Indigenous Ceramics from Feature 118 at the O'connell Site(8Le157)

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2006 Indigenous Ceramics from Feature 118 at the O'Connell Site (8LE157): A Late Spanish Mission in Apalachee Province, Leon County, Florida Jayne Talley Wallace

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

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

INDIGENOUS CERAMICS FROM FEATURE 118 AT THE O’CONNELL SITE (8LE157):

A LATE SPANISH MISSION IN APALACHEE PROVINCE, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

JAYNE TALLEY WALLACE

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

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2006

April 20, 2006.

______Rochelle A. Marrinan Professor Directing Thesis

______Glen H. Doran Committee Member

______Michael A. Uzendoski Committee Member

Approved:

______Dean Falk Chair, Department of Anthropology

______Joseph Travis Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

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

ii In loving memory of Robert A. Wallace, Ph.D., who always thought I’d make a half-decent scientist

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None of this would have been possible without the knowledge and expert guidance of Rochelle A. Marrinan. Her well of patience never ran dry and for that, I am truly grateful. I am much indebted to two excellent professional potters, Marty Haycorn and Robin Rogers, both of whom have extensive knowledge of and experience in recreating the indigenous ceramics of the area. Both provided invaluable technical explanations for observed characteristics in the collections. Marty’s familiarity with some of the more unusual vessel forms was especially helpful in making connections between partial reconstructions I might otherwise have missed. I would also have missed certain technical aspects of lip and rim construction without Vicki Rolland’s remarks on the use of applied strips. This particular thesis would probably never have been considered had not George F. Sustendal introduced me to all the beauty and variety of ceramics while he was in the process of adding modern Native American pieces to his collection. Our days spent with Pueblo potters in New Mexico also provided great insight. Finally, I thank Harry, Stacey, and Charles for their love, patience, and encouragement.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures vii Abstract xi

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER ONE: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 7

CHAPTER TWO: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN APALACHEE PROVINCE AND AT THE O’CONNELL SITE 12

Results of Radiocarbon Dating Analysis 17 Late Mission Period Ceramics 18

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 20

Lip and Rim Treatments 25 Lip Treatment on Jefferson Plain Vessels 26

CHAPTER FOUR: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE JEFFERSON CERAMIC SERIES 43

O’Connell Incised 44 O’Connell Salt/lime Ware 67 O’Connell Punctated 71 Leon Check Stamped 72 Jefferson Complicated Stamped 75

v CHAPTER FIVE: SPECIAL VESSELS, THE SCARCITY OF BASES, OBSCURED STAMPING, AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 77

Vessel 57: Jar with Zoomorphic Adorno 77 Vessel 55: Unique Surface Finish and Basal Indentations 79 Vessel 32: Annular Base and Design Elements in Combination of Four 81 Vessel 37: White Pigment/Substance in Incising 82 Unusual Vessels 82 The Status of the Types Mission Red-Filmed and Alachua Cob-Marked 86 The Relative Absence of Bases 87 Obscured Stamping Patterns 89

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 94

APPENDIX A: Reference Chart for O’Connell Incised 99

APPENDIX B: Vessel Analysis Sheets 103

BIBLIOGRAPHY 221

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 227

vi LIST OF FIGURES

1. Location of the O’Connell Mission Site (Jones et al. 1991) 2 2. The O’Connell Mission Site (Florida State University Department of Anthropology) 14 3. Feature 118 (Florida State University Department of Anthropology) 15 4. Zoomorphic Adorno on Vessel 57 16 5. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 96 22 6. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 97 22 7. Base of Jefferson Plain Vessel 95 23 8. Modified vessel form in Jefferson Plain. Left - Vessel 1, right - Vessel 2 24 9. Simple Plain Lip. Top: left Vessel 119, right -Vessel 120. Bottom: left - Vessel 121, right - Vessel 122 27 10. Plain with Top Groove. Left - Vessel 49, right - Vessel 63 27 11. Detail of top groove on Vessel 49 28 12. Surged Lip. Left to right - Vessel 44, Vessel 60, and Vessel 76 28 13. Punctation on lip top of Vessel 70 29 14. Incision on lip top of Vessel 26 2 15. Punctation/incision/pinching on Simple Lip Edge. Left - Vessel 45, top right - Vessel 53, center - Vessel 98, bottom left - Vessel 110, right - Vessel 91 30 16. Punctation/incision/pinching on Simple Lip Edge. Detail of Vessel 45 30 17. Punctation/incision/pinching on Simple Lip Edge. Detail of Vessel 91 31 18. Wide Notches on Upper Exterior Lip Edge. Top left - Vessel 28, right - Vessel 40, bottom - Vessel 41 31 19. Detail of wide notches on Vessel 28 32 20. Punctation/incision/pinching on Modified Lip Top. Left Vessel 3, center top - Vessel 105, center bottom - Vessel 90, right - Vessel 27 32 21. Punctation/incision/pinching on Modified Lip Top. Detail of Vessel 3 33 22. Punctation/incision/’pinching on Modified Lip Top. Detail of Vessel 90 33 23. Punctation/incision/pinching on Modified Lip Top. Detail of Vessel 27 34 24. Smoothed Decorated Hem. Top left - Vessel 67, right - Vessel 67, bottom - Vessel 68 35 25. Decorated Skirt. Clockwise from upper left - Vessels 1, 2, 88, 23, 92, 24, and 30 35

vii 26. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 1 36 27. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 2 36 28. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 88 37 29. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 23 37 30. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 24 38 31. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 92 38 32. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 30 39 33. Decorated Hem. Left to right - Vessel 104, Vessel 107, and Vessel 108 39 34. Decorated Hem. Left - Vessel 46, right - Vessel 57 40 35. Complex Lip with Cornice. Top left to right - Vessels 89, 99, 101, 102, and 103. Bottom left to right - Vessels 106, 108 and 109 40 36. Complex Lip with Cornice. Vessel 89 41 37. Complex Lip with Cornice. Vessel 103 41 38. Complex Lip with Cornice. Vessel 106 42 39. Complex Lip with Cornice. Vessel 109 42 40. Var. Marsh Island. Vessel 13 47 41. Var. Marsh Island. Vessel 74 47 42. Var. March Island. Vessel 17 48 43. Var. Lake Jackson. Vessel 5. Hemispheric bowl 49 44. Var. Lake Jackson. Vessel 16 49 45. Var. Lake Jackson. Vessel 19 50 46. Var. Lake Jackson. Vessel 54 50 47. Var. Aucilla. Vessel 32. “Horned” bowl 50 48. Var. Aucilla. Vessel 11. Cazuela style bowl 51 49. Var. Aucilla. Vessel 10. Small cazuela style bowl 52 50. Var. Turkey Roost. Vessel 14. Deep cazuela style bowl 53 51. Var. Turkey Roost. Detail of pattern on Vessel 14 54 52. Var. Lamar. Left - Vessel 7, right - Vessel 8 55 53. Var. Lafayette. Vessel 33 56 54. Var. Capitola. Vessel 4. Small rounded shoulder bowl 57 55. Var. Capitola. Detail of “breaking wave” pattern on Vessel 4 57 56. Var. Capitola. Detail of bisected circle on Vessel 4 58

viii 57. Var. Patale. Vessel 15 59 58. Var. O’Connell. Vessel 9. Rounded bowl 60 59. Var. O’Connell. Lip nodes on Vessel 9 60 60. Var. O’Connell. Detail of pattern on Vessel 9 61 61. Var. Point Washington. Vessel 12. Deep bowl with annular base 62 62. Var. Point Washington. Detail of pattern on Vessel 12 62 63. Var. Point Washington. Detail of base on Vessel 12 63 64. Var. Point Washington. Vessel 6 63 65. Var. Englewood. Vessel 35 64 66. Var. Fort Walton. Vessel 34 65 67. Var. Unidentified. Top left to right - Vessels 36, 37, 38, 42, and 43. Bottom left to Right - Vessels 47, 50, 51, 52, 61, and 69 66 68. Var. Unidentified. Top left to right - Vessels 83, 85, 87, 111, and 112. Bottom left to right - Vessels 113, 114, 117, 118, 123, and 124 66 69. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 21 68 70. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 21, interior 68 71. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 31 69 72. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 24 70 73. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 29 70 74. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 81 71 75. O’Connell Punctated. Vessel 18 72 76. Leon Check Stamped, Var. Unidentified 1. Vessel 56 73 77. Leon Check Stamped, Var. Unidentified 2. Vessel 58 73 78. Leon Check Stamped, Var. Detail of stamping pattern on Unidentified 1. Vessel 56 74 79. Leon Check Stamped, Var. Detail of Stamping pattern on Unidentified 2. Vessel 58 74 80. Jefferson Complicated Stamped, Var. Unidentified. Vessel 22 75 81. Jefferson Complicated Stamped. Detail of rectilinear elements of pattern on Var. Unidentified Vessel 22 76 82. Jefferson Complicated Stamped, Detail of curvilinear elements of pattern on Var. Unidentified Vessel 23 76

ix 83. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 57, with zoomorphic adorno 78 84. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 55 79 85. Jefferson Plain. Detail of interior of Vessel 55 80 86. Jefferson Plain. Detail of exterior surface on Vessel 55 80 87. O’Connell Incised Var. Aucilla. Vessel 32 81 88. O’Connell Incised Var. Unidentiﬁed. Vessel 37 82 89. O’Connell Incised Var. Unidentiﬁed. Vessel 52 83 90. Jefferson Plain. Exterior of Vessel 66 83 91. Jefferson Plain. Interior of Vessel 66 84 92. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 71 85 93. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 76 85 94. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 43 86 95. Jefferson Plain. Base of Vessel 59 88 96. Jefferson Plain. Base of Vessel 72, exterior 89 97. Jefferson Plain. Base of Vessel 72, interior 89 98. Obscured stamping on base of Jefferson Plain Vessel 25 91 99. Obscured stamping on portion of Jefferson Plain Vessel 59 91 100. Reference chart for O’Connell Incised Varieties Marsh Island and Lake Jackson 98 101. Reference chart for O’Connell Incised Varieties Aucilla, Turkey Roost, Lamar, and Lafayette 99 102. Reference chart for O’Connell Incised Varieties Capitola, Patale, and O’Connell 100 103. Reference chart for O’Connell Incised Varieties Point Washington, Englewood, and Fort Walton 101

x ABSTRACT

For over fifty years, archaeological research has been conducted across north Florida in an attempt to locate and identify securely the Spanish Franciscan missions established in the area from St. Augustine to Tallahassee between 1587 and 1704. A recent focus has been on the missions of Apalachee Province, located in northwest Florida, between the Aucilla and Ocklockonee rivers, especially on the activities at frontier missions, like San Pedro y San Paolo de Patale, as opposed to the better known Mission San Luis de Talimali. Two sites are thought to be associated with the Patale missions - 8LE152, the Patale site, and 8LE157, the O’Connell Mission site. It is presumed from previous research that the O’Connell site represents a later location of the Patale mission, possibly its last site and the one destroyed by Creek raiders in 1704. The positive identification of the O’Connell Mission site as a Patale location, however, has not been made. During the FSU Field School season of 1999 at the O’Connell site, Feature 118, a borrow pit with abundant indigenous ceramics was identified and excavated near the presumed convento. This feature provided an opportunity to study the native pottery during the later period of mission occupation (ca. 1690 - 1704). As a result of the subsequent analysis, which involved extensive vessel reconstruction, three new ceramic types and fifteen new varieties are proposed for the existing Jefferson Series of Mission period pottery. A division of Jefferson Plain rims into eleven types, based on methods of construction and decoration, is also proposed. I conclude, from ceramic design elements, that the O’Connell Mission site was home to a small population of mixed Apalachee, Timucua and possibly Oconee people, under stress during the unsettled times which resulted from the Creek slave raids on the mission populations after 1680.

xi INTRODUCTION

Only fragmentary accounts of the potter’s craft in Spanish colonial times exist. Few examples of the work produced then exist to show the metamorphosis that must have taken place. Indeed, there is more known today about the ceramic work of prehistoric times than that which was done two to three hundred years ago (Litto 1976: 8).

In the thirty years since Gertrude Litto wrote those words, our knowledge of Spanish colonial ceramics has increased, but many aspects remain little known, especially with respect to the former Spanish mission provinces of North Florida. Although Litto criticized the lack of information on transitional pottery that could help bridge the gap between the collections of prehistoric ceramics and the indigenous pottery she studied in South America, the same lack of knowledge exists with regard to the indigenous ceramics of the Mission period. Native potters seem to have been important to the Spanish mission system in Florida, as evidenced by the ubiquity of indigenous San Marcos ware in St. Augustine (Deagan 1983: 114-116; Otto and Lewis 1975), which had access to European ceramics as well. In both St. Augustine and at distant missions, native women were probably the source of most ceramics used, since majolica and utilitarian earthenware other than olive jars represent such a small amount of the recovered material at those sites. Although much research has been done on mission ceramics in Florida (Deagan 1983, 1987, 1993, 2002; Jones and Shapiro 1994; Saunders 2001; Scarry 1985; Smith 1948, 1951; Vernon and Cordell 1993; Willey 1949; Worth 1992) gaps in our knowledge still remain. Simply identifying the mission sites themselves remains problematic in some cases and sorting out what part of the ceramics collection from a multi-component site can definitely be assigned to the Mission period is even more difficult. The O’Connell site (8LE157) (Figure 1) can be fairly securely placed in the late Mission period. DeGrummond’s (1997) study of glass trade beads from the O’Connell site seems to indicate that it is definitely later in time than the Patale site (8LE 152), and probably can be dated to the period between 1690 and 1704. There are also reasons to believe that the O’Connell Mission site could be the last of several locations of the mission known as San Pedro y San Pablo de Patale. An unusual amount of spent lead was recovered at the site, exceeding the amount found at San Luis where Spanish troops were stationed (Marrinan, personal

1 2 communication 2006). Finding all this spent lead at a place occupied by a lone priest and a native population with few, if any, firearms could well indicate that some sort of conflict occurred there. An armed conflict, as far as is known, could only have occurred with Creek raiders after 1680. This factor, combined with DeGrummond’s (1997) bead study, indicates that cultural materials recovered can be firmly dated to the late Mission period. When a borrow pit feature is identified with an abundant amount of indigenous ceramic material near a convento (friar’s residence) at a late mission site, an unparalleled opportunity exists to learn exactly what was occurring with regard to native vessels when the pit was open. Two borrow pit features that offered such an opportunity were identified in 1999. Feature 116 (83 m3) contained a variety of ceramic, metal, lithic, and glass artifacts. Feature 118 (46 m3) contained a large quantity of ceramics, in addition to lesser amounts of other materials. Mends between ceramic pieces from these features show that both pits were open at the same time. Both Features 116 and 118 contained what might be considered the usual household debris of the period -- aboriginal pottery sherds, food remains, bits of metal, beads, burnt clay and wood, wrought nails, and a few sherds of majolica and olive jar. Given the restricted provenance and the large number (n = 1,581) of the aboriginal sherds from Feature 118, many of which are decorated, I proposed to reconstruct as many of the vessels as possible. I hoped the reconstructed vessels could be compared with those from other mission sites, particularly San Luis, the securely identified administrative center of Apalachee Province, and missions in Guale and Timucua Provinces to the east. This I was able to accomplish to some extent, with 124 vessels being identified. Although only three were virtually complete, re- assembly of a significant portion of the original vessel was possible for many more. Comparisons with collections from elsewhere proved problematic, however, for reasons that will be discussed. The Spanish mission system in northwest Florida, the former Apalachee Province, was the last established by the Franciscans, and operated there from 1633 to 1704. Because the O’Connell site is within its boundaries, I predicted that the amount of change seen in vessels from that site would be less than that observed by others in Guale (Saunders 2000) or in Timucua (Weisman 1992), where the missions were established much earlier. I was particularly interested to see what changes in decorative motifs, if any, would occur as the result of the natives’ presumed conversion to Roman Catholic Christianity. Surely if the patterns on any vessels

3 would show such changes, those used within the household of the priests would (Marrinan 2002:3). I also hoped to clarify some issues as to the composition of the group of people who lived at the O’Connell Site during the late Mission period. Because of population changes resulting from both the Spanish consolidation of missions and the movement of people in response to the Creeks raids that began in 1680, it was felt that the O’Connell Site population might represent a mixture of Apalachee and other peoples. I felt that the ceramic analysis might be able to identify elements associated with native people from other locations in the broader geographical area. Because I felt that reconstructed vessels would offer more information on both possible changes in vessel form and the way in which decorative motifs were used, I used a non-standard type of analysis. Most ceramics analyses are based on sherd counts and weights, studies of rim decoration, relative amounts of various tempers, typing the designs found on the rims according to formal typologies, and estimating a minimum number of vessels based on rim design differences. I decided to determine the number of vessels present by reconstructing as many as possible and identifying others by close examination of the sherds to determine which groups represented additional probable vessels. This process was difficult and consumed many months. I then completed the analysis by studying the forms, rims, and design motifs of the actual vessels, not separate sherds. As predicted, no recognizable Christian motifs were found among the design elements of the forty-seven incised vessels identified. Instead, I found design elements from several possible sources combined in new and unexpected ways to make patterns that did not fit into existing typologies for the area (Scarry 1985; Smith 1948, 1951; Willey 1949; Worth 1992). Also encountered were vessels with strikingly different pastes and surfaces from any previously described for this area, and stamped patterns usually associated with sand- and grit- tempered forms. Similar problems were encountered in analyzing the collection from Feature 116 (Marrinan 2002:6). In addition, all of the vessels recovered from Feature 118 were grog- tempered, a situation not seen elsewhere in sites connected with the Mission period. This made it necessary to identify and describe the new types of designs present in a manner consistent with existing typologies, in the hope that they will prove useful in classifying other collections from the late Mission period.

4 As a result, I have proposed three new types for the Jefferson Series, originally described by Smith (1948) and Willey (1949), and revised by Scarry (1985) and Worth (1992). The proposed new types are O’Connell Incised, O’Connell Salt/lime Ware, and O’Connell Punctated. O’Connell Incised comprises twelve new varieties. I also propose new unidentified varieties for the previously defined types Jefferson Complicated Stamped and Leon Check Stamped. In addition, eleven lip treatments found on the Jefferson Plain vessels in Feature 118 have also been tentatively classified and described. Future study will show whether these vessels and the designs described are unique to the O’Connell site, perhaps to Feature 118 itself, or whether similar patterns will emerge elsewhere. Marrinan (personal communication 2005) used these proposed new types in her analysis of the indigenous ceramics from Feature 116 and found she was able to classify all but one of the incised sherds. At the very least, these new types might provide a means to differentiate later mission sites from earlier ones, or to identify the late mission elements in multi-component sites. Difficulties were encountered when attempting direct comparisons between the results of this analysis and those done on similar sites. Not only were there differences in methodologies, but there was also the previously noted fact that the other mission ceramic collections lacked a feature comparable to Feature 118, with its secure ties to both the convento and a specific time span. The few sure comparisons that could be made, beyond the apparently unique situation of having all grog-tempered ceramics in Feature 118, revealed the complete absence of two ceramic types seen in other mission contexts, Mission Red-Filmed and Alachua Cob Marked, and a relatively high proportion of incised vessels. These conditions are felt to be the result of the isolated location of the mission on the O’Connell property from both the Spanish centers and distant trading partners during the later years. Unexpected discoveries were also made, such as the use of obscured complicated stamping on many vessels and a scarcity of bases. The continued use of significant stamping patterns may indicate that some individuals chose to retain the symbols of status and religion from an earlier time. Another indication of the lasting significance of former values may be found in the importance of the number four, symbolic of the four corners of the earth and the four directions, seen in multiples in the design repetitions on incised vessels.

5 The small number of bases recovered is believed to indicate that they were not discarded, but were put to other uses, as might be expected in a culture of hand-made materials, especially during the stressful times that marked the later Mission period. I have divided the text into seven chapters, each of which will deal with a specific area relating to the ceramic analysis, and the conclusions I have drawn from it. Chapter One: Historical Overview will provide a brief description of the Spanish experience in Florida, with an emphasis on the Franciscan mission system in Apalachee Province. Chapter Two: Archaeological Research in Apalachee Province and at the O’Connell Site describes the development of mission archaeology in northwest Florida in general, then focuses on the research done specifically in connection with the presumed Patale Mission Site (8LE152) and the more recent work at the O’Connell Site (8LE 157). I also discuss the previous work done in late Mission Period ceramics and the typologies that resulted from this work. The results of radiocarbon dating analysis done on Features 116 and 118 are also given. Chapter Three: Methodology explains the procedure of analysis in detail, and proposes a system of eleven types of rims to describe the variations in methods of construction and decoration found within the collection. Numerous photographs of the proposed types are presented to illustrate the varied treatments. Chapter Four: Proposed Revisions to the Jefferson Ceramic Series gives the reasons for the suggested revisions, and proposes three new types and additions to existing types, with both named and unidentified varieties described. These are also illustrated with photographs. Chapter Five: Special Vessels, the Scarcity of Bases, and Obscured Stamping discusses aspects of the collection not already covered in previous chapters, and presents more photographs. Chapter Six: Summary and Conclusions presents the findings of the analysis and discusses the merits of this type of study as opposed to more traditional methods.

6 CHAPTER ONE: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

A substantial body of literature already exists recounting the impact of Columbus’s fateful voyages on both Old and New Worlds, and a significant part has been written specifically about the Spanish experience in Florida by Boyd et al. (1951), Bushnell (1994), Deagan (1987, 2002), McEwan (1993), Milanich (1995, 1998), Saunders (2000), Thomas (1990), and Weber (1992), just to name a few. John Hann’s comprehensive Apalachee: The Land Between the Rivers (1988) specifically and thoroughly covers the complex situation in the Apalachee Mission province. A few key aspects do, however, need to be briefly mentioned here in connection with the O’Connell site. First of all, the Spanish entradas introduced the native people all around Florida’s Gulf coast to many new things, with horses, pigs, and muskets being the most immediately evident. Unfortunately, the expeditions of Ponce de León in 1513 and 1521, Narváez in 1528, and De Soto in 1539 also brought invisible novelties in the form of Old World pathogens to which the indigenous population had had no exposure and hence no immunity. The resulting epidemics seem to have greatly reduced the number of people living in many areas of the southeastern United States well before the establishment of the colony at St. Augustine by Menéndez in 1565. The exact effect of this population loss and the changes that it may have caused within the structures of native societies are unknown, but they must have been substantial (Dobyns 1963, 1983.) The Apalachee themselves are described in the accounts of the Narváez and De Soto expeditions as being a settled agricultural and hunting people who resisted the Spaniards fiercely. Although neither account mentions the mound centers at Lake Jackson and Letchworth, their presence suggests that the Apalachee should be included within the Mississippian culture complex, with all the attendant aspects -- maize agriculture, social ranking, and the use of symbols from the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. There is little doubt that the early explorations had a significant effect on this culture, but again it is impossible to determine exactly what those effects were. The land-hungry Spanish conquistadors had many reasons for wishing to settle the strategically located La Florida. They still hoped to find riches like those exploited in Mexico by Cortez in the 1520s and in Peru by Pizarro in the 1530s. They expected to set up bases to better

7 protect the Spanish treasure ships. They thought that the Florida colony would provide a land link to the Mexican settlements and they particularly wanted to counter any nearby French and English Protestant colonial efforts (Boyd et al. 1951: 6; Milanich 1995). The Spanish mission system as set up by Franciscan friars began in 1587 (McEwan 1993; Milanich 1995), with three provinces: Guale, a region in northeast Florida and southeast Georgia; Timucua, an area roughly comprised of north central Florida; and Apalachee, which lay between the Aucilla and Ocklockonee Rivers, with the Gulf of Mexico as its southern boundary and a somewhat ill-defined northern boundary near the Florida-Georgia border. At its height around 1650, this effort involved 40 missions and 70 priests, ministering to some 26,000 converted Indians. The apparent strength and fertility of Apalachee were major attractions for both the earlier expeditions and the Spaniards in St. Augustine. Nevertheless, although the chiefs of Apalachee requested that Franciscan friars be sent to them in 1608, missions were not established among them until 1633. The Mission of San Pedro y Pablo de Patale (henceforth referred to simply as the Patale Mission site) is believed to have been one of the eight missions established during the initial period, probably at the site of a pre-existing Apalachee village center (Jones et al. 1991). Matching missions described in Spanish documents from that period with known archaeological sites is a problem. The Spanish records themselves are unclear as to exact locations and several missions seem to have moved during the documented era (Jones and Shapiro 1990: 492). Seven missions of the initial eight were burned during the Apalachee revolt of 1647 and Patale may have been among them. If so, it may have been rebuilt at a different, but nearby, location. It may also have moved again several times before 1704 for logistical reasons having to do with sanitation, availability of firewood, and other such factors. These facts, combined with a lack of sufficient archaeological control over matters relating to material culture change during the Mission period, make it difficult to distinguish one mission site from another and earlier sites from later ones (Marrinan et al. 2000: 224). The only mission site securely placed is San Luis de Talimali, established in 1656 when the leading Apalachee chief moved his people to a hilltop where the Spaniards had built a stockade. This settlement served as the western capital of the mission chain. Due to its location

8 approximately halfway between the Spanish settlements at St. Augustine and Pensacola, and the food Apalachee was able to supply, San Luis was particularly important and its site was never lost. Indeed, it is used as the reference point for locating other mission sites (Boyd et al. 1951: 10-11; Jones and Shapiro 1990: 492). Patale is specifically mentioned several times in Spanish documents. Among other references, in 1686, a Patale chief, Don Alonso Pastrana, headed the forty-man Apalachee militia that accompanied Spanish forces on a search for a supposed French colony (Hann 1988: 220). The people of Patale complained at length to a visiting bishop in 1695 about problems resulting from the location of a Spanish ranch in their area. That same bishop was unhappy about the number of in-bound traders who lingered at Patale, instead of reporting promptly to San Luis as they were supposed to do (Hann 1988: 53-54). Apparently Patale, despite several possible changes in location, was always near the intersection of several important trails used by native peoples (Hann 1988: 54, 173). At its peak in 1689, fifteen years before the collapse of the mission system, the Patale Mission was reported to have 120 families, or about 600 people, while San Luis had around twice that number (Hann 1988:171). It is possible that some of these people came from different missions originally, as others showed a serious decline in population between 1675 and 1689. Whether these declines were the result of disease, which continued to be a problem, or to the consolidation of missions by the Spaniards, is not certain, but people from faltering missions could have been re-settled at the Patale Mission. All these people would probably not have lived around the central plaza that was the mission proper. This area usually comprised the church itself, the convento where the friar lived, and a cocina, or food preparation area, as well as the associated outbuildings usual in such settlements. Those persons responsible for the ongoing daily life of the church and convento probably lived in this cluster. It is also likely that the chiefly family was in residence there. The remainder of the people was likely scattered over the surrounding agricultural area (Marrinan and Bryne 1986; Marrinan 2002). A dispersed settlement pattern, with families living on their outlying farms, was traditional for Apalachee, but converts were required to live “baja campana,” or “below the bell” which summoned them to services. This usually meant within a distance of about 2.75 kilometers/1.5 miles from the mission bell tower (Bushnell 1994: 96). No doubt some of these people began to move closer to the church for security’s sake after 1680,

9 when Governor James Moore of Charles Town, the English Protestant colony to the north, began urging the Creek Indians to raid the Spanish missions for slaves. This might have been another factor in the population gain for Patale in the years between 1675 and 1689. After the final collapse of the Guale missions in 1702, under attack from Moore’s militias, it became apparent that the Spaniards could not offer effective protection to the scattered missions and it is possible that many of Patale’s residents began to slip away to the north to join the Creeks. Unlike the Guale and Timucua to their east, the Apalachee shared many cultural bonds and a similar language with the Lower Creeks of present day Georgia. They certainly traded with them and had possibly intermarried with them. It would have been relatively easy for those dissatisfied with Spanish rule and eager to obtain the guns offered by the English to simply walk away, move north, and blend in with their new neighbors. It is also possible that some might have joined the Apalachicolas, or other traditional, unmissionized groups, to the west. No doubt many did just that. This trend accelerated in the months after Moore’s first organized raids on Apalachee in early 1704 (Hann 1988: 235). Patale and the other missions in Apalachee lasted until 1704 when a small army of Creek warriors and English settlers from the Carolina colony gathered at Ocmulgee Fields in central Georgia, then moved south. They attacked and destroyed all the Apalachee missions except for Cupaica, Ivitachuco, and San Luis (Hann 1988: 220). It is impossible to know how many people remained at Patale at this time. There were enough potential slaves to attract the raiders, but not nearly enough to provide a real defense. Patale’s situation during the destruction of the mission in the summer of 1704 is particularly well documented. Its priest, Fr. Mendoza, was the first person to fall when the raiders came, his remains later found in the burnt-out convento, and sixteen or seventeen people (accounts differ) were tortured and burned at its Stations of the Cross (Boyd et al. 1951). The raiders carried off the survivors to death or slavery in early July 1704. The people from the surviving missions and those not captured by the Creeks fled west to Pensacola and Mobile, or east to St. Augustine. Subsequent attempts to resettle Apalachee failed and the area was ultimately abandoned (Marrinan et al. 2000: 224). In 1716, Patale, now described as a chicasa, or old field, was an over-night campground for Diego Peña as he traveled through the deserted area on his way to visit the Apalachicola (Hann 1988: 62). After that, it faded from the records for many years.

10 In 1763, the Spaniards and surviving indigenous people were forced to leave Florida when it became a British crown colony. Spain regained Florida brieﬂy (1784-1822) following the American War of Independence, but was again removed when the area became a United States Territory in 1822. Although the Spanish land grants remained a source of litigation during the early Territorial period, the sites of the former missions slowly blended back into the landscape (Gannon 1993). In 1845, Florida became the twenty-seventh state in the Union. At some point around this time, the Patale sites became part of the extensive Chaires Plantation east of Tallahassee. After that, the land passed through various owners and the old mission area, where some portions of structures could still be seen, was used mainly for agriculture, at one time being planted in tung oil trees. Not until interest in the Spanish past of Florida revived were any real efforts made to identify and explore the remains of the Mission era.

11 CHAPTER TWO: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN APALACHEE PROVINCE AND AT THE O’CONNELL SITE

For many years, no particular effort was made with regard to the missions of Apalachee. The locations of only two historic Spanish sites, the port of San Marcos (8WA18) and San Luis de Talimali (8LE4), were known, if largely unstudied. The first period of archaeological research specifically directed at the missions was the work of Hale Smith and John Griffin in the 1940s. They excavated at San Luis and at the Scott Miller site, originally identified as San Francisco de Oconee, but now believed to be La Conceptión de Ayubale (8JE1). Smith also identified the site for San Juan de Aspalaga (8JE2), while Mark F. Boyd located and described the site of San Damian de Escambé (8LE120). With data from these sites and excavations at St. Augustine, Smith described a ceramic series for the First Spanish Period (1565-1763) (Jones et al. 1991; Marrinan et al. 2000). The second phase began as B. Calvin Jones expanded greatly on the previous efforts during the 1960s and 1970s. He identified nine more potential mission sites during this time, partly as the result of survey work for the I-10 highway corridor, among them the Patale Mission site (8LE 152) in 1968 and the O’Connell site (8LE 157), initially called Turkey Roost, in 1969. Jones felt that the Turkey Roost site was a late location of the Patale Mission and it was known as Patale II for many years. The name was changed in 1995 in recognition of the fact that although it likely is a later location of Patale, an unequivocal tie between the two has yet to be found. Also, if it is a Patale site, there is no way of knowing for certain which of several locations theorized for the post-1647 period it might be. Although DeGrummond’s glass bead analysis (1997) and other artifacts from the site strongly suggest that O’Connell is a late, and possibly the last, site for the Patale Mission, there are few certainties in mission archaeology. Jones conducted a brief investigation of the O’Connell site upon its discovery. He located one structure which he identified as the church and proposed a second building, the convento, where the friars lived, 10 meters southwest of the church (Jones and Shapiro 1990: 499). From previous work done elsewhere, it was known that Franciscan sites usually consisted of church, convento, and other outbuildings, including a cocina where the cooking was done, normally arranged around a plaza, or open space (Kubler 1940: 1948). In 1972, the Florida Bicentennial Commission began underwriting mission research in an

12 effort to find and test additional, previously uncertain Apalachee and Timucua sites. The project identified San Lorenzo de Ivitachuco (8JE100), San Miguel de Asile (8JE 106) and the Timucua Mission of San Pedro de Protohiriba (8MD30) (Jones et al. 1991: 17-18). In 1983, the state of Florida purchased the San Luis site and began long-term research there. This commitment spurred further research at other mission sites. In 1984, Rochelle Marrinan of Florida State University began work at the Patale site with funding provided by the owners, Dr. and Mrs. Frank Bilek. She also investigated the O’Connell site further at this time. In 1985, the site was revisited and, in 1986, subsurface testing was conducted. In 1995, the Florida State University (FSU) Field School moved to the O’Connell site. As a result of these investigations, Jones’s proposed church was redefined as the convento (see Figure 2, Structure I), based on the domestic debris of majolica, olive jar and other material culture remains found there. A different area where grave pit features were found was designated as the probable location of the church (Structure 2). Further study by subsequent field schools tended to confirm this identification as the outlines of a 48-m length by 15-m wide building were revealed. These dimensions are consistent with Franciscan architecture (Marrinan et al. 2000). In 1999, the FSU Field School turned its attention to the area Jones had proposed as the convento, based on the amount of burnt clay found in the area. Two trash-filled borrow pits, designated Features 116 and 118, were discovered and completely excavated. It is believed that both were originally dug to access the red clay that gives the Red Hills area its name, then filled with refuse from the convento and the nearby cocina. Clay was used in the wattle and daub construction of floors and walls, as well as for pottery. The features yielded broken pieces of majolica, some olive jar, glass beads, lithic materials, iron slag, animal bones, burnt wood, one unspent lead shot, and a large number of aboriginal potsherds. Feature 118 (Figure 3), although the smaller of the two, held the greater number of aboriginal sherds. Roughly circular, it occupied portions of five 2x2-m excavation units, with the central portion being located in 462E, 532N. The 46-m3 of fill were removed in ten-centimeter increments, then water screened using 1.6-mm (1/16-in) mesh to insure that no small remains, like glass beads, were missed. A total of 1,581 aboriginal sherds wider than 1.4-cm (1/2-in) were eventually recovered.

13 Figure 2: The O’Connell Mission Site (Florida State University Department of Anthropology) The O’Connell Mission Site (Florida State University Department of Figure 2:

14 15 One of the more interesting pieces excavated was a large aboriginal sherd with an animal adorno, which was the object of much speculation at the time (Figure 4). Was it a lizard or an alligator? What kind of vessel did it come from? Was it climbing up, or going down, the vessel? In the spring of 2002, the author began her work with the aboriginal ceramics of Feature 118, hoping, among other things, to answer some of the questions about the adorno.

Figure 4. Zoomorphic adorno on Vessel 57.

In 2006, samples from Features 116 and 118 were submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. for radiocarbon dating analysis. The results are shown in Table 1. Although the late Mission period falls within the possible dates ranges determined by the analysis, the results are confusing at best. There is no readily available explanation for these results at present.

16 17 Late Mission Period Ceramics In most ceramic collections made at other mission sites such as San Luis (Vernon and Cordell 1993), Fig Springs (Weisman 1992) and Patale (Jones et al. 1991), there has been a problem with isolating the specific time periods to which the various assemblages belong. Sherds of many different tempers and designs, possibly representing a number of periods, have been found scattered across the sites. Extensive mechanical agriculture, particularly since the 1940s, has destroyed structural evidence and homogenized the cultural materials of various time periods in a plow-zone stratum of variable depth. Even when recovered within the footprint of a supposed Spanish structure, such as the church, there is the possibility that the sherds were actually deposited at that location in an earlier time and that the structure was simply erected on top of them. The most that could be said with certainty was that a collection was found in association with Spanish artifacts. Hale G. Smith (1948) was among the first to try to devise a system to deal with new elements being discovered that did not fit within the archaeological traditions previously defined for the area. He separated the historic era Leon-Jefferson ware from pre-historic Fort Walton period materials and proposed a formal typology for them. His proposed new Leon-Jefferson ceramic series included Mission Red-filmed, Miller Plain, Aucilla Incised, Fort Walton Incised, Ocmulgee Fields Incised, Lamar-like Bold Incised, Leon Check Stamped, Jefferson Ware, Gritty Plain, and Alachua Cob Marked. All these types were described based on design elements and form, and all had sand/grit temper, except the Jefferson Ware, which had some grog, or crushed sherds, mixed with other tempering materials. The Miller Plain was said to have some pitcher handles “of European design rather an aboriginal” (Smith 1948: 317), along with other forms designated Late Mississippian. In 1949, Gordon R. Willey published his classic Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast, which became the definitive reference for anyone working with aboriginal ceramics from that area. He followed Smith in setting the time frame for the Leon-Jefferson Period as 1650 to 1725 and kept most of the types defined by Smith, after excluding the Fort Walton varieties which he dealt with at length in a separate section. Jefferson Ware was again the only type with grog tempering. Willey admitted it was “a series of types as yet undifferentiated” (Willey 1949: 492), and broke this group down into only four kinds of complicated stamped vessels and plain ware.

18 There matters stood, despite Calvin Jones’s attempt to arrange rim styles in a chronological sequence (Jones 1971), until John F. Scarry proposed a major reworking of the system in 1985. Scarry split the Gulf Coast into different chronological regions, placing the most of the mission sites in the “Tallahassee Hills,” and proposed three phases for that area: Lake Jackson (ca. 850 - 1450), Velda (1450 - 1633) and San Luis (1633-early 1700s). Here, the grog- tempered Jefferson Plain wares became Lake Jackson Plain var. Jefferson and all the Jefferson Complicated Stamped pieces were subsumed as varieties of Lamar Complicated Stamped which were differentiated by design element without regard to temper. Beyond describing some types as late, Scarry did not address the question of which incised vessels could be considered as belonging to the Mission period and grog-tempered incised vessels are not mentioned at all. After the excavations at Figs Springs (Mission San Martín de Timucua), John E. Worth tried to clarify the situation by proposing a Jefferson Series comprising all grog-tempered vessels (Weisman 1992: 197 - 201), describing six varieties for Jefferson Complicated Stamped, two varieties apiece for Jefferson Check Stamped and Jefferson Roughened, one variety each for Jefferson Cob Marked and Jefferson Punctated, and two varieties for Jefferson Incised, leaving Jefferson Plain for everything else. Clearly, some progress had been made, as grog-tempered incised vessels were at last recognized. However, the two varieties of incised vessels, Var. Columbia and Var. Ocmulgee Fields, were represented by only a few sherds, all with curvilinear incision. Thus, when faced with the need to classify forty-seven grog-tempered incised vessels of various patterns from a late Mission period context, I found very little in the existing typologies that was helpful. It was necessary to devise a system, based on design elements recognizable in earlier typologies that might adequately describe and typify the groups of patterns found within the collection from Feature 118. This I was able to do to some extent and the proposed revisions to the Jefferson Series that follow are the result.

19 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

One of the original goals of this investigation was to reconstruct as many vessels as possible from the Feature 118 collection of aboriginal sherds, and to identify probable vessels from partial reconstructions and groups of associated sherds. That process is obviously easier when incised decoration, modified lips, unusual colors and textures, and other such characteristics are present. My work proceeded using these aids to identify and reconstruct a respectable number of vessels without particular problems (see Appendix B). Once past these initial re-assemblies, the process became more difficult, as there were a number of rim sherds and small, incised sherds that could not be easily assigned to a vessel with any certainty. Because rims can be so definitive, particularly in determining vessel form, I did not assign a rim or lip to a vessel, despite seeming similarities of paste, thickness, color and/or finish unless I could find a positive mend that made the connection unquestionable. Since there were cases when more than one rim or lip was a possible fit for a vessel, there are undoubtedly some instances when a single vessel has been described as two because the decisive link was absent. The same considerations were applied when assigning the few available bases, so it is also possible that a single vessel could be described as three, since base, body sherds and rim/lip sherds could not be positively connected. Hopefully, this did not occur often. Some vessels were described on the basis of groups of sherds that were determined to be associated on the basis of the characteristics listed above, as well as smoothing marks and the almost indiscernible evidence of paddle stamping found on many sherds. The latter proved particularly helpful in some instances. The incised sherds that ultimately could not be assigned to vessels were counted as separate vessels. Surprisingly few plain sherds were left at the end of the re-assembly stage (n = 32). I feel this is due to the familiarity with the materials acquired from long term handling of them. It is impossible to overstate the advantage that such familiarity provided in puzzling out both unusual forms and elusive mends. Pottery is a tactile material and there is no substitute for literally “getting the feel” of it when it comes to finding the broken vessels hiding in a large collection of basically brown sherds.

20 During analysis, probable rim diameter was determined using a Concentric Circle Chart for nearly all the vessels. There were a few cases, however, where the reconstruction was complete enough for direct measurement with a standard metric ruler. There were also some rim sherds too small for even a reasonable estimate to be obtained. A Mitotoyo electronic caliper was used for determining thickness. Weights were determined using an Acculab GSI - series electronic balance. Although one study had already been made of the Colonoware from Features 116 and 118 at O’Connell (Crowson and Hight 1999), and Colonoware is recognized as a component of Spanish era sites, I did not classify any vessel as such. One reason for this is that all the features generally attributed to Colonoware -- flat brims on bowls, annular bases, burnished surfaces, forms that differ from those seen as “native” -- have documented precedents in the extremely diverse and often sophisticated ceramics of the Gulf Coast region and in the Southeastern United States. Brimmed plates and bowls were present in the Guale Irene phase before the arrival of the Spaniards (Saunders 2000: 99), and were seen in the Fort Walton Period as well (Willey 1949). Smith attributed the ring bases of Miller Plain to Late Mississippian influences (Smith 1948) and burnishing is a common finishing technique. As for unique forms, few ceramic traditions can rival the imagination displayed in shaping clay vessels seen in the well-known Weeden Island and Fort Walton collections. Weisman (1992: 160) commented on the scarcity of what he called “colono-Indian pottery forms” at the Fig Springs site. He speculated that, although some such forms might be seen in St. Augustine contexts, given its urban setting and numerous Spanish residents, the same expectations should not apply to a frontier mission site where the lone Spanish resident was a Franciscan friar. I propose that the same conditions of a lone friar at a frontier mission similarly applied at the O’Connell site. There are three vessels in the Feature 118 collection that might have been designated Miller Plain - Vessels 95, 96 and 97. Vessels 95 and 96 (Figures 5 and 7) have definite annular (ring) bases. Vessel 97 (Figure 6) seems to have a rounded base, but it might well have had an annular base. They all have almost polished-looking, burnished surfaces, and flat, wide brims are present on Vessels 96 and 97, which the fragmentary Vessel 95 also might have had.

Figure 5. Jefferson Plain Vessel 96.

Figure 6. Jefferson Plain Vessel 97.

22 Figure 7: Base of Jefferson Plain Vessel 95

Willey, following Smith (1948: 317), described similarly shaped vessels as Miller Plain, a grit-tempered type (Willey 1949: 490-491). Scarry subsumed Miller Plain into Lake Jackson Plain, a sand-tempered type (Scarry 1985: 220-221). Worth, as previously discussed, labeled all undecorated grog-tempered vessels at Fig Springs Jefferson Plain. I chose to follow Worth in this matter. Also, despite the fact that the ceramics of Feature 118 come from a location that suggests discard from the convento where the Spanish priests lived, there is little evidence of any attempt by the native potters to copy extant Spanish vessels, or to modify their own vessels for Spanish use. Given that it is most likely that indigenous women were working for the friar, they would probably have preferred using their own traditional ware. The small amount of broken Spanish tableware (majolica) recovered does suggest that the friar may have had some European pieces. The only possible direct example of modification of a native form is seen by comparing Vessels 1 and 2 (Figure 8). Vessel 1 is a small, sturdy, everted rim jar with a conical base. Vessel 2 seems to be a larger, thinner-walled version of this form, but it has a flat base, appropriate for setting on a table or shelf. Vessel 2 is also obviously made by a less proficient potter, or simply with less care.

23 Without the flat base, this vessel lacks any attribute that would classify it as Colonoware and, without reconstruction, that element would not have been seen. Even given the vessel’s flat base, it is still impossible to say why, or for whom, the modified piece was made.

Figure 8. Modiﬁed vessel form in Jefferson Plain. Left - Vessel 1, right - Vessel 2.

Another example of the problems with labeling sherds or bases Colonoware is seen in Vessel 12 (see O’Connell Incised Var. Point Washington below - Figure 61), which combines a rim decoration of incised guilloches, punctation, and a complex lip with an applied strip with an annular base. On another vessel (Jefferson Plain Vessel 71 - see Figure 42), an annular base belongs to what seems to be a form of unusual double-globe found previously in Fort Walton contexts and discussed below. From these cases, it should be clear that it is very easy to come to the wrong conclusions about exactly how a vessel should be typed when only a few disconnected sherds are present. Much more reconstruction needs to be done to clarify matters before establishing any deﬁnitive Colonoware type for Mission era ceramics. Even then, it will difﬁcult to say whether the vessels were inspired by European forms or were simply native variations on elements already found elsewhere within Gulf Coast and Southeastern pottery traditions.

24 Rim and Lip Treatments I would like to address a question of terminology briefly. Most discussions of ceramics refer only to “rim” and rarely to “lip,” but in this study, the term “lip” will be used in most cases. “Lip” will refer specifically to the exact edge around the opening of the vessel and the proximal area affected by what is done to it. “Rim” will be used as an inclusive term to refer to the entire zone between the opening and the shoulder break. The rim often has a different curvature than the remainder of the body and may be treated in a manner that makes it distinctive. The question of how to properly classify the enormously varied rim/lip treatments seen in aboriginal ceramics in Northwest Florida and Gulf Coast areas has proved problematic for any number of researchers, especially within the broad category of Plain vessels. Once past the utterly plain lips that are “unmodified,” being simply rounded, tapered, beveled, or flattened, any attempt at typifying becomes confusing at best, subjective at worst. Many Jefferson Series vessels have thickened lips, but several different methods are used to thicken them and it is frequently difficult to tell exactly which method has been used. What appears to be a simple folded rim may actually be a thick, wide strip of clay applied to the upper exterior edge of the lip and then blended over the lip top into the interior wall. A lip that seems to have a small strip applied to the top may really be only a flattened lip with excess material that was not removed. The differences are sometimes nearly impossible to see, and may or may not be significant in terms of what they can tell us about the potters and their cultures. The methods of marking both modified and unmodified lips are varied, but in this collection ticking, notching, rounded or angular punctation, simple fingernail incision, or pinching with fingernail incision are the most often seen. Interestingly, the most common lip treatments were at the extreme ends of the graduating scale from simple to complex. The “Simple Plain” type, with no form of decoration, was the most common lip seen, but it was closely followed in number by the most complex, “Complex Lip with Cornice,” which involves much modification and decoration. The significance of this is unknown. Several past researchers have tried to devise a simple system for classifying all these variables and their possible combinations (Smith in Boyd et al. 1951; Scarry in Jones et al. 1991). Willey (1949) gives brief rim treatment descriptions with his definitions of varieties and types. Mason (2005) pays little attention to specific rim and lip treatments, while Worth’s (1992) revision of Scarry’s Jefferson Series slides past the question entirely.

25 Attempts to sort out the lip treatments found on vessels in Feature 118 yielded a list of eleven types, ranging from Simple Plain to Complex with Cornice. Eighty-nine (71.77 percent) of the 124 vessels described for Feature 118 have some type of visible decoration -- incision, lip modification, and/or obvious stamping -- so the truly “plain” pot is a minority. Incision made by a tool is found on forty-six vessels (37.09 percent), while some form of definite fingernail incision in the lip area occurs on thirty vessels (24.19 percent). Five vessels (4.03 percent) display notching on the lip, but ticking is rare, seen only on two bowls (1.61 percent). One form of lip treatment, the attachment to and/or formation of mammiform nodes on the lip, is not discussed here because it occurs only on O’Connell Incised vessels. Briefly, Simple Plain lip treatments are seen on all types, on forty-one total vessels (33.06 percent) - twelve on Jefferson Plain and twenty-three on O’Connell Incised. Six other incised vessels have Simple Plain lips that are “modified” only by incision from design elements on the rim and so are counted in this total. Decorated Skirt is also seen on all types with a total of twelve vessels (9.69 percent) - seven Jefferson Plain, three O’Connell Incised and two O’Connell Salt/lime vessels (see below). Complex with Cornice occurs on seven Jefferson Plain vessels (5.64 percent), while Punctation/incision/pinching on Simple Lip Edge is seen on five Jefferson Plain (4.03 percent). The last five lip treatment types defined would fall into the general category of Jefferson pinched or punctated rims described by many researchers. Although the lip treatments defined here do appear on incised vessels, only the Jefferson Plain vessels are used for descriptive purposes in this classification.

Lip treatments on Jefferson Plain vessels. 1. Simple Plain: twelve vessels. Thickness: 3.6 - 8.2 mm. An unmodiﬁed lip with an edge that is rounded, ﬂattened, tapered, or beveled. Seen on all vessel forms (Figure 9). The most common type.

26 Figure 9. Simple Plain Lip. Top: left - Vessel 119, right - Vessel 120. Bottom: left - Vessel 121, right - Vessel 122.

2. Plain with Top Groove: two vessels. Thickness: 5.2 - 6.8 mm. An undecorated lip which seems formed by pressing together interior and exterior portions of the wall, producing a shallow groove or trough between them (Figures 10 and 11).

Figure 10. Plain with Top Groove. Left - Vessel 49, right - Vessel 63.

27 Figure 11. Detail of top groove: Vessel 49.

3. Surged Lip: three vessels. Thickness: 4.2 - 10.00 mm. Lip thickened by clay surged from the vessel wall (Figure 12). Two versions are seen. In one (Vessel 44), the surging may be done to strengthen the lip for the attachment of handles or adornos. In the second version (Vessels 60 and 76), the surged lip is flattened in some areas to produce a ledge extending over the exterior. On one (Vessel 60), this flattened portion is further modified by simple fingernail incision on the top, which is only visible from above.

Figure 12. Surged Lip. Left to right: Vessel 44, Vessel 60, and Vessel 76.

28 4. Punctation/incision on Lip Top: two vessels. Thickness: 4.3 - 6.9 mm. Lip top, either ﬂattened or rounded, is punctated or incised from above, leaving marks that may not be visible in frontal view. Lip may have applied strip on top (Figures 13 and 14).

Figure 13. Punctation on lip top Figure 14. Incision on lip top of Vessel 70. of Vessel 26.

5. Punctation/incision/pinching on Simple Lip Edge: ﬁve vessels. Thickness: 4.2 - 7.3 mm. Shallow half-round or full-round punctates or pinching on upper exterior of unmodiﬁed lip edge. Fingernail incision may be seen (Figures 15, 16, and 17).

29 Figure 15. Punctation/incision/pinching on Simple Lip Edge. Left - Vessel 45, top right - Vessel 53, center - Vessel 98, bottom left - Vessel 110, bottom right - Vessel 91.

Figure 16. Punctation/incision/pinching on Simple Lip Edge. Detail of Vessel 45.

30 Figure 17. Punctation/incision/pinching on Simple Lip Edge. Detail of Vessel 91.

6. Wide Notches on Upper Exterior Lip Edge: three vessels. Thickness: 5.2 - 8.0 mm. Lip may be simple, or thickened by folding or an applied strip. Wide notches are made on upper exterior lip edge. Thickened, notched lips look “corded” (Figures 18 and 19).

Figure 18. Wide Notches on Upper Exterior Lip Edge. Top left - Vessel 28, right - Vessel 40. Bottom - Vessel 41.

31 Figure 19. Detail of wide notches on Vessel 28.

7. Punctuation/incision/pinching on Modiﬁed Lip Top: four vessels. Thickness: 4.5 - 8.8 mm. Lip top is thickened by surging or applied strip, then punctated or pinched with ﬁngernail incision on top. Lip top may have “peaked” or “scalloped” appearance (Figures 20, 21, 22, and 23).

Figure 20. Punctation /incision/pinching on Modiﬁed Lip Top. Left - Vessel 3, center top - Vessel 105, center bottom - Vessel 90, right - Vessel 27.

32 Figure 21. Punctation/incision/pinching on Modiﬁed Lip Top. Detail of Vessel 3.

Figure 22. Punctation/incision/pinching on Modiﬁed Lip Top. Detail of Vessel 90.

33 Figure 23. Punctation/incision/pinching on Modiﬁed Lip Top. Detail of Vessel 27.

8. Smoothed Decorated Hem: three vessels. Thickness: 3.7 - 8.5 mm. Lip folded forward over exterior and ﬂattened, or wide strip applied to upper exterior edge and smoothed over lip top, creating “skirt” of material around upper exterior lip with “hem” at lower edge of fold or applique. Hem then smoothed into body of vessel and decorated with band of rounded punctates or ﬁngernail incision (Figure 24).

Figure 24. Smoothed Decorated Hem. Top left - Vessel 67, right - Vessel 65. Bottom - Vessel 68.

34 9. Decorated Skirt: seven vessels. Thickness: 4.3 - 7.8 mm. Skirt of folded or applied material on upper exterior lip decorated with punctation /incision/pinching placed directly on front of thickened area. Hem may be smoothed. May look “scalloped” when seen from above. Execution and appearance varies widely (Figures 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,and 32).

Figure 25. Decorated Skirt. Clockwise from upper left - Vessels 1, 2, 88, 23, 92, 24, and 30.

35 Figure 26. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 1.

Figure 27. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 2.

36 Figure 28. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 88.

Figure 29. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 23.

37 Figure 30. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 24.

Figure 31. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 92.

38 Figure 32. Decorated Skirt. Detail of Vessel 30.

10. Decorated Hem: ﬁve vessels. Thickness: 4.9 - 8.9 mm. Hem of thickened skirt of folded or applied material on upper exterior lip edge decorated with punctation and/or ﬁngernail incision (Figures 33 and 34).

Figure 33. Decorated Hem. Left - right: Vessel 104, Vessel 107, and Vessel 108.

39 Figure 34. Decorated Hem. Left - Vessel 57, right - Vessel 46

11. Complex Lip with Cornice: seven vessels. Thickness: 3.9 - 10.4 mm. Upper exterior lip thickened by folding or applied strip. Folding or pinching uppermost edge creates rounded “cornice” with decorated skirt below. Execution varies widely. The second most common, but by far the most complex, lip treatment seen, number exceeded only by Simple Plain (Figures 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39).

Figure 35. Complex lip with Cornice. Top left to right - Vessels 89, 99, 101 and 102. Bottom left to right - Vessels 103, 106, 108, and 109).

40 Figure 36. Complex Lip with Cornice. Vessel 89.

Figure 37. Complex Lip with Cornice. Vessel 103.

41 Figure 38. Complex Lip with Cornice. Vessel 106.

Figure 39. Complex Lip with Cornice. Vessel 109.

42 CHAPTER FOUR: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE JEFFERSON CERAMIC SERIES

As discussed above, in attempting to classify the aboriginal ceramics from Feature 118, difficulties with finding correlates in the existing typologies for the Mission period became immediately apparent. The primary problem was that all the vessels in the collection were grog-tempered while the previously described varieties with similar decorative motifs were not. This is in conflict with Zak Wood’s 1999 FSU Field School analysis of decorated rim sherds from Feature 118, which found that 27.7 percent of the vessels were sand/grit-tempered. I can account for this only by saying that perhaps the time constraints of this earlier study prevented Wood’s seeing the grog particles when they were well blended with a similarly colored paste. Usually grog is a different color from the surrounding material and more easily seen, but it can also be the same color as the paste. Grog is defined here as a tempering material composed of crushed portions of previous vessels (Rice 1987:496). It is added to the paste to give the vessel more resistance to heat expansion. Seth Johnstone’s 1999 analysis of the site’s extensive surface collection from the same FSU Field School found 27.3 percent of the aboriginal sherds to be grog-tempered. This result is to be expected with sherds from a multi-component site with a time depth that may extend back into the Weeden Island phase, but, given Wood’s inaccuracy, Johnstone’s estimate may be low. The other problem was that many vessels from the feature displayed what seemed to be new variations and/or combinations of design elements. Since there were groups of vessels that were similar within the collection, it was natural to divide them into categories to see if possible new varieties could be defined. The names for several of these proposed new varieties were chosen based on their similarities to earlier varieties; others were given names associated with the O’Connell site or its locale. I was also interested in Shepard’s (1956: 296) analysis of Mesa Verde Black-on-white patterns, which revealed predictable numbers of repetitions of design elements, and by Rice’s (1987: 272) report on Bunzel’s study of the presumed link between numbers in Zuni ceremonial tradition and their divisions of design elements. Shepard (1956) found that two-thirds of the Mesa Verde pottery used seven or more repetitions in a band. Bunzel (1972) had found that while the number four has significance in Zuni literary and ceremonial tradition, and the Zuni

43 potters expressed a preference for it, the designs were actually based on the number three. Snow’s (1998: 88) extensive work on Swift Creek pottery in the Southeast has revealed the number four to be a significant factor in the design of those patterns. I wanted to see if any of these patterns held up for the otherwise variable collection from Feature 118 and also to determine if there were any correlation between the design motif and the number of times it was repeated. The methodology for this phase was simple. I calculated the circumferences of the vessels in question, then divided that figure by the measured width of the design motif used. In some cases, not enough of the design element was present to determine the width and the number of design repetitions was not estimated. Ironically, on the one vessel (Vessel 4) complete enough to allow for a confident actual count of the design repetitions (thirteen of them), the decorative band on the rim is not continuous, but broken by the insertion of another motif. However, as Rice (1987: 272) points out, there are no doubt disparities between what the potter considers ideal and the result the execution of the design yields. The designs on Vessel 4 are loosely drawn, with considerable variations displayed in the widths of the motifs. On the twelve vessels for which estimates were possible, the Feature 118 collection corresponds with Shepard’s reported minimum of seven repetitions of the design motif. All vessels had seven or more, with sixteen repetitions being found on four vessels. All the patterns in the newly defined O’Connell Incised Varieties Lake Jackson, Point Washington, Lamar, Patale, Turkey Roost, and Lafayette (see below) are repeated in multiples of four. Four is highly symbolic in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, representing both the cardinal directions and the quartering of the earth (Hudson 1974:134, Marty Haycorn personal communication 2005). The only Var. Marsh Island vessel for which an estimate was possible seems to have nine repetitions, but this result is probably more an error due to previously described deviations than a true change in the base number.

O’Connell Incised (see Appendix A): A type within the Jefferson Series found in association with Spanish artifacts dated to the period A.D.1655 - 1704. Probable antecedents and contemporaries of the type found as Aucilla Incised and Pinellas Incised in Boyd et al. (1951); as Fort Walton Incised, Point Washington Incised, Lake Jackson Incised, and Marsh Island Incised in Jones et al. (1991); as Ocmulgee Fields Incised in Mason (2005); as Fort Walton Incised,

44 Marsh Island Incised, Lake Jackson Incised, Point Washington Incised and Lamar Bold Incised in Scarry (1985); as Jefferson Incised in Weisman (1992); and as Aucilla Incised, Lamar Bold Incised and Ocmulgee Fields Incised in Willey (1949). Cordell’s (2001) analysis of presumed post-mission period Apalachee pottery at Old Mobile found no incised designs. Paste: method of manufacture - coiling. Coil fractures seen with rim sherds and sherds from the shoulder area. temper - grog, with various other inclusions such as grit and small bits of red clay texture - variable, but usually compact in medium to fine paste color - variable; may be shades of gray, orange, buff, brown and/or black; cores equally variable. Fire clouding common. Surface Finish: Surfaces smoothed, but often with obvious flaws. Visible temper, pocking, incipient spalling, grooves and scrapes from finishing tools may visible on both exterior and interior. Decoration: technique - incision, some bold (> 1.00 mm line width). Also ticking, punctation, notching, and fingernail incision. design - diagonal straight lines, interlocking straight lines, scrolls or guilloches, arcs, combination of rectilinear and rectilinear elements, rounded and linear punctation, vertical fingernail incision. Variable execution, with some designs well drawn and others loosely done. distribution - mostly in rim area, occasionally on shoulder break or extending into body area. Form: rim - usually incurvate, but may be nearly vertical above shoulder. lip - varies from simple plain rounded, flattened, tapered or beveled to complex with applied decorated strip. Lip may be surged into paired mammiform nodes on top. appendages - small paired mammiform nodes on upper exterior edge. body - hemispheric, rounded, carinated and cazuela style bowls with diameters from 15 - 33 cm.

45 base - rounded or conical. Annular base may also be seen. thickness - 3.3 - 9.4 mm. Most commonly 5.5 - 7.5 mm.

Geographical range: known for late Spanish Mission sites in former Apalachee Province in Northwest Florida.

Chronological range: from ca. 1690 to 1704.

Note: Photographs used in this study show only relevant sherds, not all those associated with the vessel. Not all vessels of a variety are shown. The photographs are intended to show the diversity within a variety.

Var. Marsh Island: five vessels. Seen on rounded and cazuela style bowls. Estimated diameter: 15 - 22.5 cm. Wall thickness: 4.7 - 8.6 mm. Design motif repetitions: Vessel 13 - 9. Vessels 17, 48, 74 and 75 - unknown. Characterized by two or three parallel straight lines placed diagonally, forming triangular or chevron shapes in a continuous band around the rim. Incision may be fine and strictly rectilinear or bolder and slightly curved. No markings on shoulder break. Lips are tapered, rounded, beveled out, or complex. Color may be buff or brown to dark gray. Fire clouding common (Figures 40, 41, and 42). Previously described as Aucilla Incised, Type 3 or Lamar-like Bold (Boyd et al. 1951: Plate XII), as Ocmulgee Fields Incised, nested geometric figure style, by Mason (2005: Plates XXI and XXXII), as Marsh Island Incised (Willey 1949: 466), as Aucilla Incised (Willey 1949: 492, 686), and as Perico Island Incised (Willey 1949: 595, Plate 14).

46 Figure 40. Var. Marsh Island. Vessel 13.

Figure 41. Var. Marsh Island. Vessel 74.

47 Figure 42. Var. Marsh Island. Vessel 17.

Var. Lake Jackson: four vessels. Hemispheric, rounded and cazuela style bowls. Estimated diameter: 16.0 - 30.0 mm. Wall thickness: 4.3 - 9.4 mm. Design motif repetitions: Vessel 5 - 8, Vessel 16 - 16. Vessels 19 and 54 - unknown. Characterized by at least three parallel horizontal straight lines below the lip, with regularly spaced pendant loops, in a continuous band around the rim. Incision is deep and bold. Lip is usually beveled in, but may be tapered. Lip edge may be ticked. Shoulder break may be marked by linear punctation. Color may be light gray to medium brown. Some ﬁre clouding (Figures 43, 44, 45, and 46). Previously described as Pinellas Incised (Boyd et al. 1951: Plate XII 6-8), as Lake Jackson Incised (Jones et al.1991: 64), as Ocmulgee Fields Incised, scroll type (Mason 2005, Plate XXX), as Lake Jackson Var. Blountstown (Scarry 1985: 220), and as Lake Jackson Incised (Willey 1949: 492). “Pendant concentric half circles” described as Irene Incised (Saunders 2000: 39, Figure 3.1).

48 Figure 43. Var. Lake Jackson. Vessel 5. Hemispheric bowl.

Figure 44. Var. Lake Jackson. Vessel 16.

49 Figure 45. Var. Lake Jackson. Vessel 19.

Figure 46. Var. Lake Jackson. Vessel 54.

50 Var. Aucilla: three vessels. Seen on rounded and cazuela style bowls. Estimated diameter: 21.5 - 29.0 cm. Wall thickness: 6.0 - 7.8 mm. Design motif repetitions: Vessel 10 - 13, Vessel 11 - 14. Vessel 32 - unknown. Characterized by two or more parallel straight lines placed at right angles to form interlocking “reclined” (left orientation) or reversed (right orientation) Z’s in a continuous band around the rim. Incision is bold. Lip may be beveled in, or rounded and thickened by surging into paired mammiform nodes on top edge, giving the vessel a “horned” appearance. Ticking or notching may be seen on upper exterior lip edge. Shoulder break may be marked by linear or rounded punctation. Color is light to dark brown. Fire clouding present. May be burnished (Figures 47, 48, and 49). Previously described as Aucilla Incised, Type 4 (Boyd et al. 1951: Plate XII), as Ocmulgee Incised, linked lines type (Mason 2005: Plate XXXI d), as Ocmulgee Fields Incised, Var. Aucilla (Scarry 1985: 227, Figure 9 f), as Aucilla Incised (Smith 1948: 317), and as Aucilla Incised (Willey 1949: 492, Figure 68a).

Figure 47. Var. Aucilla. Vessel 32. “Horned” bowl.

51 Figure 48. Var. Aucilla. Vessel 11. Cazuela style bowl.

Figure 49. Var. Aucilla. Vessel 10. Small cazuela style bowl.

52 Var. Turkey Roost: one vessel, one probable vessel. Seen on a cazuela style bowl. Diameter: 26.5 cm. Wall thickness: 4.8 - 7.4 mm. Design repetitions: Vessel 14 - 8. Vessel 20 (probable example) - unknown. Characterized by three curved lines forming, alternately, arcs rising from the shoulder break and loops descending from, or very close to, the lip edge. Incision is bold and loosely drawn. Neither lip nor shoulder is decorated. Color is pale light brown and gray to black. Fire clouding present (Figures 50 and 51). Not previously described, but probably related to Point Washington Incised motifs with arcs seen at Patale site (Jones et al. 1991).

Figure 50. Var. Turkey Roost. Vessel 14. Deep cazuela style bowl.

53 Figure 51. Var. Turkey Roost. Detail of pattern on Vessel 14.

Var. Lamar: two vessels. Seen on rounded bowls. Estimated diameter: 26.0 - 29.0 cm. Wall thickness: 4.9 - 6.7 mm. Design repetitions: Vessel 7 - 16. Vessel 8 - unknown. Characterized by two or more straight lines forming “nested diamond” motifs, which are centered on a rounded punctate, with intervening chevron shapes in a continuous band around the rim. Lines may or may not meet at corner angles, and may extend to lip edge. Design band may be centered on shoulder break with lines of incision extending onto body. May have a line of rounded punctates encircling vessel immediately below main design. Incision may be bold or ﬁne. Lip is ﬂattened with slight inward bevel. Shoulder break may be incorporated into overall pattern. Color is light buff to dark brown (Figure 52). Previously described as Lamar-like Bold Incised (Boyd et al. 1951: Plate XXII 10). The central pattern may be similar to the “diamond and dot motif” found at Tennessee, Indiana and central Georgia sites, but described as of Southeastern origin (Chase 1998: 54).

Figure 52. Var. Lamar. Left - Vessel 7, right - Vessel 8.

Var. Lafayette: two vessels. Seen on rounded bowls. Estimated diameter: 20.0 cm. Wall thickness: 6.0 - 7.7 mm. Design repetitions: Vessel 33 - 16. Vessel 135 - unknown. Characterized by three parallel curved lines rising from the shoulder break and forming linked arcs, or “rainbows,” in a continuous band around the rim. Incision is bold and well drawn. Lip may be rounded or ﬂattened. Neither lip nor shoulder band is decorated. Color ranges from buff through orange to black (Figure 53). Not previously described, but probably related to Point Washington Incised design motifs using arcs seen at the Patale site (Jones et al. 1991).

55 Figure 53. Var. Lafayette. Vessel 33.

Var. Capitola: one vessel. Seen on rounded bowl. Diameter: 17 cm. Wall thickness: 4.5 - 6.4 mm. Design repetitions: Vessel 4 - 13, with one intervening motif. Characterized by two roughly parallel curved lines rising from the shoulder break to form a right-oriented “breaking wave” pattern in an almost continuous band around the rim; the band is broken in one place by an isolated circle bisected with a vertical line. Incision ranges from bold to faint and is loosely drawn. Lip is tapered and rounded. Shoulder break is marked by irregular line of vertical ﬁngernail incisions. Surface may be burnished. Color is near black (Figures 54 and 55). Similar design elements previously described as Ocmulgee Fields Incised, scrolls type (Mason 2005: 109, Plate XXXI a), and as Pinellas Incised (Willey 1949: 599, Plates 52 a and 53 a). The bisected circle has been described as a “vulvar” motif representing fertility (Kreiser et al. 2002: 129) (Figure 56).

56 Figure 54. Var. Capitola. Vessel 4. Small rounded shoulder bowl.

Figure 55. Var. Capitola. Detail of “breaking wave” motif on Vessel 4.

57 Figure 56. Var. Capitola. Detail of bisected circle on Vessel 4.

Var. Patale: one vessel. Seen on carinated type bowl. Estimated diameter - 21.0 cm. Wall thickness - 5.8 - 6.3 mm. Design repetitions - unknown. Characterized by four parallel curved lines rising from the shoulder break to form non- intersecting arcs, or “rainbows,” in a continuous band around the rim. A single small curved line may be seen in the ﬁeld between them. Incision is variable. Lip is rounded. Color is light to dark gray. Fire clouding present (Figure 57). Similar elements previously described as Point Washington Incised var. Pedro at Patale (Jones et al. 1991: Figure 26).

58 Figure 57. Var. Patale. Vessel 15.

Var. O’Connell: one vessel. Seen on rounded bowl. Estimated diameter: 26.5 cm. Wall thickness: 4.8 - 7.4 mm. Design repetitions: Vessel 9 - 18. Characterized by complex motif of two sets of three parallel curved lines, with one set forming an arc rising from the shoulder and the other set forming a loop descending from the lip edge directly above it, and three parallel straight lines forming a nested diamond shape in the space between the paired curvilinear elements. Short straight lines in a “laddering” effect cross the outermost band of the descending loops and the middle band of the rising arcs. The overall motif might be described as a “rattlesnake skin” pattern. Incision is variable, loosely drawn, and may appear light against dark surface and dark against light surface. Lip is beveled in. Small paired mammiform nodes attached to upper exterior edge of lip. Shoulder break is not delineated. Color is light gray to black. Fire clouding present (Figures 58, 59, and 60). Not previously described. Similar “arc” elements described from the Patale site as Point Washington Incised Var. Pedro (Jones et al. 1991: Figure 26.) Similar elements of nested diamonds seen on Lamar-like Bold Incised (Boyd et al. 1951:

59 Plate XII 10). “Laddering” elements seen in Meso American contexts (White 2005: 98) and on bone pendants at Shields site (Mississippian) in Jacksonville (Penders 2005: 244).

Figure 58. Var. O’Connell. Vessel 9. Rounded bowl.

Figure 59. Var. O’Connell. Lip nodes on Vessel 9.

60 Figure 60. Var. O’Connell. Detail of pattern on Vessel 9.

Var. Point Washington: two vessels. Seen on rounded bowls. Estimated diameter: 22.0 - 33.0 cm. Wall thickness: 5.8 - 8.4 mm. Design repetitions - unknown. Characterized by sets of three parallel lines forming “reclining” S’s, or guilloches, which may or may not interlock, in a continuous band around the rim. Incision is bold and loosely drawn. A row of linear punctates may be seen between the band and lip edge. A row of paired parallel linear punctates may be seen below the band. Lip may be simple ﬂattened with slight bevel in, or complex with applied, punctated strip over lip top. Annular base may be seen. Color is light to dark brown. Fire clouding present (Figures 61, 62, 63, and 64). Similar elements previously described as Point Washington Incised Var. Point Washington at Patale (Jones et al. 1991: 61), as Ocmulgee Fields Incised, scroll type (Mason 2005: Plate XXXI a, e), as Point Washington Var. Point Washington (Scarry 1985: 227, Figure 10 a), and as Pinellas Incised (Willey 1949: 482, Plates 52 a and 53 a). Annular base described as Miller Plain (Willey 1949: 491). Linear

61 punctates may be of type previously described as Carrabelle Punctuated (Scarry 1985: 211; Willey 1949: 425).

Figure 61. Var. Point Washington. Vessel 12. Deep bowl with annular base.

Figure 62. Var. Point Washington. Detail of pattern on Vessel 12.

62 Figure 63. Var. Point Washington. Detail of base on Vessel 12.

Figure 64. Var. Point Washington. Vessel 6.

63 Var. Englewood: one vessel. Form unknown. Estimated diameter: 21.0 cm. Wall thickness: 6.3 - 7.0 mm. Design repetitions - unknown. Characterized by irregularly placed small rounded punctates inside diagonal band formed by two parallel straight lines. A continuous line of small rounded punctuates is seen just below the lip edge. Lip is ﬂattened. Color is very dark brown (Figure 65). Similar elements previously described at Patale as Fort Walton var. Englewood (Jones et al. 1991: 61-63), as Fort Walton Var. Englewood (Scarry 1985: Figure 6 c), as Fort Walton var. Cayson (Scarry 1985: Figure 5 a) and as Englewood Incised (Willey 1949: 460, Plate 43).

Figure 65. Var. Englewood. Vessel 35.

64 Var. Fort Walton: one vessel. Form unknown. Diameter: Unknown. Wall thickness: 3.3 -6.3 mm. Design repetitions - unknown. Characterized by large rounded punctates aligned with at least two parallel curved lines. Incision is bold and well drawn. Lip and shoulder elements unknown. Surface burnished with high gloss. Color is black (Figure 66). Similar elements previously described at Patale as Fort Walton Incised (Jones et al. 1991: 61-63), as Fort Walton Incised (Scarry 1985: 95, Figure 5) and as Fort Walton Incised (Willey 1949: 460, Plate 43).

Figure 66. Var. Fort Walton. Vessel 34.

Var. Unidentiﬁed: These incised sherds had design elements too small or too incomplete to allow for a secure assignment to a variety (Figures 67 and 68).

Figure 67. Var. Unidentiﬁed. Top left to right - Vessels 36, 37, 38, 42, and 43 rim. Center left to Right - Vessels 47, 51, 50, 52, and 43 shoulder. Bottom left to right - Vessels 61 and 69.

Figure 68. Var. Unidentiﬁed. Top left to right - Vessels 83, 85, 87, 111 and 112. Center left to Right - Vessels 113, 114, 117, 124, and 118. Bottom - Vessel 123.

66 O’Connell Salt/lime Ware: a proposed new type within the Jefferson Series proposed on the basis of unusual surface textures and colors seen on the exteriors of ﬁve vessels - Vessels 21, 24, 29, 31 and 81 (Figures 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74). Paste: method of manufacture - coiling. temper - substantial amount of large (up to 4.5 mm wide) grog and other particles, giving paste a “chunky” look. color - variable; may range from pale light gray to dark blue-gray, and from tan to light orange. Fire clouding possible. Surface Finish: may be rough and frequently “crackled” in appearance. May also look coated or milky, and have chalky feel. Temper frequently protrudes. Decoration: limited to lip ﬁnishing technique. Form: rim - usually excurvate. lip - varies from simple rounded to complex with applied decorated strip. body - rounded jar. base - unknown. thickness - 4.0 - 9.6 mm. diameter - unknown.

Note: Several researchers have remarked on the reactions of sea or salt water with clay, whether the two come into contact purposefully or accidentally (Orton 1993: 116; Rice 1987: 119; Rye 1981: 127-128). According to Rice, sea or salt water may be added to calcareous clays to lessen the tendency toward spalling in low-ﬁred situations. Rice says this increases the heat tolerance of vessels meant for use in cooking. The process also produces a lighter color which may give the appearance that a slip has been applied (Marty Haycorn, personal communication 2005). Since lime and shell are frequently found in northwest Florida and south Georgia clays, one would expect to ﬁnd many vessels of this ware, but that has not been the case. Most potters evidently had access to less calcareous clay, or did not desire the characteristics produced by the addition of salt water. It may be, however, that there are many sherds or vessels of this ware in other collections that have been labeled Plain, with appropriate remarks on their unusual color and texture. Sherds of this type may also be among those described for “self-slipped” vessels

67 with “floated” surfaces (Cornell 2001: 28; Rice 1985: 151). Without further description or illustrations, it is impossible to determine if the sherds Cordell refers to are similar. It could be that Walnut Roughened sherds from Ocmulgee Fields described as filmed with a “clay wash” may be of this type (Mason 2005: 199). Further study would be useful to determine the true extent and significance of this ware.

Figure 69. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 21.

68 Figure 70. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 21, interior.

Figure 71. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 31.

69 Figure 72. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 24.

Figure 73. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 29.

70 Figure 74. O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. Vessel 81.

O’Connell Punctated: a proposed new type within the Jefferson series. It is probably a grog-tempered derivative of Carrabelle Punctated as described by Willey (1949: 425) and Scarry (1985: 211). The single specimen, Vessel 18, is a simple rounded bowl decorated with a single line of small rounded punctates on the shoulder break. Diameter is unknown. Wall thickness is 7.0 - 7.5 mm. Lip is ﬂattened. Paste has large pieces of grog and other inclusions. Surfaces are smooth, despite visible temper and pocking. Color is light gray to black. Extensive ﬁre clouding (Figure 75).

Figure 75. O’Connell Punctated. Vessel 18.

Leon Check Stamped: Previously described by Willey as being sand- and grit-tempered, 8 - 10 mm thick, with either checks of one-centimeter square or diamond shapes, possibly with wide lands and with the pattern “slightly smoothed.” The vessel form was a flared rim jar, with fingernail punctuation on the rim. He considered it a development from the earlier Wakulla Check Stamped (Willey 1949: 496, Figure 68 k). Scarry (1985:225) based his description of Leon Check Stamped Var. Leon on Smith’s Leon Check Stamped (Smith 1948: 318), also distinguished by large bold checks of one-centimeter square, with wide lands. Worth (1992: 200, Figure 64 e-j) describes Leon Check Stamped as being grit-tempered. Unfortunately, the description and photos given are not adequate for a direct comparison with the sherds from Feature 118. The two unidentified varieties proposed here, seen on Vessels 56 and 58, are distinguished both by grog temper and thinner walls than seen earlier. Var. Unidentified 1. Seen on one vessel (Vessel 56) (Figures 76 and 78), probably a jar with a flared rim and a possibly folded lip, the lower edge of the fold being decorated with angular punctation. Stamping seems to be possible alternating bands of wide (1.5 cm) and narrow (0.5 cm) checks, although the degree of smoothing makes this uncertain. Wall thickness: 5.5 - 8.5 mm.

Figure 76. Leon Check Stamped Var. Unidentiﬁed 1. Vessel 56.

Var. Unidentiﬁed 2: Seen on one possible globular vessel (Vessel 58) (Figures 77 and 79). Rim and lip unknown. Stamping pattern is small (8 - 5 mm) diamond shaped checks, which could show an afﬁnity with the earlier Wakulla Check Stamped. Portions of wall thin (4.6 mm).

Figure 77. Leon Check Stamped Var. Unidentiﬁed 2. Vessel 58.

73 Figure 78. Leon Check Stamped. Detail of stamping on Var. Unidentiﬁed 1. Vessel 56.

Figure 79. Leon Check Stamped. Detail of stamping on Var. Unidentiﬁed 2. Vessel 58.

74 Jefferson Complicated Stamped: Previously described by Willey (1949: 492- 493, Figure 68 g-j) as the grit-tempered Jefferson Ware. Willey describes several patterns, but none seem a direct match to those from Feature 118. Smith (1949, 1951) defined complicated stamped sherds as Jefferson Ware if they were found in association with Spanish artifacts and considered them markers of the later phases of the Mission period. Scarry (1985) recognizes only Lamar Complicated Stamped and all the complicated stamped wares from this period may indeed have a common origin in the Lamar/Swift Creek tradition. Worth (1992: 199, Figure 64 a-e) describes a variety Jefferson as having “nested parallelograms,” but the description and photographs are insufficient for comparisons with the Feature 118 sherds. I propose one new unidentified complicated stamped variety characterized by grog temper, possible over-stamping, and extensive smoothing over of the pattern. Var. Unidentified. Seen on one vessel. Form possible flaring rim jar. Rim unknown. Wall thickness: 4.1 - 7.4 mm. Possibly over-stamped using two different patterns, one being bold and rectilinear, with wide lands and deep grooves, the other being a mixture of less well defined curvilinear patterns and checks or possibly triangles (Figures 80, 81, and 82).

Figure 80. Jefferson Complicated Stamp Var. Unidentiﬁed. Vessel 22.

75 Figure 81. Jefferson Complicated Stamped Var. Unidentiﬁed. Detail of rectilinear elements of pattern on Vessel 22.

Figure 82. Jefferson Complicated Stamped Var. Unidentiﬁed. Detail of curvilinear elements of pattern on Vessel 57.

76 CHAPTER FIVE: SPECIAL VESSELS, THE SCARCITY OF BASES, OBSCURED STAMPING, AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

There are several vessels not previously discussed, as well as certain aspects of the collection, that require comment. All the vessels described below have one or more elements that make them distinctive. Likewise, the absence of Mission Red-ﬁlmed ware and Alachua Cob- Marked wares, the observed scarcity of bases, and the obscured stamping visible on many vessels are characteristics of the assemblage from Feature 118 that need to be considered. Some of the special vessels and the characteristics just mentioned raise questions that invite further investigation.

Vessel 57: Jar with Zoomorphic Adorno Several vessels not discussed in the above text deserve special mention. The most obvious is Jefferson Plain Vessel 57, the jar with the zoomorphic adorno (Figure 83). Extra effort was made for a more complete reconstruction of this vessel, but ultimately, no secure link to other groups of sherds could be made. Despite its probable size and weight, it is difficult to classify a piece with a molded figure of what is possibly an alligator as a utilitarian vessel, given the high symbolic value of the adorno. The adorno could also be interpreted as a lizard or perhaps an otter, as both are known from Fort Walton contexts, but the alligator seems most likely (Milanich 1994: 378), and neither alternate interpretation would lower the symbolic value. Adornos, in general, are found on ceremonial and important serving vessels, and the alligator clan totem had great status (Widmer 2002: 387). Its use was reserved for members of the highest-ranking clans. Along with its alligator climbing up the side, Vessel 57 exhibits some exterior portions blackened from probable sooting, which could indicate its use as a cooking, or warming vessel. Given the special status indicated by the adorno, it is possible that this pot was used for a special purpose, perhaps the simmering of the traditional “black drink” of the Apalachee, made from the leaves of yaupan holly (Ilex vomitoria) (Hudson 1979). C. Margaret Scarry’s analysis of plant remains from the hearth of the Council House at San Luis found seeds of the yaupon holly there (Scarry 1993: 364), which tends to confirm its special status, although “black drink” may have been a “tea” when not consumed in a ritual setting. It is interesting that seeds were found since

77 it is the leaves that are important for making the drink. As the “black drink” had a long history and ritual significance in Apalachee, the use of such a vessel for preparing it would be consistent. However, lacking the basal portions of the vessel, and possible residues for testing, this function for the vessel cannot be verified. The presence of a vessel with this particular adorno in the trash pit associated with the convento could be seen as an indication that a high status family or person was among those involved with the friar’s household. This is not surprising since the caciques of Apalachee, the leading men of the various villages, were the ones who initially requested that friars be sent to them, although the villages’ population presumably approved (Hann 1988: 12). It would have been logical for the friars, and the Spaniards in general, to maintain close ties with these influential persons. The leading clans needed the friars for access to high status European goods and trade ware, and the friars needed both the connection to the people these elites provided and their help with the necessities of daily life on the frontier. Such ties, once established, were probably not easily broken. Although Vessel 57 may give us some important insights into the nature of the people involved with the friar’s household, it still leaves unanswered questions about its precise use and function.

Figure 83. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 57 with zoomorphic adorno.

78 Vessel 55: Unique Surface Finish and Basal Indentations A vessel lacking rim and lip sherds that shares characteristics of paste, wall thickness and form with Jefferson Plain Vessel 57 is Jefferson Plain Vessel 55 (Figure 84). It has an extremely rough, but somehow appealing, exterior surface that looks much like tree bark (Figure 86). It also has two unusual indentations on its interior in the basal area (Figure 85). Very precisely shaped and deep, they resemble the marks a modern tool like a screwdriver would make if pushed into the damp clay. It is theorized that they may have been made by pieces of Spanish metal used to brace the inverted pot during the ﬁring process (Marty Haycorn, personal communication 2005). This seems a likely explanation for the unusual marks. The striking exterior surface could be the result of post- depositional factors, but no other sherds displayed such a surface, although some were heavily eroded.

Figure 84. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 55.

79 Figure 85. Detail of interior of Jefferson Plain Vessel 55.

Figure 86. Detail of exterior surface of Jefferson Plain Vessel 55.

80 Vessel 32: Annular Base and Design Elements in Combination of Four O’Connell Incised Var. Aucilla Vessel 32 (Figure 87) is worth special notice because it, like O’Connell Incised Var. Point Washington Vessel 12, possesses a combination of four design elements, where most decorated vessels use only two, either an incised rim with a modified lip, or an incised rim and a marked shoulder break. Vessel 12 (Figures 61-63) has a complex rim, an incised pattern of guilloches on the rim, a punctated shoulder break, and an annular base. Vessel 32 has a lip surged into paired mammiform “horns,” wide notches on the lip edge, a boldly incised pattern of interlocking Zs on the rim, and a row of large rounded punctates below the design near the shoulder break. Also, it differs from the other Var. Aucilla vessels by having only two parallel-incised lines, instead of three. The significance of this, if any, is unknown, but Vessel 32 is obviously a special piece, with all its design elements well-executed, an exterior that may have been burnished, and such a fine textured paste that the pieces of grog are difficult to see. It was probably an important serving vessel, as there is no evidence of fire clouding.

Figure 87. O’Connell Incised Var. Aucilla. Vessel 32.

81 Vessel 37: White Pigment/Substance in Incising O’Connell Incised Var. Unidentified Vessel 37 (Figure 88) could not be identified because only a portion of the design motif is present. That design, however, is of interest because its incised lines seem to be purposefully filled with a chalky white material. It might be suggested that the lines could have filled in due to post-depositional factors, but the other incised vessels in the same context did not have filled lines. This type of decorative technique, used with a different design, is described as Point Washington Incised Var. Hogtown Bayou by Scarry (1985: 230), as it was first seen at that site near Pensacola. Not only would the complete vessel be unique in the collection, but it also hints at connections with groups to the west of Apalachee and both, again, suggest the presence of someone with access to high status trade wares.

Figure 88. O’Connell Incised Var. Unidentiﬁed. Vessel 37

Unusual Vessels O’Connell Incised Var. Unidentiﬁed Vessel 52 (Figure 89) is note-worthy for its uniform black color and deep ﬁngernail incision on the upper exterior lip edge and on the shoulder break. The rim area that would have connected those two elements is unfortunately missing. If intact, it too would be a striking and unique, possibly cazuela style, bowl.

82 Figure 89. O’Connell Incised Var. Unidentiﬁed. Vessel 52.

Jefferson Plain Vessel 66 (Figures 90 and 91) is interesting because it is a large portion of a vessel of unknown form, with a smooth, leather-like exterior surface. It seems to be the lower portion of what was possibly a large globular jar or bowl, but the thickened portion could easily have come from a section near the shoulder or neck. The wide shallow grooves and low ridges left by the smoothing tool are clearly visible on both exterior and interior.

Figure 90. Exterior of Jefferson Plain Vessel 66.

83 Figure 91. Interior of Jefferson Plain Vessel 66.

Jefferson Plain Vessel 71 (Figure 92) is one of the vessels that might have been identiﬁed as Colonoware, because of its annular base. As previously mentioned, however, the form is not a European one but is instead what seems to be a small, double-globed jar or vase with Weeden Island or Fort Walton ancestry (Willey 1949). Only the lower portion and some double-curve sherds from the waist area are present, so the extent of the upper part and the rim treatment are unknown. Given the remarkable creativity of the Weeden Island and Fort Walton people, it is impossible to guess what the appearance of the intact vessel would be.

84 Figure 92. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 71.

Jefferson Plain Vessel 76 (Figure 93) has a base, ﬁnish, and paste similar to Vessel 71’s, but it differs in form and has a few rim sherds present. One of these sherds is thin and rounded at one end, but thickens noticeably at the other, as if to strengthen the area for a possible attachment. What form this attachment would take is unknown.

Figure 93. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 76.

85 Jefferson Plain Vessel 43 (Figure 94) is represented by a row of fingernail incisions in rounded hollows, possibly placed around either the rim or collar of a bowl or jar. There are no lip or rim sherds present, so it is impossible to determine exactly what the placement might be. The incised sherds are fairly thick (6.5 - 7.3 mm) for this collection and have a smooth, but sandy feeling, exterior finish. It is possible that this grouping could be associated with the basal portion seen with Jefferson Plain Vessel 72 (Figures 96 and 97), which has a similar wall thickness and the same fine-textured paste, but a definite link could not be made.

Figure 94. Jefferson Plain. Vessel 43.

The Status of the Types Mission Red-Filmed and Alachua Cob-Marked It is note-worthy that no examples of Mission Red-Filmed ware, such as that described for other mission sites (Smith 1948, 1951; Willey 1949: 490; McEwan 1993: 418-435) were found in Feature 118. Six sherds which may have come from a single vessel were recovered from Feature 116, which is known to have been open at the same time and is closer to the convento (Rochelle Marrinan, personal communication 2006) and a few sherds (n=9) of it were present at the Patale site (Jones et al. 1991:61). However, it is not clear whether these sherds should be identified as Mission Red-Filmed or simply as a red-filmed ware. Only three red-filmed sherds were recovered at the Fig Springs Mission site (Weisman 1992: Table 12). As would be expected, there were no Mission Red-Filmed sherds in Feature 84, which has been identified

86 as a Pre-Mission component. Interestingly, Cordell (2001) also identified red-filmed ware very similar to that recovered at San Luis as part of the Colono-ware at Old Mobile. Perhaps a scarcity of Mission Red-filmed could be seen as a marker for a late frontier mission site. There is a similar lack of Alachua Cob Marked. No cob-marked sherds were recovered from Feature 116, although three sherds of it were found at the Patale site (Jones et al. 1991: 61) and rims of two cob-marked vessels were also recovered from the Pre-Mission Feature 84. Grog-tempered versions of it occurred at Fig Springs (Wiesman 1992: Tables 12 and 13) in relative abundance (n = 35). No doubt the higher number at Fig Springs is due to its proximity to the Alachua culture area where the type is more common. Distance from that area and the probable disruption of trade by Creek raiders during the late Mission Period could explain the lack of it in this collection.

The Relative Absence of Bases Another aspect of the Feature 118 collection is the scarcity of bases. Although some small jars had intact or reconstructable bases, the large, thick, heavy sherds from the bases of jars and large bowls that one would expect to see in some abundance were mostly absent. Logically, being the thickest portions of vessels, they should be the most resistant to breakage and the sherds most likely to survive in the material record. But this is not the case with Feature 118. Quite a few wafer thin sherds were found, but only five sherds easily designated bases were recovered (Figures 95, 96, and 97). Since some of the reconstructed vessels were identified as small bowls, it is possible that those bases simply did not survive. But there are still at least thirty vessels which should have had bases sturdy enough to be visible in the archaeological record. The question then becomes, where did all the bases go and why? The answer seems to be that the large curved basal sherds were simply not discarded when a vessel broke. Strong and already fire-hardened, they had many potential uses. Marrinan suggests that they were used as portable smudge pots, with bits of material kept burning in them in an effort to discourage flying insects like mosquitoes. At Mission Patale, two features

87 Figure 95. Base of Jefferson Plain Vessel 59.

(40 and 41) in the Northeast Yard were composed of carbonized maize cobs lying atop large potsherds (Heide 1999: 149). It has been thought that some of the hard ceramic pieces might have been smoothed into disc shapes for use in the traditional Southeastern Indian game of chunky (Hudson 1976: 221). Also Johnstone (1999: 12-13) reported the presence of two “ceramic discoidals” in his analysis of the controlled surface collection at the O’Connell Mission site. Similar finds were reported at the Patale Mission site, where they were believed to be part of a Pre-Mission component. It has been suggested that these discoidals may have been used as gaming counters. A potter with experience in the open firing of vessels (Marty Haycorn, personal communication 2005) suggested another possible use. Haycorn says that it is difficult to lift and turn pieces being hardened by open flames, and the large rounded bases would have made good turntables to expedite the process. When one considers the situation of a culture where almost everything had to be made by hand, the potential uses for a suddenly available, sturdy slab of pottery seem limited only by the imagination. Given the possibilities, one might wonder, not at the scarcity of bases in the trash pit, but how any were discarded at all. Perhaps an absent-minded Spanish friar was the person who mistakenly tossed away the few that were found.

88 Figure 96. Base of Jefferson Plain Vessel 72, exterior.

Figure 97. Base of Jefferson Plain Vessel 72, interior.

Obscured Stamping Patterns An unexpected discovery during the analysis of the vessels from Feature 118 was the presence of obscured stamping patterns, in addition to those noted on vessels where the patterns

89 were merely partially smoothed over (Figures 98 and 99). Several types of check stamping were found, along with at least one, perhaps two, complicated stamp patterns. The checks seem to be mostly small to medium sizes, ranging from roughly squared to diamond shaped. The complicated stamp patterns seem to consist of larger, nested diamond patterns some with a central “dimple.” These may be similar to the “diamond and dot motif” discussed by Chase (1998: 54) as being a Southeastern element found as far afield as Indiana, and known from Hopewellian contexts as well. Another complicated stamp pattern seems to be comprised of multiple curvilinear elements combined with small triangles or checks, similar to those found on some Swift Creek vessels (Snow 1998). These elements would tend to suggest a substantial temporal persistence for these patterns and indicate their continuing significance. This raises the questions of why the potters would use older paddle stamp patterns, then deliberately erase them from the surface of the vessel. Investigations show there are numerous reasons why paddle stamping, especially check stamping, would be retained after its outward appearance was no longer deemed desirable. The reasons lie in the invisible physical properties given to clay vessels by use of the paddle stamping technology. Haycorn, a potter who specializes in using local clays and Native American technologies to make reproductions of excavated vessels, states that paddle stamping helps achieve a uniform thickness for walls formed by coiling and also makes for a smoother, more durable bond between the coils. Stamping forces the particles within the clay into alignment, which increases the strength of the vessel while still allowing for relatively thin walls. Without the stamping, the wall would need to be much thicker to achieve the same strength. The same principle applies to surface finish. Stamping, by forcing compact alignment of particles, allows the surfaces to be both burnished more easily and incised with more definition (Marty Haycorn, personal communication 2005). Check stamping, like the modern waffle iron it occasionally resembles, promotes more even heat distribution throughout the vessel wall. This means that the vessel is less likely to break during firing and that it will be more durable and efficient when used, especially if it will be used as a cooking pot (Marty Haycorn, personal communication 2005). All of these are excellent reasons to continue to use stamping, particularly check stamping, even if the potter intends to remove all traces of the process from the surface. Therefore, evident or partially obscured check stamping of vessels found in historic contexts, particularly if the stamping is

90 on or near the base, could be expected as a practical consideration in making of the vessel, especially given the scarcity and weight of metal pots.

Figure 98. Obscured stamping on base of Jefferson Plain Vessel 25.

Figure 99. Obscured stamping on portion of Jefferson Plain Vessel 59.

What is more difﬁcult to explain is the appearance on vessels from Feature 118 of more than one stamping pattern, when the resulting patterns will be all but invisible on the

91 finished product. There is no technological reason to switch from a check stamp paddle to a complicated stamp paddle halfway through the process. The check stamping frequently seen in the basal portions could easily be continued on up the vessel walls. For some reason, the potter chose to change patterns. The answer may be that the potter had some attachment to the secondary complicated stamping pattern derived from tradition, or from the cultural or religious significance of the pattern. Previous study has shown that the paddles used were probably made by specialists and the patterns were highly significant. Some complicated stamp patterns are thought to be symbolic of clan totems and may well have been handed down from mother to daughter, given the matrilineal line of descent known from historic records (Chase 1998; Saunders 2000). As such, these paddles and their patterns could have remained important as symbols of family status and history, even after their significance as totems or religious symbols was lost following the acceptance of Spanish Christianity by their owners. It is also possible that the patterns had lost their significance and the paddles were used out of habit, with a resulting pattern application that was haphazard and mixed, not precise. There remains, however, the possibility that neither the patterns nor the things they symbolized had lost their meaning for the native people using them and that they were used despite the presence of Spanish priests. Their presence on vessels from a feature directly associated with priests could then be seen as highly significant and suggestive. They could mean that at least some of the people at the Mission site still kept their former beliefs and purposefully used the hidden patterns as an expression of those beliefs. It should be noted, however, that the deliberate smoothing out of both stamped and impressed patterns has a long history and is not necessarily the result of outside influences (Herbert 2002: 315). Further questions are raised by the fact that Cordell’s (2001) analysis of Old Mobile Pottery, presumably made by displaced Apalachee potters after the fall of the missions in 1704, found that the use of complicated stamping was one of the identifying characteristics of Apalachee pottery. The incised designs were no longer used, but rectilinear complicated stamping was retained. One of the patterns recovered was the familiar nested diamond motif. This could suggest either that paddle stamping was too integral a part of the Apalachee ceramic technology to be abandoned, or that some of the rectilinear patterns had a meaning, perhaps involving cultural identity, that continued to be significant despite changes in time, location, and

92 religion. Obviously, further careful study to determine, if possible, exactly which patterns were used, and precisely how and when they were used, could prove illuminating. The limited number of both check stamp and complicated stamp patterns found in Feature 118 suggests another area for future research. It might be possible to develop a “profile,” or “fingerprint” composed of these patterns for each collection, and thus establish an “identity” that could be used to track specific groups across time and space in much the same way that overt Swift Creek patterns have been used (Stoltman and Snow 1998; Stephenson et al. 2002: 347). It would be particularly interesting to establish such an identity for the Feature 118 collection and then compare it to one developed from aboriginal ceramics from the Patale site. The presence of identical paddle stamp patterns would provide yet more proof of continuity between the two sites.

93 CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The goal of reconstructing and/or identifying vessels found within the collection of 1,581 potsherds from Feature 118 was successful, with 124 separate vessels accounted for, a larger number than was expected. The information recovered as a result of reconstruction proves the value of the process. In most ceramic analysis, time constraints limit reconstruction attempts to only the most obvious and nearly complete vessels, with occasional special efforts being made when a particular vessel is deemed significant. The results of the different approach taken with the sherds from Feature 118 demonstrate that the standard approach to ceramic analysis precludes much valuable information. Without reconstruction, such elements as the flattened bottom of Jefferson Plain Vessel 2 and the unexpected combination of an annular base with aboriginal incised designs, as seen on O’Connell Incised Var. Point Washington Vessel 12, would not have been recognized in the assemblage. Now that they are known, these discoveries raise further questions and identify directions for future research. Is the flattened jar bottom a change in a traditional form, or are there many more such flat-bottomed vessels that have gone unnoticed in extant collections? Is the combination of incised design with an annular base unusual, or are all the relevant parts simply separated and categorized in ways that prevent their recognition? Only much more difficult reconstruction work with new and existing collections can provide the answer. My prediction that less, rather than more, change would be seen in Apalachee was disproved in one area but confirmed in others. The incised patterns found on the vessels did exhibit a great deal of change, pulling together design elements from diverse sources and using them in new ways. This prompted the proposal of a new type, O’Connell Incised, with twelve named varieties, for grog-tempered incised vessels of the late Mission period, as well as two other new grog-tempered types, O’Connell Punctated and O’Connell Salt/lime Ware. New varieties are also proposed for Leon Check Stamped and Jefferson Complicated Stamped. Underneath the new designs, however, most construction techniques, traditional vessel forms, and rim and lip decorations remained constant. Coiling followed by paddle stamping continued to be the method favored for making the vessels, which were fairly evenly divided between familiar forms of bowls and jars. As Nicklin (1971) points out, unless the advantages

94 of new techniques are obvious to the potter, it is unlikely that new methods will be used, and that seems borne out by this assemblage. Incising in the rim area was the favored style of decoration, with lip treatments so diverse that eleven kinds were documented. The most pervasive element in the collection was grog, or crushed pottery sherds, with 100 percent of the vessels having this kind of temper, a situation that has not been documented with collections from other Mission era contexts. This may be seen as the result of lack of access to other, perhaps preferred, tempering materials such as the more traditional sand and grit. Given the late dates for the O’Connell site, it is possible that its residents, including the potters, were mostly older people who had gathered around the mission seeking protection during uncertain times. After 1680, the increasing boldness of the Creek raiders from Georgia may have made it unwise to venture too far afield in search of tempering materials. The use of grog exclusively may thus be an adaptation to concerns about safety, which tells us a great deal about the nature of mission life during this later period. Perhaps some of the same factors led to the retention of the long-favored methods of construction, which included paddle stamping, and the obscured use of traditional symbols, as seen in the complicated stamp patterns on many vessels, may have been a comfort. Perhaps as Spanish authority was seen to weaken, it was felt that the presence of the old ceremonial symbols, like the alligator effigy seen on Jefferson Plain Vessel 57, and the possible fertility symbol seen on O’Connell Incised Var. Capitola Vessel 9, would offer additional protection of some kind. As Cordell’s (2001) analysis of the Apalachee pottery at Old Mobile showed, the use of rectilinear stamped patterns was one of the few elements that remained constant after 1704, despite the enormous changes elsewhere in the Apalachee world. As discussed earlier, perhaps the paddle stamping had become so ingrained as part of the construction of useful vessels that there was no reason to abandon the accepted technology. Or perhaps one simply holds on to things that are familiar and cherished in difficult days. Whatever the reason for the retention of these symbols, they confirm my hypothesis that the vessels would not show change due to the peoples’ conversion to Catholicism. Indeed, not a single design element that could be declared Christian in nature, or influenced by Christian symbolism, was found. This could be seen as an indication that, at least in Apalachee, many conversions to the new faith were more a matter of politics and convenience than a true change of heart. The continued use of complicated stamping and several elements of older incised

95 design patterns might also be seen as an attempt to revitalize former traditions by people who were two or three generations removed for them at a time when the new religion seemed to be faltering. The proposed comparisons with other Mission era collections that could safely be made, given the differences in methodology, showed some interesting results. The almost complete absence of Mission Red-filmed ware seems to confirm the interpretation of the O’Connell site as a frontier mission, exposed to outside native influences but relatively removed from contact with the Spanish settlement centers. This isolation is underscored by the fact that when the final attacks on the mission began in late June of 1704, it took five days for the administration at San Luis to become aware that Patale was in trouble (Hann 1988: 172). The absence of Alachua Cob Marked ware is probably a reflection of the distance from that area and, again, perhaps evidence of instability during this period that precluded trade with Alachua, as a few sherds of Alachua Cob Marked were found at the earlier Patale site, and in the pre-Mission Feature 84 context at the O’Connell site (Marrinan et al. 2000). A result that may be significant is the relatively high proportion of incised ware to plain. Forty-seven incised vessels were found, fully 37.9 percent of the collection. There were also one complicated stamped and two check stamped vessels, leaving 58.9 percent designated as the Plain ware that dominates most other collections. This number of incised vessels is greater than would be expected and is probably due to the association of Feature 118 with the convento. The relative lack of clearly utilitarian vessels may indicate there was another trash pit, which was closer to the cocina and more removed from the convento, which was used for these discards. It is also possible that these presumably heavier and sturdier vessels were simply more resistant to breakage. The analysis of design motif repetitions used in the incised bands on the rims of the pottery agreed with Shepard’s observation that seven or more repetitions of a design motif was the norm for Mesa Verde Black-on-white. Nine was the lowest number of complete design motif repetitions observed here. The results did not agree with Bunzel’s findings for the Zuni, whose design motif repetitions are multiples of three, despite the ritual significance of the number four in their culture. On the twelve Feature 118 vessels for which calculations were possible, eight seemed to have designs repeated in multiples of four, a highly symbolic number in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex as well. The fact that four of the vessels do not seem

96 to follow this pattern is probably the result of all the numbers used in the calculations being estimates, and the potters’ difficulties in translating ideals into actualities. These results seem to hold for all varieties of O’Connell Incised, so there would seem to be no correlation between a specific pattern and the number of repetitions. The number of repetitions actually seen on the vessel is no doubt a factor of both the bowl’s size and the width of the pattern being used. As just noted, the potter’s skill and familiarity with the design motif are also factors. This continued use of the base number four in patterning might suggest that the potters still allowed for traditional symbolic considerations in their work, even when these elements are not immediately visible. Further research into the patterns of design repetitions on Mission period pottery would determine whether or not this tendency holds true for other collections. The presence of several unique vessels with possible high status connections could suggest the presence of elite individuals among the group directly involved with the friar’s maintenance or household. As the friars, especially in more isolated locations, depended on their congregations for food, firewood, and general living assistance (Marrinan 2002), it would be natural for them to turn to elite persons among that group, given their own special status as part of the infrastructure of Spanish rule. As noted above, this would also be consistent with the reported early affinity between the upper class families and the Spanish friars. Once having committed themselves to the Spaniards, these people might have found it difficult to disengage when the political situation deteriorated. With most of the able-bodied men frequently called away to work elsewhere and many of the younger ones perhaps deciding to leave Apalachee altogether, it is possible that the friar found himself being tended largely by a few older women from elite families. From the patterns found on the pottery they used, it seems possible that these women had ties, perhaps family ties, to both the Lower Creeks near Ocmulgee Fields and to groups further west in Florida. Some vessel forms, like the rounded shoulder bowl, and several incised designs, such as varieties Capitola, Aucilla, Point Washington, and Marsh Island, are seen in nearly identical versions of the Lower Creek Ocmulgee Old Fields site (Mason 2005) in central Georgia. Some late period burials there, which are consistent in style with Florida Mission Era interments and different from earlier Creek burials, raise the possibility of missionized Indians living at that site. Sherds of majolica, such as San Luis Polychrome, recovered at Ocmulgee Old Fields confirm contact between the two groups during the Mission era (Mason 2005:87),

97 although it is impossible to say whether the majolica was acquired by trade or looting. Possible connections with groups to the west are suggested by the presence of Fort Walton type incised design on Vessel 34 and the double-globed, form of Vessel 71, as well as the Hogtown Bayou - like filled incision seen on Vessel 37. The over-all picture of mission life that emerges is one of a much-reduced, isolated community that included elite individuals, trying to make the best of difficult times. Among those gathered together to seek security at the Patale Mission site may have been some Timucua from the east, as well as some people from the Yamasee group (Hann 1988). Some of these may have come when the Creek raids in the areas to the east became more frequent after 1680; others may have been forced to re-locate as the Spaniards consolidated missions (Hann 1988). Whether the presence of these other people affected the incised designs on the pottery is not known. The mixed group may have consisted mainly of older people, unable to travel far, along with some children and those younger adults bound by ties that prevented their leaving. Tragically, all were doomed to slavery or death, with some possibly being carried back to Ocmulgee Fields, their Apalachee origins revealed there only by their burial patterns (Mason 2005). The rest of the people from the O’Connell Mission site, like the mission buildings themselves, simply disappeared, leaving few traces behind for us to use in trying to understand what they once were. In less than three generations, confronted with superior technologies, and factors of biology and politics from the larger world, the people of the O’Connell Mission site saw everything in their world slowly vanish. The final days were an extended nightmare of torture, murder, and wanton destruction. Their villages and farms, their friends and families, their religion, traditions, and culture -- all were lost to them. If history is to be believed, every group will eventually face the same circumstances. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from their experience, perhaps not. But we can, at the very least, respect what they did while trying to adapt. Some of those attempts to adjust to a changing world are reflected in the ceramics found in Feature 118, if we look at them in the proper light.

98 Lake Jackson. and APPENDIX A APPENDIX O’Connell Incised Varieties Marsh Island O’Connell Incised Varieties Figure 100. Reference chart for

99 Lafayette. and 1.00 mm lines Grog-tempered O’Connell Incised Varieties Aucilla, Turkey Roost, Lamar, Aucilla, Turkey O’Connell Incised Varieties Figure 101. Reference chart for

100 O’Connell. and 1.00 mm lines Grog-tempered O’Connell Incised Varieties Capitola, Patale, O’Connell Incised Varieties Figure 102. Reference chart for

101 Fort Walton. and 1.00 mm lines Grog-tempered O’Connell Incised Varieties Point Washington, Englewood, Point Washington, O’Connell Incised Varieties Figure 103. Reference chart for

102 APPENDIX B VESSEL ANALYSIS SHEETS

The following are the forms used in recording all the data relating to each vessel.

103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, David G., and Robert J. Mainfort, Jr. (editors) 2002 The Woodland Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Boyd, Mark F., Hale G. Smith, and John W. Grifﬁn 1951 Here They Once Stood: The Tragic End of the Apalachee Missions. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Bunzel, R. 1972 The Pueblo Potter: A Study of Creative Imagination in Primitive Art. Reprinted. Dover, New York. Originally published 1929.

Bushnell, Amy Turner 1994 Situado and Sabana: Spain’s Support system for the Presidio and Mission Provinces of Florida. Anthropological Papers, No. 74. American Museum of Natural History, University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Carr, Raymond (editor) 2000 Spain: A History. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Chase, David W. 1998 Swift Creek: Lineage and Diffusion. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 48-60. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Cordell, Ann 2001 Continuity and Change in Apalachee Pottery Manufacture: A Technological Comparison of Apalachee-Style and Colono Ware Pottery from French Colonial Old Mobile and Mission San Luis de Talimali. University of South Alabama, Archaeological Monograph 9, Mobile.

Crowson, Amy, and Robert Hight 1999 The Analysis of the Colonoware from Features #116 and #118 at the O’Connell Mission Site (8LE157). Manuscript on ﬁle, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Deagan, Kathleen A. 1983 The Mestizo Minority: Archaeological Patterns of Intermarriage. In Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community, edited by Kathleen A Deagan, pp. 99-124. Academic Press, New York. 1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800, Vol. I: Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

221 1993 St. Augustine and the Mission Frontier. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 87-110. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2002 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800, Vol. II: Portable Personal Possessions. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

DeGrummond, Elizabeth Chambless 1997 Beads from the O’Connell Site (8LE157): A Study of Bead Chronology and the Seventeenth-Century Spanish Missions of Apalachee Province. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Dobyns, Henry F. 1983 Their Numbers Became Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Gannon, Michael 1993 Florida: A Short History. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Hann, John H. 1987 Apalachee: Land Between the Rivers. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1995 A History of the Timucuan Indians and Missions. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Hann, John H., and Bonnie G. McEwan 1998 The Apalachee Indians and Mission San Luis. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Harris, Norma J. 2003 Native Americans. In Presidio Santa María de Galve: A Struggle for Survival in Colonial Spanish Pensacola, edited by Judith A Bense, pp. 227-314. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Heide, Gregory H. 1999 Archaeological Analysis and Interpretation of the Northwest Yard of the Patale Mission Site (8LE152). Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Herbert, Joseph M. 2002 A Woodland Period Prehistory of Coastal North Carolina. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 292-317. The University Press of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

222 Hudson, Charles 1973 The Southeastern Indians. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Johnstone, Seth 2000 An Analysis of Indigenous Ceramics from the Controlled Surface Collection at the O’Connell Mission Site (8LE157). Manuscript on ﬁle, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Jones, B. Calvin 1971 A Semi-subterranean Structure of Mission San Joseph de Ocuya, Jefferson County, Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 3: 1-50. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Jones, B. Calvin, and Gary Shapiro 1990 Nine Mission Sites in Apalachee. In Columbian Consequences 2: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 491-509. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Jones, B. Calvin, John H. Hann, and John F. Scarry 1994 San Pedro y San Pablo de Patale: A Seventeenth-Century Spanish Mission in Leon County, Florida. Florida Archaeology, No. 5. Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Kreiser, Paul P., Richard Edging, and Steven R. Ahler 2003 The Woodland Period in the Northern Ozarks of Missouri. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 83-133. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Kubler, George 1948 Mexican Architecture of the Sixteenth Century, 2 Vols. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1972 The Religious Architecture of New Mexico in the Colonial Period and Since the American Occupation. Reprinted. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Originally published 1940, Taylor Museum, Colorado Springs.

Litto, Gertrude 1976 South American Folk Pottery: Traditional Technique from Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Chile, and Columbia. Watson-Gupill Publications, New York.

Marrinan, Rochelle A. 2002 The Domestic Life of Friars in Seventeenth Century Missions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Biloxi.

223 Marrinan, Rochelle A. and Stephen C. Bryne 1986 Apalachee Mission Archaeological Survey Final Report, Vol. I. Manuscript on ﬁle, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Marrinan, Rochelle A., James A. Halpern, Gregory M. Heide, and Chelsea Blackmore 2001 Recent Investigations at the O’Connell Mission Site (8LE157), Leon County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3): 224-249.

Mason, Carol I. 2005 The Archaeology of Ocmulgee Old Fields, Macon, Georgia. Reprinted. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Originally published 1963.

McEwan, Bonnie G. (editor) 1993 The Spanish Missions of La Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

Nicklin, Keith 1971 Stability and Innovation in Pottery Manufacture. World Archaeology: 3(1): 13-48.

Otto, John S., and Russell Lewis 1975 A Formal and Functional Analysis of San Marcos Pottery from Site SA - 16 - 23, St. Augustine. Florida Department of State, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 4: 95 - 117. Tallahassee.

Penders, Thomas E. 2004 Bone, Antler, Tooth, and Shell Artifacts from the Shields Mound Site (8DU12). The Florida Anthropologist 58(3-4): 239-253.

Rice, Prudence M. 2005 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Rye, Owen S. 1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C.

Saunders, Rebecca 2002 Stability and Change in Guale Indian Pottery, A. D. 1300-1702. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

224 Scarry, C. Margaret 1996 Plant Production and Procurement in Apalachee Province. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 357-375. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Scarry, John F. 1984 A Proposed Revision of the Fort Walton Ceramic Typology: A Type-Variety System. The Florida Anthropologist 3(3): 199-233.

Shepard, Anna O. 1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 609, Washington, D.C.

Smith, Hale G. 1948 Two Historical Archaeological Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13 (4): 313-319. 1951 Leon Jefferson Ceramic Types. In Here They Once Stood: The Tragic End of the Apalachee Missions by Mark F. Boyd, Hale G. Smith, and John F. Grifﬁn, pp. 163-174. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Snow, Frankie 2003 Swift Creek Design Investigations: The Hartford Case. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 61-98. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Snow, Frankie, and Keith Stephenson 1997 Swift Creek Designs: A Toll for Monitoring Interaction. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 99-111. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Stephenson, Keith, Judith A. Bense, and Frankie Snow 2006 Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek of the South Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert F. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 318-351. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Stoltman, James B., and Frankie Snow 1990 Cultural Interaction within Swift Creek Society: People, Pots, and Paddles. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 130-153. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Thomas, David Hurst (editor) 1990 Columbian Consequences, Vol. 2. Archaeological Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

225 Vernon, Richard, and Ann S. Cordell 1993 A Distributional and Technological Study of Apalachee Colono-Ware from San Luis de Talimali. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 418-441. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Weber, David J. 1992 The Spanish Frontier in North America. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Weisman, Brent Richards 1992 Excavations of the Franciscan Frontier: Archaeology of the Fig Springs Mission. The University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

White, Nancy Marie (editor) 2007 Gulf Coast Archaeology: The Southeastern United States and Mexico. The University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Widmer, Randolph J. 2008 The Woodland Archaeology of South Florida. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 373-397. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Willey, Gordon R. 1972 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Reprinted. AMS Press, Inc., New York. Originally published 1949, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 113, Washington, D.C.

Williams, Mark, and Daniel T. Elliott (editors) 1998 A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Wood, Zak 1999 Analysis of Decorated Rim Sherds from Feature #116 and 118. Manuscript on ﬁle, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Worth, John E. 1992 Appendix D. Revised Aboriginal ceramics Typology for the Timucua Mission Province. In Excavations on the Franciscan Frontier: Archaeology of the Fig Springs Mission by Brent Richards Weisman, pp. 188-205. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

226 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jayne Talley Wallace is a Georgia native who grew up in Florida. She is a graduate of the University of Florida. After spending several years as a free lance writer, she began assisting her late husband with both his textbook and his ethnobotanical research in the Amazon. This work continued for twelve years. Now self-employed, she is the mother of two sons and grandmother of two girls.

227