An Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Bird Hammock Site (8WA30) Claire Elizabeth Nanfro

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2004 An Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Bird Hammock Site (8WA30) Claire Elizabeth Nanfro

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

AN ANALYSIS OF FAUNAL REMAINS

FROM THE BIRD HAMMOCK SITE (8Wa30)

CLAIRE ELIZABETH NANFRO

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2004 The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Claire Elizabeth Nanfro defended on August 12, 2004.

______Rochelle Marrinan Professor Directing Thesis

______Glen Doran Committee Member

______William Parkinson Committee Member

Approved:

______Dean Falk, Chair, Department of Anthropology

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables v List of Figures vi Abstract vii

1.CHAPTER ONE:INTRODUCTION 1

2.CHAPTER TWO:LITERATURE, METHOD, AND THEORY 6 Chronology and Culture History 6 The Woodland Period 6 Methodological and Theoretical Overview 10 Introduction 10 Faunal Remains and Archaeological Theory 11 Methodology (NISP, MNI, Biomass) 12 Introduction 12 NISP Defined 12 NISP Critique 13 MNI Defined 14 MNI Critique 15 Biomass Defined 16 Biomass Critique 16 Conclusion 17

3.CHAPTER THREE:THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT OF BIRD HAMMOCK 18 The Natural Environment, Location, and Features of Site Locality 18 Bird Hammock Site History 21 Overview of Excavation and Recovery Techniques 24

4.CHAPTER FOUR:THE SELECTED FAUNAL SAMPLE 26 Feature 1 27 Feature 2 28 Feature 3 29 Feature 4 30 Lab and Analysis Methods 32

5.CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS 33 Introduction 33 Feature 1 35 Feature 2 36 Feature 3 38 Feature 4 39 Level 5 41 Comparison of Features and Level 42

iii

Vertebrate and Invertebrate Faunal Classes 44 Diversity and Equitability 50

6.CHAPTER SIX:INTERPRETATION OF THE SAMPLE 53 Introduction 53 Patterns of Use at Bird Hammock 53 Examination of Diet/ Resource Exploitation 54 Environmental Exploitation 55 Methods of Procurement 57 Site Comparisons 58 Modeling the Behavior of Bird Hammock’s Inhabitants 67

7.CHAPTER SEVEN:SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECCOMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 69

APPENDICES 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY 94

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 102

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Assigned Field Specimen Numbers 32

Table 5.1 Standard Analysis Measures for the Selected Faunal Assemblage 34

Table 5.2 Feature 1 Faunal Remains by Class 35

Table 5.3 Feature 2 Faunal Remains by Class 36

Table 5.4 Feature 3 Faunal Remains by Class 38

Table 5.5 Feature 4 Faunal Remains by Class 39

Table 5.6 Level 5 Faunal Remains by Class 41

Table 5.7 Species Presence/ Absence List for Features and Level 43

Table 5.8 Seasonal Mean Shell Height 49

Table 5.9 Diversity and Equitability Data 51

Table 6.1 Site Comparison by Taxa 59

Table 6.2 Snow Beach Comparative Level 62

Table 6.3 MNI Calculations from the Melton Site (From Cumbaa 1972) 64

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Early Weeden Island Sites in Northwest Florida (After Milanich 1994:165) 3

Figure 2.1 Deptford, Swift Creek, and Santa Rosa Swift Creek Sites in In Northwest Florida (After Milanich 1994:121) 7

Figure 2.2 Weeden Island Cultures (After Milanich 1994:161 8

Figure 3.1 Mound b and Surrounding Vegetation (Phelps Photo # 15-3 FSU Department of Anthropology Archaeological Collections) 19

Figure 3.2 Salt Marsh Food Chain (After Montague and Wiegert 1990:495) 21

Figure 3.3 Bird Hammock Site Map (After Bense 1969:80-81) 23

Figure 4.1 Excavation Unit -160L45 Level 5 South Profile (Bense Photo # 34-64 FSU Department of Anthropology Archaeological Collections 26

Figure 4.2 Feature 1 (-160L45) Showing Scapula and Vertebrae (Bense Photo # 34-8 FSU Department of Anthropology Archaeological Collections) 27

Figure 4.3 Excavation Unit -160L45 Feature 1 Level 2 (Bense Offical Plot 1968) 28

Figure 4.4 Feature 2 Excavation Unit -160L45 Shell and Bone Concentration (Bense Official Plot 1968) 29

Figure 4.5 Feature 3 (-160L45) Burned Area (Bense Official Plot 1968) 30

Figure 4.6 Feature 4 (-150L45) Level 4 Showing Numerous Pits and Burned Areas (Bense Official Plot 1968) 31

Figure 5.1 Average Shell Heights by Features/ Level 50

ABSTRACT

This study examines Middle to Late Woodland subsistence practices in the Gulf coastal zone through faunal analysis of the archaeological features excavated at the Bird Hammock site (8Wa30). Bird Hammock was excavated by Judith Bense in 1968 under the direction of David Phelps. She concluded that the site was occupied by Late Swift Creek (A.D. 150 – 350) and Early Weeden Island (A.D. 200 – 1000) peoples. Bense’s thesis focused on ceramic and lithic analysis, but contained only a preliminary faunal identification. Because faunal studies and zooarchaeology were just beginning to be developed, Bense did not quantify the faunal remains. A primary goal of this study, therefore, is to quantify the faunal remains utilizing modern zooarchaeological methods. Vertebrate and invertebrate remains from four features, and one comparative midden level, were selected and analyzed. Using these data, and a sample of comparative sites, a secondary goal of this thesis is to model Middle to Late Woodland subsistence practices in the Gulf coastal zone of Florida.

vii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

This study presents an analysis and interpretation of the faunal remains recovered from the Bird Hammock site (8WA30). The site has been the subject of two masters theses (Bense 1969; Penton 1970) based on excavations under the direction of David S. Phelps, then a member of the Department of Anthropology faculty at Florida State University. The purpose of this study is to define and further describe subsistence patterns, particularly faunal utilization, originally presented by Bense (1969). When Bense wrote her thesis, zooarchaeological studies were just emerging. She noted then that a complete identification of faunal remains was impossible due to a lack of comparative materials (Bense 1969:52). Utilizing current zooarchaeological methodology, I intend to refine Bense’s original characterization of the subsistence practices of the people of Bird Hammock, and to use the Bird Hammock data to create a model of Middle to Late Woodland subsistence in the Gulf coastal zone. Middle Woodland sites such as Kolomoki, McKeithen, and Letchworth serve as examples of the level of political and ceremonial complexity that Swift Creek and Weeden Island cultures attained, while maintaining a subsistence base ostensibly lacking agriculture. These Middle Woodland ceremonial centers have received considerable research attention in recent years (Sears 1956; Pluckhahn 2003; Milanich et al. 1984, Tesar et al. 2003), but the researchers have specifically focused on the mounds and earthworks, rather than habitation areas (Anderson 1998:282). This is yet another reason why it is prudent to reexamine the Bird Hammock site. Seemingly occupied year round, Bird Hammock can be viewed as a small village with two adjacent burial mounds, and thus offers a glimpse of the daily lifeways of Late Swift Creek and Early Weeden Island peoples in the coastal zone. Along with Bird Hammock, work by Bense (1998) at the Bernath and Horseshoe Bayou sites and Snow (1977) in the Ocmulgee River Valley is correcting this bias in Middle Woodland studies. A second kind of bias involves the current heightened degree of interest among archaeologists in Mississippian culture and lifeways, but less concern for the cultural accomplishments that precede it. Mississippian cultures, however, cannot truly be examined without understanding the cultures and traditions that supported their

1 development. The Woodland period along the Gulf coast can be viewed as societies that maintained hunting and gathering – based economies and social systems, but at the same time adapted to the changes that occurred during this time period. Greater populations, heightened pressure on environmental resources, and greater spheres of contact all played a major role in the transition from Woodland to Mississippian cultures. In the Gulf coast region of Florida, however, hunting, gathering, and fishing played an important role up to the time of contact (Marrinan personal communication 2004). Through subsistence studies, models of Middle Woodland lifeways seem different from their agriculturally based Mississippian descendants, in that Swift Creek and Weeden Island cultures continued to rely on hunting, gathering, fishing, and perhaps cultivating certain plants. Milanich (1994:145) characterizes the subsistence practices of Swift Creek villages located in coastal salt marsh-tidal stream systems as focusing predominately on resources available in these locations. Phelps (in Milanich 1994: 145) estimated that 95 percent of their meat diet came from fish and shellfish and, like the preceding Deptford culture, they supplemented this fish/shellfish diet by hunting and collecting terrestrial animals. At Bird Hammock, Bense (1969:61) concluded that a wide range of faunal exploitation occurred. She suggested that fish constituted 50 percent of the total faunal remains, and were “the most abundant single source of food” (Bense 1969:61). At this point the reader expects research questions derived from the initial excavations and recovered fauna. However, because Bense’s faunal report was preliminary, and zooarchaeology was essentially in its infancy, the Bird Hammock faunal remains are treated as a sample that has never been analyzed. Bense’s ceramic and lithic analysis, however, provide an excellent chronological framework to anchor an in depth quantification of the faunal remains from Bird Hammock. Bense’s characterization of coastal subsistence as dominated by fish, and other Southeastern subsistence staples such as white-tailed deer, provides a starting point for further study. In this thesis, I examine these characterizations of Swift Creek and Weeden Island lifeways by analyzing and comparing the faunal assemblages from Bird Hammock to other contemporaneous sites using current zooarchaeological methods. Along with a Swift Creek component, Bird Hammock also has an Early Weeden Island occupation based on the pottery identified by Bense. Milanich (1997:12) feels that

2 the social systems, settlements, and subsistence achieved by Early Weeden Island groups served as a cultural environment that facilitated the evolution of Late Weeden Island culture and the adoption of traits identifiable as Mississippian. In some regions, Milanich (1997:12) views Late Weeden Island cultures as proto-Mississippian. In northwest Florida, Early Weeden Island settlement patterns closely resemble the preceding Swift Creek culture, although the number of sites increases (Milanich 1994:166) (Figure 1.1). Like Bird Hammock, a number of the Swift Creek sites

Figure 1.1. Early Weeden Island Sites in Northwest Florida (After Milanich 1994:165). excavated by Phelps and his students also contained evidence of Weeden Island occupations: Snow Beach (8Wa52), Hall Mound (8Wa4), and Nichols Mound (8Wa3). Comparative vertebrate and invertebrate faunal material from Snow Beach is used to aid in constructing a subsistence model for Bird Hammock, and more generally for the Apalachee Bay region of northwest Florida. Modeling the transition from Woodland to Mississippian culture through subsistence practices is a viable way to examine and assess culture change.

3 Using Mikell’s (1992, 2002) excavations and observations from 8Ok5, certain questions arise. Mikell establishes a pattern of subsistence dominated by estuarine and marine fish for Weeden Island sites in the western portion of the panhandle. He (Mikell 1992:216) notes the common occurrence of deer and turtle at the site, and elevated presence of certain species in the features when compared to the general levels. Mikell (1992:216) feels that these areas of concentration suggest the remains of specific activities but that the majority of the midden is homogenous and clearly dominated by fish. This study examines the applicability of Mikell’s characterization of a Gulf coast subsistence pattern with local variability, and the features and level selected from the Bird Hammock faunal sample. The following is a summary of the information provided throughout this thesis by chapter. Chapter 2 presents a review of Swift Creek and Weeden Island cultures, as well as a theoretical overview of zooarchaeological methodology. It focuses on the chronology, types of settlements, ceramics, lithics, and burial traditions associated with these Middle to Late Woodland cultures. This chapter introduces zooarchaeological terminology and methodology used in the thesis, and examines the analytical processes. This chapter grounds the analysis of Bird Hammock fauna in anthropological, archaeological, and zooarchaeological practice. Chapter 3 discusses the natural and cultural environment of Bird Hammock. This chapter details the site’s geographic location and the environmental features of the locality. After the initial focus on the natural environment, this chapter presents the history of archaeological activity at the site from its first identification by C.B. Moore (1918) through the most recent excavations by Phelps and Bense (1969). This section of the chapter details field methodology and provides an initial characterization of the selected sample. This chapter also contains an overview of the features selected for analysis, and Bense’s (1969) interpretation of them, from both field documents and thesis data. Chapter 4 discusses both the vertebrate and invertebrate faunal sample from Bird Hammock. First, the specific features and levels selected for analysis are detailed. Information regarding provenience, context, and associations is provided. Field maps

4 drawn by Bense, feature summaries, and specific thoughts and comments drawn from her field notes are used. Chapter 5 reports the analysis of the faunal samples in basic categories of information: NISP, worked bone, burnt bone, estimates of biomass, and MNI. Additional data are also included on diversity and equitability measurements. A discussion of the faunal classes and their occurrence in the assemblages is also included. The environment and ecology of the animals represented are examined relative to Bird Hammock. Chapter 6 examines the findings relative to diet resource selection, environments exploited, and technology utilized at the site. Weapons, methods, and tools necessary to procure and process the animals present at the site are considered. This chapter concentrates on summarizing resource selection and diet, environmental exploitation, and technological requirements. The chapter concludes by proposing a model of the subsistence practices of Bird Hammock people. Chapter 7 presents a summary, along with conclusions, and recommendations for future research.

5 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE, METHOD, AND THEORY

Chronology and Culture History The Woodland Period The Woodland period (500 B.C. - A.D.1000) in Florida is typified by regional diversification, which also entails increased levels of sedentism, population, and social complexity. What truly defines Woodland cultures in Florida is the associated pottery. Scholars of the Woodland period have used the abundant pottery types as chronological markers. The Woodland period was a highly dynamic time, with developed interaction spheres both within Florida and throughout the Southeastern United States. This chapter examines Woodland chronology in Florida, and specifically examines the region of Northwest Florida, where Bird Hammock lies. The Deptford culture, an Early Woodland manifestation located along the Gulf coast of Florida and the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and northeast Florida, was one of the first post-Archaic regional cultures to be recognized by archaeologists (Milanich 1994:111). Deptford ceramics appeared around 500 B.C. and persisted until A.D. 100-300 (Stephenson et al. 2002:318). Milanich describes these as sites having been mainly coastal settlements, with related interior sites for special resource procurement (Milanich 1994:114). Models of Deptford social organization have suggested that interrelated groups or families inhabited clustered households or villages or, as Milanich infers, these groupings represent lineage membership (Milanich 1994:125). In certain parts of Florida, Early Swift Creek pottery coexisted with Deptford around 100 A.D. and lasted in northwest Florida until around A.D. 600 (Stephenson et al. 2002). In northwest Florida, Swift Creek culture develops around A.D. 150-350. Milanich (1994:144) cautions, however, that the exact temporal relationship of Deptford, Swift Creek, and Weeden Island cultures in the panhandle of Florida requires further investigation. In Florida, it is with Swift Creek culture that villages were established in greater numbers in the interior forests and river valleys of the panhandle. Swift Creek sites are identified by the presence of elaborate curvilinear complicated stamped pottery. Although the pottery has a wide distribution in Florida, the large villages predominately occur in the panhandle (Milanich 1994:142). Snow and Stephenson (1998:98) and

6 Saunders (1986) believe that the iconography of Swift Creek pottery, and the distinctive paddles associated with the decorative technique, provide information on social interaction and geographic exchange. In terms of technology, Swift Creek peoples produced a greater variety of bone and stone tools than the preceding Deptford culture (Milanich 1994:145).

Figure 2.1. Deptford, Swift Creek, and Santa Rosa Swift Creek Sites in Northwest Florida (After Milanich 1994:121).

From the excavations conducted by Phelps, Bense, and Penton, Swift Creek settlements have been grouped into three environmental settings. The first are the inland villages found in the river valley forests and the interior of northwest Florida. These inland village sites usually consist of horseshoe-shaped or circular middens, along with burial mounds (Milanich 1994:144). The second and third environmental settings are in the coastal zone. The second resembles the inland circular midden and usually contains marine fish and shellfish in addition to other materials. Bird Hammock falls into this

7 category. The third type of site is the coastal linear shell midden, seemingly special use sites for collecting shellfish or fishing (Milanich 1994:145). The larger middens, like Bird Hammock, were likely villages that were occupied year round. Weeden Island in Florida is viewed not as a single culture, but rather as a culture with essentially five regional variants: Northwest, McKeithen, North Peninsular Coast, Cades Pond, and Manasota (Figure 2.1). Milanich (1994:160) views Weeden

Figure 2.2. Weeden Island Cultures (After Milanich 1994:161).

Island cultures in Florida as related but geographically separated cultures. These cultures shared elements of social and ideological life, as evidenced by similar mound assemblages, but differed in environmental adaptations and subsistence patterns. In 1949 Gordon Willey’s Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast included a description of Weeden Island culture primarily based on the information gathered earlier by C.B. Moore (1901) and Jesse Fewkes (1924). Using the classic Weeden Island ceramic complex as a defining characteristic, it is possible to outline an extensive geographical region in which specific

8 ceramic types are found in both mound and village contexts. In Florida, Early Weeden Island ceramics appear to develop out of the preceding Swift Creek ceramic complex around A.D. 200 in the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola river drainages. A number of sites in Northwest Florida demonstrate a gradual replacement of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped pottery by the incised and punctated style associated with Weeden Island pottery. This continuity is evidenced by the presence of complicated stamping throughout most if not all of the Early Weeden Island period. By A.D. 200-1000, Weeden Island culture spanned northwest to north Florida, and along the Gulf Coast south to Tampa Bay. Much of the recent work on Weeden Island sites in coastal northwest Florida has been conducted by Greg Mikell. According to Mikell (2000:151), Weeden Island culture is the hallmark of the Middle to Late Woodland period on the northern Gulf Coast of Florida, and is traditionally dated from as early as A.D. 400 to about A.D. 1000. Weeden Island culture is best known for its exotic mortuary pottery and associated rituals, which included the construction of burial mounds. Willey (1949:100-101) defined Weeden Island ceramic assemblages as including a continuation of some earlier Santa Rosa and Swift Creek types as well as numerous new and distinctive types of sand tempered pottery. Mikell’s (2000:151) research has indicated that Weeden Island describes several distinct regional ceramic series, if not cultures, that shared similar basic ceramic and ceremonial complexes related to the Yent-Green Point complex of Northwest Florida. He proposes that the Weeden Island ceremonial complex may have been related to specific social and political patterns leading to the advent of chiefdoms. Mississippian cultures, however, did not develop in all of the regions of Weeden Island culture. Although the regions shared Weeden Island pottery, and were therefore grouped as Weeden Island regional cultures, they did not necessarily share economic and subsistence strategies (Mikell 2000:151). Weeden Island culture in northwest Florida is viewed as a fluorescence of earlier Woodland period ceremonial, mortuary, and exchange traditions. Similar to earlier cultures, it indicates a basic sociopolitical pattern that was related to a hunting-gathering-horticultural-fishing adaptation on the Gulf Coastal Plain (Mikell 2000:152).

9 To conclude, in northwest Florida, Deptford and Swift Creek cultures eventually evolved into the Weeden Island culture. It is suggested that geographical location allowed Deptford peoples to participate in trade exchanges with other groups of the period including Tchefuncte to the west, Woodland peoples to the north such as Adena, Hopewell, Cartersville, Copena, and the cultures of southern Florida (Milanich 1994:133). It is most likely that Hopewellian societies to the north sought access to goods from Florida and vice versa. Florida marine products have been found at sites throughout the Midwest as well as among other southeastern societies. These assertions are particularly true for Busycon shells that could be traded for northern copper, stone, and ceramic items (Milanich 1994:134). The 2000-year span of the Woodland period was one in which major changes occurred in the southeast, particularly in burial patterns, long distance trade and exchange, mound ceremonialism, community organization and political leadership (Anderson 2000:19). The Woodland cultures of Florida existed within this cultural environment. Methodological and Theoretical Overview Introduction By examining the history of zooarchaeology, it is clear that the methodology and theory associated with the field have grown through time. Hawkes’ (1954) “Ladder of Inference” epitomizes the role of zooarchaeology or studies of subsistence archaeology in the early twentieth century. According to Hawkes, inferences regarding subsistence- economics of human groups are innately obvious. He views this rung on his ladder of inference as elementary; “its logic is simple and need never be anything but straightforward” (Hawkes 1954:161). Hawkes differentiates this level from sociopolitical and religious inferences, which range from hard to incomprehensible. Although I believe that on the surface subsistence-economy inferences may differ from these “higher” level inferences, I do not view them as limited to low-level. In my opinion, subsistence data represent a definitive way to model higher level inferences. Studies in subsistence and economy can lead to inferences about socio-political institutions and religions, and used in this manner, it is clear that they are more complex than Hawkes’ ladder allows.

10 Faunal Remains and Archaeological Theory Throughout this chapter, I will examine the role of subsistence studies, as well as the methodology and theory that accompany faunal studies. Subsistence systems involve at the very least, the interaction of humans, technology, and floral and faunal resources (Lyman 1982:331). Further, subsistence studies require an examination of the archaeological record, and the natural environments to which the subsistence pursuits of people are related (Lyman 1982:345). Combining these two aspects of the faunal record, archaeologists are given insight into a distinct arena of past lifeways from which specific inferences can be made. To derive these inferences, archaeologists use varying methods of analysis. Yellen (1977) outlines two stages of faunal analysis: classification and interpretation. Classification is the manipulation of results to determine either patterns or irregularities. Interpretation involves a leap of faith, in which an attempt is made to explain observed results in cultural terms. This interpretive leap of faith can range from Hawkes’ low-level inference (i.e., I infer from this cracked deer femur that these people ate deer) to higher-level inferences (i.e., from the percentage of shark remains found at this site, I can infer that this culture was processing shark teeth for trade purposes). I believe that faunal remains, as archaeological phenomena, can, through inference, provide tangible evidence of subsistence, economy, social and political organization, as well as information regarding ceremonial and religious behavior. When Hawkes was writing fifty years ago, subsistence remains were a level 2 inference, which meant they were fairly easy to discern. Today, with the advances in studies of subsistence remains, archaeologists are not limited to low-level inferences. Lucretia Kelly (2002:257), for example, found that the faunal remains from Mound 51 at Cahokia included large quantities of deer, swan, and prairie chicken. From this evidence, she proposed feasting, elite consumption, and in the case of the presence of swan, processing for feathers. Archaeologists have been able to infer ceremonial and religious beliefs from subsistence remains. Prior to building models from the data, however, an understanding of the terminology associated with zooarchaeological methodology is necessary. The following section examines the terms utilized in this thesis through definitions and critiques.

11 Methodology (NISP, MNI, and Biomass) Introduction The methodology of zooarchaeology begins with an essential understanding of the terms used to quantify and compare faunal remains. A zooarchaeological study consists of three parts: identification, analysis, and interpretation (Reitz and Wing 1999:142). Clason’s (1972) definitions of primary and secondary data serve to distinguish between the identification and analysis stages in zooarchaeology. The identification stage can be equated with collecting primary data and the analytical stage with deriving secondary data. Primary data are facts that can be replicated by subsequent investigators, such as element representation and taxonomic identification. Secondary data include age classes, sex ratios, relative frequencies of taxa, butchering patterns dietary contributions, and procurement strategies. This information is derived from primary data by means of indices and other quantification techniques (Reitz and Wing 1999:142). Primary data may be viewed as more objective than secondary data which has an interpretive element. Primary and secondary data are akin to Lyman’s (1994) observational units or empirical manifestations and secondary data are analytical products. Key concepts utilized in this thesis are: number of individual specimens (NISP), minimum number of individuals (MNI), and biomass. The following discussion examines NISP, MNI and biomass through definitions and critiques. NISP Defined NISP is defined as the number of identified specimens per taxon. The NISP, or count, is fundamentally the beginning of any quantification of the data. It depends on recognition, generally using comparative specimens, of the element and most reasonable taxonomic assignment. As noted above, Lyman (1994:36) classifies NISP as an observational unit, in that it can be readily observed through counting taxa. As is evident in my data, the taxon can be a subspecies, species, genus, family, or a higher taxonomic category. As Lyman (1994:36-37) points out, when defining NISP the word “identified” must be clear. Typically, identified means identified to taxon. In her study of Near Eastern archaeological faunal remains, for example, Zeder (1978:69-70) indicates that identifiable bones are those which can be identified on a firm morphological or metrical basis at least to the taxonomic level of subfamily, if not to the level of genus or species.

12 Often times, “identified” can also mean identified to skeletal element, such as a humerus, a tibia, a thoracic vertebra, or a vertebra (Lyman 1994:38). Lyman suggests that with each assignment of NISP to taxa, another assignment is made as to what part of the specimen is represented. This is because it is typically necessary to identify the skeletal element represented by a specimen prior to identifying the taxon represented by a specimen. Thus the meaning of “identified” as identified to taxon usually also implies the identification of the skeletal element (Lyman1994:39). When examining a small mammal radius, for example, the assignment of radius and Fox squirrel (Scurius niger) can be made. When determining NISP in my analysis, I identified both taxon level and type of specimen as well as assigning side (left or right), and region (e.g. proximal, medial, or distal). NISP Critique Throughout the history of zooarchaeological research, the major goal of quantifying faunal remains has typically been to measure the relative abundances of different taxa. This is why zooarchaeologists most often define NISP as identifiable to taxon rather than, identifiable to skeletal element. However, NISP is often criticized as a potentially inaccurate measure of the relative abundances of taxa because it does not account for intertaxonomic variation in the fragmentation of skeletal elements. Recognition of some skeletal elements are easier than others. Mullet vertebrae, for example, are easily identifiable but other vertebrae are not as recognizable. These factors have prompted some researchers to seek analytical controls for the potentially biasing effects of taphonomic processes, or skill level of the analyst, on this traditionally used quantitative unit (Lyman 1994:39). For critiques on solely basing relative abundance estimates on NISP, Grayson (1984:20) cites 11 popular criticisms. The first is that NISP is affected by butchering patterns: some animals are butchered on the spot and only certain portions brought back to the main camp, but others may be brought back whole. Second, variations in the number of identified specimens can simply be attributed to the ability of the analyst, because some species are simply more recognizable than others. Third, sometimes processing techniques are represented rather than the actual number of specimens, for example, Grayson (1984:21) notes that “a butchering technique that partitioned the bones

13 of large mammals into more pieces than the bones of small ones, would provide specimen per-taxon counts that reflected butchering techniques more than they reflected the numbers of the animals that contributed to the fauna.” Fourth, preservation definitively affects the NISP so that the faunal sample studied by an analyst does not necessarily reflect what was originally consumed at the site (Grayson 1984:21). Fifth, NISP biases overall abundance when “200 elements of a single skeleton are present versus specific bones, such as 200 right femora.” Sixth, NISP can be problematic in that it can inflate statistics. Seventh, all faunal samples are biased by collection techniques (i.e., larger screen equals larger specimens) (Grayson 1984:22). Eighth, NISP “cannot address questions of biomass, and meat weights are often of far greater importance in examining prehistoric economies than is the number of bones by which a given taxon is represented (Grayson 1984:22).” In other words bone counts “may bear little relationship to the dietary contribution made by specific taxa (Grayson 1984:23).” Ninth, NISP is not valid for making comparisons between faunas (Grayson 1984:23). Tenth, NISP does not allow for further analytic techniques. And finally, there is a potential for interdependence (Grayson 1984:23). In what I view as a very important cautionary note, Grayson (1984:24) adds, “because criticisms of specimen counts developed largely after minimum numbers had become widely accepted, and were thus primarily used to justify minimum numbers rather than to build a new set of methods from the ground up, a simple list of the most common objections strongly implies that specimen counts are more troublesome than they really are.” Ultimately, the main bias in using solely NISP is that the numbers of bone fragments may have little to do with past human behavior (Reitz 1978:33). Nevertheless, NISP remains an actively used means of quantifying data, and is used as a primary means of identification. Acknowledging the physical bias, that is, some animals have more bones than others, and the bias introduced by the analyst’s ability, NISP is useful as a measure of relative presence in a sample. MNI Defined MNI is the term for the minimum number of individual animals represented in a set of identified faunal remains. It is a derived measurement because it may or may not take individual variation such as age, sex, or size into account. MNI is, in Hawkes

14 terminology, a higher level inference, and Lyman considers it derived because there are various ways with which to determine MNI, such as symmetry, size, sex, and age. In the Bird Hammock faunal sample, MNI calculations for invertebrates (shellfish) proved more difficult. For each species, I essentially used a different measurement. For Rangia and Polymesoda, I was able to determine MNI by distinguishing between left and right and ultimately size. With the Melongena and Busycon, I determined MNI through counting the number of columellas. For the Crassostrea spp., I distinguished between left and right valves and then size. Many of the oyster remains from the site were highly fragmented. For Argopecten, initially determinations of MNI seemed difficult. Unlike the other shell specimens there were no telltale features to aid determination. Deducing MNI for shellfish can be rather tricky and with the bay scallop, Abbot et al. (1968:210) suggested that left and right can be discriminated because the left side is visibly deeper than the right. MNI Critique MNI is often critiqued because it can be easily biased by sample size, especially when an analyst decides to compile or aggregate data sets. As Grayson (1984:29) notes, “if all the faunal material from a site is to be treated as a single large aggregate, the most abundant element will be defined once per taxon for that collection; however, as the collection is divided into smaller and smaller aggregates of faunal material, the number of separate specifications of most abundant elements will increase.” In other words, MNI values are determined by the choices made by the analyst concerning how faunal materials should be aggregated prior to minimum number calculation. As a result, when an analyst studies MNI values, that person is studying not only taxonomic abundances but also the decisions made concerning aggregation (Grayson 1984:49). Further Reitz (1978:35) points out that MNI is an index that highlights small species over large, and has been argued to not be a reliable indicator of dietary contribution. Reitz (1978:35) explains this by noting “although a site may yield an MNI of 10 mullets versus only 1 deer, the deer, if consumed entirely on the spot, undoubtedly contributed more meat than did the fish.” MNI is also based upon the assumption that the entire individual was used at the site and not parceled out, and as a result ignores what portions of the animal were used by differing members of society. For certain species

15 such as gars, snakes, and turtles, Reitz (1978:35) notes “these are usually represented by nonpaired elements such as scales, vertebrae, and carapace fragments, and estimating MNI for these cases is usually a challenge.” Ultimately MNI, along with NISP, should not solely be used to determine taxonomic abundance at a given site, and does not necessarily reflect past human behavior. Biomass Defined As Wing and Brown (1979:126) state, one of the main goals of zooarchaeological studies is to understand and establish a pattern of prehistoric subsistence strategies. Along with identifying the kinds of animals utilized, comes the question of how much food the animals can provide, which leads to differing techniques for estimating the biomass contributions of animals. Although there have been various methods for estimating biomass (i.e. White 1953), I utilized a method based on allometric scaling. In this study, biomass is defined as an estimate of the meat-weight contribution of a specific taxon using allometric scaling from the weight of identified remains (Reitz et al. 1987). This estimate, or skeletal mass allometry, is based on the relationship that exists between the weight of supporting tissue and the total body weight (Wing and Brown 1979:127). Studies by Reitz et al. (1987) have correlated body weight with the skeletal weight of a number of taxonomic groups. I utilized these published taxonomic skeletal weights from Reitz and Wing (1999). Biomass Critique Problems in applying this method of biomass estimates do exist. Wing and Brown (1979:127) note that one of the problems in establishing the relationship between skeletal weight and body weight is that the two are not directly proportional. They (Wing and Brown 1979:127) state, “In other words, an animal half the body weight of another does not have a skeletal weight that is half the skeletal weight of the larger; therefore, if one has half the skeleton of an animal, the resulting body-weight estimate will not be exactly half the total body weight.” A second critique involves the quality of the bones in question. If the bone is dirty, mineralized, or calcined, these changes directly affect bone weight, which in turn influences the accuracy of the biomass estimate because it relies entirely on the relationship between skeletal weight and body weight (Wing and Brown 1979:129).

16 Conclusion Use of NISP, MNI, or biomass estimates, typically accompany the analytical goal of assessing human subsistence practices or paleoenvironmental conditions. Given the manner in which the research questions are generally phrased, measuring relative abundances of taxa is logically one of the primary analytical goals. In this case, the units of quantification are meant to determine how many (NISP, MNI) or how much (biomass) of each taxon is represented in a collection of animal remains (Lyman 1994:48). Archaeologists working with faunal assemblages are interested in deriving dietary information and determining the importance of various species as a base from which to model past human lifeways. Zooarchaeologist’s, therefore, are interested in quantifying faunal remains using various measurements that provide different data. The faunal materials in my sample were rough sorted and the elements were preliminarily identified by Dr. Marrinan and me. Identifications were made using the Zooarchaeological comparative collections of Florida State University, and the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory of the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida. Bone weights were recorded for all of the specimens in each taxon using an O-haus electronic balance. Estimates of MNI were made based on paired elements, axial elements, and size. Biomass estimates were calculated, along with counts of worked and burnt bone.

17 CHAPTER THREE: THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT AT BIRD HAMMOCK

The Natural Environment, Location, and Features of Site Locality Bird Hammock is located in Wakulla County, Florida. It is situated in the Gulf Coastal Lowlands physiographic zone, which extends along the west coast of the peninsula from the northwest to the south. The site lies on an elevated plateau of irregular, alternate tracts of open pine, dense oak and hickory, and hammock forests. Platt and Schwartz (1990:212) describe the low coastal hammocks of Wakulla County as being dominated by evergreen oaks, palms, and loblolly pine, with the epiphytic species overrun by Spanish moss. Bird Hammock (8Wa30) lies 1.5 miles from the Wakulla River, a large spring fed river (Bense 1969:18). The Bird Hammock site is located in a predominately flatwoods environment. Figure 3.1 illustrates the appearance of the site locale. Abrahamson and Hartnett (1990:105) describe flatwoods as being “characterized by a relatively open overstory of pines, an extensive low shrub stratum, and a variable and often sparse herbaceous layer.” Flatwoods can range from dense, closed canopies to a more open savanna-like environment (Abrahamson and Harnett 1990:105). They occur throughout the southeastern coastal plain and cover approximately 50 percent of the land area of Florida. Flatwoods are present in the northern Gulf Coast region, which includes Dixie, Lafayette, Taylor, Wakulla, Liberty, Franklin, Gulf and Bay counties. According to Abrahamson and Harnett (1990:106), individual stands may compromise thousands of hectares, often forming an extensive matrix interspersed with smaller, often isolated, cypress heads, bayheads, hammocks, marshes, or wet prairies, or regions of upland sandhill or sand pine scrub. The flatwoods environment is home to a number of vertebrates: pine woods snake, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, black racer, brown-headed nuthatch, the threatened red- cockaded woodpecker, Bachman’s sparrow, pine warbler, great horned owl, least shrew, cotton mouse, cotton rat, and grey fox (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990:116). Although many differing species inhabit the flatwoods environment, no mammal is entirely exclusive to the flatwoods, although the fox squirrel (prevalent in the Bird Hammock sample) prefers flatwoods with an open understory (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990:116).

Figure 3.1. Mound B and Surrounding Vegetation (Phelps Photo # 15-3 FSU Department of Anthropology Archaeological Collections).

Three large mammals native to Florida use the flatwoods: the white-tailed deer, black bear, and the endangered Florida panther (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990:116). Forney (1985) has highlighted the previous biases by archaeologists regarding settlement within the flatwoods. They have traditionally been characterized as inhospitable, and were described as being covered in dense vegetation and perennially soggy grounds. Forney (1985:98), however, noted “archaeological surveys in the pine flatwoods, have revealed that this environment is sufficient to maintain an extensive if not intensive prehistoric population, as indicated by the presence of Archaic through Late Woodland remains.” Given the large number of Weeden Island sites located in flatwoods environments, Forney feels that this culture flourished in this environment and sought it out.

19 In addition to the flatwoods, and dry prairies, low coastal hammocks are also present in Wakulla County (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990:117). The low coastal hammocks in the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge of Wakulla and Jefferson counties, are dominated by evergreen oaks, palms, and loblolly pines (Platt and Schwartz 1990:213). Bird Hammock is also located 2 miles from the coast, with the flatwoods giving way to low scrub oak, and rosemary (Johnson and Barbour 1990:462). Johnson and Barbour (1990:468-473) discuss animals dependent on beaches. Of the animals listed, sea turtles are the only species present in the Bird Hammock faunal sample. According to Johnson and Barbour (1990:468) sea turtles spend most of their lives at sea, but depend on beaches for nesting sites. Loggerheads and greens nest from May through August while leatherbacks nest earlier, beginning in February (Johnson and Barbour 1990:469). Tagging projects have shown that adult females not only return to the same beaches but also nest several times in one season and then skip two or three years before nesting again (Johnson and Barbour 1990:469). In addition to flatwoods and coastal ecosystems, Bird Hammock is also located near salt marshes. Florida’s salt marshes are coastal ecosystems with communities of salt- tolerant plants occupying intertidal zones that are occasionally inundated by salt water (Montague and Wiegert 1990:481). Montague and Wiegert (1990:495) note that the animal species that have adapted to the salt marsh conditions are often abundant, and thus animal production is high in salt marshes, but diversity is low (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Salt Marsh Food Chain (After Montague and Wiegert 1990:495).

20 A number of species in the Bird Hammock faunal sample are indigenous to the salt marsh. These include raccoons, marsh rabbits, clapper rails, diamondback terrapin and cotton rats. The food and cover available in salt marshes and creeks are used by juvenile estuarine fish and shellfish found in coastal habitats as adults (Montague and Wiegert 1990:496). The Bird Hammock faunal assemblage incorporates animal species from each of these varying ecosystems. The inhabitants of Bird Hammock had knowledge of and access to these environments. Food could have been gathered by hand, hunted on foot, or taken by the use of waterborne craft. Dugout canoes were present in Florida at Newnans Lake at least by Middle to Early Archaic times (Wheeler et al. 2003). The residents of Bird Hammock could have used watercraft to access freshwater, riverine, salt marsh, and even coastal locations. Bird Hammock Site History This thesis presents an analysis and interpretation of faunal material from the Bird Hammock site (8Wa30), excavated by Bense in 1968, under the direction of David S. Phelps of Florida State University. The site was originally investigated by C.B. Moore in 1918. Gordon Willey conducted excavations at the site in 1940, Hale G. Smith in 1950, G.T. Allen in 1953, and Rhodes Holliman in 1959. Moore (1918:561) accessed the site by landing on the west bank of the Wakulla River, and walking inland 2 miles. Moore focused on the two burials mounds at the site which he designated Mounds A and B. Moore (1918:561) described digging into the entire eastern half of Mound A. There were numerous pottery deposits (Figure 3.3) and 15 burials (Moore 1918:562). Moore (1918:563) also opened trenches in Mound B and noted 15 burials in this mound as well. A number of these burials had accompanying artifacts. Moore (1918:564) characterized the area where the midden ring exists generally, stating “the humps, rises, and low ridges between the two mounds proved to be places of abode, the sand being black from admixture of organic matter and containing quantities of marine shells, mainly oyster, fish bones, turtle shell, bits of earthenware, and being without burials so far as investigated.” The midden was described by Allen (1954:77) as kitchen refuse scattered near the burial mounds. G.T. Allen conducted tests of the midden with four small excavation units

21 in 1954. Holliman, in a 1968 article discusses his excavations into Mound B and builds upon information gained from Moore and Willey. Holliman confirmed the presence of Late Swift Creek and Early Weeden Island pottery. He also excavated what he described as a cache of projectile points placed in a Weeden Island effigy pot, and recovered cut mica, and a greenstone celt. Bense’s investigations and topographic map indicated that the midden consisted of a circular ring enclosing a level plaza concurring with Allen’s (1954) observations. When Moore (1918) described the site, he noted that the north mound (Figure 3.3), Mound A, was 8.5 ft high and 66 ft in basal diameter. The base was described as circular but nothing else was said of the mound shape. The two pottery specimens noted by Moore were Weeden Island Incised and Weeden Island Plain. The southern mound (Figure 3.3), Mound B, was described by Moore (1918) as 6.0 ft high and 56x75 ft at the base. In addition to the two mounds, Allen (1954:64) described the site as consisting of a circular refuse midden approximately 100 yards in diameter enclosing a level central plaza area. He mentioned a distinct opening in the south quadrant and second possible opening in the north. Allen (1954:64) concluded that the average elevation of the midden was four feet, with the 2 burial mounds located north and south of the midden. Two ramps, one on the southeast and one on the southwest joined the mound at half its height. In 1959 Holliman resurveyed Mound B, and reported on a small number of artifacts excavated during his salvage excavation. Holliman (1968:66) noted, “it would appear from our limited survey that the aboriginals constructed a primary mound about 2 feet above the forest floor into which they placed their mortuary offerings. Beach sand was then deposited on the primary mound to form the present elevation and burials and additional offerings were deposited therein.” Bense determined that the outside dimensions of the circular ridge were 560 ft E-W and 480 ft N-S, with the enclosed area being 240 ft E-W and 300 ft N-S (Figure 3.3). She noted that the fill of the circular ring differed in the various sections tested. The excavation units located in the north and east had the most concentrated shell midden fill. 160L45 and -160L110, there was thick midden, but only 45- ٱ In the southern portion, at 160L100 the fill was merely loose sandy midden with no shell at all (Bense- ٱ ft away at

Figure 3.3. Bird Hammock Site Map (From Bense 1969:80-81).

23 1969:19). Bense (1969:3) determined that the site was first settled by people with the Swift Creek II mode of ceramic decoration. An Overview of the Excavation and Recovery Techniques By examining pottery chronology, Bense’s thesis (1969:1) focused on establishing the chronology of the Bird Hammock site and its “position in the cultural prehistory of the area.” Bense, and later Dan Penton (1970), determined that Bird Hammock contained Early Swift Creek to Early Weeden Island cultural components as established by the pottery typology. Penton (1970) concentrated on the earlier Swift Creek occupation, but I am examining the Later Swift Creek and Early Weeden Island occupation of the site, on which Bense concentrated. Bense (1969:49) explains that “all of the faunal remains from Bird Hammock were obtained by the use of one-quarter inch screens, and in only one square (-160L45) was the fauna completely analyzed, while in the other units the material was arbitrarily divided into small and large fragments with only the latter category analyzed at the time.” Given the large amount of fish remains recovered from the site, Bense (1969:52) notes, “complete identification could not be made of fish remains due to a lack of comparative material or a qualified person available to identify them.” During excavation, Bense identified eight features. She concluded that seven evidenced “firing of clay and sand during the course of probable cooking activities (1969:22).” She felt that Features 1, 2, 3, and 4, were related as indicated by the fact that in this particular area cooking activity was concentrated over a long span of time based on the pottery associated with this cluster of features (Bense 1969:22). The majority of the ceramics recovered were Swift Creek II but she also noted that a number of Early Weeden Island examples were present. Bense (1969:24) concluded, “From these features it can be seen that the major activity at this midden ring was the use of fire for cooking and other related activities.” She also believed that this pattern was similar to evidence recovered in the midden ring at the Snow Beach site (8Wa52). This site was also excavated by Phelps and students, and some of its fauna was more recently examined by John Byrd (1994). Using this information, I selected features 1 through 4 from the collections housed at Florida State University, which are bagged using the provenience information from

24 Bense’s 1969 excavations. I chose features 1 through 4 because of their relationship to one another, and because of the copious amount of data available on the excavation of each feature in the field journals and data forms. Bense and her fellow excavators kept daily field notes and made detailed maps that aided in reconstructing how and where the faunal remains were collected. Along with Features 1-4, one comparative level (level 5 of 160L45) was also selected for analysis. The following chapter further details the- ٱ selected features and level.

25 CHAPTER FOUR: THE SELECTED FAUNAL SAMPLE

A series of features, 1-4, from excavation squares -160L45 and -150L45 were chosen for analysis. These excavation units were located in the southern portion of the midden, where Bense (1969:19) noted thick midden occurred. These series of features were chosen because of their unique relationship to one another (detailed below) and the amount of material each feature contained. The detailed information provided in Bense’s field notes also influenced my decision to select these specific features. She discussed the complexity in excavating these units, and felt that the features in these units were associated cooking activities for a single large meal or multiple meals (Bense 1968:67). In October of 1968, Bense began her excavations by opening the -160L45 unit. 160L45 (Figure 4.1) and Features 1, 2, and 3, Bense began-ٱ After initially excavating

Figure 4.1. Excavation Unit -160L45 Level 5 South Profile (Bense Photo # 34-64 FSU Department of Anthropology Archaeological Collections).

work on Feature 4 in November. Feature 4 was an extremely complex midden with what Bense describes as pits. To truly define Feature 4, she opened up a 10 X 5 ft square, 160L45, and in this new square -150L45, Bense was further able to define- ٱadjacent to up to 5 pits within Feature 4. My analysis focuses on the fauna from these four Features

26 and a comparative 6 inch level from square -160L45. The following discussion provides information about provenience, context, and the conditions of removal, from Bense’s field notes, and the appended field data forms (Appendix A-D). Feature 1 160L45 and noted that this unit was located in an area- ٱ Bense (1968:67) opened of thick shell midden (Bense 1968:67). On October 13, 1968 she (1968:73) stated, “In - 160L45 a burned area with a concentration of Pecten (scallop) shells was noted in the SE corner (Figure 4.3). Much bone -- deer and turtle, is associated with it. It is called Feature

Figure 4.2. Feature 1(-160L45) Showing Scapula and Vertebrae (Bense Photo # 34-8 FSU Department of Anthropology Archaeological Collections).

1 (Figure 4.2).” On her Feature Data Form (Appendix A) Bense recorded the following information: “This Feature was relatively isolated and within the shell midden. It was a Pecten sp. concentration with cooked bone and burned sand. This is believed to be a primary cooking pit consisting mainly of scallop shells and cooked deer and turtle bones. The burned sand was hard and definitely fired and orange. Artifacts such as sherds or tools were not in any particular order. The sherds were all Swift Creek and plain, thus this pit was probably done by the Swift Creek people. The bone was all cooked and consisted of deer, turtle, fish, and bird.”

Figure 4.3. Excavation Unit -160L45 Feature 1 Level 2 (Bense Official Plots 1968).

Feature 2 Bense (1968:83-84) described her approach to Feature 2 (Figure 4.4) in her field notes, “Tried to define Feature 1 and cleaned the whole square. All the floor is turning grey and 2 areas of clay have appeared. Took out Feature 1 and in taking out the remainder of the midden, a conch concentration with a deer scapula and broken humerus was found. Just found it and had to go.” She returned on October 24, 1968 and “Cleaned up Feature 2 (conch concentration) and it contained a scapula and humerus of a deer and many fragments. It was a dump from a meal. Also another humerus and scapula but they weren’t in the conchs. Cleaned, photographed and plotted this (Bense 1968:85-86).” On the Feature Data Form for Feature 2 (Appendix B) Bense noted: “Perhaps this (Feature 2) was related to Feature 1, but they were not directly contingent. It was not thick, but rather wide. The conch shells were the clue and troweling around them resulted in the finding this cooking area. This was not a fired area in the sense that a fire was made here, rather it is a dumping from a cooking event. The food consisted of deer, turtle, fish, and birds. 2 tools also accompanied the dumpings, a chopper and a blade fragment.”

160L45) Shell and Bone Concentration (Bense Official Plot- ٱ) Figure 4.4. Feature 2 1968).

Feature 3 On November 8, 1968 Bense (1968:108), “Took out Feature 3 (Figure 4.5) a cooking pit which was used and then abandoned -- to the bottom of level 4 (2.0 ft).” Because of its proximity, she felt that Feature 3 was most likely related to Feature 4 and that it was also a primary use pit. On the Feature Data Form (Appendix C) Bense noted, “The sand was fired so hard it looked like sandstone. Perhaps this was the cooking pit for the remains found in Features 1 and 2.”

.160L45) Burned Area-) ٱ Figure 4.5. Feature 3

Feature 4 160L45. Bense- ٱ Feature 4 (Figure 4.6) was an extremely complex area within (1968:93) noted, “The fired area will be called Feature 4-- an extended cooking pit with small pockets of midden within it called ‘pits.’” Bense (1968:93) ultimately decided to extend the excavation square north to “fully define the cooking pit,” and described the excavations as follows: “Opened square -150L45, a 10 by 5 rectangle today, mainly to come down on Feature 4 -- the cooking pit. Took off root and humus and then level 1(0- .5). At the bottom of level 1 a light grey area above Feature 4 was noticed, while the rest of the square was a darker grey. This light grey area was left pedestalled in order to better define it and the rest of the level was taken out. Fired clay and charcoal are beginning to outline Feature 4 in this square. Another ‘pit’ was found associated with it, as well as 2 more scapulas. Found 4 fired clay areas immediately. In the NE corner an area of red sand, charcoal, and associated deer bone was noticed and plotted. It was designated pit 4 of Feature 4. It was a shallow cooking pit. It seems that there was an area of clay dumping in the Feature -- not thick, but still there (Bense 1968:99).”

Figure 4.6. Feature 4 (-150L45) Level 4 Showing Numerous Pits and Burned Areas (Bense Official Plot 1968).

On the Feature 4 Data Form (Appendix D), Bense (1968) fully outlines Feature 4 and its relationship to Features 1-3: “This Feature was a cooking pit, refuse area and fired area that I am sure was associated with the other 4 Features in this square. This one was used over an extended period of time. This was very hard to define or even describe. It was full of orange colored fired sand, which was the key most of the time. The clay areas were unique and many. The fired clay area # 2 was a clay basin and of dominant yellow clay. The sherds were all orange in that basin. An area of white sand ran through it in the middle and I cannot explain it as of yet. It was seen at 8.7 cm. and went into the sterile undersand and expanded as it went down. Perhaps this is fill, but it was banded with clay in profile and never had any artifacts in it. The outline was always hazy, at least as far as the general Feature goes. I think that the most plausible explanation for this Feature and

31 the others associated with it is that pits were dug for refuse (Feature 4 and its 5 associated pits) from the cooking in Feature 3. Features 1 and 2 were merely dumpings from meals. Feature 4 was a deep pit and it has besides all the clay, ashes, and animal remains, very different type sherds. They were Swift Creek and Weeden Island but had interesting ways of decoration. From the artifactual content this pit was a long used one and reflects the different cultural traditions present there.” Lab and Analysis Methods -ٱ After selecting the four features discussed above, I also chose a level from 160L45 for comparative purposes. Level 5 is below Features 1-4 in -160L45. Although Bense and her fellow excavators made explicit notes detailing their excavations, there was no field specimen catalog. I assigned Field Specimen numbers to the sample selected for analysis (Appendix 5) to maintain the way in which the artifacts from Bird Hammock had been originally bagged. For example, plotted bone from Feature 2 was bagged separately from the rest of the feature fill. The Field Specimen data forms used were those used by Florida State University when conducting excavations. Therefore, FS numbers 1-15 were assigned, although each feature is comprised of a number of FS’s. Table 4.1 lists the various features and the corresponding Field Specimen numbers assigned (Appendix E). When analyzing the sample, however, it became clear that compiling the FS numbers provided a more accurate picture of the features themselves.

Table 4.1. Assigned Field Specimen Numbers.

Feature/Level Corresponding FS Number 1 1 2 3 2 4 5 6 7 3 8 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 Level 5 9

32 CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS

Introduction All bone fragments from the selected level and features were analyzed for this study. Each bone was examined for evidence of modification such as working, butchering, or heat alteration. Where possible, determinations were made as to the side of the body (left or right), as well as the portion of the element (proximal, medial, distal) represented. The zooarchaeological comparative skeletal collection of Florida State University was initially used for comparative purposes, but some specimens were set aside as unidentifiable. These bones were bagged individually, with all provenience information maintained, and taken to the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory of the Florida Museum of Natural History for further analysis. The extensive type collection there, and the help of Irv Quitmyer, assisted in making further identifications. The Ornithology collection, and the assistance of Dr. David Steadman, enabled avian identifications to be made. As each bone or shell was identified, the NISP count and bone weights were recorded for all of the specimens in each taxon on a species form. A description of alterations to the bone specimens, through modification or thermal altering, side and relative size, were also recorded on this form. Estimates of MNI were made based on paired elements, axial elements, and size. These data were entered into an Excel® spreadsheet (Hale and Marrinan 1987). Biomass was calculated using the published allometric regression formulas in Reitz and Wing (1999:72). The following discussion examines the NISP count, weight, biomass, number of burnt and worked bone, and MNI for each of the four features, and the single comparative level. A complete listing of all faunal remains identified in each feature and the level are included as appendices (6-10). A total of 9,904 bones was analyzed. Among these, 987 were burnt. Seven worked bone fragments were identified in the sample. The seven worked bones evidenced both butchering and modification for tool use. Because I selected features for study, the relatively high number of burned bone (10 percent of the total) may be a reflection of this choice. Bense (1969:23) specifically noted that there were numerous, distinct fired or

33 Table 5.1. Standard Analysis Measures for the Selected Bird Hammock Faunal Assemblages.

Estimated Midden Unit Projected Estimates Feature and Weight in Vertebrate Heat Worked or MNI MNI Depth Dimensions cubic NISP Invertebrate Level Grams Biomass in Altered Butchered Vertebrates Invertebrates in feet by feet Volume* Biomass in Grams Grams

Feature 1 0.3 4x3 4 851 2,143.7 6,375.5 246.6 53 - 34 106

Feature 2 0.3 5x4 6 1,373 3,242.5 8,429.2 452.1 45 1 50 72

Feature 3 1.99 3.4x4 27 426 326.5 2,090.6 39.3 80 1 15 7

Feature 4 2.32 12x10 278 1,836 3,020.3 15,310.8 322.9 325 3 47 93

Level 5 0.5 10x15 75 5,418 1,027.6 8,882.1 84.4 484 2 67 18

Totals - - - 9,904 9,760.6 41,088.2 1,145.3 987 7 213 296

*These values represent maximum projections.

34 burned areas in Feature 4. Table (5.1) provides a summary of the analysis for the selected Bird Hammock faunal sample. Feature 1 As noted earlier, Feature 1 (Table 5.2, Appendix F) is comprised of FS 1, 2, and 3. Table 5.2. Feature 1 Faunal Remains by Class.

Feature 1 Class Biomass in NISP MNI grams Mammals 24 2,842.7 2 Birds 1 18.5 1 Reptiles 60 1,627.9 6 Bony Fish 491 1,886.3 25 Unidentified 64 - - Vertebrates Totals 640 6,375.5 34 Shellfish 211 246.6 106 Burnt Bone 53 - -

The mammals represented in Feature 1 include Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus: NISP=1, MNI=1), and white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus: NISP=9, MNI=1). Feature 1 contains the only possible mammal commensal, the Hispid cotton rat. This rat is indigenous to Florida and often appears in prehistoric assemblages. The biomass percentage for mammals in Feature 1 is 44 percent. Mottled duck (Anas fulvigula: NISP=1, MNI=1) is the only bird present in Feature 1, and its biomass contribution is 0.3 percent. Sea turtles (NISP=21, MNI=1) were the most abundant reptile contributing 14 percent of the assemblage biomass. In addition, a number of other species of turtle are present, including mud or musk turtles (Kinosternidae: NISP=2, MNI=1), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina: NISP=7, MNI=1), diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin: NISP=2, MNI=1), and cooters and sliders (Trachemys spp.: NISP=3, MNI=1). Overall, turtles contributed 26 percent of the estimated biomass.

35 Fish were numerous in Feature 1. The species present in Feature 1 include gar (Lepisosteus spp.: NISP=7, MNI=1), bowfin (Amia calva: NISP=1, MNI=1), lady fish (Elops saurus: NISP=1, MNI=1), marine catfish (Ariidae: NISP=12, MNI=3) including gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus: NISP=3, MNI=1), toadfish (Opsanus spp.: NISP=11, MNI=4), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus: NISP=12, MNI=5), seatrout (Cynosion nebulosis: NISP=6, MNI=1), black drum (Pogonius cromis: NISP=2, MNI=1), mullet (Mugil spp.: NISP=54, MNI=4), flounder (Bothidae: NISP=9, MNI=1), and red- eared sunfish (Lepomis microlophus: NISP=1, MNI=1). In Feature 1, fish contributed 30 percent to the estimated vertebrate biomass. The shellfish present in Feature 1 consists of common rangia (Rangia cuneata: NISP=11, MNI=4), Carolina marsh clam (Polymesoda caroliniana: NISP=7, MNI=5), eastern oyster (Crassostrea spp.: NISP=36, MNI=17), bay scallop (Argopecten irradians: NISP=132, MNI=58) and crowned conch (Melongena corona: NISP=25, MNI=22). Feature 1 has by far the largest number of scallops, and they contributed the greatest percent, 36, to the estimated invertebrate biomass. Feature 2 Feature 2 (Table 5.3, Appendix G) is comprised of FS 4, 5, 6, and 7. The Table 5.3. Feature 2 Faunal Remains by Class.

Feature 2 Class Biomass in NISP MNI grams Mammals 88 4,841.8 9 Birds 15 182.2 3 Reptiles 163 1,086.9 5 Bony Fish 888 2,318.4 33 Unidentified 59 - - Vertebrates Totals 1213 8429.2 50 Shellfish 160 452.1 72

36 Table 5.3: Continued Worked Bone 1 - -

Burnt Bone 45 - -

Mammals present in Feature 2 include the eastern opossum (Didelphis virginiana: NISP=1, MNI=1), raccoon (Procyon lotor: NISP=1, MNI=1), rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.: NISP=1, MNI=1), and white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus: NISP=33, MNI=6). The biomass contribution for mammals was 57 percent. Feature 2 contains the largest number of bird species. These include the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo: NISP=1, MNI=1), widgeon (Anas americana: NISP=1, MNI=1), and clapper rail (Rallus longirostris: NISP=1, MNI=1).The overall biomass contribution for birds in Feature 2 was 2 percent. The turtles present in Feature 2 include the mud or musk turtle (Kinosternidae: NISP=39, MNI=1), water turtles (Emydidae: NISP=5, MNI=1), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina: NISP=17, MNI=2), and sea turtles (Cheloniidae: NISP=4, MNI=1). Turtles account for 13 percent of the biomass. For fish, Feature 2 contains sturgeon (Accipenser spp.: NISP=5, MNI=1), the only occurrence in these assemblages. The importance of sturgeon will be discussed later. Also present is the gar (Lepisosteus spp.: NISP=2, MNI=1), bowfin (Amia calva: NISP=1, MNI=1), marine catfishes (Ariidae: NISP=19, MNI=1) including gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus: NISP=1, MNI=1), toadfish (Opsanus spp.: NISP=10, MNI=1), jack crevalle (Caranx spp.: NISP=8, MNI=1), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus: NISP=13, MNI=7), seatrout (Cynosion spp.: NISP=19, MNI=6), redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus: NISP=4, MNI=2), mullet (Mugil spp.: NISP=118, MNI=10), and flounder (Bothidae: NISP=22, MNI=1). Fish contribute 28 percent of the estimated biomass for Feature 2. The shellfish present in Feature 2 includes common rangia (Rangia cuneata: NISP=16, MNI=9), Carolina marsh clam (Polymesoda caroliniana: NISP=4, MNI=4), bay scallop (Argopecten irradians: NISP=11, MNI=5), eastern oyster (Crassostrea spp.: NISP=32, MNI=13), crowned conch (Melongena corona: NISP=65, MNI=9), lightning whelk (Busycon contrarium: NISP=1, MNI=1), and a number of gastropod columellas

37 (probably Melongena: NISP=31, MNI=31). The crowned conchs contribute 60 percent of the biomass for molluscs, by far the most. Feature 3 Feature 3 (Table 5.4, Appendix H) is comprised solely of FS 8. The mammals present include the eastern opossum (Didelphis virginiana: NISP=1, MNI=1), rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.: NISP=1, MNI=1), and white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus: NISP=2, MNI=1). Feature 3 is the only Feature in which the overall biomass contribution of mammals is less than that of fish. The estimated mammalian biomass for Feature 3 is 24 percent. Table 5.4. Feature 3 Faunal Remains by Class.

Feature 3

Class MNI Biomass in NISP grams

Mammals 7 496.9 3 Reptiles 10 212.9 2 Bony Fish 316 1,380.9 10 Unidentified 14 - - Vertebrates Totals 347 2,090.6 15 Shellfish 79 39.4 7

Worked Bone 1 - -

Burnt Bone 80 - -

The turtles present in Feature 3 include the mud or musk turtle (Kinosternidae: NISP=4, MNI=1), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina: NISP=4, MNI=1). Turtles comprise 10 percent of the biomass for Feature 3. Feature 3 contains numerous fish species including the ladyfish (Elops saurus: NISP=1, MNI=1), marine catfishes (Ariidae: NISP=6, MNI=1), jack crevalle (Caranx spp.: NISP=2, MNI=1), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus: NISP=4, MNI=2),

38 sea trout (Cynosion nebulosis: NISP=8, MNI=1), black drum (Pogonius cromis: NISP=1, MNI=1), redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus: NISP=9, MNI=1), mullet (Mugil spp.: NISP=40, MNI=1) and flounder (Bothidae: NISP=6, MNI=1). Fish comprise 66 percent of the overall biomass for Feature 3. The only shellfish identifiable in Feature 3 was the eastern oyster (Crassostrea spp.: NISP=37, MNI=7), and indistinguishable bivalve and gastropod fragments. Oyster accounted for 63 percent of the overall biomass for shellfish. Feature 4 Feature 4 (Table 5.5, Appendix I) was the largest feature examined. It is comprised of FS 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, and spans two excavation units (-160L45 and -150L45). The mammals present in Feature 4 include the eastern opossum (Didelphis virginiana: NISP=5, MNI=1), fox squirrel (Scurius niger: NISP=2, MNI=1), raccoon (Procyon lotor: NISP=1, MNI=1), rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.: NISP=2, MNI=1), and white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus: NISP=77, MNI=3). Mammals account for 65 percent of the estimated biomass for Feature 4. The birds present in Feature 4 include the common loon (Gavia immer: NISP=1, MNI=1), and turkey (Melagris gallopavo: NISP=3, MNI=1). They account for 1 percent of the estimated biomass of Feature 4.

Table 5.5. Feature 4 Faunal Remains by Class.

Feature 4 Class Biomass in NISP MNI grams Mammals 167 9,996.6 7 Birds 13 183.3 2 Reptiles 164 2,303.9 5 Bony Fish 880 2,690.4 31

Sharks and Rays 1 136.6 1

39 Table 5.5: Continued Unidentified 191 - - Vertebrates Totals 1416 15,310.8 45 Shellfish 420 322.9 93

Worked Bone 3 - -

Burnt Bone 325 - -

Feature 4 contained numerous turtles including the mud or musk turtle (Kinosternidae: NISP=18, MNI=1), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine: NISP=8, MNI=1), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina: NISP=11, MNI=1), diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin: NISP=3, MNI=1), and sea turtles (Cheloniidae: NISP=46, MNI=1).Turtles contribute 15 percent to the estimated biomass of Feature 4. The bony fish present in Feature 4 include gar (Lepisosteus spp.: NISP=7, MNI=1), lady fish (Elops saurus: NISP=5, MNI=1), marine catfishes (Ariidae: NISP=40, MNI=1) including gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus: NISP=4, MNI=1), toadfish (Opsanus spp.: NISP=7, MNI=2), jack crevalle (Caranx spp.: NISP=11, MNI=1), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus: NISP=10, MNI=1), sea trout (Cynosion nebulosis: NISP=19, MNI=4), mullet (Mugil spp.: NISP=133, MNI=15), and flounder (Bothidae: NISP=14, MNI=2). Bony fish account for 18 percent of the estimated biomass of Feature 4. Feature 4 contains the only evidence of cartilaginous fishes (sharks and rays). A single drilled requiem shark (Carcharhinidae) vertebrate was recovered. The shellfish present included gastropod columellas (probably Melongena corona: NISP=16, MNI=10), common rangia (Rangia cuneata: NISP=36, MNI=18), Carolina marsh clam (Polymesoda caroliniana: NISP=24, MNI=17), and eastern oyster (Crassostrea spp.: NISP=302, MNI=48). Oyster accounts for the greatest percentage of biomass with 53 percent. Level 5 .160L45 is solely comprised of FS 9-ٱ Level 5 (Table 5.6, Appendix J) from The mammals found in Level 5 include skunk (Mephitis mephitis: NISP=1, MNI=1), fox squirrel (Scurius niger: NISP=1, MNI=1), rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.: NISP=2, MNI=1),

40 rodents (Rodentia: NISP=3, MNI=1), bobcat (Lynx rufus: NISP=1, MNI=1), raccoon (Procyon lotor: NISP=1, MNI=1), and white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus: NISP=15, MNI=1). Mammals account for 9 percent of the estimated biomass for Level 5.

Table 5.6. Level 5 Faunal Remains by Class.

Level 5 Class Biomass in NISP MNI grams Mammals 55 801.5 7 Birds 4 12.82 - Reptiles 110 433.0 5 Amphibians 11 20.4 1 Bony Fish 4,118 7,614.2 55 Unidentified 287 - - Vertebrates Totals 4,585 8,882.0 68 Shellfish 833 84.4 18 Worked Bone 2 - - Burnt Bone 484 - -

Turtles present in Level 5 include the mud or musk turtle (Kinosternidae: NISP=15, MNI=2) and the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina: NISP=3, MNI=2). Turtles account for 5 percent of the estimated biomass. There was a single frog (Anura: NISP=1, MNI=1) specimen that contributed 0.4 percent to the estimated biomass of Level 5. Level 5 has the largest number of bony fish species, including gar (Lepisosteus spp.: NISP=25, MNI=1), lady fish (Elops saurus: NISP=23, MNI=1), marine catfishes (Ariidae: NISP=88, MNI=1) including hardhead catfish (Arius felis: NISP=2, MNI=2) and gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus: NISP=5, MNI=1), toadfish (Opsanus spp.: NISP=1, MNI=1), jack crevelle (Caranx spp.: NISP=44, MNI=4), porgies (Calamus spp.: NISP=3, MNI=1), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus: NISP=16, MNI=1), drums (Sciaenidae: NISP=16, MNI=1), sea trout (Cynosion nebulosis: NISP=32, MNI=7), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonius undulatus: NISP=2, MNI=1), black drum (Pogonius cromis: NISP=12, MNI=1), redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus: NISP=30, MNI=1), mullet (Mugil spp.: NISP=255, MNI=27), flounder (Bothidae: NISP=37, MNI=1), red eared

41 sunfish (Lepomis microlophus: NISP=1, MNI=1), Atlantic spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber: NISP=1, MNI=1), and herring (Clupeidae: NISP=1, MNI=1). The estimated biomass contribution for bony fish is 86 percent. There were no cartilaginous fish identified in Level 5. The shellfish present in Level 5 include marsh periwinkle (Littorina spp.: NISP=2, MNI=2), gastropod columellas (probably Melongena corona: NISP=10, MNI=7), common rangia (Rangia cuneata: NISP=3, MNI=2), Carolina marsh clam (Polymesoda caroliniana: NISP=2, MNI=2), bay scallop (Argopecten irradians: NISP=4, MNI=3), crowned conch (Melongena corona: NISP=5, MNI=2), and a general bivalve category (probably Crassostrea: NISP=743). The bivalve category had the largest NISP of 89 percent, with a biomass of 42 percent. Comparison of Features and Level Generating a species presence/absence list provides a quick reference for an overall representation of species by feature and level (Table 5.7). An examination of this list shows the co-occurrence of species among the features and level. An overall comparison of the features and level indicates that the dominant mammal utilized at the site was deer. Although birds were present at the site, they were limited in the number of species and specimens. Their low numbers could be related to the use of quarter inch screens, or site taphonomic processes given their fragility. Turtles were prevalent in the Bird Hammock faunal samples selected. The Bird Hammock faunal assemblage has an especially large number of sea turtles present. A small number of snake vertebrae was present in each feature and level. Overall the number of differing fish taxa was the greatest in the assemblage, with mullet and marine catfish being the most abundant. It is possible that these numbers owe something to the fact that both mullet and catfish have easily recognizable elements. The molluscan remains in the Bird Hammock faunal assemblage provided data on seasonality, environmental exploitation, and tool use. A large number of columellas, which could have functioned as a small tool or net weight, were present in the sample. A large Busycon shell was also recovered. The presence of oyster, Rangia, and Polymesoda is also important because these species require varying levels of salinity, and allow for a discussion of environmental exploitation. Bay scallops (Russo and Quitmyer 1996)

42 provide information on seasonal occupation of Bird Hammock. The following table (5.8) provides information on the presence and absence of vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains for the selected Bird Hammock sample. Table 5.7. Species Presence/Absence List for Features and Level. Scientific Name Taxonomic Name Feature 1 Feature 2 Feature 3 Feature 4 Level 5 Mammalia, Large Probably deer X X X X X Probably raccoon or Mammalia, Medium opossum X X X Probably squirrel or Mammalia, Small rabbit X X X X Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum X X X Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits X X X X Rodentia Rodents X Scurius niger Fox squirrel X X Sigmodon hispidus Hispid Cotton Rat X Procyon lotor Raccoon X X X Mephitis mephitis Skunk X Lynx rufus Bobcat X Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer X X X X X Aves Unidentified birds X X Gavia immer Common loon X Anas fulvigula Mottled duck X Anas Americana Duck X Rallus longirostris Clapper rail X Meleagris gallopavo Turkey X X Testudines Unidentified turtles X X X X X Kinosternidae Mud or musk turtles X X X X X Chelydra serpentine Snapping turtle X Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle X X X X X Emydidae Water turtles X Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin X X Trachemys spp. Cooters and Sliders X Cheloniidae Sea turtles X X X Serpentes Unidentified snakes X X X X Anura Probably toad or frog X Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments X X X X X Accipenser spp. Sturgeon X Lepisosteus spp. Gar X X X X Amia calva Bowfin X X Elops saurus Ladyfish X X X X Clupeidae Herring family X Siluriformes All Catfishes X Ariidae Marine catfishes X X X X X Arius felis Hardhead catfish X Bagre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish X X X X Opsanus spp. Toadfish X X X X

43 Table 5.7: Continued Scientific Name Taxonomic Name Feature 1 Feature 2 Feature 3 Feature 4 Level 5 Lepomis microlophus Red-eared Sunfish X X Caranx spp. Probably jack crevalle X X X X Calamus spp. Porgies X Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead X X X X X Sciaenidae Drums X X Cynoscion spp. Seatrout X X X X X Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker X Pogonias cromis Black drum X X X Sciaenops ocellatus Redfish X X X Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic Spadefish X Mugil spp. Mullet X X X X X Bothidae Flounder family X X X X X Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks X Gastropoda, Small Likely Marsh Periwinkle X X Gastropoda, Large Probably Melongena X X Littorina sp. Marsh Periwinkle X Gastropoda collumelas Probably Melongena X X X Melongena corona Crowned conch X X X Busycon contrarium Lightening Whelk X Bivalve Probably Crassostrea X Pelycepoda Probably Rangia X X Rangia cuneata Common rangia X X X X Polymesoda caroliniana Carolina Marsh Clam X X X X Argopecten irradians Bay Scallop X X X Crassostrea virginica Eastern Oyster X X X X

Vertebrate and Invertebrate Faunal Classes Present in the Bird Hammock Sample This section examines the classes of animals present in the selected Bird Hammock sample. All vertebrate classes are well-represented in the Bird Hammock assemblages except cartilaginous fishes. In the following discussions, the behavior, availability, and habitat of identified species are considered. Mammals Small game is an important part of the Bird Hammock mammalian assemblage. The Virginia opossum inhabits watersides, and woods. They are nocturnal and less active in cold weather (Alden et al. 1998:362). Rabbits inhabit fields, woodland edges, and thickets. They are active in the late afternoon through morning, spending midday in nest- like forms in grass or thickets, and are present year round in Florida. Eastern fox squirrels live in mixed wood environments favoring oak, pine, hickory, cypress, and mangrove.

44 They are active during the day, year-round in Florida (Alden et al. 1998:366). Raccoons live in wood and scrub near bodies of water. They are mainly nocturnal but are sometimes active during the day (Alden et al.1998:372). Striped skunks inhabit woods and fields. They are active from dusk to dawn, and may den up and sleep during winter (Alden et al. 1998:373). Bobcats inhabit woods, scrub, and swamps. They are mainly nocturnal and live year-round in Florida (Alden et al. 1998:375). The white-tailed deer is the single large mammal present in the Bird Hammock faunal assemblage. White-tailed deer inhabit broadleaf, mixed woods, edges, hammocks, fields, swamps, and marshes. They are active day and night year-round. Birds Birds found at the site aid in modeling settlement patterns. The widgeon migrates to Florida for the winter staying from November to March. The common loon inhabits lakes, coastal bays, and oceans. They also range to Florida in the winter, staying from November to April (Alden et al. 1998:301). The mottled duck inhabits fresh and salt marshes, as well as moist meadows and is a year round resident of Florida (Alden et al. 1998:311).The specimen in the Bird Hammock sample was a juvenile, probably taken in September (Steadman personal communication 2004). The clapper rail inhabits saltwater and brackish marshes. It is also a year-round resident of Florida. Steadman (personal communication 2004) noted that at dusk and dawn the clapper rail can easily be caught in nets. The wild turkey inhabits broadleaf woods, especially oaks, and is a year-round resident of northern Florida. Reptiles As is evident from the previous discussion, turtles were very important to the inhabitants of Bird Hammock. Seasonally from November to February, some northern Florida turtles hibernate, but most species are available year-round. The mud or musk turtle inhabits salt and freshwater marshes, ponds, islets, and sluggish streams. They are strongly aquatic, and rarely leave the water except during rains or when nesting. Mud and musk turtles are active mainly during the day, basking on logs and low trees (Conant 1975:39). Although the Eastern box turtle is considered terrestrial, they will spend limited time in water. During hot weather they will burrow beneath logs or vegetation, but rain will bring them out, usually in numbers (Conant 1975:49). Snapping turtles live in fresh

45 water with mucky bottoms and are active both day and night (Alden et al. 1998:283). Diamondback terrapins inhabit coastal salt marshes, tidal flats, and lagoons. They are active mainly by day, and may take refuge in the tall stiff grasses that characterize many Gulf beaches (Conant 1975:53). Cooters and sliders inhabit fresh waters with soft bottoms and vegetation. They are active mainly during the day, basking in the sun and will stack themselves 2 or 3 turtles high (Conant 1975:60). Sea turtles inhabit oceans, bays, and estuaries, they favor shallow ocean waters rich in marine plants. Sea turtles mate in shallow water off the nesting beaches. The females come ashore two or more times a season to lay eggs in a deep nest cavity dug with the hind feet (Conant 1975:73). Sea turtles were common at Bird Hammock and appear in almost every field specimen lot. A small number of snake remains are present at the site in the form of vertebrae. During the winter months snakes of northwest Florida become dormant. Florida has six poisonous snake species, and all occurring locally in the panhandle region. The vertebral remains were identified only to suborder, Serpentes (Alden et al. 1998:295). Amphibians There was a single toad or frog specimen, identifiable only to the order Anura, in the Bird Hammock faunal assemblage. Conant (1975:307) notes that habitat requirements are hiding places where there is some moisture, an abundance of insects, and shallow bodies of water in which to breed, such as temporary pools or the shallow portions of streams. Bony Fishes Fish at Bird Hammock were taken from a number of different environments including bays, oyster bars, nearshore, offshore, freshwater, and estuaries. Estuaries are defined generally as semi-enclosed bodies of water that have a free connection with the sea and that receive freshwater inflow through streams and runoff (Alden et al. 1998:257). As Alden et al. (1998:256) state, “because large amounts of organic matter are carried downstream and into them, estuaries provide nutrients necessary for the growth of the early life stages of many species of marine fishes and invertebrates such as oysters, making estuaries along with adjacent salt marshes, among the most productive biological

46 systems in the world.” Bird Hammock’s inhabitants certainly took advantage of the local estuary system, utilizing many of the species that come to spawn or live in estuaries. The ladyfish can be found in bays, estuaries, and occasionally in fresh water (often swimming in large schools). They are known to spawn offshore, and their larvae peak in the fall (Alden et al.1998:257). Gafftopsail catfish live in shallow coastal waters and estuaries. In the winter they move offshore into deeper waters (Alden et al. 1998:258). Jack crevalle range from inshore bays to deep waters and will enter coastal rivers. Peak spawning occurs offshore (Alden et al. 1998:261). Sheepshead live along mainland coasts in muddy shallows, but some will enter freshwater (Alden et al. 1998:263). They are mainly an inshore species, found near oyster bars and tidal creeks. They move nearshore to spawn in late winter and early spring. The Atlantic croaker lives in shallow coastal waters and estuaries (Alden et al. 1998:264). Immature species are found in estuaries. Older fish are found offshore during the winter months and in bays and estuaries during spring, summer, and fall. Black drum live in shallow bays, lagoons, and estuaries (Alden et al. 1998:264). Red drum prefer the surf zone and open sea, and will move into freshwater (Alden et al. 1998:264). Red drum live inshore until four years of age and then migrate to join the nearshore population. The Atlantic spadefish lives in shallow water over reefs, mangroves, and rocks (Alden et al. 1998:266). Spadefish travel in large schools. Striped mullet lives in shallow bays, and enters rivers (Alden et al. 1998:266). An inshore fish, mullets enter both fresh and salt water, and can be found along beaches in the fall. Mullets move offshore in large schools to spawn, and then the immature fish move inshore into tidal creeks. The southern flounder prefers inshore and fresh waters hovering over the muddy bottoms (Alden et al. 1998:270). There were also a number of freshwater species at Bird Hammock, likely taken from the Wakulla River and other nearby freshwater bodies. The longnose gar lives in fresh and brackish rivers, marshy saltwater, swamps, and lakes (Alden et al. 1998:272). The alligator gar is common throughout the southeast and is one of the biggest freshwater fishes, reaching lengths of 3 meters. The bowfin lives in clear quiet ponds, swamps, and rivers with vegetation (Alden et al. 1998:272). The red-ear sunfish lives in warm springs, stream pools, vegetated lakes, and ponds (Alden et al. 1998:274).

47 Cartilaginous Fishes A single drilled shark vertebra (NISP=1) was found in the selected Bird Hammock faunal sample. Milanich (1994: 226) has suggested that the drilled vertebrae were used as beads. Shellfish Shellfish utilization at Bird Hammock also provides data for ecological and seasonal reconstructions. Wedge rangia (Rangia cuneata) has an experimentally determined salinity tolerance range for adults of 0-30 percent (Claassen 1985:127). In natural settings it is found in salinities of 2.5 percent to 17 percent (Claassen 1985:127). R. cuneata is typically found landward of oyster populations and below the optimal salinity range for that species. The appearance of both wedge rangia and oyster points to Bird Hammock’s inhabitants exploiting shellfish from various environments. R. cuneata thrives on almost any organism small enough to be ingested. It spawns almost continuously, beginning in late summer or fall and continuing through the winter and spring into early summer. Wedge rangia are found clumped across the water bottom, burrowing only slightly, and are easily collected by hand. Other predators, besides humans are red and black drum, catfish, Atlantic croaker, blue crab, and white shrimp (Claassen 1985:127). Claassen (1985:127) notes, “Wedge rangia is always the dominant shellfish species in an estuary.” According to Claassen (1985:127) “archaeologists frequently confuse Polymesoda caroliniana with Rangia cuneata.” The wedge rangia is distinguished by a large hole located in the hinge area, long lateral hinge teeth, and two muscle scars, one on either side of the arch formed by the shell (Claassen 1985:127). Although the Carolina marsh clam lacks all three features, it has three distinctive small hinge teeth. Claassen (1985:127) notes, “although this species has not been previously reported in middens of northwest Florida, the author has found it at Fort Walton, in numerous other middens along Choctawhatchee Bay and in all five middens investigated in Escambia Bay.” Polymesoda caroliniana is a characteristic species of marshes on the northern shore of the Gulf of Mexico. It is frequently found interspersed in Rangia cuneata populations, although always in lesser numbers. During Claassen’s excavation in Escambia Bay, a ratio of 12 Rangia to 1 Polymesoda was frequently encountered (Claassen 1985:128). At

48 Bird Hammock, however, the representation of the two was more balanced. Polymesoda caroliniana is usually found in waters where the salinity lies in the range of 0-19 percent (Claassen 1985:128). Although adults can tolerate salinity as high as 26.3 percent for short periods, they are most commonly found in salinities less than 10 percent. According to Claassen (1985:128), “the common oyster, Crassostrea sp. is rarer environmentally and archaeologically along the Gulf Coast.” Oyster is extremely sensitive to silt and grows best on sand substrates. The tolerable range of salinity for adult oysters is 5-30 percent, while that optimum for growth is 12.5-25 percent. Oyster reef formation occurs only between salinities of 10-30 percent. Predators include the drums, starfish, and whelks (Claassen 1985:128). The bay scallop (Argopecten irradians concentricus) is also present in the Bird Hammock assemblages. Size class measurements, based on changes through its one-year life cycle have been developed for bay scallops recovered from Florida sites by Russo and Quitmyer (1996). Growth begins in the winter, peaks in late summer, and mass mortalities follow spawning. From Florida’s Gulf Coast come statistics that indicate that the mean shell height in January is 15 mm, in March 21mm, in May 45 mm, and August through November 60 mm (Russo and Quitmyer 1996:218). Heights of bay scallop were obtained by measuring a valve dorso-ventrally, from the umbo to the ventral margin (Russo and Quitmyer 1996:218). Comparing archaeological size class to known seasonal size classes of living communities equates the seasonal size class to the season the site was occupied. The following table (Table 5.8) depicts seasonality at Bird Hammock using measured bay scallop shell height. Table 5.8. Seasonal Mean Shell Height. Feature/Level Average NISP Weight MNI Corresponding Seasonality Data Height in by Month and Average Shell (mm) grams Height Feature 1 56.1 132 691.7 58 June (50mm)- November (60mm) Feature 2 59.3 11 39.6 5 June (50mm)- November (60mm) Level 5 59.5 4 34.8 3 June (50mm)- November (60mm)

The data suggest that Bird Hammock’s inhabitants harvested scallops from local estuaries from June to November. Figure 5.1 suggests that Feature 1 contained bay scallops with less average height than Feature 2 and Level 5. Therefore, Feature 2 and

49 Level 5, with greater shell height were collected in late summer or early fall, and Feature 1, with a slightly shorter average shell height evidencing a collection in early summer.

Shell Height By Feature/Level

57 Height (mm) Height

54 Feature 1 Feature 2 Level 5 Feature/Level

Figure 5.1. Average Shell Heights by Features/Level. With shellfish, recent studies of ethnographic data have shown that apart from consumption, molluscan flesh was also gathered for bait. Historic accounts of Rangia cuneata used for shrimp bait by peoples living in the Lake Pontchartrain area prompted Riser (1987) to propose that prehistoric shell deposits of R. cuneata along Louisiana and Mississippi represented the same behavior. Although these data are equivocal for Bird Hammock, studies such as Riser’s which incorporate ethnographic data into subsistence studies aid in modeling past lifeways. The preferred habitats of the species found at Bird Hammock were surely known to the inhabitants, as is evident from the location of the site in this area of abundant resources. Diversity and Equitability Measurements of diversity and equitability, attempt to examine the relative representation of locally available resources, versus resources that the inhabitants of Bird Hammock would have had to travel to obtain. These measures help to explain how the inhabitants used their environment, ultimately demonstrating that there was essentially a

50 core group of species that were more heavily represented at the site (Reitz and Wing 1999:102-106). Diversity and equitability measurements examine food usage through the variety of animals used at the site, and the frequency of the species utilized. The Shannon-Weaver Index was used to calculate diversity (Shannon and Weaver 1949). In these calculations, diversity measurements (H′) range from values of 0-5, with 5 being the highest value. When examining equitability the Sheldon (1969) scale is used. It provides a range of values from 0-1, with 1 representing an equal use in number of all species at the site. In my calculations (Table 5.9), I used only those taxa that had both a biomass and MNI estimate for comparative purposes, because the two quantifications (as discussed in the methodology section) are derived from very different calculations: relative abundance, versus NISP. Just as MNI and biomass are derived differently they also tell a different story when used to calculate diversity and equitability.

Table 5.9. Diversity and Equitability Data. Diversity Equitability Diversity H Equitability E FS # ′ H′ (MNI) E (MNI) (Biomass) (Biomass) 1 (Vertebrates) 1.3705 0.9886 1.0356 0.7471 1(Invertebrates) 1.2175 0.7565 1.3204 0.8204 5 (Vertebrates) 1.4377 0.8933 1.4779 0.9182 5 (Invertebrates) 1.5425 0.8609 1.6481 0.9198 6 (Invertebrates) 0.2988 0.2719 0.1730 0.1574 9 (Vertebrates) 1.3108 0.6736 1.1306 0.5810 9 (Invertebrates) 1.6425 0.9167 1.4222 0.7937 10 (Invertebrates) 0.7595 0.6914 0.6845 0.6230 11 (Invertebrates) 1.0387 0.7493 1.1496 0.8293 12 (Vertebrates) 1.3924 0.7771 1.5857 0.8850 12 (Invertebrates) 1.0549 0.9602 1.0630 0.9676 13 (Invertebrates) 1.0397 0.9464 0.9978 0.9083 14 (Vertebrates) 0.6365 0.9182 0.5030 0.7257 15 (Invertebrates) 1.1989 0.8648 1.2810 0.9240

Feature # 1 Vertebrates 1.3705 0.9886 1.0369 0.7479 1 Invertebrates 1.2175 0.7565 1.3237 0.8204 2 Vertebrates 1.6504 0.9211 0.8191 0.4571 2 Invertebrates 1.5969 0.8207 1.3206 0.6786 4 Vertebrates 1.3705 0.9886 1.0369 0.7479 4 Invertebrates 1.2175 0.7565 1.3237 0.8204

51 Table 5.9.: Continued

Feature # (Vertebrate and Diversity H′ Equitability Diversity H′ Equitability Invertebrate Combined) (Biomass) E (Biomass) (MNI) E (MNI) 1 1.7850 0.8124 1.6262 0.7401 2 1.1867 0.4627 2.2363 0.8718 3 0.6717 0.9691 0.5297 0.7642 4 0.8401 0.3381 1.8637 0.7501

When evaluating diversity and equitability measurements, it is helpful to discuss the results in terms of the behavior of the inhabitant of a site. Cleland (1976:59-70) proposed that the continuum of human adaptations be divided into two basic types: a focal subsistence economy based on the exploitation of a small number of plant and animal species, and a contrasting diffuse adaptation, which exploits a wide variety of organisms. Niche breadth (Reitz and Wing 1999:233-234) is also used to discuss diversity and equitability measurements in that it examines food habits in terms of the variety of animals used in the site (diversity) and the evenness (equitability) with which those species were used. In this way diversity is the relative importance of species present, and equitability is the evenness with which these resources are used. These concepts make it possible to discuss human subsistence in terms of generalist and specialist strategies. General principles of ecology define generalists as species that feed on a wide variety of organisms in relatively equal numbers. These species differ from specialists, which prey on a smaller number of taxa but utilize larger numbers of individuals from those taxa (Grayson 1984:131). With measures of diversity, samples with an even distribution of abundance among taxa have a higher diversity than samples, such as my selected samples, where the same number of taxa exists, but a small number have a disproportionately high abundance. Equitability values close to 1.0 indicate even distribution of taxa, while lower values suggest dominance of one taxon or a few taxa (Reitz and Wing 1999:105-106). Table 5.8 depicts the results of the measurement by assigned FS numbers, Features, and vertebrates versus invertebrates. When both MNI and biomass calculations are examined the overall pattern in the Bird Hammock faunal sample is low diversity and relatively high equitability.

52 CHAPTER SIX: INTERPRETATION OF THE SAMPLE

Introduction The goal of this chapter is to model Late Swift Creek and Early Weeden Island subsistence strategies. I shall begin with a brief discussion of patterns of use at Bird Hammock, followed by an examination of dietary choices specific to the site, then continue with a focus on environmental (habitat) exploitation or concentration, and consider the technological requirements necessary for procurement. Next, I compare Bird Hammock to other Middle to Late Woodland sites in the region, and lastly, propose a model for the subsistence strategies of the people of Bird Hammock and the Middle to Late Woodland period in general. Patterns of Use at Bird Hammock The Bird Hammock faunal samples are taken from a midden ring context. The midden deposits suggest a pattern of domestic use, with the features representing areas of firing related to cooking activities or the dumping of refuse (Bense 1969:22). These are essentially two different activities: hearths and pits. Discolored soils and the presence of charcoal concentrations may provide evidence of hearths. Evidence of the use of fire and heat, such as Bense (1968) describes for Feature 3 meet these criteria. Pits may be dug for a variety of purposes: extraction of soil for some use, storage, or covering discarded materials. Several of the features selected may be pits into which subsistence remains have been discarded. Bense (1968:94) describes Feature 4 as an extended cooking pit, with small pockets of midden located within the larger pit. The features, representing both pits and hearths, contain smaller faunal samples with less variability than the selected midden level. These differences might indicate some real variation in the activity responsible for the discarded material. Ritual behavior must be considered, when examining the variation between the features and selected level. The subsistence remains from the features could be related to rituals associated with Mounds A and B. When examining the site as a midden ring with adjacent burial mounds A and B to the north and south, the assemblage can be viewed as relating to a sedentary village population. In this context, the features could represent discrete digging episodes, or the burying of certain food remains separately.

53 When level 5 is compared to the features it is clear that the feature fill is reflective of a very minor subset of the species list. Feature 1 contains a large concentration of scallops, deer, and sea turtle. Feature 2 is dominated by deer, mud or musk turtles, mullet, and crowned conch. Feature 3, likely served as a hearth. It is dominated by fish, including mullet and marine catfishes, with a large percentage of burned bone. Feature 4 included deer, turkey, sea turtle, marine catfishes, mullet, and sea trout. Compared to the features, level 5 is a more typical faunal assemblage for Gulf coastal zone sites with a larger number of species, especially bony fishes. For both the features and level, the represented vertebrate and invertebrate fauna are all locally or seasonally available. Certain species such as migratory birds, and sturgeon provide evidence for the site being occupied from November to April. Scallop seasonality suggests that Bird Hammock was occupied from June through November, based on average shell heights. These seasonal indicators suggest that Bird Hammock was essentially occupied year-round. The following discussion attempts to model the behavior of the people of Bird Hammock through an examination of dietary choices, seasonality, methods of procurement, and a comparison of the Bird Hammock faunal remains to other sites in Florida. Examination of Diet/ Resource Exploitation Models of optimization are useful when studying food selection or resource exploitation (Wing and Brown 1979:163). Optimum foraging models consider environmental and physical constraints (such as prey density or travel time) and strategic options (such as degree of dietary specialization) (Smith 1983:626). As Reitz and Wing (1999:27) note, “optimal foraging encompasses topics such as dietary choices, scheduling of foraging activities, and decisions about settlement and foraging locations.” In other words, what to eat, where to forage, how long to forage, with whom to forage, and where to live (Smith 1983:626). Optimal foraging models attempt to explain the observed variability in subsistence strategies by examining the economic decision-making processes foragers use when selecting resources. Diet Breadth and Prey Choice The diet-breadth model accounts for the diversity in hunter-gatherer resource choice, weighs procurement costs and offers predictions of resource utilization (Smith 1983:629). One assumption made with the diet-breadth model involves foragers selecting

54 first those foods with the highest return. When examining resource selection, therefore, species can be ranked by energy rate per extraction time. A second assumption is that as overall resource abundance declines, search time increases, and the breadth of the diet generally increases in compensation; conversely, selectivity is the appropriate response to increased resource abundance (Bettinger 1987:133). At Bird Hammock, optimum foraging models aid in discussing the behavior of the people at the site. The location of Bird Hammock, situated in close proximity to riverine, estuarine, coastal, and forested environments, can be viewed as optimal when examining the abundance of available resources accessible from the site. The Wakulla River and the coast are approximately a two-mile walk from the site, and possibly took less time to reach by water travel. The inhabitants of Bird Hammock utilized the varying local environments, and favored certain species from each ecological zone. From the estuary, diamondback terrapins, clapper rails and numerous fish species were taken. From the freshwater locales, gar, bowfin, and numerous turtle and bird species were taken. From the coastal zone, sea turtles, shark, mullet, ladyfish, sheepshead, redfish and marine catfish were taken. And from the broad leaf hammocks and flatwoods eastern box turtle, deer, fox squirrels, turkey, and other small game were hunted. Incorporating the diversity and equitability measurements for Bird Hammock of low diversity and relatively high equitability, optimal foraging models would describe the behavior at the site as selective. The features suggest lower diversity and higher equitability than the general level selected, where the diversity is higher and equitability is relatively lower. As Bettinger (1987:133) states, selectivity is the expected response for areas of resource abundance. Environmental Exploitation Examining the ecology and environment of Bird Hammock is extremely relevant when modeling the lifeways of the inhabitants through an interpretation of faunal remains. Most of the species identified in this assemblage inhabit riverine, estuarine, shallow coastal water, and maritime forest environments. When modeling the behavior of the people at Bird Hammock through ecology, theoretical concepts such as catchment analysis aid in the reconstruction. Vita-Finzi and Higgs (1972:5) define site catchment analysis as a study of the relationships between technology and the natural resources lying within economic range of individual sites. According to Reitz and Wing (1999:25),

55 “this involves defining or predicting the areas or resources habitually exploited by the inhabitants of a site.” Site catchment analysis takes into account the surrounding ecological zones represented by recovered remains from the site. When discussing site catchment analysis, Vita-Finzi and Higgs (1972:3) note that the primary objective of resource exploitation is the acquisition of an adequate year- round food supply. Where the geographical distribution of essential resources and the technology by which they are exploited has changed little, the pattern of human response might be expected to persist (Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1972:4). I believe that this statement characterizes the subsistence strategies of the Gulf coast peoples of the Woodland period from Deptford cultures through Weeden Island cultures. Examining site catchment analysis, the first step is to establish the area which is likely to have been exploited from a site (Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1972:7). It is first necessary to calculate the distances from the site to the exploitable areas. The further an area is from the site, the less likely it is to be exploited, and the less rewarding its exploitation (unless it is especially productive) since the energy consumed in movement to and from the site will tend to cancel the energy derived from the resource. The faunal evidence from Bird Hammock directly reflects the accessible environments. As mentioned earlier, Bird Hammock is essentially two miles from both the Wakulla River and the coast, where exploitable resources abound. Vita-Finzi and Higgs (1972) examined the variation in distances that were optimal for foragers versus farmers in the Mount Carmel region of Palestine. Describing Natufian sites, believed to have practiced incipient agriculture, Vita-Finzi and Higgs (1972:16) note, “the territories are small, three of them do not exceed the 7,900 hectares enclosed by a circle with a radius of 5 kilometers, which we have taken as the economic threshold for the more intensive subsistence agricultural economies.” Although the people of Bird Hammock were not agriculturalists, they had only to travel two miles to the coast and two miles to the Wakulla River. These distances are akin to the Vita-Finzi and Higgs economic threshold for intensive subsistence practices. Catchment analysis for Bird Hammock examines the specimens utilized as being habitually exploited from the varying local environments all found within a 5 kilometer radius. This is not to say, however, that the inhabitant of Bird Hammock only utilized resources within a radius of 5 miles. It is likely that many of the

56 trees in the midden area were cleared and the inhabitant might have to travel further away from the site to access animals that lived in the nearby environments. An important aspect of site catchment analysis highlights the spatial component of procurement (Reitz and Wing 1999:251). Reitz and Wing (1999:251) point out, “the premise is that the time and energy required to search for food, capture it, and transport it can be controlled by means of settlement patterns.” The inhabitants of Bird Hammock settled in an area with numerous ecological zones, that provided multiple arenas of exploitation. At Bird Hammock catchment analysis shows that the people made use of estuarine, ocean, flatwoods, freshwater, marsh, and swamp environments. Along with environment accessibility, site catchment analysis also must take into account animal accessibility, which varies during parts of each day or season. Although the catchment area may contain a habitat in which a certain species is found, that animal may only be there periodically (Reitz and Wing 1999:255). For example, sea turtles, highly utilized at Bird Hammock, change habitat dramatically at different times of the day or seasons of the year, being sometimes terrestrial and sometimes aquatic (Reitz and Wing 1999:255). Subsistence strategies must account for such behavioral shifts. Methods of Procurement Along with knowledge of the local environment, the Late Swift Creek/Early Weeden Island cultures had established technologies to procure resources. For a more complete discussion of the lithics, as well as bone and shell tools recovered from the site, please see Bense’s thesis (1969). Bense (1969:44) excavated twelve chipped stone projectile points, and placed them in the two phases associated with Bird Hammock: Swift Creek and Weeden Island. The types included Taylor, Duval, Bradford, and Morrow Mountain. In addition to projectile points, Bense (1969:45-46) noted the presence of stone choppers, stone scrapers, a stone burin, a stone drill, a flint core, celts, bone flaking tools, and bone awls, all of which could have been used in the procurement and processing of fauna. Along with technology, foraging and collecting are evident from the presence of Eastern box turtle and sea turtle in the sample. Sea turtles could have been targeted while nesting during April through August (Quitmyer 1985:23). Due to the range in size of sea turtles found at Bird Hammock – juvenile and adult – it appears that juvenile sea turtles

57 could also have been taken in offshore fishing expeditions. This form of resource procurement, along with shellfish gathering, could have been practiced by women and children. Shellfish collecting requires a knowledge of location and perhaps some form of tool for digging. Oysters may be found in great numbers on intertidal flats of estuaries. Larson (1980) suggested that successful exploitation would require water access and transport by a canoe. The Carolina marsh clam and wedge rangia are also readily collectable (Quitmyer 1985:29-32). At Bird Hammock a large number of crowned conch (Melongena corona) columellas were found. These have been suggested to serve as net weights (Mikell 1992) or some form of small tools such as a pick. The inhabitants of Bird Hammock likely used more than one method to acquire fish. They could have used nets, baskets, traps, spears, or weirs. Animals that congregate in schools (such as mullets) are more efficiently taken with nets than solitary animals (Reitz and Wing 1999:269). Mullet do not readily take a hook and are most efficiently caught with nets. In addition to mullet, many of the small schooling fishes, and the larger fish that prey on them, can also be caught with some form of netting (Quitmyer 1985:28). In quiet waters fish poisons are useful and prove a good way to capture large numbers of fish, particularly small ones or ones susceptible to the chemical used (Reitz and Wing 1999:269). Small game such as raccoons, squirrels, rabbits, and opossums can be taken by traps and snares placed where animals congregate, or commonly used game trails. Larger mammals such as bobcat and deer, may have been taken in a similar method, or hunted with the available lithic or bone tools. Site Comparisons Comparative Data: Snow Beach, 8Ok5, the Melton Site, and the Refuge Tower Site Chronologically, Bird Hammock can be compared to numerous sites throughout Florida. It is unfortunate, however, that comparative faunal data from most of these sites are unavailable or unpublished. Snow Beach (8Wa52) and the Refuge Tower (8Wa14) site excavated by Phelps, Cumbaa’s (1972) work at the Melton site (8Al69) near Gainesville, and recent work by Mikell (1994) at 8OK5, all hint at similar settlement and subsistence strategies with certain local distinctions. The following discussion compares the Bird Hammock faunal sample to the available data from Snow Beach, 8Ok5, the Melton site, and the Refuge Tower site, all of

58 which represent the Middle to Late Woodland periods. There are varying levels of information and analysis available from each of these sites. The materials from Snow Beach were analyzed by students at Florida State University, using zooarchaeological methodology akin to Bird Hammock. Data from 8Ok5 is preliminary and while species identifications have been made, further analysis is said to be forthcoming (Mikell 2002). The Melton site fauna was discussed in Cumbaa’s (1972) master’s thesis and is limited to a discussion of MNI. The Refuge Tower site was excavated by Phelps in 1968. A current thesis project by Ariana Slemmens provides information on species identified at the site. Table 6.1 provides a species presence/absence list for each of the sites discussed.

Table 6.1. Site Comparison by Taxa. Melton Refuge Snow Bird Site 8Ok5 Tower Beach Scientific Name Taxonomic Name Hammock (Cumbaa) (Mikell) (Phelps ) (Crusoe) Didelphis virginiana Eastern Opossum X X X Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole X Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits X X X X Sylvilagus palustris Marsh Rabbit X Rodentia Rodents X X Scurius carolinensis Grey Squirrel X X Scurius niger Fox Squirrel X X X Oryzomys palustris Rice Rat X Sigmodon hispidus Hispid Cotton Rat X X Neofiber alleni Round-tailed Muskrat X Urocyon cineroargenteus Grey Fox X Ursus americanus Black Bear X Procyon lotor Raccoon X X X X X Mephitis mephitis Skunk X Lynx rufus Bobcat X X Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer X X X X X Canis familiaris Domestic Dog X Gavia immer Common Loon X X Phalacrocorax spp. Cormorant X Ardeidae Herons X Casmerodius albus American Egret X Hydranassa tricolor Louisiana Heron X Nycticorax nycticorax Black Crowned Night Heron X Eudocimus albus White Ibis X Anas fulvigula Mottled duck X Anas Americana American Wigeon X Cathartes aura Turkey vulture X

59 Table 6.1: Continued Melton Refuge Snow Bird Site 8Ok5 Tower Beach Scientific Name Taxonomic Name Hammock (Cumbaa) (Mikell) (Phelps) (Crusoe) Halaeatus leucocephalus Bald Eagle X Meleagris gallopavo Turkey X X X Rallus longirostris Clapper rail X Alligator mississipiensis American Alligator X X X Kinosternidae Mud or Musk turtles X X X Kinosternon bauri Striped Mud Turtle X Kinosternon subrubrum Mud Turtle X Sternotherus spp. Musk Turtle X Chelydra serpentine Snapping turtle X X Deirochelys reticularia Chicken Turtle X Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin X X X Trachemys spp. Cooters and Sliders X X X Apalone ferox Softshell turtle X X Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise X Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle X X X Cheloniidae Sea turtles X X X Coluber constrictor Black Snake X Drymarchon corais Indigo Snake X Elaphe spp. Rat Snake X Farancia abacura Mud Snake X Lampropeltis getulus King Snake X Masticophis flagellum Coachwhip X Nerodia spp. Water Snake X Nerodia cyclopion Green Water Snake X Nerodia fasciata Banded Water Snake X Agkistrodon piscivorus Cottonmouth Moccasin X Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake X Bufo terrestris Southern Toad X Rana spp. Frogs X Rana pipiens sphenocephala Southern Leopard Frog X Amphiuma means Two-toed Amphiuma X Siren lacertian Greater Siren X Accipenser spp. Sturgeon X X Lepisosteus spp. Gar X X X X X Amia calva Bowfin X X X X X Elops saurus Ladyfish X X X Clupeidae Herring family X X Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad X Esox niger Chain Pickerel X Siluriformes All Catfishes X Ictalurus spp. Freshwater Catfish X Ariidae Marine catfishes X X X X Arius felis Hardhead catfish X Bagre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish X X

60 Table 6.1: Continued Melton Refuge Snow Bird Site 8Ok5 Tower Beach Scientific Name Taxonomic Name Hammock (Cumbaa) (Mikell) (Phelps) (Crusoe) Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker X Opsanus sp. Toadfish X X Centrarchidae Sunfish family X Lepomis gulosus Warmouth X Lepomis microlophus Red-eared Sunfish X X Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass X Pomoxis nigromaculatus Speckled Perch X Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish X Caranx sp. Probably jack crevelle X X X X Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead X X X X Calamus sp. Porgies X Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish X Sciaenidae Drums X X Cynoscion spp. Seatrout X X X Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker X X Pogonias cromis Black drum X X X X Sciaenops ocellatus Redfish X X X Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic Spadefish X X Mugil spp. Mullet X X X X Prionotus sp. Sea-robin X X Bothidae Flounder family X X X X Diodontidae Puffers X X X Chilomycterus schoepfi Striped Burrfish X Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks X X X Raja spp. Skates X Dasyatis americana Stingray X Prunum apicinum Atlantic marginella X Littorina sp. Marsh Periwinkle X Viviparus georgianus Pond Snail X Melongena corona Crowned conch X X X Busycon contrarium Lightening Whelk X X X Rangia cuneata Common rangia X X Polymesoda caroliniana Carolina Marsh Clam X X Mercenaria mercenaria Quahog X Elliptio spp. Freshwater Clam X Argopecten irradians Bay Scallop X X X Crassostrea virginica Eastern Oyster X X X Strombus spp. Conch X Naticidae Moon Shells X Fasciolaria spp. Tulip Shells X Olivella spp. Olive Shells

61 Snow Beach (8Wa52) The Snow Beach site is located in Wakulla County. The site was excavated by Allen in 1954, Phelps in 1967, and Crusoe in 1970. The Snow Beach materials (Table 5.9, Appendix K) I selected are from the Swift Creek occupation, an assemblage excavated by Donald Crusoe in 1970. I selected a comparative level analyzed by students in the Fall Semester 1998 Paleonutrition class.

Table 6.2. Snow Beach Comparative Level.

Snow Beach Level C Class Biomass in NISP MNI grams Mammals 59 2,454.1 4 Birds 4 120.4 2 Reptiles 68 725.9 4 Bony Fish 904 19,663.7 45 Unidentified 10 - - Vertebrates

Worked Bone 1 - -

Burnt Bone 85 - -

I chose Level C from Unit S 50-60, E 140-150 (Appendix 11). The depth of Level C (1.0- 1.5 ft.) at Snow Beach is akin to Level 3 (1.0-1.5 ft.) at Bird Hammock. At Bird Hammock Level 3 was below Features 1 and 2 and above Features 3 and 4. The mammals present in Level C include the Eastern opossum (Didelphis virginiana: NISP=12, MNI=1), rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.: NISP=8, MNI=1), raccoon (Procyon lotor: NISP=8, MNI=1), white tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus: NISP=8, MNI=1). Mammals contribute 11 percent to the overall biomass estimate of the Snow Beach sample. Birds present at the Snow Beach include common loon (Gavia immer: NISP=1, MNI=1) and the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura: NISP=1, MNI=1). Birds contribute 0.5 percent of the estimated biomass.

62 The turtles present at Snow beach are the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina: NISP=8, MNI=1), the diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin: NISP=17, MNI=1), mud or musk turtles (Kinosternidae: NISP=6, MNI=1), and sea turtle (Cheloniidae: NISP=1, MNI=1). The biomass contribution of turtles was 3 percent. Bony fish present in the Snow Beach level include sturgeon (Accipenser spp.: NISP= 1, MNI=1), gar (Lepisosteus spp.: NISP=1, MNI=1), bowfin (Amia calva: NISP=1, MNI=1), gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus: NISP=1, MNI=1), Sea-robin (Priontus spp.: NISP=1, MNI=1), jack crevalle (Caranx spp.: NISP=167, MNI=24), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus: NISP=16, MNI=3), seatrout (Cynosion spp.: NISP=6, MNI=1), black drum (Pogonius cromis: NISP=16, MNI=2), redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus: NISP=1, MNI=1), Atlantic spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber: NISP=5, MNI=5), mullet (Mugil spp.: NISP=38, MNI=2), flounder (Bothidae: NISP=6, MNI=1), and puffers (Diondontidae: NISP=2, MNI=1). The Snow Beach level was dominated by bony fish, with an estimated biomass contribution of 85 percent. 8Ok5 8Ok5 is a Weeden Island village site located in Okaloosa County, Florida excavated initially by Willey in 1940 and by Mikell in 1991. Mikell (1992:202) identified six features at the site. Feature 1 contained deposits of wedge rangia, deer, and fish. Mikell noted that much of the shell was burned and proposed that the pit represented an earth oven or fire pit (Mikell 1992:202). This is a similar finding to the features found at Bird Hammock, particularly Feature 3 that clearly functioned as a hearth. Feature 6 at 8Ok5 also contained a large wedge rangia deposit, and included numerous freshwater fish and turtle bones (Mikell 1992:203). Similar to Bird Hammock, 8Ok5 has an adjacent burial mound, the Ware Mound. The six identified features could have been related to Weeden Island ceremonial practices. Mikell (1992:216) suggested that the identified features may represent the remains of specific activities but that the midden is generally homogenous and dominated by estuarine fish and shellfish. The Melton Site (8Al169) The Melton site (8Al169) is located southeast of Gainesville in Alachua County, Florida. The site was initially excavated by Goggin (1951) and later by Fairbanks in 1971 (Cumbaa 1972). Three small sand burial mounds are present nearby and both mounds and

63 midden date to the Cades Pond occupation, a local Weeden Island culture phase. Cumbaa’s faunal analysis consisted of species identification and quantifications of MNI (Table 5.10). The Melton Site differs from the other comparative sites in that it is an inland site, where the inhabitants focused on terrestrial and freshwater species rather than marine species, as reflected in the large numbers of rodents, reptiles, and freshwater fishes.

Table 6.3. MNI Calculations from the Melton Site (From Cumbaa 1972).

550N- 560N- 520N- 550N- 550N- 520N- 510E 510E Order 500E 510E 500E 500E Feature Feature Zone II Zone II Zone II Feature 6 27 32 Mammals 3 17 28 20 20 6 Birds - 1 3 2 5 16 Amphibians 1 4 28 6 11 8 Reptiles 13 21 32 21 25 14 Bony Fish 6 59 146 92 269 86 Totals 23 102 237 141 330 130

The Refuge Tower Site (8Wa14) Phelps (1969:15) characterized the fauna from the Refuge Tower site as a general coastal pattern, with minor variations that were attributable to both natural and cultural factors. He noted that shellfish remains indicated a dominance of oyster, with crowned conch also an important resource. Phelps (1969:15) also provided a general list of sixteen fish species that dominated the faunal remains. His discussion of terrestrial fauna is extremely brief and only mentions the presence of deer, raccoon, and rabbit (Phelps 1969:16). Ariana Slemmens is currently analyzing the faunal remains from the Refuge Tower site, which will provide a more in depth analysis of the subsistence practices. Discussion Phelps’ work at Snow Beach stimulated preliminary investigations at Bird Hammock because of a recognized similarity in site occupation, and to further develop the temporal relationship between Swift Creek culture and Weeden Island culture. He described Bird Hammock as “a circular embankment situation similar to Snow Beach, but with a strong Weeden Island component.” At Snow Beach, the midden debris was

64 concentrated in a generally circular ridge some 300 ft in internal diameter surrounding a relatively sterile central area (Phelps 1969:14). Like Bird Hammock, shellfish remains at both Snow Beach and Refuge Tower indicate a dominance of oyster throughout the midden, with crowned conch next in popularity. At Bird Hammock and Refuge Tower scallops were recovered, which Russo and Quitmyer (1996:218) note are commonly found at sites along Florida’s Gulf coast. Busycon was present at each of the sites Phelps discussed, though not in great quantity.(Phelps 1969:15). Phelps (1969:15-16) indicates that the most important fish species at the Refuge Tower site were jack crevalle, sheepshead, black drum, Gulf toadfish, striped burrfish, and flounders. Also present at the site were requiem sharks, ladyfish, and sea catfishes. Phelps notes that all of these species are common along the Gulf coast of northern Florida today and are typically estuarine, tolerating some reduction in salinity. Today most of the estuarine species can be taken from March or April until September or October in the Franklin-Wakulla County area, but are scarce or absent in the coldest months (Phelps 1969:15-16). Large black drum are most common in the fall, as is the redfish. Sheepshead, black drum, and toadfish are commonly found around oyster bars. Flounder, although typical of sandy and muddy bottoms, largely feed on small fishes and often lie where they congregate. To Phelps (1969:16), “the high incidence of these fishes and oysters in the middens suggest that much fishing was done in and around the oyster bars.” In addition to similar faunal remains, Snow Beach, Refuge Tower, and Bird Hammock, all had shark vertebrae that had been drilled for use as beads. Further west along the panhandle, Mikell (1992:195) described 8OK5 in Okaloosa County, as a Weeden Island culture fishing village with ceremonial and mortuary aspects. The shellfish from the site is dominated by oyster and wedge rangia (Mikell 1992:215). Mikell (1992:215) importantly points out, “the two dominant species present are of particular interest since they inhabit waters of different salinity, Rangia requires a more consistent fresh to brackish water environment than oyster.” Mikell used these differences in salinity to conclude that the inhabitants of 8Ok5 were accessing numerous locations for shellfish collection. Vertebrate remains included mostly estuarine fish along with deer, raccoon, bear, dog, rodent, turkey, cormorant, alligator, turtle, freshwater fish,

65 and snake (Mikell 1992:216). Similar to the patterns of use at Bird Hammock, deer and turtle are well represented, especially in the identified features. Mikell (1985) also has analyzed faunal materials recovered from the Weeden Island Plantation Hill West site (8SR67). This faunal assemblage also reflects a heavy reliance on estuarine fauna including shellfish (mostly oyster) and fish such as sheepshead, drum, and flounder that are frequently caught on oyster bars. The wide variety of fish in the site suggests indiscriminate harvesting by traps, nets, and/or poisons. Freshwater animals represented in the midden deposits include gar, bowfin, alligator, turtles, and frogs. Terrestrial species include deer, dog, gopher tortoise, box turtle, and turkey. At this site, Mikell (1985) noted the presence of columellas that he interprets as net weights. The large number of columellas at Bird Hammock could also represent this type of usage. In contrast to the Gulf coastal zone sites, Cumbaa’s (1972) analysis of the fauna from the Melton site provides insight into an inland Weeden Island regional culture. The site is located in Alachua County and is a Cades Pond period (A.D.100-600) occupation. The Melton site differs from the previously considered sites because it is inland and its inhabitants depended heavily on terrestrial and freshwater fauna. As a result of the inland location, Cumbaa’s analysis of the Melton site identified a large number of snake species. The high number of snakes present in the Melton sample relates to the exploitation of freshwater environments, with a heavy emphasis on reptiles and amphibians. Characterizing the material from his site, Cumbaa (1972:31) noted that the percentage of mammals seemed to be generally higher in midden levels than in features. Bird remains never achieved a high percentage, but occasionally occurred in some quantity in certain features. The percentage of amphibians was generally the same throughout, but there were occasional high frequencies in certain zones. The percentage of fish was always high in both the midden zone and in features, with more consistency in percentage in the features. This characterization is very similar to the results of analysis of the fauna from Bird Hammock. At both Bird Hammock, 8Ok5, and the Melton site, the midden levels and features alike displayed similar faunal representation, with occasional significant concentrations of certain classes of fauna in the features. At Bird Hammock this is evidenced in the

66 scallop concentration in Feature 1, the deer scapulae of Feature 2, and the large amount of sea turtle in Feature 4. Cumbaa (1972:32) describes this pattern at the Melton site stating, “concentrations appear to be the results of a large numbers of a few species taken from a single microenvironment.” Another similarity is the appearance of essentially complete scapula. These were common at the Melton site and Bird Hammock and to Cumbaa (1972:34) this seemed to “indicate some degree of care in removing the foreleg from the trunk of the animal.” As is evident from the discussion above, Late Swift Creek and Early Weeden Island peoples maintained subsistence strategies that were very similar, although occurring in varied environments across the landscape. Regarding the subsistence practices along the Gulf Coast, Mikell (personal communication 2004) noted, “generally speaking, it is my impression that the faunal material varies little on the coastal sites between Deptford and Fort Walton -- they were catching and collecting whatever was available.” Modeling the Subsistence Strategies of the Gulf Coastal Zone during the Middle to Late Woodland Period As Reitz and Wing (1999:239) state, subsistence strategies are ways that people obtain a variety of nutrients regularly, while ensuring that the costs required to find, catch, transport, process, distribute, and use them do not exceed the benefits they yield. When modeling the behavior of the people of Bird Hammock through subsistence strategies, Struever’s model of the Intensive Harvest Collecting is applicable. Struever (1969:305) describes the Intensive Harvest Collecting of the Middle Woodland as “an adaptation centering on the exploitation of selected, high-yielding natural food resources.” Two factors that Struever (1969:305) views as essential to this model are: “(1) natural food products must occur in large, concentrated populations and lend themselves to harvesting (that is they can be collected in quantity with relatively small labor output), and (2) the plant and animal populations from which these food products are derived must be regularly renewed.” Cumbaa also applied Struever’s model to analyze the habitat exploited by the occupants of the Melton site. At the Melton site, Cumbaa has shown that they did indeed concentrate their efforts on the exploitation of easily harvested plants and animals, which occur in concentrated populations in two major habitats or environments (Cumbaa 1972:56). He also noted,

67 that the animal and plant populations in both the hammocks and the lakes and marshes were without doubt regularly renewed, particularly if areas were alternatively exploited, providing a stable subsistence base for peoples with the technology to exploit them. Applying this model to Bird Hammock, the location of the site with easy access to numerous environments lends itself to harvesting and collecting resources with relatively small labor output. At Bird Hammock, for example, the high numbers of fish can be related to the nearby estuary, where many species of fish spawn yearly and are renewed on an annual basis. Building from this model, and incorporating the diversity and equitability data discussed earlier, a further picture of the inhabitants of Bird Hammock can be seen. Cleland (1976:59-67) outlined a continuum of subsistence strategies with focal, or specialized, at one end and diffuse, or generalized, at the other. The diversity and equitability values for Bird Hammock indicate a focal subsistence strategy with a small number of species being repeatedly selected over others. Adding these data to the Intensive Harvest Economy model indicates that the pattern for the inhabitants of Bird Hammock was focused heavily on a small number of species that were annually renewed. Ultimately the model of Bird Hammock subsistence strategy is highly dependent upon site location. The peoples of Bird Hammock had ready access to riverine, estuarine, coastal, and flatwoods environments, which allowed for a subsistence strategy based on selecting distinct species from the varying environments. Although fish played a dominant role in the diet, deer, sea turtle, and shellfish were also important staple foods. The pattern of subsistence at Bird Hammock is comparable to contemporaneous sites such as Snow Beach, Refuge Tower, and 8Ok5, as well as earlier sites in the Gulf coastal region. As Vita-Finzi and Higgs (1972:4) suggest, where the geographical distribution of essential resources and the technology by which they are exploited has changed little, the pattern of human response might be expected to persist. This statement provides an accurate description for the pattern of human response during the Middle to Late Woodland period in the Gulf coastal zone.

68 CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMENDATIONS

The Bird Hammock faunal sample selected for study suggests an emphasis on deer, sea turtles, marine catfishes, sheepshead, drums, and mullet. The emphasis on deer and sea turtle was higher in the features than in the general level where the dominance of fish, typical of Gulf coastal zone sites, is evident. My analysis of the vertebrate and invertebrate remains supports Struever’s model of a Middle Woodland Intensive Harvest Economy, as did Cumbaa’s (1972) research. The model of subsistence strategy for the site accounts for the selectivity evident in the sample, and the calculations of diversity and equitability. Late Swift Creek and Early Weeden Island peoples intensively utilized the varied ecological zones at Bird Hammock. Based on the available data, the subsistence economy of these people was centered primarily on the collection of shellfish, the capture of small estuarine fish, and the fauna associated with the local flatwoods and broadleaf environment. Zooarchaeological data from the selected features indicate that mammals were the largest contributor of vertebrate biomass in the diet, dominated by deer. In the comparative midden level, however, fish was by far the greatest contributor of biomass. Species such as mullet, catfish, seatrout, flounder, sheepshead, Atlantic croaker and various drums were habitually taken from the marshes and shallow tidal creeks. In terms of invertebrate fauna, Bird Hammock inhabitants favored scallops, wedge rangia, Carolina marsh clam, oysters, and crowned conch. A single lightning whelk was present in Feature 2. The large number of columellas present at the site may hint at net weights, or perhaps some other form of tool use. The bulk of the diet -- turtles, fish and shellfish -- could have been opportunistically gathered by all members of society. When searching for comparative materials, I found that subsistence data from Late Swift Creek, and Early Weeden Island sites are poorly reported. However, with the recent publication by Pluckhahn on Kolomoki, Bense’s work on Santa Rosa/Swift Creek sites such as Bernath, Mikell’s work with Weeden Island sites, and perhaps work at Letchworth Mounds, further insight into these cultures will be gained. The Middle to Late Woodland period in Florida was a dynamic time. Changes were occurring in both settlement patterns and ceremonial behavior. While the subsistence patterns of Swift

69 Creek and Weeden Island cultures do not greatly differ from earlier Gulf coastal zone cultures, there was seemingly an overall increase in the selectivity of certain resources, as is evidenced by the faunal sample from Bird Hammock and the Melton site (Cumbaa 1972). The Middle to Late Woodland period, in addition to faunal studies, needs much more research, particularly regarding botanical remains. This time period sets the stage for incipient agriculture in distinct regions of the country. While incipient agriculture does not appear to be in place along the Gulf Coast of Florida until later times, an accurate depiction of subsistence strategies must account for the dietary contribution of floral resources. Bird Hammock also provides an avenue for botanical research, in that the data analyzed by Penton (1970) are also available in the Florida State University collections. Penton characterized the botanical remains as limited, consisting primarily of charred hickory nuts that were present in every unit excavated. He also discussed the presence of a possible maize cob fragment (Penton 1970:48). A reexamination of these botanical remains could add to the faunal model constructed for Bird Hammock subsistence practices. It is important to remember, as Wing and Quitmyer (1992:367) caution, “an assemblage of animal remains that a zooarchaeologist works with, despite careful excavation, is but a pale shadow of what was disposed of at the time the midden material was accumulated.” Wing and Quitmyer constructed experimental middens using fish and shellfish common to coastal sites. They (Wing and Quitmyer 1992:373) came to five conclusions: (1) small whole fish placed in the midden were completely lost to scavengers; (2) raw filleted fish were lost at a greater rate than cooked fishes; (3) mollusks suffered almost no loss; (4) a number of organisms including small oysters were unintentionally added to the midden; (5) losses to the middens in the presence of wild scavengers were minor compared to an earlier experiment (Walters 1984) in the presence of domestic dogs. When dealing with prehistoric middens, therefore, faunal samples should not be assumed to provide direct evidence of subsistence strategies practiced by the inhabitants of a site. They are, however, as direct as archaeological evidence can get. As Wing and Quitmyer’s experiment suggests, the probability exists that faunal remains have been

70 altered by a number of processes: scavenging by dogs and other animals living in site vicinity, cultural transformations that result in displacement or redistribution of the material, and post abandonment activities at the site. However, although zooarchaeologists must consider site taphonomic processes, scavenging, and excavation biases, faunal studies remain a viable avenue for analysis that allows archaeologists to model prehistoric subsistence practices. The faunal remains from Bird Hammock present data for a period of time that remains underrepresented in the literature. My work with the Bird Hammock faunal sample has shown that during the Woodland period, a general subsistence pattern with regional and local variation existed in the Gulf coastal zone of Florida. Further, the data suggests that Bird Hammock was a sedentary village occupied repeatedly throughout the year, if not year-round. The focal subsistence strategies in place at Bird Hammock, along with the cultural developments of Late Swift Creek and Early Weeden Island peoples, provide evidence for the developments needed to transition into Mississippian lifeways. It is important to note that outside of the Gulf coastal zone, the regional Weeden Island cultures did not transition to Mississippian culture. Therefore, understanding the transition between Woodland and Mississippian lifeways requires an acknowledgement of the accomplishments of the Middle to Late Woodland period. Ultimately this study of Bird Hammock faunal remains makes it clear that an understanding of Woodland period subsistence practices is critical when examining the changes that occurred in diet and economy with the transition to Mississippian culture. In the coastal zone, those subsistence practices were in place essentially since the Archaic period, with increased technology and population. Why and how did agriculture supersede these longstanding practices? Willey (1945:252) suggested that Weeden Island cultures of the Gulf coast environment, with their dependence on marine foods, were “probably near optimum for many of the small villages.” In other words it is possible, that the intensive selectivity or concentrated reliance on a small group of species, could not have continued or been maintained in the face of increasing population numbers, and therefore the onset of agriculture and Mississippian culture and lifeways in the Gulf coastal zone came at just the right time. The adoption of agricultural practices and foreign

71 plant domesticates and associated Mississippian social-ideological practices may have been an adaptation to optimize subsistence resources.

72 APPENDIX A: FEATURE 1 DATA FORM

73 APPENDIX B: FEATURE 2 DATA FORM

74 APPENDIX C: FEATURE 3 DATA FORM

75 APPENDIX D: FEATURE 4 DATA FORM

77 APPENDIX E: FIELD SPECIMEN FORM 8WA30 Bird Hammock- 8Wa30 Florida State University Year___1968_ Department of Anthropology Field Specimen Catalogue

FS Date Material Excavation Provenience Screen Elevations Comments # # Opened/Closed Recovered Unit Size Base Top Bags

1 Bone, Pottery, -160L45 Feature 1 ¼ Shell

2 Deer, Bone -160L45 Feature 1, ¼ Plot 1

3 Turtle, Bone, -160L45 Feature 1, ¼ Pottery Plot 2

4 Bone, Stone -160L45 Feature 2, ¼ Plotted Bone

5 Shell, Bone, -160L45 Feature 2, ¼ Pottery Fill

6 Shell -160L45 Feature 2, ¼ (Busycon) Plotted Shell

78 Bird Hammock- 8Wa30 Florida State University Year______1968______Department of Anthropology Field Specimen Catalogue

FS # Date Opened/Closed Material Recovered Excavation Unit Provenience Screen Elevations Comments # Bags Size Base Top

7 Bone -160L45 Feature 2, ¼ Scapula

8 Bones, Shell -160L45 Feature 3 ¼ Pottery Fill

9 Bone, Shell, -160L45 Level 5 ¼ Pottery

10 Shell -160L45 Feature 4 ¼ Fill

11 Shell -160L45 Feature 4 ¼ Pit 2

12 Bone, Shell, Pottery -150L45 Feature 4 ¼ Pit 5

79 Bird Hammock- 8Wa30 Florida State University Year____1968______Department of Anthropology Field Specimen Catalogue

FS # Date Opened/Closed Material Recovered Excavation Unit Provenience Screen Elevations Comments # Bags Size Base Top

13 Bone, Shell, -150L45 Feature 4 ¼ Pottery Pit 4

14 Burned Bone -150L45 Feature 4 ¼ Fired Area # 2 15 Bone, Pottery -150L45 Feature 4 ¼ Fill

The following is a brief description of the individual FS’s and the materials that

they include. Feature 1 consists of FS1 , which is essentially fill, and includes bone, shell and pottery. FS 2 or Plot 1, includes plotted deer bone. FS 3 or Plot 2, includes plotted deer and turtle bone as well as pottery. Feature 2 is made up of FS 4, plotted bone and stone, FS 5 is feature fill including shell, pottery, and bone, FS 6 includes plotted shell,

and FS 7 is plotted deer scapula. Feature 3 consists solely of FS 8, and includes feature

fill of bone, shell, and pottery. Feature 4 is the largest, and spans two excavation units. FS

10 (-160L45) includes shell, as does FS 11 (-160L45) or Pit 2 of Feature 4, which

includes shell. FS 12 (-150L45) is Pit 5 of Feature 4, FS 13 (-150L45) is Pit 4 of Feature

4. FS 14 (-150L45) is designated by Bense as Fired Area #2 of Feature 4, and finally FS

15 (-150L45) which is general feature fill. Level 5 or FS 9 was chosen as a comparative

level.

81 APPENDIX F: FEATURE 1 TAXON LIST Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % MNI % Mammalia (small) Unidentified mammal 1 0.16 0.1 0.02 3.3113 0.05 0.00 0.00 Mammalia (large) Unidentified mammal 13 2.03 10.6 2.05 220.1787 3.45 7 13.21 0.00 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat 1 0.16 0.1 0.02 3.3113 0.05 0.00 1 2.94 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 9 1.41 165.8 32.03 2615.9297 41.03 0.00 1 2.94 All Mammals 24 3.75 176.6 34.11 2842.7310 44.59 7 13.21 2 5.88

Anas fulvigula Mottled duck 1 0.16 0.9 0.17 18.5507 0.29 0.00 1 2.94 All Birds 1 0.16 0.9 0.17 18.5507 0.29 0 0.00 1 2.94

Testudines Unidentified turtles 24 3.75 21.6 4.17 247.7901 3.89 3 5.66 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud or Musk Turtle 2 0.31 1.1 0.21 33.7080 0.53 0.00 1 2.94 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 7 1.09 16.4 3.17 206.0371 3.23 0.00 1 2.94 Trachemys sp. Cooters and sliders 3 0.47 14.1 2.72 186.1988 2.92 0.00 1 2.94 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 2 0.31 3.1 0.60 67.4858 1.06 0.00 1 2.94 Cheloniidae Sea turtles 21 3.28 144.5 27.91 885.3428 13.89 0.00 1 2.94 All turtles 59 9.22 200.8 38.79 1626.5626 25.51 3 5.66 5 14.71

Serpentes Unidentified snakes 1 0.16 0.1 0.02 1.3490 0.02 0.00 1 2.94 All snakes 1 0.16 0.1 1.3490 0.02 0.00 1 2.94

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 367 57.34 68.0 13.14 900.1859 14.12 21 39.62 0.00 Lepisosteus spp. Gar 7 1.09 2.6 0.50 63.9924 1.00 6 11.32 1 2.94 Amia calva Bowfin 1 0.16 0.2 0.04 8.0137 0.13 0.00 1 2.94 Elops saurus Ladyfish 1 0.16 0.1 0.02 4.8978 0.08 0.00 1 2.94 Siluriformes All Catfish 5 0.78 0.6 0.12 12.2813 0.19 0.00 1 2.94 Ariidae Marine catfishes 12 1.88 24.0 4.64 408.5081 6.41 2 3.77 3 8.82 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish 3 0.47 0.8 0.15 16.1412 0.25 0.00 1 2.94 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 11 1.72 0.8 0.15 24.6322 0.39 0.00 4 11.76 Lepomis microlophus Red-Eared Sunfish 1 0.16 0.3 0.06 11.1293 0.17 0.00 1 2.94 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 12 1.88 6.2 1.20 84.9181 1.33 0.00 5 14.71 Cynoscion nebulosis Seatrout 6 0.94 1.3 0.25 47.2409 0.74 0.00 1 2.94

82 Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % MNI % Pogonias cromis Black drum 2 0.31 2.7 0.52 81.1352 1.27 0.00 1 2.94 Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % MNI % Mugil cephalus Mullet 54 8.44 8.3 1.60 176.6730 2.77 0.00 4 11.76 Bothidae Flounder family 9 1.41 1.9 0.37 46.5683 0.73 0.00 1 2.94 All bony fishes 491 76.72 117.8 22.75 1886.3175 29.59 29 54.72 25 73.53

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified Fragments 64 10.00 21.5 4.15 0.00 14 26.42 0.00 Totals 640 517.7 6375.5108 53 34

Rangia cuneata Common Rangia 11 5.21 119.3 7.34 27.6600 11.22 0.00 4 3.77 Polymesoda caroliniana Carolina Marsh Clam 7 3.32 0.1 0.01 0.1507 0.06 0.00 5 4.72 Crassostrea sp. Eastern Oyster 36 17.06 494.5 30.41 69.7174 28.27 0.00 17 16.04 Argopecten irradians Bay Scallop 132 62.56 691.7 42.54 88.9496 36.07 0.00 58 54.72 Melongena corona Crowned conch 25 11.85 320.4 19.70 60.1187 24.38 24 100.00 22 20.75 All Shellfish 211 100.00 1,626.0 100.00 246.5964 100.00 24 100.00 106 100.00

APPENDIX G: FEATURE 2 TAXON LIST Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Unidentified mammal 40 3.30 72.5 12.71 1242.5223 14.74 12 26.67 0.00 0.00 Mammalia, Medium Unidentified mammal 12 0.99 3.2 0.56 74.9264 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 1 0.08 3.5 0.61 81.2197 0.96 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits 1 0.08 0.3 0.05 8.9004 0.11 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Procyon lotor Raccoon 1 0.08 5.3 0.93 117.9908 1.40 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 33 2.72 215.8 37.85 3316.2426 39.34 0.00 0.00 6 12.00 All Mammals 88 7.255 300.6 52.72 4841.8023 57.44 12 26.67 0 0.00 9 18.00

Aves Unidentified birds 12 0.99 3.5 0.61 63.8413 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 Anas americana Duck 1 0.08 0.3 0.05 6.8262 0.08 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Rallus longirostris Clapper rail 1 0.08 0.1 0.02 2.5119 0.03 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Melagris gallopavo Turkey 1 0.08 6.3 1.10 108.9933 1.29 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 All Birds 15 1.24 10.2 1.79 182.1728 2.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 6.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 97 8.00 32.2 5.65 323.7900 3.84 5 11.11 0.00 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud or Musk turtles 39 3.22 15.3 2.68 196.6723 2.33 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Emydidae Water Turtles 5 0.41 13.4 2.35 179.9535 2.13 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 17 1.40 24.3 4.26 268.1367 3.18 0.00 0.00 2 4.00 Cheloniidae Sea turtles 4 0.33 6.8 1.19 114.2302 1.36 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 All turtles 162 13.36 92 16.13 1082.7827 12.85 5 11.11 0 0.00 5 10.00

Serpentes Unidentified snakes 1 0.08 0.3 0.05 4.0916 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 All snakes 1 0.08 0.3 4.0916 0.05 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 666 54.91 88.1 15.45 1110.2748 13.17 18 40.00 1 100.00 0.00 Acipenser spp. Sturgeon 5 0.41 13.4 2.35 241.5210 2.87 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Lepisosteus spp. Gar 2 0.16 0.2 0.04 8.0137 0.10 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Amia calva Bowfin 1 0.08 0.2 0.04 8.0137 0.10 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Ariidae Marine catfishes 19 1.57 4.8 0.84 88.5481 1.05 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish 1 0.08 0.1 0.02 2.2387 0.03 0.00 0.00 1 2.00

84 Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Opsanus sp. Toadfish 10 0.82 1.1 0.19 31.8807 0.38 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 Caranx sp. Probably jack crevelle 8 0.66 1.9 0.33 68.4389 0.81 1 2.22 0.00 1 2.00 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 13 1.07 10.0 1.75 131.8257 1.56 0.00 0.00 7 14.00 Cynoscion spp. Seatrout 19 1.57 4.1 0.72 110.5249 1.31 0.00 0.00 6 12.00 Sciaenops ocellatus Redfish 4 0.33 2.8 0.49 83.3483 0.99 0.00 0.00 2 4.00 Mugil spp. Mullet 118 9.73 16.7 2.93 331.4705 3.93 2 4.44 0.00 10 20.00 Bothidae Flounder family 22 1.81 4.6 0.81 102.2950 1.21 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 All bony fishes 888 73.21 148.0 25.96 2318.3941 27.50 21 46.67 1 100.00 33 66.00

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified Fragments 59 4.86 19.1 3.35 0.00 7 15.56 0.00 0.00 Totals 1213 570.2 8429.2434 45 1 50

Rangia cuneata Common Rangia 16 51.61 124.0 36.35 28.8253 6.38 9 12.50 Polymesoda caroliniana Carolina Marsh Clam 4 12.90 22.0 6.45 13.4660 2.98 4 5.56 Argopecten irradians Bay Scallop 11 35.48 39.6 11.61 12.7184 2.81 5 6.94 Crassostrea sp. Eastern Oyster 32 103.23 278.4 81.62 39.9327 8.83 13 18.06 Melongena corona Crowned conch 65 209.68 1729.9 507.15 265.1298 58.64 9 12.50 Busycon contrarium Lightening Whelk 1 3.23 137.3 40.25 28.5200 6.31 1 1.39 Gastropoda Columellas (Melongena) 31 100.00 341.1 100.00 63.5237 14.05 31 43.06 All Shellfish 160 516.13 2,672.3 783.44 452.1160 100.00 0.00 72 100.00

APPENDIX H: FEATURE 3 TAXON LIST Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Butchered % MNI % Mammalia, Large Unidentified mammal 1 0.29 0.9 0.71 23.9231 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mammalia, Small Unidentified mammal 2 0.58 0.2 0.16 6.1791 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 1 0.29 0.4 0.32 11.5307 0.55 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits 1 0.29 0.2 0.16 6.1791 0.30 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 2 0.58 23.4 18.44 449.0496 21.48 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 All Mammals 7 2.017 25.1 19.78 496.8616 23.77 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 20.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 2 0.58 0.9 0.71 29.4674 1.41 1 1.25 0.00 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud or Musk turtle 4 1.15 1.5 1.18 41.4936 1.98 1 1.25 0.00 1 6.67 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 4 1.15 9.4 7.41 141.9043 6.79 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 All turtles 10 2.88 11.8 9.30 212.8654 10.18 2 2.50 0 0.00 2 13.33

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 239 68.88 68.8 54.22 908.7546 43.47 66 82.50 0.00 0.00 Elops saurus Ladyfish 1 0.29 0.1 0.08 4.8978 0.23 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 Ariidae Marine catfishes 6 1.73 1.3 1.02 25.6004 1.22 1 1.25 0.00 1 6.67 Caranx sp. Probably jack crevelle 2 0.58 2.6 2.05 90.1938 4.31 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 4 1.15 2.6 2.05 38.1747 1.83 2 2.50 0.00 2 13.33 Cynoscion spp. Seatrout 8 2.31 1.7 1.34 57.6146 2.76 1 1.25 0.00 1 6.67 Pogonias cromis Black drum 1 0.29 0.1 0.08 7.0795 0.34 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 Sciaenops ocellatus Redfish 9 2.59 2.7 2.13 81.1352 3.88 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 Mugil spp. Mullet 40 11.53 6.0 4.73 131.9277 6.31 2 2.50 0.00 1 6.67 Bothidae Flounder family 6 1.73 1.4 1.10 35.4857 1.70 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 All bony fishes 316 91.07 87.3 68.79 1380.8639 66.05 72 90.00 0 0.00 10 66.67

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified Fragments 14 4.03 2.7 2.13 0.00 6 7.50 1 100.00 0.00 Totals 347 126.9 2090.5909 80 1 15

Crassostrea Eastern Oyster 37 46.84 172.9 86.62 25.1571 63.91 7 100.00 Invertebrata gastropods and bivalves 42 53.16 26.7 13.38 14.2033 36.09 0.00 All shellfish 79 100.00 199.6 100.00 39.3605 100.00 0 0 0.00 7 100.00

APPENDIX I: FEATURE 4 TAXON LIST Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Butchered % MNI % Mammalia, Large Unidentified mammal 75 5.30 176.1 14.33 2761.7440 18.04 13 4.00 1 33.33 0.00 Mammalia, Medium Unidentified mammal 3 0.21 3.4 0.28 79.1282 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mammalia, Small Unidentified mammal 2 0.14 0.2 0.02 6.1791 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 5 0.35 5.1 0.42 113.9759 0.74 2 0.62 0.00 1 2.22 Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits 2 0.14 3.6 0.29 83.3052 0.54 1 2.22 Scurius niger Fox squirrel 2 0.14 1.0 0.08 26.3027 0.17 0.00 0.00 1 2.22 Procyon lotor Raccoon 1 0.07 1.2 0.10 30.9930 0.20 0.00 0.00 1 2.22 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 77 5.44 486.7 39.61 6895.0149 45.03 14 4.31 0.00 3 6.67 All Mammals 167 11.79 677.3 55.13 9996.6430 65.29 29 8.92 1 33.33 7 15.56

Aves Unidentified birds 9 0.64 5.6 0.46 97.9154 0.64 1 0.31 0.00 0.00 Gavia immer Common loon 1 0.07 2.1 0.17 40.1069 0.26 0.00 0.00 1 2.22 Meleagris gallopavo Turkey 3 0.21 2.4 0.20 45.2889 0.30 1 0.31 0.00 1 2.22 All Birds 13 0.92 10.1 0.82 183.3113 1.20 2 0.62 0 0.00 2 0.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 77 5.44 89.2 7.26 640.8324 4.19 18 5.54 0.00 0.00 Kinosternon Mud or Musk Turtle 18 1.27 11.7 0.95 164.3178 1.07 0.00 0.00 1 2.22 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 11 0.78 27.7 2.25 292.7261 1.91 0.00 0.00 1 2.22 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 3 0.21 3.3 0.27 70.3727 0.46 0.00 0.00 1 2.22 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 8 0.56 14.8 1.20 192.3425 1.26 0.00 0.00 1 2.22 Cheloniidae Sea turtles 46 3.25 158.5 12.90 941.9321 6.15 0.00 0.00 1 2.22 All turtles 163 11.51 305.2 24.84 2302.5236 15.04 18 5.54 0 0.00 5 11.11

Serpentes Unidentified snakes 1 0.23 0.1 0.07 1.3490 0.06 0.00 0.00 1 All snakes 1 0.23 0.1 1.3490 0.06 0.00 0 0.00

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 616 43.50 113.8 9.26 1366.0772 8.92 145 44.62 0.00 0.00 Lepisosteus spp. Gar 7 0.49 2.2 0.18 55.8936 0.37 2 0.62 0.00 1 2.22 Elops saurus Ladyfish 5 0.35 0.2 0.02 8.0137 0.05 0.00 0.00 1 2.22

87 Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Butchered % MNI % Ariidae Marine catfishes 40 2.82 6.5 0.53 118.1048 0.77 7 2.15 0.00 1 2.22 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish 4 0.28 0.7 0.06 14.2182 0.09 4 1.23 0.00 1 2.22 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 7 0.49 0.9 0.07 27.0979 0.18 0.00 0.00 2 4.44 Caranx sp. Probably jack crevelle 11 0.78 11.1 0.90 323.5074 2.11 1 0.31 0.00 1 2.22 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 10 0.71 6.2 0.50 84.9181 0.55 0.00 0.00 1 2.22 Sciaenidae Drums 14 0.99 6.2 0.50 150.0963 0.98 0.00 0.00 2 4.44 Cynoscion spp. Seatrout 19 1.34 6.6 0.54 157.2036 1.03 0.00 0.00 4 8.89 Mugil spp. Mullet 133 9.39 16.5 1.34 327.8956 2.14 13 4.00 1 33.33 15 33.33 Bothidae Flounder family 14 0.99 2.4 0.20 57.3308 0.37 0.00 0.00 2 4.44 All bony fishes 880 62.15 173.3 14.11 2690.3572 17.57 172 52.92 1 33.33 31 68.89

Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks 1 0.07 1.1 0.09 136.6462 0.89 0.00 1 33.33 0.00 All sharks and rays 1 0.07 1.1 0.09 136.6462 0.89 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified Fragments 191 13.49 61.5 5.01 0.00 104 32.00 0.00 0.00 Totals 1416 1228.6 15310.8304 325 3 45

Gastropoda, Large Probably Melongena 16 3.81 89.1 4.97 19.4936 6.04 10 10.75 Gastropoda, Small Probably Littorina 8 1.90 3.1 0.17 1.3240 0.41 0.00 Rangia cuneata Common rangia 36 8.57 292.1 16.30 71.9760 22.29 18 19.35 Polymesoda caroliniana Carolina Marsh Clam 24 5.71 76.3 4.26 37.9440 11.75 17 18.28 Crassostrea sp. Eastern Oyster 302 71.90 1248.4 69.68 171.1840 53.01 48 51.61 Pelycepoda Polymesoda or Rangia 34 8.10 82.7 4.62 20.9847 6.50 0.00 All Shellfish 420 100.00 1,791.7 100.00 322.9063 100.00 0 0.00 93 100.00

APPENDIX J: LEVEL 5 TAXON LIST Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Butchered % MNI % Mammalia, Large Unidentified mammal 28 0.61 18.4 2.70 361.6896 4.07 15 3.10 0.00 0.00 Mammalia, Medium Unidentified mammal 2 0.04 0.7 0.10 19.0804 0.21 2 0.41 0.00 0.00 Mammalia, Small Unidentified mammal 1 0.02 0.1 0.01 3.3113 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits 2 0.04 0.6 0.09 16.6087 0.19 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Rodentia Rodents 3 0.07 0.3 0.04 8.9004 0.10 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Scurius niger Fox Squirrel 1 0.02 0.4 0.06 11.5307 0.13 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Lynx rufus Bobcat 1 0.02 0.8 0.12 21.5170 0.24 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Mephitis mephitis Skunk 1 0.02 1.4 0.21 35.6053 0.40 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Procyon lotor Raccoon 1 0.02 0.4 0.06 11.5307 0.13 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 15 0.33 15.6 2.29 311.7541 3.51 3 0.62 0.00 1 1.47 All Mammals All Mammals 55 1.2 38.7 5.68 801.5282 9.02 20 4.13 0 0.00 7 10.29

Aves Unidentified birds 4 0.09 0.6 0.09 12.8268 0.14 2 0.41 0.00 0.00 All Birds All Birds 4 0.09 0.6 0.09 12.8268 0.14 2 0.41 0 0.00 0 0.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 89 1.94 20.1 2.95 236.1247 2.66 23 4.75 0.00 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud or Musk turtles 15 0.33 5.4 0.79 97.8822 1.10 0.00 1 50.00 2 2.94 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 3 0.07 4.5 0.66 86.6268 0.98 1 0.21 0.00 2 2.94 All turtles 107 2.33 30 4.41 420.6337 4.74 24 4.96 1 50.00 4 5.88

Serpentes Unidentified snakes 3 0.07 0.9 0.13 12.4104 0.14 2 0.41 0.00 1 1.47 All snakes All Snakes 3 0.07 0.9 12.4104 0.14 0.41 0 0.00 1 1.47

Anura Frog or Toad 11 0.24 1.0 0.15 20.4174 0.23 0.00 0.00 1 1.47

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 3524 76.86 354.3 52.03 3427.6039 38.59 262 54.13 0.00 0.00 Lepisosteus spp. Gar 25 0.55 3.3 0.48 77.6240 0.87 19 3.93 0.00 1 1.47 Elops saurus Ladyfish 23 0.50 1.4 0.21 39.3950 0.44 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Clupeidae Herring family 1 0.02 0.1 0.01 4.5709 0.05 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Ariidae Marine catfishes 88 1.92 18.0 2.64 310.8199 3.50 14 2.89 0.00 1 1.47 Arius felis Hardhead catfish 2 0.04 1.5 0.22 29.3283 0.33 0.00 0.00 2 2.94 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish 5 0.11 1.0 0.15 19.9526 0.22 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 1 0.02 0.2 0.03 8.0137 0.09 0.00 0.00 1 1.47

89 Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Butchered % MNI % Lepomis microlophus Sunfish 1 0.02 0.2 0.03 8.0137 0.09 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Caranx sp. Probably jack crevelle 44 0.96 92.0 13.51 2080.3351 23.42 5 1.03 0.00 4 5.88 Calamus sp. Porgies 3 0.07 0.1 0.01 1.9055 0.02 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 16 0.35 9.5 1.40 125.7493 1.42 1 0.21 0.00 1 1.47 Sciaenidae Drums 16 0.35 2.4 0.35 74.3629 0.84 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Cynoscion spp. Seatrout 32 0.70 7.2 1.06 167.6587 1.89 2 0.41 0.00 7 10.29 Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 2 0.00 0.5 0.07 23.2937 0.26 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Pogonias cromis Black drum 12 0.26 6.1 0.90 148.3010 1.67 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Sciaenops ocellatus Redfish 30 0.65 10.9 1.60 227.8744 2.57 0.00 0.00 1 1.47 Mugil spp. Mullet 255 5.56 35.0 5.14 645.1508 7.26 22 4.55 0.00 27 39.71 Bothidae Flounder family 37 0.81 6.2 0.91 133.4224 1.50 2 0.41 0.00 1 1.47 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic Spadefish 1 0.02 2.6 0.38 60.8734 0.69 1 0.21 0.00 1 1.47 All bony fishes 4118 89.77 552.5 81.13 7614.2493 85.73 328 67.77 0 0.00 55 80.88

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified Fragments 287 6.26 47.3 6.95 0.00 110 22.73 1 50.00 0.00 Totals 4585 681.0 8882.0657 484 2 68

Littorina sp. Marsh Periwinkle 2 0.24 1.1 0.31 0.4999 0.59 2 11.11 Gastropoda, Small Likely Marsh Periwinkle 14 1.68 3.7 1.04 1.5635 1.85 0.00 Gastropoda, Large Probably Melongena 10 1.20 19.4 5.44 10.5871 12.55 7 38.89 Bivalve Probably Crassostrea 743 89.20 235.7 66.10 42.7764 50.70 0.00 Pelycepoda Probably Rangia 47 5.64 38.2 10.71 8.1968 9.72 0.00 Rangia cuneata Common rangia 3 0.36 12.6 3.53 2.5072 2.97 2 11.11 Argopecten irradians Bay Scallop 4 0.48 34.8 9.76 11.6486 13.81 3 16.67 Melongena corona Crowned conch 5 0.60 4.0 1.12 1.2700 1.51 2 11.11 Polymesoda caroliniana Carolina Marsh Clam 2 0.24 6.3 1.77 4.7517 5.63 2 11.11 Unidentified Shell Unidentified shell 3 0.36 0.8 0.22 0.5634 0.67 0.00 All Shellfish 833 100.00 356.6 100.00 84.3648 100.00 0 0.00 18 100.00

APPENDIX K: SNOW BEACH TAXON LIST Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Butchered % MNI % Mammalia, Large Unidentified mammal 22 2.11 61.5 3.55 1071.4887 4.67 2 2.35 0.00 0.00 Mammalia, Medium Unidentified mammal 1 0.10 2.1 0.12 51.2858 0.22 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Didelphis virginiana Eastern Opposum 12 1.15 14.9 0.86 299.1353 1.30 1 1.18 0.00 1 1.82 Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits 8 0.77 2.0 0.12 49.0825 0.21 0 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Procyon lotor Raccoon 8 0.77 1.5 0.09 37.8863 0.16 0 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 8 0.77 53.5 3.09 945.1884 4.12 1 1.18 0.00 1 1.82 All Mammals 59 5.646 135.5 7.82 2454.0671 10.69 4 4.71 0.00 4 7.27

Aves Unidentified birds 2 0.19 3.9 0.23 70.4480 0.31 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Gavia immer Common loon 1 0.10 1.4 0.08 27.7317 0.12 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.82 Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture 1 0.10 1.1 0.06 22.2673 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.82 All Birds 4 0.38 6.4 0.37 120.4470 0.52 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.64

Testudines Unidentified turtles 36 3.44 33.1 1.91 329.8259 1.44 1 1.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud or Musk turtle 6 0.57 2.7 0.16 61.5196 0.27 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 8 0.77 0.5 0.03 19.8751 0.09 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 17 1.63 20.6 1.19 240.0441 1.05 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Cheloniidae Sea turtles 1 0.10 3.6 0.21 74.5972 0.32 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 All turtles 68 6.51 60.5 3.49 725.8620 3.16 1 1.18 0 0.00 4 7.27

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 641 61.34 768.7 44.39 6418.9364 27.95 79 92.94 0.00 0 0.00 Acipenser spp. Sturgeon 1 0.10 0.5 0.03 16.8332 0.07 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Lepisosteus spp. Gar 1 0.10 5.1 0.29 110.4414 0.48 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Amia calva Bowfin 1 0.10 0.7 0.04 22.1070 0.10 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Ariidae Marine catfishes 1 0.10 0.9 0.05 18.0522 0.08 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish 1 0.10 0.3 0.02 6.3572 0.03 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Prionotus spp. Searobins 1 0.10 2.2 0.13 77.8631 0.34 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Caranx sp. Probably jack crevelle 167 15.98 614.3 35.47 11060.5024 48.16 1 1.18 0.00 24 43.64 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 16 1.53 32.6 1.88 390.9851 1.70 0 0.00 0.00 3 5.45 Cynoscion spp. Seatrout 6 0.57 3.1 0.18 89.8685 0.39 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Pogonias cromis Black drum 16 1.53 51.2 2.96 715.9122 3.12 0.00 0.00 2 3.64 Sciaenops ocellatus Redfish 1 0.10 2.2 0.13 69.7257 0.30 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic Spadefish 5 0.48 20.8 1.20 344.8509 1.50 0.00 0.00 5 9.09

91 Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Butchered % MNI % Mugil spp. Mullet 38 3.64 9.1 0.53 191.9275 0.84 0.00 0.00 2 3.64 Bothidae Flounder family 6 0.57 2.5 0.14 59.4520 0.26 0.00 1 100.00 1 1.82 Diodontidae Puffers 2 0.19 2.9 0.17 69.9105 0.30 0.00 0.00 1 1.82 All bony fishes 904 86.51 1517.1 87.60 19663.7253 85.63 80 94.12 1 100.00 45 81.82

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified Fragments 10 0.96 12.3 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals 1045 1731.8 22964.1014 85 1 55

92 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbot, R.Tucker 1968 Seashells of North America. Golden Press, New York.

Abrahamson, Warren G., and Hartnett, David C. 1990 Pine Flatwoods and Dry Praries. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers, and John J. Ewel, pp. 103-149. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Adams, William Hampton 1985 Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality Volume 2: Zooarchaeolgy. University of Florida Department of Anthropology Reports of Investigations, 2.

Alden, Peter, Rick Cech, and Gil Nelson 1998 National Audubon Society Field Guide to Florida. Chanticleer Press, Random House, New York.

Allen, G.T 1954 Archaeological Excavations in the Central Northwest Gulf Coast Area. Florida State University Studies no. 16:61-68.

Anderson, D.G. 1998 Swift Creek in a Regional Perspective. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of The Swift Creek Culture, edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliot, 274-300. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anderson, David G., and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. 2002 The Woodland Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Ashley, Keith H. 1992 Swift Creek Manifestations Along the Lower St. Johns River. Florida Anthropologist 45(2): 127-147.

Ashley, Keith H. 1995 The Dent Mound: A Coastal Woodland Period Burial Mound Near the Mouth of the St. Johns River, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 48(1): 13-35.

Bense, Judith A. 1969 Excavations at the Bird Hammock Site 8(WA) 30, Wakulla County Florida. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.

1998 Santa Rosa-Swift Creek in Northwestern Florida. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliot, 247-273. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

93 Bettinger, R.L. 1987 Archaeological Approaches to Hunter-Gatherers. Annual Review of Anthropology 16:121-142.

Byrd, John E. 1994 The Zooarchaeology of Four Gulf Coast Prehistoric Sites. PhD dissertation, submitted to the Department of Anthropology, The University of Tennessee.

Casteel, Richard W. 1974 On the Remains of Fish Scales from Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 39(4):557-581.

Claassen, C. 1998 Shells. Cambridge University Press.

Clason, A.T. 1972 Some Remarks on the Use and Presentation of Archaeozoological Data. Helinium 12(2):139-153.

Cleland, C.E. 1966 The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoology of the Upper Great Lakes Region. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Papers, No. 29.

Conant, R. 1975 A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Cumbaa, S.L. 1972 An Intensive Harvest Economy in North-central Florida. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology University of Florida, Gainesville.

Emerson, Thomas E., Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier 2000 Late Woodland Societies. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Fewkes, J.W. 1924 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at Weeden Island, Florida. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 76(13): 1-26. Washington, D.C.

Forney, S.J. 1985 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence System of the Apalachicola National Forest, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 38(1 and 2): 98-103.

Gilbert, B. Miles, Larry D. Martin, and Howard G. Savage 1981 Avian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Inc. Columbia, Missouri.

94 Gilbert, B. Miles 1990 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Inc., Columbia, Missouri.

Grayson, D.K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press. Orlando, Florida.

Hale, H.S., and R.A. Marrinan 1987 Fort Matanzas Spreadsheet for Excel®. Zooarchaeology Lab, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Hawkes, C. 1954 Archaeology Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropologist 56:155-168.

Holliman, R.B. 1968 Bird Hammock, Mound B, Revisited. The Florida Anthropologist 21(2&3): 61-66.

Holm, M.A. 1994 Continuity and Change: the Zooarchaeology of Aboriginal Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Johnson, Ann F., and Michael G. Barbour 1990 Dunes and Maritime Forests. In Ecosystems of Florida edited by Ronald L. Myers and John J. Ewel, pp. 429-480. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Kelly, Lucretia S. 2001 A Case of Ritual Feasting at the Cahokia Site. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp.334-367. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

LaFond, Arthur A., and Keith H. Ashley 1995 The Queen Mound (8DU110). Florida Anthropologist 48(1):35-46.

Leonard, R.D., and Jones, G.T. 1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press.

Livingston, Robert J. 1990 Inshore Marine Habitats. In Ecosystems of Florida edited by Ronald L. Myers and John J. Ewel, pp.549-573. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Lyman, R.L. 1982 Archaeofaunas and Subsistence Studies. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory vol. 5 edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 331-393. Academic Press, New York.

1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press.

1994 Quantitative Units and Terminology in Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 59(1):36-71.

Mikell, Gregory A. 1985 Vertebrate Analysis from 8Sr29 and 8Sr67. In Archaeological Investigations at Naval Live Oaks, Studies in Spatial Patterning and Chronology in the Gulf Coast of Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.

1992 8OK5: A Coastal Weeden Island Village in Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45(3): 195-220.

1993 The Little’s Bayou West Site: Evidence of the Late Weeden Island-Fort Walton Transition in Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46(1): 12-20.

2000 The Face of Change: Late Weeden Island - Early Fort Walton Transitional Ceramics from the Choctawhatchee Bay Area in Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53(3-4): 151-171.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1998 Florida’s Indians from Ancient Times to the Present. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Milanich, J.T., A.S. Cordell, V.J. Knight, T.A. Kohler, and B.J. Sigler-Lavelle 1984 McKeithen Weeden Island: The Culture of Northern Florida, A.D. 200-900. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1997 Archaeology of Northern Florida A.D. 200-900: The McKeithen Weeden Island Culture. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Miller, James J. 1994 The Benton Mound: Evidence of Burial Ceremonialism in the St. Johns I Period. Florida Anthropologist 47(2): 207-223.

Montague, Clay L., and Richard G. Wiegert 1990 Salt Marshes. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers, and John J. Ewel, pp 481-516. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Moore, C.B. 1901 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast, Part I. Journal of The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:419-497.

1918 The Northwestern Florida Coast Revisited. In The Northwest Florida Expeditions Of Clarence Bloomfield Moore edited by David S. Brose and Nancy M. White, pp.493-496. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

O’Conner, Terry 2000 The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Olsen, Stanley J. 1968 Fish, Amphibian and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites: Part I Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. LVI, No.2. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Pauketat, T.R., L.S. Kelly, G.J. Fritz, N.H. Lopinot, E. Scott, and E. Hargrave 2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia. American Antiquity 67(2): 257-279.

Penton, Dan T. 1970 Excavations in the Early Swift Creek Component at Bird Hammock (8WA30). Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.

Phelps, D.S. 1969 Swift Creek and Santa Rosa in Northwest Florida. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Notebook 1(6-9):14-24.

Platt, William J., and Mark W. Schwartz 1990 Temperate Hardwood. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers, and John J. Ewel, pp. 194-229. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Pluckhahn, Thomas J. 2003 Kolomoki: Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to 750. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Quitmyer, I.R. 1985 Zooarchaeological Methods for the Analysis of Shell Middens at Kings Bay. In Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality Volume 2: Zooarchaeology, pp. 33-48. University of Florida Department of Anthropology Reports of Investigations 2.

97 Reitz, E.J. 1978 Zooarchaeological Theory and Method. In The Zooarchaeology of Eastern North America: History, Method and Theory, and Bibliography, edited by A.E. Bogan and N.D. Robison, pp. 27-43. Miscellaneous Paper no. 12, Tennessee Anthropological Association.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., and I.R. Quitmeyer 1988 Faunal Remains from Two Coastal Georgia Swift Creek Sites. Southeastern Archaeology 7(2):95-108.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Riser, G. 1987 The Quave Ceramic Collection: Mississippian Presence on the North Shore of Lake Pontchartrain. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Louisana Archaeological Society, New Orleans.

Robbins, Laura E. 1994 An Analysis of Weeden Island Period Ceramic Variability at the Sowell Site (8BY3) In Northwest Florida. Thesis Submitted to the Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.

Ruhl, Donna L. 2000 Archaeobotany of Bernath Place and other Santa Rosa/Swift Creek-Related Sites in Coastal and Non-Coastal Southeastern U.S. locations. Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3):190-204.

Russo, M., and Quitmyer I.R. 1996 Sedentism in Coastal Populations of South Florida. In Case Studies of Environmental Archaeology, edited by E.J. Reitz, L.A. Newsom, and S.J. Scudder, pp. 127-147. Plenum Press, New York.

Saunders, Rebecca 1986 Attribute Variability in Late Swift Creek Phase Ceramics from Kings Bay, Georgia. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Scarry, C. Margaret 1993 Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Sears, W.H. 1956 Excavations at Kolomoki, Final Report. University of Georgia Series in Anthropology 5, Athens.

98 Shannon, C.E., and Weaver, W. 1949 The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Sheldon, A.L. 1969 Equitability Indices: Dependence on the Species Count. Ecology 50:466-467.

Smith, E.A. 1983 Anthropological Considerations of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review.Current Anthropology 24:625-651.

Snow, F. 1977 An Archaeological Survey of the Ocmulgee Big Bend Region. South Georgia College, Occasional Papers from South Georgia 3. Douglas.

Snow, F., and Stephenson, K. 1998 Swift Creek Designs: A Tool for Monitoring Interaction. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliot, pp.99-111. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Stephenson, Keith, Judith A. Bense, and Frankie Snow 2002 Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek of the South Atlantic, in The Woodland Southeast, edited by Anderson and Mainfort, pp. 318-340. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Struever, S. 1968 Woodland Subsistence-Settlement Systems in the Lower Illinois Valley. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S.R. and L.R. Binford, pp. 285-312. Chicago, Aldine.

Tesar, L.D., B.N. Swann, J.J. Miller, M. Damour-Horrell, and M. Lavender 2003 Results of the Letchworth Mounds (8Je337) Archaeological State Park Auger And Topographic Survey with Management Recommendations. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research.

Thunen, Robert L., and Keith H. Ashley 1995 Mortuary Behavior Along the Lower St. Johns: An Overview. The Florida Anthropologist 48(1): 3-13.

Vita-Finzi, C., and Higgs, E.S. 1970 Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36:1-37.

Wheeler, R.J., J.J. Miller, R.M. McGee, D. Ruhl, B. Swann, and M. Memory 2003 Archaic Period Canoes from Newnan’s Lake, Florida. American Antiquity 68(3):533-551.

White, Nancy M. 1992 The Overgrown Road Site (8Gu38): A Swift Creek Camp in the Lower Apalachicola Valley. The Florida Anthropologist 45(1):18-38. White, T.E. 1953 A Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentage of Various Food Animals Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity 18(4):396-8.

Willey, Gordon R. 1945 The Weeden Island Culture: A Preliminary Definition. In American Antiquity 10(3): 225-254.

1998 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Wing, E.S., and Brown, A. 1979 Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric Foodways. Academic Press, New York.

Yellen, J.E. 1977 Cultural Patterning in Faunal Remains: Evidence from the !Kung Bushmen. In Experimental Archaeology edited by D. Ingersoll, J. Yellen, and W. Macdonald, pp. 271-331. Columbia University Press, New York.

Zeder, M.A. 1978 Differentiation Between the Bones of Caprines from Different Ecosystems in Iran by the Analysis of Osteological Microstructure and Chemical Composition. In Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by R.H. Meadow and M.A. Zeder, pp 69-84. Peabody Museum Bulletin 2, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

100

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

I grew up in Rome, Georgia attending Darlington School. I graduated from Vanderbilt University, with a B.A. in Anthropology. I then enrolled in the Anthropology graduate program of Florida State University. In Fall of 2004, I will receive my M.S. in Anthropology from FSU. My research interests are focused on modeling the transition from the Woodland to Mississippian period through zooarchaeological studies.

101

102