A CUBAN ORIGIN FOR GLADES POTTERY?

A PROVOCATIVE HYPOTHESIS REVISITED

Vernon James Knight, Jr.

Department of Anthropology

University of Alabama

and

John E. Worth

Division of Anthropology and Archaeology

University of West Knight and Worth, page 1

Archaeological interpretations invoking prehistoric contact or migration between Florida and the Greater Antilles have a long history. Noteworthy early claims of such contacts include those by Fewkes (1904), Harrington (1921), Gower (1927), and Lovén (1935). More recent archaeological evaluations of possible Florida-Antillean contact, including those by such luminaries as Stone (1939), Griffin (1943), Rouse (1949), Willey (1949), and Sears (1977), have continued up to the present, and have involved several time periods and categories of material culture. Sturtevant (1960) has considered the problem from an ethnological point of view.

In this paper we restrict our comments to a highly specific connection first proposed in the 1940s. It is based on an intriguing similarity between geometrically incised pottery of the

Glades tradition of southern Florida with the incised pottery of the Cantabria tradition in south- central Cuba. Pertinent similarities between the Glades and Cantabria pottery traditions include open bowls incised near the rim with designs consisting of arches and zigzags. Regarding these similarities, the most profound position offered to date suggests that Glades material culture owes its existence to a northward migration from central Cuba. Our purpose in revisiting this suggested connection is to evaluate it based on improved chronologies in both areas.

The Glades and Cantabria Traditions of South Florida and Cuba

Pottery of the Glades tradition was formally defined by John Goggin, expanding on a term first used by Matthew Stirling (1936) and fleshed out by Goggin’s own fieldwork (Goggin

1940, 1941, n.d.). Portrayed as an entirely indigenous Florida tradition (Goggin 1949), the

Glades chronological sequence was initially developed based in large part on Goggin’s 1944 work at Upper Matecumbe Key (Goggin and Sommer 1949). Despite refinements and Knight and Worth, page 2 clarifications based on an extensive series of subsequent radicarbon dates and additional excavations at other sites, Goggin’s early estimates of chronological boundaries between ceramic phases and sub-phases seem to have been no more than a century off the mark (see Widmer

1980:75; Griffin 2002:141-144; and below).

At roughly the same time as the Glades tradition was coming into focus as a result of

Goggin’s work, the earliest publications illustrating pottery of the Cantabria tradition of south- central Cuba appeared. Beginning in 1930, three major late-period agricultural sites in the Jagua

Bay area, near Cienfuegos, were explored by the Grupo Guamá, consisting of a number of dedicated amateurs under the direction of professional scholars Oswaldo Morales Patiño and

René Herrera Fritot. The first site explored was Cayo Ocampo, on an island of the same name in

Jagua Bay, during five expeditions between 1930 and 1946 (Morales Patiño et al. 1947). In 1944 the same pottery complex found at Cayo Ocampo was discovered at the important Cantabria site, located on a prominent hill overlooking the Arimao River Valley (González Muñoz and Avella

1946). A third site with similar material culture, El Abra de Castellon, was documented in the upper Arimao Valley in 1950 (Sanjurjo 1950). Prior to this time, agricultural, pottery-producing sites were known only for eastern Cuba. Consequently, these Jagua Bay area sites were announced as the westernmost expression of a pottery-making culture on the island (and by implication the closest to Florida). Line drawings of characteristic sherds by Herrera, showing incised, appliqué, and punctated rims, were published in the reports on Cayo Ocampo and

Cantabria. Since that time, some 30 sites yielding this pottery style tradition, now known as

Cantabria, have been documented in south-central Cuba (Angelbello and Delgado 2003).

Initial Comparison of Glades and Cantabria Ceramics Knight and Worth, page 3

In the first direct comparison of Glades and Cantabria pottery, in 1949 Irving Rouse called attention to the similarity of incised designs by publishing Herrera’s illustrations of Cayo

Ocampo rim sherds together with photographs of corresponding Glades rim sherds from Florida.

While Rouse felt that the similarity was worth following up, nonetheless he fell short of invoking direct contact, taking the position instead that the differences between the two pottery complexes outweighed the similarities. He noted, for example, that the Cantabria complex involved considerable appliqué decoration that was completely missing in Glades. As an alternative explanation for the similarities, he suggested that the similar incised designs in the two areas were due to borrowing from a shared Archaic background (Rouse 1949:130-131).

With serendipetous timing, in December of the same year John Goggin visited Cuba with the intention of pursuing comparative studies. During that visit Goggin was able to visit with

Herrera and view first-hand the pottery from Cayo Ocampo and Cantabria then in the Museo

Guamá, toward which he reportedly showed the greatest interest (anonymous 1950; Herrera

1964:20).

Some years later Ripley Bullen, together with Don D. Laxson, published further side-by- side comparisons of incised Cantabria and Glades rim sherds, the latter from the Laxson’s excavations in the Hialeah midden near Miami (Laxon 1953a, 1953b). Bullen and Laxson noted that the pertinent Glades material came from a Glades II horizon, which at that time had an estimated end date of A.D. 1125, whereas the Cuban material had an estimated beginning date of

A.D. 1200. Although these dates were merely rough estimates, Bullen and Laxson (1954) concluded, at odds with Rouse, that the dates were “too close to each other to rule out the possibility of communication between Florida and Cuba at about 1200 A.D.” In a broader Knight and Worth, page 4 treatment of cultural contacts between Florida and the West Indies published in the 1970s,

Bullen twice reiterated his earlier comparison of incised designs, calling the similarity “tenuous but a little persuasive,” and implying that contact was made “on a fairly simple level technologically or, perhaps one should say, aesthetically,” perhaps the result of casual contact by fishermen (Bullen 1974:156, 1976).

Rouse himself revisited the issue in 1958, pointing out that the pottery of central Cuba

Cuba (which he then equated with his Baní culture) did have “certain highly specific resemblances” to Glades pottery. On this occasion he again expressed his doubts by noting the mismatch in the level of cultural development between the two areas, early Glades belonging in his opinion at the Marginal (i.e., Archaic) level.

From the Cuban perspective it was René Herrera Fritot who took up the matter of resemblances between Cantabria and Glades traits. Herrera, the leading light in the Grupo

Guamá, had discussed the matter with Goggin in Havana in 1949. Having reviewed publications on Glades material by Goggin, Willey, Rouse, Laxson, and Bullen, Herrera saw convincing evidence of direct culture contact with central Cuba, including shared elements going substantially beyond pottery motifs (Herrera 1964:19-21, 27-28). For Herrera, the list of common elements included arch and zigzag pottery motifs, crisscross incising obique to the rim, wide-mouthed shallow bowls with serially punctated rims, simple button-shaped and horn- shaped lugs, shell gouges, Oliva beads, thick conch shell picks, petaloid celts of stone, and longitudinally grooved stones.

Based on this evidence, Herrera grouped the Cantabria and the Glades traditions together as “Early Taíno,” based on the simplicity of their pottery design features, with a beginning date in Cuba as early as 350 A.D. (Herrera 1964:Fig. 1). As to the primary direction of the migration Knight and Worth, page 5 responsible for this positive relationship, Herrera deemed it still to be determined, although he particularly favored a migration from the islands toward peninsular Florida for reasons he said were largely geographical (1964:27). As far as we know, this provocative challenge to the North

American orthodoxy, that the Glades tradition is essentially an Antillean transplant, has gone without comment from the North American side until now. In our opinion, it deserves a review in the light of improved descriptions and chronologies in both Cuba and Florida.

Chronology of Glades Tradition Decorated Pottery

During the past half century, regional temporal sequences for Florida have become far more clearly defined and delineated, both from a spatial and chronological point of view (e.g.

Widmer 1988: 67-89; Cordell 1992; Milanich 1994: 301; Griffin 2002: 73-93, 123-160). The initial appearance of a variety of incised ceramic decorative types during the Glades I late sub- period (ca. A.D. 500-750) was followed by a flourescence of such decorations during the Glades

IIa and IIb periods (from A.D. 750-1100). Decorative types included Gordon Pass Incised,

Sanibel Incised, Fort Drum Incised, Cane Patch Incised, Opa Locka Incised, Key Largo Incised,

Miami Incised, and Matecumbe Incised, marked by a wide range of incised geometric patterns including line-filled triangles, arcades, and chevrons, in addition to a number of punctated and linear-punctated decorative types as well. These diverse decorative styles, which co-existed for a while with late Weeden Island and Englewood ceramics to the north along the Gulf coast, largely disappeared after A.D. 1100, however, and after a century without decoration at all (Glades IIc), they were only replaced by a more limited range of simple parallel-line incised decorations

(Surfside Incised) which persisted from roughly A.D. 1200 to 1400 (Glades IIIa). Not only are Knight and Worth, page 6 the incised decorations from this period markedly dissimilar from the earlier flourescence of geometric designs between A.D. 500 and 1100, but shortly after A.D. 1400 incised decoration disappeared once again from South Florida assemblages, never to return as an important element of indigenous ceramic assemblages. Vessel decoration after this point was normally restricted to the rim notching characteristic of the type Glades Tooled, which itself bears similarities to the

Pinellas assemblages of the Safety Harbor region to the north along the Gulf coast.

Chronology of Cantabria Tradition Decorated Pottery

As to the dating of the Cantabria tradition in south-central Cuba, we now have the benefit of a chronological sequence afforded by the excavation of a stratified site, Loma del Convento.

This important site was discovered in 1974 by Cuban archaeologist Alfredo Rankin on a high ridge overlooking the Arimao River Valley. Since its discovery, Loma del Convento has seen three rounds of excavation, the first by Rankin in 1974 and 1975 (Rankin 1980), the second by

Lourdes Domínguez in 1985 (Dominguez 1991), and the third by a joint Cuban-Soviet team from 1986 through 1988, headed on the Cuban side by Jorge Calvera and on the Russian side by

Vladimir Bashilov. It is Bashilov and Golenko’s paper, “The Periodization of Subtaíno Culture in South-Central Cuba,” published in the journal Russian Archaeology (1992), that together with four laboratory dates secured by Cuban archaeologists, gives us the clearest picture of pottery change within the Cantabria tradition.

The time span involved, following Rodríguez Matamoros’s (2004) interpretation of the laboratory dates, is approximately A.D. 1300 – 1550, or about 250 years. Miriam Celaya and

Pedro Pablo Godo (2000) have argued, on stylistic grounds, that Cantabria tradition is intrusive Knight and Worth, page 7 in central Cuba and reflects a migration history having its origins in earlier agroalfarero-stage settlements in Granma province in eastern Cuba. In South Florida, a post A.D. 1300 dating aligns the Cantabria tradition in part with Glades IIIa and IIIb. Bashilov and Golenko describe three stratigraphic horizons, labeled Horizons I through III. In general, modeled decoration is dominant over incising in the earliest Cantabria pottery, whereas in the latest horizon, at a time contemporaneous with early Spanish contact, the trend is reversed and incising is overwhelmingly dominant over appliqué decoration. Ignoring the manner of decoration and focusing just on the two dominant motifs, arcades and zigzags, we find that the two have complementary distributions over time. In the earliest horizon, decoration is almost exclusively arcaded, whereas zigzags, which are arguably a stylistic simplification of the arcades, are dominant in the latest horizon.

Conclusions

Returning to the original comparison made during the 1940s, it is now abundantly clear that the Glades material selected for comparison, with its incised arcades and simple chevrons, dates to the Glades IIa and IIb periods of ca. A.D. 750 – 1100. In this dating, Bullen and

Laxson’s assessment in 1954 was essentially correct. However, the material that inspired the comparison on the Cuban side, being from the Cayo Ocampo and Cantabria sites, we now know dates to the latest horizon in the Cantabria tradition, El Convento III, essentially contemporaneous with early Spanish contact in the sixteenth century. If we look for the earliest appearance of incised arcade and zigzag designs in south-central Cuba, according to the Russian data we find that the former does occur in minor amounts and the latter in trace amounts in El Knight and Worth, page 8

Convento I, which nonetheless does not appear to predate ca. A.D. 1300. Thus, Herrera’s assessment of the Cayo Ocampo and Cantabria pottery as “early Taíno” on a par with comparable Glades pottery was considerably in error in the light of dates available today. Over time, it has become increasingly evident that the heyday of geometrically-incised ceramics in deep southern Florida was considerably earlier than that represented by the Cantabria ceramic tradition in the Arimao valley in southern Cuba. At least two centuries, and perhaps as many as four or five, separate the sherds that were illustrated together in the initial comparison.

In any consideration of the potential Antillean origins of Glades material culture, in whole or in part, it seems pertinent to point out that in south-central Cuba, the pottery with which we are concerned is associated with Arawakan speech communities, intensive montones-style agriculture emphasizing bitter manioc, sweet potatoes, and maize, specialized root crop processing equipment including clay griddles and Codakia shell scrapers, and generically Taíno ritual gear including zemi effigies. All of these features are foreign to the Glades tradition at a date of A.D. 750 – 1100. In Cuba, Cantabria pottery is widely thought to have broader affiliations with the Meillacan subseries with origins in Hispaniola (Celaya 1995).

Before entering a final verdict we must report a loose end. Entirely apart from the similarities reported in the incised decoration on the exterior of bowls, Ripley Bullen has called attention to certain incised tabular lugs found especially in the Florida Keys. Regarding these,

Bullen suggested that they are more reminiscent of pottery from the Greater Antilles than to anything else in Florida (1974:157). The incised lugs in question are chronologically later than the geometrically incised bowls of the Glades tradition already discussed, pertaining to the type

Surfside Incised of the Glades IIIa period, which dates to circa 1200-1400 A.D. Bullen could not find any close Cuban equivalents for these incised lugs, however, and neither can we. Knight and Worth, page 9

Nonetheless, we must report that in the time that has passed since the initial comparisons were made in the 1940s, another late ceramic culture has been reported on the north Cuban coast, farther west and much closer to peninsular Florida than the Cantabria phenomenon of the south- central coast. This Cuban archaeological culture is called El Morillo, and has been documented at four sites in Matanzas and Havana provinces. The type site has yielded a single radiocarbon date in the fourteenth century, contemporaneous with Glades IIIa, and much to the point, its ceramics do include incised lugs. However, based on the published illustrations of El Morrilo incised lugs, they have a strongly curvilinear aspect and do not provide a convincing prototype for the Surfside Incised lugs from the Keys. According to Godo (2005), El Morillo lugs are zoomorphic in character, relating to frog effigies unlike anything so far reported for South

Florida.

To return to the comparison that initiated this discussion in the 1940s, what is perhaps most important to recognize is that regardless of any visual similarities between the incised geometric designs on Cuban pottery in the Cantabria tradition and Florida pottery in the Glades tradition, current archaeological evidence suggests that the two are separated in time by two centuries at minimum. By the time that indigenous Cuban populations began to craft their ceramics in the elaborate Cantabria tradition after A.D. 1300, South Florida groups were no longer making comparable incised decorations on their vessels. Had a fifteenth-century Cuban

Indian walked into a typical South Florida village at that time, he would have seen virtually nothing familiar in the typical household assemblage of a Florida Indian, in which the pottery was essentially undecorated below the vessel rim. Conversely, had a Florida Indian visited Cuba during the fifteenth-century, he or she would have found nothing even remotely similar to the

Glades Tooled rim decorations among the bewildering diversity of Cantabrian incised, rim- Knight and Worth, page 10 modeled, and especially appliqué decorative styles (the last of which shows not even the remotest similarity to anything at all in the entire South Florida prehistoric chronology). Viewed in the proper temporal context, therefore, ceramic traditions from South Florida and Cuba appear to have essentially nothing in common, providing no reason to posit any degree of direct or sustained cultural contact across the Florida Straits. Only after the arrival of the Spanish in the early sixteenth century did direct visitation and migration begin to occur, and more often than not on Spanish sailing vessels instead of oceangoing canoes (e.g., Worth 2004). Thus a Cuba-

Florida connection was forged in the colonial era, but not, as some have suggested, much earlier on a Glades II horizon.

Our disposal of one detail does not, of course, rule out the possibility of occasional contact between Florida and Cuba at other times in prehistory, perhaps especially, as Rouse

(1949) supposed, during the Archaic. Given the frequency with which Cuban archaeologists invoke southeastern North American connections in their discussions of Cuban flaked stone industries (e.g., Dacal and Rivera 1996; Febles 1991), much remains to be settled on this issue and it invites further review. We leave that, however, for future deliberation.

References Cited

Angelbello I., Silvia T., and Leonel Delgado C.

2003 La Región Arqueológica Centro-Sur de Cuba: Apuntes para su Estudio. El Caribe

Arqueológico 7:16-23.

Anonymous Knight and Worth, page 11

1950 Visita del Profesor Goggin. Revista de Arqueología y Etnología, 2da Epoca, Año V, Nos.

10-11:12. Havana.

Bashilov, Viktor, and Viktor Golenko

1992 КВопросуоПериодизации“КуьтурыСубтаино” вЦентральнойЧастиКубы: По

КерамическимМатериаламРаскопокПоселенияЭльКонвенто[The Problem of the

Periodization of Subtaíno Culture in South-Central Cuba: The Ceramic Material from the Site of

El Convento]. Russian Archaeology 2:240-258 (reprint).

Bullen, Ripley P.

1974 Were there Pre-Columbian Cultural Contacts between Florida and the West Indies: The

Archaeological Evidence. The Florida Anthropologist 27:149-160.

1976 Did Paleolithic, Archaic, or Formative Man enter the Antilles from Florida? in Actas del

XLI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Vol. 3, pp. 502-599. , D.F.

Bullen, Ripley P. and Donald D. Laxson

1954 Some Incised Pottery from Cuba and Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 7:23-25.

Celaya González, Miriam

1995 Decoraciones Ceramicas. In Taíno: Arqueología de Cuba. CD-ROM edited by J. Febles.

CEDISAC. Centro Nacional Editor de Discos Compactos, University of Colima, Mexico.

Celaya González, Miriam, and Pedro Pablo Godo

2000 “Llora-Lluvia” Expresiones Mítico-Artísticas en la Alfarería Aborigen. El Caribe

Arqueológico 4:70-84.

Cordell, Ann S. Knight and Worth, page 12

1992 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability in Southwest Florida. In Culture and

Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, ed. by W.H. Marquardt and C. Payne, pp. 105-189.

Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph No. 1, Gainesville.

Dacal Moure, Ramón, and Manuel Rivero de la Calle

1996 Art and Archaeology of Pre-Columbian Cuba. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.

Domínguez, Lourdes S.

1991 Arqueología del Centro-Sur de Cuba. Editorial Academia, Havana.

Febles Dueñas, Jorge

1991 Estudio Comparativo de las Industrias de la Piedra Tallada de Aguas Verdes (Baracoa) y

Playita (Matanzas). Probable Relación de Estas Industrias con Otras del SE de los Estados

Unidos. In Arqueología de Cuba y Otras Áreas Antillanas, edited by M. A. Rodríguez, pp. 312-

371. Editorial Academia, Havana.

Fewkes, J. Walter

1904 Prehistoric Culture of Cuba. American Anthropologist 6:585-598.

Godo, Pedro

2005 Mythical Expressions in the Ceramic Art of Agricultural Groups in the Prehistoric

Antilles. In Dialogues in Cuban Archaeology, edited by L. A. Curet, S. L. Dawdy, and G. La

Rosa Corzo, pp. 147-162. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Goggin, John M.

1940 The Distribution of Pottery Ware in the Glades Archaeological Area of South Florida.

New Mexico Anthropologist 3:36-40.

1941 Some Problems of the Glades Archaeological Area, Florida. Southeastern Archaeological

Conference Newsletter 2:24-26. Knight and Worth, page 13

1949 Cultural Traditions in Florida Prehistory. In The Florida Indian and His Neighbors, edited by J. W. Griffin, pp. 13-44. Inter-American Center, Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida.

n.d. The Archaeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida, circa 1949, with additions. Ms. on file, Southeast Archaeological Center, , Tallahassee.

Goggin, John M., and Frank H. Sommer III

1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Yale University Publications in

Anthropology 72. New Haven.

González Muñoz, Antonio and Ignacio Avello

1946 Asiento Cantabria: Descubrimiento del Residuario de Cultura Alfarera Mas Occidental de

Cuba. Revista de Arqueología y Etnología, 2da Epoca, Año I, No. 3:11-27. Havana.

Gower, Charlotte

1927 The Northern and Southern Affiliations of Antilles Culture. American Anthropological

Association Memoirs 35.

Griffin, John W.

1943 The Antillean Problem in Florida Archaeology. Florida Historical Quarterly 22:86-91.

Griffin, John W. (edited by J. T. Milanich and J. J. Miller)

2002 Archaeology of the Everglades. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Harrington, Mark R.

1921 Cuba Before Columbus. 2 vols. Indian Notes and Monographs. Museum of the American

Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.

Herrera Fritot, René

1964 Estudio de las Hachas Antillanas: Creacion de Indices Axiales para las Petaloides.

Empresa Consolidada de Artes Gráficas, Havana, Cuba. Knight and Worth, page 14

Laxson, Dan D.

1953a Stratigraphy at a Hialeah Midden. The Florida Anthropologist 6:1-8.

1953b Further Excavations at Hialeah, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 6:95-99.

Lovén, Sven

1935 Origins of the Tainan Culture, West Indies. Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, Goteborg,

Sweden.

Milanich, Jerald T.

1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Morales Patiño, Oswaldo, René Herrera Fritot, Fernando Royo Guardia, Antonio González

Muñoz, Ignacio Avello, and Antonio Leiva

1947 Cayo Ocampo, Historia de un Cayo: Estudio de Una de las Isletas de la Bahía de

Cienfuegos, Determinando el Emplazamiento del Poblado Indio que Encontraron los Españoles.

Revista de Arqueología y Etnología, 2da Epoca, Año II, Nos. 4-5:55-123. Havana.

Rankin Santander, Alfredo

1980 La Cerámica del Sitio Arqueológico El Convento. In Cuba Arqueológica II, pp. 115-138.

Editorial Oriente, Santiago de Cuba.

Rodríguez Matamoros, Marcos E.

2004 Historia de Cienfuegos: Aborígines de Jagua. Ediciones Mecenas, Cienfuegos, Cuba.

Rouse, Irving

1949 The Southeast and the West Indies. In The Florida Indian and His Neighbors, edited by J.

W. Griffin, pp. 117-137. Inter-American Center, Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida. Knight and Worth, page 15

1958 Archaeological Similarities between the Southeast and the West Indies. In Florida

Anthropology, edited by C. Fairbanks, pp. 3-14. Florida Anthropological Society Publications,

No. 5, Tallahassee.

Sanjurjo, José

1950 Descubimiento Arqueológico en el “Abra” de Castellón, Cumanayagua, Cienfuegos.

Revista de Arqueología y Etnología, 2da Epoca, Año V, Nos. 10-11:11-12. Havana.

Sears, William H.

1977 Seaborn Contacts between Early Cultures in Lower Southeastern and

Middle through South America. In The Sea and the Pre-Columbian World, edited by E. P.

Benson, pp. 1-13. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Stirling, Matthew W.

1936 Florida Cultural Affiliations in Relation to Adjacent Areas. In Essays in Anthropology in

Honor of Alfred Louis Kroeber, edited by R.H. Lowie, pp. 351-357. University of

Press, Berkeley.

Stone, Doris

1939 The Relationship of Florida Archaeology to That of Middle America. Florida Historical

Quarterly 17:211-218.

Sturtevant, William C.

1960 The Significance of Ethnological Similarities between Southeastern North America and the Antilles. In Papers in Caribbean Archaeology, compiled by S. W. Mintz. Yale University

Publications in Anthropology Nos. 57-64. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New

Haven.

Widmer, Randolph J. Knight and Worth, page 16

1980

1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida

Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Willey, Gordon R.

1949 The Florida Indian and His Neighbors: A Summary. In The Florida Indian and His

Neighbors, edited by J. W. Griffin, pp. 139-167. Inter-American Center, Rollins College, Winter

Park, Florida.

Worth, John E.

2004 A History of Southeastern Indians in Cuba, 1513-1823. Paper presented at the 61st

Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, October

21-23, 2004.

Glades IIa - IIb incised pottery

Miami Incised

Key Largo Incised

Images courtesy Ann Cordell, Florida Matecumbe Incised Museum of Natural History Florida vs. Cuban lug handles, ca. A.D. 1300s

Surfside Incised lug handles El Morillo lug handles

Image courtesy Ann Cordell, Florida Museum of Natural History