University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting

HUMAN BIOLOGICAL VARIATION AND BIOLOGICAL DISTANCE IN PRE-CONTACT FLORIDA: A MORPHOMETRIC EXAMINATION OF BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

MARANDA ALMY KLES

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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2013

To the two people in my life who made this possible: my husband, Joseph Kles, and my mother, Marion Almy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and guidance of many people, probably more than I list here. Firstly I would like to acknowledge my co-chairs Dr. Michael Warren and Dr. John Krigbaum who have helped me become the biological anthropologist I am through their mentorship from my undergraduate years onward. Also, many thanks to Dr. Kenneth Sassaman for piquing my interest in anthropology in his General Anthropology course and second for helping me go from the daughter of an archaeologist to a biological anthropologist who better understands the complexities of the archaeological record.

Secondly, I want to acknowledge the people who have provided insight and input on my research. Dr. George Luer, his input and support have helped me immensely. I appreciate the invaluable information provided by Donna Ruhl, Louis Tesar, Dr. Robert

Austin, and Dr. David Dickel about sites and collections. Dr. Jerald Milanich, who has been a mentor in various ways and who showed me many years ago that you can blend archaeology, history, and biological anthropology. I am also indebted to Katie Miyar for traveling with me to collections, allowing me to stay in her house while working, and providing me with a supportive ear through this process. In addition, Dr. Sherry Hutt for discussions that led to this topic, Dr. Jan Matthews for being a friend, Dr. Margo

Schwadron for her support, guidance, and friendship, and many others whom I am forgetting for input on various topics.

Thirdly, I must acknowledge those institutions and the people who care for

Florida’s priceless collections examined in this research: The Florida Museum of Natural

History, Florida Department of Historic Resources, Florida State University, Florida Gulf

Coast University, Florida Atlantic University, University of Miami, Sarasota County

History Center, the Smithsonian Institution, Donna Ruhl, Dr. Neill Wallis, Elise

LeCompte, Dr. David Dickel, Dr. Glen Doran, Dr. Heather Walsh-Haney, Dr. Arlene

Fradkin, Dr. John Gifford, Monica Faraldo, Jodi Prachett, and Dr. David Hunt.

No acknowledgement would be complete without thanking my family for their love and support. In particular, I want to thank my mom—despite her many efforts and best intentions, I thank her for starting me in this field (even before I was born) and helping me find my true passion (that fateful trip to the cemetery in Fort Myers). It is my hope that your granddaughter follows in your footsteps and becomes an anthropologist!

Also, thank you to Grandpa Sheldon and Grandpa Dick for the many tiring hours put in at the end entertaining their granddaughter so I could work. It would have taken ten times longer without you.

Lastly, I want to thank Joseph Kles, my husband, without whom I never could have done this. When I told you I wanted to come back to school and you said ‘yes’, I knew you were the one for me, even if you had no idea what you were getting yourself into. Five years later here we are and you have been everything to me whenever I needed it -- words can never express my gratitude.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 9

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 11

ABSTRACT ...... 14

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS ...... 16

2 CULTURE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF FLORIDA ...... 28

Paleoindian Period ...... 28 Archaic Period ...... 29 Woodland Period ...... 32 North Florida ...... 34 North and Northwest ...... 35 North Central ...... 37 Northeast ...... 39 Southern Peninsular Gulf Coast and South Florida ...... 40 Southern Peninsular Gulf Coast ...... 40 South Florida ...... 42 Mississippian Period ...... 45 Summary ...... 46

3 BIOLOGICAL DISTANCE ANALYSIS: HISTORY, THEORY, AND METHODS ..... 51

Biological Distance Studies on Living Populations ...... 52 Biological Distance Studies on Archaeological Populations ...... 53 Metric Versus Non-Metric Traits ...... 59 Biological Distance-Theory, Assumptions, and Models ...... 61 Theory ...... 61 Assumptions ...... 62 Assumptions analyzed ...... 62 Model derivations ...... 67 Methodologies ...... 70

4 METHODS AND MATERIALS ...... 72

Data Collected ...... 72 Missing Data ...... 74 Statistical Methods ...... 77

Materials ...... 80 Archaic Sites ...... 80 Warm Mineral Springs (8SO19) ...... 80 Windover Pond (8BR246) ...... 81 Little Salt Spring (8SO18) ...... 81 Bay West (8CR200) ...... 82 Republic Groves (8HR4) ...... 82 Gauthier (8BR193) ...... 83 Bird Island (8DI52) ...... 83 Weeden Island/Manasota Sites ...... 84 McKeithan (8CO17) ...... 84 Crystal River (8CI1) ...... 84 Hughes Island Mound (8DI45) ...... 85 Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4) ...... 86 Dunwody (8CH61) ...... 86 Casey Key (8SO17) ...... 87 Palmer Burial Mound (8SO2A) ...... 87 Manasota Key Cemetery (8SO1292) ...... 88 Venice Beach Complex (8SO26) ...... 88 Bayshore Homes (8PI41) ...... 89 Bay Pines Site (8PI64) ...... 89 South Florida Sites ...... 90 Captiva Mound (8LL57) ...... 90 Hutchinson Island Burial Mound (8MT37) ...... 90 Highlands Beach Mound or Boca Raton Beach Burial Mound (8PB11) ..... 91 Margate-Blount Mound (8BD41) ...... 91 Safety Harbor Sites ...... 92 Sarasota Bay Mound (8SO44) ...... 92 Safety Harbor (8PI2) ...... 92 Alachua/St. Johns/Fort Walton Sites ...... 92 Henderson Mound (8AL463) ...... 92 Browne Site 5 (8DU62) ...... 93 Santa Rosa Mound or the Fort Walton Temple Mound (8OK6) ...... 93

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 97

All Sites ...... 98 Results ...... 98 Discussion ...... 101 Archaic ...... 102 Results ...... 102 Discussion ...... 106 Weeden Island/Manasota ...... 111 Weeden Island/Manasota results ...... 111 Weeden Island results ...... 113 Manasota results ...... 115 Discussion ...... 118

South Florida ...... 126 Results ...... 126 Discussion ...... 129 Weeden Island/Alachua/St. Johns/Fort Walton ...... 130 Results ...... 130 Discussion ...... 132 Manasota/Safety Harbor ...... 133 Results ...... 133 Discussion ...... 136 Biological Variation And Gene Flow ...... 137 Archaic Period ...... 138 Woodland Period ...... 138 Discussion ...... 139 Biodistance Assumptions ...... 142

6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 198

Summary ...... 198 Limitations to This Research ...... 204 Future Research ...... 206 Broader Impact ...... 207

APPENDIX

A DEFINITION OF MEASUREMENTS ...... 208

B RAW DATA ...... 211

C TIME AND GEOGRAPHY DISTANCE MATRIX ...... 225

D RESULTS ...... 228

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 268

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 280

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 General Scheme of Florida Culture Periods...... 50

4-1 Site Information ...... 95

4-2 Measurement taken ...... 96

4-3 Measurements used...... 96

5-1 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between all populations...... 149

5-2 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances all the Archaic populations...... 158

5-3 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances for the third analysis of the Archaic populations...... 162

5-4 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Weeden Island/Manasota populations...... 168

5-5 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Weeden Island populations...... 172

5-6 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between for the second analysis of the Weeden Island populations...... 173

5-7 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Manasota populations...... 176

5-8 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances for the fourth analysis of the Manasota populations...... 180

5-9 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the South Florida populations...... 184

5-10 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Weeden Island/Alachua/St. Johns populations...... 188

5-11 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Weeden Island/Fort Walton populations...... 191

5-12 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Weeden Island/Fort Walton/Manasota/Safety Harbor populations...... 193

5-13 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances for the third analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations...... 195

5-14 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances for the fourth analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations...... 197

D-1 Independent sample t-test for equality of means ...... 228

D-2 Principle Component Results ...... 231

D-3 Discriminant Function Results ...... 234

D-4 Cross validation percentage results for Discriminant Function Analysis ...... 237

D-5 R-Matrix Results ...... 250

D-6 The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the sites...... 261

D-7 Correlation Matrix: Biodistance to Temporal and Geographic distances ...... 267

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 Map of the location and cultural association of the sites used in this study...... 27

5-1 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis of all the populations identified by cultural label...... 146

5-2 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for all populations. The cluster of Archaic populations is circled in blue...... 147

5-3 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for all populations...... 148

5-4 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the Woodland and Mississippian populations. The cluster of Manasota populations is circled in green and the Weeden Island populations in red...... 153

5-5 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for the Woodland and Mississippian populations. The cluster of Manasota populations is circled in green and the Weeden Island populations in red...... 154

5-6 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for all Archaic populations...... 155

5-7 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for all Archaic populations...... 156

5-8 Graph of the first and second eigenvalue for all Archaic populations...... 157

5-9 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for the second analysis of the Archaic populations...... 159

5-10 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the second analysis of the Archaic populations...... 160

5-11 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the third analysis of the Archaic populations. The Republic Groves population is circled in light blue...... 161

5-12 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the third analysis of the Archaic populations...... 162

5-13 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the fourth analysis of the Archaic populations...... 163

5-14 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for the fourth analysis of the Archaic populations...... 164

5-15 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the first analysis of the Weeden Island/Manasota populations...... 165

5-16 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for first analysis of the Weeden Island/Manasota populations...... 166

5-17 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the first analysis of the Weeden Island/Manasota populations...... 167

5-18 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the second analysis of the Weeden Island/Manasota populations...... 169

5-19 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for the first analysis of the Weeden Island populations...... 170

5-20 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the first analysis of the Weeden Island populations...... 171

5-21 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the second analysis of the Weeden Island populations...... 172

5-22 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the first analysis of the Manasota populations. The Dunwody population is circled in yellow and the Yellow Bluffs populations in light blue...... 173

5-23 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for first analysis of the Manasota populations...... 174

5-24 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the first analysis of the Manasota populations...... 175

5-25 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for the third analysis of the Manasota populations...... 177

5-26 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the third analysis of the Manasota populations...... 178

5-27 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the fourth analysis of the Manasota populations...... 179

5-28 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the fourth analysis of the Manasota populations...... 180

5-29 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the first analysis of the South Florida populations. The Dunwody population is circled in yellow...... 181

5-30 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for first analysis of the South Florida populations...... 182

5-31 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the first analysis of the South Florida populations...... 183

5-32 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for second analysis of the South Florida populations...... 184

5-33 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the analysis of the Weeden Island/Alachua/St. Johns populations...... 185

5-34 Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for analysis of the Weeden Island/Alachua/St. Johns populations...... 186

5-35 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the analysis of the Weeden Island/Alachua/St. Johns populations...... 187

5-36 Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the analysis of the Weeden Island/Fort Walton populations...... 188

5-37 Graph of the first and second functions for the analysis of the Weeden Island/Fort Walton populations...... 189

5-38 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the analysis of the Weeden Island/Fort Walton populations...... 190

5-39 Graph of the first and second functions for the first analysis of the Weeden Island/Fort Walton/Manasota/Safety Harbor populations...... 191

5-40 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the first analysis of the Weeden Island/Fort Walton/Manasota/Safety Harbor populations...... 192

5-41 Graph of the first and second functions for the third analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations...... 194

5-42 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the third analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations...... 195

5-43 Graph of the first and second functions for the fourth analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations...... 196

5-44 Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the fourth analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations...... 197

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

HUMAN BIOLOGICAL VARIATION AND BIOLOGICAL DISTANCE IN PRE-CONTACT FLORIDA: A MORPHOMETRIC EXAMINATION OF BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

Maranda Almy Kles

May 2013

Chair: Michael Warren Co-chair: John Krigbaum Major: Anthropology

The archaeological relationships of cultures have long been analyzed and debated; however, the interpretation of the biological relationship of the associated populations labeled is relatively new. Cranial morphology has been used to understand origins and relationships of races or ancestry groups. More recently these analyses have been applied to archaeological populations. However, this type of bioarchaeological approach has been rarely used in the Southeast. The analysis of cranial variation within samples from sites associated with known cultural labels has the potential to provide new insight into the biological relationship or interaction of the individuals buried at these archaeological sites.

This study utilizes 20 craniometric variables from 404 individuals associated with

27 sites across present-day Florida. These sites are associated with a variety of cultural labels and varied geographic and environmental settings. To statistically analyze the craniometric variables, I conducted Principle Component Analyses, Discriminant

Function Analyses, and R-matrix Analyses to investigate the patterns of biological

variation found within these populations and to determine if those patterns correlate with cultural, temporal, or geographic differences. It was determined that there were at least two migration events into the peninsula after the Paleoindian period. Secondly, patterns were found that suggest parent-descendant group relationships for many of the Archaic populations assessed. Additionally, there was a biological distinction between the populations associated with the “classic” Weeden Island and Manasota cultures. Lastly, it appears that the Weeden Island and Mississippian cultures had culturally recognized barriers to biological interaction that resulted in greater genetic variation within these populations.

These findings indicate that there are discernible patterns to human biological variation found within the pre-Contact populations of Florida and that this variation often corresponds to the cultural variation interpreted from the archaeological record.

However, a few notable exceptions in the Archaic and Weeden Island populations show that additional work is needed both on the biological and archaeological fronts. This research has broad implications with regard to assigning unprovenienced skeletal remains to cultures or sites, which contributes to the analysis of cultural affiliation relevant to Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and fosters constructive dialogue between all interested parties.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS

Florida has a long history of study in archaeology and physical anthropology; however, this research has rarely addressed the role of biological variation with respect to interpretations of culture history. This is in contrast to intersecting biological and cultural studies conducted in the Southwest, Mid-West, and northern Mid-West, where, for example, scholars have studied migration (Steadman 2001; Watson 2010), marriage patterns (Schillaci and Stojanowski 2005; Stojanowski 2005; Stojanowski and Schillaci

2006), trade networks (Reichs 1984), language divisions (Killgrove 2009), intrasite mound relationships (Konigsberg 1990b), and culture change (Buikstra 1976; Ousley et al. 2005; Sciulli et al. 1984; Steadman 1998). Following the example of these and other studies, this dissertation examines the range of cranial morphological variation within selected Florida populations dating from the Archaic to the pre-Contact period (ca.

10,000-700 years before present [BP]) and, secondly, seeks correlations between the biological variation and cultural variation found in those populations. Specifically, this research focuses on the Archaic, the Weeden Island/Manasota culture Complex, and the Glades/Caloosahatchee cultures of South Florida. These three foci were selected primarily because of the broad temporal and geographic distribution of the sites across the Florida peninsula and the availability of skeletal material for analysis (Figure 1-1).

The use of morphometry for the purpose of understanding the biological variation of a population has a long history in physical anthropology. What began as a typological approach to understanding morphological differences between populations (Hooton

1973; Hrdlička 1928; Neumann 1954) has changed through time to an attempt to understand and appreciate the full range of human biological variation. However,

integrating morphological approaches with archaeology to understand cultural variation and population histories is relatively new. Research has shown that the analysis of biological variation within a skeletal population can help evaluate microevolutionary forces that impacted the population, and therefore that population’s biological history

(Konigsberg 1990a; Relethford and Blangero 1990; Relethford and Lees 1982;

Steadman 1998). The first published effort using biodistance with specific focus on the archaeological record is attributable to a 1972 article by Lane and Sublett (1972), who analyzed residency patterns of individuals buried in Native American cemetery sites in

New York State. The field has since expanded, and population genetics has increasingly been used to ground theoretical and methodological advances adding weight to researchers’ results.

The most thorough study of biological variation in Florida is that of Hrdlička

(1922). Hrdlička used a cranial mean height index (height/(mean of length and breadth)) to differentiate between populations and found that a population of long headed and less robust individuals migrated predominantly into east and south Florida replacing or intermixing with the older, more robust, round headed populations. He stated that overall, the skulls he examined were rather uniform in appearance due to the admixture which created numerous intermediary forms; however, he could discern two types on closer inspection. The first type, the earlier, round headed population, consisted of individuals from the northern two-thirds of the peninsula, including the Indians of North

Florida, the St. John’s River Indians, and the Calusa Indians from Tampa Bay to

Charlotte Harbor. The second type, the newer long headed population, could be found along the East coast and from the region of Lake Okeechobee south (Hrdlička 1922).

Though extensive and thorough for its time, there are several vexing issues with this study. First, Hrdlička used a single cranial index to differentiate the populations, which as Howells (1973) states can be an issue because “we do not actually know whether the variation in this index is of taxonomical, functional, or genetic importance.” Second,

Hrdlička had very little knowledge of the true temporal relationship of the remains; he assessed the age of the remains based on taphonomic generalizations and not based on other indicators of temporal relationships such as associated pottery styles or burial practices, thus calling into question his assessment of the temporal sequence of his study populations. Third, his samples from the East coast and South Florida were limited to only 26 individuals, as compared to 134 individuals from the West Coast and

St. Johns regions. The low number of individuals from this group raises questions about how representative his samples were of the true biological variability of the regions sampled.

A more recent study by Seasons (2010) addresses several of the issues found in

Hrdlička’s study, including a better understanding of the temporal range of the sites, larger sample sizes, and more rigorous statistical analyses. Seasons (2010) conducted an analysis of seven South Florida populations spanning 8120-247 BP and found that there was a significant amount of variation among the populations studied and this variation was greatest between sites that were separated by the largest temporal gap.

Her study also found relative homogeneity, or biological similarity, among the populations dated from 2510-247 BP. Although very valuable, this study has a few limitations including its use of only seven sites and the temporal gap between some of

the sites is quite large limiting interpretations of cultural continuity and change, due to potential secular trends within the samples.

Other researchers have examined biological variation in Florida; however, their focus has been more on Contact period populations with infrequent mention of pre-

Contact populations. For example, Stojanowski (2003; 2004; 2005a; 2005b;

Stojanowski et al. 2007) has conducted numerous studies of the Apalachee and Guale populations in North Florida. In doing so he has compared the Mission Period populations to several pre-Contact population predominately from the Mississippian period, however he has included a few earlier populations, such as Irene Mound,

Tathum Mound, and McKeithan. Stojanowski found that pre-Contact populations were more homogenous than mission populations; however, there is still biological variation evident among those pre-Contact populations (Stojanowski 2004; Stojanowski 2005a).

In addition, Stojanowski has stated that there are biological distinctions between populations in northern and southern Florida (Stojanowski 2005b), similar to Hrdlička’s findings. Stojanowski also conducted an intrasite analysis on the Archaic Windover

Pond population and found that there were two genetically distinguishable groups using the pond for burial and that those biological divisions corresponded to differing burial artifacts (Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). All of these studies are informative and add to the data available for the interpretation of cultural change and population structure, however, the results about pre-Contact biological variation, particular for the earlier populations, often only receive cursory remarks and the interesting data for Windover

Pond is only minimally presented in an in-depth paper focused on methodology for intracemetery biodistance analysis.

In total, these studies show that the analysis of biological variation and biological distance of populations found within Florida has potential to yield valuable information.

This idea is further supported by research utilizing biological distance analysis on prehistoric Native Americans. These studies indicate that biological continuity or change can be observed in the bioarchaeological record as morphological variation. As mentioned above, these data can contribute to long-standing archaeological debates.

Biological distance studies operate with the theoretical assumption that all populations within a region exchange mates from an outside source at an equal rate

(Relethford and Blangero 1990). Therefore, when a population has an increased or decreased rate of exchange with an external population it will alter the expected linear relationship between the average within-group variation and genetic distance to the centroid (the average heterozygosity of all subpopulations) (Steadman 1998). It is important to note that biodistance analysis conducted on archaeological sample populations incorporates several assumptions that allow for analysis and interpretation of data. These assumptions include: 1) patterns of biological distance and variability are an indirect measure of the degree of social exchange between the groups they represent; 2) gene flow and genetic drift affect allele frequencies between the populations under study and that those changes are reflected in skeletal changes; 3) a cemetery or sample population is representative of the original breeding population; 4) environmental effects are minimal and randomly distributed among the populations

(Droessler 1981; Steadman 1998; Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). Several of these assumptions are based on living populations, however, they may not all apply in archaeological settings. For example, it has been found that some cemeteries were

places where disparate groups came together during the Archaic (Randall and

Sassaman 2010) and therefore may not be representative of the breeding populations.

Therefore, this research will examine whether or not some of these assumptions apply to Florida’s archaeological populations.

This study utilizes craniometric data from 27 sites to explore the biological variation of pre-Contact Floridians. A craniometric approach was adopted, in concert with multivariate statistics, so that results could facilitate the interpretation of skulls and populations as a whole, not just parts, as non-metric traits or simple univariate indices are prone to do (Corruccini 1974; Howells 1973; van Vark and Schaafsma 1992).

Craniometric data are explored using several multivariate analysis methods including

Principle Component Analysis (PCA), Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA), and R- matrix Analysis. Principle Component Analysis provides a method to explore the variation within the data showing underlying patterns, without making assumptions about the relationships of the individuals being analyzed. Discriminant Function Analysis permits testing of the variation associated with predetermined groups (i.e. sites, time periods, geographic regions, culture labels) to examine if observed variation corresponds with those predetermined groups or not. Lastly, R-matrix Analysis is a tool that permits an examination of those predetermined groups to assess the level of variation associated with each group and its relationship to the variation of other groups, thus providing biological distances and gene flow estimates.

The overall objectives of this study are threefold: 1) To examine the range of variation within the populations of Florida from the Archaic to pre-Contact periods as represented in the populations used in this study; 2) To understand how the range of

variation correlates to cultural, geographic or temporal variation; 3) To test the assumptions of biological distance analysis with regard to the populations in Florida.

The null hypotheses related to these objectives are: 1) There is no biological variation noted within these populations; 2) There is no correlation between biological and cultural variation or biological variation and geographic or temporal distance; 3) The assumptions of biological distance analysis do not hold true in these archaeological samples.

These objectives will be addressed using the craniometric methods noted above and details culled from the archaeological record. This research examines the overall variation found within sampled study sites to determine if there are any general patterns to the biological variation. If patterns are found, further analysis will discern the nature of that variation, such as correlations with culture groups, geography, or time. For example, research in the Midwestern US has found that in certain instances biological variation correlates with cultural divisions or that biological variation was impacted by culturally defined boundaries (Reichs 1984; Steadman 1998; 2001). In other instances there was little variation between different cultures or that cultural differences were not a boundary to gene flow (Buikstra 1976; Droessler 1981; Sciulli and Schneider 1985).

Therefore this research seeks to determine if there were any cultural boundaries that impacted gene flow within the sites sampled, which encompass several archaeologically defined cultural divisions and if there are any changes to these patterns through time. In addition, variation is assessed in relation to geography to determine if there were any geographic barriers to gene flow. For instance, South Florida has long been regarded as separate and distinct from the rest of the peninsula, both environmentally and

culturally (Clausen et al. 1979; Widmer 2002). Researchers frequently point out the differences between North and South Florida through time to continue or reinforce the view that South Florida is its own entity (Carr 2012; Goggin 1949; Widmer 2002). As mentioned above, Hrdlička (1922) stated that the individuals found in the mounds of

Florida along the West Coast and in North Florida were distinguishable from the individuals along the East Coast and in South Florida, from Lake Okeechobee southward. Almost a century later, Stojanowski (Stojanowski 2005b) also suggested a division between North and South Florida. Also, it has been noted archaeologically that there are differences between the cultures of the East Coast and West Coast -- particularly in their pottery styles, burial practices, and cultural trajectories. This research examines whether there is any pattern to the biological variation found between site samples that may correlates with previous interpretations, or the apparent patterns as represented by differences in material culture. Within the archaeological narrative of Florida, changes in culture or cultural variation have been attributed to migration events, cultural boundaries or regionalization of cultures, or hybridization of cultures through time (Ashley and White 2012; Hrdlička 1922; Faught and Waggoner

2012, Luer and Almy 1982; Milanich 1994). The samples and sites accessed for this research allow for three instances of cultural change/variation to be focused on in detail: the Archaic, the Weeden Island/Manasota culture Complex, and South Florida.

During the Florida Archaic (10000-2500 BP), the unusual and perhaps unique practice of water burials has been documented at several sites. This practice is limited to the Early and Middle Archaic (10000-5000 BP) and at geographically dispersed sites in the southern half of Florida (Doran 2002). In this practice the dead were interred in, or

very near, a freshwater source, typically a pond or spring. Understanding how, and if, these populations were related to each other will augment our understanding of Archaic migration patterns and generate data for comparison with later populations to develop new hypotheses about cultural continuity and change.

The Weeden Island Complex (ca. 1800-1000 BP) encompassed portions of central and northern Florida, as well as portions of southern Georgia and Alabama.

Previous studies suggest that this complex first developed out of the Woodland Swift

Creek culture in most areas; however, it appears rather suddenly in other areas, such as in North Central Florida at the McKeithan site (Milanich et al. 1997). The complex is marked by the appearance of regional variants that can be differentiated by secular pottery styles, habitation sites, and subsistence patterns (Jefferies 2004; Milanich 2002;

Milanich 2004). All the Weeden Island sites, however, share a similar sacred/secular pottery division, in which only certain pottery is used in ceremonial aspects, particularly burial rituals. Some of these sites exhibit a special burial pattern that includes the use of charnal houses and east side pottery caches (Milanich 1994; Sears 1958; Sears 1973;

Willey 1949). However, the Cades Pond and Manasota cultures are two notable exceptions. These two cultures are often labeled “Weeden Island-like”, because the associated archaeological assemblages appear to include only some aspects of the

Weeden Island Complex, and these changes in practice appear very late in the culture period (Luer and Almy 1982; Milanich 2002). For example, these sites, which occur primarily in west and west-central Florida, do not exhibit the east-side pottery caches, although they begin including the ornamental pottery associated with the burial rituals

(Luer and Almy 1982; Milanich et al. 1997). Understanding how Weeden Island sites

and their respective populations relate biologically may add significantly to our understanding of how the Weeden Island culture Complex developed in various areas and how the population maintained the cultural complex across an environmentally diverse land area. Further, these data will contribute towards an understanding of how the Weeden Island-like cultures, such as Cades Pond and Manasota, may or may not have interacted with the “classic” Weeden Island populations.

The cultures of South Florida are often regarded as unique from the other cultures of Florida (Carr 2012; Widmer 2002). The archaeological record of this region has been variously divided into what are believed to be relatively autonomous geographic/culture areas (Carr 2012; Goggin 1949; Griffin 1988) defined by pottery and settlement patterns, spanning a time period from 2500 BP through Contact (Widmer

2002). However, at the time of Contact it was said that the Calusa had control over the entire region (Carr 2012; Widmer 2002), suggesting a possible shift to a dominant cultural and biological influence. Therefore, understanding the biological relationships of the populations associated with the Glades and Caloosahatchee cultures through time will provide new information to researchers interested in this area.

Understanding how biology and culture vary in Florida will allow researchers to better address many questions about Florida’s prehistory. In addition, this research has broader implications in studies of cultural affiliation, particularly with regard to the Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). An understanding of how biology and culture have varied (or co-varied) through time may provide additional lines of evidence for contemporary Native Americans and archaeologists attempting to identify and analyze materials previously labeled as “culturally unidentifiable”.

Following this Introduction, Chapter 2 reviews the archaeology of Florida with a particular focus on the archaeology surrounding the biological questions asked in this research. In Chapter 3 the theory of biological distance analysis and the history of its use are discussed, particularly with regard to analyzing Native American populations.

Chapter 4 documents methods and materials, including the number of individuals and the relevant archaeological background of each site used. The craniometric variables and statistical methods utilized are also presented. There is also a review of the sites analyzed. The results of these statistical analyses are outlined and discussed in

Chapter 5. Chapter 6 highlights the conclusions drawn from this research and offers recommendations for future investigations.

Figure 1- 1. Map of the location and cultural association of the sites used in this study.

CHAPTER 2 CULTURE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF FLORIDA

This chapter provides a review of Florida archaeology, which will serve as a framework against which the biological distance data acquired for this research may be interpreted. The following culture history focuses primarily on material aspects of culture and associated burial practices that help to identify and distinguish sample sites included in this study. Cultures for which no skeletal remains were used for analysis are mentioned in brief. More detailed discussion of the archaeology of the Southeast and

Florida can be found in the work of Anderson and Mainfort (2002b), Anderson and

Sassaman (1996), Milanich (1994; 1998), Willey (1949), and Ashley and White (2012).

Table 2-1 shows an overview of culture periods by geographic area within the state.

Paleoindian Period

The arrival of Native Americans in the Southeast United States and the Florida peninsula occurred approximately between 15,000 and 11,000 BP (Anderson 1996b;

Anderson et al. 1996; Milanich 1994). The landscape they encountered was quite different than that of today; the most obvious distinction was a broader peninsula and a drier environment due to a sea level 70+ meters lower than present at the end of the

Pleistocene (Anderson et al. 1996). These hunters and gatherers had a settlement and subsistence strategy that consisted of central or core habitation areas near freshwater with surrounding special use sites that encompassed a generalized foraging strategy

(Anderson 1996a). Many of those core habitation sites were probably located close to the existing coastlines and are therefore now underwater (Faught 2004; Faught and

Donoghue 1997). Nonetheless, a few Paleoindian sites discovered in karstic areas, such as the Aucilla River, Warm Mineral Springs and Little Salt Spring have been

investigated (Clausen et al. 1975; Clausen et al. 1979; Dunbar and Waller 1983). These sites provide a small window into the subsistence and settlement patterns of Florida’s earliest populations, however, the lack of human remains securely dated to this time period precludes biodistance analysis as part of this research.

Archaic Period

With the change in climate to a wetter environment and the rise in sea level at the start of the Holocene (ca. 9000 BP) (Anderson et al. 1996), various new environmental niches were created in Florida and the Southeast. Archaic populations began to settle into these new areas, particularly along lakes and rivers, while other groups continued to inhabit the same areas as did Paleoindian groups before them

(Milanich 1994). The significance of freshwater is clear throughout the Archaic, as it is seen in the choice of sites in close proximity to a water source, the appearance of water burials (a Florida phenomenon), and the building of shell mounds situated in proximity to either fresh or salt water.

Relevant to this research are freshwater pond burials which have produced some of the earliest securely dated human skeletal remains from Florida. These burials are unique both for their mode of internment and their preservation (Doran 2002). One of these sites, Windover Pond, has received extensive attention with respect to other

Archaic sites in Florida. Archaeological evidence, in particular textile patterns associated with the burials, suggests that two groups utilized this pond for burial;

Stojanowski (in Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006) performed a biological distance analysis of the individuals buried in the pond and confirmed that there were at least two groups, which he refers to as bands, who utilized the pond for burial. This shared burial practice is suggestive that the two groups shared a belief system. An additional finding

from Windover Pond is that most of the individuals were genetically determined to be members of Haplogroup X, which is not found in modern Native American groups of the

Southeast (Smith et al. 2002). These results suggest that the Windover Pond population may not be related to later populations in the region and may represent an extinct population that once inhabited present-day Florida. The unique mortuary practice of staked pond burials seems to have spanned ca. 5000 years (Doran 2002), suggesting a continued shared ideology was maintained for generations. However, relatively little is known about the relationship of the various sites that exhibit this practice, in particular, the biological relationships of the individuals that buried their dead in this manner.

Archaic populations are generally characterized as relatively mobile bands or groups, suggesting they interacted with other groups on a regular basis (Anderson

1996a; Milanich 1994). Anderson (1996b) proposes macroband and band-level organization based on analysis of point typologies to explain the population structure and settlement patterns of the Southeast, in particular the South Atlantic Slope.

Focused on the Carolina and Georgia South Atlantic Slope area, Anderson defines macrobands by regional variations in artifacts and density of artifacts around proposed regional centers (Anderson 1996b). He hypothesizes that the bands within the South

Atlantic Slope area occupied river drainage systems and would have participated in seasonal movement within their area to maximize use of the resources available. He also proposed a gathering of bands in the Fall Line areas (at the transition from the upper hilly country to the flat low country) during particular seasons for resource or mate exchange and/or for information and other social interaction (Anderson 1996b).

Anderson (1996b) also suggests that macrobands encompassed most of Florida, which is characterized by numerous river drainage systems and water sources including sinks and springs. Thulman (2006) examined Florida’s Archaic point typologies and found similar band-level organization during this period along river-drainages in Florida.

The broad similarity in artifacts and general subsistence patterns suggest that these bands shared a common origin and most likely had similar methods and techniques of tool production and resource procurement. But as each settled into a different drainage area, practices changed as new raw material for tools was found, new methods of manufacture were introduced or invented, or novel hunting strategies were developed

(Thulman 2006). This, Thulman argues, would have resulted in subtle differences between tool kits, but continued interaction at the macroband level likely kept groups close socially and possibly biologically.

At approximately 5000 BP, there appears to have been an influx of new people into the peninsula based on changes in burial patterns, a shift from water burials to land burials, and new tool technologies, including the arrival of soapstone vessels in some areas (Sassaman 2006). There is also a change in trade networks from the early and middle to late Archaic time periods. Early and middle Archaic trade networks encompassed large areas with populations moving through the region seasonally, resulting in more direct social interactions between groups. However, by the late

Archaic, there appears to have been a marked shift with more sedentary groups and less direct social interaction and more communication through trade partnerships

(Waggoner, 2009).

In the archaeological record, the terminal or late Archaic is marked by the manufacture of pottery throughout the Southeast and in the peninsula of Florida

(Milanich 1994). As a result, archaeologists are confident that they can identify geographically distinct cultures based on ceramic types and styles recovered from sites

(Cordell 2004; Jefferies 2004; Milanich 1994).

Woodland Period

The Woodland period began ca. 2500 BP and is marked by a relatively stable environment with sea levels near modern levels and a warm humid climate similar to the present day (Schuldenrein 1996; Watts et al. 1996). Interestingly, there is an apparent decrease in the occurrence of long-distance, exotic trade goods and an increase in local or semi-local materials and goods, which occurs coevally with a greater regionalization of pottery styles and techniques (Anderson and Mainfort 2002a). Archaeologists have long held that regionalized pottery can be used as a marker for distinct archaeological cultures (Anderson and Mainfort 2002a; Willey 1949). Often similarities in the pottery styles or assemblages are used to link distant groups to each other, while other times geography is used to divide somewhat similar assemblages into distinct groups

(Anderson and Mainfort 2002a).

The Florida Woodland period is marked by the appearance of several distinct cultures, including Deptford in the northern half of the peninsula and Manasota or early

Glades in the southern half. These cultures share similar settlement and subsistence patterns, a coastal orientation, and a band level society with small communities that may have traveled inland seasonally to harvest non-coastal resources (Milanich 1994;

Stephenson et al. 2002). The observed regionalization of pottery is associated with a rise in ceremonialism, particularly evident in the development of the Weeden Island

Complex. Anderson and Mainfort (2002a) suggest that this may have been due to a cultural power shift from the Midwest to the Southeast, particularly in the Lower

Mississippi and Gulf Coast areas, where the Coles Creek and Weeden Island cultures are present. This has led archaeologists to speculate that there was interaction between the areas (Milanich 2002; Stephenson et al. 2002), but whether it was an exchange of ideology or a movement of people or both is not clearly understood.

The Weeden Island Complex spanned most of the central and northern portions of Florida, as well as portions of southern Georgia and Alabama. This broad geographic range suggests there was an extensive interaction-sphere involving the exchange of objects and ideology (Anderson and Mainfort 2002a). The cultures associated with the

Weeden Island Complex are marked by a distinct sacred/secular dichotomy found in the pottery associated with the village and burial mound sites (Milanich 2002; Cordell in

Milanich et al. 1997). The cultures associated with the Weeden Island Complex are also marked by the construction of burial mounds that provide evidence of elaborate ceremonial practices associated with single or multiple burial events. These burial events involved the removal of numerous individuals from charnel houses or similar storage/processing areas and placing them on prepared surfaces for mass burial with sacred pottery or other objects of importance (Milanich 1994; 2002; Willey 1949). Some sites apparently developed into significant ceremonial centers with one or more large mounds indicating elaborate and repeated burial events. These sites appear to correspond with trade-hubs making them key in a widespread ceremonial and exchange network (Anderson and Mainfort 2002a). Mounds, such as McKeithan, a large mound site in North Central Florida, were most likely constructed in or near the village of a

lineage that was in power. As resources in an area were exhausted or there were shifts in trade patterns, power transferred to a new lineage and mound construction began in a new area (Milanich 1994; 2002).

Another significant feature of Weeden Island Complex is that despite apparently sharing various aspects of sociopolitical structure and religion, particularly the sacred/secular dichotomy, each culture developed distinct environmental adaptations.

These adaptations are found within specific physiographic parameters, which then help to define the regional complexes, based on differences in apparent settlement and economic patterns (Milanich 2002). The thorough command of the local environment by these peoples suggests sedentism or at least a localized mobility allowing for a specialized tool kit and subsistence strategy.

In the Late Woodland of Florida, there is a shift to a hierarchical social system, such as that seen in the Wakulla and Suwannee culture, and in some areas this corresponds to an increased reliance on maize agriculture (Anderson and Mainfort

2002a). At the end of the Woodland period much of the Southeast transitions into the

Mississippian period, with its ranked society and associated iconography, as seen in the

Fort Walton and Safety Harbor cultures. However, many of the cultures in the peninsula continue in their late Woodland form through Contact.

A more detailed discussion of the Woodland period in Florida follows and is presented by geographical region in order to follow the cultural developments and transitions of each culture.

North Florida

The Deptford culture, which appears in the Early Woodland, is found in the southern Southeast and is divided into three regional variants: Gulf Coast, Atlantic

Coast, and Coastal Plain Interior-Riverine (Milanich 1994; Stephenson et al. 2002). Two of the three variations appear in Florida, the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast varieties.

Although they share similar subsistence and settlement patterns, these cultures differ in subsequent sequences allowing them to be considered separate taxonomically

(Stephenson et al. 2002).

The Gulf Coast Deptford culture is marked by primarily coastal habitation sites with interior special use sites (Jefferies 2004; Milanich 1994). The pottery is characterized by simple stamp, linear check stamp, or check stamp pottery with a sand or grit temper (Milanich 1994; Willey 1949)

In the northern Gulf Coast region, late Gulf Coast Deptford develops into the

Yent and Green Point complexes (Milanich 1994), which exhibit an early form of the sacred/secular dichotomy that is evident in the later Weeden Island Complex

(Stephenson et al. 2002). The Crystal River site complex, which is one of the most studied Yent site complexes, appears to begin its use in the Early Woodland (Milanich

1994; Stephenson et al. 2002). Crystal River eventually becomes a major ceremonial center within the Weeden Island Complex and may have been used into the Safety

Harbor period, although this late use/habitation is still speculative (Pluckhahn et al.

2010).

North and Northwest

In North Florida and the Panhandle, Deptford transitions into Swift Creek and

Santa Rosa-Swift Creek, respectively (Milanich 1994; Stephenson et al. 2002). The noted differences between Swift Creek and Santa Rosa-Swift Creek are differing settlement patterns and variations on pottery design (Stephenson et al. 2002). Swift

Creek sites are found primarily adjacent to the salt marsh-tidal stream systems, much

like the Deptford sites, and occasionally habitation sites are found in the hardwood hammocks away from marshes (Milanich 1994). Santa Rosa-Swift Creek sites however, are found along the coast, with some special use interior sites (Milanich 1994; Willey

1949). Swift Creek pottery is marked by complicated stamp patterns and a continued use of sand and grit tempers, like those found in Deptford pottery (Jefferies 2004).

Santa Rosa-Swift Creek also has ceramic variants very similar to Marksville pottery, a culture linked to the later Cole Creek Complex of the Lower Mississippi area

(Stephenson et al. 2002). These pottery styles include Alligator Bayou Stamped, Basin

Bayou Stamped, Marksville Incised and Marksville Stamped pottery (Milanich 1994;

Willey 1949). The Swift Creek culture also appears to have participated in a periodic aggregation of peoples for ritual purposes, as evidenced by various burial and ceremonial mounds (Milanich 1994; Willey 1949). Some of these mounds also contain

Hopewellian grave goods, often found in caches within the mound (Milanich 1994), suggesting long-range exchange and association with this important interaction sphere

(Bullen 1951; Greenman 1938), Evidence found at some mounds suggest elaborate mortuary customs and a cult of the dead (Willey 1949), most likely the beginnings of the later Weeden Island Complex.

In Northwest Florida, Swift Creek and Santa Rosa-Swift Creek transitions into

Weeden Island around ca. 1700 BP (Jefferies 2004; Milanich 2002) and is characterized by an overlap in pottery types; the Swift Creek and Santa Rosa-Swift Creek pottery is ultimately replaced by Weeden Island ceramics, possibly suggesting a continuity of people with a changing ideology. Again, there are noted similarities between the pottery

of the Florida Weeden Island and the Mississippi Coles Creek cultures (Milanich 1994) suggesting continued interaction between these two areas.

In the Late Woodland period, the Swift Creek/early Weeden Island culture transitions into the late Weeden Island Wakulla culture in Florida’s panhandle. The

Wakulla culture is marked by the appearance of maize agriculture. There is a shift to smaller settlements, possibly small family groups, which appear to move around the area as the soil is exhausted from agriculture (Milanich 2002). The Wakulla culture continues its agricultural lifestyle through the late Woodland and transitions into the Fort

Walton culture—the only truly Mississippian culture in Florida (Milanich 2004).

Though the origins of the Suwannee Valley culture differ slightly between east

(Swift Creek) and west (Weeden Island-McKeithan) North Florida, this culture shares many similarities with the Wakulla culture to the west, including smaller hamlet-sized sites. However, pottery styles differ and there is currently no evidence for maize agriculture by the Suwannee Valley groups (Milanich 1994; 2002; 2004). Variants of the

Suwannee Valley culture continue into the period of European contact.

North Central

In North Central Florida there is little discussion of the Early Woodland period because there are only a few known Deptford sites and these are small. There is also a conspicuous absence of Swift Creek sites, so it appears that the sudden appearance of the Weeden Island McKeithan culture is not an evolution from Swift Creek, as many of the other early Weeden Island cultures are, but is the result of either rapid population growth in the Deptford-McKeithan transition or a possible movement of Weeden Island people into the area (Milanich 2002). This leads to the question: Is the rise of Weeden

Island in north central Florida due to new people coming into the area or is there overall

continuity between cultures with an increase in population and the adoption of a new ideology?

In southern, north central Florida, the Cades Pond culture is established around

1800 BP, coinciding with an apparent population explosion based on the rapid rise in the number of sites in the area (Milanich 2002). The Cades Pond culture may have evolved from the preceding Deptford groups in the area. Cades Pond is labeled

“Weeden Island-like” due to the presence of Weeden Island pottery in late Cades Pond burial mounds; although such ceramics do not seem to be found at earlier sites

(Milanich 2002). The late introduction of Weeden Island pottery may suggest new influences in the culture. Also, according to Milanich (1994), the Cades Pond culture is a unique adaptation of the Weeden Island Complex to an extensive freshwater, wetland environment. Around 1400 BP, archaeologists describe a significant change in the settlement and assemblage patterns of the population inhabiting the north central

Florida area (Austin 2001; Rolland 2012). This is seen as a transition into the Alachua culture. Similarities in pottery type and settlement pattern suggest that the Alachua culture was related to the agricultural peoples from the south-central Georgia area

(Milanich 1994). Some have argued that there was a migration of peoples into the area bringing the Alachua culture, while others have argued based on radiocarbon dates that the north central Florida region served as the homeland of the culture change and the people subsequently migrated to the Ocmulgee region of Georgia (Milanich 2002; 2004;

Schofield 2003). In either instance there are some clear distinctions between the Cades

Pond and Alachua cultures, such as Cades Pond sites are near wetlands and the archaeological evidence suggests a heavy reliance on aquatic resources while the

Alachua sites are more often distant from wetlands on high ridges and their subsistence pattern appears to rely heavily on deer and agricultural crops (Austin 2001; Milanich

1994). Additionally, the Cades Pond tradition used primarily undecorated wares in villages, but included Deptford pottery in burial mounds with a later transition to Weeden

Island ceramic vessels in burial sites. However, the Alachua tradition is marked by cord and fabric marked pottery with a subsequent transition to corn cob marked vessels

(Milanich 1994; Rolland 2012). Mortuary practices include pre-burial mound preparation, east side burial placement, primary burials, and a lack of burial goods; the last being a significant change from the former Cades Pond culture (Rolland 2012). Analysis of the biological variation associated with the Alachua culture and the earlier cultures in the area could provide a better understand of the biological aspects of this transition.

Northeast

In the early Woodland, the Atlantic coast variant of Deptford is documented north of the St. John’s River (Stephenson et al. 2002) and the Orange culture is found southeast of the river (Saunders 2004). Russo (1996) and Milanich (1994) suggest continuity between pre-ceramic and the later ceramic cultures through Contact along the East Coast of Florida based on site location, tool technology and pottery production, supporting the view that the culture sequence in this area was an independent development from the Archaic Mount Taylor culture into the Orange culture and then the

St. Johns culture (Milanich 1994). The St. Johns tradition ultimately encompassed most of the east coast of Florida. St. Johns pottery is marked by a distinct chalky texture

(Milanich 1994), the result of the sponge speculates that are incorporated into the paste.

The appearance of Deptford, Swift Creek, Weeden Island and Hopewellian items is rare in this area, however when found, testing has shown that the these items are the result

of mimicry on local clay and not the product of trade with distant groups (Milanich 1994;

2004). The late St. Johns culture built large ceremonial centers in the later Woodland period. These ceremonial centers suggest a development of political complexity similar to that seen in the Fort Walton and Safety Harbor cultures.

Southern Peninsular Gulf Coast and South Florida

The coastal Weeden Island cultures identified southeast of the Aucilla River along the Gulf Coast are difficult to define as specific cultural entities. The shoreline is extensive with varied microenvironments along the coastline from north to south, including the salt marshes, tidal streams, inshore bays of the Gulf of Mexico, and nearby freshwater and forested environments. Each habitat provides a unique ecosystem allowing for the potential development of distinct cultures with each having localized subsistence strategies and tool kits (Milanich 2002). Overall, archaeological work in this area has been limited; however, the well-studied Crystal River site complex appears to continue to be an active cultural center during the Weeden Island period of the Gulf Coast. How much of the surrounding area was involved in the ceremonial activities that took place at Crystal River remains poorly understood (Pluckhahn et al.

2010).

Southern Peninsular Gulf Coast

One area with a fairly well-defined culture along the west coast of Florida is the

Manasota culture centered south of Tampa Bay, generally in the Manatee and Sarasota county area (Luer and Almy 1982; Milanich 2002). Manasota, much like Cades Pond, appears to be a continuation of the local Archaic culture, but with the addition of

Weeden Island-like pottery types late in the culture period (Luer and Almy 1982;

Milanich 2002), resulting in it sometimes being labeled Weeden Island-like. The

Manasota culture dates from ca. 2500-1200 BP; however, it is not a static entity and

Luer and Almy (1982) note changes in material culture through time, which may hold keys to the culture chronology and external influences. Overall, the Manasota culture is marked by a settlement pattern of elevated, linear sites parallel to the shoreline, with some sites located inland from the shore; the latter typically located on elevated ground, relative to the surrounding landscape. The primary subsistence strategy focused on fishing and shellfish gathering, supplemented with inland hunting and gathering of seasonally available plants and animals. The dominant pottery was undecorated, sand- tempered; thick-walled vessels transitioned to thinner walled open bowls through time.

The same pottery is used in both village and burial mound sites, but in late Manasota there is an increase in Weeden Island-like decorated pottery in the burial mounds (Luer and Almy 1982). Interestingly, burials occur in a variety of contexts including cemeteries, mounds, and middens (Luer 2011), however, the common pattern appears to be primary, flexed burials (2500-1600 BP) later accompanied by the inclusion of thick sand-tempered plain sherds, followed by a later transition to the inclusion of an occasional Weeden Island vessel in the burial mound. Also, toward the end of the

Manasota Period (1400-1200 BP) secondary bundle burials became the preferred mode of interment, and thinner, sand-tempered plain pottery occurs with an increased use of

Weeden Island vessels, most of which appear to be imported based on paste analysis

(Luer and Almy 1982). Of note is the fact that the pottery is found scattered throughout the mound, apparently broken just prior to burial, and it is not found in east-side caches like in other site associated with the Weeden Island Complex (Luer and Almy 1982).

The end of the Weeden Island/Manasota culture in west central Florida is partially marked by the absence of Weeden Island pottery in burial mounds, and the introduction of Safety Harbor pottery variants. However, the people continued to live on shell middens near burial mounds and fish the local waters (Luer and Almy 1982). After

1000 BP settlement patterns seem to shift to more nucleated villages with corresponding larger populations, first in the Tampa Bay area and then in the surround

Gulf Coast areas. This marks the transition to the simple chiefdoms of the Safety Harbor culture (Milanich 2002). The Manasota culture offers a unique opportunity for biodistance analysis to examine an apparently longstanding localized culture with transitions that may have been the result of contributions from outside influences.

South Florida

South Florida is often discussed as a standalone entity both environmentally and culturally. It shares the appearance of Woodland ceramics and village life with the rest of the Southeast, but the archaeological record reveals radically different cultural patterns (Widmer 2002). Pottery analysis suggests the region was relatively culturally isolated from the rest of the peninsula (Marquardt and Walker 2012). However, based on ceramic traditions, archaeologists have identified at least three regional divisions of the Woodland period in South Florida: Glades, Okeechobee, and Caloosahatchee

(Milanich 1994; Widmer 2002). Population size and political complexity appear to decrease from west to east across South Florida (Widmer 2002), perhaps supporting the varied cultural groups defined by pottery types. Throughout South Florida however, there is archaeological evidence of Hopewellian interaction at some sites (Widmer

2002), and through time there is an apparent rise in outside contact and/or trade as evidenced by an increase in Mississippian-influenced artifacts, sand burial mound

construction, and changes in site plans or midden/mound construction (Carr 2012;

Marquardt and Walker 2012).

The Glades cultures, particularly in the Ten Thousand Islands region, are marked by large shell mounds that appear to be intentionally constructed rather than the result of refuse piling. Evidence indicates these structures were most likely used for ceremonial purposes and/or for elite residences (Widmer 2002), suggesting a well- developed ceremonial and political ideology. On the Southeast coast, along the Atlantic

Ocean, sites are locates on hammocks and ridges, but there is little evidence of shell mound construction. The archaeological record also suggests that many of these sites may have been used seasonally (Widmer 2002). Glades pottery is marked by a dominance of incised and punctated patterns that are distinct from other patterns throughout the peninsula (Carr 2012). This apparently self-contained Glades culture appears to accept more outside influences, as seen in changes in pottery assemblages, during the Mississippian period when there are increased influences from the St. Johns region and the Calusa culture on the Southwest Coast (Carr 2012).

The Okeechobee region is marked by large sites with characteristic linear mounds and circular ditches (Widmer 2002). The pottery assemblages are characterized by distinct plain wares (Carr 2012). Fort Center (8GL13), one of the largest recorded sites, with evidence of a charnel house, a charnel pond, and mound structures, suggests elaborate ceremonial use (Sears 1982). Many of the mounds at

Fort Center were constructed of black dirt, as opposed to shell. These mounds may have been used for ceremonial purposes, but most were probably associated with house structures as the area is prone to flooding and there is little natural high ground

(Carr 2012; Widmer 2002). To the east, Carr (2012) has identified the East Okeechobee

Region, which he believes is distinct from the Okeechobee and Glades regions, primarily based on the fact that there is a distinct lack of local pottery; assemblages consistently contain pottery from the St. Johns and Indian River Regions to the north, suggesting a continuity of contact along the Atlantic Coast from North to South (Carr

2012). The settlement pattern is hard to define due to modern impacts on sites; however, it appears this region was dominated by coastal settlements, particularly where rivers drained onto the coast (Carr 2012; Milanich 1994)

The Caloosahatchee region is located along the Southwest coast of Florida and is marked by coastal settlements with large midden/mound and waterworks sites

(Marquardt and Walker 2012; Widmer 2002). Caloosahatchee pottery is described as relatively conservative, plain, incurved bowls made with local clay (Marquardt and

Walker 2012). The Caloosahatchee culture is most often associated with the later

Calusa culture, which was in power at the time of European contact.

Around 1200 BP, the Calusa chiefdom developed a more pronounced presence throughout South Florida as evidenced by changes in pottery in the Caloosahatchee region. Through time there is a rise in Belle Glade pottery, originating in the

Okeechobee region, followed by an increase in St. Johns check stamped pottery which has its origins in Northeast Florida; then a shift to Glades pottery from the Southeast coast or Ten Thousand Islands area of Florida (Marquardt and Walker 2012). These shifting pottery styles suggest shifting trade and alliance patterns and the increased large scale construction projects paired with changing environmental stability provide the need for these shifting alliances (Marquardt and Walker 2012). By the time of

Contact, the Calusa were a large-scale tributary patronage-clientage system encompassing nearly all of South Florida. Historical accounts detail that Calusa chiefs would often take wives from other villages and the wives would bring their pottery- making skills with them (Marquardt and Walker 2012; Widmer 2002). So the archaeological and historical evidence suggests there was a rise through time of political and social interaction between the South Florida cultures, which most likely included intermarriage, but there was also an apparent rise in outside contact as well.

Examination of the biological variation in South Florida will allow for the analysis of the effects of outside influences, as suggested by imported Hopewellian and Mississippian artifacts, and the effect of the increased influence of the Calusa throughout the region.

Mississippian Period

The Mississippian Period, which begins in Florida ca. 1000 BP, witnessed little overall environmental change; however, evidence suggests that there were periodic fluctuations in sea level that could have had a significant impact on coastal cultures

(Marquardt and Walker 2012). Many of the cultures discussed in the Woodland period continued without significant changes in structure until European Contact. However, there are two cultural changes that should be noted, primarily because they are the only cultures that are labeled Mississippian in Florida. These include the Fort Walton culture in the Florida Panhandle and the Safety Harbor culture in the West Central Gulf Coast.

The Fort Walton culture, which is documented in the Panhandle between the

Aucilla River and Mobile Bay, developed from the preceding Weeden Island Wakulla culture of the area, as evidenced by a continuity of pottery types. The Mississippian influences, though, are seen in Mississippian iconography, the hierarchical system of site types, and an increased reliance on agriculture, as found in other Mississippian

groups throughout the Southeast. There are regional variants of the culture that are differentiated by pottery types and differences in settlement and burial pattern, which evidence suggests correspond to regional chiefdoms (Milanich 1994).

Safety Harbor (ca. 1100-300 BP) appears to develop from the Weeden Island and Manasota cultures found along the central peninsular Gulf Coast, from north of

Tampa Bay to Charlotte Harbor. Just as with Fort Walton there were regional variants of this culture based on variations in subsistence and settlement patterns; however, there is a common ideology expressed in the burial ceremonialism, which includes intermittent-use burial mounds containing secondary burials, and the frequent reuse of

Weeden Island burial mounds (Mitchem 1989). Of note is the absence of grave goods often found in other Mississippian burial mounds (Luer and Almy 1982). Many aspects of the Safety Harbor culture suggest a continuum from the Weeden Island and

Manasota cultures, including the overlap in site locations and Weeden Island-type incised and punctated wares found in mortuary contexts and the plain wares found in village sites, though the sacred/secular dichotomy is not as pronounced (Luer and Almy

1982; Milanich 1994; Mitchem 1989; 2012). However, other features, like the platform mound-village complexes, the iconography found on vessels, and changes in vessel forms are traced to Mississippian influence and are quite similar to features found in the

Fort Walton culture (Luer and Almy 1982; Milanich 1994; 2004; Mitchem 1989; Willey

1949).

Summary

In summary, the focus areas for the biological research are the Florida Archaic, the Weeden Island/Manasota Complex, and South Florida cultures. Few sites from the

Archaic period have produced adequate human remains, but the available populations

are suitable for biodistance analysis, which will help develop a better understanding of the social structure of this time period. Utilizing Thulman’s (2006) river-drainage band divisions, it can be hypothesized that bands came together at various times of the year for burial ceremonies at specific water sites. Similar to the activities discussed by

Sassaman (2008) at the Tick Island/Harris Creek (8VO24) site and suggested by the studies at Windover Pond (Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). Despite the extensive studies conducted on the Windover population, little research has focused on the biological relationships of other Archaic sites. Therefore, this research examines the biological variation within the following sites: Warm Mineral Springs (8SO19), Windover

(8BR246), Bay West (8CR200), Little Salt Spring (8SO18), Republic Groves (8HR4),

Gauthier (8BR193), and Bird Island (8DI62) to find evidence of biological and cultural relationships. Homogeneity would suggest an ancestor-descendent relationship between the sites or a single, continued biological population inhabiting the peninsula.

Conversely, heterogeneity would suggest the introduction of new populations to the peninsula or discrete divisions of peoples with little or no gene flow between them.

Fortunately, a number of Woodland period sites have yielded human remains, allowing for the examination of the relationship between social structure and cultural interactions via the biological variation observed within and between samples. Sites such as Browne Site 5 (8DU62), Palmer Mound (8SO2A), Hughes Island Mound

(8DI45), Bay Pines (8PI64), Bayshore Homes (8PI41), McKeithan (8CO17), Venice

Beach Complex (8SO26), Yellow Bluffs (8SO4), Crystal River (8CI1), and Manasota

Key Cemetery (8SO1292) are analyzed to address questions about the Deptford-

Weeden Island/Manasota Complex. Hutchinson Island (8MT37), Highland Beach

(8PB11), Margate Blount Mound (8BD41), and Captiva Island (8LL57) are examined to investigate the variation of South Florida, and in particular the Glades and

Caloosahatchee cultures. Henderson Mound (8AL463) will be used to test questions about the relationship of the Alachua culture to the Weeden Island Complex.

Examination of each of these sites to determine how these sites related to each other biologically could provide new details about the social structure of these populations.

Homogeneity would suggest a shared relationship between these sites, while heterogeneity between sites may suggest underlying social divisions that structured the populations or migration events that resulted in cultural changes.

Only three sites associated with the Mississippian period were sampled for biodistance analysis: Fort Walton Temple Mound (8OK6), Safety Harbor Mound (8PI2) and Sarasota Bay Mound (8SO44). The samples from these sites are examined for evidence of biological continuity or variation in relation to the transition from Weeden

Island to Fort Walton and Weeden Island/Manasota to Safety Harbor with the purpose of providing insight into whether these transitions were the result of an influx of people, increasing heterogeneity, or due to an exchange of ideology with very little biological interaction with the rest of the Mississippian world. Also the relationship of these sites compared to each will be tested to examine the possibly interactions between these two cultures.

The skeletal samples from these sites also allow for the analysis of biological variability indicative of North-South or East-West divisions within the peninsula. The

North-South division is particularly interesting, as it is often mentioned by researchers and appears to be supported archaeologically; however, where “South” begins appears

to be in question. For example, the University of South Florida is located in Tampa, while Stojanowski (2005) uses Tatham Mound as a “South” Florida site despite its location north of Tampa. McGoun (1993) demarcates South Florida as anything below an invisible line between Cocoa Beach and Bradenton, while Widmer (2002) defines it as anything below 27° Latitude or an imaginary line between Jupiter and Venice.

Therefore, the questions that can be addressed in this research are: is there a biological distinction between North and South Florida, as Hrdlička (1922) and Stojanowski

(2005b) have suggested, and if so where and when does that distinction appear in the

Florida peninsula? In addition, Hrdlička’s (1922) skeletal analysis appears to indicate that there is biological variation between the East and West Coasts of Florida and Carr

(2012) has stated that archaeological evidence supports a distinction between the East and West coasts of Florida. This research will also try to examine this supposition.

To reiterate, this review of the archaeology of Florida serves as a framework against which the biodistance data can be examined and has identified several areas in which biological distance analysis may prove a useful tool in introducing additional lines of evidence and inquiry concerning continuity, relatedness, migration, integration, replacement, or mate exchange. The following chapter details the theory and methods of biological distance analysis.

Table 2- 1. General Scheme of Florida Culture Periods. North Central Okeechobee East Northwest North North-Central Northeast peninsula peninsula Glades Caloosahatchee Basin Okeechobee Gulf Coast Gulf Coast

700 BP Caloosahatchee V Caloosahatchee IV

1000 BP Fort Walton Safety Harbor Glades III Caloosahatchee III

Belle Glade IV Caloosahatchee IIB

Wakulla Alachua Weeden St. Johns II Glades II Caloosahatchee IIA

Island

Suwannee Cades Pond Weeden Belle Glade III 1500 BP Valley Island

Weeden Weeden Weeden Island Island Island-

McKeithan

Weeden Island

Santa Rosa- Swift Creek Belle Glade II Swift Creek Yent 1900 BP Caloosahatchee I Complex

Deptford Manasota Glades I Belle Glade I

2500 BP

Deptford Deptford Deptford St. Johns I

Transitional Transitional Transitional Transitional Transitional Transitional Terminal Archaic Archaic 9000 BP Archaic Archaic Archaic Archaic Archaic Archaic Archaic Archaic

12000 BP Paleoindian Paleoindian Paleoindian Paleoindian Paleoindian Paleoindian Paleoindian Based on Milanich and Fairbanks (1980); Marquardt and Walker (2012); Luer and Hughes (2011); Callsen (2008); Griffin (1988).

CHAPTER 3 BIOLOGICAL DISTANCE ANALYSIS: HISTORY, THEORY, AND METHODS

This dissertation reevaluates human skeletal remains and archaeological evidence from select Florida archaeological sites to provide new insight into population migration into the peninsula and pre-Contact culture change. There are various methods to analyze biological variation and biological distance. Some researchers have utilized ancient DNA to evaluate questions of biological relationships and biological distance, however, this particular approach is not practical in Florida where human remains suitable for DNA analysis can be limited due to Florida’s acidic soil. Therefore other methods to assess biological variation and biological distance such as the statistical analysis of metric data are necessary. It has been shown that metric and nonmetric data provide biological distance estimates that broadly correspond to genetic distances and known population histories. Biological distance is the statistical representation of morphological variation, which is an expression of genetically controlled traits (Griffin et al. 2001). These methods have been used successfully to address various questions about the population history of both living and archaeological samples; however, as mentioned previously, very little work has been focused on populations in the Southeastern United States and particularly in Florida. Therefore this chapter will review the theory behind biological distance analysis, beginning with research on living populations with known biological histories, moving to archaeological studies that have provided new insight regarding archaeological events and, lastly, reviewing the assumptions used in biodistance studies of archaeological populations and the mathematical models involved.

Biological Distance Studies on Living Populations

Previous studies of living populations have shown that metric and nonmetric data provide biological distance estimates that broadly correspond to genetic distances and known population histories. Spielman (1973), for example, examined nineteen

Yanomama villages in South America and found a correspondence between the allele frequencies and anthropometric data collected. The genetic relationships that were found between villages could be explained by the known historical and geographic relationships of the villages. In another study, Friedlaender and colleagues (1971) analyzed several populations in South-Central Bougainville in New Guinea. Their analysis of blood polymorphism gene frequencies and anthropometric measurements produced very similar evolutionary tree structures, and the relationships evidenced in those trees were explained by linguistic, geographic, and migrational distances between populations. Additional studies on living populations of varying sizes have shown that morphological data correspond with genetic data and the results can be explained through a number of factors, including geography, linguistics, migration events, or social divisions (Basu et al. 1976; Pollitzer 1958; Sanghvi 1953). Relethford (1994) examined evolutionary relationships and population migration by comparing metric variation to genetic variation within the major geographical groups of modern humans. Relethford’s

(1994) results also showed that the genetic and craniometric data were in agreement, both qualitatively and quantitatively. These data further support the utility of craniometrics as a proxy for genetic relationships.

These studies confirm that genetic and metric analysis can be used to effectively differentiate between populations. Additionally, the studies show that metric analysis yields distance patterns that are consistent with genetic distances and correspond to

patterns predicated by language relationships, migration, and geographic distances in living populations. Therefore, it can be assumed that the statistical analysis of metric data can produce similar results in archaeological populations that may be interpreted effectively based on cultural/archaeological differences and geographic and temporal distances.

However, confirming biological distance results in archaeological populations is considerably more difficult. This is because there is rarely any genetic data to compare to the results and population histories are often unknown. However, as will be shown below, there are still many questions that biological distance analysis can address with regard to the biological and cultural relationships of past populations.

Biological Distance Studies on Archaeological Populations

Previous research utilizing biological distance analysis on prehistoric Native

Americans has examined broad issues like migration into the Americas or more narrow topics such as regional culture changes, interaction-spheres, the impact of Spanish contact, language divisions, and site structure.

The timing and route of migration into the Americas has been a long debated topic. Researchers have utilized archaeological, genetic, and morphological evidence to support a wide variety of theories. Despite differing interpretations of the results, these studies show the utility of craniometric data in the analysis of population history. For example, Powell and Neves (1999) examined Paleoindian, Archaic, and modern Native

American populations from across the United States asking questions about genetic variation and migration into the Americas. Their study showed that there is phenotypic variation, within and between the Native American populations is most likely the result of genetic drift, selection and gene flow acting on a population that resulted from a

single migration event. In contrast, Chatters (2010) examined a collection of samples from the Northwestern United States and Canada and found that morphological variation found within the sample populations was the result of multiple migrations out of

Beringia from a stock population and that genetic drift and gene flow did not have as large an impact as has been suggested. While Jantz and Owsley’s (2001) analysis of remains associated with several Mid-west tribes suggested that there were multiple migrations by different populations into the Americas resulting in the biological diversity found among the populations studied.

On a smaller scale, there have been several studies utilizing biological distance to analyze specific or localized archaeological questions about culture change and continuity. For example, archaeologists have long argued two theories for the development of the Hopewell culture in the Illinois Valley; the first is that the people associated with the Hopewell culture in the Illinois Valley were the result of a migration event, while others argued that the Hopewell culture developed in situ as the result of a change in ideology without any major migration event or minimal genetic influx. Buikstra

(1976) examined non-metric features in human skeletal remains recovered from four sites dated between 2050-1600 BP in the Lower Illinois Valley. Buikstra’s results suggest that the Middle and Late Woodland populations were relatively stable and had occupied the area for a significant amount of time, with no evidence of a migration into the area. Further, Buikstra was able to demonstrate that sites exhibited differentiation or isolation by distance, meaning those sites closer together were more related than sites that were more distant from each other. Additional work was conducted by Droessler

(1981) utilizing craniometric data to examine Late Woodland and Mississippian groups.

Droessler confirmed Buikstra’s conclusions of biological continuity within the Middle to

Late Woodland periods and demonstrated biological continuity into the Mississippian period. Biodistance analysis suggested that the populations were moderately homogenous, but there were differences based on geographic distance between the sites and that these differences varied based on sex, suggesting variations in post- marital residence patterns.

Steadman (1998) looked at the Mississippian transition in the Central Illinois

Valley, focusing specifically on the amount of external gene flow evident in the populations, exploring the theory that a movement of peoples from the American

Bottom, the region around Cahokia in southern Illinois along the Mississippi River, brought the Hopewell traditions with them. Questions about the origin of the later

Oneota culture and its relation to the Mississippian groups were also addressed in this study. Steadman confirmed the earlier results of biological continuity for Woodland to

Mississippian. Further, using model-bound methods, Steadman (1998) was able to show that there was very little external gene flow into the populations, further supporting an in situ ideology shift to Mississippian culture. The study also revealed that the

Oneota population was unrelated to the Mississippian populations of the Central Illinois

Valley, confirming that this new culture was the result of a population migration into the area.

Similar work was conducted by Sciulli et al. (1984) analyzing the populations associated with the transition from the Archaic Glacial Kame culture to the Early

Woodland Adena culture. Sciulli et al. (1984) examined non-metric traits and found that the two populations were not biologically homogenous. However, they were still quite

closely related and this could either be explained by an ancestor-descendant relationship between the two populations or, if the samples were temporally close, a shared recent ancestor (Sciulli et al. 1984). Sciulli and Schneider’s (1985) analysis of the Late Archaic populations in Ohio examined three closely related, but slightly different burial complexes, the Red Ocher, Western Basin Late Archaic, and Glacial

Kame complexes. Their results found that all of the samples were relatively homogenous, or similar, and that sites that were closer together geographically were more closely related than more distant sites were (Sciulli and Schneider 1985). Since no significant differences were found between the burial complexes it suggests that the apparent archaeological/cultural differences did not appear to affect the biological interactions of the sample populations studied. Tatarek et al. (2000) compared these

Archaic samples to later more sedentary agriculturalist populations in Ohio. They found that the late Prehistoric populations were rather heterogeneous and that this heterogeneity did not appear to be correlated with geographic distances or variations in material culture; the authors suggest that there was marked population instability and that various other cultural-historical factors may have contributed to the biological variation found within the sample populations.

The examination of interaction-spheres can also be addressed with the analysis of biological variation. In these spheres, much like that found in Florida in the Weeden

Island Complex, the archaeological evidence often suggests that populations were interacting as evidenced by the exchange of goods and it is usually assumed that they were also exchanging mates along trade networks. However, research by Reichs

(1984), which examined metric and non-metric data, suggests that this may not always

be the case. Her analysis of populations in Illinois and Ohio associated with the

Hopewell Interaction Sphere found that there was little to no biological exchange between these two areas. This research showed that despite shared mortuary activities and an exchange of material goods, differing morphological patterns found among the population samples corresponded to patterns of regionally distinct adaptions in the non- mortuary aspects of material culture, such as pottery (Reichs 1984).

In a similar vein, researchers have analyzed language groups and their relationship to biological variation, as some assume that language differences would be a barrier to biological interaction. Killgrove (2002; 2009) has examined language groups in North Carolina where archaeologists have long held that the three language groups,

Iroquoian, Algonkian, and Siouan, are compartmentalized or isolated cultural and biological entities. These bounded areas can be projected back to the pre-Contact period as static entities and used to label and analyze pre-Contact populations.

Killgrove analyzed non-metric traits of individuals from the North Carolina coastal plain to evaluate the assumption of biological separation between the language groups and she found that there was little correlation between the linguistic/cultural divisions and the biological divisions found within the populations, suggesting that this long help assumption needed to be re-evaluated (Killgrove 2009).

Aside from Killgrove’s work, much of the work in the Southeast has focused on the impact of European Contact on Native American populations. For example, Griffin et al. (2001) examined the pre- and post-Contact Guale populations in Tennessee, North

Carolina, Georgia, and Florida for biological variation. The study found that the pre-

Contact Guale populations were rather heterogeneous, with differing amount of diversity

at various time periods, suggesting that these populations were not as continuous as previously thought. Stojanowski has also done numerous studies of the Mission Period population in North Florida (Stojanowski 2003; 2004; 2005a; 2005b; Stojanowski et al.

2007). His research has shown that the pre-Contact Apalachee of North Florida was a relatively homogenous entity, both culturally and biologically, most likely due to language differences with their neighbors and historical evidence of constant warfare

(Stojanowski 2005b). They also managed to maintain aspects of their social structure well into the Contact period, including the maintenance of four biological subgroups within the population (Stojanowski 2005a). However, as Spanish contact increased, and disparate groups were forced together as Missions coalesced, the heterogeneity of the

Apalachee population increased (Stojanowski 2005b). In his work he has also analyzed coastal and inland pre-Contact populations in northern Florida and southern Georgia.

His findings suggested that pre-Contact populations were more homogenous than mission populations, but when these pre-Contact populations were examined alone, there was still variation evident among the populations (Stojanowski 2004; Stojanowski

2005a) For example, Stojanowski’s results showed differences between the early and late Irene Mound populations, suggesting changes in the biological composition of the population through time (Stojanowski 2004). Stojanowski also showed that the pre-

Contact inland populations of Georgia were more closely related to each other than to the coastal populations (Stojanowski 2004) and that there were biological distinctions between northern and southern sites within Florida (Stojanowski 2005b).

Additionally, Stojanowski’s studies often include an intrasite analysis of cemetery structure at the various missions, providing details of early burial practices following

familial or cultural patterns that deteriorate as the Mission Period progresses

(Stojanowski 2004; 2005b). Stojanowski (in Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006) used a similar approach in his intrasite analysis of the Archaic Windover Pond population, examining the relatedness of individuals buried in the pond. He theorized that there were distinct social groups utilizing the pond for burial based on the differences in the woven shrouds found with the burials. The results indicated that there were two genetically distinct groups, or bands, using the pond for burial and that these genetic divisions coincided with the differences in observed textiles at the site. Studies conducted by Konigsberg (1990) and Key and Jantz (1981) have shown intrasite temporal trends in mounds or burial areas used by the populations that buried at particular sites. For example, analysis revealed subtle differences in morphological variation between the populations that buried individuals in Mounds 1, 5, 7, 8, and 11 at the Pete Klunk Mound Group in Illinois and that the temporal seriation of the mounds based on biological variation corresponded to the archeological seriation of the mounds

(Konigsberg 1990).

These studies indicate that biological continuity or change can be observed in the bioarchaeological record as morphological variation, and that these data may be used to better understand culture change, interaction spheres, and site structure.

Metric Versus Non-Metric Traits

One thing of note in the various studies mentioned above is that some relied on non-metric characteristics, while other used metric data, and others utilized both; there have been many debates concerning the utility of metrics vs. non-metrics with regard to biological distance analysis. It has been argued that non-metric traits are more useful for biodistance studies because they are less impacted by sex and age factors, have

less environmental variability, are not correlated to each other, and are easily defined and standardized (Corruccini 1974). Corruccini (1974) tested all of these assumptions, except the environmental impact aspect, by analyzing sex and age dependence, intercorrelation of variants, and the correspondence of results between non-metric and metric analyses. As a result, Corruccini observed the following patterns: significant sex and age-related variation that correlated with traits presentation; some correlation between traits; and metric and non-metric analyses produced similar results, however, metric traits produced a greater separation between populations than non-metric traits.

However, Corruccini argues that both non-metric and metric analyses have a legitimate place in biodistance research. Another issue is the statistics used to analyze non-metric features are still rather simplistic, often relying on comparisons of averages or other simple statistical calculations. In addition, some have argued that non-metric traits are only slightly correlated to biological distance, they are not normally distributed, and their significance in different populations varies (van Vark and Schaafsma 1992), limiting their utility in biodistance studies. On the other hand, Pietrusewsky (2000) argued that metric traits are better suited for studies of biological variation due to the precision and repeatability of measurements, the conservative nature of the continuous variation, and the known heritability of metric traits, which is discussed below.

This project focuses on metric analysis, because as both Pietrusewsky (2000) and Howells (1973) have discussed, metric data are ideally suited to powerful multivariate statistical analyses, allowing for the interpretations of skulls and populations as a whole- not just their respective parts. This was best explained by Howells (1973:3-

4):

[M]ethods of multivariate analysis… allow a skull to be treated as a unit, i.e. as a configuration of the information contained in all its measurements. Next, they allow populations to be treated as configurations of such units, taking account of their variation in shape because they in turn are handled as whole configurations of individual dimensions. Finally, the relations and differences between all the populations being considered are set forth in terms of their several individual multivariate ranges of variation. Thus it is possible to see the range of the whole species in such complete and objective informational terms. That is the importance of multivariate statistics: they fit the model of populations looked on not as centroids of means, but as swarms of the varying individuals who compose them; and the differentiation of these swarms from one another constitutes a statement of the degree and nature of the difference between the populations. Although the information is ultimately limited by the measurements selected to describe the skull, their relationships and their relative taxonomic significance are not otherwise biased by the worker.

With a review of how the study of biological variation and biological distance analysis can contribute to our understanding of archaeological variation and populations histories, we turn to a discussion of the theory that underlies this type of analysis.

Biological Distance-Theory, Assumptions, and Models

Theory

Biological distance studies operate on the theoretical model that all populations within a region exchange mates from an outside source at an equal rate, resulting in a linear relationship between the average within-group variation and genetic distance to the centroid (average heterozygosity of all subpopulations) for each population (the null hypothesis) (Relethford and Blangero 1990). However, when a population has an increased rate of exchange with an external population, their within group heterogeneity will increase due to the influx of new genes and the linear relationship will be violated.

Therefore, groups that receive greater external gene flow will have greater within-group variation than expected by the null hypothesis, while populations with less than average external gene flow will have lower heterogeneity than expected. On the other hand

when looking at populations within a region and only considering gene flow within that region and not from external sources, populations that exchange mates will become more phenotypically similar, or homogeneous, over time, while populations that do not exchange mates with each other will become more dissimilar, or heterogeneous, over time (Steadman 2001; Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006).

Assumptions

Biodistance analysis conducted on archaeological sample populations must incorporate a few assumptions; several of which are based on living studies, while other assumptions are necessary to allow for conservative analysis and interpretation of the data. These assumptions are discussed in detail below and this research will examine whether or not some of these assumptions apply to Florida’s archaeological populations; particularly if biodistance as an indirect measure of social exchange is supported by the archaeological evidence of social interaction, if cemeteries are representative of breeding populations based on levels of homogeneity, and if environmental effects are minimal or should have a stronger consideration in some circumstances.

Assumptions analyzed

The first of these assumptions, which has been supported in living populations, is that patterns of biological distance and variability can be used as an indirect measure of the degree of social exchange between the groups they represent (Basu et al. 1976;

Droessler 1981; Friedlaender et al. 1971; Pollitzer 1958; Steadman 1998). This assumption can be examined in the archaeological record through the comparison of the archaeological findings for each site, in particular pottery styles, burial practices, and presence of trade goods. If groups are interacting socially, they are likely exchanging

ideas and material culture. Therefore, social exchange should be evidenced in the archaeological record as the presence of trade goods or shared patterns of pottery style, ritual activity, or burial pattern. Shared burial practices, particularly over a large distance or extended time frame, may suggest cultural continuity and/or social exchange. It may be assumed that in this process mates are exchanged, which would impact the biological distance between the populations, bringing them closer together.

However, this may not always be the case, if populations are found to be either archaeologically similar but biological distant or biological similar but archaeologically dissimilar, such relationships would be of particular interest.

The second assumption is that gene flow and genetic drift affect allele frequencies between the populations under study and that those changes are reflected in skeletal changes (Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). This assumption has been studied extensively both to determine the heritability of craniometrics and the impacts of gene flow and genetic drift on skeletal morphology. Heritabilities can range from 0 to 1 and studies have found that craniometrics have a high heritability, often between 0.55 and 1

(Devor 1987; Droessler 1981; Relethford and Harpending 1994). It has also been found that osteometrics may react more slowly to the effects of gene flow making them more useful in the study of long-term migration patterns (Relethford and Lees 1982).

However, genetic drift may have less of an impact than previously thought, because studies have found that the random fluctuations caused by genetic drift should cancel each other out over the large number of alleles involved in metric traits (Livingston

1972; Spielman 1973). Therefore, it can be assumed that variation observed in metric data is due to underlying genetic variation and that variation is more likely due to an

increase or decrease in gene flow between populations than due to random genetic drift.

The third assumption is that a cemetery or sample population is representative of the original breeding population, understanding that it is a temporal aggregation or lineage, not an actual contemporaneous biological population (Cadien et al. 1974;

Droessler 1981; Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). This assumption raises a number of issues when dealing with the archaeological record as discussed, however, first it can be argued that individuals buried in cemeteries are representative of the living populations, as the living population is the one who chose where to place the dead and how they were interred (Pearson 1999). It can then be assumed that, in most instances, individuals buried in a cemetery, and subsequently included in a sample collection, participated in a culture in some form and were considered members of the group as they were buried in the group’s cemetery. It has been argued that burial practices are representatives of a population’s view of itself or of the social structure it used, whether realistic or idealized (Pearson 1982; Sears 1958). Therefore a population found in a cemetery should represent the living population’s perception of itself. So, if the population was tight knit and homogenous, one would expect the cemetery population to also be genetically homogenous. However, if the group had a loose definition of membership and incorporated many outlying groups in various activities one could also expect this to be true in the cemetery population, many individuals of varied biological history are interred in a single cemetery. Therefore analysis of the biological variation of a cemetery itself will be informative of each site or culture’s view of membership.

Additionally, isotopic research conducted by Quinn et al. (2008) on the Middle Archaic

site of Tick Island/Harris Creek in Florida found that the majority of the individuals were

“local,” and were most likely born, near the site location. Individuals who had traveled to

Harris Creek, or were brought to the site after their death, were isotopically distinct and

“non-local”. Only a small portion of the Harris Creek sample was represented by non- local individuals. These findings suggest that a population found within a Florida burial site will most likely be representative of the individuals who lived in the area and therefore would be considered the breeding population. Despite these positive results, the analysis of sample collections recovered from burial sites and interpreted as populations and/or lineages must be approached with conservatism and caution. Aside from the potential cultural bias of who was placed in a burial site verses who was placed elsewhere, there are additional biases related to excavation strategies (sections verses whole cemetery excavation), and curation methods (selection of remains to be kept or discarded), all of which may alter the extent of variation observed in the sample. This bias can be accounted for, to an extent, by reviewing collection histories; however, this information is not always recorded. The potential for bias is considered in the analytical process.

The fourth assumption is that environmental effects are minimal and randomly distributed among the populations (Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). In the study of biodistance it is understood that environmental, sexual, and age-related factors can affect results, but statistical adjustments, selection of minimally affected traits, and regional approaches can lessen the impact of environmental variables and selective effects (Relethford and Lees 1982; Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). A few studies have focused on craniometrics and environmental factors. Devor (1987) found that

environmental effects were minimal on craniofacial measurements affecting soft tissue measurements more than skeletal measurements. Lundström (1955) found in a twin study that genetics played a stronger role than environment in craniofacial form, even under the extreme condition of thumb sucking. Relethford (2004) found that climate and developmental plasticity can influence craniometrics, however, the factors do not erase the underlying population structure. Relethford (2002) has also shown that, with regard to craniometrics, approximately 13% of variation is found among geographically/environmentally distinct regions, 6% of the variation is found within a region, and 81% is found within the populations in a region. These findings suggest that, due to the multivariate pattern of among-group variation, genetic distances found are in agreement with selectively neutral genetic markers. In other words, natural selection does act on cranial morphology, but by using multiple craniometrics, those measurements impacted by selective pressures will have less of an impact on the outcome and therefore results can be viewed as the result of gene flow between the populations understudy. Further, a skeletal study by Rothhammer and Silva (1990) analyzed South American prehistoric populations from a moderately tight temporal frame with varied geography, climate, and altitude, found that geographic isolation had the greatest impact on biological distance, whereas climate and altitude played only a small role in the biological distances observed.

Therefore, in this study, the environmental influence on variation is most likely minimal, particularly among archaeological populations from similar temporal frames and location. The environment in Florida is not as variable as that demonstrated in global population studies, or that seen in the widely varying environments of South

America. The environment has changed through time in Florida, particularly when comparing the Early Archaic to the Early Woodland or the Mississippian time periods; therefore if significant differences are found among the populations associated with these time frames, environmental changes will have to be considered as a factor. In summary, environmental selection has been shown to impact craniometrics, but it does not obscure the underlying population relationships. Therefore, the results of this study can still be used to interpret cultural and biological continuity and change from the

Archaic to pre-Contact period.

Model derivations

The study of biological variation is based on population genetic models; however, these models are of limited use when studying skeletal samples that no longer contain intact DNA. Therefore, Relethford and Blangero (1990) modified the Harpending and

Ward model (1982) of heterogeneity for allele frequencies to be used with continuous traits, such as craniometrics. This modification has allowed for the magnitude and direction of gene flow across space and time to be modeled in skeletal samples. The modification of these formulae for continuous traits is fully described by Relethford and

Blangero (1990) and Relethford et al. (1997). Relethford and Blangero’s model utilizes a relationship (R) matrix, which is a variance-covariance relationship matrix of population similarities, which provides genetic distance estimates and allows for extra-local gene flow patterns to be assessed (Steadman 1998; Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006).

The Harpending-Ward model states that the expected heterozygosity of populations i[E(Hi)] is a function of the heterozygosity of the total region (Ht) and the genetic distance between population i and the regional centroid (rij).

E(Hi)= Ht(i-rij)

The genetic distance of a population to the regional centroid is computed as the diagonal of the R matrix of scaled variances and covariances about the regional mean allele frequencies. For each allele the elements of the R matrix for populations i and j are computed as:

( )( )

( )

where pi and pj are the allele frequencies of populations i and j, respectively, and p is the average allele frequency for all populations in the analysis weighted by population size. The elements of the R matrix are then averaged overall alleles

(Relethford and Blangero 1990).

The multivariate equation for calculating expected within-group heterogeneity for quantitative traits is a function of the pooled mean within-group phenotypic variation across all subpopulations within a region (vw), the genetic distance of subpopulations to the centroid (rji), and the average genetic distance to the centroid across all regional subpopulations (FST), such that:

E(vi)= vw(1-rji)

1-FST

The residual is the difference between the expected and observed heterozygosity, the sign and magnitude of which indicates the relative extent of gene flow from external sources into each population; so positive residuals indicate greater external gene flow, while negative residuals indicate lower than expected rates of external gene flow.

The total genetic variation among populations, FST, is given as the average weighted diagonal of the R matrix:

FST= ∑ wirji

Where wi is the relative population size of populations i, and g is the number of populations (Relethford and Blangero 1990). FST represents the minimum genetic differentiation between the regional populations under the assumption that all heritabilities are equal to 1 (Williams-Blangero and Blangero 1989). As mentioned previously, heritability for a trait can range from 0 to 1 (Devor 1987; Droessler 1981;

Relethford and Harpending 1994), and a heritability of 0 indicates that none of the phenotypic variation of that trait results from additive genetic variation While a heritability of 1 indicates that all phenotypic variation results from the underlying genetic variation. Heritabilities close to 0 indicate a lack of genetic variation not a lack of genetic control, while heritabilities close to 1 imply little selection, little environmental variation, and maximum additive genetic variation (Stojanowski 2005a). Therefore using a heritability of 1 in these calculations results in the minimum genetic distance and minimum FST being calculated (Stojanowski 2005b); therefore any results found to be significant can be safely interpreted as significant.

Computations of R require that certain quantities be weighted by population size producing an unbiased R matrix. This accounts for differences in effective populations size, statistically removing the potential effect of genetic drift in smaller populations

(Relethford and Blangero 1990), however for these analyses the population sizes are unknown, so all populations were weighted equally, using a value of 1, which again gives the minimum results (Relethford 1996).

The genetic distances between the populations are calculated by converting the elements of the R matrix into a distance matrix (Relethford and Harpending 1994)

2 d ij= rii-rjj-2rij

Methodologies

There are two types of methodologies for determining biological distances: model-free and model-bound (Relethford and Lees 1982). Model-free procedures indirectly apply models to measure biological similarity, which are then used to assess overall phenotypic similarity. Model-free procedures can be broken down into differentiation studies and comparative studies. Differentiation studies seek to determine the extent of variation among groups and the biological distance between groups without evaluating the pattern of that variation. Comparative studies seek to determine the pattern of among group variation and then relate that pattern to other biological, demographic, and/or historical patterns (Relethford and Lees 1982). The comparative studies use correlation matrices to directly compare geographic and biological distances

(Howells 1973; Relethford and Lees 1982; Steadman 1998) or other cultural and historical factors relating to population isolation and migration (Steadman 2001). The results of these correlation matrices would suggest if there was a geographic, linguistic, and/or social relationship between the clustered populations or would indicate what factors may have barred gene flow (Relethford and Lees 1982).

Model-bound methods directly incorporate measures of population similarity into the models ultimately seeking to estimate a specific parameter, such as admixture, genetic drift or gene flow (Pietrusewsky 2000). These methods often require more assumptions than model-free methods, but they can be used to evaluate kinship and isolation by distance (Relethford and Lees 1982). Model-bound methods require population estimates, heritability estimates, and tight temporal frames.

In summation, this discussion has shown the utility of the analysis of biological variation of skeletal populations, the assumptions used in that analysis, and the models used in these types of analyses. After this review it should be clear how these methods will provide valuable insight in the biological and cultural variation of pre-Contact Florida and particularly the questions highlighted in the previous discussion of Florida archaeology. The following chapter details the methods used and the population samples studied in this analysis.

CHAPTER 4 METHODS AND MATERIALS

It was determined that metric data would be utilized for this study because sex and age factors can be corrected for statistically, measurement definitions are open to less interpretation than non-metric trait definitions, and there is no need for a threshold value with metric assessments as there are with non-metric data. Corruccini (1974) stated that non-metric traits are more susceptible to drift due to their underlying genetic nature, whereas metric variation is more impacted by gene flow, which is the focus of this study. Furthermore, metric data allows for multivariate analysis, which allows a skull to be handled as a unit or a configuration of measurements. Multivariate analysis allows the comparison of all the points as a whole for an individual and for a population. It allows to full range of variation within a population to be visualized and assessed

(Howells 1973).

Data Collected

Craniometric data were collect on from 404 skulls from 27 pre-Contact archaeological sites throughout peninsular Florida (Table 4-1). These samples are housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Florida State University, Florida Gulf

Coast University, University of Miami, Florida Atlantic University, the Florida Department of Historic Resources, the Sarasota County History Center, and the Smithsonian

Institution.

A suite of 40 measurements was originally recorded for each individual based on a set of standard measurements (Table 4-2) (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Droessler

1981). Two additional measurements, similar to Rhine’s subtenses (Rhine 1990) were developed by the author to permit the inclusion of more individuals. These new

measurements were 1) orbital width at nasion, which is the nasal width taken at the height of nasion, and 2) nasion to the external point on the frontomalar suture (fmt), which is the distance between these two landmarks in a horizontal plane. The second measurement was taken as a potential proxy for upper facial breadth (fmt-fmt) so that when one of the sides was damaged the nasion to fmt measurement could be doubled and used as a replacement for the upper facial breadth measurement. However, the author conducted a paired sample t-test, utilizing SPSS 19 (Inc. 2010), and found that the upper facial breadth measurement and the nasion to fmt measurement doubled do not correspond well, therefore this new measurement cannot be used as a proxy for the other. All measurements were taken to the nearest millimeter using spreading and sliding calipers and a mandibulometer following standard anthropometric techniques.

Measurements were taken preferentially on the left side, when the left was missing the right was substituted. A definition of all measurements can be found in Appendix A.

The author followed standard anthropological techniques for the estimation of skeletal sex and age (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Sex was labeled in the following categories: male, male?, unknown, female?, or female. Sex determination was assessed principally on cranial morphology (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Only adults were used in this analysis. Age was labeled in these categories: unknown, young, young-middle, middle, middle-old or old. Age estimation was based primarily on dental attrition of the molars, young was assessed as little to no wear, particularly on the 2nd and 3rd molars, middle as moderate wear on the molars, and old as extreme wear on the molar, particularly the 1st and 2nd molars; these methods followed the Murphy and

Miles methods (Miles 2001; Murphy 1959a; Murphy 1959b). Analysis of postcranial

indicators of sex and age were abandoned early in the study when it became apparent that individuals were often commingled and parsing out matching cranial and postcranial elements was not possible when working with bones that are out of context.

To test for intraobserver error, 22 individuals from Palmer Mound and Dunwody were re-measured approximately six months after the initial data collection. SPSS 19

(Inc. 2010) was used to perform an independent t-test for significant differences between measurement one and measurement two (Table D-1). A 95% confidence interval was used. Mastoid length [2] was found to have a high rate of intraobserver error; therefore it was removed from further analysis.

Missing Data

Many individuals observed were fragmentary and yielded incomplete data. Some variables were missing more often than others. Analysis could not continue without a complete data set, therefore the issue of how to fill in missing data had to be addressed, as removing all variables with missing data would have resulted in all variables being removed or removing individuals with incomplete data would also have resulted in nearly all individuals being removed from the analysis. Therefore the missing data needed to be filled in for at least some of the variables allowing for more of the individuals to be included in the analysis. Missing data can be completed in one of several ways including substitution of group means, substitution of grand means, or prediction of the missing value by means of multiple regressions. The first two methods result in a loss of variability either within the group, which inflate inter-group distances or between groups, which diminish or obscure inter-group differences. Multiple linear regression uses the patterns of variation within the known variables to fill in the missing variables resulting in size consistency being maintained and as a statistical method is

less likely to affect within-group variance (Droessler 1981). Thus, multiple linear regression analysis was chosen to fill in the missing data. However, this method bases the imputation on the other variables, both within the individual and within the populations that are available so if there are very few measurements available to produce regression formulae the results are limited. Therefore, it was determined that measurements missing in > 60% of the individuals sampled would be removed from further analysis. This decision resulted in the following measurements being removed from analysis: bizygomatic breadth, basion-prosthion, alveolar breath and length, nasion-prosthion, nasal breadth, biorbital breadth, interorbital breadth, mastoid length, chin height, bigonial breath, and bicondylar breadth. In addition, after review it was determined that three of the Archaic Period sites did not have mandible measurements.

Therefore, either these measurements would have to be filled in based on variability from other sites, potentially altering the true variability of the populations sampled or these measurements would have to be removed for the entire study. It was determined that at this time these measurements would be removed. In summary, 20 measurements were used in this analysis that follows (Table 4-3). Appendix B contains the raw data for the 20 measurements used in analysis.

To complete the missing data, multiple linear regression analysis was conducted on the data collected using SPSS 19.0.0 (Inc. 2010). Regression by site, and when possible by sex within site, was done to generate values for the missing data. In all cases, the error terms were chosen randomly from a normal distribution since more than half of the cases were missing data.

The missing data for Gauthier, Windover, Palmer, Bayshore Homes, Manasota

Key Cemetery, Crystal River, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount, Santa Rosa, Safety

Harbor, and Captive Island were completed using regression analysis by site and by sex. Warm Mineral Springs, Bay West, Republic Groves, Bird Island, Bay Pines,

Browne Tract, Casey Key, and Hutchinson Island were completed by site. The remaining sites were too incomplete to fill in at the site level. The remaining sites represent several cultures and are from diverse temporal frames and geographic areas; therefore filling in the missing data had to be done selectively. Research suggests that sites within similar geographic regions or similar time frames are more likely to be similar to each other than sites from more distant locations or times (Konigsberg 1990a;

Konigsberg 1990b). Therefore filling in the incomplete data by analyzing sites from the same cultural time frame or geographic region would most likely be more representative of the true variation within the populations than trying to complete the missing data by comparing disparate samples. The completed data sets from Bay West, Republic

Groves, and Gauthier were analyzed together to fill in the missing data for Little Salt

Springs, as these sites are closest to Little Salt Springs chronologically and culturally.

Henderson Mound, Hughes Island, and McKeithan were analyzed with Browne Tract and Crystal River to fill in the missing data because these sites have a Deptford and/or a Weeden Island component. Dunwody was analyzed with Captive Island to fill in missing data because of geographic proximity. Yellow Bluffs was analyzed with Palmer

Mound, Venice Beach Complex, Casey Key, and Manasota Key Cemetery because these sites are considered to belong to the Manasota culture. Sarasota Bay Mound was

analyzed with Safety Harbor Mound to fill in missing data as both of these sites are identified as belonging to the Safety Harbor culture.

Statistical Methods

All variables were converted to Z-scores, which removed the size differences or sexual dimorphism influences, while maintaining the shape differences (Relethford

1994).

Once the data set was complete, SPSS 19 (Inc. 2010) was utilized to conduct

Principle Component Analysis (PCA) and Discriminant Function Analysis to explore the variation in the data.

The preliminary analysis of these data focused on the variation within the populations as a whole, first to determine if there were any patterns to the variation and then to compare the variation within populations to the centroid, or the average variation of all the populations being investigated. The initial analysis was performed using principal component analysis (PCA), which focuses on the interrelationship among a large number of variables and seeks to identify underlying patterns of variation

(Pietrusewsky 2000). PCA is a statistical method used for data reduction that seeks to maximize group differences, so it does not utilize any a priori knowledge, such as site.

PCA results may be viewed as an unbiased projection of the variability patterns within a sample. PCA essentially converts the variables into eigenvectors, which represent patterns in the variations, usually the product of several variables acting together to differentiate the groups (Pietrusewsky 2000). To test the suitability of this analysis for the data the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s

Test of Sphericity were examined. KMO indicates if there are sufficient items for each factor or whether or not using this analysis with these variables is appropriate; a value

greater than 0.5 indicates that this is a method is suitable for the data being analyzed.

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity tests the null hypothesis that the variables in the population correlation matrix are not correlated, ultimately indicating whether or not the correlation matrix is significantly different than the identification matrix.

After PCA, discriminant function analysis (DFA) was conducted, where the independent variables are the predictors and the dependent variables (i.e. site, culture, geographic region, etc.) are the groups. Unlike PCA, DFA does seek to maximize group differences; therefore it does take a priori knowledge into account. DFA is usually used to predict membership in naturally occurring groups. DFA analysis is broken into a 2- step process: (1) testing significance of a set of discriminant functions, and (2) classification. The first step is a step-wise process that evaluates which variables maximize intergroup distances to develop discriminant function coefficients and formulae. The second step uses these formulae to classify individuals into groups and the cross-validation step checks the classification results giving an evaluation of the strength of the results (Pietrusewsky 2000). This is done because the estimates of accuracy in the classification step are often artificially high as the same individuals that were used to create the discriminant functions are used to test its performance, inflating its accuracy. Whereas, the cross-validated results are a more accurate representation of the utility of the functions as they operate with a leave-one-out method in which one individual is held out of the analysis and the discriminant function is generated from n-1 individuals in the samples then the held-out individual is classified using this new function. The process is repeated for all individuals creating an unbiased estimate of the functions performance. The Wilks’ Lambda test was used to determine if the functions

provide significant discrimination between the groups, it is also an indication of the total, unexplained variance, for the discriminant function. Therefore, a smaller Wilks' Lambda value is desired as this indicates that there is little unexplained variance and a greater proportion of the total variance is explained by the discriminant function.

If groups were identified through PCA and DFA methods then the next phase of analysis, R matrix and biological distance estimation were undertaken to estimate how closely related each sample population is. These calculations were done utilizing the

RMET5.0 program, provided by John Relethford (Relethford and Blangero 1990;

Relethford et al. 1997). For these analyses a heritability of 1 was used to obtain the minimum genetic distance and minimum FST. Also, since the population sizes are unknown, all populations were weighted equally, using a value of 1, again giving the minimum genetic distance (Relethford 1996). This phase of the analysis will help us understand how the populations being studied are related to each other; small biological distances would suggest that the populations are related, while large distances would suggest that the populations are unrelated (Steadman 2001). The unbiased FST, or the total genetic variation among the populations, is examined to give an indication of the amount of variability within the populations. The FST provides an easily interpreted assessment of the biological variation of the populations involved in an analysis, which can be compared to other researchers FST results for cross-cultural comparison of genetic variation regardless of data type (Steadman 2001). The FST is the sum of the product of a populations size multiplied by the populations distance from the regional centroid (rii), therefore the number of populations used and the variation found within those populations impacts the FST value. In addition, analysis of the residuals, the

observed variation minus the expected variation, indicates size and direction of gene flow, positive values indicate flow into the population while, negative values indicate lower than expected levels of flow into the population or even gene flow out of the population.

In each analysis, populations were removed as analysis proceeded based on variability or archaeological interpretations to facilitate further analysis. Each of these situations is discussed in the results section.

Pearson product-moment and Spearman rho correlations were used to determine if there were any significant correlations between biological distance and time or geography. Pearson is used for values that are measured on a continuous scale and are approximately normally distributed, while Spearman is used for data that are ordinal or violate the assumptions of Pearson correlation, such as a skewed distribution. The statistic r and rs, respectively, estimates the correlation between the variables and the

P-value is reported as the 2-tailed sigma.

Materials

Archaic Sites

Warm Mineral Springs (8SO19)

Warm Mineral Springs is a now inundated Early Archaic or possibly late

Paleoindian burial site in southern Sarasota County. The site was a sinkhole when water levels were considerably lower than today, however as sea-level rose groundwater levels rose and the sink became a spring. Some evidence suggests that the burials found in the spring were above the water at the time of their interment on the ledges or cave-like recesses in the spring opening (Cockrell and Murphy 1978). While other research indicates that the remains may not be the result of direct interment and

are either the result of individuals falling into the spring and dying or bodies being thrown into the spring and decomposing (Clausen et al. 1975). Radiocarbon dates place human activity from 10,630-8920 BP (Clausen et al. 1975). There were three crania available for this study, one was excavated from the 35-40 foot ledge and is well provenience, another cranium came from the debris cone at the bottom of the spring and therefore its original burial location is unknown, and the third cranium has no provenience (Skow 1986).

Windover Pond (8BR246)

Windover is an Early Archaic pond burial site located in Brevard County. The burials appear to be primary flexed burials and were placed predominately along the north and west edges of the pond. The burials may have been placed in band and/or family groupings within the pond. Evidence of wooden stakes and woven mats suggest the burials were intentionally staked down into the peat of the pond. The burials date from 9,000-7,900 BP (Doran 2002). The vast majority of the remains were collected during controlled excavations, with only the earliest discovered materials were collected from dredge piles.

Little Salt Spring (8SO18)

Little Salt Spring is a Middle Archaic pond and slough burial site in southern

Sarasota County. Much like Warm Mineral Springs, Little Salt Spring is a former cenote turned spring. The earliest human activity at this site dates to the Paleoindian Period, however, the largest amount of activity including the interment of the dead dates to the

Middle Archaic period (Clausen et al. 1979). The remains collected in controlled excavations from two locations, the spring basin and the slough. The remains excavated from the slough were in an extended position on a pier of green wax myrtles

and evidence suggests that there may have been stakes or structures around the burials. Radiocarbon dating places one of the slough burials at 5850 ± 70 BP. The spring burials appear to be primarily from the eastern side of the basin, though a child burial was found on the western edge. One of the burials in the basin was dated to 5220

± 90 BP (Clausen et al. 1979). Unfortunately, the exact provenience of the remains used in this study, whether they are from the slough or the basin, is unknown at this time, so the spatial relationship of the remains is currently unknown.

Bay West (8CR200)

Bay West is a Middle Archaic pond burial site located in Collier County.

Unfortunately, due to the salvage nature of the excavation, orientation and provenience of the burials was not recorded; the remains were collected as the pond was dredged in transects (Beriault et al. 1981). The presence of burned and shaped wooden stakes suggests that the burials were staked down into the peat like Windover (Beriault et al.

1981). The burials date from 7,550-5,500 BP. Of note, one stone bead manufactured from non-Florida green stone was found with the burials, suggesting an extensive trade network or extra-local individuals (Purdy 1991a).

Republic Groves (8HR4)

Republic Groves is a Middle Archaic pond burial site that is located in Hardee

County. The site was discovered when a ditch was dug through the site and other heavy machinery activity in the area resulted in extensive disturbance to the burials, therefore many of the remains have little provenience information. Further excavation was done in a controlled fashion allowing for the notation of burial information including the fact that many of the artifacts or burial goods were found with the child and infant burials, similar to the pattern seen at Windover (Purdy 1991b). The remains appear to have been

primary, flexed burials and one set of six burials appears to have been an intentional group burial possibly suggesting a family (Wharton et al. 1981). Tapered wooden stakes, showing evidence of hammering, were also found in association with the burials

(Wharton et al. 1981). The stakes were dated between 6520 ± 65 BP and 5745± 105

BP. A pendant made a non-local serpentine-like material was found with the remains again suggesting an extensive trade network or non-local individuals (Purdy 1991b). It is estimated that only about 1% of the potential cemetery area was actually sampled

(Wharton et al. 1981).

Gauthier (8BR193)

Gauthier is a Middle Archaic cemetery that was situated along the edge of a pond located in Brevard County. The burials appear to be primary flexed burials and may have been placed in clan and/or family groups within the site. However, these burials were not pond burials as seen at the Windover and Bay West sites. The projectile points found with the burials suggests a Middle to Late Archaic date, which is supported by a radiocarbon date of 4340 ± 170 BP (Carr 1981; Maples 1987).

Bird Island (8DI52)

Bird Island is a Late Archaic cemetery site located along the coast in Dixie

County. The burials from this site were collected or excavated at various times and little is known about their orientation or provenience, but it appears that all the remains came from one small area on the south side of the island. Also, one observer indicated that the burials appeared to have been discrete, flexed burials (McFadden 2011). This site is on the northwest coast of Florida and it not adjacent to any large fresh water body, such as a pond. One radiocarbon date for a burial suggests an age of 4570 ± 110 BP

(Stojanowski and Doran 1998). This site has also yielded the largest soapstone sample

in Florida dating to ca. 3800 BP. The presence of soapstone suggests that these individuals either traveled from or were in frequent contact with groups outside Florida, since the closest source of soapstone is in north central Georgia (Lovejoy 1985;

McFadden 2011; Stojanowski and Doran 1998; Yates 2000).

Weeden Island/Manasota Sites

McKeithan (8CO17)

McKeithan is three mound complex located in Columbia County excavated during various field sessions in the mid- to late-1970s by Dr. Jerald Milanich. Human remains were found in all three mounds; however the two individuals used in this study come from Mound B and Mound C. The burials were primarily secondary burials resulting from the use of a charnel house, with the notable exception of the individual buried in the center of Mound B. A pottery cache was found in Mound C. The site appears to be a ceremonial center associated with the Weeden Island Complex.

Radiocarbon dates indicate that the mounds were used approximately 1700 BP

(Milanich et al. 1997).

Crystal River (8CI1)

Crystal River is a large midden/mound complex located in Citrus County that contains two flat-topped temple mounds, two burial mounds, several middens and a stela. The remains used in this study were excavated by Ripley Bullen in 1960 from the main burial mound and a smaller burial mound called Mound G. However, despite an extensive study by Katzmarzyk (1998) no provenience information is available about the remains beyond the level of mound association. The main mound contained predominately primary extended burials and there was evidence of pottery caches

(Willey 1949), while Mound G does not have any evidence of a pottery cache and many

of the burials appear to have been primary, flexed (Katzmarzyk 1998). Various artifacts found during the Moore and Bullen excavations suggest an extended trade network

(Weisman 1995). Pottery analysis and radiocarbon dates suggest that the site was occupied from the Deptford period through the Weeden Island Complex or 2200 BP-

1400 BP and it appears that the two burial mounds may have been contemporaneous

(Katzmarzyk 1998; Pluckhahn et al. 2010). Radiocarbon dates from the burial mound

(2490 ± 60 BP) and Mound G (2520 ± 60 and 1990 ± 40) suggest that at least some of the individuals in both mounds were buried during the Early Woodland Period

(Pluckhahn et al. 2010), which corresponds to the Deptford period. Artifacts from this site have also suggested a link to the Yent Complex (Sears 1962) that predates, but is believed to be associated with, the later Weeden Island Complex (Milanich 1994;

Stephenson et al. 2002). Site usage, and most likely burial, continued into the late

Weeden Island period based on pottery analysis and additional radiocarbon dates from the various structures at the site (Pluckhahn et al. 2010).

Hughes Island Mound (8DI45)

Hughes Island is a burial mound located in along the coast in Dixie County. The mound was excavated during a field school conducted by John Goggin in 1954. A 20 foot trench was excavated in five foot squares. The burials were concentrated near the center of the mound. The base of the mound appeared to be midden refuse that was then capped with tan sand and secondary burials were placed on the surface and covered (Silbereisen 1954). Pottery analysis suggests that the mound dates to the early

Weeden Island period and a rare embossed copper disc suggests long distance trade with the Great Lakes region (Christman 1954).

Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4)

Yellow Bluffs is a soil burial mound located along Sarasota Bay in Sarasota

County. The mound was excavated in 10x10 squares by the Sarasota County Historical

Society with the assistance of Dr. Jerald Milanich in 1969. The mound was originally dated to the Safety Harbor period (Milanich 1972), however reanalysis of the pottery and radiocarbon dating indicate that the mound dates to the early Manasota culture at the Deptford horizon (2115-2040 BP) (Luer 2011; Luer and Hughes 2011). Pottery sherds include Deptford pottery, Orange and fiber-tempered pottery, and St. Johns pottery and paste analysis indicates that several of the sherds originated in north

Florida, suggesting an extended trade network (Luer 2011). Ten burials were excavated on the west side of the mound, most of which were primary, flexed (Milanich 1972), and it appears to be a continuous use mound (Luer 2011). The provenience information for the two individuals examined in this study has been confused through time; however, in reading Milanich (1972) and interpreting notes on the remains it can be suggested that one individual is from Burial 10 and the other is either from Burials 5, 6, 7, or 8.

Dunwody (8CH61)

Dunwody is a shell midden site located on the shore of Lemon Bay in Charlotte

County. The burials were collected during a salvage project conducted by Ripley and

Adelaide Bullen in 1965. The burials were collected after being exposed by a bulldozer from the northwestern edge of the midden along the shoreline; however, no other provenience information is available (Gold 2006; Luer 1999). The burials appeared to have been primary flexed burials (Gold 2006). Based on artifacts collected at various times, the midden evidences multiple occupations dating from the Archaic through the

Safety Harbor period (Luer 1999). Two radiocarbon dates on bone provided dates of

1150 ± 40 BP and 1290 ± 40 BP (Gold 2006), suggesting the burials are associated with the Manasota period.

Casey Key (8SO17)

Casey Key is a sand burial mound located on the north end of Casey Key in

Sarasota County. The collections used in this analysis were the result of donations by various individuals who excavated in the mound, therefore little is known about the provenience of the remains; the mound has since been destroyed. The Bullen’s visited the site in 1959 and made a small collection of pottery. This collection and a donated collection from the site contain numerous plain sherds and a high percentage of

Weeden Island decorated sherds, (Bullen and Bullen 1976), suggesting a late Manasota period site.

Palmer Burial Mound (8SO2A)

Palmer is a sand burial mound located in Sarasota County. The burials were collected during controlled excavations conducted by Ripley and Adelaide Bullen in

1959, 1960, and 1962. Approximately 400 burials were excavated; the majority of the burials, 75%, were primary, flexed burials, the remaining 25% were mostly from the upper layers of the mound and consisted primarily of secondary or bundle burials. The pottery associated with the mound is predominately sand tempered plain with an increased incidence of decorated or Weeden Island type pottery in the upper layers.

Bullen’s published analysis of the site suggests that there were three phases of building/burial in the mound that coincided with changes in pottery-type frequencies and burial patterns; an early phase possibly associated with the dedication of the mound, a middle phase associated with most of the burials, and a later phase that appears to have Weeden Island influences. Two radiocarbon dates were performed providing dates

of 1100 ± 105 BP from the upper layer of the mound and 2350 ± 110 BP from the lowest layer of the mound. Bullen indicated that the first date was accurate and consistent with the pottery chronologies, but that the second date was too early for the mound and therefore was the result of fill brought in by the later populations from other previously inhabited locations (Bullen and Bullen 1976). The burial patterns, pottery, and radiocarbon dates suggest that this is a Manasota period burial mound with a late

Weeden Island influence evident in the upper most layers.

Manasota Key Cemetery (8SO1292)

Manasota Key is a cemetery site located on a natural beach ridge in Sarasota

County. There is no published report on this site at this time. Field notes housed at the

Florida Department of Historical Resources indicate that the burials were primary, flexed burials. Sand tempered plain pottery found within the site is consistent with the

Manasota culture. Radiocarbon dates taken from a bone and a shell sample date to

1800 ± 80 BP and 1830 ± 90 BP, respectively, coinciding with the late Manasota period.

Venice Beach Complex (8SO26)

Venice Beach Complex is a midden/mound complex located along the coast in

Sarasota County. The site consists of several shell middens and possibly burial mounds some of which are now underwater (apparently due to coastal erosion); however the site has been extensively damaged by modern construction. It is unknown at this time when or where the remains were excavated. The site has been associated with the

Weeden Island or Manasota cultures based on pottery analysis (Luer and Almy 1982;

Milanich and Fairbanks 1980).

Bayshore Homes (8PI41)

Bayshore Homes is a part of a mound complex located on Boca Ciega Bay in

Pinellas County in the Tampa Bay area. This complex appears to have been occupied during two phases, first during the late Manasota period (approximately 1600 – 1200

BP) and then again during the late Weeden Island/early Safety Harbor period

(approximately 1000 – 800 BP) (Austin 2012). Burials have been excavated in both

Mound B and Mound C. It is believed that Mound C dates to the earlier phase and

Mound B dates to the later phase based on pottery analysis. The burials appear to be a combination of flexed and bundle burials. Mound B has two apparent phases separated by a thin layer of white sand. The upper layer appears to be older midden that is re- deposited over an earlier layer, based on radiocarbon dates, including some rather anomalous dates for two upper burials that date to the early Archaic (3728-4065 BP and

2153-2337 BP) (Austin et al. 2012). The burials appear to have been concentrated primarily on the southwest side of the mound with a smaller grouping of burials on the northeast side of the mound (Austin et al. 2008; Sears 1960). The burials used in this study were primarily excavated by William Sears with the Florida Museum of Natural

History from Mound B between 1957 and 1958. The rest of the remains were collected by non-professionals; a few of which are believed to have been excavated from Mound

C, while others were collected from unknown locations within the site; most likely Mound

B or Mound C.

Bay Pines Site (8PI64)

Bay Pines is a sand and shell burial mound located on the grounds of the

Veterans Administration Hospital along the shore of Boca Ciega Bay in Pinellas County.

The site consists of four shell ridges or mounds, one of which is the Nursing Home

Mound, which yielded the skeletal remains used in this study. The remains were excavated by Gallagher and Warren in 1971. Most of the burials appeared to be primary, flexed burials. Pottery analysis suggests an early Weeden Island component to the burials, however some Deptford pottery was found in association with other burial and there was no apparent pottery cache found at the site. There may have been two burial phases though as the burials are found on two sides of the ridge, one dominated by sand and the other by shell (Gallagher and Warren 1975). Luer and Almy (1982) associate this site with the Manasota culture. Little to no provenience information is available for the remains used in this study.

South Florida Sites

Captiva Mound (8LL57)

Captiva was a sand burial mound located on a barrier island in Lee County or the

Caloosahatchee region. The site had been partially looted prior to excavation by Henry

Collins, Jr. from the Smithsonian Institution in 1928. This mound is now destroyed.

Collins (1929) described two apparent burial phases, an earlier phase with primary, flexed burials and a later phase with bundle burials. The latter overlay the earlier phase

(Collins 1929). Unfortunately, there is no additional information available about the provenience of the remains examined in this study, such as their general spatial relationships or if they came from the earlier or later phase. A radiocarbon date of 1590

± 40 BP places this mound in the early Caloosahatchee culture phase (Stojanowski and

Johnson 2011).

Hutchinson Island Burial Mound (8MT37)

Hutchinson Island is a sand burial mound located along the Atlantic Coast in

Martin County. The burials were excavated in 1971 by an avocational archaeologist,

Robert Holman. He described the burials as primarily consisting of skulls and suggested that the scattered and damaged bones throughout the mound were the result of damage from subsequent burials. The only diagnostic artifacts found with the burials were Glades plain sherds (Holman 1975). It has been suggested that this mound may have an Archaic component, but most likely dates to the Glades I time period (Carr and

Steele 1993; Wheeler et al. 2002).

Highlands Beach Mound or Boca Raton Beach Burial Mound (8PB11)

Highlands Beach is sand burial mound that is part of the Spanish River Complex located on the Atlantic Coast in Palm Beach County. Approximately 128 burials were excavated in 1980 with assistance from Dr. M.Yasar Işcan then at Florida Atlantic

University. The excavation was done in 2x2 squares and was a somewhat hurried process due to the impending condominium construction. Detailed information about the provenience of the remains is lacking beyond the 2x2 square level, however, the burials are described as being primary, flexed burials (Winland 2002). Pottery analysis suggests that the mound dates to the Glades II and III periods or 1400-800 BP (Wheeler et al. 2002; Winland 2002).

Margate-Blount Mound (8BD41)

Margate-Blount is a black muck burial mound located in Broward County. The site, which consists of a habitation site and burial mound, was excavated over a three year period by the Broward County Archaeological Society. Extensive disturbances to the site destroyed the integrity of some of the burial mound and minimal provenience information is available. Both primary and secondary burials were found, some were found in association with wooden slabs, in addition several burials were apparently found in a log crypt (Williams 1983). Pottery analysis suggests that the site is

associated with the Glades II and III periods, but it is believed that the burial mound was constructed during the Glades II period (Williams 1983).

Safety Harbor Sites

Sarasota Bay Mound (8SO44)

Sarasota Bay Mound is a sand burial mound located in Sarasota County. The mound was excavated by Ripley Bullen in 1968. There is no written report available regarding the excavation. The site is listed as either Weeden Island or Safety Harbor in the Florida Master Site File.

Safety Harbor (8PI2)

Safety Harbor is a sand burial mound located on the northwest shore of Tampa

Bay in Pinellas County and is associated with a temple mound and a midden component. The burial mound is now considered destroyed. The remains used in this analysis were excavated by William Sterling in 1929. The burials were described as secondary burials laid down in stages as evidenced by layers in the sand. Evidence also suggested a cache of “killed” pottery at the base of the mound. Pottery found within the mound suggests a Safety Harbor period burial mound and the pottery is described as quite similar to the Fort Walton pottery series (Willey 1949). This time frame is supported by a radiocarbon date on human bone from the mound dating to 1150 ± 40

BP, which is the late Weeden Island or early Safety Harbor period (Stojanowski and

Johnson 2011)

Alachua/St. Johns/Fort Walton Sites

Henderson Mound (8AL463)

Henderson is a low sand burial mound located in Alachua County. The mound is associated with the Hickory Pond Phase of the Alachua culture (AD 800-1250). This site

was excavated in 1975 by Charles Fairbanks. There were approximately 41 burials; however, they were in very poor condition so many of the remains were reinterred and only a few individuals were collected for analysis. The majority of the burials were primary, extended burials, with a few in a flexed position and a few secondary burials

(Loucks 1976). The earliest burials appear to have been placed in shallow graves, and then the mound was constructed around the burials with subsequent burials added to the margins, particularly along the western edge of the mound (Loucks 1976). It has been suggested that the burials were laid out in a radial pattern (Luer and Almy 1987).

Sherds found in and near the mound were primarily sand tempered plain wares suggesting a Deptford occupation prior to the Alachua phase (Loucks 1976).

Radiocarbon dates taken from the mound date to 1360 ± 80 BP, 1210 ± 60 BP, and

1020 ± 100 BP support the Hickory Pond Phase of the Alachua tradition (Schofield

2003).

Browne Site 5 (8DU62)

Brown Site is a sand burial mound located in Duval County. The mound was excavated by William Sears in 1955 and 1957 and the more than 40 burials were excavated from two trenches placed in the mound. The burials include several apparent mass burials and some cremations along with apparent discrete burials. No other provenience information is known about the burials. Pottery analysis suggests that the mound was used during the Weeden Island I-St. Johns Ib time periods (Sears 1957). A copper disc suggests long distance trade (Florida Master Site File, Browne Site 5).

Santa Rosa Mound or the Fort Walton Temple Mound (8OK6)

Fort Walton Temple Mound was a mound built in alternating layers of soil and shell located along Santa Rosa Sound in Okaloosa County in the Panhandle region of

Florida. The site was excavated by George Sternberg, a surgeon with the United States

Army, prior to 1875. Artifacts found are described as rude pottery, bone awls, a single shell tool, along with a hemispherical piece of granite and a biconcave disc of chalcedony (Sternberg 1875). Sternberg (1875) describes the burials as complete, suggesting primary burials in the upper most layers of the mound. However, there is no additional information available about the provenience of the burials examined in this study. Moore also visited the site and confirmed Sternberg’s finding of alternating shell and soil layers and he described primary extended and secondary burials in the upper levels of the mound. The pottery that Moore collected suggests the burials are associated with the Fort Walton culture (Willey 1949). Excavations by Willey (1949) in the nearby village site evidenced occupation from the Deptford period through the Fort

Walton phase.

Table 4- 1. Site Information Sample Radiocarbon Site Site # Cultural association Size Dates (BP) Source 1360 ± 80 Henderson AL463 Alachua 6 1020 ± 100 Schofield 2003 4340 ± 170 Gauthier BR193 Archaic 25 1600 ± 190 Maples 1987 9,530 ± 110 Windover BR246 Archaic 63 6,990 ± 70 Doran 2002 1290 ± 40 Dunwody CH61 Caloosahatchee 5 1150 ± 40 Gold 2006 2520 ± 60 Crystal River CI1 Weeden Island 29 1620 ± 40 Katzmarzyk 1998 1660 ± 80 McKeithan CO17 Weeden Island 2 1470 ± 70 Milanich et al.1997 6,780 ± 135 Bay West CR200 Archaic 7 5,500 ± 80 Beriault et al.1981 Hughes Island DI45 Weeden Island 7 None

4570 ± 110 Stojanowski and Doran Bird Island DI52 Archaic 6 3630 ± 70 1998; Yates 2000 Weeden Island/St. Browne Site 5 DU62 Johns Ib 6 None

Hutchinson Island MT37 Glades 12 None

Weeden Island or 3380 ± 40 Bayshore Homes PI41 Manasota 27 2230 ± 30 Austin et al. 2012 Weeden Island or Bay Pines PI64 Manasota 5 None 1830 ± 90 Manasota SO1292 Manasota 21 1800 ± 80 Florida Master Site File Casey Key SO17 Manasota 8 None 6,180 ± 95 Little Salt Springs SO18 Archaic 6 5,220 ± 90 Clausen et al.1979 10,000 ± 200 Warm Mineral SO19 Archaic 3 8,920 ± 190 Clausen et al.1975 2350 ± 110 Palmer SO2 Manasota 44 1100 ± 105 Bullen and Bullen 1976 Venice Beach Complex SO26 Manasota 1 None 2010 ± 40 Yellow Bluffs SO4 Manasota 2 1770 ± 40 Luer and Hughes 2011 Sarasota Bay Manasota or Safety Mound SO44 Harbor 2 None Fort Walton Temple Mound OK6 Fort Walton 9 None

Table 4-1. Continued Cultural Sample Radiocarbon Site Site # association Size Dates (BP) Source Safety Harbor Stojanowski and Mound PI2 Safety Harbor 16 1150 ± 40 Johnson 2011 Highland Beach PB11 Glades 30 None Margate Blount Mound BD41 Glades 6 None Stojanowski and Captiva Island LL57 Caloosahatchee 46 1590 ± 40 Johnson 2011 Republic 6,520 ± 65 Groves HR4 Archaic 9 5,745 ± 105 Wharton et al.1981

Table 4- 2. Measurement taken Maximum length (g-op) Nasal height (n-ns) Chin height (id-gn) Maximum breadth (eu-eu) Nasal breadth (al-al) Body height at Mental foramen Bizygomatic breadth (zy-zy) Orbital breadth (d-ec) Body thickness at Mental foramen Basion-Bregma (ba-b) Orbital height Bigonial width (go-go) Cranial base length (ba-n) Biorbital breadth (ec-ec) Bicondylar breadth (cdl-cdl) Basion-Prosthion length (ba-pr) Interorbital breadth (d-d) Minimum Ramus breadth Max. Alveolar breadth (ecm-ecm) Frontal chord (n-b) Maximum Ramus breadth Max. Alveolar length (pr-alv) Parietal chord (b-l) Maximum Ramus height Biauricular breadth (au-au) Occipital chord (l-o) Mandibular length Upper facial height (n-pr) Foramen magnum length (ba-o) Mandibular angle Minimum frontal breadth (ft-ft) Foramen magnum breadth Mastoid length [2] (Droessler) Upper facial breadth (fmt-fmt) Mastoid length (Moore-Jansen et al) Mastoid breadth Occipital condyle length Occipital condyle breadth Orbital breadth at Nasion Nasion to fmt Based on Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994 and Droessler 1981. Definitions can be found in Appendix A.

Table 4- 3. Measurements used. Maximum length (g-op) Nasal height (n-ns) Foramen magnum breadth Maximum breadth (eu-eu) Orbital breadth (d-ec) Occipital condyle length Basion-Bregma (ba-b) Orbital height Occipital condyle breadth Cranial base length (ba-n) Frontal chord (n-b) Nasion to fmt Biauricular breadth (au-au) Parietal chord (b-l) Orbital breadth at Nasion Minimum frontal breadth (ft-ft) Occipital chord (l-o) Mastoid breadth Upper facial breadth (fmt-fmt) Foramen magnum length (ba-o)

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The multivariate statistical analyses discussed in the previous chapter were performed to explore the patterns of morphological variation between the samples from each site and associated culture within pre-Contact Florida. These analyses were performed in an iterative fashion to ascertain the source of variation within each group and the craniometric variables associated with that observed variation. The initial analyses focused on the overall patterns of variation within all of the samples followed by the analysis of patterns of variation within certain sub-samples including the sample populations from sites labeled Archaic, Weeden Island, Manasota, cultures linked to the

Weeden Island or Manasota cultures, and South Florida.

First, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to explore the variability of the samples being analyzed. The initial analysis of the patterns of variation is important because in Florida, particularly during the Archaic, evidence suggests that cemeteries were places for different groups to come together for burial purposes and therefore may not represent a single population (Randall and Sassaman 2010). High levels of variation within a site would suggest that the individuals sampled were from fluid populations in which mates were coming from various groups, or that those populations buried at the cemeteries represented individuals from various discrete populations that had little biological interaction, but shared common burial locations and customs. Lower levels of variation would suggest that the populations were relatively homogenous with mates coming from selected populations and that those buried at a cemetery shared both cultural and biological relationships.

Second, when patterns of variation were found using PCA Discriminant Function

Analysis (DFA) was used to differentiate the populations followed by R-matrix analysis to calculate the biological distance and gene flow. Pearson and Spearman tests were used to test for possible temporal and geographic correlations. Appendix C contains the geographic and temporal distances between sites used for the correlation analyses.

Each analysis began with all samples associated with the sites under investigation. As patterns emerged populations were removed from the analysis to further examine structure and to elucidate causal factors accounting for variation and distances between sample populations. For each analysis, the amount of variability explained by the test, what craniometric variables contributed to that variability, and gene flow direction were examined to discern patterns present within the data.

Observed patterns guided subsequent testing of samples within each set of analyses.

The results for each test conducted are included in Appendix D. Overall results for each analysis are discussed below with a focus on results that were either statistically significant or biologically informative.

All Sites

Results

The first set of analyses included all sample sites (N=404) to determine if there were underlying patterns to overall variation. All PCA tests conducted (KMO ≥ 0.804) were significant suggesting that PCA was an appropriate method for analyzing these data. In all tests the total variance explained by the first two principal components was low, between 36% and 40%. For all DFA test conducted, the Wilk’s Lambda test was significant. The percentage of variance explained was between 42.4% and 47.7%. The cross-validation results were approximately 41% for all tests. For the R-matrix tests the

unbiased FST decreased from the first to the third test and the percent variance explained by the first two eigenvectors was low between 50% and 58% for each test.

In the first PCA test with all the sites included, the craniometric variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component were minimum frontal breadth, upper facial breadth, and nasion to fmt. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was parietal length. Figure 5-1 depicts a graph of the first two components that the Archaic populations group together at the top of the graph. In the DFA, the variables that contributed to the first and second functions were maximum breadth and orbital breadth, respectively. Figure 5-2 shows a graph of the first two functions with

Warm Mineral Springs clearly distinct from the other populations. All other Archaic populations, except for Bird Island, group together. Lastly, the Woodland and

Mississippian populations and the Archaic Bird Island population group together. In the

R-Matrix analysis of all the sites the unbiased FST is 0.161536, suggesting a moderate level of variability within these populations. Again, Warm Mineral Springs is clearly distinct from the all of the populations and the Archaic populations group more closely

(Figure 5-3). The largest biological distances are found between Warm Mineral Springs and the other populations (Table 5-1).

In the comparison of the biological distances determined by R-matrix analysis and time, a significant positive correlation was found between the two variables (i.e. with increased time there is increased biological distance). However, when the biological distances associated with Warm Mineral Springs were removed, the correlation disappeared. Additionally, when the distances between Warm Mineral Springs and the

other sites were examined independently, no significant correlation was found (Table D-

7).

For the second test all Archaic sites, except for Bird Island, were removed and no significant pattern was noted. For the third test, Bird Island was removed. The variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component of the PCA analysis were minimum frontal breadth, upper facial breadth, and nasion to fmt. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was maximum length. A separation of the

Weeden Island and Manasota populations became apparent in the graph of the first two principle components. It also became apparent that the Safety Harbor population is more closely related to the Manasota populations, while the St. Johns, Alachua, and

Fort Walton populations were more closely related to the Weeden Island populations; finally no apparent pattern was evident for the South Florida populations analyzed

(Figure 5-4).

In the DFA, no particular variables contributed to the first or second functions.

Again, the patterning between populations is similar to that found using PCA (Figure 5-

5). In the R-Matrix analysis of all the sites, the unbiased FST is 0.104228, suggesting a moderate level of variability within these sites, however, decreased variation was observed compared to the previous analyses, suggesting a greater similarity between these populations than those populations involved in the previous analyses. The biological distances and eigenvalues further support a separation between the Weeden

Island and Manasota populations. No significant correlations were found between biological distance and time.

100

Discussion

Overall, these findings suggest that there were at least two migrations into the peninsula after the Paleoindian period, the first populating the Archaic sites, except Bird

Island, and the second producing the Woodland/Mississippian populations. In addition, these findings suggest that there are patterns to the biological variation found within these populations.

This two migration hypothesis is supported by the biological relationships/distances found between Warm Mineral Springs and the other populations.

These findings indicate that there was most likely a migration event into the peninsula in the Early to Middle Archaic. This hypothesis is supported by the archaeological evidence presented by Faught and Waggoner (2012), suggesting that there was an absence of people in Florida between the Paleoindian/Early Archaic and the Middle

Archaic based on radiocarbon dates and changes in stone tool technology. They suggest that the individuals associated with the Middle Archaic are most likely the result of a mid-Holocene migration into the peninsula. The first analysis also suggests that the

Archaic populations, except for Bird Island, are closely related to each other and are biologically distinct from later Woodland and Mississippian populations.

These results also provide evidence of a second migration of new peoples into the peninsula in the late Archaic. Bird Island, a Late Archaic site, appears to be part of this second migration based on its close relationship to the later populations. This inference is supported by changes in burial patterns and material culture from the

Middle Archaic to the Woodland periods, i.e. a shift away from freshwater burials

(Milanich 1994) and the introduction of soapstone vessels and pottery (Jeffries 2004;

Sassaman 2006). The finding of Haplogroup X in the genetic analysis on the Windover

101

Pond population (Smith et al. 2002) also appear to support this conclusion, as this haplogroup is not found among later Native American populations.

Temporal trends must be considered given the large amount of time covered by these sampled populations, in particular, one would expect that if these individuals were from a single population the samples associated with the various sites/cultures would become increasingly similar through time, or have increasingly smaller biological distances, due to the homogenizing effects of gene flow over time (Konigsberg 1990).

This is clearly not the case as the biological distances between the Warm Mineral

Springs sample and the other sites are not correlated with time. Second, if the variation observed was due to secular trends, one would expect to see more of a gradation over time in the relationship of sites, with sites that are similar temporally being closer. This does not appear to be the case in these data as there were clear separations noted between the Weeden Island and Manasota populations and between the Fort Walton and Safety Harbor populations despite their broadly similar time frames. Therefore, both the biological and archaeological evidence appears to support the interpretation that that these individuals were not all from the same stock population and that there were culturally-defined barriers that prevented gene flow.

Archaic

Results

The populations sampled from the Archaic are from: Warm Mineral Springs,

Windover Pond, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, Republic Groves, Gauthier, and Bird

Island, with a total of 119 individuals. All PCA tests conducted (KMO > 0.807) were significant suggesting that PCA is an appropriate method for analyzing these data. In all cases the total variance explained by the first two principal components was low,

102

between 42% and 46%. For all DFA tests conducted, the Wilk’s Lambda test was significant. With each test the percentage of variance explained by the first two functions improved from 59.6% to 86.7%. The percentage of samples correctly classified in cross-validation was low, between 50% and 60%. For the R-matrix tests, the unbiased FST decreased steadily with each test and the percent variance explained by the first two eigenvectors was between 80% and 88% for each test.

In the first PCA test with all Archaic sites included, the variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component were minimum frontal breadth, upper facial breadth, and nasion to fmt. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was occipital height. Figure 5-6 depicts a graph of the first two components that Warm Mineral Springs is separated from the rest of the Archaic samples, Little Salt

Spring and Bay West fall to the left side of the cluster, and Bird Island is situated to the right side of the cluster, suggesting a pattern to the variation observed between these populations. In the DFA, the variables that contributed to the first function were basion- bregma, basion-nasion, nasion-nasospinale, and foramen magnum length, and those contributing to the second function were biauricular breadth, foramen magnum breadth, and occipital height. It was also noted that Warm Mineral Springs was correctly classified 100% of the time in the cross validation, followed by Bird Island (83.3%) and

Republic Groves (77.8%) supporting the observation that these populations are biologically quite distinct from the other populations. Figure 5-7 shows the graph of the first two functions which shows a clear separation of Warm Mineral Springs and Bird

Island from the other populations, and Republic Groves is also separated, albeit slightly, from Windover, Bay West, Little Salt Spring, and Gauthier. In the R-Matrix analysis the

103

unbiased FST is 0.2987, suggesting a high level of variability within the Archaic samples.

Bird Island exhibits the highest level of variance at 1.169. Bird Island and Warm Mineral

Springs both had a high positive residual of 0.476, suggesting higher than average external gene flow. Figure 5-8 depicts a graph of the first two eigenvalues showing a clear distance between of Warm Mineral Springs, Bird Island, and Republic Groves from all other Archaic populations. Warm Mineral Springs shows the largest biological distances between it and the other populations and Bird Island and Republic Groves have the next highest distances (Table 5-2). The Pearson correlation test found a significant correlation between biological distance and time when the Warm Mineral

Springs distances were included; however, the correlation disappeared when those distances were removed. No significant correlations related to geography were observed (Table D-7).

In PCA, if one population is significantly different or separated from the other populations it can alter the PCA analysis, therefore the most distinct populations can be removed to allow analysis of the other populations. Therefore, Warm Mineral Springs was removed for the second analysis. In this analysis the variables with the highest loading (>0.7) in the first component were minimum frontal breadth, upper facial breadth, and nasion to fmt. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was basion to bregma. In the DFA, the variables that contributed to the first function were foramen magnum breadth and length, and the second function were basion-bregma, basion-nasion, biauricular breadth, and nasion to fmt. Also, Bird Island

(83.3%) and Republic Groves (77.8%) again classified correctly the most often in cross- validation. Figure 5-9 portrays a graph of the first two functions with a clear separation

104

of Bird Island from the other populations, and Republic Groves offset slightly from

Windover, Bay West, Little Salt Spring, and Gauthier. The second R-Matrix analysis indicates there is less variation in these samples than in the previous test (unbiased FST is 0.1503). Bird Island exhibits both the highest level of variance (1.218) and the highest positive residual of 0.519. Figure 5-10 shows a graph of the first two eigenvalues evidencing a clear distancing of Bird Island and Republic Groves from the other sites.

The Bird Island and Republic Groves samples have the largest biological distances between them and the other sites. Gauthier is approximately equidistant, biologically, from Bay West, Little Salt Spring, and Windover; while Little Salt Spring is closer to

Windover than Bay West.

In the next analysis, Bird Island was removed as it was the most distinct from the other sites. The variables with the highest loading in the first component of PCA were minimum frontal breadth, upper facial breadth, orbital breadth, and nasion to fmt. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was basion to bregma. It can be seen in Figure 5-11 that Republic Groves falls to one side of the cluster. In the DFA, the variables contributing to the first function were basion-bregma and foramen magnum breadth and the variables for the second function were nasion-nasospinale, orbital height, and maximum breadth. Republic Groves (77.8%) was classified correctly in cross-validation most often suggesting a distinction between this population and the others. The third R-Matrix analysis (unbiased FST is 0.0986) indicates that the overall variability has decreased. Gauthier exhibits the highest level of variance at 1.041 and a high positive residual of 0.174. Figure 5-12 depicts the first two eigenvalues showing a

105

clear separation of Republic Groves from the other samples—Republic Groves has the largest biological distances between it and the other sites (Table 5-3).

The final analysis was conducted with Republic Groves removed. The variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component were minimum frontal breadth, upper facial breadth, orbital breath, and nasion to fmt. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was basion-bregma. Figure 5-13 portrays significant overlap between the samples in the first two components. In the DFA, the variables contributing to the first component were foramen magnum breadth, orbital height, maximum breadth, and basion-bregma, while the second function was influenced primarily by orbital breadth, minimum frontal breadth, upper facial breadth, orbital breadth at nasion, basion-nasion, parietal length, frontal height, nasion to fmt, mastoid breadth, and biauricular breadth. Figure 5-14 graphically depicts the first two functions showing that the populations from these four sites are separated with Windover and

Gauthier grouping closer together and Bay West and Little Salt Spring closer together, biologically. In the final R-Matrix analysis, the unbiased FST is 0.0460, which is indicative of a low level of variability. All of the sites are approximately equidistant from the regional centroid based on rii values.

Discussion

These results suggest that when all of the Archaic samples are included in the analysis there is a high level of variability and there are some underlying patterns to that variability. Warm Mineral Springs and Bird Island are most distinct suggesting that the individuals buried at these sites represent different biological populations from those represented at the other sites. Republic Groves appears similar to the other four sites, but on closer analysis, appears distinct. In the PCA analyses, the variables that

106

contributed the most to differentiating sample populations include upper facial breadth, minimum frontal breath, and nasion to fmt, all of which are measures of the width of the upper facial region. In the discriminant function analysis the height of the skull and face

(basion-bregma and basion-nasion) contribute to the first two functions most often, followed by the shape of the foramen magnum (foramen magnum length and width), and the width of the skull (maximum breadth and biauricular breadth).

The most obvious result of these analyses is that Warm Mineral Springs is significantly biologically distinct from the other Archaic populations. This can be seen in its placement on the graphs of the PCA and DFA results and its biological distance determined by R-matrix analysis (Figures 5-6 and 5-7; Table 5-2). The rationale for this is suggested in both the archaeology of the burials and the associated radiocarbon dates. Evidence suggests that the burials were placed on the ledge within the spring when the water levels were lower (Cockrell and Murphy 1978), so these were not true water burials like those found at Windover, Little Salt Spring, Republic Groves, and Bay

West. Radiocarbon dates, conducted on “associated” materials and not the bone itself, indicate that the Warm Mineral Springs remains may date to the late Paleoindian period

(Clausen et al. 1975). The statistical analysis results reported here suggest that these remains are biologically distinct from the other Archaic remains, further supporting the inference that these remains were associated with the Paleoindian period. The variation/distance noted between these Paleoindian remains and the Archaic samples suggests that these two temporal groups were biologically distinct lineages, isolated from each other for many generations. This suggests that the Archaic individuals migrated into Florida in the early to middle Archaic period. This hypothesis is further

107

supported by archaeological evidence presented by Faught and Waggoner (2012) suggesting that there was an absence of people in Florida between the

Paleoindian/Early Archaic and the Middle Archaic and that those individuals associated with the Middle Archaic are most likely “recent” immigrants to the peninsula. The interpretation of Warm Mineral Springs as Paleoindian remains however is supported by craniometric analysis of only three individuals. Thus, this supposition is less robust.

The second significant result of these findings is that the Bird Island population also appears to represent a group of individuals distinct from the other Archaic populations included in these samples (Figures 5-9). Bird Island is a late Archaic burial site that differs from the other Archaic sites in that it is neither a pond burial site nor is there an associated large body of freshwater. Bird Island is also associated with a large collection of soapstone vessels (Lovejoy 1985; Yates 2000), which to date have not been found at any of the other Archaic sites in this sample. In addition, the raw material for these vessels is not found in Florida, the closest source being in Georgia or Alabama

(Yates 2000). This suggests that the individuals associated with the burials at Bird

Island either migrated from present-day Georgia or Alabama area bringing their vessels with them or they were in contact with individuals from that area through trade networks.

Given the distinct biological signature of this sample in comparison to the other Archaic samples, it suggests that these individuals again represented a different biological lineage than the other Archaic samples. This supports an additional migration into the peninsula during the late Archaic or that there was a significant shift in mate exchange networks resulting in a new biological signature. Overall, the biological analysis and the changes in mortuary practice and material culture appear to offer strong evidence that

108

there was a migration of new peoples into the peninsula in the late Archaic. Although these results are promising, the small sample size (N=6) means that these results are preliminary and must be interpreted with caution.

The individuals interred at the remaining Archaic sites (Windover, Little Salt

Spring, Bay West, Republic Groves, and Gauthier) appear to represent a sample of somewhat closely related populations (Figure 5-11). Given the temporal gaps between these sites (none were occupied at the same time as determined by 14C dating) this pattern most likely reflects broadly inclusive ancestor-descendent relationships. All of these sites share very similar burial practices, and aside from Gauthier, all of the burials were interred in the water and were most likely staked down with some type of burial shroud (Beriault et al. 1981; Clausen et al. 1979; Doran 2002; Wharton et al. 1981).

Gauthier is similar in that it was located next to a pond (Carr 1981), so association with freshwater seems significant to the groups burying the dead in this location. Republic

Groves, however, may have a slightly different biological influence than the other populations—it has the largest biological distances from the other sites (Figure 5-12;

Table 5-3). This could be due to variations in trade networks between the sites because some of the sites are on the East coast (Windover and Gauthier) and others are on the

West Coast (Little Salt Spring, Republic Groves, and Bay West). However, this does not seem to account for all of the variation since Republic Groves is most closely related to

Windover despite the largest geographic and temporal distances, and Republic Groves is more distinct from Little Salt Spring and Bay West despite being both geographically and temporally closer. In addition, Gauthier is closer biologically to Windover, Bay West, and Little Salt Spring, than Republic Groves, despite larger temporal and geographic

109

distances. These results suggest that there is some, as of yet, unknown social interaction impacting the Republic Groves population differently than the other Archaic populations. The individuals at Republic Groves may have been interacting with a new group resulting in a new mate pool that the earlier and later populations did not interact with or the Republic Groves population insulated itself from other groups resulting in genetic drift, shifting its biological signature. Nonetheless, sampling may have also affected the results because it is estimated only 1% of the Republic Groves burials were excavated (Wharton et al. 1981).

The last analysis (Windover, Bay West, Little Salt Spring, and Gauthier) suggests an East-West division of these Archaic sites. Graphs of the discriminant function and R- matrix analyses (Figures 5-13 and 5-14) show Windover and Gauthier closer and Bay

West and Little Salt Spring closer as well. These results suggest some type of gene flow pattern that was consistent between East and West Coast sites. Perhaps this is due to variation in the trade routes on the East and West Coasts because trade would have resulted in contact with distant groups and may have supplied a likely source for mates.

Another possibility is mate exchange during ceremonial gatherings, if these sites were places to come together to bury the dead; however, based on mortuary practices these groups may have had very similar ceremonial activities. Thus, it could logically be assumed that participants would have been somewhat consistent through time, which accounts for the observed equivalent biological distances, but not the apparent

East/West distinction.

In summary, the results for the analysis of the Archaic samples represented by individuals from Warm Mineral Springs, Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West,

110

Republic Groves, Gauthier, and Bird Island indicate that there were at least two migration events associated with this overall time period, (1) between the

Paleoindian/Early Archaic and Middle Archaic periods and (2) during the Late Archaic.

The individuals from Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, and Gauthier seem to be closely related, while the individuals from Republic Groves are loosely related, suggesting a parent-descendent group relationship and a stable population present and widely dispersed across the peninsula during the Archaic. However, there were variations between these sites that resulted in slight biological differences that need to be investigated further by incorporating larger sample sizes and additional analysis of the associated archaeology.

Weeden Island/Manasota

Weeden Island/Manasota results

The sampled populations (N=152) associated with the “classic” Weeden Island

Complex were McKeithan, Crystal River, and Hughes Island and those from Weeden

Island-like or Manasota sites were Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody,

Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Venice Beach Complex, and Yellow Bluffs.

Most of the PCA tests conducted (KMO > 0.728) were significant suggesting that PCA was an appropriate method to analyze the data, however the KMO was low (< 0.5) for two of the tests. In all cases, the total variance explained by the first two principal components was low, between 31% and 41%. For all DFA test conducted, the Wilk’s

Lambda test was significant. For each test the percentage of variance explained by the first two functions was between 54% and 100%. Cross-validation results were between

45% and 65%. For the R-matrix tests, the unbiased FST decreased with each test and

111

the percent variance explained by the first two eigenvectors was between 65% and

100%.

In the first PCA test with all samples included, the variable with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component was maximum length. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was maximum breadth. Figure 5-15 shows the graph of the first two components with the populations from the classic Weeden Island sites, Crystal River, Hughes Island, and McKeithan clustering to one side; with respect to Weeden Island-like or Manasota populations, Yellow Bluffs clusters with the “classic”

Weeden Island populations while, Palmer Mound and Manasota Key Cemetery form a separate cluster on the other side. In the DFA, no variables were found to contribute significantly to the first function, however, maximum length contributed to the second function. It was also noted that the Crystal River sample (71.4%) classified correctly in cross-validation most often suggesting that this population is distinct from the other groups. Figure 5-16 depicts the graph of the first two functions with Venice Beach

Complex, Bayshore Homes, Manasota Key Cemetery, Casey Key, and Palmer, forming a distinct cluster from a Crystal River, McKeithan, Yellow Bluffs, and Hughes Island cluster. The Dunwody population is separated somewhat from the other groups, but it is closer to the Weeden Island-like/Manasota culture cluster. In the R-Matrix analysis,

Venice Beach Complex was not used in the analysis, as only one individual was sampled from this site. The unbiased FST (0.137490) indicated moderate variability within these populations. Yellow Bluffs (1.690), McKeithan (1.430), and Hughes Island

(1.111) exhibit the highest levels of variance. Yellow Bluffs also had a high positive residual of 0.766, suggesting higher than average external gene flow. Figure 5-17 is a

112

graph of the first two eigenvalues again showing a cluster of the “classic” Weeden

Island sites with Yellow Bluffs and a cluster of Manasota sites. Biological distances are presented in Table 5-4. A significant correlation was found between biological distance and geography for these populations.

In the second set of analyses, McKeithan, Venice Beach Complex, and Yellow

Bluffs were removed due to their small sample size, one or two individuals, to determine if their variability significantly impacted the analysis. The variable with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component was maximum length and the variable with the highest loading in the second component was maximum breadth. In the DFA, the variable that contributed to the first function was frontal height and the variable contributing to the second function was maximum length. It was noted that Crystal River

(78.6%) again classified correctly in cross-validation most often. There was little change in the PCA or DFA graphs from the first to the second analysis. In the R-Matrix analysis the unbiased FST (0.098010) suggests a decrease in the level of variability within these sites. The variance is approximately equal in all the sites, though Hughes Island has the highest (1.138). The Hughes Island sample also had a high positive residual of 0.194, while the Bay Pines sample had a high negative residual (-0.238), suggesting respectively higher and lower than average external gene flow for these two populations. Figure 5-18 shows a graph of the first two eigenvalues with the distinct clustering of the “classic” Weeden Island populations and the Manasota populations.

Weeden Island results

Due to the findings above, it was determined that analyzing the “classic” Weeden

Island samples separately from the Manasota samples might provide clarify patterns

113

regarding the internal structure between and within these two cultures. The “classic”

Weeden Island results will be discussed first.

Based on site associations found in the PCA and DFA analyses, it was determined that the sites used for this analysis (N=44) would include the “classic”

Weeden Island sites (Crystal River, McKeithan, and Hughes Island), and the Weeden

Island-like/Manasota sites of Yellow Bluffs and Bay Pines. However, it was determined that PCA was not a suitable test for these data because the KMO score was 0.433 and even when McKeithan and Yellow Bluffs were removed due to their small sample sizes the KMO score was only 0.482. Therefore the PCA analysis is not discussed further for these two tests. However, it was determined that DFA and R matrix were suitable for these analyses. For the DFA test conducted, the Wilk’s Lambda test was significant. For the two tests the percentage of variance explained by the first two functions rose from

79% to 100%. Cross-validation results were between 59.1% and 65%. For the R-matrix tests the unbiased FST decreased and the percent variance explained by the first two eigenvectors rose from 88.1% to 100%.

In the first analysis, the variables that contributed to the first function in the DFA were frontal height and occipital condyle length and the second function were nasion to fmt, maximum length, upper facial breadth, and mastoid breadth. In both the DFA and

R-matrix analyses (Figures 5-19 and 5-20), individuals from McKeithan and Yellow

Bluffs separated from those of Crystal River, Hughes Island, and Bay Pines. In the R-

Matrix analysis of all samples produced an unbiased FST of 0.364732, suggesting high variability within these populations. Hughes Island, Crystal River, and Bay Pines all had high positive residuals, while McKeithan and Yellow Bluffs had high negative residuals,

114

suggesting higher and lower than average external gene flow for these two sites respectively. The largest biological distances were observed in the comparisons of the

Yellow Bluffs and McKeithan populations. The smallest biological distance was between

Bay Pines and Hughes Island (Table 5-5). A significant correlation between biological distance and geography was found (Table D-6).

In the second analysis with McKeithan and Yellow Bluffs removed, the variables that contributed to the first function of DFA were nasion to fmt, maximum length, upper facial breadth, occipital condyle length, and frontal height and the second function were all of the other variables. It was also noted that Crystal River (82.1%) classified correctly in cross-validation most often. In the R-Matrix analysis for these populations, the unbiased FST (0.115085) indicated a decrease in the amount of biological variation within these populations. The variance is approximately equal in all the sites, although

Hughes Island has the highest level (1.199). In addition, Hughes Island had a high positive residual of 0.227, while Bay Pines had a high negative residual (-0.295), intimating higher and lower than average external gene flow for these two sites respectively. Figure 5-21 is a graph of the first two eigenvalues showing a separation for the populations in this analysis. The largest biological distances are found between the

Crystal River and the Hughes Island/Bay Pines samples, with Hughes Island and Bay

Pines appearing close biologically (Table 5-6).

Manasota results

The samples (N=115) from the sites labeled as Weeden Island-like or Manasota culture were compared for patterns of variability. These sites included Palmer Mound,

Casey Key, Manasota Key Cemetery, Dunwody, Venice Beach Complex, Bayshore

Homes, Bay Pines, and Yellow Bluffs. Bay Pines and Yellow Bluffs were included in

115

these analyses because these two sites or components of these sites have been culturally identified as Manasota. Their relationship to other Manasota sites is of interest, just as their relationship against the “classic” Weeden Island populations is of interest. All PCA tests conducted (KMO > 0.728) were significant suggesting that PCA was an appropriate method for analyzing these data. In all cases the total variance explained by the first two principal components was low, between 39% and 41%. For all

DFA tests conducted, the Wilk’s Lambda test was significant. With each test the percentage of variance explained by the first two functions improved from 54.6% to

81.7%. The cross-validation results were approximately 50% for all tests. For the R- matrix tests, the unbiased FST decreased steadily with each test and the percent variance explained by the first two eigenvectors was between 80% and 91%.

In the first PCA test, the variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component were minimum frontal breadth, upper facial breadth, and nasion to fmt. The variables with the highest loading in the second component were maximum length, nasal height, and orbital height. Figure 5-22 depicts the graph of the first two components with Dunwody clustered at the bottom of the group as is Yellow Bluffs, while the other populations are more generally dispersed. In the DFA, the variables that contributed to the first function were nasal height, maximum length, and parietal width and orbital height contributed to the second function. Figure 5-23 portrays the graph of the first two functions with Dunwody separate at the top of the graph and Yellow Bluffs separated at the bottom, but Yellow Bluffs is close to Bay Pines. In the R-Matrix analysis, the unbiased FST (0.150160) suggests moderate variability within these populations. Yellow Bluffs exhibits the highest level of variance at 1.791, but this is most

116

likely due to small sample size (N=2). The other variances are roughly equal. All of the sites, except Yellow Bluffs and Dunwody, exhibit negative residuals. This indicated lower than expected external gene flow. Figure 5-24, a graphical representation of the first two eigenvalues, shows a tight grouping of Palmer Mound, Casey Key, Bayshore

Homes, and Manasota Key Cemetery, with Dunwody, Yellow Bluffs, and Bay Pines separating. The largest biological distance is noted between Dunwody and Yellow

Bluffs, followed by the distances between Yellow Bluffs and the other sites. The biological distances between Palmer and Manasota and Casey Key are smallest (Table

5-7). No significant correlations between biological distance and time or geography were found.

In the second set of tests, Venice Beach Complex and Yellow Bluffs were removed, because these are the smallest samples; subsequently, Dunwody was removed after tests showed that it did not significantly change the analysis results

(Appendix D). In the analysis of Palmer Mound, Casey Key, Manasota Key Cemetery,

Bayshore Homes, and Bay Pines, the variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component were upper facial breadth and nasion to fmt. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was occipital height. In the DFA, the variables that contributed to the first function were nasal height, maximum length, parietal width, frontal height, orbital height, and occipital condyle breath, while occipital height and basion-bregma contributed to the second function. Figure 5-25 depicts the graph of the first two functions with Bay Pines separate from the other sites and Palmer and Casey

Key grouping closely with Manasota. Bayshore Homes is also close to this latter group.

In the R-Matrix analysis of all sites, the unbiased FST (0.054757) indicated a significant

117

drop in variability within these sites. The variances within the sites are roughly equal as are the residuals. Figure 5-26 shows the graph of the first two eigenvalues showing a tight grouping of Palmer Mound, Casey Key, and Manasota Key Cemetery, with Bay

Pines and Bayshore Homes distinct. The largest biological distance is noted between

Bay Pines and the other sites and again the smallest biological distances are observed between Palmer and Manasota and Casey Key (Table D-6).

For the next test, Bay Pines was removed from the analysis. In this analysis, the variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component were upper facial breadth and nasion to fmt. The variables with the highest loading in the second component were nasal height and orbital height. It can be seen in the graph (Figure 5-

27) of the first two components that there is significant overlap between all samples. In the DFA, the variables that contributed to the first function were maximum length, foramen magnum length, parietal length, biauricular width, occipital condyle breath, and orbital height, while nasal height occipital condyle length, mastoid breadth, frontal height, and maximum breadth contributed to the second function. In the R-Matrix analysis for all populations, the unbiased FST is 0.025861, suggesting a decreased level of variability within these populations. Again, the variances and residuals are roughly equal. Figure 5-28 shows the graph of the first two eigenvalues with Palmer and Casey

Key close, and Manasota closer to these sites than Bayshore Homes. The largest biological distance is noted between Bayshore Homes and the other sites (Table 5-8).

Discussion

A moderate level of variation was seen in the analysis with all of the Weeden

Island and Weeden Island-like/Manasota samples and variability decreased as samples were systematically removed from analysis. Compared to the Archaic results, the

118

samples in this analysis exhibited more variation than the Archaic group of samples from Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, and Gauthier. The only sub-sample with less variation than these core Archaic sites is the sub-sample from Palmer, Manasota

Key Cemetery, Casey Key, and Bayshore Homes. Based on the previously discussed interpretation for migration events into the peninsula of Florida during the Archaic, these results suggest that there were no significant migration events into the peninsula (bases on the sites in this study); however, the biological variation was higher across the peninsula suggesting either higher levels of gene flow into the populations than that observed for the ancestor-descendent populations discussed in the Archaic or that there were more barriers to gene flow between these populations resulting differentiation of the populations and elevated levels of variation. The variation seen within the total population samples relates to overall skull shape as represented by the maximum length and breadth of the skull, in the sub-samples variation relates to facial dimensions typically represented by minimum frontal breadth, frontal height, nasion to fmt, and upper facial breadth.

These analyses indicate a biological distinction between the “classic” Weeden

Island and the Weeden Island-like/Manasota populations (Figures 5-16 and 5-17), perhaps indicating that the populations represented by the samples from these sites had very little, if any, interaction with each other. Some of this may be due to temporal separation, but many of these sites were broadly contemporaneous, meaning these populations would have had the opportunity to exchange mates. Furthermore, there is no correlation between biological distance and time. However, geography most likely played a role as there is a correlation between geography and biological distance. It is

119

also clear that the Crystal River population is distinct biologically as compared to these populations. This is unlikely due to its large sample size because Palmer also has a large sample size and it not correctly identified as often as the Crystal River population.

Therefore, it can be said that the individuals buried at Crystal River are more internally homogenous despite being buried in two locations (Mound G and the burial mound) than other sites. Perhaps this site was used by a particular group of individuals for an extended period of time for burial, while the other sites may have had more population variability resulting in less homogeneity observed in the individuals sampled.

Another finding of interest in these analyses is the grouping of Bay Pines and

Yellow Bluffs samples with the “classic” Weeden Island samples (Figure 5-17), as both

Bay Pines and Yellow Bluffs have been labeled archaeologically as belonging to the

Manasota culture, most likely early Manasota on the Deptford horizon (Luer 2011; Luer and Almy 1982). However, subsequent analysis demonstrates that Yellow Bluffs is not as closely associated with the Weeden Island samples as initially indicated and Bay

Pines straddles the Weeden Island and Manasota samples. The initial proximity of

Yellow Bluffs and Bay Pines to the Weeden Island sites may be explained by the fact that they both appear to contain a Deptford component based on radiocarbon dates and pottery analysis (Gallagher and Warren 1975; Luer 2011; Luer and Hughes 2011), which in many areas appears to be the predecessor of the Weeden Island Complex, based on similarities between the two cultures in pottery and mortuary practices. In the

“classic” Weeden Island samples the Crystal River population also appears to contain a

Deptford component based on radiocarbon dates (Katzmarzyk 1998; Pluckhahn et al.

2010). Therefore, these results may indicate that these populations either interacted

120

with each other or shared a common mate source during the Deptford period, or they have a common origin prior to the Deptford period, most likely in the Late Archaic migration population. Intriguingly, this close proximity is lost in the subsequent analyses, perhaps due to the fact that in the earlier analyses, the biological signature of the core

Manasota sample (Bayshore Homes, Palmer, Manasota Key, and Casey Key) influenced the assessment of the Yellow Bluffs and Bay Pines samples, by pushing them towards Crystal River, the more similar population, both temporally and biologically. However, once the Manasota signal was removed, it becomes clear that these two sites were not that closely related to the Crystal River population. Rather, it appears that Yellow Bluffs is distinct from both the Weeden Island and Manasota populations, while Bay Pines falls between them.

Despite this apparent common origin, further analysis shows that these populations deviated and became the subsequent Manasota and Weeden Island populations associated with differing material culture and mortuary practices. Ultimately,

Yellow Bluffs and Bay Pines are geographically located at the northern limits of the

Manasota region, particularly Bay Pines, in an area where contact with outside groups may have been more common. Further, the high negative residuals found for the Bay

Pines sample suggest that lower than expected gene flow, or gene flow from a source no sampled in this analysis. Interpreted another way, Bay Pines was most likely receiving gene flow from one or more of the populations in this analysis, and the closer biological relationship of Yellow Bluffs and Bay Pines to Crystal River (Figure 5-17 and

5-18), with their shared Deptford component, may support a relationship between these sites or a relationship with a common mate source during the Deptford period. Overall

121

though, based on the available data and the tests conducted as part of this research, it appears that the Bay Pines population falls “in between” the “classic” Weeden Island and Weeden Island-like/Manasota cultures both geographically and biologically suggesting that this population was either on the cusp of the subsequent cultural split or it maintained contact with both culture populations through time. Unfortunately, the analysis of these results and inferences based on these results should be viewed with caution due to the small sample sizes of the Yellow Bluffs and Bay Pines samples and due to the poorly understood archaeology of Bay Pines and inadequate information about the provenience of the remains from Crystal River. The relationships of these sites needs to be further explored with additional samples from these sites and from other temporal and geographic locations.

It should also be noted that Bayshore Homes, which is very close geographically to Bay Pines and has Deptford period radiocarbon dates, consistently groups with the

Manasota sites. Austin (2012) and Austin and Weisman (in press) have suggested that the upper layer of the Bayshore Homes mound is re-deposited from another location based on radiocarbon dates, therefore the remains found in the mound may have been re-deposited from another location associated with a Manasota culture resulting in the closer relationship of this site to the other Manasota populations. However, nothing in the excavation conducted by Sears (1960) suggests this and he indicated that the burial pattern was consistent with a charnal house. Therefore at this time, the inferred close relationship between the Bayshore Homes population and the Manasota samples cannot be adequately explained. Additional work at Bayshore Homes will clarify its

122

archaeology and relationship to other sites in the Tampa Bay area and the Manasota culture.

The analysis of the “classic” Weeden Island sites indicates that there is a high level of variability among these samples, implying that the Weeden Island Complex, as a cultural label, does not encompass a single biological population. The first explanation for this may be that the Crystal River sample consists of a group from the earlier

Deptford period. The alternative explanation is that these sites represent separate mound centers used by different groups for burial purposes, as proposed by Milanich

(2002). Either explanation could be supported by the separation of the McKeithan sample from the other sites, because if a portion of the sample from Crystal River consists of the earlier Deptford population component this component is absent from the

McKeithan population resulting in the separation found. Alternatively, perhaps both the

McKeithan and Crystal River sites were large mound centers that may have been inhabited coevally and therefore different populations were using these mound centers to bury their dead. The distances found between Crystal River, McKeithan, and Hughes

Island lend support to this second theory (Table 5-5). The correlation between biological distance and geography for these populations is weak (p=0.046), but this finding may indicate that the geographic distance between these sites may have played a role in the biological separation or lack of gene flow/exchange between these populations.

In addition, this research suggests that Bay Pines and Hughes Island are more closely related to each other than they are to the Crystal River population. Both of the former sites have small sample sizes, however, which may have led to their being forced together by the Crystal River signal. On the other hand, Crystal River is a unique

123

archaeological site evidenced by its material remains and site structure (Bullen 1951;

Pluckhahn et al. 2010; Weisman 1995). Findings in this study suggest that the biological composition of the Crystal River sample population is also distinct from other populations with broadly similar temporality and cultural labels. Crystal River is a multicomponent site and as previously noted, in Chapter 5, the skeletal remains sampled were excavated from two different mounds within the site, Mound G and the

Burial Mound. Therefore the biological and archaeological relationship of the site itself requires further research before these findings can be meaningfully compared to other sites.

In the analysis of the Manasota populations there was less variation overall than the Weeden Island populations. Bay Pines and Yellow Bluffs are the two sites that appear to be most biologically distinct, followed by Dunwody, while the populations sampled from Palmer and Casey Key appear to be closely related (Figure 5-22).

The association of the Dunwody sample with the other Manasota culture sites sampled is open to interpretation. Analyses suggest that the Dunwody population may not be biologically as closely related as other Manasota populations in this study. As noted below, the Dunwody population sample seems somewhat related to the South

Florida populations examined in this research. However this may be an artifact for the method used to fill in the missing data. That is, the missing data for Dunwody was filled in through regression analysis with the Captiva Island sample another South Florida site. However, if this did not influence the results and Dunwody is indeed anomalous, it may be due to its geographic location and time period. Dunwody is considered to be at the southern limits of the Manasota area and has been dated very late in the Manasota

124

period (Gold 2006). Considering the geographic location and chronological position of the site, Dunwody shows evidence for increased external gene flow. If true, this could support the idea that this area and west central Florida, more generally, experienced cultural and biological influences from several spheres. In support, it is noted that by early Spanish contact, Carlos, the Calusa leader, reportedly asked Menendez to take him, by ship north along the coast, to Tampa Bay, to the chiefdom of Tocaboga, so he could attack. Perhaps this was the result of a long-standing feud between/within two powerful chiefdoms (Milanich 1995). Thus, west central Florida, particularly within present-day Manatee, Sarasota and Charlotte counties lying between two warring powers (at least by the very late Woodland and into the Mississippian periods) may have been at times a “no man’s land” where the results of warfare, shifting populations and changes in material culture (e.g. introduction of decorated/mortuary ceramics) may be found in the archaeological record (Almy 2012; Worth 2013).

Lastly, the populations of the Palmer, Manasota, and Casey Key sites were found to be closely related (Table 5-8). Based on radiocarbon dates and pottery analysis (Bullen and Bullen 1976; Florida Master Sites File), these sites were either used coevally or sequentially and it appears that the populations utilizing these sites were biologically very close. Another possibility, if the sites were used coevally, is that each site may have represented a specific segment of the population, or social divisions, that buried their dead in designated locations based on societal norms (Luer

2011). The variation found within samples from these sites (0.030) is lower than the core Archaic samples (0.045) and this may be due to the fact that these Manasota sites are closer both temporally and geographically than the Archaic sites. Alternatively, it

125

could indicate that there was more homogeneity within these populations than the

Archaic samples, meaning they had a smaller or more select pool of mates than in the

Archaic populations.

Overall, these analyses show that there is a distinction between the Weeden

Island-like/Manasota and “classic” Weeden Island site samples used here. This research also shows that the Weeden Island samples exhibited more biological variation perhaps because the Weeden Island Complex encompasses multiple biological groups possibly due to social and geographic barriers to gene flow, whereas the Manasota label seems to encompass a more homogenous population suggesting fewer barriers to gene flow. There also appears to be evidence that there is a shared

Deptford population between these cultures suggesting a shared biological origin, most likely via the late Archaic migration into the peninsula. In summation, it appears that these analyses support Luer and Almy’s (1982) hypothesis that the Manasota culture is not a manifestation or subdivision of the “classic” Weeden Island culture, but rather, it is an outgrowth of the local population most likely settling in the area sometime in the late

Archaic. The Manasota culture then flourished as a culture complex separate from surrounding cultures to the north and south for some time as evidenced by the pottery styles, mortuary practices, and biological separation.

South Florida

Results

The South Florida populations (N=99) consist of samples from Dunwody,

Hutchinson Island, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount, and Captiva Island. All PCA tests

(KMO > 0.759) were significant suggesting that PCA is an appropriate method for analyzing these data. In all cases the total variance explained by the first two principal

126

components was low, between 41% and 43%. For all DFA test conducted, the Wilk’s

Lambda test was significant. For each test the percentage of variance explained by the first two functions was between 73% and 84%. Cross-validation produced percentages between 72% and 79%. For the R-matrix tests the unbiased FST decreased between the two tests and the percent variance explained by the first two eigenvectors was 72% and

75% for the two tests.

In the first PCA test with all the sites included, the variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component were upper facial breadth and nasion to fmt. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was maximum length, basion-bregma, and frontal height. Figure 5-29 depicts the graph of the first two components show Dunwody separating from the rest of the samples towards the bottom of the graph. In the DFA, the variables that contributed to the first function were orbital height and breadth, occipital height, minimum frontal breadth, occipital condyle breadth, and orbital breadth at nasion, and the variables contributing to the second function were basion-bregma, occipital condyle length, and parietal breadth. It was also noted that the

Captiva Island (78.3%) and Highland Beach (73.3%) samples classified correctly in cross-validation most often suggesting that these populations were distinct from the other groups. Figure 5-30 depicts the graph of the first two functions with the Margate-

Blount and Hutchinson Island populations close together, while Dunwody falls nearer

Captiva Island, and Highlands Beach separates somewhat. In the R-Matrix analysis the unbiased FST (0.150619) indicates moderate variability within these sites. Hutchinson

Island and Margate-Blount exhibit the highest levels of variance at 1.039 and 1.070, respectively. Margate-Blount also had a high positive residual of 0.201, indicative of

127

higher than average external gene flow. The graph (Figure 5-31) of the first two eigenvalues shows that the sites are somewhat distant from each other, although

Captiva Island and Dunwody are closer together, while Hutchinson Island, Margate-

Blount, and Highland Beach are close. Captiva and Dunwody have the smallest biological distance between them (Table 5-9). A positive correlation between biological distance and geography is noted in these data (Table D-7).

The Dunwody sample was assigned to South Florida for these analyses based on its geographic location, however as discussed above, it has been labeled as a

Manasota culture site (Gold 2006). Therefore the analysis of South Florida was repeated without the Dunwody sample. In the PCA test the variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component were upper facial breadth and nasion to fmt. The variable with the highest loading in the second component were nasal height and mastoid breadth. No strong pattern emerged in the graph of the first two components. In the DFA, the variables that contributed to the first function were orbital height, frontal height, minimum frontal breadth, occipital condyle breadth, and orbital breadth at nasion, and those contributing to the second function were foramen magnum breadth, basion-bregma, maximum length, parietal breadth, orbital breadth, and occipital condyle length. It was also noted that Captiva Island (87%) and Highland Beach (73.3%) classified correctly in cross-validation most often suggesting that these populations were somewhat distinct from the other samples. Figure 5-32 depicts a graph of the first two functions with that Margate-Blount and Hutchinson Island populations closely grouped and Captiva Island and Highlands Beach separate. In the R-Matrix analysis of all the sites the unbiased FST fell to 0.119637, indicating decreased variability within

128

these sites. Hutchinson Island and Margate-Blount exhibit the highest levels of variance at 1.041 and 1.067, respectively. None of the residuals were particularly high and the biological distance between the Captiva Island and Margate-Blount populations was the largest (Table D-6).

Discussion

These results indicate that the level of variability is low within the South Florida sample, whether Dunwody is included or not. This level of variability is similar to that seen in the Manasota sample. The samples from the Margate-Blount, Highland Beach, and Hutchinson Island sites group together, while the Captiva and Dunwody samples cluster (Figures 5-30 and 5-31). It is also noted that in the PCA analyses the variables that contribute the most to differentiating the populations are upper facial breadth and nasion to fmt, both are measures of the width of the upper facial region. In the DFA, the shape of the eyes and nose (orbital height and orbital breadth at nasion) contribute to the first two functions most often, followed by the height and width of the skull (basion to bregma and parietal width).

Dunwody may be somewhat different based on the PCA graph from the first analysis (Figure 5-29), which supports its assignment to the Manasota culture.

Nonetheless, the somewhat close biological relationship with the other South Florida samples may indicate a closer biological relationship to these populations than previously thought. All of the analyses of Dunwoody appear to support the notion that this population falls “in between” the Manasota and South Florida populations, which could indicate that is interacted with or received gene flow from both at various times. It is important to note that the Dunwody sample is the result of a salvage operation, therefore, it is unclear how representative the sample is of the overall population it is

129

and the cultural assignment of these remains is limited due to the sparse nature of the archaeological materials associated with these remains (Gold 2005).

Finally, it can be noted that overall there is an east-west division in the South

Florida samples (Figures 5-30 and 5-32), with Margate-Blount, Highland Beach, and

Hutchinson Island on the East Coast and Captiva Island and Dunwody on the West

Coast. This pattern is supported by the correlation between biological and geographic distance, and all of these findings suggest that there may have been cultural and geographic barriers to gene flow between the sample populations, however, the lack of samples from the central portion of the southern peninsula limit this interpretation.

Weeden Island/Alachua/St. Johns/Fort Walton

Results

The first analysis in this series (N-52) compares the Weeden Island samples from Crystal River, Hughes Island, and Bay Pines to the Alachua culture sample from

Henderson Mound and the St. Johns culture sample from Browne Site 5. The second analysis (N=49) compares the samples from the first three sites to the Fort Walton

Temple Mound sample. McKeithan and Yellow Bluffs were not used in these analyses due to their small samples sizes and the previous analyses indicated that their inclusion had little impact on the overall results.

In the first PCA test, the variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component were minimum frontal width and upper facial breadth. The variables with the highest loading in the second component were frontal height and mastoid breadth.

Figure 5-33 shows a graph of the first two components with Browne Site 5 separating slightly to one side from the other sites. In the DFA, the variable that contributed the most to the first function was orbital height, while nasion to fmt contributed most to the

130

second function. Browne Site 5 (66.7%) and Crystal River (64.3%) classified correctly most often in cross-validation suggesting that these populations were somewhat distinct from other sampled populations. The graph in Figure 5-34 portrays the first two functions shows a grouping of the samples from the Hughes Island, Bay Pines, and

Henderson Mound sites. Crystal River separates from the group somewhat and Browne

Site 5 is clearly separate from the other sites. In the R-Matrix analysis, the unbiased FST

(0.170943) suggests moderate levels of variability within these sites. Browne Site 5 had the highest level of variance at 1.106 and the highest positive residuals (0.572). Figure

5-35 shows a graph of the first two eigenvalues with Browne Site 5 sample clearly distant from the other site samples. Browne Site 5 also exhibits the highest biological distances between it and the other samples (Table 5-10).

In the second analysis, the variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component were maximum length and upper facial breadth. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was orbital breadth. In Figure 5-36, which is a graph of the first two components, it can be seen that the Hughes Island sample clusters to one side of the graph and while the Fort Walton Temple Mound sample clusters toward the other. In the DFA, the variable that contributed the most to the first function nasion to fmt and occipital condyle length. The variables that contributed to the second function were maximum length, upper facial breadth, orbital breadth at nasion, basion-bregma, mastoid breadth, and frontal height. It was also noted that the Fort

Walton Temple Mound (66.7%) and Crystal River (75%) frequently classified correctly in cross-validation suggesting that these populations were somewhat distinct from the other sampled populations. Figure 5-37 depicts the graph of the first two functions with

131

a grouping of the Hughes Island and Bay Pines samples. While, Crystal River is somewhat separated and Fort Walton Temple Mound is clearly separated. In the R-

Matrix analysis, the unbiased FST (0.103819) suggested a moderate level of variability within these sites. Fort Walton Temple Mound had the highest level of variance at 1.345 and the highest positive residuals (0.430), while Bay Pines has a high negative residual of -0.402. Figure 5-38 depicts the graph of the first two eigenvalues with Bay Pines and

Hughes Island clustering together with Crystal River some distance from them, but all the populations are separated from the Fort Walton Temple Mound population. Fort

Walton Temple Mound and Crystal River show the largest biological distance, while

Hughes Island and Bay Pines have the smallest (Table 5-11).

Discussion

The first analysis shows that the population sample from the Browne Site 5 appears to be distinct from those of the Weeden Island and Alachua culture populations; however, having only one site to compare makes these results open to interpretation. The grouping of the Henderson Site with the Weeden Island samples provide some limited support for Schofield’s (2003) argument that the Alachua culture represented an in situ culture change, rather than a migration of people into the area as first suggested by Milanich (1998).

The second analysis may imply that the Mississippian influences noted in the

Fort Walton culture could have been due to an actual migration of peoples into the area because this site is clearly separated from the Weeden Island cultures. Yet, the level of variation based on FST values does not change significantly between these analyses and the analyses of the Weeden Island sites alone. This finding argues against an influx of people; suggesting that the Fort Walton culture change could have been due to the

132

adoption of an ideology without a large migration of peoples. Alternatively, these results could suggest that the populations inhabiting the panhandle were biologically separate from the Weeden Island populations to the east. These results could suggest there was a long term biological separation of the populations in these two areas that correlates with the variation seen in the cultural developments of these two areas starting with the distinction between the Swift Creek and Santa Rosa-Swift Creek cultures continuing on in the development of the later cultures in these two areas. However, these interpretations are preliminary because no other populations from the panhandle area, particularly sites predating the Fort Walton Temple Mound, were used in this analysis.

Manasota/Safety Harbor

Results

This analysis (N=179) was run to determine the relationships of the Safety

Harbor samples (Sarasota Bay Mound and Safety Harbor), the Fort Walton Temple

Mound sample, the Weeden Island samples (Hughes Island, Crystal River, and

McKeithan), and the Manasota samples (Palmer Mound, Casey Key, Manasota Key

Cemetery, Dunwody, Venice Beach Complex, Bayshore Homes, Bay Pines, and Yellow

Bluffs). All PCA tests conducted (KMO > 0.717) were significant suggesting that PCA was an appropriate statistical method for analyzing these data. In all cases the total variance explained by the first two principal components was low, between 36% and

42%. For all DFA test conducted, the Wilk’s Lambda test was significant. With each test the percentage of variance explained by the first two functions improved from 76.0% to

82.4%. Cross-validation results for these analyses improved from 44% to 58%. For the

R-matrix tests the unbiased FST was relatively constant with each test and the percent variance explained by the first two eigenvectors improved from 64% to 92.8%.

133

In the first PCA test with all the populations included, the variable with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component was upper facial breadth. The variable with the highest loading in the second component were maximum length and parietal length. In the DFA, no variables contributed to the first function and the variables that contributed to the second function were occipital condyle breadth and length. Figure 5-39, a graph of the first two functions, shows the separation of Manasota and Weeden Island; the

Fort Walton Temple Mound sample clustered in with the Weeden Island sites and the

Safety Harbor sites fell in with the Manasota sites. In the R-Matrix analysis of all the sites the unbiased FST was 0.136718, suggesting a moderate level of variability within these sites. Yellow Bluffs exhibits the highest level of variance at 1.620 and Sarasota

Bay Mound exhibits the lowest level of variance at 0.447. The other variances are roughly equal. Yellow Bluffs has the highest positive residuals and Sarasota Bay Mound has the highest negative residuals. Figure 5-40 shows the graph of the first two eigenvalues and is similar to Figure 5-39 with the Manasota and Safety Harbor sites grouping together and the Weeden Island sites grouping with Fort Walton Temple

Mound. The largest biological distances were noted between the Manasota/Safety

Harbor sites and the Weeden Island sites (Table 5-12).

In the second test Venice Beach Complex, Yellow Bluffs, McKeithan, and Fort

Walton Temple Mound samples were removed, the first three due to small sample size and the last because of its distinction from the Safety Harbor sites. The overall observed pattern was similar to the previous analysis. Therefore the next test removed Crystal

River, Hughes Island, and Bay Pines, leaving the Manasota and Safety Harbor populations. For this analysis, the variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first

134

component of the PCA analysis were upper facial breadth and nasion to fmt. The variables with the highest loading in the second component were maximum length and parietal length. In the DFA, the variable that contributed to the first function was occipital condyle breadth, and the second function was influenced by maximum length, basion- bregma, and parietal length. Figure 5-41 shows the graph of the first two functions with the Manasota sites of Palmer, Manasota Key Cemetery, Casey Key and Bayshore

Homes grouping together, and Safety Harbor and Sarasota Bay Mound together and

Dunwody separate from both groups. In the R-Matrix analysis, the unbiased FST

(0.120718) indicated moderate variability within these sites. Figure 5-42, a graph of the of the first two eigenvalues, shows a tight grouping of Palmer Mound, Casey Key,

Bayshore Homes, and Manasota Key Cemetery, while Safety Harbor and Sarasota Bay

Mound group together, and Dunwody separates from both groups. The largest biological distances were noted between Dunwody and the Safety Harbor populations

(Table 5-13).

In the final analysis Bayshore Homes and Dunwody were removed. The variables with the highest loading (> 0.7) in the first component of the PCA analysis were minimum frontal breadth, upper facial breadth, and nasion to fmt. The variable with the highest loading in the second component was basion to nasion. No distinct pattern can be seen in the graph of the first two components. In the DFA, the variable that contributed to the first function was occipital condyle breadth and length, and the second function was influenced by nasion to fmt. Figure 5-43 shows a graph of the first two functions evidencing a separation between the Manasota sites and the Safety

Harbor sites. In the R-Matrix analysis the unbiased FST decreased slightly (0.119704).

135

Sarasota Bay Mound exhibits the lowest level of variance at 0.470 and high negative residuals. The other variances are roughly equal. Figure 5-44 depicts the graph of the first two eigenvalues and shows a cluster of the Manasota site samples (Palmer Mound,

Casey Key, and Manasota Key Cemetery) and a separation of Safety Harbor and

Sarasota Bay Mound this cluster and each other. The largest biological distances are noted between the Safety Harbor site sample and the three Manasota populations

(Table 5-14).

Discussion

The first analysis suggests several facts about the Fort Walton Temple Mound site. First, the Fort Walton Temple Mound sample is more closely related to the Weeden

Island samples than the Manasota samples; though its tight grouping with the Weeden

Island sites is most likely an artifact of the testing methods as a previous analysis suggested that the Fort Walton Temple Mound is not that closely related to the Weeden

Island populations. Second, the Fort Walton Temple Mound is not related to the Safety

Harbor sites (Figures 5-39 and 5-40), seeming to discount the theory that there was contact between these locations as suggested by similarities in mound structure and iconography (Milanich 1994).

The subsequent analyses indicate that the Safety Harbor sites are more closely related to the Manasota sites than to the Weeden Island sites; however, on close inspection they are distinguished from the Manasota sites of Palmer Mound, Manasota

Key Cemetery, Casey Key, and Bayshore Homes. Sarasota Bay Mound does appear to be more closely related to Palmer Mound, Manasota Key Cemetery, and Casey Key, and Safety Harbor is more closely related to Bayshore Homes (Figures 5-41 and 5-42).

This is probably due to geographic proximity, the first sites are in the Sarasota Bay area

136

and the second set of sites is in the Tampa Bay area, which suggests a likely biological continuity between these cultures in these locations. Comparison of the unbiased FST values between these analyses and the Manasota site analyses show a higher level of variation when the Safety Harbor sites are included, suggesting that there was increase in biological variation between these two cultures, possibly the result of an influx of people into the area bringing the new Mississippian ideas that helped shaped the Safety

Harbor culture. However, it appears that the Manasota cultural influence was still strong as there are continued similarities archaeologically between the two cultures in site selection and lack of burial goods in burial mounds (Luer and Almy 1987; Mitchem

2012).

Overall, these findings support the theory that the Safety Harbor culture was a local development with some outside influences (Luer and Almy 1987; Mitchem 2012). If these are the same biological influences that may have impacted the Fort Walton culture is an open question and hopefully further investigation will help clarify this line of inquiry.

Biological Variation And Gene Flow

Based on the variation found overall and within the various sub-samples discussed above, it was determined that there were patterns to the level of biological variation as represented by FST is the R-matrix analysis. Therefore an analysis of the various temporal/cultural frames, as outlined in Chapter 2, was undertaken to examine gene flow patterns as represented by the residuals. In the analysis of all populations, the FST is 0.161536 and Warm Mineral Springs, McKeithan, and Yellow Bluffs have large positive residuals and Bay Pines and Sarasota Bay Mound have large negative residuals. The FST for the Archaic populations is 0.298673, for the Woodland and

137

Mississippian populations it is 0.102450, for the Woodland populations it is 0.099426, and for the Mississippian populations (Fort Walton Temple Mound, Safety Harbor,

Sarasota Bay Mound) it is 0.549114. In addition, Fort Walton Temple Mound has a large positive residual and Sarasota Bay Mound has a large negative residual.

Archaic Period

The FST for all the Archaic populations (Warm Mineral Springs, Windover, Little

Salt Spring, Republic Grove, Bay West, Gauthier, and Bird Island) is 0.298673. The FST for the archaeologically similar sites (Windover, Little Salt Spring, Republic Groves, Bay

West, and Gauthier) is 0.098585, and for the biologically similar populations (Windover,

Little Salt Spring, Bay West, and Gauthier) is 0.045971. Warm Mineral Springs and Bird

Island have large positive residuals and Windover and Bay West have large negative residuals.

Woodland Period

The FST for all the Woodland populations (Browne Site 5, Henderson Mound,

Palmer Mound, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, McKeithan, Yellow Bluffs,

Crystal River, and Manasota Key Cemetery, Hutchinson Island, Highland Beach,

Margate Blount Mound, and Captiva Island) is 0.099426. Within the Woodland populations are several subgroups: Weeden Island, Manasota, and South Florida. The

FST for the Weeden Island populations (Crystal River, Hughes Island, McKeithan, and

Bay Pines) is 0.263833. McKeithan has a large positive residual while Bay Pines has a large negative residual. The FST for the Manasota populations (Palmer Mound, Casey

Key, Bayshore Homes, Manasota, Yellow Bluffs, and Dunwody) is 0.158604, for the archaeologically similar sites (Palmer Mound, Manasota, Casey Key, and Bayshore

Homes) it is 0.054757, and for the archaeologically and geographically similar site

138

(Palmer Mound, Manasota, and Casey Key) it is 0.030003. Overall, Yellow Bluffs has a high positive residual and Palmer and Casey Key have moderately high negative residuals. For the South Florida populations (Highland Beach, Margate-Blount Mound,

Hutchinson Island, Captiva Island) the FST is 0.119637. The residuals are all close to zero with no obviously large positive or negative residuals.

Discussion

These results indicate that the populations associated with the sites labeled

Archaic are moderately variable, but closer inspection of those results reveals that

Warm Mineral Springs and Bird Island influence that variability and that the archaeologically similar sites are rather homogenous. This is supported by the large positive residuals associated with these two sites. In other words, the populations at these two sites were receiving larger than average levels of external gene flow or gene flow from a source different from the other sites. It may also indicate that the sites associated with the Woodland and Mississippian periods were less variable than the

Archaic samples suggesting that these populations most likely share a common origin and may not have had diverse gene flow compared to that in the Archaic. When the

Mississippian period populations were removed, the populations associated with the

Woodland period appeared more homogenous indicating that there was increased variability in the Mississippian period possibly suggesting increased or new sources of gene flow. The homogeneity noted in the Woodland populations is misleading, and closer inspection reveals several patterns. The Weeden Island populations were clearly more variable than the other populations, possibly due to biological separation between mound centers (i.e. Crystal River, McKeithan, Hughes Island) resulting in increased biological variability. It is noted that McKeithan has a large positive residual suggesting

139

it was receiving above average gene flow from an outside source; however, the small sample size makes this result suspect. The large negative residual associated with Bay

Pines is more reliable and indicates that this site was receiving less than average gene flow from an outside source or it was receiving gene flow from within the populations used in the analysis. These results support the concept that populations associated with the Weeden Island Complex had culturally recognized boundaries that prevented gene flow, possibly villages associated with mound centers. The Manasota populations were much less variable than the Weeden Island populations, particularly when Yellow Bluffs is removed and the sites that are closest geographically are also very homogenous. The large positive residual for Yellow Bluffs may be explained by its Deptford period association as it seems to have received gene flow from another source, or it could be an artifact of small sample size. When the geographically similar sites are examined, only Manasota has a slightly elevated positive residual, perhaps because it was receiving more external gene flow than either Palmer or Casey Key. This supports the supposition that Palmer and Casey Key were most likely ancestor-descendent populations, based on temporality. Overall it can be suggested that the Manasota populations had more open gene flow or there were fewer cultural boundaries to gene flow than in the populations associated with Weeden Island Complex that seems to have restricted gene flow into or between the populations associated with those sites.

Lastly, the South Florida populations were found to be less variable than the Weeden

Island populations, but more variable than the geographically similar Manasota populations and the residuals support the concept that the sites were receiving similar levels of external gene flow. This may be indicative of the fact that there were some

140

cultural divisions, along with geographic distance, limiting gene flow between populations that are not as well defined as in the Weeden Island Complex, but more defined than the Manasota cultures.

The populations associated with the Mississippian period are highly variable and this is most likely due in part to the geographic separation of the sites associated with the sampled populations. It is also likely that to the two culture groups had distinct mate sources and biological histories. Further, it appears highly unlikely that these populations were exchanging mates. The residuals suggest that Fort Walton Temple

Mound received high levels of external gene flow, perhaps from other Mississippian populations; however, this cannot be adequately assessed at this time. Sarasota Bay

Mounds large negative residual seems to imply that this population was isolated compared to the other two sites, but again small sample size could be artificially inflating these results. Overall the Mississippian period is marked by increased regionalization, resulting in significant distinctions between cultures archaeologically (Ashley and White

2012); this separation also appears to have had a significant impact on the biological diversity of the period.

Another way that these results could be interpreted is that sites with higher positive residuals had more open cemetery structure, meaning that more diverse populations were coming together to bury their dead—sites with negative residuals had more insular populations or practices with respect to who could be buried in the cemeteries. Future detailed analyses of the structure of individual cemeteries will help with evaluating these interpretations.

141

Biodistance Assumptions

All of the results discussed above were examined to determine whether or not the assumptions of biological distance analysis hold true in these Florida populations. In particular, if the patterns of biological distance and variability are an indirect measure of the degree of social exchange between the groups they represent, if a cemetery or sample population is representative of the original breeding population, and if environmental effects are minimal and randomly distributed among the populations.

Examination of the first assumptions that biodistance is an indirect measure of social exchange as evidenced by archaeological similarities or dissimilarities is predominately supported by this research. As can be seen in the analysis of the Archaic populations there is a core population represented by the individuals from Windover,

Bay West, Little Salt Spring, and Gauthier, who were close biologically. These individuals were also associated archaeologically—they share similar burial patterns, site structure (village site and burial site proximity) and artifacts (particularly those found in the cemeteries). There are subtle distinctions between these sites that are most likely related to variations in mate sources, but overall these sites are consistent biologically.

Given the temporal frame covered by these sites they are most likely ancestor- descendant groups, but may be evidence that social exchange occurred in transition from one site to the next, supporting the assumptions that biological distance is an indirect measure of social exchange. In addition, the results from the Weeden

Island/Manasota analyses further support this assumption. Based on archaeological evidence, differences in pottery styles and burial patterns, it is suggested that the

Weeden Island and Manasota populations were distinct or had very little interaction, at least in the early periods. The biological evidence supports this idea of separation.

142

The Weeden Island and Manasota populations repeatedly separate from each other in all the tests, therefore the archaeological and biological evidence points to very little social exchange between these groups. Late in the Manasota period Weeden

Island pottery and burial patterns begin to appear in the archaeological record (Luer and

Almy 1982) perhaps indicating social interaction, however, the Weeden Island sites used in this study are associated with the early Weeden Island period and only the

Palmer Mound site appears to have Weeden Island-like burials. The other late sites continue with the flexed burial pattern typical of the early and middle Manasota periods

(Luer and Almy 1982). Therefore the ability to test this late period biological/social interaction was limited.

There is one site sample where it does not appear that biological distance is a good measure of social interaction, the Republic Groves sample. Analysis of this sample implies that there are many archaeological similarities with the other Archaic sites, particularly Little Salt Spring and Bay West, and it falls temporally between these two sites. Given the pattern seen in the other Archaic sites it would be expected that

Republic Groves would fall neatly into line with the other populations, however, this is not the case. Despite appearing archaeologically similar to the other sites, the population is biologically distinct. This relationship needs further investigation to understand this distinction. In summary, it can be concluded that, this research supports the assumption that in Florida biological distance is an indirect measure of social interaction.

Analysis of the second assumption: cemeteries are representative of breeding populations based on levels of homogeneity is supported by this dissertation research.

143

Most of the studied sites have a similar level of phenotypic variance represented by the observed phenotypic variance in the R-matrix analysis. The sites that have obviously higher and lower levels of variance than others, McKeithan, Yellow Bluffs, Warm

Mineral Springs, and Sarasota Bay Mound samples, are most likely artifacts of sampling since these samples were limited to two or three individuals. Larger samples may have produced homogeneity levels more consistent with the other samples. Overall the variance levels of the other sites are similar, implying that the remaining populations were internally consistent suggesting breeding populations. Higher levels of variation would have indicated multiple or diverse mate sources. Analysis of the residuals also suggest that most of the sites received average levels of external gene flow, or levels consistent with the null hypothesis, supporting the view that the cemeteries represent breeding populations. However, a few sites had higher than expected positive residuals

(Warm Mineral Springs, McKeithan, and Yellow Bluffs), which suggests that they received elevated levels of external gene flow or that they had more open cemetery structures possibly meaning they were less likely to be breeding populations. However, as mentioned previously, small sample sizes significantly limit interpretation.

The third assumption, that environmental effects are minimal appears to hold true within specific time frames; however, environment may play a role in the stock populations resulting in the drastic biological differences seen in the migration events.

The environmental differences between the Paleoindian and Archaic periods and the

Archaic and Woodland periods may have impacted the populations throughout the

Southeast resulting in the apparent differences noted in the populations migrating into the peninsula. However, this supposition would need to be tested through the analysis

144

of various populations throughout the Southeast. It can be said though that environment does not appear to significantly impact the populations used in this study. For example, despite geographic/environmental differences between the Archaic populations they are relatively biologically consistent, particularly the core populations mentioned previously.

Similarly, all of the Woodland and Mississippian populations appear overall consistent despite widely varied temporal and geographic distances which would have had environmental differences.

145

Figure 5- 1. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis of all the populations identified by cultural label.

146

Figure 5- 2. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for all populations. The cluster of Archaic populations is circled in blue.

147

Figure 5- 3. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for all populations.

148

Table 5- 1. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between all populations. Warm Mineral Little Salt Bay Henderson Springs Gauthier Spring Windover West Palmer Mound Warm Mineral Springs 0.193 0.239 0.191 0.225 0.208 0.289 Gauthier 1.131 0.051 0.019 0.046 0.026 0.071 Little Salt Spring 1.260 0.062 0.040 0.059 0.073 0.096 Windover 1.194 0.061 0.022 0.046 0.027 0.075 Bay West 1.166 0.061 0.000 0.093 0.066 0.086 Palmer 1.423 0.109 0.280 0.232 0.259 0.070 Henderson Mound 1.945 0.218 0.194 0.320 0.163 0.247 Hughes Island 1.443 0.145 0.183 0.228 0.126 0.147 0.014 Browne Site 5 1.478 0.192 0.237 0.300 0.157 0.142 0.205 Bay Pines 1.296 0.083 0.141 0.196 0.120 0.168 0.102 Dunwody 1.262 0.218 0.368 0.413 0.281 0.228 0.271 McKeithan 1.942 0.528 0.530 0.674 0.507 0.501 0.209 Venice Beach Complex N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sarasota Bay Mound 1.594 0.225 0.295 0.166 0.177 0.127 0.344 Yellow Bluffs 2.302 0.611 0.917 0.795 0.632 0.255 0.271 Casey Key 1.274 0.102 0.187 0.203 0.179 0.021 0.159 Crystal River 1.677 0.240 0.358 0.397 0.244 0.241 0.157 Bayshore Homes 1.789 0.208 0.360 0.350 0.334 0.042 0.198 Hutchinson Island 1.818 0.234 0.261 0.447 0.306 0.182 0.154 Manasota 1.271 0.050 0.178 0.157 0.111 0.016 0.189 Bird Island 1.690 0.155 0.189 0.196 0.251 0.098 0.250 Republic Groves 1.942 0.271 0.178 0.159 0.232 0.425 0.380 Highland Beach 1.552 0.153 0.157 0.297 0.148 0.237 0.062 Margate-Blount Mound 1.836 0.077 0.183 0.201 0.103 0.179 0.129 Fort Walton Temple Mound 2.229 0.371 0.336 0.392 0.311 0.280 0.000 Safety Harbor 1.641 0.339 0.598 0.452 0.427 0.150 0.380 Captiva Island 1.272 0.108 0.226 0.226 0.158 0.096 0.224 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

149

Table 5- 1. Continued Hughes Browne Bay Venice Beach Sarasota Bay Island Site 5 Pines Dunwody McKeithan Complex Mound Warm Mineral Springs 0.247 0.256 0.252 0.249 0.386 N/A 0.357 Gauthier 0.057 0.068 0.061 0.079 0.181 N/A 0.142 Little Salt Spring 0.089 0.101 0.095 0.124 0.209 N/A 0.178 Windover 0.061 0.074 0.071 0.092 0.191 N/A 0.129 Bay West 0.076 0.086 0.087 0.109 0.201 N/A 0.156 Palmer 0.054 0.058 0.069 0.076 0.174 N/A 0.124 Henderson Mound 0.063 0.097 0.089 0.113 0.166 N/A 0.185 Hughes Island 0.094 0.058 0.109 0.149 N/A 0.144 Browne Site 5 0.221 0.108 0.082 0.195 N/A 0.164 Bay Pines 0.000 0.236 0.110 0.175 N/A 0.178 Dunwody 0.288 0.058 0.196 0.234 N/A 0.218 McKeithan 0.132 0.414 0.225 0.681 N/A 0.284 Venice Beach Complex N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sarasota Bay Mound 0.103 0.197 0.244 0.544 0.564 N/A Yellow Bluffs 0.157 0.358 0.339 0.505 0.371 N/A 0.231 Casey Key 0.090 0.143 0.190 0.269 0.318 N/A 0.107 Crystal River 0.065 0.199 0.084 0.269 0.187 N/A 0.400 Bayshore Homes 0.139 0.132 0.134 0.192 0.357 N/A 0.232 Hutchinson Island 0.191 0.163 0.128 0.246 0.450 N/A 0.389 Manasota 0.060 0.112 0.052 0.150 0.498 N/A 0.108 Bird Island 0.051 0.175 0.113 0.392 0.302 N/A 0.148 Republic Groves 0.361 0.551 0.304 0.726 0.663 N/A 0.140 Highland Beach 0.035 0.206 0.019 0.232 0.190 N/A 0.280 Margate-Blount Mound 0.187 0.213 0.128 0.304 0.388 N/A 0.315 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.068 0.250 0.111 0.392 0.118 N/A 0.269 Safety Harbor 0.210 0.210 0.240 0.311 0.603 N/A 0.083 Captiva Island 0.083 0.115 0.061 0.124 0.344 N/A 0.093

150

Table 5- 1. Continued Yellow Casey Crystal Bayshore Hutchinson Bird Republic Bluffs Key River Homes Island Manasota Island Groves Warm Mineral Springs 0.415 0.229 0.228 0.235 0.253 0.206 0.271 0.270 Gauthier 0.190 0.048 0.040 0.037 0.053 0.025 0.064 0.063 Little Salt Spring 0.252 0.086 0.084 0.084 0.086 0.068 0.095 0.081 Windover 0.203 0.054 0.041 0.038 0.061 0.030 0.063 0.046 Bay West 0.216 0.080 0.067 0.075 0.085 0.055 0.098 0.083 Palmer 0.143 0.033 0.035 0.017 0.043 0.016 0.053 0.071 Henderson Mound 0.175 0.082 0.063 0.067 0.073 0.069 0.103 0.105 Hughes Island 0.153 0.067 0.046 0.055 0.072 0.047 0.070 0.097 Browne Site 5 0.187 0.080 0.068 0.060 0.074 0.060 0.093 0.121 Bay Pines 0.191 0.093 0.060 0.067 0.076 0.058 0.091 0.104 Dunwody 0.213 0.103 0.083 0.074 0.091 0.072 0.127 0.144 McKeithan 0.257 0.173 0.136 0.159 0.181 0.179 0.179 0.212 Venice Beach Complex N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sarasota Bay Mound 0.236 0.141 0.165 0.142 0.174 0.126 0.156 0.144 Yellow Bluffs 0.177 0.134 0.142 0.183 0.153 0.191 0.229 Casey Key 0.349 0.064 0.045 0.062 0.040 0.073 0.101 Crystal River 0.173 0.254 0.032 0.055 0.035 0.068 0.088 Bayshore Homes 0.227 0.084 0.160 0.041 0.024 0.055 0.082 Hutchinson Island 0.465 0.136 0.271 0.129 0.046 0.085 0.104 Manasota 0.292 0.036 0.155 0.050 0.151 0.058 0.075 Bird Island 0.384 0.093 0.198 0.100 0.256 0.098 0.106 Republic Groves 0.820 0.452 0.614 0.534 0.637 0.389 0.395 Highland Beach 0.390 0.124 0.160 0.209 0.127 0.149 0.196 0.413 Margate-Blount Mound 0.425 0.120 0.131 0.161 0.177 0.121 0.171 0.348 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.120 0.259 0.165 0.179 0.295 0.264 0.180 0.328 Safety Harbor 0.166 0.195 0.235 0.123 0.337 0.133 0.230 0.725 Captiva Island 0.239 0.112 0.158 0.134 0.213 0.058 0.172 0.355

151

Table 5- 1. Continued Highland Margate-Blount Fort Walton Temple Safety Captiva Beach Mound Mound Harbor Island Warm Mineral Springs 0.220 0.281 0.288 0.235 0.198 Gauthier 0.033 0.053 0.072 0.055 0.025 Little Salt Spring 0.062 0.094 0.100 0.111 0.068 Windover 0.035 0.064 0.066 0.054 0.026 Bay West 0.056 0.078 0.092 0.091 0.055 Palmer 0.034 0.063 0.059 0.035 0.020 Henderson Mound 0.050 0.087 0.054 0.093 0.067 Hughes Island 0.041 0.090 0.061 0.070 0.045 Browne Site 5 0.068 0.098 0.091 0.075 0.055 Bay Pines 0.049 0.093 0.079 0.086 0.054 Dunwody 0.079 0.117 0.114 0.094 0.063 McKeithan 0.136 0.191 0.140 0.194 0.155 Venice Beach Complex N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sarasota Bay Mound 0.149 0.181 0.163 0.125 0.118 Yellow Bluffs 0.163 0.196 0.141 0.138 0.141 Casey Key 0.049 0.077 0.082 0.064 0.045 Crystal River 0.032 0.060 0.052 0.046 0.029 Bayshore Homes 0.035 0.063 0.053 0.035 0.026 Hutchinson Island 0.041 0.076 0.076 0.067 0.046 Manasota 0.034 0.061 0.064 0.040 0.022 Bird Island 0.067 0.092 0.082 0.078 0.062 Republic Groves 0.073 0.101 0.086 0.103 0.065 Highland Beach 0.058 0.051 0.056 0.026 Margate-Blount Mound 0.119 0.083 0.083 0.059 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.161 0.191 0.074 0.054 Safety Harbor 0.389 0.283 0.327 0.037 Captiva Island 0.130 0.150 0.223 0.177

152

Figure 5- 4. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the Woodland and Mississippian populations. The cluster of Manasota populations is circled in green and the Weeden Island populations in red.

153

Figure 5- 5. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for the Woodland and Mississippian populations. The cluster of Manasota populations is circled in green and the Weeden Island populations in red.

154

Figure 5- 6. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for all Archaic populations.

155

Figure 5- 7. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for all Archaic populations.

156

Figure 5- 8. Graph of the first and second eigenvalue for all Archaic populations.

157

Table 5- 2. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances all the Archaic populations. Warm Mineral Little Salt Bay Bird Republic Springs Gauthier Spring Windover West Island Groves Warm Mineral Springs 0.193 0.237 0.186 0.229 0.273 0.261 Gauthier 1.398 0.055 0.024 0.046 0.084 0.074 Little Salt Spring 1.521 0.127 0.044 0.069 0.104 0.099 Windover 1.399 0.137 0.079 0.043 0.077 0.056 Bay West 1.502 0.089 0.088 0.107 0.113 0.092 Bird Island 2.116 0.44 0.351 0.423 0.495 0.141 Republic Groves 2.207 0.494 0.418 0.333 0.406 0.992 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

158

Figure 5- 9. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for the second analysis of the Archaic populations.

159

Figure 5- 10. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the second analysis of the Archaic populations.

160

Figure 5- 11. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the third analysis of the Archaic populations. The Republic Groves population is circled in light blue.

161

Figure 5- 12. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the third analysis of the Archaic populations.

Table 5- 3. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances for the third analysis of the Archaic populations. Gauthier Little Salt Spring Windover Bay West Republic Groves Gauthier 0.072 0.029 0.058 0.091 Little Salt Spring 0.188 0.057 0.086 0.121 Windover 0.149 0.115 0.055 0.071 Bay West 0.128 0.128 0.147 0.108 Republic Groves 0.561 0.478 0.396 0.412 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

162

Figure 5- 13. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the fourth analysis of the Archaic populations.

163

Figure 5- 14. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for the fourth analysis of the Archaic populations.

164

Figure 5- 15. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the first analysis of the Weeden Island/Manasota populations.

165

Figure 5- 16. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for first analysis of the Weeden Island/Manasota populations.

166

Figure 5- 17. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the first analysis of the Weeden Island/Manasota populations.

167

Table 5- 4. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Weeden Island/Manasota populations.

Manasota Venice Palmer Hughes Bay Yellow Casey Crystal Bayshore Key Beach Mound Island Pines Dunwody McKeithan Bluffs Key River Homes Cemetery Complex

Palmer Mound 0.067 0.083 0.094 0.179 0.167 0.035 0.042 0.018 0.021 N/A Hughes Island 0.268 0.069 0.142 0.174 0.165 0.094 0.054 0.068 0.058 N/A Bay Pines 0.287 0.010 0.140 0.178 0.207 0.119 0.062 0.076 0.070 N/A Dunwody 0.402 0.586 0.438 0.253 0.262 0.128 0.105 0.090 0.093 N/A McKeithan 0.529 0.285 0.239 0.832 0.270 0.196 0.149 0.163 0.189 N/A Yellow Bluffs 0.427 0.224 0.444 0.919 0.442 0.213 0.147 0.160 0.171 N/A Casey Key 0.035 0.290 0.406 0.486 0.485 0.630 0.084 0.052 0.050 N/A Crystal River 0.356 0.125 0.093 0.483 0.269 0.253 0.492 0.039 0.039 N/A

Bayshore Homes 0.048 0.251 0.203 0.326 0.377 0.355 0.142 0.238 0.025 N/A Manasota Key Cemetery 0.043 0.131 0.129 0.332 0.573 0.416 0.100 0.199 0.059 N/A Venice Beach Complex N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

168

Figure 5- 18. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the second analysis of the Weeden Island/Manasota populations.

169

Figure 5- 19. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for the first analysis of the Weeden Island populations.

170

Figure 5- 20. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the first analysis of the Weeden Island populations.

171

Table 5- 5. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Weeden Island populations.

Hughes Island Bay Pines McKeithan Yellow Bluffs Crystal River

Hughes Island 0.076 0.228 0.218 0.080 Bay Pines 0.170 0.207 0.253 0.063 McKeithan 1.305 0.886 0.291 0.187 Yellow Bluffs 1.163 1.489 1.202 0.228 Crystal River 0.633 0.222 1.021 1.689 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

Figure 5- 21. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the second analysis of the Weeden Island populations.

172

Table 5- 6. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between for the second analysis of the Weeden Island populations.

Hughes Island Bay Pines Crystal River Hughes Island 0.102 0.106 Bay Pines 0.196 0.095 Crystal River 0.682 0.345 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

Figure 5- 22. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the first analysis of the Manasota populations. The Dunwody population is circled in yellow and the Yellow Bluffs populations in light blue.

173

Figure 5- 23. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for first analysis of the Manasota populations.

174

Figure 5- 24. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the first analysis of the Manasota populations.

175

Table 5- 7. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Manasota populations. Bay Yellow Casey Bayshore Manasota Key Venice Beach Palmer Pines Dunwody Bluffs Key Homes Cemetery Complex Palmer 0.084 0.102 0.175 0.037 0.021 0.020 N/A Bay Pines 0.297 0.143 0.229 0.121 0.081 0.073 N/A Dunwody 0.497 0.461 0.293 0.135 0.098 0.099 N/A Yellow Bluffs 0.488 0.627 1.241 0.215 0.181 0.180 N/A Casey Key 0.049 0.423 0.568 0.653 0.050 0.048 N/A Bayshore Homes 0.070 0.246 0.411 0.530 0.127 0.025 N/A Manasota Key Cemetery 0.035 0.158 0.395 0.498 0.090 0.060 N/A Venice Beach Complex N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

176

Figure 5- 25. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for the third analysis of the Manasota populations.

177

Figure 5- 26. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the third analysis of the Manasota populations.

178

Figure 5- 27. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the fourth analysis of the Manasota populations.

179

Figure 5- 28. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the fourth analysis of the Manasota populations.

Table 5- 8. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances for the fourth analysis of the Manasota populations. Casey Bayshore Manasota Key Palmer Key Homes Cemetery Palmer 0.039 0.027 0.024 Casey Key 0.034 0.056 0.054 Bayshore Homes 0.109 0.127 0.034 Manasota Key Cemetery 0.054 0.093 0.110 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

180

Figure 5- 29. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the first analysis of the South Florida populations. The Dunwody population is circled in yellow.

181

Figure 5- 30. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for first analysis of the South Florida populations.

182

Figure 5- 31. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the first analysis of the South Florida populations.

183

Table 5- 9. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the South Florida populations. Hutchinson Highland Margate- Dunwody Island Beach Blount Captiva Dunwody 0.121 0.101 0.163 0.080 Hutchinson Island 0.503 0.057 0.094 0.051 Highland Beach 0.430 0.285 0.095 0.390 Margate-Blount 0.724 0.317 0.463 0.920 Captiva 0.248 0.263 0.318 0.468 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

Figure 5- 32. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for second analysis of the South Florida populations.

184

Figure 5- 33. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the analysis of the Weeden Island/Alachua/St. Johns populations.

185

Figure 5- 34. Graph of the first and second discriminant functions for analysis of the Weeden Island/Alachua/St. Johns populations.

186

Figure 5- 35. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the analysis of the Weeden Island/Alachua/St. Johns populations.

187

Table 5- 10. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Weeden Island/Alachua/St. Johns populations. Henderson Hughes Browne Bay Crystal Mound Island Site 5 Pines River Henderson Mound 0.073 0.162 0.100 0.078 Hughes Island 0.072 0.172 0.068 0.065 Browne Site 5 0.878 1.102 0.184 0.107 Bay Pines 0.176 0.005 1.042 0.076 Crystal River 0.292 0.218 0.645 0.202 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

Figure 5- 36. Graph of the first and second factors for the PCA analysis for the analysis of the Weeden Island/Fort Walton populations.

188

Figure 5- 37. Graph of the first and second functions for the analysis of the Weeden Island/Fort Walton populations.

189

Figure 5- 38. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the analysis of the Weeden Island/Fort Walton populations.

190

Table 5- 11. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Weeden Island/Fort Walton populations.

Hughes Bay Crystal Fort Walton Temple Island Pines River Mound Hughes Island 0.074 0.087 0.106 Bay Pines 0.026 0.080 0.115 Crystal River 0.416 0.217 0.082 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.404 0.358 0.478 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

Figure 5- 39. Graph of the first and second functions for the first analysis of the Weeden Island/Fort Walton/Manasota/Safety Harbor populations.

191

Figure 5- 40. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the first analysis of the Weeden Island/Fort Walton/Manasota/Safety Harbor populations.

192

Table 5- 12. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the Weeden Island/Fort Walton/Manasota/Safety Harbor populations. Fort Walton Hughes Bay Sarasota Yellow Casey Crystal Bayshore Temple Safety Palmer Island Pines Dunwody McKeithan Bay Mound Bluffs Key River Homes Manasota Mound Harbor Palmer 0.062 0.081 0.088 0.182 0.142 0.161 0.035 0.041 0.019 0.018 0.065 0.038 Hughes Island 0.219 0.067 0.130 0.165 0.158 0.164 0.088 0.054 0.067 0.055 0.066 0.076 Bay Pines 0.268 0.000 0.123 0.178 0.208 0.201 0.116 0.063 0.076 0.068 0.081 0.093 Dunwody 0.343 0.468 0.291 0.248 0.260 0.249 0.124 0.095 0.083 0.082 0.125 0.105 McKeithan 0.560 0.229 0.239 0.796 0.311 0.271 0.198 0.146 0.167 0.187 0.146 0.193 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.242 0.182 0.457 0.904 0.762 0.256 0.168 0.190 0.167 0.150 0.176 0.150 Yellow Bluffs 0.387 0.225 0.402 0.800 0.455 0.352 0.212 0.143 0.155 0.165 0.153 0.149 Casey Key 0.035 0.243 0.381 0.458 0.504 0.279 0.627 0.085 0.053 0.048 0.101 0.075 Crystal River 0.352 0.126 0.101 0.376 0.248 0.613 0.227 0.507 0.038 0.040 0.055 0.051 Bayshore Homes 0.051 0.238 0.207 0.269 0.411 0.412 0.316 0.154 0.239 0.024 0.059 0.039 Manasota 0.024 0.114 0.117 0.226 0.556 0.261 0.374 0.088 0.214 0.052 0.067 0.043 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.343 0.096 0.120 0.494 0.149 0.358 0.190 0.442 0.198 0.239 0.288 0.075 Safety Harbor 0.179 0.263 0.296 0.417 0.579 0.241 0.232 0.301 0.292 0.152 0.162 0.340 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

193

Figure 5- 41. Graph of the first and second functions for the third analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations.

194

Figure 5- 42. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the third analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations.

Table 5- 13. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances for the third analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations. Sarasota Bay Casey Bayshore Safety Palmer Dunwody Mound Key Homes Manasota Harbor Palmer 0.107 0.150 0.036 0.024 0.021 0.047 Dunwody 0.527 0.279 0.146 0.095 0.109 0.116 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.269 1.029 0.171 0.164 0.142 0.159 Casey Key 0.033 0.650 0.267 0.055 0.047 0.083 Bayshore Homes 0.094 0.354 0.352 0.155 0.030 0.039 Manasota 0.042 0.469 0.183 0.071 0.095 0.053 Safety Harbor 0.276 0.503 0.272 0.364 0.146 0.259 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

195

Figure 5- 43. Graph of the first and second functions for the fourth analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations.

196

Figure 5- 44. Graph of the first and second eigenvectors for the fourth analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations.

Table 5- 14. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances for the fourth analysis of the Manasota/Safety Harbor populations.

Sarasota Bay Palmer Mound Casey Key Manasota Safety Harbor Palmer 0.168 0.034 0.022 0.063 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.414 0.187 0.168 0.181 Casey Key 0.023 0.385 0.048 0.100 Manasota 0.048 0.367 0.083 0.070 Safety Harbor 0.535 0.443 0.571 0.501 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

197

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS

Summary

This study utilized craniometric data to examine morphological variation as expressed in 20 craniometric variables, measured on 404 individuals from 27 sites, the relationship of culture and biology in Florida’s pre-Contact populations. Previous research in Florida employed simple indices to interpret biological relationships

(Hrdlička 1922), utilized only a few sites from a very broad temporal range (Seasons

2010), or focused on Contact period remains with occasional mention of pre-Contact results (Stojanowski 2003; 2004; 2005b). A craniometric approach was chosen in concert with multivariate statistical methods, to allow for the interpretation of individuals and populations as a whole, not just parts, as simple indices are prone to do. In addition, a larger selection of sites resulted in a better representation of various cultural and temporal frames. These craniometric data are explored using Principle Component

Analysis (PCA), Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA), and R-matrix Analysis. These particular methods were chosen as Principle Component Analysis seeks to explore the underlying patterns of variation without using a priori assumptions about the relationships of the individuals being analyzed. Discriminant Function Analysis tests the variation associated with predetermined groups (i.e. sites, time periods, geographic regions) to examine if the variation corresponds with those groups or not. Lastly, R- matrix Analysis determines the level of variation associated with each predetermined group, also providing biological distance and gene flow estimates.

This approach led to three overall objectives: 1) Examine the range of variation within the populations of Florida from the Archaic to pre-Contact as represented in the

198

populations used in this study; 2) understand if, or how this variation correlates to cultural, geographic or temporal variation; 3) test the assumptions of biological distance analysis with regard to the populations in Florida.

The null hypotheses were stated as: 1) There is no biological variation noted within these populations; 2) There is no correlation between biological and cultural variation or biological variation and geographic or temporal distance; 3) The assumptions of biological distance analysis do not hold true in these archaeological samples.

With regard to overall variations, there is biological variation within the sampled populations and that variation correlates with cultural, geographic, and temporal divisions. In addition, the assumptions of biological distance analysis hold true in the samples used— biological distance is an indirect measure of social exchange, cemeteries are representative of breeding populations, and environmental affects appear to be minimal and randomly distributed. Therefore all null hypotheses were rejected.

In total, the results of the biological analyses combined with archaeological evidence suggested that there were at least two significant migration events into Florida after the Paleoindian period. A migration occurred in the Early to Middle Archaic as evidenced by the distinction between Warm Mineral Springs and the other Archaic populations (Figure 5-3). This finding is supported by changes in stone tool technology

(Faught and Waggoner Jr. 2012) and burial patterns, including the shift to water burials

(Cockrell and Murphy 1978; Doran 2002). The second migration occurred in the Late

Archaic as represented by the distance between the Archaic populations and the Bird

199

Island sample, and Bird Island’s relationship to the other sites used in the study (Figure

5-2). The archaeological evidence supports these findings, particular the cessation of water burials and changes in material culture; these changes are exemplified in the Bird

Island population as they utilized soapstone vessels, which are not found at the other

Archaic sites. In addition, the burials of Bird Island were not associated with a large freshwater source (Lovejoy 1985; Stojanowski and Doran 1998; Yates 2000).

With regard to geographic variation, this research did not find any evidence to support the previous North/South distinction hypothesized by Hrdlička (1922) and

Stojanowski (2004; 2005b). However, there is some evidence to support East/West distinctions in certain Archaic samples (Bay West, Little Salt Spring, Gauthier, and

Windover) and in the South Florida samples (Margate-Blount, Highland Beach,

Hutchinson Island, Captiva, and Dunwody) (Figures 5-14 and 5-30 respectively). This is most likely due to variations in mate selection possibly related to variations in trade patterns. The other samples included in this study do not provide evidence for

East/West patterns, suggesting that those populations were possibly utilizing different trade routes or others factors resulted in differing mate selection methodologies. It should be noted that West Coast samples outnumber East Coast samples and North

Florida samples outnumber South Florida samples, thereby limiting the strength of these results and neither proving nor disproving Hrdlička or Stojanowski’s interpretations. Larger samples and inclusion of Hrdlička and Stojanowski’s samples would better address this question.

After the above findings established that there are patterns to the biological variation within the population samples, a more detailed analysis of the Archaic,

200

Weeden Island, Manasota, and South Florida samples was conducted. The analysis of the Archaic samples suggested that there was a core population that inhabited the peninsula for approximately 5000 years and buried their dead at Windover, Little Salt

Spring, Bay West, Republic Groves, and Gauthier. However, biodistance analysis also suggested that gene flow for Republic Groves was different from the other sites (Figures

5-11 and 5-12; Table 5-4) as this sample appears to be distinct, based on PCA and

DFA analyses, from the others, a finding also supported by the levels of variation and biological distance determined by R-matrix analysis.

The biological variation noted in the Weeden Island and Manasota samples indicate biological distinctions between the populations buried at these sites (i.e. the populations associated with these cultures did not exchange mates, suggesting less social interaction). Evidence suggests that they had a common biological origin during, or prior to, the Deptford period as seen in the close relationship of the individuals buried at Crystal River and Yellow Bluffs (Figure 5-16). By the later periods (after ca. 1800 BP, based on radiocarbon dates associated with the sites) these populations were distinct as seen by the biodistances between the “classic” Weeden Island populations and the

Manasota populations (Figure 5-18). In addition, Crystal River correctly classifies, using

DFA, more often than any other population indicating that it is a distinct and closely related group. It is of particular interest that the Weeden Island sites show some biological distancing between mound centers as represented by the Crystal River,

McKeithan, and Hughes Island populations (Figure 5-21). The Manasota populations are all closely related biologically (Figures 5-25 and 5-27). In total, these findings support Luer and Almy’s (1982) statements that the Manasota culture was the result of

201

a localized cultural florescence unrelated to the early Weeden Island Complex. Though the Weeden Island Complex and the Manasota culture may have shared a common ancestral population, they quickly distinguished themselves both biologically and culturally. It is apparent that the pottery and mortuary practices of the late Manasota culture were influenced by the Weeden Island Complex. However, the potential biological influences cannot be fully tested at this time due to a lack of biological material from late Weeden Island sites. Further analysis is needed on additional biological samples to fully understand the biological and cultural complexities of the

Weeden Island Complex and it influence on various other cultures.

As mentioned above the pattern noted in the South Florida samples is consistent with East/West divisions and geographic distance appears to impact the biological relationships of these groups. This appears to correlate with the cultural divisions between the East and West Coast of South Florida. The impact of outside influences and the effects of the Calusa on the region in later periods could not be effectively tested with the samples utilized. Additional samples from the region and from more diverse time periods, including the Mississippian period, would allow for further analysis of these questions.

The analyses of the Alachua, St. Johns, Fort Walton, and Safety Harbor populations are limited due to single sample populations from these culture labels.

Nonetheless, the results suggested that further analyses are warranted. A necessarily limited interpretation suggests the following. The Alachua culture may be a local culture change event as this sample appears to be closely related to the other Weeden Island samples from the area (Figure 5-34), despite the drastic change in material culture and

202

site settlement patterns that have led others to hypothesize a migration event establishing this culture in North Central Florida (Milanich 1994). Safety Harbor also appears to be closely related biologically to the Manasota samples from the area, which is supported by similarities in site selection, mortuary practices, and pottery styles (Luer and Almy 1987). However an increase in biological variation and a slight biological separation of the Manasota and Safety Harbor populations suggested an influx of people or new mate sources (Figure 5-43). The Fort Walton population appears to be distinct from the Weeden Island and Safety Harbor populations, while the St. Johns population is also distinct from its Weeden Island neighbors, suggesting biological separation between these populations (Figures 5-39 and 5-34 respectively). Whether this is due to differing ancestor populations, isolation through time by cultural divisions, or differing mate sources cannot be elucidated at this time.

Analysis of the biological variability within various time periods (Archaic,

Woodland, and Mississippian) and cultural labels (Weeden Island, Manasota, Alachua, etc.) provided a model of population variability and structure through time in Florida. The

Archaic is a moderately variable population suggesting more open mate sources or more open cemetery structures. In the transition from the Archaic to the Woodland, the overall level of variability increased, most likely due to more strictly defined cultural barriers to gene flow related to an increase in cultural diversity. This variation appears to adhere to distinct culturally defined patterns. The populations associated with the

Weeden Island Complex exhibited a high level of biological variation that is most likely due to either the limitation of gene flow between sites or each mound center having different external sources of gene flow. In either case, this demonstrates recognition of

203

socially or culturally defined barriers to mate selection. The Manasota culture appears to have a more open strategy for mate selection because these populations were more homogenous, suggesting gene flow between sites. South Florida populations appear to have been more heavily impacted by geographic barriers to gene flow between the East and West Coasts, however, the small number of sites and lack of data from the central region of South Florida limit this interpretation.

Lastly, the Mississippian period had another increase in variability, though interpretation is limited. Nonetheless, it is suggested that this increased variability was due to an increase in regionalization and a shift to more insular cultural/social units, resulting in very little gene flow between cultures thereby increasing morphological diversity between subpopulations. Migration into the area from external sources could have also played a role in the increase variability in the Mississippian period, but further research is needed to evaluate this possibility.

Limitations to This Research

Several issues limited the interpretation of this research and if addressed in later studies, significant strides can be made in understanding the correlations between biology and culture in pre-Contact Florida. First, small sample sizes decrease the probative value of statistical analyses and introduce sampling error. Some will argue that such samples should not be included in analyses. Certainly, large samples would strengthen the statistical results; however, by limiting samples – particular when examining poorly preserved skeletal remains – we also limit the types of questions we may ask of the archaeological record and bioarchaeological research thereby narrowing our understanding of biological and cultural variation in Florida and the Southeast.

Therefore, the results of this research may be used to add to the interpretation and

204

understanding of cultural and biological change in pre-Contact Florida. Indeed, further efforts to locate additional collections may increase sample sizes associated with particular cultures, geographic regions, or temporal frames, thus strengthening results and subsequent interpretations.

A second limitation to this study is the low level of variance explained by the first two components/factors/vectors in most of the analyses. It is desired that most of the variance, i.e. 80% or more, be explained in the first two components/factors/vectors if the variables used are suitable for explaining the variation found in the populations.

However, this was not the case in this study; this is probably not because the variance is poorly explain by the variable used, but is most likely because there is a variable missing from the analysis—culture. However, quantifying cultural variation is a difficult task, making its inclusion as a variable problematic, thereby limiting our ability to test its impact on the total variance explained. However, when considering cultural labels the analysis of the results suggest that culture is the missing variable accounting for at least some of the variation seen in these populations. Future testing with culture as a variable or cultural components as variables may bear out this supposition.

A third limitation to this study is the methodology used to fill in missing data. It could be suggested that the choice of sites for regression analysis may have created false biological proximities, such as in the Dunwody and Captiva Island populations.

Yet, the results of the Yellow Bluffs analysis suggest that this may not be a significant concern, as the missing data were filled in using the other Manasota populations and subsequent analyses showed that the Yellow Bluffs population is still quite distinct from the other Manasota samples. This issue, like the first, cannot be overcome until there

205

are sufficiently large samples to allow for completion of missing data through intrasite analysis as opposed to intersite analysis.

The fourth limitation is the lack of archaeological data for some sites; this of course limits the comparison of the archaeological relationships of sites and can make it difficult to interpret the intrasite relationships of the individuals, such as the lack of provenience data for the individuals excavated at Crystal River. Fortunately, this can be corrected, to an extent, through continued research of records and new archaeological investigation. However, some of these data are simply gone and cannot be reproduced.

Despite these limitations, the data presented in this dissertation are the most comprehensive in Southeastern North America, utilizing 27 sites and 402 individuals from a wide range of cultural labels and temporal frames. Further, these data have confirmed that there is patterned biological variation within Florida’s pre-Contact populations.

Future Research

There are a number of avenues for future research. The first is obtaining additional samples from within the peninsula to further test some of the findings presented here, particularly samples from sites related to the Weeden Island, Alachua,

St Johns, and Fort Walton cultures. Also, sites from South Florida and the Panhandle region are conspicuous in their absence. Future research may also include sites from the broader Southeastern United States. In particular, populations from the Louisiana area could be used to test the possible relationship of the Weeden Island Complex to the Marksville culture. The study of populations from Alabama or Georgia could help determine the origins of the Bird Island population. Additionally, comparisons with other

206

Southeast populations could enhance the understanding of migration origins and reveal other relationships that could indicate smaller-scale migrations, which could have influenced the biological variation of some populations (e.g., those associated with the

Fort Walton or Safety Harbor cultures).

Broader Impact

The broader impact of this research relates to “culturally unaffiliated” or unprovenienced remains. Currently, the use of these remains in biological and archaeological studies is avoided. The results presented here suggest that it may be possible to determine the associations of unprovenienced individuals to a particular cultural group or in some instances sites; resulting in more samples being available for analysis and providing new details for the investigation of questions in the archaeological record.

This research also impacts efforts to repatriate human remains to legally designated tribal groups. A key question in the analysis of remains that fall under

NAGPRA is cultural affiliation. There are tens of thousands of remains in the United

States listed as culturally unaffiliated. This is often because there is no modern

Federally recognized tribe, but in other instances it is because there is no provenience for the remains. However, this research has shown that with the right comparative samples it may be possible to link unprovenienced remains to specific culture labels, time periods, or geographic zones; thereby providing additional information to the institutions and tribes involved in cultural affiliation assessments conducted under the auspices of NAGPRA. Additionally the study of modern tribes may help elucidate tribal origins, relationships to other tribes, or relationships to archaeological material providing new insight into archaeological questions and historical queries.

207

APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF MEASUREMENTS

1. Maximum Length (g-op): distance between glabella (g) and opisthocranion (op) in the midsagittal plane, measured in a straight line.

2. Maximum Breadth (eu-eu): maximum width of skull perpendicular to midsagittal plane

3. Bizygomatic breadth (zy-zy): direct distance between most lateral points on the zygomatic arches (zy-zy).

4. Basion-Bregma Height (ba-b): direct distance from the lowest point on the anterior margin of foramen magnum (ba), to bregma (b).

5. Cranial Base Length (ba-n): direct distance from nasion (n) to basion (ba).

6. Basion-Prosthion Length (ba-pr): direct distance from basion (ba) to prosthion (pr).

7. Maxillo-Alveolar Breadth (ecm-ecm): maximum breadth across the alveolar borders of the maxilla measured on the lateral surfaces at the location of the second maxillary molars (ecm).

8. Maxillo-Alveolar Length (pr-alv): direct distance from prosthion (pr) to alveolon (alv).

9. Biauricular Breadth (au-au): least exterior breadth across the roots of the zygomatic processes (au).

10. Upper Facial Height (n-pr): direct distance from nasion (n) to prosthion (pr)

11. Minimum Frontal Breadth (ft-ft): direct distance between the two frontotemporale (ft).

12. Upper Facial Breadth (fmt-fmt): direct distance between the two external points on the frontomalar suture (fmt).

13. Nasal Height (n-ns): direct distance from nasion (n) to the midpoint of a line connecting the lowest points of the inferior margin of the nasal notches (ns).

14. Nasal Breadth (al-al): maximum breadth of the nasal aperture (al-al).

15. Orbital Breadth (d-ec): laterally sloping distance from dacryon (d) to ectoconchion (ec).

16. Orbital Height: direct distance between the superior and inferior orbital margins. Instrument: sliding caliper.

208

17. Biorbital Breadth (ec-ec): direct distance between right and left ectoconchion (ec).

18. Interorbital Breadth (d-d): direct distance between right and left dacryon (d).

19. Frontal Chord (n-b): direct distance from nasion (n) to bregma (b) taken in the midsagittal plane.

20. Parietal Chord (b-l): direct distance from bregma (b) to lambda (1) taken in the midsagittal plane.

21. Occipital Chord (l-o): direct distance from lambda (l) to opisthion (o) taken in the midsagittal plane.

22. Foramen Magnum Length (ba-o): direct distance from basion (ba) to opisthion (o).

23. Foramen Magnum Breadth: distance between the lateral margins of foramen magnum at the points of greatest lateral curvature.

24. Mastoid Length: vertical projection of the mastoid process below and perpendicular to the eye-ear (Frankfort) plane.

25. Chin Height (id-gn): direct distance from infradentale (id) to gnathion (gn).

26. Height of the Mandibular Body: direct distance from the alveolar process to the inferior border of the mandible perpendicular to the base at the level of the mental foramen.

27. Breadth of the Mandibular Body: maximum breadth measured in the region of the mental foramen perpendicular to the long axis of the mandibular body.

28. Bigonial Width (go-go): direct distance between right and left gonion (go).

29. Bicondylar Breadth (cdl-cdl): direct distance between the most lateral points on the two condyles (cdl).

30. Minimum Ramus Breadth: least breadth of the mandibular ramus measured perpendicular to the height of the ramus.

31. Maximum Ramus Breadth: distance between the most anterior point on the mandibular ramus and a line connecting the most posterior point on the condyle and the angle of the jaw.

32. Maximum Ramus Height: direct distance from the highest point on the mandibular condyle to gonion (go).

209

33. Mandibular Length: distance of the anterior margin of the chin from a center point on the projected straight line placed along the posterior border of the two mandibular angles.

34. Mandibular Angle: angle formed by the inferior border of the corpus and the posterior border of the ramus.

35. Mastoid length (2): distance between inferior anterior margin of the parietal notch and the most inferior point of the mastoid process.

36. Mastoid breadth: distance between porion (p) and the most anterior edge of the superior terminus of the digastric groove.

37. Occipital condyle length: maximum length of the occipital condyle along the long axis of the condyle, measured from the edges of the auricular surface.

38. Occipital condyle breadth: maximum breadth of the occipital condyle, measured perpendicular to the length axis from the edges of the auricular surface.

39. Orbital breadth at nasion: nasal width taken at the level of nasion (n).

40. Nasion to fmt: distance from nasion (n) to the external point on the frontomalar suture (fmt), measured in a horizontal plane.

210

APPENDIX B RAW DATA

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. WMS 5 5 178 126 114 90 100 44 37 30 107 120 23 50 28 WMS 1 1 175 128 107 92 114 88 99 44 35 31 103 109 85 32 29 24 49 25 24 13 WMS 5 5 188 134 44 31 113 117 47 35 Gauthier 1 1 178 140 127 97 91 106 53 39 35 104 118 93 37 31 27 53 29 26 15 Gauthier 5 1 184 132 133 103 127 90 103 112 103 100 37 30 26 51 30 28 14 Gauthier 4 5 181 114 112 26 50 29 Gauthier 1 1 171 135 125 99 118 93 100 48 41 29 101 103 96 36 29 29 28 26 16 Gauthier 5 5 181 137 132 100 123 94 103 107 110 100 34 28 28 52 28 26 16 Gauthier 5 1 184 138 136 101 130 56 42 38 114 113 100 37 28 27 54 34 25 15 Gauthier 1 1 170 133 132 95 119 88 100 54 37 36 105 110 96 36 30 24 49 25 26 12 Gauthier 3 6 182 137 132 94 124 84 101 107 120 96 34 29 24 50 26 26 15 Gauthier 5 6 163 115 107 93 28 53 28 Gauthier 1 6 172 130 94 107 104 110 28 50 27 12 Gauthier 5 6 181 142 131 101 130 98 104 110 118 95 35 30 26 51 33 26 13 Gauthier 1 1 182 136 133 102 122 89 102 52 39 108 105 104 36 29 25 50 26 29 14 Gauthier 5 3 182 140 137 103 124 90 99 116 111 101 36 32 29 51 30 26 14 Gauthier 1 6 177 136 126 96 106 117 104 109 28 52 26 25 16 Gauthier 1 6 178 131 134 97 116 92 105 108 120 100 36 28 24 51 27 22 16 Gauthier 5 5 181 114 124 158 97 30 58 Gauthier 1 5 188 137 135 101 125 96 106 114 124 94 36 31 28 54 29 26 13 Gauthier 4 5 183 135 122 96 107 113 113 105 29 51 30 Gauthier 5 5 187 139 143 103 100 109 118 119 104 40 33 30 53 30 28 15 Gauthier 5 5 189 138 147 111 101 114 121 121 103 35 29 31 58 29 25 15 Gauthier 1 1 170 135 134 100 127 93 104 50 107 105 91 37 30 25 50 24 26 14 Gauthier 5 5 184 136 134 104 93 107 52 40 34 114 109 32 25 53 30 26 14 Gauthier 5 6 187 141 145 107 130 97 105 116 108 102 41 29 52 34 15 Gauthier 1 3 186 141 142 98 120 87 104 116 112 111 35 29 25 51 30 28 15 Gauthier 1 6 182 115 108 107 30 29 LSS 2 1 86 102 51 37 31 107 24 49 LSS 5 3 92 103 51 39 33 25 51 LSS 1 1 83 99 54 39 32 111 23 48 Key: Sex: 1= Female, 2= Female?, 3= unknown, 4= Male?, 5=Male; Age: 1= Young; 2= Mid-young, 3= Middle Age; 4= Mid -old 5= Old, 6= Unknown

211

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. LSS 4 5 180 139 103 131 92 106 52 39 33 106 112 102 37 25 54 32 LSS 5 3 189 135 143 103 127 95 107 119 123 98 40 24 55 32 LSS 2 5 90 102 50 38 33 109 22 52 Windover 5 3 183 135 138 100 122 98 108 52 41 34 114 114 99 34 24 54 29 Windover 1 3 178 129 144 103 124 96 107 53 39 33 112 114 96 36 29 24 53 30 27 14 Windover 5 1 188 136 123 96 106 56 39 33 118 110 31 54 26 Windover 5 3 188 142 146 108 137 95 103 55 39 34 115 109 107 39 32 27 51 33 32 15 Windover 1 3 174 131 134 101 118 91 104 52 39 35 110 110 94 36 35 24 25 25 13 Windover 5 5 185 140 138 98 119 92 106 40 34 115 27 54 28 30 13 Windover 5 5 184 132 130 102 123 87 102 55 37 33 106 103 99 37 30 25 49 33 25 14 Windover 1 1 175 126 130 96 122 91 102 48 37 33 110 111 94 35 32 24 50 28 24 13 Windover 2 6 182 128 114 93 103 115 115 50 28 Windover 1 5 193 142 125 99 106 52 40 35 114 118 112 22 33 Windover 1 5 175 134 119 88 97 45 38 32 113 120 24 48 25 Windover 5 3 187 132 127 94 50 106 113 28 33 Windover 5 5 171 135 124 92 102 112 112 96 23 51 26 Windover 5 3 181 142 146 106 128 92 107 51 40 34 118 115 103 37 34 24 33 28 17 Windover 5 1 189 133 139 109 123 96 109 54 42 34 112 117 31 54 28 26 16 Windover 1 5 184 136 118 91 113 116 98 30 24 51 24 24 13 Windover 5 3 180 138 145 106 124 86 101 114 112 98 39 35 28 52 28 Windover 1 1 177 127 49 40 31 104 125 24 49 23 25 12 Windover 1 1 177 125 115 87 100 100 102 98 24 51 23 22 10 Windover 1 1 180 131 133 101 120 91 100 47 40 32 108 112 97 34 30 24 48 30 13 Windover 5 1 168 124 130 97 117 84 99 50 37 35 104 111 92 32 22 47 27 24 13 Windover 5 3 178 137 91 107 106 117 25 51 23 Windover 5 5 185 129 146 105 129 96 109 55 114 110 104 38 29 55 28 30 13 Windover 5 5 192 144 97 106 109 119 101 54 34 Windover 1 1 178 140 95 109 119 54 23 Windover 5 1 188 136 140 102 126 91 103 54 40 31 112 119 105 38 25 25 Windover 4 5 175 129 136 101 115 96 104 50 39 33 113 116 92 35 24 51 28 25 13 Windover 5 1 183 136 152 105 120 94 105 116 120 31 52 27 14 Windover 5 5 196 135 135 100 114 54 44 33 115 112 37 28 58 32 Windover 5 5 185 137 117 99 105 113 117 96 28 53 30 Windover 5 3 186 132 137 108 128 95 106 52 40 33 116 114 29 26 55 28 26 15 Windover 4 1 187 136 126 105 109 53 45 37 116 120 94 57 26

212

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Windover 5 3 181 141 128 94 110 57 39 35 112 110 102 27 55 33 Windover 1 1 184 130 125 95 103 108 106 106 24 54 23 Windover 4 5 177 127 114 83 96 109 113 96 26 48 25 Windover 2 5 177 136 126 92 101 107 113 25 51 30 Windover 2 1 185 135 134 104 127 88 101 112 120 30 50 30 25 14 Windover 5 3 187 143 137 109 132 97 108 53 42 29 113 116 29 54 34 Windover 2 3 171 126 112 88 103 54 38 36 105 111 94 26 51 28 Windover 5 1 195 128 97 107 41 34 115 115 26 54 28 25 14 Windover 5 2 190 138 137 106 127 90 107 50 38 32 112 121 98 38 32 26 55 32 29 15 Windover 1 1 178 135 118 94 100 48 39 34 104 112 108 26 49 29 Windover 2 1 175 128 136 103 114 92 103 51 39 30 111 113 94 35 32 27 52 26 26 15 Windover 5 3 195 135 119 90 104 54 109 126 99 27 50 33 Windover 5 5 185 137 101 117 105 102 25 52 28 Windover 5 1 183 135 127 92 106 54 108 117 93 25 53 34 Windover 1 1 181 134 96 103 110 113 99 53 27 Windover 5 5 182 135 123 95 104 110 118 25 52 32 Windover 5 5 190 136 121 102 110 112 119 102 31 54 31 Windover 5 1 187 147 145 106 129 90 112 54 43 33 119 103 109 36 31 28 57 26 28 16 Windover 5 1 187 130 130 93 109 55 41 35 110 115 26 54 33 Windover 2 3 183 142 141 106 129 98 107 57 40 34 114 113 104 38 31 28 53 31 29 14 Windover 5 5 185 137 129 98 105 52 39 34 116 119 98 27 53 33 Windover 1 1 173 137 140 99 122 84 97 53 108 110 103 38 27 49 26 27 12 Windover 5 5 182 125 92 105 51 39 35 105 108 102 27 52 27 Windover 4 1 170 129 122 95 120 91 101 47 38 31 101 107 91 35 31 25 51 25 26 Windover 2 6 179 131 128 99 121 85 100 103 107 103 36 31 23 50 28 Windover 2 1 175 127 130 100 117 88 102 102 109 97 35 29 26 52 31 25 15 Windover 5 3 179 136 136 105 132 92 109 113 109 98 39 35 27 54 29 12 Windover 5 3 186 131 138 106 131 100 110 58 41 33 111 106 105 39 35 28 54 28 27 12 Windover 5 1 190 137 142 106 124 91 107 49 40 31 113 121 101 36 33 27 52 33 30 16 Windover 5 1 180 130 140 103 121 93 104 49 39 33 109 108 103 36 30 25 52 29 26 12 Windover 2 1 180 145 140 101 131 90 104 54 38 30 112 117 99 36 33 29 51 27 28 14 Bay West 5 3 176 139 86 100 106 112 106 33 26 51 33 Bay West 1 1 172 130 120 86 98 105 104 91 30 26 48 30 Bay West 4 1 173 132 131 95 82 99 111 103 95 37 31 25 50 28 14 Bay West 4 1 171 131 136 98 130 81 97 103 111 92 38 24 50 25 25 15

213

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Bay West 2 3 177 136 129 96 84 98 103 100 106 36 29 20 49 25 14 Bay West 2 3 182 142 133 102 92 102 53 36 34 110 108 101 34 27 27 51 14 Bay West 5 1 180 141 142 105 97 106 54 41 36 112 111 96 38 33 29 52 27 13 Palmer 5 3 176 143 136 101 132 96 109 51 41 34 115 114 90 37 29 52 30 27 13 Palmer 5 1 174 122 96 106 54 107 110 26 50 25 Palmer 2 1 175 134 95 105 36 109 112 25 52 27 Palmer 1 3 178 140 134 100 122 96 107 53 41 36 108 112 96 38 30 26 53 27 24 12 Palmer 1 4 175 132 134 96 122 96 105 114 111 92 37 28 26 53 25 22 14 Palmer 1 4 135 90 105 105 28 52 26 Palmer 5 4 103 116 131 32 57 30 Palmer 5 4 186 95 107 110 30 Palmer 5 3 190 146 133 100 110 33 122 114 98 28 32 53 35 Palmer 1 1 172 136 111 102 24 49 28 Palmer 5 4 100 110 110 114 29 55 34 Palmer 1 1 92 108 48 35 108 101 27 54 29 25 12 Palmer 4 3 176 96 110 120 110 30 56 32 Palmer 1 4 173 94 102 117 105 92 52 29 Palmer 2 1 182 149 129 97 122 118 28 52 29 Palmer 3 6 145 35 104 107 30 Palmer 5 5 183 140 143 101 128 95 108 52 41 34 119 113 100 36 27 27 56 33 27 12 Palmer 2 4 191 141 124 124 120 54 26 Palmer 1 4 165 135 130 94 126 96 107 43 109 103 92 39 31 55 29 24 13 Palmer 5 4 193 142 142 105 131 96 109 50 44 34 117 120 96 39 33 24 54 33 28 12 Palmer 5 4 175 90 115 115 104 58 33 Palmer 4 4 172 141 135 96 109 111 118 90 56 30 Palmer 1 1 178 134 138 100 126 88 106 51 42 35 116 108 96 36 30 28 53 31 26 14 Palmer 5 4 179 100 112 114 97 59 31 Palmer 1 4 174 131 134 103 126 92 105 51 42 36 107 111 94 35 28 28 51 29 26 15 Palmer 2 1 176 134 140 103 125 94 55 41 36 110 110 97 36 29 24 52 32 25 14 Palmer 1 5 180 136 130 100 122 94 105 50 40 36 112 111 98 32 28 25 50 30 24 15 Palmer 5 5 190 141 148 108 131 97 109 116 126 96 39 29 30 55 33 28 10 Palmer 2 3 178 150 141 103 136 101 112 55 44 36 113 106 109 39 31 26 56 33 28 16 Palmer 4 1 186 143 146 107 138 95 105 52 41 35 116 117 97 36 30 54 30 29 12 Palmer 1 5 172 131 131 97 120 86 99 48 39 35 110 106 97 36 30 23 49 26 27 16 Palmer 2 3 114 103 99 27 54

214

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Palmer 1 1 185 145 137 101 129 101 107 46 39 32 116 111 100 36 29 30 27 14 Palmer 4 3 173 146 95 103 112 102 54 30 Palmer 5 4 184 143 143 110 130 100 112 109 116 97 38 34 27 54 36 27 12 Palmer 5 3 189 146 129 94 106 122 106 108 27 52 30 Palmer 1 1 171 145 136 98 126 93 102 49 39 35 109 108 98 37 32 23 52 30 Palmer 5 4 184 148 139 105 135 93 110 52 43 36 115 107 94 39 30 27 56 34 29 15 Palmer 3 5 172 140 122 90 106 114 110 100 28 54 29 Palmer 1 2 174 133 85 103 50 40 35 111 112 95 32 28 14 Palmer 5 5 177 145 132 90 104 38 119 111 98 25 27 Palmer 5 5 186 146 109 133 97 108 122 118 105 36 30 28 54 33 31 15 Palmer 5 1 168 138 92 101 106 94 105 24 51 30 Palmer 5 2 184 147 135 100 109 50 43 35 115 118 98 26 55 34 Henderson 4 3 145 101 53 28 26 15 Henderson 5 1 175 110 108 101 26 54 28 Henderson 2 6 100 96 34 29 52 24 23 14 Henderson 2 6 Henderson 2 6 144 125 97 34 34 25 27 13 Henderson 3 6 165 134 119 95 113 107 53 23 Hughes Island 5 5 107 28 53 29 Hughes Island 5 3 115 102 29 53 35 26 14 Hughes Island 2 4 101 31 Hughes Island 4 5 167 107 114 51 26 Hughes Island 5 5 176 92 112 100 56 29 Hughes Island 2 6 137 110 96 100 38 27 51 25 25 14 Hughes Island 5 5 108 119 111 95 33 29 60 30 Browne Site 5 1 4 161 147 131 94 131 93 102 50 39 33 106 97 92 33 31 27 50 28 28 15 Browne Site 5 5 5 180 144 145 106 113 134 29 54 32 27 12 Browne Site 5 1 1 140 104 31 27 50 30 23 12 Browne Site 5 5 6 133 106 38 31 41 Browne Site 5 5 3 179 142 142 107 134 111 115 99 36 30 23 53 34 23 17 Browne Site 5 2 1 88 102 105 95 49 27 Bay Pines 2 6 174 139 130 91 110 107 103 30 55 32 Bay Pines 1 2 173 148 135 101 130 96 107 57 42 36 111 112 88 34 30 26 54 35 28 13 Bay Pines 2 6 184 137 144 104 93 102 115 115 104 36 28 23 50 28 25 14 Bay Pines 5 6 183 114 109 26 53 28

215

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Bay Pines 1 1 169 131 98 125 96 108 54 39 36 105 106 95 32 30 25 52 26 Dunwody 5 5 170 123 94 109 107 102 98 58 32 Dunwody 1 2 170 139 126 52 41 112 110 95 33 Dunwody 2 5 165 147 130 94 103 104 99 25 52 29 27 14 Dunwody 1 1 158 142 127 82 129 91 99 111 100 98 36 22 50 30 25 13 Dunwody 5 2 175 139 95 105 112 110 28 54 33 28 13 McKeithan 5 1 165 152 137 102 133 52 37 36 112 92 107 27 36 50 30 25 12 McKeithan 4 4 112 104 90 49 23 Venice Beach Complex 5 3 177 138 140 108 130 97 111 56 41 35 117 105 98 33 28 28 54 33 23 14 Sarasota Bay 5 5 187 148 145 107 138 92 105 53 40 34 118 109 104 38 35 28 55 32 29 Sarasota Bay 5 4 190 145 147 106 134 88 106 51 41 35 115 120 101 37 33 29 52 29 Yellow Bluffs 5 3 181 160 143 104 111 117 108 87 29 55 35 Yellow Bluffs 1 1 160 151 130 94 56 110 92 93 51 22 Casey Key 1 1 171 141 132 95 117 95 105 48 39 35 110 104 95 37 34 24 28 24 13 Casey Key 4 4 175 144 144 104 126 90 104 50 39 36 118 110 101 34 30 24 53 29 29 15 Casey Key 2 2 174 138 140 99 126 90 50 39 35 116 109 96 35 29 27 28 25 13 Casey Key 4 4 181 137 135 95 122 88 99 50 39 37 117 101 109 36 28 21 48 29 27 13 Casey Key 2 3 180 149 139 100 139 100 112 117 107 114 34 28 27 56 29 23 12 Casey Key 5 3 182 138 134 96 128 96 107 50 42 35 116 112 98 42 31 27 56 33 28 13 Casey Key 5 5 172 141 135 98 126 96 101 49 40 35 112 107 94 37 30 25 51 28 27 15 Casey Key 5 3 184 144 136 103 128 97 106 50 118 109 99 35 38 26 55 32 25 12 Crystal River 2 3 163 148 130 94 127 90 101 56 39 36 109 105 92 34 24 50 30 12 Crystal River 5 1 175 142 140 104 125 89 105 53 39 36 104 110 105 33 29 28 26 12 Crystal River 5 5 35 10 Crystal River 1 2 164 137 129 100 85 103 105 105 89 29 28 25 24 23 13 Crystal River 2 5 163 136 104 91 27 Crystal River 4 5 150 103 108 27 22 13 Crystal River 5 6 168 149 136 107 107 107 29 Crystal River 5 3 92 37 32 30 24 Crystal River 2 5 144 102 28 Crystal River 5 4 160 137 141 100 130 89 103 108 103 92 35 21 30 23 14 Crystal River 4 3 165 143 95 106 97 105 29 28 Crystal River 5 3 172 136 136 100 133 91 105 54 43 35 105 97 97 34 27 28 28 27 11 Crystal River 5 5 110 26

216

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Crystal River 2 5 121 99 36 30 28 24 14 Crystal River 2 5 161 148 140 96 129 92 104 110 104 98 32 27 23 27 26 15 Crystal River 5 5 97 30 Crystal River 5 3 110 112 28 29 Crystal River 5 3 174 141 127 100 131 97 104 55 40 34 112 92 97 38 30 26 29 29 Crystal River 4 6 181 152 140 104 138 106 113 34 112 110 102 40 28 29 28 14 Crystal River 1 3 166 136 130 97 121 88 100 110 101 91 33 30 25 26 28 14 Crystal River 4 5 160 148 141 94 127 90 112 109 95 36 28 24 28 24 15 Crystal River 5 1 183 116 106 24 32 29 12 Crystal River 5 4 139 101 29 Crystal River 4 5 173 141 134 107 31 Crystal River 5 3 176 150 136 99 137 103 108 39 37 118 106 92 38 33 27 34 Crystal River 1 1 160 137 132 97 125 86 102 55 38 33 103 97 94 37 32 26 27 27 Crystal River 5 4 170 90 106 117 109 33 35 Crystal River 1 6 92 105 111 27 Bayshore Homes 5 3 173 148 141 105 141 97 114 57 113 112 96 35 31 57 32 27 12 Bayshore Homes 5 3 179 149 146 107 136 96 110 55 42 38 119 103 103 41 32 28 55 32 33 13 Bayshore Homes 2 1 166 136 140 96 122 88 103 50 38 35 112 106 101 36 30 25 51 33 28 11 Bayshore Homes 5 5 178 148 139 100 106 53 42 38 112 113 24 53 33 Bayshore Homes 5 1 175 139 143 105 131 92 107 53 43 37 111 111 99 34 30 28 52 32 25 12 Bayshore Homes 5 1 190 148 100 112 52 44 35 123 100 111 36 26 30 56 36 Bayshore Homes 5 3 173 139 137 100 130 97 112 51 42 35 111 104 94 34 29 27 55 31 26 15 Bayshore Homes 5 4 171 145 130 101 134 96 107 115 98 91 32 25 54 29 24 Bayshore Homes 5 4 144 141 137 98 112 109 98 39 34 23 15 Bayshore Homes 5 6 175 146 147 101 103 111 113 113 96 35 31 28 56 37

217

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Bayshore Homes 5 4 173 148 109 136 99 112 58 44 36 115 113 101 35 28 56 32 25 14 Bayshore Homes 5 1 176 144 88 110 115 103 56 28 Bayshore Homes 2 6 170 141 128 92 49 34 106 98 26 55 23 Bayshore Homes 2 1 166 134 97 108 110 90 29 53 32 Bayshore Homes 5 6 177 135 124 112 102 27 56 34 Bayshore Homes 5 4 167 144 137 99 130 92 107 51 38 33 116 102 98 30 30 29 53 29 29 13 Bayshore Homes 1 5 168 142 131 92 108 52 41 36 108 105 100 26 53 25 Bayshore Homes 5 3 181 142 139 106 133 99 111 55 43 35 116 104 100 38 32 30 55 31 30 11 Bayshore Homes 2 4 53 42 55 28 27 14 Bayshore Homes 1 4 176 146 134 98 53 41 37 113 103 105 24 55 30 Bayshore Homes 5 3 95 57 41 38 113 28 55 27 Bayshore Homes 1 3 164 138 141 101 129 83 98 49 36 108 100 103 36 30 23 48 23 29 13 Bayshore Homes 1 1 166 135 131 104 125 92 106 58 40 36 107 103 93 36 30 25 54 28 24 14 Bayshore Homes 2 3 141 91 104 50 41 34 52 29 Bayshore Homes 1 1 164 134 90 101 50 86 122 102 25 50 29 Bayshore Homes 1 5 169 135 93 103 108 99 50 24 Bayshore Homes 5 3 174 140 127 88 108 113 108 97 25 53 31

218

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Bayshore Homes 2 2 164 137 137 97 127 94 108 52 41 35 110 94 98 36 29 27 53 32 24 15 Bayshore Homes 2 5 179 141 152 101 48 42 35 122 114 110 33 26 26 29 27 11 Hutchinson 5 6 191 148 141 101 131 91 109 120 108 110 36 29 29 54 29 30 12 Hutchinson 1 6 171 140 107 50 31 Hutchinson 4 6 173 140 134 128 92 105 98 103 32 29 25 23 12 Hutchinson 2 6 141 131 83 100 40 34 108 23 52 Hutchinson 1 6 161 85 93 102 102 95 29 Hutchinson 5 5 180 121 51 30 Hutchinson 4 5 170 140 136 94 130 115 105 96 35 54 30 23 16 Hutchinson 4 5 168 147 135 88 111 55 41 37 112 95 105 57 31 Hutchinson 5 6 184 146 130 103 111 120 117 53 33 Hutchinson 1 6 170 151 90 104 111 97 101 51 32 Hutchinson 2 3 169 142 94 101 114 101 95 24 50 32 Hutchinson 5 5 183 138 98 111 50 42 38 108 112 98 31 56 40 Manasota 5 5 188 140 146 111 131 100 110 118 116 102 35 27 55 32 26 14 Manasota 1 6 179 139 123 114 114 96 28 54 30 Manasota 5 1 182 140 139 99 137 97 106 115 110 99 38 28 55 29 24 11 Manasota 5 5 190 143 125 101 111 105 56 32 Manasota 1 6 177 140 137 98 95 107 110 110 99 39 31 24 54 28 Manasota 5 1 183 146 138 101 112 116 104 108 55 32 Manasota 2 6 179 94 105 108 97 29 Manasota 5 1 187 137 139 107 134 101 113 57 44 37 113 118 88 38 30 30 54 31 30 14 Manasota 2 3 185 141 123 108 109 126 85 29 55 32 Manasota 4 1 180 138 138 96 135 95 108 110 107 112 34 28 28 55 34 25 13 Manasota 1 5 185 131 93 48 38 32 115 117 98 30 53 32 22 14 Manasota 5 5 179 140 134 103 130 99 110 51 40 37 108 110 97 35 29 27 52 34 28 13 Manasota 5 6 174 143 136 98 112 114 99 100 35 30 28 56 30 Manasota 1 1 171 122 99 131 90 103 52 37 36 106 95 95 38 23 51 31 25 13 Manasota 5 1 175 139 139 98 128 92 103 115 119 88 37 28 53 31 24 14 Manasota 5 4 185 138 135 103 125 92 103 111 107 101 37 29 26 52 35 Manasota 2 1 174 131 129 99 120 84 99 49 37 31 107 104 96 35 27 27 50 32 26 12 Manasota 5 5 181 141 145 107 135 96 112 115 105 105 41 32 58 35 Manasota 5 5 168 140 131 88 102 42 112 97 26 50 30

219

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Manasota 5 1 168 133 135 101 127 96 108 54 40 36 112 109 89 34 28 25 53 32 27 15 Manasota 1 1 174 141 131 99 128 94 108 42 34 112 106 92 36 35 28 55 27 Bird Island 5 1 196 143 147 105 133 103 108 52 40 35 116 118 109 41 30 33 52 32 30 12 Bird Island 5 3 182 147 133 99 116 117 104 102 27 58 30 Bird Island 4 1 166 137 92 100 108 103 22 51 28 Bird Island 2 1 104 111 115 119 31 56 30 Bird Island 5 1 199 145 137 102 116 117 120 106 58 35 Bird Island 5 3 182 145 144 107 128 101 109 117 113 95 31 28 26 54 28 26 13 Republic Groves 5 1 175 137 90 101 107 117 23 52 29 Republic Groves 5 4 178 141 126 91 110 110 27 50 30 Republic Groves 5 4 189 131 88 119 108 55 30 Republic Groves 5 5 137 119 83 118 28 Republic Groves 5 4 187 138 88 106 117 119 95 53 27 Republic Groves 5 3 192 138 146 112 127 88 56 42 34 122 118 99 34 32 26 53 28 29 15 Republic Groves 5 1 184 137 129 108 58 40 35 114 113 29 54 33 Republic Groves 4 3 188 141 140 101 123 95 105 54 38 35 119 115 101 40 34 26 54 28 31 14 Republic Groves 1 4 178 137 121 84 103 57 112 111 25 51 27 Highlands Beach 1 2 179 146 136 127 95 106 109 105 34 31 24 Highlands Beach 5 3 181 138 93 113 109 113 36 31 27 52 34 28 15 Highlands Beach 5 5 177 149 138 98 134 95 105 114 120 91 37 29 28 53 29 27 13 Highlands Beach 1 3 174 51 38 33 115 112 100 50 28

220

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Highlands Beach 5 4 182 135 91 104 59 41 37 109 114 103 34 27 52 31 29 Highlands Beach 5 3 184 116 110 115 99 60 32 Highlands Beach 1 1 174 144 125 104 110 112 105 33 Highlands Beach 1 5 176 141 139 99 127 87 104 53 39 36 104 35 32 26 51 27 23 16 Highlands Beach 5 2 176 146 132 99 87 58 38 38 109 98 106 40 30 24 48 30 29 11 Highlands Beach 5 4 184 156 144 100 143 97 110 56 40 40 116 113 109 37 33 28 55 30 Highlands Beach 5 3 190 147 134 90 106 120 106 108 23 54 36 Highlands Beach 5 6 172 131 96 103 110 109 106 97 38 32 27 55 32 Highlands Beach 5 6 174 100 111 112 109 94 55 34 Highlands Beach 5 3 177 149 100 108 110 101 106 27 56 32 Highlands Beach 2 5 174 113 116 25 25 Highlands Beach 1 1 176 138 119 100 105 109 104 103 27 52 27 Highlands Beach 1 1 177 148 132 102 132 92 106 111 106 103 37 32 53 29 Highlands Beach 1 2 177 146 137 96 125 84 98 48 37 34 115 108 105 34 32 22 48 29 26 15 Highlands Beach 4 2 177 153 139 56 41 40 119 115 103 25 54 32 Highlands Beach 5 1 178 146 140 105 137 98 108 55 42 36 115 107 95 34 31 26 54 26 27 10 Highlands Beach 1 1 151 132 127 86 103 54 39 36 109 100 107 33 32 24 51 30 25 13

221

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Highlands Beach 5 3 192 134 100 106 121 122 25 53 30 33 15 Highlands Beach 5 3 177 145 134 97 107 118 108 101 29 54 29 Highlands Beach 1 1 166 142 106 110 114 100 29 54 28 Highlands Beach 5 2 179 138 100 120 90 103 115 108 102 35 30 24 52 33 25 15 Highlands Beach 5 6 168 134 123 85 100 108 113 89 23 51 31 Highlands Beach 1 3 170 139 126 90 102 100 101 102 25 52 29 Highlands Beach 1 3 163 137 125 87 96 97 22 Highlands Beach 5 6 179 144 136 102 97 109 113 109 103 34 55 30 Highlands Beach 2 5 173 140 129 93 123 94 106 111 105 98 32 26 52 29 27 14 Margate-Blount 5 4 188 141 151 105 131 97 106 58 41 38 119 111 114 40 32 27 53 30 31 14 Margate-Blount 1 1 171 134 141 101 120 94 100 48 39 33 112 99 108 35 29 25 48 23 28 13 Margate-Blount 5 1 175 141 143 104 123 100 106 112 107 101 37 29 24 55 30 20 15 Margate-Blount 5 3 171 135 125 97 112 103 105 29 50 32 Margate-Blount 5 5 169 135 136 98 122 90 100 110 102 102 36 31 24 47 29 Margate-Blount 2 1 137 141 103 122 85 96 53 39 34 113 107 98 23 47 22 25 13 Fort Walton Temple Mound 1 1 151 99 108 51 42 33 106 95 30 54 20 Fort Walton Temple Mound 5 3 176 143 146 105 128 57 40 35 113 95 93 37 30 53 29 Fort Walton Temple Mound 5 3 166 153 146 102 128 90 101 60 40 38 113 100 98 38 33 24 50 30 27 14 Fort Walton Temple Mound 4 3 185 137 148 112 126 99 104 114 109 105 38 33 52 30 Fort Walton Temple Mound 1 1 159 143 130 96 125 91 100 53 37 35 101 95 97 41 34 23 50 24 31 14

222

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Fort Walton Temple Mound 5 4 155 141 101 124 94 102 53 40 34 112 96 93 31 30 24 52 24 27 12 Fort Walton Temple Mound 5 6 177 156 142 117 111 111 101 58 33 Fort Walton Temple Mound 2 5 159 144 140 97 88 99 52 37 34 111 103 91 29 27 21 50 29 26 14 Fort Walton Temple Mound 5 4 171 142 92 104 54 42 35 105 109 22 51 Safety Harbor 5 5 180 151 146 106 138 97 111 119 110 101 37 29 28 54 33 Safety Harbor 5 3 181 148 133 88 104 51 41 34 121 117 27 51 32 Safety Harbor 5 3 172 142 90 103 57 40 37 111 104 27 50 33 Safety Harbor 5 3 185 153 138 95 105 123 115 27 52 32 Safety Harbor 1 2 170 142 137 98 126 93 104 116 102 97 36 27 22 51 28 Safety Harbor 1 3 165 130 95 119 93 102 50 41 32 108 96 96 35 32 26 49 28 Safety Harbor 1 1 165 142 147 100 132 96 102 55 41 36 114 107 101 37 37 23 50 29 Safety Harbor 3 6 139 138 102 128 84 97 51 39 33 109 27 49 25 26 Safety Harbor 2 6 175 141 135 89 128 97 106 115 109 100 35 33 26 53 27 Safety Harbor 5 1 175 140 143 104 126 49 42 32 111 110 103 35 29 28 54 27 22 11 Safety Harbor 5 4 188 144 139 103 95 110 52 42 35 117 108 29 55 34 Safety Harbor 5 3 171 145 129 94 105 115 106 93 26 53 31 Safety Harbor 5 5 184 156 53 45 36 123 109 105 27 55 34 Safety Harbor 5 5 185 140 142 108 96 108 58 42 35 111 109 104 38 30 28 54 33 Safety Harbor 1 2 171 139 137 98 93 50 41 34 105 112 92 32 26 26 51 34 24 Safety Harbor 5 1 149 98 112 54 43 33 111 109 31 57 34 Captiva 1 6 176 145 131 100 129 85 101 111 105 95 34 32 24 50 29 Captiva 2 6 174 134 119 95 106 116 111 24 53 28 Captiva 2 3 171 143 137 98 124 87 105 51 41 35 115 103 103 32 30 23 53 25 27 13 Captiva 5 5 184 146 136 108 138 96 110 60 42 35 114 106 104 39 30 30 55 37 30 14 Captiva 2 4 176 140 125 99 129 95 106 103 109 93 33 28 26 52 26 Captiva 2 3 175 136 129 99 127 87 102 51 39 34 112 96 102 37 29 27 49 24 Captiva 5 5 178 149 135 101 120 56 26 Captiva 5 2 182 148 137 98 108 124 107 106 55 30 Captiva 5 4 177 141 128 105 132 91 105 55 41 35 112 104 84 39 38 25 53 30 28 13 Captiva 1 3 173 140 130 93 105 111 107 105 27 53 26 Captiva 5 2 172 140 134 106 129 94 105 53 40 32 113 106 85 35 27 28 52 29 29 12

223

F. Orb. Occ. Occ. eu- au- fmt- Orb. Mag br. at Mast. cond. cond. Site Sex Age g-op eu ba-b ba-n au ft-ft fmt n-ns d-ec Ht n-b b-l l-o ba-o br. n n-fmt br. leng. br. Captiva 2 2 173 149 131 90 101 113 107 100 25 50 25 Captiva 5 6 183 156 140 97 105 117 103 109 52 37 Captiva 5 6 176 144 133 102 135 92 105 113 102 94 40 25 52 34 Captiva 2 6 176 143 126 93 99 112 98 102 22 50 30 Captiva 5 6 180 152 97 107 113 96 106 28 53 31 Captiva 1 2 178 133 121 90 103 110 111 95 27 52 28 24 15 Captiva 5 6 183 132 126 95 106 113 115 101 27 54 35 Captiva 5 4 180 138 132 92 110 118 105 101 28 55 34 Captiva 5 5 183 148 135 101 112 120 107 28 56 34 Captiva 5 3 188 146 133 102 111 124 116 107 56 31 Captiva 1 2 176 136 134 102 121 89 101 54 38 34 112 101 94 34 23 48 29 26 15 Captiva 1 1 176 146 130 99 88 100 52 39 33 105 103 105 34 31 26 51 34 25 12 Captiva 1 5 169 141 126 87 101 110 91 102 51 26 Captiva 1 1 168 93 103 110 100 99 26 52 27 Captiva 5 4 180 149 144 109 137 96 110 121 112 99 34 31 27 55 26 26 14 Captiva 5 3 187 136 134 106 134 88 104 110 123 91 38 27 52 35 Captiva 4 3 188 155 151 108 135 95 41 34 124 118 105 34 29 30 53 30 Captiva 1 1 175 141 134 96 124 87 101 55 40 32 115 97 100 37 30 22 51 30 Captiva 1 5 188 128 97 104 123 118 27 51 31 Captiva 1 1 170 139 126 93 103 109 102 97 26 50 30 Captiva 5 6 181 148 130 85 100 116 98 113 27 50 33 Captiva 5 4 193 148 142 108 140 100 113 60 43 37 121 103 116 40 31 28 56 36 Captiva 2 2 170 135 131 100 128 86 100 50 38 31 110 107 87 33 28 26 50 32 Captiva 1 1 171 147 130 94 126 95 103 49 40 34 110 104 97 33 31 25 51 22 22 12 Captiva 5 3 186 150 140 105 137 95 108 41 37 118 112 96 38 33 28 54 26 Captiva 5 1 179 136 131 102 133 84 103 110 105 96 36 31 25 50 31 Captiva 2 1 172 139 131 101 123 93 103 50 42 36 108 102 94 35 30 26 50 24 28 14 Captiva 5 2 177 144 133 101 130 93 103 53 41 36 112 104 95 39 32 25 51 32 32 12 Captiva 1 5 176 147 125 90 117 106 100 23 52 27 Captiva 5 6 193 150 149 108 130 93 106 129 112 105 37 31 53 31 Captiva 2 6 176 139 138 104 128 89 102 116 102 101 36 28 52 28 27 16 Captiva 2 4 176 143 130 91 106 110 103 104 25 53 32 Captiva 5 6 177 153 141 97 120 110 97 27 Captiva 1 6 181 141 123 92 100 115 110 97 24 51 24 Captiva 1 1 171 139 131 95 124 92 100 57 40 37 110 108 96 38 29 26 50 23 25 14

224

APPENDIX C TIME AND GEOGRAPHY DISTANCE MATRIX

Warm Little Mineral Salt Bay Henderson Hughes Browne Bay Springs Gauthier Spring Windover West Palmer Mound Island Site 5 Pines Dunwody Warm Mineral Springs 5120 3760 1200 3320 7735 -1187 7660 8085 7410 8240 Gauthier 1.947 -1360 -3920 -1800 2615 3150 2540 2965 2290 3120 Little Salt Spring 0.031 1.916 -2560 -440 3975 4510 3900 4325 3650 4480 Windover 2.050 0.195 2.021 2120 6535 7070 6460 6885 6210 7040 Bay West 0.962 2.263 0.959 2.424 4415 4950 4340 4765 4090 4920 Palmer 0.278 2.047 0.295 2.128 1.222 535 -75 350 -325 505 Henderson Mound 2.585 2.050 2.572 1.902 3.436 2.440 -610 -185 -860 -30 Hughes Island 2.516 2.615 2.513 2.507 3.459 2.300 0.843 425 -250 580 Browne Site 5 3.408 2.136 3.387 1.942 4.108 3.333 1.175 1.983 -675 155 Bay Pines 0.912 2.051 0.916 2.072 1.874 0.668 1.872 1.639 2.879 830 Dunwody 0.159 2.099 0.186 2.205 0.909 0.321 2.719 2.615 3.560 0.989 McKeithan 3.209 2.721 3.199 2.562 4.094 3.036 0.697 0.937 1.303 2.418 3.332 Venice Beach Complex 0.205 2.075 0.230 2.165 1.122 0.108 2.539 2.407 3.418 0.775 0.215 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.388 2.015 0.398 2.085 1.345 0.132 2.317 2.168 3.227 0.537 0.451 Yellow Bluffs 0.409 2.012 0.419 2.080 1.367 0.155 2.297 2.145 3.210 0.515 0.474 Casey Key 0.287 2.054 0.304 2.135 1.229 0.010 2.439 2.296 3.335 0.663 0.327 Crystal River 1.885 1.908 1.876 1.821 2.791 1.710 0.769 0.751 1.864 1.110 2.006 Bayshore Homes 0.898 2.026 0.901 2.047 1.860 0.658 1.867 1.646 2.867 0.026 0.978 Hutchinson Island 2.094 1.306 2.066 1.494 1.794 2.327 3.297 3.736 3.429 2.678 2.189 Manasota 0.158 2.102 0.189 2.203 0.987 0.247 2.663 2.546 3.520 0.915 0.078 Bird Island 2.582 2.706 2.579 2.598 3.528 2.361 0.914 0.091 2.040 1.697 2.678 Republic Groves 0.664 1.287 0.633 1.400 1.179 0.812 2.288 2.437 2.933 1.114 0.813 Highland Beach 2.293 2.091 2.271 2.284 1.642 2.563 3.996 4.339 4.226 3.062 2.336 Margate-Blount Mound 2.121 2.099 2.100 2.294 1.432 2.394 3.942 4.245 4.232 2.917 2.155 Fort Walton Temple Mound 5.484 6.156 5.497 6.056 6.410 5.208 4.280 3.552 5.128 4.623 5.505 Safety Harbor 1.037 1.905 1.034 1.909 1.988 0.825 1.657 1.481 2.654 0.225 1.136 Captiva Island 0.462 2.252 0.476 2.380 0.609 0.666 3.047 2.962 3.849 1.334 0.347 Temporal distance (based on average dates) between sites on the top half and geographic distance between sites on the bottom half.

225

Venice Sarasota Beach Bay Yellow Casey Crystal Bayshore Hutchinson Bird McKeithan Complex Mound Bluffs Key River Homes Island Manasota Island Warm Mineral Springs 7895 7610 8760 7570 8160 7390 6655 7610 7645 5360 Gauthier 2775 2490 3640 2450 3040 2270 1535 2490 2525 240 Little Salt Spring 4135 3850 5000 3810 4400 3630 2895 3850 3885 1600 Windover 6695 6410 7560 6370 6960 6190 5455 6410 6445 4160 Bay West 4575 4290 5440 4250 4840 4070 3335 4290 4325 2040 Palmer 160 -125 1025 -165 425 -345 -1080 -125 -90 -2375 Henderson Mound -375 -660 490 -700 -110 -880 -1615 -660 -625 -2910 Hughes Island 235 -50 1100 -90 500 -270 -1005 -50 -15 -2300 Browne Site 5 -190 -475 675 -515 75 -695 -1430 -475 -440 -2725 Bay Pines 485 200 1350 160 750 -20 -755 200 235 -2050 Dunwody -345 -630 520 -670 -80 -850 -1585 -630 -595 -2880 McKeithan -285 865 -325 265 -505 -1240 -285 -250 -2535 Venice Beach Complex 3.140 1150 -40 550 -220 -955 0 35 -2250 Sarasota Bay Mound 2.908 0.239 -1190 -600 -1370 -2105 -1150 -1115 -3400 Yellow Bluffs 2.886 0.262 0.023 590 -180 -915 40 75 -2210 Casey Key 3.034 0.112 0.128 0.151 -770 -1505 -550 -515 -2800 Crystal River 1.327 1.813 1.582 1.561 1.708 -735 220 255 -2030 Bayshore Homes 2.418 0.765 0.527 0.504 0.654 1.106 955 990 -1295 Hutchinson Island 3.986 2.292 2.372 2.382 2.336 2.988 2.653 35 -2250 Manasota 3.270 0.140 0.378 0.401 0.252 1.944 0.905 2.236 -2285 Bird Island 0.948 2.468 2.229 2.206 2.357 0.839 1.705 3.825 2.607 Republic Groves 2.964 0.815 0.824 0.830 0.821 1.712 1.089 1.574 0.822 2.517 Highland Beach 4.693 2.497 2.644 2.660 2.573 3.589 3.039 0.820 2.402 4.424 Margate-Blount Mound 4.639 2.324 2.481 2.498 2.404 3.499 2.895 0.893 2.223 4.329 Fort Walton Temple Mound 3.838 5.300 5.099 5.079 5.200 4.251 4.644 7.186 5.428 3.462 Safety Harbor 2.220 0.932 0.694 0.671 0.822 0.901 0.214 2.631 1.068 1.545 Captiva Island 3.670 0.559 0.797 0.820 0.671 2.345 1.324 2.136 0.419 3.024

226

Fort Margate- Walton Republic Highland Blount Temple Safety Captiva Groves Beach Mound Mound Harbor Island Warm Mineral Springs 3328 8360 8485 8760 8310 7870 Gauthier -1792 3240 3365 3640 3190 2750 Little Salt Spring -432 4600 4725 5000 4550 4110 Windover 2128 7160 7285 7560 7110 6670 Bay West 8 5040 5165 5440 4990 4550 Palmer -4407 625 750 1025 575 135 Henderson Mound -4942 90 215 490 40 -400 Hughes Island -4332 700 825 1100 650 210 Browne Site 5 -4757 275 400 675 225 -215 Bay Pines -4082 950 1075 1350 900 460 Dunwody -4912 120 245 520 70 -370 McKeithan -4567 465 590 865 415 -25 Venice Beach Complex -4282 750 875 1150 700 260 Sarasota Bay Mound -5432 -400 -275 0 -450 -890 Yellow Bluffs -4242 790 915 1190 740 300 Casey Key -4832 200 325 600 150 -290 Crystal River -4062 970 1095 1370 920 480 Bayshore Homes -3327 1705 1830 2105 1655 1215 Hutchinson Island -4282 750 875 1150 700 260 Manasota -4317 715 840 1115 665 225 Bird Island -2032 3000 3125 3400 2950 2510 Republic Groves 5032 5157 5432 4982 4542 Highland Beach 1.969 125 400 -50 -490 Margate-Blount Mound 1.843 0.219 275 -175 -615 Fort Walton Temple Mound 5.704 7.672 7.537 -450 -890 Safety Harbor 1.101 3.070 2.938 4.602 -440 Captiva Island 0.987 2.162 1.966 5.808 1.482

227

APPENDIX D RESULTS

Table D- 1. Independent sample t-test for equality of means 95% Confidence

Interval of the Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper Sex Equal variances assumed 0.42 42.00 0.68 0.23 0.54 -0.87 1.32 Equal variances not 0.42 41.98 0.68 0.23 0.54 -0.87 1.32 assumed Age Equal variances assumed -0.43 42.00 0.67 -0.18 0.43 -1.04 0.68 Equal variances not -0.43 41.70 0.67 -0.18 0.43 -1.04 0.68 assumed Max length Equal variances assumed 0.10 40.00 0.92 0.24 2.27 -4.35 4.83 Equal variances not 0.10 40.00 0.92 0.24 2.27 -4.35 4.83 assumed Max breadth Equal variances assumed -0.27 38.00 0.79 -0.50 1.88 -4.31 3.31 Equal variances not -0.27 37.97 0.79 -0.50 1.88 -4.31 3.31 assumed Bizygomatic Equal variances assumed -0.20 4.00 0.85 -0.33 1.67 -4.96 4.29 breadth Equal variances not -0.20 3.99 0.85 -0.33 1.67 -4.96 4.30 assumed Ba-B Equal variances assumed 0.13 20.00 0.90 0.27 2.16 -4.24 4.79 Equal variances not 0.13 19.97 0.90 0.27 2.16 -4.24 4.79 assumed Ba-N Equal variances assumed 0.00 20.00 1.00 0.00 1.80 -3.76 3.76 Equal variances not 0.00 20.00 1.00 0.00 1.80 -3.76 3.76 assumed Ba-Pr Equal variances assumed 0.29 16.00 0.77 0.33 1.14 -2.08 2.74 Equal variances not 0.29 15.71 0.77 0.33 1.14 -2.08 2.75 assumed Max. alveolar Equal variances assumed 0.40 16.00 0.70 0.44 1.12 -1.94 2.83 breadth Equal variances not 0.40 15.91 0.70 0.44 1.12 -1.94 2.83 assumed Max alveolar Equal variances assumed -0.72 24.00 0.48 -0.62 0.85 -2.38 1.15 length Equal variances not -0.72 23.89 0.48 -0.62 0.85 -2.38 1.15 assumed Biauricular Equal variances assumed 0.28 34.00 0.78 0.44 1.57 -2.75 3.64 Equal variances not 0.28 33.94 0.78 0.44 1.57 -2.75 3.64 assumed N-Pr Equal variances assumed -0.15 18.00 0.88 -0.30 1.98 -4.47 3.87 Equal variances not -0.15 18.00 0.88 -0.30 1.98 -4.47 3.87 assumed Min Frontal Equal variances assumed 0.28 38.00 0.78 0.40 1.44 -2.51 3.31 breadth Equal variances not 0.28 37.94 0.78 0.40 1.44 -2.51 3.31 assumed Upper facial Equal variances assumed -0.14 37.00 0.89 -0.19 1.30 -2.81 2.44 breadth Equal variances not -0.14 36.93 0.89 -0.19 1.29 -2.81 2.44 assumed

228

Table D- 1. Continued 95% Confidence

Interval of the Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper N-Ns Equal variances assumed 0.24 22.00 0.81 0.33 1.40 -2.57 3.24 Equal variances not 0.24 22.00 0.81 0.33 1.40 -2.57 3.24 assumed Nasal breadth Equal variances assumed 0.33 22.00 0.74 0.25 0.75 -1.31 1.81 Equal variances not 0.33 20.75 0.74 0.25 0.75 -1.31 1.81 assumed Orbital Equal variances assumed -0.23 19.00 0.82 -0.17 0.76 -1.76 1.41 breadth Equal variances not -0.23 18.99 0.82 -0.17 0.75 -1.75 1.41 assumed Orbital height Equal variances assumed -0.23 21.00 0.82 -0.15 0.65 -1.50 1.19 Equal variances not -0.23 20.49 0.82 -0.15 0.65 -1.50 1.20 assumed Biorbital Equal variances assumed 0.20 12.00 0.84 0.43 2.14 -4.23 5.08 breadth Equal variances not 0.20 11.98 0.84 0.43 2.14 -4.23 5.08 assumed Interorbital Equal variances assumed 1.02 16.00 0.32 0.89 0.87 -0.95 2.73 breadth Equal variances not 1.02 15.98 0.32 0.89 0.87 -0.95 2.73 assumed Frontal chord Equal variances assumed -0.21 42.00 0.84 -0.36 1.76 -3.92 3.19 Equal variances not -0.21 42.00 0.84 -0.36 1.76 -3.92 3.19 assumed Parietal chord Equal variances assumed 0.00 40.00 1.00 0.00 1.67 -3.37 3.37 Equal variances not 0.00 39.68 1.00 0.00 1.67 -3.37 3.37 assumed Occipital Equal variances assumed -0.36 34.00 0.72 -0.61 1.70 -4.06 2.84 chord Equal variances not -0.36 33.91 0.72 -0.61 1.70 -4.06 2.84 assumed Foramen Equal variances assumed 0.18 20.00 0.86 0.18 1.01 -1.92 2.28 magnum Equal variances not 0.18 19.76 0.86 0.18 1.01 -1.92 2.28 length assumed Foramen Equal variances assumed -0.65 22.00 0.53 -0.58 0.90 -2.46 1.29 magnum Equal variances not -0.65 21.63 0.53 -0.58 0.90 -2.46 1.29 breadth assumed Mastoid Equal variances assumed 0.90 19.00 0.38 1.15 1.28 -1.52 3.83 length Equal variances not 0.90 18.92 0.38 1.15 1.28 -1.52 3.83 assumed Orbital Equal variances assumed 0.32 34.00 0.75 0.22 0.70 -1.20 1.65 breadth at n Equal variances not 0.32 33.74 0.75 0.22 0.70 -1.20 1.65 assumed n-fmt Equal variances assumed 0.84 40.00 0.41 0.62 0.74 -0.87 2.11 Equal variances not 0.84 39.82 0.41 0.62 0.74 -0.87 2.11 assumed Mastoid Equal variances assumed -4.16 40.00 0.00 -4.71 1.13 -7.00 -2.43 length 2 Equal variances not -4.16 39.99 0.00 -4.71 1.13 -7.00 -2.43 assumed

229

Table D- 1. Continued 95% Confidence

Interval of the Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper Mastoid Equal variances assumed 0.29 42.00 0.78 0.23 0.79 -1.37 1.83 breadth Equal variances not 0.29 41.81 0.78 0.23 0.79 -1.37 1.83 assumed Occipital Equal variances assumed 0.36 24.00 0.72 0.23 0.64 -1.09 1.55 condyle Equal variances not 0.36 23.99 0.72 0.23 0.64 -1.09 1.55 length assumed Occipital Equal variances assumed -0.74 24.00 0.47 -0.38 0.52 -1.46 0.69 condyle Equal variances not -0.74 24.00 0.47 -0.38 0.52 -1.46 0.69 breadth assumed Chin Equal variances assumed -0.13 16.00 0.90 -0.11 0.87 -1.95 1.73 Equal variances not -0.13 16.00 0.90 -0.11 0.87 -1.95 1.73 assumed Body height Equal variances assumed 0.14 28.00 0.89 0.13 0.94 -1.80 2.07 Equal variances not 0.14 27.98 0.89 0.13 0.94 -1.80 2.07 assumed Body thick l Equal variances assumed -0.12 30.00 0.91 -0.06 0.54 -1.17 1.04 Equal variances not -0.12 29.96 0.91 -0.06 0.54 -1.17 1.04 assumed Bigonial Equal variances assumed -0.36 24.00 0.72 -0.69 1.93 -4.67 3.28 Equal variances not -0.36 23.99 0.72 -0.69 1.93 -4.67 3.28 assumed Bicondylar Equal variances assumed 0.06 8.00 0.95 0.20 3.17 -7.11 7.51 Equal variances not 0.06 7.99 0.95 0.20 3.17 -7.11 7.51 assumed Min ramus Equal variances assumed -0.25 33.00 0.81 -0.31 1.25 -2.85 2.23 Equal variances not -0.25 32.52 0.81 -0.31 1.25 -2.86 2.24 assumed Max ramus Equal variances assumed 0.17 26.00 0.86 0.36 2.06 -3.88 4.59 Equal variances not 0.17 25.92 0.86 0.36 2.06 -3.88 4.59 assumed Ramus height Equal variances assumed -0.05 26.00 0.96 -0.07 1.45 -3.05 2.91 Equal variances not -0.05 25.86 0.96 -0.07 1.45 -3.05 2.91 assumed Mand l Equal variances assumed -0.03 26.00 0.97 -0.07 2.10 -4.39 4.24 Equal variances not -0.03 25.96 0.97 -0.07 2.10 -4.39 4.24 assumed Mand angle Equal variances assumed 0.11 26.00 0.91 0.21 1.89 -3.67 4.10 Equal variances not 0.11 25.99 0.91 0.21 1.89 -3.67 4.10 assumed

230

Table D- 2. Principle Component Results Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity % variance accounted for Approx. by first two Chi Question Sites components KMO squared df sig. All sites Warm Mineral Springs, Gauthier, Little Salt Spring, Windover, Bay West, Palmer, Henderson Mound, Hughes Island, Browne Site 5, Bay Pines, Dunwody, McKeithan, Venice Beach Complex, Sarasota Bay Mound, Yellow Bluffs, Casey Key, Crystal River, Bayshore Homes, Hutchinson Island, Manasota, Bird Island, Republic Groves, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount Mound, Fort Walton Temple Mound, Safety Harbor, Captiva Island 39.12 0.820 2934.6 190 0.000 Palmer, Henderson Mound, Hughes Island, Browne Site 5, Bay Pines, Dunwody, McKeithan, Venice Beach Complex, Sarasota Bay Mound, Yellow Bluffs, Casey Key, Crystal River, Bayshore Homes, Hutchinson Island, Manasota, Bird Island, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount Mound, Fort Walton Temple Mound, Safety Harbor, Captiva Island 36.902 0.807 1961.42 190 0.000 Palmer, Henderson Mound, Hughes Island, Browne Site 5, Bay Pines, Dunwody, McKeithan, Venice Beach Complex, Sarasota Bay Mound, Yellow Bluffs, Casey Key, Crystal River, Bayshore Homes, Hutchinson Island, Manasota, Highland Beach, Margate- Blount Mound, Fort Walton Temple Mound, Safety Harbor, Captiva Island 36.507 0.804 1889.37 190 0.000

Archaic Warm Mineral Spring, Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, Republic Groves, Gauthier, Bird Island 45.059 0.819 1182.61 190 0.000 Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, Republic Groves, Gauthier, Bird Island 42.79 0.808 1072.50 190 0.000 Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, Republic Groves, Gauthier 42.644 0.807 986.737 190 0.000 Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, Gauthier 44.474 0.811 955.321 190 0.000

231

Table D- 2. Continued Bartlett’s Test of % variance Sphericity accounted for Approx. by first two Chi Question Sites components KMO squared df sig. Weeden Crystal River, McKeithan, Hughes Island, Bay Island/ Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Manasota Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Venice Beach Complex, Yellow Bluffs 36.126 0.744 999.1 190 0.000

Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound 35.971 0.741 956.424 190 0.000

Weeden Crystal River, McKeithan, Hughes Island, Island Yellow Bluffs, Bay Pines 35.507 0.433 389.758 190 0.000

Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines 36.008 0.482 378.054 190 0.000

Manasota Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Venice Beach Complex, Yellow Bluffs 39.001 0.744 929.845 190 0.000 Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound 39.112 0.745 907.661 190 0.000 Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound 39.969 0.74 906.058 190 0.000 Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound 40.984 0.728 895.983 190 0.000

South Florida Dunwody, Captiva, Hutchinson Island, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount 41.855 0.764 973.7 190 0.000 Captiva, Hutchinson Island, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount 42.586 0.759 954.813 190 0.000

Weeden Island/ Alachua/ St. Johns/ Fort Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Walton Henderson Mound, Browne Site 5 35.547 0.605 385.269 190 0.000 Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Fort Walton Temple Mound 34.782 0.559 398.62 190 0.000

232

Table D- 2. Continued Bartlett’s Test of % variance Sphericity accounted for Approx. by first two Chi Question Sites components KMO squared df sig. Manasota/ Crystal River, McKeithan, Hughes Island, Bay Safety Harbor Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Venice Beach Complex, Yellow Bluffs, Sarasota Bay Mound, Safety Harbor, Fort Walton Temple Mound 36.134 0.767 1168.48 190 0.000 Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Sarasota Bay Mound, Safety Harbor 36.031 0.762 1077.44 190 0.000

Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Sarasota Bay Mound, Safety Harbor 39.331 0.743 1032.64 190 0.000 Casey Key, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Sarasota Bay Mound, Safety Harbor 41.35 0.717 823.456 190 0.000

233

Table D- 3. Discriminant Function Results % variance Wilk's Lambda test of all accounted functions Cross- for by first Original validation two Wilk's Chi- classificati classification Question Sites functions Lambda squared df Sig. on % % All Warm Mineral Springs, Gauthier, Little Salt Spring, Windover, Bay West, Palmer, Henderson Mound, Hughes Island, Browne Site 5, Bay Pines, Dunwody, McKeithan, Venice Beach Complex, Sarasota Bay Mound, Yellow Bluffs, Casey Key, Crystal River, Bayshore Homes, Hutchinson Island, Manasota, Bird Island, Republic Groves, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount Mound, Fort Walton Temple Mound, Safety Harbor, Captiva Island 47.7 0.006 1924.84 520 0.000 63.4 41.6 Palmer, Henderson Mound, Hughes Island, Browne Site 5, Bay Pines, Dunwody, McKeithan, Venice Beach Complex, Sarasota Bay Mound, Yellow Bluffs, Casey Key, Crystal River, Bayshore Homes, Hutchinson Island, Manasota, Bird Island, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount Mound, Fort Walton Temple Mound, Safety Harbor, Captiva Island 42.4 0.012 1187.34 400 0.000 63.9 41.2 Palmer, Henderson Mound, Hughes Island, Browne Site 5, Bay Pines, Dunwody, McKeithan, Venice Beach Complex, Sarasota Bay Mound, Yellow Bluffs, Casey Key, Crystal River, Bayshore Homes, Hutchinson Island, Manasota, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount Mound, Fort Walton Temple Mound, Safety Harbor, Captiva Island 43.6 0.013 1140.22 380 0.000 64.6 40.4 Archaic Warm Mineral Spring, Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, Republic Groves, Gauthier, Bird Island 59.6 0.230 394.035 120 0.000 80.2 58.0 Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, Republic Groves, Gauthier, Bird Island 65.6 0.570 293.016 100 0.000 80.2 56.9 Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, Republic Groves, Gauthier 76.9 0.117 206.941 80 0.000 79.1 54.5 Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, Gauthier 86.7 0.239 126.126 60 0.000 48.2 53.5

234

Table D- 3. Continued % variance Wilk's Lambda test of all accounted functions Cross- for by first Original validation two Wilk's Chi- classification classification Question Sites functions Lambda squared df Sig. % % Weeden Crystal River, McKeithan, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Island/ Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Manasota Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Venice Beach Complex, Yellow Bluffs 66.4 0.024 503.619 200 0.000 76.3 45.4 Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound 74.1 0.043 414.858 140 0.000 77.6 54.4 Weeden Crystal River, McKeithan, Hughes Island, Yellow Bluffs, Bay Island Pines 79 0.008 147.412 80 0.000 95.5 59.1 Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines 100 0.095 64.805 40 0.008 95.0 65.0 Manasota Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Venice Beach Complex, Yellow Bluffs 54.6 0.056 288.385 140 0.000 75.7 48.7 Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound 62.5 0.099 226.418 100 0.000 75.0 50.0 Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound 72.8 0.174 163.497 80 0.000 73.8 52.3 Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound 81.7 0.248 124.027 60 0.000 71.6 50.0 South Florida Dunwody, Captiva, Hutchinson Island, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount 73.3 0.042 270.127 80 0.000 93.6 78.7 Captiva, Hutchinson Island, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount 83.1 0.062 225.781 60 0.000 92.9 72.7

235

Table D- 3. Continued % variance Wilk's Lambda test of all Cross- accounted functions Original validation for by first Wilk's Chi- classification classification Question Sites two functions Lambda squared df Sig. % % Weeden Island/ Alachua/ St. Johns/ Fort Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Henderson Walton Mound, Browne Site 5 86.6 0.023 145.903 80 0.000 90.4 46.2 Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Fort Walton Temple Mound 92.4 0.048 109.63 60 0.000 93.9 55.1 Manasota/ Crystal River, McKeithan, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Safety Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Harbor Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Venice Beach Complex, Yellow Bluffs, Sarasota Bay Mound, Safety Harbor, Fort Walton Temple Mound 56.9 0.013 700.175 260 0.000 76.0 44.7 Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Sarasota Bay Mound, Safety Harbor 64.9 0.024 555.884 180 0.000 77.0 50.3 Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Sarasota Bay Mound, Safety Harbor 70.3 0.059 311.947 120 0.000 76.8 47.2 Casey Key, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Sarasota Bay Mound, Safety Harbor 84.4 0.068 208.692 80 0.000 82.4 57.1

236

Table D- 4. Cross validation percentage results for Discriminant Function Analysis Warm Mineral Little Salt Bay Henderson Hughes Browne Bay Question Springs Gauthier Spring Windover West Palmer Mound Island Site 5 Pines Warm Mineral All sites Springs 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Gauthier .0 28.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.0 Little Salt Spring .0 .0 33.3 50.0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 .0 Windover .0 12.7 9.5 58.7 7.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Bay West .0 14.3 28.6 .0 28.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Palmer .0 11.4 .0 .0 .0 40.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 Henderson Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 33.3 .0 .0 Hughes Island .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 28.6 .0 .0 28.6 Browne Site 5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 Bay Pines .0 20.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 40.0 .0 .0 Dunwody .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 McKeithan .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Yellow Bluffs .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 Casey Key .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Crystal River .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.7 .0 .0 14.3 Bayshore Homes .0 .0 .0 3.4 .0 10.3 .0 6.9 .0 .0 Hutchinson Island .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 8.3 Manasota .0 .0 .0 .0 9.5 9.5 .0 .0 .0 9.5 Bird Island .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 16.7 16.7 Republic Groves .0 .0 .0 11.1 11.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Highland Beach .0 .0 .0 3.3 3.3 .0 .0 3.3 3.3 13.3 Margate-Blount Mound .0 .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 Fort Walton Temple Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 22.2 .0 .0 .0 Safety Harbor .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 Captiva Island .0 8.7 .0 2.2 4.3 13.0 .0 2.2 4.3 2.2

237

Table D- 4. Continued Venice Beach Sarasota Bay Yellow Casey Crystal Bayshore Hutchinson Question Dunwody McKeithan Complex Mound Bluffs Key River Homes Island Warm Mineral All sites Springs .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Gauthier 4.0 .0 4.0 .0 .0 8.0 4.0 .0 .0 Little Salt Spring .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Windover .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Bay West .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Palmer .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.1 2.3 11.4 .0 Henderson Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Hughes Island .0 .0 .0 14.3 .0 .0 28.6 .0 .0 Browne Site 5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 33.3 .0 .0 Bay Pines .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Dunwody 60.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 McKeithan .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Yellow Bluffs .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Casey Key .0 .0 .0 12.5 .0 12.5 .0 .0 .0 Crystal River .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 46.4 7.1 3.6 Bayshore Homes 6.9 .0 .0 3.4 .0 3.4 3.4 37.9 6.9 Hutchinson Island .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.3 .0 8.3 41.7 Manasota .0 .0 .0 4.8 .0 9.5 .0 19.0 4.8 Bird Island .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Republic Groves .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Highland Beach .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 6.7 .0 3.3 Margate-Blount Mound 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 .0 Fort Walton Temple Mound .0 11.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11.1 .0 Safety Harbor .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 Captiva Island 2.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.5 2.2 .0 .0

238

Table D- 4. Continued Bird Republic Highland Margate-Blount Fort Walton Safety Captiva Question Manasota Island Groves Beach Mound Temple Mound Harbor Island Total Warm Mineral All sites Springs .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Gauthier 4.0 .0 .0 .0 8.0 .0 .0 8.0 100.0 Little Salt Spring .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Windover 3.2 1.6 6.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Bay West 14.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.3 100.0 Palmer 11.4 6.8 .0 4.5 .0 .0 .0 2.3 100.0 Henderson Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 33.3 .0 .0 100.0 Hughes Island .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Browne Site 5 .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 100.0 Bay Pines .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 20.0 .0 .0 100.0 Dunwody .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 100.0 McKeithan .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 100.0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow Bluffs .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 100.0 Casey Key .0 12.5 .0 .0 12.5 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Crystal River .0 3.6 .0 .0 7.1 3.6 .0 3.6 100.0 Bayshore Homes 3.4 .0 .0 .0 3.4 .0 6.9 3.4 100.0 Hutchinson Island .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 100.0 Manasota 14.3 9.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.5 100.0 Bird Island 16.7 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Republic Groves .0 .0 77.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Highland Beach .0 .0 .0 53.3 .0 .0 .0 6.7 100.0 Margate-Blount Mound .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 100.0 Fort Walton Temple Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 11.1 44.4 .0 .0 100.0 Safety Harbor .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 81.3 .0 100.0 Captiva Island .0 2.2 .0 .0 2.2 .0 4.3 43.5 100.0

239

Table D- 4. Continued Henderson Hughes Browne Bay Venice Beach Sarasota Bay Yellow Question Palmer Mound Island Site 5 Pines Dunwody McKeithan Complex Mound Bluffs Palmer 43.2 .0 .0 .0 2.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Henderson Mound .0 33.3 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Hughes Island .0 28.6 .0 .0 28.6 .0 .0 .0 14.3 .0 Browne Site 5 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Bay Pines .0 .0 40.0 .0 20.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Dunwody 20.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 40.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 McKeithan .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Yellow Bluffs .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Casey Key 37.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.5 .0 Crystal River .0 7.1 3.6 .0 7.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Bayshore Homes 10.3 .0 3.4 3.4 .0 3.4 .0 .0 3.4 .0 Hutchinson Island .0 .0 .0 16.7 8.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Manasota 9.5 .0 .0 .0 9.5 .0 .0 .0 9.5 .0 Bird Island .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Highland Beach .0 3.3 3.3 3.3 10.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Margate-Blount Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 Fort Walton Temple Mound .0 33.3 .0 11.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Safety Harbor .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Captiva Island 15.2 .0 2.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 .0 .0 .0 .0

240

Table D- 4. Continued Fort Margate- Walton Casey Crystal Bayshore Hutchinson Bird Highland Blount Temple Safety Captiva Question Key River Homes Island Manasota Island Beach Mound Mound Harbor Island Total Palmer 11.4 2.3 11.4 .0 15.9 6.8 4.5 .0 .0 .0 2.3 100.0 Henderson Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 33.3 .0 .0 100.0 Hughes Island .0 28.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Browne Site 5 16.7 33.3 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 100.0 Bay Pines .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 .0 .0 20.0 100.0 Dunwody .0 .0 .0 20.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 100.0 McKeithan .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 100.0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow Bluffs .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 100.0 Casey Key 25.0 .0 12.5 .0 .0 12.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Crystal River .0 57.1 7.1 3.6 .0 .0 3.6 3.6 3.6 .0 3.6 100.0 Bayshore Homes 3.4 .0 37.9 6.9 10.3 .0 .0 3.4 .0 6.9 6.9 100.0 Hutchinson Island 8.3 .0 8.3 41.7 .0 .0 8.3 .0 .0 .0 8.3 100.0 Manasota 9.5 .0 19.0 4.8 14.3 9.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.3 100.0 Bird Island .0 .0 .0 .0 33.3 50.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Highland Beach 3.3 6.7 3.3 3.3 .0 .0 53.3 3.3 .0 3.3 3.3 100.0 Margate- Blount Mound .0 16.7 .0 .0 16.7 16.7 .0 16.7 .0 .0 16.7 100.0 Fort Walton Temple Mound .0 .0 11.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 11.1 33.3 .0 .0 100.0 Safety Harbor .0 6.3 .0 6.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 75.0 6.3 100.0 Captiva Island 4.3 2.2 .0 .0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 .0 4.3 50.0 100.0

241

Table D- 4. Continued Henderson Hughes Browne Bay Venice Beach Sarasota Bay Yellow Question Palmer Mound Island Site 5 Pines Dunwody McKeithan Complex Mound Bluffs Palmer 43.2 2.3 .0 .0 2.3 .0 .0 .0 2.3 .0 Henderson Mound .0 16.7 33.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Hughes Island .0 28.6 .0 .0 28.6 .0 .0 .0 14.3 .0 Browne Site 5 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 Bay Pines .0 .0 40.0 .0 20.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Dunwody 20.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 60.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 McKeithan .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Yellow Bluffs .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Casey Key 37.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.5 .0 Crystal River .0 7.1 3.6 .0 7.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Bayshore Homes 10.3 .0 .0 6.9 6.9 3.4 .0 3.4 3.4 .0 Hutchinson Island .0 .0 8.3 16.7 8.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Manasota 14.3 .0 .0 .0 14.3 .0 .0 .0 9.5 .0 Highland Beach .0 3.3 6.7 3.3 13.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Margate-Blount Mound .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 Fort Walton Temple Mound .0 33.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 11.1 .0 .0 .0 Safety Harbor .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Captiva Island 13.0 .0 2.2 4.3 8.7 4.3 .0 .0 .0 .0

242

Table D- 4. Continued Margate- Fort Walton Casey Crystal Bayshore Hutchinson Highland Blount Temple Safety Captiva Question Key River Homes Island Manasota Beach Mound Mound Harbor Island Total Palmer 13.6 2.3 13.6 .0 15.9 2.3 .0 .0 .0 2.3 100.0 Henderson Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 33.3 .0 .0 100.0 Hughes Island .0 14.3 .0 .0 .0 14.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Browne Site 5 16.7 33.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 100.0 Bay Pines .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 .0 .0 20.0 100.0 Dunwody .0 .0 .0 20.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 McKeithan .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 100.0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow Bluffs .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 100.0 Casey Key 25.0 .0 25.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Crystal River .0 57.1 7.1 3.6 .0 3.6 3.6 3.6 .0 3.6 100.0 Bayshore Homes 3.4 .0 34.5 6.9 6.9 .0 3.4 .0 6.9 3.4 100.0 Hutchinson Island 8.3 .0 8.3 41.7 .0 .0 .0 8.3 .0 .0 100.0 Manasota 9.5 .0 19.0 4.8 14.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.3 100.0 Highland Beach 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 .0 53.3 3.3 .0 .0 3.3 100.0 Margate-Blount Mound 16.7 16.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 .0 .0 16.7 100.0 Fort Walton Temple Mound .0 .0 11.1 .0 .0 .0 11.1 33.3 .0 .0 100.0 Safety Harbor .0 6.3 .0 6.3 .0 .0 .0 6.3 75.0 6.3 100.0 Captiva Island 4.3 2.2 2.2 .0 2.2 2.2 2.2 .0 4.3 47.8 100.0

243

Table D- 4. Continued Warm Mineral Little Salt Republic Question Springs Gauthier Spring Windover Bay West Bird Island Groves Total Warm Mineral Archaic Springs 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Gauthier .0 64.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 4.0 .0 100.0 Little Salt Spring .0 .0 16.7 50.0 16.7 .0 16.7 100.0 Windover .0 15.9 14.3 57.1 9.5 .0 3.2 100.0 Bay West .0 14.3 28.6 28.6 14.3 14.3 .0 100.0 Bird Island .0 16.7 .0 .0 .0 83.3 .0 100.0 Republic Groves .0 .0 .0 11.1 11.1 .0 77.8 100.0 Little Salt Bay Republic Gauthier Spring Windover West Bird Island Groves Total Gauthier 64.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 4.0 .0 100.0 Little Salt Spring .0 16.7 50.0 16.7 .0 16.7 100.0 Windover 15.9 14.3 57.1 9.5 .0 3.2 100.0 Bay West 14.3 28.6 28.6 14.3 14.3 .0 100.0 Bird Island 16.7 .0 .0 .0 83.3 .0 100.0 Republic Groves .0 .0 11.1 11.1 .0 77.8 100.0 Little Salt Bay Republic Gauthier Spring Windover West Groves Total Gauthier 60.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 .0 100.0 Little Salt Spring .0 16.7 50.0 33.3 .0 100.0 Windover 17.5 14.3 57.1 9.5 1.6 100.0 Bay West 28.6 28.6 28.6 14.3 .0 100.0 Republic Groves .0 .0 11.1 11.1 77.8 100.0

244

Table D- 4. Continued Little Salt Bay Question Gauthier Spring Windover West Total Gauthier 60.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 100.0 Little Salt Spring .0 16.7 66.7 16.7 100.0 Windover 14.3 15.9 58.7 11.1 100.0 Bay West 42.9 28.6 14.3 14.3 100.0 Weeden Venice Island/ Palmer Hughes Bay Beach Yellow Casey Crystal Bayshore Manasota Mound Island Pines Dunwody McKeithan Complex Bluffs Key River Homes Manasota Total Palmer Mound 52.3 4.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 22.7 2.3 6.8 11.4 100.0 Hughes Island .0 .0 42.9 .0 .0 .0 14.3 .0 28.6 .0 14.3 100.0 Bay Pines .0 40.0 20.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 40.0 100.0 Dunwody 20.0 .0 .0 60.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 .0 .0 100.0 McKeithan .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 100.0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 100.0 Yellow Bluffs .0 50.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 100.0 Casey Key 37.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 37.5 .0 25.0 .0 100.0 Crystal River .0 3.6 10.7 .0 .0 .0 3.6 .0 71.4 10.7 .0 100.0 Bayshore Homes 13.8 .0 3.4 3.4 3.4 6.9 .0 10.3 3.4 44.8 10.3 100.0 Manasota 9.5 4.8 9.5 4.8 .0 4.8 4.8 9.5 .0 23.8 28.6 100.0

245

Table D- 4. Continued Palmer Hughes Crystal Bayshore Question Mound Island Bay Pines Dunwody Casey Key River Homes Manasota Total Palmer Mound 65.9 4.5 .0 .0 15.9 2.3 4.5 6.8 100.0 Hughes Island .0 .0 42.9 .0 .0 42.9 .0 14.3 100.0 Bay Pines .0 40.0 20.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 40.0 100.0 Dunwody 20.0 .0 .0 60.0 .0 20.0 .0 .0 100.0 Casey Key 50.0 .0 .0 .0 37.5 .0 12.5 .0 100.0 Crystal River .0 3.6 10.7 .0 .0 78.6 7.1 .0 100.0 Bayshore Homes 17.2 .0 3.4 6.9 6.9 3.4 51.7 10.3 100.0 Manasota 14.3 4.8 9.5 4.8 9.5 .0 23.8 33.3 100.0 Weeden Hughes Yellow Crystal Island Island Bay Pines McKeithan Bluffs River Total Hughes Island 14.3 42.9 14.3 14.3 14.3 100.0 Bay Pines 20.0 20.0 .0 20.0 40.0 100.0 McKeithan .0 50.0 50.0 .0 .0 100.0 Yellow Bluffs 50.0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 100.0 Crystal River 3.6 14.3 3.6 .0 78.6 100.0 Hughes Crystal Island Bay Pines River Total Hughes Island 14.3 57.1 28.6 100.0 Bay Pines 40.0 40.0 20.0 100.0 Crystal River 7.1 10.7 82.1 100.0

246

Table D- 4. Continued Palmer Bay Venice Beach Casey Bayshore Question Mound Pines Dunwody Complex Yellow Bluffs Key Homes Manasota Total Manasota Palmer Mound 59.1 2.3 .0 .0 .0 15.9 11.4 11.4 100.0 Bay Pines .0 60.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 40.0 100.0 Dunwody 20.0 .0 60.0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 .0 100.0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 100.0 Yellow Bluffs .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 50.0 100.0 Casey Key 37.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 37.5 25.0 .0 100.0 Bayshore Homes 10.3 3.4 6.9 10.3 .0 6.9 51.7 10.3 100.0 Manasota 9.5 14.3 4.8 .0 4.8 14.3 23.8 28.6 100.0 Palmer Bay Bayshore Mound Pines Dunwody Casey Key Homes Manasota Total Palmer Mound 56.8 .0 .0 18.2 11.4 13.6 100.0 Bay Pines .0 60.0 .0 .0 .0 40.0 100.0 Dunwody 20.0 .0 60.0 .0 20.0 .0 100.0 Casey Key 37.5 .0 .0 37.5 25.0 .0 100.0 Bayshore Homes 13.8 3.4 6.9 6.9 55.2 13.8 100.0 Manasota 14.3 14.3 4.8 14.3 23.8 28.6 100.0 Palmer Bay Bayshore Mound Pines Casey Key Homes Manasota Total Palmer Mound 61.4 .0 15.9 11.4 11.4 100.0 Bay Pines .0 60.0 .0 20.0 20.0 100.0 Casey Key 37.5 .0 37.5 25.0 .0 100.0 Bayshore Homes 17.2 3.4 10.3 55.2 13.8 100.0 Manasota 23.8 4.8 9.5 28.6 33.3 100.0 Palmer Casey Bayshore Mound Key Homes Manasota Total Palmer Mound 56.8 18.2 9.1 15.9 100.0 Casey Key 37.5 37.5 25.0 .0 100.0 Bayshore Homes 17.2 10.3 55.2 17.2 100.0 Manasota 28.6 9.5 28.6 33.3 100.0

247

Table D- 4. Continued Question Dunwody Hutchinson Island Highland Beach Margate-Blount Mound Captiva Total South Dunwody 60.0 20.0 .0 .0 20.0 100.0 Hutchinson Island 8.3 58.3 .0 16.7 16.7 100.0 Highland Beach 3.3 3.3 73.3 6.7 13.3 100.0 Margate-Blount Mound 16.7 .0 16.7 66.7 .0 100.0 Captiva 8.7 2.2 6.5 4.3 78.3 100.0 Hutchinson Island Highland Beach Margate -Blount Mound Captiva Total Hutchinson Island 66.7 .0 16.7 16.7 100.0 Highland Beach 3.3 73.3 6.7 16.7 100.0 Margate-Blount Mound .0 16.7 66.7 16.7 100.0 Captiva .0 8.7 4.3 87.0 100.0 Henderson Mound Hughes Island Browne Site 5 Bay Pines Crystal River Total Weeden Henderson Mound 16.7 33.3 .0 16.7 33.3 100.0 Island/ Hughes Island 42.9 .0 14.3 42.9 .0 100.0 Alachua/ St. Browne Site 5 16.7 .0 66.7 .0 16.7 100.0 Johns/ Fort Bay Pines .0 40.0 .0 40.0 20.0 100.0 Walton Crystal River 10.7 3.6 3.6 21.4 60.7 100.0 Hughes Island Bay Pines Crystal River Fort Walton Temple Mound Total Hughes Island .0 28.6 42.9 28.6 100.0 Bay Pines 40.0 .0 40.0 20.0 100.0 Crystal River 10.7 10.7 75.0 3.6 100.0 Fort Walton Temple Mound 11.1 .0 22.2 66.7 100.0

248

Table D- 4. Continued Hughes Venice Beach Sarasota Bay Question Palmer Island Bay Pines Dunwody McKeithan Complex Mound Manasota/ Safety Harbor Palmer 47.7 2.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 Hughes Island .0 .0 28.6 .0 .0 .0 14.3 Bay Pines .0 40.0 40.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Dunwody .0 .0 .0 60.0 .0 .0 .0 McKeithan .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Yellow Bluffs .0 50.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Casey Key 50.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.5 Crystal River .0 7.1 14.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 Bayshore Homes 10.3 .0 .0 10.3 .0 3.4 3.4 Manasota 19.0 .0 9.5 .0 .0 .0 9.5 Fort Walton Temple Mound .0 22.2 .0 .0 11.1 .0 .0 Safety Harbor .0 .0 6.3 .0 .0 .0 .0

Table D- 4. Continued Yellow Crystal Bayshore Fort Walton Safety Question Bluffs Casey Key River Homes Manasota Temple Mound Harbor Total Palmer .0 20.5 .0 4.5 18.2 2.3 2.3 100.0 Hughes Island 14.3 .0 14.3 .0 14.3 14.3 .0 100.0 Bay Pines .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 .0 .0 100.0 Dunwody .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 .0 20.0 100.0 McKeithan .0 .0 50.0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 100.0 Venice Beach Complex .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 50.0 100.0 Yellow Bluffs .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 .0 100.0 Casey Key .0 25.0 .0 12.5 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Crystal River 3.6 .0 60.7 10.7 .0 3.6 .0 100.0 Bayshore Homes .0 10.3 .0 48.3 6.9 .0 6.9 100.0 Manasota .0 14.3 .0 23.8 23.8 .0 .0 100.0 Fort Walton Temple Mound .0 .0 .0 11.1 11.1 44.4 .0 100.0 Safety Harbor .0 6.3 6.3 .0 .0 6.3 75.0 100.0

249

Table D- 4. Continued Hughes Sarasota Casey Crystal Bayshore Safety Question Palmer Island Bay Pines Dunwody Bay Mound Key River Homes Manasota Harbor Total Palmer 56.8 4.5 .0 .0 2.3 20.5 .0 4.5 9.1 2.3 100.0 Hughes Island .0 .0 42.9 .0 14.3 .0 28.6 14.3 .0 .0 100.0 Bay Pines .0 40.0 40.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 .0 100.0 Dunwody 20.0 .0 .0 60.0 .0 .0 20.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 50.0 100.0 Casey Key 50.0 .0 .0 .0 12.5 25.0 .0 12.5 .0 .0 100.0 Crystal River .0 7.1 10.7 .0 .0 .0 71.4 10.7 .0 .0 100.0 Bayshore Homes 10.3 3.4 3.4 10.3 3.4 6.9 .0 48.3 6.9 6.9 100.0 Manasota 23.8 .0 9.5 .0 9.5 9.5 .0 23.8 23.8 .0 100.0 Safety Harbor .0 .0 6.3 .0 .0 .0 12.5 6.3 .0 75.0 100.0 Sarasota Casey Bayshore Safety Palmer Dunwody Bay Mound Key Homes Manasota Harbor Total Palmer 54.5 .0 2.3 18.2 11.4 11.4 2.3 100.0 Dunwody 20.0 60.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.0 100.0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.0 50.0 100.0 Casey Key 50.0 .0 12.5 25.0 12.5 .0 .0 100.0 Bayshore Homes 17.2 10.3 3.4 3.4 44.8 10.3 10.3 100.0 Manasota 23.8 4.8 9.5 14.3 28.6 19.0 .0 100.0 Safety Harbor .0 .0 .0 .0 18.8 .0 81.3 100.0 Sarasota Safety Palmer Bay Mound Casey Key Manasota Harbor Total Palmer 59.1 2.3 20.5 15.9 2.3 100.0 Sarasota Bay Mound .0 .0 50.0 .0 50.0 100.0 Casey Key 50.0 12.5 25.0 .0 12.5 100.0 Manasota 28.6 4.8 19.0 42.9 4.8 100.0 Safety Harbor .0 .0 .0 6.3 93.8 100.0

Table D- 5. R-Matrix Results

Question Sites Unbiased FST % variance Within-group Phenotypic Variance

250

accounted for by first two eigenvectors r(ii) Observed Residual All Warm Mineral Springs, Gauthier, Little 0.162 57.1 Salt Spring, Windover, Bay West, Palmer, Warm Mineral Springs 1.342 0.302 0.646 Henderson Mound, Hughes Island, Gauthier 0.066 0.896 -0.043 Browne Site 5, Bay Pines, Dunwody, Little Salt Spring 0.128 0.680 -0.197 McKeithan, Sarasota Bay Mound, Yellow Windover 0.152 0.760 -0.093 Bluffs, Casey Key, Crystal River, Bay West 0.085 0.680 -0.241 Bayshore Homes, Hutchinson Island, Manasota, Bird Island, Republic Groves, Palmer 0.072 0.712 -0.221

Highland Beach, Margate-Blount Mound, Henderson Mound 0.093 0.745 -0.167 Fort Walton Temple Mound, Safety Hughes Island 0.013 0.974 -0.018 Harbor, Captiva Island Browne Site 5 0.088 1.026 0.110

Bay Pines 0.018 0.633 -0.354

Dunwody 0.174 0.737 -0.093

McKeithan 0.269 1.291 0.556

Sarasota Bay Mound 0.103 0.410 -0.492

Yellow Bluffs 0.273 1.452 0.721

Casey Key 0.044 0.721 -0.240

Crystal River 0.114 0.789 -0.102

Bayshore Homes 0.089 0.860 -0.056

Hutchinson Island 0.149 1.031 0.176

Manasota 0.023 0.847 -0.136

Bird Island 0.081 1.048 0.124

Republic Groves 0.309 0.539 -0.156

Highland Beach 0.073 0.849 -0.083

Margate-Blount Mound 0.087 1.136 0.219

Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.135 1.168 0.298

Safety Harbor 0.181 0.737 -0.086

Captiva Island 0.040 0.894 -0.072

251

Table D- 5. Continued % variance Within-group Phenotypic Variance accounted for by first two Question Sites Unbiased FST eigenvectors r(ii) Observed Residual Palmer, Henderson Mound, Hughes 0.102 50.7

Island, Browne Site 5, Bay Pines, Palmer 0.077 0.743 -0.216 Dunwody, McKeithan, Sarasota Bay Henderson Mound 0.091 0.786 -0.159 Mound, Yellow Bluffs, Casey Key, Hughes Island 0.022 1.023 0.007 Crystal River, Bayshore Homes, Browne Site 5 0.111 1.053 0.129 Hutchinson Island, Manasota, Bird Bay Pines 0.040 0.653 -0.345 Island, Highland Beach, Margate-Blount Mound, Fort Walton Temple Mound, Dunwody 0.211 0.751 -0.068

Safety Harbor, Captiva Island McKeithan 0.224 1.333 0.526

Sarasota Bay Mound 0.109 0.405 -0.520

Yellow Bluffs 0.211 1.509 0.689

Casey Key 0.066 0.745 -0.226

Crystal River 0.098 0.822 -0.114

Bayshore Homes 0.069 0.894 -0.073

Hutchinson Island 0.128 1.042 0.135

Manasota 0.039 0.904 -0.094

Bird Island 0.076 1.024 0.064

Highland Beach 0.095 0.898 -0.042

Margate-Blount Mound 0.084 1.141 0.189

Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.095 1.208 0.268

Safety Harbor 0.150 0.784 -0.099

Captiva Island 0.054 0.930 -0.052

Palmer, Henderson Mound, Hughes 0.104 52.6

Island, Browne Site 5, Bay Pines, Palmer 0.080 0.749 -0.214 Dunwody, McKeithan, Sarasota Bay Henderson Mound 0.082 0.795 -0.166 Mound, Yellow Bluffs, Casey Key, Hughes Island 0.031 1.038 0.023 Crystal River, Bayshore Homes, Browne Site 5 0.113 1.071 0.142 Hutchinson Island, Manasota, Highland Bay Pines 0.042 0.661 -0.342 Beach, Margate-Blount Mound, Fort Walton Temple Mound, Safety Harbor, Dunwody 0.197 0.759 -0.081

Captiva Island McKeithan 0.268 1.341 0.575

Sarasota Bay Mound 0.121 0.408 -0.512

252

Table D- 5. Continued % variance accounted Within-group Phenotypic Variance Unbiased for by first two Question Sites FST eigenvectors r(ii) Observed Residual Yellow Bluffs 0.187 1.522 0.671

Casey Key 0.070 0.755 -0.218

Crystal River 0.094 0.832 -0.116

Bayshore Homes 0.071 0.901 -0.071

Hutchinson Island 0.122 1.055 0.136

Manasota 0.043 0.910 -0.092

Highland Beach 0.089 0.904 -0.049

Margate-Blount Mound 0.085 1.150 0.192

Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.096 1.233 0.286

Safety Harbor 0.141 0.790 -0.109

Captiva Island 0.050 0.938 -0.057

Archaic Warm Mineral Spring, Windover, 0.299 87.2 Little Salt Spring, Bay West, WMS 1.103 0.364 0.476 Republic Groves, Gauthier, Bird Gauthier 0.079 0.937 -0.070 Island LSS 0.047 0.743 -0.299 Windover 0.053 0.831 -0.205 Bay West 0.648 0.738 -0.285 Bird Island 0.366 1.169 0.476 Republic Groves 0.378 0.587 -0.093 Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay 0.150 81.1 West, Republic Groves, Gauthier, Gauthier 0.891 0.991 0.046 Bird Island LSS 0.032 0.786 -0.218 Windover 0.061 0.883 -0.092 Bay West 0.063 0.786 -0.019 Bird Island 0.327 1.218 0.519 Republic Groves 0.330 0.627 -0.068

253

Table D- 5. Continued % variance Within-group Phenotypic Variance accounted for by first two Question Sites Unbiased FST eigenvectors r(ii) Observed Residual Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay 0.099 79.9 West, Republic Groves, Gauthier Gauthier 0.099 1.041 0.174 LSS 0.050 0.844 -0.069 Windover 0.060 0.935 0.032 Bay West 0.036 0.839 -0.088 Republic Groves 0.249 0.673 -0.049 Windover, Little Salt Spring, Bay West, Gauthier 0.046 82.1 Gauthier 0.063 1.047 0.141 LSS 0.018 0.854 -0.094 Windover 0.070 0.947 0.048 Bay West 0.033 0.839 -0.095

Weeden Crystal River, McKeithan, Hughes Island/ Island, Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, Manasota Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota 0.137 65.0 Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Palmer Mound 0.100 0.815 - 0.258 Yellow Bluffs Hughes Island 0.065 1.111 -0.002 Bay Pines 0.067 0.699 -0.412 Dunwody 0.323 0.845 0.039 McKeithan 0.216 1.430 0.495 Yellow Bluffs 0.224 1.690 0.766 Casey Key 0.157 0.803 -0.202 Crystal River 0.110 0.904 -0.157 Bayshore Homes 0.059 0.983 -0.138 Manasota Key Cemetery 0.056 0.993 -0.131

254

Table D- 5. Continued % variance Within-group Phenotypic Variance accounted for by first two Question Sites Unbiased FST eigenvectors r(ii) Observed Residual Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay 0.098 85.4 Pines, Bayshore Homes, Casey Palmer Mound 0.092 0.921 - 0.088 Key, Dunwody, Manasota Key Hughes Island 0.069 0.944 0.194 Cemetery, Palmer Mound Bay Pines 0.050 0.963 -0.238 Dunwody 0.253 0.757 0.094 Casey Key 0.116 0.897 -0.068 Crystal River 0.138 0.874 0.052 Bayshore Homes 0.045 0.968 0.036 Manasota Key Cemetery 0.022 0.992 0.019

Weeden Island Crystal River, McKeithan, Hughes 0.365 88.1 Island, Yellow Bluffs, Bay Pines Hughes Island 0.261 1.139 - 0.233 Bay Pines 0.149 0.758 -0.822 McKeithan 0.424 1.301 0.232 Yellow Bluffs 0.644 1.799 1.137 Crystal River 0.347 0.897 -0.314 Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines 0.115 100.0 Hughes Island 0.130 1.199 0.227 Bay Pines 0.000 0.823 -0.295 Crystal River 0.215 0.945 0.068 Crystal River, Hughes Island, McKeithan 0.384 100.0 Hughes Island 0. 207 1.161 - 0.280 McKeithan 0.528 1.289 0.432 Crystal River 0.416 0.908 -0.152 Manasota Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, 0.150 80.6 Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Palmer 0.052 0.864 - 0.287 Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound, Bay Pines 0.137 0.748 -0.300 Yellow Bluffs Dunwody 0.332 0.869 0.057

255

Table D- 5. Continued % variance accounted Within-group Phenotypic Variance for by first two Question Sites Unbiased FST eigenvectors r(ii) Observed Residual Yellow Bluffs 0.355 1.791 1.008 Casey Key 0.105 0.872 -0.215 Bayshore Homes 0.051 1.038 -0.114 Manasota Key Cemetery 0.196 1.041 -0.149 Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, 0.159 90.4 Casey Key, Dunwody, Manasota Palmer 0.059 0.858 - 0.341 Key Cemetery, Palmer Mound Bay Pines 0.332 0.861 0.009 Dunwody 0.371 1.776 0.974 Casey Key 0.095 0.870 -0.283 Bayshore Homes 0.042 1.034 -0.187 Manasota Key Cemetery 0.052 1.036 -0.172 Bay Pines, Bayshore Homes, 0.055 90.0 Casey Key, Manasota Key Palmer 0.041 0.891 - 0.057 Cemetery, Palmer Mound Bay Pines 0.115 0.768 -0.107 Casey Key 0.051 0.882 -0.056 Bayshore Homes 0.051 1.063 0.124 Manasota Key Cemetery 0.016 1.068 0.095 Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, 0.026 90.2 Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer Palmer 0.018 0.886 - 0.094 Mound Casey Key 0.007 0.880 -0.111 Bayshore Homes 0.052 1.059 0.114 Manasota Key Cemetery 0.027 1.063 0.092

South Dunwody, Captiva, Hutchinson Florida Island, Highland Beach, Margate- 0.106 75.0 Blount Dunwody 0.190 0.727 - 0.017 Hutchinson Island 0.106 1.039 0.055 Highland Beach 0.142 0.899 -0.046 Margate-Blount 0.211 1.070 0.201 Captiva 0.104 0.942 -0.045

256

Table D- 5. Continued % variance Within-group Phenotypic Variance accounted for by first two Question Sites Unbiased FST eigenvectors r(ii) Observed Residual Captiva, Hutchinson Island, 0.120 72.7 Highland Beach, Margate-Blount Hutchinson Island 0.097 1.041 0.032 Highland Beach 0.126 0.890 -0.087 Margate-Blount 0.128 1.067 0.093 Captiva 0.128 0.937 -0.038

Weeden Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay 0.171 94.1 Island/ Pines, Henderson Mound, Browne Henderson Mound 0.079 0.865 0.181 Alachua/ St. Site 5 Hughes Island 0.080 1.090 0.045 Johns/ Fort

Walton Browne Site 5 0.529 1.106 0.572 Bay Pines 0.074 0.766 0.285 Crystal River 0.093 0.878 0.152 Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay 0.104 100.0 Pines, Fort Walton Temple Mound Hughes Island 0.072 1.072 0.039 Bay Pines 0.000 0.712 -0.402 Crystal River 0.165 0.863 -0.067 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.178 1.345 0.430

Crystal River, McKeithan, Hughes 0.137 64.0 Island, Bay Pines, Bayshore Manasota/ Palmer 0.093 0.782 - 0.221 Homes, Casey Key, Dunwody, Safety Harbor Hughes Island 0.037 1.073 0.008 Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer

Mound, Yellow Bluffs, Sarasota Bay Pines 0.069 0.678 -0.351 Bay Mound, Safety Harbor, Fort Walton Temple Mound Dunwody 0.297 0.812 0.035 McKeithan 0.247 1.356 0.524 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.214 0.447 -0.422 Yellow Bluffs 0.178 1.620 0.711 Casey Key 0.163 0.767 -0.158 Crystal River 0.129 0.872 -0.091

257

Table D- 5. Continued % variance Within-group Phenotypic Variance accounted for by Unbiased first two Question Sites FST eigenvectors r(ii) Observed Residual Bayshore Homes 0.071 0.943 -0.083 Manasota 0.050 0.962 -0.088 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.105 1.275 0.286 Safety Harbor 0.124 0.819 -0.149 Crystal River, Hughes Island, Bay Pines, 0.111 70.7 Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, Palmer 0.086 0.819 - 0.060 Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Hughes Island 0.074 1.125 0.234 Palmer Mound, Sarasota Bay Mound,

Safety Harbor Bay Pines 0.074 0.728 -0.162 Dunwody 0.226 0.839 0.095 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.160 0.459 -0.349 Casey Key 0.116 0.812 -0.037 Crystal River 0.149 0.916 0.097 Bayshore Homes 0.055 0.989 0.081 Manasota 0.023 1.002 0.062 Safety Harbor 0.146 0.860 0.039 Bayshore Homes, Casey Key, 0.121 86.8 Dunwody, Manasota Key Cemetery, Palmer 0.053 0.854 - 0.066 Palmer Mound, Sarasota Bay Mound, Dunwody 0.355 0.853 0.226 Safety Harbor Sarasota Bay Mound 0.147 0.458 -0.372 Casey Key 0.081 0.856 -0.037 Bayshore Homes 0.045 1.030 0.102 Manasota 0.032 1.036 0.095 Safety Harbor 0.130 0.896 0.051 Casey Key, Manasota Key Cemetery, 0.120 92.8 Palmer Mound, Sarasota Bay Mound, Palmer 0.080 0.898 0.008 Safety Harbor Sarasota Bay Mound 0.102 0.470 -0.399 Casey Key 0.068 0.872 -0.030 Manasota 0.071 1.077 0.178 Safety Harbor 0.278 0.941 0.242

258

Table D- 5. Continued % variance Within-group Phenotypic Variance accounted for by first two Question Sites Unbiased FST eigenvectors r(ii) Observed Residual Woodland/ Palmer, Henderson Mound, 0.104 52.6 Mississippian Hughes Island, Browne Site 5, Palmer 0.080 0.749 - 0.214 Bay Pines, Dunwody, McKeithan, Henderson Mound 0.082 0.795 -0.166 Sarasota Bay Mound, Yellow

Bluffs, Casey Key, Crystal River, Hughes Island 0.031 1.038 0.023 Bayshore Homes, Hutchinson Browne Site 5 0.113 1.071 0.142 Island, Manasota, Highland Bay Pines 0.042 0.661 -0.342 Beach, Margate-Blount Mound, Dunwody 0.197 0.759 -0.081 Fort Walton Temple Mound, McKeithan 0.268 1.341 0.575 Safety Harbor, Captiva Island Sarasota Bay Mound 0.121 0.408 -0.512 Yellow Bluffs 0.187 1.522 0.671 Casey Key 0.070 0.755 -0.218 Crystal River 0.094 0.832 -0.116 Bayshore Homes 0.071 0.901 -0.071 Hutchinson Island 0.122 1.055 0.136 Manasota 0.043 0.910 -0.092 Highland Beach 0.089 0.904 -0.049 Margate-Blount Mound 0.085 1.150 0.192 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.096 1.233 0.286 Safety Harbor 0.141 0.790 -0.109 Captiva Island 0.050 0.938 -0.057 Woodland Palmer, Henderson Mound, 0.099 51.9 Hughes Island, Browne Site 5, Palmer 0.087 0.764 - 0.230 Bay Pines, Dunwody, McKeithan, Henderson Mound 0.073 0.813 -0.196 Yellow Bluffs, Casey Key, Crystal

River, Bayshore Homes, Hughes Island 0.032 1.058 0.004 Hutchinson Island, Manasota, Browne Site 5 0.112 1.097 0.130 Highland Beach, Margate-Blount Bay Pines 0.035 0.670 -0.380 Mound, Captiva Island Dunwody 0.194 0.772 -0.105 McKeithan 0.247 1.386 0.566 Yellow Bluffs 0.209 1.548 0.687

259

Table D- 5. Continued % variance accounted Within-group Phenotypic Variance for by first two Question Sites Unbiased FST eigenvectors r(ii) Observed Residual Casey Key 0.061 0.775 -0.247 Crystal River 0.085 0.846 -0.150 Bayshore Homes 0.072 0.919 -0.092 Hutchinson Island 0.106 1.073 0.100 Manasota 0.053 0.923 -0.108 Highland Beach 0.077 0.916 -0.089 Margate-Blount Mound 0.095 1.174 0.188 Captiva Island 0.053 0.954 -0.077

Mississippian Sarasota Bay Mound, Safety Harbor, 0.549 100.0 Fort Walton Temple Mound Sarasota Bay Mound 0.092 0.384 - 1.141 Safety Harbor 0.793 1.130 0.783 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.763 0.757 0.358

260

Table D- 6. The biological distances and standard errors for those distances between the sites. Henderson Hughes Browne Bay Sarasota Bay Yellow Casey Palmer Mound Island Site 5 Pines Dunwody McKeithan Mound Bluffs Key Palmer 0.077 0.060 0.064 0.074 0.082 0.182 0.126 0.153 0.036 Henderson Mound 0.286 0.065 0.106 0.093 0.122 0.171 0.192 0.196 0.089 Hughes Island 0.184 0.012 0.104 0.061 0.121 0.151 0.152 0.170 0.073 Browne Site 5 0.168 0.245 0.274 0.119 0.084 0.208 0.173 0.204 0.091 Bay Pines 0.186 0.105 0.000 0.291 0.122 0.177 0.184 0.208 0.097 Dunwody 0.261 0.318 0.352 0.054 0.255 0.246 0.229 0.235 0.113 McKeithan 0.514 0.204 0.114 0.461 0.197 0.706 0.294 0.283 0.178 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.111 0.348 0.118 0.219 0.243 0.569 0.560 0.244 0.146 Yellow Bluffs 0.286 0.374 0.231 0.429 0.409 0.614 0.483 0.233 0.194 Casey Key 0.035 0.188 0.111 0.203 0.195 0.321 0.311 0.106 0.424 Crystal River 0.263 0.183 0.080 0.221 0.110 0.312 0.207 0.393 0.206 0.292 Bayshore Homes 0.042 0.256 0.195 0.164 0.172 0.241 0.407 0.215 0.250 0.115 Hutchinson Island 0.185 0.174 0.200 0.220 0.119 0.305 0.447 0.356 0.503 0.153 Manasota 0.017 0.213 0.084 0.133 0.070 0.189 0.495 0.094 0.315 0.049 Bird Island 0.106 0.241 0.057 0.201 0.125 0.428 0.288 0.143 0.408 0.101 Highland Beach 0.271 0.066 0.042 0.276 0.021 0.296 0.177 0.290 0.478 0.138 Margate-Blount Mound 0.173 0.133 0.177 0.245 0.120 0.349 0.358 0.295 0.449 0.116 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.288 0.007 0.072 0.277 0.118 0.434 0.138 0.249 0.169 0.282 Safety Harbor 0.141 0.435 0.260 0.229 0.270 0.325 0.614 0.097 0.206 0.213 Captiva Island 0.104 0.244 0.105 0.124 0.075 0.139 0.344 0.093 0.296 0.130 The biological distances are on the bottom half of the table and the standard errors for each analysis are on the top half.

261

Table D- 6. Continued Crystal Bayshore Hutchinson Bird Highland Margate- Fort Walton Temple Safety Captiva River Homes Island Manasota Island Beach Blount Mound Mound Harbor Island Palmer 0.037 0.018 0.045 0.017 0.056 0.037 0.064 0.062 0.036 0.021 Henderson Mound 0.068 0.076 0.078 0.075 0.105 0.052 0.090 0.057 0.101 0.072 Hughes Island 0.050 0.064 0.076 0.053 0.073 0.043 0.092 0.064 0.078 0.050 Browne Site 5 0.073 0.066 0.084 0.065 0.100 0.078 0.106 0.097 0.080 0.058 Bay Pines 0.066 0.074 0.078 0.063 0.096 0.051 0.095 0.083 0.093 0.058 Dunwody 0.091 0.083 0.102 0.080 0.135 0.089 0.126 0.122 0.099 0.067 McKeithan 0.144 0.171 0.187 0.185 0.184 0.139 0.194 0.149 0.203 0.160 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.170 0.145 0.176 0.128 0.161 0.156 0.185 0.166 0.132 0.123 Yellow Bluffs 0.144 0.150 0.194 0.162 0.201 0.180 0.206 0.154 0.149 0.154 Casey Key 0.070 0.050 0.066 0.044 0.077 0.053 0.079 0.088 0.068 0.049 Crystal River 0.036 0.059 0.037 0.071 0.037 0.063 0.054 0.049 0.031 Bayshore Homes 0.188 0.045 0.025 0.060 0.041 0.066 0.057 0.036 0.029 Hutchinson Island 0.297 0.149 0.048 0.089 0.044 0.077 0.079 0.071 0.048 Manasota 0.163 0.052 0.153 0.060 0.038 0.062 0.066 0.041 0.024 Bird Island 0.204 0.117 0.262 0.099 0.072 0.092 0.083 0.082 0.065 Highland Beach 0.209 0.271 0.142 0.180 0.216 0.062 0.054 0.062 0.029 Margate-Blount Mound 0.141 0.161 0.167 0.112 0.148 0.134 0.085 0.086 0.062 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.167 0.198 0.294 0.262 0.168 0.179 0.177 0.078 0.057 Safety Harbor 0.245 0.117 0.351 0.132 0.244 0.439 0.282 0.341 0.039 Captiva Island 0.173 0.152 0.211 0.066 0.179 0.158 0.157 0.233 0.178

262

Table D- 6. Continued Henderson Hughes Browne Site Bay Sarasota Bay Yellow Casey Palmer Mound Island 5 Pines Dunwody McKeithan Mound Bluffs Key Palmer 0.075 0.059 0.065 0.075 0.082 0.189 0.125 0.150 0.036 Henderson Mound 0.270 0.064 0.106 0.093 0.121 0.178 0.191 0.192 0.087 Hughes Island 0.174 0.009 0.107 0.066 0.121 0.165 0.150 0.167 0.071 Browne Site 5 0.178 0.248 0.296 0.118 0.083 0.212 0.178 0.202 0.093 Bay Pines 0.196 0.108 0.000 0.282 0.121 0.178 0.189 0.205 0.099 Dunwody 0.256 0.304 0.355 0.048 0.253 0.248 0.229 0.232 0.112 McKeithan 0.576 0.249 0.197 0.494 0.205 0.729 0.310 0.287 0.188 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.104 0.339 0.109 0.249 0.275 0.569 0.681 0.241 0.145 Yellow Bluffs 0.265 0.349 0.213 0.417 0.386 0.593 0.515 0.216 0.190 Casey Key 0.032 0.174 0.100 0.221 0.209 0.315 0.382 0.099 0.400 Crystal River 0.254 0.179 0.087 0.216 0.111 0.305 0.267 0.384 0.186 0.288 Bayshore Homes 0.051 0.246 0.205 0.160 0.168 0.232 0.427 0.236 0.237 0.124 Hutchinson Island 0.190 0.173 0.215 0.208 0.111 0.292 0.459 0.375 0.475 0.166 Manasota 0.015 0.204 0.081 0.144 0.088 0.191 0.565 0.084 0.291 0.046 Highland Beach 0.260 0.060 0.044 0.273 0.027 0.283 0.230 0.288 0.451 0.132 Margate-Blount Mound 0.171 0.135 0.184 0.235 0.122 0.336 0.418 0.294 0.424 0.125 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.293 0.014 0.094 0.271 0.106 0.421 0.147 0.283 0.160 0.290 Safety Harbor 0.135 0.411 0.250 0.226 0.261 0.314 0.647 0.099 0.184 0.204 Captiva Island 0.101 0.231 0.105 0.126 0.077 0.138 0.389 0.098 0.271 0.128

263

Table D- 6. Continued Crystal Bayshore Hutchinson Highland Margate-Blount Fort Walton Safety Captiva River Homes Island Manasota Beach Mound Temple Mound Harbor Island Palmer 0.037 0.019 0.046 0.017 0.036 0.064 0.063 0.035 0.021 Henderson Mound 0.068 0.075 0.078 0.074 0.051 0.090 0.059 0.099 0.071 Hughes Island 0.051 0.065 0.078 0.052 0.044 0.092 0.068 0.077 0.050 Browne Site 5 0.072 0.065 0.082 0.066 0.078 0.104 0.096 0.080 0.058 Bay Pines 0.066 0.074 0.076 0.065 0.052 0.095 0.081 0.092 0.058 Dunwody 0.090 0.082 0.100 0.080 0.087 0.124 0.121 0.097 0.067 McKeithan 0.153 0.174 0.189 0.193 0.147 0.202 0.150 0.206 0.166 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.169 0.148 0.178 0.126 0.155 0.184 0.171 0.132 0.123 Yellow Bluffs 0.141 0.148 0.191 0.159 0.176 0.203 0.152 0.146 0.150 Casey Key 0.069 0.051 0.068 0.043 0.052 0.080 0.089 0.067 0.049 Crystal River 0.036 0.058 0.037 0.036 0.062 0.054 0.047 0.030 Bayshore Homes 0.187 0.044 0.026 0.041 0.066 0.056 0.036 0.029 Hutchinson Island 0.285 0.141 0.049 0.044 0.077 0.077 0.070 0.047 Manasota 0.158 0.062 0.160 0.038 0.062 0.067 0.040 0.024 Highland Beach 0.202 0.265 0.143 0.176 0.061 0.055 0.060 0.028 Margate-Blount Mound 0.131 0.168 0.164 0.113 0.130 0.086 0.085 0.061 Fort Walton Temple Mound 0.170 0.188 0.278 0.270 0.181 0.185 0.077 0.057 Safety Harbor 0.231 0.116 0.336 0.126 0.416 0.269 0.330 0.038 Captiva Island 0.164 0.150 0.205 0.065 0.151 0.150 0.229 0.167

Little Salt Republic Gauthier Spring Windover Bay West Bird Island Groves Gauthier 0.064 0.029 0.055 0.099 0.087 Little Salt Spring 0.147 0.052 0.080 0.122 0.117 Windover 0.154 0.094 0.055 0.091 0.068 Bay West 0.120 0.131 0.156 0.133 0.108 Bird Island 0.494 0.401 0.476 0.562 0.165 Republic Groves 0.560 0.489 0.401 0.450 1.094

264

Table D- 6. Continued Gauthier Little Salt Spring Windover Bay West Gauthier 0.073 0.032 0.060 Little Salt Spring 0.177 0.047 0.091 Windover 0.175 0.106 0.063 Bay West 0.122 0.141 0.196 Palmer Mound Hughes Island Bay Pines Dunwody Casey Key Crystal River Bayshore Homes Manasota Palmer Mound 0.069 0.085 0.105 0.037 0.046 0.023 0.022 Hughes Island 0.252 0.069 0.144 0.094 0.056 0.068 0.058 Bay Pines 0.266 0.000 0.143 0.120 0.064 0.076 0.071 Dunwody 0.472 0.540 0.403 0.136 0.104 0.091 0.102 Casey Key 0.033 0.251 0.356 0.505 0.087 0.054 0.049 Crystal River 0.394 0.116 0.086 0.420 0.475 0.038 0.043 Bayshore Homes 0.083 0.214 0.169 0.299 0.138 0.212 0.028 Manasota 0.042 0.114 0.113 0.370 0.078 0.219 0.068 Palmer Dunwody Yellow Bluffs Casey Key Bayshore Homes Manasota Palmer 0.103 0.188 0.036 0.022 0.023 Dunwody 0.517 0.282 0.138 0.097 0.106 Yellow Bluffs 0.627 1.139 0.225 0.183 0.192 Casey Key 0.042 0.608 0.751 0.051 0.051 Bayshore Homes 0.081 0.407 0.551 0.136 0.025 Manasota 0.060 0.470 0.609 0.112 0.062 Palmer Bay Pines Casey Key Bayshore Homes Manasota Palmer 0.090 0.040 0.028 0.021 Bay Pines 0.294 0.126 0.081 0.082 Casey Key 0.047 0.382 0.057 0.051 Bayshore Homes 0.122 0.194 0.144 0.033 Manasota 0.037 0.179 0.084 0.104

265

Table D- 6. Continued Hughes Sarasota Bay Casey Crystal Bayshore Safety Palmer Island Bay Pines Dunwody Mound Key River Homes Manasota Harbor Palmer 0.068 0.084 0.093 0.151 0.036 0.044 0.023 0.020 0.048 Hughes Island 0.261 0.070 0.135 0.154 0.093 0.057 0.070 0.060 0.087 Bay Pines 0.272 0.003 0.125 0.207 0.119 0.065 0.076 0.073 0.099 Dunwody 0.367 0.478 0.274 0.259 0.126 0.093 0.082 0.087 0.106 Sarasota Bay Mound 0.271 0.126 0.393 0.820 0.172 0.184 0.166 0.149 0.157 Casey Key 0.035 0.263 0.366 0.430 0.263 0.085 0.055 0.047 0.083 Crystal River 0.377 0.134 0.099 0.325 0.506 0.470 0.038 0.042 0.052 Bayshore Homes 0.085 0.244 0.181 0.230 0.359 0.151 0.214 0.028 0.041 Manasota 0.037 0.138 0.135 0.252 0.220 0.069 0.222 0.073 0.051 Safety Harbor 0.288 0.344 0.322 0.392 0.255 0.350 0.286 0.162 0.237 Hutchinson Highland Margate - Island Beach Blount Captiva Hutchinson Island 0.061 0.100 0.054 Highland Beach 0.325 0.090 0.039 Margate-Blount 0.346 0.384 0.091 Captiva 0.278 0.307 0.428

266

Table D- 7. Correlation Matrix: Biodistance to Temporal and Geographic distances Temporal Geographic Question Correlation distance distance All Pearson Correlation 0.457** -0.067 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.231 N 325 325

All without Warm Mineral Pearson Correlation 0.059 0.041 Springs Sig. (2-tailed) 0.306 0.475 N 300 300

Archaic Pearson Correlation .66 7** - 0.206 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.371 N 21 21

Archaic without Warm Pearson Correlation 0.202 0.308 Mineral Springs Sig. (2-tailed) 0.471 0.265 N 15 15

Weeden Island/Manasota Pearson Correlation - 0.031 0 .433** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.835 0.003 N 46 46

Weeden Island Pearson Correlation 0.018 0 .762* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.970 0.046 N 7 7

Manasota Pearson Correlation 0.281 0.370 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.310 0.175 N 15 15

South Spearman's rho Correlation - 0.055 .79 4** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.881 0.006 N 10 10

Woodland Pearson Correlation - 0.050 .192 * Sig. (2-tailed) 0.587 0.036 N 120 120

Mississippian Spearman's rho Correlation 0.332 0.193 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.226 0.491 N 15 15 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

267

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anderson DG. 1996a. Approaches to modeling regional settlement in the Archaic period Southeast. In: Sassaman KE, and Anderson DG, editors. Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. p 157-176.

Anderson DG. 1996b. Models of Paleoindian and early Archaic settlement in the lower Southeast. In: Anderson DG, and Sassaman KE, editors. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. p 27-57.

Anderson DG, and Mainfort Jr RC. 2002a. An Introduction to Woodland archaeology in the Southeast. In: Anderson DG, and Mainfort Jr RC, editors. The Woodland Southeast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. p 1-19.

Anderson DG, and Mainfort Jr RC, editors. 2002b. The Woodland Southeast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Anderson DG, O'Steen LD, and Sassaman KE. 1996. Environmental and chronological considerations. In: Anderson DG, and Sassaman KE, editors. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. p 3- 15.

Anderson DG, and Sassaman KE, editors. 1996. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Ashley K, and White NM. 2012. Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the edge of the Mississippian world. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Austin R. 2001. An archaeological survey of unincorporated Alachua County, Florida (Phases 1 and 2). Report on file at Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Austin R. 2012. Bayshore Homes. Personal communication. Gainesville.

Austin R, Mitchem J, Fradkin A, Foss JE, Drwiega S, and Allred L. 2008. Bayshore Homes archaeological survey and National Register Evaluation. Report on file at Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, Pinellas Park.

Austin R, Mitchem J, and Weisman BR. In press. Radiocarbon dates and late prehistory of Tampa Bay. In: Wallis N, and Randall A, editors. New histories of Pre- Columbian Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Basu A, Namboodiri K, Weltkamp LR, Brown WH, Pollitzer WS, and Spivey MA. 1976. Morphology, serology, dermatoglyphics, and microevolution of some village populations in Haiti, West Indies. Hum Biol 48(2):245-269.

Beriault J, Carr RS, Stipp JJ, Johnson R, and Meeder J. 1981. The archaeological salvage of the Bay West site, Collier County, Florida. Fla Anthropol 34(2):39-58.

268

Buikstra JE. 1976. Hopewell in Lower Illinois Valley: A regional study of human biological variability and prehistoric mortuary behavior. Evanston: Northwest University, Archaeological Program Scientific Papers, no. 2.

Buikstra JE, and Ubelaker DH. 1994. Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains: Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey Press.

Bullen RP. 1951. The enigmatic Crystal River site. Am Antiq 17(2):142-143.

Bullen RP, and Bullen AK. 1976. The Palmer site. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 8: 1-53.

Cadien JD, Harris EF, Jones WP, and Mandarion LJ. 1974. Biological lineages, skeletal populations, and microevolution. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 18:194-201.

Callsen P. 2008. Glades period settlement patterns in the Everglades culture area. Masters Thesis, Florida Atlantic University.

Carr RS. 1981. Florida Anthropologist interview with Calvin Jones, Part II. Excavations of an Archaic cemetery in Cocoa Beach, Florida. Fla Anthropol 34(2):81-89.

Carr RS. 2012. Mississippian influence in the Glades, Belle Glade, and East Okeechobee areas of South Florida. In: Ashley K, and White NM, editors. Late prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the edge of the Mississippian world. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. p 62-80.

Carr RS, and Steele W. 1993. An archaeological assessment of the Hutchinson Island Site (8MT37), Martin County, Florida. AHC technical report #68. Miami: Archaeological and Historical Conservancy.

Chatters JC. 2010. Peopling the Americas via multiple migrations from Beringia: Evidence from the early Holocene of the Columbia Plateau. In: Auerbach BM, editor. Human variation in the Americas: The integration of archaeology and biological anthropology. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations. p 51-76.

Christman H. 1954. Hugh's Island Mound site. Unpublished paper, on file at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Clausen CJ, Brooks HK, and Wesolowsky AB. 1975. The early man site at Warm Mineral Springs, Florida. J Field Archaeol 2(3):191-213.

Clausen CJ, Cohen AD, Emiliani C, Holman JA, and Stipp JJ. 1979. Little Salt Spring, Florida: A unique underwater site. Science 203(4381):609-614.

Cockrell WA, and Murphy L. 1978. Pleistocene man in Florida. Archaeol East N Am 6:1- 13.

269

Collins HB. 1929. The "Lost" Calusa Indians of Southwestern Florida. Explorations and field work of the Smithsonian Institution in 1928. Washington DC: The Smithsonian Institution. p 151-156.

Cordell AS. 2004. Past variability and possible manufacturing origins of late Archaic fiber-tempered pottery from selected sites in peninsular Florida. In: Sanders R, and Hayes CT, editors. Early pottery: technology, function, style, and interaction in the lower Southeast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. p 63-104.

Corruccini RS. 1974. An examination of the meaning of cranial discrete traits for human skeletal biological studies. Am J Phys Anthropol 40(3):425-446.

Devor EJ. 1987. Transmission of human craniofacial dimensions. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 7(2):95-106.

Doran GH. 2002a. Introduction to wet sites and Windover (8DR246) investigations. In: Doran GH, editor. Windover: Multidisciplinary investigations of an early Archaic Florida cemetery. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Doran GH, editor. 2002b. Windover: Multidisciplinary investigations of an Early Archaic Florida cemetery. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Droessler J. 1981. Craniometry and biological distance: Biocultural continuity and change at the late-Woodland- Mississippian interface. Evanston: Center for American Archaeology at Northwestern University.

Dunbar JS, and Waller BI. 1983. A distribution analysis of the Clovis/Suwanee Paleo- Indian site of Florida—a geographic approach. Fla Anthropol 36(1-2):18-30.

Faught MK. 2004. The underwater archaeology of paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay, Florida. Am Antiq 69(2):275-289.

Faught MK, and Donoghue JF. 1997. Marine inundated archaeological sites and paleofluvial systems: examples from a karst-controlled continental shelf setting in Apalachee Bay, Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Geoarchaeology 12(5):417-458.

Faught MK, and Waggoner, Jr JC. 2012. The early Archaic to middle Archaic transition in Florida: An argument for discontinuity. . Fla Anthropol 65(3):153-176.

Friedlaender JS, Sgarmella-Zonta LA, Kidd KK, Lai LYC, Clark P, and Walsh RJ. 1971. Biological divergences in South-Central Bougainville: An analysis of blood polymorphism gene frequencies and anthropometric measurements utilizing tree models, and a comparison of these variables with linguistic, geographic, and migrational "distances." Am J Hum Genet 23(3):253-270.

Gallagher JC, and Warren LO. 1975. The Bay Pines site, Pinellas County, Florida. Fla Anthropol 28(3):96-116.

270

Goggin JM. 1949. The archaeology of the Glades area, southern Florida. New Haven: Yale Peabody Museum.

Gold M. 2005. Osteological Analysis of the Manasota Period Dunwody Site. Masters Thesis, University of Florida.

Gold M. 2006. Osteological analysis of the Manasota period Dunwody site. Fla Anthropol 59(1):35-51.

Greenman EF. 1938. Hopewellian traits in Florida. Am Antiq 3(4):327-332.

Griffin JW. 1988. The archeology of Everglades National Park: A synthesis. Tallahassee: National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center.

Griffin MC, Lambert PM, and Driscoll EM. 2001. Biological relationships and population history of native peoples in Spanish Florida and the American Southeast. In: Larsen CS, editor. Bioarchaeology of Spanish Florida: The impact of colonialism. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. p 226-273.

Harpending HC, and Ward R. 1982. Chemical systematics and human evolution. In: Nitecki M, editor. Biochemical aspects of evolutionary biology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p 213-226.

Holman R. 1975. A letter report to Mr. Dennis English on the excavations of the Hutchinson Island Burial Mound. On file at Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Hooton EA. 1973. Racial types in America and their relations to Old World types. In: Jenness D, editor. The American Aborigines: Their origin and antiquity. Fifth Pacific Science Congress, Canada, 1933. New York: Cooper Square Publishers.

Howells WW. 1973. Cranial variation in man: A study by multivariate analysis of patterns of difference among recent human populations. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Hrdlička A. 1922. The anthropology of Florida. Deland: The Florida Historical Society.

Hrdlička A. 1928. The origin and antiquity of man in America. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 4(7):802-816.

IBM Corp. Released 2010. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 19.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp

Jantz RL, and Owsley DW. 2001. Variation among early North American crania. Am J Phys Anthropol 114(2):146-155.

271

Jefferies RW. 2004. Regional cultures, 700 B.C. - A.D. 1000. In: Fogelson R, and Sturtevant W, editors. The handbook of the North American Indian: Southeast. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. p 115-127.

Katzmarzyk C. 1998. Evidence of stress in a Precolumbian population from Mound G at the Crystal River site, Florida. Masters Thesis, University of Florida.

Key P, and Jantz RL. 1981. A multivariate analysis of temporal change in Arikara craniometrics: A methodological approach. Am J Phys Anthropol 55(2):247-259.

Killgrove K. 2002. Defining relationships between Native American groups: A biodistance study of the North Carolina coastal plain. Masters Thesis, East Carolina University.

Killgrove K. 2009. Rethinking taxonomies: Skeletal variation on the North Carolina coastal plain. Southeast Archaeol 28(1):87-100.

Konigsberg LW. 1990a. Analysis of prehistoric biological variation under a model of isolation by geographic and temporal distance. Hum Biol 62(1):49-70.

Konigsberg LW. 1990b. Temporal aspects of biological distance: Serial correlation and trend in a prehistoric skeletal lineage. Am J Phys Anthropol 82(1):31-44.

Lane RA, and Sublett AJ. 1972. Osteology of social organization: Residence pattern. Am Antiq 37(2):186-201.

Livingston FB. 1972. Genetic drift and polygenic inheritance. Am J Phys Anthropol 37(1):117-126.

Loucks LJ. 1976. Early Alachua tradition burial ceremonialism: The Henderson Mound, Alachua County, Florida. Masters Thesis. Gainesville: University of Florida.

Lovejoy DA. 1985. Salvage archaeology on Bird Island (8DI52). Report on file with University of South Florida, Tampa.

Luer G. 1999. Cedar Point: A late Archaic through Safety Harbor occupation on Lemon Bay, Charlotte County, Florida. Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, Florida Anthropological Society Publications 14:43-56.

Luer G. 2011. The Yellow Bluffs Mound revisited: A Manasota period burial mound in Sarasota. Fla Anthropol 64(1):5-32.

Luer G, and Almy M. 1982. A definition of the Manasota culture. Fla Anthropol 35:34-58.

Luer G, and Almy M. 1987. The Laurel Mound (8SO98) and radial burials with comments on the Safety Harbor period. Fla Anthropol 40(4):301-320.

272

Luer G, and Hughes D. 2011. Radiocarbon dating the Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4), Sarasota, Florida. Fla Anthropol 64(1):33-46.

Lundstrom A. 1955. The significance of genetic and non-genetic factors in the profile of the facial skeleton. Am J Orthod 41(12):910-916.

Maples WR. 1987. Analysis of skeletal remains recovered at the Gauthier site, Brevard County, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No 31. Gainesville: Florida State Museum, Department of Anthropology. Report on file at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Marquardt W, and Walker KJ. 2012. Southwest Florida during the Mississippi period. In: Ashley K, and White NM, editors. Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. p 29- 61.

McFadden P. 2011. Discussions about Bird Island. Personal communication Kles M. Gainesville.

McGoun WE. 1993. Prehistoric peoples of South Florida. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Milanich JT. 1972. Excavations at the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound, Sarasota, Florida. Fla Anthropol 25(1):21-41.

Milanich JT. 1994. Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Milanich JT. 1995. Florida Indians and the invasion from Europe. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Milanich JT. 1998. Florida Indians from ancient times to the present. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Milanich JT. 2002. Weeden Island cultures. In: Anderson DG, and Mainfort J, Robert C, editors. The Woodland Southeast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. p 352-372.

Milanich JT. 2004. Prehistory of Florida After 500 B.C. In: Fogelson R, and Sturtevant W, editors. Handbook of North American Indians: Southeast. Washington DC.: Smithsonian Institution. p 191-203.

Milanich JT, Cordell AS, Knight J, Vernon J, Kohler TA, and Sigler-Lavelle BJ. 1997. Archaeology of northern Florida, A.D. 200-900: The McKeithan Weeden Island culture. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Milanich JT, and Fairbanks C. 1980. Florida archaeology. Orlando: Academic Press.

273

Miles AEW. 2001. The Miles method of assessing age from tooth wear revisited. J Archaeol Sci 28(9):973-982.

Mitchem J. 1989. Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric archaeology in west peninsular Florida. PhD dissertation. Gainesville: University of Florida.

Mitchem J. 2012. Safety Harbor: Mississippian influence in the Circum-Tampa Bay Region. In: Ashley K, and White NM, editors. Late prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the edge of the Mississippian world. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. p 172-185.

Murphy T. 1959a. The changing pattern of dentine exposure in human tooth attrition. Am J Phys Anthropol 17(3):167-178.

Murphy T. 1959b. Gradients of dentine exposure in human molar tooth attrition. Am J Phys Anthropol 17(3):179-186.

Neumann GK. 1954. Archaeology and race in the American Indian. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 8:213-242.

Ousley SD, Billeck WT, and Hollinger RE. 2005. Federal repatriation legislation and the role of physical anthropology in repatriation. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 48:2-32.

Owsley DW, Bennett SM, and Jantz RL. 1982. Intercemetery morphological variation in Arikara crania from the Mobridge Site (39WW1). Am J Phys Anthropol 58(2):179- 185.

Pearson MP. 1982. Mortuary practices, society, and ideology; an ethnoarchaeological study. In: Hodder I, editor. Symbolic and structural archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 99-113.

Pearson MP. 1999. Learning from the dead. In: Pearson MP, editor. The archaeology of death and burial. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. p 1-20.

Pietrusewsky M. 2000. Metric analysis of skeletal remains: Methods and applications. In: Katzenberg MA, and Saunders SR, editors. Biological anthropology of the human skeleton. New York: Wiley-Liss. p 375-415.

Pluckhahn TJ, Thompson VD, and Weisman BR. 2010. Toward a new view of history and process at Crystal River (8CI1). Southeast Archaeol 29(1):164-181.

Pollitzer WS. 1958. The Negroes of Charleston (S.C.): A study of hemoglobin types, serology, and morphology. Am J Phys Anthropol 16(2):241-264.

Powell JF, and Neves W. 1999. Craniofacial morphology of the first Americans: Pattern and process in the peopling of the New World. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 42:154-188.

274

Purdy BA. 1991a. Bay West. The art and archaeology of Florida's wetlands. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p 54-65.

Purdy BA. 1991b. Republic Groves. The art and archaeology of Florida's wetlands. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p 167-178.

Quinn RL, Tucker BD, and Krigbaum J. 2008. Diet and mobility in Middle Archaic Florida: Stable isotopic and faunal evidence from the Harris Creek archaeological site (8Vo24), Tick Island. J Archaeol Sci 35(8):2346-2356.

Randall AR, and Sassaman KE. 2010. (E)mergent complexities during the Archaic Period in Northeast Florida. In: Alt S, editor. Ancient complexities: New perspectives in Pre-Columbian North America. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. p 8-31.

Reichs KJ. 1984. Pearls or people: A biometric analysis of interregional exchange during Hopewell times. Cent Issues Anthropol 5(2):47-65.

Relethford JH. 1994. Craniometric variation among modern human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 95(1):53-62.

Relethford JH. 1996. Genetic drift can obscure population history: Problem and solution. Hum Biol 68(1):29-44.

Relethford JH. 2002. Apportionment of global human genetic diversity based on craniometrics and skin color. Am J Phys Anthropol 118(4):393-398.

Relethford JH. 2004. Boas and beyond: Migration and craniometric variation. Am J Hum Biol 16(4):379-386.

Relethford JH, and Blangero J. 1990. Detection of differential gene flow from patterns of quantitative variation. Hum Biol 62(1):5-25.

Relethford JH, Crawford MH, and Blangero J. 1997. Genetic drift and gene flow in post- famine Ireland. Hum Biol 69(4):443-465.

Relethford JH, and Harpending HC. 1994. Craniometric variation, genetic theory, and modern human origins. Am J Phys Anthropol 95(3):249-270.

Relethford JH, and Lees FC. 1982. The use of quantitative traits in the study of human population structure. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 25:113-132.

Rhine S. 1990. Non-metric skull racing. In: Gill R, editor. Skeletal attribution of race: Methods for forensic anthropology. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum Anthropological Papers. p 9-20.

275

Rolland V. 2012. The Alachua of North-Central Florida. In: Ashley K, and White NM, editors. Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the edge of the Mississippian world. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. p 126-148.

Rothhammer F, and Silva C. 1990. Craniometrical variation among South American prehistoric populations: Climatic, altitudinal, chronological, and geographic contributions. Am J Phys Anthropol 82(1):9-18.

Sanghvi LD. 1953. Comparison of genetical and morphological methods for a study of biological differences. Am J Phys Anthropol 11(3):385-404.

Sassaman KE. 2006. Dating and explaining soapstone vessels: A comment on Truncer. Am Antiq 71(1):141-156.

Sassaman KE. 2008. The new Archaic, it ain't what is used to be. The SAA Archaeological Record. Washington D.C.: Society for American Archaeology. p 6-12.

Saunders R. 2004. Spatial variation in Orange culture pottery: Interaction and function. In: Saunders R, and Hays C, editors. Early pottery: Technology, function, style, and interaction in the lower Southeast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. p 40-62.

Schillaci MA, and Stojanowski CM. 2005. Craniometric variation and population history of the prehistoric Tewa. Am J Phys Anthropol 126(4):404-412.

Schofield S. 2003. A model of migration: The Alachua culture. Unpublished paper on file at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Schuldenrein J. 1996. Geoarchaeology and the mid-Holocene landscape history of the greater Southeast. In: Sassaman KE, and Anderson DG, editors. Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. p 3-27.

Sciulli PW, Lozanoff S, and Schneider KN. 1984. An analysis of diversity in Glacial Kame and Adena skeletal samples. Hum Biol 55(4):603-616.

Sciulli PW, and Schneider KN. 1985. Cranial variation in the terminal Archaic of Ohio. Am J Phys Anthropol 66(4):429-443.

Sears WH. 1957. Excavations on lower St. Johns River, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum: Social Sciences no. 2.

Sears WH. 1958. Burial mounds on the Gulf coastal plain. Am Antiq 23(3):274-284.

Sears WH. 1960. The Bayshore Homes Site, St. Petersburg, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences no. 6.

276

Sears WH. 1973. The sacred and the secular in prehistoric ceramics. In: Lathrap DW, and Douglas J, editors. Variation in anthropology: Essays in honor of John C McGregor. Urbana: Illinois Archaeological Survey. p 31-42.

Sears WH. 1982. Fort Center: An archaeological site in the Lake Okeechobee basin. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Seasons SM. 2010. An assessment of microevolutionary change among prehistoric Florida populations through the analysis of craniometric data. Masters Thesis, University of South Florida.

Silbereisen A. 1954. Hugh's Island Mound (DI45). Unpublished paper on file at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Skow J. 1986. Surprising finds from a Florida sinkhole. Smithsonian 17(9):72-85.

Smith DG, Rolfs BK, Kaestle F, Malhi RS, and Doran GH. 2002. Serum albumin phenotypes and a preliminary study of the Windover mtDNA haplogroups and their anthropological significance. In: Doran GH, editor. Windover: Multidisciplinary investigations of an Early Archaic Florida cemetery. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Spielman RS. 1973. Differences among Yanomama Indian villages: Do the patterns of allele frequencies, anthropometrics, and map location correspond? Am J Phys Anthropol 39(3):461-480.

Steadman DW. 1998. The population shuffle in the Central Illinois Valley: A diachronic model of Mississippian biocultural interaction. World Archaeol 30(2):306-326.

Steadman DW. 2001. Mississippians in motion? A population genetic analysis of interregional gene flow in West-Central Illinois. Am J Phys Anthropol 114(1):61- 73.

Stephenson K, Bense JA, and Snow F. 2002. Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek of the South Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains. In: Anderson DG, and Mainfort J, Robert C, editors. The Woodland Southeast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. p 318-351.

Sternberg GM. 1875. Indian burial mounds and shellheaps near Pensacola, Florida. Proceedings from The Am Assoc Advance Sci. Detroit, Michigan. p 282-292.

Stojanowski CM. 2003. Differential phenotypic variability among the Apalachee mission populations of La Florida: A Diachronic Perspective. Am J Phys Anthropol 120(4):352-363.

Stojanowski CM. 2004. Population history of native groups in pre- and postcontact Spanish Florida: Aggregation, gene flow, and genetic drift of the southeastern United States Atlantic Coast. Am J Phys Anthropol 123(4):316-332.

277

Stojanowski CM. 2005a. Biocultural histories in La Florida: A bioarchaeological perspective. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Stojanowski CM. 2005b. Spanish colonial effects on Native American mating structure and genetic variability in Northern and Central Florida: Evidence from Apalachee and Western Timucua. Am J Phys Anthropol 128(2):273-286.

Stojanowski CM, and Doran GH. 1998. Osteology of the Late Archaic Bird Island site (8DI52), Dixie County, Florida. Fla Anthropol 51(3):139-146

Stojanowski CM, and Johnson KM. 2011. Brief communication: Preliminary radiocarbon dates from Florida crania in Hrdlička's gulf states catalog. Am J Phys Anthropol 145(1):163-167.

Stojanowski CM, Larsen CS, Tung TA, and McEwan BG. 2007. Biological structure and health implications from tooth size at Mission San Luis de Apalachee. Am J Phys Anthropol 132(2):207-222.

Stojanowski CM, and Schillaci MA. 2006. Phenotypic approaches for understanding patterns of intracemetery biological variation. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 49:49-88.

Tatarek NE, and Sciulli PW. 2000. Comparison of population structure in Ohio's late Archaic and late prehistoric periods. Am J Phys Anthropol 112(3):363-376.

Thulman DK. 2006. The reconstruction of Paleoindian social organization in North Central Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University. van Vark GN, and Schaafsma W. 1992. Advances in the quantitative analysis of skeletal morphology. In: Saunders SR, and Katzenberg MA, editors. Skeletal biology of past peoples: Research methods. New York: Wiley-Liss. p 225-257.

Watson JT. 2010. The introduction of agriculture and the foundation of biological variation in the southern Southwest. In: Auerbach BM, editor. Human variation in the Americas: The integration of archaeology and biological anthropology. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations. p 135-171.

Watts WA, Grimm EC, and Hussey TC. 1996. Mid-Holocene forest history of Florida and the coastal plain of Georgia and South Carolina. In: Sassaman KE, and Anderson DG, editors. Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. p 28-38.

Weisman BR. 1995. Crystal River: A ceremonial mound center of the Florida Gulf Coast. Tallahassee: Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research.

Wharton BR, Ballo GR, and Hope ME. 1981. The Republic Groves site, Hardee County, Florida. Fla Anthropol 34(2):59-80.

278

Wheeler RJ, Kennedy WJ, and Pepe JP. 2002. The archaeology of coastal Palm Beach County. Fla Anthropol 55(3-4):119-156.

Widmer RJ. 2002. The Woodland archaeology of South Florida. In: Anderson DG, and Mainfort J, Robert C, editors. The Woodland Southeast. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. p 373- 397.

Willey GR. 1949. Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Baltimore: The Lord Baltimore Press.

Williams-Blangero S, and Blangero J. 1989. Anthropometric variation and the genetic structure of the Jirels of Nepal. Hum Biol 61(1):1-12.

Williams WB. 1983. Bridge to the past: Excavations at the Margate-Blount site. Fla Anthropol 36(3-4):142-153.

Winland KJ. 2002. Disease and population ecology in the East Okeechobee area. Fla Anthropol 55(3-4):199-220.

Worth J. 2013. Pineland during the Spanish Period. In: Marquardt W, and Walker KJ, editors. The archaeology of Pineland: A coastal Southwest Florida site complex, AD 50-1710. Gainesville: Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies. p 767-792.

Yates WB. 2000. Implications to Late Archaic exchange networks in the southeast as indicated by the archaeological evidence of prehistoric soapstone vessels throughout Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University.

279

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Maranda Almy Kles began her anthropological career at the foot of her mother going to archaeological sites. She later earned a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts in anthropology from the University of Florida followed by a Master of Science in toxicology from the University of Florida. While pursuing her degrees, Ms. Kles has had the opportunity to conduct research in the National Archives, various local museums and historical societies, the Smithsonian Institution, and various universities and state facilities. Ms. Kles also worked as a Death Investigator for the District Twelve Medical

Examiner’s Office for three years before returning for her PhD. During that time she earned Diplomat status with the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators.

Upon returning to the University of Florida, Ms. Kles has worked at the C.A. Pound

Human Identification Lab as a graduate analyst. While working at the lab she earned

Member status with the Physical Anthropology section of the American Academy of

Forensic Sciences.

During summer semesters, Ms. Kles worked for the National Park Service at the

Southeastern Archeological Center as a NAGPRA intern. She has continued her interest in NAGPRA-related research by working with museums to assist with their inventories and notices.

In 2012, Ms. Kles received the John W. Griffin Award from the Florida

Anthropological Council.

280