission Escambe (9.3 percent of the total weight), which is located some 50 miles east of Mobile Bay.

As demonstrated through the diverse range of temper materials recorded at Mission

Escambe and Blakeley Park, the 18th century Apalachee incorporated practices from several regional temper practices as they migrated across the Southeast and then settled in the Gulf

80

Coast. A single tempering material did not completely dominate their ceramic practices, as was the case with Fusihatchee and San Luis. Moreover, the use of grog tempering in ceramic production, the dominant tempering material in the Apalachee heartland, was not abandoned, but instead supplemented with new materials.

Surface Treatments

Concerning surface treatments alone, complicated stamping, the classic Apalachee mainstay, was the most common surface decoration at San Luis (73.8 percent of the total weight of decorated sherds, 47.2 percent of all sherds examined). If Apalachee ethnicity was clearly communicated through ceramic practices, complicated stamping should also have been the dominant surface treatment at the descendant Apalachee communities of Mission Escambe and

Blakeley Park. While complicated stamping was recorded at both sites, the common style and the percentage of the total decorated sherds was very different. All stamped ceramics at Mission

Escambe made up only 10.5 percent of the total weight of decorated ceramics. Within that count,

67.2 percent of the total weight was identified as Leon Check Stamped, which in contrast was the least common stamped decoration at Mission San Luis (25.6 percent of the weight all stamped ceramics). Stamping at Blakeley Park was very rare; a scant 2 percent of the total weight of decorated ceramics was identified as being stamped and very few were large enough to provide stylistic information. Somewhere between their journey from San Luis and their arrival to the borderlands of the Pensacola-Mobile region, the refugee Apalachee let go of their ancestral traditions of complicated stamping and supplanted it with a new surface decoration.

The “replacement” surface decoration of the 18th century Apalachee sites was very clearly roughening, which was found to be the most common surface treatment in both samples

(52.2 percent of the total weight of decorated ceramics at Mission Escambe, 37.9 percent at

81

Blakeley Park). This surface treatment is frequently associated with Historic Creek ceramic traditions (Knight 1994b). As expected, roughening was also the dominant style at Fusihatchee, which had over 88 percent of the total weight of ceramics identified as roughened, including brushing and corn cob roughening. In contrast, the San Luis sample produced just one small

Jefferson Roughened sherd (26.8 grams).

The introduction of Creek ceramic practices seems likely to have occurred during extended interactions between the two groups. The inhabitants of Mission Escambe, which had the highest percentage of roughened ceramics outside of Fusihatchee, lived among the Creeks for some 14 years between 1704 and 1718. Interestingly, ancestral Creeks themselves originally practiced Lamar complicated stamping on many of their vessels. This surface treatment fell out of practice sometime in the late 17th century and was subsumed by roughening, which dominated Creek assemblages by the 18th century (Knight 1994b:183-185). The 18th century

Apalachee from Mission Escambe paralleled this change, replicating the practices of their neighbors and captors during their time in South Carolina. Those at Blakeley Park, a group that directly settled in the Gulf Coast region after 1704 and never lived among Creeks, also followed a similar development. Where this introduction of Creek ceramic practices originated is difficult to pin down, but as the only two Apalachee settlements west of St. Augustine during the mid-

18th century, it could be that Mission Escambe and the Blakeley Park village interacted occasionally, exchanging ceramic practices and possibly transferring the Creek practice only indirectly from one Apalachee group to another.

In addition to roughening, incising (20.5 percent of the total weight of decorated ceramics at Mission Escambe, 23.9 percent at Blakeley Park) and slipping (8.5 percent of the total weight at Mission Escambe, 34.5 percent at Blakeley Park) were significant surface

82

decorations in the 18th century Apalachee samples. The strong dissimilarity between Mission

Escambe and Blakeley Park’s frequency of slipping is notable. Slipped ceramics infrequently appeared in Creek ceramic practice; the Fusihatchee collection contained only 3.8 percent slipped ceramics of the total weight of observed sherds. While living among the Creek for 14 years, the Mission Escambe inhabitants seem to have followed this trend, as they did with the rise of roughening. On the other hand, the Apalachee at Blakeley Park travelled directly to

Mobile Bay and maintained their use of colored clay slipping. They also incorporated new styles of slipping, such as Chicot Red (8.1 percent of the weight of slipped ceramics), introduced by their Central Gulf Coast neighbors. Unfortunately, slipping, as discussed in the previous chapter, was difficult to compare to the San Luis sample as all red slipped ceramics were identified as

“colonoware” and thus were not included in data collection. Published accounts of Mission Red wares at San Luis however do imply the surface treatment was a significant part of the assemblage, making up some 13 percent of the total count of ceramic sherds (Cordell 2001:4).

Whether this relates to Apalachee preference or Spanish market preferences at San Luis is unknown.

The styles of incising recorded at all four sites also provided some thought-provoking comparisons. Incision metrics revealed that even at a small scale, stylistic differences could be illustrated through detailed measurements. Within the four collections, one large division between two proto-historic regional incision styles were documented based on established ceramic types (Figure 22). “Lamar” incising represented the stylistic traditions of Historic Creek,

Apalachee and the late prehistoric Lamar people of Georgia, Alabama, and Northern Florida

(Knight 1985:190; Scarry 1985:221). “Plaquemine” style incising represented an incising tradition commonly associated with Historic Natchez and Choctaws, and the late prehistoric

83

Plaquemine people along the southern portion of the Mississippi River, with influence eastward through Mississippi and into Mobile Bay (Barnett 2012:38-39; Phillips 1970). The prehistoric incised styles of Ft. Walton and Pensacola fill in the remaining Gulf Coast area between Lamar and Plaquemine and may have influenced the incision styles found at San Luis (Harris 2012:275-

276). It is also important to note the arbitrarily broad nature of the style zones used in this thesis.

The huge Plaquemine and Lamar regions contain substantial local diversity that is not fully discussed in this study, but has been deliberated in detail by many scholars (Hally 1994; Hally and Rudolph 1986; Kidder 2007; Knight 1994b; Livingood 2010; Rees 2010; Steponaitis 1981).

FIGURE 22. The regional proto-historic ceramic traditions of the Central Gulf Coast and Lower Southeast. (Map by author, 2015.)

84

San Luis, acting for this project as the classic Apalachee control group for the late 17th century, only had incision styles identifiable within the Lamaroid style. Fusihatchee had one set of mendable shell tempered sherds with incision styles similar to Fatherland incising, a style within the “Plaquemine” suite of designs, while the rest of the collection was stylistically

Lamaroid. Mission Escambe had mostly Lamaroid incised ceramics, with a very small sample of

Plaquemine-style sherds recorded (just 20.1 grams), perhaps representative of one or two total vessels. Blakeley Park, however, had a diverse mix of Lamaroid and Plaquemine incised ceramics and nearly one-third of the incised ceramics were identified as incised in the

Plaquemine style (Table 19).

TABLE 19 LAMAR AND PLAQUEMINE INCISED STYLES FROM ALL SAMPLES Site Lamar Style Incised Plaquemine Style Incised Sherd Count Sherd Weight Sherd Count Sherd Weight (grams) (grams) Mission Escambe 186 438.1 3 20.1 Blakeley Park 20 114.5 125 270.2 Fusihatchee 52 2,197.2 1 11.0 San Luis 41 3,696.7 0 0.0 Total 299 6,446.5 129 301.3

The differences between these two typologically defined incision styles became even more apparent through the data recorded concerning incision metrics. The first two metrics examined for this comparison, incision groove width and incision depth, did not produce much informative data about stylistic differences in incision practices. In fact, these two metrics were nearly the same for all four sites and all incision styles, implying that the tools and their technique of application did not vary significantly between these broader styles. The third incision metric, incision land width, or the spacing between grooves, did produce a noticeable difference. With these metrics it was possible to analyze the difference between Lamar style 85

incised and Plaquemine style incised surface decorations in a quantifiable scale. Blakeley Park, with the most diverse collection of incision styles, had the narrowest average land widths of all collections (2.0 mm, with a range of 0.3 mm to 3 mm). The Fusihatchee sample had the widest

(3.7 mm, with a range of 1.1 mm to 4 mm), representing Lamar incising practices. The bimodal distribution of incision land widths at these two sites illustrates the significant differences between the two incision styles (Figure 23).

14

12

10

8 Fusihatchee % 6 Blakeley %

4

2

0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

FIGURE 23. Land widths of incisions at Blakeley Park and Fusihatchee. (Figure by author, 2015.)

The introduction of narrower land width between incisions, not present at San Luis, and rare at Fusihatchee, illustrates the hybridized nature of post-diaspora Apalachee ceramic practice.

The potters of Blakeley Park, living among other displaced Native American groups in Mobile

Bay, observed these new incision styles and incorporated them into their own ceramic practices.

86

In contrast, Mission Escambe, which was located in a somewhat more isolated inland location in the borderlands of the Central Gulf Coast, absorbed fewer of the Plaquemine style incising techniques, and instead maintained their Lamar incising traditions, likely reinforced during their time with the Creeks.

Modified Rims

Another set of highly detailed measurements to be interpreted from this study was modified rim modes and their associated metrics. Rim folding, a technique found at all four sites, presents interesting data on stylistic changes through time. As previously mentioned in chapter three, it is commonly accepted in the Lamar culture area that rim fold lengths expanded with the passage of time during the late prehistoric and early historic era, so as the calendar date becomes more recent, rim fold lengths grow longer (Hally 1994:147-148). This study provided an excellent opportunity to test if this theory continues into the later historic period. The resulting average rim lengths from the four sites illustrated surprising results (Figure 24).

40 35 Escambe 30

25 Blakeley 20 Park 15 Fusihatchee 10 5 San Luis 0

FIGURE 24. Rim fold lengths at all four sites. (Figure by author, 2015.)

87

Demonstrated in the figure above, the lengths of rim folds at all four sites are temporally distributed, instead of regionally. The sample at San Luis is the oldest, predating Fusihatchee by over a century and produced the longest rim folds, averaging about 21.4 mm in length. The three

18th century sites had smaller averages: 17.2 mm at Mission Escambe, 14.4 mm at Blakeley

Park, and only 12.6 mm at Fusihatchee, the youngest site. Interestingly, this small set of data illustrates a reversal in the accepted theory. It appears that after the 17th century, rim fold lengths began to shrink, after an earlier period expansion, as noted above. Another explanation for the notable dissimilarity between San Luis and the 18th century sites might relate to the lingering influences of the Ft. Walton culture in San Luis’s ceramic practices, which included thick collared rim modifications (Marrinan and White 2007). Any stylistic link between these modifications and the Lamar rim folds would need to be demonstrated, however, and is only speculative at this point. More in-depth research would need to be conducted to prove and explain what has been discovered during this research, but among these four sites a pattern of some sort can be observed clearly using these quantitative data.

The Relationship of Surface and Temper

The relationship between tempering materials and surface treatments was extensively tested with the Chi-Square formula, discussed in chapter four and presented in Appendix D.

These calculations clarified significant aspects recorded in the collections and highlighted the most important results to compare. This testing was difficult at San Luis and Fusihatchee, which both only had two temper types and a small range of surface treatments. Chi-Square testing of the San Luis sample essentially revealed what was expected: grog tempered ceramics were nearly evenly distributed throughout the three main surface treatments recorded in the sample

(Tables D30-32). However, sand/grit tempered ceramics were calculated to be associated more

88

frequently with incised ceramics, as should be expected with Lamaroid ceramics (Table D30).

Surface treatments at Fusihatchee followed a similar distribution, but instead of grog temper, sand/grit temper was consistently common across all styles (Tables D40-44). Shell tempered ceramics were also strongly associated with roughening at Fusihatchee (Table D40).

Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park, which had diverse assemblages of both temper and surface decorations, had more informative Chi-Square results. Sand/grit tempered ceramics from

Mission Escambe tended to be roughened, although the resulting value was just above what would be expected by chance (Table D8). Unlike San Luis, however, incised ceramics were statistically associated with shell tempered ceramics and inversely related to grog temper (Table

D9). However, when stamping was examined, grog was the most relevant material in the

Mission Escambe collection, keeping in line with the ancestral San Luis sample (Table D11).

Chi-Square testing at Blakeley Park revealed strong correlations between incised surface treatments and grog and shell tempered ceramics (Table D21), likely a reflection of the influence of Plaquemine style incising, which is frequently associated with mixed tempers like grog and shell (Steponaitis 1981). Unlike San Luis, grog tempered sherds from Blakeley Park were not associated with stamped decorations, but were most often roughened (Table D20) or slipped

(Table D22). In fact, Blakeley Park did not follow any temper/surface decoration relationships observed at San Luis or Fusihatchee and was considerably different from the results calculated from Mission Escambe.

The positive correlation of grog tempering and stamping present at Mission Escambe was the only combined surface treatment/temper practice that persisted after the Apalachee diaspora.

The rest of the collection reflects a hybridized assemblage of styles influenced heavily by Creek practice. On the other hand, Blakeley Park was the most diverse, incorporating multiple tempers

89

and surface treatments in patterns that did not easily match the other three collections, likely as a result of their multiple neighbors in Mobile Bay. This may also reflect the nature of the European colonial powers the Apalachee were allied with at the time. Unlike the Spanish at Pensacola, by the 18th century the French maintained stable, diverse relationships with several Native

American communities, which reached deep into the interior and encouraged a multicultural landscape across the French-controlled Central Gulf Coast (Silvia 2002).

The Relationship of Temper and Modified Rims

Chi-Square testing also illustrated statistically relevant relationships between tempers and modified rim modes, which varied site to site. At San Luis, strong correlations were difficult to calculate as the temper types from the collection were not as diverse as the rim modes. Pinched rims, both folded and unfolded, were always grog tempered and were the most common modified rim modes at San Luis. While grog was by far the most common tempering material at

San Luis, sand/grit was also present in the four other modified rim modes identified at San Luis

(Tables D26-29). In addition, Chi-Square testing demonstrated that if a sherd was sand/grit tempered, it would most likely have a thickened or overhang modified rim mode (Tables D28 and D29). With these statistics in mind, the San Luis collection can be characterized as mainly having grog tempered modified rims, with thickened and overhang rims frequently being sand/grit tempered.

Fusihatchee, with a collection of only sand/grit tempered and shell tempered ceramics, was also difficult to calculate statistical relationships through the Chi-Square formula, although some major relationships were demonstrated. Sand/grit tempered sherds, the most common temper by a wide margin, were common in all modified rim types. The association of shell tempered and sand/grit tempered sherds was not statistically relevant for folded rims (Table

90

D33), folded and pinched rims (Table D34), punctated rims (Table D37), and overhang rims

(Table D39). Thickened rims (Table D38) and appliqué rims (Table D36) were both commonly statistically associated with sand/grit temper, and consequently, were the most common modified rims in the Fusihatchee sample. The only shell tempered ceramics recorded from the collection with a modified rim were all observed to have pinched rims (Table D35). As the sample only includes 36.2 grams of ceramics, it is difficult to project that all shell tempered ceramics are any more likely to have had pinched rims.

In contrast, Mission Escambe displayed a far more diverse distribution of rim modes and temper types. Folded only rims and appliqué rims did not have statistically significant associations with specific tempers in the collection, likely due to the fact that they were rare forms in the collection. Grog and shell tempered ceramics, when recorded to have a modified rim, were most often associated with overhang rims (Table D7), and punctated rims were frequently shell tempered (Table D5). Interestingly, just like San Luis, modified rim modes that were grog tempered tended to be folded and pinched, and pinched only (Tables D2 and D3). This distribution may illustrate that modified rim modes and vessel forms that appear the most

“Apalachee” were also tempered in traditional Apalachee methods by the inhabitants of Mission

Escambe. However, like Fusihatchee, sand/grit tempered sherds were most often thickened at

Escambe (Table D6).

Blakeley Park followed a similarly diverse distribution of temper and modified rim modes as Mission Escambe. Pinched only rims and temper types were demonstrated to not have statistically significant associations with specific tempers and appliqué rims were entirely absent from the sample. Unlike Mission Escambe, however, grog and shell tempered ceramics, when recorded with a modified rim, were most often punctated (Table D17), possibly a practice

91

introduced by Mobile Bay inhabitants (Appendix A). Grog tempered ceramics were commonly associated with folded only rims (Table D14) and overhang rims (Table D18). Chi-Square testing demonstrated that shell tempered ceramics most commonly had thickened rims if they were modified (Table D18). In contrast to both San Luis and Mission Escambe, folded and pinched rims were associated with both sand/grit and grog tempers, although Chi-Square testing demonstrated the relationship between sand/grit and folded and pinched rim modes to be more significant (Table D15).

As was the case with grog temper and surface treatments, it appears in Mission Escambe and to a lesser extent Blakely Park, grog temper and “traditional Apalachee” (as defined by San

Luis) rim modifications still maintained a connection to older ceramic practices. Other statistical correlations, such as sand/grit and thickened rims at Mission Escambe and Fusihatchee, reveal a diverse, hybridized collection. This is perhaps best illustrated with the results from Blakeley

Park, which produced high variability as a result of the variety of tempers present in the collection.

Conclusions about the 18th Century Collections

It is now apparent that the ceramic assemblages from Mission Escambe and Blakeley

Park are not direct copies of their ancestral homeland of San Luis or of their Creek neighbors at

Fusihatchee. Present in the two 18th century Apalachee ceramic collections are the implications of a multiethnic, creolized community of practice, whose individual members participated in a transmission of practices that resulted in a hybridized Apalachee culture. The 18th century

Apalachee incorporated new ceramic styles into their older practices, altering them as they came into contact with their new neighbors in the Gulf Coast. Some practices continued, such as grog tempering and incising, but were clearly supplemented with the introduction of new ceramic

92

practices, especially roughening and sand/grit tempering. Other ceramic practices, particularly complicated stamping, did not persist and became minor practices in the 18th century Apalachee assemblages. Mission Escambe’s ceramics reflect a hybridized Apalachee community, which primarily incorporated Creek ceramic practices into their already changing ceramic assemblage.

Blakeley Park’s ceramics illustrate a dynamic hybridized community, with influences of several

Native American groups within and outside of Mobile Bay.

The Vehicles for Change

As stated, the 18th century Apalachee potters at Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park did not manufacture and style ceramics with the same practices utilized by their ancestors in 17th century San Luis. New ceramic practices originating from neighboring Creeks, Mobilians,

Tensaws, Choctaws, and others clearly made their way into the assemblages of the two post- diaspora settlements. What is more difficult to parse out is exactly how these practices were originally introduced and incorporated into 18th century Apalachee ceramic tradition.

Rather than a benchmark of ethnicity, ceramic manufacturing should be considered a sequence of practices that ultimately identifies a potter as part of a larger ceramic community of practice (Gosselain 2000:189; Worth [2016]:31-32). This series of ceramic manufacturing or ceramic châine opératoire includes the acquisition and preparation of clay (and temper), the formation of the vessel, surface decoration, and firing. Within this châine opératoire there are several opportunities for the introduction of new ceramic practices, through external sources or internal innovation (Crown 2007; Worth 2015:36-37). To attempt to identify how new ceramic practices became a part of Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park’s community of practice, two additional planes of influence in a single potter’s châine opératoire must be considered: those of current and past interactions (Worth 2010, Figure 25).

93

FIGURE 25. The two planes of ceramic practice influence. (Courtesy of John Worth, 2015.)

The “past interactions” that formed a base of the Apalachee ceramic manufacturing sequence for Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park included the original teacher(s) to the potter, such as a mother, grandmother, or aunt, who passed down their own techniques. This likely included “traditional Apalachee” practices evident in the San Luis sample, such as grog tempered complicated stamping, folded and pinched rims, and Lamar incising. While subject to innovation, ceramic practices learned by young potters from their teacher remained part of their ceramic châine opératoire (Dobres and Hoffman 1994:223). Mission Escambe potters, unlike

Blakeley Park, had another source of past interactions that influenced their ceramic practice.

94

Living among the Creeks in South Carolina for 14-odd years would undoubtedly leave a mark on the sequence of ceramic manufacture, whether introduced through casual observation, socializing, or intermarriage. The best example for this sort of influence would be the dominance of sand/grit roughened ceramics and the near total disuse of complicated stamped surface decorations at Mission Escambe, mirroring the Creek Fusihatchee sample. The Mission Escambe

Apalachee would have carried new ceramic practices learned from the Creeks while in exile to their new settlement in the Gulf Coast, where they continued it as something more recently added but no less “Apalachee” during that period.

The so-called “current interactions” that influenced Apalachee ceramic practices at

Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park in the mid-18th century would have been introduced by neighboring Native American communities practicing their own châines opératoires. These new practices found their way into the two 18th century Apalachee settlements’ communities of practice through each stage of the châine opératoire. In the case of the Blakeley Park potters, who lived in close proximity to many other petites nations, such as the Mobilians and the

Tensaw, it is highly likely that clay sources were shared and observation and communication of tempering techniques and practices were likely unavoidable. Social interaction, such as inviting neighbors to religious festivals, like the Apalachee Feast of Saint Louis (McWilliams 1988:134-

135), or casual interaction, such as what could take place during a ferry crossing (Waselkov and

Gums 2001:27-29) would facilitate the observation and exchange of surface decoration and modified rim styles and could easily be adopted into the Apalachee’s ceramic manufacturing sequence. Other practices, such as firing techniques and vessel formation, may have been more difficult to understand through casual observation, but might easily have been introduced by intermarriage.

95

As the only Spanish-taught Christian Indians for miles, the two small Apalachee communities, while allied to different European powers, were close enough to facilitate some sort of prolonged interactions, such as trade and intermarriage. When Juan Marcos initially founded his new Apalachee community north of Pensacola, he also invited the Mobile Bay

Apalachee to join him, and some eventually settled with the Spanish-allied Apalachee (Worth et al. [2015]:10). These connections between the two 18th century Apalachee settlements furthered the hybridization of their ceramic châine opératoire, as they certainly shared information as well as goods and people between their two communities. This may indeed account for the introduction of Creek-like ceramic practices at Blakeley Park, whose female potters probably rarely encountered their Creek counterparts in person.

Case for a Creolized People

The combination of the past and current interactions with other ceramic communities of practice led the post-diaspora Apalachee settlements of Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park to produce diverse and hybridized ceramic assemblages. Ceramic practice, and by extension culture, is impacted not only through ethnic history, but also through geographic and social networks. The ceramic collections from Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park served as excellent testing grounds for examining and discussing the nature of cultural identity and ceramic remains.

It can be concluded through the extensive work performed in this thesis that ceramic assemblages cannot be directly bound to a single ethnicity or culture. In fact, as is demonstrated by the 18th century Apalachee sites of Mission Escambe and Blakeley Park, ceramics reflect a fluid and hybridized cultural practice that evolves with cultural history, geographical location, and social networks. These ceramic practices are exchanged at every level of interaction between communities of practice, which is further facilitated in the unique cultural landscapes of the

96

Pensacola-Mobile borderlands. The marked increase in mobility and interaction with other native groups of diverse origins during their 18th century diaspora was precisely what led the

Apalachee potters to develop such diversity in their hybridized ceramic practice, while nonetheless maintaining their Apalachee social identity.

97

WORKS CITED

Barnett, James, Jr. 2007 The Natchez Indians: A History to 1735. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.

2012 Mississippi’s American Indians. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.

Blitz, John Howard 1985 An Archaeological Study of the Mississippi Choctaw Indians. Mississippi Department of Archives and History Archaeological Report 16, Jackson.

Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. R. Nice, translator. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Boyd, Mark, Hale G. Smith, and John W. Griffin 1951 Here They Once Stood: The Tragic End of the Apalachee Missions. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Brasseaux, Carl (editor) 1981 A Comparative View of French Louisiana, 1699 and 1762: The Journals of Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville and Jean-Jacques-Blaise d’Abbadie. Center for Louisiana Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

Brown, Ian 1985 Natchez Indian Archaeology: Culture Change and Stability in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Mississippi Department of Archives and History Archaeological Report 15, Jackson.

Coker, William S. 1999 Pensacola, 1686-1821. In Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola. Judith A. Bense, editor, pp. 5-60. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Cordell, S. Ann 2001 Continuity and Change in Apalachee Pottery Manufacture. University of South Alabama Center for Archaeological Studies, Mobile.

2013 Continuity and Change in Early Eighteenth-Century Apalachee Colonowares. In The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, Jeb J. Card, editor, pp. 80-99. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Covington, James W. 1964 The Apalachee Indians Move West. Florida Anthropologist 18(4):221-225.

1972 Apalachee Indians, 1704-1763. The Florida Historical Quarterly 50(4):366-384.

98

Crown, Patricia L. 2007 Life Histories of Pots and Potters: Situating the Individual in Archaeology. American Antiquity 72(4):677-690.

Dadiego, Danielle 2014 Spanish Frontiers: A Study of Social and Economic Exchange Networks Present in 18th Century Spanish Missions. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Deagan, Kathleen 1993 St. Augustine and the Mission Frontier. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida, Bonnie G. McEwan, editor, pp. 87-110. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

De Crenay, Baron 1733 Carte de partie de la Louisiane qui comprend le cours du Mississipy depuis son embouchure jusques aux Arcansas, celuy des rivieres de la Mobille depuis la baye jusqu'au fort de Toulouse, des Pascagoula et de la riviere aux Perles, le tout relevé par estime, Dépôt des Fortifications des Colonies, Archives Nationales, Paris, France..

De Sartine, Antione 1778 Carte D’une Partie des Cotes de La Floride et de Louisiane, Contenant le Cours du Mississippi. Birmingham Public Library Cartography Collection, Birmingham, AL. < https://encore.bham.lib.al.us/iii/encore/record/C__Rx1000446>.

Dobres, Marcia-Anne, and Christopher R. Hoffman 1994 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(3):211-258.

Dunbar, Rowland, and Albert Godfrey Saunders (editors) 1929 Mississippi Provincial Archives 1701-1729: French Dominion, Vol. 2, Press of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Ewen, Charles R. 2000 From Colonist to Creole: Archaeological Patterns of Spanish Colonization in the New World. Historical Archaeology 34(3):36-45.

Fairbanks, Charles H. 1952 Creek and Pre-Creek. In Archaeology of Eastern United States, James B. Griffin, editor, pp. 285-300. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Foster, H. Thomas II 2004 Evidence of Historic Creek Indian Migration from a Regional and Direct Historic Analysis of Ceramic Types. Southeastern Archaeology 23(1):65-84.

99

Foster, William C. 2012 Climate and Culture Change in North America AD 900-1600. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Fuller, Richard S. 1998 Indian Pottery and Cultural Chronology of the Mobile-Tensaw Basin and Alabama Coast. The Journal of Alabama Archaeology 44(1-2):1-51.

Fuller, Richard S., and Noel R. Stowe 1982 A Proposed Typology for Late Shell Tempered Ceramics in the Mobile Bay/Mobile- Tensaw Delta Region. In Archaeology in Southwest Alabama: A Collection of Papers, C. Curren, editor, pp. 45-94. Alabama Tombigbee Regional Commission, Camden.

Galloway, Patricia 1994 Choctaw Genesis. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

1995 Confederacy as a Solution to Chiefdom Dissolution: Historical Evidence in the Choctaw Case. In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Bonnie G. McEwan, editor, pp. 393-420. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Giddens, Anthony 1984 The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies, 2nd edition, Harper Collins, New York, NY.

Gosselain, Olivier P. 2000 Materializing Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3)187-217.

Hally, David J. 1983 The Interpretive Potential of Pottery from Domestic Contexts. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 8(2):163-196.

1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51(2):267-295.

1994 An Overview of Lamar Culture, In Ocmulgee Archaeology, David Hally, editor, pp. 144- 174. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Hally, David J., and James L. Rudolph 1986 Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Piedmont. University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 2, Report No. 24, Athens.

Hann, John H. 1988 Apalachee: The Land between the Rivers. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

100

Hann, John H., and Bonnie G. McEwan 1998 The Apalachee Indians and Mission San Luis. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Harris, Norma J. 1999 Native Americans of Santa María de Galve: 1698-1722. Master’s thesis, Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

2003 Native Americans. In Presidio Santa María de Galve: A Struggle for Survival in Colonial Spanish Pensacola, Judith A. Bense, editor, pp. 257-314. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2012 Defining Pensacola and Fort Walton Cultures in the Western Panhandle. In Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology of the Mississippian World, Keith Ashley and Nancy Marie White, editors, pp. 275-295. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

1994 The Hernando de Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1524-1704, Charles Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser, editors, pp. 74-103. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Hudson, Charles, Marvin T. Smith, Chester B. DePratter, and Emilia Kelley 1989 The Tristan de Luna Expedition, 1559-1561. Southeastern Archaeology 8(1):31-45.

Hunter, Donald G. 1994 Their Final Years: The Apalachee and Other Immigrant Tribes on the Red River, 1763- 1834. The Florida Anthropologist 47(1):3-90.

Ivas, Alice 2005 Caught in the Middle: The Apalachee of Mobile. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Alabama, Mobile.

Jenkins, Ned 2009 Tracing the Origins of the Early Creeks, 1050-1700 CE. In Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone: The Colonial Indian Slave Trade and the Regional Instability in the American South, Robbie Ethridge and Sheri M. Shuck-Hall, editors, pp. 188-249. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Jennings, Jesse D., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1940 Pottery Type Descriptions. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Newsletter 2(2).

Kidder, Tristram R. 2007 Contemplating Plaquemine Culture. In Plaquemine Archaeology, Patrick C. Livingood and Mark A. Rees, editors, pp. 196-205. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

101

Knight, Vernon James, Jr. 1985 Tukabatchee: Archaeological Investigations at an Historic Creek Town Elmore County, Alabama, 1984. The University of Alabama, Report of Investigations 45 Office of Archaeological Research, Alabama State Museum of Natural History, Tuscaloosa.

1994a The Formation of the Creeks. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, Charles Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser, editors, pp. 373-392. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.

1994b Ocmulgee Fields Culture and the Historical Development of Creek Ceramics. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936-1986, David J. Hally, editor, pp. 181-189. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Kowalewski, Stephen A., and Mark Williams 1989 The Carroll Site: Analysis of 1936 Excavations at a Mississippian Farmstead in Georgia. Southeastern Archaeology 8(1):46-67.

Lee, Jerry 2010 Excavations in the Spanish Village: 2005-2006. Bureau of Archaeological Resources, Mission San Luis, Tallahassee, FL.

Lightfoot, Kent 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2):199-217.

Lightfoot, Kent, and Antoinette Martinez 1995 Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:471-492.

Lightfoot, Kent, Antoinette Martinez, and Ann M. Schiff 1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 63:199-222.

Livingood, Patrick C. 2010 Mississippian Politiy and Politics on the Gulf Coastal Plain: A View From the Pearl River, Mississippi. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Marrinan, Rochelle, and Nancy White 2007 Modeling Fort Walton Culture in Northwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 26(2):292-318.

McEwan, Bonnie G. 2001 The Spiritual Conquest of La Florida. American Anthropologist 103(3):633-644.

102

2014 Colonialism on the Spanish Frontier: Mission San Luis 1656-1704. Florida Historical Quarterly 92(3):591-625.

McWilliams, Richebourg 1988 Fleur de Lys and Calumet: Being the Penicaut Narrative of French Adventure in Louisiana. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Melcher, Jennifer 2011 More than just Copies: Colono Ware as a Reflection of Multi-Ethnic Interaction on the 18th Century Spanish Frontier of West Florida. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Michelaki, Kostalena 2007 More than Meets the Eye: Reconsidering Variability in Iroquoian Ceramics. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 31(2):143-170.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1999 Laboring in the Fields of the Lord. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Mistovich, Tim R., and Vernon James Knight 1986 Excavations at Four Sites on Walter F. George Lake, Alabama and Georgia. Office of Archaeological Research, Report No. 49, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Phillips, Philip 1970 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955, Vol. 1, The Peabody Museum, Cambridge, England.

Ramsey, William L. 2008 The Yamasee War: A Study of Culture, Economy, and Conflict in the Colonial South. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton, and Melville J. Herskovits 1936 Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 38(1):149-152.

Rees, Mark A. 2010 Plaquemine and Mississippian, In Archaeology of Louisiana, Mark A. Rees, editor, pp. 172-194. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

Regnier, Amanda L. 2006 A Stylistic Analysis of Burial Urns from the Protohistoric Period in Central Alabama. Southeastern Archaeology 24(1):121-134. Saunders, Rebecca 1992 Guale Indian Pottery: A Georgia Legacy in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45(2):139-147.

103

Scarry, John F. 1985 A Proposed Revision of the Fort Walton Ceramic Typology: A Type-Variety System. Florida Anthropologist 38:199-233.

Silvia, Diane E. 2002 Native American and French Cultural Dynamics on the Gulf Coast. Historical Archaeology 36(1):26-35.

Smith, Hale G. 1948 Two Historical Archaeological Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13(4):313-319.

1965 Archaeological Excavations at Santa Rosa Pensacola. Notes in Anthropology 10, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Smith, Marvin T. 2002 Aboriginal Movements in the Postcontact Southeast. In The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians, 1540-1760, Robbie Ethridge and Charles Hudson, editors, pp. 3- 20. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.

Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1974 The Late Prehistory of the Natchez Region: Excavations at the Emerald and Foster Sites, Adams County, Mississippi. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

1981 Plaquemine Ceramic Chronology in the Natchez Region. Mississippi Archaeology 16(2):6-19.

1983 Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An Archaeological Study at Moundville. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Stowe, Noel R. 1978 Archaeological-Historical Survey and Test Excavations at the Blakeley Park Site. University of South Alabama’s Archaeological Research Laboratory. Report to Historic Blakeley Foundation and the Alabama Historic Commission, Mobile.

Taitt, David 1771 A plan of part of the rivers Tombecbe, Alabama, Tensa, Perdido, & Scambia in the province of West Florida. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division, Washington, D.C. < http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3971p.ar164900>.

Van Pool, Todd L., and Robert D. Leonard 2011 Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK.

104

Vernon, Richard, and Ann S. Cordell 1993 A Distributional and Technological Study of Apalachee Colono-Ware from San Luis de Talimali. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida, Bonnie McEwan, editor, pp. 418-441. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974 The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Waselkov, Gregory A., and Bonnie L. Gums 2000 Plantation Archaeology at Riviere aux Chiens. University of South Alabama, Center for Archaeological Studies, Mobile.

2001 Mississippi Though Early Historic Period Shell Tempered Pottery in the Pensacola Culture Area: How to Classify Types, Varieties, and Modes. Gulf Coast Survey, Alabama Museum of Natural History, Tuscaloosa.

Waselkov, Gregory A., and Marvin T. Smith 2000 Upper Creek Archaeology, In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Bonnie G. McEwan, editor, pp. 242-264. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Waselkov, Gregory A., John W. Cottier, and Craig T. Sheldon, Jr. 1990 Archaeological Excavations at the Early Historic Creek Indian Town of Fusihatchee (Phase 1, 1988-1989). Report to the National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Waters, Gifford J. 2005 Maintenance and Change of 18th Century Mission Identity: A Multi-Ethnic Contact Situation. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

2009 Aboriginal Ceramics at Three 18th-Century Mission Sites in St. Augustine, Florida. In From Santa Elena to St. Augustine: Indigenous Ceramic Variability (A.D. 1400-1700), Kathleen Deagan and David Hurst Thomas, editors, pp. 165-176. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers No. 90. New York.

Willey, Gordon R., and William H. Sears 1952 The Kasita Site. Southern Indian Studies 4:3-18.

Worth, John E. 1992 Revised Aboriginal Ceramic Typology for the Timucua Mission Province, In Excavations on the Franciscan Frontier: Archaeology at the Fig Springs Mission, Brent R. Weisman, editor, pp. 188-205. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1998a Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida, Volume 1: Assimilation. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

105

1998b Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida, Volume 2: Resistance and Destruction. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2000 Lower Creek Archaeology, In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Bonnie G. McEwan, editor, pp. 265-298. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2004 Yamasee, In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, Southeast, William C. Sturtevant, editor, pp. 245-253. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

2006 Evaluating the Utility of the Acculturation Concept, In Light on the Path: The Anthropology and History of the Southeastern Indians, Thomas Pluckhahn and Robbie Ethridge, editors, pp. 196-206. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2007 The Struggle for the Georgia Coast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2008 Rediscovering Pensacola’s Lost Spanish Missions. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, NC.

2009 Documenting Tristan de Luna’s Fleet, and the Storm that Destroyed It. The Florida Anthropologist 62(3-4):84-92.

2010 Explaining Ceramic Stylistic Variability during the Late Mississippi Period in Northwest Georgia: A Design Type Analysis of Lamar Bold Incised Pottery. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Lexington, KY.

2012 Creolization in Southwest Florida: Cuban Fishermen and “Spanish Indians,” ca. 1766- 1841. Historical Archaeology 46(1):142-160.

2013 Catalysts of Assimilation: The Role of Franciscan Missionaries in the Colonial System of Spanish Florida, In From La Florida to La California, Timothy J. Johnson and Gert Melville, editors, pp. 131-142. The Academy of American Franciscan History, Berkeley, CA.

2015 Explaining Ceramic Stylistic Variability During the Late Mississippi Period in Northwest Georgia: A Design Type Analysis of Lamar Bold Incised Pottery. In Archaeological Perspectives of the Southern Appalachians: A Multiscalar Approach, Ramie A. Gougeon and Maureen S. Meyers, editors, pp. 33-58. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

[2016] What’s in a Phase? Disentangling Communities of Practice from Communities of Identity in Southeastern North America. In Forging Southeastern Identities: Social Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Mississippian to Early Historic South, Gregory A. Waselkov and Marvin T. Smith, editors. Draft manuscript submitted to University of Alabama Press.

106

Worth, John E., and Jennifer Melcher [2015] Revised Typology for Historic Period Native American Ceramics in Northwest Florida. Manuscript submitted to Southeastern Archaeology.

Worth, John E., Danielle Dadiego, Michelle Pigott, and Jennifer Melcher [2015] Mission San Joseph de Escambe: Archaeological Investigations 2009-2014. University of West Florida, Archaeology Institute, Report of Investigations, Pensacola.

Wynn, Jack T. 1990 Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Blue Ridge Mountains. University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 5, Report No. 27, Athens.

107

APPENDICES

108

APPENDIX A

CERAMIC TYPOLOGY

109

The types below have been roughly arranged in larger regional ceramic families of the late 17th and into the 18th century. Ceramic tempers utilized in this study relied upon the simple distinctions between sand/grit, grog (no shell), shell (no grog), and grog and shell. Sand as a temper is ubiquitous across the Central Gulf Coast, and as such is only mentioned in temper if it is the only material present in a paste. Paste color has been discarded as a characteristic in these ceramic types, as there is now little evidence to suggest the color of a sherd’s paste or temper is little more than an extraneous result of manufacture or subsequent reheating during use.

“Lamaroid” Types

These ceramic types are typical of central Georgia and Alabama, and extended into

Northern Florida during the Contact era. The types identified here are late iterations of the massive Lamar prehistoric culture, first identified by Jennings and Fairbanks (1940). This ceramic family developed as the main style of Creek and Apalachee cultures of the historic era and extended across much of the Southeast as their influence grew.

Lamar Roughened Varieties

Roughening is a typical marker of Creek influenced ceramic traditions in the 18th century, identified by the singular decorations created by brushing pine straw, bundled reeds or sticks, or even dried corn cobs (brushing), or simply rolling corn cobs (cob marked) across a pot prior to firing. Vessel forms of roughened ceramics tend to be large utilitarian cooking vessels, pots, or jars, and have been accompanied by simple, folded and pinched, or pinched applique rims.

Chattahoochee Roughened Temper: Sand/Grit Decoration: variety Chattahoochee refers to brushed, variety Wedowee refers to cob marked Geographic Distribution: Georgia, Alabama and Northern Florida References: Knight 1985

110

Walnut Roughened Temper: Shell Decoration: variety McKee Island refers to brushed, variety Spanish Fort refers to cob marked Geographic Distribution: Alabama and Northwest Florida References: Jennings and Fairbanks 1940; Knight 1985; Mistovich and Knight 1986

Jefferson Roughened Temper: Grog Decoration: variety Conecuh refers to brushed, variety Blackwater refers to cob marked Geographic Distribution: Northern Florida References: Worth 1992; Worth and Melcher [2015]

Escambia Roughened Temper: Grog and Shell Decoration: variety Escambia refers to brushed, variety Molino refers to cob marked Geographic Distribution: Escambia Roughened ceramics have only been identified in the Pensacola-Mobile region of the Gulf Coast in relation with 18th century assemblages. As the variety is new, Escambia Series ceramics are likely present in sites across the Central Gulf Coast Region. References: Worth and Melcher [2015]

Lamar Incised Varieties

Incised ceramics inside the Lamar tradition were typically on the upper shoulders of carinated bowls with simple rims. Lamaroid incision motifs included tight swirls and interlocking, looping circles or squares. No large amounts of empty space would be left in the decorated panels of incised bowls, and the surfaces are often burnished. The two historic variants of incising styles are differentiated by the width of incisions: variety Columbia (greater than or equal to 2mm) and variety Ocmulgee Fields (less than 2mm) (Scarry 1985:221,227).

Lamar Incised Temper: Sand/Grit Decoration: Incising consisting of tightly bound patterns usually along the upper shoulders of carinated bowls; little undecorated space would be present within the decorated panels. Geographic Distribution: Georgia, Alabama, Northern Florida References: Jennings and Fairbanks 1940; Knight 1985; Scarry 1985

111

Langdon Incised Temper: Shell Decoration: Incising consisting of tightly bound patterns usually along the upper shoulders of carinated bowls; little space would be present within the decorated panels. Geographic Distribution: Northwest Florida References: Worth and Melcher [2015]

Jefferson Incised Temper: Grog Decoration: Incising consisting of tightly bound patterns usually along the upper shoulders of carinated bowls; little space would be present within the decorated panels. Geographic Distribution: Northern Florida References: Worth 1992

Escambia Incised Temper: Grog and Shell Decoration: Incising consisting of tightly bound patterns usually along the upper shoulders of carinated bowls; little space would be present within the decorated panels. Geographic Distribution: Northwest Florida References: Worth and Melcher [2015]

Mission Red

Throughout the years historic period red slipped types were not incorporated into a single ceramic family, and instead were almost invariably referred to as “Mission Red” (when found in conjunction with Spanish Mission Indians) or “Kasita Red” (when found with Creek assemblages). There has been considerable debate on the topic of whether the two series are the same or different. Recent work by Jennifer Melcher (2011), and John Worth and Jennifer

Melcher ([2015]) has defined and organized these slipped types into one category, differentiated by temper.

Mission Red, variety Kasita Temper: Sand/Grit Decoration: Red Slip Geographic Distribution: Northwest Florida, Western Georgia, Southeastern Alabama References: Melcher 2011; Jennings and Fairbanks 1940 (as Kasita Red)

112

Mission Red, variety Pensacola Temper: Shell Decoration: Red Slip Geographic Distribution: Northwest Florida, Southern Alabama References: Melcher 2011; Smith 1965 (as Pensacola Mission Red)

Mission Red, variety San Luis Temper: Grog Decoration: Red Slip Geographic Distribution: Northwest Florida, possibly into Alabama and Georgia References: Melcher 2011; Smith 1948 (as Mission Red Filmed)

Mission Red, variety Santa María Temper: Grog and Shell Decoration: Red Slip Geographic Distribution: Northwest Florida, Southern Alabama References: Melcher 2011; Worth and Melcher [2015]

Lamar Stamping

Historic period stamping in the Southeast is identified by the large, often “sloppy” patterns pressed into a wet paste. It is decidedly different from small and neat prehistoric checking, such as Deptford Period ceramics, and is frequently associated with Apalachee mission populations and proto-historic Lamar communities. Other complicated stamped sherds that did not fit into one of the stamped categories below were identified as “Unspecified” and their correlating temper denominator i.e.: “Langdon Complicated Stamped, variety Unspecified” for a shell tempered, complicated stamped sherd with historic characteristics.

Lamar Check Stamped, variety Leon Temper: Sand/Grit Decoration: Large, diamond-shaped check stamping Geographic Distribution: Northern Florida, Southern Georgia and Alabama References: Scarry 1985; Worth 1992

Lamar Complicated Stamped, variety Pine Tuft Temper: Sand/Grit Decoration: Complicated stamping, described as “circles and triangles” Geographic Distribution: Northern Florida, Southern Georgia and Alabama References: Scarry 1985

113

Jefferson Complicated, Stamped variety Early Temper: Grog Decoration: A stamped design described as a series of concentric rings or bull’s eyes Geographic Distribution: Northern Florida References: Worth 1992; Scarry 1985 (after Lamar Complicated Stamped var. Early)

Jefferson Complicated Stamped, variety Jefferson Temper: Grog Decoration: A stamped design described as a series of nested parallelograms Geographic Distribution: Northern Florida References: Worth 1992; Scarry 1985 (after Lamar Complicated Stamped var. Jefferson)

Jefferson Complicated Stamped, variety Curlee Temper: Grog Decoration: A stamped design described as a herringbone pattern, frequently overstamped Geographic Distribution: Northern Florida References: Worth 1992; Scarry 1985 (after Lamar Complicated Stamped var. Curlee)

Jefferson Check Stamped, variety Leon Temper: Grog Decoration: Large, diamond-shaped check stamping Geographic Distribution: Northern Florida References: Worth 1992

Escambia Check Stamped, variety Leon Temper: Grog and shell Decoration: Large, diamond-shaped check stamping Geographic Distribution: Northwestern Florida References: Worth and Melcher [2015]

Plaquemine Descendant and Central Gulf Coast Ceramic Types

These types include ceramics historically created by Choctaw, Mobilian, Natchez, and

Tensaw Indians. These ceramic styles were frequented by mixed material tempering, including shell, grog, bone, and were often decorated with fine incisions and/or red slipping.

Incised Varieties

Central Gulf Coast incised ceramics are identified as Port Dauphin and Fatherland

Incised. A third type, Doctor Lake, is also related to this style but is only identifiable with

114

associated punctated or ticked rims (Waselkov and Gums 2000:125) and thus was not utilized in this project. This decoration type is described as a series of fine lines forming long curvilinear or rectilinear patterns across an entire vessel, leaving large empty spaces in between the clustered incisions. The two varieties are differentiated by the number of clustered lines: Fatherland (two to three incisions) and Bayou Goula (four or more incisions). The vessels most often to be found decorated this way are large incurvate or globular bowls, with thin rims that are frequently incised or punctated.

Fatherland Incised Temper: Fine shell and grog Decoration: Fine, grouped curvilinear or rectilinear incisions with large voids between incising elements: variety Fatherland describes 3 grouped lines, variety Bayou Goula includes 4 or more, variety Snyder’s Bluff describes Fatherland-style incisions over a red slip. Geographic Distribution: Associated with Historic Natchez Indians, Fatherland Incised has been identified from the Lower Mississippi River Valley eastward to the Escambia River, where 2 sherds were identified at Mission Escambe. Defined by: Phillips 1970; Steponaitis 1974; Steponaitis 1981

Port Dauphin Incised Temper: Fine Shell Decoration: Fine, grouped curvilinear or rectilinear incisions with large voids between incising elements: variety Fatherland describes 3 grouped lines, variety Bayou Goula includes 4 or more, variety Snyder’s Bluff describes Fatherland-style incisions over a red slip. Geographic Distribution: First identified at the Port Dauphin site (1MB61), it has been found across Southwestern Alabama, and is considered a marker for the historic period in Coastal Alabama. References: Fuller 1998; Waselkov and Gums 2000

Other Central Gulf Coast Varieties

Chickachae Combed Temper: Fine Shell Decoration: Fine grouped incisions created by a tool with four to seven parallel teeth, likely a comb, in long rectilinear or curvilinear scrolling designs across the entire vessel, with large correlating empty spaces (similar to Port Dauphin and Fatherland styles). Most often on large globular bowls and frequently burnished. Geographic Distribution: Associated with Choctaw Indians, the style is found from the lower Mississippi River Valley eastward to the Mobile-Tensaw River Delta. References: Blitz 1985; Waselkov and Gums 2000

115

Chicot Red Temper: Fine Shell and Grog Decoration: Thick, red filming on the exterior and/or interior of the vessel, most often on large unrestricted bowls. Geographic Distribution: Related to Natchez and Choctaw ceramics, it has been found from the lower Mississippi River Valley eastward to the Mobile-Tensaw River Delta. References: Steponaitis 1974; Brown 1985

“Lamar Incised variety Bayou Goula” Temper: Fine Sand Decoration: Fine curvilinear incisions in the style of Fatherland or Port Dauphin Incised. Geographic Distribution: Identified only in the Blakeley Park site, located in the Mobile-Tensaw Bay. References: This type name was used as a provisional name for a small selection (7 sherds, a total of 19.1g) of sand tempered ceramics identified during the data collection of the Blakeley Park assemblage. These sherds, which were sand/grit tempered and stylistically incised in a Port Dauphin/Fatherland style, did not fit into an established type. The name was assigned arbitrarily as it was already used as a coded type in the UWF lab and database. Further research would be needed to determine if a new type name should be assigned to this possibly unique ceramic style. Additionally, these ceramics may be Doctor Lake Incised, a type geographically and chronologically associated with Port Dauphin and Fatherland style incisions, however it is difficult to identify this type without rim sherds (Waselkov and Gums 2000).

116

APPENDIX B

DETAILED CERAMIC ANALYSIS FORM

117

Detailed Sherd Analysis Form Project Code ______Sherd Thickness______mm__

Provenience ______Vessel Form ______

Catalog #______wt______Rim Form______

Temper __Grog __ Shell __ Sand/Grit Rim Thickness -at lip______mm_

__ Other______At thickest point______mm

___Incised __ Curvilinear __ Rectilinear __ Indet. Rim Treatment Height______mm

___Punctated ___ Burnished Orifice Diameter______cm

___ Stamped __Curvilinear __ Rectilinear Decoration depth______mm

_ Check __ Indeterminate Land Width ______mm

___ Slipped __Red __ Black __ Brown __ White Groove Width ______mm

__ Roughened__ Brushed __ Cob __ Stippled Slip Thickness ______mm

Type Name ______

Detailed Sherd Analysis Form Project Code ______Sherd Thickness______mm__

Provenience ______Vessel Form ______

Catalog #______wt______Rim Form______

Temper __Grog __ Shell __ Sand/Grit Rim Thickness -at lip______mm_

__ Other______At thickest point______mm

___Incised __ Curvilinear __ Rectilinear __ Indet. Rim Treatment Height______mm

___Punctated ___ Burnished Orifice Diameter______cm

___ Stamped __Curvilinear __ Rectilinear Decoration depth______mm

_ Check __ Indeterminate Land Width ______mm

___ Slipped __Red __ Black __ Brown __ White Groove Width ______mm

__ Roughened__ Brushed __ Cob __ Stippled Slip Thickness ______mm

Type Name ______

118

APPENDIX C

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION CRITICAL VALUES

119

df 훼 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.025 0.01 0.001 1 0.455 2.706 3.841 5.024 6.635 10.828 2 1.386 4.605 5.991 7.378 9.210 13.816 3 2.366 6.251 7.815 9.348 11.345 16.266 4 3.357 7.779 9.488 11.143 13.277 18.467 5 4.351 9.236 11.070 12.833 15.086 20.515 6 5.348 10.645 12.592 14.449 16.812 22.458 7 6.346 12.017 14.067 16.013 18.475 24.322 8 7.344 13.362 15.507 17.535 20.090 26.124 9 8.343 14.684 16.919 19.023 21.666 27.877 10 9.342 15.987 18.307 20.483 23.209 29.588 11 10.341 17.275 19.675 21.920 24.725 31.264 12 11.340 18.549 21.026 23.337 26.217 32.909 13 12.340 19.812 22.362 24.736 27.688 34.528 14 13.339 21.064 23.685 26.119 29.141 36.123 15 14.339 22.307 24.996 27.488 30.578 37.697 16 15.338 23.542 26.296 28.845 32.000 39.252 17 16.38 24.769 27.587 30.191 33.409 40.790 18 17.338 25.989 28.869 31.526 34.805 42.312 19 18.338 27.204 30.144 32.852 36.191 43.820 20 19.337 28.412 31.410 34.170 37.566 45.315 21 20.337 29.615 32.671 35.479 38.932 46.797 22 21.337 30.813 33.924 36.781 40.289 48.268 23 22.337 32.007 35.172 38.076 41.638 49.728 24 23.337 33.196 36.415 39.364 42.980 51.179 25 24.337 34.382 37.652 40.646 44.314 52.620

120

df 훼 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.025 0.01 0.001 26 25.336 35.563 38.885 41.923 45.642 54.052 27 26.336 36.741 40.113 43.195 46.963 55.476 28 27.336 37.916 41.337 44.461 48.278 56.892 29 28.336 39.087 42.557 45.722 49.588 58.301 30 29.336 40.256 43.773 46.979 50.892 59.703 31 30.336 41.422 44.985 48.232 52.191 61.098 32 31.336 42.585 46.194 49.480 53.486 62.487 33 32.336 43.745 47.400 50.725 54.776 63.870 34 33.336 44.903 48.602 51.966 56.061 65.247 35 34.336 46.059 49.802 53.203 57.342 66.619 36 35.336 47.212 50.998 54.437 58.619 67.985 37 36.336 48.363 52.192 55.668 59.893 69.346 38 37.335 49.513 53.384 56.896 61.162 70.703 39 38.335 50.660 54.572 58.120 62.428 72.055 40 39.335 51.805 55.758 59.342 63.691 73.402 41 40.335 52.949 56.942 60.561 64.950 74.745 42 41.335 54.090 58.124 61.777 66.206 76.084 43 42.335 55.230 59.304 62.990 67.459 77.419 44 43.335 56.369 60.481 64.201 68.710 78.750 45 44.335 57.505 61.656 64.410 69.957 80.077 46 45.335 58.641 62.830 66.617 71.201 81.400 47 46.335 59.774 64.001 67.821 72.443 82.720 48 47.335 60.907 65.171 69.023 73.683 84.037 49 48.335 62.038 66.339 70.222 74.919 85.351 50 49.335 63.167 67.505 71.420 76.154 86.661 (Source: VanPool and Leonard 2011) 121

APPENDIX D

CHI-SQUARE MATRICES

122

Mission Escambe Chi-Square Matrices

For the variables of rim type and temper type:

Degree of Freedom = 3 Critical Value = 7.81

TABLE D1 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF FOLDED ONLY RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE) Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Folded 0.3 2.0 1.45 Grog/Not folded 199.4 197.7 0.01 Shell/Folded 4.5 2.2 2.40 Shell/Not folded 221.0 223.2 0.02 Grog and shell/Folded 0.0 1.1 1.10 Grog and shell/Not folded 114.3 113.2 0.01 No shell, no grog/Folded 4.4 4.1 0.02 No shell, no grog/Not folded 406.7 407.0 0.00 Total unique rim sherds 950.6 950.6 흌 ² = 5.01

TABLE D2 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF FOLDED AND PINCHED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Folded and pinched 59.0 16.0 115.56 Grog/Not folded and pinched 140.7 183.7 10.06 Shell/Folded and pinched 3.4 18 11.84 Shell/Not folded and pinched 222.1 207.5 1.03 Grog and shell/Folded and pinched 8.6 9.1 0.03 Grog and shell/Not folded and pinched 105.7 105.2 0.00 No shell, no grog/Folded and pinched 4.8 32.9 24.00 No shell, no grog/Not folded and pinched 406.3 378.2 2.09 Total unique rim sherds 950.6 950.6 흌 ² = 164.61

123

TABLE D3 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF PINCHED ONLY RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Pinched 86.0 31.9 91.75 Grog/Unpinched 113.7 165.7 16.32 Shell/Pinched 7.4 36.0 22.72 Shell/Unpinched 218.1 187.1 5.14 Grog and shell/Pinched 9.1 18.2 4.55 Grog and shell/Unpinched 105.2 94.8 1.14 No shell, no grog/Pinched 49.6 65.7 3.95 No shell, no grog/Unpinched 361.5 341.2 1.21 Total unique rim sherds 950.6 950.6 흌 ² = 146.78

TABLE D4 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF APPLIQUE RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Appliqué 0.0 2.0 2.00 Grog/Not appliqué 199.7 197.7 0.02 Shell/Appliqué 4.0 2.3 1.26 Shell/Not appliqué 221.5 223.2 0.01 Grog and shell/Appliqué 0.0 1.1 1.10 Grog and shell/Not appliqué 114.3 113.2 0.01 No shell, no grog/Appliqué 3.4 4.1 0.12 No shell, no grog/Not appliqué 407.7 407.0 0.00 Total unique rim sherds 950.6 950.6 흌 ² = 4.52

TABLE D5 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF PUNCTATED/TICKED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Punctated 0.0 6.0 6.00 Grog/Not punctated 199.7 193.7 0.19 Shell/ Punctated 20.2 6.8 26.41 Shell/Not punctated 205.3 218.7 0.82 Grog and shell/ Punctated 1.1 3.4 1.56 Grog and shell/Not punctated 113.2 110.9 0.05 No shell, no grog/ Punctated 5.1 12.3 4.21 No shell, no grog/Not punctated 406.0 398.8 0.13 Total unique rim sherds 950.6 950.6 흌 ² = 39.37

124

TABLE D6 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF THICKENED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Thickened 9.0 18.0 4.50 Grog/Not thickened 190.7 181.7 0.45 Shell/ Thickened 4.2 20.3 12.77 Shell/Not thickened 221.3 205.2 1.26 Grog and shell/ Thickened 0.0 10.3 10.30 Grog and shell/Not thickened 114.3 104.0 1.02 No shell, no grog/ Thickened 69.6 37.0 28.72 No shell, no grog/Not thickened 341.5 374.1 2.84 Total rim sherds 950.6 950.6 흌 ² = 61.86

TABLE D7 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF OVERHANG RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Overhang 18.7 14.0 1.58 Grog/Not overhang 181.0 185.7 0.12 Shell/ Overhang 33.1 15.8 18.94 Shell/Not overhang 192.4 209.7 1.43 Grog and shell/ Overhang 24.1 8.0 32.40 Grog and shell/Not overhang 90.2 106.3 2.44 No shell, no grog/ Overhang 26.5 28.8 0.18 No shell, no grog/Not overhang 384.6 382.3 0.01 Total rim sherds 950.6 950.6 흌 ² = 57.10

For the variables of surface treatment and temper type:

Degree of Freedom = 3 Critical Value = 7.81

TABLE D8 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF ROUGHENED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Roughened 785.6 775.3 0.14 Grog/Not roughened 705.3 715.6 0.15 Shell/Roughened 235.9 317.1 20.80 Shell/Not roughened 373.9 292.7 22.53 Grog and shell/Roughened 184.2 208.2 2.77 Grog and shell/Not roughened 216.1 192.1 3.00 No shell, no grog/Roughened 1,149.7 1,048.5 9.77 No shell, no grog/Not roughened 866.6 967.8 10.58 Total decorated sherds 4,517.3 4,517.3 흌 ² = 69.74

125

TABLE D9 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF INCISED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Incised 145.8 313.1 89.40 Grog/Not incised 1,345.1 1,177.8 23.76 Shell/Incised 288.9 128.1 201.85 Shell/Not incised 320.9 481.7 53.68 Grog and shell/Incised 156.3 84.1 61.98 Grog and shell/Not incised 244.0 316.2 16.49 No shell, no grog/Incised 336.7 423.4 17.75 No shell, no grog/Not incised 1,679.6 1,592.9 4.72 Total decorated sherds 4,517.3 4,517.3 흌 ² = 469.63

TABLE D10 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF SLIPPED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Slipped 142.9 119.3 4.67 Grog/Not slipped 1,348.0 1371.6 0.41 Shell/Slipped 27.7 48.8 9.12 Shell/Not slipped 582.1 561.0 0.78 Grog and shell/Slipped 11.2 32.0 13.52 Grog and shell/Not slipped 389.1 368.3 1.17 No shell, no grog/Slipped 201.9 161.3 78.18 No shell, no grog/Not slipped 1,814.4 1,855.0 0.89 Total decorated sherds 4,517.3 4,517.3 흌 ² = 108.74

TABLE D11 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF STAMPED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Stamped 285.3 149.1 124.45 Grog/Not stamped 1,205.6 1,341.8 13.83 Shell/Stamped 6.3 61.0 49.05 Shell/Not stamped 603.5 548.8 5.45 Grog and shell/Stamped 7.8 40.0 25.92 Grog and shell/Not stamped 392.5 360.3 2.88 No shell, no grog/Stamped 172.6 201.6 4.17 No shell, no grog/Not stamped 1,843.7 1,814.7 0.46 Total decorated sherds 4,517.3 4,517.3 흌 ² = 226.21

126

TABLE D12 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF BURNISHED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Burnished 130.1 104.4 6.33 Grog/Not burnished 1,360.8 1,386.5 0.48 Shell/Burnished 11.7 42.7 22.51 Shell/Not burnished 598.1 567.1 1.69 Grog and shell/Burnished 21.4 28.0 1.56 Grog and shell/Not burnished 378.9 372.3 0.12 No shell, no grog/Burnished 137.0 141.1 0.12 No shell, no grog/Not burnished 1,879.3 1,875.2 0.01 Total decorated sherds 4,517.3 4,517.3 흌 ² = 32.82

TABLE D13 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF PUNCTATED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, MISSION ESCAMBE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Punctated 1.2 149.1 146.71 Grog/Not punctated 1,489.7 1,341.8 16.30 Shell/Punctated 39.3 61.0 7.72 Shell/Not punctated 570.5 548.8 0.86 Grog and shell/Punctated 19.4 40.0 10.61 Grog and shell/Not punctated 380.9 360.3 1.18 No shell, no grog/Punctated 18.4 201.6 166.48 No shell, no grog/Not punctated 1,997.9 1,814.7 18.49 Total decorated sherds 4,517.3 4,517.3 흌 ² = 368.35

Blakeley Park Chi-Square Matrices

For the variables of unique rim modes and temper type:

Degree of Freedom = 3 Critical Value = 7.81

No appliqué rims were identified from the Blakeley Park collection.

127

TABLE D14 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF FOLDED ONLY RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Folded 45.2 9.1 143.21 Grog/Not folded 138.2 172.3 6.75 Shell/Folded 2.0 22.3 18.48 Shell/Not folded 443.0 422.8 0.97 Grog and shell/Folded 0.0 9.1 9.1 Grog and shell/Not folded 180.1 173.0 0.29 No shell, no grog Folded 5.8 12.6 3.67 No shell, no grog/Not folded 246.1 239.3 0.19 Total unique rim sherds 1,060.4 1,060.4 흌 ² = 182.66

TABLE D15 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF FOLDED AND PINCHED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Folded and pinched 6.2 3.6 1.88 Grog/Not folded and pinched 175.2 177.8 0.04 Shell/ Folded and pinched 4.4 8.9 2.28 Shell/Not folded and pinched 440.6 436.1 0.05 Grog and shell/ Folded and pinched 2.0 3.6 0.71 Grog and shell/Not folded and pinched 180.1 178.5 0.01 No shell, no grog/ Folded and pinched 11.0 5.0 7.20 No shell, no grog/Not folded and pinched 240.9 246.9 0.15 Total unique rim sherds 1,060.4 1,060.4 흌 ² =12.32

TABLE D16 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF PINCHED ONLY RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Pinched 2.1 1.8 0.05 Grog/Not pinched 179.3 179.6 0.01 Shell/ Pinched 2.4 4.5 0.98 Shell/Not pinched 442.6 440.6 0.01 Grog and shell/ Pinched 0.0 1.8 1.80 Grog and shell/Not pinched 182.1 180.3 0.02 No shell, no grog/ Pinched 2.9 2.5 0.06 No shell, no grog/Not pinched 249.0 249.4 0.01 Total unique rim sherds 1,060.4 1,060.4 흌 ² = 2.94

128

TABLE D17 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF PUNCTATED/TICKED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Punctated 0.0 3.6 3.60 Grog/Not punctated 181.4 177.8 0.07 Shell/Punctated 0.0 8.9 8.90 Shell/Not punctated 445.0 436.1 0.18 Grog and shell/Punctated 14.3 3.6 31.80 Grog and shell/Not punctated 167.8 178.5 0.64 No shell, no grog/Punctated 6.2 5.0 0.29 No shell, no grog/Not punctated 245.7 246.9 0.01 Total unique rim sherds 1,060.4 1,060.4 흌 ² = 45.49

TABLE D18 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF THICKENED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Thickened 0.0 21.8 21.80 Grog/Not thickened 181.4 159.6 2.98 Shell/ Thickened 60.4 53.4 0.92 Shell/Not thickened 384.6 391.6 0.13 Grog and shell/ Thickened 25.0 21.9 0.44 Grog and shell/Not thickened 157.1 160.2 0.06 No shell, no grog/ Thickened 41.9 30.2 4.53 No shell, no grog/Not thickened 210.0 221.7 0.62 Total unique rim sherds 1,060.4 1,060.4 흌 ² = 31.48

TABLE D19 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF OVERHANG RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Overhang 24.8 9.1 27.09 Grog/Not overhang 156.6 172.3 1.43 Shell/ Overhang 13.1 22.3 3.80 Shell/Not overhang 431.9 422.8 0.20 Grog and shell/ Overhang 6.3 9.1 0.86 Grog and shell/Not overhang 175.8 173.0 0.05 No shell, no grog/ Overhang 12.1 12.6 0.02 No shell, no grog/Not overhang 239.8 239.3 0.01 Total unique rim sherds 1,060.4 1,060.4 흌 ² = 33.46

129

For the variables of surface treatment and temper type:

Degree of Freedom = 3 Critical Value = 7.81

TABLE D20 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF ROUGHENED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Roughened 196.5 123.7 42.84 Grog/Not roughened 128.9 201.7 26.28 Shell/Roughened 350.7 367.7 0.79 Shell/Not roughened 616.8 600.0 0.47 Grog and shell/Roughened 189.3 233.5 8.37 Grog and shell/Not roughened 425.2 381.0 5.13 No shell, no grog/Roughened 238.6 256.4 1.24 No shell, no grog/Not roughened 436.2 418.4 0.76 Total decorated sherds 2,582.2 2,582.2 흌 ² = 86.78

TABLE D21 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF INCISED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Incised 23.2 78.1 38.59 Grog/Not incised 302.2 247.3 12.19 Shell/Incised 220.6 232.2 0.58 Shell/Not incised 746.9 735.3 0.18 Grog and shell/Incised 254.7 147.5 77.91 Grog and shell/Not incised 359.8 467.0 24.61 No shell, no grog/Incised 117.5 162.0 12.22 No shell, no grog/Not incised 557.3 512.8 3.86 Total decorated sherds 2,582.2 2,582.2 흌 ² = 170.14

TABLE D22 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF SLIPPED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Slipped 105.7 113.9 0.59 Grog/Not slipped 219.7 211.5 0.32 Shell/Slipped 336.4 338.6 0.01 Shell/Not slipped 631.1 628.9 0.01 Grog and shell/Slipped 168.7 215.1 10.01 Grog and shell/Not slipped 445.8 399.4 5.39 No shell, no grog/Slipped 280.8 236.2 8.42 No shell, no grog/Not slipped 394.0 438.6 4.54 Total decorated sherds 2,582.2 2,582.2 흌 ² = 29.29

130

TABLE D23 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF STAMPED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Stamped 0.0 6.5 6.5 Grog/Not stamped 325.4 318.9 0.13 Shell/Stamped 40.4 19.4 22.73 Shell/Not stamped 927.1 948.2 0.47 Grog and shell/Stamped 0.0 12.3 12.3 Grog and shell/Not stamped 614.5 602.2 0.25 No shell, no grog/Stamped 12.7 13.5 0.05 No shell, no grog/Not stamped 662.1 661.3 0.01 Total decorated sherds 2,582.2 2,582.2 흌 ² = 42.44

TABLE D24 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF BURNISHED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Burnished 0.0 3.3 3.30 Grog/Not burnished 325.4 322.1 0.03 Shell/Burnished 3.0 9.7 4.63 Shell/Not burnished 964.5 957.8 0.05 Grog and shell/Burnished 0.0 6.1 6.10 Grog and shell/Not burnished 614.5 608.4 0.06 No shell, no grog/Burnished 16.2 6.7 13.47 No shell, no grog/Not burnished 658.6 668.1 0.14 Total decorated sherds 2,582.2 2,582.2 흌 ² = 27.78

TABLE D25 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF PUNCTATED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, BLAKELEY PARK Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Punctated 0.0 3.3 3.30 Grog/Not punctated 325.4 322.1 0.03 Shell/Punctated 16.4 9.7 4.63 Shell/Not punctated 951.1 957.8 0.05 Grog and shell/Punctated 1.8 6.1 3.03 Grog and shell/Not punctated 612.7 608.4 0.03 No shell, no grog/Punctated 9.0 6.7 0.79 No shell, no grog/Not punctated 665.8 668.1 0.01 Total decorated sherds 2,582.2 2,582.2 흌 ² = 11.87

131

San Luis Chi-Square Matrices

For the variables of rim type and temper type:

Degree of Freedom = 3 Critical Value = 7.81

No shell or grog and shell tempered rims were recorded at San Luis. Also, the categories “folded and pinched” and “pinched only” were not tested as all rims recorded in those groups were only grog tempered. Finally, no appliqué rims were identified in the San Luis sample.

TABLE D26 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF FOLDED ONLY RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, SAN LUIS Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Folded 516.0 500.0 0.51 Grog/Not folded 6,626.6 6,642.6 0.04 No shell, no grog/Folded 23.6 41.8 7.92 No shell, no grog/Not folded 573.9 555.7 0.60 Total unique rim sherds 7,740.1 7,740.1 흌 ² = 9.07

TABLE D27 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF PUNCTATED/TICKED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, SAN LUIS Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Punctated 1,326.8 1,285.7 1.31 Grog/Not punctated 5,815.8 5,856.9 0.29 No shell, no grog/Punctated 36.4 107.6 47.11 No shell, no grog/Not punctated 561.1 490.0 10.32 Total unique rim sherds 7,740.1 7,740.1 흌 ² = 59.03

TABLE D28 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF THICKENED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, SAN LUIS Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Thickened 512.1 714.3 53.24 Grog/Not thickened 6,630.5 6,428.3 6.36 No shell, no grog/Thickened 272.1 59.8 753.70 No shell, no grog/Not thickened 325.4 537.8 83.89 Total unique rim sherds 7,740.1 7,740.1 흌 ² = 897.19

132

TABLE D29 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF OVERHANG RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, SAN LUIS Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Overhang 1,635.5 1,785.7 12.63 Grog/Not overhang 5,507.1 5,357.0 4.21 No shell, no grog/Overhang 265.4 149.4 90.07 No shell, no grog/Not overhang 332.1 448.1 30.03 Total unique rim sherds 7,740.1 7,740.1 흌 ² = 136.94

For the variables of surface treatment and temper type:

Degree of Freedom = 3 Critical Value = 7.81

Roughened ceramics from San Luis were not tested with the chi-square formula, as only one grog tempered ceramic was recorded. In addition, no slipped or punctated only sherds were recorded and thus were also not included in the test for San Luis.

TABLE D30 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF INCISED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, SAN LUIS Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Incised 3,634.0 3,943.5 24.29 Grog/Not incised 8,316.1 8,006.6 11.96 No shell, no grog/Incised 555.5 274.6 287.34 No shell, no grog/Not incised 276.6 557.5 141.53 Total decorated sherds 12,782.2 12,782.2 흌 ² = 465.12

TABLE D31 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF STAMPED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, SAN LUIS Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Stamped 7,375.4 7,170.0 5.88 Grog/Not stamped 4,574.7 4,780.0 8.82 No shell, no grog/Stamped 246.4 499.3 128.10 No shell, no grog/Not stamped 585.7 332.8 214.12 Total decorated sherds 12,782.2 12,782.2 흌 ² = 356.92

133

TABLE D32 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF BURNISHED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, SAN LUIS Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Burnished 913.9 836.5 7.16 Grog/Not burnished 11,036.2 11,113.6 0.54 No shell, no grog/Burnished 30.2 58.2 13.47 No shell, no grog/Not burnished 801.9 773.9 1.01 Total decorated sherds 12,782.2 12,782.2 흌 ² = 22.18

Fusihatchee Chi-Square Matrices

For the variables of rim type and temper type:

Degree of Freedom = 3 Critical Value = 7.81

TABLE D33 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF FOLDED ONLY RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Shell/Folded 0.0 3.6 3.60 Shell/Not folded 36.2 32.6 0.00 No shell, no grog/Folded 586.4 593.8 0.09 No shell, no grog/Not folded 5,351.4 5,344.0 0.01 Total unique rim sherds 5,974.0 5,974.0 흌 ² = 3.70

TABLE D34 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF FOLDED AND PINCHED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Shell/Folded and pinched 0.0 4.3 4.30 Shell/Not folded and pinched 36.2 31.9 0.58 No shell, no grog/ Folded and pinched 733.6 712.5 0.62 No shell, no grog/Not folded and pinched 5,204.2 5,225.3 0.08 Total unique rim sherds 5,974.0 5,974.0 흌 ² = 5.58

TABLE D35 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF PINCHED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Shell/Pinched 36.2 0.7 1,800.36 Shell/Not pinched 0.0 35.5 35.5 No shell, no grog/Pinched 51.6 118.8 38.01 No shell, no grog/Not pinched 5,886.2 5,819.0 0.78 Total unique rim sherds 5,974.0 5,974.0 흌 ² = 1,874.65

134

TABLE D36 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF APPLIQUE RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Shell/Punctated 0.0 12.7 12.70 Shell/Not punctated 36.2 23.5 6.86 No shell, no grog/Punctated 2,107.2 2,078.2 0.40 No shell, no grog/Not punctated 3,830.6 3,859.6 0.22 Total unique rim sherds 5,974.0 5,974.0 흌 ² = 20.18

TABLE D37 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF PUNCTATED/TICKED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Shell/Punctated 0.0 0.4 0.40 Shell/Not punctated 36.2 35.8 0.01 No shell, no grog/Punctated 52.4 59.4 0.82 No shell, no grog/Not punctated 5,885.4 5,878.4 0.01 Total unique rim sherds 5,974.0 5,974.0 흌 ² = 1.24

TABLE D38 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF THICKENED RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Shell/Thickened 0.0 10.9 10.90 Shell/Not thickened 36.2 25.3 4.69 No shell, no grog/Thickened 1,779.6 1,781.3 0.01 No shell, no grog/Not thickened 4,138.2 4,156.5 0.08 Total unique rim sherds 5,974.0 5,974.0 흌 ² = 15.68

TABLE D39 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF OVERHANG RIMS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Rim Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Shell/Overhang 0.0 3.6 3.60 Shell/Not overhang 36.2 32.6 0.40 No shell, no grog/Overhang 627.0 593.8 1.86 No shell, no grog/Not overhang 5,310.8 5,344.0 0.21 Total unique rim sherds 5,974.0 5,974.0 흌 ² = 6.07

For the variables of surface treatment and temper type:

Degree of Freedom = 3 Critical Value = 7.81

135

TABLE D40 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF ROUGHENED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Roughened 0.0 4.7 4.70 Grog/Not roughened 6.4 1.7 12.99 Shell/Roughened 1,101.2 844.4 78.10 Shell/Not roughened 40.2 296.7 221.75 No shell, no grog/Roughened 9,608.8 9,850.9 5.95 No shell, no grog/Not roughened 3,703.2 3,461.1 16.93 Total decorated sherds 14,459.8 14,459.8 흌 ² = 340.42

TABLE D41 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF INCISED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Incised 0.0 1.2 1.20 Grog/Not incised 6.4 5.2 0.28 Shell/Incised 40.2 205.5 132.96 Shell/Not incised 1,101.2 935.9 29.20 No shell, no grog/Incised 2,556.2 2,396.2 10.68 No shell, no grog/Not incised 10,755.8 10,915.8 2.35 Total decorated sherds 14,459.8 14,459.8 흌 ² = 176.67

TABLE D42 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF SLIPPED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Slipped 6.4 0.1 396.90 Grog/Not slipped 0.0 6.3 6.30 Shell/Slipped 0.0 11.4 11.40 Shell/Not slipped 1,141.1 1,130.0 0.11 No shell, no grog/Slipped 45.8 133.1 57.56 No shell, no grog/Not slipped 13,266.2 13,178.9 0.58 Total decorated sherds 14,459.8 14,459.8 흌 ² = 472.85

136

TABLE D43 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF BURNISHED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE, FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Burnished 0.0 0.2 0.20 Grog/Not burnished 6.4 6.2 0.01 Shell/Burnished 0.0 34.2 34.20 Shell/Not burnished 1,141.4 1,107.2 1.06 No shell, no grog/Burnished 366.4 399.4 2.73 No shell, no grog/Not burnished 12,945.6 12,912.6 0.08 Total decorated sherds 14,459.8 14,459.8 흌 ² = 38.28

TABLE D44 CHI-SQUARE TEST OF PUNCTATED CERAMICS AND TEMPER TYPE FUSIHATCHEE Temper/Surface Treatment Observed Expected (O-E)²/E Grog/Punctated 0.0 0.3 0.30 Grog/Not punctated 6.4 6.1 0.01 Shell/Punctated 0.0 57.1 57.10 Shell/Not punctated 1,141.4 1,084.3 3.01 No shell, no grog/Punctated 733.2 665.6 6.87 No shell, no grog/Not punctated 12,578.8 12,646.4 0.36 Total decorated sherds 14,459.8 14,459.8 흌 ² = 67.65

137