CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE SUMTER GARDENS PARCELS, SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEARCH PROJECT NO. 3506‐15168V

PREPARED FOR

SUMTER PARTNERS, LLC

BY

SEARCH

SEPTEMBER 2015

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE SUMTER GARDENS PARCELS, SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEARCH PROJECT NO. 3506‐15168V

PREPARED FOR

SUMTER PARTNERS, LLC.

PREPARED BY

SEARCH

______

BRUCE NODINE, MA, RPA PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, ARCHAEOLOGY

WWW.SEARCHINC.COM

SEPTEMBER 2015

SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings of a Phase I cultural resource assessment survey conducted in support of development of parcels in west Bushnell, Sumter County, Florida. Sumter Partners, LLC is developing the Sumter Gardens project on parcels N18=012 and N18=013. The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) requested a cultural resource assessment survey. This document fulfills that request.

The project Area of Potential Effect (APE) was considered to be the entirety of the parcels. The archaeological survey included a pedestrian inspection and the excavation of 14 shovel tests within the APE. Ponding from historic excavation within the APE precluded the excavation of further tests. One shovel test contained cultural material and a single surface find location was recorded. These historic materials were recorded with the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) as 8SM00793. No historic structures were encountered as part of this survey. The artifacts were recovered in a highly disturbed area and do not meet the criteria to be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). No further archaeological work is recommended.

Based on the results of this investigation, it is the opinion of the Principal Investigator that the proposed undertaking will have no effect on cultural resources eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further work is recommended.

iii September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

This page intentionally left blank.

iv SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... iii Table of Contents ...... v List of Figures ...... vi List of Tables ...... vi

Introduction ...... 1 Project Location and Environment ...... 4 Location and Modern Conditions ...... 4 Paleoenvironment ...... 4 Historic Overview ...... 6 Native American Culture History ...... 6 Paleoindian Period (10,000‐8000 BC) ...... 6 Archaic Period (8000‐500 BC) ...... 7 St. Johns Tradition (500 BC‐AD 1565) ...... 8 Post‐Contact History ...... 10 The Seminoles ...... 11 The Seminole Wars ...... 12 Sumter County History ...... 15 Background Research ...... 18 Florida Master Site File Review ...... 18 Historic Map and Aerial Photograph Review ...... 20 Research Design ...... 27 Project Goals ...... 27 NRHP Criteria ...... 27 Cultural Resource Potential ...... 28 Survey Methods ...... 28 Archaeological Field Methods ...... 28 Architectural Field Methods ...... 29 Laboratory Methods ...... 29 Curation ...... 29 Informant Interviews ...... 29 Certified Local Government Consultation ...... 30 Procedures to Deal with Unexpected Discoveries ...... 30 Results ...... 31 Archaeological Resource – 8SM00793...... 31 Architectural Resources ...... 36 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 37 References Cited ...... 38

Appendix A: FDHR Correspondence Appendix B: FDHR Survey Log Sheet and FMSF Form

v September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Sumter Gardens project location, Sumter County, Florida ...... 2 Figure 2. Sumter Gardens APE, Sumter County, Florida ...... 3 Figure 3. Soil map units within and near the Sumter Gardens project ...... 5 Figure 4. Hernando de Soto ...... 10 Figure 5. Governor Andrew Jackson reviewing troops during the Seminole Wars ...... 12 Figure 6. Troops viewing the demise of Major Dade and his command, ca. 1835 ...... 13 Figure 7. Brigadier General Thomas Sumter, ca. 1800s ...... 15 Figure 8. Previously recorded resources in the vicinity of the Sumter Gardens project ...... 19 Figure 9. 1845 and 1849O GL maps showing the project area outlined in blue ...... 21 Figure 10. Detail from Annual Report of the Surveyor General for 1859, showing this part of Sumter County ...... 22 Figure 11. Portion of 1936 Florida Department of Transportation map of Sumter County, showing development near the project area ...... 22 Figure 12. Aerial photograph of the Sumter Gardens project area from 1941 ...... 23 Figure 13. USGS Wahoo Quadrangle from 1958 showing a structure in the project area ...... 24 Figure 14. Aerial photograph of the Sumter Gardens project area in 1964 ...... 25 Figure 15. Aerial photograph of the Sumter Gardens project area from 1969 ...... 26 Figure 16. Representative views of the Sumter Gardens project area ...... 32 Figure 17. Survey results within the Sumter Gardens project area ...... 33 Figure 18. View of 8SM00793, looking north toward SR 48 ...... 35

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Precolumbian Culture History of Central Florida ...... 6 Table 2. Sumter County Population ...... 16 Table 3. Previous Cultural Resources Assessment Surveys within One Mile of the Sumter Gardens Project ...... 18 Table 4. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Sumter Gardens Project ...... 18 Table 5. Artifacts Recovered from 8SM00793...... 31

vi SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of a Phase I cultural resource assessment survey conducted in support of proposed development of Parcels N18=012 and N18=013 in the town of Bushnell along State Road (SR) 48 in central Sumter County, Florida (Figure 1). The project area is 8.5 acres located at the western edge of Bushnell. The project falls within section 18 of Township 21 South, Range 22 East. This study is being conducted prior to any ground disturbance that could affect cultural resources. The project Area of Potential Effect (APE) was developed to consider effects that the project may have on historic properties and was defined to be the parcels' boundaries (Figure 2). The cultural resource survey included the entire APE.

The survey is being conducted in response to a letter from the Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. In the letter, the FDHR recommends a cultural resource assessment survey (No.: 2015‐3034) (Appendix A). The purpose of the survey was to locate, identify, and bound any archaeological resources, historic structures, and potential districts within the project’s APE and to assess their potential for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This study was conducted to comply with Chapter 267 of the Florida Statutes and Rule Chapter 1A‐46, Florida Administrative Code. The Principal Investigator for this project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716‐42).

Bruce Nodine, MA, RPA, served as the Principal Investigator for this project. The report was written by Christopher Altes, MA, and Bruce Nodine. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by Kyle Coxen, MA, and Ruben Garcia, BA. Field and report graphics were prepared by Christopher Altes. Lisabeth Carlson, Ph.D., RPA, conducted the quality control review, and Katy Harris, MS, and Rasha Slepow, BS, edited and produced the document.

1 Introduction September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

Figure 1. Sumter Gardens project location, Sumter County, Florida.

Introduction 2 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

Figure 2. Sumter Gardens APE, Sumter County, Florida.

3 Introduction September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT

LOCATION AND MODERN CONDITIONS

The project area is 8.5 acres located in central Sumter County, at the western edge of the town of Bushnell. The project falls within section 18 of Township 21 South, Range 22 East. The project area is located in the Tsala Apopka Basin province of the Ocala Uplift district (Campbell 1989). The project is currently undeveloped, with vegetation consisting of mixed hardwoods on the edges and wetland vegetation within the flooded interior.

The soils within the project area (Figure 3) are mapped primarily as Pits‐Dumps complex, a classification used for disturbed sediments. A small northern section of the project is mapped as Sparr fine sand. Immediately outside of the boundaries in the southern half of the project area, soils are mapped as Kanapaha sand. Kanapaha sand is classified as a poorly drained soil and the Sparr series is somewhat poorly drained (USDA 2010). Both of these soils potentially include chert cobbles and stones, an important lithic resource to pre‐contact peoples in Florida.

PALEOENVIRONMENT

Between 18,000 to 12,000 years before present (BP), Florida was a much cooler and drier place than it is today. Melting of the continental ice sheets led to a major global rise in sea level (summarized for long time scales by Rohling et al. 1998) that started from a low stand of ‐120 meters at 18,000 BP. The rise was slow while glacial conditions prevailed at high latitudes but became very rapid in the latest Pleistocene and earliest Holocene. It became warmer and wetter rather rapidly during the next three millennia. By about 9000 BP, a warmer and drier climate began to prevail. These changes were more drastic in northern Florida and southern Georgia than in southern Florida, where the “peninsular effect” and a more tropically influenced climate tempered the effects of the continental glaciers that were melting far to the north (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975, 1980). Sea levels, though higher, were still much lower than at present; surface water was limited, and extensive grasslands probably existed, which may have attracted mammoth, bison, and other large grazing mammals. By 6000–5000 BP, the climate had changed to one of increased precipitation and surface water flow. By the late Holocene, ca. 4000 BP, the climate, water levels, and plant communities of Florida attained essentially modern conditions. These have been relatively stable with only minor fluctuations over the past 4,000 years.

Project Location and Environment 4 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

Figure 3. Soil map units within and near the Sumter Gardens project.

5 Project Location and Environment September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

HISTORIC OVERVIEW

NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE HISTORY

The following prehistoric overview of central Table 1. Precolumbian Culture History of Central Florida. Florida consists of a four‐part chronology, Name Time Period with each period based on distinct cultural Paleoindian Period 10,000+ ‐ 8000 BC Archaic Period 8000 ‐ 500 BC and technological characteristics recognized Early 8000 ‐ 5000 BC by archaeologists. From oldest to most Middle 5000 ‐ 3000 BC recent, the four temporal periods include Late 3000 ‐ 500 BC Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Preceramic 3000 ‐ 2000 BC Mississippian. These periods along with Orange 2000 – 500 BC their regional sub‐periods are presented in Woodland Period 500 BC ‐ AD 750 St. Johns I 500 BC ‐ AD 100 Table 1. While each period is briefly St. Johns Ia AD 100 ‐ 500 discussed below, readers are referred to St. Johns Ib AD 500 ‐ 750 Milanich (1994) for a more comprehensive Mississippian Period AD 750 ‐ 1565 treatment of the prehistory of Florida. St. Johns IIa AD 750 ‐ 1050 St. Johns IIb AD 1050 ‐ 1513 Paleoindian Period (10,000–8000 BC) St. Johns IIc AD 1513 ‐ 1565

The most widely accepted model for the peopling of the New World argues that Asian populations migrated to North America over the Beringia land bridge that formerly linked Siberia and Alaska, some 12,000 years ago. However, data are mounting in support of migrations that date to before 12,000 years ago. Regardless of the precise timing of the first occupations of the New World, it does not appear that Florida was inhabited by humans prior to about 10,000 years ago. Although limited, radiocarbon dates from Paleoindian sites in western Florida date to between 10,000 and 7500 BC (Clausen et al. 1979; Cockrelld an Murphy 1978; Dunbar et al. 1988). The conventional view of Paleoindian existence in Florida is that they were nomadic hunters and gatherers who wandered into an environment quite different than that of the present.

Excavations at the Harney Flats site in Hillsborough County altered this view, and many archaeologists believe that Paleoindian people lived part of the year in habitation sites that were located near critical resources such as fresh water. The climate during the Paleoindian period was cooler than at present and the land drier, with coastal sea levels and the inland water table much lower than at present (Carbone 1983; Watts and Hansen 1988). The paucity of potable water sources is thought by some archaeologists to have played a crucial role in the distribution of Paleoindian bands across the landscape. They hypothesize that human groups frequented sinkholes and springs to collect water and exploit the flora and fauna that were also attracted to these locations (Dunbar 1991; Milanich 1994; Webb et al. 1984). Many of these freshwater sources were located in areas of exposed Tertiary age limestone that had become

Historic Overview 6 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

silicified, providing the Paleoindians with a raw material source (chert) for tool manufacture. Thus, it is thought that permanent freshwater sources (sinkholes, springs), along with locations of high quality chert, were primary factors influencing Paleoindian settlement patterns in Florida.

Archaic Period (8000–500 BC)

Around 8000 BC the environment and physiology of Florida underwent some pronounced changes due to climatic amelioration. These changes were interconnected and include a gradual warming trend, a rise in sea levels, a reduction in the width of peninsular Florida, and the spread of oak‐dominated forests and hammocks throughout much of Florida (Milanich 1994; Smith 1986). Concomitant with these environmental changes were alterations in native subsistence strategies, which became more diverse due to the emergence of new plant, animal, and aquatic species. Also occurring at this time was a significant increase in population numbers and density, with native groups developing regional habitat‐specific adaptations and material assemblages (Milanich 1994; Smith 1986:10). As conditions became wetter, coastal, riparian, and lacustrine adaptations became increasingly more common. The Archaic period is typically divided into the Early, Middle, and Late subperiods by archaeologists, as shown in Table 1.

Within the central Florida, evidence of the earliest occupations usually consists of lithic scatters containing chert debitage and occasionally projectile points. While Early Archaic Bolen projectile points have been recovered at sites in this region, Middle Archaic points, such as Hardee, Sumter, Alachua, Putnam, and Newnan, are typically much more common (Smith and Bond 1984:53‐55). As life became more settled during the Archaic period, an array of site types evolved that included residential bases, short‐term settlements, specialized procurement camps, and cemeteries (Milanich 1994:75‐85). Collectively, these comprised the regional settlement‐subsistence system.

The trend toward increased sedentism and more circumscribed territories continued into the Late Archaic period, as environmental and climatic conditions approached those of today. A major technological innovation of the Late Archaic was the development of fired‐clay pottery around 2000 BC. Referred to as Orange pottery by archaeologists, this early ceramic ware was tempered with plant fibers, either thin strands of palmetto or Spanish moss (Bullen 1972; Griffin 1945). During a span of approximately 1,500 years, plain, incised, and punctated types were produced; however, decorated variants underwent periods of stylistic popularity. With regard to vessel form, early pots were hand molded and tended to be thick walled, whereas some of the later vessels were thinner and formed by coiling. This transitional period is characterized by the emergence of ceramic traditions and the inception of limited horticulture. Horticulture preceded the early fiber‐tempered pottery, which appeared simultaneously in three areas of the southeastern United States (Sassaman 1993). People who made Orange pottery lived along the Atlantic Coast between southern South Carolina and northern Florida. While fiber‐tempered pottery is found sparingly throughout Florida, it is primarily recovered in eastern and central portions of the state.

7 Historic Overview September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

Orange fiber‐tempered ceramics were first described by James Griffin (1945:219) and are considered among the earliest pottery types in North America. The next recognized early fiber‐ tempered ceramic culture, Norwood, extended from the Gulf coast to the Orange series on the East coast. The fiber‐tempered Norwood pottery is usually undecorated or stick impressed. A third fiber‐tempered ceramic variant known as Tick Island Incised was produced at the same time as Orange series ware and occurs in the Upper St. Johns River drainage area. The designs incised onto the exterior of Tick Island ware are curvilinear and incorporate small dashes or punctations.

During the late Transitional period, more and more sand was added to the clay used to make pottery as a tempering agent. This technique eventually replaced the practice of using plant fibers as temper. Early sand‐ and grit‐tempered pottery in north Florida was produced by the Deptford culture. The other dominant pottery type that followed the fiber‐tempered tradition is called St. Johns ware and was produced in northeast Florida. St. Johns pottery relies on microscopic sponge spicules, or exoskeletons, as temper. Although some sand was added to this pottery, St. Johns ware lacks the fiber, sand, and grit temper that is typical of prehistoric pottery giving it a chalky texture. Deptford and St. Johns were produced at the same time and are often recovered in association with each other.

St. Johns Tradition (500 BC–AD 1565)

Sumter County falls on the western edge of the Central Lakes District. This area is not well studied archaeologically, but research to date finds that St. Johns is the dominant ceramic type in the region. St. Johns is characterized by chalky pottery produced between 500 BC and AD 1565, increased population and settlement numbers compared to the Archaic period, construction of sand burial mounds, continued economic dependence on aquatic resources, and greater emphasis on plant cultivation (Goggin 1952:40; Milanich 1994:243‐274). While St. Johns ceramics are found across the peninsula, the St. Johns River drainage in central and northeastern Florida was eth core area of the St. Johns culture. In eastern and central Florida, the St. Johns culture grew directly out of the Orange culture. This is evidenced by the carryover of late Orange period designs to early St. Johns period pottery.

The Central Lakes District appears to represent an area of influence or a transitional zone between the St. Johns cultures to the east and those cultural groups occupying the adjacent North Peninsular Gulf Coast, Central Gulf Coast, and the Okeechobee region, after 500 BC. A major indicator of ties to the west coast is the presence of Weeden Island ceramics, yespeciall Pasco types, which appear in typically small percentages in many central Florida sites. In addition to St. Johns wares, sites in the Central Lakes District typically contain Glades and Belle Glade ceramics, which originate in the Lake Okeechobee region. These are more common in the south central portion of this district, whereas purer St. Johns assemblages are found in the northern portion of the region (Sears 1959).

Historic Overview 8 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

St. Johns I

Within the St. Johns period there are two major subdivisions (I and II). The St. Johns I period is divided into three sub periods (I, Ia, and Ib) on the basis of observable changes in material culture, most notably ceramics (Goggin 1952:40; Milanich 1994:247). People of the St. Johns I culture (500 BC–AD 100) were foragers who relied primarily upon hunting, fishing, and wild plant collecting. During this time, the resources found near freshwater wetlands, swamps, and the coastal zones were the most heavily exploited. St. Johns I sites are typically shell middens in coastal zones that contain St. Johns Plain and St. Johns Incised pottery.

At St. Johns Ia sites (AD 100–500), St. Johns Plain and Incised pottery continued to be produced, and a red‐painted St. Johns variant called Dunns Creek Red was also made. Exotic Hopewellian artifacts also occur in burial mounds. Weeden Island pottery (a primarily Gulf coast ware) has been recovered from late St. Johns Ia sites, apparently acquired as a trade ware. The St. Johns Ib period (AD 500–750) is similar to the Ia period, with the carryover of St. Johns Plain and Incised wares and Dunns Creek Red, but Weeden Island pottery becomes more common. However, the majority of everyday ceramics are plain. As the St. Johns culture progressed, sand mounds continued to be constructed and became larger through time.

St. Johns II

The St. Johns II period is further divided into three sub periods (IIa, IIb, and IIc). As populations grew, the number and size of mounds and villages increased. The emergence of check stamping marks the beginning of the St. Johns II period around AD 750 and, along with plain pottery, dominates the assemblages throughout the period. During St. Johns IIa (AD 750– 1050), incised and punctated wares, possibly a reflection of Gulf coast influences, occur with some frequency in mounds and middens. Late Weeden Island pottery continued to be traded into the St. Johns region and is recovered in sand burial mounds.

The St. Johns II tradition reached its apex in terms of social, political, and ceremonial complexity during the St. Johns IIb period (AD 1050–1513). Classic Mississippian traits such as the construction of large truncated mounds and the presence of Southern Cult burial paraphernalia in association with perceived elite burials are evident (Milanich 1994; Smith 1986), indicating influence from northwest Florida. Some sand burial mounds were quite large and ceremonially complex, including truncated pyramidal mounds with ramps or causeways leading up to their summits (Milanich 1994:269‐270). The rise in the number of St. Johns village and mound sites implies greater cultural complexity compared to that of the earlier St. Johns I period (Milanich 1994:267‐274; Miller 1991). Shell and bone ornaments, worked copper, and other exotic materials and artifacts occur with some frequency in burial mounds (Goggin 1952; Milanich 1994).

In addition to the exploitation of aquatic resources for subsistence, it has been suggested that there was an increased dependence on horticulture during St. Johns II times (Goggin 1952; Milanich 1994:263‐264). In fact, sixteenth‐century French and Spanish documents report that

9 Historic Overview September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

beans, squash, and maize were heavily cultivated by the Timucua of northern Florida (Bennett 1964, 1968, 1975; Lawson 1992), although direct evidence of prehistoric horticulture is lacking for the St. Johns region.

POST‐CONTACT HISTORY

Hernando de Soto (Figure 4) landed near Tampa Bay in 1539 and proceeded to march inland in search of gold. Becoming the first European to visit modern‐day Sumter County, de Soto’s route, as reconstructed, headed north from Tampa Bay through Sumter County, possibly crossing the Withlacoochee River (Milanich and Hudson 1993:92; Writers Program ca. 1930s:8). He advanced on to the village of Ocale (approximately 25 miles southwest of present day Ocala) and then on to the west of Gainesville, in the area of the San Felasco Hammock that was inhabited by Potano and Utina bands of Timucua Indians. De Soto traveled quickly through Marion and Alachua Counties and stayed at five successive villages (Milanich 1994).

Had it not been for the agricultural success of the Native Americans in the region, de Soto and his men probably would Figure 4. Hernando de Soto (Winsor 1886). Print have died of starvation. After reaping the benefits from their Collections, Florida State corn fields, de Soto continued his trek north into Georgia and Archive. then headed west, where he eventually died west of the Mississippi River on May 21, 1542 (Clayton et al. 1993:259‐261; Gannon 1996:26‐27; Milanich 1995:90, 131; Milanich and Hudson 1993).

Pedro Menedez de Aviles instituted a Spanish mission system in north Florida after 1565. Hoping to convert the native population to Christianity, the Spanish believed this would subdue the indigenous people and open the area to agricultural production (Hann 1996). The Spanish established the San Francisco de Potano mission along the Florida Santa Fe Trail northwest of modern day Gainesville (Milanich and Hudson 1993). Spanish accounts throughout the seventeenth century included details of the San Francisco mission and the surrounding villages, including skirmishes between native groups and the Spanish, disease epidemics, and the decline of indigenous population (Buchholz 1929; Gannon 1983; Johnson 1991; Milanich and Hudson 1993). The Spanish also built two missions along the western bank of the Ocklawaha during the seventeenth century, San Luis de Acuera and Santa Lucia de Acuera, and another near the Withlacoochee River (Milanich 1995:176). Typical of European contact throughout the entire “New World,” warfare and diseases decimated Florida’s indigenous groups. By 1728, the San Francisco mission’s native population had dwindled to 43, only one of which is listed as Potano. From all available evidence, it does not appear that the Spanish established any missions in

Historic Overview 10 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

present day Sumter County, which remained on the periphery of Spanish colonial activity (Milanich 1995:79).

By 1684, the Spaniards’ ability to finance and manage their various ventures in the New World was faltering; support from the homeland was on the decline. The English, who had settled in Charleston, South Carolina, began to influence the Indians to overthrow the Spanish in Florida (Tebeau 1971). In their effort to take the town of St. Augustine, the English destroyed the missions north of the city in 1702, but failed to take the stone fort, into which 1,500 townspeople took refuge for two months. Over decades of continued conflict, the British demolished most of the Spanish missions.

With the native populations in north Florida declining, Creek Indians from Alabama and Georgia sought refuge from British pressure and inter‐tribal conflict and migrated south. By 1765, these new arrivals were referred to as cimarrone, which is loosely translated from Spanish as “wild” and “runaway.” The cimarrone Indians moved into wild, unsettled territories west of St. Augustine (Fairbanks 1973). The term “Seminole” is thought to be derived from this cimarrone reference (Fernald and Purdum 1992). After Spain ceded Florida to Great Britain in 1763, the British divided the territory at the Apalachicola River into East and West Florida (Fabel 1996:134‐135).

The Seminoles

The Oconee Creeks of central Georgia, led by Cowkeeper (so named because of his large cattle herd), migrated into the north‐central Florida region (modern‐day Alachua County). Between 1739 and 1750 they became established in this locale, eventually forming the nucleus of the Seminole band (Mahon 1985).

Around the same time, the tribal leader Secofee led a group of Lower Creeks and their Yamassee slaves from southeastern Georgia into Florida. Later, factions of the Upper Creeks from the Alabama Territory also migrated into Florida as a result of the Creek War of 1813– 1814. This conflict was a civil war betweene th Upper and Lower Creeks. Andrew Jackson, angry that this battle had spilled over into white territory and taken white lives, formed an alliance between the US Army and the Lower Creek forces and defeated the Upper Creeks, who were also known as the Red Sticks. The Red Sticks migrated to Florida after their loss, and though they joined the Lower Creek bands already in Florida because they had little choice, they remained bitter toward the Lower Creeks. By 1770, the migration of these various Indian groups into Florida was complete and they began to identify themselves separately from the Creek Confederacy.

Generally, the Seminoles were divided into bands, and each band lived in a separate town that governed itself. Towns were built in a common pattern, and each town had a leader or “mico” who had to consult a council of principal men on major decisions. Bands were divided into clans. Clan division governed all aspects of social organization. Clan affiliation was determined through the female line of descent (children were born into their mother’s clan), and one had

11 Historic Overview September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

to marry outside their clan. Southeastern chiefdoms, the predecessors of historic Southeastern tribes, also practiced this descent system.

Prior to the First Seminole War, the Seminole people prospered in Florida raising cattle and growing their traditional crops of corn, beans, squash, and tobacco (Fairbanks 1973). The Seminoles established permanent towns between eth Apalachicola and St. Johns Rivers. Instead of the mission system of the Spanish, the British set up several trading posts in Florida. Seminoles traded deer, wild cattle, and furs in exchange for guns, iron tools, cloth, and a variety of ornamental jewelry (Fairbanks 1973). This trade brought prosperity to some Seminole individuals.

After the American Revolution, the Treaty of Paris returned Florida to Spain in 1783. During this Second Spanish period, Spain continued the British system of controlling the Seminoles through trade and supply. Rum became a common exchange good and traders extended credit to the Seminoles, who were unable to produce enough skins to balance their accounts because of the decreased deer population. Traders often accepted Seminole land as payment (Fairbanks 1973). Also, the Seminoles’ friendly manner toward escaped slaves angered the slave‐holding border states of Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, and Mississippi, a factor that would eventually culminate in the Seminole Wars.

The Seminole Wars

Conflicts between American settlers and Seminoles increased and led to the First Seminole War in 1817. General Andrew Jackson, known to the Seminoles as “Sharp Knife,” invaded Seminole territory on Spanish controlled land and destroyed Seminole towns. This military effort led to Florida becoming a US territory in 1821. President James Monroe appointed Jackson Governor of the new territory (Figure 5). Jackson organized Figure 5. Governor Andrew Jackson reviewing troops the territory into two counties, Escambia during the Seminole Wars. Source: Florida Photographic Collection, Florida State Archives. (west Florida) and St. Johns (east Florida). The First Seminole War ended with the Treaty of Moultree Creek in 1823, which stipulated that all Indians in Florida move onto a reservation in the middle of the state. Most of the state’s white and African American population resided in the northern half of Florida, leaving much of the central and southern half of the state bereft of homesteaders.

Increased white settlement of central Florida following the 1823 treaty brought about pressure for the US government to remove the Seminoles entirely from Florida to open the reservation for white homesteaders. Eventually tensions between white settlers and Indians culminated in the Second Seminole War (1835–1842). The US Agency of Indian Removal centered its

Historic Overview 12 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

headquarters in what is now known as the Ocala Highlands. Fort King, located near modern‐ day Ocala, was established in 1827. Reportedly intended as a military buffer between white colonists and the Seminoles, the fort remained in operation until 1829 when the military abandoned it. Three years later, the army re‐occupied the fort and prepared to remove the Native Americans to reservations beyond the Mississippi River (Carter 1958:832‐833,922; Ott and Chazal 1974:23‐25).

In 1932, the US and Seminole delegates signed the Payne’s Landing Treaty, effectively reversing the Treaty of Moultree Creek. This treaty required the Indians to relinquish all of their Florida holdings within three years and move to reservations on Indian Territories far to the west (Sprague 1964[1848]:72‐88,101). A significant faction of Seminoles felt the United States took advantage of them and vowed not to leave their land without an armed struggle. The Seminole leader Osceola carried out the execution of Chief Charley Emathla because Emathla had agreed to move his people to Oklahoma.

When the three years had expired and the Payne's Landing Treaty was to be enforced, a group of 180 Seminole warriors, led by Chiefs Micanopy and Alligator, attacked a column of 108 US Army soldiers led by Major Francis Dade (Figure 6). The attack took place near the Withlacoochee River on December 28, 1835, near present‐day Bushnell, while Dade and his men were en route from Ft. Brooke (present‐day Tampa) to Ft. King. Figure 6. Troops viewing the demise of Major Dade and The memorial park for this battle is located his command, ca. 1835. Source: Print Collections, approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the Florida State Archives. current project. Only three soldiers survived the battle, two of whom died shortly thereafter (Dovell 1952:1:244; Sprague 1964[1848]:89‐91; Tebeau 1971). After the battle, the Seminoles celebrated their success in the Wahoo Swamp, northwest of the current project (Mahon 1985:106‐107). The raid was an overwhelming victory for the Seminoles, who sustained minimal casualties. The battle demonstrated to the US Army that the Seminoles, when organized, represented a considerable military force. In addition, the victory resulted in the capture of more than 100 US Army muskets by the Seminoles.

On the same day as Alligator’s attack, Osceola and a band of warriors killed the Indian Agent Wiley Thompson and several of his companions outside of Fort King. Three days later on December 31, 1835, General Duncan Clinch and his volunteers engaged a large Seminole force at the Battle of the Withlacoochee and the Second Seminole War had started (Sprague 1964[1848]:91‐93). The Second Seminole War lasted from 1835 to 1842. During this conflict, the Seminole guerilla warfare tactics and Florida’s swampy terrain confused Federal forces. Before it ended, the Second Seminole War had spread into south Florida as far as Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades.

13 Historic Overview September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

During the war, Seminoles inhabited portions of present‐day Sumter County, especially around Wahoo Swamp and the Withlacoochee River (Writers Program ca. 1930s:9). Aware of the Seminole presence, Major General Richard Keith Call along with Tennessee volunteers, Florida militia, regular army, and Creek Indians engaged the Seminoles in the Battle of Wahoo Swamp on November 21, 1836 (Mahon 1985:183‐186). The Wahoo Swamp was home to a large Seminole village consisting of women, children, 200 Seminole maroon men, and 420 Seminole warriors. Lasting only a day, the Seminoles successfully repulsed Call’s troops. Despite this defeat, the Army returned to the area establishing a stronger presence. The US military established Fort Armstrong and Fort McClure (originally named Camp Wendell) in present‐day Sumter County (MacKay and Blake 1839). Colonel Robert Armstrong and a brigade of Tennessee volunteers built Fort Armstrong during the fall or winter of 1836 on the Dade battlefield (Roberts 1988:146). A temporary site, the post served as a rendezvous for troops in the region during the winter of 1836–1837. Additionally, the fort allowed the Army to harass Seminoles in Wahoo Swamp (Mahon 1985:196). The military abandoned the fort in 1837. Situated approximately a mile and a half south of the present‐day intersection of State Road 35 and 468, the army constructed Camp Wendell in late 1838 or 1839 (Roberts 1988:182). The camp was abandoned shortly thereafter, but Company B, 8th Infantry, re‐established the post in 1842 and renamed it in honor of Lieutenant James McClure, 1st Infantry.

The war raged on until 1842. At the close of the Second Seminole War, the government shipped several hundred Seminoles to the western territories. In total, this war cost the United States an estimated $40,000,000 and the lives of 1,500 American troops. Casualties to the Seminoles are unknown. With their numbers greatly reduced and their villages and cattle herds decimated, the Seminoles retreated into the Everglades for refuge. At the war’s conclusion, the Seminole reservation shifted south where the northernmost point encompassed the southeastern half of Hardee County and stretched to the northern end of Whitewater Bay in Everglades National Park (Mahon 1985). The war effectively stopped people from moving into the sparsely settled Florida territory. Between 1830 and 1840, the territory’s population increased by only 19,747 to 54,477 (Andriot 1993:96).

After the costly and lengthy Second Seminole War, the federal government passed the Armed Occupation Act of 1842 to encourage the settlement of Florida. On August 4, 1842, any free head of family or single male over the age of 18 who could bear arms was eligible for 160 acres of free land, provided the person would live on the land for five years and farm a minimum of five acres. Nearly 200,000 acres of federal land south of present‐day Gainesville was offered up to prospective settlers (Covington 1957:106‐118). The government passed the act in part to promote settlement of the Florida wilderness, but also to create a civilian buffer to help keep Indians confined to their South Florida reservation. Settlers were a mix of people from the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, and North Florida. Others were pioneers who had already moved into the area, including soldiers, who did not own land. Many of the people who took advantage of the act were of limited means, poorly educated, and searching for a better way of life. They staked out claims, built homes, planted crops, let their cattle range, and raised families (Brown 1991:65‐67; Covington 1961:41‐52). When the act came to an end nine months after its birth, a total of 189,440 acres of Florida land were claimed through 1,184

Historic Overview 14 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

permits. Approximately 6,000 people moved into the Florida wilderness (House of Representatives 1844:1‐55). Coupled with the population’s natural increase and migration to the northern portion of the state, Florida’s population increased by 60.5 percent to 87,445 in 1850 (Andriot 1993:96).

Sumter County History

Population growth helped spur the creation of Sumter County, Florida’s 29th county. Named for Brigadier General Thomas Sumter (Figure 7), a native South Carolinian of Revolutionary War fame, the state legislature carved the county out of Mosquito County on January 8, 1853 (Covington 1957:285‐287; Morris 1995:229). At inception, 1,500 people called Sumter home, and the county consisted of 880,200 acres including portions of present‐day Lake, Polk, and Orange counties (Writers Program ca. 1930s:7, 19). Many early residents had migrated from South Carolina searching for good pastureland and hunting grounds. Adamsville served as the first county seat and was chosen because of a relay and telegraph station that Figure 7. Brigadier General had previously been established (Writers Program ca. Thomas Sumter, ca. 1800s. 1930s:19). Shortly thereafter, a two‐story split cypress log Source: Print Collections, building was constructed that functioned as a courthouse, Florida State Archives. school, and church (Covington 1957:285‐287). Early settlements grew up around the road between Fort Brooke and Fort King, cutting through the county in a north–south direction (Writers Program ca. 1930s:18). Other homesteaders settled upon Lake Harris and Lake Griffin (both of which are in present‐day Lake County). Antebellum communities included Adamsville, Sumterville, and Yalaha.

Citrus became an important cash crop for early pioneers during this era. People would travel to the east coast to obtain salt (Writers Program ca. 1930s:9). Their journey led them by New Smyrna and the former Turnbull colony, established during the British occupation of Florida. While the plantation no longer existed, many of the sweet orange trees that were planted by the colonists survived. Sumter residents picked the oranges and planted the seeds when they returned home. The “Parson Brown” orange variety, free from acid that plagued early oranges, was developed in Sumter County during the late 1850s (Writers Program ca. 1930s:8‐9,19). The Hooks family created a nursery of Parson Brown trees south of Lake Harris in 1868, establishing the state’s first commercial nursery and bringing the orange variety to national prominence. With this success and others, Sumter became the leading citrus county in Florida. By 1880, 13,029 citrus trees grew in Sumter (Covington 1957:343). Between 1928 and 1950 growers planted more than one million Parson Brown trees in commercial nurseries (Covington 1957:345).

David G. Leigh of Sumter County voted along with most of his fellow representatives to withdraw from the Union on January 10, 1861 (Covington 1957:140). While no known battles

15 Historic Overview September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

or skirmishes occurred within the present county boundaries, residents participated in the war through contribution of soldiers, cattle, wool, and other supplies in support of the Confederacy (Writers Program ca. 1930s:10‐11). The war also had another impact upon the county by stopping the flow of immigrants. Not until the late 1870s would Sumter begin to recover from the war through the development of railroads and immigration of northerners (Dovell 1952:2:610).

During the 1870s and 1880s, Sumter County underwent several transformations, many related to the railroads. In 1871, the boundaries of Sumter and Polk counties were changed (Writers Program ca. 1930s:4,7). Ar yea later, Orange County took a portion of Sumter. Near the end of the decade, the boundaries of Sumter, Orange, and Polk counties were again changed. In 1882 Sumter County was agriculturally based with citrus and vegetables being the primary crops. The county boasted of 1,022 mules and horses, 6,112 cattle, and 7,632 hogs. Steamers plied the Withlacoochee and the Tropical Florida Railroad pierced the county, connecting with Wildwood, Ocala, and other parts of the state (MacLeod 1994; Robinson 1882:175‐176). According to A. A. Robinson (1882:176), Commissioner of Immigration, “Another attractive feature of this county is the character and moral tone of its citizens. Schools and churches dot the county wherever the population is sufficient to maintain them.”

The final boundary adjustment came in 1887 when the state legislature carved Lake County from the eastern portion of Sumter and the northern portion of Orange counties. This change resulted from the railroad’s arrival. The Tropical Florida Railroad Company entered Sumter County in 1882, and in 1884, the Florida Central and Peninsular Railway constructed tracks through the county, bringing in settlers and creating new communities wherever it went (Writers Program ca. 1930s:6, 20). Sumter’s population reflects this tremendous growth. Between 1880 and 1885 the county’s population doubled (Andriot 1993:98) (Table 2). In 1867 the county seat was moved to Leesburg (presently in Lake County). In 1882, with the growth of western Sumter County, voters moved the seat to Sumterville (Writers Program ca. 1930s:20). Leesburg residents failed to move the capital back, revealing a political shift of power from the west to the east resulting from the railroad boom. Feeling a lack of political representation, citizens in the western half decided to end their relationship with Sumter, forming Lake County in 1887.

Table 2. Sumter County Population. Date Population Date Population Date Population 1860 1,549 1905 5,549 1940 11,041 1870 2,952 1910 6,696 1945 10,417 1880 4,686 1915 7,517 1950 11,330 1885 9,462 1920 7,851 1960 11,869 1890 5,363 1925 7,916 1970 14,839 1895 5,308 1930 10,644 1980 24,272 1900 6,187 1935 10,056 1990 31,577

As the county’s population skyrocketed, residents established new towns and breathed life into older ones. Post‐Civil War communities included Webster (founded in 1869), Wildwood

Historic Overview 16 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

(established by I. E. Barwick in 1877), Oxford (surveyed by J. T. Perry in 1882), Panasoffkee (created in 1882), Center Hill (established by Thomas W. Spicer in 1883), Rutland (founded in 1884), and Bushnell (brought into existence in 1885) (Writers Program ca 1930s:11‐12,20‐21). Though the post office came to Bushnell in 1885, the growth was slow, illustrated by Bushnell not being incorporated as a city until 1911. On the eve of Lake County’s genesis, 35 post offices serviced communities throughout Sumter County (Richards 1886: 419). In 1886, of the county’s 883,200 acres, 11,463 were either improved or under cultivation. Stock raising was also a successful industry with 10,738 head of cattle grazing on Sumter pastures. With the creation of Lake County, Sumter County’s population dropped to 5,363 in 1890, but achieved steady growth through 1930 when it reached 10,644 (Andriot 1993:98).

Sumter County did not participate in the 1920s land boom to the extent of other counties like Hillsborough, Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. Much of this can be attributed to the impact of freezes upon its citrus industry, limitations created by the cattle barons who did not want their pasture lands transformed into suburbs, and the draw of counties further south (Writers Program ca. 1930s:16). During the 1930s, important crops and industries in Sumter County included green beans, cucumbers, tomatoes, cabbage, peppers, watermelons, cantaloupes, sugarcane, strawberries, pecans, avocados, dairying, poultry raising, cattle, lumber mills, crate and basket factories, naval stores, cement plants, and lime rock mining (Writers Program ca. 1930s:1, 15). Residents had access to 115 miles of railroad and 150 miles of hard‐surfaced paved roads to transport their produce to market (Florida State Chamber of Commerce and Florida Emergency Relief Administration 1935:270). Two state highways crossed the county with State Road 22 providing access to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf while State Road 23 connected Jacksonville to Tampa (Writers Program ca. 1930s:21). Bushnell was located at the crossroads. By 1940, Sumter’s population totaled 10,417, and the population of its two largest towns (Wildwood and Coleman) totaled 1,346 and 764 respectively (State of Florida 1945:77). Bushnell was the capital since 1912, but only 676 residents called it home. With the development of US Highway 301 as an important route into the state, Wildwood, situated along 301, flourished with its population passing the 2,000 mark in 1945 (Covington 1957:265; State of Florida 1945:77). Webster surpassed Coleman, being the only other community besides Wildwood with a population of more than 1,000. Bushnell’s population declined to 509.

By the 1990s, 720 farms operated in Sumter County, owning 253,330 acres (approximately 71 percent of the land in the county), with 62,382 acres under cultivation (US Bureau of the Census 1992). Farmers grew or raised tomatoes, cucumbers, eggplant, peppers, cattle and poultry. Sawmills produced 433,000 board feet of softwood logs, 3,147 cords of softwood for pulp, 98,000 board feet of hardwood logs, and 1,820 cords of hardwood for pulp. Like the rest of the state, retail trade, government, and service sectors constituted the county’s largest employers. Wildwood and Bushnell were the county’s urban centers with 3,647 and 2,162 residents respectively (US Bureau of the Census 1994).

17 Historic Overview September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE REVIEW

Florida Master Site File (FMSF) data from July 2015 were reviewed to identify any previously recorded cultural resources within one mile of the project APE. The FMSF review indicates that three previous cultural resource surveys have been conducted within one mile of the current project area (Table 3). None of these crossed the project area.

Table 3. Previous Cultural Resources Assessment Surveys within One Mile of the Sumter Gardens Project. Survey Title Year Reference No. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of SR 93 (I‐75) form 1.5 Miles 12820 North of the Hernando County Line to 0.2 Miles North of SR 91 (Florida's 2006 Janus Research Turnpike), Sumter County, Volume 1, Volume 2: Appendices Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of State Road 48 From CR 313 to Estabrook, 13329 2005 North Market Street, Sumter County, Florida Richard W. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for Additional Ponds for the I‐75 19092 Sumter County PD&E, Sumter County, Florida. Financial Project ID: 2012 Janus Research 242626‐2‐52‐01

The FMSF review also indicates that three historic structures have been recorded within one mile of the project APE (Figure 8; Table 4). Of the historic structures, only one (8SM00485) has been determined eligible for the NRHP. The lack of archaeological sites is not surprising given the limited scope of prior surveys in this area. This structure was built in ca. 1904 and is located one‐mile east of the project area on SR 48. Figure 8 also includes the locations of sites beyond the 1‐mile buffer, showing that recorded sites are limited to the previously surveyed area to eth northeast and the known historic battlefield memorial (8SM00012) to the southeast.

Table 4. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Sumter Gardens Project. Historic Structures FMSF No. Address Year Built Surveyor Evaluation SHPO Evaluation 8SM00413 6759 CR 614 1944 Ineligible for NRHP Ineligible for NRHP 8SM00414 2386 CR 608 1955 Ineligible for NRHP Ineligible for NRHP 8SM00458 1770 W State Road 48N ca. 1904 Eligible for NRHP Eligible for NRHP

Background Research 18 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

Figure 8. Previously recorded resources in the vicinity of the Sumter Gardens project.

19 Background Research September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

HISTORIC MAP AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW

Past land use within and surrounding the Sumter Gardens project area was identified through the consultation of historic maps and aerial photographs. The earliest maps consulted were produced by the General Land Office (GLO) in 1845 and 1849 (GLO 1845, 1849). GLO maps vary in their level of detail, but frequently depict rivers, lakes, swamps, and signs of human habitation such as roads or Native American villages. Figure 9 shows the project as undeveloped in the 1840s, with the nearest features being trails to the north and the “road from Tampa” to the east. Of particular note is the mapped location of "Dade's Massacre" to the southeast. No features are mapped within the project area.

An 1859 map of Sumter County shows a road going northwest from the location of "Dades Massace," likely passing somewhere near this project in order to stay on the high ground between the wetlands (Figure 10, Surveyor General 1859). The scale at which this mapped was produced makes further refinement of locations difficult due to the inherent planimetric inaccuracy. A number of roads in Sumter County are the only other evidence for nineteenth‐ century settlement to the region.

A Florida State Road Department map from 1936 provides a clear picture of the development in the area of the project (Figure 11) (Florida State Road Department 1936). State Road 48 is in its current alignment (labeled here as "22") and numerous structures are evident near the project. The structures are mapped on the east, south, and west sides of the project, but not within the boundaries of the project.

Aerial photography from 1941 (Figure 12) shows the project area as mostly cleared (USDA 1941). There is a structure in the northeast corner and a possible farm‐related structure or vehicle south of the structure. The exact nature of what is shown in the photograph is unknown. The land was used for agricultural or range activities. No groves are evident.

The 1958 Wahoo Quadrangle map (Figure 13) depicts a structure in the northeast corner of the project area, immediately adjacent to the road (USGS 1958). It is in the same location as the structure seen on the 1941 aerial photograph. The structure is clearly visible on a 1964 aerial photograph that also shows trail traces crossing the project area (Figure 14; USGS 1964).

Aerial photography from 1969 (Figure 15) shows a starkly different landscape (USDA 1969). There is a disturbance within the project area. The texture and chroma in the photograph suggest extensive excavation; the homogeneity and lack of albedo in the image suggests the area is flooded. The total extent of this disturbance is not clear from the photography. The northern and eastern edges of the project area appear to remain intact. The structure is still evident in the northeast corner. The surrounding patterns of land use have not changed too much since the 1964 image, in terms of cleared vs. forested areas. The disturbed area on the aerial corresponds with the area designated as disturbed in the soils data (see Figure 3).

Background Research 20 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

Figure 9. 1845 and 1849 GLO maps showing the project area outlined in blue.

21 Background Research September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

Figure 10. Detail from Annual Report of the Surveyor General for 1859, showing this part of Sumter County.

Figure 11. Portion of 1936 Florida Department of Transportation map of Sumter County, showing development near the project area.

Background Research 22 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

Figure 12. Aerial photograph of the Sumter Gardens project area from 1941.

23 Background Research September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

Figure 13. USGS Wahoo Quadrangle from 1958 showing a structure in the project area.

Background Research 24 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

Figure 14. Aerial photograph of the Sumter Gardens project area in 1964.

25 Background Research September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

Figure 15. Aerial photograph of the Sumter Gardens project area from 1969.

Background Research 26 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

RESEARCH DESIGN

PROJECT GOALS

A research design is a plan to coordinate the cultural resource investigation from inception to the completion of the project. This plan should minimally account for three things: (1) it should make explicit the goals and intentions of the research; (2) it should define the sequence of events to be undertaken in pursuit of the research goals; and (3) it should provide a basis for evaluating the findings and conclusions drawn from the investigation.

The goal of this survey was to locate and document evidence of historic or prehistoric occupation or use within the APE (archaeological or historic sites, historic structures, or archaeological occurrences [isolated artifact finds]), and to evaluate these for their potential eligibility for listing in the NRHP. The research strategy was composed of background investigation, a historical document search, and field survey. The background investigation involved a perusal of relevant archaeological literature, producing a summary of previous archaeological work undertaken near the project area. The FMSF was checked for previously recorded sites within the project corridor, which provided an indication of prehistoric settlement and land‐use patterns for the region. Current soil surveys and relevant literature were consulted to provide a description of the physiographic and geological region of which the project area is a part. These data were used in combination to develop expectations regarding the types of archaeological sites that may be present and their likely locations (site probability areas).

The historical document search involved a review of primary and secondary historic sources as well as a review of the FMSF for any previously recorded historic structures. The original township plat maps, early aerial photographs, and other relevant sources were checked for information pertaining to the existence of historic structures, sites of historic events, and historically occupied or noted aboriginal settlements within the project limits.

NRHP CRITERIA

Cultural resources identified within the project APE were evaluated according to the criteria for listing in the NRHP. Evaluation for inclusion in the NRHP follows 36 CFR Part 60.4, which is reprinted in the US Department of the Interior document (1990:2) entitled How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, and states:

the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess

27 Research Design September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. that are associated with events or activities that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

To be eligible for the NRHP, sites must have both significance and integrity, and meet at least one of these four criteria (A through D). In addition, eligible sites are evaluated for their uniqueness and they must retain interpretive potential. Generally, sites that are not eligible for listing include highly disturbed sites, surface scatters, recent artifact debris (less than 50 years old), and isolated finds (archaeological occurrences).

NRHP‐eligible districts must possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. NRHP‐eligible districts and buildings must also possess historic significance, historic integrity, and historical context.

CULTURAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL

Prior to this survey, the FDHR found that the environmental conditions in the area were favorable for finding archaeological and historical resources. Though the impacts of prior ground‐disturbing activities were judged to be high, SEARCH operated on the assumption that the potential for prehistoric or historic archaeological sites to be present within the project APE was considered to be moderate to high. In addition, the presence of a structure on historical aerial photographs and maps indicated there may be the remains of a historic building within the project area.

SURVEY METHODS

Archaeological Field Methods

The Phase I field survey consisted of systematic subsurface shovel testing according to the potential for containing buried archaeological sites. In areas of high archaeological potential (i.e., near the map‐projected location of a historic structure), shovel tests were excavated at 25‐

Research Design 28 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

meter intervals. In the remainder of the project, an attempt was made to test as moderate site potential, with shovel tests planned at 50‐meter intervals along parallel transects. The entire project area was also subject to pedestrian survey.

Shovel tests measured approximately 50 centimeters (cm) in diameter and were excavated to a minimum depth of 100 centimeters below surface (cmbs), subsurface conditions permitting. All excavated sediments were screened through 1/4‐inch‐mesh hardware cloth. The location of each shovel test was marked on aerial photographs and recorded with WAAS‐enabled handheld GPS units. The cultural content, soil strata, and environmental setting of each shovel test were recorded in field notebooks.

Architectural Field Methods

The architectural survey for the project utilized standard procedures for the location, investigation, and recording of historic properties. In addition to a search of the FMSF for previously recorded historic properties within the project area, US Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps and the Sumter County Property Appraiser database were reviewed for structures that were constructed prior to 1971. The field crew was prepared to inventory any extant buildings, structures, and other aspects of the built environment within the project APE.

Laboratory Methods

All artifacts recovered during the archaeological survey were returned to the laboratory facilities at the SEARCH office in Newberry for cleaning and processing. Artifacts were washed clean of sand and dirt and allowed to air‐dry. Materials were then rebagged and organized by provenience and artifact class. Field specimen (FS) numbers were assigned in the lab. All artifacts were counted, weighed, identified, and examined for diagnostic features. The historic artifacts recovered were classified using a modified version of Stanley South's (1977) categorization scheme and entered into a database.

Curation

The original maps and field notes are presently housed at the Newberry office of SEARCH. All artifacts recovered during the survey will be returned to the client upon the completion of the project.

Informant Interviews

No local informants were encountered during fieldwork.

29 Research Design September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

Certified Local Government Consultation

There are no Certified Local Governments (CLGs) in the vicinity of the Sumter Gardens project area; therefore no CLG consultation was required.

Procedures to Deal with Unexpected Discoveries

Every reasonable effort has been made during this investigation to identify and evaluate possible locations of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites; however, the possibility exists that evidence of cultural resources may yet be encountered within the project limits. Should evidence of unrecorded cultural resources be discovered during construction activities, all work in that portion of the project area must stop. Evidence of cultural resources includes aboriginal or historic pottery, prehistoric stone tools, bone or shell tools, historic trash pits, and historic building foundations.

In the unlikely event that human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts are uncovered within the project area, all work in that area must stop. The discovery must be reported to local law enforcement, who will in turn contact the medical examiner. The medical examiner will determine whether or not the State Archaeologist should be contacted per the requirements of Chapter 872.05, Florida Statutes.

Research Design 30 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

RESULTS

A total of 14 shovel tests were excavated throughout the project area. Extensive ponding prevented the excavation of additional shovel tests. Two transects were walked across the project area. The disturbance seen on aerial photography was revealed to be extensive (Figure 16), limiting the area available for subsurface testing e(Figur 17). The areas impacted are now generally inundated. In areas where testing was impossible, archaeologists recorded GPS points for observations and took photographs of the disturbances (labeled as PS on Figure 17). Even in locations where the vegetation indicated the soils should be better drained, such as near oak trees, water was frequently encountered before the shovel tests reached 100 cmbs. Along the northern edge of the project, shovel tests were able to reach 100 cmbs. It was here that a site was documented, 8SM00793.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE – 8SM00793

In the northeast corner of the survey area, a single test, Shovel Test (ST) 3, produced 38 artifacts in the top 30 cm of the test. Six more sherds of ceramics were found on the surface 14 meters south of ST 3 (Surface Find [SF] 1). The deposit recorded as 8SM00793 consists of historic glass, ceramics, metal, and a brick fragment (Table 5). Bounding shovel tests at 12.5 and 25 meters in cardinal directions failed to yield additional artifacts. Table 5. Artifacts Recovered from 8SM00793. Depth Weight Provenience Artifact Attributes Count (cmbs) (g) ST 3 0‐30 Flat glass disk with lip and flange, clear possible ashtray 5 97.38 ST 3 0‐30 Bottle glass clear 2 2.04 ST 3 0‐30 Flat glass clear 2 3.51 ST 3 0‐30 Bottle glass amethyst 1 0.62 ST 3 0‐30 UID glass, melted clear 1 3.36 ST 3 0‐30 Whiteware flatware, rim 2 2.80 ST 3 0‐30 Whiteware flatware, body 1 1.00 ST 3 0‐30 Ironstone flatware, rim 1 9.29 ST 3 0‐30 Nail, wire 11 48.20 ST 3 0‐30 UID metal object Battery part? 1 200.01 ST 3 0‐30 UID iron/steel 8 58.95 ST 3 0‐30 Eyelet/rivet/grommet, brass 1 0.74 ST 3 0‐30 Miscellaneous metal >1/2" 1 7.66 ST 3 0‐30 Brick, red 1 5.25 Whiteware, blue underglaze stippled SF‐1 Surface flatware, rim 1 14.53 transfer print SF‐1 Surface Hotelware, overrglaze polychrome decal hollowware, base 1 10.25 SF‐1 Surface Whiteware, decal flatware, rim 1 18.44 SF‐1 Surface Ironstone flatware, base 1 18.17 SF‐1 Surface Ironstone, decal unknown, rim 1 3.63 SF‐1 Surface Ironstone unknown, body 1 6.34 Total 44 512.17

31 Results September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

Figure 16. Representative views of the Sumter Gardens project area. All photos keyed to Figure 16 labels. Clockwise from Top Left: Inundated area south of ST 2, view south; South view of environment from ST 1; Inundated disturbed area east of Observation Point PS4, view east; limestone boulder on the surface at Observation Point PS8; disturbed wetland west of Observation Point PS7, view west; and a view of the thick understory at ST 3, view west.

Results 32 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

Figure 17. Survey results within the Sumter Gardens project area.

33 Results September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

The ceramic assemblage from ST 3 at 8SM00793 included both whiteware and ironstone. Production of whiteware and ironstone both began in the early nineteenth century and continue through the mid‐twentieth century. The glass included mid‐twentieth‐century clear glass, along with lightly solarized amethyst glass. The amethyst glass has this color due to the presence of manganese dioxide, diagnostic of glass made between 1880 and 1917. The clear glass includes both bottle glass and flat glass. Fragments of a disk‐shaped glass object came from the shovel test as well. The object is made of thick, clear glass with molded elements on the side. It appears to be an ashtray. Ashtrays rose in popularity in the mid‐twentieth century, and the quality and color of the glass are consistent with this time period.

The metal artifacts were generally nondiagnostic, with the exception of 11 wire nails. The remaining metal items were classified as unidentifiable iron or steel, an unidentified steel cylindrical object, possible can lid or screw top, a metal snap part, and non‐magnetic miscellaneous metal. The variety in the types of metal is not consistent with a fragmented single object, but instead a collection of the remains of different items.

A single fragment of a red brick came from the shovel test. This small piece of brick has soot or possible black paint on the exterior, as well as striations consistent with being produced through extrusion. Extruded brick tends to date to the twentieth century, as the extrusion method began around 1870 and took time to spread (Gurcke 1987).

In addition to the artifacts recovered in ST 3, six ceramics sherds were recovered nearby from SF‐1. These sherds consisted of whiteware, ironstone, and hotelware. Hotelware is a general term for porcelaneous stonewares that were mass‐produced and relatively cheap. Hotelware was most common between 1920 and 1960 (Conroy 1998). Taken together, this assemblage likely dates to the mid‐twentieth century.

ST 3 is near the location of the structure visible from 1941‐1969 on historic maps and aerial photographs (see Figures 12 through 15). However, no additional evidence of a building was encountered during this survey. The demolition and removal of the structure appears to have been thorough. An additional five shovel tests were dug within 25 meters of ST 3 and did not result in the recovery of additional artifacts. Figure 18 is a view from ST 3 looking north toward SR 48. Vines and a thick understory cover the entire ground surface. The boundaries of the project precluded testing to the north, or more than 12.5 meters to the east.

The stratigraphy in ST 3 was consistent with Kanapaha sand, though the location is mapped as Sparr fine sand. The top 30 cm of the shovel test was gray loamy sand with artifacts. Below this, the next 40 to 70 cm was light grayish‐brown sand without artifacts. The final stratum, from 70 to 100 cm, was light gray sand without artifacts. This profile is consistent with the other shovel tests in this northern portion of the project. The soil profiles of the shovel tests further south consisted only of 20 cm of gray sand over light gray sand to 100 cmbs.

Results 34 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

Figure 18. View of 8SM00793, looking north toward SR 48. Photograph taken from ST 3, the only positive shovel test within the surveyed property.

The disturbance seen in aerial photographs across the majority of the survey parcel was observed to be extensive removal of the natural sediments. Any cultural resources that may have been present in the disturbed portion of the project area would have been removed off‐ site along with the excavated sediments. Subsurface disturbance was clear even in the vicinity of the recovered artifacts. For example, ST 13 is located 25 meters south of ST 3, and produced a plastic cup in the same gray sand context containing historic artifacts in ST 3, as well as a modern beer bottle at 70 cmbs. In addition, a Bud Light can was seen on the surface very near SF 1.

8SM00793 is a historic archaeological site that consists of a shallow and horizontally restricted refuse deposit associated with a mid‐twentieth‐century household. The structure is no longer extant and refuse associated with the structure is minimal. The artifacts recovered fit with the time frame of a known structure visible on historic maps and aerial photographs dating between 1941 and 1969. The lack of artifacts in the bounding shovel test and minimal associated surface finds is consistent with the near‐total disturbance of the project area caused by building demolition and removal as well as extensive excavation of the landscape to the south.

35 Results September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

No historic structures were encountered in this survey effort. No architectural remnants of the structure seen on historic maps and aerial photographs were encountered, aside from the single brick fragment and several nails recovered in ST 3. The foundation of the former structure could not be located.

Results 36 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report has presented the findings of a Phase I cultural resource assessment survey conducted in support of the Sumter Gardens project in Sumter County, Florida. The archaeological survey included a pedestrian inspection of the 8.5‐acre parcel and the excavation of 14 shovel tests within the Sumter Gardens parcel. Ponding from extensive excavation within the APE, which occurred sometime in the late 1960s, precluded the excavation of further tests. One shovel test in the northeast corner of the parcel adjacent to SR 48 yielded cultural material, and a single location with surface artifacts was recorded nearby. This historic archaeological site, designated 8SM00793, is an isolate refuse dump from a mid‐ twentieth century context. This small site does not possess qualities required for eligibility for the NRHP. A FDHR Survey Log Form and Site File form have been completed and are provided in Appendix B. No further work is recommended.

37 Conclusion and Recommendations September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

REFERENCES CITED

Andriot, Donna (editor) 1993 Population Abstract of the United States. 1993 Edition. Documents Index, McLean, VA.

Bennett, Charles E. (translator) 1964 Laudonniere and Fort Caroline. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1968 Settlement of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1975 Three Voyages: Rene Laudonniere. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Brown, Jr., Canter 1991 Florida’s Peace River Frontier. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Buchholz, F. W. 1929 History of Alachua County Florida: Narrative and Biographical. The Record Company, St. Augustine, Fla.

Bullen, Ripley P. 1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida. In Fiber‐tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern Columbia: Its Origins, Context, and Significance, edited by R. P. Bullen and J. B. Stoltman, pp. 9‐33. Florida Anthropological Society Publication 6, Gainesville.

Campbell, Kenneth 1989 Geology of Sumter County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.

Carbone, V. A. 1983 Late Quaternary Environments in Florida and the Southeast. The Florida Anthropologist 36(1‐2):3‐17.

Carter, Clarence Edwin (compiler and editor) 1958 The Territorial Papers of the United States, Volume XXIII, The Territory of Florida, 1824‐ 1828. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, C. Emilliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:609‐614.

Clayton, Lawrence A., Vernon James Knight, Jr., and Edward C. Moore, eds. 1993 The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539‐1542, Volume I. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Al.

References Cited 38 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

Cockrell, W. A., and L. Murphy 1978 Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6:1‐12.

Conroy, Barbara J. 1998 Restaurant China: Identification and Value Guide for Restaurant, Airline, Ship and Railroad Dinnerware, Volume 1. Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, Schroeder Publishing Co.

Covington, James W. 1957 The Story of Southwestern Florida, Vol. I. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., NY. 1961 The Armed Occupation Act of 1842. Florida Historical Quarterly 40(1).

Dovell, J. E. 1952 Florida: Historical, Dramatic, Contemporary, Volumes I and II. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., NY.

Dunbar, James S. 1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age PaleoIndian sites in Florida. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmier, pp. 185‐213. Center for the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Dunbar, J. S., M. K. Faught, and S. D. Webb 1988 Page/Ladson (8Je591): An Underwater Paleo‐Indian Site in Northwestern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 41:442‐452.

Fabel, Robin F. A. 1996 British Rule in the Floridas. In The New History of Florida, edited by Michael Gannon, Pp. 134‐149. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Fairbanks, Charles H. 1973 The Florida Seminole People. Indian Tribal Series, Phoenix.

Fernald, Edward A. and Elizabeth E. Purdum 1992 Atlas of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Florida State Chamber of Commerce and Florida Emergency Relief Administration 1935 Industrial Directory of Florida, 1935‐36. St. Augustine, Fla.: The Record Company.

Florida State Road Department 1936 North Sumter. Electronic document, http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps, accessed March 17, 2015.

39 References Cited September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

Gannon, Michael 1983 Cross in the Sand: The Early Catholic Church in Florida 1513‐1870. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1996 First European Contacts. In The New History of Florida, edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 16‐39. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Fl.

General Land Office (GLO) 1845 Township 20 South 23 East. Electronic document, http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/, accessed September 15, 2015. 1849 Township 19 South 23 East. Electronic document, http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/, accessed September 15, 2015.

Goggin, John M. 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 47, New Haven.

Griffin, James 1945 The Significance of the Fiber‐Tempered Pottery of the St. Johns Area in Florida. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 35:218‐223.

Gurcke, K. 1987 Bricks and Brickmaking: A Handbook for Historical Archeology. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Hann, John H. 1996 A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

House of Representatives 1844 Actual Settlements in Florida, Under the Armed Occupation Law. Document Number 70, 28th Congress, 1st Session.

Johnson, Kenneth W. 1991 The Utina and Potano Peoples of Northern Florida: Changing Settlement Systems in the Spanish Colonial Period. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Lawson, Sarah (translator) 1992 A Foothold in Florida: The Eyewitness Account of Four Voyages Made by the French to that Region and Their Attempt at Colonization, 1562‐1568, Based on a New Translation of Laudonniere's L'Histoire Notable de la Florida. Antique Atlas Publications, East Grinstead, West Sussex, England.

References Cited 40 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

MacKay, John and J. E. Blake 1839 Map of the Seat of War in Florida compiled by order of Brig. General Z. Taylor. On file P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, University of Florida, Gainesville.

MacLeod, Gordon and R. Ken Murdock 1994 Florida’s Railroads. Gordon MacLeod, Apopka, Florida.

Mahon, John K. 1985 History of the Second Seminole War, 1835‐1842. Revised Edition. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles Hudson 1993 Hernando de Soto and the Indians of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Fl.

Miller, James A. 1991 The Fairest, Frutefullest and Pleaseantest of all the World: An Environmental History of the Northeast Part of Florida. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Morris, Allen 1995 Florida Place Names. Pineapple Press, Inc., Sarasota.

Ott, Eloise Robinson and Louis Hickman Chazal 1974 Ocali Country, Kingdom of the Sun: A History of Marion County, Florida. Marion Publishers, Inc., n.p.

Richards, John R. (compiler) 1886 Florida State Gazetteer and Business Directory 1886‐7. The South Publishing Company, NY.

Roberts, Robert B. 1988 Encyclopedia of Historic Forts: The Military, Pioneer, and Trading Posts of the United States. MacMillan Publishing Company, NY.

Robinson, A. A. 1882 The Resources and Natural Advantages of Florida; Containing Special Papers Descriptive of the Several Counties. Floridian Book and Job Office, Tallahassee.

Rohling, E. J., M. Fenton, F. J. Jorissen, P. Bertrant, G. Ganssen, and J. P. Caulet 1998 Magnitudes of Sea‐Level Lowstands of the Past 500,000 Years. Nature 394:162‐165.

41 References Cited September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Traditions and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sears, William H. 1959 Two Weeden Island Period Burial Mounds, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences No. 5, Gainesville.

Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of the Eastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto,10,500‐500 B.P. Advances in World Archaeology 5:1‐93.

Smith, James M. and Stanley C. Bond, Jr. 1984 Stomping the Flatwoods: An Archaeological Survey of St. Johns County, Florida, Phase I. Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, St. Augustine.

South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Sprague, John T. 1964 The Origin, Progress, and Conclusion of the Florida War. A Facsimile Reproduction of the 1848 edition. Quadricentennial Edition of the Floridiana Facsimile & Reprint Series. University of Florida, Gainesville.

State of Florida 1945 The Seventh Census of the State of Florida, 1945. State of Florida, Tallahassee.

Sumter County 2015 History of Sumter County. Electronic document, http://sumtercountyfl.gov/235/History‐ of‐Sumter‐County, accessed March 17, 2015.

Surveyor General 1859 Sumter County. In Annual Report of the Surveyor General for 1859. Electronic document, http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps, accessed March 17, 2015.

Tebeau, Charlton W. 1971 A History of Florida. Revised 1980. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.

US Bureau of the Census 1992 Census of Agriculture. Downloaded from http://www.ifas.ufl.edu. 1994 City and County Data Books. Downloaded from http://fisher.lib.Virginia.EDU/ccdb/

References Cited 42 SEARCH September 2015 CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida Final Report

US Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1941 Aerial Photographs: Sumter County. On file, University of Florida Map and Imagery Library, Gainesville. Electronic document, http://ufdc.ufl.edu/aerials, accessed September 10, 2015. 1969 Aerial Photographs: Sumter County. On file, University of Florida Map and Imagery Library, Gainesville. Electronic document, http://ufdc.ufl.edu/aerials, accessed September 10, 2015. 2010 Soil Survey of Sumter County, Florida. Soil Conservation Service, Gainesville.

US Department of the Interior 1990 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

US Geological Survey (USGS) 1958 Wahoo Topographic Quadrangle. Electronic document, http://store.usgs.gov/, accessed September 10, 2015. 1964 Aerial Photographs: Sumter County. Aerial Single Frame Photo ID: 1VAZH00010031. Calendar Date 19640220–released 1977. USGS Earth Resources Observations and Science (EROS) Center. Online_Linkage: https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/Single_Frame_Records.

Watts, W. A. 1969 A Pollen Diagram from Mud Lake, Marion County, North‐Central Florida. Geological Society of America Bulletin 80:631–642. 1971 Postglacial and Interglacial Vegetation History of Southern Georgia and Central Florida. Ecology 52:676–690. 1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from Lake Annie, South Central Florida. Geology 3:344–346. 1980 The Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Southeastern United States. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 11:387–409.

Watts, W. A., and B. C. S. Hansen 1988 Environments of Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara Purdy, pp. 307–323. Telford Press, Caldwell.

Webb, S. D., J. T. Milanich, R. Alexon, and J. S. Dunbar 1984 A Bison Antiquus Kill Site, Wacissa River, Jefferson County, Florida. American Antiquity 49:384‐392.

Winsor, Justin 1886 Narrative and Critical History of America, Volume II. Houghton Miflin and Company, Boston.

43 References Cited September 2015 SEARCH Final Report CRAS for the Sumter Gardens Parcels, Sumter County, Florida

Writers Program ca. 1930s Sumter County. Manuscript on file P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, University of Florida, Gainesville.

References Cited 44

APPENDIX A

FDHR CORRESPONDENCE

FrORrpn DSpaRTMENT O

RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State

Southwest Florida Water Management District July 17,2015 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899

Re: DHRProjectFileNo.: 2015-3034/ReceivedbyDHR: June22,2015 Application No.: 7 14588 Project: Sumter Gardens County: Sumter

To Whom It May Concern:

Our offtce reviewed the referenced project in accordance with Chapters 267 and373, Florida Statutes, and implementing state regulations, for possible effects on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of historical, architectural or archaeological value.

A review of the Florida Master Site File indicates that the project area has not been surveyed for archaeological and historical properties. Since environmental conditions in the area are favorable for the presence of these kinds of resources, it is our request that the portion of the tract that will be impacted by development be subjected to a professional cultural resources assessment survey. The resultant survey report must conform to the provisions of Chapter IA-46, Florida Administrative Code, and should be forwarded to the Division of Historical Resources to complete the review process. In addition, the report will assist this office in determining if further measures are necessary to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to significant archaeological and historic properties.

The Division of Historical Resources does not endorse specific archaeological or historic preservation consultants. However, the American Cultural Resources Association maintains a listing of professional consultants at www.acra-cffn.org, and the Register of Professional Archaeologists maintains a membership directory at www.rpanet.org. The Division encourages checking references and recent work history.

If you have any questions, please contact Mary Berman, Historic Sites Specialist, [email protected], or by telephone at850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278.

-i" t1 1 ./ ir^-^---'/

Robert F. Bendus, Director Division of Historical Resources and State Historic Preservation Officer

,,flaDdre'dsr, Division of Historical Resources -Wr.IZ-- R.A. Gray Building . 5OO South Bronough Streetr Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kg'e- 850.245.6333 . 85O.245.6439 (Fax) flheritage.com Promoting Florida's History and Culture VivaFlorida.org w r[0nt IA Strynta-f

2379 Broad Street, tsrooksville, Florida 346046899 S q, S*uthvqiest Flarida f u'tr;1 S (352) 79C7 2L1 or 1€@4231476 (FL tNct only) &ols- TDD only 1€0G231€103 (FL only) 3s3{t On the lnternet al WaterMatters.orS

An Equal Bartow Servlce Offlce Sarasota Servlce Offlce Tampa Servlce Offlce Opportunty 170 Century Boulevard 6750 Fruiwille Road 7601 Highway 301 North Employer Bartow Florida 3383G7700 Sarasota, Flotida 34240-97 17 Tampa, Florida 33637-6759 (863) 534-1448 or (94!\ 377-3722 ot (813) 985-7481 or 1-800492-7862 (FL only) 1-800-320-3503 (FL only) 1€0G836{797 (FL only)

June 23,2015

Subject: Notice of Receipt of Application for Joint Application for Environmental Resource PermiUAuthorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill PermiUEnvironmental Resource Permit Project Name: Sumter Gardens County: Sumter Sec/Twp/Rge: s18/T21S/R22E Application No: 714588 ApplicationReceivedDate: June22,2015

This application notice pertains to activities in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters (wetlands) which is required by Chapter 62-330, Florida Administrative Code. The comments you provide will be taken into consideration in the evaluation of this application and determining agency action to the extent allowed by the District rules.

lf the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is a recipient, the application package information is being provided to the appropriate ACOE office in accordance with Section lV, "Permit Application Coordination" of the Operating Agreement between the ACOE, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the District.

lf an archeological survey will be necessary, the District should be notified within '15 days of the date on this letter. All written comments or time extension requests should reference the project name and application number and be fonvarded to the Environmental Resource Permit Bureau. lf you need further information please contact the Environmental Resource Permit Bureau at the telephone number listed on the first page of this notice.

lf you wish to request a Notice of Agency Action or opportunity to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.569 and 120.70, Florida Statutes, a written request referencing the permit application number must be filed with and received by the District no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of receipt of this notice. Receipt of this notice is considered to be the fifth (sth) day after the date on which this notice is deposited in the U.S. mail. Notice of Agency Action may also be requested by using the District's ePermitting portal at www.watermatters.org. lnterested persons have the opportunity to inspect a copy of any permit application, and submit written comments concerning the application to the District.

lf you need further information, please contact me at the Tampa Service Office, extension 4370.

Sincerely,

David K. Sauskojus .4 Senior Environmental Scientist # :-, Environmental Resource Permit Bureau GN Regulation Division & .'-;"i .tl r, DKS:jeg i\) i'rir:*l A )- lll Enclosures: Application and Drawings 4 :;F'__ .,,1"*<\.l* t' - *_rTn

= SUMTER' GARDENS APARTMENTS CITY OF BUSHNELL CONSTR,UCTION PLANS SEICTION 1A TOWNSHIP 21 SOUTI{, RANGE 22 EAST SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

1 COVERSHEET

2 GENER{ NOTES

45 DErcUTION -TREE REMOVALPhN

5-7 SITE DIMENSIONS, SIGNAGE. ANDSTRIPIilC PUN

89 PAVI{C, GMOINGAilD DMINAGE PUN 10-lf unltry Puils

12 C.R,48 UIIUW CONNECNON DETAL

13-14 PAVINC, GMDINGAND DMINAGE DETAILS

1!I8 UIUry OETAILS

oR!ER 6 nr r^sr , d ftE E^$ I or B. Nw r

a)z4o 1t3uY) - U>

i|&,"#-$d,*,, * 6E ""-"., " q6d.4 iiu d.i !@Dto

rE 16r, (^k^ frE r^sI, c Br r^sr D ns sftMs ro corr^of rHE ftu^rro.R

APPENDIX B

FDHR SURVEY LOG SHEET AND FMSF FORM

Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Sumter Gardens Parcel, Sumter County, Florida Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Sumter Gardens Parcel, Sumter County, Florida ! " # $. Nodine, Bruce %. &. '. ( 2015 )( # * " #" (" # ( +# , " ( " ( . " (. - # . 2015. SEARCH # # ) Coxen, Kyle ## # Southeastern Archaeological Research Newberry, FL " " " $. Bushnell %.8SM00793 . mid-twentieth century . &. Sumter Gardens '.borrow pit . .

" " # # ). Sumter Partners, LLC . Other !. Winter Park, FL # Christopher Altes 9-25-2015

#  ) 

# # $. Sumter %. . &. '. .

, $&'" ) # * # $. ) WAHOO 1985 '. ) &. ) . ) %. ) . )

# 9-10-2015 9-11-2015 ! # 8.5 ( # ! 1 # # # #

**$ " # *" , " " " %&%& &'''" ! &''%" ..#.

# (. + Shovel testing at 25- and 50-meter intervals, inspection of historic building location, pedestrian survey.

 ! ,  (    ! ,  (  #    (     #  ( +   (.

 # .  # "   ( &&  # "    $'    $    $$     $&   (.

!  # .  (   (  (          (. Historic aerial photography

#   ) # * 01 # ) * * - . ! # . * ! . ! # . SM00793

-   *

# * & !* - $!%& ! ! , * *!

# ! ! *! * * * * (" . ! *! ,

(

**$ " # *" , " " " %&%& &'''" ! &''%" ..#.

Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______SM00793 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Field Date ______" Original Form Date ______Version 4.0 1/07 " Update Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Sumter Gardens Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS of the Sumter Gardens Parcel Survey # (DHR only) ______Ownership: "private-profit "private-nonprofit "private-individual "private-nonspecific "city "county "state "federal "Native American "foreign "unknown LOCATION & MAPPING

USGS 7.5 Map Name ______WAHOO USGS Date ______1985 Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______Bushnell In City Limits? "yes "no "unknown County ______Sumter Township ______21S Range______22E Section ______18 ¼ section: "NW "SW "SE "NE Irregular-name: ______Township ______Range______Section ______¼ section: "NW "SW "SE "NE Landgrant ______Tax Parcel # ______UTM Coordinates: Zone "16 "17 Easting 387659 Northing 3171789 Other Coordinates: X: ______Y: ______Coordinate System & Datum ______Address / Vicinity / Route to: ______Immediately south of SR 48, 0.4 miles east of I-75, in western Bushnell, Sumter ______County, Florida. Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) ______TYPE OF SITE (select all that apply) SETTING STRUCTURES OR FEATURES FUNCTION " Land (terrestrial) " Wetland (palustrine) " log boat " fort " road segment " campsite " Lake/Pond (lacustrine) " usually flooded " agric/farm building " midden " shell midden " extractive site " River/Stream/Creek (riverine) " usually dry " burial mound " mill " shell mound " habitation (prehistoric) " Tidal (estuarine) " Cave/Sink (subterranean) " building remains " mission " shipwreck " homestead (historic) " Saltwater (marine) " terrestrial " cemetery/grave " mound, nonspecific " subsurface features " farmstead " aquatic " dump/refuse " plantation " surface scatter " village (prehistoric) " earthworks (historic) " platform mound " well " town (historic) Other Features or Functions (Choose from the list or type a response.) " quarry 1. ______2. ______CULTURE PERIODS (select all that apply) ABORIGINAL " Englewood " Manasota " St. Johns (nonspecific) " Swift Creek (nonspecific) NON-ABORIGINAL " Alachua " Fort Walton " Mississippian " St. Johns I " Swift Creek, Early " First Spanish 1513-99 " Archaic (nonspecific) " Glades (nonspecific) " Mount Taylor " St. Johns II " Swift Creek, Late " First Spanish 1600-99 " Archaic, Early " Glades I " Norwood " Santa Rosa " Transitional " First Spanish 1700-1763 " Archaic, Middle " Glades II " Orange " Santa Rosa-Swift Creek " Weeden Island (nonspecific) " First Spanish (nonspecific) " Archaic, Late " Glades III " Paleoindian " Seminole (nonspecific) " Weeden Island I " British 1763-1783 " Belle Glade " Hickory Pond " Pensacola " Seminole: Colonization " Weeden Island II " Second Spanish 1783-1821 " Cades Pond " Leon-Jefferson " Perico Island " Seminole: 1st War To 2nd " Prehistoric (nonspecific) " American Territorial 1821-45 " Caloosahatchee " Malabar I " Safety Harbor " Seminole: 2nd War To 3rd " Prehistoric non-ceramic " American Civil War 1861-65 " Deptford " Malabar II " St. Augustine " Seminole: 3rd War & After " Prehistoric ceramic " American 19th Century " American 20th Century Other Cultures (Choose from the list or type a response. For historic sites, give specific dates.) " American (nonspecific) 1. ______3. ______" African-American 2. ______4. ______OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? "yes "no "insufficient information Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? "yes "no "insufficient information Explanation of Evaluation (required if evaluated; use separate sheet if needed) ______Site is small with limited cultural remains dating to ______the early to mid-twentieth century and the area is heavily disturbed from large scale borrowing. ______Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______No further work is recommended ______

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: "yes "no "insufficient info Date ______Init.______KEEPER – Determined eligible: "yes "no Date ______" Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: "a "b "c "d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E045R0107 Florida Master Site File / Div. of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Bldg / 500 S Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)-245-6439 / E-mail [email protected]

Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______SM00793 FIELD METHODS (select all that apply) SITE DETECTION SITE BOUNDARY " no field check " exposed ground " screened shovel " bounds unknown " remote sensing " unscreened shovel " literature search " posthole tests " screened shovel-1/4” " none by recorder " exposed ground " screened shovel " informant report " auger tests " screened shovel-1/8” " literature search " posthole tests " block excavations " remote sensing " unscreened shovel " screened shovel-1/16” " informant report " auger tests " estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) ______Bounding shovel tests in cardinal direct______ions ______at 25 and 12.5 m; 1/4-inch screen. Pedestrian survey -- 1 area of surface finds (SF-1). ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______90 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______from 0-30 cmbs ______Temporal Interpretation - Components (check one): " single component " multiple component " uncertain Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretations: artifacts______associated with former house on property. House is visible on maps/aerials from 1941-1969. A______rtifacts with date range covered the early through mid-twentieth century Integrity - Overall disturbance: " none seen " minor " substantial " major " redeposited " destroyed-document! " unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______The surrounding parcel has had major excavation and impacted the site as well. ______Borrowing possibly associated with I-75 construction. Surface collection: area collected ______21 m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______1 ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______44 "count "estimate Surface #______63 Subsurface #______8 COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for " " A Glass unknown unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left " selective (some artifacts) ____A - ______Nonaboriginal ceramics " mixed selectivity ____A - ______Metal A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____A - ______Building materials/brick S - some items in category collected " uncollected " general (not by subarea) ____ - ______O - observed first hand, but not collected " unknown " controlled (by subarea) ____ - ______R - collected and subsequently left at site " variable spatial control ____ - ______I - informant reported category present " other (describe in comments below) ____ - ______U - unknown Artifact Comments ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. Amethyst______glass N=_____1 4. Hotelware______N=_____1 7. ______N=_____ 2. Ironstone______N=_____4 5. Extruded______brick N=_____1 8. ______N=_____ 3. Whiteware______N=_____5 6. Ashtray,______clear glass N=_____1 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Pond < 5 acres Name______unnamed pond Distance from site (m) ______275 Natural community ______UPLAND HARDWOODS Topography ______Terrace Elevation: Min _____m20 Max _____m 20 Local vegetation ______Mixed hardwoods Present land use ______Unoccupied SCS soil series ______Sparr Fine Sand Soil association ______DOCUMENTATION Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents Document type ______All materials at one location Maintaining organization ______Southeastern Archaeological Research 1) Document description ______Field notes, digital photographs File or accession #’s ______3506_15168V Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Christopher Altes Affiliation ______Southeastern Archaeological Research Address / Phone / E-mail ______315 NW 138th Terrace, Newberry, FL 352 333 0049 [email protected] ______

Required PHOTOCOPY OF 7.5’ USGS QUAD MAP WITH SITE BOUNDARIES MARKED and SITE PLAN Attachments Plan at 1:3,600 or larger. Show boundaries, scale, north arrow, test/collection units, landmarks and date.