SPATIAL STRUCTURE AND PROCESS OF NONAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION: SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT IN PRECOLUMBIAN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA

By

ROBERT B. PATTON

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2001 Copyright 2001

by

Robert Barnett Patton This dissertation is dedicated to my family. Without them it would never have been attempted, for they taught me that knowing the past can and should inform the decisions that shape our world. Without their loving support and my hope for their bright future, it would never have been accomplished. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A work such as this represents the efforts of many people too numerous to recall.

Nevertheless, it is important to give credit to those who contributed to its completion. I thank and beg the pardon of any whose names I have omitted through oversight.

Preliminary research was made possible in part through a 1995 Survey and

Planning Grant to the Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center. The grant was provided by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and administered through the Florida Department of State, Division of Historic Resources, Bureau of Historic

Preservation. In-kind assistance was provided by the University of Florida Institute of

Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, the Charlotte Harbor Environmental

Center, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and by many individuals in

Charlotte County and at the University of Florida who graciously donated their time and expertise. George M. Luer coordinated the 1995 grant and Dr. Michael E. Moseley acted as Principal Investigator for archaeological and historical research. I owe both of them my deep gratitude for giving the current research a place to begin. I extend special thanks for help during preliminary work to Joy Duperault, Alton Cheatham, Agazi Negash, Dan

Falt, each student who participated, and all of the volunteers who helped wash and analyze the 1995 artifacts.

Further research in 1999 was made possible in part by additional grant assistance from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, administered through the

Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, assisted by the Historic

iv Preservation Advisory Board. Further research was also enabled by in-kind contributions from The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Charlotte Harbor State

Aquatic and Buffer Preserves), the Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center, the Florida

Museum of Natural History, the Warm Mineral Springs Archaeological Society, Mr. And

Mrs. Robert N. McQueen, Cellular One Communications of Port Charlotte, Florida, and many volunteers. The most valuable of all in-kind contributions, volunteer labor, was given by the following individuals: John Adams; Rita Bass; Evelyn Booker; Phil and

Sharon Boulware; Michael and Dianne Brooks; Albert and Barbara Buseck; Nancy

Capron; Adam and Teri Cummings; Marguerite Davis; Kendall and Barbara Ellington;

Jan Fahriney; Shannon Farr; Barbara Fleshman; Jane Gimbrone; Margaret Gunther;

Robert, Louise, and Virginia Hamelin; Anita Hamilton; Ellen Hawkinson; Ed Higby;

Angelica Patton; Catherine Kristich; Rena Kuhn; Deiter and Carolyn Lehmann; Robert

Leighton; Philip Lore; Nasrene MacDonald; Robert McFadden; Ginger Miller; Stephen and Marie Nadle; Lisa Phillips; Michael and Yvonne Porter; Gail Puckett; Susan Reekie;

Toby Refosco; Annette Sansone; Bill and Carole Smith; Joseph Spadafora; Lisa Surdam;

Alan and Lynette Theisen; Judy Thompson; Bob Toth; Stephen Warne; Arlene Waters;

Betty Wieland; Elfrieda Wuerz; and Edith Ziemer.

I extend particular gratitude to environmental specialist Robert Repenning for site preservation and access in 1995 and 1999. Were wishes granted, one could ask wisely that all public land managers were so careful and knowledgeable about archaeological resources as Mr. Repenning. I give many thanks for expert assistance during the second field season to Robert Coughter, Steve Koski, Rudy Magyari, Michael Stewart, Corbett

Torrence, George Luer, Wayne (“Bud”) and Shirley House, Andy Goodwine, Alton

v Cheatham, Joy Duperault, Monica Dorkin, Richard Dorkin, Verla Eisley, and Warren

Paul. For assistance with analysis of samples, I thank Ann Cordell, Arden Monroe,

Melissa LaLiberte, Alfred Woods, and Scott Mitchell. I also thank Scott Mitchell for help in curation and laboratory procedures.

I give very special thanks to Dr. William Marquardt for advice, faith, and the opportunity to perform this work. None of these results would have been available without his patient commitment to southwest Florida archaeology and this research.

Appreciation is likewise extended to those in the Florida Museum of Natural History who helped in countless practical ways, including Dr. Kathleen Deagan, Marc Frank, Elise

LeCompte, Dr. Jerald Milanich, Arthur Poyer, Irvy Quitmyer, Donna Ruhl, Dr. Karen

Walker, Dr. Steven Webb, and Dr. Elizabeth Wing. For administrative assistance, I give my heartfelt thanks to Diane Carver, Darlene Novak, and Andrea Reddish.

Academically, resounding thanks are due to Patricia Gaither and Karen Jones for numerous instances of helping to navigate bureaucratic mazes. I give my thanks and praise to the many faculty members of several institutions who have trained me, encouraged me, and/or helped me work out my ideas in their classes or offices. Among this distinguished multitude are Dr. Mark Aldenderfer, Dr. Susan Anton, Dr. George

Armelagos, Dr. Lane Beck, Dr. Michael Binford, Dr. Steven Brandt, Mr. Christopher

Evans, Dr. Susan deFrance, Mrs. Anne Donaldson, Dr. Paul Doughty, Dr. Gerald F.

Murray, Dr. John H. Moore, Dr. David Hally, Mr. Thomas James, Sr., Dr. Ricky

Lightfoot, Dr. Leslie Sue Leiberman, Dr. William Lipe, Dr. Michael Moseley, Dr. Joann

Mossa, Dr. Stuart Needham, Dr. Naomi Norman, Dr. Lynette Norr, Dr. Anthony Oliver-

Smith, Dr. Barbara Purdy, Mrs. Frances Reddish, Mrs. Peggy Riggins, Dr. H. Russell

vi Bernard, Dr. Kenneth Sassaman, Dr. Helen Schwartzman, Dr. Scot Smith, and Dr. Marie

Louise Stig Sørenson.

I extend my sincere gratitude (for advice, inspiration, encouragement, or other help) to Ken Adams, John Anagnostopoulos, John Arthur, Keith Ashley, Dr. Dana

Austin, Dr. George Avery, Charles Blanchard, Jim Bradley, Chad Braley, Ashley

Chapman, Chris Clement, Ed Cooper, Bob Coughter, Dr. Peter Cronkleton, Bob Edic,

Tracy Elder, Wilson Elder, Brad Ensor, Chris Espenshade, Daniel Falt, Pat Garrow, Tom

Gresham, Jay Hardman, Karla Harrington, Andrew Hemmings, Ryan Hendershot, Mary

Herron, David Hess, Dr. James Hay, Sarah Elder Hicks, Joel Jones, Scott van Keuren, Dr.

Adam King, Kristin Kuckelman, Aimée Kwiatkowsi, Greg Leblanc, Joseph Long, George

Luer, Dr. Ken Mease, Maureen Meyers, Scott Mitchell, Agazi Negash, Matthew Patoun,

Dr. Charles Patton, Jack Patton, John (J. T.) Patton, Marianne Patton, Rev. Steven Patton,

David L. Popkin, Philip Quirk, John Clark Salyer, Janet Shaver, Dr. Greg Smith, Keith

Stephenson, Azhar Talibi, Corbett Torrence, Ruth Troccoli, Dr. Mark Varien, Tom

Vogler, Gifford Waters, Kathy Weedman, Terrance Weik, Karen Weinstein, Dr. Mark

Williams, Dr. Ryan Williams, and Al Woods. My highest thanks go to Angelica Patton for proofreading, self-sacrifice, and tolerance.

vii PREFACE

This work represents the culmination of several goals that each evolved over the course of its completion. As it has often been noted, “Research never happens in a vacuum.” It is hoped that my description of the setting in which this work was produced will help the reader appreciate its strengths and weaknesses.

From the time I began graduate studies, I was interested in exploring the evolution of Southeastern social and political complexity. Studying and teaching at the University of Florida opened my eyes to the rich prehistory of the coastal zone in the Southeast and worldwide. My professors inspired me, lighting in me the hope that I too would help reveal untold stories of coastal complexity. In doing so, I realized that I might have the opportunity to further explain the mysteries of our own class society.

The case of Florida’s Calusa became of special interest to my studies.

Excavations by the Florida Museum of Natural History at the Pineland site were drawing to close in 1992, and I welcomed the opportunity to help analyze the archaeological material. My Master’s thesis was based on work accomplished as part of research assistantships. Having planned to pursue the Doctoral degree from the outset, I saw the thesis research as a way of building the tools I would need to pursue a more ambitious project. Southwest Florida chronologies were hampered by lack of sensitivity, so I developed the means of using shell artifacts to supplement existing diagnostic artifacts.

After receiving the Master’s degree in 1994, I immediately began to take the necessary courses and to prepare a topic for my dissertation. By 1996 I had developed my

viii earlier work into a survey-based research design, had passed the Doctoral examination, and was working as a teaching assistant in the Department of Anthropology.

The research was formulated then as an extension of a limited survey by the

University of Florida Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies. Briefly stated, the expanded concept involved establishing a coherent regional baseline for all types and periods of archaeological sites in the Caloosahatchee area, to allow consideration of regional social and political dynamics. The main tool I thought would be useful for this project, other than the temporal diagnostics I had already been developing, was a Geographic Information System (GIS). I quickly learned to use a GIS and began to work on obtaining access to a system that would run it.

Carrying out the research design approved by my committee proved to be the greatest challenge of all. More efforts went into obtaining and learning the GIS than to its use. It became apparent that many hours of processing spatial data would be required, whereas much of my efforts would need to be spent gathering archaeological data. In the anticipation that pre-packaged spatial data would become available through others at the university, I focused on how I would obtain the necessary archaeological data. Finding the funds for an intensive survey—and to subsist until it could be accomplished—took all of 1997 and 1998. Due to the need to manage and protect its archaeological sites, the

Florida Department of State granted access and funds for further investigation of sites in the Charlotte Harbor area. In 1999 the proposed fieldwork was finally accomplished, through grant funds, matching gifts, and public participation. Coordination of the public project was a highly enjoyable experience for which I had long prepared.

ix Time spent analyzing and preparing the results of this investigation was made more challenging by competing exigencies of life. Marriage and parenthood in the year

2000 were welcomed heartily, but made the logistics of writing less than optimal. Even before the first draft of the dissertation was complete, it was clear that processing of additional radiocarbon dates would be desirable. Pursuit of funding for these dates from the National Science Foundation was costing more than it appeared to be worth, so the decision was made to proceed without them. After significant revisions, this dissertation is the result. Despite its limitations, I feel it is very close to what was originally intended in 1996: a baseline for comprehensive, regional studies of southwest Florida’s precolumbian settlement.

The success and limitations of this work lead me to make a plea for continued and expanded public participation in archaeology. Certainly, the power to do archaeology in our nation-state comes first from the public. The public is responsible for supporting the

1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act that has mobilized CRM. During this research I have met hundreds of nonprofessionals who feel archaeology is a worthwhile endeavor and have acted to prove it by volunteering. Many have expressed the opinion that archaeology was something that they had always enjoyed, but did not pursue it as a career because, “You can’t make money at it.” These words suggest that archaeology has suffered the loss of numerous worthwhile contributions; if so, we all know a little less about our place in the world as a result.

x TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

PREFACE ...... viii

LIST OF TABLES ...... xv

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xvi

ABSTRACT...... xxi

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Calusa Case ...... 4 Caloosahatchee Culture History ...... 5 Relevance of Settlement Patterning ...... 17

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 25 Calusa, Social Change, and Exchange ...... 25 Caloosahatchee Communal Construction ...... 41 Burial Mounds ...... 44 Ceremonial Platform Mounds ...... 51 Canals...... 55 Fish Impoundments ...... 56 Flood Escape Mounds ...... 57 Functional Correlates ...... 61 Previous Investigations of Caloosahatchee Sites...... 66 Useppa Island...... 68 Big Mound Key and Boggess Ridge ...... 73 Josslyn Island ...... 76 Pineland ...... 78 Mound Key ...... 82 Buck Key ...... 86 Cash Mound ...... 92 Vanderbilt ...... 96 John Quiet Mound ...... 97 Burgess Island ...... 101 Previous Assessments of Caloosahatchee Settlement Patterns ...... 112

xi Model A ...... 115 Discussion of Previous Settlement Models ...... 127 Scenario B ...... 131 Model C ...... 133 Emergence of Chiefdoms...... 134 Definitions and Existing Evidence of Chiefdoms ...... 139 Correlate 1 ...... 140 Correlate 2 ...... 143 Correlate 3 ...... 145 Correlate 4 ...... 146 Correlate 5 ...... 147 Correlate 6 ...... 149 Correlate 7 ...... 150 Correlate 8 ...... 150 Summary ...... 151

3 RESEARCH DESIGN...... 153 Model D: Caloosahatchee Political Economy ...... 153 Data Requirements ...... 161 Methods ...... 164 Sampling the Regional Population of Sites ...... 165 The Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey, Phase II ...... 169

4 ALLIGATOR CREEK-EAST SHORE ZONE ...... 174 Acline Mound ...... 174 Acline Village ...... 183 Dubois ...... 187 Fishhook ...... 189 Negash ...... 193 “C. E. & S. Midden” ...... 196 Cockroach ...... 198 Whidden Branch ...... 200 Silcox North ...... 204 Silcox Key ...... 207 Blacks Island ...... 210 Lime Key ...... 212 Fines Key ...... 215 Cotton Key ...... 219 Little Lake ...... 222 Gartree ...... 223 Black Cow ...... 225 Kessel Run ...... 227 Mid-Lake ...... 229 Cicada Lake ...... 231 Cicada Point ...... 234 Creek-Bend ...... 236

xii Bumblebee ...... 238 Prop-Wash ...... 242 Buckthorn ...... 244

5 CAPE HAZE PENINSULA AND NORTH SHORE ZONES ...... 247 Catfish Point ...... 248 “Golf Club” ...... 258 Turtle Bay 1 ...... 262 Turtle Bay 2 ...... 265 “Sisters Ponds Creek” ...... 269 Cape Haze ...... 271 Bird Dog Key ...... 275 Muddy Cove 2 ...... 278 “Site 8CH349" ...... 283

6 PINE ISLAND SOUND AND MATLACHA PASS ZONES ...... 291 Hooker Key ...... 292 Josslyn Island ...... 296 Bird Rookery Keys ...... 302 Mason Island ...... 306

7 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...... 310 Evidence of Mounding with Shell Fill ...... 313 Site Typology ...... 314 Ridges ...... 317 Mounded Ridges ...... 317 Shell Domes...... 317 Sheet Middens ...... 318 Bifurcated Mounds ...... 319 Site Complexes ...... 320 Anomalous Sites ...... 321 Fishhook ...... 321 Silcox Key ...... 321 Cotton Key...... 322 Site Components and Chronology ...... 322 Sedentariness: Correlate of Sociopolitical Complexity ...... 327 Artifact Density ...... 329 Site Volume and Area ...... 329 Tool Diversity ...... 331 Ratio of Ceramic Potsherds to Bone and Shell Tools ...... 331 Changing Sedentariness in the Caloosahatchee Area ...... 332

8 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ...... 335 Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone ...... 335 Cape Haze and North Shore Zones ...... 337 Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass Zones ...... 339

xiii Potential Interactions and Hierarchy among Local and Zonal Centers ...... 340 Changing Indicators of Sedentariness ...... 343

9 MODEL EVALUATIONS ...... 345 Correlate 2 ...... 346 Correlate 6 ...... 347 Correlate 7 ...... 347 Evaluation of Hypotheses for Caloosahatchee Political Development ...... 348

10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 355

APPENDICES

A EXCAVATION PROFILES ...... 364

B USGS 7.5 MINUTE MAPS SHOWING SITE LOCATIONS ...... 411

C GPS DATA ...... 425

D FIELD SPECIMEN DATA ...... 430

E RADIOCARBON ASSAY RESULTS ...... 479

REFERENCES CITED ...... 483

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 500

xiv LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Caloosahatchee culture sequence ...... 6

2 Known sites discussed in text ...... 67

3 Recognized correlates for Caloosahatchee ranked society ...... 152

4 Hypotheses discussed in text ...... 162

5 Excavations Performed and Results of Radiocarbon Assays ...... 311

6 Caloosahatchee Site Types and Identified Components ...... 323

7 Sedentariness Indicators for Study Sites ...... 328

8 Evaluation of Models for Caloosahatchee Political Development ...... 354

9 Alligator Creek Survey Area Field Specimen Data (1995) ...... 430

10 Field Specimen Data (1999) ...... 449

11 Radiocarbon Dates Obtained During This Project...... 479

xv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1 Caloosahatchee area, as represented by Charlotte and Lee Counties ...... 2

2 SPSS (1997) cluster analysis diagram used for initial classification...... 168

3 Investigated sites in the Caloosahatchee area ...... 170

4 Acline Mound, Dubois, Acline Village sites map ...... 175

5 Acline Village Test Unit 1: Plan and profile views of postmold features .....186

6 Fishhook site map ...... 190

7 Negash site map ...... 194

8 “C. E. & S. Midden” site map ...... 197

9 Cockroach site map ...... 199

10 Whidden Branch site map ...... 201

11 Silcox North site map ...... 205

12 Silcox Key site map ...... 208

13 Black's Island site map ...... 211

14 Lime Key site map ...... 213

15 Fines Key site map ...... 216

16 Cotton Key site map ...... 220

17 Little Lake and Gartree sites map ...... 224

18 Black Cow site map ...... 226

19 Kessel Run site map ...... 228

20 Midlake site map ...... 230

xvi 21 Cicada Lake site map ...... 232

22 Cicada Point site map ...... 235

23 Creek-Bend site map ...... 237

24 Bumblebee site map ...... 240

25 Prop-Wash site map ...... 243

26 Buckthorn site map ...... 245

27 Catfish Point site map ...... 249

28 "Golf Club" site map ...... 259

29 Turtle Bay 1 site map ...... 263

30 Turtle Bay 2 site map ...... 266

31 “Sisters Ponds Creek” site map ...... 270

32 Cape Haze site map ...... 272

33 Bird Dog Key site map ...... 277

34 Muddy Cove 2 site map ...... 279

35 “Site 8CH349" site map ...... 285

36 Hooker Key site map ...... 293

37 Josslyn Island site map ...... 297

38 Bird Rookery Keys site map ...... 304

39 Mason Island site map ...... 307

40 Volumes and Areas of study sites ...... 315

41 Average and actual accumulated indicators of Sedentariness ...... 330

42 Caloosahatchee localities ...... 336

43 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH9 ...... 364

xvii 44 Profiles of Test Units 1 and 2, 8CH17 ...... 365

45 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH36 ...... 366

46 Profile of South-southwest Cut, 8CH37 ...... 367

47 Key to South-southwest Profile, 8CH37 ...... 368

48 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH58 ...... 369

49 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH69 ...... 370

50 Profile of Test Unit 2, 8CH69 ...... 372

51 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH72 ...... 373

52 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH347 ...... 374

53 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH348 ...... 375

54 Profiles of Shovel-tests, 8CH349 ...... 376

55 Profile of Test Unit 2, 8CH351 ...... 377

56 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH352 ...... 378

57 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH353 ...... 379

58 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH354 ...... 380

59 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH355 ...... 381

60 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH356 ...... 382

61 Profile of Test Unit 2, 8CH356 ...... 384

62 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH357 ...... 385

63 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH358 ...... 386

64 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH359 ...... 387

65 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH360 ...... 388

66 Profile of Test Unit 2, 8CH360 ...... 389

xviii 67 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH361 ...... 390

68 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH362 ...... 391

69 Profile of Test Unit 2, 8CH362 ...... 392

70 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH450 ...... 393

71 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH479 ...... 394

72 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH480 ...... 395

73 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH481 ...... 396

74 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH482 ...... 397

75 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH483 ...... 398

76 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH484 ...... 399

77 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH486 ...... 400

78 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH487 ...... 401

79 Profile of Shovel-test, 8CH488 ...... 402

80 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH506 ...... 403

81 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8LL30 ...... 404

82 Profile of Looter’s Pit, 8LL30 ...... 405

83 Profile of Looter Pit B, 8LL32 ...... 406

84 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8LL64 ...... 407

85 Profile of Test Unit 1, 8LL65 ...... 408

86 Profile of Looter’s Pit, 8LL65 ...... 409

87 Portion of Placida, Florida Quadrangle ...... 412

88 Portion of Punta Gorda SW, Florida Quadrangle ...... 413

89 Portion of Punta Gorda SW, Florida Quadrangle ...... 414

xix 90 Portion of El Jobean, Florida Quadrangle ...... 415

91 Portion of El Jobean, Florida Quadrangle ...... 416

92 Portion of Punta Gorda, Florida Quadrangle ...... 417

93 Portion of Punta Gorda SE, Florida Quadrangle ...... 418

94 Portion of Punta Gorda SE, Florida Quadrangle ...... 419

95 Portion of Punta Gorda, Florida Quadrangle ...... 420

96 Portion of Pine Island Center, Florida Quadrangle ...... 421

97 Portion of Captiva, Florida Quadrangle ...... 422

98 Portion of Matlacha, Florida Quadrangle ...... 423

xx Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

SPATIAL STRUCTURE AND PROCESS OF NONAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION: SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT IN PRECOLUMBIAN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA

By

Robert B. Patton

December 2001

Chairperson: Dr. W. H. Marquardt Major Department: Anthropology

The development of complex chiefdoms in southwest Florida has been identified as an unusual case due to the maritime resources used to underwrite the Calusa system.

Previous explanations of why these fisher-hunter-gatherers were politically complex focus on gradual population growth or on historical contact with Europeans. Using data from archaeological surveys, review of archaeological literature, and problem-oriented archaeological testing, further examination of the Calusa political development and precolumbian social structure is now possible.

Original data presented here include descriptions of stratigraphic tests at 38 archaeological sites of various types in the estuaries of Charlotte Harbor, Cape Haze, and

Pine Island Sound (coastal Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida). Analysis of these sites highlights changes in political and social complexity, through reference to changes in site forms, sizes, and arrangements through time.

xxi Comparison of site data with recognized correlates of ranked society tends to confirm the advent of chiefdoms in the Caloosahatchee area by A.D. 800. Although existing theories explaining their development cannot be wholly refuted in this analysis, an equally viable hypothesis is proposed. According to this statement, it appears likely that Caloosahatchee chiefdoms arose through the ability of high-status individuals to manipulate existing religious traditions while intensifying ranking of lineages, promulgating corporate labor, and controlling distinctive coastal goods used locally and for interregional exchange. Results of this investigation may contribute to studies of complex political and social structures in south Florida, the North American Southeast, the circum-Caribbean, and in fishing-gathering-hunting societies worldwide.

xxii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

When did complex polities, or chiefdoms, first appear in southwest Florida?

Chiefdoms may be defined as multi-community political groupings under the hereditary control of elites (minority rule). They are also referred to as “simultaneous hierarchies” by some authors (e.g. Johnson 1982:409; Nassaney 1992:113; Russo 1994:108). Multiple hypotheses exist for how they arose in the Caloosahatchee archaeological area, the culture-historical region defined by Griffin (1989). The Caloosahatchee area, represented by coastal Charlotte and Lee Counties (Figure 1), centers on the estuaries of the Peace,

Myakka, and Caloosahatchee Rivers. The most extensive model of cultural evolution there suggests that simple chiefdoms appeared by A.D. 280 and complex chiefdoms by

A.D. 800 (Widmer 1988:279). This study seeks to determine from settlement patterning data if Caloosahatchee chiefdoms are present or absent at the time the model indicates,

A.D. 800.

Some archaeological correlates for chiefdoms may be found in settlement patterns

(Peebles and Kus 1977; Wright 1984). Based on other examples from southeastern North

America (Anderson 1994, Steponaitis 1978), simple chiefdoms have two levels of control hierarchy while complex chiefdoms have three levels of control hierarchy. These levels of control hierarchy are generally represented in the archaeological record by hierarchical arrangements of contemporaneous, culturally related habitation sites (communities).

1 2

Figure 1. Caloosahatchee area, as represented by Charlotte and Lee Counties, southwest Florida. Dark gray lines represent 5-foot contour intervals. Black line represents shoreline at modern MSL (mean sea level). 3

Differences in function within the control hierarchy typically result in recognizably different site forms at each level. This is because politically complex societies are generally based on food production and the elite appropriation and mobilization of surplus to reproduce such conditions as exploitation, interdependency, and rank hierarchies. This process of reproducing politically complex situations projects the spatial arrangement of production and distribution onto a landscape, creating hierarchical settlement patterns.

The spatial effects of this process have been documented mainly through the analysis of agriculture-based societies. Analysis of spatial patterning in nonagricultural, fisher-gatherer-hunter societies (such as southwest Florida’s Calusa Indians) calls into question the extent to which the conditions of political complexity depend on the constraints and opportunities of agricultural food production. This analysis also allows new insights into the variations in productive organization, space, and power not seen among agriculture-based chiefdoms.

All research proceeds with particular theoretical biases. The perspective taken here is that generalizing, evolutionary explanations of social complexity are highly desirable but only warranted after extensive reconstruction of individual cases of social formations (Friedman and Rowlands 1977). Reconstruction of social formations are viewed as critical to understanding the past, because social structures are the nexus at which material and ideal interactions between groups and individuals are mediated in all cultures. Ignoring the detailed construction of regional processes of development helps to perpetuate functionalist, progressivist “just-so” stories. The eventual result of paying attention to these reconstructions is an “epigenetic” approach to cultural evolution based 4 on historical structuralism. The particular case under analysis, Calusa social formation, needs to be characterized much more fully before any of the current theories for its development become fixed assertions; regional analysis of cultural processes is necessary.

Calusa Case

Ethnohistoric sources from the sixteenth century indicate that the native peoples of southwest Florida had a sophisticated and complex sociopolitical organization. That organization included social ranks, productive and distributional networks, religious legitimation, and distinctive labor specializations (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964:188-202;

Hann 1991; Lewis 1978:34-36; Marquardt 1985, 1986, 1988; Widmer 1988). Yet agricultural food production, long considered a prerequisite for such developments, was conspicuously absent.

Archaeologists working in the Caloosahatchee archaeological area (Griffin 1989) have presented possible explanations for why, but have not demonstrated conclusively the timing or origin of the social complexity observed among the historically-known Calusa society (Luer et al. 1986:154-155; Widmer 1988:97). Understanding when and how this organization developed contributes to the study of complex social processes worldwide, especially in fisher-hunter-gatherer societies. Detailing the developmental trajectory of the Calusa will also provide much needed information on the culture of Florida’s precolumbian inhabitants, including their possible relationships with other regions in southeastern North America.

Explaining the timing and nature of Calusa political development requires the combination of ethnohistoric and archaeological information. While this study describes archaeological work, ethnohistoric research by others (Hann 1991; Marquardt 1985, 5

1986, 1988) has provided the largest body of extant information on the Calusa.

Combined data from analogous studies, previous archaeological investigations, and ethnohistoric sources on the Calusa provided testable hypotheses concerning the rise of complex sociopolitical organization in the Caloosahatchee area. Field investigations were then directed at testing these hypotheses through data from settlement patterns.

Multiple sources emphasize the need for diachronic settlement pattern studies in providing an adequate model of precolumbian political change in southwest Florida

(Walker 1993:4; Widmer 1988:34). This research was formulated in response to that need. Discussing the temporal dimensions of culture change in the Caloosahatchee area is assisted by reference to the regional culture-historical sequence (Marquardt

1992b:Table 2).

Caloosahatchee Culture History

To provide some context to the discussion that follows, a brief synthesis of culture history is helpful (Figure 2). Earliest evidence for human societies in southwest Florida comes from the Paleoindian period, 13,500 to 9900 years ago. Paleoindians are usually thought of as hunters of large game, such as bison, mammoth, and mastodon, though archaeologists increasingly recognize the importance of small game and plant foods as well. Throughout southeastern North America, lance-like Clovis projectile points are common during the first millennium of this period. The earliest projectile points in peninsular Florida are Suwanee and Simpson types, common throughout the Southeast after the Clovis horizon (Austin 1997:116-119). 6

Table 1. Caloosahatchee culture sequence (compiled from Austin 1997; Marquardt 1992b:Table 2, pp. 217-221; Patton 1994; Russo 1994; Walker et al. 1995:215). Diagnostic Vessel Date Period Other Artifacts Comment Types

AD 1500- Caloosahatchee Olive jars, white-wares, Metal tools, glass European 1750 V Jefferson ware beads interests dominate.

AD 1350- Caloosahatchee Pinellas Plain, Safety Many C hammers, Approximate 1500 IV Harbor, Glades Tooled; perforated modern Belle Glade Plain bivalves, cutting sea- level Diminishes tools established.

AD 1200- Caloosahatchee Belle Glade Plain prominent; Many A, C hammers, La Costa 1350 III Saint Johns Check cutting tools, High Stamped, Englewood perforated Safety Harbor bivalves

AD 800- Caloosahatchee Belle Glade Plain prominent; Type A, B cutting La Costa 1200 IIB Belle Glade Red, tools prominent; High, ca. Englewood Safety Harbor more Type A, C AD 850- hammers 1400

AD 500- Caloosahatchee Sand-tempered Plain Type A, G hammers; Buck Key 800 IIA prominent; Belle Glade E, some Type A, Low, ca. Plain. B, cutting tools AD 500- 800

500 BC- Caloosahatchee I Thick Sand-tempered Plain Type E cutting tools; Wulfert AD 500 some Type A, G High, ca. hammers (late) AD 200- 500

1200-500 Terminal Fiber-tempered, Semi-fiber- Columella tools, Sanibel I BC Archaic tempered shouldered adzes Low, ca. 1000-0 BC

2000- Late Archaic Orange Plain, Orange Columella tools, Earliest 1200 BC Incised, Perico Incised, shouldered adzes pottery in Saint Johns Plain, steatite region

5000- Middle Archaic preceramic Shell tools become Coastal 2000 BC common; sedentism; Broad-stemmed Earlier sites stone bifaces inundated

6500- Early Archaic preceramic Kirk stone bifaces Windover 5000 BC site

8000- Late Paleoindian preceramic Bolen stone bifaces, Warm 6500 BC bone tools Mineral Springs site

11,500- Early preceramic Wooden tools, Little Salt 8000 BC Paleoindian Suwanee bifaces Spring site 7

Due to a cumulative rise in sea level during both the Paleoindian and later Archaic periods, early coastal sites in Florida may now be submerged in the Gulf of Mexico. Our knowledge of Paleoindians comes from inland sites, so we cannot discount the possibility that Florida Paleoindians fished and gathered shellfish on their coastline.

The only known early Paleoindian site in south Florida is at Little Salt Spring,

(Clausen et al. 1979). Apparently, activities there were performed using bone and wood tools. The poor preservation of these items in most contexts may contribute to the dearth of known early Paleoindian sites in the region.

Later in the Paleoindian period, Dalton projectile points were used throughout the

Southeast. End scrapers, side scrapers, and chipped stone adzes are commonly found with these lance-like points (Goodyear 1982). In peninsular Florida, the Suwanee with these lance-like points (Goodyear 1982). In peninsular Florida, the Suwanee lanceolate biface is diagnostic of late Paleoindian occupation (Austin 1997:116). The Suwanee horizon is probably represented in south Florida both at Little Salt Spring and at Warm

Mineral Springs (Austin 1997:116-119; Cockrell and Murphy 1978).

At Little Salt Spring (Clausen et al. 1979), late Paleoindian occupation is represented entirely by antler and wooden artifacts including a wooden nonreturning boomerang, an antler projectile point, and several wooden stakes. At Warm Mineral

Springs (Cockrell and Murphy 1978), extensive human remains have been recovered from strata dated to around 10,500 to 9000 years ago. With these human remains were found many artifacts made of deer bone, antler, fossil bone, and shell, but only three

(Greenbrier) stone points. As in the earlier Paleoindian period, stone projectile points do not appear to have been widely used in south Florida. 8

A change in lifestyle marks the beginning of the Archaic Period throughout North

America. People appear to have adopted a more generalized way of life, seasonally targeting many different resources other than large game. In south Florida very little is known about the Early Archaic.

The Middle Archaic is much better known, particularly in southwest Florida.

Little Salt Spring, Palmer (Bullen and Bullen 1976), the Bay West Site (Beriault et al.

1981), Horr's Island (Russo 1991, 1994), Useppa Island (Marquardt, ed. 1999; Milanich et al. 1984; Torrence 1999a), and many smaller sites document the period.

Russo's (1991, 1994) work at Horr's Island is especially instructive concerning

Middle Archaic lifeways. Year-round occupation of villages (sedentism) appears to have existed there, as well as some form of ceremonial mound architecture. Subsitence was based on fishing, hunting, and gathering. Middle Archaic mound ceremonialism is often seen as an outgrowth of communal inter-group activities and may have been religious, rather than political in meaning (Kohler 1997:24). Villages were probably autonomous, with statuses within the community based on achievements rather than descent.

During the Middle Archaic, shell tools become widely used for the first time, burial patterns become standardized (in groups or cemeteries), and distinctive art styles emerged. Bone artifacts, particularly those made from deer long-bones, continued to play an important role in south Florida technology.

The Late Archaic period in south Florida is distinguished from the Middle

Archaic only by the presence of ceramics. There seem to be fewer Late Archaic than

Middle Archaic sites (but this may be due to many Late Archaic aceramic sites being interpreted as Middle Archaic preceramic sites). The first ceramics to be used in 9 southwest Florida were distinctively tempered with palmetto fiber. Fiber-tempered pottery on the southern Atlantic coast (Saint Simons Plain, Orange Plain) is the oldest

North American ceramic, and is generally agreed to date to the period 4500 to 3000 years ago. Steatite (soapstone) was also used for vessels, and variant ceramics during the later

Late Archaic may have included Orange Incised, chalky (untempered) Saint Johns Plain, and limestone-tempered Perico Plain potsherds (Widmer 1988:69).

The end of the Late Archaic in southwest Florida is signaled by the appearance of abundant sand-tempered pottery around 2500 years ago (ca. 500 B.C.). This Glades

Tradition (Goggin 1949:28) was accompanied by few, if any, changes in other aspects of material culture (Widmer 1988:74). Generally speaking, traditional Archaic lifeways continued in south Florida, while in other North American places horticulture became increasingly important.

In Charlotte and Lee counties, a regional manifestation of the Glades Tradition occurs in the Caloosahatchee Archaeological area, an area geographically dominated by the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system (Griffin 1974, 1976, 1989; Luer 1996:38; Widmer

1988:79). Inhabitants appear to have developed complex cultural behaviors between 500

B.C. and A.D. 1750. Changes in ceramic material during this span of years are described by Caloosahatchee Periods I through V. When ceramic data are joined with data from other cultural material, particularly shell artifacts, the correlation may provide more information on changing cultural complexity in the region and the emergence of the complex polities encountered there by Europeans in the sixteenth century (Patton and

Ellis 1994:16). 10

Some general trends during the Caloosahatchee sequence may be described.

Caloosahatchee-period sites include more numerous, and some enormous coastal shell middens, suggesting that dependable food production was based on sedentary fishing, gathering, and hunting. During later Caloosahatchee periods, contacts with external traditions can be seen in the Caloosahatchee Region. For example, Englewood Safety

Harbor ceramics appear in the area during Caloosahatchee IIB. Likewise, St. Johns

Check Stamped ceramics appear in the area during Caloosahatchee III.

Caloosahatchee I (500 B.C. to A.D. 500) is the post-Archaic stage characterized by thick, Sand-tempered Plain vessels with round or chamfered (beveled) rims. This period is concurrent with the spread of Deptford and Swift Creek Culture in northern

Florida. During the latter half of Caloosahatchee I, ca. A.D. 200-500, sea level is believed to have risen (Stapor et al. 1991; Walker et al 1995). By A.D. 250, it may have risen to as much as 1.2 meters above current mean sea level (MSL).

Marquardt (2001) noted that Type E gastropod cutting-edged tools (Marquardt

1992c:197-198) occur during Caloosahatchee I, and possibly earlier. Other changes in shell artifact frequencies may be cautiously extrapolated from studies at the Pineland site

(Patton 1994). Shell artifacts common at the Pineland site during Caloosahatchee I include quahog (Mercenaria campechiensis) shell anvils, Type G crown conch

(Melongena corona) or fighting conch (Strombus alatus) shell hammers, and shell beads.

Hopewell-related exotic trade items are also occasionally found in southwest Florida during Caloosahatchee I.

The beginning of Caloosahatchee IIA at A.D. 500 is marked by the advent of

Belle Glade Plain ceramics in the Caloosahatchee region while Sand-tempered Plain 11 ceramics remained predominant. During the first 200 years of this period, sea levels are thought to have lowered to within 0.6 meters of current MSL (Marquardt 2001; Walker

1992b:277-290; Walker et al. 1995:215-216). Luer (1989) and Mitchem (1989:575) suggested that the appearance of Belle Glade pottery is related to increasing trade or other interaction of Caloosahatchee peoples with those of the Okeechobee basin, though

Marquardt (2001) states this inference is premature and should await ceramic production

(raw material sourcing) studies. Marquardt (2001) noted that the possibility of significant migration from the Okeechobee basin (Belle Glade area) cannot yet be ruled out.

A trend of increased mounding in the Caloosahatchee area after A.D. 500 has been noted by Marquardt in reference to Big Mound Key, which may hold some answers to explaining this trend (Marquardt 1992b:48). With data from several Caloosahatchee sites, perhaps this observed mound-building trend may be defined more precisely. It is probably not a mere coincidence that Belle Glade pottery becomes more common in the

Caloosahatchee area concurrent with increased mounding and moderating sea level.

Based on frequency changes in amounts of Sand-tempered Plain and Belle Glade

Plain ceramics, Caloosahatchee II is divided into subperiods IIA (ca. A.D. 500 to ca. 800) and IIB (ca. A.D. 800 to 1200). During early IIA, middens rapidly accumulated at

Useppa Island, Galt Island, Pineland, Josslyn Island, and several other sites (Marquardt

2001). Caloosahatchee IIA ceramic assemblages include sand and sand tempered/sponge- spiculed ceramics, lesser amounts of Belle Glade Plain, and occasionally Belle Glade

Red, Saint Johns Plain, or Weeden Island ceramics (Cordell 1992:147). During this period at the Pineland site (Patton 1994:68), quahog anvils are most common and hafted gastropod hammers and cutting-edged tools first become common. Throughout the 12

Caloosahatchee area, Type G hammers are common until the end of Caloosahatchee IIA as are Type E cutting-edged tools. Woodland hafted stone biface types also appear at the

Pineland site during Caloosahatchee IIA (Marquardt 2001).

In the interior Belle Glade area (Griffin 1989), Fort Center Period II is contemporaneous with Caloosahatchee IIA. There, Sand-tempered Plain ceramics are also dominant from A.D. 200 until between A.D. 600 and 800. A large population occupied the site then, building several earthworks and mortuary ceremonial structures.

Exotic goods associated with the Yent Complex (itself associated with far-flung

Hopewell interaction) appear during this time at Fort Center and other interior sites.

Austin (1997:143) suggested that by this time in south Florida, high-status individuals were manipulating trade relations to augment subsistence needs and reinforce their own power bases.

By A.D. 800 the Caloosahatchee settlement system included several large and small villages that supported a population of about 4800 people (Marquardt 2001;

Widmer 1988:255-260). During Caloosahatchee IIB (ca. A.D. 800 to 1200), Belle Glade

Plain ceramics become dominant in assemblages and Belle Glade Red ceramics increase in frequency. There is also an increase in decorated ceramics, most from outside of the region, including Matecumbe Incised, Ruskin Dentate Stamped, Papys Bayou Incised, and Little Manatee Zone Stamped (Marquardt 1992d:430). Many of these ceramics can be described as Glades Tradition or as late Weeden Island types.

Between Caloosahatchee IIA and III—probably beginning some time during

Caloosahatchee IIB—Pineland shell artifacts show a notable increase in cutting tools useful for canoe production and an overall decrease in diversity of shell artifacts. These 13 changes are believed to relate to increases in productive specialization, a portion of which included water-craft building (Patton 1994:97). Whole gastropod cutting-edged tools

(especially Types A and B) appear to become more common than in Caloosahatchee IIA, and Type C and Type D hammers appear to replace the earlier Type G forms. Arnold

(1987, 1992) condidered the critical role of specialized watercraft production among

California’s maritime Chumash. This case and others from the North America and the

Pacific Islands provide an analogical basis for recognizing the appearance and effects of specialization in Caloosahatchee watercraft production (Patton 1994:26-34).

Climatically, the period marks a warming trend with corresponding sea-level rise, the La Costa High (Marquardt 2001; Walker et al. 1995). Caloosahatchee IIB and III coincide with the Neo-Atlantic warming episode which is believed to have caused a sea- level rise of 0.3 meters, between A.D. 850 and 1400 (Marquardt 2001; Stapor et al. 1991;

Walker et al. 1995:215). During late Caloosahatchee III, the warming trend reversed and sea level subsided to a lower stand by the fifteenth century, during period Caloosahatchee

IV (Walker et al. 1995:216).

Contemporary with the Caloosahatchee IIB period, the Englewood Safety Harbor period of the central Florida gulf coast marks the transition there from Weeden Island to

Mississippian-influenced Safety Harbor culture. The first Safety Harbor ceramic phase is

Englewood, appearing around A.D. 900 (Mitchem 1989:555-559). Englewood pottery is not thought to have been common in the Caloosahatchee Region until Caloosahatchee III

(A.D. 1200 to 1350) (Marquardt 1992b:Table 2; Milanich 1994:315). Recently however, the Aqui Esta burial mound (8CH68) in the northern Caloosahatchee area was associated with the Englewood phase and radiocarbon-dated to between A.D. 765 and 1000 14

(uncalibrated, Luer 1996:40; C13/C12 correction estimated: radiocarbon years -10). This

Englewood-phase mortuary site falls within the Caloosahatchee IIB period and is potentially associated with several of the sites investigated here, most notably the Acline

Mound (8CH69).

Also contemporary with period IIB, ceramic assemblages at major sites in the inland Belle Glade archaeological area appear more similar to Caloosahatchee assemblages than to earlier assemblages or assemblages from more southerly sites.

However, sites in the Everglades archaeological area show a persistence of Glades decorated ceramic types. By A.D. 1000 at Fort Center (Period III contexts), Sand- tempered Plain ceramics are replaced by Belle Glade Plain (Austin 1997:144). At the

Belle Glade site, Glades decorated ceramics disappear after A.D. 900 to 1000 and the assemblage then duplicates that of Fort Center. Belle Glade ceramics appear to have spread west during this time into the Caloosahatchee area, and east and south along the

Atlantic coast, replacing Glades decorated ceramic types (Widmer 1988:87). Ceramics, chert, and shell from other regions are still apparent during period III at Fort Center, but

Hopewell-related trade goods are not.

During Caloosahatchee III, St. Johns Check Stamped ceramics appear in

Caloosahatchee sites and Safety Harbor ceramics increase in abundance. These changes reflect increased participation in extra-regional interactions. Milanich (1994:321) has suggested that the appearance of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery followed from the political and/or economic expansion of Caloosahatchee culture toward the St. Johns region in eastern Florida. Marquardt (1992d:430; 2001) notes that there are no obvious or dramatic changes in subsistence or settlement practices at around A.D. 1200, the 15 beginning of the Caloosahatchee III period. There is also an apparent lack of newly- established sites during this period (Marquardt 2001), though this may be a result of limited investigations and poorly preserved data. Marquardt also points out that the mechanisms by which incised Safety Harbor ceramics were deposited in Caloosahatchee mound and burial contexts are poorly understood; it is therefore unwise to ascribe political or cultural affiliation between Caloosahatchee and Safety Harbor groups (2001).

This caveat also applies to interpretations of Safety Harbor materials appearing in earlier,

Caloosahatchee IIB contexts.

Caloosahatchee period IV (A.D. 1350 to 1500) is characterized by the declining abundance of Belle Glade Plain ceramics and the rise of Safety Harbor, Glades Tooled, and Pinellas Plain ceramics. Plain, conservative, sand-tempered wares are most abundant on the southwest Florida coast, though Belle Glade pottery continues to be prominent in the interior Belle Glade area. Many of the decorated ceramics may be trade wares from adjoining regions of Florida, “possibly signaling political realignments or a reorganization of trade relationships” (Marquardt 2001). Although some have suggested that the abundant Safety Harbor forms seen during this time are those of the historical

Tocobaga group (Bullen 1969), this assertion is probably inaccurate. More likely, Safety

Harbor ceramics were typical of high-status items for (the ancestors of) both Tocobaga and Calusa groups (Widmer 1988:86).

The Caloosahatchee period V (A.D. 1500 to 1750) is defined by the appearance of

European artifacts. At the beginning of this historically documented period, the Calusa

Indians were dominant in the Caloosahatchee Region and received tribute from throughout south Florida. Their center of authority in the region where their paramount 16 chief (“Calos”) lived was probably Mound Key on Estero Bay, near the mouth of the

Caloosahatchee River (Lewis 1978:36-43; Torrence et al.1994).

The Calusa were fishers, gatherers, hunters, and practiced limited horticulture.

They were clearly not principally farmers, but based on ethnohistoric accounts (Hann

1991), the Calusa were organized into a tributary, complex chiefdom similar to those of

Mississippian agriculturalists to the north. Contact with the European-dominated economy of the early sixteenth century may have disrupted existing power relations in the

Calusa world (Marquardt 1988, 1991). If people at the edges of Calusa influence were obtaining valuable European goods from shipwrecks in the Florida Keys, decentralization of authority may have resulted. In response, existing authorities may have intensified tributary relations, militarism, and other tools of domination. The result may have been a weak tribute-based state (Gailey and Patterson 1988).

The culture history of the latter end of the Caloosahatchee V period hinged largely on the interests of the Spanish and the British (Hann 1991:325-333). Calusa dominance declined due to slave-raids by “Lower Creeks” (Yamasee and Uchise), population decline due to disease, and the erosion of their traditions. Spanish missions to the Calusa were never very successful, and by the time the Spanish fleet was lost in 1715, Spanish interests in southwest Florida had ebbed. Lacking protection against Creek and British incursions after 1750, the remaining Calusa probably joined former Creek groups or fled to Cuba.

Extensive use of southwest Florida by Americans followed the Seminole Wars of

1817 to 1858. Early American settlement of the region consisted of cattle ranches, commercial fisheries, sport hunting and fishing settlements, railroad operations, and 17 limited farms and homesteads (Williams and Cleveland 1996). Many of the latter were probably located on sites previously used and improved by the Calusa or their ancestors, due to the suitable soil quality and protection from flooding these places offered. Later, tourism became increasingly important, as well known industrialists and entrepreneurs developed their holdings in the Caloosahatchee Region (including Charles Burgess,

Barron Collier, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford).

Relevance of Settlement Patterning

Fundamentally, the approach employed here might best be described as

“settlement archaeology,” an endeavor that may be traced in print to Willey’s 1953 Viru

Valley report (Willey and Sabloff 1993:172). Settlement patterning and function reproduce the social organization of a culture and have become a significant component of modern archaeological inquiry (Crumley 1979; Evans and Gould 1982; Griffin 1978;

Smith 1978). Some applications of settlement models have resulted in overly deterministic geometrical constructs and forced central place patterns on data (Evans and

Gould 1982:297). Other uses have been more productive. According to Evans and

Gould (1982:299), some of the best uses of central place theory involve diachronic, non- progressivist models of central place patterns that generate multiple possible outcomes, based on attention to small, “random shocks” at critical points in the developmental trajectory.

This diachronic emphasis on particular events is similar in some ways to the

“Regional Heterarchy” model forwarded by Crumley (1979) and used successfully in the analysis of historical landscapes in Burgundy (Crumley and Marquardt 1987). This model recognizes heterogeneity within regions, dynamic boundary/centrality definition 18 for regions, interregional symbiosis, and period-by-period diachronic study (not by simulation). An attempt to follow this design was made during this research, as far as it could be applied to prehistoric contexts for which there are limited data. One consideration of the Burgundian research (and landscape archeology in general) especially relevant to this investigation is the role monumental architecture plays in signifying boundaries between regions, establishing social claims to regions, and in the creation and dissolution of social structures within and between regions. Important contributions to the landscape archaeology of the area are anticipated based on research into the “architectual grammar” of several Caloosahatchee sites (Corbett Torrence, personal communication, May 1999).

For identification and analysis of social complexity, particularly regional polities or “chiefdoms”, reconstruction of regional settlement patterns is crucial. According to

Liu (1996:240), there are two avenues useful for these reconstructions. The first emphasizes the relationship between decision-making hierarchies and settlement hierarchies. The second is by definition of rank-size distibutions, based on the “Rank-

Size Rule” in economic geography. According to this formulation, a settlement of rank r in the descending array of settlement sizes has a size equal to the size of the largest settlement in the system divided by the rank, r. The Rank-Size Rule (Zipf 1949) is believed to manifest the imbalance between two contradictory economic forces, diversification and unification . Differences in rank-size logarithmic distribution curves

(convex or “primate”, concave, primo-convex, and double convex) have been observed in archaeological data and are believed to reflect different systems of social integration.

Social systems with a low degree of integration are expected to produce very convex 19 rank-size distributions, while systems with high integration are expected to appear concave (Liu 1996:240). Primo-concave curves are believed to reflect the superposition of a centralized system on a more loosely integrated system. Finally, double-convex curves suggest multiple settlement systems within the same region.

In-depth investigations at individual sites are indispensable for answering questions about how sites functioned and what processes operated at various times. But data on locations, sizes, components, and functions of many sites need to be collected and analyzed before regional social systems can be reconstructed. Reconstructing these systems is crucial for study of polities that centrally organize a regional population (Liu

1996:239-240). By presenting some of these data for the Caloosahatchee area, this work begins to provide the necessary means for reconstructing the Calusa social formation, not merely predicting its existence or justifying existing information with current paradigms.

Theories are inextricable from the process of science but must be founded on empirical observations carried out with due diligence.

The virtual lack of full-coverage surveys in the Caloosahatchee area makes the point especially well. The question in the Calusa case remains less “why” and more

“how” their society developed. Although an alternative explanation for their development is presented here alongside existing theories, the main strength and contribution of this work is its introduction of regional perspective in Caloosahatchee site analysis.

The goal here is initial (but certainly not final) evaluation of theories with an empirical basis, helping to free the discussion of Calusa social formation from domination by assertion. To achieve this contribution, some necessary bridging 20 arguments or “middle-range” theories have been developed by experiment or analogy to connect empirical observations with the explanations under scrutiny. In fact, much of this research’s relevance proceeds from earlier arguments (Patton 1994) and experiments

(Robert Edic, personal communication, 1993; Patton 1994).

In summary of these earlier contributions, it seems certain the ancestors of the

Calusa depended greatly on watercraft and the shell artifacts used to produce them. The utility of these items was so critical to their way of life that control and production of both was probably embued with great significance. Anyone capable of limiting or controlling the supply of these artifacts would have had leverage necessary for extending whatever power they might already posses.

Several fact support these assertions and their relevance to the Caloosahatchee area. Newsom and Purdy (1990; Purdy 1991) have presented the most comprehensive treatment of aboriginal Florida canoes, a typology of six formal dugout canoe types. The proposition that maritime societies depended on dugout canoes as a universal and generalized sort of transport was noted earlier by Pitt-Rivers (1906). The fact that watercraft and often form the basis for social distinctions and ranking within maritime groups has also been recognized by researchers in the Austronesia and North America

(Arnold 1987, 1992; Buck 1938:26-28; Ferdon 1981:240).

Less attention has been paid to the production of watercraft and the social value of tools, but carefully-prepared adzes of special materials are identifiable for maritime groups in New England (Willoughby 1973:31-41), California (Hudson et al. 1978:40-50), the Northwest Coast (Arima 1974:21), French Polynesia (Sinoto 1988:116-123), and

Tahiti (Safer and Gill 1982:34). In cases like south Florida where suitable stone is rare, 21 such as the coral atolls of Tahiti, adzes of shell were also common. In other cases stone may have been available but preferred less. This was the case among the Chumash of southern California whose ‘ahipe’ni (“woodworking tool”) was made of clam shell.

Through replication and experimentation, Robert Edic and the author have demonstrated that the lightning-whelk shell tools found so frequently in Caloosahatchee contexts (Type

A and B cutting-edged tools) were useful for canoe-building (Patton 1994:37-38).

Accepting the technological significance of adzes and watercraft, the potential significance of specialized watercraft production to the development of nonagricultural social complexity has rarely been considered in depth. Craft specialization has been identified by Arnold (1987, 1992) as a significant cause for chiefdoms and ranking among the ancestral Chumash in the Channel Islands. Arnold focuses on the role of craft specialization in intensifying social complexity, interdependence of settlements, and inequality through manipulation and disposal of wealth.

To consider the relationship between production and social complexity, there is a need to describe what exactly is meant by “craft specialization.” There are several dimensions to this concept (Costin 1991), but the most useful one for understanding the processes discussed here and for the Channel Islands seems to be the context of production, the degree to which production was “attached” to elite contexts. Arnold

(1992) focused on the elite attachment of specialized shell bead production, but also states that plank-canoe (tomol) building was the most visible and demanding Chumash specialization and one that developed before historic contact (1992:20).

Because of the relationship between production of wealth and social ranking it is important that this study to consider the nature of space within and among 22

Caloosahatchee sites, and if possible, describe sites as more or less “elite.” It is also important to consider the degree to which sites have produced data that reflect specialized production. To help meet these needs, several previously-investigated sites are described in Chapter 2 with special consideration of elite contexts or evidence of specialized production. As may become apparent from these descriptions, cutting-edged tools and other signs of woodworking are not abundant at most Caloosahatchee sites. However, the existence and social context of a specialized activity is independent of its intensity. That is, an activity may be performed only on a part-time basis but still be a socially distinguishing specialization. Even if only performed rarely, the specialist nevertheless performs a task that is not normally performed by nonspecialists. In doing so, the specialist has access to information, skills, ritual paraphernalia, or rights exclusive to the specialty and produces more goods than commonly needed by the local population

(Arnold 1992:20). In fact, the rarity of a productive activity and its tools may help to maintain high social value of the act, its tools, and its products.

The association of specialized production with elite contexts awaits the identification of ranking with and between Caloosahatchee settlements. Identification of hierarchical settlement patterns is of primary interest to this study, since these patterns are among the recognized archaeological correlates for incipient ranked societies, or

“chiefdoms” (Peebles and Kus 1977). As correlates, they measure the element of complexity referred to as heterogeneity, in terms of multiple hierarchic levels (Marquardt

1985:17; McGuire 1983). Demonstrating changes in inequality—another aspect of complexity (Marquardt 1985:72; Peebles and Kus 1977:431)—was largely beyond the 23 scope of the present work, but relevant information from analysis and published sources is discussed where possible.

Discussion of possible inequality among Caloosahatchee peoples is not intended to categorize that society, or any that may exhibit some inequality, as necessarily a culture of inequality (see Marquardt 1985:72). Most “non-stratified” or kin-based societies show social distinctions with economic implications along lines of lineage, age, and gender. It is particularly recognized that changes in social complexity happen continuously, and any

“staged” representation of political development is inherently incomplete. This analysis is merely directed at identifying the earliest archaeological evidence that Caloosahatchee elites transcended (or usurped) kinship’s constraints to create a regional organization and mobilize surplus goods and labor (Cobb 1993:50).

Although little is known about the intersite organization of the Calusa’s ancestors, research began by asking what patterns prior sources suggested for site functions and intersite relationships. The result, a critical review of significant literature, is presented in

Chapter 2. What are the implications of these sources for describing the Caloosahatchee settlement system at various times? This question helped identify models for settlement patterning in southwest Florida. An additional model of changing politics and spatial arrangements is detailed in Chapter 3 along with a description of the methods used to test it and existing models.

Site descriptions are presented in Chapters 4, 5, and 6, by general location within the Caloosahatchee area. The results of field investigations are reviewed and described statistically in Chapter 7. In Chapter 8, the results are briefly interpreted (providing hypotheses for future testing) and synthesized in terms applicable to model-testing. 24

This work concludes with Chapters 9 and 10. Chapter 9 is an evaluation of models for Caloosahatchee social change, including amendments and suggestions for further research. In Chapter 10 this research is summarized, with comments on its relevance to the Calusa social formation, regional prehistory, and other trajectories of political development. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Calusa, Social Change, and Exchange

Sources discussed here are related to the hypothetical development of complex political systems among the Calusa and their ancestors in the Caloosahatchee area of southwest Florida (Griffin 1989; Widmer 1988). The Calusa were fishers, gatherers, hunters, and apparently practiced only garden horticulture (Marquardt 2001). According to the statement of Ensign Romero, in 1698 the Calusa recognized and refused hoes for planting (Hann 1991:184-185). They were not professional growers, but the Calusa political formation was a tributary, complex chiefdom apparently similar to those of agriculturalists (Marquardt 1991:xv).

These facts once presented a contradiction to many accepted concepts about the role of agriculture in the development of sociopolitical complexity (Goggin and

Sturtevant 1964:179). This contradiction seems to have been resolved when it was convincingly argued that the unusually rich estuaries of Charlotte Harbor would have encouraged the Calusa to develop their complex political system in situ, subsidized by aquatic resources instead of agriculture (Widmer 1988). In Widmer’s model, based on environmental productivity, settled population increased gradually after 2500 BC.

Managerial controls made necessary by this growth resulted in simple chiefdoms by AD

280 and complex chiefdoms by AD 800. It appears that more archaeologists now recognize the importance of aquatic resources in underwriting early social or political

25 26 development (Moseley 1988; Moseley and Feldman 1988). But has the apparent contradiction of Calusa non-agricultural political development been fully understood?

Even if Calusa political development was made possible by rich aquatic resources, this does not explain how or when the ranked social formation developed. Further, the use of population pressure as a driving force in evolutionary models is problematic (Cowgill

1975) and a cultural-materialist focus on infrastructure (Harris 1979; Widmer 1988:12) may underemphasize the importance of social structures in reproducing themselves.

Physical-environmental interactions are foundational to human societies and must be considered in archaeological explanations. However, these interactions are constituted mentally and socially by humans in ways not common to other life forms. Differences in the ways culture is projected inevitably create contradictions within and between human groups (Marquardt 1985:68, also see 1992a). A more strictly cultural-materialist or selectionist approach would appear most useful at such long time-spans as those considered in hominid evolution. But within the range of decades, centuries, and perhaps millennia, many causes for human behavior may be sought in day-to-day existence and how that existence influences institutions over time (Giddens 1987:145).

Studying a society at these time-scales presumes a dynamic physical environment

(setting) in which social interaction occurs. The physical environment may change or be organized by agents in the context of interaction. By organizing space, agents create spatial and temporal residues of their day-to-day social interactions. “Patterns of both continuity and change may be discerned, which carry on well beyond the life-spans of any particular generation of individual” (Giddens 1987:145). This reasoning supports and helps to explain this study’s choice of subject, settlement patterns created by social 27 activity at various locations (sites) on a landscape. These settlement patterns might be considered among the “patterned facts,” of which Marquardt speaks when he says, “One observes sociohistorical formations not as totalities, but as patterned facts at particular spatial and temporal scales” (1985:69).

In another possible explanation for Calusa political complexity, Marquardt (1988,

1991, 2001) has employed concepts of agency and power relations. According to this explanation, contact with the European-dominated economy of the early sixteenth century may have disrupted existing power relations in the Calusa world, leading to political intensification. If highly valued European goods were obtained by people at the edges of

Calusa hegemony, decentralization of authority may have resulted. In response, existing authorities may have intensified tributary relations, militarism, and other tools of domination. The result may have been what Gailey and Patterson (1988) call a weak tribute-based state.

This formulation is very useful because it highlights the relevance of short-term processes to culture change. It also raises an interesting question: What was the existing social formation just prior to European contact? The earliest descriptions of the Calusa indicate the existence of a fully instituted paramount chief. A transformation of the

Calusa social formation may well have happened in response to short term processes, but how fast could the transformation be completed? Very rapid adoption of institutions, roles, or statuses would seem to require previous experience with complex polities. Who were the existing authorities that may have intensified tributary relations, and how was their authority instituted? Marquardt (1991:xvii) suggests that European goods may have become available to an existing system of “mediated spiritual and political authority” 28 focused on control of ceremonially important objects. This work seeks to further describe the Caloosahatchee political landscape in the centuries preceding European contact with the Calusa. As a means of doing so, it is largely focused on presenting data that give substance to previous, highly theoretical descriptions of Calusa development.

Marquardt’s hypothesis hinges on the appeal of Spanish artifacts as exotic, esoteric artifacts. Control of exotic artifacts was for several millennia an important element of mid-continental precolumbian social reproduction and regional interactions

(Cobb 1991) that at times reached into peninsular Florida (Brose 1979; Austin et al.

2000). According to Cobb (1991:178), non-stratified societies demonstrate a recurrent, spiraling trend among aspiring elites to intensify subsistence output of their kin-groups in order to promote status-enhancing gift-giving and feasting. Feasting and gift-giving—as ways of incurring debt-obligations—extend elites’ control of production based on the distribution of prestige goods.

Often these prestige goods are items critical to social production and reproduction, not mere status-symbols. This status-building process promoted systems of interregional alliances between chiefs while discouraging the availability of useful prestige goods locally, thus enhancing their value (Cobb 1991:179). The resulting interregional exchange networks were a recurrent phenomenon in precolumbian middle North

America. Three cycles of emergence and decline occurred in exchange networks, each cycle incorporating progressively more goods and greater social distinctions (Cobb 1991).

Typical culture-evolutionary explanation for exchange would focus on its co- evolution with subsistence intensification as a way to maintain alliances that become critical during food shortages. Gradual long-term shifts toward intensified subsistence do 29 not explain these cycles well, since exchange networks rise and fall during trends of steadily increasing population and intensification (Cobb 1991:178). Therefore, subsistence intensification is viewed as an important component (but not an independent or dependent variable) for Cobb’s (1991) model, because it potentially changes conditions of social reproduction. Recurrent decline of exchange networks may be related to growing contradictions between over-intensification (declining productivity) and the ability of groups to produce enough for both use and exchange. Ultimately, environmental degradation and social unrest can lead to reorganization and the collapse of regional exchange networks (Cobb 1991:180). The rise and fall of these networks is probably related to the stability of local or regional authority structures (Anderson

1994:14-15, 35; Scarry 1990:178).

Milanich (1998:253) suggests that the Calusa may have originally sought to maintain hegemony over southwest Florida as a way to obtain foods and other goods from the interior, but does not specify when this may have occurred. According to him, the

Calusa maintained their alliances through the threat of force and by arranged marriages.

These statements indicate exchange and warfare as potentially significant factors in the spread (and perhaps origin) of Calusa political complexity. Exchange is discussed extensively in this dissertation, but warfare much less; This is primarily due to a lack of data suitable as evidence for hostility. The presence of many small stone arrow points is commonly viewed as evidence of increased warfare in Late Woodland and Mississippian contexts throughout the Southeast. Caloosahatchee material culture does not include much stone, complicating the prospect of identifying increases in warfare there. It has been suggested (Patton 2002) that bone, rather than stone, tipped some Caloosahatchee 30 weapons, including spears (also used for fishing) and perhaps arrows (possibly represented by infrequent stemmed bone points). Thus, increased bone points might be suggested as evidence of hostility, but their alternate use as fishing implements weakens this line of evidence. Evidence for consolidation of the population into fewer, larger villages might also constitute data suggestive of hostility, but this has not been demonstrated in the Caloosahatchee area.

South Florida contains ample evidence of precolumbian exchange networks related to a network that Cobb (1991) names “Middle Woodland-Hopewell.” Hopewell- related exchange interactions gave rise to Weeden Island-related Florida traditions that continued Woodland trends of mortuary ceremonialism (Brose 1979:149). Weeden

Island pottery, usually associated with the northern Gulf coast, is found at Manasota sites on the south-central Florida Gulf coast (Milanich 1994:221) and some Caloosahatchee sites (Luer and Archibald 1988b; Willey 1982) between A.D. 300 and 700. Weeden

Island pottery has also been found in Pineland site (Caloosahatchee) contexts, A.D. 650 to 1350. In later (period IV and possibly III) Pineland contexts, Weeden Island pottery probably represents redeposited and/or curated “hierloom” materials (Marquardt 2001;

Ann Cordell, personal communication, November 7, 2001).

Between A.D. 200 and 800, high-status mortuary specialists in the interior of south Florida are thought to have participated in far-flung exchange networks related to

Hopewell and Hopewell-like interaction (Austin 1997:143). Down-the-line trade consistent with “big-man” type societies is recognized at multiple Belle Glade culture sites that also feature extensive earthworks. Post-Archaic shifts to sedentism are believed by some to have made exchange selectively advantageous. The resulting interdependency 31 of settlements may have fostered conditions that were conducive to status manipulation and social inequality, but with no evidence of political centralization. This incipient political economy is believed to have eventually culminated in historically-known south

Florida chiefdoms (Austin 1997:597-600).

After A.D. 800 participation in Hopewell-like exchange disappears at inland sites, though trade with other regions of peninsular Florida is still evident (Austin 1997:144).

The spread of Belle Glade influence to other regions of south Florida may be monitored by the spatial and temporal distribution of Belle Glade pottery (Austin 1997:144; Luer

1989; Widmer 1988:87). As Luer (1989:Figure 11) has shown, the highest concentration of Belle Glade pottery outside of the Belle Glade area occurs in the Caloosahatchee area.

This is believed to signify either considerable trade or migration (see Marquardt 2001) between the Belle Glade and Caloosahatchee areas following A.D. 800.

More evidence for post-A.D. 800 interregional trade comes from the

Caloosahatchee area. A ground-stone celt probably from the Georgia piedmont and two galena pieces from southeastern Missouri were recovered at Pineland in Caloosahatchee

IIB/III contexts (Marquardt 2001). St. Johns Check Stamped pottery, generally associated with northeast Florida, appears in southeast Florida by A.D. 1000 and in the

Caloosahatchee area by A.D. 1200 (Marquardt 2001; Widmer 1988:85). Safety Harbor pottery types, generally associated with the Mississippian-influenced central Florida Gulf coast, appear in Caloosahatchee burial mounds between A.D. 900 and 1100 (Luer 1996;

Marquardt 2001).

The social context of these goods’ arrival in the Caloosahatchee area is presently uncertain, but together they may be interpreted to suggest increased interregional contacts 32 between A.D. 800 and 1200. “Down-the-line” trade had been suggested for the galena cubes, considering their extreme low frequency and distance from Missouri (Austin et al.

2000:128-129). According to Austin and his colleagues (2000) a hypothetical trade route brought galena out of the Mississippi Valley region to communities in the Flint and

Apalachicola basins of south Georgia and northwest Florida, and thence into peninsular

Florida. Occurrence of galena in south Florida burial mounds indicates its specialized use in ritual or as a status indicator. This latter fact corresponds closely to the importance that

Cobb (1991) accredits to prestige goods moved through exchange networks.

Willey (1982:554) suggests increased interaction between southwest Florida and the northern Gulf coast between A.D. 800 and 1000. Earlier interactions are said to be more limited. Since no characteristic southwest Florida shell tools or ceramics are found in Deptford contexts, Willey characterizes early Perico Island (contemporaneous with

Caloosahatchee IIA) groups as receiving limited cultural input from the north. But between A.D. 800 and 1000 in the northern Gulf, shell tools more typical of southwest

Florida (hammers, “picks” [i.e., gastropod cutting-edged tools], celts, and other artifacts) become common in Santa-Rosa-Swift Creek mounds.

Willey considers this evidence for the strongest influences out of south Florida and into the north and central Gulf coast in his entire study sequence. In complementary relationship, he suggests that “The burial-mound idea probably diffused south at this time. . .” (1982:554). Based on evidence discussed below, it is unlikely that people in southwest Florida became familiar with burial mounds so late. However, in conformity with Willey’s observations for southwest Florida there do not appear to have been 33 numerous burial mounds in the Caloosahatchee area until after A.D. 900 when increasing status differentiation is said to occur (Luer 1999; see Burial Mounds, below).

Luer (1989) presents evidence for elite control over surpluses and tribute mobilization among the ancestors of the Calusa, but without firm dating. His article on

Calusa canal construction suggests that tributary relations were instituted between the

Caloosahatchee area and the Belle Glade area, near lake Okeechobee, by around A.D.

1000. Luer’s (1989:119-121) evidence for tribute mobilization among the ancestors of the Calusa includes a discussion of Belle Glade pottery. Luer argues that the shape of

Belle Glade vessels and their apparent distribution help to characterize them as “trade wares,” and he cites several archaeological sources who have interpreted them similarly

(1989:119-120).

Does Belle Glade pottery actually represent trade ware? Marquardt (2001) has pointed out that the source of these wares is unknown, so it is premature to infer any significant trade with the interior on the basis of Belle Glade Plain pottery. Instead, a migration from the Belle Glade area to the Caloosahatchee area may have occurred between A.D. 500 and 800 (Marquardt 2001) and many of these ceramics in

Caloosahatchee contexts might have been manufactured locally. Yet Cordell (1992:165) notes that the traditional interpretation of Belle Glade pottery as trade ware has not been challenged unequivocally.

It seems most likely that some Belle Glade ceramics in the Caloosahatchee area were trade wares, while other Belle Glade vessels were made locally. Based on the widespread popularity of Belle Glade types in south Florida by A.D. 1000 (Widmer

1988:87), some potters in the Caloosahatchee area probably replicated these ceramics, 34 with or without immigration. It also seems probable that occurrences of Belle Glade ceramics in Caloosahatchee IIA contexts are more likely to represent exogenous goods than are later occurrences during the widespread popularity of the type (Caloosahatchee

IIB and III). But the concentrations of Belle Glade pottery in the Caloosahatchee area between A.D. 500 and 800 (Cordell 1992:Table 33) suggest a stronger relationship between the two areas, where Belle Glade Plain pottery increases to dominate Sand- tempered Plain almost concurrently (Sears 1982:Figure 7.1). This situation certainly warrants further comparative analysis of ceramic assemblages. But with evidence cited below from other artifact classes, ceramic evidence suggests early and continuing interactions between coastal and interior residents–including exchanges of useful goods.

Accepting the traditional characterization of Belle Glade pottery as an exchanged item, this does not alone imply tribute mobilization by Caloosahatchee elites. Also among the sources of evidence Luer (1989:116) cites are the presence of shell tools and ceremonial drinking vessels–artifacts native to the Florida coast–in the high-status, mortuary-specialist habitation midden (Mound A) at the Fort Center site. In ceremonial mound-pond contexts there, excavators found 441 shells, shell tools, or shell fragments and 197 shark-tooth tools, fragments, and whole specimens (Sears 1982). Most of the cups, shell tools, and shark’s teeth in the high-status habitation mound were recovered from contexts dated to between A.D. 200 and 1300. They are thought to have been high- status artifacts manipulated by mortuary-specialist “big men” in an emergent political economy (Austin 1997:598). From published descriptions (Steinen 1982:69-70, 84-86), it is also clear that all these artifacts are types common to the Caloosahatchee area during the same time span. 35

In fact, it is highly likely that most of the shell vessels and cutting tools at Fort

Center came from the Caloosahatchee area. Glades II and III archaeological sites on the southeast Florida coast do not appear to have yielded great concentrations of these particular shell artifacts, their raw materials, or intermediate production forms as have

Caloosahatchee area sites (Luer et al. 1986; Marquardt 1992c; Torrence and Marquardt

1998). An example of this may be drawn from the Granada site on the Miami River, a site that produced many shell artifacts (Griffin 1985). Shell artifacts from the Granada site noted in Marquardt’s (1992c) typological overview include columella sinkers or plummets, net mesh gauges, gorgets, and beads, but no large gastropod cutting-edged tools or dipper/vessels. Possibly, evidence for many of these artifacts in southeast Florida has been erased since many sites in Broward and Dade Counties have been destroyed

(Milanich 1994:299). But current evidence for the production of artifacts similar those seen at Fort Center points to the Caloosahatchee area as the most likely source for their manufacture. This working hypothesis may be testable because (as in the case of Luer’s ceramic evidence) source analysis has not yet been accomplished.

Consumption of ceremonial teas is a ritual activity of great potential significance to understanding high-status mortuary contexts in south Florida. The archaeological correlates for this activity, lightning whelk (Busycon sinistrum) drinking vessels, are easily recognizable and well-noted at Fort Center and many other Florida burial mound sites. The earliest evidence for the practice in Florida dates to the Woodland Period, at

Yent complex sites in the Big Bend area of northern Florida (Milanich 1994:135).

Weeden Island-related peoples of the north and gulf-central Florida continued the practice 36 between A.D. 200 and 900, using distinctive pottery as well as shell cups as ceremonial vessels (see Milanich 1994:179, 220, 227).

Later (A.D.800-1200), the presence of lightning whelk vessels in elite contexts throughout the Southeast indicates frequent use of ceremonial teas as far away as Spiro,

Oklahoma (Brown 1976:20) as an important part of elite ceremonialism. During this time in southwest and west peninsular Florida, Caloosahatchee and Safety Harbor peoples continued to employ whelk shell ceremonial vessels as earlier Weeden Island-related groups had, but possibly within the organizational context of chiefdoms (Milanich

1994:398; Widmer 1988).

While lightning whelk vessels in Mississippian elite contexts tend to be engraved, those found at Caloosahatchee or Safety Harbor sites do not. This difference in decoration may reflect the likelihood, increasing with time and distance away from the raw material source, of traded prestige goods to be modified or ornamented. Due to the range of Busycon sinistrum —the southern U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts (Paine

1962:521)—it is reasonable to suggest that many lightning whelk ceremonial vessels used during the Mississippian period were made from shells harvested in Florida.

Assuming for now that these artifacts were produced in the Caloosahatchee area, the social contexts by which they arrived at Fort Center over a period of about 1100 years remain uncertain. They could have arrived either by “down-the-line” exchange like galena (Austin et al. 2000), organized interregional exchange, tribute, or some combination of these processes. Galena’s infrequent appearance and distance from its source suggest it arrived at Fort Center through down-the-line trade ca. A.D. 200 to ca.

600-800 (Austin et al. 2000; Steinen 1982:97-98). Conversely, perhaps the abundance of 37

“Caloosahatchee” artifacts at Fort Center may suggest more regular exchange or distribution of gifts. Austin (1997:594) has suggested that these coastal artifacts were prestige goods that were exchanged regularly by high-status persons, perhaps traded for chert from the north that could then be supplied to the southwest Florida coast (Austin

1997:598).

In the following period (A.D. 700 to 1300) on Mound A, there are 29 percent fewer shark-tooth and shell tools (a decrease from 73 items to 52 items). Stone points increase and flake debris decreases in the same period (Steinen 1982:100). Austin

(1997:594-595) has hypothesized that the decrease in exotic coastal goods, together with abandonment of the mortuary ceremonialism documented by Sears (1982), denotes the collapse of an inherently unstable, incipient political economy. But trade apparently continued. Perhaps Fort Center’s residents redirected some of their exchanges northward to supplement their need for cutting tools that were critical to their religious ritual and ideology (Austin 1997:594). Regarding site activity, Sears (1982:200) describes this period at Fort Center as “characterless,” denoting few differences from the earlier period.

Together these observations may indicate more difficulty at Fort Center in obtaining shell artifacts, resulting from tighter controls on these items in the Caloosahatchee area.

Concurrent with this—and within a few hundred miles of their suspected source—is the appearance of Caloosahatchee-type shell tools on the northern Gulf coast,

A.D. 800 to 1000 (Willey 1982:554). This fact may be considered with the Fort Center data to suggest more control over interregional exchange in the Caloosahatchee area after

A.D. 800. Trade between the interior of south Florida and the Caloosahatchee area from

A.D. 200 to 800 was probably not highly controlled. But thereafter, tighter control of 38 shell artifacts by high-status individuals seems probable. By controlled exchange or tributary gifts (Luer 1989), many of these items continued to be available to Fort Center residents until ca. A.D. 1300 (Steinen 1982:102). At that time, supplies from the coast may have ended and the site become “once more a focus for authority of some sort”

(Sears 1982:200).

It seems that the Fort Center shell artifacts belonged to high-status persons because they are especially abundant in communal ceremonial contexts (Mounds A and

B, the “charnel pond” area). Membership of these high-status individuals in an elite class with the power to control surpluses does not appear likely; Based on limited indications of changing burial modes and ceremonialism in the Caloosahatchee area (Luer 1999:2-3), increasing social stratification may have appeared in south Florida after A.D. 900. Fort

Center residents may have been considered of high status after A.D. 800 (as they probably had been in earlier times), but because site occupation continued much as it had (Sears

1982), it is doubtful that Fort Center was home to an active chiefdom organization between A.D. 800 and 1200. Similarly, Austin (1997:147, 598) asserts that there is no settlement pattern evidence for anything more than a “big man” society in the

Okeechobee or Kissimmee River basins prior to the sixteenth century. Austin disallows the earthworks used by others as examples of hierarchical organization, noting that earthworks were built at Fort Center between A.D. 200 and 800 under egalitarian social conditions.

However, late prehistoric burials in the nearby conical sand mound (Mound B) appear to have been severely disturbed by looters who destroyed much information (Sears

1982:150). Based on finds in spoil, decorated ceramics and other valuables were 39 probably associated with some burials between A.D. 900 and 1500. Therefore, associations or other evidence that Mound A residents were social elites prior to the sixteenth century are likely to have been destroyed.

Luer’s evidence of shell tools at Fort Center highlights the importance of woodworking, especially water-craft production, to the ancestral Calusa social formation

(1989:118). This focus seems highly appropriate. Based on ethnographic analogies to other maritime societies, adzes for constructing water-craft were an important

Caloosahatchee technology (Patton 1994:26-38). Among the high-status items recovered from A.D. 800-1200 Mound A contexts at Fort Center are lightning whelk (Busycon sinistrum) Type A and B cutting-edged tools (cf. Marquardt 1992c:Figure 7; Steinen

1982:86, Figure 6.3), types of whelk-shell adzes. From other artifact evidence at Fort

Center, it appears that performance of sacred tea ceremonials and fine woodworking or carving were perhaps most important to prestige, status, and the function of the mortuary complex. But in the coastal Caloosahatchee area, the ability to control shell artifacts useful for making water-craft may have allowed more direct power. Control of water- craft production has been the basis of political stratification in similar environments

(Arnold 1987, 1992; Buck 1938:26-28). More generally, craft specialization appears to be a critical threshold in the development of social complexity, changing the nature of relationships between individuals, raw resources, and finished goods.

Cutting-edged artifacts found at Fort Center Mound A appear to be the “picks” that Willey (1982:554-555) sees spreading northward from southwest Florida after A.D.

800. In all analyzed Pineland site operations, Type A cutting-edged tools were most frequently recovered from a large Caloosahatchee IIB (A.D. 800-1200) and/or III (A.D. 40

1200 to 1350) mounded shellwork (although they occur in other contexts as well).

During these periods the Pineland shell artifact assemblage becomes less diverse, and broken pieces of cutting-edged tools become more frequent. At Pineland these changes have been interpreted as the product of increased woodworking, a significant portion of which probably included the building of water-craft (Patton 1994:97). Some

Caloosahatchee gastropod cutting-edged tools may have been produced during this time for trade as well as domestic use. Shell, not stone, supplied the raw material for adzes in south Florida, and adzes are necessary to produce watercraft in virtually every pre- industrial maritime society. Possession of water-craft and the means for producing them were probably important aspects of Caloosahatchee social status and the power to conduct trade, warfare, or day-to-day transportation and subsistence tasks.

There may be additional evidence to support the hypothesis that to some degree,

Caloosahatchee elites after A.D. 800 controlled the production of large wood-cutting tools, and by extension, of water-craft (cf. Arnold 1987; 1992). At Big Mound Key two caches of blanks for making such cutting-edged tools were found in a large “platform” mound made of shell midden dated to between A.D. 800 and 1000—early

Caloosahatchee IIB (Luer et al. 1986). In the same platform, refuse from a pit contained the remains of “high-status” foods, including sea turtle, deer, and very large fish (Luer et al. 1986:120). The association of these artifacts and dietary remains in the platform mound is highly suggestive of elite-attached production, a form of craft specialization involving production upon “command” (Costin 1991:11-12).

However, there has been only limited evidence to characterize the “eliteness” of the context. Like many Caloosahatchee sites, Big Mound Key’s purpose and relationship 41 to contemporaneous sites is incompletely understood. It has been noted that the site is potentially significant to a period of intensive Caloosahatchee mound-building after A.D.

500 (Marquardt 1992b:48). This period of intensive mound-building may be related to the increasing exchange trends discussed here, in the formation of regional polities.

Therefore, the social functions of Caloosahatchee mounds must be considered.

Big Mound Key demonstrates the difficulties of interpreting the functions of shell- midden mounds, prominent features at many Caloosahatchee archaeological sites.

Existing data are limited, but published radiocarbon dates and site descriptions (Luer et al. 1986; Marquardt 1992b:44-48) lend some merit to the idea that Big Mound Key was a center of some sort. The apparent monumentality and zoomorphic configuration of the shell midden mounds and ridges (Marquardt 1992b:44) suggests considerable organization and architectural planning. This suggestion is underscored by the fact that two of the site’s mounds appear to have been built between A.D. 800 and 1000, and a third mound soon thereafter (Luer et al. 1986:103). Relatively rapid construction of these large mounds would seem to have required the participation of labor groups larger than a household, but for shell middens this is not necessarily the case. Shell middens generally accumulate quite rapidly anyway (Waselkov 1987:143). Rates of deposition among shell middens vary, as indicated by varying amounts of included sediment (Walker 1992b:281).

Caloosahatchee Communal Construction

Goggin and Sturtevant (1964:197) have noted that the archaeological sites on the coast in the historic Calusa territory (Caloosahatchee area) can be ascribed directly to the

Calusa and their ancestors. These authors use evidence of massive earthen constructions in the Belle Glade area to suggest that the coastal shell mounds—and perhaps the interior 42 earth mounds, too—were constructed through organized leadership among the ancestral

Calusa. By reference to Sears’ (1982) excavations at Fort Center, many Belle Glade earthworks may be presumed to date earlier than A.D. 500, a time before many

Caloosahatchee mounds were built (Marquardt 1992b:48). It therefore seems unlikely that the same, contemporaneous population is responsible for the inland constructions.

However, the inland earthworks may have been somehow ancestral to the later, coastal mound-builders.

Was organized leadership necessary for construction of the Caloosahatchee mounds? Shell middens generally accrue quite rapidly, so the volume of construction material at Big Mound Key or other Caloosahatchee shell midden/mound sites may be less an indicator of labor-intensive monumentality than one might expect. Thus there appears to be a contradiction between the grandiose appearance of Big Mound Key and its easily-amassed constituents, possibly deposited as mere refuse heaps. But defined operationally, mounds may be earthen or shell constructions that served communal purposes—even if constructed of primary refuse. It is even possible that primary food refuse used to build mounds could represent attempts to resolve social contradictions through feasting, gift-giving, and concomitant symbolic construction. Communal structures may be built by egalitarian or ranked societies, but as intentional constructions they generally feature distinctive elements of planning and design.

In this sense, distinctive building patterns are probably more definitive of community construction efforts than are large volumes of shell midden. Relative changes in rates of mounding may be inferred from changing amounts of sediment in midden strata (Walker 1992b:281). Midden redeposition as revealed by “inverted” stratigraphic 43 sequences is also commonly observed as evidence of building efforts. Corollary to the observation that shell midden is accumulated with less effort than earth, it seems feasible to suggest that shell midden constructions may attain sizes larger than earthen constructions, assuming the same amount of effort. This supposition is not refuted by reference to comparative volumes in Caloosahatchee shell midden/mounds and Late

Woodland-Early Mississippian earth mounds. Based on the volume estimates by Jones

(1999:81) for nine mounds of each type, the average volume ratio between shell midden mounds and earth mounds is roughly two-to-one (13450 : 7042 m3). Finally, constructing shell mounds of redeposited midden debris would probably require at least the same amount of effort as required for constructing earthen mounds. This observation is based on numerous personal instances of moving both materials by hand and by shovel.

In execution of planning and design, high-status agents are usually accredited with constructive supervision, whether as elites in a ranked society or as headmen in an egalitarian society. As Marquardt (2001) points out, use of mounds does not necessarily imply hierarchal political organization. Complex or labor-intensive communal constructions may instead indicate a complex social formation, such as a “sequential hierarchy.” In this sense, communal-ceremonial mounds were probably constructed in southwest Florida as early as 2800 B.C. (Russo 1994).

By the definition presented here, communal constructions might include any constructive effort organized in patterns not typical of domestic contexts. Domestic shell middens were also constructed with a form in mind, but this form does not need to provide for functions beyond that of the household. For example, a domestic habitation site may be terraced with shell prior to occupation to improve its quality as a living site. 44

Or based on the same goal, prior site use may make a location more suitable for later re- occupation. Either of these examples of non-communal construction could pertain with no power relations beyond a single household organization. In the second example, serial re-occupations—especially at sites associated with important topographic features—could form a large midden comprised of temporally-isolated occupation events (Waselkov

1987:144). Such a large midden might eventually support a larger resident population and community-organized construction on the earlier non-communal substrate.

Various purposes for southwest Florida communal constructions are recognized archaeologically and/or ethnohistorically. They include ceremonial construction of mounds for mortuaries (Luer 1999:2-3; Russo 1994:105; Marquardt 2001), ceremonial construction of sand and shell mounds as substructures for temples or residences of high- status individuals (Hann 1991:42; Luer 1981:144; Widmer 1988:93), construction of canals to facilitate exchange or tribute mobilization (Luer 1989), and use of shell midden to create impoundments for fish (Luer and Archibald 1988a:13).

Another possible purpose for Caloosahatchee communal construction discussed here is creation of “escape mounds,” a response to the hazards of coastal flooding. This function for coastal mounds is highly appropriate to current discussions of oscillating sea- levels in the Caloosahatchee area (Walker et al. 1995), a region prone to dangerous storm surges.

Burial Mounds

Burial mounds are often dome- or cone-shaped and composed predominantly of sand, a material widely believed to represent more constructive effort than (primary) shell refuse. This pattern is one of the earliest recognized types of communal-ceremonial 45 structure in Florida. The example from Horr’s Island demonstrated that the social complexity necessary to build civic constructions existed by the Middle Archaic, with no evidence of class-based ranking (Russo 1994:107).

Luer (1999:2-3) summarized changes in southwest Florida mortuary rites between

A.D. 200 and 1250 with four examples of sand burial mounds. According to Luer, the appearance of specialized mortuary wares (late Weeden Island, Englewood, and Safety

Harbor) with some burials and diversification of burial modes suggests increased status differentiation between A.D. 900 and 1250.

In a summary of Caloosahatchee II mortuary behavior, Marquardt (2001) noted that use of mortuary “mounds” included use of natural sand hills and earlier middens.

Burials sometimes included stacked plain-ware (Sand-tempered Plain and Belle Glade

Plain) potsherds as grave offerings. Only at Weeden Island-related Boggess Ridge near

Big Mound Key have whole and decorated (Weeden Island type) vessels found with

Caloosahatchee IIA burials (Luer and Archibald 1988b).

Does the presence of Weeden Island pottery at Big Mound Key/Boggess Ridge indicate Caloosahatchee participation in Weeden Island burial ceremonialism? This seems possible, since Weeden Island mortuary rites appear to have been practiced by nearby Manasota groups (Milanich 1994:227). But based on archaeological testing on the

Cape Haze Peninsula and the Caloosahatchee region’s distance from the Weeden Island heartland, the Bullens concluded that (despite the occurrence of associated pottery) there was no evidence to suggest a “full-fledged Weeden Island culture” (Bullen and Bullen

1956:3). However, Willey (1982:344) identified an early Weeden Island burial mound on 46

Cayo Pelau, near Boca Grande Pass. Limited Caloosahatchee participation in Weeden

Island-related ceremonialism may therefore be inferred.

What is the character of Weeden Island ceremonialism? Based on excavations at

McKeithen, a Weeden Island site might contain as many as three platform mounds.

There was a low, rectangular platform for the residence of a religious specialist; a large, low, rectangular platform for mortuary preparation and feasting; and a low, circular platform for a charnel house (Milanich 1994:178).

This third, circular mound helps to explain the use of burial mounds in Weeden

Island cultures–and perhaps in the Caloosahatchee area. It also has some potential to explain the co-occurrence of sand mounds and “Black Drink” ceremonial artifacts in the

Caloosahatchee area. On the circular platform mound, remains were eventually removed from the charnel house. The charnel structure was then burned and covered with clean soil and the debris from a ceremonial meal and sacred tea-taking. The human remains were then laid on the surface with limestone rocks and several ceramic ceremonial effigies. The whole was finally covered by a six-foot mantle of earth, resulting in a

Weeden Island burial mound (Milanich 1994:178-181).

The use of burial mounds and of platform mounds for habitation and mortuary preparation is also known for the Fort Center site, near Lake Okeechobee in south Florida

(Sears 1982). Interpretations offered by Sears (1982:194-197) for Period-II (ca. A.D. 200 to 500) site-use depict Mound A residents as high (achieved)-status practitioners of communal mortuary rituals at adjacent Mound B and the charnel pond. Excepting the use of a charnel pond instead of a circular platform, and variation in shape of the residential mound, this is similar to the use-pattern for the McKeithen site described above. It also 47 matches general interpretations of Woodland-period communal institutions and public architecture according to Kohler (1997:18).

The Fort Center mortuary-preparation mound (core of Mound B) is shaped irregularly (Sears 1982:Figure 9.10), but may have had a rectangular or a bifurcated shape. The mound was originally less than a meter high and on its western side was a

“pit,” resulting from the omission of mound fill at the eastern end and extension of

“wings of mound material” for its sides and other end (Sears 1982:160). After the charnel pond ceased to be used (around A.D. 500), the bundled remains were interred in the mortuary-preparation mound, which was afterwards covered by a thick layer of sand that formed a conical mound.

At least one Safety Harbor vessel (and probably more) accompanied later burials in the cone-shaped sand mound. Most of these later burials appear to have been looted

(Sears 1982:150), suggesting they had been accompanied by grave goods. During period

III there is little evidence that Mound B was used, but during period IV (ca. A.D. 1300 to

1700) a few individuals were interred with metal “badges” (Widmer 1989:178) and a few in coffins. Artifacts in the later burials may relate to the historic process of political de- stabilization and intensified power relations in south Florida suggested by Marquardt

(1988, 1991, 2001).

Most constructed sand burial mounds in the Caloosahatchee area appear to be spatially isolated and to have been constructed later than Fort Center mortuary mounds.

They usually contain Weeden Island, Englewood, and/or Safety Harbor pottery dating to

Caloosahatchee periods III, IV, and V (from A.D. 1200 to 1750). Marquardt (2001) includes the Aqui Esta Mound and the Englewood Mound in this pattern, and both of 48 these mounds appear to have been constructed between A.D. 900 and 1100 (Luer 1999:5,

1996:40). Therefore it would seem that the pattern of isolated sand burial mounds can be recognized in the Caloosahatchee area by A.D. 900 (near the beginning of period

Caloosahatchee IIB, A.D. 800 to 1200). This is 200 to 400 years after the Belle Glade and Weeden Island practices described above, and contemporaneous with the declining use of the Fort Center burial mound, Mound B.

Marquardt (2001) notes that in these sand mounds, specialized mortuary ware— including perforated (“killed”) pottery and whelk shell vessels—was sometimes buried with individuals, especially after A.D. 1000. Perforated or intentionally-broken ceramics from earliest contexts are known to include late Weeden Island, Englewood Incised, or plain-ware types. In central and northern gulf coastal Florida, the pattern is widely associated with participation in Black Drink (or other sacred tea) ceremonials, beginning in Deptford-related Yent complex sites between 100 B.C and A.D. 100 (Milanich

1994:135-137).

Based on Marquardt’s estimate of A.D. 1000, this “Black Drink” mortuary pattern is first common in sand mounds during middle Caloosahatchee period IIB and the

Englewood phase of Safety Harbor culture. It may rarely be recognized earlier, such as during Caloosahatchee IIA at Boggess Ridge, possibly in association with ca-A.D. 500 to

800 activities at Big Mound Key. The A.D. 1000 date for the widespread use of sacred- tea ceremonials in mortuary contexts coincides with the timing of social change hypothesized in Luer’s summary (1999:Table 2) based on burial modes and specialized mortuary ceramics, ca. A.D. 900 to 1250. 49

The relationship of these objects and their associated ceremonies to

Caloosahatchee mortuary rites is uncertain, but similar artifacts in other Florida contexts may be considered. Milanich (1994:140, 173) suggested that at Yent complex and

Weeden Island sites, the taking of ceremonial teas was a part of burial rituals performed by mortuary specialists. Based on excavations at the McKeithen site, Weeden Island- related tea ceremonials were probably practiced by an achieved-status specialists who could have directed and organized communal mound construction at one village to serve a cluster of lineally-related villages (Milanich 1994:173). This interpretation compares favorably to that offered by Sears (1982:155) for the recovery of numerous shell dippers on the mortuary platform mound at Fort Center, as well as to Luer and Archibald’s

(1988b) evidence from Boggess Ridge. Perhaps Caloosahatchee tea ceremonials were practiced at these places in a way similar to that described for egalitarian Weeden Island mortuary centers.

Early evidence for Weeden Island-related tea rituals appears in Caloosahatchee

IIA, or late Weeden Island-influenced contexts (Luer and Archibald 1988b). Burials then were typically in natural ridges or earlier middens near to habitation sites, and rarely in

Weeden Island-influenced sand mounds. It is likely that mortuary rituals at this time operated under non-stratified social conditions. But evidence for tea ceremonials and constructed mortuary mounds does not appear to be common in the area until A.D. 900 to

1100, when isolated sand burial mounds also become common. During Caloosahatchee

IIA there is no reason to infer other than egalitarian burial practices, but by A.D. 900

Caloosahatchee burial ceremonialism may have operated in a more complex sociopolitical context (Luer 1999:2-3). Burial modes became more diverse, and the 50 isolation of burial mounds (Marquardt 2001) is not observed in earlier Weeden Island or

Belle Glade mortuary contexts.

It nevertheless seems likely that some of the many Caloosahatchee mounds built after A.D. 500 (Marquardt 1992b:48) were patterned after those used by others in Florida, in Weeden Island or Belle Glade contexts. Based on Boggess Ridge, the report of an early Weeden Island burial mound on Cayo Palau, and the Weeden Island-influenced practices of adjacent Manasota peoples A.D. 300 to 700, it may be inferred that

Caloosahatchee people were familiar with Weeden Island ceremonialism. From geographic linkage and the increasing appearance of Belle Glade pottery after A.D. 500, it may also be inferred that Caloosahatchee people were familiar with Belle Glade ceremonialism.

Qualitatively, most Caloosahatchee burial mounds appear similar to the late, conical burial mound at Fort Center (Mound B). The shape of these mounds may likewise reflect platform “burial.” Some Caloosahatchee sand burial mounds may also have an underlying platform with evidence of use in mortuary preparation, as at the Fort

Center and McKeithen sites. This possibility warrants further examination in cases where basal burial mound strata may be observed.

From this analysis, the isolated Caloosahatchee sand burial mounds that become common after A.D. 900 have superficial similarities to both Weeden Island and Belle

Glade burial mounds. However, they are usually more distant from habitation areas, show a diversity of burial modes, and contain variable ceramic and shell grave goods. 51

Ceremonial Platform Mounds

As Caloosahatchee cultures used burial mounds similar to Weeden Island and

Belle Glade cultures, they may also have used high-status “mortuary specialist” residence mounds similar to these two cultures. This observation leads to the second possible purpose for Caloosahatchee communal construction, “platform mounds.” Here this term is signifies mounded constructions used to elevate temples or high-status residences.

Once again, it is possible to seek precedents or analogues for Caloosahatchee mounds by reference to sites in the Belle Glade area. Goggin and Sturtevant (1964:195-

196) have noted that the extensive platform earthworks seen at Belle Glade sites (Fort

Center, Big Circle Mounds, and Big Mound City) represent considerable energy investment. These sites are poorly dated and ages for construction must be inferred from

Sears’ (1982) work at Fort Center. Extrapolating from that work, many linear habitation mounds at these sites were probably constructed after A.D. 1300. The Great Circle and other semicircular embankments at these sites may date from between 500 B.C. and A.D.

500 (Sears 1982:178), roughly contemporary with the Caloosahatchee period I.

At least one platform mound at these sites was occupied during the period of rapid Caloosahatchee mounding, the high-status Fort Center residence platform named

“Mound A.” Mound A is about one meter high and it is not rectangular like the habitation mound at McKeithen, or linear like later Fort Center period-IV habitation mounds. Rather, it is shaped of two somewhat linear lobes that meet (Sears 1982:147,

Figure 9.5) in a “U”-shaped or bifurcated plan.

The remains of two to four circular structures of approximately 30 feet diameter were discovered in Mound A. Residents of these structures amassed prestigious coastal 52 artifacts (see above). It is unclear exactly when this high-status residence mound was given its two-lobed appearance, but the size of the mound was increased several times on both sides. Apparently it was used for residential purposes during some part of A.D. 200 to 1200 or 1300, but not afterward. Instead, late Fort Center habitations were on constructed earth mounds connected to long linear embankments (Sears 1982:145-175,

186-200).

High-status residence mounds in the Caloosahatchee area are not well- documented, but might exist in a form similar to those used at Belle Glade and/or

Weeden Island sites. Any Caloosahatchee mortuary-specialist residence mound based on

Belle Glade traditions might be expected to be bifurcated, as one based on Weeden Island traditions might be rectangular. In view of geographic relationships and the increasing frequency of Belle Glade ceramics in the Caloosahatchee area after A.D. 500 and 800, bifurcated mounds may seem more likely.

There are several known Caloosahatchee sites that feature shell-midden mounds with raised, level surfaces, but archaeologists have presented only limited evidence for communal construction of these surfaces, or for residences upon them. For example,

Widmer (1988:93-94) interprets the Wightman site as containing ceremonial mounds—platforms for temples or chiefly houses. Subsequent analysis (Walker et al.

1994) suggests that Wightman exhibits little evidence of intentional mound-building; much of the accumulation appears to be “simple midden accretion and episodes of storm deposition” (Walker et al. 1994; Marquardt 2001). Patterned design and participation by more than a household organization—at the site or regionally—would need to be demonstrated to support Widmer’s assertion that Wightman contains mounds (communal 53 constructions). Evidence for habitations (e.g. post-molds or house depressions) would be needed to establish the function of any mounds as platforms for temples or residences.

Known stratigraphy for the Wightman site provides better evidence for a series of washover deposits during the Wulfert High sea-level stand (Waker et al. 1994:175-177).

Topographic mapping of several other Caloosahatchee sites has provided evidence of patterned designs, suggesting that some of their elements represent communal construction. “U”-shaped Caloosahatchee mounds and bifurcated site plans also appear to support the hypothesis that Caloosahatchee mounds are related to Belle Glade traditions. Bifurcation of Caloosahatchee platform mounds is a phenomenon Torrence

(1999b) has observed in ethnohistoric references (Hann 1991:285, 288) and at two scales archaeologically: single mounds and mound complexes. No excavation has determined the nature of structures on any of these mounds, but habitations of some sort appears likely on several of them. Without habitation data or similar personal contexts, statements about the social status of residents can only be conjectural.

If bifurcated mounds in Caloosahatchee contexts are indeed related to an earlier pattern for Belle Glade mortuary-specialist mounds, then bifurcated or “U”-shaped mounds should also occur at other Belle Glade sites, not only at Fort Center. Although no detailed comparison has been attempted using known Belle Glade mound types

(Johnson 1991), the plan of one other large Belle Glade site, the Big Circle Mounds site, has been consulted (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964:195; Milanich 1994:282). The earthen constructions at this site include a large, horseshoe-shaped embankment with several ridges extending from it. At the mouth of this embankment is a separate oblong mound with a pair of ridges extending from it to the space enclosed by the embankment. A pair 54 of ridges also extends from another mound to the south (Tony’s Mound), joining it to the embankment.

This repeated pattern of paired ridges joining at one end—seen at the Big Circle

Mounds site and at Fort Center—appears to have been a traditional precedent for the bifurcated mounds seen in the Caloosahatchee area. If this is accepted, similarities between Caloosahatchee and Fort Center bifurcated mounds may reveal a similar, mortuary-specialist residential pattern. Reflexively, differences in the contexts of platform designs between the two regions may reveal contradictory functions and a changing role for high-status residence mounds in the Caloosahatchee area.

This line of reasoning based on cultural precedence is further supported by the recognition that bifurcated, “U”-shaped, or circular communal structures were used among coastal populations in Florida and elsewhere in the Americas. The village middens at Weeden Island and Santa Rosa-Swift Creek sites in north and northwest

Florida are often horseshoe-shaped (Bense 1998:257; Milanich 1994:168). On Horr’s

Island (occupied in the Middle and Late Archaic), an arcuate shell ridge 7 to 9 meters high encloses a village midden 300 m long (Russo 1994:97-99). In coastal South

Carolina and Georgia, Late Archaic coastal sites often include “shell rings”—circular or semi-circular ridges of midden. These ridges may have been originally produced as food debris from occasional ceremonial feasts was removed from an enclosed sacred space

(Cable 1997), though many hold they were produced through the accumulation of several individual household middens (Sassaman 1993:63; Trinkley 1985:108). Finally, on the coast of Peru, Sechin Alto and several other very large ceremonial centers were constructed as colossal “U”-shapes between 1800 and 500 B.C. (Moseley 1988:1), and 55 perhaps as early as 2000 B.C. (Quilter 1985). Shell midden was used during construction in all cases except those from Peru, where stone is more easily attainable closer to the coast. Additionally, all of these structures have been associated with egalitarian, non- stratified social formations and communal ceremonies.

The recognition that shell midden in primary contexts may represent less constructive effort than earth mounds leads to some important questions about particular

Caloosahatchee archaeological sites. Could they have been constructed for the sole use of one family and therefore not be considered communal constructions, as discussed above?

Similarities with shaped earthen mounds in the Belle Glade area suggests they may have been symbolic structures significant to (and built by) a multi-community group in rites of communal intensification. How do the various mounds relate in time and space? The questions posed here will not be easily answered, but doing so is important to interpretations of changing social complexity in the Caloosahatchee area–especially those that focus on the organization of labor for communal construction.

Canals

Canals of two sorts have been noted in the Caloosahatchee area (Luer 1989:108).

First, they have been noted as elements of several large sites (including Big Mound Key,

Pineland, and Mound Key) where a canal either partially or wholly transects the settlement. The second type of canal includes long canals flanked by excavated spoil and transecting sizeable geomorphic features. One well-documented aboriginal canal of this type is the Pine Island Canal (Luer 1989). The Pine Island Canal was constructed by

Native Americans to traverse the north end of Pine Island, a distance of about three miles

(4.2 km). At either end of the canal are located large shell midden sites, Pineland 56

(8LL33) and Indian Field (8LL39). Indian Field is believed to have served as a

“monitoring point” for westward access to the canal and the Pineland site at its other end.

The Pineland canal and similar long canals are believed to have served as conduits for interregional exchange (Luer 1989:105). Minimally, they assured shorter, more protected routes and allowed fast, reliable travel between important or frequently-used locations. At least five other long canals are known in south Florida, ranging in minimal length from 2.4 to 3.7 km (Luer 1989:Table 1). The size of these canals represents considerable labor investment and suggests planning and coordination. However, dating them represents a distinct challenge. On Pine Island, no artifacts have been recovered in direct association with canal basal levels.

Fish Impoundments

Construction of impoundments for fish usually involves the use of weirs, nets, or basket traps at the mouths of tidal pools (Crook 1986:27-28; Hamori-Torok 1990:306;

Kennedy and Bouchard 1990:444-445; Mitchell 1990:347) or in partially-dammed rivers and streams (Hally 1981:Plate 3; Radin 1923:114; Suttles and Lane 1990:Figure 2). The number of people required to operate (harvest) an impoundment could be more or less based on the weir or net size, but based on several analogues (Northwest Coast,

Winnebago, and Guale—cited above) this was usually a group activity.

Crook (1986:28) suggests that Guale fishers may have used weirs adjacent to oyster beds to provide a stable substrate for trap posts and because of high oyster-bed productivity. Hann (1996:100) and Milanich (1996:142) describe fish-weirs that were used historically along the coast of northeast Florida in the mouths of rivers and tidal streams. These weirs varied in size, with small ones made of stakes driven into the 57 ground and large ones (up to 750 feet long) made of stakes and reed grass firmly fixed in a line. Cast nets or spears were used to harvest fish that became trapped by the constructions when tides receded. Typical locations for these weirs—the mouths of tidal streams—closely correspond to typical locations for oyster beds.

If Caloosahatchee peoples constructed weirs, they may have placed them similarly, or made partial-dam structures on which a weir could be fixed. To create a semi-permanent partial dam or to narrow the mouth of a tidal pond, shell midden debris would seem to have been the most suitable, easily available construction material.

This more durable type of impoundment may have been made at the Catfish Point site, a large, arcuate ridge of midden on Cape Haze Peninsula with an end that encloses a tidal pool (Luer and Archibald 1988a:15). Based on the presence of midden at the constricted inlet mouth, Luer and Archibald raise the question, “Could this ridge have been constructed in prehistoric times to help in creating a large impoundment area for fish?”(1988a:13). This is certainly a possibility that deserves close consideration.

Flood Escape Mounds

Another possible purpose for Caloosahatchee mound construction is a response to the hazards of coastal flooding. Flooding is the most common of all environmental hazards, and the Caloosahatchee area is in the most vulnerable of all landscape settings—estuaries (Smith 1992:220-221). Storm surges are the most frequent physical cause of coastal flooding. West-peninsular Florida is along the margin of the primary hurricane path in the Gulf of Mexico (Smith 1992:226, 183). As a result, tropical cyclones are responsible for the frequent storm surges in Florida, with an average yearly occurrence of one to three storms (Smith 1992:183). 58

Storm surges are the cause of most deaths associated with tropical cyclones, and cyclone-generated surges on enclosed coasts sometimes exceed 3 m (Smith et al.

1992:187). Typical hurricanes produce surges on the west-peninsular Florida coast of one to six feet (0.3 to 1.8 m) above normal high tides (Davis and Andronaco 1987:1025).

Storm surges from extra-tropical storms (nor’easters) also pose a serious threat and appear less predictable (Davis and Dolan 1993). The most severe nor’easters can generate storm surges up to 5 m high on open coasts and last for several days (Davis and

Dolan 1993:433). Based on geomorphic data from south-central Florida’s Gulf coast, a 4 to 5-meter storm surge is believed to occur every 500 to 1000 years (Davis et al.

1989:1060). Similarly, Ho and Tracey (1975) have estimated the 500-year storm surge for this part of Florida as 4.6 to 5.2 meters. The 100-year surge level has been estimated at 4 meters (Davis et al. 1989:1060; also see Gentry 1974).

Strong winds are also a hazard during tropical cyclones, and cause most resulting structural damage. There is evidence that thatched-roofed and mat-walled structures—like those described on top of Calusa mounds (Hann 1991:159, 287-

288)—are of superior design for withstanding high winds, despite being made of “weak” materials. A 1983 tropical cyclone in French Polynesia destroyed many modern brick and concrete homes, but left traditional thatched structures generally intact (Smith 1992:198).

The most effective means to reduce flood losses are building designs that elevate property above a prescribed flood level (Smith 1992:238-239). Modern solutions to storm-surge problems in Bangladesh, another low-lying coastal area prone to tropical cyclones, include building large raised mounds or escape platforms 2 to 9 m above ground. For an average mound with a platform space of 1000 m2 a village gives up some 59 agricultural land, but mound slopes can be cultivated and fish-ponds can be made from borrow pits (Smith 1992:197-198).

A relatively rapid rise in sea level increases the threat of storm surges to populations along a shoreline (Fletcher 1992:94). Gulf-coast Holocene sea-level fluctuations above and below modern MSL have been discussed by Tanner (1991), Stapor and others (1991), and by Walker and others (1995). The sea-level transgression most likely to have affected early Caloosahatchee populations is the Wulfert High, for which

Walker and others (1995:215) estimate a rise of 1.2 m above modern MSL over about

300 years, A.D. 200 to 500 (Caloosahatchee I). The La Costa High, A.D. 850 to 1400, may also have affected Caloosahatchee populations with an estimated rise of 30 cm above modern MSL (Walker et al. 1995).

Sea-level transgressions in these periods are associated with warming trends, which may often be accompanied by wetter climatic conditions. During either of the

Wulfert and La Costa high stands, precipitation may also have increased in southwest

Florida. Since most of South Florida’s precipitation comes from summer thunderstorms and hurricanes (Gleason et al. 1974:309), increased precipitation may have involved a greater frequency of storm surges.

If an increased intensity and/or frequency of storm surges occurred between A.D.

200 to 500, it seems likely that inhabitants of Caloosahatchee I coastal sites would have responded by either moving inland or making concerted efforts to build up sites with midden debris. As noted above, depending on the scale of construction this might not have required monumental effort since shell midden can accumulate rapidly.

Nevertheless, this hypothesis may be tested when there is sufficient evidence from 60

Caloosahatchee I settlements. These same observations apply to the potential effects of the La Costa High, during Caloosahatchee IIB, III, and IV.

Marquardt (1992b:48) has noted a period of intensive mound-building in the

Caloosahatchee area after A.D. 500. A massive storm around A.D. 680 is believed to have created a 4 to 5-meter surge that inundated barrier islands and altered ocean passes near Useppa Island (Marquardt 1999a:91; see the discussion of Useppa Island, below).

This is apparently during the Buck Key Low, when sea level was between +10 cm to -60 cm relative to modern MSL (Walker et al. 1995:215).

It is possible that this storm surge could have helped to prompt Caloosahatchee peoples to construct flood escape mounds. Slight increases in severity of storm surges associated with the subsequent La Costa High (+ 30 cm above MSL), A.D. 850 to 1400

(Walker et al. 1995), could have helped to reinforce this prompt. Evidence from Useppa

Island suggests that considerable loose shell midden was added to leeward parts of the island during this period, A.D. 780 to 990 (Marquardt 1999a:89-91).

Caloosahatchee society depended to a great degree on mangrove ecosystems (see

Walker 1992b:273). Rapid rise in sea level has been identified as a potential threat to intertidal ecosystems, including mangrove ecosystems like those exploited by

Caloosahatchee populations (Fletcher 1992:93-94; Woodroffe 1990:484-485). However, mangroves appear to rapidly colonize new habitats in landscapes with low gradients such as the southwest Florida coast. In several cases mangrove forests appear to be able to keep up with transgression rates on the order of those predicted as a result of increased global warming (5 to 8 mm yr-1), even extreme predictions (8 to 10 mm yr-1). Where sea- 61 level transgression is slower than 2 mm yr-1, progradation of mangrove forests can occur

(Woodroffe 1990:508-509).

Based on an average of estimates from archaeological and geomorphic data

(Stapor et al. 1991; Tanner 1991; Walker et al 1995), the Wulfert High was a rise (by

A.D. 300) of 1.8 m above the (ca. 200 B.C.) Sanibel I Low. This average represents a velocity of 3.6 mm yr-1. Of the three data sources the archaeological estimate appears most rapid, at 4 mm yr-1. The average estimate from combined data sources is probably most accurate, because it may reduce possible effects of systematic bias.

At these rates, Caloosahatchee mangrove ecosystems would not appear to have been threatened by the Wulfert High even under the most extreme transgression-velocity estimates. Historical records of hurricane “Donna” from the Fort Myers area and the

Everglades (Gentry 1974:77) indicate that extreme storm events may have posed a more common, serious threat to exploitation of Caloosahatchee ecosystems. Judging from these accounts, hurricanes’ high winds may typically cause more lasting damage to mangrove ecosystems than do their storm surges.

Functional Correlates

Five purposes for Caloosahatchee civic constructions have been discussed: construction of sand mounds as mortuaries; construction of raised platforms for temples or chiefly houses; construction of canals for canoe transportation; construction of impoundments for fish; and construction of escape platforms as a response to the hazards of coastal flooding. To be useful in interpreting data, these functions must have archaeological correlates, indicators that distinguish them. 62

In the case of sand burial mounds, this matter seems unambiguous. Burials and thick sand strata indicate the mounds’ mortuary function, and the lack of evidence for habitation or domestic activities helps to confirm the hypothesis. Additionally, these features are said to be either near or far from habitations, but usually nearer in earlier contexts.

In the case of shaped (bifurcate or other) shell midden mounds that have level surfaces, the surface of the mounds could have been used for several purposes, each requiring confirming evidence. Likely functions suggested by literature review include locations for mortuary-specialist residences, locations for charnel-house “temples,” and use as flood-escape platforms. Any particular platform mound might contain evidence for some combination of these three purposes.

Identifying any residences on platform mounds as those of chiefly elites depends on presenting evidence for ascribed social ranking. Here, evidence of non-volitional ranking in burials is often supplied. In non-mortuary contexts, ranking is commonly demonstrated in differential rights to food (Torrence et al. 1994:37-38), differential house sizes, or differential occurrences of special artifacts between elite and commoner habitations (Marquardt 2001).

Identifying temples archaeologically may at first seem to require the same criteria used for elite residence. Temples are often larger than common domiciles, they usually contain special artifacts, and priests are often afforded special privileges (dietary or otherwise) due to high status. But unless priestly status is ascribed as determined above, a priestly residence would not be considered representative of an elite class. As discussed above, a tradition of high-(achieved) status residence and mortuary rituals on platform 63 mounds has been recognized for Weeden Island cultures of the Florida gulf coast

(Milanich 1994:176-194, 221) and for the Belle Glade culture at Fort Center in south

Florida (Sears 1982:145-175). A simple explanation for Caloosahatchee temple mounds would be that they are regional expressions of the same non-stratified mortuary ceremonialism.

Based on the example from Fort Center, a Caloosahatchee IIA pattern for high- status mortuary ceremonialism might include two mounds and a pond over which a charnel structure was erected. One of the mounds may have been a bifurcated platform mound occupied by a mortuary specialist and his or her family. The other mound would probably be a sand burial mound with evidence of egalitarian (homogenous) treatment of burials. If a similar pattern exists in the Caloosahatchee area, there is no consequent reason to suggest the operation of chiefdoms. On the contrary, such a pattern would be expected for a Caloosahatchee mortuary complex operated by achieved-status ritual specialists.

However, there appears to be some reason to think that burial mounds might show increasing status differences between A.D. 900 and 1250 (Luer 1999:2-3). Also, knowledge that more than one bifurcated mound exists in the Caloosahatchee area (Jones

1999; Torrence 1999b) has raised the question of possible “chiefdom” relationships among sites. Torrence’s observation that bifurcation occurs at the scale of individual mounds and also mound groups leads him to suggest that their relationships reflect the physical expression of a chiefdom (Torrence 1999b:90).

As yet, no Caloosahatchee settlement analysis has demonstrated temporal and spatial relationships between the sites to indicate a chiefdom organization. Together, 64 mortuary evidence for ranking and complex settlement patterns may provide two steps toward defining Caloosahatchee chiefdoms. As discussed below, there are several correlates that must be considered in defining chiefdoms.

If evidence for a chiefdom may be observed among these bifurcated sites with platform mounds, the prior association of the form with mortuary specialists at Fort

Center would suggest a process by which late precolumbian aspiring elites may have extended and legitimized their authority based on Woodland-period mortuary rituals. It would also strengthen hypotheses about potential coastal-interior connections, such as

Marquardt’s mention of possible migration from the Okeechobee area to the

Caloosahatchee area during Caloosahatchee IIA (Marquardt 2001). In that context it should be noted that during Caloosahatchee IIB, activities at Fort Center appear to have continued with little change and no additional earthworks appear to have been constructed (Sears 1982:199). It would seem that A.D. 800 to 1200 may represent a major shift in focus of communal organization and mound-building from the Belle Glade to the Caloosahatchee area.

Evidence that mounds were used as flood escape platforms would be difficult to identify with certainty. The short-term nature of storm surges suggests that individual flood-escape events may not create recognizable cultural deposits. However, it seems reasonable to posit that if mounding was performed for flood-escape purposes, mound construction at previously occupied sites would increase during episodes of sea-level transgression (such as the Wulfert High or La Costa High) or in response to individual, severe storm surge events. This would be especially true for sites established very close 65 to the shoreline and at low elevations. Sites at higher elevations would not be expected to be mounded as high, or at all.

Corollary to this hypothesis, mound construction during such times would usually be of sufficient height to surmount typical storm surges (0.3 to 1.8 m), and occasionally, the strongest storm surges observed over several generations. Based on modern estimates of the 100-year surge, this would be about 4 to 5 m above the reconstructed mean sea level. But, even if increased frequency of such mounds during high sea-level stands can be used to suggest their use as flood-escape mounds, additional evidence may suggest other uses as well. Mounds potentially used as escape platforms during floods were probably not vacant during more clement conditions.

Evidence of canal construction may be found through analysis of early aerial photographs. Linear features radiating from areas of known Caloosahatchee sites, or between known inhabited areas where a “short-cut” would be useful, could be investigated through pedestrian survey and (where appropriate) test excavation. Any canals located in this manner should be thoroughly explored for possible historical affiliations. Investigators must be cautious in assigning cultural responsibility for these features, which due to their use do not contain high concentrations of diagnostic artifacts.

To demonstrate the use of midden to construct fish pounds, sites with midden

“partial dams” such as Catfish point and Big Mound Key need to be investigated for evidence of associated weir or basket-trap construction. This could include sets of post- molds, abundant fishing-tackle (e.g. net weights), or (by optimal preservation) actual weir or trap remnants. Also, experimental weir reconstructions at these sites could demonstrate their usefulness as fish impoundments. Any experimental use of an 66 impoundment would need to occur during tides that would approximate the site’s reconstructed sea-level conditions. To identify likely sites, Caloosahatchee midden deposits that form enclosures or partial dams need to be identified and established as cultural, not geomorphic features (e.g., swash bars, off-shore bars, or spits). This has been done at Big Mound Key where a geological coring device was used to identify the arm-like ridges as cultural constructions (Upchurch et al. 1992:62).

Previous Investigations of Caloosahatchee Sites

Known Caloosahatchee archaeological sites show different, but perhaps related, patterns of construction and use (Table 2). Sites summarized and discussed here based on previous investigations include Useppa Island, Big Mound Key / Boggess Ridge, Josslyn

Island, Pineland, Mound Key, Buck Key, Cash Mound, Vanderbilt, John Quiet Mound, and Burgess Island. Possible interpretations are also discussed when they may help identify site functions or correlates for communal construction, social stratification, trade, or other variables potentially related to Caloosahatchee political complexity. These interpretations do not necessarily represent the views of the original investigators, but should be considered as potential hypotheses based on current evidence. Maps from original reports should be consulted for spatial arrangements and are not reproduced here without permission. Salient points from this site summary are summarized in Table 2.

Unless otherwise noted, radiocarbon dates discussed have had C13/C12 corrections measured or estimated and are presented as calibrated + 1S ranges, meaning a 68 percent chance of the actual sample date falling within the stated range. 67

Table 2. Known sites discussed in text. Site Name and Number(s), Components Summary by Components Management Zone

Useppa Island Late Archaic Seasonal ridge; Tool production (8LL51) Caloosahatchee I Seasonal, intensive ridge (1ha) Pine Island Sound Caloosahatchee II late/IIB Mounding A.D.780-990, stages?

Big Mound Key / Boggess Ridge Caloosahatchee I (8CH10, 8CH16, 8CH19, 8CH34, Caloosahatchee IIA Burial ridge; Weeden I. influence 8CH454) Caloosahatchee IIB Mounding A.D.800-1000 (7 ha), Cape Haze Tool accumulation in mound, Caloosahatchee III-V Possible fish impoundments.

Josslyn Island Caloosahatchee I Intensive ridge occupation (8LL32) Caloosahatchee IIB-III Re-occupied; Bifurcation; Many Pine Island Sound cutting-edged tools (3 ha).

Pineland Caloosahatchee I Ridge occupation (<1 ha) (8LL33, 8LL36, 8LL37) Caloosahatchee IIA Larger ridge occupation (<3 ha) Pine Island Sound Caloosahatchee IIB-III Mounding A.D.700, 900 to 1200, stages? Woodworking; Canal constr. (A.D.?) Caloosahatchee IV, V Completely bifurcate (30 ha).

Mound Key Caloosahatchee I-IV Mounding; Evidence for ranking. (8LL2) Caloosahatchee V Calos; Seat of chiefdom Estero Bay Completely bifurcate (51 ha).

Buck Key Caloosahatchee IIA late Small occupation (ridge?), cache (8LL55, 8LL721, 8LL722, Caloosahatchee IIB Occupation ridges (<1 ha); Surplus 8LL1953) shell artifact production; Non- Pine Island Sound mound burials with some periodic Caloosahatchee III, IV nutritional stress.

Cash Mound Late Archaic Collecting station midden (8CH38) Caloosahatchee I, IIA Substantial occupation Cape Haze Caloosahatchee IIB, III Large midden ridge (2.5 ha).

Vanderbilt Caloosahatchee I Ridge occupations (<2 ha) (8CH12) Caloosahatchee IIA Possible early bifurcated mound. Cape Haze

John Quiet Mound Caloosahatchee IIB Fish impoundment, some (8CH45) bifurcation; Mounding (2.8 ha) Cape Haze Caloosahatchee III-IV Increased use of impoundment Caloosahatchee V Some impoundment use.

Burgess Island Archaic Lithic scatter, light midden (8LL47, 8LL1790, 8LL1453, Caloosahatchee I Small occupation at island center, 8LL1454, 8LL1455, 8LL1456) Caloosahatchee IIA (<1 ha); Burial mound; Watch- Pine Island Sound point? Caloosahatchee IIB/III Mortuary specialist midden; Southern midden ridge. 68

Useppa Island

Useppa Island (8LL51) is a Pleistocene dune ridge in northern Pine Island Sound.

No confirmed evidence of communal structures has been recovered at Useppa Island, but much work has been done there to characterize midden accumulation in the Archaic and early Caloosahatchee periods. Useppa has been investigated intensively since 1979, when work by Jefferson Chapman and Jerald Milanich demonstrated middens had been accumulating as early as 5000 B.C. They also revealed extensive stratified

Caloosahatchee I midden deposits, Caloosahatchee IIA and IIB deposits, and a ramp-like feature near Collier Ridge, composed of ca.-A.D. 700 fighting-conch (Strombus alatus) shell (Marquardt 1999b:13-14).

Profiling a backhoe disturbance into Collier Ridge in 1985, Marquardt (1992b:26-

29) demonstrated stratified midden deposits with burials dating from as early as 2880

B.C. and as late as A.D. 666. Radiocarbon dates from the upper 30 cm of deposits on

Collier Ridge indicate a time range of Late Archaic to Caloosahatchee I. The uppermost burials—accompanied by sand-tempered and abundant Belle Glade ceramics—are intrusive into this earlier deposit and date to between A.D. 595 and 666.

The Florida Museum of Natural History’s Southwest Florida Project has produced much more information on Useppa Island since 1985, as detailed in a recent publication

(Marquardt, ed. 1999). Three ridges of midden are described on this relict-dune barrier island; Collier Ridge, Calusa Ridge, and Southeastern Ridge (Marquardt 1999a:Figure 1).

Recent excavations in Calusa Ridge have confirmed and documented seasonal Archaic occupation with a shell columella tool manufacturing area (Milanich et al. 1984:271-

273), and a nearby intrusive burial dated to between A.D. 640 and 770 (Torrence 69

1999a:30, 72). Marquardt (1999a:79) hypothesizes that the Collier Ridge contains a full range of Archaic deposits and intrusive burials from A.D. 500 to 800. Excavations in the

Southeastern Ridge by Milanich and Chapman and by the Southwest Florida Project have provided much information concerning the Caloosahatchee I and II occupations of

Useppa Island.

Marquardt (1999a:87) summarizes Caloosahatchee I occupation of Useppa isaland as intensive, if seasonal. Similar intensive occupations are known from coeval sites at

Burgess Island, Cabbage Key, Josslyn Island, Galt Island, Big Mound Key, and Pineland

(although Pineland is not known to have been inhabited before A.D. 50). The size of

Useppa’s Caloosahatchee I occupation is estimated at about 1 hectare, or a “fishing hamlet” according to Widmer’s (1988:256) criteria (Marquardt 1999a:88). Food species consumed at the site by inhabitants around A.D. 510 to 630 (Walker 1992b:Table 1A, uncalibrated) primarily represent exploitation of oyster beds and sea-grass meadows.

Oyster-bed species represent 49 percent of MNI in an analyzed sample, and mangrove/sea-grass species represent 46 percent of MNI (Walker 1992b:272-273).

Investigations of Caloosahatchee II contexts from Useppa include Milanich and

Chapman’s prior work in the “ramp” area, where a loosely-packed layer of shells

(predominantly fighting conch–Strombus alatus) began to accumulate some time after

A.D. 700. The thickness of the stratum varied between 1.8 and 1.2 meters, and the underlying, densely-packed midden was at least 80 cm thick. In another excavation high on the north end of the Southeastern Ridge, multiple horizontal shell midden strata of about 15 cm thickness were found containing much fish bone. Ash lenses and possible hearths less than 10 cm thick were also observed. No dates are available for these strata, 70 but this does not fit the pattern of the dense Caloosahatchee-I midden that underlies similar loose-packed midden downslope (Marquardt 1999a:87-89).

The pattern as described is reminiscent of the stratigraphic sequence described for upper portions of Brown’s Mound at Pineland (discussed below). The shell midden strata there appear (based on Marquardt 1992b:Figure 33) to have varied mostly between 15 and 20 cm in thickness, while dark gray strata were about 10 to 15 cm thick. It seems likely that the upper portions of the Southeastern Ridge post-date A.D. 700, along with the fighting-conch layer(s).

Excavations by Marquardt and Walker (Marquardt 1999a:89-91) at lower elevations in the Southeastern Ridge revealed several strata of loosely-packed shell midden corresponding to Milanich and Chapman’s fighting conch stratum. Shell from a depth of 110 cm below surface in “Stratum 5, Test Pit E-3" was dated to between A.D.

780 and 990, matching an A.D. 780 to 945 date from just below the base of the stratum investigated by Milanich and Chapman. These data are construed here to suggest that the post-A.D. 700 midden of loosely-packed shells described by the earlier researchers probably extends horizontally for many meters and was initially deposited between A.D.

780 and 990. Because multiple strata have been identified, these strata could be related to the serial additions of shell midden and activity debris observed in profiled excavations at the ridge’s top. This seems to be a hypothesis worth testing in future investigations of

Useppa Island’s Southeastern Ridge.

Shell species recovered from the loosely-packed strata indicate a higher diversity and higher salinity regime for Useppa Island than today or during the period

Caloosahatchee I. Geological data (Davis et al. 1989:1060) suggest that a massive storm 71 with surges of 4 to 5 meters struck the southwest Florida coast at A.D. 680 + 80 (date recalibrated by Marquardt 1999a:91). This storm could have been responsible for the opening of a pass to the Gulf of Mexico near Useppa Island ca. A.D. 650 to 750, thus changing the salinity regime and accounting for the numerous high-salinity species observed in the Caloosahatchee IIB midden strata (Marquardt 1999a:91).

Higher-than-present sea-level during this period may also explain this change in species, since the Caloosahatchee IIB accumulation occurs during the period of an approximately 30 cm transgression, A.D. 850 to 1400 (Stapor et al 1991; Walker et al.

1995:215). During the Neo-Atlantic / Medieval Warm period, the La Costa high stand may have effected higher shoreward salinity factors and increased flood hazards (storm surges) at previously-occupied sites. Warming trends are usually associated with increased precipitation, and most of south Florida’s rainfall is from thunderstorms and hurricanes (Gleason et al. 1974:309). Thus an elevated incidence of storm surges may also be inferred, potentially helping to explain the high-volume, loosely-packed

Caloosahatchee IIB midden strata as flood “insurance.”

Skeletal remains of an individual buried on Useppa Island between A.D. 640 and

770 (late Caloosahatchee IIA) have been analyzed and shown to have auditory exostoses, possibly from diving for molluscs (Hutchinson 1999). According to Hutchinson

(1999:143), one reasonable hypothesis based on historic accounts (Fontaneda 1944; Solís de Merás 1964) is that diving represented a specialized activity related to the systematic procurement and control of highly valuable resource, large marine shells. Hutchinson’s hypothesis coincides substantively with the above discussion of prestigious shell artifacts 72 and their importance to Caloosahatchee production (of canoes and other wooden objects) and ceremonialism (whelk shell vessels).

Regarding settlement patterns and communal construction, Useppa Island best demonstrates the types of non-ceremonial midden deposits that may be typical for the

Caloosahatchee area prior to A.D. 500. From the three sites described on the island it may be discerned that ridges—linear shoreline deposits preferably on or near natural elevations—are an early, fundamental site type. These ridges were not always inhabited throughout the year, but were often occupied intensively, producing dense midden deposits almost a meter thick. There is also some evidence from Useppa Island’s

Southeastern Ridge that suggests mound construction for more elevated habitation after

A.D. 780.

The post-A.D. 780 deposits on Useppa Island reflect a change in patterns of midden accumulation in terms of volumes, compaction, and constituent species. The change in species may be entirely the result of altered conditions in the physical environment (and not a product of intentional design), since an ocean inlet may have been created by an especially-severe storm surge. The changes in volume and compaction may be due, at least in part, to the different shellfish species harvested.

However, it has been noted that mound-building (a process of increasing midden volumes) appears to occur throughout the Caloosahatchee some time after A.D. 500

(Marquardt 1992b:48). And as Walker (1992b:281) notes: “In shell middens, if a large deposit of generally unbroken shells is free of sediment, we can infer that the shells accumulated rapidly. If layers of dense sediment occur, we may infer that the deposit accumulated slowly.” By this standard, the deposits on Useppa Island’s Southeastern 73

Ridge that date to between A.D. 780 and 990 represents a distinct acceleration of midden accrual over earlier rates.

Useppa Island’s loosely-packed “ramp” midden was probably deposited contemporaneous with major mound construction on Big Mound Key and at Pineland’s

Brown’s Mound (both discussed below). The rapidly-mounded strata are between 0.8 and 3.0 m in elevation above MSL, sufficient height to provide protection from frequent surges and occasional, more severe surges (assuming ca. A.D. 850 sea-level at MSL +30 cm). Higher, previously-occupied locations of Useppa Island do not appear to have been mounded similarly.

Big Mound Key and Boggess Ridge

Big Mound Key (8CH10) and Boggess Ridge (8CH16, 8CH19, 8CH34) together constitute an archaeological district that probably represents a site complex. They are located near the center of Cape Haze peninsula’s south end, amidst a maze-like fringe of small mangrove islands. Boggess Ridge is a long, relict shoreline formation containing numerous human remains, some with shell and Weeden Island ceramic grave goods

(Marquardt 1992b:44-48).

Zooarchaeological analysis of four midden samples from Big Mound Key dated between A.D. 740 and 1020 (Walker 1992b:Table A1; three dates, uncalibrated) show that occupants exploited nearby streams, sea-grass meadows, oyster beds, brackish ponds, and barrier islands. Oyster-bed species (34 percent of total MNI) and mangrove/sea-grass habitats (36 percent of MNI) were exploited most intensively, but ribbed mussel from mangrove edges (15 percent of MNI) were also important. The increased focus on mangrove edge species relative to that observed in Useppa Island samples reflects Big 74

Mound Key’s position on Cape Haze. There swampy black mangrove habitats are available for exploitation (Walker 1992b:272-273).

Does available evidence support the inference that Big Mound Key and Boggess

Ridge together represent a mortuary ceremonial center, similar to that documented at Fort

Center (or the McKeithen site)? If so, then perhaps only in its earliest years. Big Mound

Key’s five-to-seven meter high mounds are not matched by similar constructions at Fort

Center, and this suggests a difference in purposes for Big Mound Key and Fort Center mounds. The earliest evidence for construction of distinctive mounds at Big Mound Key dates to about A.D. 800 (Luer et al. 1986:103), or about 300 years after the Fort Center mortuary complex detailed by Sears (1982) was in full use. Therefore the “big mounds” at Big Mound Key are probably not related to Fort Center-type ceremonials.

But Big Mound Key was apparently occupied earlier, during Caloosahatchee I and

IIA (between 500 B.C. and A.D. 800) and the time of well-documented Fort Center mortuary activities (Marquardt 1992b:48). Big Mound Key’s bifurcated shape may have been established early in site formation, but this has not been demonstrated through excavation. Mortuary activities about 400 m away at Boggess Ridge also date to the period Caloosahatchee IIA. These activities included placing whelk-shell cups and intentionally broken ceramics with burials (Luer and Archibald 1988b). Ceramics included Belle Glade, sand-tempered, and some Weeden Island types. These activities are roughly contemporary with burials in Collier Ridge dated to between A.D. 595 and

666 (Marquardt 1992b:47; see Useppa Island above). No evidence for a charnel platform/rack has been found at Big Mound Key, but speculatively, platform remains may 75 lie undiscovered in the “Mud Pond” on the southwest edge of the site (described by

Upchurch et al. 1992:62) or elsewhere nearby.

Based on current evidence it would be premature to characterize early Big Mound

Key/Boggess Ridge as very similar to Fort Center, although mortuary ceremonials seem to have occurred in each place. If early Big Mound Key was a mortuary ceremonial center, under what social conditions did it function? Grave goods were not found in the

Fort Center mortuary mound, helping to support interpretations of a (non-stratified) social formation related to Hopewell interaction (Sears 1982:187). Grave goods found in

Boggess Ridge include mostly plain (Belle Glade or sand-tempered) wares, with occasional Weeden Island-related ceramics and shell vessels. Brose (1979:149) believes that Weeden Island societies used mortuary ceremonialism to an unprecedented degree, providing a level of cultural complexity that was receptive to later Mississippian influences.

Do these grave goods represent evidence of increased social stratification?

Possibly not; the association of Weeden Island ceramics with non-stratified mortuary ritualism has been noted above. Boggess Ridge grave goods may, however, reflect increased extra-regional contact (including interregional exchange and perhaps migration from the Belle Glade area) during period IIA. This interpretation of early Big Mound

Key must remain conjecture until more work is done, but location of a Caloosahatchee

IIB.

Platform mound construction at Big Mound Key appears to follow (and perhaps overlap with) the period of mortuary activities at Boggess Ridge. At least six meters of midden was added to one of two large platform mounds whose construction has been 76 dated to between A.D. 800 and 1000 (Luer et al. 1986:103). This highest mound is 7 m tall relative to contemporary MSL (+ 30 cm) (Jones 1999:Table 2), with more than enough elevation to provide protection from known south Florida storm surges. It is likely that the site had also been given its distinctive bifurcated, zoomorphic shape (of which the mounds are central elements) by this time. When built, the midden ridges in front of the site may have served as tidal impoundments for fish.

The purpose for mound construction at Big Mound Key after A.D. 800 may have been to create flood escape mounds, to provide platforms for high-status mortuary specialists, to provide platforms for elite (chiefly) residence, or some combination of these three reasons. Luer and his colleagues (1986) have presented evidence that unfinished high-status shell artifacts (lightning-whelk cutting-edged tool blanks) were accumulated and cached on two of the mounds’ summits. On one mound summit, a large pit feature full of abundant large fish, sea turtle, and deer bones may suggest high -status foods (Luer et al. 1986:120). This is provisional support for the interpretation that Big

Mound Key’s residents were either high- (achieved) status specialists or chiefly elites, but comparative zooarchaeological analysis using non-mound contexts is warranted. Further occupation of the site during periods III, IV, and V is suggested by ceramics from surface collections (Marquardt 1992b:44).

Josslyn Island

Josslyn Island (8LL32) is located in north-central Pine Island Sound, about 4 km south of the Pineland site (see below). Based on excavations by Marquardt (1992b:14-

25), about 2.3 meters of midden appears to have been deposited there between about 300

B.C. and A.D. 300, during the period Caloosahatchee I. Then over 1.5 meters more 77 appear to have been added in Caloosahatchee IIB and III, between A.D. 800 and 1300.

The resulting midden rises to an average high elevation of over 3.5 meters above the La

Costa High, high enough to protect inhabitants from all but the most severe known storm surges (Marquardt 1992b:Figure2).

The Josslyn Island Mound was apparently started on shoals or small exposed, oyster bars. Analyzed zooarchaeological samples from four contexts dated to between

220 and 50 B.C., A.D. 750 and 890, and A.D.1140 and 1260 together show a focus on exploitation of the mangrove/sea-grass habitat of Pine Island Sound (68 percent of sample

MNI). Oyster-bed species were also exploited significantly, accounting for 19 percent of sample MNI (Walker 1992b:272-273).

The site shows some bifurcation in design, but it is not clear when it was given this form. The site map gives the appearance of multiple domes, depressions, and terraces around a bifurcated, mounded ridge (Marquardt 1992b:18-20, Figure 2). Often, depressions in shell middens are recognized as evidence of permanent structures, especially when they contain pulverized shell (Waselkov 1987:145-146).

Although depressions on the Josslyn Island Mound might be used to suggest structures, the purpose of any projected structures would remain uncertain. There is no evidence of a sand mound or charnel pond on Josslyn Island, so it may not reflect mortuary ceremonialism. The Josslyn Island site’s bifurcated design is vaguely reminiscent of the high-status habitation platform at Fort Center, but far more ridge-like, elongated, and complex. As at Big Mound Key, investigations at Josslyn Island are incomplete. Any one of several unexplored low areas could have served as a charnel pond. Preliminary results indicate that the site may have been abandoned between A.D. 78

300 and 800 (Marquardt 1992b:19). Published artifact counts in Test Pit A-2 (see

Marquardt 1992b:23) show that gastropod cutting-edged tools appear most common at the site just before the appearance of St. Johns Check Stamped ceramics, or during late

Caloosahatchee IIB.

Hypothetically, Josslyn Island represents a ridge-like Caloosahatchee I site that was abandoned during the Wulfert High and then re-occupied during Caloosahatchee IIB.

The site was located strategically to exploit the sea-grass meadows and oyster bars of

Pine Island Sound. Presumably during the site’s second occupation, considerable midden was mounded in a bifurcated plan including several terraces. The three and four-meter contours of the midden define what may be a bifurcated mound with three lobes. The origins of two additional ridges (to the north) and four depressions remain unclear.

Pineland

The Pineland site (8LL33) is located on the windward side of Pine Island, at the north end of Pine Island Sound. According to historical sources (Cushing 1897:342), the site covered about 30 hectares (75 or 80 acres). It contains many shell and/or earthen mounds from throughout the Caloosahatchee cultural sequence. Preliminary investigations at the site by Marquardt (1992b:48-55) included test excavations in each of two paired mounds separated by the Pineland Canal (8LL34). These two mounds and the canal may reflect the bifurcated design seen elsewhere in single mounds (Torrence

1999b:87). The Randell Mound, one of the two paired mounds, appears to contain 3.6 meters of shell midden that dates to between A.D. 906 and 1257, underlain by shell midden dating to A.D. 631-701 and possibly earlier. During the years in which the mound was built, the midden elevation rose from about 1.7 to 5.7 meters above 79 contemporary MSL (+ 30 cm). This difference may represent the addition of protection from rare, severe storm surges to a site already protected from the most frequent storm surges. Brown’s Mound, the other mound in the pair, rises in places to about 7.7 m above contemporary MSL, but most of its surface would have been about 1.7 m above contemporary MSL (Marquardt 1992b:Figure 30).

The mounds of Pineland are taller and constituted and arranged quite differently from those of Fort Center. Although in both cases water (a pond, a canal) separates two mounds, only at Fort Center is one of those mounds a burial mound. This difference probably reflects temporal distance between the two sites’ construction, as well as differences in the functions of the sites. There may have been more similarities earlier, but until additional excavations documenting the site’s formation are described, this must remain conjecture. Based on published dates from the Randell Mound, the second platform mound in the two-mounds-and-a-canal “bifurcated design” may have been substantively created after A.D. 900.

In Brown’s Mound, excavation in the uppermost two meters (Marquardt

1992b:Figure 33) revealed a series of distinct stratigraphic deposits. These deposits consisted of dark gray sand strata (with small bones and small crushed shell) alternating with strata of light gray sand and poorly-sorted whelk and conch shells, small crushed shell, and many small bones. The shelly strata appear (based on Marquardt 1992b:Figure

33) to have varied mostly between 15 and 20 cm in thickness, while dark gray strata were about 10 to 15 cm thick.

Pottery frequencies and radiocarbon dates in upper levels lead Marquardt to hypothesize that some midden material (dated to between A.D. 762 and 956) was 80 redeposited to augment Browns Mound after A.D. 1200. Midden strata from below the redeposited material appear to have been deposited between A.D. 1235 and 1424.

Another excavation in a terrace below Brown’s mound produced a radiocarbon date of

A.D. 247 to 408 in association with Belle Glade Plain pottery. This date for Belle Glade pottery is earlier than expected on the coast (Marquardt 1992b:48-55).

Recent investigations have shown that Pineland was occupied by about A.D. 50

(Marquardt 1999a:87) and that Brown’s Mound was probably being built by A.D. 700

(William Marquardt, correspondence, March 2001).

Additional mounds at Pineland include the Smith Mound, a sand burial mound isolated at some distance inland from the paired mounds. The time range of the Smith

Mound probably includes periods Caloosahatchee IIB to V. It is likely the Smith Mound was used for mortuary activities by Pineland’s inhabitants, but the character of those activities is unclear. Limited evidence suggests that potsherds were included with burials

(Marquardt 2001).

The alternating strata apparent in Marquardt’s Brown’s Mound profiles are an interesting regularity. Both types of strata observed in Brown’s Mound appear to extend beyond the limits of Marquardt’s two meter-square excavation. Although he does not state so, these strata may perhaps be interpreted as serial repetitions of a two-part augmentation process. This hypothetical process used considerable midden remains in one layer, based on the broad extent of the strata. The midden of each shell-rich layer (a minimum of 0.8 m3 based on profiled portions) may have been produced by a specific building and/or feasting event and probably represents the type of exaggerated, well- maintained stratum often recognized in shell middens (Waselkov 1987:143). 81

The sand layers with crushed shell may represent immediately-subsequent construction of an even, habitable surface. Walking on piled shell midden is usually a nuisance, at best. Observations of light gray sand in the shell-rich layers would also be explained by this hypothesis. This minority sand would have fallen between shells, and may best represent the sediment as it was added. The dark gray color of the sand-rich strata may be the chemical residue of habitation that also filled the sand with crushed shell and small bones. Crushed shell is an often-used correlate for habitation areas, despite rarely being quantified by degree or source of breakage (Waselkov 1987:147).

In the context of other southeastern (Lamar) chiefdoms, it has been argued that periodic mound stage construction (“renewal”) is related both to the succession of chiefly rulers and to communal intensification rites (Anderson 1991:200; Knight 1986:678). In those contexts, mound renewal occurs every 15 to 25 years, or roughly every generation.

Do the Brown’s Mound strata reflect a similar process of mound renewal? If the upper two meters of Brown’s Mound construction happened over 189 years, we might observe at least six “sets” of two layers, suggesting additional construction every 31 years. This estimate is slightly higher than those discussed above, but is still close to a generation’s span. Thus Brown’s Mound may reflect generational mound renewal. The process of mound renewal provides a hypothetical stratigraphic pattern for identifying periodicity in

Caloosahatchee platform mound construction, testable through future observation in additional contexts.

Brown’s Mound, as noted, was probably being built between A.D. 700 and 1400.

If the “renewal” hypothesis is extended over this period, for about six meters over 700 years, then each 30-year addition to the mound would have to be about 25 cm in width. 82

Incidentally or not, this is approximately the thickness of the strata “sets” observed in profile (see Marquardt 1992b:Figure 33). With initial estimated dates of A.D. 700 and

900, Brown’s Mound and Randell Mound may be included as part of the increase in

Caloosahatchee mound-building observed earlier (Marquardt 1992b:48).

Hypothetically, the Pineland site functioned as a habitation site for the latter half of period Caloosahatchee I and during Caloosahatchee IIA. Several households may have occupied the site, and perhaps some of the same people who had occupied the site on nearby Josslyn Island. During late Caloosahatchee IIA or early IIB, mound-building and perhaps canal construction increased significantly at the Pineland site. This timing is roughly contemporaneous to the proposed re-occupation of Josslyn Island and to major mound construction at Big Mound Key and elsewhere.

Mounding at Pineland in Caloosahatchee periods IIB, III, and IV may have occurred in response to the La Costa High sea-level stand, as a means of elevating chiefly houses, as a means of elevating mortuary temples, or some combination of these three reasons. Mortuary activities at the nearby Smith Mound correspond to these construction periods and afterward, IIB to V. The Smith Mound appears to match the pattern of isolated sand burial mounds that appears in the Caloosahatchee area after A.D. 900.

Change in mortuary behaviors at Pineland and elsewhere, concurrent with increased mound construction at this site and elsewhere, may signal wider social change than could be predicated on a 30 cm sea-level rise alone.

Mound Key

Mound Key (8LL2) is in Estero Bay, south of the Caloosahatchee River mouth.

Use of mounds and a canal similar to that observed at Pineland is noted at Mound Key 83

(Torrence et al. 1994:Figure 2). This site is widely believed to represent the capital of the historically-documented Calusa polity and location of a Spanish mission (e.g., Goggin and Sturtevant 1964:182; Griffin 1974:342; Lewis 1978:19). Extensive topographic mapping and survey (Torrence et al. 1994) have shown evidence that the site was probably occupied during Caloosahatchee I, has midden-mounds dating to

Caloosahatchee II and III, and produced numerous artifacts dated to Caloosahatchee IV and V.

Torrence and his colleagues refer to two large midden-mounds separated by a canal near the center of the island as “Mounds 1 and 2.” Both of these mounds feature platforms that were the locations of stratigraphic excavations (1994:Figure 5). No dates are given for material recovered from these contexts, but excavations to over a meter below surface in Mound 2 revealed structural remains (living floors with abundant faunal bone and post molds) in five out of seven excavation units (Torrence et al. 1994:32-33).

From the recovery of Belle Glade Plain, St. Johns Check Stamped, and Grog-tempered ceramic types in the uppermost meter of Mound 2, it would appear that late construction occurred during Caloosahatchee III and IV (between A.D. 1200 and 1500). The mound rises to an average high elevation of about 5.7 m above contemporary MSL (+ 30 cm), tall enough to provide protection from even rare, extreme storm surges. The functions of the structures on the summit of Mound 2 are unclear, but based on Fort Center and Big

Mound Key platform-mound contexts, probably represent habitations of high-status specialists or ranking elites.

Torrence and his colleagues also identify two burial mounds on the island

(1994:37). “Mound 7" is dated to between A.D. 500 and 1500, based on the presence of 84

Belle Glade ceramics. Numerous “dippers”—or lightning-whelk drinking vessels—all perforated, were noted over the mound’s surface. The other sand burial mound, “Mound

6,” produced only sand-tempered plain ceramics during pedestrian survey. Torrence and his colleagues record that this mound contained oyster shell in sand, contrasted with

Mound 6's content: scallop and small crown conch in sand. They note that this difference may relate to differences in social status between mound inhabitants or those buried there, or to different time periods (1994:38).

Overall, Mound Key appears very similar to Pineland—with two mounds separated by a canal, not a pond as in the Fort Center mortuary-ceremonial plan. Also like the Pineland site, Mound Key contains several auxiliary mounds, including distant burial mounds made with much sand. Perforated whelk vessels found on one of these burial mounds (Mound 7) probably indicates sacred-tea mortuary ceremonials performed there. The only artifacts associated with the other burial mound, Mound 6, are Sand- tempered Plain potsherds. Mound Key’s elements of mortuary ritualism appear similar to earlier Weeden Island and Fort Center ceremonial objects, yet unlike Fort Center, the burial mounds are (as at Pineland) a considerable distance from the residential mounds.

One reason for differences from Fort Center may be that mortuary ceremonialism was practiced on Mound Key in conjunction with ranked statuses; Status differences have been proposed as a possible reason for differences between food shell inclusions

(Mound 6 oyster versus Mound 7 scallop and crown conch) and artifacts in these two burial mounds (Torrence et al. 1994:38). An implication of this hypothesis is that food shell in burial mounds represents two classes of votive food offerings appropriate to two social ranks. Environmental reasons for these differences in shell species have not been 85 ruled out (Torrence et al. 1994:37-38). However, historical evidence for sumptuary foods and contrasting faunal assemblages observed in archaeological testing (Torrence et al.

1994:31-32, 37) add support to the hypothesis that social ranking was present on Mound

Key, at least in the historic period.

Based on analysis of environmental proxy data from other Caloosahatchee sites

(Walker 1992b), it is possible to explore environmental explanations for the differences observed between the two burial mounds on Mound Key. Doing so thoroughly would require reliable dates for the two constructions, a condition that cannot be met based on published data. However provisionally, its ceremonial artifacts, appearance, and distance from habitation of the mounds suggest that Mound 7 conforms to the general pattern of isolated sand mounds discussed previously for A.D. 900 to 1750. Abundant crown conch shells (as observed on Mound 7 with scallop shells) have been noted in many sites occupied during the Buck Key Low sea-level stand, A.D. 500 to 850 (Walker 1992b:285-

286; Walker et al. 1995:Figure 8). Hypothetically, lower sea level during that time decreased regional salinity levels and created stress on oyster populations upon which the predatory crown conch feeds (Walker 1992b:285). This drop in sea-level appears to be the best environmental hypothesis for high concentrations of crown conch in

Caloosahatchee middens. But it seems to have occurred before Mound 7 was used, so does not suffice to explain the differences in food shell noted by Torrence and his colleagues (1994:38).

If correct, Torrence and his colleagues’ (1994) hypothesis allows some expectations considering the appearance of sumptuary foods and elite contexts in precolumbian Caloosahatchee archaeological sites. On a possible menu of social 86 preference, conch and scallop may have surpassed oyster. Based on variable distribution of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and other bone in mound and non-mound contexts at Mound Key, contrasting dietary vertebrate assemblages may also be attributable to differential social status (Torrence et al. 1994:31-32, 37). This suggests an interpretation of Caloosahatchee III and IV inhabitants of Mound 2 as elites in a ranked society with differential access to preferred foods.

Buck Key

Work by Marquardt (1992b) and Torrence and Marquardt (1998) on this former barrier island has established precolumbian use of Buck Key from between A.D. 660 and

1430. Buck Key began to emerge around A.D. 450 to 750 and, based on archaeological deposits dated to around A.D. 1000, reached its present form about 1000 years ago

(Stapor et al. 1991:827). Four precolumbian archaeological sites with discrete functions found on the island likely represent a single village area. These sites include a burial ground, a habitation area, a possible ceremonial area, and a possible processing area

(Torrence and Marquardt 1998:39-40).

Inhabitants of Buck Key primarily exploited mangrove/sea-grass habitats, but also used food resources from littoral/Gulf habitats and oyster beds. Four analyzed zooarchaeological samples from Buck Key contexts dated between A.D. 960 and 1430

(Walker 1992b:Table A1; uncalibrated) together show that 62 percent of MNI represent mangrove/sea-grass species. Littoral/Gulf species were represented by 17 percent of

MNI, and oyster-bed species were represented by 13 percent of MNI (Walker 1992b:272-

273). 87

The Buck Key burial ground was situated in a natural, crescent-shaped sand ridge.

At least one Belle Glade Plain vessel appears to have been interred with human remains there. Marquardt’s (1992b) findings suggest that burials were placed in small, diffuse groups on the sand ridge and covered with sand ca. A.D. 1000 to 1160, apparently similar to the burial pattern observed in Boggess Ridge near Big Mound Key (Torrence and

Marquardt 1998:25-26). Enamel hypoplasia observed by Hutchinson (1992) for recovered human remains may indicate periodic resource shortages for Buck Key’s inhabitants (Marquardt 1992b:43).

The Buck Key habitation area (Marquardt 1992b:Figure 16; Torrence and

Marquardt 1998:Figure 4) is on the leeward side of the island facing Pine Island Sound.

It was tested intensively by Marquardt (1992b:33-44), who summarizes that intact deposits date to Caloosahatchee periods II, III, and IV. The habitation area features four lobate ridges of midden, roughly arranged in two parallel pairs (Torrence and Marquardt

1998:Figure 3). The midden ridges have an average high elevation between 0.7 and 1.7 m above contemporary MSL (+ 30 cm), or only enough height to protect inhabitants from the most frequent storm surges. Excavation of “Test Pit A” in one of these ridges revealed some evidence for structures and cooking activities. Strata below the habitation debris showed the dominant presence of numerous very large (15 to 25 cm long) lightning whelk shells, many of which were unbroken. The stratum with cooking debris was radiocarbon dated to between A.D. 1301 and 1424. The zone containing dominant amounts of large lightning whelk shells was dated to between A.D. 1027 and 1210. Less than ten percent of all pottery recovered from Test Pit A (mostly Sand-tempered Plain) came from this lower zone. 88

The concentration of large whelks (and intentionally-collected slipper shells–Walker 1992b:289) in the stratum below habitation debris allows review of a point made in discussion of Mound Key. Not all species concentrations seen in Caloosahatchee middens are most easily explained by environmental change. The whelk-shell stratum represents exploitation of high-salinity marine habitats. Occupation debris above the whelk shell stratum contains various high-salinity species as well. Based on zooarchaeological analysis, there is no change in food species between upper and lower midden levels that can be explained as a result of sea-level variation (Walker 1992b:288,

293).

It would seem that some other reason for accrual of such divergent midden species must be considered. For the following reasons, accumulation and production of wealth is suggested: (1) The technological and social utility represented by large marine gastropods suggests economic, not just dietary, reasons for the collection; (2) The large number of whelk shells recorded from Buck Key probably indicates considerable expenditure of effort in search and/or diving for these creatures. Large lightning whelks (Busycon sinistrum) are usually solitary (Paine 1962:517), migratory animals that spend October through April at inshore sea-grass meadows. The rest of each year is usually spent offshore (Kent 1983:262-263); (3) Finally, as high-level predators in a molluscan food chain, large lightning whelks are less common than many other gastropods. In short, possession of such large quantities of lightning whelk may be viewed hypothetically as a form of wealth accumulation.

Other excavations in the same habitation ridge produced additional evidence for

Caloosahatchee III and IV occupation, including burned shell, ash, bone and other debris 89 radiocarbon dated to between A.D. 1267 and 1439, St. Johns Check Stamped pottery (a

Caloosahatchee III diagnostic type), and Glades Tooled pottery (a Caloosahatchee IV diagnostic type). Analysis of vertebrate remains from these tests units shows that Buck

Key inhabitants exploited mangrove/sea-grass, oyster-bed, and littoral habitats. Bone artifacts were uncommon at Buck Key during sampled periods, relative to frequencies observed at Josslyn Island. Recovered shell artifacts include Types A and B cutting- edged tools and a Type D hammer (Marquardt 1992b:33-44).

Excavation in a dense concentration of shell at the northern edge of the habitation area revealed a submerged shell midden, probably from the period Caloosahatchee II.

The deposit contains Sand-tempered Plain potsherds, a few Belle Glade Plain potsherds, surf clam, whelk, and oyster shell, charcoal, sea urchin remains, and abundant bone.

Marquardt believes that after deposition, the midden was partially eroded and covered with storm-derived shell.

Buck Key also features a potential “processing” or industrial area consisting of shell unevenly scattered over an area 120 x 30 m. The area contains five dense clusters of shell, and in all five there is evidence that large lightning whelk shells were worked

(reduction including meat extraction, artifact pre-from production, and/or finished artifact production). The investigators suggest that the processing area is associated with the habitation area, or that it represents earlier, sporadic exploitation of the island’s resources.

A single radiocarbon assay from the processing area yielded a date of between A.D. 610 and 845 (Torrence and Marquardt 1998:26-31). The date comes from a small pit-like concentration of many fighting conch shells that also included two fragments of

(sampled) lightning whelk shell. 90

From this date and Marquardt’s (1992b:40) investigation on the north side of the habitation area, it appears that Buck Key was also occupied during late Caloosahatchee

IIA, before the prevalence of Belle Glade pottery (ca. A.D. 800). The Caloosahatchee IIA occupation probably included some midden deposits near the Buck Key habitation area and the concentration of fighting conch shell. Other concentrations in the processing area may be contemporaneous or date to later periods (Torrence and Marquardt 1998:31).

The dated fighting conch concentration was found in shovel-testing and not among the surface-visible concentrations in the processing area. The main concentrations in the processing area mostly consisted of whelk shell and little or no fighting conch shell, making the dated context somewhat anomalous. However, shell hammers made of fighting conch or crown conchs (Type G hammers) are known to have been most commonly used in the Caloosahatchee and Manasota areas prior to 800 A.D. (Marquardt

1992c:201). The observed fighting conch deposit in a recognized industrial area may thus represent a cache of shell useful for making Type G hammers. The later (Caloosahatchee

IIB) prominence of whole-shell gastropod tools and shell vessels would then aptly explain the prevalence of lightning whelk shell in the industrial area, and the proximity of the area to a lightning whelk shell midden (“raw material deposit”) dated to ca. A.D. 1100.

This interpretation agrees with and extends the original investigators’ hypothesis for the function of a “processing area” for producing shell artifacts.

The potential ceremonial activity area on Buck Key consists of perforated lightning whelk shells, lightning whelk vessels, and a Type A cutting-edged tool found scattered over the wetland margins, just inland (windward) of the habitation area.

Investigators suggest that the site is associated with the burial ground, to the south, as a 91 place for mortuary rituals. If this is so, then the ceremonial area may date to the time the burial ground was used, ca. A.D. 1000.

Regarding settlement patterns, the Buck Key habitation area at no time appears to have been occupied by more than one or two domestic units. Accordingly, simple ridge- like middens were constructed as flood protection, perhaps arranged in sets for some purpose.

The strong emphasis on shell artifact processing seen in multiple contexts is believed to reflect value creation, i.e., production for exchange or tribute. Many shells useful for artifacts—gastropod cutting-edged tools and/or vessels—were collected, stored, and processed on Buck Key. Based on the numbers of unbroken specimens cached in the midden between A.D. 1027 and 1210, more large lightning whelk shells were collected than appear in most Caloosahatchee domestic contexts. Evidence from

Buck Key may be used to suggest that surplus shell artifacts were produced for use in feasting and gift-giving, perhaps in the context of tributary relationships. Significantly, only one cutting-edge tool preform and a few other finished artifacts were found on Buck

Key (cf. Big Mound Key).

Several observations help to support the explanation of Buck Key industrial area and raw-material cache as part of regional and interregional economic processes. These observations include: (1) the significance of diving behavior among Useppa Island’s precolumbian inhabitants (procurement of raw materials); (2) changes in Pineland shell artifacts useful for wood-working (specialization); (3) caches of tool preforms for the same shell artifacts at Big Mound Key (accumulation of wealth); (4) the northward distribution of these shell artifacts ca. A.D. 800 to 1000 (distribution), and; (5) the 92 decreased but continued frequency of coastal artifacts at Fort Center, A.D. 800 to 1200

(changing interregional exchange relations).

Cash Mound

The Cash “Mound” site (8CH38) is a very large midden ridge located on a tombolo on the Cape Haze peninsula, on the west side of Turtle Bay. A cleft in the midden’s upper elevations (Marquardt 1992b:Figure 13) is reminiscent of bifurcated design, but no suggestion of this feature’s precolumbian origin appears in literature. The site has been investigated by Bullen and Bullen (1956), whose observations were augmented and balanced in later investigations by Marquardt (1992b:30-33). Most investigations at the site appear to have been performed in the eastern end of the ridge, an area disturbed by early twentieth-century shell mining operations.

The Bullens (1956) characterized Cash Mound as a large, nearly circular midden

15 feet high and covering three acres. The western surface of the mound featured several dome-shaped rises. A more recent description (Marquardt 1992b:29) refers to Cash

Mound as elliptical, 200 m long, 125 m wide, and over 6 m high. Based on evidence gathered by the Bullens and by Marquardt (1992b:30-33), Cash Mound appears to be a deeply stratified, oyster and mussel-shell midden that was occupied from about 1000 B.C. to approximately 1350 A.D., or Late Archaic to Caloosahatchee III periods. (Bullen and

Bullen 1956:25; Marquardt 1992b:33).

The midden (Marquardt 1992b:Figure 13) rises to a high elevation of about 5.7 m above the MSL contemporary with its latest, Caloosahatchee III component (the La Costa

High). This would appear to have been sufficient elevation to protect from even the most severe known storm surge levels. But during the preceding (Wulfert High) high sea-level 93 stand during which the site was occupied, less protection would have been afforded.

Assuming only slightly less midden accumulation for the period Caloosahatchee I (a total of 4 m above modern MSL), only 2.8 m of elevation over contemporary MSL (+120 cm) would have been afforded. Based on historical observations, this is only enough height to protect inhabitants from the most common severe storm surges.

Excavation by Marquardt of a 2.2 m-deep column sample in a midden remnant produced overlapping radiocarbon dates between A.D. 67 and 806. Caloosahatchee I levels contained only Sand-tempered Plain pottery, while Caloosahatchee IIA levels produced mostly Sand-tempered Plain with small amounts of Belle Glade Plain. Midden remains are characterized by many layers of oyster and ribbed mussel shell and brown layers of abundant fish bone (Marquardt 1992b:30).

Analyzed zooarchaeological samples from Cash Mound contexts dated between

A.D. 60 and 750 (Walker 1992b:Table A1; uncalibrated) together show exploitation of oyster bed and mangrove edge habitats, with some exploitation of mangrove/sea-grass habitats. As at nearby Big Mound Key, ribbed mussels from mangrove edges on Cape

Haze peninsula were a significant source of food. However, unlike Big Mound Key,

Cash Mound samples a highly specific activity, that of gathering oysters and mussels

(Walker 1992b:293). Thirty-eight percent of Cash Mound sample MNI represents oyster- bed habitats. Thirty-six percent of the sample MNI represents mangrove edge habitats.

Only nine percent represents mangrove/sea-grass habitats (Walker 1992b:272-273).

Excavation 5 m away in eroding beach deposits revealed a midden surface between 10 and 15 cm thick. The midden produced an extraordinarily-high artifact density, with 99.7 percent ( 588 / 590) of all potsherds typed as Sand-tempered Plain. 94

Two potsherds were typed as Belle Glade Plain. The midden probably corresponds to a

Caloosahatchee I occupation and a stratum described previously by Bullen and Bullen

(1956:17; Marquardt 1992b:31-32). In a sum of all pottery from the Bullens’ (1956) and

Marquardt and others’ (1992) work at Cash Mound, only 49 non-STP potsherds have been recovered. These minority types include 35 BGP, 13 Pasco Plain, and one Glades

Tooled. These numbers may be compared to the 1543 STP potsherds recovered from the

Cash Mound Site; Of these, 955 were from the Bullen’s tests (1956:Table 3).

Recent surface collections from the Cash Mound site include: Twenty chert fragments, a Middle Archaic (Hillsborough type) stone projectile point/knife, six stone sinkers, eight fragments of sharpening stones (Marquardt 1992b:31, 32), 15 various bone artifacts including bone points, hollow-shafted pointed implements, point/pin debitage, a drilled shark tooth, a net-mesh gauge, and miscellaneous worked bone fragments (Walker

1992a:244), and shell artifacts including one lightning whelk tool blank, 18 shell cutting- edged tools (Type A: 1; Type B: 5; Type C: 1; Type D: 1; Type E: 3; Indeterminate: 7),

269 shell hammers (Type A: 3; Type C: 119; Type D: 34; Type E: 4; Type F: 13; Type G:

62; Unhafted: 1; Indeterminate: 33), two lightning whelk pounders, two lightning whelk grinder/gulverizers, a perforator, 18 columella hammers, a columella sinker, a horse conch plane/adze, 29 gastropod adze/celts, 2 quahog adze/celts, 4 gastropod adze/celt blanks, 2 bivalve knife/scrapers, 43 perforated olive (Oliva sp.) shells, a perforated quahog shell, a notched/waisted quahog shell, a net-mesh gauge, a disk-shaped bead, a dipper/vessel, and two spoon/scoops (Marquardt 1992c:217-220).

Pottery from excavations at the Cash Mound strongly suggests that much site use preceded Caloosahatchee periods IIB and III. The surface-collected shell cutting-edged 95 tools (18) and cutting-edged tool blank were probably considered high-status items, may have been controlled by elites during Caloosahatchee IIB and III, and occur less frequently during Caloosahatchee IIA. The frequency of these artifact types in Cash

Mound samples (4.5 percent of all shell artifacts) is lower than the same frequency for

Pineland samples, that represent both contemporary (Caloosahatchee I and IIA) and later occupations (6.4 percent; Patton 1994:68). The ratio of Type C to Type G hammers in

Cash Mound surface collections (roughly 2 to 1) also appears to support the ceramic data.

The latest use of the site was probably in Caloosahatchee IIB or III. This use is not thought to have been very intensive, although from listed artifacts it probably represented high status. Hypothetically, upper strata of the site in many places may contain a lower hammer Type C : G ratio and represent typical Caloosahatchee IIA artifact frequencies.

Substantial Caloosahatchee IIB and III middens may lie unsampled at Cash Mound, but there is little current evidence for this possibility.

The simple shape and dense deposits revealed at Cash Mound do not show unequivocal evidence of communal construction, but observations of several dome- shaped rises (Bullen and Bullen 1956) and a “cleft” in upper elevations suggest some organized construction may have been accomplished. More detailed mapping may suggest areas of patterned construction that could be evaluated through excavation.

Without further proof of site planning, Cash “Mound” appears to be a very large ridge that was occupied, perhaps intermittently, for many years by small groups who gathered oysters and mussels. Since the site is located centrally in a large bay famous for its oyster beds (Walker 1992b:283), it probably represents a perennial, strategic location for resource extraction, helping to account for the site’s frequent re-occupation since the 96

Archaic and its large size (cf. Waselkov 1987:144). After it reached suitable proportions

(perhaps during Caloosahatchee I), it may have been occupied by more than one domestic unit, as suggested by the dome-shaped rises. After several domestic units occupied the site (perhaps during Caloosahatchee IIA), residents may have performed some communal construction (including the site’s apparent cleft) but this is only speculation. There is considerably less evidence for use after Caloosahatchee IIA, consisting principally of the many Type C hammers found on the site’s surface.

Vanderbilt

Bullen and Bullen (1956) also investigated the Vanderbilt site (8CH12). Based on limited ceramic evidence, the Bullens suggest Vanderbilt “. . . was occupied during parts of the Weeden Island influenced and the Safety Harbor influenced periods . . .”(1956:12).

Three of the middens they described from Vanderbilt were low (6-18 inches), oblong

(400-1400 feet long by 50-100 feet wide) shell middens bordering Gasparilla Sound.

None of these midden ridges were explored during excavation. The fourth Vanderbilt midden was a “two-tongued” accumulation of refuse on the flanks of a sand dune, covering about 300 by 400 feet (1956:6). Depth of this latter deposit was greatest where the two tongues joined to form the “main deposit.” This top of this deposit is at about 2 m above modern MSL.

Excavations at Vanderbilt were placed at near the top (Test I) and edge (Test III) of the main deposit and in the northern tongue (Test II). Excavations in the main deposit revealed a midden composed of a few distinct strata above underlying dune sands. These strata are described as at least two sets of thick “clean shell” strata overlain by thin strata of dark gray or black debris and shells (1956:Figure 2). A more refined age estimate for 97 the site is obtained from the Bullens’ published artifact counts (1956:Table1); Numerous

“Strombus hammers” (presumably, Type G hammers) and Sand-tempered Plain pottery in each of the succeeding dark zones make Caloosahatchee I and possible early

Caloosahatchee IIA occupations likely. One Belle Glade Plain potsherd was recovered in the uppermost occupation zone.

This site demonstrates that a pattern of alternating clean shell topped by dense occupational debris—possibly indicative of intentional mounding to create an elevated living surface—extends to Caloosahatchee periods I and probably IIA. The two-tongued shape of the midden deposit may also relate to earlier discussions of ceremonial habitation mounds and their likely relationship to Fort Center traditions (concurrent with late Caloosahatchee I or with Caloosahatchee IIA), but no site map is available. The maximum elevation of the dune midden would only have provided minimal protection from storm surges, or almost no protection during the Wulfert High (ca. A.D. 200-500).

The site may therefore have been abandoned during this period. The linear shape of three other middens at the site is believed to reflect the fundamental Caloosahatchee “ridge” site form also observed on Useppa Island.

John Quiet Mound

The John Quiet Mound (8CH45) is located on the Cape Haze peninsula on the east side of Turtle Bay. It occupies or forms a small prominence within sight directly east of the Turtle Bay 2 site (8CH37) and southeast of Cash Mound (8CH38). This site, a complex with many features, was first described by Bullen and Bullen (1956:33-52). It covers about seven acres (2.8 ha) and like Cash Mound is located on a small peninsula. 98

At its center the site consists of a gently sloping “field” or midden. To the east, the midden slopes up rapidly to a narrow, flat-topped ridge measuring about 20 x 60 feet

(about 6 x 18 m). The Bullens remark that, “Except for its length, this ridge is reminiscent of a temple mound”(1956:31). At the north end of the ridge, a saddle joins it to a large, dome-shaped prominence. To the west and north of the central field, in an area now covered by mangroves, are a series of midden ridges paralleling the shoreline. These ridges are joined by a canal at their northern end and appear likely to have been constructed as tidal fish impoundments. Excavation at the landward end of the connecting canal (“Test IX”) disclosed shell, Sand-tempered plain potsherds, shell hammers, and human skeletal material representing at least one individual.

The Bullens note that archaeologically and geologically, the ridges were not particularly late additions to the site (1956:34). Excavations in the ridges (“Test VII”) produced mostly sand-tempered pottery, and surface finds included many historic Spanish

(olive jar) and Mission Period (Jefferson ware) pottery types.

Excavation in upper levels of the central shell field (“Test VI”) produced mostly

Sand-tempered Plain and a few Belle Glade Plain ceramics. Lower levels produced roughly equal amount of these two types, and the lowest 30 cm was composed of shell with no artifacts. Observed changes in pottery frequencies show declining amounts of

Belle Glade Plain and one Pinellas Plain potsherd, suggesting occupation from

Caloosahatchee IIB or III to IV. The lowest level may represent pre-occupational addition of shell to create a habitable surface. Very few pieces of historic-period vessels were found on the surface of this hypothetical habitation area. 99

The Bullens’ investigation proceeded with excavation of archaeological tests on the platform ridge (“Test III”), on the dome-shaped prominence (“Test V”), and in the saddle connecting these two features (“Test VIII”). All three were excavated to substantial depths and revealed deep stratigraphy, representing a long period of site occupation. The test on the dome-shaped feature was made to determine if it was a burial mound. Excavation produced significant amounts of Belle Glade and Sand-tempered

Plain potsherds and—in the uppermost level—Saint Johns Check Stamped, Glades

Tooled, and Jefferson Ware potsherds. It also demonstrated the feature’s character as a

“. . . typical “layered” midden deposit” (Bullen and Bullen 1956:36), not a burial mound.

Frequencies of Belle Glade Plain and Sand-tempered Plain ceramics in successive levels

(1956:Table 5) suggest a Caloosahatchee III to IV deposit.

The test on the platform ridge (Test III) revealed two zones. The upper zone is a thick (1.3 m) layer of “clean shells,” over which a layer of black dirt, burned shells, and four likely post-molds represents a likely occupational surface. Pinellas Plain, Glades

Tooled, and a 1 : 4 ratio of Belle Glade Plain to Sand-tempered Plain ceramics suggest

Caloosahatchee IV assignment for the final occupational surface. At a depth of about 1.5 m in the platform ridge, the Bullens encountered the second zone, topped by an area of intense occupation, probably a house floor. Two Englewood Incised potsherds (common around A.D. 900 to 1100 or during Caloosahatchee IIB; see Mitchem 1989) were found on top of the zone along with a pile of carefully nested quahog clam (Mercenaria campechiensis, the known as Venus sp.) shells. A meter or more of midden below this surface was a zone of brown sand (“dark dirt”) and shell with occasional large ash lenses. 100

The differences in midden observed for these two zones (clean shell strata versus strata of brown sand, shell, and ash) suggests more rapid midden accumulation after

Caloosahatchee IIB, perhaps as early as A.D. 900. By reference to similar occurrences at

Big Mound Key and Useppa Island, the difference may be related to the expansion of mounding noted earlier by Marquardt (1992b:48). At A.D. 900, the elevation of the main ridge would have been about 1.8 m above contemporary MSL (30 cm higher than present), or only high enough to protect against most yearly storm surges. Subsequent mounding created a living surface at about 3.3 m above contemporary MSL, a sufficient height to protect inhabitants from most severe storm surges.

The test in the saddle between the dome and the platform ridge revealed a pit that had been dug downward from the top of a very compact 30-cm zone of black dirt, ashes, and shell. Three possible post-molds were noted at the north end of the test, also intruding downward from this zone. Frequencies of ceramics from the test (1956:Table

5) suggest occupation of the upper compact layer during Caloosahatchee IV.

Perforated mollusc (“Arca sp.” and “Pecten sp.”) valves were found in all excavations of the ridge, dome, and saddle. These artifacts were interpreted as ornaments by the Bullens, but a more recent interpretation (see Marquardt 1992c:212; Walker

1992b:Figure 15) is that they are net weights. The frequent occurrence of these artifacts at the site supports the hypothetical use of the habitation area’s tidal margin as a fish impoundment.

Frequencies of these artifacts in all levels of the ridge, dome, and saddle excavations are reported by the Bullens (1965:Table 5). Comparing these frequencies to those of the ceramics noted above may indicate periods during which more nets were in 101 use at the site, and by inference, when the fish impoundment was used most. Net weights were frequent in Test III near the buried (Caloosahatchee IIB) surface, and more frequent much higher, in the Caloosahatchee III and IV occupation zone. In Test V, net weights were most frequent in Caloosahatchee III levels and again much higher in Caloosahatchee

IV and V levels. In Test VIII, net weights were abundantly associated with

Caloosahatchee IV pottery types. Based on this hypothesis, the fish impoundment was used during Caloosahatchee period IIB, and much more intensively in periods III and IV.

Limited use also appears to have occurred in period V.

John Quiet Mound demonstrates considerable exploitation of local resources in periods contemporary with, and later than, use of Cash Mound. Evidence for fish impoundments may suggest intensified extraction or food production compared to Cash

Mound, beginning in Caloosahatchee IIB. Cash Mound, it will be remembered, represents an oyster and mussel collection site. Construction of an even, 3.5 m platform using midden may reflect similarities to contemporary Caloosahatchee III and IV constructions at Pineland or Mound Key. Bifurcation may also be observed at John Quiet

Mound, on an axis formed by the canal and the saddle between the two midden mounds

(Bullen and Bullen 1956:Figure 5). Therefore, comparison of these two sites may be used to suggest the adoption between A.D. 800 and 1200 of a new plan for large sites in Turtle

Bay.

Burgess Island

Burgess Island (also known as Little Bokeelia Island) is a relict dune ridge situated off the northwest edge of Pine Island, facing Charlotte Harbor and northern Pine

Island Sound. It covers about 72 acres (29.1 ha) and on its leeward side encloses a small 102 bay (Little Bokeelia Bay). To the northeast of the island, another small bay (Tom’s Bay) is enclosed by several small mangrove islands to the north. The island’s shape is comparable to that of a boomerang, the apex of which points northwest. The island’s two ends extend to the south and east. Archaeological sites on Burgess Island were systematically located and tested in investigations performed for the island’s owner by the author and Gary Ellis (Patton and Ellis 1994). These investigations revealed further indications of changing patterns in the Caloosahatchee settlement system relevant to this study, and are thus recapped here.

Starting at the south end of the island’s uplands on the windward side, a shell midden ridge paralleling the shore for 120 m and 40 m wide (the “Southern Midden”) was investigated. The north end of the midden ridge extends away from the island shore, enclosing a small low area. Test excavation (“Test Unit 4") in the south end of the midden ridge revealed numerous compact strata.

The upper strata revealed in Test Unit 4 contain great quantities of scallop

(Argopectin sp.) shell on top of layered pen (Pinnidae) shell aragonite (see Marquardt

1992b:34-35 for a description of this material). Lower strata contained mostly penshell and sea urchin (Desmotichia) shell in sand, with several very large lightning whelks and horse conchs. Horse conchs were most abundant, and all bore similar upper-whorl perforations. Several fragments of a Belle Glade Plain vessel and few Sand-tempered plain potsherds in a lower stratum suggest a Caloosahatchee IIB or III occupation of the

Southern Midden.

About 40 m north of the Southern Midden a small, isolated deposit of shell and

Sand-tempered Plain pottery was found during shovel-testing. The deposit measures a 103 little over 10 m long, about 5 to 7 m wide, and less than 35 cm thick. The timing and nature of this deposit are unclear, but it is probably associated with larger nearby midden deposits to the south (Caloosahatchee IIB or III component) and north (Caloosahatchee I and IIA component). Periodic isolation of women has been noted as one possible, ethnographically-based explanation for such a small deposit at a short distance from larger middens (Patton and Ellis 1994:50). According to Swanton (1946:713-714), aboriginal women throughout the Southeast were required to or took the opportunity to separate themselves from the community during menstrual periods and following childbirth.

Another small Burgess Island midden, a circular dome about 25 m in diameter, was observed but not tested in the wetlands of the island’s southern mangrove fringe.

Several shell artifacts were collected by previous visitors to this southernmost midden

(Charles Blanchard, personal communication 1994), including Type D hammers, quahog clam (Mercenaria campechiensis) shell anvils, Sand-tempered Plain potsherds, and a lightning whelk adze preform that may have been modified for use as a horn. Based on the possible horn and the location of this small mound facing the inlet to Little Bokeelia

Bay, this small southernmost midden could have functioned as an observation point for southern access to the island’s protected bay. From ceramic and shell artifact finds, a

Caloosahatchee IIA date is suggested.

Near the center of the island, the extensive (approximately 160 x 50 m), partially disturbed Burgess Island midden (8LL47) was encountered near historic and modern buildings. Here, building surface preparation and construction had apparently moved some of the midden to the leeward side of the island to fill in behind a sea-wall and to a 104 large (25 m diameter) “shell-dump” 30 m north of 8LL47. One 1.5-meter square excavation (“Test Unit 1") was placed near the center of the presumed disturbance to test the integrity of the main deposit. Two other 1.5-meter square excavations were placed on the windward (“Test Unit 2") and leeward (“Test Unit 3") edges of the central Burgess

Island midden, where the deposit was expected to be less disturbed and therefore more characteristic of site occupation.

Test Unit 1 revealed a midden stratum approximately 40 cm deep. The top half of the stratum was disturbed, and some of the profile may have been truncated due to midden removal. A pit-like feature was observed intruding downward from the undisturbed midden into darkly-stained sand. Twenty Sand-tempered Plain potsherds were collected from the area around the pit feature at a depth of 30 to 40 cm. Based on these ceramics, the undisturbed midden and pit feature revealed in Test Unit 1 may be provisionally dated to Caloosahatchee I.

Test Unit 2 was made to sample more of the island’s central deposit, and to sample a deeper midden deposit detected in shovel-testing. Excavation in Test Unit 2 revealed a dense, thin shell midden similar to the Caloosahatchee I midden observed in

Test Unit 1, but with no ceramics. At a depth of about 15 cm below this midden, a small deposit of deteriorating shell was found with no ceramics. Two or three chert flakes were recovered in association with this deposit, but were later unavailable for analysis.

Twelve chipped-stone artifacts, tertiary reduction or “retouching” flakes, were also recovered from dune sands a meter below surface in a 1 m x 1.75 m excavation on the southern end of the island uplands (“Test Unit 8"). If the flakes recovered from the lower Test Unit 2 midden were in fact stone artifacts, then perhaps this deposit is 105 associated with a preceramic, Late Archaic component. Like Useppa Island, Burgess

Island is a relict sand dune ridge that during Archaic times would have been close to the now-drowned river valley in Charlotte Harbor. This dune ridge may have hosted

Archaic-period camps that were used seasonally as at Useppa Island (Marquardt

1999a:94) in a periodically-dispersed or mobile settlement pattern.

Test Unit 3, on the leeward side north of the disturbance, produced more evidence of Caloosahatchee I and IIA habitation. Disturbed shell midden analogous to that seen in the two previous tests was observed from the ground surface to a depth of about 35 cm.

Mostly Sand-tempered Plain ceramics and only a few Belle Glade Plain potsherds were collected from uppermost levels of Test Unit 3 and surrounding shovel tests, suggesting the disturbed midden dates to Caloosahatchee IIA.

Portions of several features that intruded into black sand from the bottom of this disturbed shell midden zone were identified in profiles of Test Unit 3, including stake- molds, a pit-like feature, and two post-molds. Excavated levels corresponding to these features contained four more post-molds, another stake-mold, deer bone, quahog anvils, numerous Sand-tempered Plain potsherds, charcoal, and shell. Artifacts suggest a

Caloosahatchee I affiliation for this sub-midden habitation surface and most of the observed structural features.

Another set of features was observed in Test Unit 3, in dark gray sand about 30 cm under this Caloosahatchee I surface. The first feature observed consisted of a thin lens of quahog shell fragments. In excavated levels at the same depth were found a columella hammer, several quahog fragments, one Sand-tempered Plain potsherd, and a shallow pit containing charcoal and shell fragments. In the center of this pit and at about 106

60 cm on either side, stake-molds were noted. These features together are believed to represent an earlier Caloosahatchee I cooking area where quahog clams were prepared over a fire.

Several centimeters under this second set of features in test Unit 3, at a horizon of unstained dune sand, a few chert flakes were recovered. Like the lithic material found in test Unit 2 and on the south end of the island in Test Unit 8, this material is believed to be related to a preceramic, Late Archaic component. Excavation in Test Unit 3 ceased at

130 cm below ground surface, in culturally sterile dune sand.

Burgess Island was also found to have a burial mound upon it (8LL1790), situated toward the island’s northeast end. The burial mound lies about 20 m west of another large, ovoid shell midden. The burial mound has been badly disturbed by pot-hunters and only an estimated third of the mound remains intact. Moderate cleaning of the disturbance revealed that the upper 60 cm of the mound is composed of very large oyster

(Crassostrea virginica) shells in sand. Below this stratum investigators observed a layer of light brown sand fill similar to the island substrate and with very little shell.

Fragments of human bone were noted among looter’s spoil and no context for the uncollected human remains was discernible.

Pottery recovered from burial mound spoil and profile cleaning included 17 Sand- tempered Plain potsherds, a Belle Glade Plain potsherd, and a St. Johns Check Stamped potsherd. From this assemblage, a Caloosahatchee IIA assignment would normally be inferred, except for the appearance of the St. Johns Check Stamped potsherd. This ceramic type generally indicates the period Caloosahatchee III in Caloosahatchee 107 contexts. Original use of the burial mound during Caloosahatchee IIA and re-use later, minimally in Caloosahatchee period III, therefore seems most likely.

The last notable Burgess Island midden is a large, roughly ovoid deposit (the

“Northern Midden”). The deposit is situated 20 m east of the burial mound, and its exact shape was obscured by dense vegetation. The midden measures approximately 60 m wide by 80 m long and rises between one and four meters above modern MSL (Charles

Blanchard, personal communication 1994). “Test Unit 6,” a 1.5-meter square excavation in the western end of this deposit, revealed five distinct strata of densely-packed gastropod and oyster shell with sparse soil on top of the island’s dune sands. Ceramic potsherds were recovered in only the highest stratum of Test Unit 6. Due to the distinctive nature of the Northern Midden, its likely relationship with the Burgess Island burial mound, and its apparent contemporaneity with the period of suspected social

(religious, economic, and/or political) changes under discussion, results from Test Unit 6 are described here in detail.

Stratum I, mostly oyster shell and small lightning and pear whelk (Busycotypus spiratus) shells, produced more artifacts than any lower stratum. Only two non- diagnostic Sand-tempered Plain potsherds were recovered, but seven shell artifacts were recovered. These include two perforated lightning-whelk shells, two quahog-shell anvil fragments, a lightning-whelk shell vessel, an unhafted horse-conch hammer, and a horse- conch-shell gastropod Pounder. Perforated lightning-whelk shells and lightning-whelk shell vessels support the hypothesis that the Northern Midden was used for ceremonial activities in conjunction with the nearby burial mound. Based on ceramics there and the 108 period during which sacred tea ceremonials become common in the Caloosahatchee area, a Caloosahatchee IIB or III date is suggested.

Stratum II consists of gray sand with scallop and small whelk shells. Shell artifacts recovered include two Type C hammers (one of lightning whelk and the other of horse conch shell), two indeterminate hammers (one of lightning whelk and the other of horse conch shell), and a lightning whelk shell columella perforator. These shell artifacts suggest a Caloosahatchee IIB or III occupation.

Stratum III is comprised of gray sand and many crown conch (Melongena corona), pear whelk, and large lightning whelk and horse conch shells. Artifacts recovered from Stratum III include a horse conch Type C hammer, two lightning whelk

Type A cutting-edged tools, four lightning whelk shell vessels, and a worked horse conch shell columella. For this stratum, artifacts again suggest a Caloosahatchee IIB or III occupation and mortuary ceremonial (sacred tea) practices.

Dark grayish brown sand in Stratum IV contained abundant crown conch and pear whelk shells and pen shell aragonite, along with several large lightning whelks and horse conchs. The one artifact recovered from this stratum is a non-diagnostic, worked horse conch columella. As the sand color graded to dark gray in Stratum V, many oysters and other shells similar to those in Stratum IV were noted, but with no additional artifacts.

Light gray sand was revealed below this lowest shell midden stratum.

About 10 cm below Stratum V, several discrete features were apparent in the bottom of Test Unit 6. A pit 25 cm wide, 45 cm long (north-south), and 20 cm deep was found at a depth of 86 cm below the midden surface. The pit was filled with black, greasy sand, charcoal, ash, and shell. Three round post-molds (all 10 to 12 cm in 109 diameter) were located around the pit in the same 10-cm level. Two of the three post- molds were situated about 10 cm from either end of the pit’s edge, and the third was situated on the pit’s west side.

This suite of features has been interpreted as the remains of a cooking area (Patton and Ellis 1994:47). It probably consisted of the pit and some manner of suspending food over the pit, where presumably a fire was kept. If this was the case, then the post-molds on either side of the pit may have served as supports for a suspended wooden rack for smoking or drying of fish or shellfish meat. The black, greasy sand in the pit feature may be explained as a by-product of this process.

Abundant robust gastropod shells—especially those of horse conchs—were recovered on Burgess Island, primarily from the Caloosahatchee IIB and/or III deposits sampled by Test Units 4 and 6. This observation appears to support the increased value of raw material necessary for woodworking tools during Caloosahatchee IIB, as hypothesized above. Observations of many large horse conchs shells in middens and of living specimens in Tom’s Bay prompted the hypothesis that the bay was a regularly- targeted source of these animals. Tests performed on a horse conch collected live (under a State of Florida permit) show that the perforation pattern observed on shells from the island’s southern midden ridge is useful for extracting the edible portions of the horse conch. The necessary perforation were made easily using a Type C hammer replica, revealing the shell columella to which the animal is attached. From this point, the animal was easily detached from the shell using a small sturdy stick and removed by hand.

It seems apparent that the island’s inhabitants were processing horse conchs they collected in abundance, probably locally. As noted above, living specimens were 110 observed in Tom’s Bay during field investigations. If most of the horse conchs harvested by Caloosahatchee people on Burgess Island middens were also collected in Tom’s Bay, then the time at which the bay formed might be indicated by the appearance of abundant horse conch shells in local middens in Caloosahatchee IIB or III (A.D. 800 to 1350).

Earlier establishment of Pleuroploca gigantea nearby in Little Bokeelia Bay or elsewhere is not ruled out, but is not indicated in midden remains.

From these investigations, precolumbian settlements on Burgess Island may be summarized. Archaic settlement of the island was infrequent and light, probably consisting of temporary camps of only a few people. The earliest intensive use of the island is represented by a Caloosahatchee I and IIA shell midden near the island’s center.

By Caloosahatchee I, Burgess Island was the site of a small settlement (160 x 50 m) less than one hectare in size. Tom’s Bay or another nearby habitat suitable for horse conch may not have existed nearby at this time, but many quahogs, other shellfish, fish, and white-tailed deer were processed and consumed.

Settlement at the island’s center continued during Caloosahatchee IIA, during which period a burial ground or low mound was probably constructed on the north end of the island and an “observation point” midden may have been constructed on the south end of the island. Occupation or use of these areas appears to have ended before

Caloosahatchee IIB.

During Caloosahatchee IIB and/or III, Burgess Island was inhabited otherwise;

Instead of one central midden, two Caloosahatchee IIB/III middens were occupied—although perhaps not simultaneously. One of these middens, on the south end of the island, measures 120 x 40 m and is a simple ridge-shaped midden. This Southern 111

Midden ridge may have been used by only one or two domestic units, perhaps sporadically. The other midden, a smaller, wider deposit of uncertain shape

(approximately 65 x 40 m) was constructed near the burial mound on the north end of the island. Mortuary rituals at the burial mound may have been administered by the mound’s inhabitants, who appear to have amassed many valuable shell artifacts. With an estimated maximum height of 3.7 m above contemporary MSL (+ 30 cm), this Northern Midden would have sufficient elevation to protect inhabitants from all but the most severe of storm surges. By contrast, the top of the Southern Midden ridge would have been less than a meter above contemporary MSL.

Shells noted in each of these two Caloosahatchee IIB/III middens reveal that similar species were targeted for consumption. Change in species evident from the

Caloosahatchee I and IIA middens may be related to the La Costa High, a rise in sea-level of about 30 cm above modern MSL, and/or changing local habitats as a result of mangrove progradation. Both middens also show evidence for a focus on the collection of large gastropods useful in the production of shell tools and ceremonial vessels.

However, many finished tools and ceremonial shell vessels were noted only at the

Northern Midden nearest the burial mound and not in the Southern Midden. A status difference between the two middens’ occupations may be suggested based on the unequal distribution of these artifacts and the Northern Midden’s proximity to a burial area. The

Northern Midden may therefore represent a lesser Caloosahatchee IIB/III mortuary- specialist residence mound. Future investigations should seek to determine the shape of this high-status midden. Hypothetically, a bifurcated shape or some other evidence for communal construction may be discerned. 112

Previous Assessments of Caloosahatchee Settlement Patterns

As indicated by the preceding review of literature on several Caloosahatchee site contexts, most prior studies have focused on one or a few sites in efforts to provide preliminary occupational histories. These studies present a wealth of information useful to interpreting Caloosahatchee settlement patterns, but do not often generalize about regional settlement trends. Generalizing sources were not found in abundance, but those that were are discussed here.

Some generalizations about Calusa settlements may be supplied from historic sources. According to these accounts, most of the Calusa population lived on the coast, though there were inland villages whose residents were said to pay tribute to the Calusa chief. Calusa houses were said to be constructed on little hills, possibly meaning on top of midden-mounds or ridges (Hann 1991:287-288; Marquardt 2001).

Widmer (1988:48-49) traces the beginnings of scholarly interest in

Caloosahatchee settlement patterns to the 1950s and 1960s. During this time Goggin

(1954) and Bullen and Bullen (1956) conducted site surveys of the Cape Haze Peninsula, providing baseline chronological information by reference to minority Weeden Island and

Safety Harbor ceramic types. Site-specific results from some of these investigations are highly informative, but these reports can provide only baseline interpretations beyond individual sites. For example, during their survey the Bullens (1956) performed archaeological tests excavations at five sites, three of which are described above. They found that most archaeological sites on the Cape Haze Peninsula were situated along the southern and western sides of the peninsula (Bullen and Bullen 1956:5). 113

Griffin (1974) presents some general facts about changing south Florida settlement. He cites increasingly young radiocarbon dates as one moves south and seaward. “This,” Griffin (1974:343) states, “is most certainly related to past environmental conditions, and in particular to changes in sea-level and shoreline.” This observation is very useful in helping to understand the cumulative effects of environmental change in south Florida’s precolumbian epoch.

For south Florida site types and distribution, Griffin states that other than burial mounds and the unique earthworks of the Okeechobee, there are basically two kinds of occupation in south Florida. These are black earth middens and shell middens. These two site types are said to have been used by the same people in a seasonal occupation cycle. The larger shell middens on the coast represent base villages to which shellfish remains were added during the portion of the year in which they were occupied. Larger interior sites seem to represent the population’s location in other seasons. In the

Everglades, seasonally-occupied black earth middens are persistent but relatively small.

These sites probably represent period occupation by small bands of people (Griffin

1974:343-344).

Widmer (1988:195-223) presents by far the most comprehensive discussion of changing settlement patterns in southwest Florida, a diachronic model based on changing characteristics of the physical environment (referred to henceforth as “Model A”). The model predicts the evolution of chiefdoms in the Caloosahatchee area by A.D. 800, the central hypothesis this investigation seeks to test. It is discussed below, in detail.

Perhaps most importantly, Widmer’s model explores in detail the cumulative environmental changes that Griffin (1974) had noted earlier. 114

Evidently, regional surveys such as that of the Bullens or Goggin (1954) were infrequent in the Caloosahatchee area after the 1950s. As a result, published maps do not exist for many Caloosahatchee sites. However, both carefully surveyed and preliminary topographic maps for several sites have appeared in print during the last 15 years. Luer and Archibald’s (1988a) inventory project produced reasonably accurate topographic sketch-maps and surface collections for 34 Caloosahatchee sites. Several of these maps were used as a basis for the analyses and maps presented here.

Publication of topographic maps for Caloosahatchee sites greatly assists inter-site comparisons of communal constructions. Torrence alone (1999b) and with others (1994) has carefully produced and published topographic maps of three Caloosahatchee sites.

Marquardt (1992b) presents topographic maps for five of the Caloosahatchee sites discussed above. Data from maps published by Torrence (1999b), Marquardt (1992b), and Torrence and others (1994) were used in pre-field analyses for this study, but in only two cases were portions of these maps reproduced in figures presented here (Marquardt

1992b:Figure 2; Torrence 1999b:Figure 1).

With topographic maps of several Caloosahatchee sites, possibilities for analysis of regional settlement trends are greatly enhanced. For example, Jones (1999) has presented a technique useful in the analysis of Caloosahatchee settlement patterns: three- dimensional computer modeling of shell midden sites. Estimations of site dimensions and typological classification during pre-field analysis were accomplished using Jones’ methods on previously published maps and those made during the course of field investigations. 115

Simply stated, the method involves entry of several three-dimensional elevation coordinates for a (shell midden) feature. Multiple computer algorithms performed on these coordinates interpolate between them by various methods to create several three- dimensional “solid” models representing each midden. Average volume and area estimates are obtained from the resulting multiple models of each midden (Jones 1999).

An archaeological site inventory compiled for Lee County also provides useful information for discussion of regional settlement patterns. The inventory was made in the development of a resource management plan for Lee County by Bellamo and Fuhrmeister

(1992). The management plan also includes a site predictive model that outlines seven environmental features that allow location of archaeological resources in Lee County.

The features are fresh water, major rivers or streams, relatively well-drained soils, high elevation, oak/palm hammocks, coastal lagoons or bays, and off-shore keys. Elevated areas within 400 m of permanent fresh water are considered “high probability” for long term precolumbian use. In marginal environments such as interior lowlands, areas of high elevation (especially next to ponds, sloughs, or swamps) are likely to contain evidence of small, limited-activity campsites. All areas within a meter of mean sea level are likewise considered high-probability, especially near lagoons and on elevated terrain

(Bellamo and Fuhrmeister1992:22, 29-31).

Model A

This model (Widmer 1988) presents abundant data on the changing physical environment and hypothesizes the effects of those changes on “settlement-subsistence” patterns. The processes of environmental change tracked for south Florida is accepted here as described, if only in a cumulative or gradualist sense (sea-level oscillations have 116 also occurred). While settlement patterns are described by the model only as a result of adaptive responses to gradual environmental changes, more resolution may show other influences on the character of southwest Florida settlements. More importantly, when complex societies are viewed primarily as a functional response to environmental change, the social processes by which political complexity arises—and its social or environmental costs—may go unnoticed. However, most other aspects of the model are accepted here implicitly. It is extensively summarized to demonstrate its usefulness in explaining the general relationships between settlement and subsistence in precolumbian southwest

Florida.

The model tracks changing precolumbian occupation of three sequentially- arranged south Florida environmental zones, reconstructed at several points in a developmental sequence. Zone I represents the Gulf coastal plain where it is transected by freshwater streams, Zone II represents the coastal plain with scattered oasis-like sinkholes, and Zone III represents the coastal plain where only rare, deep sinkholes were located (1988:195-197).

At around 11,000 B.C. Zone I is said to have been north of current-day Cape

Haze, Zone II was located adjacent to the east and south as far as current-day Sanibel

Island, and Zone III covered all of Florida to the south of Zone II. Most population was concentrated in the more-productive Zone I, north of today’s Charlotte Harbor.

Occupation during this time at Warm Mineral Springs was located in Zone II, at a location visited seasonally by “micro-band” or extended family units, with all ages and sexes represented. Occupation in Zone III is represented by Little Salt Spring, interpreted as a small, xeric, game extraction-hunting site. Such hunting camp sites were most likely 117 used very ephemerally by adult males, in a seasonal pattern dependent on the availability of water—primarily during the wet summer season (1988:196-197).

As sea level rose, and with it the terrestrial water table, the resource zones moved laterally eastward into the interior of the south Florida peninsula (and further south). By

8000 B.C., Zone I reached as far south as current-day Sanibel Island, Zone II reached as far south as current-day Naples, and Zone III covered the rest of south Florida. Because of the eastward movement of these zones, the entire settlement pattern also moved east.

The result was more Zone II “temporary camps” further east (in three locations now surface-visible). Primary “base camps ,” however, were still in coastal locations (now submerged approximately 12 m by cumulative sea-level rises). Earliest evidence for use of the coastal zone comes from this period, indicated by a marine-shell artifact (atlatl spur) from Warm Mineral Springs. Other than a move eastward, no significant change in settlement patterns is inferred between 11000 and 8000 B.C. (1988:198-201).

Known sites, and perhaps all of south Florida, appear to have been abandoned during the early Archaic (7000 to 5000 B.C.) for reasons that are said to be puzzling.

Extreme aridity during this time is suggested as a possible explanation, and one which also helps to explain the extinction of certain obligate tropical megafauna (such as sloth).

Only resources zones II and III pertained then in peninsular southwest Florida, with Zone

III covering inland areas and all of the coast south of a boundary situated somewhere near current-day Sanibel Island. Zone III was unoccupied, as perhaps was zone II (1988:201-

203).

A shift to more mesic conditions by 4500 B.C. was accompanied by a higher sea level and as a result, more surface-available water in ponds and sloughs in northern south 118

Florida. South Florida was still rather arid, and brackish estuaries had not yet formed.

Since sea-level rise had begun to slow, Zone I was by then located near the present coastline, reaching as far south as the modern city of Port Charlotte. Zone II extended inland to the east and along the coast south as far as current-day Boca Grande Pass. Zone

III once again covered the extreme interior and south end of the Florida Peninsula, including the site of today’s Lake Okeechobee. At Little Salt Spring, formation of a nearby slough from overflow provided a cemetery for a 1 or 2 hectare Middle Archaic base camp, possibly indicative of “macro-band” social grouping. More than a thousand individuals were interred in the slough-cemetery (Widmer 1988:203-204).

Small micro-band temporary camps associated with Zone II were located further south and east at sites such as Bay West, with mortuary evidence of only 35 to 40 individuals. The arid Zone III possessed mostly small, ephemeral hunting camp sites, or was abandoned entirely. Hunting camps could also have been located in Zones I or II due to increased population density there. Overall populations are not thought to have risen, but simply concentrated eastward due to rising sea-level. Social organization during this period was probably characteristic of mobile hunters and gatherers. Some achieved leadership positions may have been developing (as evidenced from grave goods at the

Gauthier site), but no corporate leadership positions typical of the “big-man” type of political organization are expected (Widmer 1988:204-206).

By 3500 to 2500 B.C. in the Pre-Glades adaptive stage, moderating sea-level rise and the formation of inland surface water (particularly Lake Okeechobee) resulted in increasingly productive brackish estuaries. These estuaries continued to develop in productivity until about 700 B.C., when they reached their maximum areal extent. As the 119 estuaries gradually became more extensive and more productive, settlement patterns changed to take advantage of these resources. Evidence for this comes from Marco

Island, where a slight Pre-Glades shift toward aquatic resources is noted in samples of dietary faunal remains. The interior areas adjacent to the coast were not as productive, were uninhabited, and served as refuge areas for faunal resources hunted in the zone immediately adjacent to the coast (Widmer 1988:206-210).

In spite of these changes, there is no population increase and there are no large permanent villages at this time, although large seasonally occupied base camps are quite common in the now-drowned estuary zone of the Ten Thousand Islands. Without sedentism, increased fertility is not yet present. Although critical carrying capacity may have expanded on the coast and population density increased as a result, not until late

Pre-Glades times was there sedentism and a change in fertility rates as a result of sedentism (Widmer 1988:211-213).

Then by 700 B.C. and the end of Pre-Glades periods, sea-level and terrestrial hydrology reached optimal levels for estuary and inland productivity. A responsive and complete adaptive transformation occurred, represented archaeologically by the rise of the

Glades Tradition. The Glades adaptation is characterized by primary reliance on coastal aquatic exploitation with secondary dependence on game and wild plants. Sociopolitical and technological changes happened as a result of this environmental change, but no great cultural adjustments were necessary for effective exploitation of these environments, since environmental changes were more quantitative than qualitative (Widmer 1988:213-

215). 120

Settlement patterns associated with the nascent Glades Adaptation (in Glades I,

500 B.C. to 700 A.D.) involved the abandonment of small, temporary coastal camps and establishment of larger sedentary villages closer to the water (e.g. 8CR107 at 20 ha,

8CR117 at 4 ha). Evidence of habitations (a postmold) from one of these sites has been dated to ca. A.D. 280. Colonization of the coastal zone may have occurred by fission of these large villages, when a segment of a village would establish a new occupation in an open reach of the coastal zone (Widmer 1988:215-216).

Large sedentary villages were favored for occupations because: (1) they allow intra-settlement exogamy that maximizes efficiency of arranging marriages, (2) they would have been an effective defense against raids, and (3) they would have been favored by the increased productivity of cooperative work. As a result, population grew relatively unchecked. A “big-man” type of social organization was present, because the process of village fissioning would allow conflict resolution without strong authority structures

(Widmer 1988:216).

Eventually, open segments of the coastal strand dwindled and fissioning was no longer a viable resolution for most conflicts. In this situation, particular lineages or ranks became instrumental to conflict resolution, and social statuses became ascribed (marking the emergence of chiefdoms). In the early stages of this process, village headmen were not necessarily chosen based on lineage. But as critical carrying capacity’s threshold slowly approached, the need for increased efficiency and frequency of leadership decisions increased. By A.D. 800 (in Glades II, A.D. 700 to 1200) the threshold was reached due to expanding population. In response, sociopolitical ranking was fully 121 developed. The resulting social formation lasted throughout the late prehistoric period and is identifiable with the historically known Calusa (Widmer 1988:216).

Archaeological support for this is seen in the fact that almost all south Florida sites have components dating from after A.D. 800, while only some have earlier components. This is seen as consistent with the process of fissioning and rapid establishment of new villages. Also, post-A.D. 800 sites are larger than previous sites.

The existence of ranking by A.D. 800 is supported by construction of non-mortuary platform ceremonial mounds shortly after A.D. 700 (the Wightman site is given as an example, but see Walker et al. 1994 and Ceremonial Platform Mounds, above).

Demographic filling-in is said to be indicated by intensive exploitation of Big Cypress

Swamp. Most sites there have both Glades II and Glades III (A.D. 1200 to after 1513) components in equal proportions. Sites are small, circular black-dirt middens that represent temporary hunting and collecting camps (1988:217).

Such small hunting, fishing, or collecting stations were another feature of the settlement system, beginning in the Glades I period. These collecting stations are described as analogous in function to agricultural fields. Initial use of these sites was very temporary, especially during Glades I. They sometimes represent targeted extraction and processing of one or a few species, such as specialized fishing camps in the coastal zone or turtle collection sites in the interior. Comestible products from these extraction sites were probably dried or smoked and then taken back to the large, sedentary villages for consumption. Some of the larger collecting stations may have had permanent or extended seasonal occupations, but goods would appear to have been used at the 122 collecting stations or at the permanent villages, not moved to the interior or otherwise out of the coastal zone in exchange (Widmer 1988:217-218, 257).

Thus Widmer’s settlement model maintains Griffin’s (1974) two site types—large shell midden base sites and black earth middens—but holds that the coastal shell middens were occupied permanently and all other occupations were very temporary. The earliest evidence for these sedentary occupations comes from A.D. 280, so population growth leading to chiefdom formation must have occurred very slowly over 520 years. This resulted in regional populations crossing the threshold of carrying capacity for the first time by A.D. 800, when the Calusa social formation arose (Widmer 1988:218-219).

Subdividing the coastal shell midden sites into two size ranks, Widmer defines three total Glades site types (1988:256). These types include large nucleated villages over 10 hectares in area, smaller villages of 3-4 hectares, and small fishing hamlets or collecting stations. On average, large sites are assumed to represent occupation by 400 individuals. Smaller villages are assumed to represent occupation by about 50 persons.

Fishing collecting stations are usually small and under 0.1 hectare (1000 m2) in area

(Widmer 1988:256).

Plotting all known Glades sites in the Caloosahatchee area (n=36) and the Ten

Thousand Islands district (n=17) (1988:Figures 32 and 33), Widmer demonstrates the preponderance of large and small village sites in the coastal zone. These figures assume all sites to be contemporaneous, an assumption not based on empirical observation

(Widmer 1988:258-260).

Noting the distribution of many collecting station in Big Cypress Swamp, Widmer infers the distribution of yet-undiscovered collecting stations in the Caloosahatchee area’s 123 marshy interior zone. The Solana site on the Peace River apparently represents one such location (ca. A.D. 400), but occurs before the supposed period of chiefdoms. The archeological invisibility of many Caloosahatchee collecting stations after A.D. 800 is, according to Widmer, a perplexing problem that deserves future research. Limited data may signify the virtual disappearance of this site type by that time, but this is not expected

(Widmer 1988:257, 259).

This “Calusa-type” settlement pattern is said to be apparent in the distribution of

Glades Tradition sites in both the Caloosahatchee area and in the Ten Thousand Islands district. The two regions are separated by a break in site distribution between Estero Bay and Naples. In these two places, sedentism—the condition that allowed population growth—is seen as a fundamental characteristic of the settlement pattern, and cause for the formation of chiefdoms. As described above, sedentism was encouraged by environmental changes between 3500 and 500 B.C., but not represented by evidence of structures until A.D. 280. Widmer (1988:259-260) estimates the coastal Glades II

Caloosahatchee and Ten Thousand Islands populations at 4800 and 4250, respectively.

Chiefdoms that resulted from this sedentary settlement pattern are believed to have functioned in conflict resolution and maintenance of productive efficiency, roles that provided opportunities for social ranking to be expressed. The primary way this is believed to have happened was through differential and seasonally controlled access to fishing grounds. Another way social ranking is believed to have been expressed is in the construction and maintenance of cisterns. Cisterns would have tended to reinforce continued nucleation of populations for access to water resources. Requirements for fishing-gear cordage, available only from interior palm hammocks, also would have 124 encouraged lineal claims on these areas and differential access to their resources much as in the case of fishing grounds (Widmer 1988:263-265).

Seasonal resource shortages caused by stochastic events (hurricanes and similar production-crippling disasters) required frequent re-allocation of resources, reinforcing chiefly roles in redistribution of these resources. Due to an assumed, extreme day-to-day variability in production, daily redistribution through reciprocal exchange would have been typical of Calusa villages. This form of redistribution operated through lineage heads or between village chiefs and is though to have been similar to usual forms of potlatch on the Northwest Pacific Coast (Widmer 1988:267-268).

However, the Calusa population was much larger than that of Northwest Coast examples and was highly centralized, requiring more redistribution transactions. In the absence of long-term food storage, the need for reallocation induced the maintenance of large, nucleated villages. Long-term food storage is not believed to have been possible for the Calusa. Catching mass quantities of fish is ruled out because fish resources in southwest Florida are spread out throughout the year rather than occurring in periodic over-abundance as during migrations. Some food storage occurred, but not enough to alleviate the need for daily redistribution. The necessity for effective daily redistribution of staple goods was a driving force in the rise of Calusa chiefdoms, and probably allowed hereditary leadership at lower population sizes and densities than those normally requiring hereditary leadership. Prestige and status were generated by control of staple wealth (fish resources) (Widmer 1988:268-269).

Important micro-demographic changes would be associated with the rise of

Caloosahatchee chiefdoms. In period Glades I / Caloosahatchee I, the most productive 125 village locations began to enjoy higher fertility rates and greater control over more energy through their larger corporate groups. Larger corporate groups required organized leadership that when implemented, made production more efficient. More efficient production allowed further growth, completing a positive-feedback loop that was adaptive for participants because it gave them access to the resources of the corporate unit.

Growth at individual villages was probably encouraged to some degree (Widmer

1988:269-270).

But when pioneering settlement ended, social and environmental circumscription meant that further growth beyond critical carrying capacity was population pressure.

Local corporate groups then had to secure permanent access to critical resources through hereditary authority. Groups who initially settled the most environmentally favorable locations had numerical military advantages, but inter-village warfare was not endemic.

Instead, punitive raids may have been directed at productive resources (such as fish traps) during conflicts. Generally, peace would have been fostered in order to maintain inter- village alliances and resolve disputes (Widmer 1988:271).

Regarding social structures, early Glades / Caloosahatchee corporate groups are believed to have been ramages, with rank measured by distance from an original parent group with which relations are maintained after village fissioning. After A.D. 800, unilineal descent corporate groups are expected by Widmer. These groups do not maintain relations with parent villages after fissioning occurs. Unilineal descent groups are favored by areas that allow self-provisioning of all subsistence needs. Ramage groups should be associated with hamlet-type settlements and unilineal descent groups should be associated with nucleated villages. In the large nucleated villages of the ancestral Calusa, 126 unilineal descent is believed to have allowed more effective maintenance of crucial inter- village ties than the ramage system could due to demographic and environmental circumscription (1988:272-273).

According to the model, interregional warfare was probably endemic for the

Calusa population. The result was limited, highly circumscribed, fixed resource areas.

These resource areas were probably fishing grounds and places that produced raw materials for fishing gear (particularly cordage, believed to have come from palms).

Competition between Tocobaga and Calusa over control of the entire coastal zone is indicated by historic sources. This type of intergroup warfare is believed to have arisen as a check on population growth, in response to dwindling resources. Therefore, chronic warfare is believed to have appeared at the about the time carrying capacity was reached,

A.D. 700 to 800. It is assumed that Calusa village infighting was short-lived when it occurred and was quickly mitigated by the establishment of a strong paramount chiefs

(Widmer 1988:273-274).

Interregional trade and exchange are not believed to have been instrumental in the development of Calusa chiefdoms. However, exchange was probably important for the maintenance of alliances between existing chiefdoms. Trade in technology probably did not develop because interior groups had nothing to trade other than, perhaps, high-calorie roots. Based on finds from Fort Center and historic accounts, it is possible that roots were traded from the interior for coastal shell and shark teeth. However, these coastal artifacts are believed to have come from the east coast. Additionally, the estimated population of the Belle Glade area (1500 persons) is not believed to have been large enough to adequately supply the population of the southwest coast (10,000 persons) with 127 starchy roots. Instead, political usurpation of the interior through intimidation is believed to have allowed access to the few resources the interior could offer (Widmer 1988:274-

275).

Lastly, the model offers a second scenario for the role of interregional exchange and chiefdom formation. In this scenario, production of surplus economic goods is stimulated by interior chiefs in exchange for coastal prestige items. Prestige would have been gained by the interior chiefs through access to valuable coastal goods. The coastal chiefs would have converted received, low-cost economic goods into their own prestige through redistribution (Widmer 1988:275-276).

Discussion of Previous Settlement Models

Historic sources echo the settlement pattern indicated by archaeological evidence, concentration of the Caloosahatchee population in the coastal zone. The “inland villages” referred to might be associated with Belle Glade area village sites, since little evidence of large sites though to represent villages has been found in the adjacent interior. Or,

“villages” may refer to scattered small, seasonal collecting stations. Several sources of archaeological evidence cited above have indicated the occurrence of structural posts in middens, so historic descriptions of houses on “little hills” most likely refers to hills of shell midden.

Bullen and Bullen (1956) described the site distribution on Cape Haze as concentrated to the south and west of the peninsula. Considering the alternative location on the peninsula (the windward, west side), the eastward distribution reflects a preference for sheltered, leeward habitation common to long-term coastal residents and especially evident on barrier islands. The concentration of sites to the south on the peninsula 128

(including Big Mound Key) is probably a function of proximity to the extensive mangrove forests and shallow bays there. At a regional scale, the south end of the Cape

Haze Peninsula is also located strategically with regard to distances and access by water- craft to the Gulf of Mexico (through Boca Grande Pass) or to northern Charlotte Harbor.

Thus, regional transportation advantages may also help to explain the concentration of sites at the south end of the Cape Haze peninsula.

Griffin’s (1974) statement of a clear relationship between settlement patterns and sea levels is echoed and elaborated by Widmer’s (1988) model. Since the Pleistocene in peninsular Florida, there has been a cumulative eastward and southward movement of environments suitable for human habitation. That this process did not occur at an even rate is shown clearly by Widmer’s characterization of the early Archaic south Florida as arid and uninhabited. Shorter variations in the rate of change, in periodic reversals of the overall cumulative trend for sea-level rise, have been demonstrated through archaeological and geological evidence (Stapor et al. 1991; Walker et al. 1995).

Griffin’s (1974) pioneering site typology for south Florida is advantageous because the categories are formal and do not necessarily imply functions. Burial mounds, inland earthworks, coastal shell middens, and black-earth middens make up the list of types. However, interpretation of coastal shell middens as seasonal rather than sedentary occupations has been contested (Widmer 1988:218). It now seems likely that large sedentary villages with shell middens existed at least since the Middle Archaic period

(Russo 1994).

Sedentism need not be viewed as a liminal condition, and changes in degree of sedentism are possible for a seasonally-migrant population such as Griffin envisions. 129

Also, not all members of a “sedentary society” may live in the same groups year-round.

Some might disperse seasonally inland, for instance, as Griffin has asserted. Based on site inventory data from the Lee County (Bellamo and Fuhrmeister 1992:17), inland black earth middens are not present in sufficient numbers to account for seasonal occupation by otherwise coastal populations. If populations moved inland seasonally, they probably either dispersed into small groups or went far inland. For a fishing, hunting, and gathering folk, dispersal of some persons in seasonal forays seems most likely. It would also continue long-standing patterns of use for the interior as hypothesized by Widmer

(1988).

Additionally, the fact that coastal sedentary occupations are known from the

Middle Archaic should not imply that all coastal shell midden sites since that time represent solely sedentary settlement patterns. Seasonal use of some coastal shell middens has been demonstrated during the middle and late Archaic, also (see Useppa

Island above). It is likely that seasonal resources in particular locations encouraged only seasonal use of many extraction sites (or “collecting stations”) in all precolumbian time periods. Like coastal shell midden mounds, coastal extraction sites may represent sizes disproportionate to the activity they represent, compared to interior extraction sites.

Similarly-used small extraction (black earth midden) sites in interior locations contain fewer shellfish remains and as a result, less volume.

The evolutionary model presented by Widmer (1988) is very comprehensive.

Not only does it state the causal mechanisms believed to have operated in establishing

Caloosahatchee chiefdoms, it states some implications that may be tested. The strongly physical-environmental approach assures its applicability to the small time-scale it 130 presents (13,000 years of change are described by the model). However, it is supported by limited archaeological evidence and many expectations derived from theory.

The beginnings of a settlement-pattern approach are visible in Widmer’s dichotomy between large (10 ha) and small (3-4 ha) sites plus collecting stations (0.1 ha).

However there is no information on rank-size distribution or demonstration of regional settlement hierarchy, crucial for demonstrating a regional polity (Liu 1996:239-240).

These expectations generated by Widmer’s model are entirely testable, while others do not currently appear to be. Restating the model’s expectations in view of known evidence allows identification of the archaeological correlates necessary for testing the model’s fundamental premises. In other words, by critically reviewing the model it is possible to outline the data needed to test it in its most favorable form. To aid discussion of various possible amendments or alternatives to the model, it is referred to below as Model A. Subsequent alternative hypotheses are referred to sequentially as scenarios or models following alphabetical order (e.g., Scenario B, Model C, and Model

D).

For Model A, sedentism is correlated with increased fertility and population rise that made chiefdoms necessary. Evidence for year-round sedentism and communal architecture at the Horr’s Island during the Middle Archaic (Russo 1994) presents a significant contradiction to Model A. Sedentism is not thought to have been practical in the southwest Florida environment until late pre-Glades times, around 700 B.C.

According to the Model A, sedentism fostered moderate but steady population rise for

1400 years, bringing the regional population to the threshold of critical carrying capacity and chiefdom formation around A.D. 700. But since sedentism based on coastal 131 resources was practical at 4000 B.C., it would seem that population in excess of critical carrying capacity (and chiefdom formation) should have been reached much earlier (ca.

2600 B.C.).

One solutions to this seeming contradiction may be considered under the rubric

“Scenario B.” From an evolutionary perspective, observed long-term (Walker

1992b:277) fluctuations in the physical environment (the oscillating sea levels discussed previously) invite interpretation of the coastal adaptation as a rapid, “punctuated equilibrium” (Gould and Eldredge 1977) response to environmental processes of shorter duration. Additionally, even though the model’s timing concerning the existence of sedentism in southwest Florida seems to be too late, the model’s causal force may still hold with regard to widespread sedentism. Changes in settlement predicted by Scenario

B assume a more dynamic system of environmental causes and more highly elastic cultural effects.

Scenario B

Although the rising mean sea level may have supported increasingly productive estuaries and sedentism in some locations by 4000 B.C., mean sea level was not optimal until after 700 B.C., according to Widmer (1988:213). Then, 1200 years of high- amplitude fluctuations in sea levels may have discouraged intensive and/or extended sedentism in the coastal zone until after A.D. 500 when the Wulfert High had receded.

Population growth associated with intensive coastal sedentism began only after fluctuations became less frequent and less severe—and productive locations (fishing grounds) became fixed over many generations. Then after 300 years, population levels 132 reached critical carrying capacity and necessitated chiefdom formation by when originally predicted, A.D. 800.

In Scenario B, “sedentism” is seen not as a liminal state but as a condition that may describe a society in a place or time period to varying degrees, represented best by continuous variables (Rafferty 1994). This allows preservation of the Model A’s focus on correlating sedentism with population growth and functional adoption of chiefdoms.

However short 300 years may seem for such a drastic population increase, neither that assertion nor its alternative (that it is a reasonable amount of time) are based here on any demographic projections.

At any rate, a question arises from this conjecture; “If such rapid achievement of optimal environmental conditions and chiefdom formation is possible, could not chiefdoms have occurred during earlier, brief periods of near-present sea level?”

Answering this question will require finer reconstructions of sea levels prior to 700 B.C., since it is possible that conditions favorable to population rise endured for over 300 years in earlier periods. As is evident from this discussion, Model A’s strict correlation between the emergence of sedentism, population increase, and chiefdoms may become difficult to maintain if similar conditions existed previously but did not give rise to chiefdoms. But appeal to dynamic sea-level models may allow some researchers to demonstrate more clearly the adaptive origin of southwest Florida chiefdoms. These dynamic models are well-substantiated and warrant inclusion in future discussions of

Caloosahatchee political development.

The 300 years allowed for establishment of favorable environmental conditions and population growth in Scenario B approaches the time scale of “historical” events, as 133 traceable in human consciousness (e.g., migrations, the rise or fall of exchange networks).

This means that the role of medium- and long-term (Walker 1992b:277) processes other than sea-level oscillation may be discussed for Caloosahatchee chiefdom formation, including economic and ideational processes. Social processes operating over several decades or centuries may have had a determinate role in chiefdom formation and maintenance, but are not argued for strongly by Model A. In response to this realization, an alternative model of Caloosahatchee social evolution (“Model D,” presented in

Chapter 3) also considers ideational and economic processes alongside those of environmental change.

Model C

Model C represents the possibility that the Caloosahatchee social formation until period V is best characterized as egalitarian, with statuses achieved rather than inherited.

Marquardt (1988, 1991, 2001) has suggested that contact with the European-dominated economy of the early sixteenth century may have disrupted existing power relations in the

Calusa world, leading to political intensification. If highly valued European goods were obtained by people at the edges of Calusa hegemony, decentralization of authority may have resulted. In response, existing authorities may have intensified tributary relations, militarism, and other tools of domination. The result may have been what Gailey and

Patterson (1988) call a weak tribute-based state.

Although this formulation describes a shift from chiefdom to state (by assuming existing hegemony and tributary relations), a more radical shift may be proposed to represent a null hypothesis. Instead, a “big-man” society with acting headmen in a sequential hierarchy, evident in central south Florida during A.D. 200 to 800 (Austin 134

1997:598), may have persisted until being transformed by an influx of European goods.

Authorities then may have quickly emulated the more complex organizational structures of Europeans or other Florida groups such as the Apalachee (Hann 1988). From historic accounts of strong institutional hierarchy among the Calusa (Hann 1991) this seems unlikely, but may be considered alongside other explanations to assist in hypothesis- testing.

Model C assumes coastal sedentism and mound-building by the Middle Archaic and thereafter during optimal sea-level and climatological conditions, such as after A.D.

500. But this model predicts no significant change in total population, settlement patterns, or productive intensity since the time of Fort Center’s most active period (A.D.

200 to ca. 700). Each village would represent one of many non-unique autonomous groups with various achieved statuses, a burial mound, and other middens (Austin

1997:598). Warfare would not have been common until Caloosahatchee period V.

Exchange would have continued to be focused on long-distance trade by only a few high- status people. Evidence presented above for control of local and interregional exchange would have to be demonstrated as pertaining to Caloosahatchee contexts no more ranked or controlled than in Weeden Island or Belle Glade contexts. Here, again, settlement patterning data are highly important.

Emergence of Chiefdoms

Political complexity is one aspect of social complexity that has been extensively discussed by archaeologists. As multiple variations in political complexity have been discussed, it has been useful to refer to some societies as “chiefdoms” (or ranked societies, or intermediate societies), based on commonalities in scale and mode of 135 production (Earle, ed. 1991; Fried 1967; Peebles and Kus 1977; Wright 1984). Because typological approaches are limited in their ability to span the variable social dimensions of many cultures, some have instead preferred to speak of chiefdoms as societies with simultaneous hierarchies. But despite being somewhat overdrawn or reified (Anderson

1994:7), the chiefdom concept remains a useful heuristic device.

It has been argued convincingly by several specialists on Mississippian and

Mesoamerican chiefdoms that the rise of political complexity in those areas was not a function of economic control (as in land ownership or central storage). Rather, in almost every case populations were initially drawn into complex sociopolitical systems and manipulated by an ideology of religiously sanctioned centrality, symbolized by ceremonial constructions and exchange in foreign objects. This position has even been accepted by most detractors, because “real economic control” of resources in pre-class societies would have been possible only in the context of a natural-order cosmology.

Some have even maintained that study of strict economic controls is inappropriate for understanding the origins of chiefdoms, applying only to the operation of complex chiefdoms with well-established class structures (Earle 1991:8-9).

Defining chiefdoms, Anderson (1994:7) calls them multi-community political units under the control of a hereditary decision-making group or elite. He also notes the difference between simple and complex chiefdoms (following Steponaitis 1978; Pauketat

1994; Wright 1984) in terms of control hierarchies. Simple chiefdoms have only one level of control beyond the local community, with leaders drawn from an elite subgroup.

Complex chiefdoms have two levels of control hierarchy above the level of the local community, with leaders belonging to a chiefly class. These definitions recognize 136 elements of heterogeneity (hierarchical control levels) and inequality (“class” or more precisely, ascribed status).

Anderson’s work also recognizes the growing preference for explaining the development of social hierarchies (and their information processing capabilities) in terms of social actions. Most often these actions involve competition for control over labor, strategic resources, or prestige items (1994:13). In Anderson’s view, the most successful explanations are those that encompass both material and social factors.

Anderson treats “pristine” chiefdoms, those with a pattern of gradual emergence, as a separate case from “secondary chiefdoms,” or those which formed quickly in response to the existence and/or encroachment of other chiefdoms or more complex systems. Stability of chiefdoms is a central concern for Anderson’s cycling study. He describes secondary chiefdoms as less stabile than pristine ones, due to the lack of time to develop a rationalizing idiom for inequality (1994:18). Some factors said to characterize the emergence or spread of chiefdoms include control of labor and surpluses through tribute mobilization, control of exogenous trade and alliances, ideological maneuvering, rapid growth in elite population and polity area following emergence of a chiefdom, factional competition, and warfare (Anderson 1994:23-30; Earle 1991).

Prestige goods, rituals, and the sacred authority they represent are critical to the development of social inequality (see Helms 1979). Appeal to sacred authority has the potential to legitimize or promote acceptance of social inequality (Anderson 1994:14).

Goods imbued with symbols of sacred authority become important in mediation of day- to-day power relations, so emergence of chiefdoms depends to some degree on participation in exchange of prestige goods (Friedman and Rowlands 1977). 137

Warfare is of special consequence, described by many as a primary factor behind the spread of the chiefdom form of social organization (Anderson 1994:28). Carneiro

(1998:36) believes further that the first chiefdoms arose when “a temporary war leader continuing to exercise his extraordinary powers over allied villages beyond the time that he normally gave them up.” This exercising of “chieftaincy” over a more extended period might become institutionalized in a chiefdom, with more or less stability.

To this point, and of great importance to the current study, Milanich (1998) distinguishes for Florida between groups of villages in an “exercise of complexity,” (e.g.,

Timucua) and the truly complex societies (Calusa and Apalachee), which are denoted by a complex settlement hierarchy and other archaeological evidence, persisting over time

(Milanich 1998:247-249). Regarding the concept of chiefdoms, Milanich points out that a taxonomy of simple and complex chiefdoms does not accurately reflect Florida’s indigenous political landscape. Rather, he speaks of a continuum of changing political complexity through time (1998:247). And as in the case of the Timucua of north Florida, chieftaincies or simple chiefdoms may not always be visible archaeologically.

Peebles and Kus’ (1977) treatment of ranked societies or chiefdoms identifies the many limitations of causal chains linking chiefdoms with redistribution. They also point out five archaeological correlates of ranked societies that have enjoyed some popularity of use. Although the classificatory emphasis of earlier culture-evolution works (e.g. Fried

1967) is still apparent, these correlates appear very useful in revealing forms of sociopolitical heterogeneity and inequality. These are the primary indicators this study employs for model-testing. 138

Peebles and Kus’ first correlate (1977:431) is that chiefdoms should reveal clear evidence of non-volitional, ascribed ranking of persons. This most commonly involves using mortuary data to reveal both superordinate and subordinate dimensions of ascribed status. The superordinate dimension would be ordered without regard to age and sex, while the subordinate dimension would be ordered by age and sex.

The second correlate (Peebles and Kus 1977:431-432) is that chiefdoms should show a hierarchy of settlement types and sizes, with positions of settlements reflecting their position in a control network. This agrees with the statements above on the nature of chiefdoms as multi-community political units.

The third correlate is that, all other things being equal, settlements should be located in areas which assure a high degree of local subsistence sufficiency. By assuring local semi-independence of communities, adaptive flexibility is maintained and information-processing (managerial/control) costs are reduced (Peebles and Kus

1977:432).

The fourth correlate of chiefdoms is evidence of organized corporate labor that transcends the basic household group. This may involve the construction of monuments or other corporate works that require planning and a large labor force. It may also involve organized part-time craft specialization in conjunction with inter-societal trade (Peebles and Kus 1977:432).

The fifth and last correlate identified by Peebles and Kus (1977:432-433) is that chiefdoms will generally show evidence of society-wide activity corresponding to the most significant and least-predictable limiting factors for a society. For example, if warfare is a major threat, defensive organization should be evident. If flooding from 139 storms is a major threat, then protective structures such as breakwaters and terracing should be evident.

Wright (1984:43) has presented three additional correlates that have been shown to be useful (e.g. Anderson 1994). Regarding settlement hierarchy, the seat of a paramount in a complex chiefdom will typically show differences in size and architectural design from ordinary chiefly centers. Residential segregation of elite habitations is also suggested as a correlate of chiefdoms. Finally, regarding mortuary behavior, elite burials should be isolated areas of major ritual display.

Definitions and Existing Evidence of Chiefdoms

Based on this review of literature, some definitions appear useful. It appears that chiefdoms are best seen not as one well-defined type of society, but as an area in the dynamic continuum of political complexity. Chiefdoms are generally described as multi- community political groupings under the hereditary control of elites (simultaneous hierarchies). For analytical purposes, I distinguish here between simple and complex chiefdoms based on levels of control over production: A simple chiefdom has two levels of control, a primary village and several dependent villages, indicated in settlement patterns by two levels of site hierarchy (a chiefly village and several dependent communities. A complex chiefdom has three levels of control, indicated in settlement patterns by three levels of site hierarchy (a paramount village and several primary villages, each with dependent settlements). Caution must be exercised in applying these definitions, though. A series of non-unique central villages each with communal architecture and smaller dependent sites may represent an egalitarian society with leadership embodied in sequential (not simultaneous) hierarchies (see Austin 1997:598). 140

The process of thorough model-testing requires more data than can be supplied from settlement patterns alone. Relevant sources above were gathered to provide some of the additional information necessary for testing hypotheses on Caloosahatchee chiefdoms.

This information may be synthesized in terms identifiable in the archaeological record.

Using the information reviewed above, Peebles and Kus’ (1977) and Wright’s (1984) correlates may be discussed specifically for the Caloosahatchee area.

Correlate 1

Peebles and Kus’ first correlate (1977:431) is that chiefdoms should reveal clear evidence of non-volitional, ascribed ranking of persons. The mortuary data summarized by Luer (1999) and by Marquardt (2001) indicate proliferation of grave goods and variations in burial modes by A.D. 900 to 1000, suggesting increasing differentiation between superordinate and subordinate dimensions of ascribed status. The superordinate dimension does not appear to be ordered with regard to age and sex, while the subordinate dimension may appear to be so ordered.

A superordinate dimension appears to be represented by interments with exotic and ceremonial goods (valuable shell artifacts and Safety Harbor, Weeden Island, or other non-local ceramics or artifacts) in isolated sand burial mounds. By A.D. 900 to 1000, lightning-whelk drinking vessels appear in isolated Caloosahatchee sand burial mounds with Weeden Island and Englewood Safety Harbor pottery vessels bearing designs similar to those seen on contemporaneous emergent-Mississippian vessels (Luer 1996:20). These grave goods are found with flexed or bundled remains of adults and children, or later (by early Caloosahatchee III) sometimes arranged in prone (extended) positions (Marquardt

2001). 141

A subordinate dimension appears to be represented by interments with no exotic or ceremonial goods in sand ridges and habitation middens, and perhaps also in sand burial mounds. Shortly following the appearance of frequent burial mounds in the

Caloosahatchee area, between A.D. 1001 and 1161, several individuals on Buck Key were buried in a sand ridge. These burials were flexed or fragmentary and contained no grave goods (Marquardt 1992b:41-44; Marquardt 2001). However, arrangement of at least four fragmentary skeletons appears to have centered around one articulated, flexed female adult (Marquardt 1992b:44). This positioning suggests a difference in status between the individual in the central position and those buried around her.

These divergent mortuary contexts may be contrasted and compared to earlier burial mound contexts of Archaic, Fort Center, and Caloosahatchee IIA periods. Earlier burial contexts contain all ages of individuals with either no grave goods or with only utilitarian artifacts (clothing, tools, and in Caloosahatchee IIA, plain pottery). Included objects are apparently unsorted by age and sex and burials are located in springs or ponds, sand ridges, or on the periphery of mounds and middens (Marquardt 2001). Boggess

Ridge also contains whelk-shell vessels and occasional exotic (Weeden Island) pottery types, but most of the ceramic grave goods are stacks of plain wares (Luer and Archibald

1988b; Marquardt 1992b:46). Specific associations of different pottery types with individuals are not evident in the Boggess Ridge data. Likewise, some nearby (Sarasota area) sand burial mounds around A.D. 1000 also contain no evidence of special status, with numerous flexed or bundle burials and no ceramic grave goods.

Regarding grave goods, but not mounding, the Buck Key burials appear similar to

Sarasota-area contexts and those of earlier periods. Contemporaneous Caloosahatchee 142 burials in isolated sand mounds are similar to earlier egalitarian patterns in use of mortuary mounds, but have exotic high-status grave accompaniments whereas the Buck

Key burials do not. The best way to account for this difference appears to be the intentional association of Belle Glade and/or Weeden Island-influenced mortuary ceremonial traditions with high status. By A.D. 1000 this association was probably widely recognized in the Caloosahatchee area.

According to this view the Buck Key burials—and any other post-A.D. 900 ridge or midden burials—represent a deviation from contemporary “Belle Glade-styled” mortuary mound use. Perhaps this deviation was an expression of, or a response to, emergent social ranking. Burial in midden habitation ridges and sand dunes appears to have been an early Caloosahatchee custom. If communal burial mounds were popularized in the Caloosahatchee area by high-status agents who aspired to be elites

(Caloosahatchee persons or Belle Glade immigrants), anyone continuing midden or dune burial after A.D. 1000 may have done so as an expression of resistance and/or autochthonous ethnic identity.

Mortuary evidence of social ranking is not always present when ranking exists, but where mortuary ranking appears in archaeological evidence, social ranking may usually be inferred with confidence. In the former case, social status may not be expressed clearly in mortuary treatments for intentional reasons (Hodder 1982).

Mortuary evidence of non-volitional ranking may, in fact, be one of the last elements of evidence to be deposited during chiefdom formation. This is because burial ceremonies generally serve to resolve and ease social tensions, not create new ones (Nassaney

1991:195). By the time ranking in Caloosahatchee burial contexts is evident (ca. 143

A.D.1000), initial steps toward inequality may have been history and high-ranking individuals may have relaxed efforts to mask relations of inequality. As a result, emergent patterns of non-volitional Caloosahatchee ranking may be very different from later patterns. For example, if Mound Key’s two burial mounds were used simultaneously, elites and commoners may have each had their own burial mounds and classes of grave offerings. Burial of both superordinate and subordinate persons in separate and distinct mounds—such as suggested by evidence from Mound Key—may therefore be an even later, more flagrant reflection of social ranking in tension with

“equality.”

Widmer (1988:95-97) found little Caloosahatchee II evidence to support Model A, but determined that long-term use of burial mounds was evident. Allowing one or two hundred years for relaxation of rank-masking during burials, Caloosahatchee mortuary evidence does not contradict Model A’s position that chiefdoms existed in the

Caloosahatchee area by around A.D. 800. However, mortuary evidence does not alone allow confident recognition of chiefdom formation earlier than A.D. 900.

Correlate 2

The second correlate (Peebles and Kus 1977:431-432) is that chiefdoms should show a hierarchy of settlement types and sizes, with positions of settlements reflecting their position in a control network. This agrees with the statements above on the nature of chiefdoms as multi-community political units. It is also the primary means by which this study seeks to contribute to the question of Caloosahatchee chiefdoms.

The advent of ranked burial patterns appears to be correlated with increased mound-building at several of the Caloosahatchee sites reviewed above. From Useppa 144

Island, Pineland, Big Mound Key, and John Quiet Mound comes evidence that midden mounding may have accelerated at all these sites between A.D. 780 and 1000, or at the

Caloosahatchee IIA/B transition and continuing in period IIB. Bifurcated designs using platform mounds—reminiscent of the Fort Center mortuary-mound complex—appear at

Big Mound Key and Pineland during this time. Evidence from Big Mound Key and

Mound Key suggests that platform summits were inhabited by high-status, potentially elite individuals. The period of accelerated mounding may also coincide with the appearance of a hierarchy of mounded sites, but this has not yet been established through archaeological evidence.

No settlement pattern study has yet shown that a contemporaneously occupied hierarchy of settlements existed in the Caloosahatchee area. Without this type of data, no regional polity can logically be inferred. Chiefdoms are characterized by Johnson and

Earle (1987:207) on the basis of their coordinative scale, said to extend beyond the village or local group to include many villages in an area.

General expectations for Caloosahatchee settlement patterns have been noted above. Specific descriptions of various site types and their occurrences is not attempted in this section, although previous investigations indicate the following: (1) In the

Caloosahatchee area, there are various shell middens on the coast, some black earth middens in the interior, and isolated burial mounds; (2) There is variation among coastal shell midden times, sizes, shapes, and communal constructions that may be instrumental for site hierarchy analysis; (3) There do not appear to be enough black earth middens in the Caloosahatchee area interior to match shell-midden occupation, but this could be due to poor sampling. Few systematic, full-coverage archaeological surveys have been 145 accomplished in the area. Seasonal dispersal of coastal populations to the interior (as noted by Griffin 1974) is still a viable hypothesis and would make interior sites especially hard to locate and more likely to have been destroyed in historic times.

Correlate 3

The third correlate is that settlements should be located in areas that assure a high degree of local subsistence sufficiency. By assuring local semi-independence of communities, adaptive flexibility is maintained and information-processing

(managerial/control) costs are reduced (Peebles and Kus 1977:432).

Widmer (1988:259, Figure 32) has shown that Caloosahatchee settlements are focused in the coastal zone near mangrove and marine-tropical meadow habitats. These habitats are of primary importance regarding potential resources available to human exploitation (Widmer1988:116). Walker (1992b) has shown that of five exploited habitats (oyster bed, mangrove/sea-grass, mangrove edge, littoral/Gulf, and backwater), oyster-bed and mangrove/sea-grass habitats were most frequently targeted by

Caloosahatchee peoples.

Subsistence sufficiency can be correlated with dietary diversity and the ability to exploit diverse and abundant habitats (Peebles and Kus 1977:432). Southwest Florida has featured abundantly productive estuaries at least since the Middle Archaic period, although their productivity may have varied depending on conditions of sea level and climate. Some idea of changing subsistence sufficiency may be suggested by reference to

Walker’s comparative percentages of exploited habitats (1992b:Figure 3). From these data it appears that since the Late Archaic occupation on Useppa Island, a more diverse range of habitats was exploited in the Caloosahatchee area. Big Mound Key samples 146 from between A.D. 780 and 1020 (uncalibrated; Walker 1992b:Table A1) reveal the most diverse (even and rich) habitat exploitation.

In sum, sites in the Caloosahatchee area are located near diverse, highly productive resources that allowed a high degree of subsistence sufficiency. Post-Archaic

(Glades Tradition) sites in the Caloosahatchee area may reveal more diverse (and therefore more self-sufficient) exploitation than earlier sites, but samples for comparison are limited to those from five sites (Walker 1992b). More detailed comparison using additional zooarchaeological evidence from other sites could perhaps refine the chronological dimensions of changing subsistence sufficiency. The diversity of exploited habitats may be expected to change according to sea-level and climatological conditions.

Correlate 4

The fourth correlate of chiefdoms is that there should be evidence of organized corporate labor that transcends the basic household group. This may involve the construction of monuments or other corporate works that require planning and a large labor force. It may also involve organized part-time craft specialization in conjunction with inter-societal trade (Peebles and Kus 1977:432).

Evidence for both interregional trade and communal construction has been discussed extensively above. An important product of this discussion was the recognition that extensive down-the-line exchange and communal construction were processes that operated in egalitarian Florida “big man” societies prior to A.D. 800. It is thus apparent that this correlate cannot alone indicate a chiefdom political organization (simultaneous hierarchy). Communal productive organization is considered a useful element in defining either sequential or simultaneous hierarchies, but no less one than the other. As one of 147 several other correlates discussed, it remains useful in identifying potential

Caloosahatchee chiefdoms.

Caloosahatchee site evidence reveals four types of evidence for corporate labor, including burial mounds, ceremonial platform mounds, fish impoundments, and canals.

A hypothesis for the use of mounds as flood escape platforms has also been discussed, and is revisited under Correlate Five. Current evidence of ceremonial platform mounds suggests that Caloosahatchee mounds were probably used for high-status habitation by

A.D. 900 (at Big Mound Key). Periods IIB and III appear to bracket much of the mound, canal, fish impoundment, and burial mound construction for the sites discussed, although communal construction may have also occurred later than this at Pineland, Mound Key,

John Quiet Mound, and elsewhere.

Correlate 5

The fifth and final correlate identified by Peebles and Kus (1977:432-433) is that chiefdoms will generally show evidence of society-wide activity corresponding to the most significant and least-predictable limiting factors for a society. For example, if warfare is a major threat, defensive organization should be evident. If flooding from storms is a major threat, evidence will be found for protective structures such as breakwaters and terracing. For Caloosahatchee peoples, flooding from storm surges was probably the most significant and least-predictable limiting factor. Based on current sea- level data (Walker et al. 1995), conditions in which a society-wide response would have been advantageous include the (+ 1.2 m) Wulfert High (ca. A.D. 200 to 500) and—to a lesser degree—the (+ 0.3 m) La Costa High (ca. A.D. 850 to 1400). 148

Shell midden deposits may have provided some protection from flooding in all

Caloosahatchee periods, but evidence of increased deposition at several sites appears after

A.D. 500 (Marquardt 1992b:48). This increased mounding does not seem to be a response to the Wulfert High. Some Caloosahatchee sites occupied during late period I and early IIA appear to have been mounded enough to provide between one and three meters of elevation as protection from storm surges. Active habitations during this time were situated on high natural elevations (Useppa Island, Burgess Island, Pine Island), on ancient shell midden ridges (e.g. Cash Mound), or may have been relocated to inland locales. Perhaps more of south Florida’s population was then concentrated in Belle Glade sites such as Fort Center, and less at large sites on the flooded, storm-prone coast. Based on evidence from the Belle Glade area (Sears 1982; Austin 1997), much communal construction during the time appears to have been focused at these interior sites.

Mounding accomplished at several large sites (Big Mound Key, Pineland, Mound

Key) during the La Costa High probably would have been very useful for escaping floods, even in the most extreme known storm surges (periodicity 500 to 1000 years). As a result, these platform elevations appears to have been more than necessary for general flood protection. Therefore, these platforms’ elevations may suggest long-term building

(planning), an extreme reaction to flooding, and/or ideological motivations such as religious expression or competition for status. Here it seems appropriate to suggest again that the extreme storm surge of A.D. 680 + 80 may have stimulated more rapid midden accumulation throughout Charlotte Harbor. A lag of between 20 and 120 years between the storm and mounding on a massive scale may be suggested by current dates for large mounds (Pineland’s Brown’s Mound and Big Mound Key’s Western Mound). This 149 general lag (1 to 4 generations) may represents the time between initial storm recovery and full mobilization of a social response to flooding.

Earlier it was noted that if mounding was accomplished (at least in part) as a response to coastal flooding of previously occupied sites, then mounds would be of sufficient height to provide protection from the worst observed storms. This appears to pertain in the Caloosahatchee area when considering the A.D. 680 + 80 storm surge and the subsequent construction of several mounds to over 5 m in height. These data generally appear to satisfy Pebbles and Kus’ fifth correlate of chiefdoms.

Long canals may be viewed as another organized, society-wide response to the a significant and unpredictable limiting factor—winds. It is common knowledge to all open-water canoeists and most other boaters that wind direction determines how fast (or if) one may travel in a given direction. By providing wind-protected passages and short- cuts through islands, construction of long canals probably helped to ensure planned interactions between residents of various settlements or sub-regions of the

Caloosahatchee area. For the same reason, these canals probably ensured open routes to and from resources in various locations at intermediate or long distances (Luer 1989).

Correlate 6

Wright’s (1984:43) first correlate concerns the character of settlement hierarchy, a condition not currently known to accurately describe the Caloosahatchee area. If a settlement hierarchy of three levels can be demonstrated, then by Wright’s correlate it may be predicted that the seat of the paramount in this complex chiefdom will show differences in size and architectural design from ordinary chiefly centers. A distinction between bifurcated sites with multiple mounds and those with single mounds has been 150 noted already by Torrence (1999b), and may bear fruit toward Wright’s first correlate.

However, interpretation of topographic data from a few sites needs to be reinforced by archaeological investigation before a site hierarchy is deduced. In this case, multiple non- chiefly communities have not yet been associated temporally or spatially with chiefly sites, thus establishing the role of lesser communities in a political hierarchy or the number of control levels in that hierarchy.

Correlate 7

Residential segregation of elite habitations is also suggested by Wright (1984) as a correlate of chiefdoms. Marquardt (2001) has also noted this requirement. Several researchers have suggested that elite habitations are represented by platform mounds. But as yet, no study has documented common habitation areas at a site containing platform mounds (and thereby, presumably, elite habitations). Without this evidence for segregation, Correlate Seven may not be satisfied.

Correlate 8

Finally, regarding mortuary behavior, Wright suggests that elite burials should be isolated areas of major ritual display. For this correlate, the discussion of burial mounds above appears to supply necessary information. Burial mounds are interpreted as ritually constructed, and so this context is itself a product (and area) of major ritual display.

Also, south Florida burial mounds may have served to identify lineage lands (Austin

1997:598). On these burial mounds in the Caloosahatchee area, sacred tea and other mortuary ceremonials appear to have been performed by specialists who promulgated

Belle Glade/Weeden Island religion and architecture. These individuals were probably either high-status agents in sequential hierarchies as at Fort Center, or elites in a 151 simultaneous hierarchy (ranked society) who used their knowledge of rituals to legitimize differential access to the means of production.

It is important to note the distinction between elite burials being in isolated areas

(away from habitation) and being isolated from commoner burials (not a condition of

Correlate Eight). The latter condition can not be demonstrated in all burial mound contexts, since some isolated burial mounds show a diversity of burial modes (Luer 1999) and grave goods. This might suggest that both elites and commoners were at times interred in the same burial mounds but with varying types of grave goods. However, the superordinate burial context does appear to be consistently represented after A.D. 900 by interment in sand burial mounds containing abundant ceremonial and exotic artifacts

(e.g., Luer 1996), isolated from habitation sites.

Summary

The preponderance of evidence appears to suggest that Caloosahatchee chiefdoms were present by around A.D. 800. Chieftaincies may have existed earlier, but this cannot be established empirically. Published data have been cited to infer that the conditions necessary for this hypothetical emergence were established during periods I and IIA.

During this time high-status mortuary specialists in the Caloosahatchee and Belle Glade areas participated in far-flung, down-the-line trade. Later evidence from Caloosahatchee and Belle Glade sites has been presented to suggest that interregional trade in useful shell tools and ceremonial goods was more tightly controlled after A.D. 800 by high-status members of Caloosahatchee society. This hypothesis is represented as Model D, below.

As yet, three lines of evidence related to settlement patterning remain to be demonstrated in order to determine more conclusively that precolumbian chiefdoms 152

Table 3. Recognized correlates for Caloosahatchee ranked society. See text for correlate descriptions. Correlate: pertains. may or may not pertain. 1X 2X 3X 4X 5X 6X 7X 8X

existed in southwest Florida. When data that bear on the necessary evidence are gathered, a more complete view of Caloosahatchee chiefdom formation is expected to emerge. With evidence for or against all correlates, the various hypotheses proffered for the Calusa social formation may be then evaluated in an informed manner. CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN

Model D: Caloosahatchee Political Economy

Model D, a model for Caloosahatchee political development collateral to Models

A and C, may be considered. Models A and D focus on theoretical processes that operate at different temporal and spatial scales, so either might be true to evidence non- exclusively. Both (including Scenario B of Model A) are exclusive to Model C (the

“null” hypothesis).

Model D seeks to resolve the contradiction represented by early sedentism and late chiefdom development by focusing on economic intensification, rather than changing sedentism or population growth, as a determinant of chiefdom formation. Economic intensification may foster some population increase, but demographic changes may generally be explainable as a result of shifting demands for surplus labor (e.g. Nassaney

1991:208). In Model D, sedentism appears long before chiefdoms, which are viewed as the products of efforts to maintain control of surplus labor and goods and thereby intensify production for exchange. Thus the development of high environmental productivity is a necessary condition, but not a cause, for intensification and chiefdom formation. Like Scenario B, Model D assumes the dynamic sea-level curves of Stapor et al. (1991) and Walker et al. (1995).

Highly productive estuaries existed since at least 4000 B.C., providing resources for coastal populations. Large coastal sites are unknown from previous periods due to

153 154 cumulative coastal submergence since 10,000 B.C. A case of communal construction of burial mounds and a village enclosure during the Middle Archaic suggests the existence of sequential hierarchies (Johnson 1982; Nassaney 1992:113), but not simultaneous hierarchies (Russo 1994:107-108) at these large coastal sites. Sequential hierarchies are temporary structures that mobilize corporate labor and persist only as long as they reflect the various interests of different individuals or smaller groups. When these systems fail, occasionally a more inclusive simultaneous hierarchy develops through the controlling powers of force, the ability to manipulate or persuade, or sanctified authority (Nassaney

1992:113).

These large sites belonging to sequential hierarchies were probably occupied continuously, but by a variable proportion of the total population. Much of the population probably moved seasonally to more favorable extraction sites elsewhere on the coast or in the adjacent interior, away from the seasonally storm-prone coast and then toward it again during its more productive and mild seasons. Permanent “core” occupation of sites adjacent to highly productive areas would have maintained access to fishing grounds during seasons of dispersal. Year-round occupation near critical resources would seem to be (the only) archaeological evidence from which corporate control of fishing resources may be inferred with confidence. As a result, the corporate ownership of some fishing grounds may be projected as early as evidence for year-round sedentism on the coast (ca. 4000 B.C.).

Fluctuations in rates of sea-level and climatic change are assumed to have contributed to varying degrees of coastal sedentism. During short-term and medium-term periods of environmental extremes (following Walker 1992b:276-277; e.g., very low or 155 very high sea-level oscillations, tropical storms, inlet dynamics, or droughts), the coastal zone may have been occupied by fewer individuals year round, and extraction sites would have been relocated relative to the adjusted shoreline. During longer, more favorable environmental conditions (moderate sea-level variation, moderate to high rainfall), more sedentary coastal settlement would have been allowed.

During periods of high productivity when the population was more sedentary and concentrated in the coastal zone, production could be intensified temporarily through communal participation in subsistence strategies such as net-fishing or shellfish collection. However, control of corporate labor and resources would be weakly established through appeals to kinship in a domestic mode of production. Motivations to produce a surplus against seasonal times of need (for example, by catching and drying large quantities of fish) may have contributed to development of consensual, temporary hierarchies.

But there was no strong need for interdependency of groups due to patchy environments. Subsistence did not usually require access to resources beyond those of the corporate group. If it did, as in years of severe subsistence shortages, participation of village headmen in down-the-line exchange networks probably served to cement access to emergency relief. A domestic mode of production was directed toward social reproduction, not productive intensification and growth of more population than could be supported by the environment in the worst of several years. Any communal projects then represented temporary management of labor, as centralization (sequential hierarchies) was balanced or counteracted in time by seasonal dispersal. 156

This situation persisted throughout most of the prehistory of southwest Florida.

Middens accumulated at several sites, but most often at a very slow rate or with little depth. At least one post-Archaic period of more intensive coastal sedentism and sequential hierarchy formation was allowed by moderating sea levels, beginning around

A.D. 500. For the following 1000 years, sea levels are not though to have fluctuated beyond 60 cm from modern MSL. Warm, wet conditions and slightly high sea level

(MSL + 30 cm) during the La Costa High characterize most of this millennium. An exceptionally severe storm around A.D. 680 + 80 (probably the worst in 500 to 1000 years) may have helped to prompt increased midden accumulation at previously occupied sites.

Within this context of egalitarian corporate structures and temporary social ranking, several sequential hierarchies were transformed into simultaneous hierarchies by maintaining the power to direct communal production long after custom would have normally allowed. The leaders of particular sequential hierarchies may have grasped more permanent power to direct corporate labor, initially through appeal to sanctified authority and little or no direct control of productive resources. But soon afterward, leaders of simultaneous hierarchies (for ease, “chiefs”) are believed to have mobilized and controlled surplus production of high-status items for exchange.

The especially severe (4 to 5 m) ca. A.D. 680 + 80 storm surge discussed above may have provided the stimulus that was instrumental to some persons becoming established as providing for the needs of others, by mobilizing construction of sand burial mounds and flood-escape and elite-residence platforms. Leaders of the new simultaneous hierarchy (“aspiring elites”; cf. Pauketat 1994:13-21) were already religious specialists 157 who bore responsibility for proper burial ceremonials. After A.D. 680 + 80, they may have also emphasized periodic construction of communal mounds by systematic deposition of shell, perhaps requiring little individual effort on the part of participants

(see Russo 1994:107). The result would have been accrual of more shell faster, especially species representing more shell bulk such as oysters and gastropods. From this point, making periodic collections (or receiving gifts) of robust lightning whelk shells seems a short step. Aspiring elites took advantage of opportunities to collect and manipulate these shells, because they were necessary for production of ceremonial statuary and canoes, the primary means of production and transportation in the Caloosahatchee world.

Building of platform habitation mounds throughout this time therefore represents a process by which mortuary specialists could have maintained their status and access to wealth through corporate ritual. In doing so, they may have established the communal utility of (1) mounds as protection from flooding, (2) their role as performers of necessary mortuary rituals and protectors at burial mounds, and (3) their ability to subsidize canoe- building for others. Model D explains platform building as a response to stochastic environmental variability. Elite participants attempted to wield sustained authority and power while offering protection from physical and psychic danger. Commoner participants probably sought access to the assurances of authority and protection from danger for themselves and their ancestors. High-status habitation on familiarly U-shaped platform mounds and isolation of burial mounds are suggested as correlated evidence of increasing secular usurpation of prior “egalitarian” mortuary-ceremonial structures. Thus,

Caloosahatchee shell middens probably do not reveal a high degree of social stratification earlier than the proliferation of lone burial mounds, ca A.D. 900. 158

The new elites may have acted “according to individual and group perceptions of the social order in an attempt to reproduce themselves and reduce risk in access to resources by manipulating social situations” (Nassaney 1987:131). If so, settlement patterns and construction forms probably changed between A.D. 800 and 900 to reflect the transformed social order. New constructions incorporating patterns from Belle Glade mortuary ceremonialism may have signified continuance of traditional institutions, while masking an inchoate social transformation and increasingly unequal relations of production. Increasingly labor-intensive communal projects should be expected after this period, including mounds made through secondary deposition, earthen mounds, and intensive food-production projects (fish impoundments).

Model D explains the late isolation of burial mounds and diversification of burial modes as evidence of increasingly mystifying and socially ranked mortuary rituals by the new elites. Changes in burial rites appear during this time as a result of increasing status differentiation, but only after social ranking was well established. Burial rites function to ameliorate social tensions. Conspicuous grave goods would not have been typical, especially in the early years of the new chiefdom. Also, there may have been too few wealth items in circulation then to afford burial of some. But eventually, variation in burial accompaniments and modes occurred as social ranking was reproduced.

Regional settlement patterns are also expected to have changed as the simultaneous hierarchy arose and persisted. First, intensification generated competition of rival elites in other (originally) sequential hierarchies. Those who did not likewise intensify to produce a surplus may have risked loss of prestige or influence in their own group. Competition may have eventually led to population consolidation and 159 monopolization of the region by one simultaneous hierarchy. Limited warfare or coercion may have been an aspect of this competition, but display and distribution of wealth is believed to have played the major role, and may be argued from archaeological evidence for control of robust lightning whelk shell artifacts.

Regional polities such as the one predicted by Model D are inherently unstable due to questions of succession and factional competition. Therefore, some combination of strong ideology, coercion, or economic control must have reinforced claims to power if the simultaneous hierarchy persisted—especially at points of succession when rivalry was most likely to arise. In the Caloosahatchee area, control of the means of production through participation in exchange networks is believed to have been one factor critical to the hierarchy’s duration. Collecting, exchanging, and manipulating the shells of robust lightning whelks allowed elites to maintain their control of mortuary ceremonies (their legitimizing power) and control of canoes (means of production). But for many years, the strongly ideological element of mortuary-religious legitimation probably insured the durability of the “pristine” Caloosahatchee chiefdom (Anderson 1994:18).

By controlling and circulating tools useful for producing canoes and other wooden objects—including perhaps ceremonial wooden statues—Caloosahatchee elites spread their influence within and beyond their region. By removing many of these items from local circulation, they also made them more valuable. Accumulating and trading these items for exotic ceramics and other goods limited the supply available to non-attached craftsmen and interior groups. Commoners may have collected and crafted these items for elites by A.D. 1000, based on the interpretation of Buck Key presented above. It is likely that by this time (if not sooner) the role of mortuary specialist had expanded to 160 include ceremonies necessary for canoe production. Similar ceremonies are a common feature of the ceremonial life of many maritime societies. For example, water-craft construction in Tahiti was always accompanied by appropriate rituals, the elaborateness of which depended on the type of canoe and rank of the builder (Ferdon 1981:240).

This process is conceived as highly similar to that described by Arnold (1987,

1992) for the Chumash of California’s Channel Islands. Their development of several socially important specializations said to have helped create and strengthen social ranking based on differential access to the goods, services, and raw materials tied up in the productive process (Arnold 1992:1). The process appears to have focused largely on production and control of wealth in the form of beads and watercraft, but other possible specializations included political roles (chief, messenger, doctor) and producers of other goods (baskets, mortars, nets, wooden bowls, bows, and others).

Over-intensification is one process complex social formations sometimes exhibit, and probably the major process contributing to the instability of exchange networks

(Cobb 1991:180). Diachronic discontinuities appear in social interaction and population density in many areas of the Southeast (Nassaney 1992:132), and might also in the

Caloosahatchee area. It is possible that over-intensification among Caloosahatchee peoples led to contradictions between abilities to produce domestic supplies and surpluses for exchange. The result would have been periods of decreased exchange activity and as a potential result, the undermining of authority by rebellion and reversion to egalitarian social structures. The ease and repetition with which this occurs suggests long-term cycles, each lasting less than a few generations. 161

For the Caloosahatchee area, many of the site complexes such as Pineland, Mound

Key, or Big Mound Key may each represent subsequent (and sometimes contemporaneous) simultaneous hierarchies that waxed and waned in power. But regionally, simultaneous hierarchies probably persisted until historic times.

Consolidation of population may have been used as a strategy for dealing with environmental perturbations and warfare or rebellions. In such a case, the settlement pattern would have changed to a less heterogenous pattern, encompassing fewer decision- making levels and allowing for additional capacity for coercion or protection from enemies. When European goods began to be collected from shipwrecks on the Florida

Keys at the margins of Caloosahatchee hegemony, the process of political intensification written of by Marquardt (1991) created a weak, tribute-based state. Military coercion was by then, it seems, the primary means of exerting chiefly power in nearby hostile regions.

Data Requirements

One potential problem with testing this and other models (summarized in Table 4) is the requirement for diachronic control in assessing archaeological sites. Recognition of a settlement hierarchy characteristic of chiefdoms must be based on multiple contemporaneous sites. Ceramic seriations have been used extensively in previous settlement studies to provide diachronic control, but the majority of ceramics in the study area (sand-tempered and undecorated) are conservative for long periods of time. As a result, many ceramic assemblages are less useful as temporal indicators than one would wish (Cordell 1992:105).

Compounding this difficulty is the fact that only a few sites in the area have been stratigraphically excavated in several places to reconstruct occupational histories. 162

Table 4. Hypotheses discussed in text. Main Site Hypo- Sedent- Popula- Ex- War- Political Econ. Hier- thesis ism tion change fare Econ. Process archy

Model A Redistri- Present by Gradual 2 levels by Not Interre- Strong bution A.D. increase A.D. 280, important gional interde- of 280 500 3 levels or limited war pendence staples B.C.- by A.D. to endemic A.D. 800 800 interior Cal. to C. C. C. IIB-V

Scenario Redistri- Present Rapid 2 levels by Not Interre- Strong B bution since increase A.D. 280, important gional interde- of Middle A.D. 500- 3 levels by or limited war pendence staples Archaic, 800 to A.D. 800 to endemic rises Critical interior Cal. after ca. Carrying IIB-V A.D. Capacity 500

Model C Limited, Present No 1 level Long- Cal. V Weak non- since significant (none) distance increase interde- attached Middle increase in and in war pendence produc- Archaic, south minor tion for rises Florida. regional exchange after ca. A.D. 500

Model D Attached Present Increases 2 levels by Long- More Weak craft since or A.D. 800, distance hostility interde- special- Middle decreases 3 levels and possible pendence ization Archaic, with shortly regional after and and rises after demand afterward Cal. IIB, manipu- control of ca. A.D. for labor likely in lation wealth 500 Cal. V

Controlled surface collections have been made at many sites (Luer and Archibald

1988a), but stratigraphic information has not often been recorded. Surface deposits are at best only a representation of the most recent site occupation, and may indicate nothing about when the site was first formed. Optimally, collected data needed to include full stratigraphic and depositional histories for all sample sites. Practically speaking, such 163 extensive excavations would have required many years and considerable site destruction; other strategies would have to be explored.

As a potential solution to the first difficulty (weak temporal diagnostics), two steps were taken: The first was inclusion of shell artifacts as temporal diagnostics.

Where extensive excavation has occurred, shell artifacts have been shown to be reliable temporal indicators. Diachronic trends in shell artifact type frequencies noted by

Marquardt (1992c) and by Patton (1994) are summarized above in Chapter 1 (Table 1).

Large shell artifact samples associated with sizeable pottery assemblages were used to identify the noted trends. The second step was the frequent inclusion of radiocarbon assays from the Southwest Florida Project Radiocarbon Database (William Marquardt,

Florida Museum of Natural History, February 7, 2001). Most dates in the database have had 13C/12C corrections estimated. Here all dates are given in calibrated + 1s ranges, representing a 68 percent likelihood of falling within the specified range.

As a potential solution to the lack of site occupational histories, stratigraphic testing was performed at all sample sites. Nevertheless, as noted above, it was not practical to fully reconstruct many site histories. The small size of many sampled sites allowed adequate characterization, but larger sites could only be characterized sparingly.

Therefore, test excavations in all sites were placed judgementally (based on topography) in an effort: (1) to sample all strata present (in small sites), or where this did not appear possible, (2) to approximate maximum temporal variability through spatial variability—by excavating two or more test excavations widely spaced and in high and low elevations, and wherever possible, (3) to sample and record strata in previously disturbed areas that provided extensive stratigraphic profiles. 164

The result was data applicable to interpreting diachronic settlement patterns in the

Caloosahatchee area. These data, when presented, may be compared to the various requirements of models discussed above. The models and the expectations they generate are summarized above.

Methods

The principal need for model testing was to broadly describe the population of

Caloosahatchee area sites of all time periods as accurately as possible, focusing on their formal, spatial, and temporal characteristics. Evenly characterizing a broad range of sites presented the first difficulty to study of settlement patterns. Due to the course of previous archaeological inquiry and the remoteness of many sites, there is a great deal of information available for a few larger sites, limited information on several more large and small sites, and little or no information for most sites. This situation called for an

“intensive survey/limited testing” approach, sacrificing detailed information on a few sites for baseline information on several of them.

Adequately characterizing the sites meant gathering primary information on site location, time period, and form. Accurate locations were needed, relating all sites to one geographic datum (NAD1927 – using the Global Positioning System). Temporal data were collected suitable to radiocarbon assay and recovery of diagnostic artifact assemblages. Many deposits needed to be radiocarbon dated in order to provide an independent check on temporal assignments, or baseline chronology where diagnostic artifacts were lacking. Sites were characterized formally (in shapes and dimensions) because of their status as artifacts: Site contents (assemblages) and layouts are cultural 165 products related to human intentions and site use. Such cultural products are classifiable in terms relating to explanatory hypotheses of cultural processes.

Sampling the Regional Population of Sites

Which archaeological sites within the study region would be investigated?

Spanish explorers found people there mainly on the coast, though there were some inland sites. Many of those few inland sites have been destroyed by housing, commercial, and road development. Limiting the sample to well-preserved sites in the coastal margins of the Charlotte Harbor area did not narrow the group very much: There are over 420 known sites in the counties of Charlotte and Lee and the vast majority of these sites are on the seaward mainland or on barrier islands. Additionally, if the apparent lack of small inland collecting stations was to be addressed, sites in near-shore uplands would need to be considered.

To maintain a valid test for site hierarchy, maximizing sample variability was necessary. Initially this had involved gathering all Charlotte and Lee County data from the Florida Archaeological Site File. Due to the scarcity of systematic surveys, the site file data appeared to over-represent large, easily visible mound sites. Also, information critical for suitable temporal or functional classification was lacking for most sites.

A solution to many of these difficulties was sought by requiring that sites be protected on public lands. The Charlotte Harbor State Aquatic and Buffer Preserves

(CHSABP), managed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, have preserved the largest contiguous sections of native habitats in the study region. The

CHSABP contain a broad range of continuous habitats throughout Charlotte and Lee 166

Counties, including shoreline and immediate uplands around Charlotte Harbor, Pine

Island Sound, and the Cape Haze Peninsula.

Randomly sampling from among all the sites in the CHSABP was out of the question, since much of the land has not been evenly surveyed for archaeological sites.

Many CHSABP sites had, however, been described briefly during preliminary cultural resources inventories (Luer and Archibald 1988a; Patton 1996). These assessments provided consistent information on site surface extent and layout, and this was deemed a

“minimum data threshold” for sample inclusion. Over 50 sites throughout the preserves were represented in survey reports.

Data published in surveys (Luer and Archibald 1988a; Patton 1996) provided a list of testable sample sites. From this list, evaluated sites were chosen on the basis of two factors. The first factor (including 20 sites) was location within the Alligator Creek survey area of the Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey (CHEC 1996). The Alligator Creek survey area, an approximately 2600-acre coastal and upland tract within CHSABP lands, provides evidence on less-visible sites in a tract had been systematically and intensively surveyed (Patton 1996). Further, the results from the Alligator Creek survey area suggested the close spatial relationship of several small habitation sites to a large bifurcated mound site. Several of these sites were suspected as contemporaneous and thus representative of a culturally-defined locality. Although simple chiefdoms may not always leave an archaeological signature (Milanich 1998), based on Steponaitis (1978), several habitation sites with no public architecture arranged near a larger site with public architecture may indicate a simple chiefdom. The paired ridges of Acline Mound

(8CH69) are also reminiscent of Belle Glade construction. A burial mound appeared to 167 be lacking, but Luer (1996) had suggested that site inhabitants constructed and used the

Aqui Esta burial mound (8CH68), a short distance by water to the north. Whether a sequential or simultaneous hierarchy was based at the Acline Mound remained a source of speculation, resolution of which would depend on getting ample data from sites in the

Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone.

The second factor determining inclusion in the sample was the need to insure the variability of data with respect to prior sampling biases, so that sites of all sorts were adequately investigated. In order to provide sampling strata, creating a more objective typology of coastal midden sites became necessary. Typology creation, made possible by the minimum data threshold defined above, involved comparison of all well-preserved potential sample sites (n = 42) on the basis of physical variables. Using digital, three- dimensional models of the sites (following Jones 1999) the values of three interval variables (height, area, and volume) were computed for all 42 sites. Four ordinal variables were also measured, three counts (of mounds, ridges, and canals) and a rating for site bifurcation (ranging between “0" for no bifurcated features present and “5" for a canal fully separating two adjacent mounds or ridges). The initial site typology used for sample strata was produced using an SPSS (1997) hierarchical-agglomerative cluster analysis (Figure 2). The seven variables used in the cluster analysis were site area, volume, height, degree of bifurcation (on a scale of one to five), and counts of architectural features (mounds, ridges, and canals). Cluster analysis requires all included variables be of the same order, so all interval variables were transformed to ordinal ones using simple metric scaling. A Phi-square dissimilarity coefficient matrix compared each 168

Figure 2. SPSS (1997) cluster analysis diagram used for initial classification. 169 site to the others in terms of the listed variables. Then average (between groups) linkage was calculated and plotted using a dendrogram.

Using the relationships of this dendrogram, a heuristic set of six coastal midden site types and two site sub-types was interpreted: Bifurcated Mounds; Shell Domes;

Sheet Middens (e.g. black earth middens); Ridges (including a sub-type mounded ridges); multiply-featured Site Complexes, and anomalous, unclassified sites. Evaluation outside the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone focused in sites in one of the first five categories.

The sixth category, site complexes, has been described by others (Marquardt 1992b:14-

24; Torrence et al. 1994). Few sites of the other types have been systematically explored by archaeologists.

The typology was used to identify any site types that were unknown in the

Alligator Creek survey area or had not been otherwise investigated. As a goal, the 20 sites near Alligator Creek would be matched in the sample by 20 sites from elsewhere in the Caloosahatchee area. This ensured the applicability of investigations to the entire

Charlotte and Lee County coastal zone, despite heavier sampling near Alligator Creek.

The Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey, Phase II

In 1999 the Florida Museum of Natural History performed a three-month program of site evaluation in the Charlotte Harbor State Aquatic and Buffer Preserves (Patton

2000), funded through a grant administered by the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. The evaluation was a continuation of efforts to protect and elucidate the archaeological sites of Charlotte Harbor, especially those visited in the 1995

Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey (Patton 1996). Thirty-eight previously documented

CHSABP sites were tested and evaluated (Figure 3). All of the sites located in the 170

Figure 3. Investigated sites in the Caloosahatchee area. Inset shows sites in the Alligator Creek survey area. 171

Alligator Creek survey area, as well as 18 other sites on Charlotte Harbor, Cape Haze

Peninsula, Matlacha Pass, and Pine Island Sound were revisited and tested archaeologically. One previously unknown site (8CH506) was discovered and evaluated near Alligator Creek. The fieldwork did not undertake an in-depth investigation of any one site, since such would require much more intensive data recovery. Instead, work was aimed at providing a temporal, spatial, and functional context for many Caloosahatchee sites. Site descriptions and maps may be found below in Chapters 4, 5, and 6.

Assessing the temporal, spatial, and functional dimension of a site requires at least a beginning understanding of site stratigraphy, artifact assemblage, and chronology.

Therefore, a controlled excavation of at least 1m x 1m was usually called for. At small, shallow sites or when access to a site took an especially long time, one or two 50-x-50-cm units were used to document stratigraphic deposits. All excavations were performed within 10-cm levels in natural strata and screened through 1/4”-mesh hardware cloth.

The average time spent at each site was 1.8 days. During fieldwork, radiocarbon samples

(all marine shell), stratigraphic profiles, photographs of the excavation, coordinates of excavations and collections, and descriptions of any subsurface features were all obtained. All excavations were fully back-filled. Profiles of all excavations are presented in Appendix A. Site locations are shown on topographic maps in Appendix B.

Site boundaries were usually easily ascertained from visible distributions of shell midden. Where this was not the case, such as for several Sheet Middens, systematic (30- m interval or less) and/or judgmental shovel-testing was performed as necessary. All shovel tests were 35 cm diameter or larger, were screened (1/4-inch mesh), profiled, and backfilled. Most were excavated to a depth of about 50 cm or less due to heavy water 172 intrusion, though tests were always excavated to maximum possible depth above limestone bedrock or water. Where shovel tests were positive for artifacts, their Field

Specimen (FS) numbers are shown on site maps in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. In some cases positive tests on site maps represent the presence of midden material, but not of collected artifacts.

At each investigated site, a permanent marker of 2-foot (61-cm) reinforced steel bar was placed at the datum for each excavation (usually at the northeast corner) to identify the disturbance and allow relocation of tests. An aluminum marker identifying the disturbance was attached to the steel bar, which was then wrapped in blue and white striped flagging tape. All locations of steel bar markers and surface-collected artifacts were individually recorded using a Garmin GPS-III hand-held receiver connected to a

Garmin Beacon Receiver 21, providing differential correction. A standard measure of estimated accuracy was recorded for each measured point. The average estimated accuracy of all measured points was + 2.4 m (Appendix B).

Materials from excavations (Appendix C ) were analyzed in the Southwest Florida

Project (SWFP) range of the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). Ceramic type classification was assisted often by the FLMNH ceramic technologist (Ann Cordell, personal communication, September 1999). All excavated materials were prepared for curation by project volunteers and delivered by SWFP staff to the Bureau of

Archaeological Research, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Results of investigations for each tested site are reported below by geographic zones of the CHSABP in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. These zones were originally defined for organizational and management purposes by Luer and Archibald (1988a:4) but may 173 include some areas where Caloosahatchee archaeological sites are most concentrated, perhaps representing culturally defined sub-regions of related sites.

In the site descriptions below, a summary box introduces each site. The information in each box is intended to be comprehensive, so includes data collected in original fieldwork and during two previous surveys (Luer and Archibald 1988a; Patton

1996). All coordinates presented here use the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid referenced by the North American Datum of 1927 and do not reflect any projection

(Albers equal area was used for maps). Volume and area estimates were calculated as described above based on available maps (e.g., see Jones 1999) and are considered accurate to within one percent. The maps upon which these estimates were based are not extremely precise, but are reasonably so. With few exceptions, maps were independently field-checked by a second observer years after initial mapping. Subjectively, each map probably reflects actual site dimensions with tolerable accuracy (perhaps + 5 to 20 percent), with more accuracy at surface-visible shell middens and less accuracy at buried or shallow sites defined only though shovel testing.

In select contexts, bulk midden samples were collected and returned to the laboratory where they were water-screened in nested 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, and 1/32-inch mesh hardware cloths. The 1/4”-fractions were sorted, classified by material, and weighed.

Shell and bone were cursorily analyzed. Identifiable taxa were recorded for each sample in order of abundance (in raw bone bulk, not MNI) and are reported likewise where appropriate below. CHAPTER 4 ALLIGATOR CREEK-EAST SHORE ZONE

The Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone encompasses much of the coastal mainland in Charlotte County east of State Route 765 and south of Punta Gorda. Most known sites in the area are along the drainage of Alligator Creek and the mangrove margins south of the creek’s mouth. Several other sites were located in the uplands and tidal flats (Patton

1996). The zone can generally be characterized as containing two broad, parallel bands of mangrove and palmetto upland habitats, separated by from 0.4 to 1.2 km of salt-flat

(saltern) habitat. Most inland (non-littoral) sites were found to be located in the saltern habitat where it was crossed by tidal streams (within the 1996 survey area, Alligator

Creek and Whidden Branch). The saltern habitat contains many brackish ponds of varying size and salinity. Most sites in mangrove habitats were situated on small keys from which both Alligator Creek and the Cape Haze Peninsula are usually accessible by canoe.

Site: 8CH69, Acline Mound Marker Location: 0396657/2973265 Habitat: saltern, on tidal creek Ceramics: 274 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m, 1.5m x 1m Shell Artifacts: 15 Site Type: Bifurcated Mound Bone Artifacts: 2 Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 975-1055, Components: late Cal. I, IIA, IIB A.D. 385-450 Integrity: substantial disturbance Surface Finds: 97 Area: 6118 m2 Subsurface Finds: 194 Volume: 10888 m3

174 175 Figure 4. Acline Mound, Dubois, Acline Village sites map. Countours (in half meters) are based on Torrence (1999) for Acline 4. Acline Mound, Dubois, Village Figure quadrangle, Punta Gorda SE topographic and Archibald (1988a) for Dubois. Other features are based on USGS 7.5' Mound and Luer and field observations. aerial photographs, 176

The Acline Mound is one of the largest and most accessible sites near Punta

Gorda, Florida. This Bifurcated Mound is a large, U-shaped structure with two platforms comprising its roughly 5 m-high top. The space formed between the arms of the “U” gradually inclines toward a saddle between the two platforms, providing the easiest means of access to the mound-top. The mouth of the “U” points to the southeast and the mound’s steepest side faces Alligator Creek to the north. Surface finds at the site (Luer and Archibald 1988a:75) include 52 Sand-tempered Plain potsherds, 23 Belle Glade Plain potsherds, four Pinellas Plain potsherds, two perforated bivalve net-weights, a Type G hammer, an indeterminate horse conch hammer, a Type A hammer, and two Type C hammers. This surface collection suggests Caloosahatchee IIA and IIB occupation.

A series of mosquito-control ditches surrounds and bypasses the mound, with the largest canal bypassing Acline Mound on its southern edge and eastward. Based on analysis of early aerial photographs, this large canal was built in the twentieth century as an improvement to an existing tidally-influenced stream that joined Alligator creek about

400 m further to the west. To the east, the stream connects to a large circular pond. The creek also separates 8CH69 from 8CH479, a related, large habitation area (sheet midden site) directly to the southeast.

The position of the mound, sheet midden, and pond suggest a functional relationship between the features. People who were culturally related to, but socially distinct from, the inhabitants of the Acline Mound may have occupied the sheet midden.

Such a segregated relationship would be expected in a ranked social organization. Access to the common habitation area would have depended on passing the mouth of the 177 mound’s “U.” Perhaps the mound’s inhabitants used this arrangement to gather tribute or otherwise exercise their authority.

The pond beyond the sheet midden may have been used in mortuary rites as a charnel pond. This is speculative because the pond has not been systematically explored.

However, Belle Glade peoples in south Florida used charnel ponds between A.D. 200 and

800 (Milanich 1994:293), the period when Belle Glade Pottery first appears in the

Caloosahatchee Region. Reasons for believing that ca.-A.D. 800 Caloosahatchee mound- building is related to Belle Glade mortuary traditions were noted in Chapter 2.

Probably before the State of Florida acquired the property, the Acline Mound was the target of repeated looting. Large, haphazard holes pock the mound’s two platforms.

The disturbance created by the looters provided opportunities to explore two areas of the mound, its top (T.U. 2, in 1999) and its base (T.U.1, 1995: see Appendix B). Excavations placed in looter’s pits at these locations provided evidence of the site’s cultural context.

Test Unit 1 (at 0396657/2973265) revealed six distinct strata in the midden just south of the mound, close to the tidal stream-turned-canal. Stratum I was made of humic sand containing oyster shell, crown conch shell, two quahog anvils, one indeterminate lightning-whelk hammer, and 7 STP potsherds. Stratum II was comprised of dense oyster and crown conch with less sand and contained 39 STP potsherds, 6 BGP potsherds, one bone Pin fragment, and 1 piece of whelk shell debitage [here and below the term

“debitage” generally refers to squared or triangular fragments of robust lightning whelk outer-whorl shell (see Marquardt 1992c:217)]. Stratum III was an apparent occupational zone of compact black sand and very little shell, with 7 STP potsherds, 4 BGP potsherds, a Type D lightning whelk hammer, and a piece of debitage. Stratum IV contained dense 178 crushed and fragmented shell in black sand, with 20 STP potsherds and 3 BGP potsherds.

Stratum V was a thin layer of finely crushed shell atop Stratum VI, appearing only on the east profile. Artifacts in the same level as Stratum V include 35 STP potsherds, a chert projectile point/knife, and two pieces of (shell) debitage. A radiocarbon assay from oyster shell in this stratum returned a date of A.D. 385-450, late Caloosahatchee I.

Stratum VI contained seven STP potsherds and two BGP potsherds in gray to dark gray slightly damp sand.

A column of bulk samples was recovered from Test Unit 1 and cursorily analyzed for faunal remains larger than 1/4-inch. Data from these samples as well as bone recovered from 1/4-inch screens during excavations help to characterize the resources used by the Acline Mound site’s inhabitants. Stratum I was found to contain—in order by bone abundance—the remains of fishes (Osteichthyes), turtles (Testudines), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), birds (Aves), and sharks

(Lamniformes). Stratum II contains five times more bone than Stratum I, from fishes, deer, turtles, sharks, birds, hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), rabbits (Sylvilagus sp.), snakes (Serpentes), opossums (Didelphis virginianus), stingrays (Dasyatidae), and sirens (Siren sp.). Stratum III yielded about half as much bone as II, including the bones of fishes, turtles, deer, birds, opossums, stingrays, and sharks. Stratum IV contained slightly more bone than Stratum II, including the bones of fishes, turtles, deer, birds, sharks, snakes, stingrays, opossums, crabs, and sirens. Bone is more abundant in the same level as Stratum V than in any other level, and represents dietary fishes, deer, turtles, stingrays, crabs, snakes, birds, sharks, and sirens. Bone in Stratum VI, roughly 179 equivalent in amount to the bone in Stratum IV, includes that of fishes, turtles, stingrays, sharks, and snakes.

This sequence suggests that a rich occupational midden (Strata V, VI) formed at the site during late Caloosahatchee I and early IIA. Afterwards, the site continued to be used for habitation and Strata III and IV were added. Based on amounts of BGP ceramics, this happened during Caloosahatchee IIA; Strata II and III were deposited during early IIB. Based on the amount of sand and compaction of these upper strata, they may have accumulated more rapidly than the underlying layers. This would help to explain some of the relative abundance of bone in lower midden strata. But it may also be that later concentrations of abundant bone are located elsewhere on the site, such as on the top of the mound. Movement of concentrated feasting to the mound platform(s) during Caloosahatchee IIB, contemporary with Stratum III and IV, may explain these strata; They are less dense and contain fewer high-status artifacts than previous midden strata at the location of Test Unit 1.

Excavation on the eastern mound platform in Test Unit 2 (at 0396657/2973265) was intended to salvage information from looter damage, to ascertain when mound construction ceased, and obtain comparative samples of dietary faunal remains. Nine

STP potsherds, a quahog anvil/chopper, and an indeterminate cutting-edged tool were recovered from the looter’s spoil. Three distinct strata were observed during excavation.

Stratum I is a black silt loam with oyster and crown conch and many bones of fish and reptiles. It yielded 27 STP potsherds and 13 BGP potsherds. Stratum II is similar to

Stratum I in color and shell. It contained a fragment of worked bone (based on width, a bone point–see Patton 2002) and much less potsherds (six STP, two BGP) and bone. 180

Stratum III contains dark gray loam in abundant fragmentary and whole shells with eight

STP potsherds, a shell bead, and an indeterminate lightning whelk cutting-edged tool. A radiocarbon assay of shell in Stratum III returned a date of A.D. 975-1055 (early

Caloosahatchee period IIB). This finding complements the distribution of ceramics and shell artifacts recovered from excavation. Bone from Strata II and III was more abundant

(233.6 grams for 0.025 m3, or about 9.3 kg/m3) than seen at any other investigated site except 8CH484 (the Cicada Lake black-earth sheet midden). Dietary animals represented include catfish (Ariidae), sea trout (Cynoscion spp.), puffer (Sphoeroides sp.), jack

(Carangidae), turtles, sharks, and various mammals including raccoon and many deer leg- bones (many of which appear to have been split open).

The Acline Mound was probably begun on the location of a Caloosahatchee IIA midden at some time in early Caloosahatchee IIB. The time of its construction is significant to social processes because it is a communal structure, monumental in scale, and appears to be contemporary with increased construction at Big Mound Key, Pineland,

John Quiet Mound, Useppa Island, and possibly Josslyn Island. Less than 6 km away on the North Fork of Alligator Creek, the Aqui Esta Burial Mound was also in use (Luer

1996:48). The Aqui Esta burial mound was probably used by the same community who inhabited the Acline Mound site and several other sites in the Alligator Creek-East Shore

Zone (Luer 1996; George Luer, copies of field notes, 1979).

The Aqui Esta burial mound was found to contain the remains of roughly 100 individuals in a variety of modes including mass, flexed, bundled long-bone, and extended dispositions. Whelk-shell vessels accompanied some burials, along with

Mississippian-related ceramics (including Englewood Safety Harbor ceramics and vessels 181 similar to Roods Phase wares from Georgia [Luer 1996:40]). The mound itself appears to have been constructed of sand from the immediate vicinity, a tidal marsh. Mound strata include an inner 1-1.2 m core of tan-colored sand, topped by an even layer of about 15 cm of dark gray sand. Over this was about a meter of mottled sand, forming the burial mound’s “mantle.” These strata probably represents the construction and later burial of a platform for mortuary ceremonials and/or a charnel house. The gray layer of sand may represent the ceremonial burning and mound burial similar to that observed at the

McKeithen site (Milanich 1994:178-181).

These data support an interpretation of communal mound use, but with the potential of variable social status represented in burial modes and grave goods. A superordinate dimension may be represented by flexed or extended primary burials of all ages with whelk shell vessels, yellow ochre, and a variety of extra-local pottery vessels

(Safety Harbor Incised, Englewood Incised, Saint Johns Check Stamped, and a gourd effigy vessel). Many examples of this burial type were found in and around the thin zone of gray sand, again suggesting the performance of elaborate rituals prior to burial of the platform. An “attached subordinate” burial dimension (similar to contemporary dune or midden ridge burials, except for context) may be represented by mass, fragmentary, and bundled long-bone burials with either no grave goods or a few Belle Glade Plain or Sand- tempered Plain potsherds. The analyzed remains of 23 individuals from the Aqui Esta mound (Hutchinson 1991) showed no evidence of nutritional deficiency as did contemporaneous burials on Buck Key (Hutchinson 1992), though many persons appear to have suffered from chronic treponemal infections. To this point, it seems worthwhile 182 to remark that life on tropical and neo-tropical shell middens offers conditions conducive to infection by treponemes (e.g., through foot abrasions; Ortner and Putschar 1985:180).

All these facts help to explain the monumentality of the Acline Mound. The population represented by the Aqui Esta burial mound suggests more individuals than might be accounted for by habitations at the Acline Mound site alone. Together, the

Acline and Aqui Esta mounds probably represent a culturally-defined “locality” that also included several contemporaneous sites nearby, including 8CH351, 8CH352, 8CH353,

8CH354, and 8CH479 (the Acline Locality). Occupants of these sites were probably interred at the Aqui Esta burial mound. Several smaller communities at slightly greater distances (all over 1 km) may represent other groups/localities, potentially related to residents of the Acline Locality.

Considering earlier patterns of Belle Glade ceremonialism and community identification discussed above, Acline Mound probably represents the specific residential area of high-status mortuary specialists, leaders in a sequential or simultaneous hierarchy.

Structures were probably located on either of the mound’s two platforms, or in the approximately 10-by-20 meter depression between them (Waselkov 1987:117). The mound is tall enough to provide protection from the worst observed storm surges.

Therefore, it may also have served as flood surge protection for several nearby sites.

At the time it was built, the mound was probably considered part of a ceremonial mortuary complex that also included the Aqui Esta burial mound and perhaps the nearby pond. The fact that these two mounds are far more separated than their analogs at the

Fort Center and McKeithen ceremonial complexes is believed to signify greater relative separation of community members from mortuary ceremonials. This separation might be 183 a result of greater caution due to amplified ghost beliefs (cf. Kupferer 1988:63-64, 84), and/or strategic mystification of the ceremonial mortuary process.

When the heights of Fort Center Mound A and the Acline Mound are compared, there is also an apparent shift to communal activities that would elevate high-status residential mounds. As noted above, this may reflect greater caution concerning excessively high storm surges. Such surges as that of ca. A.D. 680 + 80 may have been perceived as supernaturally powerful but also within the purview of religious ceremonial specialists.

This change appears to reflect a widespread process by which the emblems of

Woodland-period mortuary ceremonialism were coopted by aspiring elites who used their power to usurp and manipulate surplus labor and communal spaces (Kohler 1997:23)

Were the Acline Mound’s inhabitants leaders of a simultaneous hierarchy who used control of mortuary ceremonials to justify their elite status? Contrasted burial patterns seems to suggest so, but evaluation must await comparisons of artifacts, structures, and dietary faunal remains between the Acline Mound and the adjacent sheet midden site

(8CH479, Acline Village). In agreement with Torrence (1999b), comparison of the single-mound Acline site with contemporary, multiple-mound sites (Big Mound Key and

Pineland) appears to suggest the rudiments of a regional site hierarchy.

Site: 8CH479, Acline Village Ceramics: 17 Habitat: saltern, near tidal creek Shell Artifacts: 6 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: sheet midden Components: Cal. IIA/B transition, 20th C. Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 680-830 Integrity: substantial disturbance Surface Finds: 2 Area: 10628 m2 Subsurface Finds: 25 Volume: 2502 m3 Marker Location: 0396758/2973202 184

This large sheet midden is surrounded by low, easily-flooded land (see 8CH69 map). The midden probably represents a habitation site associated with activities at the adjacent Acline Mound (8CH69). The site was first discovered and delineated using systematic shovel-testing as part of the 1995 Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey.

Locations of these shovel tests are shown on the site map. These tests yielded seven STP potsherds, two BGP potsherds, a worked lightning-whelk columella, a Type F lightning- whelk hammer, a piece of superior whorl debitage, a limestone chunk that appears to have been used for pounding (based on apparent battering), a quahog anvil, a piece of brick, and a piece of fire-cracked limestone. Dietary faunal remains in shovel tests included sparse amounts of bone from turtles, fishes, and deer.

Several bulk samples of occupational midden were also collected during shovel- testing. The 1/4-inch fraction of the bulk samples included (in order of abundance) bone from fishes, turtles, and deer. The greatest density of bone observed in any shovel test at

8CH479 was 2.2 grams per gallon, or about 5.75 kg/m3. This density of bone is substantially lower than that seen in Test Unit 2 the east platform of the nearby mound.

Together with a less diverse (rich) diet indicated by fewer taxa, this lower bone density suggests the inhabitants of the village midden fared well but did not enjoy the mound inhabitants’ concentrated supplies of staples. Similarly, split deer leg-bones similar to those observed on top of the Acline Mound were not recovered in Acline Village.

Therefore, leg quarters of venison may have been considered sumptuary food and been reserved for the Acline Mound’s inhabitants.

Certainly occupation at Acline Village is more dispersed than on Acline Mound, therefore creating more diffuse disposal patterns, but differences in staples are mirrored in 185 prestige goods and possibly habitation sizes, too. On the mound, several “prestige” artifacts were recovered, including a bone pin fragment, a shell bead, and a lightning- whelk shell cutting-edged tools. In contrast, artifacts from the village area are all related to food processing, with the possible exception of one piece of debitage. Finally, the approximately 10-by-20 meter depression on the Acline Mound may suggest a much larger building than the small structure represented by post-molds in Test Unit 1.

Test Unit 1 was placed in a narrow rise between two very shallow basin-like depressions near the Acline Village site’s center. Three distinct strata were visible in profile. Stratum I is a thin black humic sand with roots and sparse shell that contained one STP sherd. Stratum II is an apparent occupation zone. Near the top of this stratum

(see dotted line in profile diagram), the sand was black and shell inclusions were dense.

The top of Stratum II yielded five STP potsherds and a Type G crown-conch hammer. Lower portions of Stratum II yielded two more STP potsherds and two more

Type G hammers. Shell from this stratum has been radiocarbon dated to between A.D.

680 and 830, at the Caloosahatchee IIA/IIB transition. Evidence of structural wooden posts (Loci 1 through 6) were found at the base of Stratum II, intruding into Stratum III.

The largest three of these post-molds (Loci 3, 4, and 5) form a short arc, possibly a representing a segment of a circular structure. The maximum estimated diameter of a circle that could have been enclosed by a series of identical arcs is 2.25 m, representing an enclosed area of about five square meters. Therefore, this circle probably represents the outer wall posts or support pilings of a small domicile. No artifacts were found in the culturally sterile, damp sandy substrate (Stratum III). 186 Figure 5. Acline Village Test Unit 1: Plan and profile views of postmold features at 40 cm below datum (30 cmbs). (30 datum below 40 cm at postmold features of views profile and Unit 1: Plan Test Village 5. Acline Figure 187

The establishment of a separate habitation area across the stream from the earlier

8CH69 midden during the Caloosahatchee IIA/B transition is viewed as a highly significant act of social ranking. Based on the descriptions of Acline Mound and several sites reviewed above (Chapter 2), the separation may reflect a process of growing social stratification fostered by increasing emphasis on mortuary ceremonials, mortuary and non-mortuary mound-building, and controlled exchange relationships. If a chiefly priest and his or her closest relatives occupied the Acline platform mound, then 8CH479 probably represents the habitation area of associated commoners. A similar change toward social distinctions occurred in terrestrially based societies in the Southeast between A.D. 900 and 1000 (Nassaney 1991, 1992; Schnell et al. 1981). It is suggested here that the Acline Mound complex (Acline Locality) in the Caloosahatchee area may be one of the earliest examples of a ranked society in the Southeast, despite (and partly because of) the fact that its activities appear to have been legitimized by communal mortuary ideology.

The Acline Village site may have been used last in the twentieth century, based on the surface-collected brick and oral histories gathered by Edic (1996). Historic use of the site appears to have involved limited clearing for growing vegetables. Therefore some contexts within 8CH479 have probably been disturbed by shallow tillage.

Site: 8CH353, Dubois Ceramics: 50 Habitat: saltern, on tidal creek Shell Artifacts: 32 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm Bone Artifacts: 1 Site Type: ridges (two) Components: Cal. IIA, possibly early IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 440-610 Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 16 Area: 30 m2 (Ridge A) Subsurface Finds: 67 Volume: 22 m3 (Ridge A) Marker Location: 0396724/2979943 188

The Dubois site (see 8CH69 map above) is composed of two, nearly identical oblong ridges formed end-to-end on the south bank of Alligator Creek. It is located a very short distance northeast of the Acline Mound. The two midden ridges are referred to here as Ridge A (to the west) and Ridge B (to the east). The site was formally classified on the basis of only one of Ridge A. Luer and Archibald (1988a:80) note that there are three midden ridges at this site from Luer collected four STP potsherds. However, a third midden could not be located during subsequent investigation. Only Ridge A was excavated during 1999 fieldwork, but its close association makes it very likely that Ridge

B is roughly coeval with Ridge A. Artifacts surface-collected from the spoil of a small disturbance near the creek-bank on Ridge A included five STP potsherds, two Type G hammers, and two pieces of debitage. Evidently, the disturbance was caused by burrowing in a hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) nest.

In 1995, two Type G hammers and two quahog anvils were surface-collected at

8CH353. Nine STP potsherds and eight more shell artifacts were recovered from a shovel test in the center of each ridge. The Ridge A test contained four STP potsherds, a

Type G hammer, and two Type D hammers. The Ridge B test contained five STP potsherds, four Type G hammers, and one piece of worked lightning whelk shell.

Hammer Type D counts suggest that ridge B may be slightly later than Ridge A.

Excavation in Ridge A revealed four distinct strata. Stratum I, the uppermost, is a relatively thick occupation zone of black, moderately compacted sand and (mostly oyster) shell. It yielded nine STP potsherds and nine crown conch Type G hammers. Stratum II consists of very dark gray sand and shell, with less sand than Stratum I, and may be the substrate fill for the Stratum I occupation. It yielded four STP potsherds and two crown 189 conch Type G hammers. Stratum III represents an earlier occupation zone and consists of black, damp sand with shell. It yielded 18 STP potsherds, one BGP potsherd, five Type

G crown-conch hammers, and a piece of worked bone. A radiocarbon assay of shell from

Stratum III dates the occupation to between A.D. 440 and 610. Based on this assay, the shell artifacts, and the ceramics, the lower midden dates to Caloosahatchee IIA. The upper occupation probably occurred shortly thereafter, during late Caloosahatchee IIA or early IIB. Stratum IV, revealed at the base of excavation, is gray silt loam, culturally sterile except for slight shell intrusions near the Stratum III horizon.

Type G hammers, noted in both ridges and in all excavated levels of Ridge A, are diagnostic elements of Caloosahatchee IIA artifact assemblages but do not usually occur in such quantities as seen at the Dubois site. This may suggest that the site was used consistently and repeatedly for food processing activities that required shell hammers, presumably opening oysters and other shellfish. However, quahog anvils may be also associated with this manner of food processing, and only two such artifacts were recovered at Dubois. The numerous Type G hammers at the site probably represent surplus production of tools used within the Acline Locality for food preparation tasks.

There is no known evidence for exchange of this artifact type.

Site: 8CH351, Fishhook Ceramics: 24 Habitat: saltern/man. interface, on creek Shell Artifacts: 11 Size of Excavation: 2 @ (1m x 1m) Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: anomalous Components: Caloosahatchee IIA Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 670-790 Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 18 Area: 281 m2 Subsurface Finds: 17 Volume: 66 m3 Marker Location: 0396067/2973287 (T.U. 1), 0396082/2973290 (T.U.2) 190

Figure 6. Fishhook site map. Contours are in meters. 191

The Fishhook site (so-called due to its shape) appears to be a series of three interconnected small, low midden ridges. Two small oblong midden ridges join the largest, western ridge at its ends, forming a “U” shape with the mouth open toward the east and Alligator Creek. This “U” shape is reminiscent of the bifurcated designs seen at the Acline Mound, Fines Key, Silcox North, and the Whidden Branch Mound. The inter- connection of oblong midden segments (Ridges) to form a coherent larger design is reminiscent of Silcox Key.

Artifacts surface-collected from the site in 1995 include nine STP potsherds, two fighting conch Type G hammers, three crown conch Type G hammers, a lightning whelk indeterminate cutting-edged tool, a quahog anvil, and two pieces of debitage. Artifacts recovered from a shovel test in the center of the western ridge include two more Type G hammers.

Test Unit 1 was placed in a clearing at the south end of the largest ridge, where scattered whole and fragmentary oyster shell was visible on the ground surface.

Excavation in Test Unit 1 had just begun when fragmentary human remains and four STP potsherds were found within five centimeters of the midden surface. Excavation was immediately halted and the State Archaeologist was notified. Because the current research did not necessitate disturbance or analysis of human remains, they were photographed in situ and re-buried.

Test Unit 2 was initiated for collection of stratigraphic information and datable materials. Only two levels were excavated before water intrusion prevented further work.

Three distinct strata were noted during excavation. The uppermost, Stratum I, consisted of mucky sand and organic root mat, with little or no shell. Stratum II, very dark gray 192 mucky sand with whole and crushed oyster shell, contained six STP potsherds. Two more STP potsherds and three Saint Johns Plain potsherds were recovered near the

Stratum III horizon. Stratum III, wet, very dark gray mucky sand with crushed and some whole (oyster) shell, contained no additional artifacts. A radiocarbon assay from Stratum

III yielded a date of A.D. 670-790. This assay and the ceramics date Fishhook site occupation to late Caloosahatchee period IIA. St. Johns Plain ceramics were popular utilitarian wares among contemporaneous Weeden Island cultures of north Florida and in the St. Johns Region (Milanich 1994:220, 247) and may indicate increased exchange with that region just prior to Caloosahatchee IIB.

Observation of human remains in upper strata of the Fishhook site helps to confirm the continued practice of interments in occupational middens or sand dunes during Caloosahatchee IIB, when isolated burial mounds also became common. As noted, this distinction in burial contexts may reflect a subordinate dimension of ascribed status. The Fishhook site is near the Acline Mound in time and space, so might be considered part of the Acline Locality. But some of its inhabitants were not buried in the nearby, isolated, Aqui Esta burial mound. Therefore, at some time it may not have been considered an integral part of the Acline Locality. Perhaps interments coincided with the beginnings of the bifurcate midden pattern at Fishhook. With an understanding of burial mounds as lineage identifiers (cf. Austin 1997:598), these facts may signify that Fishhook hosted the formation of a “daughter” community of the Acline group.

Of additional interest at the site, the adjacent creek-bend (locally, “Devil’s

Elbow”) displays a rapid change in depth going downstream. Shallows visible to the south of this drop-off (of over 1.5 m) contain many loose oyster shells, perhaps the 193 midden sub-structure for a fish weir. It seems unlikely that the shell is a natural oyster bed, but this possibility may only be ruled out through additional investigation. This is the only potential evidence for intensive aquatic food production observed in the

Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone. As described in Chapter 5, the Cape Haze Zone contains several potential fish impoundments and evidence for the use of midden fill in their construction.. From abundant turtle and deer bones found in the middens of the

Alligator Creek-East Shore and its physical geography, it seems reasonable to suggest that terrestrial resources were available more frequently in this zone than in the Cape Haze

Zone. This may have provided a situation in which interdependency could be strengthened between the Cape Haze and Alligator Creek-East Shore Zones, especially if the Cape Haze impoundments produced many more fish than could be consumed locally.

Site: 8CH352, Negash Ceramics: 129 Habitat: saltern, near tidal creek Shell Artifacts: 14 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 2 Site Type: shell dome Components: Cal. IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 1005-1190 Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 16 Area: 946 m2 Subsurface Finds: 131 Volume: 127 m3 Marker Location: 0396496/2972988

Luer and Archibald (1988a:82) first described this Shell Dome, which is located only a short distance southwest of the Acline Mound on the east edge of a salt flat. Luer

(1979) surface-collected two STP potsherds at the Negash site. The site is currently host to several palm and gumbo-limbo trees. No disturbance was noted at the site. Four shell 194

Figure 7. Negash site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 195 artifacts were collected from the surface near Test Unit 1: two ark shell (Noetia ponderosa) perforated bivalves, a piece of lightning whelk debitage, and an indeterminate horse-conch hammer. A surface-collection made in 1995 includes one STP potsherd, three quahog anvils, a Type C hammer, and an indeterminate hafted lightning whelk tool.

Artifacts recovered from a shovel test in 1995 include one BGP potsherd and three pieces of soft, red sandstone (possibly red ochre).

Excavation in Test Unit 1 revealed three distinct strata. Stratum 1, a layer of black silt loam with moderate shell, contained 42 STP potsherds and 9 BGP potsherds.

Stratum II is an occupation zone comprised of black silt loam with whole and fragmentary oyster and crown conch shell. It contained 35 STP potsherds, 36 BGP potsherds, a fragmentary horse conch columella hammer, two quahog anvils, two bone point/pin mid-sections, and two piece of lightning whelk debitage. Based upon these finds and a radiocarbon assay, Stratum II dates to late Caloosahatchee IIB. Stratum III is very dark, moist sand with no inclusions other than three BGP potsherds and some traces of animal bone, both probably having intruded from the midden above.

The Negash site is considered here as part of the Acline Locality. The artifact assemblage from the Negash site suggests that food was processed, fishing nets were present, and lightning whelk shell artifacts were produced there–although no cutting- edged tools were found. Reviewing this lack in terms of the evidence for attached production discussed in Chapter 2, perhaps some worked whelk shell was being delivered to the nearby, contemporaneous Acline Mound. 196

Site: 8CH354, “C. E. & S. Midden” Ceramics: 84 Habitat: saltern, on tidal creek Shell Artifacts: 6 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 1 Site Type: ridge Historic Context: Cal. IIA/B transition Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 695-815 Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 17 Area: 225 m2 Subsurface Finds: 74 Volume: 64 m3 Marker Location: 0396968/2973386

8CH354 is a long, low midden Ridge on the south bank of Alligator Creek. A concrete land survey marker (labeled “CE & S 2904”) was noted less than 2 meters from the excavated test unit (at 0396968/2973387). A short section of the midden’s north edge is eroding slightly, but no other disturbances were noted. Artifacts recovered from the eroding bank include 12 STP potsherds and 3 BGP potsherds, a Type G hammer, a shark tooth tool, and many faunal bones (includes artifacts collected and individually listed by

Luer and Archibald 1988a:80).

Test excavation revealed four distinct strata. Stratum I is a black, loose sandy humic layer that contained no artifacts. Stratum II consists of black silt loam with few shell inclusions, 17 STP potsherds, an indeterminate lightning whelk hammer, and two fragmentary worked lightning whelk columellae. Together with the uppermost level of

Stratum III, Stratum II represents an occupational zone. In the upper 10 cm, Stratum III

(black moist loam with whole and fragmentary shell) contained 32 STP and one BGP potsherds, but only two STP potsherds and an indeterminate hammer in its lower 10 cm.

Shell from Stratum III was dated to between A.D. 695 and 815. This assay and artifact inclusions date site occupation to the Caloosahatchee IIA/B transition. Stratum IV consists of black moist silt loam with 16 STP potsherds, a Type G crown conch hammer, and only a few shell fragments noted near the Stratum III horizon. 197 Figure 8. “C. E. & S. Midden” site map (sketch by Robert Coughter). S. Midden” site map (sketch by 8. “C. E. & Figure 198

Site: 8CH355, Cockroach Ceramics: 19 Habitat: mangrove (estuarine bay) Shell Artifacts: 7 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: ridge Components: Cal. IIB, 20th Century Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 1040-1190 Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 9 Area: 329 m2 Subsurface Finds: 18 Volume: 127 m3 Marker Location: 0395061/2971755

The Cockroach site is a very small ridge, substantial portions of which are regularly submerged by incoming tides. No artifacts or modern disturbances were noted on the site surface, although Luer and Archibald (1988a) observed but did not collect three STP potsherds. In 1995, six STP potsherds, a quahog anvil, and two pieces of debitage were surface-collected. A shovel test performed at that time yielded two more

STP potsherds, another piece of debitage, a worked lightning whelk columella, a brass grommet, and several pieces of unidentified metal.

Excavation in a 50-cm square unit revealed three distinct strata and one distinct lens that may represent a feature. Stratum I is very thick, dark gray sand with oyster and other shell. It contained few artifacts (10 STP potsherds, an indeterminate hammer, and a piece of debitage) and a dark brown silt lens with oyster fragments. Radiocarbon assay of shell in Stratum I dates its deposition to Caloosahatchee IIB. Stratum III is a very dark gray sand with traces of midden and mangrove root-molds, a transition to the underlying

“sub-midden.” No artifacts were recovered from Stratum II or III. Stratum IV, mucky

“sub-midden,contained one STP potsherd and light bone. Light artifact finds suggest the site was used as a collecting station by residents of 8CH356 or 8CH357. 199

Figure 9. Cockroach site map. 200

Site: 8CH356, Whidden Branch Marker Location: 0396575/2971004 Habitat: saltern, on tidal creek Ceramics: 134 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm Shell Artifacts: 14 Site Type: Bifurcated Mound Bone Artifacts: 1 Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 885-1005 Components: L. Archaic, Cal. I-IIB, 20th C A.D. 645-690 Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 19 Area: 1142 m2 Subsurface Finds: 151 Volume: 923 m3

Luer and Archibald (1988a) first documented the Whidden Branch site, a small

Bifurcated Mound on the south side of what was once a flowing stream known as

Whidden Branch. They collected “several” Sand-tempered Plain potsherds, glass fragments, and a glass bottle (Luer and Archibald 1988a:85). The highest portion of the mound faces the stream and the opening of the “U” faces the southeast, meaning the mound is oriented similarly to the Acline Mound. During a spring high tide and storm surge combination in 1995, a portion of the mound measuring approximately 30 m across was noted still above water.

More than 11 years ago, the Whidden Branch site was targeted by looters. A few of their ragged holes pock the mound’s highest elevation. Disturbance created by the looters provided an opportunity to explore the mound’s stratigraphy. A 1995 excavation

(T.U.1; 1 m x 1.5 m) placed in a looter’s pit provided artifact and radiocarbon evidence of the site’s earliest contexts. In 1999, a smaller unit (Test Unit 2) was excavated adjacent to the investigated looter pit. Test Unit 2 provided documentation of the site’s later contexts. The Test Unit 2 datum marker (at 0396575/2971004) was positioned 30 cm south of the southeast corner, 50 cm west of Test Unit 1.

An effort was made to ensure that the visible midden accurately reflected site boundaries, through strategic placement of shovel tests around the periphery in cardinal 201

Figure 10. Whidden Branch site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 202 directions. These shovel tests indicate that very little cultural material lies beyond five meters of the surface-visible midden. Artifacts recovered in these tests include four STP potsherds, one BGP potsherd, a quahog chopper, a piece of debitage, and a Type C hammer.

Surface-collection around the looter’s pit at Test Unit 1 yielded 10 STP potsherds, six BGP potsherds, one piece of debitage, a quahog anvil, and a silver-plated spoon. Due to the depth of disturbance noted in the looter’s pit, only the lowest 40 cm could be excavated in controlled, 10-cm levels. Sifting of spoil removed to this level yielded 14

STP potsherds, 12 BGP potsherds, three shell disk beads, a worked lightning whelk columella, and a Type G hammer.

Four undisturbed strata were noted in the Test Unit 1 profile. The uppermost of these, Stratum III, is an intermittent layer of ash, charcoal, and burned shell. Due to its excellent preservation, Stratum III is believed to have been deposited just prior to Stratum

II. Stratum II is a dense shell layer with thin soil, apparently accumulating more rapidly than the underlying stratum. Artifacts recovered from within and around Stratum III include 23 STP potsherds, 15 BGP potsherds, two Type G hammers (one of crown conch and the other of fighting conch), and two pieces of whelk-shell debitage. Stratum IV is another dense shell layer with little soil that may have accumulated fairly rapidly.

Artifacts recovered from within it and the Stratum V horizon include 20 STP potsherds and 2 BGP potsherds. Stratum V is an occupation zone consisting of black compact sand with dense oyster and crushed mussel shell. It contained 12 STP potsherds. Two fiber- tempered potsherds were recovered from the top of Stratum VI, which consisted of damp, 203 black mucky sand with sparse oyster shell that may have intruded from Stratum V.

Radiocarbon assay of some of this shell returned a date of A.D. 645 to 690.

Test Unit 2 revealed three strata homologous to the disturbed strata in Test Unit 1.

Uppermost, Stratum I is black sandy humus and root mat. It contained two STP potsherds and one BGP sherd. Stratum II is a dark gray zone that represents the site’s last aboriginal occupation. It contained six STP potsherds, one BGP sherd, and a bone disk bead made of a perforated sawfish (Pristis sp.) vertebral centrum. Stratum III is fine, dark gray sand and shell, and corresponds to Stratum II in Test Unit 1. It contained seven

STP potsherds, one BGP potsherd, two Type G hammers, and a piece of debitage. A radiocarbon assay of shell from this layer returned a date of A.D. 885 to 1005.

Based on these findings, the first occupation at the site was during the Late

Archaic, shortly before Caloosahatchee I. The (Test Unit 1) Stratum V occupation dates to period IIA, and the Stratum III occupation may be dated to period IIA or IIB. A subsequent occupation during Caloosahatchee IIB marks the last aboriginal use of the site. The mound is believed to have been given its distinctive “U” shape through addition of shell and little soil. Such “preparatory” layers of fill are seen beneath the

Caloosahatchee IIA and IIB occupational surfaces, suggesting that the mound was first given its shape during the Caloosahatchee IIA/B transition. This construction is contemporary with U-shaped designs at several other nearby shell midden sites, suggesting that 8CH356 was one of a culturally-defined network of settlements; Silcox

Key and Silcox North are about 2 kilometers away at the mouth of Whidden Branch. 204

Site: 8CH357, Silcox North Ceramics: 63 Habitat: mangrove, estuarine bay Shell Artifacts: 35 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm Bone Artifacts: 1 Site Type: Bifurcated Mound Components: Cal. IIB, American 20th Cent. Radiocarbon Date(s): (2) A.D. 865-1015 Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 21 Area: 2668 m2 Subsurface Finds: 78 Volume: 1008 m3 Marker Location: 0395079/2969885

The Silcox North site is a large, low shell midden just north of Silcox Key. Based on information available before fieldwork (Luer and Archibald 1988a), cluster analysis classified the site as a Shell Dome. Firsthand examination of the site revealed more pronounced bifurcation of the site than was previously noted, so the site has been judgementally re-assigned to the type Bifurcated Mounds. Based on dense Brazilian pepper noted on the site’s upper portions, as well as a piece of unidentified metal recovered from 10 to 20 cm ground surface, it is evident that some portions of the site have been cleared for use in the modern era. No other modern disturbance was noted.

Luer and Archibald’s (1988a:89) surface collection includes a Type D hammer, an indeterminate horse conch hammer, a quahog anvil, 8 STP potsherds, and two pieces of worked lightning whelk shell. Various historic materials were also noted in northwestern areas of the site. Aboriginal materials surface-collected in 1995 include a BGP potsherd, a Type D hammer, a Type C hammer, a Type A hammer, and a piece of debitage (all of lightning whelk). Historic artifacts found include ceramics, brick, and glass. A preliminary shovel test performed in 1995 yielded seven STP potsherds, a BGP potsherd, a worked columella, a horse conch Type D hammer, and 13 pieces of debitage.

Excavation revealed three distinct strata in the site’s upper 70 cm. The topmost layer, Stratum I, consisted of black humus, roots, and crushed shell. This stratum 205

Figure 11. Silcox North site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 206 represents the depth of the site’s historic and organic disturbance. Artifacts recovered from Stratum I include eight STP potsherds and two pieces of whelk-shell debitage.

Stratum II consists of black moderately compact sand with shell and appears to represent a dense occupation zone. Artifacts recovered from Stratum II include 32 STP potsherds, two BGP potsherds, a worked columella, a quahog anvil, a quahog anvil/chopper, five pieces of lightning whelk debitage, one bone point, and one piece of metal (from near the horizon). Radiocarbon assay of shell from below 50 cm in Stratum II dates its deposition to between A.D. 885 and 1005. Stratum III is comprised of damp, very dark gray sand with shells similar to those in Stratum II. It contained 4 STP potsherds and one indeterminate hammer and may represent a constructive midden substrate for the Stratum

II occupation. Radiocarbon assay of shell from Stratum III dates its deposition to between A.D. 865 and 1015. Based on this evidence, Silcox North appears to have been constructed and occupied during early Caloosahatchee IIB.

The distinctive bifurcated shape of Silcox North is believed to signify its affiliation with the Acline Locality and with the Whidden Branch site, perhaps as a distinct but related culturally-defined locale (“Silcox-Whidden Locality”). Like several other nearby sites, Silcox North is advantageously close to both the Acline Locality and the Cape Haze Peninsula (west across Charlotte Harbor).

Ancestors of Silcox North’s inhabitants may have occupied the immediate vicinity for many years prior to its construction, as suggested by the earlier date of midden on nearby Silcox Key. Also, the position of Silcox North downstream of the similarly- shaped Whidden Branch site suggests these two places may have been occupied by related peoples. 207

Site: 8CH358, Silcox Key Ceramics: 34 Habitat: mangrove (estuarine bay) Shell Artifacts: 4 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Anomalous (“ridge enclosure”) Components: Cal. IIA, possibly later Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 570-680 Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 7 Area: 839 m2 Subsurface Finds: 31 Volume: 725 m3 Marker Location: 0395140/2969621

Due to its overall shape, this shell midden ring (first recorded by Luer and

Archibald 1988a) is unlike any other site known in the Caloosahatchee region. It is made of three segments, each of which may have been constructed at different times. Were these segments to be classified independently, they would be considered simple ridges.

Together, they form a basin. The function of the basin is unclear, as are the relative ages of the two eastern ring segments. It may represent an attempt to build a cistern (see

Widmer 1988:264), but the practicality of the structure for this purpose is doubtful.

Further exploratory investigation of the basin is certainly warranted. Most likely, the circular pattern reflects an architectural design homologous to the horseshoe-shaped or circular embankments seen at Belle Glade sites. In fact, due to its shape the Silcox Key site has high potential for interpretation as a product of early Belle Glade immigration or influence in the study area. Based on existing dates, at least part of the site was built within the context of egalitarian social conditions.

A similar use of multiple midden ridges to partly enclose a space is evident later at

8CH351 (above). Except for the low ridge seen at the southeast end of Silcox Key, the site would also be similar to several “U”-shaped structures that appear slightly later in the

Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone (8CH69 and more closely, 8CH356). 208

Figure 12. Silcox Key site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 209

Surface finds by Luer and Archibald (1988a:93) included a Type C hammer and 6

STP potsherds. A preliminary shovel test performed in 1995 yielded six STP potsherds, one BGP potsherd, and a worked lightning whelk columella. During the current investigation, the western ridge was explored through excavation in Test Unit 1.

This excavation revealed four strata. The uppermost is a very dark brown humic zone that contained nine STP potsherds. Stratum II is a dark grayish brown layer of sand with fragmentary shell. It contained 12 STP potsherds, a perforated bivalve net weight, and a Type G hammer. Based on these contents, the layer is believed to represent an occupation zone. Radiocarbon assay of shell from Stratum II dates the occupation to between A.D. 575 and 680. This coincides with the artifact assemblage recovered, which is consistent with Caloosahatchee IIA occupations. Stratum III appears to be a layer of ash that yielded little or no artifacts. Stratum IV appears to be comprised of more whole shell than Stratum II, with some gray sand toward the top decreasing in quantity with depth. It may represent a fairly rapid episode of constructive filling earlier in

Caloosahatchee II, since it too yielded no artifacts.

The close proximity of Silcox Key to Silcox North (8CH357) suggests that the sites are developmentally related. Based on radiocarbon results, the tested portions of the two sites were not occupied concurrently for a long time. However, the same lineage of peoples may have occupied both sites. The function of Silcox Key may have changed during early Caloosahatchee IIB when a broad, low, Bifurcated Mound site (Silcox

North) was constructed 300 m to the north. Recovery of one Type C hammer from the surface of Silcox Key suggests that the site was used at least lightly during

Caloosahatchee IIB. If Silcox Key was used then, most domestic activities may have 210 occurred in another area of the site. Alternatively, Caloosahatchee IIB domestic activities at Silcox Key may have been shifted to Silcox North (8CH357), leaving Silcox Key abandoned or used infrequently for other purposes (e.g., as a charnel pond).

As was the case for Silcox North, Silcox Key is a short distance downstream from the Whidden Branch site. The latter site was apparently occupied before and during the habitation of both “Silcox” sites. The Silcox sites may have both been occupied, through time, by groups related to (perhaps descendants of) the residents of the Whidden Branch site. For this reason, the area is referred to here as the Silcox-Whidden Locality.

Site: 8CH359, Blacks Island Ceramics: 16 Habitat: mangrove (estuarine bay) Shell Artifacts: 4 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm Bone Artifacts: 1 Site Type: Shell Dome Components: early Cal. IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 720-865 Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 3 Area: 128 m2 Subsurface Finds: 18 Volume: 15 m3 Marker Location: 0394670/2968648

Luer and Archibald (1988a:96) first recorded Black’s Island and there collected a quahog anvil and two STP potsherds. The site is a small shell dome covered in buckthorn and knickerbean trees, on the eastern edge of Charlotte Harbor. Excavation in Test Unit 1 revealed four strata. Stratum I is black sand with crushed and some whole shell. It contained three STP potsherds, a worked columella, a quahog anvil, and an indeterminate hammer. Stratum II is very dark gray moist sand with more whole shell. It yielded nine

STP potsherds, a BGP sherd, and a perforated tiger shark’s (Galeocerdo cuvieri) tooth.

Stratum III consists of dark gray damp sand in shell with less matrix than the above occupation zones (Strata I and II) and only one identifiable artifact, a perforated bivalve 211

Figure 13. Black's Island site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 212 net weight. A radiocarbon assay of shell from Stratum III indicates that it, and possibly

Stratum II, was deposited between A.D. 720 and 865 during the Caloosahatchee IIA/IIB transition. Recovered artifacts appear to support this assay. Stratum IV is similar to

Stratum III, but slightly darker due to excessive dampness. Stratum IV continues below the observed water level at 72 cm below ground surface. It contained three STP potsherds.

Similar to the Cockroach site, the Black’s Island site reveals only limited use and may therefore represent a collecting station or fish camp. It is located close enough to

Silcox North and Silcox Key that it easily could have been used by people from either of these communities. In further support of this possible affiliation, it dates to the period when these two site’s occupations may have overlapped (the Caloosahatchee IIA/B transition). Therefore, the Black’s Island site is hypothetically considered a collecting station or fish camp that comprised an element of the Silcox-Whidden Locality.

Site: 8CH360, Lime Key Ceramics: 15 Habitat: mangrove (estuarine bay) Shell Artifacts: 5 Size of Excavation: 2: 30cm2 and 50 cm2 Bone Artifacts: 1 Site Type: Ridge, Shell Dome Components: Cal IIB, III, 20th Century Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 1025-1180 Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 14 Area: 110 m2 (dome only) Subsurface Finds: 7 Volume:19 m3 (dome only) Marker Location: 0394697/2967217

Lime Key features two small shell middens, both of which were first recorded by

Luer and Archibald (1988a). Due to the possibility that these non-contiguous middens were deposited in unrelated events (deemed likely due to their different shapes) the site 213

Figure 14. Lime Key site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 214 was excluded from the typological cluster analysis. If it had been included, it probably would have been classified as Anomalous. Based on the investigator’s judgment, the two middens appear to be a Ridge (to the south) and a small Shell Dome (to the north).

Surface collection on the southern midden yielded a quahog anvil (Luer and

Archibald 1988a:100), a lightning whelk indeterminate hafted tool, an STP potsherd, and a piece of historic whiteware ceramic. Excavation there in a 50-cm square test unit (Test

Unit 1) revealed three distinct strata before being discontinued due to time and access considerations. Stratum I consists of finely crushed and fragmentary shell in dense gray sand, apparently an occupation zone. It contained two pieces of shell debitage and a piece of worked bone. Stratum II consists of compact, dense gray sand similar to Stratum I, but with considerably more mussel shell and only one artifact, a worked lightning whelk columella. Stratum III is made of black sand with fragmentary mussel shell. One BGP potsherd was recovered from Stratum III. Stratum III probably represents an occupation zone earlier than Stratum I. Shell from Stratum III has been radiocarbon dated to between

A.D. 1025 and 1180, late Caloosahatchee IIB. This evidence suggests that the upper occupation zone was created later in Caloosahatchee IIB or in Caloosahatchee III.

Surface finds from the northern dome midden include a St. Johns Check Stamped potsherd and four STP potsherds (Luer and Archibald 1988a:100). Five more STP potsherds were surface-collected during fieldwork in 1999. Shovel-test inspection of this

small midden revealed two strata very similar to Strata I and II in Test Unit 1. The shovel test yielded three STP potsherds from 30 to 40 cm below ground surface. Based on stratigraphy, this small dome was probably formed contemporaneous with or perhaps 215 slightly later than the midden to the south. A radiocarbon sample was obtained from the same level as the three potsherds, but not processed.

Data suggest that Lime Key was used as a collecting station/ fish camp. The two separate middens probably represent similar use on multiple occasions, and perhaps simultaneous use by two distinct parties within the same culture period. Use of the larger midden in late period IIB or early III and the smaller in period III means that the site could have been used by inhabitants of the Silcox-Whidden locality and/or of the Fines

Key Locality (hypothesized below). In fact, the juxtaposition of this site between two hypothetical localities (as defined by sites clustered with bifurcated mounds) is highly suggestive. Perhaps each of these two small “collecting-station” middens was deposited by members of distinct, roughly contemporaneous lineages. This would mean that collecting stations could have served as boundary markers, as well as harvesting grounds.

If this was so, then distribution of collecting stations/ fish camps at the edges of lineal territories may also have increased exploitative efficiency by spreading impacts over a greater area.

Site: 8CH361, Fines Key Ceramics: 63 Habitat: mangrove (estuarine bay) Shell Artifacts: 17 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 4 Site Type: Bifurcated Mound Historic Context: Caloosahatchee IIB, III Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 805-965 Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 22 Area: 882 m2 Subsurface Finds: 62 Volume: 613 m3 Marker Location: 0394722/2965882

Fines Key appears to be a small Bifurcated Mound. Luer and Archibald

(1988a:103) first documented the site. The map here includes several amendments to 216

1

Figure 15. Fines Key site map. Contours are in meters. 217 their original map. The ridge-like length/width ratio of the mound suggests the general dimensions of a simple Ridge, but with two platform areas separated by a “U”-shaped indentation. No signs of looting were apparent at the site, but a makeshift privy and various pieces of modern camping debris make it evident that the site has been used recently for recreational purposes.

Artifacts were collected from the site’s surface in three locations. Three STP potsherds, one BGP sherd, and a sandstone abrader were found at 0394734/2965904. Ten

STP potsherds were found at 0394706/2965905. A Type A hammer was found at

0394706/29655905. Luer and Archibald (1988a:103) also surface-collected 3 indeterminate whelk-shell hammers, an ark-shell net weight, a “Glades-like” rim sherd, and a St. Johns Check Stamped potsherd.

Excavation in a 1-meter-square unit (Test Unit 1) on the mound’s southern lobe revealed five distinct strata. Stratum I consists of loose, dark gray humic sand and crushed shell. It yielded two STP potsherds and probably represents post-occupational, infrequent use. Stratum II appears to be a very dark gray Caloosahatchee III occupation zone, consisting of sand and shell. It contained 10 STP potsherds, nine BGP potsherds, a

St. Johns Check Stamped potsherd, a lightning whelk shell vessel, and a bone point fragment. Stratum III is black sandy loam with crushed shell and charcoal. It contained

16 STP potsherds, three BGP potsherds, four quahog anvils, and a pointed bone fragment.

A radiocarbon assay of shell from Stratum III dates the layer to between A.D. 805 and

965, early Caloosahatchee IIB. Stratum IV is made of shell and thin dark gray sand, with much less crushed shell than seen in higher strata. It contained five STP potsherds, three

BGP potsherds, a quahog anvil, a bone point, a sawfish disk bead, and probably also dates 218 to Caloosahatchee IIB. Stratum V is very dark grayish brown sand in dense shell and contained two STP potsherds and six perforated bivalve net weights, all scallop shells of the same size and in direct association.

The sequence suggests that the Fines Key site was established in Caloosahatchee

IIB and continued to be used until period III. The site may have started as a ridge-shaped collecting station, but by late Caloosahatchee IIB was probably given the distinctive bifurcated shape it exhibits today. During Caloosahatchee IIB and III, inhabitants of

Silcox Key may have used Lime Key as a collecting station, perhaps sharing that

“boundary” site with members of a neighboring lineage in the Silcox-Whidden Locality.

Along with Lime Key and Cotton Key, the Fines Key bifurcated mound indicates a third hypothetical, culturally-defined locality. The Fines Key-related sites appear to have been occupied in Caloosahatchee period III, making this cluster of sites the most recent of the three localities that have been hypothesized.

In fact, if the three localities are accepted as hypothesized, additional spatial and temporal trends may be identified in the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone. Firstly, the size of localities (in number of sites) and of their centers (in volume and area) is sequentially smaller as one moves south. This trend is perhaps a function of variable physical environments (potential habitats) in the zone. Near the latitude of the Cotton

Key site (described next), the frequency of saltern habitats, cross-cutting streams, and tidal ponds diminishes greatly. The geographic distribution of larger localities appears linked to access to saltern habitats on major streams, from which estuarine bays, brackish tidal ponds, and uplands could all have been accessed with ease. Secondly, the southernmost (Fines Key) locality appears to have been occupied after activity at the two 219 northernmost localities (Acline and Silcox-Whidden) seems to have declined. Although the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone does not appear to have been truly abandoned in

Caloosahatchee III, habitations and construction activity there appears to have declined significantly and moved south by A.D. 1200 to 1350.

Site: 8CH362, Cotton Key Ceramics: 28 Habitat: mangrove (estuarine bay) Shell Artifacts: 2 Size of Excavation: 2 @ 50cm x 50cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Anomalous Historic Context: Cal. III, IV Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 1290-1500 Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 0 Area: 610 m2 Subsurface Finds: 30 Volume: 148 m3 Marker Location: 0395029/2965179 (T.U.1), 0395014/2965235 (T.U.2)

The Cotton Key site consists of two parallel, non-uniform ridges and is unique in this aspect. At 8CH353, the only other set of ridges under consideration, ridges were aligned end-to-end. The contents of the Cotton Key middens also make them anomalous because of their late date and great quantities of ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa granosissima) shell. Constituent shells found in nearly all midden layers of other sites were oyster, crown conch, and moon snail or mussel (in order of abundance). The Cotton

Key middens are comprised primarily of mussel shell, with few other shells and no surface-visible artifacts.

Test Unit 1 was excavated in the south-most midden, a lobate ridge. This larger of the two ridges expands to a rounded lobe on its western end. In the center of this lobe, a looter pit or large tree-fall has disturbed the midden. No other disturbances were noted.

Excavation of Test Unit 1 in the main ridge revealed four strata. Stratum I is a fine sandy root mat with crushed oyster, crown conch, and some mussel shell. It yielded 16 STP 220

Figure 16. Cotton Key site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 221 potsherds. Stratum II is an apparent occupation zone made of black sand in mussel and crown conch. In it were found nine STP potsherds, a Sand-tempered Incised potsherd, and a perforated bivalve net-weight. Stratum III is a relatively thick layer of sparse dark gray to very dark gray sand with more mussel. It contained only two STP potsherds.

Stratum VI was defined on the basis of a change in shell inclusions toward many more large, whole sunray clams (Macrocallista nimbosa), horse conchs, and large whelks.

Stratum IV also contained a horse-conch (Pleuroploca gigantea) pounder and abundant

“fish meal,” the bone of myriad very small fishes. Dark gray muck was encountered at the base of excavation where water intruded.

A brown patina was observed on the wet horse conch shells in Stratum IV. This patina is thought to be the well-preserved remnant of a thin organic layer or tissue produced by the living mollusk. The same layer has been observed peeling off of weathering, recently-harvested horse conchs and on horse conchs in lower, wet levels of other Caloosahatchee area sites (Patton and Ellis 1994:46). This suggests that the shells were deposited and preserved in a wet context, perhaps relatively recently. Radiocarbon assay of one of these horse conchs dates construction of Stratum IV (and all subsequent levels) to after A.D. 1290 to 1385.

Excavation in Test Unit 2 on the northern ridge revealed four strata of mussel midden. None yielded any artifacts, though Luer and Archibald (1988a) surface-collected three STP potsherds. Stratum I is black loamy sand with ash and burned shell, with some oyster and crown conch. Stratum II is the same, but with more charcoal. Stratum III is almost entirely charcoal, and Stratum IV is very dark gray silt loam in mussel midden. 222

Radiocarbon dating of shell from Stratum II dates this small midden’s intermediate layers to between A.D. 1430 and 1500.

These findings are interpreted to suggest that the southern midden was formed in

Caloosahatchee III. At that time the site was probably built near open water, as most other Ridge sites appear to have been. It may have been established as a collecting station, but eventually attained a size and a rounded lobe that suggest use for habitation.

For at least part Caloosahatchee III, the site was probably used by inhabitants of the Fines

Key Locality. Due to prevailing currents and perhaps to midden deposition as well,

Cotton Key then prograded to the north. Later, in Caloosahatchee IV, a second

“collecting station” midden was built closer to the water and used only briefly. The lack of artifacts in this later midden suggests that it was only used for extraction, and not habitation. There is no coeval “base camp” or mound-centered locality of which Cotton

Key might be considered a member, and the site does not itself reveal communal construction patterns. For this reason, the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone population is believed to have relocated during Caloosahatchee III and IV. The most likely destinations for these people were other Caloosahatchee sites in the Cape Haze, Pine Island Sound, or

Estero Bay Zones.

Site: 8CH450, Little Lake Ceramics: 27 Habitat: upland (backwater sinkhole) Shell Artifacts: 0 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Sheet Midden Components: Caloosahatchee IIA Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 450-595 Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 0 Area: 16743 m2 Subsurface Finds: 30 Volume: 3163 m3 Marker Location: 0397808/2971322 223

Site: 8CH480, Gartree Ceramics: 0 Habitat: upland (intermittent creek) Shell Artifacts: 0 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Sheet Midden Components: Caloosahatchee Radiocarbon Date(s): sample unavailable Integrity: major disturbance Surface Finds: 0 Area: 2281 m2 Subsurface Finds: 0 Volume: 525 m3 Marker Location: 0397821/2971126

Gartree and Little lake are two very close, similar sites. They are therefore shown on the same map and presented here together. Little Lake is a black earth Sheet Midden next to a small pond or sinkhole. According to local environmental specialist Alton

Cheatham (personal communication, Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center 1999), the pond has been referred to as the "Acline Fauna Pit" due to paleontological finds recorded there. The archaeological site was first recorded when a state official observed shell in the sides of a mosquito ditch that connects with the pond on its northeast side. A series of systematic shovel tests were used to delineate site boundaries during fieldwork in 1995

(Patton 1996). Two STP potsherds and several pieces of deer, turtle, snake, stingray, fish, and small mammal bone were recovered from shovel tests. The locations of these shovel tests and their 1995 field specimen numbers are shown on the site map. Remains recovered from the two shovel tests east of the drainage ditch were very scant. The site boundary there is shown with a dashed line, since disturbance prevented clear definition.

Gartree is a smaller Sheet Midden site, so close to Little Lake that it may represent an activity area used by the latter site’s inhabitants. A mosquito ditch possibly dug along a natural intermittent drainage cuts through the small site. When first visited, freshwater flora and fauna were observed in the ditch. Subsequent shovel-testing delineated the site and yielded only scant traces of crown conch shell and charcoal. Excavation in a 1-m- 224

Figure 17. Little Lake and Gartree sites map. Excavations are not to scale. 225 square unit at the site revealed a thin, sparse midden with only occasional shell fragments.

The midden appeared “sandwiched” between two layers of clay illuviation. The lower clay deposit may have been available to aboriginal potters at Little Lake or Gartree. Due to shallow depth and a lack of concentrated or robust shell, no reliable radiocarbon sample could be obtained from the Gartree test unit.

The test unit in the Little Lake site revealed denser midden. Stratum I, a black, sandy, root-filled humus, yielded 12 STP potsherds. Stratum II, a very dense, compact black sand with whole and fragmented crown conch and oyster, contained 15 STP potsherds. A radiocarbon assay of Stratum II shell dates the midden layer to between

A.D. 440 and 595, or early Caloosahatchee IIA. Stratum III is culturally sterile.

Site: 8CH481, Black Cow Ceramics: 1 Habitat: upland/saltern interface by pond Shell Artifacts: 1 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Ridge Components: Cal. IIA, early IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 890-1015 Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 0 Area: 807 m2 Subsurface Finds: 2 Volume: 273 m3 Marker Location: 0397627/2970338

The Black Cow site is small oblong midden covered with Brazilian pepper trees next to a freshwater pond. It was first recorded in 1995 when only shell and bone (no artifacts) were found in an exploratory shovel test.

Excavation in a 1-m-square test unit (Test Unit 1) revealed four strata. Stratum I is a black silt loam with roots. It has been compacted somewhat, probably by cattle—one of which was seen taking shade on the mound in 1995. Stratum II is very dark gray silty clay loam with whole and fragmentary shell. A sample of this shell was radiocarbon 226

Figure 18. Black Cow site map. Contours are in meters. 227 dated to between A.D. 890 and 1015, in early Caloosahatchee IIB. One STP potsherd was also found in Stratum II. Stratum III is dark grayish brown silty clay with little or no shell. At its bottom, some shell appeared at the Stratum IV horizon. Stratum IV is wet, very dark gray loamy sand. It was found to contain a calciferous root or pneumatophore molds with occasional shell fragments and one piece of lightning whelk debitage.

The Black Cow midden is interpreted here as the remains of an inland collecting station used by parties from any of several contemporaneous Caloosahatchee IIA and early IIB localities nearby. The occupants of the Whidden Branch site would seem the most likely users, due to the short distance to that site (about 1.25 km). The site does not appear to have been used continuously, since the earlier (Stratum IV) and later (Stratum

II) middens are separated by over 10 centimeters of virtually sterile soil.

Site: 8CH482, Kessel Run Ceramics: 0 (2 < 1.5cm) Habitat: saltern (pond) Shell Artifacts: 1 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm Bone Artifacts: 1 Site Type: Sheet Midden Components: Late Archaic, Cal. I Radiocarbon Date(s): 1770-1615 B.C. Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 0 Area: 265 m2 Subsurface Finds: 2 Volume: 62 m3 Marker Location: 0396967/2969877

The Kessel Run site was first discovered during systematic survey in 1995 (Patton

1996). It is a small sheet midden of exceptional age in a remote location. Its proximity to a hyperhaline pond suggests that the people who occupied the Kessel Run site exploited the pond’s faunal resources. Systematic shovel-testing was used to delineate the site, which is also generally delineated by its dense population of mature Brazilian Pepper 228

Figure 19. Kessel Run site map (sketch by Dan Falt). Excavations are not to scale. 229 trees. Shovel-testing in 1995 yielded crown conch shell, deer bone, crab shell, and a piece of scored or engraved bone.

Excavation in Test Unit 1 revealed four strata. Stratum I is black, humic loamy sand. Stratum II is similar to Stratum I, except that it contains sparse shell fragments.

Stratum III is an occupation zone, consisting of moist loamy sand and dense (mostly oyster) shell. Radiocarbon assay of shell from the base of Stratum III returned a date between 1770 and 1615 B. C., suggesting the Kessel Run site is largely a product of people living in the early Late Archaic period. The site may also have been used during

Caloosahatchee I, as suggested by the recovery of a Type A hafted tool fragment near the

Stratum III horizon. Stratum IV is very damp loamy sand, grading from dark gray at the horizon to light gray at the base. For the most part, the site appears to be a limited-use

Late Archaic and Caloosahatchee I collecting station.

Site: 8CH483, Mid-Lake Ceramics: 8 Habitat: saltern, between ponds Shell Artifacts: 14 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Sheet Midden Components: early Cal. IIA to IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): A.D. 345-535 Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 14 Area: 8715 m2 Subsurface Finds: 8 Volume: 1819 m3 Marker Location: 0396498/2972410

The Mid-Lake site is a small sheet midden strategically positioned between two small hyperhaline ponds. The site’s aboriginal inhabitants undoubtedly exploited the fish and shellfish resources available at hand. Surface collection yielded a worked columella

(at 0396497/2972402), an STP potsherd (at 0396489/2972399), and a piece of debitage

(at 0396495/2972406). An earlier (1995) surface-collection yielded an STP potsherd, 230

Figure 20. Midlake site map. Contours are in meters. 231 five quahog anvils, two pieces of debitage, and two Type G hammers. Shovel tests performed at the same time yielded shell, faunal bone, a few potsherd fragments, and one piece of debitage.

Excavation in Test Unit 1 revealed four strata. Stratum I is black, rooty sand with slight crushed shell. It also contained a Type C hammer. Stratum II is black sand in crushed and whole shell. It contained five STP potsherds and one BGP potsherd, the latter having been recovered in profile from the base of what may be a shallow, intrusive pit-feature. Stratum III is very dark gray damp sand with many whole oysters. It contained a Type C hammer and a sample of constituent shell that was radiocarbon dated to between A.D. 345 and 535. Stratum IV is dark gray wet sand with virtually no midden shell.

The Mid-lake site was probably used most during early Caloosahatchee IIA, accounting for the (late period I) radiocarbon date and (period IIB) Type C hammer observed in Stratum III. Stratum II may date to late IIA or early IIB, as suggested by the

BGP potsherd. It seems likely that in these periods the Mid-lake site was used as a collecting station by parties from the Acline Locality.

Site: 8CH484, Cicada Lake Ceramics: 11 Habitat: saltern, palm grove by lake Shell Artifacts: 8 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 6 Site Type: Sheet Midden Components: Late Archaic, Cal. IIA, IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): 1885-1680 B.C. Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 2 Area: 9025 m2 Subsurface Finds: 23 Volume: 4322 m3 Marker Location: 0397065/2972404 232

Figure 21. Cicada Lake site map. Excavations are not to scale. 233

This Sheet Midden appears to be about 150 meters wide and nearly 200 meters long. Palm trees grow abundantly on the Cicada Lake site, encouraged perhaps by the thin shell midden. Shovel-testing was performed to delineate the site after it had been located using aerial photographs (Robert Repenning, CHSABP 1995). The 1995 shovel tests yielded a lightning whelk spoon/scoop, two pieces of lightning whelk debitage, and seven STP potsherds. At the same time, a Type C lightning whelk hammer was surface- collected. In 1999, a worked columella was surface-collected at 0397079/2972392.

Excavation in Test Unit 1 revealed three strata over limestone bedrock. Stratum I is black loamy sand with many roots. Artifacts recovered include a horse conch hammer fragment, a quahog anvil, a piece of worked bone, a bone point fragment, an STP sherd, and a broken quahog shell that appears intentionally reduced or chipped on all edges. The pottery and lightning whelk artifacts from surface collection suggest a Caloosahatchee IIB date for Stratum I. A pit-like feature with bone plotted at its base was seen in the west profile, intruding into Stratum II from Stratum I. Stratum II is black loamy sand with moderate whole and fragmented shell, bone, and limestone fragments. It contained four

STP potsherds, a pointed bone fragment, two point/pin midesections, and a bone point fragment. Stratum III, a layer of black sand loam with limestone fragments, contained only fragmentary ceramics.

A radiocarbon assay of shell from the base of Stratum II returned a date of between 1885 and 1680 B.C. The STP potsherds found in Stratum II contradict this early date. Either the ceramics were deposited later, intruding from the Stratum I occupation, or the dated shell in Stratum II had been redeposited. Since the shell was carefully recorded in situ and the ceramics were not, the former explanation is favored. This is 234 supported by recognition of the pit-like feature, which may have caused some mixing of soil strata at the Stratum II horizon.

Therefore, the Cicada Lake site has both a Late Archaic and a Caloosahatchee IIB component. Evidence for both components is scant and perhaps neither extends throughout the site. In fact, the site may be made up of many small midden deposits, representing repetitive use of Cicada Lake as an inland collecting station during many periods. Limestone bedrock is very close to the surface, providing long-term stability to the land form. Location next to the lake would have allowed convenient exploitation during many periods. The site is believed to have been used most intensively during late

Caloosahatchee IIA and early IIB, when nearby areas were most thickly settled. The site also may have hosted permanent habitations at that time, but no evidence of structures has yet been recovered.

Site: 8CH485, Cicada Point Ceramics: 10 Habitat: saltern, by lake Shell Artifacts: 0 Size of Excavation: none Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Sheet Midden Historic Context: Cal. IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): sample unavailable Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 0 Area: 4000m 2(approximate) Subsurface Finds: 15 Volume: 200m3 (approximate) Marker Location: unmarked

This ephemeral site was first identified during the CHMS in 1995 (Patton 1996).

It is located a very short distance across water southeast of 8CH484, the Cicada Lake site.

A series of systematic shovel tests was excavated to define the site's boundaries. In shovel-testing the site appeared as a thin layer or sparse occurrences of oyster and crown conch shell. The location of these tests (and 1995 Field Specimen numbers of samples 235

50 m

Figure 22. Cicada Point site map. Excavations are not to scale. 236 taken) are shown on the site map. When the site was revisited in 1999, no visible remains were apparent and all soils were wet. It was then believed that the site location had been misidentified and that the site was actually located on another small pond, southeast of the actual location. Subsequent analysis of aerial photographs indicates the site location as originally recorded.

Due to lack of conditions suitable for test-unit sampling in 1999, only 1995 shovel-test data are presented here to describe Cicada Point. Shovel tests yielded three

STP potsherds and seven BGP potsherds. On the basis of these finds, 8CH485 dates to

Caloosahatchee IIB and is potentially contemporaneous with late site use or occupation at the nearby Cicada Lake site and in the Acline Locality. The paucity of cultural material suggests use of the site as a collecting station.

Site: 8CH486, Creek-Bend Ceramics: 43 Habitat: upland by tidal creek Shell Artifacts: 0 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Sheet Midden Components: Caloosahatchee IIA, 20th C. Radiocarbon Date(s): sample unavailable Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 0 Area: 2205 m2 Subsurface Finds: 48 Volume: 539 m3 Marker Location: 0397729/2973183

The Creek-Bend site is represented by a concentration of artifacts on a natural levee, the south bank of a major freshwater tributary to Alligator Creek that drains a black needle-rush (Juncus sp.) marsh. Twentieth-century debris found on the surface include a piece of a ceramic whiteware teacup and a doll. One STP potsherd, a worked columella, and a piece of debitage were also surface-collected. The site was identified and delineated through shovel-testing, which yielded seven STP potsherds, two BGP 237 Figure 23. Creek-Bend site map. Excavations 23. Creek-Bend are not to scale. Figure 238 potsherds, a piece of milk-glass (possibly a fragment of a canning jar lid-liner), and a piece of glazed stoneware.

As the site was delineated, a scatter of surface-visible shell was observed to the southwest. This scatter is probably of recent origin. Abundant twentieth-century refuse

(including glass bottles and tin cans) was noted less than 50 m southwest of the western- most positive shovel test. Because no shell midden was observed in association with the potsherds found in shovel-testing, this shell scatter is probably associated with the

Twentieth-century artifacts recovered during surface-collection and shovel-testing. The distribution of materials suggests that reuse of the Caloosahatchee archaeological site area has been dispersed but light.

Excavation in Test Unit 1 revealed only two strata. The upper 30 cm are alluvial sands, while Stratum II appears to be a zone of clay illuviation. Artifact finds (all STP potsherds) were found concentrated in the upper 30 cm of soil, especially between 10 and

30 cm below ground surface. No shell suitable for radiocarbon dating was observed in association with these potsherds. Based on the artifacts recovered from the aboriginal site, it probably dates to Caloosahatchee IIA. The site may have been used by residents of the Acline Locality as a collecting station near a fresh-water marsh.

Site: 8CH487, Bumblebee Ceramics: 286 Habitat: mangrove (estuarine bay) Shell Artifacts: 14 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 1 Site Type: Ridge Components: Cal. IIA/B transition, IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): (2) A.D. 670-790 Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 33 Area: 1602 m2 Subsurface Finds: 268 Volume: 592 m3 Marker Location: 0393943/2973852 239

The Bumblebee site was first located in 1995 (Patton 1996) when a suspiciously linear “pond” in the mangrove fringe north of Alligator Creek was observed on the USGS

Punta Gorda 1:24,000 topographic map. This pattern was found to represent an archaeological site, incorrectly classified as a pond by aerial photograph interpreters. The site is situated on a very productive-appearing bay just north of Alligator Creek.

In 1995, a surface-collection of the site yielded 24 STP potsherds, three BGP potsherds (including a rim-sherd that may have been incised), a Type C hammer, a Type

D hammer, and two pieces of debitage. An exploratory shovel test contained 21 STP potsherds and two BGP potsherds, with 83 percent (20) of the artifacts found in the top

30 centimeters.

In 1999, two quahog anvils were collected from the site surface at 0393978

/2973845. Test excavation (Test Unit 1) revealed four distinct strata above the current sea level. Stratum I is very dark brown humus that contained four STP potsherds.

Stratum II consists of very loose gray sand with crushed and whole shell. It contained 87

STP potsherds, 10 BGP potsherds, and 6 pieces of lightning whelk debitage. Midden shell from Stratum II (20 to 30 cm below surface) was radiocarbon dated to between A.D.

680 and 785. Stratum III is dark grayish brown sand with very finely fragmented shell. It yielded 80 STP potsherds, 8 BGP potsherds, a perforated bivalve net-weight, and a bone disk bead. Stratum IV is very dark grayish brown wet sand in mostly whole shell. It contained significantly fewer artifacts than Strata II and III: 34 STP potsherds, 13 BGP potsherds, and one quahog anvil. The anvil was radiocarbon dated to between A.D. 670 and 790. 240 Figure 24. Bumblebee site map. Contours are in meters. 24. Bumblebee Figure 241

Strata II and III apparently represent late Caloosahatchee IIA occupation zones built atop a layer of whole-shell fill (Stratum IV). The fact that this fill layer appears to have been deposited shortly before the occupational strata helps to support the idea that it was rapidly and intentionally deposited as an occupational terrace. The upper strata contain such dense artifact and faunal remains to suggest intensive occupation. A similar pattern, intensive occupation of ridges along mangrove-lined estuarine bays, dates to

Caloosahatchee period I (cf. Useppa Island and Vanderbilt sites in Chapter 2).

Construction of this type of habitation site during Caloosahatchee IIA in the Alligator

Creek-East Shore Zone therefore conforms to a regional pattern of non-unique sites that show traditionally minimal efforts at communal construction beyond the low terracing also noted above for collecting stations.

In fact, due to its location on a small, highly productive bay, the Bumblebee site may have been originally used as a collecting station and then been expanded considerably during the Caloosahatchee IIA/B transition. Two statistically identical radiocarbon results over 50 cm apart in the midden indicate that the site is primarily a product of the IIA/B transition. The site reflects considerable resource consumption by the area’s inhabitants concurrent with suspected social changes in the Acline Mound

Locality. It is therefore suggested that the Bumblebee site was a staging-ground for resources extraction that subsidized chiefdom formation in the Acline Locality. The site may have been abandoned following this formative juncture, but was probably used lightly and without further constructive effort throughout occupation of the Acline

Locality. Recovery of Type C and D hammers from the site surface supports this inference. 242

Site: 8CH488, Prop-Wash Ceramics: 30 Habitat: mangrove, mouth of tidal creek Shell Artifacts: 2 Size of Excavation: 30cm x 30cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Ridge Components: Caloosahatchee IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): sample unavailable Integrity: Re-deposited Surface Finds: 37 plus glass Area: 3m2 (approximate) Subsurface Finds: 2 Volume: 1m3 (approximate) Marker Location: 0394744/2973732

The Prop-Wash midden is situated on the south shore near the mouth of Alligator

Creek. The site has been eroded and redeposited by wave action, for the most part caused by the passage of boats. The site is located just seaward of a no-wake zone and is almost constantly subjected to the waves caused by accelerating (outgoing) or decelerating

(incoming) boats. It now consists of a narrow berm of mostly redeposited midden material. Thin intact midden exists, but apparently not more than about a square meter in extent. Its original configuration is unclear, but a Ridge form seems likely. A 1995 surface collection yielded nine STP potsherds, 10 BGP potsherds, a piece of debitage, several pieces of glass, and a segment of angle-iron. Also, horseshoe crab carcasses were consistently observed covering the berm.

Excavation of a shovel test in the berm’s highest section revealed three strata. A piece of debitage and a piece of glass were found in Strata I and II. The test yielded one

STP potsherd in Stratum III, which may represent a remnant of intact midden. But due to the proximity of this stratum to the ground surface, no reliable radiocarbon sample could be collected. Finally, surface-collection of shallowly submerged, redeposited midden yielded 10 more STP potsherds and 6 pieces of metal. Based on these artifacts, the site was occupied during Caloosahatchee IIB and was potentially an element of the Acline 243

Figure 25. Prop-Wash site map. 244

Locality. A collecting station function seems likely for the site, but most evidence necessary for further characterization has been destroyed.

Site: 8CH506, Buckthorn Ceramics: 3 Habitat: saltern/mangrove by tidal pond Shell Artifacts: 0 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Sheet Midden Historic Context: early Cal I to IIA Radiocarbon Date(s): 615-385 B.C. Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 1 Area: 60m2 (approximate) Subsurface Finds: 2 Volume: 20m3 (approximate) Marker Location: 0395814/2972410

This small site is located to the east of a clear area in which ditch spoil has been spread out in an attempt to mitigate environmental impacts. To the north of the site, a creek that connects to a nearby tidal pond crossed this mitigation area. To the north of the site, a tall palm tree was observed growing next to this stream. To the south, a huge buckthorn tree occupies most of the site’s surface. One BGP potsherd was collected on the northwest corner of the site at the edge of the mitigation clearing.

Excavation in Test Unit 1 revealed three strata. Stratum I is black sand with moderate shell. It yielded seven STP potsherds. Stratum II is black loamy sand in shell.

It yielded midden shell and bone but no artifacts, and was radiocarbon dated to between

615 and 385 B.C. Stratum III is similar to Stratum II, but with much more whole shell and no bone or artifacts. It may have been deposited as a refuse-terrace for the

Caloosahatchee I inhabitants of the Stratum II surface. Based on the single BGP potsherd collected, Caloosahatchee IIA inhabitants of the nearby Acline Locality may have used the site as well. Site inhabitants undoubtedly exploited the nearby tidal pond, but only 245

Figure 26. Buckthorn site map. Stream location is approximate. Contours are in meters. 246 a small party could have occupied and the site for very long. It may therefore represent a collecting station. CHAPTER 5 CAPE HAZE PENINSULA AND NORTH SHORE ZONES

The Cape Haze and North Shore Zones comprise the northernmost seaward portion of the Caloosahatchee area. Cape Haze Peninsula sites discussed in Chapter 2 include Big Mound Key, Vanderbilt, Cash Mound, and John Quiet Mound. The North

Shore Zone appears less highly populated, with only seven sites known sites in the

CHSABP site inventory (Luer and Archibald 1988a). Two of the North Shore Zone sites and seven of seventeen known Cape Haze Zone sites were investigated during field work.

Many Cape Haze Zone sites have been located by Edic (1986, notes on USGS map Punta

Gorda SW) and several were visited by Luer and Archibald (1988a).

Environmentally, the Cape Haze and North Shore Zones may be characterized as together containing abundant habitats of all types (Patton 1996; Walker 1992).

Singularly, the Cape Haze Zone contains few upland habitats and the North Shore Zone contains no oceanic bays. Waters in the western portion of the Cape Haze Zone are generally of much higher salinity than in other places, due to Boca Grande Pass.

Conversely, the mouths of the Peace and Myakka Rivers in the North Shore Zone represent areas of relatively lower salinity.

Investigation of sites in the Cape Haze Zone and other zones in the CHSABP was less intensive than that accomplished for the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone. As a result, evidence for relationships among these sites is less complete. Any relationships inferred here in other zones are therefore more speculative, but may provide a framework

247 248 useful to future investigations of hierarchical settlement patterns in the Caloosahatchee area.

Site: 8CH9, Catfish Point Ceramics: 138 Habitat: mangrove, oceanic bay Shell Artifacts: 66 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Ridge Historic Context: Cal. IIB, IIA?, 20th Cent. Radiocarbon Date(s): unprocessed Integrity: substantial disturbance Surface Finds: 11 Area: 11662 m2 Subsurface Finds: 201 Volume: 10804 (> 7131) m3 Marker Location: 0375529/2966838

Catfish Point is a very large midden Ridge near Gasparilla Pass. It was first described by Luer and Archibald (1988a). The site occupies the cuspate foreland of a mangrove swamp situated between Catfish Creek and Coral Creek. The ends of the midden ridge curve north and east, respectively, enclosing a small bay (locally, a "hole").

This hole is tidally influenced through a shallow opening at the north end. In its current configuration, fish traps or nets placed across its mouth would harvest many edible species. The fact that the midden covers the ridge and partially encloses the hole suggests that midden may have been deposited for this purpose (Luer and Archibald 1988a:13). If this was done, it was probably an improvement to the existing cuspate land form. For this reason, the volume estimate above must be qualified. It was calculated based on all elevations above sea-level, some of which are probably a product of natural beach formation. Nevertheless, at least one meter of midden depth was demonstrated in archaeological testing, so the actual midden volume is probably not less than 66 percent of the maximum estimate given above (or 7131 m3). 249 Figure 27. Catfish Point site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. Excavation is not to scale. 27. Catfish Point site map (adapted from Luer Figure 250

The ridge rises gently from its ends toward its widest and highest point, near the center. At this point is located a ramshackle cistern-house and the remains of another small house. These structures and the rusting remains of a tractor engine and other machine parts indicate the site was used as a homestead in the twentieth century. The area north of the ridge's center is low, flat, and overgrown by mature Brazilian pepper.

This and the nearby machine parts suggest clearing for agricultural purposes. Based on the integrity of deposits observed in excavation and the absence of other disturbances, modern activities did not include significant midden redeposition. Therefore, the low area to the north may have existed aboriginally as a plaza or common area (Sheet

Midden) associated with the surrounding ridge.

Surface collections of the Catfish Point site by Luer and Archibald (1988a) yielded four lightning whelk hammers, three horse conch hammers, and one STP potsherd. In 1999 a columella plane/adze was surface-collected near the cistern house at

UTM coordinates 0375523/2966853. From another location on the surface

(0375543/2966876) a horse conch pounder and an indeterminate cutting-edged tool were collected.

Excavation in a 1-m-square unit southwest of the cistern house revealed minor modern disturbance (less than 15cm deep) of upper layers (Strata I and II in the profile diagram). Strata I and II contained eight pieces of metal, six STP potsherds, a piece of debitage, and an indeterminate hafted lightning whelk tool.

The most recent undisturbed aboriginal stratum (Stratum III) is a thick one, consisting primarily of penshell and fighting conch, but with many other common food species appearing. The layer is loose, contains little soil, and is not heavily stained by 251 occupation, suggesting that it may have accrued fairly rapidly. No other evaluated stratum or site contained such conspicuous amounts of fighting conch throughout. Shell tools recovered include a Type D horse conch hammer, two unhafted lightning whelk hammers, an unhafted fighting conch hammer, two indeterminate lightning whelk hammers, and 28 pieces of whelk-shell debitage. Of ceramic artifacts, 17 STP and six

BGP potsherds were recovered from Stratum III. Abundant lightning whelk artifacts and evidence of their production, the significant presence of Belle Glade ceramics, and the suspected dates of lower strata all suggest that the layer was added during late

Caloosahatchee IIB.

The fighting conch stratum overlies an apparent occupational zone, Stratum IV, containing 12 STP potsherds, much bone, an undrilled shell bead (bead “blank”), an indeterminate lightning whelk hammer, a quahog anvil, two pieces of debitage, a possible

18 mm net-mesh gauge, and scattered charcoal. Shells found in this layer indicate that oyster, scallop, and crown conch were commonly harvested during its occupation. Based on the artifact inclusions of lower strata, Stratum IV probably dates to late

Caloosahatchee IIA or early IIB.

The underlying stratum (Stratum V in the profile) consists of gray fine sand in oyster, penshell, and pear whelk shells. This thick stratum yielded 74 STP potsherds and abundant faunal bone. It also contained a quahog anvil, a quahog chopper, four pieces of debitage, and a Type C lightning whelk hammer (in level 9, 80 to 90 cm below ground surface). Based on these finds, especially the low stratigraphic position of the Type C hammer, Stratum V probably accrued in late Caloosahatchee IIA or early IIB and served as a substrate for occupation in Stratum IV. 252

Below this and at the base of excavation, Stratum VI contained light bone, 22 STP ceramics, two quahog anvils, one piece of debitage, a Type C lightning whelk hammer, a

Type D lightning whelk hammer, a perforated cockle (Dinocardium robustum) net- weight, and a perforated olive (Oliva sp.) shell. This stratum is very darkly stained and appears to be an earlier occupational horizon, probably dating to late Caloosahatchee IIA or early IIB.

Size and form distinguish Catfish Point among many other Cape Haze Zone sites, and its chronology suggests that it was contemporary with Big Mound Key’s IIA occupation and major construction events there in IIB. Its surface area is comparable to that seen at the largest sites in the Alligator Creek Zone. Its volume is only a little less than that of Acline Mound. Communal architecture is evident at Catfish Point in two ways. First, the hypothetical construction of a fish impoundment discussed above, and second, there is a slight constriction at the ridge's center that suggests the joining of two lobes in a bifurcate pattern. The loose fighting conch stratum observed in excavation may have been added in such a way as to accomplish this limited bifurcation. With additional evidence of related sites, Catfish Point could represent occupation by a group similar to that interpreted for the Acline Mound.

The relationship of the Catfish Point site to other contemporaneous sites in the

Cape Haze Zone is unclear, but some facts bear consideration. Perhaps most importantly, the massive Big Mound Key site (typed as a Site Complex) is less than five kilometers east by water. Another contemporaneous site that shows communal architecture, the John

Quiet Mound, is about the same distance from Big Mound Key, but on its opposite (east) side. Caloosahatchee IIB communal architecture at all three sites exhibits bifurcated 253 designs and likely fish impoundments. But only at Big Mound Key were multiple platform mounds constructed over three meters high. This fact and Big Mound Key’s geographic centrality to the Cape Haze Zone suggest that the site's role in that Zone was somehow unique.

Nevertheless, if Catfish Point, John Quiet Mound, or Big Mound Key each represent the center of a Caloosahatchee lineage's locality, then at least one burial area might be identifiable near these sites. As discussed above, Boggess Ridge has been identified as a likely Caloosahatchee IIA burial context for Big Mound Key. It is relatively close to Big Mound Key habitation areas (not isolated), in a typical Weeden

Island-related and/or Belle Glade-related fashion. These two sites therefore represent a hypothetical “Big Mound Key Locality,” with a post-IIA burial area yet unidentified. The

John Quiet Mound (and Cash Mound) may be related to the Cape Haze Mound (8CH347; see below) where burials are noted, or some yet unidentified burial area, in a “Turtle Bay

Locality.”

"Catfish Creek Locality” burials might have been interred in the Cayo Pelau burial mound (8CH1, five kilometers distant by water), but the several sites on this island probably represent yet another lineage’s locality (“Cayo Pelau Locality”). Edic (Punta

Gorda SW map notes, 1986) records four unexplored midden ridges (8CH29, [8CH31 and 8CH47], 8CH41, plus an unrecorded site south of 8CH29) and two smaller, roundish deposits (8CH27, 8CH30), in addition to the burial mound (8CH1), on Cayo Pelau.

Willey (1982:344-345) assigns the Cayo Pelau burial “tumulus” (excavated by Montague

Tallant, United States National Museum numbers 378302-378310) to the period “Weeden

Island I,” and considers it the southernmost Weeden Island (-related) burial mound on the 254

Florida Gulf Coast. By comparison with recent Manasota culture chronologies (Luer and

Almy 1982:42, 46-47; Milanich 1994:227), the mound may have been constructed between A.D. 300 and 700. From this it seems most likely that Cayo Pelau was the center of its own Weeden Island-influenced locality contemporaneous with early use of

Big Mound Key and Caloosahatchee IIA interments in Boggess Ridge. But association of the (potentially later) Catfish Point occupations with the Cayo Pelau mound seems unlikely.

Another Caloosahatchee shell-midden mound site (8CH15) has been identified near the town of Placida on the mouth of Coral Creek, two kilometers north of Catfish

Point. The Coral Creek site (Edic 1999; Williams and Cleveland 1996:228) covers about

4 hectares and has been impacted heavily by railroad construction and looters who used a bulldozer. Based on Edic’s map (1999:60), the site’s eastern end contained two substantial mounded ridges between two and three meters high. These two mounds appear to have been bifurcated by a central basin that was once accessible by canoe from

Coral Creek. At its western end (beyond the central basin), a series of mounded ridges encloses a tidal basin as at Catfish Point. Similarly, the basin is here interpreted as a likely fish impoundment. Strata observed by Edic in damaged areas of the site exhibit evidence of mound-building. He notes that the northwest portion of the site was capped with fighting conch shell (Edic 1999:59). This pattern is highly similar to that observed in the central portion of the Catfish Point site.

Surface collections of the Coral Creek site by George Luer include 114 STP potsherds, three BGP potsherds, two smooth plain potsherds, a Pinellas Plain potsherd, a

Type A lightning whelk cutting-edged tool, two Type D lightning-whelk hammers, ten 255 quahog anvils, and one ark-shell net weight. Further surface-collection by Edic yielded thick STP potsherds, a Glades Tooled potsherd, possible St. Johns Plain and BGP potsherds (one each), large lightning whelk cutting-edged tools and hammers, a lightning whelk tool blank, a quahog anvil, a sunray venus clam (Macrocallista nimbosa) shell knife, a [Type G] fighting conch hammer, and a horse-conch columella adze. Human remains of two individuals were also noted in bulldozer spoil (Edic 1999:59-61).

Although the exact provenience of these bones is unstated, most bulldozer-looting was focused on the broadest, highest portion of the western ridge and the northernmost mounded ridge. Therefore, these are the most likely locations for the burials prior to disturbance. The probabilistic location of these remains adjacent to the central basin is called upon to suggest that the Coral Creek site contained a mortuary ceremonial complex.

On the basis of the many thick STP potsherds collected from the Coral Creek site,

Edic assigns primary occupation to period Caloosahatchee I (1999:61). Using the chronological framework employed in this study (employing shell artifacts and ceramics together), the artifacts may instead suggest original occupation during Caloosahatchee I, substantial occupation and communal construction in Caloosahatchee IIA and IIB, and limited site use in periods III and IV. In support of reassignment to IIA are (1) the high frequency of lightning-whelk cutting-edged tools, (2) the secondary frequency of BGP ceramics, and (3) the recovery of a sunray venus clam-shell knife, strongly correlated with period IIA at the Pineland site (Patton 1994:68). Additionally, (4) the inferred proximity of mortuary contexts to habitation areas is reminiscent of Weeden Island and early Belle

Glade ceremonial centers. 256

It may be logically assumed that the surface-collected artifact sample is biased to represent latest occupation, except in bulldozed areas that may have exposed earlier artifacts. The Coral Creek shell tool assemblage includes one Type G hammer and several lightning-whelk cutting-edged tools and hammers, suggesting a Caloosahatchee

IIB temporal assignment for upper strata. The assemblage also included many quahog anvils, artifacts very common in Caloosahatchee IIA contexts (Patton 1994:68). Shell-fill strata are noted for the site, including a fighting conch “cap” similar to the one observed at Catfish Point and there assigned to Caloosahatchee IIB (another example of early IIB mounding of high-salinity shells is discussed above under Useppa Island, Chapter 2).

Finally, recognition of a likely fish impoundment and recovery of a shell net-weight appear to support the reassignment. It appears that similar structures in the Cape Haze

Zone (at Catfish Point, John Quiet Mound, and Big Mound Key) were probably created during early Caloosahatchee IIB.

The Coral Creek site’s possible mortuary complex, proximity to Catfish Point, and slightly earlier temporal assignment suggest that Catfish Point may have been settled in Caloosahatchee IIA as a collecting station or daughter community of the “Coral Creek

Locality.” During this period Coral Creek may have functioned as a Weeden Island- influenced mortuary complex, similar to the one supposed to have existed on Cayo Pelau.

Later, Catfish Point seems for many reasons to have become its own local center.

Like the Coral Creek site, it is situated prominently at the mouth of a major tidal creek.

At several other localities (e.g. Coral Creek, Acline, Silcox-Whidden and Big Mound

Key) central sites are situated in analogous strategic positions. Catfish Point is also closer to Big Mound Key, a site believed to have gained prominence in the Cape Haze Zone 257 during period IIB. Finally, primary deposition of shell-fill strata at Catfish Point seems to have occurred in Caloosahatchee IIB. Whether or not the Coral Creek site was an operational mortuary complex during Caloosahatchee IIB remains unclear. Without evidence to the contrary, I believe that the Coral Creek site did not persist in providing mortuary rituals for Catfish Point inhabitants after Caloosahatchee IIA and the advent of isolated sand burial mounds. Confirming this interpretation will require further investigation at Coral Creek, Catfish Point, and nearby sites that may be related to Catfish

Point as collecting stations or burial areas.

One possible collecting-station site in the Catfish Point Locality may be a site indicated by Edic (notes on Punta Gorda SW map, 1986) at 1.5 kilometers east of Catfish

Point on the south side of a small bay (T. 42 S, R. 21 E, Sec.18, northeast quarter-section,

Section 17, northwest quarter-section). The unofficially recorded site is depicted as approximately 250 m long by 150 m wide, but no true measurements are available. There are no known artifact samples from this site, but if it exists as mapped it may contain evidence of contemporaneity with Catfish Point. If so, this is the most likely choice for another site in the Catfish Point Locality. However there is currently no reason to suggest that this site is contemporaneous or contains a Caloosahatchee IIB burial area.

This situation leads to another possibility. Based on the above interpretation of settlement patterning in the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone during the same period, several localities may have shared a burial area that was controlled by the elites of one locality. This situation would suggest ranking of lineages, and a simultaneous hierarchy if it persisted over several generations. In the Cape Haze Zone during late

Caloosahatchee IIA and early IIB, a preeminent lineage is probably identifiable with the 258

Big Mound Key Locality. Current evidence suggests that burials in Boggess Ridge are as recent as late Caloosahatchee IIA (Marquardt 1992b:46-47). Thus if Big Mound Key elites controlled a common (inter-lineage) burial ground during early Caloosahatchee IIB, evidence for such an area could exist as a portion of Boggess Ridge or Big Mound Key.

If any of the localities mentioned (Catfish Point, Big Mound Key, Turtle Bay,

Cayo Pelau, Coral Creek) actually existed, a clustered distribution of collecting stations is also predicted. Collecting stations might be clustered near lineage centers or at mid- points between centers. The use of collecting stations as potential boundary-markers was noted above for sites 8CH355 and 8CH360. Two sites investigated here (8CH17,

8CH348) are within two kilometers of Big Mound Key and may help comprise a "Big

Mound Key Locality." As discussed, no other potential elements have been investigated for the Catfish Point Locality. Four investigated sites may be related in the Turtle Bay

Locality: 8CH36, 8CH37, 8CH58, and 8CH347.

Site: 8CH17, “Golf Club” Ceramics: 9 Habitat: mangrove, estuarine bay Shell Artifacts: 16 Size of Excavation: two at 50 x 50 cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Mounded Ridge Components: Cal. IIA, IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): unprocessed Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 9 Area: 2098 m2 Subsurface Finds: 16 Volume: 1454 m3 Marker Location: 0377681/2965266

This moderately sized, club-shaped site was first described by Luer and Archibald

(1988a). They report Robert Edic's observation of several STP sherds and a lightning- whelk hammer on the site’s surface. A low (1.5-m) mound of loose shell forms the

“head” of the club, while the “shaft” of the club is formed by a midden ridge extending 259

Figure 28. "Golf Club" site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 260 from the mound’s northeast corner. Nine shell artifacts were collected from the site’s surface during the most recent fieldwork. They include a horse-conch pounder, a Type D hammer, a Type A horse-conch hammer, and two pieces of debitage (all at

0377695/2965263); two Type C lightning whelk hammers (at 0377687/2965290 and at

0377655/2965235); a lightning-whelk cup fragment (at 0377670/2965259); and a Type A lightning-whelk hammer (at 0377671/2965238). Limited disturbance by looters, earlier noted by Luer and Archibald, was overgrown by cacti on the site’s northern edge. No other recent disturbances were noted during evaluation and the site does not appear eroded.

In order to examine the chronological relationship between the ridge and the mound, one test unit was placed in each of these features. The ridge test unit (Test Unit

1) was excavated to a depth of 70 cm, while the mound test unit (Test Unit 2) was excavated only to 30 cm (deep enough to obtain an uncontaminated radiocarbon sample).

Stratum I of Test Unit 1 contained two Sand-tempered Plain potsherds and a piece of whelk-shell debitage. It is a humic layer derived from Stratum II. Stratum II is made of sparse, loose sand in whole shell (primarily oyster, lightning whelk, and crown conch) and contained three STP potsherds, one BGP potsherd, five pieces of whelk-shell debitage, and one Type C lightning-whelk hammer. This stratum may have accumulated rapidly and intentionally during Caloosahatchee IIB. Stratum III is a dark layer of crushed shell and may represent the base of the IIB occupation zone. It contained sparse bone and two STP potsherds. Stratum IV is a very darkly stained layer of compacted soil that yielded no artifacts. It may represent a single event in which part of the site was burned, but is most likely the buried “A” horizon of a pre-Caloosahatchee IIB midden 261

(period IIA is suggested). Stratum V is a loose layer of crushed and whole shell that probably served as a substrate for this earlier occupation. It yielded one STP potsherd.

Stratum I of Test Unit 2 is a humic layer derived from Stratum II. Stratum II of

Test Unit 2 is virtually identical to Stratum II in Test Unit 1, containing loose sand and whole and crushed shell with six STP potsherds and one piece of debitage. From this limited evidence Stratum II (Test Unit 2 ) also probably dates to Caloosahatchee IIB.

These data suggest that the "Golf Club" site was expanded considerably in

Caloosahatchee IIB. Prior to its second documented construction event, the site may have served as a collecting station and been composed of little more than a ridge. Afterward, the site was mounded to a sufficient height to provide protection from the most severe of frequent storm surges. This act suggests that the site was by that time more than simply a collecting station.

It seems likely that contemporaneous mound construction at Big Mound Key influenced mounding at the “Golf Club” site. However, unlike similar small habitation mounds in the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone (e.g., 8CH356, 8CH361), the site does not appear to have been mounded in a bifurcate pattern. Perhaps it served as a permanently occupied small habitation mound, both a collecting station and a watch-point for the area west of Big Mound Key and the mouth of Whidden Creek. Data from

Burgess Island reviewed above suggest that such watch-points may have been used for access control in the Caloosahatchee area by period IIA. 262

Site: 8CH36, Turtle Bay 1 Ceramics: 84 Habitat: mangrove, estuarine bay Shell Artifacts: 18 Size of Excavation: 50 cm x 50 cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Ridge Components: Caloosahatchee I, IIA Radiocarbon Date(s): unprocessed Integrity: major disturbance Surface Finds: 63 Area: 2320 m2 Subsurface Finds: 49 Volume: 746 m3 Marker Location: 0382308/2963536

Bullen and Bullen (1956) and Luer and Archibald (1988a) describe Turtle Bay 1, a long, narrow midden Ridge on a spit formation on the west side of Turtle Bay. Based on the distribution of eroding midden, it once extended about 200 meters from end to end.

Luer and Archibald (1988a:28) surface-collected two whelk-shell hammers, a horse- conch shell hammer, two lightning-whelk shell pounders, a quahog anvil, and four STP potsherds.

The Bullens (1956:53) describe the site as a shell ridge that bordered the water on both sides of an island’s southeastern tip. This information reveals that currently visible mangroves to the west of the spit (and the bar on its end) have prograded since 1956. The

Bullens collected several artifacts from the site, including a lightning-whelk hammer, a

St. Johns Plain potsherd, a micacous-tempered potsherd, an indistinct stamped potsherd, and 40 STP potsherds. During the current investigation, a perforated bivalve net weight and a piece of debitage were surface-collected at 032305/2963547. Surface collections suggest site occupation in Caloosahatchee IIA.

At the site’s south end, the full width of the Ridge remains intact. Excavation there in Test Unit 1 revealed six distinct strata. Stratum I is a biologically disturbed humic zone containing evidence of use by modern peoples (three pieces of unidentified metal). Stratum II is a highly compact layer containing few artifacts and mostly oyster 263

Figure 29. Turtle Bay 1 site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 264 shell. One STP rim potsherd and two shell artifacts, an indeterminate (possibly Type F) lightning-whelk shell hammer and a piece of debitage were found in Stratum II. Based on the shell artifacts and contents of underlying strata, Stratum II may date to

Caloosahatchee IIA. Stratum III is highly compacted like Stratum II, but contains more gastropod shells. From it were recovered 10 STP potsherds and a piece of lightning- whelk debitage, artifacts that do not contradict an early Caloosahatchee (I or IIA) date.

Stratum IV is a loose layer of finely crushed (and some burned) shell, 16 STP potsherds, an ark-shell net weight, a piece of debitage, and four quahog anvils. More whole shell appeared toward the bottom of the stratum, suggesting that its horizon was a lived-on surface elevated by intentional midden fill. Based on the artifacts, Stratum IV may also date to Caloosahatchee IIA.

Stratum V is a thin layer of loose, dark brown soil over Stratum VI. Stratum VI, the horizon of which contained 10 STP potsherds. Shell in the stratum is mostly oyster and crown conch in black muck. Based on the artifacts and the contents of later strata, the occupation that produced Strata V and VI may date to late in the period

Caloosahatchee I.

The Turtle Bay 1 site is believed to largely pre-date the period of rapid mound accumulation noted for the Caloosahatchee area. Its age and prominent position on Turtle

Bay have contributed to its erosion. However, the original site plan—a linear Ridge—is still apparent and fits well the hypothesized early role of the Ridge as a site form. Along with the Cash Mound and Turtle Bay 2, Turtle Bay 1 may represent the earliest set of

Caloosahatchee occupations on Turtle Bay. Due to its lack of communal architecture and its geographic position, Turtle Bay 1 was probably used as a collecting station and/or 265 watch-point by members of a “Turtle Bay Locality.” This hypothetical locality’s earliest center may have been Cash Mound, due to that site’s great age and large size. But judging from extensive evidence for communal construction and food production at the

John Quiet Mound, that site may have become more central within the locality during period IIB and later. At roughly the same time, the Turtle Bay 2 site (8CH37) also appears to have become a more prominent location.

Site: 8CH37, Turtle Bay 2 Ceramics: 99 Habitat: mangrove, estuarine bay Shell Artifacts: 18 Size of Excavation: profile at 1.5 x 2 m Bone Artifacts: 1 Site Type: Mounded Ridge Components: Late Archaic, Cal. I, IIA/B Radiocarbon Date(s): unprocessed Integrity: major disturbance Surface Finds: 18 Area: 1237 m2 Subsurface Finds: 100 Volume: 1037 m3 Marker Location: 0382572/2964232

The Turtle Bay 2 site is located directly west of the John Quiet Mound on the west side of Turtle Bay. Together, 8CH45 and 8CH37 could have effectively controlled access to almost all of Turtle Bay, including its settlements and productive resources. Luer and

Archibald (1988a) described the site and surface-collected two fragmentary lightning- whelk hammer/pounders and four STP potsherds. The Bullens (1956:53) also visited the site and collected a columella hammer, an Orange Plain (fiber-tempered) potsherd, a semi-fiber-tempered potsherd, and nine STP potsherds. The two former potsherds indicate that the site was occupied during the Late Archaic period (for a summary of

Orange Period ceramic chronology, see Milanich 1994:94).

The remains of this once-massive mound reveal substantial disturbance. During the modern era it was subjected to borrowing for commercial purposes. A steep cut has 266

Figure 30. Turtle Bay 2 site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 267 been made across it, creating a south-southwest section of the original construction.

Directly in front of this cut, midden material can be seen in shallow water. Beyond the observed extent of submerged midden there is a steep drop-off, suggesting that the scatter may reflect the original extent of the midden deposit. If this is so, then the submerged midden material may contain some intact deposits. Erosion has also played a role in redepositing the midden but, due to the site’s facing and location, erosion is not believed to be the primary cause of the noted destruction. Size estimates and typological assignment of the site are based on the its current configuration and are therefore not viewed as highly reliable. As a result, the site was not originally scheduled for investigation. But despite the destruction and in part because of it, a visit to the site provided much valuable information.

For stratigraphic information, a profile of the south-southwest cut was cleaned and drawn. This strategy provided more information on the site’s formation than would have been available through a standard test unit. During profiling, a Manta ray (family

Mobulidae) was observed breaching the water and impacting noisily on its surface, just beyond the steep drop-off mentioned above. The Manta’s startling performance, believed to be related to feeding, lasted for several minutes.

During profile cleaning, two general zones were apparent, each containing multiple strata. Finds from these zones were bagged separately. The uppermost zone

(“Zone A”) contained primarily loose, whole shell and very little soil, appearing to have accumulated rather rapidly. Artifacts included 49 STP potsherds, a Type C lightning- whelk hammer, a piece of debitage, an indeterminate hafted lighting-whelk tool, and two quahog anvils. Most of these artifacts were found concentrated in a slightly more 268 compact, sandier occupational stratum (Stratum II). Above and below Stratum II, the loose shell appears to be a result of rapid, intentional mound build-up. Based on abundant STP potsherds, lightning-whelk artifacts, and the contents of Zone B, Zone A was formed during late Caloosahatchee IIA or early IIB.

Zone B is distinguished from Zone A by its multiple compact, sandy midden strata and distinct habitation features. Artifacts recovered from Zone B include 35 STP potsherds, five quahog anvils, four pieces of whelk debitage, a bone point, and a Type G crown-conch hammer. These artifacts suggest that Zone B accumulated during

Caloosahatchee IIA and/or late Caloosahatchee I.

At Zone A/B interface (counted here with Zone A), Stratum IV is a thin dark sandy layer of crushed oyster and crown conch containing numerous in situ STP potsherds and a piece of whelk-shell debitage. A shallow, pit-like feature (Stratum V) intrudes from this layer into Stratum VI. Below, Stratum VI contains moderate whole oyster and crown conch in a thick and compact sandy matrix rich in STP potsherds and shell artifacts. It may represent many years of occupational accretion. Below, Stratum

VII is a black, compact layer that contains a large pit feature and similar shell to that of

Stratum VI. The Stratum VII pit contained debitage and intruded below into Stratum

VIII.

Stratum VIII is another compacted sandy layer like Stratum VII, but with more crushed shell and slightly lighter in color. Based on these similarities, it may be only slightly earlier than Stratum VII. An ash lens was noted at the Stratum VIII base. Its distinct position at the horizon suggests that the lens was deposited only shortly before

Stratum VIII. 269

Stratum IX is a grayish brown, sandy layer that contains mostly crushed midden shell and some whole mussel. Only the top of this stratum was encountered. It appears to continue under the present ground surface and perhaps to below the level of water intrusion. This stratum may represent earlier Caloosahatchee I or Late Archaic occupation.

Turtle Bay 2 appears to have served as a habitation site during the earliest portions of the Caloosahatchee sequence and is roughly contemporary with Cash Mound and

Turtle Bay 1. These three sites may represent the earliest formation of the hypothetical, multi-site, and lineage-related occupation referred to here as the Turtle Bay Locality.

Final occupation of Turtle Bay 2 appears roughly coeval with the earliest dates inferred above for John Quiet Mound. The latter site may have been constructed by the residents of Cash Mound and/or Turtle Bay 2, but the spatial relationship between Turtle Bay 2 and

John Quiet Mound suggests that these sites could have effectively monitored traffic through the mouth of Turtle Bay.

Site: 8CH58, “Sisters Ponds Creek” Ceramics: 24 Habitat: mangrove, tidal creek Shell Artifacts: 0 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50 cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Shell Dome Components: Caloosahatchee I or IIA Radiocarbon Date(s): unprocessed Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 0 Area: 312 m2 Subsurface Finds: 24 Volume: 169 m3 Marker Location: 0384466/2967800

Luer and Archibald (1988a) first described 8CH58, which is situated several meters east of Sisters Ponds Creek. This small Shell Dome has been rooted repeatedly 270

Figure 31. “Sisters Ponds Creek” site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 271 by feral pigs. The pig disturbances do not appear to be very deep, though, and only the humic zone appears to have been affected. A sawed tree-stump was also noted.

Excavation at the highest point on this site revealed three distinct strata. The uppermost, Stratum I, is an occupation zone containing black sand, shell, 14 STP potsherds, and moderate bone from food refuse. Stratum I also contained a medium to dark gray (10 YR 4/1 to 3/1) lens of ash and a little shell. This was probably produced by a distinct disposal event (cf. Marquardt 1992:21-22). Stratum II (10 STP potsherds) is made of black loamy sand with crushed and whole shell. Stratum III is predominantly black muck and contains crushed and whole mussel, with less oyster and less shell overall than Strata I and II. Stratum III may represent the earliest episode of midden deposition at the site, but due to water intrusion this could not be demonstrated.

Because no shell artifacts and only STP potsherds were recovered, dating this site is difficult. Based on its proximity to 8CH37 and its similarity otherwise to the lower strata there, it is tentatively dated to Caloosahatchee I or IIA. It may have served as a collecting station on Sisters Ponds Creek for the Turtle Bay Locality.

Site: 8CH347, Cape Haze Ceramics: 4 Habitat: saltern Shell Artifacts: 4 Size of Excavation: 1m x 1m Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Ridge Components: L. Archaic, Cal. I, IIA Radiocarbon Date(s): unprocessed Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 1 Area: 1922 m2 Subsurface Finds: 7 Volume: 2072 m3 Marker Location: 0384665/2963380

The Cape Haze site is an isolated Ridge, difficult to access, on the west side of a what appears to be a large salt flat on Cape Haze. This salt flat may have once contained 272

Figure 32. Cape Haze site map. Contours in meters. 273 a stream or pond that would have provided a nearby food source for the site’s inhabitants.

This speculation awaits geomorphic investigation. During its most recent aboriginal use, the ridge appears to have served for mortuary interment. Luer and Archibald (1988a) collected a lightning-whelk columella cutting-edged tool from the site’s surface, an artifact common during the Late Archaic in the Caloosahatchee area (Torrence 1999b:39-

40). They also report several looter-holes, but these disturbances were not noted during investigation and have probably been over-grown by cacti, which cover the mound.

Excavation in a 1-m-square unit on the Cape Haze site’s southern arm revealed only two strata before excavation ceased. Stratum I, a loose dark brown humus layer, contained predominantly whole oyster shell, with two STP potsherds, one piece of whelk shell debitage, and several large pieces of bone. Stratum II, a dark gray layer of loose sand and some whole oyster, contained two STP potsherds, a piece of debitage, and a worked columella. It also yielded many more pieces of large mammal bone, several of which were identified as human cranial fragments. At this point excavation ceased and the State Archaeologist was notified. There was no need to disturb human remains under the current research design. Due to the this and the remoteness of the site (access time limitations), the excavation was refilled.

The occurrence of human remains in a mounded context with loose sand and whole oyster shell has been noted at Burgess Island (discussed above; Patton and Ellis

1994:42) and appears to be typical of some Caloosahatchee mortuary mound sites. At the

Burgess Island burial mound, human remains were noted at the interface of an upper

“cap” stratum of whole oyster in sand and a lower stratum of sand with very little shell.

The oyster-shell “cap,” potentially composed of mortuary votive offerings, is quite similar 274 to the upper stratum observed at the Cape Haze site. However, there is insufficient stratigraphic data on the site to infer the presence of a sand “mantle.” In fact, the configuration of the site (a ridge next to what may have been a tidal pond) suggests that earlier strata may represent occupational midden. The recovery of a columella cutting- edged tool from the site suggests that early site occupation may date to as early as the

Late Archaic.

Burial of the dead in previously inhabited midden ridges or in natural sand ridges is a pattern noted by previously Marquardt (2001) in some late Caloosahatchee IIA contexts. In Chapter 2, this burial pattern was presented as an early standard in the

Caloosahatchee area, pre-dating the widespread use of isolated sand burial mounds.

Therefore the Cape Haze site context appears to reflect pre-stratification, early

Caloosahatchee burial patterns.

The inhabitants of the John Quiet Mound (Bullen and Bullen 1956) or other sites in the Turtle Bay Locality may have used the Cape Haze Mound as a remote mortuary site. This use may have occurred in Caloosahatchee IIA and previously, due to the lack of

Belle Glade pottery and the trends in burial patterns noted above. But it is also possible that the Cape Haze site may have been used even more recently for burials, during the

Caloosahatchee IIB and III occupations in the Turtle Bay Locality.

If evidence for this possibility were to be established (e.g., through radiocarbon assays later than A.D. 900), associated ceramic and shell artifacts at Cape Haze would serve as a test of the burial-ranking hypothesis forwarded above. Alternatively, Cape

Haze site interments after A.D. 900 may exhibit few differences from earlier, standardized burial modes and contain little or no exotic grave goods or other evidence of 275 status differentiation. Continued use of the Cape Haze site as a burial area after A.D. 900 might then be explainable as a reflection of resistance to extra-regional (Weeden Island or

Belle Glade-related) practices that focused on burial mound construction. Based on the examples of included Caloosahatchee sites discussed above, Cape Haze Zone residents after Caloosahatchee IIA appear to have put more constructive effort into food production

(fish impoundments) and flood protection or high-status residence mounds than burial ceremonialism.

However, the isolation of the Cape Haze site relative to other Turtle Bay settlements along with a potential oyster shell mantle in uppermost strata suggests some acceptance of post-A.D. 900 mound-burial practices for the Turtle Bay Locality. Local residents may have adopted only some aspects of the social changes represented by late, isolated burial mounds. Although construction of mounds for the exclusive purpose of mortuary interments may not have been adopted, social ranking may have increased nonetheless. Based on the hypothesis for social change favored here, it seems most likely that any Caloosahatchee IIB and III burials at the Cape Haze site will exhibit more variability in burial modes and in ceramic and shell grave goods. Testing this hypothesis awaits further investigations at the Cape Haze site.

Site: 8CH348, Bird Dog Key Ceramics: 13 Habitat: mangrove, estuarine bay Shell Artifacts: 3 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Mounded Ridge Components: Cal. IIA, IIB Radiocarbon Date(s): unprocessed Integrity: minor disturbance Surface Finds: 1 Area: 299 m2 Subsurface Finds: 36 Volume: 168 m3 Marker Location: 0380209/2964315 276

Bird Dog Key is a small lobate or mounded Ridge first recorded by Luer and

Archibald (1988a) who surface-collected a Type D lightning-whelk hammer. The site is covered by Spanish bayonet and has three depressions that are probably relict tree- removal holes. The Spanish bayonet appears to have been encouraged by clearing of the mound. Fourteen unidentified metal fragments were found in upper layers. The site appears to have been occupied and cleared in the modern era. If so, it may have been used as a fishing or hunting camp. Some disturbance by looters has also been noted (Luer and Archibald 1988a:46).

Excavation revealed four distinct strata above water intrusion at the site. The topmost is Stratum I, black sand and crushed shell with 14 fragments (6.3 g) of metal, one

STP potsherd, a piece of debitage, and an indeterminate hafted lightning-whelk tool.

Stratum II is a very dark grayish brown layer of compact sand and crushed shell. It contained six STP potsherds. Together with Stratum I, Stratum II probably represents the site’s most recent aboriginal occupation. Stratum III is a very dark gray, damp sand with mostly crushed and some whole shell, six STP potsherds, and three small pieces (3.9 g) of metal (the latter probably fallen from above during excavation). It represents a slightly earlier occupation of the site. Finally, Stratum IV is made up of loose, mostly whole shell and no artifacts. Very likely, it represents a shell refuse substrate that was intentionally mounded to provide elevation to the occupational surface seen in Stratum III. Based on artifacts recovered the Stratum III and Stratum II occupations may date to Caloosahatchee

IIA, but other periods cannot be ruled out with certainty or even a strong likelihood.

Awaiting further evidence, it seems reasonable to suggest that the site was constructed 277

Figure 33. Bird Dog Key site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 278 during late Caloosahatchee IIA or early IIB, coincident with other intensive occupations in the Cape Haze Zone.

Understanding the potential relationship of the Bird Dog Key site to other Cape

Haze Zone sites requires placement of the site within a local context. It is situated on a fairly large mangrove-and-saltern island only two kilometers southeast of Big Mound

Key. The site is also about three kilometers from 8CH17, the “Golf Club” site. Unlike that site, Bird Dog Key does not offer a view of Big Mound Key or its immediate environs. The island upon which it is situated is extensive and separates the site from Big

Mound Key and The Cutoff, east of Whidden Creek.

The island is dissected by a complicated, branching tidal stream that runs roughly southeast from its northwest margins. At its mouth, the stream passes the peninsula upon which the Bird Dog Key site was established. It may have at one time been possible to canoe upstream through the island’s northwestern mangrove lowlands in order to reach

Big Mound Key, the mouth of Whidden Creek, and The Cutoff. There are no other known sites on this small island, and 8CH348 is in an advantageous position to exploit its resources. Due to its position, the site’s limited size, and the few artifacts recovered in excavation, the site is currently interpreted as a collecting station used by members of a hypothetical Big Mound Key Locality.

Site: 8CH72, Muddy Cove 2 Ceramics: 82 Habitat: mangrove, estuarine bay Shell Artifacts: 2 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm Bone Artifacts: 3 Site Type: Ridge Historic Context: Caloosahatchee III Radiocarbon Date(s): unprocessed Integrity: no disturbance seen Surface Finds: 0 Area: 378 m2 Subsurface Finds: 87 Volume: 169 m3 Marker Location: 0382637/2982905 279

Figure 34. 8CH72, Muddy Cove 2 site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 280

Luer and Archibald (1988a) first recorded Muddy Cove 2. The site appears to be a simple midden Ridge. Light modern recreational use or habitation of the site is suggested by the remnant of a tent, first reported in 1988 and still visible nearby in 1999.

Excavation to levels below the midden revealed four distinct strata. The uppermost, Stratum I, is a humic zone that yielded seven STP potsherds. Stratum II is a black, moderately compact sandy occupational zone containing dense shell, 41 STP potsherds, five BGP potsherds, one St. Johns Check Stamped sherd, two pieces of debitage, a stemmed bone point (possibly an arrow point), and another piece of worked bone. The majority of finds came from the upper part of the stratum. Based on these inclusions, the Stratum II occupation dates to Caloosahatchee III. Stratum III is dark gray, compact, damp sand with oyster shell. It yielded a piece of worked bone, 14 STP potsherds and 14 BGP potsherds and may date to late Caloosahatchee IIB or early III.

Stratum IV, light gray wet sand, produced no artifacts.

Muddy Cove 2 is one of only two North Shore Zone sites investigated here.

Based on the lower relative numbers of known sites in this zone, the North Shore Zone currently appears to have hosted a lower population throughout the Caloosahatchee sequence than did other zones in the CHSABP. This view is perhaps skewed by the greater distribution of state lands southward in less-developed portions of Charlotte and

Lee Counties. Private development and looting are believed to have destroyed many undocumented archaeological sites in the North Shore Zone, especially along the Peace

River in Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte.

Nonetheless, it may be that the configuration of Caloosahatchee settlement apparent from CHSABP lands is reasonably accurate. Mangrove habitats adjacent to 281 extensive sea-grass meadows and oyster beds, shown to be the focus of much

Caloosahatchee exploitation (Walker 1992:Figure 3), also appear to be concentrated further seaward than the North Shore Zone.

From this it might be argued that few locations in the North Shore Zone were as productive throughout time as locations in the Cape Haze Zone, the Pine Island Sound

Zone, or the Alligator Creek Zone. Productivity undoubtedly varied with sea levels (and concomitant salinity changes) during the Wulfert High. This high stand may have pushed the estuarine systems’s salt wedge inland so far as the Solana site (8CH67), a collecting station (“fishing hamlet”) on the Peace River (Walker 1992b:286; Widmer 1986).

However, such conditions are not believed to have pertained during the period of social changes under examination here.

On the Myakka River, Luer and Archibald (1988a) have identified two other sites

(8CH71 and 8CH87) that are probably related to Muddy Cove 2. Both, like 8CH72, are located on Tippecanoe Bay. Muddy Cove 1 (8CH71) is 400 meters north of 8CH72 on the south point of Muddy Cove’s mouth. The original small midden at this site has eroded away and only one STP potsherd has been recovered (Luer and Archibald

1988a:53).

About one kilometer north of Muddy Cove, the Cameron Island site (8CH87) is less eroded, but still severely diminished. It currently extends about 110 m along the shoreline. Sand-tempered Plain potsherds and “late pottery sherds of Glades and west- central Florida ceramic types” were surface-collected there and a test unit was excavated by Luer and Archibald (1988a:59). Three radiocarbon dates of shells obtained from the excavation are reported in uncorrected radiocarbon years: 610 + 90 B.P., 670 + 80 B.P., 282 and 1120 + 60 B.P. (Luer 1989:100). Estimated calibration of these dates (based on

Stuiver et. al 1986), with 10 years conventional age added for reservoir effects, yields the results A.D. 1690 + 90, A.D. 1660 + 80, and A.D. 1280 + 60. A final Caloosahatchee IV or V occupation is suggested by the surface collection and these dates. Perhaps earlier strata at the site represent Caloosahatchee III occupation contemporaneous with the

Muddy Cove 2 site.

Considered together, 8CH72, 8CH87, and 8CH71 suggest that Tippecanoe Bay and Sam Knight Creek may have hosted a culturally defined locality from periods IIB

(late) to V. However, there is no known evidence of nearby communal architecture or a burial area. As a result the “Tippecanoe Bay Locality” is believed to reflect a simpler dimension of the entire Caloosahatchee settlement pattern. The three sites on Tippecanoe

Bay could have been occupied sequentially by the same group of people or simultaneously by related groups. But due to the lack of a recognizable communal center, the locality does not appear to represent a strong, lineal hierarchy of the type believed to have developed in the Cape Haze Zone, in the Alligator Creek-North Shore Zone, or elsewhere. This case appears to demonstrate the uneven development of various lineage- based localities within the Caloosahatchee area.

Three other sites (8CH60, 8CH93, and 8CH349) are located near Hog Island and the North Shore Zone’s most extensive contiguous wetlands. Two of these, 8CH60 and

8CH93, are located at the mouth of the Myakka River across from Cattle Dock Point.

Site 8CH60 is an eroded shell midden remnant that is believed to represent a collecting station (Luer and Archibald 1988a:50). Artifacts collected from the surface include 10 lightning-whelk shell hammers, a horse-conch shell hammer, an ark-shell net weight, and 283

61 STP potsherds including nine rim fragments—of which one was incised and one was ticked. A Caloosahatchee IV assignment is suggested. Site 8CH93 (Luer and Archibald

1988a:62) is another eroded midden that measures over 30 meters long. Artifacts collected from the site surface include a Type D lightning-whelk hammer and STP potsherds, perhaps indicating Caloosahatchee IV occupation. The relationship of these two sites (8CH60 and 8CH93) to others in the North Shore Zone is unclear. It is possible they are related to Caloosahatchee IV occupations on Tippecanoe Bay. The third site

(8CH349) is on the mouth of the Peace River over five kilometers west of the other two, and is detailed below.

Analysis of the Myakka River mouth as a “sub-zone” therefore suggests that it may have been significantly populated only after A.D. 1200, later than in many other portions of the Caloosahatchee area. Regrettably, the latter inference is based on only one test excavation and five surface collections. Further work should seek to establish better dates for sites in the locality, beginning with analysis of previously collected samples.

Site: 8CH349 Ceramics: 106 Habitat: mangrove, estuarine bay Shell Artifacts: 1 Size of Excavation: 5 @ 30cm x 30cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Ridge? Historic Context: Caloosahatchee IV Radiocarbon Date(s): no sample available Integrity: redeposited Surface Finds: 108 Area: 105950 m2 Subsurface Finds: 0 Volume: estimate not available Marker Location: unmarked (see description)

The distribution of redeposited material comprising 8CH349 was documented by

Luer and Archibald (1988a) and reported to extend variously over a long section of 284 headland shore on the north side of the Peace River mouth. Original designations for the areas they described are retained here, in Areas A, B, C, D, and G.

Area A included two lightning-whelk hammers, nine STP potsherds, and one piece of modern glass. From Area B were collected whelk-shell fragments, four STP potsherds, and three bone fragments. In Area C they collected about 100 STP potsherds.

In Area D they collected eight STP potsherds. From the southern end of area E they collected a whelk-columella hammer, two quahog anvils, a Type A lightning-whelk cutting-edged tool, and 10 STP potsherds. From the northern end of Area E, Luer and

Archibald collected four Type C lightning-whelk hammers, one Type A lightning-whelk hammer, one Type D lightning-whelk hammer, five possible quahog-shell net weights, a possible notched quahog shell, a horse-conch shell hammer, a horse-conch columella hammer, 10 STP potsherds, and three BGP potsherds. From Area G they collected 14

STP potsherds and two fragments of an iron spike attached to wood (Luer and Archibald

1988a:66).

During 1999 field investigations, five shovel tests were placed strategically to identify undisturbed midden in the back-shore zone. Since none of the tests yielded artifacts, no steel markers were left. Shovel Test 1 was placed at the northernmost end of the strand (Area G) and subsequent tests were placed inshore of any surface finds from the beach. Shovel Test 1 (at 0399115/2981168) contained a few grams of fish and other bone in sand, but no clear midden deposit. Shovel Test 2 (at 0388319/2980576) in Area

E also contained a few pieces of bone, but no archaeologically significant deposits. Four of the five shovel-test profiles show a buried organic horizon, evidence of storm surge over-wash. 285 Figure 35. “Site 8CH349" site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Excavations are not to scale. site map (adapted from Luer 35. “Site 8CH349" Figure 286

While subsurface excavations lacked cultural material, surface artifact finds were abundant. Three locations in the swash zone yielded numerous artifacts from within the surrounding 30 m. These locations are designated Surface Collections 1, 2, and 3.

Surface Collection 1 (at 0388590/2980841) includes one piece of pottery too small to identify. Surface Collection 2 (at 0388450/2980720) includes 13 STP potsherds, 2 BGP potsherds, and a lightning-whelk Type A hafted tool. Surface Collection 3 (at

0388138/2980075) includes 91 STP potsherds and one chert core (identification assisted by Scott Mitchell, Florida Museum of Natural History, 1999). This stone appears to have been used as a hammerstone after it was too small to produce usable flakes.

A local informant, Mr. Warren Paul (interviewed in Port Charlotte, 1999), provided access to artifacts he had collected 18 years ago from the vicinity of Area E.

According to Mr. Paul, a winter storm had recently passed and several trees had blown down on the shore. Upon closer investigation he saw a group of bones eroding from the shore. Mr. Paul described the bones as being in a “bundled” position. He collected some bones then and others two weeks later, after a second storm.

The remains held by Mr. Paul were carefully examined to determine MNI, sex, and any pathological conditions. Based on cranial bones, the remains represent two individuals. One is of indeterminate sex, but appears to have been an adult. The other individual was an adult female with no obvious signs of disease in long bones or elsewhere. Tooth enamel was worn by use, but not severely. The incisors are shovel- shaped, suggesting Native American affiliation. Mr. Paul was informed of the current laws concerning human remains and their disposition. 287

Mr. Paul reports collecting a variety of pottery sherds from the same location.

The undecorated ceramic material in the collection included seven Pineland Plain potsherds, five BGP potsherds, six STP potsherds, two Pinellas Plain potsherds, and one grog-tempered sherd. Decorated potsherds included a complicated stamped potsherd with grog paste, a Glades Tooled potsherd with sandy paste, two Pinellas Plain potsherds with ticked rims, two Matecumbe Incised variant potsherds (one body potsherd and one with a ticked rim, both Pineland paste), and one unidentified incised potsherd with Pineland paste (identifications by Ann Cordell, Florida Museum of Natural History, 1999).

These artifacts, those collected by Luer and Archibald in Area E, and Surface

Collection 2 indicate that an extensive site containing human burials and habitation debris once existed in Area E and perhaps also in areas A, B, C, and D. Based on the artifacts, the site probably dated to Caloosahatchee period IV. Sub-aerial portions of the site are now completely destroyed by erosion. Scattered cultural material still exists offshore in shallow water, but all of these remains are believed to have been redeposited in a generally northward-trending shore current (spit formation is apparent toward Alligator

Bay). Luer and Archibald’s Area G surface collection is therefore believed to be associated with this site, except for the two metal and wood artifacts. These are believed to represent limited modern use of the Area G beach.

Surface Collection 3 and Luer and Archibald’s Area A collection might be viewed as evidence of an earlier component at 8CH349. Artifacts (including a chert core, two lightning-whelk hammers, 100 STP potsherds) appears to suggest a late Caloosahatchee I and/or early IIA habitation. However, lack of any Belle Glade ceramics and small quantities of lightning-whelk tools might also be interpreted to suggest a Caloosahatchee 288 period IV assignment. No sub-aerial evidence of intact midden was found, and this component also appears to have been redeposited.

Between Areas A and E lie areas B, C, and D. No artifacts were found there during this investigation, but Luer and Archibald’s (1988a) collections from this intermediate area include whelk-shell fragments, bone fragments, and many plain STP potsherds. From this evidence it seems most likely that the deposits in Areas A and E were originally connected and contemporaneous during Caloosahatchee period IV. The recovery of decorated potsherds with human remains and a cutting-edged shell tool suggests that Area E was used for wood-crafting and mortuary interments. The lightning whelk vessel in Surface Collection 2 indicates that sacred tea ceremonials may have been performed in Area E, perhaps in association with the mortuary deposits. Recovery of other artifacts (shell hammers, net weights, and plain-ware potsherds) indicates tasks related to habitation and fishing in the same high-status area.

Conversely, concentration of STP plain-ware in Areas A and C suggests that this part of the site was used mainly for domestic purposes such as food processing.

Hammers dominate the shell artifact assemblages from these areas. Luer and Archibald

(1988a:68) noted an active mussel bed in Area A near the small, unnamed tidal creek at the site’s south end. A similar mussel bed has probably existed in that location for many years. The mussel bed and creek provide limited support for interpretation of the site’s southern end as a common domestic area placed expediently near the creek.

Considering the interpretation offered here for 8CH349, the evidence strengthens interpretation of much North Shore Zone occupation as relatively late in the

Caloosahatchee sequence. The site area was exceptional and could have hosted a large 289 population, but little or no communal architecture is evident. The numerically dichotomous distribution of common and high-status artifacts may reflect task specializations and social distinctions within the settlement. Of particular interest is the association of artifacts related to wood-crafting and mortuary ceremonialism found only in Area E.

There is only one known site within five kilometers of 8CH349, at Grassy Point

(8CH350). It is situated on the east side of the mouth of Alligator Bay and consists of midden eroding from a berm. Much of the berm may have formed naturally as a cuspate headland. Aboriginal artifacts collected from the site (Luer and Archibald 1988a:69) include a queen-conch (Strombus gigas) celt blank, a horse-conch hammer, a lightning- whelk “anchor,” a lightning-whelk columella hammer, a Type C lightning-whelk hammer, and 20 STP potsherds. These artifacts do not contradict a Caloosahatchee IV temporal assignment. Together with 8CH349, inhabitants of the Grassy Point site could have monitored and controlled access to Alligator Bay. These data suggest that the two sites could have comprised, wholly or in part, a culturally defined locality centered on

Alligator Bay (“the Alligator Bay Locality”). Although no sites are currently known within the bay, it seems very likely that one or more collecting stations may be found there or on Little Alligator Creek. Like the hypothetical Tippecanoe Bay Locality on the

Myakka River, the Alligator Bay Locality appears to be relatively late in the

Caloosahatchee sequence, contains small numbers of ridge or ridge-like sites, and reveals no clear indications of communal midden architecture.

It is possible that residents of the Alligator Bay Locality were somehow related to other occupations along the Peace River, but the few sites documented there appear 290 somewhat earlier. On the south shore of the Peace River and less than five kilometers downstream of the Solana site, the Punta Gorda site (8CH4) was excavated by a Mr.

Turbeyfill of the Heye Foundation in the 1930s (Willey 1982:345-346). This shell midden contained roughly equal amounts of Belle Glade and “Glades” (STP; Willey

1982:364) ceramics, bone tools, shell artifacts, and a kaolinite pipestem fragment. Except for the pipestem (which may be attributed to a Caloosahatchee V re-occupation) the site would appear to be roughly contemporaneous with many of the sites discussed here dating to Caloosahatchee IIB or III.

The Punta Gorda site may have been associated in a culturally defined locality with the Hickory Bluff burial mound (8CH5). The Hickory Bluff site is located by Willey

(1982:346) on the north shore of the Peace River at roughly the same longitude as the

Solana site. The burial mound that comprises the site was investigated by Moore

(1905:302) and found to contain Safety Harbor Incised and Pinellas Incised potsherds

(Willey 1982:346). These finds allow assignment of the site to Caloosahatchee period

IIB and/or III, consistent with the view of isolated burial mounds as post-A.D. 900 constructions. The hypothetical definition of an active Caloosahatchee IIB/III locality at the mouth of the Peace River (the “Punta Gorda Locality”) is significant to understanding the movement of people and goods between coastal southwest Florida and the interior.

The Peace River has been identified as a likely route for useful goods traded to the Belle

Glade Region (Milanich 1994:292) and thence northward (Austin 1997:597). CHAPTER 6 PINE ISLAND SOUND AND MATLACHA PASS ZONES

The Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass Zones are located near the center of the

Caloosahatchee area, extending from Boca Grande Pass south to Sanibel Island and San

Carlos Bay. These zones appear to contain the most extensive sea-grass meadows in the area, and many sizeable shell midden mounds are known there, primarily in the larger

Pine Island Sound Zone. The Caloosahatchee River mouth is located at the south end of the Matlacha Pass Zone. Some tidally influenced shoreline within the two zones is part of the CHSABP, but much of the outer barrier islands, Pine Island, and several smaller islands in Pine Island Sound are privately owned. Probably as a result of this mixed ownership, few comprehensive, systematic surveys within these zones have been accomplished.

Several excavated sites discussed in Chapter 2 are located in the Pine Island

Sound Zone, including Pineland, Josslyn Island, Useppa Island, Burgess Island, and Buck

Key. The CHSABP site inventory (Luer and Archibald 1988a) lists three sites in the

Matlacha Pass Zone and four in the Pine Island Sound Zone. Of these seven sites, four were investigated during fieldwork: one site on Matlacha Pass and three on Pine Island

Sound. Investigations suggest that the Pine Island Sound Zone was also home to several precolumbian lineages, but date assignments for sites are highly preliminary. Few small sites are known on Pine Island Sound, but more might be located by systematic, intensive surveys of broad areas. Of the three large sites investigated here, only Josslyn Island

291 292

(8CH32) has been subjected to previous stratigraphic excavations in several locations

(Marquardt 1992b:14-25). This situation certainly warrants further investigations aimed at establishing comprehensive, diachronic inventories of sites and components.

Analogies drawn from the Alligator Creek-East Shore and Cape Haze zones provide some basis for interpretation of local settlement patterns. Due to limited data on smaller sites, these interpretations are mostly attempts to identify the centers of potential culturally-defined localities. Nevertheless, settlement patterns in the Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass Zones are not expected to be identical to those observed elsewhere.

Site: 8LL30, Hooker Key Ceramics: 0 Habitat: mangrove, estuarine bay Shell Artifacts: 10 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm, Profile Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Mounded Ridge Historic Context: Caloosahatchee I , 20th C. Radiocarbon Date(s): unprocessed Integrity: substantial disturbance Surface Finds: 5 Area: 820 m2 Subsurface Finds: 5 Volume: 1383 m3 Marker Location: 0389070/2934851

Hooker Key is a Mounded Ridge site located at the southern end of Pine Island

Sound. Unlike the sound’s central northern end, its southern reaches do not feature several mangrove or relict sand-dune islands. Hooker Key and other sites known there are situated in the mangrove fringe of Pine Island’s western shore.

On Hooker Key the remnant of a cistern house was noted in the center of the site, indicating historic use and likely disturbance. A very recent, horrendous disturbance was noted at the site’s northeast end. There looters have pulled shell midden from a steep slope, in a swath approximately seven meters wide. A profile of this disturbance documents over two meters of its width and 1.2 meters of its depth. The profile revealed 293

Figure 36. Hooker Key site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 294 five strata: a root zone (Stratum I), two layers of shell fill and little or no soil (Strata II and III) representing relatively rapid mounding, and two occupation zones (Strata IV and

V). Curiously, no artifacts were observed in the large profile.

Luer and Archibald (1988a:125) surface-collected several shell artifacts from

Hooker Key. These include an indeterminate lightning-whelk cutting-edged tool, a quahog anvil, a horse-conch columella hammer, and two lightning-whelk Type E hammers. Caloosahatchee I occupation is suggested by the assemblage.

Excavation in Test Unit 1 revealed only two strata. Stratum I is a layer of very dark brown sand and humus that contained one perforated bivalve. Stratum II is a thick, dark grayish brown layer of loamy sand and crushed and whole shell, becoming less compact with depth. It may represent an occupation zone. Stratum II yielded four pieces of debitage and more faunal bone than Stratum I. Radiocarbon assay of shell from 30 to

40 cm below surface in Stratum II returned a date of between 380 and 230 B.C.

The apparent lack of ceramics at Hooker Key is unusual and makes dating and functional interpretation problematic. Perhaps some of the midden was deposited during the Late Archaic, but surface-collected shell artifacts and radiocarbon assay of shell from the loose, upper strata appear to suggest a temporal assignment of early to late

Caloosahatchee I. If this interpretation is accurate, lower evidence of two compact sand and shell strata may represent occupation in early Caloosahatchee I and/or in the Late

Archaic period. The mounding apparent in upper strata may therefore reflect attempts to increase site elevation during the Wulfert High.

Hooker Key does not reveal the communal patterning observed at later mounded sites. Except for its greater size it appears similar to some later sites interpreted as 295 collecting stations (e.g. 8CH348, 8CH355, 8CH359). All of these sites also contain loose shell strata that may have accumulated fairly quickly. These observations allow ascription of the site’s form and artifact content to use as a collecting station, but in a period requiring even greater flood-proofing. All have low ceramic counts, suggesting their intermittent, non-habitation use. In fact, pottery counts at Hooker Key appear even lower than at these smaller sites. Comparatively, the small Caloosahatchee IIB collecting stations may reflect a higher degree of sedentism and more intensive use of collecting stations than in Caloosahatchee I.

Therefore Hooker Key is believed to have been used as a temporary collecting station, perhaps since the Late Archaic. Settled habitation may seem likely following site improvement through mounding, but there is no artifact evidence that site use then became more intensive. Mounding may even have been accomplished through collective labor organized within a lineage, but at no time does Hooker Key appear to unequivocally represent settled habitation.

Nearby potentially contemporaneous sites include substantial occupations and a burial mound (8LL81) on Galt Island (8LL27), less than two kilometers south along the same shoreline. Galt Island may have been related to Hooker Key in a culturally defined locality, perhaps as the center of that locality. Lower occupational midden on Galt Island has been dated to Caloosahatchee I. Also, substantial middens there have been dated to between A.D. 450 and 950. Still more midden accumulated thereafter until A.D. 1450

(Marquardt 1992d:428-430). Of the Galt Island burial mound, Marquardt (2001) reports prone burials in alternating layers of white, black, and red sand, and bundle burials or cremations in small, intrusive pits. Dates (A.D. 1160 to 1260, A.D. 1020-1220) and 296

European artifacts from the mound indicate use during periods IIB (late), III, and V.

Period IV use of the mound also appears likely, but does not appear to be directly evident in published data. Therefore, Hooker Key appears to pre-date the major periods of communal activity on Galt Island. Only during Caloosahatchee I could it have been a part of the Galt Island Locality.

There are three other known precolumbian sites within the three kilometers north of Hooker Key. Nearest at about 1.5 k, Regla Island (8LL28) has been described by Luer and Archibald (1988a:121). The small, tidally inundated site is adjacent to a natural berm ridge less than 50 m long and up to about one meter high. East of the berm, a small midden ridge less than 30 cm high and 10 m long comprises the archaeological deposit.

Surface collections from Regla Island include only one STP potsherd, allowing little basis for temporal assignment.

About 2.5 kilometers north of Hooker Key, two sites on Mason Island (8LL65,

Mason Island, and 8LL29, Coral Key) are listed in the Florida Master Site File (1999).

The Regla Island site may represent a collecting station associated with the two Mason

Island sites less than a kilometer away. The Coral Key site, about 300 meters from

8LL65, is listed as containing prehistoric burials. There is no known map of this site.

Investigation of 8LL65 is reported below at the conclusion of this chapter.

Site: 8LL32, Josslyn Island Ceramics: 36 Habitat: mangrove, estuarine bay Shell Artifacts: 7 Size of Excavation: profiles only Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Site Complex Historic Context: Cal. I, IIB to III Radiocarbon Date(s): Marquardt 1992b Integrity: substantial disturbance Surface Finds: 43 Area: 153780.55m2 Subsurface Finds: 0 Volume: 217768.00m3 Marker Location: 0385130/2945117 (Pit A), 0385140/2945086 (Pit B) 297

Figure 37. Josslyn Island site map (adapted from Marquardt 1992b:Figure 2). Contours are in meters. 298

Although Josslyn Island was not on the list of sites selected to be evaluated, it was visited in the course of fieldwork at the request of Robert Repenning, the CHSABP land manager. Mr. Repenning informed the investigators that recent looting had destroyed a portion of one of the mounded platforms on Josslyn Island (here, Looter Pit B). Another looter’s pit was seen among the roots of a gumbo limbo tree (Looter Pit A). A profile of

Looter Pit A was not advisable, since the combination of tree roots and looting had probably disturbed the strata there beyond recognition. Modern ceramic material (terra cotta), deposited earlier on Josslyn Island by CHSABP personnel, was used to fill in the looter’s pit and stabilize further erosion. Artifacts surface-collected from within five meters of Looter Pit A include 15 STP potsherds, 9 BGP potsherds, a quahog anvil, a horse-conch pounder, an indeterminate hammer, and a spoon/scoop. These artifacts are consonant with a Caloosahatchee IIB occupation (cf. Marquardt 1992b:23,24).

Looter Pit B was a severe disturbance in which looters dug south and east into the platform, lowering it to the 4m-contour level. Investigators drew, photographed, marked, and GPS-located the west and north profiles of this disturbance. The approximate location of the western Pit B profile is shown on the site map.

The profiles revealed four distinct strata in the mound’s upper levels. Stratum I is a humic, sandy zone with many roots and small whole whelks. Stratum II is composed of sparse sands in shells of small (pear and lightning) and occasional large (lightning) whelks. Stratum III is similar to Stratum II, except that in addition it was seen to contain much penshell aragonite. Stratum IV consisted of lightning and pear whelk shells with some quahog clam and horse conch shells. 299

All of the sub-humic strata in Pit B are believed to represent intentional mounding due the looseness and dearth of included soil. In relative rates of deposition based on soil content, Stratum II appears to have accrued most rapidly. Presence of limited sand in

Strata III and IV suggests that their upper horizons may have been used slightly longer or more frequently for occupation-related tasks.

Artifacts surface-collected from within five meters of Looter Pit B include three

STP potsherds, nine BGP potsherds, two pieces of whelk shell debitage, and a Type A cutting-edged tool. These artifacts are also consonant with a late IIB / early III date and

(by likely association) suggest the same date range for the profiled “mound” strata.

Proposed mounding on Josslyn Island is therefore tentatively dated to this interval.

These data do not contradict the interpretation of the Josslyn Island occupational sequence proposed above in Chapter 2 (data in the summary table do not include previous work). The site appears to have first been occupied between 300 B.C. and A.D. 300.

Accumulation of sand and midden debris during this time created a ridge that was up to

2.3 meters above modern MSL. The site may have been abandoned during late

Caloosahatchee I during the Wulfert High, but was re-occupied in early Caloosahatchee

IIB. About a half-meter of dense occupation debris was deposited then, followed in late periods IIB and early III by several strata of loose whole shell and very little soil. The latter strata contributed one to two meters of added elevation to the site and created a modal high elevation (platforms) at about four meters above modern MSL. On the ridge- top above the site’s largest, most central bifurcation up to two meters of loose shell strata were added in two dome-like deposits to give these locations the highest elevations on site, about five meters above modern MSL. This pattern is highly reminiscent of the 300 construction seen in the Acline Mound’s (8CH69) upper elevations. The origins of several unexcavated lobes and smaller ridges at the site remain unclear, but they too may date to Caloosahatchee IIB and/or III.

Josslyn Island is thought to represent the center of the Caloosahatchee IIB/III

“Josslyn Island Locality.” Nearby sites potentially related to occupations on Josslyn

Island include Benedict Key (8LL69) at about 600 meters west-southwest, Panther Key

(8LL68) at about two kilometers to the east-southeast, and Rat Key (8LL70) at about one kilometer to the northwest (FGDL 1998). None of these sites was investigated here, but all are much smaller than the Josslyn Island site and, if contemporaneous, may be related to it as collecting stations. Panther Key is documented as a shell midden and “Glades” ceramic scatter, and the other two sites are documented only as shell middens.

Functionally, the possibility still exists that mortuary contexts will be identified on

Josslyn Island. Due to the complexity of its midden constructions and its considerable size, the Josslyn Island site was also classified as a Site Complex by the cluster analysis described in Chapter 3. As yet, the earliest evidence for communal architecture appears to be the rapid, patterned mounding attributed to late Caloosahatchee IIB or III. Early IIB

(ca. A.D. 800 to 1000) zooarchaeological samples from the dense occupational zone suggest year-round site occupation (Marquardt 1992b:22). Although evidence of rapid mounding (and bifurcated design) during the early IIB occupation may seem likely, current stratigraphic evidence does not support this possibility. Early Caloosahatchee IIB occupants of Josslyn Island appear to have added significant quantities of sand (not shell) to the ridge, as had Caloosahatchee I occupants (Marquardt 1992b:16-18). 301

Approximately four kilometers to the south, Demere Key (8LL31) is documented as containing one or more prehistoric mounds, shellworks, and shell middens.

Components documented there include “Glades II,” “Glades III,” Spanish I,” “Spanish

II,” and “British” (FGDL 1998). This site, like Josslyn Island during its re-occupation, probably represents the center of a distinct, culturally defined locality. The Cayo Tuna site (8LL67) on Hemp Key should be investigated as a potential collecting station in the

“Demere Key Locality.”

Approximately four kilometers to the north, the Pineland site comprises the center of another hypothetical locality (the “Pineland Locality”). As noted in Chapter 2, the

Pineland site contains a full sequence of Caloosahatchee occupation after A.D. 50.

Period I (late) and IIA occupations may have included some previous inhabitants of

Josslyn Island.

Inhabitants of Pineland are believed to have accelerated mound-building between

A.D. 700 and 900, during the Caloosahatchee IIA/IIB transition. Construction of an isolated sand burial mound (8LL36), a long canal, and continued addition of mound strata during periods III and IV made the Pineland site a Site Complex of a size unmatched in the Pine Island Zone. Moreover, construction of two distinct, flanking mounds by A.D.

900 suggests the Pineland Locality dominated the northern Pine Island Sound Zone in a process coeval with—and homologous to—similar developments in the Cape Haze Zone.

Socially, Caloosahatchee IIB inhabitants of Josslyn Island may have been the peers of Pineland’s inhabitants during much of that period. But by period III, some differences in social status (ranking) may have existed between the represented lineages.

Evidence for this is suggested by the changing amounts of gastropod cutting-edged tools 302 in Marquardt’s Test Pit A-2 (1992b:Table 4). Early Caloosahatchee IIB strata (Levels 7 and 8) contain mostly STP potsherds and no gastropod cutting-edged tools. In subsequent strata prior to ca. A.D. 1200 (based on St. Johns Check Stamped ceramics,

Levels 5, 6, and 7), gastropod cutting-edged tools quickly reach their highest frequency

(eight of eleven tools). Gastropod cutting-edged tools are present throughout

Caloosahatchee III strata (Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4), but in reduced quantities (three tools).

Remembering the increased frequency of cutting-edged tools observed by Patton

(1994:68) in Pineland’s Caloosahatchee III/IV contexts, these data suggest that high- status artifacts were distributed less evenly between Josslyn Island and Pineland by the beginning of Caloosahatchee III. One mechanism by which this could have occurred is tributary payments (Luer 1989). Of the two site complexes, only Pineland is known to contain at least one burial mound. Perhaps by Caloosahatchee III, Pineland’s leadership performed mortuary ceremonials for the inhabitants of the Josslyn Island Locality. If this was so, tributary payments may have occurred as goods were exchanged or collected for mortuary-religious services.

Site: 8LL64, Bird Rookery Keys Ceramics: 118 Habitat: mangrove (estuarine bay) Shell Artifacts: 13 Size of Excavation: 50 cm x 50 cm Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Ridge Components: Caloosahatchee IV Radiocarbon Date(s): unprocessed Integrity: major disturbance Surface Finds: 45 Area: 304 m2 Subsurface Finds: 86 Volume: 67 m3 Marker Location: 0391456/2950546

This small site is located on the north edge of a small key in Matlacha Pass, about two kilometers north-northeast of the Indian Field site (8LL39). It is a small, narrow 303 midden Ridge that is partially submerged at high tide. Erosion has occurred on the northeast edge of the ridge where shell is visible in shallow water. A small, steep, apparently modern pile of crown-conch shells was noted at the site’s east end. No artifacts or trash accompanied this pile of fresh, colorful shells. They are believed to have been commercially harvested since 1988. When Luer and Archibald (1988a) documented the site they did not note the pile of shells, despite the fact that they surface-collected several artifacts including six fragments of lightning-whelk cutting-edged tools, one lightning-whelk Type C hammer, three quahog anvil fragments, a quahog net weight, and

25 STP potsherds.

Excavation in Test Unit 1 revealed three strata. Nine STP potsherds were collected from the surface of the unit. Stratum I is dark brown sand with crown conch and oyster fragments. It contained 56 STP potsherds and a quahog chopper. Stratum II is black moist sandy loam with shell similar to Stratum I. It contained 25 STP potsherds and a quahog anvil. Together, Strata I and II probably represent a Caloosahatchee IV occupation. Stratum III is damp, gray sandy loam similar to Stratum II, but with less shell and only three STP potsherds. It probably represents a zone of shell midden mixed with the pale natural sands of the key. Excavation was halted due to water intrusion.

The Bird Rookery Keys site (8LL64) may represent a collecting station and watch-point associated with Caloosahatchee IV habitation at the Indian Field site

(8LL39). Bird Rookery Keys commands a strategic view of northern Matlacha Pass and appears to have been occupied intensively, if not extensively or for a long duration.

Other sites in this hypothetical “Indian Field Locality” are among those on Pine

Island described by Luer (1989:96-105). At the east end of the Pine Island Canal, three 304 Figure 38. Bird Rookery Keys site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. site map (adapted from Luer Keys Rookery 38. Bird Figure 305 sites (8LL40, 8LL783, and 8LL784) may be associated with Indian Field. Both

“Sweetwater” sites are west-southwest of Indian Fields. Sweetwater 2 (8LL784) is 500 meters away and Sweetwater 1 (8LL783) is about 750 meters away. Luer (1989:97) reports that looters have been arrested for removing human bones from the area of these two sites. To the northwest, the Pineland 8 burial mound (8LL40) is 1.2 kilometers from

Indian Field.

The Pineland 8 mound, previously 18 m in diameter and about 1.4 m high, was excavated by Clarence Moore in 1900 and 1904. Moore (1905) recovered remains of about 250 individuals from the mound. The interments were mostly individual skulls with some articulated skeletons in flexed positions. He also recovered many artifacts from the burial mound, including lightning-whelk vessels, abundant plain pottery, three check-stamped potsherds, two loop-handled potsherds, and a few pieces of an incised and punctated vessel that Luer (1989:98) identifies as Fort Walton Incised, Sneads variety.

Moore also recovered several European artifacts, including iron tools, glass beads, rolled sheet-silver beads, two silver pendants, projectile points, and perforated shark’s teeth.

The artifact assemblage appears to indicate use of the Pineland 8 mortuary mound during

Caloosahatchee III (late), IV, and early V (Luer 1989:97-99; also see Widmer 1988:86-

87).

The Indian Field site was mapped and surface-collected by Luer (1989:99-104).

The site is over 150 meters long and features a bifurcated design that harbors the east end of the Pine Island Canal. Shellworks north of this canal form a two-domed, mounded ridge of up to three meters in height. South of the canal, several midden ridge segments appear to enclose a lower area. This area may have served as an associated common 306 living area adjacent to a protected, shallow basin (Luer 1989:103). It seems apparent from these data that the Indian Field site could represent the center of a Caloosahatchee locality that was active during periods III, IV, and IV. Surface-collections include 14 perforated ark-shell net weights, a worked lightning-whelk spire, two horse-conch hammers, and six lightning-whelk hammers. Surface-collected ceramics include 64 STP,

50 Pinellas Plain, 22 BGP, two Sand-tempered Incised, and one Spanish olive jar potsherd. Ceramics identical to some of the Pinellas Plain potsherds were also recovered by Luer and Archibald (1988a) from the Cameron Island site (discussed above under

8CH72). Both sites are believed to have hosted occupations primarily during

Caloosahatchee late III and IV, ca. A.D. 1300 to 1500.

Site: 8LL65, Mason Island Ceramics: 5 Habitat: mangrove, estuarine bay Shell Artifacts: 5 Size of Excavation: 50cm x 50cm, Profile Bone Artifacts: 0 Site Type: Ridge Components: Caloosahatchee I, IIA Radiocarbon Date(s): 380-230 B.C. Integrity: major disturbance Surface Finds: 7 Area: 2582 m2 Subsurface Finds: 4 Volume: 1721 m3 Marker Location: 0388208/2937453 (T.U.1), 0388224/2937454 (Profile)

Mason Island is an extremely large midden ridge in Pine Island Sound. Most of its leeward edge and southern end were plundered prior to 1988 (Luer and Archibald

1988a). An area near the center of the ridge also appears to have been cleared and used for habitation and camping in the modern era. Surface collection by Luer and Archibald

(1988a:129) yielded two Type A lightning-whelk cutting-edged tools, an indeterminate lightning-whelk hammer, a horse-conch pounder, a horse-conch “anchor,” and two STP potsherds. 307

Figure 39. Mason Island site map (adapted from Luer and Archibald 1988a). Contours are in meters. 308

Excavation in a 50-cm square unit (Test Unit 1) revealed two strata in the ridge’s top 40 cm. The uppermost is a humic zone of crushed shell and sand that yielded three

STP potsherds and a brass grommet. Below this, Stratum II is made mostly of small whelks, with some crown conchs, containing no artifacts and sparse sand, suggesting relatively rapid accrual. Surface collection and artifacts from Stratum I suggest occupation during Caloosahatchee IIA. Examination and profiling of a looter’s vertical

“cut” revealed three strata in the site’s upper 70 cm. Stratum I is black humus with sparse shell, similar to stratum I in Test Unit 1. Stratum II is made mostly of large and small whelk shells with very little sand visible. This layer is potentially homologous to Stratum

II in Test Unit 1. The lowest, Stratum III, is dark gray sand with less shell, and may represent an earlier (Caloosahatchee I or IIA) occupation zone. One artifact, a piece of lightning-whelk debitage, was observed in the profile (Stratum II) but was not collected.

Typological classification did not distinguish the form of 8LL65 from a simple

Ridge. Nevertheless, it seems apparent from stratigraphic data that the site was elevated substantially through addition of a shell-fill stratum. This site may thus be interpreted as a typical Caloosahatchee I and/or IIA occupation ridge that was elevated in period IIA.

Two nearby sites may be related to 8LL65 in a lineage-based settlement pattern.

As noted above, the Regla Island site may represent a collecting station associated with

Mason Island. Prehistoric burials and shell midden 300 meters away at the Coral Key site may indicate a mortuary context for the locality, near the habitation area, as believed to be typical of early Caloosahatchee and Weeden Island-influenced contexts. Further work must be accomplished before contemporaneity of these sites (including Regla Island) is established. Provisionally, the Mason Island Locality is interpreted as a Caloosahatchee I 309 and IIA, lineage-based set of three sites representing an egalitarian social formation that preceded construction of bifurcated mounds and the widespread popularity of Belle Glade ceramics. The recovery of two Type A cutting-edged tools from Mason Island’s surface might suggest a later date, but the lack of Belle Glade Plain potsherds contradicts later assignment. This lack may be an effect of the small artifact sample size, so further investigation of Mason Island is desirable. Of distinct interest is the possibility that the site reflects an egalitarian distribution of lightning-whelk cutting-edged tools, believed to have become highly controlled status items by Caloosahatchee IIB. Similar artifacts were not recovered from Caloosahatchee IIB or III ridge sites. CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Excavations yielded ample stratigraphic and artifact evidence to suggest the phase or phases in which most sites (all except 8CH480) had been constructed and occupied.

To supplement interpretations based on temporal diagnostics (pottery and shell artifacts),

27 radiocarbon assays were acquired (Appendix E). Excavations performed, radiocarbon assays, and each site’s final typological assignment are summarized in Table 1. Isotopic calibrations for all radiocarbon samples were estimated, not measured. All calendar dates appearing on this table are depicted and discussed here as calibrated, + 1-s ranges (68% likely to fall within the stated range).

Analyzing a few artifacts and one or two radiocarbon assays for a site is not presented here as a substitute for optimal sampling. Optimally, several samples would be processed from multiple strata and in multiple locations of a site, before reconstructing a site’s depositional history. These were not options for this investigation, so all temporal assignment given here must be viewed as provisional. Two considerations guided choices for which radiocarbon samples were processed. The first was the need to place all Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone sites within the Caloosahatchee sequence. The second was the need to date study sites that had yielded few diagnostic artifacts.

310 Table 5. Excavations Performed and Results of Radiocarbon Assays. See Appendix E for radiocarbon raw results. Site 14C Age Range (calibrated Name Initial Site Type Test Excavations 14C Sample Numbers Number estimate + 1s) 8CH9 Catfish Point ridge 1 (1 x 1 m) 8CH17 (unnamed) mounded ridge 2 (50 x 50 cm) 8CH36 Turtle Bay 1 ridge 1 (50 x 50 cm) 8CH37 Turtle Bay 2 mounded ridge 1 (profiled disturbance) 8CH58 (unnamed) shell dome 1 (50 x 50 cm) 8CH69 Acline Mound bifurcated mound 2 (1 x 1 m, 1.5m x 1m) A.D. 385-450, A.D. 975- Beta-141711, 1055 141710 8CH72 Muddy Cove 2 ridge 1 (50 x 50 cm) 8CH347 Cape Haze Mound ridge 1 (1 x 1 m) 8CH348 Bird Dog Key mounded ridge 1 (50 x 50 cm) 8CH349 (unnamed) ridge 5 (30 x 30 cm) 8CH351 Fishhook anomalous 2 (1 x 1 m) A.D. 660-780 Beta-138594 8CH352 Negash shell dome 1 (1 x 1 m) A.D. 1005-1190 Beta-138595 8CH353 Dubois mounded ridge 1 (50 x 50 cm) A.D. 440-630 Beta-138592 8CH354 (unnamed) ridge 1 (1 x 1 m) A.D. 695-815 Beta-138593 8CH355 Cockroach ridge 1 (50 x 50 cm) A.D. 1040-1190 Beta-138601 8CH356 Whidden Branch bifurcated mound 2 (50 x 50 cm, 1.5 x 1m) A.D. 645-690, A.D. 885- Beta-141712, Mound 1005 141713 8CH357 Silcox North bifurcated mound 1 (50 x 50 cm) A.D. 865-1015 Beta-138604, 138605 8CH358 Silcox Key anomalous 1 (50 x 50 cm) A.D. 575-680 Beta-138606 8CH359 Blacks Island shell dome 1 (50 x 50 cm) A.D. 720-865 Beta-138607 8CH360 Lime Key ridge, shell dome 2 (30 x 30, 50 x 50 cm) A.D. 1025-1180 Beta-138609 8CH361 Fines Key bifurcated mound 1 (1 x 1 m) A.D. 805-965 Beta-141384 8CH362 Cotton Key anomalous 2 (50 x 50 cm) A.D. 1290-1500 Beta-141385, 138608

8CH450 Little Lake sheet midden 1 (1 x 1 m) A.D. 440-595 Beta-138600 311 Table 5—continued.

Site 14C Age Range (calibrated Name Initial Site Type Test Excavations 14C Sample Numbers Number estimate + 1s) 8CH479 Acline Village sheet midden 1 (1 x 1 m) A.D. 680-830 Beta-141382 8CH480 Gartree sheet midden 1 (1 x 1 m) 8CH481 Black Cow ridge 1 (1 x 1 m) A.D. 890-1015 Beta-138602 8CH482 Kessel Run sheet midden 1 (50 x 50 cm) 1770-1615 B.C. Beta-138603 8CH483 Mid-Lake sheet midden 1 (1 x 1 m) A.D. 345-535 Beta-138597 8CH484 Cicada Lake sheet midden 1 (1 x 1 m) 1885-1680 B.C. Beta-141383 8CH485 Cicada Point sheet midden 1 (1 x 1 m) 8CH486 Creek-Bend black earth/sheet midden 1 (1 x 1 m) 8CH487 Bumblebee ridge 1 (1 x 1 m) A.D. 670-790 Beta-138598, 138599 8CH488 Prop-Wash ridge 1 (30 x 30 cm) 8CH506 Buckthorn shell dome 1 (50 x 50 cm) 615-385 B.C. Beta-138596 8LL30 Hooker Key mounded ridge 2 (profiled disturbance, 380-230 B.C. Beta-152862 50 x 50 cm) 8LL32 Josslyn Island site complex 1 (profiled disturbance) 8LL64 Bird Rookery Keys ridge 1 (50 x 50 cm) 8LL65 Mason Island ridge 2 (profiled disturbance, 380-230 B.C. Beta-152862 50 x 50 cm) 312 313

Evidence of Mounding with Shell Fill

Excavations revealed variable patterns of deposition based on the composition and compaction of strata. In several sites which had the surface appearance of mounds, either by elevation or design (e.g., 8CH9, 8CH37, 8CH69, 8CH356, 8CH357, 8CH361,

8LL30, 8LL32), investigators observed strata that were characterized by many whole shells, poor compaction, sparse sand, and low artifact density. The pattern was first identified in contrast to sandy strata that were often found underlying or interspersed with these “shell-fill” strata. The sandy strata were often dark, sometimes compact layers that contained little whole shell, much fragmentary shell, and more artifacts and faunal bone than shell-fill strata. These patterns are evident in stratigraphic profiles and in cultural material (bone, shell, and small ceramic potsherd) weights. These weights appear to be consistently higher in sandy strata and in shell fill horizons directly under the sandy strata than in the central and lower levels of shell-fill strata.

Because the dark, sandy strata are full of artifacts and are compact, they are interpreted here as occupational strata, composed of de facto refuse and living debris. In contrast, the loose gastropod strata represent more rapid accumulation of midden debris, probably for constructional purposes. The proposition that shelly strata with little sand generally represent stages of rapid construction appears reasonable, and is supported by identification of these strata in two contexts. The first context is that of apparent elevated or regularly shaped mounds, noted above. The second is in the lower levels of ridge sites that appear to have been constructed in the margins of tidal streams (e.g. 8CH355,

8CH362). Several of these contexts also exhibited strata consisting of whole shells and 314 few artifacts. In these cases, rapid initial construction may have provided a minimal sufficient foundation for use and subsequent, more protracted or sporadic accumulation.

Identification of shell fill strata as the product of intentional construction is highly significant to this study’s stated aim, the description of Caloosahatchee settlements and possible patterns of change therein. Recognition of the substantial shell fill in specific, uncommon contexts (bifurcated mounds, site complex mounds, and perhaps burial mound “caps”) identifies the most likely expenditures of constructive efforts by residents of a locality. When these constructive efforts were heavily concentrated and repeated for several generations at only one locality in a zone, platform mounds may have been produced. From these especially high (five to seven meter) mounds, chiefs or mortuary specialist “big-men” could have performed civic, rank-legitimizing rituals in full view of their communities. It is considered an important fact that only one bifurcated mound or site complex within each zone exhibits such distinctively tall mounds as predicted

(8CH69, 8CH454, 8LL33, and 8LL2). From the community’s perspective, participation in civic ceremonials such as periodic mound construction probably operated as a vehicle for intensified group participation, open to all members. It also may have offered means for surviving a massive flood of the order believed to have occurred around A.D. 680 +

80. Finally, mound “renewal” ceremonies may have served to legitimate new successors to the role of chief.

Site Typology

Six formal types of site were said to exist in the study area: Site Complexes,

Sheet Middens, Bifurcated Mounds, Ridges (including Mounded Ridges), Shell Domes, and Anomalous Sites. Field investigations at 38 sites allowed checking of original site 315

Figure 40. Volumes and areas of study sites. Sites are grouped by type and sorted by volume. SM = sheet midden, BM = bifurcated mound, MR = mounded ridge, R = ridge, A= Anomalous, SD = shell dome. 316 descriptions and limited functional interpretation on a site-by-site basis. Synthesizing the results of investigations by type helps point out problems in the original typological classification of specific sites. Solidifying the definitions of these formal types is also necessary for consistent interpretation of their related social functions.

Ridges

Ridge sites are generally small, oblong deposits under one meter in height (low volume, low area) that contain dense habitation debris and are usually found on littoral or lacustrine margins. Series of ridges are used in some sites (e.g. 8CH351, 8CH358) to enclose a circular or “U”-shaped space (ridge/enclosures). Ten sites were originally classified as Ridge sites and all were investigated. These sites represented the greatest number and show much variation within the type. This variation and the presence of the type in all time periods tend to indicate this was the fundamental site type since the

Archaic. Ridges are always linear in basic form, but sometimes exhibit a lobate, tear- drop, or bulbous shape. Ridges usually contain dense, complex stratigraphic sequences, and the duration of their occupations also varies widely. Many early Caloosahatchee (I,

IIA) single ridge sites appear to have been augmented later with shell fill. Many more- recent single ridge sites (periods, IIB, III) may have been built atop a shell-fill substrate.

Ridges also appear as elements in such complex constructions as site complexes, enclosures, and fish impoundments. Multiple flanking ridges may have provided an early model for such later projects. Functionally, ridges are interpreted as both habitation and collecting-station sites.

Though some species were almost ubiquitous (e.g. oyster, crown conch), species comprising strata in ridges are highly variable, and in many cases abundant fish bone was 317 noted. These observations suggest a broad and variable subsistence base, probably reflecting resources available in the immediate area. The most commonly observed shell species were oyster (Crassostrea sp.), crown conch (Melongena corona), and moon snail

(Polinices sp.).

Mounded Ridges

Mounded Ridge sites are ridges that appear to have been subjected to rapid stratum deposition (mounding) and, like bifurcated mounds, fall into two size ranks based on volume (Figure 40). Five potential study sites were classified as Mounded Ridge sites.

Of these five, four were investigated. Investigated sites appear to be standard ridges along which a localized concentration of midden material expanded and elevated the original midden surface. The linear portions of these sites and their stratigraphy are in all essential respects similar to those noted above for simple ridges. The expanded, elevated segments of these sites are sometimes up to three meters in height (8LL30) and contain substantial shell-fill strata. However, all are less than four meters in height. Where there is no evidence of special design (all except 8CH9), they appear to be common domestic surfaces rather than communal/ceremonial mounds. In cases where shell-fill strata are not present, bulbous, tear-shaped, or lobate ridges are not considered “mounded ridges.”

Several standard ridges feature substantial basal shell-fill strata, but all investigated

Mounded Ridge sites exhibit superpositioned shell-fill strata.

Shell Domes

Shell domes are ovate, raised surfaces similar to ridges in composition and location, though smaller on average. Five Shell Dome sites were classified by cluster analysis and of these, four were investigated. The shell domes that were sampled 318 appeared in most respects to be common occupational surfaces, similar to ridges. The sites showed slight, but visible, elevation over local terrain and were generally more ovoid than linear. But in other respects, their contents and placement relative to resources

(along small bays or ponds) mirrored that of ridges. Shell species constituting these sites are predominantly oyster and crown conch.

Based on field observations, one site initially clustered with shell domes should be re-assigned as a Bifurcated Mound. Luer and Archibald’s (1988a) sketch-map, the original basis for characterization of Silcox North (8CH357), appeared to under- emphasize the degree to which a shallow depression bifurcated the site’s mounded portions. The site may therefore represent a poorly developed bifurcated mound.

Sheet Middens

Sheet middens are thin, amorphous deposits that range widely in size (Figure 40) and are usually spatially associated with significant features of an upland or salt-flat landscape (e.g., extraction locales, lakes, a bifurcated mound). Seven sheet midden sites were originally classified and all were investigated. This site type’s name is intended to convey its form-based definition and that not all sites of this type appear to be comprised mostly of dark soil. However, many of the sites investigated in this category could also be referred to as “black-earth middens” (Griffin 1974; Widmer 1988) based on soil coloration. They were defined initially by apparent form, a sheet-like archaeological deposit that was often extensive (e.g. at 8CH479, over 10,000m2) but usually with little horizontal breadth. Sheet Midden sites were assignable to all well-represented time periods in the study sample. Investigated sheet middens varied widely in area, a factor probably related to variation in community size and the extent to which a site supported 319 regular use. Qualitative observations of faunal remains from sheet middens suggest most variability is a function of immediately available resources. The majority of sheet midden sites have been interpreted as collecting stations due to limited size and cultural material.

Based their sizes alone, two investigated sheet middens—8CH479 and 8CH484—are likely to have supported extended habitation.

Bifurcated Mounds

Bifurcated Mound sites are elevated sites of two size ranks (based on volume) that show evidence of shell-fill strata and exhibit a significant degree of division between two component structures (platforms). Three sites showing a marked degree of bifurcation were grouped by the cluster analysis. Another site, Silcox North (8CH357), has been reclassified to this type due to site-map updates. Perhaps relatedly, one mounded ridge investigated in the Cape Haze Zone (Catfish Point, 8CH9) also shows slight bifurcation and is of a size-order similar to the largest classified Bifurcated Mound site (Aline

Mound). During field investigation, all of these sites exhibited stratigraphic evidence of mounding (shell-fill strata) and patterned design. Furthermore, mounded strata at all these sites were assigned (based on artifact counts and radiocarbon dates) to early

Caloosahatchee IIB, circa A.D. 900. Fines Key (8CH361) also contains a later,

Caloosahatchee III component, apparently its final prehistoric occupation.

Bifurcated mounds are believed to represent the social and ceremonial centers of culturally-defined localities. Habitations within a locality appear to have been dispersed, either seasonally or year-round, at the several smaller sites around each bifurcated mound.

In the intensively surveyed Alligator Creek area, a large bifurcated mound (Acline

Mound, 8CH69) and its immediate locale are associated spatially and temporally with 320 several ridge, shell dome, and sheet midden sites (8CH351, 8CH352, 8CH354, 8CH355,

8CH479, 8CH481, 8CH483, 8CH484, 8CH485, 8CH486). At a slightly greater distance from 8CH69, the three smaller bifurcated mounds (8CH356, 8CH361, and 8CH357) are contemporaneous and within 11 km of Acline Mound. Each of these smaller mounds is also associated with one or more ridge, shell dome, or sheet midden site. These village- site-groups (localities) are believed to represent the social activity of between 30 and 300 people (perhaps organized in two or more ramage-type lineages).

The fact that one of these mounds (Acline Mound, 8CH69) is drastically larger than the rest may indicate ranking among localities within a zone. The preeminence of one locality (and its dominant lineages) within a zone containing multiple bifurcated mounds is suggested by the relative sizes and numbers of the centers (rank-size distribution) and relative numbers of smaller, dependent sites for each locality (suggesting relative population sizes).

Site Complexes

Site complexes are large, multi-component sites that are composed of several mounds, canals, and midden deposits. One site classified as a site complex (8LL32) was briefly investigated during fieldwork. This site and the other site complexes have been described by Marquardt (1992b), Luer (1986), and Torrence and others (Torrence et al.

1994). Evidence suggests that most of these sites began as ridges or sheet middens and were usually occupied for considerable time spans before communal mound construction was initiated. Some site complexes may also have incorporated bifurcated mounds as integrated design elements (e.g. Randell Mound at 8LL33, or the central ridge at 8LL32). 321

Evidence suggests that tall platform mounds were added to two sites (8CH454 and

8LL33) in early Caloosahatchee IIB. At the Pineland Site, they continued to accrue through Caloosahatchee III. But the most active period of mounding at Site Complexes and Bifurcated Mounds in Charlotte Harbor seems to have been early Caloosahatchee IIB, ca. A.D. 800 to 1000. During Caloosahatchee IV, inhabitants may have continued to build up the mounds at sites 8LL33 and 8LL2.

Anomalous Sites

Four sites could not be described easily using cluster analysis, due to a lack of any recognizable associations with other sites. Three of these four sites were investigated during fieldwork, and are discussed here individually.

Fishhook. The Fishhook site dates to late Caloosahatchee IIA and is comprised of three segmented, low ridges. Human remains were noted in the largest, easternmost ridge. The addition of two smaller ridges to the northeast and southeast creates a small

“U”-shaped enclosure, open to the east. The site was probably used for habitation.

Human remains noted may represent the inhabitants or their relatives. Fishhook appears to represent a context in which initial moves were made toward a bifurcate design (as at

Acline Mound). If so, these actions were not continued to result in a bifurcated mound.

Perhaps this was due to the increased “social gravity” of the Acline Mound site during early period IIB. By that time, the Fishhook site appears to have been abandoned.

Silcox Key. The Silcox Key site also dates to late Caloosahatchee IIA and is an elliptical enclosure comprised of segmented ridges. The lowest ridge segment is on the southeast side, and the suggestion of an opening is discernable there. This site is one of the most unusual investigated, due to its resulting elliptical form. To the author’s 322 knowledge, no other similar “shell-ring” has been observed in the study area. In construction, age, and design, the site shows some similarities to 8CH351, although on a larger scale. It seems likely that it too represents a discontinued “experiment” in mound design, replaced in early Caloosahatchee IIB by the beginning of a Bifurcated Mound at the adjacent Silcox North site (8CH357).

Cotton Key. The Cotton Key site consists of two ridges, one quite simple and the other lobate. It was originally classified on the basis of the larger ridge’s measurements.

Two ovoid lobes on the ends of this larger ridge make it unusual within the sample. The westernmost lobe is quite similar in shape and size to observed “shell dome” sites. A depression in the center of this lobe is probably the result of modern looting attempts.

The site is later than many other sites in the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone, dating to

Caloosahatchee III and IV. Caloosahatchee III (or perhaps late period IIB) marks the end of significant ceremonial activity and habitation in the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone, and the southern Cotton Key ridge does not reflect a form characteristic of several earlier sites in that zone. The ridge’s lobes are therefore believed to represent utilitarian ridge elaborations, not dictated by a unified design.

Site Components and Chronology

Based on field studies, the original typological classification of 38 sites has been evaluated and found to represent discrete physical categories. Pedestrian surveys and stratigraphic tests were used to examine more closely the properties of classified sites and where necessary, to re-assign a site to a more appropriate category. With investigated sites classified by period and form, their data may now be combined with those of previously investigated sites to present a chronology of settlements in the Caloosahatchee Table 6. Caloosahatchee Site Types and Identified Components. Period IIB (early) represents ca. A.D. 800 to 1000, IIB (late) represents A.D. 1000-1200. All other periods represent time ranges as above (Table 1). Site Late Cal. IIB Cal. IIB Site Name Suggested Site Type Cal. I Cal. IIA Cal. III Cal. IV Number Archaic (early) (late) 8CH38 Cash Mound Ridge xxxxxx 8LL51 Useppa Island Ridges xb xxxm 8CH356 Whidden Branch Bifurcated Mound x x x xm 8CH37 Turtle Bay 2 Mounded Ridge x x x xm 8LL47 Burgess Island Ridges, Mounded R. x x xb xmb xmb 8CH347 Cape Haze Mound Ridge x x xb 8CH482 Kessel Run Sheet Midden x x 8CH484 Cicada Lake Sheet Midden x x x 8CH454 Big Mound Key Site Complex x xb xm xxx 8CH15 Coral Creek Site Complex x x x x x x 8LL2 Mound Key Site Complex x x x x x x 8LL33 Pineland Site Complex x x xmb xmb xmb xb 8CH9 Catfish Point Mounded Ridge x x xm xm 8CH69 Acline Mound Bifurcated Mound x x xmb 8CH12 Vanderbilt Mounded Ridge x xm 8CH506 Buckthorn Sheet Midden x x 8CH58 Sisters Ponds Creek Shell Dome x x 8CH36 Turtle Bay 1 Ridge x x 8LL65 Mason Island Mounded Ridge x xmb 8LL32 Josslyn Island Site Complex x x xm xm 8LL30 Hooker Key Mounded Ridge xm 8LL722 Buck Key Ridge x x xb xx 8CH17 Golf Club Mounded Ridge x xm x 8CH487 Bumblebee Ridge x x 8CH348 Bird Dog Key Ridge x x 8CH483 Mid-Lake Sheet Midden x x 323 Site Late Cal. IIB Cal. IIB Site Name Suggested Site Type Cal. I Cal. IIA Cal. III Cal. IV Number Archaic (early) (late) 8CH479 Acline Village Sheet Midden x x 8CH354 C E and S Ridge x x 8CH481 Black Cow Ridge x x 8CH359 Blacks Island Shell Dome x x 8CH450 Little Lake Sheet Midden x 8CH353 Dubois Ridges xm 8CH358 Silcox Key Ridges (Enclosure) x 8CH486 Creek-Bend Sheet Midden x 8CH351 Fishhook Ridges (Enclosure) xb 8CH45 John Quiet Mound Site Complex xm xm xm x 8CH361 Fines Key Bifurcated Mound xm xm x 8CH485 Cicada Point Sheet Midden x x 8CH488 Prop-Wash Ridge x x 8CH357 Silcox North Bifurcated Mound x 8CH360 Lime Key Shell dome, Ridge x x 8CH352 Negash Shell Dome x 8CH355 Cockroach Ridge x 8CH362 Cotton Key Ridges x x 8CH72 Muddy Cove 2 Ridge x 8LL64 Bird Rookery Keys Ridge x 8CH349 (unnamed) Ridge xb Source: Bullen and Bullen 1956; Marquardt 1992b; Torrence and Marquardt 1998; Torrence et al. 1994; William Marquardt, database spreadsheet, 2001); Chapters 4, 5, and 6. Note: Superscript "m" designates non-basal shell-fill strata dated to this period, “b” is for associated human remains (burials). 324 325 area. Table 2 shows the final typological assignments for classified sites, proposed classifications for sites not investigated, and the components recognized at each site.

Earliest components may be underrepresented due to limits on excavation; not all tests reached sterile soil before excavations had to be halted in order to “beat” tides. More than one return visit was not usually practical with available funding and the total field time it allowed.

When reading Table 2, it is important to note that the stated site type reflects only the final site form. A site with more components is more likely to have changed in form

(and function) throughout its occupational sequence. This is especially true for sites that may have been abandoned and later re-occupied, such as Josslyn Island. Sites in Table 6 have been sorted in descending order first by earlier, then by later components. No inferences are made with respect to the relative ages of two sites both within a single period column.

In order to indicate when site forms changed at multicomponent sites, dated shell- fill strata may be consulted. Of particular interest to this study are the commencement of communal forms (ergo functions) at settlements with no prior evidence of nondomestic use. Where such constructions occurred, nonbasal shell fill strata will have been noted and the resulting site form may exhibit designs more complex than simple ridges.

Mounded Ridges, which do not exhibit a complex final form, nevertheless are believed to reflect communal attempts to elevate a site. Comparing the occurrence of mounded ridges to other mounded sites (Bifurcated Mounds and Site Complexes) may therefore suggest changing expressions of communal effort. These forms probably reflect changing expressions of power, economy, and ideology within a dynamic and frequently hazardous 326 physical setting. Where dated, non-basal shell-fill strata have been interpreted from new or published site data, this is denoted in Table 6 by a superscript “m.”

Several examples of basal shell-fill strata at small “nonmound” sites might also be the products of corporate efforts of less ceremonial consequence. The minimal use expected at these sites is intermittent occupation by a few individuals during resource extraction (collecting stations or fishcamps). Before such a small site was occupied, raised ridges of shell fill appear to have been deposited, suitable to provide a small dry terrace. This could have been accomplished over a period of hours, days, or weeks as inhabitants of a nearby village dumped shell refuse in an agreed-upon location at a short distance from the main village. It should not escape mention that the shell dumped at these locations could have later provided shell fill for use in constructive additions to ceremonial mounds in nearby local centers. Future researchers may test this possibility using comparative zooarchaeological analyses of shell-fill strata from a village center and a collecting station in the same locality (e.g., by rigorously comparing 8CH69 shell-fill strata to those from 8CH352 and 8CH353, or 8CH357 samples to those from 8CH359).

To indicate possible changes in mortuary patterns, sites that exhibit human remains or that have been associated with a burial site at a short distance are indicated on

Table 6 (“b”). Ridge and Mounded Ridges are common burial contexts in

Caloosahatchee IIA and before. They appear again as burial contexts in period Late IIB

(at Buck Key) and in period IV (8CH349), but are much less common after period IIA.

Burial mound mortuary contexts appear during period IIA (Mason Island and Burgess

Island), but are most common during periods IIB and III (Acline’s Aqui Esta Mound,

Pineland’s Smith Mound, the Burgess Island Burial Mound). It may also be noted that 327 each of these burial mounds is within the purview of a site with substantial shell-fill strata and evidence of elite residence mounds. Period IIA and earlier burial contexts do not typically exhibit such a strong association with shell-fill mounding, although it may pertain for some IIA sites (8LL65, 8LL12, 8LL15).

Sedentariness: Correlate of Sociopolitical Complexity

Changes in residential mobility have been linked to changes in social complexity.

Price (1981:81-82) asserts that population growth in abundant and circumscribed environments causes reduction of mobility, which further stimulates population growth and the promotion of status differences as an integrating structure. This view appears to assume that the tendency of human populations is to expand to the limit of their existing socioeconomic niches. This assumption is untenable; causal relationships in this case are unclear (Cowgill 1975).

Nevertheless, increases in sedentism or measures of sedentism (“sedentariness”) are often said to necessitate increases in social stratification. A less functionalist view of this process could simply involve the actions of aspiring elites in manipulation of information or productive resources necessary for continued settled life (Pauketat 1994).

For either perspective, sedentariness is an aspect of site function that is useful as a correlate of sociopolitical complexity.

In regard to sedentariness, it is important to remember that it is measured as a set of interval variables in a temporal sequence. Sedentary villages existed in the

Caloosahatchee area as early as the Middle Archaic (Russo 1991, 1994). Attention must be focused on any shifts in sedentariness, not the presence or absence of sedentism. 328

Table 7. Sedentariness Indicators for Study Sites, with total Volume Excavated and Total Artifacts recovered. Reference Numbers correlate with Figure 41. Volume Shell Sherd Ref. Site Total Artifact Volume Area Site Name Excavated Tool /Tool No. No. Artifacts Density (m3) (m2) (m3) Types Ratio 1 8CH356 Whidden Branch 1.48 180 122 923 1142 5 8.9 2 8CH37 Turtle Bay 2 0.50 118 236 1037 1237 6 5.2 3 8CH347 Cape Haze Mound 0.15 8 53 2072 1922 2 1.0 4 8CH482 Kessel Run 0.55 2 4 63 265 1 1.0 5 8CH484 Cicada Lake 2.44 25 10 4833 9025 7 1.1 6 8CH9 Catfish Point 1.05 212 202 10804 11662 11 2.1 7 8CH69 Acline Mound 1.48 291 197 10888 6118 5 17.1 8 8CH506 Buckthorn 0.04 3 75 20 60 0 0.0 9 8CH58 Sisters Ponds Creek 0.18 24 133 169 312 0 0.0 10 8CH36 Turtle Bay 1 0.19 46 242 746 2320 5 4.7 11 8LL65 Mason Island 0.18 11 61 1721 2582 4 1.0 12 8LL30 Hooker Key 0.22 10 46 1383 820 6 0.0 13 8CH17 Golf Club 0.25 25 16 1454 2098 7 0.6 14 8CH487 Bumblebee 0.86 301 350 592 1602 5 19.1 15 8CH348 Bird Dog Key 0.15 37 247 168 299 3 4.3 16 8CH483 Mid-Lake 0.64 22 34 1819 8715 6 0.6 17 8CH479 Acline Village 3.26 27 8 2502 10628 5 2.8 18 8CH354 C E and S 0.54 179 332 65 225 3 18.9 19 8CH481 Black Cow 0.65 2 3 273 807 1 1.0 20 8CH359 Blacks Island 0.19 21 111 15 128 4 4.0 21 8CH450 Little Lake 1.07 30 28 3163 16743 0 0.0 22 8CH353 Dubois 0.74 83 112 44 60 4 1.6 23 8CH358 Silcox Key 0.18 38 211 725 839 4 8.5 24 8CH486 Creek-Bend 0.79 59 75 539 2205 2 27.0 25 8CH351 Fishhook 0.20 35 175 66 281 4 2.2 26 8CH361 Fines Key 0.80 84 105 613 882 5 3.0 27 8CH485 Cicada Point 0.78 15 19 200 4000 0 0.0 28 8CH357 Silcox North 0.22 99 450 1008 2668 8 1.8 29 8CH360 Lime Key 0.21 21 100 19 110 4 3.0 30 8CH352 Negash 0.60 147 245 127 946 7 8.1 31 8CH355 Cockroach 0.26 27 104 127 329 4 2.7 32 8CH362 Cotton Key 0.23 33 144 148 610 2 15.5 33 8CH72 Muddy Cove 2 0.15 87 580 169 378 2 41.0 34 8LL64 Bird Rookery Keys 0.14 131 935 67 304 5 39.3

To answer this second question "Sedentariness," a specific aspect of site function

(Rafferty 1994), was evaluated for sites with sufficient data (Table 7). A number was assigned to each site based on its sum total of indicators. Proposed indicators of 329 sedentariness include artifact density, site volume, site area, shell tool diversity (richness), and the ratio of ceramics to shell tools. The estimated distance to a permanent source of fresh water has also been shown to be a useful indicator (Rafferty 1994:417), but these data do not exist for many Caloosahatchee area sites (Bellamo and Fuhrmeister 1992:27) and were not collected as a part of the current study. For each indicator, a threshold above the mean was chosen to determine whether or not a site registers as more or less sedentary on that variable.

Artifact Density

To correct for sampling biases, the total number of artifacts recovered from a site was divided by the total number of cubic meters excavated. This produced an artifact- per-cubic-meter density figure. Artifact density value higher than 100 was applied as an indicator of sedentariness for long-term and short-term sites.

Site Volume and Area

Site size data are based on imprecise field measurements. Some discrepancies may be noted by exact measurers, so these data are presented as estimates only. Site volume greater than 10,000 cubic meters was counted as an indicator of sedentariness for long-term sites, or above 2000 for short-term sites. Site area greater than one hectare

(10,000 square meters) was likewise considered an indicator for long-term sites, and above 5000 for short-term sites.

The contributions of Liu (1996) to rank-size analysis were briefly discussed In

Chapter 1. Analysis of the 34 sites in the current sample using Liu’s methods met with limited success due to the relatively small sample size. However, plots of site sizes

(areas) against their size rank do produce an intelligible curve very close to log-normality. 330

40

30

20

10 Accumulated Indicators Average Accumulated Inidcators

0 4 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Site Reference Number

Actual Average

12

10

8

6

4 Accumulated Indicators 2 Average Accumulated Indicators

0 1 2 3 5 6 7 13 26 Site Reference Number

Actual Average

Figure 41. Average and actual accumulated indicators of Sedentariness. a) for short-term sites; b) for long-term sites; c) for all sites combined. 331

40

30

20

10 Accumulated Indicators Average Accumulated Indicators

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Site Reference Number

Actual Average

Figure 41—continued.

This is believed to reflect a high degree of integration within the research area (for the most part, the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone).

Tool Diversity

Tool diversity is measured by the richness (total number of different) of shell tool types at a site (types according to Marquardt 1992c; Patton 1994). The presence of more than six tool categories at a site was considered an indicator of sedentariness for long- term sites. The presence of more than four types was considered a short-term indicator.

Ratio of Ceramic Potsherds to Bone and Shell Tools

Pottery making is a technological endeavor that should be favored by the development of settled life (Rafferty 1994:410). Therefore, the proportion in which a site assemblage contains pottery relative to more portable technology (in this case ceramic 332 potsherds to shell and bone artifacts) represents a measure of sedentariness. Where this ratio was 10-to-1 or greater for a long-term site, this was registered as a sedentariness indicator for that site. Where the ratio was 5-to-1 or greater, an indicator was registered for short-term sites.

Changing Sedentariness in the Caloosahatchee Area

The appearances of sedentariness indicators may be traced throughout the sequence of time-ordered sites. Rafferty (1994:409) suggests that when doing so, sites of short and long duration be compared separately. Doing so minimizes comparison of indicators between distant time-periods (for example, a small Late Archaic site and a site that represents both Late Archaic and all Caloosahatchee periods). Due to limited sampling, separating sites into two groups by (apparent) duration of occupation may introduce an unnecessary functional bias between collecting stations and local centers.

Therefore summaries of indicators have been produced for sites of two or less components (Figure 41a), for sites of three or more components (Figure 41b), and for all sites combined (Figure 41c).

These summaries indicate the rate and magnitude of changes in sedentariness that occur throughout the sequence (Rafferty 1994:417). For Figure 41a, tolerances were set to register and indicator if Artifact Density >100, Volume > 2000, Area > 4000, Tool

Richness > 4, Ceramic to Tool Ratio > 5. For Figures 41b and 41c, indicators were set to register at the following tolerances: Artifact Density > 100, Volume > 10,000 m3, Area >

10,000 m2, Tool Diversity > 6, and Ceramic to Tool Ratio > 10.

As indicators accumulate, the rate at which they do (the slope of accumulated actual indicators) can be compared to the average rate of accumulation (slope of 333 accumulation at a running average rate) for the sequence. Where the two lines diverge, it shows that indicators of sedentariness are accumulating at a faster-than-average rate.

Where the lines converge, indicators are accumulating at a slower-than-average rate.

Figure 41(a) shows that until sites 14 and 17 (8CH479 and 8CH487), indicators do not accumulate rapidly. The Bumblebee and Acline Village sites represent significant increases in sedentariness during the Caloosahatchee IIA/IIB transition, between A.D.

680 and 830. Thereafter the rate is fairly steady until the end of the sequence.

Accumulated average and actual indicators diverge again with sites 32, 33, and 34

(Cotton Key, Muddy Cove 2, and Bird Rookery Keys). These sites were all occupied in

Caloosahatchee III or IV and may therefore suggest additional increases in sedentariness during the period A.D. 1200 to 1500. In short-term sites, many of which are relatively small, average and actual indicators do not vary greatly throughout the sequence. This observation suggests conservatism in the way ridges and shell domes were used for collecting stations and central habitation sites.

For long-term sites, Figure 41(b) shows that at first, average and actual indicators accumulate at virtually the same rate with only a small decline in sedentariness represented by site 3 (The Cape Haze site, represented by a smaller sample than most sites). Then, sites 6 and 7 (Catfish Point and Acline Mound) cause the actual rate of increase to rise drastically above the average rate. Changes relating to occupational intensification at these sites (shell-fill strata, communal architecture) have been dated to early Caloosahatchee IIB.

When all sites are considered in sequence together (Figure 41c), the Acline

Mound and Catfish Point sites again signify an increase in the degree of sedentariness. 334

After this rise the rate of change in sedentariness remains low until sites 27, 29, and 30.

All three of these sites were occupied in late Caloosahatchee IIB or III. A logical conclusion is that sedentariness indicators began to accumulate at a slower-than-average rate between A.D. 1000 and 1350.

These are engaging data and they provide further opportunities to examine the developmental trajectory of Caloosahatchee society. Most sites with sufficient data to be included in Figure 41 are located in the Alligator Creek-East Shore or Cape Haze Zones.

Due to this fact, interpretations of changing sociopolitical complexity drawn from these data refer primarily to localities in those zones. Inclusion of several Pine Island Sound and Estero Bay sites in future analyses is highly recommended. Initial evidence suggests a potential upsurge in sedentariness associated with activities at the Pineland, Indian

Field, and Big Mound Key sites in Caloosahatchee periods III and IV. CHAPTER 8 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Based on the results presented above, an interpretation of changing sociopolitical complexity may be suggested for the Caloosahatchee area. Three sets of interpretations are discussed in order, beginning with the persistence and relative characteristics of localities in each zone, then possible interactions between zones, and finally, the social changes indicated by sedentariness indicators.

An existing functional dichotomy between collecting stations and village sites was employed to discriminate between contemporaneous sites within spatially distinct clusters. These clusters were defined as localities, each believed to represent the day-to- day setting and primary exploitative range of a community (Figure 42). Several lineages of varying status might inhabit a locality. Comparisons of village (local center) site areas, communal architecture, and numbers of collecting stations also suggest that not all localities exhibited the same level of power. Now, settlement trajectories may be reconstructed for the sampled zones of the Caloosahatchee area.

Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone

In the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone two localities are recognized in

Caloosahatchee I (Acline and Whidden Branch), with a third arising in Caloosahatchee

IIA (Silcox). In Caloosahatchee IIB, central sites in all three localities were subjected to communal mounding in bifurcated patterns. Evidence suggests that bifurcation was

335 336

Figure 42. Caloosahatchee localities, circa A.D. 800-1200. occasionally employed in period IIA (at Fishhook and Silcox Key), but was notregularized or widely adopted until period IIB.

Of all the localities in the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone, the Acline Locality is the only one believed to have been associated with a burial mound. The Acline Locality 337 exhibits higher mounding, more collecting stations, and vastly greater total site area than any of the other localities recognized within the zone. Second in importance by these criteria would be the Whidden Branch Locality. Its possible association with the Silcox

Locality should be explored further. Finally, the Fines Key Locality probably also arose in Caloosahatchee IIB, but persisted later than other localities in its zone. By

Caloosahatchee III, the Acline, Silcox, and Whidden Localities appear to have been abandoned. Only Fines Key was active then, and it is closest to the Cape Haze Zone.

Cape Haze and North Shore Zones

A similar yet distinctive pattern may be interpreted for the Cape Haze Zone.

There, four localities are believed to have existed during Caloosahatchee IIA (Big Mound

Key, Cayo Pelau, Coral Creek, and Turtle Bay). During this period, sites consisted mainly of the same domestic ridges known from Caloosahatchee I and Late Archaic periods. Limited mounding of ridges may have occurred at the Vanderbilt site or at Cash

Mound during period IIA, and one Weeden Island-influenced burial mound appears extant then at Cayo Pelau. Despite this mound and the community that built it, burial in habitation ridges seems to have remained a favored practice in the Cape Haze Zone at least until late period IIA (ca. A.D. 700). Then, isolated burial contexts—but not burial mounds per se—were adopted. Earlier Cape Haze burial contexts, both mounds and habitation ridges, appear never to have been located so far from habitations as the 300 meters between Big Mound Key and Boggess Ridge.

Big Mound Key’s distance from Boggess Ridge may therefore hint at a nexus in the development of Caloosahatchee mortuary contexts. Although Boggess Ridge is a natural formation, it occupies a position analogous to that of constructed burial mounds associated with Caloosahatchee IIB zonal centers in other zones (8CH68 and 8LL36). 338

Therefore, despite the fact that no period-IIB mortuary contexts have been identified at

Big Mound Key, these contexts might be anticipated in any future explorations of

Boggess Ridge.

Irrespective of burial contexts, communal construction increased in the Cape Haze

Zone during period IIB at the Catfish Point site (8CH9), in the Turtle Bay Locality

(8CH37, 8CH45), possibly at the Coral Creek site (8CH15), and in the Big Mound Key

Locality (8CH10, 8CH17). Fish impoundments and elevated habitations were the focus of this increase in communal construction. Bifurcation similar to that noted at sites in the

Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone appears at the central sites of each locality in the Cape

Haze Zone. Some evidence suggests that this pattern was extant though not widely adopted during period IIA (at the Vanderbilt or Coral Creek sites).

As in the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone, one local center (Big Mound Key) exhibits more construction, a greater total site area, and more identified collecting stations than other local centers. The site also exhibits an unequaled concentration of high-status goods useful for exchange (lightning-whelk tool blanks). The Turtle Bay Locality exhibits many sites, potentially representing greater site areas and numbers of collecting stations. However, only three of the Turtle Bay sites (Turtle Bay 2, Cash Mound, and

John Quiet Mound) appear to have been occupied during Caloosahatchee IIB. The largest site in the locality (Cash Mound) shows only limited evidence of occupation in that period (Bullen and Bullen 1956:Tables 2, 3).

The fundamental Caloosahatchee IIB settlement pattern is believed to have persisted in the Cape Haze Zone through Caloosahatchee III, but by Caloosahatchee IV the Catfish Point Locality appears to have been abandoned along with several small sites in the Turtle Bay and Mound Key localities. In fact, Big Mound Key and John Quiet 339

Mound appear to be the only Cape Haze Zone sites occupied in periods IV and V.

Concurrently, occupation at non-mound sites in the North Shore Zone appears to increase. This situation may reflect the decline of a simultaneous hierarchy and reintegration into simpler, sequential forms of authority (the Tippecanoe Bay Locality, the

Alligator Bay locality).

Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass Zones

For the Pine Island Sound Zone, a Caloosahatchee I locality has been proposed in association with Hooker Key and/or Galt Island. Contemporaneous localities may be represented by Pineland’s Old Mound (8LL37), Burgess Island, the southeast side of

Useppa Island, and by early occupations on Josslyn Island (five total localities). Proposed

Caloosahatchee IIA localities include those centered on Pineland, Burgess Island, Useppa

Island, Demere Key, Mason Island, and Galt Island (six localities). Some population increase during period IIA is suggested by the addition of one locality. The mechanism of this increase could have been immigration from the Belle Glade area, relaxation of fertility controls, or some combination of these two causes.

Period-IIB active local centers probably included Pineland, Galt Island, Josslyn

Island, Useppa Island, Demere Key, and Buck Key (six localities). The virtual (though not complete) abandonment of Burgess Island, the abandonment of Mason Island, and the re-occupation of Josslyn Island coincide with increased mound-building and the concentration of exchanged goods at Pineland. Like Acline Mound and Big Mound Key,

Pineland may have become the preeminent locality within its zone during Caloosahatchee

IIB. By late Caloosahatchee IIB or early III, Pineland also appears to have controlled high-status exchange in its zone, potentially resulting in a reduction of high-status cutting-edged artifacts at Josslyn Island, specialized production among lower-status 340 lineages (e.g., Buck Key), and concentration of cutting-edged tools and nonlocal goods

(exotic ceramics and minerals) at Pineland. Considering the site abandonments that coincide with these changes, the IIB pattern probably reflects a move toward centralization over period-IIA patterns.

The hypothetical trend toward centralization among Pine Island Sound lineages seems to have remained in place during Caloosahatchee III and IV, leading to a further contraction in settlement by period IV. By that time it appears the Indian Field Locality had been added, but Josslyn Island and Burgess Island were no longer occupied. Only

Pineland, Indian Field, Demere Key, Buck Key, and Galt Island localities (five localities) appear to have been occupied during Caloosahatchee IV.

Thus, all zones show evidence of increasing centralization, although not evenly through time. Uneven development of sub-regions or localities within the

Caloosahatchee area was anticipated by reference (in Chapter 1) to Crumley’s (1979) and

Marquardt’s (Crumley and Marquardt 1987) use of the “Regional Heterarchy” model. It seems appropriate to suggest that the patterns of uneven development noted here for the

Caloosahatchee area reflect a process of dynamic definition of centers, boundaries, and social groupings (interzonal symbiosis) similar to that observed for the Burgundian landscape. The use of cultural (mounds) and natural (bays, rivers) features of the landscape seem to reflect a process of defining space within and between regions.

Potential Interactions and Hierarchy among Local and Zonal Centers

Understanding potential interactions between contemporaneous localities is made possible by reconstructing likely systems of transportation and communication. The average distance between Caloosahatchee II local centers in the Alligator Creek-East

Shore Zone is 4.13 km (counting Whidden Branch; in the Pine Island Sound it is 4.23 341 km; in the Cape Haze Zone it is 4.25 km). This means that in all zones, major settlements were placed evenly and strategically at a distance of about 4.2 km. The widest variation (6.6 km to 2 km) is found in the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone. The lowest variation is represented in the other zones, both with minimum and maximum distances of 4.0 and 4.5 km between local centers.

Canoe travel is assumed for Caloosahatchee populations. Based on an optimal canoe travel rate of four kilometers per hour (Blanchard 1999:41), the distance from

Acline Mound to Fines Key represents a journey of approximately 2.75 hours. Allowing for normal weather conditions, this distance could still represent a little less than a half- day journey. Blanchard (1999:40) suggests an effective exploitative range for a single- hulled canoe of 16 km, within which a normal day’s travel (with return to a central point) occurs. Therefore, the residents of the Acline Mound could have interacted regularly

(daily or weekly) with residents of the other localities in the Alligator Creek-East Shore

Zone. Due to its preeminence and evidence for social ranking, the Acline Locality is believed to represent a chiefly center within its zone.

Blanchard’s estimation of travel time also allows consideration of potential communication between the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone and other zones in the

Caloosahatchee area. Assuming a wind-protected portage (or possibly, an unrecognized canal) through upper Cape Haze into Turtle Bay, this places Big Mound Key within a half-day’s journey (16.5 km) of Fines Key. Acline Mound is a 7.5-hour journey from Big

Mound Key (at 20 km) and a full day’s journey from Pineland (about 35 km via Indian

Field, about 40 km via Burgess Island), but only a half-day (16.6 km) from Cash Mound on Turtle Bay. The distance from Big Mound Key to Pineland is also about 16 km.

Based on these distances, participants in a possible chiefdom in the Alligator Creek-East 342

Shore Zone had frequent access to participants in a Cape Haze chiefdom centered at Big

Mound Key. Likewise, Big Mound Key and Pineland could have interacted frequently, barring choppy water conditions.

Recognition that the leading lineages of two distinct zones in the Caloosahatchee area may have had frequent or regular contact raises the possibility of ranking among chiefly leaders (or a “complex chiefdom”). It appears this situation could only have pertained in Charlotte Harbor (between the Alligator Creek-East Shore and Cape Haze zones) during Caloosahatchee IIB, since these two distinct sets of hypothetical ranked lineages do not persist in period III. In Pine Island Sound, there is no evidence for more than two levels of authority (Pineland and other localities) during period IIB, III, or IV.

However, it should be noted that the Caloosahatchee IV “collecting station” at

Bird Rookery Keys (8LL64) reveals a significantly higher level of sedentariness than earlier sites interpreted as collecting stations. This appears to be the specific result of more ceramic potsherds. If it were to be demonstrated that many Pine Island Sound /

Matlacha Pass collecting stations became permanent habitation sites in Caloosahatchee

IV, three levels of settlement hierarchy could still pertain there in Caloosahatchee periods

III and IV.

Under this interpretation of site hierarchy, sites with evidence of rapid deposition of distinct strata and distinctive communal architecture are viewed as products of participation in mortuary-religious ceremonialism, intensified food production, and/or mound renewal ceremonials that promised protection from floods and allowed elite aggrandizement. These strategies also may have favored hoarding of wealth, chiefly largesse, and tribute extraction. 343

To the degree that chiefs could successfully intensify corporate labor for storm protection, their roles probably expanded beyond control of mortuary ceremonials to include control of the environment and wealth production. Due to extensive evidence for food production with fish impoundments in the Cape Haze Zone, subsistence intensification was probably the strategy by which leaders there assured surpluses to maintain the new relations of production. Surpluses could have been used to protect against shortfalls, underwrite craft specialization and exchange, and reproduce chiefly power structures based initially on mortuary-religious authority.

But even without construction of permanent fish impoundments (and such sustained, intensive food production as these would allow), hierarchies within the

Caloosahatchee area appear to have been very unified. Initial plotting of rank-size data for sampled sites reveals log-normal distributions said by Liu (1996:240) to reflect such highly integrated settlement systems as allowed by a high order of sacred ceremonialism and macroregional elite exchange.

Changing Indicators of Sedentariness

Changes in the rate of indicator accumulation noted above include an increase in early Caloosahatchee IIB, a possible decline in late Caloosahatchee IIB or III, and a slight rise in Caloosahatchee IV. Because sedentariness is a correlate of sociopolitical complexity and ranking of localities has been noted by early IIB (but not earlier), The earlier rise is believed to reflect the advent of simultaneous hierarchies. The decline in late period IIB or III is believed to pertain only to the Cape Haze and Alligator Creek-East

Shore Zones, since there is little evidence for decline in the Pine Island Zone at the same time. The late rise in sedentariness (Figure 41a, c) is thought to reflect intensified site use resulting from the consolidation of the regional population at fewer sites. Potentially, this 344 consolidation and the period-IV virtual abandonment of the northern Caloosahatchee area were responses to increased hostility with the Tampa Bay area. According to Anderson

(1994) and Kohler (1997:12-13), the years following A.D. 1200 represent a period of declining political complexity for Mississippian (and perhaps Mississippian-influenced) societies. Breakdown of interregional exchange networks and increases in northern hostility would explain well the southern migration of site complexes that appear evident in these data.

These interpretations may accurately describe settlement changes in the

Caloosahatchee area, but the capacity for sample bias is noted. Data for this study were collected most intensively from the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone. The hypotheses for development there are considered more robust than those for the Cape Haze and Pine

Island Sound Zones. Additional research should be accomplished in those zones before the interpretations offered here are widely accepted. Additionally, not all excavations reached sub-midden levels, so earliest site-components may be under-represented. CHAPTER 9 MODEL EVALUATIONS

Some specific expectations for Caloosahatchee settlement patterns were noted in

Chapter 2. In consideration of those expectations, data indicate the following: (1) In the

Caloosahatchee area, there are various discrete types of shell midden sites on the coast, several small to medium-sized sheet middens in the interior, and isolated burial contexts at short distances from sites featuring high-status platform mounds. (2) Variation among times, sizes, shapes, and communal constructions of coastal shell-midden sites is instrumental for functional and hierarchical analysis. (3) There do not appear to be enough sheet middens in the near-interior to suggest continued, seasonal mass movement from the unsheltered coastline, despite poor sampling. Systematic, full-coverage archaeological survey identified many previously unknown sheet middens by small ponds in the Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone, but the majority of these occupations (e.g.,

8CH450, 8CH482, 8CH483, 8CH484, 8CH486, 8CH506) appear to have occurred during the Late Archaic, Caloosahatchee I, and Caloosahatchee IIA.

Seasonal dispersal of coastal populations to the interior (as noted by Griffin 1974) remains a viable hypothesis, but may pertain more strongly to periods prior to IIB. An area of many small ponds exists 15 kilometers inland of the Alligator Creek-East Shore

Zone. Based on the proclivity for turtles and deer noted in 1/4-inch-screened samples, this area may hold many undiscovered sites of various types. Interestingly, from

345 346 topographic maps this area appears to be accessible via the north prong of Alligator

Creek.

Relevant data on settlement patterns may now be applied to the central questions of this investigation: when and how Caloosahatchee chiefdoms first arose. Returning to the correlates for ranked society discussed in Chapter 2, three correlates (numbers 2, 6, and 7) remained unevaluated. In the section below, these remaining correlates are evaluated based on the current findings to determine their pertinence to the

Caloosahatchee social formation. After the remaining correlates are evaluated, major hypotheses for the development of Caloosahatchee political complexity are then reviewed.

Correlate 2

The second correlate (Peebles and Kus 1977:431-432) is that chiefdoms should show a hierarchy of settlement types and sizes, with positions of settlements reflecting their position in a control network. Chiefdoms are characterized by researchers (e.g.

Johnson and Earle 1987:207) on the basis of their coordinative scale, said to extend beyond the village or local group to include many villages in an area.

Data suggest that a site hierarchy of two levels existed in the Cape Haze, Pine

Island Sound, and Alligator Creek-East Shore Zones by early in period IIB. A possibility also exists for three site hierarchy levels in period IIB, represented by Big Mound Key

(paramount chief), Acline Mound (chief), and other localities in the Alligator Creek-East

Shore Zone (subordinate lineages). There is no evidence for more than two hierarchy levels within any particular zone of the Caloosahatchee area. These rankings may be observed by reference to the relative positions, sizes, and types of archaeological sites. 347

Rankings may also pertain to the occurrences of finished and unfinished high-status goods (cutting-edged tools, exotic ceramics, bone ornaments, cutting-edged tool blanks).

Correlate 6

Wright (1984:43) predicts that the seat of the paramount in a complex chiefdom will show differences in size and architectural design from ordinary chiefly centers. A distinction between bifurcated sites with multiple mounds and those with single mounds has been noted already by Torrence (1999b) in reference to chiefdom-like settlement patterns. This distinction would not appear to apply well to the Cape Haze Zone, where a site complex (Big Mound Key) is believed to have held authority over lineages with centers are represented by simpler, smaller bifurcated constructions (e.g., Catfish Point,

John Quiet Mound), but few mounds.

But Correlate Six refers specifically to site forms in a paramount (three-level) chiefdom. As stated above, there is no evidence for more than two contemporaneous levels of ranked lineages within any zone. The only possible comparison is thus between

Big Mound Key and the preeminent site (“zonal center”) of the Alligator Creek-East

Shore Zone, Acline Mound. When these sites are compared it becomes evident that architectural differences do exist between the two. Big Mound Key features several mounds, while Acline consists of only one. Their sizes are also dissimilar. Despite the fact that no other potential “lesser chiefdoms” have been identified, Correlate Six appears to pertain in the Caloosahatchee area.

Correlate 7

Residential segregation of elite habitations is also suggested by Wright (1984) and by Marquardt (2001) as a correlate of chiefdoms. Comparisons between 8CH69 348

(Acline Mound) and 8CH479 (Acline Village) in Chapter 4 addressed the possibility that the adjacent but spatially distinct sites show divergence in house sizes, staples, and wealth. The size of a depression of the Acline Mound platform, a feature potentially occupied by a high-status domicile, was shown to be larger than the projected size of a structure in Acline Village. The variety and abundance of animal remains were also greater for Acline Mound than for Acline Village. Finally, items of personal adornment

(bone pins and beads) and productive status (cutting-edged tools) were found on Acline

Mound, but not in Acline Village. In short, residential segregation is suggested and social ranking is inferred based on the available data.

Evaluation of Hypotheses for Caloosahatchee Political Development

For ease of reference, the hypotheses currently under consideration may be summarized. Model A represents gradual population growth following the advent of sedentism and the establishment of stable, productive estuaries. Managerial controls made necessary by this population growth made redistribution of staples, interdependency, and chiefdoms selectively advantageous cultural traits. Scenario B represents dynamic environmental and demographic conditions, with an increase in sedentism and rapid growth of the regional population following the Wulfert High sea- level stand. Managerial controls made necessary by population growth once again (and rapidly) selected for the rise of redistribution, interdependency, and chiefdoms. Model C is the “null” hypothesis, that no chiefdoms emerged in the Caloosahatchee area. Social complexity and achieved statuses are allowed by Model C, but not truly political complexity or ascribed statuses. Model D represents the emergence of chiefs from the ranks of existing, achieved-status mortuary specialists who managed to secure control 349 over the production and distribution of wealth through the development of craft specialization.

From the results and interpretations above, as well as the complete set of eight correlates for ranked society, simultaneous hierarchies are believed to have existed in the

Caloosahatchee area early during period IIB. Model C is thus weakened immediately.

There is no clear evidence for the existence of simultaneous hierarchies by A.D. 280, so

Model A and Scenario B are also weakened. However, it remains possible that ephemeral chiefdoms or “chieftaincies” existed earlier in the Caloosahatchee area than is represented in these limited data.

Concerning the economic process attending the rise of Caloosahatchee chiefdoms, staple financing (per Model A and Scenario B) may be suggested by multiple fish impoundments in the Cape Haze Zone. But control of wealth and craft specialization is evident in the Alligator Creek-East Shore and Pine Island Sound zones, where evidence of fish impoundments is scarce as well as in the Cape Haze Zone at Big Mound Key.

Therefore, although systems based both on staples and on wealth are evident, control of wealth and craft specialization (per Model D) is viewed as a more persistent trait of

Caloosahatchee chiefdoms than food production. Where practiced, the short-term effects of mass food production on the political economy may still have been very dramatic.

However, the implications of craft specialization are broad and profound. Its rise represents “a change. . . in the relationships of people and elements of production, and seemingly is linked to more or less profound alterations in the power of individuals within a society to control resources, produce surpuses, distribute products, and so forth” 350

(Arnold 1992:1). Craft specialization is therefore a key factor in the emergence of complex social forms.

“Sedentariness,” a multi-factorial variable representing sedentism, was used to discuss changes in Caloosahatchee site functions through time. This variable was observed rising at a faster-than-average rate around Caloosahatchee IIB. Granting the existence of sedentism by the Archaic period, Scenario B, Model C, and Model D may still be supported by current evidence.

Changes in population may be suggested by changing numbers of active localities within a zone, but possible trends toward population consolidation in periods III and IV tend to negate the usefulness of such a measure. This limitation may hold for any site- based count, but the effects of potential consolidation may be ameliorated somewhat by using a measure with greater variability—such as counting components rather than localities. Based on numbers of site components identified for each period (Table 2), it appears that population increased significantly after the Late Archaic (n=8), in

Caloosahatchee I (n=20), and in period IIA (n=32). Thereafter, the number of site components decreases in period IIB (n=26), period III (n=13), and again in period IV

(n=9).

Population increase suggested by these counts during periods I and IIA supports

Model A and Scenario B, though perhaps not equally. The duration of period IIA (300 years) is less than a third that represented by period I (1000 years). If it were assumed that population growth in period I occurred gradually (about four new site-components every 300 years), this still represents a much slower growth rate than that of period IIA.

In period IIA, growth by 12 site-components occurred over 300 years. This rapid 351 expansion of population appears to contradict Models A and C, but not Scenario B.

Model D also remains tenable, allowing for the distinct possibility that much population growth was the result of immigration. Migration to the Caloosahatchee area from the

Belle Glade area may have been fueled by efforts to control what had become high-status raw materials and finished goods used in an interregional prestige economy during

Caloosahatchee IIA.

Notwithstanding the potential effects of consolidation, the interval of greatest decline in site-components (population) appears to be period III. Due to geographically- uneven sampling, this drop might represent only the decline of the northern zones in the

Caloosahatchee area. Therefore, despite apparent decline within the study sample, the population of the Caloosahatchee area may have remained fairly constant until

Caloosahatchee V.

Regarding patterns of exchange, data from the Fishhook (8CH351) and Turtle Bay

1 (8CH36) sites show that small amounts of non-local ceramics were present at a few sites in period IIA. These data agree with evidence of numerous coastal goods in the

Belle Glade area during Fort Center period II, in supporting the existence of an interregional trade network throughout Florida by Caloosahatchee IIA. In partial agreement with Model C, there is no evidence that participation in this trade network was highly organized until period IIB, when lightning-whelk tool blanks were either produced en masse or collected from producers and then cached in great numbers at Big Mound

Key.

Evidence from further north on Florida’s gulf coast (Willey 1982) has been cited to suggest that Caloosahatchee lightning-whelk artifacts were traded northward in 352 significant quantities during early Caloosahatchee IIB. Although this inference was not tested here, it is consistent with the position that the control of interregional trade was important to the development of Caloosahatchee chiefdoms, and not limited merely to exchanges with interior (Belle Glade) populations or occasional down-the-line trade.

This position is bolstered by increases in the variety and amount of exotic ceramics that appear in Caloosahatchee burial contexts during the rise of Mississippian-influenced

Tampa Bay Safety Harbor groups, ca. A.D. 900 to 1100 (Luer 1992, 1996, 1999).

Therefore, the limited roles assigned to interregional exchange by Model A, Scenario B, and Model C can be ruled out as unlikely.

Evidence of warfare is problematic in the Caloosahatchee area, but population consolidation and stemmed bone points have been offered as potential correlates for increased hostility. If these correlates are accepted, the best current evidence for increased warfare seems to be population consolidation in periods III and IV. Unless these or additional correlates for Caloosahatchee warfare are identified elsewhere, the endemic warfare expected by Model A and Scenario B during period IIB will remain unproven.

Finally, the degree of interdependence that existed in the Caloosahatchee political economy may have been considerable, even if not usually necessary. Based on travel times and the lack of variation in site settings, most localities are believed to have been highly independent on a day-to-day basis (one exception is the possible relationship between Whidden and Silcox localities). Yet, interdependence may have been fostered in period IIB by the preeminent lineages of a zone to assure its access to corporate labor and the raw materials necessary for participation in regional and interregional exchanges. A 353 case for potential interdependence between period-IIB chiefdoms may also be made regarding the Cape Haze and Alligator Creek-East Shore zones. Such a situation remains plausible due to the divergent habitat types in each of these zones and the relatively short distance between them.

Interdependence between different zones remains possible, but has not yet been demonstrated. The high level of integration discussed in Chapter 8 based on initial use of

Liu’s (1996) methods should be viewed both as provisional and as referring to the most heavily-sampled zone within the Caloosahatchee area (Alligator Creek-East Shore Zone).

Zooarchaeological specimens collected during this study appear to confirm Walker’s

(1992b) data that suggest most local centers did not rely on foodstuffs not exploitable within their zone. Here, the function of the political economy is believed to be less likely an explanation of interdependence than the possibility that it was fostered during the rise of zonal authorities, using nonfood items and religious persuasion. Yet without data upon which to base material comparisons between potentially interdependent sites, no hypothetical position on the Caloosahatchee political economy may be ruled out. Further analysis of the zooarchaeological data and samples collected during this project may assist researchers in this process.

A representation of the preceding evaluation may be found in Table 8. The table indicates the evidence against certain models based on their positions on seven variables

(positions are summarized in Chapter 3, Table 4). Where a model’s position can be ruled out or appears unlikely, no “X” appears in the model’s cell for that variable. This results in a simple correlation between the number of indicated cells and the robustness of the model to data as interpreted here. 354

The strongest explanation of Caloosahatchee political development appears to be offered by Model D, with Scenario B only narrowly less robust. If it may be said previous work has been fairly and accurately represented, and the methods used here are deemed sound, then this investigation reveals a robust theory for Caloosahatchee political development that is supported by archaeological data and founded on logical, testable hypotheses.

Table 8. Evaluation of Models for Caloosahatchee Political Development. Filled cells represent positions on variables that can not be ruled out (or do not appear unlikely) based on current evidence. See Chapters 2 and 3 for discussion of models. Econ. Site Political Hypo- Seden- Popu- Ex- War- Pro- Hier- Eco- thesis tism lation change fare cess archy nomy Model XXX A Scenario XX X X X B Model XX XX C Model XX X X XXX D CHAPTER 10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This research was designed in order to test the hypothesis that complex political structures arose in the Caloosahatchee area by A.D. 800. The primary means of addressing the issue was through analysis of settlement patterns and published data relating to Caloosahatchee communal activities and craft specialization. Preliminary research required collecting published site data, overviews of Caloosahatchee settlements and functional site types, and theoretical approaches to social and political complexity in the Caloosahatchee area, Florida, and the greater Southeast. Methods included creation of a formal site typology and sampling strategy, archaeological sampling of 38 sites in the

Caloosahatchee area, and analysis of settlement data. Interpretation of the results was accomplished in two steps, discussion of results from zones within the Caloosatchee area and evaluation of correlates and models for the emergence Caloosahatchee chiefdoms.

The concept of a territory of related sites under the control of a dominant lineage or set of lineages (a “locality”) was used to decipher the social significance of site clusters, along with the political significance of ranking among these clusters during early

Caloosahatchee IIB. As Widmer (1988) predicted, data indicate the existence of chiefdoms by A.D. 800. These data consist of more than mere evidence for communal constructions (which appears by Caloosahatchee I among sample sites and by the Middle

Archaic in southwest Florida). They include identification of settlement hierarchy required for evaluating several correlates for chiefdoms.

355 356

The fact that similar data (evidence of site hierarchies) are not in evidence for periods before IIB does not necessarily mean they do not exist, merely they have not been recovered. “Simple” chiefdoms may indeed date to period I (ca. A.D. 280), but at present they are substantiated empirically only in Caloosahatchee IIB. Within the same period, evidence for potential ranking among chiefs (a “complex chiefdom”) is recognized.

Ephemeral chieftaincies may have existed in other times, but if so did not persist to leave evidence found in the archaeological record.

Evaluating the reasons for the development of Caloosahatchee chiefdoms is more difficult due to limitations in the regional database. The initial evaluation presented here suggests that the Calusa social formation is explained best as a political economy founded on the ability to control mortuary-religious ceremonies and interregional exchanges of certain high-status goods (Model D). This explanation is closely challenged by a variation on the most widely accepted model (Scenario B of Model A), which focuses on increased sedentism, population growth, and the functional role of food redistribution in political development. However, evidence for interregional exchange, craft specialization, and proliferation of mortuary ceremonialism appears to weigh on the side of Model D.

Model D is based on the proposition that Calusa political complexity is best explained by social causes that were both allowed and constrained by environmental forces, rather than by environmental causes that led inexorably to functional social responses. As a result, this study emphasized the actions of individuals and small groups in the physical and social settings within which they lived. Their concerns and means of addressing those concerns in communal settings have been speculated upon and presented 357 as hypothetical site functions. Then, archaeological data were used as a framework within which to evaluate the social relevance of changes in site functions. This approach does not contradict the importance of variables in the physical environment, especially over long time spans, but seeks to place them in a structurally relevant context in as objective a manner as possible. Preceding Weeden Island and Belle Glade economic and ideological structures were considered important aspects of the social setting within which Caloosahatchee chiefdoms emerged.

The role of late Weeden Island cultures in providing a foundation for

Mississippian developments has been suggested by Brose (1979:149). This research supports and extends this concept by helping to clarify the process by which

Caloosahatchee elites arose from mortuary specialists to become controllers of critical productive goods and services. The new relationships this engendered between people and the means of production became the foundation for new social forms, chiefdoms, by circa A.D. 800. One of the earliest expressions of political complexity known for nearby

Mississippian agriculturalist is evident at the Cemochechobee site (Schnell et al. 1981), where robust lightning-whelk shells from the Gulf coast where found in elite mortuary contexts, circa A.D. 900 (1981:44). Numerous Weeden Island and Wakulla Check

Stamped ceramics were recovered at Cemochechobee. These types are believed to have preceded the sites’s Roods phase wares, which are similar to Fort Walton Incised and the

Englewood incised ceramics of the Aqui Esta Mound (1981:240-246).

In view of the process of elite participation in specialized production and interregional exchange forwarded here, as well as the dates for these developments and those of Mississippian chiefdoms, an intriguing suggestion may be forwarded. Perhaps, 358 as has been suggested by Moseley for the development of Andean states (Moseley and

Feldman 1988), the process of political development in the lower Mississippian Southeast was stimulated by precocious Gulf-coastal political complexity based on maritime resources. The evidence presented here for the Caloosahatchee area suggests some of the earliest persistent chiefdoms in North America. The appearance of these structures at least 100 years before similar ones based on Mississippian agriculture may help to further challenge the role agriculture plays as a “prime mover” in the rise of cultural complexity.

The role of the Cape Haze Zone in this process remains largely unexplored.

Further research at large and small sites in this area is needed. The multiple fish impoundments identified there may provide opportunities to test some of the interpretations of Caloosahatchee political economy and staple independence (non- functional interdependence) advanced here. Of specific interest is the effectiveness of these structures, their effects on the diets of site inhabitants, and their apparent high frequency in the Cape Haze Zone.

Methodologically, this investigation represents one of the first attempts to provide chronological data using shell artifact assemblages alongside ceramic assemblages and radiocarbon dates. Systematic efforts to explore the chronological dimensions of south

Florida shell artifacts have only begun recently (Patton 1994), but have shown results that were deemed useful for this study. Incorporation of shell artifact assemblages into regional culture-historical frameworks can help fill out chronological sequences dominated by conservative ceramic types. Although refinement of shell artifact chronology was not attempted here, it is hoped that future researchers will revisit the 359 temporal dimensions of Caloosahatchee shell artifacts and develop similar chronologies for other culture areas where shell artifacts are common.

There is much work yet to be done in elucidating Caloosahatchee settlement patterns. Many known sites had to be excluded from analysis on the basis of inadequate information. These sites could be located and investigated to more fully characterize the

Caloosahatchee sequence. Also, ten new sites were located during the course of intensive survey in the Alligator Creek area. This highlights the need for more complete and systematic archaeological surveys in the research area. When additional full-coverage surveys are performed throughout south Florida, this work may be refined through use of methods and large sample sizes such as used by Anderson (1994), Liu (1996), and many others who perform “settlement archaeology.”

Survey-based settlement archaeology is very useful in providing data for many research questions, if conducted in a systematic and thorough manner. Inventorying archaeological sites is a significant concern of state and federal public property managers.

Intensive site excavations are clearly necessary to address more intricate questions, but no site inventory is complete without minimal stratigraphic and artifact data. This study shows that archaeological research can concentrate on sampling strategies that make the most of survey data. Doing so helps to assure the persistence of archaeological resources.

The results of this study may also provide information useful for modeling the settlement systems of other complex maritime groups. As noted in Chapter 1, studies of non-agricultural chiefdoms are rare, and analyses of their settlement patterns are even more rare. Therefore some comments on the spatial differences between agricultural and non-agricultural (Caloosahatchee) chiefdoms seem appropriate. 360

When compared to those of Mississippian agriculturalists, the spatial structures of

Caloosahatchee chiefdoms appear to be focused similarly on access to critical resources on waterways. But this appears to be less true for Mississippian chiefdoms, which are usually centered on rivers and the arable lands of their tributaries (Anderson 1994)—not all of which might be navigable. In contrast, Caloosahatchee settlements appear relatively compressed into the edges of mangrove-lined estuarine or oceanic bays. Where navigable streams penetrate to uplands, a few sites are situated in salt-flat habitats. In the one instance where resources and waterways are spread more evenly across the landscape

(in the many channels of the Cape Haze peninsula), a less compressed pattern may be noted. The importance of waterways for transportation is reflected within sites, not only in their settings. The incorporation of bifurcation and canals into site designs suggests the primary importance of accessibility by watercraft.

Caloosahatchee settlements may also be more dispersed than many agriculturalist settlements. The term “locality” was applied to clusters of Caloosahatchee sites for this reason. Mississippian communities are described variously as villages, hamlets, or farmsteads. But fisher-gatherer-hunter economics appear to have favored establishment of site localities, consisting of a central habitation site and at a short distance (typically, one to four kilometers) one or more small, uninhabited or intermittently-inhabited collecting stations. No similar, regular dispersal of activity areas is known for agriculturalist sites, where fields are typically located adjacent to habitations. There is virtually no evidence to support the position that collecting station sites represent settled habitations similar to farmsteads. This is in keeping with the versatility and mobility in 361 resource use observed for Ingalik fishing-gathering-hunting lifestyles as resources fluctuate (Hefley 1981:144).

A final aspect of Caloosahatchee settlements not typically recognized for agriculturalists is the functional nature of mound constructions in a storm-prone coastal environment. Frequent and severe storm surges may have contributed to the motivations for communal Caloosahatchee mound-building, in ways not expected among inland populations. Multiple coastal populations in the tropics may have raised terraces for similar purposes, but shell middens often have been analyzed merely as “kitchen middens” or geological strata, representing casual and/or inevitable accumulations of de facto refuse and nothing more (Willey and Sabloff 1993:49-51). While this situation doubtless describes some shell middens well, clean shell midden is an ideal building material for maritime societies and, as shown here, may be recognized in archaeological contexts. Where shell-fill strata occur in regularized architectural patterns with sparse soil and few artifacts, intentional and relatively rapid construction may be indicated.

Future recognition of such events in prehistoric contexts may allow finer reconstructions of socially and/or politically significant corporate actions.

The data recovered during this work are by no means fully analyzed or otherwise exhausted in their ability to inform researchers on other questions. One set of methods not employed here are those proceeding from optimal foraging theory. These models and the theory behind them form a large corpus of work that, when one may accurately specify the list of preferences within a list of resources, are useful for predicting such variables as site locations and catchment areas. Unfortunately, optimal foraging theories are not usually matched with sufficiently complete models (Durham 1981:226). This line 362 of research depends heavily on dietary (zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical) analysis, as well as understanding of important non-food resources and social preferences.

Although this work focuses on non-food resources, it has produced zooarchaeological information that may become useful data for refined analyses of staple economics.

A closing word may be said concerning the need for actualistic (experimental) research in the Caloosahatchee area. Lightning whelk cutting-edged tools have been shown useful for heavy wood-cutting, as necessary for canoe construction (Patton

1994:13, 37). Many interpretations for Caloosahatchee artifacts have been made, but efforts to replicate their proposed functions usually have not (for several exceptions, see

Brown 1994). In this study, replication of fish-impoundment use was suggested. Such a project would not be a light undertaking, but could help establish the likelihood of a theoretically significant hypothesis. Replications of hand-held technology would be useful for interpretations of other fishing technologies (Patton 2002, Walker 1992a,

2000). Replication of elite and commoner domiciliary structures will also be highly useful, but awaits further recognition of horizontal patterns among structural postmolds. APPENDIX A EXCAVATION PROFILES 364

Figure 43. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH9. 365

Figure 44. Profiles of Test Units 1 and 2, 8CH17. 366

Figure 45. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH36. 367

Figure 46. Profile of South-southwest Cut, 8CH37. 368

Figure 47. Key to South-southwest Profile, 8CH37. 369

Figure 48. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH58. 370

Figure 49. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH69. 371

Key to Stratigraphy, 1995 Acline Mound Test Unit

I Brown humus and sand with oyster, crown conch, and many small roots

II 10 YR 3/1. Mostly oyster and crown conch with some marsh clam, moon snail, and many large roots. Dense shell midden.

III 10 YR 2/1. Black sand and very little shell. Some fragmentary crown conch and fish bone noted.

IV 10 YR 2/1. Black sand in very dense shell midden. Whole and fragmentary oyster, crown conch, marsh clam, moon snail. Stratum contained a possible postmold and an ash concentration in south profile.

V Very dark gray finely crushed shell (ribbed mussel, some marsh clam and oyster) and many small bones.

VI 10 YR 6/1. Gray to dark gray mottled, slightly damp sand. 372

Figure 50. Profile of Test Unit 2, 8CH69. 373

Figure 51. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH72. 374

Figure 52. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH347. 375

Figure 53. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH348. 376

Figure 54. Profiles of Shovel-tests, 8CH349. 377

Figure 55. Profile of Test Unit 2, 8CH351. 378

Figure 56. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH352. 379

Figure 57. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH353. 380

Figure 58. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH354. 381

Figure 59. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH355. 382

Figure 60. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH356. 383

Key to Stratigraphy, 1995 Whidden Branch Test Unit

I: A: Black sandy loam surface layer, very loose with roots. B: Similar to IA, but more shell (oyster, ribbed mussel, crown conch) and very disturbed.

II: Dense shell material, very sparse dark gray soil in oyster, ribbed mussel, and crown conch.

III: Ash lenses of compact charcoal and burned shell.

IV: Dense shell (ribbed mussel, oyster, crown conch, moon snail) with little soil.

V: Black sandy matrix with high concentration of oyster shell and crushed ribbed mussel.

VI: Damp black mucky sand with little or no shell. 384

Figure 61. Profile of Test Unit 2, 8CH356. 385

Figure 62. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH357. 386

Figure 63. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH358. 387

Figure 64. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH359. 388

Figure 65. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH360. 389

Figure 66. Profile of Test Unit 2, 8CH360. 390

Figure 67. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH361. 391

Figure 68. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH362. 392

Figure 69. Profile of Test Unit 2, 8CH362. 393

Figure 70. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH450. 394

Figure 71. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH479. 395

Figure 72. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH480. 396

Figure 73. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH481. 397

Figure 74. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH482. 398

Figure 75. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH483. 399

Figure 76. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH484. 400

Figure 77. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH486. 401

Figure 78. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH487. 402

Figure 79. Profile of Shovel-test, 8CH488. 403

Figure 80. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8CH506. 404

Figure 81. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8LL30. 405

Figure 82. Profile of Looter’s Pit, 8LL30. 406

Figure 83. Profile of Looter Pit B, 8LL32. 407

Figure 84. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8LL64. 408

Figure 85. Profile of Test Unit 1, 8LL65. 409

Figure 86. Profile of Looter’s Pit, 8LL65. APPENDIX B USGS 7.5 MINUTE MAPS SHOWING SITE LOCATIONS 411

Index to site locations on following figures:

Site Figure 8CH9 87 8CH17 88 8CH36 89 8CH37 89 8CH58 89 8CH69 92 8CH72 90 8CH347 89 8CH348 88 8CH349 91 8CH351 92 8CH352 92 8CH353 92 8CH354 92 8CH355 93 8CH356 93 8CH357 93 8CH358 93 8CH359 93 8CH360 94 8CH361 94 8CH362 94 8CH450 93 8CH479 92 8CH480 93 8CH481 93 8CH482 93 8CH483 93 8CH484 93 8CH485 93 8CH486 82 8CH487 95 8CH488 92, 95 8CH506 93 8LL30 96 8LL32 97 8LL64 98 8LL65 96 412

Figure 87. Portion of Placida, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 413

Figure 88. Portion of Punta Gorda SW, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 414

Figure 89. Portion of Punta Gorda SW, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 415

Figure 90. Portion of El Jobean, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 416

Figure 91. Portion of El Jobean, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 417

Figure 92. Portion of Punta Gorda, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 418

Figure 93. Portion of Punta Gorda SE, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 419

Figure 94. Portion of Punta Gorda SE, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 420

Figure 95. Portion of Punta Gorda, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 421

Figure 96. Portion of Pine Island Center, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 422

Figure 97. Portion of Captiva, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. 423

Figure 98. Portion of Matlacha, Florida Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Top of page is north. APPENDIX C GPS DATA 425

Label Easting Northing Comment

C506 395814 2972410 STP DATUM NE 31-MAR-99

C17A 377695 2965263 SFC COL PT1

C17B 377681 2965266 TEST UNIT 1 DATUM

C17C 377687 2965290 SFC ITEM 2 12-MAR-99

C17D 377670 2965259 SFC ITEM 3 12-MAR-99

C17E 377671 2965238 SFC ITEM 4 12-MAR-99

C17F 377655 2965235 SFC ITEM 5 12-MAR-99

C17G 377674 2965263 TU2 DATUM 12-MAR-99

C347A 384665 2963380 TU1 DATUM 19-MAR-99

C348A 380209 2964315 TU1 DATUM 28-APR-99

C349A 388590 2980841 SFC ITEM 1 08-APR-99

C349B 388319 2980576 STP2 AREA E 08-APR-99

C349C 388450 2980720 SFC ITEMS2 08-APR-99

C349D 388169 2980111 STP 4 AR.C 08-APR-99

C349E 388062 2979990 STP 5 3:50 08-APR-99

C349F 388138 2980075 SFC ITEMS 3 08-APR-99

C349G 389115 2981168 STP G 09:38 08-APR-99

C351A 396067 2973287 BU1 DATUM 17-MAR-99

C351B 396082 2973290 TU2 DATUM 17-MAR-99

C352A 396496 2972988 TU1 DATUM 02-MAR-99

C353A 396724 2973343 TU1 DATUM 05-APR-99

C353B 396723 2973346 SFC ITEM 1 05-APR-99 426

C354A 396968 2973386 TU1 DATUM

C354B 396968 2973387 CONCRETE MARKER

C355A 395061 2971755 TU1 DATUM 12-APR-99

C356A 396575 2971004 TU1 DATUM 01-APR-99

C357A 395079 2969885 TU1 DATUM 0-APR-99

C358A 395145 2969657 95 ST AREA 19-APR-99

C358B 395140 2969621 TU1 DATUM 19-APR-99

C359A 394670 2968648 TU1 DATUM 13-APR-99

C360A 394697 2967217 TU1 DATUM 06-MAY-99

C360B 394683 2967222 SFC ITEMS B 06-MAY-99

C360C 394678 2967228 SFC ITEMS A 06-MAY-99

C360D 394709 2967262 STP1 06-MAY-99

C361A 394722 2965882 TU1 DATUM 29-MAR-99

C361B 394734 2965904 SFC ITEM 1 29-MAR-99

C361C 394706 2965905 SFC ITEM 2 29-MAR-99

C361D 394699 2965882 SFC ITEM 3 29-MAR99

C362A 395029 2965179 TU1 DATUM 14-APR-99

C362B 395014 2965235 TU2 DATUM 15-APR-99

C36A 382308 2963536 TU1 DATUM 27-APR-99

C36B 382305 2963547 SFC ITEMS 1 27-APR-99

C37A 382572 2964232 SSW PROF 28-APR-99

C450A 397808 2971322 TU1 DATUM 5-3-99

C450B 397918 2971391 T3 ST2 03-MAY-99 427

C479A 396758 2973202 TU1 NE CN 04-MAR-99

C479B 396775 2973184 OLD ST PT A 22-APR-99

C479C 396770 2973230 OLD ST PT B 22-APR-99

C480A 397821 2971126 TU1 DATUM 04-MAY-99

C481A 397627 2970338 TU1 DATUM 16-MAR-99

C482A 396967 2969877 TU1 DATUM 05-MAY-99

C483A 396498 2972410 TU1 DATUM 25-FEB-99

C483B 396497 2972402 SFC ITEM 1 25-FEB-99

C483C 396495 2972406 SFC ITEM 2 25-FEB-99

C483D 396489 2972399 SFC ITEM 3 25-FEB-99

C484A 397065 2972404 TU1 DATUM 04-MAR-99

C484B 397017 2972378 TU2 DATUM 04-MAR-99

C484C 397079 2972392 SFC ITEM 1 04-MAR-99

C486A 397729 2973183 TU1 DATUM 04-MAR-99

C487A 393943 2973852 TU1 DATUM 22-MAR-99

C487B 393978 2973845 14:31 22-MAR-99

C487C 393880 2973867 95 ST 50X 23-MAR-99

C58A 384466 2967800 TU1 DATUM 29-APR-99

C69A 396657 2973241 95 TU NE CN 04-MAR-99

C69B 396657 2973265 99 TU NE CN 04-MAR-99

C69C 396626 2973288 95 TOPO DATUM 04-MAR-99

C72A 382637 2982905 TU1 DATUM 07-APR-99

C9A 375529 2966838 TU1 DATUM 26-MAR-99 428

C9B 375523 2966853 SFC ITEM 1 26-MAR-99

C9C 375543 2966876 SFC ITEMS 2 26-MAR-99

L30A 385130 2945117 LOOT PIT A 01-MAR-99

L30B 385140 2945086 LOOT PIT B 01-MAR-99

L30A 389070 2934851 TU1 DATUM 23-APR-99

L64A 391456 2950546 TU1 DATUM 21-APR-99

L65A 388208 2937453 TU1 DATUM 09-APR-99

L65B 388224 2937454 LOOT PIT 09-APR-99

END APPENDIX D FIELD SPECIMEN DATA Table 9. 1995 Alligator Creek Survey Area Field Specimen Data. STP BGP Other Potsherd Potsherds Shell Bone Stone Historic F. S. Site Sample Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Rim < 1.5 cm Artifact Artifact Artifact Artifact # Number Type Count Count Count Count (grams) Count Count Count Count 1 8CH356 Whidden T1 South ST1 1/4" 1 1.1 2 8CH356 Whidden T1 South ST2 1/4" 1 3 8CH356 Whidden T1 East ST1 1/4" 1 4 8CH356 Whidden T2 Southeast ST13 1/4" 5 8CH356 Whidden T2 Southwest ST1 1/4" 1 6 8CH356 Whidden TU1 Looters Spoil 1/4" 2 6 3 44.6 1 7 8CH356 Whidden TU1 Profile Cleanup 1/4" 7 6 51.4 3 8 8CH450 Little Lake T1 ST4 1/16" 9 8CH450 Little Lake T1 ST1 1/4" 10 8CH450 Little Lake T1 ST2 1/4" 5.1 11 8CH450 Little Lake T1 ST3 1/4" 12 8CH450 Little Lake T1 ST4/1W 1/4" 13 8CH450 Little Lake T1 ST5 1/4" 14 8CH356 Whidden TU1 Surface 10 6 3 1.6 1 1 15 8CH356 Whidden TU1 Looters Spoil 1/4" 1 1 21.0 16 8CH356 Whidden TU1 N Pro. Cleaning 1/4" 4 1 5.5 50cmbd 17 8CH356 Whidden TU1 N Pro. Cleaning 1/4" 1 50cmbd 18 8CH356 Whidden TU1 Profile Cleaning 1/4" 14.4 19 8CH356 Whidden TU1 .58BD, .61E, .79S 1/4" 20 8CH356 Whidden TU1 Lvl1 Stratum 4 1/4" 2 1 1 11.5 1 21 8CH450 Little Lake T1 ST6 1/4" 2 1.6 21 8CH450 Little Lake T1 ST6 Stratum 1 Bulk 22 8CH450 Little Lake T1 ST7 Stratum 2 Bulk 23 8CH450 Little Lake T1 ST1-1W 1/4" 0.2 24 8CH450 Little Lake T2 ST2-IS 1/4" 25 8CH450 Little Lake T2 ST3 1/4" 26 8CH450 Little Lake T2 ST4 1/4" 430 27 8CH450 Little Lake T2 ST5 1/4" Table 9–continued. STP BGP Other Potsherd Potsherds Shell Bone Stone Historic F. S. Site Sample Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Rim < 1.5 cm Artifact Artifact Artifact Artifact # Number Type Count Count Count Count (grams) Count Count Count Count 28 8CH450 Little Lake T2 ST6 1/4" 29 8CH450 Little Lake T2 ST7 Stratum 2 Bulk 2 30 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST2 1/4" 31 8CH479 Acline Village T2 ST2 1/4" 1 32 8CH353 Dubois Mound B Surface 1 33 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST2-1E Strata 1, 2 Bulk 34 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST2-1N Str. 1 Bulk 35 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST2-1W 1/4" 35 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST2-1W Str. 2 Bulk 36 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST3 1/4" 36 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST3 Stratum 2 Bulk 37 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST3-1N 1/4" 37 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST3-1N Str. 2 Bulk 38 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST3-1S 1/4" 38 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST3-1S Str. 2 Bulk 39 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST3-1E 1/4" 39 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST3-1E Str. 1, 2 Bulk 40 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST3-1N 1/4" 1 1 40 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST3-1N Str. 4 Bulk 41 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST1-1N 1/4" 41 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST1-1N Str. 1 Bulk 42 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2 Stratum 1 Bulk 43 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-1E 1/4" 1.5 43 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-1E Str. 2 Bulk 44 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-1W Str. 2 Bulk 45 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-1S 1/4" 45 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-1S Bulk 46 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST1 Stratum 2 Soil

47 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST3 Stratum 3 Soil 431 48 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST4 Stratum 1 Bulk Table 9–continued. STP BGP Other Potsherd Potsherds Shell Bone Stone Historic F. S. Site Sample Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Rim < 1.5 cm Artifact Artifact Artifact Artifact # Number Type Count Count Count Count (grams) Count Count Count Count 49 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST1-1E Str. 1 Soil 50 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST1-1W Str. 2 Bulk 51 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST2-1S 1/4" 1 1 3.7 52 8CH479 Acline Village T1 ST2-2S 1/4" 53 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-3E-1S 1/4" 54 8CH479 Acline Village T2 ST2-1N 1/4" 3 55 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-1N 1/4" 56 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-2N 1/4" 1 1 1.6 57 8CH479 Acline Village T2 ST2-1E 1/4" 58 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-2E 1/4" 2 59 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-3E 1/4" 60 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-4E 1/4" 61 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-4E-1N 1/4" 62 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-5E 1/4" 63 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST2-6E 1/4" 64 8CH479 Acline Village T3 ST4-1E-2S 1/4" 1 65 8CH479 Acline Village Surface Collection Surface 1 1 66 8CH356 Whidden T2 Northwest Surface 2 67 8CH352 Negash T1 ST1 1/4" 1 0.6 1 3 67 8CH352 Negash T1 ST1 Stratum 2 Bulk 68 8CH352 Negash Surface Collection Surface 1 1.3 6 69 8CH483 Midlake Surface Collection Surface 1 1.6 9 70 8CH483 Midlake T1 ST1 1/4" 1 1 1 10.3 1 71 8CH483 Midlake T1 ST2 1/4" 1.1 71 8CH483 Midlake T1 ST2 Stratum 3 Bulk 0.5 72 8CH483 Midlake T1 ST3 1/4" 72 8CH483 Midlake T1 ST3 Stratum 3 Bulk 73 8CH483 Acline Village T3 ST3-1W 1/4"

74 8CH356 Whidden T2 Southwest ST2 1/4" 432 75 8CH356 Whidden T2 Southwest ST3 1/4" Table 9–continued. STP BGP Other Potsherd Potsherds Shell Bone Stone Historic F. S. Site Sample Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Rim < 1.5 cm Artifact Artifact Artifact Artifact # Number Type Count Count Count Count (grams) Count Count Count Count 76 8CH356 Whidden T2 Southwest ST4 1/4" 77 8CH484 Cicada Lake T1 ST1 Stratum 1 Bulk 3.4 78 8CH484 Parcel "X" T1 ST9-1E (74 cmbs) Soil 79 8CH484 Cicada Lake T1 ST9 Stratum 2 Bulk 80 8CH484 Cicada Lake T2 ST2-2W 1/4" 80 8CH484 Cicada Lake T2 ST2-2W Stratum 1 Bulk 81 8CH484 Cicada Lake Surface Collection Surface 1 82 8CH484 Cicada Lake T2 ST1-1W 1/4" 1 2.3 83 8CH484 Cicada Lake T2 ST2-1W 1/4" 84 n/a NUMBER NOT USED n/a 85 8CH356 Whidden T2 SouthEast ST2 1/4" 2 86 8CH356 Whidden T2 SouthEast ST3 1/4" 87 8CH484 Cicada Lake T1 ST2-1N 1/4" 87 8CH484 Cicada Lake T1 ST2-1N Stratum 2 Bulk 88 8CH484 Cicada Lake T1 ST4-1N 1/4" 88 8CH484 Cicada Lake T1 ST4-1N Stratum 3 Bulk 1.5 89 8CH484 Cicada Lake T3 ST3 Bulk 90 8CH484 Cicada Lake T4 ST1 1/4" 90 8CH484 Cicada Lake T4 ST1 Stratum 2 Bulk 91 8CH484 Cicada Lake T5 ST1 1/4" 1 92 8CH484 Cicada Lake T3 ST1 1/4" 1 93 8CH484 Cicada Lake T3 ST2 1/4" 6 13.1 94 8CH484 Cicada Lake T1 ST3-1N 1/4" 95 8CH484 Cicada Lake T1 ST3-2N 1/4" 1 96 8CH484 Parcel "X" T1 ST1 (72 cmbs) Soil 97 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST2-1E 1/4" 1 1 1 97 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST2-1E Strata 2, 3 Bulk 98 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST2-1E-10mW 1/4"

99 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST2-1E-20mW 1/4" 433 100 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST2-1E-10mE 1/4" Table 9–continued. STP BGP Other Potsherd Potsherds Shell Bone Stone Historic F. S. Site Sample Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Rim < 1.5 cm Artifact Artifact Artifact Artifact # Number Type Count Count Count Count (grams) Count Count Count Count 101 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST2-1E-1N 1/4" 102 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST2-10mN 1/4" 103 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST3 1/4" 104 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST3-10mE 1/4" 105 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST3-20mE 1/4" 106 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST4-20mE 1/4" 107 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST4 1/4" 108 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST4-10mE 1/4" 2 6 3 3.3 108 8CH485 Cicada Point BL ST4-10mE Stratum 2 Bulk 109 8CH481 Black Cow T1 ST1 1/4" 109 8CH481 Black Cow T1 ST1 Stratum 3 Bulk 110 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 Looter's Pit Surface 1 17.6 2 111 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 Lvl1 (0-25 cmbd) 1/4" 7 15.0 112 8CH482 Kessel Run T1 ST1 1/4" 1 112 8CH482 Kessel Run T1 ST1 Stratum 3 Bulk 113 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 Lvl2 (25-35 cmbd) 1/4" 16 1 4 70.0 1 114 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 Lvl3 (35-45 cmbd) 1/4" 20 5 4 135.7 1 115 8CH482 Kessel Run T1 ST1-10mNW 1/4" 116 8CH481 Black Cow Surface Collection Surface 1 117 8CH450 Little Lake T3 ST1 1/4" 118 8CH450 Little Lake T3 ST2 1/4" 119 8CH450 Little Lake T3 ST3 1/4" 120 8CH450 Little Lake T3 ST4 1/4" 121 8CH480 Gartree T1 ST2 (20-25 cmbs), Str. 2 Bulk 122 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 Lvl4 (45-55 cmbd) 1/4" 7 4 25.0 1 123 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 Lvl5 (55-65 cmbd) 1/4" 6 1 25.4 124 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 Lvl6 (65-75 cmbd) 1/4" 14 2 3 36.0 125 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 Profile Cleaning 1/4" 8.7 126 n/a NUMBER NOT USED n/a 434 127 8CH480 Gartree T1 ST3 1/4" Table 9–continued. STP BGP Other Potsherd Potsherds Shell Bone Stone Historic F. S. Site Sample Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Rim < 1.5 cm Artifact Artifact Artifact Artifact # Number Type Count Count Count Count (grams) Count Count Count Count 128 8CH480 Gartree T3 ST1-10m @ 330o 1/4" 129 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 Lvl3 (35-45 cmbd) 1/4" 3 1.3 130 n/a Section 29 Lakeside 18m S of Trail Surface 131 n/a Section 29 Lakeside 18m S of Trail Surface 132 n/a Section 29, T1 ST5 Soil 133 n/a Access Road North of CHEC Loop Surface 1 134 8CH354 Alligator Cr./ C. E. S. Midden Surface 135 8CH354 Alligator Cr./ C. E. S Midden Surface 39 71.9 1 136 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1, Lvl7 (75-85 1/4" 35 25 1 48.3 2 cmbd) 137 8CH355 Cockroach Surface Collection Surface 6 1 10.9 2 2 138 8CH355 Cockroach ST1 1/4" 2 6.8 1 138 8CH355 Cockroach ST1 Stratum 1 Bulk 0.3 2 1 139 8CH356 Whidden TU1 Profile Cutback 1/4" 12 2 5 58.4 4 140 8CH356 Whidden TU1 Profile, Floor Cleaning 1/4" 4 2.6 1 141 8CH356 Whidden TU1, Lvl1 (60-70 cmbd) 1/4" 20 3 2 60.7 4 142 8CH354 Alligator Cr. Midden ST1 1/4" 143 8CH354 Alligator Cr. Midden ST2 Stratum 2 Bulk 144 8CH354 Alligator Cr. Midden ST2 +6m S Str.1 Bulk 1 145 8CH354 Alligator Cr. Midden ST3 1/4" 146 8CH354 Alligator Cr. Midden ST4 Stratum 1 Bulk 147 8CH358 Silcox Key ST1 Stratum 2 Bulk 3.8 1 148 8CH358 Silcox Key ST1 Stratum 3 Bulk 0.2 149 8CH358 Silcox Key Surface Collection Surface 150 8CH358 Silcox Key ST1 1/4" 6 1 1 28.8 1 151 8CH358 Silcox Key ST1 Stratum 4 Bulk 152 8CH490 Powell Home ST1 1/4" 5 153 8CH490 Powell Home Surface Collection Surface >6 154 8CH357 Silcox North Surface Collection Surface 1 4 >3 435 155 8CH357 Silcox North ST1 1/4" 1 1 1 77.1 1 Table 9–continued. STP BGP Other Potsherd Potsherds Shell Bone Stone Historic F. S. Site Sample Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Rim < 1.5 cm Artifact Artifact Artifact Artifact # Number Type Count Count Count Count (grams) Count Count Count Count 155 8CH357 Silcox North ST1 Stratum 1 Bulk 7 3.5 3 155 8CH357 Silcox North ST1 Stratum 2 Bulk 1 155 8CH357 Silcox North ST1 Stratum 3 Bulk 4 156 8CH488 Propwash Midden Surface Collection Surface 9 10 71.4 1 >7 157 8CH351 Fish Hook Surface Collection Surface 9 36.4 9 158 8CH351 Fish Hook ST1 1/4" 2.5 158 8CH351 Fish Hook ST1 Bulk 159 8CH356 Whidden TU1 Lvl2 (70-80 cmbd) 1/4" 3 12 26.1 160 8CH356 Whidden TU1 Lvl4 (90-100 cmbd) 1/4" 12 2 4 11.5 161 8CH353 Dubois Surface Collection Surface 3 162 8CH353 Dubois Ridge A ST1(A + B) 1/4" 4 13.0 1 162 8CH353 Dubois Ridge A ST1 Stratum 1 Bulk 1.6 162 8CH353 Dubois Ridge A ST1 Stratum 2 Bulk 163 8CH353 Dubois Ridge B ST1 Stratum 1 1/4" 5 1 4.6 163 8CH353 Dubois Ridge B ST1 Stratum 1 Bulk 163 8CH353 Dubois Ridge B ST1 Stratum 2 Bulk 3.6 164 8CH487 Bumblebee Surface Collection Surface 24 3 1 12.5 2 165 8CH487 Bumblebee ST1 Stratum 1 Bulk 18 2 3 123.0 165 8CH487 Bumblebee ST1 Stratum 2 Bulk 1 7.9 165 8CH487 Bumblebee ST1 Stratum 3 Bulk 1 2.6 166 8CH486 Creek Bend Surface Collection Surface 1 3.3 2 4 167 8CH486 Creek Bend ST1 1/4" 168 8CH486 Creek Bend ST2 1/4" 2 1 1 11.9 1 169 8CH486 Creek Bend ST3 1/4" 3 1 2 30.5 169 8CH486 Creek Bend ST3 Stratum 1 Bulk 2 14.3 1 170 8CH356 Whidden TU1, Lvl3 (80-90 cmbd) 1/4" 20 2 5 108.4 171 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 Lvl8 (85-95 cmbd) 1/4" 7 2 1 19.8 172 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 N Profile Cleaning 1/4" 6 1 4.0 173 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 E Profile Cleaning 1/4" 3 5.7 436 174 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 N Profile PP1 Plotted 1 1 Table 9–continued. STP BGP Other Potsherd Potsherds Shell Bone Stone Historic F. S. Site Sample Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Rim < 1.5 cm Artifact Artifact Artifact Artifact # Number Type Count Count Count Count (grams) Count Count Count Count 175 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 N Profile PP2 Plotted 176 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1 N Profile PP3 Plotted 1 1 177 8CH69 Acline Mound W Pro. Str. IVC feature Bulk 1 1 1.5 178 8CH69 Acline Mound W Pro. Str. VIA feature Bulk 1 4.3 1 179 8CH69 Acline Mound S Pro. Str. IVA pstmold Bulk 180 8CH69 Acline Mound S Pro. Str. IVB ash pit Bulk 181 8CH69 Acline Mound Column 1-10 cmbd Bulk 182 8CH69 Acline Mound Column 10-20 cmbd Bulk 2.2 183 8CH69 Acline Mound Column 20-30 cmbd Bulk 3.9 184 8CH69 Acline Mound Column 30-40 cmbd Bulk 185 8CH69 Acline Mound Column 40-50 cmbd Bulk 1 1 30.2 186 8CH69 Acline Mound Column 50-60 cmbd Bulk 9.2 187 8CH69 Acline Mound Column 60-70 cmbd Bulk 188 8CH69 Acline Mound Column 70-80 cmbd Bulk 0.9 189 8CH69 Acline Mound Column 80-90 cmbd Bulk 1 2.2 190 8CH69 Acline Mound Column 90-95 cmbd Bulk 8.4 191 8CH356 Whidden TU1 S Profile 14C 192 8CH356 Whidden TU1, S Profile 14C 193 8CH356 Whidden TU1, S Profile Soil 194 8CH356 Whidden TU1, S Profile 14C 195 8CH356 Whidden TU1, S Profile 14C 196 8CH356 Whidden TU1, W Profile Cleaning 1/4" 197 8CH356 Whidden TU1, W Profile 14C 198 8CH356 Whidden TU1, E Profile 14C 199 8CH356 Whidden TU1, N Profile 14C 200 8CH356 Whidden TU1, N Profile 14C 201 8CH356 Whidden TU1, N Profile 14C 202 8CH356 Whidden TU1, W Profile 14C 203 8CH356 Whidden TU1, W Profile 14C 437 204 8CH356 Whidden TU1, W Profile 14C Table 9–continued. STP BGP Other Potsherd Potsherds Shell Bone Stone Historic F. S. Site Sample Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Rim < 1.5 cm Artifact Artifact Artifact Artifact # Number Type Count Count Count Count (grams) Count Count Count Count 205 8CH356 Whidden TU1, W Profile 14C 206 8CH356 Whidden TU1, W Profile 14C 207 8CH356 Whidden TU1, W Profile 14C 208 8CH69 Acline Mound TU1, Lvl7 (75-85 cm) 14C 1 1.3 209 8CH356 Whidden TU1, S Profile Cleaning 1/4" 210 8CH356 Whidden TU1, E Profile Cleaning 1/4" 211 8CH356 Whidden TU1, N Profile Cleaning 1/4" 1 2 212 8CH356 Whidden TU1, W Profile Cleaning 1/4" 4 1 5.5 213 n/a NO PROVENIENCE n/a 214 8CH69 West side at base of mound (G.Luer) Surface 1 215 8CH69 Mound platform, northeast (G. Luer) Surface 1 438 Table 9–continued. F. S. Site Sample Vertebrate Taxa Molluscan Taxa Charcoal Shell Artifact Types3 Other Items Shell (g) Bone (g) Stone (g) # Number Type Identified1 Identified2 (g) 1 8CH356 1/4" ic mc, cr, marl (ce, ba) 1 pc. mineralized bone 16.1 1.3 2 8CH356 1/4" rm, cr, marl (ce) 1 ha C(pg) 18.7 3 8CH356 1/4" 1.7 4 8CH356 1/4" te, lm 1.9 5 8CH356 1/4" 6.3 6 8CH356 1/4" te, ic, ov cr, pd, mc, pc 1 be (disk) 361.3 61.0 0.4 7 8CH356 1/4" ov, ic, te, hs ar, oy, pd, mc, my 1 wc(bs), 2 be(disk) 137.8 75.8 2.5 8 8CH450 1/16" mc, me, pd, cr 264.9 1.6 9 8CH450 1/4" cc 3.1 37.2 10 8CH450 1/4" 1 pc. mineralized 57.2 wood 11 8CH450 1/4" lm (m), lm 8.8 12 8CH450 1/4" ic, se cr, my 1.5 0.6 13 8CH450 1/4" ma, te my 0.1 3.4 100.0 14 8CH356 Surface te, ic 1 de(bs), 1 an(me) spoon, “Oneida” 11.3 15 8CH356 1/4" la, ic, te, av, ov 4.8 18.4 16 8CH356 1/4" te, ic, ov my, pc 16.5 27.6 0.7 17 8CH356 1/4" 1 ha G(mc) 18 8CH356 1/4" la, ov, te, ic, po me, cr, my, pd 52.6 18.1 3.7 19 8CH356 1/4" ov my 5.2 4.6 20 8CH356 1/4" ic, te, po cr, bs 1 ce N(bs) small incised potsherd 16.7 14.7 7.5 21 8CH450 1/4" te, ar, ic cr, mc 14.6 31.9 2.5 21 8CH450 Bulk te, ic cr, mc, my 109.4 7.3 22 8CH450 Bulk te, si cr, mc, my 105.1 17.6 6.3 23 8CH450 1/4" 20.8 1.4 24 8CH450 1/4" recent wood-discarded 25 8CH450 1/4" do 0.6 26 8CH450 1/4" ov cr, mc 42.0 11.0 27 8CH450 1/4" te my 0.3 0.4 1.6 28 8CH450 1/4" te, sh, se my, er 6.5 10.6 0.7 439 29 8CH450 Bulk 287.7 46.6 0.6 Table 9–continued. F. S. Site Sample Vertebrate Taxa Molluscan Taxa Charcoal Shell Artifact Types3 Other Items Shell (g) Bone (g) Stone (g) # Number Type Identified1 Identified2 (g) 30 8CH479 1/4" ov mc, cr 176.1 2.5 31 8CH479 1/4" bs 1.0 32 8CH353 Surface 1 ha G(mc) 33 8CH479 Bulk ic, te cr, mc, pd, my 615.8 0.4 34 8CH479 Bulk te pd, my 612.5 0.1 35 8CH479 1/4" cr, mc, lu 64.0 35 8CH479 Bulk cr, mc, my 459.2 36 8CH479 1/4" mc, cr, me, pd 104.2 36 8CH479 Bulk ic cr, mc, my, po 37 8CH479 1/4" cr, mc 19.9 1.5 37 8CH479 Bulk ic cr, mc, my, pc 706.8 0.1 6.7 0.2 38 8CH479 1/4" ic cr, pd, mc 84.9 0.9 38 8CH479 Bulk ic mc, cr, pd, my 628.8 0.5 39 8CH479 1/4" mc, me, sp, cr 131.9 39 8CH479 Bulk ic mc, cr, me 727.4 0.4 40 8CH479 1/4" cr, mc, pd fire-cracked limestone 117.3 10.8 40 8CH479 Bulk cr, mc, my 1 wc(bs) 677.9 1.2 41 8CH479 1/4" ov 4.4 41 8CH479 Bulk cr, mc, pd, my, pc 384.8 0.4 0.1 42 8CH479 Bulk ic, te cr, mc, pd, pc, my 724.7 1.1 0.3 43 8CH479 1/4" 43 8CH479 Bulk ic cr, mc, pd, ne, cp 721.8 0.2 44 8CH479 Bulk ic, te cr, mc, my, ce, my, po 670.8 1.9 45 8CH479 1/4" 0.6 45 8CH479 Bulk ic, te cr, mc, ne, my, pd, er 585.6 2.2 0.2 46 8CH479 Soil 47 8CH479 Soil 48 8CH479 Bulk ov cr, mc, my 514.7 0.5 49 8CH479 Soil 50 8CH479 Bulk ic cr, mc, pd, ce 639.1 0.3 440 51 8CH479 1/4" te mc 4.2 0.3 Table 9–continued. F. S. Site Sample Vertebrate Taxa Molluscan Taxa Charcoal Shell Artifact Types3 Other Items Shell (g) Bone (g) Stone (g) # Number Type Identified1 Identified2 (g) 52 8CH479 1/4" cr, ma, ce 3.7 53 8CH479 1/4" 2.3 54 8CH479 1/4" ic mc, cr, pd 137.7 2.0 55 8CH479 1/4" ov pc 3.9 17.7 56 8CH479 1/4" te 7.2 57 8CH479 1/4" mc, cr 57.7 58 8CH479 1/4" 1 ha F(bs), 1 de(bs) limestone Pounder 59 8CH479 1/4" ov mc, cr, pc, me, er 40.6 3.1 60 8CH479 1/4" cr 22.8 61 8CH479 1/4" cr 1.0 62 8CH479 1/4" cr 7.2 63 8CH479 1/4" cr 6.0 3.3 64 8CH479 1/4" 0.1 65 8CH479 Surface 1 an(me) brick fragment 119.1 66 8CH356 Surface 67 8CH352 1/4" te, ic, po mc, bs possible red ochre 50.1 10.9 1.5 0.1 67 8CH352 Bulk ic, te cr, mc, pd, ce, pc, my, 1287.2 5.2 22.2 0.3 po 68 8CH352 Surface te bs, me, pg, cr 3 an(me), 1 ha C(bs), 1 497.4 11.9 ht N(bs) 69 8CH483 Surface pl, ic mc, cr, bs 2 ha G(mc), 5 an(me), 104.1 5.4 2 de(bs) 70 8CH483 1/4" te, ic mc, cr 1 de(bs) 8.1 3.4 71 8CH483 1/4" te, ic, po mc, pd, cr 25.2 14.5 32.5 0.1 71 8CH483 Bulk te, ov, ic cr, mc, my, me, ce 981.9 1.3 0.2 72 8CH483 1/4" cr, mc 48.7 72 8CH483 Bulk ic cr, mc, pd, my 492.6 0.1 73 8CH483 1/4" po cr, mc 11.0 0.8 74 8CH356 1/4" te 4.0 75 8CH356 1/4" cr, pd, my 11.3 76 8CH356 1/4" ce, ma, mc, cr 13.6 441 Table 9–continued. F. S. Site Sample Vertebrate Taxa Molluscan Taxa Charcoal Shell Artifact Types3 Other Items Shell (g) Bone (g) Stone (g) # Number Type Identified1 Identified2 (g) 77 8CH484 Bulk te, ic cr, mc, my, pd, po 1 pc. mineralized bone 74.7 4.1 8.0 78 8CH484 Soil 79 8CH484 Bulk ic, te, sh cr, mc, my 265.9 2.5 80 8CH484 1/4" te cr 0.6 2.4 0.2 80 8CH484 Bulk ic cr 4.1 0.1 81 8CH484 Surface 1 ha C(bs) 82 8CH484 1/4" te cr, mc 4.9 0.7 83 8CH484 1/4" 0.1 0.1 84 n/a n/a 85 8CH356 1/4" my, cr, mc 1 ch(me), 1 de(bs) 73.4 86 8CH356 1/4" cr pottery lost at cleaning 5.9 87 8CH484 1/4" te, av, ic, pl mc 10.1 17.9 0.8 87 8CH484 Bulk ic, te, se, av my, cr, po, er 121.4 4.4 0.1 88 8CH484 1/4" pc, my 82.9 88 8CH484 Bulk te, se, ic, po, sh my, cr, pc, pd, ma, po, 80.5 2.4 25.1 er 89 8CH484 Bulk te, ov, ic mc, my 748.6 12.4 668.2 90 8CH484 1/4" ov, te, se, an, ic mc, cc 4.0 101.2 15.4 0.2 90 8CH484 Bulk te, ic, se marl(cc), cr, my, po, er 20.3 4.6 519.2 0.1 91 8CH484 1/4" cr, mc, me 1 ss(bs) 43.0 92 8CH484 1/4" ov, te mc, pc, me 1 de(bs) 26.6 16.2 23.6 0.5 93 8CH484 1/4" te, ic 3.7 94 8CH484 1/4" my, pc 3.7 95 8CH484 1/4" te, se mc, my 1 de(bs) 27.7 5.4 96 8CH484 Soil 97 8CH485 1/4" te, pl, ic cr 3.1 39.6 3.7 1.1 97 8CH485 Bulk te, ov, po, ic, se cr, my, mc, cp 88.6 8.8 0.7 98 8CH485 1/4" te, ic, ov 6.4 99 8CH485 1/4" 0.1 100 8CH485 1/4" te, se 0.8 442 101 8CH485 1/4" ic, te 0.2 1.4 0.9 Table 9–continued. F. S. Site Sample Vertebrate Taxa Molluscan Taxa Charcoal Shell Artifact Types3 Other Items Shell (g) Bone (g) Stone (g) # Number Type Identified1 Identified2 (g) 102 8CH485 1/4" my 0.8 2.3 103 8CH485 1/4" my, cr, mc 25.8 19.8 104 8CH485 1/4" cr, pd, mc 74.2 105 8CH485 1/4" 3.2 106 8CH485 1/4" cr, my 2.4 0.6 107 8CH485 1/4" pl, te cr, er fire-cracked limestone 14.5 9.5 26.5 108 8CH485 1/4" te cr, li 17.8 11.3 0.8 108 8CH485 Bulk te, ic cr, mc, ne 136.8 0.6 1.8 109 8CH481 1/4" te po 1.0 2.7 109 8CH481 Bulk te, ov, ic my, mc, cr, pd, po, cp 295.4 1.1 2.4 0.1 110 8CH69 Surface ov, te, ic mc, cr 2 an(me), 1 ha N(bs) fire-cracked limestone 126.4 6.7 100.9 0.8 111 8CH69 1/4" ic, te, ov, pl, av, la 63.8 1.4 112 8CH482 1/4" ov, po 1 pc. incised bone 6.4 112 8CH482 Bulk te, ov, ic, po, se mc, cr, my, pc, pd, ma, 314.6 2.5 2.0 ce 113 8CH69 1/4" ic, te, ov, la, sh, sy, se 1 de(bs) 8.8 98.1 6.5 114 8CH69 1/4" ic, ov, te, av, la, si, sh, cr, mc, ar, me 2 1 bone Pin fragment 128.2 379.7 10.3 16.3 pl, dv, se, da 115 8CH482 1/4" ov 22.2 11.0 116 8CH481 Surface 1 glass bottle neck 63.3 117 8CH450 1/4" te, si 5.3 8.3 118 8CH450 1/4" te, se cr, my 3.1 24.1 18.4 0.5 119 8CH450 1/4" 0.1 120 8CH450 1/4" te 0.1 2.2 121 8CH480 Bulk te cr, my, ba, mc, pd 159.9 0.3 3.5 0.4 122 8CH69 1/4" ic, te, ov, av, dv, da, la mc, cr 1 ha D(bs), 1 de(bs) fire-cracked limestone 14.0 79.9 12.1 9.1 123 8CH69 1/4" ic, te, ov, av, se, la, po pc, cr fire-cracked limestone 24.7 66.2 118.2 0.7 124 8CH69 1/4" ic, te, ov, da, si, po, dv, cr, pd, mc, ba 32.9 243.8 39.9 11.1 se 125 8CH69 1/4" te, se, ic cr 3.5 3.8 0.1 126 n/a n/a 443 Table 9–continued. F. S. Site Sample Vertebrate Taxa Molluscan Taxa Charcoal Shell Artifact Types3 Other Items Shell (g) Bone (g) Stone (g) # Number Type Identified1 Identified2 (g) 127 8CH480 1/4" ov 70.8 128 8CH480 1/4" mc 13.0 71.0 129 8CH69 1/4" ic, te, si, la 1.8 1.8 130 n/a Surface bedsprings, unidentified metal 131 n/a Surface trash discarded 132 n/a Soil 133 n/a Surface 134 8CH354 Surface star coral-discarded 758.0 135 8CH354 Surface te, ov cr, me, mc, pd, ar 1 ha G(mc) 1 pc. hand-painted 145.3 11.4 222.6 whiteware 136 8CH69 1/4" ic, ov, te, da, po, se, cr, my, mc, pd, ba 2 de(bs) 1 asymmetric PPK, 27.2 210.5 73.9 av, la, si 75.2g, lost 137 8CH355 Surface 2 de(bs), 1 an(me) 1 pc. iron, 1 pc. whiteware cup 138 8CH355 1/4" ic, te, la cr, mc, dr 1 brass grommet 5.7 14.6 115.0 0.8 138 8CH355 Bulk ic, te, la cr, mc, my, li, dr, cp, 1 de(bs), 1 wc(bs) unidentified metal 1759.7 4.8 0.5 ms, ne, po 139 8CH356 1/4" ic, te, ov, pl, se, la, po mc, cr, me, my 1 be, 1 ha G(mc), 2 9.7 89.6 2.0 2.0 de(bs) 140 8CH356 1/4" ic, te, ov 1 ha G(mc) 11.1 141 8CH356 1/4" ic, te, ov, av, po, si, se my, mc, me, cr, ba 2 ha G(mc, sa), 2 40.5 131.6 13.8 de(bs) 142 8CH354 1/4" te pd, cr, mc, ma 15.8 0.1 0.4 143 8CH354 Bulk ic, ov cr, mc, li, pd, my 1043.7 1.9 0.2 144 8CH354 Bulk ic cr, mc, pd 659.4 0.6 145 8CH354 1/4" te, ic 69.0 3.2 146 8CH354 Bulk ic cr, mc, pd, my, ce, ol 1132.2 1.9 1.3 147 8CH358 Bulk ic cr, my, mc, pd, ba, po, 1 ha F(bs) 1339.6 2.4 ol

148 8CH358 Bulk ic, av cr, my, mc, pd, po, er, 865.1 0.7 0.2 444 dr, ba, pm Table 9–continued. F. S. Site Sample Vertebrate Taxa Molluscan Taxa Charcoal Shell Artifact Types3 Other Items Shell (g) Bone (g) Stone (g) # Number Type Identified1 Identified2 (g) 149 8CH358 Surface bs 287.4 150 8CH358 1/4" ic, te, da, ov 1 wc(bs) 23.6 14.0 1.8 0.9 151 8CH358 Bulk ic, po, av, se cr, my, mc, ba, er 1694.6 2.3 0.2 152 8CH490 1/4" te 1 pc. hist. cer., 2 pc. 2.4 2.1 glass, unid. metal 153 8CH490 Surface cr 1 pc. hist. cer., brick, 103.3 52.3 15.8 glass, metal, plastic 154 8CH357 Surface bs 1 ha D(bs), 1 ha C(bs), hist. ceramics, brick, 383.2 1 ha A(bs), 1 de(bs) glass 155 8CH357 1/4" bs, me, mc, cr 1 ha D(bs) 462.7 55.5 29.7 155 8CH357 Bulk ic, te cr, my, po, mc, pc, pm, 2 de(bs) 545.4 4.8 0.2 pd, ar 155 8CH357 Bulk ic, da cr,my,mc,pd,pm,ar, po 1 de(bs) 1046.9 9.6 0.1 155 8CH357 Bulk ic, po cr, my, mc, po, pm, pd, 4 de(bs) 1215.8 11.2 2.5 pc, dr, me 156 8CH488 Surface ic, te, la cr, mc, me 1 de(bs) glass, angle iron 266.2 22.7 157 8CH351 Surface me, mc, pg 2 ha G(sa), 3 ha 496.5 606.5 G(mc), 1 ce N(bs), 1 an(me), 2 de(bs) 158 8CH351 1/4" ic mc 2 ha G(mc) 9.9 3.6 2.3 158 8CH351 Bulk cr, mc, my, cp, po 1312.0 0.1 159 8CH356 1/4" ic, te, ov my, mc, cr 10.7 94.8 0.9 16.8 160 8CH356 1/4" ic, te, ov 17.0 66.8 212.2 1.2 161 8CH353 Surface 1 ha G(mc), 2 an(me) 162 8CH353 1/4" te, ic mc 1 ha D(bs) 25.4 14.0 2.5 4.4 162 8CH353 Bulk ic cr, my, mc, pd, cp, ba 1 ha G(mc) 1555.3 0.5 0.1 162 8CH353 Bulk cr, mc, my, ba, pd, cp, 1 ha D(bs) 1618.5 0.2 pc 163 8CH353 1/4" ic, la mc, cr, me, bs 97.9 11.9 2.0 2.1 163 8CH353 Bulk ic, ov cr, pd, mc, my, ba, po 1880.8 6.9

163 8CH353 Bulk ic, po cr, mc, pd, my, ba, po, 4 ha G(mc), 1 ws(bs) 1458.8 4.9 0.2 445 ma Table 9–continued. F. S. Site Sample Vertebrate Taxa Molluscan Taxa Charcoal Shell Artifact Types3 Other Items Shell (g) Bone (g) Stone (g) # Number Type Identified1 Identified2 (g) 164 8CH487 Surface bs, me 1 ha C(bs), 1 ha D(bs), (1 BGP rim may be 355.7 2 de(bs) incised) 165 8CH487 Bulk ic, te, ov, da mc, my, cr, pd 6.0 104.5 168.1 0.7 165 8CH487 Bulk ic, da, la, ov, an, te mc, cr, pd, my, pc 1097.6 16.6 0.3 165 8CH487 Bulk ic, la, te cr, mc, pd, my 413.1 166 8CH486 Surface mc 1 de(bs), 1 wc(bs) teacup, porcelain doll 42.0 8.4 face 167 8CH486 1/4" te, ic, sh 18.2 0.4 0.1 168 8CH486 1/4" 1 pc. glass 4.7 3.2 169 8CH486 1/4" te, ic, se mc 1 pc. glazed stoneware 3.4 9.1 7.7 3.3 169 8CH486 Bulk ic, te pc, cr, pd 31.3 4.4 0.2 170 8CH356 1/4" ic, te, ov, la, av cr, mc, pd, my, ba 44.2 115.5 31.9 8.2 171 8CH69 1/4" ic, te, da, la, se 11.6 25.5 0.9 7.6 172 8CH69 1/4" ic, ov, la, da, an, te 1.8 43.0 1.0 3.7 173 8CH69 1/4" ma, ic cr, me 23.2 20.1 4.4 174 8CH69 Plotted 175 8CH69 Plotted 3.1 176 8CH69 Plotted 177 8CH69 Bulk ic, te cr, mc, pd, my, ba 431.7 3.9 0.7 0.1 178 8CH69 Bulk ic, te, ov, da cr, mc, pc, pd, my, ba 1 de(bs) 254.5 4.1 0.8 179 8CH69 Bulk te, ic, se cr, pd, mc, my 79.0 2.4 0.8 0.1 180 8CH69 Bulk ic cr, mc, pd, pc 284.3 0.5 7.3 181 8CH69 Bulk ic, te cr, mc, pd 252.8 0.9 1.7 182 8CH69 Bulk ic cr, mc, my, pd, po 153.5 1.2 0.8 0.2 183 8CH69 Bulk ic, te, ov cr, mc, my, pd, sp 269.0 2.5 21.5 0.1 184 8CH69 Bulk ic, te, da cr, mc, pd, pc, my 851.0 9.8 0.1 185 8CH69 Bulk ic, te, sh cr, mc, pd, my, pc 626.9 7.7 1.1 186 8CH69 Bulk ic, se cr, pd, mc, my, ar 752.2 4.1 0.8 1.1 187 8CH69 Bulk ic, se, ov, si cr, pd, mc, my, pc, ba, 908.7 10.6 0.9 ce 188 8CH69 Bulk ic, te, da, ov cr, my, pd, pg, mc, ce 763.6 17.3 1.5 446 Table 9–continued. F. S. Site Sample Vertebrate Taxa Molluscan Taxa Charcoal Shell Artifact Types3 Other Items Shell (g) Bone (g) Stone (g) # Number Type Identified1 Identified2 (g) 189 8CH69 Bulk ic, da, te, la cr, my, pc, ba, mc, po, 915.3 9.5 0.1 pd 190 8CH69 Bulk ic cr, my, pm, mc 105.1 1.4 0.1 191 8CH356 14C 192 8CH356 14C 193 8CH356 Soil 194 8CH356 14C 195 8CH356 14C 196 8CH356 1/4" 1.4 197 8CH356 14C 198 8CH356 14C 199 8CH356 14C 200 8CH356 14C 201 8CH356 14C 202 8CH356 14C 203 8CH356 14C 204 8CH356 14C 205 8CH356 14C 206 8CH356 14C 207 8CH356 14C 208 8CH69 14C 209 8CH356 1/4" 3.3 0.5 210 8CH356 1/4" 0.4 3.5 1.0 211 8CH356 1/4" 1 bone Pin fragment, 2.1 2.8 1.0 1pc. worked bone 212 8CH356 1/4" te, ic 12.7 2.0 213 n/a n/a mc 214 8CH69 Surface 215 8CH69 Surface 1 ha A (bs) 447 Notes: 1 Key to Vertebrate Taxa Identified (includes cartilaginous fishes) (m) = mineralized bone ic = Ichthyes (fishes) se = Serpentes (snakes) an = Anatidae (bay ducks) la = Lamniformes (sharks) sh = Sigmodon hispidus (hispid cotton rat) ar = Ariidae (sea catfishes) lm = large mammal si = Sirenacea (sirens) av = Aves (birds) ma = Mammalia (mammals) sr = Serranidae (sea basses) da = Dasyatis sp. (stingray) ov = Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) sy = Sylvilagus sp. (rabbit) dv = Didelphis virginiana (opossum) pl = Procyon lotor (raccoon) te = Testudines (turtles) gc = Galeocerdo cuvieri (tiger shark) po = Portunidae (swimming crabs) hs = Homo sapiens (one adult human tooth) pr = Pristis sp. (sawfish)

2 Key to Molluscan Taxa Identified (includes crustaceans) ar = Argopectin sp. (scallop) er = Euglandina rosea (rosy euglandina) np = Noetia pondersosa (ponderous ark) ba = Balanida (barnicles) li = Littorina sp. (periwinkle) ol = Oliva sp. (olive) bs = Busycon sinistrum (sinistral lightning whelk) ma = Marginella sp. (marginella) pc = Polymesoda caroliniana (c. marsh clam) cc = Chione cancellata (cross-barred venus) marl = geological shell (various, with limestone) pd = Polinices duplicatus (shark’s eye snail) ce = Cerithium (ceriths) mc = Melongena corona (crown conch) pg = Pleuroploca gigantaea (horse conch) cp = Crepidula sp. (slipper) me = Mercenaria campechiensis (southern quahog) pm = Parastola monilifera (spotted olive) cr = Crassostrea sp. (oyster) my = Mytilidae (mussels) po = Polygyra sp. (polygyra) do = Donax sp. (coquina) na = Naticidae (moon snails) sa = Strombus alatus (fighting conch) dr = Dinocardium robustum (giant Atlantic cockle) ne = Neritina sp. (nerite) sp = Busycon spiratum (pear whelk)

3 Key to Shell Artifact Types ng = net-mesh gauge (xx) = variety or species (see note 2) cu = cup pb = perforated bivalve A = Type A D = Type D pg = perforated gastropod an = anvil de = debitage pr = pounder B = Type B E = Type E ss = spoon/scoop be = bead F = Type F U = unhafted type C = Type C G = Type G ve = vessel ca = columella adze ha = hammer wc = worked columella ce = cutting-edged tool ht = hafted gastropod tool ws = worked shell (miscellaneous) ch = chopper N = indeterminate type cha = columella hammer 448 Table 10. 1999 Field Specimen Data. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 1 8ch69 tu1, lv1, st1 0-10 cmbd 6 3 6.1 2 8ch69 tu1, lv2, st1 10-20 cmbd 21 10 3 8ch69 tu1, lv3, st1 20-30 cmbd 6 2 bone Point fragment 1 4 8ch69 tu1, looters spoil, surface 9 1 ce N(bs), 1 an/ch(me) 5 8ch479 tu1, lv1, st1 0-10 cmbd 1 6 8ch479 tu1, lv2, st1 10-20 cmbd 5 1 ha G(me) 7 8ch479 tu1, lv3, st1 20-30 cmbd 1 8 8ch479 tu1, lv3, st2 25-30 cmbd 1 2 ha G(mc) 9 8ch479 tu1, lv4, st2 30-40 cmbd 10 8ch69 tu1, lv4, st1 30-40 cmbd 2 be(disk) 11 8ch69 tu1, lv5, st1 40-50 cmbd 6 1.4 1 ce N(bs) 12 8ch69 tu1, lv5, st1 40-50 cmbd 2 tu1, lv1, 0-10 cmbd (c. 13 8ch69 balk) tu1, lv2, 10-20 cmbd (c. 14 8ch69 balk) tu1, lv3, 20-30 cmbd (c. 15 8ch69 balk) 1 tu1, lv4, 30-40 cmbd (c. 16 8ch69 balk) tu1, lv5, 40-50 cmbd (c. 17 8ch69 balk) 18 8ch69 tu1, looters spoil, surface 4 19 8ch479 tu1, west profile cleaning 1 20 8ch69 tu1, east profile cleaning 1 1 ha G(mc) 21 8ch9 tu1, e. profile, 50cmbd, 94n 14C sample 1 22 8ch9 tu1, e. profile, 50cmbd, 75n 14C sample 1 449 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 23 8ch484 tu1, lv1, st1 13-23 cmbd 1 ws(me): edges reduced 24 8ch484 tu1, lv2, st1 23-33 cmbd 1 ha N(pg), 1 an(me) TU 1, Lvl 5, Strat 3, 42- Soil sample, 100% 25 8ch479 cmbd, Locus 1 TU 1, Lvl 5, Strat 3, 42- Soil sample, 100% 26 8ch479 cmbd, Locus 2 TU 1, Lvl 5, Strat 3, 41- Soil sample, 100% 27 8ch479 cmbd, Locus 3 TU 1, Lvl 5, Strat 3, 40.5- Soil sample, 100% 28 8ch479 cmbd, Locus 4 TU 1, Lvl 5, Strat 3, 40- Soil sample, 100% 29 8ch479 cmbd, Locus 5 TU 1, Lvl 5, Strat 3, 41-58 Soil sample, 100% 30 8ch479 cmbd, Locus 6 31 8ch479 tu1, east profile, pp1 2 32 8ch479 tu1, e.ast profile, pp2 14C sample 1 33 8ch479 tu1, east profile, pp3 14C sample 1 34 8ch484 tu1, lv2, n50/w20/50cmbd 14C sample 1 35 8ch484 tu1, lv3, st2, pp2 1 bone Point fragment, 36 8ch484 tu1, lv3, st1 13-23 cmbd 1 1 misc. worked bone 2 tu1, lv3, st2, 14C sample 1 37 8ch484 n11/w27/38cmbd tu1, lv3, st2, 14C sample 1 38 8ch484 n46/w22/48cmbd 39 8ch484 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 1 40 8ch484 tu1, lv4, st2, 39cmbd (top) 14C sample 1 41 8ch484 tu1, north profile, pp1 1 450 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 42 8ch484 tu1, west profile, pp2 tu1, west profile, pp3, 14C sample 43 8ch484 n38/35cmbd 1 1 bone Pointed Fragment, 2 Point/Pin mid- sections, 1 bone 44 8ch484 tu1, lv3, st2 33-43 cmbd 2 Point fragment 4 45 8ch484 tu1, lv4, st2 43-53 cmbd 1.0 46 8ch484 tu1, profile cut-back 47 8ch484 tu2, 0-48 cmbs 48 8ch483 tu1, lv1, st 1-2 1 ha C(bs) 49 8ch483 tu1, lv2, st2 5 50 8ch483 Surface Item 1 1 wc(bs) 51 8ch483 Surface Item 2 1 de(bs) 52 8ch483 tu1, lv3, st3 53 8ch483 Surface Item 3 1 54 8ch483 tu1, lv3, st3, pp1 14C sample 1 55 8ch483 tu1, lv3, st3, pp2 1 ha C(bs) 56 8ch483 tu1, lv3, st3, pp3 14C sample 1 57 8ch483 tu1, lv4, st4 58 8ch483 tu1, south profile, pp1 1 59 8ch483 tu1, south profile, cleaning 60 8ch361 tu1, lv1, st1 13-23 cmbd 1 61 8ch361 tu1, lv2, st1 1 2.2 62 8ch361 tu1, lv2, pp1 14C sample 1 63 8ch361 Surface Items 1 3 1 2.2 stone Abrader 1 451 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 64 8ch361 Surface Items 2 10 65 8ch361 Surface Items 3 1 ha A(bs) 66 8ll32 Spoil/surface, looter pit B 3 9 1 ce A(bs), 2 de(bs) 67 8ch352 tu1, lv1, st1 42 9 26.0 68 8ch352 tu1, lv2, st2 27 24 11.9 1 an(me), 1 ch(pg) 69 8ch352 tu1, lv2, st2, pp1 1 de(lw) 70 8ch352 tu1, lv2, st2, pp2 14C sample 1 71 8ch352 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 14C sample 1 bone Point/Pin mid- 72 8ch352 tu1, lv3, st2 5 4 1.6 1 an(me) sections 2 73 8ch352 tu1, lv4, st2 41-51 cmbd 3 8 74 8ch352 tu1, lv4, st2, pp1 1 de(bs) 75 8ch352 tu1, lv5, st2 2 76 8ch352 tu1, lv5, st2, pp1 1 2 pb(np), 1 ha N(pg), 1 77 8ch352 tu1, Surface Collection de(bs) 1 pr(pg),1 an(me), 4 wc(bs), 1 wc(pg), 1 de(bs), 78 8ll32 Looter Pit A, Spoil 15 9 7.7 1 ht A(bs) 79 8ch484 Surface Item 1 1 wc(pg) 80 8ch486 tu1, lv1, st1 10 11.6 ceramic tile 1 81 8ch486 tu1, lv2, st1 16 16.2 metal fragments 3 82 8ch486 tu1, lv3, st1 16 5.9 83 8ch486 tu1, lv4, st1 1 5 84 8ch488 Surface Collection 10 2.8 metal fragments 6 85 8ch354 tu1, lv1, st1 452 86 8ch354 tu1, lv2, st2 17 1.8 1 ha N(bs), 2 wc(bs) Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 87 8ch354 tu1, lv3, st2 30 6.0 88 8ch354 tu1, lv4, st2 2 89 8ch354 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 1 90 8ch354 tu1, lv4, st2, pp1 14C sample 1 91 8ch354 tu1, lv4, st2, pp2 14C sample 1 92 8ch354 tu1, lv4, st2, pp3 14C sample 1 93 8ch354 tu1, lv4, st2, pp4 14C sample 1 94 8ch354 tu1, lv4, st2, pp5 14C sample 1 95 8ch354 tu1, lv4, st2, pp6 14C sample 1 96 8ch354 tu1, lv4, st3, pp1 1 ha G(mc) 97 8ch17 tu1, lv1, st1 10-20 cmbd 2 1 de(bs) 98 8ch17 tu1, lv2, st2 20-30 cmbd 3 99 8ch17 tu1, lv3, st2 30-40 cmbd 1 5 de(bs), 1 ha C(bs) 1 pr (pg), 1 ha D(bs), 1 ha 100 8ch17 Surface Items 1 A(pg), 2 de(bs) 101 8ch17 Surface Item 2 1 ha C(bs) 102 8ch17 Surface Item 3 1 cu(bs) 103 8ch17 Surface Item 4 1 ha A(pg) 104 8ch17 tu1, lv4, st2 2 1.0 105 8ch17 tu1, lv5, st3 106 8ch17 tu1, lv6, st4 107 8ch17 tu1, lv7, st4 1 tu1, profile clean @ lv4 108 8ch17 base 1 109 8ch17 tu2, st1 1 0.7 1 de(bs)

110 8ch17 tu2, st2 5 0.4 453 111 8ch17 tu1, lv4, st2, pp1 14C sample 1 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 112 8ch17 tu1, lv4, st2, pp2 14C sample 1 113 8ch17 tu1, lv4, st2, pp3 14C sample 1 114 8ch17 tu1, lv4, st2, pp4 14C sample 1 115 8ch17 tu1, lv4, st2, pp5 14C sample 1 116 8ch17 tu1, lv4, st2, pp6 14C sample 1 117 8ch354 Surface Coll., eroded bank 12 3 8.3 118 8ch354 tu1, lv5, st3 16 0.4 1 ha G(mc) 119 8ch354 tu1, east profile, pp1 120 8ch354 tu1, east profile, pp2 1 121 8ch17 Surface Item 5 1 ha C(bs) 122 8ch17 tu1, 55cmbd 14C sample 1 123 8ch17 tu1, st3, black zone 14C sample 1 124 8ch481 tu1, lv3, st1 30-40 cmbd 125 8ch481 tu1, lv3, st2 126 8ch481 tu1, lv4, st2 40-50 cmbd 1 3.1 127 8ch481 tu1, lv5, st3 128 8ch481 tu1, lv5, st4 129 8ch481 tu1, lv6, st4 1 de(bs) 130 8ch481 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 14C sample 1 131 8ch481 tu1, lv3, st2, pp2 14C sample 1 132 8ch481 tu1, lv3, st2 14C sample 1 133 8ch481 tu1, lv5, st3 pit-fill bulk sample 1 134 8ch481 tu1, lv5, st4, pp1 14C sample 1 135 8ch481 tu1, lv5, st4 14C sample 1 136 8ch351 tu1, lv1, st1 4 137 8ch351 tu2, lv1, st1 6 0.7 454 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) St. Johns 138 8ch351 tu2, lv2, st1-2 2 Plain 3 139 8ch351 tu2, lv2, st2 14C sample 1 140 8ch347 tu1, lv1, st2 2 1 de(pg) 141 8ch347 tu1, lv1, st2 14C sample 1 142 8ch347 tu1, lv2, st2 14C sample 1 143 8ch347 tu1, lv2, st2 2 1 de(bs), 1 wc(bs) 144 8ch487 tu1, lv1, st1 4 13.6 145 8ch487 tu1, lv1, st2 28 34.7 2 de(bs) seeds? 3 146 8ch487 tu1, lv2, st2 30 7 33.0 3 de(bs) 147 8ch487 tu1, lv3, st2 29 3 20.4 1 de(bs) 148 8ch487 tu1, lv3, st2 14C sample 1 149 8ch487 Surface Items 1 2 an(me) 150 8ch487 tu1, lv4, st3, pp1 1 151 8ch487 tu1, lv4, st3, pp2 3 152 8ch487 tu1, lv4, st3 14C sample 1 153 8ch487 tu1, lv5, st3, pp1 1 154 8ch487 tu1, lv5, st3 14C sample 1 155 8ch487 tu1, lv5, st3 43 3 35.6 bone Bead (disk) 1 156 8ch487 tu1, lv6, st3 33 4 19.3 1 pb(np) 157 8ch487 tu1, lv7, st4 22 8 12.1 158 8ch487 tu1, lv7, st4, pp1 1 159 8ch487 tu1, lv7, st4 14C sample 1 160 8ch487 tu1, lv7, st4, pp3 1 161 8ch487 tu1, lv7, st4, pp2 1 an(me) anvil = 14C sample

162 8ch487 tu1, lv8, st4 12 3 0.3 455 163 8ch487 tu1, south profile 6 1.2 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 164 8ch9 tu1, lv1, st1 6 5.2 1 ha N(bs), 1 de(bs) metal fragments 8 1 ha U(bs), 1 ha D(pg), 2 165 8ch9 tu1, lv2, st2 7 4 6.3 ha U(sa), 14 de(bs) bottle glass shard 1 166 8ch9 tu1, lv2, st2, pp1 1 ha N(bs) 167 8ch9 tu1, lv3, st2 7 2 3.5 10 de(bs) 168 8ch9 tu1, lv4, st2 2 1.8 1 ha U(bs), 4 de(bs) 169 8ch9 tu1, lv4, st2, pp1 1 170 8ch9 tu1, lv5, st2 4 1.1 1 ha N(bs), 2 de(bs) 171 8ch9 tu1, east profile, 43 cmbd 1 an(me) 1 ng(bs;18mm), 1 172 8ch9 tu1, lv6, st3 8 7.6 be(blank) 173 8ch9 tu1, lv7, st4 27 28.1 1 an(me) 174 8ch9 tu1, lv8, st4 30 14.6 4 de(bs) 175 8ch9 tu1, lv9, st4 17 16.8 1 ch(me) 176 8ch9 tu1, lv9, st4, pp1 1 ha C(bs) 177 8ch9 tu1, pr. clean, 10-100 cmbd 4 4.5 1 an(me), 1 ha C(bs), 1 178 8ch9 tu1, lv10, st4 14 8.8 pb(dr) 179 8ch9 Surface Item 1 1 ca(pg) 180 8ch9 tu1, lv10, st4, pp1 181 8ch9 tu1, lv11, st5 5 1.8 1 de(bs) 182 8ch9 tu1, lv11, st5, pp1 1 183 8ch9 tu1, lv11, st5, pp2 1 an(me) 184 8ch9 tu1, lv11, st5, pp3 2 185 8ch9 tu1, lv11, st5, pp4 1 pg(ol) 14

186 8ch9 tu1, lv111, st5 C sample 1 456 187 8ch9 tu1, pr. clean, 60-120 cmbd 6 3.3 1 de(bs) Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 188 8ch9 tu1, west profile, pp1 1 ha D(bs) 189 8ch9 Surface Items 2 1 pr(pg), 1 ce N(bs) 190 8ch361 tu1 cleanup @ base of lv2 3 St. Johns Check 191 8ch361 tu1, lv3, st2 2 3 Stamped 1 192 8ch361 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 1 ve(bs) 193 8ch361 tu1, lv4, st2 5 6 1.6 bone Point frag. 1 194 8ch361 tu1, lv4, st3 1 195 8ch361 tu1, lv4, st3, pp1 1 an(me) 196 8ch361 tu1, lv4, st3 14C sample 1 197 8ch506 stp1, 10-20 cmbs 2 198 8ch506 stp1, 35-40 cmbs 199 8ch506 stp1, 30cmbs 14C sample 1 200 8ch506 stp1, 10cmbs 14C sample 1 201 8ch506 stp1, 25cmbs 14C sample 1 surface at edge of 202 8ch506 mitigation cut 1 203 8ch356 tu1, lv1, st1 2 1 8.5 204 8ch356 tu1, lv2, st2 1 1 0.3 bone(pr) Bead(disk) 1 205 8ch356 tu1, lv3, st2 5 2.0 206 8ch356 tu1, lv4, st3 7 7.5 2 ha G(ms) 207 8ch356 tu1, lv3, st2 14C sample 1 208 8ch356 tu1, lv4, st3 1 de(bs) 14C sample 1 209 8ch356 tu1, lv5, st3 1 0.9 210 8ch361 tu1, lv5, st3 6 4.4 bone Pin fragment 1 457 211 8ch361 tu1, lv6, st3 9 1 6.0 2 an(me) Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 212 8ch361 tu1, lv6, st3, pp1 1 213 8ch361 tu1, lv6, st3, pp2 1 214 8ch361 tu1, lv6, st3, pp3 1 an(me) bone(ov) Single- point, 129.28 mm, 215 8ch361 tu1, lv7, st4 5 1 bone(pr) Bead(disk) 2 216 8ch361 tu1, lv7, st4, pp1 1 217 8ch361 tu1, lv7, st4, pp2 1 an(me) 218 8ch361 tu1, lv8, st4 1 4.4 219 8ch361 tu1, lv8, st5 2 6 pb(ar) 220 8ch361 tu1, lv8, st5 14C sample 1 221 8ch353 "looter" (rat nest) spoil 5 4.3 2 de(bs), 2 ha G(mc) 222 8ch353 tu1, lv1, st1 1 1.0 223 8ch353 tu1, lv2, st1 6 ha G(mc) 224 8ch353 tu1, lv3, st1 3 3 ha G(mc) 225 8ch353 tu1, lv2, st1 14C sample 1 226 8ch353 tu1, lv3, st2 1 0.6 1 ha G(mc) 227 8ch353 tu1, lv4, st2 3 1.5 1 ha G(mc) 228 8ch353 tu1, lv5, st3 12 4.1 4 ha G(mc) 229 8ch353 tu1, lv5, st3, pp1 1 230 8ch353 tu1, lv5, st3 14C sample 1 231 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3 0.8 232 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp1 misc. worked bone 1 233 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp2 1 234 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp3 1

235 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp4 1 ha G(mc) 458 236 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp5 1 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 237 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp6 1 238 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp7 1 239 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st4 240 8ch353 tu1, profile cleaning 1.2 241 8ch353 tu1, lv4, st2 14C sample 1 242 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3 14C sample 1 243 8ch353 tu1, north profile, pp1 1 244 8ch72 tu1, lv1, st1 7 3.2 245 8ch72 tu1, lv1, st2 4 1 2.8 Saint Johns bone(ov) Stemmed 246 8ch72 tu1, lv2, st2 28 Check. 1 24.4 Point, 55.2 mm 1 247 8ch72 tu1, lv2, st2, pp1 misc. worked bone 1 248 8ch72 tu1, lv2, s2 14C sample 1 249 8ch72 tu1, lv3, st2 9 4 4.4 2 de(bs) 250 8ch72 tu1, lv3, st2, fe1 251 8ch72 tu1, lv4, st3 5 6 13.2 misc. worked bone 1 252 8ch72 tu1, lv4, st3, pp1 1 253 8ch72 tu1, lv5, st3 6 3 1.5 254 8ch72 tu1, lv5, st3, pp1 1 255 8ch72 tu1, lv5, st3, pp2 1 256 8ch72 tu1, lv5, st3 14C sample 1 257 8ch72 tu1, lv6, st3 2 3 258 8ch72 tu1, lv6, st4 259 8ch72 tu1, profile cleaning 0.4

260 8ch349 Area G, stp1, 0-15 cmbs 459 261 8ch349 Surface Item 1, Area E 1.3 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 262 8ch349 Area C, stp3, st1 0.5 263 8ch349 Sfc Item, Area A/B 1.7 264 8ch349 Surface Items 2 13 2 1.8 1 ht A(bs) 265 8ch349 Surface Items 3, Area D/C 91 12.9 chert Core/Hammer 1 266 8ll65 tu1, lv1, st1 3 4.5 grommet 1 267 8ll65 tu1,lv2, st2 0.7 268 8ll65 tu1, lv3-4, st2 269 8ll65 tu1, profile cleaning 270 8ch353 Surface Item 1 1 ha N(bs) 271 8ch356 tu1, profile cleaning 272 8ll65 tu1, lv4, st2 14C sample 1 273 8ch355 tu1, lv1, st1 0.7 274 8ch355 tu1, lv1, st1 14C sample 1 275 8ch355 tu1, lv2, st1 5 1.7 metal fragments 17 276 8ch355 tu1, lv2, st1, pp1 14C sample 1 277 8ch355 tu1, lv3, st1 1 metal fragment 1 278 8ch355 tu1, lv4, st1 3 1 ha N(bs), 1 de(bs) 279 8ch355 tu1, lv5, st1 1 0.9 280 8ch355 tu1, lv5, st1 14C sample 1 281 8ch355 tu1, 90-95 cmbd 1 282 8ch359 tu1, lv1, st1 1 1 wc(pg) 283 8ch359 tu1, lv2, st1 2.9 1 ha N(bs), 1 an(me) 284 8ch359 tu1, lv3, st1 2 285 8ch359 tu1, lv3, st1 14C sample 1 Perforated Shark

286 8ch359 tu1, lv3, st2 4 5.4 Tooth(gc) 1 460 287 8ch359 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 1 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 288 8ch359 tu1, lv4, st2 4 2.0 289 8ch359 tu1, lv5, st2 1 290 8ch359 tu1, lv5, st3 1 pb(np) 291 8ch359 tu1, lv5, st2 14C sample 1 292 8ch359 tu1, lv6, st3 0.2 293 8ch359 tu1, lv6, st3 14C sample 1 294 8ch359 tu1, lv7, st3 3 295 8ch349 stp2, Area E, st1 296 8ch349 stp2, Area E, st2 297 8ch362 tu1, lv1, st1 16 5.0 298 8ch362 tu1, lv2, st2 9 ST Incis. 1 4.3 1 pb(np) 299 8ch362 tu1, lv2, st2 14C sample 1 300 8ch362 tu1, lv3, st3 1 301 8ch362 tu1, lv4, st3 1 302 8ch362 tu1, lv4, st3 14C sample 1 303 8ch362 tu1, lv5, st3 304 8ch362 tu1, lv6, st3 305 8ch362 tu1, lv7, st3 306 8ch362 tu1, lv7, st3 14C sample 1 307 8ch362 tu1, lv8, st3 308 8ch362 tu1, lv8, st4 14C sample 1 309 8ch362 tu1, lv9, st4 310 8ch362 tu1, profile cleaning 311 8ch362 tu1, south profile, pp1 1 pr(pg) 312 8ch362 tu2, lv1, st1 conglomerate stone 5 313 8ch362 tu2, lv2, st1 conglomerate stone 1 461 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 314 8ch362 tu2, lv3, st2 conglomerate stone 1 315 8ch362 tu2, lv3, st2 14C sample 1 316 8ch358 tu1, lv1, st1 9 2.9 317 8ch358 tu1, lv1, st2 3 1.2 318 8ch358 tu1, lv2, st2 7 2.0 1 ha G(mc), 1 pb(np) 319 8ch358 tu1, lv3, st2 2 1.2 320 8ch358 tu1, lv4, st2 4.7 321 8ch358 tu1, lv4, st2 14C sample 1 322 8ch358 tu1, lv5, st3 323 8ch358 tu1, lv5, st3 14C sample 1 324 8ch357 tu1, lv1, st1 8 7.6 2 de(bs) 325 8ch357 tu1, lv2, st2 8 15.1 1 wc(bs), 2 de(bs) metal fragment 1 326 8ch357 tu1, lv3, st2 7 2.2 3 de(bs), 1 an(me), 1 328 8ch357 tu1, lv4, st2 6 2 1.5 an/ch(me) 329 8ch357 tu1, lv4, st2 14C sample 1 330 8ch357 tu1, lv5, st2 11 1.2 bone(ov) Bi-pointed 331 8ch357 tu1, lv6, st2 3.8 Point, 63.5 mm 1 332 8ch357 tu1, lv6, st3 1 333 8ch357 tu1, lv6, st3 14C sample 1 334 8ch357 tu1, lv7, st3 3 1 ha N(bs) 335 8ch357 tu1, lv7, st3 14C sample 1 336 8ll64 tu1, surface 9 337 8ll64 tu1, lv1, st1 36 19.8 1 ch(me)

338 8ll64 tu1, lv2, st1 20 10.1 462 339 8ll64 tu1, lv2, st1 14C sample 1 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 340 8ll64 tu1, lv3, st2 15 1.8 1 an(me) 341 8ll64 tu1, lv4, st2 10 4.9 342 8ll64 tu1, lv5, st2 3 0.9 343 8ll64 tu1, lv5, st2 14C sample 1 344 8ch488 stp1, st1 0-22 cmbs 0.6 1 de(bs) glass shard 1 345 8ch488 stp1, st2 1 346 8ll30 loot profile, st2 14C sample 1 347 8ll30 loot profile, st3 14C sample 1 348 8ll30 loot profile, st5 14C sample 1 349 8ll30 tu1, surface 350 8ll30 tu1, lv1, st1 1 pb(cr) 351 8ll30 tu1, lv2, st1 352 8ll30 tu1, lv3, st2 1 de(bs) 353 8ll30 tu1, lv3, st2 14C sample 1 354 8ll30 tu1, lv4, st2 3 de(bs) 355 8ll30 tu1, lv4, st2 14C sample 1 356 8ch36 tu1, lv1, st1 1 metal fragments 3 357 8ch36 tu1, lv2, st2 1 ha F(bs), 1 de(bs) 358 8ch36 tu1, lv3, st2 359 8ch36 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 1 360 8ch36 tu1, lv3, st3 5 1 de(bs), ha N? 361 8ch36 tu1, lv4, st3 5 1.2 362 8ch36 tu1, lv4, st4 3 2.8 3 an(me) 363 8ch36 tu1, lv5, st4 11 6.1 1 an(me) 1 an(me), 1 pb(np), 1

364 8ch36 tu1, lv6, st4 2 5.7 de(bs) 463 365 8ch36 tu1, lv6, st4 14C sample 1 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 366 8ch36 tu1, lv7, st4 13 3.6 367 8ch36 tu1, lv7, st4, pp1 1 368 8ch36 tu1, lv8, st5 10 3.6 369 8ch36 tu1, lv8, st5 14C sample 1 370 8ch36 tu1, lv8, st6 1 371 8ch36 tu1, profile cleaning 1 372 8ch36 Surface Items 1 1 pb(np), 1 de(bs) 373 8ch348 tu1, lv1, st1 metal fragments 13 374 8ch348 tu1, lv2, st2 1 1 ha N(bs), 1 de(bs) metal fragments 1 375 8ch348 tu1, lv3, st2 6 6.3 376 8ch348 tu1, lv3, st2 14C sample 1 377 8ch348 tu1, lv4, st2 3 3.0 378 8ch348 tu1, lv5, st3 3 3.2 metal fragments 7 379 8ch348 tu1, lv6, st4 380 8ch348 tu1, lv6, st4 14C sample 1 381 8ch348 tu1, lv7, st4 profile cleaning, occ. zone 4 de(bs), 1 ha G(sa), 5 bone(ov) Bi-pointed 382 8ch37 B 30 6.7 an(me) Point, 60.8 mm 1 profile cleaning, occ. zone 1 ht N(bs), 1 de(bs), 2 383 8ch37 A 41 1.9 an(me), 1 ha C(bs) 384 8ch37 profile, st7, pp1 14C sample 1 385 8ch37 profile, st8, pp2 386 8ch37 profile, st8, pp3 14C sample 1 387 8ch37 profile, st2, pp4 5 388 8ch37 profile, st5, pp5 1 ws(bs)

389 8ch37 profile, pp6 1 464 390 8ch37 profile, st2 14C sample 1 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 391 8ch37 profile, st5 5 392 8ch37 profile, st5, pp4 14C sample 1 393 8ch37 profile, st12 14C sample 1 394 8ch58 tu1, lv1, st1 8 3.0 395 8ch58 tu1, lv2-3, st1 6 5.8 396 8ch58 see FS 395 397 8ch58 tu1, lv4, st2 9 1.1 398 8ch58 tu1, lv4, st2, pp1 1 399 8ch58 tu1, lv5, st2 400 8ch58 tu1, lv5, st2 14C sample 1 401 8ch58 tu1, lv6, st2 402 8ch58 tu1, lv7, st3 14C sample 1 403 8ch58 tu1, st1 14C sample 1 404 8ch450 tu1, lv1, st1 4 19.0 405 8ch450 tu1, lv1, st1, pp1 8 4.4 406 8ch450 tu1, lv1, st2 8 5.2 407 8ch450 tu1, lv2, st2 7 8.2 408 8ch450 tu1, lv2, st2 14C sample 1 409 8ch450 tu1, lv2-3, st3 1.2 410 8ch450 tu1, lv4, st3 411 8ch450 tu1, lv4, st4 412 8ch450 tu1, lv5, st4 413 8ch450 tu1, profile cleaning 414 8ch480 tu1, lv1, st1 415 8ch480 tu1, lv2, st1 416 8ch480 tu1, lv3, st2 465 Table 10–continued. STP BGP Other Other Potsherds F.S. Site Shell Artifacts (for key see Historic and Other Provenience Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd Potsherd < 1.5 cm Other Count # Number Table D-1, note 3) Artifacts, Samples Count Count Type1 Count Wt. (g) 417 8ch480 tu1, lv4, st3 418 8ch482 tu1, lv1, st1 419 8ch482 tu1, lv2, st1 420 8ch482 tu1, lv3, st1 421 8ch482 tu1, lv3, st2 422 8ch482 tu1, lv4, st3 2.1 423 8ch482 tu1, lv4, st3, pp1 1 ht A(bs) 424 8ch482 tu1, lv4, st3 14C sample 1 425 8ch482 tu1, lv5, st3 426 8ch482 tu1, lv5, st4 427 8ch360 tu1, lv1-2, st1 1.7 2 de(bs) misc. worked bone 1 428 8ch360 tu1, lv3, st2 1 wc(bs) 429 8ch360 tu1, lv3, st2 14C sample 1 430 8ch360 tu1, lv4, st3 1 431 8ch360 tu1, lv4, st3 14C sample 1 432 8ch360 tu1, profile cleaning 433 8ch360 Surface Items A 1 1 ha N(bs) Whiteware fragment 1 434 8ch360 Surface Items B 5 1 ha G(mc) 435 8ch360 stp1, st2, 30-40cmbs 14C sample 1 436 8ch360 stp1, st2 30-40 cmbs 3 1.2 1 ha G(mc), 1 ha N(bs), 4 437 8ch487 tu1, lv4, st3 38 43.7 de(bs) 438 8ch361 tu1, east profile cleaning 1 466 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 1 8ch069 tu1, lv1, st1 0-10 cmbd 14.2 32.1 51.6 68.3 23.4 11.4 23.2 10.3 2 8ch069 tu1, lv2, st1 10-20 cmbd 8.1 165.8 12.7 68.8 27.9 12.3 19.4 9.2 3 8ch069 tu1, lv3, st1 20-30 cmbd 15.0 33.2 41.7 16.0 5.2 3.0 17.5 4 8ch069 tu1, looters spoil, surface 46.7 0.7 0.7 5 8ch479 tu1, lv1, st1 0-10 cmbd 22.3 0.8 1.4 0.2 1.2 6 8ch479 tu1, lv2, st1 10-20 cmbd 74.0 41.5 36.0 0.9 0.5 33.4 1.2 7 8ch479 tu1, lv3, st1 20-30 cmbd 3.9 3.3 3.5 3.5 8 8ch479 tu1, lv3, st2 25-30 cmbd 0.5 3.8 16.6 1.0 14.2 1.4 9 8ch479 tu1, lv4, st2 30-40 cmbd 0.3 13.3 11.0 2.3 10 8ch069 tu1, lv4, st1 30-40 cmbd 18.5 9.2 0.5 233.6 64.0 61.4 83.4 2.0 12.8 11 8ch069 tu1, lv5, st1 40-50 cmbd 13.8 23.6 68.1 35.4 12.4 6.4 13.9 12 8ch069 tu1, lv5, st1 40-50 cmbd 3.4 2.3 56.0 30.5 3.6 14.0 7.9 13 8ch069 tu1, lv1, 0-10 cmbd (c. balk) 0.1 0.8 0.8 14 8ch069 tu1, lv2, 10-20 cmbd (c. balk) 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 15 8ch069 tu1, lv3, 20-30 cmbd (c. balk) 1.4 2.6 0.2 2.4 16 8ch069 tu1, lv4, 30-40 cmbd (c. balk) 1.5 1.4 0.1 17 8ch069 tu1, lv5, 40-50 cmbd (c. balk) 0.1 5.5 1.7 3.8 18 8ch069 tu1, looters spoil, surface 22.6 0.4 6.3 2.3 4.0 19 8ch479 tu1, west profile cleaning 1.0 2.8 1.1 1.7 20 8ch069 tu1, east profile cleaning 0.2 0.7 21.8 8.4 2.1 8.6 2.7 23 8ch484 tu1, lv1, st1 13-23 cmbd 3.0 16.9 0.4 28.4 0.6 9.4 9.5 8.9 24 8ch484 tu1, lv2, st1 23-33 cmbd 104.4 2.7 1.4 150.8 7.8 91.6 27.8 23.6 31 8ch479 tu1, east profile, pp1 24.3 35 8ch484 tu1, lv3, st2, pp2 3.2 36 8ch484 tu1, lv3, st1 13-23 cmbd 44.2 5.1 19.4 108.1 8.9 50.6 16.4 2.8 28.7 39 8ch484 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 11.5 41 8ch484 tu1, north profile, pp1 20.9 42 8ch484 tu1, west profile, pp2 27.2 27.2 44 8ch484 tu1, lv3, st2 33-43 cmbd 3.7 5.7 100.5 5.8 428.3 10.7 192.4 138.4 82.4 45 8ch484 tu1, lv4, st2 43-53 cmbd 11.0 1.0 43.8 12.5 208.2 7.0 76.5 85.2 37.1

46 8ch484 tu1, profile cut-back 7.7 1.6 9.1 0.1 3.0 6.0 467 47 8ch484 tu2, 0-48 cmbs 0.6 4.6 3.9 0.1 1.5 2.3 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 48 8ch483 tu1, lv1, st 1-2 3.3 19.4 0.5 4.6 11.3 3.0 49 8ch483 tu1, lv2, st2 6.7 34.8 4.5 11.3 12.0 7.0 50 8ch483 Surface Item 1 51 8ch483 Surface Item 2 52 8ch483 tu1, lv3, st3 3.2 10.5 3.0 6.0 1.5 53 8ch483 Surface Item 3 12.6 55 8ch483 tu1, lv3, st3, pp2 57 8ch483 tu1, lv4, st4 2.0 2.0 58 8ch483 tu1, south profile, pp1 29.4 59 8ch483 tu1, south profile, cleaning 1.7 0.4 1.1 0.2 60 8ch361 tu1, lv1, st1 13-23 cmbd 0.6 2.1 0.2 28.2 18.8 1.7 0.6 7.7 61 8ch361 tu1, lv2, st1 25.0 4.3 58.1 2.5 72.3 51.7 5.5 3.1 12.0 62 8ch361 Surface Items 1 34.6 64 8ch361 Surface Items 2 137.6 65 8ch361 Surface Items 3 66 8ll032 Spoil/surface, looter pit B 251.7 1.5 1.1 0.4 67 8ch352 tu1, lv1, st1 10.2 189.2 1.4 22.1 5.7 3.9 10.5 2.0 68 8ch352 tu1, lv2, st2 23.5 256.7 42.9 7.5 20.3 6.8 8.3 69 8ch352 tu1, lv2, st2, pp1 72 8ch352 tu1, lv3, st2 169.1 49.0 10.6 0.9 72.0 6.5 22.7 25.0 17.8 73 8ch352 tu1, lv4, st2 41-51 cmbd 43.1 53.3 10.7 19.7 8.2 2.3 3.9 5.3 74 8ch352 tu1, lv4, st2, pp1 75 8ch352 tu1, lv5, st2 0.6 7.7 6.9 2.1 1.1 3.7 76 8ch352 tu1, lv5, st2, pp1 2.8 77 8ch352 tu1, Surface Collection 78 8ll032 Looter Pit A, Spoil 48.9 124.5 5.9 1.5 3.6 0.8 79 8ch484 Surface Item 1 80 8ch486 tu1, lv1, st1 0.2 41.6 0.3 2.5 0.3 0.3 1.9 81 8ch486 tu1, lv2, st1 74.9 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 82 8ch486 tu1, lv3, st1 104.0 0.6 1.2 1.2

83 8ch486 tu1, lv4, st1 7.4 1.5 468 84 8ch488 Surface Collection 50.8 22.2 0.5 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 85 8ch354 tu1, lv1, st1 0.7 0.7 86 8ch354 tu1, lv2, st2 68.7 35.5 51.6 2.4 9.2 18.1 7.4 87 8ch354 tu1, lv3, st2 99.0 137.6 208.2 34.6 6.7 7.8 9.3 10.8 88 8ch354 tu1, lv4, st2 7.1 60.5 14.4 6.4 31.3 8.4 89 8ch354 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 6.8 96 8ch354 tu1, lv4, st3, pp1 97 8ch017 tu1, lv1, st1 10-20 cmbd 4.6 4.6 3.6 0.6 2.8 0.2 98 8ch017 tu1, lv2, st2 20-30 cmbd 1.0 10.1 3.9 3.9 99 8ch017 tu1, lv3, st2 30-40 cmbd 3.4 5.2 7.0 7.0 100 8ch017 Surface Items 1 101 8ch017 Surface Item 2 102 8ch017 Surface Item 3 103 8ch017 Surface Item 4 104 8ch017 tu1, lv4, st2 0.3 13.6 7.0 5.7 1.3 105 8ch017 tu1, lv5, st3 1.6 0.6 1.0 106 8ch017 tu1, lv6, st4 0.2 0.2 107 8ch017 tu1, lv7, st4 7.2 0.4 0.4 108 8ch017 tu1, profile clean @ lv4 base 1.4 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 109 8ch017 tu2, st1 477.9 1.9 3.9 3.9 110 8ch017 tu2, st2 93.6 13.5 2.7 2.4 0.3 117 8ch354 Surface Coll., eroded bank 64.9 118 8ch354 tu1, lv5, st3 3.0 111.0 1.4 46.7 9.8 5.1 24.2 7.6 119 8ch354 tu1, east profile, pp1 13.0 13.0 120 8ch354 tu1, east profile, pp2 27.5 121 8ch017 Surface Item 5 124 8ch481 tu1, lv3, st1 30-40 cmbd 0.2 0.7 0.7 3.1 1.6 1.5 125 8ch481 tu1, lv3, st2 5.4 4.2 1.2 126 8ch481 tu1, lv4, st2 40-50 cmbd 0.5 4.7 3.7 36.5 4.5 7.7 16.2 8.1 127 8ch481 tu1, lv5, st3 0.4 7.7 3.6 7.5 4.8 2.7 128 8ch481 tu1, lv5, st4 1.5 3.6 4.8 2.0 2.8

129 8ch481 tu1, lv6, st4 9.3 3.4 14.7 3.0 5.9 5.8 469 136 8ch351 tu1, lv1, st1 6.7 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 137 8ch351 tu2, lv1, st1 46.2 3.5 3.5 138 8ch351 tu2, lv2, st1-2 19.9 140 8ch347 tu1, lv1, st2 14.3 3.4 14.8 1.1 13.7 143 8ch347 tu1, lv2, st2 52.9 6.8 5.5 1.2 2.2 2.1 144 8ch487 tu1, lv1, st1 23.0 142.7 3.5 1.0 0.4 2.1 145 8ch487 tu1, lv1, st2 1.8 168.3 1.2 1.8 17.4 11.1 0.3 3.9 2.1 146 8ch487 tu1, lv2, st2 102.4 197.4 89.1 2.1 83.5 58.1 8.7 3.6 0.5 12.6 147 8ch487 tu1, lv3, st2 23.4 132.2 37.9 33.2 62.8 30.7 7.6 11.5 1.1 11.9 149 8ch487 Surface Items 1 150 8ch487 tu1, lv4, st3, pp1 18.3 151 8ch487 tu1, lv4, st3, pp2 21.1 153 8ch487 tu1, lv5, st3, pp1 68.7 155 8ch487 tu1, lv5, st3 20.4 201.9 259.0 6.0 35.7 1.0 4.7 15.3 5.7 156 8ch487 tu1, lv6, st3 24.3 260.4 206.0 38.9 46.2 18.6 5.3 15.5 6.8 157 8ch487 tu1, lv7, st4 2.9 138.2 193.3 31.8 45.7 6.7 5.4 22.6 11.0 158 8ch487 tu1, lv7, st4, pp1 10.5 160 8ch487 tu1, lv7, st4, pp3 11.8 162 8ch487 tu1, lv8, st4 1.3 97.1 42.8 65.0 43.9 23.0 3.6 5.8 11.5 163 8ch487 tu1, south profile 47.2 164 8ch009 tu1, lv1, st1 9.9 25.9 9.8 4.1 1.8 1.6 0.3 2.0 165 8ch009 tu1, lv2, st2 27.2 68.9 54.9 36.5 2.7 7.3 0.3 8.1 166 8ch009 tu1, lv2, st2, pp1 167 8ch009 tu1, lv3, st2 127.7 58.1 2.6 62.7 28.4 5.5 5.6 23.2 168 8ch009 tu1, lv4, st2 173.8 5.3 57.0 37.3 7.0 4.8 7.9 169 8ch009 tu1, lv4, st2, pp1 170 8ch009 tu1, lv5, st2 59.1 11.5 52.5 40.6 2.2 9.7 171 8ch009 tu1, east profile, 43 cmbd 172 8ch009 tu1, lv6, st3 327.3 51.2 41.5 25.7 0.8 15.0 173 8ch009 tu1, lv7, st4 7.4 181.6 2.6 38.6 22.8 2.2 13.6 174 8ch009 tu1, lv8, st4 229.1 129.0 11.9 42.2 29.1 1.2 11.9 175 8ch009 tu1, lv9, st4 104.1 86.3 74.5 39.5 6.8 6.9 21.3 470 176 8ch009 tu1, lv9, st4, pp1 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 177 8ch009 tu1, pr. clean, 10-100 cmbd 0.7 16.8 14.0 7.9 1.6 4.5 178 8ch009 tu1, lv10, st4 61.0 90.9 41.8 47.9 16.1 6.2 11.0 14.6 179 8ch009 Surface Item 1 180 8ch009 tu1, lv10, st4, pp1 181 8ch009 tu1, lv11, st5 101.5 50.1 58.9 17.2 1.4 25.4 14.9 182 8ch009 tu1, lv11, st5, pp1 9.3 183 8ch009 tu1, lv11, st5, pp2 184 8ch009 tu1, lv11, st5, pp3 88.7 185 8ch009 tu1, lv11, st5, pp4 187 8ch009 tu1, pr. clean, 60-120 cmbd 26.1 9.3 5.5 9.3 188 8ch009 tu1, west profile, pp1 189 8ch009 Surface Items 2 190.1 190 8ch361 tu1 cleanup @ base of lv2 21.4 9.1 7.7 1.4 191 8ch361 tu1, lv3, st2 1.4 54.3 3.5 85.0 62.2 5.7 2.0 5.1 192 8ch361 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 193 8ch361 tu1, lv4, st2 0.7 56.5 30.1 8.7 2.8 15.1 3.5 194 8ch361 tu1, lv4, st3 5.3 22.9 132.3 96.0 1.4 0.9 34.0 195 8ch361 tu1, lv4, st3, pp1 197 8ch506 stp1, 10-20 cmbs 7.0 4.8 4.8 198 8ch506 stp1, 35-40 cmbs 3.0 1.9 1.1 202 8ch506 surface at edge of mitigation cut 4.6 203 8ch356 tu1, lv1, st1 8.3 15.9 20.5 6.5 6.2 2.3 5.5 204 8ch356 tu1, lv2, st2 6.6 6.5 0.8 9.1 1.3 1.9 2.7 3.2 205 8ch356 tu1, lv3, st2 2.8 20.3 14.2 4.4 2.7 7.1 206 8ch356 tu1, lv4, st3 3.8 24.9 1.0 1.0 209 8ch356 tu1, lv5, st3 3.4 16.6 4.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 210 8ch361 tu1, lv5, st3 29.9 32.0 2.8 2.1 153.3 122.5 4.3 0.6 25.9 211 8ch361 tu1, lv6, st3 35.5 39.0 1.1 81.9 36.7 19.4 10.6 1.9 13.3 212 8ch361 tu1, lv6, st3, pp1 13.7 213 8ch361 tu1, lv6, st3, pp2 12.4 214 8ch361 tu1, lv6, st3, pp3 471 215 8ch361 tu1, lv7, st4 11.9 24.3 1.5 76.4 43.5 12.4 5.2 2.3 13.0 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 216 8ch361 tu1, lv7, st4, pp1 13.6 217 8ch361 tu1, lv7, st4, pp2 218 8ch361 tu1, lv8, st4 1.5 4.0 0.5 23.9 9.4 2.7 8.9 0.2 2.7 219 8ch361 tu1, lv8, st5 1.6 4.0 29.5 11.4 4.0 6.5 0.7 6.9 221 8ch353 "looter" (rat nest) spoil 4.6 18.2 6.1 0.7 4.7 0.7 222 8ch353 tu1, lv1, st1 0.7 2.6 1.9 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 223 8ch353 tu1, lv2, st1 35.8 22.6 1.0 1.0 224 8ch353 tu1, lv3, st1 0.3 7.2 6.5 1.8 4.7 226 8ch353 tu1, lv3, st2 3.0 1.1 4.9 1.9 1.8 1.2 227 8ch353 tu1, lv4, st2 3.0 7.6 4.8 1.8 3.0 228 8ch353 tu1, lv5, st3 0.8 69.2 19.7 11.5 0.1 8.1 229 8ch353 tu1, lv5, st3, pp1 8.8 231 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3 0.2 80.1 48.6 12.3 0.6 1.1 17.5 232 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp1 233 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp2 82.8 234 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp3 16.5 235 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp4 236 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp5 6.4 237 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp6 18.5 238 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st3, pp7 7.2 239 8ch353 tu1, lv6, st4 0.7 0.7 240 8ch353 tu1, profile cleaning 0.6 1.2 4.3 1.8 0.4 1.1 1.0 243 8ch353 tu1, north profile, pp1 22.3 244 8ch072 tu1, lv1, st1 19.0 20.4 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 245 8ch072 tu1, lv1, st2 0.5 21.5 5.1 4.6 4.6 1.5 2.6 0.5 246 8ch072 tu1, lv2, st2 72.3 173.7 18.6 4.9 100.6 32.6 5.7 56.9 5.4 247 8ch072 tu1, lv2, st2, pp1 249 8ch072 tu1, lv3, st2 14.4 54.4 24.8 31.1 97.9 46.5 5.8 25.1 20.5 250 8ch072 tu1, lv3, st2, fe1 8.0 8.0 251 8ch072 tu1, lv4, st3 27.5 39.5 99.3 36.7 16.5 8.3 11.9 252 8ch072 tu1, lv4, st3, pp1 11.5 472 253 8ch072 tu1, lv5, st3 9.4 78.6 11.2 6.1 1.2 3.9 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 254 8ch072 tu1, lv5, st3, pp1 255 8ch072 tu1, lv5, st3, pp2 16.4 257 8ch072 tu1, lv6, st3 20.1 17.5 1.0 0.1 15.1 1.3 258 8ch072 tu1, lv6, st4 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.7 259 8ch072 tu1, profile cleaning 0.4 0.2 0.2 260 8ch349 Area G, stp1, 0-15 cmbs 0.3 7.3 0.5 0.4 6.4 261 8ch349 Surface Item 1, Area E 1.3 262 8ch349 Area C, stp3, st1 0.5 0.1 0.1 263 8ch349 Sfc Item, Area A/B 1.7 264 8ch349 Surface Items 2 182.6 49.6 64.2 76.8 20.9 8.6 33.9 13.4 265 8ch349 Surface Items 3, Area D/C 1123.5 43.2 6.0 7.0 30.2 266 8ll065 tu1, lv1, st1 80.6 9.0 101.8 4.1 91.2 6.5 267 8ll065 tu1,lv2, st2 0.1 0.7 8.3 4.7 0.4 3.2 268 8ll065 tu1, lv3-4, st2 0.9 16.8 8.8 8.0 269 8ll065 tu1, profile cleaning 0.5 1.7 0.1 1.6 270 8ch353 Surface Item 1 271 8ch356 tu1, profile cleaning 0.4 0.4 273 8ch355 tu1, lv1, st1 0.7 27.1 7.0 2.2 0.3 3.0 1.5 275 8ch355 tu1, lv2, st1 0.5 14.1 0.6 33.1 5.7 21.0 1.6 4.8 277 8ch355 tu1, lv3, st1 2.5 54.0 7.5 0.6 3.1 2.2 1.6 278 8ch355 tu1, lv4, st1 3.4 19.1 5.4 2.5 1.9 279 8ch355 tu1, lv5, st1 6.4 6.1 6.1 281 8ch355 tu1, 90-95 cmbd 4.2 0.7 0.7 282 8ch359 tu1, lv1, st1 2.4 2.1 0.9 1.2 283 8ch359 tu1, lv2, st1 2.9 5.5 5.5 284 8ch359 tu1, lv3, st1 7.6 286 8ch359 tu1, lv3, st2 15.6 6.4 2.9 3.5 287 8ch359 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 4.9 288 8ch359 tu1, lv4, st2 29.8 35.4 20.8 7.3 10.6 2.9 289 8ch359 tu1, lv5, st2 0.2 14.6 3.7 3.2 0.5

290 8ch359 tu1, lv5, st3 0.2 2.9 0.9 2.0 473 292 8ch359 tu1, lv6, st3 14.8 1.1 1.1 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 294 8ch359 tu1, lv7, st3 16.1 1.6 1.0 0.6 295 8ch349 stp2, Area E, st1 3.4 3.4 296 8ch349 stp2, Area E, st2 0.2 0.2 297 8ch362 tu1, lv1, st1 2.3 89.5 12.7 7.5 1.1 3.4 3.0 298 8ch362 tu1, lv2, st2 3.6 60.4 47.0 25.6 0.7 2.2 18.5 300 8ch362 tu1, lv3, st3 0.5 2.9 10.2 6.7 0.3 3.2 301 8ch362 tu1, lv4, st3 3.3 1.4 1.6 0.4 1.2 303 8ch362 tu1, lv5, st3 0.4 0.4 304 8ch362 tu1, lv6, st3 10.7 7.3 3.4 305 8ch362 tu1, lv7, st3 28.0 13.0 13.4 1.6 307 8ch362 tu1, lv8, st3 67.7 16.7 11.4 1.2 2.3 1.8 309 8ch362 tu1, lv9, st4 2.1 2.1 310 8ch362 tu1, profile cleaning 0.7 6.0 2.9 3.1 311 8ch362 tu1, south profile, pp1 312 8ch362 tu2, lv1, st1 0.9 0.9 313 8ch362 tu2, lv2, st1 314 8ch362 tu2, lv3, st2 316 8ch358 tu1, lv1, st1 2.4 65.0 4.3 1.3 3.0 317 8ch358 tu1, lv1, st2 5.3 17.0 5.1 1.2 2.7 1.2 318 8ch358 tu1, lv2, st2 8.1 20.7 1.1 10.7 5.8 0.1 1.6 3.2 319 8ch358 tu1, lv3, st2 16.5 5.5 3.2 14.5 11.3 0.2 2.7 0.3 320 8ch358 tu1, lv4, st2 1.8 4.7 18.2 6.7 0.6 7.1 0.3 3.5 322 8ch358 tu1, lv5, st3 6.9 42.9 33.0 9.9 324 8ch357 tu1, lv1, st1 3.7 4.3 1.5 0.7 1.8 0.3 325 8ch357 tu1, lv2, st2 8.1 52.3 14.7 5.4 3.1 6.2 326 8ch357 tu1, lv3, st2 21.9 27.3 18.6 5.8 6.3 4.2 2.3 328 8ch357 tu1, lv4, st2 40.9 31.9 8.4 7.5 8.5 7.5 330 8ch357 tu1, lv5, st2 11.0 121.4 21.9 4.1 3.5 14.3 331 8ch357 tu1, lv6, st2 3.8 3.4 2.8 0.6 332 8ch357 tu1, lv6, st3 27.3 3.6 2.3 15.0 7.6 1.3 6.1

334 8ch357 tu1, lv7, st3 13.1 13.6 4.5 3.1 1.4 474 336 8ll064 tu1, surface 84.5 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 337 8ll064 tu1, lv1, st1 10.4 189.7 9.1 6.4 0.6 2.1 338 8ll064 tu1, lv2, st1 146.8 3.5 2.5 1.0 340 8ll064 tu1, lv3, st2 37.0 96.3 1.6 1.6 341 8ll064 tu1, lv4, st2 0.2 56.8 0.9 0.9 342 8ll064 tu1, lv5, st2 12.8 344 8ch488 stp1, st1 0-22 cmbs 0.6 2.7 0.6 2.1 345 8ch488 stp1, st2 4.9 7.4 349 8ll030 tu1, surface 14.1 14.1 350 8ll030 tu1, lv1, st1 0.3 0.3 351 8ll030 tu1, lv2, st1 1.9 1.7 0.1 0.1 352 8ll030 tu1, lv3, st2 4.7 4.1 0.6 354 8ll030 tu1, lv4, st2 12.4 12.4 356 8ch036 tu1, lv1, st1 0.6 3.5 1.5 1.5 357 8ch036 tu1, lv2, st2 11.5 1.1 1.1 358 8ch036 tu1, lv3, st2 11.0 4.5 0.9 2.7 0.9 359 8ch036 tu1, lv3, st2, pp1 18.9 360 8ch036 tu1, lv3, st3 2.5 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 361 8ch036 tu1, lv4, st3 0.9 362 8ch036 tu1, lv4, st4 1.4 19.0 0.5 0.5 363 8ch036 tu1, lv5, st4 1.6 37.8 1.4 1.4 364 8ch036 tu1, lv6, st4 20.3 11.6 1.3 1.3 366 8ch036 tu1, lv7, st4 56.5 0.6 0.6 367 8ch036 tu1, lv7, st4, pp1 23.3 368 8ch036 tu1, lv8, st5 3.7 35.5 0.2 0.2 370 8ch036 tu1, lv8, st6 2.5 0.8 0.8 371 8ch036 tu1, profile cleaning 1.1 372 8ch036 Surface Items 1 373 8ch348 tu1, lv1, st1 0.7 0.7 374 8ch348 tu1, lv2, st2 2.1 375 8ch348 tu1, lv3, st2 64.0 13.9 377 8ch348 tu1, lv4, st2 15.3 0.5 2.6 2.6 475 378 8ch348 tu1, lv5, st3 5.1 15.6 14.2 1.8 12.2 0.2 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 379 8ch348 tu1, lv6, st4 0.4 0.8 0.8 381 8ch348 tu1, lv7, st4 0.3 0.3 382 8ch037 profile cleaning, occ. zone B 411.7 69.8 10.5 4.6 5.9 383 8ch037 profile cleaning 12.9 447.6 385 8ch037 profile, st8, pp2 1.4 0.2 1.2 387 8ch037 profile, st2, pp4 60.3 388 8ch037 profile, st5, pp5 389 8ch037 profile, pp6 38.4 391 8ch037 profile, st5 71.5 394 8ch058 tu1, lv1, st1 0.5 31.4 9.5 4.8 1.2 3.5 395 8ch058 tu1, lv2-3, st1 0.3 28.0 21.0 7.8 0.8 12.4 396 8ch058 see FS 395 397 8ch058 tu1, lv4, st2 0.4 68.8 0.3 0.3 398 8ch058 tu1, lv4, st2, pp1 37.9 399 8ch058 tu1, lv5, st2 4.8 1.4 0.4 1.0 401 8ch058 tu1, lv6, st2 31.1 404 8ch450 tu1, lv1, st1 19.3 168.0 14.2 21.4 1.3 11.8 8.3 405 8ch450 tu1, lv1, st1, pp1 46.4 406 8ch450 tu1, lv1, st2 40.9 1.6 84.6 2.3 46.1 10.2 26.0 407 8ch450 tu1, lv2, st2 22.1 35.9 9.8 11.6 8.1 31.8 31.0 409 8ch450 tu1, lv2-3, st3 1.1 1.2 64.6 80.1 2.0 23.6 31.5 23.0 410 8ch450 tu1, lv4, st3 6.4 6.3 0.3 1.3 4.7 411 8ch450 tu1, lv4, st4 0.8 0.4 0.4 412 8ch450 tu1, lv5, st4 0.6 12.5 1.0 11.5 413 8ch450 tu1, profile cleaning 8.1 1.8 2.0 4.3 414 8ch480 tu1, lv1, st1 17.3 415 8ch480 tu1, lv2, st1 58.7 5.0 19.9 1.8 16.3 0.3 1.5 416 8ch480 tu1, lv3, st2 66.8 5.0 4.9 4.9 417 8ch480 tu1, lv4, st3 58.1 14.3 418 8ch482 tu1, lv1, st1 6.3 0.4 0.4

419 8ch482 tu1, lv2, st1 5.5 6.4 5.8 0.6 476 420 8ch482 tu1, lv3, st1 9.3 3.8 2.6 1.2 Table 10–continued. Fire- Other Total Icthian Reptilian Avian Field Shell Ceramic Mammalian Uniden- Site cracked Stone Bone Bone Bone Bone Specimen Provenience Weight Weight Bone tified Bone Number Rock Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Number (g) (g) Weight (g) Wt. (g) Wt. (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) 421 8ch482 tu1, lv3, st2 100.6 0.9 0.9 422 8ch482 tu1, lv4, st3 2.5 2.1 0.9 86.1 2.0 59.2 15.4 9.5 423 8ch482 tu1, lv4, st3, pp1 425 8ch482 tu1, lv5, st3 4.1 1.9 2.2 426 8ch482 tu1, lv5, st4 3.1 0.2 1.5 1.4 427 8ch360 tu1, lv1-2, st1 2.6 3.7 2.0 1.7 428 8ch360 tu1, lv3, st2 12.2 5.7 5.8 0.7 430 8ch360 tu1, lv4, st3 8.0 0.3 0.3 432 8ch360 tu1, profile cleaning 10.5 5.0 5.2 0.3 433 8ch360 Surface Items A 42.2 434 8ch360 Surface Items B 7.9 48.6 436 8ch360 stp1, st2 30-40 cmbs 32.0 17.1 437 8ch487 tu1, lv4, st3 14.3 210.4 48.1 85.3 41.9 27.9 2.0 7.0 5.0 438 8ch361 tu1, east profile cleaning 35.0 2.1 4.4 4.4 477 APPENDIX E RADIOCARBON ASSAY RESULTS Table 11. Radiocarbon Dates Obtained During This Project.

13C- Raw age Calibrated range ± Calibrated range ± Site no. adjusted Site Name Provenience Material BP Lab. no. 2s 1s age

Test Unit 1, Stratum Cotton Pleuroploca 8CH362 IV, 440 ± 60 860 ± 60 Beta-141385 AD 1400-1545 AD 1430-1500 Key gigantea FS 308 Test Unit 1, Level 2, Stratum II, black Cotton Strombus 1060 ± 8CH362 sandy mussel shell 650 ± 60 Beta-138608 Key alatus 60 AD 1240-1420 AD 1290-1385 midden; FS 299 Test Unit 1, Level 2, Stratum I, site mostly Mercenaria 1290 ± 8CH355 Cockroach 880 ± 60 Beta-138601 inundated; campechiensis 60 AD 1005-1250 AD 1040-1190 FS 280 Test Unit 1, Level 4, Melongena 1310 ± 8CH360 Lime Key Stratum III; midden 900 ± 70 Beta-138609 AD 975-1250 AD 1025-1180 corona 70 FS 431 Test Unit 1, Level 3, Melongena 1320 ± 8CH352 Negash Stratum II, dark 910 ± 80 Beta-138595 AD 905-1275 AD 1005-1190 corona 90 shell midden; FS 71 Test Unit 1, 1999, Acline Melongena 1390 ± AD 975-1055 8CH69 level 5, Stratum III, 970 ± 60 Beta-141710 AD 895-1155 Mound corona 60 FS 21-22 Test Unit 1, Level 3, Stratum II, dark gray Melongena 1050 ± 1460 ± 8CH481 Black Cow Beta-138602 AD 805-1050 AD 890-1015 midden on pond; FS corona 60 60 132 479 Table 11–continued.

13C- Raw age Calibrated range ± Calibrated range ± Site no. adjusted Site Name Provenience Material BP Lab. no. 2s 1s age

Test Unit 1, Level 3, Silcox Stratum II, coastal Mercenaria 1060 ± 1470 ± 8CH357 Beta-138604 AD 790-1040 AD 885-1005 North shell midden; campechiensis 60 60 FS 327 Test Unit 1, Level 7, Silcox Stratum III, coastal Mercenaria 1060 ± 1470 ± 8CH357 Beta-138605 AD 780-1055 AD 865-1015 North shell midden; campechiensis 60 70 FS 335 Test Unit 2, Level 4, Whidden Stratum III, shell Melongena 1050 ± 1470 ± AD 885-1005 8CH356 Beta-141713 AD 790-1040 Branch midden, corona 60 60 FS 207 Test Unit 1, Level 6, Mercenaria 1100 ± 1520 ± 8CH361 Fines Key Stratum III, Beta-141384 AD 735-1015 AD 805-965 campechiensis 60 60 FS 214 Test Unit 1, Level 6, Black’s Stratum III, partially 8CH359 Mercenaria 1190 ± 1600 ± Beta-138607 AD 720-865 Island submerged shell AD 680-920 campechiensis 60 60 midden; FS 293 Test Unit 1, Level 4, C.E. and Stratum III, shallow Melongena 1210 ± 1630 ± 8CH354 Beta-138593 AD 660-895 AD 695-815 S. Midden midden; corona 60 60 FS 90-95 Test Unit 1, Stratum Acline Melongena 1220 ± 1640 ± 8CH479 III, shallow midden; Beta-141382 AD 620-920 AD 680-830 Village corona 80 80 480 FS 32 and 33 Table 11–continued.

13C- Raw age Calibrated range ± Calibrated range ± Site no. adjusted Site Name Provenience Material BP Lab. no. 2s 1s age

Test Unit 1, Level 3, Stratum II, shell Melongena 1250 ± 1660 ± 8CH487 Bumblebee Beta-138598 AD 645-865 AD 680-785 midden; corona 60 60 FS 148 Test Unit 1, Level 7, Stratum IV, shell Mercenaria 1250 ± 1660 ± 8CH487 Bumblebee Beta-138599 AD 620-890 AD 670-790 midden; campechiensis 70 70 FS 159 Test Unit 2, Level 2, Stratum III, shallow Melongena 1260 ± 1680 ± 8CH351 Fishhook Beta-138594 AD 605-865 AD 660-780 midden; corona 70 70 FS 139 Test Unit 1, South Whidden Crassostrea 1310 ± 1740 ± AD 645-690 8CH356 Profile, Stratum VI; Beta-141712 AD 605-720 Branch virginica 40 40 1995 FS 195 Test Unit 1, Level 4, Stratum II, coastal Melongena 1370 ± 1780 ± 8CH358 Silcox Key Beta-138606 AD 510-720 AD 575-680 shell midden; corona 60 60 FS 321 Test Unit 1, Level 6, Stratum III, at Mercenaria 1880 ± 8CH353 DuBois 1470 ± 60 Beta-138592 AD 385-665 AD 440-610 occupational surface; campechiensis 70 FS 242 481 Table 11–continued.

13C- Raw age Calibrated range ± Calibrated range ± Site no. adjusted Site Name Provenience Material BP Lab. no. 2s 1s age

Test Unit 1, Level 2, Stratum II, dark Melongena 1480 ± 1890 ± 8CH450 Little Lake Beta-138600 AD 395-650 AD 440-595 dense shell midden; corona 60 60 FS 408 Test Unit 1, Level 7, Acline Crassostrea 1560 ± 1980 ± AD 385-450 8CH69 Stratum V, Beta-141711 AD 330-510 Mound virginica 40 40 1995 FS 189 Test Unit 1, Level 3, Melongena 1550 ± 1970 ± 8CH483 Mid-Lake Stratum III, large Beta-138597 AD 245-610 AD 345-535 corona 70 80 sheet midden; FS 54 Mercenaria Test Unit 1, Level 4, Hooker campechiensis 8LL30 Stratum II; 2160 + 60 2560 + 60 Beta-152862 400-160 BC 380-230 BC Key , Busycon FS 355 sinistrum Test Unit 1, Level 3, Stratum IIa, dark Mercenaria 2330 ± 2740 ± 8CH506 Buckthorn Beta-138596 745-350 BC 615-385 BC shell midden; FS campechiensis 70 70 201 Test Unit 1, Level 4, Kessel Melongena 3310 ± 3730 ± 8CH482 Stratum III, site on Beta-138603 1880-1515 BC 1770-1615 BC Run corona 70 70 pond; FS 424 Test Unit 1, Level 3, 8CH484 Cicada Stratum II, Melongena 3380 ± 3800 ± Beta-14183 2000-1595 BC 1885-1680 BC Lake FS 38 corona 80 80 482 REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, David G. 1991 Stability and Change in Chiefdom-Level Societies: An Examination of Mississippian Political Evolution on the South Atlantic Slope. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South, edited by M. Williams and G. Shapiro, pp. 197-213. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Arima, E. Y. 1974 A Report on the West Coast Whaling Canoe Reconstructed at Port Renfrew, B.C. In History and Archaeology 5. Parks Canada, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa.

Arnold, Jeanne E. 1987 Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity 57:60-84.

Austin, Robert J. 1997 The Economics of Lithic-Resource Use in South-Central Florida. PhD dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Austin, Robert J., R. M. Farquhar, and K. J. Walker 2000 Isotope Analysis of Galena from Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in South Florida. Florida Scientist 63(2):123-131.

Bellamo, Randy V. and Charles Fuhrmesiter 1992 Update of an Archaeological and Zone Management Plan for Lee County, Florida. Report prepared for Lee County, Florida, by Janus Research/Piper Archaeology, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Bense, Judith A. 1998 Santa Rosa-Swift Creek in Northwest Florida. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by M. Williams and D. Elliot, pp. 247-273. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

483 484

Beriault, John, R. Carr, J. Strip, R. Johnson, and J. Meeder 1981 The Archaeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34:39-58.

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

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

Brown, James A. 1976 Spiro Studies, vol. 4. Second Part of the Third Annual Report of Caddoan Archaeology-Spiro Focus Research. University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Tulsa.

Brown, Robin C. 1994 Florida’s First People. Pineapple Press, Sarasota.

Buck, Peter S. 1938 Vikings of the Sunrise. J.B. Lippincott, New York.

Bullen, Ripley P. 1969 Southern Limits of Timucua Territory. Florida Historical Quarterly 47:414- 419.

Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Bullen 1956 Excavations on the Cape Haze Peninsula, Florida. Contribution of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences 1. Gainesville, Florida. 1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society, Publication no. 8, Gainesville, Florida.

Cable, John 1997 New Evidence for the Possible Ceremonial Function of Shell Rings. Contribution to South Carolina Archaeology Week: Shell Rings of the Late Archaic, poster designed by Palmetto Research Institute, Inc.

Carneiro, Robert L. 1998 What Happened at the Flashpoint? Conjectures on Chiefdom Formation at the Very Moment of Conception. In Chiefdoms and Chieftaincy in the Americas, edited by E. Redmond, pp. 18-42. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 485

CHEC (Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center) 1986 The Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey. Report submitted to the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Clausen, Cheryl J., A. D. Cohen, C. Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:609-614.

Cobb, Charles R. 1991 Social Reproduction and the Longue Durée in the Prehistory of the Midcontinental United States. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R.W. Preucel, pp. 168-196. Center for Archaeological Studies Occasional Paper No. 10, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1993 Archaeological Approaches to the Political Economy of Non-stratified Societies. In Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M.B. Schiffer, volume 5, pp. 43-100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Cockrell, Wilburn A. and L. Murphy 1978 Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6:1-12.

Cordell, Ann S. 1992 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability in Southwest Florida. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. Marquardt, pp. 105-189. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Costin, Cathy L. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 1-56. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Cowgill, George L. 1975 On Causes and Consequences of Ancient and Modern Population Changes. American Anthropologist 77:505-525.

Crook, Morgan R., Jr. 1986 Mississippi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Coastal Zone. Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report No.23, Georgia Archaeological Research Design Papers, No.1. University of Georgia, Athens

Crumley, Carole L. 1979 Three Locational Models: An Epistemological Assessment for Anthropology and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Volume 2, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 141-173. Academic Press, New York. 486

Crumley, Carole L. and W. H. Marquardt (editors) 1987 Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective. Academic Press, San Diego.

Cushing, Frank H. 1897 Exploration of Ancient Key-Dweller Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida. American Philosophical Society, Proceedings 35:329-448.

Davis, Richard A., Jr., and Margaret Andronaco 1987 Hurricane Effects and Post-Storm Recovery, Pinellas County, Florida (1985- 1986). In Coastal Sediments ‘87, Proceedings of the 1987 Coastal Sediments Conference, pp. 1023-1036.

Davis, Richard A., Jr., S. C. Knowles, and M. J. Bland. 1989 Role of Hurricanes in the Holocene Stratigraphy of Estuaries: Examples from the Gulf Coast of Florida. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 59(6):1052-1061.

Davis, Robert E., and Robert Dolan 1993 Nor’easters. American Scientist 81:428-439.

Durham, William H, 1981 Overview: Optimal Foraging Analysis in Human Ecology. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archeological Analyses, edited by B. Winterhalder and E. Smith, pp. 218-231. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Earle, Timothy K. 1991 The Evolution of Chiefdoms. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited by T.K. Earle, pp. 1-15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Earle, Timothy K., ed. 1991 Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Edic, Robert F. 1996 Historical Reearch for the Alligator Creek Area, Charlotte County, Florida. In The Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey. Report submitted by the Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center, Inc. to the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee. 1999 The Coral Creek Site, Charlotte County, Southwest Florida. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, Florida, edited by G.M. Luer, pp. 57-62. Florida Anthropological Society Publications No.14, Florida Anthropological Society, Tampa. 487

Evans, S. and Gould, P. 1982 Settlement Models in Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:275-304.

Ferdon, Edwin N. 1981 Early Tahiti as the Explorers Saw It. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

FGDL (Florida Geographic Data Library) 1998 FGDL Version 1. University of Florida Geoplan Center, Gainesville.

Fletcher, Charles H. III 1992 Sea-level Trends and Physical Consequences: Applications to the U.S. Shore. Earth-Science Reviews 33:73-109.

Fontenada, Do. d’E. 1944 Memoir of Do. d’Escalante Fontenada Respecting Florida, Written in Spain, About the Year 1575. Translated by Buckingham Smith. Glades House, Coral Gables.

Fried, Morton H. 1967 The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Economy. Random House, New York.

Friedman, J. and M. J. Rowlands 1977 Notes Toward an Epigenetic Model of the Evolution of 'Civilisation'. In The Evolution of Social Systems, edited by J. Friedman and M. J. Rowlands, pp. 201-276.

Gailey, C. W. and T. C. Patterson 1988 State Formation and Uneven Development. In State and Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization, edited by J. Gledhill, B. Bender and M. Larsen, pp. 77-90. Unwin Hyman, London.

Gentry, R. Cecil 1974 Hurricanes in South Florida. In Environments of South Florida, Present and Past, edited by P.J. Gleason, pp. 73-81. Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, Miami.

Giddens, Anthony 1987 Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Stanford University Press, California. 488

Gleason, P. J., A. D. Cohen, W. G. Smith, H. K Brooks, P. A. Stone, R. L. Goodrick, and W. Spackman, Jr. 1974 The Environmental Significance of Holocene Sediments from the Everglades and Saline Tidal Plain. In Environments of South Florida, Present and Past, edited by P.J. Gleason, pp. 297-351. Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, Miami.

Goggin, John. M. 1949 Cultural Traditions in Florida Prehistory. In The Florida Indian and His Neighbors, edited by J. W. Griffin, pp. 13-44, Rollins College Interamerican Center, Winter Park, Florida. 1954 The Archaeology of the Cape Haze Area, Southwest Florida. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven.

Goggin, John. M. and W. T. Sturtevant 1964 The Calusa: A Stratified Non-Agricultural Society (with Notes on Sibling Marriage). In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdock, edited by W. H. Goodenough, pp. 179-219. McGraw- Hill, New York.

Goodyear, A. C. 1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 47:382-395.

Gould, S. J., and N. Eldredge 1977 Punctuated Equilibria: The Timing and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered. Paleobiology 3:115-151.

Griffin, James B. 1978 Foreword. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by J. B. Griffin, pp. xv-xxii. Academic Press, New York.

Griffin, John W. 1974 Archaeology and Environment in South Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past, edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 342-346. Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, Miami. 1976 South Florida Archaeology, A.D. 500-contact. Manuscript on file, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 1985 Shell Artifacts from the Granada Site. In Archaeology and History of the Granada Site, vol. 1, J.W. Griffin, general editor, pp.71-82. Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. 1989 Time and Space in South Florida: A Synthesis. The Florida Anthropologist 42:179-204. 489

Hally, David J. 1981 Site Detection. In Georgia Archaeological Research Design, Vol. I, edited by T. Eubanks, pp. 27-39. State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Parks, Recreation, and Historic Site Division, Atlanta.

Hamori-Torok, Charles 1990 Haisla. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 306-311. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, general editor W.C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Hann, John H. 1988 Apalachee: The Land Between the Rivers. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 1996 A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1991 Missions to the Calusa. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Harris, Marvin 1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. Random House, New York.

Heffley, Sheri 1981 Northern Athapaskan Settlement Patterns and Resource Distribution: An Apllication of Horn’s Model. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archeological Analyses, edited by B. Winterhalder and E. Smith, pp. 126-147. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Helms, Mary W. 1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Ho, F. P., and R. J. Tracey 1975 Storm Tide Frequency Analysis for the Gulf Coast of Florida from Cape San Blas to St. Petersburg Beach. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Memorandum NWS-HYDRO-20.

Hodder, Ian 1982 The Identification and Interpretation of Ranking in Prehistory: A Contextual Perspective. In Ranking, Resource, and Exchange: Aspects of Archaeology of Early European Society, edited by C. Renfrew and S. Shennan, pp. 150-154. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 490

Hutchinson, Dale L. 1992 Prehistoric Burials from Buck Key. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. Marquardt, pp. 411-422. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1999 Precolumbian Human Skeletal Remains from Useppa Island. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island, edited by W. Marquardt, pp.139-148. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 3, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Johnson, Allen W., and Timothy K. Earle 1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Johnson, Gregory A. 1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southhampton Conference, edited by C. Renfrew, M.J. Rowlands and B.A. Seagraves, pp. 389-422. Academic Press, New York.

Johnson, William G. 1991 Remote Sensing and Soil-Science Applications to Understanding Belle Glade Adaptations in the Okeechobee Basin. PhD dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Jones, Paul L. 1999 Volumetric Analysis of Selected Shell Midden Sites around Charlotte Harbor, Florida. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, Florida, Florida Anthropological Society Publications No. 14, edited by G. Luer, pp.75-84. Florida Anthropological Society, Tampa.

Kennedy, Dorothy I. D. and R. T. Bouchard 1990 Northern Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 441-452. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, general editor W.C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Kent, Bretton W. 1983 Patterns of Coexistence in Busyconine Whelks. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 66:257-283.

Knight, James V. 1986 The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion. American Antiquity 51:675-687. 491

Kohler, Timothy A. 1997 Public Architecture and Power in Pre-Columbian North America. Paper presented for the Sante Fe Institute International Symposium “Power, Monuments, and Civilization,” Nara, Japan.

Kupferer, Harriet J. 1988 Ancient Drums, Other Moccasins: Native North American Cultural Adaptation. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Lewis, Clifford M. 1978 The Calusa. In Tacachale, edited by J. T. Milanich and S. Proctor, pp. 19-49. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Liu, Li 1996 Settlement Patterns, Chiefdom Variability, and the Development of Early States in North China. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15 (3):237- 238.

Luer, George M. 1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida Anthropologist 34:127- 155. 1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of Tribute and Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist 42:89-130. 1992 Mississippian-Period Popeyed Bird-Head Effigies from West-Central and Southwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45:52-62. 1996 Mississippian Influence in West-Peninsular Florida and the Aqui Esta Burial Mound. In The Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey. Report submitted by the Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center, Inc. to the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee. 1999 An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Lemon Bay Area. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, Florida, edited by G.M. Luer, pp. 1-22. Florida Anthropological Society Publications No.14, Florida Anthropological Society, Tampa.

Luer, George M., D. Allerton, D. Hazeltine, R. Hatfield, and D. Hood 1986 Whelk Shell Tool Blanks from Big Mound Key (8CH10), Charlotte County, Florida; with Notes on Certain Whelk Shell Tools. The Florida Anthropologist 39:92-124.

Luer, George M. and Lauren C. Archibald 1988a An Assessment of Known Sites in Charlotte Harbor State Reserve. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc., Miami, submitted to Department of Natural Resources, State of Florida. 492

1988b Archaeological Data Recovery at Mound A, Boggess Ridge (8CH16), Charlotte Harbor State Reserve, Winter Field Season 1988. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami.

Luer, George M. and Marion M. Almy 1982 A Definition of Manasota Culture. Florida Anthropologist 35:34-58.

Marquardt, William H. 1985 Complexity and Scale in the Study of Fisher-Gatherer-Hunters: An Example from the Eastern United States. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, edited by T. D. Price and J. A. Brown, pp. 59-98. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando. 1986 The Development of Cultural Complexity in Southwest Florida: Elements of a Critique. Southeastern Archaeology 5:63-70. 1988 Politics and Production among the Calusa of South Florida. In Hunters and Gatherers, Volume I: History, Evolution, and Social Change in Hunting and Gathering Societies, edited by T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn, pp. 161- 188. Berg Publishers, London. 1991 Introduction. In Missions to the Calusa, edited by J. H. Hann, pp. xv-xix. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1992a Dialectical Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 101-440. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1992b Recent Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations in Southwest Florida. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. Marquardt. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1992c Shell Artifacts from the Caloosahatchee Area. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. Marquardt, pp. 191-228. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1992d Calusa Culture and Environment: What Have We Learned? In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. Marquardt, pp. 423- 436. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1999a Useppa Island in the Archaic and Caloosahatchee Periods. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island, edited by W. Marquardt, pp. 77-98. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 3, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1999b An Introduction to Useppa Island. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island, edited by W. Marquardt, pp. 1-22. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 3, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2001 The Emergence and Demise of the Calusa. In Societies in Eclipse: Eastern North America at the Dawn of European Colonization, edited by D. Brose and C.W. Cowan. Smithsonian Institution Press, in press. 493

Marquardt, William H., ed. 1999 The Archaeology of Useppa Island. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 3. University of Florida, Gainesville.

McGuire, Randall 1983 Breaking Down Cultural Complexity: Inequality and Heterogeneity. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 6, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 91-142. Academic Press, New York.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 1996 The Timucua. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. 1998 Native Chiefdoms and the Exercise of Complexity in Sixteenth-Century Florida. In Chiefdoms and Chieftaincy in the Americas, edited by E. Redmond, pp. 245-264. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Milanich, Jerald T., J. Chapman, A.S. Cordell, S. Hale, and R.A. Merrinan 1984 Prehistoric Development of Calusa Society in Southwest Florida: Excavations on Useppa Island. In Perspectives in Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by D.D. Davis, pp. 258-314. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Mitchell, Donald 1990 Prehistory of the Coasts of Southern British Columbia and Northern Washington. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 340-358. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, general editor W.C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. PhD dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Moore, Clarence B. 1905 Miscellaneous Investigations in Florida. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 13:298-325.

Moseley, Michael E. 1988 Large Monuments and Precocious Formative Development. The Quarterly Review of Archaeology Summer:1, 4-6.

Moseley, Michael E. and Robert A. Feldman 1988 Fishing, Farming, and the Origins of Andean Civilization. In The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines, edited by G. Bailet and J. Parkington, pp. 122-131. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 494

Nassaney, Michael S. 1987 On the Causes and Consequences of Subsistence Intensification in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. In Emergent Horticultural Economies in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by W.F. Keegan, pp. 129-151. Center for Archaeological Studies Occasional Paper No. 7. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1991 Spatial-Temporal Dimensions of Social Integration during the Coles Creek Period in Central Arkansas. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by M.S. Nassaney and C.R. Cobb, pp. 177- 220. Plenum Press, New York. 1992 Communal Societies and the Emergence of Elites in the Prehistoric American Southeast. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, edited by A.W. Barker and T.R. Pauketat, pp. 111-143. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 3.

Newsom, Lee Ann and Barbara A. Purdy 1990 Florida Canoes: A Maritime Heritage from the Past. The Florida Anthropologist 43:164-180.

Olson, Ronald L. 1927 Adze, Canoe, and House Types of the Northwest Coast. University of Washington Publications in Archaeology Vol. 2. No. 1., Seattle.

Ortner, Donald J., and Walter G. J. Putschar 1985 Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Paine, Robert T. 1962 Ecological Diversification in Sympatric Gastropods of the Genus Busycon. Evolution 16:515-523.

Patton, Robert B. 1994 The Temporal Contexts of Prehistoric Shell Artifacts from Southwest Florida: A Case Study of the Pineland Site Complex. MA thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1996 An Archaeological Survey of the Alligator Creek Survey Area. In The Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey. Report submitted by the Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center, Inc. to the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee. 2002 Use of Bone at the Pineland Site Complex, A.D. 50 to A.D. 1500: Expanding the Caloosahatchee Bone-Artifact Typology. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Village Complex, A.D. 50-1600. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University of Florida, Gainesville, in press. 495

Patton, Robert B. and Gary D. Ellis 1994 Archaeological Investigations on Burgess Island, Lee County, Florida. Submitted by Ellis Archaeology to the Burgess Island Associates, Inc., Burgess Island, Florida.

Pauketat, Timothy R. 1994 The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Peebles, Christopher, and Susan M. Kus 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42:421-448.

Pitt-Rivers, A. Lane-Fox 1906 Early Modes of Navigation. In The Evolution of Culture and Other Essays, pp. 186-232. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Price, T. D. 1981 Complexity in “Non-Complex” Societies. In Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Complexity, edited by S. van der Leeuw, pp. 55-97. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Purdy, Barbara A. 1991 The Art and Archaeology of Florida’s Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Quilter, Jeffrey 1985 Architecture and Chronology at El Paraíso, Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:280-297.

Radin, Paul 1923 The Winnebago Tribe. Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report 37. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington.

Rafferty, Janet 1994 Gradual or Step-wise Change: the Development of Sedentary Settlement Patterns in Northeast Mississippi. American Antiquity 59:405-425.

Russo, Michael 1991 Final Report on Horr’s Island: The Archaeology of Archaic and Glades Settlement and Subsistence Patterns. Part II. Glades, Ceramics, Archaeobotanical, and Soils Analysis, Plus Appendices and References from Horr’s Island. Submitted to Key Marco Developments, Marco Island, Florida. On file, Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 496

1994 Why We Don’t Believe in Archaic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We Should: The Case from Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13:93-108.

Safer, Jane F. and Frances M. Gill 1982 Spirals from the Sea: An Anthropological Look at Shells. Clarkson N. Potter, New York.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Scarry, John F. 1990 The Rise, Transformation, and Fall of Apalachee: A Case Study of Political Change in a Chiefly Society. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South, edited by M. Williams and G. Shapiro, pp.175-186. University of Alabama Pres, Tuscaloosa.

Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, and Gail S. Schnell 1981 Cemochechobee: Archaeology of a Mississippian Ceremonial Center on the Chattahoochee River. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Sears, William H. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University of Florida Press/Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Smith, Bruce (editor) 1978 Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Academic Press, New York.

Smith, Keith 1992 Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster. Routledge, London.

Solís de Merás, G. 1964 Pedro Menéndez de Avilés: Memorial. Translated by Jeannette Thurber Conner. Facsimile reproduction of the 1923 edition, with Introduction by Lyle N. McAlister. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) 1997 SPSS for Windows 8.0.0. SPSS, Inc.

Stapor, Frank W., Jr., Thomas D. Mathews, and Fonda Lindfors-Kearns 1991 Barrier-Island Progradation and Holocene Sea-Level History in Southwest Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 7:815-838. 497

Steinen, Karl T. 1982 Other Nonceramic Artifacts. In Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin, edited by W.H. Sears, pp. 68-110. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1978 Location Theory and Complex Chiefdoms: A Mississippian Example. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by B. Smith, pp. 417-453. Academic Press, New York.

Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 485-503. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, general editor W.C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Swanton, John R. 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137. American Bureau of Ethnology, Washington.

Tanner, W. F. 1991 The “Gulf of Mexico” Late Holocene Sea Level Curve and River Delta History. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Sciences, Transactions 41:583- 589.

Torrence, C. T., S. J. Chapman, and W. H. Marquardt 1994 Topographic Mapping and Archaeological Reconnaissance of Mound Key State Archaeological Site (8LL2), Estero Island, Florida. Submitted to the Koreshan Unity Alliance, Inc. by the Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Torrence, Corbett M. 1999a The Archaic Period on Useppa Island: Excavations on Calusa Ridge. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island, edited by W. Marquardt, pp. 23-76. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 3, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1999b Topographic Mapping of the Acline and Whidden Branch Mounds, Charlotte County, Florida. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, Florida, Florida Anthropological Society Publications No. 14, edited by G. Luer, pp. 85-97. Florida Anthropological Society, Tampa.

Torrence, Corbett M. and William H. Marquardt 1998 Phase I Reconnaissance Survey of the Upland Portions of Buck Key Owned by Mariner Properties Development, Inc. Report submitted to Mariner Properties Development, Inc. by the Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 498

Trinkley, Michael B. 1985 The Form and Function of South Carolina’s Early Woodland Shell Rings. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by R. Dickens and H. Ward, pp. 102-118. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Upchurch, Sam B., Pliny Jewell IV, and Eric DeHaven 1992 Stratigraphy of Indian “Mounds” in the Charlotte Harbor Area, Florida: Sea- level Rise and Paleoenvironments. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. Marquardt, pp. 59-104. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Walker, Karen J. 1992a Bone Artifacts from Josslyn Island, Buck Key Shell Midden, and Cash Mound: A Preliminary Assessment for the Caloosahatchee Area. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. Marquardt, pp. 229-246. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1992b The Zooarchaeology of Charlotte Harbor’s Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation: Spatial and Temporal Perspectives. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. Marquardt, pp. 265-366. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1993 Chapter 10. The Caloosahatchee Region. In Florida Historic Contexts. J. Milanich, editor. Electronic document. http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/bar/hist_contexts/.

Walker, Karen J., Frank W. Stapor, and William H. Marquardt 1994 Episodic Sea Levels and Human Occupation at Southwest Florida’s Wightman Site. Florida Anthropologist 47:161-179. 1995 Archaeological Evidence for a 1750-1450 BP Higher-than-present Sea Level Along Florida's Gulf Coast. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No. 17: Holocene Cycles: Climate, Sea Levels, and Sedimentation, pp. 205-218. 2000 The Material Culture of Precolumbian Fishing: Artifacts and Fish Remains from Coastal Southwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 19 (1):24-45.

Waselkov, Gregory A. 1987 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol.10, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp.093- 210. Academic Press, New York.

Widmer, Randolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 499

1989 The Relationship of Ceremonial Artifacts from South Florida with the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by D. Dye and C. Wharey, pp. 166- 182. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Willey, Gordon R. 1982 [1949] Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 113, reprint. Florida Book Store, Inc., Gainesville.

Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1993 A History of American Archaeology, Third Edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Williams, L. and U. S. Cleveland 1996 Our Fascinating Past. Charlotte Harbor Area Historical Society, Punta Gorda, Florida.

Willoughby, Charles C. 1973 Antiquities of the New England Indians with Notes on the Ancient Cultures of the Adjacent Territory. AMS Press, New York.

Woodroffe, Colin D. 1990 The Impact of Sea-level Rise on Mangrove Shorelines. Process in Physical Geography 14:483-520.

Wright, Henry T, 1984 Prestate Political Formations. In On the Evolution of Complex Societies: Essays in Honor of Harry Hoijer, 1982, edited by T. Earle, pp. 43-77. Undena, Malibu, California. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Robert Barnett Patton is a native of Jesup, Georgia, and the son of Dr. Charles E.

Patton and Mrs. Marianne Elder Patton. Rob decided to pursue a career in archaeology early, and used his undergraduate years to explore the differences in classical and anthropological approaches. He earned his bachelor’s degree with honors in anthropology from the University of Georgia in 1990.

After graduation, Rob worked as a technician then as director on several archaeological projects in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and

Ohio. Techniques learned then—and later while working through graduate school— gave him a strongly empirical approach to archaeology.

Rob began graduate work at the University of Florida in 1992 with a desire to explore questions of political complexity in the Southeast. In Gainesville he enjoyed the chance to expand his background in anthropological and archaeological theory, as well as in geomorphology and geography. After a research internship at the Crow Canyon

Archaeological Center, Rob joined the Southwest Florida Project in the Florida Museum of Natural History as a research assistant. That assistantship provided the basis for his

1994 master’s thesis.

During pursuit of the doctorate degree, Rob worked on or directed several more field projects, operated or helped to operate two archaeological field schools, directed three public-participation archaeology projects, and taught three introductory

500 501 archaeology classes at colleges in Florida and Arizona. Rob now lives again in Georgia with his wife Angelica and son Daniel.