The Lewis Camp Mound (8JE182), Jefferson County, Florida Henry J

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 The Lewis Camp Mound (8JE182), Jefferson County, Florida Henry J. Kratt Jr.

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

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

THE LEWIS CAMP MOUND (8JE182), JEFFERSON COUNTY, FLORIDA

HENRY J. KRATT, JR.

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

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2005

The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Henry J. Kratt, Jr. defended on November 1, 2005.

Rochelle A. Marrinan Professor Directing Thesis

Glen H. Doran Committee Member

Michael Russo Committee Member

Approved:

Dean Falk, Chair, Department of Anthropology

Joseph Travis, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

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

I dedicate this thesis to my family and to my friends, all who have encouraged me to pursue my goals.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Parts of this project were carried out under 1A-32 Archaeological Research Permit Number 0304.13, issued by the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. I wish to acknowledge the assistance of a number of individuals including: Greg Heide, who helped with both mapping and with producing maps included in this report; Robert Daniels, for his work in protecting and recording many of the sites in the area; Mike Russo, for his assistance in both the excavation and mapping processes, digitizing the profile maps and producing site maps, as well as for his insightful comments during the formulation of this thesis; Glen Doran for his encouragement in getting me though this process; Triel “Ellen” Lindstrom for her assistance and encouragement throughout this journey; Lynn Coultas, Randy King and Randy’s son, who helped with the excavation processes; and David Cremer and Vicki Rolland, who provided assistance during the sorting of the faunal materials. Joan Day has given me much encouragement, as well as advice on treating some of the lithics. I have also received assistance from others including Donna Ruhl and Justin Stickler. I wish to thank Melissa Memory for including me in this project, for encouraging me to analyze the materials discussed in this thesis and for the work she has done in this special area of the world. Lastly, I am deeply indebted to Dr. Rochelle Marrinan, who encouraged me to attend graduate school in the first place, who instructed me in archaeological field methods and who has served as my mentor. I thank you all.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii ABSTRACT ...... x

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS IN THE WACISSA DRAINAGE ...... 5

Clarence Bloomfield Moore ...... 6 James Clarence Simpson...... 7 Vernon Lamme ...... 7 Glenn T. Allen, Jr...... 8 David S. Phelps...... 8 Richard L. Smith...... 9 B. Calvin Jones ...... 10 S. David Webb...... 10 Melissa J. Memory...... 11 Tanya M. Peres ...... 12

3. CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN THE WACISSA DRAINAGE AND AN EXAMINATION OF SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ...... 13

Cultural Chronology ...... 13 Paleoindian Period ...... 14 Archaic Period ...... 16 Woodland Period ...... 19 Mississippian and Protohistoric Period ...... 28 Historic Period ...... 31 Models Of Settlement Patterns ...... 33

4. THE SITE LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ...... 37

Vegetation ...... 37 Faunal Communities ...... 39 Topographic Mapping Methodology...... 41

5. EXCAVATION AND RECOVERY METHODOLOGIES ...... 44

Excavation Unit One...... 44 Excavation Unit Two ...... 47

6. ANALYSIS OF RECOVERED MATERIALS...... 52

Ceramic Analysis...... 52 Lithic Analysis...... 64 Faunal Analysis...... 67 Floral Analysis...... 76

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 78

Conclusions ...... 78 Recommendations...... 81

APPENDICES ...... 83

A Field Specimen Catalog ...... 83 B Artifacts From E.U. 1, 8Je182 ...... 84 C Artifacts From E.U. 2, 8Je182 ...... 91 D Faunal Analysis Forms for 8Je182 ...... 94 E Profile drawings for Excavation Unit 1, 8Je182...... 111 F Topographic Mapping Points...... 115

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 116

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 126

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6.1: Norwood Ceramics ...... 55

Table 6.2: Deptford Ceramics...... 56

Table 6.3: Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Ceramics...... 59

Table 6.4: Grog-Tempered Ceramics ...... 61

Table 6.5: Weeden Island Ceramics ...... 61

Table 6.6: Limestone-Tempered Ceramics...... 63

Table 6.7: Flakes and Shatter...... 66

Table 6.8: Faunal Remains From E.U. 1, ¼-in. Screen ...... 70

Table 6.9: Faunal Remains From E.U. 1, 1/16-in. Screen...... 72

Table 6.10: Faunal Remains From E.U. 2, ¼-in. Screen ...... 74

Table 6.11: Percentages of Biomass, Based on Unit and Screen Size...... 76

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Aucilla Wildlife Management Area and Surrounding Area ...... 2

Figure 3.1: Paleoindian Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA .... 15

Figure 3.2: Archaic Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA ...... 17

Figure 3.3: Norwood Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA ...... 20

Figure 3.4: Deptford Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA ...... 22

Figure 3.5: Swift Creek Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA ... 25

Figure 3.6: Weeden Island Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA 27

Figure 3.7: Ft. Walton Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA ..... 29

Figure 3.8: Leon-Jefferson Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA 32

Figure 4.1: Orthoquad Map Showing Location of 8Je182 ...... 38

Figure 4.2: Topographic Map of Site Showing Locations of Various Features . 42

Figure 5.1: Excavation Unit 1, South Profile ...... 45

Figure 5.2: Excavation Unit 1, West Profile ...... 46

Figure 5.3: Excavation Unit 1, East Profile ...... 46

Figure 5.4: Excavation Unit 1, North Profile ...... 47

Figure 5.5: Excavation Unit 2, Floor, Looking North ...... 48

Figure 5.6:Graph Demonstrating Extent of Petrocalcic Layer and Location of Soil Cores (SC) and Soil Probes (SP) ...... 49

Figure 5.7: Graph demonstrating Depth of Petrocalcic Layer, in Relation to Midden Surface ...... 50

viii

Figure 6.1: Norwood Ceramics ...... 55

Figure 6.2: Deptford Ceramics ...... 57

Figure 6.3: Swift Creek and Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Ceramics ...... 60

Figure 6.4: Weeden Island Ceramics ...... 62

Figure 6.5: Assorted Ceramics ...... 63

Figure 6.6: Savannah River Hafted Biface ...... 65

Figure 6.7: Lithic Tools ...... 66

Figure 6.8: Worked Bone ...... 76

ABSTRACT

This thesis examines archaeological materials recovered from the Lewis Camp Mound (8Je182), located in Jefferson County, Florida. Evidence recovered from the site indicates that it has been frequented since the Late Archaic Period (4000–1000 B.C.) and continues to be used by the present-day culture. Previous archaeological investigations in the local area are discussed as well as a general cultural chronology for the Florida Gulf Coast region. Several settlement models are examined, in an attempt to define the function of the site and how it fits into the regional chronology. The focus of this thesis is a presentation of materials recovered during formal archaeological excavations, demonstrating the Precolumbian utilization of this site. The classes of materials recovered from this site include ceramics, lithics, some floral remains, and faunal materials. Conclusions are presented and recommendations for future research are made.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The Wacissa River is a beautiful, spring-fed waterway located some twenty miles southeast of Tallahassee, Florida. The Wacissa River drainage contains remnants of past cultures, in the form of lithic scatters, midden deposits and burial mounds. Based upon diagnostic stone tools, the area has been used by humans since the end of the Pleistocene Era. The area’s rich heritage has only recently begun to be documented in a systematic manner. One section that has been the subject of archaeological inquiry is the area presently encompassed by the Aucilla Wildlife Management Area (WMA)(Figure 1.1). Prior to the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) archaeological surveys, 84 sites had been recorded in the CARL portion of the Aucilla WMA. Thanks largely to the efforts of archaeologist Melissa Memory and of avocational archaeologist and state Wildlife Officer Robert Daniels, an additional 100 sites have been documented (Memory et al. 2000:39). The majority of the recorded sites are burial mounds and middens. Much of the information about these sites comes from surface finds and from areas disturbed by looting activities or by animal burrowing (Memory et al 2000:39). One would expect a number of other types of activity areas to be present, but they have yet to be identified due to the lack of systematic subsurface excavation. This thesis reports materials excavated from the Lewis Camp Mound (8Je182), located adjacent to the Wacissa River. According to Florida Master Site File records, the site contains diagnostic ceramics that have been identified as Deptford, Swift Creek and Weeden Island. I have analyzed the faunal, ceramic and lithic materials with these questions in mind: 1) What is the ceramic sequence present at the site? 2) How does this site fit into the chronology of the region? 3) Can specific activities be inferred, based upon the materials recovered? 4) Are there indications of seasonality of occupation,

Figure 1.1 Aucilla Wildlife Management Area and Surrounding Area (State of Florida, CARL 1999 Annual Report:214)

based upon the materials recovered? And, 5) Are there differences in activities or seasonal usage, which correspond with different ceramic assemblages or cultural periods? The Lewis Camp Mound, 8Je182 (black dot, Figure 3.4), was initially tested with a 1x1 m excavation unit. The excavation was conducted by then CARL archaeologist Melissa Memory during the summer of 1999. The site was initially chosen by Memory for testing because fairly good faunal preservation was present. In September of 2003, I conducted additional testing at the site, in an attempt to better understand the formational processes that occurred at the site. This research was carried out under the State of Florida 1A-32 permit number 0304.13. The Lewis Camp Mound is a midden, composed largely of apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) and organic soils. The site was excavated using a combination of natural and arbitrary levels, with the majority of the matrix being screened through ¼-in. mesh. Artifacts and fauna were judgmentally sorted at the site. Seven bulk samples of matrix, approximately two liters in volume, were taken from each level and later waterscreened using 1/16-in. mesh. This was done to ensure recovery of any small bones, such as those from fish and reptiles. While in the field, periodic screenings were made using 1/8-inch mesh, to detect the presence of any small bone fragments during the excavation process. As will be demonstrated later, this process was inadequate. The non-waterscreened materials were rough sorted in the field and were later sorted further by staff of the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research. The author analyzed the faunal remains from 8Je182 as a class project for a seminar in zooarchaeology, with the assistance and direction of Dr. Rochelle Marrinan (Kratt 2001). The faunal materials were analyzed using standard zooarchaeological procedures, using the comparative collection at Florida State University’s Department of Anthropology, as well as the comparative collection at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Environmental Archaeology Laboratory, in Gainesville. Identification to the species level was the goal of this analysis. Biomass estimates, based on skeletal weights for each taxon, were generated for the samples and comparisons were made using total bone weights and percentages of the total bone weight. The ceramics have been identified using the comparative collection at the National Park Service’s Southeast Archeological Center and by using standard published sources such as Archeology of the Gulf Coast (Willey 1949) and the Early Georgia publication entitled “A Guide to Georgia Indian

Pottery Types”(Williams and Thompson 1999). Attributes such as decorative technique(s), vessel part (rim, body, handle, base, or adorno), temper and weight were recorded. Vessel forms were noted where they could be determined. Lithics were described as utilized or not, and an attempt was made to categorize them according to the level of cortex present (e.g., primary vs. secondary flakes). However the condition of the material, which was encapsulated with petrocalcic material, made that an impossible task. Formal tool types were identified using published references (Justice 1987; Cambron and Hulse 1975), with standard attributes recorded. Material type was also recorded. The thesis will be presented in the following sequence: Chapter 2 presents a literature review of work performed in the Wacissa River drainage, including the nearby Aucilla River. Chapter 3 describes the general cultural chronology of the Florida Gulf Coast and distributions of sites recorded in the area of the Aucilla WMA. I also provide some discussion of settlement pattern models in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 contains information on the general environment of the Wacissa drainage and more specifically, the site. A topographic map of the site was generated and the mapping was a part of this thesis project. Chapter 5 describes the excavation and recovery techniques employed for this excavation project, as well as general findings. Chapter 6 presents the analysis and quantification of recovered materials. I include a description of the methodologies used for the analysis of each of the material types: ceramics, lithics, faunal and floral materials, and discuss the materials recovered. I provide analysis of the ceramics from 8Je182, describing the stylistic attributes and ceramic types, and treat the lithic and faunal materials in the same manner. From the information generated in Chapter 6, I have formulated my conclusions and have presented them in Chapter 7. I have attempted to define site function, and to discern periods of occupation and possibly seasons of usage. Finally, I make suggestions for future research in the area.

CHAPTER TWO

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS IN THE WACISSA DRAINAGE

The Wacissa and Aucilla rivers have been explored and exploited for many years. A number of individuals and archaeologists have investigated various parts of the drainage including Clarence B. Moore, James Clarence Simpson, Vernon Lamme, Gordon Willey, Glenn T. Allen, Richard Smith, and B. Calvin Jones. Several investigations have resulted in the presentation of papers at professional meetings (Memory et al. 1999a, 1999b). There are several published sources (Carter 2003; Coultas et al. 2005) and a number of unpublished sources examining the archaeology of the region (Allen 1954; Hemmings 1997; Jones 1988, 1996a, 1996b; Kratt 2001; Memory et al. 1998; Memory et al. 2000; Peres 1997; Simpson 1933; Smith 1968). The Vertebrate Paleontology department of the Florida Museum of Natural History conducted long-term investigations along the Aucilla River beginning the late 1960s until 2000, named the Aucilla River Prehistory Project (ARPP) and directed by S. David Webb. As mentioned previously, the State of Florida’s CARL archaeologists have also performed surveys (Memory et al. 1998, 2000), primarily in the Wacissa drainage and within the boundaries of the Aucilla Wildlife Management Area. The fieldwork conducted by these investigators, particularly Willey, has led to the development of a cultural sequence for the Gulf Coast of Florida. While the adage that “pots don’t equal people” holds true, ceramic types do provide a viable chronology that is of use to the anthropologist. The fact that certain ceramic types appear in sequence, throughout the region, allows us to speak of Deptford, Swift Creek, Weeden Island, and the Ft. Walton people. As McKern (1939:304) wrote, “It is classification that makes it possible for one student to describe phenomena in terms readily comprehensible to another student versed in the taxonomic method. It reduces multiplicity of facts to simplicity and order, and supplies a standardized terminology without which students

encounter difficulty in conversing intelligently on a common subject.” It is unfortunate that we will never know what these people called themselves and that we must rely on these conventional names to discuss the manner in which they lived their lives, but that is what we must do. In addition to a review of fieldwork and literature associated with the Wacissa River drainage, I will present information on the cultural sequence found in the north Florida Gulf Coast region.

Previous Investigations

Clarence Bloomfield Moore

Clarence B. Moore first visited the lower Aucilla River in1902 and excavated a mound owned by a Mr. B. F. Lewis, of Monticello, Florida. Moore describes the mound on the lower Aucilla, The Lewis Place, 8Ta1, as being about six and one half feet high at the time of his visit and some sixty-four feet in diameter (Moore 1902:325). Moore returned in 1918 and continued his excavations. He recovered a number of vessels, along with the remains of fifty-two additional burials in and around the mound. The presumed primary burial was that of a child’s skeleton, covered with limestone slabs at the base of the mound (Moore 1913:564; Willey 1949:301). Three flexed adult burials also were located near the mound base and several caches of pottery were also recovered. Ceramic decorations include complicated stamping, punctation and incision, with mention of a few sherds exhibiting check stamping. Based upon the ceramic assemblage, Willey assigned a time period of Weeden Island I to the mound (Willey 1949:302). It is uncertain if the same Mr. Lewis ever owned the site 8Je182, the Lewis Camp Mound, the subject of this thesis.

James Clarence Simpson

James Clarence Simpson conducted one of the first detailed surveys of sites along the Wacissa and Aucilla rivers in March of 1933. He notes that he visited the area south of 8Je182 in 1932, investigating what was known as the Jergen’s Mound (Simpson ca. 1933:3) and he referred to it as Location Number V, No. 1. Simpson notes that he recovered a “chisel shaped implement made from the inner whorl of a conch shell on the surface” of the mound. He further records that, “Although this mound is about fifteen or eighteen miles from the coast, sea shells of the edible varieties such as oysters and clams are beginning to appear in quantities” (Simpson ca. 1933:3). Simpson visited some twenty-two locations, some of which had more than one mound present. Simpson provides very little discussion of the ceramic types he encountered. His observations concentrate on the occurrence of burials and other artifacts such as lithic tools and shell. His training as a geologist may account for the brevity of his observations, but the absence of developed ceramic typologies is another. Several years later, Griffin and Ford began that effort, with input from Willey and others. They pieced together a typology for the southeastern United States, in general, and Florida, in particular. Interestingly enough, Simpson mentions: “Potsherds were found but nothing extraordinary except two large, very thick sherds of coarse ware which was made with coarse fiber and clay, the fiber burned out in the process of baking, leaving the ware very porous and light. This bowl was evidently of large size and most likely used for storage of food”(Simpson ca. 1933:3). I believe Simpson has provided one of the earliest mentions of fiber-tempered ceramics in the northwest Florida region, a type that will be referred to in this study as Norwood.

Vernon Lamme

Other work has been done in the general area by former archaeologist for the state, Vernon Lamme during the 1930s. In a letter contained in the Florida Master Site File records for 8Je186, one of the mounds in the Calico Hills mound group (8Je4), Lamme writes that he directed a series of excavations along the Aucilla and Wacissa rivers in 1935. Records from the Florida State Museum (now the Florida Museum of Natural History) list the work as having been performed in 1937. I have not been able to

find any written records of these excavations, with the exception of the brief mention in Lamme’s book (Lamme 1973).

Glenn T. Allen, Jr.

Florida State University anthropology student Glenn T. Allen, Jr., conducted several excavations and surface collections along the western side of the Wacissa River, guided by road grader cuts. The cuts represented the St. Joe Paper Company’s expansion into this area (Allen 1954:18). He recorded thirty-one sites that had no associated ceramics. He believed that the lithics he recovered represented a distinct lithic assemblage he tentatively called the Wacissa Complex. While Allen’s excavations and collections occurred some distance to the west of the Lewis Camp Mound, they illustrate the continuity of cultures in this general area. The chert tools recovered by Allen range in age from the Paleoindian Period, as evidenced by a virtually complete Suwannee projectile point/knife (ppk), along with several bases seen in Plate XVII, Figures C–E (Allen 1954:162), to more recent forms, now identified with the Late Archaic, such as the Savannah River forms shown in Plate XII, Figures A–G (Allen 1954:157). Among the collection are a number of intermediary forms, such as the Early Archaic Side-notched Bolen, a Corner-notched Bolen shown on Plate XVII, Figures H and I respectively (Allen 1954:162) and the Aucilla Adze shown on Plate XX, Figure A (Allen 1954:165). Other Archaic ppks include an apparent Kirk and numerous Florida Archaic Stemmed (FAS) varieties. While Allen’s Wacissa Complex has been absorbed into the framework of the greater Paleoindian and Archaic traditions of the North Florida area, its presence demonstrates the variety of stone tools manufactured by these local people, many years ago. The chert outcrops found in this general area have served as quarrying and manufacturing sites throughout prehistory.

David S. Phelps

David S. Phelps, a faculty member at Florida State University, performed a number of archaeological investigations in the northwest Florida Gulf Coast area. As a professor in the Department of Anthropology, Phelps taught a number of field schools in archaeological field techniques. These field investigations led to several publications (Phelps 1965, 1966) and reports (Phelps 1967, 1970). The two published articles

referenced here have the most bearing on local archaeology. Phelps’ definition of Norwood fiber-tempered ceramics (Phelps 1965) based upon his work at the Tucker Site (Phelps 1966) in Franklin County, helped further define the cultural chronology of the north Florida region. While evidence of past peoples using fiber-tempered ceramics had been recognized in this region for a number of years (Willey 1949:351–352), Phelps suggested that there were significant enough differences between these local fiber- tempered and other fiber-tempered ceramics, notably St. Simons and Orange, to warrant a separate classification. Phelps’ work at the Tucker Site expanded on previous investigations at the site by Moore (1903:257–265), Willey (1949:269–271), and Sears (Sears 1963). The ceramic sequence at the Tucker Site demonstrated that the site had been used by various groups from the Late Archaic/Early Woodland period, through the Ft. Walton period (Phelps 1966:16–22).

Richard L. Smith

University of North Carolina anthropology graduate student Richard Smith wrote his Master’s thesis, based upon excavations conducted at the Lock Site, 8Je57. This site is located on the western bank of the Aucilla River, approximately 15 miles south of the Lewis Camp Mound. Simpson had earlier recorded three mounds at this location (Simpson 1933:7) noting that they were constructed primarily of sand. Simpson spelled the name of the site as Locke, but I am unsure what the origin of the name is. Smith performed an initial survey and surface collection in 1965, with testing and additional excavation conducted in 1966 and 1967 (Smith 1968:46) Based upon the ceramics recovered from the Lock Site, the site was occupied from the Late Archaic to Ft. Walton Period (Smith 1968:72). The majority of ceramics recovered by Smith were of the Norwood type, both Plain and Simple Stamped, with Weeden Island types accounting for the second largest grouping (Smith 1968:72). Smith recovered a variety of artifacts, in addition to the ceramic sherds noted, including stone implements and faunal remains (Smith 1968:59–106) and these will be referred to later in this study.

B. Calvin Jones

As an archaeologist for the State of Florida, Jones made several visits to the Wacissa area, primarily to record disturbed sites, some involving human remains (Jones 1988; 1996a; 1996b). Jones’ reports contain some of the first economic damage assessment estimates made in the Wacissa area. Jones apparently visited the Calico Hill area in 1983 (Jones 1988:1), although the purpose of his visit is unknown. His 1988 visit to the Calico Hill area, west of the Wacissa River, was prompted by reports of human remains being disturbed by looting activities (Jones 1988:1). Jones placed a 50 cm by 1m test unit at the edge of a looter’s pit and excavated to a depth of 60 cm below ground surface. The unit contained Weeden Island Plain potsherds, apple snail shells, deer bone and tooth fragments, turtle shell and fish vertebrae (Jones 1988:2). Jones notes that Weeden Island ceramic types dominate the ceramic assemblage on the surface of the site, but that Deptford Linear Check Stamped and some Swift Creek sherds and several Ft. Walton types were evident as well (Jones 1988:2–5). In March of 1996, Jones conducted a survey of looted sites along the Wacissa River, guided by then Wildlife Officer Robert Daniels, with the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) (Jones 1996a:1). This survey examined six archaeological sites in Jefferson County, resulting in the recording of three new sites and updates on three existing sites (Jones 1996a:4). Examinations of four looted sites led Jones to tabulate approximate monetary damage estimates between $344,907–$545,180 Jones 1996a:Table 1). In April of 1996, Jones again visited the Wacissa River area in the company of Robert Daniels to record damages to several sites, impacted when landowners brought in a doublewide mobile home and placed it on a possible mound (Jones 1996b:1). This led to the recording of four previously unrecorded sites Jones 1996b:10–14). Jones tabulated an approximate figure for damages to the new and previously recorded sites, based upon the cubic meters of disturbed of soil, and arrived at figures between $237,378–$375,000.

S. David Webb

S. David Webb, a paleontologist, headed the Florida Museum of Natural History’s investigations into the interaction between Florida’s earliest inhabitants and

Pleistocene animals. Jerald Milanich also played an important role in the investigations that were undertaken. This effort was known as the Aucilla River Prehistory Project (ARPP). Webb’s investigations were begun in the late 1960s (S. David Webb, personal communication, ca. 1996) and were conducted until the spring of 1999 (Webb 1999:3). A considerable amount of underwater archaeological research was conducted by the ARPP organization, resulting in the recovery of evidence of humans making use of Pleistocene animals (Hemmings 1996:7; Muniz 1997:12). A number of students were involved in this project over the years and several theses and a dissertation were written based upon these investigations (Hemmings 1997; Peres 1997; Carter 2003).

Melissa J. Memory

Conservation and Recreational Land (CARL) archaeologist Melissa Memory was instrumental in initiating the recording of sites along the Wacissa River. Memory worked closely with then Officer Robert Daniels, scheduling periodic day trips to record sites Daniels had previously located. As a Wildlife Officer, Daniels had the opportunity to become well acquainted with the Wacissa and its drainages, and would note sites he ran across during his working rounds. Memory writes that they began recording sites in April of 1997 (Memory et al. 1998:1) and their work continued until February of 1999 (Memory et al. 2000:38). During this time, some 100 newly recorded sites were added to the State of Florida’s Master Site File database, and numerous site updates were filed. In addition to the recording of sites, Memory conducted a number of damage assessments on looted sites. Frequently, these were spurred by the apprehension of individuals violating Florida Statute 267.01, unauthorized excavations on State Lands. The methodology employed by the CARL survey teams was rather simple. The idea was to record as much data, as quickly as possible, with no disturbance of the site. With the exception of some of the damage assessment reports and the materials recovered by the first excavation at the Lewis Camp Mound in 1999, no subsurface testing was performed during the course of these surveys. Memory notes: “No subsurface tests were conducted, so the artifact assemblage and the cultural inferences from them should be considered characteristic of each site rather than comprehensive” (Memory et al. 2000:39). Data collection was very basic, with GPS coordinates taken, vegetation noted

and hydrological features associated with the site recorded. Measurements of the north– south and east–west axis were taken with a hand held tape measure and site boundaries were estimated based upon landforms and/or visible artifact distributions (Memory et al. 2000:39). The data gathered by Memory and the other CARL archaeologists have added substantially to our understanding of the Wacissa region and it is my hope that this present study will further that knowledge in some small way.

Tanya M. Peres

As a result of the ARPP investigations at the Page-Ladson Site (8Je591), Florida State University anthropology graduate student Tanya Peres examined the recovered faunal remains from several underwater excavation units for her master’s thesis. She attempted to determine if the remains were the result of human activity or if they were the result of natural depositional processes. She concluded that based upon the lack of such diagnostic characteristics as butchering marks and burned bone, the vast majority of the materials appear to be deposited by natural processes (Peres 1997:54).

CHAPTER THREE

CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN THE WACISSA DRAINAGE AND AN EXAMINATION OF SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

Cultural Chronology

The first attempt at establishing a cultural chronology for the northwest Florida Gulf Coast was begun by Willey and Woodbury in the summer of 1940 (Willey and Woodbury 1942; Willey 1949). This chronology was based upon the seriation of ceramic types, recovered from stratigraphic excavations performed at several north Florida sites (Willey and Woodbury 1942:236). Willey’s 1949 publication, Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast, is still used as the primary reference for a number of ceramic types and while there has been some refinement with regard to chronological dates, his basic cultural chronology has stood the test of time. Although Willey’s ceramic sequences remain useful, people have inhabited the Florida Gulf Coast region for a far greater time than they have produced ceramics. With the advent of radiometric dating, beginning with Libby’s publication of Radiocarbon Dating in 1952, archaeologists have been able to better refine the cultural sequences that have existed in the past. The ability to match lithic tool and ceramic types with calendrical dates has greatly added to our understanding of how quickly or slowly cultures have changed through time. Prior to the development of radiometric techniques, chronologies were based upon the geological principles of stratigraphy and superposition and the rate of change was noted through the use of seriations of particular types. Cultural chronologies have been generalized for different parts of the country (e.g., McKern 1939; Ford and Willey 1941), becoming more refined as new data are added. The conventional chronological periods constructed for prehistory in North

America are Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian, and Protohistoric Periods. With the exception of the Protohistoric period, the others are frequently divided into Early, Middle and Late subperiods and further by “culture” types within the subperiods (i.e., Deptford, Swift Creek, etc). I will use Bense’s (Bense 1994) calendrical dates as a convention.

Paleoindian Period (? − 8000 B.C.)

The earliest currently recognized cultural period is the Paleoindian period. There are at least six Paleoindian sites recorded within the Aucilla WMA boundaries (Figure 3.1). At present, this period appears to begin in the southeast about 11,500 years ago (Anderson et al. 1996:9), near the end of the Pleistocene, and continues until the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary, about 8000 B.C. The Paleoindian period is primarily characterized by an assemblage of fluted, lanceolate points (Anderson et al. 1996:9; Bense 1994:39). For convenience, the Paleoindian period has been subdivided into Early, Middle and Late components (Bense 1994:42) with different lithic point types representative of different temporal segments (Anderson et al. 1996:Figure 1.2; Bense 1994:Figure 4.3). Several of these distinctive point types are found in Allen’s thesis collection (Allen 1954: Plate XVII C–E), thus implying that the Wacissa drainage has been utilized since the Paleoindian period. This is corroborated by evidence from the Aucilla River consisting of worked ivory and bone tools (Dunbar and Webb 1996:333), from the Wacissa River consisting of an extinct Bison antiquus skull with an embedded chert point (Webb et al. 1984:384), and by the recovery of diagnostic Paleoindian lithic tools from both rivers. The availability of both water and lithic resources probably played an important role in why Paleoindian peoples frequented the Wacissa and Aucilla drainages. Dunbar notes: “During droughts, oases in the karst river and lake bottoms offered water, food, and bone and lithic resources for Paleoindian exploitation. As a result, major site clusters in Florida became centered around rivers like the Santa Fe and Aucilla because multiple resources were available and repeated exploitation could be supported” (Dunbar 1991:197).

Figure 3.1 Paleoindian Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA (Memory et al. 2000:Figure 5).

Paleoindian lifeways are still being investigated and various models have been developed in an attempt to better understand how these people lived their lives. Meltzer and Smith (1986:19) have suggested that these people were not the exclusive big game hunters as some have portrayed them but that the generalized foraging strategies seen in the Middle Archaic are merely a continuation of earlier strategies.

Archaic Period (8000 − 1000 B.C.)

As mentioned previously, the Archaic period is frequently divided into three subperiods, Early, Middle and Late. Perhaps the foremost reason for this convention is that the Archaic period lasts from the end of the Pleistocene, about 8000 B.C., until 1000 B.C. (Bense 1994:Figure 1.1), some seven thousand years. This period involves changes in both climate and in cultural adaptations, although some researchers have pointed out that perhaps the climatological and cultural changes were not as great as had been previously believed (Daniel 1998:3; Meltzer and Smith 1986:19). There are a number of Archaic period sites recorded in the vicinity of the Aucilla WMA (Figure 3.2).

Early Archaic Period. The early Archaic period is generally referred to as the period between 8000 B.C. to 6000 B.C. (Anderson et al. 1996:14; Bense 1994:65). There are several distinct lithic tools that are associated with this time period. Side-notched varieties of projectile points/knives (ppks), such as the Dalton, Bolen, and Palmer types become evident, followed by corner-notched and stemmed varieties of the Big Sandy, Bolen, and Kirk types (Bense 1994:Figure 5.1). While these lithic tools have been presumed to be projectile points, there has also been suggestion that they were used as knives (Milanich 1994:54). Allen’s collections (Allen 1954:Plate XVII, H–I) clearly demonstrates the presence of early Archaic ppk types in the Wacissa area, as well as a tool type referred to as an Aucilla adze (Allen 1954:Plate XX, A).

Figure 3.2 Archaic Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA (Memory et al. 2000:Figure 6).

Several models of early Archaic lifeways have been developed, most based upon the base camp/extractive camp or residential/location dichotomy as Binford (1980:9) refers to it as. The degree of mobility of the population leads to differing models including Anderson and Hanson’s Band-Macroband Model (Anderson and Hanson 1988:263) and Daniel’s Uwharrie-Allendale Model (Daniel 1998:194–204).

Middle Archaic Period. The Middle Archaic stage is usually presumed to exist from 6000 B.C. to 4000 B.C. This period is marked by an increase in population, as inferred by the increase of sites dating to this time period (Anderson 1996:Table 9.1) and the recovery of material goods related to this era. Stemmed ppks become the common type, with various types, such as Morrow Mountain, Newnan, and basally notched Eva ppks (Bense 1996:Figure 5.1) becoming common in Florida. A number of the ppks pictured in Allen’s 1954 thesis are recognizable as Archaic stemmed points (Plate XI A, E, F, Plate XII H–K, Plate XIII A–F) again demonstrating that the Wacissa drainage has been utilized by various groups over the millennia. Increasing signs of cultural complexity begin to emerge from the archaeological record during the Middle Archaic period, particularly along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of Florida. Investigations at sites such as the Wi ndover Site (Doran 2002) with an emphasis on multidisciplinary approaches, will ultimately shed more light on our understanding of lifeways during this time period.

Late Archaic Period. The Late Archaic period was a time of increasing technological and cultural complexity in the southeastern United States. Trade networks begun during the Middle Archaic period were expanded as evidenced by greater numbers of exotic trade goods such as steatite, copper, greenstone and marine shells (Bense 1994:88). The Late Archaic lithic tool types include large stemmed varieties such as Savannah River and Benton ppks (Bense 1994:85). Several of the ppks from Allen’s (1954:Plate XII A– G) thesis collection fall into these categories, particularly the Savannah River type. An important technological advance made during the late Archaic was the development of fiber-tempered ceramics, an important chronological marker. Here in north Florida, the fiber-tempered ceramic assemblage is referred to as Norwood based upon the Tucker Site in Franklin County, Florida (Phelps 1965). Fibers from plants, such as Spanish moss (White 2003:78), were added to clays to provide temper, prior to firing. This produced a

durable, although heavy container. Kimbrough (1999:9) reported on a fiber-tempered vessel recovered from the Apalachicola National Forest and estimated that the entire vessel would have weighed approximately 10 pounds. In addition to an increasingly diverse material assemblage, the late Archaic period is characterized by an increase in earthen and shell constructions in several configurations: primarily circular and horseshoe-shaped (Bense 1994:90). Russo (1996:271−276) has identified several mounds in Florida, which were constructed during the Middle and Late Archaic periods, evidence of increasing sedentism and organized social systems. Bense (1994:90) notes that the settlement pattern of Late Archaic peoples is seen as one of large interior base camps, occupied for the majority of the year, and other settlements located on the coastal strand. There are more than eleven Norwood period sites recorded in the Aucilla WMA (Memory et al. 2000:8) and immediate vicinity (Figure 3.3).

Woodland Period (1000 B.C.− A.D. 1000)

The Woodland period is also divided into three subperiods, Early, Middle and Late. These conventions were preceded by Burial Mound I and II (Ford and Willey 1941:Figure 6) and according to Willey and Phillips (1958:118) are a modification of Griffin’s (1952:352−364) Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Mississippi periods. The Woodland period is seen by Bense as characterized by the adjective “more” (Bense 1994:110). She notes that there were more people, more ceramic styles, more elaborate mortuary rituals, more intensive use of plants and more trade. As she points out none of these practices was developed during this time, just intensified and improved (Bense 1994:110). Instead of following the Early, Middle and Late classificatory scheme for the Woodland Period, I discuss the cultural groups recognized during this time frame. The primary groups found in the north Florida Gulf Coast region are Deptford, Swift Creek and Weeden Island cultures.

Figure 3.3 Norwood Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA (Memory et al. 2000:Figure 7).

Deptford Culture. The Deptford ceramic complex was first recognized as a cultural assemblage on the Georgia coast, as the result of WPA archaeological investigations (Waring and Holder 1977:135). Sherds that are now recognized as Deptford had been illustrated in reports prior to 1940, but no purely Deptford deposits had been investigated. The Deptford series develops out of the earlier fiber-tempered Norwood series, which included Plain and Simple Stamped varieties. Deptford culture is one of the first recognizable regional cultures to develop in the Woodland period and is marked by distinctive ceramics. Several radiocarbon dates have been recorded for early Deptford period sites, ranging from Morrell’s date of 890 B.C. from the Oakland Mound (Morrell 1960:106) to an unspecified Florida Gulf coast date of 625 B.C. (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:66). The Deptford culture area is found throughout the coastal areas of the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida, and inland into south Georgia and the Florida panhandle. Milanich (1971: 79−81) describes the boundaries as “from Cape Fear, North Carolina, almost due south along the Atlantic coast to the mouth of the St. Johns River, continuing south across peninsular Florida to Charlotte Harbor on the Florida Gulf coast; from Charlotte Harbor north then west along the Gulf Coast to the Florida-Alabama border. The inland boundary parallels the coastal line, forming a zone about fifty miles wide, except where sites extend further inland along river valleys.” He further divides the Deptford region into two separate areas, the Atlantic sub-region and the Gulf sub-region (Milanich 1971:Figure 12). Since the Lewis Camp mound falls within the Gulf sub- region, I concentrate my discussion on that region, with regard to subsistence and community patterns. At least 67 sites (Memory et al. 2000:8) in the Aucilla WMA have produced diagnostic Deptford ceramics (Figure 3.4). Willey (1949:353) provided the first description of Deptford culture in this area, noting that the majority of the village sites he examined were located on the Gulf or on bays adjoining the Gulf, all of which were marked with shell refuse. He postulated that their economies were based on marine resources and probably “wild game and plants” (Willey 1949:353).

Figure 3.4 Deptford Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA (Memory et al. 2000:Figure 8).

Sears (1963:40) wrote that shellfish, particularly Mercenaria campechiensis, constituted an important part of the economy at the Tucker Site, with the addition of local animals. He proposed that agriculture was practiced by inland Deptford peoples, but did not believe that agriculture played much of a role in interior subsistence economies until the Weeden Island period (Sears 1963:41). Settlement patterns for Deptford peoples along the Gulf coast are seen as being one of larger base camps or villages surrounded by smaller satellite camps, related to resource procurement (Stephenson et al. 2002:332). Milanich explains that bands of Deptford peoples spent the majority of their time along the coast traveling inland at certain times of the year to extract available resources. He mentions that whole groups could have relocated, but more likely, smaller groups were dispatched (Milanich 1973:56). This pattern of transhumance appears to have existed since the early to middle Archaic period, according to models developed by other researchers (Anderson and Hanson 1988; Daniel 1998). Tesar (1994:121) has identified two large, multi-acre sites in Leon County, 4Le73 and 8Le484, as early Deptford base camps, perhaps representing an inland, interior Deptford expression. Early Deptford sites, according to Milanich (1973:56), consisted of five to ten house structures, with later villages being composed of fifteen to twenty-five structures implying an increase in population.

Swift Creek Culture. During the later Deptford phase, new ceramic types become evident in the archaeological record, exhibiting complicated stamped designs. These new ceramic types are hallmarks of the Swift Creek culture. Curvilinear complicated stamped designs are the characteristic indicators of Swift Creek ceramics. Tesar (1994:96) notes that these elaborately decorated ceramics begin to show up in the central Florida panhandle around A.D. 1 and continue until about A.D. 450. Others have suggested a time frame from A.D. 150 in northwest Florida, to A.D. 800 in Georgia (Stephenson et al. 2002:333). The Swift Creek culture derives its name from the Swift Creek type-site, located in Bibb County, Georgia. This site was excavated as one of the WPA era projects undertaken as a part of the Ocmulgee National Monument explorations. Led by Kelly (Marsh 1998:15), the crew was largely comprised of African-American women (Marsh 1998:12–18).

In north Florida the settlement patterns for Swift Creek peoples seem to be little changed from the preceding Deptford period, with perhaps the exception of a heavier reliance on coastal resources. Willey and Woodbury (1942:241–242) coined the term Santa Rosa-Swift Creek, in order to emphasize the similarities with the Marksville ceramics from the lower Mississippi Valley, as opposed to the Georgia-influenced Swift Creek materials described by Kelly. According to Stephenson et al. (2002:342), in 1999, there were ninety-nine Santa Rosa-Swift Creek sites recorded in northwest Florida, and eighty-seven percent of those sites were located on or near the coast. This may indicate that inland resources were either not being utilized as heavily as in earlier times, less evidence was left at residences or during trips inland, that sites were smaller, or perhaps that less archaeological investigation has occurred in the interior areas. More than 28 Swift Creek period sites (Memory et al. 2000:8) have been recorded in the Aucilla WMA (Figure 3.5). Jones, Penton and Tesar (1998:222–246) have identified one of these inland, Swift Creek period sites in eastern Leon County. The Block-Sterns Site (8Le148), as it is known, is the largest of the sixteen identified Swift Creek Sites in Leon County, encompassing some 80 acres. Jones et al. (1998:242) have reported that they believe the site was a regional Swift Creek center and the site was occupied in some fashion, year- round. A variety of exotic trade goods were recovered at the site, including obsidian, galena, worked copper and copper ore (Jones et al. 1998:242). The presence of these items reinforces the idea of Hopewellian connections among the Swift Creek people, as was suggested by Willey (Willey 1949:368) and others (Milanich 1994:148; Tesar 1994:97; Stephenson et al. 2002:343). Although intensive horticulture was believed to have been associated with the Hopewellian culture (Willey and Phillips 1958:159), there has been very little evidence of it being practiced in the north Florida Gulf Coast area. Jones et al. (1998:240) note that although they water-screened some 400 to 500 gallons of soil, using 1/16-in screen, they recovered no known cultigens from the Block-Sterns site.

Weeden Island Culture. During the latter portion of the Swift Creek period, new ceramic styles became more common, gradually replacing the complicated stamped wares of the Swift Creek period with what has become known as Weeden Island wares.

The name Weeden Island is derived from Weedon Island, located in Tampa Bay, and was first formally excavated by Jesse Walter Fewkes (1924) of the Smithsonian Institution, in 1923.

Figure 3.5 Swift Creek Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA (Memory et al. 2000:Figure 9).

Willey (Willey and Woodbury 1942:238; Willey 1945:251; 1949:396) initially divided the Weeden Island period into two phases: Weeden Island I and Weeden Island II. In 1974, David Brose and George Percy (Brose 1984:173) further divided Willey’s original two phases into five. The phases are defined by Brose and Percy as follows: Weeden Island 1− in addition to a majority of earlier Swift Creek complicated stamped ceramics, several new types, such as Weeden Island Incised, Keith Incised, Carrabelle Incised and Carrabelle Punctated appear. Weeden Island 2− a greater variety of Weeden Island types are present. Wakulla Check stamped ceramics are the hallmark of Weeden Island 3, along with a slight decline in complicated stamped ceramics. Complicated stamping disappears in Weeden Island 4 and in Weeden Island 5, the ceramic assemblage is dominated by check stamped ceramics and fewer varieties of incised and punctated wares (Brose 1984:173). Chronologically, Percy and Brose’s Weeden Island phases exist from A.D. 150 to A.D. 900–1000 (Brose 1984:174). Milanich notes that Weeden Island Periods 3 −5, with Wakulla Check Stamped ceramics being the hallmark, date from about A.D. 750 to A.D. 950 (Milanich 1994:194). Sites in the Aucilla WMA have not been segregated into phases. But more than 36 sites (Memory et al. 2000:12) in the Aucilla WMA have produced diagnostic Weeden Island ceramics (Figure 3.6). Geographically, Weeden Island cultures extended from below Tampa Bay, northward to the Okefenokee Swamp in southern Georgia, westward to Mobile Bay, thriving along the Coastal Plain (Milanich 2002:352). Milanich (1994:166) notes that early Weeden Island settlement patterns closely reflect earlier Swift Creek patterns, with the exception of an increase in the number of sites. There are both coastal and inland Weeden Island sites, just as during the Swift Creek period. The Carrabelle Site excavated by Willey and Woodbury (Willey 1949:38–55) is one of the coastal sites that clearly demonstrates the continuity of occupations in many of the sites found on the Gulf Coast. From fiber-tempered ceramics in the lowest levels, through Deptford, Swift Creek, Weeden Island to Ft. Walton period sherds in the upper levels, a considerable record of human habitation and coastal resource extraction is evident. Although coastal resources were undoubtedly important to Weeden Island peoples, they also established interior centers. The Kolomoki site, near Blakely, Georgia,

Figure 3.6 Weeden Island Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA (Memory et al. 2000:Figure 10).

is probably one of the better known, large interior Weeden Island village sites. William Sears (Sears 1956) excavated at Kolomoki over several field seasons. A number of village and house sites have been investigated over the years, among them the McKeithen site in Colombia County, Florida (Milanich et al. 1997) and the Garden Patch site in Dixie County, Florida (Kohler 1975). Recent field investigations at the Letchworth Mound State Archaeological Site have indicated the presence of a Weeden Island ceramic scatter in close proximity to a large earthen mound, almost fifty feet in height. As of this writing, a definite correlation has yet to be made, but it seems entirely possible that the Weeden Island inhabitants erected this large construction. For many years, archaeologists believed that large-scale earthworks were the work of later, intensively agricultural peoples and dismissed any notion that these constructions could have developed without a maize-based economy, but research (Russo 1996b) has shown that large constructions have taken place since the Archaic period. Although maize became important during the latter Wakulla Weeden Island phase (Milanich 1994:200), there is scant evidence for it in the earlier stages. The Wakulla Weeden Island phase is characterized by the presence of Wakulla Check Stamped ceramics. Sites are primarily located along river drainages and along the coast and radiocarbon dates from inland sites in the Apalachicola drainage suggest that the Wakulla Weeden Island phase flourished between A.D. 800 and A.D. 900 (Brose 1984:188).

Mississippian and Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1000 – 1513)

Ft. Walton Culture. The Weeden Island culture was followed by the development of the Ft. Walton culture, which fluoresced during the Mississippian Period. Prior to the mid-1970s, Mississippian culture was seen as an intrusive event, one brought into the region by the physical movements of populations from the Mississippi Valley or from Central Georgia. Excavations by David Brose at two large Ft. Walton mound complexes near Bristol, Florida, demonstrated that Ft. Walton cultural expressions had their origins in the earlier Wakulla Weeden Island culture (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:194). Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:194) write that it seems likely that contact with groups living upstream on the Chattahoochee River led to the introduction of new ideas and

styles, resulting in the Ft. Walton culture, which “represents the ‘Mississippianization’ of Weeden Island society.”

Figure 3.7 Ft. Walton Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA (Memory et al. 2000:Figure 11).

The inland areas of the Red Hills region (northern Leon and Jefferson counties, Florida) became increasingly important to the Ft. Walton peoples as their reliance on agriculture increased from earlier periods. The Wacissa drainage must have retained some importance since a number of Ft. Walton period sites were recorded in the Aucilla WMA (Figure 3.7). Bense (1994:186) notes that there are two primary subsistence models for the Mississippian period: a coastal model and a riverine model. The upland soils above the Cody Escarpment were conducive to the growing of crops and followed the riverine subsistence model. Below the Cody Escarpment, the sandy soils were less productive and the coastal subsistence model seems to be a better fit. The riverine model proposes that intensive agriculture was practiced, with corn, squash and eventually beans being grown. Beans do not appear in the archaeological record until about 1200 A.D. (Bense 1994:186) and were not grown in all areas of the Mississippian world. Palynological studies in the Apalachicola River Valley have demonstrated that flood plain forests were being cleared during the Early Mississippian period and that corn pollen accounted for 14 percent of pollen in samples taken from the village areas that were studied (Bense 1994:202). Nondomesticated foodstuffs, such as fish, game and native plants are believed to have continued to play a role in sustaining the population, although a lesser role than in the coastal subsistence model. The settlement pattern for the riverine subsistence model is one of small, scattered farmsteads, with a centralized mound center, presumed to be the residence of the socio-political leaders. The coastal subsistence model is one in which intensive agriculture played a lesser role, due to the poor quality of the soils in the coastal zone. Bense (1994:191) writes, “In the coastal subsistence pattern, farming played a much smaller role. Primarily, people hunted, gathered, and fished; cultivation was limited to small plots that were quickly exhausted. Coastal agriculturalists had to continually shift fields, and people spent much of the year in small groups tending scattered food plots and collecting seasonal marine and terrestrial wild foods.” Accounts from some of the early explorers imply that these subsistence patterns existed for many years. According to Hudson’s (1976:105) interpretation of Cabeza de Vaca’s account, when Panfilo de Narvaez and his party traveled through the region of the Apalachee in 1528, they found greater amounts of corn, than they had encountered to the south. When they departed present-day Florida on rafts, they made their way along the coast, to the west. Hudson (1976:106) notes that

the natives they encountered were apparently engaged in a hunting and gathering lifestyle, as opposed to the agriculturalists they had encountered in the interior.

Historic Period

The Wacissa River drainage continued to be used by the cultures that existed after the Ft. Walton and Mississippian peoples, although the uplands had become increasingly important for the production of agricultural crops (Figure 3.8). There was a settlement of Tocobaga Indians living along the Wacissa in 1677, according to researcher John Hann (1988:41–42). Apparently they resided in the region until at least 1718 (Milanich 1995:73). The Tocobaga people were known to have lived in the Tampa Bay area and it has been speculated (Hann and McEwan 1998:141) that expansion by the Calusa people may have forced them to move northward. According to Hann (1988:42) and Milanich (1995:205–206) the Tocobaga were involved in the movement of goods between the missions in the Apalachee Province and St. Augustine, utilizing their knowledge of the Wacissa and Aucilla Rivers. There were apparently several Second Seminole War period forts in the area (Richard 1998:Figures 31,33; Memory et al. 2000:28–30). One rim fragment from a sand-tempered, brushed ceramic was recovered; perhaps an indication of use of the site by Seminole or Muskogee peoples. During the Antebellum Period, there was an attempt to create a channel through the lower reaches of the Wacissa River (Memory et al. 2000:26–27), to connect it to the Lower Aucilla River and hence, the Gulf of Mexico. Apparently, the channelization attempt was abandoned after just three miles of the canal were completed when funds ran out (Memory et al. 2000:27). The Wacissa River is still used for recreational purposes today, although there is some commercial harvesting of aquatic plants for the aquarium industry. The state of Florida has purchased most of the surrounding lands, for the protection of wildlife habitat and to protect the significant archaeological sites found throughout the area (State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, Conservation and Recreational Lands Annual Report 1999:212–213).

Figure 3.8 Leon-Jefferson Sites Recorded in the Vicinity of the Aucilla WMA (Memory et al. 2000:Figure 12).

Models of Settlement Patterns

In an effort to better understand the behavior of the peoples who have utilized the Lewis Camp Mound, I feel it is necessary to examine several settlement models. These models have been developed by others in attempts to explain the various types of sites encountered in the archaeological record of the region and provide insight into the way in which p ast peoples organized their lives. While, to my knowledge, specific settlement models have not been applied to the Wacissa and Aucilla drainages, models have been suggested for other drainages (Anderson and Hanson 1988; Daniel 1998; Willey 1953). The first substantive study of settlement patterns within a specific region was Willey’s 1953 publication, Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru (Trigger 1968:53; Willey and Sabloff 1993:172). Willey (1953:1) defined settlement patterns as, “the way in which man disposes himself over the landscape on which he lived. It refers to dwellings, to their arrangement, and to the nature and disposition of other buildings pertaining to community life. These settlements reflect the natural environment, the level of technology on which the builders operated, and various institutions of social interaction and control which the culture maintained. Because settlement patterns are, to a large extent, directly shaped by widely held cultural needs, they offer a strategic starting point for the functional interpretation of archaeological cultures.

Since 1953, settlement pattern studies have become increasingly more complex in their attempts to address various questions about how different cultures have organized themselves on the landscape. Chang (1968:3) defines the settlement as “the physical locale or cluster of locales where members of a community lived, ensured their subsistence, and pursued their social functions in a delineable time period.” He further writes, “…if a repetitively occupied site with a great depth of cultural debris can be demonstrated to have been the locus of a single community during one or several occupations in which no significant or meaningful changes in community configuration or structure took place, then we may consider that site to be that of a single

archaeological settlement.” Trigger (1968:55) notes that there are at least three different levels of settlement patterning which may be studied: the individual building or structure, the manner in which such structures are arranged within a community, and the way in which communities are distributed across the landscape. In 1980, Lewis Binford published an article entitled “Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation.” In this article, Binford draws upon his ethnographic research conducted among the Nunamuit Eskimo and compares their subsistence systems with those of other ethnographically studied groups (1980:5). In Binford’s model, he distinguishes between two organizational strategies for groups: foragers and collectors. According to Binford (1980:5), foragers are defined by their typical lack of food storage systems and further by their daily rounds to acquire resources. Binford (1980:9) suggests that foragers will create two types of sites where artifacts will be discarded or abandoned: the residential base and the location. As one may infer, the residential base is the “hub of subsistence activities, the locus out of which foraging parties originate and where most processing, manufacturing, and maintenance activities take place” (Binford 1980:9). This camp may move frequently, or rarely, as the group makes its seasonal rounds, in search of food and other resources. If the group is small in number and moves frequently, the artifact assemblage may be very ephemeral at a given site. If the site is located in proximity to scarce resources, or in a resource-restricted area, the camp may be reoccupied on a regular basis. This would lead to an increase in the accumulation of material remains at the site. The location type of site is as Binford (1980:9) says, “a place where extractive tasks are exclusively carried out.” Since foragers are seen as not relying on food storage technologies, small quantities of foodstuffs would be processed in such a site and the location would not be inhabited for any great length of time. Binford (1980:9) writes that such sites frequently have few, if any exhausted or abandoned tools. The other subsistence strategy that Binford addresses in his article is that of collectors. Binford (1980:10) differentiates between foragers and collectors in that collectors store foods for at least part of the year and that they utilize “logistically organized food-procurement parties.” These food-procurement parties or special-purpose task groups leave the main group and travel to areas where certain resources are available, often establishing camps. These camps are then used as a base of operations for

procurement tasks. Food and resources obtained by these specialized groups are then taken back and redistributed to the larger group. In addition to the residential base and location sites created by foragers, collectors also create field camps, stations, and caches (Binford 1980:10). Field camps, as previously noted, are locations that serve as a base of operations for procurement groups when away from the main residential base. Stations are sites that are utilized by the procurement groups and may consist of hunting blinds or ambush sites (Binford 1980:12). Binford’s (1978) earlier work has shown that in Inuit cultures, these sites are not necessarily where strategies are executed, but are used for planning specific events. The cache is, as one would expect, a specific site where goods are stored, prior to being redistributed to the larger group. Binford (1980:12) writes that one would expect variations depending on the season of use and type of resource being procured. He further notes that some sites may serve more than one function. The greater number of activities taking place at a site should lead to a greater range of variability within the archaeological record at that site. In summary, Binford (1980:17–18) has suggested two broad models for resource procurement among hunter-gatherer groups. He suggests that different procurement strategies will produce different types of sites across the landscape. Binford’s forager model i s one in which the consumers are moved to the resources and his collector model is one in which resources are moved to the consumers. Several factors would influence a tendency for a group to adopt one model over another, including group size and resource location. Binford (1980:18) notes that seasonal factors may increase or decrease the degree of mobility for groups, depending on the resources available in the area. In other words, groups may be considered collectors during some times of the year and foragers at other times. As Binford (1980:19) writes, “The point here is that logistical and residential variability are not to be viewed as opposing principles (although trends may be recognized) but as organizational alternatives which may be employed in varying mixes in different settings.” According to models of settlement reported for Deptford, Swift Creek and Weeden Island populations (Bense 1994; Jones et al. 1998; Milanich 1971, 1973, 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Stephenson et al. 2002), these groups would most likely be seen as employing Binford’s (1980) forager strategies. Milanich (1973:56) notes that

bands spent the majority of their time along the coastal areas and that the entire group might move into the interior during certain times of the year, but that it was more likely that smaller groups were dispatched. This fits well with Binford’s forager subsistence strategy model, where larger base camps are expected in significant areas of resource extraction, employing what Flannery (1968:75) has termed scheduling. Scheduling or the relocation of the residential base might occur seasonally when, according to Flannery (1968:75), “It happens that there are times of the year when a number of resources are available simultaneously, producing a situation in which there is some conflict for the time and labor of the group.” At such times, the group might relocate, in order to be closer to particular, available resources. Such seasonal shifts would explain the presence of both coastal and interior residential sites for the Woodland, and earlier peoples. As a result of these proposed seasonal shifts, one might expect to find temporary camps, located between the two ecotones.

CHAPTER FOUR THE SITE LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

The Lewis Camp Mound lies on the eastern bank of the Wacissa River, on the eastern side of Lewis Slough. Although the Lewis Slough channel is approximately one meter deep, it is deeper than many of the channels in the immediate area (Memory et al. 2000:43). Large boulders containing chert are visible in the channel adjacent to the site. Whether these were transported there or were exposed through erosion is unclear. Exposure through erosion seems to be a more plausible explanation, due to the size of the rocks. The Wacissa River, in the vicinity of the site, consists of a series of braided channels as pictured in Figure 4.1.

Vegetation

The floodplains adjacent to the river are wooded and are typically referred to as swamps (Ewel 1990:281). These river swamps support a wide array of plant and animal life and are among the most ecologically diverse areas in Florida (Ewel 1990:286). Although fire is a natural part of this North Florida ecosystem, there are a number of large cypress (Taxodium distichum) trees in the lowlands around the Lewis Camp Mound, evidence that the floodplain does not burn frequently, probably due in part, to the moisture contained in the underlying soils. In addition to bald cypress, the tree cover in the surrounding area consists of trident red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), black gum (Nyssa spp.) water oak (Quercus nigra), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), needle palm (Rhapidophyllum hystrix), and Eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). There are also hickory (Carya spp.) and swamp white, or basket oak (Quercus michauxii) in the general vicinity. On the slightly higher elevations, live oak (Quercus virginiana) is frequently

Figure 4.1 Orthoquad map showing location of 8Je182 (www.labins.org).

encountered along with red cedar (Juniperus silicicola). Other plant species in the area include grape (Vitis spp.), green briar (Smilax spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), sumac (Rhus glabra), poke weed (Phytolacca americana), and a variety of grasses and shrubs. This listing is in no way meant to be a complete inventory of vegetative types at the site, but merely to give the reader an idea of the types of plants found in the general area. Several prominent aquatic species include the cattail (Typha spp.), flag (Thalia spp.) and wild rice (Zizania aquatica). Much of the adjacent upland area is currently being utilized for silviculture, primarily for the production of slash pine (Pinus elliottii). The site lies in a low, swampy area, with the river and bottoml ands extending some two m iles across, east to west. Higher elevations, currently utilized for silviculture, are found beyond that. Based upon the topography and geology of the surrounding area, it seems probable that a typical flatwoods vegetative community comprised of longleaf (Pinus palustris), wiregrass (Aristida stricta), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), and gallberry (Ilex glabra) (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990:103) was the dominant groundcover between hardwood hammocks, prior to the rise of modern silviculture.

Faunal Communities

Much of the Wacissa River is located within the boundaries of the Aucilla Wildlife Management Area (WMA) which is a popular hunting spot. The hardwood lowlands and pine uplands provide a varied habitat for a number of wildlife species. Prior to 10,000 years ago, this area was home to a number of megafauna, including mastodon (Mammut americanum) and mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), extinct bison (Bison antiquus), llama (Palaeolama mirifica), tapir (Tapirus veroensis), horse (Equus spp.), peccary (Mylohyus nasutus), and ground sloth (Megalonyx jeffersoni) (Dunbar 1995:11). Evidence of interaction between the early human inhabitants and extinct megafauna is shown by the recovery of a chert projectile point imbedded in an extinct (Bison antiquus) bison skull (Webb et al. 1984; Dunbar 1995:11). Currently, the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is the most important game animal in the area, followed by feral pig (Sus scrofa), an historic introduction, and gray squirrel (Sciurius carolinensis). Other mammals found in the area include black bear (Ursus americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), river otter (Lutra canadensis), bobcat (Felis

rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.), in addition to a variety of smaller mammals, such as mice, moles and shrews. It seems likely that the red wolf (Canis rufus) and the Florida panther (Felis concolor), in addition to the black bear, would have been among the top mammalian predators in earlier times. The Wacissa River is also home to a number of reptiles and amphibians including the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), a large variety of snakes, both poisonous and nonpoisonous, frogs (Rana spp.), and a number of turtles. Turtle species frequently encountered include snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), soft-shelled turtle (Apalone ferox), stinkpot (Sternothrus odoratus), various mud turtles (Kinosternidae), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), and a variety of cooters (Chrysemys spp.). The two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means) and sirens (Siren spp) are known to inhabit the river. Fish known to inhabit the river include a variety of sunfishes including black bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), several species of freshwater catfishes (Ictaluridae), bowfin (Amia calva), gar (Lepisosteus spp.) and mullet (Mugil spp). Several years ago, a bottle-nosed dolphin attempted to swim up one of the channels that connects the Wacissa to the Aucilla River. Small flounder were encountered by the author in the screenbed of the dredge used by the Aucilla River Prehistory Project, so it seems probable that other saltwater species that can tolerate freshwater could navigate the waterways successfully. There are a number of birds which may be found in the Wacissa and Aucilla drainages. These include various ducks (Anatinae), wood storks (Mycteria americana), purple gallinules (Porphyrula martinica), coots and other rails (Rallidae), great blue herons (Ardea herodias), great cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo), and various egrets (Ardeidae). Upland birds include the bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Birds of prey found currently in the area include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and black vulture (Coragyps atratus). There are also a number of other song birds that inhabit the region, which have not been included in this list.

Topographic Mapping Methodology

A topographic map was not produced when the initial test unit was excavated in 1999 by Memory, nor was a permanent datum established. As a part of this thesis project and in conjunction with an investigation of the petrocalcic layer below the midden, a topographic map of the site (Figure 4.2) was produced and a datum established. A datum was placed at the site, consisting of a three-foot long section of ½-in steel, concrete reinforcement bar (rebar). The bar was driven into the ground leaving approximately four inches of the bar protruding above the surface. It was my intention to drive the bar level with the ground surface, but the underlying strata prevented me from doing so. An arbitrary designation of 500 m North, 1000 m East was assigned to the datum. The elevations were recorded using a Topcon® Total Station, which was set up in an area that would allow the site to be mapped without the instrument being moved. The elevation heights appearing on the topographic map are tied to the river level at the time of mapping, with the river level being recorded as 0. The USGS Wacissa quadrangle map lists the adjacent area as being about 25 feet above sealevel. Instead of using a grid pattern to obtain elevation points, it was decided that radial lines would be used, similar to the spokes of a wheel, where the Total Station served as the hub and the measurements were taken while walking toward and away from the central point (Appendix F). In addition to recording elevations, an attempt was made in 2003 to relocate and map the excavation unit placed at the site in 1999. Due to the homogenous nature of the upper levels of the midden, however, the outline of the unit was not discernable even after the leaf litter was brushed aside. I used a probe, attempting to differentiate between soil densities of intact midden and that of the unit fill. I could not discern any difference in resistance using the probe. The area designated as the most probable to have been the location of the original unit (Figure 4.2), was based upon my best recollection of the unit location I participated in excavating in 1999. Other anomalies recorded on the topographic map include a looter’s pit, a modern campfire ring, the location of soil cores (SC) examined as well as the location of Soil Unit 1, a small excavation placed to recover a sample of petrocalcic rock, fauna, and artifacts in 2003 (Figure 4.2). I have referred to Soil Unit 1 as Excavation Unit 2 (E.U. 2) in other areas of this thesis.

The mound is most properly described as a midden consisting of organic black earth and crushed freshwater mollusk shell (Coultas et al. 2005; Kratt 2000). Bone from mammals, fish, and reptiles are present in the matrix, along with ceramics and lithics.

Figure 4.2 Topographic map of site showing locations of various features.

The midden measures approximately 25 m north to south and 18 m east to west. It has an elevation between 1.5 and 2 m above the ‘normal’ river level. The majority of the shell is comprised of Apple snail (Pomacea paludosa), with varying amounts of freshwater mussels (Elliptio spp.), Banded Mystery snail (Viviparus georgianus), and relatively small amounts of saltwater species, such as Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and Giant Atlantic Cockle (Dinocardium robustum). Stratigraphy in the midden varies from discernable, distinct features to a homogenous, shell-rich matrix. During the first excavation project in 1999, it became evident on the morning of the second day, after differential drying was observed, that we had missed seeing a number of features the previous day. The composition of the midden, with a high percentage of shell, made it very difficult to see subtle changes within the texture and color of the matrix. The features were primarily pits, containing some ashy materials and fairly complete apple snail shells. These intrusive features while difficult to discern in the floor of the unit, were visible in the profiles. Since these pits might be interpreted as discrete, depositional events, not confined to an arbitrary excavation level, it would have been nice to be able to treat them as discrete entities. Better controls might have provided insight regarding the way in which these presumed foodstuffs were processed.

CHAPTER FIVE EXCAVATION AND RECOVERY METHODOLOGIES

Excavation Unit One

A total of two excavation units were opened at the site by professional archaeologists at different times. The initial excavation (Unit 1) was a 1 x 1 m unit placed close to the highest point of the midden (Figure 4.2). Some effort was made to pick a spot that would avoid large tree roots. The initial excavation spanned two days in July 1999. On the first day, the excavation crew consisted of Melissa Memory, Michael Russo, Robert Daniels, Randy King, and the author. On the second day, the crew consisted of Melissa Memory, Randy King, his son, and the author. Due to the homogenous nature of the midden matrix, it was decided that arbitrary 10 cm levels would be imposed during the excavation process, with the exception of noticeable features. The matrix at the site contained significant amounts of shell, making the detection of discrete, episodic deposits within the soil very difficult to discern. This became more evident as the excavation proceeded. The surface was cleared of visible artifacts prior to excavation, resulting in the recovery of a section of mineralized Deer antler which had been modified, as well as a Busycon spp. columella, which likewise, had been worked and utilized as a tool. Elevation was maintained through the use of an engineer’s transit and stadia rod. Materials were screened through ¼-in mesh, with bulk 2-liter samples being taken after the initial level for screening through 1/16-in screen at a later time. At random points during the excavation process, materials were waterscreened (in the slough) through 1/8- in mesh to determine if smaller faunal remains, such as fish bones, were being missed with the ¼-in mesh. At no point during the excavation did the finer screening reveal that the smaller materials were being missed, although it seems certain that some smaller

fragments, less than 1/8-in, must have been overlooked. The recovered materials were not assigned a field specimen (FS) number in the field, but have been cataloged with such a number subsequently based upon the level from which they were excavated and whether or not they were from the bulk 2-liter samples. Materials from the surface of the site were assigned to FS 1. Materials from the first excavation level (from 0 to 10 cm below surface [cmbs]) were assigned to FS 2, and so on. Materials excavated from the site in 2003 were added to the FS list. The field specimen catalog list is included as Appendix A. The excavation of Unit 1 demonstrated that pre-Columbian people had dug several pit features into the site at an earlier time. These features became evident as the unit was being excavated and particularly by the second day, due to differential drying of the matrix. The less compact feature fill dried faster than the surrounding matrix. Photographs of the unit walls clearly show the intrusive nature of these pits (Figure 5.1– Figure 5.4). Profile drawings may be found in Appendix E.

Figure 5.1 Excavation Unit 1, South Profile (Photograph by M. Memory).

Figure 5.2 Excavation Unit 1, West Profile (Photograph by M. Memory).

Figure 5.3 Excavation Unit 1, East Profile (Photograph by M. Memory).

Figure 5.4 Excavation Unit 1, North Profile (Photograph by M. Memory).

Excavation Unit Two

In 2003, the second excavation unit, Unit 2, was intended to document the soil conditions at the site. In 1999, near the bottom of Unit 1, a very dense layer of rock-like material was encountered some 70 cm below the ground’s surface. It was impossible to excavate this material using a shovel, despite repeated attempts to drive the shovel into the matrix. The matrix appeared to be of a calcareous nature, containing bits of shell, chert flakes and other material associated with the midden above. C. Lynn Coultas, a soil scientist retired from the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) was very interested in learning more about this calcitic layer. He noted that such an occurrence had not been previously reported in the soil or geological journals, for the southeastern United States. In the Southwestern United States, caliche, as the calcitic deposits are known, are frequently encountered. They are caused by ground water percolating up through calcitic material, carrying the dissolved calcium, which is then deposited in layers through evaporation. Archaeologists, on the other hand, were well

aware of such deposits and that they were most commonly associated with lower levels of shell middens (Palmer and Williams 1977; Rouse 1951; Russo and Heide 2002). In order to examine the soil profile at 8Je182, a 50 x 50 cm unit was excavated (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.5 Excavation Unit 2, Floor, Looking North (Photograph by G. Heide).

The unit, Unit 2, was located approximately 10 m south-southeast of Unit 1. In addition to examining the soil profile visible in Unit 2, eight soil cores (SC 1–5; 7, 8, and 15, in Figure 5.6) were removed with a bucket auger. This was done to in an attempt to determine whether or not the calcic layer extended beyond the visible bounds of the midden deposit. In addition to the soil core tests, the depth of the calcic layer was measured across the midden using a steel probe. The depths were recorded and have been superimposed on a contour graph of the midden (Figure 5.7). There is a very strong correlation between the surface of the mound and the depth at which the petrocalcic layer is encountered. As noted in Figure 5.7, the petrocalcic layer closely mirrors the elevation of the midden’s surface and varies in thickness across the midden. At Excavation Unit 2

(Soil Unit 1, Figure 5.6), the petrocalcic layer was 36 cm thick, at SC6 it was 10 cm, and at SC14, it was 3 cm in thickness (Coultas et al. 2005:74).

Figure 5.6 Graph demonstrating extent of petrocalcic layer (dashed line), and locations of Soil Cores (SC) and Soil Probes (SP) (Coultas et al 2005:Figure 1).

Figure 5.7 Graph demonstrating depth of petrocalcic layer, in relation to midden surface (after Coultas et al 2005: Figure 2).

Unit 2 was also excavated in arbitrary, 10-cm levels, with the matrix screened through ¼-inch screen at the site. Artifacts and adhering matrix were bagged at the site and later rescreened and rinsed using 1/8-in screen. Coultas removed samples of soil at different levels for closer examination in the laboratory.

As a part of the investigation into the petrocalcic layer, Coultas examined soil samples from the edge of the midden (Soil Unit 1, Figure 5.6) and from an area about 20 m south of that point. Additionally, bucket auger tests were placed around the area, in an effort to compare the nature of the surrounding soils. From his examination of the midden soils, Coultas believes that some soils were brought in from elsewhere, due to increased levels of silts and clays in the midden soils, which are not present in the surrounding alluvial soils (Coultas et al. 2005:71). It seems likely that such particles may have originated from the adjacent river channel, and were added through human activities. The investigation of the petrocalcic layer at the Lewis Camp Mound did not lend insight into the inter-relation of the cultural and geological formation processes of the site, except to demonstrate that petrocalcic levels do develop in the non-arid southeastern United States, but primarily in shell middens (Coultas et al. 2005:75).

CHAPT ER SIX

AN AL Y S IS OF RE COV ER ED MATE R IALS

This chapter contains the analysis of the materials recove red f rom the L ewi s Camp Mound, describes the methodologies used to analyze these materials, and provides the re ad er wit h ba ck gro und informa tion on se lect ed materials and formal types. I h a ve categ ori zed a nd d isc uss th e r ecove red m ateria ls a s ceramic, lithic , faunal and flora l remains.

Cera mic A na lysis

Ceramics recovered during excavations at the Lewis Camp Mound are fairly typic al o f t ho se d esc ribe d by other resea rchers in north Florida. S p ecific type nam es were giv en t o ceramic sherds when there was little doubt as to how other analysts would classify them. In cases where types were ambiguous, I simply described the temper and decorative technique and listed the sherd as Untyped. Two main factors, temper and decorative technique determined types. Tempering agents may change through time and vary between geographic, and therefore presumably cultural, regions. The earliest tempering agents in the southeastern United States were vegetal (Bense 1994:88, Milanich 1994:86, Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:61). Gradually, sand tempering replaced fibers and other tempering agents followed. Other materials used as tempering agents include limestone, bone, shell, grit, and ground up potsherds, known as grog. The term grit has been used rather ambiguously and for my purposes I have used a geological definition of grit, meaning coarse sand or other lithic material, 2mm or larger in diameter. Decorative technique is the other major factor used by this study to assign a ceramic sherd to a particular type. I have used the following paper to guide in the

classification the ceramics I analyzed. It was first published in an article entitled “Report of the Conference on Southeastern Pottery Typology” and was co-authored by James A. Ford and James B. Griffin. Michael J. O’Brien and R. Lee Lyman state that it was originally issued as a mimeographed document entitled “The Proceedings of The First Southeastern Archaeological Conference” (O’Brien and Lyman 1999:435). As for decorative treatments, under the classification of Plain fall the modifiers smoothed, indicating that the clay was smoothed prior to the firing process and burnished, indicating that the surface was highly polished prior to firing. Burnished surfaces are reflective, as opposed to smoothed surfaces. The decorative techniques of stamping (longitudinal marks, presumably made by applying a grooved paddle to the surface of the pot prior to firing), includes simple stamping, cross simple stamping, check stamping (which includes linear check-stamped and bold check stamped), and complicated stamping (which consists of curvilinear and rectilinear motifs). Some of the materials likely used to create stamps include both wood and clay.

Fiber-Tempered Ceramics. As noted earlier in this chapter, vegetal fibers were the tempering agent used in the earliest recognized ceramics in the southeastern United States. These fiber-tempered wares are known by various names, depending upon the geographic locality in which they are found. In the South Carolina and Georgia region, along the Savannah River drainage, they fall under either the Stallings Island category or St. Simons, while in the Tennessee River valley of Alabama and Tennessee, the fiber- tempered wares are known as the Wheeler series. Here in North Florida and South Georgia, two names are frequently encountered in the literature. The Orange series, which is a truly fiber-tempered ceramic, and the Norwood series, which is frequently referred to as a semi-fiber-tempered ware. The Orange series is centered along the St. Johns River drainage in eastern and central Florida and extends into southern Georgia on the Atlantic coast. Phelps (1965:65–69) first defined the Norwood series of fiber- tempered ceramics, separating them from the St. Simons type, as assigned by Willey (1949:359). The St. Simons type was originally identified by Holder (1938) during work at St. Simon’s Island, Georgia. Phelps divided the wares into two types, Norwood Plain and Norwood Simple Stamped. He notes that “Norwood Plain includes some sherds which would readily be identified as Orange, Stallings or Wheeler Plain, if viewed out of

regional context, but which are generally rougher in appearance, less well-made, than the ‘type’ sherds in the other series” (Phelps 1965:65). He notes that ceramic tempering changes gradually from fiber to sand in this region and mentions that the simple stamping seen in Norwood Simple Stamped vessels appears to be a direct stylistic predecessor to the later Deptford Simple Stamped vessels (Phelps 1965:66). There has been discussion relative to the usefulness of the term Norwood as a ceramic type, with White (White 2003:78) and others (Kimbrough 1999) pointing out that very little formal definition has taken place. Despite this problem, I shall use the term Norwood to describe the fiber- tempered ceramics recovered from the Lewis Camp Mound, as they fit Phelps’s original description. Chronologically, fiber-tempered ceramics appear during the Late Archaic period. Milanich notes that fiber-tempered ceramics appear about 2000 B.C., with the earliest forms being undecorated (Milanich 1994:86). Kimbrough (1999:10) has reported on a Norwood Simple-stamped vessel recovered from Wakulla County and, based upon radiocarbon dates on wood, has assigned a date range of 1390 to 765 BC. Recent research by White (White 2003:81) lists a compilation of calibrated radiocarbon dates for fiber- tempered ceramics from the Apalachicola drainage which range from 2900 to 806 B.C. As of March of 2000, eleven other sites in the Aucilla Wildlife Management Area were documented as having Norwood ceramics (Memory et al. 2000:8). According to Florida Site File records, the Norwood component at the Lewis Camp Mound was previously undocumented (Memory et al. 2000:43). Simple-stamped Norwood ceramics have been recovered from the Lewis Camp Mound (Figure 6.1) and twelve of the fiber- tempered sherds were identified as having an indeterminate decorative technique (Table 6.1). One of the sherds found in FS 20.2 would probably be considered to be that of the Norw ood aPl in va etri. y All of the ceramic s identified by the author as Norwood cam e from Unit 2. This differential distribution of ceramics, regarding spatial and tempor al interpretations of the site, will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Seven.

TABLE 6.1 NORWOOD CERAMICS FROM 8Je182 FS Lot Unit Level Qty Wt (G) Part Dec Tech Type Name Comments 19 1 2 1 4 14.40 Body Indeterminate Norwood 20 1 2 2 6 47.50 Body Simple Norwood Stamped Simple Stamped 20 2 2 2 5 28.30 Body Indeterminate Norwood One sherd is probably Plain. 21 1 2 3 3 23.50 Body Indeterminate Norwood Totals: 18 113.70

Figure 6 .1 Norwood Ceramics. Norw oo d Sim p le Stam ped rims on left and top. N o rwood P lain on the right.

De ptf or d Ceram ics . As noted by Phelps (Phelps 1965:66), the Simple Stamping decorative technique found on Norwood vessels is also found on later Deptford Simple Stamped vessels. The Deptford series was defined during Works Progress Administration (WPA) excavations along the Georgia Coast (Waring and Holder 1940) at the Deptford Site (9Ch2). Waring and Holder (1940:135) note that although earlier illustrations of

Deptford ceramics appeared in the literature, the assemblage was not recognized as constituting a series. “The possibility that these linear check, bold check and simple stamped wares probably deserved a separate complex did not occur until a road was cut through the Deptford Bluffs recently [1937], which made a large sherd collection available.” Deptford ceramics occur later than Norwood and other fiber-tempered ceramics, as demonstrated in a number of stratigraphic tests. Waring’s work at the Bilbo Site on the Georgia coast (Waring 1940) and Willey and Woodbury’s 1940 excavations at the Carrabelle Site (8Fr2) (Willey 1949:51) clearly shows this relationship. Interestingly, Willey and Woodbury do not discuss the importance of the recovered “St. Simons” sherds in their earlier article on Northwest Florida Coast cultural chronology (Willey and Woo db ury 19 42:24 1) . Several Deptford cerami c ty pes w e re rec overed from the Lew is Camp M ound (Figu re 6.2 ), in clu ding De ptfo rd Si mple Stamped, Dep tford Line ar Ch eck Stamp ed, a nd Deptford Bold Check Stamped (Table 6.2) and Deptford Cross Simple Stamped. I h av e differentiated the Deptford Simp le Stam ped from the Norwood Sim p le Stam ped by t he lack of fiber in the Deptford ceramics, in addition to the differentiation in the width of the stamps. Similarly , I hav e sepa rat ed the Deptford Bold Check Stampe d from the later Weeden Island period Wakulla Check Stamped on the basis of the size of the checks.

TABLE 6.2 DEPTFORD CERAMICS FS Lot Unit Level Qty Wt (G) Part Dec_Tech Type_Name Comments 2 1 1 1 1 7.00 Body Simple Stamped Deptford Simple Stamped 2 2 1 1 1 7.60 Body Linear Check Deptford Linear Stamped Check Stamped 6 1 1 3 6 29.60 Body Simple Stamped Deptford Sim ple Stamped

TABLE 6. 2 -CONTINUED

FS Lot Unit Level Qty Wt (G) Part Dec_Tech Type_Name Comments

6 2 1 3 2 4.10 Body Linear Check Deptford Linear Stamped Check Stamped 10 1 1 5 3 11.90 Body Linear Check Deptford Linear Stamped Check Stamp ed 12 13 1 6 1 29.50 Rim Linear Check Deptford Linear Very well made. Stamped Check Stamped Resembles Weeden Island ware. Smoothed interior. 19 2 2 1 5 61.20 Body Simple Stamped Deptford Two pieces crossmend. 19 3 2 1 6 38.10 Body Check Stamped Deptford Some tempered with coarse sand. 20 3 2 2 16 192.60 Body Simple Stamped Deptford Simple One sherd, paddle Stamped cracks evident. 20 4 2 2 2 16.00 Body Check Stamped Deptford Check Stamped 21 2 2 3 7 67.90 Rim --Body Simple Stamped Deptford Simple Stamped 21 3 2 3 5 27.50 Body Linear Check Deptford Linear Stamped Check Stamped 22 1 2 4 1 2.80 Body Simple Stamped Deptford Simple Stamped 23 1 2 5 1 9.60 Body Simple Stamped Deptford Simple Stamped Totals 57 505.40

Figure 6 .2. Deptfo rd Ceramics. Dept for d Si mp le Stamped sherds on left, Deptford Linear Check (shovel scra pe evident) and Bold Chec k o n right.

As of M arch 20 00 , th ere were six ty-sev en sites within t he bou ndaries o f th e Aucilla Wildlife Manageme nt Area that had produced diagnostic Deptford ceramic sherds ( M emory et a l. 20 00:8 ) . The in creas e in si te density probably re flects a gre a ter usage of the resources found within the area, as well as a growing population during that time period. The Deptford Series of ceramics begin to appear around 500 B.C. (Milanich 1971:157; 1973:51; 1994:114) and existed until A.D. 700 on the Atlantic coast (Milanich 1971:158). Milanich has proposed that there were two distinct areas, the Atlantic sub- region and the Gulf sub-region (Milanich 1971) partially based upon this difference in longevity of the ceramic type. It has been noted for some time that there were coastal, as well as inland Deptford period sites and Milanich has proposed that these sites represent seasonal settlements, with the greatest time being spent along the coast. Deptford people would travel inland to exploit resources in the inland river valleys. Contact between the coastal and piedmont groups might likely have occurred (Milanich 1973:56). This is very similar to Anderson and Hanson’s (1988) Band-Macroband model for Paleoindian and Early Archaic peoples in the Savannah River valley. The Cartersville ceramic series that is found in the piedmont of Georgia and North Carolina very closely resembles the Deptfo rd ceramics in both form and decoration. Other than the resources available in the immediate area, I suspect any cultural differences between the Cartersville and Deptford populations were minimal.

Swift Creek Ceramics. In the northern Gulf coast region, a rise in the popularity of complicated stamped ceramics, following the Deptford Series begins around A.D. 1. As with all ceramic stylistic changes, it takes a number of years for a given style to supplant another. This process is demonstrated quite well through seriations by Willey and Woodbury (Willey 1949: Figure 4), based upon their excavations at the Carrabelle Site. Demonstrating that gradual process, Willey (1949:47) writes:

In pits I, II, and the supplementary excavations there is a marked complementary relationship in the vertical distribution of the pottery types. This is keynoted by the two types, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped and Deptford Linear Check Stamped…In pits I and II, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped is 40 percent of the total number of sherds for the top levels. There is a gradual diminution of the type

toward the bottom of both pits. In pit I Swift Creek does not occur in the two bottom levels, and in pit II it occurs in those levels only in very small quantity. Deptford Linear Check Stamped, on the other hand, shows a numerical and percentage increase in the bottom levels of both pits.

Swift Creek ceramic motifs have been illustrated in publications since the late 1800s (Jones 1873: Plate 29) as well as many representations published by Moore (1901:Figures 69, 70, 73; 1902: Figures 28, 31, 24, 37–41, 55–59, 64–66, 79, 97, 98) in the early part of the twentieth century. The Swift Creek site, just south of the Ocmulgee National Monument, lends it name to this ceramic assemblage. Kelly (1938:25–31) investigated this site although later work by Willey and Woodbury led to greater synthesis of this designation (Willey and Woodbury 1942:241–242; Willey 1949:366– 396). According to Milanich (1994:144), the Swift Creek culture existed from about A.D. 150–350, or slightly later in the western areas of Florida. In the western panhandle of Florida, numerous radiocarbon dates suggest the period lasted longer (Stephenson et al. 2002: Table 15.2). Willey (1949:366) uses the phrase Santa Rosa-Swift Creek to describe the ceramic assemblage found in the western Panhandle of Florida that presumably reflects decorative traits from the lower Mississippi River Valley such as rocker stamping. There appear to be two varieties of ceramics present at the Lewis Camp Mound that fall into the Santa Rosa-Swift Creek tradition, Alligator Bayou Stamped and West Florida Cord Marked (Willey 1949:372).

TABLE 6.3 SANTA ROSA-SWIFT CREEK CERAMICS FS Lot Unit Level Qty Wt (G) Part Dec Tech Type Name Comments 2 6 1 1 1 5.60 Body Cord Marked West Florida Cord Marked 12 14 1 6 1 12.30 Body Rocker Stamped Alligator Bayou

19 4 2 1 1 2.00 Body Complicated Swift Creek Stamped 20 5 2 2 2 9.30 Body Complicated Swift Creek Stamped Totals: 5 29.20

Figure 6.3. Swift Creek and Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Ceramics. Swift Creek Complicated Stamped on left, West Florida Cord Marked, center, Alligator Bayou on right.

The Santa Rosa-Swift Creek period shows increased activity involving long dist an ce trad e betw ee n north Florid a and so ut h Georgia and are as to the north. Exotic items, such as copper, mica and qu artz c rys tal s, hav e been r eco vered from sites in Florida and G eor gia . C onta ct betwee n grou ps in the O hio R i ver Va lley , as well the northern Mississippi River drainage through Hopwellian trade networks is evident. Research has demonstr ate d t hat t he re were some move me nt s of populatio ns a way from the coastal area s and in lan d vi llag es we re esta blishe d in t he forests and riv er valleys of the eastern pan ha nd le d ur ing t his period (Mila nich 1 99 4:1 43). T he Blo ck- Sterns site (8Le148) in Leo n Cou nt y i s but on e exam ple of this shif t. Perhaps due t o sm all populations moving rapi dl y b etw ee n the c oast to the int erior , on ly twenty-eight site s in the Aucilla Wildlife Management A rea ha ve exh ibited d iagno sti c S wift Creek c eram ics (Memo ry et al. 2000:8). Several sherds exhibited grog tempering, a characteristic of several of the Santa Rosa-Swift Creek ceramic types, such as Alligator Bayou Sta mped, Basin Bayou Incised, Santa Rosa Stamped, Sa n ta Rosa Punc ta ted a nd West Florida Cord Marked (W illey 1949:372–388). There were four sherds recovered, all from Unit 1.

TABLE 6.4 G ROG TE M PER E D CE RA MICS FS Lot Unit Level Qty Wt (G) Part Dec Tec h Type Name Comments 2 13 1 1 1 3.50 Body Indeterminate Untyped

6 6 1 3 1 15.60 Body Indeterminate Untyped Possible cord marked 8 14 1 4 1 1.40 Body Smoothe d Untyped 8 15 1 4 1 3.40 Body Plain Untyped Total s: 4 23.90

Weeden Island Ceramics. Three Weeden Island series ceramic types were recovered from the Le wi s Cam p Mound. These include Carrabelle Punctated, Weeden Island Plain and Wakulla Check Stam ped. There were also sherds that probably should be assigned to the Weeden Is land pe riod, b ased up on th eir m icaceo u s past e an d burnished exteriors. Addi tion ally , t here we re a n umber o f lim es ton e tem p ered s herd s , that based upon their tempe r, wou ld prob ab ly be classifie d as P as co Plain , a Wee den I sland ware (Willey 1949:446–447). Richard Smith notes the pre s ence o f a “squ are d flattened-globular bowl” at the Lock Site (8Je57) that he classifies as Pasco Plain (Smith 1968:68) and speculates that it is a trade item. The following tables list some of the sherds recovered from the Lewis Camp Mound that fall in the Weeden Island timef rame.

TABLE 6.5 WEEDEN ISLAND CERAMICS FS Lot Unit Level Qty Wt (G) Part Dec Tech Type Name Comments 19 5 2 1 1 8.30 Body Incised -- Carrabelle Punctated Punctated 20 6 2 2 3 12.40 Body Incised -- Carrabelle Two pieces Punctated Punctated crossmend. 1 1 1 0 3 14.60 Rim --Body Plain, Weeden Island Pieces Smoothed crossmend 2 3 1 1 4 25.60 Body Check Stamped Wakulla Check Stamped 4 2 1 2 2 25.80 Body Check Stamped Wakulla Check Stamped

TABLE 6.5 -CONTINUED

FS Lot Unit Level Qty Wt (G) Part Dec Tech Type Name Comments 6 3 1 3 4 37.70 Body Check Stamped Wakulla Check Stamped 8 5 1 4 15 74.40 Rim --Body Check Stamped Wakulla Check Stamped 10 2 1 5 17 217.80 Rim --Body Check Stamped Wakulla Check Two pieces Stamped crossmend. 12 1 1 6 5 39.60 Body Check Stamped Wakulla Check Stamped 14 1 1 7 1 12.80 Body Check Stamped Wakulla Check Stamped 19 6 2 1 4 41.00 Body Check Stamped Wakulla Check Stamped 20 7 2 2 4 18.00 Rim --Body Check Stamped Wakulla Check Three Stamped pieces crossmend. Nice example of rim form. 23 2 2 5 1 2.40 Body Check Stamped Wakulla Check Stamped Totals: 64 530.40

Figure 6.4 Weeden Island Ceramics. Wakulla Check Stamped rim above, Carrabelle Punctated sherds below.

TABLE 6.6 LIMESTONE TEMPERED CERAMICS FS Lot Unit Level Qty Wt (G) Part Dec Tech Type Name Comments 2 11 1 1 1 2.70 Body Plain 2 12 1 1 1 3.80 Body Indeterminate 4 3 1 2 8 111.70 Rim -- Stamped -- Untyped Three pieces and three Body Smoothed pieces crossmend. Possibly from the same vessel 4 4 1 2 11 59.20 Rim -- Smoothed Untyped Three pieces Body crossmend 4 5 1 2 1 2.60 Body Stamped Untyped 6 4 1 3 2 45.80 Body Check Stamped Untyped Pieces crossmend 6 5 1 3 1 4.10 Body Smoothed Untyped Possible Pasco Plain 8 13 1 4 2 10.20 Body Plain Untyped 8 16 1 4 1 10.20 Body Smoothed Untyped 8 17 1 4 1 0.80 Body Indeterminate Untyped 12 8 1 6 2 11.90 Body Indeterminate Untyped Possible stamping and smoothing Totals: 31 263.00

Figure 6.5. Assorted Ceramics. Limestone tempered, Check Stamped on left, Grog and Sand tempered with possible cord marking on right.

There were not any specifically later ceramic types recovered, although one sherd from Unit 2, Level 1 was identified as sand tempered with a brushed decorative

technique. Using conventional type names, this could be Chattahoochee Brushed, a type associated with Muskogee (Creek) and Seminole traditions. As with many other Precolumbian sites, there were many undecorated, sand-tempered potsherds the defied typing. A listing of all artifacts appears in Appendices B, C, and D.

Lithic Analysis

Chert resources in the Wacissa and Aucilla River drainages are abundant and there are numerous lithic workshops in the general area. Allen (1954) recorded a number of sites on the western side of the Wacissa River, as a part of the research for his master’s thesis. As noted in Chapter Two, Allen examined exposed ground when the area was being prepared for the planting of pine trees and recorded the lithic scatters he encountered (Allen 1954:68–86). He also excavated some stratigraphic tests, demonstrating the presence of stratified sites in the area and noted that none of the sites he investigated in the Wacissa area contained ceramics (Allen 1954:69). An examination of the photographs included in Allen’s work (1954:Plates XI–XV) indicates that he encountered a number of Paleoindian and Early Archaic ppks, as well as a number of later stemmed tools. Some of the examples look as if they might have originated in the Late Archaic time period. On Plate XII (Allen 1954:157) ppks A–G look as if they could identified as Savannah River ppks and Allen (Allen 1954:122) records the recovery of Savannah River ppks in association with Norwood ceramics at the Williams Site. Savannah River ppks are found in contexts just prior to and at the time of fiber-tempered ceramic development in the Central Savannah River area as well (Whaley 2002:99). There were several formal lithic tool types (Figure 6.7) recovered from the Lewis Camp Mound, but nothing along the scale of Allen’s collections. The most diagnostic lithic artifact was a large stemmed biface that I have identified as a Savannah River ppk (Figure 6.6). It exhibits sig ns of being rew or ked. Milani ch a nd others h ave sta t ed t hat Savannah River hafted bif aces are associated wi th the Early Archaic (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:53; Milanich 1994:66) but I b elieve this error to ba s ed upo n morphological groupings made by R ip l ey B u llen (1 975 :35 ) who a ssi gned te mp o ral classifications ba sed on morph olog ica l simi larities betw ee n tools. Sa vanna h R iv er pp ks

have been found in association with fiber-tempered ceram ics, thus implying a Late Archaic origin.

Figure 6.6. Savannah River Hafted Biface (Reworked).

In addition to the Savannah River PPK, a section of a corner-notched PPK was recovered, perhap s evidence of re us e o r sca ve ngin g by the inhabit ant s of the L ew is C amp Mound. Other lit hi c tools include t wo utilize d flake tool s and a thu m bnail s cra p er (Fi g ure 6.7). The vast majority of lithics w e r e eith e r cla s sified a s flakes or as sh at ter . In bo th count and weight , flakes m ade up the largest category of lithic artifacts, with a total of 339 flakes weighing 1032.2 grams. Shatter accounted for 224 objects weighing 701.6 grams (Table 6.7).

Figure 6.7. Lithic Tools Thumbnail scraper on left, flake tool fragment, flake tool, corner-notched PPK fragment on right.

TABLE 6.7 FLAKES AND SHATTER

FS Lot Unit Level Object Name Qty Wt (G) Material Comments 2 18 1 1 Flake 28 82.40 Chert Minimum of four thermally altered 4 13 1 2 Flake 12 40.50 Chert Several pieces thermally altered 5 3 1 3 Flake 7 5.10 Chert Mostly fragments, Most thermally altered 6 14 1 3 Flake 33 118.20 Chert Incomplete a nd fragment s. 7 4 1 4 Flake 11 7.00 Chert Incomplete a nd fragment s 8 19 1 4 Flake 1 2.70 Chert Treated with vinegar solution 8 20 1 4 Flake 2 30.30 Chert Treated with a greater than 5% nitric acid solu t ion. 8 21 1 4 Flake 29 69.30 Chert Incomplete and fragments 9 4 1 5 Flake 9 3.40 Chert Incompl et e and fr agments 10 12 1 5 Flake 18 66.90 Chert Inco m plete and fragments 11 11 1 6 Flake 20 14.40 Chert Incomp let e and fr ag m ents 12 9 1 6 Flake 15 96.00 Chert Incomp let e and fr ag m ents 13 5 1 7 Flake 2 8.10 Chert Incom letpe 14 5 1 7 Flake 2 10.60 Chert Incom letpe. 15 3 1 8 Flake 2 0.50 Chert Incomplete.

TABLE 6.7 -CONTINUED

FS Lot Unit Level Object Name Qty Wt (G) Material Comments

16 5 1 8 Flake 1 19.10 Chert Treated with 5% nitric acid solution. Thermally altered flake. 16 6 1 8 Flake 25 37.10 Chert Incomp let e and fr ag m ents. 19 14 2 1 Flake 1 1.20 Chert 19 15 2 1 Flake 83 170.90 Chert 33 cortic a l flake s , 50 nonco rt ica l. Incompl et e and fr agments. 20 13 2 2 Flake 13 122.70 Chert Incomplete and fragments. 21 8 2 3 Flake 17 87.90 Chert Incomp let e and fr ag m ents. 22 3 2 4 Flake 2 8.90 Chert 23 3 2 5 Flake 6 29.00 Chert Total: 339 1032.20 FS Lot Unit Level Object Name Qty Wt (G) Material Comments 2 19 1 1 Sha rtte 8 22.90 Chert 3 4 1 2 Shatter 3 0.40 Chert 4 14 1 2 Sha rtte 8 33.50 Chert Several pi eces th e rm a lly alt e red 5 4 1 3 Shatter 8 8.00 Chert -- Limeston e 6 15 1 3 Shatter 12 81.30 Chert 7 5 1 4 Shatter 16 4.20 Chert 8 23 1 4 Shatter 7 11.30 Chert 9 5 1 5 Shatter 3 1.40 Chert 10 13 1 5 Shatter 2 14.60 Chert 11 12 1 6 Shatter 11 5.90 Chert 12 10 1 6 Shatter 2 2.90 Chert 14 6 1 7 Shatter 2 11.50 Chert 15 4 1 8 Shatter 2 5.10 Chert 19 16 2 1 Shatter 119 214.80 Chert 20 16 2 2 Shatter 18 257.60 Chert Shatter and debitage. 21 10 2 3 Shatter 3 26.20 Chert Total: 224 701.60

Faunal Analysis

The faunal materials were removed from the majority of the excavated sample prior to being analyzed. During the analysis process, materials were grouped, with assistance from Dr. Rochelle Marrinan, Vicki Rolland and David Cremer. After this partial sort, the author continued sorting according to the limits of his experience. Dr. Marrinan made the final analysis and checking of identification with the use of a comparative faunal collection, housed within the Florida State University’s (FSU) Department of Anthropology. Elements that were unable to be identified through the

specimens in the FSU collection were taken to the comparative collection maintained by the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville, Florida for comparison. Two elements from this sample were able to be identified as Phalacrocorax carbo by Dr. David Steadman, Curator of the Ornithology Range, and the identification of Chelydra serpentina by the author, through the use of the comparative collection. Information collected on the sample included: The Number of Identified Specimens (NISP), the element represented, the weight in grams, whether the element had been burned or exhibited evidence of being worked, and other comments, such as if the epiphysis of the bone had been fused or not. All of these values were entered into a modified Excel spreadsheet, and biomass estimates were generated for each species and category. The term biomass refers to the theoretical amount of meat represented by a given weight of bone. These formulas have been generated using allometric scaling (Hale and Marrinan 1987), based upon measurements taken from specimens processed at the Museum of N atural H isto ry, G ain esvil le, F lor ida . N o biomass estimates are provided for the category of Unidentified Vertebrate (UID Vert). As a whole, the biom ass estimates from this sample are likely to be far lower than the actual amounts that would have been a vail a ble to the inhab i tants. T he NISP c ou nt s are slightly adjusted as well. When pieces of bone were found to crossmend, the count was listed as one, re gardless o f th e actual n umber of fragments . During this study, se veral dec i sions were made as f a r as w h ich mater ia ls w ould be included in the a nalysis proce s s. I h ave ta ken th e libe rt y of no t i nclu d ing m aterials in the biomass estima tes, that I be li ev e to h av e be e n by - products o f the bu tc h ering p ro ce ss, such as antler, te eth, claws, a nd smal l foot b ones . Also not i nclud ed in the w e igh t and biomass estimates, are w orked b one f r agm e nts, which while representing some p o rtion of an animal at some time, were not necessarily consumed at the site. The analysis of the materials from this site does not attempt to provide biomas s estim at es b ased u po n the shells of mollusks and bivalves due to samp ling biases. As evidenced by the abundance of shells, they undoubtedly made up a significant portion of the diet at this particular site. The recorded w eights of b one f ra gm ents are undoubtedly affected by the adherence of some petrocalcic matrix; som et h ing t h e rea d er sh o uld keep i n min d.

Faunal Analysis, Unit 1

The faunal materials for Excavation Unit 1 were recovered in two different sized screens. In the field, the majority of the matrix was screened through ¼-in hardware cloth. As noted earlie r in Chapter 5 , b ulk 2-lite r sam ples were take n at ran do m from eac h 10-cm level and later waterscreened thro ugh 1/16-in screen. After drying, the m aterial was rebagged a n d later sorte d a n d an al yzed . P e rio dically d u ring t he e xc avati o n p r ocess , materials were waterscreened at the site using 1/8-in mesh, in an attempt to see if small bones, such as fish, were being m isse d . There was never a ny indic at io n durin g th o se checks that materials wer e not being recovered. As Shaffer and Sanchez (Schaffer and Sanchez 1994:528) have clea rly dem onstrated, sm aller scr ee n size s gr e atly a f fec t t he recovery rate of smaller faun al e leme n ts an d this i s eviden t w ith t he se s ampl e s. I will present su mma rie s of th e faunal remains reco v ered f rom Excavation Unit 1, one for the ¼-in materials which was screened onsite and one for the 2-liter, 1/16-in material which was processed later. I have included tables by unit, level, and screen size in Appendix D for all of the faunal m a terials reco vere d from t he Le w is Cam p M ou nd.

Excavation Un i t 1, ¼-in Sample. Th e faun al r em ains recovered f r om this excavation unit appear to be the byproducts of food preparation and consumption. Six of the long bone fragments exhibit evidence of having been exposed to fire. These six fragments have been identified as large mammal, which in all likelihood means that they are deer. A number of the long bone fragments identified as deer, as well as some identified as large mammal exhibit spiral fractures, consistent with the type of fracture found on green bone breaks. This may be the result of tool manufacture, or it may be the result of food preparation. One deer right humerus was partially reconstructed from nine fragments of fractured bone. Mammals contributed the largest percentage of the bone weight, according to the final tally, with 205.2 grams, or 66.24 % of the bone weight (Table 6.8). This corresponds to a biomass estimate of some 3462.27 grams. Birds contributed a small amount of the total weight with 3.5 grams, or 1.13 % of the final total weight. Alligator contributed 4.1 grams of weight, translating into 1.32 % of the total weight. Turtles contributed a significant amount of weight to the total recovered, with 54.8 grams,

equating to 17.69 % of the total weight. This corresponds to a biomass estimate of 595.61 grams. The fact that turtle made up a large part of the faunal assemblage is not surprising. It seems quite likely that they would provide a relatively easy to obtain source of protein. The proximity of the site to the main river channel would have offered the inhabitants many opportunities to capture them. Snakes made ver y little contribution to the overall faunal sample, with 0.1 grams of weight translating into 0.03 % of the final total weight. Amphiuma also contributed very little to the totals with 1.0 grams of weight or 0.32 % of the final total. With these last two categories, snake and amphiuma, it seems probable that poor recovery of small bones may have biased the picture with regards to possible dietary contributions. Not surprisingly, fish represented a very small part of the remains recovered, probably due to the larger screen size not capturing small fish bones. 7.7 grams of fish were identified, contributing 2.49 % of the total weight. The estimated biomass contribution for fish is 150.19 grams. Unidentified vertebrate remains contributed 33.4 grams of weight, equaling 10.78 % of the total weight. These final two figures do include the weights of two worked bone fragments. T he presence of three fragments of worked bone indicates that the inhabitants used bone tools at the site. It is unclear whether these tools were used in the processing of foodstuffs or if they served other purposes. It seems likely that the bone implements may have had multiple functions in the past. Several of the deer elements had unfused epiphyses, since deer bear their young in the spring, this may indicate an autumnal occupation of the site.

TABLE 6.8 FAUNAL MATERIALS FROM E.U. 1, ¼-in SCREEN

% % MNI % % % % Burnt NISP grams) Worked Biomass Weight (in Scientific Name Taxonomic Name Mammalia, Large Probably deer and 16 5.41 64.0 20.66 1110.6110 25.53 6 85.71 1 33.33 0.00 bear Mammalia, Small Probably squirrel - 1 0.34 0.1 0.03 3.3113 0.08 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 sized Mammalia Unidentified 10 3.38 3.6 1.16 83.3052 1.91 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 mammal

TABLE 6.8 –CONTINUED

% % MNI % % % % Burnt NISP grams) Worked Biomass Weight (in Scientific Name Taxonomic Name Didelphis Eastern opossum 2 0.68 0.7 0.23 19.0804 0.44 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 virginiana Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits 1 0.34 0.8 0.26 21.5170 0.49 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 Procyon lotor Raccoon 1 0.34 0.8 0.26 21.5170 0.49 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 Artiodactyla Probably deer 1 0.34 2.8 0.90 66.4419 1.53 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus White tail deer 20 6.76 132.4 42.74 2136.4817 49.11 1 14.29 0.00 1 6.67 virginianus All Mammals 52 17.57 205.2 66.24 3462.2656 79.58 7 100.0 1 33.33 4 26.6 0 7

Aves Unidentified birds 8 2.70 3.0 0.97 55.4856 1.28 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Phalacrocorax Great cormorant 1 0.34 0.5 0.16 10.8658 0.25 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 carbo All Birds 9 3.04 3.5 1.13 66.3514 1.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 6.67

Alligator American alligator 3 1.01 4.1 1.32 61.0067 1.40 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 mississipiensis

Testudines Unidentified 79 26.69 34.0 10.97 335.8079 7.72 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 turtles Chelydra Alligator snapping 1 0.34 0.7 0.23 0.0000 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 serpentina turtle Kinosternidae Mud and musk 50 16.89 19.4 6.26 230.5829 5.30 0 0.00 0.00 3 20.0 turtles 0 Sternotherus Musk turtle 1 0.34 0.1 0.03 6.7608 0.16 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 odoratus Terrapene Eastern box turtle 2 0.68 0.6 0.19 22.4575 0.52 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 carolina All turtles 133 44.93 54.8 17.69 595.6091 13.69 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 33.33 Serpentes Unidentified 1 0.34 0.1 0.03 1.3490 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 snakes All snakes 1 0.34 0.1 0.03 1.3490 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 6.67

Amphiuma means Two-toed 3 1.01 1.0 0.32 13.8038 0.32 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 Amphiuma All Amphibians 3 1.01 1.0 0.32 13.8038 0.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 6.67

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish 15 5.07 5.3 1.71 113.9367 2.62 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67 fragments Micropterus sp. Freshwater bass 4 1.35 2.4 0.77 36.2558 0.83 0 0.00 0.00 1 6.67

TABLE 6.8 –CONTINUED

% % iomas MNI % % % % Burnt NISP grams) Worked B s Weight (in Scientific Name Taxonomic Name All bony fishes 19 6.42 7.7 2.49 150.1924 3.45 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 13.33

Unidentified All UID 76 25.6833.4 10.78 0.00 0.00 2 66.67 0.00 Vertebrate Fragments Totals 296 309.8 4350.5781 7 3 15

Excavation Unit 1, 1/16-in Sample. Although a much smaller sample in volume, a greater number of bone fragments (NISP) were recovered, probably due to the smaller screen size (Table 6.9). Mammals again constituted the greatest weight quantity with 28.37 % of the sample and an estimated biomass contribution of 166.29 grams. There were no elements recognizable beyond that of Mammalia. Turtles contributed the second greatest amount weight-wise to the assemblage with 13.35 %. Turtles were estimated to have contributed 106.96 grams in biomass. Not surprisingly, with the smaller screen size, recovery of fish elements were greater, with fish contributing 12.58 % of the total weight, resulting in a biomass estimate of 81.82 grams.

TABLE 6.9 FAUNAL MATERIALS FROM E.U. 1, 1/16-in SCREEN

% % MNI % % % % Burnt NISP Weight Worked Biomass Scientific Name Taxonomic Name Mammalia Unidentified 7 1.58 7.7628.37 166.2936 46.83 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 16.67 mammal All Mammals 7 1.58 7.76 28.37 166 .2936 46.83 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 16.67

Testudines Unidentified 11 2.49 1.45 5.30 40.5617 11.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 turtles Kinosternidae Mud and musk 2 0.45 0.70 2.56 24.9009 7.01 0.00 0.00 1 16.67 turtles

TABLE 6.9 -CONTINUED

% % MNI % % % % Burnt NISP Weight Worked Biomass Scientific Name Taxonomic Name Sternotherus Musk turtle 4 0.90 1.50 5.48 41.4936 11.69 0.00 0.00 1 16.67 odoratus All turtles 17 3.85 3.65 13.35 106.9563 30.12 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 33.33

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish 160 36.202.70 9.87 65.9788 18.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 fragments Ictaluridae Freshwater 7 1.58 0.40 1.46 8.3552 2.35 0.00 0.00 1 16.67 catfishes Lepomis Red-ear sunfish 1 0.23 0.04 0.15 1.1634 0.33 0.00 0.00 1 16.67 microlophus Micropterus sp. Freshwater bass 1 0.23 0.30 1.10 6.3209 1.78 0.00 0.00 1 16.67

All bony fishes 169 38.24 3.44 12.58 81.8184 23.04 0 0.00 0.00 3 50.00

Unidentified All Unidentified 249 56.3312.50 45.70 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vertebrate Fragments Totals 442 27.35 355.0683 0 0 6

Faunal Analysis, Unit 2

As reported in Chapter 4, all of the materials recovered from Excavation Unit 2 were initially screened through ¼-in mesh at the site, then bagged. Due to matrix adhering to the artifacts, they were later rinsed using 1/8-in mesh and allowed to dry before being sorted. This sample size reflects a 1/4 smaller volume of excavated material, compared with the Excavation Unit 1 material, due to Excavation Unit 2 being 50x50 cm, as opposed to the 1x1m dimensions of Unit 1.

Excavation Unit 2, ¼-in Sample. The recovery rates for materials from Unit 2 seem to be higher than those of Unit 1, possibly due to less shell in the matrix at Unit 2, therefore leading to better visibility of bone. Even though Unit 2 was 25 % of the size of Unit 1, the relative biomass estimates for each taxon are not comparable to those of the Unit 1, ¼-in sample. In Unit 2, all mammals, including deer, accounted for 46.10% of the

weight, with a biomass estimate of 1594.52 grams (Table 6.10). Four of the mammal bones exhibited evidence of having been burned. Aves, with just 0.36% of the weight, was a very small contributor to the overall faunal assemblage. Likewise, alligator made up only 0.98% of the total weight for Unit 2. Turtle, including Kinosternidae, Sternotherous, and Trachemys spp. accounted for some 23.9 % of the total weight. The biomass contribution for turtle was estimated to be 505.72 grams. All fish recovered weighed 5.21% of the total weight, giving a biomass estimate of 235.09 grams. Unidentified vertebrate remains accounted for 23.03% of the total weight for the faunal materials.

TABLE 6.10 FAUNAL MATERIALS FROM E.U. 2, ¼-in SCREEN

% % MNI % % % % Burnt NISP Weight Worked Biomass Scientific Name Taxonomic Name Mammalia, Probably 26 8.44 26.8 13.84 507.3659 21.21 4 100.0 0 0.00 0 0.00 Large deer and bear 0

Odocoileus White tail 11 3.57 62.5 32.27 1087.156 45.45 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 virginianus deer 4 All Mammals 37 12.01 89.3 46.10 1594.522 66.66 4 100.0 0 0.00 1 10.00 3 0

Aves Unidentified 2 0.65 0.7 0.36 14.7584 0.62 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 birds All Birds 2 0.65 0.7 0.36 14.7584 0.62 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00

Alligator American 3 0.97 1.9 0.98 30.7674 1.29 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 mississipiensis alligator

Testudines Unidentified 76 24.68 41.7 21.53 385.0270 16.10 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 turtles Kinosternidae Mud and 9 2.92 2.3 1.19 55.2532 2.31 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 musk turtles Sternotherus Musk turtle 1 0.32 0.4 0.20 16.8273 0.70 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 odoratus Trachemys spp. Pond sliders 3 0.97 1.9 0.98 48.6144 2.03 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 All turtles 89 28.90 46.29 23.90 505.7219 21.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 30.00 Serpentes Unidentified 3 0.97 0.8 0.41 11.0185 0.46 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 snakes

TABLE 6.10 -CONTINUED

% % MNI % % % % Burnt NISP Weight Worked Biomass Scientific Name Taxonomic Name All snakes 3 0.97 0.8 11.0185 0.46 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00

Osteichthyes All Bony 11 3.57 6.3 3.25 131.0587 5.48 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Fish fragments Lepisosteus spp. Gar 2 0.65 0.4 0.21 14.0497 0.59 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00

Micropterus sp. Freshwater 2 0.65 1.2 0.62 20.2541 0.85 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 bass Sciaenops Redfish 1 0.32 2.2 1.14 69.7257 2.92 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 ocellatus All bony fishes 16 5.19 10.1 5.21 235.0882 9.83 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 30.00

Unidentified All 158 51.3044.6 23.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vertebrate Unidentified Fragments Totals 308 193.7 2391.876 100.00 4 0 10 6

When a comparison of the biomass estimates for mammals, turtles and fish are made (Table 6.11), using the materials from Unit 1, both ¼-in. and 1/16-in. screened and the material from Unit 2, also screened with ¼-in screen, it becomes apparent that mammals contributed a significant portion of the diet at the site, followed by turtles and fish. An additional item of importance is the increased recovery of fish bone by using the 1/16-in screen. In addition to presumed food remains, several bone tool fragments (Figure 6.8) were recovered from both excavation units. These tools, or rather fragments of tools, were of the type commonly referred to as bone pins. They appear to have been constructed from a long bone of a large mammal. The exact function of these tools is unknown, but they may have served several purposes. It has been suggested that they

may have served as leisters (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:42, 54). One could also see them used for a variety of tasks, such as the weaving of cloth and basketry.

TABLE 6.11 PERCENTAGES OF BIOMASS, BASED ON UNIT AND SCREENSIZE

Percentages of biomass from 8Je182 Based on Unit and Screen Size

100% Biomass Percentage of 80% Fish 60% Biomass Percentage of 40% Turtles

20% Biomass Percentage of Mammals 0% Excavation Excavation Excavation Unit 1, 1/4-in Unit 2, 1/4-in Unit 1, 1/16-in

Figure 6.8. Worked Bone

Floral Analysis

There were very few floral remains recovered during excavations at the Lewis Camp Mound. There were the usual rootlets and grasses encountered, as well as recently fallen leaves, but very little in the way of archaeologically related material. Several seeds were recovered, however, all from Excavation Unit 1. These seeds have been identified as Vitis spp., using macroscopic methods and comparative specimens. There were five seeds recovered, from lev els 2, 5, and 7. G rape vi nes are st ill fairl y common in the area today.

CHAPT ER SEVEN

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

B as ed up on the types of cer amics recovered from t hese two un its at the Lewis Camp M ou nd , th e site has been int ermittently occupied since the end of the Late Archaic Perio d u nti l th e l ate Weeden Island Period . The CARL Survey reco ver e d diagnostic ceramics fr om th e Ft. Walton Perio d, dem onstrating that t he site was u ti lized during that time p eri od , a s w ell. In fact, with th e reco very of metal ca n fragments, one can be certain that this site has been used during the historic period. The site name of Lewis Camp Mound indicates that this high ground, on the banks of the Lewis Slough, has been utilized d u rin g th e 20th Century as a place of encampment . In a low lyi n g area such as muc h of the W acissa basin, most of the higher elevations, no matter how little the change in el ev at io n, h av e evidences o f pre-Colum bian and later occupations. A s Memory et al. (1998:2) noted: “Worthy of mention, is that several of the site visits in early 1998 were conducted during a particularly wet spring, which provided the opportunity to view the condition of the sites relative to the flooded condition of the swamp. Wh at we observed supporte d the ide a that the mounds and ri dges were occup ied so exten si vely because they provided d ry gro und in the relative wetnes s of the swamp. Not a single one of the sites we visited was even partially inundated, despite wading through thigh-high waters in area s typ ica ll y us ed as roa ds and trails dur ing drie r periods.” The Lew is Camp Mound certainly afforded a higher ground vantage point for past peoples.

Conclusions

M y or igin al ques tions were as foll ows: 1) W hat is the ceramic sequence present at the s it e? 2) How does this site fit into the chronology of the region? 3) Can specific activities be inferred, based upon the materials recovered? 4) Are there indications of

seasonality of occupation, based upo n th e materi als re covered? An d, 5) Are the re differences in activities or seasonal usage, which correspond with different ceramic assembla ge s or c ultural periods ? T he c hro nological ceramic sequence at the Lewis Camp Mound begins with the fiber-tempered Norwood ceramics, both Simple Stamped and Plain (Figure 6.1). That is follo w ed b y t he D eptford series, in cluding Simple Stamped, Cross Sim p le Stamped, Bold Chec k ed a nd Lin ear Check Stampe d varie ties (Figure 6.2). Two sherds of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped ceramics were recovered, as well as two Santa Rosa-Swift Creek types, namely Alligator Bayou Stamped and West Florida Cord Marked (Figure 6.3). Ther e we re a num ber of Weeden Is land c eramics recovere d and types included Carr ab el le Pu nct ated, Weeden Isla nd Plai n, Wakulla Chec k Stamped ( Figure 6.4) and Pasc o Pl ain (F igu re 6.5). Lastly, th ere wa s one sherd that would proba bl y be designated as C h atta h ooc he e Brushed, a type t hat app ears in the Histo ric Period a nd is associated with the Muskogee (Creek) and Seminole peoples. The earliest diagnostic ceramic type at the site is the fiber-temp ered, Simple- stamped N orw oo d ware (Figure 6.1 ). This ceramic type ha s been foun d in contexts dating to 1012 B.C (Phelps 1966:19) and earlier. As has been mentioned in the preceding chapter, fib er -tem pered ce ramics are frequently associated with Savannah River forms of hafted bifaces, one of which was recovered (Figure 6.6). The majority of cultural remains recovered reflect an occupation between the Late Archaic and the Weeden Island period, with some ev iden ce of use by later people s. As evidenced by a fire rin g and metal fragment s rec ove red in level one o f Excav ation Unit 1, the Lewis Cam p Mound is still being utilized today. Present-day culture uses the site as a stopping point along the Wac i ssa R ive r, p robably as an ove rnight c amping spot. W hile that activity is prohibited in the Aucilla WMA, outside of sp ecified areas, the practice continues. As evidenced by the r e ma ins left b y earlier cultures, huntin g and fishing ha ve been important activities alon g the W a ciss a for millennia an d the s ite will probably continue to be utilized by the present-day culture. There was a notable difference in the distribution of some of the ceram ic types at the Lewis Camp Mound. Norwood ceramics were only recovered from Unit 2. Although the Sava nn ah Riv er bifac e was recovered from Un it 1, and these ppk t ypes have been shown to h av e be en associated w ith fiber- tempered ceramics, none was recovered from

Unit 1. Interestingly, the Norwood c eram ics from Uni t 2 were mos t abundant i n Level 2, over l yin g p re sum ably late r Deptford type s. There was also evidence o f s ome mixing in that area of the site, as there were also Swift Creek and Weeden Island types recovered from Unit 2, Level 2. There is also considerable evidence of disturbance in the area of Excavation Unit 1, based on the ceramics recovered. There were Deptford ceramics reco v ere d in L ev el 1 and Weeden I sland P eriod sherds rec overed from Level 7. Based upon these findings, I believe it likely that later Weeden Island peoples, digging cooking pits for apple snails, dug through earlier Norwood and Deptford deposits, and redeposited the mate ria ls in t he area o f Unit 2. The fa ct that there were pit features evident in Unit 1, with a sso c iate d W eeden Is land ceramics l eads me to this conclusion. Apple snail shells, many largely intact, seem to have made up a significant part of the d i et a t the Le wis Camp M ound. There were sev eral pockets of thes e shells, with evidence of ash deposits. It seems unlikely that these snails would have been transported any g rea t d ist anc e, but prob ably were gath ered as they were encounter ed, or otherwise from the adjacent river channel or marsh. While oysters m ay be kept a live for several days in cool weather, storing them in damp vegetation, Apple snails appear to be less hard y. T his s peci es still thrives in the area , as evidenced b y the egg clu sters present on wild rice stalks in the river channels during the early summer and by the presence of the snails themselves. Ma ny of the faunal remain s recov ered from the ex cavation un its appear to be the byproducts of food preparation and consumption and the presence of a possible hearth in the lowest level of Unit 1 seems to support that contention. Following Binford’s (1980) settl em en t mo del s, one can specula te as to the nature of th e types of ac tivities, based upon the material remains, that occurred at the Lewis Camp Mound. Obviously, there was food preparation taking place, which leads one to believe that the area was used at least as a campsite. The presence o f saltw ater species, suc h as redfish, oyster, scallop and cockle would imply a connection with coastal environs. Regardless of whether the people emp lo ye d a fo rag ing or collecting s trategy (Binford 1980) , it seems lik ely that they were traveling between the coast and interior and were using the Lewis Camp Mound as a stop p ing sp ot . Ca noes have been reco vered from the W acissa River (M emory et al. 2000:39) s o w ate r-borne transportation w as certain ly occurring. The fa ct that over one hundred canoes were recovered in Newnan’s Lake, near Gainesville, Florida (Wheeler et

al. 2003), demonstrates that water-b orne transpor tatio n has been o ccurring in F lorida since the A rc haic Period and was lik ely a n importa nt means of transporting people and goods in the Wacissa and Aucilla drainag es. T he p rese nce of six fragme nts of w orked b one, two of which c rossmend, indicates that the inhabitants used bone tools at the site. It is unclear whether these tools were used in the processing of foodstuffs or if they served other purposes. It seems likely t hat the bone i mp le me nts may have h ad multiple functions in the past. The relative lack of large lithic cores, compared with other sites in the region , leads me to believ e that lithic extraction was not a major activity at this site. There was som e tool m anufacture or main t ena nc e occ urring, as evidenc ed by t he recovery of 339 che rt flak es . There were seve ra l f or ma l to ol types recovered , scrap ers and flake tools, indicatin g that some sort of material processing was probably occurring, as well. There does not seem to be a strong indication as to what time of the year that this site was inhabited, but there are several hints. Several of the deer elemen ts had unfused epiphyses, perhaps indicating an autumnal occupation. As mentioned in Chapter 6, white- tailed deer bear their young in the spring and given the relative size and development of the r e cov er ed bo nes, the animals w ere pro bably taken in t he late summ er or early autumn. Th e reco very of grape see ds also indicates a late summer or early fall occupation. If the shellfish that were recovered from the s ite were con sumed at the site, this would also lend credence to a cool weather occupation, as warm weather greatly incre a ses s po ilag e of shellfish. Wh ile the presence of thes e “indicators ” may suggest a seas on o f u se , th ey shoul d not be taken as defining the season of usage . It seems quite probable that the site was used throughout the year, by peoples traveling between the interior and the coast, but we cannot, based on the empirical evidence, confirm this idea.

Recommendations

P er ha ps t he biggest barrier to accu rately interpretin g the functi on of the Lewis Camp M ou nd is the small sam ple size excavated from the site. A 1 x 1 m excavation unit does n ot ex po se much of the living surfac e used by earlier peoples. A la rger excavation unit mig ht ha ve p rovided evide nce of stru ctures, th e nature of which m ay have provided greater insight into the type of encampment that existed. If evidence o f a large, somewhat permanent structure were revealed, we might conclude that this was a residential site,

utilized by an extended family while for aging, or perh aps occupied by a specia l task group collecting resources, as a base camp. The various settlem ent mo dels (Bense 1996; Mila n ich 1 97 1, 1 973, 1994; Stephen son e t al. 2002 ) for earlier people have suggested that th ere i s a dic hotomy b etween coastal and inlan d settlements for th is region and the Lewis Camp Mound lies on an aquatic route between the two ecotones. A larger sample size should help clarify this relationship. Much work remains to be d one, to understand the nature of set tlements in the Wac is sa dr ain age . But before the a rea can be studied furth er, it must be protected. The watershed has not been systematically surveyed, except for the C ARL surveys. The threat of looting in the Wacissa drainage is very real, with sites and mounds being lost every year. The density of sites and remote nature of this large tract makes it very conducive to such acti on s. As of this writing, the curren t land manager has no cultural resources staff and does not seem overly concerned with taking on the responsibilities required to adequate ly ca re f or this unique area . It is my hope that this thesis will, in some small way, lead to further investigation and protection of this magnificent area.

APPENDIX A

FIELD SPEC IMEN CATA LOG

Field Specimen Num ber Unit Level Depth (CMBS) Comments 1 1 0 0 Surfa ce 2 1 1 0-1 0 1/4 Screen 3 1 2 10-20 1/16 Screen 4 1 2 10-20 1/4 Screen 5 1 3 20-30 1/16 Screen 6 1 3 20-30 1/4 Screen 7 1 4 30-40 1/16 Screen 8 1 4 30-40 1/4 Screen 9 1 5 40-50 1/16 Screen 10 1 5 40-50 1/4 Screen 11 1 6 50-60 1/16 Screen 12 1 6 50-60 1/4 Screen 13 1 7 60-70 1/16 Screen 14 1 7 60-70 1/4 Screen 15 1 8 70+ 1/16 Screen 16 1 8 70+ 1/4 Screen 17 1 Featu re 2 18 1 7 Feature 4 19 2 1 0-10 1/4 Screen 20 2 2 10-2 0 1/4 S creen 21 2 3 20-3 0 1/4 S creen 22 2 4 30-40 1/4 Screen 23 2 5 40-5 0 1/4 S creen

APPENDIX B Unit 1 an d Unit 2 Art ifacts

FS Lot Unit Level Object_Name Utilized Type_Name Comments 1 1 1 0 Vessel Fragment FALSE Weeden Island Pieces crossmend 1 2 1 0 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 2 1 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Simple Stamped 2 2 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Linear Check Stamped 2 3 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Wakulla Check Stamped 2 4 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Coarse sand, Two pieces crossmend 2 5 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 2 6 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE West Florida Cord Marked 2 7 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 2 8 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Coarse sand 2 9 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Coarse sand 2 10 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Weeden Island 2 11 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE 2 12 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE 2 13 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 2 14 1 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 2 15 1 1 Fired Clay FALSE Fired Clay, Possible Vessel Fragment 3 5 1 2 Fired Clay FALSE Fired Clay, Possible Vessel Fragment 1 3 1 0 Core FALSE 4 8 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 4 9 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 4 10 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 4 11 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 4 12 1 2 Biface Fragment TRUE Untyped Medial fragment, Distal 4 13 1 2 Flake FALSE Several pieces thermally altered 4 14 1 2 Shatter FALSE Several pieces thermally altered 4 15 1 2 Stone, Unmodified FALSE 4 16 1 2 Mollusca FALSE 4 17 1 2 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag 5 1 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 5 2 1 3 Fired Clay FALSE Probable vessel fragments 5 3 1 3 Flake FALSE Mostly fragments, Most thermally altered 5 4 1 3 Shatter FALSE 5 5 1 3 Caliche FALSE 5 6 1 3 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag

FS Lot Unit Level Object_Name Utilized Type_Name Comments 5 7 1 3 Mammalia FALSE 5 8 1 3 Testudines FALSE 5 9 1 3 Osteichthyes FAL SE 5 10 1 3 Vertebrata FALS E 5 11 1 3 Sample FALSE Quantity is one bag. Some organic materials present. Finely crushed shell 6 1 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Simpl e Stamped 6 2 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Linear Check Stamped 6 3 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Wakulla Check Stamped 6 4 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Pieces crossmend 6 5 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Pasco P lain 6 6 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible cord marked 6 7 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 6 8 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 6 9 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible New River Complicated Stamped 6 10 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible cord impressed or simple stamped 6 11 1 3 Vessel Fr agment FALSE Untyped 6 12 1 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 6 13 1 3 Core Fragment FALSE 6 14 1 3 Flake FALSE Incomplete and fragments. 6 15 1 3 Shatter FALSE 6 16 1 3 Stone, Unm odified FALSE 6 17 1 3 Caliche FALSE 6 18 1 3 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag 6 19 1 3 Gastropoda FALSE Possibl y worked 8 9 1 4 Vessel Fra gment FALSE Untyped Possible Deptford Check Stamped. 8 10 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSEUntyped Possible Simple Stam ped 8 11 1 4 Vessel Frag ment FALSE Untyped 8 12 1 4 Vessel Fr agment FALSE Untyped 8 13 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 8 14 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 8 15 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 8 16 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 8 17 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 8 18 1 4 Biface Fragment FALSE Treated with vinegar solution

8 19 1 4 Flake FALSE Treated with vinegar solution

8 20 1 4 Flake FALSE Treated with a greater than 5% nitric acid solution. 8 21 1 4 Flake FALSE Incomplete and fragments 8 22 1 4 Core Fragment FALSE

FS Lot Unit Level Object_Name Utilized Type_Name Comments 8 23 1 4 Shatter FALSE 8 24 1 4 Stone, Unmodified FALSE 8 25 1 4 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag. 9 1 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 9 2 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 6 20 1 3 Crassostrea FALSE 6 21 1 3 Mollusc a FALSE 7 1 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Weeden Island Plain

7 2 1 4 Vessel F ragment FALSE Untyped 7 3 1 4 Fired Cla y FALSE 7 4 1 4 Flake FALSE Incomplete and fragments 7 5 1 4 Shatter FALSE 7 6 1 4 Caliche FALSE One piece may be limestone

7 7 1 4 Kinosternidae FALSE 7 8 1 4 Testudines FALSE 7 9 1 4 Vertebrata FALSE 7 10 1 4 Gastropoda FALSE 7 11 1 4 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag 7 12 1 4 Sample FALSE Quantity is one bag. Some organics present. Shell very crushed. 8 1 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Treated with vinegar solution. Red coloration present. 8 2 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Treated with vinegar solution. Possible fiber tempering 8 3 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Treated with a greater than 5% nitric acid solution. Possible Deptford Check Stamped 8 4 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Treated with a greater than 5% nitric acid solution. Possible grog tempering. 8 5 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Wakulla Check Stamped 8 6 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Weeden Island Plain. Two pieces crossmend.

8 7 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 8 8 1 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Carrabelle Incised.

2 16 1 1 Scraper, Thumbnail TRUE 2 17 1 1 Flake Tool TRUE Fragment 2 18 1 1 Flake FALSE Minimum of four thermally altered 2 19 1 1 Shatter FALSE

FS Lot Unit Level Object_Name Utilized Type_Name Comments 2 20 1 1 Stone, Unmodified FALSE 2 21 1 1 Caliche FALSE 3 4 1 2 Shatter FALSE 2 22 1 1 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag 2 23 1 1 Metal Fragment FALSE Possible can fragment 2 24 1 1 Mollusca FALSE Probable Bivalvia 3 1 1 2 Sample FALSE From 1/16 inch screen. Crushed. 3 2 1 2 Vertebrata FALSE 3 3 1 2 Vitis spp. FALSE Possible grape 3 6 1 2 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag 4 1 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Deptford Check Stamped 4 2 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Wakulla Check Stamped 4 3 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Three pieces and three pieces crossmend. Possibly from the same vessel

4 4 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Three pieces crossmend 4 5 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 4 6 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Pieces crossmend 4 7 1 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible stamped dec tech.

12 2 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Two pieces crossmend 12 3 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Weeden Island 12 4 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 12 5 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Sherds look to be simple stamped 12 6 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 12 7 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 12 8 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible stamping and smoothing 12 9 1 6 Flake FALSE Incomplete and fragments 12 10 1 6 Shatter FALSE 12 11 1 6 Caliche FALSE Possible concreted limestone present 12 12 1 6 Caliche FALSE Quantity is one bag. Material is more friable than that in FS 12.11. 13 1 1 7 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 13 2 1 7 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possibly burned. 13 3 1 7 Fired Clay FALSE 13 4 1 7 Mammalia FALSE Medium sized mammal. 13 6 1 7 Ictaluridae FALSE 13 7 1 7 Osteichthyes FALSE Very small verts. Some burned, some calcined. 13 8 1 7 Vertebrata FALSE 13 5 1 7 Flake FALSE Incomplete

FS Lot Unit Level Object_Name Utilized Type_Name Comments 13 10 1 7 Bivalvia FALSE Examples of bivalves. Cemented shell. 13 9 1 7 Pomacea paludosa FALSE Examples of Pomacea. Immature specimens. 15 9 1 8 Sample FALSE Quantity is one bag. Considerable caliche pieces.

16 1 1 8 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Probable Wakulla Check Stamped. 16 2 1 8 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Weeden Island. 16 3 1 8 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 16 4 1 8 Biface TRUE Savannah River May be Hamilton. 16 5 1 8 Flake FALSE Treated with 5% nitric acid solution. Thermally altered flake. 16 6 1 8 Flake FALSE Incomplete and fragments. 12 13 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Linear Check Very well made. Resembles Stamped Weeden Island ware. Smoothed interior. 12 14 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Alligator Bayou 17 1 1 0 Sample FALSE Feature 2 sample. Quantity is one bag. 18 1 1 7 Sample FALSE Feature 4 sample. Soil and ash. 13 13 1 7 Lepomis microlophis FALSE 9 3 1 5 Fired Clay FALSE 9 4 1 5 Flake FALSE Incomplete and fragments 9 5 1 5 Shatter FALSE 9 6 1 5 Caliche FALSE 9 7 1 5 Testudines FALSE Possible Kinosternidae 9 8 1 5 Osteichthyes FALSE Very small in size. 9 9 1 5 Vertebrata FALSE 9 10 1 5 Vitis spp. FALSE Quantity is one bag. Broken during cataloging. 9 11 1 5 Plant FALSE Quantity is one bag. 9 12 1 5 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag. 9 13 1 5 Sample FALSE Quantity is one bag. 10 1 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Linear Check Stamped 10 2 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Wakulla Check Two pieces crossmend. Stamped 10 3 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 10 4 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Probable Deptford Simple Stamped 10 5 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Deptford Linear Check Stamped 10 6 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Weeden Island

FS Lot Unit Level Object_Name Utilized Type_Name Comments

10 7 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Two largest pieces crossmend. 10 8 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped One sherd possible rim. 10 9 1 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 10 10 1 5 Core Fragment FALSE 10 11 1 5 Flake Tool TRUE 10 12 1 5 Flake FALSE Incomplete and fragments 10 13 1 5 Shatter FALSE 10 14 1 5 Caliche FALSE 10 15 1 5 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag. 11 1 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 11 2 1 6 Fired Clay FALSE Possible fiber-tempered vessel fragment 11 3 1 6 Fired Clay FALSE 11 4 1 6 Mammalia FALSE 11 5 1 6 Sternotherous FALSE 11 6 1 6 Testudines FALSE One piece burned 11 7 1 6 Micropterus FALSE 11 8 1 6 Ictaluridae FALSE 11 9 1 6 Osteithchyes FALSE 11 10 1 6 Vertebrata FALSE 11 11 1 6 Flake FALSE Incomplete and fragments 11 12 1 6 Shatter FALSE 11 13 1 6 Caliche FALSE 11 14 1 6 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag. 11 15 1 6 Sample FALSE Quantity is one bag. 12 1 1 6 Vessel Fragment FALSE Wakulla Check Stamped 13 11 1 7 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag. 13 12 1 7 Sample FALSE Quantity is one bag. 14 1 1 7 Vessel Fragment FALSE Wakulla Check Stamped 14 2 1 7 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped May be associated with FS 14.3 14 3 1 7 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped May be associated with FS 14.2 14 4 1 7 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible curvilinear stamp. 14 5 1 7 Flake FALSE Incomplete. 14 6 1 7 Shatter FALSE 14 7 1 7 Vitis spp. FALSE 14 8 1 7 Plantae FALSE 14 9 1 7 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag. 15 1 1 8 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible check stamped. 15 2 1 8 Fired Clay FALSE Probable vessel fragments. 15 3 1 8 Flake FALSE Incomplete. 15 4 1 8 Shatter FALSE 15 5 1 8 Vertebrata FALSE

FS Lot Unit Level Object_Name Utilized Type_Name Comments 15 6 1 8 Bivalvia FALSE Example of bivalves. 15 7 1 8 Gastropoda FALSE Possible marine gastropod. 15 8 1 8 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag.

APPENDIX C Artifacts from E.U. 2, 8Je182

FS Lot Unit Level Object_Name Utilized Type_Name Comments 19 1 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Norwood 19 2 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Two pieces crossmend. 19 3 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Some tempered with coarse sand. 19 4 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Swift Creek 19 5 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Carrabelle Punctated 19 6 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Wakulla Check Stamped 19 7 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 19 8 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 19 9 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Coarse sand tempering. 19 10 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 19 11 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped May be Chattahoochee Brushed 19 12 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped May be cord marked. 19 13 2 1 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 19 14 2 1 Flake TRUE 19 15 2 1 Flake FALSE 33 cortical flakes, 50 noncortical. Incomplete and fragments. 19 16 2 1 Shatter FALSE 19 17 2 1 Stone, Unmodified FALSE 19 18 2 1 Concretion FALSE 19 19 2 1 Bone Pin TRUE Pieces crossmend. Bone pin fragment 19 20 2 1 Vertebrata FALSE Pieces crossmend. Bone discolored, fire? Copper salts absorbsion? 19 21 2 1 Dinocardium FALSE Atlantic cockle robustum 19 22 2 1 Crassostrea FALSE Eastern oyster virginica 19 23 2 1 Mollusca FALSE Quantity is one bag. 19 24 2 1 Metal Fragments FALSE One piece has been melted. 19 25 2 1 Charcoal FALSE Quantity is one bag. 19 26 2 1 Sample FALSE Quantity is one bag. 20 1 2 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Norwood Simple Stamped

20 2 2 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Norwood One sherd is probably Plain. 20 3 2 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Simple One sherd, paddle cracks evident. Stamped 20 4 2 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Check Stamped 20 5 2 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Swift Creek 20 6 2 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Carrabelle Two pieces crossmend. Punctated

FS Lot Unit Level Object_Name Utilized Type_Name Comments 20 7 2 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Wakulla Check Three pieces crossmend. Nice example of Stamped rim form. 20 8 2 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 20 9 2 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 20 10 2 2 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 20 11 2 2 Projectile Point TRUE Corner Notched PPK fragment. 20 12 2 2 Biface TRUE Biface fragment. Medial portion. Cortical.

20 13 2 2 Flake FALSE Incomplete and fragments. 20 14 2 2 Biface TRUE Probable cores, bifacially worked. 20 16 2 2 Shatter FALSE Shatter and debitage. 20 15 2 2 Stone FALSE Possible abrader. Smoothed. 20 17 2 2 Stone, Unmodified FALSE 20 18 2 2 Caliche FALSE 21 1 2 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Norwood 21 2 2 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Simple Stamped 21 3 2 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Linear Check Stamped 21 4 2 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Possible Deptford Check Stamped. 21 5 2 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped Residue/Sooting present on sherd. 21 6 2 3 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 21 7 2 3 Flake Tool TRUE Possible perforator. 21 8 2 3 Flake FALSE Incomplete and fragments. 21 9 2 3 Core TRUE Fragments. Two pieces thermally altered.

21 10 2 3 Shatter FALSE 21 11 2 3 Flake Tool TRUE 21 12 2 3 Caliche FALSE 21 13 2 3 Crassostrea FALSE virginica 21 14 2 3 Dinocardium FALSE Pieces crossmend. Atlantic cockle. robustum 21 15 2 3 Euglandia FALSE 21 16 2 3 Bivalvia FALSE Pieces crossmend. 21 17 2 3 Gastropoda FALSE Quantity is one bag. 21 18 2 3 Mollusca FALSE 21 19 2 3 Sample FALSE Quantity is one bag. Crassostrea with matrix. 21 20 2 3 Bone Pin TRUE 21 21 2 3 Odocoileus FALSE Tine fragment. virginianus 22 1 2 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Simple Stamped

22 2 2 4 Vessel Fragment FALSE Untyped 22 3 2 4 Flake FALSE 22 4 2 4 Core FALSE Caliche encrusted.

FS Lot Unit Level Object_Name Utilized Type_Name Comments 22 5 2 4 Caliche FALSE 23 1 2 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Deptford Simple Stamped

23 2 2 5 Vessel Fragment FALSE Wakulla Check Stamped 23 3 2 5 Flake FALSE 23 4 2 5 Caliche FALSE 23 6 2 5 Gastropoda FALSE 23 7 2 5 Charcoal FALSE Caliche encrusted. Pieces crossmend.

APPENDIX D Faunal Analysis Forms for 8Je182

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 1

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Odocoileus White tail deer 1 100.00 47.2 100.00 844.3992 100.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 1 100.00 virginianus All Mammals 1 100.00 47.2 100.00 844.3992 100.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 1 100.00 Totals 1 47.2 844.3992 0 1 1

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 2

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 1 12.50 1.5 21.43 37.8863 25.85 1 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 1 12.50 1.1 15.71 28.6585 19.55 0.00 1 25.00 All Mammals 2 25 2.6 37.14 66.5448 45.40 1 100.00 0 0.00 1 25.00

Alligator mississipiensis American alligator 1 12.50 2.0 28.57 32.2045 21.97 0.00 0.00 1 25.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 2 25.00 1.2 17.14 35.7315 24.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 1 12.50 0.2 2.86 10.7570 7.34 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 All turtles 3 37.50 1.4 20.00 46.4885 31.71 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00

Serpentes Unidentified snakes 1 12.50 0.1 1.43 1.3490 0.92 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 All snakes 1 12.50 0.1 1.43 1.3490 0.92 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 1 12.50 0.9 12.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 8 7.0 146.5868 1 0 4

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 3

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 1 12.50 1.5 21.43 37.8863 25.85 1 100.0 0 0.00 0.00 0 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 1 12.50 1.1 15.71 28.6585 19.55 0.00 1 25.00 All Mammals 2 25 2.6 37.14 66.5448 45.40 1 100.0 0 0.00 1 25.00 0

Alligator mississipiensis American alligator 1 12.50 2.0 28.57 32.2045 21.97 0.00 0.00 1 25.00

Serpentes Unidentified snakes 1 12.50 0.1 1.43 1.3490 0.92 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 All snakes 1 12.50 0.1 1.43 1.3490 0.92 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 1 12.50 0.9 12.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 8 7.0 146.5868 1 0 4

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 4

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 16 37.21 35.0 29.12 645.1508 30.02 3 100.00 0.00 0.00 Mammalia Unidentified mammal 10 23.26 3.6 3.00 83.3052 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 6 13.95 76.8 63.89 1308.6548 60.90 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 All Mammals 32 74.42 115.4 96.01 2037.1108 94.80 3 100.00 0 0.00 1 25.00

Aves Unidentified birds 24.65 0.7 0.58 14.7584 0.69 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 All Birds 2 4.65 0.7 0.58 14.7584 0.69 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 7 16.28 3.1 2.58 67.4858 3.14 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 All turtles 7 16.28 3.1 2.58 67.4858 3.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 2 4.65 1.0 0.83 29.5121 1.37 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 All bony fishes 2 4.65 1.0 0.83 29.5121 1.37 0 0.00 0.00 1 25.00

Unidentified All Unidentified 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vertebrate Fragments Totals 43 120.2 2148.8671 3 0 4

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 5

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia Unidentified mammal 1 7.69 0.3 28.85 8.9004 49.90 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 All Mammals 1 7.692 0.3 28.85 8.9004 49.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 1 7.69 0.1 9.62 6.7608 37.90 0.00 0.00 1 33.33 All turtles 1 7.69 0.1 9.62 6.7608 37.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 1 7.69 0.04 3.85 2.1760 12.20 0.00 0.00 1 33.33 All bony fishes 1 7.69 0.0 3.85 2.1760 12.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 10 76.92 0.6 57.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 13 1.0 17.8372 0 0 3

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 6

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 4 7.55 4.0 13.75 91.5913 26.68 1 100.00 Mammalia, Small Probably squirrel -sized 1 1.89 0.1 0.34 3.3113 0.96 0.00 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 1 1.89 0.2 0.69 6.1791 1.80 0.00 1 Procyon lotor Raccoon 1 1.89 0.8 2.75 21.5170 6.27 0.00 1 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 1 1.89 1.2 4.12 30.9930 9.03 0.00 1 33.33 All Mammals 8 15.09 6.3 21.65 153.5916 44.74 1 100.00 0 3

Aves Unidentified birds 11.89 0.5 1.72 10.8658 3.17 0.00 1 33.33 All Birds 1 1.89 0.5 1.72 10.8658 3.17 0 0.00 0 1

Testudines Unidentified turtles 13 24.53 5.7 19.59 101.4930 29.56 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 8 15.09 3.8 13.06 77.3491 22.53 0.00 1 33.33 All turtles 21 39.62 9.5 32.65 178.8421 52.10 0 0.00 0 1

Unidentified All Unidentified 23 43.40 12.8 43.99 0.00 0.00 Vertebrate Fragments Totals 53 29.1 343.2995 1 0 5

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 7

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Testudines Unidentified turtles 1 14.29 0.05 3.45 4.2492 14.58 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 2 28.57 0.7 48.28 24.9009 85.42 0 0.00 0.00 1 100.00 All turtles 3 42.86 0.75 51.72 29.1501 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 4 57.14 0.7 48.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 7 1.5 29.1501 0 0 1

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 8

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 4 7.41 3.5 11.67 81.2197 19.32 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 2 3.70 5.1 17.00 113.9759 27.11 1 20.00 All Mammals 6 11.11 8.6 28.67 195.1956 46.43 0 0 1 20.00

Aves Unidentified birds 1 1.85 0.6 2.00 12.8268 3.05 1 20.00 All Birds 1 1.85 0.6 2.00 12.8268 3.05 0 0 1 20.00

Alligator mississipiensis American alligator 2 3.70 2.1 7.00 33.6337 8.00 0 1 20.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 19 35.19 6.8 22.67 114.2302 27.17 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 9 16.67 2.9 9.67 64.5367 15.35 2 40.00 All turtles 28 51.85 9.7 32.33 178.7669 42.52 0 0 2 40.00

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 17 31.48 9.0 30.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 54 30.0 420.4230 0 0 5

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 9

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI %

Testudines Unidentified turtles 3 23.08 0.3 25.86 14.1147 82.37 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 All turtles 3 23.08 0.3 25.86 14.1147 82.37 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 50.00

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 2 15.38 0.06 5.17 3.0221 17.63 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 All bony fishes 2 15.38 0.1 5.17 3.0221 17.63 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 50.00

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 8 61.54 0.8 68.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 13 1.2 17.1367 0 0 2

100

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 10

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 5 5.88 4.8 7.62 107.9238 10.02 1 100.0 1 50.00 0.00 0 Didelphis virginiana Eastern opossum 1 1.18 0.5 0.79 14.0953 1.31 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 Artiodactyla Probably deer 1 1.18 2.8 4.44 66.4419 6.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 7 8.24 26.9 42.70 509.0695 47.27 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 All Mammals 14 16.47 35.0 55.56 697.5304 64.77 1 100.0 1 50.00 2 25.00 0

Aves Unidentified birds 3 3.53 0.7 1.11 14.7584 1.37 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Phalacrocorax carbo Great cormorant 1 1.18 0.5 0.79 10.8658 1.01 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 All Birds 4 4.71 1.2 1.90 25.6242 2.38 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50

Testudines Unidentified turtles 12 14.12 7.7 12.22 124.1506 11.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 24 28.24 8.9 14.13 136.8016 12.70 0.00 0.00 2 25.00 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 1 1.18 0.3 0.48 14.1147 1.31 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 All turtles 37 43.53 16.9 26.83 275.0669 25.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 37.50

Amphiuma means Hellbender 3 3.53 1.0 1.59 13.8038 1.28 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 All Amphibians 3 3.53 1.0 1.59 13.8038 1.28 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 2 2.35 1.8 2.86 47.5084 4.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 Micropterus sp. Freshwater bass 2 2.35 1.0 1.59 17.3780 1.61 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 All bony fishes 4 4.71 2.8 4.44 64.8864 6.03 0 0.00 0.00 1 12.50

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 23 27.06 6.1 9.68 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 85 63.0 1076.9119 1 2 8

101

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 11

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia Unidentified mammal 1 1.54 0.06 0.86 2.0909 2.16 0 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 All Mammals 1 1.538 0.06 0.86 2.0909 2.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 6 9.23 1.0 14.37 31.6228 32.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sternotherus odoratus Musk turtle 4 6.15 1.5 21.55 41.4936 42.78 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 All turtles 10 15.38 2.5 35.92 73.1164 75.39 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 15 23.08 0.3 4.31 11.1293 11.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ictaluridae Freshwater catfishes 2 3.08 0.2 2.87 4.3249 4.46 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 Micropterus sp. Freshwater bass 1 1.54 0.3 4.31 6.3209 6.52 0.00 0.00 1 25.00 All bony fishes 18 27.69 0.8 11.49 21.7752 22.45 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 50.00

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 36 55.38 3.6 51.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 65 7.0 96.9825 0 0 4

102

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 12

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 3 7.89 4.7 11.19 105.8981 13.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 2 5.26 21.3 50.71 412.6118 54.42 0.00 0.00 1 20.00 All Mammals 5 13.16 26 61.90 518.5099 68.39 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 20.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 16 42.11 6.9 16.43 115.3530 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 3 7.89 1.1 2.62 33.7080 4.45 0.00 0.00 1 20.00 Sternotherus odoratus Musk turtle 1 2.63 0.1 0.24 6.7608 0.89 0.00 0.00 1 20.00 Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 1 2.63 0.3 0.71 14.1147 1.86 0.00 0.00 1 20.00 All turtles 21 55.26 8.4 20.00 169.9365 22.42 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 60.00

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 10 26.32 2.4 5.71 59.9751 7.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 Micropterus sp. Freshwater bass 1 2.63 0.5 1.19 9.7081 1.28 0.00 0.00 1 20.00 All bony fishes 11 28.95 2.9 6.90 69.6832 9.19 0 0.00 0.00 1 20.00

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 1 2.63 4.7 11.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 38 42.0 758.1296 0 0 5

103

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 13

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia Unidentified mammal 5 1.52 7.4 49.20 159.3340 71.53 0.00 0.00 1 33.33 All Mammals 5 1.52 7.4 49.20 159.3340 71.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 142 43.16 2.3 15.29 57.9428 26.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ictaluridae Freshwater catfishes 5 1.52 0.2 1.33 4.3249 1.94 0.00 0.00 1 33.33 Lepomis microlophus Red-ear sunfish 1 0.30 0.04 0.27 1.1634 0.52 0.00 0.00 1 33.33 All bony fishes 148 44.98 2.5 16.89 63.4311 28.47 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 66.67

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 176 53.50 5.1 33.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 329 15.0 222.7652 0 0 3

104

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 14

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 1 3.13 10.5 54.69 218.3084 53.50 0.00 0.00 1 14.29 Sylvilagus spp. Rabbits 1 3.13 0.8 4.17 21.5170 5.27 0.00 0.00 1 14.29 All Mammals 2 6.25 11.3 58.85 239.8253 58.78 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 28.57

Aves Unidentified birds 1 3.13 0.5 2.60 10.8658 2.66 0.00 0.00 1 14.29 All Birds 1 3.13 0.5 2.60 10.8658 2.66 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 14.29

Testudines Unidentified turtles 10 31.25 2.6 13.54 59.9835 14.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chelydra serpentina Alligator snapping turtle 1 3.13 0.7 3.65 24.9009 6.10 0.00 0.00 1 14.29 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 4 12.50 2.1 10.94 51.9861 12.74 0.00 0.00 1 14.29 All turtles 15 46.88 5.4 28.13 136.8705 33.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 28.57

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 1 3.13 0.1 0.52 4.5709 1.12 0.00 0.00 1 14.29 Micropterus sp. Freshwater bass 1 3.13 0.9 4.69 15.9061 3.90 0.00 0.00 1 14.29 All bony fishes 2 6.25 1.0 5.21 20.4770 5.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 28.57

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 12 37.50 1.0 5.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 32 19.2 408.0387 0 0 7

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 15

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 4 100.0 0.2 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 100.00 Fragments 0 Totals 4 0.2 0.0000 0 0 1

105

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 16

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 1 50.00 0.4 80.00 17.1151 100.00 0.00 0.00 1 100.00 All turtles 1 50.00 0.4 80.00 17.1151 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100.00

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 1 50.00 0.1 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 2 0.5 17.1151 0 0 1

106

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 19

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 16 6.30 14.5 14.30 291.8981 24.13 4 44.44 0.00 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 8 3.15 23.5 23.18 450.7763 37.27 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50 All Mammals 24 9.449 38 37.48 742.6744 61.40 4 44.44 0 0.00 1 12.50

Aves Unidentified birds 2 0.79 0.7 0.69 14.7584 1.22 0 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 All Birds 2 0.79 0.7 0.69 14.7584 1.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50

Alligator mississipiensis American alligator 2 0.79 1.1 1.08 18.9164 1.56 0.00 0.00 1 12.50

Testudines Unidentified turtles 64 25.20 23.7 23.37 263.6826 21.80 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 5 1.97 1.1 1.08 33.7080 2.79 0 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 Sternotherus odoratus Musk turtle 1 0.39 0.9 0.89 29.4674 2.44 0 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 Trachemys spp. Pond sliders 2 0.79 1.0 0.99 31.6228 2.61 0 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 All turtles 72 28.35 26.7 26.33 358.4808 29.64 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 37.50

Serpentes Unidentified snakes 3 1.18 0.8 0.79 11.0185 0.91 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 All snakes 3 1.18 0.8 11.0185 0.91 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 9 3.54 1.9 1.87 49.6353 4.10 2 22.22 0.00 0.00 Lepisosteus spp. Gar 2 0.79 0.4 0.39 14.0497 1.16 0 0.00 0.00 1 12.50 All bony fishes 11 4.33 2.3 2.27 63.6850 5.27 2 22.22 0.00 1 12.50

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 140 55.12 31.8 31.36 0.00 3 33.33 2 1.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 254 101.4 1209.5335 9 2 8

107

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 20

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 5 16.67 6.4 9.98 139.8176 12.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 Odocoileus virginianus White tail deer 3 10.00 39.0 60.84 711.1450 65.61 0 0.00 0 1 16.67 All Mammals 8 26.67 45.4 70.83 850.9626 78.51 0 0.00 0 1 16.67

Alligator mississipiensis American alligator 1 3.33 0.8 1.25 14.2479 1.31 0.00 0 1 16.67

Testudines Unidentified turtles 4 13.33 3.8 5.93 77.3491 7.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Kinosternidae Mud and musk turtles 4 13.33 1.2 1.87 35.7315 3.30 0 0.00 0 1 16.67 Trachemys spp. Pond sliders 1 3.33 0.9 1.40 29.4674 2.72 0 0.00 0 1 16.67 All turtles 9 30.00 5.9 9.20 142.5480 13.15 0 0.00 0 2 33.33

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 1 3.33 2.2 3.43 55.8936 5.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 Micropterus sp. Freshwater bass 2 6.67 1.2 1.87 20.2541 1.87 0 0.00 0 1 16.67 Sciaenops ocellatus Redfish 1 11.11 2.2 25.58 69.7257 6.43 0 0.00 0 1 16.67 All bony fishes 3 10.00 3.4 5.30 76.1477 7.03 0 0.00 0 2 33.33

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 9 30.00 8.6 13.42 0.0000 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Fragments Totals 30 64.1 1083.9062 0 0 6

108

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 21

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 4 25.00 5.1 24.29 113.9759 34.98 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33 All Mammals 4 25 5.1 24.29 113.9759 34.98 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33

Testudines Unidentified turtles 7 43.75 13.4 63.81 179.9535 55.23 0.00 0.00 1 33.33 All turtles 7 43.75 13.4 63.81 179.9535 55.23 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33

Osteichthyes All Bony Fish fragments 1 6.25 1.1 5.24 31.8807 9.79 0.00 0.00 1 33.33 All bony fishes 1 6.25 1.1 5.24 31.8807 9.79 0 0.00 0.00 1 33.33

Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 4 25.00 1.4 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 16 21.0 325.8101 100.0 003 %

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 22

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 4 100.0 2.7 100.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Fragments 0 Totals 4 2.7 0.0000 0 0 0

109

Faunal Analysis of 8Je182, Unit 1, FS 23

Scientific Name Taxonomic Name NISP % Weight % Biomass % Burnt % Worked % MNI % Mammalia, Large Probably deer and bear 1 33.33 0.8 47.06 21.5170 44.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 50.00 All Mammals 1 33.33 0.8 47.06 21.5170 44.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 50.00

Testudines Unidentified turtles 1 33.33 0.8 47.06 27.2314 55.86 0 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 All turtles 1 33.33 0.8 47.06 27.2314 55.86 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 50.00 Unidentified Vertebrate All Unidentified 1 33.33 0.1 5.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fragments Totals 3 1.7 48.7484 0 0 2

110

APPENDIX E Profile drawings for Excavation Unit 1, 8Je182

Profile Drawing, South wall, Excavation Unit 1, 8Je182 (Drawing from field notes, by M. Memory).

111

Profile Drawing, West wall, Excavation Unit 1, 8Je182 (Drawing from field notes, by M. Memory).

112

Profile Drawing, East wall, Excavation Unit 1, 8Je182 (Drawing from field notes, by M. Memory).

113

Profile Drawing, North wall, Excavation Unit 1, 8Je182 (Drawing from field notes, by M. Memory).

114

APPENDIX F

Topographic Mapping Points

115

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrahamson, Warren G., and David C. Hartnett 1990 Pine Flatwoods and Dry Prairies. Ecosystems in Florida, edited by Ronald J. Myers and John Ewel, pp. 103–149. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Adair, James 1930 [1775] History of the American Indians, Particularly Those Nations Adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia, edited by Samuel Cole Williams, LL.D. Watauga Press, Johnson City, TN.

Allen, Glenn T., Jr. 1953 A Stratigraphic Investigation of the Hall Site, Wakulla County, Florida. Notes In Anthropology 1(2). Florida State University, Tallahassee. 1954 Archaeological Investigations in the Northwest Gulf Coast of Florida. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Anderson, David G. 1996 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 157–176. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson 1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53(2):262–286.

Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O’Steen, and Kenneth E. Sassaman 1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman pp.3– 15. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

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

Bense, Judith A. 1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War I. Academic Press, New York.

116

Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217–225. 1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43(3):330–361. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4–20.

Brose, David S. 1984 Mississippian Period Cultures in Northwestern Florida. In Perspectives in Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by Dave D. Davis, pp. 165–197. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 1993 Changing Paradigms in the Explanation of Southeastern Prehistory. In The Development of Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Jay K. Johnson, pp. 1–17. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Brose, David S., and Nancy Marie White (editors) 1999 The Northwest Florida Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Carter, Brinnen Stiles 2003 Page/Ladson (8Je591): Excavation of an Early Holocene Occupation Site in the Aucilla River, Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Cambron, James W. and David C Hulse 1975 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part 1Point Types, edited by David L. DeJarnette (Revised Edition). Archaeological Research Association of Alabama.

Chang, Kwang-Chih 1968 Toward a Science of Prehistoric Society. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K. C. Chang, pp.1–9. National Press Books, Palo Alto, California.

Coultas, C. L., Michael Russo, and Hank Kratt 2005 Shell Middens and Petrocalcic Horizons in the Southeastern USA. Soil Survey Horizons 46(2):68–76.

Daniel, I. Randolph 1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

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

117

Dunbar, James S. 1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmire, pp. 185–213. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Dunbar, James S., and S. David Webb 1996 Bone and Ivory Tools from Submerged Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 331–353. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Ewel, Katherine C. 1990 Swamps. In Ecosystems in Florida, edited by Ronald J. Myers and John Ewel, pp. 281–323. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.

Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1924 Preliminary Archaeological Explorations at Weeden Island, Florida. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Volume 76, No.13. Washington, D.C.

Ford, James A. and James B. Griffin 1999 [1938] Report of the Conference on Southeastern Pottery Typology. Reprinted in Measuring the Flow of Time: The Works of James A. Ford, 1935–1941, edited by Michael J. O’Brien and R. Lee Lyman, pp.435–449. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Flannery, Kent V. 1971 Archeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In Anthropological Archeology in the Americas, edited by Betty J. Meggers, pp. 67–87. The Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C.

Ford, J. A., and Gordon R. Willey 1999 [1941] An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. Reprinted in Measuring the Flow of Time: The Works of James A. Ford, 1935– 1941, edited by Michael J. O’Brien and R. Lee Lyman, pp.531–567. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Gilbert, B. Miles 1990 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.

Gilbert, B. Miles, Larry D. Martin and Howard G. Savage 1996 Avian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.

Griffin, James B. 1952 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archeology. In Archeology of the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 352–364. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

118

Griffin, James B., and William H. Sears 1950 Certain Sand-tempered Pottery Types of the Southeast. Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United States. University of Michigan

Hale, H. Stephen and Rochelle A. Marrinan 1987 Matanzsas Spreadsheet. Modified Microsoft® Excel ’97 spreadsheet

Hann, John H. 1988 Apalachee: Land Between the Rivers. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

Hemmings, C. Andrew 1996 Sloth Hole Site Excavations. Aucilla River Times 9(1):7 1997 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic tools of Sloth Hole (8JE121): An Inundated Site in the Lower Aucilla River, Jefferson County, Florida. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Holder, Preston 1938 Excavations on St. Simons Island and Vicinity. Proceedings of the Society for Georgia Archaeology 1(1).

Hudson, Charles 1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Jones, B. Calvin 1988 Survey of Two Large Weeden Island Sites on Calico Hill in Jefferson County, Florida. Ms. on file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1996a March 20th, 1996 Survey of Pothunted Sites Along the Wacissa River in Jefferson County, Florida. Ms. on file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1996b 1996 Doublewide Survey on the Upper Wacissa River, Jefferson County, Florida. Ms. on file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Jones, B. Calvin, Daniel T. Penton, and Louis D. Tesar 1998 1973 and 1994 Excavations at the Block-Sterns Site, Leon County, Florida. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 222–246. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Jones, Charles C. 1999 [1873] Antiquities of the Southern Indians, Particularly of the Georgia Tribes, edited by Frank T. Schnell, Jr. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

119

Justice, Noel D. 1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Kohler, Timothy A. 1975 The Garden Patch Site: A Minor Weeden Island Ceremonial Center on the North Peninsular Florida Gulf Coast. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Kratt, Henry J., Jr. 2001 Analysis of Faunal Remains from Test Unit 1, at the Lewis Slough Mound (8Je182). Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Kimbrough, Rhonda Majors 1990 Norwood Period Sites in the Apalachicola National Forest, Florida: A Predictive Model. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Kimbrough, Rhonda L. 1999 A Norwood Simple Stamped Vessel from the Apalachicola National Forest, Florida. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Ft. Walton Beach, April 24, 1999.

Lamme, Vernon 1973 Florida Lore Not Found In The History Books. Star Publishing Co., Inc, Boynton Beach. 1978 More Florida Lore Not Found In History Books. Star Publishing Co., Inc, Boynton Beach.

Marsh, Alan 1998 Swift Creek Site Excavations: The Works Progress Administration and Black Labor. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott, pp. 12–18. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

McKern, W. C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture. American Antiquity 4(4):301–313.

Meltzer, David J., and Bruce D. Smith 1986 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. Foraging, Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Sarah W. Neusius, pp. 3–31. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No.6. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

120

Memory, Melissa, William Stanton, Jonathan Lammers, and James Dunbar 1998 A Progress Report On The Wacissa River Survey, Aucilla Wildlife Management Area, Jefferson County, Florida. CARL Archaeological Survey. Ms. on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Memory, Melissa, William Stanton and Jonathan Lammers 1999a More Than We Ever Would Have Thought: The CARL Survey of the Wacissa River, Jefferson County, Florida. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Ft. Walton Beach, April 24, 1999. 1999b More than Megafauna- Post Paleoindian settlement in the Wacissa/Aucilla Drainage. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Pensacola, November 11, 1999.

Memory, Melissa, Jonathan Lammers, and William Stanton 2000 A Second Progress report (1998-1999) on The Wacissa River Survey, Including Historical Notes, Aucilla Wildlife Management Area, Jefferson County, Florida. CARL Archaeological Survey. Ms. on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1971 The Deptford Phase: An Archeological Reconstruction. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1973 The Southeastern Deptford Culture. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Bulletin Number 3. Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2002 Weeden Island Cultures. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 352–372. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon J. Knight, Jr., Timothy A. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler Lavelle. 1997[1984] Archaeology of Northern Florida, A.D. 200–900: The McKeithen Weeden Island Culture: University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

Moore, Clarence Bloomfield 1901 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Volume 12, Part 1. Philadelphia.

121

Moore, Clarence Bloomfield 1902 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Volume 12, Part 2. Philadelphia. 1913 The Northwest Florida Coast Revisited. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Volume 14. Philadelphia.

Morrell, L. Ross 1960 Oakland Mound (Je 53), Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 13(4):101–108.

Muniz, Mark 1997 Little River Site Updates. Aucilla River Times 10(1):12,17,20.

O’Brien, Michael J. and R. Lee Lyman (editors) 1999 Measuring the Flow of Time: The Works of James A. Ford, 1935–1941. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Palmer, Jay, and J. Raymond Williams 1977 The Formation of Goethite and Calcareous Lenses in Shell Middens in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 30(1):24–27.

Peres, Tanya Michelle 1997 Analysis of a Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Faunal Assemblage From the Page/Ladson Site (8JE591), Jefferson County, Florida. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Phelps, David Sutton th 1965 The Norwood Series of Fiber-Tempered Ceramics. Proceedings of the 20P P Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin No. 2:65–69. 1966 Early and Late Components of the Tucker Site. The Florida Anthropologist 19(1):11–27. 1967 Report of Archaeological Investigations in the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, Florida, 1966. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University. 1970 Report of Archaeological Investigations in the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, Florida, Annual Report, 1969. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. 1993 Zooarchaeology. In The Development of Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Jay K. Johnson, pp. 109–131. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

122

Rouse, Irving 1951 A Survey of Indian River Archeology, Florida. Yale University Pubications in Anthropology, No. 44., New Haven. 1968 Prehistory, Typology, and the Study of Society. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K. C. Chang, pp.10–30. National Press Books, Palo Alto, California.

Russo, Michael 1996a Southeastern Mid-Holocene Coastal Settlements. Archaeology of the Mid- Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 177–199. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1996b Southeastern Archaic Mounds. Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 259–287. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Russo, Michael and Gregory Heide 2002 The Joseph Reed Shell Ring. The Florida Anthropologist 55(2):67–88.

Russo, Michael, G. Heide, and V. Rolland 2002 The Guana Shell Ring, Northeast Florida Anthropological Society. Submitted to the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Historic Preservation Grant No. F0126.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sears, William H. 1956 Excavations at Kolomoki: Final Report. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1963 The Tucker Site on Alligator Harbor, Franklin County, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences, No. 9. Gainesville. 1968 The State and Settlement Patterns in the New World. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K. C. Chang, pp.134–153. National Press Books, Palo Alto, California.

Shaffer, Brian S., and Julia L. J. Sanchez 1994 Comparison of 1/8” and ¼”-Mesh Recovery of Controlled Samples of Small- to-Medium-Sized Mammals, American Antiquity 59(3):525–530.

Simpson, James Clarence, and H. H. Simpson, Sr. ca. 1933 Notes on the Mounds of the Wacissa River Region from Exploration Made Between March 5 and March 12, 1933. Ms. on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

123

Smith, Richard L. 1968 Test Excavations at the Lock Site (8JE57), Jefferson County, Florida. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

State of Florida 1999 Conservation and Recreation Lands 1999 Report. Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee.

Stephenson, Keith, Judith A. Bense, and Frankie Snow 2002 Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek of the South Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 318–351. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Swanton, John R. 1979 [1946] The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of Ameircan Ethnology, Bulletin 137. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Tesar, Louis D. 1994 Johnson Sand Pit (LE73): An Analysis and Review of a Paleoindian Through Early Deptford Base Camp in Leon County, Florida. Florida Archaeological Reports Number 32. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Thompson, Fred G. 1984 Freshwater Snails of Florida: A Manual for Identification. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1968 The Determinants of Settlement Patterns. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K. C. Chang, pp.53–78. National Press Books, Palo Alto, California.

Waring, Antonio J., Jr, 1977 [1940] The Bilbo Site- Chatham County, Georgia. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 152– 197. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Waring, Antonio J., Jr. and Preston Holder 1977 [1940] The Deptford Ceramic Complex. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 135–151. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Webb, S. David 1999 A View From the Bridge. Aucilla River Times 12(1):3.

124

Webb, S. David, Jerald T. Milanich, Roger Alexon, and James S. Dunbar 1984 A Bison antiquus Kill Site, Wacissa River, Jefferson County, Florida. American Antiquity 49(2):384–392.

Whatley, John S. 2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. Early Georgia 30 (1).

Wheeler, Ryan J., James J. Miller, Ray M. McGee, Donna Ruhl, Brenda Swann, and Melissa Memory. 2003 Archaic Period Canoes from Newnans Lake, Florida. American Antiquity (63)3:533–551.

White, Nancy Marie 2003 Late Archaic in the Apalachicola/Lower Chattahoochee Valley, Northwest Florida, Southwest Georgia, and Southeast Alabama. The Florida Anthropologist 56 (2):69–90.

Willey, Gordon R. 1945 The Weeden Island Culture: A Preliminary Definition. American Antiquity 10 (3):225–254. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 155. Washington, D.C. 1998 [1949] Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol.113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 2001 [1958] Method and Theory in American Archaeology, edited by R. Lee Lyman and Michael J. O’Brien. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1993 A History of American Archaeology. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Willey, Gordon R., and R.B. Woodbury 1942 A Chronological Outline For the Northwest Florida Coast. American Antiquity 7 (3):232–254.

Williams, Mark, and Victor Thompson 1999 A Guide to Georgia Indian Pottery Types. Early Georgia 27 (1).

Williams, Stephen (editor) 1977 The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr. Harvard University, Cambridge.

125

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Henry J. Kratt, Jr. has always had a deep interest in anthropology and particularly, archaeology. He currently resides in Tallahassee, Florida where he has been involved with public archaeology and cultural resource protection issues.

126