© Copyright by

J. Philip Washington

August, 2013

HURRICANES AND HABITATIONS: CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS TO ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENTS ON THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COAST

______

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of Anthropology

University of Houston

______

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

______

By

J. Philip Washington

August 2013

HURRICANES AND HABITATIONS: CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS TO ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENTS ON THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COAST

______

An Abstract of a Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of Anthropology

University of Houston

______

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

______

By

J. Philip Washington

August 2013

Abstract

In the early 20th century, the Shell Island site was identified during an explosion

of interest in the southwest Florida region and was initially described as a habitation site

by C. B. Moore in 1907 and later by Hrdlicka in 1919. After 1997 excavations at the site performed by Widmer, he also hypothesized that the site was indeed utilized as a domestic habitation. Using data derived from these excavations, this thesis will empirically test hypotheses of the diagenesis and function of this site using criteria and

methodology developed by Gill (1954), Pickering (1998) and Widmer (1989).

Furthermore, results from investigations at other coastal habitation site types in Collier

County Florida where site diagenesis and function theories have been tested will be used

as a comparative dataset from which to deductively assess Shell Island. Finally,

geographic information systems and remote sensing technology will be employed in an

effort to better understand the environmental pressures that resulted in cultural

adaptations that are evident across southwest Florida. This investigation finds that the

cost of living in the rich estuarine environment which facilitated so much sociocultural

development was the continued threat of storm surge events. The cultural adaptation of

building shell platforms with raised-floor habitation structures on top of them allowed the

aboriginal populations to continue to benefit from the environment without being wiped

out during these regular events.

iv

Acknowledgements

I am sincerely grateful to my committee members, Dr. Randolph J. Widmer,

committee chair, Dr. Rebecca Storey, and Darren K. Schubert for their support, patience,

and criticisms throughout the preparation of this thesis. Dr. Widmer graciously allowed me access to his vast amounts of research and also made himself available for the spirited discussion of any topic or question I may have had. His direction and constant encouragement to question everything I read from an anthropological perspective has resulted in the entirely new approach that I will take towards archaeology for the rest of my life. Dr. Storey has been a source of steady guidance throughout my graduate career and provided me with useful intuitions that have been invaluable to me as a student.

Darren Schubert has been an irreplaceable source of advice and editing concerning both this thesis and my graduate studies in general. The guidance of these three individuals has made me a better archaeologist, and I am forever indebted to them for their gifts. I appreciate the support of my friends and family over the years that it took to produce this document, especially my loving parents Mrs. Stephanie Gilmore and Mr. Jim

Washington, as well as my grandparents Mrs. Myrtle Smith and Justice Jackson Smith.

Thank you to my delightful mother in law Ann Gibbs for help with final editing and

bringing this thesis to a close. Finally, I am particularly thankful to my beautiful wife, Dr.

Ashley Washington for putting up with me and making me smile when times became

increasingly stressful. I am also eternally grateful for those who assisted and influenced

me both at Texas Tech University and throughout my professional career whom I do not

have room to acknowledge here. May God bless you all.

v

Contents Abstract ...... iv Acknowledgements ...... v CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 1 I. Introduction ...... 1 II. Shell-Bearing Site Typology at Shell Island ...... 3 III. Problem ...... 5 IV. Differentiating Natural Shell Beds from Shell-Bearing Sites ...... 7 V. Shell-bearing Site Formation Processes Theoretical Background ...... 9 VI. Identifying and Analyzing Construction Fill ...... 15 VII. Application of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems Technology to Human Behavioral Ecology Modeling ...... 16 VIII. Theoretical and Methodological Considerations ...... 20 CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND ...... 23 II. Climate ...... 28 III. Coastal Ecological Systems in Southwest Florida ...... 30 IV. Geology ...... 36 V. Shell Bearing Research Overview ...... 38 VI. Previous Investigations ...... 46 VII. Established Prehistoric Cultural Taxonomy ...... 66 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND MATERIALS ...... 71 I. Methods...... 71 II. Laboratory Procedures ...... 76 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ...... 84 I. Stratigraphy and Field Descriptions of the Deposits at Shell Island ...... 84 II. Distribution and depth of postmolds at Shell Island ...... 97 III. Elevated, Non Shell-Bearing Habitation Site Comparison, Key Marco Site 8CR48, OP1 West...... 104 IV. Elevated, Shell-Bearing Habitation, Temple Site Comparison (Mound A), Key Marco Site 8CR48 OP1, East ...... 107 V. Elevated, Shell-Bearing Habitation Site Comparison, Key Marco site 8CR48, Operation Two ...... 112

vi

VI. Non-Shell-Bearing, Non-Elevated Habitation Structure Site Comparison, Horr’s Island site 8CR209 ...... 122 VII. Hurricane Impacts to Southwest Florida’s Estuarine Environment ...... 124 CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS OF APPLICATION OF GIS & REMOTE SENSING TECHNOLOGY ...... 128 I. ESRI ArcGIS Spatial Analysis and Digital Elevation Model Production Results .. 128 II. Remote Sensing Technology and Hurricane Impact Results ...... 145 III. NDVI, Rectification, Classification and Post-classification Comparison Change Detection Results...... 147 CHAPTER SIX ...... 155 Discussion and Conclusion ...... 155 I. Discussion: Correlation of the Depositional History of Shell Island ...... 155 II. Elevated, Non-shell-bearing Habitation Site Comparison, Key Marco 8CR48, OP1 West Discussion ...... 171 III. Non-Shell-bearing, Non-elevated Habitation Structure Site Comparison, Horr’s Island 8CR209 Discussion ...... 172 IV. Elevated, Shell-bearing Habitation, Temple Site Comparison, Key Marco Site 8CR48 OP1 East Discussion ...... 173 V. Elevated, Shell-bearing Habitation Comparison, Operation Two Key Marco Site 8CR48 Discussion ...... 175 VI. ESRI ArcGIS Spatial Analysis and Digital Elevation Model Production Discussion ...... 178 VII. ESRI ArcGIS NDVI and ENVI Post Classification Comparison Change Detection of Hurricane Impacts Discussion ...... 181 VIII. Conclusion ...... 182

vii

List of Figures Figure 1: Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve...... 27 Figure 2. 1982 USGS 7.5’ series Belle Meade quadrangle...... 28 Figure 3. Ecological zones within the B-1 Mangrove Ecosystem (Widmer 1988, adapted from Davis 1940)...... 31 Figure 4. Mapping procedure and transects at Shell Island...... 72 Figure 5. 10cm contour map with excavation units on a shell-bearing deposit at Shell Island...... 73 Figure 6. Plan view, excavation units and platform area, 1997 excavations at Shell Island (Widmer 1997)...... 85 Figure 7. Deposit A and B, occupation period III, postmold distribution...... 99 Figure 8. Deposit C, occupation II, and postmold distribution...... 101 Figure 9. occupation I, postmold distribution...... 103 Figure 10. Postmold distribution in Zones XXVII and XXX, underneath mound B, at Key Marco site, 8CR48 op 1 west...... 105 Figure 11. Plan map showing backhoe trench, excavation units, and mound locations from 1995 excavations (Widmer 1996)...... 106 Figure 12. East stratigraphic profile of east walls of units N24E24 through N28E54 along the E56 line across Mound A at Key Marco site 8CR48...... 107 Figure 13. Platform construction one at Key Marco site 8CR48 mound A (Widmer 1996)...... 109 Figure 14. Platform construction two at Key Marco site 8CR48 mound A (Widmer 1996)...... 110 Figure 15. Platform construction three at Key Marco site 8CR48 mound A (Widmer 1996)...... 111 Figure 16. Key Marco site 8CR48, Mound A, Dedication Cache, Exotic Columbia Projectile Point (Widmer 1996)...... 112 Figure 17. Location of excavation units and original exploratory trench at Shell Island op20, overlaid on the original 1896 survey topographic map, showing trench in aboriginal canal...... 113 Figure 18. Eastern portion of Beriault exploratory trench (Widmer 1999)...... 114 Figure 19. Composite view of features, Key Marco site 8CR48 operation 2, Olde Marco Inn, 1998...... 121 Figure 20. Idealized representation of four circular postmold patterns that are present at 21 to 40 centimeters into the sterile yellow dune sand (Russo 1991:341 figure 5.29) ... 123 Figure 21. Hurricane Andrew Storm Surge Impact on South Florida (Center for Hurricane Research at Florida International University, Florida International University, November 15, 2012) ...... 125

viii

Figure 22. Hurricane Wilma Storm Surge Impact in 2005 (NOAA, accessed November 15, 2012)...... 126 Figure 23. Established Collier County Shell-Bearing Habitation Sites...... 129 Figure 24. Overview of 8CR209 Horr’s Island site...... 131 Figure 25. 8CR206, Horr’s Island Mound B...... 132 Figure 26. 8CR207, Horr’s Island Mound C...... 133 Figure 27. 8CR208, Horr’s Island mound A...... 134 Figure 28. Site 8CR217...... 135 Figure 29. Site 8CR236...... 136 Figure 30. 8CR298 Garden Patch Site...... 137 Figure 31. Site 8CR549...... 138 Figure 32. 8CR777 Sam Williams site...... 139 Figure 33. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of shell-bearing habitation structure excavated by Widmer in 1998 at the Key Marco site...... 141 Figure 34. Key Marco site 8CR48 boundary overlaid on modern USGS topographic map...... 142 Figure 35 Shell Island Site...... 144 Figure 36. Comparison site spatial analysis, distance to estuarine environment in meters...... 145 Figure 37. Subset of data for change detection, Naples South Quadrangle (RGB)...... 149 Figure 38. Pixel classification process (Khan 2012)...... 151 Figure 39. Estuarine environment, pre-hurricane storm surge impact, First Bay, Ten Thousand Islands region Florida...... 152 Figure 40. Estuarine environment, one month post-hurricane storm surge impact, First Bay, Ten Thousand Islands region Florida...... 153 Figure 41. Estuarine environment, Post-classification Comparison Change Detection Image. Red: Unchanged areas, Green: Newly stressed vegetation, White: shell deposits, Cyan: Newly exposed/deposited shell, Blue: water...... 154 Figure 42. Occupation I, postmold distribution with reconstructed habitation overlay. 162 Figure 43. Occupation II, deposit C, postmold distribution with reconstructed habitation overlay...... 167 Figure 44. Occupation III, postmold distribution with reconstructed habitation overlay...... 170

List of Figures Table 1. Widmer’s typology of sites that contain shell (Shell-bearing sites) (1989)...... 5 Table 2. Matrix Characteristics of Shell-Bearing Middens (Gill 1954)...... 7 Table 3. Characteristics of Natural Shell Beds (Gill 1954) ...... 8 Table 4. Cultural Chronology for Paleoindian and Archaic (Widmer 1988)...... 67

ix

Table 5. Cultural Chronology for Pre-Glades South Florida (Widmer 1988)...... 68 Table 6. Cultural Chronology for South Florida Glades Tradition (Widmer 1988)...... 70 Table 7. Criteria for the analysis of depositional formation and diagenesis (Pickering 1998; Widmer 1989; Cummins et al. 1986; Attenbrow 1992) ...... 77 Table 8. Pickering’s (1998) Site formation and diagenesis identification observation types...... 78 Table 9. Pickering’s criteria used in the analysis of depositional formation and diagenesis (1998)...... 79 Table 10 Archaeological correlates for formation events (Pickering 1998)...... 80 Table 11. Occupational and depositional history of Shell Island site. Each Occupation is in order of deposition encountered during excavation...... 156

x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

I. Introduction

The formation and function of shell piles, mounds and middens has been the

subject of much study and speculation since the formative years of the archaeological

discipline. Shell-bearing sites provide detailed information from an anthropological perspective concerning past cultures’ interaction with the environment, as well as social

complexity, hierarchy and kinship (Ambrose 1967; McManamon 1984; Waselkov 1984;

Lightfoot 1985; Widmer 1989; Claassen 1991; Widmer 1988, 1996, 1998; Aten 1999;

Widmer 2004a, 2004b, 2005; Luer 2007; Marquardt 2010; Álvarez, Briz Godino et al.

2011; Thompson and Worth 2011). Shell is most often associated with subsistence;

however this thesis will explore the role of shellfish beyond that of food and nutrition.

Shell middens and shell works were first recognized as important vessels for

archaeological data when the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences commissioned an

investigation of the oyster and cockle shell middens on the Jutland coast in 1848, and

scientist J. J. Asmussen Worsaae coined the term køkkenmøddinger (kitchen middens) in

describing the constructions (Forchhammer, Steenstrup et al. 1851). His investigations

showed that shell works could reveal environmental information related to sea level

change as well as artifacts that could help identify a chronological organization or culture

history for the area. Subsequently, shell works were recognized as containers of

potentially vast amounts of anthropological information across the globe (Murray 1989;

Trigger 1989; Rabett, Appleby et al. 2011). Following Worsaae’s work, investigative

1

approaches to excavating saltwater and freshwater shell-bearing sites varied considerably

from focusing on environmental or sea level changes, to purely quantitative analysis of

shell types, to the establishment of culture histories with nationalistic values across the

globe from Australia (Bird 2002, McNiven 2003) to Africa (Breen and Lane 2003;

Jerardino 2010), New Zealand (Barber, I. 2003), Scotland (Phillips 2003), and in Italy

(Robinson 2007) among other locations (Ambrose 1967; Waselkov 1984; Murray 1989;

Stein 1992; Claassen 1998; Álvarez, Briz Godino et al. 2011; Rabett, Appleby et al.

2011).

In the United States alone, various approaches have been taken with the

investigation shell-bearing sites from coastal New England (McManamon 1984;

Lightfoot 1985) and California (Arnold 1992; Luby and Gruber 1999; Schweikhardt,

Ingram et al. 2011), to fresh water shell-bearing sites in Kentucky (Morey and Crothers

1998, 2002) and brackish water estuarine sites on the Gulf Coast (Cushing 1895, 1896;

Moore 1907, 1919; Russo 1991; Weisman 1995; Widmer 1996, 1997, 1998; Pickering

1998; Schubert 2008). From the formative years of North American archaeology through

the twenty first century, archaeologists have come to recognize the importance of

stratigraphy and construction processes when investigating shell-bearing sites (Wyman

1875; Gill 1954; Widmer 1988; Russo 1991). The methodology developed by these

archaeologists for understanding the characteristics of the deposits that were used for

construction purposes will be invaluable to this investigation.

Shell bearing sites along the Florida coast and the southeastern US have been

naturally impacted, culturally modified, observed, excavated and otherwise looted since

European contact and have been anthropologically interpreted since the late nineteenth

2

century (Moore 1892; Cushing 1895, 1896; Moore 1907; Hrdlicka 1922; Kolianos and

Weisman 2005).The function of the shell bearing mounds has been interpreted in several

ways including habitations (Hrdlicka 1922; Widmer 1989, Widmer 1998; Russo 2004),

monumental constructions (Moore 1892; Russo1994; Schwadron 2010) or temple

mounds (Widmer 1989, 1996; Gibson and Carr 2004; Widmer 2004; Kolianos and

Weisman 2005). There also remains the simplest and longest lasting explanation of their possible function as being simply trash piles (Walker 1880; Marquardt 2010). Moore

(1907) and Hrdlicka (1922) both initially found the shell mounds at Shell Island site

(8CR55) on the southwest Florida coast to be occupational sites and Hrdlicka specifically found the site now identified as Shell Island to be “plainly a village site, the shell heaps having served as elevated platforms for habitations” (Hrdlicka 1922 pp. 20-21). However, in 1919, Moore backed off his habitational position citing the lack of sufficient

investigation at the site to arrive at such a conclusion. Dickel (1992) briefly tested the site

during a Phase I survey for the Florida Archaeological and Historical Conservancy and

found the site to represent a prehistoric village. Over the years a large dataset has been

established and various interpretations have emerged, some more contentious than others.

II. Shell-Bearing Site Typology at Shell Island

Due to the various explanations, descriptions and designations of shell-bearing

sites over the years, Widmer (1989) presented a typological system of classification for

sites comprised of or containing shell based on his excavations in southwest Florida.

(Table one). These designations are determined by what types of cultural processes could

3

result in the various assemblages of shell and other artifacts found in an archaeological

context. Some archaeologists focusing on Gulf Coast sites have decided to adopt

Widmer’s detailed typology, and this investigation will also adopt his definitions

(Widmer 1989; Claassen 1991; Pickering 1998; Schubert 2008). Within Widmer’s typology, sites are referred to as “shell-bearing sites” until excavation affords the opportunity to assess the shell deposit’s formation processes and function.

Shell midden sites are defined as sites that are entirely comprised of secondarily

deposited shell from food consumption with no evidence of any other activities evident at

the site whatsoever. Shell middens can also be a discrete lens or feature within a specific

portion of a larger site and are similarly comprised of secondarily deposited shell from

food consumption with no evidence of any other activities. Shell-bearing midden sites are

defined as sites composed of secondary refuse of many kinds of remains, including shell,

generated by a wide range of activities. These activities may include processing of other

types of food for consumption, processing of shell for craft or domestic usage and that

stands alone as a site. Shell-bearing middens are similarly comprised, but are a discrete

lens or feature within a larger site. Any time material is taken from shell middens or

shell-bearing middens and redeposited for construction purposes it ceases to be midden

material and becomes construction fill. Shell-bearing habitation sites are defined as being

composed primarily of shell debris in a site matrix so composed for architectural

purposes; where the shell may or may not have originated from food debris. This is the most complicated of the shell-bearing sites as the formation processes may have been

multifaceted, however function of these sites may be determined through sound field

methodology and laboratory analysis. Through these typologies, we can better understand

4

the vivid descriptions of archaeological investigations at Shell Island and nearby sites

provided by Frank Hamilton Cushing (1895, 1896; Kolianos and Weisman 2005),

Clarence Bloomfield Moore (1892, 1907) and Ales Hrdlicka (1922).

Table 1. Widmer’s typology of sites that contain shell (Shell-bearing sites) (1989).

I. Shell Midden A deposit containing secondary molluscan subsistence refuse and no other cultural material. These rarely comprise the entirety of a site, usually a discrete feature within a site. II. Shell Midden Sites A site whose formation is specifically related to the collection, processing and consumption of estuarine molluscan subsistence resources that are secondarily deposited as refuse. This type of shell bearing site will contain molluscan shell with little other cultural material. III. Shell-bearing Midden Sites An entire site made up of secondarily deposited shell as a result of multiple activities including subsistence but also tool or craft production alongside multiple other cultural artifacts. IV. Shell-bearing Habitation Sites This designates a site containing architectural features within, containing, or composed primarily of molluscan shell remains. These remains are derived from both subsistence, craft production, tool production, and from naturally deposited sources.

III. Problem

In this thesis, Shell Island site 8CR55’s dataset will be examined from the

position that it was a shell-bearing habitation site (rather than other shell-bearing site

types or structures) as proposed by Hrdlicka, Moore, Dickel and Widmer. Both the

5

contents of and the processes exhibited in the archaeological deposits at the site will be

addressed in order to empirically test conclusions that Shell Island was specifically

constructed for habitational purposes. Using criteria derived from field excavations and

investigations by Florida archaeologists spanning the last century (Cushing 1895, 1896;

Moore Hrdlicka 1922; Widmer 1989, 1996; Claassen 1991; Widmer 1998; Russo 1991;

Pickering 1998; Schubert 2008; Schwadron 2010), data from Shell Island will be

compared and contrasted to a shell-bearing habitational temple site in Collier County

(Key Marco site 8CR48 OP1 east) and a shell-bearing domestic habitation (Key Marco

OP2) recognizing the differences between the two types of constructions that have been

observed within the archaeological record. As a test of the conclusion that Shell Island

represents a domestic habitation (Moore 1907; Hrdlicka 1922; Widmer 1998), a

comparative study of the stratification processes and functions will be discussed. This

investigation will utilize four comparison sites that contain criteria for site transformation

processes indicative of site function.

Furthermore, the materials present in the deposits of 8CR55 will be examined

utilizing methodology and criterion developed by Widmer (1996, 1997, 1998) and

Pickering at Key Marco (1998) to assess the sourcing of the construction materials. With

the application of geographic information systems and remote sensing technology, the

environmental pressures behind the construction techniques employed by the aboriginal

populations will also be examined in terms of human behavioral ecology.

6

IV. Differentiating Natural Shell Beds from Shell-Bearing Sites

Studies have shown that the differences between naturally occurring shell beds

and shell-bearing sites can be found by both the contents of the shell matrix, and the

taphonomic markers on the shells themselves. Edmund Gill (1954) was the first to

establish criteria for distinguishing what he called aboriginal kitchen middens (or shell

middens) from natural marine shell beds (Table 2). For the purposes of this investigation,

we will use the term shell-bearing midden to describe similar deposits. He developed nine

specific characteristics of shell-bearing middens and five characteristics to identify a

natural shell accumulation. He also stresses the importance of stratification and the

absence of certain criteria as characterizing natural shell beds (Table 3). These

characteristics provide a helpful and quantifiable framework for understanding what

characterizes the different sources of construction fill that was used for building of shell-

bearing habitation sites.

Table 2. Matrix Characteristics of Shell-Bearing Middens (Gill 1954).

1 Evidence of Fire: Charcoal, burned wood or shells that are mixed within the matrix or archaeological Zone. 2 Stratification: Shell-bearing middens have rough stratification. Much less defined than natural shell deposits. 3 Tools: Shell-bearing middens contain tools, raw lithic material, debitage, cooking stones and sometimes ceramic sherds. 4 Existent species: Remains of molluscan species that can be locally sourced are present in midden. 5 Edible Species: The existent molluscan remains must be of edible species and of a desirable size. 6 Species Selectivity: The molluscan remains in the matrix will display evidence of apparent desirability one or more particular species over others for consumption. 7 Absence of Abrasion: Shells within the shell-bearing midden matrix do not show the abrasion or polishing that comes from tumbling in the ocean or on the beach. 8 Cultural Processing: Shells within shell-bearing midden matrix show evidence of cultural processing including scrape marks, chipped edges, or usage of the shell as tools.

7

9 Other Faunal Remains: Within the matrix, there will be bones and other remains of edible terrestrial or other sea animals.

Table 3. Characteristics of Natural Shell Beds (Gill 1954)

1 Fine Stratification: Typically, natural shell deposits have been water deposited, and result in a finer type of stratification. 2 Non-edible Sizes: Matrix consists of many sizes of shell that would be too small to have been consumed for subsistence. 3 Abrasion: Matrix consists of shells that are heavily polished and worn as a result of water transportation and tumbling in the surf. 4 Non-edible Species: Matrix includes remains of non-edible species of mollusks or other animals. 5 Lack of Culturally Processed Material: Absence of charcoal, burned shell or bone, and any other evidence of fire. Absence of any cultural artifacts and absence of any other faunal remains that could have been utilized as food.

Gill’s criteria are an important part of the goal of this investigation because the

first step in testing the hypotheses that have been made concerning Shell Island, is

determining whether or not the site is a naturally accumulated shell deposit or is some

kind of cultural modification to the landscape. This is a relevant discussion because it

addresses how the natural environment drives cultural adaptations that eventually resulted

in the hunter-gatherer societies of southwest Florida, which developed more complex

sociopolitical organization. The study of individual households also provides a

framework for comparative analyses through time and space (Wilk and Netting 1984;

Hirth 1993a, 1993b; Blanton 1994) through which other comparable sites in the Ten

Thousand Islands region of the southwest Florida coast may be viewed and better

understood. After specifically defining whether the deposits present at Shell Island are

cultural or natural in origin, the focus will shift to how cultural processes at the site have

8

left patterns that are identifiable and comparable to other sites in the region where empirical testing of field data has been performed.

V. Shell-bearing Site Formation Processes Theoretical Background

As previously discussed, shell-bearing sites were initially thought to be a side

effect of subsistence. During the majority of the twentieth century, shell-bearing sites

were assumed to consist entirely of food debris, resulting in excavation and sampling

strategies that reflected this concept of their function as secondary refuse deposits

(Claassen 1991). This has been the normative description of such sites since Asmussen

Worsaae described similar European sites as “Køkkenmødding” or “kitchen middens” as previously discussed (Forchhammer, Steenstrup et al. 1851; Álvarez, Briz Godino et al.

2011). The low nutritional value per mollusk was thought to result in the large amounts of leftover shell, increased in size by feasting and organization of trash piles (Walker

1880:416). Criticism of this treatment of shell bearing sites, primarily since the 1960’s, included the realization that significant amounts of data were lost by ignoring the variation and possible multiple functions of the sites. Despite these criticisms, salvage or cultural resource management as well as many of those excavating within the academic community often incorrectly refer to all shell bearing sites as middens (Ambrose 1967;

Widmer 1989; Claassen 1991; Kennedy 2011).

While the majority of archaeological researchers now agree that these aboriginal shell-bearing constructions are not always the result of casual subsistence accumulations and are more likely deliberately designed, maintained and improved constructions, they

9

do not necessarily agree on the cultural transformations that resulted in the construction

of the sites (Schwadron 2010). An example of early models of shell-bearing site

formation would be Cushing’s theory resulting from his investigations in the late 1800’s.

His ideas reflected the early views held by his contemporary anthropologists in that they

explained the size of the shell mounds as a result of a regular and linear accumulation

over time. He proposed that they initially were small, progressively growing larger and

more complex over time and accumulation (Cushing 1896). Cushing sees site formation

as simple and straightforward. Starting with trash accumulation at the water front near campsites, as the population grows the shell byproduct is used to build purposeful

constructions beginning with fish traps and protective wave breakers or seawalls. He

theorizes that the settlement increases in complexity and size over time, using more shell

resources and producing more raw materials for building functional structures like

habitations or monumental architecture (Cushing 1896). Interestingly, Cushing believed

that the inhabitants lived on pile structures over the shallow estuarine environment they

subsisted from, based on Spanish as well as firsthand experience and accounts of coastal

populations in other countries. He felt that the gradual accumulation of shell underneath

the structures gave cultures the idea to organize the shell into patterns (like mounds with flattened summits) that they could build their pile structures atop for additional security

(Cushing 1896). While this cross cultural comparative approach is incredibly far ahead of

it’s time, his actual thoughts on the construction process were left largely unaddressed

(Schwadron 2010). Again, his theories appear to rely on the sole source of the

construction materials as repurposed midden refuse with no mention of any other

sourcing of materials (Goggin 1948).

10

Other archaeologists working in the south Florida region subsequent to Cushing

have had similar hypotheses on the formation of these shell bearing sites that varied only slightly from Cushing’s initial postulations. Bullen (1959) believed that excavations at the Turner River Site showed that the inhabitants did indeed gradually move their habitations up the side of the pile as they grew (Bullen 1959). Sears agreed that the shell- bearing mounds were formed as oyster shells were thrown off the top of their dwelling platforms (Sears 1956). However Schwadron points out that neither Sears nor Bullen

offer “a plausible explanation for how the very steep-sided and tall (almost eight meter)

mounds formed with dwellings positioned atop the growing mounds or along the sides of

the growing, massive accumulations” (Schwadron 2010:56). Goggin didn’t think

Cushing’s theories demonstrated either formation processes or established that the

culture’s inhabitants initially lived in pile structures, other than comparing the sites to other areas (Goggin 1948:115). His theories however did not go much further than

elaborating that the shell-bearing sites may have been purposeful constructions that were

partially sourced in a manner other than accumulated trash midden.

Beginning in the 1980’s archaeologists began to articulate specific theories

concerning the cultural and natural formation processes that resulted in the shell-bearing

site constructions (Schiffer 1983). Using data from shell constructions in Morril Point

Massachusetts, R. J. Barber (1983) made multiple inferences based on the contents of

each site. By examining the faunal contents of the matrix, he could determine the

occupation patterns as well as the specific shellfish subsistence and construction

materials source of each individual shell-bearing site. He found that the most significant

feature differentiating multiple sites that were superficially similar was season of

11

occupation (Barber, R. J. 1983; Pickering 1998). Marquardt (1984) suggested that the C-

formation of the shell-bearing mound sites were deliberately constructed by repurposing

midden with other substrate for construction fill. He further found that constructions

increased in frequency and size at the Charlotte Harbor sites after 500 CE via further

examination of the matrix using modern dating methods (Marquardt 1992). Milanich,

Walker and Mattick all argued that the shell-bearing mound construction fill was

comprised of a combination of repurposed accumulated midden among other materials

that were specifically designated as construction fill (Milanich 1994:314; Walker and

Mattick 1996:23). Most recently, Luer has identified three broadly defined types of

construction fill as a result of investigations at Big Mound Key site. These categories are

comprised of primary and secondary refuse with tertiary refuse being comprised of

primary and secondary refuse that has been repurposed for construction fill (Luer 2007).

Similarly, Schwadron (2010) has divided the formation processes of shell-bearing sites

into three main categories: (1) sites formed by accumulation; (2) sites formed by

borrowing and filling or mounding; and (3) a combination of the two.

These investigations and theories have developed in an effort to better understand

the formation processes at some of the most important archaeological sites in North

America and have broad implications at similar coastal shell-bearing sites across the

world. Through sound theories about C-transformations to the landscape that are

grounded in both cross cultural comparative approaches as well as quantitative matrix

analysis, the vast information that these types of sites hold could finally be unlocked.

However, Pickering (1998) points out a glaring shortfall in these theories, all assume that

cultural processes were sufficient to source the shell that makes up the construction fill.

12

“They fail to account for the role natural processes can play regarding the deposition of

molluscan remains” (Pickering 1998:14). Until recently, N-transformations have only

been regarded as destructive to the shell-bearing site, not constructive.

Understanding the role that the environment plays in the formation of the sites is

critical to formulating theories of all shell-bearing site formation. The forces that can

cause such destruction (in an extraordinarily short period of time) to the physical

landscape in which these coastal sites exist, can also naturally deposit shell, or erode

topsoil revealing molluscan remains during catastrophic events. Additionally, the

deposition of molluscan remains is a natural and ongoing process, and therefore

archaeologists must be able to differentiate between construction materials that are

sourced from natural deposits and materials that are sourced from cultural deposits

(Pickering 1998).

Until the late 1800’s, little was known about the southwestern coastal region of

Florida other than what was mentioned by the Spanish and French explorers centuries

earlier. Pioneers of Florida archaeology such as Jeffries Wyman (the first curator of the

Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology) and Clarence Bloomfield Moore, had

worked in the upper St. Johns River in northeast region of the state in 1873 on shell

mounds (Murowchick 1990), but areas in the southwest remained unexplored until Frank

Hamilton Cushing’s explorations of the 1890’s (Cushing, 1895). When Cushing arrived

in the mid 1890s, he encountered hundreds of shell-bearing sites across the region, the

most impressive and important of which was at Key Marco. The remarkably unique shell,

wood, stone, and painted artifacts that the site yielded inspired C. B. Moore to travel to

southwest Florida and thoroughly excavate some of these shell mounds (Moore 1900,

13

1907). Both Cushing and Moore found that not all of these shell mounds served the same

purpose, but that they were all a part of larger occupational areas (Cushing 1895, 1896;

Moore 1900, 1907, 1919). Shortly following, Smithsonian anthropologist Ales Hrdlicka

traveled to the southwest Florida region to conduct investigations at the Ten Thousand

Islands sites, and ended up spending a significant amount of time in the region (Hrdlicka

1922). After seven years of field work, he described the different construction techniques

of the shell works across the region including Tom Week’s Place, which is now known as

Shell Island. Hrdlicka came to the conclusion that the shell heaps were deliberately

constructed to be “plainly a village site, the shell heaps having served as elevated

platforms for habitations,” (Hrdlicka 1922:21). These initial descriptions of the shell-

bearing sites that once covered the region by Cushing, Moore and Hrdlicka were high

quality, incredibly detailed, decidedly thorough, and have proven to be invaluable as the

majority of the sites have been lost to development over the subsequent century

(Mitchem 1999).

In recent times, investigations at many shell-bearing sites have suggested that

there were numerous different construction contexts outside of the normative quotidian

refuse accumulation definition, including ceremonial, monumental, symbolic, mortuary

and domestic functions (Claassen 1991a; Claassen 1991b; Russo 1991; Leventhal 1993;

Russo 1994; Claassen 1996; Widmer 1998; Aten 1999; Luby and Gruber 1999; Claassen

2000; Russo and Heide 2001; Russo 2004; Widmer 2004; Luer 2007; Schwadron 2010;

Saunders and Russo 2011). Over time, archaeologists have attempted to organize shell-

bearing site typologies and improve descriptive terminology from several different

perspectives. Some have described these shell-bearing sites as systemic shell deposits

14

(Waselkov 1984; Lightfoot 1985) while others have taken a cultural approach and

delineated site typology by using the archaeological components and features present

(McManamon 1984; Widmer 1989). Delineating the shell-bearing site based on

archaeological features and components has proven to be the most effective means to

explain the variation between the shell deposits resulting from various construction

phases, techniques, and apparent cultural function (McManamon 1984; Widmer 1989;

Claassen 1991). Using the archaeological context, description of the site becomes more

accurate as differentiation between construction techniques, types of shell and other

materials, and the origin of the materials becomes clearer.

VI. Identifying and Analyzing Construction Fill

The various Zones identified during excavations at Shell Island will be

specifically described within the stratigraphic sequence, identifying the role each served at the site. Due to the depositional characteristics of shell-bearing habitation sites, they tend to have been subject to significant alteration associated with the natural processes of ocean transgression/regression. These actions can change the Zone matrix composition and reposition portions of or entire deposits (Hughes and Sullivan 1974; Upchurch et al.

1992). Therefore, as we attempt to understand the history of these estuarine adaptation environments, it is important to understand that these shell-bearing habitation sites that are being investigated have very complex compositions as a result of postdepositional alterations. “To correct the biases introduced by postdepositional alterations, archaeologists need to examine (as they did a century ago) the origins of shell middens

and their diagenesis” (Stein 1992:1). To this end, the application of Widmer’s shell-

15

bearing site typology to the data collected from investigations at Shell Island must be

done carefully, and with a clear understanding and definition of how the deposits present

were sourced. To achieve this with site Shell Island, descriptions of the matrix will be

classified using methodology developed by Gill (1954), Hughes and Sullivan (1974), and

Pickering (1998).

VII. Application of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information

Systems Technology to Human Behavioral Ecology Modeling

Remote sensing technology will also be used to further explain the sourcing

process of non-subsistence shell within the deposits located at Shell Island. Using USGS

(United States Geological Survey) satellite images of the region we will apply specific

processing techniques within the programs ENVI (Excelis Visual Information Solutions)

and ESRI ArcGIS (Environmental Systems Research Institute) to graphically represent

the effects of hurricanes and storm surge on the environment surrounding shell-bearing

archaeological sites. The NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) process will be

performed on data from before and after the impact of hurricane Wilma utilizing the new

ArcGIS 10.1 Apparent Reflectance tool which produces a more consistent value for

NDVI. The next process that will be performed will utilize these consistent NDVI values

and be processed using ENVI’s Post-classification Comparison Change Detection tool.

These programs and processes will graphically display the physical changes that storm

surges can have on the ten thousand islands’ estuarine environment in terms of vegetation

16

stress, shell deposition, and shell exposure due to catastrophic erosion within an

extraordinarily short period of time.

As long as archaeologists have investigated shell-bearing sites in Florida, the

source of construction shell has been suggested to be largely waste from mollusk

consumption (Walker 1880; Marquardt 2010). Defining a readily available source of

construction materials that are outside the realm of quotidian subsistence refuse and are

extensive enough to supply projects including habitations, dams, pools and monumental

architecture has been difficult. The amount of shell that would need to have been consumed or scavenged, cleaned, transported by basket and deposited would have demanded a massive undertaking of labor (Moore 1892; Hrdlicka 1922; Widmer 1989,

1998; Gibson and Carr 2004; Russo 2004). Utilizing satellite data from before and after hurricane Wilma in 2005 (representing the maximal impact a hurricane storm surge has had on the southwest Florida coast over the last 100 years of recorded weather data), we can graphically display the amount of newly deposited shell after such storm surge

events. These depositions would provide easily accessible, relatively clean construction material within close proximity to the sites and allow repair or expansion of existing constructions as well as new construction. Hurricane Wilma is the best example we have on record of a large hurricane moving west to east and therefore having a direct storm surge impact on the southwest Florida coast.

The spatial distribution of the postmolds within the occupation surfaces of Shell

Island will be digitized using ESRI ArcGIS, and their spatial distribution across the site will also be analyzed. The postmolds will be analyzed in terms of their relationship to construction events as well as the Zones and deposits from which they emanate. Their

17

concentration in square meters as a whole and as discrete features will be important in

determining if the structure that they supported was an elevated platform or placed on the surface. The resulting data will be compared with other sites in the area to assist in

determining site function.

The shell-bearing deposit hypothesized to be a habitation excavated at Shell

Island and its spatial relationship to the estuarine environment will be spatially analyzed

using ESRI ArcGIS. Utilizing the GIS software, we will synthesize data from the USGS

and the Florida Division of Historic Resources to create shape files of the sites

dimensions and compare ten other sites that have been designated as either “Habitation

(prehistoric)”, “Platform mound (prehistoric)” or “prehistoric campsite” in coastal Collier

County, Florida. Next their archaeologically established dimensions will be analyzed to determine a quantifiable relationship (distance) to the estuarine subsistence environment to which they are located adjacent by using ArcGIS’s Spatial Analyst tools.

Subsequently, the distances between Shell Island and the estuarine environment will be compared with the distances that the other sites are from geographically similar environments. Well documented and extensively excavated sites at Key Marco and at

Horr’s Island will provide excellent sites for comparative spatial analysis as they contain good examples of known shell-bearing habitation sites. This will provide an average

distance between the habitation sites and the water for comparison to Shell Island’s

characteristics.

Optimal foraging theory states that humans will pursue or harvest food available

to them at the best cost/benefit ratio possible and in a manner that maximizes the rate of

caloric return for the time spent foraging (Harris 1985). Habitations should have been

18

constructed as close to the estuary where the inhabitants were hunting and harvesting as

reasonably possible. Shell Island should fall within the average distance from the water of

the comparison sites if it is a habitation site. An additional cost of living immediately

adjacent to the vast amounts of resources available from the estuarine environment is the

risk of exposure to high winds and storm surge. The benefits of living in the estuary must

be greater than the danger of regular tropical storm events, or the threat level must be

minimized through further cultural adaptation.

Human behavioral ecology has been defined as the study of human behavior in

the context of evolutionary ecology. Its main purpose is to identify the ways in which the

behavior of modern humans reflects our species' history of natural selection and ability to

adapt to environmental stressors (Cronk 1991). Central to this study is the concept of

energy expenditure versus energy return. To maximize this ratio, humans look to

technology and culture, with the greatest example of this being agriculture. White (2011)

distinguishes three factors in cultural systems when evaluating the amount of cultural

development that can be achieved given a certain amount of available energy for

expending: 1) the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year; 2) the efficiency of the technological means with which energy is harnessed and put to work; and, 3) the magnitude of human need-serving goods and services produced. When the ecosystem

within which humans exist remains constant, their culture will evolve as the amount of

energy harnessed per capita per year increases. No significant advances in cultural

development to any level of complexity, especially to the chiefdom level of sociocultural

integration, can therefore be expected without a significant increase in the amount of

energy harnessed and controlled per capita per year. Traditionally, it has been widely

19

accepted that the only way that this may occur is through the development of agriculture

(White 2011).

VIII. Theoretical and Methodological Considerations

The first step in accurately reconstructing the past lifeways that resulted in the

shell-bearing sites in the archaeological requires the understanding of the cultural and

natural site formation processes. The two processes that form and continue to impact sites

were defined by Schiffer (1983) as N-transformations (natural) and C-transformations

(cultural). Both of these types of transformations to the natural landscape occurred during

Shell Island’s time period of occupation, and we will examine to what extent each played

a role in the formation of the site. To establish the events, we will operate within the

framework of investigation devised by Cowgill (1970:163) in an effort to make

inferences about past lifeways that resulted in the material remains in the archaeological

record.

First, Cowgill asserts that the archaeologist should be concerned with the actual

events that occurred within the context of past cultural behaviors. In this case, we can

look to many documented works of archaeology as well as first hand descriptions of the

culture from the imperial Spanish. Some of these initial cultural descriptions were

recorded in what is now Charlotte Harbor (then known as the Bay of Carlos) by Spanish

aristocrat, soldier and adventurer Pedro Menendez de Aviles, who met with the

paramount Calusa chief Carlos in winter of 1565. During this meeting Chief Carlos swore

allegiance to the Spanish nobleman with the expectation that he would receive Spain’s

20

help in defeating his enemies (Marquardt 1987; Solis de Meras 1964; Hann 1991).

Furthermore we have cultural descriptions based on the archaeological record that draw

on past investigations in the Ten Thousand Islands region of Florida. Widmer’s seminal

work “The Evolution of the Calusa: a nonagricultural chiefdom on the Southwest Florida

Coast” (1988) alongside many other articles on the archaeology of south Florida will

satisfy this criterion of investigation.

Secondly, Cowgill asserts that the archaeologist should investigate the artifacts

produced for the duration of those activities (Cowgill 1970:163). In the case of Shell

Island, we have the entirety of the site’s shell-bearing deposits. The sourcing of the

materials and physical composition must be analyzed in order to understand both the C and N-transformations that resulted in the state in which they were found during excavation. Utilizing the data collected during the field excavations, the proximity of shell-bearing mounds at Shell Island to the estuarine environment as well as features within the shell deposit will be examined, as that data may support any inferences about the purpose that this and other similar sites served. In addition, technology can be utilized to spatially analyze, classify, and better understand the physical environment within which the aboriginal inhabitants of Shell Island lived.

Finally, Cowgill suggests that the archaeologists should examine the specific artifacts that are preserved within the archaeological record at the site (Cowgill 1970). In order to establish a link between all three of Cowgill’s strategies, the detailed records and

artifact analysis from the field investigations at Shell Island will be utilized. Through

these methodical approaches, conclusions may be drawn and the function of this shell

deposit could be established. However, Pickering (1988:7) notes that the archaeological

21

record and the associations contained therein are a direct result of cultural practices and

are the only behaviorally significant evidence available. “Therefore, any inferences

drawn from such evidence must be tempered with an appreciation of all the relevant

formation processes which may have impacted a given artifactual assemblage.” For this

reason, much attention must be paid to the environmental conditions that produced the

culture that occupied this area for millennia and left shell-bearing constructions that

endure to this day (Marquardt 1992).

While examining the data retrieved from excavations at shell-bearing sites, the

interaction between the people and the environment must be understood if theories about

site formation processes are to be formulated. This is a key element in determining if the

shell deposits were sourced from repurposed midden material, if they were sourced from

a naturally occurring shell deposit, if they were some combination of those two or if they

were simply a shell-bearing midden. At site Shell Island, the archaeological remains will

be examined through the framework established by Pickering (1998) and that data will

result in the classification under Widmer’s (1989) terminology. In this way, we will be

able to test the conclusion that Hrdlicka and Widmer came to concerning Shell Island’s

function as a shell-bearing habitation using detailed methodology.

22

CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND

I. Cultural Background and Site Location

This study will utilize data assembled in 1997 during investigations at Shell

Island, a shell-bearing site in the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve known as

Shell Island. Archaeologists surveyed the excavation area and found one particular

mound to be roughly eight feet tall with a total area of 30m^2, making it somewhat

smaller than the mounds at Key Marco, which were all over 10 feet tall (Widmer 1998).

These excavations revealed ceramics that are known to have been common between AD

500 and AD 900, placing the time of occupation squarely in the Late Prehistoric Period

(from AD 500 – AD1500) and crossing the end of Glades I, and into Glades II South

Florida Glades Tradition. Widmer suggests that there are similar ceramic designs among

the artifacts to those found during exhaustive investigations at Key Marco, possibly

indicating sociological connection between the two sites through marriage and intermixing (Widmer 1997). The cultural group associated with Shell Island site and the comparison sites utilized in this investigation is the Calusa, a complex non-agricultural

chiefdom with population estimates between 4,000 and 7,000 in the region (Widmer

1988; Granberry 2011).

The Calusa were among the first contacted by the Spanish when they landed in

what is now Southwest Florida. The Calusa represented a large and formidable population even to the Spanish with their superior weapons and armor. While the vast majority of populations that achieve this level of sociocomplexity are sedentary agriculturally based communities, the Calusa were sedentary fishers and gatherers of food

23

from the estuarine environment to which their (approximately) 23 settlements were located adjacent (Marquardt 1987; Widmer 1988; Granberry 2011). The resources provided by this environment were sufficient to deliver the year round, sustainable role

that agriculture and food storage usually took on in such societies (Goggin and Sturtevant

1964). Historic sources indicate that the Calusa were believed to be ruled by a paramount

chief on Mound Key in Estero Bay, with subordinate village chiefs located throughout

the region (Pickering 1998). Shell Island will be examined from the position that it was a

Calusa site based on the artifacts present at the site and their relationship to the nearby

Key Marco site.

The 1998 excavations at Shell Island were specifically focused on determining the

age of the site, locating features, and determining possible sociopolitical relationships

with Key Marco site (Widmer 1998). During excavation, 27 individual Zones were

identified containing varying amounts of molluscan and faunal remains, sediment, and

other cultural material. The disturbances and modern material intrusion to the excavated

portion of the site were relatively minimal. The only impact to the excavated portion that

will be utilized in this investigation was the planting of avocado trees at the turn of the

twentieth century. The excavated portion of the site was composed of three deposition

episodes, with each apparently an expansion of the one before and therefore

superimposing one on top of the other. The deposits consist almost entirely of marine and

estuarine shell, with very little sediment in the matrix. These Zones will be described in

detail and analyzed for sourcing. The postmold depths and density will also be analyzed

for comparison to established shell-bearing habitation sites and non-shell-bearing

habitation sites.

24

Data for detailed comparison sites will come directly from the reports,

tables, and publications on the two types of habitations and the temple structures known

to exist on Key Marco and the non-shell-bearing and non-elevated habitation recorded at

Horr’s Island. Furthermore, data on the archaeologically delineated extents of several

sites within Collier County (including 8CR40, 8CR48, 8CR55, 8CR206, 8CR207,

8CR208, 8CR209, 8CR217, 8CR236, 8CR298, 8CR549, 8CR777) will be utilized to spatially analyze and compare the average distances between shell-bearing habitation sites and the estuarine environment using methodology that will be discussed in the next section.

The cultures that occupied Shell Island and other coastal sites along the south southwest Florida coast adapted to subsist from the estuarine environment to which they were living immediately adjacent (Widmer 1989; Claassen 1991; Widmer 1996, 1998;

Aten 1999; Marquardt 2001; Widmer 2004; Luer 2007). It has been suggested, therefore, that the environmental setting which facilitated the cultures’ existence and evolution includes both the surrounding lands and seascapes that make up the estuarine setting

(Schwadron 2010). As discussed in the previous chapter, this approach has been applied to archaeological sites across the globe. McNiven (2008:151) articulated the importance of the seascape as being “… central to the identity of maritime peoples. They are owned by right of inheritance, demarcated territorially, mapped with named places, historicized with social actions, engaged technologically for resources, imbued with spiritual potency and agency, orchestrated ritually, and legitimated cosmologically.” Understanding the intimate relationship between the inhabitants and their environment is an established and important part of building culture history and reconstructing past lifeways (Arnold 1996a;

25

1996b; Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Bailey and Parkington 1988; Barber 2003; Bird and

O’Connell 2006; Milanich 1994; Schubert 2008; Stone 1989; Widmer 1989).

The Shell Island site is situated on the southwest Florida coast in what is now

Collier County on the western extent of the Everglades ecosystem. It is depicted on the

1982 USGS Belle Meade 7.5’ series quadrangle. The site is located in UTM Zone 17 with an Easting of 426646.07 and a Northing of 2878626.66 with elevation ranging from zero to 9 above mean sea level (Figure two). Shell Island is situated at the mouth of

Henderson Creek, in a protected area known as the Rookery Bay National Estuarine

Research Reserve at the northern end of the Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve

(Figure one). The site is reached by traveling 8.2 miles south on FL 90 out of Naples and

turning right onto Collier Boulevard and continuing 2.8 miles. At Shell Island Road turn

right and travel 2.8 miles. Shell Island is on the right, across a shallow canal. It is now a

small peninsula that extends across the mouth of Hamilton Creek. While land use in the

latter portion of the 19th century and the majority of the 20th century resulted in drastic

alterations to the natural and cultural landscape, these preserves serve to limit further

impacts on the sensitive areas natural resources. The Rookery Bay National Estuarine

Research Reserve (RBNER) was established initially as an Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary

in 1964, and now conducts scientific research projects on the estuarine environment,

promotes responsible coastal stewardship, and monitors short and long term changes

across 110,000 acres of protected water and land (http://www.rookerybay.org/about). The

RBNER is nationally recognized as one of the few remaining relatively undisturbed

mangrove estuaries in the coastal US remaining (FDS 2013).

26

Figure 1: Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve.

27

Figure 2. 1982 USGS 7.5’ series Belle Meade quadrangle.

II. Climate

The weather in south southwest Florida is largely defined by the long dry season that lasts from the mild winters through the spring during the subtropical calm period with the vast majority of the rainfall coming in the summer. The climate is classified as

AW (tropical wet and dry) in the Koeppen (1931) classification system (Hela 1952;

Thomas 1974). The temperature rarely gets below 18 degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees

28

Fahrenheit) with an average precipitation between 1,143 and 1,270 millimeters (45-50

inches) (Widmer1988:99). There are very few overall variations in the rainfall patterns on

the south southwest Florida coast; however rainfall variations do exist from month to

month throughout the year (Thomas 1974:86). This rain water enters the Big Cypress

Swamp drainage system and slowly flows south southwest into Rookery Bay National

Estuarine Research Reserve and the rest of the Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve.

Understanding the energetics is the most important part of the classification of

this particular ecosystem, and the energetics here are very dependent on the climate and

weather systems. Within all coastal systems, fluctuations in temperature and salinity (as a

result of freshwater mixing from rainfall) are the primary sources of stress on the floral and faunal organisms. These fluctuations also serve to limit the diversity and variety within these ecosystems (Odum and Copeland 1974) and therefore, the fewer

fluctuations, the higher number of sustainable and robust organisms. Given the regular

temperatures and regular rainfall cycles, the conditions in the area of study would be ripe

for sustaining a wide variety and robust population of floral and faunal resources. The

two ecological systems in which Shell Island and all the sites used for comparison lie in

are categorized as Natural Tropical Ecosystems of High Diversity. They are either type

B-1 comprised of mangroves or type B-3, comprised of tropical meadows (Odum and

Copeland 1974).

29

III. Coastal Ecological Systems in Southwest Florida

Both types of ecosystems present in this region of study are of immense

importance in terms of potential resources available for cultural subsistence. They both

are based around complex food webs beginning with the floral resources and ending with

humans. While Mangrove and Tropical Meadows are the only ecological systems

discussed here, it should be noted that several other inland and offshore systems also provide nutrients to the environment where Shell Island is located. However, for the purposes of this investigation we will discuss only Mangroves and Tropical Meadow systems with the assumption that they are producing the majority of the energetic inputs that the food web is utilizing and from which humans would have drawn resources.

The first ecosystem is based on the mangrove trees that define the type. Because these trees cannot tolerate temperature decrease and frost, they are often used as boundaries of the tropical zone in south Florida (Kuenzler 1974). There are three species of mangroves present on the southwest Florida coast: Red (Rhizophora mangle), Black

(Avicennia nitida) and White (Laguncularia racemosa). They all serve the same purpose in the food web, but there are slight differences in their developmental cycles and robusticity. Red mangroves can tolerate a wider range of salinity than others and can sometimes sprout below the tidal range, but are the most sensitive to temperature fluctuations. White mangroves grow above the high tide mark and typically dominate the inland areas of the habitat while Black mangroves have the ability to persist in both

Zones (Kuenzler 1974). The different tidal zones of occupation by the types of mangroves are distinct, and little other vegetation interacts with them (Figure three).

30

Figure 3. Ecological zones within the B-1 Mangrove Ecosystem (Widmer 1988, adapted from Davis 1940).

While the debris from falling leaves and the algae that grow on the roots serve as a basis of the food web, the trees themselves are not grazed upon. Conversely, the tropical grasslands that form the basis of the Tropical Meadows ecosystem are actively grazed as a primary food source by some of the animals and fish that live there.

Therefore, mangrove ecosystems are based on debris from bark or leaf litter that falls into the water. Once in the water, amphipods like small shrimp and crabs graze on them break down the debris into small detrital particles (McPherson 1976). These particles serve as energy for various types of algae and fungi, which are the two main food sources for the remaining organisms at the basal level within the ecosystem. Essentially, the energy value of the disintegrating mangrove bark or leaf particles is transferred to the algal or fungal microbes and therefore into proteins. The addition of the microbes to the leaf particle increases the bio-nutritional value to its consumers (Heald et al. 1984). This is an

31

important factor in the seascape that surrounds Shell Island because it provides higher

quality foods to the organisms in the next trophic level. This detritus is repeatedly

consumed and processed by the organisms and the particulate size decreases until it is

completely consumed.

The primary trophic level of consumers consists of food that could be

immediately consumed by humans as sustenance, or served as food for larger fish. This includes Ballyhoo, various Mullet, Anchovy and Sardine species, and Menhaden fish

(among other small detrital food consumers). However, there are also twelve species of crustaceans, many copepods, mollusks and isopods that have evolved to adaptations that

allow them to focus on a specific particulate size (Odum and Heald 1972; Heald et al.

1984; Widmer 1988). The secondary consumers of these organisms have been divided

into lower, middle and top level carnivores (Heald et al. 1984). The lower level is

comprised of smaller carnivorous fish and immature middle and top level carnivores. The

middle level is comprised of many medium sized predatory fish like snook, flounder and

pompano as well as more juvenile top predators. The Rookery Bay National Estuarine

Research Reserve is also home to over 150 species of birds, many of which round out this

middle level of secondary consumers. The top predators in the mangroves include a small

number of species of fish like gray snapper, tarpon, cobia, barracuda, groupers as well as

bonnethead and other sharks (McPherson 1976). There are also reptiles represented in this

category in the form of crocodiles and American alligators. Again, the birds of Rookery

Bay round out the group of predators with eagles and ospreys at the top of the food web

with humans (Herald et al. 1984; Widmer 1988).

32

Several species of mollusks play key subsistence roles for humans in the

Mangrove ecosystem, but exist in separate habitats within it. Oysters are filter feeders

that form colonies attached to rocky outcrops, or natural shell deposits that are present

just offshore, outside the surf Zone. They form large colonies that build on top of each

other, and are both highly visible and accessible at low tide. Several species of

Mercenaria live in the sandy and muddy bottoms of this environment. They use a large foot to move and burrow into the seafloor where they serve as filter feeders. They do not attach to each other, and thrive in portions of the estuarine environment where rocky outcrops or concretions are absent. Several species of Busycon flourish in the mangrove environment as well. They are gastropods that move along the sandy or muddy substrate feeding on Mercenaria and other bivalves (Odum and Heald 1972; Heald et al. 1984;

Widmer 1988). Due to their large, strong shells, they were utilized for making many types of tools and jewelry in addition to their subsistence value (Marquardt 1992).

Marine tropical meadows are the other type of ecosystem represented within the scope of this investigation along the south southwest Florida coast. The submerged grasses lie in shallow waters that (like mangroves) support a wide variety of organisms and rank amongst the most productive ecosystems in the biosphere (Durate 2010). The grasses that define the ecosystem primarily consist of turtle grass (Thalassia testudium), shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii), manatee grass (Syringodum filiforme), widgeon grass

(Ruppia maritime) and Halopnila (Odum 1974, Zieman 1982). Like the mangrove system, the tropical meadows seagrass ecosystem is based on the detritus and debris that results as the grasses break off and die when they can no longer perform photosynthesis.

These particles nourish a high level of microbial organisms that feed on them, thus

33

increasing the nutritional value when consumed by the other bottom organisms like

worms and sea cucumbers which form the base of the food web (McPherson 1976). As

this material is broken down and expelled as waste, it releases nitrogen and phosphorous that is re-absorbed as nourishment to the seagrasses. A significant portion of the organisms that the seagrasses support are filter feeders, which clear the water of detritus and debris, thus clarifying the water allowing the grasses to more effectively perform photosynthesis (Odum 1974).

These extremely productive and diverse grasses are also highly adapted to the fluctuation in salinity and temperature that comes with tidal flushing and terrestrial runoff

(McPherson 1976). However as previously discussed, there is little fluctuation in the climate, and therefore fewer seasonal changes that stress the grass and other organisms.

The low stress to the environment results in the higher diversity of organisms, and specialization within that group that produces a highly complex interrelated community of animals adapted to maximal production in such a low stress environment (Odum

1974). The tropical meadow environment supports many of the same organisms as the mangroves, with the addition of filter feeders such as anemones and ascidians, which provides more food for middle and top predators. They similarly support mollusks including surf clams, oysters, Busycon, and Mercenaria, upon which humans subsist in their individual habitat within the tropical meadow. There are also the organisms that feed directly on the seagrass like manatees and turtles, which can provide huge amounts of food to humans in organized hunts, and whose excrement continues to nourish the sea grasses (McPherson 1976, Widmer 1988).

34

These flora and fauna thrive in an estuarine environment that was created by a

rising sea level, and maintained by the stabilization of that sea level. The maintenance or

creation of estuarine environments is reliant on a rate of sedimentation from the rivers

and bayous that is equal to or greater than the amount of sea level rise (Widmer 2005).

During the Holocene, the sea level advanced very quickly, creating an unstable situation with large amounts of erosion that would not allow plants and therefore animals to take

advantage of the environment. Before 5500 B. P. the sea level advanced at more than 50

cm per 100 years (Wanless and Parkinson 1989). This rate was far too fast for any

mangroves, shellfish or seagrass to take advantage of the emergent shallow brackish

waters, as the constant erosion would have made the establishing of mangrove stands

impossible and the water clarity too poor for seagrasses. After 5500 B. P. that rate drastically slowed to only 23 centimeters per 100 years, allowing for clearer water and

establishment of the estuarine flora. It was not until 3200 B. P. that the sea level increase

slowed to four cm every 100 years and facilitated the explosion and maximal exploitation

of the environment by both the animals that lived on the south Florida coast and the

humans that lived there.

As another consequence of the higher sea level, the inland freshwater that was

stored in the limestone bedrock was pushed to the surface. This results in nearly all of the

runoff from precipitation flowing into streams in rivers and transporting crucial

sediments that nourish and sometimes build the features that make up the estuarine environment (Widmer 2005). The combination of the increased freshwater runoff over time into the newly stabilized shallow brackish water estuaries along the south southwest

Florida coast facilitated an explosion of life within the region. This explosion would have

35

certainly been noticed by the inhabitants of the Florida coast, and the time frame

coincides with the end of the Pre-Glades period and beginning of the famous Glades

tradition. One can easily see the advantages an increase in sustainable, wide ranging, and

easily procurable food sources offered hunter gatherers already adapted to the

environment. The level of productivity in the environment was such that they could reap

all the benefits offered by agriculture without having any. The yield of plant and animal

food per unit of human energy expenditure increases greatly when agriculture and animal

husbandry replaces wild hunting and gathering. The abundance of food and energy that

accompanies this adaptation provides “the energy resources for culture building” which

result in great advances in cultural development (White, 2011:110). Remarkably, these

cultures achieved advanced levels of cultural development and sociocultural integration

while utilizing energy resources from the estuarine environment alone.

IV. Geology

The freshwater drains following the natural bedrock contours of the Tamiami

Formation, generally to the southwest. The Tamiami Formation dates to the Miocene

(23.03 to 5.332 million years ago) and is of higher elevation than the other formations to

the north and to the east, making the path of least resistance for freshwater to the sea

directly west or southwest (Widmer 1988; Cox and Moore 1993). During the Sangamon

sea era of the Pleistocene, the only area that was above the water level in the region was

the Immokalee rise. This area existed as an island south of the North American mainland while the rest of the region was submerged (Hoffmeister 1974; Widmer 1988).

Consequently, soils on the southwest Florida coast are chiefly shallow sands which are

36

well drained and would have been too poor for agricultural use in the pre-Pleistocene.

Other inland areas have some Pleistocene and post-Pleistocene formations consisting of soils that are sandy clay and calcitic mud or organic peat (Widmer 1988). This is an important aspect of the environmental setting because it demonstrates the limited amount of resources available to the inhabitants on the south southwest Florida coast to utilize for construction. There was no earth with which to build any type of earthworks, as other complex cultures along the Gulf Coast were known to build. There are historic accounts of complex chiefdom societies in southwest Florida that would have required long periods of time to develop (Solis de Meras, 1964), and this would have been impossible without mastery of the landscape to build chiefly residences, places of worship, and general habitations that would be safe from sea level changes and catastrophic tropical events. Furthermore, the terrestrial regions to the interior of Florida adjacent to the study area are made up of soils that do not lend themselves to high productivity of nutritional resources with or without agriculture (Sears 1974, 1982).

Not all coastal systems possess the same levels of energetic productivity. The estuarine environment on the southwest Florida coast where Shell Island is situated certainly possesses a combination of resources that could be classified as high productivity. Widmer (1988:114) points out that “It is not enough simply to say that a particular region has high productivity; this productivity must be accessible to human exploitation and be sufficiently stable and predictable to result in a viable resource base for human use.” The coastal portions of this study area make up an estuarine environment within a subtropical Zone that provides immediate access year-round to an extraordinary amount of useable resources. An estuary is defined as “a semi-enclosed coastal body of

37

water which has a free connection with the open sea and within which sea water is

measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage" (Pritchard 1967:3). The

term estuarine will be utilized here to classify resources that are derived from this type of

environment as it comprises the entirety of the study area.

V. Shell Bearing Research Overview

Shell-bearing sites are often automatically (and without any reason as to why this is the case) referred to as shell midden sites, which has been recognized as a wholly

inadequate term considering the vast amounts of data concerning the populations’

interaction with the environment, as well as social complexity, hierarchy and kinship

contained therein (Ambrose 1967; McManamon 1984; Waselkov 1984; Lightfoot 1985;

Widmer 1989; Claassen 1991; Widmer 1996; Aten 1999; Widmer 2004; Luer 2007;

Marquardt 2010; Álvarez, Briz Godino et al. 2011; Thompson and Worth 2011). The

study of shell-bearing sites therefore has a sweeping relevance to coastal research

interests across the world. Methods of investigating shell-bearing sites have varied widely

over the last 200 years as archaeological approaches have evolved. From artifact hunting

to establish a relative temporal understanding of cultures, approaches shifted to

quantitative analysis of the construction contents at the sites. More recently, research has

shifted to understanding environmental impacts and changes as well as developing

culture histories of the region based on materials at these sites (Claassen 1998).

The earliest observations of potentially important aboriginal constructions in

south Florida were made when the area was being developed as a winter vacationing area

38

in the late 1800s (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Kenworthy (1883) and Douglass (1885)

wrote observations about large mounds across southwest Florida as well as aboriginal

canals near Lake Okeechobee (Widmer 1988). In 1884, Simmons described twenty five

“shell heaps” in Charlotte Harbor, where Spaniard Pedro Menendez de Aviles formed an

alliance with Calusa Chief Carlos in 1565 (Solis de Meras 1964; Widmer 1988;

Marquardt 1987). British Officer Colonel Durnford mounted a small expedition to explore these canals in 1895, and along the way decided to investigate one of these shell, mud and sand mounds, resulting in the unearthing of human skeletal material (Durnford

1895:1037-1038; Weisman and Newman 1995). He brought these skeletal materials and other artifacts he recovered on the trip to the University of Pennsylvania Museum, where

Frank Cushing of the Bureau of American Ethnology was visiting and who identified

them as important aboriginal remains of a culture “as that of the Ancient Pile Dwellers of

Switzerland or the Pile and Platform Builders of the Gulf of Aracaibo on the Bayous of

the Orinoco in Venezuela” (Cushing 1896:330). After these investigations, Durnford was

followed by Cushing, Moore, Hrdlicka and others who traveled to southwest Florida

mounting their own investigations into the shell “heaps” of the region. So began

investigations into the ancient shell works on the southwest Florida coast.

While many of the initial investigations were largely an effort to recover

aesthetically pleasing ancient artifacts, Cushing was the first to excavate using a

controlled grid system and the first to evaluate the artifacts from an anthropological

perspective (Widmer 1988). Using a comparative cultural approach, he likened the

artifacts recovered more to the Middle Mississippian designs from further inland than to

the closer Caribbean cultures. Cushing recognized the important role that the

39

environmental setting plays in shaping cultural adaptations (Widmer 1988) and

suggested, after analyzing the data collected from his excavations, that these patterns

were indicative of “a Shell Age phase of human development and culture” (Cushing

1896:411).

Antiquarian investigations on the southwest Florida coast became less common

after the excavations of shell-bearing sites began to produce fewer museum quality and

aesthetically pleasing artifacts (Moore 1919). Subsequently, a quantitative approach to

analyses of these sites became the norm as archaeologists directed their excavations and

analysis to satisfy more anthropologically driven questions. The quantitative approach to

the archaeology of shell-bearing sites is highly methodical and theoretical in orientation

(Ambrose 1967; Stein 1992; Waselkov 1984; Claassen 1998; Schwadron 2010). This

approach physically quantifies the contents of the sites and provides a valuable resource

in efforts to better understand aspects of both C and N-transformations. C-

transformations include quantifiable aspects of archaeological material like diet and

environmental resource exploitation, seasonal subsistence patterns, and cultural

complexity developmental markers (Bailey and Parkington 1988; Schwadron 2010). For

N-transformations, overall prehistoric environmental trends may be observed, including

sea level rise and fall and catastrophic weather impacts left by storm surge (Bailey and

Parkington 1988; Pickering 1998; Irish et al. 2008; Schwadron 2010). The environmental

data that quantitative approaches result in is crucial to understanding the estuarine

adaptation subsistence strategies that aboriginal populations relied on to successfully

persist. Furthermore, this data can contribute a great deal to developing theories of pre-

Columbian estuarine economies and the evolution of the cultures in southwest Florida

40

from coastal hunter-gathers, to complex non-agricultural chiefdoms. (Waselkov 1984;

Widmer 1988; Schwadron 2010).

Initially, shellfish and coastal resources were thought to be only a marginally useful resource based on their individual nutritional value when compared to the nutritional value of other faunal resources. Individually, shellfish are poor sources of both protein and calories (Byrd 1976; Meehan 1977, 1982:144). While shell-bearing sites along the southwest Florida coast may be large constructions or middens, it is important to understand that the ratio of shell remnants to flesh does not necessarily represent a

great quantity of food (Byrd 1976; Reitz et al. 1987:313). During investigations on the

Louisiana Gulf Coast, Kathleen Byrd found that it would take 25,300 clams (represented

by 50,600 clam shells), or 11.8 cubic feet of shell, to equal the amount of meat that a

single 100-lb deer would provide (Byrd 1976:25). Generally speaking, the time and effort

needed to gather and prepare shellfish is nearly equivalent to the energetic yield of the

food. However, in the estuarine environment along the southwest Florida coast, they can

easily be harvested by hand, or through the use of boats and rakes in deeper water (Byrd

1976:28; Widmer 1988). All members and age groups of the community may collect

shellfish with very low risk or effort and without any specialized technology for

harvesting or processing, other than perhaps basket weaving (Meehan 1977:524,

1982:119). Schubert (2008:24) states, “For these reasons, shellfish are highly visible, important, albeit minor, components of the subsistence base of coastal groups across the globe.” However, as mollusk remains are highly visible, with an immediate draining property that could also be desirable for raising the elevations of dwellings, shellfish are increasingly being recognized for playing a more important role in human evolution and

41

estuarine adaptations across the globe throughout human history (Bailey 1975; Bailey

and Parkington 1988; Pye and Allen 2000; Bailey and Milner 2003; Finamore 2004;

Erlandson and Fitzpatrick 2006; Schwadron 2010).

The traditional view of shell sites was that they were domestic quotidian refuse

and the unusable remains of a subsistence resource thrown into garbage piles as a result

of generally recent adaptations (Walker 1880; Marquardt 2010). However, the

quantitative approach has allowed for bio-archaeological and archaeo-faunal studies that

have been utilized by comparative cultural investigations in order to make accurate

inferences about the past lifeways of the cultures that built the shell-bearing sites on the

south southwest Florida coast (Widmer 1988). Furthermore, the regional perspective on human centered social landscapes has produced distinct spatial and temporal characteristics of shell-bearing site landscapes that “reflect(s) changes in community organization, and thus social complexity over time” (Schwadron 2010:7). These studies take the investigation of shell-bearing sites into a new arena where geographic information systems facilitate spatial analysis, resulting in the recognition of settlement patterns and better understanding of culture areas. Schwadron (2010) identified spatial patterns of distribution of shell-bearing sites in the region ranging from “small, simple, non-complex linear and curvilinear shell midden ridges, to massive complete islands constructed with complex arrangements of shell” (Schwadron 2010:8). Central to this work is the ability to distinguish the purpose of the individual shell works and shell- bearing sites.

Identifying the particular purpose of these sites, and the features within these shell-bearing constructions is a particularly difficult task. Widmer (1989) explained some

42

of these complications in a paper presented at the SAA conference. He discusses the three

main sources of complications in shell-bearing site excavation: 1) the logistical problems that arise when such a large amount of vertebrate and invertebrate remains are contained in a single location, 2) the assumed differences between the function of shell-bearing sites and middens, and 3) the difficulty in accurately differentiating the function of multiple sites that may or may not be related temporally and spatially. He discussed how

“archaeologists have traditionally classified most shell-bearing sites as shell middens.

This is unjustifiable in many cases and … the failure to recognize and distinguish these formation processes has resulted in misinterpretation of site function and failure to recover numerous classes of data” (Widmer 1989). The complex relationship between the archaeological remains, the paleo-environment, and the method that archaeologists classify the data from the investigation makes the aim of this thesis difficult. To clarify,

Widmer’s shell-bearing site typology will be utilized (Table one) and the archaeological data recovered during excavations at Shell Island will be tested against his model for shell-bearing habitation sites.

The concept of shell-bearing sites as presented in this investigation is derived from Frank Hamilton Cushing and Ales Hrdlicka’s description of shell “works” or

“heaps” (Cushing 1896; Hrdlicka 1922; Widmer 1989). Goggin and Milanich view shell- bearing sites as comparable to other earthworks in the interior of Florida (Okeechobee region) and North America in their complex and purposeful configurations of mounds, ridges and plazas (Goggin 1948a; Milanich 1994:312-314). In fact, Goggin viewed the complex shell-bearing sites of south Florida to be more impressive than all the known mound sites across eastern North America (Goggin 1948:115). Like Widmer, Goggin

43

differentiated shell middens from other types of shell deposits by specifically describing

them as quotidian refuse and emphasizing that the term midden only pertains to “casual

accumulation of shell and refuse” (Goggin 1948:389). When shell from any source is

used to create ramps, ridges, habitational or ceremonial structures, Widmer and Goggin

agree that the material becomes construction fill and ceases to be midden material

(Goggin 1948; Widmer 1989). Goggin, Griffin and Carr recognize that “shell works”

were large coastal sites comprised of purposefully arranged mounds, ridges, plazas,

canals probably representing bases for houses and temples (Carr 1988; Goggin 1948;

Griffin 1988). Griffin associated what he considered to be “shell middens” with smaller

fishing stations and the larger “shell works” with nucleated village sites (Griffin 1988).

Carr also noted that these shell works had many man-made canals that led from the

village sites out to the open water, where an estuarine subsistence environment existed

(Carr 1988). Additionally, these canals would have provided access to an extensive trade network among the Calusa (Widmer 1988:275; Luer 1989). In 1991 Dickel described the terminology “shell works” as an “ill-defined though often used category” (Dickel

1991:125). His description of the inaccuracies of the term “shell works” serves to further

justify Widmer’s classification system.

Schwadron has defined three main feature types concerning shell constructions: 1)

mound-like constructions for habitational, ceremonial, or water control purposes; 2)

excavated features that utilize negative space as a water way or fish trap; 3) flat open

areas (Schwadron 2010). The first type is the most complex type of construction

encompassing several functions in either mound or ridge-type features. She describes the

mound type features to include anywhere from a single to multiple constructions in a

44

variety of shapes like conical or oval. Sometimes these constructions may be arranged in

straight lines, curvilinear rows, or between channels and canals. These features may have single or multiple access ramps leading up the side of them. Shell benches, ridges, or platforms may be considered mound-type features. Single linear or curvilinear ridges that have been observed as being parallel, connecting, dividing, or radiating out of a central location also fall into this category (Schwadron 2010). These kinds of features can be found individually at sites or together in multiple sets depending on their function and the size of the complex. For example, all of these types of constructions were observed at

Key Marco and Horr’s Island (8CR209), while only the individual, conical or truncated pyramidal type of constructions were found at Shell Island. After surveying the area with a total station and using ACAD program Surfer, it was found that between nine and 18 mounds, or remnants of these mounds, remain with only one remaining intact by the time

Widmer excavated in 1997. These are the types of constructions that Hrdlicka described as peppering the area surrounding what is now designated Shell Island and “plainly a village site, the shell heaps having served as elevated platforms for habitations,”

(Hrdlicka 1922:21).

Schwadron’s (2010) “negative space” features include any aboriginal areas that were constructed specifically to create concavity by constructing shell mounds around other areas to produce the desired effect, or through excavating material in efforts to create canals, basins or depressions. She describes shell lined water courts, depressions and canals whose forms are either created or maintained by shell as comprising this category (Schwadron 2010:54). Canal formations were never recorded at Shell Island by early observers (Moore 1907; Hrdlicka 1922), nor were they noted during survey or

45

excavations performed by Dickel (1992) or Widmer (1997). They are associated with other, larger sites in the region, including Key Marco (Court of the Pile Dwellers) and

Horr’s Island. However Shell Island’s location at the mouth of Henderson Creek provided its inhabitants direct access to the best and most abundant resources that estuarine and inland environments have to offer (Widmer 1997). There was no need for canals connecting the houses or courts to each other because the site was entirely situated on the estuary itself. The third and final category in Schwadron’s descriptions is that of the flat, open shell lined areas sometimes called shell fields. These areas are purposefully kept open, clear, flat and are lined with shell serving as a large gathering space for social or possibly ceremonial purposes. She notes that they may also contain subtle, undulating topography that is not immediately identifiable, but is potentially significant (Schwadron

2010:54). There are no descriptions of these types of formations at Shell Island.

VI. Previous Investigations

This section will review previous prehistoric archaeological investigations at

Shell Island and in the surrounding Ten Thousand Islands region. The sites reviewed will

be focused on shell-bearing sites, particularly those where inferences have been made

that they served as prehistoric habitations and village sites where cultural activities exploited these natural resources successfully. These types of sites have contributed to our understanding of the region’s cultural chronology, paleo-environment, subsistence systems, trade networks and technology. We will also review established culture history of the south Florida region including pre-Glades and Glades sequences. These will be

46

important in understanding the relationship that the coastal inhabitants had with the rest

of the region and evidence of trade networks.

In the middle to late 1800s, the regular and largely temperate to warm climate that

was previously discussed began to attract Americans looking for a warmer climate in

which to spend the winter (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Widmer 1988; Milanich 1994).

Kenworthy (1883) and Douglass (1885) wrote observations about large mounds across southwest Florida as well as aboriginal canals on Pine Island and one mentioned just south of Naples, within 10 miles of Shell Island. They investigated shell mounds on

Gasparilla Island in Charlotte harbor as well as many mounds in the Okeechobee basin

including Fort Center and Fisheating Creek (Kenworthy 1883; Douglass 1885; Widmer

1988). In 1884 Simmons described twenty five “shell heaps” at Useppa Island and

Mondongo Key in Charlotte Harbor where Spaniard Pedro Menendez de Aviles formed an alliance with Calusa Chief Carlos 1565 (Solis de Meras 1964; Marquardt 1987;

Widmer 1988). The county’s namesake Captain W. D. Collier arrived on Marco Island in

the 1870s and settled there. While building a garden by pulling up muck from the inside

of the island, he unearthed many artifacts ranging from nets to various wooden tools. He

didn’t think much of them, but a man named Charles Wilkins heard of these interesting

discoveries and returned himself to dig for a day, finding more of the same kinds of

curious artifacts (Cushing 1896:329). Wilkins eventually teamed up with British Officer,

adventurer and treasure hunter Colonel C. B. Durnford, who had the means and

motivation to mount a more intensive expedition into the region.

At the end of the 19th century Colonel C. B. Durnford raised a small group of

men to investigate and explore some of the aboriginal shell heaps identified across the

47

coast that had been known to produce artifacts of interest (Weisman and Newman 1995).

He set out also to explore the canals identified by Kenworthy and Douglass. In the

Rookery bay area, Durnford excavated at Sand Hill Bay site where fishing guides had

located a body while artifact hunting two years before any other archaeological interest

was shown. Durnford recorded that there was a one foot thick cement dome on top of the

burial area and was surrounded by a ring of oyster shells that was sixty feet in

circumference (Durnford 1895:1039). He identified these features buy digging large trenches across the landform looking for artifacts. Over a fairly short period, he

investigated several shell, mud and sand mounds resulting in the unearthing many

artifacts like rope, wooden tools and ceremonial items as well as more skeletal material

(Durnford 1895:1037-1038). Unfortunately, however, Durnford later explained the driving force behind his investigations was based on legends of buried native treasure in

the area. He believed that Chief Carlos and other native groups like the Calusa salvaged

gold and silver from Spanish wrecks and buried them within these shell piles (Weisman

and Newman 1995). While these expeditions contributed little to our archaeological

understanding or the culture history of the region, they did serve one anthropologically

significant purpose, which was to stimulate the interest of one Frank Hamilton Cushing of the Bureau of American Ethnology and consequently Ales Hrdlicka, two giants of

early anthropological theory and method. Cushing, followed by Hrdlicka and others

traveled to mount their own investigations into the shell “heaps” in the region. These

investigations marked the beginnings of useful, anthropological investigations and data recovery on the south southwest Florida Coast.

48

These first investigations involved recording observations of modified landscapes,

minimal excavation and treasure hunting. The legends of native-recovered Spanish gold

have persisted to this day. In the early 1980s, Florida state agencies and the Audubon

Society sponsored fairly extensive investigations at Durnford’s Sand Hill site with the

objective being to recover the alleged gold that proved unsuccessful (Weisman and

Newman 1995). Frank Hamilton Cushing’s first trip to the area was to assess the results

of Colonel Durnford’s excavations and he concluded that they were all related. He noted

at least eleven “shell settlements” across various keys and built atop the reefs of Pine

Island as well as some main land shell settlements in the Ten Thousand Islands region

(Cushing 1895:1134). Cushing also returned to Key Marco to conduct controlled

excavations where Colonel Durnford, Captain Collier, and Wilkins had made interesting

discoveries adjacent to Collier’s garden. As he explored further, he described the

landscape as being the greatest constructions and monuments of anything he had seen on

the Florida coast. He found incredible works including a system of canals that connected

large inland mounds and courts with the estuarine environment. At Demorey’s Key, he

discovered a Busycon pick with the wooden handle still attached at what he described as

“Great shell settlements that had been surrounded inside and out by post-supported

platforms” (Cushing 1896:331-335) and as being the second greatest site that he had ever

seen. These initial investigations drew the interest of the University of Pennsylvania,

famous Philadelphia physician Dr. Pepper, and philanthropist Phoebe Hurst (Widmer

1988).

This second, full scale expedition yielded incredible information pertinent to the

anthropological understanding of the culture of south southwest Florida. Using surveying

49

techniques to establish horizontal accuracy, Cushing excavated in a controlled ten foot

square grid system, mapping in his own work as well as the previous investigations in the

area, and producing the first stratigraphic profile of south southwest Florida (Widmer

1988:38). As previously discussed, a comparative cultural approach that was far ahead of

his time was utilized in which he likened the artifacts to the Middle Mississippian

iconography of inland North America rather than to the closer Caribbean cultures.

Cushing was also the first to recognize the role that the environmental setting plays in shaping cultural adaptations to the southwest Florida estuaries, noting that the incredibly productive estuarine setting could easily support large and complex societies (Widmer

1998:38). Cushing believed that these were indicative of “a Shell Age phase of human development and culture” (Cushing 1896:411) and further hypothesized that this pattern

of rich estuarine adaptation would be found at analogous sites across the world. His

works were published in his book Exploration of Ancient Key Dweller’s Remains on the

Gulf Coast of Florida in 1896. The extraordinarily detailed methodology sparked a great interest in the area for other researchers and directly resulted in the investigations by C.B.

Moore and Hrdlicka.

C. B. Moore arrived in the Ten Thousand Islands region of Florida in 1900 on his steam-powered ship (aptly named) Gopher, which he had been using to travel up the northern Florida river systems digging for ceremonial goods in burial mounds located inland. He spent the first of four seasons trenching previously recorded aboriginal canals and burial mounds, where he had some successes locating burial goods at the Indian Old

Field site on Pine Island (Moore 1900). He also attempted to recreate the discoveries of

Cushing and others at the muck ponds adjacent to what had become known as the “Court

50

of the Pile Dwellers” with little success. Subsequently he traveled south to other sites

identified by Cushing and Durnford and then beyond Horr’s Island site, making him the

first to investigate anywhere south of there (Widmer 1988). While on expedition during

this first season, Moore was hunting specifically for decorated pottery and desirable

grave goods, however he found little. He commented that most of the sites he encountered were more interesting to surveyors than to archaeologists (Moore 1900:380).

Fortunately, his surveyors were kept busy as he measured and accurately described his observations including some revisions of previously recorded estimated mound height

measurements.

His second expedition in 1904 was characterized by the completion of the

excavation began earlier at Pine Island where he identified many burials and recorded

their positions and mortuary treatments. While few burial goods and the majority of the

ceramics collected were described as “inferior ware” (Moore 1905) Moore’s excavations

recorded valuable information for anthropologists concerning post-mortem treatment and

burial practices. Moore also visited and identified site Shell Island as Crawford Place,

where he described the shell deposits as noteworthy but did not excavate or collect

anything (Moore 1907, pp. 12). After traveling further south to several more sites and

excavating, he came to five basic conclusions which ultimately, led him to the decision to

never excavate in south southwest Florida again. His following trips to the region in 1906

and 1907 involved consulting with and obtaining artifacts from local resident’s

collections. Moore’s conclusions were firstly, that the shell mounds were interesting

“monuments” but they “offer little reward to the investigator” (Moore 1905:304). The

reward he is referring to is the museum quality artifacts that he was searching for. While

51

many shell tools, plummets, and other stone tools were recovered, Moore did not believe anything would be recovered of interest south of Key Marco (Moore 1919:401).

Secondly, Moore felt that the sand mounds contained few burials, and little to no pottery.

Thirdly, the burial mounds of south southwest Florida contained fewer burial goods, and that the artifacts present were smaller and inferior to the sites on the north southwest

Florida coast and the St Johns River area. Next, he concluded that the majority of sites in south Florida, like those on the coast likely contained similarly few ceramics of

exhibition quality in their burial areas. Finally, he concluded that based on his extensive

and multiple failed attempts to duplicate Cushing’s wooden artifact discoveries on Key

Marco, Cushing’s discoveries must have been unusual and unique (Moore 1905). He

believed that “An attempt to duplicate a discovery such as Mr. Cushing’s would resemble

a search for a needle in a hay-stack” (Moore 1905:304).

The next major investigation was done by the eminent physical anthropologist

Ales Hrdlicka who, after an initial visit to Fort Meyers, organized a major

anthropological survey of south southwest Florida (Hrdlicka 1919, 1922). Hrdlicka felt

that the previous investigations were insufficient for his purposes, but the coastal shell

sites that were investigated did contain valuable information. While he did not excavate

during his investigations, he described in great detail many shell works in the Ten

Thousand Islands region. He revisited the sites that had been identified but given little discussion by Moore, and then continued further south to Cape Sable (Widmer 1988).

One of the sites he visited was Shell Island, which he referred to as Tom Week’s Place rather than Moore’s Crawford’s place. While the mapping and descriptions coincided with each other, it is unclear why the names given to the site are different, there could

52

have been a change in ownership or tenant of the site. He noted the importance of the

estuarine environment being the primary source for both subsistence and construction

material as the thin vegetation that would have never been enough to support “any large

Indian population” (Hrdlicka 1922:19). The richness of the environment in providing for

the many archaeological settlements and sites in the Ten Thousand Islands region of

south southwest Florida impressed him. He formulated an early classification system for

the multitude of complex mound and canal systems he encountered. These classifications

were: a) shell mounds, b) shell and muck mounds, c) shell heaps d) canals, e) shelter

ponds or water courts for canoes (Widmer 1988). At Gopher Key he recorded a pristine

undisturbed site covered in shell constructions ranging in size from less than a half

hectare to larger than 20 hectares that he regarded as representative of habitational

platforms rather than simple kitchen middens as had previously been hypothesized

(Widmer 1988). This represents another forward thinking anthropologist seeing the shell

works first hand and interpreting them as something other than refuse from kitchen

middens in a time when they were viewed as being nothing but refuse and good for road

construction fill. His observations were critical for future anthropologists who were

trying to justify saving these sites for their archaeological importance. Hrdlicka was the

first to identify the region as representative of a culturally distinct complex focusing on estuarine adaptation, trade and warfare (Hrdlicka 1922).

In the following decades, much of the excavation continued to center around burials, but with more of an interest in the physical anthropological and burial treatment

information than searching for burial goods to fill museums in the northeast. Fewkes,

chief of the Bureau of American Ethnology, visited the region surveying mostly

53

prerecorded sites for future excavations aimed at identifying whether or not the culture

groups were related to the people of the Caribbean (Widmer 1988). In the winters of 1927

and 28, the Division of Ethnology at the U. S. national Museum sent Henry Collins to excavate burial mounds and assess Calusa anthropomorphic characteristics (Collins

1929). W.M. Stirling of the Bureau of American Ethnology began working in southwest

Florida in 1930, where his methodical and scientific approach is considered to be the first modern period archaeological investigation of the Ten Thousand Islands region (Goggin

1949; Widmer 1988). He based his propositions about past cultures in the area on data

recovered during his field work, especially the extensive excavation at Blue hill Mound

on Horr’s Island. Like Hrdlicka, he made generalizations about the Calusa culture history

as it related to the history of the rest of the region. Sterling is responsible for the

introduction of the south Florida ceramic complex classification system in both spatial

and cultural terms commonly referred to as Glades ware. He found the three distinctive

ceramic complexes or ‘wares’ within this category between Tampa Bay and Charlotte

Harbor which he described as Safety harbor ware, the Weeden Island ware and Arcadia

ware (Stirling 1936).

At the same time, John Goggin began a series of expeditions to the Ten Thousand

Islands region in an effort to archaeologically delineate cultural occupations. Goggin was

working on recording artifacts and construction materials in relation to their stratigraphy

at Gordon’s Pass site near Naples. His work helped establish the Glades sequence of

ceramic construction and decoration development temporally (Goggin 1939). Goggin’s

extensive work over the rest of his life was aimed at delineating an archaeologically

qualified temporal and spatial distribution of Glades complexes and the cultures

54

associated with them (Widmer 1998). He spent his entire life revising his theories on the

Glades tradition, but unfortunately he died before the culmination of all of his work.

Before his death, he categorized south Florida into three subdivisions, archaeologically

establishing stratigraphic sequences in all areas (Goggin 1940; 1941; 1944a; 1944b;

1947; 1963; Goggin and Sommer 1949). More recent investigations with modern

technologies including radiocarbon dating have proven Goggin’s theories resulting from

his labor intensive methodology as being “remarkably accurate” (Widmer 1988:48). His

work is a testament to sound archaeological field methodology and drawing theories from

what the data recovered suggests. He was the first to synthesize the archaeological

information about the region and identify the importance of the estuarine adaptation of

the Calusa. He linked the evidence from his and others to the sociopolitical complexity of

a highly ranked, nonagricultural coastally adapted culture unlike anything that had been identified anywhere else in North America (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964).

Goggin’s articles rekindled interest in the Ten Thousand Islands region where

Shell Island was located. The following year excavations were conducted on a portion of

the Key Marco site using Goggin’s methodology with a focus on stratigraphy. These

were the first excavations at the site since C. B. Moore’s excavations in 1900 (Van Beck

and Van Beck 1965). The excavations resulted in a stratigraphically delineated

occupation history as well as recovery of a remarkable amount of faunal material. The

analysis of these vertebrate remains by E. S. Wing was the first of its kind in the region

and facilitated anthropologists’ better understanding of the complex relationship between

the Calusa and the environment that supported their culture.

55

Subsequently, from the late 1960s to 1970s, the staff of the Division of Archives and History State of Florida initiated investigations at Key Marco with a broad scope and time frame in anticipation of residential development on the island by the Deltona

Corporation. Randolph Widmer led survey testing in the area for the purposes of identifying the location of all known prehistoric sites, evaluating their significance and recommendations on how development should proceed (Widmer1974). During this same timeframe, Cockrell initiated his own excavations at Key Marco for his master’s thesis project and identified shell middens that were recorded below the water line, suggesting early occupation during times of lower sea level (Cockrell 1970:37). Additionally, many discoveries of fiber-tempered ceramics in certain context established that there was a very early occupation analogous to other early sites that were identified in the Charlotte

Harbor region (Griffin 1949; Bullen and Bullen 1956; Cockrell 1970). As a result of this

extensive thesis investigation by Cockrell, the accurate surveying and re-evaluation of

previously recorded sites on Key Marco, and new, controlled excavations established that

there was a Pre-Glades occupation at Key Marco whose adaptation strategies were very

different from the more recent cultures. Cockrell bridged the gap between Pre-Glades

tradition hunter gatherers in south southwest Florida and archaeologically qualified the

transition to the estuarine resource exploitation complex that characterized the Glades

tradition in the region (Cockrell 1970). After Cockrell’s work on the Pre-Glades and

transitional period, subsequent work focused on this period’s adaptation. More

excavation on Marco Island and the Ten Thousand Islands region was conducted

specifically focusing on early Glades sites and using their faunal assemblages to

determine subsistence patterns as well as the emergence of ceramic technology (Cumbaa

56

1971; Widmer 1988). The extent of excavation over time and space at Key Marco has

made it the most thoroughly investigated area in the whole of south Florida, and thus

many subsequent investigations as well as this thesis will draw on the lessons learned

from the data recovered over these many investigations.

The Key Marco site offers this investigation the unique ability to compare a non-

shell-bearing habitation structure, a shell-bearing habitation temple structure (Widmer

1996) as well as shell-bearing habitational structures similar to those on Shell Island

(Widmer 1998). This is a result of the exhaustive investigations over the years by

archaeologists and their application of new theoretical and technological approaches to

their methods (Cushing 1896; Gilliland 1975; Milanich 1994; Widmer 1996, 1998;

Pickering 1998).

Key Marco has certain mound features that are indicative of chiefdom sociopolitical organization based on the artifacts recovered and general layout of the site.

Some of these features include dedication offerings and construction practices involving

large personal coordination for sourcing and cleaning of construction materials outside of

normal domestic refuse, and the use of an exterior veneer of specific shell. The special

treatment of this structure indicates that this shell-bearing construction at the site was

some kind of temple or similar structure (Widmer 1996). These specialized, deliberate constructions and exotic, ritually charged offerings imply a chiefdom level of sociocultural integration. This type of social model implies a sedentary lifestyle, lineage- based elite craft specialization and production, and redistribution of surplus resources by a paramount chief through lower ranking chiefs. Through various construction phases evident in the stratigraphy of the site the artifactual density was nearly identical,

57

suggesting that the site’s functions remained the same for the entirety of its occupation.

Pickering (1998) and Widmer (1988) point out that this site, and indeed the Calusa

culture, is unique in that they are the first prehistoric nonagricultural chiefdom level

society in North America.

In 1995, Key Marco was investigated by Randolph Widmer (in anticipation of

immediate development of a portion of the island) with the specific goal of obtaining

“information relating to community layout and household behavior” (Widmer 1996:12).

During this investigation (designated OP1), a 45 meter long trench was excavated that revealed two areas of interest for the placement of units. To the western end of the trench, two units were excavated (N32E16 and N32R18, op 1 west) that revealed over 50 postmolds sealed underneath an unrelated, later shell construction that was designated mound B. Both units were 2x2 meters in size with a 50-60 cm balk between them for support and safety. Taking the balk, this makes the area excavated by the two units as

13.8 square meters and brings the postmold density to 3.77 postmolds per square meter.

This density of postmolds, with little room in between them, is indicative of a structure with elevated floor. Due to the absence of shell accumulation within the context of the postmolds, and the quotidian refuse artifacts in the sandy matrix, this has been interpreted to be an elevated house structure built on a flat sandy area rather than atop a shell construction. The OP1 west habitation site will be used for comparison of Shell Island to a non-shell-bearing elevated platform habitation site.

In 1995, Widmer’s excavations at Key Marco also produced artifacts identified as

being rare or valuable to the region and ritually charged. These types of intentional

interments are a common occurrence in Mesoamerica and are known as dedication

58

caches. These offerings are ritually and deliberately placed inside the structure’s

construction material and magically or spiritually charge the edifice. (Schele and Miller

1986; Fash 1991; Widmer 1996). While Widmer emphatically denies making a

Mesoamerican-southwest Florida connection, he does cross culturally compare and

acknowledge the similarity of the exotic artifact’s context during construction phases of

Mesoamerican temple sites and the sites of large shell-bearing constructions at Key

Marco. In Mesoamerica, these items served a ritual purpose and sanctified the building

that housed them, and it is postulated to be their purpose here as well. The 1995

excavations at Key Marco revealed the Mound A shell platform contained rare objects

such as a Columbia chert projectile that would have been only available through

extensive trade. Other items that were intentionally placed (not lost) into the

archaeological context at the site include offerings of red and yellow ochre, shell jewelry,

and evidence of the burial of shark steaks (Widmer 1996). Other than the dedication

offerings, the shell platform construction materials were “extremely clean and for the

most part devoid of midden deposits” (Widmer 1996:23). This portion of the 1995

excavation will serve as representative of a shell-bearing habitation construction that was

used as a temple platform with an elevated floor for comparison against Shell Island.

In 1998 Key Marco was again investigated by Widmer in anticipation of the

construction of more commercial properties adjacent to the Olde Marco Inn. The Inn was

built in 1883 and still sits at its original location, where it was included in the 1896

survey performed as a part of the Key Marco expedition under the direction of Cushing

(Cushing 1896). Similar to the 1995 excavations, the goals of this investigation

(designated OP2) also included an effort to better understand community patterning.

59

After excavation of three trenches, an area with the least modern disturbance and most postmolds was identified along trench three and excavation of 12 two meter by two meter

units commenced. The result was the location of a platform habitation initially situated

atop the flat platform of a 1.5m shell-bearing mound. Shell sediments were continually

added to this surface and there was evidence that this structure was rebuilt at least seven

times as it reached a final height of two meters (Widmer 1998). At the final stage of

construction, the function of the site appears to change, due to the increase in artifacts

that are indicative of wood and shell working. There is also a significantly more organic

stained matrix with a marl and marine mud floor on this top construction, unlike the

previous strata that do not bear evidence of any such construction techniques. Postmold

density in these units averaged 21.16 postmolds per unit of excavation. No ceremonial

dedication features were found at any point during the excavation. In the absence of such

exotic or potentially ritual objects, and presence of quotidian refuse, and midden deposits,

this shell-bearing site has been characterized as a habitation occupied and maintained by

a family unit and is not considered a ceremonial or temple mound. The Zones, midden

location, and postmold density from this investigation will be compared to Shell Island

and serve as the example of a shell-bearing habitation site.

These immense volume of data recovered at Key Marco has taken a considerable

amount of time, and resulted in a better understanding of grounded anthropological

theory based on establishing thorough stratigraphic understanding of each area excavated.

Similar stratigraphic excavation principals were applied at the Wightman site on Sanibal

Island in 1976 by J. T. Milanich and A. Fradkin of the University of Florida. They

developed specific methodologies for collection and analysis of floral and faunal

60

resources, and concluded that the patterns of subsistence at that site were almost

exclusively focused on resources from the estuarine environment and had very little

faunal remains whatsoever (Fradkin 1976). Thorough investigations were also performed

by Kennedy during a large scale survey of the Darling National Wildlife Refuge on

Sanibel Island that identified eleven previously unrecorded sites in the region whose

archaeological material spanned a very wide timeframe and consisted of a wide variety of

shell-bearing sites (Kennedy 1978).

The 1970s was an era of archaeological innovation in several areas, as

methodologies were developed for identifying and investigating various sites in the

region. One of the new types of methodologies required in this era was developed for

sites at sinkholes, mineral and karst ponds. Sites like Warm Mineral Springs, Little Salt

Spring, and the Bay West site were investigated and yielded evidence of the existence of

a pre-ceramic occupation in the region as early as 13,000 BCE that had a distinctive

aquatic burial practice (Wentz and Gifford 2007). Furthermore, some of the other

artifacts recovered had many similar attributes to the artifacts recovered during the

intensive excavations at Key Marco (Cockrell 1973, 1975, 1976; Clausen et al. 1975;

Widmer 1988). New situations required the development of new technologies for the

recovery preservation of the wooden and skeletal remains recovered during these

investigations. These methods have been and continue to be reapplied at numerous other sites in south Florida where they are needed. Another new technology that was harnessed for the purposes of archaeological investigation was remote sensing technology in the form of aerial photography. The National Parks Service in the Big Cypress National

Preserve, located to the east of the Ten Thousand Islands area, utilized aerial photography

61

to initially locate potential sites, and therefore prepare a targeted archaeological

investigation plan. This approach resulted in the identification and preliminary analysis of

394 archaeological sites that showed occupation from 3200 BCE to present day

(Ehrenhard et al. 1978; 1979; Ehrenhard and Taylor 1980; Widmer 1988). This era of the

implementation of new technologies continues to be at the forefront of investigations and

the development of new techniques in archaeological methods.

Work at Horr’s Island site (8CR209) began in 1979 with McMichael and

Milanich based on Stirling’s investigations nearly a century earlier. They used a backhoe

to dig into and profile the shell-bearing portions of the site near the water. McMichael

characterized the shell works as midden refuse as a result of several briefly occupied

shellfish gathering camps across the area (McMichael 1982). Through intensive

excavations that established stratigraphic deposition, artifacts and faunal remains were

identified at nearly all of the shell-bearing portions of the extensive site. The artifacts and

remains were found to be analogous to data studied by Cumbaa in 1971 at Key Marco

(Cumbaa 1971; McMichael 1982; Widmer 1988) and dated as early as 4500 BCE.

Subsequent investigations at Horr’s Island at the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s by

Russo resulted in his description of the site as the largest, earliest, most complex

aboriginal coastal site in the New World (Russo 1991). Marquardt began the Southwest

Florida project in 1983 at Josslyn Island and continued through 1988 and included

surveys in Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties at important sites including the islands of

Charlotte Harbor, the Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Cash Mound, and at

Useppa Island (Marquardt 1987; 1992). He collaborated over the years with many private land owners, universities, avocational archaeologist organizations, various foundations,

62

as well as local, state and federal jurisdictions with M. Russo and K. Walker to produce

an enormous amount of data on the way multiple occupations interacted with their

environment in the region of study (Marquardt 1992).

While shell-bearing works at Horr’s Island that are situated at the water’s edge are

extensive, there are portions of the site away from the water lacking shell that contain

postmolds (in circular formations), living surfaces, and in-ground hearths. The landscape

that 8CR209 occupies is comprised of sand dune remnants from the Pleistocene and

reaches the highest elevation in all of southwest Florida at 15 meters above mean sea

level (Russo 1991). Therefore, not all of the habitations necessarily need to be elevated in

order to be safely out of reach from the impact of an average storm surge. The postmolds

are relatively small and form curvilinear shapes adjacent to the remains of both hearths

and pits. The circular structures range in size from 4.3 to 4.8 meters in diameter and

Russo suggests that there could have been more variation in house size across the site

(Russo 1991:370). The size of the posts indicates that these structures were simple

constructions that gave shelter from light to moderate rains, sun exposure, and provided privacy and a place for pit features for storage of goods or food resources (Russo 1991).

The data recovered and analyzed from these portions of this site will serve as representative of a non-shell-bearing and non-elevated habitation from which to compare the data from Shell Island against.

The area of the Ten Thousand Islands has also had many sporadic investigations as a result of development in the area in compliance with the National Preservation Act of 1966. These cultural resource surveys primarily locate sites within the project development areas, to delineate the vertical and horizontal extents of these sites, to assess

63

the integrity of each site and to provide preliminary evaluation of each site’s potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or designation as a

State Archaeological Landmark. In response to the proposed development, between 1964 and 1978 the Collier County Conservancy (now the Conservancy of Southwest Florida), the National Audubon Society, and the Nature Conservancy began efforts to preserve the area that eventually became Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve where

Shell Island is located. Since that time, Shell Island remained unmodified outside of the immense destruction as a result of dynamiting and mining the shell constructions for modern road fill. In the summer of 1997, Randolph Widmer initiated excavations at what has become known Shell Island site with goals:1) to produce an accurate topographic map of the site, 2) to determine the presence of features and dwellings, and 3) to determine any sociopolitical relationships to the nearby Key Marco site five miles to the north (Widmer 1998). The investigation’s topographic mapping identified the remaining portions of the site spared from the impact of modern historic disturbances and that they were now occupied by an avocado orchard planted at the turn of the century. Test units across the mound revealed postmolds at the level summit of the construction and more out to the edges, suggesting the possibility of a house or some other elevated structure sitting atop the mound.

Widmer’s investigations in the summer of 1997 at Shell Island represented the first excavations conducted on the site, which had gone by numerous names and site numbers over the last hundred years. The site was initially identified as Crawford’s Place by C. B. Moore, who described the shell deposits as noteworthy but did not excavate or collect anything (Moore 1907, pp. 12). A little over a decade later it was photographed,

64

mapped and described by Hrdlicka as “Tom Weeks Place” (Hrdlicka 1922 pp. 17, 20-21).

Using Widmer’s (1989) terminology, Hrdlicka’s descriptions of “shell heaps” (Hrdlicka

1922 pp. 48) and “constructions of soil and shell-detritus” (Hrdlicka 1922 pp. 49), may

be interpreted as a shell-bearing habitation site. This data from Widmer’s 1997

investigation is invaluable considering Weismann and Newman’s review of the site in

1995 concluded that the widespread historic modifications (as a result of the site being

mined for road building material) precluded the ability of archaeologists to come to any

viable conclusions about occupation (Weisman and Newman 1995). Both Hrdlicka and

Widmer’s investigations concluded that this shell bearing site consisted of mounds

specifically constructed with platform summits for the placement of habitations. Utilizing

new technologies in the form of the AutoCAD programs, the 1300 vertices (with x, y, and

z coordinates) from 65 transects revealed Shell Island’s landscape devoid of vegetation,

and directed Widmer’s excavations to the most in-tact portions of the site.

Widmer (1997) further applied Naroll’s principal of 10 square meters of roofed

space per person per residential dwelling as a method for calculating usage by floor area

(Naroll 1962). Field measurements found that the mound base’s dimensions were

approximately 80 square meters and that the summit was suitable for three individuals

under this criterion and therefore ideal for a nuclear family. Furthermore, based on the dimensions of these mounds relative to the larger mounds at the contemporary Key

Marco site, Widmer has concluded that the population at Shell Island had “a status somewhere between the lowest and highest status identified at the Key Marco site”

(Widmer 1997). It is the aim of this thesis to further analyze the data from the excavations and in order to test Widmer’s conclusions that this portion of this site was

65

indeed a domestic habitational one, was not a trash pile, and did not serve ceremonial or

monumental purposes.

VII. Established Prehistoric Cultural Taxonomy

This section will introduce the generally accepted temporal structure of the

culture history, periods and horizons in south Florida from the Paleoindian and Archaic periods, through the Pre-Glades and Glades Traditions including the diagnostic archaeology that defines them. This established chronology will assist in understanding where Shell Island fits into time and space. Due to the particularly widespread styles that appear to be temporally bound (as improvements in technology spread quickly) and the relatively small amount of artifacts that endured for such a long period of time, the concept of Horizon will be used to illustrate the spatial, chronological and contextual aspects of the artifactual record. This is done in order to avoid the suggestions in similarities of adaptations suggested by the terms period or tradition (Willey and Phillips

1958; Widmer 1988).

While relatively little data has been recovered from the Paleoindian and Early

Archaic periods, we do have extraordinary preservation of some bone and wood tool artifacts from this period at the Little Salt Spring site. Multiple examples of lithic tools dating to the Paleoindian and Archaic have been found to be widespread across the

southwest Florida region, and may be correlated to sites in North America and the Gulf

Coast (Clausen et al. 1979; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). The chronology and cultural markers are listed in Table Four.

66

Table 4. Cultural Chronology for Paleoindian and Archaic (Widmer 1988).

Date (BP) Southeastern North Florida South Florida United States 7000 Post-Kirk Early Arrendondo Points Poorly Known Archaic Hamilton Points 8,000 Kirk Horizon-Early Archaic Kirk Points None Archaic 9,500 Big Sandy Horizon Bolton and Big Continuation of Sandy Points Dalton, Big Sandy Points 9,900 Late Paleoindian Dalton Points Dalton Points, Bone Dalton Horizon Points, Non- Returning Boomerang, Socket Wooden Point, Oak Mortar, Atl-Atl Spur 10,500 Early Paleoindian Clovis, Suwanee Wood Tools Only Clovis Horizon 13,500

The next divisions of cultural chronology in southwest Florida are Pre-Glades and

Archaic periods. They are differentiated from the other periods in Florida by the presence

of ceramic technology; however they also utilized the material culture of the Middle

Archaic (Goggin 1949; Cockrell 1970; Widmer 1988). These ceramics are characterized

by being palmetto fiber tempered, and is known as the Orange period of pottery (Brain

and Peterson 1970; Bullen and Stoltman 1972). However, there are other types of

ceramics that are found sporadically throughout the region. Perico Island ceramics are

characterized as limestone tempered (Bullen and Askew 1965) and St John’s are

characterized as being distinctive because of their chalky, temperless plain and pasty

quality (Bullen 1968). These classifications had complex temporal relationships with

67

each other that overlapped, and at times one or another apparently became more or less

popular.

The latest subdivision of the Pre-Glades and Archaic is the Transitional period

which is characterized by a gradual replacement of the other types of ceramics with sand

and fiber tempered construction known as semi-fiber or simply the Norwood series

(Bullen 1959; 1970; Phelps 1965). It is important to note that this Transitional period in

advancing ceramic technologies also coincides with the normalization of the rate of sea

level rise to four centimeters per 100 years (Wanless and Parkinson 1989). As discussed

earlier, the normalization of the sea level transgression allowed for the flora and fauna of

the region to reach their maximal potential, resulting in an incredibly productive estuarine

environment for the cultures that lived along the coast and were adapted to it. A general

chronological description based on the stratigraphic sequences at multiple sites in south

Florida is found in table five.

Table 5. Cultural Chronology for Pre-Glades South Florida (Widmer 1988).

Date Period Diagnostic Ceramics 2,950 B. P.- 500 B. P. Transitional Norwood Plain 3,500 - 2,950 B. P. Pre-Glades III Orange Plain and Incised, Perico Island Incised, Steatite 4,000 – 3,500 B. P. Pre-Glades II Orange Plain, Perico Plain, St. John’s Plain 5,000 – 4,000 B. P. Pre-Glades I (Late) Fiber-tempered Plain, Orange Plain 7,000 – 5,000 B. P. Pre-Glades I (Early) Non-Ceramic Mount Taylor Culture-Cemetery, Pond Burials, Atlatl, Socketed

68

Bone Points, Archaic Broad-stemmed Points, Newman Lake CSPP, Levy, Putnam, Marion

The Glades tradition of south Florida is very distinctive both in construction and decoration to the region, sharply contrasting to both north Florida and the rest of the Gulf

Coast. Agriculture in the region was apparently never practiced, and therefore the function of the Glades ceramics was probably very different that the ceramics in other regions. It was sand tempered paste construction and the decorations on them appeared to show influence from the surrounding cultures that would have been trading partners

(Goggin 1949). The Glades tradition is subdivided into eight temporally distinct parts, and the south Florida region is divided into three distinct culture areas shown in table six.

This organization refers to specific markers in the archaeological record that are unique and indicative of temporally established characteristics. However, the other aspects of the material culture within this tradition vary considerably little from earlier times. There remained an emphasis on shell and bone tools, mortuary practices remained fairly consistent, and the artistic styles of the pottery were fairly consistent during the Glades tradition. This shows that while the cultures were well adapted to the environment, an increase in ceramics and building episodes represents increases in population size and thus, sociocomplexity (Goggin 1949a; Griffin 1976; Clausen et al. 1979; Widmer 1988).

The Glades sequence is very well understood due to the volume of archaeological work that has been done in this in south Florida on sites that date to it. This is largely the result of exhaustive stratigraphic excavations in Florida and the eastern United States by

Goggin (Goggin 1939; 1944a; 1947; 1949b; 1950a; 1950b; 1951). The organization of

69

the Glades chronology is supported by nearly one hundred radiocarbon tests from several

sites in south Florida (Griffin 1974; Ehrenhard et al. 1978; 1979; Ehrenhard and Taylor

1980). The Glades sequence is, as Widmer (1988:75) described it, “one of the best-

documented ceramic sequences in eastern North America.”

Table 6. Cultural Chronology for South Florida Glades Tradition (Widmer 1988).

Culture Areas Dates (A.D.) Circum-Glades Caloosahatchee Belle Glade 1513 – Post Contact Glades IIIc – Caloosahatchee V, European goods & European Goods IIIb Below 1400 – 1513 Glades IIIb – Caloosahatchee IV, Glades Tooled, Safety Harbor, Safety Harbor Pinellas, Glades Tooled 1200 – 1400 Glades IIIa- Caloosahatchee III, Period IV, Belle Surfside Incised, Englewood Glade Plain St. John’s Check- ceramics dominates Stamped 1000 – 1200 Glades IIc- Plantation Pinched & Glades Plain 900 – 1000 Glades IIa- Matecumbe Incised, Key Largo Incised 700 – 900 Glades IIA-Incised Caloosahatchee II, Period III, Increase wares of Gordon Increase in Belle in Belle Glade Plain Pass, Key Largo, Glade Plain through Sanibel, Opa time Locka, Miami Incised 500 – 700 Glades I (Late)-Ft. Period II, Increase Drum Incised and in Belle Glade Plain Punctated, Cane Patch 200 – 500 Period II 500 B. C. – A.D. 200 Glades I (Early) Caloosahatchee I, Glades Plain sand Tempered Plain

70

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND MATERIALS

I. Methods

The data for this investigation is drawn from excavations in 1997 at Shell Island

led by Dr. Randolph Widmer utilizing undergraduate students participating in a

University of Houston archaeological field school and a graduate student from the

University of South Florida. The Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

(RBNERR) provided a field lab under the direction of the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection. Artifacts were recovered from excavation units associated with the largest and most intact shell-bearing deposit remaining at Shell Island. Thanks to the RBNERR, there is little future impact anticipated (outside of possible further archaeological excavation), and while the majority of the rest of the site is heavily modified or destroyed, the portion excavated in 1997 was relatively undisturbed.

Extensive mapping was performed to produce an accurate electronic topographic representation of the site. To achieve this goal, a datum was established southeast of the site and assigned a Cartesian coordinate of N1000E1000. This allowed for 2x2 archaeological units to be placed along north to south and east to west axes in a singular

(northeast) quadrant. Once the horizontal and vertical position of this datum were established, 65 transects were shot from a total of 11 separate mapping points across the site gathering 1300 vertices with x, y (Cartesian), and z, (elevation) coordinates .

Transects were recorded as bearings established with one minute precision with the utilization of a 30” mountain transit and compass (Figure four).

71

Figure 4. Mapping procedure and transects at Shell Island.

Utilizing AutoCAD program Surfer, a 3D topographic map was created with a 10

centimeter contour. This detailed map provided an assessment of modern impacts modifications including agriculture, dredging and mining of the site’s shell for road building materials. It also helped to identify where the best possibility of intact deposits could be found. The excavation units themselves were overlaid onto the new topographic

72

map after completion for a better representation of the area that was investigated (Figure

Five).

Figure 5. 10cm contour map with excavation units on a shell-bearing deposit at Shell Island.

Widmer placed eight 2x2 meter units at the summit and along the side of the

platform area recovering floral, faunal, and other cultural material within the deposits at

Shell Island. Multiple postmolds were recorded at varying depths and concentrations.

There was also a marked absence of in ground storage pits or hearths. The deposits,

artifacts and their specific provenience will be discussed in the results chapter of this

investigation. Following methodology developed from his considerable excavation

73

experience at south Florida shell-bearing sites, Widmer began by excavating units along

the margins of the platform surface before moving to the center. This was done in an

effort to sample the latest deposit phase first and move inward, gaining a chronological

understanding of the cultural transforms involved in site formation.

The data was collected with the assumption that scattered test pits cannot yield

stratigraphic information that can be extrapolated to interpret the totality of the site.

Therefore, to maintain stratigraphic control, the units at Shell Island from which this

investigation will be utilizing data, were excavated continuously from the top of the

platform and then across to catch two sides of the structure’s sloping sides. The

excavation’s focus on the isolation of discrete natural and cultural levels is in an effort to

understand the relationships between the stratigraphic Zones following the principles laid

out by Harris (1986). These techniques were also employed by Widmer at both of the

sites at Key Marco, and therefore will provide seamless data integration for comparative

analysis. The data recovered from the units atop the shell-bearing structure at Shell Island

will provide the totality of archaeological material for the analysis portion of this investigation.

Deposits from this excavation were defined by Widmer’s (1989) criteria for

recognizing and excavating highly complex and easily confusing depositional histories at shell-bearing sites. Each deposit was assigned an individual Roman numeral Zone number once its characteristics had been identified. Zones are differentiated by their individual species of molluscan remains content and shell orientation, as well as the density of the matrix and the presence or absence of soil. Once excavation within a unit reveals subtle differences from the Zone that was being worked in previously, a new

74

provenience was recognized and recorded. Within these Zones, arbitrary 10 centimeter

levels were recorded if a particular Zone exceeded more than 10 centimeters in thickness.

A total of 28 individual Zones were identified within the eight units during the 1997 excavations at Shell Island. The units are N1008E1000, N1006E0996, N1006E0998,

N1006E1000, N1004E0998, N1004E1000, N1002E1000, and N1000E1000. All of these units are located on the top or on the side of the shell-bearing platform mound. These

units were selected for analysis because they contain the information that led to the

designation of the site as a shell-bearing habitation. The deposits in these units are

important because while they are similar to the shell-bearing habitation at Key Marco,

their sourcing and the relative age of the installation of the postmolds have never been

examined.

The descriptions of the various Zones and their contents that are presented for

analysis in this investigation are derived from the field notes that were taken during the

investigation. These notes were taken as each stratum was excavated and were used to

describe the physical composition of the matrix. Each description was then used to

correlate or differentiate the Zones within their adjacent units. The maintenance of

individual strata definition was key to the excavation as each distinct stratum was

excavated and described independently as opposed to arbitrary levels. This provides detailed information and uniformity of the data for further investigations aimed at determining site formation processes and depositional history.

75

II. Laboratory Procedures

Further analysis of the depositional Zones and their contents was performed in the

prehistoric laboratory of the University of Houston in Houston, Texas, in an effort to

quantify the physical characteristics of each deposit and any cultural material contained

therein. This additional work was done to compare the data to deposits at other sites in

the southwest Florida region and to provide useful information concerning sourcing of

the deposits encountered.

The components of the sites that will be utilized for comparative analysis at Key

Marco and Horr’s Island were discussed in the previous chapter. The process of

analyzing the different Zones to generate data useful for making inferences regarding site

formation and diagenesis will follow the methodology developed by Pickering (1998).

Pickering identifies four different types of observations necessary to achieve these goals:

1) the assessment of the taxonomic content and demographic patterning of the

invertebrate remains, 2) taphonomic properties of the invertebrate remains, 3)

identification and quantification of artifacts, 4) the physical properties of the sedimentary

matrices (Table two) (Pickering 1998).

The methodology for identifying the variables that serve to characterize the

samples extracted from each Zone (Table Seven) was established by Pickering (1998)

and based on important variables described by Widmer (1989), Cummins et al. (1986), and Attenbrow (1992). These criteria will be applied to each individual Zone and the field descriptions of the Zones will be analyzed though this frame of reference.

Additionally, postmold densities and distribution will be analyzed to ascertain whether

76

any structures were present at Shell Island following methodology developed by Russo

(1991) at Horr’s Island and Widmer (1996, 1998) at Key Marco.

Table 7. Criteria for the analysis of depositional formation and diagenesis (Pickering 1998; Widmer 1989; Cummins et al. 1986; Attenbrow 1992)

1 Taxon Marine invertebrate species only. 2 Species Relative abundance of marine invertebrate species. Composition 3 Distribution Size distribution of marine invertebrate remains. of Remains 4 Taphonomic Shell Wholeness (whole valve, fragment, articulation, abrasion, Alterations biological interactions such as borings or encrustation, edge rounding as a result of tumbling). 5 Artifacts Presence or absence of cultural material or culturally altered natural material. 6 Matrix Grain size distribution of matrix material. Composition

In order to achieve this detailed understanding of formation processes n-

transformations and the sourcing of the deposits at Shell Island, Pickering’s (1998)

methodology for determining sourcing will be utilized. In his thesis, he articulates a

framework of four separate types of observations needed to make inferences about

sourcing of construction fill during site formation (Table Eight), followed by a

methodology to identify the shells which satisfies that observational structure (Table

Nine). He synthesized portions of Widmer (1989), Cummins et al. (1986), and

Attenbrow’s (1992) ideas into his own scheme in his thesis. First, the taxonomic content

and demographic patterning of the invertebrate remains must be assessed. Secondly, the

taphonomic properties of the invertebrate remains must be analyzed. The term

“taphonomic processes” is used because pre- and post-depositional processes affect the invertebrate remains, leaving identifiable and specific marks. Identified as a particular

77

field of study by I. A. Efremov (1940), he defines taphonomy as “the study of the transition (in all details) of organic remains from the biosphere to the lithosphere”.

Therefore, careful examination and classification of the shell remains may reveal the

sourcing of the materials for construction fill. Next, artifactual contents within the fill

must be identified and calculated. Finally, the physical properties of the sedimentary

contents of the construction matrix must be analyzed. The combination of these variables serves to characterize the samples and Zones collected during excavations.

Table 8. Pickering’s (1998) Site formation and diagenesis identification observation types.

I Invertebrate taxonomic content and demographic patterning.

II Taphonomic properties of invertebrate remains.

III Identification and quantification of artifacts.

IV Sedimentary matrices physical properties.

Pickering then established specific criteria for analysis of depositional formation

and diagenesis that satisfied the requirements of the four observation types (Table Nine,

Pickering 1998). He applied a new framework from which to classify the construction

materials and more adequately describe the contributions that N-transformations had to

shell-bearing site formation. By taking a new approach to quantitative research of shell

bearing sites, he was able to generate data useful for making accurate inferences

concerning their formation and diagenesis. The application of this approach of the

78

analysis of the depositional Zones to site Shell Island will be discussed in the laboratory procedures section.

Table 9. Pickering’s criteria used in the analysis of depositional formation and diagenesis (1998).

I Taxon (marine invertebrates only).

II Relative abundance of marine invertebrate species (Species composition).

III Size and distribution of marine invertebrate remains.

IV Taphonomic alterations based on wholeness: Whole Valve Fragment Articulation Abrasion Biological interactions (borings, encrustaceans) Edge rounding V Presence of cultural/culturally altered material.

VI Grain size distribution of matrix materials.

These observations are the methodology that is applied to Pickering’s (1998) final

criteria for identifying natural versus cultural deposition (Table Ten). Tables Seven, Eight

and Nine all play an important role in being able to identify the specific type of formation

event that the deposit at the site has undergone and been effected by. Table Ten allows

the archaeologist to determine N and C-transformations that occurred during shell-

bearing site diagenesis, as well as very specific functions that each deposit played. It also

accounts for short-term storm surge events and long-term sea level transgression. This nomenclature will be used to describe the Zones and deposits of both Shell Island and the sites to which it will be compared in this investigation.

79

Table 10 Archaeological correlates for formation events (Pickering 1998). I. Natural depositional processes H1 Storm deposition ・ Landward transport of mollusks and their remains ・ Material derived from local parent source ・ Short-term event H2 Higher sea-level stand ・ Presence of both juvenile and adult specimens ・ Mollusks preserved in life position (articulated valves) ・ Specimens with abrasion, biological interactions, edge rounding ・ High species diversity to include faunal species

II. Cultural depositional processes A. Architecture

H3 Construction fill ・ Absence of sedimentary matrix ・ Disarticulated molluscan remains ・ Natural concentrations of marine shell out of context H4 Subfloor for pile based structures ・ Lack of accumulated refuse on surface ・ Low percentage of sedimentary matrix ・ Postmolds associated with platform structures B. Activity surfaces (primary refuse) H5 Shell tool production ・ Discarded/broken tools ・ Debitage consisting of highly fragmented shell ・ Sedimentary matrix H6 Food preparation ・ Burned shell and charcoal ・ Discarded/broken tools and ceramics H7 Pedestrian traffic

80

・ Highly fragmented shell ・ Lack of secondary refuse

C. Secondary refuse H8 Midden ・ Size and species selectivity ・ Species from different environments ・ Terrestrial snails ・ Low percentages of taphonomic alterations ・ Sedimentary matrix

To augment this data for the location of sourcing of construction materials that

were naturally (rather than culturally modified as a result of subsistence) deposited, the

program ENVI will be utilized to analyze multispectral satellite images from a nearby

location in Collier County before and after the direct impact of Hurricane Wilma in 2005.

Using a processing technique of classification and change detection, we will graphically

represent areas of newly deposited shell, areas of stressed vegetation that will provide

other sources of raw materials, and differentiate them from unchanged beach shell

deposits and vegetation. As these images represent an example of the amount of natural

sedimentary deposition of shell that can be left by a hurricane with the maximal storm

surge impact on the southwest Florida region, this will provide another possible method

of easily sourcing clean construction fill outside of normative domestic quotidian refuse.

As southwest Florida regularly bears the brunt of storm surge-producing hurricanes

approaching from both the east and the west, it would be reasonable to suggest these

habitational sites must have been repaired on a fairly regular basis. It could be further

hypothesized that the impacts of 100-year-strength storms such as Wilma in 2005 could

81

do enough damage to these sites that it both necessitates a new construction phase and

provides a significant source or raw materials for its completion.

Using site forms and spatially referenced site boundary files supplied through the

Florida Division of Historical Resources by Assistant Supervisor of the Florida Master

Site File Chris Fowler, sites 8CR40, 8CR48, 8CR55, 8CR206, 8CR207, 8CR208,

8CR209, 8CR217, 8CR236, 8CR298, 8CR549 and 8CR777 will be spatially analyzed to

ascertain each site’s average distance from the archaeologically delineated shell-bearing

habitation site boundary and the estuarine environment from which the inhabitants would

have subsisted. To achieve this goal, data from the Florida master site file will be

transferred to ESRI ArcGIS program, where it will be used to manipulate the standard

site boundary files and change them to more accurately reflect each site’s extent based on

field notes, site descriptions, and Florida state archaeological site forms provided by the

same agency. Once the site polygons are reconciled with the forms, each site boundary

will be processed utilizing the Spatial Analyst tool in ArcGIS. This information will be

used to create a table for comparison of average distances of the sites from the estuarine

environment for comparison to Shell Island. The table will be adjusted for sea level change during the occupational period at Shell Island and at each individual site.

ESRI ArcGIS will be utilized to create a digital elevation model from the survey

data prepared by Sawyer for Cushing’s Key Marco expedition at the end of the 19th

century (Cushing 1896). The survey data was also utilized by Widmer in 1998 to create a

topographic map with the program AutoCAD, and was superimposed onto modern maps

to demonstrate the extensive modern modifications that the ancient village site had been

subjected to. This investigation will utilize new technology to analyze 1890’s survey data

82

a step further, by generating a digital elevation model (DEM) of the area, then superimposing the excavation of the shell-bearing habitation at the top of the platform as a layer. This map will be useful for determining both horizontal and vertical distances from the house to the estuarine environment. Both the spatial analysis and DEM generated in ESRI ArcGIS will be utilized for comparison to Shell Island and the application of optimal foraging theory through the constructs of human behavioral ecology.

83

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

INVESTIGATIONS

I. Stratigraphy and Field Descriptions of the Deposits at Shell Island

Eight excavation units were placed at the top of the shell-bearing platform mound

located at Shell Island. The two depositional areas represented in the units are the mound

summit and the mound slope on the eastern side (Figure five and Figure six).

84

Figure 6. Plan view, excavation units and platform area, 1997 excavations at Shell Island (Widmer 1997).

85

Due to the nature of excavating in the structure that was made of a combination of

generally loosely integrated mollusk remains, balks were left between the units for the

safety of the excavators. That, combined with the differing levels of experience and enthusiasm of the students working in adjacent units resulted in the impossibility of identifying the depositional history of the shell-bearing deposit as one continuous matter.

For this reason, the same matrix was often identified as a different Zone in a different

unit. Furthermore, sometimes in the field it could not be assumed that the deposit or Zone

in one unit was exactly the same as one encountered at the same level in another unit

because the balks created such a large space between the two. One large continuous

profile did not emerge from which to ascertain the depositional history, therefore, these difficulties encountered during excavation will be clarified through lab procedures. This investigation will synthesize the data from three continuous units across the summit of the structure (N1000E0998, N1006E0998, and N1006E1000) in an effort to create a stratigraphic profile and depositional history that can be extrapolated for the entire site using the criterion established in earlier chapters. The Zones will be correlated and described as deposits, after which they will be analyzed and described in terms related to their purpose and depositional process.

These deposits will be analyzed in an effort to test the shell-bearing domestic habitation model at Shell Island using Pickering’s (1998) criteria of deposit sourcing. If

Shell Island is a habitation we will expect to find cultural depositional processes with postmolds emanating from discrete activity surfaces (H5, H6, H7) that are superimposed upon architectural construction fill (H3, H4). There should be secondary refuse associated with the habitation and normative quotidian refuse in the form of midden

86

material in an area of the site that demonstrates regular deposition towards the water. The

postmolds are expected to be in a configuration that leaves little livable interior space,

suggesting that they represent a structure with an elevated floor, as the habitation would

have been very close to the water. They are expected to be situated in a rectangular

pattern, running east to west, so as to minimize the sail effect from the high winds that

regularly blow from those directions can have on the structure.

If the deposit excavated at Shell Island in 1997 is not a domestic habitation

structure there are several possibilities that can be expected. Firstly, natural depositional

processes could be evident displaying H1 storm deposition or H2 higher sea-level stands

with no postmolds found during excavations. Secondly, there could be cultural deposits,

but they may only represent a single, large H8 midden refuse and be a shell bearing

midden site. Thirdly, the analysis could reveal a shell-bearing habitation that was not

domestic. If there is no presence of H5 shell tool production, H6 food preparation, or H8

midden, the function of the site would not be domestic, whether or not postmolds are

present. The presence of any kind of dedication cache would also suggest a ritualistic function to the site rather than a domestic one.

A combination of the stratigraphic profiles from the north walls of units

N1000E0996, N1006E0998, and N1004E1000 was used in order to extrapolate both the depositional history of the shell-bearing portions of the site and the deposit history of the habitations at Shell Island. These units cross the summit covering the west, central, and eastern portions of the platform on the top of the shell-bearing deposit. Unit N1006E100

was left out of this process because it did not contain any postmolds, whose horizontal

and vertical distributions are one of the main focuses of this investigation in determining

87

the site’s function. The other units that were excavated did contain midden and other

features; however they did not contain postmolds specific to the nature of site occupation

and are not therefore depositionally analyzed here.

The first deposit (A) encountered during excavation was Zone I, which generally

represents the upper 10 to 15 cm over the entire site in spite of subtle differences in matrix. This was removed following the contours of the site surface and screened. There are differences in the matrix composition from unit to unit, but because the upper surface was felt to have been disturbed by vegetation growth, erosion and cultural clearing of exotic vegetation on the surface in recent years, it was decided to treat the upper 10cm of the site as a marginally disturbed Zone. In spite of the presence of multiple cases of historic and modern disturbance, this deposit contained a considerable amount of cultural material relevant to the investigation that cannot be ignored.

This deposit was interrupted 40 cm from the western wall of unit N1004E1000 by a large (30cm diameter in this deposit) postmold (feature 6) then continued on the other side of the feature uninterrupted to the edge of the unit, and down the eastern slope. The other features in this deposit included several Busycon sinistrum complete tools which included adzes and drills, as well as broken, exhausted and fragmented Busycon tools.

There were also three fragments of Noetia ponderosa fishing net weights, and several

species of mollusk scrapers and debitage. These artifacts represent utilitarian tools, some

of which were not yet exhausted in use. Few ceramics were encountered in this deposit

within Zone I. They include two Glades plain type and three Ft. Drum Incised type

sherds. Ft. Drum incised type pottery represent the most recent datable material present at

Shell Island during excavations. They are indicative of a Glades I occupation that would

88

have ended around A. D. 700. Faunal bones were minimal and were unburned. These

consisted of one unknown mammalian bone, one Chrondrichthyes and one Osteichthyes bone. There were also postmolds visible within units in addition to feature six (a paired postmold that was the most vertically extensive of all postmold features at the site) in the profile as well as some black soil within the matrix.

The second deposit (B) was encountered across the entire shell bearing site and consisted of Zone II, IV and Zone XIX. The thickness of this deposit varied from 10 to

25 centimeters. This deposit consisted of small disarticulated oyster shells at various angles and orientations with only an infrequent number of them lying flat. These oyster shells were between four and five centimeters in size and were loosely integrated into a matrix of orangish-brownish tan pulverized oyster shell grit rather than in any kind of sediments. A few surf clams are also found throughout this matrix as are some

Merceneria debitage and tools fragments, one of which has sponge holes on its interior.

Two Belle Glade Plain ceramic fragments where recovered and numerous barnacles where noted during excavation. Several postmold features were present in deposit B.

The third deposit (C) encountered consisted only of Zone XX because it possessed unique characteristics and was identified in all three profiled units at roughly the same stratigraphic level. It appears first in the western slope and crosses the entirety of the profile, ending at the postmold feature (feature 6) in the easternmost unit

(N1004E1000). Deposit C never exceeds five cm in thickness, consisting of 70% pulverized oyster that is tan in color. The remaining 30% of the deposit consists of clean, rounded one to two cm disarticulated bivalve shells and completely crushed pen shell.

Busycon Sinistrum debitage was found throughout the deposit and an intact Busycon tool

89

was found at the upper interface. A total of three ceramic sherds were recovered, one

Glades Plain and two Ft. Drum Incised. No burned faunal remains were identified;

however Osteichthyes bones make up approximately 2% of the matrix. There is also a

very small (less than one percent) amount of charcoal. Several postmold features were

present in this unit.

The fourth deposit (D) identified in the stratigraphic sequence is identified across

all three units as Zone IV. This Zone is identical to Zones II and XIX, which were

identified in deposit B, but is located underneath deposit C. This deposit consisted of

small disarticulated oyster shells are at various angles and orientations with only a small infrequent number of them lying flat. These oyster shells were between four and five centimeters in size and were loosely integrated into a matrix of orangish-brownish tan pulverized oyster shell grit lacking any kind of sediments. The deposit is found across the

site, maintaining a thickness of roughly five cm in N1006E0996 and N1006E0998 until it

reaches the feature six in N1004E1000. On the immediate western side of this feature, the

thickness of the deposit balloons to 25 cm, and eventually tapers back to five cm moving

to the eastern edge of the unit and the sloping side of the site that ends at the water’s

edge. This deposit contains extremely sparse faunal remains, only two unburned

Osteichthyes bones. There is a single Busycon sinistrum hammer, and several pieces of debitage from Busycon shells. There are 18 Merceneria campechiensis tools and 53 pieces of molluscan debitage in this deposit. Finally, there was one Macrocallista nimbosa and only a single unknown incised ceramic sherd recovered within the matrix.

Several postmold features were present through deposit D.

90

The fifth deposit (E) encountered was identified in only the western (inland facing

slope) and summit portions of the site in units N1006E0996 and N1006E0998. It

disappears into the western balk of N1006E0998 and N1004E0998 and does not appear

in eastern units. Deposit E consists entirely of Zone XXI, and is very distinct from the

adjacent deposits. It is the thinnest of the deposits, averaging less than five cm in

thickness. This deposit is comprised of mostly oyster and oyster shell grit. Overall, 59%

of the deposit is oyster shell that is too small for subsistence (80% whole and 20%

broken) with 6% of the shells recovered being whole Merceneria and the remaining 35 %

being the pulverized oyster shell grit. Within this deposit there was a notable amount of

charcoal with considerable Busycon sinistrum and Merceneria campechiensis debitage.

Three fragments of Busycon sinistrum (columella portions) adze tools were present

alongside two Glades Plain ceramic sherds. There were also five unburned unknown

mammal bones and one unburned reptile bone within this deposit. Several postmolds

were encountered across the deposit as well.

The sixth deposit (F) encountered consisted of Zone XI and was only identified in

the center of the site platform in unit N1006E998. It is 10cm thick at the eastern and

western margins of the unit with a thin five cm portion in the center of the unit. Deposit F

consists of 80% disarticulated, rounded, surf clams that are too small for subsistence,

10% surf-washed oyster, and 10% tan sandy silt. Within the matrix are many very small

unidentifiable unburned fish bones, with one Osteichthyes vertebrae and one

unidentifiable plain ceramic sherd. There were multiple Busycon sinistrum shell tool

fragments as well. No features were recorded in this deposit.

91

The seventh deposit (G) identified during excavation was Zone V, which was consistent across the stratigraphy of the site. The deposit maintained a generally regular thickness of five cm in N1006E0996, thinned slightly in unit N1006E0998 due to the presence of deposit F above it. As deposit G came to the edge of the platform and into

N1006E1000, it became thicker, eventually reaching 15cm thick before it reached the edge of the unit on the western slope down to the water. In the platform units

(N1006E0996 and N1006E0998) this deposit consists entirely of crushed oysters, pulverized tan oyster grit and very little silt. A Busycon sinistrum tool was plotted in situ in the western most unit N1006E0996. In the eastern unit (N1006E1000) more whole, rounded, disarticulated oyster and barnacle was intermixed with some Busycon sinistrum and Merceneria campechiensis debitage as well as an abundance of unidentifiable and unburned smooth, small fish bones. There were postmold features located throughout these units including feature six which extends through this depositional layer as well.

The eighth deposit (H) encountered consisted of Zone XXII, which was only located across the platform units to the west (N1006E0996). It is fairly thin, never exceeding five cm in thickness and terminates into the balk on the western side of unit

N1006E0998. This deposit consists of 50% small (2 to three cm), whole disarticulated oyster shells. 25% of the deposit is large (6-12 cm) Merceneria campechiensis subsistence shell, and 1% subsistence Busycon sinistrum. Pulverized pen shell and pulverized oyster shell make up the remainder of the shell in the deposit. These shells are housed in light gray fine silt. The faunal remains recovered include many (over 200) unburned Osteichthyes with Chrondrichthyes unburned vertebrae and one burned

Osteichthyes vertebrae. The artifactual assemblage includes nine Busycon sinistrum tools

92

(including complete hammers) and 15 pieces of debitage. One Pleuroploca gigantae tool

was recovered with two complete Merceneria campechiensis tools and 16 tool fragments.

All 12 shell tools were plotted in situ as features within this deposit as well as two

postmolds. In addition, ten Glades Plain and three Belle Glade Plain ceramic sherds were

recovered lying flat at the upper interface of the deposit.

The ninth deposit (I) excavated was identified as Zone XXIII and, was only

located across the platform units to the west (N1006E0996 and N1006E0998) and then

tapering out before it disappears into eastern balks. This deposit consisted of broken and whole disarticulated surf clams with small (two - five cm) whole disarticulated oyster shells in a matrix of pen shell grit, surf clam grit and a small amount of light gray fine silt. Cultural material recovered here included five complete Busycon sinistrum and 23

complete Merceneria campechiensis tools with many fragmented tools and shell

debitage. Faunal remains include two unburned Chrondrichthyes vertebrae as well as 11

unburned Osteichthyes bones. 11 Goodland Plain, two Glades Plain, two Belle Glade

Plain and one unidentifiable incised ceramic sherd were recovered in this deposit.

Postmold features were recorded in these units within deposit I.

The tenth deposit (J) located by the 1997 excavations consisted of Zone VI and

was only located in the profile of the easternmost unit N1004E1000. Deposit J is between

10 and 15 centimeters thick, appearing out of the balk on the western edge of

N1006E1000 and extending the entire width of the unit’s profile. Similar to deposit D,

this deposit consisted of small disarticulated oyster shells at various angles and

orientations with only an infrequent number of them lying flat. These oyster shells were

between three and five centimeters in size and were loosely integrated into a matrix of

93

orangish-brownish tan pulverized oyster shell grit. There is an absence of any sediments,

ceramics, shell tools or debitage, faunal remains or postmold features in this deposit.

The eleventh deposit (K) encountered during excavation consisted of Zone XXIV

and was only located across the platform units to the west (N1006E0996 and

N1006E0998) before it ends into the eastern balk of N1006E0998. This deposit is similar

to deposit located in the eastern unit N1004E1000 on the sloping side facing the water;

however it is within the platform area and is not void of cultural artifacts or faunal

remains. Deposit K is between five and 10 cm thick and continues uninterrupted across

the two units in which it was identified. This deposit consists of small disarticulated

oyster shells that are at various angles and orientations with only a small infrequent

number of them lying flat. These oyster shells were between three and five centimeters in

size and were loosely integrated into a matrix of orangish-brownish tan pulverized oyster

shell grit with a marked absence of sediment. The cultural material within this site

consists of Merceneria campechiensis tools, tool fragments with debitage and two

features that yielded concentrations of artifacts. Feature 70 in N1006E0996 was a

concentration of eight Glades Plain ceramic body sherds. Feature 65 in N1006E0998

contained more Merceneria campechiensis tools and debitage as well as 14 barnacles, 46

unburned Chrondrichthyes vertebrae, 13 burned Osteichthyes non-vertebrae bones, 15

unknown reptile bones and two unknown mammal bones. Additionally, five postmold

features were identified in deposit K.

The twelfth deposit (L) identified at the site consists of Zone XV, which is only

located in the westernmost unit (N1006E0996) in the profile and is five cm thick

throughout. Interestingly, Zone XV is also located in unit N1004E1000 and appears to

94

cap feature 11 (a charcoal and midden lens) nearly at the current water level. 89 % of this

deposit consists of non-subsistence disarticulated oyster shell. The rest of the matrix is

made up of 1% Spisula shell, 1% unidentified fish bone, 1% charcoal and 1%

disarticulated surf clam. The remaining 7% of the matrix consists of light brown clay that

is very odorous and was similar to soils in the mangrove swamp nearby and could have

been sourced there, or its presence could be a result of sea level encroachment. However

no postmold features or any other cultural material was located in this deposit within unit

N1006E0996.

The thirteenth deposit (M) excavated consisted of Zone XVI and was located in

the north wall of unit N1006E0996 but was also identified in units N1004E1000,

N1004E0998, N1000E1000, and N1002E1000 outside of the profiled units. It is identical

to Zone XXI in deposit five but slightly thicker, averaging just over five cm in thickness.

This deposit consists of mostly oyster and oyster shell grit. Overall, 59% of deposit M is

small oyster shell, (80% whole and 20% broken), with 6% of the shells recovered being

whole Merceneria and the remaining 35% of the matrix being the pulverized oyster shell

grit. Within this deposit there were also occasional charcoal flecks but a marked absence

of any sediment. While no cultural materials or faunal remains were found in unit

N1006E0996, this level produced Busycon sinistrum and Merceneria campechiensis tools

and debitage in other units during excavation. Unit N1004E1000 also produced 55

Glades Plain and 8Belle Glade Plain ceramics as well as feature 52, a concentration of 17

Glades Plain sherds. In unit N1004E0998, two Busycon sinistrum hammers were

identified with hundreds of burned and unburned fish and reptile bones in context with

charcoal and an ashy lens designated feature 52.

95

The fourteenth deposit (N) identified consisted of Zone VIII and was only visible

in the easternmost of the three profiled units, N1004E1000 on the eastern side sloping to

the water. It begins 60cm into the north wall and quickly expands to 50 cm thickness as it

moves toward the eastern balk of the unit. Similar to Zone V in deposit G, this deposit

consists entirely of crushed oysters, pulverized tan oyster grit and very little silt. While

other units had multiple features and cultural material, this unit on the edge of the shell-

bearing deposit was absent of any cultural material. However, unit N1002E1000

contained two fish bone features (feature 10 and 11), which combine for over a hundred

unburned and burned bones from three different species. Both N1004E1000 and

N1000E1006 had ash and charcoal lens features with many faunal remains identified in this deposit during excavation.

The fifteenth deposit (O) in this profile group is Zone IX, which is a small pocket at the east end of unit N1004E1000’s profile. It appears 120 cm into the profile of the unit very thin and expands quickly to 15 cm before it disappears into the eastern balk of the unit. The matrix consists of tan silty sand with whole disarticulated non-subsistence oyster and a large amount of fish bone comprising 10% of the entire matrix. One Busycon

sinistrum tool (feature 7) was identified with debitage. Four Merceneria campechiensis

tools with some debitage were also identified. Faunal remains included one

Chrondrichthyes and one Osteichthyes vertebrae with seven pieces of Osteichthyes

nonvertribal unburned bones.

The final, sixteenth deposit (P) in the three profiled units at Shell Island consists

of Zone XVII and was the last stratigraphic layer excavated in both N1006E0996 and

N1004E1000. Unit N1006E0998 was not excavated to as great a depth as these two units

96

meaning deposit P may have been encountered had it been excavated further than an

elevation of 1.26 NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum). The deposit was first

encountered in unit N1006E0996 at 1.21 NGVD, reappearing in unit N1004E1000 at .36

m NGVD and maintains an unknown thickness as it extended out of the bottom of both

excavation units. Unit N1006E0998 was not excavated past depth of 1.26 NGVD and did

not reach this deposit. This deposit is characterized by light brown, spongy, peat-like

matrix with few broken shells and some unburned, unidentifiable fish remains. Very few

broken shells are present. There are no features in this Zone.

II. Distribution and depth of postmolds at Shell Island

Postmolds were distributed throughout the units that were excavated on the

summit (N1006E0996, N1006E0998, N1004E0998, and N1004E1000) and were

recorded as features. The deposit where a group of postmold features were first identified

during the excavation process effectively identifies the location from which the posts

would have emanated. The spatial distribution of the postmolds will determine whether

they supported an elevated habitation or some other kind of structure. This section will

demonstrate where the postmolds were first identified in terms of the deposits. This

information may be applied to the identification of living surfaces or veneers versus

construction fill at Shell Island, and if construction fill also served the same purpose as a

living surface at times without veneers. It was intended that all postmolds be assigned

different numbers when they narrowed within Zones other than those from which they

emanated, but this was not always the case. When necessary in this investigation,

97

postmolds will be noted again with the same feature number, but an explanation of the

diameter change will be presented in the text.

98

Figure 7. Deposit A and B, occupation period III, postmold distribution.

99

Deposit A showed a generally rectangular or quadrilateral shape to the structure at

the summit. As this is a somewhat disturbed unit, it is possible that some of the postmolds

were lost due to modern agricultural or tree clearing activities. Feature four is an

arrangement of surf clams that is identified as a lens. The surf clams are non-subsistence,

cleaned and horizontal in deposition. These postmolds continued through deposit B with

no change in diameter. Feature four crosses two units (N1004E0998 and N1004E1000)

and is a shell deposit feature that contains largely surf clams, some of which are

articulated and may have died insitu. There are also broken conch, coral chunks, and

barnacles. Feature 33 consists of 43% whole, disarticulated non-subsistence oyster, 10%

broken oyster shell, 8% unburned fishbone, 9% pulverized oyster shell, and 30% sand

with charcoal flecks. There are six kings conch, two Fighting conch, Merceneria, a

transverse arch with oyster growing on it, scallops, burned oyster shell, and some ceramic

sherds. Feature one in the north east corner of unit 1006E1000 consists of midden

deposits. This location places it on the eastern side of the shell-bearing deposit and

sloping down towards the water.

100

Figure 8. Deposit C, occupation II, and postmold distribution.

Deposit C and other comparable elevations revealed some postmolds narrowing, others unchanging, some disappearing and others appearing. In unit N1004E0998, feature

73 narrowed by five cm, and terminated under the surface of this occupation. The

101

diameter of feature 42 remained unchanged as it also terminated under this level. The

large shell features across the eastern and southern portions of the unit disappeared,

however there was some Busycon sinistrum and Merceneria campechiensis debitage

alongside several whole tools. Feature two in N1004E1000 narrows from 30 to 20 cm

and feature six shrinks from 30 to 25 centimeters in diameter here. There are no

postmolds in N1006E1000 at any point, however this is on the eastern and northern

slopes of the deposit, so that is not surprising. There is an increased amount of midden

material across the northern edge of this unit that appears to have continued down the

western and northern slopes to the water. In Unit N1006E0998, several features disappeared (35, 36, 37, 39), but feature 61 (with a fairly wide 25cm diameter) appears in the same area. Feature 60 narrows from 15 to 10 cm diameter at this point. These postmolds emanate from deposit C, a thin layer of 70% pulverized oyster. They all terminate within deposit E or at corresponding depths with the exception of features two, six and 61 (which are exceptionally deep) that terminate much deeper. Similarly, unit

N1006E0996 loses some features and gains others to replace them. Features 39 and 40 disappear in the southern portion of the unit, but appear to be replaced by features 57 and

58 in the same area and at the same diameter. Additionally, feature 43 is identified in the northeast portion of the unit, in the general vicinity of some of the features that had disappeared in the adjacent unit (N1006E0998).

102

Figure 9. occupation I, postmold distribution.

Figure Nine represents the distribution of the deepest postmolds identified at Shell

Island. In unit N1004E0998, we see the disappearance of features 63 and 42, and the appearance of four new postmolds to take their place (66, 67, 68, and 71). In

N1004E1000, features two and six both narrow further to 15 centimeters diameter before

103

finally terminating. Midden deposits continue to appear on the northern and western

slopes of the deposit, and out to the water as seen in unit N1006E1000. There are no postmolds located in this unit. N1006E0998 loses feature 60 and feature 61 appears to have narrowed to 20 cm diameter before terminating below this area of the site. Unit

N1006E0996 sees the disappearance of features 43, 58, and 57. There is no apparent replacement for feature 43, but features 58 and 57 appear to have been supplanted by postmold features 64 and 69. This area corresponds to Zones V, XXII, and XXIII which correspond to deposits H and I.

III. Elevated, Non Shell-Bearing Habitation Site Comparison, Key

Marco Site 8CR48, OP1 West

Excavations at 8CR48, Key Marco site in 1995 revealed a low shell-bearing area

of the site in the western portion of the property that was being investigated. Units

N32E16 and N32E18 located on the north side of an exploratory backhoe trench

identified the eastern margin of a shell-bearing construction that was designated mound

B. Excavation of this construction and removal of the materials revealed another occupational level on the natural sandy surface of the island that mound B had effectively sealed. The stratigraphic level containing all of the postmolds consisted Zones XXVII and XXX in the two units. Figure Ten demonstrates the postmold distribution within these units.

104

Figure 10. Postmold distribution in Zones XXVII and XXX, underneath mound B, at Key Marco site, 8CR48 op 1 west.

This stratigraphic deposit was comprised of dark gray beach sand and very few broken shells consisting of scattered pieces of oyster, surf clams, Noetia and M. Corona.

This is considered a natural deposit on top of which the construction fill for mound B was eventually built. This stratigraphic level maintained a thickness of 50 to 60 centimeters between the two units. The cultural material in this layer was sparse, but did contain Fort

Drum series pottery placing the occupational period in Glades I Late (500-700 AD).

There were also 30 postmolds identified in N32E16 and 25 located in unit N32E16 that were all assigned feature numbers and measured. These postmold features ranged in thickness from 1 cm to 24c m and averaged 14.5 cm. They also ranged in diameter from

2 cm to 22 cm while averaging 12.5 cm. There were multiple examples of paired postmolds and postmolds that were not exactly vertical. Given that there was only one

105

supporting balk between the units, the density of posts is represented by the 7.97 postmolds per square meter. Figure 11 demonstrates the excavation layout and the location of the non-shell bearing habitation site during 1995 excavations at Key Marco

OP1 west.

Figure 11. Plan map showing backhoe trench, excavation units, and mound locations from 1995 excavations (Widmer 1996).

106

IV. Elevated, Shell-Bearing Habitation, Temple Site Comparison

(Mound A), Key Marco Site 8CR48 OP1, East

Block excavations of 26 units at mound A (Figure 11) of the Key Marco site

revealed three superimposed, truncated, pyramidal platforms superimposed on top of

each other. The stratigraphy of the entire area is consistent in all units and the exploratory

trench. All of the shell material that was excavated was “extremely clean and for the most

part devoid of any midden deposits” (Widmer 1996:23). The sloping sides of these

platforms were constructed of disarticulated surf clam shells that were covered with a

thin veneer of shiny pen shells. A depositional history of the site may be extrapolated

from the profile of units N24E54 to N28E54 (Figure 12).

Figure 12. East stratigraphic profile of east walls of units N24E24 through N28E54 along the E56 line across Mound A at Key Marco site 8CR48.

107

The top of the first two platforms was covered in crushed surf clam with pen shell

and the third platform was covered in intentionally arranged Busycon sinistrum shells that

also had a pen shell veneer. These platforms were rectangular and roughly oriented north

to south. The construction phases increased both the height and the surface area of the

platform at the top of the site. This was accomplished by the addition of large amounts of

non-subsistence surf clam or Busycon sinistrum shells. The Busycon sinistrum phase of

construction consisted of all large, clean, unmodified and carefully arranged spire to

siphon shells. The exact dimensions of the construction or its various phases could not be

determined due to time constraints and physical limitations of the excavation as a result

of modern roads and utilities.

The excavation identified Fort Drum series, Gordon Pass Incised, and Sanibel

Incised ceramic material placing the occupation of the shell-bearing site from Glades I -

Late through Glades II Early (500-900 AD). As mentioned earlier, very little midden

material was recovered, with almost no fish bones or charcoal identified anywhere and no

ash whatsoever. Over 350 postmolds were identified in these units and were recorded as

features in three distinct occupation layers on the top of the platform (Figure 13, 14 and

15). This results in a density of over three posts per square meter with an average

diameter of .10 m (.03 standard deviation) and numerous examples of paired posts or

posts that weren’t exactly vertical.

108

Figure 13. Platform construction one at Key Marco site 8CR48 mound A (Widmer 1996).

109

Figure 14. Platform construction two at Key Marco site 8CR48 mound A (Widmer 1996).

110

Figure 15. Platform construction three at Key Marco site 8CR48 mound A (Widmer 1996).

Dedication caches were identified in the eastern area of the shell platform of mound A as well. The caches consisted of red and yellow ochre, seven to nine shark steaks, a necklace made of 20 size-graded, cut Murex florifer dilectus shells, and one unused chert Columbia projectile point. This projectile point would have been traded for and transported to the region from a considerable distance north as there are no chert deposits in the whole of south Florida (Widmer 1996, 1988) (Figure 16).

111

Figure 16. Key Marco site 8CR48, Mound A, Dedication Cache, Exotic Columbia Projectile Point (Widmer 1996).

V. Elevated, Shell-Bearing Habitation Site Comparison, Key Marco site

8CR48, Operation Two

In the summer of 1998, excavations at Key Marco under the direction of Widmer

(known as Operation two or “Op 2” as it was his second major excavation at the site) identified another shell-bearing construction that appeared to have multiple surfaces and the same level of postmold density that is indicative of an elevated surface dwelling. The

112

entire site was being used as a parking lot for the Olde Marco Inn and had been covered

with sediment in order to make it a level surface, effectively sealing the archaeological

material below in the late 19th or very early 20th century. The location of the excavation units was decided after consulting a survey map that Sawyer created for Cushing’s 1896

expedition to the island, and extrapolating the area within the property with the highest

probability to produce archaeological material (Figure 17). In addition, during

construction of a structure immediately adjacent to the site in 1998, Beriult conducted an

exploratory trench to establish a stratigraphic profile of the now buried aboriginal site,

which offered a key piece of evidence with the multiple trash middens identified in the

profile (Figure 18).

Figure 17. Location of excavation units and original exploratory trench at Shell Island op20, overlaid on the original 1896 survey topographic map, showing trench in aboriginal canal.

113

Figure 18. Eastern portion of Beriault exploratory trench (Widmer 1999).

Recognizing that the exploratory trench with extensive midden deposits was located on the downward slope of a shell ridge, Widmer placed his excavations immediately to the east (Figure 16). This was in an effort to investigate the top of the ancient finger ridge that was now buried.

Below the fill and parking lot material, Zone V was located and identified as the first deposit to contain only prehistoric artifacts and features. The multiple Zones excavated during investigations were correlated and found to consist of seven distinct occupational surfaces that were superimposed on top of each other. These surfaces were defined by the concentration of artifacts that were lying flat on each surface with corresponding elevations, the presence of pulverized shell, and the presence of veneer- like crushed shell surfaces with postmolds. Overall, the first deposit consisted of black sand and silt mixed with hard, compact marl that was a mixture of marine mud and crushed shells to form a cap on top of an existing shell-bearing construction. Within this

Zone there are three arbitrary 10cm levels as a result of the thickness of the deposit.

114

There are also three distinct occupation levels known as floors one, two and three. These

three surfaces are covered in features that include whole and broken Busycon sinistrum

tools (picks, hammers, adzes and anvils), and Mercenaria debitage indicative of shell or

woodworking. Limestone raw materials, a grinding stone, and net weights were

recovered with multiple Noetia net weights at elevations that generally correspond to the

occupation level. Zone V and its three occupational surfaces contain 25% of all of the

features recorded during excavations (21 in upper surface, three in the middle surface,

and one on the lower surface). There are 10 Postmolds associated with this Zone (some

paired) that emanate through the all three prepared floors. These surfaces were largely

clean of midden debris like subsistence shell, burned faunal material and ceramic sherds.

However, a thick, organic midden deposit was located off of the western slope of the

shell-bearing platform mound in context with these occupational levels.

The next deposit encountered was Zone IV, discovered beneath Zone V. It was

fairly similar to Zone V but was grayer without the dark brown color. It also had less

faunal bone and more sand and much less silt than Zone V. There were fewer shells

comprising the matrix with oyster accounting for approximately 40% of the sedimentary

matrix. This has an average elevation of about 2.09m and is found under the bottom floor

within Zone V in most units. Only a small extent of it was found in the extreme northeast corner which consisted of 60% gray and dark brown sandy silt with 40% non-subsistence

(less than 4cm length) oyster shell. This Zone has no postmolds or features associated

with it.

Underneath this fairly sterile deposit was Zone IV containing 128 postmolds,

representing 50.4% of the total postmold features identified during the entire excavation.

115

The matrix consists of about 50% non-subsistence (smaller than four cm length) oyster

shell and 50% gray sand. At this level, the density of the postmolds was 2.96 per square

meter, and therefore had very little interior space between them. Paired postmolds are

noted in this deposit as well; however the distribution of the postmolds cannot be defined as quadrilateral or circular by this investigation and range from .06 m to .29 m in

thickness with an average of .11 m diameter. In N44E110 and N42 E110 Zone IV was

found sealed under Zone V and was terminologically distinguished from those Zones not

sealed by the Zone V floors. For clarification purposes, Zone IVA was assigned to

sediments not under floors and Zone IVB was used for strata under floor. This

provenience distinction was felt to be important because of the close proximity to the

surface of the floors in Zone V and the remote possibility that they are historic rather than

aboriginal features. As aboriginal features there should be no historic artifact in Zone

IVB because they cannot work their way down through the sealed Zone V occupation

surfaces. No historic artifacts were found in Zone IVB although some were found in the upper surfaces of Zone IV. There is minimal secondarily discarded refuse in this deposit, and no midden material. Artifacts are all at horizontal position in this level and consist of a mixture of whole and fragmented tools. Underneath this deposit is a matrix consisting of 80% non-subsistence oyster shell (smaller than 4cm length) and 20% gray sand with shell grit. There are no midden deposits associated and very few artifacts associated with this level. There is a reduction of postmolds by 50% and density drops to 1.61 postmolds per square meter.

The following deposit encountered was Zone VI and is similar to Zone IV except that the ratio of shell to sand becomes much higher. 80% of the material is non-

116

subsistence disarticulated oyster shell in 20% gray sand matrix. These shells were housed in a loose and unconsolidated matrix with artifacts and shell lying at various angles across the entirety of the site. There is little cultural material and no midden material contained within this deposit. Artifacts remain limited to shell tools and debitage as with the other deposits. However, there are numerous postmolds, 64 in total which emanate from this suggesting that it too was an exposed surface. Like Zone IV the postmolds encountered in this stratum form no clear pattern. Although the density of 1.61 postmolds per square meter is almost half that of Zone IV it is still high enough to suggest that no enclosure of open space by circles or rectangular lines of posts was present, and that a structure or dwelling elevated on stilts or pilings is suggested.

The next deposition was identified at an average depth of 1.89m and was assigned

Zone VII. This deposit consists of whole non-subsistence disarticulated oyster and whole disarticulated surf clam in a light gray loose oyster shell hash. Oysters constitute 38% of the total matrix, surf clams 2%, and the hash makes up the largest portion of the matrix at60%. It was initially found in the eastern 2/3 of N40E108. The crushed oyster shell hash indicates trampling or erosion of the oyster shell and the mix of surf clam. The Zone was not evenly distributed across the site and was absent from N46E110, N46E112 and

N44E108. When it was encountered, it was always found in units where excavation extended beneath Zone VI. Zone VII contained nine postmolds with a density of 0.41 postmold per square meter in the units where the Zone was found. This is almost a four times decrease in postmold densities when compared with those of Zone VI.

Associated with this Zone in N46E112 is a distinct deposit assigned Zone XXIV.

This Zone is a very dense midden deposit which is in direct spatial association with Zone

117

VII in the adjoining units N46E110 and N44E110. It is not known if it is associated with

Zone VII in N44E112 because this unit was not excavated to a sufficient depth to make this determination. This midden deposit is comprised of 65% very small fish bones (with

oyster shell hash which comprises 10% of the matrix) in brown sandy silt. The remaining

25% of Zone VII consists of non-subsistence disarticulated oysters. This was the first

midden deposit encountered during the excavations and appears to be very localized,

found only in this unit, and specific with respect to content - only tiny fish bone. No

dense deposits of ceramics, charcoal, shell tools or debitage where noted. It appears that

this represents the refuse from a single specific refuse episode or possibly a number of

recurring depositional events from the same activity such as the processing of very small

fish. No comparable deposits were found in the excavations at any point.

The next deposit encountered during excavations was Zone VIII. This Zone is complex because it was only encountered in units N42E108, N44E108, and N46E108.

This stratum is probably contemporary with Zone VII although it is definitely found below Zone VII in all cases except one, N44E108. However, the fact that it is only found in three conjoining units along the E108 line indicates a discrete deposition separate from

Zone VII. 10 postmolds were identified in Zone VIII, however all of these were

discovered within unit, N44E108. This unit did not contain a Zone VII deposit and the

top elevation of Zone VIII in this unit, 2.01m is very similar to Zone VII surface

elevations along the E108 line: 2.00m in N40E108, 2.05m in N42E108, and 2.09m in

N46E108.

The following stratigraphic layer encountered was Zone IX, which was a very

thin (5cm or less) level characterized by light gray silt with fine, pulverized oyster shell

118

hash comprising 70% of the matrix. The remaining 30% of the matrix is made up of

crushed and loosely integrated oyster shell. This deposit has no midden deposits or any

organic material, but has small amounts of scattered unburned fish bones, small amounts of charcoal flecks and occasional ash. This deposit contained 15 postmolds (some paired) in two units (N40E108, which contained 10 postmolds, and N44E110, which contained five postmolds). However, the deposit was so thin and often patchy, that this number is not really a reflection of the actual numbers of posts present at the time of the occupation.

Underneath that deposit was Zone X, which was fairly thick with a 22 cm average and found in all units. Very few artifacts were identified in the matrix that consisted largely of whole and broken disarticulated oyster and surf clam shells that were non- subsistence in origin and at various angles. This deposit was relatively clean other than a

very small amount of broken shell grit and sand. No midden or organic stains were

located and none of the few cultural artifacts were recovered in any particular

arrangement. It essentially is the same contents of Zone IX with less crushed shell and

without the fish bones. This is the last level with the presence of postmold features. 10

postmolds (some paired) were located in three units and in unit N40E108 Zone IX

postmolds are absent, but Zone X is at the same elevation with postmolds being present.

Zone XII and XIII consist of 70% pulverized oyster hash and quartz sand with

30% disarticulated non-subsistence, whole and broken oysters shell intermixed with few

pen shell fragments. There are no surf clams found in these Zones and they have very few

artifacts. Underneath this deposition are Zone XIV and XV which are at the same

elevation. These levels are compact and consist of large oyster shells with evenly

distributed, sparse fish bones of unidentifiable species. While the oysters are large, they

119

do not have evidence of subsistence use or any cultural modification and some are still articulated. There was one Anadara transversa located in context with transverse arcs that

died in living position, articulated. Other Zones at this elevation are identical with

variations in the proportion of crushed to whole oyster, or oyster to sand and silt. At the

top of the deposits at this elevation are small amounts of charcoal flecks and ash, fish

bones and the addition of disarticulated, non-subsistence surf clams. There were some

ceramic sherds identified as well, but the poor state of preservation within this deposit

precluded any kind of identification of style. The one exception was found with one basal

sherd of Goodland Plain. There appeared to be cultural occupation and material at lower

depths, but the water table was reached, terminating excavations in these Zones and at the

site. The postmold distribution is represented in figure 19.

120

Figure 19. Composite view of features, Key Marco site 8CR48 operation 2, Olde Marco Inn, 1998.

121

VI. Non-Shell-Bearing, Non-Elevated Habitation Structure Site

Comparison, Horr’s Island site 8CR209

During his extensive investigations at Horr’s Island, Russo excavated several trenches across the width of the island. These trenches directed his excavation areas

which yielded information on domestic habitations at the site. Each trench profile

consisted of layers of dark grey sands that differed from each other in terms of shell inclusions and other artifact presence. Each of these layers was interpreted as a living floor area where various domestic activities occurred including food preparation and consumption, as well as tool use and manufacture. Within these floors were ash and charcoal lenses of variable thicknesses that were the remains of hearths and postmolds that had been blown out and by daily activities associated with the living surface. Russo was able to identify the loci of multiple hearths that were originally approximately 30 to

50 cm in diameter. The original living floor was on the surface of the clean, yellow sand that formed the central portion of the dune. The postmolds in this level were generally the only ones visible in the archaeological record because the subsequent ones were quickly filled in with the same kind of mixed midden, ash and sand material that surrounded each post as soon as they were removed due to the looseness of the sand matrix. The original postmolds were filled in with the strikingly different material that had accumulated around each postmold and are evidenced by the interface of the dark grey sand of the living surfaces directly above the yellow sterile dune sand (Russo 1991). The postmolds are relatively small and form curvilinear shapes adjacent to the remains of both hearths and pits (Figure 20). The circular structures range in size from 4.3 to 4.8 meters in diameter and Russo suggests that there could have been more variation in house size

122

across the site (Russo 1991:370). The size of the posts indicates that these structures were

simple constructions that gave shelter from light to moderate rains, sun exposure, and provided privacy and a place for pit features for storage of goods or food resources

(DeBoer 1988; Russo 1991).

Figure 20. Idealized representation of four circular postmold patterns that are present at 21 to 40 centimeters into the sterile yellow dune sand (Russo 1991:341 figure 5.29)

123

VII. Hurricane Impacts to Southwest Florida’s Estuarine Environment

Hurricanes are the largest storms that the earth produces, and they regularly impact the southwest Florida region. They are tropical events that alter the structure of the estuarine community and they may change the entire function of portions of the ecosystem, particularly the Mangroves (Lugo 2008). It is important to consider how these alterations would impact the human populations living in this region and adapted to this environment both directly through the storm itself and indirectly in the aftermath of the storm. Shell Island’s mangrove ecosystem is particularly sensitive to the impact of the storm surge associated with these storms. The aftermath of these storms results in the uprooting and death of many of the mangrove trees (Sherman et al. 2001; Piou et al.

2006; Irish et al. 2008). Depending on which direction the hurricane impacts, it can either expose underlying shell deposits by flushing away accumulated topsoil and muck, or deposit large amounts of seafloor shell deposits (Smith et al. 2007).

The Center for Hurricane Research at Florida International University mapped the

storm surge impact of Hurricane Andrew using aircraft-mounted LiDAR data from the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and found the height of the storm surge impact to the Ten Thousand Islands region of Florida to be significant. In Figure

21, the Shell Island site location is indicated by the arrow and sustained maximum 2.7-3

m storm surge. As Andrew was a once in a century category five storm tracking in the

typical east to west direction and directly impacting the region, we may conclude that this

is the maximal surge for hurricanes crossing from the Atlantic into the Gulf of Mexico

that inhabitants were required to account for during construction of habitations if they

intended to survive such an event. Category five storms have winds that are greater than

124

249.45 km/h (155 mph) and can generate storm surges greater than 5.49 m (18 feet) in height (Simpson 1974).

Figure 21. Hurricane Andrew Storm Surge Impact on South Florida (Center for Hurricane Research at Florida International University, Florida International University, November 15, 2012)

In 2005, Hurricane Wilma abnormally impacted the southwest Florida region

directly from the west. Figure 22 is overlaid with color coded NOAA geostationary radar

images from the region during the event. Storms impacting from the west are usually

weaker and occur less often. Wilma represents a once in a century strength, west to east

tracking storm and the maximal impact of such a storm to the region in recorded history.

Shell Island site sustained a three m (9.84 foot) storm surge impact. Hurricane Wilma

was a category three storm, tracking atypically from west to east with an abnormally

125

large eye of 128 km wide. Category 3 storms generate winds of up to 209.22 km/h (130 mph) and produce storm surges up to 3.66 m (12 foot) in height (Simpson 1974). This eye was the most intense portion of the storm and was four times larger than Andrew’s

(Smith et al. 2007). Hurricane Wilma directly impacted the region, and we may conclude that this storm represented the maximal surge for hurricanes approaching from the Gulf of Mexico travelling east that inhabitants were required to account for during construction of habitations if they intended to survive such an event.

Figure 22. Hurricane Wilma Storm Surge Impact in 2005 (NOAA, accessed November 15, 2012).

126

Hurricanes Andrew and Wilma are two storms that characterize the maximal

impact of storm surge on Shell Island Site over the last 161 years. These impacts

represent the risks that the aboriginal populations bore in order to reap the benefits of living in the rich estuarine environment. The deliberate construction of shell-bearing habitation sites within the direct proximity of these impact Zones is a cultural adaptation to this risk and demonstrates the intimate relationship that the inhabitants had with the environment.

Estimates of the impact of Andrew on the ecology of the southwest Florida region revealed the erosion mudflats and the exposure of the underlying natural shell deposits equal to that of the previous seven years (Smith et al. 2005). Conversely, Wilma was found to have deposited material between five and 15 centimeters thick across the storm surge impact area that spanned 110 square miles. This is equivalent to 2.1 million dump truck loads of shell and other marine sediments. Additionally, entire mangrove trees are uprooted and deposited into the canopies of the remaining stressed or dying mangrove stands (Smith et al. 2005).

127

CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS OF APPLICATION OF GIS &

REMOTE SENSING TECHNOLOGY

I. ESRI ArcGIS Spatial Analysis and Digital Elevation Model

Production Results

An extensive master geodatabase for this investigation was built for the purposes

of comparative spatial analysis of both occupational surface postmold distribution and

overall site relationships to the estuarine environment using data obtained from the

Florida Master Site File, Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical

Resources, Florida Department of State. A file containing all of the centroids of

archaeological sites in the state of Florida was first obtained as the initial building block of this database. Using ESRI ArcGIS Geoprocessing Tools to narrow these sites down to

ones directly comparable to site Shell Island for spatial analysis involved several steps.

The Select by Attributes tool was used to select only archaeological sites in Collier

County, followed by only sites classified as “prehistoric habitation” by the state. The

Select Features tool was then utilized to manually examine the attributes of each site

centroid that was in the estuarine environment to ensure that the resulting sites did in fact satisfy the established criteria for spatial analysis and comparison. These sites were exported to their own feature class, and a map of the region of interest was produced

(figure 23).

128

Figure 23. Established Collier County Shell-Bearing Habitation Sites.

After identifying which specific sites would be spatially analyzed for comparison to Shell Island, shape files of these site boundaries as well as State Site Forms, field documentation, and state correspondence concerning each site were obtained from the same agency. This material excluded several of the sites that were thought to be comparable and generated interest in others that proved to be useful and worth including in this investigation. Using ESRI ArcGIS digitization tools, new feature classes were

129

created for each site boundary, and the site dimensions were redrawn based on the field

maps and state site forms that more accurately reflected the actual archaeologically delineated site dimensions when necessary. ESRI ArcGIS advanced editing tools were

used to adjust the appearance of the polygons and make a more realistic representation of the archaeological site dimensions. Using these boundaries, a distance from the site to the estuarine adaptation environment could be more accurately ascertained than measuring from the arbitrary site centroid. The resulting maps are presented below in figures 24 to

32.

130

Figure 24. Overview of 8CR209 Horr’s Island site.

131

Figure 25. 8CR206, Horr’s Island Mound B.

132

Figure 26. 8CR207, Horr’s Island Mound C.

133

Figure 27. 8CR208, Horr’s Island mound A.

134

Figure 28. Site 8CR217

135

Figure 29. Site 8CR236.

136

Figure 30. 8CR298 Garden Patch Site.

137

Figure 31. Site 8CR549.

138

Figure 32. 8CR777 Sam Williams site.

Accomplishing any kind of spatial analysis of the Key Marco site presented certain problems as a result of the heavily modified modern landscape on which the site

139

once existed. To achieve this, points from a survey of the site taken in the 18996 by

Sawyer for Frank Hamilton Cushing’s expedition were placed into an excel spreadsheet

and imported to ESRI ArcGIS to produce a topographic map and digital elevation model

(DEM). After producing this DEM, the 1998 excavation units of a shell-bearing habitation site could be overlaid, then digitized onto the map. Using this location, the

distance from an actual habitation structure at Key Marco to the water could be

determined (Figure 33). After which, the sites boundaries were drawn as a separate

feature class, and projected as a layer onto a modern USGS topographic map of the area

(Figure 34). The resulting DEM illustrates that the site was located atop an aboriginally

constructed finger ridge that extended and gently sloped northwest, into the water with

canals running down the sides. The distance that was entered into the table for spatial

analysis was an average of the distances from the habitation down to both canals on

either side. The number also took into account the four meters of vertical change (at the

highest and latest occupation) that the hike down to the water would have included, and

came to 15.25 m.

140

Figure 33. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of shell-bearing habitation structure excavated by Widmer in 1998 at the Key Marco site.

141

Figure 34. Key Marco site 8CR48 boundary overlaid on modern USGS topographic map.

142

The Shell Island site was then digitized with the location of the shell-bearing

deposit that was excavated. Measurements were then taken from the location of the shell-

bearing construction to the estuarine environment for comparison using ESRI ArcGIS

Spatial Analyst (Figure 35).

143

Figure 35 Shell Island Site.

144

The distances from the archaeologically delineated shell-bearing habitation site

boundaries were then placed into a table to determine an average distance from each site

to the estuarine environment that they would have subsisted from. In the event that a

site’s shape warranted taking more than one measurement, the average distance of the

measurements was inputted into the spreadsheet and graph in meters (Figure 36).

Figure 36. Comparison site spatial analysis, distance to estuarine environment in meters.

II. Remote Sensing Technology and Hurricane Impact Results

Sometimes ground survey is insufficient means for gathering data and providing

relevant or spatial contextual information about large areas or widely separated portions of the earth. This is especially true when gathering or comparing natural phenomena. In

145

these cases, data must be acquired about phenomena using secondary or indirect methods

of collection. These indirect methods often utilize technology such as orthorectified

(geometrically corrected) aerial photography or satellites that are distant from the

observer and are therefore referred to as remote sensing (Jensen 2000; Demers 2009).

This data is then processed using various different computer programs to graphically

represent the phenomena for the purposes of analysis. One of the goals of this study is to

investigate whether or not construction fill for shell-bearing Shell Island and other sites in

the region could have been easily sourced for both initial construction and expansion of

habitational structures in coastal areas. Small deposits of shell regularly occur on beaches

and shorelines after each high tide recede, but this would not be a sufficient source of

shell to supply a construction project. Storm surges represent a catastrophic event that can

drastically alter the landscape of a region, especially an estuarine environment

(Castaneda-Moya et al. 2010). Hurricanes Andrew (1992) and Wilma (2005) represent

two of the largest hurricanes to hit the southwest Florida region in over 100 years of

recorded history (Barnes 2007), and we will use data from remote sensing technology to demonstrate the level of impact that these storms had on the region in terms of shell deposition, unearthing of buried shell through sediment removal, and stress of vegetation

(Risi et al. 1995; Kang and Trefy 2003; Smith et al. 2007). Stressed, dead and dying mangroves and trees in the estuarine environment where Shell Island is located would have been just as important of a raw material as easily accessible shell deposits for construction of habitations and cooking fuel.

146

III. NDVI, Rectification, Classification and Post-classification

Comparison Change Detection Results.

USGS uses Landsat satellites as a platform for sensors that have been passively collecting data since 1972. As a passive remote sensing device, Landsat seven collects

the Sun’s electromagnetic data that is reflected from objects on earth. Passive sensors

only detect electromagnetic energy that is reflected by objects on the earth; they do not

emit any energy in order to collect data. The sensor on the Landsat platform is the

Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus which collects data from different parts of the

electromagnetic spectrum and organizes them into six bands for individual or combined

viewing (bands 1-5, 7) with 30 m (98 foot) resolution. The data is projected in individual

pixels that represent which portions of the electromagnetic spectrum are being detected in

a gradient form. This means that each pixel contains significant amounts of data that can

be indicative of multiple phenomena within one pixel representing 30 x 30 meters of

ground. Using the programs ENVI or ESRI ArcGIS, it is possible to create a true color

image of selected data using the combination of bands five, four, and three which

constitute the Red, Green and Blue portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. The

resulting data is layered to produce the true color image.

In order to demonstrate the way that a hurricane storm surge deposits shell,

uncovers buried shell, and stresses vegetation, both programs ENVI and ArcGIS were

used to perform a change detection process between two sets of temporally separated data

from the same locations. The two temporally distinct images and datasets must first

undergo the process of registration before change detection can be performed. This

ensures that both datasets entirely conform to one another pixel by pixel, so that the

147

program can detect the changes between the two. USGS Landsat datasets are available

free of charge from the USGS Global Visualization Viewer (GLOVIS) website. After

identifying Belle Meade USGS Quadrangle that was needed for the site area, a file was

located of that quadrangle which was obtained in early October 2005 before the hurricane

Wilma impact and another file of the exact same area for November, after the storm surge

impact. The time of the second image was chosen to demonstrate the newly exposed and

deposited shell before more dirt or vegetation deadfall obscured the shell from the satellite sensor. In both images, the area in which Shell Island is located was subject to cloud cover and interference by shadows. The only areas that were void of interference in

both images were inland, and outside of the estuarine environment in which Shell Island

is located. After downloading another set of data from the Naples South USGS

quadrangle, an area three miles to the north of the study area comprised of Keewaydin

Island with Dollar and Bartell Bays as well as portions of other mangrove bays were

identified to be within the same estuarine environment and did not have any interference

in either image.

A subset of the data was created so that the exact same areas within the two

datasets could be spatially referenced to each other. By reducing the data within the

Naples South quadrangle to dimensions that contained only useable and comparable (to

Shell Island’s environmental setting) data, rectification, classification and change

detection could be performed (figure 37). The method of change detection that was

performed in this investigation is based on methods developed for studies aimed at

detecting land use or land cover changes temporally and is therefore highly applicable.

148

Figure 37. Subset of data for change detection, Naples South Quadrangle (RGB).

First, the subsets of data from both images were processed using the NDVI

(normalized difference vegetation index) Apparent Reflectance tool in ESRI ArcGIS to determine how much vegetation was stressed before and after the storm surge event. The

Apparent Reflectance tool converts the digital numbers of Landsat bands into surface reflectance values. ESRI ArcGIS may then use the NDVI computation on that resulting dataset to produce more consistent value for NDVI. The first image established a base line that would be tested against the second, post storm image to determine how much vegetation was stressed or killed by the surge event. Healthy plants utilize chlorophyll and electromagnetic energy in wavelengths that correspond to visible (VIS) light for the process of photosynthesis (0.4 to 0.7 µm). Just as healthy plants absorb visible red light to produce energy, they also strongly reflect near-infrared (NIR) light (0.7 to 1.1 µm). In

Arc GIS and ENVI, the NDVI process graphically represents the ratio of (NIR – VIS) /

(NIR + VIS) in black and white. Once this process is completed for both data subsets, the

149

NDVI from both images may be compared to assess vegetation that was stressed or killed by the effect of the storm surge. As the majority of trees and vegetation in the area consist

of mangrove trees, these dead or dying trees would have provided a more easily

harvestable source of pilings for elevated structures or fuel for cooking and tool

manufacturing. As this investigation is also concerned with the deposition or uncovering

of shell deposits as construction material which are not affected by the NDVI process, the

NDVI filtered images will also serve as the new base images for the classification and change detection process.

Utilizing the Minimum Distance supervised classification method in ENVI, the images were classified by using the region of interest tool (ROI) to identify several pixels within the early October image and define these groups of pixels as healthy vegetation, stressed vegetation, exposed shell deposits, and water. Each individual pixel represents a numerical reflectance value, and figure 38 illustrates how these pixels are classified from multiple values into ranges of values represented by themes. As mentioned earlier, each pixel can contain data from multiple phenomena in the form of reflectance values.

Through classification, ENVI processes each individual pixel and normalizes the value.

This pixel value is then ready to be compared to a table of established categories, and assigned to the class that its value is closest to.

150

Figure 38. Pixel classification process (Khan 2012).

These ROIs serve as training areas that cover the same types of surfaces whose data the program will now place into a particular class. The probability threshold was set to single value and made 0.90. This ensures that each pixel that is processed must meet or exceed a calculated value of 90% similarity to the class defined by the ROI for it to be included within that group. If the average data within a given pixel is less than 0.90 similar to any of the defined classes, that pixel will remain unclassified. As a result of the utilization of the ESRI ArcGIS Apparent Reflectance tool before starting this process in

ENVI, a minimal amount of data fails to meet this threshold in at least one of the categories. This process results in two newly classified data files that may then be assigned a color ramp to visually differentiate the various classes of data and be analyzed using the change detection process in ENVI.

This change detection study is based on the comparison of discrete (also known as hard) land cover classifications of data retrieved from Landsat satellites over two separate

151

time periods and therefore the algorithms used in the process are known as hard change

detection logic. The specific process that was utilized is referred to as Post-classification

Comparison Change Detection, which quantitatively detects differences on a pixel by

pixel basis using a change detection matrix. As the two images were rectified and

classified before this process was preformed, the resulting image can display multiple phenomena. Aerial photographs in the Ten Thousand Islands region before and after

Hurricane Andrew demonstrate the effects storm surge has on the vegetation and exposed shell deposits in a small area (Figure 39 and 40). The Post-classification Comparison

Change Detection Image is shown in figure 41 and illustrates the changes on a much more easily recognizable way that is on a much larger scale.

Figure 39. Estuarine environment, pre-hurricane storm surge impact, First Bay, Ten Thousand Islands region Florida.

152

Figure 40. Estuarine environment, one month post-hurricane storm surge impact, First Bay, Ten Thousand Islands region Florida.

153

Figure 41. Estuarine environment, Post-classification Comparison Change Detection Image. Red: Unchanged areas, Green: Newly stressed vegetation, White: shell deposits, Cyan: Newly exposed/deposited shell, Blue: water.

154

CHAPTER SIX

Discussion and Conclusion

I. Discussion: Correlation of the Depositional History of Shell Island

Units excavated at Shell Island terminated at various depths and therefore the

deepest deposits will be established as the initial construction material of the site. It is

possible that there were occupations that were not reached by the 1997 excavations but

they will not be speculated upon within this investigation. The purpose of this study is

concerned exclusively with shell-bearing sites and habitations. Any occupations that were

not reached would likely have been campsites that were not built on top of any shell-

bearing construction and would therefore be outside the scope of this study. Each deposit

will be individually evaluated through the context of Pickering’s (1998) framework for

material sourcing and site diagenesis and then correlated to other deposits in terms of

construction events and occupational surfaces. This process will establish the

depositional and occupational history of Shell Island, which is represented in Table 11.

155

Table 11. Occupational and depositional history of Shell Island site. Each Occupation is in order of deposition encountered during excavation.

Occupation Deposit Zones Deposit Type Period I H XXII H6 Food Preparation I XXIII H5 Shell Tool Production K XXIV H4 Subfloor for Pile-Based Structures L XV H3 Construction Fill M XVI H3 Construction Fill N VII H3 Construction Fill O IX H3 Construction Fill J VI H3 Construction Fill P XVII H2 Higher Sea-Level Stand

II C XX H5 Shell Tool Production D IV H4 Subfloor for Pile-Based Structures F XI H3 Construction Fill E XXI H8/H3 Midden/Construction Fill G V H3 Construction Fill

III A I Disturbed/Unknown B II H4 Subfloor for Pile-Based Structures

Occupation I The initial occupation of shell-bearing Shell Island would have first entailed the

construction of a raised shell mound with a flattened platform atop which to build a

habitation. The earliest shell deposition consisted of Zones XV (deposit L), XVI (deposit

M), XVII (deposit P), IX (deposit O), VIII (deposit N), XXIV (deposit K), XXIII (deposit

I), VI (deposit J), XXII (deposit H), VII (deposit N), and Zone V (deposit G). Deposit P

was the lowest Zone stratigraphically, and is interpreted as being naturally deposited

from analysis of the matrix. The deposit is largely a light brown, spongy, peat-like matrix

with some very small broken shell pieces with grit and unburned, unidentifiable fish

remains. The units on the top of the platform were not all excavated to the same elevation

156

and therefore did not encounter this deposit. As deposit M above this Zone consisted

entirely of whole and broken out of context shells, it is not surprising that the spongy,

peaty silt contained trace amounts from the fill above it. As there is little to no shell in the

matrix it does not immediately fall into any class within Pickering’s framework. However

the nature of the soil within the deposit is indicative of a low lying organic mangrove

deposit left over from an H2 higher sea level stand. This is interpreted as the top of the

natural landform upon which Shell Island was constructed.

Deposit M (Zone XVI) is interpreted as culturally deposited rather than naturally

because the oysters and Mercenaria present in the matrix would have lived in different

habitats within the estuarine environment and are therefore out of context. Additionally,

none of the disarticulated mollusk remains within this deposit were in an articulated form.

This deposit satisfies the criteria for H3 construction fill as there is a total absence of

sedimentary material in the matrix with no cultural materials or faunal remains. However,

cultural materials in the form of Busycon and Mercenaria tool debitage with occasional

charcoal fleck were noted within this deposit when it was encountered in units along the

margins of the shell bearing construction, sloping to the water. This is to be expected

because if the occupants were living on the top of their platform, they would have thrown or transported their midden material off of the side of the site and into the water below.

There are midden deposits and features associated with the eastern side of the site sloping to the water, and the presence of these materials at the interface of this deposit and these

features is not surprising. This material would have worked its way into the matrix from

pedestrian traffic and midden deposition above these Zones in these units. Therefore this

deposit is interpreted as H3 construction fill for the first occupation.

157

Deposit N (Zone VII) is located along the eastern margin of the site. It is

interpreted as being culturally deposited because none of the oysters that make up the

matrix are articulated in a living position and there were midden features associated with this deposit. It is interpreted as H3 construction fill because it satisfies all three of the

criteria in Pickering’s (1998) model. The midden features associated with it were not a part of the matrix. Their discrete deposition sloping down toward the water is expected for a domestic habitation.

Deposit L (Zone XV) was relatively thin and identified across the site. This deposit is interpreted as being culturally deposited rather than naturally because oysters and surf clams live in differing habitats within the estuarine environment and are therefore out of context. Additionally, none of the disarticulated mollusk remains within this deposit were in an articulated form and were too small to be subsistence. Deposit L does not initially meet the requirements of H3 construction fill because of the gray clay comprising 7% of the matrix. However, the disarticulated shell appears to have been transported to land by water at some point as the three identifiable species of shells are

sorted only by size. If the shell was naturally deposited on land in the nearby mangrove swamp stands and then gathered for construction fill, it would be acceptable to conclude that the sediment in the matrix was a result of aboriginal gathering in baskets. There are no cultural remains in this deposit and it has no evidence of pedestrian traffic. Therefore this Zone is categorized as H3 construction fill for the first occupation.

Zone IX (deposit O) appears discretely along the eastern margin of units

N1006E1000 and N1004E1000, in context with deposit M (Zone XVI) and underneath deposit N (Zone VIII) along the site’s slope and is considered culturally deposited due to

158

the concentration of disarticulated non-subsistence oyster shell, and broken tools with

debitage. It does not initially meet the requirements of H3 construction fill because of the

tan, silty sand within the matrix. However, the disarticulated shell appears to have been

transported to land by water at some point as many of the shells appear to have been

exposed for some time by their cleanliness. If the shell was naturally deposited on land

and then gathered for construction fill, it would be acceptable to conclude that the silty

sand in the matrix was a result of aboriginal gathering in baskets. The presence of

debitage and exhausted tools could be a result of the compacting of the midden material

and encroachment through the deposit, as in the surrounding Zones. Alternately, their

presence could have merely been the result of breaking the tools while working on the

posts to be used in the structure once initial construction of the platform had reached a

satisfactory height. This deposit is therefore interpreted to be H3 construction fill.

Deposit K (Zone XXIV) is located across the platform of the shell-bearing

construction, and is stratigraphically correlated to deposit J (Zone VI) on the eastern

slope. The only difference in these deposits is the presence of cultural features in the form

of postmolds in the units across the summit (deposit K). This deposit is interpreted to be

cultural as it contains disarticulated non-subsistence molluscan remains in a relatively

loose matrix of shell grit rather than sediment. These shells are arranged at various angles

and have no apparent organization. Within deposit K at the platform, there are also two

features associated with this level which appear to have been midden material that was

capped. Deposit K satisfies the criteria of the H4 subfloor for pile based structures, while

deposit J is classified as H3 construction fill. Deposit K is the first to yield postmold

deposits and the bottom of this deposit is generally at an elevation of .75 NGVD.

159

Deposit I (Zone XXIII) comprises the platform area of the shell bearing mound.

Deposit I has some small unburned fishbone and another type of shell (pen shell) in the

matrix. This deposit is classified as culturally deposited because of the absence of sediment with in the matrix, the disarticulated remains of non-subsistence shell that lives in different environments. It does not meet the requirements of H3 construction fill because of the light gray sand within the matrix. However, the disarticulated shell appears to have been transported to land by water at some point as the shells are non- subsistence in size and appear to have been exposed for some time by their cleanliness. If the shell was naturally deposited on land and then gathered for construction fill, it would be acceptable to conclude that the sediment in the matrix was a result of aboriginal gathering in baskets. The presence of multiple horizontal ceramic sherds, exhausted and complete tools with debitage is evidence of H5 activity surfaces (primary refuse), which would further explain the presence of sediment in deposits I. The additional presences of several postmolds that travel through interface of these deposits support this assessment and further suggest additional material was deposited on top of this activity area before another major construction event occurred.

The additional material deposited around the postmolds was deposit H (Zone

XXII) and appears only on the platform section of the shell-bearing construction. This deposit houses many artifacts lying horizontally including ceramic sherds and intact shell tools. While the majority of the deposit non-subsistence oyster and pen shell, the presence of a significant amount of subsistence surf clam and many bones suggests that this deposit was from an area that was used as a food preparation area atop the platform.

Therefore, this discrete deposit is interpreted as culturally deposited construction fill,

160

sourced from a nearby location, and then utilized as a H6 food preparation area. The

remainder of the earliest construction phase (deposits I and G, Zones XXIII and V)

therefore are classified as both H4 architecture subfloors for pile based structures, and H5

activity areas for shell tool production. As the small habitation would have been elevated with little interior space underneath (one postmold per square meter in this occupation level), the area under the floor of the habitation could have been used for storage of tools and other materials. The shell-bearing platform area on top of the construction is larger than the postmold distribution, and therefore there was open flat space adjacent to the elevated habitation platform. These excavations have shown that the aboriginal occupants utilized the open spaces under the elevated floors and adjacent to the structure for multiple purposes.

The absence of midden at the summit in context with the postmolds and emergence of midden down the slope of the construction towards the water is indicative of an elevated platform habitation where the refuse midden material would either have been thrown off of the side of the habitation or transported to the water for deposition.

The ceramic sherds recovered date from 500 AD at the earliest (Belle Glade Plain). The postmold distribution suggests a quadrilateral floor plan of the elevated habitation structure with a surface area of 14.365 square meters (Figure 42). The reconstructed dimensions are based on the distribution of these postmolds, which suggest that a few postmolds were either located outside the excavation units, or were wedged underneath the structure rather than buried in the deposit and are therefore archaeologically invisible.

161

Figure 42. Occupation I, postmold distribution with reconstructed habitation overlay.

Occupation II

The archaeological material suggests that next construction period probably began with the replacement of the initial posts with new wood, as evidenced by the expansion of the existing postmolds. Some of the posts were entirely removed and replaced with new

162

ones in the same general vicinity, possibly because the old post holes collapsed after the

removal of the old posts. Another possibility is that a storm surge event necessitated this

new construction phase by washing away the initial structure with most of the posts. Had

this been the case, the old post holes would have been filled in and new ones would have had to been excavated. The addition of new deposits of shell alone would have raised the

elevation of the habitation platform by roughly 10 centimeters. However the postmold

diameter suggests the use of thicker and therefore stronger posts, which could have

supported a structure that was elevated higher off of the summit of the shell platform than the previous posts would have allowed. This would be understandable if the storm surge event scenario had taken place and the occupants wanted to avoid a repeat when the next

tropical event occurred. This addition of material and new construction phase could have

been initiated both as a result of and facilitated by such a storm surge event via newly

deposited shell and stressed or dead trees.

The material above the primary occupation consists of Zones XI (deposit F), Zone

XXI (deposit E), a redeposited portion of Zone V (deposit G), Zone IV (deposit D), and

finally Zone XX (deposit C). Immediately on top of the initial occupational surface, Zone

XI (deposit F) was identified at the center of the platform. This deposit is interpreted as

cultural due to the presence of disarticulated oysters and surf clams which live in

different habitats within the estuarine environment. It does not initially meet the

requirements of H3 construction fill because of the light brown silt within the matrix.

However, the disarticulated shell appears to have been transported to land by water at

some point as many of the shells appear to have been exposed for some time by their

cleanliness. The oyster is particularly clean and is described as appearing to have been

163

washed before deposition. The small amount of tools and cultural material found may be

encroaching from the midden material that was redeposited as construction fill

immediately above (Zone XXI, deposit E). If the shell were naturally deposited on land

and then gathered for construction fill, it would be acceptable to conclude that the

sediment in the matrix was a result of aboriginal gathering in baskets. This deposit is

interpreted as H3 construction fill.

There are two portions of this construction phase that consist of a redeposited

midden feature and a Zone from an earlier construction phase that are used as fill. The

first section is Zone XXI (deposit E) which is interpreted as H8 midden material that was

likely sourced from the deposits on the eastern sloping side of the construction. This is

postulated because Zone V (deposit G) material is immediately adjacent to and

underneath deposit E. Deposit G appears lower in the stratigraphy and earlier in

construction phase of this site. Suspiciously, this level thins dramatically at one portion of

the eastern units N1006E100 and N1004E1000. There is also an absence of midden in

this particular area. It is proposed that this material was sourced from the east side of the

shell-bearing construction and redeposited on the central and western portions of the

summit. This would not be illogical behavior, as midden material would have been

building along the eastern side of the construction for some time and would be an easily

available source of construction fill material. As deposit G was directly underneath the

eastern middens, portions of it appear to have been removed as well and redeposited in

this process, whether or not it was intentional. The postmolds that extend through this

construction phase down into the previous occupation are not located in these deposits.

164

With this understanding, deposit G is interpreted as H3 construction fill and deposit E is

interpreted as H8/H3 because it is repurposed midden material.

The next portion of this occupation phase is Zone IV (deposit D). It appears

across the site and thins out as it reaches the margins of the site. This is considered

culturally deposited as the shell consists of disarticulated remains loosely integrated with

no particular design and sparse cultural material intermixed. Deposit D satisfies all of the

criteria for H4 subfloor for pile based structures as both new postmolds are present here

and the expanded postmolds from the earlier occupation travel through this Zone. This

subfloor is covered by deposit C, which is evenly distributed across the summit of the

shell-bearing platform at roughly the same elevation. This deposit is sourced from natural

deposits as it contains no subsistence shell and is considered to be an activity surface for

the second occupation period based on the contextual artifacts within the thin, veneer-like

deposit. The content of deposit C satisfies both H5 shell tool production activity area and

H7 pedestrian traffic criteria. Additionally, there are 10 postmolds emanating from it.

There are also midden features present along the eastern sloping margins of the site

(features one and three) where deposit C is absent. Therefore this Zone is interpreted to

represent the multiple use surface of the top of the shell-bearing construction at Shell

Island.

These deposits are encased in deposit B (Zone XX), which is interpreted as cultural due to the mixture of oyster, pen shell, and clams which live in different habitats within the environment. The thinness of the deposit (5 cm or less) and the generally broken down nature of the shell (70% pulverized oyster) combined with the horizontal laying Glades Plain and Ft Drum Incised sherds and Busycon debitage are all indicative

165

of an activity surface. This deposit is interpreted as an H5 shell tool production surface as

it satisfies all three of Pickering’s (1998) criteria for such a surface.

The absence of midden at the summit in context with the postmolds and emergence of midden down the slope of the construction towards the water is indicative of an elevated platform habitation where the refuse midden material would either have been thrown off of the side of the habitation or transported to the water for deposition.

The horizontal ceramic sherds within this occupation date from 500-700 AD (Glades

Plain, Ft. Drum Incised). As discussed earlier in this section, the postmolds emanating from this level are larger in diameter and therefore could have supported either a heavier structure, or a structure that was built higher off the summit of the shell-bearing construction. The postmold distribution suggests a quadrilateral floor plan of the elevated habitation structure with a surface area of 11.05 square meters (Figure 43). The reconstructed dimensions are based on the distribution of these postmolds, which suggest that a few postmolds were either located outside the excavation units, or were wedged underneath the structure rather than buried in the deposit and are therefore archaeologically invisible. This surface area represents a slight reduction in surface area within the habitation, however the increase in visible postmolds within this construction event in combination with the thicker posts and higher elevated habitation and shell- bearing platform could have made this structure sturdier than the primary construction.

There are also several postmolds that continue through this level, but these features are intrusive as they originate at higher elevations or are expansions of postmolds that originally emanated from this construction Zone.

166

Figure 43. Occupation II, deposit C, postmold distribution with reconstructed habitation overlay.

167

Occupation III

A third and final construction and occupation phase remaining in the

archaeological record was located on top of these previous deposits consisting of Zones I and II (deposits A and B). Zone II (deposit B) is immediately above the middle occupation veneer Zone XX (deposit C). Deposit B contains 11 postmold features, eight of which are a part of this new construction phase. Feature 2 and Feature 6, the postmolds that are still present from the original construction are still in use at this point, and have expanded to their maximum diameter. The shell mound is at its highest elevation, and the postmolds that are contemporary with this construction phase are the same diameter as the middle occupation phase. There is a large postmold feature in the middle of the platform (feature 36) which may represent multiple small posts that ran together or a post that was at an angle because it was acting as a stabilizer to other supports. This level satisfies all of the criteria for cultural depositional process of an H4 subfloor for pile- based structures, locally sourced from a natural storm deposition.

Zone I (deposit A) consists of the upper 10 to 15 cm across the entire site. While considered to be disturbed, deposit I yielded important and discernible cultural information about the latest construction and occupation phase at Shell Island. The matrix had materials that would have been found in criteria for an H5 shell tool production activity surface and H6 food preparation surface. This deposit also contains materials that could be a part of H4 subfloor for pile-based structures or H3 construction fill, and therefore it cannot be specifically known what or where these functional surfaces existed.

What is clear is that the overwhelming majority of the materials that would have formed these matrices were locally sourced from H1 storm deposited materials. There are midden

168

features within this deposit along the margins of the excavation in relation to the slope,

and there is no evidence of midden repurposing for construction fill in spite of the

moderate level of disturbance. However, due to the disturbance, it cannot be classified

with Pickering’s (1998) criteria.

The absence of midden at the summit in context with the postmolds and

emergence of midden down the slope of the construction towards the water is indicative

of an elevated platform habitation where the refuse midden material would either have been thrown off of the side of the habitation or transported to the water for deposition. As discussed earlier in this section, the postmolds emanating from this level are generally equivalent in diameter to those from the middle construction phase. The postmold distribution suggests a quadrilateral floor plan of the elevated habitation structure with a surface area of 10 square meters (Figure 42). The reconstructed dimensions are based on the distribution of these postmolds, which suggest that a few postmolds were either located outside the excavation units, or were wedged underneath the structure rather than buried in the deposit and are therefore archaeologically invisible. This unit is also disturbed, and some of the postmolds could have been obscured or otherwise destroyed as a result of this disturbance. This surface area represents a slight reduction in surface area within the habitation, however the increase in visible postmolds during this construction

event, in combination with the thicker posts and higher elevated habitation and shell- bearing platform could have made this structure sturdier than either of the previous constructions. The ceramics from this final occupation represented in the archaeological record at Shell Island are known to have been from 500-AD 700 (Ft. Drum, Belle Glade

Plain).

169

Figure 44. Occupation III, postmold distribution with reconstructed habitation overlay.

170

II. Elevated, Non-shell-bearing Habitation Site Comparison, Key Marco

8CR48, OP1 West Discussion

This particular habitation at the Key Marco site displays both similarities and

differences from Shell Island. There were multiple examples of paired postmolds at Key

Marco, and a higher density of postmolds per square meter (7.97). However, as this site

did not undergo any construction phases until mound B was built on top of it, these

postmold features probably represented an extended occupation with multiple repair and

rebuilding episodes. When the three occupational levels of Shell Island’s history are

superimposed (see figure 40, Shell Island occupation I surface with reconstructed

habitation overlay), 28 postmolds are present including at least three reused postmolds.

There is a density of 3.1 postmolds per square unit at Shell Island, still less than half the

density of this site at Key Marco. However, this is not necessarily surprising given the

unstable base that sand offers compared to the level of stability offered by shell-bearing

constructions. Again, the duration of occupation before mound B was built on top of this

habitation is also unknown and we have no temporal frame of reference from which to

speculate on the number of occupations or construction episodes this represents.

Additionally, the excavations did not reveal any discernible shape or pattern to the

habitation structures.

The main similarity lies in the location of (or absence of) the midden material.

Similar to Shell Island, there is no midden material underneath the elevated structure. The

location of Key Marco’s midden from this habitation is unknown and was not identified

during Widmer’s excavations. The level of cultural material, broken shell and tools in the

matrix underneath the elevated non-shell-bearing site at Key Marco is comparable to an

171

activity surface at Shell Island. However, we have no temporal frame of reference for

these artifacts making artifact density comparison inapplicable. In conclusion, Shell

Island OP1 west represents a distinctly different approach to constructing habitations in spite of the fact that both were constructed using the same tools, with the identical natural resources available.

III. Non-Shell-bearing, Non-elevated Habitation Structure Site

Comparison, Horr’s Island 8CR209 Discussion

The habitations located on the central portion of Horr’s Island site 8CR209 are situated on an entirely different landform than Shell Island. As this island is a massive

remnant sand dune that has a natural elevation that protects it from the majority of storm surge events that regularly occur in southwest Florida, the inhabitants were not concerned with avoiding these catastrophes. The postmolds that are visible archaeologically

represent thinner posts in a small circular shape. The floors have evidence of storage pit features and in-ground cooking techniques. Shell Island’s archaeological remains are indicative of heavy, robust posts that supported elevated platforms in a quadrilateral shape atop intentionally constructed shell-bearing platform structures with little interior

space. The non-shell-bearing non-elevated habitations on Hoor’s Island are nonetheless

an important component of this investigation because they represent a wholly dissimilar alternative construction method employed by the same culture, subsisting in the same environment as the aboriginal populations that occupied Shell Island.

172

IV. Elevated, Shell-bearing Habitation, Temple Site Comparison, Key

Marco Site 8CR48 OP1 East Discussion

The shell-bearing habitation temple mound or mound A from Widmer’s 1996

excavations at Key Marco has several similarities to the Shell Island site, and many

differences (outside of the obvious difference in the sheer scale of the sites’

constructions). There were three construction phases at mound A and Shell Island that

both raised the height of the summit platform. However, the phases at Shell Island did not

expand the surface area of the sites and the size of the habitation stayed relatively the

same size. There was also little to no midden material recovered under the elevated

habitation structure at either site. However, the midden was not located at mound A at

this site at all. There were no charcoal flecks and no amounts of fish bones or other

instances of incidental deposition of artifacts, and no midden material was recovered at any point in mound A’s construction material. This is in stark contrast to the Shell Island site where there are multiple midden features that correspond to the construction and occupational surfaces. Furthermore, in at least one situation midden was intentionally excavated and repurposed as construction fill at Shell Island, which was not the case at

Key Marco mound A. In fact, the overall condition of the construction materials at Key

Marco was such that it appeared that the shell had been sourced and washed of all sediment material before it was transported to the construction site. The construction materials at Shell Island often contained small amounts of sand, silt, or clay incidentally as a result of gathering the material close by the location and immediately depositing it as

fill.

173

Two occupational surfaces of mound A’s construction are covered in a pen shell

veneer, while a third surface had hundreds of arranged Busycon shells that were leveled

with pen shells to make an extremely hard, continuous and uniform surface that was void

of any other cultural material. While the middle occupation at Shell Island does have a

thin surface that consists of crushed pen shell, it also contains the expected incidental

remnants of daily life including broken tools, debitage, a few fish bones, and ceramic

sherds which were wholly absent from mound A. Additionally, the eastern sloping

margin of Shell Island appears to have been perpetually covered in midden deposits as a

result of throwing the contents of the elevated platforms mobile hearths off of the top of

the structure towards the water. Mound A would have been a very different, much cleaner

and more impressive structure even if it was built on the same scale as Shell Island. The

postmolds at Mound A averaged ten centimeters diameter and were of comparable size to

those at Shell Island, and the overall postmold density of just over three posts per square

meter at mound A is identical to Shell Island.

The defining characteristic of mound A at Key Marco is the presence of

dedication caches. While Widmer emphatically avoids making a connection between

prehistoric Mesoamerican cultures and the culture at Key Marco, he does cross culturally

compare the practice of burying dedication cache’s at important sites which ritually

charge them (Widmer 1996). At no point are any remotely exotic materials present in the

whole of Shell Island, and there is no evidence that the site is in any way ritually

important or charged. The only artifacts present at Shell Island are typical of the estuarine

subsistence strategies employed by the cultures that occupied the same region (namely

the Calusa). In conclusion, while some of the same construction strategies were employed

174

at both sites, there are distinct qualities in terms of construction materials and features

that differentiate mound A at Key Marco from Shell Island.

V. Elevated, Shell-bearing Habitation Comparison, Operation Two Key

Marco Site 8CR48 Discussion

Widmer’s 1998 Key Marco “op” two excavations revealed a shell-bearing

habitation site that possessed striking similarities to Shell Island upon comparison.

Ironically the most obvious similarity was not even identified by Widmer’s excavations

at all; rather it was identified during exploratory trenching and monitoring preformed by

Beriault during construction of an adjacent structure. One of his trenches cut across the

original site’s aboriginal canals between shell finger ridge features that stretched out into

the estuary (Widmer 1998). These canals had been filled in and the entire site leveled, but

in doing so the materials in the midden were sealed and protected from the impact of the

construction. This trench profile revealed evidence of several lifetime’s worth of charcoal, ash, broken shell tools and general midden sediments along the side of the construction that would have sloped down to the nearest water in the canal at the time of occupation. Widmer’s excavations revealed that the source of that midden was a shell- bearing habitation situated on the top of what was once a large shell-bearing habitational site.

While the Key Marco site is significantly larger and possesses at least four more known construction episodes and prepared surfaces, there are still similar construction methods and evidence of identical subsistence culture present. Several of the deposits at

175

Key Marco OP2 completely match deposits at Shell Island. For example, Shell Island’s

middle occupation deposit C and Key Marco’s Zone IX are composed of nearly exactly

the same matrix and are even identical down to the thickness of the activity surface. This

indicates a cultural pattern of construction techniques for shell-bearing habitation

structures in southwest Florida. Future investigations should be done with the goal of

identifying these cultural patterns at other shell-bearing sites. The middens at both sites

are situated on the immediate slope down to the nearest water. There is no midden

underneath the postmolds at either site, but there is evidence of tool storage underneath

the elevated structure. Both sites bear indications of living surfaces that are littered with

evidence of daily life on debitage, small fish bones, and pulverized shell. These deposits

are distinguished largely by the presence of ceramic sherds in a horizontal position at the

interfaces between the layers. Some of the living surfaces have similar postmolds per

square meter. For example, Zones VII and VIII at Key Marco OP2 combine to form a

single living surface with a total of 19 postmolds, and a resulting density of .75

postmolds per square unit. Similarly, the middle occupation at Shell Island whose top

surface consists of Zone XX (Deposit E) has a postmold density of .889, suggesting these

two deposits at Shell Island and Key Marco could have served the same functional

purpose.

In spite of these similarities, there are some differences. The average postmold

density of the of the three different occupation surfaces at Shell Island is .92 per square

meter, which is markedly lower than most of the individual living surfaces at Key Marco

OP2. It is also lower than the average number of postmolds per layer at OP2 of 1.7

postmolds per square meter. For example, one of the living surfaces at OP2 had a

176

postmold density of 2.96 postmolds per square meter. To achieve this kind of postmold

density at Shell Island, all three occupations must be combined in the calculation (3.1

postmolds per square meter). Conversely, Zone VII at Key Marco OP2 has a shell density

of .41 postmolds per square meter, which is about half the density of the sparsest

occupational level at Shell Island (primary occupation, .80 postmolds per square meter).

Additionally, at no point is there any discernible pattern to the postmold distribution that

would be useful for determining the shape of the elevated habitations that the posts

supported. At Shell Island, the rectangular pattern remains similar in both surface area

and orientation throughout all three occupation and construction phases. The most

perplexing difference is the apparent floor preparation of the upper occupation layers at

Key Marco op 2. The artifacts associated with these surfaces are associated with

woodworking, fishing and other daily activities which correspond to the occupational

surfaces found more deeply stratified here and with the three occupational surfaces at

Shell Island. However, the residents of these three upper surfaces at OP2 appear to have

covered the leveled shell below the house with clay sediments and marine mud which

form an extremely hard conglomerate marl with the shell. This is unique to this specific

Zone of this occupation among all the sites considered in this investigation.

In conclusion, Key Marco OP2 offers both remarkable similarities and puzzling

differences with the Shell Island site. This however is not surprising as OP2 is a part of

the Key Marco site, which is one of the most extensive and complex sites in the

southeastern United States. The archaeological data seems to suggest that Key Marco was

much more socio-politically complex than Shell Island, and that the two were

contemporarily occupied. While the basic layout and construction methods appear to be

177

essentially the same at some occupational Zones, it can be very different in others.

However, the cultural material and midden features at both sites are indicative of multiple habitation periods and reflect the daily activities of an estuarine adapted culture.

VI. ESRI ArcGIS Spatial Analysis and Digital Elevation Model

Production Discussion

The utilization of ESRI ArcGIS for the purposes of comparative spatial analysis

of both postmold distribution within occupational surfaces and general site relationships

to the estuarine environment proved invaluable to this investigation. With the average

distance of the shell-bearing habitation sites compared to Shell Island site being 39.95 meters to the estuarine environment, the habitational structure excavated at Shell Island’s distance of 11.5 meters is well within normative spatial average. The utilization of

ArcGIS’s digital elevation modeling capability assisted in accurately calculating both horizontal and vertical distance that would have been traversed by the inhabitants to reach canoes in the canals that led out to the rich estuarine environment to which the cultures in the region were adapted. ArcGIS provided a means to synthesize new data from field excavations, existing data from the Florida Master Site File, and survey data from Sawyer’s 1896 survey of the now heavily modified and unrecognizable Key Marco site in order to perform various types of spatial analyses.

Human behavioral ecology involves the study of how human cultures have adapted to various environmental stressors or opportunities. The stabilization of sea level encroachment created a rich estuarine environment along the southwest Florida coast that

178

allowed the aboriginal populations to not only subsist, but thrive at levels only previously

known to be possible with the advent of agriculture. The environment was so abundant

with resources that population expansion eventually resulted in the complex chiefdom level of sociocultural integration that was present at the time of Spanish contact (Widmer

1988; Marquardt 1992).

Optimal foraging theory is the principle that organisms will always endeavor to gather and consume the maximal amount of energy producing resources at the minimal energetic expenditure and risk possible. It is therefore not surprising that the cultures located within the southwest Florida coastal region who adapted to an estuarine subsistence strategy would have built their homes as close to that environment as possible. However, the risk involved with living in this type of environment is the fact that the region is near or at sea level (with the exception of Horr’s Island) and subject to major and sometimes catastrophic storm surge impacts by tropical events on a yearly basis. Just as modern humans living in southwest Florida’s beaches often build their houses on elevated platforms in an effort to minimize the impact of these events, the archaeological evidence indicates that aboriginal inhabitants of these areas also built their habitations on elevated platforms to survive the same kinds of impacts. Lacking the technological means to fell large timbers and transport them immediately adjacent to the estuarine environment, they built platforms out of shell sourced locally to achieve a certain level of security from the storm surge. However, the amount of time and energy it would have taken to construct a platform high enough to avoid the impact of a major storm surge (which they were probably intimately aware of through experience) would have been exponential and outside the scope of the capabilities of an extended family

179

unit. To compensate for this, they built their habitations platforms elevated by posts sourced from the mangroves that thrive in the environment using the shell wood-working tools that we find in evidence across all shell-bearing sites in the region.

For the cultures that adapted to and lived within the estuarine environment to survive, they had to account for the harsh conditions to which they would eventually be subjected. They had no earth, no chert, and marginal access to mainland based mammals with which to fashion tools. White (2011:110) notes, “If culture is to advance beyond the limits of maximum technological efficiency and the energy resources of the human body, it must devise new ways to harness additional amounts of energy by tapping natural resources in some new form.” In the case of the estuarine adaptation that is evidenced archaeologically at Shell Island, the inhabitants harnessed the depositional power of the hurricane storm surge to provide construction materials in two forms. First, the storm surges either exposed or deposited massive amounts of shell and other materials with which to construct shell-bearing platforms. Second, the storm surge uprooted and deposited durable mangroves from which to fashion posts in support of the elevated platforms situated at the top of the shell-bearing platforms, hopefully protecting them from the impacts of most storm surges. This being the case, White’s (2011) threefold criteria for distinguishing how cultures develop through the application of agricultural technology may be applied to this nonagricultural, estuarine adaptation.

180

VII. ESRI ArcGIS NDVI and ENVI Post Classification Comparison

Change Detection of Hurricane Impacts Discussion

By evaluating data gathered from the two largest hurricanes to impact southwest

Florida in recorded history, we may conclude that similar strength hurricanes during the

occupational periods of Shell Island would have both initiated repair and expansion

efforts as well as provided the material to complete these new construction phases.

Hurricane Andrew’s effect on the ecology of the southwest Florida region was

characterized by the erosion mudflats and the exposure of the underlying natural shell

deposits on a massive scale. Because of the direction of the storm, the surge is less

intense and builds up slowly. However, the retreat of the water is violent and abrupt,

resulting in considerable erosion and exposure (Risi et al. 1995). This newly exposed shell could have been used by inhabitants to repair and expand their habitation

construction at Shell Island and at other habitation sites in southwest Florida. Andrew

represents the effect of a large hurricane, tracking in the normal pattern from east to west

has on an archaeological site as well. Not only did the inhabitants of the shell-bearing

habitation sites have to account for such a large erosional event, but archaeologists should

as well. By constructing their habitations out of shell, it is easily drainable and therefore

less susceptible to the advancing or retreating storm surge.

Using Hurricane Wilma as an example of the maximal impact for a hurricane

abnormally tracking across from the west to the east, the data shows that storms

approaching from this direction push a large and violent surge in front of the eye wall,

subjecting the estuary to the full brunt of the hurricanes force. The violent storm surge

deposits large amounts of material from the estuary onshore, and tears up mangrove trees,

181

depositing them in the canopy (Smith et al. 2005). Mangroves are a dense and difficult

wood to work with, especially with shell tools alone. The deposition of these mangrove

trees in the canopy greatly reduces the amount of energy required to build new posts for

elevated structures.

By using the ESRI ArcGIS NDVI analyst and ENVI Post Classification

Comparison Change Detection process on data from before and after Wilma, the impacts

are clear. Not only did Wilma uproot many trees, but it also stressed even more to the

point that they probably died off. Additionally, the amount of deposition in the area is

clearly represented in the resulting map. It has been estimated that the region that the

Shell Island site is in has been impacted by at least 40 hurricanes between 1871 and 2003,

averaging one major storm every 3 years (Lodge 2005). This means that the aboriginals

that were building these habitations were aware of the minimal safe height that that their

platforms had to achieve through experience. The estimated frequency of category three

to five hurricanes impacting the region in once every 20 years (Gentry 1974), and it is

likely that the builders would have had some firsthand experience with the most

catastrophically intense storm surge they would have to endure as well.

VIII. Conclusion

Shell Island site offers a very specific example of a habitation site built by a

culture whose estuarine adaptation placed them in an environment that both provided an extraordinary amount of readily available resources and subjected them to the full fury of

hurricanes and tropical storms on a regular basis. The fact that these populations not only

182

survived in a region that regularly sustains catastrophic storm surge events, but thrived to

the point of the development of high levels of sociocultural integration is an extraordinary example of human behavioral ecology and adaptability.

The quadrilateral shape and east to west orientation of the structures would have reduced the sail effect that any structure would have had during high wind tropical events. This is in contrast to the habitations at the top of the sand dunes at Horr’s Island.

The occupants of these habitations would have been closer to the ground, sturdier, and

less susceptible to the destructive power of the winds. The influence that the fear of

hurricane winds and storm surge had on the aboriginals that survived through an

estuarine adaptation at Shell Island is demonstrated through the construction techniques

evidenced in the archaeological record and cannot be emphasized enough.

Excavations began at Shell Island site in 1997 at 1.47 m NGVD elevation, with

postmolds emanating from the surface, indicating an elevated platform at an unknown

height. However, it is not assumed here that deposits currently at the top of the

construction represent the final occupation’s activity surface. Nor can this investigation

assume that this elevation is representative of the final height of the platform during

occupation. This investigation can only analyze what is represented archaeologically,

with the understanding that the site has likely been impacted by a major hurricane every

20 years between 700 AD (at the earliest) and excavations in 1997. The destructive power of the storm surges that accompany these events have been discussed in this thesis, and their impact on the archaeological record must be considered. There could have been more occupations at Shell Island, but their archaeological evidence washed away by the storm surges of up to 65 hurricanes with a category three to five intensity.

183

What are represented archaeologically at Shell Island, are progressively higher platform surfaces with progressively wider postmolds. This indicates higher, more robust structures with each construction phase. However, as the raw materials present restricted

the aboriginals’ ability to only construct elevated floor structures with mangrove trees.

These trees have limited thickness and size, forcing the inhabitants to raise the level of

their shell platform in addition to finding slightly thicker and more robust posts.

Additionally, the quadrilateral shape and east to west orientation of the habitation

structure does not change during any of the phases of occupation. The ceramics present

horizontally and within the midden features place the maximum period of occupation at

200 years (between AD 500 and 700). The fact that the design and orientation of the

structures did not change over 200 years shows that the builders possessed the knowledge of what it took to survive hurricane impacts, and passed that knowledge down through generations. The changes that are evident within the archaeological record at Shell Island consisted solely of periodic expansion of the platform’s elevation, coupled with the installation of wider, more robust posts. This is clearly indicative of a deep understanding that the builders had of the environment in which they lived and their cultural adaptation to the regular storm surge events that they experienced.

Implications for future research

Future excavations in regions that are impacted by hurricane storm surges should consider and include the probable impacts that storm surges have had on what remains of the archaeological record when formulating conclusions about both site formation and function. Long term erosion and deposition caused by sea level transgression and are accounted for in Pickering’s (1998) criteria as H2 higher sea-level stand depositions.

184

Tropical storm and hurricane storm surge deposition is also accounted for in this system

as H1 storm deposition, with one of the criteria being that it was the result of a short term

event. This investigation has shown how H1 deposited material can often be repurposed

as a readily available source of construction fill for both initial construction, for repair, and for expansion of shell-bearing habitational sites. Future research should be directed

to understanding the age and thickness of mangroves that are uprooted during category

three and four hurricane storm surge impacts are capable of uprooting. These would be

the kinds of materials that the aboriginals would be selecting for the purposes of

constructing their elevated floor structures. Therefore, a study on postmold diameter,

mangrove robusticity, and the size of trees that cannot withstand the storm surge would

be very helpful in understanding site diagenesis. Furthermore, the striking similarities

between construction patterns at Key Marco Op1 west and Shell Island indicate a cultural

pattern of techniques for shell-bearing habitation structures in southwest Florida. Future

investigations should be aimed of identifying these cultural patterns at not only other

habitation sites, but all types of shell-bearing sites. Similarities in construction techniques

could represent cultural diffusion, trade, and intermarrying.

H1 events must also be considered when determining the occupational history of

the site, because the final (possibly multiple) occupations could have potentially been

completely obliterated from the archaeological record after abandonment. This raises

serious questions about what has been determined to be the final occupation surfaces of

sites located along coastlines and estuaries that are impacted by hurricanes and tropical

storms. Furthermore, cultural adaptation to H1 events during occupation would be

different from adaptation to H2 events, and would therefore be represented differently in

185

the archaeological record. Progressive sea level rise would logically drive the occupants

of habitational dwellings to eventually move their settlement elsewhere at some point. A

disastrous, short term storm surge even after which the sea level quickly returned to the

previous level would be represented by expansion, improvement or repair events

archaeologically. To determine site formation and function, deposits at shell-bearing sites

must be thoughtfully characterized, and this investigation has shown that Pickering’s

(1998) criteria for deposit analysis is a useful and accurate tool.

When analyzed within the context of other habitation sites in the region where

identical subsistence strategies were utilized, the archaeological evidence recovered by

Widmer at Shell Island during field excavations in 1997 clearly represents a shell-bearing

habitation site. It has been distinguished from a non-shell-bearing non-elevated habitation

site, a non-shell-bearing elevated habitation site, and a shell-bearing habitation temple

site through both construction materials and methods that are evidenced in the

archaeological record. Through Pickering’s (1998) framework it becomes clear that the

vast majority of the construction materials employed at Shell Island were not sourced

from secondary refuse H8 midden material, as has often been historically assumed. In

fact these materials were sourced from naturally occurring H1 storm deposits that formed

as a result of tropical storm surges. Estuarine adaptation sites in mangrove environments

should also consider the impact that these storm surges have on the mangrove forest as a

possible source for post materials as a corollary to the H1 storm deposition category.

These conclusions about site formation processes and construction material processing

are supported by the integration of multiple datasets for spatial analysis, digital elevation

modeling, and storm surge impact assessment. These conclusions are also a testament to

186

the abilities of humans to adapt and exploit the environment through cultural processes

even when that environment turns against them in the most awesome display of nature’s

power, the hurricane.

187

References Cited

Ambrose, W.R.

1967 Archaeology and Shell Middens. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology

in Oceania 2(3):169-187.

Arnold, J. E.

1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs,

Specialists and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American

Antiquity 57(1):733-747.

1996a The Archaeology of Complex Hunter-Gatherers. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 3:77-126.

1996b Organizational Transformations: Power and Labor among Complex

Hunter-Gatherers and Other Intermediate Societies. In Emergent

Complexity: the Evolution of Intermediate Societies. Edited by J.E.

Arnold, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Ashmore, W., and A.B. Knapp

1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Blackwell,

Malden.

Aten, L.

1999 Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island, Florida: Ripley P. Bullen's

1961 Excavation at the Harris Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist 52:131-

200.

Austin, R. J., L. Carlson, and R. W. Estabrook

188

2009 Archaic Period Faunal use in the West-Central Florida Interior.

Southeastern Archaeology 28(2):148-164.

Bailey, G. N.

1975 The Role of Mollusks in Coastal Economics: The Results of Midden

Analysis in Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 2:45-62.

Bailey, G.N., and J. Parkington

1988 The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Bailey, G.N., and N. Milner

2003 Coastal Hunter-Gatherers and Social Evolution: Marginal or Central?

Before Farming 34(1):1-15.

Barber, I.

2003 Sea, Land and Fish: Spatial Relationships and the Archaeology of South

Island Maori Fishing. World Archaeology 35(3, Seascapes):434-448.

Barber, Russell J.

1983 Diversity in Shell Middens: the View from Morrill Point. Man in the

Northeast 25:109-125.

Barnes, J

2007 Florida’s Hurricane History. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel

Hill.

Bernhardt, Christopher

2011 Native Americans, Regional Drought and Tree Island Evolution in the

Florida Everglades. Holocene 21(6):967-978.

189

Bird, D. W., and J. F. O'Connell

2006 Behavioral ecology and archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research

14(2):143-188.

Bird, Douglas W.

2002 Explaining Shellfish Variability in Middens on the Meriam Islands, Torres

Strait, Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 29(5):457-469.

Blanton, R. E.

1994 Houses and Households: A Comparative Study. Kluwer, New York.

Brain, J. P., and D. A. Peterson

1970 Palmetto tempered pottery. Southeastern Archaeological Conference

Bulletin 13(70-76).

Breen, C., and P.J. Lane

2003 Archaeological Approaches to East Africa's Changing Seascapes. World

Archaeology 35(3, Seascapes):469-489.

Bullen, R.P.

1959 The Transitional Period in Florida. Southeastern Archaeological

Conference Bulletin 6:43-53.

1968 Report of the Florida-South Georgia group. Southeastern Archaeological

Conference Bulletin 8:7-10.

1970 The Transitional Period of southern southeastern United States as viewed

from Florida, roots of the Gulf Tradition. Southeastern Archaeological

Conference Bulletin 13:63-70.

Bullen, R.P. and A. K. Bullen

190

1956 Excavations on Cape Haze Peninsula, Florida. Contributions of the Florida

State Museum, Social Sciences, Vol. I. Gainesville.

Bullen, R.P. and W. Askew

1965 Tests at the Askew Site, Citrus County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist

18:201-217.

Bullen, R.P. and J. B. Stoltman

1972 Fiber Tempered Pottery in the Southeastern United States and Northern

Colombia. Vol. I. Florida Anthropological Society, Gainesville.

Byrd, Kathleen M

1976 The Brackish Water Clam (Rangia Cuneata): A Prehistoric “Staff of Life”

or a Minor Food Resource. Louisiana Archaeology 3:23-31.

Carr, R.S

1988 Archaeology of the Glades Area. National Park Service, Report on file,

Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Castaneda-Moya, Edward, R. Twilley, V. H. Rivera-Monroy, K. Zhang, S. E. Davis III, and Michael Ross

2010 Sediment and Nutrient Deposition Associated with Hurricane Wilma in

Mangroves of the Florida Coastal Everglades. In Estuaries and Coasts:

Journal of the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 33(1):45-58.

Claassen, Cheryl.

1991 New Hypothesis for the demise of the Shell Mound Archaic. In The

Archaic Period in the Mid-South. Edited by C.H. McNutt, Pp. 66-72.

Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

191

1991 Normative Thinking and Shell Bearing Sites. Archaeology Method and

Theory 3:249-298.

1996 A Consideration of the Social Organization of the Shell Mound Archaic.

In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. Edited by K.E. Sassaman

and D. Anderson, pp. 235-258. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1998 Shells. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

2000 Quantifying Shell: Comments on Mason, Peterson, and Tiffany. American

Antiquity 65(2):415-418.

Clark, Merald

2004 Art of the Calusa. Archaeology 57(5):48-49.

Clausen, C. J., H. K. Brooks, and A. B. Wesolowsky

1975 The Early Man site at Warm Mineral Springs, Florida. Journal of Field

Archaeology 2:191-214.

Cockrell, W. A.

1970 Glades I and Pre-Glades Settlement and Subsistence Patterns on Marco

Island (Collier County Florida), Report on file. Department of

Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

1973 Remains of Early Man Recovered from Spring Cave. Archives and

History News 4(2):3.

1975 Warm Mineral Springs 1975: A Milti-disciplinary Approach to a 10,000

B.P. Archaeological Site. Presentation to the Florida Academy of

Sciences, Lakewood.

1976 The Warm Mineral Springs Site. Paper presented at 33rd Annual

192

Southeastern Archaeological Conference. Tuscaloosa.

Cook, S. F.

1946 A Reconsideration of Shellmounds with Respect to Population and

Nutrition. American Antiquity 12(1):50-53.

Cowgill, George L.

1970 Some sampling and reliability problems in archaeology. Archeologie et

Calculateurs: Problemes Semiologiques et Mathematiques: Colloque

Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherché Scientifique. Editions

du Centre National de la Recherché Scientifique. 161-175.

Cox, C. B. and Moore, Peter D.

1993 Biogeography: An ecological and evolutionary approach. Blackwell

Scientific Publications, Cambridge.

Cronk, L.

1991 Human Behavioral Ecology. Annual Review of Anthropology 20:25-53.

Cumbaa, S. L.

1971 A Comparison of Animal Bones from Six Indian Sites on Marco Island.

Manuscript on file. University of Florida Collection. Florida State

Museum, Gainesville.

Cushing, F. H.

1895 A Preliminary Examination of Aboriginal Remains near Pine Island,

Marco, West Florida. American Naturalist 29:1132-1135.

1896 Exploration of Ancient Key Dwellers' Remains on the Gulf Coast of

Florida. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 35:329-488.

193

Dame, R. F.

2009 Shifting Through Time: Oysters and Shell Rings in the Past and Present in

Southeastern Estuaries. Journal of Shellfish Research 28(3):425-430.

Davis, J. H. Jr.

1940 The Ecology and Geological Role of Mangroves in Florida. Carnegie

Institute Publication no. 517. Tortuga Laboratory Paper 32:303-412.

DeBoer, W. R.

1988 Subterranean Storage and the Organization of Surplus: The View from

Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 7(1):1-20.

DeMers, Michael N.

2009 Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems. John Wiley and Sons,

Hoboken.

Dickel, D.

1991 An Archaeological Survey of Collier County, Florida: Phase I.

Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. Technical Report 38.

Florida Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Donoghue, J. F., and N. M. White

1995 Late Holocene Sea-Level Change and Delta Migration: Apalachicola

River Region, Northwest Florida, USA. Journal of Coastal Research

11(3):651-663.

Douglass, A. E.

1885 Ancient Canals on the Southwest Coast of Florida. American Antiquarian

and Oriental Journal 7:277-285.

194

Durate, C. M, N. Marba, E. Garcia, J. W. Fourqurean, J. Beggins, C. Barron, and E. T.

Apostolaki

2010 Seagrass Community Metabolism: Assessing the Carbon Sink Capacity of

Seagrass Meadows. Global Biogeochem Cycles 24: 4051-4057.

Durnford, C. D.

1895 The Discovery of Aboriginal Rope and Wood Implements in the Mud in

West Florida. American Naturalist 29:1032-1039.

Effremov, I. A.

1940 Taphonomy: A new branch of paleontology. Pan-American Geology

74:81-93.

Ehrenhard, J. E., R. S. Carr, and R. C. Taylor

1978 The Archeological Survey of the Big Cypress National Preserve: Phase I.

U.S.D.o.t. Interior. Southeastern Archaeological Center National Park

Service. Tallahassee.

1979 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archaeological Survey Season 2.

U.S.D.o.t. Interior. Southeastern Archaeological Center National Park

Service. Tallahassee.

Ehrenhard, J. E., R. C. Taylor

1980 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archaeological Survey Season 3.

U.S. Department of State. Southeastern Archaeological Center, National

Park Service, Tallahassee.

Erlandson, J.M., and S.M. Fitzpatrick

2006 Shellfish Feeders, Carrion Eaters, and the Archaeology of Aquatic

195

Adaptations. American Antiquity 66(3):413-432.

Erlandson, Jon M.

2001 The Archaeology of Aquatic Adaptations: Paradigms for a New

Millennium. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(4):287-350.

Fash, W. L.

1991 Scribes, Warriors, Kings. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Finamore, D.

2004 Maritime History as World History. University Press of Florida,

Gainesville.

Florida, Department of State (FDS)

2012 Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Electronic document,

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/rookery/, accessed July 23, 2012.

Tallahassee.

Forchhammer, G., H. Steenstrup, and J. Worsaae

1851 Unders gelser i geologisk antiqvarisk Retning. Saerskilt optryk af

Oversigten over Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs

Forhandlinger i Aarene 1848 og 1851. In Bianco Luno’s Bogtrykkeri.

Edited by B. Luno, Kjöbenhavn (Copenhagen).

Fradkin, A.

1976 The Wrightman Site: A study of Prehistoric culture and environment on

Sanibel Island, Lee County Florida, Manuscript on file, Department of

Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Friends of Rookery Bay

196

2012 Rookery Bay Overview. Naples, Florida, Electronic document,

http://www.rookerybay.org/about, accessed July 23, 2012.

Gentry, R. C.

1974 Hurricanes in South Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present

and Past. Edited by P. J. Gleason, Miami Geologic Society, Miami.

Gibson, J. L., and P. J. Carr Editors

2004 Signs of Power: the rise of cultural complexity in the southeast.

University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa.

Gill, Edmund D.

1954 Aboriginal kitchen middens and marine shell beds. Mankind 4(6):249-254.

Gilliland, M. S.

1975 The material culture of Key Marco, Florida. University Presses of

Florida, Gainesville.

Goggin, J.M.

1940 The Distribution of Pottery Wares in the Glades Archaeological Area.

New Mexico Anthropologist 4:22-23.

1941 Some Problems of the Glades Archaeological Area. Southeastern

Archeological Conference Newsletter 2:24-26.

1944 Archaeological Investigations on the Upper Florida Keys. Tequesta 4:13-

35.

1944 A Tentative Formulation of Pottery Types for the Glades Area.

Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New

Haven.

197

1947 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Florida.

American Antiquity 13:114-127.

1948 Florida Archaeology and Recent Ecological Changes. Journal of the

Washington Academy of Sciences 38(7):225-233.

1949 Cultural Traditions in Florid Prehistory. In The Florida Indian and His

Neighbors. Edited by J.W. Griffin, pp. 13-44. Rollins College

Interamerican Center, Winter Park.

1963 Archaeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. Manuscript on file,

Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Goggin, J.M., F. H. Sommer III

1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Manuscript on file, Yale

University, New Haven.

Goggin, J.M., W. T. Sturtevant,

1964 The Calusa: A stratified nonagricultural society (with notes on sibling

marriage). In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of

George Peter Murdock. Edited by W.H. Goodenough, pp. 179-219.

McGraw-Hill, New York.

Granberry, J.

2011 The Calusa: Linguistic and cultural origins and relationships. University

of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Griffin, J. W.

1949 Notes on the Archaeology of Useppa Island. Florida Anthropologist 2(92-

93).

198

1988 Archaeology of Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. Manuscript on

file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center. Tallahassee,

Florida.

Griffin, J. W., J. T. Milanich, and J. J. Miller

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

Hann, John M.

1991 Missions to the Calusa. University of Florida Press, Gainesville

Harris, E. C.

1986 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy (2nd Edition). Academic Press,

Orlando.

Heald, E. J., W. E. Odum, and D. C. Tabb

1984 Mangroves in the Estuarine Food Chain. In Environments of South

Florida: Present and Past II. Edited by P.J. Gleason, pp. 149-156. Miami

Geological Society, Coral Cables.

Hela, I.

1952 Remarks on the Climate of South Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science, Gulf

and Caribbean Studies 2:438-447.

Hirth, K

1993a The household as an analytical unit: Problems in method and theory. In

Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies of the

Household, Compound, and Residence. Edited by R. Santley and K. Hirth,

pp. 21–36. CRC Press. Boca Raton.

1993b Identifying rank and socioeconomic status in domestic contexts: An

199

example from central Mexico. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western

Mesoamerica: Studies of the Household, Compound, and Residence.

Edited by R. Santley and K. Hirth, pp. 121–146. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Hoffmeister, J. E.

1974 Land from the Sea. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.

Hrdlicka, A.

1919 Anthropological Survey of the Southwestern Coast of Florida.

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 70:62-65, Washington D. C.

1922 The Anthropology of Florida. The Florida State Historical Society,

Deland.

Hughes, P. J. and M. E. Sullivan

1974 The redeposition of midden material by storm waves. Journal and

Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales (107):6-10.

Irish, Jennifer L., Donald T. Resio, and Jay J. Ratcliff

2008 The Influence of Storm Size on Hurricane Surge. Journal of Physical

Oceanography 38(9):2003-2013.

Jerardino, Antonieta

2010 Large Shell Middens in Lamberts Bay, South Africa: a case of hunter–

gatherer resource intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science

37(9):2291-2302.

Jensen, J. R.

2000 Remote sensing of the environment: an earth resource perspective.

Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

200

Kennedy, J.

1978 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the J. N. "Ding" Darling National

Wildlife Refuge, Sanibal Florida. Manuscript on file, Heritage

Conservation and Recreation Service, U. S. Department of the Interior,

Tallahassee.

2011 Disturbance and it's Effects on Archaeological Significance and Integrity,

Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern

Cultures, Mississippi State University, Starkville.

Kenworthy, C. J.

1883 Ancient Canals in Florida. In Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for

1881. pp. 105-109. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C.

Khan, S

2012 Calibration, Registration and Topographic Correction: Field methods in

remote sensing. Electronic document,

http://www.uh.edu/~sdkhan/courses/6325.php, accessed May 5, 2013.

Kolianos,P. E. and B. R. Weisman

2005 The Lost Florida Manuscript of Frank Hamilton Cushing. University of

Florida Press, Gainesville.

Koppen, W.

1931 Grundriss der Klimakunde. Leipzig, Leipzig.

Leventhal, A.

1993 A Reinterpretation of Some Bay Area Shellmound Sites: A View From the

Mortuary Complex from CA-Ala-329, the Ryan Mound. Manuscript on

201

file, Department of Anthropology, San Jose University, San Jose.

Lightfoot, K.

1985 Shell Midden Diversity: A Case Example from Coastal New York. North

American Archaeologist 6:289-324.

Lodge, T. E.

2005 The Everglades Handbook: Understanding the Ecosystem. CRC

Publishing, Boca Raton.

Luby, E. M., and M. F. Gruber

1999 The Dead Must Be Fed: Symbolic meanings of the shellmounds of the San

Francisco Bay Area. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1):95-108.

Luer, G. M.

1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of Tribute and Exchange.

The Florida Anthropologist 42:89-130.

2007 Mound Building and Subsistence during the Late Weeden Island Period

(c.a. A.D. 700-1000) at Big Mound Key (8CH10), Florida. Manuscript on

file, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Lugo, A. E.

2008 Visible and Invisible Effects of Hurricanes on Forest Ecosystems: An

international review. Austral Ecology 33:368-398

Marquardt, W. H.

1987 The Calusa Social Formation in Protohistoric South Florida. In Power

Relations and State Formation. Edited by T. C. Patterson and C. W.

Gailey, pp. 98-116. American Anthropological Association, Washington

202

D. C.

1992 (Editor) Culture and environment in the domain of the Calusa. Institute of

Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida,

Gainesville.

2010 Shell Mounds in the Southeast: Middens, Monuments, Temple Mounds,

Rings or Works? American Antiquity 75(3):551-570.

McManamon, F.

1984 Chapters in the Archaeology of Cape Cod, Vol 2. Cultural Resource

Management Study. N.A.R.O. Division of Cultural Resources, National

Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Vol. 8. Boston.

McMichael, A. E.

1982 A Cultural Resource Assessment of Horrs Island, Collier County Florida.

Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,

Gainesville.

McNiven I. J.

2003 Saltwater People: Spiritscapes, Maritime Rituals and the Archaeology of

Australian Indigenous Seascapes. World Archaeology 35(3,

Seascapes):329-349.

McPherson, B. F., G. Y. Hendrix, H. Klein, and H. M. Tyus

1976 The Environment of South Florida: A Summary Report: a description of

the south Florida ecosystem and changes resulting from man’s activities.

Report on file, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D. C.

Meehan, Betty

203

1977 Man Does Not Live by Calories Alone: the role of shellfish in a coastal

cuisine. In Sunda and Sahul. Edited by J.G. Allen, and R. Jones, pp. 493-

531. Academic Press, New York.

1982 Shell Bed to Shell Midden. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies,

Canberra.

Milanich, J.T.

1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida,

Gainesville.

2004 Water World. Archaeology 57(5):46-50.

Milanich, J. T., C. H. Fairbanks

1980 Florida Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M.

1999 West and Central Florida Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore.

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Moore, C. B.

1892 A Burial Mound of Florida. The American Naturalist 26(302):129-143.

1900 Certain Antiquities of the Florida West Coast. Journal of the Academy of

Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:350-394.

1907 Notes on Ten Thousand Islands, Florida. Philadelphia Academy of

Natural Sciences Journal 13:458-470.

1919 Notes on the Archaeology of Florida. American Anthropologist 21(4):400-

402.

Morey, Darcy F., and George M. Crothers

204

1998 Clearing Up Clouded Waters: Palaeoenvironmental Analysis of

Freshwater Mussel Assemblages from the Green River Shell Middens,

Western Kentucky. Journal of Archaeological Science 25(9):907-926.

2002 The fluvial and geomorphic context of Indian Knoll, an Archaic shell

midden in West-Central Kentucky. Geoarchaeology 17(6):521-553.

Murowchick, Robert E.

1990 A Curious Sort of Yankee: Personal and Professional Notes on Jeffries

Wyman (1814–1874). Southeastern Archaeology 9:55-66.

Murray, T.

1989 The History, Philosophy and Sociology of archaeology: the case of the

ancient monuments protection act (1882). In Critical Traditions in

Contemporary Archaeology. Essays in the Philosophy, History and Socio-

Politics of Archaeology. Edited by V.W. Pinsky, pp. 55-67. University of

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Naroll, R.

1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27:587-589.

Odum, H. T.

1974 Tropical Marine Meadows. In Coastal Ecological Systems of the United

States. Edited by H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland and E. A. McMahan, pp.

442-497. The Conservation Foundation, Washington D. C.

Odum, H. T. and B. J. Copeland

1974 A Functional Classification of the Coastal Ecological Systems. In Coastal

Ecological Systems of the United States. Edited by H. T. Odum, B. J.

205

Copeland and E. A. McMahan, pp. 5-84. Conservation Foundation,

Washington D. C.

Odum, W. E., and E. J. Heald

1972 Trophic Analysis of an Estuarine Mangrove Community. Bulletin of

Marine Science 22:671-738.

Otvos, E. G.

1999 Sediment and geomorphic criteria for reconstructing sea-level positions.

Multiple Pliocene-Quaternary marine highstands on the northeastern Gulf

of Mexico coastal plain? Reply to a discussion (vol. 14, pp. 669, 1998).

Journal of Coastal Research 15(4):1181-1187.

Penders, T. E.

2005 Indians of Central and South Florida, 1513-1763. Southeastern

Archaeology 24(2):234-235.

Phelps, D. S.

1965 The Norwood series of fiber-tempered ceramics. Southeastern

Archaeological Conference Bulletin 2(56-69).

Phillips, T.

2003 Seascapes and Landscapes in Orkney and Northern Scotland. World

Archaeology 35(3):371-384.

Pickering, Thomas

1998 The Identification of the Processes of Formation and Diagenesis of a

Shell-Bearing Habitation Site. Master’s Thesis, Department of

Anthropology, University of Houston, Houston.

206

Piou, C., I. C. Feller, U. Berger, and F. Chi

2006 Zonation Patterns of Belizean Offshore Mangrove Forests 41 Years after a

Catastrophic Hurricane. Biotropica 38:365-374.

Pye, K., and J.R. L. Allen

2000 Coastal and Estuarine Environments: Sedimentology, Geomorphology

and Geoarchaeology. Vol 175. Geological Society, London.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., R. Irvy, H. Quitmyer, Stephen Hale, Sylvia J. Scudder, Elizabeth S.

Wing

1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity

52(2):304-317.

Risi, J. A., H. R. Wanless, L. P. Tedesco, and S. Gelsanliter

1995 Catastrophic Sedimentation from Hurricane Andrew along the Southwest

Florida Coast. Journal of Coastal Research, Special issue 21: 83-102

Robinson, B. J.

2007 Journeys through the Prehistoric Seascape of Sicily. In Prehistoric

Journeys. Edited by V.C. and R.B. Johnston. Oxbow, Oxford.

Russo, Michael

1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study from Horr's Island.

Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,

Gainesville.

1994 Why We Don't Believe in Archaic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We

Should: The Case From Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13:93-108.

2004 Measuring Shell Rings for Social Inequality. In Signs of Power: The Rise

207

of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast. Edited by J. L. Gibson and P. J.

Carr pp. 26-70. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Russo, M., and G. Heide

2001 Shell Rings of the Southeast US. Antiquity 75(289):491-492.

Sassaman, K. E.

2004 Complex hunter-gatherers in evolution and history: A North American

perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(3):227-280.

Saunders, R., and M. Russo

2011 Coastal Shell Middens in Florida: A View from the Archaic Period.

Quaternary International 239(1/2):38-50.

Schele, L. and M. E. Milner

1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Manuscript on file,

Kimbell Art Museum. Fort Worth.

Schiffer, Michael B.

1983 Toward the identification of formation processes. American Antiquity

(48):675-706.

Schubert, D. K.

2008 Population Dynamics of Prehistoric Foraging Groups Along the Upper

Texas Coast. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University

of Houston, Houston.

Schwadron, M.

2010 Landscapes of Maritime Complexity: Prehistoric Shell Work Sites of the

Ten Thousand Islands, Florida. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of

208

Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, Leicester.

Sears, William H.

1953 The Turner River site, Collier County Florida. The Florida Anthropologist

9(2):47-60.

1974 Archaeological Perspectives on Prehistoric Environments in the

Okeechobee Basin Savanna. In Environments of South Florida: Present

and Past. Edited by P.J. Gleason, pp. 347-351. Miami Geological Society,

Miami.

1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin.

University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Sherman, R. E., T. J. Fahey and P. Martinez

2001 Hurricane Impacts on a Mangrove Forest in the Dominican Republic:

Damage patterns and early recovery. Biotropica 33:393-408

Simpson, R. H.

1974 The Hurricane Disaster-Potential Scale. Weatherwise 27:169-186.

Smith III, T. J., G. H. Anderson, and G. Tiling

2007 A Tale of Two Storms: Surges and Sediment Deposition from Hurricanes

Andrew and Wilma in Florida’s Southwest Coast Mangrove Forests. In

Science and the Storms: the USGS Response to the Hurricanes of 2005.

Edited by G. S. Farris, G. J. Smith, M. P. Crane, C. R. Demas, L. L.

Robbins, and D. L. Lavoie. U. S. Geological Survey, Reston.

Solis de Meras, Gonzalo

1964 Pedro Menendez de Aviles, Adelantado, Governor, and Captain-General

209

of Florida: Memorial. Facsimile reproduction of 1570 ed. University

Presses of Florida. Gainesville.

Stein, J. K.

1992 Deciphering a Shell Midden. Academic Press Inc. San Diego.

Steponaitis, Vincas P.

1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern US. Annual Review of

Anthropology 15:363-404.

Stone, Tim

1989 Origins and Environmental Significance of Shell and Earth Mounds in

Northern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 29:59-64.

Thomas, T. M.

1974 A Detailed Analysis of Climatological and Hydrological Records of South

Florida with Reference to Man's Influences Upon Ecosystem Evolution. In

Environments of South Florida: Present and Past. Edited by P.J. Gleason.

Miami Geological Society, Miami.

Thompson, Victor, and John Worth

2011 Dwellers by the Sea: Native American Adaptations along the Southern

Coasts of Eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Research

19(1):51-101.

Trigger, B. G.

1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Upchurch, Sam B., Pliny Jewell IV, and Eric DeHaven

210

1992 Stratigraphy of Indian “mounds” in the Charlotte Harbor area, Florida:

Sea-level rise and paleoenvironments. In Culture and Environment in the

Domain of the Calusa. Edited by William Marquardt and Claudine Payne.

University of Florida, Gainesville.

Van Beck, J. C. and L. M. Van Beck

1965 The Marco Midden, Marco Island Florida. Florida Anthropologist 18:37-

54.

Walker, S.T.

1880 Report of the Shell Heaps of Tampa Bay, Florida. Smithsonian Institution

Annual Report 1879:413-422.

Wanless, H., R. W. Parkinson

1989 Late Holocene Sealevel History of Southwest Florida: Control on Coastal

Stability. In Coastal Sediment Mobility. Edited by W.F. Tanner pp. 197-

213. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University.

Waselkov, Gregory A.

1984 Shellfish gathering and shell midden archaeology. Advances in

Archaeological Method and Theory 10:93-210

Weisman, B.R., and C. L. Newman

1995 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Rookery Bay, Gateway to Florida's

Ten Thousand Islands. The Florida Anthropologist 48:133-145.

Wentz, R. K., and J. A. Gifford

2007 Florida's Deep Past: The Bioarchaeology of Little Salt Spring (8SO18)

and it's Place Among Mortuary Ponds of the Archaic. Southeastern

211

Archaeology 26(2):330-337.

White, L. A.

2011 Energy and the Evolution of Culture. In Anthropology in Theory: Issues in

Epistemology. Edited by H. L. Moore and T. Sanders, pp. 107-120.

Blackwell, Malden.

Widmer, R. J.

1974 A Survey and Assessment of Archaeological Resources on Marco Island,

Collier County Florida. Florida Department of State. Bureau of Historic

Sites and Properties Division of Archives, Tallahassee.

1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: a Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the

Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1989 Archaeological Research Strategies in the Investigation of Shell-Bearing

Sites: A Florida Perspective. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the

Society for American Archaeology, Atlanta.

1996 Recent Excavations at the Key Marco Site, 8CR48, Collier County

Florida. Florida Anthropologist 49(1):10-25.

1997 Recent Archaeological Investigations at the Shell Island Site, 8CR55,

Collier County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology,

University of Houston, Houston.

1998 Archaeological Investigations at the Olde Marco Inn, 8CR48, Collier

County Florida. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology,

University of Houston, Houston.

2004a Archaeological Investigations at the Brickell Point Site, 8DA12, Operation

212

3. The Florida Anthropologist 57(1-2):11-57.

2004b Explaining Sociopolitical Complexity in the Foraging Adaptations of the

Southeastern United States. In Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural

Complexity in the Southeast. Edited by J.L. Gibson and P.J. Carr, pp. 234-

253. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2005 A New Look at the Gulf Coast Formative. In Gulf Coast Archaeology:

The Southeastern United States and Mexico. Edited by N. M. White, pp.

68-86. University Press of Florida, Tallahassee.

Wilk, R., and R. Netting

1984 Households: Changing forms and functions. In Households: Comparative

and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. Edited by R. Netting, R.

Wilk, and E. Arnould, pp. 1–28. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Wyman, J.

1875 Fresh-water Shell Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida. AMS Press,

New York.

Zeiman, J. C.

1982 The Ecology of Seagrasses of South Florida: A Community Profile.

Report on file, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Office of Biological

Services, Washington D. C.

213