USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Middle Woodland mound distribution and the ceremonialism in the Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Middle Woodland mound distribution and the ceremonialism in the Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Florida
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Frashuer, Anya C
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Middle Woodland
Swift Creek
Weeden Island
Poplar Springs Mound
Pottery
Exotics
Copper
Mica
Exchange
Burial practices
Dissertations, Academic -- Applied Anthropology -- Masters -- USF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: University of South Florida field investigations in northwest Florida's Apalachicola Valley have resulted in the relocation of some lost mounds from the Middle Woodland period (ca. A.D. 1 to 650) by trekking through the forest and consulting with avocationals and collectors. This thesis project was triggered by a collector's donation of some Swift Creek pots and the attempt to relocate the mound from which they came. In the 1970s, Gardner and Nidy recorded this site, named Poplar Springs Mound, categorized as Middle Woodland due to its Swift Creek and Weeden Island pottery. The donated collection contained pottery of the Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped series, Weeden Island series, and a couple of anomalous Mississippian sherds. To see how this mound fit in with other Middle Woodland mounds of the valley, it was necessary to compile data for all of them and relocate as many mounds as possible through additional survey. Artifact types from these mounds, such as pottery, she ll, bone, and exotic materials, and burial practices were tabulated and spatial distributions were plotted. The mounds are distributed along the banks of the main navigable waterways of the Apalachicola and Chipola Rivers, on smaller streams and along the Gulf Coast. Nearly all have both Swift Creek and early Weeden Island ceramics, except for three with only Swift Creek types and a single site with only Weeden Island types. The artifact distributions show stone, bone, and shell tools clustering close to the coast and the main waterways. This is also the case for exotic (nonlocal) raw materials and artifacts made from these materials. Copper is distributed mainly along the coast, while other exotics (i.e. mica, galena, hematite) are located along the coast and close to the main rivers. The tabulation of these data, along with the documentation of the Poplar Springs Mound collection, will help archaeologists to see the manifestation of Middle Woodland ceremonial activity in the Apalachi cola Valley.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Anya C. Frashuer.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 127 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001790480
oclc - 144631397
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001504
usfldc handle - e14.1504
System ID:
SFS0025822:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Middle Woodland Mound Distribution and Ceremonialism in the Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Florida by Anya C. Frashuer A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Nancy Marie White, Ph.D. Brent R. Wesiman, Ph.D. E. Christian Wells, Ph.D. Mark R. Hafen, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 14, 2006 Keywords: Middle Woodland, Swift Creek, Weeden Island, Poplar Springs Mound, pottery, exotics, copper, mica, exchange, burial practices. Copyright by Anya C. Frashuer 2006

PAGE 2

Dedication This is dedicated to those who have passed this year and are unable to celebrate this accomplishment with me: Mildred “Aunt Millie” Landen, Lillian “Aunt Nan” Brigham and Mary “Grandma” Frashuer. I know they are looking down from heaven and sharing in my joy.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments Special thanks to: My committee Brent Weisman, Christian Wells, Mark Hafen and especially my chair Nancy Marie White for their guidance and help through this process. The brothers to whom this collection was entrusted and for their desire to have it reintegrated into the archaeological world. I would like to thank them for providing all the information they could to help relocate the mound from which it came and for taking the time to talk with us, search with us, and let us into their home to document the collection. Jeff Whitfield, without whom I wouldn’t know as much as I do about the archaeology of the Apalachicola Valley or surviving the wild s of Russia. He has been a wonderful local informant and guide. My parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles who have always supported me in my pursuit of and paid for the education that got me to where I am now. Roy Price, who has always believed in me, made me take an honest look at myself and my abilities, and was my biggest cheerleader. He went through this and was helpful in letting me know what to expect, especially when it came to writing. My baby sitter, where ever you are, who started the seed in me as an infant. The teachers and playground monitors at Trinity Episcopal Church, who trusted me enough to allow me the freedom during recess that eventually led to my love of archaeology. And to all those who listened to my ideas and my moaning over the years and who were kind enough to keep me stocked in soda and chocolate.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tablesiii List of Figuresiv Abstractviii Chapter 1: Introduction1 Purpose of Study2 Background4 Middle Woodland in the Southeastern United States4 Swift Creek and Weeden Island in the Apalachicola Valley6 Geographic Area9 Chapter 2: Poplar Springs Mound11 Introduction11 History of the Collection14 Poplar Springs Mound16 The Donated Pottery27 Discussion31 Chapter 3: Middle Woodland Mounds in the Valley33 Introduction33 The Middle Woodland Mounds39 Davis Field, 8Ca139 OK Landing, 8Ca239 Gaston Spivey, 8Ca11440 Porter’s Bar, 8Fr140 Brickyard Creek, 8Fr843 Eleven Mile Point, 8Fr1043 Green Point, 8Fr1144 Huckleberry Landing, 8Fr1245 Pierce Mounds, 8Fr1447 Jackson Mound, 8Fr1550 Cool Springs Mound, 8Fr1951 Aspalaga Landing Mound, 8Gd151 Mound Near Indian Pass Point, 8Gu152 Gotier Hammock, 8Gu255

PAGE 5

ii Burgess Landing, 8Gu357 Isabel Hammock, 8Gu458 Chipola Cutoff, 8Gu559 Richardson’s Hammock, 8Gu1061 Howard Creek Mound, 8Gu4162 Sampson’s Landing, 8Ja164 Moore’s Mound Near Kemp’s Landing, 8Ja264 Waddell’s Mill Pond Site, 8Ja6565 Watson’s Field, 8Ja9367 Poplar Springs Mound, 8Ja13867 Patrick Pond, 8Ja32567 Mound Below Bristol, 8Li368 Bristol Mound, 8Li468 Rock Bluff Landing, 8Li569 Michaux Log Landing, 8Li671 Estiffanulga, 8Li772 Discussion73 Chapter 4: Archaeological Evidence of Middle Woodland74 Middle Woodland Material Culture74 Pottery74 Stone Tools and Non-utilitarian Stone Artifacts84 Bone Tools and Non-utilitarian Bone Artifacts88 Shell Tools and Non-Utilitarian Shell Artifacts90 Exotic Materials95 Skeletal Data101 Fitting in the Lost Mound107 Chapter 5:109 Discussion and Analysis109 Existing Models for Middle Woodland109 Middle Woodland in the Apalachicola Valley114 Conclusions118 References120

PAGE 6

iii List of Tables Table 1Cultural Periods and Ceramic Series of the Apalachicola Valley7 Table 2Pottery from Donated Collection, Poplar Springs Mound26 Table 3List of Whole Ceramic Vessels in Marianna Collector’s Possession26 Table 4Middle Woodland Mounds of the Apalachicola Valley36 Table 5Middle Woodland Ceramic Types of the Apalachicola Valley75 Table 6Middle Woodland Mound Ceramic Types Distribution82 Table 7Middle Woodland Stone Ornaments of the Apalachicola Valley85 Table 8Stone Tools at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds87 Table 9Bone Artifacts at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds88 Table 10Shell Artifacts at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds94 Table 11Exotic Artifacts at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds 96 Table 12Burial Data at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds103

PAGE 7

iv List of Figures Figure 1.Location of the Apalachicola River Valley, Florida.9 Figure 2.Location of Jackson County in the Florida Panhandle.12 Figure 3.Whole Pots Still in Possession of the Collector.15 Figure 4.Indian Springs Golf and Country Club, Marianna, Jackson County, FL.17 Figure 5.Poplar Springs Village and Mound and Nearby Middle Woodland Sites.18 Figure 6.Hole 3 of Indian Springs Golf and Country Club.19 Figure 7.Lithic Tools Recovered from Surface Collection of Poplar Springs Mound.20 Figure 8.Ceramics Recovered from Surface Collection of Poplar Springs Mound.20 Figure 9.Swift Creek Sherds Recovered from Poplar Springs Mound by Scott Nidy (DHR) during the 1973 investigation.22 Figure 10.Undecorated vessels from Poplar Springs Mound still in possession of collector.23 Figure 11.Keith Incised Vessel from Poplar Springs Mound still in possession of collector.23 Figure 12.Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped Vessels still in possession of collector. 24 Figure 13.Undecorated, Square-Bottom, Ritually Perforated Vessel still in possession of collector.24 Figure 14.Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped Vessels with Pointed Bottoms still in possession of collector.25

PAGE 8

v Figure 15.Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped Pottery donated from Poplar Springs.28 Figure 16.Crooked River Complicated-Stamped Sherd donated from Poplar Springs Mound.28 Figure 17.Weeden Island Pottery donated from Poplar Springs Mound.30 Figure 18.Carrabelle Punctated Pottery donated from Poplar Springs Mound.30 Figure 19.Mississippian Ceramics dona ted from Poplar Springs Mound.31 Figure 20.Middle Woodland Sites of the Apalachicola Valley.34 Figure 21.Middle Woodland Mounds of the Apalachicola Valley.35 Figure 22.Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped pottery sherds from Davis Field Mound. 40 Figure 23.Shell artifacts from Porter’s Bar in USF collections.42 Figure 24.Mounds at Porter’s Bar.42 Figure 25.Hematite nodule from Porter’s Bar in USF collections.42 Figure 26.Shell scoop from Huckleberry Landing.46 Figure 27.Quartz pebble from Huckleberry Landing.46 Figure 28.Hematite nodule from Huckleberry Landing mound.46 Figure 29.Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped pottery from Huckleberry Landing mound.47 Figure 30.Pierce Mound A.49 Figure 31.Pierce Mound C with ATV track up the center.50 Figure 32.Mound Near Indian Pass located within the front yard of a residential property.54

PAGE 9

vi Figure 33.Shell tools collected from the surface of Mound Near Indian Pass.54 Figure 34.Scatter of shell and modern refuse northwest of mound.54 Figure 35.Site of Gotier Hammock mound.56 Figure 36.Cut mica from Gotier Hammock in private collection.56 Figure 37.Artifacts collected from the surface of Gotier Hammock in USF collections.57 Figure 38.Location of Burgess Landing.58 Figure 39.Location of Chipola Cutoff.60 Figure 40.Burial mound at Richardson’s Hammock.61 Figure 41.Artifacts from Howard Creek Mound.63 Figure 42.Howard Creek Mound.63 Figure 43.Rock Bluff Landing mound.70 Figure 44.Looter’s trench through Micheaux Log Landing.72 Figure 45.Distribution of Ceramics in the Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.81 Figure 46.Distribution of Ground Stone Artifacts in the Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.86 Figure 47.Distribution of Bone Artifacts in the Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.89 Figure 48.Distribution of Shell Tools in the Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.91 Figure 49.Distribution of Shell Utensils in the Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.92 Figure 50.Distribution of Shell Ornaments in the Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.93

PAGE 10

vii Figure 51.Distribution of Exotic Materials in the Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.98 Figure 52.Cranial Deformation at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.101 Figure 53. Distribution of Primary Bu rials at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.104 Figure 54.Distribution of Secondary Burials at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.105 Figure 55.Cremations at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.106 Figure 56. Potential Sources for Exotic Materials at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds.116

PAGE 11

viii Middle Woodland Mound Distribution and Ceremonialism in the Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Florida Anya C. Frashuer ABSTRACT University of South Florida field i nvestigations in northwest Florida’s Apalachicola Valley have resulted in the relocation of some lost mounds from the Middle Woodland period (ca. A.D. 1 to 650) by trekking through the forest and consulting with avocationals and collectors. This thesis project was triggered by a collector’s donation of some Swift Creek pots and the attempt to relocate the mound from which they came. In the 1970s, Gardner and Nidy recorded this site, named Poplar Springs Mound, categorized as Middle Woodland due to its Swift Creek and Weeden Island pottery. The donated collection contained pottery of the Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped series, Weeden Island series, and a couple of anomalous Mississippian sherds. To see how this mound fit in with other Middle Woodland mounds of the valley, it was necessary to compile data for all of them and relocate as many mounds as possible through additional survey. Artifact types from these mounds, such as pottery, shell, bone, and exotic materials, and burial practices were tabulated and spatial distributions were plotted. The mounds are distributed along the banks of the main navigable waterways of the Apalachicola and Chipola Rivers, on smaller streams and along the Gulf Coast. Nearly all

PAGE 12

ix have both Swift Creek and early Weeden Island ceramics, except for three with only Swift Creek types and a single site with only Weeden Island types. The artifact distributions show stone, bone, and shell tools clustering close to the coast and the main waterways. This is also the case for exotic (nonlocal) raw materials and artifacts made from these materials. Copper is distributed mainly along the coast, while other exotics (i.e. mica, galena, hematite) are located along the coast and close to the main rivers. The tabulation of these data, along with the documentation of the Poplar Springs Mound collection, will help archaeologists to see the manifestation of Middle Woodland ceremonial activity in the Apalachicola Valley.

PAGE 13

1 Chapter 1: Introduction Northwest Florida’s Apalachicola Valley is just beginning to be understood archaeologically. Earlier studies of the area by Clarence Bloomfield Moore and Gordon Willey are usually included within overviews of the larger panhandle or statewide area. Over the last 20 years, Nancy White, with the help of countless students, has worked in the Apalachicola Valley to continue documenting its rich cultural history. The research has included relocating some sites documented by the previous archaeologists and continuing to survey the area to locate new sites. The University of South Florida (USF) field program in this valley has included many years of interaction with generous local people, collectors who have spent decades accumulating artifacts from local sites, and who have led USF researchers to relocate some of these mounds. Simpson (1996) and White compiled a comprehensive database of the prehistoric sites along the Apalachicola River based on the work that had already been done by USF and recorded in the Division of Historical Resources (DHR) database.

PAGE 14

2 Purpose of Study This work documents a Middle Woodland mound and associated donated collection and attempts to summarize all known Middle Woodland mounds and associated material culture in the valley to create a cultural-historical base upon which generalizations of Middle Woodland ceremonialism can be created. Chapter Two consists of the research and documentation of the donated collection that began this thesis work. The purpose was to bring to light this co llection from Poplar Springs Mound (8Ja138), which is now destroyed, and determine how this Middle Woodland mound and its Swift Creek and Weeden Island pottery fit in with other Middle Woodland mounds of the valley. Chapter Three describes all Middle Woodland mounds, their archaeological history and material goods, and discusses th e distribution of all Middle Woodland sites and mounds. This provides a comprehensive collection of the work done at each of the Middle Woodland sites by past archaeologists, including White and her students, and presents the work that I have done to relocate some mounds and to list all artifacts (from every survey) associated with the mounds. Chapter Four details all material categories and distribution trends of ceramics, stone, shell, bone, and artifacts of exotic raw materials, as well as burial practices and cranial deformation. The tabulation of these data will show how Middle Woodland is manifested in the Apalachicola Valley. This chapter also includes a section on how Poplar Springs Mound compares to the rest of the mounds in the valley. Chapter Five discusses how Middle Woodland in the valley fits into existing models of Middle Woodland in the eastern United States, from northern areas such as the Illinois Hopewell sites, to Swift Creek and Weeden Island sites in the

PAGE 15

3 Southeast and Florida, including the model proposed by Brose and Percy in 1974 for Middle Woodland ceremonial activity in the Apalachicola Valley. The chapter then offers some conclusions to contribute to the interpretation of Middle Woodland exchange in the Apalachicola. Middle Woodland is a fantastic time in the span of human history of the Southeastern United States. This is the time of the height of mound building, interactions with far-reaching groups, and growing social ranking based on the exchange of exotic goods in the form of raw materials or finished artifacts. The Apalachicola Valley was important for Middle Woodland activity, with communities whose activities expressed these conspicuous burial monuments, intricately designed pottery, and ornate objects of exotic raw materials. With the combination of Cassandra Rae Harper’s M.A. thesis (in progress) on ceramic seriation and domestic sites, and evaluating the other 1974 model by Percy and Brose concerning ceramic change, this work will build the culturalhistorical base knowledge of the Middle Woodland groups in the Apalachicola Valley. This research on the ceremonial sites and their exotic items can contribute to research concerning trade and exchange. This work also helps bring to light the collections of many avocational archaeologists who have been working in the area. Without their knowledge of site location and their artifacts, much information about the past peoples of the area would be lost.

PAGE 16

4 Background Middle Woodland in the Southeastern United States The general prehistoric cultural adaptation named the Woodland period in the eastern United States spans approximately two thousand years, from about 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000 (Anderson and Mainfort 2002). This timeline is not absolute, as the Woodland begins and ends at various times in different areas, and new sites and radiocarbon dates expand or contract the timeline. For scientific convenience, it is divided into three segments: Early, Middle and Late Woodland. The shift from the previous Late Archaic period to the Woodland was originally marked by the appearance of sand-tempered pottery, but today is traditionally marked by a change in subsistence from full-time hunting-gathering-fishing to early food production (gardening/horticulture). There is an increase in emphasis on seed-bearing plants in both foraging and gardening, an increase in the degree of sedentism, and the introduction of new forms of mortuary ritual, which indicate the enhanced prestige of group leaders. The Woodland is also traditionally marked by the earliest mound building in parts of the eastern United States. Early Woodland groups, such as the Adena in the Midwest, constructed the first burial mounds, but fewer are known in the southeast until the Middle Woodland period (Brose and White 1999; Smith 1986; Steponaitis 1986; Swartz 1970; White 1985). Middle Woodland in the Southeastern United States occurs approximately between 200 B.C. and A.D. 400 and is well known for its burial mound construction and

PAGE 17

5 distinctive artifacts and iconography. These sites have produced large quantities of pottery, stone, shell and bone tools, as well as many varieties of ornamental artifacts often made of exotic raw materials. These sites are usually recognized by the diagnostic Swift Creek and/or early Weeden Island pottery in the Southeast (Anderson and Mainfort 2002:2-9). The crowning achievement of the Middle Woodland was the extensive exchange network involving socially valued goods that moved all over the Midwest and Southeast. It was at this time (about the first three centuries A.D.) that the amount and quality of the goods exchanged increased and interaction between the Midwestern and Southeastern groups grew (Anderson and Mainfort 2002:12; Brose 1985:76-77; Mainfort 1988:145). Hopewell influence is seen at many of the large mound centers in the form of nonlocal materials such as copper, but there was little evidence of interaction or artifacts from Hopewell at the smaller Southeastern mounds or mound groups (Anderson and Mainfort 2002:10, Seeman 1979a). Swift Creek is the ceramic complex characterizing the Middle Woodland in Georgia and Northwest Florida, where it is joined by the Weeden Island ceramic complex. In the Southeast, the Middle Woodland manifestation known as Weeden Island has been classified into eight geographi cal areas spread across southern Georgia, Alabama, the Florida panhandle and Gulf Coast (Milanich 1994, Milanich et al. 1997, Turner, Kingston and Milanich 2005). The Apalachicola valley is within the Northwest Florida area, which extends to the Aucilla River in the east, Mobile Bay to the west and north approximately to the modern political boundary of Florida. The lower Chattahoochee River is within the Kolomoki area, named after the major mound center

PAGE 18

6 excavated by Sears (1951a, 1951b, 1953, 1956) and Pluckhahn (2003). The McKeithen site lies within the Weeden Island area called McKeithen, which occupies north-central Florida. The Northwestern Florida Weeden Island area was subdivided by Teser (1980:112), showing distinctions between the groups of the coast and those of the Apalachicola and adjacent inland area. Two major Middle Woodland centers that have contributed to the knowledge of Swift Creek and Weeden Island ceremonial activity are Kolomoki and McKeithen. Kolomoki is a multi-mound center located in southwest Georgia, up the Chattahoochee River from the Apalachicola Valley (Pluckhahn 2003; Sears 1951a, 1951b, 1953, 1956; Steinen 1998). It dates to the late Swift Creek and early Weeden Island, but for a while was considered by Sears as being Post-Swift Creek (Sears 1992). The site contains three burial mounds, two of which were dated to the late Swift Creek (A.D. 250-300) and early Weeden Island (A.D. 350-600) (Sears 1992:69). McKeithen is a Weeden Island site located in north-central Florida. It was a large village/mound grouping with three mounds associated with the impressive burial rituals (Milanich 1994; Milanich et al. 1997). In this area, Swift Creek does not occur, and early Weeden Island spans A.D. 145-785, having been preceded by Deptford (Turner et al. 2005:121). Swift Creek and Weeden Island in the Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland in the Apalachicola is defined by White (1985; White et al. 1992):16-17) as the period approximately A.D. 1 to 650 (Table 1). Recent unpublished radiocarbon dates have pushed the ending date for Middle Woodland to A.D. 650 from the previously published

PAGE 19

7 Table 1. Cultural Periods and Ceramic Series of the Apalachicola ValleyCultural PeriodCeramics SeriesDate Range Paleo-Indianpre-ceramic10,000 8000 B.C. ArchaicOrange8000 1000 B.C. Woodland Early Deptford Santa Rosa 1000 B.C. A.D. 1 Middle Swift Creek early Weeden Island A.D. 1 650 Latelate Weeden IslandA.D. 650 1000 Mississippian Fort Walton Lamar (Leon-Jackson) A.D. 1000 1500A.D. 500. Middle Woodland in northwest Florida is named Swift Creekearly Weeden Island because sites have both these characteristic pottery types. Both of these ceramic series are recognized by their distinctive decorations. Swift Creek pottery has intricately stamped complicated and curved designs (Anderson 1998; Snow 1998; Williams and Elliot 1998). Weeden Island pottery has incised or punctated designs made by a sharp implement, cutouts, red painting or effigies protruding from the rims of the pots in the shapes of animals, humans, and other forms (Milanich 1994; White 1985; Willey 1945). Weeden Island and Swift Creek are ceramic traditions, that have become names for archaeological cultures, and may characterize many different societies who use similar pottery techniques at varying intensities (Anderson 1998). It is with the distribution of other materials and the variety of other practices (such as cranial flattening or participation in Hopewellian exchange) that archaeologists can begin to differentiate cultural groups.

PAGE 20

8 Clarence Bloomfield Moore (1902, 1903, 1907, 1918) was the first “archaeologist” that we know of to work in the Apalachicola Valley in northwest Florida. He spent many years looking for and excavating prehistoric sites all over the Southeastern United States, mainly by way of steamboat through navigable waters. He was the first in the area to excavate and record all that was found in domestic and mound sites that were relatively accessible from his boat. During a span from 1902 through 1918, he returned to the Apalachicola and Chipola Rivers and the Gulf Coast to record what he saw and throughly excavate many sites. He located 23 Middle Woodland mounds within the watershed and spent much of his time excavating trenches or the whole mound, sometimes writing that the mound was destroyed by his excavations. He was careful to record previous looting and the state of the mound upon his arrival, yet quite often his description of how he left the site (completely dug or only piles around trees) was sometimes in error, and many sites have been relocated with subsurface and even surface stratigraphic sequences intact. Gordon Willey (1945, 1949), who spent time surveying the Florida Gulf Coast in the 1940s, relocated Moore’s sites and recorded others in the area. He was instrumental (before Brose and White’s 1999 Northwest Florida compilation) in reviewing Moore’s notes and setting up the ceramic typology for the region. He relocated four of Moore’s Middle Woodland mounds within the Apalachicola. He provided complete lists of artifacts recovered (by Moore and by himself) and also came up with an early model of Middle Woodland groups in the Apalachicola and along the Gulf Coast (Willey 1949).

PAGE 21

9 Geographic Area The study area is the whole Apalachicola Valley, located in the panhandle of Florida (Figure 1). For the sake of this research, only the area within the Florida political boundaries is considered, which includes the Chipola River and the west bank of the Chattahoochee River that borders lower Georgia. More accurate discussion of prehistoric times would include the rest of the Chattahoochee River Valley that extends northward into Alabama and Georgia. The Apalachicola River is approximately 171 km long (107 navigational miles up from its mouth) and is formed by the joining of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers. The river itself is divided into upper, middle, and lower segments, with the highest elevation and narrowest floodplain occurring in the upper river and a Figure 1. Location of the Apalachicola Valley, Florida. The study area encompasses only the section of the valley that is within the modern day political boundaries of Florida.

PAGE 22

10 gradual flattening of the land and widening of the floodplain as the river flows south to the Gulf of Mexico. The lower river lies within the Gulf Coastal lowlands, which is where the Chipola River empties into the main channel, at navigation mile 28. The river has changed since the time of Woodland occupation, with the construction of the Jim Woodruff Dam in the early 1950s and regular straightening and dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers (Henefield and White 1986). Environmental aspects of the area have changed vastly from the Pleistocene to today. Previous to the largest climatic change 10,000 years ago, conditions were semiarid, with lower sea levels and temperatures (Milanich 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Randazzo and Jones 1997). From then on, there were many fluctuations in sea level, which caused changes in animal and plant resources affecting hunting-gathering strategies, with present shorelines established between 7000 and 6000 years ago (Stapor and Tanner 1977). The rich resources and moderate climate of the Apalachicola Valley region offer good settings for Middle Woodland populations. The most spectacular of these sites were the burial mounds. The next chapter discusses one mound in particular, Poplar Springs Mound, that was investigated because of a generous donation of Swift Creek and Weeden Island pottery.

PAGE 23

11 Chapter 2: Poplar Springs Mound Introduction The University of South Florida (USF) has conducted archaeological research in northwest Florida’s Apalachicola Valley for over 20 years. Each year, in addition to research survey and excavation, Nancy White has conducted an archaeology day program somewhere in the Florida panhandle. This work has provided the opportunity for people in the community to hear about the history and prehistory of the area and to share with archaeologists their knowledge of the area and their artifact collections. The fall of 1999 was no exception, when a man, who has asked to remain anonymous, attended such a program and later called to talk to White about an artifact collection that he had in his possession. He had inherited pottery from his parents, who had collected it 30 years ago from a mound in Jackson County, northwest Florida (Figure 2), and was interested in donating it to the USF archaeology labs. He had felt guilty about having the pottery in his possession, but he also was interested in learning more about it and about the people who made it. This individual donated 10 boxes of pottery during White’s return to the area in the summer of 2000. His donation consisted of the material that was removed from this mound: pottery, a chert flake, and a single piece of turtle shell.

PAGE 24

12 Figure 2. Location of Jackson County in the Florida Panhandle. Poplar Springs Mound is located just to the east of Marianna, which is at the center of the county.

PAGE 25

13 During that same summer fieldwork, White and crew attempted to relocate the mound. On one of the pots was written some information pertaining to a township, range and section on a quadrangle map. Unfortunately, the field crew was not able to relocate the mound at that time, but came away with clues about its potential location. The information written on the pot was partially wrong but, with the descendent’s recollection of the area, it provided the general location near Blue Spring and a power line corridor, which helped to pinpoint a general location. My internship work began when, during my first semester at USF, I was given the task of documenting the pottery collection and attempting to locate the mound from which it came. I began looking on maps at a collection of mounds and middens in an area that White and her crew searched, an area the man remembered from his childhood. A mound named Poplar Springs (8Ja138) came the closest to fitting his descriptions. In the summer of 2003, the USF crew returned to Marianna to try to relocate the mound. The donor turned over another box of pottery from the site and gave permission to photograph the remaining collection that was not turned over. With the help of a local avocational archaeologist, Jeff Whitfield, we believe we have found Poplar Springs Mound. It took the combined effort of many people, an extensive database put together by White and graduate student Terry Simpson, and many hours working with ArcGIS on aerial maps and quadrangles to pinpoint its location.

PAGE 26

14 History of the Collection The owner was four when his grandfather and father collected from Aspalaga Mound and a site he had called Turkey Pen Mound during the late 1960s. The mound was called this because there was an old turkey pen located at its peak. His donation consisted of the material that was removed from the Turkey Pen Mound, now named Poplar Springs Mound (8Ja138), during 1968. He and his brother recall being taken to the area by their grandfather and told the stories of his search. The grandfather and father had dug mainly into the east side and center of the mound based on local information about where the best pottery was. There was also a story about how the grandfather found a skeleton bound to a charred log. Years later the collection from all the sites was split between the brothers. We were able to interview the donor’s brother as well. Some time during the years, the brother’s materials were stolen from his hom e. He had held materials from many other sites and a few pottery sherds, undiagnostic of any time period, from Poplar Springs, but nothing that would affect the results of this analysis. He also confirmed our location of Poplar Springs Mound through examination of recent and historical quadrangles of the area. I documented and conserved the boxes of materials from Turkey Pen Mound (Poplar Springs Mound) during the summer of 2000 and 2003. Not all of the collection was turned over. The donor kept 12 whole pots and one pot broken in two, all of which he allowed us to photograph (Figure 3) in the 2003 field session.

PAGE 27

15 Figure 3. Whole pots still in possession of the collector. Poplar Springs Mound, Jackson County, FL.

PAGE 28

16 Poplar Springs Mound Poplar Springs Mound and Village are located approximately 5.5 km east of the town of Marianna and 700 m south of the Bl ue Springs Reservoir (Figure 4). Currently the site is situated within the property boundaries of Indian Springs Golf and Country Club (Figure 5). The village is approximately situated within a wooded area, but the mound itself has been apparently obliterated and its location has been determined to be along the western edge of the 3rd hole (Figure 6). Artifacts are still visible on the surface but highly fragmented. They show up in great numbers after a rainstorm. Poplar Springs Mound is located within the Marianna lowlands at an elevation of 46 m above sea level. The soil is a dark humus overlying gray sand. The 1973 site form on file in the Florida Master Site File stated that the flora were mixed and semideciduous forest. At the time of the 2003 USF visit, pine dominated the area next to the golf course; further into the wooded area were hardwoods. Surface survey on the golf course resulted in the recovery of small pieces of pottery and chert flakes. A variety of chert was represented in many different colors. Of interest was a whole, hafted biface, the basal fragment of a hafted biface, and a utilized blade-like flake (Figure 7). Five of the small pottery fragments were diagnostic (Figure 8). One was Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, two were rims that were folded in a classic Weeden Island style, and two other fragments were rims with small narrow and deep notches. Gordon Willey (1949), who established the typology of prehistoric pottery of the Florida Gulf Coast in the late 1940s, found this kind of notching on Early and

PAGE 29

17 Figure 4. Indian Springs Golf and Country Club, Marianna, Jackson County, FL.

PAGE 30

18 Figure 5. Poplar Springs Village and Mound and nearby Middle Woodland sites. Mound and Village located along west side of hole 3 of the Indian Springs Golf Club. Site boundaries from Florida Division of Historic Resources.

PAGE 31

19 Figure 6. Hole 3 of Indian Springs Golf and Country Club. Upper: Poplar Springs Mound estimated location, western edge of hole 3. View facing south. Lower: South end of hole 3, facing south (Anya Frashuer in background).

PAGE 32

20 Figure 7. Lithic tools recovered from surface collection of Poplar Springs Mound. Left : hafted biface, Center : basal fragment of a hafted biface, Right : utilized blade-like flake. Figure 8. Ceramics recovered from surface collection of Poplar Springs Mound. Upper : Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped Center : Weeden Island folded rims Lower : Swift Creek notched rims possibly Franklin Plain.

PAGE 33

21 Middle Woodland types such as Franklin Plain, Crooked River Complicated-Stamped or Santa Rosa Stamped (which is found mainly near Pensacola). This mound site was recorded in early 1973 then apparently lost to professional archaeology. The site form submitted in 1973 to the Florida Master Site File indicates that the site has experienced a great deal of looter activity. One such account states that one individual retrieved 14 whole pots from the east side of the mound. These pots are of particular interest, because they were perforated at the base or “killed” to use an archaeological term. They may be the ones owned by our donor and shown (mostly) in Figure 3. Bone fragments were also found in the backfill of pothunters in March of 1973, along with fragments of late Swift Creek a nd early Weeden Island pottery. According to the original site form, the archaeologist on site, Scott Nidy (1973), collected a few sherds. These artifacts are being curated by the Divisi on of Historical Resources in Tallahassee, Florida. I visited Tallahassee to see these specimens; they are in keeping with the types in the donor’s collection. The small sherd of Swift Creek pottery in Figure 9 shows a diamond pattern. Only a few pieces of pottery, plain, check-stamped and Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, were recovered in 1973 along with a few flakes and a small piece of calcined bone, which were too small to identify (DHR Catalogue # 74.265.01). This information seems to match the information obtained from the donor and from the pottery itself, and makes Poplar Springs Mound a highly probable candidate for the lost mound from which the collection came.

PAGE 34

22 Figure 9. Swift Creek sherds recovered from Poplar Springs Mound by Scott Nidy (DHR) during the 1973 investigation. During the same 2003 trip, White obtained another box of pottery from the donor and photographed his whole perforated pots. Th ese vessels were of plain design (Figure 10), Keith Incised (Figure 11), and stamped with a Swift Creek complicated pattern (Figure 12). They consisted of square-bottomed bowls (Figure 13), open bowls, flatbased, or pointed-bottom jars (Figure 14). The Swift Creek stamps were teardrop, circular, or diamond shaped (see Table 2 for a complete list of the pottery recovered, Table 3 for a list of pots still in the collector’s possession, and Figure 3 for images of his whole vessels together at his home).

PAGE 35

23 Figure 10. Undecorated vessels from Poplar Springs Mound still in possession of collector. Figure 11. Keith Incised vessel from Poplar Springs Mound still in possession of collector.

PAGE 36

24 Figure 13. Undecorated, square-bottomed, ritually perforated vessel still in possession of collector. Figure 12. Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped vessels still in possession of collector.

PAGE 37

25 Figure 14. Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped vessels with pointed bottoms still in possession of collector.

PAGE 38

26 Table 3. List of Whole Ceramic Vessels in Marianna Collector’s PossessionDecoratedPlain•Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped square flat bottom bowl with oval kill hole •Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped flat base jar •Teardrop Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped pointed bottom jar with kill hole •Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped pointed bottom jar with notched rim •Diamond Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped pointed base jar •Keith Incised jar with folded rim •Broken, nested circle Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped small bowl with kill hole •Constricted-neck, flat-bottomed bowl with irregular kill hole •Open bowl with small kill hole •Open bowl with folded rim •Open bowl with red slipped interior •Burnished simple bowl •Bowl with incision below rim, with kill hole Table 2. Pottery from Donated Collection, Poplar Springs MoundPottery TypeNumber of sherds Relative frequency by number Weight (g)Relative frequency by weight Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped 498.21699.49.8 Crooked River Complicated-Stamped10.246.20.3 Weeden Island Incised10.219.80.1 Weeden Island Red10.218.00.1 Weeden Island Plain10.215.70.9 Carrabelle Punctated many sherds fit together into 2 or 3 pots152.5793.04.6 check-stamped12921.74327.224.9 sand-tempered plain33456.28381.448.2 sand-tempered plain red painted152.5523.53.0 grit-tempered plain264.4909.75.2 grog-tempered plain81.3238.31.4 grit and grog-tempered plain20.335.50.2 cord-marked10.269.20.4 indeterminate punctate fingernail10.224.90.1 indeterminate incised50.875.40.4 indeterminate stamp 30.3149.40.9 Cool Branch Incised (Fort Walton type)10.224.90.1 shell-tempered plain Mississippian10.247.60.3 TOTAL59499.817,399.1100.9

PAGE 39

27 The Donated Pottery Upon returning to the lab from the 2003 field session, I began working on cataloguing both the 2000 and 2003 sets of donated pottery. Middle Woodland ceramic types are Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Weeden Island Red, Incised and Plain, and Carrabelle Punctated. There is also a very small amount of Mississippian pottery. The majority of the sherds are tempered with sand of varying grain size. Only a few sherds were tempered with grog (crushed pottery sherds). A few sand-tempered sherds had small amounts of grog and/or grit inclusions. One sherd was plain and tempered with shell, evident from large flat openings on the surfaces. This sherd was most likely a Mississippian type, and is considered anomalous here, or indicative of a later component. Many sherds exhibit smoothing and burnishing on one or both of the surfaces. One sherd had been brushed with what looks like a fine bristle instrument. Traces of red paint can be seen on 15 of the sand-tempered plain sherds. The Swift Creek pottery exhibited many different stamped designs. Teardrop and diamond shapes were found on some of the whole, killed pots still in the donor's possession (Figure 14), but many of the donated pots exhibited variations on the curvilinear swirling patterns (Figure 15). There was one Crooked River ComplicatedStamped sherd characterized by rectilinear zig-zagging complicated stamping and notched rims (Figure 16). Weeden Island pottery was not as abundant. One sherd had fine-tooled incisions ending in punctations that are indicative of Weeden Island Incised, while three Weeden Island Plain sherds were found, one which is known as Weeden

PAGE 40

28 Figure 15. Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped pottery donated from Poplar Springs. Figure 16. Crooked River Complicated-Stamped sherd donated from Poplar Springs Mound.

PAGE 41

29 Island Red for its red paint (Figure 17). Carrabelle Punctated sherds are represented with at least two types of tool marks, a squared-end tool and a tool that made a bean-shaped punctation (Figure 18). Including the pottery recovered in 2003, a large number of the sherds (25 percent by weight) are check-stamped and display various representations and sizes of checks (Table 2). Sand-tempered plain sherds (without paint) account for 48 percent of the sherds by weight. Since many of the Middle Woodland pots with decoration include plain sections, it is difficult to label these as sherds from plain-surfaced vessels. It is possible that they represent parts of the pots where there was no decoration, such as areas below the incised or stamped shoulder of a vessel (as can be seen on the lower portion of the Carrabelle pottery sherds in Figure 18). Without the whole pot, I cannot say that a majority of pots from this mound were without decoration. Two Mississippian ceramic types are represented by a Cool Branch Incised sherd and the shell-tempered sherd (Figure 19). This occurrence of later pottery types causes pause in this analysis. Remember that this is a pottery collection donated to us with a poorly documented past. It was unearthed over 30 years ago and has been in the possession of a descendant of the original collector. Its provenience is in question. However, there are some plausible reasons for the later types. It is possible that the collection, or part of it, does not come from Poplar Springs Mound at all or there was a small occupation of the mound in later times by a Fort Walton group and only a few sherds were collected. Most likely though, is that the Mississippian sherds are anomalous to the site.

PAGE 42

30 Figure 17 Weeden Island Pottery donated from Poplar Springs Mound. Upper Left: Weeden Island Incised; Upper Right: Weeden Island Zoned Red; Bottom: Weeden Island plain pottery with folded rims. Figure 18. Carrabelle Punctated Pottery donated from Poplar Springs Mound. Left: square punctation, Right: bean-shaped punctation.

PAGE 43

31 Figure 19. Mississippian Ceramics donated from Poplar Springs Mound: Cool Branch Incised sherd ( left) and shell-tempered plain sherd ( right) Discussion The near-absence of Weeden Island types diagnostic of later Middle Woodland suggests that these artifacts came from an earlier Middle Woodland mound. Swift Creek pottery makes up over 73 percent of the diagnostic pottery (8.5 percent of the total collection) while Weeden Island makes up over 26 percent of the diagnostics (3 percent of the total collection). While we currently have no way to date the mound and are depending on an old and not well-provenienced collection, this is still interesting and worth further study. Return visits to the site and testing to determine if there are intact subsurface deposits may provide us with material suitable for dating. Design comparison would provide a great deal of information re garding the exchange of Swift Creek paddle designs, and further work with this collection should include looking at the work done previously by Betty Broyles (1968), Rebecca Saunders (1986a, 1986b, 1994, 1998), and Frankie Snow (n.d., 1975, 1982, 1993, 1994, 1998; Snow and Stephenson 1993, 1998) with Swift Creek Complicated-Stamp designs.

PAGE 44

32 The material collected from Poplar Springs Mound represents a long tradition of working with collectors to aid in the growth of the archaeological record and in answering questions of importance. Even though this site has been obviously destroyed, through heavy looting and bulldozing for recreational purposes, archaeologists are still able to study it, albeit with much information lost to progress. The scope of this study did not include subsurface testing, but coring or shovel testing may bring to light more information and help to add to the picture of ceremonial life in the upper Apalachicola Valley. Poplar Springs Mound and the information collected from the donated artifacts from the site are the stepping stone in th e study of the Middle Woodland manifestations in the Apalachicola Valley. The next chapter follows with descriptions of the work done and artifacts collected from other Swift Creek and early Weeden Island mounds in the valley. Later chapters will then discuss the material culture of the mounds, how they are distributed along the valley and how Poplar Springs Mound fits in to the model proposed by Brose and Percy (1974) for Middle Woodland ceremonial activity in the Apalachicola Valley.

PAGE 45

33 Chapter 3: Middle Woodland Mounds in the Apalachicola Valley Introduction Middle Woodland mounds of the Apalachicola Valley are distributed along the river, with the majority of them clustering around the coastal delta area or the upper river region of the Florida/Georgia/Alabama bor der (Figure 20 shows the distribution of mounds and domestic sites). Since data from Georgia or Alabama are not included in this study, it is important to note the potential bias in the distribution of any of the materials. The figure shows the stretch of the Chattahoochee River in Florida, which is only 40 km on the west side. Certain areas are also not well surveyed and present another bias, and so gaps in the distribution may only mean a lack of survey and not necessarily a lack of mounds or materials. Thirty mounds containing Middle Woodland components are spread along the Apalachicola, Chipola and lower Chattahoochee Rivers and along the Gulf Coast of this delta (Figure 21 and Table 4). The rest of this chapter is a discussion of each of these mounds, the history and artifacts recovered during surveys. Sites are ordered by county and site number. Site and related artifact photographs from my research are included with the appropriate site descriptions. These descriptive data are then organized and discussed in the following chapter.

PAGE 47

C h i p o l a R i v e rA p a l a ch i c o l a R i v e r8Li6 8Li5 8Li4 8Ja2 8Ja1 8Gu5 8Gu4 8Gu3 8Gu2 8Gd1 8Fr8 8Fr1 8Ca2 8Ca1 8Ja93 8Ja65 8Gu10 8Fr19 8Fr15 8Fr14 8Fr12 8Fr11 8Fr10 8Ja325 8Ja138 8Ca114 8Gu1 8Li7 8Gu41 GADSDEN CALHOUN GULF LIBERTY JACKSON FRANKLIN 850'0"W 850'0"W 300'0"N 300'0"N 310'0"N 310'0"N 01020 5 KilometersBase Map Source: ESRI 2002S t J o s e p h s B a yA p a l a c h i c o l a B a y35 Middle Woodland Mounds of the Apalachicola Valley. Figure 21.

PAGE 48

Site Name (Site #) USGS Quad River Navigation Mile Nearest Water (Dist [m], Direction) Elevation (m) Middle Woodland Components Other components Location known? References Davis' Field (8Ca1) Blountstown 78 unnamed creek (200 SW) 17 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Lower Creek or Seminole no Moore 1903, Willey 1949, DHR OK Landing (8Ca2) Altha East 88 Graves Creek (700 NE) 18 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island no Moore 1918, Willey 1949 Gaston Spivey (8Ca114) Clarksville 87 Chipola River (1340 W) 37 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island yes White and Trauner 1987 Porter's Bar (8Fr1) Green Point 0 Apalachicola Bay (0 S) 2 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Late Archaic, Deptford, Fort Walton, Historic, Santa Rosa yes Moore 1902, Willey 1949, Jones 1993, White 1996 Brickyard Creek (8Fr8) Forbes Island 21 Brickyard Creek (30 NW) 3 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island no Moore 1903, Willey 1949, DHR Eleven Mile Point (8Fr10) Indian Pass 0 St. Vincent Sound (0 S) 3 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Deptford, Fort Walton, late Weeden Island yes Moore 1902, Willey 1949, White 1999 Green Point (8Fr11) Green Point 0 Apalachicola Bay (0 S) 1 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island no Moore 1902, Willey 1949 Huckleberry Landing (8Fr12) Jackson River 5 Jackson River (30 N) 1 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Santa Rosa yes Moore 1902, Willey 1949, Glowacki and White 2005, USF Lab Pierce Mounds (8Fr14) West Pass 1 Turtle Harbor (200 NE) 3 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Deptford, Santa Rosa, Fort Walton yes Moore 1902, Willey 1949, Carr 1975, USF Lab Jackson Mound GV* (8Fr15) West Pass 1 Scipio Creek (300 ENE) 2 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Santa Rosa, Fort Walton probably Moore 1902, Willey 1949 GV stands for general vicinity (as used by Florida Master Site File when location is not verified). Table 4 Middle Woodland Mounds of the Apalachicola Valley

PAGE 49

Site Name USGS Quad River Navigation Mile Nearest Water (Dist [m], Direction) Elevation (m) Middle Woodland Components Other components Location known? References Cool Springs Mound (8Fr19) West Pass 1 Turtle Harbor (200 NE) 3 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Fort Walton probably part of Fr14 and Fr21 Aspalaga Landing Mound (8Gd1) Rock Bluff 99 Apalachicola River (570 W) 61 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Fort Walton? yes Moore 1903, White 1996, USF Lab Mound Near Indian Pass Point (8Gu1) Indian Pass 0 Indian Lagoon (400 N) 3 early Weeden Island yes Moore 1902, Willey 1949, White 1999, USF lab Gotier Hammock (8Gu2) Cape San Blas 0 St. Joseph Bay (380 W) 2 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island yes Moore 1902, Willey 1949, White 2005, USF Lab Burgess Landing (8Gu3) Wewahitchka 31 Burgess Creek (10 E) 6 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Deptford yes Moore 1903, Willey 1949, USF Lab Isabel Landing (8Gu4) Wewahitchka 36 Whites River (0 E) 6 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island no Moore 1903, Willey 1949, White 1999 Chipola Cutoff (8Gu5) Dead Lake 42 Chipola Cutoff (0 W) 7 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Fort Walton, Protohistoric yes Moore 1903, Willey 1949, Henefield and White 1986, White 1999 Richardson's Hammock (8Gu10) Cape San Blas 0 St. Joseph Bay (0 N) 1 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Fort Walton, Lamar yes DHR, White et al 2002, USF Lab Howard Creek Mound (8Gu41) Forbes Island 17 Howard Creek (225 E) 4 Swift Creek Late Archaic? yes Henefield and White 1986, White 1992 GV stands for general vicinity (as used by Florida Master Site File when location is not verified). Table 4 (Continued) Middle Woodland Mounds of the Apalachicola Valley

PAGE 50

Site Name USGS Quad River Navigation Mile Nearest Water (Dist [m], Direction) Elevation (m) Middle Woodland Components Other components Location known? References Sampson's Landing (8Ja1) Sneads 103 Apalachicola River (360 SE) 31 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island no Moore 1903, Willey 1949, Percy 1976 Moore's Mound near Kemp's Landing (8Ja2) Sneads 3 Chatahoochee under Lake Seminole 23 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island yes Moore 1903, Bullen 1959 Waddell's Mill Pond Site (8Ja65) Sills 122 Waddell's Mill Pond (30 S) 30 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Late Archaic, Deptford?, Fort Walton yes Gardner 1966, DHR Watson's Field GV* (8Ja93) Marianna 7 Chatahoochee Merritts Millpond (880 N) 40 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Archaic, late Weeden Island? no DHR Poplar Springs Mound (8Ja138) Marianna 7 Chatahoochee Merritts Millpond (540 N) 30 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Fort Walton yes DHR, Gardner 1966, Nidy 1973, USF Lab Patrick Pond (8Ja325) Bascom 21 Chatahoochee unnamed oxbow lake (20 W) 30 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Archaic?, Deptford possibly DHR Mound Below Bristol (8Li3) Bristol 77 unnamed creek (210 SE) 47 Swift Creek Santa Rosa, Indeterminate checkstamped? no Moore 1903, Willey 1949 Bristol Mound (8Li4) Bristol 81 Apalachicola River (530 NNW) 40 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island late Weeden Island no Moore 1903, Willey 1949 Rock Bluff Landing (8Li5) Rock Bluff 93 Trubutary of Rock Creek (460 SE) 61 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island Late Archaic yes Moore 1918, Willey 1949, DHR Michaux Log Landing (8Li6) Estiffanulga 70 Apalachicola River (60 W) 12 Swift Creek-early Weeden Island yes Moore 1918, Willey 1949, USF Lab Estiffanulga GV* (8Li7) Estiffanulga 65 Outside Lake (10 S) 9 Swift Creek no Moore 1903, Willey 1949 GV stands for general vicinity (as used by Florida Master Site File when location is not verified). Table 4 (Continued) Middle Woodland Mounds of the Apalachicola Valley

PAGE 51

39 The Middle Woodland Mounds Davis Field, 8Ca1 Davis Field was located during Moore’s Apalachicola River expedition in 1903 on a tributary stream of the Apalachicola. This mound composed of clay was 21 m in diameter and over 1 m high. There was a smaller interior mound that was built up over a sub-floor pit. Ceramics included late variety Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Weeden Island Plain, Weeden Island Incised and undiagnostic red painted sherds. The majority of vessels were ritually perforated; some with evidence of perforation during the formation process and some that were perforated after the final firing. Non-ceramic artifacts included conch shell cups and sheet-mica fragments. Twenty-six burials were encountered, including primary flexed and secondary bundle and single skull (Moore 1903:468-473; Willey 1949:251-252). A visit to the Division of Historical Resources (DHR) in Tallahassee Florida resulted in our locating more Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped sherds (Figure 22). This mound was not relocated. OK Landing, 8Ca2. OK Landing was discovered during Moore’s re-visitation of the northwestern Florida coast in 1918. This mound was over 10 m in diameter and one meter high. Ceramics included Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped and undiagnostic plain, incised and check-stamped sherds all interred together in a single mass deposit and ritually perforated. The only other artifact was a lump of galena. There were only two

PAGE 52

40 Figure 22 Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped pottery sherds from Davis Field Mound. Pottery curated at the DHR. Photo courtesy of Nancy White. burials, both secondary types, but it is unknown whether they were bundle (groups of bones) or single skull (Moore 1918:554; Willey 1949:252). The mound was not relocated. Gaston Spivey, 8Ca114. The Gaston Spivey Mound was located through a local informant, Gaston Spivey, who owns the land and house built on it. He contacted White who visited the site during the 1987 survey of the Chipola River (White and Trauner 1987). The mound had been heavily looted and severely damaged due to construction of a nearby road and the house. A one-meter-square test unit was dug. Pottery included Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped and undiagnostic check-stamped and plain sherds. Non-ceramic artifacts were a possible Pinellas Point, undiagnostic projectile points and a grinding stone fragment.

PAGE 53

41 Porter’s Bar, 8Fr1. Porter’s Bar consists of a burial mound and shell midden situated on St George’s Sound approximately 5 km east of East Point. Moore discovered this site during his 1902 Northwest Florida Coast expedition and at the time of his visit was approximately 400 m back from the beach. He found the mound in a partially destroyed state, 18 by 24 m at the base and 3 m high. It was made up of layers of white, yellow and blackened sand over a base layer of oyster shell. Ceramics include early and late varieties of Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Alligator Bayou Stamped, Weeden Island Plain and Incised, a human-effigy vessel form (not illustrated) and undiagnostic check-stamped and red-painted sherds. Vessels were ritually perforated. An elbow-shaped pottery pipe was also recovered. Non-ceramic artifacts include projectile points, celts, hammerstones, a stone pendant, shell pendants, cups and tools, cut animal jaws, hematite ore, galena, sheet mica, bitumen, cooper, and a carved kaolin baton. Sixty-eight burials were found on, near or in the shell base. Burials included primary flexed and semiflexed, secondary bundle and single skull, and a single deposit of calcined bones (Moore 1902:238-249; Willey 1949:265-267). Calvin Jones surveyed this site during the early 1990s. He excavated Late Archaic burials eroding out of the midden on the shore and noted heavy looting occurring at the mound. In 1996, White relocated the mound and surveyed the area (Figures 23-25). Construction for residential property was occurring nearby and so shovel testing, surface collection and cleaning of pothole profiles was conducted (White 1996). Because of this site’s accessibility to the beach, many more unusual materials were recovered.

PAGE 54

42 Figure 25 Hematite nodule from Porter’s Bar in USF collections. Figure 23. Shell artifacts from Porter’s Bar in USF collections. Photos courtesy of Eric Eyles. Figure 24. Mounds at Porter’s Bar. Left : Looting at Porter’s Bar. Anya Frashuer at left. Right : Western mound at Porter’s Bar. Anya Frashuer at left and Tony White atop mound. Photos courtesy of Nancy White.

PAGE 55

43 Brickyard Creek, 8Fr8. Moore discovered Brickyard Creek mound during his 1903 Apalachicola River expedition. It had alrea dy been disturbed by looting and was over 10 m in diameter and over one meter high at the time of his visit. The ceramics he collected included Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Weeden Island Plain, a Weeden Island or Fort Walton effigy lug, and undiagnostic incised, punctated and check-stamped sherds. Vessels were ritually perforated. Non-ceramic artifacts included projectile points, scrapers, hammerstones, hones, bone awls, conch columella tools, and fragments of sheet mica. Human bone was also found, but it was so badly decayed that the amount or burial style was indeterminate (Moore 1903:441-443; Willey 1949:273). In the Fall of 1999, a USF crew was joined by United States Forest Service archaeologists Andrea Repp and James Halpern to help locate the mound. Twenty years before, the previous Forest Service archaeologist had relocated the mound and this information was used to return to the area. No mound was visible and testing resulted in no artifacts found (White 1999). Eleven Mile Point, 8Fr10. Eleven Mile Point is a midden and burial mound located over 17 km west of the city of Apalachicola on St. Vincent Sound. The midden is located on the shore while the mound is located several meters inland. Moore found and excavated the mound during his 1902 Northwest Florida coast expedition. The mound was 15 m in diameter and almost one meter high. Ceramics included early variety Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Alligator Bayou Stamped, Weeden Island Plain and undiagnostic incised. Vessels were ritually perforated. Non-ceramic artifacts were not mentioned while

PAGE 56

44 burials were mentioned but number or types not recorded (Moore 1902:214-216; Willey 1949:274-276). Willey (1949) visited the site during his 1940 survey, relocated the midden but was unable to find the mound. White returned in 1996 to see the mound in a cleared area underneath a house. The owner had a large collection of artifacts, which she graciously allowed to be photographed. Green Point, 8Fr11. Moore discovered Green Point during his 1902 Northwest Florida coast expedition. The mound is located just east of Porter’s Bar. At the time of its discovery, it had been heavily disturbed by cultivation and was determined to be 19 m in diameter and 1 to 2 m high. It was constructed of sand with inclusions of shell and blackened organic material interspersed. Ceramics included early variety Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Franklin Plain, Crystal River Zoned Red, and undiagnostic plain, incised and fabric-marked sherds. Vessels were ritually perforated and there was mention of tetrapod bases and notching of rims. Two pipes were also discovered; one monitor pipe of either stone or pottery and one pottery pipe of unrecorded form. Non-ceramic artifacts included projectile points, lances, celts, hones, smoothing stones, hammerstones, shell cups, gouges, pendants, and disks. A large number of burials, 80 in all, were of primary flexed and semiflexed and secondary bundle and single skull types (Moore 1902:249-256; Willey 1949:276-277). White and crew re-attempted to relocate this mound several times without success.

PAGE 57

45 Huckleberry Landing, 8Fr12. Huckleberry Landing is a collection of shell middens and a mound along the coast of the Jackson River. Moore found this site in 1902 during his Northwest Florida coast travels. The mound consisted of sand with inclusions of either sand or clay dotted throughout. The mound stands 2 m high with a base diameter of 12 m east to west and 16 m north to south. Ceramics included early variety Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, Weeden Island Plain and undiagnostic check-stamped sherds. Vessels were ritually perforated. Two pottery pipes were also found; one monitor style and the other elbow-shaped. Non-ceramic artifacts included celts, hones, pebble hammers, stone pendants, sheet mica, rattles made of turtle shell and pottery ear spools plated with copper. Thirty-four burials were spread out all throughout the mound. Of these burials, two-thirds are secondary burials of the bundle and single skull type and one-third are primary flexed burials. In some of the burials, Moore documented pathology on the bones, but there was no mention of the type or description of the bone deformation (Moore 1902:234-238; Willey 1949:277-278). White and USF student archaeologists visited Huckleberry Landing several times in the 1980s (Figure 26-29). In 2005, the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) team, led by Mary Glowacki, returned to the area to document the site, as the state had purchased the land. They found was a shell midden of Rangia cuneata and a mostly-sand mound with some shell. It was bordered to the north by the Jackson River and to the east and west by marshes. The condition of the mound had been greatly impacted since Moore’s visit. The CARL team found a doughnut-shaped mound only 1.5 m high (as

PAGE 58

46 Figure 26. Shell scoop from Huckleberry Landing. Photo courtesy of Eric Eyles. Figure 27. Quartz pebble from Huckleberry Landing. USF collections. opposed to Moore’s 2 m). At the mound they found Deptford Plain, Wakulla CheckStamped, Weeden Island Plain, and Lake Jackson Incised (Glowacki and White 2005). Nancy White, Amber Yuellig and I revisited Huckleberry Landing in June of 2005. The water level of Jackson River was high and the area was very swampy with inundated areas. The mound was still intact with the “doughnut’s” crater still visible on the east side of the mound, most likely from Moore’s excavation. Swift Creek pottery dotted the surface of the east side of the mound and the midden. Figure 28. Hematite nodule from Huckleberry Landing mound. USF collections.

PAGE 59

47 Figure 29. Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped pottery from Huckleberry Landing mound. USF collections. Pierce Mounds, 8Fr14 Pierce Mounds is a multi-mound, multi-component site near the coast on the edge of the city of Apalachicola. This complex includes many mounds of the Pierce site and other sites, such as Jackson Mound and Cool Springs Mounds discussed later. For the sake of this research, only Middle Woodland mounds of the Pierce complex will be discussed. For information about the rest of the site, refer to Moore (1902:217229) and Willey (1949:278-282). Pierce Mounds includes the northern portion of the city’s cemetery. The property on which many of the Pierce Mounds are located is under controversy. This property is

PAGE 60

48 slated to be divided and sold for residential purposes. There has also been a considerable amount of damage done to all the mounds from ATV traffic and heavy looting. Moore discovered Pierce Mounds (including Jackson and Cool Springs mounds) during his 1902 Northwest Florida Coast expedition. Mound A is located on the southwestern side of the site. It is a yellow sand and shell flat topped mound over 2 m high, a base of 29 m east to west and 23 m north to south, and a summit of 12 by 10 m. Ceramics included Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Santa Rosa Stamped, Crystal River Zoned Red, Pierce Zoned Red, and Weeden Island Incised along with a Weeden Island multiple orifice vessel and grubworm effigy. Vessels were ritually perforated. Undiagnostic plain and cord-marked sherds along with a ceramic monitor pipe, small vessels, tetrapod supports and notched rims were mentioned. Non-ceramic artifacts include projectile points and chisels, celts, stone plummets, pearls, a copper tube and ear spools platted with silver, shell cups, gougelike columella tools and beads, a bison bone gorget, and wolf and panther teeth. This is the largest burial site of the Pierce group. During his excavations, Moore uncovered and documented 99 burials. A majority of the primary burials were flexed skeletons and only a few were extended (a rarity in the valley). Secondary burials included bundle and single skull types, with one mass deposit of bones. The mound now stands in an overgrown parcel, 1.5 m high and 26 by 20 m at its base. There are ATV tracks running up its side a nd looters’ holes in the sides and at the top (Figure 30). Human bone fragments found on the top of the mound during one visit were sent to the state collections in Tallahassee. USF collections include undiagnostic

PAGE 61

49 check-stamped sherds and shell tools from the mound. Artifacts collected from visits over many years are still in the processes of documentation and will be available in the future. Figure 30. Pierce Mound A. Left : North side of Mound A with looter’s holes. Right : Southeastern side of Mound A with ATV track. Moore’s Mound C is a smaller burial mound located between Mounds A and B (which is at the north center of the property adjacent to railroad tracks). The mound consisted of sand over a shell base and was originally 2 m high and 27.5 m east to west by 22.5 m north to south. Moore dug a 10.5 m trench, 4.5 m wide, through the mound. He found Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, undiagnostic check-stamped and punctated sherds, and pottery beads. Three primary flexed burials were encountered. Visits from the USF crew documented that the mound was heavily disturbed just like Mound A. It is over one meter high and approximately 33.5 m square, made up of gray sand with an oyster shell base overlying yellow sand. In June of 2004, the mound had recently been looted with one 4 m trench and another shorter in length. ATV tracks covered the mound and adjacent area (Figure 31).

PAGE 62

50 Jackson Mound, 8Fr15 Jackson Mound is located over 3 km northwest of the city of Apalachicola. Moore discovered the mound in 1902 during his Northwest Florida expedition. It was probably part of the entire Pierce group in prehistory. The mound measures almost 3 m high and 22 by 20 m at its base. Ceramics included early and late varieties of Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Alligator Bayou Stamped, a vessel of Weeden Island Plain style, and undiagnostic plain, and incised sherds. Vessels were ritually perforated. Pottery and steatite pipes were found, exhibiting notching rims, block pattern and elbow-style. Non-ceramic artifacts included projectile points, celts, hones, smoothing stones, hammerstones, stone beads and plummets, a quartz plummet, hematite ore, galena, and a fragment of copper. It contained 26 burials, most of them badly decayed. Burials were identified as secondary bundle and single skull along with a single cremation, but no other information was possible due to the degradation of the remains (Moore 1902:229-234; Willey 1949:282-284). Figure 31. Pierce Mound C with ATV track up the center. View facing north. Photo courtesy of Nancy White.

PAGE 63

51 Cool Springs Mound, 8Fr19 Moore mentioned Cool Springs Mound in his Northwest Florida coast notes from 1902 as being located west of the outskirts of the city of Apalachicola. This mound was probably originally part of the Pierce Mound group. It was heavily looted when Moore located it and reported it as being over 2 m high and 27.5 m in diameter. He dug about two-thirds of this sand mound and found Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, a frog effigy, animal rim effigies, and undiagnostic check-stamp, incised and punctated sherds. Non-ceramic artifacts included a projectile point, celt and mica. Upwards of nine burials were found of primary flexed, semi-flexed and extended types and secondary bundle and single skull types (Moore 1902:216; Willey 1949:284). White and crew have not yet been able to relocate this site. Aspalaga Landing Mound, 8Gd1. The Aspalaga Landing site was located by Moore in 1903 during his Apalachicola River expedition. The site consists of one shell midden, two domicile sand mounds, and one sand burial mound situated high atop bluffs in the Torreya Ravines. For this research, only the burial mound is discussed. The burial mound is oblong in shape, 27.5 m in diameter and was reported as 2 to 3 m high. Ceramics included an early variety of Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, St. Andrews Complicated-Stamped, Crystal River Incised, Weeden Island Plain, and undiagnostic redpainted sherds. Tetrapodal supports and notched rims were mentioned. Non-ceramic artifacts included projectile and lance points, celts, hammerstones, a stone disk, shell cups and beads, mica spear-point form and sheet-mica fragments, and hematite ore.

PAGE 64

52 Moore found 54 burials of primary flexed and secondary bundle and single skull types (Moore 1903:481-488; Willey 1949:257-258). The state tried to buy this mound site for years with little success; after the construction of I-10 in the 1970s, it became heavily looted as it was more easily accessible and better known to collectors. White and crew (White 1996) visited Aspalaga Landing mound as part of a 1995 survey of the impacts of record flooding in the valley. They found a severely damaged mound and almost non-existent midden damaged by clear-cutting for timber and extensive looting. Ceramics recovered included Weeden Island Incised, Weeden Island Punctated, Carrabelle Punctated, and undiagnostic cordmarked, punctated, incised, and fabric-marked. Non-ceramic artifacts include quartz flakes, limestone fragments and glass. Mound Near Indian Pass Point, 8Gu1. Mound Near Indian Pass Point was located during Moore’s 1902 Northwest Florida Coast expedition. The mound is composed of both sand and shell, was irregular in shape, 15 m in diameter and one meter high. This mound did not have any Swift Creek pottery (the only one of its kind in this study) but did have Weeden Island Incised and Indian Pass Incised along with undiagnostic plain and checkstamped sherds. This suggests that this mound was in use at a time later in the Middle Woodland. This was deposited in a primary cache and smaller caches and the pottery exhibited ritual perforation. Other artifact s include projectile points, celts, honestones, shell cups, shell chisel, and hematite. This is a small burial mound with an unknown number of bundle burials. The most important aspect of this burial mound is its numerous

PAGE 65

53 skulls with marked front and rear cranial flattening that is found no where else in the valley (Moore 1902:211-214). Gordon Willey (1949:252-253) relocated the mound in 1940 with Moore’s original excavation cavity still visible. The mound was located among sand dunes dotted with pine and oak. Within the cavity Willey found a few pieces of Weeden Island Plain pottery. The first attempt by USF crew to locate the mound (White 1999) used pedestrian survey of the sand dunes and residential yards in the area of Moore’s description. Nothing was found but the conclusion was that the mound must have been underneath one of the homes. In the Fall of 2003, a USF team consisting of Nancy White, Amber Yuellig, Chris Smith, Karen Mayo and myself were led by a local informant to relocate the mound. Currently the mound is situated partially under a beach home on the coastal beach side of Indian Pass Point (Figure 32). Undiagnostic plain sherds and cut shell pieces were found on the northern side of the mound (Figure 33). Artifacts were found to the north of the road and spread 150 m west (Figure 34). This is most likely due to the building of the road and destruction of the northern part of the mound.

PAGE 66

54 Figure 33. Shell tools collected from the surface of Mound Near Indian Pass. USF collections. Photos courtesy of Eric Eyles. Figure 32. Mound Near Indian Pass Point located within the front yard of a residential property. View facing south. Photo courtesy of Nancy White. Figure 34. Scatter of shell and modern refuse northwest of mound. Amber Yuellig in foreground.

PAGE 67

55 Gotier Hammock, 8Gu2. Gotier Hammock was discovered during Moore’s 1902 Northwest Florida Coast expedition. This mound is located along the coast on the eastern edge of St. Joseph’s Bay, a high salinity bay well known for marine resources such as scallops and for easy access to sea turtles during winter months. The mound, composed of dark sand, was already heavily looted during Moore’s visit. He determined that the mound was 18 m in diameter and 1.5 m high. Most of the pottery deposits were removed during looting. Only a few vessels were identified at the mound, a late variety Swift Creek Complicated vessel with a decorated neck and plain base, other Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, St. Andrews Stamped and Weeden Island Incised sherds and undiagnostic plain and red painted sherds. Some of the vessels showed ritual perforations. The St. Andrews Complicated-Stamped sherd illustrated in Moore (1902:210) is similar in pattern to another St. Andrews sherd found at Watson’s Field (central Jackson County), which is part of the Florida Museum of Natural History’s collection (FLMNH Catalogue # 2001-82-1). On ly a few bundle burials were located by Moore, scattered through the mound and below the base of the mound (Moore 1902:210211; Willey 1949:253-254). During the Fall of 2003, Nancy White, Amber Yuellig, Chris Smith, Karen Mayo and I were led by a local informant to the location of Gotier Hammock (Figure 35). He had collected from the site as a child and had in his possession cut pieces of sheet mica (Figure 36). The mound had been flattened and its associated village damaged by the biggest land developer in Florida, the St. Joe Company. Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped, Weeden Island Incised, Keith Incised, Carrabelle Incised, Indian Pass Incised

PAGE 68

56 Figure 35. Site of Gotier Hammock mound. Mound on right. Anya Frashuer in background, Karen Mayo in center and local informant in foreground. Photo courtesy of Nancy White. Figure 36. Cut mica from Gotier Hammock in private collection. and undiagnostic plain, cord-marked, and stamped sherds were found on the surface of the mound area and the dirt road leading up to it (Figure 37). Non-ceramic artifacts included large gastropod shell awls, Busycon shell tools and columella awls (White 2005:74-83).

PAGE 69

57 Figure 37 Artifacts collected from the surface of Gotier Hammock in USF collections. Photos courtesy of Nancy White. Burgess Landing, 8Gu3 Burgess Landing was located during Moore’s Apalachicola River expedition in 1903 off a tributary to the Chipola River. This mound, composed of clayey sand, was 15 m in diameter and 1.5 m high. The pottery was found together within a single cache and includes Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Weeden Island Plain, undiagnostic incised and red painted sherds. The vessels were ritually perforated. Projectile points, celts, honestones, and sheet mica was also found but scattered through the mound and not within the pottery mortuary cache. Twelve secondary bundle and single skull burials were located by Moore (1903:443-445; Willey 1949:254). During the summer of 2004, our local informant joined the USF crew to help relocate Burgess Landing, a site he visited as a child. We were able to locate remnants of the mound alongside a new paved road and ditch to the north where its original location was shown on Moore’s map (Figure 38). Ar tifacts included fragments of undiagnostic plain pottery.

PAGE 70

58 Isabel Landing, 8Gu4 Isabel Landing, located on the Chipola River, was discovered by Moore during his 1903 Apalachicola River expedition. This mound was 15 m in diameter and 1.5 m high. Pottery was grouped into one cache and included Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, a Weeden Island-style effigy, undiagnostic check-stamped and punctated pottery, and a vessel whose description (without illustration) indicates the type St. Andrews Complicated-Stamped. Moore’s notes indicate he found two secondary burials of unknown type (Moore 1903:445; Willey 1949:254). White (1999) attempted to relocate the mound using pedestrian and boat survey and shovel testing, with no success. A return visit in 2004 with a local informant resulted in the same. We were unable to relocate this mound as there was no evidence of the Figure 38. Location of Burgess Landing. View facing west. Photo courtesy of Nancy White.

PAGE 71

59 mound itself or related artifacts in the vicinity of the place on Moore’s map. This mound is next to the Chipola River and within the property boundary of a marina. It is quite possible that the construction of the marina is the reason that there is no mound today. Or else the original location of the landing changed as the river meanders changed. Chipola Cutoff, 8Gu5. The Chipola Cutoff Mound is located on the Chipola Cutoff, a natural channel that connects the Chipola River to the Apalachicola River. The mound was made up of sand with some clay, and measured almost 14 m in diameter and 1.5 m high. It was discovered by Moore in 1903 duri ng his Apalachicola River expedition and was previously looted. What was left of the mound still amounted to a large collection of Middle Woodland and Fort Walton (including contact period) artifacts and a significant amount of data from multiple burials. Middle Woodland ceramics included late variety Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Weeden Island Plain and Weeden Island Incised. Most vessels were ritually perforated with one example of perforation prior to firing. Non-ceramic artifacts included stone celts and hones, shell gouges, chisels, beads and hairpins, bone awls and hairpins, and hematite ore. Burials were found at 42 places in the mound or on its base. Burials are of primary flexed and semiflexed and secondary bundle and single skull. One skull had an inverted vessel over it (Moore 1903:445-466; Willey:254-256). The site of the mound was relocated by the USF crew with some difficulty. The first attempt was in 1985 (Henefield and White 1986) and a revisit occurred in July of 1999 (White 1999). Pedestrian survey turned up no mound or artifacts. A visit to the

PAGE 72

60 Wewahitchka Public Library in 2003 brought us to Mr. Tom Semmes and his collection of artifacts from the mound and a map of its location. The majority of his collection is of Fort Walton sherds and one effigy. He was able to take us to the location of the mound and tell us about his days as a child collecting there. The mound was nowhere to be seen and no artifacts were in evidence on the surface (Figure 39). At this time the verdict was that the mound was under the surface of the cut-off waters. A return visit a year later and a conversation with a resident of a nearby house determined that the dredging of the cutoff and changing path of the water had destroyed the mound. Figure 39. Location of Chipola Cutoff. Cassandra Rae Harper in background. Rise of land is not the mound but new berm created apparently by piling up dredging deposits.

PAGE 73

61 Figure 40. Burial mound at Richardson’s Hammock. Elan Marsh (with insect netting over her head) in background atop center of mound. Richardson’s Hammock, 8Gu10 Richardson’s Hammock is a multi-component, multimound/midden site that is spread along the northern portion of a small peninsula off St. Joseph Peninsula. The Middle Woodland mound is located at the northern-most part of the site. It was heavily looted beginning in the early 1980s. Around the same time, Wayne Childers (n.d.) was hired by the former owner of the area to conduct a survey of the whole site. The mound and midden produced Weeden Island Incised and Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped ceramics (White et al. 2002). No USF investigations were conducted at this mound, only mapping of its location (Figure 40) and testing in the midden area.

PAGE 74

62 Howard Creek Mound, 8Gu41 In the lower part of the valley, Howard Creek Mound is situated behind a home in the small fishcamp of Howard Creek. This mound was recorded by Susan Henefield and Nancy White (1986:55-56, 123; White 1992) during the 1985 survey of the middle and lower portions of the Apalachicola Valley. At this time, the mound was 20 m in diameter and almost a meter high. They located the mound with the help of a local resident whose collection included many Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped pots (ritually perforated), plain sherds, as well as bone tools, mica, and copper disks (Figure 41). Unfortunately, during a later survey, he had to sell his artifacts to pay his bar bills, and the collection thus disappeared after he died. A crew of USF students led by White returned in the summer of 2004 to relocate the mound. We found it behind a mobile home with the east side of the mound modified for the construction of a fish cleaning shack on it. No artifacts were found on the surface and only a small handfull of fresh-water shell was located at the base of the south side (Figure 42). The lack of Weeden Island pottery makes this one of three sites that are probably early Middle Woodland sites. It is also the only site without Weeden Island pottery that also has exotic materials.

PAGE 75

63 Figure 41. Artifacts from Howard Creek Mound. Upper left : Bone fragments. Upper right : cut mica sheet. Bottom : copper earspools. Photo courtesy of Nancy White. Figure 42. Howard Creek Mound. Left: View from the west. Right: East side of mound with fish cleaning shack.

PAGE 76

64 Sampson’s Landing, 8Ja1 Sampson’s Landing was first discovered by Moore during his 1903 Apalachicola River expedition. This was a sand and gravel mound approximately 14 m in diameter and almost 1.5 m high. Ceramic artifacts included late variety Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Weeden Island Incised (?), and undiagnostic plain and check-stamped sherds. Numerous vessels were ritually perforated. Stone celts, shell cups and fragments of sheet mica were also encountered. Skeletal remains included 47 burials of flexed primary burials and bundle and single skull secondary burials. Three of the flexed primary burials were found below slabs of limerock (Moore 1903:489-491; Willey 1949:249-251). Percy (1976:127-130) investigated the associated midden, Scholz Steam Plant Site (8Ja104), and interviewed a local collector, Mr. Burgess. At the time of the visit, Burgess was unable to relocate the mound but allowed a vessel from his collection to be photographed. We were not able to relocate this mound. Moore’s Mound Near Kemp’s Landing, 8Ja2. Moore’s Mound Near Kemp’s Landing was located during his Apalachicola River expedition in 1903 off a tributary to the Apalachicola. This mound, composed of clay, was 10 m in diameter and almost 1.5 m high. Ceramics included late variety Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Weeden Island Plain, Weeden Island Incised, Indian Pass Incised and undiagnostic plain and checkstamped. The pottery was ritually perforated. A single burial consisting of a single skull and a cache of mortuary pottery were found. No other artifact types were present (Moore 1903:428-429; Willey 1949:251).

PAGE 77

65 Ripley Bullen (1958:331-333) attempted to find the mound during survey but wasn’t able to relocate it until 1953, when the area was cleared for timber and construction of the Jim Woodruff Reservoir, later known as Lake Seminole. The process of clearing the land caused a smearing of the mound from the west to the east. Bullen dug a trench in the undisturbed north portion of what was left of the mound. He described a clay mound situated on a slight natural rise, but his estimations of the mound size (one meter high and 18 m in diameter) were lower and wider than Moore’s observations. Bullen also saw numerous human bone fragments dug up by the land clearing, a difference from Moore’s account of a single skull fragment. Pottery found during this survey included early and late varieties of Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Weeden Island Plain and Punctated, Carrabelle Punctated, Wakulla and Gulf Check-Stamped, tetrapod bases, and undiagnostic check-stamped, stamped, and red-painted. The mound is now submerged under the lake. Waddell’s Mill Pond Site, 8Ja65. Gardner (1966) first discovered Waddell’s Mill Pond site in the early 1960s. Then in the 1970s it was tested by the late Calvin Jones of the DHR, but never reported. This site consists of two Swift Creek conical burial mounds, a palisaded area, a Fort Walton occupation, and two caves. Louis Tesar of the Division of Historical Resources has been working with Jones’s data and materials for the past year, meticulously describing and documenting it for the state archives. His notes are detailed and extensive and were extremely helpful in determining the affiliation of this site with Middle Woodland and for providing vast amounts of information on the Middle

PAGE 78

66 Woodland mound occupation. Tesar hopes to have a report on the site by June 2006 and will give a paper on it at the Florida Anthropological Society meeting in May of the same year. Ceramic artifacts include Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Santa Rosa Punctated, Crooked River Complicated-Stamped, St. Andrews Complicated-Stamped, Gulf Check-Stamped, Alligator Bayou Stamped, Basin Bayou Incised, Franklin Plain, West Florida Cord-Marked, Weeden Island Plain, Weeden Island Punctated, Weeden Island Zoned Red, Tucker Ridge-Pinched, Carrabelle Punctated, Indian Pass Incised, Wakulla Check-Stamped, a bird-tail rim lug and undiagnostic plain, punctated, punctated and incised sherds. Other clay items include the torso of a human female figurine, a burnt red clay lump, a ceramic disk, ceramic earspools, and Fort Walton ceramic types from the later component. Stone artifacts include a Florida Archaic stemmed preform, a Duval-like projectile point, a groundstone celt fragment, a quartz core and flake, quartzite and limestone pebbles, a cut calcite crystal, bifacial and unifacial hafted adzes, and undiagnostic projectile points. Other artifacts include burnt clam and oyster shell, red ocher and limonite pigment, hematite nodules, tabular hematitic sandstone fragments, hematite geode fragment, cut sheet mica and a sheet-mica fragment, the stem from an elbow pipe (material not listed), and a steatite vessel rim. USF researchers visited Waddell’s Mill Pond site but were unable to relocate the Middle Woodland burial mounds.

PAGE 79

67 Watson’s Field, 8Ja93. The Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville Florida held a collection of artifacts for this mound found by one of John Goggin’s students, William Gardner, during a late 1960 survey (FLMNH Catalogue # 2001-82-1). Ceramics include Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, St. Andrews Complicated Stamped, Weeden Island Plain rim, and undiagnostic plain, cord-marked, incised sherds and a red-painted rim. The St. Andrews sherd is similar in pattern to one illustrated in Moore’s 1902 Northwest Florida Coast Expedition from Gotier Hammock, a coastal mound located on St. Joseph’s Bay. Also found were a hafted projectile point, a scraper, quartz and a unidentified bone fragment. Poplar Springs Mound is located just north of the general vicinity of Watson’s Field mound. USF crews were unable to relocate it during their search for Poplar Springs. Poplar Springs Mound, 8Ja138. Chapter 2 gives a complete history of the site, description of recent survey and images of artifacts found at the site by archaeologists and collectors. Patrick Pond, 8Ja325. Patrick Pond site includes a midden situated on a high bluff and possible mound located a few hundred meters inland. This site was recorded by White (personal communication, 2006) from collectors’ information. Ceramics include Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Tucker Ridge Pinched, and Keith Incised. Non-ceramic artifacts are a celt and an undiagnostic projectile point.

PAGE 80

68 Mound Below Bristol, 8Li3 Mound Below Bristol is located approximately 1.5 km to the southwest of the town of Bristol. Moore discovered this mound during his 1903 Apalachicola River expedition. It is a circular sand mound 150 m in diameter and one meter high. Ceramics included Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, and undiagnostic plain and check-stamped sherds were found. Vessels were ritually perforated. A pottery pipe was also located in a pit below the base of the mound. Non-ceramic artifacts included a projectile point and a shell cup. Human remains were encountered but were too decayed for counting or determination of burial style (Moore 1903:473-474; Willey 1949:263). This mound was not relocated. Bristol Mound, 8Li4. Bristol Mound is located northwest of the town of Bristol. In 1903, Moore discovered this sand mound on a ridge. It was circular, 17 m in diameter and almost one meter high. Ceramics included Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Weeden Island Plain and Punctated, Wakulla Check-Stamped and undiagnostic incised and redpainted sherds. Vessels were ritually perforated. Non-ceramic artifacts included a hammerstone, a conch-shell cup and shell beads, and a mica spear-point form. Fourteen burials were located at various points in the mound. They were of secondary bundle and single skull types (Moore 1903:474-480; Willey 1949:263-264). The mound has not been relocated.

PAGE 81

69 Rock Bluff Landing, 8Li5 C.B. Moore visited the site in 1918 during his Northwest Florida coast expedition. At this time the mound was approximately 1.5 km inland and almost 14 m in diameter and one meter high. Ceramics included Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, Weeden Island Plain and undiagnostic incised and check-stamped sherds. Vessels were ritually perforated. A projectile point, stone celt and shell beads were also found. Thirteen burials, too decayed for identification, were found with a mass deposit of pottery. One burial was found with a pot and another with the shell beads (Moore 1918:554-555; Willey 1949:264). I visited the Division of Historic Resources in Tallahassee, Florida, and studied three collections related to this mound. In the early 1970s, George Percy (Percy and Jones 1976) collected undiagnostic plain, check-stamped, incised, punctated and punch and drag sherds (DHR Catalogue # 75.199.01). Ka thy Jones collected from the surface of Rock Bluff Landing. This collection include d late variety Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped, Weeden Island Plain, Carrabelle Punctated, Keith Incised, daub, and undiagnostic plain, check-stamped, annular punctate, triangular punctate, and incised (DHR Catalogue # 99.16.01). An anonymous donation of artifacts from the surface of the mound provided the most diverse ceramics. These are Franklin Plain, Weeden Island Incised, Weeden Island Zoned Red, Keith Incised, Carrabelle Punctated and undiagnostic plain, check-stamped, punch and drag, fingernail punctated, triangular punctated, and plain with red-painted interior. Chert debitage and shell fragments make up the nonceramic artifacts of this donation (DHR Catalogue # 99.60.1).

PAGE 82

70 Rock Bluff Landing in now located within the boundaries of the Torrya State Park. A park ranger helped USF archaeologists to find the site and, in 2005, another student, Amber Yuellig, and I returned to the site to update our information (Figure 43). The site lies along a downslope leading to the Weeping Rock, an ephemeral stream that appears to run from the rock itself. The site is only 25 m long and 20 m wide. The path that leads hikers to the Weeping Rock is along its western flank and may have caused some disturbance of the site boundaries. A small gully or wash cuts into its northeastern side. Due to the protection provided by state park laws, no attempt was made to collect artifacts or do any subsurface investigation. But a cursory survey of the surface and a few animal burrows revealed no artifacts amid the heavy forest floor leaf cover. Figure 43. Rock Bluff Landing mound. View facing south. Amber Yuellig in background at right.

PAGE 83

71 Michaux Log Landing, 8Li6. Michaux Log Landing was discovered by Moore approximately 6.5 km north of Estiffanulga during his 1918 Northwestern Florida coast expedition. The mound was 12 m in diameter and one meter high. A mass deposit of pottery included Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped and undiagnostic plain, incised and check-stamped. No illustrations were included for this site and therefore the pottery was difficult to type. Vessels were ritually perforated. The only non-ceramic artifact was a projectile point. Burials included a deposit of calcined bones and three or four secondary burials too decayed to determine whether they were bundle or single skull (Moore 1918:553-554; Willey 1949:264). During the summer of 2004, I was on a USF crew led by Nancy White and local informant Jeff Whitfield; we relocated Michaux Log Landing mound. Many mounds have been pushed down by logging or othe r disturbances, and Michaux Log Landing suffered just this fate. When we found the mound there was a probable looter’s trench up the middle (Figure 44). A section of this trench wall was trowelled to see the stratigraphic sequence. Shovel tests and a single core were placed around the area. Jeff Whitfield (personal communication, 2004) had collected in the area before and after it was cleared and planted with pine. He remembers finding Weeden Island pottery such as annular and fingernail punctated, pinched, red-painted, net-marked, and possible Weeden Island Incised in the areas around the mound.

PAGE 84

72 Figure 44. Looter’s trench through Micheaux Log Landing. Sean Dejardin in background and Ernesto Ruiz in foreground. Estiffanulga, 8Li7. Estiffanulga mound, 1.5 km northeast of the town of Estiffanulga, was discovered in 1903 by Moore during his Apalachicola River expedition. This yellow clayey sand mound was almost 12 m in diameter and one meter high. Ceramics included Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped and undiagnostic plain and check-stamped. Vessels were ritually perforated. Non-ceramic artifacts included celts and projectile points. A single deposit of human bones was too decayed to identify burial type (Moore 1903:466467; Willey 1949:264-265). The mound was not relocated.

PAGE 85

73 Discussion These are the Middle Woodland mounds that are located in the valleys of the Chipola and Apalachicola Rivers as well at the Florida side of the lower Chattahoochee River. As can be seen from the lists of artifacts in this chapter, some sites, such as Pierce Mounds, Porter’s Bar, Chipola Cutoff, and Waddell’s Mill Pond, stand out based on the number and variety of artifacts that are represented. These sites also have multiple cultural/temporal components, most likely from the increasing wealth that came from their strategic locations for raw material exploitation (i.e. the coastal sites for conch and whelk shell exportation). Already, Poplar Sp rings Mound stands out as having very few artifacts of shell (which would be exotic in the upper valley), bone and exotics. The next chapter looks at the distribution of all the materials that are associated with these mounds, pottery, ground stone, bone, and shell tools as well as non-utilitarian objects, exotic materials, and the burial practices noted.

PAGE 86

74 Chapter 4: Archaeological Evidence of Middle Woodland This section looks at the patterns of the material culture along the Apalachicola Valley in all the Middle Woodland mounds described in the previous chapter. I have tabulated all the data on artifacts from all the known mounds in the valley. The presence or absence of Middle Woodland materials was noted, and maps produced to see the distribution along the valley. Sections are devoted to pottery, materials of stone, bone and shell, exotic materials and skeletal information including evidence of cranial flattening and burial practices. The last section is a discussion of how the Poplar Springs Mound fits into the picture of the rest of the Middle Woodland mounds in the valley. Middle Woodland Material Culture Pottery In the Apalachicola Valley, Middle Woodland ceramics are grouped into many types within two series, Swift Creek and Weeden Island (Table 5). The following list is a summary of Gordon Willey’s (1949) typology, to help clarify the differences among types. •The best known Swift Creek ceramics are Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped (either early or late variety, based on pattern), which were made by clay being impressed with a wooden paddle carved with curvilinear continuous shapes.

PAGE 87

75 Stamping is over the whole pot or along the shoulder. The shapes of the vessels are predominantly pots or tall jars with out-flaring openings. The rim may be notched or scalloped, which is also a trait of Franklin Plain, Crooked River, and other contemporaneous types. The bases may be rounded or tetrapodal. The paste is quite often fine, usually with sand temper, but it can also contain mica, grit, or grog (Willey 1949:378-383). •Saint Andrews Complicated-Stamped has the same qualities as listed above for the Swift Creek style, but instead of a curvilinear patter in the complicated stamp, a rectilinear complicated pattern was carved into the paddle and impressed into the clay (Willey 1949:385-386). •Franklin Plain has the same characteristic vessel shape, paste, and notched rims as Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped vessels. (Willey 1949:392-393). Table 5. Middle Woodland Ceramic Types of the Apalachicola ValleySwift Creek CeramicsWeeden Island Ceramics Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped Saint Andrews Complicated-Stamped Franklin Plain Crooked River Complicated-Stamped Crystal River Series Pierce Zoned Red Gulf Check-Stamped Alligator Bayou Stamped Basin Bayou Incised West Florida Cord Marked Weeden Island Plain Weeden Island Incised Weeden Island Punctated Weeden Island Zoned Red Carrabelle Incised Carrabelle Punctated Keith Incised Tucker Ridge-Pinched Indian Pass Incised Wakulla Check-Stamped Source : Willey 1949

PAGE 88

76 •Crooked River Complicated-Stamped vessels are similar in paste and vessel form to Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped varieties. Rims are notched or scalloped. The design of this type is a rectilinear zig-zagging complicated-stamping (Willey 1949:383-384). •Crystal River types (Incised, Zoned Red, Negative Painted, and Pierce Zoned Red) have similar vessel form and paste characteristics as Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped. Crystal River Incised has deep, incised lines and large dot punctations combined into complicated patterns. This type does not have the notched or scalloped rims. Crystal River Zoned Red has the same line and punctation design as Crystal River Incised, but incorporate red pigmentation in plain zones. It also does not exhibit s calloping or notching of the rim. Crystal River Negative Painted types have black dye as a background to bring out the buff color design. Pierce Zoned Red consists of simple rectangular, zig zag and horizontal bands, diamonds and pendant loops with enclosed areas painted red (Willey 1949:389-391). •Gulf Check-Stamped has similar paste and vessel shape qualities as the Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped varieties. The check-stamped vessel has notching or scalloping along the rim but otherwise it is identical to Wakulla Check-Stamped of the Weeden Island series, so body sherds are not identifiable (Willey 1949:387388). •West Florida Cord-Marked has similar paste and vessel shape qualities as the Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped types with a few exceptions of vessels

PAGE 89

77 tempered with grog and grit. This style consists of impressing the leather-hard clay with a paddle wrapped with coarsely twined cord all over the vessels surface. Some vessels have notching of the lip (Willey 1949:388-389). •Santa Rosa series types include Santa Rosa Punctated, Alligator Bayou Stamped and Basin Bayou Incised. All have similar paste and vessel shapes as the Swift Creek series. Santa Rosa Punctated involves broad incised lines and punctations in rectilinear and curvilinear patterns within bands or zones of the vessel. Alligator Bayou Stamped pottery has contrasting areas of plain and rocker stamping creating a pattern, in some instances in a bird-like pattern. Grog tempering and bird-head effigies affixed to the rim are common. Basin Bayou Incised pottery has large, round bottom incised lines in a curvilinear and/or rectilinear pattern over the vessel’s exterior with exception to the base (Willey 1949:372-376, 378). Santa Rosa ceramic types occur more frequently farther west in northwest Florida, near Pensacola, and are very rare in the Apalachicola Valley. •Weeden Island ceramics are best known from the plain, incised, punctated, and red zoned types. All Weeden Island types usually exhibit fine pastes, with sand, grit or the occasional grog tempering. The vessel shapes are quite variable. Weeden Island Plain exhibits a very smooth and sometimes burnished surface. The rims are usually folded and smooth and with an incision below the lip. Sometimes these plain vessels have cutouts, jar shapes, shapes simulating animals (worm or cornucopia-shaped vessel), or animal and human effigies protruding

PAGE 90

78 from the rim. Weeden Island Incised vessels have intricate decoration created by incising and punctating in areas that are bounded by single incised lines. Distinguishing large triangular or circular punctations end these single incisions. This style of pottery also shows up with cutouts and excisions. Weeden Island Punctated vessels have designs made up entirely of circular or triangular punctations. The designs have large triangular and/or circular punctations within plain areas or along with smaller finer triangular or circular punctations. Weeden Island Zoned Red is essentially a Weeden Island Incised design with red paint applied to the plain areas before firing (Willey 1949:409-422). •Carrabelle styles can be either Incised or Punctated. Carrabelle Incised vessels have a wide band of incised lines on the neck. These parallel incised lines run either vertically or diagonally in simple rows, nested triangles or as a herringbone style. The pattern is bounded by horizontal incisions. Carrabelle Punctated has a wide variety of punctations that are usually confined to a wide band below the rim or around the neck. The punctations can be circular, annular, rectanguloid, trianguloid, irregular, or made by fingernail. They can be large or small, shallow or deep. The punctations are usually bounded by horizontal incisions (Willey 1949:422-425). •Keith Incised also shows patterns in a wide band below the rim bounded by horizontal lines. The design consists of distinctive incised cross-hatched lines that run diagonally to the rim. In rare cases, there will be dot punctations at the center of each diamond or at the intersections (Willey 1949:427-428).

PAGE 91

79 •Tucker Ridge-Pinched has long vertically raised ridges made by pinching of the clay between two fingers. This decoration is usually confined to a band below the rim. Sometimes fingernail impressions are visible, but this vessel style is distinctive from the Carrabelle fingernail punctated because of the ridges rather than an indentation from a fingernail (Willey 1949:428-429). •The design for Indian Pass Incised is made up of very fine parallel incised lines that run in a curvilinear swirling pattern. This style is hard to determine without a rim, or a large sherd, and association with other Weeden Island artifacts (Willey 1949:425-427). •Wakulla Check-Stamped has the same paste and vessel characteristics such as the folded rim with the occasional incision below. The check-stamping on the body can sometimes show up on folded or flattened rim. Without a distinctive rim or clear association with other Middle Woodland diagnostics, this could be mistaken for any number of check-stamped styles and is known to occur in Fort Walton periods (Willey 1949:437-438). All of these pottery types are represented in the mound sites of the Apalachicola. Many of these types are hard to identify positively without rim sherds. Plain sherds may not necessarily represent undecorated vessels. Many Swift Creek and Weeden Island vessels have the patterns confined to the upper portion of the vessels. Weeden Island Plain is impossible to determine without the characteristic folded rim. Wakulla CheckStamped and Gulf Check-Stamped are impossible to determine without rim sherds;

PAGE 92

80 without a distinctive folded rim it could be any type of check-stamped vessel from any time period. Without a positive identification on my part of a Weeden Island or Swift Creek specific trait or a clear association with other Middle Woodland artifacts, I did not include questionable determinations on the part of previous researchers. In general, Swift Creek types occur in northwestern Florida slightly earlier than Weeden Island types. Further, of the Weeden Island types, the classic Weeden Island Incised and Punctated and possibly Red Zoned, are the ones most associated with Middle Woodland mound ceremonialism, while most of the rest of the types, including occasionally Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped, continue through Late Woodland times, after mound building is over (Willey 1949). Of the thirty mounds containing Middle Woodland components, 87 percent contain both Swift Creek and Weeden Island ceramics (Figure 45). Only three sites are considered pure Swift Creek due to the lack of Weeden Island ceramics. A single site, Mound near Indian Pass (8Gu1), is the only site that contains Weeden Island ceramics without Swift Creek pottery. The preliminary conclusion is that this is the only pure Weeden Island mound in the watershed. See Table 6 for a complete list of mounds and the Middle Woodland pottery they contain. It is important to remember that the data from each mound site represents what is known. Since some mounds were extensively excavated but others only surface-collected, comparisons will be biased.

PAGE 94

Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped Santa Rosa Punctated Crooked River CompSt Crystal River Gulf CheckStamped Alligator Bayou Stamped St. Andrews ComplicatedStamped Basin Bayou Incised Franklin Plain West Florida Cord-Mark Davis' Field (8Ca1) X OK Landing (8Ca2) X Gaston Spivey (8Ca114) X Porter's Bar (8Fr1) X X Brickyard Creek (8Fr8) X Eleven Mile Point (8Fr10) X X Green Point (8Fr11) X Negative X Huckleberry Landing (8Fr12) X Pierce Mounds (8Fr14) X Zoned Red Jackson Mound GV (8Fr15) X X Cool Springs Mound (8Fr19) X Aspalaga Landing Mounds (8Gd1) X Incised X Mound Near Indian Pass Point (8Gu1) Gotier Hammock (8Gu2) X X Burgess Landing (8Gu3) X Isabel Landing (8Gu4) X Chipola Cutoff (8Gu5) X Richardson's Hammock (8Gu10) X Howard Creek Mound (8Gu41) X Sampson's Landing (8Ja1) X Kemp's Landing (8Ja2) X X Waddell's Mill Pond Site (8Ja65) X X X X X X X X X Watson's Field GV (8Ja93) X X Poplar Springs Mound (8Ja138) X X Patrick Pond (8Ja325) X Mound Below Bristol (8Li3) X Bristol Mound (8Li4) X Rock Bluff Landing (8Li5) X X Michaux Log Landing GV (8Li6) X Estiffanulga GV (8Li7) X Table 6 Site Name (Site #) Middle Woodland Mound Ceramic Types Distribution Swift Creek

PAGE 95

Weeden Island Plain Weeden Island Incised Weeden Island Punctated Weeden Island Zoned Red Keith Incised Tucker RidgePinched Carrabelle Punctated Carrabelle Incised Indian Pass Incised Wakulla CheckStamped Davis' Field (8Ca1) X X OK Landing (8Ca2) ? ? Gaston Spivey (8Ca114) X X X Porter's Bar (8Fr1) X X Brickyard Creek (8Fr8) X X Eleven Mile Point (8Fr10) X X X Green Point (8Fr11) ? X Huckleberry Landing (8Fr12) X X X Pierce Mounds (8Fr14) X X X Jackson Mound GV (8Fr15) ? Cool Springs Mound (8Fr19) Aspalaga Landing Mounds (8Gd1) X X X X Mound Near Indian Pass Point (8Gu1) X X Gotier Hammock (8Gu2) X X X X Burgess Landing (8Gu3) X Isabel Landing (8Gu4) Chipola Cutoff (8Gu5) X X Richardson's Hammock (8Gu10) X X Howard Creek Mound (8Gu41) Sampson's Landing (8Ja1) ? Kemp's Landing (8Ja2) X ? X X X X X Waddell's Mill Pond Site (8Ja65) X X X X X X X Watson's Field GV (8Ja93) X X Poplar Springs Mound (8Ja138) X X X X X Patrick Pond (8Ja325) X X X Mound Below Bristol (8Li3) Bristol Mound (8Li4) X X ? X Rock Bluff Landing (8Li5) X X X X X Michaux Log Landing GV (8Li6) X X X X X Estiffanulga GV (8Li7) Site Name (Site #) Table 6 (Continued) Middle Woodland Mound Site Ceramic Types Distribution Weeden Island

PAGE 96

84 Stone Tools and Non-Utilitarian Stone Artifacts. In my discussion of other artifacts besides ceramics at the Apalachicola mound sites, I recognize that tools of any material are given the designation of Middle Woodland due to their association with Weeden Island and/or Swift Creek materials. Many of these types of tools are used throughout different time periods and it is difficult to determine their associations without the stratigraphic context. For this reason, this section will only be a discussion of what was positively identified as Middle Woodland found at these sites. If there was no association or determination of Middle Woodland context then the material was not included in my data collection. I do not discuss chipped stone tools at these mounds, because the data are few and limited. Ripley Bullen (1978) lists a few types of points that are common to Woodland sites in Florida. During this time, projectiles points are small and not well made. Small Archaic stemmed points were still in use, but Bradford, Duval, Leon and O’Leno points were also introduced. He mentions the occurrence of Broward points, but states that they are not common to Florida. Duval and Bradford points are both Swift Creek and Weeden Island points, while O’Leno and Leon are predominantly Weeden Island. Hopewellian influence can be marked by the occurrence of beautifully-made examples of Ocala projectile points (Bullen 1978). For the purpose of my study, only those stone tools that would be considered uncommon, exotic or ritual/sacred are discussed. Therefore, celts, ground stone and quartzite will be discussed in this section along with ornaments of stone. Steatite or soapstone artifacts are discussed within the section on exotic materials.

PAGE 97

85 Stone ornaments were found at only at five coastal mounds clustered around Pierce Mounds (Table 7). Four mounds contained stone plummets. Jackson Mound also had beads made of stone. A single mound in the upper Apalachicola Valley, Aspalaga Landing Mound, produced a stone disk. Seventeen of the 30 sites (or 57 percent) contained celts made of greenstone (except Busycon at Chipola Cutoff) and in various shapes and sizes (Figure 46, Table 8). Eight of these sites are along the coast, with many not far from Pierce Mounds (three of the Pierce Mounds contain celts). Seven sites are spread out along the Apalachicola and Chipola Rivers, and two sites lie at the top of the Chipola River, Watson’s Field and Waddell’s Mills Pond. Ground stone is only found at seven (23 percent) of the sites. Once again this material is found at Pierce Mounds, and two other mounds nearby, one on the coast and one slightly inland along the shores of a tributary to the Apalachicola River. Ground stone is also found at the top of the Chipola River at Waddell’s Mill Pond. Quartzite is only found at Pierce Mounds while a quartz pebble and core was found at Waddell’s Mill Pond, a quartz pebble at Isabel Landing, quartz flakes at Aspalaga Landing and a quartz plummet found at Jackson Mound. Table 7. Middle Woodland Stone Ornaments of the Apalachicola ValleySiteArtifact(s) Porter’s Bar (8Fr1)stone plummet/pendant Huckleberry Landing (8Fr12)stone pendant Pierce Mounds (8Fr14)stone plummet Jackson Mound (8Fr15)stone beads, stone plummet, quartz plummet Aspalaga Landing Mounds (8Gd1)stone disk

PAGE 99

87 Table 8 Stone Tools at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland MoundsSite Name (Site #) celtsground stones projectile points hammer stones quartzite points quartz Davis' Field (8Ca1) OK Landing (8Ca2) Gaston Spivey (8Ca114)X Porter's Bar (8Fr1)XXX Brickyard Creek (8Fr8)XXX Eleven Mile Point (8Fr10) Green Point (8Fr11)XXX Huckleberry Landing (8Fr12)XXXXraw Pierce Mounds (8Fr14)XXX Jackson Mound GV (8Fr15)XXXXplummet Cool Springs Mound (8Fr19)XX Aspalaga Landing Mounds (8Gd1)XXXflakes Mound Near Indian Pass Point (8Gu1)XXX Gotier Hammock (8Gu2) Burgess Landing (8Gu3)XX Isabel Landing (8Gu4)pebble Chipola Cutoff (8Gu5)X* Richardson's Hammock (8Gu10)X Howard Creek Mound (8Gu41) Sampson's Landing (8Ja1)X Kemp's Landing (8Ja2) Waddell's Mill Pond Site (8Ja65)XXXcore, pebble Watson's Field GV (8Ja93)XX Poplar Springs Mound (8Ja138) Patrick Pond (8Ja325)XX Mound Below Bristol (8Li3)XX Bristol Mound (8Li4)XX Rock Bluff Landing (8Li5)XX Michaux Log Landing GV (8Li6)Xpebble Estiffanulga GV (8Li7)XX Celts are of greenstone and Busycon shell.

PAGE 100

88 Bone Tools and Non-Utilitarian Bone Artifacts. Bone tools are rare. Only five sites produced artifacts of bone. These sites are located on the lower part of the valley (Table 9 and Figure 47). Pierce Mounds, located along the coast, and considered a very affluent ceremonial complex, contain artifacts of wolf and panther teeth and a bison bone gorget. Porter’s Bar, also along the coast to the east of Pierce, produced a cut animal jaw, but the species was not documented. Brickyard Creek, 24 km upriver from Pierce (as the crow flies), has an awl made of an unknown animal bone, most likely deer. Along the Jackson River, an Apalachicola tributary, Huckleberry Landing contains fragments of a turtleshell rattle. The northernmost site with bone items, Chipola Cutoff, is located on the segment of navigable water that connects the Apalachicola River and the Chipola River. This site has produced fishhooks and bone awls. It is important to remember that with the high acidity of Florida’s soil, bone artifacts may not fare as well as pottery and stone, and the lack of abundance of bone tools may be due to preservation rather than lack of inclusion in the ground by indigenous groups. Table 9. Bone Artifacts at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland MoundsSiteArtifact(s) Porter’s Bar (8Fr1)cut animal jaw (species unknown) Brickyard Creek (8Fr8)bone awl (species unknown) Huckleberry Landing (8Fr12)turtle rattle Pierce Mounds (8Fr14)wolf teeth, panther teeth, bison bone gorget Chipola Cutoff (8Gu5)fishhooks, bone awls

PAGE 102

90 Shell Tools and Non-Utilitarian Shell Artifacts. In his recent thesis, Eric Eyles (2004) conducted a study of the shell tools found in the Apalachicola Valley from all time periods and set up a tool typology specific to the area. Based on his research and model, the following distribution of Middle Woodla nd mound shell tools is given using his types. Shell artifact distribution at Middle Woodland mounds in the Apalachicola Valley is shown in Figures 48-50 and Table 10. The majority of shell tools (hammers, cutting tools and columella tools) were located at mounds along the coast (Figure 33 and 37) with the exception of a lower valley mound, Chipola Cutoff, that had a columella tool and shell cutting tool, a mound in the lower valley with columella tools, and an upper valley mound with cutting tools (Figure 48). Shell utensils (spatulas, scoops/spoons [Figure 26], dishes and cups) were clustered along the coast with the exception of shell cups, which were spread up the valley (Figure 49). Shell cups were clustered in the upper valley in two areas and on the coast at three sites. There are no sites in the mid-valley area with shell utensils with the exception of shell dishes at Chipola Cutoff. Shell pendant s/gorgets (Figure 50) were located at three sites on the coast: Pierce Mounds, Porter's Bar and Greenpoint Mounds. Shell beads were more widely dispersed along the valley with a few sites along the coast and a few sites in the upper valley (Figure 23). The only mid-valley mound with shell beads and hairpins was Chipola Cutoff but the temporal associa tion is unclear, and these artifacts may be from the Fort Walton component, as the hairpins are usually Mississippian artifacts.

PAGE 106

Hammer tools Cutting tools Bipointed Columella tools Columella tools Dishes Scoops/ Spoons Spatulas Cups beads gorgets pendents hairpins Davis' Field (8Ca1) X OK Landing (8Ca2) Gaston Spivey (8Ca114) Porter's Bar (8Fr1) X X X X X X Brickyard Creek (8Fr8) X Eleven Mile Point (8Fr10) Green Point (8Fr11) X X X X X Huckleberry Landing (8Fr12) X Pierce Mounds (8Fr14) X X X X X Jackson Mound GV (8Fr15) Cool Springs Mound (8Fr19) Aspalaga Landing Mounds (8Gd1) X X Mound Near Indian Pass Point (8Gu1) X X Gotier Hammock (8Gu2) X X X Burgess Landing (8Gu3) Isabel Landing (8Gu4) Chipola Cutoff (8Gu5) X X X X X Richardson's Hammock (8Gu10) X X X X X X X X Howard Creek Mound (8Gu41) Sampson's Landing (8Ja1) X Kemp's Landing (8Ja2) Waddell's Mill Pond Site (8Ja65) Watson's Field GV (8Ja93) Poplar Springs Mound (8Ja138) Patrick Pond (8Ja325) Mound Below Bristol (8Li3) X X Bristol Mound (8Li4) X X Rock Bluff Landing (8Li5) X Michaux Log Landing GV (8Li6) Estiffanulga GV (8Li7) Ornamentals Table 10 Shell Artifacts at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds Site Name Tools Utensils

PAGE 107

95 Exotic materials. Exotic materials are those resources that are not available or common to the local area. In some cases, small traces of a material may have been obtained locally, but larger quantities (enough to make an object) were only accessible through trade. Inhabitants traveled or traded long distances for these materials or artifacts made from it. Beads, pendants, pipes, ear spools and other non-utilitarian objects of exotic material would have been prized commodities and expected in Middle Woodland burial mounds. The presence of these objects helps archaeologi sts look at social or religious hierarchy, trade and exchange, and artistic endeavors. Since the sites discussed here are ceremonial mounds, it is expected they will contain many non-utilitarian objects, especially of exotic materials. The distribution of exotic materials, according to Brose and Percy (1974), indicates a Hopewell-like resource exchange network with large mound centers obtaining and distributing exotics. Exotics found within the valley are copper, mica, galena (lead), hematite (iron), steatite (soapstone), bitumen (coal), and silver (Table 11). These materials were distributed along the river and coastal sites with a propensity to cluster around the coast and the central valley area. Many of the exotic materials were found at mound centers, such as Pierce and Waddell’s Mill Pond, but these are multi-component sites with large Fort Walton occupations. I believe that the raw materials for these exotics and even the artifacts themselves arrived at mound centers such as these and were then distributed as artifacts, for example mica sheets at Howard’s Creek (Figure 41), mica spear point cutouts at Aspalaga Landing and Bristol Mounds, or copper ear spools at Howard’s Creek.

PAGE 108

96 Of interest is the distribution of copper along the lower delta and coastal areas. The material copper, whether in its raw form or as an artifact, is distributed only at a few sites clustered at the mouth of the river. Two mound sites of the Pierce complex and four Table 11 Exotic Artifacts at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland MoundsSite Name (Site #)micagalenahematitecoppersteatitesilverbitumen Davis' Field (8Ca1)X OK Landing (8Ca2)XR Gaston Spivey (8Ca114) Porter's Bar (8Fr1)XXXXX Brickyard Creek (8Fr8)X Eleven Mile Point (8Fr10) Green Point (8Fr11) Huckleberry Landing (8Fr12)XRA Pierce Mounds (8Fr14)AA Jackson Mound GV* (8Fr15)XXXAX Cool Springs Mound (8Fr19)X Aspalaga Landing Mounds (8Gd1)A, P?R Mound Near Indian Pass Point (8Gu1)X Gotier Hammock (8Gu2)P Burgess Landing (8Gu3)X Isabel Landing (8Gu4)X Chipola Cutoff (8Gu5)R Richardson's Hammock (8Gu10) Howard Creek Mound (8Gu41)PA Sampson's Landing (8Ja1)X Kemp's Landing (8Ja2) Waddell's Mill Pond Site (8Ja65)RPRXA Watson's Field GV* (8Ja93) Poplar Springs Mound (8Ja138) Patrick Pond (8Ja325) Mound Below Bristol (8Li3) Bristol Mound (8Li4)A Rock Bluff Landing (8Li5) Michaux Log Landing GV (8Li6) Estiffanulga GV* (8Li7) General Vicinity Legend R = raw material, unprocessed A = exotic material processed into artifact P = raw material cut but not artifact X = material present, form unknown

PAGE 109

97 close mounds, Howard Creek Mound (Figure 41), Huckleberry Landing, Green Point and Porter’s Bar, are the only sites that have copper (Figure 51a). Waddell’s Mill Pond, located at the top of the Chipola River, has copper but it is unknown as to whether the copper is from a Woodland or Mississippian context. One potential explanation for this coastal distribution is that the copper was brought down the Mississippi River and then east along the Gulf Coast to Pierce and nearby sites. Mica, either as raw material, partially cut (Figure 36 and 41), or in a cut-out shape, is spread up the Apalachicola River but only in the lower Chipola River and up at Waddell’s Mill Pond (Figure 51a). Only two sites produced finished mica artifacts: spear-point forms from Aspalaga Landing Mound and Bristol Mound. A mica spear point cutout was also found at a Middle Woodland midden, Otis Hare (8Li172) (White 1991). Steatite artifacts were only found at two sites at opposite ends of the valley (Figure 51b). A steatite pipe was found at Jackson Mound, a coastal mound associated with Pierce Mounds. Waddell’s Mill Pond, at the top of the Chipola River, produced the rim fragment from a steatite vessel. One of the most ornate artifacts in the valley come from Pierce Mounds. Silver-covered copper ear ornaments were the only occurrence of silver in the valley at Middle Woodland times and the only occurrence of ear spools made of copper and not clay covered with copper. Mounds producing hematite were clustered closer to the coast, with one site in the mid-valley and two in the upper valley, one on the river and Waddell’s Mill Pond at the top of Chipola (Figure 51c). Only three sites produced galena, two on the coast and one in the upper valley. Bitumen was only located at two mounds on the coast (Table 11).

PAGE 113

101 Skeletal Data Mound Near Indian Pass and Porter’s Bar are the only sites to have burials with evidence of cranial deformation in the form of posterior and anterior flattening of the skull (Figure 52). These are the only instances of cranial flattening of Middle Woodland associations in the valley. Mound Near Indian Pass is the only pure Weeden Island mound in the valley and Porter’s Bar is a multi-component site spanning Late Archaic to historic. Outside the Apalachicola Valley to the east, the Tucker site, on Ochlockonee Bay, is the only other Weeden Island site along this stretch of coast that has similar cranial flattening in the burials. To the west, other dual component sites such as Sowell produce burials with flattened skulls. Figure 52 shows Mound Near Indian Pass along the coast along with other coastal sites outside the watershed producing cranial flattening. Figure 52. Cranial Deformation at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland mounds.

PAGE 114

102 My research involved gathering burial information for 23 of the 30 mounds in the Apalachicola Valley. Only 19 of these produced data on burial styles (Table 12). Preservation was poor at five sites and only the occurrence of human bone was noted. In some instances decay was too great to remark on number of individuals, but burial style was still possible to determine. Nine sites had evidence of primary style burials (Figure 53). Primary burials are interments of articulated skeletons in a flexed, semiflexed or extended position. Extended burials were rare in Gulf Coast Middle Woodland sites (Willey 1949) and there are two mounds, Pierce and associated Cool Springs, with this burial type evident. Primary burials were clustered within a 20 km radius of the Pierce Mounds, and occur at three sites in the upper Apalachicola, and at Chipola Cutoff in the mid-valley. Secondary burials are those where the body is disarticulated, either by decomposing naturally, burning of the flesh or stripping the bones, and the left-over skeletal materials are deposited either in a bundle or the skull is interred alone. Eighteen sites produced secondary burials, many having multiple styles (Figure 54). Two sites produced remains of indeterminate type. Secondary burials were more numerous in the valley than primary ones and widely distributed up the Apalachicola River. Only the lower part of the Chipola Valley had any style of secondary burial. Cremations are a type of secondary burial, but because they are rare in the valley, they deserve a special mention. Only three sites produced cremated human remains (Figure 55). Two coastal sites, Jackson Mound and Porter’s Bar, and a single upper river site, Michaux Log Landing, have other secondary burial types along with cremations.

PAGE 115

no further info flexed semiflexed extended no further info single skull bundle cremation Davis' Field (8Ca1) 26 X X X OK Landing (8Ca2) 2 X Gaston Spivey (8Ca114) NA Porter's Bar (8Fr1) 68 X X X X X Brickyard Creek (8Fr8) NA X Eleven Mile Point (8Fr10) NA Green Point (8Fr11) 80 X X X X Huckleberry Landing (8Fr12) 34 X X X Pierce Mounds (8Fr14) 99 X X X X X Jackson Mound GV (8Fr15) 26 X X X X Cool Springs Mound (8Fr19) 9+ X X X X X Aspalaga Landing Mounds (8Gd1) 54 X X X Mound Near Indian Pass Point (8Gu1) NA X Gotier Hammock(8Gu2) NA X X Burgess Landing (8Gu3) 12 X X Isabel Landing (8Gu4) 2 X Chipola Cutoff (8Gu5) NA X X X X Richardson's Hammock (8Gu10) NA Howard Creek Mound (8Gu41) 2? Sampson's Landing (8Ja1) 47 X X X Kemp's Landing (8Ja2) 1 X Waddell's Mill Pond Site (8Ja65) NA Watson's Field GV (8Ja93) NA Poplar Springs Mound (8Ja138) NA X X Patrick Pond (8Ja325) NA Mound Below Bristol (8Li3) NA X Bristol Mound (8Li4) 14 X X Rock Bluff Landing (8Li5) 13 X Michaux Log Landing GV (8Li6) NA X X X X Estiffanulga GV (8Li7) 1 X Table 12 # of burials Site Name (Site #) too decayed Burial Data at Apalachicola Valley Middle Woodland Mounds primary secondary

PAGE 119

107 Fitting in the Lost Mound With its destruction and previous looting, Poplar Springs Mound has many pieces of its puzzle missing. It will take the combined effort of past and present archaeological survey, the documentation of this donated collection and the knowledge of the avocational’s of the area to help place it within mounds of the Apalachicola Valley and to understand its role in Middle Woodland ceremonial activity. Again, it is important to say that comparative data are biased since some mounds were excavated and some were not. Poplar Springs Mound is not along the main waterways of the Chipola or Apalachicola Rivers, but near a spring, similar to Waddell’s Mill Pond mounds. It may be associated, along with other mounds and middens in the area (i.e. Watson’s Field, Figure 5), with the Waddell’s Mill Pond mound group. Poplar Springs Mound is a dual-ceramic-component Middle Woodland site with many forms of Swift Creek and other Middle Woodland pottery. The collection represents a wider variety of Middle Woodland pottery than most of the mounds in the valley and almost similar to those mound groups of multiple cultural/temporal components. It contains two types of Sw ift Creek series, Swift Creek ComplicatedStamped and Crooked River Complicated-Stamped, and five types of Weeden Island, Weeden Island Plain, Weeden Island Incised, Weeden Island Zoned Red, Keith Incised and Carrabelle Punctated. Many of the other mounds in this study only contain one type of Swift Creek pottery and a few of the Weeden Island series. The intricately carved paddles used to stamp the pottery provide a vast array of Swift Creek patterns, which warrant further studies, in particular cross referencing with

PAGE 120

108 other Swift Creek patterns in Florida and Georgia to look for matching patterns and similarities in styles. The collection and survey of the mound area did not produce any shell or bone tools, ornamentals or exotic materials and subsurface testing would be the only way to determine if these materials are present. Marine shell would have been considered a nonlocal, and therefore exotic, material for this mound, in the upper part of the valley, almost 200 km from the coast and sources of shell. Much of the burial information is second-hand with the only information from the archaeologists who encountered bone fragments in backfill and a collector whose ancestors saw a skeleton bound to a charred log. Based on the data at hand, this mound does not fit in with other mounds closer to the Apalachicola River and the coast. Mounds of the coast and lower valley have produced more non-utilitarian artifacts, but lack of non-utilitarian artifacts from Poplar Springs Mound does not mean that they weren’t present before the extensive looting and demolition of the site occurred. Possibly, this mound represents a local lineage mound where the dead of one family would be buried and the living could gather to perpetuate the exchange of socially valued goods as well as remove some of these goods from circulation for the purposes of interment with the dead. The lack of exotic goods, besides removal due to looting, might be explained by the site’s distance from the major navigable waterways and the trade “superhighway.”

PAGE 121

109 Chapter 5 Discussion and Analysis Existing Models for Middle Woodland Many models have been posited explain the distribution of Middle Woodland sites, especially mounds and mound complexes. In Illinois, where Middle Woodland (Hopewell) sp ans from 100 B.C. to A.D. 250 (Buikstra et al. 1998: 12), earlier twentieth century research, such as that by Struever and Houart (1972), found that group burial mounds are located at higher elevations (bluff crests), while mounds with associated camps (mortuary camps) are located lower in the floodplain. These camp/mound groupings were considered to be locations of short term congregation related to mortuary practices. Larger sites of this type with greater numbers of Hopewell exchange items were identified as “regional exchange centers” (Struever and Houart 1972:52). In recent Illinois studies, mound sites are thought to be related to territory and serve as territorial markers (Buikstra et al. 1998; Charles 1992; Van Nest et al. 2001). During the Middle Woodland, population increased and there was a shifting of mound location from the floodplains to the bluffs. These mounds represent a regionally shared symbolism as well as participation in the Hopewell Interaction Sphere, the exchange of socially valued goods that served to maintain the status of elites or the recognition of the

PAGE 122

110 community. There is a feedback loop: these social dynamics created a demand for exotic materials and the networks increased the variety of exotics that were exchanged. Studies of Middle Woodland mounds in Georgia have usually focused on the larger mound sites, such as Kolomoki. Williams and Harris (1998) looked at the distribution of Middle Woodland mounds in north Georgia, specifically smaller mounds that usually did not have many burials or associated grave goods. They found that primary centers usually were 10 to 30 km apart while larger complex administrative centers were close to 40 km apart (Williams and Harris 1998:46). This spacing was found to be similar to the spacing of Mississippian centers (Hally 1993:165). Smaller mounds, with a lack of evidence of resident population, could not be called centers or “chiefly compounds” and, therefore, were called shrines (Williams and Harris 1998:47). In 1968, Sears proposed a Middle Woodland settlement model based on his studies with the large multi-mound site, Kolomoki, which has some similarities to a Mississippian civic center (Sears 1951a, 1951b, 1953, 1956, 1968; Steinen 1998). Kolomoki is in the Chattahoochee River Valley about 100 km north of the northernmost site (Patrick Pond) discussed in this thesis. Sears saw Kolomoki as the center of a large chiefdom that spanned a wide area from Mobile Bay in Alabama to the Big Bend area of Florida, and from the center itself south to the Gulf Coast. This model does not seem plausible, because such as domain would be too large for one center to control and the model assumes a supporting population at villages scattered around the center (Steinen 1998:184). Pluckhahn (2003:185) sees Kolomoki as a center established midway between settlement clusters to the north and south (the Apalachicola mounds), important

PAGE 123

111 politically and symbolically but not necessarily for trade as it is not right on the river but 11 km up a creek. Milanich (et al. 1994) used the McKeithen site as the basis for his model of Middle Woodland in Florida. This Weeden Island site, located in north-central Florida, was a large village/mound grouping with three mounds associated with the impressive burial rituals (Milanich 1994; Milanich et al. 1997). In this area, Swift Creek does not occur, and Weeden Island was preceded by Deptford (Turner et al. 2005:121). His model centered on an egalitarian, lineage based society composed of many small villages that were centered around a single small burial mound or a small civic center. Each village cluster was led by a “Big Man” figure who resided in a larger civic center or mound cluster. According to Milanich, Kolomoki and McKeithen are representations of this large civic center/ mound cluster model. Gordon Willey (1945), in the early 1940s, proposed a model concerning Middle Woodland on the Florida Gulf Coast. In his 1949 monograph, Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast Willey returned to the Apalachicola Valley to locate and reinvestigate the work done by Moore almost half a century before. Through this work, he was able to make general statements about social organization, ceremonialism, economy, settlement patterns, and technological innovation. Willey divided Middle Woodland into two cultures, Swift Creek and Weeden Island I (later renamed early Weeden Island). Swift Creek occurs slightly earlier than, but overlaps with, Weeden Island I. These “cultures” were determined from the occurrence of Swift Creek and/or Weeden Island I series

PAGE 124

112 pottery. Willey’s discussion breaks down the model into mounds with Swift Creek ceramics and mounds with Weeden Island I ceramics. According to Willey’s model, mounds with Swift Creek series pottery were usually associated with one or more villages, which outnumbered mounds three-to-one. These mounds were, quite often, a few hundred meters inland from the riverine and coastally situated domestic sites. Power was likely in the hands of an individual or small group of individuals. The occurrence of grave goods provided supporting evidence, based on the quality and quantity of ornamental and exotic artifacts associated with some burials. Burial goods occurred as mass or individual offerings. The number of burials in a single mound ranged from 6 to 600, depending on the size of the structure. Burials in the mounds included primary and secondary inhumations and rarely cremated remains. Secondary burials included mass burials, bundle burials and single skull interments. Cranial flattening occurred at only one site, Porter’s Bar (8Fr1). The artifacts represented in these mounds were much more detailed and specialized than artifacts from the previous Deptford period. Carved wooden paddles came into use to create complicated stamps on the surface of the pottery; there wa s a greater occurrence of exotic materials, owing to the growing trade and exchange networks with far reaching communities. Early Weeden Island mounds, according to Willey, were also associated with one or more village sites. They occurred near the village site, not within it, which was similar to the Swift Creek mound placement. A tendency toward mass grave offerings in Weeden Island mounds may indicate a “decline in prestige accorded [to] priests or other leaders” (Willey 1949:404). These were located on the east side of the mound. The number of

PAGE 125

113 burials per mound is lower than in Swift Creek, usually 3 to 80. More secondary burials were found in the upper portions of the mounds and primary burials, flexed, semiflexed and rarely extended, were located lower within the mound. As with Swift Creek mounds, cremated remains occurred but were rare. Cranial flattening was seen in only one early Weeden Island mound, Mound Near Indian Pass Point, which was the only Weeden Island mound in this study without Swift Creek pottery. The overall design of the artifacts had changed from Swift Creek to early Weeden Island, but the quality and degree of specialization was still at a peak. Exchange with outside groups was still strong since many exotic materials (raw form and artifact) and ornamental items (i.e. ear plugs or pendants) could be found within the mass grave good offerings. Willey felt that, in northwest Florida, there were no sites large enough to be worthy of ceremonial center status (such as Kolomoki would be), more so in the Weeden Island period than in Swift Creek. Pierce Mounds, a large multi-mound, multi-component complex on the coast, “exceed[s] other sites in quality and quantity of grave goods, [but] this difference is not marked enough to set them apart as special ‘centers’” (Willey 1949:369). It is important to say that Willey recognized how Swift Creek and Weeden Island overlapped in many mounds, though he did not single out the Apalachicola Valley specifically. Based on this work, Brose and Percy (1974) wrote a paper for the Society for American Archaeology conference proposing a model of Middle Woodland mound and material distribution in the Apalachicola Valley that indicates a Hopewell-like exchange system in which resource exchange networks were sustained by ceremonial exchange of

PAGE 126

114 socially valued goods. They suggested that widespread exchange of ritual items found in the mounds may have been done to help maintain networks for the exchange of real subsistence resources and establish and maintain specialized alliances. A “Big Man” or special individual, such as a trade partner or marriage broker, might have been given a burial with the exotic artifacts. The constant flow of exotics “structures the occasional utilization of the underlying mundane economic networks” and the buried exotics were removed from circulation, thereby maintaining their value by preventing oversupply (Brose and Percy 1974:10). Brose and Percy were the first to adapt the Malinowski model of the Kula ring to northwest Florida. They saw this Middle Woodland period as a time of increasingly ranked society (Brose and Percy 1974:16), when there were periodic population aggregations at central “sacred” locations for reburial of lineage members, with special mortuary treatment for ranking lineage heads (Brose and Percy 1974:22). They noted the greatest mound variability in the region of the Apalachicola Valley, but west of there they saw coastal sites had fewer exotic goods. These western inland mound sites were less well known than those on the coast, not well associated with the more numerous occupation sites, and not known to have many exotic artifacts (Brose and Percy 1974:15). Middle Woodland in the Apalachicola Valley. The distribution of Middle Woodland mounds and their associated artifacts presents an interesting picture of trade and exchange for the Apalachicola Valley. In Middle Woodland interaction, trade routes followed major navigable waterways such as the Gulf Coast, major drainages such as the

PAGE 127

115 Apalachicola/ Chattahoochee, Mississippi, Tennessee and Tombigbee Rivers and overland trails that were used through historic times (Anderson 1998:274). This happened in the Apalachicola Valley. Mounds that are closer to the Chipola and Apalachicola Rivers (either on the banks or a major tributary) have a greater number and variety of grave goods (pottery, stone, bone and shell tools, and artifacts of exotic materials) than sites that are farther away from these major trade routes. Large multi-mound sites such as Pierce Mounds and Waddell’s Mill Pond were most likely situated in areas where they could procure raw material for exchange with northern groups. These sites probably started small, but with the increase in wealth and prestige that trade provided them, the sites grew to support the demand, becoming larger centers (and continuing into Fort Walton times). Pierce Mounds are located at a prime spot in the delta of the Apalachicola River to oversee the procurement of conch and whelk, shark teeth and pearls, and possibly perishable items such as carved wood paddles and masks, egret or heron feathers, and other items native to the coast such as the Yaupon Holly leaves for the Black Drink (Anderson 1998:278; Goad 1979; Walthall et al. 1979). By exporting these items, the inhabitants of Pierce would, in return, receive perhaps pottery and carved wooden paddles from nei ghboring groups, and galena from southeast Missouri and northern Iowa (Walthall 1973; Ryan Wheeler, personal communication 2005), mica from the Appalachian Mountains (Griffin 1967; Seeman 1979a), copper from the Great Lakes and northern Georgia (Goad 1979; Matthew D. McKnight, personal communication 2005), hematite from northern Missouri, and steatite from north

PAGE 128

1000'0"W 1000'0"W 950'0"W 950'0"W 900'0"W 900'0"W 850'0"W 850'0"W 800'0"W 800'0"W 750'0"W 750'0"W 700'0"W 700'0"W 300'0"N 300'0"N 350'0"N 350'0"N 400'0"N 400'0"N 450'0"N 450'0"N { 0125250375500 62.5 KilometersSource: ESRI 2002 Copper Copper Galena Copper Steatite Mica Copper Mica Galena Hematite116Potential sources for exotic materials from Apal achicola Valley Mi ddle Woodland mounds. Figure 56.

PAGE 129

117 Alabama and Georgia (Brose 1985:77; Walthall 1980:116-31; Sassaman 1999:77) (these source areas for exotics are shown in Figure 56). This reconstruction helps to explain why there were combinations of raw materials and finished artifacts at larger sites such as Pierce Mounds, Waddell’s Mill Pond, Chipola Cutoff, and Aspalaga Landing, but finished artifacts at a few sites nearby. These sites with trade items were along the major trade routes, to control the movement of trade goods from larger sites such as Pierce Mounds that were more directly involved in collection and export. Being secondary mound sites, they were provided the opportunities to bury some of these goods with their dead, possibly trade partners. The abundance or scarcity of goods is attributed to the location of the mounds along the major waterways of the Apalachicola or Chipola Rivers and the Gulf Coast. These waterways were the major arteries for trade of socially valued goods and ideas from within the region or from groups to the north such as the Hopewell. Mounds closer to the coast or the main rivers were more exposed to this exchange network and the goods and ideas that flowed within it (Pluckhahn 2003:185) This model helps to explain the lack of socially valued goods, such as marine shell tools or exotic materials, in Poplar Springs Mound. As with other sites around it (i.e. Watson’s Field), it is off the beaten path (away from the major rivers) and may not have had direct contact with the exchange networks. There was inter-valley exchange that can be seen through the similarity of St. Andrews Complicated-Stamped sherds from Watson’s Field Mound and Gotier Hammock Mound. But this exchange seems to have ended at pottery, since no shell or bone artifacts show up. This lack of exotics could be

PAGE 130

118 due to selected looting or to preservation problems, but further investigation of the subsurface mound deposit would be necessary to evaluate their ideas. Poplar Springs Mound probably represents a smaller lineage mound where the nearby village buried their dead. Grave goods consisted of pottery and stone tools without evidence of exotic goods. This site served the local community and was apparently not directly involved in the exchange network. Conclusions Percy and Brose (1974) presented a preliminary model of Middle Woodland mound distribution in the Apalachicola Valley based on the initial work of Willey (1949). Middle Woodland mounds had a greater occurrence of exotic materials than in earlier times, owing to the growing trade and exchange networks with far-reaching communities, such as Hopewellian groups to the north. Percy and Brose saw a Kula-ring style exchange network in both prestige goods and economic staples, which sustained the prestige of leaders. Pierce Mounds, at the mouth of the river and overlooking both north-south and east-west traffic, were part of a major multi-component center with remarkable Middle Woodland mounds. Materials clustered around the Apalachicola delta and coast close to Pierce and spread from there up the river. Prestige goods were possibly traded down to major mound centers then moved to other centers along the valley, ending up in burial mounds all over the valley, perhaps interred with important people during Swift Creek times, and interred in mass deposits in slightly later Weeden Island times. Such items

PAGE 131

119 likely were transported down the river to Pierce, where they were distributed to the inhabitants of nearby coastal mounds involved in the procurement and management end of the trade network, and then traded up the river to other trade partners. Since nearly all the mound sites documented in this thesis have both Swift Creek and Weeden Island pottery, the suggestion is also that these systems endured for a long time as ceramic styles and possibly associated archaeological cultures changed. This research should contribute to a better understanding of Middle Woodland ceremonialism in the Southeastern United States and the Apalachicola watershed, and the systems through which ceremonial artifacts moved around the land. In the future, data from higher up the river in Georgia and Alabama could be compared to help create a picture of Middle Woodland manifestation in the entire valley for comparison with the rest of the Southeast and discussion of differences between trade routes along major waterways and overland historic trails. Further testing of the exotic materials in the mounds for trace elements or other data could shed light on trade routes along which these artifacts and raw materials were traded. With better understanding of the major and minor routes, questions regarding the role of sites in Middle Woodland exchange can be answered. Mounds like Poplar Springs Mound are facing destruction from development and looting. It is essential that these sites are studied before they are gone.

PAGE 132

120 References Anderson, David G. 1998 Swift Creek in Regional Perspective. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliot, pp. 274-300, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Anderson, David G. and Robert C. Mainfort (editors) 2002 The Woodland Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Brose, David S. 1985 The Woodland Period. In Ancient Art of the American Woodland Indians edited by David S. Brose, J. A. Brown, and D. W. Penny, pp. 42-91. Harry N. Abrams, New York. Brose, David S. and N’omi B. Greber (editors) 1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. Brose, David S. and George W. Percy 1974 An Outline of Weeden Island Ceremonial Activity in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the Weeden Island Symposium at the 39th Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology. Washington, D.C. Brose, David S. and Nancy Marie White (editors) 1999 The Northwest Florida Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Broyles, Bettye J. 1968 Reconstructed Designs from SwiftCreek Complicated Stamped Sherds, Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 8:49-74. Buikstra, Jane E., Douglas K. Charles, Gordon F.M. Rakita 1998 Staging Ritual: Hopewell Ceremonialism at the Mound House Site, Greene County, Illinois. Kampsville Studies in Archeology and History, No. 1, Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.

PAGE 133

121 Bullen, Ripley P. 1958 Six Sites Near the Chattahoochee River in the Jim Woodruff Reservoir Area, Florida. River Basin Surveys Papers No. 14. Smithsonian Institute, Bureau of American Ethnology. Charles, Douglas K. 1992 Woodland Demographic and Social Dynamics in the American Midwest: Analysis of Burial Mound Survey, World Archaeology 24(2): 175-97. Childers, Wayne n.d. Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of the Richardson’s Hammock Site, Gulf County, Florida. Report on file at the Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. Eyles, Eric 2004 Prehistoric Shell Artifacts of the Apalachicola River Valley Area, Northwest Florida. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Gardner, William 1966 The Waddell’s Mill Pond Site. Florida Anthropologist 19:43-64. Glowacki, Mary and Andrea White 2005 Inventory and Assessment of Cultural Resources in the Box-R Wildlife Management Area, Franklin County, Fl orida. CARL Archaeological Program. Report on file at the Division of Hist orical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. Goad, Sharon I. 1979 Middle Woodland Exchange in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N’omi B. Greber, pp. 239-246. Kent St ate University Press, Kent, Ohio. Griffin, James B. 1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191. Hally, David J. 1993 The Territorial Size of Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams edited by J. B. Stoltman, pp. 143-168. Mississippi Department of Ar chives and History, Archaeological Report 25, Jackson.

PAGE 134

122 Henefield, Susan and Nancy Marie White 1986 Archaeological Survey of the Middle and Lower Apalachicola Valley, 1985. University of South Florida. Report on file at the Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. Mainfort, Robert C., Jr. 1988 Pinson Mounds: Internal Chronology and External Relationships. In Middle Woodland Settlement and Ceremonialism in the Mid-South and Lower Mississippi Valley edited by Robert C. Mainfort, pp. 132-146. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report 22. Jackson. Milanich, Jerrald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerrald T. and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology Academic Press, New York. Milanich, Jerrold T., Cordell, Ann S., Knight, Jr., Vernon J., Kohler, T.A., and B.J. Sigler-Lavelle 1997 Archaeology of Northern Florida A.D. 200-900: The McKeithen Weeden Island Culture University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Moore, Clarence B. 1902 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast. Part II. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 12: 127-358. 1903 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Apalachicola River. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 12: 441-492. 1907 Mounds of the Lower Chattahoochee and Lower Flint Rivers. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 13: 427-456. 1918 The Northwestern Florida Coast Revisited. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 16: 514-580. Nidy, Scott 1973 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Compass Lake Hills, Unit 5 in Jackson County, Florida. Bureau of Hist orical Sites and Properties Miscellaneous Report Series 5. Percy, George W. 1976 Salvage Investigations at the Scholz Steam Plant (8Ja104), A Middle Weeden Island Habitation Site in Jackson County, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 35, Bureau of Historic Site s and Properties, Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

PAGE 135

123 Percy, George W. and David S. Brose 1974 Weeden Island Ecology, Subsistence and Village Life in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the Weeden Island Symposium at the 39th Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Percy, George W. and Katherine Jones 1976 An Archaeological Survey of Upland Locales in Gadsden and Liberty Counties, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 29:105-125. Pluckhahn, Thomas J. 2003 Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350 to 750 The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Randazzo, Anthony F. and Douglas S. Jones 1997 The Geology of Florida University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1999 A Southeastern Perspective on Soapstone Vessel Technology in the Northeast. In The Archaeological Northeast edited by M.A. Levine, K.E. Sassaman, and M.S. Nassaney, pp. 75-95, Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut. Saunders, Rebecca 1986a Attribute Variability in Late Swift Creek Phase Ceramics from King’s Bay, Georgia M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1986b Ceramic Variability during the Swift Creek Phase at Kings Bay, Georgia. In Ceramic Notes 3 pp. 145-98, Florida State Museum, Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Gainesville. 1994 Swift Creek Design Assemblages on the Georgia Coast. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Lexington, Kentucky. 1998 Swift Creek Phase Design Assemblages from Two Sites on the Georgia Coast. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliot, pp.154-180, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Sears, William H. 1951a Excavations at Kolomoki. Season I: 1948 University of Georgia Press, University of Georgia Series in Anthropology 2. Athens. 1951b Excavations at Kolomoki: Season II: Mound E University of Georgia Press, University of Georgia Series in Anthropology 3. Athens. 1953 Excavations at Kolomoki. Seasons III and IV: Mound D University of Georgia Press, University of Geor gia Series in Anthropology 4. Athens. 1956 Excavations at Kolomoki: Final Report University of Georgia Press, University of Georgia Series in Anthropology 5. Athens.

PAGE 136

124 1968 The State and Settlement Patterns in the New World. In Settlement Archaeology edited by K.C. Chang, pp. 134-153. National Press Books, Palo Alto, California. 1992 Mea Culpa. Southeastern Archaeology 11(1):66-71. Seeman, Mark F. 1979a The Hopwell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Interregional Trade and Structural Complexity Prehistory Research Series 5, Indiana State Historical Society, Indianapolis. 1979b Feasting with the Dead: Ohio Hopewell Charnel House Ritual as a Context for Redistribution. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference edited by David S. Brose and N’omi Greber, pp.39-46. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. Simpson, Terry L. 1996 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Apalachicola River Valley: A GIS Approach. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,500-500 B.P. Advances in World Archaeology 5:1-92. Snow, Frankie n.d. Swift Creek Convenience Paddles and Negative Stamped Ceramics. Manuscript in possession of author. 1975 Swift Creek Designs and Di stributions: A South Georgia Study. Early Georgia 3(2):38-59. 1982 Kolomoki and Milamo: Some Synchronic Evidence. The Profile 36:7-12. 1993 Swift Creek Design Investigations: The Hartford Case. Manuscript prepared for the Lamar Institute Swift Creek Conference, May 28-29, 1993, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, Georgia. 1994 Swift Creek Art: An Anthropological Tool for Investigating Middle Woodland Society in Southern Georgia. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeo logical Conference, Lexington, Kentucky. 1998 Swift Creek Design Investigations: The Hartford Case. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliot, pp. 61-98, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Snow, Frankie and Keith Stephenson 1993 Swift Creek Designs: A Tool for Monitoring Interaction. Paper prepared for the Lamar Institute Swift Creek Conference, May 28-29, 1993, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, Georgia.

PAGE 137

125 1998 Swift Creek Designs: A Tool for Monitoring Interaction. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliot, pp.99-111, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Stapor, Frank and William F. Tanner 1977 Late Holocene Mean Sea Level Data from St. Vincent Island and the Shape of the Late Holocene Mean Sea Level Curve. In Coastal Sedimentology edited by William F. Tanner, Coastal Research and the Department of Geology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Steinen, Karl T. 1998 Kolomoki and the Development of Sociopolitical Organization on the Gulf Coastal Plain. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliot, pp.181-196, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 363-404. Stoltman, James B. And Frankie Snow 1998 Cultural Interaction within Swift Creek Society: People, Pots and Paddles. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture edited by M. Williams and D.T. Elliot, pp.130-153, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Struever, Stuart and G. L. Houart 1972 An Analysis of the Hopewell Interaction Sphere. In Social Exchange and Interaction edited by E. N. Wilmsen, pp 47-80. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology 46. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Swartz Jr., B.K. (editor) 1970 Adena: The Seeking of an Identity Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. Teser, Louis 1980 The Leon County Bicentennial Survey Report: An Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of Leon County, Florida Florida Department of State, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Divi sion of Archives, History and Records Management, Miscellaneous Project Report Series 49. Tallahassee. Turner, Bethany L., John D. Kingston and Jerald T. Milanich 2005 Isotopic Evidence of Immigration Linked to Status During the Weeden Island and Suwannee Valley Periods in North Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 24(2):121-136.

PAGE 138

126 Van Nest, Julieann., Douglas K. Charles, Jane E. Buikstra, and David L. Asch 2001 Sod Blocks in Illinois Hopewell Mounds. American Antiquity 66(4): 633-650. Walthall, John A. 1980 Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast: Archaeology of Alabama and the Middle South University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Walthall, John A., Stephan H. Stow, and Marvin J. Karson 1979 Ohio Hopewell Trade: Galena Procurement and Exchange. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N’omi Greber, pp. 247-253. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. White, Nancy Marie 1981 Archaeological Survey of Lake Seminole. Archaeology Research Report Number 29. Cleveland Museum of Natural History. 1985 Nomenclature and Interpretation in Borderland Chronology: A Critical Overview of Northwest Florida Prehistory. Florida Anthropologist 38(1/2):16383. 1991 Middle Woodland Ceramics and Subsistence at the Otis Hare Site, in the Middle Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference annual meeting. Jackson, Mississippi. 1992 The Overgrown Road site (8Gu38): A Swift Creek camp site in the Lower Apalachicola Valley. Florida Anthropologist 45(1): 18-38. 1996 Archaeological Investigations of the 1994 Record Flood Impacts in the Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Florida. University of South Florida. Report Submitted to the Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. 1999 Apalachicola Valley Remote Areas Archaeological Survey, Northwest Florida. Volume 1: The survey and sites located. University of South Florida. Report Submitted to the Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. 2005 Archaeological Survey of the St. Joseph Bay State Buffer Preserve, Gulf County Florida. University of South Florida. Report submitted to the Division of Historical Resource, Tallahassee, Florida. White, Nancy Marie, Nelson D. Rodriguez, Chris Smith, and M.B. Fitts 2002 St. Joseph Bay Shell Middens Test Excavations, Gulf County Florida, 20002002. University of South Florida. Report Submitted to the Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. White, Nancy Marie, Terry Simpson and Suella McMillan 1992 Apalachicola Valley Archaeology. W. T. Neal Civic Center and the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, Apalachicola, Florida. Booklet on file at the University of S outh Florida, Department of Anthropology, Tampa.

PAGE 139

127 White, Nancy Marie and Audrey Trauner 1987 Archaeology Survey of the Chipola River Valley, Northwest Florida. University of South Florida. Report to the Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. Willey, Gordon R. 1945 The Weeden Island Culture: A Preliminary Definition. American Antiquity 10(3): 225-254. 1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Volume 113, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Williams, Mark and Daniel T. Elliot 1998 Swift Creek Research: History and Observations. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp.1-11, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Williams, Mark and Daniel T. Elliot (editors) 1998 A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Williams, Mark and Jennifer Freer Harris 1998 Shrines of the Prehistoric South: Patterning in Middle Woodland Mound Distribution. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp.36-47, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001790480
003 fts
005 20070619135148.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 070619s2006 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001504
040
FHM
c FHM
035
(OCoLC)144631397
049
FHMM
090
GN397.5 (ONLINE)
1 100
Frashuer, Anya C.
0 245
Middle Woodland mound distribution and the ceremonialism in the Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Florida
h [electronic resource] /
by Anya C. Frashuer.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2006.
3 520
ABSTRACT: University of South Florida field investigations in northwest Florida's Apalachicola Valley have resulted in the relocation of some lost mounds from the Middle Woodland period (ca. A.D. 1 to 650) by trekking through the forest and consulting with avocationals and collectors. This thesis project was triggered by a collector's donation of some Swift Creek pots and the attempt to relocate the mound from which they came. In the 1970s, Gardner and Nidy recorded this site, named Poplar Springs Mound, categorized as Middle Woodland due to its Swift Creek and Weeden Island pottery. The donated collection contained pottery of the Swift Creek Complicated-Stamped series, Weeden Island series, and a couple of anomalous Mississippian sherds. To see how this mound fit in with other Middle Woodland mounds of the valley, it was necessary to compile data for all of them and relocate as many mounds as possible through additional survey. Artifact types from these mounds, such as pottery, she ll, bone, and exotic materials, and burial practices were tabulated and spatial distributions were plotted. The mounds are distributed along the banks of the main navigable waterways of the Apalachicola and Chipola Rivers, on smaller streams and along the Gulf Coast. Nearly all have both Swift Creek and early Weeden Island ceramics, except for three with only Swift Creek types and a single site with only Weeden Island types. The artifact distributions show stone, bone, and shell tools clustering close to the coast and the main waterways. This is also the case for exotic (nonlocal) raw materials and artifacts made from these materials. Copper is distributed mainly along the coast, while other exotics (i.e. mica, galena, hematite) are located along the coast and close to the main rivers. The tabulation of these data, along with the documentation of the Poplar Springs Mound collection, will help archaeologists to see the manifestation of Middle Woodland ceremonial activity in the Apalachi cola Valley.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 127 pages.
590
Adviser: Nancy Marie White, Ph.D.
653
Middle Woodland.
Swift Creek.
Weeden Island.
Poplar Springs Mound.
Pottery.
Exotics.
Copper.
Mica.
Exchange.
Burial practices.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Applied Anthropology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1504