Part
I – General Statement of Research Problem
The Archaic Period of
the Southeast is marked by dramatic change in the climate, flora, fauna, and
landscape. For most, the Archaic has been broadly described as a time of
localized adaptations to particular environmental niches resulting in a
restriction in both logistical and residential mobility, and the types of
resources that were utilized. While environmental adaptations do play their
role in explaining material culture and resource exploitation, it does not
explain or necessitate monumental architecture or the incredible Louisiana Late
Archaic site Poverty Point. Neither does this type of environmental determinism
adequately explain either the Late Archaic shell ring complexes or mound
building mortuary complex that was contemporaneously occupying the south
Florida Gulf Coast and continuing north into the southern North Carolina
Atlantic Coast. Simply put, data on corresponding changes in social
organization, economy, and ritual behavior are severely limited.
The Poverty Point
culture has long been held to be a relatively short lived transitional cultural
manifestation in the Mississippi River Valley. It is the consensus of many who
study the Southeastern Archaic that it represents the developmental period
between the Archaic-band ways of life to the semi-sedentary ceremonial complex
combined with social stratification on a level of the Woodland chiefdom
complexity.
What does Poverty Point culture entail? What
classifies a site as a Poverty Point site? Poverty Point, if recognized only by
massive earthworks, is an anomaly that does not fit with the accepted culture
history of the Archaic Southeastern United States. In this this context the
culture itself does not have any implications or affects outside of a 30 to 60 kilometer
radius. The
enigma of Poverty Point earthworks is only rivaled by the debate of its
geographical and sociopolitical boundaries. Gibson has argued (1996:288-305)
that Poverty Point as a taxonomical unit had an affected only the immediate
countryside, and that smaller sites surrounding the earthworks as temporary
camps inhabited to perform particular tasks, while sites located at a greater
distance are linked Poverty Point only by trade.
This approach however,
is severely limited in scope when considering the sourcing of the types of
artifacts that are found at Poverty Point and at sites temporally
contemporaneous. As a taxonomic use Poverty Point is most useful in extending
its use to the regional social organization linked by extensive trade networks
that by necessity require cooperation. There are many examples of artifact
types that overlap stylistically. The lithic point types that are located
within close proximity to the Louisiana earthworks are found all along the
riverine systems of the southeast; as far north as the Missouri boot heel to
the south towards the Gulf of Mexico stretching from Avery Island, Louisiana to
present day Naples, Florida.
The baked clay objects, which have been come
to be identified under the umbrella term Poverty Point Objects (PPO’s) are
ubiquitous throughout the Late Archaic southeast. These objects have been shown
through present day experimentation to be capable of being heated in hearths in
then transferred into baskets in order to boil water. Also, PPO’s can be
arranged in earthen pit hearths and subsequently covered in order to act as a
convection oven to cook larger game (Wheeler and McGee 1994:380-389). It has
also proposed that differences in the sizes and shapes of PPO’s reflect a
difference in function, that is, modifications of form are adjustments for
temperature control and duration of heat retention. This has yet to be
demonstrated in actual experiments (Wernecke 1993:282-289).
There are numerous
other examples of artifact types that identify the Archaic Florida Gulf Coast
as typologically an element of the broader Poverty Point culture. The general
problem concerning the Escambia and Santa Rosa counties in Florida is the
extreme paucity of Late Archaic sites. Due to the nature of Archaic sites in
the area sites that had the potential to be identified as Archaic have, in the
past, been either misidentified as lithic scatters or have not been reported on
due to these particular site types ephemeral nature.
As such, that makes the
Downtown Technical Campus (8ES3427) an extremely important site in our
understanding of life in the Late Archaic Florida Gulf Coast. A detailed analysis
of lithic tool production and function in tandem with a detailed paleoethnobotanical
analysis can inform of us of what types of activities were conducted at the
site. A detailed examination of wear patterns and lithic sourcing microlithic
perforators recovered at the site may answer questions about logistical
mobility and what types of functions they served. In addition, a paleoethnobotanical
analysis can answer questions about what seasons the site was occupied.
Part
II - History and Definition of Problem, Background Information, Orientation
Unfortunately, limited
research into the geoarchaeology and the mid-Holocene has been conducted. This
has less to do with a lack of interest into the subject but can be attributable
to the fact that retrieving data from the Coastal Plain proves to be extremely
difficult. Much of the geological record for this time period is either
submerged on the coastal shelf or is inaccessible due to depth or groundwater.
The stratigraphy for the dynamic landscape and the light accumulation of
sediment can often be imperceptible on the Coastal Plains region (Schuldenrein
1996). Gunn (1997: 134-51) offers future research for geoarchaeological methods
for the mid-Pleistocene that could emanate from various astronomical and
geophysical influences.
What is known is the
onset of Holocene and the gradual warming trend that accompanied it brought the
Pleistocene (approximately 13,000-10,000 B.P.A) epoch to a close (Gunn
1996:415). This occurred concurrently with the people of the prehistoric
southeast becoming actively engaged in a process of localized specializations
in the exploitation of natural resources (Ward and Davis 1999:74). The vast expanse of time, approximately
10,000 to 3,000 B.P.A., has been demarcated as the Archaic Period. The Archaic
Period is subsequently broken down further into three sub-periods the Early,
Middle, and Late Archaic. The people of the Early and Middle Archaic,
approximately 10,000 to 5,000 B.P.A., carried on a lifestyle similar to the
Pleistocene people of the Paleoindian period. People of the Early and Middle
Archaic Southeast lived in small bands, consisting upwards from 50 to 150
individuals (Anderson 1996:39). The extinction of megafauna and increases in
population led to a restriction of territorial boundaries and the retrieval of
lithic raw materials (Sassaman and Anderson 1996:57-74). This was a period of
great mobility albeit somewhat reduced from the Paleo-Indian people of the
Pleistocene where aggregation and open marriage networks were the means by
which society reproduced itself (Anderson 1996:53-57).
By the time of the Late
Archaic the fauna and climate stabilized into essentially the same climate as
the present. The rise in the sea level had risen but still somewhat lower than
the present day level (Watts et al. 1996:29, Thompson and Worth 2011:55)
allowing for estuarine environments along the Georgia coast to develop. Also
along the Coastal Plain the temperate oak and herb forests had been replaced by
pine and swamp plants (Watts and Hansen 1988:307-323).
Due to the poor
preservation at coastal sites, little is known of plant foods that were
incorporated into Late Archaic diets resulting in large gaps of data missing in
the paleoethtnobotanical record. There is almost no data of any domesticates in
the coastal plain and very little data confirming the exploitation of wild
species (Anderson 1995:155). Most of what is known from the mid-Holocene comes
from the Middle Archaic wet site Windover. Abdominal contents from human
remains have revealed that grape (Vitis sp.), hackberry (Celtis sp.), persimmon
(Diopyros virginiana), and maypops were consumed (Passiflora incarnate)
(Gremillion 1996:106). Alongside the human remains evidence of the domesticated
bottle gourd was recovered (Gremillion 1996:107). The occasional use of both
hickory and acorn dating from 4,000 B.P.A. has been excavated from shell midden
along the South Carolina coast (Trinkley 1976:64-67).
The faunal remains from
the coast during the Late Archaic exhibit a dramatic increase in the
utilization of estuary resources, mostly in the form of oyster (Crassostrea
virgica), quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria), Whelk (Busycon), and stone crab
(Menippe mercenaria) (Warring 1968:155) . There is also evidence for the
consumption of fish species that inhabit brackish waters, mostly sheepshead
(Archosargus probatocephalus), but also including signifigant amounts of
requiem shark species (Carcharhinidae) and salt water catfish (Ariopsis felis)
consumption (Rietz 1982:65-88). There has been little in the way of faunal
analysis of larger mammals from Late Archaic Coastal Plain. Larger game that
has been identifiable has been recognized as white tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis) (Redmond 1999; Thompson and Worth 2011:66).
In the Florida Gulf
Coast, and the Escambia county area specifically, there is a large gap in
operational theoretical frameworks of interpreting the socio-political aspect
of the Archaic period. The typical view of the archaeologists studying the Late
Archaic Southeast is that the Florida Panhandle is a cultural “dead zone”
operating on the peripheries of two broader cultural patterns operating during
this time. Whether this idea of the region being a “prehistoric third world”
stems from a lack of data, research, or publications originating from the area or whether it is the result of
the types of research designs being implemented is debatable. Previous research
demands that due to the increase of the stresses and demands of population
increases, that both social stratigraphy within and between groups was
developing during the terminal Late Archaic.
There were
several innovations and cultural traditions that distinguish the Late Archaic
Period from the two previous Archaic sub-periods. At this time native societies
grew and the people traveled long distances to trade for exotic goods. Their
territories shrank in size, and some built more permanent seasonally occupied
settlements which they would return to. Settlements in the Late Archaic Period
shifted in concentration from upland during the Middle Archaic and were often
located near riverheads and also within close proximity to estuarine resources.
(Anderson 1996:165-166;169-170).
What is apparent in
that the strategies of lithic technological organization were taking place.
What I intend to propose is an examination of the theoretical relationships
that exists between technology, mobility, resource extraction and exploitation,
and settlement patterning in order to better understand Poverty Point culture
in the Pensacola area and how those people fit into the broader framework of
the Late Archaic Poverty Point phenomena.
Additionally a paleoethnobotanical
analysis will supplement the lithic study in order to determine what seasons
during the year the site was occupied and reoccupied. A paleoethnobotanical
sample will be analyzed in order to make comparisons of plant species that were
harvested and utilized by other Poverty Point groups. If
analyses indicates that the remnants were of only mature wild seeds of a type
of plant that grows locally, it could be inferred that the site was only
visited seasonally. Such an inference could be supported by a lack of other
features that would suggest that no permanent shelters were built at the site.
Part
III – Study Area, Domain, and Population
The
Downtown Technical Campus Survey (8ES3427) was a cultural resource management
project that was contracted out to the University of West Florida Archaeology
Institute for the Pensacola Area Chamber of Commerce. The initial Phase I
cultural resource assessment was conducted in 2008 on a small parcel of land,
approximately half an acre, in downtown Pensacola, Florida. The Phase I of the
DTC project was designed to locate and assess the significance of any
archaeological deposits within the proposed project area. Subsurface
investigations evidenced considerable early 20th century disturbances produced
during repeated episodes of construction and demolition. Shovel testing and
mechanical stripping revealed no evidence of burials or significant historic
structural features.
There
was, however, a small pocket of intact prehistoric midden deposits in the
southwest portion of the land parcel below the foundations of condemned 20th
century federal government housing projects. The prehistoric component
contained evidence of subsistence, PPO’s, an incised bone pin, tallahatta
sandstone lithic tools, and both tallahatta sandstone and coastal plain chert
debitage. The assemblage of these artifact types recovered during the Phase I
cultural resource assessment survey were indicative of a terminal Late Archaic
site existing approximately 3,000 to 4,000 years before the present era
(B.P.E.).
Given
the seemingly intact integrity of the prehistoric deposits, and the poorly
understood nature of the Gulf Coast Late Archaic component, a Phase II
evaluation of 8ES3427 was undertaken.
Focusing on and 30mX30m area of
the land parcel, archaeological testing was conducted in order to better
delineate the horizontal and vertical dimensions of this archaeological component,
evaluate and document its archaeological integrity and data potential in terms
of the National Register of Historic Places
and to generate Phase II level cultural resource management
recommendations.
Phase II archaeological
research design and methodologies were guided by the horizontal and vertical
distribution patterns of prehistoric materials as revealed during the systematic
Phase I shovel testing, while limiting needlessly destructive impacts to the potentially
intact archaeological deposits. In
combination with Phase I information, Phase II test trenches revealed an intact
Pre-columbian midden deposit marked by dark, organically stained soil, along
with large refuse pits and post holes that extended below the dark, organically
stained soil. Intact midden deposits encompassed an area of less than 10 m2
while terminating at a maximum depth of approximately 1.5 m. The midden
deposits and refuse pits yielded shell fish, fish and deer bone and carbonized
plant remains; microlithic stone perforators associated sewing, stone tool
maintenance debitage, ground stone tool fragments, and a fired clay object. In one feature was recovered a long narrow
deer bone pin exhibiting an incised design along its side, as well as large
quantities of fish and shell fish, large mammal bone, carbonized seeds and
other faunal remains. The formation of
the post mold features suggested a structure, although its exact function has
yet to be determined.
In the summer and fall
of 2009, a Phase III data recovery was conducted at 8ES3427. During Phase III
an area of 54.2 square meters of intact Pre-columbian midden deposits were
recovered, marked by dark, organically stained sediments. A total of 64
cultural features were excavated. During
Phase III we collected radiocarbon samples and 26 soil samples for floral
analysis. Uncovered midden deposits
ranged in depth between approximately 20 cm to 75 cm. Among the documented features are one linear,
probably architectural feature and an associated hearth, 15 large hearths (dark
ovoid ash-laden stains), several large refuse pits and numerous post
holes. Possibly utilized for food
processing, many of the hearths were lined with pieces of rectangular abraded
ferrous sandstone. The possible
structural feature, refuse pits, and many of the hearths, along with faunal
material occurred in the southern block (Block 1). Block 1 midden deposits and
features yielded shell fish, fish and deer antler, carbonized plant remains,
distinctive small lithic perforators, lithic debitage, ground stone tool
fragments and a PPO. Of special note,
the microlithic tool assemblage consists of in excess of 100 perforators. The northern excavation block (Block 2)
yielded shallower midden depths, fewer features, mostly post holes and a few
hearths, a decrease in the frequency of lithic material and flora and faunal remains. Near the end of our planned Phase III
excavations we discovered another small area (approximately 30-35 m²) of intact
deposits 10m west of the southern block. Close interval shovel testing was
conducted at 5m to define the horizontal and vertical boundaries of this area.
Our subsurface test pits uncovered a midden deposit extending to maximum depths
of about 50cmbs. Substantial disturbances were documented above this deposit. The
deposit yielded small flakes; no features or subsistence remains were recovered
Lab work will
concentrate on a detailed analysis of a selected for sample size of the 311
tallahatta sandstone and coastal chert microlith perforators. Microscopic wear
patterns in will be observed to determine what types of actions were performed
and the density of material being worked or the type of material (bone, wood,
shell, etc.). The examination of wear patterns will determine whether the
materials worked by the perforators were used in a scraping, slicing, or
chopping manner.
The 28 soil samples
collected on site will be analyzed for botanical remains. Identification of
wild plant remains will be the primary focus. Soil samples were recovered from
multiple contexts; hearths, organically stained midden, and surrounding matrix.
This will produce a representative example of plant species collected and
harvested. From the species identified, seasonality of the site’s occupation
may be determined.
Part
IV – Methods and Schedule
The
first step in preparing this thesis is to engage in a complete and exhaustive
literature review. This literature review will involve a synthesis of
literature on Poverty Point culture and closely associated sites located within
the Mississippi River Valley. Also recent literature published on Archaic sites
Florida, particularly in the Apalachicola, Santa Rosa, and Walton County areas
of Florida will be heavily relied upon. Also taken into account will be
literature on the Late Archaic southeast as a whole.
A
sample of lithic artifacts will be examined in order to determine site
function. The confidence interval (also called margin of error) is the
plus-or-minus figure usually reported in newspaper or television opinion poll
results. For my purposes I have chosen a confidence interval of four. The
confidence level indicates how sure I can be that the sample size is
representative of the entire population, in this case wear pattern on lithic
perforators. It is expressed as a percentage and represents how often the true
percentage of the population lies within the confidence interval. For my purposes
I have chosen a 95 percent confidence level. Using the sample size formula I
have determined that out of a population of 309 lithic perforators a sample
size of 172 should be sufficient to determine artifact function, based on the
assumption that perforators performed a particular function:
|
ss =
|
Z
2 * (p) * (1-p)
|
|
|
|
|
c 2
|
Where Z = Z value (confidence level); p =
population; and c = confidence interval.
A
stereomicroscope will be used to observe and determine wear patterns on the
perforators. Wear traces that will be discerned are striations, polishes, and
microchipping. Striations result from the contact of worked material and the
tool that occurs when debris is introduced during the operation of the tool,
resulting in scratches on the tool’s surface. Polishes are produced by abrasion
and deposition of silica on the tool. Microchipping is the result from the
detachment of small flakes from the tool surface, as a consequence of using the
toll (Andrefsky Jr. 2005:196).
There
are several trends in microscopic use wear and artifact functions will be
recorded. These concepts were formed mainly through the works of Kooyman
(1985), Vaughan (1985), and Adrefsky Jr, (2005:197):
·
Flake scars on the edge of a tool
greater than 3mm are cultural in origin. Smaller flake scars and larger flake
scars are results from post depositional activities.
·
Uniform flake scars found along a tool
edge less than 1 mm in length and with no polish over the surface are usually
the result of excavation technique or curation wear.
·
The action of scraping tends to produce
unimarginal flake scars on the edge of a tool.
·
As the material being worked becomes
harder, flake scars produced on the worked edge become larger. Softer materials
produce smaller and fewer flake removals given the same working conditions.
·
As the material being worked becomes
harder, the flake scars produced on the worked edge are more likely to end with
step terminations. Softer materials that result in flake removals tend to have
more feathered terminations.
·
As the material being worked becomes
softer, a greater amount of polish develops on the worked edge. Harder
materials tend to have fewer points of contact and as a result have less
opportunity to deposit silica and form a polish
·
As the material being worked becomes harder,
a greater amount of striations develops on the worked edge more than softer
materials, adding greater amounts of debris to the working area and resulting
in potentially more striations. Softer materials produce fewer striations.
In
addition the 26 provenienced soil samples collected on site will be analyzed
for paleoethnobotanical remains. The method that will be used to recover plant
remains will be to capture in “cheese cloth” excavated material (soil midden)
in a water bath in order to allow the organic material to float to the surface.
This method is known as flotation. The soil from a suspected archaeological
feature is slowly added to mechanically agitated water. The soil, sand, and
other heavy material, known as heavy fraction, will sink to the bottom. The
less dense organic material such as charred seeds, wood and bone will tend to
float to the surface. The material that floats to the top, called light fraction
is filtered through with the cheese cloth. The organic light fraction is then
available for examination. Identification of macroremains is
then usually carried out under a stereomicroscope, using morphological features
such as shape and surface features in the case of seeds. Samples of the heavy
fraction are also gathered for later analysis and will be incorporated into the
final results.
The
light fraction will be analyzed in order to observe the occurrence of the
remnants of wild seeds that mature throughout the year. If a high number of
containing a large variety of species that mature throughout the year is
recovered, in conjunction with what may be structural features, an inference of
yearly or of almost continual occupation may have occurred. Conversely, if a
smaller variety of species is recovered that mature during a specific time of
the year, a short term continual reoccupation can be inferred.
Part
V – Significance of Study
One of the ways that
archaeologists have incorporated human behavior into their interpretations of
archaeological sites is by determining the function or functions that have
taken place at a site. Traditionally this has been done by identifying feature
and artifact functions. Since a great majority of prehistoric sites from the
Late Archaic southeast do not exhibit well-preserved features (such as living
structures, storage facilities, or occupation floors) the interpretation of
site function often falls to the recognition of lithic artifact function.
Artifact functions are then used to make inferences about site functions. This
is an intuitively reasonable and very logical approach to determining
prehistoric site function. As such the prevalence of and coastal chert
tallahatta sandstone perforators may be analyzed microscopically to determine
the manner in which they were created. In addition wear marks on the lithic
tools will also indicate on what materials and in what manner they were
utilized. Without an accurate interpretation of lithic artifact function, the
logic behind DTC’s functional interpretations may be flawed. In addition, the overwhelming
population of these two artifact types in comparison to other lithic tool forms
will also help to better inform us as to the function of Late Archaic coastal
sites in the panhandle.
A paleoethnobotanical
analysis will supplement the lithic study in order to determine what seasons
during the year the site was occupied and reoccupied. If an analysis indicates
that the remnants were of only mature wild seeds of a type of plant that grows
locally, it could be inferred that the site was only visited seasonally. . Such
an inference could be supported by a lack of other features that would suggest
that no permanent shelters were built at the site. In addition determining the
specific taxonomy of plant species may indicate the time of year in which they
are ripe for utilization.
In addition, artifact
variability is sensitive to relative sedentism in some cases. It is also shown
that other factors related to lithic raw-material qualities can affect artifact
variability regardless of relative sedentism. Raw-material characteristics such
as size, shape, quality, and abundance are shown to be important influences
upon the kind of lithic technology practiced by stone tool makers and users.
Within this theoretical framework a more complete picture of life in the
Floridian Gulf Coast Archaic may be viewed.
Part
VI – Timeline and Chapter Outline
Fall 2013 – Complete and compile previous research;
Complete environmental context sections.
Spring 2014- Conduct lab analysis of lithics and
flotation samples.
Summer 2014 – Begin write-up of lithic and flotation sample analysis
Fall 2014- Complete writing of thesis.
Chapter Outline:
1. Acknowledgements
1.1 List of Tables
1.2 List of Figures
1.3 Abstract
2. Chapter I – Introduction
3. Chapter II – Environmental Context
3.1 Geological History
(Holocene)
3.2 Flora
3.3 Fauna
4. Cultural Context
5. Methodology
5.1
Background research
5.2
Field Methods
5.2.1 Reconnaissance Survey
5.2.2 Phase II Testing
5.2.3 Phase III Testing
5.3
Laboratory Methods
5.4
Analytical Methods
5.4.1
Lithic Analysis
5.4.2
Paleobotanical Analysis
6. Results
6.1
Lithic Analysis Results
6.2
Paleo Botanical Results
7. Conclusion
7.1
Site Function
7.2
Seasons of Occupation
7.3
Place in the broader Poverty Point Culture System
8. References
9. Appendixes
Part
VII – Bibliography
Anderson, David G.
1995 Recent
Advances in Paleoindian and Archaic Period Research in The Southeast United
States. Archaeology of Eastern North America 13:145-176.
1996 Models
of Paleoindian and Archaic Settlement in the Lower Southeast. In The
Paleoindian and the Early Archaic Southeast. Anderson, David G. and Kenneth
E Sassaman (editors), 29-57. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Aten, Lawrence E.
1999 Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island,
Florida: Ripley P. Bullen’s 1961 Excavation at the Harris Creek Site. The
Florida Anthropologist 52(3):131-200.
Andrefsky Jr.,William
2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis
196-198. Cambridge University, Cambridge.
Bense, Judith A.
1983 Settlement
Pattern, Climate, and Marine Ecosystem Evolution Correlations in the Escambia
Bay Drainage System in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the 40th
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia, South Carolina.
Bradbury, Andrew P. and Steven D.
Creasman
2008 Spatial
Analysis and Site Structure of the Early Archaic Occupation of the Heart Site
(15LA183) Lawrence County, Kentucky. Southeastern Archaeologist
27(1):31-44.
Curren, Caleb
1987 Archaeology
at Bluewater Bay (8Ok102, A Late Archaic Period Site in Northwest Florida).The
University of West Florida Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research
Report of Investigations No.9, The University of West Florida, Pensacola.
Gibson Jon, L.
2001 The
Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point. The University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Gremillion, Kristen J.
1996 New
Perspectives on the Paleoethnobotony of the Newt Kash Shelter. In People
Plants and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotony, Gremillion, K. J. (editor).
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa
Gunn, Joel D.
1996 A
Framework for the Paleoindian/Early Archaic Transition. In The Paleoindian
and the Early Archaic Southeast Anderson, David G. and Kenneth E Sassaman
(editors) 415-420. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1997 A
Framework for the Middle-Late Holocene Transition: Astronomical and Geophysical
Conditions. Southeastern Archaeology 16(2):134-151
Jackson, Edwin H., and Susan L. Scott
2001 Archaic
Faunal Utilization in the Louisiana Bottomlands. Southeastern Archaeology
20(2): 187-196.
Johnson, Jay K.
1993 Poverty
Point Period Crystal Drill Bits, Microliths, and Social Organization in the
Yazoo Basin, Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 12(1):59-64.
2000 Beads,
Microdrills, Bifaces, and Blades from Watson Brake. Southeastern
Archaeology 16(2):95-104
Lee, Arthur R., John G, Beriault, Jean
Belknap, Walter M. Buschelman, John W. Thompson, and Carl B. Johnson
1998 Heineken
Hammock, 8CR231: A Late Archaic Corridor Site in Collier County. The
Florida Anthropologist 51(4):223-239.
Mikell, Gregory A., and Rebecca Saunders
2007 Terminal
Middle to Late Archaic Settlement in Coastal Northwest Florida: Early Estuarine
Exploitation on the Northern Gulf Coast. Southeastern Archaeology 26(2):169-195
Miller, J. James
1992 Effects
of Environmental Change on Late Archaic People of Northeast Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 45(2):100-106.
McGee, Ray M., and Ryan J. Wheeler
1994 Stratigraphic
Excavations at Groves’ Orange Midden, Lake Monroe, Volusia County Florida:
Methodology and Results. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):333-349.
Newsome, Lee
1994
Archaeobotanical Data from Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County,
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):404-417.
Thomas, Prentice M. Jr. and L. Janice
Cambell
1978 The
Peripheries of Poverty Point. New World Research Report of Investigations
No.12.
Purdy, Barbara A.
1994a Excavations in Water-Saturated
Deposits at Lake Monroe, Volusia County, Florida: An Overview. The Florida Anthropologist
47(4):326-332.
1994b The Chipped Stone Tool Industry at Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601),
Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):390-392.
Redman, C.L.
1999 Human Impact on Ancient
Environments. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon
Reitz, Elizabeth J.
1982
Availability and Use of Fish Along Coastal Georgia and Florida.
Southeastern Archaeology 1(1):65-88
2004 Aboriginal
Subsistence Strategy: A Personal Perspective. Southeastern Archaeology 23(2):202-207
Russo, Michael, and Gregory Heide
1994 Why
We Don’t Believe in Archaic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We Should: The Case from
Florida, Theme issue, “Archaic Mounds in the Southeast,” Southeastern
Archaeology 13(2)93-109.
2002 The
Joseph Reed Shell Ring. The Florida Anthropologist 55(2)67-88.
Sasaman, Kenneth E.
2003 New
AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. John’s Valley
and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeastern Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 56(1):5-13.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., and David G.
Anderson
1996 Archaeology
of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Saunders, Joe, et al.
2001 An
Assessment of the Antiquity of the Lower Jackson Mound. Southeastern
Archaeology 20(1):67-77
Schuldenrien, Joseph
1996 Geoarchaeology
and the Mid-Holocene Landscape History of the Greater Southeast. In
Sassaman, Kenneth E. and David G. Anderson (eds.) Archaeology of the
Mid-Holocane Southeast 3-27. University Press of Florida, Gainsville.
Ste. Claire, Dana
1990 The
Early Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological Evidence for Early Coastal
Adaptations. The Florida Anthropologist 43(3):189-193.
Thomas Jr., Prentice M., and L. Janice
Campbell
1991 Elliots
Point Complex: New Data Regarding the Localized Poverty Point Expression on the
Northwest Florida Coast, 2000 B.C.-500 B.C. Geoscience and Man 29:103-120.
Thompson, Victor D., and John E. Worth
2011 Dwellers
by the Sea: Native American Adaptations along the Southern Coasts of
Eastern North America. Journal of
Archaeological Research 19:51-101
Trinkley, Michael B.
1976 Paleoethnobotanical
Remains from Archaic-Woodland Transitional Shell Middens along the South
Carolina Coast. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 19:64-67
Vaughan, Patrick C.
1985 Useware
Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Walker, Karen J.
2000 The
Material Culture of Precolumbian Fishing: Artifacts and Fish Remains from
Coastal Southwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 19(1):46-62
Ward, Trawick H., and Stephen Davis Jr.
1999 Time Before History. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
Warring, Antonio J., Jr.
1968 The
Shell Ring on Sapelo Island. In The Warring Papers: The Collected Works of
Antonio J. Warring, Jr., Williams,
S. (ed.). Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Harvard University, Cambridge
Watts, W. A., and B.C.S. Hansen
1988 Environments
in Florida in the Late Wisconsinan and Holocene. B. A. Purdy (ed.), Wet
Site Archaeology 307-323. Telford Press, West Caldwell.
Watts, W.A., Hansen, B. C. S., and E. C.
Grimm
1992 Camel
Lake: A 40,000-yr Record of Vegetational and Forest History from Northwest
Florida. Ecology 73(3):1056-1066.
Watts, William A.,Eric C. Grimm, and T.
C. Hussey
1996 Mid-Holocene Forest History of
Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolina. In Sassaman,
Kenneth E. and Anderson (eds.), Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast
28-38. University Press of Florida, Gainesville
Wernecke, Clark D.
1993 Baked
Clay Objects from the Jupiter Midden Site (8PB34): A Literature Search
Regarding Distribution and Uses. The Florida Anthropologist 46(4):282-289.
Wheeler, Ryan J., and Ray M. McGee
1994a Report of Preliminary Zooarchaeological Analysis: Groves’ Orange
Midden. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):393-403.
1994b
Technology of Mount Taylor Period
Occupation, Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 47(4):350-379.
1994c Wooden Artifacts from Groves’ Orange Midden. The Florida
Anthropologist 47(4):380-389.
White, Nancy Marie
2003a Late Archaic in the Apalachicola/Lower Chattahoochee Valley, Northwest
Florida, Southwest Georgia, and Southeast Alabama. The Florida
Anthropologist 56(2):69-90.
2003b Testing Partially Submerged Shell Middens in the Apalachicola Estuarine
Wetlands, Franklin County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1):15-45.
White, Nancy Marie, and Richard
Estabrook
1994 Sam’s
Cutoff Shell Mound and the Late Archaic Elliot’s Point Complex in the
Apalachicola Delta, Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
47(1):61-78.
