GLADES PERIOD SETTLEMENT PATTERNS in the EVERGLADES CULTURE

AREA

By

Paul Callsen

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

The Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

December 2008

© Copyright by Paul Callsen 2008

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank my supervisory committee, Dr. Brown, Dr. Broadfield and Dr. Petuch for their patience and sage advice. In addition, I offer much thanks to Dr. Christopher

McVoy of the South Florida Water Management District without whose extraordinary generosity this work could not have been accomplished. Over these many months I have received much needed encouragement from Florida Atlantic University Anthropology

Department alumni, Gary Beiter and Peter Ferdinando and from Christopher Eck,

Broward County Historic Preservation Officer. Their suggestions helped me keep on track. Trevor Feagin provided guidance and advice relating to the intricacies of geographic information systems. Alanna Carinio provided suggestions on document preparation and format and Don Hampshire offered excellent guidance regarding spreadsheets. Finally, I thank Dr. Michael Harris, Chairperson of the Anthropology

Department for his wise counsel and understanding support.

iv

ABSTRACT

Author: Paul Callsen

Title: Glades Period Settlement Patterns in the Everglades Culture Area

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Thesis Advisor: Clifford Brown, Ph.D.

Degree: Master of Arts

Year: 2008

The manner in which human settlements are arranged across the landscape holds clues to a society’s internal social relationships and may indicate how a society fits into its environment.

This research investigates settlement patterns during the formative pre-historic periods in

Southeast Florida, the three Glades Periods (BC 500- AD 1750). During this time span, the inhabitants of the region adapted to a changing climate and environment by occupying places that were conducive to their particular hunter-gatherer way of life. However, while the Glades people moved from one locale to another, they never altered the manner in which they primarily sought sustenance; fishing and hunting. Evidence suggests substantial population increases beginning in the Glades II Period and shift of habitations due to flooding of earlier and lower sites.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES………………………….………………………..……..…….. xi

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………...…………..… xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………………….…. 1

Problem and Purpose…………………………………….……………..….…. 1

Thesis Organization…………………………………………………………… 2

CHAPTER TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSFORMATION and LOSS of… the ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD…………………………………………. 4

CHAPTER THREE: PHYSIOGRAPHY and ENVIRONMENTAL ZONES..….. 11

CHAPTER FOUR: STUDY AREA DEFINITION and CULTURE HISTORY… 19

The Study Area..……………………………………………………………… 22

Chronology…………………………………..……………………………….. 24

Ceramics: Time Period Markers…………………………………….……...… 28

CHAPTER FIVE: The FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE: A METHODOLOGICAL DILEMMA……………….………….…………… 39

FMSF GIS Content…….……………………………………………………... 41

Settlement Site Types and Functions…………………………………….…... 45

Can the FMSF Be Used for Large Scale Glades Settlement Study in Southeast Florida?……………………………………………………………... 48

CHAPTER SIX: PROBLEM STATEMENT and SIGNIFICANCE……………... 55

Hunter-gatherers: A View of Modern Populations……………………………. 55

vi

The Theory Applied to the Everglades Culture Area……………………….… 58

Problem Significance: To What Extent Do the Glades People Fit the Theory? 61

Social Complexity: Is There Evidence?…………………………...………...... 67

CHAPTER SEVEN: HYPOTHESES and METHODS………………………..… 75

Hypotheses…………………………………………………….….….….…..... 76

(H1) Site densities in the interior of Pine Forests and along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge are similar to those in the Ridge and Slough and Peat Transverse Glades……………………………….… 76

(H2) There is a pattern of sites distributed in and around Cypress Sloughs located north of the Peat Transverse Glades that Flowed toward the estuary……………….…………………………. 76

(H3) Sites are located along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge in a linear distribution……………………………………………… 76

(H4) There is a pattern of large sites on the interior, western, side of the Pine Forests and Atlantic Coastal Ridge……………….. 77

(H5) The density of sites within the Peat Transverse Glades and east of the north-south alignment of the western edge of the Pine Forests is similar to site density in the Ridge and Slough…………... 77

(H6) A majority of large and significant mainland sites are located Coastal Marshes, Marl Marshes, Peat Transverse Glades and upland forests……………………………………………..…….. 77

(H7) The density of sites within the various distinct environmental zones changes throughout the three Glades periods. ……………… 77

(H8) On the Pine Islands, including Long Key, sites are located at roughly the same elevation throughout the three Glades Periods and they reflect the same numeric count changes as those found in the Ridge and Slough through each of the three Glades Periods in succession………….………….………………………………...... 78

(H9) Within the Ridge and Slough, sites are distributed uniformly……… 78

(H10) Large sites are uniformly spaced in relation to each other………... 78

vii (H11) There is a linear pattern of sites leading from the Transverse Glades and rivers toward significant sites in the interior…………... 78

(H12) The distribution and distance between large and small sites 79 exhibits a discernible pattern………………………………….…..

Methods……………………………………………………………….………. 79

CHAPTER EIGHT: RESEARCH RESULTS……………………………………. 89

(H1)…………………………………………………………….………..... 89

(H2)…………………………………………..………….………………... 91

(H3)……………………………………………………………………….. 94

(H4)..…………………………………………………………………..….. 95

(H5)……………………………………………….. ……………….…….. 99

(H6)………………………………………………………………………. 101

(H7)……………………………………………………………..………… 105

(H8)…………………………………………………………………..…… 142

(H9)…………………………………………………………………..…… 148

(H10)…………………………………………………………………….... 151

(H11)………………………………………………………………..…….. 153

(H12)………………………………………………………………..…….. 156

Summary and Conclusions…………………………………………………… 161

CHAPTER NINE: PROSPECTS for FUTURE STUDIES…………….………... 164

APPENDIX A: 1974 TOPOGRAPHIC-ECOLOGIC MAP OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA (PARKER)………………………...………………... 168

APPENDIX B: 1974 SOUTH FLORIDA SURFACE DRAINAGE (PARKER).. 169

APPENDIX C: SOUTHEAST FLORIDA MODERN LANDMARKS…………. 170

viii APPENDIX D: METADATA FOR EVERGLADES CULTURE AREA BOUNDARY GIS DATALAYER FLORIDA DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES…………..………………….... 171

APPENDIX E: BROWARD GLADES I SITES……………………………….... 172

APPENDIX F: BROWARD GLADES II SITES……………………………….. 173

APPENDIX G: BROWARD GLADES III SITES………………………………. 175

APPENDIX H: DADE GLADES I SITES………………………………………. 176

APPENDIX I: DADE GLADES II SITES…………………………..…………. 177

APPENDIX J: DADE GLADES III SITES…………………………………….. 179

APPENDIX K: MONROE GLADES I SITES………………………………….. 181

APPENDIX L: MONROE GLADES II SITES…………………………………. 181

APPENDIX M: MONROE GLADES III SITES………………………………... 182

APPENDIX N: METADATA FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES GIS DATA LAYER FLORIDA DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES…………………………………………………... 183

APPENDIX O: FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE -GIS ATTRIBUTE FILE SAMPLE…….………………..…………………..….….. 188

APPENDIX P: BROWARD ALL GLADES SITES……………………………. 190

APPENDIX Q: DADE ALL GLADES SITES………………………………….. 193

APPENDIX R: MONROE ALL GLADES SITES………….………………...…. 198

APPENDIX S: PALM BEACH ALL GLADES SITES………………………… 199

APPENDIX T: HENDRY ALL GLADES SITES……………………………..... 199

APPENDIX U: SOUTH FLORIDA SOILS METADATA……………………… 200

APPENDIX V: LARGE/SIGNIFICANT GLADES II SITE DENSITIES BY LANDSCAPE ZONE/GEOGRAPHIC AREA………….…. 202

APPENDIX W: LARGE/SIGNIFICANT GLADES III SITE DENSITIES BY LANDSCAPE ZONE/GEOGRAPHIC AREA………………… 203

ix APPENDIX X: EVERGLADES CULTURE AREA SITE OCCUPATION BY PERIOD GLADES I THROUGH GLADES II………….… 204

APPENDIX Y: EVERGLADES CULTURE AREA SITE OCCUPATION BY PERIOD GLADES II THROUGH GLADES III………….. 204

APPENDIX Z: 1974 LAND USE COVER METADATA……….……………… 205

REFERENCES CITED…………………………………………………………… 207

PERSONAL COMMUNICATION………………………………………………. 215

x TABLES

Table 1. Geographic And Landscape Surface Areas Within The Everglades Culture Area………………………………..…….. 16

Table 2. All Glades Site Densities By Landscape Zone/Geographic Area Within The Everglades Culture Area……………………………… 21

Table 3. Glades Chronological Sequence…………………………………… 27

Table 4. Glades Pottery Types By Period………………………….……….. 31

Table 5. Glades I Site Densities By Landscape Zone/Geographic Area Within The Everglades Culture Area……………………….... 36

Table 6. Glades II Site Densities By Landscape Zone/Geographic Area Within The Everglades Culture Area……………….……….. 37

Table 7. Glades III Site Densities By Landscape Zone/Geographic Area Within The Everglades Culture Area………………………… 38 . Table 8. Number Of Glades Time Period Classified Sites Compared To Glades Time Period Undesignated Sites……………………….. 45

Table 9. Maximum Cultural Data Required To Test Hypotheses………….. 51

Table 10. Peat Transverse Glades - Ridge And Slough Site Density Comparison……………………………………………………….. 100

Table 11. Large-Significant Glades II And III Site Lists Combined………... 104

Table 12. Large-Significant Mainland Glades III Site Catchment (10 Km Radius) Environmental Zone Content In Dade And Broward……………………………………………………………. 110

Table 13. All Three Glades Period Site Densities By Landscape Zone/Geographic Area Within The Everglades Culture Area…….. 113

xi Table 14. Distribution Of Glades I And Glades II Site Counts Within Geographic And Landscape Zones In The Everglades Culture Area 115

Table 15. Glades I Sites Period Abandonment Comparison, Dade- Broward……………………………………………………………. 120

Table 16. Distribution Of Glades II And Glades III Site Counts Within Geographic And Landscape Zones In The Everglades Culture Area 131

Table 17. Glades II Sites Period Abandonment Comparison, Dade- Broward………………………………………………..………..… 132

Table 18. Glades III Interior Freshwater Wetland Site Occupation, Dade and Broward Counties……..…………………………………………... 136

Table 19. Pine Island-Sam Jones Sites All Glades Periods……………….…. 145

Table 20. Pine Island - Ridge And Slough Site Density Comparison……….. 146

Table 21. Ridge And Slough Period Designated Nearest Neighbor Geo-Statistical Summary………………………………………….. 150

Table 22. Large Sites Nearest Neighbor, Glades II And III…………….……. 152

Table 23. Distances From Selected River And Peat Transverse Glades Sites To Selected Interior Large Sites, Glades II And III, Kilometers….. 156

Table 24. Possible Central Place Patterned Sites In Glades III………………. 159

xii FIGURES

Figure 1. South Florida Landscapes………………………………..……….. 18

Figure 2. All Glades Period Sites in the Everglades Culture Area…………. 20

Figure 3. Everglades Culture Area………………………………………….. 23

Figure 4. Glades I Site Distribution in the Everglades Culture Area……….. 33

Figure 5. Glades II Site Distribution in the Everglades Culture Area….…... 34

Figure 6. Glades III Site Distribution in the Everglades Culture Area……… 35

Figure 7. All Cultural Resources Reported in the Florida Master Site File.... 44

Figure 8. FMSF Archaeological Survey Compared to Urban Growth.……. 52

Figure 9. Several Sites Referenced in Text…………………………………. 62

Figure 10. Monumental Glades Sites………………………………………… 73

Figure 11. Sites on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge………………………………. 90

Figure 12. Sites on Broward Cypress Slough and Atlantic Coastal Ridge…... 93

Figure 13. Possible Interior and Coastal Site Pairs……….………………….. 96

Figure 14. Sites on Peat Transverse Glades………………………………….. 98

Figure 15. Large or Significant Glades II Sites …………………………..…. 106

Figure 16. Large or Significant Glades III Sites …………………………….. 107

Figure 17. Large or Significant Glades II Site Catchments………………….. 108

Figure 18. Large or Significant Glades III Site Catchments ………………... 109

Figure 19. Glades I Through Glades II Site Distribution …………………… 114

xiii

Figure 20. Glades II Through Glades III Site Distribution ………………….. 128

Figure 21. Pine Island Glades I, II, II and All……………………….………. 147

Figure 22. Glades II & III Possible Interior-Coastal Site Communication Links…………………………………………………………….... 155

Figure 23. Possible Central Place Patterns…………………………………... 158

xiv

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Problem and Purpose

This thesis endeavors to examine settlement patterns in the Everglades Area during the three Glades culture periods. Specifically, the locations of archaeological sites will be analyzed in an attempt to understand intersite relationships and the placement of sites as it relates to their general ecological environments. Socio-cultural anthropologists, through the study of the behavior of living populations of hunter-gatherer societies, have postulated a number of forms that such societies might assume and behaviors in which they might commonly engage. Foraging patterns and concomitant typical settlement patterns have been of particular interest. The settlements themselves, in the form of assemblages of artifacts, ecofacts and features, as material remains, constitute a significant portion of the archaeological record. In this regard, the above-mentioned idealized models of organization and settlement provide a framework into which our specific knowledge of the regional archaeological record, and especially geo-spatial related information may be placed.

This research will employ a Geographic Information System (GIS) as the primary tool to arrange, analyze and present data. The GIS, once the pertinent data sets have been supplied, will perform relevant measurements and statistical analyses and will provide a

1 platform for the formulation of maps that will be, in themselves, the subject of further visual analysis.

Using maps recently developed at South Florida Water Management District’s

(SFWMD) Everglades Division and site information contained in the Florida Master Site

File (FMSF), this study will explore settlement patterns during the three Glades Periods

(Widmer 1988: 79-82) within the Everglades Area (Carr and Beriault 1984: 12) with the exception of that portion of the Area that lies in the Florida Keys.

Thesis Organization

This work is presented in nine chapters. Chapter One establishes the general purpose of this work and outlines the structure of this thesis. Chapter Two offers a cautionary note relating to the study of archaeology in Southeast Florida. Although it is the case that the archaeological record, whether site specific or regional, is rarely, if ever, absolutely pristine, and therefore the disruption of that record is an ever-present fact of archaeology,

Chapter Two considers the extraordinary significance of the negative impact of development and the destructive power of the natural environment on the local archaeological record. In addition to urban and sub-urban development, one of the fundamental problems that faces researchers of settlement patterns in the subject area is the remarkable anthropogenic transformation of the regional environment resulting from the construction of canals beginning in the 20th Century.

Chapter Three discusses the geography of broadly defined environmental zones found in Southeast Florida. A focus of this research explores the preferences of indigenous

2 people for certain of these broadly defined zones. This thesis introduces new approaches to general physiography and environmental zone in which pre-historic people lived.

Chapter Four sets out the cultural, chronological and geographic parameters within which this research is conducted.

Chapter Five considers, in great detail, the many positive aspects of the Florida

Master Site File, one of the two key data sets employed in the study. Chapter Five, perhaps more importantly, recognizes and explores the significance of the File’s many flaws and limitations. Chapter Six reviews selected anthropological theories treating hunter-gatherer societies and offers some of the propositions that have been developed relating to the nature of social stratification and some of the evidential clues used to interpret social stratification in the archaeological record. From the literature review the research questions that lie at the base of this research are developed.

Chapter Seven sets out the hypotheses that give structure to the research questions posed in the previous chapter. Flowing directly from the hypotheses, and structured by them, are the various methods that will be employed to test the hypotheses. In Chapter

Eight the findings of the research for each of the hypotheses is presented. Presentations in either map or tabular form, or both, support and elucidate many of the findings. Finally

Chapter Nine discusses the several research topics that might be pursued in the future.

The further investigation into each of these topical areas became apparent during the formation of this work.

This chapter briefly lays out the structure of this thesis and the topics covered by each chapter.

3

CHAPTER TWO

Environmental Transformation and Loss of the Archaeological Record

Southeast Florida, in its current urban manifestation, could not exist without its pervasive system of canals and lakes. However, the drained and almost flood proof

Southeast Florida, in many respects, little resembles the place that it once was. For better or for worse this is a fact. This chapter reviews aspects of the environmental transformation that has taken place as result of drainage and aspects of archaeological site destruction that have hindered research into aboriginal settlement patterns in Southeast

Florida, the subject of this study.

The excavation of the initial segments of the canal system were begun during the period of 1907 through 1909 (Parker 1974: 18) and resulted in the development of the

Miami Canal and the North New River Canal. These canals had several purposes. First among these was often referred to as “land reclamation”, a popular theme in Florida history. Much of the land west of the two upland land forms, the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and the pine forests and flats would annually flood but those marshy areas showed promise for farming and ranching and the first canals would point the way for future development. Second, the canals provided flood protection for the already developed lands immediately surrounding them. Third, these human made rivers provided simple surface water supply for the growing cities of Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. Finally, the

4 canal system allowed for boat and barge transport to and from the agricultural areas near

Lake Okeechobee. One hundred years ago no one thought of the long term, and arguably irreversible, detrimental impacts that the canal system would inflict on the viability of that mosquito ridden swamp, the Everglades.

Although it is now far larger and more complex, the canal system fundamentally continues to play much the same role as it did a century ago. Now, however, transportation has been replaced by recreation as a primary use. Ironically, as water levels in the eastern sections of the Everglades have been lowered to allow for development, many parts to the west, in the South Florida Water Management District Conservation

Areas now exhibit deeper water more often and for longer periods of time during most years. For example, by the 1960’s most tree islands in Water Conservation Area 2A had disappeared due to high water (Orem et al. 2002: 155).

Unfortunately, prior to the dredging of the canals with all of the environmental change that the activity would entail, sufficient detailed mapping, measurement and study never took place. As large sections of the Everglades dried, plant communities slowly changed. Peat layers burned and were not replenished or they otherwise oxidized and land surface levels subsided. Faunal populations, responding to the alterations in food type and supply, changed in terms of numbers and composition. Environmental baselines were forever lost. Because of the uncertainty of accuracy and cost, detailed depictions of the environment of pre-drainage Southeast Florida were never developed. As recently as

2003, Patricia Seymoure (2003: 36) could locate no digital databases providing a useful representation of transverse glades. In addition, in that same year John Turck (2003: 46), who investigated Paleo-Indian and Archaic sites on a larger scale than this study, also

5 noted the lack of digitized paleoenvironmental vegetation maps and therefore chose to employ a modern vegetation map as a proxy. Turck recognized that his map data was, given its scale, rather generalized. In addition to the two abovementioned Florida Atlantic

University graduate students, two others, Brian Steinberg (1976) and Donald Richardson

(1976) had produced detailed vegetation maps of eastern Broward and Palm Beach

Counties, respectively, from the oldest available series of aerial photographs taken of

South Florida, 1940. Although the environment pictured in these aerial photos had already undergone over 30 years of transformation due to the existence of several of the major canals, these paper maps at least provide a manner by which general site conditions can be viewed. Both the Steinberg (1976) and Richardson (1976) paper maps, however, exhibit a notable degree of geo-spatial distortion and, therefore, are limited for the purpose at hand.

All this does not bode well for archaeologists seeking to investigate Southeast

Florida’s pre-history at the regional level. Without adequate detailed representations of the paleoenvironment, archaeological researchers have been unable to reasonably pursue some of the questions relating to settlement across the area. The significance of environmental degradation, as it relates to the study of the regional archaeological record cannot be understated.

In addition to the environmental destruction generally described above, urban development, nature and, even to a degree, formal archaeological study, have not been kind to the archaeological record in the region. In the cases of the first three dynamics just mentioned, the archaeological record has suffered extensive destruction, but in the last, it has endured a measure of neglect. As such, the archaeological record is, and will

6 be, more incomplete and distorted than it is in other regions. Given these facts a cautionary comment is in order.

In Southeast Florida, the bulldozer has clearly outraced the trowel. Many sites, both coastal and interior, were destroyed before legislation that protects cultural resources was in place or before adequate investigation could be conducted. For example, in a report of a survey of historic and pre-historic cultural resources prepared for the Broward County

Historical Commission, Carr et al. (1995: 82) suggest that 75% of the archaeological record had been destroyed or severely altered in the particular area of study constituting

74 square miles in the southeastern portion of the County. In like manner, Ryan Wheeler

(2002: 113), writing about Palm Beach County, notes that “Dramatic population growth and associated development within the last 50 years has had a negative impact on archaeological sites in the area” and that “ Similar small sites likely once existed in

Coastal Palm Beach county, but have been lost to development…” Writing of Miami in

Dade County, Jerald Milanich (1995:52) relates “But none of the large sites survived the onslaught of the real estate boom that began in Florida in the 1920s.” However, Milanich overstates the case of the destruction of the archaeological record when he writes “The material heritage of the Tequesta and other native people of southeast Florida has almost been totally erased.” (1995: 53) The small portion of Monroe County encompassed in this study has undergone virtually no development.

Coastal sites, even prior to urban development were subject to regular erosoinal processes resulting from tropical cyclones. R. Cecil Gentry (1974: 74) points out that the annual probability of a tropical storm system striking south Florida is 20%. Using more complete data contained in a computer model, James Elsner and Brian Bossak (2004: 347)

7 found that “As expected, the largest annual probability in the range of 12 to 25% for hurricane winds occurred over southern Florida and eastern North Carolina.” Jeffery

Donnelly and Thompson Webb (2004: 59) make the rather apparent observation that

“Intense hurricanes can modify coastal landforms…” In this regard Steve Dasovich (1999:

273) notes the distortional effect of such storms on the size and composition of coastal sites and emphasizes the archaeological significance of such a fact.

Of course, not all hurricanes are created equal. Donnelly and Webb (2004: 88) note that approximately 30% of landfalling hurricanes in the United States during the twentieth century were of Category 3 intensity, while only about 11% were of Category 4 or 5 intensity. That is, in recent history 30% of landfalling hurricanes posses sustained winds of 111-130 miles per hour and 11% struck with sustained winds of 131-155 miles per hour for Category 4 and above as measured on the Safford-Simpson Scale.

However, recent study has shown that the relative number of high intensity storms of

Category 4 or 5 was greater in the past. This fact may prove to have great significance for the interpretation of the archaeological record in South Florida. Paleotempestologist

Kam-biu Liu, through the study of stratified sediments deposited in coastal lakes by storm surge overwash along the Gulf Coast, has determined the following. “The recent millennium (the last 1,000 years) has been a quiescent period of low hurricane activity, but it was proceeded by a “hyperactive’ period from about 3,400 to 1,000 years ago” (Liu

2004:13). Referring to the higher frequency of intense storm epoch Liu (2004:43) states

During this period, the Western lake area was directly hit by category 4 or 5 hurricanes about five times per millennium, indicating a return period of approximately 200 years, or a landfall probability of 0.5% per year. By contrast, only one landfall by catastrophic hurricanes occurred during the 1,000 to 0-yr B.P. period, implying a return period of 1,000 years for the recent millennium, or a probability of only 0.1% per year. 8 The fact that the end of the epoch of higher catastrophic storm landfall closely coincides with the beginning of the Glades III period in approximately 1100 A.D. may be more than an engaging coincidence and therefore will be considered at greater length later in this work.

That the epoch of higher catastrophic storm landfall covers all of the Glades I and

Glades II periods has implications for the archaeological record inland and beyond the coast. Every hurricane causes some “tree fall”, the occurrence of whole trees, including their root systems being blown over thus disturbing the soil surrounding the root system.

This author has encountered no discussion of tree fall in the literature despite the fact that soil stratigraphy, and hence artifact temporal relationships, on confined tree islands and hammocks would be extensively disturbed by every tree fall event. In addition, the soils themselves do not lend themselves to the preservation and observation of features such as living floors. As such, the excavation of very few, if any, living floors is noted in the literature nor have they been observed often by archaeologists working in the area (Gary

Beiter, personal communication, 12/15/05).

Given that taphonomic processes are universal, historic urban and agricultural development widespread, site destruction resulting from war and looting common and the aftermath of bad archaeology not unknown, it is said that no archaeological field record in any area is pristine. As such, the degradation of the archaeological record in Southeast

Florida is a matter of degree. However, the hypotheses presented in Chapter Seven have been developed with the aforementioned data weaknesses in mind. The questions proposed and tested fit well with the data that is known and the reliability of the FMSF is discussed a length in Chapter Five.

9 In closing, we see that both humans and nature have combined to work against our retrieval and understanding of the archaeological record in Southeast Florida. Despite certain gaps in this less than pristine archaeological data set, useful hypotheses relating to

Glades period settlement patterns can be formulated. Great potential for a deeper understanding of the region’s unique pre-historic populations remains.

10

CHAPTER THREE

Physiography and Environmental Zones

The physiography of Broward, Dade, southern Palm Beach and mainland Monroe counties, is often described as being composed of five distinct zones called, from east to west: coast and estuary; Atlantic Coastal Ridge; sandy pine flats; the Everglades, including “tree islands”; and transverse glades. Pine flats bind the Everglades on its west side as well as its east side. Jonathan Dean (2002) described these natural band-like zones, which run parallel to each other, in a northeast east to southwest orientation, in detail.

The Atlantic Coastal Ridge functions as the eastern watershed containment feature guiding the slow flows of the Everglades in a southerly direction as they proceed on their journey from their headwaters north of Lake Okeechobee toward their final destination in

Florida Bay. Amy Felmley (1991: 16) notes that the Atlantic Coastal Ridge rises to elevations of 8 to 24 feet above mean sea level and possesses an average width of 5 miles.

Numerous points along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge are low enough that the some fresh water from the Everglades would flow in an easterly direction to tide. These low points of water discharge are called transverse glades.

For the purpose of this study "transverse glades" are understood to be the eastward extension of surface hydraulics and vegetation such as swamp, marsh and wet prairie

11 (Steinberg 1976: 6-16) common to the Everglades and extending to the coastal estuary.

Gerald G. Parker (1974: 26) notes, in map form (Appendices A and B), that the Atlantic

Coastal Ridge was breached and therefore carried fresh water flows from the Everglades to the coast in at least four locations in the northern half of the study area in Broward

County. The Parker (1974) maps are good examples of the level of environmental detail of pre-drainage environments available to researchers until recently. The Oleta and the

Miami Rivers constitute two other important transverse glades in Dade County. The most southerly transverse glade, Taylor Slough, is itself one of the major watercourses draining the Everglades in its primary north to south flow orientation. Furthermore, Parker (1974:

19) notes that the Atlantic Coastal Ridge was sufficiently porous to allow ground water flow from the Everglades where groundwater movement toward tide was induced by interior water elevations of 8-10 feet above Mean Sea Level. The resulting springs along the coast provided fresh water that did not depend directly on local overland flows. The most recent and now georectified maps prepared by Christopher McVoy (2008) designate transverse glades south of the New River and north of the Miami River as “peat transverse glades” because of their soil composition. (Figure 1) For the purpose of this study, I have designated the western reaches of the transverse glades of northern Broward County, that are known as the North Fork of the New River, Cypress Creek, and the Hillsborough system as “cypress sloughs.”

Immediately west of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge lie the sandy pine flats that contain elevated well-drained soils and therefore, are relatively dry compared to most other South

Florida environmental zones. Nevertheless, the pine flats were capable of holding pools of fresh water under certain conditions as exemplified in the 1940 Series of Aerial photos

12 (Personal communication, Christopher McVoy, 9/22/06).

Scattered throughout the Everglades are hundreds of “tree islands”. Carr et al.

(1991:6) suggest that most tree islands originate from the existence of simple low knolls composed of limestone that provide sufficient elevation to allow for the propagation of certain floral species. Organic material caught on these pioneer plants in turn constituted the source of material for soil formation. The islands grew by accretion over time. Debra

Willard et al. (2003: 142) indicate that environmental data collected to date do not indicate whether or not tree islands formed during specific periods of climatic variation or if they

"…were formed at random times throughout the region." However, a newer publication by Willard et al. (2006) posits that tree islands form and mature during multi-decadal droughts.

Parenthetically, while some tree islands within the SFWMD jurisdiction have recognized cultural resources located on them and therefore are listed in the FMSF, others in the SFWMD jurisdiction, perhaps most, have yet to be formally assessed by cultural resource managers (Personal communication, Christopher Eck, 3/29/2004). In this regard, approximately the entire western half of Broward County and the northwestern quarter of

Dade County lie within the jurisdiction of the SFWMD that does not pursue systematic archaeological work within its area of control (Rick Householder, personal communication, 3/30/2004). The significance of this fact will become apparent as the cultural area in which this work will be pursued is described below.

Finally, Carr et al. (1991:7) describe an anomalous geological feature located in central Broward County known as the “…Pine Islands, a group of sandy ridges with elevations of up to 29 feet above sea level.” Geologically, the Pine Islands are not at all

13 characteristic of the ubiquitous tree islands although they are similar to the tree islands in that they were located well within the general Everglades environment and were surrounded by fresh water all or most of the time. For this study, because the Pine Islands, including its western reach, Long Key, in their entirety fall within the larger environmental zone, the Ridge and Slough, the archaeological sites found thereon have been aggregated with those of the later environmental zone.

For the purposes of settlement pattern research, the significance of the physiographic zones is that they each possess distinct characteristics, advantages and disadvantages for hunter-gatherers. These characteristics, including land elevation, the availability of flora, fauna, shelter, fresh water, fire wood, the presence or absence of insect pests and the proximity of transportation routes might be of interest to hunter-gatherer populations during various seasons or during exceptional environmental events such as tropical cyclones or wildfires.

Christopher McVoy has endeavored to form a detailed characterization of the

Everglades’ pre-drainage ecology. McVoy’s (Personal communication, 9/22/06) geo- rectified reconstruction of pre-drainage Southeast Florida is based upon a multiplicity of sources such as the 1940 Series of Aerial Photos, soils maps, pre-drainage plat maps, and other 19th century maps of the subject area. In this regard, the aforementioned sources served to draw the boundary lines of the various distinct environmental zones. In addition, through a study of the narratives found in historical records and reports of early

European and American travelers and settlers, McVoy was able to more adequately assess the nature of soils, vegetation and specific ecological conditions in the subject locales

(McVoy, personal communication, 12/13/07).

14 However, because his research interests, purposes and orientation did not require the depiction of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, pine flats and the cypress sloughs leading to the northern transverse glades nor the mangrove swamps, McVoy did not define the those particular environmental and geological features in detail. As such, for the purpose of this study, and in order to adjust the original South Florida Landscapes representation to its application to pre-historic settlement pattern research, maps defining additional landscape types not found in the original were developed. These landscape types are Barrier Islands,

Mangroves, Pine Forests and Uplands, Cypress Sloughs and Western Boundary Cypress.

Within the geographic area of research that is the subject of this settlement pattern study,

McVoy (2008) referred to the largest aspect of the landscape, the board expanse subject to fresh water flows in the Everglades, as Ridge and Sough. The Peat Transverse Glades lie between present day Miami and Ft. Lauderdale and the Perrine Marl Marshes lie south of

Miami but east of the Ridge and Slough and Taylor Slough. The Perrine Marl Marshes cut through the upland Everglades Keys. West of the Everglades Keys lies the Rockland

Marl Marsh. Finally, the Ochopee Marl Marsh is located west of the main course of fresh water flow in the southern end of the Everglades, the Shark River component of the Ridge and Slough. (Figure 1)

The surface areas associated with each landscape type within the region of study, the

Everglades Culture Area as discussed below, are found in Table 1. Note that the surface area subject to analysis, that which lies outside the SFWMD jurisdiction, and designated as “SFWMD Clipped” is 7,264.69 square kilometers. The aggregate area found within the

SFWMD jurisdiction is 2,774.38 square kilometers. The Pine Island Ridge complex is located entirely within the Ridge and Slough, and therefore is aggregated with the Ridge

15 and Slough for analytical purposes.

Nevertheless, the manner in which he defined certain environmental zones seems to more appropriately shape the formation of anthropological hypotheses. That is, settlement analysis is better considered in the context of Ridge and Slough, Peat Transverse Glades and Marl marshes than in terms of the all-encompassing “Everglades.” In conclusion, not

Table 1 Geographic and Landscape Surface Areas within the Everglades Culture Area _____ Square kilometers SFWMD SFWMD Landscapes included clipped Difference

Everglades Keys 533.26 533.26 Eastern Marshes 17.91 17.91 Ochopee Marl Marsh 563.99 557.97 6.02 Peat Transverse Glades 61.6 61.6 Perrine Marl Marsh 945.85 945.85 Rockland Marl Marsh 624.02 624.02 Ridge and Slough -4959.64 -2261.35 SamJones - Pine Island Ridge, Long Key -2.58 -2.58 Ridge and Slough with Sam Jones 4962.26 2263.93 2698.33 Sawgrass Plains 269.66 199.63 70.03 Taylor Slough 47.49 47.49 Barrier Islands 143.87 143.87 Mangroves 1291.75 1291.75 Pine Forests and Uplands (Broward, N. Dade) 414.52 414.52 Cypress Sloughs (Broward) 151.19 151.19 Western Boundary Cypress 11.7 11.7 Total 10039.07 7264.69 2774.38 Source: SFWMD, Everglades Division only does the geo-rectified digital map of South Florida’s pre-drainage environmental zones created by Christopher McVoy (2008) provide a framework for evaluation of archaeological sites in their settings that was previously not available, it also can help shape the way anthropologists think about pre-historic settlement during the Glades

16 Periods in the region. It is noteworthy that McVoy was not in any way guided by archaeologically related data.

Although McVoy’s environmental representation relies partly on 19th Century data

and therefore is a depiction of South Florida’s environmental areas at that point in time.

Whether or not this precise description holds true for earlier periods cannot be known

without further ecological research. However, there is no reason to believe that South

Florida’s environment and the landscape zone composition and their boundaries depicted

in Figure 1 had changed more than marginally since the Glades Periods II and III. That

is, over time peat accumulation and new tree island formation would have continued but

the shapes of the environmental zones would not have substantially changed. Appendix

C is a map of Southeast Florida that incorporates key geographic features found in Figure

1 and that depicts several modern landmarks that may be employed as references in the

interpretation of relative placement of archaeological data.

17

Figure 1 South Florida Landscapes

18

CHAPTER FOUR

Study Area Definition and Culture History

This chapter reviews a sample of previous fieldwork that has interpreted the

archaeological record of the subject area. It also presents a brief discussion of the

formulation of the culture area as it is frequently accepted and the culture sequence found

in the study area.

As mentioned previously, organized professional and avocational archaeological

fieldwork ahs been conducted in the study area since the early 20th Century (Carr et al.

1991: 15). Despite the site destruction and degradation mentioned in Chapter Two, this

long period of fieldwork, of varying quality, has resulted in the identification of a

noticeable number of Glades sites. All of the Glades Period sites located within the

Everglades Culture Area listed in the FMSF are shown in Figure 2. There are three areas

of note in the Ridge and Slough that contain few, if any, sites. The areas north and south of the Pine Islands, the area northwest of the Miami River and the area south of the

SFWMD jurisdiction boundary apparently possess no Glades sites. These anomalies may be attributable to the absence of tree islands in these areas. As already noted, the absence of registered sites within the SFWMD jurisdiction is the result of survey bias. The tabular presentation of all three Glades Period and Undesignated, 494 in total, sites depict all three Glades Periods and Undesignated sites they offer no particular analytic

19

Figure 2 All Glades Period Sites in the Everglades Culture Area 20 Table 2 All Glades Site Densities by Landscape Zone/Geographic Area within the Everglades Culture Area

SFWMD included, square Palm Site Kilometers/ Landscapes kilometeres Broward Dade Monroe Beach Hendry Total Density Number sites

Total Site Count 10039.07 170 247 56 7 14 494 0.0492 20.32

Everglades Keys 533.26 0 1 1 0.0019 533.26 Eastern Marshes 17.91 0 0 Ochopee Marl Marsh 563.99 0 33 45 78 0.1383 7.23 Peat Transverse Glades* 61.6 12 23 35 0.5682 1.76 Perrine Marl Marsh 945.85 0 10 10 0.0106 94.59 Rockl and Marl Marsh 624. 02 0 9 9 0.0144 69.34 Ridge and Slough -4959.64 -94

21 SamJones - Pine Island Ridge, Long Key -2.58 -35 Ridge and Slough with Sam Jones 4962.22 129 120 6 3 14 272 0.0548 18.24 Sawgrass Plains 269.66 0 0 0 Taylor Slough 47.49 0 5 0 5 0.1053 9.50 Barrier Islands 143.87 9 26 4 39 0.2711 3.69 Mangroves 1291.75 0 2 5 7 0.0054 184.54 Pine Forests and Uplands (Broward, N. Dade) 414.52 0 0 Cypress Sloughs (Broward) 151.19 2 0 2 0.0132 75.60 Western Boundary Cypress 11.7 3 0 3 0.2564 3.90 Miami River Course 18 18 North New River Course 15 15

Total 10039.07 494 Source: SFWMD and FMSF * Site count includes 1.5 kilometer extension into Ridge and Slough and other surrounding zones

value but they do serve to demonstrate the great complexity of archaeological research in the Culture Area.

The Study Area

The general description of culture history and culture areas of Southeast Florida has not always enjoyed unanimity among those working in the profession. The interesting succession of culture area definitions and interpretations of the Formative period that have emerged among the various professionals working in the larger South Florida region over 60 years is succinctly discussed by James Pepe (1999: 25). There is, however agreement among Robert Carr and John Beriault (1984), Randolph Widmer (1988) and

Jerald Milanich (1994) that a culture area can be described for the southern Florida peninsula having its northeastern boundary somewhere near the modern Palm Beach-

Broward County line. More explicitly, Carr et al. (1993: 10) discuss a culture area that they call the Everglades Area as follows.

A redefinition of the Glades culture area was offered using the term Everglades Area by Carr and Beriault to encompass only southeast Florida (1984: 1-11). In 1988 Griffin concurred by using the Everglades Area in his recent synthesis of South Florida archaeology. This revision confines the Everglades Area to southeastern Florida and the Florida Keys. It is difficult to determine an exact western boundary for the area, but Carr and Beriault suggest one somewhere west of the Shark River and east of the Turner River, probably near the eastern boundary of Big Cypress Swamp. A northern boundary would be somewhere near the Broward-Palm Beach County line (Carr and Beriault 1984: 2)

Robert Carr acknowledges (Personal communication, 11/03/06) that the boundary of the

Everglades Area cannot be truly represented by a simple line drawn on a map.

22 Figure 3 Everglades Culture Area

23 Instead, like so many cultural phenomena, the geographic extent of occupation by the

pre-historic Southeast Florida population fluctuated over time and that the boundary as

presented in Carr and Beriault (1984) reflects the occupation in the later Glades II Period.

The theme study prepared by the Division of Historic Resources (DHR), Florida Sites

Associated with the Tequesta and Their Ancestors, is the single most comprehensive

publication relating to the Tequesta and the Everglades Culture Area released to date.

The aforementioned theme study (2004: 112) reaffirms and refines the Carr and Beriault

(1984) definition of the Everglades Culture Area and is the cultural area boundary

presented in Figure 3. Metadata for the Everglades Culture Area Boundary is attached as

Appendix D.

Chronology

John Goggin began to develop the ceramic typology and an associated chronology,

calling the ceramic tradition "Glades ware" in the late 1930's (Milanich 1994: 300, Pepe

1999: 21). The Glades Tradition and its related chronology have been refined ever since.

Milanich (1994: 301) places the emergence of Glades I at 500 B.C. while Widmer (1988:

82) extends the closing date for Glades IIIc to 1750 A.D. Table 3 presents the Glades

Chronological Sequence in current use by the Florida Division of Historical Resources

(2004).

The salient characterization of the Glades Tradition encountered in the archaeological literature must be that a general conservatism regarding subsistence strategies and settlement had prevailed throughout. Robert Carr (Personal

24 communication, 11/30/06) notes virtually no change in subsistence strategy over time.

The subsistence strategy involved the hunting, fishing and gathering of marine and fresh water species and terrestrial flora (Griffin 2002: 294-312). Tools and evidence of food material drawn from the marine environment can be encountered on interior sites across the Culture Area. The DHR Theme Study (2004: 17) notes that vertebrate marine animals would have been harvested by “harpoons, nets, hook and line fishing, gathering, as well as fish weirs or traps.” Inland sites exhibit a considerable dependence on fish and reptiles (DHR 2004: 18).

Bone and shell tools are commonly encountered throughout the three Glades Periods although stone tools are less often found because of the distance, several hundred miles, to the nearest tool stone quarries (DHR 2004: 19-21). Griffin (2002:93-108) notes that marine shell was employed as vessels and cups, various types of picks, hammers, blades, gouges, awls and chisels as well as items that were probably employed for personal decoration. He (Griffin 2002: 108-113) also describes bone implements fashioned from both terrestrial and marine fauna such as antler picks, chisels, billets and sockets, deer bone awls and projectile points and stingray projectile points. Stone artifacts, although scarce, are celts, a few axes, chisels, knives and hammers and a variety of weights and gorgets (Griffin 2002 118-120).

The DHR Theme Study (2004: 41) notes that the Tequesta “…targeted six specific subtropical fruit species, which formed an important part of their diet. This is different from neighboring groups who occasionally used some of these species.” The six species include cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and cocoplum (Chrysobalalnus icaco) among others (DHR 2004: 16).

25 None of the anthropologists who have generated works relating to the Everglades

Culture Area, as a whole, have speculated about the nature of the language spoken by the

Area’s indigenous residents. Similarly, although a measure of site specific analyses of

skeletal remains has been conducted, only Amy Felmley’s (1991) Prehistoric Mortuary

Practices in the Everglades Culture Area, Florida, addresses maters relating to the

disposition of the dead in the Glades Periods in a general way. Felmley’s findings are

discussed elsewhere in this thesis.

The settlement locale selection included both coastal and interior sites. Milanich and

Fairbanks (1980: 233) comment upon the long sustained subsistence and settlement pattern noting that “… it persisted relatively unchanged into the eighteenth century.” The same authors observe that tool technology did not change over a two thousand year period (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980: 235).

Socio-economic dynamics that might help explain or archaeologically substantiate the division of the Glades periods beyond the employment of particular pottery types are difficult to establish. Griffin (2002: 154-160) struggles with these notions but cannot reach a conclusion stating that “Something happened at the end of the Glades IIb period at about A.D. 1100, but it is difficult to determine what happened or why” (Griffin

2002:158). Nevertheless, although work in palelotempestology had not yet emerged, he posits that a climactic event might have occurred. (Griffin 2002:158) Griffin (2002:159) suggests that the transition into the Glades IIIb may have been marked by more significant contact with the central Gulf Coast. In conclusion, Griffin (2002:160) posits that period transitions may prove to result from Calusa or Antillean contact or climactic change but he sees no “…significant changes in subsistence pattern, either faunal or

26 floral, in the periods studied.”

Robert Carr (Personal communication, 11/30/06) maintains that social stratification

began to emerge in the late Glades II and that the presence of St. John’s pottery probably

indicates the development of trade.

In contrast, and outside the subject culture area, an exception to this evident sustained

cultural consistency would be the clear development of a stratified, marine resource

dependent society along the southwest coast. Randolph Widmer (1988) explored this

important anomaly in depth in his The Evolution of the Calusa. Parenthetically, William

Sears (1982) argued for the practice of maize agriculture at Fort Center located north of

Lake Okeechobee but still lying within area encompassed by the Glades Tradition. If agriculture did, in fact, occur at Fort Center, it seems that the idea did not spread to other locales in Southeast Florida.

Table 3 Glades Chronological Sequence

Period Date Range Significant Events/trends*

European contact begins around A.D. 1513 Drought Glades IIIc A.D. 1513-1763 AD 1500-1800 Glades IIIb A.D. 1400-1513 Glades IIIa A.D. 1200-1400 Drought AD 1200-1400

Glades IIc A.D. 1100-1200 Intense hurricane epoch ends around A.D. 1000 Glades IIb A.D. 900-1100 Moisture-rainfall increase Glades IIa A.D. 750- 900 Drought A.D. 600-900

Glades I late A.D. 500- 750 Glades I early 500 B.C. - A.D. 500 Drought A.D. 300-400 Source: Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors, Florida Division of Historical Resources, 2004. After Griffin (1988, 2002). Liu (2004). Willard et al. (2006) * Inserted for reference for this study

27 Ceramics: Time Period Markers

Contrasting with the debate regarding the boundaries of the subject culture area, but inextricably linked to it, the ceramic sequence of South Florida has, received a greater measure of agreement among researchers. Indeed, given the lack of other evidence for change, it is difficult to differentiate the precise times of site occupation except for the shifts found in ceramic assemblages. Therefore, the ceramic sequence and its defined assemblages often represent the only manner in which archaeologists may evaluate the time position of a particular site.

John Goggin’s brief article A Ceramic Sequence in South Florida (1939) was the earliest attempt to describe ceramic attributes and establish a sequence for them based on stratigraphic observation. In this publication, Goggin did not, however, begin to name types but refers to Glades Gritty Ware because of its sand temper. Widmer (1988: 74) points out that the overarching expression “Glades” is in fact somewhat unfortunate and deceptive in that the Everglades are but one ecological component of the South Florida environment that includes coast, estuary pine forest and other landscape types. Widmer suggests that South Florida be divided into three culture areas that each have distinct and identifiable, yet related, ceramic traditions: the Caloosahatchee, the Belle Glade and the

Glades of the Circum-Glades geographic region. The later encompasses the Everglades

Culture Area in addition to all of South Florida adjoining it to the west as far as the Gulf coast (1988: 79-88). Widmer states that through the Glades I the dominant vessel forms were simple open bowls but that by Glades IIb incurving bowls become common (1988:

80-81). Griffin (2002: 79) notes “Surfside Incised is the only type in the area that

28 typically bears appendages; rim lugs and handles are found.” Griffin also mentions that

these appendages are reminiscent of Antillean ceramics. Griffin (2002: 159) also points

out that some researchers believe that the type, Glades Tooled, resembles some Pinellas

Plain pottery types and, that if such were the case, then the rise of Glades Tooled in the

Everglades Culture Area might indicate an increase of Calusa influence. Both Surfside

Incised and Glades Tooled are Glades III marker types.

Griffin (2002: 156) draws attention to the significant fact that the ceramic types of

the Fort Drum Complex of the Late Glades I Period are the first diagnostic pottery types

that can be found throughout the Everglades Culture Area.

Both Widmer (1988: 81) and the DHR Theme Study (2004:10) note the arrival of

chalky St. John’s ware in the Glades II and that St. John’s Checked-Stamped becomes

common in the Everglades Culture Area during the Glades III. St. John’s Checked-

Stamped is so common in Glades III sites that it can be use as a marker type.

Detailed descriptions of relevant pottery types may be found in Griffin (2002: 75-

93), Peter Ferdinando’s (n.d.) South Florida Archaeology Identification Guide: Pottery and in Bert Mower’s (1975) Prehistoric Indian Pottery in South Florida. Table 4

presents the Glades pottery types, by period allocation, in current use by the Florida

Division of Historical Resources (2004). It should be noted that the St. John’s series that are common throughout the Everglades Culture Area in the Glades III period are excluded from this DHR list.

Evidently the circumstance of the definition of archaeological periods by pottery types alone is not unique to the archaeological study of South Florida. Christopher S.

Peebles (1978: 370) in his discussion of the Moundville Mississippian settlement points

29 out “Like most of the later archaeological phases in eastern North America, the criteria

used to define the Moundville phase consist mainly of pottery types.”

The period of European contact is especially important to this study for the ethno-

historic material that has survived from that era. A group of Native Americans known as

the Tequesta occupied exactly that territory that current archaeological literature refers to

as the Everglades Area (Griffin: 1996:189, Griffin cites Goggin and Sturtevant 1964).

One may reasonably conclude that the people who occupied the Everglades Culture Area

(After Carr and Beriault: 1984) of the late Glades periods are the Tequesta. John Hann

(2003: 141) relates that

Escalante Fonteneda (1944:13) noted that, toward the north, the keys "end near a place of the Indians called Tequesta," located on the bank of a river that extends fifteen leagues into the interior and issues from the Lake of Mayaimi [Lake Okeechobee].

Maps of Glades I, II and III sites within the Everglades Culture Area appear as

Figures 4, 5 and 6 respectively. Unfortunately, the maps, because of their scale, offer little analytic utility. However, Tables 5, 6 and 7 present tabular data showing the numeric summary of sites, by county, distributed into the environmental zones in which they are located. By Period, the site count in each environmental zone is divided into the number of square kilometers of surface area occupied by that zone to arrive at a zonal site density. Site preservation factors associated with site age notwithstanding, the total number of sites in each Period increases from Glades I to II to III. Further investigation of changes in site distribution, placement and relative density constitute the focus of one of the hypotheses examined in Chapter Eight.

30 Table 4 Glades Pottery Types by Period

Glades I Glades II Glades III B.C. 500- A.D. 750- A.D. 1200- Type A.D.750 1200 1763 Early Late A B C A B C

Glades Plain X X X X X X X X Goodland Plain X X X

Gordons Pass Incised X Sanibel Incised X Cane Patch Incised X Fort Drum Punctated X Fort Drum Incised X Opa Locka Incised X X

Miami Incised X Matecumbe Incised X Key Largo Incised X X X Plantation Pinched

Surfside Incised X Glades Tooled X X Historic Ceramics X Source: Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors, Florida Division of Historical Resources, 2004. After Griffin (1988, 2002) * Reformatted. Lists of sites by Period and county are attached as Appendices as follows.

Broward • Glades I Appendix E • Glades II Appendix F • Glades III Appendix G

Dade • Glades I Appendix H • Glades II Appendix I • Glades III Appendix J

Monroe • Glades I Appendix K • Glades II Appendix L

31 • Glades III Appendix M

Palm Beach • All Glades Appendix S

Hendry • All Glades Appendix T

This chapter sets out the geographic and temporal boundaries, South Florida Pre- drainage Landscapes, the Everglades Culture Area and Glades Periods that constitute the foci of this research. In addition, map and tabular presentations of the distribution of sites, by Period, present selected and segregated archaeological data sets in their environmental surroundings.

32 Figure 4 Glades I Site Distribution in the Everglades Culture Area

33 Figure 5 Glades II Site Distribution in the Everglades Culture Area

34 Figure 6 Glades III Site Distribution in the Everglades Culture Area

35 Table 5 Glades I Site Densities by Landscape Zone/Geographic Area within the Everglades Culture Area

Glades I site counts Site SFWMD Palm count Kilometers/ clipped Broward Dade Monroe Beach Hendry total Density number sites Landscapes 7264.69 45 57 5 0 2 109 0.0150 66.65

Everglades Keys 533.26 0 Eastern Marshes 17.91 0 Ochopee Marl Marsh 557.97 1 1 0.0018 557.97 Peat Transverse Glades* 61.6 1 8 9 0.1461 6.84 Perrine Marl Marsh 945.85 2 2 0.0021 472.93 Rockland Marl Marsh 624.023 3 3 0.0048 208.01

36 Ridge and Slough -2261.35 -32 SamJones - Pine Island Ridge, Long Key -2.58 -5 Ridge and Slough with Sam Jones 2263.93 37 27 2 66 0.0292 34.30 Sawgrass Plains 199.63 Taylor Slough 47.49 0 Barrier Islands 143.87 0 7 1 8 0.0556 17.98 Mangroves 1291.75 0 2 4 6 0.0046 215.29 Pine forests, uplands (Broward, N. Dade) 414.52 0 Cypress Sloughs (Broward) 151.19 0 West boundary cypress 11.7 0 Miami River Course 7 7 New River Course 7 7 Total 7264.69 109 * Includes 1.5 kilometer extension into Ridge and Slough and other surrounding zones

Table 6 Glades II Site Densities by Landscape Zone/Geographic Area within the Everglades Culture Area

Glades II site counts Site SFWMD Palm count Kilometers/ clipped Broward Dade Monroe Beach Hendry total Density number sites

Landscapes 7264.69 69 88 9 1 0 167 0.0230 43.50

Everglades Keys 533.26 1 1 0.0019 533.26 Eastern Marshes 17.91 0 Ochopee Marl Marsh 557.97 1 1 0.0018 557.97 Peat Transverse Glades* 61.6 5 10 15 0.2435 4.11 Perrine Marl Marsh 945.85 4 4 0.0042 236.46 Rockland Marl Marsh 624.023 7 7 0.0112 89.15 Ridge and Slough -2261.35 40

37 SamJones - Pine Ild, Long Key -2.58 16 Ridge and Slough with Sam Jones 2263.93 56 43 2 1 102 0.0451 22.20 Sawgrass Plains 199.63 Taylor Slough 47.49 1 1 0.0211 47.49 Barrier Islands 143.87 2 12 2 16 0.1112 8.99 Mangroves 1291.75 5 5 0.0039 258.35 Pine forests, uplnds (Brward, N. Dde) 414.52 Cypress Sloughs (Broward) 151.19 West boundary cypress 11.7 Miami River Course 9 9 New River Course 6 6 Total 7264.69 167 * Includes 1.5 kilometer extension into Ridge and Slough and other surrounding zones

Table 7 Glades III Site densities by Landscape Zone/Geographic Area within the Everglades Culture Area

Glades III site counts Site SFWMD Palm count Kilometers/ clipped Broward Dade Monroe Beach Hendry total Density number sites Landscapes 7264.69 52 103 18 3 1 177 0.0244 41.04

Everglades Keys 533.26 1 1 0.0019 533.26 Eastern Marshes 17.91 0 Ochopee Marl Marsh 557.97 3 3 6 0.0108 93.00 Peat Transverse Glades* 61.6 7 9 16 0.2597 3.85 Perrine Marl Marsh 945.85 2 2 0.0021 472.93 Rockland Marl Marsh 624.023 6 6 0.0096 104.00 Ridge and Slough -2261.35 35

38 SamJones - Pine Island Ridge, Long Key -2.58 4 Ridge and Slough with Sam Jones 2263.93 39 60 4 1 1 105 0.0464 21.56 Sawgrass Plains 199.63 Taylor Slough 47.49 1 1 0.0211 47.49 Barrier Islands 143.87 3 10 2 15 0.1043 9.59 Mangroves 1291.75 6 11 17 0.0132 75.99 Pine forests, uplands (Broward, N. Dade) 414.52 0 Cypress Sloughs (Broward) 151.19 0 West boundary cypress 11.7 Miami River Course 5 5 New River Course 3 3 Total 7264.69 * Includes 1.5 kilometer extension into Ridge and Slough and other surrounding zones

CHAPTER FIVE

The Florida Master Site File: A Methodological Dilemma

This chapter considers certain aspects of the content of the Florida Master Site File

(FMSF) and the significance that the FMSF might have for settlement pattern research.

The value of research such as this largely depends upon the quality of data encountered in the FMSF as well as the manner of that data’s employment and application.

The FMSF is the best, and perhaps only, source of well-organized information relating to historic and pre-historic cultural resources of a regional nature that could be utilized in a study of settlement patterns in Southeast Florida. As such, unless indicated otherwise, the FMSF is the source of all site data employed in all cartographic and tabular renderings presented in this study. The FMSF is arguably comprehensive as it relates to the recognition of the existence of archaeological sites. That is, the FMSF records data relating even to specific sites that have been completely destroyed but whose existence and location are known from reliable records and sources. Importantly, the FMSF is easily accessible at no cost to the researcher and it contains myriad archaeological

information including geo-spatial data. The State of Florida, Division of Historical

Resources archives the FMSF and updates the material contained therein regularly. Base information is directed to the Division of Historical Resources by archaeologists and other field researchers upon the identification of previously unrecorded sites or artifact

discovery and upon the execution of more detailed research at known locations. As such,

the data contained in the FMSA is subject to the vicissitudes of field documentation

including data loss and transcription errors as well as the accuracy, completeness and

general quality of reporter interpretation. John Turck (2003: 126-127) in his thesis

investigating Paleo-Indian and Archaic Period site distribution, notes that the FMSF is

subject to cultural time period and site type discrepancies and preservational and survey

bias. Furthermore, some of the original field research that underlies the FMSF geo-

spatial data may be marginally erroneous simply because of the inadequacies of

technology that was available to researchers at the time of original report preparation.

The Division of Historical Resources has converted the information contained in the

FMSF to a Geographic Information System (GIS) format. Site data is organized by

county according to the location of the cultural resource. One general metadata record is

applied to all counties; the metadata record for archaeological sites is attached as

Appendix N. Geo-spatial data relating to each specific site expresses location, shape and

size. It must be noted that many, in fact most, sites are multi-component. As such, the

boundaries of the site depicted represent the extent of artifact and feature distribution of all culture period components combined. That is, the shape and size of a polygon representing a site for a Glades I occupation that was subsequently inhabited in Glades III and was still later the site of a large historic homestead depicts the shape and size all of those components as if they were one. Consequently, when undergoing analysis the

Glades III components as well as Glades I will appear as the same size when, in fact, the homestead might have covered more terrain than either of the previous two components.

The abovementioned FMSF site size flaw notwithstanding, as a practical matter, site

40 size, when accurately reported, remains a problem for interpretation of the archaeological record. Site size and deposition thickness tend to be directly related to the number of inhabitants and duration or frequency of occupation and, therefore, would be key to any regional site assessment. However, in Southeast Florida, archaeologists have rarely recorded the intrasite dynamics effecting size. Referring to intrasite movement, Griffin

(2002: 279) states that there is "...good evidence in South Florida of lateral movement of occupation on sites." Nevertheless, the size of the largest sites will be employed as a variable in this research.

The Senior Data Base Analyst at the Division of Historical Resources FMSF, stated that the geo-spatial information contained in the file is that which is derived from the report forms submitted by field researchers. No effort is made by FMSF staff to supplement or correct geo-spatial information by reference to extant geo-rectified aerial photographs or other sources. (Ginny Jones, personal communication, 2/5/07) In the absence of intensive fieldwork involving detailed testing or extensive excavation and concomitant reporting on each site, the abovementioned flaw in the FMSF is unavoidable. Since the resolution of this data problem is beyond the scope of this research, the FMSF records are accepted as they are presented to the public.

FMSF GIS Content

The FMSF GIS record, in its data base file, offers a considerable array of archaeological information relating to each site. In addition to the Site Identification

Number and Site Name, five Site Type and eight Culture Period data cells are provided.

41 Single data cells for Survey Evaluation status, Survey Number, Department of Natural

Resources Listing status, State Historic Preservation Office Evaluation status, Plot Type and, finally, the presence of Human Remains, follow these. An example of the FMSF

Attribute file for Dade County is found in Appendix O and a detailed description of the meaning of each data cell was already listed in Appendix N. The Dade County sample is an extract intended to demonstrate the great variety of cultural resources enumerated, the breadth of information that is presented in the data base files and the difficulty posed by the lack of specificity encountered in some cases. While some Glades Period sites are defined to the sub-period level, there are an insufficient number of such precisely defined sites to employ the sub-period information for analysis.

The raw data offered in the FMSF is problematic in several other ways. The FMSF lists a bewildering array of sites including those from every pre-historic period, historic

Native American sites, shipwrecks, quarries, old roads and canals (all of which are still in use, homesteads, military facilities and at least one historic submerged marine anchor. All cultural resources listed in FMSF in Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, Monroe and Hendry

Counties within the Everglades Culture Area are depicted in Figure 7. It is ironic that some of the canals that so drastically altered the natural environment thereby masking the pre-historic archaeological record are, themselves, now included in the FMSF. For the purpose of this study, sites that were not products of the Glades Periods were deleted. All

Glades sites within the Everglades Culture Area are listed by county in Appendices P through U.

Those sites that appear to be pre-historic but whose data base file contains less than specific period information pose a problem for Glades period research. Although

42 features such as “mounds” and “middens” could have been the result of Paleo, Archaic and/or Seminole habitation without a Glades occupation as a component, sites whose data base file employed expressions such as “other- mound and midden” and “prehistoric with pottery” were included in this research, along with other Glades without period assignment, under the rubric of “Glades Undesignated.” Other sites whose data base files employed expressions such as “prehistoric lacking pottery”, “unknown” and “no field investigation - reported by remote sensing” were not included as Glades. In the absence of any reference to any evidence of Glades occupation or features that could reasonably interpreted as such, it was concluded that inclusion of such sites could not be sustained methodologically.

The question of the “reported by remote sensing” sites brings the dilemma of Glades period site distribution into focus. In the Dade County site files, not fewer than 111 “no field investigation reported by remote sensing” sites are listed. Most of these sites, at the time of their reporting, lie within the SFWMD jurisdiction, and consequently, were not physically accessible to the reporter for the purpose of artifact assessment. Division of

Historical Resources Compliance Officer, Laura Kammerer (Personal communication,

11/9/06) stated that the filings for these sites were not part of a compliance action but that

Robert Carr had reported them. Robert Carr (Personal communication, 11/30/06) confirmed that he had submitted the subject report forms during his tenure as Dade

County Historic Preservation Officer. In 2004 Margo Schwadron excavated test pits on

43 previously untested tree islands in the Everglades National Park’s Eastern Expansion

Area that is located along the eastern edge of Shark River Slough. (Schwadron 2006) Of the locations investigated, 40 of the 43 sites can be found among the “reported by remote

43 Figure 7 All Cultural Resources Reported in the Florida Master Site File

44 sensing” sites listed in the Dade County FMSF. Of the 43 sites tested, 42 possessed

Glades period artifacts. (Margo Schwadron, personal communication, 5/3/07) The GIS files used to conduct this analysis were not amended to reflect new information found by

Schwadron in that “Glades Undesignated “ sites were not employed in analysis and, therefore, there is little utility to be gained from the additional effort required.

The matter of Glades Period designated versus period Undesignated is of considerable note. Table 8 demonstrates that 52% of all Glades sites are not classified into any of the Glades Periods. That is, researchers who filed the original site form for a specific site had found no diagnostic indicator, usually pottery, which would lead them to classify the period of that site or the site was destroyed prior to site form preparation.

Table 8 The Number of Glades Time Period Classified Sites Compared to Glades Time Period Undesignated

All Glades - I, Glades Glades II, III and classified as % of Undesignated County Undesignated I or II or III total by any period % of total Palm Beach 7 3 4 Broward 170 97 73 Dade 247 112 135 Monroe 56 23 33 Hendry 14 3 11

Totals 494 238 48.18% 256 51.82%

Settlement Site Types and Functions

Ordinarily, data relating to site type and function would be incorporated into, and constitute a major component of, any regional settlement study of pre-historic cultural resources. This section of text reviews several site type and function classification 45 methods that have been employed by researchers in South Florida and describes the site type prescribed for the FMSF.

Griffin (2002: 274) observed that the National Park Service survey of the Everglades

National Park conducted in the mid-1980's employed a site typology that recognized 9 site types. These site types are merely descriptive and do not attempt to attribute function such as “base camp” or “resource reduction station.”

• Shell works- marine shell arranged as mounds, ridges and flat areas • Shell middens- shell deposition without arrangement, Glades I and II • Eroded beach sites- indeterminate areas, Glades III • Earth midden, mangrove zone- midden mounds, Glades I through III • Relic shell ridges- occupied natural shell accumulations • Earth middens, Shark River- on tree islands • Earth middens, artifact scatters, western Everglades- small, sparse artifacts • Earth middens, Taylor Slough- Glades II and III • Miscellaneous- burial mounds and earthworks

William Athens (1983: 6-7) employed a four-part typology in his study of site distribution in the Big Cypress Preserve that was based upon data derived from a Park

Service survey as well. While the Big Cypress is outside of the relevant culture area, the

Athens study offers a possible alternate typology to that described above. Athens seeks to relate physical characteristics to function and activity.

• Primary habitation- midden areas containing one or more mounds • Secondary habitation- midden of more than 20cm thick without mounds • Resource procurement- midden of less than 20cm thick without mounds • Mounds- burial and other constructed mounds

46 Finally, Carr et al. (1991: 23-24, 1993: 21-22, 1995: 14-15) in their comprehensive

surveys of cultural resources in Broward County employ a less specific typology. This

typology also attempts to relate physical form to use.

• Black dirt and shell midden- artifact refuse associated with habitation and food processing (most common type) (“shell” not part of type title in 1991 survey that encompassed the interior areas of the county) • Habitation sites-short or long term use • Constructed mounds- burial mounds (rare) • Mortuaries- cemeteries or isolated graves • Artifact scatter- resource procurement, short term • Constructed earthworks- includes earthen ramps related to mounds.

The two Park Service surveys, because they were conducted in protected areas,

encountered sites that had not been subjected to the ravages of urban development. In

contrast, the Broward County sites were often known only from local collector

knowledge and had often been partially or completely destroyed. A salient fact

regarding the above is that none of the authors elaborate upon the theoretical

underpinnings that guided them in the development of their particular typologies.

The Division of Historical Resources mandates that site form preparers draw site type descriptions from a specific list stating, “Values in these fields are limited to a discrete list…” (Division of Historical Resources, Metadata for Archaeological Sites GIS Data

Layer 2004) The Structures and Features list is composed of at least 20 types designed specifically for prehistoric sites including classifications such as; Burial Mound, Midden, three other types of Mounds, five types of shell deposits and five types of Artifact

Scatters. The Function list recognizes six function types including; Campsite - limited activity, Extractive, Habitation, Village and Quarry. (Division of Historical Resources,

Guide to the Archaeological Site Form, Version 2.2, 1999: 26-28)

47 The problem here is that the Guide to the Archaeological Site Form (1999) provides

virtually no guidance as to the specific meaning of each of these classifications. Field

testing bias notwithstanding, one archaeologist’s “Campsite” might be another

archaeologist’s “Habitation.” As such, much of the site type information found in the

FMSF is tenuous, at best. The Metadata (2006) sheet warns “The archeological site data

are based on field reports which have been submitted by many and varied individuals…

The site locations and attributes are only as accurate as the information submitted…”

Taking all of the above into consideration, site type information is likely to be far too

subjective and incomplete or incorrect and therefore has not been incorporated into this

research.

Can the FMSF Be Used for Large Scale Glades Settlement Study in Southeast Florida?

Given the extent of environmental transformation and site destruction described in

Chapter Two and the inherent data weaknesses encountered in the FMSF data discussed

above, can extant site data, and the FMSF in particular, be reliably employed for

settlement research in the Everglades Culture Area? It is argued here that the FMSF can

be utilized in the development and testing of selected hypotheses addressing Glades

settlement patterns, due to a combination of early investigations in the 19th and 20th centuries and the implementation of modern ordinances that require survey and protection of historic and prehistoric resources.

Unlike Paleo and Archaic deposits, Glades cultural deposits, being comparatively recent, are coved by fairly shallow overburden. In the Ridge and Slough and Transverse

48 Glades, which are dry in the modern era, high ground in the form of tree islands, even from the earlier periods, and certainly for sites more significant than an artifact scatter, are easily visible and therefore are easily recognized. The high ground is discernable because its elevation is exaggerated by midden accumulation and it is marked by distinctive vegetation.

This fact of visibility itself is two-edged sword. On the one hand, it has allowed looters to more easily identify their targets, but it also has facilitated the identification and recording of sites, especially coastal sites, by 19th and early 20th Century naturalists, settlers and early archaeologists. Consequently we know of the existence and, at least rough, location of many coastal and riverine sites that were demolished in the early decades of the 20th Century. Moreover, salvage excavation at some of these sites rendered still extant pottery collections by which the site components can be identified.

As a result, due to the well-documented Glades ceramic sequence, these components can be clearly dated. Thus, although formal archaeological survey and related analysis could not be conducted for some coastal sites prior to the onset of urban development, location and Period classifications are known and included in the FMSF. The consistent observation of site resource tethering from Hillsboro Inlet to Bear Cut suggests that the coastal site data is very representative of all coastal sites that may have existed; where there was fresh water, there are recorded sites.

Consequently, if a study’s hypotheses were based largely upon information that is available such as that for location, time periods, and site size, as reported by trained archaeologists, the validity of those hypotheses is strengthened. In this context then, concern for the general reliability of FMSF site data relating to such factors as site size

49 and site function relates primarily to those coastal sites that might have suffered storm damage over the centuries since the demise of the Glades culture and to those areas along the coast and Coastal Ridge that underwent urban development prior to the establishment of historic preservation ordinances in Broward and Dade Counties. Thus, for the damaged sites, certain hypotheses, may well remain problematic even if additional fieldwork were to be invested. However, such hypotheses that would demand an extremely detailed level of site data are not posited in this study.

The hypotheses that have been proposed for this research emerged from a dialectical process of examining and comparing hypotheses derived from anthropological- archaeological theory and prior publications treating the Everglades Culture Area against cultural data available in the attribute file of the FMSF. Obviously, only those hypotheses that could be tested within the data context of the FMSF were ultimately selected for inclusion in the study. Table 9 lists the maximum cultural data that is required of sites in order to test hypotheses posited in this study. Those maximum criteria, depending upon the nature of the specific hypothesis, are; that the site be minimally recognized as being a product of the Glades people, that a Glades Period designation be indicated and that site size or strongly suspected significance by the archaeological community be recognized. It is argued that the FMSF records, when used in the manner applied here are a representative sample of the extant archaeological sites.

Formal county ordinances have emerged as the most important force in support of archaeological site protection and preservation in Southeast Florida. In this regard, the

Broward County Historical Commission was established in 1972 followed two decades later by the Historic Preservation Ordinances that were incorporated into the Land

50 Development Code in 1992. The creation of the Broward Historical Commission

resulted in the formation of a body of individuals who actively sought to identify and

preserve cultural resources. By 1981 Dade County had passed the Metropolitan Miami-

Table 9 Maximum Cultural Data Required to Test Hypotheses

Recognized as Glades, designated Glades Site size, Coast and/or Period recognized and ridge Hypothesis undesignated designated significant or interior

1x Coast 2x Interior 3x Ridge 4x Both 5xRidge 6xxBoth 7xBoth 8xInterior 9xInterior 10 x x Both 11 x x Both 12 xxInterior

Dade County Historic Preservation Ordinance. This comprehensive ordinance set out

procedures for protection of cultural resources in that rapidly growing area.

An in depth review of the data base file associated with the FMSF Field Survey Projects

GIS data set for Dade County reveals that only 10 cultural resource surveys are recognized

for that county prior to 1980, the first two being in 1973 and 1974. Similarly, the same data

set shows that only 6 surveys were recognized for Broward County before 1980, the first two

being 1974 and 1977. The above might suggest that protective ordinances and formal

51

Figure 8 FMSF Archaeological Survey Compared to Urban Growth

52 cultural resource survey arrived too late to collect any useful archaeological data in much of the geographic area of the two counties that had already undergone development. A pre- drainage environment is found in Figure 8.

However, it must be recognized that, while significant data has been lost to the bulldozer’s blade, researchers, nevertheless, possess important information relating to many Glades sites. That is, in many cases, data relating to site location and size, the existence of notable features or structures and specific chronological placement are known. Some of this data can be found in early settler commentary and on land surveys.

More importantly, organized archaeological field investigations not reported in the FMSF

Survey files were conducted prior to the institution of the county ordinances. Carr et al.

(1991: 15 and 1993: 17) note this pioneering fieldwork, some of which was conducted as early as 1908. For example, John Goggin, who continued pursuing archaeological field

investigations in Florida for decades, began his work in Southeast Florida by 1932 (Carr et al.1991: 15). Griffin (2002: 361-362) recognizes 28 articles, books and manuscripts by

Goggin alone; many of these deal directly with sites and archaeological questions in the

Everglades Culture Area. Griffin (2002:367-368) also recognizes 17 publications by Dan

D. Laxson, an avocational archaeologist who worked almost exclusively in Dade and

Broward Counties.

Virtually all of the aforementioned 45 works were published prior to the passage of the Dade and Broward County cultural preservation ordinances. A perusal of Figure 11 indicates that sites located in the coastal areas, and especially in the Peat Transverse

Glades, are well documented despite the fact that urban growth had preceded FMSF recognized surveys (Metadata for USGS Land Use Cover – 1970’s is found in Appendix

53 Z). Consequently, the FMSF Survey files, when considered outside of the historical context of general archaeological field research in Southeast Florida, leave the mistaken impression that little valuable work was conducted prior to urban development.

As such, despite recognizing that some measure of field testing bias and reporter artifact interpretation error exists in the FMSF, for the purposes of this research, Glades

Period designations and general site locations and sizes are taken to accurately reflect, to a degree sufficient for analytical purposes of region wide study, the archaeological record of Southeast Florida.

This chapter considers the many strengths and weaknesses of the data found in the

FMSF GIS records. Although the FMSF may be less than perfect, it is by far the best

GIS resource available for settlement pattern research in South Florida.

54

CHAPTER SIX

Problem Statement and Significance

The archaeological questions that are examined in this research flow from the confluence of socio-cultural theory relating to hunter-gatherer societies and the facts, speculation and theories that have been published regarding the Glades Periods cultures within the Everglades Culture Area. This chapter reviews relevant materials from both of the aforementioned literatures and formulates the general archaeological questions that they suggest. The chapter also introduces an important related and apparent social contradiction, the proposition of the development of stratified society in the subject area that has emerged in the archaeological literature treating the Everglades Culture Area.

Hunter-gatherers: A View of Modern Populations

Socio-cultural anthropologists, over the years, have generated a considerable number of publications documenting a multitude of facets of living, but fast disappearing, hunter-gatherer societies. The study of hunter-gather societies, long supposed to be the human societal prototype and an appropriate model of our early ancestors’ social organization, has been central to the development of anthropology as a science. Of concern here are thoughts dealing with hunter-gatherer economic spatial theory. David

L. Clark (1977: 19) writes 55 Economic spatial theory is perhaps the most common theoretical approach to spatial problems, especially at the macro scale. This theory makes the assumption that over a span of time and experience, people move to choices and solutions which minimize costs and maximize profits;… the theory is now seen as a special case of general ecological theory of resource exploitation…

In this regard, anthropological researchers continue to produce a steady steam of

literature expanding upon hunter-gatherer studies and the theoretical issues that grow

from ethnological field research (Kelly 1995, Panter-Brick et al. 2001, Fitzhugh and

Habu 2002, and Barnard 2004). Consistent and prominent themes encountered in the

literature are the development of Optimal Foraging Strategy theory and the recognition of

the global diversity of hunter-gatherer lifeways. One of the most influential articles

treating the question of hunter-gather archaeological investigation has been Lewis

Binford's (1980) Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gather Settlement Systems

and Archaeological Site Formation. Binford argues that hunter-gatherer lifeways can be

understood as presenting a continuum operating from two idealized poles consisting of

foragers at one end and collectors at the other. Foragers gather foods daily and move

their residences frequently. Collectors remain at a base location and send out parties to

gather resources and then return to the residential location (Binford 1980: 5). These two

distinct subsistence strategies, and the settlement patterns they entail, will leave a

discernable archaeological record. A manifestation of the illusive Forager-Collector spectrum is found in the notion of "central place foragers." Bruce Winterhalder (2001:

21) advises that central place foragers will locate temporary residences near bulky resources such as water, fuel and food.

Binford (1980: 15) suggests that an equatorial environment produces conditions where "...a foraging strategy works very well." Junko Habu (2002: 57) tells us that 56 "Forager systems are commonly found in environments in which the distribution of critical resources is seasonally and spatially homogeneous..." Finally, Robert Kelly

(1995: 140) notes that "Where resources are homogeneously distributed and where food is available more or less year round, a forager pattern is more likely;..." All this leads one to conclude that the Glades people would likely have been foragers rather than collectors.

Optimal Foraging Theory is essentially rooted in the micro-economic notion that individuals and groups will attempt to maximize returns in relation to effort. One corollary of the theory is the important notion of "effective foraging radius." Kelly

(1995: 135) writes that "The effective foraging radius, therefore, is largely a product of return rates of the available resources and the degree of dependence on them..." It seems that effective foraging radius is a geographic expression of diminishing marginal returns.

The nature and interrelationship of areas that are effective foraging ranges is a major determinant of the frequency of moves that a group will make in a given period of time.

Given the difficulty of reading the archaeological record in Southeast Florida,

Binford's notion of fine-grained evidence of frequent movement and repeated occupation

(1980: 17) may not constitute a helpful way to analyze the region’s archaeological record.

Indeed, David Yesner (1981:152), an archaeologist who has investigated maritime foragers cautions that

The chief problems in testing optimal foraging behavior with archaeological data include (1) accurate reconstruction of the paleoenvironment; and (2) accurate assessment of exploitation patterns, given that taphonomic or preservational factors may affect archaeological faunal samples. The best results can be achieved when (1) little environmental change has occurred...an (2) faunal preservation is excellent.

Michael Sheehan (2004: 163-164) further cautions 57 ...that the fundamental limitation of optimal foraging theory has less to do with the inherent qualities of the theory, than it does with the archaeological data the theory is used to interpret.... detailed environmental information that is readily available to the ethnographer and not to the archaeologist.

Taking into account the admonitions relating to the application of optimal foraging theory to archaeological analysis, it still may be possible to test selected hypotheses dealing with settlement patterns.

The Theory Applied to the Everglades Culture Area

As pointed out above, as a consequence of various land development practices much of the natural environment in the study area has been altered; the transverse glades, except for occasional reaches of cypress forest, are no longer discernible. Much of the early archaeological work in Southeast Florida took place during a period when researchers sought to establish a clear culture history especially through the formulation of a ceramic sequence. However, detailed consideration of subsistence activities was often neglected. That is, much of the early fieldwork was conducted prior to the development of approaches to archaeology as a science and, consequently, very often, archaeological work was oriented toward the collection and preservation of engaging artifacts. By the 1950’s, urban growth, starting along the coast, was raging westward leveling sites, significant and mundane, before it.

Both avocational and professional archaeologists working in the area have long posited that the population that occupied the coastal and estuarine zones was the same population that inhabited the banks of rivers cutting through the Atlantic Coastal Ridge 58 and the tree islands in the Everglades. For example, in discussing their excavations at

Markham Park Mound No. 2 (8Bd00183), located approximately 15 kilometers from the coast, Wilma Williams and Bert Mowers (1977: 75) suggest, “Perhaps the area was a hunting ground for seasonal use by shore dwellers…" The same avocational archaeologists (Williams and Mowers 1979: 26), in writing about their work at Bishops

Hammock (8Bd00066), situated some 12 kilometers from the coast, and inferring much greater indigenous mobility, enthusiastically go on to say that “Travel from coast to coast was evidently a way of life at that time.” At the Rolling Oaks II Site (8Bd00073), three kilometers south west of the Markham Park site, the active and prolific pair, (Williams and Mowers 1982: 118) posits that “Small, black dirt middens in the Everglades represent sites that are part of the annual cycle of a hunting and gathering people.” These same researchers state (1982: 124), “The authors believe that during times of high water in the

Glades they would move out to the coast. The rest of the year they lived on the many wild animals that populated the interior.” The period of high water in the Everglades is summer through fall. As such, Williams and Mowers held that the coastal occupations occurred during those seasons.

Similarly, Robert Carr (1990: 260), in writing about his investigations at Pine Island

Ridge, suggests, “It is also possible that the site may simply be one of many ‘pit stops’ for Indians traversing the eastern Everglades to and from the New River and the Atlantic

Coast.” However, in contrast to Williams and Mowers, when considering the coastal component of the settlement equation, Carr et al. (1993: 55-57) point out that sites could be encountered “…along the entire length of the barrier islands…” and that “…some of the prehistoric settlements… were permanent or semi-permanent villages.”

59 John Griffin (2002: 287-290), in writing of the research in Everglades National Park, under the heading of “Sites and Seasonality” seems to imply that site occupation was seasonal but he remains cautious and avoids speculating about the nature of the relationship between inland and coastal sites. Refraining from linking subsistence to seasonal occupation, Griffin also endeavors to rule out the possibility of the interior sites being representative of travel rest stops to and from the socially dominant Calusa region.

It is evident that Griffin was reluctant to venture any explanation of the relationship between the interior and coastal occupations.

Recent work by Gary Beiter (2003: 277) at Refugee Island (8Da02102), an interior site in Dade County, has sought to answer questions regarding the relationships between subsistence and settlement. Beiter (2003: 290) suggests that marine mollusk shell may have been the remains of foodstuffs carried by indigenous people arriving directly from the coast. Carr (2002: 192) suggests that remains of marine food resources at interior sites indicate long term habitation locales.

The above discussion establishes a context that leads to the formulation of general questions relating to settlement patterns prevalent in the subject area and suggests that related matters of anthropological and archaeological interest can be studied through an analysis of those settlements. The study of the relationship of sites to each other and to their environment will reveal if there is, indeed, a pattern to Glades settlements. For example, will a pattern of site locations indicate that Glades hunter-gatherers preferred certain environmental zones or patches? Will sites appear to be clustered possibly indicating resource tethering? Will site distribution and spacing provide reasonable indications of the extent of effective foraging radius? Would site spacing demonstrate

60 spheres of influence?

Will a pattern of significant and minor sites in relationship emerge? Such patterns could thereby indicate where the Southeastern Glades people might lie on Binford’s

(1980) Foraging-Collecting Spectrum or, the emergence of social complexity as discussed below. Will linear alignments of sites become apparent thereby indicating travel routes, and, by implication, travel methods and seasonality? Will a change in settlement patterns through the various Glades Periods become evident indicating cultural responses to environmental change or shifts in population density?

Problem Significance: To What Extent Do the Glades People Fit the Theory?

Robert Kelly (1992: 43) stated that, “Early concepts of mobility blinded us to the fact that mobility is universal, variable and multi-dimensional.” Certainly, anthropologists have long noted the existence of “push-pull” factors involved in the decision-making processes in which populations and individuals engage regarding geographic movement.

For example, Michael Jochim (1976) in a work that developed thought relating to predictive modeling, applies the general notion of “push-pull” extensively in relationship to more detailed study of specific possible causes of pre-historic transhumance. Push- pull means the circumstances, resources or forces that might cause a population to continue in its then prevailing practice or remain in its current location or, conversely, change to another practice or location; the population being motivated by either relative disadvantage or advantage. In the case of Southeast Florida, one might consider all of the

61 Figure 9 Several Sites Referenced in Text 62 following to be possible push-pull factors:

• lack of fresh water/fresh water availability • food scarcity/food availability • freshwater floods/high ground • encounters with hostile human groups/kin or clan gatherings and other social contacts for the purposes of trade or homage • forest and grass fires/shelter from fires • insect infestation/general lack of pests • lack of fire wood/abundance of fire wood • exhaustion of tools/availability of tool making materials

Any one of the above factors, or any of them in combination, could have caused groups of indigenous people to move or not move from one place or from one physiographic zone to another. Some of these factors present a seasonal aspect, others do not.

Robert Kelly (1992: 54) also explains that, “….it is difficult to study mobility archaeologically. Both the resource base and mobility itself are difficult to document.”

As noted above, Griffin (2002: 287) in discussing the relationship between coastal and interior sites in the Everglades National Park, inquires,

What relationship do these areas have to each other? Are there sedentary occupations with the tree-island sites being “country homesteads” in the hinterland of the coastal villages? Or do we have strictly seasonal hunting and gathering stations used by coastal residents, and if so, from which coast? Or are these prehistoric middens nothing more than the result of way stations for travelers on a route from the east to the west coast? Or, in what mix of these and other possible usages does the answer really lie?

Echoing these questions Jerald Milanich (1994: 310) also hypothesizes,

It may be that in the Glades region, coastal resources in specific locales could not support year-round village populations. Instead people could have used a number of different locales, gathering fall resources and marine foods at one, oysters at another, and freshwater fish and reptiles at another. Did the same Glades people move among coastal and inland locales,

63 taking full advantage of seasonally available resources?...These interesting questions for future research are pertinent to our understanding of the Glades region.

In short, the occurrence of transhumance in pre-Columbian Southeast Florida is accepted as a given but it has not been extensively studied and, therefore, is really the subject of much speculation. For example, in light of the many possible compelling circumstances that could have encouraged population movement, the question of whether or not transhumance in the area exhibited identifiable patterns has not been explored sufficiently.

Furthermore, the notion that the area’s indigenous population favored certain physiographic zones is also accepted but that specific notion has been subjected to little formal scrutiny. In this regard, researchers often assume that the coastal zone offered the preferred context of primary settlement (Griffin 2002: 287) with the interior sites being “country homesteads”. However, optimal foraging theory also produces an interpretation of estuarine occupation as a fall back residential zone for those individuals who cannot sustain the rigors of frequent movement. For example, Binford (2001: 209-

242) points out that frequency of moves by hunter-gatherer groups is largely influenced by group size which is in turn is partly a function of the number of non-producing or low return producing dependents. Relating to the notion of low production individuals, David

Yesner (1980: 729) notes that shellfish “…are easily collectable by all segments of the human population and often serve as an emergency buffer…” Yesner (1980: 730) is clear about the possibility of coastal locales being refuges for those incapable of strenuous labor.

Because both old people and children are able to engage in activities such as shellfish collecting, and because they have lower caloric requirements, 64 they are virtually able to support themselves in coastal zones and do not act as sump for the population’s resources.

The absence of great shell middens on the east coast of South Florida may indicate that Yesner’s observations may offer a measure of truth in the Everglades Culture Area.

Settlement patterns in Southeast Florida, especially inter-site relationships, have not received extensive examination. Referring to the region’s major geographic elements,

Robert Carr (2002:190) states “These ecosystems were linked by hunting, fishing and gathering strategies that included adaptive responses to resource availability, seasonality, interior hydrology, coastal tides and the dynamics of human population.” He further states “Exploitation of the Everglades resources occurred from base camps and larger villages located within the Everglades as well as from villages along the Atlantic Coastal

Ridge…” (Carr 2002: 190) He also writes that although tree islands were usually employed as small camps “…there is some evidence to suggest that some tree-island sites served as large villages…” (Carr 2002: 192) These statements cry out for further elucidation.

William Athens’ thesis, The Spatial Distribution of Glades Period Archaeological

Sites Within the Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida (1983) was based upon systematically collected reliable field data in the geographic area adjoining the

Everglades Area on its western edge and perhaps encompassing its western fringe.

Athens tested a number of hypotheses relating to intra-site characteristics and environmental placement. He found that site placement was not random in either regard.

Unfortunately, Athens’ thesis did not investigate inter-site relationships.

John Griffin (2002: 282-287) wrote of the geographic and temporal distribution of sites in the Everglades National Park. Griffin briefly described areas of site concentration 65 but chose not to explore intersite significance beyond speculating on possible relationships with other concentrations outside the Park itself. One of Griffin’s interesting observations regarding temporal distribution is that the number of sites increases in the later Glades periods.

Finally, the Everglades Culture Area consists of approximately 5,801 habitable square kilometers. If one assumes a population density of 30 individuals per 100 square kilometers, a number on the higher end of the range of 24–32 that Binford would apply to the entire Southeastern United States region (2002:149), then one arrives at a population of approximately 1,740 for the Everglades Culture Area. If one assumes an average hunter-gatherer group size of 40 individuals per group, then one arrives at 44 separate groups operating in the area. That would mean that each group conceivably could operate within a territory of approximately 132 square kilometers, or an area no larger than 10 by 13 kilometers. If the Glades people were foragers rather than collectors as the relative absence of very visible village sites would suggest, no individual group could go about subsistence activities for very long without at least incidental contact with another group.

Social Complexity: Is There Evidence?

Regional settlement studies offer the possibility of addressing certain questions relating to social complexity of prehistoric populations. The question of social complexity in the Glades II and III Periods in the Everglades Culture Area is a matter of

66 growing interest in the archaeological community.

As a result of his own ethnographic research and his reading of related literature,

Bruce Winterhalder (2001:13) formulates four generalizations that succinctly characterize hunter-gatherer populations.

(1) apparent under-production, and a general lack of material accumulation; (2) routine food sharing; (3) egalitarianism; and (4) despite number 3, a routine division of labor between the foraging activities of males and females: men more commonly hunt while women more commonly gather.

Of course, only “lack of material accumulation” and “egalitarianism” would leave obvious material remains, or an absence of them, that be would be evident in, and therefore allow for interpretation of, the archaeological record. Given that no archaeological researcher suggests that the people inhabiting the Everglades Culture Area were other than hunter-gatherers and taking Winterhalder’s (2001) characterizations into consideration, one would reasonably conclude that the regional Glades people would not have operated in a stratified society. Turning to the archaeological record, Milanich holds that the evidence substantially sustains the position that the Glades people living within the subject area were, in fact, not organized in a clearly definable complex society

(1995: 54-55).

The archaeological information from the pre-Columbian period provides no evidence that the Tequesta were organized in as complex a fashion as the Calusa. There are no village sites with large mounds thought to have been associated with a paramount chief like the Calusa’s. Yet documents from the 1560s and later do indicate there was a head chief. But the Tequesta political organization was only a dim reflection of that of the 67 Calusa. The Tequesta chief ruled over a much smaller population and did not control outlying, non-Tequesta villages or chiefs.

Finally, Milanich (1995: 55) suggests that the fundamental reason that the Tequesta did not develop a clearly defined, stratified society was economic “…their subsistence base did not allow it.” The view that economic surplus and redistribution are the pre- conditions for social complexity has been widely held in anthropology (Steponaitis 1978:

419 and Peebles and Kus 1977: 421-424). Again, the lack of material accumulation common among hunter-gatherers militates against social stratification.

Archaeological theory suggests that burials and residences containing a disproportionate quantity of rare or costly goods and the presence of monumental architecture or public works constitute evidence for existence of complex and stratified society operating among the prehistoric peoples under investigation. The inference made is that differential distribution of wealth in the form of goods and the existence of large and complex structures that would have required organized labor to construct them indicate the existence of high status individuals who possessed the ability to acquire a disproportionate share of the society’s material wealth and to control or compel labor.

Osteological evidence may also indicate an individual’s status. Such inferences assume that life experiences, for example, hard physical labor versus less strenuous activities, relative abundance or quality of food and the like, reflect social status and can be observed in osteological remains (Peter Ferdinando, personal communication, 6/12/07).

In contrast to the above, it must be noted that some archaeologists have argued that elaborate grave goods and the existence of monumental architecture and public works do not necessarily indicate social complexity. For example, Randall McGuire (2002: 203-

68 205) suggests that certain Hohokam public architecture was “…associated with no

particular social group, producing an impression of institutions shared by, and to the

benefit of, all people.”

In the case of Southeast Florida, the diversity of form that chiefdoms could assume

would compound the difficulty of interpreting the archaeological record. Christopher

Peebles and Susan Kus (1977: 421-424) point out that socio-cultural anthropologists have

suggested that any given society that might fall into the general rubric of “chiefdom”

might be one of several types. These types can be characterized as exhibiting differing

degrees of institutionalization and control over religious practice, politics and economy.

The simplest of these societal types would, in fact, possess a high status group who might be considered “headmen” by their contemporary observers such as Spanish explorers in the 16th Century, but who would, in fact, have little economic control. As such, a

researcher drawing upon historic records might properly describe an extinct society as

stratified even though the archaeological correlates of economic differentiation may not

be evident.

The theme of the complexity of forms of chiefdoms emerges in other anthropological

works. David G. Anderson (1996: 232) differentiates between simple and complex

chiefdoms. He notes that simple chiefdoms, those that possess only one level of

administrative control, would maintain direct control over only those inhabitants who

resided close to the primary center. Anderson states “The authority a chief had over

people in his own and other communities varied from absolute in some cases…to more

indirect in others…” (1996: 232-233).

Allen W. Johnson and Timothy Earle address the topic of transition of societies from

69 egalitarian to stratified. Johnson and Earle (2000: 25-26) posit that as competition for resources increases, out of self-interest, populations are able to “… treat distant kin and strangers with the same respect and concern they show close kin.” They suggest that, in order to manage scarce resources that must be distributed in such a manner that they will sustain the entire population, people begin to observe behavioral standards that serve to protect those common resources. They state, “It is only through the political elaboration of institutions and rules to control free-riders that communities larger than small family groups can be maintained in a competitive environment.” (Johnson and Earle 2000: 26)

Similarly, John F. Scarry , writing of the Southeast United States, (1996: 18) suggests

“Population increases in some areas led to changes in food procurement… As some sources of food became more difficult or costly to obtain, people used a variety of strategies to maintain their subsistence bases. In some areas they expanded into previously underutilized habitats…” Recognizing the complexity of the processes of formation of social stratification, Scarry (1996: 19) suggests that the conflicts resulting from population increase may have produced chiefdoms.

Thus, in one area demographic pressure might have been ameliorated by the managerial strengths of chiefly political organization; in another area warfare might have led to the consolidation of independent and relatively egalitarian communities under the control of a single strong leader; in still another social competition among leaders might have resulted in increasing demands for surplus production and the eventual institutionalization of wealth-based status differences.

Thus, in contrast to those who argue that social stratification results from abundance, some archaeologists argue that social stratification may emerge from conditions of scarcity.

70 Does the archaeological record of the Glades Periods in the Everglades Culture Area

exhibit evidence of differential material accumulation and/or monumental architecture or

public works? Robert Carr (1985: 298) in one of his early publications, reports the

existence of the Dade Circle (8Da1642) an earthen berm structure of about 180 meters in

diameter located “...near the headwaters of the Miami River.” (Carr 1985: 298).

8Da1642 was known only from aerial photos. He also reported a historically known earthen berm structure, containing interior crossed berms, that he called the Miami Circle

(8Da2148) and that was known only from a 19th Century land survey and reported as being 60 meters in diameter. 8Da2148 is not the same site as the Miami Circle at

Brickell Point (8Da00012) although it too is located somewhere on the south side of the

Miami River. 8Da 1642 and 8Da2148 are now destroyed or covered by urban development.

A linear berm that exhibited several sharp directional changes also existed on the north bank of the New River just west of what is now downtown Ft. Lauderdale. This structure, the New River Earthworks, 8Bd00003, now destroyed, was also known from an early land survey and from descriptions of early American settlers.

In Monroe County, at the southern end of the Everglades, two Glades Period canals, the Snake Bight Canal (8Mo029) and the Mud Lake Canal (8Mo032) are unique as a public works in the Culture Area. The Mud Lake Canal is 6.3 kilometers in length and 9 meters wide and .5 meters deep in places. (Division of Historical Resources 2004: 67) It is likely that the two canals constitute the largest and most remarkable example of organized labor expenditure and detailed planning of any structure in the Culture Area.

The location of all of the aforementioned monumental archaeological sites can be seen in

71 Figure 10.

Moreover, Amy Felmley (1991: 54) identified 23 constructed burial mounds in the

Culture Area and Madden (8Da45) has been described as a possible temple mound

(Division of Historical Resources 2004: 65). Considering the paucity of structures,

Christopher Eck suggests that the general lack of archaeological evidence for social

complexity as interpreted through the presence of architecture, may be due to destruction

of sites, many of which would have been located in areas near the coast and consequently

underwent early modern development. He argues that the archaeological record is

therefore skewed against interpretations of the development of social complexity

(Personal Communication, 3/10/06).

The other primary sources of evidence of social differentiation, grave goods, are rare.

Felmley (1991:71) has argued that high status is can be interpreted through the specific

placement of individuals in burial mounds rather than through the presence of grave

goods.

Nevertheless, the most widely known archaeologist working in South Florida, Robert

Carr, has suggested that a stratified society arose in the Everglades Culture Area during the Glades II Period. (Carr 2002: 197-198) The theme study prepared by the Florida

Division of Historical Resources (2004: 5) also enthusiastically maintains that “The

Tequesta were not a simple band of hunter-gatherers” and supports the notion of

Tequesta (Glades) social stratification consistently throughout the document. However, the study (2004: 36 and 37) retreats from this position in its discussion of sociopolitical development, stating “Information on sociological organization is limited…” and

“Specific studies of Tequesta sociopolitical organization and development are lacking.”

72 Figure 10 Monumental Glades Sites 73 The theme study, leaving this apparent contradiction unresolved, ultimately poses the question “Is there evidence for development of a chiefdom level social organization…?”

Ultimately, the question of whether or not Glades II and III people had organized themselves into a stratified society is beyond the scope of this work although these research results may influence discourse on that question through the analysis of settlement patterns.

This chapter has brought together socio-cultural anthropological theory and discussions and interpretations of the archaeological record in the subject area. General questions that arise from the juncture of theory and the archaeological record are presented and issues revolving around the matter of possible Glades Period social stratification are discussed.

74

CHAPTER SEVEN

Hypotheses and Methods

This chapter sets out the hypotheses that give structure to the research questions posed in the previous chapter. It also describes the methods that will be employed in the research process. Since research methods flow from hypotheses these two research elements are juxtaposed in this chapter.

These hypotheses are designed to address questions relating to settlement choices and patterns and mobility during the Glades Periods in the Everglades Culture Area. The hypotheses can be divided into two general categories. First, those hypotheses that treat questions of the relationships of human settlement to its environment are explored. The second group deals with questions of the relationship between and among human settlements. The various hypotheses are presented here accompanied by a statement of research objective. Within the hypotheses’ OBJECTIVES are commentaries tying the hypotheses’ test to theoretical discussions or previously published opinions.

Following the hypotheses presentation, general GIS program methods that underlie the research are discussed. These GIS program procedures narrowed and focused the great volume of temporal cultural data dispersed across a large geographic area. The general methodological presentation is in turn followed by a description of hypothesis specific methodology. Where appropriate each hypothesis is tested against data from

75 each of the Glades Periods individually.

Hypotheses

(H1) Site densities in the interior of Pine Forests and along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge are of a similar density to those in the Ridge and Slough and Peat Transverse Glades.

OBJECTIVE This hypothesis tests whether or not high ground was employed as a patch or as a refuge from storm surge or for some other value of high ground. The elimination of fringe or ecotone sites located in the high ground but that might be associated with Ridge and Slough subsistence based activities leaves only those that would indicate use of the Pine Forests as a patch or exploitable environment in and of itself. Concentrations of sites in the Pine Forest might indicate resource tethering. This hypothesis tests the application of Optimal Foraging Theory to the Pine Forests.

(H2) There is a pattern of sites distributed in and around Cypress Sloughs located north of the Peat Transverse Glades that flowed toward the estuary.

OBJECTIVE Cypress Sloughs in the northeastern part of the Culture Area were submerged all or part of each year. Therefore, the Cypress Sloughs that flowed toward watercourses now known as the Hillsborough River, Cypress Creek and the North Fork of the North New River could have constituted courses of canoe travel for the indigenous population. This hypothesis tests whether or not Glades populations employed all transverse flows as travel courses. This tests notions of mobility expressed by Carr (1993) and Williams and Mower (1979) and Milanich (1994).

(H3) Sites are located along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge in a linear distribution.

OBJECTIVE The Atlantic Coastal Ridge was the longest and most continuous, although not entirely so, north-south permanently dry land in the region. If trade or other organized contact with societies located to the north was conducted on foot, then a discernable series of stopping points should appear. This hypothesis tests several notions. It is known that St. John’s series ceramics were traded into the area, but trade routes have not been established. The Atlantic Coastal Ridge could have offered a refuge from tidal surge during storm seasons. Evidence of it having safety as a “pull” factor would be seen by the presence of sites. Finally, the Atlantic Coastal Ridge could have been a desirable locale for settlement placement if Glades people were Central Place Foragers or collectors (Binford 1980). 76 (H4) There is a pattern of large sites on the interior, western, side of the Pine Forests and Atlantic Coastal Ridge.

OBJECTIVE If coastal and estuarine locales were preferred long term residential areas, then the Collector model would suggest that task groups leaving habitation sites located away from Transverse Glades and seeking to exploit the Ridge and Slough might travel west on foot through the Pine Forests and then enter the fresh water environments at specific sites located along the western edge of the Pine Forests. Such repeatedly used sites would leave substantial and easily recognized material deposits. This hypothesis tests notions of mobility and a possible articulation of Binford’s collector pattern (1980). It also tests Griffin’s (2002) proposition that coastal sites were primary settlements.

(H5) The density of sites within the Peat Transverse Glades and east of the north-south alignment of the western edge of the Pine Forests is similar to site density in the Ridge and Slough.

OBJECTIVE If Peat Transverse Glades played a role as important transportation routes, then site densities should be greater than if they were merely a patch. Higher site density might also indicate the employment of Peat Transverse Glades as points from which to exploit marine resources while still having fresh water available in the immediate vicinity of the habitation locale or to provide points of exchange with sites on Barrier Islands. This hypothesis tests whether Peat Transverse Glades, as coastal locations, were a primary settlement locale as suggested by Griffin (2002) or if they were merely an extension of the Ridge and Slough.

(H6) A majority of large and significant mainland sites are located within 10 kilometers of other major environmental zones: Coastal Marshes, Marl Marshes, Peat Transverse Glades and upland forests.

OBJECTIVE Hypothesis 1 examines the possibility of environmental preferences by comparing site density in Pine Forests to those of the Ridge and Slough. Hypothesis 6 examines the possibility of preference for large or significant residential locations having access to mixed environments. This hypothesis informs understanding of Optimal Forging Theory as it applies to Southeast Florida. It also serves to describe possible locations of collector (Binford 1980) central settlements or permanent villages in the interior (Carr 1993).

(H7) The density of sites within the various distinct environmental zones changes throughout the three Glades periods.

OBJECTIVE Variations in occupation among the three periods will be examined in order to surmise possible patterns and reasons for habitation occupation shifts. This

77 hypothesis tests whether the cultural conservatism of the Glades people is manifest in population density (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980 and Carr (2006). It also examines the possible influence of climate change that is suggested by the work of Liu (2004) and Willard et al. (2006).

(H8) On the Pine Islands, including Long Key, sites are located at roughly the same elevation throughout the three Glades Periods and they reflect the same numeric count changes as those found in the Ridge and Slough through each of the three Glades Periods in succession.

OBJECTIVE Since the Pine Islands were naturally elevated and did not require midden accumulation in order to make them dry enough to inhabit, the general location of sites on the islands, as it relates to elevation should not alter over time. If the Pine Islands held no more significance that habitable high ground from which to forage, then site counts on the islands should reflect site count changes found in the Ridge and Slough from one Glades period to the next. This hypothesis tests several notions. If the Pines Islands were a patch then site counts should not increase overtime because resource depletion would deter further settlement. If the Pine Islands were a travel rest stop Carr (1990), then site counts should increase or decrease along with count changes in the Ridge and Slough.

(H9) Within the Ridge and Slough, sites are distributed uniformly.

OBJECTIVE Site concentrations may indicate resource tethering especially during annual dry periods or during protracted droughts. In addition to the possible identification of resource tethering through map inspection, this hypothesis attempts to inform notions of effective foraging radius (Kelly 1995).

(H10) Large sites are uniformly spaced in relation to each other.

OBJECTIVE If large or exceptional sites are uniformly distributed, the pattern would indicate a probable collector rather than forager subsistence pattern (Binford 1980). Such evidence could also provide a basis for theoretical analysis based in Central Place Theory. This hypothesis informs several propositions and theoretical applications. The propositions that there existed permanent interior villages (Carr 1993) and that the Glades people could have followed a collector subsistence strategy (Binford 1980) are tested. In addition it explores the possibility of social stratification (Carr 2002 and DHR 2004).

(H11) There is a linear pattern of sites leading from the Transverse Glades and rivers toward significant sites in the interior.

OBJECTIVE If Transverse Glades and rivers were more than merely a patch and were established routes of communication, then linear patterns of sites extending to and from 78 the Transverse Glades and rivers should appear. This hypothesis tests notions of mobility, coastal location primacy, Central Place Theory and social stratification.

(H12) The distribution and distance between large and small sites exhibits a discernible pattern.

OBJECTIVE A pattern of a distribution of smaller sites in relationship to large and significant sites might be indicate incipient or developed social stratification or a Collector hunter-gatherer model. This hypothesis searches for evidence of Central Places and social stratification.

Methods

This section of this chapter first presents research methods that are general in nature.

That is, certain fundamental steps were required in order to arrange data in a format in which they could be analyzed. The second part of this section reviews methods that were particular to the specific hypothesis in question.

The geographic information system employed in this work was Arcgis 9, Arcmap

Version 9.2. GIS program procedures follow.

• Convert all data sets to the coordinate system, NAD 83 HARN.

• Clip data to eliminate all sites that fall only within The Everglades Culture Area, here referred to as The Study Area. FMSF shape files incorporated in this study include those for Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, Monroe and Hendry Counties; those counties whose terrain completely or partially fall within The Study Area.

• Delete all sites that are not designated as Glades, or those that do not indicate that they can be reasonably assumed to have been affiliated with the Glades Periods as discussed in Chapter Five.

• Create data fields in each FMSF Data Base File for Glades, I, II and III, Glades Undesignated, and Top 6th.

79 • Assign values for each site in each of the Glades data fields in accordance with relevant information found in the FMSF Data Base File.

• By county, sort Data base Files by values for Glades, I, II and III and Top 6th and create shape files based upon each sorting process.

• Calculate site surface areas, in meters, of Glades II and III sites in Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties. Sort the sites by size and assign values to those sites that fall within the largest 1/6 of all sites.

• Combine shape files of sorted Glades and Top 6th with clipped South Florida Landscapes shape files.

• Within South Florida Landscapes, delineate the SFWMD jurisdiction that lies within the Study Area, measure it’s surface area and clip.

• Using Steinberg’s (1976) Vegetation Map of Broward County and the SFWMD Soils Data Layer (Metadata attached as Appendix U), create shape files delineating those Pine Forest, Atlantic Coastal Ridge and Cypress Slough geological formations and environmental zones missing in South Florida landscapes.

• Measure the surface area, in kilometers, of each of the environmental zones contained within the Study Area.

• Delete sites that lie within the SFWMD jurisdiction.

• Create finished maps where required for data elaboration and analysis.

Execution of the foregoing procedures sorted, focused, arranged or further developed the basic GIS data found in the FMSF and South Florida Landscapes into data sets that could be employed for the testing of each of the enumerated hypotheses. Depending upon the specific requirements of a hypothesis being tested, further methodological procedures are developed that then allow more problem specific analysis. A discussion of hypothesis specific methods follows.

80 H1) Site densities in the interior of Pine Forests and along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge are of a similar density to those in the Ridge and Slough and Peat Transverse Glades.

The testing of this hypothesis requires that the Pine Forest-Atlantic

Coastal Ridge shape file developed for this research be overlaid on the South Florida

Landscapes file in order to produce a more complete depiction of the pre-drainage high ground environmental zones. The Glades I, II and III shape files are then overlaid on the composite map. Preliminary review demonstrated that only visual inspection of the map is required in order to test the hypothesis.

(H2) There is a pattern of sites distributed in and around Cypress Sloughs located north of the Peat Transverse Glades that flowed toward the estuary.

Overlaying the Pine Forest-Atlantic Coastal Ridge shape file developed for this research on the South Florida Landscapes file in order to produce a more complete depiction of the pre-drainage high ground environmental zones tests this hypothesis. The

Glades I, II and III shape files, in combination, are then overlaid on the composite map.

Preliminary review demonstrated that only visual inspection of the map is required in order to test the hypothesis.

H3) Sites are located along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge in a linear distribution.

As in Hypotheses 1 and 2, the testing of this hypothesis requires that the Pine Forest-

Atlantic Coastal Ridge shape file developed for this research be overlaid on the South

Florida Landscapes file in order to produce a more complete depiction of the pre- drainage high ground environmental zones. The Glades I, II and III shape files are then

81 overlaid on the composite map. Preliminary review demonstrated that only visual inspection of the map is required in order to test the hypothesis.

H4) There is a pattern of large sites on the interior, western, side of the Pine Forests and Atlantic Coastal Ridge.

As in Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, the testing of this hypothesis requires that the Pine

Forest-Atlantic Coastal Ridge shape file developed for this research be overlaid on the

South Florida Landscapes file in order to produce a more complete depiction of the pre- drainage high ground environmental zones. The Glades I, II and III shape files are then overlaid on the composite map. Preliminary review demonstrated that only visual inspection of the map is required in order to test the hypothesis.

H5) The density of sites within the Peat Transverse Glades and east of the north-south alignment of the western edge of the Pine Forests is similar to site density in the Ridge and Slough.

In order to test this hypothesis site densities of the two subject environmental zones must be compared. By Period and applying each county’s FMSF shape files separately and placing them on South Florida Landscapes, sites are counted by selecting features by location, buffered .5 kilometers in order to include sites located nearby but not precisely within the geographic data set designated “Transverse Glades.” Spreadsheets are then formulated that exhibit and summarize site distributions. Site densities are calculated within each environmental zone and analyzed based on requirements of the hypothesis.

(H6) A majority of large and significant mainland sites are located within 10 kilometers of other major environmental zones: Coastal Marshes, Marl Marshes, Peat Transverse Glades and upland forests.

82

Site Catchment Analysis has been employed by archaeologists as a method to evaluate the distribution of resources, especially food resources, within a given distance of or within the exploitation range of specific sites (Vita-Finzi 1978: 28 and Roper 1979:

122-125). Southeast Florida’s very flat terrain that is uninterrupted by mountains, canyons or fast flowing rivers that might interfere with foot or canoe travel, lends itself to analysis within arbitrarily drawn circular catchments. While reconstruction of resource content within any of the catchments, as suggested by Joseph Tiffany and Larry Abbott

(1982: 316) would be beyond the scope of this research, the varying physiographic and environmental zones and the differential distribution of sites within them, offer an opportunity to analyze site placement preferences that may relate to successful foraging practices. While Hunt (1992:284-285) recognizes the limitations of catchment analysis in general, he is enthusiastic about the potential of applying GIS systems to catchment analysis. Eleazer Hunt finds that facility of the inclusion of multiple data layers such as soils, vegetation and topography offers great potential for archaeological analysis and interpretation (Hunt 1992:288-289).

In this application, a shape file composed of the largest 1/6 of all sites is created for

Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties; Palm Beach and Hendry Counties possess few sites and are on the geographic periphery of the Culture Area. The largest 1/6 of sites was selected as a criterion for large site’s potential as Central Places as is explored in

Hypotheses 11 and 12. Charles Pearson (1978: 60) argues, “Until reliable and realistic techniques are developed for determining the population of prehistoric settlements, settlement size is seen as the most logical equivalent.” Furthermore, the list of significant sites presented in the Florida Division of Historical Resources Theme Study (2004: 111) 83 could not be applied to this research in that some of the sites were listed as significant for

their state of preservation, not necessarily their size or other possible pre-historic social

significance (Robert Carr, personal communication, 11/30/06).

Assuming that 10 kilometers would be a distance that foraging parties could walk or

canoe in one day (Hunt 1992: 284), a 10 kilometer buffer is formed around the large and

significant sites. The absolute and relative amounts of each type of environmental zone

that is contained with in each buffer will be calculated. The map resulting from and

depicting the above is prepared. A spreadsheet is formulated summarizing the

environmental composition of each buffer zone for Glades Periods II and III.

(H7) The density of sites within the various distinct environmental zones changes throughout the three Glades Periods.

In order to test this hypothesis, site densities of the various environmental zones must be compared. By Glades Period, and applying each county’s FMSF shape files separately and placing them on South Florida Landscapes, sites are counted by selecting features by location. Site files of each Period are overlaid in succession in order to establish coincidence of successive site occupation. Spreadsheets are then formulated that exhibit and summarize site distributions. Site densities are calculated within each environmental zone and analyzed based on requirements of the hypothesis.

(H8) On the Pine Islands, including Long Key, sites are located at roughly the same elevation throughout the three Glades Periods and they reflect the same numeric count changes as those found in the Ridge and Slough through each of the three Glades Periods in succession. .

84 Four separate maps, one each for each Glades Period and one for all Periods combined, are created for the Pine Islands and Long Key. Each period map is inspected to determine relative placement of sites along the flanks of the islands. Observations of each are then compared with those of the succeeding period. A spreadsheet of Pine

Island sites including period data is derived for each Glades Period data base file. Counts of sites in each Period are compared in succession with similar spreadsheets created for the testing of Hypothesis 7.

(H9) Within the Ridge and Slough, sites are distributed uniformly.

It is posited that sites are not uniformly distributed throughout the Culture Area because of their near absence in several of the large environmental zones such as the Atlantic Coastal

Ridge, Mangroves and Rockland Marl Marsh. As such, site distribution analysis of the Ridge and Slough, the environmental zone containing a majority of sites, is deemed to have great analytic potential.

Peter Peregrine in his text, Archaeological Research: A Brief Introduction (2001:

105-123), offers a concise review of a number of methodological approaches that that have been applied in archaeological research of both artifact and site distribution.

Nearest Neighbor analysis is one of these methods. David Ebdon (1985: 143) points out that Nearest Neighbor analysis is a technique originally developed by plant ecologists and it involves the calculation of mean distances among all points and their nearest neighbors.

The Arcgis Desktop Help 9.1 describes Nearest Neighbor Analysis in the following manner.

The Average Nearest Neighbor Distance tool measures the distance between each feature centroid and its nearest neighbor's centroid location. 85 It then averages all these nearest neighbor distances. If the average distance is less than the average for a hypothetical random distribution, the distribution of the features being analyzed are considered clustered. If the average distance is greater than a hypothetical random distribution, the features are considered dispersed. The index is expressed as the ratio of the observed distance divided by the expected distance (expected distance is based on a hypothetical random distribution with the same number of features covering the same total area). If the index is less than 1, the pattern exhibits clustering. If the index is greater than 1, the trend is toward dispersion.

Before data are run, Broward, Dade and Monroe FMSF site data for each Period will

be merged. The number of sites in the Palm Beach and Hendry Counties’ data sets is

small and the sites are geographically peripheral to the principal portion of the Ridge and

Slough. As such, they are excluded so that results are not distorted. Program run results

for the Ridge and Slough will be included in the text and analyzed.

(H10) Large sites are uniformly spaced in relation to each other.

Large-Significant site data files for Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties for Glades

Periods II and III will be merged within their individual Periods. Nearest Neighbor

analysis for these data sets will be run for the Culture Area. Program run results for the

Culture Area will be included in the text and analyzed.

(H11) There is a linear pattern of sites leading from the Transverse Glades and rivers toward significant sites in the interior.

Shape files depicting both large and significant sites and all Period sites for each

Glades Period are created. The hypothesis is tested through visual inspection of each

Period map.

(H12) The distribution and distance between large and small sites exhibits a discernible pattern. 86

Archaeologists have employed Central Place Theory in order to address notions

relating to social stratification in ancient societies. Christopher A. Pool (2007: 22)

succinctly describes certain aspects of these theoretical applications.

Archaeologists have further extended Central Place Theory to non-market economies. As applied to ancient political systems, the reasoning is that the political, economic and religious institutions that unite the society will be concentrated in the community of the ruler, which will also tend to be larger than the subordinate communities.

Chiefdoms are expected to have two or three levels in the settlement hierarchy, corresponding to chiefly centers and villages.

In order to examine Glades Period settlements for possible central place

characteristics, the shape file of large and significant sites for Glades II and Glades III,

with the large sites marked by distinctive presentation features, is laid over the general

shape files for each of those two Periods. The resulting combined map is visually

inspected for the presence of large sites in patterned geographic relationship to smaller

sites.

Differential use, function or significance of individual archaeological sites can be

identified through a number of criteria other than size. In this regard a body of thought

relating to artifact diversity and richness has emerged. The reasoning employed by these

researchers is that differing artifact assemblages from individual sites will indicate

different cultural functions or social status of individuals who used the site. David Rhode

(1988: 708) explains

Assemblage diversity usually is measured either in terms of number of artifact classes … or in terms of the relative abundance of those classes, and differences in assemblage diversity have been thought to represent important differences in settlement function, social relations, or subsistence patterns… 87

The Broward County Historical Commission maintains printed files of all submittals to the FMSF and other textual material, such as articles or reports, that relate to any given site. The Miami-Dade County office of Historic Preservation also retains similar files

(Jeff Ransom, personal communication, 7/1907). Broward and Dade detailed files will be reviewed for completeness of artifact records relating to possible Central Place patterned sites and evaluated accordingly.

This chapter has presented 12 hypotheses that can be tested through the manipulation of the data at hand that have been arranged as stated in previous chapters. The chapter also lays out the methods that have been employed in order to trim and focus raw geographic and archaeological data for generation of the key maps required for this work.

Descriptions of general methodological procedures are followed by detailed descriptions of specific methods employed to test each hypothesis.

88

CHAPTER EIGHT

Research Results

The results of this research, the testing of 12 hypotheses, are contained in this chapter.

Each hypothesis is presented along with maps and tabular data derived from the various combinations of geographic and archaeological geo-spatial data sets. Discussions developed in

the text draw out the observations that can be found in each group of maps or tabular data. The

chapter closes with a presentation of conclusions formed from the testing of hypothesis.

(H1) Site densities in the interior of Pine Forests and along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge are of a similar density to those in the Ridge and Slough and Peat Transverse Glades.

OBJECTIVE This hypothesis tests whether or not high ground was employed as a patch or as a refuge from storm surge or for some other value of high ground. The elimination of fringe or ecotone sites located in the high ground but that might be associated with Ridge and Slough subsistence based activities leaves only those that would indicate use of the Pine Forests as a patch or exploitable environment in and of itself. Concentrations of sites in the Pine Forest might indicate resource tethering.

A preliminary review of data sets relating to all Glades Period and Undesignated sites

that might be situated within the Pine Forests and along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge

indicated that more detailed selection by location accompanied by buffering was not

necessary. The preliminary review also indicated that no comparative site density

calculation would be required. Figure 11, Sites on Atlantic Coastal Ridge, clearly

89 Figure 11 Sites on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge 90 demonstrates that while there are a considerable number of sites from all Periods located along rivers and Peat Transverse Glades that intersect the interior of areas of higher elevation, with but one exception, there are no sites located in the Pine Forests and along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. Despite the fact that pools of fresh water were available, the elevated terrain did not constitute a foraging patch nor did indigenous people leave evidence that they sought shelter from storm surge in those areas. The only exception to the above is Castellow Hammock (8Da02134), a Glades Undesignated site. The FMSF describes Castellow Hammock only as a “prehistoric midden.”

Considering the above, Hypothesis 1 is falsified.

(H2) There is a pattern of sites distributed in and around Cypress Sloughs located north of the Peat Transverse Glades that flowed toward the estuary.

OBJECTIVE Cypress Sloughs in the northeastern part of the Culture Area were submerged all or part of each year. Therefore, the Cypress Sloughs that flowed toward watercourses now known as the Hillsborough River, Middle River, Cypress Creek and the North Fork of the North New River could have constituted courses of canoe travel for the indigenous population.

The ecological zone designated here as the Broward Cypress Soughs lies between the

Ridge and Slough to the west and the Pine Forests and Atlantic Coastal Ridge to the east.

Steinberg (1976) classified these sloughs as “Swamp.” The surface water hydraulic regime would have been one of permanent and semi-permanent very gradual flows toward the east with the formation of discernable channels as the water courses passed through the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. During extended droughts even the channels of lowest elevation would have dried up. These eastern channels became known as the

Hillsborough River, Middle River, Cypress Creek and the North Fork of the North New

River in the historic period. Despite the fact that the transverse glades and their upstream 91 cypress sloughs would have borne fresh water flows most years, Glades people left little record of their use of these flow ways for canoe transportation. Figure 12, Sites on

Broward Cypress Slough and Atlantic Coastal Ridge, a map showing all Glades Periods as well as those that are Undesignated, demonstrates that while a large number of sites along the New River are known, there are virtually no sites along and in the Cypress

Soughs or in the adjacent ecotones leading to elevated ground. The site that is the more southerly of the two located in the cypress sloughs, Commercial Island (8Bd01101) is described in the FMSF as Glades Undesignated and is characterized as a habitation site, shell midden, midden, specialized site for resource procurement and a low density artifact scatter. The more northerly “site”, called Fern Forest (8Bd02559), is Undesignated and is referred to as a “single artifact or isolated find.”

Although the north Broward streams appear not to have been employed as travel ways, Figure 11 brings into focus a notable example of resource tethering. Of the 9 sites situated on the Barrier Island north of the New River, 8 are located latitudinally east of the outlets of the fresh water streams. Deerfield Beach (8Bd00089), Hillsborough Inlets

1 and 2 (8Bd00008 and 8Bd00093), Pompano Midden (8Bd00005), Pompano Beach

Mound (8Bd00007), Pompano Beach Midden (8Bd00006), Emerald Tower (8Bd00057) and Ft. Lauderdale Beach (8Bd00001) all had very direct access to fresh water streams

on the mainland. Figure 11 demonstrates that this very direct surface fresh water tethering is not as evident in Dade County where only Surfside Midden and Surfside

Mound (8Da00021 and 8Da00022), Virginia Key (8Da00006) and Bear Cut Preserve

(8Da05247) are located almost directly east of the fresh water sources. It must be noted that the Barrier Islands in Dade County diverge away from the coast so travel to the fresh

92

Figure 12 Sites on Broward Cypress Slough and Atlantic Coastal Ridge 93 water sources would have been more strenuous and therefore less useful compared to other methods of potable water acquisition or storage.

In these maps at large scales, coastal sites appear to be located in the ocean. A distortion, apparently encountered in the FMSF data, seems to misplace only those sites along the coast and this distortion could not be rectified. However, the geo-spatial distortion is not encountered elsewhere in the data sets and does not interfere with any of the analyses developed in this thesis.

Given the above, Hypothesis 2 is falsified.

(H3) Sites are located along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge in a linear distribution.

OBJECTIVE The Atlantic Coastal Ridge was the longest and most continuous, although not entirely so, north-south permanently dry land in the region. If trade or other organized contact with societies located to the north was conducted on foot, then a discernable series of stopping points should appear.

The findings of Hypothesis 1 have established that there is but one site in the interior of, or along the most elevated trajectory of, the Atlantic Coast Ridge. As such, the notion that the high elevations of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge were employed as a path of travel connecting the southern portions of the Culture Area to those of the north is disproved.

As Figure 11 demonstrates, however, there are numerous sites, beginning in the coastal Mangrove-Atlantic Coastal Ridge ecotone south of the Miami River, running north through and intersecting the Peat Transverse Glades to the New River. This pattern, with some variation from Period to Period, nevertheless holds true for each of the

Periods when they are examined individually. North of the New River there continues a series of sites, located on continuous dry ground, on the Barrier Island in Broward

County. The Everglades Culture Area boundary lies two kilometers north of the 94 Hillsboro River and just north of the Broward County Line. It must be noted that, in any event, several rivers, creeks and flooded transverse glades intersect the elevated ground of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and that these features would have served to obstruct foot travel.

In consideration of the facts stated above, Hypothesis 3 is falsified.

(H4) There is a pattern of large sites on the interior, western, side of the Pine Forests and Atlantic Coastal Ridge.

OBJECTIVE If coastal and estuarine locales were preferred long term residential areas, then the Collector model would suggest that task groups leaving habitation sites located away from Transverse Glades and seeking to exploit the Ridge and Slough might travel west on foot through the Pine Forests and then enter the fresh water environments at specific sites located along the western edge of the Pine Forests. Such repeatedly used sites would leave substantial and easily recognized material deposits.

This hypothesis is predicated on the notion that sites will be found on Barrier Islands, in the estuary lying west of the Barrier Islands or in the coastal Mangroves or Mangrove ecotone with the Atlantic Coastal Ridge but will be situated at a distance from rivers or transverse glades. Inhabitants of such locations, if they followed the Collector strategy of hunter-gatherers, might develop, over time, “jumping off points” that would serve as regular places of departure for Collectors entering the near wet environments of the

Cypress Sloughs, Ridge and Slough or Rockland Marl Marsh. Figure 12 demonstrates that there are no sites that fit this criterion north of the New River. By definition, the sites located in the Peat Transverse Glades located between the Miami and New Rivers, also do not fit the criteria. Given the foregoing, only sites south of the Miami River

can be the subject of this analysis.

In this regard their exist only two paired sets of sites. They are depicted in Figure 13,

95 Figure 13 Possible Interior and Coastal Site Pairs

96 Possible Interior and Coastal Site Pairs. The Miami Sand Mound 3 (Da00019), an

Undesignated site characterized as a platform mound that is located on the western edge of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge formation lies in possible relation to the Cornelia Drive Site

(8Da06522) a low density artifact scatter along the coast at a distance of 6.9 kilometers.

However, it is improbable that the Miami Sand Mound 3 would have a significant logistic connection to a low-density artifact scatter such as Cornelia Drive.

Kendall Hospital (8Da01648) an Undesignated prehistoric midden and Kendall

Coleman (8Da02131), an Undesignated low-density scatter might be related to two groups of coastal sites. Weytz (8Da04404 ) an Undesignated low density scatter is located in close proximity to Jim South (8Da05364) an Undesignated prehistoric midden at a distance of 9.35 kilometers from the Kendall sites. To the south of Weytz-Jim South lie Cutler Mound (8da00008) a Glades II and III burial mound and Deering Estates

Midden (8Da06519) a Glades III prehistoric midden and shell midden. These two sites are found at approximately 10.55 kilometers from the Kendall sites.

Given the virtually unique set of circumstances apparently exhibited by the later set of coastal and inland sites, it is concluded that it is highly unlikely that the inhabitants of one or two coastal settlements would establish forging practices unlike those of any other settlement located along the coast.

The notion that coastal inhabitants, who could be characterized as fitting the Collector model of foraging, would travel across the Atlantic Coastal Ridge as part of regular foraging strategy as posited in Hypothesis 4 is falsified.

97 Figure 14 Sites On Peat Transverse Glades

98 (H5) The density of sites within the Peat Transverse Glades and east of the north-south alignment of the western edge of the Pine Forests is similar to site density in the Ridge and Slough.

OBJECTIVE If Peat Transverse Glades played a role as important transportation routes, then site densities should be greater than if they were merely a patch. Higher site density might also indicate the employment of Peat Transverse Glades as points from which to exploit marine resources while still having fresh water available in the immediate vicinity of the habitation locale or to provide points of exchange with sites on Barrier Islands.

Figure 14 is a map of all Glades Period and Undesignated sites in and near the Peat

Transverse Glades. The map demonstrates that a number of sites lie in the Peat

Transverse Glades and the near Ridge and Slough and Ridge and Slough ecotones along the western flanks of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. There appears to be north, middle and south site clusters with the middle and south clusters following fresh water streams to the

Mangroves and tide. Table 10 compares the concentration of sites in each of the three

Site counts represented in the Peat Transverse Glades include those directly located within the geographic data set of that name as well as a 1.5-kilometer buffer drawn around that data set. The 1.5-kilometer buffer was employed in order to recognize sites in the near Ridge and Slough and in the Atlantic Coastal Ridge data set ecotones as being part of the Peat Transverse Glades site count. The sites that are located within the buffer, especially those in the Atlantic Coastal Ridge ecotone and surrounded by Peat Transverse

Glades, are clearly associated with the Peat Transverse Glade habitation pattern.

Throughout the three Glades Periods site concentrations in the Peat Transverse

Glades are considerably higher than those in the Ridge and Slough. In addition, over time, Glades Period site counts in both the Peat Transverse Glades and the Ridge and

Slough, and consequently, site concentrations, rise in both environments. As site counts rise through the Glades Periods, the count ratio of sites in the Peat Transverse Glades as 99 Table 10 Peat Transverse Glades - Ridge and Slough Site Density Comparison

Square Site Ratio Kilometers/ kilometers count R&S/PTG Density site count Glades I

Peat Transverse Glades* 61.6 9 0.1461 6.84 0.14 Ridge and Slough 2263.93 66 0.0292 34.30

Glades II

Peat Transverse Glades* 61.6 15 0.2435 4.11 0.15 Ridge and Slough 2263.93 102 0.0451 22.2

Glades III

Peat Transverse Glades* 61.6 16 0.2597 3.85 0.15 Ridge and Slough 2263.93 105 0.0464 21.56 *Includes 1.5 kilometer buffer compared to the Ridge and Slough remains stable. That is, the Peat Transverse Glades occupations, in terms of site count, relate closely to those of the Ridge and Slough. Since surface areas in the two subject landscapes remain constant, the ratio is drawn between the site counts themselves.

From these observations of site patterning and densities compared to the Ridge and

Slough it is clear that the Peat Transverse Glades served Glades people as more than an undifferentiated foraging patch. It is apparent that the Peat Transverse Glades, along with the Miami and New Rivers, served as travel ways connecting the interior with the marine environment. As noted in Hypothesis 2, Surfside Midden and Surfside Mound

100 (8Da00021 and 8Da00022) would have had very direct access to the south site complex in the Peat Transverse Glades for the purpose of trade and logistical support.

Five Large-Significant sites, among those that are discussed in Hypotheses 6, are encountered within the bounds of the Peat Transverse Glades. In the north cluster,

Aldanco 3 (8Bd01449) a Glades I and II site, Shady Oaks (8Bd00100) and Crystal Lakes

(8Bd01871) both Glades II and III sites, all lie in the elevated ground ecotone. The placement of these sites presents an aspect of their being locales from, and to, which movement into the Ridge and Slough might have been conducted. Hence, it appears that, in contrast to Hypothesis 4 that explores evidence for overland travel, movement by watercraft was the dominant mode of travel. The Andover Site (8Da04398) on the western end of the middle cluster is also of this Ridge and Slough interface type. Little

River (8Da00020), a Glades II site, is among the most southerly of the Peat Transverse

Glades sites and as its name suggests, lies near one of the fresh water streams leading to tide.

The Peat Transverse Glades sites, given their placements, may have functioned as gateways for the acquisition of marine resources such as shell tools and ornaments and marine foodstuffs received in trade from permanent or semi-permanent coastal dwellers.

In addition, they may have served as habitation locales and fresh water supply points for inland dwelling foraging groups engaged in the marine exploitation component of their foraging rounds.

Hypothesis 5 is falsified.

101 (H6) A majority of large and significant mainland sites are located within 10 kilometers of other major environmental zones: Coastal Marshes, Marl Marshes, Peat Transverse Glades and upland forests.

OBJECTIVE Hypothesis 1 examines the possibility of environmental preferences by comparing site density in Pine Forests to those of the Ridge and Slough. Hypothesis 6 examines the possibility of preference for large or significant residential locations having access to mixed environments.

Hypotheses 1, 2, 4 and 5 have established that Glades people refrained from exploiting the uplands as part of their subsistence strategy but did show preference for occupation of the Peat Transverse Glades. Hypothesis 6 establishes a list of large or significant sites for Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties for each of the Glades II and III

Periods. The difficulties associated with differentiating the specific size of individual constituent components of multicomponent sites within the context of FMSF has already been discussed in Chapter Five. The formulation of the large or significant site lists was conducted at the county level rather than in the aggregate. The county lists offer a convenient manner in which to observe possible relationships that large sites might have maintained with the two rivers, Peat Transverse Glades and coast. The one sixth largest sites in both Glades II and III were chosen as a focus of study because of their potential to represent central places surrounded and supported by dependent communities as is explored in Hypothesis 12.

Table 11 presents the lists of Large-Significant Glades II and III Sites for the three counties in a comparative format that demonstrates the significance of site reoccupation as it relates to this particular hypothesis. Of the 32 Glades II sites and 33 Glades III sites,

20 are multicomponent and appear in both Periods. Site distribution shifts from Glades II to Glades III and their possible significance to the interpretation of settlement patterns are

102 discussed in Hypothesis 7 in detail.

The densities of Large-Significant Sites for each of the two subject Periods within their respective environmental zones for Glades II and III respectively are presented in

Appendices V and W respectively. Although they are included in the Large or

Significant Site list as a result of the sizes extrapolated from the FMSF shape files,

Hully’s Hump (8Bd00045) and Little Doctor (8Da00050) which are located in the

SFWMD jurisdiction, and Tennis Center Dune (8Da05921) and Grossman Farms 1

(8Da00030) both of which are superimposed on other sites, were excluded from the density calculations because they would marginally distort density results.

Figures 15 and 16 depict the distribution of Large or Significant Sites in each of the two subject Glades Periods respectively. Figures 17 and 18, respectively, depict the

Glades II and III Large or Significant site 10-kilometer radius catchments. Due to the number of Glades II and III shared multicomponent sites included in the data set for each of the Periods, with only a few exceptions such as the increase in the number of sites in the Southern Mangroves in Glades III, it is difficult to differentiate the two Periods by visual map inspection.

Since the placement of sites in the Mangroves and on the Barrier islands separates them geographically from the analytical focus of this hypothesis, they are not included in catchment analysis. Because the significant data overlap between the Large or

Significant catchment site lists of the two subject periods catchment analysis yields substantially the same results in both Periods. As such, catchment analysis is performed only for Glades III Large or Significant sites.

103 Table 12 demonstrates that only five of the 23 site catchments included in the catchment analysis are located entirely in the Ridge and Slough. Of those five, the

Madden (8Da00045) catchment almost reaches the uplands. However, considering the previous observations of lack of sites in uplands, the apparent inclusion of diverse environments within 10-kilometer catchments may reflect the layout of environmental

Table 11 Large – Significant Glades II and Glades III Combined

104 Gl_II Site ID Site name Gl_II I Site ID Site name Gl_ II Gl_III

BD00021 HOUDAILLE MOUND 1 1 BD00021 HOUDAILLE MOUND 1 1 BD00045 HULLYS HUMP 1 1 BD00045 HULLYS HUMP 1 1 BD00092 BUZZARDS ROOST 1 1 BD00092 BUZZARDS ROOST 1 1 BD00100 SHADY OAKS 1 1 BD00100 SHADY OAKS 1 1 BD00187 D C A 1 1 BD00187 D C A 1 1 BD00191 SHERIDAN HAMMOCK 1 1 BD00191 SHERIDAN HAMMOC 11 BD01871 CRYSTAL LAKES 1 1 BD01871 CRYSTAL LAKES 1 1 BD03208 HACIENDA 1 1 BD03208 HACIENDA 1 1

BD00057 EMERALD TOWER 1 0 BD01449 ALANDCO #3 0 1 BD00204 ACKERMAN SITE 1 0 BD00007 POMPANO BEACH MO 01 BD02358 MYSTIQUE 1 0 BD00196 NEW RIVER MIDDEN 0 1 BD02882 BLOCKBUSTER #5 1 0 BD03180 ROLLING HILLS GLF CRSE 3 1 0

DA01652 BIRD 1 1 DA01652 BIRD 1 1 DA02199 BUZZARDS' ROOST 1 1 DA02199 BUZZARDS' ROOST 1 1 DA00011 GRANADA 1 1 DA00011 GRANADA 1 1 DA00028 CHEKIKA ST. REC. AREA 1 1 DA00028 CHEKIKA STATE REC 11 DA00030 GROSSMAN FARMS 1 1 1 DA00030 GROSSMAN FARMS 1 1 1 DA00034 TRAIL 1 1 DA00034 TRAIL 1 1 DA00045 MADDENS HAMMOCK 1 1 DA00045 MADDENS HAMMOCK 11 DA00069 CHEKIKAS ISLAND 1 1 DA00069 CHEKIKAS ISLAND 1 1 DA00094 KROME, PRTLND, BMBOO MD 1 1 DA00094 KROME, PORTLAND, 1 1 DA00111 TIGER HAMMOCK 1 1 DA00111 TIGER HAMMOCK 1 1 DA05248 FIRE STATION DUNE 1 1 DA05248 FIRE STATION DUNE 1 1

DA00012 MIAMI CIR. BRICKELL PNT 1 0 DA00070 5 MILE MOUND 0 1 DA00020 LITTLE RIVER 1 0 DA00084 OPALOCKA 0 1 DA00035 COLLINS 1 0 DA03244 MONROE LAKE 0 1 DA00050 LITTLE DOCTOR CAMP 1 0 DA04398 ANDOVER SITE 0 1 DA01054 COOK HAMMOCK 1 0 DA04582 SANDS KEY 2 0 1 DA05922 BIKE PATH DUNE 1 0 DA05247 BEAR CUT PRESERVE 01 DA05364 JIM SOUTH 0 1 DA05921 TENNIS CENTER DUN 01

MO00033 BEAR LAKE MOUNDS 1 1 MO00033 BEAR LAKE MOUNDS 11

MO00127 DYNAMITE ROCK 1 0 MO00075 LUNDSFORD 0 1 MO01111 OYSTER KEY 0 1 Total 32 33 zones in relatively narrow north-south oriented bands rather than being expressions of behavioral choices and foraging practices. In addition, mainland catchment analysis is inconclusive as it relates to understanding diversity in subsistence strategies in that the

105 number of Large sites in the SFWMD jurisdiction is unknown. Given the data at hand, it is suggested that placement of Large or Significant sites is influenced by their proximity to the Rivers and Peat Transverse Glades rather than their access to mixed foraging environments.

A majority of large and significant mainland sites are located within 10 kilometers of a mix of environmental zones. Therefore, the proposition tested in Hypothesis 6 is supported. However, the placement of sites could be related to transportation access rather than subsistence requirements.

(H7) The density of sites within the various distinct environmental zones changes throughout the three Glades Periods.

OBJECTIVE Variations in occupation among the three Periods will be examined in order to surmise possible patterns and reasons for habitation occupation shifts.

An important assumption underlying the analysis of the facts explored in this hypothesis holds that, for any given time period within a specified geographic unit, increases and/or decreases in population are directly correlated with the number of sites recognized in the archaeological record. Sites in Palm Beach and Hendry Counties are not included in this analysis because of their small number and geographic position on the periphery of the Culture Area.

Table 13 is a combined presentation of data found in Tables 5, 6 and 7, comparing site counts in each of the environmental zones through the three Glades Periods. The

106

Figure 15 Large or Significant Glades II Sites

107

Figure 16 Large or Significant Glades III Sites 108 Figure 17 Large or Significant Glades II Site Catchments 109 Figure 18 Large or Significant Glades III Site Catchments 110 Table 12 Large – Significant Mainland Glades III Site Catchment (10KM Radius) Environmental Zone Content in Dade and Broward Counties ______

% Evrgld PTG, key, Mixed River, R&S % upland, % % % Site ID Site nam e R&S Coast only Marl % R&S Marl cypress PTG ocean island M ngrv BD00187 D C A 19010 DA01652 BIRD 164333 BD00092 BUZZARDS' ROOST 18515 DA00034 TRAIL 159365 DA00069 CHEKIKAS ISLAND 1937 DA00070 5 MILE M OUND 18516 DA00084 OPALOCKA 17030 DA00094 KROM E, PRTLND, BMBO M D 155396 DA00111 TIGER HAM MOCK 18317 BD01449 ALANDCO #3 2182854 110 BD00100 SHADY OAKS 2192754 DA04398 ANDOVER SITE 2314716 BD00196 NEW RIVER M IDDEN 294181527 BD01871 CRYSTAL LAKES 210382725 BD03208 HACIENDA 2385110 DA00011 GRANADA 272514126 DA05364* JIM SOUTH 2 15 30 5 30 15 5 BD00021 HOUDAILLE MOUND 3 100 BD00045 HULLYS HUM P 3 100 DA02199 BUZZARDS ROOST 3 100 BD00191 SHERIDAN HAMM OCK 3 100 DA00045 M ADDENS HAM MOCK 3 100

DA00028 CHEKIKA ST REC AREA 4 25 70 5 DA00030**GROSSMAN FARMS 1 4 *Coastal mangrove **Same as DA00028

salient fact encountered in Table 13 is that the total site count increases 53% from Glades

I moving into Glades II. Most of the site count increase, 76 of the total, in the Glades I to

II interval can be accounted for in the Ridge and Slough. The site counts continue to increase from Glades II into Glades III but at the rate of about 6%. Descriptions of site and settlement patterning with each of the Glades Periods is best understood in the context of a comparison with that of the succeeding Period. The two Period intervals, Glades I to Glades II followed by

Glades II to III are here evaluated in detail individually.

Glades I Through Glades II

Glades I

As can be observed in tabular form in Table 5, Glades I sites are distributed throughout the

Culture Area but are concentrated in Dade and Broward Counties, perhaps exhibiting a strong relation to the Miami and New Rivers and the Peat Transverse Glades, with those two counties possessing 94% of all site totals. While, in Glades I, the site counts along the Miami and New

Rivers are identical, the number of sites located in the central and south Peat Transverse Glades clusters exceeds those in the north eight to one. The Marl Marshes count in the aggregate is low.

All seven Barrier Island sites are situated on Elliot Key, the center point of which lies approximately 35 kilometers south of the mouth of the Miami River. Five sites are broadly separated through the Mangroves at the southern end of the Ridge and Slough.

Although Glades I sites in the Ridge and Slough constitute 59% of the total, almost no sites are encountered in the Ridge and Slough south of the latitude of the headwaters of the Miami

River. The exception to the abovementioned boundary observation is a group of four sites that

111 were located in what might have been the Ridge and Slough ecotone with the Rockland Marl

Marsh. Taking into account, and setting aside, the findings of Hypothesis 5 that tests notions relating to preferential occupation in the Peat Transverse Glades, the Ridge and Slough site density at 1site:34.3 square kilometers represents an expression of an inland foraging strategy first preference.

Discussion

In the broad perspective one can interpret the above-described site distribution as an expression of an interior, Ridge and Slough based population that maintained access to the coastal estuary and marine environments through the two rivers and Peat Transverse Glades.

This is clearly an east-west orientation in which movement from place to place occurred in canoes, not on foot.

The absence of sites in the southern portion of the Ridge and Slough suggests that the subsistence strategy of the southern Mangroves inhabitants contrasted markedly with that of the northern coastal-interior linked populations. Evidently the southern Mangrove populations had little or no interest in the resources available in the Ridge and Slough. This fact suggests that the southern Mangroves inhabitants were a population that was substantially distinct from those of the north.

The primary Barrier Island occupations on Elliot Key, then, are problematic. These sites could have been marine oriented foraging bases related to the northern populations and/or stopping points connecting the inhabitants of locales to the south and west with those near the

Miami and New Rivers. The above-described general structure of site distribution substantially persists through the succeeding Glades periods with a number of important modifications.

112 Table 13 All Three Glades Period Site Densities by Landscape Zone/Geographic Area within the Everglades Culture Area

Glades I Glades II Glades III

Kilo- Kilo- Kilo- Gl I meters/ meters/ Gl III meters/ site Gl I site nmber Gl II site Gl II site nmber % change site Gl III site nmber % change Gl counts density sites counts density sites Gl I to Gl II counts density sites II to Gl III

Landscapes 7264.69 109 0.0150 66.65 167 0.0230 43.50 53.21% 177 0.024364 41.04 5.99%

Everglades Keys 533.26 10.0019533.26 1 0.001875 533.26 Eastern Marshes 17.91 Ochopee Marl Marsh 557.97 1 0.0018 557.97 10.0018557.97 6 0.010753 93.00 Peat Transverse Glades* 61.6 9 0.1461 6.84 15 0.2435 4.11 66.67% 16 0.25974 3.85 6.67% Perrine Marl Marsh 945.85 2 0.0021 472.93 40.0042236.46 2 0.002115 472.93 113 Rockland Marl Marsh 624.023 3 0.0048 208.01 70.011289.15 133.33% 6 0.009615 104.00 -14.29% Ridge and Slough -2261.35 Pine Island Ridge, Long Key -2.58 Ridge and Slough with Pine Isnd 2263.93 66 0.0292 34.30 102 0.0451 22.20 54.55% 105 0.04638 21.56 2.94% Sawgrass Plains 199.63 Taylor Slough 47.49 10.021147.49 1 0.021057 47.49 Barrier Islands 143.87 8 0.0556 17.98 16 0.1112 8.99 100.00% 15 0.104261 9.59 -6.25% Mangroves 1291.75 6 0.0046 215.29 50.0039258.35 -16.67% 17 0.01316 75.99 240.00% Pne frsts, uplnd (Brwrd, N. Dade) 414.52 Cypress Sloughs (Broward) 151.19 West boundary cypress 11.7 Miami River Course 7 9 28.57% 5 -44.44% New River Course 7 6 -14.29% 3 -50.00% * Includes 1.5 kilometer extension into Ridge and Slough and other surrounding zones

Figure 19 Glades I Through II Site Distribution 114 Table 14 Distribution of Glades I and Glades II Site Counts Landscape Zones within the Everglades Culture Area

% Glades I Glades I without Glades II % Glades II without (abandoned) Glades I and without Glades II on new Glades I all Glades II Glades II Glades II Glades I all ground

Landscapes 109 42 38.53% 67 100 167 59.88%

Everglades Keys 1 0 1 Eastern Marshes Ochopee Marl Marsh 1 1 1 1 Peat Transverse Glades* 9 4 44.44% 5 10 15 66.67% Perrine Marl Marsh 2 1 1 3 4

115 Rockland Marl Marsh 3 0 3 4 7 Ridge and Slough SamJones - Pine Island Ridge, Long Key Ridge and Slough with Sam Jones 66 25 37.88% 41 60 101 59.41% Sawgrass Plains Taylor Slough 11 Barrier Islands 8 6 75.00% 2 14 16 87.50% Mangroves 6 0 6 0 6 Pine forests and uplands (Broward, N. Dade) Cypress Sloughs (Broward) West boundary cypress Miami River Course 7 4 57.14% 3 6 9 66.67% 16.67% New River Course 7 2 28.57% 5 1 6

Glades I Through Glades II Comparison

Figure 19, Glades I Through Glades II Site Distribution, provides a general view of an increase in population and population shift or expansion from Glades I into Glades II.

Tabular presentations in Table 13 and Table 14 establish the site distribution persistence, change and expansion depicted in Figure 19 in a manner that is more conducive to analysis. The data in Table 13 compare site counts and site densities within the various environmental zones and summarizes data found in Tables 5, 6 and 7. Table 14 again presents the distribution of Glades I sites within their corresponding environmental zones but adds the comparative element of the location of Glades II site counts in relation to those of the earlier Period. The distribution of multicomponent Glades I and II sites as well as the number of those in each of their respective Periods that do not coincide geographically is also defined. The abandonment or coincidence of sites as presented in

Table 14 but enumerated by county is found in Appendix X.

Table 13 demonstrates that there is a remarkable total site count increase of 53.21% moving from Glades I into Glades II. The most notable increases in site counts are found in the Peat Transverse Glades at 6 (66.67%), the Ridge and Slough at 36 (54.55%) and the Barrier Islands at 8 (100%). Site count increases in the Marl Marshes are relatively small in absolute terms but notable nevertheless. Site counts along the two rivers increase by only one in the aggregate. Mangrove occupations remain relatively stable. From the above it is inferred that an extraordinary population increase occurred after the Glades I

Period.

Shifts in the locations of sites along and near the coast are of interest. Most Glades I

116 locales on Elliot Key are abandoned while other new locations on that and neighboring islands are established. Previously unoccupied locales tethered to mainland water sources as described in Hypothesis 2 are also occupied for the first time in Glades II. Four sites in the central and south cluster in the Peat Transverse Glades are abandoned but five other sites in the same clusters are occupied, as are five new occupations in the north cluster with only one in that cluster remaining unoccupied. In the aggregate, 44.44% of

Glades I sites in the Peat Transverse Glades are left unoccupied in Glades II. Both river courses also exhibit the partial shift of site occupations with only a small increase in aggregate site counts. Four of the six Glades II sites in the southern Mangroves were reoccupied from the Glades I Period.

Habitation Shift

Table 14 presents the specific count of the incidence of site abandonment, reoccupation or new occupation from Glades I into Glades II, by environmental zone in detail. In the aggregate, 38.53% of sites occupied in Glades I are abandoned in Glades

II. 30 of the 42, or 71% of the abandoned sites, lie in open wetland areas of the Ridge and Slough, Marl Marshes and Peat Transverse Glades. 79 of 100 sites that are newly occupied in Glades II fall within these same environmental zones. Notably, as demonstrated in Figure 16, tree island sites in the Ridge and Slough reaching away from the longitude of the Miami River toward the southern terminus of the Ridges and Slough are occupied for the first time in Glades II. Why were so many Glades I sites abandoned in the wetland environments and an even greater number of previously unoccupied

117 locales newly inhabited in the Glades II?

Although the Everglades ecosystem began its formation “… as early as 7500-7300 calibrated years before present…” (Willard et al. 2006: 567), it is proposed that a major long term climatic shift involving increased annual rainfall occurred in South Florida during the mid-Glades II Periods. This increase in rainfall generally raised water levels in the wetland environmental zones making lower lying sites uninhabitable in the later

Periods. Long-term water elevations fluctuated over time but were at relatively high levels through the 19th Century.

If modern elevation readings for all wetland sites included in this research were available they would not accurately reflect relative pre-historic conditions in a meaningful manner. Modern elevation readings of undisturbed wetland sites no longer reflect either absolute or even relative elevations that might have characterized wetland terrain prior to the creation of the modern canal system. Soils at locales in the drained areas have oxidized, desiccated or subsided while those in the Conservation Areas or

Everglades National Park are excessively saturated and flooded. In addition, all of these locations underwent differential humus accumulation subsequent to Glades occupations and some received further midden deposition during the historic periods. As such, archaeologically useful measurements of absolute or relative pre-historic elevations of sites within the fresh water wetlands may not be possible. However, comparative site data can be employed to infer relative Glades period elevations.

If some Glades I wetland sites remained unoccupied after the Glades I Period because of higher water levels, FMSF data should demonstrate that many of those sites could have been occupied in the earlier Archaic Periods but not in the Seminole and American

118 historical periods. Table 15 provides detailed occupation data for those Glades I freshwater wetland sites that remained unoccupied in Glades II and later. The tabulations demonstrated that of the 27 Glades I wetland sites that were later abandoned, 12 were occupied in the Archaic but only three indicated any post Glades I occupation. In contrast, 18 of the other 66 Glades I sites from all environmental zones were occupied subsequent to the Glades Periods. Unfortunately, the FMSF does not offer Glades II sub-period data that might indicate whether or not sites that were occupied in Glades I and II were occupied only in Glades IIa when conditions were relatively drier.

A.D. Cohen et al. (1999:10) stratigraphically sampled, tested and analyzed peat pollen content on three tree islands in the north-central Ridge and Slough. Their findings of higher concentrations of Pinus pollen at deep strata suggests “…some wider scale ecological change such as a change in climate or some broad change in the ecosystem due to natural or unnatural events…” (Cohen et al. 1999:35). The peat strata were not dated nor was the nature of the climate change indicated. Pine flourishes in relatively dry conditions so it is inferred that the climactic change would have been a trend toward increased moisture. However, the observations of Debra A. Willard et al. (2006) bear directly upon the proposition that the Ridge and Slough and related wetland ecosystems became wetter soon after the end of the Glades I Period.

119 Table 15 Glades I Period Site Abandonment Comparison, Dade and Broward Counties

Site ID Site name Gl I Gl II arch a b cSem hist R&S PTG Other Gl III

Glades I without later periods

Coastal and other BD04218 Knowlton Sand Mound 1 0 New River 0 BD00003 NEW RIVER ERTHWRKS 1 0 New River 0 Barrier Is. DA00143 BISCAYNE NAT SRE 1 1 0 South 0 DA00144 BISCAYNE NAT SRE 2 1 0 Barrier Is. S 0 DA00146 BISCAYNE NAT SRE 5 1 0 1 Barrier Is. S 0 DA00147 BISCAYNE NAT SRE 6 1 0 Barrier Is. S 0 DA00150 BISCAYNE NAT SRE 9 1 0 1 Barrier Is. S 0 DA00152 BISCAYNE NAT SRE 11 1 0 Barrier Is. S 0 DA01082 BRICKELL BLUFF 1 0 coast 0 Sub-total 9

Freshwater wetland sites DA01024 OLETA RIVER 2 1 0 1 0 DA01026 BUTTONWOOD CAMP 1 0 1 0 DA01039 HIGHLAND LAKES 1 0 1 1 0 BD00086 WEST ROLLING OAKS 1 0 1 r&s 0 BD02153 OTTER 1 0 1 0 BD02154 PARKLAND SITE 1 0 1 0 BD02884 FLORIDA WTLNDSBNK #1 1 0 1 0 BD02885 FLORIDA WTLNDSBNK #2 1 0 1 0 BD02886 FLORIDA WTLNDSANK #3 1 0 1 0 BD02887 EVRGLDES CORP PARK #2 1 0 1 0 BD03178 ROLLING ILLS GLF CRSE 1 1 0 1 0 BD03283 HIATUS #2 1 0 1 0 DA01059 WILLOW CAMP 1 0 1 0 BD03192 BIG CYPRESS #36 1 0 0 BD02755 COQUINA MEADOWS 1 0 1 0 BD02119 NEW TESTAMENT 1 0 r&s 0 BD03195 BIG CYPRESS #39 1 0 0 BD03282 HIATUS #1 1 0 0 DA00033 TAMIAMI TRAIL #1 1 0 1 1 0 DA00039 SOUR ORANGE MIDDEN 2 1 0 0 DA00041 PENNSUCO 1 0 0 post drain DA00087 MEDLEY 2 1 0 1 hist? 0 DA00088 NW 108TH STREET 1 0 0 DA03220 JOSE MARTI 1 0 0 DA05917 BLOCKBUSTER #6 1 0 0 DA06333 BEACON TRADEPRT MDN 1 0 r&s 0 BD02571 MONARCH LAKES #2 1 0 1 0 Sub-total 27

120 Table 15, Continued

Site ID Site name GL_I GL_II arch a b cSem hist R&S PTG OTHER GL_III

Glades I and II only BD00012 PINE ISLAND 1 1 1 1 0 BD00207 SAYWARD SITE 1 1 1 0 DA01052 PRASADO 1 1 1 0 BD00039 LOESCH (SEE 8 BD 87) 1 1 0 BD00087 RIVERMOUNT 1 1 1 0 BD00090 HELER 1 1 0 BD00091 C 9 CANAL 2 1 1 0 BD00204 ACKERMAN SITE 1 1 0 BD02358 MYSTIQUE 1 1 0 BD02882 BLOCKBUSTER #5 1 1 0 DA00007 CUTLER KEY 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 DA01656 VILLA REGINA 1 1 coast 0 DA00001 BISCAYNE NAT SRE 3 1 1 coast 0 DA00012 MIAMI CIR BRCKL PNT 11 1 1 coast0 DA00141 NN 1 1 0 DA01054 COOK HAMMOCK 1 1 0 DA01073 FLAGAMI MIDDEN 2 1 1 0 DA01074 BLUFF CAMP 3 1 1 0 DA01639 KENDALL ISLAND 1 1 0 DA05131 BOGG 1 1 0 DA06347 CAROLLA 1 1 0 Sub-total 21

Glades I through III BD00052 PEACE CAMP 1 1 1 1 BD00074 TAYLORS HEAD 1 1 1 1 BD00092 BUZZARDS ROOST 1 1 1 1 DA00011 GRANADA 1 1 1 1 1 DA00044 OPA LOCKA 3 1 1 1 1 DA00045 MADDENS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 1 DA00411 HONEY HILL 1 1 1 1 DA01031 BLACK CREEK 2 1 1 1 1 DA01081 JOHN 1 1 1 1 1 DA04737 BLACK IS MIDDEN 1 1 1 1 DA05128 L AND L SITE 1 1 1 1 BD00019 SEMINOLE ROCK PIT 1 1 1 BD00041 MARGATE BLOUNT 1 1 1 BD00050 CORAL SPRINGS 1 1 1 1 BD00054 DEER STAND 1 1 1

121 Table 15, Continued

Site ID Site name Gl I Gl II arch a b cSem hist R&S PTG Other Gl III

Glades I through III BD00059 SMITH 1 1 1 BD00065 CAGLES HAMCK - CRL SPGS 5 11 1 BD00066 BISHOPS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 BD00073 ROLLING OAKS 2 1 1 1 BD00109 DEEP FORK/WINDMILL 1 1 1 BD00188 GOODMAN 1 1 1 BD00191 SHERIDAN HAMMOCK 1 1 1 BD00203 SAILBOAT BEND MIDDEN 1 1 1 BD02115 MEGA 1 1 1 BD02146 FRIPP 1 1 1 DA00009 SNAPPER CREEK MIDDEN 1 1 1 DA00010 MUNROE 1 1 1 DA01640 CABBAGE PALM ISLAND 1 1 1 1 1 1 DA01641 FICUS TREE 1 1 1 DA00023 ARCH CREEK (IN DA 398) 1 1 1 DA00025 OLETA RIVER 3 1 1 1 DA00034 TRAIL 1 1 1 DA00048 OPA LOCKA MOUND C 1 1 1 1 1 DA00094 KROME, PRTLND, BMBO MND 11 111 1 DA00398 ARCH CRK HIST & ARCL SITE 1 1 1 DA01034 SUTTON 1 1 1 1 1 DA01045 HOG (In SFWMD) 1 1 1 DA01057 PIG 1 1 1 DA01058 CHEETUMS 1 1 1 DA01068 CIBI 1 1 1 DA01085 COPTIC CAMP 1 1 1 DA06208 LITTLE SNAKE CREEK 1 1 1 eco- BD01449 ALANDCO #3 1 0 1 tone 1 DA00073 7 MILE ROAD 1 0 1 mngrve DA02132 SANTA MARIA 1 0 coast 1 Sub-total 45 Summary Glades I later abandoned, coast 9 9% Glades I lter abndoned, wetland 27 26% Glades I and II 21 21% Glades I through III 45 44% Total 102

122 Willard et al. (2006: 578-580) posit that tree island formation occurs during drought periods.

Although the timing of tree island development is variable, periods of tree island development and maturation correspond to intervals of sustained multidecadal drought documented elsewhere in the region. …we have identified several periods of tree island development at the study sites: 1500-1200 BC, AD 300-400, AD 600-900, AD 1200-1400, and AD 1500- 1800.

As it relates to this study, two salient facts emerge from this data. First, as the Period recognized as the two hundred year long Glades IIb was developing, there would have existed more tree islands scattered across the Ridge and Slough than there were during the previous wetter epoch. Second, water levels in the interior wetland environments would have been rising. John Griffin’s statement bears repeating here, “Something happened at the end of the Glades IIb period at about A.D. 1100, but it is difficult to determine what happened or why” (Griffin 2002: 158).

Discussion

After AD 900, surface water flow volumes and elevations and the duration of hydration periods in the central portion of the Ridge and Slough would have increased as well as in the areas south of the latitude of the Miami River and Peat Transverse Glades.

These increased flows would have surrounded both previously formed and recently formed tree islands. Together these emerging environmental conditions in the Ridge and

Slough were creating increasingly favorable settings for exploitation and habitation by a population adapted to a foraging strategy of extracting resources from freshwater wetlands. Although some habitation sites situated at lower elevations would be 123 abandoned as a result of rising water, many previously occupied sites were sufficiently elevated such that they could continue to be occupied and other tree islands had recently formed that offered a greater number of habitable locales than were previously available.

In response to the growing abundance of habitable space and food supply, populations increased as indicted by the increased number of locales occupied by the Glades II populations. Assuming that the environment that had emerged after AD 900, (the early dates for Glades IIb) had reached an optimal foraging condition, and applying Binford’s

(2002:149) estimates of pre-Contact native populations in the Southeastern portion of

North America at 30 individuals per 100 square kilometers, and employing the surface area of the Ridge and Slough as the applicable habitable area, then the population carrying capacity of the Ridge and Slough would have been approximately 1,488 individuals. Assuming 40 individuals per foraging band, then it can be estimated that approximately 37 bands would have been operating within the confines of the Ridge and

Slough. Perhaps the small aggregate increase in sites in the Marl Marshes indicates that population pressure in the Ridge and Slough required exploitation of less desirable foraging environments, a subsistence response consistent with those suggested by Scarry

(1996:18).

As numbers of this wetland based foraging population increased, so too did their aggregate need for tools and ornamentation derived from marine fauna and, possibly, access to ceramic constituent materials. At this juncture, bands that foraged primarily in the Ridge and Slough would have found that access to the marine environment, or opportunities for trade, through the Peat Transverse Glades and Rivers could only be regulated in a manner that afforded distribution to all, by recognition of a coastal based

124 leader, a transitional response that coincides with the observations of Johnson and Earle

(2000: 25-26). In exchange for tribute or labor, a leader of a simple chiefdom and his kin could have regulated and permitted access to marine resources or other trade. In this context a coastal-based simple chiefdom could have emerged in the absence of agriculture and /or extraordinary marine subsistence abundance.

Widmer has suggested a number of pre-conditions and conditions that might have led to the formation of a stratified society among the Calusa of Florida’s southwest coast

(1988: 261-276). While conditions on the southwest coast were distinct in certain important ways such as the vastly superior productivity of the local marine environment and early coastal sedentism, a number of Widmer’s observations could apply to Southeast

Florida and the Everglades Culture Area. Early control of superior fishing grounds by particular lineages could lead to the formation of high-status positions among those lineages (1988: 264). Widmer argues that the requirement of coastal people for access to fishing net making supplies could “…foster the development of patron-client relationships or the tenure and control of these areas by lineages…” (1988: 265). In contrast it could be argued that possession of net making materials could provide a commodity accessible to interior dwellers with which they might trade. Notably, Widmer points out “…the production and use of nets in fishing require what appears to be a corporate group-task activity” (1988: 266). Finally, Widmer also recognizes the possibility of leaders developing as mangers of scarce resources (1988: 271).

This hypothetical proposition regarding the development of social stratification among the Glades population of Southeast Florida resolves the apparent contradiction of general anthropological theory versus the ethno-historic record and certain interpretations

125 of the archaeological record that support the existence of social stratification in the

Glades II and III in the absence of abundance and surplus.

Finally, the notion that Glades populations were prevented from occupying certain low elevation sites because of flooding and the findings in Hypotheses 1,2,3,4 and 5 that indicate that Glades transhumance was closely tied to canoe transportation together suggest a June through December seasonal occupation of the Ridge and Slough.

Glades II Through Glades III

Glades II

Figure 20 presents a view of Glades II and III sites demonstrating their geographic coincidence or lack thereof. The general distribution of Glades II sites follows the pattern established in Glades I. There are numerous sites placed in the Ridge and Slough and

Peat Transverse Glades, 118, or 71% of the 167 site count total. Only 12 sites are found in the Marl Marshes. The two River Courses possess 15 sites and the Peat Transverse

Glades 15. The Barrier Islands have 16 locales dispersed along the Atlantic Coast.

There continues to exist three notable hiatus in Ridge and Slough site distribution: the north and south areas around the Pine Islands, the area north west of the Miami River and an area south of the SFWMD jurisdiction in Dade County. The apparent relationship of

Ridge and Slough sites to the Rivers and Peat Transverse Glades noted in the Glades I

Period persists into Glades II.

Of interest is the fact that Glades II sites reach south through the Ridge and Slough toward the Southern Mangroves where four sites are located to the northwest of the very

126 terminus of the Ridge and Slough. That is, inhabitants of Glades II sites in the southern reaches of the Ridge and Slough may have had a relationship with, or originated from, marine oriented locales.

Glades II Through Glades III Comparison

Table 16 provides a tabular representation of the distribution of site counts in their environmental zones in both Glades II and III. It also presents site counts of habitation abandonment, reoccupation and new occupation in Glades III. The overall site count increase from Glades II to III is only ten, or 6%, superficially suggesting a rather stable population size through the two Periods. However, remarkably, the aggregate number of sites that were occupied in Glades II but that were not occupied in Glades III is 55, or

33% of the 167 site count total. Site counts of Glades II through Glades III distributed by county are found in Appendix Y.

Occupations in the Barrier Islands where 10 of 16 Glades II sites are abandoned show a notable increase closer to the Miami River. However, seven coastal sites at the southern most point of mangroves and islands are occupied in Glades III. Given the susceptibility of coastal sites to destruction by tropical storm systems and recognizing that that a period of intense storms ended at about the beginning of Glades IIc, around

AD 1000 (Liu 2004:14), the apparent increase of Glades III sites on the low southern islands and coast may be the result of preservational bias. Earlier sites simply might not have survived.

The River Courses show an aggregate decrease from 15 to eight into the Glades III.

127

Figure 20 Glades II Through III Site Distribution 128 In the Peat Transverse Glades only one of the five abandoned sites lies in the north cluster while three of the six newly occupied Glades III sites are found there. Site reoccupation is distributed, nevertheless, throughout the Peat Transverse Glades.

The Ochopee Marl Marsh shows an increase of five to a total of six, an increase that is notable when compared to the total of eight sites found in the Perrine and Rockland

Marl Marshes. It must be noted, and as can be observed in Figure 2 compared to Figure

20, the relative number of Glades Period designations compared to undesignated in the

Ochopee Marl Marsh is small when compared to other environmental zones. As such

Ochopee Glades II and III sites are underrepresented in the Ochopee Marl Marsh as compared to other environmental zones.

Of considerable note is the fact that 25 (24%) of Glades II sites in the Ridge and

Slough are abandoned while an extraordinarily equivalent number of 28 are newly occupied in Glades III. In the aggregate, 35 interior wetland sites are abandoned from

Glades II while 42 sites in those same environmental zones are newly occupied in Glades

III. Table 17 presents a comparison of Glades II through III site abandonment for Dade and Broward Counties. Of the 28, 18%, interior wetland sites that had no occupation in

Glades III, 11 had been previously occupied in Glades I but none are occupied in the historic periods. FMSF data does not offer sufficient detail of Glades II sub-period information to make a definitive determination, but it is possible that those Glades II sites were Glades IIa locales that were inundated by later higher water levels and therefore were not habitable in subsequent periods.

As stated above, increased rainfall could have introduced conditions that would have rendered uninhabitable many Glades I and Glades IIa interior wetland sites in later times.

129 However, Table 2, the Glades Chronological Sequence, incorporating and placing into

Glades chorological context drought data from Willard et al. (2006: 579), notes two more drought periods dating from AD 1200-1400 and AD 1500-1800. Why would these sites not have been reoccupied during the subsequent droughts? Field-testing bias and

unknown Glades culture preferences notwithstanding; it is proposed that the two

subsequent droughts were relatively less severe than that of the AD 600-900

event. Data presented in graph form in Willard et al. (2006: 578) demonstrates that per

centages of Pinus pollen on Manatee Hammock in Everglades National Park reached

levels of 60% +/- relative to Osmunda pollen during the intense AD 600-900 drought but

never exceed 15% +/- during the event of AD 1200-1400. That is, it is likely that the

later droughts were not severe enough to make the sites abandoned after Glades I and IIa

habitable again; water levels had not dropped sufficiently.

Figure 20 also demonstrates that there were a number of Glades III sites that had not

been occupied in the Glades II Period. Table 17 demonstrates that, in Dade and Broward

Counties, the two counties that possess the majority of interior wetland sites, 37 interior

wetland sites of 158 Glades III sites, or 23% of the total, with but two exceptions, those

37 sites possess evidence of Seminole and other historic occupation. Why had earlier

Glades people not employed those locales? Although the AD 1200-1400 drought may

not have been as severe as earlier dry periods, it was still sufficiently dry to cause the

initiation and maturation of tree islands (Willard et al. 2006: 579) thereby creating new

locales in which Glades III people could settle. This interpretation of drought induced

tree island creation and subsequent human occupation is consistent with the similar event

posited for the period following the AD 600-900 drought.

130 Table 16 Distribution of Glades II and Glades III Site Counts Landscape Zones within the Everglades Culture Area

% Glades II Glades II without Glades III % Glades II Glades II without (abandoned) in Glades II and without Glades III on new all Glades III Glades III Glades III Glades II all ground

Landscapes 167 55 32.93% 112 65 177 36.72%

Everglades Keys 1 1 1 1 Eastern Marshes Ochopee Marl Marsh 1 1 5 6 83.33% Peat Transverse Glades* 15 5 33.33% 10 6 16 37.50% Perrine Marl Marsh 4 2 2 2 131 Rockland Marl Marsh 7 2 5 1 6 16.67% Ridge and Slough SamJones - Pine Island Ridge, Long Key Ridge and Slough with Sam Jones 102 25 24.51% 77 28 105 26.67% Sawgrass Plains Taylor Slough 1 1 1 1 Barrier Islands 16 10 62.50% 6 9 15 60.00% Mangroves 5 5 12 17 70.59% Pine forests and uplands (Broward, N. Dade) Cypress Sloughs (Broward) West boundary cypress Miami River Course 9 5 55.56% 4 1 5 20.00% 33.33% New River Course 6 4 66.67% 2 1 3

Table 17 Glades II Period Site Abandonment Comparison, Dade and Broward Counties

Site ID Site name Gl II Gl III arch a b cSem hist R&S PTG Other Gl I

Glades II without later periods

Coastal and other BD00057 EMERALD TOWER 1 0 barrier is 0 DA05922 BIKE PATH DUNE 1 0 barrier is 0 DA00001 BISCAYNE NAT SEASHORE 3 1 0 barrier is 1 DA00145 BISCAYNE NAT SEASHORE 4 1 0 barrier is 0 DA00012 MIAMI CIR, BRICKELL POINT 10 1 Miami Riv1 BD00039 LOESCH (SEE 8 BD 87) 1 0 New River 1 BD00087 RIVERMOUNT 1 0 New River 1 DA00054 MONROE LAKE 1 0 mangroves 0 DA01656 VILLA REGINA 1 0 coast 1 Sub-total 9

Freshwater wetland sites DA01030 ARCH CREEK RIDGE 1 0 y 0 DA03225 SHADY OAKS 1 0 y 0 DA00020 LITTLE RIVER 1 0 y 0 BD00107 ANDYTOWN CAMPSITE 1 0 r&s 0 BD00090 HELER 1 0 1 BD00091 C 9 CANAL 2 1 0 1 BD00207 SAYWARD SITE 1 0 1 BD02358 MYSTIQUE 1 0 1 DA00141 NN 1 0 1 DA01054 COOK HAMMOCK 1 0 1 DA01073 FLAGAMI MIDDEN 2 1 0 1 DA01074 BLUFF CAMP 3 1 0 1 DA05131 BOGG 1 0 1 DA06347 CAROLLA 1 0 r&s 1 BD01444 BIG 'UN (BCSO 3-16) 1 0 1 0 BD01113 EAST MIDDEN 1 0 0 BD01117 WEST RIDGE 1 0 0 BD01118 LOW TREE MIDDEN 1 0 0 BD01119 RANCH RIDGE 1 0 0 BD02142 GATOR TRACE 1 0 0 BD02150 BLUE COW 1 0 0 BD02912 MUSEUM SITE 1 0 0 BD03181 ROLLING HLLS GLF CRSE 4 1 0 0 DA00035 COLLINS 1 0 0 DA02102 REFUGEE ISLAND 1 0 1 0 DA03246 LONG WALK ISLAND 1 0 0 DA00027 PARADISE KEY 2 1 0 1 1 Taylor S. 0 DA01639 KENDALL ISLAND 1 0 marl 1 Sub-total 28

132

Table 17, Continued

Site ID Site name Gl II Gl III arch a b cSem hist R&S PTG Other Gl I

Glades II, III and later DA00125 CABBGE RTTLSNKE 1 1 1 1 0 BD00082 CHERRY CAMP 1 1 1 1 1 0 DA00011 GRANADA 1 1 1 1 1 BD00010 BAILY 1 1 1 1 0 DA00118 CAPTAIN TONY 1 1 1 0 DA00030 GROSSMAN FARMS 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 DA03255 GUAVA HAMMOCK 1 1 1 0 BD00051 HLLYWOD SEMNLE SITE 11 1 0 DA00411 HONEY HILL 1 1 1 1 DA01081 JOHN 1 1 1 1 1 DA05128 L AND L SITE 1 1 1 1 DA00045 MADDENS HMCK 1 1 1 1 DA03678 NORTH RIDGE 1 1 1 0 DA00044 OPA LOCKA 3 1 1 1 1 BD00052 PEACE CAMP 1 1 1 1 1 DA05100 POSSUM 1 1 1 0 DA00120 SEA GRAPE HMCK 1 1 1 0 BD00100 SHADY OAKS 1 1 1 0 DA01037 SOUTH BANK 1 1 1 0 BD00074 TAYLORS HEAD 1 1 1 1 1 DA00111 TIGER HAMMOCK 1 1 1 0 DA00398 ARCH CRK ARCHL SITE 1 1 1 1 DA04737 BLACK ISLAND MDEN 1 1 1 1 BD00109 DEEP FORK/WINDMILL 1 1 1 1 1 BD03208 HACIENDA 1 1 1 1 1 0 DA01655 MIAMI RIVER RAPIDS 1 1 1 0 DA00140 TURTLE MOUND 1 1 1 0 DA00023 ARCH CREEK (IN DA 398) 11 1 DA02119 BALDWIN 1 1 0 DA01043 BEAL SMITH 1 1 0 DA01652 BIRD 1 1 0 DA00149 BISCAYNE NAT SRE 8 1 1 0 BD00066 BISHOPS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 DA01031 BLACK CREEK 2 1 1 1 BD00092 BUZZARDS ROOST 1 1 1 DA02199 BUZZARDS' ROOST 1 1 0 BD00020 C-9 CANAL 1 (LAXSON) 1 1 0 DA01640 CABBAGE PALM ISLAND 11 111 1 DA00422 CACTUS MOUND 1 1 0 BD00065 CAGLES HAMK - CRL SPG 11 1 1 BD00076 CHAPLIN NURSERY 1 1 1 0 DA01058 CHEETUMS 1 1 1 DA00028 CHEKIKA ST REC AREA 1 1 0

133

Table 17, Continued

Site ID Site name Gl II Gl III arch a b cSem hist R&S PTG r Gl I

GLADES II, III and Later DA00069 CHEKIKAS ISLAND 1 1 0 DA01068 CIBI 1 1 1 DA01085 COPTIC CAMP 1 1 1 BD00050 CORAL SPRINGS 1 1 1 1 BD00056 CORAL SPRINGS 3 1 1 0 BD00078 CORAL SPRINGS 8 1 1 0 BD00049 COTTONMOUTH 1 1 0 BD01871 CRYSTAL LAKES 1 1 0 DA00008 CUTLER MOUND 1 1 0 BD00187 D C A 1 1 0 BD00054 DEER STAND 1 1 1 DA01075 DONNA 1 1 1 0 BD01453 EVRGLDES CORP PARK 1 1 0 DA02109 FANG ISLAND 1 1 0 DA01641 FICUS TREE 1 1 1 DA05248 FIRE STATION DUNE 1 1 0 DA00036 FLAGAMI MOUND 1 1 1 1 1 0 BD02357 FPL/EWMA 2B MIDDEN 1 1 0 BD02146 FRIPP 1 1 1 1 DA00046 GOLDEN GLADE 1 1 1 0 BD00188 GOODMAN 1 1 1 DA03230 GUMBO LIMBO HAMMOCK 1 1 0 DA04752 GUY BAILEY 1 1 0 BD01116 HAMLET MIDDEN 1 1 0 BD00093 HILLSBORO INLET 2 1 1 0 DA01045 HOG 1 1 1 BD00105 HOLATEE 2 1 1 0 BD00021 HOUDAILLE MOUND 1 1 0 BD00045 HULLYS HUMP 1 1 0 DA01651 JANE GRAY 1 1 0 DA00094 KROME, PTLND, BMBO MND 1 1 1 1 1 1 BD00075 LAUDERHILL BRIAL MND 1 1 1 0 DA01067 LEATHER FERN 1 1 0 DA01077 LEO 1 1 0 DA02104 LEVEE CUT 1 1 1 1 0 DA00097 LITTLE RIVER 1 1 0 DA06208 LITTLE SNAKE CREEK 1 1 1 BD00041 MARGATE BLOUNT 1 1 1 BD02115 MEGA 1 1 1 DA01069 MENDOZA 1 1 0 DA00142 MICRO WAVE TOWER 1 1 0 DA00010 MUNROE 1 1 1 DA06446 NO NAME HARBOR I 1 1 1 0 134

Table 17, Continued

Site ID Site name Gl II Gl IIIarch a b c Sem hist R&S PTG Other G I

Glades II, III and later BD02133 OAKLAND PARK BLVD SITE 1 1 1 0 DA00025 OLETA RIVER 3 1 1 1 DA00048 OPA LOCKA MOUND C 1 1 1 1 1 DA00049 OPA LOCKA MOUND D 1 1 1 0 BD03163 PEMBROKE CENTER 1 1 1 0 DA01057 PIG 1 1 1 BD00099 PLAYLAND ISLES 1 1 0 BD01434 RATTLESNAKE MND (BCSO1-1) 11 0 BD00042 RED BUG 1 1 0 BD00055 ROLLING OAKS 1 1 1 1 0 BD00073 ROLLING OAKS 2 1 1 1 BD00203 SAILBOAT BEND MIDDEN 1 1 1 BD02356 SAWGRASS OVRPASS MIDEN 1 1 0 BD00019 SEMINOLE ROCK PIT 1 1 1 BD00191 SHERIDAN HAMMOCK 1 1 1 BD00059 SMITH 1 1 1 DA00009 SNAPPER CREEK MIDDEN 1 1 1 1 BD00108 SPOONERS RIDGE 1 1 1 0 DA00021 SURFSIDE MIDDEN 1 1 1 0 DA01034 SUTTON 1 1 1 1 1 DA00091 TAMIAMI AIRPORT 1 1 0 DA03439 TOTTEN KEY MOUND 1 1 0 DA00034 TRAIL 1 1 1 BD02147 ZACHER 1 1 1 0 BD00204 ACKERMAN SITE 1 0 1 1 DA00128 IRON STAKE HAMMOCK 1 0 1 0 DA00050 LITTLE DOCTOR CAMP 1 0 1 1 1 0 DA03273 PANTHER MOUND 27 1 0 1 0 BD00012 PINE ISLAND 1 1 0 1 1 BD00095 PINE ISLAND 2 1 0 1 1 0 BD00096 PINE ISLAND 3 1 0 1 0 BD00098 PINE ISLAND SEMINOLE VGE 1 0 1 0 DA01052 PRASADO 1 0 1 1 DA00007 CUTLER KEY 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 BD03179 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 1 0 1 0 BD03180 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 1 0 1 0 Sub-total 123 Summary Glades II Alone, Interior Wetland 28 18% Glades II Alone, Coastal and other 9 6% Glades II, III and later 123 77% Total 160

135

Table 18 Glades III Interior Freshwater Wetland New Site Occupation, Dade and Broward Counties PTG & South Site ID Site name Gl III Gl II Gl IIIa IIIb IIIc Arch Sem hist Gl I River mngrv Isnds Other

Glades III without II

Coast and other DA05364 Jim South 1 1 1 1 DA06519 DEERING ESTE MDEN 1 1 1 DA02132 SANTA MARIA 1 1 1 DA03244 MONROE LAKE 1 1 1 DA00005 BISCAYNE KEY MIDEN 11 1 DA05247 BEAR CUT PRESERVE 1 1 DA05921 TENNIS CENTER DUNE 11 DA06447 NO NAME HARBOR II 1 DA04582 SANDS KEY 2 1 DA02143 CAPE FLORIDA MDEN 1 BD00007 POMPANO BCH MND 1 1 BD00196 NEW RIVER MIDDEN 1 1 Sub-total 12

Freshwater interior wetland sites DA04398 ANDOVER SITE 1 1 1 1 1 DA00124 LIME HAMMOCK 1 1 1 DA00133 WEST TWIN HMOCK 1 1 1 DA00038 SOUR ORANGE MDEN 1 111 DA00070 5 MILE MOUND 1 1 1 DA00082 HIALEAH 4 1 1 1 DA00105 BUZZRD ROST MND 2 1 1 1 DA00112 CHEKIKA ISLAND 8 1 1 1 DA00117 BLACK HAMMOCK 1 1 1 DA00121 IRON POT HAMMOCK 1 1 1 DA00123 TRIPLE CABBAGE 1 1 1 DA01044 RADIO 1 1 1 DA03228 BLACK HAMMOCK 2 1 1 1 DA03233 CHEKIKA ISLAND 9 1 1 1 DA03249 MANATEE HAMMOCK 1 1 1 DA00084 OPALOCKA 1 1 DA00026 PARADISE KEY 1 1 1 DA00047 GOLDEN GLADE 2 1 DA00071 7 MILE MOUND 1 1 1 DA00072 9 MILE MOUND 1 DA01046 SUNKEN HAMMOCK 1

136 Table 18, Continued

PTG & South Site ID Site name Gl III Gl II Gl IIIa IIIb IIIc Arch Sem hist Gl I River mngrv Isnds Other

Freshwater interior wetland sites DA01079 HIDDEN SITE 1 0 0 DA02105 PEE WEE ISLAND 1 0 0 DA02110 VOODOO ISLAND 1 0 0 DA02140 DEBORAH ISLAND 1 0 0 DA03229 BLACK HMOCK 4 1 0 0 DA03237 CHEKIKA ISLAND 13 1 0 0 DA03247 NORTH RIVER HDWT 10 0 DA03274 PANTHER MND 28 1 0 0 DA03428 NN (BICY 328) 1 0 0 DA00073 7 MILE ROAD 1 0 1 BD01447 ALANDCO #1 1 0 1 0 1 BD01448 ALANDCO #2 1 0 1 0 1 BD01449 ALANDCO #3 1 0 1 1 1 BD00094 LISA 1 0 0 BD01102 BARTLETT ESTATE 1 0 0 BD02135 FICUS TREE 1 0 0 Sub-total 37

Glades III with Glades II DA00021 SURFSIDE MIDDEN 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 DA00030 GRSMAN FRMS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 DA00036 FLAGAMI MOUND 1 1 1 1 1 0 DA01640 CBBAGE PALM IS 1 1 1 1 1 1 DA02104 LEVEE CUT 1 1 1 1 1 0 DA00422 CACTUS MOUND 1 1 1 1 0 DA04752 GUY BAILEY 1 1 1 0 DA06446 NO NME HRBR I 1 1 1 0 1 DA00069 CHEKIKAS ISLAND 1 1 1 1 0 DA00009 SNAPPER CRK MDEN 11 1 1 DA00046 GOLDEN GLADE 1 1 1 1 0 DA00048 OPA LOCKA MND C 1 1 1 1 DA01034 SUTTON 1 1 1 1 DA03439 TOTTEN KEY MND 1 1 1 0 DA00008 CUTLER MOUND 1 1 0 1 DA00010 MUNROE 1 1 1 DA00011 GRANADA 11 111 1

137 Table 18, Continued

PTG & South Site ID Site name Gl IIIGl II Gl IIIa IIIb IIIc Arch Sem hist Gl I River mngrv Isnds Other

Glades III with II DA00023 ARCH CRK (IN DA 398) 1 1 1 1 DA00025 OLETA RIVER 3 1 1 1 1 DA00028 CHEKIKA ST. REC AREA 11 0 DA00034 TRAIL 1 1 1 DA00044 OPA LOCKA 3 1 1 1 1 1 DA00045 MADDENS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 1 1 DA00049 OPA LOCKA MOUND D 1 1 0 DA00091 TAMIAMI AIRPORT 1 1 0 DA00094 KRME, PTLND, BMO MD 11 1 DA00097 LITTLE RIVER 1 1 0 DA00111 TIGER HAMMOCK 1 1 1 1 0 DA00118 CAPTAIN TONY 1 1 1 1 0 DA00120 SEA GRAPE HAMMOCK 1 1 1 1 0 DA00125 CABBAGE RTTLSNAKE 1 1 1 1 0 DA00140 TURTLE MOUND 1 1 1 0 DA00142 MICRO WAVE TOWER 1 1 0 DA00149 BISC NAT SEASHORE 8 1 1 0 1 DA00398 ARCH CRK ARCH SITE 1 1 1 DA00411 HONEY HILL 1 1 1 1 1 1 DA01031 BLACK CREEK 2 1 1 1 1 1 DA01037 SOUTH BANK 1 1 1 1 0 DA01043 BEAL SMITH 1 1 1 1 0 DA01045 HOG 1 1 1 DA01057 PIG 1 1 1 DA01058 CHEETUMS 1 1 1 DA01067 LEATHER FERN 1 1 0 DA01068 CIBI 1 1 1 DA01069 MENDOZA 1 1 0 DA01075 DONNA 1 1 0 DA01077 LEO 1 1 0 DA01081 JOHN 1 1 1 1 1 1 DA01085 COPTIC CAMP 1 1 1 DA01641 FICUS TREE 1 1 1 DA01651 JANE GRAY 1 1 0 DA01652 BIRD 1 1 0 DA01655 MIAMI RIVER RAPIDS 1 1 1 0 1 DA02109 FANG ISLAND 1 1 0

138 Table 18, Continued

PTG & South Site ID Site name Gl III Gl II Gl IIIa IIIb IIIc Arch Sem hist Gl I River mngrv Isnds Other

Glades III with II DA02119 BALDWIN 1 1 0 DA02199 BUZZARDS' ROOST 1 1 0 DA03230 GMBO LMBO HMCK 11 0 DA03255 GUAVA HAMMOCK 1 1 1 1 0 DA03678 NORTH RIDGE 1 1 1 1 0 DA04737 BLACK IS MDEN 1 1 1 1 1 DA05100 POSSUM 1 1 1 1 0 DA05128 L AND L SITE 1 1 1 1 1 DA05248 FIRE ST DUNE 1 1 0 1 DA06208 LITTLE SNAKE CRK 11 1 BD00051 HLLYWD SMNOLE I 11 11 1 110 BD00076 CHAPLIN NURSERY 11 11 0 BD03163 PEMBROKE CNTR 1 1 1 1 0 BD03208 HACIENDA 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 BD00020 C-9 CANAL 1 LXSN) 1 1 1 0 BD00010 BAILY 1 1 1 1 1 0 BD00019 SEMINOLE RCK PIT 1 1 1 BD00021 HOUDAILLE MND 1 1 0 BD00041 MARGATE BLOUNT 11 1 BD00049 COTTONMOUTH 1 1 0 BD00050 CORAL SPRINGS 1 1 1 1 BD00052 PEACE CAMP 1 1 1 1 1 BD00054 DEER STAND 1 1 1 BD00055 ROLLING OAKS 1 1 1 0 BD00056 CORAL SPRINGS 3 1 1 0 BD00059 SMITH 1 1 1 BD00065 CAGLES HMMCK CR 11 1 BD00066 BISHOPS HMMCK 1 1 1 BD00073 ROLLING OAKS 2 1 1 1 BD00074 TAYLORS HEAD 1 1 1 1 1 BD00075 LDERHILL BRL MND 11 0 BD00078 CORAL SPRINGS 8 1 1 0 BD00082 CHERRY CAMP 1 1 1 1 0 BD00092 BUZZARDS ROOST 11 1 11

139 Table 18, Continued

Gl PTG & South Site ID Site name Gl IIIGl II IIIa IIIb IIIc Arch Sem hist Gl I River mngrv Isnds Other

Glades III with II BD00093 HILLSBORO INLET 2 1 1 0 BD00099 PLAYLAND ISLES 1 1 1 0 BD00100 SHADY OAKS 1 1 0 BD00105 HOLATEE 2 1 1 0 BD00108 SPOONERS RIDGE 1 1 0 BD00109 DEEP FORK/WINDMILL 1 1 1 1 1 BD00187 D C A 1 1 0 BD00188 GOODMAN 1 1 1 BD00191 SHERIDAN HAMMOCK 1 1 1 BD00203 SAILBOAT BEND MDEN 1 1 1 BD01116 HAMLET MIDDEN 1 1 0 BD01453 EVRGLADES CORP PARK 1 1 0 BD01871 CRYSTAL LAKES 1 1 1 0 BD02115 MEGA 1 1 1 1 BD02133 OKLND PK BLVD SITE 1 1 1 0 BD02146 FRIPP 1 1 1 1 BD02147 ZACHER 1 1 0 BD02356 SWGRSS OVRPASS MDEN 11 0 BD02357 FPL/EWMA 2B MIDDEN 1 1 0 Sub-total 109 Summary Gl III without Gl II wetland 37 23% Gl III without Gl II not wetland 12 8% Gl III with Gl II 109 69% 158 Note: Includes three sites in SFWMD jurisdiction

140 Discussion

Table 17 demonstrates that 28 Glades II freshwater wetland sites in Dade and

Broward Counties alone were not occupied in the Glades III Period and it has been proposed that, given the lack of detail regarding sub-period definitions to the contrary in the FMSF, all or most of those site abandonments related to rising water after Glades IIa and during IIb. It is also proposed, as demonstrated in Table 18 that, in those same counties, 37 previously unoccupied interior wetland locales were newly inhabited in

Glades III. As such it is concluded that population had, indeed, increased from Glades

IIb and IIc into the Glades III Periods. However, because of the lack of FMSF sub-period detail, it cannot be stated that the population increase began in Glades IIIa during the relative dry period of AD 1200-1400 or after that epoch when rainfall again increased.

Nevertheless, it is known from the historic record (See, for example, Hann 1999: 168) that the Glades people living in Southeast Florida encountered by the Spanish in the early

16th Century possessed a leader or leaders. During the wetter period of AD 1400-1500, dates that substantially coincide with Glades IIIb, and a time when general environmental conditions similar to those of the Glades IIb prevailed, the need for a manager of marine resources and trade would have remained and these controllers of marine access would have been the chiefs encountered by the early Spanish.

However, despite the possibility of long term control through centuries by a single lineage, there is relatively little evidence of the consolidation of power and wealth that would be realized in the ubiquitous construction of public works and use of differential grave goods. Perhaps the society of Southeast Florida experienced “chiefly cycling”, the

141 rise and fall of individual chiefs and lineages resulting from pressures of climatological change and interaction with neighboring societies as suggested for Southeastern

Mississippian chiefdoms by Anderson (1996). Such cycling would have militated against further development of chiefly power and wealth and material culture and remains associated with it.

In conclusion, abandonment, reoccupation or new settlement of locales along the

Barrier Islands and Rivers could be the result of changes of cultural preference, resource exhaustion or discovery, shifts in control by lineages or storm destruction. However, changes in settlement patterns in interior wetlands, from Period to Period can be directly correlated to increases and decreases in rainfall.

There is clear evidence of increases in site density, and therefore, population, through the Glades Periods. The proposition contained in Hypothesis 7 is supported.

Furthermore, there is evidence of site location shift in the freshwater wetlands indicating the response of Glades people to changes in water elevations.

(H8) On the Pine Islands, including Long Key, sites are located at roughly the same elevation throughout the three Glades Periods and they reflect the same numeric count changes as those found in the Ridge and Slough through each of the three Glades Periods in succession.

OBJECTIVE Since the Pine Islands were naturally elevated and did not require midden accumulation in order to make them dry enough to inhabit, the general location of sites on the islands, as it relates to elevation should not be altered over time. If the Pine Islands held no more significance that habitable high ground from which to forage, then site counts on the islands should reflect site count changes found in the Ridge and Slough from one Glades period to the next.

Throughout this study, Pine Island site counts are incorporated into those of the Ridge and Slough except as they relate to this Hypothesis. Given the setting of the Pines

142 Islands well within the Ridge and Slough, and given a lack of evidence, as indicted by the presence of any notable features such as constructed mounds, that might indicate specialized social function, the archaeological sites located on the Pine Islands are understood to be generally undifferentiated from those of the Ridge and Slough.

Table 19 summarizes the distribution of Pine Island sites in their known Glades

Periods. Of the 35 recognized sites in the FMSF, 16 have not been assigned to one of the three Glades Periods. As such, the specified Glades Period site count is liable to be considerably distorted. Although, the Pine Island/Ridge and Slough Glades II site count ratio of .19 (Table 20) compares favorably with that same ratio for Peat Transverse

Glades/Ridge and Slough, .15, as represented in Table 9, from this data alone it is impossible to determine whether or not the Pine Islands were occupied in a distribution and frequency consistent with the general occupation of the Ridge and Slough through the three Glades Periods.

Pine Island Ridge exhibits a cruciform configuration with its long axis oriented in a north-south direction. Long Key, a feature exhibiting an elongated shape, lies in an east- west orientation. Both are low ridges whose flanks grade at an approximate 4:1 slope into the surrounding Ridge and Slough marsh environment. The narrow ends of the features exhibit a flatter slope of approximately 5:1. Therefore, the most elevated points, the crests, run close to the centerline of the formations. Figure 21, Pine Islands I, II, III and All, depicts the Pine Island and Long Key formations and offers a view of each of the

Glades Period occupations in succession. Selected sites from each relevant period are shown and can be cross-referenced with Table 19. Although the expression “Pine

Islands” is popularly used to refer to these formations, at times they are referred to as

143 “Sam Jones” after a Seminole man who took refuge there in the 19th Century.

Given their placement at the extreme ends of the formations, the Glades I sites were

located at relatively low elevations. In contrast, several of the Glades II sites are located on more elevated terrain closer to, or directly upon, the crest of the formation. Although the Glades III sites are apparently underrepresented, they too occupy higher ground.

Only two sites, Pine Island I (8Bd00012) and Mystique (8Bd02358) are occupied in both Glades I and II while all four Glades III occupations are placed over earlier Glades

II occupations, but none of the Glades III sites coincide with those of Glades I. This pattern of movement to higher ground could indicate a general rise in water levels, probably during the Glades II Period. That is, as Glades I locales became flooded, they would no longer have been fit for later habitation. The shift of geographic placement of sites on the Pine Islands supports the proposition offered in Hypothesis 7 relating to water level increases from Glades I into Glades II. The large number of Undesignated sites makes any conclusions regarding the second portion of Hypothesis 8, that site counts on the Pine Islands reflect changes in site counts in the Ridge and Slough, tenuous.

However, given the data at hand, the second portion of Hypothesis 8 is also supported.

144 Table 19 Pine Island – Sam Jones Sites, All Glades Periods

Site ID Site name Gl I Gl II Gl III Gl Und

Long Key sites BD04152 MUSSELMAN- KAPOK TREE MD 0 0 0 1 BD00012 PINE ISLAND 1 1 1 0 0 BD00076 CHAPLIN NURSERY 0 1 1 0 BD00108 SPOONERS RIDGE 0 1 1 0 BD02117 LONG KEY 0 0 0 1 BD02124 KAPOK 2 0 0 0 1 BD02125 KAPOK 3 0 0 0 1 BD02126 KAPOK 4 0 0 0 1 BD02127 FLAMINGO 1 0 0 0 1 BD02128 FLAMINGO 2 0 0 0 1 BD02129 MUSEUM SITE/FLAMINGO 3 0 0 0 1 BD02137 ROBBINS 0 0 0 1 BD02138 EASTER HILL 0 0 0 1 BD02140 ROBBINS 2 0 0 0 1 BD02141 ROBBINS 3 0 0 0 1 BD02123 KAPOK 1 0 0 0 1

Pine Island sites BD00095 PINE ISLAND 2 0 1 0 0 BD00096 PINE ISLAND 3 0 1 0 0 BD00097 PINE ISLAND 4 0 0 0 1 BD00098 PINE ISLAND SEMINOLE VILLAGE 0 1 0 0 BD01112 PINE ISLAND LANDING 0 0 0 1 BD01113 EAST MIDDEN 0 1 0 0 BD01114 PINE ISLAND RIDGE 0 0 0 1 BD01116 HAMLET MIDDEN 0 1 1 0 BD01117 WEST RIDGE 0 1 0 0 BD01118 LOW TREE MIDDEN 0 1 0 0 BD01119 RANCH RIDGE 0 1 0 0 BD02147 ZACHER 0 1 1 0 BD02358 MYSTIQUE 1 1 0 0 BD03179 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 2 0 1 0 0 BD03180 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 3 0 1 0 0 BD03181 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 4 0 1 0 0 BD03282 HIATUS #1 1 0 0 0 BD03283 HIATUS #2 1 0 0 0 BD03178 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 1 1 0 0 0 Total 35 5 16 4 16

145 Table 20 Pine Island–Ridge and Slough Site Count Comparison in Three Glades Periods

Ratio Site Pine Is/ count R&S

Glades I

Pine Island 5 0.08 Ridge and Slough 61

Glades II

Pine Island 16 0.19 Ridge and Slough 86

Glades III

Pine Island 4 0.04 Ridge and Slough 101

146

Figure 21 Pine Islands Glades I, II, III and All 147 (H9) Within the Ridge and Slough, sites are distributed uniformly.

OBJECTIVE Site concentrations may indicate resource tethering especially during annual dry periods or during protracted droughts.

The Ridge and Slough under consideration in this hypothesis is that portion of the subject environmental zone that lies outside the SFWMD jurisdiction. The portions of

Ridge and Slough northwest of the SFWMD jurisdiction are also not part of this analysis in that the sites located there are few in number and their inclusion would distort average distances from the array of sites that represent the most substantive site counts.

It is understood that not all sites, in fact, only a relatively small portion of them, would have been occupied contemporaneously. An estimate of the number of sites in the

Ridge and Slough, or the Culture Area in its entirety, that were occupied at any given time, would require detailed population estimates and knowledge of typical formations among foraging groups. Such data does not exist.

From an inspection of Figures 4, 5 and 6, map presentations of sites in Glades I, II and III respectively, it is evident that sites in the Ridge and Slough are not distributed uniformly in any one of the Periods. The three areas in which no sites are located, previously cited in this work, persist through the three Periods and in themselves constitute a disruption in uniform distribution. In Glades I, there are practically no sites south of the longitude of the Miami River. In Glades II, the number of sites in the southern reaches of the Ridge and Slough are not as dense as those areas near the Rivers and Peat Transverse Glades. Finally, in Glades III, site counts in the northern section of the Everglades National Park increase but site counts in the southern part of the Ridge and Slough remain low. 148 All of the above facts indicate that geo-statistical analyses are likely to indicate clustering of sites in the Ridge and Slough. Nevertheless, Nearest Neighbor Analysis may be able to yield results that can provide a framework for assessing foraging radii.

Table 21 presents the results of Nearest Neighbor Analysis for data relating to each of the

Glades Period sites recognized within the Ridge and Slough and within the parameters

described above. The data for Glades II was checked several times and appears to have a defect relating to Minimum Distance that cannot be identified. As such, the

Glades II data are discarded.

As predicted, the Glades I and III Period site data exhibit clustering. The distances, minimum and mean, among Glades I sites are less than those of Glades III even though

Glades III site counts are greater because the Glades I sites are concentrated in a limited geographic area to the west of the Rivers and Peat Transverse Glades whereas Glades III sites extend to the south. In both cases there is less than 1% chance that the dispersed pattern is the result of random chance. However, as has been established for the Ridge and Slough, Glades people were opportunistic regarding the freshwater wetland terrain that they inhabited. It would appear that they did not selectively ignore any elevated terrain within the freshwater wetlands. Unless Glades populations commonly built up elevated ground, tree islands resulted from geological and biological process rather than their being the product of human choice.

Considering the above, the proposition contained in Hypothesis 9 is falsified.

However, given the propensity of Glades people to occupy naturally formed tree islands, the origin of clustering undoubtedly reflects the distribution of natural phenomena rather than choices based upon foraging needs.

149 Table 21 Ridge and Slough Period Designated nearest Neighbor Geo-Statistical Summary

Observed/ Significance expected Z score level/ Minimum Maximum Standard mean (standard Graphic critical distance distance Mean deviation distance deviations) determination value Count kilometers kilometers kms. kilometers Comment

<1% likelihood dispersed pattern result Glades I R&S 0.75 -3.7 Clustered .01 (-2.58) 59 1.99 62.78 20.67 13.74 random chance

<1% likelihood dispersed pattern result

150 Glades II R&S 0.49 -9.6 Clustered .01 (-2.58) 99 38.99 19.95 19.56 random chance

<1% likelihood dispersed Glades pattern result III R&S 0.58 -7.9 Clustered .01 (-2.58) 96 3.54 92.06 23.93 12.64 random chance

(H10) Large sites are uniformly spaced in relation to each other.

OBJECTIVE If large or exceptional sites are uniformly distributed, the pattern would indicate a probable collector rather than forager subsistence pattern (Binford 1980). Such evidence could also provide a basis for theoretical analysis based in Central Place Theory.

Large and significant sites, unlike all others from their respective Periods, exhibit the exceptional characteristic of more extensive geographic coverage. It can be inferred from large site size that the particular locale was, in some manner, preferred. Since there is evidence for population increase commencing in the late Glades II, and suggestions of the emergence of social stratification also relate to that Period, only the Glades II and III

Periods are under consideration in this hypothesis. The criteria and method for the selection of large or significant sites have been discussed in Hypothesis 6.

Within the Ridge and Slough large sites are distributed from DCA (8Bd00187) in the north to Tiger Hammock (8Da00111) and Buzzard’s Roost (8Da02199) in the south. All three of these sites are multi-component Glades II and III sites. The distance in the Ridge and Slough from DCA to the boundary of the Everglades Culture Area is approximately

23 kilometers while the distance from Buzzard’s Roost is approximately 39 kilometers to the southern end of the ecological zone where it encounters Mangroves. That is, large sites are not dispersed to the fringes of the Ridge and Slough to the north or south. It must be restated, however, that unreported large and significant sites may lie within the jurisdiction of SFWMD north of DCA. DCA lies 22 kilometers from New River Midden

(8Bd00196) a large site along the New River at the alignment of the Atlantic Coastal

Ridge. Tiger is 60 kilometers distant from Granada (8Da00011), a large site on the

Miami River. This distance, derived from riverine site location data, is provided for the purpose of forming perspective; it does not imply that either Tiger or DCA were socially 151 significant to Glades people.

An inspection of Figures 15 and 16, maps of Glades II and III Large Sites, respectively, reveals that that placement of large sites in the interior naturally reflect the general pattern of dispersal of all sites. Table 22 presents the results of geostatisical processing of data relating to Glades II and III large sites in the Ridge and Slough and in the entire Everglades Culture Area.

Table 22 Large Sites Nearest Neighbor, Glades II and Glades III

Observed/ expected Z score Graphic Significance mean (standard determin- level/critical Expected Observed distance deviations) ation value mean mean Comment

Glades II Large Entire May be due to ECA 0.87 -1.3 Random .01 (-2.58) 9.13 8.02 random chance

Neither clustered R&S 0.94 -0.5 Random <.01 6.99 6.78 nor dispersed

Glades III Large <1% likelihood dispersed pattern Entire result random ECA 0.65 -3.8 Clustered .01 (-2.58) 10.00 6.54 chance

Somewhat dispersed, may be due to random 0.84 1.2 Clustered <.01 chance R&S 7.37 6.20

Despite the fact that the count of large sites varies by only two between the two

Periods, Glades II having 14 and III possessing 12, the graphic determination declared that the distribution of Glades III sites is clustered but Glades II is random. Nevertheless, 152 the observed mean distance in the Ridge and Slough between the two Periods varies by only 0.58 kilometer.

In contrast, the observed mean distance for all large sites in the Culture Area in

Glades II is 8.02 while that for Glades III is 6.54.

A uniform distribution of large sites emerges in neither the Glades II nor III. It is possible that interior sites were not all occupied contemporaneously in which case site distance intervals would have been greater. However, given the data available, the significance of intra-site relationships among large sites cannot be determined.

Hypothesis 10 is falsified.

(H11) There is a linear pattern of sites leading from the Transverse Glades and rivers toward significant sites in the interior.

OBJECTIVE If Transverse Glades and rivers were more than merely a patch and were established routes of communication, then linear patterns of sites extending to and from the Transverse Glades and rivers should appear.

As noted in Hypothesis 7 there exist several areas near the New and Miami Rivers where no Glades sites that can be associated with a specific Period have been identified; northwest of the Miami River and north and south of the Pine Islands. Hypothesis 7 also demonstrates that Glades settlement patterns in the interior responded to the availability of naturally occurring tree islands. Finally, Schwadron (2006) found that 42 of 43 previously untested tree islands in Everglades National Park contained evidence of

Glades occupation. It is evident that the Glades inhabitants of Southeast Florida were opportunistic as it related to habitable spaces found within the interior wetlands.

Given the above, the apparent placement of sites along any given geographic trajectory in the Ridge and Slough is more likely to represent geological and biological 153 processes of tree island formation than it does settlement placement choices of Glades people. Figure 22 traces three possible communication routes connecting sites located along the rivers and in the Peat Transverse Glades to large or significant sites in the interior. The origination points are Granada (8Da00011) and Ackerman (8Bd00204) along the rivers and Little River (8Da00020) in the Peat Transverse Glades. Sites other than Little River could also illustrate possible interior-coastal trajectories but their inclusion in Figure 22 would not further inform this inquiry. Since, in this regard, figures depicting Glades II and Glades III individually would be virtually indistinguishable, Table 23 is provided in order to list several, but not every, possible connecting point. Distances listed in Table 23 are cumulative and therefore demonstrate that numerous short distance stopping points would have been available to Glades travelers moving to and from the coast by canoe.

Since the dominant hydraulic characteristic of the Ridge and Slough is sheet flow rather than channel flow through clearly defined stream beds, and given the relatively dense scatter of tree islands, if specific sites were preferred stopping places along communications routes, such sites cannot be identified given the information available.

The findings testing the proposition contained in Hypothesis 11 are inconclusive.

Various geographic trajectories can be identified that would link large interior sites with those located near the coast; in the absence of further archaeological data, no particular

Glades period preferred route can be identified.

154

Figure 22 Glades II & III Possible Interior-Coastal Site Communication Links

155 Table 23 Distances from Selected River and Peat Transverse Glades Sites to Selected Interior Large Sites, Glades II and Glades III

Distance kilometers Near coast Interior (approximate)

Glades II

Ackerman (8Bd00204) New River Hacenida (8Bd03208) 6.0 Roll. Hls (8Bd03180) 12.0 Sheridan (8Bd00191 22.3 destination Houdaille (8Bd00021) 26.5

Little River (8Da00020) Peat Glades Cook Ham (8Da01054) 8.9 Madden (8Da00045) 16.7 Blkbuster 5 (8da02882) 23.0 destination Houdaille (8Bd00021) 29.3

Granada (8Da00011) Miami River Flagami Mid. (8Da01073 14.0 Trail (8Da00034) 22.5 destination Collins (8Da00035) 24.4

Glades III

Ackerman (8Bd00204) New River Sheridan (8Bd00191 22.3 destination Houdaille (8Bd00021) 26.5

Little River (8Da00020) Peat Glades Opalocka (8Da00084) 10.8 Madden (8Da00045) 16.7 destination Houdaille (8Bd00021) 29.3

Granada (8Da00011) Miami River Flagami Mid. (8Da01073 14.0 Trail (8Da00034) 22.5 destination 30.0 Bird (8Da01652)

156 (H12) The distribution and distance between large and small sites exhibits a discernible pattern.

OBJECTIVE A pattern of a distribution of smaller sites in relationship to large and significant sites might be indicate incipient or developed social stratification or a Collector hunter-gatherer model.

David Anderson states “The terms simple chiefdom and complex chiefdom are widely used to describe societies characterized by one and two administrative or decision-making levels above the local community respectively” (1996: 232).

Therefore, the existence of large sites placed within a patterned array among other sites in the Ridge and Slough might indicate the operation of a complex chiefdom during the later Glades Periods. Apparent central locales could also be interpreted as manifestations of a Collector model (Binford 1980) employed by a hunter-gatherer society.

A perusal of Glades III Large or Significant sites placed in the context of all Glades

III sites revealed two central-outlier patterned site arrays as presented in Figure 23. The

Ridge and Slough general placements of these two configurations, Houdaille Mound

(8Bd00021) and Bird (8Da01652) can be observed in Figure 23. Both apparent central places, and their outliers with but one exception, Voodoo Island (8Da02110), are multicomponent Glades II and Glades III sites. As such, only the Glades III component is presented in Figure 23.

Table 24 presents the list, in counterclockwise fashion, of outlier sites, along with their distances from the center and sizes, which surround each of the two apparent central places. Two of the Houdaille Mound outliers and one at Bird, themselves were large.

157 Figure 23 Possible Central Place Patterns 158 Table 24 Possible Central Place Patterned Sites in Glades III

Distance from center in Top Site ID Site name meters Site area Gl II Gl III 6th Gl I

BD00021 Houdaille Mound 184204 111 0

Outliers BD00073 ROLLING OAKS 2 9270 88831 11 1 BD00092 BUZZARDS ROOST 9435 124651 111 1 BD00019 SEMINOLE ROCK PIT 9425 22554 11 1 BD03163 PEMBROKE CENTER 16425 87287 11 0 BD00191 SHERIDAN HMMCK 14830 154989 111 1

DA01652 Bird 493868 1 1 1 0

Outliers DA01651 JANE GRAY 6265 81007 1 1 0 DA02110 VOODOO ISLAND 7986 49572 0 1 0 DA02104 LEVEE CUT 9000 59707 1 1 0 KROME, PORTLAND, DA00094 BAMBOO MOUND 11146 41534 1 1 1 1 DA05128 L AND L SITE 8661 123220 1 1 1 DA05100 POSSUM 13203 31676 1 1 0 DA01081 JOHN 7608 219740 1 1 1 DA00140 TURTLE MOUND 15700 52339 1 1 0

A review of all extant documents on file at the Broward County Historical

Commission relating to the Houdaille sites revealed that comparative analysis of artifact diversity and richness for the subject sites could not be conducted given the records on hand. However, it is noteworthy that the site report for Sheridan Hammock (8Bd00021)

159 prepared by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy (1993: 26) suggests that

Sheridan Hammock was not a natural tree island but rather was constructed. Miami-

Dade County Archaeologist, Jeff Ransom, stated that the Office of Historic

Preservation’s records similarly would not contain sufficient specific artifact data for the

Bird sites such that a comparative analysis could be conducted (Personal communication, 7/20/07).

Given that only two center-outlier configurations were encountered, it is suggested that

Houdaille Mound and Bird cannot be understood as expressions of the Collector model. It is proposed that a population, or a portion thereof, would not adopt the

Collector strategy for only a limited number of locales while employing a Forager strategy elsewhere.

As previously noted in Hypothesis 11, Glades inhabitants of the Ridge and Slough were opportunistic occupants of habitable terrain. While it may be the case that selected locales within the Ridge and Slough were recognized by Glades inhabitants as having more significance, as permanent or semi-permanent habitations, or as acknowledged meeting places for ceremonies and feasts, than were most other habitable terrain, given the evidence at hand, it cannot be concluded that Houdaille Mound (8Bd00021) and Bird

(8Da01652) were regarded as such.

There is no evidence that would sustain the notion that the two apparently patterned sites were, in fact, central places rather than accidents of nature. Hypothesis 12 is falsified.

160 Summary and Conclusions

John Turck (2003), in his study of the distribution of Paleo and Archaic archaeological sites in South Florida, found that the native inhabitants of those earlier periods preferred habitation locales in coastal strands and pine forests but largely refrained from occupation of those areas that were or would become the interior wetlands. Clearly, by the time the Glades I had emerged in Southeast Florida, subsistence strategies, and consequently, habitation placement had changed.

Occupations of inland freshwater wetland locales, especially in the Ridge and Slough and Peat Transverse Glades came to outnumber in count, and surpass in site densities the coastal zones. Upland Pine Forests were abandoned altogether. Cypress Soughs sandwiched between Pine Forests and Ridge and Slough in the northern part of the

Culture Area likewise remain unoccupied despite the availability of freshwater.

Many sites on Barrier Islands seem to have been placed in close proximity to mainland water sources. Given the lack of Glades I occupation in the southern reaches of the Ridge and Slough, it appears that the Glades I occupants of the southern mangroves employed a foraging strategy that rarely, or never, included exploitation of the inland freshwater environments, the subsistence strategy characteristic of those inhabitants who resided close to the Rivers and Peat Transverse Glades. This fact suggests that the early occupants of the southern mangroves may have been a marine oriented population distinct from that further north. The increase in the number of sites in the southern portion of the Ridge and Slough during the Glades II and II may indicate either the extension to the south of the foraging activities of the Miami River/Peat

161 Transverse Glades related populations, the seasonal occupation of the southern mangroves by those same people or the adoption of interior foraging by a distinct coastal population inhabiting the southern mangroves.

There is no evidence that Glades people traveled through the upland Forests and along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge as part of their subsistence activities or for trade. The general pattern of inland site placement in relationship to the Miami and New Rivers and

Peat Transverse Glades had become evident in Glades I and persisted through the time of European contact. Table 3 demonstrates that shifts in Glades Periods and Sub-periods are closely associated with multi-decadal occurrences of rainfall or drought. However, it is not clear how climate change might influence ceramic design preferences that have been the principle and reliable diagnostic markers of Period transitions in the Everglades

Culture Area and across the entire Glades territory. It is evident from the site data that

Glades people in Southeast Florida abandoned some inland habitation sites during wet periods and, in many cases, moved on to other, probably recently formed, inland locales subsequent to droughts. Carr et al. (1991: 7) suggest the phenomena of site abandonment due to flooding at certain Late Archaic sites in Broward County but the observation of interior wetland site abandonment elsewhere in the region and in the

Glades Periods has not emerged as a fact in other publications relating to the archaeological literature of the area. The regional Glades people were opportunistic occupiers of dry ground surrounded by wetlands, especially Ridge and Slough wetlands.

In the wake of the drought of AD 600-900, the number of sites increases in almost all environmental zones, but particularly in the interior wetlands and on the Barrier

Islands. I have proposed that the increase in site counts is directly related to an increase

162 in population. In turn, this increase in population in the later Glades II Sub-periods could have fostered conditions that encouraged the formation of a simple chiefdom, the primary socio-economic function of which was the regulation of access to marine resources and trade. However, since this simple chiefdom’s economic base was the product of hunter-gatherers whose populations remained relatively small and who could generate little, if any, economic surplus, archaeological evidence of social stratification is scant.

Despite the possibility that a simple chiefdom had formed in Glades IIb and Glades

IIc, other than the existence of a number of rather large interior settlements, archaeological records do not provide sufficient information that might lead to the deduction of the social significance of those large habitation sites. That is, no clear evidence of any of the large interior sites serving as central places exists at this time.

The evident dependence on canoe travel and the fact that many locales that were abandoned in later periods would have been habitable during the relatively drier winter months, even during those wetter later periods, but were not, together strongly suggest a tendency toward occupation of the interior during the spring and summer months when water level are high.

This chapter explored twelve hypotheses relating to questions of settlement patterns through the application of the extant site data.

163

CHAPTER NINE

Prospects For Future Studies

In the process of conducting this research it became apparent that many specific topics and opportunities relating to settlement research in particular, and research into the

Glades people of the Everglades Culture Area, in general, are available to the archaeological community.

The FMSF data employed in this research strongly suggests that a number of wetland sites were abandoned during certain times while other, and more numerous, locales were occupied in later times. Additional field-testing of a sample of these sites should be conducted in order to verify whether or not artifactual evidence such as diagnostic ceramic markers could support the proposition of apparent selective occupation to the sub-period level. Such an investigation would inform propositions relating to Glades subsistence strategies and response to climate change.

The aforementioned site occupation shift was accompanied by a notable increase in site counts, and therefore population, in the Glades II Period and possibly, and more specifically, in the later Glades II Sub-Periods. If further research sustains the proposition that social stratification likely emerged, perhaps as a result of population increase in the late Glades II, a redefinition, realignment and regrouping of the Glades periods and Sub-Periods in the Everglades Culture Area may be in order. That is,

164 population densities and social organization in the Early Glades II may suggest that the

Early Glades II conceptually more closely reflects Glades I. While those same soci- cultural features of Late Glades II might suggest that it would be better understood in affiliation with Glades III.

Slightly more than half of all Glades sites are not identified as being associated with any specific Glades period in the FMSF. A sample of these undesignated sites that are relatively undisturbed should be field tested in order to clarify and supplement FSMF data and to establish a probable distribution of all undesignated sites into specific Periods.

In this study, site size as listed in the FMSF was employed as a criterion to investigate possible site significance. Site reports did not contain sufficient artifact data such that differentiation of artifact richness and diversity for the sites considered for this work could be tested. This is not to say, however, that adequate artifact records of other possible significant sites or collections from them, especially in the Ridge and Slough, do not exist. Investigations into selected site artifact content could inform discussions relating to foraging strategy, social stratification or movement of the Glades inhabitants.

Research for this work began with a review of the presence of bi-valve shell in collections with the intention of performing growth layer analysis in order to reveal data relating to seasonality. That path of study could not be pursued because there simply was not a sufficiently large sample of shell material available in the Broward County

Archaeological Society collection to provide a statistically significant sample. In addition, controlled studies on season of death for lucina clams and other local bi-valve species have not yet been conducted. Furthermore, since the early field researchers almost exclusively employed ¼ inch screens for artifact recovery, fish otoliths passed

165 through screening processes and consequently were not recovered. Seasonality studies of faunal remains in collections from the Glades Periods in the Everglades Culture Area, especially in the Ridge and Slough, might begin to answer a multitude of questions regarding subsistence and transhumance.

A second path of research relating to ceramic modalities proved to be too ambitious to be performed by one person conducting original research for a thesis. However, the establishment of specific modalities within locally produced ceramic types holds the intriguing possibility of tracing the movements and relationships of specific bands and/or foraging groups not to mention change of ceramics manufacturing practices over time.

It is clear that the Everglades Area received ceramics as trade goods through the later

Glades periods. Local peoples had produced indigenous pottery in prodigious quantities, yet local clay source points marked by evidence of ceramic manufacture such as remarkably large quantities of shards exhibiting manufacturing defects and no use wear have not been found. Either fact implies extensive and persistent trade in commodities, both in finished and in raw states, and probably originating in north Florida. Research into the clay sources used by the Glades people of Southeast Florida is needed.

Settlement and subsistence questions as they relate to sites in the SFWMD

Conservation Areas, have yet to be addressed. Since travel distances to the coast from the area covered by the SFWMD jurisdiction were greater, did those Glades inhabitants depend on trade for essential resources or did those populations travel to the coastal areas themselves? As the Everglades Restoration proceeds, it is possible that overland freshwater flows and levels may be altered such that total hydraulic output into Florida

Bay will be increased over today’s levels. Given that such an extensive region-wide

166 project will likely flood some archaeologically important tree islands, opportunities for investigations into the Glades people who inhabited the Everglades will be lost in the upcoming decades. It is not too late to start filling in the data gaps.

167

APPENDICES

Appendix A

168

Appendix B 169

Appendix C

170 Metadata For Everglades Culture Area Boundary Gis Data Layer Florida Division Of Historical Resources

November 2006

--> - 20061103 17111700 20060315 14445600 20060315 14445600-

Defineprojection" Date="20061103" Time="095257"> Defineprojection C:\Sflarch\Tequestanhlboun.Shp Geogcs['Gcs_North_American_1927', Spheroid['Clarke_1866',6378206.4,294.9786982]], Primem['Greenwich',0.0],Unit['Degree',0. C:\Sflarch\Tequestanhlboun_Project.Shp Projcs['Nad_1983_Harn Stateplane_Florida_East_Fips_0901_Feet', Geogcs['Gcs_North_American_1983_Harn',Datum['D_North_American_1983_Harn', Spheroid['Grs_1980',6378137.0,298.257222101]], Primem['Greenwich',0.0],Unit['Degree',0.0174532925199433]], Projection['Transverse_Mercator'], Parameter['False_Easting',656166.6666666665], Parameter['False_Northing',0.0], Parameter['Central_Meridian',-81.0], Parameter['Scale_Factor',0.9999411764705882], Parameter['Latitude_Of_Origin',24.33333333333333], Unit['Foot_Us',0.3048006096012192]]

Appendix D 171 Broward Glades I sites

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Site area

BD00019 SEMINOLE ROCK PIT 1 1 1 22554 BD00041 MARGATE BLOUNT 1 1 1 29506 BD00050 CORAL SPRINGS 1 1 1 1 79899 BD00052 PEACE CAMP 1 1 1 114363 BD00054 DEER STAND 1 1 1 92701 BD00059 SMITH 1 1 1 113631 BD00065 CAGLES HAMMOCK - CORAL SPRINGS 5 1 1 1 46868 BD00066 BISHOPS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 52284 BD00073 ROLLING OAKS 2 1 1 1 88831 BD00074 TAYLORS HEAD 1 1 1 116150 BD00092 BUZZARDS ROOST 1 1 1 124651 BD00109 DEEP FORK/WINDMILL 1 1 1 51137 BD00188 GOODMAN 1 1 1 75116 BD00191 SHERIDAN HAMMOCK 1 1 1 154989 BD00203 SAILBOAT BEND MIDDEN 1 1 1 406 BD02115 MEGA 1 1 1 32351 BD02146 FRIPP 1 1 1 118387 BD00012 PINE ISLAND 1 1 1 0 74373 BD00039 LOESCH (SEE 8 BD 87) 1 1 0 75678 BD00087 RIVERMOUNT 1 1 0 75678 BD00090 HELER 1 1 0 48295 BD00091 C 9 CANAL 2 1 1 0 47579 BD00204 ACKERMAN SITE 1 1 0 124921 BD00207 SAYWARD SITE 1 1 0 24182 BD02358 MYSTIQUE 1 1 0 136205 BD02882 BLOCKBUSTER #5 1 1 0 241408 BD01449 ALANDCO #3 1 0 1 223821 BD02571 MONARCH LAKES #2 1 0 0 5887 BD04218 Knowlton Sand Mound 1 0 0 52847 BD00003 NEW RIVER EARTHWORKS 1 0 0 195636 BD00013 SNAKE CREEK 1 0 0 331984 BD00086 WEST ROLLING OAKS 1 0 0 65245 BD02119 NEW TESTAMENT 1 0 0 65439 BD02153 OTTER 1 0 0 70320 BD02154 PARKLAND SITE 1 0 0 25610 BD02755 COQUINA MEADOWS 1 0 0 34238 BD02884 FLORIDA WETLANDSBANK #1 1 0 0 14473 BD02885 FLORIDA WETLANDSBANK #2 1 0 0 40828 BD02886 FLORIDA WETLANDSBANK #3 1 0 0 73502 BD02887 EVERGLADES CORPORATE PARK #2 1 0 0 36677 BD03178 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 1 1 0 0 61158 BD03192 BIG CYPRESS #36 1 0 0 167718 BD03195 BIG CYPRESS #39 1 0 0 201184 BD03282 HIATUS #1 1 0 0 44248 BD03283 HIATUS #2 1 0 0 83443

Appendix E

172 Broward Glades II sites

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Site area

BD00019 SEMINOLE ROCK PIT 1 1 1 22554 BD00041 MARGATE BLOUNT 1 1 1 29506 BD00050 CORAL SPRINGS 1 1 1 1 79899 BD00052 PEACE CAMP 1 1 1 114363 BD00054 DEER STAND 1 1 1 92701 BD00059 SMITH 1 1 1 113631 BD00065 CAGLES HAMMOCK - CORAL SPRINGS 5 1 1 1 46868 BD00066 BISHOPS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 52284 BD00073 ROLLING OAKS 2 1 1 1 88831 BD00074 TAYLORS HEAD 1 1 1 116150 BD00092 BUZZARDS ROOST 1 1 1 124651 BD00109 DEEP FORK/WINDMILL 1 1 1 51137 BD00188 GOODMAN 1 1 1 75116 BD00191 SHERIDAN HAMMOCK 1 1 1 154989 BD00203 SAILBOAT BEND MIDDEN 1 1 1 406 BD02115 MEGA 1 1 1 32351 BD02146 FRIPP 1 1 1 118387 BD01453 EVERGLADES CORPORATE PARK 0 1 1 31979 BD00010 BAILY 1 0 1 1 21943 BD00020 C-9 CANAL 1 (LAXSON) 0 1 1 86634 BD00021 HOUDAILLE MOUND 0 1 1 184204 BD00042 RED BUG (In SFWMD) 0 1 1 88861 BD00045 HULLYS HUMP (In SFWMD) 0 1 1 158502 BD00049 COTTONMOUTH 0 1 1 59443 BD00051 HOLLYWOOD SEMINOLE INDIAN SITE 0 1 1 7597 BD00055 ROLLING OAKS 1 0 1 1 78946 BD00056 CORAL SPRINGS 3 0 1 1 74410 BD00075 LAUDERHILL BURIAL MOUND 0 1 1 51701 BD00076 CHAPLIN NURSERY 0 1 1 74373 BD00078 CORAL SPRINGS 8 0 1 1 32948 BD00082 CHERRY CAMP 0 1 1 88839 BD00093 HILLSBORO INLET 2 0 1 1 82464 BD00099 PLAYLAND ISLES 0 1 1 106647 BD00100 SHADY OAKS 0 1 1 174979 BD00105 HOLATEE 2 0 1 1 111157 BD00108 SPOONERS RIDGE 0 1 1 67635 BD00187 D C A 0 1 1 300618 BD01116 HAMLET MIDDEN 0 1 1 62204 BD01434 RATTLESNAKE MOUND (BCSO1-1) 0 1 1 90232 BD01871 CRYSTAL LAKES 0 1 1 304510 BD02133 OAKLAND PARK BLVD SITE 0 1 1 75096 BD02147 ZACHER 0 1 1 38037 BD02356 SAWGRASS OVERPASS MIDDEN 0 1 1 34245 BD02357 FPL/EWMA 2B MIDDEN 0 1 1 28681 BD03163 PEMBROKE CENTER 0 1 1 87287 BD03208 HACIENDA 0 1 1 1032062 BD00012 PINE ISLAND 1 1 1 0 74373 BD00039 LOESCH (SEE 8 BD 87) 1 1 0 75678 BD00087 RIVERMOUNT 1 1 0 75678 BD00090 HELER 1 1 0 48295 BD00091 C 9 CANAL 2 1 1 0 47579 BD00204 ACKERMAN SITE 1 1 0 124921 BD00207 SAYWARD SITE 1 1 0 24182 BD02358 MYSTIQUE 1 1 0 136205 BD02882 BLOCKBUSTER #5 1 1 0 241408 BD01444 BIG 'UN (BCSO 3-16) 0 1 0 94138 BD00057 EMERALD TOWER 0 1 0 149035

Appendix F 173 Broward Glades II sites, continued

BD00095 PINE ISLAND 2 0 1 0 35924 BD00096 PINE ISLAND 3 0 1 0 51928 BD00098 PINE ISLAND SEMINOLE VILLAGE 0 1 0 111093 BD00107 ANDYTOWN CAMPSITE 0 1 0 40249 BD01113 EAST MIDDEN 0 1 0 65108 BD01117 WEST RIDGE 0 1 0 60784 BD01118 LOW TREE MIDDEN 0 1 0 57272 BD01119 RANCH RIDGE 0 1 0 83491 BD02142 GATOR TRACE 0 1 0 75263 BD02150 BLUE COW 0 1 0 58667 BD02912 MUSEUM SITE 0 1 0 79085 BD03179 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 2 0 1 0 50289 BD03180 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 3 0 1 0 272893 BD03181 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 4 0 1 0 55892

174 Broward Glades III sites

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Site area

BD01453 EVERGLADES CORPORATE PARK 0 1 1 31979 BD00010 BAILY 1 0 1 1 21943 BD00020 C-9 CANAL 1 (LAXSON) 0 1 1 86634 BD00021 HOUDAILLE MOUND 0 1 1 184204 BD00042 RED BUG (In SFWMD) 0 1 1 88861 BD00045 HULLYS HUMP (In SFWMD) 0 1 1 158502 BD00049 COTTONMOUTH 0 1 1 59443 BD00051 HOLLYWOOD SEMINOLE INDIAN SITE 0 1 1 7597 BD00055 ROLLING OAKS 1 0 1 1 78946 BD00056 CORAL SPRINGS 3 0 1 1 74410 BD00075 LAUDERHILL BURIAL MOUND 0 1 1 51701 BD00076 CHAPLIN NURSERY 0 1 1 74373 BD00078 CORAL SPRINGS 8 0 1 1 32948 BD00082 CHERRY CAMP 0 1 1 88839 BD00093 HILLSBORO INLET 2 0 1 1 82464 BD00099 PLAYLAND ISLES 0 1 1 106647 BD00100 SHADY OAKS 0 1 1 174979 BD00105 HOLATEE 2 0 1 1 111157 BD00108 SPOONERS RIDGE 0 1 1 67635 BD00187 D C A 0 1 1 300618 BD01116 HAMLET MIDDEN 0 1 1 62204 BD01434 RATTLESNAKE MOUND (BCSO1-1) 0 1 1 90232 BD01871 CRYSTAL LAKES 0 1 1 304510 BD02133 OAKLAND PARK BLVD SITE 0 1 1 75096 BD02147 ZACHER 0 1 1 38037 BD02356 SAWGRASS OVERPASS MIDDEN 0 1 1 34245 BD02357 FPL/EWMA 2B MIDDEN 0 1 1 28681 BD03163 PEMBROKE CENTER 0 1 1 87287 BD03208 HACIENDA 0 1 1 1032062 BD00019 SEMINOLE ROCK PIT 1 1 1 22554 BD00041 MARGATE BLOUNT 1 1 1 29506 BD00050 CORAL SPRINGS 1 1 1 1 79899 BD00052 PEACE CAMP 1 1 1 114363 BD00054 DEER STAND 1 1 1 92701 BD00059 SMITH 1 1 1 113631 BD00065 CAGLES HAMMOCK - CORAL SPRINGS 5 1 1 1 46868 BD00066 BISHOPS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 52284 BD00073 ROLLING OAKS 2 1 1 1 88831 BD00074 TAYLORS HEAD 1 1 1 116150 BD00092 BUZZARDS ROOST 1 1 1 124651 BD00109 DEEP FORK/WINDMILL 1 1 1 51137 BD00188 GOODMAN 1 1 1 75116 BD00191 SHERIDAN HAMMOCK 1 1 1 154989 BD00203 SAILBOAT BEND MIDDEN 1 1 1 406 BD02115 MEGA 1 1 1 32351 BD02146 FRIPP 1 1 1 118387 BD01447 ALANDCO #1 0 0 1 8382 BD01448 ALANDCO #2 0 0 1 29175 BD00007 POMPANO BEACH MOUND 0 0 1 47993 BD00094 LISA 0 0 1 43730 BD00196 NEW RIVER MIDDEN 0 0 1 163942 BD01102 BARTLETT ESTATE 0 0 1 150476 BD02135 FICUS TREE 0 0 1 99494 BD01449 ALANDCO #3 1 0 1 223821

Appendix G

175 Dade Glades I

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III

DA00009 SNAPPER CREEK MIDDEN 1 1 1 DA00010 MUNROE 1 1 1 DA01640 CABBAGE PALM ISLAND 1 1 1 DA01641 FICUS TREE 1 1 1 DA00011 GRANADA 1 1 1 DA00023 ARCH CREEK (INCLUD IN DA 398) 1 1 1 DA00025 OLETA RIVER 3 1 1 1 DA00034 TRAIL 1 1 1 DA00044 OPA LOCKA 3 1 1 1 DA00045 MADDENS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 DA00048 OPA LOCKA MOUND C 1 1 1 DA00094 KROME, PORTLAND, BAMBOO MOUND 1 1 1 DA00398 ARCH CREEK HIST & ARCHAEOL SITE 1 1 1 DA00411 HONEY HILL 1 1 1 DA01031 BLACK CREEK 2 1 1 1 DA01034 SUTTON 1 1 1 DA01045 HOG (In SFW MD) 1 1 1 DA01057 PIG 1 1 1 DA01058 CHEETUMS 1 1 1 DA01068 CIBI 1 1 1 DA01081 JOHN 1 1 1 DA01085 COPTIC CAMP 1 1 1 DA04737 BLACK ISLAND MIDDEN 1 1 1 DA05128 L AND L SITE 1 1 1 DA06208 LITTLE SNAKE CREEK 1 1 1 DA00007 CUTLER KEY 1 1 0 DA01656 VILLA REGINA 1 1 0 DA00001 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 3 1 1 0 DA00012 MIAMI CIRCLE AT BRICKELL POINT 1 1 0 DA00141 NN 1 1 0 DA01052 PRASADO 1 1 0 DA01054 COOK HAMMOCK 1 1 0 DA01073 FLAGAMI MIDDEN 2 1 1 0 DA01074 BLUFF CAMP 3 1 1 0 DA01639 KENDALL ISLAND 1 1 0 DA05131 BOGG 1 1 0 DA06347 CAROLLA 1 1 0 DA00073 7 MILE ROAD 1 0 1 DA02132 SANTA MARIA 1 0 1 DA00033 TAMIAMI TRAIL #1 1 0 0 DA00039 SOUR ORANGE MIDDEN 2 1 0 0 DA00041 PENNSUCO 1 0 0 DA00087 MEDLEY 2 1 0 0 DA00088 NW 108TH STREET 1 0 0 DA00143 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 1 1 0 0 DA00144 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 2 1 0 0 DA00146 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 5 1 0 0 DA00147 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 6 1 0 0 DA00150 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 9 1 0 0 DA00152 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 11 1 0 0 DA01024 OLETA RIVER 2 1 0 0 DA01026 BUTTONWOOD CAMP 1 0 0 DA01039 HIGHLAND LAKES 1 0 0 DA01059 W ILLOW CAMP 1 0 0 DA01082 BRICKELL BLUFF 1 0 0 DA03220 JOSE MARTI 1 0 0 DA05917 BLOCKBUSTER #6 1 0 0 DA06333 BEACON TRADEPORT MIDDEN 1 0 0

Appendix H 176 Dade Glades II sites

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Site area

DA00009 SNAPPER CREEK MIDDEN 1 1 1 213986 DA00010 MUNROE 1 1 1 53599 DA01640 CABBAGE PALM ISLAND 1 1 1 61074 DA01641 FICUS TREE 1 1 1 47079 DA00011 GRANADA 1 1 1 539692 DA00023 ARCH CREEK (INCLUD IN DA 398) 1 1 1 175558 DA00025 OLETA RIVER 3 1 1 1 30936 DA00034 TRAIL 1 1 1 1950 DA00044 OPA LOCKA 3 1 1 1 20878 DA00045 MADDENS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 391780 DA00048 OPA LOCKA MOUND C 1 1 1 98379 DA00094 KROME, PRTLND, BAMBOO MOUND 1 1 1 41534 DA00398 ARCH CREEK HIST & ARCH. SITE 1 1 1 221708 DA00411 HONEY HILL 1 1 1 190899 DA01031 BLACK CREEK 2 1 1 1 86248 DA01034 SUTTON 1 1 1 219416 DA01045 HOG (In SFWMD) 1 1 1 50569 DA01057 PIG 1 1 1 68475 DA01058 CHEETUMS 1 1 1 72194 DA01068 CIBI 1 1 1 48807 DA01081 JOHN 1 1 1 219740 DA01085 COPTIC CAMP 1 1 1 94290 DA04737 BLACK ISLAND MIDDEN 1 1 1 4578 DA05128 L AND L SITE 1 1 1 123220 DA06208 LITTLE SNAKE CREEK 1 1 1 222617 DA00008 CUTLER MOUND 0 1 1 1910 DA00125 CABBAGE RATTLESNAKE 0 1 1 89747 DA01651 JANE GRAY 0 1 1 81007 DA01652 BIRD 0 1 1 493868 DA01655 MIAMI RIVER RAPIDS 0 1 1 111993 DA02199 BUZZARDS' ROOST 0 1 1 317400 DA00021 SURFSIDE MIDDEN 0 1 1 111116 DA00028 CHEKIKA STATE REC. AREA 0 1 1 7260707 DA00030 GROSSMAN FARMS 1 0 1 1 7260707 DA00036 FLAGAMI MOUND 0 1 1 13061 DA00046 GOLDEN GLADE 1 0 1 1 55343 DA00049 OPA LOCKA MOUND D 0 1 1 132711 DA00069 CHEKIKAS ISLAND 0 1 1 813370 DA00091 TAMIAMI AIRPORT 0 1 1 28813 DA00097 LITTLE RIVER 0 1 1 15033 DA00111 TIGER HAMMOCK 0 1 1 382592 DA00118 CAPTAIN TONY 0 1 1 12717 DA00120 SEA GRAPE HAMMOCK 0 1 1 68881 DA00140 TURTLE MOUND 0 1 1 52339 DA00142 MICRO WAVE TOWER 0 1 1 74911 DA00149 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 8 0 1 1 25311 DA00422 CACTUS MOUND 0 1 1 11500 DA01037 SOUTH BANK 0 1 1 20253 DA01043 BEAL SMITH 0 1 1 34165 DA01067 LEATHER FERN (In SFWMD) 0 1 1 50316 DA01069 MENDOZA 0 1 1 40358 DA01075 DONNA 0 1 1 60535 DA01077 LEO 0 1 1 24498

Appendix I 177 Dade Glades II sites, continued

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Site area

DA02104 LEVEE CUT 0 1 1 59707 DA02109 FANG ISLAND 0 1 1 49435 DA02119 BALDWIN 0 1 1 11231 DA03230 GUMBO LIMBO HAMMOCK 0 1 1 17141 DA03255 GUAVA HAMMOCK 0 1 1 20131 DA03439 TOTTEN KEY MOUND 0 1 1 31098 DA03678 NORTH RIDGE 0 1 1 75854 DA04752 GUY BAILEY 0 1 1 24186 DA05100 POSSUM 0 1 1 31676 DA05248 FIRE STATION DUNE 0 1 1 2695486 DA06446 NO NAME HARBOR I 0 1 1 93562 DA00007 CUTLER KEY 1 1 0 1970 DA01656 VILLA REGINA 1 1 0 31955 DA00001 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 3 1 1 0 46739 DA00012 MIAMI CIRCLE AT BRICKELL POINT 1 1 0 1076072 DA00141 NN 1 1 0 92092 DA01052 PRASADO 1 1 0 67897 DA01054 COOK HAMMOCK 1 1 0 896141 DA01073 FLAGAMI MIDDEN 2 1 1 0 78936 DA01074 BLUFF CAMP 3 1 1 0 59876 DA01639 KENDALL ISLAND 1 1 0 87600 DA05131 BOGG 1 1 0 125925 DA06347 CAROLLA 1 1 0 101698 DA00128 IRON STAKE HAMMOCK 0 1 0 11684 DA00020 LITTLE RIVER 0 1 0 460574 DA00027 PARADISE KEY 2 0 1 0 7649 DA00035 COLLINS 0 1 0 1265631 DA00050 LITTLE DOCTOR CAMP 0 1 0 473375 DA00054 MONROE LAKE 0 1 0 43469 DA00085 BLACK CREEK 1 0 1 0 1933 DA00145 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 4 0 1 0 29416 DA01030 ARCH CREEK RIDGE 0 1 0 45193 DA02102 REFUGEE ISLAND 0 1 0 29608 DA03225 SHADY OAKS 0 1 0 4821 DA03246 LONG WALK ISLAND 0 1 0 26705 DA03273 PANTHER MOUND 27 0 1 0 14009 DA05922 BIKE PATH DUNE 0 1 0 2695486

178 Dade Glades III sites

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Site area

DA01641 FICUS TREE 1 1 1 47079 DA01640 CABBAGE PALM ISLAND 1 1 1 61074 DA01034 SUTTON 1 1 1 219416 DA01031 BLACK CREEK 2 1 1 1 86248 DA00411 HONEY HILL 1 1 1 190899 DA00398 ARCH CREEK HIST & ARCHAEOL SITE 1 1 1 221708 DA00094 KROME, PORTLAND, BAMBOO MOUND 1 1 1 41534 DA00048 OPA LOCKA MOUND C 1 1 1 98379 DA00045 MADDENS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 391780 DA00044 OPA LOCKA 3 1 1 1 20878 DA00034 TRAIL 1 1 1 1950 DA00025 OLETA RIVER 3 1 1 1 30936 DA00023 ARCH CREEK (INCLUD IN DA 398) 1 1 1 175558 DA00011 GRANADA 1 1 1 539692 DA00010 MUNROE 1 1 1 53599 DA00009 SNAPPER CREEK MIDDEN 1 1 1 213986 DA01045 HOG 1 1 1 50569 DA01057 PIG 1 1 1 68475 DA01058 CHEETUMS 1 1 1 72194 DA01068 CIBI 1 1 1 48807 DA01081 JOHN 1 1 1 219740 DA01085 COPTIC CAMP 1 1 1 94290 DA04737 BLACK ISLAND MIDDEN 1 1 1 4578 DA05128 L AND L SITE 1 1 1 123220 DA06208 LITTLE SNAKE CREEK 1 1 1 222617 DA02199 BUZZARDS' ROOST 0 1 1 317400 DA01655 MIAMI RIVER RAPIDS 0 1 1 111993 DA01652 BIRD 0 1 1 493868 DA01651 JANE GRAY 0 1 1 81007 DA01043 BEAL SMITH 0 1 1 34165 DA01037 SOUTH BANK 0 1 1 20253 DA00422 CACTUS MOUND 0 1 1 11500 DA00149 BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 8 0 1 1 25311 DA00142 MICRO WAVE TOWER 0 1 1 74911 DA00140 TURTLE MOUND 0 1 1 52339 DA00125 CABBAGE RATTLESNAKE 0 1 1 89747 DA00120 SEA GRAPE HAMMOCK 0 1 1 68881 DA00118 CAPTAIN TONY 0 1 1 12717 DA00111 TIGER HAMMOCK 0 1 1 382592 DA00097 LITTLE RIVER 0 1 1 15033 DA00091 TAMIAMI AIRPORT 0 1 1 28813 DA00069 CHEKIKAS ISLAND 0 1 1 813370 DA00049 OPA LOCKA MOUND D 0 1 1 132711 DA00046 GOLDEN GLADE 1 0 1 1 55343 DA00036 FLAGAMI MOUND 0 1 1 13061 DA00030 GROSSMAN FARMS 1 0 1 1 7260707 DA00028 CHEKIKA STATE RECREATIONAL AREA 0 1 1 7260707 DA00021 SURFSIDE MIDDEN 0 1 1 111116 DA00008 CUTLER MOUND 0 1 1 1910 DA01067 LEATHER FERN 0 1 1 50316 DA01069 MENDOZA 0 1 1 40358 DA01075 DONNA 0 1 1 60535 DA01077 LEO 0 1 1 24498 DA02104 LEVEE CUT 0 1 1 59707 DA02109 FANG ISLAND 0 1 1 49435 DA02119 BALDWIN 0 1 1 11231 DA03230 GUMBO LIMBO HAMMOCK 0 1 1 17141

Appendix J

179 Dade Glades III sites, continued

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Site area

DA03255 GUAVA HAMMOCK 0 1 1 20131 DA03439 TOTTEN KEY MOUND 0 1 1 31098 DA03678 NORTH RIDGE 0 1 1 75854 DA04752 GUY BAILEY 0 1 1 24186 DA05100 POSSUM 0 1 1 31676 DA05248 FIRE STATION DUNE 0 1 1 2695486 DA06446 NO NAME HARBOR I 0 1 1 93562 DA00073 7 MILE ROAD 1 0 1 13287 DA02132 SANTA MARIA 1 0 1 18873 DA00133 WEST TWIN HAMMOCK 0 0 1 22004 DA00124 LIME HAMMOCK 0 0 1 14350 DA00123 TRIPLE CABBAGE 0 0 1 16623 DA00121 IRON POT HAMMOCK 0 0 1 16598 DA00117 BLACK HAMMOCK 0 0 1 74839 DA00112 CHEKIKA ISLAND 8 0 0 1 15045 DA00105 BUZZARD ROOST MOUND 2 0 0 1 14915 DA00084 OPALOCKA 0 0 1 233709 DA00082 HIALEAH 4 0 0 1 55970 DA00072 9 MILE MOUND 0 0 1 1856 DA00071 7 MILE MOUND 0 0 1 1951 DA00070 5 MILE MOUND 0 0 1 231491 DA00047 GOLDEN GLADE 2 0 0 1 57485 DA00038 SOUR ORANGE MIDDEN 1 0 0 1 202557 DA00026 PARADISE KEY 1 0 0 1 195803 DA00005 BISCAYNE KEY MIDDEN 0 0 1 178798 DA01044 RADIO (In SFWMD) 0 0 1 36337 DA01046 SUNKEN HAMMOCK (In SFWMD) 0 0 1 57254 DA01079 HIDDEN SITE 0 0 1 14304 DA02105 PEE WEE ISLAND 0 0 1 64986 DA02110 VOODOO ISLAND 0 0 1 49572 DA02140 DEBORAH ISLAND 0 0 1 121340 DA02143 CAPE FLORIDA MIDDEN 0 0 1 13763 DA03228 BLACK HAMMOCK 2 0 0 1 16165 DA03229 BLACK HAMMOCK 4 0 0 1 16952 DA03233 CHEKIKA ISLAND 9 0 0 1 11659 DA03237 CHEKIKA ISLAND 13 0 0 1 11097 DA03244 MONROE LAKE 0 0 1 234982 DA03247 NORTH RIVER HEADWATERS 0 0 1 19828 DA03249 MANATEE HAMMOCK 0 0 1 17465 DA03274 PANTHER MOUND 28 0 0 1 10262 DA03428 NN (BICY 328) 0 0 1 35988 DA04398 ANDOVER SITE 0 0 1 522367 DA04582 SANDS KEY 2 0 0 1 265702 DA05247 BEAR CUT PRESERVE 0 0 1 310995 DA05364 Jim South 0 0 1 850744 DA05921 TENNIS CENTER DUNE 0 0 1 2695486 DA06447 NO NAME HARBOR II 0 0 1 55183 DA06519 DEERING ESTATE MIDDEN 0 0 1 10677

180

Monroe Glades I sites

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Site area

MO00033 BEAR LAKE MOUNDS 1 1 1 232991 MO00042 CANE PATCH 1 1 1 141019 MO00046 CAMP LONESOME 1 1 0 15782 MO00050 WILLIE WILLIE MOUND 1 1 1 54863 MO00127 DYNAMITE ROCK 1 1 0 240871

Appendix K

Monroe Glades II sites

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Site area

MO00033 BEAR LAKE MOUNDS 1 1 1 232991 MO00042 CANE PATCH 1 1 1 141019 MO00044 INDIAN CAMP CREEK MOUND 0 1 1 13224 MO00046 CAMP LONESOME 1 1 0 15782 MO00050 WILLIE WILLIE MOUND 1 1 1 54863 MO00078 DOCTOR TIGER'S HAMMOCK 0 1 0 130716 MO00118 ROOKERY MOUND 0 1 1 97357 MO00127 DYNAMITE ROCK 1 1 0 240871 MO02051 CARD SOUND ROAD 0 1 0 44987

Appendix L

181 Monroe Glades III sites

Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Site area

MO01128 PANTHER MOUND 23 0 0 1 129617 MO00033 BEAR LAKE MOUNDS 1 1 1 232991 MO00035 BEAR LAKE 3 0 0 1 232991 MO00036 EAST CAPE SABLE 0 0 1 210851 MO00037 CAPE SABLE BEACH 0 0 1 152885 MO00042 CANE PATCH 1 1 1 141019 MO00044 INDIAN CAMP CREEK MOUND 0 1 1 13224 MO00050 WILLIE WILLIE MOUND 1 1 1 54863 MO00075 LUNDSFORD 0 0 1 336876 MO00118 ROOKERY MOUND 0 1 1 97357 MO00121 ROUGH LEMON HAMMOCK 0 0 1 3111 MO00122 BRADLEY KEY 0 0 1 97019 MO00123 CURRY KEY 0 0 1 108457 MO00125 GAS CAN MIDDEN 0 0 1 7654 MO01111 OYSTER KEY 0 0 1 293520 MO01116 MOSQUITO IS. (BOAT LAMP) 0 0 1 13587 MO02027 DIXON'S SLOUGH 0 0 1 35047 MO02052 LITMAN 0 0 1 199476

Appendix M

182 METADATA FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES GIS DATA LAYER FLORIDA DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES JANUARY 2006

DATASET NAME: [Countyname]_Sites

DATASET TYPE: ESRI Shapefile Format

DATASET EXTENT: State-Wide Or County-Wide

FEATURE TYPE: Polygons

GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This Data Set Contains Archaeological Site Boundaries And Basic Site Attributes As Recorded At The Florida Master Site File.

PROJECTION PARAMETERS: Projection Geographic Coordinates Units Decimal Degrees Datum NAD27 Spheroid Clarke 1866

COMPUTER HARDWARE USED: Microsoft Windows-Based Pcs And Servers

GIS SOFTWARE: ESRI Arcgis 9.1

DATA VERSION: January 2006: This Data Set Updates And Replaces All Previous Versions Of The Florida Master Site File Archaeological Sites Data Layer. This Version Incorporates Newly Recorded Sites And Updates Of Previously Recorded Site Plots And Attributes.

DATA CURRENCY: Data From The Florida Master Site File Are Continually Updated. On Average, The Site File Processes 800 Additional Archaeological Site Forms Each Year. This Data Layer Is Only Current As Of The Date Of This Document. Contact The Florida Master Site File For Updated Data Layers.

DATA SOURCE(S) AND SOURCE MAPS: Source Data Were Created By The Division Of Historical Resources. The Original Boundary Data Are Based On Field Recording Forms And Site Plots Submitted To The Site File, Which Were Then Hand Drawn Onto Primary Series, USGS 7.5', 1:24,000 Scale Quadrangles. These Paper Quadrangles With Site Locations Marked Are The Source Maps And Are Located At The Florida Master Site File. Florida Master Site File Site Folders Contain An Archaeological Site Form With Descriptive Location Data And A Photocopy Of The Source Map.

Appendix N

183 DATA LINEAGE: In The First Phase Of Compiling The FMSF GIS Data Layers, Site Boundaries Marked On The Source Maps Were Hand Digitized By An Outside Contractor Using Autocad And A Digitizing Tablet. The Four Corners (NAD27) Of The Source Maps Were Used To Place The Reference System Tics. The Autocad Files Were Converted To Arc/Info Files, Converted Into Geographic Coordinates And Joined Into A Statewide Coverage. The Statewide Coverage Was Then Split Into 67 County Level Arc/Info Coverages. The Coverages Were Converted To Arcgis Geodatabases In August 2003 And Are Now Maintained In That Format. Additions, Updates, And Maintenance To The Archaeological GIS Data Layers Are Performed By Site File Staff Using On-Screen Digitizing In Arcmap. Scanned, Georeferenced, 1:24,000 Scale USGS Quadrangles In Geographic Coordinates (Lat./Long., NAD27) Are Used As The Base Maps For The On-Screen Digitizing Process.

POLYGON FEATURE NOTES: Archaeological Sites In This Data Set Often Overlap One Another. In Some Areas Large Polygons May Completely Obscure Smaller Ones. For This Reason It May Sometimes Be Helpful To Display Only Polygon Boundaries Or Use A Transparent Polygon Fill. Alternatively, A Point Layer May Be Created From The Centroids Of The Polygons.

ATTRIBUTE NOTES: The Values For The Attributes Listed Are Compiled From The Florida Master Site File Database. The Database And Paper Files At The Site File Site May Contain Several Site Forms (An Original And Updates) For An Individual Site. This Attribute Table Contains A Subset Of All Available Site Data. Contact The Florida Master Site File For Additional Information.

ATTRIBUTE TABLE FIELDS AND DESCRIPTIONS: Name Type Length ------SITEID String 8 SITENAME String 40 SITETYPE1 String 50 SITETYPE2 String 50 SITETYPE3 String 50 SITETYPE4 String 50 SITETYPE5 String 50 SITETYPE6 String 50 CULTURE1 String 50 CULTURE2 String 50 CULTURE3 String 50 CULTURE4 String 50 CULTURE5 String 50 CULTURE6 String 50 CULTURE7 String 50 CULTURE8 String 50 SURVEVAL String 30 184 SURVEYNUM String 5 D_NRLISTED Date 8 SHPOEVAL String 30 PLOTTYPE String 4 HUMANREMNS String 3 ------SITEID: This Is The Official State Site Number Assigned By The Florida Master Site File. The State Site Number Is An Eight Character String Containing A Two Character County Code, A Five Character Numeric Code, And An Optional Single Letter Character Suffix (Suffix Letter Is Generally Used To Indicate Sites That Are Functionally Or Spatially Related).

SITENAME: The Site Name As Recorded At The Florida Master Site File. Usually The Principal Or Best Known Name For A Cultural Resource. A Site Name Of "NN" Indicates No Name Has Been Designated For The Site.

SITETYPE1-6: General Archaeological Site Type, Especially Dealing With Aspects Of Site Setting, Important Structures Or Features That Are Present, Cultural Or Settlement Function, Or Relative Density Of Material Remains. More Than One Site Type May Be Represented At The Same Site. If All Six Site Type Fields Are Populated, There Is A Possibility That More Exist For The Site And Are Recorded In The Site File Database. Values In These Fields Are Limited To A Discrete List Of Possibilities Used In The Site File Database Lookup Table. Contact The Site File For More Information . CULTURE1-8: Archaeological Culture Or Subculture Or Historic Context Represented At The Site. More Than One Culture Or Historic Context May Be Represented At The Same Site. If All Eight Culture Fields Are Populated There Is A Possibility That More Exist For The Site And Are Recorded The Site File Database. Values In These Fields Are Limited To A Discrete List Of Possibilities Used In The Site File Database Lookup Table. Contact The Site File For More Information.

SURVEVAL: Surveyor's Evaluation Of The Cultural Resource's Eligibility For The National Register When The Resource Is Considered As An Independent Entity, Not As A Component Or "Contributing Property" To A Potential District. Values In This Field Are Limited To A Discrete List Of Possibilities Used In The Site File Database Lookup Table. Contact The Site File For More Information.

SURVEYNUM: The Serial Number Assigned By The Site File To The Manuscript Produced By The Project Which Identified Or Reexamined The Cultural Resource. Not All Sites Have An Associated Report Or Manuscript. D_NRLISTED: Date That The Site Was Officially Listed On The National Register Of Historic Places (NRHP). The Field Is Blank If The FMSF Database Does Not Indicate The Property Is National Register Listed.

SHPOEVAL: Evaluation Of Florida's State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Concerning The Eligibility Of The Resource For Listing On The National Register Of 185 Historic Places. In Florida, The SHPO Is The Director Of The Division Of Historical Resources, Acting Through Staff In The Bureau Of Historic Preservation (BHP). Generally The Site File Database Only Contains Evaluations Made By The Compliance Review Staff Of BHP. Some Properties May Be Listed On The NRHP Without Having Been Reviewed By Compliance Review Staff. Therefore, An NR List Date (Indicating A Property Is NR Listed) Takes Priority Over A 'Not Evaluated By SHPO' Value In This Field. Values In This Field Are Limited To A Discrete List Of Possibilities Used In The Site File Database Lookup Table. Contact The Site File For More Information.

PLOTTYPE: A Value Of 'NORM' In This Field Indicates That The Site Plot Represents The Actual Boundary Of The Archaeological Resource As Recorded By The Surveyor. A Value Of 'GV' (General Vicinity) In This Field Indicates That The Site Plot DOES NOT Represent Actual Site Boundaries, But Rather Bounds An Area Within Which The Site Is Believed To Be Located.

HUMANRMNS: This Item Contains A 'YES' Value If The Type Of Site Is A Burial (Historic Burial, Prehistoric Burial, Or Burial Mound) Or If The Site File Database Indicates That Human Remains Were Observed At The Site. All Other Sites Have A Blank Value For This Item. *IMPORTANT: A Blank Value For This Item Does NOT Preclude The Possibility Of Human Remains Being Present At The Site. It Simply Indicates That There Is No Record Of Human Remains In The Site File Electronic Database. Note That Records Of Historical Cemeteries Are Kept In A Separate Site File Data Layer And Are Not Included With Archaeological Sites.

LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA/WARNINGS TO THE USER: The Archaeological Site Data Are Based On Field Reports Which Have Been Submitted By Many And Varied Individuals, Groups, Institutions, And Cultural Resource Firms. Submissions To The Site File Are Sometimes Accepted From Amateurs (Non-Archaeologists) As Well As Professionals. The Site Locations And Attributes Are Only As Accurate As The Information Submitted To The Site File By The Site Recorder. The Accuracy Of Submitted Information Cannot Always Be Verified. The Absence Of Archaeological Sites In This Data Layer Does Not Preclude The Existence Of An Unrecorded Site In The Field. In Fact, Only An Estimated 10% Of The Sites In Existence Are Recorded At The Site File.

The Locations Of Archaeological Sites, Historic Structures, Unmarked Human Burials, Cemeteries, And Other Cultural Features Contained In This (And Other) Site File Data Layers Are For Resource Management, Law Enforcement, And Research Purposes Only. State Law Protects Archaeological Remains On State Owned And Controlled Lands (Section 267.13, Florida Statutes). State Law Protects Human Burial Sites On All Lands (Sections 872.02 And 872.05, Florida Statutes).

COUNTY CODES: AL Alachua HA Hamilton OK Okaloosa BA Baker HR Hardee OB Okeechobee BY Bay HN Hendry OR Orange 186 BF Bradford HE Hernando OS Osceola BR Brevard HG Highlands PB Palm Beach BD Broward HI Hillsborough PA Pasco CA Calhoun HO Holmes PI Pinellas CH Charlotte IR Indian River PO Polk CI Citrus JA Jackson PU Putnum CL Clay JE Jefferson SJ St. Johns CR Collier LF Lafayette SL St. Lucie CO Columbia LA Lake SR Santa Rosa DA Dade LL Lee SO Sarasota DE Desoto LE Leon SE Seminole DI Dixie LV Levy SM Sumter DU Duval LI Liberty SU Suwannee ES Escambia MD Madison TA Taylor FL Flagler MA Manatee UN Union FR Franklin MR Marion VO Volusia GD Gadsden MT Martin WA Wakulla GI Gilchrist MO Monroe WL Walton GL Glades NA Nassau WS Washington GU Gulf

CONTACTS: Name: Vincent Birdsong Or Dr. Marion Smith Address: Florida Master Site File Division Of Historical Resources R. A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone: (850) 245-6440 Fax: (850) 245-6439 Email: General Site File: [email protected] GIS Supervisor: [email protected] Site File Supervisor: [email protected]

Report Prepared By Vincent S. Birdsong

------Document File: P:\Fsf\Docs\Gis\Documentation\Metadata\Metadata_AR.Htm

187 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE -GIS ATTRIBUTE FILE SAMPLE

SITEID SITENAME SITETYPE1 SITETYPE2 SITETYPE3 SITETYPE4 SITETYPE5 DA00003 CAPE FLORIDA Prehistoric midden(s) DA00005 BISCAYNE KEY MIDDEN Prehistoric midden(s) DA00006 VIRGINIA KEY Land-terrestrial Prehistoric midden(s) Unspecified by the recorder DA00007 CUTLER KEY Specialized site for procurement of Habitation (prehistoric) Land-terrestrial Prehistoric middeOther DA00008 CUTLER MOUND Prehistoric burial mound(s) DA03423 NN (BICY 274) Prehistoric burial mound(s) DA06525 MIAMI CANAL Canal DA02001 CUTLER FOSSIL SITE (SIMMONS HERREROS) Artifact scatter-low density ( < 2 per sq meter) DA02150 NN No field investigation--reported by remote sensing DA02151 NN No field investigation--reported by remote sensing DA00030 GROSSMAN FARMS 1 Prehistoric burial(s) Prehistoric midden(s)

CULTURE1 CULTURE2 CULTURE3 CULTURE4 CULTURE5 CULTURE6 DA00003 Prehistoric DA00005 Glades IIIb DA00006 Prehistoric

188 DA00007 Nineteenth century American, 1821-1899 Twentieth century American, 1900-Glades I, 1000 B.C.-A.D Glades Ia Glades Ib Glades IIa DA00008 Glades, 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1700 Glades II, A.D. 750-1200 Glades III, A.D. 1000-1700 DA03423 Prehistoric DA06525 Twentieth century American, 1900-present DA02001 Early Archaic DA02150 Unknown DA02151 Unknown DA00030 Glades II, A.D. 750-1200 Glades IIa Glades IIb Glades III, A.D. 10 Glades IIIa Glades IIIb

CULTURE7 CULTURE8 SURVEVAL SURVEYNUM D_NRLISTED DA00003 Not Evaluated by Record0 DA00005 Eligible for NRHP 602 DA00006 Ineligible for NRHP 8423 DA00007 Glades IIb Glades IIc Eligible for NRHP 10397 DA00008 Eligible for NRHP 602 DA03423 Insufficient Information 427 DA06525 Eligible for NRHP 5844 DA02001 Not Evaluated by Record0 DA02150 Not Evaluated by Record0 DA02151 Not Evaluated by Record0 DA00030 Seminole, 1716-present Not Evaluated by Record602 Appendix O

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE- GIS ATTRIBUTE FILE SAMPLE, CONTINUED, PAGE 2

SHPOEVAL PLOTTYPE HUMANREMNS DA00003 Not Evaluated by SHPO NORM DA00005 Not Evaluated by SHPO GV DA00006 Ineligible for NRHP GV DA00007 Not Evaluated by SHPO NORM DA00008 Not Evaluated by SHPO NORM YES DA03423 Not Evaluated by SHPO NORM YES DA06525 Ineligible for NRHP NORM DA02001 Not Evaluated by SHPO NORM DA02150 Not Evaluated by SHPO NORM DA02151 Not Evaluated by SHPO NORM DA00030 Not Evaluated by SHPO GV YES 189

Broward all Glades sites

Glades Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesignated

BD02571 MONARCH LAKES #2 1 0 0 0 BD02589 EAST ANNEX 0 0 0 1 BD03943 Symphony Site 0 0 0 1 BD04152 Musselman - Kapok Tree Mound 0 0 0 1 BD04218 Knowlton Sand Mound 1 0 0 0 BD04219 Joe's Midden 0 0 0 1 BD00001 FT LAUDERDALE BEACH 0 0 0 1 BD00002 COLEE HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 BD00003 NEW RIVER EARTHWORKS 1 0 0 0 BD01442 EMFINGER (BCSO 2-12) 0 0 0 1 BD01443 BRADLEY (BCSO 2-13) 0 0 0 1 BD01444 BIG 'UN (BCSO 3-16) 0 1 0 0 BD01445 BARE (BCSO 4-17) 0 0 0 1 BD01446 FREEMAN (BCSO 4-18) 0 0 0 1 BD01447 ALANDCO #1 0 0 1 0 BD01448 ALANDCO #2 0 0 1 0 BD01449 ALANDCO #3 1 0 1 0 BD01453 EVERGLADES CORPORATE PARK 0 1 1 0 BD00005 POMPANO MIDDEN 0 0 0 1 BD00006 POMPANO BEACH MIDDEN 0 0 0 1 BD00007 POMPANO BEACH MOUND 0 0 1 0 BD00008 HILLSBORO INLET 1 0 0 0 1 BD00010 BAILY 1 0 1 1 0 BD00012 PINE ISLAND 1 1 1 0 0 BD00013 SNAKE CREEK 1 0 0 0 BD00019 SEMINOLE ROCK PIT 1 1 1 0 BD00020 C-9 CANAL 1 (LAXSON) 0 1 1 0 BD00021 HOUDAILLE MOUND 0 1 1 0 BD00022 PEMBROKE 0 0 0 1 BD00023 CYPRESS CREEK 2 0 0 0 1 BD00027 STATE ROAD 25 0 0 0 1 BD00038 RIO VISTA SITE 0 0 0 1 BD00039 LOESCH (SEE 8 BD 87) 1 1 0 0 BD00041 MARGATE BLOUNT 1 1 1 0 BD00042 RED BUG 0 1 1 0 BD00045 HULLYS HUMP 0 1 1 0 BD00049 COTTONMOUTH 0 1 1 0 BD00050 CORAL SPRINGS 1 1 1 1 0 BD00051 HOLLYWOOD SEMINOLE INDIAN SITE 0 1 1 0 BD00052 PEACE CAMP 1 1 1 0 BD00054 DEER STAND 1 1 1 0 BD00055 ROLLING OAKS 1 0 1 1 0 BD00056 CORAL SPRINGS 3 0 1 1 0 BD00057 EMERALD TOWER 0 1 0 0 BD00059 SMITH 1 1 1 0 BD00065 CAGLES HAMMOCK - CORAL SPRINGS 5 1 1 1 0 BD00066 BISHOPS HAMMOCK 1 1 1 0 BD00073 ROLLING OAKS 2 1 1 1 0 BD00074 TAYLORS HEAD 1 1 1 0 BD00075 LAUDERHILL BURIAL MOUND 0 1 1 0 BD00076 CHAPLIN NURSERY 0 1 1 0 BD00078 CORAL SPRINGS 8 0 1 1 0 BD00079 CORAL SPRINGS 9 0 0 0 1

Appendix P 190 Broward all Glades sites, continued Glades Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesignated

BD00082 CHERRY CAMP 0 1 1 0 BD00083 MIDDLE RIVER CANAL 0 0 0 1 BD00084 SUNRISE 1 0 0 0 1 BD00085 SUNRISE 2 0 0 0 1 BD00086 WEST ROLLING OAKS 1 0 0 0 BD00087 RIVERMOUNT 1 1 0 0 BD00089 DEERFIELD BEACH 0 0 0 1 BD00090 HELER 1 1 0 0 BD00091 C 9 CANAL 2 1 1 0 0 BD00092 BUZZARDS ROOST 1 1 1 0 BD00093 HILLSBORO INLET 2 0 1 1 0 BD00094 LISA 0 0 1 0 BD00095 PINE ISLAND 2 0 1 0 0 BD00096 PINE ISLAND 3 0 1 0 0 BD00097 PINE ISLAND 4 0 0 0 1 BD00098 PINE ISLAND SEMINOLE VILLAGE 0 1 0 0 BD00099 PLAYLAND ISLES 0 1 1 0 BD00100 SHADY OAKS 0 1 1 0 BD00104 HOLATEE 1 0 0 0 1 BD00105 HOLATEE 2 0 1 1 0 BD00107 ANDYTOWN CAMPSITE 0 1 0 0 BD00108 SPOONERS RIDGE 0 1 1 0 BD00109 DEEP FORK/WINDMILL 1 1 1 0 BD00182 MARKHAM PARK 1 0 0 0 1 BD00183 MARKHAM PARK 2 0 0 0 1 BD00184 INDIAN RESERVATION 0 0 0 1 BD00185 ROCKLEDGE 0 0 0 1 BD00186 CLAM SHELL 0 0 0 1 BD00187 D C A 0 1 1 0 BD00188 GOODMAN 1 1 1 0 BD00191 SHERIDAN HAMMOCK 1 1 1 0 BD00196 NEW RIVER MIDDEN 0 0 1 0 BD00203 SAILBOAT BEND MIDDEN 1 1 1 0 BD00204 ACKERMAN SITE 1 1 0 0 BD00205 ROSE SITE 0 0 0 1 BD00206 RIVERLAND 0 0 0 1 BD00207 SAYWARD SITE 1 1 0 0 BD00261 IRRW 0 0 0 1 BD00262 IRRS 0 0 0 1 BD01101 COMMERCIAL ISLAND 0 0 0 1 BD01102 BARTLETT ESTATE 0 0 1 0 BD01112 PINE ISLAND LANDING 0 0 0 1 BD01113 EAST MIDDEN 0 1 0 0 BD01114 PINE ISLAND RIDGE 0 0 0 1 BD01116 HAMLET MIDDEN 0 1 1 0 BD01117 WEST RIDGE 0 1 0 0 BD01118 LOW TREE MIDDEN 0 1 0 0 BD01119 RANCH RIDGE 0 1 0 0 BD01434 RATTLESNAKE MOUND (BCSO1-1) 0 1 1 0 BD01435 TOMATO PATCH MOUND (BCSO1-3) 0 0 0 1 BD01437 BCSO 1-5 0 0 0 1 BD01439 BCSO 4-6 0 0 0 1 BD01440 EASY (BCSO 3-10) 0 0 0 1 BD01441 BASS (BCSO 2-11) 0 0 0 1 191 Broward all Glades sites, continued

Gla Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesigna

BD01867 MIRAMAR OAKS 0 0 0 1 BD01871 CRYSTAL LAKES 0 1 1 0 BD01873 SILVER LAKES 1 0 0 0 1 BD02112 MIRAMAR OAKS NORTH 0 0 0 1 BD02115 MEGA 1 1 1 0 BD02116 PETERSON 0 0 0 1 BD02117 LONG KEY 0 0 0 1 BD02118 SUNSHINE RANCHES 1 0 0 0 1 BD02119 NEW TESTAMENT 1 0 0 0 BD02121 OAKW OOD SITE 0 0 0 1 BD02122 CLEVELAND CLINIC SITE 0 0 0 1 BD02123 KAPOK 1 0 0 0 1 BD02124 KAPOK 2 0 0 0 1 BD02125 KAPOK 3 0 0 0 1 BD02126 KAPOK 4 0 0 0 1 BD02127 FLAMINGO 1 0 0 0 1 BD02128 FLAMINGO 2 0 0 0 1 BD02129 MUSEUM SITE/FLAMINGO 3 0 0 0 1 BD02130 GRIFFIN 1 0 0 0 1 BD02131 GRIFFIN 2 0 0 0 1 BD02133 OAKLAND PARK BLVD SITE 0 1 1 0 BD02134 PIPER MOUND 0 0 0 1 BD02135 FICUS TREE 0 0 1 0 BD02136 W EDGEW OOD 0 0 0 1 BD02137 ROBBINS 0 0 0 1 BD02138 EASTER HILL 0 0 0 1 BD02140 ROBBINS 2 0 0 0 1 BD02141 ROBBINS 3 0 0 0 1 BD02142 GATOR TRACE 0 1 0 0 BD02145 CATTLE TROUGH 0 0 0 1 BD02146 FRIPP 1 1 1 0 BD02147 ZACHER 0 1 1 0 BD02148 DAVIE MOUND 0 0 0 1 BD02149 TW IN ACRES 0 0 0 1 BD02150 BLUE COW 0 1 0 0 BD02153 OTTER 1 0 0 0 BD02154 PARKLAND SITE 1 0 0 0 BD02356 SAW GRASS OVERPASS MIDDEN 0 1 1 0 BD02357 FPL/EW MA 2B MIDDEN 0 1 1 0 BD02358 MYSTIQUE 1 1 0 0 BD02360 SNAIL KITE 0 0 0 1 BD02559 FERN FOREST 1 0 0 0 1 BD02755 COQUINA MEADOW S 1 0 0 0 BD02882 BLOCKBUSTER #5 1 1 0 0 BD02884 FLORIDA WETLANDSBANK #1 1 0 0 0 BD02885 FLORIDA WETLANDSBANK #2 1 0 0 0 BD02886 FLORIDA WETLANDSBANK #3 1 0 0 0 BD02887 EVERGLADES CORPORATE PARK #2 1 0 0 0 BD02912 MUSEUM SITE 0 1 0 0 BD02917 MIRAMAR PARK 0 0 0 1 BD03163 PEMBROKE CENTER 0 1 1 0 BD03178 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 1 1 0 0 0 BD03179 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 2 0 1 0 0 BD03180 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 3 0 1 0 0 BD03181 ROLLING HILLS GOLF COURSE 4 0 1 0 0 BD03187 BIG CYPRESS #31 0 0 0 1 BD03188 BIG CYPRESS #32 0 0 0 1 BD03189 BIG CYPRESS #33 0 0 0 1 BD03192 BIG CYPRESS #36 1 0 0 0 BD03195 BIG CYPRESS #39 1 0 0 0 BD03208 HACIENDA 0 1 1 0 BD03282 HIATUS #1 1 0 0 0 BD03283 HIATUS #2 1 0 0 0

192 Dade all Glades sites

Glades Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesignated

DA00003 CAPE FLORIDA 0 0 0 1 DA00004 BISCAYNE KEY MOUND 0 0 0 1 DA00005 BISCAYNE KEY MIDDEN 0 0 1 0 DA00006 VIRGINIA KEY 0 0 0 1 DA00008 CUTLER MOUND 0 1 1 0 DA00124 LIME HAMMOCK 0 0 1 0 DA00125 CABBAGE RATTLESNAKE 0 1 1 0 DA00128 IRON STAKE HAMMOCK 0 1 0 0 DA00129 NN 0 0 0 1 DA00132 EAST TWIN HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 DA00133 WEST TWIN HAMMOCK 0 0 1 0 DA00138 DEPRESSION HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 DA03292 TAYLOR SLOUGH 2 0 0 0 1 DA06792 HARDEN HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 DA01648 KENDALL HOSPITAL 0 0 0 1 DA01651 JANE GRAY 0 1 1 0 DA01652 BIRD 0 1 1 0 DA01655 MIAMI RIVER RAPIDS 0 1 1 0 DA01658 WILLIAMS 0 0 0 1 DA02199 BUZZARDS' ROOST 0 1 1 0 DA00002 SANDS KEY 2 0 0 0 1 DA00013 MIAMI SAND MOUND 4 0 0 0 1 DA00014 MIAMI SAND MOUND 1 0 0 0 1 DA00015 MIAMI SAND MOUND 2 0 0 0 1 DA00016 MIAMI ROCK MOUND 1 0 0 0 1 DA00017 MIAMI ROCK MOUND 2 0 0 0 1 DA00019 MIAMI SAND MOUND 3 0 0 0 1 DA00020 LITTLE RIVER 0 1 0 0 DA00021 SURFSIDE MIDDEN 0 1 1 0 DA00022 SURFSIDE MOUND 0 0 0 1 DA00024 OLETA RIVER MOUND 0 0 0 1 DA00026 PARADISE KEY 1 0 0 1 0 DA00027 PARADISE KEY 2 0 1 0 0 DA00028 CHEKIKA STATE RECREATIONAL AREA 0 1 1 0 DA00030 GROSSMAN FARMS 1 0 1 1 0 DA00033 TAMIAMI TRAIL #1 1 0 0 0 DA00035 COLLINS 0 1 0 0 DA00036 FLAGAMI MOUND 0 1 1 0 DA00037 ALLAPATTA MIDDEN 0 0 0 1 DA00038 SOUR ORANGE MIDDEN 1 0 0 1 0 DA00039 SOUR ORANGE MIDDEN 2 1 0 0 0 DA00041 PENNSUCO 1 0 0 0 DA00046 GOLDEN GLADE 1 0 1 1 0 DA00047 GOLDEN GLADE 2 0 0 1 1 DA00049 OPA LOCKA MOUND D 0 1 1 0 DA00050 LITTLE DOCTOR CAMP 0 0 0 1 DA00053 CAT TRACK BEACH 0 0 0 1 DA00054 MONROE LAKE 0 0 1 0 DA00067 TAMIAMI TRAIL 2 0 0 0 1 DA00069 CHEKIKAS ISLAND 0 1 1 0 DA00070 5 MILE MOUND 0 0 1 0 DA00071 7 MILE MOUND 0 1 1 0 DA00072 9 MILE MOUND 0 1 0 0 Appendix Q

193 Dade all Glades sites, continued

Glades Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesignated

DA000737 MILE ROAD 0001 DA00074NN 0001 DA00075HIALEAH 1 0010 DA00076HIALEAH 2 0001 DA00077HIALEAH 3 0001 DA00080GROSSMAN FARMS 20001 DA00082HIALEAH 4 0001 DA00083LARAMORE 0110 DA00084OPALOCKA 0110 DA00085BLACK CREEK 1 0110 DA00087MEDLEY 2 0001 DA00088 NW 108TH STREET 0110 DA00089MARINE AIR STATION0001 DA00091TAMIAMI AIRPORT 0001 DA00092MEDLEY 0001 DA00093LEHIGH PORTLAND 0001 DA00095MIAMI SPRINGS 0001 DA00097LITTLE RIVER 0001 DA00104BUZZARD ROOST MOUND 10001 DA00105BUZZARD ROOST MOUND 20100 DA00108BRAZILIAN PEPPER HAMMOCK0110 DA00109LITTLE MOUND 0001 DA00111TIGER HAMMOCK 0001 DA00112CHEKIKA ISLAND 8 0010 DA00113NN 0100 DA00117BLACK HAMMOCK 0110 DA00118CAPTAIN TONY 0110 DA00120SEA GRAPE HAMMOCK1000 DA00121IRON POT HAMMOCK0100 DA00123 TRIPLE CABBAGE 0110 DA00140TURTLE MOUND 0001 DA00142 MICRO WAVE TOWER 0010 DA00143BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 11000 DA00144BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 21000 DA00145BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 40110 DA00146BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 50011 DA00147BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 60110 DA00148BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 70001 DA00149BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 80001 DA00150BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 90010 DA00152BISCAYNE NATIONAL SEASHORE 110001 DA00418TEN MILE CORNER 0110 DA00421NN 0010 DA00422CACTUS MOUND 0110 DA00423NN 0100 DA01024OLETA RIVER 2 0001 DA01025OLETA RIVER 4 0001 DA01026BUTTONWOOD CAMP0010 DA01027 SNAKE CREEK CROSSING 0001 DA01028GREYNOLDS 0001 DA01029BAY RIDGE 0001 DA01030ARCH CREEK RIDGE0001 DA01035SAN JUAN 0110 DA01037SOUTH BANK 0110 194 Dade all Glades sites, continued

Glades Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesignated

DA01039 HIGHLAND LAKES 0 1 1 0 DA01040 REEMS 0 0 0 1 DA01041 OJUS 0 1 1 0 DA01042 LONG HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 DA01043 BEAL SMITH 0 0 0 1 DA01044 RADIO 0 0 0 1 DA01046 SUNKEN HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 DA01049 FISH CAMP 0 0 0 1 DA01050 HOLLY HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 DA01059 WILLOW CAMP 0 0 0 1 DA01060 BLUFF CAMP 1 0 1 0 0 DA01067 LEATHER FERN 0 1 1 0 DA01069 MENDOZA 0 0 0 1 DA01072 BRICKELL HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 DA01075 DONNA 0 0 1 0 DA01077 LEO 0 1 0 0 DA01078 DIEDRA 0 1 1 0 DA01079 HIDDEN SITE 0 1 1 0 DA01082 BRICKELL BLUFF 1 0 0 0 DA02098 MIAMI AVENUE 0 1 0 0 DA02099 VILLA SERENA 0 1 1 0 DA02102 REFUGEE ISLAND 0 0 0 1 DA02103 DADE CORNERS 0 0 1 0 DA02104 LEVEE CUT 1 0 0 0 DA02105 PEE WEE ISLAND 1 0 0 0 DA02106 BENCH MARK ISLAND 0 1 1 0 DA02107 TURNPIKE BEND 0 0 1 1 DA02108 LOOKOUT TOWER ISLAND 0 1 1 0 DA02109 FANG ISLAND 0 0 0 1 DA02110 VOODOO ISLAND 0 0 0 1 DA02111 BULLDOZER CUT 0 0 1 0 DA02113 COTTONMOUTH ISLAND 0 0 0 1 DA02115 DORAL ISLAND 0 1 1 0 DA02117 BOAT RAMP 0 0 1 0 DA02119 BALDWIN 0 1 1 0 DA02129 MID LONG ISLAND 0 1 0 0 DA02131 KENDALL COLEMAN 0 0 0 1 DA02132 SANTA MARIA 0 0 0 1 DA02134 CASTELLOW HAMMOCK 0 0 1 0 DA02140 DEBORAH ISLAND 0 0 0 1 DA02141 SMALL ISLAND 0 0 0 1 DA02143 CAPE FLORIDA MIDDEN 0 0 0 1 DA02148 MIAMI CIRCLE DITCH 0 0 0 1 DA03220 JOSE MARTI 0 1 1 0 DA03225 SHADY OAKS 0 1 1 0 DA03228 BLACK HAMMOCK 2 0 1 1 0 DA03229 BLACK HAMMOCK 4 0 0 0 1 DA03230 GUMBO LIMBO HAMMOCK 0 1 1 0 DA03231 GARDEN ISLAND 0 0 0 1 DA03232 CHEKIKA ISLAND 7 0 0 0 1 DA03233 CHEKIKA ISLAND 9 0 0 0 1 DA03234 CHEKIKA ISLAND 10 0 0 0 1 DA03235 CHEKIKA ISLAND 11 0 0 0 1 DA03236 CHEKIKA ISLAND 12 0 0 0 1 195 Dade all Glades sites, continued

Glades Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesignated

DA03237 CHEKIKA ISLAND 13 0 0 0 1 DA03238 CHEKIKA ISLAND 14 0 1 0 0 DA03239 CHEKIKA ISLAND 15 0 1 1 0 DA03240 CHEKIKA ISLAND 16 0 0 0 1 DA03242 LONG ISLAND 1 0 0 0 1 DA03243 LONG ISLAND 2 0 0 1 0 DA03244 MONROE LAKE 0 1 0 0 DA03245 MADIERA BAY 3 0 1 1 0 DA03246 LONG WALK ISLAND 0 1 1 0 DA03247 NORTH RIVER HEADWATERS 1 0 0 0 DA03248 SQUAWK CREEK 0 1 0 0 DA03249 MANATEE HAMMOCK 0 1 1 0 DA03250 PAY HAY OKEE 8 0 0 0 1 DA03251 PAY HAY OKEE 9 0 0 1 0 DA03252 PAY HAY OKEE 11 1 0 0 0 DA03253 PANTHER MOUND 1 1 0 0 0 DA03254 PANTHER MOUND 2 0 1 1 0 DA03255 GUAVA HAMMOCK 0 0 1 1 DA03256 PANTHER MOUND 6 0 1 1 0 DA03257 PANTHER MOUND 7 0 0 0 1 DA03258 PANTHER MOUND 8 0 0 0 1 DA03259 PANTHER MOUND 9 0 0 1 0 DA03260 PANTHER MOUND 10 0 0 0 1 DA03261 PANTHER MOUND 11 0 1 1 0 DA03262 PANTHER MOUND 13 0 0 1 0 DA03263 PANTHER MOUND 16 0 1 1 0 DA03264 PANTHER MOUND 17 0 1 0 0 DA03265 PANTHER MOUND 18 0 0 0 1 DA03266 PANTHER MOUND 19 0 0 0 1 DA03267 PANTHER MOUND 20 0 0 1 0 DA03268 PANTHER MOUND 21 0 0 0 1 DA03269 PANTHER MOUND 22 0 0 0 1 DA03270 PANTHER MOUND 24 0 0 0 1 DA03271 PANTHER MOUND 25 0 0 0 1 DA03272 PANTHER MOUND 26 0 1 1 0 DA03273 PANTHER MOUND 27 0 1 1 0 DA03274 PANTHER MOUND 28 0 1 1 0 DA03275 PARADISE HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 DA03276 SHARK VALLEY 4 0 1 1 0 DA03279 SHARK VALLEY 7 0 0 0 1 DA03280 SHARK VALLEY 8 0 0 0 1 DA03281 SHARK VALLEY 9 0 0 0 1 DA03282 SHARK VALLEY 10 0 0 0 1 DA03283 SHARK VALLEY 11 0 0 0 1 DA03284 SHARK VALLEY 13 0 0 0 1 DA03287 SHARK VALLEY 18 0 0 0 1 DA03288 SHARK VALLEY 19 0 1 0 0 DA03289 SHARK VALLEY 20 0 1 1 0 DA03290 SHARK VALLEY LOOK-OUT TOWER 21 0 0 0 1 DA03291 TAYLOR SLOUGH 1 0 0 0 1 DA03427 NN (BICY 327) 0 0 1 0 DA03428 NN (BICY 328) 0 1 0 0 DA03429 NN (BICY 328) 0 1 1 0 DA03430 NN (BICY 329) 0 1 1 0 196

Dade all Glades sites, continued

Glades Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesignated DA03432 NN (BICY 331) 0 1 0 0 DA03433 NN (BICY 332) 0 1 1 0 DA03434 NN (BICY 333) 0 0 0 1 DA03439 TOTTEN KEY MOUND 0 0 1 0 DA03451 ANHINGA TRAIL 1 0 0 0 DA03678 NORTH RIDGE 1 0 0 0 DA04398 ANDOVER SITE 0 1 1 0 DA04404 WEYTZ 0 0 1 1 DA04582 SANDS KEY 2 0 1 1 0 DA04752 GUY BAILEY 0 0 0 1 DA05099 RATTLER 0 0 0 1 DA05100 POSSUM 0 0 1 0 DA05129 ENCHANTED FOREST PARK 0 0 0 1 DA05130 NORTH ARCH CREEK 0 1 1 0 DA05247 BEAR CUT PRESERVE 0 0 1 0 DA05248 FIRE STATION DUNE 0 1 1 0 DA05252 HARDWOOD ACRES 0 1 0 0 DA05364 Jim South 0 0 0 1 DA05917 BLOCKBUSTER #6 0 0 0 1 DA05918 BLOCKBUSTER #7 0 0 1 0 DA05921 TENNIS CENTER DUNE 0 0 0 1 DA05922 BIKE PATH DUNE 0 0 0 1 DA06328 SOUTHEAST 2ND STREET MIDDEN 0 0 0 1 DA06333 BEACON TRADEPORT MIDDEN 0 0 0 1 DA06446 NO NAME HARBOR I 0 1 1 0 DA06447 NO NAME HARBOR II 0 1 1 0 DA06448 NO NAME HARBOR III 0 1 1 0 DA06519 DEERING ESTATE MIDDEN 0 0 0 1 DA06522 CORNELIA DRIVE SITE 0 1 1 0 DA06991 DANIELS ESTATES #1 0 0 0 1 DA07014 C-4 SITE 0001

197

Monroe all Glades sites

Glades Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesignated MO01145 TARPON BAY 1 0 0 0 1 MO00028 KEY LARGO 4 0 0 0 1 MO00030 BEAR LAKE 4 0 0 0 1 MO00031 BEAR LAKE 5 0 0 0 1 MO00033 BEAR LAKE MOUNDS 1 1 1 0 MO00034 BEAR LAKE 2 0 0 0 1 MO00035 BEAR LAKE 3 0 0 1 0 MO00036 EAST CAPE SABLE 0 0 1 0 MO00037 CAPE SABLE BEACH 0 0 1 0 MO00038 CAPE SABLE 2 0 0 0 1 MO00039 CAPE SABLE 1 0 0 0 1 MO00041 BIG SABLE CREEK 0 0 0 1 MO00042 CANE PATCH 1 1 1 0 MO00043 BANANA PATCH 0 0 1 0 MO00044 INDIAN CAMP CREEK MOUND 0 1 1 0 MO00045 HARNEY RIVER 0 0 0 1 MO00046 CAMP LONESOME 1 1 0 0 MO00050 WILLIE W ILLIE MOUND 1 1 1 0 MO00070 COCONUT CAMP 0 0 0 1 MO00075 LUNDSFORD 0 0 1 0 MO00078 DOCTOR TIGER'S HAMMOCK 0 1 0 0 MO00079 GROUND RATTLER HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 MO00080 NEAR GROUND RATTLER HAMK 0 0 0 1 MO00084 LONE PINE MIDDEN 0 0 0 1 MO00085 COFFEE POT CAMP 0 0 0 1 MO00118 ROOKERY MOUND 0 1 1 0 MO00121 ROUGH LEMON HAMMOCK 0 0 1 0 MO00122 BRADLEY KEY 0 0 1 0 MO00123 CURRY KEY 0 0 1 0 MO00125 GAS CAN MIDDEN 0 0 1 0 MO00127 DYNAMITE ROCK 1 1 0 0 MO01110 BIG LOSTMANS BAY 0 0 0 1 MO01111 OYSTER KEY 0 0 1 0 MO01112 CLIVE KEY 0 0 0 1 MO01113 MURRAY KEY 0 0 0 1 MO01116 MOSQUITO IS. (BOAT LAMP ) 0 0 1 0 MO01117 INDIAN CAMP CREEK 4 0 0 0 1 MO01118 INDIAN CAMP CREEK 5 0 0 0 1 MO01119 INDIAN CAMP CREEK 6 0 0 0 1 MO01120 INDIAN CAMP CREEK 7 0 0 0 1 MO01121 INDIAN CAMP CREEK 8 0 0 0 1 MO01122 INDIAN CAMP CREEK 9 0 0 0 1 MO01150 TARPON BAY 3 0 0 0 1 MO01159 TARPON BAY 4 0 0 0 1 MO01207 36TH STREET 0 0 0 1 MO01208 LIME TREE HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 MO01212 BRITTLECANE HAMMOCK 0 0 0 1 MO01214 CITRUS 0 0 0 1 MO01215 HESS 0 0 0 1 MO01978 PUMPKIN KEY 0 0 0 1 MO02027 DIXON'S SLOUGH 0 0 1 0 MO02029 SLOUGH INTERCHANGE 0 0 0 1 MO02051 CARD SOUND ROAD 0 1 0 0 MO02052 LITMAN 0 0 1 0 MO02062 OCEAN REEF 0 0 0 1

Appendix R 198 Palm Beach all Glades sites

Glades Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesignated

PB00003 BOCA RATON INLET MIDDEN 2 0 0 0 1 PB00004 BOCA RATON INLET SAND MND 0 0 1 0 PB00005 BOCA RATON INLET MIDDEN 1 0 0 1 0 PB00006 BOCA RATON INLET MIDDEN 3 0 0 0 1 PB00232 WALL'S HEAD 0 1 1 0 PB09527 HOLLY HUMP 0 0 0 1 PB09528 BIRD NEST 0 0 0 1

Appendix S

Hendry all Glades sites

Glades Site ID Site name Glades I Glades II Glades III Undesignated

HN00044 U.S.S.C. #1 0001 HN00045 USSC 2 0001 HN00046 U.S.S.C. #3 1000 HN00047 U.S.S.C. #4 0001 HN00048 U.S.S.C. #5 0001 HN00049 U.S.S.C. #6 0001 HN00050 U.S.S.C. #7 0001 HN00051 U.S.S.C. #8 0001 HN00052 USSC 9 0001 HN00053 USSC 10 0001 HN00054 USSC 11 0001 HN00055 USSC 12 0001 HN00056 USSC 13 0001 HN00648 BIG CYPRESS #25 1010

Appendix T

199 SOUTH FLORIDA SOILS METADATA

Theme: SSURGO, soil survey, map units Place: South Florida Stratum: terrestrial Description

Abstract This metadata file pertains to the SSURGO Soils Data Layer for all counties in the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). SSURGO stands for 'Soil Survey Geographic'. This layer was derived from the Soil Surveys developed over many years by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now called the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). It is the highest resolution soil data available from the NRCS. These maps have a level of detail comparable with 7.5' USGS topo quads or NWI wetlands maps.

SSURGO maps are not available for a large portion of the District, including most of the Everglades National Park, Big Cypress Preserve, and other adjacent or similar areas. The incomplete counties are Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach and Broward.

SSURGO maps delineate the landscape into discrete soil units, or 'map units', which indicate the type, or types, of soil series that best fit that location. A multitude of attributes in several different tables can provide information about each map unit and soil series. These tables can be linked to the GIS data layers via common fields, or 'join items'.

There is a very extensive body of documentation, guides, and literature available for the SSURGO layer. This metadata file will rely on links to several of these, to provide a good start for users. Users should be advised that, while the SSURGO layer offers the best available resolution, there are many types of accuracy concerns. Those issues will be only briefly covered in this file.

The source dates for the District's SSURGO maps are:

Broward : Big Cypress Res 1993 Monroe 1995 Broward : East 1984 Okeechobee 1971 Broward : central 1976 Orange 1960 Charlotte 1984 Osceola 1979 Collier 1998 Palm Beach 1978 Dade 1996 Polk 1990 Hendry 1990 St. Lucie 1980 Highlands 1990 Lee 1984 Indian River 1987 Martin 1981

Appendix U 200

Purpose

The SSURGO maps were developed at a local level, by SCS staff assigned to each county. They were designed primarily for natural resource management by "farm and ranch, landowner/user, township, county, or parish". With the advent of GIS the data can also be used for larger regional analysis. Intended applications included "determining erodible areas and developing erosion control practices, reviewing site development proposals and land use potential; making land use assessments and chemical fate assessments; and identifying potential wetlands and sand and gravel aquifer areas."

SSURGO maps have the highest level of field verification of the state or federal level natural resource maps. For that reason they are valuable as ancillary information for related map products, such as wetlands, land use, and vegetation maps. SSURGO maps are also valuable as an historical reference, because the soils are relatively stable compared to other themes such as land use or hydrography, and the NRCS attempts to show both current and historical status in the maps.

201 Large/significant Glades II site densities by landscape zone/geographic area within the Everglades Culture Area SFWMD Clipped Square Kilometeres

Landscapes

Kilometers/ Broward Dade Monroe Total Density number sites

Total large site count 12 14 2 28 0.0039

202 Everglades Keys 533.26 Eastern Marshes 17.91 Ochopee Marl Marsh 557.97 Peat Transverse Glades* 61.6 2 1 3 0.0487 20.53 Perrine Marl Marsh 945.85 Rockland Marl Marsh 624.023 1 1 0.0016 624.02 Ridge and Slough -2261.35 SamJones - Pine Island Ridge, Long Key -2.58 Ridge and Slough with Sam Jones 2263.93 7 9 16 0.0071 141.50 Sawgrass Plains 199.63 Taylor Slough 47.49 Barrier Islands 143.87 1 1 1 3 0.0209 47.96 Mangroves 1291.75 1 1 0.0008 1291.75 Pine forests and uplands (Broward, N. Dade) 414.52 Cypress Sloughs (Broward) 151.19 West boundary cypress 11.7 Miami River Course 22 New River Course 2 2 Total 7264.69 * Includes 1.5 Kilometer extension into Ridge and Slough and Other Surrounding Zones

Appendix V

Large/significant Glades III site densities by landscape zone/geographic area within the Everglades Culture Area

Landscapes Kilometers/ Broward Dade Monroe Total Density number sites

Total large site count 10 17 3 30 0.0041

Everglades Keys 533.26 Eastern Marshes 17.91 Ochopee Marl Marsh 557.97 Peat Transverse Glades* 61.6 3 1 4 0.0649 15.40

203 Perrine Marl Marsh 945.85 Rockland Marl Marsh 624.023 1 624.02 Ridge and Slough -2261.35 SamJones - Pine Island Ridge, Long Key -2.58 Ridge and Slough with Sam Jones 2263.93 4 9 13 0.0057 174.15 Sawgrass Plains 199.63 Taylor Slough 47.49 Barrier Islands 143.87 1 3 1 5 0.0348 28.77 Mangroves 1291.75 2 2 5 0.0039 258.35 Pine forests and uplands (Broward, N. Dade) 414.52 Cypress Sloughs (Broward) 151.19 West boundary cypress 11.7 Miami River Course 1 2 New River Course 2 2 Total 7264.69 * Includes 1.5 Kilometer extension into Ridge and Slough and Other Surrounding Zones

Appendix W

Everglades Culture Area site occupation by period Glades I through Glades II

Glades I Glades II Glades II without Glades I and without County Glades I all Glades II Glades II Glades I

Palm Beach 0 1001 Broward 45 69 19 26 43 Dade 57 88 21 36 52 Monroe 5 9 0 5 4 Hendry 2 0 2 00 TOTALS 109 167 42 67 100

Appendix X

Everglades Culture Area site occupation by period Glades II through Glades III

Glades II Glades II Glades III without and Glades without County Glades II Glades III all Glades III III Glades II

Palm Beach 1 3012 Broward 69 52 25 44 8 Dade 88 103 26 62 41 Monroe 9 18 4 5 13 Hendry 0 1 0 0 1 TOTALS 167 177 55 112 65

Appendix Y

204

United States Geological Survey and Florida Department of Environmental Protection

1974 USGS 1:250,000 LAND USE LAND COVER -1970's Vector Digital Data

Reston, Virginia United States Geological Survey State of Florida www.usgs.gov

This dataset contains 1970's Land Use Land Cover information for the State of Florida. In 1999 the Florida Department of Environmental Protection created this dataset by merging four USGS WMD tiles representing Land Use Land Cover from the 1970's. The Land Use Land Cover classification standards are based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Land Use Land Cover (LU/LC) classification format. This dataset was created for use in a GIS mapping application and for researching changes in Florida land use since the 1970's.

This data was received from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in September 2006. FDEP downloaded a previous version from FGDL and made several undocumented corrections. The original dataset posted by FGDL was initially produced by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This is a small-scale map and should be used only for regional or statewide analysis. DO NOT use this coverage as a base map. It is one of a few Land Use datasets available for this time period, and can be used to perform time-series land use changes by using newer Landuse datasets from Florida's Water Management Districts.

DATA CONTENT The set of Land Use and Land Cover and associated maps consists of Land Use and Land Cover, political units, hydrologic units, census county subdivisions, Federal land ownership, and State land ownership (optional). The Land Use and Land Cover map is compiled to portray the Level II categories of the Land Use and Land Cover classification system documented by Anderson and others (l976). The Level II categories of this Land Use and Land Cover classification system provide the user with a basic framework to which third- and fourth-level categories may be added. The associated maps portray either natural or administrative information. They provide the user with the opportunity to utilize the Land Use and Land Cover maps and data, either individually or collectively, to produce graphic or tabular data for the areas portrayed on the associated maps. This mapping system is constructed in such a way that the Land Use and Land Cover data can be related to other resource fields such as soils, geology, hydrology, and demography. To provide the data in digital form, the Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS) has been developed (Mitchell and others, l977). The data structure used in GIRAS to store the information is the result of a series of evolving structures and, as such, reflects the judgment by the USGS concerning the presentation and format of polygonal data. For those users better able to handle data

Appendix Z 205 in a grid cell form, data are also provided in a Composite Theme Grid (CTG) format.

SOURCE DATA CHARACTERISTICS The characteristics of the digital cartographic data base for Land Use and Land Cover and associated maps reflect the parameters used in compiling the maps. The Land Use and Land Cover mapping program is designed so that standard topographic maps at a scale of l:250,000 can be used as a base for compilation and reproduction. In a few cases, USGS has prepared Land Use and Land Cover and associated maps at a scale of 1:100,000 when the 1:100,000-scale topographic map base was available. Land Use and Land Cover maps provide data to be used either by themselves or in combination with the other data sets produced in the program. The basic sources of land use compilation data are NASA high-altitude aerial photographs, and National High-Altitude Photography (NHAP) program photographs, usually at scales smaller than l:60,000. The l:250,000-scale topographic map series is generally used as the base map for the compilation of the Land Use and Land Cover maps and the associated overlays; 1:100,000-scale topographic map bases have been used on rare occasions. Although compilation of Land Use and Land Cover data is performed on a film-positive base usually enlarged to a scale of approximately l:l25,000, the associated overlays are both compiled and digitized at a scale of l:250,000. All features are delineated by curved or straight lines that depict the actual boundaries of the areas (polygons) being described. The minimum size of polygons depicting all Urban or Built-up Land (categories 11-17), Water (51-54), Confined Feeding Operations (23), Other Agricultural Land 24), Strip Mines, Quarries, and Gravel Pits (75) and urban Transitional areas (76), is 4 hectares (ha). All other categories of Land Use and Land Cover have a minimum polygon size of 16 ha. (Those sizes also are considered the minimum sizes to which polygons are digitized.) In the Urban or Built-up Land and Water categories, the minimum width of a feature to be shown is 200 m; (that is, if a square with sides 200 m in length is delineated, the area will be 4 ha). Although the minimum-width consideration precludes the delineation of very narrow and very long 4-ha polygons, triangles or other polygons are acceptable if the base of the triangle or minimum width of the polygon is 200 m in length and if the area of the polygon is 4 ha. Exceptions to this specification are limited access highways (14) and all double line rivers (51) on the 1:250,000-scale base which shall have a minimum width of 92 m. For categories other than Urban or Built-up Land and Water, the 16-ha minimum size for delineation requires a minimum-width polygon of 400 m. Line weight for delineating Land Use and Land Cover polygons and for neatlines is 0.l0 mm at the production scale of l:250,000. Pensacola 1973 Tallahassee 1972-74 Valdosta 1972-74 Jacksonville 1972-73 Apalachicola 1972-73 Gainesville 1972 Daytona Beach 1972 Plant City 1972 Orlando 1972 Tampa 1972 Fort Pierce 1972 West Palm Beach 1973 Miami 1972-73 Key West 1974

206

REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, David G. 1996 Fluctuations between Simple and Complex Chiefdoms: Cycling in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States. John F. Scarry ed., Pp. 231-252. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Archaeological and Historical Conservancy 1993 Site Report for Sheridan Hammock. Report on file, Broward County Historical Commission.

Athens, William P. 1983 The Spatial Distribution of Glades Period Archaeological Sites Within the Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in Anthropology. Tallahassee: The Florida State University.

Barnard, Alan 2004 Hunter-Gatherers in History, Archaeology and Anthropology. Oxford: Berg.

Beiter, Gary N. 2001 Salvage and Excavation of Bamboo Mound (8DA94), Dade County, Florida: A Multi-Component Site. The Florida Anthropologist 54(1): 29- 38.

2003 Excavations at Refugee Island (8DA2102), Miami-Dade County Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(4): 276-292.

Binford, Lewis 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity, 45(1): 4-20.

Binford, Lewis 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Hunter-Gatherer and Environmental Data Sets. Berkeley: University of California Press.

207

Carr, Robert S. 1981 Dade County Historic Survey: The Archaeological Survey. Metropolitan Dade County, Office of Community and Economic Development, Historic Preservation Division.

1990 Archaeological Investigations at Pine Island, Broward County. The Florida Anthropologist 43(4): 249-261.

2002 The Archaeology of Everglades Tree Islands. In Tree Islands of the Everglades. Fred Sklar and Arnold Van Der Valk eds. Pp.187-206. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Carr, Robert S. and John G. Beriault 1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Past and Present II. Patrick J. Gleason, ed. Pp. 1-14. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, Florida.

Carr, Robert S., Amy Felmley, Richard Ferrer, William Steele and Jorge Zamamillo 1991 An Archaeological Survey of Broward County: Phase One. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Report #34.

Carr, Robert S., Kim Heinz, Don Mattucci and William Steele 1993 An Archaeological Survey of Northeast Broward County: Phase Two. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Report #67.

Carr, Robert S., William Steele and Jorge Zamanillo 1995 An Archaeological Survey of Southeast Broward County: Phase Three. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Report #117.

Clark, David, L. 1977 Spatial Archaeology. In Spatial Archaeology. Davis L. Clark, ed. Pp 1- 32. London: Academic Press.

Cohen, A.D., C.P. Gage and W.S. Moore 1999 Combining Organic petrography and Palnology to Assess Anthropogenic Impacts on Peatlands Part 1: An Example from the Northern Everglades of Florida. International Journal of Coal Geology 39: 3-45.

Dasovich, Steve J. 1999 The Effects of Continuous Erosional Processes and Storm Damage on Coastal Site Integrity: Example from Dixie County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 52(4): 267-274.

208 Dean, Jonathan A. 2002 Archaeological Investigations at the Gumbo Limbo Site (8PB5375), Palm Beach County, Florida. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in Anthropology. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.

Division of Historical Resources, State of Florida 1999 Guide to the Archaeological Site Form, Version 2.2.

Division of Historical Resources, State of Florida 2004 Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors. A theme study prepared for submittal to the United States Department of the Interior.

Donnelly, Jeffery P. and Thompson Webb III 2004 Back-barrier Sedimentary Records of Intense Hurricane Landfalls in the Northeastern United States. In Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present and Future. Richard J. Murnane and Kam-biu Liu, eds. Pp. 58-95. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ebdon, David 1985 Statistics in Geography. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Elsner, James B. and Brian H. Bossak 2004 Hurrricane Landfall Probability and Climate. In Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present and Future. Richard J. Murnane and Kam-biu Liu, eds. Pp. 333-353. New York: Columbia University Press.

Felmley, Amy 1991 Prehistoric Mortuary Practices in the Everglades Cultural Area, Florida. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in Anthropology. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.

Ferdinando, Peter n.d. South Florida Archaeology Identification Guide: Pottery. (Draft) Internal Report for The Palm Beach Museum of Natural History.

Ferdinando, Peter 2007 A Preliminary Study of the Midden Burials from the Spanish River Complex and their Potential Application to Questions Concerning Status in Pre-contact Southeast Florida. A Paper Presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Avon Park, Florida.

Fitzhugh, Ben and Junko Habu 2002 Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter- Gatherer Settlement Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer

209 Gentry, R. Cecil 1974 Hurricanes in South Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Past and Present. Patrick J. Gleason, ed. Pp. 73-81.

Goggin, John 1939 A Ceramic Sequence in South Florida. New Mexico Anthropologist 3: 36-40.

Graves, Ottillie C. 1982 The Rolling Oaks II Site (8BD73): A Tequesta Sub-Area Habitation Site. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in Anthropology. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.

Griffin, John 1995 Fifty Years of Southeastern Archaeology: Selected Works of John W. Griffin. Patricia Griffin, ed. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

2002 Archaeology of the Everglades. Milanich, Jerald T. and James J. Miller eds. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Habu, Junko 2002 Jomon Collectors and Foragers. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. Fitzhugh, Ben and Junko Habu, eds. Pps. 53-72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hann, John H. 2003 Indians of Central and South Florida, 1513-1763. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Hunt, Eleazer D. 1992 Upgrading Site-Catchment Analyses with the Use of GIS: Investigating the Settlement Patterns of Horticulturalists. In World Archaeology, 24: 283-309.

Jochim, Michael J. 1976 Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Model. New York: Academic Press.

Johnson, Allen W. and Timothy Earle 2000 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kelly, Robert L. 1991 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:43-66.

210

1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Washington: Smithsonian Institution press.

Liu, Kam-biu 2004 Paleotempestology: Prinicples, Methods, and Examples from Gulf Coast Lake Sediments. In Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present and Future. Richard J. Murnane and Kam-biu Liu, eds. Pp. 13-57. New York: Columbia University Press.

McGuire, Randall H. 2002 A Marxist Archaeology. Clinton Corners, New York: Percheron Press.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1993 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.

McVoy, Christopher n.d. Landscapes and Hydrology of the Pre-drainage Everglades. In press.

Mowers, Bert 1995 Prehistoric Indian Pottery in South Florida. Privately printed, Hollywood, Florida.

Orem, William H., Debra Willard, H. Lerch, Anne Bates, Ann Boylan and Margo Comm 2002 Nutrient Geochemistry of Sediments from Two Tree Islands in Water Conservation Area 3B, the Everglades, Florida. In Tree Islands of the Everglades. Fred H. Sklar and Arnold Van Der Valk, eds. Pp 153-186. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Panter-Brick, Catherine, Robert Layton and Peter Rowley-Conwy 2001 Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Parker, Gerald G. 1974 Hydrology of the Pre-Drainage System of the Everglades in Southern Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Past and Present. Patrick J. Gleason, ed. Pp. 18-27. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, Florida. 211 Pearson, Charles E. 1978 Analysis of Late Mississippian Settlements on Ossabaw Island, Georgia. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Bruce D. Smith, ed. Pp. 53-80. New York: Academic Press.

Peebles, Christopher S. 1978 Determinants of Settlement Size and Location in the Moundville Phase. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Bruce D. Smith, ed. Pp. 369-416. New York: Academic Press.

Peebles, Christopher S. and Susan M. Kus 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity, 42: 421-448.

Pepe, James P. 1999 Jupiter Inlet I (8PB34): A Test Case in the Use of Ceramic Frequencies and Discriminant Analysis in Determining Cultural Affinity. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in Anthropology. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.

Peregrine, Peter N. 2000 Archeological Research: A Brief Introduction. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Pool, Christopher A. 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rhode, David 1988 Measurement of Archaeological Diversity and the Sample-Size Effect. American Antiquity, 53: 708-716.

Richardson, Donald 1976 Coastal Vegetation Map of Palm Beach County. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in Geography. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.

Roper, Donna C. 1979 The Method and Theory of Site Catchment Analysis: A Review. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 2. Michael Schiffer, ed. Pp. 119-140. New York: Academic Press.

212 Scarry, John F. 1996 Looking for and at Mississippian Political Change. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States. John F. Scarry, ed. Pp3-11. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Schwadron, Margo 2006 Everglades Tree Islands Prehistory: Archaeological Evidence of Regional Holocene Variability and Early Human Settlement. Antiquity 80 (310).

Sears, William H. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Seymoure, Patricia 2003 Trade Dynamics in South Florida During the Archaic and Glades Periods: The Commerce of Shark Teeth. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in Anthropology. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.

Sheehan, Michael S. 2004 Ethnographic Models, Archaeological Data and the Applicability of Modern Foraging Theory. In Hunter-Gatherers in History, Archaeology and Anthropology. Alan Barnard, ed. Pp 163-173. Oxford: Berg.

Steinberg, Bryan 1976 Coastal Vegetation Map of Broward County, Florida. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in Geography. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.

Steponanaitis, Vincas P. 1978 Location Theory and Complex Chiefdoms: A Mississippian Example. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Bruce D. Smith, ed. Pp. 417-453. New York: Academic Press.

Tiffany, Joseph A. and Larry R. Abbot 1982 Site-Catchment Analysis: Applications to Iowa Archaeology. In Journal of Field Archaeology, 9: 313-322.

Turck, John 2003 Environmental Archaeology: Locational Analysis of Paleo-Indian and Archaic Period Sites in South Florida Utilizing Geographic Information Systems. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in Anthropology. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.

Vita-Finzi, Claudio 1978 Archaeological Sites in Their Setting. London: Thames and Hudson.

213 Wheeler, Ryan J. 2002 Editor’s Introduction: Archaeology of Jupiter Inlet and Coastal Palm Beach County. The Florida Anthropologist 55 (30): 113-117.

Widmer, Randolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Willard, Debra, C. Holmes, M. Korvela, D. Mason, J. Murray, W. Orem and D. Towles 2002 Paleological Insights on Fixed Tree Island Development in the Florida Everglades: I. Environmental Controls. In Tree Islands of the Everglades. Fred Sklar and Arnold Van Der Valk eds. Pp.117-151. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Willard, Debra, Christopher Beernhardt, C. Holmes, Bryan Landacre and Marci Marot 2006 Response of Everglades Tree Islands to Environmental Change. Ecological Monographs, 76 (4): 565-583.

Williams, Wilma and Bert Mowers 1977 Markham Park Mound 2, Broward County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 30(2): 56-78.

1979 Bishop’s Hammock, Broward County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 32(1): 17-32.

1982 Archaeological Excavations at the Rolling Oaks II Site, Broward County. The Florida Anthropologist 35(3): 118-126.

Winterhalder, Bruce 2001 The Behavioral Ecology of Hunter-Gatherers. In Hunter-Gatherers: an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Panter-Brick, Catherine, Robert Layton and Peter Rowley-Conwy, eds. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Yesner, David R. 1981 Archaeological Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: Harvest Strategies of Aleut Hunter-Gatherers. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies. Winterhalder, Bruce and Eric Alden Smith, eds. Pp. 148-170. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

214

PERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Beiter, Gary Beiter and Associates

Carr, Robert The Archaeological and Historical Conservancy

Eck, Christopher Broward County Historical Commission

Ferdinando, Peter Beiter and Associates

Householder, Rick South Florida Water Management District

Jones, Ginny State of Florida, Division of Historical Resources

Kammerer, Laura State of Florida, Division of Historical Resources

McVoy, Christopher South Florida Water Management District

Ransom, Jeff Miami-Dade County, Office of Historic Preservation

Schwadron, Margo Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service

215