FINAL REPORT PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT SURVEY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TESTING OF THE OCALA RANCH PROPERTY, MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA

NÊò›Ã›Ù 2016

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT SURVEY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TESTING OF THE OCALA RANCH PROPERTY, MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA

PREPARED FOR

FARNER BARLEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. WILDWOOD, FLORIDA

PREPARED BY

LILLIAN AZEVEDO, PHD SEARCH PROJECT # 3617‐16017P

______MICHAEL ARBUTHNOT, MS, RPA PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

SEARCH WWW.SEARCHINC.COM

NOVEMBER 2016

SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Phase I cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) was conducted for the approximately 2,079‐acre Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida. The survey was conducted as due diligence in anticipation of requirements from the Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR). The parcel is located approximately one‐half mile northeast of the Withlacoochee River, south of State Road (SR) 200 between Stokes Ferry and Gum Slough. The investigation resulted in the identification of seven newly recorded cultural resources consisting of five prehistoric lithic scatters (8MR3929, 8MR3930, 8MR3931, 8MR3933, and 8MR3934), one historic homestead (8MR3932), and one segment of a historic road (8MR3937). In addition, one previously recorded resource group adjacent to the project area (Drake Ranch, 8MR3722) was updated.

Site 8MR3929 consists of a 2.8‐acre low‐density lithic, prehistoric ceramic and historic glass scatter, defined by 29 positive shovel tests. Site 8MR3930 consists of a 17.8‐acre low‐density lithic and ceramic scatter in close proximity to a small freshwater pond. One large triangular projectile point (O’Leno) indicates a Middle or Late Woodland cultural affiliation while the remaining artifacts are not diagnostic. Site 8MR3931 is an 18.5‐acre lithic scatter defined by 82 positive shovel tests that yielded a total of 221 prehistoric artifacts. The only diagnostic artifacts consist of 22 Pasco plain and sand‐tempered plain ceramic sherds. Site MR3932 is defined by 19 positive tests (six shovel tests and 13 metal detector hits) that yielded a total of 56 artifacts. The site covers 0.96 acres and consists of the archaeological remains of a late nineteenth to early twentieth century homestead. No foundation remnants or other historic features were identified. Site 8MR3933 consists of a single positive shovel test that yielded three pieces of tertiary debitage. Site 8MR3934 is a 1.6‐acre lithic scatter defined by six positive shovel tests containing just seven lithic flakes. None of these newly identified prehistoric resources are recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historical Places (NRHP).

A segment of historic road (8MR3937) associated with the Resource Group 8MR3722 (Drake Ranch) was recorded in the project area. While the road is associated with Drake Ranch, it no longer connects any of the 13 buildings which make up 8MR3722. No other historical remains associated with the Drake Ranch were identified, and 8MR3937 lacks sufficient integrity to merit consideration for listing in the NRHP. SEARCH recommends that the road be considered a non‐contributing element to the Drake Ranch Resource Group (8MR3722).

In addition to these newly recorded resources, the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) lists five previously recorded archaeological sites (8MR2351, 8MR2352, 8MR2353, 8MR3788, and 8MR3873) inside the project area. All five sites were previously evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and determined not eligible for the NRHP; no testing occurred at these sites for this project.

iii November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

This page intentionally left blank.

iv SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... iii Table of Contents ...... v List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... x

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Project Location and Environment ...... 4 Modern Environment ...... 7 Geology and Geomorphology ...... 8 Paleoenvironment ...... 10 Chapter 3: Historic Context ...... 11 Pre‐Columbian Context ...... 11 Post‐Contact History ...... 17 Historic Map and Aerial Photography Review ...... 26 Chapter 4: Previous Investigations ...... 38 Florida Master Site File Review ...... 38 Chapter 5: Research Design ...... 44 Cultural Resources Potential ...... 44 Site Evaluation Criteria ...... 44 Phase I Survey Methods ...... 46 Supplemental Testing ...... 48 Chapter 6: Survey Results ...... 51 Archaeology Results ...... 51 Area A Results ...... 51 Area B Results ...... 55 Area C Results ...... 57 Area D Results ...... 58 Area E Results ...... 62 Area F Results ...... 62 Area G Results ...... 77 Area H Results ...... 90 Area I Results ...... 92 Low Probability Areas Results ...... 92 Discussion of Prehistoric Findings ...... 94 Architectural Assessment ...... 95 Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 96 Newly Recorded Sites ...... 96 Updated Resource Group 8MR3722 ...... 98 References Cited ...... 99

v November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Appendix A: Unanticipated Discoveries Statement Appendix B: Data Inventory Appendix C: FDHR Survey Log Appendix D: FMSF Site Forms

vi SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 General vicinity map of the project area ...... 2

Figure 2.1 Representative environments of the project area ...... 4 Figure 2.2 Topographic map showing the project area ...... 5 Figure 2.3 Aerial photograph of the project area, showing Withlacoochee River to the southwest ...... 6 Figure 2.4 Soil drainage characteristics across the project area ...... 9

Figure 3.1 Post‐500 BC culture areas in Florida ...... 14 Figure 3.2 Mound B at Crystal River Archaeological State Park (8CI1) ...... 15 Figure 3.3 A contemporary artist’s depiction of the ‘log bridge’ constructed to re‐cross the Withlacoochee River ...... 21 Figure 3.4 Steam ferry and railroad station at Lake Panasoffkee, 14 miles southeast (upriver) of the project area ...... 25 Figure 3.5 Vignoles’ 1823 map of Florida showing the town of Sitarky ...... 27 Figure 3.6 Copy of “A Map of the Seat of War in Florida” ca. 1836 ...... 27 Figure 3.7 1837 map of Florida by John Lee Williams with approximate location of project area ...... 28 Figure 3.8 Mackay and Blake’s 1839 map showing military routes during the Second Seminole War in the vicinity of the project area ...... 30 Figure 3.9 1854 GLO map showing agricultural fields south of project area and small pond in the southeast corner ...... 31 Figure 3.10 Dunnellon (1894) and Tsala Apopka (1895) USGS topographic maps ...... 32 Figure 3.11 1940 aerial photograph showing the project area ...... 34 Figure 3.12 Dunnellon (1954) and Tsala Apopka (1954) USGS topographic maps ...... 35 Figure 3.13 1960 aerial photograph showing the project area ...... 36 Figure 3.14 1974 aerial photograph showing the project area ...... 37

Figure 4.1 FMSF resources within one mile of the project area...... 39 Figure 4.2 Previous surveys within or adjacent to the project area ...... 42

Figure 5.1 Areas of higher probability in the Ocala Ranch project area...... 47 Figure 5.2 Metal detecting at site 8MR3932 ...... 49

Figure 6.1 Overview of shovel test results showing excavated tests, previously surveyed areas, archaeological occurrences, and newly recorded resources ...... 52 Figure 6.2 Updated and newly recorded sites ...... 53 Figure 6.3 Area A results showing excavated shovel tests, previously surveyed areas, and previously recorded resources ...... 54 Figure 6.4 Representative photo of Area B, facing east ...... 55

vii November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 6.5 Area B results showing excavated shovel tests, previously surveyed areas, and previously recorded resources ...... 56 Figure 6.6 Representative views of Area C from ST N8100, E0650, facing north towards pasture and oak stands (left) and south towards artificial pond (right) ...... 57 Figure 6.7 Area C results showing the location of excavated shovel tests, previously surveyed areas, one newly recorded linear resource, and Drake Ranch ...... 59 Figure 6.8 1940 aerial photograph showing historic road through Survey Area C ...... 60 Figure 6.9 1960 aerial photograph showing historic road through Area C ...... 61 Figure 6.10 Area D results showing the location of excavated shovel tests, previous surveys, and previously recorded resources ...... 63 Figure 6.11 Area E results showing the location of excavated shovel tests, previous surveys, and previously recorded resources ...... 64 Figure 6.12 Area F results showing the location of excavated shovel tests and newly recorded resources ...... 65 Figure 6.13 Environment at newly recorded site 8MR3929, facing west from positive ST N7000, E2150 ...... 66 Figure 6.14 8MR3929 site map ...... 67 Figure 6.15 8MR3929 representative shovel test at ST N7000, E2150 showing three strata and burned wood ...... 68 Figure 6.16 Ceramic sherds from 8MR3929 ...... 69 Figure 6.17 8MR3929 Test Unit 1, east wall profile...... 70 Figure 6.18 Fleco root rake and land clearing exhibition in Taylor County, Florida, in 1947 ..... 71 Figure 6.19 8MR3929 plan view (facing north) of Test Unit 1, 80 cmbd (27.5 inches below the surface), at the transition between Stratum II and III, showing potential disturbance from a root rake ...... 71 Figure 6.20 Site 8MR3930 showing rock outcrop and small, natural pond, facing north ...... 72 Figure 6.21 8MR3930 site map ...... 73 Figure 6.22 8MR3930 representative shovel test (ST 2038) ...... 74 Figure 6.23 Cores and primary debitage recovered from 8MR3930, from ST D333 (161.01), ST D338 (163.01) and ST 2094 (50.02) ...... 75 Figure 6.24 Chart showing lithic types recovered from 8MR3930 ...... 75 Figure 6.25 Two view of O’Leno PPK recovered from ST 2038 in Site 8MR3930 ...... 76 Figure 6.26 Pasco plain ceramic sherds from 8MR3930; ST 2017 (42.02) and ST 30.22 (107.01) ...... 76 Figure 6.27 Area G results showing the location of excavated shovel tests, metal detector hits, and newly recorded resources ...... 78 Figure 6.28 Archaeological site MR3931, panoramic view of pond, facing north ...... 79 Figure 6.29 Site 8MR3931, facing west ...... 79 Figure 6.30 8MR3931 site map ...... 80 Figure 6.31 Profile of ST 1010 ...... 81 Figure 6.32 Lithic types recovered from 8MR3931 ...... 82 Figure 6.33 Site 8MR3932, facing south from ST 1049, showing brambles and disturbed vegetation along tree line ...... 83 Figure 6.34 8MR3932 site map showing metal detector hits and shovel tests ...... 85

viii SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 6.35 Cast iron buggy step excavated from MD 11 ...... 86 Figure 6.36 Iron fittings on a standard buggy ...... 86 Figure 6.37 Axe head from 8MR3932 ...... 87 Figure 6.38 8MR3934 site map ...... 89 Figure 6.39 AO 3, a cast iron handle recovered as SF 1 ...... 90 Figure 6.40 Area H survey results ...... 91 Figure 6.41 Area I survey results ...... 93

ix November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Excavated Shovel Tests (Initial and Supplemental Testing) ...... 1

Table 2.1 Soil Names, Types, and Drainage Capacities within the Project Area ...... 8

Table 3.1 Homesteads Approved in the Project Area (Township 17 South, Range 20 East) .. 24

Table 4.1 FMSF Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project Area ...... 40 Table 4.2 Previous Surveys Within or Adjacent to Project Area ...... 41

Table 5.1 Criteria Used to Identify Areas of Higher Probability ...... 44

Table 6.1 Survey Areas, Acreages, Excavated Shovel Tests, and Newly Recorded Resources ...... 51 Table 6.2 Recorded Soil Horizons at 8MR3929 ...... 68 Table 6.3 Lithics Recovered by Stratum in 8MR3930 ...... 74 Table 6.4 Distribution of Artifacts from 8MR3931, by Stratum ...... 82 Table 6.5 Artifacts from 8MR3932 ...... 84 Table 6.6 Artifacts Recovered from 8MR3934 ...... 88

Table 7.1 Newly Recorded Resources and NRHP Eligibility Recommendations ...... 96

x SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Ocala Ranch Project Area consists of approximately 2,079 acres located 16 miles southwest of Ocala, Florida, south of State Road (SR) 200 in Marion County. The project area lies within Sections 17, 19, 20, 21, 27 and 28 of Township 17 South, Range 20 East and appears on the Stokes Ferry 7.5’ quadrangle from the US Geological Survey (USGS 1990). The archaeological survey was conducted as due diligence in anticipation of a requirement from the Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR). This report presents the findings of a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) and supplemental testing of the Ocala Ranch Property (Figure 1.1). Field work occurred from April 11, 2016, to June 4, 2016, and from August 8 to August 11, 2016, by SEARCH at the request of Farner Barley and Associates, Inc.

The goals of the assessment survey were to locate cultural resources within the project area and to assess their potential significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The assessment survey included background research, an architectural history survey of standing structures (none were recorded), subsurface testing in the form of shovel tests (STs), and a metal detector survey.

As shown in Table 1.1, 1,007 STs were investigated across the project area during two phases of work. Initial (Phase I) testing involved the excavation of 528 STs and 18 metal detector hits across the project area. Of these, 64 tests (51 shovel tests and 13 metal detector tests) yielded cultural material. Supplemental testing at the newly recorded sites consisted of an additional 412 STs to refine site boundaries. Artifacts were collected from shovel tests, the surface, and from one 1‐x‐1 meter test unit (excavated to assess the integrity of subsurface deposits at 8MR3929). Of the 412 supplemental STs, 167 yielded cultural material.

The results of the Phase I survey and supplemental testing have been combined and are presented in this report by area (Areas A through I). As a result, seven new cultural resources consisting of five prehistoric lithic scatters (8MR3929, 8MR3930, 8MR3931, 8MR3933, and 8MR3934), one historic homestead (8MR3932), and a segment of a historic road (8MR3937) were recorded and evaluated. Five archaeological occurrences (isolated finds) were identified, and the site form for one previously recorded resource group adjacent to the project area (Drake Ranch, 8MR3722) was updated.

Table 1.1. Excavated Shovel Tests (Initial and Supplemental Testing). Survey Phase Positive Tests Negative Tests Total Other testing Initial Testing 64* 528 595 18 metal detector hits Supplemental Testing 167 245 412 One 1‐x‐1‐meter test unit Total 231 773 1,007 *Positive test total includes 13 metal detector hits which produced cultural material

1 Introduction November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 1.1. General vicinity map of the project area.

Chapter 1 2 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

All work was performed in accordance with the FDHR recommendations for such projects as stipulated in the Cultural Resource Management Standards & Operations Manual, Module Three: Guidelines for Use by Historic Preservation Professionals (FDHR 2015). 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). This study complies with Chapters 267 and 280 of Florida Statutes and Chapter 1A‐46, Florida Administrative Code. Any unanticipated discoveries found subsequent to this report should be treated in accordance with the Unanticipated Discoveries Statement provided in Appendix A.

3 Introduction November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

CHAPTER 2: PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT

Current soil surveys, vegetation maps, and relevant literature were consulted to provide a description of the physiographic and geological region of which the project area is a part and to develop expectations regarding the types of archaeological sites that may be present. The Ocala Ranch Project Area consists of approximately 2,079 acres located 16 miles southwest of Ocala, Florida, south of SR 200 in Marion County. The project area lies within Sections 17, 19, 20, 21, 27 and 28 of Township 17 South, Range 20 East and appears on the Stokes Ferry 7.5’ quadrangle from the USGS (1990). As shown in the collage below (Figure 2.1), the present environment includes a variety of natural environments: open pasture with few limestone outcrops (bottom right), secondary growth hardwoods (bottom left) and scattered oak groves (top left). Two small freshwater perennial ponds (shown top right) and at least one seasonal pond are also present. The project area contains no standing structures. Figure 2.2 is a topographic map of the project area, and Figure 2.3 presents the same information on a recent aerial photograph.

Figure 2.1. Representative environments of the project area.

Chapter 2 4 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 2.2. Topographic map showing the project area (USGS Quad Dunnellon SE [1991] and Stokes Ferry [1990]).

5 Project Location and Environment November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 2.3. Aerial photograph of the project area, showing Withlacoochee River to the southwest (USDA 2013).

Chapter 2 6 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

MODERN ENVIRONMENT

The project area falls within the northern region of the “Cove of the Withlacoochee,” an interior wetland consisting of many lakes covering approximately 63,000 acres in Citrus and Marion Counties. While most of the area of the Cove consists of poorly drained wetlands and low islands, approximately 25 percent of the Cove (including the project area) consists of uplands characterized by live oak‐dominated mesic hammocks and oak scrub (Weisman 1986:4). The area is defined by a big bend in the northward‐flowing Withlacoochee River and its confluence with the Lake Tsala lake chain to the south. The area is bounded on the north by SR 200, on the west by SR 41, on the east by the Panasoffkee Highlands, and on the south by SR 48.

Local tree species include varieties of beech, hickory, ash, pine, sweetgum, oak, elm, walnut, and magnolia. These host communities of small‐to‐medium‐sized mammals, including white‐ tailed deer, hogs, raccoons, bobcats, and gopher tortoises. A pair of nesting bald eagles resides in the south central portion of the property. Elevation varies slightly from 47 to 60 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929) and the terrain and grade is relatively level. Two ponds in the south central area sit in slight depressions framed by a minor ridge following the 50‐foot contour line shown on the USGS (1990) Quadrangle Map Stokes Ferry.

The Withlacoochee River runs parallel to the southwest edge of the project area, flowing southeast to northwest approximately 0.8 miles distant from the project area. The river’s elevation at is closest point to the project area is 33 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The river remains navigable by small boats, demonstrated by the presence of at least two historic shipwrecks (8CI989 and 8CI1340) and one historic nineteenth century landing (Morrison’s Landing). While vegetation on the river bank generally consists of wetland swamp forests, it transitions to a mixed upland forest near the project area.

The majority of the project area is mapped as Jumper Fine Sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (923.2 acres or 44.3 percent), and Sparr Fine Sand (752.4 acres or 36.1 percent). These are somewhat poorly drained soils, moderately well suited to general farm crops and well suited to deep‐ rooting improved pasture grasses and legumes (US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA‐NRCS] 2012). According to the USDA‐NRCS (2016), approximately 243 acres (11.6 percent) consists of well drained Apopka Sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes. There are small areas of well drained Pedro‐Arredondo Complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes (17.6 acres or 0.84 percent). The Pedro‐Arrendondo complex consists of well‐drained nearly level sloping soils of the upland. The remaining acres are poorly drained, consisting of Eaton Loamy Sand (45.0 acres or 2.2 percent), Holopaw Sand (11.8 acres or 0.6 percent), Kanapaha Fine Sand (2.0 acres or 0.1 percent), Lynne Sand (14.3 acres or 0.7 percent), Paisley Loamy Fine Sand (14.0 acres or 0.7 percent), Pomona Sand (50.9 acres or 2.4 percent), and water (4.1 acres or 0.2 percent). Table 2.1 shows the breakdown of each of the soil names and types, drainage capacity, slope, and the extent of associated acreage, and Figure 2.4 shows the areas that correspond with each drainage class.

7 Project Location and Environment November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Table 2.1. Soil Names, Types, and Drainage Capacities within the Project Area (USDA‐NRCS 2016). Soil Name Drainage Capacity Acreage Percent Apopka Sand, 0 to 5% Slopes Well Drained 242.5 11.6 Pedro‐Arredondo Complex, 0 to 5% Slopes Well Drained 17.6 0.8 Adamsville Sand, 0 to 5% Slopes Somewhat Poorly Drained 4.5 0.2 Jumper Fine Sand, 0 to 5% Slopes Somewhat Poorly Drained 923.2 44.3 Sparr Fine Sand, 0 to 5% Slopes Somewhat Poorly Drained 752.4 36.1 Eaton Loamy Sand Poorly Drained 45.0 2.2 Holopaw Sand Poorly Drained 8.4 0.7 Kanapaha Fine Sand, 0 to 5% Slopes Poorly Drained 2.0 0.1 Lynne Sand Poorly Drained 14.3 0.7 Paisley Loamy Fine Sand Poorly Drained 14.0 0.7 Pomona Sand Poorly Drained 50.9 2.4 Water Water 4.1 0.2 Total 2,078.9 100.00

GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY

Processes of physical and chemical (karst) weathering have formed the present landscape of Marion County. The Ocala Ranch project area is situated in the Tsala Apopka Plain region of Florida, a “classic karst topography marked by numerous lakes and ponds containing abundant elevated hammocks and by sinkholes and flooded depressions” (Pearson and Weinstein 2008:21). The site is located in the Dunnellon Gap between two sections of the south to north Brooksville Ridge (White 1970); it also falls within the Penholoway Terrace and the Withlacoochee River Drainage Basin. The Withlacoochee River Basin covers approximately 2,079 square miles, draining northwards from the Green Swamp before heading west through the Dunnellon Gap to an estuary on the Gulf of Mexico near Yankeetown (Pearson and Weinstein 2008).

The general geology consists of Pliocene to recent age sands on top of Cretaceous and Tertiary clays and carbonates. A typical sequence consists of relatively thin sands deposited by streams and wind, and marine terraces. Beneath this surficial sand are interbedded marine sands, clayey sand, clay, and/or the Ocala Group limestones. The Ocala Group limestone outcrops in a few areas (Andreyev Engineering, Inc. 2016). Several depressions and possible sinkholes are noted on the USGS topographical map (USGS 1990). Geophysical analysis by Andreyev Engineering, Inc. in 2016 noted that the surficial aquifer consists of clayey sand which serves as a semi‐confining unit to allow water to be retained in ponds on the land surface. Beneath this, the upper Floridan aquifer ranges in depth from 9 to 20 feet below surface (Andreyev Engineering, Inc. 2016).

Chapter 2 8 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 2.4. Soil drainage characteristics across the project area.

9 Project Location and Environment November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

PALEOENVIRONMENT

At the end of the last Ice Age, between 20,000 and 12,000 BC (all ages are presented in calendar years BC/AD, i.e., calibrated radiocarbon), Florida’s climate was drier and cooler and sea levels were 100 meters lower than today. The paleo‐coastline at that time was more than 200 kilometers from the modern land/sea interface (Balsillie and Donoghue 2004).

In theory, river channels in Florida would have been gullies with substantial subaerial exposure of now submerged lands, as well as pools or karst vents where aquifer and local precipitation water would have been available. Oak‐dominated grasslands would have occurred around the river channel, producing habitat for mammoth, bison, and other large grazing mammals. With limited surface water, fauna would have been drawn to flowing artesian springs and river channel locations that retained runoff (Dunbar 1991; Thulman 2009). These scenarios are the basis for the “Oasis Hypothesis,” a model that states that river channels and artesian exposures provided humans with faunal, aquatic, and chert resources in the late Pleistocene and earliest Holocene (Dunbar 1991; Waller 1970).

After 12,000 BC, melting of the continental ice sheets (deglaciation) led to global sea level rise and transgression of the continental shelves. The rate of sea rise was generally slow, but was punctuated with three “melt‐water pulses” that occurred in the late Pleistocene and early Holocene at approximately 12,000 BC, 9500 BC, and 6000 BC (Blanchon 2011). As sea levels rose, the Floridan aquifer, inland water tables, and river channels responded in kind. The specific chronology of this inundation has not been reconstructed for the Withlacoochee River.

The early Holocene (9500–7000 BC) brought warmer conditions with pronounced seasonality and a possible period of extreme aridity between 7500–7000 BC (Faught and Carter 1998; Watts and Hansen 1988). Core samples taken upstream of the study area at Lake Apopka indicate that the environment was quite different for prehistoric populations in the area prior to about 6,000 years ago (Pearson and Weinstein 2008:15). There were less wetland habitats and the lakes were just beginning to be filled.

By 4000–3000 BC, the climate had evolved to one with increased precipitation and surface water flow as well as greater cypress growth due to elevated sea and water table levels. By the late Holocene, approximately 2000 BC, the climate, water levels, and plant communities of Florida attained essentially modern conditions. These have been relatively stable with comparatively minor fluctuations during the past 4,000 years.

Chapter 2 10 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

CHAPTER 3: HISTORIC CONTEXT

In general, sites in this region of Florida can be sorted into various archaeological culture units, including Paleoindian chipped stone and bone and ivory tool assemblages, Archaic chipped stone and bone industries (including fiber‐tempered ceramics), and the ceramic‐producing Woodland and Mississippian societies. The Cove of the Withlacoochee is in a transitional area, situated near the northern boundary of the Peninsular Gulf Coast Culture Area and the southern boundary of the North‐Central Florida Culture Area. Both regions are discussed here, although the general trend of cultural connections for the Cove of the Withlacoochee is to the south rather than to the north. Evidence for human presence in the Withlacoochee River Basin spans Paleoindians and Early Archaic, through the Middle and Late Archaic, through to the earliest Spanish encounters, to the Seminole Wars of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

PRE‐COLUMBIAN CONTEXT

Paleoindian Period (10,000–8000 BC)

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 (e.g., Dunbar 2006; Faught 2008; Goodyear 2000). The Late Paleoindian period coincides with the climate changes that mark the transition from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene eras. The Paleoindian tradition has been traced solely through the distribution of lanceolate‐shaped projectile points.

As discussed above, 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 appears to have played a crucial role in the distribution of Paleoindian bands across the landscape. Researchers 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 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.

The conventional view of Paleoindian existence in Florida is that they were nomadic hunters and gatherers (Goggin 1949). Excavations at the Harney Flats site in Hillsborough County

11 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

(Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987) have 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.

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.

Early Archaic (8000–5000 BC)

Within the north‐central Florida region, evidence of the earliest occupations usually consists of lithic scatters containing chert debitage and occasional projectile points. Early Archaic components are generally distinguished through the presence of distinct side‐ and corner‐ notched hafted biface types such as Kirk and Bolen (Bullen 1975; Milanich 1994:63). Early Archaic Bolen projectile points have been recovered at sites in Marion County, although Middle Archaic points are much more common (Smith and Bond 1984:53‐55).

Middle Archaic (5000–3000 BC)

Middle Archaic hafted bifaces include Hardee, Hillsborough, Putnam, Sumter, Alachua, and Marion types, with Newnan points cited by Bullen (1975) as being the most prominent type found in Florida. In fact, this period (5000–3000 BC) has been referred to as the Newnan Horizon by Randall and Sassaman (2005). 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. Middle Archaic groups were traditionally viewed as aggregating within the interior of Florida; however, more recent research has identified intensive occupations along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts (Bond 1992; Russo 1988, 1992), with groups focusing on the exploitation of aquatic estuarine resources.

Late Archaic (3000–500 BC)

The trend toward increased sedentism and more circumscribed territories continued into the Late Archaic period, as environmental and climatic conditions approached those of today. The

Chapter 3 12 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Late Archaic was a time of cultural adaptation that incorporated a mixed hunting, gathering, fishing, and shellfishing economy and incipient horticulture. Late Archaic groups are assigned either to a preceramic phase (ca. 3000–2000 BC) or to the Orange phase (2000–500 BC) (Randall and Sassaman 2005). A major technological innovation of the Late Archaic was the development of fired‐clay pottery around 2000 BC. Referred to as Orange pottery, this early ceramic ware was tempered with vegetal 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. Fiber‐tempered pottery is found sparingly in the interior of Florida; it is primarily recovered in eastern portions of the state.

The second recognized early fiber‐tempered ceramic culture, Norwood, extended across the central and gulf coast regions of the state. Norwood pottery is usually undecorated or stick impressed with both fiber and sand temper. A third fiber‐tempered ceramic variant known as Tick Island Incised was produced at the same time as Orange‐series ware and is localized to the Upper St. Johns River drainage area. Over time, more and more sand was added as a tempering agent to the clay used to make pottery, and eventually, this technique replaced the practice of adding plant fibers.

Woodland (500 BC–AD 900)

Deptford Culture (500 BC–AD 500)

Found over a wide area of the Southeastern United States, Milanich (1973) and Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:66) describe Deptford as primarily a “coastal dwelling culture” that relied heavily on maritime subsistence strategies. However, Deptford sites have been found in a variety of environments, from the coast to forests along rivers and in the interior of the state. Figure 3.1 provides the geographic distribution of culture groups in Florida after 500 BC.

Deptford sites are frequently marked by the presence of sand‐tempered pottery; however, limestone‐tempered or Fuller’s Earth‐tempered pottery, known as Pasco plain, is also a common element at such sites, particularly in western Marion County. Surface Pasco plain treatments can be plain, check stamped, cord wrapped, brushed, punctated, or malleated (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980).

In North‐Central Florida, the known inland Deptford sites are primarily short‐term occupations by small groups that likely traveled the inland waterways in search of nuts, berries, and other terrestrial resources (wood, game, stone to make tools, etc.). Coastal people were apparently coming inland to procure seasonal resources and a supply of chert. The inland sites are primarily short‐term occupations by small groups probably traveling the waterways in search of nuts, berries, and other terrestrial resources (e.g., wood, game, chert). These sites are often found along lakes and streams where hickory and oak are present. In contrast, occupation within the Cove of the Withlacoochee during this period was not a result from the seasonal movement of Deptford groups inland. Rather, sites within the Cove falling into this period indicate year‐round occupation of a group that had little direct contact with coastal peoples

13 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 3.1. Post‐500 BC culture areas in Florida: (a) general culture areas; Marion County is at the transition between the North‐Central and North Peninsular Gulf Coast Culture Areas; (b) geographic extent of Deptford culture; (c) geographic extent of Cades Pond and North Peninsular Coast Traditions; (d) geographic extent of Alachua and Safety Harbor Traditions (Milanich 1995).

(Weisman 1986:20). Lithic tools are extremely rare in Deptford sites, with only small triangular points occurring in small numbers.

Cades Pond (AD 100–600)

Cades Pond (AD 100–600) is a Weeden Island‐related culture exclusive to the North‐Central Florida Culture Area. It is marked by the introduction of burial mound ceremonialism. Goggin (1949) initially defined Cades Pond and noted a resemblance in the ceramics found in Cades Pond burial mounds to the St. Johns culture on the northeast coast (earlier) and to Weeden

Chapter 3 14 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Island cultures on the Gulf coast (later). In Cades Pond sites, burial mounds and village sites are found in combination, but each contain distinctive ceramic assemblages. At villages, sand‐ tempered plain ceramics comprise up to 95 percent of the ceramic assemblage, while burial mounds are dominated by Deptford, Dunn’s Creek Red, and St. Johns Plain ceramics (Milanich 1994:228). Later period mounds contain early Weeden Island decorated ceramics (Smith 1971). Point types associated with Cades Pond sites include Columbia, Jackson, and Bradford types (Bullen 1975), along with small triangular points.

Weeden Island I (AD 400–900)

The emergence of Weeden Island cultural attributes in the North Peninsular Gulf Coast region began about AD 400. Weeden Island people, like their Deptford predecessors, primarily occupied coastal areas and large river basins, exploiting local marine and terrestrial resources without pursuing agriculture. Interior regions were used almost exclusively for resource extraction, while more permanent settlements were along the coast.

A major Weeden Island ceremonial complex is found at the Crystal River site burial mound complex in Citrus County (Figure 3.2) (8CI1; 8CI36 through 8CI44), some 20 miles west‐southwest of the project area. Coastal marshes fed by freshwater rivers, creeks, and wetlands like the Cove of the Withlacoochee were likely sources of a diverse array of subsistence resources. Weeden Island people left numerous sand and shell middens, mostly of oyster shells, but also of clam, scallop, whelk, and conch species (Pluckhahn et al. 2015). Fish was an important component of the diet, along Figure 3.2. Mound B at Crystal River Archaeological State Park (8CI1). with sea turtles, tortoises, alligators, and deer (Swanton 1922).

The archaeological assemblage of the groups that expanded into inland wetland areas, such as the Cove of the Withlacoochee, is marked by the dominance of Pasco plain pottery (Mitchem and Weisman 1987:163). Mitchem and Weisman (1987) hypothesized that typical Deptford pottery types, such as Deptford Simple Stamped and Deptford Check Stamped would be generally absent or exceptionally rare in sites in the Cove, that this is part of a general trend in the Cove of cultural connections to the south rather than to northern culture areas. Investigations of the Ocala Ranch project area produced limited numbers of ceramics, primarily Pasco plain.

15 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Mississippian Cultural Complex (AD 600/900–1565)

Safety Harbor

Safety Harbor developed out of Weeden Island along the North and Central Peninsular Gulf Coast after about AD 900 and lasted until shortly after contact. Because of the descriptions of de Soto’s excursion into the Southeast, we know that Safety Harbor people lived in villages along the shoreline and that they were organized into a hierarchy of chiefdoms spaced at regular intervals across the landscape from the Withlacoochee to Charlotte Harbor. The type site for the Safety Harbor archaeological culture is a complex of middens and two mounds at the north end of Tampa Bay (Site 8PI2). The site is associated with the protohistoric Tocobaga Indians.

Safety Harbor mounds are generally built on late Weeden Island I period mounds implying continuity of social groups (Milanich 1994:389, 409, 412, 1998:105). Some aspects of Safety Harbor ceramic decorations resemble Mississippian‐related Fort Walton culture ceramic designs, including symbols of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. Although the people of the Safety Harbor culture did not adopt significant agriculture, Safety Harbor is considered “Mississippian” by its ceramic iconography and monumental architecture.

Alachua Tradition

Cades Pond was replaced by the Alachua Tradition about AD 600, and sites associated with this culture dominate the archaeological landscape of Marion County north of the Cove. The Alachua Tradition is marked by the introduction of an agricultural way of life, and based on ceramic seriation, the pre‐contact groups are subdivided into two main temporal periods: Hickory Pond (AD 600 to 1250), and Alachua (AD 1250 to European contact in 1539). The Alachua Tradition was initially defined by Goggin (1949) as a sedentary, agricultural way of life with people living in extensive villages. Goggin (1949:39) noted that this complex did not resemble the surrounding Florida cultures, that their pottery was mostly cord marked or cob marked, and that burial mounds were rare.

Current evidence suggests that the Alachua Tradition did not evolve from the preceding Cades Pond culture. Instead, it is postulated that Cades Pond people were displaced by the migration of new people into the area, who carried with them a distinct material culture. The two cultures appear to have had mutually exclusive settlement patterns with Alachua sites located on good agricultural soils especially at higher elevations with better drainage along the Hammock Belt (Milanich 1994:334), and Cades Pond sites located adjacent to wetlands.

The earlier Hickory Pond ceramic assemblage is dominated by cord‐marked vessels that were decorated with paddles or dowels wrapped in cordage. During the following Alachua period, cord marking was replaced by cob marking, which is achieved by applying a dried corncob to the wet clay to leave a distinctive cob‐marked appearance (Milanich 1994:338). The small, triangular Pinellas Point is the typical flaked arrow point throughout the Alachua Tradition

Chapter 3 16 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

(Bullen 1975). No ceramics or projectile points associated with the Cades Pond or Alachua cultures were identified on the Ocala Ranch property.

POST‐CONTACT HISTORY

At least by the sixteenth century, hamlet‐style agriculture prevailed in the general region including the Ocala Ranch project area. At the time of Spanish contact, this region was probably ruled by the powerful chief of Tocaste, whose domain was bounded by the Withlacoochee River to the north and east (Weisman 1986:20).

Early Explorations

Hernando de Soto landed near Tampa Bay in 1539. De Soto traveled through Marion and Alachua Counties and stayed at five successive villages (Milanich 1994). Reconstructions of his route indicate that he may have crossed the Withlacoochee River somewhere between Gum Slough and Camp Izard Ferry (Swanton 1985:142), either very near the Withlacoochee River or a half day’s march north of the river (Johnson 1987:67). After reaping the benefits of the Potano maize fields, de Soto continued his trek north into Georgia and then headed west, where he eventually died west of the Mississippi River in May of 1542 (Clayton et al. 1993:259‐ 261; Gannon 1996:26‐27; Milanich 1995:90,131; Milanich and Hudson 1993).

Aside from de Soto, Europeans made only cursory explorations of Marion County. Two decades after Hernando de Soto, French colonists from Fort Caroline (near today’s Jacksonville) ventured down the St. Johns River to what is now northeastern Marion County, where they encountered many Timucuan settlements, but made none of their own. Two years later, a group of Spanish soldiers under Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, the governor at St. Augustine, reconnoitered the Lake George area in a failed attempt to find a waterway connecting Florida with Mexico (Ott and Chazal 1974).

By the seventeenth century, Spanish priests were actively spreading the Catholic faith among the natives of central Florida. Modern‐day Marion County received three missions during this period: two along the Ocklawaha River in the eastern part of the county and the other near the Withlacoochee River in the western reaches of the county. These missions, along with many others in Florida, fell victim to rampant disease and frontier warfare. When the British acquired Florida in 1763, the Spanish missions were gone and the native population across Florida had experienced a rapid decline. In their place arrived Creek Indians from Alabama and Georgia, who became known as the Seminoles in the coming years (Milanich and Hudson 1993). The Seminole people prospered in Florida, raising cattle and growing their traditional crops of corn, beans, squash, and tobacco. The British set up several trading posts in Florida where Seminoles traded deerskins, wild cattle, and furs for guns, iron tools, cloth, and a variety of ornamental jewelry (Fairbanks 1973).

17 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

The first Seminole villages in the Cove of the Withlacoochee region were probably located on the high ground periphery of the Cove, near the present‐day towns of Hernando and Floral City. The locations of these towns have not been identified archaeologically, but historical records report that at Eneathlocco Emathla’s Town and Choilly Hadjo's Town (Prince 1837), Indians cultivated corn, pumpkins and beans, bartered with white traders and herded free‐range cattle (Weisman 1986:20).

Seminole Villages Sitarky and Negro Town

One Seminole settlement near the project area was the town of Sitarky. The location of this town is not known, although it is shown on several early maps (discussed in the map review section, below). Historical research indicates that Sitarky was the name of a Seminole figure as well as the name of a Seminole village over which he presided. One of the earliest mentions of Sitarky appears in William H. Simmons’ Notices of East Florida, one of the first descriptive books about the new American Territory of Florida. Simmons wrote that Sitarky “inherited a considerable property” from his uncle, Bowlegs, who was a Seminole chief who resided on the Suwannee River until Jackson’s drove him out and destroyed the village in 1818. Sitarky, who apparently had become chief after Bowlegs, was materially wealthy; however, his children were not. Simmons wrote the following about Sitarky’s children: “I saw them at Mr. [Horatio] Dexter’s, who I believe, has taken the children under his care” (Simmons 1822[1973]:62).

As Simmons suggested in his book, Indian Agent Horatio Dexter was quite familiar with the Seminole and their settlements. Dexter journeyed through central Florida in 1822, visiting many Seminole villages. In August 1822, he provided a report of his journey to Governor William P. Duval. The report discusses his journey from Volusia (on the St. Johns River) and further into the interior of central Florida. In his report Dexter discusses “Sitarky’s place” which he had reached in July. Dexter’s description also indicates that he had visited the settlement earlier in 1822 in January and March. Dexter is vague as to the location of Sitarky’s settlement aside from describing it as being on the Withlacoochee River. Dexter created a map to accompany his 1822 report, but it apparently has not survived (Boyd 1958). In 1837, John Lee Williams, a cartographer, synthesized several contemporary authors’ accounts and description, and indicated that the settlement was located on the east bank of the river.

Dexter’s description of “Sitarkey’s place,” though brief, suggests a thriving, agricultural settlement that had a black as well as Indian presence. Moreover, he indicates the settlement as the only one along the Withlacoochee River where agricultural development had taken place. “The only land cleared in the banks of this valuable stream is Sitarky’s place, which is now planted with corn & rice, & I am satisfied that no planter in Florida can boast of so good a crop in proportion to the quantity of land planted,” Dexter wrote. “I am confident that there is no land in Florida better for Sugar Cane.” Dexter also alludes to his earlier visits to the settlement. “I gave some [sugarcane] plants to Sitarky’s Negroes in March last which were not planted until April & now measure 10 feet to the top, although it has not attained half its growth” (Dexter, quoted in Boyd 1958:89). From Sitarky, Dexter then proceeded 10 miles southward to Chocochatti.

Chapter 3 18 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

A black Seminole community was established at Negro Town south of Sitarky. Historian James Covington wrote that they had established their own village in the Cove of the Withlacoochee River prior to the 1823 Treaty of Moultrie Creek. Covington (1993) adds that the majority of the Seminole who lived in the area of the Cove of the Withlacoochee River settled the area after the 1823 treaty. Nevertheless, Dexter’s 1822 description is a clear indication that at least Sitarky was in the vicinity of the Cove of the Withlacoochee as of 1822.

Sitarky’s settlement figured in the drawing of the boundaries of the Seminole reservation that resulted from the Treaty of Moultrie Creek. Surveyor James Gadsden recommended that the northern boundary of the reservation extend as far north to include the settlements of Okeehumkee (present‐day Lake County) and Sitarky in order to provide the Seminole with better grazing land for their cattle (Covington 1993).

The village of Sitarky remained present as late as 1832. In this year, the Seminole signed the Treaty of Payne’s Landing, which was a tool for the United States to remove the Seminole from the territory. Among those who signed the treaty was “Holata Amathla, Chief of [the village of] Sitarky” (Potter 1836:10). This 1832 mention of the village of Sitarky suggests the village remained present as of 1832.

Between the Treaty of Payne’s Landing (1832) and the start of the Second Seminole War in 1835, diplomatic relations between the Seminole and white settlers continued to deteriorate and the United States waged a war of removal. Covington (1993) writes that the Seminole and black villages near the Cove of the Withlacoochee moved onto the lake island of Lake Tsala Apopka at the outbreak of the war in 1835 as a defensive measure.

Conflicts with the Seminole

As a consequence of international negotiations that ended the American Revolutionary War, Great Britain ceded East Florida (including today’s Marion County) to Spain, thus initiating a second period of Spanish rule. During this Second Spanish Period (1784–1821), the Spanish developed plantations along the lines of the British model, yet their hold over East Florida remained weak. The Seminole held great influence in affairs. Among their ranks were runaway slaves from the southern United States who possessed valuable agricultural knowledge and could speak native languages and English. The problem of runaways within the Seminole nation fueled tensions between Americans in the southern United States and the Spanish in East Florida.

In the early 1810s, an American force attempted to incite a rebellion against Spanish rule in the region. Recent literature has dubbed the resultant conflict the Patriot War (Cusick 2003). In the course of this conflict, Buckner Harris and “patriots” from Georgia founded Fort Mitchell, the first settlement of US citizens within Marion County, near Lake Bryant in 1814. When the Seminole killed Harris five months later, most of the settlers straggled back to Georgia (Gannon 1996; Ott and Chazal 1974).

19 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Five years after the Patriot War, another conflict with the Seminole erupted. Consistent border conflicts between southern frontiersmen and the Seminole in Florida, as well as the attempts of British traders to side with the Seminole, influenced the United States to send General Andrew Jackson against the Seminole and their black allies. Confined primarily to northern and western Florida, the First Seminole War (1817–1818) pushed the Seminole southward into the peninsula. Jackson’s invasion also successfully pressured Spain to transfer all of Florida to the United States. The Adams‐Onis Treaty, signed in 1819 and ratified in 1821, transferred East Florida and West Florida to the United States, which combined them into one territory (Carter 1956:8‐11; Tebeau 1971).

Modern Marion County was the backdrop for important events in the ongoing conflict between the US government, white settlers, and the Seminole in the 1820s and 1830s. The American government induced the Seminole to sign the Treaty of Moultrie Creek (1823) which restricted all Indians in Florida to a reservation in the central part of the state. Marion County was within the northern limits of this reservation which stretched from here southward to present‐day Okeechobee County. Fort King, the headquarters of the Indian agency in Florida, was established near modern Ocala in 1827. The Treaty of Payne’s Landing (1832), agreeing under dubious terms to the wholesale removal of the Seminole from Florida, was signed in modern Marion County 9 miles north of the present‐day town of Eureka. Around Christmas 1835, Seminole war leader Osceola attacked Fort King, killing Indian agent Wiley Thompson. Together with an ambush of US troops in Sumter County and a full‐blown attack on the plantations along the eastern coast of Florida, the assassination of Thompson at Fort King marked the start of the Second Seminole War (1835–1842) (Mahon 1985).

During the Second Seminole War (1835–1842), the Battle for the Withlacoochee occurred 0.65 miles southwest of the project area (Site 8CI125). A second conflict, known as the Second Battle of the Withlacoochee or the Battle of Camp Izard, occurred about 1.8 miles downstream, northwest of the project area (Site 8MR2476). Activity associated with these two conflicts occurred on both sides of the river, with US forces approaching from the north to attack Indian settlements south of the river.

The First Battle for the Withlacoochee occurred on the south bank of the Withlacoochee River in Citrus County. On December 29, Brigadier General Duncan L. Clinch left Fort Drane (recently established on Clinch's plantation, about 20 miles [32 kilometers] northwest of Fort King) with 750 soldiers, including 500 volunteers on an enlistment due to end January 1, 1836. They were going to a Seminole stronghold called the Cove of the Withlacoochee, an area of many lakes on the southwest side of the Withlacoochee River. After a three‐day march, the army reached the north bank of the Withlacoochee River where the north‐flowing waters formed a large bend. When they reached the river, they could not find the ford, and Clinch had his regular troops ferried across the river in a single canoe they had found. They were unaware of the Dade massacre three days before.

Chapter 3 20 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

The 200 regulars and 30 volunteers were attacked by about 150 to 250 Seminoles and 30 blacks led by Osceola and Alligator. At the suggestion of Lt. Col. Fanning, General Clinch ordered three bayonet charges. A third of his soldiers died. The volunteers crossed the river to help and the regulars fell back to form a defensible position until the volunteers constructed a log bridge (Figure 3.3), which the regulars used to cross to safety. Figure 3.3. A contemporary artist’s depiction of the ‘log

bridge’ constructed to re‐cross the Withlacoochee River. The Second Battle of the Withlacoochee, also known as the Battle of Camp Izard, occurred between February 27 and March 6, 1836. On February 26, General Edmund Gaines marched south from Fort King for Fort Brooke with an army of approximately 1,000 men to attack the Seminole settlements to the south of the Withlacoochee. The army followed the route taken by Maj. Francis L. Dade. The following day, when he and his men reached the area in which General Clinch had fought the Seminoles two months before, there were shots fired at them by a force of 700 to 1,000 Seminoles from the south bank across the Withlacoochee River. After an hour, they withdrew into the woods north of the river bank for the night. The US Army forces, consisting of approximately 1,200 men, passed near the project area on February 28, 1836 (Ellis et al. 2002:11). On the morning of February 28, the army moved down the river for 2 or 3 miles to the ford. A large group of Seminoles prevented the army from crossing, and General Gaines was forced to erect Camp Izard and wait for reinforcements. After a two week struggle, the Seminoles had lost three men and five were wounded. General Gaines issued a statement that the enemy had been beaten, despite the fact his men had not crossed the Withlacoochee River, and the allied Native Americans and Blacks still held the region (Potter 1836:48).

As the war progressed, the military erected a string of small forts across northern and central Florida. In Marion County, Fort MacKay, Fort Wheelock, Fort Russell, and Fort Hook were built to protect Army supply routes. Fort Drane was a larger installation constructed on the plantation of General Clinch in northwestern Marion County. This fortification was a busy hub of military activity, housing commanding generals, Indian refugees, and fatigued troops. In 1836, the Seminole destroyed Fort King. The government rebuilt it in 1837 when General Zachary Taylor made the site his headquarters (Ott and Chazal 1974). By the close of the Second Seminole War in 1842, the government had shipped several hundred Seminoles to the western territories at a cost of $40,000,000 and the lives of 1,500 American troops. Casualties among the Seminoles and white settlers are unknown. The Seminoles who were permitted to remain in Florida retreated further southward into the peninsula (Mahon 1985). To promote the settlement of the frontier in Florida by Americans, the United States passed the Armed Occupation Act in 1842. The Act granted 160 acres to any man who maintained arms, built a house, farmed at least 5 acres of his land, and lived on his granted land for at least five years.

21 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Early Marion County

With the Seminole gone from the region, settlement proceeded apace with many of the new arrivals coming from northern Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia. At least 300 men started homesteads in the vicinity of Fort King between 1842 and 1860 (Ott and Chazal 1974:41). By the mid‐1840s, these settlers were interested in creating a county of their own. Named after South Carolina Revolutionary War hero General Francis Marion, Marion County was formed from portions of Alachua, Hillsborough, and Mosquito Counties on March 14, 1844 (Carter 1962:994‐995; State of Florida 1945:5, 8). At its inception, Marion County was nearly double its present size and included modern‐day Lake and Sumter Counties. Originally Fort King was designated the county seat, but in 1846, Marion County commissioners designated a new site named Ocala. The name was derived from a former native community called Ocali (also spelled as Ocale), which de Soto had visited during his sixteenth century trek through Florida (Morris 1995:157; Ott and Chazal 1974:41‐45).

Settlers continued to pour into the region as the 1840s became the 1850s. In 1850, Marion County boasted a population of 3,338 and ranked ninth out of 28 counties in Florida in terms of population (Dietrich 1978:15). Many of the newcomers laid out plantations, the largest of which measured 3,000 acres. Fueled by slave labor, these operations as well as the smaller farms of the county grew crops as varied as cotton, tobacco, sugar cane, corn, rice, indigo, and cassava. Cattle raising also became an important economic feature. On the eve of the Civil War, Marion County ranked second in the state for the value of its farms. The population had more than doubled to 8,600 by 1860. Slaves accounted for 60 percent of this figure (Ott and Chazal 1974:59‐65).

While the fields of battle were far from Marion County, the impact of the Civil War (1861–1865) was nevertheless sharply felt. Fearing a possible mutiny by the slaves in the region, the county purchased a massive supply of gunpowder and percussion cups in 1862. The first Confederate company of Ocala men left for the front in July 1862, leaving wives and younger family members in charge of farms and plantations. Deprived of basic necessities as a result of war conditions and the blockade of Florida’s coast, life on the homefront was difficult. Though there was no full blown invasion, the possibility of Union raids was unsettling for Confederate sympathizers.

The sole invasion of Marion County by Federal troops occurred in the waning moments of the war in 1865 when a small detachment of northern black troops made a surprise attack on the Marshall plantation near Ocala. They set the plantation houses on fire, destroyed the sugar refining machinery, and captured slaves. The Home Guard arrived from Ocala as the invaders were leaving, and in the ensuing skirmish four local men were fatally wounded (Ott and Chazal 1974). With the surrender of the Confederate Army at Appomatox Court House in Virginia, the war ended and Marion County residents began to assess the financial and social ruin. The residents embarked on the task of resuming activities disrupted by the conflict. Gradually, schools were reopened, businesses were restarted, and mail and stage services were reinstituted.

Chapter 3 22 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

The Growth of Industry in Post‐Civil War Marion County

Marion County’s population swelled as the post‐war economy expanded. The population grew from 8,600 residents in 1860 to 13,000 in 1880, making Marion one of Florida’s top 10 most populated counties (Dietrich 1978:16‐18). Two important events occurred between 1870 and 1880 that helped spur growth. The first was so‐called “orange fever.” Orange growing became an important agricultural pursuit for farmers during this period, ousting cotton and sugar to become the primary crop. Newcomers flocked to the county to lay out orange groves and new communities.

Second in this series of growth inducements was the arrival of the railroad. In 1881, the Atlantic, Gulf and West India Transit Company, which operated a rail line from Fernandina to Cedar Key, built a line from Waldo into Ocala. By the following year, the Tropical Florida Railroad Company extended this further southward to Wildwood. On the heels of this railroading pioneer, other companies constructed lines to and through the county, and by the turn of the century railroads connected Marion County to other parts of the state and nation. The railroads took farm products to northern and western markets and imported new settlers and tourists. Stations flowered into bona fide communities over the decades. Citra, Silver Springs, McIntosh, and Reddick were among them. Because of the growth and development during the 1880s, Marion County was the fourth wealthiest county in the state (Ott and Chazal 1974:110‐111,118‐123).

Phosphate mining became an important economic engine for Marion County in the late nineteenth century. In 1889, Albertus Vogt discovered phosphate in Marion County when sinking a well at his house near Dunnellon. Subsequent discoveries in Florida spurred a phosphate rush that propelled the state to the forefront in phosphate mining. Hard rock, land pebble, river pebble, and soft rock constitute Florida’s four varieties of phosphate deposits. Hard rock phosphate dominated Marion County’s deposits, with the first shipment made in the same year of Vogt’s discovery. Money and investors flooded Marion County, establishing dozens of mining outfits in the region (Blakey 1973; Millar 1892; Ott and Chazal 1974:148‐151).

With phosphate and orange fevers, Marion County continued to grow, reaching 20,796 residents in 1890 when it ranked the third most populous county in Florida (Dietrich 1978:19). Charles Norton, a Florida promoter, wrote in 1892 that Marion County was one of the best orange producing counties of Florida. “The gently swelling hills clothed with open woods, and often carpeted with green grass,” he wrote, “suggest, even in midwinter, some of the most beautiful parts of the North” (Norton 1892:60).

Between 1856 and 1893, 20 individuals were granted homesteads in the project area (Township 17 South, Range 20 East). Table 3.1 provides the applicants’ names, the location of these homesteads, and the date they were approved. It is important to note that not all of the approved homesteads would have resulted in permanent settlement or home construction. Their presence, however, testifies to the growth of Marion County and increasing population at the turn of the twentieth century.

23 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Table 3.1. Homesteads Approved in the Project Area (Township 17 South, Range 20 East). Name Date Approved Aliquots Section 17 S ½ of NE ¼ BROWN, John J. 1/30/1892 N ½ of SE ¼ BROWN, Lillie; BROWN, John R. 4/29/1890 N ½ of SW ¼ JORDAN, Elias W. 3/10/1887 S ½ of SW ¼ TURNER, Annie F. 8/5/1890 S ½ of SE ¼ Section 19 BROOKS, William L. 3/10/1887 N ½ of SE ¼ Section 20 HINTSMAN, John 12/1/1856 SE ¼ of SE ¼ JORDAN, Elias 3/10/1887 N ½ of NW ¼ ROSS, A.S. 3/10/1883 SW ¼ of NW ¼ SW ¼ of SE ¼ ROSS, Eli H. 6/30/1883 S ½ of SW ¼ NW ¼ of SW ¼ SE ¼ of NW ¼ 10/5/1883 NE ¼ of SW ¼ ROSS, Francis W. S ½ of NE ¼ 8/25/1882 N ½ of SE ¼ TURNER, Annie F. 8/5/1890 N ½ of NE ¼ Section 21 CLAMPIL, James F. 11/30/1885 S ½ of SE ¼ HOOD, Milton 10/15/1884 SE ¼ of SW ¼ E ½ of NE ¼ RAYBURN, Joseph S. 6/21/1889 NE ¼ of SE ¼ ROSS, F.W. 3/10/1883 SW ¼ of SW ¼ ROSS, Francis W. 5/10/1882 NW ¼ of SW ¼ NE ¼ of SW ¼ TURNER, Charles W. 7/3/1889 NW ¼ of SE ¼ W ½ of NE ¼ TURNER, Clarinda 4/3/1893 NW ¼ Section 27 MORRISON, Roderick 2/10/1885 SW ¼ Section 28 CLAMPIL, James F. 11/30/1885 N ½ of NE ¼ FERRIS, Jane S ½ of NE ¼ 5/16/1893 FERRIS, Charles E ½ of NW ¼ HINTSMAN, John E. 12/1/1856 W ½ of NW ¼ ROBINSON, Thomas W. 5/4/1891 SE ¼

Morrison’s Landing

Homesteads were granted to settlers across Florida, regardless of existing roads or infrastructure. In the absence of good roads, small landings along with Withlacoochee River such as Morrison’s Landing, gave famers and growers a place to load produce and goods onto barges and ferries. From these small landings, farmers exported their produce upriver to centers such as Lake Panasoffkee. There, goods were repacked on cars and shipped to regional

Chapter 3 24 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

markets (Figure 3.4). According to an 1894 report submitted to the Chief of Engineers, Morrison’s Landing (located approximately one kilometer southwest of the project area on the Withlacoochee) marked a division of markets, between the phosphate industry seeking a direct outlet to the sea, and the fruit producers who sought communication with the nearest railway station (Sackett 1894).

Figure 3.4. Steam ferry and railroad station at Lake Panasoffkee, 14 miles southeast (upriver) of the project area.

Twentieth Century Marion County

Shortly after the turn of the century, Marion County’s board of County Commissioners boasted that agriculture was the county’s main industry, worth $2,500,000 in 1908. Because of two devastating freezes in 1894/1895 that wiped out much of north Florida’s citrus crop, vegetables grown for northern markets came to dominate much of the county’s agricultural pursuits. Farmers grew a wide variety of produce, including strawberries, figs, peaches, oranges, watermelons, lettuce, onions, and peppers, as well as an assortment of other fruit and vegetables. Additionally, farmers raised cattle, hogs, sheep, horses, and poultry. Because of the agricultural wealth, several canning factories operated in the county. Phosphate, lime, and Fuller’s Earth were the primary minerals mined. Finally, turpentine, rosin, baskets, crates, carriers, cigars, spokes, and rims were all manufactured in the county. Still, there was an abundance of available land. In the eastern reach of the county, for example, lay a vast wilderness. Valued as a national resource, this area was designated as the Ocala National Forest in 1908 (Board of County Commissioners of Marion County ca. 1909; Ott and Chazal 1974:154,161‐163).

During the next two decades, Marion County witnessed swings from prosperity to decline. One important crop that saw a revival was the orange, with farmers planting acres of new groves.

25 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Additionally, Marion County would be caught up in the hype of the Florida land boom with dreams of new cities springing forth from the lands around Lake Weir and the blossoming of Marion’s other communities in the 1920s. The boom even propelled the county out its population slump, with 29,578 living in the county by 1930. However, as with much of the boom, these dreams came to naught with the land bust and subsequent Great Depression of the 1930s. Further compounding the problem, the Mediterranean fruit fly infested Florida’s orange groves. By 1940, only 31,243 resided in Marion, a comparatively paltry growth of 1,665 people (Dietrich 1978:23‐24; Ott and Chazal 1974: 186‐191).

In the years following World War II, Marion County, like the rest of Florida, grew and prospered. With the introduction of frozen orange juice and other citrus products, the county’s citrus industry pulled itself out the fruit fly slump and again prospered. The timber industry flourished with the increasing demand for pulpwood. Cattle ranchers benefited from the improvement of pasturage, the elimination of diseases such as the fever tick, and the introduction of new stock lines. By the 1960s, more than 80 thoroughbred farms had been established in Marion County, pushing the region to the forefront in Florida’s horse breeding industry. Tourists and new settlers began visiting the area, especially after Interstate 75 (I‐75) was constructed in the 1960s (Ott and Chazal 1974:208‐225).

HISTORIC MAP AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY REVIEW

A selection of historical maps and aerial photographs were reviewed in order to understand the history of land use in the study area. Eighteenth century maps show the Withlacoochee River trending in a northeastern to northerly direction from the coast. This suggests that the position of the mouth of the river may have been known, but there was little knowledge about its interior course. As late as 1823, Charles Vignoles’ map of Florida shows the river’s course running northeast and north, which is entirely incorrect. It does show one branch turning south toward “Big Hammock,” and places several landmarks along the coast. The town of Sitaky [sic Sitarky] is depicted close to the river’s north bank. To the east, Opilacloy is shown, near present‐day Ocala (Figure 3.5).

The earliest maps depicting the correct course of the river appear following the Second Seminole War. Though detailed, the early maps often were drawn at such a large scale that it is impossible to make specific conclusions about the study area. The 1836 Map of the Seat of War in Florida was created by Lt. J. E. Johnson of the US Army (Figure 3.6). Several notations are made in the general vicinity of southwestern Marion County. “Camp Izard Battle Ground 31 Jan’y” is a reference to the January 1836 battle between the US Army, militia forces, and the Seminoles in the context of the Second Seminole War. At least one archaeological investigation (Ellis et. al 1997) has established the location of Camp Izard. The location was northwest of SR 200 (outside of the study area) and directly on the Withlacoochee River. Copies of the map were produced with additional detail and sometimes varying names for places. “Negro Town” appears on Figure 3.6, while other maps call this “Old negro town.” The Cove of the

Chapter 3 26 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 3.5. Vignoles’ 1823 map of Florida showing the town of Sitarky (Vignoles 1823).

Figure 3.6. Copy of “A Map of the Seat of War in Florida” ca. 1836 (UNT Digital Library).

27 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Withlacoochee is also variously called “Great Swamp” or “Big Swamp.” “Negro Town” or “Old negro town” is likely a reference to what was then an abandoned village established by so‐ called Black Seminoles who were runaway slaves (and their descendants) who were historically allied with the Seminole. Given that the “Negro Town” appears southeast of Camp Izard in the map, there is some potential that the village was in the environs of the study area. The 1836 map also indicates a road or trail (Gaines’ route) connecting the site of the Battle on December 31 to Fort King (i.e., Silver Springs). This road or trail appears in later maps (discussed below) which seem to indicate that the road was not within the study area.

Another map from the Second Seminole War period is the 1837 Map of Florida (Figure 3.7) which was drawn by John Lee Williams and appeared in his book The Territory of Florida (1837). Williams had traveled to many areas of what was then the Territory of Florida. While informative, his map is rather crude, and thus there are limitations in identifying the study area.

Figure 3.7. 1837 map of Florida by John Lee Williams with approximate location of project area. Source: University of Miami.

Chapter 3 28 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Like the 1836 Johnson map, the Williams map indicates Camp Izard (although he references it as “Gaines” which was a reference to General Edmund P. Gaines who was one of the leaders of American troops at the battle). Williams, however, does not indicate the road between Camp Izard and Fort King. Rather, he shows several north‐south roads, including one (labeled “Ocklikane”) that crosses the Withlacoochee at or near Camp Izard. “Blodgets Ferry” is in the same vicinity and likely served travelers on the road. The “Big Swamp” that appears in the 1836 map seems to be indicated in the 1837 map as a circular shaded area. To the south of this swamp “Sitarkies” is noted next to a red triangle and likely references a Seminole village where the Seminole leader Sitarky presided. The study area would seem to generally fall between the “Big Swamp” location and Camp Izard, an area that has no indications of activity in the 1837 map. The “Old negro town” depicted in the 1836 map seems to be absent in the 1837 map, or perhaps at this point synonymous with “Sitarkies.” A “Negro Town” location in the 1837 map seems to be too far south to be the same one indicated in 1836.

The Mackay and Blake “Map of the Seat of War” was published in 1839 in the context of the Second Seminole War (Figure 3.8). Notable geographic features in the vicinity of the project area shown on this map are the Cove of the Withlacoochee and the Withlacoochee River, both of which are presently to the south and west of the study area. There also were several military roads coursing through the general area, as earlier maps noted. One in the 1839 map is labeled “General Gaines’ route” and passes southwestwardly from Fort King. This road generally mirrors the road in the 1836 map. Another military road is labeled “Gen’l Jesup in the 1837 map. There also are other, shorter roads that are not labeled. The named roads refer to the routes that various American Generals used for campaigns of the Second Seminole War. Some of these roads may have been opened well before the war, while others may have been productions of the conflict (Mahon 1985).

Following the removal and relocation of the Seminole from northern Florida, American settlement increased in the region. To facilitate the transfer of land in Florida, the General Land Office (GLO) created the first plat maps of each Township and Range in Florida. These maps, most of which were created in the Territorial (1821–1845) and early Statehood (1845–1861) periods, show varying degrees of detail from one area to another. For the study area, the corresponding Township/Range map was created in 1854 (Figure 3.9). The map provides no illustrations suggesting human activity. In the southeastern portion of the study area, a circular shape is depicted that likely was a pond. Well to the northwest of the study area, a road called “Road to Ocala” is illustrated. Most likely, this road was the same military road seen in the 1839 map titled “General Gaines’ route.”

In the late‐nineteenth century, the USGS created the first topographic maps of southwestern Marion County. The maps of the study area were titled Dunellon and Tsala Apopka. Respectively, these maps date to 1894 and 1895. These maps have been combined to create Figure 3.10. The pond that was illustrated in the 1854 map appears in this later figure. The most notable features in Figure 3.10 are multiple roads and structures across the property. A road oriented roughly southeast‐to‐northwest passes through the study area, and several

29 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 3.8. Mackay and Blake’s 1839 map showing military routes during the Second Seminole War in the vicinity of the project area.

Chapter 3 30 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 3.9. 1854 GLO map showing agricultural fields south of project area and small pond in the southeast corner.

31 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 3.10. Dunnellon (1894) and Tsala Apopka (1895) USGS topographic maps.

Chapter 3 32 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

shorter roads branch from this apparent main road. Along the main road and the branches— and in some cases far from the various roads—are black squares indicating structures. There are approximately 10 within the study area. Near the northern portion of the study area appears the word “Fairview,” which indicates a community. The boundaries of this community are not evident in the map, but they could have extended into the study area.

A 1940 aerial photograph provides evidence of agricultural activity in the study area (Figure 3.11). Throughout the study area are geometric (mostly square or rectangular) shapes that indicate property boundaries. Some of these shapes are completely cleared of undergrowth, an indication of farming or perhaps pasture. There are two especially large areas of cleared land, one in the central part of the study area and one in the northernmost part. Some of the geometric shapes or tracts appear to be overgrown within their boundaries, which may indicate farming activity prior to 1940. Several faint white lines indicate roads. As opposed to the roads seen in earlier maps, the ca. 1940 roads appear to be reoriented, perhaps to comply with individual property boundaries.

In 1954, the USGS updated their quadrangle maps of the study area. The maps, titled Dunellon and Tsala Apopka, have been merged to create Figure 3.12. Unlike the 1894/1895 quadrangle maps, the 1954 maps depict no structures. However, there are several roads depicted (although fewer than illustrated in the 1890s maps). The ca. 1954 roads do not appear to entirely match those seen in the 1940 aerial, perhaps indicating that some roads had been abandoned. Another notable feature of the 1954 map is that much of the central portion of the study area is illustrated in white which indicates that the land had been extensively cleared.

Indeed, the 1960 aerial photograph (Figure 3.13) indicates this large portion of cleared land. In fact, by this date, approximately half of the study area had been cleared of undergrowth and its original trees. By the time of the 1974 aerial photograph (Figure 3.14), nearly all of the study area had been cleared. A notable exception was the northwestern portion which was used for agriculture. Within this area of extensive undergrowth, however, was a grid of what appears to be roads. Today, this area is extensively overgrown. Also visible in the 1974 aerial photograph are the powerlines that pass through the northern section of the study area, indicating that this corridor was developed between 1960 and 1974.

33 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 3.11. 1940 aerial photograph showing the project area.

Chapter 3 34 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 3.12. Dunnellon (1954) and Tsala Apopka (1954) USGS topographic maps.

35 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 3.13. 1960 aerial photograph showing the project area.

Chapter 3 36 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 3.14. 1974 aerial photograph showing the project area.

37 Historic Context November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

CHAPTER 4: PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

The goal of this CRAS was to identify cultural resources within the Ocala Ranch project area and to evaluate their 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 review of relevant archaeological literature and previous archaeological work undertaken near the project area. The Florida Master Site File (FMSF) was checked for previously recorded sites within the project area, and this provided an indication of historic and Native American settlement and land‐use patterns for the region.

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE REVIEW

Recorded Sites

A review of the FMSF data revealed that there are no NRHP‐listed or eligible sites within the project area. There are five previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area, and one resource group adjacent to the bounds of the project area (Figure 4.1; Table 4.1). The archaeological sites were evaluated by the SHPO as not eligible for the NRHP in 2015. The resource group was determined to need additional work to make any NRHP recommendations.

There are 51 recorded resources within one mile of the project area (see Figure 4.1; see Table 4.1). These include 31 archaeological sites, 18 historic structures, one historic bridge, and one historic cemetery. Only one site is eligible for the NRHP, the Stokes Ferry multicomponent site (8CI823) that includes prehistoric human remains. Other potentially significant sites have not been evaluated. There are no standing historic structures within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Several structures are associated with the resource group Drake Ranch.

Site 8CI823 (Stokes Ferry) is the only eligible site within one mile of the project area. This is a multicomponent site with prehistoric human remains from the Weeden Island Period. The site has also yielded historic artifacts. Contemporary human remains from the Weeden Island period have also been found at nearby site 8CI194, a burial mound originally located approximately 50 meters north of the Stokes Ferry site, now destroyed. A third Weeden Island site, 8CI413, is located near the banks of the Withlacoochee River, 2.5 miles southeast of 8CI823 and 8CI194, and 0.8 miles (1,370 meters) southwest of the project area. This site has not been evaluated and no other information is available in the FMSF.

Other potentially significant prehistoric sites were recorded in 1987 by the Florida Department of Parks and Recreation (Johnson 1987, Survey #1410) during the search for the contact period village sites of Aguacaliquien and Cali. Eight shell middens were recorded along the shore of the Withlacoochee River, and the investigators noted that the probability of non‐shell sites on

Chapter 4 38 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 4.1. FMSF resources within one mile of the project area.

39 Previous Investigations November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Table 4.1. FMSF Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project Area. Resource FMSF FMSF NRHP Evaluation Description Type Number Survey No. (SHPO) Inside the Project Area: 8MR2351 Prehistoric campsite: lithic scatter 21991 Ineligible 8MR2352 Prehistoric lithic scatter 4379 Ineligible Archaeological 8MR2353 Prehistoric lithic scatter 4379 Ineligible Site 8MR3788 Prehistoric lithic scatter; 19th century 21431 Ineligible 8MR3873 Prehistoric lithic scatter 21991 Ineligible Adjacent to the Project Area: Resource Drake Ranch: mixed group of 13 early‐20th 19523; Insufficient 8MR3722 Group century structures (cattle ranch) 21431 Information Outside Project Area: 8CI125 Battle of the Withlacoochee 1821‐45 N/A Not Evaluated 8CI194 Prehistoric with burial mound 15848 Not Evaluated 8CI413 Midden: Weeden Island, AD 400‐900 ‐ Not Evaluated 8CI822 Prehistoric with human remains; 19th century 6561 Ineligible 8CI823 Prehistoric village with human remains 6372 Eligible 8CI989 Underwater, 19th c. shipwreck) 4029 Not Evaluated 8CI1340 Underwater, 19th c. wooden barge 15848 Not Evaluated 8MR222 Archaic; Deptford, 500 BC‐AD 500 ‐ Not Evaluated 8MR853 Shell midden; Deptford; Weeden Island 1410 Not Evaluated Shell midden; Weeden Island, AD 400‐900; 8MR854 15848 Not Evaluated Alachua, AD 1250‐1539 8MR1104 Prehistoric pottery and lithic scatter 1410 Not Evaluated 8MR1105 Prehistoric lithic scatter 1410 Not Evaluated Archaeological 8MR1106 Prehistoric lithic scatter 1410 Not Evaluated Site 8MR1109 Prehistoric lithic scatter 1410 Not Evaluated 8MR1111 Small shell midden 1410 Not Evaluated 8MR1112 Small shell midden 1410 Not Evaluated 8MR1935 Prehistoric lithic scatter 2918 Ineligible 8MR2347 Deptford, 500 BC‐AD 500 6561 Ineligible 8MR2348 Deptford, 500 BC‐AD 500 4379 Ineligible 8MR2349 Prehistoric campsite: pottery, lithics 4379 Ineligible 8MR2350 Prehistoric campsite: lithic scatter 4379 Ineligible 8MR3783 Prehistoric lithic scatter; 20th century 21431 Ineligible 8MR3784 Prehistoric lithic scatter; 19th century 21431 Ineligible 8MR3785 Prehistoric lithic scatter; 20th century 21431 Ineligible 8MR3790 Prehistoric lithic scatter 21431 Ineligible 8MR3859 Prehistoric lithic scatter 21431 Ineligible Historic Bridge 8CI824 1930s bridge over Withlacoochee 4379 Not Evaluated Cemetery 8MR3258 Cedar Grove Cemetery; ca. 1860‐present ‐ Not Evaluated 8CI1086 4995 E SPRUCE DR 6561 Ineligible 8MR1756 CEDAR GROVE RD 1371 Not Evaluated Historic 8MR1757 CEDAR GROVE RD 1371 Not Evaluated Structures 8MR2358 SR 200 “Bottle House” 4379 Insufficient Info. 8MR3161 13821 Carl G. Rose HWY 19523 Ineligible 8MR3792 13210 SW 200 HWY ‐ Drake Ranch Well 19523 Insufficient Info.

Chapter 4 40 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Table 4.1. FMSF Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project Area. Resource FMSF FMSF NRHP Evaluation Description Type Number Survey No. (SHPO) 8MR3726‐ 8MR3727; 13210 SW 200 HWY ‐ Drake Ranch 21431 Insufficient Info. 8MR3794‐ 8MR3803 the Drake Ranch property. Sites 8MR853, 8MR854, 8MR1110, and 8MR1111 contained numerous Pasco plain sherds and a diversity of shell, fish bones, animal bones, and charcoal. However, an absence of diagnostic pottery made dating the sites difficult.

8MR3722, Drake Ranch Resource Group

The Drake Ranch resource group consists of 13 structures, 11 of which contribute to the resource’s eligibility. Structures 8MR3792 and 8MR3794 through 8MR3803 are located within the mapped resource group boundary, while 8MR3726 and 8MR3727 are described as contributing to Drake Ranch, but are mapped outside the boundaries. No structures associated with the Drake Ranch Resource Group are located within the project area. The SHPO has determined Drake Ranch potentially eligible as a resource group (FDHR letter January 29, 2015).

Previous Surveys

There have been five previous cultural resource surveys that covered a portion of the project area (Table 4.2; Figure 4.2). Three surveys were along SR 200 and one was a transmission corridor survey. The 1991 archaeological survey was conducted by Piper Archaeological Research (FMSF Survey No. 2243) and evaluated an unknown portion of project area. Work consisted of pedestrian survey and judgmental shovel testing following a desktop assessment which classified the area as low probability based on distance (more than 100 meters) to perennial fresh water and lack of major relief. The locations and number of shovel tests dug in the project area are not provided in the survey report. No resources were identified.

Table 4.2. Previous Surveys Within or Adjacent to Project Area. FMSF # Survey Title Date Author Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Florida Department of Piper 2243 Transportation's Florida Turnpike Extension Study from Wildwood to 1991 Archaeological Lebanon Station Research Florida A Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of SR 200 from US 41 in Citrus 4379 1994 Archeological County to CR 484 in Marion County, Florida Services, Inc. SR 200 Historic Resources Update from Citrus County Line to CR 484, 19523 2012 Janus Research Marion County, Florida Sabal Trail Transmission Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Cardno 21431 (Alachua, Citrus, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lake, Levy, Madison, Marion, 2014 ENTRIX/SEARCH Orange, Osceola, Polk, Suwannee, Sumter Counties, Florida) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey: Sabal Trail Project Phase I Sabal Trail 21991 2015 Addendum Report Transmission

41 Previous Investigations November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 4.2. Previous surveys within or adjacent to the project area.

Chapter 4 42 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Three small sites were identified along SR 200 inside the northwest edge of the project area in 1994 (FMSF Survey No. 4379). Sites 8MR2351, 8MR2352, and 8MR2353 are ineligible lithic scatters without diagnostic artifacts. Two additional sites (8MR3784 and 8MR3788) were subsequently recorded inside the project area in 2014 by Cardno ENTRIX and SEARCH (FMSF Survey No. 21431), and a third site was recorded in 2015 (8MR3873). These sites also consist of non‐diagnostic lithic scatters. All have been determined ineligible for the NRHP by the SHPO.

43 Previous Investigations November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH DESIGN

The objectives of this Phase I CRAS were to:

 Identify and evaluate cultural resources within the approximate 2,079‐acre survey parcel;  Record archaeological and historic resources utilizing subsurface testing and surface inspection;  Identify and evaluate any architectural resources within the study area; and  Provide NRHP eligibility recommendations and determine if any resources require additional work.

CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIAL

The Ocala Ranch project area covers a variety of natural environments and exhibits archaeological potential ranging from low to high. Examination of environmental variables (e.g., soil drainage, access/proximity to wetland and riverine resources, and relative elevations), the results of previously conducted surveys in the area, historic aerial photographs and maps were used to identify areas of higher archaeological probability based on criteria in Table 5.1. Areas with higher probability were assigned a letter designation (A through I) and tested at systematic intervals (25‐, 50‐, and 100‐meters). The remainder of the property was tested judgmentally.

Table 5.1. Criteria Used to Identify Areas of Higher Probability. Site Probability Criteria Areas of better‐drained soil (i.e., somewhat poorly drained, moderately well drained, well High drained, excessively drained) within 100 meters of water or wetlands Within 100 meters of any previously recorded resource Areas of better‐drained soil (i.e., somewhat poorly drained, moderately well drained, well drained, excessively drained) between 100 and 300 meters of water or wetlands Moderate Areas of poorly drained soil within 100 meters of water or wetland resources Within 100 and 300 meters of any previously recorded resource Low All other areas

SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Cultural resources are 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 (2000:2) document entitled How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, and states: the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,

Chapter 5 44 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess 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, identified sites must have both significance and integrity and meet at least one of the four outlined criteria (A through D). In addition, eligible sites are evaluated for their uniqueness and 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 historical significance, historical integrity, and historical context.

Previous archaeological work in the Cove of the Withlacoochee and to the north of the Cove resulted in the identification of multiple sites characterized by non‐diagnostic lithics and few ceramics. Typically, research potential is limited at such sites due to an absence of features or diagnostic artifacts. In assessing prehistoric sites identified within the Cove for eligibility, SEARCH considered their research potential for future archaeologists, using five hypotheses presented by Mitchem and Weisman (1987:165) that address settlement patterns in the Cove. The five hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Perico pottery types will be found only in riverine shell midden contexts (as opposed to lakeshore or inland hammock areas), no more recent than about AD 400.

Hypothesis 2: Typical Deptford pottery types (Deptford Simple Stamped and Check Stamped) will be absent or very rare, reflecting cultural connections of Cove populations to the south rather than to the north.

Hypothesis 3: Pasco pottery types will be found in contexts beginning during Deptford/Perico Island times and continuing through Seminole times. The limestone temper in Pasco pottery may be related to naturally occurring limestone fragments in local clays.

45 Research Design November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Hypothesis 4: The general pattern of elaboration of Weeden Island‐related culture seen elsewhere in the Southeast will not be found in the Cove.

Hypothesis 5: The beginning of the Safety Harbor period (ca. AD 900) saw a broadening of settlement patterns, from mainly riverine settlements to include lakeshore and inland hammock occupation.

These hypotheses are revisited in the Results section and discussed in relationship to the findings of the current survey.

PHASE I SURVEY METHODS

The survey strategy was designed to identify surface and subsurface archaeological sites within the survey area. This work was completed in accordance with the site expectations presented above and based on the results of the background research and historic document search. The project area was determined to have a mixed potential for containing subsurface archaeological resources.

Fieldwork consisted of a pedestrian survey and systematic subsurface investigation in the form of shovel testing. The probability model identified nine areas of with higher archaeological probability within the project area. Each of these areas was assigned a Map ID (A through I) (Figure 5.1). Preplotted shovel tests were placed at 50‐ and 100‐meter intervals along a gridded axis tied to UTM coordinates inside each area. The shovel test interval was reduced where field observations indicated favorable conditions, in the vicinity of recorded sites, or with the excavation of a positive test. No shovel tests were placed within previously surveyed areas or inside the site boundaries of the five previously recorded lithic scatters inside the project area (8MR2351, 8MR2352, 8MR2353, 8MR3788, and 8MR3873), as these resources had been previously determined ineligible for the NRHP by the SHPO; likewise, the FMSF forms were not updated for these five sites.

Portions of the project area with a lower probability for archaeological resources were pedestrian surveyed and tested judgmentally. Judgmental tests were named sequentially by team number JA and JB (for Team A and B). Delineation tests were assigned the prefix “D.” Shovel tests preplotted off the original grid were assigned a number prefix of 1, 2, or 3 during the second rotation depending on their location. For example, tests plotted around topographic contours of the south pond were numbered sequentially 1001, 1002, etc. A third naming convention was employed once sites obtained a number from the FMSF. Shovel test locations plotted to delineate site boundaries were given a prefix of the site two digits of the assigned site number and numbered sequentially thereafter. For example, tests to delineate Site 8MR3942 were numbered 42.01, 42.02, etc.

Chapter 5 46 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

axis.

Y

and

X

along shown

are

Coordinates

UTM area. project

Ranch

Ocala

the

in

probability

higher

of

Areas 5.1.

Figure

47 Research Design November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Global Positioning System (GPS) units were used in the field to orient the field crew, and shovel test locations were recorded using GPS. The ground surface between shovel tests was examined for evidence of cultural resources. A field map was maintained, indicating surface finds, shovel tests excavated, whether they are positive or negative, and other pertinent information. Team members completed shovel test forms as shovel tests were excavated. Where positive shovel tests or surface artifacts were encountered, additional surface inspection and shovel tests at closer intervals were conducted to determine whether the artifact represented an isolated find or a site, and to identify site boundaries.

Shovel tests were circular excavations with a diameter of 50 centimeters. They were excavated to a depth sufficient to demonstrate that deeply buried, early Holocene deposits were not present and dug to at least 100 centimeters below surface (cmbs) or until impenetrable substrate (i.e., bedrock), subsoil known to be sterile, or the water table was reached. Shovel tests had straight, vertical (not sloping) sides and were excavated one full 10‐centimeter level into sterile soil below any cultural‐bearing strata. Excavated soil is sifted through 6.4‐millimeter (1/4‐inch) screen and shovel test pits were backfilled upon completion of the fieldwork. Prehistoric or historic archaeological material recovered from the shovel tests were retained for laboratory analysis. Soil descriptions (texture, color [Munsell]) were collected for excavated sediments. Soil profiles were recorded for shovel tests, and photographs were taken of representative tests.

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTING

To determine site boundaries and gain additional information, supplemental testing occurred at the six newly recorded sites (8MR3929‐8MR3934). Supplemental testing included:

 Systematic surface survey and collection  Additional close‐interval shovel testing  Metal detector survey at historic site 8MR3932  Unit excavation at 8MR3929

Supplemental shovel tests were numbered sequentially by resource (i.e., 31.05 was the fifth supplemental test at 8MR3931). Positive tests were delineated with negative tests placed to the north, east, south, and west except where access was restricted (i.e., within 200 meters of an active bald eagle nest at 8MR3931).

Metal Detecting Survey

At historic site 8MR3932, crews used an X‐TERRA 705 Minelab metal detector along north‐ south transects spaced at 2.5‐meter intervals along a false grid system (Figure 5.2). Metal detector hits recorded along each transect were marked with non‐metallic pin flags. Following the completion of the grid survey, each metal detector hit was excavated by hand in 10‐

Chapter 5 48 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

centimeter levels to 50 cmbs or until the metal detector no longer registered a ferrous object. Recovered finds were assigned a field specimen (FS) number and their provenience recorded in field notes. Information on the surrounding environment, soil stratigraphy, texture, and color were noted, and recorded on ST forms.

Unit Excavation

One 1‐x‐1‐meter test unit was excavated at 8MR3930 to assess the integrity of Figure 5.2. Metal detecting at site 8MR3932. subsurface deposits in an area where decorated ceramics were recovered. Decorated ceramics are rare in the project area and SEARCH archaeologists chose to more closely investigate this area to determine whether subsurface features or additional diagnostics might be present. The unit was excavated in 10‐ centimeter arbitrary levels to a minimum depth of one meter below the surface or two consecutive sterile levels below any cultural material. Excavated soil was screened through 6.4‐ millimeter (1/4‐inch) or smaller mesh, and then backfilled upon completion of the unit excavation.

Documentation Methods for Phase I Survey and Supplemental Testing

Project efforts and results were recorded in field notes, photo logs, shovel test forms, sketch maps, plan, and profile drawings. The boundaries of archaeological sites, deposits, shovel tests, isolated finds, and other pertinent features were recorded and depicted on a site map of sufficient scale to allow for accurate and precise location. The boundaries of archaeological deposits or features were located using a GPS‐based geographic data collection system and accurately delineated on a map.

Publication‐quality photographs were taken of the general site conditions and environment, fieldwork overviews, shovel tests, test units, and cultural features. SEARCH documented the present condition of the cultural resources with regard to impacts or disturbances caused by past land use. A photograph log was maintained to include relevant information pertaining to the location and condition of the subject matter being photographed. Minimally, this included the site number (when applicable), date, photograph orientation, recorder, and accurate location from which the shot was taken, description of item being photographed, and the frame number. Temporally diagnostic artifacts were also documented with publication‐quality photographs that included a scale, or scaled line drawings. Recording of temporally diagnostic artifacts incorporated detailed descriptions of the item’s composition, size, dimensions, manufacturing techniques, technology, function, and condition.

49 Research Design November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Laboratory Methods and Curation

Prehistoric and historic archaeological materials recovered during the project were retained for laboratory analysis. These items were labeled by provenience and transported to the SEARCH laboratory for processing and analysis. At the SEARCH laboratory, items were washed and dried and then analyzed using appropriate reference materials. This information was recorded in a Microsoft Access database. The artifacts were given code numbers to allow systematic, comparable data entry. Prehistoric lithic artifacts were analyzed by source material, method of manufacture, and artifact function. Prehistoric ceramics were analyzed by temper, surface decoration, and vessel morphology. Historic artifacts were analyzed by use, material type, and function. The artifacts were packaged in acid‐free, 4‐mil polyethylene bags with acid‐free paper label inserts following federally accepted standards (36 CFR Part 79). Collections will be returned to Farner Barley and Associates, Inc. upon the completion of this contract.

Architectural Assessment

The architectural survey for the project utilized standard procedures for the location, investigation, and recording of historic properties. In addition to a review of the FMSF database for any previously recorded historic properties within the project area, historic maps, aerial images, and local property records were consulted to identify the potential presence of additional unrecorded historic resources. Architectural historians conducted a pedestrian and windshield survey of the property, with a focus on the location of the 10 structures noted on the 1894/1895 USGS quadrangles.

Informant Interviews

No local informants were encountered during fieldwork.

Certified Local Government Consultation

There is a Certified Local Government (CLG) for the City of Ocala, but the Ocala Ranch project area is outside the city limits; therefore, no CLG consultation was required.

Chapter 5 50 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

CHAPTER 6: SURVEY RESULTS

ARCHAEOLOGY RESULTS

A total of 1,007 shovel tests were excavated across the project area, 231 of which were positive for cultural material (Figure 6.1). A total of 601 artifacts were collected systematically from surface and subsurface contexts. Field methods included pedestrian survey, shovel testing, metal detecting, and limited test unit excavation. As a result, seven new cultural resources consisting of five prehistoric artifact scatters (8MR3929, 8MR3930, 8MR3931, 8MR3933, and 8MR3934), one historic homestead (8MR3932), and a segment of a historic road (8MR3937) were recorded and evaluated (Figure 6.2). Five archaeological occurrences (isolated finds) were identified, and one previously recorded resource group adjacent to the project area (Drake Ranch, 8MR3722) was evaluated and the site form was updated. With the exception of one isolated find, all the recorded sites are located in areas identified as having higher probability for cultural material. The acreages for each area, number of shovel tests excavated, and number of newly recorded sites are shown in Table 6.1. Detailed results follow by area.

Table 6.1. Survey Areas, Acreages, Excavated Shovel Tests, and Newly Recorded Resources. # Archaeological Survey Area Acreage Excavated STs Newly Recorded Resources Occurrences A 91.3 19 0 0 B 122.9 37 0 0 C 175.8 94 8MR3937 0 D 19.4 8 0 0 E 25.6 9 0 0 F 215.6 393 8MR3929, 8MR3930, 8MR3933 1 G 151.2 276 8MR3931, 8MR3932, 8MR3934 2 H 13.1 10 0 0 I 40.3 50 0 1 Low Probability 1241.1 111 0 1 Total 2096.3 1,007 7 5

AREA A RESULTS

Area A consists of 85.3 acres located on the north and northwest edge of the project area (see Figure 5.1). The area contains plowed peanut fields and moderately dense forest. A powerline corridor is located just south of this area. The area was considered to have a higher potential for archaeological material based on the presence of two previously recorded lithic scatters. In 2012, Janus Research surveyed approximately half of the area (34 acres) and identified two lithic scatters (8MR2352 and 8MR2353); neither is eligible for the NRHP. SEARCH excavated 19 shovel tests across the remaining 33 acres at 50‐ and 100‐meter intervals. The locations of negative tests, previous surveys, and previously recorded sites are shown in Figure 6.3.

51 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

newly

and

occurrences,

archaeological

areas,

surveyed

previously

resources.

tests,

recorded excavated

showing

results

test

shovel of

Overview 6.1.

Figure

Chapter 6 52 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 6.2. Updated and newly recorded sites.

53 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

resources.

recorded

previously

and

areas,

surveyed

previously

tests,

shovel

excavated showing

results

A

Area 6.3.

Figure

Chapter 6 54 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Crews observed excellent surface visibility across cleared peanut fields and moderate visibility inside the tree line. A typical soil profile observed at N8700, E0000 consisted of: Stratum I (0‐20 cmbs) gray (10YR 5/1) loose sand; Stratum II (20‐80 cmbs) pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand; and Stratum III (80‐100 cmbs) yellowish‐brown (10YR 5/8) compact sandy clay. Peanut shells, limestone inclusions, and deep roots were observed in tests throughout the area. No cultural material was located in Area A, and no further work is recommended.

AREA B RESULTS

Area B consists of 72.7 acres located on the west and northwest edge of the project area (see Figure 5.1). The area contains mostly open pasture with some wooded areas in the north and southwest (Figure 6.4). Area B was considered to have a higher potential for yielding archaeological material based on the presence of one previously recorded archaeological site inside this area. Site 8MR2351 is a prehistoric campsite recorded by Florida Archaeological Services (1994). The resource has been determined ineligible for the NRHP by the SHPO and was not relocated or tested during this survey.

The Drake Ranch resource group (8MR3722) is located to the west of Area B, adjacent to the project area. The location of 8MR3722, previously recorded resources, and excavated shovel tests are shown in Figure 6.5. A total of 37 shovel tests were excavated across Area B at 50‐ and 100‐ meter intervals. No new cultural resources or archaeological deposits were recorded in this area.

Updated Resource Group, 8MR3722

The Drake Ranch Resource Group (8MR3722) Figure 6.4. Representative photo of Area B, includes 13 structures located on a farmstead that facing east. is approximately 272 acres in size. The resource group borders the western edge of the project area, and in a letter dated January 29, 2015, the SHPO determined 8MR3722 to be potentially eligible for the NRHP; however, the resource has not yet been evaluated.

55 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

resources.

recorded

previously

and

areas,

surveyed

previously

tests,

shovel

excavated

showing

results

B

Area 6.5.

Figure

Chapter 6 56 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

The Drake Family settled in the Ocala area in the 1870s, and Trusten Drake Sr. and his wife, Alice Walton Hocker Drake, later built a home on Ocala’s Fifth Street in 1919. Drake developed the asparagus fern which he marketed in the north and also established a cattle ranch. Drake’s son, Trusten Drake Jr., continued his father’s business after the elder Drake’s death in 1928. The younger Drake became involved in the timber business and invested in real estate to the point that his holdings reached 22,000 acres in Marion County and neighboring Sumter County (James 2008). Trusten Jr. and his wife, Annie, as well as their descendants, were influential in the history of Ocala. Trusten Jr. and Annie lived at the Drake Ranch and raised two sons there, George MacKay “Kay” Drake and Trusten Polk “Trusty” Drake III (Greene 2011; James 2008). The Drakes transferred much of their land to the State of Florida for conservation purposes.

SEARCH surveyed an 85.25‐acre area adjacent to the resource group with a pedestrian survey and shovel testing at 50‐meter intervals. Neither the pedestrian survey nor the shovel testing resulted in the discovery of any structural remains or archaeological deposits associated with Resource Group 8MR3722 that would indicate the resource group extends into the project area. A segment of historic road (8MR3937) was recorded in Area C, which dates to the period when Drake Ranch was in operation. This resource is discussed below. It is the opinion of SEARCH that the proposed project will not adversely affect Resource Group 8MR3722. No further work is recommended.

AREA C RESULTS

Area C consists of 175.8 acres located in the central northwestern portion of the project area (see Figure 5.1). The area contains approximately equal portions of pasture and forest (Figure 6.6, left). One artificial pond is located near ST N8100, E0650 (Figure 6.6, right). Area C was considered to have a higher potential for yielding archaeological material based its proximity to the Drake Ranch Resource Group (8MR3722).

Figure 6.6. Representative views of Area C from ST N8100, E0650, facing north towards pasture and oak stands (left) and south towards artificial pond (right).

57 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

A total of 94 shovel tests were excavated in Area C at 50‐ and 100‐meter intervals. The locations of excavated tests, previous surveys, one newly recorded linear resource (8MR3937), and Drake Ranch are shown in Figure 6.7. Crews observed moderately good surface visibility (greater than 50 percent) across the area. Shovel tests recorded an inconsistent soil profile, with Stratum I ranging from a dark gray (10YR 4/1) silty loam to dark yellowish‐brown (10YR 3/6) sand. Sandy clay was observed as shallow as 25 cmbs to as deep as 100+ cmbs and ranged in color from a yellowish‐brown (10YR 3/6) to a reddish‐brown (5YR 5/3) color across the area. Disturbed soil corresponds to white areas on the 1954 topographic quadrangle (see Figure 3.11) which denote significant land clearing.

Linear Resource 8MR3937

Evidence of an unimproved dirt road depicted on the 1954 Tsala Apopka USGS topographic quadrangle was observed south of ST N8100, E0650. Crews noted drainage ditches on either side of what appeared to be an old road, with gravel encountered 5 cmbs in the shovel test.

A review of historic aerial photographs and maps found the location to correspond to an unimproved dirt road constructed after 1940 and before 1954. In the 1940 aerial photograph, the eastern part of the resource appears to match an existing road (Figure 6.8), and by 1954, the road had been extended to its current extent. The 1960 aerial photograph clearly shows the road (Figure 6.9). At present, farm vehicles follow the same track as the historic road to access gated pasture areas.

The USGS topographic map from 1954 marks the road with two parallel broken lines, signifying an unimproved dirt road. The road does not correlate to any of the roads shown on the earlier 1895 topographic map (see Figure 3.9), suggesting it was constructed during the early to mid‐ twentieth century. It appears to retain historic integrity; its route and construction have not been significantly altered.

The road is not known to be associated with any known historic events, but may have been a roadway used to travel between houses and settlements outside the project area, including Drake Ranch, whose main farm house is located just east of the road. While the road does not include features to warrant NRHP eligibility, SEARCH recommends it be considered as a contributing element to the unevaluated Drake Ranch Resource Group (8MR3722). Site files have been updated to reflect this inclusion.

AREA D RESULTS

Area D consists of 19.4 acres southeast of Area C (see Figure 5.1). The area contains plowed fields and open ground. The area was considered to have a higher potential for archaeological material based on the presence of one previously recorded site (8MR3873) (Sabal Trail Transmission 2015). This site consists of a non‐diagnostic lithic scatter of indeterminate

Chapter 6 58 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

linear

recorded

roads.

newly

one

access

areas,

active

or surveyed

utilities

buried previously

to

tests,

shovel

correspond

locations

excavated

of dig

No

location

Ranch.

the

Drake

showing

and

results

C

resource, Area 6.7.

Figure

59 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 6.8. 1940 aerial photograph showing historic road through Survey Area C. Views shown in Figure 6.6 were taken from the photo point shown.

Chapter 6 60 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 6.9. 1960 aerial photograph showing historic road through Area C. Note: The road was constructed prior to local deforestation.

61 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

temporal and cultural affiliation. Eight shovel tests were placed at 50‐meter intervals across unsurveyed portions of Area D. The locations of excavated tests, previous surveys, and the previously recorded site are shown in Figure 6.10.

Crews observed excellent surface visibility. A typical soil profile 25 meters east of recorded site 8MR3873 at ST N7900, E1600 consisted of: Stratum I (0‐30 cmbs) gray (10YR 5/1) silty sand, and Stratum II (30‐100 cmbs) light yellowish‐brown (10YR 6/4) sand. Reddish‐brown to brown clay was observed 90 cmbs in three of the excavated tests. No cultural material was located in this area, and no further work is recommended.

AREA E RESULTS

Area E consists of 25.6 acres south of Area D (see Figure 5.1). Environmental conditions are similar to Area D and consist of plowed fields and open ground. The area was considered to have a higher potential for archaeological material based on the presence of one previously recorded site (8MR3788) (Sabal Trail Transmission 2015). This site yielded a small amount of material limited to the surface, including two non‐diagnostic prehistoric lithics and two historic ceramics. Nine shovel tests were placed at 50‐meter intervals across unsurveyed portions of Area E. The locations of excavated tests, previous surveys, and the previously recorded site are shown in Figure 6.11.

Crews observed excellent surface visibility. A typical soil profile 25 meters north of recorded site 8MR3788 at ST N7600, E1700 consisted of: Stratum I (0‐30 cmbs) gray (10YR 5/1) silty sand, and Stratum II (30‐100 cmbs) light yellowish‐brown (10YR 6/4) silty sand. Reddish‐brown to brown clay was observed 80 cmbs in two of the excavated tests. No cultural material was located in this area, and no further work is recommended.

AREA F RESULTS

Area F consists of 215.6 acres located east and south of Area D (see Figure 5.1). A series of gates and paddocks splits the area into several smaller units, which are used to divide livestock and control grazing. Live oak and other large shade trees sparsely populate the area, occurring mostly in the far northwest, near one of two natural depressions. The second depression is found in the eastern portion of the area, one of two permanent ponds in the project area.

No previously recorded resources are recorded within the boundaries of Area F. A total of 393 shovel tests were excavated, 178 of which were positive for cultural material. As a result SEARCH recorded three new archaeological sites (8MR3929, 8MR3930, and 8MR3933) and documented one archaeological occurrence. The locations of excavated positive and negative tests, newly recorded sites, and archaeological occurrences are shown in Figure 6.12.

Chapter 6 62 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

resources.

recorded

previously

and

surveys,

previous

tests,

shovel

excavated of

location

the

showing

results

D

Area 6.10.

Figure

63 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

resources.

recorded

previously

and

surveys,

previous

tests,

shovel

excavated of

location

the

showing

results

E

Area 6.11.

Figure

Chapter 6 64 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

resources.

recorded

newly

and

tests

shovel

excavated of

location

the

showing

results

F

Area 6.12.

Figure

65 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

8MR3929

Newly recorded site 8MR3929 consists of a 2.8‐acre lithic, prehistoric ceramic, and historic glass scatter, defined by 29 positive shovel tests. The site is located near a former drainage on the western side of the project area, approximately 200 meters west of newly recorded archaeological site 8MR3930. Positive shovel tests are located within mapped Sparr Sand areas. The site is situated in open pasture on higher ground just east of a forested slope that extends into a wooded ravine (Figure 6.13). With higher river levels, the site would have been well‐situated upland of a marshy river that drained directly into the Withlacoochee River, and the site would have provided inhabitants ready access to marsh and riverine resources.

Figure 6.13. Environment at newly recorded site 8MR3929, facing west from positive ST N7000, E2150.

In total, 66 artifacts were recovered from surface and subsurface contexts, consisting of 60 prehistoric lithic flakes, three glass fragments, and three prehistoric ceramics (including one Pasco Check Stamped sherd). Details of recovered artifacts including their depth and provenience are presented in Appendix B. Figure 6.14 shows the boundary of 8MR3929.

Chapter 6 66 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

map.

site

8MR3929 6.14.

Figure

67 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Shovel Test Results

A total of 88 shovel tests were excavated at 25‐ and 12.5‐meter intervals to delineate the site boundary. Soil profiles varied widely across the site, with up to four strata recorded per shovel test. A typical profile observed at ST N7100, E2150 (Figure 6.15) consisted of Stratum I (0‐30 cmbs) light gray (10YR 7/1) silty sand, Stratum II (30‐100 cmbs) pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand, and Stratum III (100‐110+ cmbs) spodic.

In total, 13 strata were observed across the site. Table 6.2 shows the depths and order of these layers, with an asterisk denoting artifact‐bearing stratum. Artifacts were Figure 6.15. 8MR3929 representative shovel test at ST recovered between 0‐100 cmbs, from six of N7000, E2150 showing three strata and burned wood. the 13 observed horizons. The majority of artifacts were recovered from the Table 6.2. Recorded Soil Horizons at 8MR3929. Depth B‐horizon (Stratum II), beginning about 30 Stratum Color and Texture cmbs and varying from 20 to 90 (cmbs) centimeters in thickness. One Pasco Check 0 Surface* 0‐20 I Dark Gray Sand Stamped sherd bears a Middle to Late 0‐35 I Light Gray Silty Sand Woodland (Weeden Island) cultural 0‐40 I Gray Sand* affiliation; the remaining artifacts are not 0‐100 I White Sand* diagnostic. 20‐100 II Yellowish‐Brown Sand* 25‐100 II Light Brownish Gray Sand* Lithic and Ceramic Analysis 30‐105 II Pale Brown Sand* 35‐43 II Grayish‐Brown Sand 40‐100 II Brownish‐Gray Sand The assemblage is dominated by secondary 40+ III Dark Gray Clay and tertiary stage reduction flakes, 60‐80 III Dark Brown Sand produced from locally derived coastal plain 90‐100 III Compact Brown Spodic chert. Out of the 60 lithics, 28 have been 60‐100+ III Yellow Brown Clay thermally altered (46.7 percent) and 32 are Note: Asterisk denotes an artifact‐bearing stratum. unaltered (53.3 percent). No faunal materials or features were identified in any shovel tests.

Three ceramic sherds were recovered from a single shovel test (ST N7000, E2150). Two are Pasco plain sherds and one is check‐stamped (Figure 6.16). Pasco plain is a ubiquitous ceramic type found throughout the region for more than 1,000 years; it is little use for dating. Pasco Check Stamped ceramics are diagnostic for the Weeden Island Period (AD 400–900).

Chapter 6 68 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Figure 6.16. Ceramic sherds from 8MR3929; Pasco plain (6.01) and Pasco Check Stamped sherds (7.01), both recovered from ST N7000, E2150. Test Unit

The recovery of three ceramic sherds (two Pasco plain and one check stamped sherd) and one piece of tertiary debitage from ST N7000, E2150, prompted the placement of one 1‐x‐1‐meter test unit 10 centimeters north of the north wall of this shovel test. The test unit provided an opportunity to examine the transitions between strata for disturbances, look for subsurface features, and assess the impact of land clearing activities on archaeological deposits.

The test unit revealed three strata: Stratum I (0‐34 centimeters below datum [cmbd]) light gray (10YR 7/1) sand; Stratum II (34‐98 cmbd) gray (10YR 5/1) sand; and Stratum III (98‐100 cmbd) brown spodic (10YR 4/3) sand. Transitions were gradual with much mottling present between strata. Mottling between Stratum I and Stratum II, and root staining near the bottom northeast and southeast corners were noted. These root stains appeared at approximately 80‐95 cmbd (27 to 33 inches below surface) (Figure 6.17). A single piece of tertiary lithic debitage was recovered from Level 7, 65‐70 cmbd; no other artifacts were recovered. No cultural features were identified in the unit.

Disturbances

Historic aerials show that large areas of the project area including the area surrounding site 8MR3929 was intensively cleared between 1960 and 1974 (see Figures 3.12 and 3.13). The equipment used to clear the property is not known; however, typical intrusive practices from the 1960s included clearing existing vegetation, root extraction, disposal of vegetation by

69 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 6.19. 8MR3929 Test Unit 1, east wall profile sketch.

Figure 6.17. 8MR3929 Test Unit 1, east wall profile. Note the gradual transitions between strata and root activity in the northeast corner.

Chapter 6 70 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

windrowing or chopping, mixing of soil or burning, and soil cultivation and replanting.

These actions would have included ripping out roots with a front‐mounted rake and a top pusher bar or frame like that shown in Figure 6.18. The length of teeth on the rake would have impacted soils (and buried cultural remains) to between 18 and 36 inches below surface (45 to 90 cmbs).

Stratum III (brown spodic) in the Figure 6.18. Fleco root rake and land clearing exhibition in Taylor test unit first appeared at the County, Florida, in 1947 (Florida Photographic Collection). bottom of Level 7 (27.5 inches below the surface) as a straight line along the western side of the unit (Figure 6.19). While potentially natural, the orientation of this staining is north‐south and its depth is consistent with the mechanical impacts of a deep root rake. Excavation into Stratum III showed the interface to be irregular; root staining observed in the profile walls did not intrude into the overlying stratum.

NRHP Eligibility

Site 8MR3929 consists of a 2.8‐ acre low‐density prehistoric campsite. The site has been affected by mechanical site Figure 6.19. 8MR3929 plan view (facing north) of Test Unit 1, 80 preparation and bioturbation cmbd (27.5 inches below the surface), at the transition between Stratum II and III, showing potential disturbance from a root rake. which has impacted deposits to at least 90 cmbs. Positive shovel tests yielded between one and 13 artifacts per test, with a mean density of 2.28. One artifact bears a Middle or Late Woodland affiliation; however, the remaining items are not diagnostic. The limited number of diagnostic artifacts and lack of cultural features limits the future research potential of the site. Based on the low artifact density, disturbances,

71 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

and the infrequent occurrence of diagnostic items, SEARCH recommends site 8MR3929 ineligible for the NRHP.

8MR3930

Newly recorded site 8MR3930 is located on the eastern side of the project area, approximately 200 meters east of 8MR3929. The 17.8‐acre site consists of a large, low‐density lithic scatter with a small ceramic component. Mapped soils consist of poorly drained Pomona Sand and somewhat poorly drained Sparr and Jumper fine sands. Positive shovel tests are located within all three soil types around a small freshwater pond (Figure 6.20) and extend out in open pasture towards sparse oak stands. Limestone boulders, such as those shown in Figure 6.20, are scattered across the fields in the vicinity of the site. Figure 6.21 shows the boundary of 8MR3930.

In total, 243 artifacts were recovered from 89 positive shovel tests. A summary of recovered artifacts including their depth and provenience is presented in Appendix B.

Figure 6.20. Site 8MR3930 showing rock outcrop and small, natural pond, facing north.

Chapter 6 72 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

map.

site

8MR3930 6.21.

Figure

73 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Shovel Test Results 8MR3930

A total of 130 shovel tests were excavated inside the site boundaries, 89 of which were positive for prehistoric cultural material. Shovel tests were plotted judgmentally along the pond’s natural contour at 25‐ and 50‐meter intervals. A typical profile, such as that observed at ST 2038 (Figure 6.22) consisted of two strata: Stratum I (0‐30 cmbs) light gray (10YR 7/1) sand, and Stratum II (30‐100 cmbs) pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand. Tests south of the pond in the vicinity of D361 revealed a third stratum of white (10YR 8/1) sand below 65 cmbs while shovel tests closer to the pond encountered spodic soil from 90 cmbs (ST D250).

Ceramics were recovered from 30‐90 cmbs and debitage was recovered from 0‐110 cmbs. The majority of artifacts were recovered from the B‐horizon (Stratum II) (Table 6.3), which consisted of either white or light brown sand and which began about 30 cmbs and varied from 20 Figure 6.22. 8MR3930 representative shovel to 90 centimeters in thickness. test (ST 2038).

Table 6.3. Lithics Recovered by Stratum in 8MR3930. Lithic Type Stratum I Stratum I/II Stratum II Stratum II/III Stratum III PPK, O’Leno type 1 Biface fragment 1 PPK fragment 2 Core, other 3 Debitage, primary 3 3 Cortex fragment 7 Shatter, Angular 7 6 1 Debitage, secondary 4 15 2 3 Debitage, tertiary 32 1 111 8 27 Total 56 1 139 10 31

Lithic and Ceramic Analysis

The artifact assemblage consisted of 237 lithics including three cores, one projectile point/knife (PPK), and two PPK fragments. In addition, six prehistoric ceramic sherds were recovered consisting of three Pasco plain, two with unidentifiable temper, and one with an eroded, impressed surface. The presence of cores (n=3), cortex fragments (n=7), and primary debitage (n=6) at 8MR3930 indicates some tool manufacture occurred at the site (Figure 6.23). The

Chapter 6 74 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

limited quantity and distribution of the lithic material (all three cores were recovered from a single shovel test) suggests that this activity was not a primary function of the site. Approximately 75 percent of the recovered lithics consist of tertiary stage reduction flakes (n=179), with proportionally smaller numbers of secondary (n=24) and primary flakes (n=6) (Figure 6.24). Raw lithic material consists of coastal plain chert (n=229), limestone (n=6), and silicified coral (n=2). Approximately half of the assemblage shows evidence of thermal alteration (116 lithics or 49.1 percent).

One diagnostic point (O’Leno type) was recovered from ST 2038 at 50‐60 cmbs (Figure 6.25). Figure 6.23. Cores and primary debitage recovered from Bullen (1975:11) affiliates this 8MR3930, from ST D333 (161.01), ST D338 (163.01) and ST 2094 point type with the Weeden Island (50.02). culture (ca. AD 400–900).

Figure 6.24. Chart showing lithic types recovered from 8MR3930.

75 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

A total of six ceramic sherds were recovered from four shovel tests (STs D317, 2014, 2017, and 30.22). Four were identified as Pasco plain, one was unidentifiable (but likely Pasco plain), and one was a sand‐ tempered plain sherd. Pasco plain ceramics were produced over a long time in the North Peninsular Gulf Coast, during the Deptford (500 BC– AD 500), Weeden Island (AD 400– 900), and Safety Harbor periods (AD 900–1650). With the exception of the sand‐tempered sherd, the remaining five sherds were tempered with Fuller’s Earth, a siliceous clay noted by Mitchem as a tempering agent in the Pasco series Figure 6.25. Two view of O’Leno PPK recovered from ST 2038 in (Mitchem 1982). One of the Pasco Site 8MR3930. sherds shows an eroded, possibly impressed pattern (107.01 in Figure 6.26).

NRHP Eligibility

Site 8MR3930 consists of a 17.8‐acre low‐density lithic and ceramic scatter in proximity to a small freshwater pond. Positive shovel tests yielded between one and 18 artifacts per test, with a mean density of 2.74. The recovered O’Leno point has a Weeden Island affiliation; however, the remaining items are not Figure 6.26. Pasco plain ceramic sherds from 8MR3930; ST 2017 (42.02) and ST 30.22 (107.01). diagnostic. The size of the site and range of lithic reduction activities indicates that it was occupied longer during a short‐term campsite. However, the density is far below what would be expected for a central base settlement. The site does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. No further work is recommended for site 8MR3930.

8MR3933

Site 8MR3933 consists of a single positive shovel test (ST JB004) that yielded three pieces (total weight 1.01 grams) of tertiary debitage (coastal plain chert) 80‐90 cmbs from Stratum II. The

Chapter 6 76 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

site is located approximately 200 meters southeast of the north pond on site 8MR3931 and approximately 400 meters northwest of the southern pond located on site 8MR3931 (shown on Figure 6.27 for Area G). Delineation tests placed to the north, east, south, and west produced no additional prehistoric cultural material. Based on the limited number of artifacts and absence of diagnostic artifacts, SEARCH recommends 8MR3933 not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. No further work is recommended.

Archaeological Occurrence AO 1

Archaeological Occurrence (AO) 1 yielded a single fossiliferous flake (heat treated) from ST 2043, recovered from Stratum II at 80‐90 cmbs. The location is provided on Figure 6.12. No additional cultural material was found during delineation tests in cardinal directions. The material and flake type is consistent with lithics recovered at 8MR3929 and 8MR3930, consisting of non‐diagnostic tertiary debitage. Isolated finds such as these lack the number of artifacts or shared contexts required to be classified as a site under the definitions established by the FDHR in the document Cultural Resource Management Standards & Operational Manual, Module Four: Florida Master Site File and do not meet the requirements for eligibility for the NRHP.

AREA G RESULTS

Area G consists of a 151.2‐acre area located east and south of Area F (see Figure 5.1). A series of gates and paddocks split the area into several smaller units, which are used to control grazing and livestock movement. Live Oak and other large shade trees sparsely populate the north and west portions of the area, becoming denser near a natural pond in the middle of the area. Denser forest is located southeast of the pond, in a reforested area that was extensively cleared prior to 1940. The 1954 topographic map denotes this cleared area and historic aerials confirm it was open during the 1940s and subsequently allowed to revert to forest. Area G was considered to have a higher probability for prehistoric resources based on the presence of upland areas adjacent to permanent water and a higher probability for historic resources based on the 1894–1895 historic USGS topographic maps, which show several structures near the pond (see Figure 3.10).

No portions of Area G had been previously surveyed, and no previously recorded resources are located within the boundaries. A total of 276 shovel tests were excavated, 113 of which were positive for cultural material. In addition, 18 metal detector hits were excavated, 13 of which yielded historic material, and 16 surface finds were collected. As a result, SEARCH recorded three new archaeological sites (8MR3931, 8MR3932, and 8MR3934) and documented two archaeological occurrences. The locations of excavated positive and negative tests, metal detector finds, and archaeological resources are shown in Figure 6.27.

77 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

resources.

recorded

y newl

and

, hits

detector metal

, tests

shovel

excavated of

location

the

g showin

results

G

Area 6.27. ure g Fi

Chapter 6 78 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

8MR3931

Newly recorded site MR3931 is an 18.5‐acre, low‐density lithic scatter with a small ceramic component. The site is located approximately 1,400 meters (0.9 miles) northeast of the Withlacoochee River, on an upland plain, surrounding three sides of a small pond (Figure 6.28).

Figure 6.28. Archaeological site MR3931, panoramic view of pond, facing north.

The pond rests in a slight depression visible on a map from 1854 (GLO 1854). Ground surface visibility varied between 50 and 80 percent, with greater visibility in pasture and decreased visibility beneath oak hammocks (Figure 6.29). A total of 60 positive shovel tests coupled with surface collections produced 221 artifacts, consisting of 22 prehistoric ceramic sherds, one historic artifact, and 198 lithics. Figure 6.30 shows positive and negative shovel tests and surface finds inside the site boundary for 8MR3931. A summary of recovered artifacts including their depth and description is presented in Appendix B.

Figure 6.29. Site 8MR3931, facing west.

79 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

map.

site

8MR3931 6.30.

Figure

Chapter 6 80 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Shovel Test Results, 8MR3931

Surface collections were made at 22 shovel test locations and yielded prehistoric lithics with the exception of a historic turpentine collection cup (Herty Cup) fragment recovered at ST 31.02. Most surface finds were situated on top of recent mounds of pale brown to white sand, an indication that they were redeposited from Stratum II through bioturbation. At each surface find location, crews conducted a 5‐meter radius circle search. Any material found within this area was assigned to the original shovel test location.

Most of the site falls within poorly drained Pomona sand with smaller areas of Sparr and Jumper soil types on the periphery. While soil maps (USDA‐NRCS 2016) define the drainage characteristics of all three types as somewhat poorly drained, testing showed them to range from well drained to excessively drained. A typical shovel test, such as that observed at ST 1010 consisted of: Stratum I (0‐30 cmbs) light gray (7.5YR 7/1) silty sand, and Stratum II (30‐100 cmbs) white (7.5 YR 8/1) sand with darker brown stains from burrows. Soil profiles were consistent on both sides of the pond, with a light gray (10YR 7/1) silty sand above a pale brown (10YR 6/3) to white (7.5YR 8/1) silty sand. The depth of Stratum I varied between 15 and 40 centimeters, while Stratum II extended to at least 100 cmbs.

Mottled soil resulting from bioturbation, such as that shown in the profile of ST 1010 (Figure 6.31), was a result of ant, rodent, and gopher tortoise activity and was observed to a depth of 100 cmbs in several tests. Less than 5 percent of tests revealed a third stratum at 100 cmbs or more. Where present, this stratum consisted of either brown spodic or yellowish‐brown clayey sand.

Lithic and Ceramic Analysis

Positive shovel tests yielded one Figure 6.31. Profile of ST 1010. Note bioturbation and burrows to five artifacts, with an average on profile wall. density of 2.76 artifacts per test. The majority of artifacts came from the B‐Horizon, Stratum II (153 artifacts, 70.4 percent) or the surface (48 artifacts, 20.9 percent). Smaller numbers came from Stratum I (12 artifacts, 5.4 percent) and the interface of Stratum I and II (eight artifacts, 3.6 percent).

The lithic assemblage from 8MR3931 consists of 191 waste flakes, five pieces of angular shatter, one blade, and one PPK fragment. Figure 6.32 and Table 6.4 provide a summary of recovered lithics. Most of the debitage (150 pieces or 67.9 percent) consists of tertiary

81 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Figure 6.32. Lithic types recovered from 8MR3931.

Table 6.4. Distribution of Artifacts from 8MR3931, by Stratum. Interface Row Labels Surface Stratum I Stratum II Total Stratum I/II Aboriginal ceramic, plain 2 12 14 Debitage, primary 1 1 1 2 5 Debitage, secondary 5 2 1 28 36 Debitage, tertiary 39 7 6 98 150 Flake, blade 1 1 Aboriginal ceramic, Pasco Plain 1 7 8 PPK fragment 1 1 Shatter, Angular 5 5 Historic ceramic, turpentine pot 1 1 Total 48 12 8 153 221

debitage. Like 8MR3930, a small number of secondary (36 pieces or 16.3 percent) and primary flakes (five pieces or 2.3 percent) were recovered. Two tools were recovered: one flake with use wear indicating it was used as a blade, and one fragment of a PPK. The PPK fragment is undiagnostic and consists of a base fragment (0.45 grams) recovered from the surface. The lithic assemblage was entirely derived of coastal plain chert, with 91 lithics showing signs of thermal alteration.

The ceramic assemblage from 8MR3931 consists of 22 sherds recovered from 12 shovel test locations (STs 1003, 1034, 1036, 1046, 1052, D287, D369, 31.01, 31.04, 31.05, 31.12, and 31.32). Two types of ceramics are represented: Pasco plain (n=8) and sand‐tempered plain (n=14). Two types of temper were noted: Fuller’s Earth (n=14) and sand (n=8). Fuller’s Earth is a siliceous clay noted by Mitchem (1982) as a tempering agent in the Pasco series.

Chapter 6 82 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

As stated earlier, Pasco plain ceramics were produced in the North Peninsular Gulf Coast through the entire ceramic age; the ware is not a good chronological indicator. The other ceramic type recovered, sand‐tempered plain, is also found in all periods and is ubiquitous in the region. Sears (1982:23) noted that scratching and pitting surface treatments can be diagnostic for some sand‐tempered plain wares south of the project area; however, no markings were evident on the sherds recovered during this survey. Eleven of the 12 ceramic‐ yielding shovel tests (91.7 percent) are located on the edge of the plateau surrounding the pond, within 50 meters the 50‐foot topographic contour line. The distribution of Pasco plain versus sand‐tempered plain ceramics across the site does not show a noticeable difference in spatial distribution. The relatively even distribution and mixing of sherd types across the site may suggest that the two ceramic types were used by the same group of people simultaneously.

NRHP Eligibility

The size of the site (18.5 acres), range of lithic reduction activities, and presence of pottery indicates that 8MR3931 was occupied longer than a single short‐term campsite. However, the density is far below what would be expected for a central base settlement. The site provides some information about settlement patterns in the Cove of the Withlacoochee, but this information is limited in that Pasco plain and sand tempered plain ceramics were used over a long period of time. No features, faunal materials, or diagnostic artifacts were recovered. Site 8MR3929 is recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. No further work is recommended.

8MR3932

Site MR3932 covers 0.96 acres and consists of the archaeological remains of a late‐nineteenth to early‐twentieth century homestead located in the southern portion of the project area. The site boundary is defined by 19 positive tests that yielded 56 historic artifacts. Artifacts were recovered with systematic shovel testing supplemented by limited metal detecting. The site is located approximately 30 meters south of 8MR3931 within somewhat poorly drained Sparr fine sand (Figure 6.33). A typical soil profile, such as that observed at ST 32.11, consisted of: Stratum I (0‐40 cmbs) gray (10YR 5/1) sand, and Stratum II (40‐100 cmbs) grayish‐brown (10YR 5/2) Figure 6.33. Site 8MR3932, facing south from ST 1049, showing brambles and disturbed vegetation along tree line. sand.

83 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

The field crew combined the results of a metal detector survey and 25 shovel tests to delineate the site boundary. The metal detector survey resulted in the recovery of 45 artifacts from 13 metal detector hits. Shovel tests were placed in a ring at 25‐meter intervals around the completed metal detector survey, and 11 artifacts were recovered from five positive shovel tests. The positive tests were delineated in the cardinal directions. The location of positive metal detector hits and shovel tests are shown on Figure 6.34 and the artifact assemblage is described in Table 6.5 (see also Appendix B).

Table 6.5. Artifacts from 8MR3932. ST/MD Depth Weight FS # Stratum Count Description # (cmbs) (g) Stoneware, UID lead glazed; brown interior 32.11 92 30 I 1 3.43 glaze; yellowish‐gray exterior glaze (1850‐) 1 3.72 Cut nail (ca. 1800‐1900) 1049 25 0‐50 I/II 1 2.65 Wire nail (ca. 1870‐) 1 80.23 Iron buckle 2 6.00 Cut nail (ca. 1800‐1900) D117 93 20‐60 I/II 1 1.00 Whiteware flatware rim (1820‐1950) D118 94 0‐20 I 1 3.08 Whiteware (1820‐1950) D127 181 15‐20 I 1 3.69 Window glass, clear JA028 26 0‐20 II 2 3.73 Cut nail (ca. 1800‐1900) MD2 51 20‐30 ‐ 1 0.67 Bottle glass, amethyst (1880‐1917) 2 3.64 Cut nail (ca. 1800‐1900) MD3 52 40‐60 ‐ 1 5.59 Unidentifiable iron MD4 53 40‐50 ‐ 4 63.62 Unidentifiable iron MD5 54 30‐40 ‐ 1 42.44 Unidentifiable iron 55 Centerfire cartridge, Peters Referee No. 12, MD6 0‐30 ‐ 1 4.00 incised; (post‐1873) MD7 56 0‐30 ‐ 1 2020.00 Axe head MD8 57 0‐30 ‐ 1 10.49 Pressed amethyst glass (1880‐1917) MD9 58 0‐30 ‐ 1 125.04 Unidentifiable iron 4 15.09 Cut nail (ca. 1800‐1900) 4 18.60 Unidentifiable nail 1 1.72 Bottle glass, olive green MD10 59 0‐50 ‐ 1 65.23 Unidentifiable iron 4 1.42 Small nail fragments 1 5.17 Fence staple 1 3.63 Brass eyelet or rivet or grommet 1 2.30 Glass, melted, olive green 3 13.1 Unidentifiable iron or steel MD11 60 0‐50 ‐ 2 13.48 Non‐electrical wire 1 580.00 Buggy Step 1 48.99 Unidentifiable iron buckle, harness? 1 148.48 Iron latch part ‐ 2 62.22 Unidentifiable iron MD12 61 0‐50 ‐ 3 331.95 Cast iron stove pieces MD16 62 0‐20 ‐ 1 68.71 Unidentifiable iron MD17 63 0‐30 ‐ 1 136.83 Iron latch part Total 56 3,899.97

Chapter 6 84 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report tests. shovel

and

hits

detector metal

showing

map

site

8MR3932 6.34.

Figure

85 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Artifact Analysis

Artifacts were recovered from 0 to 60 cmbs. The assemblage from 8MR3932 is consistent with a late nineteenth to early twentieth century homestead. One cut and one wire nail, along with an iron buckle were recovered from the first positive shovel test dug at the site (ST 1049). Subsequent metal detecting and shovel testing revealed other domestic sundries including fragments of bottle and window glass, ceramics, nails, pieces from a cast‐iron stove, an axe head, and parts of a late nineteenth or early twentieth century horse‐drawn buggy. A brief discussion of the diagnostic artifacts follows.

Two types of nails were recovered from 8MR3932: cut and wire. Of the 12 identifiable nails, 11 were cut and only one was wire. Wire nails, which replaced cut nails, were produced as early as the 1850s, but did not seem to have become available until the 1870s or dominant until the 1920s (Nelson 1968). The presence of a single wire nail suggests the site dates to the transitional period (1870–1920), where wire nails were available, but not yet common or Figure 6.35. Cast iron buggy step excavated from MD 11; dominant. Diagnostic amethyst glass shown with top (left), side (middle) and bottom (right) recovered from the site provides a similar views. Note the diagonal treadmarks visible on the left date range (1880–1917). top view to increase grip.

A cast iron buggy step was recovered from metal detector (MD) 11. Figure 6.35 shows the top, side, and bottom views of the step, which is unmarked by the manufacturer, but typical of light buggy vehicles produced around the turn of the twentieth century (Figure 6.36). The drop distance (6 inches) is consistent with a standard buggy step, the dimensions of which were standardized in 1918 to 6.5 inches, following the entry of the United States into World War I (American Blacksmith 1918:297). Larger vehicles including spring wagons often used for Figure 6.36. Iron fittings on a standard buggy. Note the hauling produce generally utilized a step used by passengers for purchase to climb into the heavier, square style of step. In addition body (Seymour 1919).

Chapter 6 86 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

to the step, several unidentifiable pieces of strap iron and fasteners were recovered near the center of 8MR3932 from MD11. Corrosion prevented their positive identification, but they may represent iron support pieces and/or bracing for the buggy. Portions of a cast iron stove were also recovered at the site, at MD11 and MD12; these pieces did not include any manufacturer information.

The other diagnostic metal artifact from 8MR3932 is an axe head recovered from MD 7 (Figure 6.37). Around the turn of the century, more than 300 axe head patterns were being manufactured in the United States. Certain patterns became popular within a geographic area, such as the Jersey, the Dayton, and the Kentucky. To simplify the identification and eliminate duplicate patterns, the Axe Manufacturers’ Association established a standard set of patterns in the early twentieth century (Weisgerber 1999). The axe head excavated from 8MR3932 is in poor condition. The wear and rust prevents an exact pattern identification, as there are more than 10 patterns that Figure 6.37. Axe head from 8MR3932. are known to have been lugged (the lug is the extended portion of the head below and in‐line with the eye). The large lug (ear) on this example is characteristic of Baltimore‐Kentucky and Kentucky‐style heads.

Recovered ceramics consist of one piece of unidentifiable lead‐glazed stoneware, and two pieces of plain whiteware. Both were used for common utility wares in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and enjoyed a long period of production.

Discussion

Background research identified a series of historic homesteads that were approved to some 20 individuals in the project area between 1856 and 1893. The location of these approved homesteads was correlated to a georeferenced 1894–1895 topographic map of the project area, which showed 11 structures in the project area (see Figure 3.10).

The location of 8MR3932 falls within the southeast quarter of Section 28, a homestead approved to Thomas Robinson on May 4, 1891, about 100 meters west of Roderick Morrison’s homestead. Census Records show that in 1900, Thomas Robinson was a white farmer from South Carolina living with his wife Melinda and their son, Morris (US Census 1900) in the Camp Izard voting district. The family moved away the following decade, and on the 1910 Census Thomas Robinson is listed as a merchant, selling groceries in Citrus County (US Census 1910).

87 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

No structures are shown within this homestead location on the 1894–1895 topographic map, although this may be due to inaccuracies of the map. The topographic map shows a road passing directly through a pond in the south part of the project area; the pond has four structures surrounding it (see Figure 3.10). Efforts to locate the structures and trace the1890s road through the project area were unsuccessful. Numerous cow paths have been worn through the wooded portions of this area and if present, the original path does not maintain recognizable features or integrity. This survey found no features, structures, or structural remains associated with 8MR3932.

NRHP Eligibility

While the assemblage includes several interesting artifacts, the site is not associated with any significant individuals, events, or activities that would make it eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A through C. No structures or significant structural remains were identified at the site, and the artifact assemblage is not unique and low density. The research potential of the site is limited by this lack of structural remains, lack of an identifiable midden, and lack of intact features. Furthermore, historic sites dating to the late nineteenth to early twentieth century are common in the archaeological record. SEARCH recommends 8MR3932 ineligible for the NRHP. No further work is recommended.

8MR3934

Site 8MR3934 is a 1.6‐acre lithic scatter defined by six positive shovel tests (Figure 6.38). The site is situated approximately 40 meters from the southeastern edge of a natural pond, and 120 meters south of site 8MR3931 in an open pasture. The artifact assemblage consisted of six non‐diagnostic tertiary flakes and one non‐diagnostic secondary flake, with an average density of 1.17 artifacts per shovel test. Each positive shovel test was delineated with tests in the cardinal directions. Soils were very similar to that observed at 8MR3931. At positive ST 1019 the soil profile consisted of: Stratum I (0‐30 cmbs) light gray (7.5YR 7/1) sand, and Stratum II (30‐100 cmbs) white (7.5 YR 8/1) sand. Flakes were recovered from Stratum II from 10‐100 cmbs (Table 6.6).

Table 6.6. Artifacts Recovered from 8MR3934. Depth Weight Flake ST Stratum Count Description (cmbs) (g) Size 30‐50 II 1 1.46 Coastal plain chert, secondary debitage >1/2 1016 30‐50 II 1 0.84 Coastal plain chert, tertiary debitage >1/2 1019 30‐100 II 1 2.25 Coastal plain chert, tertiary debitage >1 1021 10‐30 II 1 1.84 Coastal plain chert, tertiary debitage >1 1078 50‐60 II 1 0.81 Coastal plain chert, tertiary debitage >1/2 31.19 60‐70 II 1 1.59 Coastal plain chert, tertiary debitage >1" 31.25 40‐50 II 1 1.29 Coastal plain chert, tertiary debitage >1/2 Total 7 10.08

Chapter 6 88 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

map.

site

8MR3934 6.38.

Figure

89 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

The ability of 8MR3934 to contribute information to prehistory about the temporal placement and cultural affiliation of settlements in the region is limited by the low number of artifacts and absence of diagnostic artifacts or features. SEARCH recommends site 8MR3934 not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. No further work is recommended.

Archaeological Occurrences

Two archaeological occurrences were recorded in Area G. The locations of these archaeological occurrences are shown on the results figure for Area G (see Figure 6.27). AO 2 was recovered from ST 32.05, which yielded a single tertiary flake at 70 cmbs within Stratum II. The positive test is within 30 meters of the historic homestead site (8MR3932); however, AO 2 appears to be an isolated prehistoric find with no cultural association to the site. AO 3 is a historic surface find (SF 1) consisting of a cast iron handle approximately 2 feet in length. One end is curved with a wedge‐shaped pin, the other end is hook‐shaped, but not sharp (Figure 6.39). Each location was delineated with shovel tests in cardinal directions with no additional cultural material recovered.

Figure 6.39. AO 3, a cast iron handle recovered as SF 1.

Neither find meets the minimum definition of a site. Isolated finds such as these lack the number of artifacts or shared contexts required to be classified as a site under the definitions established by the FDHR (three or more artifacts within a 30‐meter radius) and do not meet the requirements for eligibility for the NRHP. No further work is recommended.

AREA H RESULTS

Area H consists of 13.1 acres of open pasture located on the south edge of the project area (see Figure 5.1). The area was considered to have a higher potential for archaeological material based on environmental conditions and soil drainage characteristics (somewhat poorly drained Sparr and Lumper fine sands). The area had not been previously surveyed, and SEARCH excavated 10 shovel tests across the area, three at 100‐meter intervals and seven judgmentally. No cultural material was located. The locations of negative tests are shown in Figure 6.40.

Chapter 6 90 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

results.

survey

H

Area 6.40.

Figure

91 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Crews observed excellent surface visibility across Area H. A typical soil profile observed at ST N5925, E3300 consisted of: Stratum I (0‐50 cmbs) gray (10YR 5/1) silty sand, and Stratum II (50‐ 100 cmbs) pale brown (10YR 6/3) silty sand. No cultural material was located in this area, and no further work is recommended.

AREA I RESULTS

Area I consists of 40.3 acres located on the eastern edge of the project area (see Figure 5.1). The area includes relatively elevated areas of open pasture and depressional areas characterized by mixed forest. The area was considered to have a higher potential for archaeological material based on environmental conditions and forest environment which showed little change from the 1940 aerial photograph. The area had not been previously surveyed, and SEARCH excavated 50 shovel tests across Area I at 50‐meter intervals. Crews observed moderate to excellent surface visibility. A typical soil profile observed at positive ST 3035 consisted of: Stratum I (0‐20 cmbs) light gray (7.5YR 7/1) sand, and Stratum II (20‐100 cmbs) white (7.5YR 8/1) sand. One test (ST 3035) yielded cultural material, and as a result, one archaeological occurrence was documented.

AO 4 was identified at ST 3035, which yielded a single piece of tertiary debitage (7.53 grams) from Stratum II, 90‐100 cmbs. The shovel test was delineated with negative shovel tests in cardinal directions, and no additional cultural material was found. The location of this archaeological occurrence and negative tests are shown in Figure 6.41. AO 4 does not meet the requirements to be considered a site. No further work is recommended

LOW PROBABILITY AREAS RESULTS

Low probability areas cover approximately 1,200 acres of the project area. Areas with unfavorable conditions for prehistoric resources and no evidence for historic resources were considered to have a low probability for yielding cultural material (see Table 4.2). Prior to fieldwork, historic maps, documents, and aerial photographs were consulted to supplement soil, elevation, and drainage characteristics. Teams excavated 111 shovel tests across these areas and surveyed the area visually. Conditions and disturbances were noted in field notes and the soil stratigraphy was recorded at each shovel test location. As a result, no archaeological sites and one archaeological occurrence were recorded.

AO 5 was recovered from ST JB30, between Area G and Area H (see Figure 6.27). The positive test yielded a single piece of fossiliferous debitage (coastal plain chert; 18.54 grams) from Stratum II (50‐60 cmbs). The shovel test was delineated with negative shovel tests in cardinal directions, and no additional cultural material was found. No additional cultural material was located in this area. AO 5 does not meet the requirements to be considered a site. No further work is recommended.

Chapter 6 92 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

results.

survey

I

Area 6.41.

Figure

93 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

DISCUSSION OF PREHISTORIC FINDINGS

As part of the Research Design for this project (see Chapter 5), SEARCH laid out several research questions that could help in assessing the research potential of each of the site identified during the current work. Those research hypotheses are reviewed here in light of what was discovered during the survey.

Hypothesis 1: Perico pottery types will be found only in riverine shell midden contexts (as opposed to lakeshore or inland hammock areas), no more recent than about AD 400.

Survey results support this prediction. No midden contexts or Perico pottery types were observed in the project area. Perico pottery had been recovered at site 8MR853, which is located approximately one mile south‐southeast of the newly recorded site 8MR3931. 8MR853 is one of three freshwater shell middens recorded along the Withlacoochee River (Johnson 1987). Weisman (1986) writes that the absence of Perico pottery after AD 400 reflects a settlement shift away from the river ca. AD 350/400, possibly even a temporary trend of declining population density. The recovery of a single O’Leno PPK (dating to the Weeden Island Period, AD 400–900) from site 8MR3930 demonstrates that the area was settled at this time.

Hypothesis 2: Typical Deptford pottery types (Deptford Simple Stamped and Check Stamped) will be absent or very rare, reflecting cultural connections of Cove populations to the south rather than to the north.

The project results support this hypothesis. While only 31 ceramic sherds were recovered across the project area (three from 8MR3929, six from 8MR3930, and 22 from 8MR3931), none were Deptford or Deptford‐type wares. The absence of Deptford wares in this sample suggests that the population was not closely affiliated to Deptford peoples to the north.

Hypothesis 3: Pasco pottery types will be found in contexts beginning during Deptford/Perico Island times and continuing through Seminole times. The limestone temper in Pasco pottery may be related to naturally occurring limestone fragments in local clays.

Of the 31 sherds recovered in the current survey, 15 (48.4 percent) were positively identified as Pasco pottery types, and the remainder identified as sand tempered plain. Mitchem and Weisman (1987) suggest that the use of Pasco ceramic types in the Cove are related to the extraction of local clay and limestone resources. This study did not include a microscopic analysis of recovered ceramics, as comparative data on local clay sources in the Cove does not exist. However, it is possible that future research may shed some light on this question and whether local populations were manufacturing their wares from locally derived sources. Due to the low density of ceramics across the project area (one sherd for every 5.5 cubic meters of excavated soil), it is unlikely that additional research or excavation at the newly identified sites will contribute significant data to answer this question.

Chapter 6 94 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Hypothesis 4: The general pattern of elaboration of Weeden Island‐related culture seen elsewhere in the Southeast will not be found in the Cove.

The investigation supports this hypothesis. Artifacts characteristic of the Weeden Island culture including pottery decorated with complicated stamp patterns, punctated, and incised decorations are absent from sites in the Ocala Ranch project area. Mitchem and Weisman (1987) hypothesize that pre‐Weeden Island period cultures were so well adapted to life in the Cove that they did not accept the cultural changes associated with the adoption of Weeden Island culture elsewhere. Of the seven sites and 601 artifacts recovered during this investigation, only two (O’Leno Point from 8MR3930 and a fragment of Pasco Check Stamped pottery from 8MR3929) are affiliated with the Weeden Island period. These show that the Cove was occupied from AD 400–900 and that the people living in the Cove had limited contact with Weeden Island groups.

Hypothesis 5: The beginning of the Safety Harbor period (ca. AD 900) saw a broadening of settlement patterns, from mainly riverine settlements to include lakeshore and inland hammock occupation.

No diagnostic Safety Harbor period artifacts were found in the project area. While Pasco series ceramics were still being produced and used by Cove populations during the period, they are not diagnostic. Mitchem and Weisman (1987) write that the Safety Harbor period witnessed changing subsistence practices and some intensification of horticulture in single family farmsteads. No evidence for prehistoric horticulture was found in the survey results; however, some cultivation did occur later, demonstrated by historic accounts of the Seminole town of Sitarky and fields shown near the project area on the 1854 GLO map (see Figure 3.9). The additional research potential of the newly recorded sites is considered minimal primarily because so few diagnostic artifacts were recovered.

ARCHITECTURAL ASSESSMENT

Architectural historians surveyed the Ocala Ranch property for historic structures. No standing structures were encountered during their survey. It is the opinion of SEARCH that no further consideration for architectural resources within the Ocala Ranch project area is warranted.

95 Survey Results November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report presented the findings of a Phase I CRAS of the approximate 2,079‐acre Ocala Ranch project area. The project included the excavation of 1,007 shovel tests, 231 of which were positive for cultural material. A total of 601 artifacts were collected from surface and subsurface contexts. Field methods included pedestrian survey, shovel testing, metal detecting, and the excavation of a single 1‐x‐1‐meter test unit. As shown in Table 7.1, seven new cultural resources consisting of five prehistoric lithic scatters (8MR3929, 8MR3930, 8MR3931, 8MR3933, and 8MR3934), one historic homestead (8MR3932), and a segment of a historic road (8MR3937) were recorded and evaluated. One previously recorded resource group located immediately adjacent to the project area (Drake Ranch, 8MR3722) was updated. Five archaeological occurrences were also recorded. A FDHR Survey Log Form has been completed and is provided in Appendix C, and FMSF forms have been completed or updated for the identified resources and are provided in Appendix D. The findings at each of the resources are summarized below.

Table 7.1. Newly Recorded Resources and NRHP Eligibility Recommendations. FMSF Resource Resource Type NRHP Eligibility Recommendation Number Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Scatter (Pasco Check Stamp 8MR3929 Not Eligible (Weeden Island, ca. AD 400‐900)/Historic Glass (20th cent.) 8MR3930 Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Scatter Not Eligible 8MR3931 Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Scatter Not Eligible 8MR3932 Historic homestead; late nineteenth‐early twentieth century Not Eligible 8MR3933 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter (single positive test) Not Eligible 8MR3934 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Eligible Not Eligible, potential contributing 8MR3937 Linear Resource – historic road element to 8MR3722 8MR3722 Updated Resource Group – Drake Ranch Not Evaluated

NEWLY RECORDED SITES

8MR3929

Site 8MR3929 consists of a 2.8‐acre lithic, prehistoric ceramic and historic glass scatter, defined by 29 positive shovel tests. A total of 66 artifacts were recovered from this site and included 60 prehistoric lithic flakes, three pieces of historic glass, and three prehistoric ceramics. One of the three prehistoric ceramic sherds was identified as a Pasco Check Stamped sherd (Weeden Island; mid‐to‐late Woodland period). The remaining two sherds were not diagnostic. The limited number of diagnostic artifacts and lack of cultural features limits the future research

Chapter 7 96 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

potential of the site. Based on the low artifact density and the infrequent occurrence of diagnostic items, SEARCH recommends site 8MR3929 ineligible for the NRHP.

8MR3930

Site 8MR3930 consists of a 17.8‐acre low‐density lithic and ceramic scatter in close proximity to a small freshwater pond. A total of 89 positive shovel tests yielded 243 prehistoric artifacts (237 pieces of lithic debitage, three cores, one PPK, two PPK fragments, and six undiagnostic prehistoric ceramic sherds). The O’Leno PPK indicates a Weeden Island affiliation. Despite intact stratigraphy, the low artifact density, paucity of diagnostic artifacts and absence of features limits the future research potential of the site. SEARCH recommends 8MR3930 ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

8MR3931

Site 8MR3931 is defined by 82 positive shovel tests that yielded 221 prehistoric artifacts from surface and subsurface contexts. The site covers 18.5 acres in proximity to a small freshwater pond. The average artifact density per shovel tests was 2.7. Twenty‐two ceramic sherds were recovered (Pasco plain, sand‐tempered plain). Site 8MR3931 is recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP based on the low artifact density, limited number of diagnostic items, and absence of features.

8MR3932

Historic site MR3932 is defined by 19 positive tests that yielded 56 artifacts. Artifacts were recovered through systematic shovel testing and metal detecting. The site covers 0.96 acres and consists of the archaeological remains of a late nineteenth to early twentieth century homestead. A total of 13 metal detector targets and six positive shovel tests yielded domestic items, including bottle and window glass fragments, historic ceramics, cut and wire nails, cast‐ iron stove fragments, an axe head, and parts of a late nineteenth or early twentieth century horse‐drawn buggy. No foundation remnants or other historic features were identified. Due to its lack of association with historic events, important persons, or unique characteristics, and minimal material remains, SEARCH recommends 8MR3932 ineligible for the NRHP.

8MR3933

Site 8MR3933 consists of a single positive shovel test that yielded three pieces of tertiary debitage. Based on the limited number of artifacts and absence of diagnostic artifacts, SEARCH recommends site 8MR3933 not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

97 Conclusion and Recommendations November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

8MR3934

Site 8MR3934 is a 1.6‐acre lithic scatter defined by six positive shovel tests and seven lithic flakes. The site is situated near the southeastern edge of a natural pond. Based on the limited number of artifacts and absence of diagnostic artifacts, SEARCH recommends site 8MR3934 not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

8MR3937

Linear Resource 8MR3937 is a historic gravel road shown on the 1954 USGS Tsala Apopka topographic quadrangle. The road is not known to be associated with any known historic events, but may have been a roadway used to travel between houses and settlements outside the project area, including Drake Ranch, whose main farm house is located just east of the road. The road does not include features to warrant NRHP eligibility by itself, and SEARCH recommends it be considered as a non‐contributing element to the Drake Ranch Resource Group (8MR3722).

UPDATED RESOURCE GROUP 8MR3722

The Drake Ranch Resource Group (8MR3722) is adjacent to the project area and includes 13 structures located on a farmstead that is approximately 272 acres in size. In a letter dated January 29, 2015, the SHPO determined 8MR3722 to be potentially eligible for the NRHP. SEARCH surveyed an 85.25‐acre area adjacent to the resource group with a pedestrian survey and shovel testing at 50‐meter intervals. Neither the pedestrian survey nor the shovel testing resulted in the discovery of any structural remains or archaeological deposits associated with Drake Ranch that would indicate the resource group extends into the project area. It is the opinion of SEARCH that the proposed project will have no effect on Resource Group 8MR3722. No further work is recommended.

Chapter 7 98 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

REFERENCES CITED

American Blacksmith 1918 “Buggies and Spring Wagons Standardized.” The American Blacksmith. Volume 17.

Andreyev Engineering, Inc. 2016 Ocala Ranch Geotechnical Investigation and Karst Report. Final Report.

Balsillie, James and Joseph F. Donoghue 2004 High Resolution Sea Level History for the Gulf of Mexico since the Last Glacial Maximum. Report of Investigations 103. Florida Geological Survey.

Blanchon, Paul 2011 Meltwater Pulses. In Encyclopedia of Modern Coral Reefs: Structure, Form and Process, edited by D. Hopley, pp. 683–690. Earth Science Series. Springer‐Verlag.

Blakey, Arch Fredric 1973 The Florida Phosphate Industry: A History of the Development and Use of a Vital Mineral. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Board of County Commissioners of Marion County ca. 1909 Marion County, Florida. Pamphlet on file University of Florida, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, Gainesville, FL.

Bond, Stanley C., Jr. 1992 Archaeological Excavations at 8SJ43, the Crescent Beach Site, St. Johns County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45:148‐161.

Boyd, Mark 1958 Horatio S. Dexter and Events Leading to the Treat of Moultrie Creek with the Seminole Indians. Florida Anthropologist. 11(3):65‐96.

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. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. 2nd edition. Kendall Press, Gainesville.

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

99 References Cited November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Cardno Entrix/SEARCH 2014 Sabal Trail Transmission Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (Alachua, Citrus, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lake, Levy, Madison, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Polk, Suwannee, Sumter Counties, Florida). Florida Master Site File Survey No. 21431. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Carter, Clarence Edwin (compiler and editor) 1956 The Territorial Papers of the United States, Volume XXII, The Territory of Florida, 1821‐ 1824. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1962 The Territorial Papers of the United States, Volume XXVI: The Territory of Florida, 1839‐ 1845. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

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.

Covington, James 1993 The Seminoles of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Cusick, James G. 2003 The Other War of 1812. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Daniel, I. Randolph, and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo‐Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, New York.

Dietrich, T. Stanton 1978 The Urbanization of Florida’s Population: An Historical Perspective of County Growth, 1830‐1970. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

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. L. Turnmire, pp. 185–214. Center for the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 2006 Paleoindian Archaeology. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page‐Ladson Site in the Aucilla River, edited by S. D. Webb, pp. 403–435. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Ellis, Gary, Kory Bennett, Randy Martin, Charles Taylor 2002 Phase II Test Excavation at Camp Izard Battlefield, Tastanaki Halpata Preserve, Marion County, Florida. Gulf Archaeology Research Institute, Crystal River. FMSF Report No. 8248. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

References Cited 100 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Ellis, Gary, Robin L. Denson, Russell A. Dorsey, James R. Jones III, and Jeanne Ellis 1997 The Archaeological Study of the Camp Izard Tract, Marion County, Florida. Prepared for the Seminole Wars Historic Foundation, Inc., Dade City, Florida by Gulf Archaeology Research Institute, Lecanto, Florida.

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

Faught, Michael K. 2008 Archaeological Roots of Human Diversity in the New World: A Compilation of Accurate and Precise Radiocarbon Ages from Earliest Sites. American Antiquity 73(4):670–698.

Faught, M. K., and B. Carter 1998 Early Human Occupation and Environmental Change in Northwestern Florida. Quaternary International 50:167–176.

Florida Archeological Services, Inc. 1994 A Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of State Road 200 from US 41 in Citrus County to CR 848 in Marion County, Florida, Florida. Florida Master Site File Survey No. 4379. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) 2015 Electronic document, http://dos.myflorida.com/historical/preservation/compliance‐ and‐review/regulations‐guidelines/, accessed September 15, 2016.

Florida Photographic Collection Var. dates. Florida Photographic Collection, the Florida Memory Project. Electronic document, https://www.floridamemory.com, accessed April 2016

Gannon, Michael 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) 1854 Township 17S, Range 20 plat map. Electronic document, www.glorecords.blm.gov, accessed November 2015.

Goggin, John M. 1949 Cultural Occupation at Goodland Point, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 2:65‐91.

Goodyear, Albert C. 2000 Topper 2000: Results of the 2000 Allendale Paleoindian Expedition. Legacy 5:18‐25.

101 References Cited November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Greene, Katie 2011 The Legacy Lives On. Electronic document, www.whatsupocala.com/the‐legacy‐lives‐ on/, accessed March 28, 2016.

Griffin, James B. 1945 The Significance of the Fiber‐Tempered Pottery of the St. Johns Area in Florida. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 35(7):218‐233.

James, Tori 2008 Families that helped make Ocala great. March. Ocala Magazine. Pages 97.

Janus Research 2012 SR 200 Historic Resources Update from Citrus County Line to CR 484, Marion County, Florida. Florida Master Site File Survey No. 19523. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Johnson, Kenneth W. 1987 The Search for Aquacaleyquen and Cali:archaeological survey of portions of Alachua, Bradford, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Marion, Sumter, and Union Counties, Florida. FMSF Survey No.1410. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Mackay, John and J. E. Blake 1839 Map of the Seat of War in Florida, compiled by order of General Zachary Taylor. W.J. Stone, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, http://www.davidrumsey.com/, accessed October 2015.

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

Milanich, Jerald T. 1973 The Southeastern Deptford Culture: A Preliminary Definition. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 3:51–63. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1998 Florida’s Indians from Ancient Times to the Present. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

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

References Cited 102 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

Millar, C. C. Hoyer 1892 Florida, South Carolina, and Canadian Phosphates. Eden Fisher & Co., London.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1982 Experiments in the Manufacturing Technology of Pasco Series Ceramics from Peninsular Florida. University of Florida. Paper presented at the 39th annual Southeastern Archaeolological Conference October 28‐30th, 1982, Memphis, Tennessee.

Mitchem, Jeff and Brent R. Weisman 1987 Changing Settlement Patterns and Pottery Types in the Withlacoochee Cove (Region of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist. 40(2): 154‐167.

Morris, Allen 1995 Florida Place Names: Alachua to Zolfo Springs. Pineapple Press, Inc., Sarasota, FL.

Nelson, Lee H 1968 Nail Chronology as an aid to dating old buildings. National Park Service. Accessed online http://files.umwblogs.org/blogs.dir/7608/files/nail_chronology.pdf. October 10, 2016.

Norton, Charles Ledyard 1892 A Handbook of Florida. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, NY.

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

Pearson, Charles and Richard Weinstein 2008 Withlacoochee River Basin Terrestrial and Submerged Resources Investigations, Florida. Florida. Florida Master Site File Survey No. 15848. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Piper Archaeological Research, Inc. 1991 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Florida Department of Transportation’s Florida Turnpike Extension Study From Wildwood to Lebanon Station. Florida Master Site File Survey No. 2243. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Pluckhahn, T. J., A. D. Hodson, W. J. Rink, V. D. Thompson, R. R. Hendricks, G. Doran, G. Farr, A. Cherkinsky, and S. P. Norman 2015 Radiocarbon and Luminescence Age Determinations on Mounds at Crystal River and Roberts Island, Florida, USA. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal. 30(2015): 238‐ 260.

103 References Cited November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

Potter, Woodburne 1836 The War in Florida: Being an exposition of its causes, and an accurate history of the Campaigns of Generals Clinch, Gaines, and Scott. University of Michigan Library Press reprint.

Prince, Henry 1837 The diary of Henry Prince. On file P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, Gainesville.

Randall, Asa R., and Kenneth E. Sassaman 2005 St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2003‐2004: Hontoon Island State Park. Technical Report 6. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Russo, Michael 1988 Coastal Adaptations in Eastern Florida: Models and Methods. Archaeology of Eastern North America 16:159‐176. 1992 Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Marys Region of Northeast Florida and Southeast Georgia. The Florida Anthropologist 45(2):107‐126.

Sabal Trail Transmission 2015 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey: Sabal Trail Project Phase I Addendum Report. Florida Master Site File Survey No. 21991. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Sackett, J. W. 1894 Report Submitted to the Chief of Engineers: The Withlacoochee River, Florida. United States Engineer Office, St. Augustine, Florida.

Sears, William 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Seymour, Edward Loomis Davenport 1919 Farm Knowledge: A Complete Manual of Successful Farming Written by Recognized Authorities in All Parts of the Country; Based on Sound Principles and Actual Experience of Real Famers – “the Farmer’s Own Cyclopedia,” Volume 3. Doubleday.

Simmons, George W., Jr. 1822[1973) Jacksonville on the St. Johns 1822‐1972. Sesquicentennial Booklet. The Jacksonville‐Duval Area Planning Board and the Public Relations Division of the City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville.

References Cited 104 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

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

Smith, Samuel D. 1971 A Reinterpretation of the Cades Pond Archeological Period. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

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.

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

Swanton, John R. 1922 Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 73. 1985 Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Originally published 1939, House Document 71, 1st Session, Seventy‐Sixth Congress, Washington, D.C.

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

Thulman, David K. 2009 Freshwater Availability as the Constraining Factor in the Middle Paleoindian Occupation of North Central Florida. Geoarchaeology 24(3):243–276.

US Census 1900 Database with images. FamilySearch. http://FamilySearch.org : 14 June 2016. Citing NARA microfilm publication. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. 1910 Database with images. FamilySearch. http://FamilySearch.org : 14 June 2016. Citing NARA microfilm publication. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2013 Aerial photographs, Marion County, Fla. On file, Map Library, University of Florida, Gainesville.

US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA‐NRCS) 2012 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Florida – June 2012. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

105 References Cited November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

2016 Soil Survey for Marion County. Accessed online, websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/ WebSoilSurvey.aspx, September 2016.

US Department of the Interior 2000 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

US Geological Survey (USGS) 1894 Dunnellon. 7.5’ quadrangle. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 1895 Tsala Apopka. 7.5’ quadrangle. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 1954 Dunnellon. 7.5’ quadrangle. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 1954 Tsala Apopka. 7.5’ quadrangle. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 1990 Stokes Ferry. 7.5’ quadrangle. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 1991 Quad Dunnellon SE. 7.5’ quadrangle. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Vignoles, Charles 1823 Map of Florida. Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. Electronic document, http://www.loc.gov/resource/g3930.ct000731/, accessed October 2015.

Waller, B. 1970 Some Occurrences of Paleo‐Indian Projectiles. The Florida Anthropologist 23:129–134.

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, New Jersey.

Weisgerber, Bernie 1999 An Ax to Grind: A Practical Ax Manual. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Accessed online www.fhwa.dog.gov on June 29, 2016.

Weisman, Brent R. 1986 The Cove of the Withlacoochee: A First Look at the Archaeology of an Interior Florida Wetland. The Florida Anthropologist. Volume 39(1‐2): 4‐23

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.

Williams, John Lee 1837 Map of Florida. University of Miami Archives. Online Resource, http://scholar.library.miami.edu/floridamaps/view_image.php?image_name=dlp00020 001040001001&group=territorial, accessed May 2016.

References Cited 106 SEARCH November 2016 Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida Final Report

White, W. A. 1970 Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula: Florida Geological Survey Bulletin n. 51.

107 References Cited November 2016 SEARCH Final Report Phase I CRAS and Supplemental Testing of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida

This page intentionally blank.

References Cited 108

APPENDIX A.

UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES STATEMENT

UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC SITES INCLUDING HUMAN REMAINS

Although a project area may receive a complete cultural resource assessment survey, it is impossible to ensure that all cultural resources will be discovered. Even at sites that have been previously identified and assessed, there is a potential for the discovery of previously unidentified archaeological components, features, or human remains that may require investigation and assessment. Therefore, a procedure has been developed for the treatment of any unexpected discoveries that may occur during site development.

If unexpected cultural resources are discovered the following steps should be taken:

1) Initially, all work in the immediate area of the discovery should cease and reasonable efforts should be made to avoid or minimize impacts to the cultural resources. 2) A qualified Professional Archaeologist should be contacted immediately and should evaluate the nature of the discovery. 3) The Archaeologist should then contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and if necessary, the State Archaeologist. 4) As much information as possible concerning the cultural resource, such as resource type, location, and size, as well as any information on its significance, should be provided to the SHPO. 5) Consultation with the SHPO should occur in order to obtain technical advice and guidance for the evaluation of the discovered cultural resource. 6) If necessary, a mitigation plan should be prepared for the discovered cultural resource. This plan should be sent to the SHPO for review and comment. The SHPO should be expected to respond with preliminary comments within two working days, with final comments to follow as quickly as possible. 7) If a formal data recovery mitigation plan is required, development activities in the near vicinity of the cultural resource should be avoided to ensure that no adverse impact to the resource occurs until the mitigation plan can be executed.

If human remains are encountered during site development, the stipulations of Chapter 872.05 (Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves) should be followed. All work in the near vicinity of the human remains should cease and reasonable efforts should be made to avoid and protect the remains from additional impact. In cases of inclement weather, the human remains should be protected with tarpaulins. A qualified Professional Archaeologist should be retained to investigate the reported discovery, inventory the remains and any associated artifacts, and assist in coordinating with state and local officials.

1) The County Medical Examiner should be immediately notified as to the findings. If the remains are found to be other than human, any construction will be cleared to proceed. If

the remains are human, and are less than 75 years old, the Medical Examiner and local law enforcement officials will assume jurisdiction. If the remains are found to be human and older than 75 years, the State Archaeologist should be notified and may assume jurisdiction of the remains. 2) If jurisdiction is assumed by the State Archaeologist, he will a) determine whether the human remains represent a significant archaeological resource, and b) make a reasonable effort to identify and locate persons who can establish direct kinship, tribal community, or ethnic relationship with the remains. If such a relationship cannot be established, then the State Archaeologist may consult with a committee of four to determine the proper disposition of the remains. This committee shall consist of a human skeletal analyst, two Native American members of current state tribes recommended by the Governor's Council on Indian Affairs, and “an individual who has special knowledge or expertise regarding the particular type of the unmarked human burial.” 3) A plan for the avoidance of any further impact to the human remains and/or mitigative excavation, reinterment, or a combination of these treatments will be developed in consultation with the State Archaeologist, the SHPO, and if applicable, appropriate Indian tribes or closest lineal descendents. All parties will be expected to respond with advice and guidance in an efficient time frame. Once the plan is agreed to by all parties, the plan will be implemented.

The points of contact for Florida are:

Dr. Timothy Parsons, Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Florida Division of Historical Resources R.A. Gray Building 500 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399‐0250 PH: 850‐245‐6333

Dr. Mary Glowacki, Chief and State Archaeologist Bureau of Archaeological Research B. Calvin Jones Center for Archaeology at the Governor Martin House 1001 de Soto Park Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32301 PH: 850‐245‐6301

APPENDIX B.

DATA INVENTORY

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

30‐40 I 2 2.03 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 1 7.37 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 30‐60 II 1 4.23 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3929 29.01 1 0.31 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 5.66 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 80‐100 IV 1 14.34 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 1 0.94 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3929 29.11 30‐90 II 1 0.25 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 0.79 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3929 29.12 40‐50 II 1 3.82 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 1 0.14 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3929 29.15 40‐70 II 1 3.17 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3929 29.16 10‐20 I 1 0.71 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3929 29.17 0 1 1.63 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 1 2.86 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 1 0.46 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3929 2047 80‐90 II 1 1.11 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 4.35 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3929 D101 90 II 1 0.90 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3929 D102 50‐60 II 1 0.90 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3929 D104 60‐80 II 1 0.81 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 1.26 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3929 D105 80‐100 II 1 0.36 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 8.75 Bottle glass clear 8MR3929 D106 42658 I 1 0.62 Bottle glass clear 8MR3929 D108 42663 I 1 3.68 Jar finish, threaded clear 8MR3929 D109 25‐35 II 1 1.03 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 79.26 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >3" 2 19.21 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 0‐40 I 1 4.98 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3929 D114 2 1.04 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 3 1.69 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 40‐50 II 1 0.05 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4

B-1

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

1 1.98 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3929 D114 40‐50 II 1 0.90 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 1.57 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3929 D120 0‐30 I 2 51.01 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >2" 1 1.45 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3929 D205 20‐40 II 1 2.57 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 2 0.19 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 D206 20‐30 I 1 1.92 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3929 JA050 50‐60 II 1 1.33 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" JB039 60‐70 II 1 18.54 Flake, Utilized coastal plain chert, heat treated >2" 8MR3929 JB040 20‐25 I 0 45.46 Charcoal 2 4.36 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3929 JB041 60‐90 II 1 0.89 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 20‐30 I 1 1.84 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 N7000/ 30‐40 1 4.26 Pasco Plain body 8MR3929 E2150 II 1 15.33 Pasco Check Stamped body 40‐50 1 0.45 Unidentified aboriginal body, less than ½ inch 2 51.85 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >2" 8MR3929 SF4 0 N/A 1 2.05 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 8.65 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3929 D214 42663 I 1 96.01 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 3.70 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3929 D215 20‐30 I 2 1.15 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3929 TU‐1 65‐70 II 1 0.40 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3929 SF2 0 1 5.96 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3929 SF3 0 1 0.28 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 30.07 55‐65 III 1 0.21 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 30.08 20‐30 II 1 0.25 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 4.41 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3930 30.1 30‐50 II 2 1.40 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.12 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 30.11 80‐90 III 1 1.27 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3930 30.14 70‐80 II 1 0.63 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2

B-2

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

8MR3930 30.2 65‐75 III 1 0.15 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 30.21 30‐50 II 1 0.66 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 2 3.01 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 30‐60 II 2 0.71 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 3.69 Pasco possibly impressed body 8MR3930 30.22 1 0.91 Pasco Plain body 85‐95 III 1 0.61 coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 Debitage, tertiary 2 0.22 coastal plain chert >1/4 32‐42 1 0.05 coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3930 30.26 II Debitage, tertiary 80 1 1.30 coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 30.27 80 III 1 0.16 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3930 30.29 80‐90 III 1 0.36 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 0‐10 I 1 0.41 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 30.3 50‐60 II 1 1.06 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 30.31 35‐60 II 3 0.30 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 1 3.89 Debitage, primary coastal plain chert >1 10‐20 I 8MR3930 30.32 1 0.07 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 55‐65 II 2 0.87 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 30.33 60‐70 III 1 0.29 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 30.37 40‐50 II 1 0.57 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 1.42 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3930 30.4 30‐40 I 1 0.48 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.10 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 2 0.68 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 20‐40 I 8MR3930 30.45 1 1.05 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 80‐90 II 1 9.93 Biface fragment/ possible tool coastal plain chert, heat treated >2" 1 0.13 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3930 30.46 60‐70 I 1 1.26 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 1 0.56 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3930 30.48 42673 I 6 228.09 Cortex fragment limestone, some signs of heating 3 1.81 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 30.48 60‐70 II 1 0.37 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 30.5 30‐40 II 1 5.03 Debitage, primary coastal plain chert >1

B-3

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

1 2.32 Debitage, tertiary >1 coastal plain chert, heat treated 1 0.42 Shatter, Angular 25‐60 2 0.17 >1/4 1 0.52 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 II 25‐60 1 1.61 >1 8MR3930 30.54 1 5.77 Shatter, Angular coastal plain chert, heat treated 1 0.51 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 60‐80 III 2 0.24 coastal plain chert >1/4 Debitage, tertiary 2 1.00 coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 2001 80‐90 II 3 1.99 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 2003 0‐10 I 1 0.52 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 0.57 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 2007 80‐90 II 2 2.04 Shatter, Angular coastal plain chert 1 0.86 PPK fragment coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.32 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 2014 80‐100 II 1 2.98 Aboriginal ceramic, plain body 1 0.28 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 2016 30‐40 II 2 0.44 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 1.77 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 2017 80‐90 II 2 5.67 Pasco Plain body 1 1.91 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3930 2038 50‐60 II 1 15.93 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 1 27.57 O'Leno PPK, Large triangular coastal plain chert 2 1.22 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 2051 50‐60 II 1 0.27 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 1.39 Debitage, tertiary silicified coral, heat treated >1" 8MR3930 2062 80‐100 II 1 7.55 PPK fragment, one side, coastal plain chert >1" 1 4.03 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3930 2064 80‐100 II 1 4.57 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 1 6.17 Shatter, Angular coastal plain chert >1 8MR3930 2090 20‐30 I 1 2.43 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 2 0.34 Debitage, tertiary >1/4 8MR3930 2094 50‐80 II coastal plain chert, heat treated 1 31.38 Debitage, primary >2

B-4

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

8MR3930 D223 100‐120 III 2 0.79 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D224 60‐70 II 1 0.54 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 2 6.54 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 2 2.31 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D225 30‐70 II 1 0.08 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 6 3.64 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 40‐50 II 2 1.69 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D226 100‐110 III 1 2.15 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3930 D229 40‐50 II 2 2.26 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D231 80‐100 II 2 5.59 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 1 22.91 Debitage, primary coastal plain chert >2" 8MR3930 D233 30‐50 I 1 0.69 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.19 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D239 60‐70 II 1 0.12 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 2 1.01 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D241 50‐70 II 1 0.77 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 2 3.36 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 1 1.37 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D242 70‐80 II 1 0.45 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D243 60‐70 I 1 0.33 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D244 50‐60 II 2 0.80 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D245 60‐70 I 1 0.49 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D250 60‐70 II 1 1.89 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 1 0.15 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D252 70‐80 II 1 3.96 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 60‐70 II 1 2.96 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3930 D253 90‐100 III 1 3.84 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 1 0.16 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 8MR3930 D254 70‐100 III 1 0.82 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 1.92 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3930 D256 70‐90 II 1 0.21 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D259 70‐80 II 1 5.67 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3930 D260 70‐80 II 1 3.81 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1"

B-5

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

1 1.74 Debitage, tertiary silicified coral, heat treated >1/2 1 3.80 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3930 D261 40‐60 II 1 0.41 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 1.16 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 1 3.08 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 1 0.19 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D265 40‐60 II 1 0.17 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 2 0.48 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D267 90‐100 II 1 9.97 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3930 D269 80‐90 II 1 1.79 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3930 D274 40‐50 II 1 1.59 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 3.22 Debitage, primary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3930 D302 35‐60 II 1 0.23 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.56 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D304 40‐50 II 1 0.20 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 1 0.45 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D307 30‐40 II 1 2.21 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 1.28 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3930 D312 42505 I 1 0.29 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 1.31 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D314 40‐60 II 1 1.77 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 2 0.77 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 0‐35 I 1 0.18 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3930 D315 2 0.96 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 70‐100 III 1 0.20 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D316 0‐30 I 1 0.31 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 13.10 Shatter, Angular coastal plain chert 8MR3930 D317 30‐80 III 1 1.49 Unidentified aboriginal >1/2 1 0.26 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D321 70‐80 III 1 0.11 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 40‐50 1 1.94 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3930 D323 II 65‐100 1 0.47 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D326 40‐80 II 1 1.00 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2

B-6

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

1 0.92 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 1 0.21 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D327 25‐35 I 1 0.19 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 0‐10 I 3 1.68 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D328 80‐90 III 1 0.06 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3930 D330 75‐85 III 2 0.36 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D331 20‐30 I/II 1 0.81 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 3 366.84 Core, other coastal plain chert, heat treated 8MR3930 D333 10‐35 I 7 43.37 Shatter, Angular coastal plain chert, heat treated 1 13.52 Cortex fragment 8MR3930 D334 20 I 1 2.85 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3930 D338 5 I 1 30.98 Debitage, primary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3930 D339 50‐60 II 1 1.12 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D345 40‐50 II 1 0.99 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D349 30‐40 II 1 0.60 Shatter, Angular coastal plain chert, heat treated 35‐45 II 3 2.00 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D351 85‐95 III 1 0.10 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 8MR3930 D355 80‐90 III 1 0.53 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 2 0.12 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3930 D358 20‐50 II 1 0.73 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.81 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3930 D361 50‐60 II 1 0.57 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 D362 80‐90 III 1 3.19 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 1 3.80 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 2 4.74 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 1 1.41 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 20‐30 I 1 0.54 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 1.43 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 D363 1 0.09 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 3 6.01 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1' 3 1.61 Debitage, tertiary >1/2 60‐70 II/III 2 0.58 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.09 Debitage, tertiary >1/4

B-7

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

1 0.57 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3930 D364 70‐80 II 1 2.58 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3930 D365 40‐70 II 2 1.00 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.03 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4" 1 1.11 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2" 8MR3930 D398 50‐70 II 2 1.05 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2” 1 1.97 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1” 1 0.49 Aboriginal ceramic, plain body 8MR3930 31.01 40‐50 II 1 0.59 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.03 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 8MR3930 31.02 0 1 3.08 Turpentine pot, ceramic body 1 0.03 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3930 31.03 0 1 0.60 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 31.04 10‐20 I 1 31.81 Aboriginal ceramic, plain body 8MR3930 31.05 20‐30 I 1 14.86 Aboriginal ceramic, plain body 8MR3930 31.11 50‐60 II 1 0.94 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 5 13.81 Aboriginal ceramic, plain body 1 1.04 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 31.12 50‐100 II 2 1.29 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 2 2.28 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3930 31.17 60‐70 II 1 1.65 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3930 31.23 20‐30 II 1 22.91 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert 1" 3 19.42 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 2 6.40 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 4 2.33 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 31.32 60‐100 II 1 0.04 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 3 8.55 Aboriginal ceramic, plain body 1 2.63 Aboriginal ceramic, plain body 1 4.60 Aboriginal ceramic, plain rim 4 3.25 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 31.35 50‐60 II 1 1.69 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 31.36 20‐45 I 1 0.30 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 31.44 40‐80 II 1 6.71 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1"

B-8

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

3 2.59 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 31.46 35‐50 II 1 0.34 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 0.10 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 8MR3930 31.49 50‐80 II 1 0.23 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 3 1.85 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 0‐35 I 1 0.78 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 II 1 0.92 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 31.56 35‐90 1 0.93 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 5.69 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3930 31.58 10‐20 I 1 3.66 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 1 0.23 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 31.59 60‐80 II 1 6.95 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3930 31.65 85‐95 II 1 0.40 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 3 5.92 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3930 31.68 0 1 2.53 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 1 2.81 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 0.35 Debitage, primary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 408 0 1 4.42 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 1 0.29 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 409 50‐60 II 1 0.84 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 0.13 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 2 0.36 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 410 0 1 0.45 PPK fragment coastal plain chert, heat treated 8MR3930 1001 30‐60 II 1 1.43 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 2 1.24 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.26 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/4 2 0.28 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 8MR3930 1003 30‐100 II 3 0.37 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 1 4.45 Shatter, Angular coastal plain chert, heat treated 1 28.81 Aboriginal ceramic, plain body 1 4.61 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3930 1004 42663 II 1 0.23 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 1005 0‐30 I 1 0.37 Debitage, primary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2

B-9

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

3 0.32 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 3 3.46 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 1006 10‐70 I/II 1 0.71 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 1.32 Debitage, primary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 1007 30‐100 II 2 10.15 Debitage, primary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 1 0.89 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 1008 30‐100 II 2 0.69 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 2 1.28 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 0.54 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 1010 30‐70 II 1 3.52 Shatter, Angular coastal plain chert >1/2 1 2.57 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/ 1 2.13 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 1034 40‐100 II 3 0.83 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 3 16.39 Pasco Plain body 1 3.44 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3930 1036 40‐80 II 1 11.98 Pasco Plain rim 3 1.10 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 1042 40‐80 II 1 0.43 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 1045 30‐100 II 1 2.40 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 1 5.25 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3930 1046 50‐60 II 1 1.63 Pasco Plain body 8MR3930 1052 90‐100 II 1 4.10 Pasco Plain body 1 2.45 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 3 1.28 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3930 1061 50‐100 II 1 0.50 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 0.14 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 1 6.44 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3930 1062 60‐80 II 1 0.50 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.80 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3930 1063 90‐100 II 1 0.27 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3931 1072 50‐60 II 1 1.95 Shatter, Angular coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 2 0.28 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3931 1074 50‐80 II 2 1.13 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2

B-10

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

1 0.1 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3931 1085.1 80‐100 II 1 0.20 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3931 D128 20‐30 I 1 1.21 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3931 D285 40‐50 II 1 1.17 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3931 D286 50‐60 II 1 8.79 Flake, blade coastal plain chert >2 1 21.98 Pasco Plain rim 8MR3931 D287 50‐60 II 1 0.66 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3931 D288 50‐60 II 1 3.94 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3931 D289 40‐50 II 1 1.07 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3931 D290 0 1 0.03 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 8MR3931 D294 20‐30 I 1 0.60 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3931 D298 0 1 0.02 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 1 0.44 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3931 D366 0 1 0.13 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 1 1.19 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 0.28 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3931 D367 0 1 1.08 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 2 0.11 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3931 D368 70‐80 II 1 0.21 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 12.08 Pasco Plain rim 8MR3931 D369 0 1 0.33 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 3 0.11 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 2 1.22 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3931 D371 0 1 1.82 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3931 D372 0 1 2.79 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 1 0.59 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3931 D373 30‐40 II 1 0.09 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 1 0.88 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3931 D376 0 1 2.58 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3931 D377 0 3 1.21 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 5.96 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >2 8MR3931 D378 0 1 2.32 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 1 3.48 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1

B-11

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

8MR3931 D379 75‐85 II 1 0.21 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 1.57 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3931 D380 15‐35 II 1 0.54 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3931 D381 30‐40 II 1 1.28 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.02 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 8MR3931 D384 0 1 0.72 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3931 D386 60‐70 II 1 0.43 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3931 D387 42663 I 1 0.09 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 2 1.86 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3931 D388 40‐70 II 1 0.54 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3931 D390 25‐35 II 1 0.15 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 2 0.80 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 16.69 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3931 D391 50‐70 II 3 0.64 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 0.73 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3931 D392 0 1 0.26 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3931 D393 0 2 3.47 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3931 D394 0 1 1.60 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3931 D403 40‐50 II 1 3.86 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 2 9.37 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3931 D407 60‐80 II 2 4.06 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 1 1.20 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3931 D608 40‐50 II 1 0.48 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 5.23 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1 8MR3931 J1052.N 20‐30 I 1 1.91 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.33 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 3 4.65 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 1 1.85 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.25 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 8MR3931 JA006 30‐70 II 1 1.31 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 1 0.07 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/4 2 0.10 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/4 2 22.13 Shatter, Angular coastal plain chert

B-12

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

8MR3931 SF6 0 1 5.26 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" 8MR3932 32.11 30 I 1 3.43 UID lead glazed stoneware hollowware, body 1 3.72 Cut nail 8MR3932 1049 0‐50 I/II 1 2.65 Wire nail 1 80.23 Iron buckle 2 6.00 Cut nail 8MR3932 D117 20‐60 I/II 1 1.00 Whiteware flatware, rim 8MR3932 D118 0‐20 I 1 3.08 Whiteware body 8MR3932 D127 15‐20 I 1 3.69 Window glass 8MR3932 JA028 0‐20 II 2 3.73 Cut nail 8MR3932 MD2 20‐30 I 1 0.67 Bottle glass, amethyst 2 3.64 Cut nail 8MR3932 MD3 40‐60 I/II 1 5.59 Unidentifiable iron or steel 8MR3932 MD4 40‐50 I 4 63.62 Unidentifiable iron or steel 8MR3932 MD5 30‐40 I 1 42.44 Unidentifiable iron or steel 8MR3932 MD6 0‐30 I 1 4.00 Centerfire cartridge post 1873 “Peters referee No 12” incised 8MR3932 MD7 0‐30 I 1 2020.00 Axe intact 8MR3932 MD8 0‐30 I 1 10.49 Pressed amethyst glass 8MR3932 MD9 0‐30 I 1 125.04 Unidentifiable iron or steel 4 15.09 Cut nail 4 18.60 Unidentifiable nail heavily eroded, likely cut 1 1.72 Bottle glass olive green 8MR3932 MD10 0‐50 I 1 65.23 Unidentifiable iron or steel 4 1.42 >1/2" miscellaneous metal 1 5.17 Fence staple 1 3.63 Brass eyelet or rivet or Star embosses in center on front 1 2.30 Unidentifiable melted glass olive green 3 13.1 Unidentifiable iron or steel 8MR3932 MD11 0‐50 I 2 13.48 Non‐electrical wire 1 580.00 Buggy Step 1 48.99 Unidentifiable iron buckle possibly part of a harness 1 148.48 Iron latch part 8MR3932 MD12 0‐50 I 2 62.22 Unidentifiable iron or steel

B-13

Appendix B. Artifact Log. Site# ST# Depth (cmbs) Strata Count Weight (g) Description Secondary Attribute Size

I 3 331.95 Cast iron stove pieces molded decoration 8MR3932 MD16 0‐20 I 1 68.71 Unidentifiable iron or steel large flat piece 8MR3932 MD17 0‐30 I 1 136.83 Iron latch part possibly part of gate of door closure 8MR3933 JB004 80‐90 II 3 1.01 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert 30‐50 II 1 1.46 Debitage, secondary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3934 1016 30‐50 II 1 0.84 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3934 1019 30‐100 II 1 2.25 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3934 1021 42673 II 1 1.84 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1 8MR3934 1078 50‐60 II 1 0.81 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 8MR3934 31.19 60‐70 II 1 1.59 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" 8MR3934 31.25 40‐50 II 1 1.29 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1/2 AO 1 2043 80‐90 II 1 3.13 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1" AO 2 32.05 70 II 1 0.40 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert, heat treated >1/2 AO 3 1057 0 0 1 1000.00 Unidentified metal object ~2' AO 4 3035 90‐100 II 1 7.53 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >1" AO 5 JB030 50‐60 II 1 26.02 Debitage, tertiary coastal plain chert >2"

B-14

APPENDIX C.

FDHR SURVEY LOG

3DJH 

(QW ' )06) RQO\ BBBBBBBBBB 6XUYH\ /RJ 6KHHW 6XUYH\  )06) RQO\ BBBBBBBBB )ORULGD 0DVWHU 6LWH )LOH 9HUVLRQ  

&RQVXOW *XLGH WR WKH 6XUYH\ /RJ 6KHHW IRU GHWDLOHG LQVWUXFWLRQV

,GHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG %LEOLRJUDSKLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ

6XUYH\ 3URMHFW QDPH DQG SURMHFW SKDVH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBPhase I Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) and Supplemental B BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTesting of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW 7LWOH H[DFWO\ DV RQ WLWOH SDJH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBPhase I Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) and Supplemental BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTesting of the Ocala Ranch Property, Marion County, Florida BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW $XWKRUV DV RQ WLWOH SDJH ODVW QDPHV ILUVW . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBAzevedo, Lillian . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBArbuthnot, Michael . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3XEOLFDWLRQ 'DWH \HDU BBBBBBBBBB2016 7RWDO 1XPEHU RI 3DJHV LQ 5HSRUW FRXQW WH[W ILJXUHV WDEOHV QRW VLWH IRUPV BBBBBBBBBBB106 3XEOLFDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ *LYH VHULHV QXPEHU LQ VHULHV SXEOLVKHU DQG FLW\. )RU DUWLFOH RU FKDSWHU FLWH SDJH QXPEHUV. 8VH WKH VW\OH RI $PHULFDQ $QWLTXLW\. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOn file at SEARCH, Newberry, FL. SEARCH Project No. 3617-16017P. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6XSHUYLVRUV RI )LHOGZRUN HYHQ LI VDPH DV DXWKRU 1DPHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLillian Azevedo, PhD, RPA $IILOLDWLRQ RI )LHOGZRUNHUV 2UJDQL]DWLRQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSoutheastern Archaeological Research &LW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBJacksonville, FL .H\ :RUGV3KUDVHV 'RQuW XVH FRXQW\ QDPH RU FRPPRQ ZRUGV OLNH DUFKDHRORJ\ VWUXFWXUH VXUYH\ DUFKLWHFWXUH HWF . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCove of the Withlacoochee .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBMorrison's Landing . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHomestead .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6XUYH\ 6SRQVRUV FRUSRUDWLRQ JRYHUQPHQW XQLW RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU SHUVRQ GLUHFWO\ IXQGLQJ ILHOGZRUN 1DPH. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBFarner Barley and Associates 2UJDQL]DWLRQ. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $GGUHVV3KRQH(PDLO. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HFRUGHU RI /RJ 6KHHW BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLillian Azevedo 'DWH /RJ 6KHHW &RPSOHWHG BBBBBBBBBBB9-27-2016 ,V WKLV VXUYH\ RU SURMHFW D FRQWLQXDWLRQ RI D SUHYLRXV SURMHFW" T 1R T

0DSSLQJ

&RXQWLHV /LVW HDFK RQH LQ ZKLFK ILHOG VXUYH\ ZDV GRQH DWWDFK DGGLWLRQDO VKHHW LI QHFHVVDU\ . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBMarion . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

86*6  0DS 1DPHV

'HVFULSWLRQ RI 6XUYH\ $UHD

'DWHV IRU )LHOGZRUN 6WDUW BBBBBBBBB4-11-2016 (QG BBBBBBBBB 8-11-2016 7RWDO $UHD 6XUYH\HG ILOO LQ RQH BBBBBBKHFWDUHV BBBBBB2,100 DFUHV 1XPEHU RI 'LVWLQFW 7UDFWV RU $UHDV 6XUYH\HG BBBBBBBBB1 ,I &RUULGRU ILOO LQ RQH IRU HDFK :LGWK BBBBBBPHWHUV BBBBBBIHHW /HQJWK BBBBBBNLORPHWHUV BBBBBBPLOHV

+5(5 )ORULGD 0DVWHU 6LWH )LOH 'LYLVLRQ RI +LVWRULFDO 5HVRXUFHV *UD\ %XLOGLQJ  6RXWK %URQRXJK 6WUHHW 7DOODKDVVHH )ORULGD  3KRQH  )$;  (PDLO 6LWH)LOH#GRV.VWDWH.IO.XV 3DJH  6XUYH\ /RJ 6KHHW 6XUYH\ BBBBBBBBB

5HVHDUFK DQG )LHOG 0HWKRGV 7\SHV RI 6XUYH\ FKHFN DOO WKDW DSSO\  DUFKDHRORJLFDO DUFKLWHFWXUDO KLVWRULFDODUFKLYDO XQGHUZDWHU GDPDJH DVVHVVPHQW PRQLWRULQJ UHSRUW RWKHU GHVFULEH . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6FRSH,QWHQVLW\3URFHGXUHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB1007 STs excavated at 25, 50, 100-m intervals and judgmentally, metalBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBdetecting at presumed location of historic structure and 1 1-x-1-m testBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB unit to assess subsurface BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBintegrity of archaeological deposits. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

3UHOLPLQDU\ 0HWKRGV FKHFN DV PDQ\ DV DSSO\ WR WKH SURMHFW DV D ZKROH T )ORULGD $UFKLYHV *UD\ %XLOGLQJ T OLEUDU\ UHVHDUFK ORFDO SXEOLF T ORFDO SURSHUW\ RU WD[ UHFRUGV T RWKHU KLVWRULF PDSV T )ORULGD 3KRWR $UFKLYHV *UD\ %XLOGLQJ T OLEUDU\VSHFLDO FROOHFWLRQ  QRQORFDO T QHZVSDSHU ILOHV T VRLOV PDSV RU GDWD T 6LWH )LOH SURSHUW\ VHDUFK T 3XEOLF /DQGV 6XUYH\ PDSV DW '(3 T OLWHUDWXUH VHDUFK T ZLQGVKLHOG VXUYH\ T 6LWH )LOH VXUYH\ VHDUFK T ORFDO LQIRUPDQW V T 6DQERUQ ,QVXUDQFH PDSV T DHULDO SKRWRJUDSK\ T RWKHU GHVFULEH . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

$UFKDHRORJLFDO 0HWKRGV FKHFN DV PDQ\ DV DSSO\ WR WKH SURMHFW DV D ZKROH T &KHFN KHUH LI 12 DUFKDHRORJLFDO PHWKRGV ZHUH XVHG. T VXUIDFH FROOHFWLRQ FRQWUROOHG T VKRYHO WHVWRWKHU VFUHHQ VL]H T EORFN H[FDYDWLRQ DW OHDVW [ P T VXUIDFH FROOHFWLRQ XQFRQWUROOHG T ZDWHU VFUHHQ T VRLO UHVLVWLYLW\ T VKRYHO WHVWwVFUHHQ T SRVWKROH WHVWV T PDJQHWRPHWHU T VKRYHO WHVWw VFUHHQ T DXJHU WHVWV T VLGH VFDQ VRQDU T VKRYHO WHVW wVFUHHQ T FRULQJ T SHGHVWULDQ VXUYH\ T VKRYHO WHVWXQVFUHHQHG T WHVW H[FDYDWLRQ DW OHDVW [ P T XQNQRZQ T RWKHU GHVFULEH . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBMetal detecting and 1 1-x-1 meter TU BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

+LVWRULFDO$UFKLWHFWXUDO 0HWKRGV FKHFN DV PDQ\ DV DSSO\ WR WKH SURMHFW DV D ZKROH T &KHFN KHUH LI 12 KLVWRULFDODUFKLWHFWXUDO PHWKRGV ZHUH XVHG. T EXLOGLQJ SHUPLWV T GHPROLWLRQ SHUPLWV T QHLJKERU LQWHUYLHZ T VXEGLYLVLRQ PDSV T FRPPHUFLDO SHUPLWV T H[SRVHG JURXQG LQVSHFWHG T RFFXSDQW LQWHUYLHZ T WD[ UHFRUGV T LQWHULRU GRFXPHQWDWLRQ T ORFDO SURSHUW\ UHFRUGV T RFFXSDWLRQ SHUPLWV T XQNQRZQ T RWKHU GHVFULEH . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

6XUYH\ 5HVXOWV FXOWXUDO UHVRXUFHV UHFRUGHG 6LWH 6LJQLILFDQFH (YDOXDWHG" T

6LWH )RUPV 8VHG T 6LWH )LOH 3DSHU )RUP T 6LWH )LOH (OHFWURQLF 5HFRUGLQJ )RUP

5(48,5(' $77$&+ 3/27 2) 6859(< $5($ 21 3+272&23< 2) 86*6  0$3 6

6+32 86( 21/< 6+32 86( 21/< 6+32 86( 21/< 2ULJLQ RI 5HSRUW  &$5/ 8: $  $FDGHPLF &RQWUDFW $YRFDWLRQDO *UDQW 3URMHFW  &RPSOLDQFH 5HYLHZ &5$7 

7\SH RI 'RFXPHQW $UFKDHRORJLFDO 6XUYH\ +LVWRULFDO$UFKLWHFWXUDO 6XUYH\ 0DULQH 6XUYH\ &HOO 7RZHU &5$6 0RQLWRULQJ 5HSRUW 2YHUYLHZ ([FDYDWLRQ 5HSRUW 0XOWL6LWH ([FDYDWLRQ 5HSRUW 6WUXFWXUH 'HWDLOHG 5HSRUW /LEUDU\ +LVW. RU $UFKLYDO 'RF 036 05$ 7* 2WKHU

'RFXPHQW 'HVWLQDWLRQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3ORWDELOLW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

+5(5 )ORULGD 0DVWHU 6LWH )LOH 'LYLVLRQ RI +LVWRULFDO 5HVRXUFHV *UD\ %XLOGLQJ  6RXWK %URQRXJK 6WUHHW 7DOODKDVVHH )ORULGD  3KRQH  )$;  (PDLO 6LWH)LOH#GRV.VWDWH.IO.XV

APPENDIX D.

FMSF SITE FORMS

Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______MR03929 5-29-2016 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Field Date ______" Original Form Date ______9-27-2016 Version 4.0 1/07 " Update Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Hist. Glass Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______Phase I CRAS of Ocala Ranch Property 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 ______STOKES FERRY USGS Date ______1988 Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______In City Limits? "yes "no "unknown County ______Marion Township ______17S Range______20E Section ______28 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 529635 Northing 0859663 Other Coordinates: X: 28.985033______Y: ______-82.313525 Coordinate System & Datum WGS84______Address / Vicinity / Route to: ______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. ______Lithic Scatter 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. ______Woodland 3. ______Late Woodland " African-American 2. ______Middle Woodland 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) ______The limited number of diagnostic artifacts and lack of ______cultural features limits future research potential. Based on the low artifact density, disturbances, and ______the infrequent occurrence of diagnostic items, SEARCH recommends site 8MR3929 ineligible. Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______

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 ______MR03929 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) ______29 positive shovel tests yielded 66 art______ifacts. ______3 glass fragments were recovered near a road. One 1-x-1 meter TU to assess integrity. Shovel tests were ______bounded at 25 m intervals to the N, E, S, and W. SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______11,290 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______Surface and Subsurface ______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: Preh______istoric lithic scatter with limited ceramics from the Woodland period and glass fragments less than 100 ______years old. Integrity - Overall disturbance: " none seen " minor " substantial " major " redeposited " destroyed-document! " unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______Development of property into residiential/commercial units ______Surface collection: area collected ______11,290 m2 # collection units ______4 Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______0 ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______66 "count "estimate Surface #______66 Subsurface #______0 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 - ______Lithics " mixed selectivity ____A - ______Aboriginal ceramics A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____ - ______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 ______No artifacts were removed. ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. Pasco______Check-Stamped Ceramic N=_____1 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. Pasco______Plain N=_____2 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______River Name______Withlacoochee Distance from site (m) ______900 Natural community ______OTHER Topography ______Not applicable Elevation: Min _____m12 Max _____m 15 Local vegetation ______Pasture on edge of mixed hardwoods. Present land use ______Pasture SCS soil series ______Lynn sand; Sparr fine sand, 0-5% slopes Soil association ______Lynn; Sparr DOCUMENTATION Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents Document type ______Field notes Maintaining organization ______Southeastern Archaeological Research 1) Document description ______Field notes, photographs, sketches File or accession #’s ______3617_16017P Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Lillian Azevedo Affiliation ______Southeastern Archaeological Research Address / Phone / E-mail ______315 NW 138th Terrace, Newberry, FL/[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.

MR3929_a_facing north MR3929_b_facing south

Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______MR03930 5-29-2016 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Field Date ______" Original Form Date ______9-27-2016 Version 4.0 1/07 " Update Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Prehistoric Lithic Scatter A Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______Phase I CRAS of Ocala Ranch Property 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 ______STOKES FERRY USGS Date ______1988 Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______In City Limits? "yes "no "unknown County ______Marion Township ______17S Range______20E Section ______28 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 529683 Northing 0860517 Other Coordinates: X: 28.986278______Y: ______-82.305869 Coordinate System & Datum WGS84______Address / Vicinity / Route to: ______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. ______Lithic Scatter 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. ______Woodland 3. ______Late Woodland " African-American 2. ______Middle Woodland 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) ______Despite in-tact stratigraphy, the low artifact density, ______paucity of diagnostic artifacts and absence of features limits the future research potential of the site. ______Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______SEARCH recommends 8MR3930 ineligible for the NRHP. ______

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 ______MR03930 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) ______29 positive shovel tests yielded 66 art______ifacts. ______3 glass fragments were recovered near a road. One 1-x-1 meter TU to assess integrity. Shovel tests were ______bounded at 25 m intervals to the N, E, S, and W. SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______71,993 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______Subsurface 1-120 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: Preh______istoric lithic scatter with small ceramic component and 1 O'leno ppk ______Integrity - Overall disturbance: " none seen " minor " substantial " major " redeposited " destroyed-document! " unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______Development of property into residiential/commercial units ______Surface collection: area collected ______71,993 m2 # collection units ______0 Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______0 ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______243 "count "estimate Surface #______0 Subsurface #______243 COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for " " A Aboriginal ceramics unknown unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left " selective (some artifacts) ____A - ______Lithics " mixed selectivity ____ - ______A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____ - ______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 ______No artifacts were observed on the surface, artifacts came from STs ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. O'Leno______ppk N=_____1 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. Pasco______Plain Ceramic N=_____4 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______River Name______Withlacoochee Distance from site (m) ______900 Natural community ______OTHER Topography ______Not applicable Elevation: Min _____m12 Max _____m 15 Local vegetation ______Pasture o Present land use ______Pasture SCS soil series ______Pomona Sand; Sparr fine sand; Jumper Fine San Soil association ______Lynn; Sparr; Jumper DOCUMENTATION Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents Document type ______Field notes Maintaining organization ______Southeastern Archaeological Research 1) Document description ______Field notes, photographs, sketches File or accession #’s ______3617_16017P Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Lillian Azevedo Affiliation ______Southeastern Archaeological Research Address / Phone / E-mail ______315 NW 138th Terrace, Newberry, FL/[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.

MR3930_a_facing north MR3930_b_facing south

MR3930_c_facing west

Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______MR03931 5-29-2016 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Field Date ______" Original Form Date ______9-27-2016 Version 4.0 1/07 " Update Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Prehistoric Lithic Scatter B Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______Phase I CRAS of Ocala Ranch Property 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 ______STOKES FERRY USGS Date ______1988 Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______In City Limits? "yes "no "unknown County ______Marion Township ______17S Range______20E Section ______28 ¼ section: "NW "SW "SE "NE Irregular-name: ______Township ______17S Range______20E Section ______27 ¼ section: "NW "SW "SE "NE Landgrant ______Tax Parcel # ______UTM Coordinates: Zone "16 "17 Easting 529612 Northing 0860792 Other Coordinates: X: 28.980948______Y: ______-82.303694 Coordinate System & Datum WGS84______Address / Vicinity / Route to: ______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. ______Lithic Scatter 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. ______Woodland 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) ______Despite in-tact stratigraphy, the low artifact density, ______paucity of diagnostic artifacts and absence of features limits the future research potential of the site. ______Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______SEARCH recommends 8MR3931 ineligible for the NRHP. ______

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 ______MR03931 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) ______82 locations yielded 221 artifacts, excavated______at 25 and 50 m intervals around natural pond and delineated at 25 m intervals. ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______74,988 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______Surface and Subsurface 1-120 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: Preh______istoric lithic scatter with small ceramic component ______Integrity - Overall disturbance: " none seen " minor " substantial " major " redeposited " destroyed-document! " unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______Development of property into residiential/commercial units ______Surface collection: area collected ______74,988 m2 # collection units ______0 Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______0 ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______221 "count "estimate Surface #______27 Subsurface #______194 COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for " " A Lithics unknown unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left " selective (some artifacts) ____A - ______Aboriginal ceramics " mixed selectivity ____A - ______Miscellaneous historic A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____ - ______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 ______Primary (5), Secondary (36), and Tertiary (150) debitage, 1 blade flake, 1 ppk fragment, 5 ______pieces shatter, 14 plain ceramic, 8 pasco plain, and 1 piece of Herty Cup DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. O'Leno______ppk N=_____1 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. Pasco______Plain Ceramic N=_____4 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Pond < 5 acres Name______Distance from site (m) ______0 Natural community ______OTHER Topography ______Not applicable Elevation: Min _____m12 Max _____m 15 Local vegetation ______Pasture Present land use ______Pasture SCS soil series ______Pomona Sand; Sparr fine sand; Jumper Fine San Soil association ______Lynn; Sparr; Jumper DOCUMENTATION Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents Document type ______Field notes Maintaining organization ______Southeastern Archaeological Research 1) Document description ______Field notes, photographs, sketches File or accession #’s ______3617_16017P Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Lillian Azevedo Affiliation ______Southeastern Archaeological Research Address / Phone / E-mail ______315 NW 138th Terrace, Newberry, FL/[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.

MR3931_a_facing north MR3931_b_facing east

MR3931_c_facing south

Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______MR03932 5-29-2016 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Field Date ______" Original Form Date ______9-27-2016 Version 4.0 1/07 " Update Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Homestead Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______Phase I CRAS of Ocala Ranch Property 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 ______STOKES FERRY USGS Date ______1988 Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______In City Limits? "yes "no "unknown County ______Marion Township ______17S Range______20E Section ______28 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 529571 Northing 0860843 Other Coordinates: X: ______28.978046° Y: ______-82.302983° Coordinate System & Datum WGS84______Address / Vicinity / Route to: ______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. ______Homestead 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. ______Post-Reconstruction 1880-1897 3. ______Nineteenth C. American 1821-1899 " African-American 2. ______American 1821-present 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) ______While the assemblage includes several interesting ______artifacts, it is not associated with any significant individuals, events, or activities. Due to its lack of ______association with historic events, important persons, or unique characteristics, SEARCH recommend Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______SEARCH recommends 8MR3932 ineligible for the NRHP. ______

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 ______MR03932 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) ______Metal dectecting survey around positive______test ______yielded 13 positive hits; positive hits were ringed by STs at 25 m intervals, and positive STs delineated to ______the N, E, S, and W. SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______3,884 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______Subsurface 0-60 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: ______Integrity - Overall disturbance: " none seen " minor " substantial " major " redeposited " destroyed-document! " unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______Development of property into residiential/commercial units ______Surface collection: area collected ______00 m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______0 ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______56 "count "estimate Surface #______05 Subsurface #______6 COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for " " A Encrusted Object unknown unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left " selective (some artifacts) ____A - ______Metal " mixed selectivity ____A - ______Glass A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____A - ______Miscellaneous historic S - some items in category collected " uncollected " general (not by subarea) ____S - ______Other 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 ______No artifacts were observed on the surface, artifacts came from 13 metal detector hits and 6 ______positive shovel tests DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. Buggy______step N=_____1 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. Axe______head N=_____1 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______River Name______Withlacoochee Distance from site (m) ______1,200 Natural community ______OTHER Topography ______Not applicable Elevation: Min _____m14 Max _____m 15 Local vegetation ______Pasture and mixed pine and hardwood forest Present land use ______Grazing 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 ______Field notes Maintaining organization ______Southeastern Archaeological Research 1) Document description ______Field notes, photographs, sketches File or accession #’s ______3617_16017P Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Lillian Azevedo Affiliation ______Southeastern Archaeological Research Address / Phone / E-mail ______315 NW 138th Terrace, Newberry, FL/[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.

MR3932_a_facing north MR3932_b_facing east

MR3932_c_facing south MR3932_d_facing west

Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______MR03933 5-29-2016 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Field Date ______" Original Form Date ______9-29-2016 Version 4.0 1/07 " Update Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______3 Lithics Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______Phase I CRAS of Ocala Ranch Property 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 ______STOKES FERRY USGS Date ______1988 Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______In City Limits? "yes "no "unknown County ______Marion Township ______17S Range______20E Section ______28 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 529661 Northing 0860680 Other Coordinates: X: ______28.984623° Y: ______-82.305062° Coordinate System & Datum WGS84______Address / Vicinity / Route to: ______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 8MR3933 consists of a single positive shovel test ______(JB004) that yielded three pieces (total weight 1.01 g) of tertiary debitage (coastal plain chert) 80-90 ______cmbs from Stratum II. Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______SEARCH recommends 8MR3933 ineligible for the NRHP. ______

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 ______MR03933 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) ______Site consists of a single positive shovel______test ______that yielded 3 artifacts. Shovel test delineated to the N, E, S, and W. ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______200 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______Subsurface 80-90 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: ______Integrity - Overall disturbance: " none seen " minor " substantial " major " redeposited " destroyed-document! " unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______Development of property into residiential/commercial units ______Surface collection: area collected ______00 m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______0 ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______3 "count "estimate Surface #______03 Subsurface #______COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for " " A Lithics unknown unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left " selective (some artifacts) ____ - ______" mixed selectivity ____ - ______A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____ - ______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 ______No artifacts were observed on the surface. ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. ______N=_____1 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. ______N=_____1 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Pond < 5 acres Name______Distance from site (m) ______230 Natural community ______OTHER Topography ______Not applicable Elevation: Min _____m15 Max _____m 16 Local vegetation ______Pasture Present land use ______Grazing SCS soil series ______Jumper fine sand, 0-5 percent slopes Soil association ______Jumper DOCUMENTATION Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents Document type ______Field notes Maintaining organization ______Southeastern Archaeological Research 1) Document description ______Field notes, photographs, sketches File or accession #’s ______3617_16017P Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Lillian Azevedo Affiliation ______Southeastern Archaeological Research Address / Phone / E-mail ______315 NW 138th Terrace, Newberry, FL/[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.

MR3933_a_facing east MR3933_b_facing west

Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______MR03934 5-29-2016 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Field Date ______" Original Form Date ______9-29-2016 Version 4.0 1/07 " Update Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Prehistoric Lithic Scatter C Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______Phase I CRAS of Ocala Ranch Property 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 ______STOKES FERRY USGS Date ______1988 Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______In City Limits? "yes "no "unknown County ______Marion Township ______17S Range______20E Section ______28 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 529620 Northing 0861141 Other Coordinates: X: ______28.9806 Y: ______-82.3003 Coordinate System & Datum WGS84______Address / Vicinity / Route to: ______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 8MR3933 consists of six non-diagnostic tertiary ______flakes and one non-diagnostic secondary flake from 6 shovel tests, with an average density of 1.17 artifacts ______per shovel test. Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______SEARCH recommends 8MR3933 ineligible for the NRHP. ______

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 ______MR03934 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) ______Postive shovel tests delineated to the ______N, E, ______S, and W at 25 m intervals. ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______6,475 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______Subsurface 10-100 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: ______Integrity - Overall disturbance: " none seen " minor " substantial " major " redeposited " destroyed-document! " unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______Development of property into residiential/commercial units ______Surface collection: area collected ______00 m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______0 ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______7 "count "estimate Surface #______07 Subsurface #______COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for " " A Lithics unknown unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left " selective (some artifacts) ____ - ______" mixed selectivity ____ - ______A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____ - ______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 ______No diagnostic artifacts; no artifacts were observed on the surface. ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. ______N=_____ 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. ______N=_____ 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Pond < 5 acres Name______Distance from site (m) ______20 Natural community ______OTHER Topography ______Not applicable Elevation: Min _____m13 Max _____m 14 Local vegetation ______Pasture Present land use ______Grazing SCS soil series ______Pomona 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 ______Field notes Maintaining organization ______Southeastern Archaeological Research 1) Document description ______Field notes, photographs, sketches File or accession #’s ______3617_16017P Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Lillian Azevedo Affiliation ______Southeastern Archaeological Research Address / Phone / E-mail ______315 NW 138th Terrace, Newberry, FL/[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.

Page 1 RESOURCE GROUP FORM Site #8 ______MR03722 Field Date ______5-4-2016 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE " Original Form Date ______10-4-2016 Version 4.0 1/07 " Update Recorder# ______

NOTE: Use this form to document districts, landscapes, building complexes and linear resources as described in the box below. Cultural resources contributing to the Resource Group should also be documented individually at the Site File. Do not use this form for National Register multiple property submissions (MPSs). National Register MPSs are treated as Site File manuscripts and are associated to the individual resources included under the MPS cover using the Site File manuscript number.

Check ONE box that best describes the Resource Group: " Historic district (NR category “district”): buildings and NR structures only: NO archaeological sites " Archaeological district (NR category “district”): archaeological sites only: NO buildings or NR structures " Mixed district (NR category “district”): includes more than one type of cultural resource (example: archaeological sites and buildings) " Building complex (NR category usually “building(s)”): multiple buildings in close spatial and functional association " Designed historic landscape (NR category usually “district” or “site”): can include multiple resources (see National Register Bulletin #18, page 2 for more detailed definition and examples: e.g. parks, golf courses, campuses, resorts, etc.) " Rural historic landscape (NR category usually “district” or “site”): can include multiple resources and resources not formally designed (see National Register Bulletin #30, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes for more detailed definition and examples: e.g. farmsteads, fish camps, lumber camps, traditional ceremonial sites, etc.) " Linear resource (NR category usually “structure”): Linear resources are a special type of rural historic landscape and can include canals, railways, roads, etc.

Resource Group Name ______Drake Ranch Multiple Listing [DHR only] ______Project Name ______Phase I CRAS of Ocala Ranch Property FMSF Survey # ______National Register Category (please check one): " building(s) " structure " district " site " object Linear Resource Type (if applicable): " canal " railway " road " other (describe): ______Ownership: "private-profit "private-nonprofit "private-individual "private-nonspecific "city "county "state "federal "Native American "foreign "unknown LOCATION & MAPPING Street Number Direction Street Name Street Type Suffix Direction Address: City/Town (within 3 miles) ______Hernando In Current City Limits? "yes "no "unknown County or Counties (do not abbr eviate) ______Marion Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) ______1) Township ______17S Range ______20E Section ______19 ¼ section: "NW "SW "SE "NE Irregular-name: ______2) Township ______17S Range ______25E Section ______20 ¼ section: "NW "SW "SE "NE 3) Township ______Range ______Section ______¼ section: "NW "SW "SE "NE 4) Township ______Range ______Section ______¼ section: "NW "SW "SE "NE USGS 7.5’ Map(s) 1) Name ______STOKES FERRY USGS Date ______1954 2) Name ______DUNNELLON SE USGS Date ______1954 Plat, Aerial, or Other Map (map's name, originating office with location) ______Landgrant ______Verbal Description of Boundaries (description does not replace required map) ______The Drake Ranch is located roughly to the NE of SR ______200 between SW 159th Lane and SW 119th Court in Township 17 South, Range 20 East, Sections 19 and 20. ______

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)

HR6E057R0107 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources. R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850) 245-6439 / E-mail [email protected] Page 2 RESOURCE GROUP FORM Site #8______MR03722 HISTORY & DESCRIPTION

Construction Year: ______1940 "approximately "year listed or earlier "year listed or later Architect/Designer(last name first): ______Builder(last name first): ______Total number of individual resources included in this Resource Group: # of contributing______#01 of non-contributing ______Time period(s) of significance (choose a period from the list or type in date range(s), e.g. 1895-1925) 1. ______American 1821-present 3. ______2. ______Modern (Post 1950) 4. ______Narrative Description (National Register Bulletin 16A pp. 33-34; fit a summary into 3 lines or attach supplementary sheets if needed)______The road contains ______crushed gravel approximately 5 cmbs and shallow (less than 30 cm deep) ditches on either side, The ______unimproved road appears on 1940 and 1954 aerials linking structures associated with the Drake Ranch and is ______outside the current RG bounds. RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

" FMSF record search (sites/surveys) " library research " building permits " Sanborn maps " FL State Archives/photo collection " city directory " occupant/owner interview " plat maps " property appraiser / tax records " newspaper files " neighbor interview " Public Lands Survey (DEP) " cultural resource survey " historic photos " interior inspection " HABS/HAER record search " other methods (specify) ______Pedestrian Survey; historic topo map Bibliographic References (give FMSF Manuscript # if relevant) ______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, see National Register Bulletin 16A p. 48-49. Attach longer statement, if needed, on separate sheet.) ______An eligibility ______determination is outside the current scope of work. ______Area(s) of Historical Significance (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.) 1. ______Agriculture 3. ______5. ______2. ______4. ______6. ______DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents Document type ______Field notes Maintaining organization ______Southeastern Archaeological Research 1) Document description ______Photos, maps, field notes, aerials File or accession #’s ______3617 Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER INFORMATION

Recorder Name ______Lillian Azevedo Affiliation ______Southeastern Archaeological Research Recorder Contact Information ______315 NW 138th Terr. Newberry, FL/ [email protected] (address / phone / fax / e-mail)

PHOTOCOPY OF USGS 7.5’ MAP WITH DISTRICT BOUNDARY CLEARLY MARKED

Required LARGE SCALE STREET, PLAT OR PARCEL MAP WITH RESOURCES MAPPED & LABELED TABULATION OF ALL INCLUDED RESOURCES (name, FMSF #, contributing? Y/N, resource Attachments category, street address or township-range-section if no address) PHOTOS OF GENERAL STREETSCAPE OR VIEWS (Optional: aerial photos, views of typical resources) Photos may be archival B&W prints OR digital image files. If submitting digital image files, they must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable). Digital images must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff.

MR3722_a_road associated with resource group_facing south MR3722_b_road associated with resource group_facing west

Page 1 SSite #8 ______MR03937 RESOURCE GROUP FORM FField Date ______5-4-2016 † Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE FForm Date ______10-4-2016 † Update Version 4.0 1/07 RRecorder# ______

NOTE: Use this form to document districts, landscapes, building complexes and linear resources as described in the box below. Cultural resources contributing to the Resource Group should also be documented individually at the Site File. Do not use this form for National Register multiple property submissions (MPSs). National Register MPSs are treated as Site File manuscripts and are associated to the individual resources included under the MPS cover using the Site File manuscript number.

Check ONE box that best describes the Resource Group: † Historic district (NR category “district”): buildings and NR structures only: NO archaeological sites † Archaeological district (NR category “district”): archaeological sites only: NO buildings or NR structures † Mixed district (NR category “district”): includes more than one type of cultural resource (example: archaeological sites and buildings) † Building complex (NR category usually “building(s)”): multiple buildings in close spatial and functional association † Designed historic landscape (NR category usually “district” or “site”): can include multiple resources (see National Register Bulletin #18, page 2 for more detailed definition and examples: e.g. parks, golf courses, campuses, resorts, etc.) † Rural historic landscape (NR category usually “district” or “site”): can include multiple resources and resources not formally designed (see National Register Bulletin #30, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes for more detailed definition and examples: e.g. farmsteads, fish camps, lumber camps, traditional ceremonial sites, etc.) † Linear resource (NR category usually “structure”): Linear resources are a special type of rural historic landscape and can include canals, railways, roads, etc.

RResource Group Name ______Segment of unimproved road MMultiple Listing [DHR only] ______PProject Name ______Phase I CRAS of Ocala Ranch Property FFMSF Survey # ______NNational Register Category (please check one): † building(s) † structure † district † site † object LLinear Resource Type (if applicable): † canal † railway † road † other (describe): ______OOwnership: †private-profit †private-nonprofit †private-individual †private-nonspecific †city †county †state †federal †Native American †foreign †unknown LOCATION & MAPPING Street Number Direction Street Name Street Type Suffix Direction AAddress: CCity/Town (within 3 miles) ______Hernando In Current City Limits? †yes †no †unknown CCounty or Counties (do not abbr eviate) ______Marion NName of Public Tract (e.g., park) ______1) TTownship ______17S RRange ______20E SSection ______20 ¼ section: †NW †SW †SE †NE Irregular-name: ______2) TTownship ______RRange ______SSection ______¼ section: †NW †SW †SE †NE 3) TTownship ______RRange ______SSection ______¼ section: †NW †SW †SE †NE 4) TTownship ______RRange ______SSection ______¼ section: †NW †SW †SE †NE UUSGS 7.5’ Map(s) 1) Name ______STOKES FERRY UUSGS Date ______2) Name ______UUSGS Date ______PPlat, Aerial, or Other Map (map's name, originating office with location) ______LLandgrant ______VVerbal Description of Boundaries (description does not replace required map) ______8MR3937 is east of the boundary for RG MR3722. The ______road connects the RG with 5 associated structures 200 m east of the APE (outside the RG boundaries). The ______center of the road is located at Lat. E28.9943 Long. W82.3272. ______

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)

HR6E057R0107 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources. R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850) 245-6439 / E-mail [email protected] MR03937 Page 2 RESOURCE GROUP FORM SSite #8______HISTORY & DESCRIPTION

CConstruction Year: ______1940 †approximately †year listed or earlier †year listed or later AArchitect/Designer(last name first): ______BBuilder(last name first): ______TTotal number of individual resources included in this Resource Group: # of contributing______#01 of non-contributing ______TTime period(s) of significance (choose a period from the list or type in date range(s), e.g. 1895-1925) 1. ______American 1821-present 3. ______2. ______Modern (Post 1950) 4. ______NNarrative Description (National Register Bulletin 16A pp. 33-34; fit a summary into 3 lines or attach supplementary sheets if needed)______The road contains ______crushed gravel approximately 5 cmbs and shallow (less than 30 cm deep) ditches on either side, The ______unimproved road appears on 1940 and 1954 aerials linking structures associated with the Drake Ranch and is ______outside the current RG bounds. RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

† FMSF record search (sites/surveys) † library research † building permits † Sanborn maps † FL State Archives/photo collection † city directory † occupant/owner interview † plat maps † property appraiser / tax records † newspaper files † neighbor interview † Public Lands Survey (DEP) † cultural resource survey † historic photos † interior inspection † HABS/HAER record search † other methods (specify) ______Pedestrian Survey; historic topo map BBibliographic References (give FMSF Manuscript # if relevant) ______OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE

PPotentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? †yes †no †insufficient information PPotentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? †yes †no †insufficient information EExplanation of Evaluation (required, see National Register Bulletin 16A p. 48-49. Attach longer statement, if needed, on separate sheet.) ______The road is not ______associated with any historic events or famous people and does not warrant eligibility by itself. The road ______no longer links structures associated with the Drake Ranch and is recommended as a non-contributing element. ______AArea(s) of Historical Significance (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.) 1. ______Agriculture 3. ______5. ______2. ______4. ______6. ______DOCUMENTATION

AAccessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents DDocument type ______Field notes MMaintaining organization ______Southeastern Archaeological Research 1) DDocument description ______Photos, maps, field notes, aerials FFile or accession #’s ______3617 DDocument type ______MMaintaining organization ______2) DDocument description ______FFile or accession #’s ______RECORDER INFORMATION

RRecorder Name ______Lillian Azevedo Affiliation ______Southeastern Archaeological Research RRecorder Contact Information ______315 NW 138th Terr. Newberry, FL/ [email protected] (address / phone / fax / e-mail)

n PHOTOCOPY OF USGS 7.5’ MAP WITH DISTRICT BOUNDARY CLEARLY MARKED Required o LARGE SCALE STREET, PLAT OR PARCEL MAP WITH RESOURCES MAPPED & LABELED p TABULATION OF ALL INCLUDED RESOURCES (name, FMSF #, contributing? Y/N, resource Attachments category, street address or township-range-section if no address) q PHOTOS OF GENERAL STREETSCAPE OR VIEWS (Optional: aerial photos, views of typical resources) Photos may be archival B&W prints OR digital image files. If submitting digital image files, they must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable). Digital images must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff.

MR3937_a_facing north MR3937_b_facing east

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT SURVEY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TESTING OF THE OCALA RANCH PROPERTY, MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA