text:
|UFDC Home | Florida History & Heritage | Florida Anthropologist
|| Help
Material Information
Record Information
|Table of Contents
Front Cover
Front Cover
Front Matter
Front Matter
Table of Contents
Page 1
Page 2
From the editor
Page 3
Page 4
Examining Orange Period vessel forming methods through experiment and radiography: Implications for chronology, technology, and function
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
A preliminary report on the role of shark teeth at Fort Center (8GL13), Florida
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
What Spaniard was here? Spanish artifacts as indicators of the prominence and decline of a principal Fort Walton settlement on Fourmile Point
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
A hard chine: Archaeological investigations at Chattahoochee Landing, Florida
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
About the authors
Page 71
Page 72
Back Cover
Back Cover 1
Back Cover 2
|Full Text
Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
THE FLORDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., P.O. Box 357605, Gainesville, FL 32635.
Subscription is by membership in the Society. Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United
States of America. Membership may be initiated at any time during the year, and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall
be payable on the anniversary of the initial dues payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications distributed by the Society
during the 12 months of their membership year. Annual dues are as follows: student $15, individual $30, family $35, institutional $30,
sustaining $100 or more, patron $1000 or more, and benefactor $2500. Foreign subscriptions are an additional $25 U.S. to cover added
postage and handling costs for individual, family, or institutional membership categories. Copies of the journal will only be sent to
members with current paid dues. Please contact the Editors for information on recent back issues.
Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms, and notifications of changes of address should be sent to the
Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer or may be routed through the Editors to facilitate acknowledgment in
subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editors. Publications
for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style guide (on-line at
www.fasweb.org) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editors with specific questions. Submit four (4)
copies for use in peer review. Only one set of original graphics need be submitted. The journal is formatted using Adobe In Design. All
manuscripts must be submitted in final form on CD in Microsoft format. Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to
the mailing of the next issue. The post office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when "temporary hold" orders exist. Such
mail is returned to the Society postage due. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year.
President: Patty Flynn, P.O. Box 11052, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 33339 (email@example.com)
First Vice President: Jeffrey T. Moates, FPAN West Central Regional Center, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., NEC 16, Tampa FL 33620
Second Vice President: Theresa Schober, 1902 Florrie Court, N. Fort Myers, 33917 (email@example.com)
Corresponding Secretary: Jon Simon Suarez, 1710 NW 7th St, #304, Gainesville, FL 32609 (firstname.lastname@example.com)
Membership Secretary: Pat Balanzategui, P O Box 1434, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-1434 (firstname.lastname@example.com)
Treasurer and RegisteredAgent: Joanne Talley, P.O.Box 788, Hobe Sound, FL 33475 (firstname.lastname@example.com)
Directors at Large: Chris Hardy, 1668 Nantucket Ct., Palm Harbor 34683 (firstname.lastname@example.com); Sherry Svekis, 406 Woodland
Dr., Sarasota, FL 34234 (firstname.lastname@example.com); Tommy Abood, 3857 Indian Trail, Suite 403, Destin, FL 32541 (lost.horizon@
earthlink.net); and Jason Wenzel, Gulf Coast State College, Social Sciences, 5230 W. US Highway 98, Panama City,
FL 32401 firstname.lastname@example.com.)
Immediate Past President: Robert J. Austin, P. O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33657-2818 (email@example.com)
Newsletter Editor: David Burns, 15128 Springview St., Tampa, FL 33624 (email@example.com)
Co-Editors: Keith H. Ashley Department of Anthropology, Building 51, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL
32224-2659 (email@example.com). Vicki L. Rolland, Department of Anthropology, Building 51, University of North Florida, 1 UNF
Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659 (email@example.com)
Book Review Editor: Jeffrey T. Moates, FPAN West Central Regional Center, 4202 E. Fowler Ave NEC 116, Tampa FL 33620
Editorial Assistant: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239-5019 (firstname.lastname@example.com)
TechnicalAssistant: Michael Boyles, Center for Instruction and Research, UNF, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659
Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304
Bulk Mail: TCB Marketing, 2818 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301
Albert C. Goodyear, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (firstname.lastname@example.com)
Nancy Marie White, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100
Robert J. Austin, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (firstname.lastname@example.com)
NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial Review Board members, the review comments of others knowledgeable in a manuscript's
subject matter are solicited as part of our peer review process.
VISIT FAS ON THE WEB: www.fasweb.org
Volume 66 Numbers 1-2
March-June 2013
Cover: article figures: Orange pottery, Endonino; modified shark teeth, Keller and Thompson; site map, Mikell; and steamboat
paddle-wheel apparatus, Price et al.
Published by the
S3 Florida Anthropological Society
An Endowment to Support production of The Florida Anthropologist,
the scholarly journal published quarterly by
the Florida Anthropological Society since 1947
Donations are being accepted from individuals, corporations, and foundations.
Inquiries and gifts can be directed to:
Keith H. Ashley, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist
Archaeology Laboratory, Building 51
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
University of North Florida,
1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659
The Florida Anthropological Society is a non-profit organization under
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Contributions are tax-deductible as provided by section 170 of the code.
We begin the 2013 year with a double issue. You might
think it odd that you are receiving the March-June issue in
April. The reason for this is simple: we wanted to get the journal
in your hands before the annual meeting in early May. Hosted
by the St. Augustine Archaeological Association (SAAA), the
65h Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society
will be held May 10-11, and it marks the 500t anniversary of
Juan Ponce de Leon's landfall in Florida in 1513. This year's
theme is Ponce to The Ponce, which simultaneously recognizes
Ponce's 1513 landing as well as the setting for this year's
meeting-Henry Flagler's former Ponce de Leon Hotel (now
home to Flagler College). We encourage everyone to attend
this year's event. Inside, SAAA has provided information to
help you make your plans.
Back to the journal. This double issue contains four
articles, each of which deals with a different time period
and location in Florida. The first article, by Jon Endonino,
centers on fiber-tempered Orange pottery, which is among the
oldest ceramic wares in North America. Using the projected
shapes and sizes of actual Orange vessels recovered from
archaeological sites within the Middle St. Johns River region,
Endonino crafted a series of replica fiber-tempered bowls
that he subjected to open-pit firing. Vessels were made using
three different techniques: hand-molding, slab, and coiling.
The replica pots were then intentionally broken and sherds
representative of each forming technique were selected for
radiographic analysis (X-ray). A sample of actual Orange
sherds from sites along the Middle St. Johns River was also
X-rayed and compared to the replica samples to infer method
of manufacture. The results of this study highlight the great
potential of experimental studies in pursuit of knowledge
about the past. In this case, it shows that in the production
of Orange pottery the slab and coil techniques may have
been contemporaneous (not sequential as originally proposed
by Bullen) and linked to functional considerations. Aided
by scientific technologies and broad data sharing by many
archaeologists, research on fiber-tempered pottery has come
along way since Ripley Bullen's seminal work was published
more than 50 years ago.
Benjamin Keller and Victor Thompson's article reports on
the analysis of a small sample of modified shark teeth from Fort
Center, one of Florida's signature archaeological sites. The
authors reassess William Sears's original interpretation that
shark teeth were used mostly for ceremonial purposes at Fort
Center. Focusing largely on the results of recent (2010) limited
excavations at Fort Center, Keller and Thompson point to the
fact that shark teeth actually occur in both ritual and everyday
domestic/habitation contexts. A methodological development
motivating this new interpretation is the screen size used in the
recovery of artifacts. More recent studies employ finer mesh
size than in the past (if used at all), increasing the chances
that shark teeth will be recovered. The authors also undertook
a preliminary use-wear study that involved experimental
archaeology. Replica shark teeth tools were used to perform
a variety of tasks and establish control specimens that were
used to infer the potential use(s) of the archaeological shark
teeth recovered in 2010. In south Florida, shark teeth appear to
have been part of a specialized toolkit, although, as the authors
point out, more use wear studies involving large samples are
needed. We hope this study will inspire future research into the
use of shark teeth and the role of this raw material played in
exchange relationships within Florida and beyond.
In the third article Greg Mikell asks the question, "What
Spaniard was here?" By "here" he means Fourmile Point, a thin
peninsula that juts into Choctawhatchee Bay near Pensacola.
This landform possesses a rich archaeological record, but
Mikell is most concerned with a series of Fort Walton sites that
date to the late Mississippi period; in particular, those yielding
sixteenth-century European artifacts. The author reviews the
known early Spanish explorations along the northern Gulf
coat of Florida during the period A.D. 1519-1559, as he
attempts to determine what expedition might be responsible
for the historic artifacts within Choctawhatchee Bay. Mikell
entertains the possibility that the European items were
recovered via trade or salvaged from shipwrecks, but appears
to favor an interpretation in which the native inhabitants of
Fourmile Point had direct contact with Spaniards during the
late sixteenth century. Rapid depopulation of Choctawhatchee
Bay appears to have quickly followed these early encounters,
and the region may have been abandoned prior to 1600, later
to have been reoccupied during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries by culturally unrelated Native American groups. This
is a timely article given the theme of this year's FAS meeting.
The final article takes us to the shores of Apalachicola
River, where archaeologists with the Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Research (BAR) investigated watercraft
deposited along both sides of the river. Franklin H. Price,
Daniel P. McClarnon, and C. Rachel Katz discuss the
results of this investigation. Lowered water levels in 2010
facilitated a reconnaissance survey along the exposed edges
VOL. 66(1-2) Tiu~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH-JUNE 2013
of the navigable river channel in the vicinity of Chattahoochee
Landing. Although most of the identified boats exhibited hard-
chined, box-shaped hulls well suited for shallow waters, a
variety of other watercraft were identified. These vessels were
intentionally abandoned, a process that was apparently quite
frequent in landing locales such as Chattahoochee Landing.
Interestingly, few artifacts were recovered in association
with the abandoned vessels. The authors astutely included an
invaluable glossary that helps readers unfamiliar with ship
terminology navigate the article.
Enjoy the issue, and again we hope to see you in St.
Keith H. Ashley
Vicki L. Rolland
Jon C. Endonino
Department of Anthropology, Sociology, and Social Work, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky 40475
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Fiber-tempered pottery made by Late Archaic hunter-
gatherers in the lower southeastern United States has been the
subject of much discussion since it first drew the attention
of amateur archaeologists in the late nineteenth century
(Moore 1893; Wyman 1868, 1875). Early on chronology was
a major focus of research and speaks directly to the use and
importance of pottery in ordering time in the archaeological
record (Ford 1952:318; Gifford 1960). By and large this has
been much the case since the mid-twentieth century. However,
things are beginning to change. Today, fiber-tempered pottery
still attracts considerable interest but of a different kind
(Saunders and Hays 2004). Currently, early pottery in the
Southeast is being used to investigate social aspects of past
lifeways such as exchange (Cordell 2004; Saunders and Hays
2004; Waggoner 2005), interaction (Sassaman 2004; Saunders
2004), and ritual behavior such as feasting (Russo and Heide
2004; Saunders 2004). Recent work has also emphasized
various technological and functional aspects of fiber-tempered
pottery-making traditions (Cordell 2004; Endonino 2000a,
2000b; Sassaman 1993, 2004; Saunders 2004; Waggoner
2005). In Florida, chronology has again come to the fore as
new radiometric dates have forced a reconsideration of the
emergence and decline of Orange pottery (Russo and Heide
2004; Sassaman 2003) and its relationship to St. Johns wares
(Jenks 2006).
Fiber-tempered pottery has been thought of as being
lightweight (Skibo et al. 1989), a quality that lends itself to
portability and one that would have been well suited to the
mobile lifestyle of hunter-gatherers. However, issues of
mobility aside, the size of fiber-tempered pots in the Southeast,
some exceeding 50 cm in diameter (Sassaman 1993:144,
Figure 24), places constraints on its portability and demands
consideration of other attributes. Skibo et al. (1989:140)
suggest that fiber-tempered pottery is an "expedient ceramic
technology" because of its perceived ease of construction. Yet,
the forming techniques used to manufacture fiber-tempered
pottery have not been substantively explored, although
some attempts have been made (Endonino 2000a; Fullen
2001). Historically, research has emphasized decorative
motifs (Bullen and Bullen 1961; Mitchell 1993), chronology
(Bullen 1961, 1972; Griffin 1945; Stoltman 1966), and culture
history (Bullen 1972; Bullen and Bullen 1961; Goggin 1998).
Vessel forming techniques have received limited attention
and generally are viewed as another useful characteristic
for determining chronological placement (Bullen 1972;
Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:156; Milanich 1994:94). Only
recently have researchers addressed issues involving forming
techniques and vessel function (Endonino 2000a; Sassaman
1993, 2004; Saunders 2004).
The work presented here attempts to determine what
forming techniques were used to produce Orange fiber-
tempered wares through the application of experimental
and radiographic approaches. An experimental program
was designed and implemented with the aim of accurately
replicating Orange pottery using archaeologically-informed
models, techniques, and materials. Replicas were based on
the forms and dimensions of actual vessels recovered from
archaeological contexts in the Middle St. Johns River Valley
(MSJRV) and described in the archaeological literature
(Hemmings and Von Burger 1975; Milanich 1994; Milanich
and Fairbanks 1980). Additionally, data on Orange pottery
analyzed by the author were incorporated (Endonino 2000b).
Six pots were produced using three hypothesized forming
techniques: hand-modeled, coiled, and slab-constructed.
Two replica vessels were produced utilizing each of the three
hypothesized forming methods, one was left plain and the
other was decorated with linear/angular incised designs. These
were then broken and sherds were selected for radiographic
Radiography (X-ray) was employed to examine
the characteristics of the three forming techniques in
the production of both experimental and archaeological
specimens. The information derived from radiography of
the replicated vessels serves as a baseline for discerning the
characteristics indicative of forming methods used by Late
Archaic potters. Archaeological specimens from three sites in
the MSJRV are compared to the experimental dataset (Figure
1). The results of this experimental program call into question
the utility of using vessel forming techniques as a means of
subdividing the Orange period (see Sassaman [2003] and
Cordell [2004] for challenges based on radiometric assays and
paste characteristics, respectively). Orange-period ceramic
chronologies previously used a shift from hand-molded
vessels (Orange 1-3) to coiled (Orange 4-5) to distinguish
the earlier sub-periods from later ones. Moreover, the results
of this experiment raise questions regarding vessel function
during the Late Archaic and provide an opportunity to gain
some insight into the technological choices made by potters in
the manufacture of Orange pottery.
1. SlwrG Sprigs (8MR123) W E
2. Blhfm ddMna(MR22)
3.HmisCeek(8V024) I, ,
0 2.5 5 10
Figure 1. Archaeological sites sampled during this study.
The Orange Period Fiber-tempered Pottery Tradition
Orange pottery in Florida was observed and described
early on by Jefferies Wyman (1868, 1875:20), who noted the
mixture of "palmetto fiber" with clay in some sherds he found
along the St. Johns River. Clarence Moore (1893:606) too took
notice of fiber-tempered pottery. While it certainly is possible
that palmetto fiber (and grasses) could have been used in the
manufacture of Orange pottery, Spanish moss (Tillandsia
usneoides) is the only fiber positively identified as a tempering
agent (Simpkins and Allard 1986; White and Estabrook
1994). Occasionally some fibers will only be carbonized
rather than completely burned away, leaving charred traces of
the temper behind (White and Estabrook 1994). In samples
of pottery analyzed from Silver Glen Springs (8MR123)
and the midden at the mouth of Silver Glen Run (referred
to hereafter as 8LA1) upwards of 10 percent of all Orange
Incised sherds examined had partially carbonized fibers in
their cores (Endonino 2000b). The presence of carbonized
fibers in some sherds potentially can enable both accurate
radiometric dating and a confident identification of fibrous
tempering materials. Frequently Spanish moss tempering is
abundant, and when the moss oxidizes (entirely or partially)
during firing, it leaves a very porous vessel owing to voids
(molds) left behind. This process reduces the effectiveness of
fiber tempering for conducting and transferring heat. Sand and
freshwater sponge spicules are common aplastic inclusions in
Orange pottery and their incorporation, whether deliberate or
incidental, would have facilitated the effective transfer of heat
(Cordell 2004; Endonino 2000b; Sassaman 2004; Saunders
2004). Other technological choices available to Orange potters
to offset the higher temperatures required to effectively heat
fiber-tempered vessels will be considered later in this article.
According to established chronologies (Bullen 1961,
1972; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:156; Milanich 1994:94),
Orange pottery was manufactured beginning at or around 4000
B.P. and lasting until about 2500 B.P. at the latest. Five sub-
periods within the Orange period were recognized by Bullen
(1972; Milanich 1994), and each was based on perceived
changes in decorative motifs, paste characteristics, vessel
forms, and forming techniques through time (Table 1). His
sequence is evolutionary and unilineal with variation viewed
as the result of gradual changes through time.
The following discussion of Bullen's (1955, 1972)
sequence touches on its most salient features and is based on
his own descriptions as well as those of Milanich and Fairbanks
(1980) and Milanich (1994). During Orange 1 vessels are
exclusively plain, shallow, basins with simple, rounded lips.
In Orange 2 vessel forms are unchanged and undecorated
pottery is still frequent. Exterior surfaces are decorated for
the first time with a suite of incised linear motifs, sometimes
with punctations. One unique variant diagnostic of Orange 2
is Tick Island Incised, with its curvilinear, spiral design. By
Orange 3 vessels are larger with thicker walls. Rim forms are
still simple, both round and flat lips are common, and incised
designs are frequent. During Orange 4 quartz sand is added
to the paste, evidence for coiling appears, and incised designs
become simplified. Lastly, by Orange 5, Bullen's Transitional
period, the evolution from the Orange series to St. Johns is
underway. Quartz sand and fiber-temper appear to decline
with the chalky paste (spiculate temper) of St. Johns wares,
some with fiber-tempering, appearing late. The transition from
hand modeling to coiling as the principal method of vessel
construction is attributed to Orange 5. Incising and punctations
persist as a decorative motif from Orange 5 into St. Johns I,
but these tend to be poorly executed.
The progressive, unilineal, and evolutionary nature of
the Orange sequence is clear. While it is easy to criticize
Bullen with the benefit of hindsight and a wealth of new
data, we should not be overly critical of him for not knowing
then what we know now. Considering the available data
on paste characterization (Cordell 2004, Saunders 2004),
manufacturing techniques (Endonino 2000b), and chronology
(Sassaman 2003, 2004) for Orange pottery, a re-evaluation of
the Orange period (and the early part of St. Johns as well)
ceramic sequence is needed.
Sassaman (2003, 2004) questions the accuracy and
usefulness of the Bullen chronology. Based on a series of
AMS dates from soot on seven Orange Incised sherds from
the MSJRV selected to represent a cross-section of the various
Orange sub-periods, Sassaman (2003:9; 2004:25) concludes
that if the chronometric data obtained for these pottery types
remain valid, Orange 1 through 4 can be collapsed into a
single period, Orange 1, lasting from about 4200 to 3800 cal.
B.P. Similarly, Cordell (2004:94) has characterized the pastes
ENOIOOag Vse omn Mehd
Table 1. Bullen's Orange Period Vessel Characteristics.*
Estimated Date(s) Design Motif(s) Vessel Characteristics Manufacture Technique
2000-1650 B.C. plain Rectangular shape, flat bases, hand modeled
thin, straight walls, lugs, round lips
Orange 1
Orange 2
Orange 3
Orange 4
Similar to Orange 1
Large, straight sides, round mouths
flat bottom, rims round or flat, some
square or rectangular vessels, lugs
Straight sided, flat bottom,
incurved rims, thin walls, sand and
fiber tempering
plain, incised
punctations, Tick Island
incising (straight, slanting)
Simple incised designs
incised, pinched, punctations
hand modeled
hand modeled?
coiling begins
* Adapted from Bullen (1955, 1972), Milanich and Fairbanks (1980),
of fiber-tempered pottery from throughout Florida and concurs
with Sassaman's assessment, observing that paste variation in
Orange pottery is not reflective of diachronic changes but is, in
fact, synchronic and geographically variable. Considering the
evidence now available on chronology and paste variability, it
should not be surprising that the principal forming techniques
used to produce Orange pottery, modeling and coiling,
once thought to be linked to diachronic change are in fact,
a synchronic phenomena as well. It is the aspects of vessel
manufacturing technology, specifically forming techniques,
that will now be considered. First, however, the analytical
methods and experimental procedures used are presented.
Radiography and Ceramic Analysis
Radiography is a technique not often used by American
archaeologists, but one that has been employed by art
historians and Old World archaeologists for some time (Rice
1996). Having been applied archaeologically since the 1930s,
radiography is an inexpensive technique to investigate a
number of issues relating to ceramic manufacture (Berg 2008;
Carr 1990; Rice 1996; Rye 1977). Essentially radiography is
an "X-ray" of the sort that most people are familiar with. A
radiograph "creates a film image of those internal features
or parts of an object that differ in their composition, average
specific gravity, and/or thickness" (Carr 1990:14). Differences
in the amounts of X-rays transmitted by an object will "appear
as contrasting areas of light and dark, indicating greater
resistance to the penetration of X-rays than the surrounding
matrix of fired clay" (Braun 1982:186). If present, tempering
materials will be visible as areas of light or dark in the ceramic
matrix. In cases in which oxidized fibers or other organic
and Milanich (1994)
temper have burned out and left voids within the sherd, the
voids show up "as areas of contrasting darker exposure"
(Braun 1982:186). It is these contrasts of light and dark that
allow forming techniques to be determined, as they reveal the
orientation of tempering materials within pottery sherds and,
thereby, a means for discerning the manufacturing techniques
used to produce a vessel (Berg 2008). How temper orientation
provides insights into manufacturing fiber-tempered pots is
discussed next.
Temper Orientation
Criteria for recognizing specific forming techniques
are necessary to the study of pottery manufacture, and these
can be obtained from ethnographic, ethnoarchaeological,
and experimental approaches (Berg 2008; Foster 1985;
Rye 1977). An archaeologically-informed experimental
approach is taken in this study. A fundamental principle of
radiographic analysis of pottery is that "different forming
techniques involve different characteristic applications of
pressure to plastic clay" and that these cause "inclusions in
the clay to take up orientations that are characteristic of the
forming operations" (Rye 1977:208). What Rye (1977:208)
calls "preferred orientation" I refer to as "temper orientation"
here and throughout the rest of this study. Rye (1977:206)
notes that "organic inclusions such as fragments of leaf or
root are generally of such shape as to provide "useful data"
in determining temper orientation, depending on size (greater
than 1-2 mm). In view of this, the temper orientation of fiber-
tempered pottery wares of the southeastern U.S. are excellent
candidates for radiographic examination and are likely to yield
evidence of the forming techniques used in their manufacture.
(Orange 5)
Bowl forms, side lugs,
spiculate and sand
Orange Vessel Forming Methods
a b c
Figure 2. Idealized representations of expected fiber orientations: A, random orientation produced by hand modeling
and slab construction; B, parallel orientation produced by coiling; C, reorientation of fibers resulting from drawing and
smoothing vessel surfaces.
In addition to orientation of the fiber temper, other features of
vessel manufacture such as coil and slab junctures may also be
observed with radiography and provide yet another means of
discerning methods used in vessel production.
Temper Orientation and Manufacturing Methods
Several assumptions have been made regarding the
expected temper orientation of fibers in experimental and
archaeological specimens based partly on the findings of
previous investigators (Carr 1990; Rye 1977). The expected
temper orientation of the fibers in Orange pottery produced by
hand modeling, coiling, and slab construction are significant
to this research and must therefore be stated clearly since they
are assumed to be methods most likely to have been used by
prehistoric potters and are consequently used to replicate the
experimental vessels. The manufacturing techniques employed
and the resulting temper orientations are judged on the basis of
the overall relative orientation of the fibers. Some variation in
temper orientation will inevitably exist. Again, it is the overall
fiber orientation that is considered indicative of the method of
manufacture. A summary of the temper orientations and other
characteristics are discussed below.
Hand Modeling
Fiber-tempered vessels made by hand modeling or
the "pinch pot" method are expected to display an overall
random orientation of fibers (Figure 2a). If extensive drawing
(working the clay upward with the hands or a tool) had
occurred, or extensive smoothing was employed, then some
temper re-orientation would have taken place that is indicative
of the directions) of motion. Hand modeling could potentially
produce a somewhat vertical orientation (relative to the rim),
if drawing of the clay (and thus temper) upward from the base
occurred (Rye 1977). Smoothing will also cause some fibers
to re-orient in the directions) of motion. This will largely be
confined to the vessel surface and does not significantly affect
the orientation of temper in the interior of the vessel wall.
Vessels made with the coiling technique will display an
orientation of fibers parallel to the vessel rim as a result of
coil production and the horizontal superimposition of coils in
building the vessel (Figure 2b). The rolling and compaction
of coils will cause fibers to take up a parallel orientation.
Additionally, coiling creates parallel horizontal junctures
within the walls of the ceramic body, which, when observable
in radiographs, are clear evidence of coiling. Poorly joined
coils can result in coil breaks, and such characteristic fractures
are proof positive of this forming method. However, it is worth
noting that well joined coils may not produce these kinds
of breaks and are therefore not reliable as a sole diagnostic
criterion. Smoothing and drawing up of coiled vessel walls
can produce the same sort of fiber re-orientation on the vessel
surfaces, as discussed above for hand modeling (Figure 2c).
Slab Construction
Slab construction will produce a temper orientation
similar to that of a hand-modeled vessel (see Figure 2a) (Berg
2008: Figure 1). Overall, the temper orientation will tend
to be random. Given the similarity in the expected temper
orientations of fibers in hand-modeled and slab-constructed
vessels, it will be necessary to look for secondary, non-temper
criteria to distinguish between them. One characteristic that
might be useful in discriminating between these two methods is
the presence of vertical slab junctures that are lacking in hand-
modeled vessels and should show up clearly in radiographs
(Rye 1977). Given the more pronounced differences in the
expected orientation of fibers in slab-constructed and coiled
vessels, it should be fairly easy to distinguish between them.
However, in cases where there is ambiguity in the orientation
of fibers, the presence of vertical slab junctures, as opposed
to horizontal coil junctures, would serve as a good secondary
criterion for determining forming technique. If slab junctures
are not discernible, differentiating between hand-modeled and
slab-constructed vessels may not be possible.
Table 2. Forming, decoration, and metric data for replicated vessels.
Vessel # Forming Decoration Orifice Dia. Height Wall Thickness
Technique (cm) (cm) (cm)
1 modeled plain 21 9.47 1.3-1.5
2 modeled incised 22 9.94 1.0-1.2
3 slab plain 20 9.03 1.1-1.3
4 slab incised 22 9.20 1.1-1.6
5 coil plain 21 10.90 0.85-1.7
6 coil incised 19 9.0 0.82-0.88
Experimental Design and Methods
Accuracy in the replication of the experimental vessels
is an important part of this research. A concerted effort was
made to ensure that the materials, methods, tools, and end
products were as close to prehistoric examples as possible.
To achieve this, the available archaeological literature was
surveyed and collections of Orange pottery were examined at
the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) (Endonino
2000b) to develop an accurate model to guide production of
the replicas. Vessel forms, dimensions, surface treatments, and
decorative motifs were derived from these sources. In general,
the descriptions given by Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:152-
157) and Milanich (1994:94) captured much of the variability
present in Orange- period ceramics in the FLMNH collections.
Bullen (1955, 1972), Milanich and Fairbanks (1980), and
Milanich (1994) are correct with regard to basic vessel forms
and decorative motifs. They also are fairly consistent with
specimens observed by the author in the FLMNH collections
for Silver Glen Springs and 8LA1 (Endonino 2000b). The
greatest deficiency lies in the dearth of measurements of orifice
diameters for Orange pots. Orifice diameter estimates for a
sample of Orange Plain and Incised vessels in the FLMNH
collections are used here to guide the design and construction
of the experimental replicas. Data on vessel height and wall
thickness recorded for specimens in the FLMNH collections
likewise were used in concert with published descriptions in
modeling the replicas (Endonino 2000b).
Because the goals of this experiment are to determine the
forming techniques) employed in the manufacture of Orange
pottery and generate baseline experimental data against which
archaeological samples might be compared, it was necessary
to manufacture vessels representing each of the three forming
techniques employed by Orange-period potters. According
to Bullen's (1972) Orange pottery chronology, vessels were
made exclusively by the hand- modeling technique prior to
Orange 4 and by both coiling and hand modeling after that
time, with coiling becoming the dominant method toward
the end of the sequence. Saunders (2004) suggests that slab
construction was employed by potters producing the Orange
wares recovered from the Rollins shell ring in northeastern
Florida based on a comparison of archaeological specimens
to an experimental vessel created by folding over slab-
constructed walls, resulting in vessels with walls displaying
a laminated cross-section (Fullen 2001). Skibo et al. (1989)
further suggest that the slab technique of manufacture could
have been used because of the efficiency and ease with which
large vessels can be constructed, but they do not discuss its
use specifically in relation to Orange pottery. In view of this,
slab construction represents another viable, though unproven,
method for forming fiber-tempered vessels.
Descriptions of the physical dimensions for Orange
vessels are few in the archaeological literature and only
rectangular vessels associated with Orange 1 have received
adequate treatment (Bullen 1955, 1972; Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980; Milanich 1994). Hemmings and Von Burger
(1975) describe an Orange Plain vessel that is "bag-shaped"
with high walls (19.05 cm) and a restricted orifice, quite a
departure from the descriptions provided by Bullen (1972) and
Milanich (1994:94). Measurements of vessel wall thickness
is fairly well represented in the literature and ranges from 0.4
cm to 1.5 cm but sufficient data were available at the time
of the experiment to allow a mean thickness to be calculated.
Variation is present, but these dimensions are satisfactorily
within the range of acceptable thickness. Orange-period
vessels are reported to range in depth from 10-15 cm (Bullen
1955, 1972; Bullen and Bullen 1961). Vessel heights of
sherds with complete walls and partial basal portions confirm
this, although some vessels less than 10 cm in height were
present in the FLMNH collections (Endonino 2000b). Rim
sherds for Orange Plain and Incised vessels in the FLMNH
collections possess orifice diameters that range between 14
and 42 cm, displaying a bimodal distribution that cluster
initially between 14 and 24 cm, and again between 28 and 38
cm (Endonino 2000b) (Figure 3). For the replicated vessels,
orifice diameters in the "small" cluster were chosen. This was
done for two reasons: 1) expediency they are smaller and
easier to manufacture and, 2) Orange Plain and Incised vessels
from archeological contexts investigated by the author fall
within this size range. Therefore, the orifice diameters of the
experimental vessels are approximately 20 cm. Vessels walls
for experimental specimens are approximately 10 cm deep
and range in thickness from 1.0-1.5 cm, well in keeping with
published descriptions. To summarize, experimental vessels
used in this study are flat-bottomed and straight-walled with
rounded lips and circular, unrestricted orifices. Table 2 presents
summary metric data for the experimentally-produced vessels.
Orange Vessel Forming Methods
Figure 3. Histogram showing the size distribution of vessel orifice diameters from Silver Glen Springs
and 8LA1 used to design the experimental vessels.
Clay used in manufacturing the vessels was obtained
in the vicinity of Blichton and Fairfield in Marion County,
Florida. Situated beneath the loose overlying sands, this brown
to gray clay with minor limestone inclusions could have been
obtained by prehistoric peoples with shallow pitting; it can
also be found in erosional features and sinkholes common in
the area. In hindsight, it would have been more appropriate
and accurate to use clays from the St. Johns River Valley and
the coastal regions of east Florida. What effect, if any, this
would have had on this experiment is uncertain. Despite this,
the orientation taken up by the fibers in the clay are likely no
different from that taken up by the fibers in clays from the
St. Johns River Valley or Atlantic coast. The clay was mixed
with water in a five gallon bucket and allowed to soften. After
thorough and even mixture of clay and temper (Skibo et al.
1989:136). Speaking from experience gained in prior as well
as subsequent attempts to replicate fiber-tempered pottery,
it is difficult to get a thorough and even mixture of clay and
fiber that approximates the ratios observed among prehistoric
specimens unless the clay is very soft.
Spanish moss, green and/or desiccated, was collected and
shredded into small pieces by hand. Large clumps of Spanish
moss are difficult to work into the clay and can cause difficulties
in forming and smoothing later-on. The moss was added to the
soft, wet clay and mixed thoroughly until the "proper" amount
of moss had been added. Admittedly, determining how much
temper is enough is very subjective. In general, the appropriate
amount of temper has been added when the paste stiffens and
reaches a state where vessel construction is possible. After
tempering, the clay was ready to form the vessels.
Figure 4. Experimental vessels after drying. Vessel in back row, center measures 10.9 cm in height.
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Orifice Diameter (cm)
ENDONINO Orange Vessel Forming Methods
Forming the Vessels
Two experimental vessels were produced using each of
the three forming techniques: hand modeling, coiling, and
slab construction (Figure 4). In forming the experimental
vessels, a lump of fiber-tempered clay was shaped into a ball
approximately 15 cm in diameter. The size of the clay ball
suitable for manufacturing vessels of the size used in this
experiment was determined through prior experimentation by
the author. Hand-modeled vessels were produced by flattening
the clay ball somewhat and thrusting the thumbs into the
center, widening it, and creating the base of the vessel. The
clay was pinched and drawn up until the approximate diameter
and wall height was achieved. Smoothing of both the interior
and exterior surfaces was accomplished by running wet hands
and a freshwater mussel shell around the vessel parallel to the
rim on the interior and exterior surfaces of the walls.
Coiled vessels were made by first constructing a base
by hand modeling. Next, a series of coils were produced by
pinching offa portion of the fiber-tempered clay mass, rolling it
into a ball, and then extruding it by rolling the ball between the
palms while exerting pressure that caused the clay to extrude
into a rope-like coil. The first coil was joined to the base and
additional coils were superimposed until a vessel height of
10 cm was achieved. From five to six coils were required to
achieve the predetermined vessel height. With the coils in
place, the walls were compacted, scraped, and smoothed in
the same matter described above for the hand-modeled vessel.
Slab construction also began by fabricating the base by
hand modeling. Several rectangular slabs were then made
by patting a small-sized lump of clay flat to a more or less
consistent thickness. To achieve the appropriate rectangular
shape, the edges of the slabs were trimmed utilizing the edge
of the freshwater mussel shell also employed in smoothing.
Approximately four to five slabs were needed in order to
complete the vessel walls around the circumference of the
base. The wall slabs were attached to the base individually
and joined to the previous adjacent slab. When the attachment
of wall slabs was complete the wall and base seams were
compacted by pressing the junctions together and hand
smoothing. Once the wall slabs and base were joined to form
a cohesive ceramic body, additional smoothing occurred
utilizing the freshwater mussel shell as previously outlined.
One vessel manufactured by each of the three techniques
was decorated with incised designs common to Orange
ceramics while the clay was still soft and pliable. The other
was left plain. All incised vessels received identical linear
designs applied using a pointed bone stylus. After incising,
vessels were allowed to dry for a minimum of two weeks. The
rationale behind the application of incised surface treatments
to the experimental vessels was two fold. First, incised designs
on the surface of experimental vessels are consonant with
prehistoric examples and maintain the historical accuracy of
the experimental specimens. Second, because archaeological
specimens with incising on the exterior surface are included in
this study, it was thought that whatever effect incising might
have had on the radiographs needed to be accounted for with
the experimental vessels.
After drying the allotted time of two weeks in open air
the vessels were fired. Firing was achieved with the open pit
method. Vessels 1-5 were fired together and Vessel 6 was fired
separately as it required additional drying time. A shallow pit
excavated into loose sand, measuring approximately 75 cm in
diameter and 20 cm deep, was used for the firings. A small
drying fire was started in the pit to drive off moisture from
the soil and simultaneously served to preheat the experimental
vessels (Figure 5). When the fire burned out, the coals were
removed and the fuel bed was prepared. Oak was the chosen
fuel, as it is long burning and produces even heat. Small logs,
measuring less than 10 cm in diameter, were broken into short
segments to facilitate burning and placed into the bottom of
Figure 5. Experimental vessels preheating along the edge of the pit during the drying fire.
Orange Vessel Forming Methods
Tux FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(1-2)
Figure 6. Experimental vessels during firing.
the pit. On top of this layer, the pots were arranged orifice up
in the center. A teepee-like arrangement of small oak logs and
sticks was constructed over the vessels. A similar arrangement
and firing procedure used by the Baffia potters in Cameroon is
described by Gosselain (1992) served as a model for this firing.
Once assembled, the mound of combustibles was ignited and
allowed to bur itself out, which took approximately 40
minutes (Figure 6). When the fire had burned to coals, the pots
were removed from the center of the pit and allowed to cool
gradually along its edge.
The firing met with mixed results but, overall, was a
success. Temperatures achieved during firing were sufficient
for sintering to occur in a few instances. Retrospectively, I
would have fired the pots differently. I know now that a more
gradual (slower) application of heat to the vessels would have
resulted in experimental vessels that are more consistent with
the archaeological specimens. In spite of these difficulties and
differences in how I would approach the experiment today,
the original goal of the replications was achieved and fiber-
tempered pots with intact walls were produced.
Figure 7. Archaeological specimens from Harris Creek (top row), Silver Glen Springs (middle row), and Bluffton (bottom
row) from the FLMNH collections examined during this research.
ENDONINO Orange Vessel Forming Methods
Table 3. Archaeological specimens analyzed.
Site Type Number
Blufflon (8VO22) Orange Plain 5
Harris Creek (8VO24) Orange Incised 3
Silver Glen Springs (8MR123) Orange Incised 3
Subsequent to firing, the pots were broken by dropping
them from a height of 125 cm into a cardboard box resting on
a hardwood floor. Sherds from each vessel were placed into
plastic bags and labeled with their vessel number and forming
technique. Specimens were then selected for radiographs.
Larger sherds representing substantial portions of the vessel
wall were chosen since these are better suited for radiographs
and the assessment of fiber orientations (Rye 1977).
Analysis and Results
Eleven fiber-tempered sherds from three prehistoric
freshwater shell midden sites containing Orange period
components within the MSJRV were selected from collections
at the FLMNH for radiography (Figure 7; Table 3). Five
Orange Plain and six Orange Incised sherds were chosen
with a preference for larger sherds representing, if possible,
an entire wall segment from base to rim. Two large sherds,
one plain and the other decorated, from experimental vessels
manufactured by all three production methods were selected.
Archaeological specimens were brought to the C. A. Pound
Human Identification Laboratory at the University of Florida
and radiographed. Experimental sherds (Figure 8) were
radiographed at by the Radiology Department at Baptist
Health hospital in Richmond, Kentucky. The archaeological
and experimental specimens were then compared in order to
determine which methods) were employed by Orange period
potters in vessel construction.
Archaeological Sample Selection
Archaeological specimens selected for radiographic
analysis were chosen from three sites in the MSJRV:
Bluffton (8VO22), Harris Creek (8VO24), and Silver Glen
Springs (8MR123). All of these sites are characterized by
large accumulations of freshwater shell, and each witnessed
occupations both prior, and subsequent, to the Orange period.
Orange Plain sherds radiographed come exclusively from
Bluffton, as this site is reported by Bullen (1955) as being among
the earliest to produce this pottery type; thus, it represents the
Orange 1 sub-period. Incised sherds come from Harris Creek
and Silver Glen Springs. Specimens from these two sites are
thought to represent Orange 2-4 sub-periods. Another factor
influencing sherd selection was representativeness of vessel
walls-sherds constituting a vessel wall segment from rim to
base were preferred.
Experimental sherds were separated by the forming
technique used in their construction, and archaeological
specimens were separated by site and type. Originally the
experimental sherds were radiographed at the same time as
the archaeological specimens. As a result of differences in
the quality of the images produced, I decided to have the
experimental specimens re-radiographed. The technologies
employed in the radiographs of the experimental and
archeological specimens are considerably different given the
advances in X-ray technology and imaging that have occurred
since this study was first undertaken. Pairs of experimental
sherds were radiographed with a Hologic Selenia Dimensions
2-D Full-Field Digital Mammographic imaging device.
Considering again the advances that have occurred, the dosing
rates and exposure times for the experimental specimens are
different from the archaeological specimens. Despite these
differences the images are still comparable. The time and
dosage procedures for the experimental sherds was two to
three seconds at 39 kilovolts (kV) and produced images that
sufficiently reveal the orientation of fiber-tempering within
these specimens (Figure 9).
Mammography film was used to produce the images
of the archaeological specimens, as the images it produces
are more detailed and would provide a better image of the
internal features of the ceramic bodies. Groups of sherds were
placed on packets of film and exposed to 65 kV for varying
times ranging from 1.3-3.0 minutes following a time/dosage
procedure established by Braun (1982). Plain Orange sherds
from Bluffton were exposed for 2 minutes at 65 kV and also
produced a clear radiographic image (Figure 10). Sherds from
Silver Glen Springs were exposed for 1.6 minutes at 65 kV,
and specimens from Harris Creek were exposed for 2 minutes
at 65 kV. Both produced radiographic images sufficiently clear
to enable discernment of temper orientation (Figure 11).
Subsequent to radiography, images of both experimental
and archaeological specimens were digitally enhanced in order
to show as clearly as possible the orientations of fibers within
each. This was accomplished by a common commercially
available image editing program to adjust the brightness
and contrast of the images. In a further effort to render the
orientation of fiber tempering more discernible, the black and
white radiographic images were also inverted so that light
areas became dark and dark areas became light. Aside from
these modifications, no further enhancements were made.
Orange Vessel Forming Methods
Figure 8. Paired plain and incised experimental sherds: a, hand-modeled; b, coiled; c, slab-constructed.
ENDOINO rang Vesel ormia Mehod
1m.1I i I S
Figure 9. Orange plain archaeological specimens radiographs of experimentally-produced sherds: a, hand-modeled plain
(top) and incised (bottom); b, coiled plain (top) and incised (bottom); c, slab-constructed plain (top) and incised (bottom).
Experimental Vessels
Upon viewing the radiographic images for the
experimental sherds it was clear that, for the most part, the
expected orientations of the fiber temper hypothesized for all
three manufacturing techniques were discernible. However,
there were some differences that were not anticipated. Hand-
modeling and slab-constructed experimental vessels produced
a strongly random orientation of fibers (Figure 9a and 9c, top
and bottom). Coiling produced a generally parallel temper
orientation relative to the rim of the vessel. However, this
orientation was not as strongly parallel as was anticipated.
Rather than possessing a strongly parallel orientation, many of
the fibers are curved with an orientation that is generally parallel
to the rim, but not strongly or definitively so, particularly for the
plain coiled specimen. At the base of the experimental incised,
coiled vessel there is a strong parallel temper orientation, but
the upper wall possesses a more random fiber orientation.
Additionally, the vertical orientation observable in the upper
portion of the wall in the experimental coiled vessels is likely
due to reorientation of surface fibers when the vessel walls
were drawn upward during manufacturing and smoothing.
Rye (1977:208) observed a similar pattern in Papuan pottery
from Boera in the South Pacific.
Slab-constructed sherds exhibit a strongly random fiber
orientation that would be indistinguishable from hand-modeled
vessels. Slab junctures are not visible in the radiographs and
may be due to the selection of experimental sherds that did
not possess such a juncture. Alternatively, when the vessels
were broken they may have fractured along the slab junctures,
precluding their detection through the radiograph. In retrospect
it would have been better to have systematically broken all of
the vessels in order to ensure that specimens possessing slab
junctures would be available and visible in the radiographs.
A very promising characteristic of the experimental
coiled specimens observed during this experiment is the
clear and distinctive orientation of fibers visible in the fresh
breaks around the edges of experimental sherds, providing
Orange Vessel Forming Methods
... FL.R.D ANTROPOLO.. FL0 VOLANTHRP. OG I-f
additional support for conclusions about manufacturing
techniques independent of the radiographic images. As with
the radiographs, the random, multidirectional orientation of
fibers in the experimental hand-modeled and slab-constructed
vessels is clear and easily distinguishable from the coiled
vessels. Vesicles visible in the breaks of coiled experimental
sherds show a generally parallel orientation, although
vesicles aligned diagonal or perpendicular to the rim are also
present. Likewise, the hand-modeled and slab-constructed
experimental specimens show a mixture of vesicles parallel,
perpendicular, and at angles relative to the rim in fresh breaks.
It would appear that a simple visual inspection and assessment
of vesicle orientation in breaks along edges may provide a
quick and relatively reliable means of assessing manufacturing
techniques for fiber-tempered pottery.
Archaeological Specimens
Fiber orientations in the archaeological specimens from
Bluffton, Harris Creek, and Silver Glen Springs, like those of
the experimental sherds, were discernible in the radiographs.
When prehistoric specimens are compared to the experimental
sherds, it is possible to discern the manufacturing techniques
used to construct the archaeological specimens. Of the five
Orange Plain sherds radiographed from Bluffton, three (Figure
10; a, d-e) display temper orientations indicative of hand
modeling, as evidenced by the primarily random orientation of
its fibers. The two remaining sherds are characterized by mixed
temper orientations, with randomly oriented vesicles as well
as some weak parallel orientations that are possibly a result of
smoothing on the interior and exterior surfaces. In particular
specimen "c" in Figure 10 possesses temper orientations
similar to those observed for the experimental coiled plain
sherd (Figure 9b, top). Another specimen (Figure 10b) displays
more randomly oriented fiber vesicles but also possesses a
significant number of vertical and diagonally oriented fibers,
proving to be the most ambiguous with respect to forming
methods. Based on the comparison of the radiographs of
archaeological specimens to the temper orientations observed
in the experimental vessels, it appears that three of the five
Orange Plain specimens from Bluffton were produced by hand
modeling, while the remaining two may have been constructed
through coiling. Hand modeling, as the primary method of
vessel forming for Orange Plain vessels, is consistent with
Bullen's (1955, 1972) characterization of Orange 1. However,
the presence of at least two Orange Plain vessels that may have
been formed through coiling was not expected.
Radiographic images of the Orange Incised sherds from
Silver Glen Springs (n=3, Figure 11, a-c), and Harris Creek
(n=3, Figure 11, d-f) all exhibit predominantly parallel temper
orientations relative to the rim. In fact, the vesicle orientation
of the archaeological specimens displays a stronger parallel
orientation than the experimental coiled vessels. Three
specimens, one from Silver Glen Springs (Figure 11 a) and
two from Harris Creek (Figure 11, d and f), have particularly
pronounced parallel temper orientations. The two other
Icml I I I 51
Figure 10. Radiographic image of Orange Plain
archaeological specimens from Bluffton (8VO23).
specimens from Silver Glen Springs (Figure 11; b and c) have
a mixed temper orientation that is primarily parallel but also
contain fibers that are perpendicular and diagonally oriented.
Although these two specimens have variably oriented fibers,
the overall orientation tends to be parallel. The one exception
to the overall parallel temper orientation among the Orange
Incised samples is a small sherd from Harris Creek (Figure 11e).
The temper orientation for this specimen is multidirectional
and more closely resembles the hand-modeled and slab-built
experimental vessels, suggesting that this single example
among the Orange Incised specimens was not fabricated
through coiling. Based on the strong parallel orientation of
fiber vesicles among three of the Orange Incised specimens
and moderately parallel temper orientation for two additional
examples, it appears that the primary method for forming
Orange Incised vessels represented in this small sample from
the MSJRV was coiling. As noted, one specimen deviates from
this pattern and likely was formed by hand modeling, as no
clear evidence for slab construction in the form of vertical
junctures was observed among the archaeological specimens.
TWE FLORInA ANTHROPOLOGIST
3 102 Voo. 66(1-2)
EDNNOrneVese Fomn Metod
Ies I I 51
Figure 11. Orange plain archaeological specimens radiographic images of Orange Incised archaeological specimens from
Silver Glen Springs (8MR123) (a-c) and Harris Creek (8VO24) (d-f).
The presence of strong parallel temper orientations among
the Orange Incised vessels was unexpected given the proposed
late occurrence of coiled vessel forming techniques within the
Orange sequence. If we assume for the moment that Bullen's
Orange chronology is correct, the results of this analysis
demonstrate that coiling was employed as a manufacturing
technique early on in the production history of Orange pottery
and not at its end. Because we now know that the Bullen
chronology is untenable based on several radiometric assays
from the MSRJV (Sassaman 2003) and paste analyses from
across Florida (Cordell 2004), it is necessary to explain
variation in the forming techniques of Orange Plain and
Orange Incised vessels in terms other than chronology.
Considering the small size of the archaeological sample,
it is possible that either of the two principal manufacturing
methods, hand modeling and coiling, may be more or less
frequent than suggested here. All in all, the comparison of
the experimentally-produced fiber-tempered sherds and those
from archaeological sites in the MSJRV has allowed for an
assessment of vessel construction methods used by Late
Archaic hunter-gatherers producing Orange fiber-tempered
pottery. These results, should they hold up to further scrutiny,
have significant implications for Orange-period chronology
and also provide information useful to ceramic analysts
working with fiber-tempered pottery types throughout the
southeastern U.S. It may also be possible to gain insight into
functional aspects of Orange pottery, specifically potential
functional differences between Orange Plain and Orange
Orange Period Vessel Forming Techniques: Chronology,
Technology, and Function
Concerning chronology, the experimental results presented
here confirm that the coiling method, generally believed to be
a late development (Orange 4 and 5) in Bullen's sequence
appears at the outset of the Orange period, providing another
challenge to the chronological relationship between the various
Orange sub-periods based on manufacturing techniques.
Sassaman's (2003) reassessment of the Orange-period
chronology, based on a series of AMS dates, demonstrates
that Orange Plain and Incised pottery are contemporary and
the Orange 1-4 sub-periods can be collapsed into a single
period. Taken together, the manufacturing data presented
here and Sassaman's AMS dates provide solid chronological
and technological evidence that further undermines Bullen's
chronological sequence for the development of Orange
pottery. Just as Orange Plain and Incised pastes containing
Orange Vessel Forming Methods
both sand and spiculate aplastic material have been shown to
be contemporaneous (Cordell 2004, Russo and Heide 2004),
hand modeling and coiling also are synchronic. In short, vessel
manufacturing techniques and paste characteristics are no
longer tenable criteria for chronologically ordering Orange-
period ceramics in the MSJRV. Whether or not this applies to
the Atlantic coast is unknown at present. Variability and change
in decorative motifs may well remain the one characteristic of
Orange pottery that is useful for chronology. However, recent
work casts some doubt on this prospect. At 8LAl-West the
Tick Island variant of Orange Incised was recovered from a
secure feature context that is associated with a date of 3980-
3830 cal B.P., demonstrating that it is not early in the Orange
sequence (Orange 2) as Bullen (1972) believed (Sassaman et
al. 2011:297). More work is needed to resolve the usefulness
of decorative motifs in Orange-period chronology.
If the methods used to form Orange vessels are no longer
useful for chronology, what does the use of different forming
techniques in making Orange pottery mean? Why were both
methods used simultaneously? Why were Orange Plain
vessels hand-modeled and Orange Incised vessels coiled?
The answer to these questions may ultimately lie in functional
differences between Orange Plain and Incised vessels, which
itself is related to the context of their use (Sassaman 2004;
Saunders 2004).
Sassaman (2004:33) has indicated that changes in Orange
pottery need to be explained in terms of function and culture,
not time. There is evidence to support both functional and
cultural explanations. One area in which good and reliable
functional data have been collected for Orange pottery is
the presence of soot on vessel surfaces. Data presented by
Sassaman (2004:33) show that Orange Plain vessels rarely
bear traces of soot on their exterior surfaces. Only 2.7 percent
of the 256 vessels in his sample possessed exterior soot.
Orange Incised pottery on the other hand, frequently bears
traces of soot on its exterior surface, occurring on 67.7 percent
of the 266 vessels in the sample.
Orange Plain and Incised vessel lots from Silver Glen
Springs and 8LA1 analyzed by the author (Endonino 2000b)
also show clear differences in the frequency of incised and
plain sherds with soot on their exterior surfaces; a pattern that
supports the idea that Orange Plain vessels were not used as
often in direct heat cooking, whereas Orange Incised vessels
were. Soot frequencies for Orange Incised pottery from Silver
Glen Springs and 8LA1 largely replicates the pattern observed
by Sassaman (2004:33), with a combined total of 65.9 percent
(n=58) of the Orange Incised vessels from these two sites
possessing soot on their exterior. Orange Plain pottery from
these two sites displays soot frequencies higher than that
observed by Sassaman (2004:33). Exterior soot was present on
33.3 percent (n=12) of the Orange Plain vessels in the sample
for Silver Glen and 8LA1. The higher percentage of soot on
Orange Plain vessels may be in part the result of sampling bias
introduced in vessel lot assignments in the original analysis.
Orange Plain vessel lots represented by a single body sherd
account for 50 percent (n=18) of the assemblage. Of these,
38.9 percent (n=7) bear traces of soot. Vessel lots represented
by a single rim sherd constitute 27.8 percent (n=10) of the
Orange Plain vessels identified, and of these, 30 percent
(n=3) have exterior soot. It is not uncommon for portions of
Orange Incised vessels to lack decoration, and I suspect that
the higher frequency of soot for Orange Plain vessels from
the Silver Glen area may reflect the fact that undecorated
portions of Orange Incised vessels may have been erroneously
identified as Orange Plain in some cases. However, even when
the Orange Plain vessel lots composed only of body sherds are
excluded, the remaining sample of Orange Plain vessel lots,
consisting only of rims, largely replicates the proportions of
sooted vessels, reducing the frequency by only 3.3 percent.
This deviation from Sassaman's (2004:33) observed frequency
requires explanation and, at this point, without additional
sampling or a reevaluation of the collections previously
analyzed, the question must remain open. Nevertheless, based
on the results of the analysis of Orange Plain and Incised
pottery from the Silver Glen Springs area, Orange Incised
vessels were deployed in direct heat cooking nearly twice as
often as Orange Plain vessels (65.9 percent vs. 33.3 percent,
respectively). The overall pattern for greater exterior soot
deposition on Orange Incised vessels when compared to
Orange Plain holds true, although it is not as pronounced.
Although not demonstrated, it has been suggested that
Orange Plain vessels could have been used over coals and
not open flame, a practice that would inhibit the accumulation
of soot on vessel surfaces (Saunders 2004:54). One possible
means of resolving how Orange Plain vessels were used in
cooking may involve an examination of the core color of
vessel bases. Completely or extensively oxidized basal sherds
would indicate direct contact and prolonged exposure to heat,
whereas poorly oxidized bases may suggest they were not, or
had a short use-life. The data from this research indicates that
these two contemporary types, Orange Incised and Orange
Plain, were constructed with different forming techniques.
The explanation behind this difference may be that they were
used for different purposes: direct vs. indirect heat cooking vs.
Just as the frequent occurrence (Orange Incised) or lack
(Orange Plain) of soot on the exterior of Orange vessels
generally correlates with type, so too does vessel morphology.
Orange Plain vessels are smaller and have shorter, thinner
walls, whereas Orange Incised vessels are larger with thicker,
taller walls (Endonino 2000b; Sassaman 2004; Saunders
2004). Differences in vessel morphology likely are related to
vessel function (Braun 1982). Forming techniques too may
have been chosen based on the intended function of the vessel.
Coiling would have facilitated the production of taller vessels.
As with the soot data, the taller walls of Orange Incised vessels
and the short walls of Orange Plain vessels suggest different
functions. This is something of a paradox considering that
thinner walls are better suited for conducting heat and would
have been more efficient in direct heat cooking (Braun 1983).
Nevertheless, the thicker-walled Orange Incised vessels are
more heavily sooted, demonstrating that they were used in
ENDONINO Orange Vessel Forming Methods
direct heat cooking in spite of the fact that thicker walls reduce
heating effectiveness. So why produce coil-built, thick-walled
Saunders (2004) provides a point of departure for thinking
about the differential use of Orange pottery in the MSJRV
based on her study of coastal Orange sites. Saunders (2004)
observes that Orange Plain and Incised pottery are generally
recovered from different types of coastal sites; Orange Plain
is most often recovered from "habitation" sites and Orange
Incised is recovered in greater frequency from "ceremonial"
sites, specifically Late Archaic shell rings. The use of Orange
Incised vessels in social contexts (ritual/ceremony) has a
dual purpose: larger vessel size increases productive capacity
necessitated by feasting activities, and the decoration serves as
a form of symbolic communication in a social context. When
viewed in this way, the co-occurrence of highly decorated
vessels with taller, thicker walls and greater volume makes
sense. Coiling facilitated the production of larger pots, which
are required to prepare and serve food to groups larger than the
household. Thicker walls would have been necessary in order
to achieve the increased wall height, a compromise made
even though it is less effective in conducting heat. A higher
incidence of soot on the exterior of Orange Incised vessels is
tangible evidence of cooking over a flaming heat source-a
hot fire-which was needed to compensate for the reduced
heating effectiveness of thick, coil-built walls required for
increased vessel height.
The intent of this experiment and analysis is to determine the
forming techniques used by Late Archaic hunter-gatherers
in making fiber-tempered pottery vessels. Toward that end,
experimental replica vessels formed by hand modeling, coiling,
and slab construction were produced, broken, and subjected to
radiographic analysis. These experimental vessels provided a
baseline of characteristics for each forming technique against
which archaeological specimens were compared. Promising
results came out of the comparison of experimental and
archaeological specimens. First, radiography is well suited
to determining the forming techniques used to manufacture
fiber-tempered pottery, owing largely to the nature of the fibers
and the ease with which they take up orientations reflecting
the methods) of manufacture. Second, the results of the
comparison demonstrate that the forming techniques used to
produce Orange-period vessels did not develop sequentially
through time from hand-modeled to coiled, but appeared at the
same time, a fact supported by contemporaneous AMS dates
for both Orange Plain and Incised pottery in the MSJRV. This
finding adds to growing a body of data indicating the limited
utility of Bullen's (1972) original Orange-period chronology
(Cordell 2004; Sassaman 2003, 2004). Clearly more work
needs to be done in order to resolve these issues and determine
what, if any, differences exist between manufacturing
techniques and chronologies of Orange pottery along the
Atlantic coast and MSJRV.
In addition to revising the technological criteria once
thought to be useful in the ceramic chronology of the Orange
period, this experiment furthers our understanding of the
technological choices made by potters in fabricating fiber-
tempered vessels. Forming Orange Incised and Plain vessels
by coiling and hand-modeling techniques appears to be
the product of differing intended vessel functions. Further
evidence for this may be seen at coastal sites in their context
of use and deposition, with hand-modeled Orange Plain being
found in predominantly "domestic" sites and highly decorated
Orange Incised in sites with "ritual" associations at coastal
Late Archaic shell rings. I should caution at this point that
this appears not to be the case in the MSJRV. At 8LA1 recent
investigations of U-shaped shellworks fronting Silver Glen
Run have produced evidence indicating the differential spatial
distribution of Orange Incised and Plain pottery within this site.
Generally, elaborate Orange Incised pottery is concentrated at
the northeast comer of the outer ridge, whereas the base of
the inner ridge largely produced Orange Plain pottery. This
pattern is interpreted as reflecting the presence of a dual social
organization, deriving from the coalescence of two previously
distinct groups: one indigenous (Mount Taylor) and one
foreign (coastal Orange) (Sassaman and Randall 2012:71).
Lastly, vessel morphology and the differential deposition of
soot on exterior vessel surfaces provide further clues to the
nature of uses of plain and incised Orange pottery. The taller
and frequently sooted vessel walls of Orange Incised pottery
built by coiling represents clear evidence of their use in direct
heat cooking. Short, hand-modeled and minimally sooted walls
of Orange plain vessels bespeak their primary use in indirect
heat cooking or serving. In both cases technological choices
made by potters were informed by the vessel's intended use.
In spite of this study's small sample of experimental and
archaeological sherds, its results are positive and encouraging.
The application of radiography to larger samples of
archaeological fiber-tempered ceramics is needed to confirm
(or contradict) these findings and should include specimens
from both the MSJRV and Atlantic coast. No doubt this
will lead to further discoveries relating to the manufacture
of Orange-period ceramics. The methods and findings of
this work potentially have a broader relevance and may be
applicable elsewhere in the Southeast where fiber-tempered
pottery also occurs, particularly coastal Georgia. In addition,
determining the forming methods) used to construct fiber-
tempered vessels can be achieved through a visual inspection
of fresh sherd breaks by observing the orientation of voids in
Several individuals contributed in various ways to this
research. Ken Sassaman and Peter Schmidt provided helpful
comments on the original incarnation of this paper when
I was still a graduate student at the University of Florida.
Radiographs were made possible by Tony Falsetti at the C.A.
Pound lab at U.F. Rhonda Quinn and Heather Walsh-Haney
Orange Vessel Forming Methods
produced the original radiographs of both experimental and
replica specimens. Access to archaeological specimens at the
Florida Museum of Natural History was made possible by Scott
Mitchell and Elise LeCompte. Steve Wells at Baptist Health
hospital, Richmond, Kentucky graciously re-radiographed the
experimental sherds, greatly improving the quality of the final
graphics and facilitating the completion of this publication.
Keith Ashley and Vicki Rolland provided outstanding editorial
guidance and assistance. Lastly I would like to thank the three
anonymous reviewers providing comments that helped to
improve this paper. All omissions and errors in reasoning and
logic are entirely my own.
References Cited
Berg, Ina
2008 Looking Through Pots: Recent Advances in
Ceramics x-Radiography. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35:1177-1188.
Braun, David P.
1982 Radiographic Analysis of Temper in Ceramic
Vessels: Goals and Initial Methods. Journal of Field
Archaeology 9:183-192.
1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and
Theories, edited by James Moore and Arthur S.
Keene, pp. 107-134. Academic Press, New York.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1955 Stratigraphic Tests at Bluffton, Volusia County,
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 8:1-16.
1961 Radiocarbon dates for southeastern fiber-
tempered pottery. American Antiquity 27:104-
1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida. In Fiber-
Tempered Pottery in the Southeastern United States
and Northern Columbia: It's Origins, Context,
and Significance, Ripley P. Bullen and James B.
Stoltman eds., pp. 9-33. Florida Anthropological
Society Publications Number 6.
Bullen, Adelaide K. and Ripley P. Bullen
1961 The Summerhaven Site, St. Johns County, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 14: 1-15.
Carr, Christopher
1990 Advances in Ceramic Radiography and
Analysis: Applications and Potentials. Journal of
Archaeological Science 17:13-34.
Cordell, Ann
2004 Paste Variability and Possible Manufacturing
Origins of Fiber-Tempered Pottery from Florida.
In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and
Interaction in the Lower Southeast, edited by R.
Saunders and C.T. Hayes, pp. 63-104. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Endonino, Jon C.
2000a Manufacturing Techniques and Vessel Forms of Late
Archaeic Fiber-Tempered Pottery from Two Sites
in the Vicinity of Silver Glen Springs, Marion and
Lake Counties, Florida. Student Paper MS. on File,
Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.
2000b Manufacturing, Morphology, and Function of
Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from Silver Glen
Springs (8MR123) and the Midden at the Mouth
of Silver Glen Run (8LA1), Marion and Lake
Counties, Florida. Ms. in possession of the author.
Ford, James A.
1952 Measurements of Some Prehistoric Design
Developments in the Southeastern United States.
New York: Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History, Volume 44, Part 3.
Foster, Giraud V.
1985 Identification of Inclusions in Ceramic Artifacts
by Xeroradiography. Journal ofFieldArchaeology
Fullen, Steven
2001 Manufacture of Fiber-Tempered Slab Molded Pot.
Report on file, Anthropology Division, Museum of
Natural Science, Louisiana State Museum, Baton
Gifford, James C
1960 The Type Variety Method of Ceramic Classification
as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American
Antiquity 25:341-347.
Griffin, James B.
1945 The Significance of the Fiber-Tempered Pottery
of the St. Johns Area in Florida. Journal of the
Washington Academy ofSciences 35:213-223.
Goggin, John M.
1998 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns
Archeology, Florida. University of Florida Press,
Gosselain, Oliver P.
1992 Bonfire of the Enquiries. Pottery Firing
Temperatures in Archaeology: What for? Journal of
Archaeological Science 19:243-259.
Hemmings, E. Thomas and Don L. Von Burger
1975 An Orange Plain Vessel from Enterprise, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 28:14-16.
Jenks, Clifford
2006 Rethinking Culture History in Florida: An Analysis
of Ceramics from the Harris Creek Site (8VO24) on
Tick Island in Volusia County, Florida. Unpublished
ENDONINO Orange Vessel Forming Methods
master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Mitchell, Scott
1993 An Analysis of Ceramics from the Summerhaven
Site. Report on file, Janus Research, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology ofPrecolumbian Florida. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Moore, Clarence B.
1893 Certain Shell Heaps of the St. Johns River, Hitherto
Unexplored. American Naturalist 27:605-624.,
Rice, Prudence M.
1996 Recent Ceramic Analysis: 2. Composition,
Production, and Theory. Journal ofArchaeological
Research 4:165-197.
Russo, Michael and Gregory Heide
2004 The Emergence of Pottery in South Florida. In Early
Pottery: Technology, Style, and Interaction in the
Lower Southeast, edited by Rebecca Saunders
and Christopher Hays, pp. 105-128. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Rye, O. S.
1977 Pottery Manufacturing Techniques: X-ray Studies.
Archaeometry 19:205-211.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and
Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered
Pottery From the Middle St. Johns Valley and
Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56:5-13.
2004 Common Origins and Divergent Histories in the
Early Pottery Traditions of the American Southeast.
In Early Pottery: Technology, Style, and Interaction
in the Lower Southeast, edited by Rebecca Saunders
and Christopher Hays, pp. 23-39. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. and Asa R. Randall
2012 Shell Mounds of the Middle St. Johns Basin,
Northeast Florida. In Early New World
Monumentality, edited by Richard L. Burger and
Robert M. Rosenwig, pp. 53-77. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., Zackary I. Gilmore, and Asa R.
2011 St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2007-
2010 Silver Glen Run (8LA1). Technical Report
12. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Saunders, Rebecca
2004 Spatial Variation in Orange Culture Pottery:
Interaction and FucInteraction and Function. In
Early Pottery: Technology, Style, and Interaction in
the Lower Southeast, edited by Rebecca Saunders
and Christopher Hays, pp. 40-62. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Saunders, Rebecca and Christopher T. Hays
2004 Introduction: Themes in Early Pottery Research. In
Early Pottery: Technology, Style, and Interaction in
the Lower Southeast, edited by Rebecca Saunders
and Christopher Hays, pp. 1-22. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Simpkins, Daniel L. and Dorothy J. Allard
1986 Isolation and Identification of Spanish Moss Fiber
from A Sample of Stallings and Orange Series
Ceramics. American Antiquity 51:102-117.
Skibo, James M., Michael B. Schiffer, and Kenneth C. Reid
1989 Organic-Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study.
American Antiquity 54:122-146.
Stoltman, James B.
1966 New Radiocarbon Dates for Southeastern Fiber-
Tempered Pottery. American Antiquity 31:872-874.
Waggoner, James
2006 A Techno-Functional Analysis of Fiber-Tempered
Pottery from the Squeaking Tree Site (9TF5), Telfair
County, Georgia. Early Georgia 34: 3-16.
White, Nancy Marie and Richard W. Estabrook
1994 Sam's Cutoff Shell Mound and the Late Archaic
Elliott's Point Complex in the Apalachicola Delta,
Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
Wyman, Jeffries
1868 On the Fresh-Water Shell-Heaps of the St. Johns
River, East Florida. The American Naturalist
Volume 2, Number 8: 303-403.
1875 Freshwater Shell Middens of the St. Johns River
Florida. Peabody Academy of Science, Memoirs,
Number 4.
Orange Vessel Forming Methods
'Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
E-Mail: email@example.com
2Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30606
E-Mail: email@example.com
Located in Glades County and situated along
Fisheating Creek (Figure 1), Fort Center (8GL13) is a large
site containing more than 24 known earthworks, including
several linear causeways, mounds, an artificial burial pond,
large circular ditch and berm constructions, as well as
associated middens (Figure 2) (Pluckhahn and Thompson
2012; Sears 1982; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012). Fort
Center is one of the many "Big Circle" sites located in the
Lake Okeechobee basin of the Belle Glade culture area (Carr
1985; Carr et al. 1995; Milanich 1994). As the name implies,
the main feature of these sites are large, circular, semicircular,
or arcuate embankments, many of which are greater than 150
m in diameter (Allen 1948:17; Milanich 1994:283). By far,
the most extensively excavated and most famous of these sites
is Fort Center. Along with being the most well-known, Fort
Center is also one of the most controversial sites. Sears (1982;
Sears and Sears 1976) asserted that the site's earthworks
were a form of water management technology to make soils
more productive for maize agriculture. In 2010, Thompson
and colleagues implemented a research program of small-
scale excavation and geophysical and topographic survey
designed to test Sears' water management hypothesis, as
well as provide a more up-to-date map of the site to evaluate
the changing use of space and architecture (Pluckhahn and
Thompson 2012; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012; Thompson
et al. 2013).The results of the 2010 excavations clarify the
question of agriculture at the earthworks to some extent (see
also discussions in Keegan 1987; Kelly et al. 2006; Johnson
1990, 1991; Marquardt 1986; Milanich 1994, 2004). Based on
micro and macrobotanical analysis it appears that the original
identification of maize pollen was likely a result of both
contamination and misidentification (Morris 2012; Thompson
et al. 2013).
In addition to the paleoethnobotanical analysis, the most
recent excavations at the site provide additional radiocarbon
dates and confirm the long-term occupation of the site from
the Early Woodland to the Historic period (Thompson and
Pluckhahn 2012); a chronology indicated by Sears' early work
and Johnson's (1996) earthwork typology.
The new insights, excavations, and maps of Fort Center
from the 2010 fieldwork also provide a departure point to
evaluate other assertions and hypotheses proposed by Sears
(1982) and others. In this paper, we address the role of shark
teeth at Fort Center. We evaluate where the inhabitants of
Fort Center discarded utilized shark teeth and by extension
what context they used them in-specifically, if such items
were restricted to ceremonial or everyday contexts. Sears
(1982) conceptually divided Fort Center into habitation
and ceremonial areas. He created these divisions based on
perceived artifact frequencies, and from them he suggested
that all primary ritual activity took place within the mound-
pond complex, where most of the shark teeth were recovered
from his excavations.
In this short report, we argue that the inhabitants of Fort
Center used sharks teeth in a wide variety of settings, including
both ritual and utilitarian contexts. We suggest that Sears' view
that shark teeth were primarily ceremonial is due to differential
recovery methods (e.g., fine screening, hand collection, large
screen size) between Sears' (hand collections) and our own
(3.18 mm fine screening) excavations. Finally, our preliminary
microwear study of both modem and archaeologically
recovered shark teeth corroborate the idea that some of the
teeth were used to carve wooden artifacts at the site. Our
findings for Fort Center make sense when one considers the
wider archaeological record of Florida in general. Shark teeth
have been recovered in great quantities in a wide variety of
contexts (e.g., domestic and ceremonial) at both inland and
coastal sites dating to many different periods (Brown 1994;
Furey 1977; Kozuch 1993). Furthermore, it is also clear
from other studies that their teeth are used in woodworking
in Florida (Brown 1994; Kozuch 1993). Our study provides
further information on these understudied, yet relatively
frequently recovered artifacts, as well as clarifies the nature of
their use at one of Florida's most famous archaeological sites.
Sharks in Florida and at Fort Center
The Native Americans of Florida utilized sharks in a
wide variety of settings. They not only represent a nutritious
food source, but their teeth were used as tools, items of
adornment, and held value as objects of trade (Kozuch 1993:2-
3; Thompson and Worth 2011; Walker 1992). Due to the
geological nature of the Florida peninsula, chert outcrops are
limited, thus possibly contributing to the importance placed
VOL. 66(1-2) Tur FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH-JUNE 2013
Figure 1. The location of Fort Center and Lake
Okeechobee in Florida (adapted from Thompson and
Pluckhahn 2012:figure 1).
on shark teeth as a substitute for valuable lithic material
(Milanich 1994:292). Previous assessments of shark teeth in
southern Florida identify them primarily as tool implements
(Kozuch 1993; Milanich 1994; Penders 1997). One of the
most common hypothesized uses is hafting a tooth in some
form of a wooden handle. The filing of the basal cusps and
drilled holes indicate that some teeth were perhaps used in this
fashion (Kozuch 1993; Milanich 1994:292; Sears 1982:69).
This by no means was the only use for teeth, as evidence exists
for additional uses. Of particular notoriety is the shark-tooth
saber/machete identified by Cushing at the Key Marco site
(Cushing 1973:372; Kozuch 1993:4). It is also possible, as
Kozuch (1993:32) suggests, that shark teeth were also used in
tuber processing as part of grater boards.
The 2010 excavations directed by Thompson at Fort
Center focused on the "Great Circle" complex, which is a
series of circular ditch and berm constructions (Thompson and
Pluckhahn 2012). This complex is associated with extensive
midden deposits that parallel Fisheating Creek for over 400
m (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012). Excavations consisted of
four test units (three 1-x-2-m units and one 2-x-2-m unit) in
four areas of the Great Circle, including two units in the ditch
and two in the berms, both of which contain extensive midden
deposits, as they connect with the 400-m long midden area
(Pluckhahn and Thompson 2012; Thompson and Pluckhahn
2012). Units were excavated in arbitrary 10-cm levels, and
all sediments from these excavations were screened through
3.18 mm mesh. Any material that did not immediately fall
through the screen during the excavation was bagged for
later analysis. Additionally, each excavation unit had 2-liter
sediment samples taken from every 10-cm arbitrary level
for macrobotanical analysis. Finally, a 25-x-25-cm column
sample was taken from an adjacent wall of each excavation
unit (except Unit 1) for macro and microbotanical analysis.
The 2010 excavation field methods differ significantly from
those employed during the earlier research at Fort Center.
Sears (1982:12) used a variety of techniques including heavy
machinery to strip off various strata. Normally, only employed
to remove plowzones, this practice surely impacted recovery
of small artifacts. Other contexts were excavated with trowel
and shovel, with hand collection being the primary form of
recovery. Still other contexts were dry screened with mesh of
various sizes, including diamond mesh that was 9.5 x 19.05
Figure 2. Site map showing architectural and environmental features of the Fort Center locale (adapted from
Pluckhahn and Thompson 2013).
2013 66(1-2)
mm (Jerald Milanich, personal communication, 2009; Sears
1982:14), and a few contexts were water screened. Indeed,
Furey's (1977:98) early study of both Fort Center and Boca
Weir shark teeth suggested that "sieve size" was the primary
factor in recovering shark teeth at sites. At the time, these two
sites had been screened (at least portions of them) with finer
mesh than used in excavations elsewhere in Florida. Although
by today's standards, the screen sizes used at Fort Center are
rather large. We point this out here because any reevaluation of
Sears' and Steinen's interpretations or comparisons between
our collections and those recovered by previous investigations
must be considered in terms of these various recovery
Identification and Analysis of Shark Teeth
All shark teeth recovered during the 2010 field season were
cleaned, identified to taxon when possible, and cataloged
according to the specifications set forth by the Florida Bureau
of Archaeological Research. Taxon identification was made
in consultation with the Food and Agricultural Organization's
species catalog (Compagno 1984). In addition to count and
weight measures, laboratory procedures included documenting
any evidence of use, manipulation, or modification. Such
evidence includes filed basal cusps, battered tips, worn
serrated edges, and drilled holes in the root (Kozuch 1993;
Steinen 1982).
The microwear analysis included both control specimens from
modem shark teeth and archaeological specimens recovered
during the 2010 excavations at Fort Center. The microwear
patterns on the experimental shark teeth tools were compared
with the use wear on the Fort Center archaeological specimens
following standard analytical procedures (Byrd 2011;
Ferguson 2010; Gates St. Pierre and Walker 2007; Yerkes and
Kardulias 1993). The analysis was conducted in the David
M. Yerkes and Timothy L. Johnson Memorial Laboratory at
Ohio State University using a low power (up to 50X) Wild
stereomicroscope and an Olympus BHM metallurgical
incident light microscope under magnifications of 125X and
187.5X. Two modern shark teeth from two different species
(Galeocerdo cuvier [tiger shark] and Negaprion brevirostris
[lemon shark]) were used as woodcarving tools. We chose to
use teeth from these species as they are commonly recovered
from archaeological sites in Florida. Prior to the experiments,
each tooth was examined, photographed, and then used in
carving a piece of wood collected from a living pine tree (Pinus
sp.). We note here that many of the wooden artifacts recovered
from the pond at Fort Center were carved from pine (Sears
1982:39). Following this, each experimental shark tooth was
cleaned with detergent in a sonic cleaner and examined with
the microscopes. Observable striations along the edges of the
experimental teeth used as carving tools were identified and
recorded, and photomicrographs of the wear traces were made.
Teeth recovered during the 2010 Fort Center excavations were
cleaned and examined using the same technique, and any
striations and other microwear traces were compared with the
microwear observed on the experimental teeth and recorded.
Distribution and Use of Shark Teeth
We recovered 30 whole (n = 9) and fragmented (n
=21) shark teeth from the 2010 excavations. One of these
was determined to be a fossil from an unidentified species
of shark. This tooth is assumed to have been collected and
used in a manner different from the other teeth, and therefore
was excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 29 teeth
collected from the 2010 field season, 16 were identifiable to
species, with Carcharhinus leucas (bull shark) being the most
frequently identified species. A total of 10 show evidence
of use wear and/or other human modification (Figure 3).
Among the most common modifications to shark teeth in the
assemblage is evidence of hafting, which indicates that shark
teeth were part of composite tools (see Steinen 1982:70).
We recovered shark teeth from three of the four test-units
(Units 1, 2, and 4) excavated during the 2010 field season.
Of these, two (Units 2 and 4) contained more than one shark
tooth. Only Unit 2 had sufficiently well-dated contexts to
make inferences regarding the chronological distribution of
shark teeth (Figure 4). This unit, located on the outer berm of
the "Great Circle," is in what Sears (1982:182-183) referred to
as "midden B." Level 8 (80-90 cm below datum or bd) in Unit
2 represents the earliest deposit that contains shark teeth. A
single shark tooth fragment, unidentifiable to the species level,
was recovered from this level. Associated with this tooth in
Level 8 was a radiocarbon assay on carbonized wood with a
two-sigma calibrated date of 660 to 390 B.C. (Thompson and
Pluckhahn 2012: Table 1). Shark teeth again begin to appear
in Level 5 with one found between 50-60 cm bd. In Level 4
(40-50 cm bd) the field crew recovered two teeth. The vast
majority of ceramics recovered in Levels 4, 5, and 6 consist
of only sand-tempered plain and semi-fiber tempered types,
which indicate early use of shark teeth by the inhabitants of
Fort Center. Level 3 contained 12 teeth of various species, by
far the largest number obtained from any level. Carbonized
wood from this level yielded a two-sigma calibrated date of
A.D. 120 330 (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012: Table 1).
Given the ceramic assemblage and associated radiocarbon
dates, it appears that use of shark teeth coincided with several
occupations at the site. We hesitate to make any inferences
regarding the increased frequency of teeth in levels dating
to around A.D. 120 to 330; however, we do note that this
corresponds with the same period that Sears (1982:195)
suggests a rise in ceremonial activity and elaboration of the
mound-pond complex. According to Sears (1982:195), this
increase in ceremonial activity falls within his Period II
designation, which dates between A.D. 200 and A.D. 600-800.
Recently, Thompson (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012:Table
1) radiocarbon dated a fragment of one of the wooden
effigy carvings from the pond to cal. A.D. 540 to 650 at the
second sigma. Thus, while in general there is an increased
Tm~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(1-2)
Figure 3. Examples of shark teeth recovered from the 2010 excavations at Fort Center (left to right: tiger shark [partially
drilled], lemon shark [undrilled], bull shark [drilled]).
frequency of the use of shark teeth during periods in which
we have evidence of ritual-related woodworking and mortuary
ceremonialism, we remain cautious given our limited sample
and for reasons detailed below.
Our study produced results similar to Steinen's (1982)
analysis of shark teeth from Sears' excavation; however,
there are differences in the types and frequencies of species
identified in our sample. These discrepancies are most likely
due to the small number and fragmented condition of teeth
recovered in 2010, which allowed only a few to be identified
to species. The most abundant species represented in our
sample was bull shark, an animal with heavily serrated teeth
(Figure 5). Bull shark was also the most prevalent species
identified in Steinen's analysis; thus, teeth from this species
may have been highly desired and/or easiest to obtain. The
second most frequently collected teeth are from lemon sharks,
and thirdly from tiger sharks. At this point we are uncertain
as to exactly what the frequencies of these different species
represent. Were, for example, bull shark teeth easier to obtain
than others, or were these highly valued for their specific
morphology? We currently do not have the data to address
whether the frequency of different species at Fort Center
is related to ease of procurement, the high value placed on
certain species, or some combination of the two; however, we
mention this here as a possible avenue of future research that
could be examined with larger data sets from multiple sites.
Microwear Analysis
Following identification, microwear analysis was carried
out in an effort to further identify teeth that were used as tools,
as well as to discover the nature of any visible wear patterns
in general. Of the 30 teeth, 10 were deemed suitable for
microwear analysis. This decision was made primarily on the
completeness of each specimen. Highly fractured or damaged
teeth were not analyzed. Unfortunately, this step left us with a
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level5 Level 6 Level7 Level8
SUnit 1 E Unit 2 Unit 4
Figure 4. Shark teeth by unit from the 2010 Fort Center excavations.
2013 66(1-2)
Negaprion brevirostris Carcharhinus leucas Galeocerdo cuvier
Figure 5. Frequency of shark teeth by species from the 2010 Fort Center excavations.
limited number of suitable teeth for microwear analysis. This
factor further limits the extent to which we can comment on
the nature of microwear exhibited on Fort Center shark teeth.
In general, teeth were observed to have abundant multi-
directional wear patterns on the surface (Figure 6). We assume
that such marks are the result of natural post-depositional
processes and are not the result of ancient tool use. Due to
the erratic nature of the striations, no conclusive suggestions
can be made as to the nature of their formation. Moreover, we
cannot determine if the striations are a result of anthropogenic
forces without further testing.
Of the 10 teeth suitable for microwear analysis, six
Figure 6. Use wear photographs of experimental and archaeological shark teeth recovered. Arrows point to use wear
marks. A. Modern experimental tooth, before being used to carve wood. B. Modern experimental tooth, after being used to
carve wood. C. Archaeological specimen from Fort Center. D. Archaeological specimen from Fort Center.
TuE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(1-2)
exhibited isolated unilinear striations along the edge in a similar
manner observed on our experimental teeth. Of these six, two
teeth, one of which also had worn edges, appeared to have
striations running laterally or perpendicular to the cutting edge
(sometimes visible with the naked eye), which seemed contrary
to the more omnidirectional striations believed representative
of wear created from natural processes. Distribution of
microwear was relatively uniform across species. However,
the two specimens bearing lateral striations were limited to
bull and lemon shark teeth. The similarity in morphological
traits (i.e., large serrations) in bull and lemon shark teeth,
as opposed to the tiger shark, may have contributed to them
being used in similar ways. This would explain the analogous
microware on these teeth. This observation may lend further
support to the idea that shark teeth were part of a specialized
toolkit (see Steinen 1982). However, our observations need
to be substantiated with studies from other sites and larger
We note one important caveat to our analysis. At present,
there are no studies documenting the naturally occurring use
wear of teeth during the shark's lifetime (see Kozuch 1992:3
for a discussion). It is possible that "natural" use wear could
be species dependent (e.g., depending on diet), as well as
dependent upon the position of the teeth in the shark's mouth
(i.e., anterior, posterior). We acknowledge that this presents a
potential problem in our analysis; however, our preliminary
study showed, at least in terms of the experimental teeth, no
disenable pre-experiment use wear. Further, we assume that
even if a shark's teeth do develop use wear, it is unlikely to be
similar to wear patterns created through the carving of wood,
which is not usually part of the diet of these fish. That said, our
small study here is inadequate to address this problem, and we
note it as a future area of research.
As mentioned previously, Sears (1982) divided the
site into two distinct areas: habitation and ceremonial. This
division is based on the frequency of non-ceramic artifacts,
including shark teeth, recovered from various areas of the
site. Specifically, he suggested that the abundance of carving
implements present in the mound-pond complex, in part,
indicates a separate function from the surrounding site. While
we agree with this interpretation, we argue that use of shark
teeth was not limited to (or even dominant in) the mound-pond
complex area.
Considering the dramatic differences in methods used
during both the 1960s and 1970s excavations at the site, as
well as our own during 2010, it is perhaps not surprising that
there is differential recovery of shark teeth. The previous
investigations by Sears were on a massive scale, and we
estimate by comparison our own excavations represent less
than one percent of the total excavations at the site. However,
our limited excavations yielded 30 teeth, compared to the 197
recovered during Sears' investigations. Only five percent (n
=11) of the teeth collected during Sears' investigations were
recovered from habitation contexts. In contrast, all teeth from
the 2010 excavations are from the so-called habitation areas.
Thus, we suggest that many teeth were lost during the early
recovery efforts due to use of heavy equipment and other
excavation techniques (e.g., screen size) that bias against
smaller finds, such as teeth.
Given the surprisingly abundant quantities of shark
teeth that appear to be present in the midden from our own
excavations, we suggest a more significant role of shark teeth
in the economic, day-to-day lives of the inhabitants of Fort
Center. Additionally, Sears' original suggestion that the wood
effigy industry was limited to the mound-pond complex is still a
viable interpretation. However, we suggest that woodworking,
in general, perhaps as a part of household production of
utilitarian items such as wooden bowls was more widespread
than previously thought.
The nature of shark teeth at Fort Center is an issue that will
not be clarified without further research. While we have made
some progress in cataloging, identifying, and quantifying teeth,
a more informed analysis will require broad-based approaches
that incorporate a regional perspective. The merits of research
dealing with trade and shark teeth are also clear. Studies by
Kozuch (1993) and others (e.g., Seymore 2003) demonstrate
the value of such perspectives utilizing shark teeth as a primary
data source for examining the direction and dynamics of trade.
Of particular interest is the nature of the trade networks, and
the potential for insight into the region's extensive prehistoric
canals whose function may have been to facilitate trade and
exchange (see Luer 1989). Such research would be valuable
to an understanding of how Fort Center existed in relation
to its neighboring groups. Additional progress will enable
archaeologists to map out regional networks, explore how
such items were valued and used over the broader landscape,
and evaluate to what extent Florida's maritime heritage (see
Walker 1992) influenced inland peoples.
The research was supported by funds awarded to
Thompson from the National Geographic Society (Grant #
8772- 10), The Ohio State University, and the University of
South Florida. We thank Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Amanda D.
Roberts Thompson, Hannah Morris, Margaret Spivey, and the
OSU 2010 archaeological field school students for their help.
Our research also would not have been possible without the
support the Fisheating Creek WMA and the Florida Bureau
of Archaeological Research, particularly Beth Morford, Ryan
Wheeler and Louis Tesar. We also thank William Marquardt,
Karen Walker, Jerald Milanich, Ann Cordell, Melissa Ayvaz,
Elise LeCompte, Donna Ruhl, and Ellen Burlingame Turck
for their assistance with collections research undertaken
in association with the Fort Center project. Karen Walker,
Richard Yerkes, Jerald Milanich, and Laura Kozuch
2013 66(1-2)
provided comments on an earlier draft, which improved the
overall quality of this paper. We also extend our gratitude to
Logan Miller and Richard Yerkes who provided laboratory
supervision and advice to Keller regarding the microwear
portion of this study. Finally, we thank the three anonymous
reviewers for their substantive comments, which improved the
overall quality of our paper.
References Cited
Allen, Ross
1948 The Big Circle Mounds. Florida Anthropologist
Brown, Robin
1994 Florida First People:12,000 Years of Human
History. Pineapple Press, Inc., Sarasota.
Byrd, Julia C.,
2011 Archaic Bone Tools in the St. Johns River Basin,
Florida: Microwear and Manufacture Traces.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Carr, Robert
1985 Prehistoric circular earthworks in South Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 38:288-301.
Carr, Robert, David Dickel, and Marilyn Masson
1995 Archaeological Investigation at the Ortona
Earthworks and Mounds. The Florida
Anthropologist 48:227-263.
Compagno, Leonard J. V.
1984 FAO species catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world.
An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark
species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis
Cushing, Frank H.
1973 Exploration of the Ancient Key Dwellers'Remains
on the GulfCoast of Florida. AMS Press, New
Ferguson, Jeffrey R. (editor)
2010 Designing Experimental Research In Archaeology.
University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Furey, John F.
1977 An Analysis of Shark Tools from the Boca Weir Site
in South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 30:89-
Gates St. Pierre, Christian, and Renee Beauchamp Walker
2007 Bones as Tools: Current methods and interpretations
in worked bone studies. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Johnson, William G.
1990 The Role of Maize in South Florida Aboriginal
Societies:An Overview. The Florida Anthropologist
1991 Remote Sensing and Soil Science Applications to
Understanding Belle Glade Cultural Adaptations in
the Okeechobee Basin. Unpublished Dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
1996 A Belle Glade earthwork typology and chronology.
The Florida Anthropologist 49:249-260.
Keegan, William. F.
1987 Diffusion of maize from South America:The
Antillean connection reconstructed. In Emergent
Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands,
edited by W. F. Keegan, pp. 329-344. Southern
Illinois University, Center for Archaeological
Investigations Occasional Papers 7, Carbondale.
Kelly, Jennifer A., Robert Tykot and Jerald. T. Milanich
2006 Evidence for Early Use of Maize in Peninsular
Florida. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary
Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics,
Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of
Maize, edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F.
Benz, pp. 249-262. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Kozuch, Laura
1993 Sharks and Shark Products in Prehistoric
South Florida. Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 2.
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Luer, George M.
1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of
Tribute and Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist
Marquardt, William.
1986 The Development of Cultural Complexity in
Southwest Florida:Elements of a Critique.
Southeastern Archaeology 5(1):63-70.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology ofPrecolumbian Florida. University
Press of Florida, Gainsville.
2004 Prehistory of Florida after 500 B.C. In Handbook
ofNorth American Indians:Southeast, edited by
R. Fogelson, pp. 191-203. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Tint ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ FLORID ANHOOOGS 03 61
Morris, Hannah
2012 Paleoethnobotanical Investigations at Fort Center
(8GL13), Florida. Unpublished Master's Thesis,
Department of Anthropology. The Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Penders, Thomas Edward
1997 A Study of the Form and Function of the Bone and
Antler Artifacts from the Windover Archaeological
Site (8BR246), Brevard County, Florida.
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of
Anthropology. Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J. and Victor D. Thompson
2012 Integrating LiDAR and Conventional Mapping Data:
Methodological Insights and Appraisal of Results
from Mapping of the Fort Center site in South-Central
Florida (8GL13). Journal of Field Archaeology
Sears, William H.
1982 Fort Center:An Archaeological Site in the Lake
Okeechobee Basin. University Press of Florida,
Sears, E. and William H. Sears
1976 Preliminary report on Prehistoric Corn Pollen from
Fort Center, Florida. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Bulletin, 19:53-56.
Seymour, Patricia
2003 Trade Dynamics in South Florida during the Archaic
and Glades periods: The Commerce of Shark
Teeth. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department
of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Steinen, Karl T.
1983 Other Nonceramic Artifacts. In Fort Center:An
Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin,
by William H. Sears, pp. 68-110. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Thompson, Victor D., Kristen Gremillion, and Thomas J.
2013 Challenging the Evidence for Prehistoric Wetland
Maize Agriculture at Fort Center, Florida. American
Antiquity, in press.
Thompson, V. D. and J. E. Worth
2011 Dwellers by the Sea:Native American Adaptations
along the Southern Coasts of Eastern North
America. Journal ofArchaeological Research
Thompson, Victor D., and Thomas, J. Pluckhahn
2012 Monumentalization and Ritual Landscapes at Fort
Center in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of South
Florida. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology
Walker, Karen
1992 The Zooarchaeology of Charlotte Harbor's
Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation: Spatial and
Temporal Perspectives. In Culture and Environment
in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. H.
Marquardt, pp. 265-366. Institute of Archaeology
and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1.
University of Florida, Gainesville.
2000 The Material Culture of Precolumbian Fishing:
Artifacts and Fish Remains from Coastal Southwest
Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 19:24-45.
Yerkes, Richard W., and P. Nick Kardulias
1993 Recent Developments in the Analysis of Lithic
Artifacts. Journal ofArchaeological Research 1:89-
3 102 66(1-2)
Gregory A. Mikell
Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 4430 Yarmouth Place, Pensacola, Florida 32514
E-Mail: email@example.com
In 2013, the 500" anniversary of Juan Ponce de Le6n's
voyage to Florida will be marked. While there is reason to
question whether or not Ponce de Le6n and his crew were the
first Europeans in La Florida, he is credited with the honor
and for naming the peninsula. Other Spaniards followed and
were often attacked by native peoples who may have had
knowledge of Spanish slavers who reached the Gulf coast of
Florida and abducted Indians into slavery long before Ponce
de Le6n's arrived.
A site (8WL38) in northwestern Florida has yielded
well-documented evidence of Spanish presence in the
Choctawhatchee Bay region in the late fifteenth or early
sixteenth century. This site is also associated with a cemetery
site (8WL9) where Clarence B. Moore (1918) and Charles
Fairbanks (1965) recovered European materials in association
with late Fort Walton burials. Together with other Fort Walton
sites on Fourmile Point, 8WL38 and 8WL9 potentially
demonstrate two things: the prominence and the decline of a
principal Fort Walton settlement on Choctawhatchee Bay that,
by all evidence available, was likely visited by the Spanish and
went into decline shortly thereafter. The arrival of the Spanish,
which will be celebrated 500 years after Ponce de Le6n made
it official, was most likely not a cause for celebration for the
people of Fourmile Point.
Recorded Early Spanish Exploration
of the Northern Gulf Coast, 1519-1559
As a pretext to what may have occurred at Fourmile
Point in the early 1500s, a review of recorded early Spanish
exploration of the northern Gulf Coast follows here. Spanish
attempts to explore La Florida were filled with peril. To begin
with, as Smith et al. (1995:2) put it, "... unlike those of Mexico,
Florida's natives were semi-nomadic, disinclined to accept
imposed labor, and not hesitant to fight intruders" (as Le6n,
Narviez, and Soto found out). Many scholars have contributed
to the following summary, but none more than John Worth;
much of the following is based on current work by and the
insights of John Worth (2012) and Smith et al. (1995, 1998).
In search of slaves and gold, Juan Ponce de Le6n arrived
on Florida's Atlantic coast (Mosquito Inlet) on April 2, 1513
and subsequently sailed south and around the tip of Florida
to the vicinity of Charlotte Harbor, mapping portions of the
southern Gulf coast (Milanich and Milanich 1996). Other
Spanish explorers and slavers followed Juan Ponce de Le6n
to La Florida (Kerrigan 1951), and Ponce de Le6n returned
to Florida with a charter from the King of Spain to establish
a colony in 1521. It is believed that he landed near Sanibel
Island in Charlotte Harbor, but he was again driven off by the
Calusa and received a wound that led to his death in Havana
that same year.
The exploratory expedition of Diego Miruelo in ca. 1516
is poorly documented, but may have set out from Cuba in
search of slaves along the western and northwestern coasts
of Florida. The expedition discovered and named at least one
large bay along the northern Gulf coast, but later expeditions
had great difficulty identifying it. Miruelo's expedition could
have entered Choctawhatchee Bay, although this is speculative,
and it may have resulted in Juan Ponce de Le6n's lawsuit
against Cuban governor Diego Velazquez del Cuellar for
having allowed 300 Florida Indians to be captured and brought
illegally to Cuba (John E. Worth, personal communication,
In 1519, Alonso AlvArez de Pineda, a Spanish explorer
and map maker, sailed the northern Gulf coast in a futile search
for an all-water route to the Pacific. Pineda sailed on behalf of
the Spanish Governor of Jamaica, Francisco de Garay, who
sent him to explore and chart the Gulf Coast from Florida to
Mexico and in so doing Pineda demonstrated that Florida is
a peninsula (Weddle 1985). There is no record that Pineda
entered Pensacola Bay, Santa Rosa Sound, or Choctawhatchee
Bay, but it is possible that he did.
Late in 1526, Pinfilo de Narvaez was granted license to
claim the Gulf Coast following Lucas Vasquez de Ayll6n's
failed Atlantic colony (Weber 1992). The contract gave
Narvaez one year to gather an army, leave Spain, establish at
least two towns of 100 people each, and garrison two more
fortresses along the coast of Florida. Leaving Spain in 1527
with 300 men, the expedition, which included Alvar Nifiez
Cabeza de Vaca, arrived on the Gulf Coast on April 7, 1528
near Tampa Bay. Narvaez's colonizing expedition intended
to settle along the northwestern Gulf coast, just north of the
New Spain colony (Mexico), but severe storms drove the fleet
to Tampa Bay, where the members of the expedition tried in
vain to discover Diego Miruelo's bay (Worth 2012). After
leaving the Tampa Bay area and journeying overland to the
"land of the Apalachee" near modem-day Tallahassee on an
unsuccessful search for gold, the Narviez expedition moved
to the coast somewhere near the St. Marks or Wakulla rivers
to await resupply or rescue. Eventually, the expedition built
Figure 1. Grayscale adaptation of the 1584 map, titled "La Florida, by Abraham Ortelius, a Flemish cartographer and geog-
rapher, generally recognized as the creator of the first modern atlas, the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (Theatre of the World).
Courtesy of the J. Thomas and Lavinia Witt Touchton Collection.
small boats or rafts and drifted westerly along the northwestern
Florida coast until a storm separated Narvaez and his men,
Narvaez died (1528), and the eight-year odyssey of Cabeza de
Vaca began (Howard 1997). Again, there is no documentation
that the Narva6z expedition entered Pensacola Bay, Santa Rosa
Sound, or Choctawhatchee Bay, but that too was a possibility.
The next Spaniard known to come to Florida was Hemando
de Soto. Soto's expedition is "perhaps best described as an
expedition of conquest, since it was predominantly military in
character, and pushed rapidly inland toward the mountainous
region that Soto hoped would produce riches on the same
scale as his previous experience under Francisco Pizarro in
Peru" (Worth 2012). The large expedition, consisting of nine
ships and about 600 soldiers and colonists, sailed from Cuba
in 1539. Making landfall at Tampa and, like Narvaez, moving
north, Soto spent the winter of 1540 encamped under siege
in Apalachee (Ewen and Hann 1998). During the winter
encampment, Soto sent one of his lieutenants, Francisco
Maldonado, to reconnoiter the Gulf Coast to the west of
Apalachee. Maldonado explored and chose Pensacola Bay,
or "Ochuse," as a rendezvous point for re-supply expeditions
from Cuba. Repeated attempts to establish contact with
Soto's lost expedition failed (Smith et al. 1995; Worth 2012).
Maldonado visited Pensacola Bay between 1540 and 1543,
but there is no record that he entered Choctawhatchee Bay.
While it appears certain that the Soto expedition's main body
Figure 2. Grayscale adaptation detail of the 1700 Spanish map of the northwest Florida Gulf Coast with Fourmile Point and
Choctawhatchee Bay labeled. Courtesy of the U.S. Library of Congress, American Memory (2012)
was never on Choctawhatchee Bay, it is certainly possible that
Maldonado's reconnoitering brought him to the area, whether
or not he actually entered Choctawhatchee Bay.
In the 1550s, interest in the northern Gulf Coast was
revived with the publication of Hernando de Soto's adventures
and a new initiative to establish missions along the coast to
administer native people in the region (UWF 2012). In 1553-
1554, Angel de Villafafie sailed toward Mexico City, but was
shipwrecked en route along the coast of Texas (Padre Island).
The Villafafie wreck and other ship disasters around the Gulf
of Mexico led to a plan for establishing a settlement on the
northern Gulf Coast to protect shipping and rescue survivors.
In 1558, Guido de Lavazares explored the northern Gulf
Coast. En route from Veracruz, Lavazares inspected Mobile
Bay, which he named "Bahia Filipina" and recommended
for settlement (UWF 2012). Also in 1558, Juan de Renteria
inspected Bahia Filipina as well as another bay they named
"Polonza" or the Bay of Ochuse (Pensacola Bay). It may
have been Renteria's recommendations on Polonza, which
resulted in the directive to settle Polonza/Ochuse. A year later,
Tristan de Luna arrived to settle "Ochuse" (Weddle 1985:258-
260). There is no clear evidence that Lavazares or Renteria
exploratory expeditions entered Choctawhatchee Bay, but it
is a possibility as Pensacola and Choctawhatchee bays are
connected by Santa Rosa Sound.
Tristan de Luna's 1559 colonization effort represented
the culmination of early Spanish explorations of the northern
Gulf Coast. Leaving Veracruz in August with 1,500 persons
(500 soldiers, 900 civilians, 100 "Aztec warriors," and six
Dominican priests), the Luna expedition arrived at Mobile
Bay but quickly moved on to Pensacola (UWF 2012). Within
little more than a month, a hurricane devastated Luna's Santa
Maria Filipina settlement, destroying supplies and wrecking
Luna's fleet. The remainder of the expedition was marked by
attempts to stave off starvation, which included the dispatch
of soldiers inland as far as northwestern Georgia in search of
food, the relocation of the majority of the colonists inland,
and multiple resupply expeditions from Veracruz (Worth
2012). By 1561, the Luna colony was completely abandoned
and Spanish activities ceased on the Gulf Coast until the late
1600s. While there is no conclusive evidence that any members
of the Luna expedition entered Choctawhatchee Bay, it was
certainly possible that they could have moved inland by way
of Choctawhatchee Bay and up the Choctawhatchee River into
south-central Alabama. It is also possible that a contingent of
men left at Ochuse may have explored the area around the bay.
European presence in northwestern Florida after Luna is
undocumented, if any occurred at all, until the late 1600s. None
of the early explorers' maps depict the Choctawhatchee River
or detail Choctawhatchee Bay until about 1700 (Figures 1 and
2) and what known descriptions the Spanish recorded provide
few details on the scattered populations of fisher folk they
encountered. With the limited archaeological data available, it
appears that the late 1600s post-date the apparent calamitous
decline and virtual disappearance of the Fort Walton culture
on the Gulf Coast and the Pensacola culture on the Pensacola
and Choctawhatchee bays, which may have been in decline by
the time of the Luna expedition (Dysart 1999).
Late Fort Walton Culture on
Choctawhatchee Bay
The Fort Walton culture on Choctawhatchee Bay
developed as a "Mississippian frontier" culture, evolving
from local Weeden Island with influences or invasive
encroachment of people from interior Mississippian cultural
centers, such as Moundville, Bottle Creek, Lake Jackson, and
Cayson, between A.D. 800 and 1200 (Marrinan and White
2007; Mikell 1993, 2001; Weinstein and Dumas 2008). By
A.D. 1200, Fort Walton was well established around the bay
and on the Choctawhatchee River and continued up to the
period of Spanish exploration and exploitation of the Gulf
Coast. The Choctawhatchee region Fort Walton culture was
an apparent melting pot for Moundville-derived Pensacola
culture influence from the west and Etowah and Lamar-
derived Fort Walton culture from the Apalachicola Valley
and Tallahassee Red Hills region to the east (Brown 2003;
Jones 1982; Marrinan and White 2007; Milanich 1994; Scarry
1990; Weinstein and Dumas 2008). Interpretations of the
Choctawhatchee melting pot, however, are based primarily
on the "pot" (ceramic technology and tradition), and there is
some evidence suggesting that "melting" was associated with
the cyclical ebb and flow of chiefdom emergence, height of
power, and decline (Ashley and White 2012; Harris 2012;
Marrinan and White 2007; Mikell 1992, 1995b), where
Pensacola influences are quite visible after about A.D. 1400
(Mikell 1992). Although it was not a "Classic" Mississippian
culture and, to an extent, lacked the grandiose multiple mound
sites of the Pensacola culture (Bottle Creek) and eastern Fort
Walton culture (e.g., Lake Jackson, Pierce), there is no reason
to doubt that Choctawhatchee Fort Walton was a chiefdom-
level society that relied more on the use of coastal resources
than on agriculture. Choctawhatchee Fort Walton appears to
represent a limited number of minor chiefdoms that included,
in addition to numerous large and small habitation sites, a
number of elaborate burial cemeteries and a few ceremonial
mounds, such as the Fort Walton Temple Mound (80K6),
which is the now controversial Fort Walton type site (Willey
Late Fort Walton at Fourmile Point
The first documentation of the Fort Walton cultural
remains on Fourmile Point was conducted in the 1880s by
Sylvanus Tandy Walker of Milton, Florida (Mitchem 2000).
Walker (1885) mapped sites around Choctawhatchee Bay
that included massive shell heaps and mounds on Fourmile
Point (Figure 3) and mapped an aboriginal canoe canal south
of Fourmile Point, extending from Horseshoe Bayou to a
seven mile-long lake on the coast. Concerning the prehistoric
settlement of Choctawhatchee Bay, Walker (1885:860) stated
that "[I]t is almost certain that the aborigines lived around
these waters in vast numbers. Every cove and headland that
is habitable was occupied, all points possessing unusual
advantages for hunting and fishing were densely peopled, and
at several points towns of considerable size existed." While
Walker was not just recording observations on Fort Walton
sites, it is now known that the majority of the prehistoric
remains he observed on Fourmile Point were remnants of
Fort Walton sites. Specifically in reference to Fourmile point,
Walker (1885:867) wrote that:
a second great area of ancient population was
about the center of the bay and on its southern
side, where a point 3 miles in length extends north
between Horseshoe and Hogtown Bayous, while on
the south and between the point and the Gulf lies a
large fresh water lake, 7 miles in length and with an
average width of a half mile. The peculiar advantages
of this point for an Indian town may be seen at a
glance, viz: Fishing and hunting facilities unequaled
and capable of easy defense in case of an attack.
Evidences of a dense population once occupying this
vantage ground begin one mile south of the extreme
point and extend on both shores and down the center
to the lake. These evidences consist of shell banks
and heaps along the shores and of low mounds along
the center of the point. Some of the shell heaps are of
immense size while others are mere piles containing
a few bushels. The mounds a short distance from the
beach and extending the whole length of the point are
slight elevations and often five or six are placed in a
straight line. Those measured were from 1 to 2 feet
high and from 30 to 60 feet in diameter. The general
surface of the country is low and flat rendering it
necessary to have elevations for houses.
Following Walker, 34 years later, Clarence B. Moore
(1918:537-538) conducted his excavation of the "Cemetery
on Hogtown Bayou" in 1917, collecting numerous ceramic
vessels or large and unusual sherds (n=106) and high status
grave goods from at least 112 burials. Moore said of Fourmile
Point that it "contained the principle [sic] shell heaps on the
Choctawhatchee" and stated that the Hogtown Bayou cemetery
(8WL9) was "post-Columbian" and contained "... glass beads
with a number of burials; objects of iron or of steel, among
which, in one instance, was a pair of scissors; shell beads;
columellae of marine univalves; rude shell implements; one
shell ear ornament of the pin variety; thirteen celts, all wrought
from imported rocks, between 2 inches and 7.5 inches in
length" (Moore 1918:537-538). Moore (1918:538) described
the burials and some of the materials recovered as follows:
With the unenclosed interments sometimes
were artifacts, and also, occasionally with the urn-
burials, in some cases under the bowls, and in other
instances just outside vessels. These accompanying
artifacts included:...a graceful discoidal also of
material foreign to Florida, 2.7 inches in diameter,
slightly convex on each side, and having an even
circumference permitting the object to roll in a direct
course doubtless a chungkee stone; four wrought
stones in diameter from 1.6 inch to 2.6 inches, shaped
like much truncated cones (save in three instances the
upper side was somewhat convex), presenting, owing
to the slanting surface of the periphery, a difficulty in
keeping a straight line in rolling. Henry Timberlake
in his "Memoirs" (p.77) speaks of a game played
with stones having beveled sides. One of these
stones had on the upper side a pit in which perhaps
nuts had been placed for cracking...thirteen celts, all
GULP XICo
Figure 3. Walker's map (1885) showing the locations of aboriginal sites around Choctawhatchee Bay.
3 102 Vot. 66(1-2)
MIKEL WHT SPr'u~Iin AS H~if
wrought from imported rocks, between 2 inches and
8.5 inches in length ... were twenty-four lancepoints
and arrowheads or knives, nearly all very rudely
made, owing perhaps to the inferiority of the flint.
In only one instance among them, we believe, can a
projectile point be differentiated from an implement
for incision...a tubular bead of silicious material,
1.7 inches in length; a similarly shaped one of red
claystone, 1.4 inch in length; and two shell beads.
The National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI)
at the Smithsonian Institution currently houses a collection of
156 artifacts from Moore's excavations that includes the items
described above as well as other shell beads and pendants,
polished stone beads, copper ornaments in the shape of a
projectile point, a "small incised pottery stopper" that may be
an ear plug, "small pottery dippers" with notched rims that
look like smoking pipes, a small quartz discoidal, "nodules
and chips of flint," and sandstone for hones. Moore collected
a total of 32 chert projectile points that appear, interestingly,
to be primarily of Late Archaic origin and may have been
collected from nearby Archaic sites. Courtesy of NMAI
(2012), Figure 4 presents a collage of selected artifacts that
Moore collected from 8WL9.
In 1939, Gordon Willey attempted to relocate the
Hogtown Bayou cemetery, but was not successful. His
succinct description of the site remains viable, however, and
he curiously describes "copper bells" not mentioned by Moore
(Willey 1949:22):
Excavation revealed massed secondary burials,
single skull and bunched interments, and skulls with
vessels inverted over them. Over 100 burials were
encountered. Pottery and other artifacts were found
immediately associated with burials, and mass deposits
of broken vessels and sherds were also found without
immediate burial associations.
Projectile points, lance blades, knives, celts,
bones, discoidals, and beads were among the stone
artifacts found with the burials. Shell tools, ear pins,
and beads, a copper pendant, and a variety of European
objects were also found in the graves. These last
included copper bells, glass beads, and various tools
and weapons of iron. Pottery is described thoroughly
though not illustrated, except for a small, stopper-like
object which might be a pottery anvil (Moore 1918,
fig. 18). The trait of"killing" the vessels was present.
Moore also refers to the use of a white filler-pigment
in the incised lines of some of the vessels. There is little
doubt that the vessels described belong to the Fort Walton
The site was revisited in 1958 by Charles Fairbanks and in
1959 by William C. Lazarus and Gerald Spence. Excavations
were conducted on both revisits. According to the notes of the
excavators (Florida Master Site File 2012), numerous sherds
and partial bowls (globular and cazuela) were recovered,
and several vessel fragments had "kill holes." Lazarus and
Spence indicated that the majority of the sherds were shell-
tempered and Fairbanks (1965:259) reported a bead similar to
an "Ichtucknee Blue Bead" and erroneously dated the site to
the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century.
In addition to the Hogtown Bayou cemetery, Fourmile
Point contains several Fort Walton habitation sites of various
sizes (Figure 5). These sites, summarized in Table 1, are
primarily shell middens and/or habitation sites and, where
radiocarbon dates have been obtained, date to between A.D.
1200 and 1600 with the majority of dates between A.D. 1300
and 1500. While several are poorly documented and either have
not been excavated at all or have been minimally tested, there
are some exceptions to this generalization: "intensive testing"
of site 8WL99 in 1990 (Thomas 1990); partial excavation
of site 8WL38 later in the 1990s (Mikell 1994, 1997); data
recovery at sites 8WL36, 8WL91, and 8WL335 in 2000-2001
(Thomas et al. 2001; Meyer et al. 2000a; Meyer et al. 2001; and
Phase II test excavations within a portion of 8WL101 (Mikell
and Shoemaker 2005). Of the sites that have been tested or
excavated in some manner, six stand out (8WL9, 8WL38,
8WL99, 8WL101, 8WL335, and 8WL338) as representative
of the of the late Fort Walton period on Fourmile Point during
the late fifteenth and, possibly, early sixteenth century. Four
sites on Fourmile Point are demonstrated by radiocarbon dates
and/or recovered materials that suggest the site was occupied
or used during the early sixteenth century: 8WL9 (Hogtown
Bayou cemetery), 8WL38, 8WL99, and 8WL338. There were
doubtless other sites occupied during this crucial time on
Fourmile Point as well.
In 1994 and 1997, I reported on my 1993 and 1994 work
at site 8WL38 in The Florida Anthropologist (Mikell 1994,
1997), describing the site as a large Fort Walton village and
midden site arranged around a clearly defined plaza, where
a unique midden mound deposit was located on the east
side of the plaza (Figure 6), which contained evidence of
ritual behavior, communal feasting, and the presence of the
Spanish in the area reflected by the recovery of five metal
artifacts. Aside from the midden mound with its remains of
ritual behavior and nearby rectangular and raised platform
structures, 8WL38 appeared to be a fairly typical coastal
Fort Walton village/midden site on the Choctawhatchee that
shared many characteristics with 8WL99, located less than
a kilometer to the south (Thomas 1990). The balance of the
other Fort Walton sites on Fourmile Point consists of typical
oyster middens, but these are occupations on sites with Late
Archaic through Late Woodland components. Notable among
them for significant data on the Fort Walton settlement of
Fourmile Point are 8WL36, 8WL91, and 8WL335 (see Figure
5 and Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of sites on Fourmile Point with recorded Fort Walton Corn onents.
Site Subsequent
Site Site Name Site Description and Level of Investigation Subsequent
Number Excavation
Fort Walton shell midden recorded by Willey (1949:219); no
8WL7 G.F. Forrest
known investigation since.
Fort Walton cemetery with European materials in some burials.
8WL9 etey at Excavated by C.B. Moore in 1917, Fairbanks (1958), Lazarus and
S Hoo Spence (1959) with subsequent, poorly documented investigations
Bayou since.
Late Archaic, Weeden Island, and Fort Walton shell midden;
Mound near
8WL M0 nea possible Archaic burial mound excavated by Moore (1918),
8W Mack Bayou recorded by Willey (1949:221); very limited investigation since.
Large Santa Rosa-Swift Creek midden/habitation site with data
Horseshoe relatively minor Fort Walton, Late Archaic, and other Woodland recovery:
8WL36 Bayou components. One c14 date (A.D. 1280-1460) from Fort Walton Thomas et
component. al. 2001
8WL37 Co n Fort Walton shell midden, largely eroded when recorded by
8WL37 Coffeen
Fairbanks (1958); no investigation since.
Large area of Fort Walton shell middens and elevated middens p
Fourmile recorded by Fairbanks (1958) as two sites (8WL38-39), combined eaatial
8WL38 Point by Nidy (1974). Fairbanks reported a shell ring enclosure, dense Mikl
Midden 1 midden. Six c14 dates (A.D. 1238-1550) from Fort Walton M 199
component with European materials. 1
Fourmile Fort Walton shell midden recorded by Fairbanks (1958); no
Point 3 investigation since.
Buck Late Archaic shell mound used as ceremonial mound during Fort
Mound Walton period; limited investigation (Thomas 1989).
Large, multicomponent Woodland midden/habitation site with
8WL91 relatively minor Fort Walton component. One c14 date (A.D. recovery:
Cove Meyer et al.
e1029-1230) from Fort Walton component. 2001
Fort Walton shell middens, elevated middens recorded by Nidy
8WL99 Monday (1974). Four c14 dates (A.D. 1260-1450) and approximately A.D. testing:
Midden Thomas
1550. 1990
8WL100 Dowdna Fort Walton shell midden recorded by Nidy (1974) with limited
investigation since (Mikell et al. 1995)
Extensive Fort Walton shell midden visited by Fairbanks (1958) testing
and recorded as one site that covers several Woodland middens testing
8WL101 Mck Bayou and Late Archaic sites by Nidy (1974); includes Hogtown Bayou Mortion
cemetery (8WL9) and Buck Mound (8WL90). Limited Mke
investigation (Jones 1991; Thomas 1989). 2005
8WL334 Walker's Prehistoric canal, possibly Fort Walton, recorded by S.T. Walker
Canal (1885); limited investigations since (Mahar 2011).
Substantial Fort Walton midden/habitation site with relatively data
8WL335 Jolee minor Late Archaic and Woodland components. Three c14 dates recovery:
(A.D. 1335-1485) from Fort Walton component. (Meyer et al.
Relatively minor Fort Walton/Pensacola shell middens on data
8WL338 Oak Forest multicomponent Woodland site near 8WL36. Three c14 dates recovery:
(A.D. 1025-1560) from Fort Walton/Pensacola component that (Meyer et al.
included only Pensacola (n=12) and sand-tempered plain ceramics. 2000b)
8WL1629 Hewlett Fort Walton shell midden recorded by Phillips and Anderson
SBayou 1 (2000) no testing and no investigation since.
I I R'6n?%--%?%
Figure 4. Collage of selected items collected by C.B. Moore from 8WL9 in 1917. Courtesy of the NMAI. Key: a: celts; b:
discoidals; c: stemmed Late Archaic points; d: tubular stone beads; e: ceramic "stopper"; f: ceramic "dipper" or pipe; g:
copper ornaments; h: columella pendant; i: incised shallow bowl with hand and eye motif; j: incised collared fish effigy bowl
(Fort Walton Incised var. Cayson?); k: incised cazuela bowl with snake (?) rim effigy (Fort Walton Incised var. Fort Walton)
; 1: incised flaring rim bowl (Fort Walton Incised var. Choctawhatchee); m: incised simple restricted bowl with rim effigy
(frog?); n: incised collared bowl (Fort Walton Incised var. Safety Harbor?); o: burnished bottle; p: incised cazuela bowl
(Point Washington Incised var. Point Washington); q: incised simple bowl with rim bird effigy (Fort Walton Incised var.
Marsh Island); r: everted rim jar incised with elaborate grasping hand motif; s: incised everted rim, carinated jar (Point
Washington Incised var. Griffith?).
The ceremonial aspects of 8WL38 are a critical element
and distinguish the site as a place of importance and possibly
of important people. In the initial investigation of 8WL38,
Charles Fairbanks (1958) suggested that a shell ring enclosure
was present; this was likely the ring of elevated shell middens
around the plaza area. The evidence of ceremonial activities,
communal feasting, and ritual disposal of various materials,
primarily between A.D. 1300 and 1550, indicates an indelible
link in terms of ceremonial materials and contexts, as well
as implied temporal association between 8WL38 and the
Hogtown Bayou cemetery (8WL9).
Calibrated (1 sigma using CalPal 2012) radiocarbon dates
place the occupation and use of 8WL38 between A.D. 1200
and 1550 with a "cluster" between about A.D. 1325 and 1550
(Mikell 1994: Table 2). The occupation of 8WL99 is dated
between A.D. 1300 and 1400 with a single outlying date of
approximately A.D. 1550 (Thomas 1990: Table 4). At 8WL335
three radiocarbon dates place the Fort Walton occupation
between cal. A.D. 1335 and 1485 (Meyer et al. 2000a: Table
1), and at 8WL338 three radiocarbon dates place the Fort
Walton occupation between A.D. 1025 and 1560 (Meyer et al.
2000b: Table 1). There is no way to know if these sites were
occupied simultaneously, but it is likely they were, and they
are clearly related Late Fort Walton habitation sites that are
part of a network of contemporaneous sites across Fourmile
The largest Fort Walton site on Fourmile Point is 8WL 101,
an extensive Fort Walton habitation site actually made up of
several sites that span the Late Archaic through the Fort Walton
periods. The site includes both Moore's Hogtown Bayou
cemetery (8WL9) and the Late Archaic shell mound (8WL90)
known as Buck Bayou Mound (see Figure 5), which appears
to have served as a Fort Walton ceremonial mound (Fairbanks
1958; Thomas 1989). This group of sites (n=8) is essentially
covered by a contiguous set of Fort Walton shell middens,
and this is what led Nidy (1974) to combine them into one
large site. Investigations of 8WL101 have been a patchwork
of survey and testing. While Fort Walton middens on 8WL 101
constitute, in many cases, a thin veneer over deeper Woodland
middens, there are distinct and mounded Fort Walton middens
on the site that are quite dense (Mikell and Shoemaker 2005;
NWR 1985; Thomas 1989).
Within the expansive village confines at 8WL101, there is
also evidence of the ceremonial aspect of Fort Walton culture,
as seen in the burial practices at the Hogtown Bayou cemetery,
the use of the Buck Bayou Mound, and the potential for shell
ring enclosures and ridges that could have been more than
elevated, linear domestic middens (Fairbanks 1958; Jones
1991, Calvin B. Jones, personal communication, 1991). A
grievous error was made, in my opinion, by the Florida Bureau
of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources,
and State Historic Preservation Officer, in the early 1990s
when the decision was made to allow development on site
8WL101 solely on the premise that the development would
not impact human remains from 8WL9 (Jones 1991), as this
opened the door to development across much of the site without
test excavation or mitigation and only piecemeal investigation
(Aubuchon and Thomas 2011; Curren and Enfinger 2006)
with one exception (Mikell and Shoemaker 2005).
Long before the Fort Walton period, Fourmile Point was
an important place. Not only is Fourmile Point a prominent
landform on Choctawhatchee Bay, there is evidence that
at some point in the prehistoric past, Fourmile Point was
situated just inside the bay from a small opening to the Gulf
or a pass (Mahar 2011). Evidence indicates that the area was
an important geographical marker as early as 3,000 years ago
during the Late Archaic, Elliott's Point phase. Elliott's Point
sites are located on Fourmile Point, and it has been suggested
that the area was a hub of activity during this time (Campbell
et al. 2004; Thomas and Campbell 1993). The Buck Bayou
Mound (8WL90), an accretional shell mound surpassed in size
in the Choctawhatchee region only by the Fort Walton Temple
mound (80K6), is located on Fourmile Point, and there is
evidence that it was utilized, perhaps as a ceremonial platform
mound, by later Fort Walton occupants of the area (NWR
1985; Thomas and Campbell 1993; Campbell et al. 2004).
Choctawhatchee Bay
0 500 1000 .
meteors ,
Figure 5. Map of Fourmile Point showing all recorded
Fort Walton sites labeled with State site numbers.
Figure 6. Map of 8WL38 redrawn from Mikell (1994:
Figure 1).
MIKELL WHAT SPANIARD WAS HEIu?
In summary, Fourmile point is virtually covered with
Fort Walton shell midden and habitation sites. Some of the
habitation sites are quite large, two have provided evidence of
a plaza and ceremonial activities, and there is a Late Archaic
shell mound that bears evidence of use during the Fort Walton
period, possibly as a ceremonial platform mound. It is obvious
that Fort Walton culture, like the Late Archaic and Woodland
cultures that preceded it, flourished on Fourmile Point. There
is even evidence of a canal possibly crafted from an existing
drainage, a fairly common Mississippian trait (Rodning 2003)
that could date to the Fort Walton period (Mahar 2011; Wheeler
1998), extending from the southwestern portion of Fourmile
Point across the pine flatwoods to coastal lakes. Add to these
lines of evidence the fact that there is little other European
material known in Fort Walton contexts on the Choctawhatchee
or nearby coastal sites, and it appears that Fourmile Point may
have been a magnet for European materials.
The other known and reported European artifacts on
Choctawhatchee Fort Walton sites consist of an iron spike from
a burial (Moore 1918:519) and a small copper bell in "Moore's
old dump pile" (Fairbanks 1965:259) at site 8WL21 (Moore's
Mound near Bunker Cut-Off), two glass "finger rings" from
8WL33 (Moore's Cemetery near Point Washington) (Moore
1901:473), a Spanish two maravedi coin minted in Santo
Domingo between 1532 and 1535 from a burial on site 8WL30
(Lazarus 1964, 1965), and a piece of "roughly reworked iron"
from 8WL30 (Fairbanks 1965:259). It has also been said that
brigandine armor was found along the Gulf in a dune near
Eastern Lake near Grayton Beach on site 8WL1365 (Curren et
al. 1998:83). The relatively low frequency of Spanish artifacts
at scattered sites on the Choctawhatchee is doubtless related
to the small number of controlled excavations and the loss of
materials to poorly controlled excavation and looting. Based
on what is currently known, however, there are more Spanish
artifacts from two sites on Fourmile Point (8WL9 and 8WL38)
than anywhere else on the bay or coastline. Combining the
lines of evidence described above, the prominence of Fourmile
Point during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries
appears to be a certainty.
Did the Spanish come to Fourmile Point
during the early Sixteenth Century?
Whether or not the Spanish came to Fourmile Point can
not be answered at present, but there are a few bits of intriguing
evidence that they may have. Unfortunately, the artifacts
of European origin collected and described by Moore at
Hogtown Bayou cemetery are not among the materials curated
by NMAI and are lost to study. Equally unfortunate is Moore's
(1918:537) quite vague description of these items, though
he does describe a pair of scissors. The European artifacts
from 8WL38 that I previously described, a light weight brass
buckle, a bipointed iron spike, an iron plate or band hardware
fragment, a wrought iron nail fragment, and a piece of wrought
iron bar stock were important in their association with Fort
Walton contexts (ceremonial) and radiocarbon dates that place
uL cm
Figure 7. Photograph of the Spanish artifacts recovered from 8WL38: a: light weight brass equipment or clothing
(cf. breeches) buckle, b: goat's foot crossbow lever bowstring hook, c: high-carbon iron bipointed shaft object, and
d: wrought iron rivet.
them on the site prior to A.D. 1550. But an additional metal
artifact recovered in 1998, four years after my excavations
were completed, and a reevaluation of the materials previously
recovered tend to enhance the perspective and the meaning of
just six artifacts.
Two days after the passing of Hurricane Georges in
September 1998, a rusted metal, hook-like object was found
in a storm surge impacted area on the shoreline of 8WL38.
The hook'artifact was graciously conserved using electrolysis
by Dr. John Bratten at the University of West Florida, along
with the other iron artifacts previously recovered. Only in
2012 was the hook artifact conclusively identified, with
the aid of James Levy and Roger Smith (Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Research). In addition to identification of the
hook, the other artifacts were examined by Levy and Smith
during the proceedings of the 64h Annual Meeting of the
Florida Anthropological Society in Tallahassee. The theme of
the meeting, which was the stimulus for my presentation and
this paper, was aptly named "Forever Changed- La Florida. "
Selected Spanish artifacts from 8WL38 are presented
in Figure 7. These artifacts include a light-weight brass
equipment or clothing buckle, a goat's foot crossbow lever
bowstring hook, a high carbon iron bipointed shaft object,
and a wrought iron rivet. The buckle was recovered in direct
association with items that make up a ceremonial cache [sting
ray spines (n=22), ceramic discs (n=2, one engraved), olive
shell beads (n=2), an altered alligator scute, and a fragment of
a turtle shell gorget or pendant]. This cache was situated at the
same depth and within 12 cm of a fire pit or burned materials
(hearth debris); this refuse pit yielded the calibrated (1 sigma)
A.D. 1468-A.D. 1552 radiocarbon date (Mikell 1994:241).
Although this buckle is not a stand-alone diagnostic artifact,
it is of approximately the same dimensions and similar form
to a brass buckle recovered from the Emanuel Point wrecks
in Pensacola Bay, associated with the de Luna expedition
of 1559. Smith et al. (1998:156-157) stated "[a] small brass
buckle was found during excavations at the forward end of the
keel (Figure 71). In length the buckle measures 3 cm and has
a width of 2.7 cm. It was likely used with a strap or belt from
clothing or shoes" (Figure 8). The 8WL38 buckle is bent with
one end essentially broken, but it remains intact, measuring
2.7 cm (width) by 2.85 cm (length).
The bipointed, high-carbon iron shaft object was
previously identified as a "bipointed or double ended iron
spike" (Mikell 1997:5), and the wrought iron rivet was
erroneously identified as a piece of iron bar stock battered on
both ends (Mikell 1997:4-5). The bipointed shaft and rivet
were recovered from subsurface contexts within the upper
eastern or "back" side of the midden mound opposite the plaza.
Within the same excavation block evidence of ritual feasting
and raised floor, rectangular structures were encountered and
documented (Mikell 1997).
While not diagnostic, the flat iron hardware fragment and
wrought nail were recovered in secure aboriginal contexts
within the upper portions of the midden mound and are
important artifacts (Mikell 1994:251). The flat hardware
fragment and wrought nail are not included in Figure 7
because they were inadvertently left out of the electrolysis
conservation process and are in fragile condition. As for the
"Nueva Cadiz" beads I mentioned in the 1997 article (Mikell
1997:5), I have come to discount them because they were
never documented and exist only as a rumor, although an
intriguing one. The most intriguing artifacts recovered are the
bowstring hook and the rivet. The rivet is not diagnostic, but
Figure 8. Adaptation of the photograph of the "small brass buckle" from the Emanuel Point shipwreck Smith et al. (1998:
Figure 71) showing comparison with the 8WL38 buckle.
__ __
2013 66(1-2)
is the right size and shape to have been crafted to hold two
pieces of wood together in some type of mechanical device.
An interesting, but speculative, interpretation based on its
length (13 cm/5.1 inches) is that it could be a rivet from the
rudder of a boat, such as a launch or chalupa and possibly
part of a pintle and gudgeon assembly. As aptly demonstrated
at Red Bay, Labrador and St. Augustine, Florida, chalupas
were nimble, utility longboats that were an essential craft of
the early Spanish explorers and settlers (Figure 9). Chalupas
allowed off-loading of larger ships, crossing the sandbars at
the mouths of inlets, exploration shallow creeks, and landing
soldiers, arms, and equipment (SAMHF 2012).
The bowstring hook (Figures 10 and 11) is diagnostic
in that it is a clearly identifiable part of a military weapon
that Spanish soldiers carried in the New World that fell out
of favor and use by the middle of the sixteenth century. The
bullesta de gafa or goat's foot lever crossbow was the most
common Spanish military crossbow (Johnson 1992:151). By
1525, the matchlock had largely replaced the crossbow in
Europe (Johnson 1992:151), and Hordes (1992:163) states
that the VAsquez de Coronado expedition of 1540 appears to
have been the last entrada to have used crossbows as weapons
in any numbers. Goat's foot lever crossbows were recovered
from the 1554 Padre Island shipwrecks that have nearly
identical bowstring hooks compared to the 8WL38 specimen
(Arnold et al. 1995; Arnold and Weddle 1978;). From the
accounts recorded in 1596 by DAvila Padilla concerning the
plight of the survivors of the 1554 wrecks of the San Esteban,
the Espiritu Santo, and the Santa Maria de Yciar (Arnold and
Weddle 1978: 37-48; McDonald and Arnold 1979:227-238),
the crossbow would not be an item easily surrendered or
given away by sixteenth century Spaniards in the New World.
Arnold et al. (1995:4) put it this way:
The survivors of the shipwrecks salvaged two
crossbows from the wrecks, and these weapons played
a critical part in the tragic tale. Until the crossbows
were lost in a river crossing as the survivors trudged
their way toward PNnuco, in what is now northern
Mexico, the Spaniards were able to keep at bay the
attacking Indians. After the loss of the crossbows, the
trek turned into a death march, and the Indians killed
almost all the survivors.
Smith et al. (1998: 150) echoed these views of the
crossbow in their discussion of the 1559 Emanuel Point
By the time of the Luna expedition, popularity
of the crossbow as an infantry weapon was already
waning, as evidenced by the growing number of
harquebusiers (musketeers) recorded in the muster
rolls of conquistadors such as Coronado and Pizarro
(Rhodes, 1997:46). While extremely powerful,
the slow firing rate of crossbows made them a
particularly ineffective weapon against Indians who
could fire three or more arrows in the time it took
a ballesta (crossbowman) to load and fire one bolt.
The presence of crossbow bolts in the small arms
assemblage from the Emanuel Point Ship, however,
would seem to indicate that crossbows, while
undoubtedly being superseded by harquebuses and
other firearms, were still an important component of
the Luna expedition's military arsenal.
The importance of the crossbow to the Spaniard in the
fifteenth and early sixteenth century exploration of La Florida
may also be reflected in the dearth of crossbows and crossbow
parts identified archaeologically. Aside from the 1554 Padre
Island wreck crossbows, there are few documented remains of
actual crossbows or crossbow parts around Florida and on the
Gulf Coast. Crossbows and parts, including prods, goat's foot
levers, triggers, and bolt points known as quarrels, have been
reported from the 1564 wreck of the Santa Clara (St. Johns
Wreck) on Grand Bahamas Island, (Malcom 1998; Corey
Malcom personal communication, 2012). Crossbow quarrels
have been found at two sites in northwest Florida, however,
and include an iron example from the Martin site in Tallahassee
dated to A.D. 1539-1540 (Ewen and Hann 1998) and four
copper quarrels from the Emanuel Point wrecks (Smith et al.
1998). There is also a copper quarrel in a private collection
that was found on a terrestrial site in northern Manatee County
(Jeffrey M. Mitchem, personnel communication, 2012).
Returning to the question-did the Spanish come to
Fourmile Point during the early sixteenth century-I have
to admit that in the 1990s this seemed improbable to me.
Table 2. Summary of known Spanish artifacts from Fourmile Point sites.
Site Artifact Class Artifact Description
8WL9 metal, domestic tool a pair of scissors (Moore 1918)
8WL9 glass, adornment vaguely described beads (Moore 1918)
8WL9 glass, adornment blue glass (Ichtucknee?) (Fairbanks 1965)
8WL38 metal, clothing or shoes light weight brass buckle (Mikell 1994)
8WL38 metal, tool (?) bipointed, round (?) high carbon iron spike-like object
8WL38 metal, hardware square wrought iron rivet for wooden implement
8WL38 metal, hardware wrought iron nail fragment
8WL38 metal, hardware Flat iron strap or band-like hardware plate
8WL38 metal, military weapon part goat's foot crossbow bowstring hook
WHAT SPANIARD WdS HERE?
However, the addition of the goat's foot crossbow bowstring
hook and a reevaluation of other artifacts have led me to
rethink such a prospect. Given the nature of the six metal
artifacts from 8WL38 and the Spanish artifacts from Hogtown
Bayou cemetery, an actual Spanish presence on Fourmile
Point, at least once during the first half of the sixteenth century,
not only seems plausible, it now appears somewhat likely.
Consider again the Spanish artifacts from these two sites
(Table 2), with knowledge that as of August 2012, there are no
known or reported sixteenth-century Spanish wrecks recorded
in Choctawhatchee Bay or on the adjacent Gulf Coast.
The absence of shipwrecks in the area reduces the chances
that these materials are salvaged from a wreck and, excepting
the crossbow part, they could be considered materials not
typically salvaged by shipwreck survivors. To a lesser
degree, the absence of shipwrecks or substantial Spanish
actions in the area lessens the probability that they are trade
or gift items from elsewhere on the northern Gulf Coast. The
typical interpretation of European artifacts is as salvaged or
trade items on contact-period sites where there is no certain
documentation of a European-aboriginal encounter. Just
as plausible on Fourmile Point is the idea that an encounter
occurred, possibly at 8WL38, and that this encounter was not,
to our knowledge, documented. It appears quite possible that
these items were obtained directly from the Spaniards, by
exchange or in conflict, and being materials from creatures
rarely, if ever seen or heard of by the people of Fourmile point,
the majority of the items made their way into largely ritualized
deposits. It is also plausible, particularly given an item of
clothing or footwear (buckle), hardware (rivet, iron band or
plate fragment, nail, and the bipointed spike), and especially
a part of a military weapon (bowstring hook), that a negative
interaction took place whereby the Spanish lost goods and
even potentially a boat, either in combat or in a storm, because
it seems very unlikely that the objects represented by the
8WL38 artifacts would have been readily abandoned or given
away by any Spaniard of that time and place.
The Spanish artifacts from Fourmile Point certainly
indicate a high probability that the Spanish were on or near
Fourmile Point prior to or during the 1559-1561 attempted
colony at Ochuse. The nature of any interaction that may
have occurred cannot be gauged. Was it a slave raiding or
reconnoitering and trading expedition that went wrong? Are
these remains of the attack on the Narvdez expedition in 1528,
and did the attack happen at Fourmile Point or nearby rather
than Pensacola? Was Maldonado on Choctawhatchee Bay and
Fourmile Point? Or are the Fourmile Point Spanish artifacts
from a party associated with the Luna expedition? While we
are left with the question "what Spaniard was here?," there
are shreds of potential evidence that are thought provoking, if
nothing else.
In October 1528, what appears to be the first recorded
encounter between Indians and Spaniards took place on
the northern Gulf Coast, possibly, but not conclusively, on
Pensacola Bay (Dysart 1999; Hodge 1907; Swanton 1946).
The narrative of Cabeza de Vaca indicates the remnants of the
Narviez expedition encountered Indians of "large stature and
well formed" that lived in what "seemed to be permanent"
dwellings made of mats, with many clay pitchers of water
and a large quantity of cooked fish (Dysart 1999:61; Swanton
1946:38). The encounter began amicably, but Cabeza de Vaca
writes that without warning the Indians attacked in the night
and that the Spaniards barely escaped with their lives. Cabeza
de Vaca noted the cacique wore a robe of what he called
"civet-marten," "the best [skins], I think, that can be found"
(Dysart 1999:61; Swanton 1946:38). Could it be that Narvaez
was actually on Choctawhatchee Bay at or near Fourmile Point
rather than Pensacola Bay? The "chickee-like" structures
at 8WL38, like Seminole chickees, might have appeared to
have mat-like thatched roofs and woven mat walls that could
be rolled up or removed. It is obvious that there was conflict
associated with the encounter where the Spaniards could have
lost equipment and even a boat during their escape, and they
were in a conflict only three days later and farther west near
Pensacola and Mobile (Swanton 1946:39).
In 1539, Francisco Maldonado, exploring the northern
coast of the Gulf of Mexico under orders from Hernando
de Soto, identified the Bay of Ochuse (Pensacola Bay) as a
good port and rendezvous for the expedition. Garcilaso de
la Vega (1993:244-245) indicated that Maldonado captured
two Indians, one of whom was "a lord of vassels [cacique]
in the province of Achusi" (Ochuse) and that he had "seized
them with a craftiness and cunning unworthy of a gentleman
..." Soto ordered Maldonado to resupply him at the Bay of
Ochuse the next summer, and Maldonado returned three years
in succession, but Soto never appeared (Dysart 1999:62).
In Maldonado's exploration of the coast, "he was to
go along the coast toward the west for a distance of one
hundred leagues and observe and reconnoiter with all care and
diligence the ports, inlets, coves, bays, creeks, and rivers that
he might find, and shoals along the coast ..." (Garcilaso de
la Vega 1993:244). Under these orders, Maldonado may have
been obliged to enter Choctawhatchee Bay if he saw it and
was able to safely do so. Furthermore, in his translations of
Garcilaso de la Vega and an unidentified Portuguese narrator,
Irving (1857:186-187) wrote the following:
[Maldonado] coasted along to the west for
seventy leagues when he discovered a very beautiful
harbor called Achusi. It was land locked [my
emphasis] and completely sheltered from all winds
ample enough for a fleet to ride in and its shores so
bold that a vessel might anchor near the land. The
natives invited him on shore with many proffers of
hospitality. Seeing he mistrusted them they came
without hesitation on board of the brigantines and
traded with the Spaniards, bringing them whatever
they demanded. This friendly intercourse gave
Maldonado opportunities to go about in his small
boats to take soundings and note all the advantages
of the bay.
Figure 9. Adaptation of "Drawing of a chalupa" set in 16th century St. Augustine (SAMHF 2012).
Irving (1857:186) states in reference to Achusi (Ochuse)
being at Pensacola, "[t]he Portuguese narrator calls this
port Ochuse and says that Maldonado set out by land with
a detachment of fifty foot soldiers and marched along the
coast until he discovered the bay." Although Irving discounts
this statement of an eyewitness in favor of more "accepted"
accounts, if Maldonado marched west, he may have been in
the Choctawhatchee Bay area when he started.
Could Maldonado have been on Choctawhatchee Bay and
Fourmile Point during any of the times he was in the vicinity
of Ochuse? As far fetched as it may seem, could the "land
locked" Bay of Achusi actually be Choctawhatchee Bay? As
Luna learned 20 years later, Pensacola Bay is not "land locked
and completely sheltered from all winds" and unless Santa
Rosa Sound was blocked by sand bars, it could have been
accessed by way of the deep-water pass at Pensacola Bay. It
also is not out of the realm of possibilities that Choctawhatchee
Bay did not have a navigable pass in 1539.
The 1559 Luna expedition had planned to rely on the
Indians for food supplies, but found the area almost deserted,
with only a few Indians in fishing camps around the bay.
Dysart (1999:62), referencing Priestley (1928), asked an
intriguing question:
Expecting to depend on the Indians to supply
labor and food, the settlers were disappointed to find
only a few huts of Indian fishermen along the bay.
What happened to the Indian villagers described by
Maldonado no one knows.
Was it disease that removed the native population, or
is it possible that Luna did not find Ochuse on Pensacola
Bay? This proposition leads to the question, where was
Ochuse? Was it on Mobile Bay, or possibly was it actually
on Choctawhatchee Bay, with the Fourmile Point settlement
being part of it? Either way, there has never been any concrete
evidence brought forward to conclusively demonstrate that
Ochuse was at Pensacola.
[0 5s
Figure 10. Close up of both sides of goat's foot
crossbow lever bowstring hook.
Figure 11. Illustrations of crossbow goat's foot lever showing bowstring hook. Courtesy of TrebuchetStore.com.
When Luna moved the troubled colonization effort inland
to Nanipacana in 1560, a "small garrison" was left behind.
When Angel de Villafafie came to discharge Luna in 1561, he
brought 50 men and fresh supplies and left a detachment of
fifty men at Ochuse (Priestley 1928; Smith et al. 1995). During
either of these periods, did some of the men reconnoiter on
Choctawhatchee Bay and, if so, could they have encountered
residents of Fourmile Point?
It cannot be said what Spaniard was here, and although
there is evidence to suggest they were at Fourmile Point,
this intriguing prospect is far from certain. Unless additional
materials of a diagnostic nature can be obtained, we are
left with intrigue and possibilities. What we do know is
that there is compelling evidence that the Spanish were on
Choctawhatchee Bay in the early to middle sixteenth century.
Conclusive evidence that Soto's entrada was at the Martin
Site in Tallahassee and that two of Luna's ships were wrecked
and salvaged on Emanuel Point in Pensacola Bay, can be
seen as "bookends" to the prospect of direct Spanish contact
anywhere along the northwestern Florida coast. It seems
certain that following their presence on Choctawhatchee Bay,
and in the region generally, the world of the native populations
was forever changed.
What Happened to the Fourmile Point Sites
after the Early Sixteenth Century?
It is well documented that Mississippian cultures across
the Southeast rapidly and dramatically changed politically
and socially as a result of European contact and the onset of
colonization beginning in the sixteenth century (e.g., Ethridge
2010; Ethridge and Shuck-Hall 2009). While this process is
poorly understood on Choctawhatchee Bay, as it is in many
locales, the general evidence points to rapid depopulation
during the sixteenth-century contact period. There are simply
no radiocarbon dates from Choctawhatchee sites that post-date
approximately A.D. 1600 (even at the recent end of the two
sigma ranges), and there is no evidence that Fort Walton culture
morphed into something different, as the "Pensacolaization"
of Choctawhatchee Fort Walton culture was underway well
before the Spanish arrived (Mikell 1992; 1995b). If the
radiocarbon dates we have for 8WL38 are unequivocally
representative, then it would appear that the site was either
abandoned or was used relatively little after A.D. 1550, and
this appears to be the case for all of Fourmile Point. What
happened later in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
appears to be an unrelated entry of groups to a largely vacant
area with scant evidence of the classic Pensacola and Fort
Walton cultures (e.g., Hann 2006; Harris 2003, 2007, 2012;
Worth 1994; Worth et al. 2011). The Chine may have been the
remnants of the Fort Walton culture at the time of contact, but
little is known of them or their ancestry (Hann 2006).
The prevailing hypothesis is that post-contact depopulation
of most of the northern Gulf Coast, associated major rivers,
and population centers began early in the sixteenth century
and was extensive and devastating (Dobyns 1983; Ewen 1996;
Marrinan and White 2007; Smith 1987; White 2000). In the
absence of other explanations, there seems no other way to
explain the truncation of Fort Walton-Pensacola culture on
the Choctawhatchee, which apparently was underway by the
time of the Luna colony attempt and largely complete with the
return of Spanish in the 1680s. Just like there are only shreds
of evidence to place the Spaniards at Fourmile Point in the
early sixteenth century, there are only scattered sherds (pun
intended) to show that Fort Walton-Pensacola culture persisted
there for long after 1700. It is unfortunate that the remains of
the dead at Hogtown Bayou cemetery were not and cannot be
examined for signs of disease. There is a dearth of information
for the Choctawhatchee, but there is certainly precedent for
the near complete collapse of local populations following
encounters with the Spaniards (Cook 1998), and continued
slave raiding likely exacerbated the collapse. La Florida,
Forever Changed, indeed.
It was the theme of the 2012 Florida Anthropological
Society meeting, Forever Changed- La Florida, that motivated
me to get back to 8WL38 sooner than later and led to this
paper. I would like to thank the former property owners of
8WL38, Don and Betty Hefner, for allowing me to work on
the site, and the late Don Sharon for telling me there was
"something special about the site;" how right he was! I would
like to thank the volunteers and students who work the site
with me, but in particular, I thank Bill and Jean Lucas for their
many hours working on the site and for finding the "antique
screen door hook", as Bill jokingly called the goat's foot lever
crossbow bowstring hook. I would like to acknowledge the
efforts of the reviewers and others who helped refine this
paper, Keith Ashley, Jeff Mitchem, Ramie Gougeon, and Joe
Meyer. I would also like to acknowledge James Levy, Roger
Smith, John Worth, and John Bratten for their input.
References Cited
Arnold, J. Barto, David R. Watson, and Donald H. Keith
1995 The Padre Island Crossbows. HistoricalArchaeology
Arnold, J. Barto III, and Robert Weddle
1978 The Nautical Archeology of Padre Island: The
Spanish Shipwrecks of 1544. Academic Press, New
Ashley, Keith, and Nancy M. White
2012 Late Prehistoric Florida: An Introduction. In Late
Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of
the Mississippian World, edited by Keith Ashley
and Nancy M. White, pp. 1-28. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Aubuchon, Benjamin, and Prentice M. Thomas
2011 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Heath
Property, Walton County, Florida. Prentice Thomas
and Associates, Inc., Report of Investigations 1324.
Fort Walton Beach.
Brown, Ian W.
2003 Introduction to the Bottle Creek Site. In Bottle Creek,
A Pensacola Culture Site in South Alabama, edited
by Ian W. Brown. University of Alabama Press,
Radiocarbon Calibration Online. Electronic program,
http://www.calpal-online.de/index.html. Accessed
July 2012.
Campbell, L. Janice, Prentice M. Thomas, Jr., and James H.
2004 Fiber-Tempered Pottery and Cultural Interaction on
the Northwest Florida Gulf Coast. In Early Potter:
Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the
Lower Southeast, edited by Rebecca Saunders and
Christopher T. Hays, pp. 129-149. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Cook, Noble David
1998 Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest,
1492-1650. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Curren, Caleb, and Shawn Enfinger
2006 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Mack Bayou
Subdivision, Walton County, Florida. Archeology
Inc., Pensacola, Florida.
Curren, Caleb, Steven Newby, Steve Smith, and Greg Mikell*
1998 An Archeological Survey of the Choctawhatchee
River Drainage, Walton, Washington, and Bay
Counties, Florida. Pensacola Archaeology Lab.
Report on file, Florida Department of State, Division
of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
*Greg Mikell was not a report author and was not associated
with the production of this report.
Dobyns, Henry F.
1983 Their Number Become Thinned. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Dysart, Jane E.
1999 Indians in Colonial Pensacola. In Archaeology of
Colonial Pensacola, edited by Judith A. Bense, pp.
61-90. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Ethridge, Robbie
2010 From Chicaza to Chickasaw: The European Invasion
and the Transformation of the Mississippian World,
1540-1715. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Ethridge, Robbie, and Sheri M. Shuck-Hall (editors)
2009 Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone: The
Colonial Indian Slave Trade and Regional
Instability in the American South. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Ewen, Charles R.
1996 Continuity and Change: De Soto and the Apalachee.
Historical Archaeology 30: 41-53.
Ewen, Charles R., and John H. Hann
1998 Hernando de Soto Among the Apalachee: The
Archaeology of the First Winter Encampment.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Fairbanks, Charles H.
1958 Notes on Sites on Four Mile Peninsula in South
Walton County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida
Master Site File, Bureau of Archaeological Research,
1965 Excavations at the Fort Walton Temple Mound, 1960.
The Florida Anthropologist 18 (4):239-264.
Garcilaso de la Vega (La Inca)
1993 La Florida. In The De Soto Chronicles: The
Expedition of Hernando De Soto to North America
in 1539-1543, Volume II, edited by Lawrence A.
Clayton, Vernon James Knight Jr., and Edward C.
Moore. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Hann, John H.
2006 The Native American World BeyondApalachee: West
Florida and the Chattahoochee Valley. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Harris, Norma J.
2003 Native Americans. In Presidio Santa Maria de
Galve: A Struggle for Survival in Colonial Spanish
Pensacola, edited by Judith A. Bense, pp. 257-314.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2007 Eighteenth Century Native American Migration
and Interaction on the Spanish Frontier: Yamassee/
Apalachee and Chisca Missions of Pensacola,
Florida. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of
the Society for Historical Archaeology, Williamsburg,
2012 Defining Pensacola and Fort Walton Cultures in the
Western Panhandle. In Late Prehistoric Florida:
Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World,
edited by Keith Ashley and Nancy M. White, pp.
275-295. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Hodge, Frederick W. (editor)
1907 The Narrative of Alvaro Nunez Cabega de Vaca. In
Spanish Explorers in the Southern United States,
1528-1543, Original Narratives of Early American
History, edited by J. Franklin Jameson, pp. 1-126.
Barnes and Noble, New York.
Hordes, Stanley M.
1992 Sixteenth-Century Spanish Campsite in the Tiguex
Province: An Historical Perspective. In Current
Research on the Late Prehistory and Early History
of New Mexico, edited by Bradley J. Vierra. Special
Publication 1: 155-164. New Mexico Archaeological
Council, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Howard, David A.
1997 Conquistador in Chains: Cabeza de Vaca and the
Indians of the Americas. University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.
Irving, Theodore, M.A.
1857 The Conquest of Florida by Hernando de Soto. G.P.
Putnam and Company, New York.
Johnson, Byron A.
1992 Arms and Armor of the Spanish Conquest. In Current
Research on the Late Prehistory and Early History
of New Mexico, edited by Bradley J. Vierra. Special
Publication 1: 147-153. New Mexico Archaeological
Council, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Jones, B. Calvin
1982 Southern Cult Manifestations at the Lake Jackson
Site, Leon County, Florida: Salvage Excavation of
Mound 3. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7
1991 Archaeological Survey of Fisher's Landing
Subdivision on Mack Bayou near San Destin, Florida.
Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida Division
of Historical Resources, Tallahassee..
Kerrigan, Anthony (translator)
1951 Barcia Chronological History of the Continent of
Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Lazarus, William C.
1964 A Sixteenth Century Spanish Coin from a Fort Walton
Burial. The Florida Anthropologist 17 (2):134-138.
1965 Coin Dating in the Fort Walton Period. The Florida
Anthropologist 18 (4):221-224.
Lazarus, William C., and Gerald Spence
1959 Report on excavations at the
(8WL9/8WL50). 8WL9 Site File,
Sites Files, Tallahassee.
Pickens Site
Florida Master
Mahar, Timothy
2011 Geographic Evaluation of Moreno Point, Florida;
Rediscovering S. T. Walker's 7 Mile Lake. Electronic
document, http://uwf.academia.edu/TimothyMahar/
Papers/487349/ Geographic_Evaluationof
MIKELL WHAT SPANIARD WAS Hi~iu~?
Walkers_7_Mile_Lake. Accessed August 2012.
Malcom, Corey
1998 The St. John's Bahamas Wreck: Lessons Being
Learned. Paper Presented at 16th Gulf Coast History
and Humanities Conference, Pensacola, Florida.
Marrinan, Rochelle A., and Nancy Marie White
2007 Modeling Fort Walton Culture in Northwest Florida.
Southeastern Archaeology 26:292-318.
McDonald, David and J. Barto Arnold III
1979 Documentary Sources for the Wreck of the New Spain
Fleet of 1554. Texas Antiquities Committee, Austin.
Meyer, Joseph, Prentice M. Thomas, Jr., and L. Janice
2000a Data Recovery at 8WL335, The Jolee Site, Walton
County, Florida. Prentice Thomas and Associates,
Inc. Report of Investigations No. 615. Fort Walton
Meyer, Joseph, Prentice M. Thomas, Jr., and L. Janice
2000b. Data Recovery at 8WL338, The Oak Forest Site,
Walton County, Florida. Prentice Thomas and
Associates, Inc. Report of Investigations No. 538.
Fort Walton Beach
Meyer, Joseph, Prentice M. Thomas, Jr., L. Janice Campbell,
and James H. Matthews
2001 Data Recovery at 8WL91, The Honeymoon Cove
site, Walton County, Florida. Prentice Thomas and
Associates, Inc. Report of Investigations No. 537.
Fort Walton Beach.
Mikell, Gregory A.
1992 The Fort Walton Mississippian Variant in Northwest
Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 11:51-65.
1993 8WL543: A Coastal Late Weeden Island-Fort Walton
Transition site in Northwest Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 46:12-19.
1994 8WL38, A Late Fort Walton-Protohistoric Village
Site on Choctawhatchee Bay in Northwest Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 47:233-268.
1995a Bell and Brooks Street: Two Fort Walton Village Sites
on Choctawhatchee Bay. The Florida Anthropologist
1995b Choctawhatchee Bay Fort Walton, The West Side
Story. The Florida Anthropologist 48:120-132.
1997 Additional Spanish Artifacts, Evidence of Ritual
Feasting, and Rectangular Structures at 8WL38, a
Fort Walton Village in Walton County, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 50:3-9.
2001 The Face of Change: Late Weeden Island-Early Fort
Walton Transitional Ceramics from Choctawhatchee
Bay Area in Northwest Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 54:151-170.
Mikell, Gregory A., L. Janice Campbell, and Mathilda Cox
1995 Archaeological Investigations of a Portion of
Driftwood Estates (North Point), Walton County,
Florida. Prentice Thomas andAssociates, Inc. Report
ofInvestigations No. 288. Fort Walton Beach.
Mikell, Gregory A., and Brian O. Shoemaker
2005 Phase II and Extended Phase II Testing and Evaluation
of Site 8WL 101 within the Mack Bayou Homes Tract,
Walton County, Florida. Report prepared for C.D.
Jones and Company by Panamerican Consultants,
Inc., Pensacola.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Milanich, Jerald T., and Nara B. Milanich
1996 Revisiting the Freducci Map. Florida Historical
Quarterly 74:319-328.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
2000 S.T. Walker's Adventures in Florida. Paper
presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Florida
Anthropological Society, Ft Myers.
Moore, Clarence B.
1901 Certain aboriginal remains of the Northwest Florida
Coast, Part I. Journal of the Academy of Natural
Sciences ofPhiladelphia 11: 421-497.
1918 The Northwestern Florida Coast Revisited. Journal
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
New World Research, Inc. (NWR)
1985 Interim Draft Report on the Cultural
Investigation on the Four-Mile Point
Walton County, Florida. Submitted to
Beach Resorts, Inc., Destin, Florida.
Nidy, L. Scott
1974 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the
Sandestin Property in Walton County. Florida
Department of Archives and Historic Records
Management Miscellaneous Project Report Series
13. Florida Department of State, Tallahassee,
Phillips, John C., and William J. Anderson
2000 Archaeological Survey of Walton County, Florida.
Report of Investigations 84. The University of West
Florida Archaeology Institute, Pensacola.
Priestley, Herbert Ingram (editor)
Tim FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(1-2~
1928 The Luna Papers. Two volumes. Florida State
Historical Society, Deland, Florida.
Rhodes, Diane Lee
1997 Coronado Fought Here: Crossbow Boltheads as
Possible Indicators of the 1540-1542 Expedition.
In The Coronado Expedition to Tierra Nueva: The
1540-1542 Route Across the Southwest, edited by
Richard Flint and Shirley Cushing Flint, pp 37-46.
University Press of Colorado, Niwot.
Rodning, Christopher B.
2003 Water Travel and Mississippian Settlement of Mound
Island. In Bottle Creek: A Pensacola Culture Site in
South Alabama, edited by Ian W. Brown, pp. 194-
204. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
St. Augustine Maritime Heritage Foundation (SAMHF)
2012 Saint Augustine Maritime Heritage Foundation,
Chalupa. Electronic document, http:
chalupa. Accessed August 2012. Image used with
Scarry, John F.
1990 Mississippian Emergence in the Fort Walton Area:
The Evolution of the Cayson and Lake Jackson
Phases. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by
Bruce D. Smith, pp. 227-250. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
Smith, Marvin T.
1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the
Interior Southeast. University of Florida Presses,
Smith, Roger C., John R. Bratten, J. Coz Cozzi, and Keith
1998 The Emanuel Point Ship Archaeological
Investigations 1997-1998. Report of Investigations
68. The University of West Florida Archaeology
Institute, Pensacola.
Smith, Roger C., James Spirek, John Bratten, and Della Scott-
1995 TheEmanuelPointShipArchaeologicallnvestigations
1992-1995. Florida Heritage, Florida Department of
State, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division
of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indian Tribes of North America. Smithsonian
Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin
Thomas, Prentice M., Jr.
1989 Summary of Investigations at 8WL90 and a Portion
of 8WL101, and Delineation of an Archaeological
Preserve, Sandestin Beach Resort, Sandestin, Walton
County, Florida. New World Research, Inc., Report of
Investigations 181. Fort Walton Beach.
1990 Summary of Investigations at the Monday Midden
Site (8WL99), Sandestin Beach Resort, Sandestin,
Walton County, Florida. New World Research, Inc.,
Report ofInvestigations 185. Fort Walton Beach.
Thomas, Prentice M. Jr., and L. Janice Campbell (editors)
1993 Eglin Air Force Base Historic Preservation
Plan, Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resources
Investigations at Eglin, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and
Walton Counties, Florida. New World Research, Inc.,
Report of Investigations 192. Fort Walton Beach.
2001 Mitigative Date Recovery at the Horseshoe Bayou
Site, 8WL36, Sandestin Beach Resort, Sandestin,
Walton County, Florida. Prentice Thomas and
Associates, Inc., Report of Investigations 360. Fort
Walton Beach.
U.S. Library of Congress, American Memory
2012 Descripcion de la Bahia de Santa Maria de Galve, y
Puerto de Sn. Miguel de Panzacola con toda la costa
contigua y las demas bahias que tiene en ella, hasta
el Rio de Apalache / observada, y reconozida por los
ingenieros Dn. Jaime Lajonk, y Don Juan de Siscara.
Electronic document, http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/
UWF (University of West Florida)
2012 The Spanish Presence in Northwest Florida--1513
to 1705. Electronic document, http://uwf.edu/
shipwreck/spanish_presence.htm, accessed
February 9, 2012.
Walker, Sylvanus T.
1885 Mounds and Shell Heaps on the West Coast of
Florida. In Report of the Board ofRegents of the
Smithsonian Institution for the Year 1883, pp. 854-
867. Government Printing Office Washington D.C.
Weber, David
1992 The Spanish Frontier in North America. Yale
University Press, New Haven
MIKELL WHAT SPANIARD WAS LImu~?
Weddle, Robert S.
1985 Spanish Sea: The Gulf of Mexico in North American
Discovery, 1500-1685. Texas A&M University Press,
College Station.
1991 The French Thorn: Rival Explorers in the Spanish
Sea, 1682-1762. Texas A&M University Press,
College Station.
Weinstein, Richard A., and Ashley A. Dumas
2008 The Spread of Shell-Tempered Ceramics Along the
Northern Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Southeastern
Archaeology 27:202-221.
Wheeler, Ryan J.
1998 Walker's Canal: An Aboriginal Canoe Canal in
the Florida Panhandle. Southeastern Archaeology
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, Volume 113.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Worth, John E.
1994 Late Spanish Military Expeditions in the Interior
Southeast, 1597-1628. In The Forgotten Centuries:
Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1521-
1704, edited by Charles Hudson and Carmen Chaves
Tesser, pp 104-124. University of Georgia Press,
2012 Spanish Florida Resources; The Settlement of
Spanish Florida. Electronic document,http://uwf.edu/
jworth/spanfla_settlement.htm. Accessed February 9,
Worth, John E., Norma J. Harris, and Jennifer Melcher
2011 San Joseph de Escambe: An 18th-Century Apalachee
Mission in the West Florida Borderlands. Paper
presented at the 2011 Conference of the Society for
Historical Archaeology, Austin, Texas.
Ti rmIl
""'' -
debrawells(aol.com or
. ,,' ".'.
Franklin H. Price', Daniel P. McClarnon2, and C. Rachel Katz3
'Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, 1001 DeSoto Park Drive, Tallahassee FL 32301
E-Mail: email@example.com
2Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee FL 32399
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
3 Huronia Museum, 549 Little Lake Park Road, Midland Ontario L4R 4P4 Canada
Email: email@example.com
This article discusses the findings of a brief maritime
archaeological survey near Chattahoochee, Florida. In
2010, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR)
archaeologists Dan McClarnon and Franklin H. Price, assisted
by Florida State University graduate student Rachel Katz,
visited Chattahoochee, Florida, taking advantage of low
water levels to investigate watercraft deposited on either side
of the Apalachicola River (Figure 1). The area surrounding
Chattahoochee Landing represents a vessel abandonment site
that was once a center of river commerce and a modest locus
of shipbuilding (Price and Katz 2011:1). The town's location,
shifts in transportation patterns, and changing economic
circumstances played roles in creating an abandonment area
for obsolete watercraft, one that could be termed a ships'
graveyard (Richards 2008:19).
Although this article is mostly descriptive, a few major
observations are made regarding vessel abandonment
outside the navigable channel of the Apalachicola River
at Chattahoochee Landing. First, despite the prevalence of
hard-chined, box-shaped hulls designed for shallow waters,
watercraft at the landing exhibit a variety of construction
techniques. Second, processes contributing to the aggregation
of abandoned vessels at the landing apparently follow some
of the same patterns noted at other abandonment areas. Third,
the assemblage exhibits evidence of discard that includes
few associated artifacts, a characteristic of post-depositional
salvage (Richards 2008:145).
Historical Background
The confluence of the Apalachicola, Flint, and
Chattahoochee rivers is a strategic position. Although not
addressed in this article, human habitation of the area extended
deep into prehistory. Mounds are still extant on the east side
of the river at the landing, and a prehistoric site is both near
and under the steamboat Barbara Hunt on the west bank of the
river (White 2011). For a general cultural resources overview
of the Apalachicola-Flint-Chattahoochee drainage basin, see
Franz and Whitley (2010).
In the historic period, Spain established the first European
presence near modem-day Chattahoochee to counter a
growing English influence in northern and western Florida.
The Sebacola mission, built in 1674, was incorporated into a
native village on the west bank of the Apalachicola just below
the confluence of the Chattahoochee, Flint, and Apalachicola
rivers (Hann 1990:494-495). Even after reacquiring Florida
at the end of the American Revolutionary War, Spain was
ultimately unable to drive British traders from the panhandle.
By the end of the eighteenth century, Panton, Leslie and Co.,
an English trading establishment, dominated trade in northwest
Florida (Mueller 1990:1).
In 1821, Florida became part of the United States. The
U.S. military built an arsenal inside northern Florida to assist
in the defense of the newly acquired territory (Boyd 1956:4).
Like the Spanish before them, U.S. military officials selected
a site near the confluence of the Chattahoochee, Flint, and
Apalachicola rivers, where the land was flat and sparsely
settled. Construction of the Apalachicola Arsenal began in
1834, the same year that Chattahoochee was incorporated
(Womack 1976:227). The community grew in the shadow of
the facility. The arsenal itself served a number of functions.
In addition to being used as a storage depot, settlers from the
surrounding area sought protection inside its walls during the
Second Seminole War, 1835-1842. Beginning in 1861, the
Confederate army used the well-situated arsenal as a training
facility and encampment until the end of the Civil War (Cox
Chattahoochee's location near the confluence made it
a stop on river trade routes that extended from the Gulf of
Mexico to Georgia. Rowed watercraft eventually gave way
to the numerous steamboats that dominated regional trade in
much of the nineteenth century. Substantial cotton shipments
from upriver moved through Chattahoochee en route to
Apalachicola. As an example, in the year 1836 alone more
than 40,000 cotton bales passed through the town onboard
steamboats (Mueller 1990:42). By the turn of the century
lumber, staves, timber, rosin, grain, turpentine, and cotton
figured prominently on the cargo lists of steamboats that
connected Bainbridge, Georgia, with the port of Apalachicola
(Flagler 1899:1659-1660). This brisk trade continued well
into the twentieth century, with steamboats and barges often
working in tandem to maximize carrying capacity. The U.S.
VOL. 66(1-2) TuE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH-JUNE 2013
Figure 1. Map of the Chattahoochee Landing area.
Army Corps of Engineers reported that of the 398 trips on the
Apalachicola River in 1924, barges accompanied steamboats
on 60 percent of the passages (Mueller 1990:251).
Aspects of local history are visible today in the wrecks
that line the Apalachicola at Chattahoochee Landing. A
collection of historic wooden vessels, consisting of steamboats
and barges recalls a time when rivers, and not highways, were
the primary means of transportation. Steamboats worked
as ferries and towboats, hauling passengers and freight up
and down the river system. By the time the Victory Bridge
was built across the Apalachicola River in 1922, the need
for ferryboats had diminished, although the Florida Gravel
Company continued to ply the Apalachicola with its own
small fleet of boats and barges (Price and Katz 2011:1). Many
of these vessels were hauled on shore and abandoned when
they were no longer needed. Gradually, an emerging railroad
and highway transportation system replaced the once-thriving
river network, causing the steamboats and barges to fade into
Site Description
This section describes the historic vessel remains located
on either side of the Apalachicola River at Chattahoochee
Landing. A glossary of terms related to river watercraft is
included as Appendix 1, and an illustration of a plantation
flat boat with its component parts can be seen in Figure
2. The landing is the site of a collection of wrecked and
abandoned working vessels, including examples of barges,
steamboats, and a tugboat. Previous investigations include
field reconnaissance by BAR (Scott-Ireton 2004). Four vessels
have been tentatively identified: the steamboats Barbara Hunt
and J. W Hires, the dredge Sandy, and the tug Ruth Jeanette
(formerly Coca-Cola Bill). Three exposed and potentially two
submerged barges also are present at the site but have not been
identified. Geographically, the vessels are grouped in roughly
three locations. Immediately south of Chattahoochee Landing
are the remains of up to four watercraft grouped as one site,
8GD998. At least one additional wooden barge is mostly
obscured by sediment approximately 100 meters downriver
from the landing. A structure identified as the probable
remains ofJ. W Hires (8GD997) (Price and Katz 2011:1) also
is located on the east bank of the river, immediately north of
the landing and in close proximity to the Victory Bridge. The
second location is directly across from the landing on the west
bank of the river, and consists of the steamboat Barbara Hunt
(8JA1764), a barge (8JA1851), and potentially associated
wreckage. The third location is some distance downstream
PArchaeoloeical Investigations at Chattahoochee
Bottom planking
Figure 2. Plantation flat (after Fleetwood 1995:102).
on the east side of the river and features the remains of a
barge, a snag boat, and a small vernacular boat that will not be
addressed here. Also downstream on the west side of the river,
parallel to the shore, is Daniel's Barge (8JA1692) recorded
by BAR archaeologists in 2004 (Scott-Ireton 2004). Because
of low water the barge was not relocated during BAR's 2010
sonar survey, and the bank was not explored. It is also not
included in this study.
The Assemblage
With the exception of two potentially submerged
vessels, the watercraft are located outside of the navigation
channel. This assemblage provides evidence for a variety
of cultural site formation processes, what Schiffer would
term "c-transforms," including wrecking, abandonment, and
post-depositional salvage. In addition, natural events such as
periodic flooding, Schiffer's "n-transforms," have affected
the site formation process (Schiffer 1987:22). The remains
of a tug, three stem-wheelers, and several barges exemplify
various activities at Chattahoochee from freight and passenger
service to industrial dredging. The barges and stem-wheelers
share construction characteristics in that the bottom outboard
edges, or chines, of the vessels form a 90 degree angle. This
provided the watercraft with shallow drafts to better navigate
the challenges of a river environment. An interesting feature
of this assemblage is that the design of each vessel created
a similar overall shape by means of alternate construction
techniques, described in more detail below.
Potential Submerged Vessels
Archaeologists conducted a side-scan sonar survey of the
Apalachicola River from the railroad bridge to just north of
the U.S. 90 Bridge. The river immediately south of the landing
near the wooden barges is strewn with submerged debris.
The most promising target was a sonar anomaly more than
23' (7 m) long consisting of linear features exposed above
the riverbed, with a sand bar on its downstream side (Figure
3). The anomalies were not investigated by divers, but this is
recommended for future research. Although also unconfirmed
in the field, another submerged watercraft may be in the area.
Local informant Grady Turage reported a barge sunken
immediately north of the U.S. 90 Bridge that may or may not
be the same barge reported lost when Ruth Jeanette (formerly
Coca-Cola Bill) struck the Victory Bridge and sank in the
1930s (Tumage 2003:2). Currently, little is known about the
barge except that it reportedly has been at its present location
since the Second World War (Price and Katz 2011:2).
The Tug Ruth Jeanette (Coca-Cola Bill) is part of
8GD998. South of the modem landing, located between the
picnic tables and the dock, are the meager remains of Ruth
Jeanette, formerly named Coca-Cola Bill, a Florida Gravel
Company tug that struck the Victory Bridge and sank sometime
in the mid-1930s (Tumage 2002b:3; Turnage 2003:2). The
only visible feature that remains of the vessel is either the keel
or keelson. Other structure, shown in historic photographs,
may be buried. The gas-powered and screw-propelled tug was
built in 1911 in St. Andrews, Florida, measured 43.7' (13.3
m) long, 12' (3.7 m) in beam and had a 4' (1.2 m) depth of
hold. Its name was changed to Ruth Jeanette in the official
records for 1921. The last year the tug appears in the official
records is 1935, providing a potential time frame for its loss
(U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor 1920:214; U.S.
Department of Commerce 1921:322, 1935:550).
The Barges
At least three barges were observed. Two of the barges
exhibit raked (also known as ramped) ends, and a plank-
built style resembling a flat. The third is also raked, but has
different construction characteristics in its chine assembly
Archaeological Investigations at Chattahoochee
Figure 3. Sonar anomaly in Chattahoochee River.
and is longitudinally planked. The barges vary in size at
approximately 54' (16.5 m), 79' (24.1 m), and 160' (48.8 m)
in length, although this latter example is obscured by sediment
and may represent more than one watercraft. An absence of
propulsion machinery is the primary evidence supporting the
hypothesis that these were unpowered watercraft, but it should
be noted that the stem-wheelers identified as Sandy and J. W.
Hires are likewise absent any extant propulsion machinery and
yet they were powered vessels.
The first barge is Chattahoochee Landing Vessel 3 (part of
8GD998). The right-angled sides, raked ends, and plank-built
construction of Vessel 3 give it the characteristics of a heavily-
built cross-planked flat (Wilde-Ramsing 1989:4; Figure 4). It
features a chine log of the same size and shape as the planks
built atop it (Alford 1993:44; Moates 2007:127). The design
is similar to a Mississippi scow bow barge investigated in
Arkansas, but this example is more heavily reinforced with
less space between futtocks (Saltus and Stewart-Abemathy
2002:124). Construction characteristics appear to be mid-
nineteenth to as late as mid-twentieth century.
Oriented parallel to the river, Vessel 3 measures 78.85'
(24 m) long and 21.6' (6.6 m) wide. The side planking is
held together by un-headed drift pins, some square and most
circular, driven downward through the strakes and through-
bolted to upright futtocks, also known as king posts (Rodgers
et al. 2006:30). It has a nearly symmetrical design side to side
as well as fore and aft. Seven longitudinal supports run the
length of the vessel, including the chine logs. These supports
appear to be underlain with stringers, although this assembly
is buried. Sediment also obscures the presence or absence
of knees associated with the futtocks. Stringers on either
side of the centerline support longitudinal bulkheads, with
ramp timbers extant. Fasteners include square nails, square
spikes, circular drift pins, and through-bolts. No wire nails
were observed. Stanchions remain intact toward the south
end. Along the interior west bulkhead stanchions are spaced
approximately 3' (0.9 m) apart. Along the chine the transverse
outer hull bottom planking is approximately 12" (3.8 cm)
thick, with two 92" (24.1 cm) molded timbers atop it.
On the east bank a few hundred yards south of Vessel
3 are the mostly buried remains of one or more wooden
barge(s), part of site 8GD990. The total length of the wreckage
is approximately 160' (43.8 m), and features raked ends,
futtocks, drift pins, and outer hull planking. Considerable
sediment deposition makes it unclear if the structure represents
a single barge or more than one vessel. A second line of drift
pins is visible 7' 6" (2.3 m) shoreward of the visible structure.
The construction details resemble Vessel 3, with plank-built
Finally, Vessel 5 (8JA1851), a wooden barge measuring
54' (16.5 m) long and 18' 6" (5.6 m) wide is immediately
south of Barbara Hunt on the west bank of the river (Figure
5). Raked at both ends, it features a chine log, floors, and
longitudinal bottom planking. The floors meet the chine log
flush on their top edges. It has two longitudinal bulkheads with
stanchions, and uses paired futtocks. Toward the northern end
of the vessel metal strapping reinforces the exterior planking.
Archaeologists observed butt joints where outer hull planks
meet, and part of a rub rail. Bow and stem are difficult to
differentiate. The use of metal strapping, an angular hull
design, and an absence of a carved chine log or "ile," suggests
late nineteenth century construction at the earliest (Wilde-
Ramsing 1989:4; Moates 2007:127).
The Stern-wheelers
Investigators observed the remains ofthree paddle-wheeled
watercraft at Chattahoochee Landing: two appear to have been
powered by steam and one by gas. It is not surprising that all
three were stem-wheelers considering that stem-wheelers
eclipsed side-wheelers as the dominant type of wheeled river
steamboat after the Civil War (Kane 2001:99). Stem-wheelers
had an advantage over side-wheeled steamboats in that stem-
wheelers tended to push flotsam away from the wheel. They
also had a shallower draft than comparable side-wheelers
(Kane 2001:99-100). The three examples in this assemblage
PRICE, MCCLARNON, AND KATZ Archaeological Investigations at Chattahoochee
Figure 4. Vessel 3, part of 8GD998, view is to the north, scale is in feet.
represent different activities on the river, one was a passenger
and freight carrier, another worked as a dredge for a gravel
company, and the last had a brief local career as a towboat.
The first stem-wheeler is J. W Hires (8GD997). Wreckage
on the east side of the river near the Victory Bridge has been
tentatively identified as J. W. Hires, a steamboat that worked on
the river at the turn of the twentieth century (Neville 1961:61;
Tumage 2002a:3; Figure 6). Archaeological evidence for
its identification includes its location relative to the Victory
Bridge and its beam dimension, both of which correspond to
the historical record describing J. W Hires. Built in Columbus,
Georgia, in 1898, the vessel was 135.3' long, 22.7' wide and
had a gross and net tonnage of 127 (U.S. Treasury Department
1899:250; U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor
1906:244). J. W Hires was named after its owner, a Columbus
entrepreneur (The Marine Review 1899:97; International
Passenger and Ticket Agents' Journal 1899:17). For over a
decade it plied the river in a brisk freight and passenger service
between Georgia and the port ofApalachicola. As an example,
in 1901 J.W. Hires made 28 round trips, carrying a total of
1,491 passengers (Judson 1901:1775). The steamboat was
also the site of a murder, when "Theodore Jackson, colored
stevedore, shot J. B. Rivers, engineer," who fell overboard
and drowned (U.S. Treasury Department 1902:87). The vessel
was already wrecked at its present location when construction
began on the Victory Bridge in 1919 (Edmonds 1922:56; Price
and Katz 2011:1). J. W Hires appears in the official records in
1911 but is absent in 1912, a potential clue to its year of loss
or discard (U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor 1911,
Presently, much of the remains are disarticulated. The
visible wreckage field measures roughly 22' (6.7 m) north-
Figure 5. Vessel 5, 8JA1951, view is roughly southeast.
Archaeological Investigations at Chattahoochee
.......THE FLoRA ANTHROPOLOGIST- 21 -
Figure 6. Top, historic photograph of the steamboat J.W. Hires (Neville 1961:61); bottom, chine of J.W. Hires as it
appears today. The larger scale is in feet.
south by 27' (8.2 m) east-west. In addition to wooden structure,
investigators noted cable, ferrous components, and a ferrous
pipe flange. Strapping, perhaps for a hogging chain, suggests a
steamboat; however, it should be noted that on the Mississippi
River some unpowered barges employed hogging chains for
stability (Stewart-Aberathy 2002:34). Visible structural
remains include a chine log, outer hull planking, and a keelson
assembly. Drift pins are vertically fastened atop the chine log, a
placement that suggests a "timber-sided" and/or "plank-built"
design (Saltus and Stewart-Aberathy 2002:125; Moates
2007:135; James and Krivor 1998:27; Newell 1995:312). The
chine log has mortises to accept the floors (Steffy 1994:296).
These floors are notched on one side of their ends with the
majority of this tenon fitted into the mortise, and a separate
1" (2.5 cm) sided by 4/2" (11.4-cm) molded shim wedged
into the mortised chine log opposite the notched side of the
floor (Figure 6). The floors continue under the keelson and
sister keelsons, with outer planking running longitudinally.
The centerline assembly consists of a keelson with two sister
keelsons through-bolted together horizontally. Through-bolts
likewise fasten the sister keelsons to the floors and the bottom
planking. The size of the wreckage, 11' 6" (3.5 m) from the
center of the keelson to the outside edge of the chine log, is
consistent with the 22.7' (6.9 m) beam reported in historic
records for J. W Hires. A historic photograph taken after the
completion of the Victory Bridge shows a winch, now absent
or buried, that may originate from the steamboat (Figure 7).
The second stem-wheeler is Sandy. The wreck of Sandy
was identified by local historian Grady Tumage, who learned
its name from Paul Thomas, former superintendent of the
Florida Gravel Company (Tumage 2002c:14A). The vessel
differed from the other two stem-wheelers in that it used
gasoline for fuel (U.S. Department of Commerce 1925:488).
Built in 1920 in Tampa, Florida, it was 60.2' (18.4 m) long,
16' (4.9 m) in beam, 3.4' (1 m) in depth, had a 50-horsepower
gas engine, and a crew of two. The archaeological evidence
is consistent with this information. Current dimensions are
within a fraction of a foot of Sandy's measurements, at 60.5'
(18.4 m) in total length, and between 16.4' and 16.6' (5 m and
5.1 m) in beam. This small difference can be explained by
the vessel's structural collapse and splaying of timbers. In the
official records its function is listed as a dredge. Its homeport
was Tampa until 1932, when it began service with the Florida
Gravel Company on the Apalachicola River (U.S. Department
of Commerce 1921:324, 1932:514-515). The vessel is listed as
abandoned in 1935, but the last year it appears as active in the
records is 1937 only to be categorized as abandoned again in
1938 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1935:1035, 1937:278,
1938:517). This provides a probable deposition range within a
few years of the date of its loss or abandonment.
Enough structure remains to note some design
characteristics, especially the chine assembly. Longitudinally,
sister keelsons rest atop athwartships floors that run
uninterrupted across the vessel. Structure at the western side
3 102 Vot. 66(1-2)
; ... ~ . r;~
- , ;.i .
-1. i .,, ~-
PRIC, MCLANONANDKAT Arcaeooaial nvesiaaion at hatahoche
Figure 7. Undated historic photograph of what appears to be a winch at Chattahoochee Landing (Grady Turnage
Collection, Cowen Public Library).
suggests a square design. The floors feature limber holes
near the outboard edge. There is no extant chine log, instead
horizontal floors and vertical futtocks meet at 90 degree
angles, and are through-bolted (Figure 8). The first two strakes
of outer hull planking are likewise bolted through the futtocks.
Above that, outer hull planks are fastened with square nails.
Both outer hull and bottom planking run longitudinally. The
positions of the nails suggest bottom planking dimensions
consistent with the outer hull planking. This vessel is raked
at the eastern, shoreward end, suggesting the bow. At the
western end interior planking, futtocks, and exterior planking
are in some cases held together by a single through-bolt. The
fasteners include threaded through-bolts, drift pins, square
round-headed nails, and wire nails. The latter are consistent
with a vessel built or repaired most likely during or after the
1890s (Adams 2002:71). Design features and fasteners are
consistent with a twentieth-century watercraft.
The wreck of the ster-wheeler Barbara Hunt (8JA1764)
rests on the west bank of the Apalachicola River, across from
the modern landing (Figure 9). Among the last generation
Figure 8. Remains of the dredge Sandy, the larger scale is in feet.
Archaeological Investigations at Chattaboochee
~salY- 1
T~lEFLOIDA NTHOPOLGIS 201 VO. 661-2
Figure 9. The steamboat Barbara Hunt (Special Collections, Murphy Library, University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse).
of stem-wheeled steamboats, it exemplifies the end of a
technological era. Barbara Hunt was built in Osage City,
Missouri, in 1929 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1939:14).
Its first owner was Bilhom, Bower, and Peters of St. Louis,
Missouri (U.S. Department of Commerce 1930:21-22).
Throughout its career it had a crew of 5, a 137-horsepower
engine, and dimensions of 100' (30.5 m) in length, 22' (6.7 m)
in breadth, and 4' (1.2 m) in depth of hold (U.S. Department
of Commerce 1930:21-22, 1941:13). With a narrow shape and
enclosed deck room, its design was typical of a river towboat
(Bates 1968:8). Measurements of the wreckage, approximately
100' (30.5 m) long to the transom and approximately 22'
wide (6.7 m), correspond with the reported dimensions of the
Records from 1939 show a change in ownership to J.T.
Ham ofApalachicola, Florida (U.S. Department of Commerce
1939:14). Barbara Hunt's career on the Apalachicola River
was brief. It appears in government records as late as 1941,
but is absent in 1943 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1943).
According to one source, the steamboat was lost June 12, 1940
approximately 100 yards south of the U.S. 90 Bridge (Neville
1961:24). Reports do not specify if the vessel was wrecked or
abandoned, but a local informant reported the latter appeared to
be the case as it was pumped of water and refloated more than
once, only to be neglected and left at its present location (Price
and Katz 2011:3). Over the years it has been the subject of
looting, with people mining the wreck for historical souvenirs
(Nancy Marie White, personal communication, 2012).
Boilers and chimneys are conspicuously absent. The lower
hull and much of the deck planking remain in place. Major
features, such as the cylinder timber, flange, rudder assemblies,
machinery, and winch are present. One of Barbara Hunt's
distinguishing design characteristics is the use of I-beams for
both longitudinal and transverse support. Two ferrous I-beams
run across the vessel in the forward half. These may have
provided stability for the engine bed, supplementing the deck
beams for structural strength. Further use of steel occurs at the
starboard stem where a curved ferrous I-beam runs along the
remaining cylinder timber, while yet another I-beam supports
starboard machinery. Also, diver investigation of the riverbed
near the wreck revealed I-beam fragments off the cylinder
timber and off the port stem.
The chine assembly consists of a chine log set
perpendicular to the floors, carved to accept them in a half-
blind full-lap joint. This assembly is different from the bilge
keelson with a cocked hat found in many steamboats (Bates
1968:92-93). Nails, hammered from below, hold the floors in
place. Outer hull bottom planking runs longitudinally, flush
with the outboard edge. Longitudinal timbers are fastened
above the chine log with drift pins. In this way it resembles
"timber-sided" construction, with a 7" wide chine log larger
than the 4/2" outer hull timbers affixed vertically atop it
(Saltus and Stewart-Abemathy 2002:125). Vertical futtocks
are widely spaced, approximately 8' (2.4 m) apart, making for
the light build that is characteristic of many river steamboats
(Bates 1968:5).
Five transverse bulkheads were recorded, as well as
numerous stanchions. In addition, the steamboat has two
longitudinal bulkheads. At the transom the centerline assembly
consists of three timbers. Outboard of this is a longitudinal
bulkhead, and three stringers run between the bulkhead and the
chine assembly. Deck planking is fastened with two fasteners
per plank at each floor, in neither the standard single nor double
pattern, but side by side (Desmond 1919:60). Archaeologists
noted plain scarfs, also known as diagonal scarfs, and chock
joints, as well as a stern rising to the transom and a scow
bow, the latter feature corroborated in historic photographs of
Barbara Hunt (De Kerchove 1961:588; Steffy 1994:292). The
PRICE, MCCLARNON, AND KATZ Archaeo1o~ica1 Investigations at Chattahoochee
stem curves inward slightly at the paddlewheel. None of the
arms, buckets, or paddles from the wheel is visible; however,
the pillow block and cap still hold the journal, wheel flange,
crank, and part of the shaft in place (Figure 10; Bates 1968:92-
93, 97). The flange has sixteen arm pockets, indicating the
number of arms on the paddlewheel, again consistent with
historic photographs of Barbara Hunt. Strapping for a hogging
chain is wrapped around the cylinder timber immediately
aft of the pillow block assembly. Archaeologists also noted
strapping at the bow for the hogging chain, as well as straps
in other locations for either the hogging chain or to stay the
chimneys. Four hog chain braces were noted protruding
through the deck. The rudders are attached to the stem edge of
the transom immediately forward of the paddlewheel. Three
gudgeons attached to the transom held three butterfly rudders,
parts of which remain.
Although much of the assemblage is not well-represented
in the historical record, some tentative conclusions can be
reached regarding construction features and the use of the
site as an abandonment area. The vessels at Chattahoochee
Landing exhibit surprisingly varied construction techniques
within the framework of flat-bottomed hull design. They
also provide examples of catastrophic shipwreck and a ships'
graveyard, with attendant patterns. Each will be examined in
turn below.
Construction Techniques
Instead of creating a site plan for each vessel, archaeologists
focused on chine details as a feature for comparison. Each of
the recorded vessels was constructed with a 90 degree turn
of the bilge, with sides at right angles to the bottom. What
is intriguing about this assemblage is that all five vessels
represent divergent approaches to create essentially the same
shape (Figure 11). Furthermore, some were hybrids of recorded
designs, such as plank-built, timber-sided, and frame-sided,
with examples of both fore-and-aft and cross planked hull
bottoms (Figure 12; Saltus and Stewart-Abemathy 2002:125;
Wilde-Ramsing 1989:4). Chine assemblies on the steamboats
Barbara Hunt and J. W Hires are curious in that they do
not feature cocked hats or chine clamps common to river
steamboats, especially in western rivers (Bates 1968; Rodgers
et al. 2006:33). Although his study focused on the period
1811-1860, Kane noted that few archaeologically investigated
steamboats have chine log construction (Kane 2001:115-117).
Each of the examples at Chattahoochee Landing, vessels built
significantly after Kane's sample, has chine logs instead of
cocked hats. The two steamboats have carved chine logs to
accept the floors, but the logs are differently constructed, with
Barbara Hunt possessing a half-blind full lap joint and J. W
Hires having a classic mortise. Each had outer hull planking
edge-fastened with drift pins. J. W Hires shared a design
characteristic with the steamboat Cremona, built in Indiana in
1852, in its wedged mortise joining the floors and the chine log
(Kane 2001:117; Irion 1985).
The available evidence indicates that both large wooden
barges on the east side of the river were built with designs
similar to plantation flats, featuring transverse bottom planking,
raked ends, and a chine log with timber-sided construction and
king posts. Temporally, the three suspected barges fit in a mid-
nineteenth to mid-twentieth-century design, characterized
by a 90 degree chine assembly lacking a carved chine plank.
Vessel 5 has a chine log, with complicated construction and
fore-and-aft bottom planking. For either steamboats or barges,
hull designs at Chattahoochee Landing were well-adapted to a
shallow-water river environment.
Wrecking Area
As a local commercial center, it is not surprising that
Chattahoochee Landing was the site of wrecking events. The
vessel assemblage at Chattahoochee Landing includes at least
one reported, and one suspected, shipwreck. The tug Ruth
Jeanette, formerly named Coca Cola Bill, sank after striking
the Victory Bridge in the late 1930s (Turage 2002b:3, 2003:2).
Figure 10. Cylinder timber and flange components (Bates 1968:92,97).
PRICE, McCLARNON, AND KATZ
Archaeological Investigations at Chattahoochee
Tin~FLOIDA NTHOPOLGIS 201 VO. 661-f
Vessels at Chattahoochee Landing, Florida
Chine Details
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Investigated October 2010
Vessel 5 Barbara Hunt
----- -- ,--------- --
Vessel 3
J. W. Hires
0 0.5 1
0 1 2
Figure 11. Chine details.
An un-named barge submerged slightly north of the bridges
and another to the south, revealed in the sonar survey, may also
represent shipwrecks, although at this point the hypothesis is
speculative as they could just as likely have been abandoned
(Price and Katz 2011:2). Despite these confirmed and potential
wrecking events, the site primarily features apparent examples
of watercraft discard.
The vessels at Chattahoochee Landing are perhaps
best characterized as a ships' graveyard, an accumulation
of deliberately discarded watercraft (Richards 2008:19).
Proximity to the landing is likely among the strongest factors
for the choice of this location as an abandonment area.
Archaeologists have observed that river communities often
have a predisposed area for watercraft discard (Stewart-
Abernathy and Saltus 2002:131). Instead of one discrete
location, at Chattahoochee both sides of the river appear to fill
the function of ships' graveyard. In the southeastern U.S. this
characteristic has also been noted in North Carolina (Smith
2010). The proximity to a center of industry and trade at the
landing may have been a major factor contributing to the
creation of a ships' graveyard at this location, as has been noted
in studies of vessel abandonment on rivers in Australia and the
United States (Shomette and Eshelman 1982:583; Kenderdine
1994a:71-72, 1994b:23; Richards 2002:231, 2008; Price
2006:127; Sjordal 2007). Once the process of abandoning
vessels began, others may have followed out of convention. It
has been argued that people tend to dump unwanted materials
where others have already done so, and this contention has
also been applied to watercraft discard areas (Schiffer 1987:62
cited in Seeb 2007:211).
Abandonment behaviors can also be temporally linked
to changing economic and technological circumstances, often
on a national scale (Richards 2008:178-179). A correlation
may exist between global events and vessel discard at
Chattahoochee, as Sandy and Barbara Hunt were both
abandoned during times of economic downturn.
Additionally, war was a factor in the site formation
process. Potential evidence for salvage activities comes from
informant reports and the negative evidence of what is missing
at the wreck sites. Local historian Grady Turnage mentions that
the vessels to the east side of the river were salvaged for metal
during World War II, notably the wreck of J. W Callahan, Jr,
which after salvage was washed away in a freshet (Price and
Katz 2011:2). Of the identified powered craft, machinery is
absent in Ruth Jeanette, J. W Hires, and Sandy. The structure
of the latter is visible above the sediment, and it exhibits no
extant evidence for means of propulsion. The wreckage of
Ruth Jeanette may have a propeller shaft buried, and J. W
Hires may have propulsion machinery likewise obscured
by sediment, but at the time of the investigation neither had
visible means of propulsion. The engine machinery from these
PRICE, MCCLARNON, AND KATZ Archaeological Investigations at Chattahoochee
-Chine Log, Sill, or Gunwale
Chine-Sided Cross Tie, Tie, or Floor
-- Planks
Bottom Planks
Drift Fastenings
Figure 12. Chine types (after Saltus et al. 1995:2-46; James and Krivor 1999:16).
vessels has apparently been removed, perhaps for the war
effort, or possibly when the vessels were discarded. It has been
argued that the absence of propulsion or associated artifacts
can be interpreted as a signature of deliberate abandonment
(Richards 2008:145). The negative evidence at these sites may
support this hypothesis.
The vessels assembled at Chattahoochee Landing were
involved in industries integral to Chattahoochee's economic
life in the first half of the twentieth century, including passenger
service, freight transport, and dredging. At its height the
landing attracted waterborne commerce during a period when
the river was the main method of transportation. As railroads
and highways slowly eclipsed river traffic, the landing fell into
disuse as a commercial hub and transitioned into its current
function as a recreational area. The rising and falling fortunes
of the landing contributed to the creation of the current ships'
graveyard. This investigation has shown that structurally
the vessels at the landing exhibit a variety of construction
features suited to shallow-water riverine environments, while
the assemblage as a whole has characteristics consistent with
abandonment areas both in the United States and abroad. The
vessels at Chattahoochee Landing provide a valuable glimpse
into a cross section of activities, adaptations, and behaviors
during a time of gradual transition. As transportation patterns
shifted from the Apalachicola River to highways and
railroads, these vessels were left behind as tangible reminders
of a different era, of a time when the economic lifeline of
Chattahoochee was the river itself.
The authors would like to thank the Cowen Library
in Chattahoochee, Florida, and the Murphy Library at the
University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse for their help in researching
the history of the landing, and Mike Alford for his insights
into vernacular watercraft. They would also like to thank
Lindsay S. Smith and Louis Tesar of the Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Chris McCabe and Steve Dilk of
the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Jason Bums of
Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc., and Jeff Moates
of the Florida Public Archaeology Network for their edits
and comments on the manuscript. Special thanks go to Grady
Turnage, whose knowledge of Chattahoochee and its history
is invaluable.
Archaeological Investigations at Chattahoochee
References Cited
Adams, William Hampton
2002 Machine Cut Nails and Wire Nails: American
Production and Use for Dating 19th Century and
Early-20t-Century Sites. Historical Archaeology
Alford, Michael B.
1993 French Sources of Vernacular Boatbuilding Practices
in the Carolinas. In Underwater Archaeological
Proceedings from the Societyfor Historical
Archaeology Conference, edited by Shelly O. Smith.
pp. 43-48. Society for Historical Archaeology,
Bates, Alan
1968 The Western Rivers Steamboat Cyclopoedium.
Hustle Press, Leonia.
Boyd, Mark F.
1956 The Apalachicola or Chattahoochee Arsenal of the
United States. Apalachee 4. Tallahassee Historical
Society, Tallahassee.
Cox, Dale
2008 The Early History of Gadsden County, Florida:
Episodes from the History of Florida Fifth County.
William Cox, Bascom.
De Kerchove, Ren6
1961 International Maritime Dictionary. Second Edition.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Desmond, Charles
1919 Wooden Shipbuilding. The Rudder Publishing
Company, New York.
Edmonds, Richard H. (editors)
1922 Victory Bridge Across Apalachicola Now Complete.
Manufacturers 'Record. 82:56.
Flagler, Clement A.F.
1899 Improvement of Rivers and Harbors in Western
Georgia and Florida and in Eastern Alabama. In
Annual Reports of the War Department, Report
of the ChiefofEngineers, Part 2, pp. 1647-1694.
United States War Department, Washington, D.C.
Fleetwood, William C., Jr.
1995 Tidecraft: The Boats of South Carolina, Georgia
and Northeastern Florida, 1550-1950. WGB Marine
Press, Tybee Island.
Franz, David, and Thomas G. Whitley
2010 Cultural Resources Investigations for the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River
Basin Water Control Manual and EIS, Alabama and
Georgia. Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Mobile District. Brockington and
Associates, Inc., Atlanta.
Hann, John H.
1990 Summary Guide to Spanish Florida Missions
and Visitas with Churches in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries. The Americas 46:417-513.
The International Passenger and Ticket Agents' Journal
1899 Engineering Work. The International Passenger and
Ticket Agents 'Journal. 8:17.
Irion, J.B.
1985 Archaeological Testing of the Confederate
Obstructions, 1Mb28, Mobile Harbor Alabama.
Espey Houston and Associates, Austin.
James, Stephen R., Jr., and Michael C. Krivor
1998 Recordation and Assessment of a Historic Tennessee
River Watercraft, Humphrey's County Tennessee.
Panamerican Maritime, L.L.C., Memphis.
1999 Recordation and Assessment of a Historic
Watercraft at the Ben Sherrod Site, Wilkinson
County, Mississippi. Panamerican Maritime, L.L.C.,
Judson, W.V.
1901 Improvement of Rivers and Harbors in Western
Florida and Georgia and in Eastern Alabama.
Annual Reports of the War Department, Report of
the Chief ofEngineers, Part 3. United States War
Department, Washington, D.C.
Kane, Adam Isaac
2001 The Western River Steamboat: Structure and
Machinery 1811-1860. Unpublished MA thesis,
Texas A & M University, College Station.
Kenderdine, Sarah
1994a Historic Shipping on the Murray River: A Guide
to the Terrestrial and Submerged Archaeological
Resources in New South Wales and Victoria. New
South Wales Department of Planning, Victoria
Murray Darling Basin Commission, Sydney,
1994b Revelations about river boats and 'rotten rows': a
guide to wreck sites of the River Murray. Bulletin of
the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology
The Marine Review
1899 Blue Book ofAmerican Shipping: Marine and Naval
Directory of the United States. The Marine Review
Publishing Company, Cleveland.
PRICE, MCCLARNON, AND KATZ Archaeological Investigations at Chattahoochee
Moates, Jeffrey T.
2007 Wacissa Boat 1 (8JE1604): Example of a Plantation
Flat in a North Florida River. The Florida
Anthropologist 60:127-138.
Mueller, Edward A.
1990 Perilous Journeys: A History of Steamboating on
the Chattahoochee, Apalachicola, and Flint Rivers,
1828-1928. Historic Chattahoochee Commission,
Neville, Bert
1961 Directory of Steamboats with List of Landings, on
Chattahoochee-Apalachicola-Flint-Chipola Rivers.
Coffee Printing, Selma.
Newell, Mark M.
1995 Small Craft of the Low Country Rice Culture, In
Tidecraft: The boats of South Carolina, Georgia,
and Northeastern Florida, 1550-1950, edited by
William C. Fleetwood, pp.311-315. WGB Marine
Press, Tybee Island.
Pearson, Charles E.
2006 Investigations of a Nineteenth Century Steamboat
Wreck in Bayou Teche, Louisiana a Possible
Civil War Gunboat. Coastal Environments, Inc.,
Price, Franklin H.
2006 Conflict and Commerce: Maritime Archaeological
Site Distribution as Cultural Change on the
Roanoke River, North Carolina. MA thesis,
Department of History, East Carolina University,
Price, Franklin H., and Rachel Katz
2011 Interview of Grady Turnage: December 11, 2010.
Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee,
Richards, Nathan
2002 Deep Structures: An Examination of Deliberate
Watercraft Abandonment in Australia. PhD
dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Flinders
University, Adelaide, South Australia.
2008 Ships' Graveyards. University Press of Florida,
Rodgers, Bradley A., and Nathan Richards, with Franklin H.
Price, Brian Clayton, Drew Pietruszka, Heather White, and
Steve Williams
2006 The Castle Island Ships' Graveyard: The History
and Archaeology ofEleven Wrecked andAbandoned
Watercraft. Research Report No. 14. East Carolina
University, Greenville.
Saltus, Allan, Jr., and Leslie C. Stewart-Abemathy
2002 The Model Barge and other Vessels. In Ghost Boats
of the Mississippi: Discovering our Working Past,
edited by Leslie C. Stewart-Abemathy, pp. 103-129.
Arkansas Archaeological Society, Fayetteville.
Saltus, Allan, Jr.,G. J. Castille III, and C. E. Pearson
1995 Natchez Under the Hill: Historical and
Archaeological Investigations of Watercraft along
the Mississippi River, Adams County, Mississippi.
Coastal Envionments, Inc., Baton Rouge.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Scott-Ireton, Della
2004 Shipwreck Form Florida Master Site File JA1692.
Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.
Seeb, Sami
2007 Cape Fear's Forgotten Fleet: The Eagle's Island
Ships' Graveyard, Wilmington, North Carolina.
MA Thesis, History Department, East Carolina
University, Greenville.
Shomette, Donald G. and Ralph Eshelman
1982 Patuxent River Submerged Cultural Resources
Survey. Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville,
Sjordal, Paul G.
2007 The History andArchaeology of Ship Abandonment
at Shields Point. MA Thesis, Anthropology
Department, University of West Florida, Pensacola.
Smith, Lindsay S.
2010 At the Crossroads: Maritime Systems in Transition
and the Elizabeth City Ships' Graveyard,
Wilmington, North Carolina. MA Thesis, History
Department, East Carolina University, Greenville.
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology
1992 Rice Flat/Barge Glossary. Underwater Division,
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Columbia.
Steffy, J. Richard
1994 Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of
Shipwrecks. Texas A&M University Press, College
Stewart-Abernathy, Leslie C.
2002 Archaeology on the Parched Bottom of the
Big Muddy. In Ghost Boats of the Mississippi:
Discovering our Working Past, edited by Leslie
Archaeological Investigations at Chattahoochee
T~ FORIA ATHROOLOIST2013VOL 661-f
C. Stewart-Abernathy, pp. 23-46. Arkansas
Archaeological Society, Fayetteville.
Stewart-Abernathy, Leslie C. and Allen Saltus, Jr.
2002 Why These Wrecks, Here? In Ghost Boats of the
Mississippi: Discovering our Working Past, edited
by Leslie C. Stewart- Abernathy, pp. 130-156.
Arkansas Archaeological Society, Fayetteville.
Turnage, Grady
2002a Just Thinkin' on the Riverbank. Twin City News 24
January. Chattahoochee.
2002b Just Thinkin' on the Riverbank: Part II in a Series.
Twin City News 31 January. Chattahoochee.
2002c Love for the Apalachicola River. The Post-
Searchlight 4 August. Bainbridge.
2003 Glimpse into the Past: Coca-Cola Bill. Twin City
News 24 April. Chattahoochee.
United States Department of Commerce
1921 Fifty-Third Annual List of Merchant Vessels of
the United States. United States Department of
Commerce and Labor, Washington, D.C.
1925 Merchant Vessels of the United States 1925. United
States Department of Commerce and Labor,
Washington, D.C.
1930 Merchant Vessels of the United States, Year Ended
June 1930. United States Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C.
1932 Merchant Vessels of the United States 1932. United
States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
1935 Merchant Vessels of the United States 1935. United
States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
1937 Merchant Vessels of the United States 1937. United
States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
1938 Merchant Vessels of the United States 1938. United
States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
1939 Merchant Vessels of the United States 1939. United
States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
1941 Merchant Vessels of the United States 1941. United
States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
1943 Merchant Vessels of the United States 1943. United
States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Commerce and Labor
1906 Thirty-Eighth Annual List of Merchant Vessels of
the United States. United States Department of
Commerce and Labor, Washington, D.C.
1911 Forty-ThirdAnnual List of Merchant Vessels of
the United States. United States Department of
Commerce and Labor, Washington, D.C.
1912 Forty-Fourth Annual List of Merchant Vessels of
the United States. United States Department of
Commerce and Labor, Washington, D.C.
1920 Fifty-Second Annual List of Merchant Vessels of
the United States. United States Department of
Commerce and Labor, Washington, D.C.
United States Treasury Department
1899 Thirty-Fourth Annual List of Merchant Vessels of the
United States. United States Treasury Department,
Washington, D.C.
1902 Annual Report of the Supervising Inspector
General, Steamboat Inspection Service. United
States Treasury Department, Washington, D.C.
White, Nancy Marie
2011 Archaeology at Chattahoochee Landing, Gadsden
County, Northwest Florida. Report to the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and
the Division of Historical Resources. University of
South Florida, Tampa.
Wilde-Ramsing, Mark
1989 Barges: Notes from the North Carolina Maritime
Workshop VII. North Carolina Underwater
Archaeology Branch, Kure Beach.
Womack, Miles Kenan, Jr.
1976 Gadsen: A Florida county in word and picture.
Gadsden County Bicentennial Committee, Quincy.
Appendix 1 Glossary of Terms
Barge: A general name given to flat-bottomed rigged or unrigged craft of full body and heavy construction,
specially adapted for the transportation of bulky freight (De Kerchove 1961:42).
Bottom planks: Planking on the bottom, exterior of the vessel (South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology 1992:1).
Ceiling planks: Loose fitted or fastened interior planking lying on top of the stringers or attached to the block-
ing floor timbers (South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropologyl992:1).
Chine: The line of intersection between the sides and the bottom of a flat or V-bottom hull (De Kerchove
Chine clamp: A longitudinal stringer interior of the cocked hat; a timber extending along the join of the bottom
and sides of the hull (Pearson 2006:6).
Chine log: Longitudinal timber located just inside the chine on certain barges or flats (Steffy 1994:269; Moates
Cocked Hat: A triangular timber used to brace the floors and futtocks where the bottom of the hull meets the
sides (Kane 2001:168).
Cylinder Timber: Longitudinal members on each side of a stem-wheeled steamboat bearing the weight of the
wheel assembly (Bates 1968:97).
Drift Pin: A cylindrical bolt, headed on one end that is slightly larger in diameter than the hole into which it is
driven (Steffy 1994:270).
Flat: A barge or a lighter (De Kerchove 1961:290).
Frame: A transverse timber that describes the body shape of a vessel and to which hull planking and ceiling are
fastened (Steffy 1994:271).
Frame-sided: Type of barge or flat constructed with vertical futtocks atop the chine log (Stewart-Aberathy
Futtock: A frame timber other than a floor timber, half-frame or top timber; one of the middle pieces of the
frame (Steffy 1994:272). Also, the upright frames on the sides of a flat bottom craft, known in some regions as
the King Post (Rodgers et al. 2006:30).
Gudgeon: The female part of a rudder hinge (Steffy 1994:272).
Hogging chain: A system of iron chains and rods passing over braces used to prevent the hull from hogging or
sagging (Kane 2001:170).
Ile: Beam of solid carved wood shaped to create one-piece sides that form the vessel's angular junction, provide
attachment points for transverse decking and bottom planking, and constitute the vessel's longitudinal structural
support. Refers to the built-up plank form of chine-built vessels. French word for the letter "L" which describes
the cross-sectional shape of the structural element (Moates 2007:129).
Limber hole: Holes in frames to facilitate the drainage of water (De Kerchove 1961:457).
Keel: The main center-line structural member, running fore and aft (De Kerchove 1961:418).
Keelson: An internal longitudinal timber...mounted atop the frames along the centerline of the keel (Steffy
Knee: L-shaped timbers which provide structural strengthening and attachment points for outer planks (Moates
Molded: The various dimensions of timbers as seen from the sheer and body views of construction plans; the
dimensions determined by the molds. Thus, the vertical surfaces (the sides) of keels, the fore-and-aft sides of the
posts, the vertical or athwartship surfaces of the frames, etc. (Steffy 1994:275-276).
Mortise: A cavity cut into a timber to receive a tenon [or part of another timber]. (Steffy 1994:276).
Plank-built: Type of barge or flat constructed with planked-up sides held into the chine log with drift pins or
through-bolts (Saltus and Stewart-Aberathy 2002:125; Newell 1995:312). Also known as timber sided (James
and Krivor 1998:27; Stewart-Abernathy 2002).
Rake: The inclination of the stem and stempost beyond the ends of the keel (Steffy 1994:277).
Ramp timber: A continuation up the ramp of the stringer (Newell 1995:314).
Rub Rail: A rail (rather than a board) used on the exterior sides or ends of a vessel to prevent rubbing or bump-
ing up against a dock or other vessel (South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology 1992:2).
Archaeological Investigations at Chattahoochee
Appendix 1 Glossary continued
Scarf: An overlapping joint used to connect two timbers or planks without increasing their dimensions (Steffy
Sided: The dimension of an unmolded surface; the distance across an outer frame surface, the forward or after
surface of a stem or stempost, or the upper surface of a keel or keelson (Steffy 1994:280).
Stanchion: A vertical structural member between decks (De Kerchove 1961:774). An upright supporting post
(Steffy 1994:280).
Strake: A range of planks or plates abutting against each other and extending the whole length of the ship (De
Kerchove 1961:797).
Stringer: Fore and aft strength member (De Kerchove 1961:800).
Timber-sided: The sides of the vessel are formed with longitudinal timbers stacked atop one another over a chine-
log, and fastened together with drift pins (James and Krivor 1999:14).
Transom: One of the athwartship members, fixed to the stempost, that shaped and strengthened the stem (Steffy
Tugboat: A mechanically propelled vessel of small tonnage with little or no cargo capacity, used for towing or
assisting vessels...in or out of harbors, rivers, and docks. Also called towboat, tug (De Kerchove 1961:870).
Chapters of the Florida Anthropological Society
10 5
1. Ancient Ones Archaeological Society of North Central Florida
2902 NW 104'h Court, Unit A, Gainesville, FL 32606
2. Archaeological Society of Southern Florida 15
2495 N.W. 35th Ave., Miami, FL 33142
3. Central Florida Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 948083, Maitland FL 32794
4. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society
1902 Florrie Court, N. Fort Myers, FL 33917 7
5. Emerald Coast Archaeological Society
c/o Indian Temple Mound Museum 4
139 Miracle Strip Pkwy SE, Fort Walton Beach, 32548
6. Gold Coast Anthropological Society
6720 E. Tropical Way, Plantation, FL 33317
7. Indian River Anthropological Society 12
3705 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, FL 32952
8. Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
195 Huntley Oaks Blvd., Lake Placid, FL 33852 16
9. Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee
P.O. Box 20026, Tallahassee, FL 32316
10. Pensacola Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 13251, Pensacola, FL 32591
11. St. Augustine Archaeological Association
P.O. Box 1301, St. Augustine, FL 32085
12. Southeast Florida Archaeological Society .
P.O Box 2875, Stuart, FL 34995
13. Southwest Florida Archaeological Society ^-'
P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 34101 H.
14. Time Sifters Archaeology Society 16. Warm Mineral Sprint/Little Salt Spring Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 25642, Sarasota, FL 34277 P.O, Box 7797, North Port, FL 34287
15. Volusia Anthropological Society 17. Palm Beach County Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 1881, Ormond Beach, FL 32175 6421 Old Medinah Circle, Lake Worth, FL 33463
S1 Florida Anthropological Society
You are Invited to Join Us:
If you want to join with professional and avocational archaeologists and others in efforts to preserve and protect our
prehistoricc heritage, then join the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS) to achieve that goal.
If you are interested in archaeology, ethnology, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology and associated topics
with a focus on Florida and surrounding areas in the Southeastern U.S. and Caribbean, then The Florida Anthropologist,
the journal of the Florida Anthropological Society, and the papers presented at our annual meetings will be of interest to
If you are looking for that special gift, then a gift subscription to The Florida Anthropologist is your answer.
You do not have to be a resident of Florida to belong to the Florida Anthropological Society. Your membership fee
includes your subscription to the Society's journal and newsletter. We are a non-profit organization founded in 1947.
Objectives of the Florida Anthropological Society
to provide a formal means by which individuals interested in anthropological and archaeological studies in the State of
Florida and related areas may come together for mutual benefits;
to promote the continuing study of the peoples of Florida from ancient times to the present;
to establish and promulgate to its members and to the general public, rules of conduct, a code of ethics, and standards of
quality to govern anthropological work;
to effect harmony and cooperation between the amateur and professional anthropologist and archaeologist so that the
work of all will permanently enrich our knowledge of human history;
to bring to the attention of the general public and of appropriate governmental agencies the need for preservation of
archaeological and historical sites within the State of Florida as well as for the recording of the ways of live of extant
groups in Florida and related areas;
to disseminate information on anthropology and archaeology and in particular on the work of the Society members
through periodic, regularly scheduled meetings of the Society, through a program of publications by the Society, and
through such special events and other activities as the Society may consider proper to further its objectives;
to assist in establishing archaeological museums through contributions or gifts of materials or money;
to encourage the scientific collections, preservation, classification, study and publication of ethnological materials and
archaeological remains; and
to initiate and maintain appropriate By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations in the best interests of all its members.
Join the Florida Anthropological Society
Florida Anthropological Society memberships:
Student $15 (with a copy of a current student ID) Student membership is open to graduate, undergraduate and high school
students. A photocopy of your student ID should accompany payment
Regular and Institutional $30 Family $35
Sustaining- $100 Patron- $1000
Benefactor $2500 or more
Add $25.00 for foreign addresses
The Society publishes journals (The Florida Anthropologist) and newsletters, normally quarterly, and sponsors an annual
meeting hosted by a local chapter.
FAS Chapter:
SI agree to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Florida Anthropological Society as presented on the previous page.
Florida Anthropological Society
c/o Pat Balanzategui
P Box 1434
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-1434
Membership forms also available at www.fasweb.org
About the Authors
Jon Endonino is Lecturer in Archaeology at Eastern Kentucky University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of
Florida in 2010 and has conducted archaeological research in Florida and throughout the southeastern U.S. for the past
20 years. Jon's research is focused on Mount Taylor period mortuary mounds, exchange and interregional interaction,
lithic technology and analysis, and experimental archaeology.
Rachel Katz has an MA in Underwater Archaeology from the University of Nottingham and an MSc in Anthropology
from Florida State University. She has conducted fieldwork in North America, Europe, and the Western Pacific, and is
currently working in Ontario, Canada, where she is conducting War of 1812-related research in Lake Simcoe.
Benjamin Keller (B.A. The Ohio State University) has worked on archaeological sites in Ohio and Florida such as Fort
Center, Crystal River, and Pineland.
Daniel McClarnon, MA, Florida State University, began working for Florida's Department of State in 2007 with the
Underwater Archaeology Team. His archaeological research interests include Florida vernacular watercraft. He cur-
rently works for the Division of Historical Resources in the Compliance & Review Section.
Greg Mikell is an RPA and Senior Archaeologist with Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Having lived and worked in
northwest Florida and the Southeast since the 1980s, Greg has an extensive background in northwest Florida prehistoric
and historic archaeology and regards his work at 8WL38 and other Choctawhatchee Bay area Fort Walton/Pensacola
sites to be among the most rewarding, interesting, and influential in his career.
Franklin H. Price is currently a Senior Archaeologist with the Bureau of Archaeological Research. A graduate of the
MA Program in Maritime Studies at East Carolina University, he has participated in underwater archaeological projects
as varied as vessel recording, micro-archaeology, and investigating submerged prehistoric landscapes.
Victor D. Thompson (Ph.D. University of Kentucky) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
the University of Georgia. He has conducted field and museum work in the American Southeast, especially Georgia and
Florida, as well as in Mexico and the Caribbean.
Keith H. Ashley, Dept of Anthropology, UNF
Bldg 51, 1 UNF Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659
7 wltit ui iiijil tltt
3126207707 289 9
Volume 66 Numbers 1-2
March-June 2013
FRANKLIN H. PRICE, DANIEL P. McCLARNON, AND C. RACHEL KATZ
Copyright 2013 by the