Final Cultural Resource Assessment December 2008

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY ANNA MARIA ISLAND BRIDGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT (PD&E) STUDY S.R. 64 (MANATEE AVENUE) FROM S.R. 789 (EAST BAY DRIVE) TO PERICO BAY BOULEVARD MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Financial Project ID: 424436-1-21-01

For:

Florida Department of Transportation District One Environmental Management Office 801 North Broadway P.O. Box 1249 Bartow, FL 33831

December 2008

Financial Project ID: 424436-1-21-01

For:

Florida Department of Transportation District One Environmental Management Office 801 North Broadway P.O. Box 1249 Bartow, FL 33831

In association with:

PBS&J 5300 West Cypress Street, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33607

and

AIM Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 5802 Breckenridge Parkway, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33610

By:

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240

Marion Almy – Project Manager Elizabeth A. Horvath and Lee Hutchinson – Project Archaeologists Marielle Lumang – Architectural Historian Justin Winkler and Nigel Rudolph – Archaeologists Brad William Burger – Special Consultant

December 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study for improvement alternatives along State Road (S.R.) 64 (Manatee Avenue), hereinafter referred to as S.R. 64, from west of S.R. 789 (East Bay Drive) to east of Perico Bay Boulevard in Manatee County, Florida, a distance of approximately two miles. S.R. 64 was originally constructed in 1957 to connect Anna Maria Island with the City of Bradenton on the mainland in Manatee County. S.R. 64 is an east-west minor urban arterial that provides one of three vehicular access routes to Anna Maria Island.

This cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) was conducted by Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) on behalf of the FDOT, District One, and in association with Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) and AIM Engineering and Survey, Inc. The purpose of the CRAS was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As a result, the assessment survey was conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Chapter 267, Florida Statutes (FS). The investigations were carried out in conformity with Part 2, Chapter 12 (Archaeological and Historical Resources) of the FDOT’s PD&E Manual and the standards contained in the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operations Manual (FDHR 2003; FDOT 1999). In addition, this survey meets the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code. The field survey described in this report was conducted between October and November 2008.

A review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF), NRHP, and the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Report (FDOT 2008a) indicated that sensitive cultural resources are within the area of potential effect (APE). The background research indicated that four components of 8MA6 – A, C, D, and E may lie within the S.R. 64 archaeological APE, and depending on resource integrity, one or more of the component(s) may be significant, that is, of value to Native Americans and/or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Because of the potential for sensitive cultural deposits, a research design was prepared, submitted, and approved prior to conducting the field investigations (ACI 2008; Pipkin 2008).

As a result of field survey, 144 shovel test pits and four excavation units were placed within the archaeological APE. These revealed deeply buried and intact portions of 8MA6A and 8MA6E. Deposits included marine food shell; mammal, reptile and amphibian faunal remains; a few shell, bone, and stone tools; as well as several types of aboriginal ceramics. No human skeletal material was encountered but multiple periods of site occupancy are indicated by the recovered artifacts.

According to the Florida State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) database (FMSF), the Perico Island complex (8MA6) is considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP, and the results of fieldwork conducted for this undertaking support the SHPO evaluation. The discovery of intact midden within 8MA6E and in portions of 8MA6A underscores the site’s NRHP eligibility under Criterion D, which states that a “… property must have, or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human history or prehistory, and the information must be considered important” (National Park Service [NPS] 1998:21). As a result, preservation in situ (in place) of these significant deposits is recommended. However, if impacts due to bridge and/or pond construction cannot be avoided, mitigative measures will be necessary.

Historical/Architectural background research, including a review of data in the FMSF and the NRHP, indicated that one resource, the Tenant House (8MA1192), was previously recorded within the project APE. A review of the ETDM Summary Report (FDOT 2008a) revealed that Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge over Sarasota Pass (FDOT# 130054) was constructed in 1957. As a result of field survey, it was determined that the Tenant House, 8MA1192, was no longer extant and the bridge was recorded in the FMSF as 8MA1571. The latter is an example of a commonly occurring bridge type in Florida with no exceptional architectural elements, or significant historic associations. Therefore, 8MA1571 does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Area of Potential Effects (APE) ...... 1-4 1.3 Purpose ...... 1-4 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Location and Setting ...... 2-1 2.3 Physiography and Geology ...... 2-1 2.4 Soils and Vegetation ...... 2-1 2.5 Paleoenvironmental Considerations ...... 2-3 3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY ...... 3-1 3.1 Paleo-Indian ...... 3-1 3.2 Archaic ...... 3-4 3.3 Formative ...... 3-6 3.4 Mississippian/Acculturative ...... 3-7 3.5 Colonialism ...... 3-8 3.6 Territorial and Statehood ...... 3-9 3.7 Civil War and Aftermath ...... 3-12 3.8 Twentieth Century ...... 3-15 3.9 Anna Maria Island and Perico Island ...... 3-17 4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS ...... 4-1 4.1 Background Research and Literature Review ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Archaeological Considerations ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Historical Considerations ...... 4-8 4.2 Field Methodology ...... 4-8 4.3 Unexpected Discoveries ...... 4-11 4.4 Laboratory Methods and Curation ...... 4-11 5.0 SURVEY RESULTS ...... 5-1 5.1 Archaeological Survey Results ...... 5-1 5.2 Excavation Units (EU) ...... 5-7 5.2 Historical/Architectural Survey Results ...... 5-23 5.3 Conclusions ...... 5-27 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 6-1 APPENDICES Appendix A: Research Design Appendix B: Shovel Test Pit Results and PBS&J Concept Plans showing test pit and excavation unit locations Appendix C: Excavation Unit Results Appendix D: Florida Master Site File Forms Appendix E: Demolished Status Letter and Copy of FMSF form 8MA1192 Appendix F: Survey Log

iii

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOS

Figure Page

Figure 1.1. Location of the S.R. 64 PD&E Study corridor...... 1-2

Figure 1.2. Project location map...... 1-3

Figure 2.1. Environmental setting along the S.R. 64 PD&E Study corridor...... 2-2

Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions...... 3-2

Figure 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites on Perico Island...... 4-2

Figure 4.2. General composite of archaeological investigations of Perico Island...... 4-3

Figure 4.3. Area of potential effect (existing and proposed ROW) in the vicinity of 8MA6...... 4-4

Figure 4.4. Areas of archaeological potential within the S.R. 64 PD&E Study APE. ... 4-9

Figure 5.1. Approximate locations of the shovel tests within portions of the S.R. 64 APE, Areas A, B and C and proposed ponds D-South and D-North...... 5-2

Figure 5.2. Approximate locations of the shovel tests within portions of the S.R. 64 APE, Areas B, C and D...... 5-3

Figure 5.3. Approximate locations of the shovel tests within the S.R. 64 APE, Area E and proposed ponds A, B, C, and E on Anna Maria Island...... 5-4

Figure 5.4. Location of excavation units within 8MA6...... 5-8

Figure 5.5. Excavated Unit #2 south of S.R. 64, within the existing ROW/APE...... 5-9

Figure 5.6. Excavated Unit #3 north of S.R. 64, adjacent to Pond D-North within the APE...... 5-11

Figure 5.7. Excavation Unit #4 south of S.R. 64, within the APE...... 5-15

Table

Table 5.1. Ceramics recovered from EU #4...... 5-17

Table 5.2. Shell tools and scrap recovered from EU #4...... 5-18

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOS

Photo Page

Photo 1.1. Area B, looking west on south side of S.R. 64...... 1-5

Photo 1.2. Residential development and swale along north side of S.R. 64 on Perico Island, near eastern terminus of project...... 1-5

Photo 5.1. Approximate locations of buried utilities in Pond D-North, looking west. . 5-1

Photo 5.2. October/November 2008 – placement of Verizon cable in Pond D-North, looking west...... 5-5

Photo 5.3. Residential development and swale along north side of S.R. 64 on Perico Island, near eastern terminus of project in Area D, looking west...... 5-6

Photo 5.4. EU #1 west profile 0-70 cmbs. Note sand and fill...... 5-7

Photo 5.5. EU #3 note 1 m of fill; midden encountered at 140 cmbs...... 5-10

Photo 5.6. EU #3: Note wooden shoring to prevent slumping walls...... 5-12

Photo 5.7. Archaeologist excavates portion of 8MA6E ±150 cmbs in Pond D-North ...... 5-12

Photo 5.8. Umbo/quahog scrapers from EU #3...... 5-14

Photo 5.9. Excavation of midden in EU #4 ...... 5-16

Photo 5.10. Example of artifacts recovered from the APE...... 5-18

Photo 5.11. South elevation of Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge...... 5-24

Photo 5.12. North elevation of Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge, looking southeast. ... 5-24

Photo 5.13. General view of the movable main span of the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge, looking east...... 5-25

Photo 5.14. South elevation of the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge...... 5-25

Photo 5.15. Detail of the plaque at the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge...... 5-26

Photo 5.16. Detail of a segment of replaced concrete bridge railing...... 5-26

v 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

The PD&E Study limits encompass that portion of S.R. 64 (Manatee Avenue) from west of S.R. 789 (East Bay Drive) at milepost (MP) 0.216 in Holmes Beach on Anna Maria Island to east of Perico Bay Boulevard at MP 2.152 in the City of Bradenton, a distance of 1.936 miles (mi) (Figures 1.1 and 1.2).

S.R. 64 is an east-west minor urban arterial that provides one of three vehicular access routes to Anna Maria Island. The Anna Maria Island Bridge is a low-level bascule structure that spans the Intracoastal Waterway, a marked federal navigational channel that generally runs between the mainland and the nearly contiguous barrier islands along the Gulf of Mexico. S.R. 64 is not part of the National Highway System, the Florida Intrastate Highway System, or the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS); however, the Intracoastal Waterway within the PD&E Study area is part of the SIS. In addition, both S.R. 64 and S.R. 789 are designated hurricane evacuation routes by the Florida State Emergency Response Team. S.R. 64 from S.R. 789 to 75th Street West is also designated as the Palma Sola Scenic Highway.

S.R. 64 is one of two major east-west access points connecting Anna Maria Island to western Manatee County. Current bridge inspection reports and recently prepared bridge rehabilitation plans have shown that the S.R. 64 – Anna Maria Island Bridge is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. This condition is anticipated to deteriorate further as the bridge is reaching its service life of 50 years. Recognizing its importance as a vital connection between the barrier islands of Manatee County and the mainland, local officials and the public have expressed a great need to replace the existing bridge structure. Serving as a critical hurricane evacuation route for residents living on the barrier islands, improvements to this facility are imperative. Connecting to both U.S. 41 and I-75, two principal transportation facilities of the State, this corridor also plays an important role in circulating traffic throughout Manatee County.

An improved bridge will not only divert traffic from surrounding facilities (Gulf Drive and Cortez Bridge), but it will aid in the alleviation of congestion and improve traffic flow on the S.R. 64 corridor. In addition, improvements to this facility are anticipated to enhance overall safety, emergency access, and truck access in this area of Manatee County.

P6115C 1-2

0 2 4 miles 0 2 4 kilometers

Begin Project

End Project

S.R. 64 Figure 1.1. Location of the S.R. 64 PD&E Study corridor, Manatee County, Anna Maria Island Bridge Sections 27 and 28, Township 34 South, Range 16 East (Surveying and Map- Bridge #130054 ping Office 2004). PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 Figure 1.2. Project location map (figure provided by PBS&J 2008). S.R. 64 Anna Maria Island Bridge Bridge #130054

PD&E Study 1-3 Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 1-4

As a result, this project will evaluate the feasibility of continued rehabilitation versus replacement of the existing two-lane S.R. 64 Anna Maria Island Bridge (#130054) (MP 0.712). A new structure would consist of one 12-foot travel lane in each direction, 10-foot shoulders, and sidewalks. A new structure would also conform to all applicable FDOT design standards and height requirements set forth by the United States Coast Guard. The project will also involve an assessment of the feasibility of further repair and rehabilitation of the existing structure.

This CRAS was conducted to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended, and the implementing regulations 36 CFR Part 800, as well as the provisions contained in the Chapter 267, FS. All work was carried out in conformity with Part 2, Chapter 12 (Archaeological and Historical Resources) of the FDOT’s PD&E Manual (FDOT 1999), and the standards contained in the FDHR Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operations Manual (FDHR 2003). In addition, the survey report meets the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code.

1.2 Area of Potential Effects (APE)

The APE was defined based on the project description, the ETDM analysis, the distribution of recorded archaeological resources, a field reconnaissance, and discussions with archaeologists familiar with the area, as well as FDOT District One and PBS&J.

The archaeological APE is defined as the existing right-of-way (ROW) except proximate to 8MA6, the Perico Island complex, where 50 additional feet (ft) may be added north of S.R. 64, between Stations 163 and 170, and 50 ft may be added south of S.R. 64, between Stations 153 and 170 (Photo 1.1; Figure 4.3). The APE also includes the footprint of the proposed pond sites (A, B, C, D-North, D-South and E). However, no testing was conducted along the northern ROW except within pond D-North at the request of PBS&J (Warren 2008).

The historical APE for the S.R. 64 undertaking was defined as the archaeological APE, the immediate viewshed on Perico Island, and approximately two blocks north and south of the S.R. 64 corridor on Anna Maria Island to account for a potentially elevated bridge and ramp.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this CRAS was to locate and identify any archaeological sites and historic resources located within the APE and to assess, to the extent possible, their significance as to eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Background research preceded field survey. Such research served to provide an informed set of expectations concerning the

P6115C 1-5

kinds of cultural resources that might be anticipated to occur within the project area, as well as a basis for evaluating any newly discovered sites. Based on these data, a research design was prepared and approved by FDOT District One prior to initiation of field work (ACI 2008; Pipkin 2008). A copy of the research design is in Appendix A.

Photo 1.1. Area B, looking west on south side of S.R. 64. Note Australian Pine and ditch.

Photo 1.2. Residential development and swale along north side of S.R. 64 on Perico Island, near eastern terminus of project.

P6115C 2-1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Environmental factors such as geology, topography, relative elevation, soils, vegetation, and water resources are important in determining where archaeological and historical sites are likely to be located. These variables influenced what types of resources were available for utilization in a given area. This in turn influenced decisions regarding settlement location and land-use patterns. Due to the influence of these environmental factors upon the local inhabitants, a discussion of the effective environment is included.

2.2 Project Location and Setting

The S.R. 64 PD&E Study corridor is located within Sections 27 and 28, Township 34 South, Range 16 East (United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1970, 1982). The bridge crosses over the Intracoastal Waterway, connecting Anna Maria Island with Perico Island (Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1).

2.3 Physiography and Geology

The project corridor is located within the Central or Mid-peninsula physiographic zone (White 1970). The topography is gently rolling with a series of low hills and valleys paralleling the coast. The corridor ranges in elevation from sea level to 2 meters (m) (0 to 5 ft) above mean sea level (amsl). The corridor is situated within the Gulf Coastal Lowlands. The area is underlain by medium fine sands and silts and shelly sand and clay (Knapp 1980). The area contains undifferentiated Holocene sediments and shelly sediments of the Plio-Pleistocene (Campbell and Arthur 1993; Scott 2001; Scott et al. 2001).

2.4 Soils and Vegetation

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) General Soil Map indicates that the S.R. 64 alignment transects the Canaveral-Beaches-Myakka and Estero-Wulfert- Kesson soil associations (USDA 1983). The Canaveral-Beaches-Myakka association, located on Anna Maria Island, consists of nearly level to gently sloping, moderately well to poorly drained soils that have shell fragments. The natural vegetation consists of salt tolerant grasses, various other grasses, and scattered cabbage palm, live oak, cedar, myrtle, and saw palmetto. The western portion of Perico Island consists of the nearly level, poorly drained sandy soils of the tidal mangrove swamps characteristic of the Estero-Wulfert-Kesson soil association. The natural vegetation consists mainly of black mangrove with some areas having seashore saltgrass, batis, and ox eye daisy.

P6115C 2-2

S.R. 64 Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the S.R. 64 PD&E Study corridor, Anna Maria Island Bridge Sections 27 and 28, Township 34 South, Range 16 East (USGS Anna Maria Bridge #130054 1970, Bradenton Beach 1982). PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 2-3

There are six naturally occurring soil types within the S.R. 64 PD&E Study corridor. These include the moderately well drained Canaveral sand, organic substratum; Canaveral sand, filled; and Pomello fine sand, 0-2 percent slopes as well as the very poorly drained Estero muck and poorly drained EauGallie fine sand. In addition, 20th century dredging and filling has altered the western portion of Perico Island and the eastern terminus of the APE on Anna Maria Island.

2.5 Paleoenvironmental Considerations

The early environment of the region was different from that seen today. Sea levels were lower, the climate was arid, and fresh water was scarce. An understanding of human ecology during the earliest periods of human occupation in Florida cannot be based on observations of the modern environment because of changes in water availability, botanical communities, and faunal resources. Aboriginal inhabitants would have developed cultural adaptations in response to the environmental changes taking place, which were then reflected in settlement patterns, site types, artifact forms, and subsistence economies.

Due to the arid conditions between 16,500 and 12,500 years ago, the perched water aquifer and potable water supplies were absent (Dunbar 1981:95). Palynological studies conducted in Florida and Georgia suggest that between 13,000 and 5000 years ago, this area was covered with an upland vegetation community of scrub oak and prairie (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975). The rise of sea level reduced xeric habitats over the next several millennia. Intermittent flow in the Hillsborough River some 8500 years ago was likely due to precipitation and surface runoff, and by 6000 years ago, the river probably began flowing as a result of spring discharge from the Floridan aquifer (Dunbar 1981:99).

Roughly 5000 years ago, a climatic event marking a brief return to Pleistocene climatic conditions induced a change toward more open vegetation. Southern pine forests replaced the oak savannahs. Extensive marshes and swamps developed along the coasts and subtropical hardwood forests became established along the southern tip of Florida (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Northern Florida saw an increase in oak species, grasses, and sedges (Carbone 1983). At Lake Annie, in south-central Florida, pollen cores were dominated by wax myrtle and pine. The assemblage suggests that by this time, a forest dominated by longleaf pine along with cypress swamps and bayheads existed in the area (Watts 1971, 1975). By about 3500 B.C.E (Before Common Era), surface water was plentiful in karst terrains and the level of the Floridan aquifer rose to 1.5 m (5 ft) above present levels. After this time, modern floral, climatic, and environmental conditions began to be established.

P6115C 3-1

3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY

A discussion of the regional culture history is included to provide a framework within which the local historical and archaeological records can be examined. Archaeological sites and historic features are not individual entities, but rather are part of once dynamic cultural systems. As a result, individual sites cannot be adequately examined or interpreted without reference to other sites and resources in the general area.

In general, archaeologists summarize the culture history of a given area (i.e., an archaeological region) by outlining the sequence of archaeological cultures through time. These are defined largely in geographical terms but also reflect shared environmental and cultural factors. The S.R. 64 PD&E Study corridor is located in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast archaeological region (Milanich 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). This region extends from just north of Tampa Bay southward to the northern portion of Charlotte Harbor (Figure 3.1). Within this zone, the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Formative, and Mississippian/Acculturative stages have been defined based on unique sets of material culture traits such as characteristic stone tool forms and ceramics as well as subsistence, settlement, and burial patterns. These broad temporal units are further subdivided into culture phases or periods: Paleo-Indian (Clovis, Suwannee, Dalton), Archaic (Early, Middle, and Late), Formative (Manasota/Weeden Island-related), and Mississippian/Acculturative (Safety Harbor).

The local history of the region is divided into four broad periods based initially upon the major governmental powers. The first period, Colonialism, occurred during the exploration and control of Florida by the Spanish and British from around 1513 until 1821. At that time, Florida became a territory of the United States and 21 years later became a State (Territorial and Statehood). The Civil War and Aftermath (1861-1899) period deals with the Civil War, the period of Reconstruction following the war, and the late 1800s, when the transportation systems were dramatically increased and development throughout the state expanded. The Twentieth Century period includes subperiods defined based on important historic events such as the World Wars, the Boom of the 1920s, and the Depression. Each of these periods evidenced differential development and utilization of the region, thus effecting the historic site distribution across the land.

3.1 Paleo-Indian

The Paleo-Indian stage is the earliest known cultural manifestation in Florida, dating from roughly 12,000 to 7500 B.C.E. (Milanich 1994). Archaeological evidence for Paleo-Indians consists primarily of scattered finds of diagnostic lanceolate-shaped projectile points. The Florida peninsula at this time was quite different than today. The climate was cooler and drier. Vegetation was typified by xerophytic species with scrub oak, pine, open grassy prairies, and savannas being the most common (Milanich 1994:40).

P6115C 3-2

3 5 4

1 Northwest 2 North 3 North-Central 4 East and Central 5 North Peninsular Gulf Coast 6 6 Central Peninsular Gulf Coast 8 7 Caloosahatchee 8 Okeechobee Basin 9 Glades 7

0 100 miles

Post- 500 B.C. regions of precolumbian Florida

S.R. 64 Figure 3.1 Florida Archaeological Regions (Milanich 1994:xix). The Anna Maria Island Bridge Bridge #130054 project area ( ) is in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast Archaeological PD&E Study Region. Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 3-3

When human populations were arriving in Florida, the sea levels were still as much as 35 m (115 ft) below present levels and coastal regions of Florida extended miles beyond present-day shorelines (Milliman and Emery 1968). Thus, many of these sites have been inundated. Evidence of this includes sites that were discovered as a result of dredging activities in the Gulf (Karklins 1970) while other research has shown that some of the shell deposits bordering submerged river channels in Tampa Bay may have been Paleo-Indian midden deposits (Goodyear et al. 1983; Goodyear and Warren 1972).

The Paleo-Indian period has been sub-divided into three horizons based upon characteristic tool forms (Austin 2001). The Clovis Horizon (11,000-10,000 B.C.E.) represents the initial occupation of Florida. It is defined based upon the presence of the fluted Clovis points. These are somewhat more common in north Florida, although Robinson (1979) does illustrate a few points from the central Gulf Coast area. The Suwannee Horizon (10,000-9000 B.C.E.) is the most well known of the three Paleo- Indian horizons. The lanceolate-shaped, unfluted Simpson and Suwannee projectile points are diagnostic of this time period (Bullen 1975; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987; Purdy 1981). The Suwannee tool kit includes a variety of scrapers, adzes, spokeshaves, unifacially retouched flakes, flakes with beaked projections, and blade-like flakes as well as bone and ivory foreshafts, pins, awls, daggers, anvils, and abraders (Austin 2001:23). Following the Suwannee Horizon is the Late Paleo-Indian (Dalton?) Horizon (9000-8000 B.C.E.). The smaller Tallahassee, Santa Fe, and Beaver Lake projectile points have traditionally been attributed to this horizon (Milanich 1994). However, many of these points have been recovered stratigraphically from late Archaic and early Woodland period components and thus, may not date to this time period at all (Austin 2001; Farr 2006).

Archaeologists hypothesize that Paleo-Indians lived in migratory bands and subsisted by gathering and hunting, including the now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna. Since it was cooler and much drier, it is likely that these nomadic hunters traveled between permanent and semi-permanent sources of water, such as artesian springs, exploiting the available resources. These watering holes would have attracted the animals that the Indians hunted, thus providing both food and drink. In addition to being “tethered” to water sources, most of the Paleo-Indian sites are also proximate to sources of good quality lithic resources. This settlement pattern is considered to be logistical, i.e. the establishment of semi-permanent habitation areas and the movement of the resources from their sources of procurement to the residential locale by specialized task groups (Austin 2001:25).

Some of the information about this period has been derived from the underwater excavations at two inland spring sites in Sarasota County: Little Salt Spring and Warm Mineral Springs (Clausen et al. 1979). Excavation at the Harney Flats Site in Hillsborough County has provided a rich body of data concerning Paleo-Indian life ways. Analysis indicates that this site was used as a quarry-related base camp with special use activity areas (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). It has been suggested that Paleo-Indian settlement may “not have been related as much to seasonal changes as generally postulated for the succeeding Archaic period,” but instead movement was perhaps related

P6115C 3-4

to the scheduling of “tool-kit replacement, social needs, and the availability of water,” among other factors (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:175).

3.2 Archaic

As the Paleo-Indian period gradually came to a close, climatic changes occurred and the Pleistocene megafauna disappeared. Archaeological evidence suggests a slow cultural change that led toward an increasingly intensive exploitation of localized food resources. These changes may reflect a transition from the late Pleistocene to a more seasonal, modern climate when the pine-dominated forests began to cover the landscape. With loss of the Ice Age mammals, Archaic populations turned to the hunting of smaller game like deer, raccoon, and opossum as well as a reliance on wild plants and shellfish, where available.

The Early Archaic period, ca. 6500 to 5000 B.C.E., is well documented in Florida and is generally recognized by changes in the artifact assemblages from the Paleo-Indian period. However, because of a lack of excavated collections, our knowledge of the full range of the Early Archaic lithic tool assemblages is uncertain (Milanich 1994:64). The diagnostic projectile point types include Hamilton, Arredondo, Wacissa, Thonotosassa, Hardee Beveled, Kirk, and Sumter (Bullen 1975). Discoveries at Little Salt Spring and the Windover Site indicate that bone and wood tools were also used (Clausen et al. 1979; Doran 2002). The archaeological record suggests a diffuse, yet well-scheduled, pattern of exploiting both coastal and interior resources. Because water sources were much more numerous and larger than in earlier times, the Early Archaic peoples could sustain larger populations, occupy sites for longer periods, and perform activities that required longer occupation at a specific locale (Milanich 1994:67). However, most Early Archaic sites that have been found are small, seasonal campsites.

During the Middle Archaic period, ca. 5000 to 3000 B.C.E., a shift from the dispersed settlement pattern of the preceding period to a system of base camps with numerous, smaller satellite camps has been hypothesized. The changes in settlement pattern resulted in maximizing the use of forest resources and may indicate that larger bands of people were living together part of the year. Artifacts associated with this period include broad-bladed, stemmed projectile points such as the Newnan, Marion, and Putnam types. In addition, specialized tools such as microliths and burins, large chopping implements, as well as an array of expedient tools, have been found at archaeological sites. A few regional cemetery sites [e.g., Bay West in Collier County (Beriault et al. 1981) and Republic Groves in Hardee County (Wharton et al. 1981)], with interments in bogs, springs and other wetlands, provide evidence for mortuary ceremonialism during this time.

During the Late Archaic, ca. 3000 to 1200 B.C.E., populations increased and became more sedentary. Broad bladed, stemmed projectile points of the Middle Archaic continued with the addition of the Clay, Culbreath, and Lafayette stemmed and corner- notched varieties (Bullen 1975). The abundant wetland resources allowed larger

P6115C 3-5

settlements to be maintained. It is likely that the change in settlement patterns is related to environmental changes. By the end of the Middle Archaic, the climate closely resembled that of today; vegetation changed from those species which preferred moist conditions to pines and mixed forests (Watts and Hansen 1988). The adaptation to this environment allowed for a greater variety of resources to be exploited and increased variation in settlement patterns. An increased reliance on marine resources is evident in coastal areas and it is during this period that coastal and riverine shell middens began to accumulate. One of the best-known and preserved sites of this type is the Palmer Site in Sarasota County. Here, a horseshoe-shaped shell midden encircles a freshwater spring adjacent to Sarasota Bay (Bullen and Bullen 1976).

By about 2000 B.C.E., there is evidence of fired clay pottery in Florida. The first ceramic types were tempered with fibers (Spanish moss or palmetto) and referred to as the Orange series. The ceramics were plain or decorated with geometric designs and punctations. Initially it was thought that the plain ceramics preceded the decorated ones. Recent research has called the Orange chronology into question (Sassaman 2003). Based on a series of AMS dates on soot from Orange Incised sherds from the middle St. Johns Valley and from radiocarbon dates on oyster and charcoal in association with Orange ceramics near the mouth of the river, all the various Orange ceramic types occur within the time span of roughly 2150-1650 B.C.E. In addition, research by Cordell (2004) has documented the presence of sponge spicules in the Orange ceramic paste (the diagnostic trait of St. Johns wares) which suggest that the St. Johns ceramic tradition extends back to the beginning of the ceramic technology in the region.

Bridging the close of the Archaic stage and the beginning of the Formative is the Florida Transitional period, ca. 1200 to 500 B.C.E. (Bullen 1959). This time is characterized by a continued exploitation of shellfish, fish, and wild plants as well as a continued reliance on hunting. Additionally, the diffusion of culture traits resulting from the movements of small groups of people led to the spread of several ceramic and tool traditions (Bullen 1959, 1965; Bullen et al. 1978).

Research at the Canton Street Site suggests that the admixture of three projectile point traditions (basally notched, side and corner notched, and Archaic stemmed) and three ceramic traditions (limestone-tempered, sand-tempered, and temperless chalky ware) were representative of this dynamic period (Bullen et al. 1978). There is evidence that the fiber-tempered ceramics of the preceding Late Archaic were being gradually replaced by pottery of these three different traditions. By the end of the Transitional period, ceramic traditions were clearly regionalized throughout Florida. In the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region, sand-tempered plain pottery became the dominant ceramic type. In addition, there is evidence of regional interaction with other cultures such as the Poverty Point complex of the lower Mississippi Valley.

P6115C 3-6

3.3 Formative

The Formative stage is comprised of the Manasota and Weeden Island-related cultures (ca. 500 B.C.E. to 800 C.E.). Settlement patterns consisted of permanent villages located along the coast with seasonal forays into the interior to hunt, gather, and collect those resources unavailable along the coast. Most Manasota sites are shell middens found on or near the shore where aboriginal villagers had easiest access to fish and shellfish (Milanich 1994). Subsistence patterns were focused on the coastal exploitation of fish and shellfish, supplemented by hunting and gathering inland resources (Luer and Almy 1982). Investigations at the Shaw’s Point, Fort Brook Midden, Yat Kitischee, and Myakkahatchee Sites have provided a wealth of information on site formation, subsistence economies, and technology and their changes over time (Austin 1995; Austin et al. 1992; Luer et al. 1987; Schwadron 2002). The major villages were located along the shores with smaller sites being located up to 20-30 km (12-18 mi) inland. These inland sites, which probably served as seasonal villages or special-use campsites, were often located in the pine flatwoods on elevated lands proximate to a source of freshwater where a variety of resources could be exploited (Austin and Russo 1989; Luer and Almy 1982). Hardin and Piper (1984) suggest that some of the larger inland sites may actually be permanent or semi-permanent settlements as opposed to seasonal campsites.

Manasota is characterized by a wide range of material cultural traits such as a well-developed shell and bone tool technology, sand tempered plain ceramics, and burials within shell middens (Luer and Almy 1982). Much of the shell and bone technology evolved out of the preceding Archaic period. Through time, the burial patterns became more elaborate, with burials being placed within sand burial mounds located near the villages and middens. The early burial patterns consisted of primary flexed burials in the shell middens, while later sites contained secondary burials within sand mounds.

Temporal placement within the Manasota period can be determined based upon diagnostic ceramic rim and vessel forms (Luer and Almy 1982). The early forms (ca. 500 B.C.E. - 400 C.E.) are characterized as flattened globular bowls with incurving rims and chamfered lips. Pot forms with rounded lips and inward curving rims were utilized from about 200 B.C.E. until 700 C.E. Deeper pot forms with straight sides and rounded lips were developed around 400 C.E. and continued into the Safety Harbor period. Simple bowls with outward curving rims and flattened lips were used from the end of the Late Weeden Island period (ca. 800 C.E.) into the Safety Harbor period. Vessel wall thickness decreased over time.

The lithic assemblage of the Manasota culture was scarce along the coast especially in the more southern portions of the region where stone suitable for tool manufacture was absent. Projectile point types associated with the Manasota period include the Sarasota, Hernando, and Westo varieties (Luer and Almy 1982).

Influences from the Weeden Island “heartland,” located in north-central Florida, probably resulted in the changes in burial practices. These influences can also be seen in

P6115C 3-7

the increased variety of ceremonial ceramic types through time. The secular, sand tempered ware continued to be the dominant ceramic type. Manasota evolved into what is referred to as a Weeden Island-related culture. The subsistence and settlement patterns remained fairly consistent. Hunting and gathering of the inland and coastal resources continued. Evidence of a widespread trade network is seen by the ceramic types (Wakulla Check Stamped, St. Johns Check Stamped, and Weeden Island varieties) and other exotic artifacts present within the burial mounds.

Ceremonialism and its expressions, such as the construction of complex burial mounds containing exotic and elaborate grave offerings, reached their greatest development during this time period. Similarly, the subsistence economy, divided between maritime and terrestrial animals and perhaps horticultural products, represents the maximum effective adjustment to the environment. In general, Weeden Island-related period sites are found along the coast, on bay shores, or on streams, and nearly all are marked by shell refuse with burial mounds of sand situated near the middens (Willey 1949).

Many Weeden Island-related sites consist of villages with associated mounds, as well as ceremonial/burial mound sites. The artifact assemblage is distinguished by the presence of Weeden Island ceramic types. These are among some of the finest ceramics in the southeast; they are often thin, well-fired, burnished, and decorated with incising, punctation, complicated stamping, and animal effigies (Milanich 1994:211). Coastal sites are marked by the presence of shell middens, indicating a continued pattern of exploitation of marine and estuarine resources. Interaction between the inland farmer- gatherers and coastal hunter-gatherers may have developed into mutually beneficial exchange systems (Kohler 1991:98). This could account for the presence of non-locally made ceramics at some of the Weeden Island-related period sites. There is no definitive evidence for horticulture (e.g., charred cobs, kernels, or beans) in the coastal area (Milanich 1994:215).

3.4 Mississippian/Acculturative

The final aboriginal cultural manifestation in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region is Safety Harbor, named for the type-site in Pinellas County. The presence of datable European artifacts (largely Spanish) in sites, along with radiocarbon dates from early Safety Harbor contexts associated with Englewood ceramics, provide the basis for dividing the Safety Harbor period into two pre-Columbian phases: Englewood (900-1000 C.E.) and Pinellas (1000-1500 C.E.) and two colonial period phases: Tatham (1500-1567 C.E.) and Bayview (1567-1725 C.E.) (Mitchem 1989). The Safety Harbor variant in Hillsborough, northern Manatee, Pinellas, and southern Pasco counties is identified as the Circum-Tampa Bay regional variant.

In general, further influences from the north led to the incorporation of many features of the Mississippian culture by the late Weeden Island-related peoples, which became the Safety Harbor culture. Often, Safety Harbor components are located on top of

P6115C 3-8

the earlier Weeden Island deposits. South of Tampa Bay there is evidence of significant continuity from Weeden Island-related sites into the Mississippian culture of the area. Major Safety Harbor sites remained primarily along the shore with many situated at the same locations as late Manasota sites (Luer and Almy 1981). The Portavant Mound complex (8MA919), in Manatee County, is an excellent example of continued occupation (Weisman et al. 1994).

Large towns or villages often had a temple mound, plaza, midden, and a burial mound associated with them. Research supports earlier suggestions that some maize agriculture may have been practiced by the Safety Harbor peoples as they continued marine and terrestrial exploitation of the region’s food resources (Luer and Almy 1981). Although most Safety Harbor sites are located along coastal bays and rivers, inland sites are also known (Willey 1949).

3.5 Colonialism

The Timucuan Indians are the historic counterparts of the Safety Harbor people. In the Tampa Bay area, they are referred to as the Tocobaga. The cultural traditions of the native Floridians ended with the advent of European expeditions to the New World. The initial events, authorized by the Spanish crown in the 1500s, ushered in devastating European contact. After Ponce de Leon’s landing near St. Augustine in 1513, Spanish explorations were confined to the west coast of Florida; Narvaéz is thought to have made shore in 1528 in St. Petersburg and de Soto’s 1539 landing is commemorated at De Soto Point on the south bank of the Manatee River. When the first Europeans arrived in coastal southwest Florida in the 16th century, they encountered the Calusa, a powerful, complex society ruled by a paramount chief. The principal town of the Calusa is thought to be Mound Key near Fort Myers Beach. Historic documents suggest that the Calusa chief ruled over fifty towns, from which he exacted tribute (Widmer 1988). By the middle of the 18th century, the Calusa population had been almost decimated and dispersed as a result of conflicts with the Europeans and exposure to their diseases.

As the Calusa disappeared, fishing communities, or “ranchos,” were established by Cuban and Spanish fisherfolk on various islands and along the coast between Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay. The earliest recorded ranchos may have been at Useppa Island and San Carlos Bay in Charlotte Harbor around 1765 (Hammond 1973). However, there is some evidence that remnants of the once powerful Calusa joined the Cuban-Spanish fisherfolk at the ranchos in Charlotte Harbor during the early 18th century (Almy 2001). The ranchos supplied dried fish to Cuban and northern markets until the mid-1830s, when onset of the Seminole Indian Wars and customs control ruined the industry.

The area that now constitutes the State of Florida was ceded to England in 1763 after two centuries of Spanish possession. England governed Florida until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris returned Florida to Spain; however, Spanish influence was nominal during this second period of ownership. Prior to the American colonial settlement of

P6115C 3-9

Florida, portions of the Muskogean Creek, Yamassee, and Oconee Native American populations moved into Florida and repopulated the demographic vacuum created by the decimation of the original aboriginal inhabitants. These migrating groups of Native Americans became known to English speakers as Seminoles. They had an agriculturally based society, focusing upon cultivation of crops and the raising of horses and cattle. The material culture of the Seminoles remained similar to the Creeks, the dominant aboriginal pottery type being Chattahoochee Brushed. European trade goods, especially British, were common. The Creek settlement pattern included large villages located near rich agricultural fields and grazing lands for cattle.

Their early history can be divided into two basic periods: colonization (1716- 1767) when the initial movement of Creek towns into Florida occurred and enterprise (1767-1821) which was an era of prosperity under the British and Spanish rule prior to the American presence (Mahon and Weisman 1996). The Seminoles formed at various times loose confederacies for mutual protection against the new American Nation to the north (Tebeau 1980:72). The Seminoles crossed back and forth into Georgia and Alabama conducting raids and welcoming escaped slaves. This resulted in General Andrew Jackson’s invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818, which became known as the First Seminole War.

3.6 Territorial and Statehood

As a result of the war and the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, Florida became a United States territory in 1821, but settlement was slow and scattered during the early years. Andrew Jackson, named provisional governor, divided the territory into St. Johns and Escambia Counties. At that time, St. Johns County encompassed all of Florida lying east of the Suwannee River, and Escambia County included the land lying to the west. In the first territorial census in 1825, some 317 persons reportedly lived in South Florida; by 1830 that number had risen to 517 (Tebeau 1980:134).

Even though the First Seminole War was fought in north Florida, the Treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823, at the end of the war, was to affect the settlement of all of south Florida. The Seminoles relinquished their claim to the whole peninsula in return for an approximately four million acre reservation south of Ocala and north of Charlotte Harbor (Covington 1958; Mahon 1985:50). The treaty satisfied neither the Indians nor the settlers. The inadequacy of the reservation and desperate situation of the Seminoles living there, plus the mounting demand of the settlers for their removal, soon produced another conflict.

Also in 1823, Gadsden County was created from St. John’s County, and the following year Mosquito County was created out of Gadsden. This new county included all of the Tampa Bay area and reached south to Charlotte Harbor (Historic Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation Board [HT/HCPB]1980:7). In 1824, Cantonment (later Fort) Brooke was established on the south side of the mouth of the Hillsborough River in what is now downtown Tampa by Colonel George Mercer Brooke.

P6115C 3-10

Frontier families followed the soldiers and the settlement of the Tampa Bay area began. This caused some problems for the military as civilian settlements were not in accord with the Camp Moultrie agreement (Guthrie 1974:10). By 1830, the United States War Department established a military reserve around Fort Brooke with boundaries extending 16 miles to the north, west, and east of the fort (Chamberlin 1968:43).

By the early 1830s, governmental policy shifted in terms of relocating the Seminoles to lands west of the Mississippi River. Outrage at this policy of forced relocation resulted in the Second Seminole War (1835-1842). Following this conflict, the Seminoles who remained in Florida were driven further south, clearing the way for homesteaders. Archaeological evidence of the Seminole presence at Fort Brooke has been documented (Piper and Piper 1982).

Hillsborough County was established in 1834 by the Territorial Legislature of Florida as a result of the instrumental efforts of Augustus Steele, who arrived in 1832 (Piper and Piper 1982) encompassing that area which became Manatee County. As settlement in the area increased, so did hostilities with Native Americans. The growing threat of Seminole invasion to the civilians near the fort propelled them to sign a petition asking for military protection. Only 25 men signed the petition showing the meager settlement in the area.

By 1835, the Second Seminole War was underway, triggered by an attack on Major Francis Langhorne Dade as he led a company of soldiers from Fort Brooke to Fort King (now Ocala). As the Second Seminole War escalated, attacks on isolated settlers and communities became more common. To combat this, the combined service units of the U.S. Army and Navy converged on southwest Florida. This joint effort attempted to seal off the southern portion of the Florida peninsula from the estimated 300 Seminoles remaining in the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades (Covington 1958; Tebeau and Carson 1965).

In 1837, Fort Brooke became the headquarters for the Army of the South and the main garrison for the Seminole wars. The fort also served as a haven for settlers who had to leave their farms and seek protection from the warring Seminoles (Piper and Piper 1982). Several other forts were established around the area during the Seminole War years. Their uses varied from military garrisons to military supply depots; others were built to protect the nearby settlers during Indian uprisings. These included Fort Alabama (later Fort Foster), Fort Thonotosassa, and Fort Simmons, all of which are located north of the project area (Bruton and Bailey 1984).

The Second Seminole War ended in 1842 when the federal government withdrew troops from Florida. Some of the battle-weary Seminoles were persuaded to emigrate to the Oklahoma Indian Reservation where the federal government had set aside land for Native American occupation. However, those who wished to remain were allowed to do so, but were pushed further south into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. This area became the last stronghold for the Seminoles (Mahon 1985).

P6115C 3-11

In 1840, the population of Hillsborough County was 452, with 360 of those residing at Fort Brooke (HT/HCPB 1980:7). Encouraged by the passage of the Armed Occupation Act in 1842, designed to promote settlement and protect the Florida frontier, settlers moved south through Florida. The Act made available 200,000 acres outside the already developed regions south of Gainesville to the Peace River, barring coastal lands and those within a two-mile radius of a fort. The Armed Occupation Act stipulated that any family or single man over 18 able to bear arms could earn title to 160 acres by erecting a habitable dwelling, cultivating at least five acres of land, and living on it for five years. During the nine-month period the law was in effect, 1184 permits were issued totaling some 189,440 acres (Covington 1961a:48).

In 1845, the State of Florida was admitted to the Union, and Tallahassee was selected as the capital. The land in Tampa, surrounding Fort Brooke, continued to belong to the U.S. Government until 1846; therefore, there were few permanent structures beyond the immediate vicinity of the fort. After the military reservation was reduced from sixteen square miles to four square miles, John Jackson was hired to survey and plat the town in 1847 (Robinson 1928:26).

To hasten settlement of central Florida, the U.S. government commenced the official surveys of public lands. The surveys in the area of the S.R. 64 PD&E Study corridor were completed between 1876 and 1887 by J.P. Apthorp and G.H. Milman (State of Florida 1876, 1887). No historic features were depicted along the corridor. In general, the lands on Anna Maria Island proximate to the project area were classified as 2nd rate prairie and Perico Island was generally 3rd rate yellow pine with some live oak and palmetto with mangroves along the shore (State of Florida 1875, 1885).

Although the majority of Florida’s Seminoles had been deported to the western territories by the end of Second Seminole War, a number of Seminoles remained in central and south Florida. In July 1849, an incident occurred at the Kennedy and Darling Store near Peas Creek (Peace River). A band of four Seminoles killed two men, wounded William McCollough, and his wife Nancy before looting and burning the store. This incident created the “Indian Scare” of 1849 in central Florida and resulted in the Federal government establishing a series of forts across the state (Brown 1991; Covington 1961b).

In January of 1855, Manatee County was carved from the southern portion of Hillsborough County. It encompassed the area from Tampa Bay south to Charlotte Harbor and inland to the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. The village of Manatee, approximately one-mile east of present day Bradenton, was designated at the county seat. Also at that time, the Third Seminole War, or the Billy Bowlegs War, started as a result of pressure placed on Native Americans remaining in Florida to migrate west. The war started when Seminole Chief Billy Bowlegs and 30 warriors attacked an army camp killing four soldiers and wounding four others. The attack was in retaliation for damage done by several artillerymen to property belonging to Billy Bowlegs. This hostile action renewed state and federal interest in the final elimination of the Seminoles from Florida. In 1856, Braden Castle was attacked by the Seminoles. The Castle served as a

P6115C 3-12

refuge for neighboring families for approximately nine months. Fort Hamer was also reactivated and occupied by a detachment of ten men from William B. Hooker’s Company for Florida Mounted Volunteers (Covington 1982; Federal Writers' Project [FWP] 1939; Sheppard et al. 1981).

Military action was not decisive during the war; therefore, in 1858 the U.S. government resorted to monetary persuasion to induce the remaining Seminoles to migrate west. On May 4, 1858, the ship Grey Cloud set sail from Fort Myers with 123 Seminoles. Stopping at Egmont Key, 41 captives and a Seminole woman guide were added to the group. On May 8, 1858, the Third Seminole War was declared officially over (Covington 1982:78-80).

Residents turned to citrus, tobacco, vegetables, and lumber to make their living. Cattle ranching served as one of the first important economic activities reported in Manatee County. Mavericks left by the early Spanish explorers provided the source for the herds raised by the mid-eighteenth century “Cowkeeper” Seminoles. As the Seminoles were pushed further south during the wars, their cattle were either sold or left to roam. Settlers captured or bought the cattle and branded them for their own. By the late 1850s, the cattle industry of southwest Florida was developing on a significant scale. Manatee County was one of Florida’s leading cattle production regions. By 1860, Fort Brooke and Punta Rassa (south of Ft. Myers) were major cattle shipping points for southwest Florida. William B. Hooker, a veteran Indian fighter and former legislative delegate from Hamilton County, was among those whose cattle grazed north of the Manatee River. Hooker’s agricultural enterprises at present day Parrish included citrus cultivation and the cultivation of Sea Island cotton with William H. Johnson (Matthews 1983).

3.7 Civil War and Aftermath

In 1861, Florida followed South Carolina’s lead and seceded from the Union in a prelude to the American Civil War. Florida had much at stake in this war as evidenced in a report released from Tallahassee in June of 1861. It listed the value of land in Florida’s 35 counties as $35,127,721 and the value of the slaves in the state at $29,024,513 (Dunn 1989:59). Even though the coast of Florida experienced a naval blockade during the war, the interior of the state saw very little military action (Robinson 1928:43). Many male residents abandoned their farms and settlements to join the Union army at one of the coastal areas retained by the United States government or joined the Confederate cow cavalry. The cow cavalry provided one of the major contributions of the state to the Confederate war effort by supplying and protecting the transportation of beef to the government (Akerman 1976). It was estimated that three-quarters of the beef supplied to the Confederacy from Florida came from Brevard and Manatee Counties (Shofner 1995). Salt works along the Gulf Coast also functioned as a major contributor to the efforts of the Confederacy (Lonn 1965).

P6115C 3-13

Union troops stationed at Punta Rassa conducted several raids into the Peace River Valley to seize cattle and destroy ranches. In response, Confederate supporters formed the Cattle Guard Battalion, consisting of nine companies under the command of Colonel Charles J. Mannerlyn. The lack of railway transport to other states, the federal embargo, and the enclaves of Union supports and Union troops holding key areas such as Jacksonville and Ft. Myers prevented an influx of finished materials. Additionally, federal gunboats blockaded the mouth of the Manatee River, as well as other large rivers throughout the state preventing the shipment of raw materials. In 1862, armed forces advanced up the Manatee River, burning sugar mills and plantation houses. As a result of these hostilities, new settlement within the area remained limited. The war lasted until 1865.

Immediately following the war, the South underwent a period of “Reconstruction” to prepare the Confederate states for readmission to the Union. The program was administered by the U.S. Congress, and on July 25, 1868, Florida officially returned to the Union (Tebeau 1980:251). Civilian activity slowly resumed a normal pace after recovery from wartime depression, and the population continued to expand. The 1866 Homestead Act was passed to encourage settlement. The act allowed freedmen and loyal United States citizens to receive 80-acre tracts in Florida and the other four public land states of the south. Former Confederates were not eligible to receive homesteads under the Act until 1876 when the lands were open to unrestricted sale (Tebeau 1980). The Homestead Act encouraged growth and settlement throughout the Reconstruction era. It was at this time that the Manatee county seat was moved to Pine Level, which was more centrally located within the 5000 square mile county. It remained the county seat for the next 21 years (Knight 1983).

The post-war economic conditions of much of the rest of the South contributed to changes in the economy of the Tampa Bay area and communities to the south along the Gulf Coast. Post-war cattle shipments to Cuba varied considerably with changes in Cuban demand and the institution of a duty. The net result of Reconstruction-period cattle shipping was the movement of ranges and cattlemen farther south, closer to Charlotte Harbor and the Caloosahatchee River (Brown 1991:199). An influx of poor farmers, coinciding with the southward movement of cattle ranches, made the economic stability of the area dependent upon reliable sources of overland freight transport (Mormino and Pizzo 1983:68).

During the 1870s and 1880s, the economy boomed with a number of winter visitors seeking the favorable subtropical climate, and an increase of agricultural production with the introduction of truck farming of tomatoes, cucumbers, and beans, as well as experimentation with oranges and lemons. Cattle continued to play a major role in the inland economy around Pine Level and Arcadia. According to one report, Manatee became a popular winter resort in the 1870s, at which time tourists and health seekers, as well as mail and supplies, were transported on sailing ships from Cedar Key, the nearest railroad station. Boarding houses stimulated appetites by offering wild turkey, venison, a variety of fresh- and salt-water fish, and lemon pie; one hostelry advertised its “well- tended croquet grounds.” Grapes flourished, but no use was made of them, which led a

P6115C 3-14 visiting woman to remark that if the manufacture of wine were encouraged, “this beastly drunkenness from strychnine whiskey would very soon be abandoned” (FWP 1939:471).

During the Reconstruction period following the Civil War, Florida’s financial crisis, born of pre-Civil War railroad bonded indebtedness, led Governor Bloxham to search for a buyer for an immense amount of state lands. Bloxham’s task was to raise adequate capital in one sale to free from litigation the remainder of state lands for desperately needed revenue. In 1881, Hamilton Disston, a Philadelphia investor and friend of Governor Bloxham, purchased four million acres from the State of Florida, in order to clear the state’s debt. This transaction, known as the Disston Purchase, enabled the distribution of large land subsidies to railroad companies, allowing them to begin extensive construction programs for new lines throughout the state (Harner 1973; Tebeau 1980).

By 1881, Hamilton Disston, a member of a prominent Pennsylvania saw manufacturing family and friend of then Governor William Bloxham, had entered into agreement with the State of Florida to purchase four million acres of swamp and overflowed land for one million dollars. In exchange for this, he promised to drain and improve the land. Disston’s land holding company was the Florida Land and Improvement Company. He and his associates also formed the Atlantic and Gulf Coast Canal and Okeechobee Land Company in 1881 (Davis 1939:205). This company was established as part of the drainage contract established with the State, which provided one-half of the acreage that they could drain, reclaim, and make fit for cultivation south of Township 23 South (later changed to Township 24 South) and east of the Peace River. This “Disston Purchase” enabled the distribution of large land subsidies to railroad companies, inducing them to begin extensive construction. Disston and the railroad companies in turn sold smaller parcels of land to developers and private investors (Tebeau and Carson 1965:252). He sold half of this contract to the British Florida Land and Mortgage Company, headed by Sir Edward James Reed, in 1882 (Tischendorf 1954). This was done to cover the second payment on the Purchase since Disston’s assets had been tied up in the drainage contract.

The first real influence on the growth of the area was the investment of capital in railroad construction during the 1880s. This was encouraged by the State of Florida, which granted sizeable amounts of land to the railroad companies. This development increased access, stimulated commerce, and promoted tourism, thus resulting in population growth and economic prosperity. The Florida Southern Railroad acquired the railroad charter and land grant of the Gainesville Ocala, and Charlotte Harbor Railroad which was due to expire in 1885. To hold this charter and secure the land, immediate railroad construction was necessary. Construction started at Bartow in Polk County and continued southward to Punta Gorda (Pettengill 1952).

With the railroad as a catalyst, there was a sudden surge of buying land for speculation, agriculture, and settlement in Manatee County. This resulted in the formation of DeSoto County from the eastern portion of Manatee County. Braidentown (now Bradenton) was selected as the new county seat for Manatee County (McDuffee 1961).

P6115C 3-15

During the 1880s, harvesting of the natural resources, timber and naval stores, fostered industry across the region. Along the rivers, the timber was first tapped for its resin, and then later harvested for lumber. In the late 1880's, phosphate was discovered on the Alafia; it was not until ca. 1894 that the Peruvian Mining Company was formed. In addition to the processing plant, the phosphate-boom led to the construction of a hotel and some houses on the north bank of the river before the shallow deposit was depleted and mining proved too expensive (HT/HCPB 1980; Maio et al. 1998:83). However, it did add to the growth of the area. Through the early part of the century, more settlements sprung up along the Peace River, and across Florida in areas through which the Peace River flowed. The industry radiated out across the into the deposit regions of the Alafia, Little Manatee, Manatee and Peace Rivers (HT/HCPB 1980:16, 18).

Although the national financial panic of 1893 prompted a decline in capital and investment in the area, most folks relied primarily on seafood harvesting, cattle raising, and citrus cultivation for sustenance. The Great Freeze of 1894 and 1895 ruined the crops, but did not destroy the trees, as had happened in areas further north. From the late 1890s through the early 1940s, the production of naval stores including the harvesting of lumber for construction and rosin for products such as glass, varnish, gunpowder, waxes, turpentine, and paints, served as a major industry.

The Spanish American War, in 1898, brought millions of dollars and many troops to Tampa. Tampa was the United States’ nearest shipping point for the war effort in Cuba. Consequently, it was the designated departure point for the troops. Henry Plant’s Tampa Bay Hotel became the headquarters of the Army (Evans 1972). Troops began arriving in April of 1898 and by May of that year, they outnumbered residents two to one (Friedel 1985; Grismer 1950). By early June, an estimated 20,000 troops had shipped out to Cuba with thousands more waiting. However, the war ended on July 5th, and by the end of August, the troops were gone and Tampa returned to normal.

3.8 Twentieth Century

The turn of the century prompted optimism and an excitement over growth and development. A north/south connector from Tampa to Miami significantly opened up Manatee County. In 1915, a group of businesspersons met to discuss the feasibility of a cross-state highway from Tampa to Miami by way of Sarasota. A portion of this route, stretching from the Hillsborough county line to Sarasota, was constructed in Manatee County with the passage of a bond issue in 1911. This road was eventually designated as U.S. 41, or the Tamiami Trail, but was not completed until 1928 (Scupholm 1997). Developers used propaganda promoting Florida as the eternal garden to attract tourists and new residents. The lands proximate to the S.R. 64 APE were purchased by James A. Johnstone, John R., Jones, Jose M. Cazanas, and Wiley C. Chappell between 1895 and 1911 (State of Florida n.d.:159).

P6115C 3-16

The great Florida land boom of the 1920s saw widespread development of towns and highways. Several reasons prompted the boom, including the mild winters, the growing number of tourists, the larger use of the automobile, the completion of roads, the prosperity of the 1920s, and the promise by the state legislature never to pass state income or inheritance taxes.

Signs of growth were halted by the end of the Florida Land Boom and the Great Depression hit Florida earlier than the rest of the nation. By 1926-27, the bottom fell out of the Florida real estate market. Massive freight car congestion from hundreds cars loaded with building materials sitting idle in the railroad yards caused the Florida East Coast Railway to embargo all but perishable goods in August of 1925 (Curl 1986). The embargo spread to other railroads throughout the state, and, as a result, most construction halted. The 1926 real estate economy in Florida was based upon such wild land speculations that banks could not keep track of loans or property values (Eriksen 1994:172). By October, rumors were rampant in northern newspapers concerning fraudulent practices in the real estate market in south Florida. Confidence in the Florida real estate market quickly diminished and the investors could not sell lots (Curl 1986). To make the situation even worse, two hurricanes hit south Florida in 1926 and 1928. The 1928 hurricane created a flood of refugees fleeing northward. The following year, in 1929, the Mediterranean fruit fly invaded and paralyzed the citrus industry creating quarantines and inspections that further slowed an already sluggish industry.

The 1930s saw the closing of mines and mills and widespread unemployment. This included the cigar industry of nearby Tampa, the area's economic backbone for a half century, which was severely impacted. Several cigar factories closed, eleven cigar firms moved, and three merged into one (Campbell 1939). Further compounding the desperate economic situation was the all-time record flood crest of the Alafia River on June 9, 1933. However, during the 1930s, tropical fish farms were established in the general area.

In the mid-1930s, the New Deal programs of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration were aimed at pulling the nation out of the Depression. However, it was not until World War II that the local economy recovered, along with the rest of the state. Federal roads, channel building, and airfield construction for the wartime defense effort brought numerous Americans into Florida and Tampa.

As World War II ended, Manatee County, like most of Florida, experienced a population boom in the 1950s. The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) reported that Florida’s population increased from 1,897,414 in 1940 to 2,771,305 in 1950 (USCB 1995). After the war, car ownership increased, making the American public more mobile. Tourism, along with corporate investments, developed as one of the major industries for the Tampa Bay area. Many who had served at Florida’s military bases during World War II also returned with their families to live. As veterans returned, the trend in new housing focused on the development of small tract homes in new subdivisions.

P6115C 3-17

Finally, the late 1950s saw the end of the cigar industry in Tampa due to Fidel Castro's takeover of Cuba and an American embargo on Cuban tobacco. Tourism began its development as one of the major industries for the city along with corporate investments.

Also in the late l950s, local infrastructure within the project APE was constructed. The 76-mile State Road 64 was a mostly rural two-lane highway connecting Holmes Beach on Anna Maria Island to Avon Park in Highlands County. Bridges crossed the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Braden River, Lake Manatee, and the Myakka River, including the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge which was constructed ca. 1957.

In the 1960s, construction of I-75 in Florida was begun, generating a spurt of activity that has continued into the 21st century. With the population explosion in Manatee County, the character of the area has changed dramatically. By 1970, development of residential communities, mobile home parks, and villages was well underway throughout the region. I-75 was completed through Manatee County in the early 1980s, allowing continued growth in the county. By 2000, the population of Manatee County totaled 264,002, making the county the sixteenth largest in the state (USCB 2000). The largest employers are in the retail trade, services, and government sectors. Manatee County is part of the Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice Metropolitan Area. Most of the Manatee County population is centered along the Gulf Coast.

3.9 Anna Maria Island and Perico Island

Anna Maria Island was first settled in 1892 by George Emerson Bean, who occupied the northern tip of the island. Four years later Sam and Annie Cobb homesteaded 160 acres on what would later become Holmes Beach, the community at the western terminus of the project APE. During the early 1900s, Bean, with the Anna Maria Island Beach Company, began to develop the island by platting streets and installing a water system. The sand and shell beaches of the resort-like Anna Maria Island attracted settlers despite the fact that it was only accessible by boat. In 1921, the Cortez Bridge was constructed connecting Anna Maria Island to the mainland at the historic fishing village of Cortez, located two miles south of the project APE. Today, the wooden bridge has been mostly dismantled and is now the Bradenton Beach Fishing Pier (Anna Maria Island Chamber of Commerce [AMICC] 2008; FWP 1939).

By the end of World War II, a 600-acre community on Anna Maria Island was created by developer, Jack Holmes. This was incorporated as the city of Holmes Beach ca. 1950 (AMICC 2008).

Until the 1940s, Perico Island remained largely undeveloped except for a dirt road from Palma Sola, a community located on the mainland northeast of the project APE. At this time, the Preston family purchased land on Perico Island, which they developed as an agricultural and horticultural operation. The Manatee Fruit Company, as the operation was called, had an extensive irrigation system, and cultivated row crops and ornamentals.

P6115C 3-18

The company operated until the 1990s (Johnson 2000). Modern aerials indicate that very little of the agricultural operation survives.

The landscapes of both Anna Maria Island and Perico Island were dramatically altered in 1955 when Governor LeRoy Collins initiated a state-funded program to modernize and build roads and bridges throughout Florida. This included S.R. 64, where bridges were constructed to connect Palma Sola Bay to Perico Island to Anna Maria Island (ACI 1990). The Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge, completed ca. 1957 (FDOT # 130054), provides access from Perico Island to the north part of Anna Maria Island at Holmes Beach. Research, including historic aerials and newspaper articles, reveals a toll booth was located at the eastern terminus of the bridge; the booth was removed in 1964 (PALMM 1957, 1970; Unger 2002). This facilitated urban growth on Anna Maria Island with the seven-story Martinique Condominium, completed in 1973, as the island’s first high-rise. By the 1990s large-scale developments like the 300-acre bay front Perico Island Bay Club, the Flamingo Cay Subdivision, and the Spoonbill Courtyard Subdivision replaced the once rural landscape of Perico Island (AMICC 2008; Manatee County Property Appraisers [MCPA] n.d.).

P6115C 4-1

4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS

4.1 Background Research and Literature Review

A comprehensive review of archaeological and historical literature, records, and other documents and data pertaining to the project area, including the ETDM Report (FDOT 2008a) was conducted. The focus of this research was to ascertain the types of cultural resources known in the S.R. 64 PD&E Study area, their temporal/cultural affiliations, site location information, and other relevant data. This included a review of the sites listed in the NRHP, the FMSF (October 2008 GIS update), published books and articles, cultural resource survey reports, and pertinent records at the Manatee County Property Appraiser’s Office, via the internet. In addition to the FMSF, other data relative to the background research were obtained from the files of ACI. Also, Bill Burger, a professional archaeologist who has been conducting archaeological research on Perico Island for many years, was retained as a consultant on this project (Burger 2008c). Compilation of these background data resulted in the preparation of a research design for the project which was submitted to and approved by FDOT District One (ACI 2008; Pipkin 2008). This is included as Appendix A.

4.1.1 Archaeological Considerations

Based on background research and the ETDM Summary Report, the area of critical concern for the S.R. 64 proposed undertaking was identified as the western portion of Perico Island, and specifically, an archaeological complex identified in the FMSF as 8MA6. The site consists of two or three linear shell middens, a cemetery area, and a burial mound. In fact, Perico Island has been documented, visited, and investigated for more than 100 years. A brief summary of prior visits and investigations is presented below, and more detailed information is contained in the research design (Appendix A). Figure 4.1 depicts the location of 8MA6 as well as other archaeological sites recorded on Perico Island. Figure 4.2 identifies the location and previous research on the island and Figure 4.3 depicts the components of 8MA6 contained within and proximate to the APE.

The earliest recorded visits to the Perico area were made by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS) and the Federal land surveyors in the late 1800s. No historic features were noted on the early maps or the associated field notes (State of Florida 1875, 1876, 1885, 1887; USC&GS 1877, 1885, 1888). However, Angelo Heilprin, a geologist and naturalist, briefly landed on Perico Island, and noted that “the interior of the island supports a stunted growth of saw-palmetto and the usually accompanying yellow-pine” and “the border of the island was covered with mangrove. . .” (Heilprin 1887:384).

P6115C 4-2

8MA26

8MA1185 8MA1189 8MA1188 8MA1187 8MA1191 8MA6

8MA25 A 8MA1186

E D 8MA1184 C

8MA696 8MA697 8MA22 8MA272

N 0 0.25 0.5 mile N

S.R. 64 FigureFigure 2. 4.1. roject Previosuly environment recorded and archaeological recorded archaeological sites on Perico sites. Island. S.R. 64 Anna Maria Island Bridge TownshipTownship 34 34South, South, Range Range 16 East16 East(USGS (USGS Anna Anna Maria, Maria Fla. 1970,1970 PRand Anna Maria Island Bridge Bridge #130054 1983Bradenton and Bradenton Beach 1982). Beach, Fla. 1982). Bridge #130054 PD&E Study PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 4-3

1 Johnson 2000 8 Bullen 1950

2 Burger 1982a, 1982b 9 Newman 1934 (area identified as 8MA6 B and C 3 Ballo 1989 10 ACI 1990

4 Johnson 2006 11 Burger 1985

5 Janus Research 2002 (marina area) 12 Williams 1974 6 Cockrell 1970 13 Burger 2008d 7 Newman 1934 (area identified as 8MA6); Burger 2008a, 2008b, 2008c

3 4 5 10

13 11 9 6 8 7

0 0.25 0.5 mile N

Figure 4.2. General composite of archaeological investigations of S.R. 64 Perico Island, 1930-2008. Township 34 South, Range 16 East (USGS Anna Maria Island Bridge Anna Maria, Fla. 1970, PR 1983 and Bradenton Beach, Fla. 1982). Bridge #130054 PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 0 200 400 feet

50’ 153 163 170 50’ E 50’ D

C N Figure 4.3. Area of potential effect (existing and proposed ROW) in the vicinity of 8MA6. 8MA6 A, B, C, D, S.R. 64 and E; B, not shown, is to the south of C. Green dashed line is existing ROW; purple is a 50’ addition to the Anna Maria Island Bridge existing ROW as discussed in text; denotes station as referenced in text. Bridge #130054 PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 4-4 4-5

From the early 1900s through 1932, alterations to the Perico Island Site (8MA6A and B) include probable removal and sale of shell for road construction (Burger 1982a:39). In 1933 and 1934, Marshall T. Newman conducted archaeological investigations at the Perico Island Site for the Smithsonian Institution. He wrote that the cemetery area had been “… plowed and ridged during the land boom [1920s] for a citrus grove, and hence any particular configuration which it might have had was obliterated…” (Newman 1934). He described the site:

On the western side of Perico Island near Bradenton is a group of three shell mounds extending in a north and south direction and approximately 100 yards distant from Sarasota Bay. The most conspicuous mound of the group is a large shell habitation mound about 900 feet in length by 120 feet in width [8MA6A]. One thousand feet southwest of this mound is another similar smaller mound [8MA6B]. From the southern edge of the large habitation mound a shell ridge extends in a southwesterly direction terminating in a circular shell burial mound [8MA6C], and northeast of this mound is a small burial area on the edge of a mangrove swamp [8MA6D] (Stirling 1935:376).

Around 1940, Bradenton amateur archaeologist and collector, Montague Tallant, recorded Newman’s excavations as well as his own observations about the island (Tallant ca. 1940). He wrote:

one large oblong shell heap [8MA6A] runs for 1,000’ along the bay north and south, and another (Tallant #5 [8MA6E]) is even longer, making in to the water’s edge south of the first mentioned in an east to west direction. Between these was a shell burial [8MA6C] which was excavated by the Smithsonian in 1933. They also excavated a cemetery [8MA6D] some 500’ to the east of this (Tallant ca. 1940).

Tallant’s #5 remained unrecorded until relocated by Burger under several feet of fill; it has been recorded as 8MA6E (Burger 2008a). In 1949, Gordon Willey included a discussion of Newman’s work in his Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast, noting that Newman’s excavation units were placed in the burial mound (8MA6C), the smaller midden (8MA6B), and the cemetery (8MA6D) (Willey 1949). In 1950, Ripley Bullen of the Florida Park Service conducted test excavations at Perico Island. He focused on the large and small shell middens (8MA6A and B) and excavated a five-foot square unit in A, just to the north of the burial mound. Bullen noted that much of the northern midden had been “removed for commercial purposes” (Bullen 1950:40). Shell had also been removed from the north end of the southern midden.

Between 1951 and 1956, channel dredge spoil was deposited to create the causeway and toll plaza for S.R. 64; spoil also pushed to the east over portions of 8MA6A and 8MA6D (Burger 2008c; PALMM 1951, 1957). In 1953, William Plowden recorded other sites on the island based on Tallant’s investigations, including 8MA22, 8MA25, and 8MA26 (FMSF).

P6115C 4-6

In the early 1970s, local developer and land owner, Curtis Wright, cleared land south of S.R. 64 and spread the material from Newman’s reconstructed burial mound northward over the cemetery area and portions of 8MA6A, perhaps into the S.R. 64 ROW (Burger 2008c). During Wright’s operations, W. A. Cockrell of the Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management (now the FDHR), conducted a surface reconnaissance of the Perico Island complex. He noted that Manatee Avenue (S.R. 64) and the Anna Maria Island Bridge cut across the north midden, destroying a large segment of it (Cockrell 1970). In 1974, J. Raymond Williams of the University of South Florida visited Perico Island for a Development of Regional Impact. He found two concentrations of prehistoric occupation south of S.R. 64. He concluded that this portion of 8MA6A had been degraded by the removal of shell and erosion. North of S.R. 64, Williams found an extensive midden just north of the marina on the westernmost portion of the island. He noted that the two areas he investigated had not been greatly disturbed and concluded that the midden to the north of the marina “must have once been physically joined with the midden to the south but has been severed by construction of the highway, marina and land reformation” (Williams 1974:3).

Bill Burger surveyed the Perico Island Site in 1981 and 1982 to relocate its various archaeological components and concluded that “their exact placement is still uncertain due to the extent of the previous disturbances” (Burger 1982a:41). Concurring with the former observations of Cockrell and Williams, Burger observed that although part of the north midden (8MA6A) had been destroyed by construction, a portion was still extant beneath the marina structures and extended nearly 500 meters northward from the existing North Bay Harbor Marina (Burger 1982a:41). His testing revealed stratified deposits below the water table, human remains, and the presence of in situ aboriginal structural data (Burger 1982b:76). S.W. Leonard recorded 8MA272, an aboriginal shell midden along the southern shore of Perico Island, in 1981.

Systematic and judgmental subsurface shovel testing was conducted in the 14- acre Parcel “Y” to the south of S.R. 64 and it was noted that “prehistoric cultural material was found nearly everywhere on the peninsula including the adjacent barrens” (Austin 1986:3). However, no maps are available which depict the location of parcel Y. Two areas of archaeological concern were identified: PB-1 (the remaining portion of 8MA6B) and PB-2, an oak hammock on a shell midden “. . . in close proximity to the location of the burial mound (8MA6C) and the cemetery (8MA6D).” Austin considered both areas he identified as NRHP eligible and recommended further research. Burger reviewed Austin’s report and examined some of the cultural materials (Burger 1986). His comments included the potential for intact deposits below the tract’s current water table as Manatee County Mosquito Control uncovered a primary flexed human burial in a mosquito ditch in the northwest part of the Perico Bay Tract (Burger 1986:4).

In 1989, FDOT Archaeologist George Ballo, conducted an archaeological resource assessment survey for the replacement of the existing two-lane bascule bridge and determined that the proposed bridge replacement project would impact only the road/artificial causeway and artificial embankments supporting the existing bridge (Ballo

P6115C 4-7

and Wiedenfeld 1989). FDOT Architectural Historian Melissa Wiedenfeld conducted a historic resource assessment survey of the existing two-lane bridge and determined that the bridge, built in 1959, was not eligible for listing in the NRHP. However, the current FDOT Bridge Inventory reveals that the bridge (Bridge No. 130054) was actually built in 1957 (FDOT 2008c). No other resources were identified in the project area (Ballo and Wiedenfeld 1989).

In 1990, ACI, on behalf of the FDOT District One, conducted a CRAS of S.R. 64 from the Anna Maria Island Bridge to U.S. 41 in Bradenton. Twenty-six shovel tests were excavated where 8MA6A was bisected by S.R. 64. Buried midden deposits were found in six of the shovel tests. ACI concluded that “. . . intact portions of 8MA6A are contained both within and adjacent to the proposed S.R. 64 corridor” (ACI 1990:44). A few years later, in 1997, Bill Burger recorded 8MA697 and 8MA698, both aboriginal shell middens, along the southern shore of Perico Island (FMSF).

More recently, a Phase I CRAS of the 353-acre Arvida Perico Island Tract identified nine archaeological sites (8MA1184–1191) and one historic house (8MA1192 - it has since been destroyed), and concluded that “for the most part, the Perico Island sites recorded were composed of minimal aboriginal lithic scatters which maintain little in the way of potential to yield information in our understanding of past aboriginal occupation in Perico Island/Manatee County area” (Johnson 2000:1). Eventually, additional field survey and archaeological monitoring were conducted in an effort to relocated 8MA25 and 8MA26, originally reported by Tallant; no evidence of either site was uncovered (Johnson 2005, 2006). North of the S.R. 64 APE, Janus Research conducted a CRAS of the Perico Harbor Marina Basin Project Area with negative results (Hughes 2008; Janus Research 2002). Currently, Bill Burger continues his research on Perico Island within the Neal Preserve (Burger 2008b).

Based on these data, four components of 8MA6 – A, C, D, and E may lie within the S.R. 64 archaeological APE (Figure 4.3), and depending on resource integrity, one or more of the component(s) may be significant, that is, of value to Native Americans and/or eligible for listing in the NRHP. These resources include:

• Component A: the large north-south trending midden is bisected by S.R. 64 and some deeply buried midden deposits may lie beneath the existing and additional ROW; • Component C: although once situated south of the archaeological APE, bulldozing during the 1970s may have pushed portions of the original and/or reconstructed mound material into the southern portion of the APE; • Component D: the cemetery area may have once extended into the southern portion of the APE, and remaining materials may lie below recent dredge/fill or the bulldozed material from component C; • Component E: the northeast/southwest trending midden mentioned by Tallant (ca. 1940) and rediscovered by Burger. It is also partially bisected by S.R. 64, and apparently intact midden lies deeply buried, below the dredge/fill materials.

P6115C 4-8

Based on these data, it is anticipated that archaeological investigation of the APE will result in the discovery of marine shell midden (disturbed and intact) deposits that may contain food shell, bone, shell, and stone tools, ceramics, faunal bone, human remains, and perhaps buried features.

4.1.2 Historical Considerations

A review of the FMSF and the NRHP revealed the presence of one previously recorded historic resource within the historical/architectural APE. The Tenant House (8MA1192), located along S.R. 64 near the eastern terminus of the project, was recorded during a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Arvida Perico Island Tract, Manatee County, Florida (Johnson 2000). This resource, a Frame Vernacular style building constructed during the 1930s, was determined to be not eligible for listing the NRHP by the SHPO in 2000. A review of the Bradenton Beach quadrangle map (USGS 1982) and historic aerials (Publication of Archival Library and Museum Materials [PALMM] 1940, 1951, 1957) revealed the potential for one additional historic building located within the project APE.

In addition, research revealed that the Anna Maria Draw Bridge over Sarasota Pass (FDOT Bridge # 130054) was reviewed in 1989 by FDOT Architectural Historian, Melissa Wiedenfeld, during a Historical Resources Assessment Survey of the existing two-lane bridge. She noted that it was built in 1959; therefore, was not eligible for listing in the NRHP (Ballo and Wiedenfeld 1989). However, a review of the Efficient TDM analysis (FDOT 2008a) and the FDOT Bridge Inventory (FDOT 2008b) revealed that the bridge was constructed in 1957. As a result, it was anticipated that one historic bridge would be recorded during this survey.

4.2 Field Methodology

An area-specific testing methodology was developed based on FDOT and FDHR standards and methods (FDHR 2003; FDOT 1999; Kammerer 2008) and approved by FDOT (Pipkin 2008). This included the use of long-handled posthole diggers as opposed to a mechanical auger in order to decrease the potential for destruction of sensitive deposits such as features or human skeletal material. The use of long-handled posthole diggers extended the depth of the standard shovel test pit from 100 to 150 centimeters below surface (cmbs) (39 to 59 inches [in]). No testing was conducted along the northern ROW, except within Pond D North, at the request of PBS&J (Warren 2008). The area specific methodology is summarized below, and Figure 4.4 identifies each area.

• Area A, located along the western edge of Perico Island, was determined to be a low zone of archaeological potential (ZAP) because it is comprised of dredge and fill materials (Burger 2008c; PALMM 1951, 1957; USDA 1958, 1983).

P6115C 4-8

Begin Study

E End Study bridge A B C D

170 189

N 0 0.25 0.5 mile Figure 4.4. Areas of archaeological potential within the S.R. 64 PD&E Study APE; Areas A through E are discussed S.R. 64 in text. Township 34 South, Range 16 East (USGS Anna Maria 1970 and Bradenton Beach 1982). 170 and 189 Anna Maria Island Bridge Bridge #130054 reference stations noted in text. PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 4-10

• Area B, which bisects 8MA6A and perhaps 8MA6D, as well as 8MA6E, was considered a high ZAP. Systematic shovel testing was conducted at 10 m (33 ft) offset intervals along three transects spaced 10 m (33 ft) apart. In addition, north of S.R. 64, buried utilities, asphalt parking lots, an abandoned convenience store, and a ditch limited testing to four shovel tests within the eastern extent of Pond D- North.

To evaluate the integrity/significance of the apparently intact cultural deposits discovered within Area B, four excavation units were dug. Two were 1 m (3.3 ft) by 2 m (6.6 ft) in size, and the other two were 1.5 m (4.9 ft) square.

• Area C, located east of Area B between Stations 170 and 189, is a filled wetland (PALMM 1957; USDA 1958, 1983), therefore, it is considered a low ZAP. ACI excavated STs at 25 and 50 m (82 and 164 ft) intervals in this area to verify the presence of fill and lack of archaeological deposit.

• Area D, located east of Area C, is upland, situated between Station 189 and the terminus of the project. Although there are no recorded sites, the area is considered a moderate to high ZAP due to the 2 m (5 ft) elevation and proximity of other archaeological sites. Shovel testing was conducted at 25 m (82 ft) intervals along the south side of S.R. 64.

• Area E, situated west of the Anna Maria Bridge on the Island, includes dredged land associated with construction of the bridge. Thus, it was considered a low ZAP. STs were placed at 50 and 100 m (164 and 328 ft) intervals to verify dredged material.

The STs were circular and measured approximately 0.5 m (20 in) in diameter by 100 or 150 cmbs (39-59 in) in depth, unless impeded by an impenetrable substratum (limestone). All soil removed from the subsurface tests was screened through 6.4 mm (0.25 in) or smaller mesh for the recovery of cultural materials. All cultural materials collected from the surface or recovered from STs were bagged by provenience in keeping with the methods detailed in the FDHR Manual (FDHR 2003:17-19). Likewise, the location of each ST or unit was plotted on appropriate maps and recorded with a Magellan MobileMapper CE; following the recording of relevant data such as stratigraphic profile and artifacts, all STs and units were refilled upon completion of the data recovery (cf., FDHR 2003:19-20). The excavation units were excavated in 10 and 20 cm (4 and 8 in levels). The soil matrix removed from excavation units was water screened through 0.32 cm (0.125 in) mesh to maximize data recovery and any cultural materials recovered were bagged as appropriate (FDHR 2003:17-19).

Historical/architectural field methodology included reconnaissance survey of the APE to determine the location of all historic resources, including bridges, believed to be 50 years of age or older, and to ascertain if any resources within the project APE would be eligible for listing in the NRHP. For any historic resource identified, an in-depth study

P6115C 4-11

of each was conducted. Photographs were taken and information needed for the completion of FMSF forms was gathered. In addition to the architectural description, each historic resource was reviewed to assess style, historic context, condition, and potential NRHP eligibility. If necessary, the FMSF form for the previously recorded historic resource within the APE would be updated if significant alterations had occurred.

A visual reconnaissance survey of the project area vicinity was also conducted to ascertain whether any potential historic district existed within or adjacent to the project APE. If available, it was planned to interview residents or other knowledgeable persons to obtain site-specific building construction dates and/or possible associations with individuals or events significant to local or regional history. However, no persons were available for interviews.

4.3 Unexpected Discoveries

It was anticipated that if human burial sites such as Indian mounds and/or prehistoric cemeteries, or other unmarked burials or associated artifacts were found, then the provisions and guidelines set forth in Chapter 872.05 FS (Florida’s Unmarked Burial Law) would be followed. Evidence of burials was considered a possibility due to previous recorded burials in 8MA6C and 8MA6D.

4.4 Laboratory Methods and Curation

All recovered cultural materials were initially cleaned and sorted by artifact class. Lithics were divided into tools and debitage based on gross morphology and classified using standard references (Bullen 1975; Purdy 1981). Lithic debitage was subjected to a limited technological analysis focused on ascertaining the stages of stone tool production. Flakes and non-flake production debris (i.e. cores, blanks, etc.) were examined for raw material types and absence or presence of thermal alteration.

Aboriginal ceramics were classified into commonly recognized types based on observable characteristics such as aplastic inclusions and surface treatment (cf., Cordell 1985; 1987; 2004; Goggin 1948, 1952; Willey 1949). Faunal materials were sorted into class (mammal, reptile, bony fish, etc.) and identifiable elements were classified as to genus and species, where possible. Shell tools were classified according to Marquardt (1992; 1999), Luer (1986; 2002; 2008), Luer and Hughes (2005), and Burger (2008c).

All recovered artifacts and project-related records, including maps, photos, and field notes, will be curated at ACI in Sarasota, until arrangements can be made for curation by the FDOT.

P6115C 5-1

5.0 SURVEY RESULTS

5.1 Archaeological Survey Results

ACI excavated a total of 144 shovel tests (STs) within the archaeological APE, which included five proposed pond sites (A, B, C, D, and E). As directed by PBS&J, no testing was conducted north of S.R. 64, except in the proposed pond sites (Warren 2008). Of the 144 STs, 25 were positive, 119 were negative; all positive shovel tests were located within the boundaries of 8MA6A and 8MA6E. The location of the shovel tests is shown in Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. Shovel test pit results are presented in Appendix B, along with PBS&J concept plans that show the shovel test pit and excavation unit locations.

• Area A (Figure 5.1) was considered a low ZAP because documentation indicated that this area had been filled with dredge spoil. Thirteen STs were placed at an offset 50 m (164 ft) intervals along two transects located south of S.R. 64 and within and adjacent to proposed Pond D-South. All of these STs were negative, i.e., no evidence of midden or artifacts was found. The stratigraphy consists of an upper 30 cm (12 in) of gray sand underlain by a light gray sandy fill.

• Area B (Figure 5.1) was considered a high ZAP because 8MA6A, 8MA6C, 8MA6D, and 8MA6E were recorded within and near the APE (Figure 4.3). North of S.R. 64, within and adjacent to proposed Pond D-North, buried utilities, including a phone and natural gas line, as well as a paved parking lot and drainage ditch limited the placement of STs (Photos 5.1 and 5.2).

Cable

Utility Verizon

Water Gas

Photo 5.1. Approximate locations of buried utilities in Pond D-North, looking west.

P6115C 5-2

Negative Shovel Test Positive Shovel Test Disturbed Midden Proposed Pond Site

Pond D-North

Area A Area B Area C

Pond D-South

Figure 5.1. Approximate locations of the shovel tests within portions of the S.R. 64 APE, Areas A, B and C and proposed ponds D-South and D-North. Township 34 South, Range 16 S.R. 64 East (DOQQ Anna Maria 2922 and Bradenton Beach 2822). Shovel tests are not to scale. Anna Maria Island Bridge Bridge #130054 PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 5-3

Negative Shovel Test Positive Shovel Test Disturbed Midden

Area B Area C Area D

Figure 5.2. Approximate locations of the shovel tests within portions of the S.R. 64 APE, Areas B, C and D. Township 34 South, Range 16 East (DOQQ Anna Maria 2922 and S.R. 64 Bradenton Beach 2822). Shovel tests are not to scale. Anna Maria Island Bridge Bridge #130054 PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 5-4

Negative Shovel Test Positive Shovel Test Disturbed Midden Proposed Pond Site

Pond A

Pond C Pond E

Area E

Pond B

Figure 5.3. Approximate locations of shovel tests within S.R. 64 APE, Area E and Proposed Ponds A, B, C and E on Anna Maria Island. Township 34 South, Range 16 East (DOQQ S.R. 64 Anna Maria 2922). Shovel tests are not to scale. Anna Maria Island Bridge Bridge #130054 PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 5-5

Photo 5.2. October/November 2008 – placement of Verizon cable in Pond D-North, looking west.

Therefore, few shovel tests could be excavated in and immediately adjacent to Pond D-North; these were dug within and immediately adjacent to the eastern terminus of the proposed pond, as this was the only area not paved, ditched, or recently altered by Verizon. Two of the tests, ST 133 and 147, were positive and evidenced 8MA6E in the form of a deeply buried shell midden below approximately 150 cm (59 in) of fill. The hydraulically-dredged sand and spoil was deposited during the construction of a toll plaza and causeway ca. 1957.

South of S.R. 64, and east of Area A, ACI excavated 21 STs; 13 of these were dug within the area identified as part of 8MA6E by Burger, and two (STs 100 and 118) evidenced midden between 160 and 190 cmbs (63-74 in), similar in composition to that encountered in STs 133 and 147, north of S.R. 64 (Figure 5.1).

Near 8MA6A, 62 shovel tests were dug at approximate 10 m (33 ft) offset intervals (Figure 5.1). Of these, six evidenced disturbed or redeposited midden; 15 other STs revealed undisturbed midden between the surface and 190 cmbs (75 in) (See Appendix B for shovel test results). In general, midden material from these test pits was comprised of marine shell, including oyster, Busycon, Melongena, scallop, and quahog, as well as other marine food shell. In addition, frequently found faunal remains included deer, boney fish, sharks and rays, as well as turtle, snake, crab, and bird. In addition, a few pieces of lithic debitage and sand- tempered plain ceramic sherds were recovered from the positive STs in Area B.

P6115C 5-6

• Area C (Figure 5.2) was identified as having a low ZAP because it is a filled wetland within the APE (Burger 2008c). To verify this, ACI excavated 17 STs at roughly 25 m and 50 m (82 ft and 164 ft) intervals on the south side of the APE. As anticipated, all STs were negative and evidenced extensive fill.

• Area D (Figure 5.2) based on background research, was determined to have a moderate to high potential for the discovery of cultural materials. The moderate potential was based on the fact that Area D is slightly elevated above the surrounding terrain (2 m [5 ft] elevation) and other archaeological sites are in the vicinity. However, all nine STs, conducted at 25 m (82 ft) intervals along the south side of S.R. 64, were negative and evidenced extreme land altering activities as a result of a large residential development, road construction, and ditching (Photo 5.3).

Photo 5.3. Residential development and swale along north side of S.R. 64 on Perico Island, near eastern terminus of project in Area D, looking west.

• Area E (Figure 5.3) is located on eastern Anna Maria Island and almost exclusively on the dredged and filled east-west trending peninsula constructed for the bridge abutment. ACI excavated 18 STs at 50 and 100 m (164 and 328 ft) intervals; all of which were negative. Almost all STs were placed within proposed Ponds A, B, C, and E, which are planned adjacent to S.R. 64.

Based on these results, and in consultation with archaeologist Bill Burger, ACI placed four excavation units (EU) within the APE in Area B; two were 1 m x 2 m (3.3 x 6.6 ft) in size and two were 1.5 m x 1.5 m (4.9 x 4.9 ft) in size. Three were placed south of S.R. 64, and one north of S.R. 64 (Figure 5.4). The locations of the four excavation units are also shown on the concept plans provided by PBS&J in Appendix B.

P6115C 5-7

5.2 Excavation Units (EU)

• EU #1 The placement of EU #1, 1 x 2 m (3.3 x 6.6 ft) in size, was based on the results of systematic shovel testing in the general vicinity of 8MA6A (Figures 4.3 and 5.4). The unit was excavated to 100 cmbs (39 in) in 10 and 20 cm (4 and 8 in) levels and consisted entirely of light gray hydraulically-dredged sandy fill (Photo 5.4). At 1 m (39 in) below surface, the excavation was terminated and long handle post hole diggers were used to test below that depth; a shell midden deposit was found between 120 and 140 cmbs (47 and 55 in). No features were observed and no cultural materials were collected. However, due to the depth of fill, limited evidence of midden, and safety issues, the excavation was halted. As a result, a second unit (EU #2) was opened to the east.

Photo 5.4. EU #1 west profile 0-70 cmbs. Note sand and fill.

• EU #2 was placed just to the east of EU #1, also within the existing S.R. 64 ROW, where ST 3 had uncovered midden, assumed to be evidence of 8MA6A within the APE (Figure 5.4). EU #2 was 1 x 2 m (3.3 x 6.6 ft) in size and excavated to a depth of 150 cmbs (59 in) in 10 to 20 cm (4-8 in) levels. In general, stratigraphy revealed gray sand (0-30 cmbs/0-12 in), black dirt, and shell midden (30-150 cmbs/12-59 in). A layer of hydraulically-dredged fill was present in a portion of the unit at approximately 30-50 cmbs (12-20 in). Underneath the midden, sterile gray silt was found to extend to an undetermined depth (Figure 5.5). Careful examination of the black dirt midden evidenced pieces of white plastic sheeting indicating that the midden was disturbed, probably inverted and dumped in the ROW, when the nearby ditch was excavated along the south side of S.R. 64 (Burger 2008c).

P6115C 0 200 400 feet

Unit 3 50’

Unit 1 Unit 2 50’ E 50’ Unit 4

N Figure 5.4. Location of excavation units (not to scale) within 8MA6A and 8MA6E. Green dashed line is S.R. 64 existing ROW; purple is a 50’ addition to the existing ROW as discussed in text. Anna Maria Island Bridge Bridge #130054 PD&E Study

Manatee County, Florida 5-8 FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 5-9

Unit 2 South Profile

1020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1m 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 2m Datum Line 0

10 west

20 1 2 30

40 4 50

90 3 1m

110

120 H O 2 130 120cmbd*

140

150 150cmbd*

160

170 5

180

190

2m N

1 - 10YR 2/2 very dark gray humic layer 2 - 10YR 6/1 gray sand 5% shell inclusions 3 - 10YR 2/1 black shell midden layer (redeposited) (dense, compact shell .50% robust and crushed shell throughout) 4 - 10YR 7/1 light gray sand (hydraulically dredged spoil) 5 - 10YR 5/1 gray silty sand (sterile layer)

* centimeters below datum 0 10 cm

Figure 5.5. Excavated EU #2 south of S.R. 64, within the existing ROW/APE. (See S.R. 64 Figure 5.4. for location of EU #2 and Figure 5.1 for shovel test pits which evidence Anna Maria Island Bridge disturbed midden). Bridge #130054 PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 5-10

Two, 19 liter (five-gallon) buckets were filled with midden material to evaluate the deposit and/or verify the redeposition. This sample was taken from about 75 cmbs (30 in) in the north profile and water screened though 0.32 cm (0.125 in) mesh and sorted. This evidenced marine shell, faunal bone, and a minimal assortment of ceramics (See Appendix C). More specifically, boney fish, shark, ray, snake, stone crab, catfish, and raccoon were identified. In addition, five fragments of sand-tempered plain (STP) ceramic, three quahog umbo scrapers, and several small metal flakes were recovered. The latter further substantiated the disturbed nature of the midden within the existing S.R. 64 ROW. The ceramics had an average thickness of 6.9 millimeters (mm) (0.27 in) which is relatively thin, and may indicate that the spoil had come from Safety Harbor component evidenced at 8MA6E, located about 30 m (98 ft) west of the unit.

• EU #3 was placed adjacent to the eastern terminus of Pond D-North where ST 133 evidenced midden, presumably 8MA6E (Figure 5.4). This 1.5 x 1.5 m (4.9 x 4.9) unit was excavated to approximately 180 cmbs (71 in). Wooden shoring and pump were required for safety purposes as well as to dewater the unit. The upper levels of the unit produced a thick, dense, compact set of fill layers (0-140 cmbs/0-55 in) ranging from grayish-brown gravelly sand to limestone, asphalt, and crushed shell debris; in all likelihood the remains of prior roadway and toll plaza construction. Immediately beneath the fill, a water-logged black dirt shell midden (140-180 cmbs/55-71 in) was encountered atop sterile gray sand that extended to an undetermined depth below two meters (6.6 ft) (Photos 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7; Figure 5.6).

Photo 5.5. EU #3 note 1 m of fill; midden encountered at 140 cmbs.

P6115C 5-11 Unit 3 West Profile

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1m 110 120 130 140 150 Datum Line 0 north 10

1 20

30 2

40 3 50

60 4

80 5 90

110 6 120

130

140 H O 2

150 Midden Level 1 7

160

170 Level 2

8 180

190

1 - 10YR 3/1 very dark gray humic layer 2 - 10YR 7/2 light gray sand fill densely packed with crushed shell, limestone and asphalt fragments 3 - 10YR 8/2 very pale brown limestone crushed shell aggregate (solid rock) 4 - 10YR 5/2 grayish brown gravelly sand fill with dense crushed shell (30%) 5 - 10YR 8/1 white sand containing crushed shell fill (10%) 6 - 10YR 8/3 very pale brown fill; dense, wet, silty sand 7 * centimeters - 10YR 2/1 shell midden layer (8MA6E); >50% shell inclusions; black, wet, silty fine sand 8 below datum - 10YR 5/1 gray sand; inundated silty sand (sterile) 0 10 cm S.R. 64 Figure 5.6. Excavation Unit #3 north of S.R. 64, adjacent to Pond D-North within Anna Maria Island Bridge the APE (See Figure 5.4. for location). Bridge #130054 PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 5-12

Photo 5.6. EU #3: Note wooden shoring to prevent slumping walls.

Photo 5.7. Archaeologist excavates portion of 8MA6E ±150 cmbs in Pond D-North

Based on information from this unit, it appears that at least a portion of 8MA6E lies undisturbed beneath 140 cm (55 in) of modern fill. The midden decreases in thickness from the north (140-180 cmbs/55-71 cm) to the south (140-160 cmbs/55-63 in). In addition, based on this unit, the midden seems to taper to the west probably terminating near ST 147, but extends an unknown distance to the north and continues outside of the APE (Figure 5.6). Nearly 100% of the excavated midden was collected in 26 19 liter (five-gallon) samples for 0.32 cm (0.125 in) water screening, sorting, and analysis.

P6115C 5-13

Analysis of the water screened midden produced numerous small (broken) fragments of marine food shell and ceramics (See Appendix C). The fragmentation may be due to heavy equipment having been used to clear an area of mangroves prior to burial of the area under dredged spoil (Burger 2008c). The shell component of the midden consists mainly of small conchs, quahog, and sunray clams. Other shell types include Busycon, Pleuroploca, tulip, pear, Macrocallista, Dinocardium, scallop, Strombus, Melongena, Polinices, Trachycardium, murex, and a minimal amount of oyster. Interestingly, most of the recovered vertebrate faunal bone consisted of very small unidentified (UID) fish vertebra. Identified fish types included catfish, trout, drum, spiny boxfish, jack, toadfish, pufferfish, and bluefish. The terrestrial faunal assemblage included deer, raccoon, and opossum as well as snakes and turtles. A cursory review of the faunal data indicates a clear reliance upon the estuarine resources found adjacent to the site. The relatively small size of the fish vertebrae recovered, as well as the relatively small sizes of the shellfish may be indicative of the over-harvesting of resources and/or environmental stress, but additional investigation of 8MA6E would be required to make this determination.

Ceramics recovered from the midden in EU #3 tend to support the hypothesis that this western most component of the Perico Island complex (8MA6), at least in part, dates to the Safety Harbor period ca. 900 to 1600 C.E. Two of the recovered sherds appear to be Pinellas Plain and the STP rim sherds are similar in lip and rim treatment to late prehistoric pottery documented along Florida’s west coast (Luer and Almy 1980, 1982; Cordell 1992). In addition, the 86 sherds recovered are relatively thin, with an average of 7.7 mm (0.30 in). Luer and Almy also noted that there tended to be a decrease in sherd thickness over time (Luer and Almy 1980). The analysis of almost 1200 STP sherds, from the Remnant Mound at Shaw’s Point in Manatee County, clearly indicated a decrease in sherd thickness over time, from an average of 0.89 cm (0.35 in) to 0.65 cm (0.25 in) (Schwadron 2002). The other types of ceramics recovered from the unit include Pasco Plain and St. Johns Plain. Neither of these ceramic types are good temporal markers since they have been manufactured for some 2000 years. Carbon-14 dates would be necessary to confirm the period of occupancy.

The shellfish remains recovered also included a number of tools and decorative items. These included 3 small beads, 28 quahog umbo scrapers (25 right valve, 4 left valve), 15 whole left quahog valves, Noetia net weight, and Busycon tools/debris (7 columella spalls/splinters, 4 shoulder/body spalls, 2 small Type A hammers). In addition, six body fragments from a medium to large Busycon were recovered, one of which was a rough dipper). The umbo scrapers were manufactured primarily from the right valve and many evidence modification of the shell fragment by the squaring off the two ends of shell fragment (Photo 5.8). The umbo scraper would be held between thumb and forefinger and the interior broken margin would be used for scraping items such as wood and hides. This use of the right valve umbos suggests that these were expedient tools manufactured from the debris left over from the breaking of the shell to extract the meat.

P6115C 5-14

Photo 5.8. Umbo/quahog scrapers from EU #3.

• EU #4 The location of EU #4 was based upon the systematic shovel testing results that identified the presence of 8MA6A (Figure 5.4). This 1.5 m x 1.5 m (4.9 x 4.9 ft) unit was excavated to an approximate depth of 200 cmbs (79 in). A small band of redeposited midden was encountered between 20 and 30 cmbs (8-12 in). The intact midden deposits were encountered about 60 cmbs (24 in), with the dense shell deposits beginning at 70 cmbs (28 in) and were documented to ±120 cmbs (47 in). A slightly concreted shell deposit extended to a final depth of 142 cm (56 in) within the center of the floor and probably just represented undulation in the terrain as opposed to any sort of subsurface feature. The water table was encountered about 120 cmbs (Figure 5.7; Photo 5.9).

The artifact assemblage recovered from this unit included shellfish, faunal remains, aboriginal ceramics, lithic debitage, shell tool, bone tools, fossilized shark tooth, and limestone and sandstone fragments (Appendix C). The shellfish assemblage included quahog, Busycon, Macrocallista, surf clam, tulip, Melongena, and Pleuroploca. A noticeable increase in the predominance of oyster shell was noted below 90 cmbs (35 in). In addition, Macrocallista (Sunray Venus) was a significant portion of the shellfish assemblage in the upper 20 cm (8 in) of the midden deposit. Based on the recovered cultural materials, a wide variety of boney fish, including trout, drum, jack, snook, sheepshead, toadfish, catfish, and spiny boxfish were utilized. Other maritime resource included stone and blue crab, sharks and rays, sea turtle, and dolphin. Evidence of box turtle, gopher tortoise, deer, raccoon, opossum, and rodents indicate that terrestrial resources were also utilized, but not to the extent as the maritime ones. A few bird bones were recovered, most were unidentifiable but a few fragments suggest use of herons.

P6115C 5-15 Unit 4 West Profile

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1m 110 120 130 140 150 Datum Line 0 1 north 10 2 20

3 30

40 4

60 5 70

90 6

110

120 8

130

140

150 9

160

170

180

190

1 - duff, roots, gray/tan sand 2 - gray/tan sand with crushed shell, limestone 3 - lens of shell midden in dark gray/black sand (redeposited/disturbed) 4 - white sand hydraulically dredged 5 - dark gray/black sand 6 - dense shell midden/dark gray black sand 8 - gray sand, variable density/lens shell * centimeters 9 - gray sand below datum 0 10 cm S.R. 64 Figure 5.7. Excavation Unit #4 south of S.R. 64, within the APE (See Figure 5.4. Anna Maria Island Bridge for location). Bridge #130054 PD&E Study Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01 5-16

Photo 5.9. Excavation of midden in EU #4

The ceramic assemblage contained 92 STP sherds, 7 St. Johns Plain, 1 St. Johns Punctate, 24 Pasco Plain, and 12 semi-fiber-tempered sherds (Table 5.1). There were 11 STP rim sherds with the following rim/lip forms: 3 rounded/outslanting; 2 rounded/flat; 2 pointed/interior beveled; and 1 each of the rounded/incurvate; flat/expanded/outslanting; pointed/outslanting; and rounded/pointed types. The St. Johns Plain rim sherd was rounded and the Pasco Plain rim sherd was rounded/pointed/ outslanting. The Pasco Plain and semi-fiber-tempered wares were recovered from the lower 40 cm (16 in) of the midden, while all but one of the STP and St. Johns sherds were recovered from the upper 40 cm (16 in) of the midden. Level 4 (90-100 cmbs / 35-39 in) produced all five types of ceramics. The STP sherds from level 1 have an average thickness of 7.6 mm (0.30 in) (range of 5-11 mm / 0.20-0.43 in), from level 2 the average is 8.3 mm (0.34 in) (range of 4.5-11.9 mm / 0.18-0.47 in), and from level 3 the average thickness is 8.3 mm (0.34 in) (range of 5.3-10.8 / 0.21-0.42 in). Only three sherds were recovered from level 4, and these ranged in thickness from 5.5 to 5.8 mm (0.22-0.23 in). The one sherd recovered from level 6 was 9 mm (0.35 in) thick. This generally reflects that trend that STP ceramics decreased in thickness over time.

P6115C 5-17

Table 5.1. Ceramics recovered from EU #4. St. Johns Pasco Level STP* St. Johns Plain Semi-fiber tempered Punctate Plain 50-70 cmbs 29/2 1 70-80 cmbs 32/6 2/1 80-90 cmbs 16/3 2 90-100 cmbs 3 1 1 1 4 100-110 cmbs 8 5 110-120 cmbs 1 11 2 120-130 cmbs 3/1 1 Total 81/11 6/1 1 23/1 12 *Body sherd/rim sherd

The ceramic assemblage consists almost entirely of plain ceramics, which makes the dating of the site rather difficult. The St. Johns Punctate sherd suggests an early Manasota component (ca. 500 B.C.E. to 100 C.E.) while the semi-fiber-tempered sherds suggest a Transitional period component (1200 – 500 B.C.E.). Pasco Plain or limestone tempered ware, developed around the same time as STP and St. Johns Plain, after the Orange period. As noted above, STP sherds tended to decrease in thickness over time, and this is reflected in the assemblage recovered here, suggesting that the site was used for many years. Interestingly, the Pasco Plain and semi-fiber-tempered wares were recovered from the lowest levels of the unit, with an almost complete absence of STP, suggesting at least two cultural components.

The lithic assemblage recovered from the unit was rather minimal and included a phosphatized sandstone hone, a sand/shell conglomerate hone, lithic debitage, two Lafayette point fragments, and miscellaneous fragments of sand/shell conglomerate, phosphatized sandstone, and limestone. The two hones were recovered from the 50-70 cm (20-28 in) and 80-90 cm (32-35 in) levels. The lithic debitage assemblage was primarily recovered from the lower levels of the unit. Only 4 pieces of debitage (3 coral and 1 chert non-decortication flakes) were recovered between 70 and 100 cm (28-39 in). The densest concentration of lithic debris was recovered from the 110-120 cm (43-47 in) level, which produced a chert non-decortication flake, a chert secondary decortication flake, and 25 coral non-decortication flakes. The adjacent two levels produced 17 coral non-decortication flakes, 1 coral piece of shatter, and 3 chert non-decortication flakes. In general, the debitage assemblage suggests that latter stages of the lithic reduction continuum. The Lafayette points were both recovered from the 110-120 cm (43-47 in) level. The projectile point type is characteristic of the Florida Transitional period. Examples of artifacts recovered from the APE are shown in Photo 5.10.

There were a number of shell tools and the scraps from shell tool manufacture recovered from the unit. These included quahog umbo scrapers (Photo 5.8), quahog anvils, a quahog digging tool, columella, expedient hammers, Type A and E hammers, dippers/spoons, and a possible celt preform (Table 5.2). The majority of the shell artifacts recovered was manufactured from quahog clams. These included an anvil and digging tool manufactured from the left valve and 177 umbo scrapers.

P6115C 5-18

Photo 5.10. Example of artifacts recovered from the APE. A. shark’s tooth tool; B. drilled stone bead; C. bone anvil; D. drilled shell beads; E. base of Lafayette projectile point; F. and G. Busycon shell tools.

Table 5.2. Shell tools and scrap recovered from EU #4. Depth (cmbs) type item valve 50-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 Total columella fragment 2 6 3 5 11 9 4 40 columella 2 2 2 1 1 8 splinter/spall dipper/cup 1 1 expedient hammer 1 1 1 2 6 2 14 handled dipper 1 1 outer whorl segment 1 1 - celt preform? Busycon outer whorl segment 2 1 3 - dipper/spoon? pounder 2 2 shoulder spall 1 1 1 3 shoulder/whorl spall 7 4 1 12 Type A hammer 1 1 2 Type E hammer 1 1 Total 5 8 6 14 25 22 888 expedient hammer 2 2 Melongena Total 2 2

P6115C 5-19

Table 5.2 continued Depth (cmbs) type item valve 50-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 Total columella fragment 1 1 2 1 1 6 columella Pleuroploca 1 1 splinter/spall Total 1 1 2 1 1 17 anvil left 1 1 1 3 digging tool left 1 1 left 2 4 4 7 8 4 29 umbo scraper right 15 13 11 22 40 37 10 148 Quahog Total 17 13 15 26 47 45 14 177 left 25 33 36 13 10 19 14 148 whole valve right 1 1 1 1 1 5 Total 26 34 37 13 10 19 14 153 Total 4347 53 39 58 66 28334 Total 49 56 61 53 86 89 37431

These small scrapers were manufactured primarily from the right valve (n=148 out of 177). The majority were recovered in the lower four levels which is also when the concentration of oyster increased within the midden matrix. It should be noted that most clam tools were manufactured from the left valve, and within the midden deposits along the west coast of Florida, left valves clearly dominate the assemblages (Luer 1986). This trend is repeated at the Perico Island complex as evidenced by the recovery of 148 left valves as compared to five right valves. The majority of the complete valves were recovered from the upper three levels, where the density of clams within the midden matrix was higher.

Busycons make up the next most common tool type. Most of the Busycon tools have been identified as hammers, most of which were expedient, or unhafted. In general, these are gastropods in which the lip has been removed to facilitate meat removal and then it is used for pounding, perhaps other shells. The end of the columella evidences use ware by the battering and the removal of spalls. Two hafted hammers were recovered, the differences between Type A and E being the relative placement of the hafting holes. A few of the shells appear to have been used for dippers, cups, or spoons. A pounder has had the outer whorl removed and then was used to batter other hard objects with the posterior end of the shell (Marquardt 1992:203). Most of the other Busycon materials are the scraps and debris from the manufacture or use of shell tools. Several of the items include columella fragments. Columella tools were used for cutting, perforating, and pounding, while others were used as sinkers, planes, and adzes. Unfortunately, none of the columella fragments could be identified as to their use although four did evidence distal scarring.

P6115C 5-20

the midden matrix were generally small, and may have been too small to be used for hammers considering the availability of other, larger species for such use.

An example of items recovered from the APE are shown in Photo 5.10 and include shell and stone beads (B and D), a bone point manufactured from a deer metatarsal (Photo 5.10, C), and a fossilized shark tooth (Photo 5.10, A) that had been heavily utilized. The bead was recovered from level 2 and the shark tooth and bone pin were recovered from level 3.

Discussion:

Based on the data presented above, the Perico Island Complex within the APE, has the potential to provide important data concerning the aboriginal occupation of the region from the Florida Transitional period (and perhaps earlier) through the Safety Harbor period. As a result, a number of research topics can be addressed with the data contained in the buried deposits.

For example, the faunal materials available in the midden deposits provide information on the types of species being utilized, the environmental setting, and the seasons during which the site was occupied. If one assumes that the aboriginal populations targeted resources near their habitations and that faunal evidence found at the site represents animals processed or consumed at the site, then the zooarchaeological data can be used to test whether the distribution of the resources today is the same as that of the period of occupation (cf., Walker 1992). Trophic levels can also be examined to look at the potential over-exploitation of certain resources. It has been shown that the over- exploitation of the high trophic piscivorous fish, such as the horse mackerel, has given way to lower catches of lower level planktivorous fish, such as menhaden. Such analyses have been conducted in the Virgin Islands and at the nearby Remnant Mound (Maners 1998; Wing 1998). The Remnant Mound data suggested the local inhabitants focused on the lower level species, whereas in the Virgin islands, over-exploitation of the upper level species did adversely affect the lower level species. The data available from the Perico Island Site can be compared to other sites in the region and provide a better understanding of how Native Americans made use of available food resources.

Data relative to the salinity of the local waters can also be inferred from the zooarchaeological remains. For example, clams and oysters, although they do co-exist, have preferred salinity ranges. The increase in the prevalence of the oysters at the lower depths of EU 4 may be indicative of a change in the local salinity. Salinity can be influenced by a number of factors such as climate change, hurricanes, droughts, and elevated rainfall. It has also been postulated that a number of species could be used to assess paleosalinity, which in turn, could be used to reveal sea level fluctuations. The salinity values are believed to correspond to several postulated Late Holocene sea level episodes (Stapor et al. 1991; Tanner 1992; Walker 1994, 1995). A rise in sea level since the site was occupied is suggested by the midden deposits extending below the current water-table. In addition, 8MA8E seems to evidence an occupation on a higher elevation,

P6115C 5-21

and therefore was not overlain by mangrove peat, as is evidenced at 8MA6A, on the south side of S.R. 64.

The midden deposits within the APE provide the opportunity for seasonality studies utilizing five factors: 1) the presence or absence of seasonally available animals, such as migratory waterfowl; 2) periodic chemical changes that occur in the hard tissues of animals throughout the years such as stable isotopes of oxygen 18O:16O; 3) periodic changes in the morphological structure of animal hard tissue, such as the growing or shedding of antlers in white-tailed deer; 4) periodic additions to the structural components of animal hard tissue, such as growth increments in quahog shells; and 5) demographic changes in animal populations, such as seasonal changes in the size classes of estuarine fish (Quitmyer 2002:165).

For example, seasonality data can be found in cross-sections of the quahog clams (Jones et al. 1990; Quitmyer 1992; Quitmyer et al. 1985; Quitmyer and Jones 1992, 2000; Quitmyer et al. 1997), and examination of valve size can indicate possible over- exploitation of the resource base. At 8MA6A and E, clams were used throughout the occupation of the site, although in the lower or older levels of EU #4, oyster became more prevalent. Oysters can also provide some seasonality information, although not directly from the shell. The commensals that live with the oyster, i.e. the impressed odostome, can be used to estimate the season of harvest (Russo 1991; Russo et al. 1991).

Also, archaeologists have found that the more species available for seasonality study, the better the results. For example, in the Charlotte Harbor area, the use of impressed odostomes, pinfish, and pigfish indicated that the Pineland site was occupied during the summer and fall, with the addition of the catfish and quahog data, a year-round occupation was posited (Quitmyer 1998). On Useppa Island, seasonality studies indicated that the site was occupied by Archaic peoples during the spring and summer, based on the data from six species (Quitmyer and Massaro 1999). Data from the Remnant Mound indicated site occupation during the late summer through early winter, but was based on the data from three species (impressed odostome, pinfish, and pigfish) without the use of catfish and quahog (Quitmyer 2002). Thus, the catfish otoliths recovered from the Perico Island midden can provide data on the seasonal occupation of the site, and the recovery of the oysters from the lower levels should also result in the recovery of odostomes which will add information important to the study of the prehistory of the area.

P6115C 5-22

Transitional period component. This is further supported by the Lafayette point fragments (Photo 5.10, E) and the fact that data from Unit 4 evidences the Pasco ceramic series clearly underlying the STP ceramics. The latter, through time, become the dominant ceramic type in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region. Finally, the ceramics recovered from 8MA6E provide evidence of the later Safety Harbor component, based upon the Pinellas Plain sherds. Thus, from deposits within the APE, new data concerning the evolution of the Manasota/Weeden Island and Safety Harbor cultures can be documented.

Other research topics which can be addressed from intact deposits at 8MA6 are shell and bone tool technology. Burger (2008c) has introduced the quahog umbo scraper as a tool type (Photo 5.8). This type has been heretofore undefined, and additional research will need to be conducted to determine the function of such tools. There does appear to be variations in this tool type occurrence; that is, most of the tools were recovered within the lower levels where oyster became more prevalent. A number of different questions could be addressed concerning this potential tool type. Could this tool type somehow be associated with oyster processing? Was it used in place of lithic scrapers due to the lack of lithic raw materials in the area? Are there temporal differences in the occurrence of the tool? Was it simply an expedient tool – or was it purposefully shaped? In addition, the overall tool frequency was greater within the oyster deposits as opposed to the upper midden levels; there were 69 shell tools or scrap in the upper 40 cm (16 in) of the midden as compared to 209 shell tools/scrap in the lower 40 cm (16 in) of the midden.

Lithic materials within the midden can also provide data relative to the aboriginal occupation of the site through time. Within EU #3, located within 8MA6E, the lithic debitage was concentrated in the upper portion of the midden, whereas within EU #4, located within 8MA8A, the debitage was recovered from the lowest levels of the unit. Research questions can address the significance of this distribution; whether lithics are used more frequently in the Safety Harbor and Florida Transitional periods as opposed to the Manasota and Weeden Island periods; and provenience analysis of the raw stone could address questions concerning possible trade routes and whether raw material types vary over time.

In summary, intact 8MA6 deposits within the APE have survived development, road construction, and utility installation, and appear eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria D. That is, the site has yielded and is likely to yield additional information important to the prehistory of the region. The resulting data from the Florida Transitional through Safety Harbor periods (1200 B.C.E. – 1500 C.E.) can be compared with other regional sites including the De Soto National Memorial (Schwadron 2002), the Portavant Mound (Weisman et al. 1994), Canton Street (Bullen et al. 1978), Eagles Nest (ACI 2006), Narvaez (Simpson 1998), Palmer (Kozuch 1998; Newsom 1998), Block 107 (ACI 2001), and the Palmetto Lane Midden (Luer 1992), to better understand Native American settlement along Florida’s Gulf coast.

P6115C 5-23

5.2 Historical/Architectural Survey Results

As a result of the historical/architectural field survey of the APE, one historic bridge, the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge (FDOT# 130054) was recorded as 8MA1571 (Figure 5.8). The study, A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, prepared for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (Parsons Brinkerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage [PB and EIH] 2005) was reviewed for guidance in evaluating the historic bridge. A description of the resource is provided below and the completed FMSF form is contained in Appendix D.

Field survey also revealed that the previously recorded Tenant House, 8MA1192, is no longer extant. A letter notifying the FMSF of its demolished status and a copy of its original FMSF form is included in Appendix E. No additional historic buildings were identified during field study.

8MA1571: FDOT Bridge No. 130054, the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge over Sarasota Pass, is a movable double-leaf Trunnion-Bascule bridge constructed ca. 1957 and designed by Parson, Brinkerhoff, Hall, & MacDonald (Photos 5.11, 5.12, and 5.13; FDOT 1955). It is located within Township 34 South, Range 16 East, and Sections 27 and 28 and runs east/west carrying pedestrian and automotive traffic on S.R. 64 (Manatee Avenue). The overall width of the bridge is approximately 37 ft, 5 in, which includes two 12-foot travel lanes and two five-foot sidewalks separated from the lanes by 9-inch curbs. The total length is 3,123.75 ft. This consists of 62 fixed approach spans (31 on each side), measuring approximately 48 ft each, and one movable main span, approximately 124 ft in length (FDOT 1955). The bridge is supported by concrete abutments protected by a concrete seawall and riprap slope protection. The substructure is cast concrete piles with cast concrete caps. The superstructure consists of concrete beams, a deck with asphalt paving, concrete sidewalks, and cast concrete bridge railings. There are steel guardrails on both approaches.

The Anna Maria Island Bridge is “of the Hopkins Trunnion Patent” that is commonly found throughout Florida (Hardesty and Hanover [H&H] 2002:2; Koglin 2003). The Hopkins frame forms a connection between the bascule leaf and the pier; the latter contains the machinery which moves the span. The Hopkins frame allows the rigid portions of the bascule leaf and the machinery to be repaired separately, thus ensuring the continual operation of the bridge during repairs (H&H 2002:2; Koglin 2003).

The tender station is a cast concrete structure cantilevered off the south side of the east bascule pier (Photo 5.13 and 5.15). The station has a flat roof and replacement one- over-one single hung sash and one-light fixed windows (ca. 1980). The station consists of two levels: the control room level, which is located at the roadway and contains the control console and access to the generator room; and the generator room level, which contains the emergency generator and provides access to the machinery platform (H&H 2002). A plaque on the south side of the west side of the bridge reads “The Anna Maria Island Bridge Designated by 1965 Legislature of Florida” (Photo 5.15).

P6115C 5-24

Research, including historic aerials and newspaper articles reveal a toll booth was located at its eastern terminus; it was removed in 1964 (PALMM 1957, 1970; Unger 2002). Research also indicates that several repairs have been made to the bridge including the installation of pile jackets; the installation of a new fender system; repairs and replacements to the bridge railing, piles, and counterweights; a replaced submarine cable; the replacement of the deck of the main span (Photos 5.16), and the replacement of electrical and mechanical operating system (FDOT n.d).

Photo 5.11. South elevation of Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge (Source: PBS&J).

Photo 5.12. North elevation of Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge, looking southeast.

P6115C 5-25

Photo 5.13. General view of the movable main span of the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge, looking east.

Photo 5.14. South elevation of the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge (Source FDOT n.d.).

P6115C 5-26

Photo 5.15. Detail of the plaque at the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge.

Photo 5.16. Detail of a segment of replaced concrete bridge railing.

Although the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge provides convenient access to the north part of Anna Maria Island, the bridge has no exceptional architectural features or design elements. It represents a common type of bridge found throughout Florida, as indicated by a review of the FMSF and NRHP that lists over 20 historic double-leaf bascule bridges in Florida, seven of which are already determined eligible for listing or

P6115C 5-27

listed in the NRHP. Furthermore, limited research did not reveal any significant historic associations. Therefore, 8MA1571 is not considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP.

5.3 Conclusions

Components 8MA6A and 8MA6E within the APE, are considered eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria D as detailed above. That is, the site has yielded and is likely to yield information important to regional prehistory. As a result, preservation in situ (in place) of these significant deposits (Figures 5.1 and 54) is recommended. However, if impacts due to bridge and/or pond construction cannot be avoided, mitigative measures will be necessary.

The Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge (FDOT# 130054), 8MA1571, does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP due to its lack of exceptional style or architecture, numerous alterations, and the lack of any significant historic associations, including original designer or engineer. In addition, it is an example of a commonly occurring bridge type throughout Florida, and limited research did not reveal any significant historic associations.

P6115C 6-1

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI 1990 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of a Segment of State Road 64 in Manatee County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2001 Phase II Archaeological Investigations, Block 107, Downtown Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2006 Archaeological Mitigative Excavation at the Eagle's Nest Site (8MA132) Manatee County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2008 Cultural Resource Assessment Research Design: Anna Maria Island Bridge Project Development and Environment Study S.R. 64 (Manatee Avenue) from S.R. 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard Manatee County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.

Akerman, Joe A. 1976 Florida Cowman: A History of Florida Cattle Raising. 4th edition. Florida Cattlemen's Association, Kissimmee.

Almy, Maranda M. 2001 The Cuban Fishing Ranchos of Southwest Florida 1600-1850s. Honor's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

AMICC 2008 Anna Maria Island History. Accessed November 2008. http://www.1annamaria.com/.

Austin, Robert J. 1986 A Summary Report on a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Parcel "Y" of the Perico Bay Development Site, Manatee County, Florida. Janus Research, Tampa. 1995 Yat Kitischee: A Prehistoric Coastal Hamlet 100 B.C.-A.D. 1200. Janus Research, Tampa. 2001 Paleoindian and Archaic Archaeology in the Middle Hillsborough River Basin: A Synthetic Overview. SEARCH, Jonesville.

Austin, Robert J., Kenneth W. Hardin, Harry M. Piper, Jacquelyn G. Piper, and Barbara McCabe 1992 Archaeological Investigations at the Site of the Tampa Convention Center, Tampa Florida. Volume 1: Prehistoric Resources, Including a Report on the Mitigative Excavation of a Prehistoric Aboriginal Cemetery. Janus Research, Tampa.

Austin, Robert J. and Michael Russo 1989 Limited Excavations at the Catfish Creek Site (8SO608), Sarasota, Florida. Janus Research, Tampa.

P6115C 6-2

Ballo, George R. and Melissa G. Wiedenfeld 1989 Resources Assessment Survey: Sarasota Pass; State Project No. 13150-1524, Manatee County. FDOT, Tallahassee.

Beriault, John G., Robert Carr, Jerry Stipp, Richard Johnson, and Jack Meeder 1981 The Archaeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34(2): 39-58.

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

Bruton, Quintilla Geer and David E. Bailey 1984 Plant City: Its Origins and History. Hunter Publishing Co., Winston-Salem.

Bullen, Ripley P. 1950 Perico Island: 1950. The Florida Anthropologist 3(3-4): 40-44. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 6(1): 43-53. 1965 Florida's Prehistory. In Florida -- From Indian Trail to Space Age. Edited by C. W. Tebeau and R. L. Carson, pp. 305-316. Southern Publishing Co., Delray Beach. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville.

Bullen, Ripley P., Walter Askew, Lee M. Feder, and Richard L. McDonnell 1978 The Canton Street Site, St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 9.

Bullen, Ripley P. and Adelaide K. Bullen 1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 8.

Burger, B. W. 1982a Archaeological Investigations at Perico Island North Midden (8MA6), Perico Island, Manatee County, Florida. On file, ACI, Sarasota. 1982b Test Excavations and Resultant Proposals for Salvage and Monitoring at Perico Island North Midden, for North Bay Harbor, Inc. On file, ACI, Sarasota. 1986 Review of Preliminary Report on Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Parcel "Y" of the Proposed Perico Bay Development Site, Manatee County, Florida, Florida by Robert J. Austin, Piper Archaeology, Inc. On file, ACI, Sarasota. 2008a 8MA6E FMSF form. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee. 2008b Neal Preserve on Perico Island. On going research, on file B.W. Burger, Terra Ceia.

P6115C 6-3

Burger, B.W. 2008c Perico Island Research. Personal Communication to Marion Almy, Lee Hutchinson, and Elizabeth. Horvath, ACI, Sarasota.

Campbell, A. Stuart 1939 The Cigar Industry of Tampa, Florida. University of Florida. Bureau of Economics and Business Research, Gainesville.

Campbell, Ken and Jonathan D. Arthur 1993 Geologic Map of Hillsborough County, Florida. Open File Map Series 44. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.

Carbone, Victor 1983 Late Quaternary Environment in Florida and the Southeast. The Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2): 3-17.

Chamberlin, Donald L. 1968 Fort Brooke: A History. MA thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203(4381): 609-614.

Cockrell, W. A. 1970 Perico Island Site Investigation. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Cordell, Ann S. 1985 Pottery Variability and Site Chronology in the Upper St. Johns River Basin. In Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida. Edited by B. Sigler-Eisenberg, pp. 114-134. Miscellaneous Project and Report Series 27. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 1987 Ceramic Technology at a Weeden Island Period Archaeological Site in North Florida. Ceramic Notes 2. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 2004 Paste Variability and Possible Manufacturing Origins of Late Archaic Fiber- Tempered Pottery from Selected Sites in Peninsular Florida. In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast. Edited by R. Saunders and C. T. Hays, pp. 63-104. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Covington, James W. 1958 Exploring the Ten Thousand Islands: 1838. Tequesta 18: 7-13. 1961a The Armed Occupation Act of 1842. Florida Historical Quarterly 40(1): 41- 53. 1961b The Indian Scare of 1849. Tequesta 21: 53-62.

P6115C 6-4

Covington, James W. 1982 The Billy Bowlegs War 1855-1858: The Final Stand of the Seminoles Against the Whites. The Mickler House Publishers, St. Petersburg.

Curl, Donald W. 1986 Palm Beach County: An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications, Northridge.

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

Davis, T. Frederick 1939 The Disston Land Purchase. Florida Historical Quarterly 17(3): 200-210.

Delcourt, Paul A. and Hazel R. Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 yr B.P. to the Present. In Geobotony II. Edited by R. C. Romans, pp. 123-165. Plenum Publishing Corp., New York.

Doran, Glen H., Ed. 2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Dunbar, James S. 1981 The Effect of Geohydrology and Natural Resource Availability on Site Utilization at the Fowler Bridge Mastodon Site (8Hi393c/uw) in Hillsborough County, Florida. In Report on Phase II Underwater Archaeological Testing at the Fowler Bridge Mastodon Site (8Hi393c/uw), Hillsborough County, Florida. Edited by J. Palmer, J. S. Dunbar and D. H. Clayton, pp. 63-106. Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeological Report 5. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Dunn, Hampton 1989 Back Home: A History of Citrus County, Florida. 2nd edition. Citrus County Historical Society, Inverness.

Eriksen, John M. 1994 Brevard County, A History to 1955. Florida Historical Society Press, Tampa.

Evans, Mary K. 1972 National Register of Historic Places Nomination of the Tampa Bay Hotel. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Farr, Grayal Earle 2006 A Reevaluation of Bullen's Typology for Preceramic Projectile Points. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

P6115C 6-5

FDHR 2003 Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual. FDHR, Tallahassee. http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/preservation/compliance/manual/.

FDOT 1955 “Plans of Proposed Bridges: Palma Sola Crossing, State Job No. 1315-175 State Road No. 64.” Prepared by Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Hall & MacDonald. 27 July. 1999 Project Development and Environment Manual, Part 2, Chapter 12, Archaeological and Historical Resources. FDOT, Tallahassee. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/pdeman.htm. 2008a ETDM Summary Report Project # 9751 - S.R. 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge #130054. FDOT, Tallahassee. Published 1/25/2008. http://etdmpub.fla- etat.org/est/index.jsp?startPageId=463&tpID=9751#. 2008b Florida Bridge Information. FDOT, Tallahassee. Accessed 7/1/2008. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statemaintenanceoffice/CBR/Florida%20Bridge%20 Information%2007-01-08.pdf. 2008c Florida Bridge Information. FDOT, Tallahassee. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statemaintenanceoffice/CBR/Florida%20Bridge%20 Information%2010-01-08.pdf. n.d. Anna Maria Island Bridge PD&E Study, Project History. http: //www. amibridgerehab.com/. Accessed November 2008.

FMSF Various site file forms. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee.

Friedel, Frank 1985 The Splendid Little War. Bramhall House, New York.

FWP 1939 Florida: A Guide to the Southernmost State. Federal Writers' Project. Oxford University Press, New York.

Goggin, John M. 1948 Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Gainesville Anthropological Association, Bulletin 1.

Goggin, John M. 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 47. 1998 Reprint, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, Mark J. Brooks, and Nancy N. Goodyear 1983 Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Tampa Bay Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2): 40-66.

P6115C 6-6

Goodyear, Albert C. and Lyman O. Warren 1972 Further Observations on the Submarine Oyster Shell Deposits of Tampa Bay. The Florida Anthropologist 25(2, Part 1): 52-66.

Grismer, Karl H. 1950 Tampa: A History of the City of Tampa and the Tampa Bay Region of Florida. St. Petersburg Printing Company, St. Petersburg.

Guthrie, Sarah M. W. 1974 Land of Promise, Land of Change: An Examination of the Population of Hillsborough County, Florida. MA thesis, Emory University, Atlanta.

Hammond, E. A. 1973 The Spanish Fisheries of Charlotte Harbor. Florida Historical Quarterly 51(4): 355-380.

Hardesty & Hanover, LLP (H&H) 2002 Technical Memorandum Condition for the Evaluation of the Anna Maria Bridge 9SR 64) Bascule Span over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. On file at PBS&J, Tampa.

Hardin, Kenneth W. and Harry M. Piper 1984 Manasota: Which Way to the Border? Paper presented at the Florida Academy of Sciences, Boca Raton.

Harner, Charles E. 1973 Florida's Promoters. Trend House, Tampa.

Heilprin, Angelo 1887 Explorations of the West Coast of Florida and in the Okeechobee Wilderness. Transactions 1. Wagner Free Institute of Science of Philadelphia, Philadelphia.

HT/HCPB 1980 The Cultural Resources of the Unincorporated Portions of Hillsborough County: An Inventory of the Built Environment. Historic Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation Board, Tampa.

Hughes, Daniel 2008 Perico Harbor Marina Basin Project. Archaeologist, U. S. A. C. o. Engineers. Personal Communication to M. M. Almy, ACI, Sarasota.

Janus Research 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Perico Harbor Marina Basin Project Area, Manatee County, Florida. Janus Research, Tampa.

P6115C 6-7

Johnson, Robert E. 2000 A Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Arvida Perico Island Tract, Manatee County, Florida. Florida Archaeological Services, Inc., Jacksonville. 2005 An Archaeological Reexamination of Areas Reported to Contain Sites 8MA25 and 8MA26, Manatee County, Florida. Florida Archaeological Services, Inc., Jacksonville. 2006 Archaeological Monitoring at the St. Joe Towns & Resorts Perico Island Development Project - West Area, Manatee County, Florida. Florida Archaeological Services, Inc., Jacksonville.

Jones, Douglas S., Irvy R. Quitmyer, William S. Arnold, and Dan C. Marelli 1990 Annual Shell Banding, Age, and Growth Rate of hard Clams (Mercenaria spp.). Florida Journal of Shellfish Research 9(1): 215-225.

Kammerer, Laura 2008 Anna Maria Island Bridge Field Methodology. Historic Preservationist Supervisor, Compliance & Review Section, FDHR. Personal Communication to M. M. Almy, ACI, Sarasota.

Karklins, Karlis 1970 The Fish Creek Site, Hillsborough County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 23(2): 67-73.

Knapp, Michael S. 1980 Environmental Geology Series: Tampa Sheet. Map Series 97. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee.

Knight, Melinda 1983 The Mizell Homestead: Florida's History Preserved. AMAX Chemical Corporation, Lakeland.

Koglin, Terry L. 2003 Movable Bridge Engineering. New Jersey: Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kohler, Timothy A. 1991 The Demise of Weeden Island and Post-Weeden Island Cultural Stability in Non-Mississippianized Northern Florida. In Stability, Transformation, and Variations: the Late Woodland Southeast. Edited by M. S. Nassaney and C. R. Cobb, pp. 91-110. Plenum Press, New York.

Kozuch, Laura 1998 Faunal Remains from the Palmer Site (8SO2), with a Focus on Shark Remains. The Florida Anthropologist 51(4): 177-192.

P6115C 6-8

Lonn, Ella 1965 Salt as a Factor in the Confederacy. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Luer, George M. 1986 Some Interesting Archaeological Occurrences of Quahog Shells on the Gulf Coast of Central and Southern Florida. Shells and Archaeology in Southern Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publication 12: 125-159. 1992 The Palmetto Lane Midden (8SO96): Some Stratigraphic, Radiocarbon, and Shell Tool Analysis for a Manasota Period Site in Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45(3): 246-252. 2002 The Aqui Esta Mound: Ceramic and Shell Vessels of the Early Mississippian- Influenced Englewood Phase. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 15: 111-182. 2008 Notes on Florida Shell Artifacts, Including Specimens from Hooker Key and Mason Island. The Florida Anthropologist 61(1-2): 73-83.

Luer, George M. and Marion M. Almy 1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida Anthropologist 34(3): 127-155. 1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 35(1): 34- 58.

Luer, George M., Marion M. Almy, Dana Ste. Claire, and Robert J. Austin 1987 The Myakkahatchee Site (8SO397), A Large Multi-Period Inland from the Shore Site in Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 40(2): 137-153.

Luer, George M. and Daniel Hughes 2005 Revisiting the Aqui Esta Mound's Shell Vessels. The Florida Anthropologist 58(1-2): 121-139.

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

Mahon, John K. and Brent R. Weisman 1996 Florida's Seminole and Miccosukee Peoples. In The New History of Florida. Edited by M. Gannon, pp. 183-206. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Maners, Jennifer 1998 Application of Man Trophic Level Analysis to Faunal Assemblages for Archaeological Deposits at the De Soto National Memorial. Revised Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville. On file Southeast Archaeological Center, NPS, Tallahassee.

P6115C 6-9

Marquardt, William H. 1992 Shell Artifacts from the Caloosahatchee Area. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. Edited by W. H. Marquardt, pp. 191-227. Monograph 1. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Gainesville. 1999 The Archaeology of Useppa Island. Monograph 3. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Matthews, Janet Snyder 1983 Edge of Wilderness: A Settlement History of Manatee River and Sarasota Bay 1528-1885. Coastal Press, Sarasota.

McDuffee, Lillie B. 1961 The Lures of Manatee: A True Story of South Florida's Glamorous Past. 2nd edition. Manatee Historical Society, Bradenton.

MCPA n.d. Various parcel records. Manatee County Property Appraiser, Bradenton.

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

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

Milliman, John D. and K. O. Emery 1968 Sea Levels During the Past 35,000 Years. Science 162: 1121-1123.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mormino, Gary and Tony Pizzo 1983 Tampa: the Treasure City. Continental Heritage Press, Tulsa.

Newman, Marshall T. 1934 Field Notes (February), Perico Island Cemetery. On file with B.W. Burger, Terra Ceia.

Newsom, Lee A. 1998 Archaeobotanical Research at Shell Ridge Midden, Palmer Site (8SO2), Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 51(4): 207-222.

P6115C 6-10

PALMM 1951 Aerial Photograph - CDO-5H-6, 11-20-51. Publication of Archival Library & Museum Materials. http://sid.fcla.edu/mrsid/bin/show_java.pl?image=12081_1951_5H_6.sid&cli ent=12081. 1957 Aerial Photograph - CDO-1V-49, 12-13-57. Publication of Archival Library & Museum Materials. http://sid.fcla.edu/mrsid/bin/show_java.pl?image=12081_1957_1V_49.sid&cl ient=12081. 1970 Aerial Photograph - CDO-1MM-154, 12-18-70. Publication of Archival Library & Museum Materials. http://sid.fcla.edu/mrsid/bin/show.pl?client=12081&image=12081_1970_1M M_154.sid

Parsons Brinkerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage (PB and EIH) 2005 A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15. Prepared for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

PBS&J 2008 Anna Maria Project Location Map. Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Tampa.

Pettengill, George W., Jr. 1952 The Story of the Florida Railroads 1834-1903. Bulletin 86. The Railway and Locomotive Historical Society, Boston.

Piper, Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper 1982 Archaeological Excavations at the Quad Block Site, 8HI998, Located at the Site of the Old Fort Brooke Municipal Parking Garage, Tampa. Janus Research, Tampa.

Pipkin, Gwen 2008 E-mail RE: Approval of Anna Maria Island Bridge Replacement Research Design. FDOT. Personal Communication to M. M. Almy, ACI, Sarasota. October 19.

Purdy, Barbara A. 1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Tool Technology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

P6115C 6-11

Quitmyer, Irvy R. 1998 Pre-Columbian Site Seasonality and Harvest of Estuarine Resources and the Pineland Archaeological Complex, Charlotte Harbor, Florida. On file, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 2002 Faunal Analysis of Remnant Mound Column Samples. In Archaeology of De Soto National Memorial. Edited by M. Schwadron. pp. 158-196. SEAC Technical Paper No. 8. Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Quitmyer, Irvy R., H. Stephen Hale, and Douglas S. Jones 1985 Paleoseasonality Determination Based on Incremental Shell Growth in the Hard Clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, and Its Implications for the Analysis of Three Southeast Georgia Coastal Shell Middens. Southeastern Archaeology 4(1).

Quitmyer, Irvy R. and Douglas S. Jones 1992 Calendars of the Coast: Seasonal Growth Increment Patterns in Shells of Modern and Archaeological Southern Quahogs, Mercenaria campechiensis, from Charlotte Harbor, Florida. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. Edited by W. H. Marquardt, pp. 247-264. Monograph 1. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Gainesville. 2000 The Over-Exploitation of Hard Clams (Mercenaria spp.) from Five Archaeological Sites in the Southeastern United States. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3): 158-167.

Quitmyer, Irvy R., Douglas S. Jones, and William S. Arnold 1997 The Sclerochronology of Hard Clams, Mercenaria, spp., from the Southeastern US: A Method of Elucidating the Zooarchaeological Records of the Seasonal Resource Procurement and Seasonality in Prehistoric Shell Middens. Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 825-840.

Quitmyer, Irvy R. and Melissa A. Massaro 1999 Seasonality and Subsistence in a Southwest Florida Estuary: A Faunal Analysis of Precolumbian Useppa Island. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island. Edited by W. H. Marquardt. Monograph 3. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Gainesville.

Robinson, Earnest L. 1928 History of Hillsborough County. The Record Company Printers, St. Augustine.

Robinson, Major George D. 1979 Outlines and Other Data on West Central Florida Projectile Points. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, St. Petersburg.

P6115C 6-12

Russo, Michael 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study from Horr's Island. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Russo, Michael, Ann S. Cordell, Lee A. Newsom, and Sylvia Scudder 1991 Final Report on Horr's Island: the Archaeology of Archaic and Glades Settlement and Subsistence Patterns. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1): 5-13.

Schwadron, Margo 2002 Archeological Investigations of De Soto National Memorial. SEAC Technical Reports 8. Southeast Archeological Center, NPS, Tallahassee.

Scott, Thomas M. 2001 Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida. Open File Report 80. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.

Scott, Thomas M., Kenneth M. Campbell, Frank R. Rupert, Jonathan D. Arthur, Thomas M. Missimer, Jacqueline M. Lloyd, J. William Yon, and Joel G. Duncan 2001 Geologic Map of the State of Florida. Map Series 146. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.

Scupholm, Carrie 1997 The Tamiami Trail: Connecting the East and West Coasts of the Sunshine State. The Society for Commercial Archeology Journal 15(2): 20-24.

Sheppard, William L., Margot Moore, Phillip A. Werndli, Mary McCahon, and Marion M. Almy 1981 A Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Survey of the City of Bradenton, Florida. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Shofner, Jerrell H. 1995 History of Brevard County. Vol. 1. Brevard County Historical Commission, Stuart.

Simpson, Terrence L. (editor) 1998 The Narvaez/Anderson Site (8Pi54): A Safety Harbor Culture Shell Mound and Midden -- AD 1000-1600. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, St. Petersburg.

P6115C 6-13

Stapor, Frank W., Jr., Thomas D. Mathews, and Fonda E. Lindfors-Kearns 1991 Barrier-Island Progradation and Holocene Sea-Level History in Southwest Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 7(3): 815-838.

State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 1875 Field Notes. J. P. Apthorp. Volume 229. 1876 Plat. Township 34 South, Range 16 East. J. P. Apthorp. 1885 Field Notes. G. H. Milman. Volume 243. 1887 Plat. Township 34 South, Range 16 East. G. H. Milman. n.d. Tract Book. Volume 14.

Stirling, Matthew W. 1935 Smithsonian Archaeological Projects Conducted Under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1933-34. Annual Report of the Smithsonian for 1934. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Surveying and Mapping Office 2004 General Highway Map Manatee County, Florida. FDOT, Tallahassee.

Tallant, W. Montague ca. 1940 Typed manuscript and maps. On file with B.W. Burger, Terra Ceia.

Tanner, William F. 1992 3000 Years of Sea Level Change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 73(3): 297-303.

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

Tebeau, Charlton W. and Ruby Leach Carson, Eds. 1965 Florida -- From Indian Trail to Space Age. Southern Publishing Co., Delray Beach.

Tischendorf, A. P. 1954 Florida and the British Investor: 1880-1914. Florida Historical Quarterly 33(2): 120-129.

Unger, Howard 2002 “Island has a bridge to the past”. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Published 17 November: B. Sarasota.

USC&GS 1877 Entrance to Tampa Bay. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey.

P6115C 6-14

USC&GS 1885 Tampa Bay. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Coast Chart No. 177. 1888 Lemon Bay to Tampa Bay, Florida. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Coast Chart No. 176.

USCB 1995 Population of Counties by Decennial Census. United States Census Bureau, Population Division. www.census.gov/population/cencounts/fl190090.txt. 2000 Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.

USDA 1958 Soil Survey of Manatee County, Florida. Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C. 1983 Soil Survey of Manatee County, Florida. Soil Conservation Service, USDA Washington D.C.

USGS 1970 Anna Maria, Florida. LABINS mrg2922.tif. 1982 Bradenton Beach, Florida. LABINS mrg2822.tif.

Walker, Karen J. 1992 The Zooarchaeology of Charlotte Harbor's Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations: Spatial and Temporal Perspectives. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. Edited by W. H. Marquardt, pp. 265-366. Monograph 1. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Gainesville. 1994 Episodic Sea Levels and Human Occupation at Southwest Florida's Wightman Site. The Florida Anthropologist 47(2): 161-179. 1995 Archaeological Evidence for a 1750-1450 BP Higher-Than-Present Sea Level Along Florida's Gulf Coast. In Holocene Cycles: Climate Sea Levels, and Sedimentation, edited by C. W. Finkl, Jr. Journal of Coast Research, Special Issue 17:205-218:205-218.

Warren, Kimberly 2008 Elimination of Northern S.R. 64 Alignment. PBS&J. Personal Communication to M. M. Almy, ACI, Sarasota. October 20.

Watts, William A. 1969 A Pollen Diagram from Mud Lake, Marion County, North-Central Florida. Geological Society of America Bulletin 80: 631-642. 1971 Post Glacial and Interglacial Vegetational History of Southern Georgia and Central Florida. Ecology 51: 676-690. 1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from Lake Annie, South-Central Florida. Geology 3: 344-346.

P6115C 6-15

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

Weisman, Brent R., Christine Newman, and Barbara A Mattick 1994 National Register of Historic Places Nomination: The Portavant Mound Site. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee.

Wharton, Barry R., George R. Ballo, and Mitchell E. Hope 1981 The Republic Groves Site, Hardee County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34(2): 59-80.

White, William A. 1970 Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Geological Bulletin 51. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee.

Widmer, Randolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. 1982 Reprint. Florida Book Store, Gainesville.

Williams, J. Raymond 1974 An Archaeological Survey of Southern Perico Island, Manatee County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Tampa.

Wing, Elizabeth S. 1998 Factors Affecting the Prosperity in Five Caribbean Islands. Paper presented at the 8th International Congress of the International Council for Zooarchaeology, Victoria, British Columbia.

P6115C

Appendix A: Research Design

Appendix B: Shovel Test Pit Results and PBS&J Concept Plans showing test pit and excavation unit locations

No shading indicates sterile, yellow shading indicates disturbance, and rose shading indicates intact midden deposits Survey Area Shovel Test # Stratigraphy (cmbs) Area 1 33 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray sandy fill Area 1 34 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray sandy fill Area 1 35 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray sandy fill Area 1 36 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray sandy fill 0-20 med gray sand; 20-70 lt brown fill; 70-90 blue Area 1 105 green clay; 90-100 peat; 100-130 med brown sand Area 1 148 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray sandy fill Area 1 149 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray sandy fill Area 1 150 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray sandy fill Area 1 151 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray sandy fill Area 1 152 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray sandy fill Area 1 153 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray sandy fill Area 1; Pond D south 81 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 1; Pond D south 82 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 1; Pond D south 83 0-30 gray sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill

Area 2 1 0-10 dk gray sand; 10-90 gray sand; 90-150 water 0-75 dredged spoil; 75-150 disturbed midden; shell Area 2 2 tool, faunal bone, ceramic 0-30 gray sand; 30-150 disturbed midden; shell tool, Area 2 3 faunal bone, ceramic 0-25 gray sand; 25-50 lt gray sand; 50-100 disturbed Area 2 4 midden; shell tool, faunal bone, ceramic 0-100 lt gray sandy fill; 100+ disturbed midden; shell Area 2 5 tool, faunal bone, ceramic 0-50 lt gray sand; 50-100 disturbed midden; shell Area 2 6 tool, faunal bone, ceramic Area 2 7 0-20 gray sand; 20-100 lt gray sand 0-5 dk gray sand; 5-20 gray sand; 20-45 lt gray dredged spoil; 45-60 med gray; 60-90 midden; 90-100 med gray; 100+ dk brown; shell and stone tools, faunal Area 2 8 bone 0-10 dk gray sand; 10-45 gray sand; 45-75 med gray sand; 75-115 midden; 115+ med brown sand; Area 2 9 ceramics, faunal bone 0-25 med gray; 25-90 lt brown fill; 90-130 med gray Area 2 10 sand 0-10 med gray fill; 10-60 lt brown fill; 60-80 med gray sand; 80-120 midden; 120+ lt gray brown sand; Area 2 11 ceramic, shell tool, faunal bone Area 2 12 0-15 med gray fill; 15-150 lt brown fill 0-10 med gray fill; 10-30 lt brown fill; 30-140 midden; Area 2 13 shell and bone tools 0-10 dk gray sand; 10-20 lt gray sand; 20-40 dk gray sand; 40-55 midden; 55-80 med brown; 80-100 lt Area 2 14 brown; faunal bone 0-5 dk gray sand; 5-40 midden; 40-70 med gray sand; 70-100 med brown sand; projectile point fragment, Area 2 15 shell tool, faunal bone 0-5 med gray sand; 5-40 lt brown sand; 40-60 white Area 2 16 sand; 60-100 gray brown sand

Survey Area Shovel Test # Stratigraphy (cmbs) 0-30 med gray sand; 30-60 white sand; 60-140 Area 2 17 midden; ceramics, shell tool, faunal bone 0-10 med gray sand; 10-30 white sand; 30-120 midden; 120+ lt brown sand; ceramics, shell and stone Area 2 18 tools, faunal bone Area 2 19 0-20 med gray; 20-130 white sand; Area 2 20 0-120 midden; faunal bone, ceramics, shell tools 0-5 dk gray sand; 5-30 white sand; 30-90 midden; 90+ Area 2 21 water; shell tool, ceramics, faunal bone 0-40 white sand; 40-60 blue green clay; 60-70 peat; 70- 110 midden; shell and stone tools, ceramic, faunal Area 2 22 bone Area 2 32 0-150 lt gray sand fill 0-10 dk gray sand; 10-20 gray sand; 20-70 lt gray clay spoil; 70-90 midden; 90-110 lt brown sand; shell tool, Area 2 84 faunal bone 0-20 disturbed midden; 20-70 lt gray sand; 70-100 lt Area 2 85 brown sand; faunal bone 0-25 dk gray fill; 25-50 white fill; 50-70 med gray Area 2 86 sand; 70-100 lt gray sand 0-25 dk gray fill; 25-50 white fill; 50-70 med gray Area 2 87 sand; 70-100 lt gray sand 0-25 dk gray fill; 25-50 white fill; 50-70 med gray Area 2 88 sand; 70-100 lt gray sand 0-25 dk gray fill; 25-50 white fill; 50-70 med gray Area 2 89 sand; 70-100 lt gray sand 0-30 dk gray fill; 30-50 med gray sand; 50-100 lt gray Area 2 90 sand 0-35 lt gray fill; 35-45 white fill; 45-50 dk gray sand; Area 2 91 50-75 med gray sand; 75-100 lt gray sand 0-30 med gray fill; 30-45 dk gray sand; 45-60 med Area 2 92 gray sand; 60-100 lt gray sand 0-40 dk gray fill; 40-60 med gray sand; 60-100 lt gray Area 2 93 sand 0-30 med gray sand; 30-70 med gray fill; 70-100 med Area 2 94 gray brown sand 0-40 med gray sand; 40-60 med gray fill; 60-100 med Area 2 95 gray brown sand Area 2 96 0-150 fill; 150-155 peat; 155 lt brown sand Area 2 97 0-150 fill; 150-155 peat Area 2 98 0-140 fill; 140-145 peat; 145-150 lt brown sand 0-140 fill; 140-150 blue green clay; 150-160 peat; 160 Area 2 99 lt brown sand 0-140 fill; 140-150 blue green clay; 150-160 peat; 160- Area 2 100 190 midden; ceramics 0-150 fill; 150-160 blue green clay; 160-170 peat; 170- Area 2 101 180 lt brown sand 0-130 fill; 130-140 blue green clay; 140-150 peat; 150- Area 2 102 170 lt brown sand 0-10 med gray fill; 10-80 lt brown fill; 80-135 midden; Area 2 103 ceramic, shell tool, faunal bone 0-55 lt brown fill; 55-75 blue green clay; 75-85 peat; Area 2 104 85-120 midden; ceramics, shell tool, faunal bone Area 2 106 0-10 med gray sand; 10-70 lt brown fill; 70-90 blue

Survey Area Shovel Test # Stratigraphy (cmbs) green clay; 90-100 peat; 100-130 med brown sand 0-20 med gray sand; 20-110 lt brown fill; 110-130 blue Area 2 107 green clay; 130-140 peat 0-10 med gray sand; 10-110 lt brown fill; 110-125 blue Area 2 108 green clay; 125-140 peat/med brown sand 0-10 med gray sand; 10-100 lt brown fill; 100-115 blue Area 2 109 green clay; 115-140 peat/dk brown/lt gray brown sand 0-10 med gray sand; 10-130 lt brown fill; 130-140 blue Area 2 110 green clay; 140-150 peat/light gray brown sand 0-10 med gray sand; 10-100 lt brown fill; 100-110 blue Area 2 111 green clay; 110-135 peat/lt gray brown sand 0-20 med gray sand; 20-100 lt brown sand; 100-110 Area 2 112 blue green clay; 110-125 lt gray sand 0-85 fill; 85-130 very lt peat/lt brown w slight shell Area 2 113 hash 0-60 white sand; 60-75 blue green clay; 75-85 peat; 85- Area 2 114 130 lt brown sand; 130+ midden; midden shell 0-10 med gray sand; 10-60 white; 60-80 blue green clay; 80-100 peat; 100-140 lt brown sand; 140+ lt gray Area 2 115 sand 0-20 med gray sand; 20-70 white; 70-85 blue green Area 2 116 clay; 85-95 peat; 95-140 med brown sand 0-20 med gray sand; 20-60 white; 60-70 blue green clay; 70-80 peat; 80-130 med brown sand; 130+ lt gray Area 2 117 sand 0-20 med gray sand; 20-60 white sand; 60-75 blue green clay; 75-85 peat; 85-110 lt gray sand; 110-135 Area 2 118 midden; ceramics, lithics, shell tool, faunal bone 0-15 med gray sand; 15-60 white; 60-80 blue green Area 2 119 clay; 80-85 lt brown sand; 85-125 lt gray sand 0-20 dk gray sand; 20-70 lt gray sand; 70-100 lt brown Area 2 120 sand 0-20 dk gray sand; 20-70 lt gray sand; 70-100 lt brown Area 2 121 sand 0-10 dk gray sand; 10-60 lt gray sand; 60-100 lt brown Area 2 122 sand 0-10 dk gray sand; 10-20 med gray sand; 20-100 lt Area 2 123 gray sand 0-15 dk gray sand; 15-25 med gray sand; 25-100 lt Area 2 124 gray sand 0-15 dk gray sand; 15-40 med gray sand; 40-100 lt Area 2 125 gray sand 0-20 dk gray sand; 20-30 med gray sand; 30-100 lt Area 2 126 gray sand 0-15 dk gray sand; 15-30 med gray sand; 30-100 lt Area 2 127 gray sand 0-25 dk gray sand; 25-40 med gray sand; 40-60 lt gray Area 2 128 sand; 60-100 med brown sand Area 2 129 0-50 med gray sand; 50-100 lt med brown sand Area 2 130 0-100 med dk brown sand 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 134 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 135 water

Survey Area Shovel Test # Stratigraphy (cmbs) 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 136 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 137 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 138 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 139 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 140 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 141 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 142 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 143 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 144 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 145 water 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-60; lt gray sand; 60-100 Area 2 146 water Area 2; Pond D north 131 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 2; Pond D north 132 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill 0-60 gray brown sand/asphalt; 60-150 lt gray sand; Area 2; Pond D north 133 150+ midden; ceramics, faunal bone, shell tool 0-60 gray brown sand/asphalt; 60-150 lt gray sand; Area 2; Pond D north 147 150+ midden; ceramics, faunal bone, shell tool

Area 3 37 0-150 gray brown fill Area 3 38 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 39 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 40 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 41 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 42 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 43 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 44 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 45 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 46 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 47 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 48 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 49 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 50 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 51 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 52 0-25 brown sand; 25-100 gray sandy fill Area 3 53 0-30 brown sand; 30-60 gray sand; 60+ water

Area 4 54 0-30 brown sand; 30-60 gray sand; 60+ water Area 4 55 0-30 brown sand; 30-60 gray sand; 60+ water Area 4 56 0-30 brown sand; 30-60 gray sand; 60+ water Area 4 57 0-30 brown sand; 30-60 gray sand; 60+ water Area 4 58 0-30 brown sand; 30-60 gray sand; 60+ water Area 4 59 0-30 brown sand; 30-60 gray sand; 60+ water

Survey Area Shovel Test # Stratigraphy (cmbs) Area 4 60 0-30 brown sand; 30-60 gray sand; 60+ water Area 4 61 0-30 brown sand; 30-60 gray sand; 60+ water Area 4 62 0-30 brown sand; 30-60 gray sand; 60+ water

Area 5 63 0-30 gray sand; 30-150 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5 64 0-30 gray sand; 30-150 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5 65 0-30 gray sand; 30-150 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5 66 0-30 gray sand; 30-150 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5 67 0-30 gray sand; 30-150 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond A 68 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond A 69 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond A 70 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond B 75 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond B 76 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond B 77 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond B 78 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond B 79 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond B 80 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond C 72 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond C 73 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond C 74 0-30 gray brown sand; 30-100 lt gray gravelly fill Area 5; Pond E 71 asphalt road (SR64)

Appendix C: Excavation Unit Results (No cultural materials were recovered from Unit 1)

ACI Unit 2 (8MA6A) (2) 5-gallon pail samples

Commensals: euglandina, polygyra, truncatella, false cerith, augur, pointed venus, oyster drills, olivella, woven lucine, melampus, marginella, conus, mangelia, cardita, crepidula, fiddler crab

Analysis: above water midden; near shore/intertidal; mangrove swamp; marine grass beds

Faunal: Unidentified (UID) boney fish (10 gm) Sciaenidae (3.5 gm) Ray (0.1 gm) Snake (0.2 gm) Stone crab (0.1 gm) Turtle (Kinosternidae) (0.1 gm) Shark (0.2 gm) Raccoon (vert) (2.2 gm) Catfish (bones: 0.8 gm; otoliths 2.7 gm) otoliths: rights: 8.6, 8.7, 7.7; lefts: 9.7, 10.1, 9.3, 11.3 mm

Ceramics: Sand Tempered Plain (STP): 4 frags/pebbles (2.3 gm) 5 sherds (35.2 gm) (thk: 7.1, 7.7, 6.9, 5, 7.7 mm)

Shell: Quahog umbo scrapers: 2 rights, 1 left

Other: small metal flakes (discarded)

ACI Unit 3 (8MA6E)

Elevation: Unlike Excavation #4 (located south of Manatee Avenue), this locus is not overlain with a mangrove peat layer, indicating a higher relative elevation.

Matrix: shell/black dirt, very compacted; shell very fragmented. Shell component is chiefly small conchs, quahog and sunray clams; oyster is very minor.

Integrity: Appears to be in situ, sealed beneath hydraulically dredged spoil and compacted stony fill and gravel. Only modern/recent recovery was a .22 cal (short) shell casing in Level #1.

Level #1:

(0-140 cmbs). fill – modern debris and dredge sand with shell.

Shell: Busycon, Pleuroploca, tulip, pear, macrocallista, dinocardium, scallop, quahog, Strombus, melongena, polynices, trachycardiuin/brachycardium, murex, oyster, surf clam (very minor), olive (2), Large Busycon (2), medium Busycon (2), medium Pleuroploca (3).

Other: mangrove wood fragments

Commensals: euglandina, polygyra, truncatella, cross-barred venus, marginella, calcareousalgae, mangelia, phragmitescoral, Floridacerith, falsecerith, cardita, nassa, turrid, cantharus, pointed venus, wovenlucine, wormshell, bittersweet, kingvenus, conus, arca, modulus, olivella, oysterdrills, melampus, mussel, columbella, auger, mudclams, commonlucine, creidula.

Analysis: above water midden, near shore/intertidal, mangrove swamp, marine grass beds.

Deer (26 gm) Sciaenidae (mostly trout) 13.4 gm Spiny box fish (6.6 gm) Snakes (lg & sm) (0.5 gm) Sea urchin (0.4 gm) UID sm mammals (9 gm) Jack (3.2 gm) UID birds (1.9 gm) Toadfish (0.7 gm) Pufferfish (0.2 gm) Opossum (tooth) (0.2 gm) Bluefish (tooth) (0.2 gm) UID boney fish (63.1 gm)

Lithics: 47 fragments, chiefly corticated shatter, small-medium sized, chert & coral (39.9 gm)

Ceramics: STP: frags & pebbles (76.6 gm) 76 sherds (223.9 gm) (11.8, 8.3, 9.5, 9.1, 9, 7.6, 6.7, 7.6, 8, 10.4, 7.4, 11.2, 5.3, 8.9, 5.9, 7.6, 8.5, 7.6, 7.6, 7.1, 9.3, 8.2, 6.6, 5, 7.2, 10.3, 5.6, 10.7, 5.6, 7.1, 10.3, 5.7, 8.1, 8.2, 7.2, 8.7, 7.5, 8.2, 7.6, 8.5, 10.8, 8.8, 11.9, 8.2, 6.8, 5.9, 6.2, 7.4, 8.2, 3.4, 4.8, 8.3, 6.5, 6.1, 4, 5.5, 6.1, 8.1, 8.6, 7.3, 13, 7, 6.2, 10.5, 8.4, 9, 6.6, 6.6, 9, 7.6, 5.8, 6.1, 5.6, 6.8, 9.1, 10.5 , 6.9 mm) 2 rims (8.2 gm) -round-flattened lip/out slanted rim angle -rounded, interior thickened lip Limestone tempered plain: 1sherd (6.5 mm) (3 gm) St. Johns plain: 4 sherds (3.7, 3.6, 4.9, 2.8 mm) (2.8 gm) Pinellas plain (??): 2 sherds (7.3, 5 mm) (1.8 gm): Small sherds, well- fired, contorted/angular paste; not classic laminated, but probably Pinellas plain

Stone: -concreted sand/shell conglomerate pebbles & small chunks (196.3 gm) (Discarded) -sand/shell conglomerate hone (50.7 gm)

Shell: -2 small beads Quahog umbo scrapers: 24 rights, 4 lefts 14 whole valves (all lefts) [kept for seasonality analyses] sample of quahog fragments kept for C-14 dating -Busycon tools: 4 columnellae spalls/splinters, 4 shoulder/body spalls, 2 small type A hammers -Noetia: 1 possible net weight fragment

Level #2:

(140-180 cmbs). Black dirt shell midden.

Shell: small Busycon, medium Pleuroploca, murex, Strombus, oyster (minor), dinocardium, trachycardium/brachycardium, pen shell (minor), macrocallista, melongena, polynices, quahog, pear, tulip, scallop

Other: mangrove wood

Commensals: euglandina, polygyra, cross-barred venus, cardita, Floridacerith, falsecerith, pointed venus, lucines, nassa, bittersweet, marginella, olivella, oyster drills, modulus, olive, coquina, arca, melampus, worm shell, auger, mud clams, conus, cantharus, crepidula.

Analysis: As above

Faunal: Stone crab (10 gm) Turtles (includes kinosternidae, cooter?) (6 gm) Sciaenidae (drum & trout) (0.5 gm) Pufferfish (1 jaw frag) (0.1 gm) Jack (0.2 gm) Ray (0.2 gm) Shark (sharp-nosed) (1.7 gm) Catfish (bones: 0.8 gm; otoliths: 6.8 gm: rights: 12.1, 9.3, 8.9, 5.3 mm; lefts: 12, 11.4, 11.1, 9.9, 6.2, 8.8, 8.8, 7.9 mm; 2 fragments) Deer (3.3 gm) Raccoon (1 tooth) (0.2 gm) UID small mammals (0.4 gm) UID boney fish (9.5 gm)

Lithics: 1 sm flake, 1 sm shatter; coral (0.8 gm)

Ceramics: STP: 7 frags/pebbles (2 gm) 10 sherds (18 gm) (8.6, 6.6, 5.5, 8.4, 8.2, 7, 10.1, 8.4, 6.7, 6.7 mm) 1 rim (6.8 mm, 1.5 gm) -Rounded, exterior folded

Stone: 6 sand/shell conglomerate pebbles (54.9 gm) (discarded)

Shell: Busycon: 6 body frags medium-large Busycon (1 is definitely a rough dipper); 3 columnellae spalls/splinters Quahog: 1 umbo scraper (right); 1 whole valve (left)

Comments: Fragmented condition of shell is curious. Might be attributable to heavy equipment having been used to clear the area of mangroves prior to burial under dredged spoil. Two recovered sherds are possibly Pinellas plain, but are not classic/laminated, so attribution is a little iffy. Much of the recovered vertebrate faunal consists of very small UID fish vertebrae; mollusks are also predominantly of small size; analysis of catfish otoliths also indicates predominantly small-sized fish. All of this may be indicative of over-harvesting of resources and environmental stress.

ACI Unit 4 (8MA6A)

Unit (1.5 m x 1.5 m) was located in 50 ft additional ROW. Excavation by 10 cm levels, matrix water-screened (1/8” mesh) in field. Midden is buried/sealed under ca. 57 cm of hydraulically dredged sand spoil.

Level #1

(50-70 cmbs). Top 5-10 cm is dark gray/black soil with roots. Rest of level is dense shell midden in dark soil.

Shells: quahog, Busycon, macrocallista, surf clam, tulip, melongena, oyster, pleurploca

Faunal: UID boney fish (15.8 gm) Sciaenidae (1.6 gm) Catfish (3.1 gm) otoliths: Lefts: 12.3 mm; Rights 8.3 mm; 1 frag Turtles (3 gm) Jack (2.8 gm) Spiny boxfish (3.7 gm) Shark (2 verts-one is possible bead) (2 gm) Ray (1 vert) (less than 0.1 gm) Stonecrab (0.1 gm) Rodent (0.5 gm) Sheepshead (1.1 gm) UID bird (0.2 gm) Deer (17.6 gm)

Ceramics: STP: 19 frags (20.8 gm) 29 sherds (159 gm) (9.6, 9.2, 9.3, 11, 8.3, 7.5, 6.7, 7.2, 8.1, 10.9, 9.9, 8.2, 10.5, 5.6, 5, 8.5, 7.1, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 6, 7.1, 6.2, 6.9, 6.7, 5.3, 6.7 mm) 2 rims (10 gm) -rounded/outslanted (6 mm) -pointed/interior beveled St. Johns plain: 1 sherd (5.7 mm)

Stone: 1 frag phosphatized sandstone hone

Shell: -Quahog umbo scrapers: 15 rights; 2 lefts (one of these has dorsal battering) -3 Busycon columella frags, 2 columnellae splinters/spalls -1 probable Busycon expedient hammer

-1 Pleuroploca columnella frag -whole quahog valves: 25 lefts, 1 right

Level #2

(70-80 cmbs). As with Level #1, fair percentage of dirt, lots of macrocallista.

Faunal: UID boney fish (36.5 gm) Catfish (5.2 gm) otoliths: Lefts: 10.1, 9.6, 9.4 mm; Rights: 11.5, 11.4, 8.6, 8.3 mm; 3 frags Sciaenidae (3.9 gm) Spiny boxfish (0.8 gm) Turtles (box, cooter) (7.4 gm) Shark (small) (0.7 gm) Ray (1 vert) (0.4 gm) Jack (4.4 gm) Stonecrab (1.2 gm) Pufferfish(1 jaw frag) (0.1 gm) UID bird (3 gm) Deer & UID sm mammal (7.4 gm)

Lithics: 1 med, 1 lg coral flakes (4.4 gm)

Ceramics: STP: 29 frags/pebbles (29.6 gm) 32 sherds (139.2 gm) (11.3, 8.7, 9.6, 8.3, 10, 11.9, 6.3 8.6, 9.7, 9.4, 9.1, 8.8, 8.7, 7.6, 9.6, 10.4, 9.1, 6.7, 10.1, 9.8, 7.6, 8.4, 6.2, 9, 5.9, 9.6, 5.5, 5.7, 4.3, 9.3, 4.5, 7.3 mm) 6 rims (30.3 gm) -rounded/incurvate/suspension hole -round-flattened (7.8 mm) -rounded/outslanted -flattened/expanded/outslanted -pointed/interior beveled -pointed/outslanted (9.8 mm) St. Johns plain: 2 sherds (5.7, 4.7 mm); 1 rim: rounded (5.4 mm) (total: 6.8 gm)

Shell: Quahog: umbo scrapers: 13 rights; whole valves: 33 lefts, 1 right Busycon: 1 expedient hammer; 6 columnellae frags -5 showing distal scarring; 1 shoulder spall Pleuroploca: 1 columnella frag

Commensal: 1 chunk UID coral

Level #3

(80-90 cmbs)

Faunal: UID boney fish (26.2 gm) Catfish (5 gm) otoliths: Lefts: 14.3, 14.9, 10.2, 6.6 mm; Rights: 8.1, 10.9, 9, 7.1 mm Toadfish (1.1 gm) Shark (small) (0.7 gm) Ray (0.7 gm) Sciaenidae (7.4 gm) Spiny boxfish (1.6 gm) Stone/blue crab (0.8 gm Jack (16 gm) Bird (coracoid) (2 gm) Sea turtle (8.5 gm) Turtle (including box) (4.2 gm) Cetacean (prob dolphin/1vert) (42 gm) Deer & sm mammal (18.2 gm) Raccoon (1 tooth) (0.3gm)

Lithics: 1 med chert flake –possible bifaces frag (2.3 gm)

Ceramics: STP: 11 frags/pebbles (8 gm) 16 sherds (89.5 gm (7.3, 5.3, 7.4, 7.3, 8.2, 8, 8.2, 6.6, 9.3, 10.8, 6.3, 10.2, 10, 9.8, 7.7, 9.8 mm) 3 rims (47 gm) -round-flattened (6.5 mm) -rounded/outslanted -rounded-pointed (8 mm) St. Johns plain: 2 sherds (7.2, 5 mm) (2.9 gm)

Stone: 6 sm frags/chunks sand/shell conglomerate (137.8 gm) (Discarded) 2 sm frags phosphatized sandstone (7.2 gm) 1 frag sand/shell conglomerate hone

Shell: Quahog: umbo scrapers: 11 rights (one with dorsal battering), 4 lefts; whole valves: 36 lefts, 1 right; 1 whole left valve “anvil” Busycon: 1 possible Type A hammer; 1 expedient hammer; 1 shoulder spall; 3 columnellae frags Pleuroploca: 2 columnellae frags

Other: 1 deer bone bipoint frag 1 lg fossilized shark tooth – heavy utilized

Level #4

(90-100 cmbs): significant increase in oyster

Faunal: UID boney fish (73.9 gm) Catfish (4.5 gm) otoliths: Lefts: 8.7, 8.1, 10.5 mm; Rights: 11.2, 8.5 mm Shark (small) (1.9 gm) Ray (0.9 gm) Toadfish (0.3 gm) Spiny boxfish (0.3 gm) Sheepshead (3.9 gm) Sciaenidae (12.9 gm) Stonecrab (8.2 gm) Jack (18 gm) Turtles (including box) (6.3 gm) Deer & sm mammals (9.2 gm) UID amphibian (1 vert) (less than 0.1 gm) Bird (including prob heron) (19.5 gm)

Lithics: 1 med flake coral (0.7 gm)

Ceramics: STP: 7 frags/pebbles (6 gm) 3 sherds (4.2 gm) (5.7, 5.5, 5.8 mm) St. Johns plain: 1 sherd (9.8 mm); 1 frag (total: 9.7 gm) St. Johns punctuate(?): 1 sherd (8 mm/2 gm): very sm punctuates? Limestone tempered plain: 1 sherd (4.6 mm/l gm) Semi-fibered tempered plain: 1 frag; 4 sherds (9.3, 7.5, 7.9, 9.5 mm) (total: 23.4 gm)

Shell: Quahog: umbo scrapers: 22 rights, 4 lefts (one left with dorsal battering) whole valves: 13 lefts Busycon: 3 expedient hammers; 5 columnellae frags; 2 columnellae splinters/spalls; 1 shoulder spall; 2 outer whorl sections (Sm dippers/spoons?); 1 outer whorl frag-possible celt or celt preform

Level #5

(100-110 cmbs): As above, re: oysters. Some adhering carbonate concretions.

Faunal: UID boney fish (128.2 gm) Catfish (10.5 gm) otoliths: Lefts: 13.9, 10.3, 10.8, 11.1, 9.7, 11.3, 11.1 mm; Rights:10.7, 11.6, 10.5 mm Shark (small) (0.9 gm) Ray (0.4 gm) Toadfish (0.8 gm)

Sea urchin (0.1 gm) Snake (1 vert) (0.4 gm) Spiny boxfish (4.7 gm) Sheepshead (7.4 gm) Sciaenidae (21.5 gm) Stone crab (9.9 gm) Jack (11.4 gm) Turtles (incl gopher) (26.2 gm) Cetacea (intervertebral disc frag) (1 gm) Birds (incl prob heron) (7.9 gm) Deer (54.2 gm) Sm mammals (incl opossum) (9.8 gm)

Lithics: 6 med flakes, 1 med shatter coral; 1med flake chert; 1 lg flake chert (total: 23.9 gm)]

Ceramics: Limestone tempered plain: 8 sherds (44.7 gm) (12.1, 7.8, 5.8, 6.1, 8.6, 8.8, 8.8, 7.3 mm) Semi-fiber tempered plain: 2 frags; 5 sherds (10.6, 10.3, 9.6, 8.6, 13.2 mm) (total: 34 gm)

Stone: 3 pcs irregular sand/shell conglomerate (114.7 gm) (Discarded) 1 sm frag phosphatized sandstone (3 gm)

Shell: Quahog: umbo scrapers: 7 lefts, 40 rights; whole valves: 10 lefts; 1 whole left valve “anvil” Busycon: 2 pounders; 7 shoulder/whorl spalls; 11 columnellae frags; 2 columnellae splinter/spalls; 1 possible Type A hammer; 1 “handled” dipper; 1 Type E hammer Pleuroploca: 1 columnella spall/splinter Melongena: 2 frags with distal scarring: probable expedient hammers

Commensal: 1 frag phragmites coral

Level #6

(110-120 cmbs): ca. 7-8 cm of shell midden over gray sand (bottoming out). Adhering carbonates prevalent. Water table.

Faunal: UID boney fish (154.4 gm) Catfish (5.9 gm) otoliths: Lefts: 9.2, 9.1, 10.6 mm; Rights: 9.2 mm Snook (1 jaw frag) (9.7 gm) Shark (small) (0.3 gm) Ray (0.4 gm) Toadfish (1.9 gm)

Spiny boxfish (4.4 gm) Sheepshead (2.5 gm) Sciaenidae (25.4 gm) Stone crab (18 gm) Jack (37.7 gm) Cetacea (intervertebral disc frags) (0.8 gm) Turtles (incl gopher) (24.9 gm) Bird (4.9 gm) Deer (52.5 gm) Sm mammal (includes opossum) (2.3 gm)

Lithics: 17 sm flakes coral (4 gm); 8 med flakes coral (6 gm); 1 med flake chert (1.2 gm); 1 lg 2nd decort flake coral (6.8 gm); 1 biface frag, coral- probably barb from Lafayette ppt; 1 basal frag with barbs Lafayette ppt, prob coral

Ceramics: STP: 2 pebbles, 1 sherd (9 mm); (total: 8.3 gm) Semi-fibered tempered plain: 4 pebbles, 2 sherds (10.6, 11.5 mm); (total: 9.8 gm) Limestone tempered plain: 3 frags (2.8 gm); 11 sherds (86.1 gm) (8.3, 6.3, 5, 4.7, 11.7, 7.5, 9.7, 7.3, 5.7, 5.3, 7 mm)

Stone: 1 chunk limestone (24 gm); 1chunk rough limestone (47.6 gm/Discarded); 3 sm frags phosphatized sandstone (8.3 gm)

Shell: Quahog: umbo scrapers: 37 rights, 8 lefts; whole valves: 18 lefts, 1 right; 1 whole left valve “anvil”; 1 whole left valve digging tool Busycon: 9 columnellae frags (3 with distal scarring); 4 probable expedient hammers; 2 frags probable broken hammers; 4 shoulder/whorl spalls; 1 columnella splinter/spall; 1 boy whorl (sm cup/dipper); 1 whole body dipper/cup (removed columnella) Pleuroploca: 1 columnella body frag with distal scarring

Level #7

(120-130) cmbs: Mostly sand but concreted shell area centrally

Faunal: UID boney fish (37.7 gm) Shark (1 sm vert, pierced: bead?) (0.1 gm) Toadfish (1 gm) Catfish (1.7 gm) otoliths: Rights: 8.6 mm Sheepshead (0.5 gm) Sciaenidae (15.7 gm) Flounder (0.3 gm) Deer (3.2 gm) Jack (17.7 gm)

Turtle (box) (1.2 gm) Bird (0.3 gm)

Lithics: 4 sm flakes coral (0.8 gm); 6 med flakes coral (7 gm); 1 lg flake coral (4.5 gm); 1 lg flake chert (12.8 gm)

Ceramics: Semi-fibered tempered plain: 1 frag, 1 sherd (11 mm); (total: 4.2 gm) Limestone tempered plain: 3 sherds (6.7, 5.7, 7.9 mm); 1 rim: rounded- pointed/Outslanted (11.6 mm); (total: 22.8 gm)

Shell: Quahog: umbo scrapers: 10 rights, 4 lefts; whole valves: 13 lefts, 1 right Busycon: 4 columnellae frags; 1 columnella splinter/spall; 1 shoulder spall; 2 colunmella/whorl frags prob hammer frags Pleuroploca: 1 columnella frag

Level #8

(130-140 cmbs): Like above, but central shell spot decreasing in size. Level #8 ends in middle of unit at ca. 142 cm.

Comment: Very significant deposits showing (sequence from bottom up): contemporaneity of semi-fiber tempered, sand tempered, and limestone tempered ceramics and Lafayette projectile points; addition of St. Johns wares; and disappearance of semi-fibered and limestone tempered wares.

Appendix D: Florida Master Site File Forms

Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______MA6 11 3 08 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Field Date ____/_____/______ Original Form Date ____/_____/______12/ 10 08 Version 4.0 1/07 ✔ Update Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions. Site Name(s) ______Perico Island Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS PD&E Study Anna Maria Island Bridge Survey # (DHR only) ______Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown LOCATION & MAPPING USGS 7.5 Map Name & Date______Bradenton Beach 1982 Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______Palma Sola In City Limits? yes no ✔ unknown County______Manatee Township ______34S Range______16E Section ______27 ¼ section: NW ✔ SW ✔ SE NE Irregular-name: ______Landgrant ______Tax Parcel # ______UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting ______0 Northing ______0 Other Coordinates: X: ______Y: ______Coordinate System & Datum ______Address / Vicinity / Route to ______N and S of S.R. 64 at east end of the Anna Maria Island Bridge on Perico Island ______Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) ______NA TYPE OF SITE (check all that apply) SETTING * STRUCTURES OR FEATURES * FUNCTION * ✔ Land (terrestrial) Wetland (palustrine) aboriginal boat fort road segment campsite Lake/Pond (lacustrine) usually flooded agric/farm building ✔ midden ✔ shell midden ✔ extractive site River/Stream/Creek (riverine) usually dry burial mound mill shell mound ✔ habitation (prehistoric) Tidal (estuarine) Cave/Sink (subterranean) building remains mission shipwreck homestead (historic) Saltwater (marine) terrestrial cemetery/grave mound, nonspecific subsurface features farmstead aquatic dump/refuse plantation surface scatter village (prehistoric) earthworks platform mound well town (historic) Other settings, structures, features or functions ______ quarry CULTURE PERIODS (check all that apply) ABORIGINAL * Englewood ✔ Manasota St. Johns (nonspecific) Swift Creek (nonspecific) NON-ABORIGINAL * Alachua Fort Walton Mississippian St. Johns I Swift Creek, Early First Spanish 1513-99 Archaic (nonspecific) Glades (nonspecific) Mount Taylor St. Johns II Swift Creek, Late First Spanish 1600-99 Archaic, Early Glades I Norwood Santa Rosa ✔ Transitional First Spanish 1700-1763 Archaic, Middle Glades II Orange Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Weeden Island (nonspecific) First Spanish (nonspecific) Archaic, Late Glades III Paleoindian Seminole (nonspecific) Weeden Island I British 1763-1783 Belle Glade Hickory Pond Pensacola Seminole: Colonization Weeden Island II Second Spanish 1783-1821 Cades Pond Leon-Jefferson Perico Island Seminole: 1st War To 2nd Prehistoric (nonspecific) American Territorial 1821-45 Caloosahatchee Malabar I ✔ Safety Harbor Seminole: 2nd War To 3rd Prehistoric non-ceramic American Civil War 1861-65 Deptford Malabar II St. Augustine Seminole: 3rd War & After Prehistoric ceramic American 19th Century American 20th Century Other (List less common phases or specific sub-phases. For historic sites, give specific dates if known.) ______ American (nonspecific) ______ African-American 9 Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are coded fields). OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? ✔yes no insufficient information Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no ✔insufficient information Explanation of Evaluation (required if evaluated; use separate sheet if needed)______the site possesses a high research potential in that it can ______provide data relative to the Transitional, Manasota, and Safety Harbor periods and the transformation from one stage ______to another, intact midden deposits are present which can provide an abundance of data relative to subsistence patterns, ______technology, and potentially environmental changes Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______preservation or mitigative excavations prior to site disturbance ______

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

HR6E045R0107 Florida Master Site File / Div. of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Bldg / 500 S Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)-245-6439 / E-mail [email protected] Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______MA6 FIELD METHODS (check all that apply) SITE DETECTION * SITE BOUNDARIES * no field check ✔ exposed ground ✔ screened shovel ✔ bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel ✔ literature search ✔ posthole digger ______ none by recorder ✔ insp exposed ground ✔ screened shovel ✔ informant report auger--size:______✔ literature search ✔ posthole tests ✔ block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel ______✔ informant report auger--size:______ estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) ______66 ST at 10 m intervals along 3 transects spaced______10 m apart; 25 of the tests were positive, of which 6 evidenced extensive site disturbance; 50 cm diameter, at least 1 m ______deep, 6.4 mm mesh screen; 4 excavation units (2 1x2m and 2 1.5x1.5m) screen through 3.2 mm mesh SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) _____unk Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______variable, in some places it is at the surface and in others it is ______buried beneath 1.5 m of fill ______Temporal Interpretation - Components (check one): single component ✔ multiple component uncertain Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretations: ______Integrity - Overall disturbance*: none seen minor ✔ substantial major redeposited destroyed-document! unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______road construction, utility line installation / road & bridge construction / ______site should be preserved or data collected prior to destruction Surface collection: area collected _____ m2 # collection units______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______4 ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______(C)ount * or (E)stimate? Surface #______(C) * or (E) Subsurface # ______* (C) or (E) COLLECTION SELECTIVITY * ARTIFACT CATEGORIES* and DISPOSITIONS * (example: A bone-human) unknown unselective (all artifacts) Pick exactly one code from Disposition List ÖÖÖÖ Disposition List* ✔ A selective (some artifacts) ____ bone-animal ____ exotic-nonlocal A - category always collected mixed selectivity ____ bone-human ____ glass S - some items in category collected SPATIAL CONTROL A * ____ bone-unspecified ____ lithics-aboriginal O - observed first hand, but not collected uncollected general (not by subarea) ____A bone-worked ____O metal-nonprecious R - collected and subsequently left at site unknown controlled (by subarea) ____ brick/building debris ____ metal-precious/coin I - informant reported category present ✔ variable spatial control ____A ceramic-aboriginal ____S shell-unworked U - unknown Other______ceramic-nonaboriginal ____A shell-worked ______daub ____ Others: ______plastic Artifact Comments______faunal materials not counted; see attached list of materials recovered from the units* DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. ______semi-fiber-tempered N=___12 4.______St. Johns Plain N=___11 7.______Pinellas Plain N=___2 2. ______STP N=___186 5.______St. Johns Punctate N=___1 8.______N=___ 3. ______Pasco Plain N=___25 6.______Lafayette point N=___2 9.______N=___ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water type* & name (incl. relict source) ______Anna Maria Sound Distance (m)/bearing adj ______W Natural community (FNAI category* or leave blank) ______Local vegetation ______Australian pine Topography* ______flat Min Elevation_____meters0 Max Elevation_____meters2 Present land use ______road ROW SCS soil series ______EauGallie fs, Estero muck, Canaveral sand, filled Soil association ______DOCUMENTATION Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents that are permanently accessible: For each separately maintained collection, describe (1) document type(s),* (2) maintaining organization,* (3) file or accession nos., and (4) descriptive information. ______notes on file ACI P06115C; artifacts, etc. to be turned over to FDOT for curation ______Manuscripts or Publications on the site (use separate sheet if needed, give FMSF# if relevant) ______ACI (2008) Cultural Resource Assessment ______Survey Anna Maria Island Bridge PD&E Study SR 64 from SR 789 to Perico Bay Blvd. Manatee County, FL RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information (name / address / phone / affiliation) ______Bill Burger 941-722-3403 ______Recorder Information (name / address / phone / affiliation) ______Horvath, Elizabeth A., 98 Hickorywood Dr., Crawfordville, FL 32327 ______Archaeological Consultants, Inc., 850-926-9285, [email protected] Required PHOTOCOPY OF 7.5’ USGS QUAD MAP WITH SITE BOUNDARIES MARKED and SITE PLAN Attachments Plan at 1:3,600 or larger. Show boundaries, scale, north arrow, test/collection units, landmarks and date. 8MA 6 -- Excavation Units (EU)

• EU #1 The placement of EU #1, 1 x 2 m (3.3 x 6.6 ft) in size, was based on the results of systematic shovel testing in the general vicinity of 8MA6A. The unit was excavated to 100 cmbs (39 in) in 10 and 20 cm (4 and 8 in) levels and consisted entirely of light gray hydraulically-dredged sandy fill. At 1 m (39 in) below surface, the excavation was terminated and long handle post hole diggers were used to test below that depth; a shell midden deposit was found between 120 and 140 cmbs (47 and 55 in). No features were observed and no cultural materials were collected. However, due to the depth of fill, limited evidence of midden, and safety issues, the excavation was halted. As a result, a second unit (EU #2) was opened to the east.

• EU #2 was placed just to the east of EU #1, also within the existing S.R. 64 ROW, where ST 3 had uncovered midden, assumed to be evidence of 8MA6A within the APE EU #2 was 1 x 2 m (3.3 x 6.6 ft) in size and excavated to a depth of 150 cmbs (59 in) in 10 to 20 cm (4-8 in) levels. In general, stratigraphy revealed gray sand (0-30 cmbs/0-12 in), black dirt, and shell midden (30-150 cmbs/12-59 in). A layer of hydraulically-dredged fill was present in a portion of the unit at approximately 30-50 cmbs (12-20 in). Underneath the midden, sterile gray silt was found to extend to an undetermined depth. Careful examination of the black dirt midden evidenced pieces of white plastic sheeting indicating that the midden was disturbed, probably inverted and dumped in the ROW, when the nearby ditch was excavated along the south side of S.R. 64 (Burger 2008).

Two, 19 liter (five-gallon) buckets were filled with midden material to evaluate the deposit and/or verify the redeposition. This sample was taken from about 75 cmbs (30 in) in the north profile and water screened though 0.32 cm (0.125 in) mesh and sorted. This evidenced marine shell, faunal bone, and a minimal assortment of ceramics (See Appendix). More specifically, boney fish, shark, ray, snake, stone crab, catfish, and raccoon were identified. In addition, five fragments of sand-tempered plain (STP) ceramic, three quahog umbo scrapers, and several small metal flakes were recovered. The latter further substantiated the disturbed nature of the midden within the existing S.R. 64 ROW. The ceramics had an average thickness of 6.9 millimeters (mm) (0.27 in) which is relatively thin, and may indicate that the spoil had come from Safety Harbor component evidenced at 8MA6E, located about 30 m (98 ft) west of the unit.

• EU #3 was placed adjacent to the eastern terminus of Pond D-North where ST 133 evidenced midden, presumably 8MA6E. This 1.5 x 1.5 m (4.9 x 4.9) unit was excavated to approximately 180 cmbs (71 in). Wooden shoring and pump were required for safety purposes as well as to dewater the unit. The upper levels of the unit produced a thick, dense, compact set of fill layers (0-140 cmbs/0-55 in) ranging from grayish-brown gravelly sand to limestone, asphalt, and crushed shell debris; in all likelihood the remains of prior roadway and toll plaza construction. Immediately beneath the fill, a water-logged black dirt shell midden (140-180 cmbs/55-71 in) was encountered atop sterile gray silt that extended to an undetermined depth below two meters (6.6 ft). Based on information from this unit, it appears that at least a portion of 8MA6E lies undisturbed beneath 140 cm (55 in) of modern fill. The midden decreases in thickness from the north (140-180 cmbs/55-71 cm) to the south (140-160 cmbs/55-63 in). In addition, based on this unit, the midden seems to taper to the west probably terminating near ST 147, but extends an unknown distance to the north and continues outside of the APE. Nearly 100% of the excavated midden was collected in 26 19 liter (five-gallon) samples for 0.32 cm (0.125 in) water screening, sorting, and analysis.

Analysis of the water screened midden produced numerous small (broken) fragments of marine food shell and ceramics (See Appendix).The fragmentation may be due to heavy equipment having been used to clear an area of mangroves prior to burial of the area under dredged spoil (Burger 2008). The shell component of the midden consists mainly of small conchs, quahog, and sunray clams. Other shell types include Busycon, Pleuroploca, tulip, pear, Macrocallista, Dinocardium, scallop, Strombus, Melongena, polinices, Trachycardium, murex, and a minimal amount of oyster. Interestingly, most of the recovered vertebrate faunal bone consisted of very small unidentified (UID) fish vertebra. Identified fish types included catfish, trout, drum, spiny boxfish, jack, toadfish, pufferfish, and bluefish. The terrestrial faunal assemblage included deer, raccoon, and opossum as well as snakes and turtles. A cursory review of the faunal data indicates a clear reliance upon the estuarine resources found adjacent to the site. The relatively small size of the fish vertebras recovered, as well as the relatively small sizes of the shellfish may be indicative of the over-harvesting of resources and/or environmental stress, but additional investigation of 8MA6E would be required to make this determination.

Ceramics recovered from the midden in EU #3 tend to support the hypothesis that this western most component of the Perico Island complex (8MA6), at least in part, dates to the Safety Harbor period ca. 900 to 1600 C.E. Two of the recovered sherds appear to be Pinellas Plain and the STP rim sherds are similar in lip and rim treatment to late prehistoric pottery documented along Florida’s west coast (Cordell 1992; Luer and Almy 1980, 1982). In addition, the 86 sherds recovered are relatively thin, with an average of 7.7 mm (0.30 in). Luer and Almy also noted that there tended to be a decrease in sherd thickness over time (Luer and Almy 1980). The analysis of almost 1200 STP sherds, from the Remnant Mound at Shaw’s Point in Manatee County, clearly indicated a decrease in sherd thickness over time, from an average of 0.89 cm (0.35 in) to 0.65 cm (0.25 in) (Schwadron 2002). The other types of ceramics recovered from the unit include Pasco Plain and St. Johns Plain. Neither of these ceramic types are good temporal markers since they have been manufactured for some 2000 years. Carbon-14 dates would be necessary to confirm the period of occupancy.

The shellfish remains recovered also included a number of tools and decorative items. These included 2 small beads, 28 quahog umbo scrapers (25 right valve, 4 left valve), 15 whole left quahog valves, Noetia net weight, and Busycon tools/debris (7 columella spalls/splinters, 4 shoulder/body spalls, 2 small Type A hammers). In addition, six body fragments from a medium to large Busycon were recovered, one of which was a rough dipper). The umbo scrapers were manufactured primarily from the right valve and many evidence modification of the shell fragment by the squaring off the two ends of shell fragment. The umbo scraper would be held between thumb and forefinger and the interior broken margin would be used for scraping items such as wood and hides. This use of the right valve umbos suggests that these were expedient tools manufactured from the debris left over from the breaking of the shell to extract the meat.

• EU #4 The location of EU #4 was based upon the systematic shovel testing results that identified the presence of 8MA6A. This 1.5 m x 1.5 m (4.9 x 4.9 ft) unit was excavated to an approximate depth of 200 cmbs (79 in). A small band of redeposited midden was encountered between 20 and 30 cmbs (8-12 in). The intact midden deposits were encountered about 60 cmbs (24 in), with the dense shell deposits beginning at 70 cmbs (28 in) and were documented to ±120 cmbs (47 in). A slightly concreted shell deposit extended to a final depth of 142 cm (56 in) within the center of the floor and probably just represented undulation in the terrain as opposed to any sort of subsurface feature. The water table was encountered about 120 cmbs.

The artifact assemblage recovered from this unit included shellfish, faunal remains, aboriginal ceramics, lithic debitage, shell tool, bone tools, fossilized shark tooth, and limestone and sandstone fragments (See Appendix).The shellfish assemblage included quahog, Busycon, Macrocallista, surf clam, tulip, Melongena, and Pleuroploca. A noticeable increase in the predominance of oyster shell was noted below 90 cmbs (35 in). In addition, Macrocallista (Sunray Venus and/or Calico Clam) was a significant portion of the shellfish assemblage in the upper 20 cm (8 in) of the midden deposit. Based on the recovered cultural materials, a wide variety of boney fish, including trout, drum, jack, snook, sheepshead, toadfish, catfish, and spiny boxfish were utilized. Other maritime resource included stone and blue crab, sharks and rays, sea turtle, and dolphin. Evidence of box turtle, gopher tortoise, deer, raccoon, opossum, and rodents indicate that terrestrial resources were also utilized, but not to the extent as the maritime ones. A few bird bones were recovered, most were unidentifiable but a few fragments suggest use of herons.

The ceramic assemblage contained 92 STP sherds, 7 St. Johns Plain, 1 St. Johns Punctate, 24 Pasco Plain, and 12 semi-fiber-tempered sherds (Table 1). There were 11 STP rim sherds with the following rim/lip forms: 3 rounded/outslanting; 2 rounded/flat; 2 pointed/interior beveled; and 1 each of the rounded/incurvate; flat/expanded/outslanting; pointed/outslanting; and rounded/pointed types. The St. Johns Plain rim sherd was rounded and the Pasco Plain rim sherd was rounded/pointed/ outslanting. The Pasco Plain and semi-fiber-tempered wares were recovered from the lower 40 cm (16 in) of the midden, while all but one of the STP and St. Johns sherds were recovered from the upper 40 cm (16 in) of the midden. Level 4 (90-100 cmbs / 35-39 in) produced all five types of ceramics. The STP sherds from level 1 have an average thickness of 7.6 mm (0.30 in) (range of 5-11 mm / 0.20-0.43 in), from level 2 the average is 8.3 mm (0.34 in) (range of 4.5-11.9 mm / 0.18-0.47 in), and from level 3 the average thickness is 8.3 mm (0.34 in) (range of 5.3-10.8 / 0.21-0.42 in). Only three sherds were recovered from level 4, and these ranged in thickness from 5.5 to 5.8 mm (0.22-0.23 in). The one sherd recovered from level 6 was 9 mm (0.35 in) thick. This generally reflects that trend that STP ceramics decreased in thickness over time. Table 1. Ceramics recovered from EU #4. STP St. Johns Plain St. Johns Pasco Plain Semi-fiber Level body/rim body/rim Punctate body/rim tempered 50-70 cmbs 29/2 1 70-80 cmbs 32/6 2/1 80-90 cmbs 16/3 2 90-100 cmbs 3 1 1 1 4 100-110 cmbs 8 5 110-120 cmbs 1 11 2 120-130 cmbs 3/1 1 Total 81/11 6/1 1 23/1 12

There were a number of shell tools and the scraps from shell tool manufacture recovered from the unit. These included quahog umbo scrapers, quahog anvils, a quahog digging tool, columella, expedient hammers, Type A and E hammers, dippers/spoons, and a possible celt preform (Table 2). The majority of the shell artifacts recovered was manufactured from quahog clams. These included an anvil and digging tool manufactured from the left valve and 177 umbo scrapers.

Table 2. Shell tools and scrap recovered from EU #4. Depth (cmbs) type item valve 50-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 Total columella fragment 2 6 3 5 11 9 4 40 columella 2221 1 8 splinter/spall dipper/cup 1 1 expedient hammer 1 1 1 2 6 2 14 handled dipper 1 1 outer whorl segment 1 1 - celt preform? Busycon outer whorl segment 21 3 - dipper/spoon? pounder 2 2 shoulder spall 1 1 1 3 shoulder/whorl spall 7 4 1 12 Type A hammer 1 1 2 Type E hammer 1 1 Total 5 8 6 14 25 22 8 88 expedient hammer 2 2 Melongena Total 2 2 columella fragment 1 1 2 1 1 6 columella Pleuroploca 1 1 splinter/spall Total 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 anvil left 1 1 1 3 digging tool left 1 1 left 2 4 4 7 8 4 29 umbo scraper right 15 13 11 22 40 37 10 148 Quahog Total171315264745 14 177 left 25 33 36 13 10 19 14 148 whole valve right 1 1 1 1 1 5 Total263437131019 14 153 Total 4347 53 39 58 66 28 334 Total 49 56 61 53 86 89 37 431

The Pleuroploca and Melongena shells were generally used for the same types of activities as the Busycons; however, Melongena was not used for dippers, cups, and spoons. The two Melongena hammers were expedient tools, and the one of the Pleuroploca columella had scarring on the distal end. The Melongena shells throughout the midden matrix were generally small, and may have been too small to be used for hammers considering the availability of other, larger species for such use.

Other items recovered from the excavations included a stone bead, a bone point manufactured from a deer metatarsal, and a fossilized shark tooth that had been heavily utilized. The bead was recovered from level 2 and the shark tooth and bone pin were recovered from level 3.

Discussion: Based on the data presented above, the Perico Island Complex within the APE, has the potential to provide important data concerning the aboriginal occupation of the region from the Florida Transitional period (and perhaps earlier) through the Safety Harbor period. As a result, a number of research topics can be addressed with the data contained in the buried deposits.

For example, the faunal materials available in the midden deposits provide information on the types of species being utilized, the environmental setting, and the seasons during which the site was occupied. If one assumes that the aboriginal populations targeted resources near their habitations and that faunal evidence found at the site represents animals processed or consumed at the site, then the zooarchaeological data can be used to test whether the distribution of the resources today is the same as that of the period of occupation (cf., Walker 1992). Trophic levels can also be examined to look at the potential over-exploitation of certain resources. It has been shown that the over- exploitation of the high trophic piscivorous fish, such as the horse mackerel, has given way to lower catches of lower level planktivorous fish, such as menhaden. Such analyses have been conducted in the Virgin Islands and at the nearby Remnant Mound (Maners 1998; Wing 1998). The Remnant Mound data suggested the local inhabitants focused on the lower level species, whereas in the Virgin Islands, over-exploitation of the upper level species did adversely affect the lower level species. The data available from the Perico Island Site can be compared to other sites in the region and provide a better understanding of how Native Americans made use of available food resources.

Also, archaeologists have found that the more species available for seasonality study, the better the results. For example, in the Charlotte Harbor area, the use of impressed odostomes, pinfish, and pigfish indicated that the Pineland site was occupied during the summer and fall, with the addition of the catfish and quahog data, a year-round occupation was posited (Quitmyer 1998). On Useppa Island, seasonality studies indicated that the site was occupied by Archaic peoples during the spring and summer, based on the data from six species (Quitmyer and Massaro 1999). Data from the Remnant Mound, also in Charlotte Harbor, indicated site occupation during the late summer through early winter, but was based on the data from three species (impressed odostome, pinfish, and pigfish) without the use of catfish and quahog (Quitmyer 2002). Thus, the catfish otoliths recovered from the Perico Island midden can provide data on the seasonal occupation of the site, and the recovery of the oysters from the lower levels should also result in the recovery of odostomes which will add information important to the study of the prehistory of the area.

Recovered ceramics are also useful to identify periods of occupancy. For example, research at the Canton Street Site, located at the southern tip of the Pinellas peninsula, suggests that the admixture of three projectile point traditions (basally notched, side and corner notched, and Archaic stemmed) and three ceramic traditions (limestone-tempered, sand-tempered, and temperless chalky ware) were representative of the Florida Transitional period (Bullen et al. 1978). All of these ceramics types have been recovered from the Perico Island complex, beginning in the 1930s when a predominance of Perico series ceramics, aka Pasco or limestone-tempered ware (Willey 1949:179) was encountered. Recovery of limestone-tempered Pasco Plain and semi-fiber-tempered wares in the lowest levels of Unit 4 during this investigation strongly suggest a Transitional period component. This is further supported by the Lafayette point fragments and the fact that data from Unit 4 evidences the Pasco ceramic series clearly underlying the STP ceramics. The latter, through time, become the dominant ceramic type in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region. Finally, the ceramics recovered from 8MA6E provide evidence of the later Safety Harbor component, based upon the Pinellas Plain sherds. Thus, from deposits within the APE, new data concerning the evolution of the Manasota/Weeden Island and Safety Harbor cultures can be documented.

Other research topics which can be addressed from intact deposits at 8MA6 are shell and bone tool technology. Burger (2008) has introduced the quahog umbo scraper as a tool type. This type has been heretofore undefined, and additional research will need to be conducted to determine the function of such tools. There does appear to be variations in this tool type occurrence; that is, most of the tools were recovered within the lower levels where oyster became more prevalent. A number of different questions could be addressed concerning this potential tool type. Could this tool type somehow be associated with oyster processing? Was it used in place of lithic scrapers due to the lack of lithic raw materials in the area? Are there temporal differences in the occurrence of the tool? Was it simply an expedient tool – or was it purposefully shaped? In addition, the overall tool frequency was greater within the oyster deposits as opposed to the upper midden levels; there were 69 shell tools or scrap in the upper 40 cm (16 in) of the midden as compared to 209 shell tools/scrap in the lower 40 cm (16 in) of the midden.

References Cited

ACI 2001 Phase II Archaeological Investigations, Block 107, Downtown Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2006 Archaeological Mitigative Excavation at the Eagle's Nest Site (8MA132) Manatee County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.

Bullen, Ripley P., Walter Askew, Lee M. Feder, and Richard L. McDonnell 1978 The Canton Street Site, St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 9.

Burger, B. W. 2008 Perico Island Research. Personal communication to M. M. Almy and L. Hutchinson, ACI, Sarasota.

Cordell, Ann S. 1992 Technological Investigations of Pottery Variability in Southwest Florida. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. Edited by W. H. Marquardt, pp. 105-190. Monograph 1. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Gainesville.

Kozuch, Laura 1998 Faunal Remains from the Palmer Site (8SO2), with a Focus on Shark Remains. The Florida Anthropologist 51(4): 177-192.

Luer, George M. and Marion M. Almy 1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 33(4): 207-225. 1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 35(1): 34- 58.

Newsom, Lee A. 1998 Archaeobotanical Research at Shell Ridge Midden, Palmer Site (8SO2), Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 51(4): 207-222.

Quitmyer, Irvy R. 1992 Seasonal Growth Patterns in the Shells of Southern Quahog Mercenaria campechiensis from the Palmetto Lane Midden (8SO96), Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45(3): 253-265. 1998 Pre-Columbian Site Seasonality and Harvest of Estuarine Resources and the Pineland Archaeological Complex, Charlotte Harbor, Florida. On file, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 2002 Faunal Analysis of Remnant Mound Column Samples. In Archaeology of De Soto National Memorial. Edited by M. Schwadron. pp. 158-196. SEAC Technical Paper No. 8. Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Russo, Michael 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study from Horr's Island. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Schwadron, Margo 2002 Archeological Investigations of De Soto National Memorial. SEAC Technical Reports 8. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Simpson, Terrence L. (editor) 1998 The Narvaez/Anderson Site (8Pi54): A Safety Harbor Culture Shell Mound and Midden -- AD 1000-1600. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, St. Petersburg.

Stapor, Frank W., Jr., Thomas D. Mathews, and Fonda E. Lindfors-Kearns 1991 Barrier-Island Progradation and Holocene Sea-Level History in Southwest Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 7(3): 815-838.

Tanner, William F. 1992 3000 Years of Sea Level Change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 73(3): 297-303.

Weisman, Brent R., Christine Newman, and Barbara A Mattick 1994 National Register of Historic Places Nomination: The Portavant Mound Site. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. 1982 Reprint. Florida Book Store, Gainesville.

APPENDIX Artifacts Recovered from the Units (No artifacts recovered from Unit 1) ACI Unit 2 (8MA6A) (2) 5-gallon pail samples

Commensals: euglandina, polygyra, truncatella, false cerith, augur, pointed venus, oyster drills, olivella, woven lucine, melampus, marginella, conus, mangelia, cardita, crepidula, fiddler crab

Analysis: above water midden; near shore/intertidal; mangrove swamp; marine grass beds

Ceramics: Sand Tempered Plain (STP): 4 frags/pebbles (2.3 gm) 5 sherds (35.2 gm) (thk: 7.1, 7.7, 6.9, 5, 7.7 mm)

Shell: Quahog umbo scrapers: 2 rights, 1 left

Other: small metal flakes (discarded)

ACI Unit 3 (8MA6E)

Elevation: Unlike Excavation #4 (located south of Manatee Avenue), this locus is not overlain with a mangrove peat layer, indicating a higher relative elevation.

Matrix: shell/black dirt, very compacted; shell very fragmented. Shell component is chiefly small conchs, quahog and sunray clams; oyster is very minor.

Integrity: Appears to be in situ, sealed beneath hydraulically dredged spoil and compacted stony fill and gravel. Only modern/recent recovery was a .22 cal (short) shell casing in Level #1.

Level #1:

Other: mangrove wood fragments

Analysis: above water midden, near shore/intertidal, mangrove swamp, marine grass beds.

Faunal: Shark (small [sm]) (4.9 gm) Turtles (includes kinosternidae, softshell, box) (16.4 gm) Rays (5.9 gm) Stonecrab (31.3 gm) Catfish (bones: 5.6 gm; otoliths: 30.5 gm) 44 rights: 12.2 ,9.1, 12.8, 10.3, 8.7, 9.2, 9.2, 9.4, 12.2, 9.6, 12.2, 10.6, 7.8, 11, 9, 9.3, 7.1, 8.3, 8.8, 8.9, 4.1, 8.9, 7.4, 5.8, 8, 8.4, 8.9, 9.3, 8.5, 9.5, 10.7, 8.1, 8.8.1, 9.4, 8.7, 8.7, 6.7, 8.1, 6.6, 9.8, 7.9, 7.3, 8 mm; 44 lefts: 15.4 (sailcat), 9.6, 10.3, 9.7, 11.8, 8.6, 10.3, 11, 9.7, 10.9, 9, 9.7 ,10.5 ,11.4 ,11.1 ,10.2 ,7.2, 9, 10.1, 11.5, 10.8, 9.1, 10.4, 9.7, 8.3, 9.1, 11.2, 7.8, 9.3, 8, 8.7, 9.6, 9.1, 7.6, 9.3, 8.6, 7.1, 7.7, 9.4, 8.5, 8.7, 9.8, 7.6, 4.7 mm; 2 frags Deer (26 gm) Sciaenidae (mostly trout) 13.4 gm Spiny box fish (6.6 gm) Snakes (lg & sm) (0.5 gm) Sea urchin (0.4 gm) UID sm mammals (9 gm) Jack (3.2 gm) UID birds (1.9 gm) Toadfish (0.7 gm) Pufferfish (0.2 gm) Opossum (tooth) (0.2 gm) Bluefish (tooth) (0.2 gm) UID boney fish (63.1 gm)

Lithics: 47 fragments, chiefly corticated shatter, small-medium sized, chert & coral (39.9 gm)

Stone: -concreted sand/shell conglomerate pebbles & small chunks (196.3 gm) (Discarded) -sand/shell conglomerate hone (50.7 gm)

Level #2:

Other: mangrove wood

Analysis: As above

Lithics: 1 sm flake, 1 sm shatter; coral (0.8 gm)

Ceramics: STP: 7 frags/pebbles (2 gm) 10 sherds (18 gm) (8.6, 6.6, 5.5, 8.4, 8.2, 7, 10.1, 8.4, 6.7, 6.7 mm) 1 rim (6.8 mm, 1.5 gm) -Rounded, exterior folded

Stone: 6 sand/shell conglomerate pebbles (54.9 gm) (discarded)

Shell: Busycon: 6 body frags medium-large Busycon (1 is definitely a rough dipper); 3 columnellae spalls/splinters Quahog: 1 umbo scraper (right); 1 whole valve (left)

ACI Unit 4 (8MA6A)

Level #1

(50-70 cmbs). Top 5-10 cm is dark gray/black soil with roots. Rest of level is dense shell midden in dark soil.

Shells: quahog, Busycon, macrocallista, surf clam, tulip, melongena, oyster, pleurploca

Stone: 1 frag phosphatized sandstone hone

Shell: -Quahog umbo scrapers: 15 rights; 2 lefts (one of these has dorsal battering) -3 Busycon columella frags, 2 columnellae splinters/spalls -1 probable Busycon expedient hammer -1 Pleuroploca columnella frag -whole quahog valves: 25 lefts, 1 right

Level #2

(70-80 cmbs). As with Level #1, fair percentage of dirt, lots of macrocallista.

Lithics: 1 med, 1 lg coral flakes (4.4 gm)

Shell: Quahog: umbo scrapers: 13 rights; whole valves: 33 lefts, 1 right Busycon: 1 expedient hammer; 6 columnellae frags -5 showing distal scarring; 1 shoulder spall Pleuroploca: 1 columnella frag

Commensal: 1 chunk UID coral

Level #3

(80-90 cmbs)

Lithics: 1 med chert flake –possible bifaces frag (2.3 gm)

Stone: 6 sm frags/chunks sand/shell conglomerate (137.8 gm) (Discarded) 2 sm frags phosphatized sandstone (7.2 gm) 1 frag sand/shell conglomerate hone

Other: 1 deer bone bipoint frag 1 lg fossilized shark tooth – heavy utilized

Level #4

(90-100 cmbs): significant increase in oyster

Lithics: 1 med flake coral (0.7 gm)

Level #5

(100-110 cmbs): As above, re: oysters. Some adhering carbonate concretions.

Faunal: UID boney fish (128.2 gm) Catfish (10.5 gm) otoliths: Lefts: 13.9, 10.3, 10.8, 11.1, 9.7, 11.3, 11.1 mm; Rights:10.7, 11.6, 10.5 mm Shark (small) (0.9 gm) Ray (0.4 gm) Toadfish (0.8 gm) Sea urchin (0.1 gm) Snake (1 vert) (0.4 gm) Spiny boxfish (4.7 gm) Sheepshead (7.4 gm) Sciaenidae (21.5 gm) Stone crab (9.9 gm) Jack (11.4 gm) Turtles (incl gopher) (26.2 gm) Cetacea (intervertebral disc frag) (1 gm) Birds (incl prob heron) (7.9 gm) Deer (54.2 gm) Sm mammals (incl opossum) (9.8 gm)

Lithics: 6 med flakes, 1 med shatter coral; 1med flake chert; 1 lg flake chert (total: 23.9 gm)]

Ceramics: Limestone tempered plain: 8 sherds (44.7 gm) (12.1, 7.8, 5.8, 6.1, 8.6, 8.8, 8.8, 7.3 mm) Semi-fiber tempered plain: 2 frags; 5 sherds (10.6, 10.3, 9.6, 8.6, 13.2 mm) (total: 34 gm)

Stone: 3 pcs irregular sand/shell conglomerate (114.7 gm) (Discarded) 1 sm frag phosphatized sandstone (3 gm)

Commensal: 1 frag phragmites coral

Level #6

(110-120 cmbs): ca. 7-8 cm of shell midden over gray sand (bottoming out). Adhering carbonates prevalent. Water table.

Faunal: UID boney fish (154.4 gm) Catfish (5.9 gm) otoliths: Lefts: 9.2, 9.1, 10.6 mm; Rights: 9.2 mm Snook (1 jaw frag) (9.7 gm) Shark (small) (0.3 gm) Ray (0.4 gm) Toadfish (1.9 gm) Spiny boxfish (4.4 gm) Sheepshead (2.5 gm) Sciaenidae (25.4 gm) Stone crab (18 gm) Jack (37.7 gm) Cetacea (intervertebral disc frags) (0.8 gm) Turtles (incl gopher) (24.9 gm) Bird (4.9 gm) Deer (52.5 gm) Sm mammal (includes opossum) (2.3 gm)

Stone: 1 chunk limestone (24 gm); 1chunk rough limestone (47.6 gm/Discarded); 3 sm frags phosphatized sandstone (8.3 gm)

Level #7

(120-130) cmbs: Mostly sand but concreted shell area centrally

Lithics: 4 sm flakes coral (0.8 gm); 6 med flakes coral (7 gm); 1 lg flake coral (4.5 gm); 1 lg flake chert (12.8 gm)

Ceramics: Semi-fibered tempered plain: 1 frag, 1 sherd (11 mm); (total: 4.2 gm) Limestone tempered plain: 3 sherds (6.7, 5.7, 7.9 mm); 1 rim: rounded- pointed/Outslanted (11.6 mm); (total: 22.8 gm)

Level #8

(130-140 cmbs): Like above, but central shell spot decreasing in size. Level #8 ends in middle of unit at ca. 142 cm.

Page 3b ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 MA6 USGS MAP DOQQ Anna Maria 2922 and Bradenton Beach 2822 Township 34 South, Range 16 East

Negative Shovel Test Positive Shovel Test Disturbed Midden Proposed Pond Site A

Unit 3 Unit 1 Unit 2 Area 2

Unit 4 E 8MA6D

8MA6C

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED Page 4 update ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 MA6 USGS MAP Anna Maria 2922 and Bradenton Beach 2822 Township 34 South, Range 16 East, Section 27

8MA6

E D

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED Page 1 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8 ______MA1571 Field Date ____/_____/______11 11 08 ✔ Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Form Date 11____/_____/______12 08 Update Version 4.0 1/07 Recorder # ______45, 58 FDOT Bridge # ______130054 Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for detailed instructions

Bridge Name(s) ______Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______S.R. 64 Anna Maria Island Bridge, Bridge #130054 PD&E Study, Manatee County, Florida Survey # (DHR only) ______Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county ✔ state federal Native American foreign unknown LOCATION & MAPPING

Route(s) Carried/Feature(s) Crossed ______Sarasota Pass USGS 7.5 Map Name & Date______Bradenton Beach 1964, PR 1987 Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______Holmes Beach In City Limits? yes no ✔ unknown County______Manatee Township ______34S Range ______16E Section ______27, 28 ¼ section: NW ✔ SW ✔ SE NE Irregular-name: ______Township ______Range ______Section ______¼ section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: ______Landgrant ______Tax Parcel #______n/a UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting __332575 ______0 Northing __3042593 ______0 Other Coordinates: X: ______Y: ______Coordinate System & Datum ______Name of Public Tract (e.g., park)______HISTORY

Year(s) Built ______1957 Still in use? ✔ yes no restricted use (describe) ______Prior Fords, Ferries, or Bridges at this Location ______none ______Bridge Use: original and current with dates (standard descriptions: auto, railway, pedestrian, fishing pier, abandoned)* ______automotive, pedestrian ______Ownership history______Florida Department of Transportation Designers/Engineers (last name first) ______Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Hall & MacDonald (New York) Builders/Contractors (last name first) ______unknown Text of Plaque or Inscription (write "none" if absent) ______The Anna Maria Island Bridge Designated by 1965 Legislature of Florida ______Narrative History (How did bridge come to be built? How was it financed?, etc. Attach separate sheet, if needed.) ______This bridge was built ca. 1957 ______A toll booth was located at the eastern terminus of the bridge; the booth was removed ca. 1964. ______DESCRIPTION

GENERAL Overall Bridge Design* ______Movable-Bascule Overall Condition excellent ✔ good fair poor deteriorated ruinous Style and Decorative Details: ______This is a double-leaf Trunnion-Bascule Main Span with simple cast concrete bridge railing. ______Steel guardrails are on the east and west approaches of the bridge. ______Tender Station Description______on the south side of the bridge to the east side of the main span, 22' x 12' masonry structure ______with ca. 1980 1/1 SHS metal windows and 1-light fixed windows. ______Alterations: Dates and Descriptions ______1978- 67 pile jackets were installed, new fender system installed, drawbridge and fixed spans were painted; 1984- 23 additional______pile jackets installed, movable and fixed spans painted; 1999- repairs and some replacements to handrails and piles, submarine cable replaced; 2003- 19 pile jackets replaced; 2008- main span steel deck replaced, mechanical and electrical system replaced, approach spans repaired 7Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for preferred descriptions (data are coded fields). DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: yes no insufficient info Date ____/____/______Init.______/____/______KEEPER – Determined eligible: yes no Date ____/____/______ Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: a b c d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E052R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail: [email protected] Page 2 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Site #8MA1571 ______

DESCRIPTION (continued)

SUPERSTRUCTURE Spans: Number ______63 Total Length(ft) ______3123.75 Main Span(s): Number 1______Length(ft) ______149 Width(ft) ______37'-5" Roadway width(ft) ______24 Main Span Type(s): (Designs*/Materials*) double-leaf ______trunnion bascule; metal Approach Span(s): Number______62 Length(ft)______48 Width(ft)______37'-5" Roadway width(ft)______24 Approach Span Type(s): (Designs*/Materials*)______cast concrete pilings with cast concrete beams and deck ______Deck Materials* ______concrete and asphalt ______SUBSTRUCTURE Abutments (Materials*/Description) ______cast concrete abutments with concrete seawall and riprap slope protection ______Piers (Materials*/Description)______cast concrete pilings with cast concrete caps ______RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply)

✔ FDOT database search ✔ Fla. Archives / photo collection newspaper files informal archaeological inspection HABS/HAER record search ✔ property appraiser / tax records city directory formal archaeological survey ✔ FMSF record search (sites/surveys) library research ✔ Public Lands Survey (DEP) ✔ cultural resource survey ✔ Other methods (specify)______Historic aerials (PALMM) Bibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use separate sheet if needed) ______Florida Dept. of Transportion n.d.a, Anna Maria Island Bridge PD&E ______Study. www.annamariaislandbridge.com/project.htm, accessed November 2008. Florida Dept. of Transportion n.d.a, Project History www.amibridgerehab.com, ______accessed November 2008. Unger, Howard, "Island has a bridge to the past" Sarasota Herald Tribune, 17 November 2002. OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes ✔ no insufficient information Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes ✔ no insufficient information Explanation of Evaluation (required, whether significant or not; use separate sheet if needed) ______Although this bridge provided access to the north part of A______nna Maria Island, and is a commonly occuring bridge type in Florida. There is no exceptional style or architectural elements and no s______ignificant historical associations. Therefore, 8MA1517 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. ______Area(s) of historical significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.) ______Community Planning and Development, Engineering, Transportation ______DOCUMENTATION

Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field & analysis notes, photos, plans, other important documents that are permanently accessible: For each separately maintained collection, describe (1) document type(s),* (2) maintaining organization,* (3) file or accession nos., and (4) descriptive information. ______all project notes, maps, and photos on file at ACI, P9845L ______

7Consult Guide to the Historical Bridge Form for preferred descriptions (coded fields). RECORDER INFORMATION

Recorder NameL ______umang, Marielle Recorder Contact Information (Address / Phone / Fax / Email) ______8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, FL 34240/ [email protected] 9______41.379.6206 Recorder Affiliation A ______rchaeological Consultants, Inc.

USGS 7.5’ TOPO MAP WITH BRIDGE LOCATION MARKED Required PHOTO OF BRIDGE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE Attachments If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable). Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. Page 3a HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Original Site # 8MA1571 Update PHOTOGRAPHS Page 3b HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Original Site # 8MA1571 Update PHOTOGRAPHS Page 4 HISTORICAL BRIDGE FORM Original Site # 8MA1571 Update USGS GIS Township 34 South, Range 16 East Anna Maria 1970 and Bradenton Beach 1982

8MA1571

N 0 0.25 0.5 mile

Appendix E: Demolished Status Letter and Copy of Florida Master Site File form 8MA1192

Appendix F: Survey Log

Page 1

Ent D (FMSF only)___/___/___ Survey Log Sheet Survey # (FMSF only) ______Florida Master Site File Version 4.1 1/07

Consult Guide to the Survey Log Sheet for detailed instructions.

Identification and Bibliographic Information

Survey Project (name and project phase) ______CRAS Anna Maria Island Bridge PD&E Study, Phase I ______Report Title (exactly as on title page) ______Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Anna Maria Island Bridge Project Development ______and Environment (PD&E) Study S.R. 64 (Manatee Avenue) from S.R. 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard ______Manatee County, Florida Report Author(s) (as on title page— individual or corporate; last names first) ______ACI ______Publication Date (year) ______2008 Total Number of Pages in Report (count text, figures, tables, not site forms) ______108 Publication Information (Give series and no. in series, publisher and city. For article or chapter, cite page numbers. Use the style of American Antiquity.) ______ACI (2008) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Anna Maria Island Bridge Project Development and Environment ______(PD&E) Study S.R. 64 (Manatee Avenue) from S.R. 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard Manatee County, ______Florida. ACI, Sarasota. Supervisor(s) of Fieldwork (whether or not the same as author[s]; last name first) Almy,______Marion Affiliation of Fieldworkers (organization, city) ______Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota Key Words/Phrases (Don’t use the county, or common words like archaeology, structure, survey, architecture. Limit each word or phrase to 25 characters.)______Perico Island, Anna Maria Island ______Survey Sponsors (corporation, government unit, or person who is directly paying for fieldwork) Name ______FDOT District One Address/Phone ______PO Box 1249, Bartow, Florida 33830 Recorder of Log Sheet ______Horvath, Elizabeth A. Date Log Sheet Completed ___/___/___12 17 08 Is this survey or project a continuation of a previous project? T✔ No T Yes: Previous survey #(s) (FMSF only) ______

Mapping

Counties (List each one in which field survey was done - do not abbreviate; use supplement sheet if necessary) ______Manatee ______USGS 1:24,000 Map(s) : Map Name/Date of Latest Revision (use supplement sheet if necessary): ______Anna Maria, 1970, ______Bradenton Beach 1982 ______

Description of Survey Area

Dates for Fieldwork: Start __/__/___10 27 08 End 11__/__/___ 14 08 Total Area Surveyed (fill in one) ______hectares ______acres Number of Distinct Tracts or Areas Surveyed 8______If Corridor (fill in one for each): Width _____ meters _____ feet Length ______kilometers ______2 miles

Research and Field Methods Types of Survey (check all that apply): T✔ archaeological T✔ architectural ✔T historical/archival T underwater T other:______Preliminary Methods (Check as many as apply to the project as a whole.) T✔ Florida Archives (Gray Building) ✔T library research- local public T✔ local property or tax records T✔ other historic maps T Florida Photo Archives (Gray Building) T library-special collection - nonlocal T✔ newspaper files T✔ soils maps or data ✔T Site File property search ✔T Public Lands Survey (maps at DEP) T✔ literature search T✔ windshield survey T✔ Site File survey search ✔T local informant(s) T Sanborn Insurance maps T✔ aerial photography ✔T other (describe)______Internet

Archaeological Methods (Check as many as apply to the project as a whole.) T Check here if NO archaeological methods were used. T surface collection, controlled T other screen shovel test (size: ____) T✔ block excavation (at least 2x2 M) T surface collection, uncontrolled T✔ water screen (finest size: ____)1/8 T soil resistivity ✔T shovel test-1/4”screen T✔ posthole tests T magnetometer T shovel test-1/8” screen T auger (size:____) T side scan sonar T shovel test 1/16”screen T✔ coring T unknown T shovel test-unscreened T✔ test excavation (at least 1x2 M) T other (describe): ______

Historical/Architectural Methods (Check as many as apply to the project as a whole.) T Check here if NO historical/architectural methods were used. T building permits T demolition permits T neighbor interview T subdivision maps T commercial permits T✔ exposed ground inspected T occupant interview T✔ tax records T interior documentation T✔ local property records T occupation permits T unknown T other (describe): ______Scope/Intensity/Procedures ______background research, systematic subsurface testing @ 10, 25 & 50 m intervals, ______50 cm diameter, 1 m deep, some extended deeper with posthole diggers, screened through 6.4 mm mesh, 2 1x2 m units, ______2 1.5 x 1.5 m units, all units water screened using 3.2 mm mesh, analyzed materials, historic feature documentation Survey Results (cultural resources recorded) Site Significance Evaluated? T✔ Yes T No If Yes, circle NR-eligible/significant site numbers below. Site Counts: Previously Recorded Sites ______2 Newly Recorded Sites 1 ______Previously Recorded Site #’s with Site File Update Forms (List site #’s without “8.” Attach supplementary pages if necessary) ______MA6, MA1192 Newly Recorded Site #’s (Are you sure all are originals and not updates? Identify methods used to check for updates, i.e., researched Site File records. List site #’s without “8.” Attach supplementary pages if necessary.) ______MA1571 ______Site Form Used: T✔ Site File Paper Form T SmartForm II Electronic Recording Form

REQUIRED: ATTACH PLOT OF SURVEY AREA ON PHOTOCOPIES OF USGS 1:24,000 MAP(S)

DO NOT USE SITE FILE USE ONLY DO NOT USE BAR Related BHP Related T 872 T 1A32 #______T State Historic Preservation Grant T CARL T UW T Compliance Review: CRAT #______

HR6E066R0107 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phone 850-245-6440, FAX 850-245-6439, Email: [email protected] S.R. 64 S.R. 64 PD&E Study corridor Anna Maria Island Bridge Sections 27 and 28, Township 34 South, Range 16 East Bridge #130054 USGS Anna Maria 1970, Bradenton Beach 1982 PD&E Study Manatee County Manatee County, Florida FPID No.: 424436-1-21-01