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 001925100
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080128s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002161
Collins, Lori D.
Understanding and closing the gaps :
b a GAP audit approach linking archaeology and land acquisition strategies in Florida
h [electronic resource] /
by Lori D. Collins.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: The population in Florida is projected to double over the next 50 years. Large land areas now in rural settings will become residential and urban areas. More than seven million acres of agriculture and open space will convert to housing developments, shopping malls, and business space. At stake are natural and cultural resources, which are lost or fragmented in this growth process. New planning measures are called for in order to grow in ways that minimize and least impact resources. Archaeological value in preservation projects is often examined after priorities for natural resources have been set, relegating archaeology to a role of added-on value in acquisition targeting. Decisions are made daily by planners, cultural resource managers, and agencies, about what resources get saved and what get destroyed.These decisions are based on subjective evaluations such as archaeological significance, without a clear understanding for what resources exist and what resources have already been protected. In this dissertation, I use a GAP audit approach, more commonly used in natural resource planning and management, to look at what the record of protection is for archaeology. I examine the region of the Big Hammock in North-central Florida, where agricultural land holdings are shown to be critical to archaeology, with nearly 65 percent of the recorded sites there, found on agriculture crop and pasturelands. In the Pasco County portion of the region, more than 63 percent of agricultural lands have been converted to residential land over the last decade. Agricultural lands are often purposefully overlooked in land acquisition prioritization, with planners sometimes not looking at the long range land use changes that can occur and cause cumulative impacts to resources.The reality is that every year, nearly 150,000 acres of Florida farmland statewide is developed into new subdivisions and strip malls. This GAP audit, applied to the archaeological resources in one region in Florida, shows that lands holding the most archaeological diversity and potential, may not coincide with lands targeted for other resource acquisition priorities. Treating archaeology as an added-on value in the land preservation process is therefore, not an adequate means of resource conservation.
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 262 pages.
Advisor: Brent R. Weisman, Ph.D.
x Applied Anthropology
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Understanding and Closing the Gaps: A GAP Audit Approach Linking Archaeology and Land Acquisiti on Strategies in Florida by Lori D. Collins A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Bren t R. Weisman, Ph.D. Karla L. Davis-Salazar, Ph.D. E. Christian Wells, Ph.D. Paul Zandbergen, Ph.D. Date of Approval: July 13, 2007 Keywords: landscape, significance, GIS, conservation, preser vation, Big Hammock Copyright 2007, Lori D. Collins
For my Father, Edward Lewis Collins, September 9, 1920 July 16, 2007
Note to Reader The original of this document contains colo r that is necessary for understanding the data. The original dissertation is on file with the USF library in Tampa, Florida.
i Tables of Contents List of Tables v List of Figures vi Abstract x Preface xii Chapter 1. The Role of GAP Analysis in Landscape and Archaeological Conservation in Florida 1 Introduction 1 A GAP Analysis for Florida Archaeology 5 Background 16 A New Direction 17 Chapter 2. The Use of Boundaries, Scale Dependence, and Significance Determination in Florida Archaeology 22 Conceptual Meanings 22 Types of Boundaries 22 Boundaries and Archaeological Signat ures 30 Boundaries as Used in Florida Archaeology 36 The Significance Debate 44 Representativeness and Significance 52 The Landscape Scale and Archaeology 55 Chapter 3. Planning for Preserva tion in Florida Archaeology: Resource Protection and Preservation St rategies Past, Present, and Future Directions 66
ii Introduction 66 The Rise of Florida Resource Manage ment 68 Growth and Development Laws and Land Acquisition 74 Chapter 4. Case Study: The Big Hammock Region 83 Environmental Setting 83 Archaeological Setting 90 Archaeological Survey in the Big Hammock 98 Sub-areas defined and relations to other landscape areas 104 Chapter 5. Closing the Gaps 108 The Archaeological Inventory of the Big Hammock 108 GAP Analysis Development Methods 114 Analysis of Archaeological Site Types in the Bi g Hammock Region 124 Artifact Scatters 127 Lithic Scatters 127 Prehistoric Quarries 130 Mounds 132 Historic 132 Campsites 136 Prehistoric Habitation 136 Other and Indeterminate 138 Unspecified or Unknown 138 Culture Periods in the Big Hammock 143 Paleo-Indian Period (c. 12,000-7,500 B.C.) 143
iii Archaic Period (c. 7,500-500 B.C.) 147 Weeden Island Period (A.D. 300-900) 150 Safety Harbor Period (A.D. 900-1725) 155 Seminole Period 162 The National Register in the Big Hammock 168 Chapter 6. The Need for a Basic Inventory Understanding 175 Targeting Future Preservation Goals 175 Differences in Archaeological Survey and Discovery 176 Comparison of the Big Hammock Archaeological Documentation to Statewide Data 177 Linking Land Use and Archaeology 179 Archaeological Sensitivity Mapping in a Sub-area 187 Discussion of Results 203 Chapter 7. Conclusions and Future Research 211 The Conservation Big Picture 211 Planning for Preservation 212 Focus and Implementation 216 Mechanisms for Linking Archaeology to La nd Use Planning Strategies 218 References Cited 224 Appendices 252 Appendix A. Archaeological Surveys Conduc ted in the Big Hammock 253 Appendix B. Data Layers 257 Appendix C. Archaeological Sites Identified in the Big Hammock Area 258
iv Appendix D. Identified Archaelogic al Sites Located on Conservation Lands in the Big Hammock Area 261 About the Author End Page
v List of Tables Table 2.1. List of major foundational U.S. federal laws concerned with natural and cultural heritage 47 Table 3.1. List of major foundational U.S. federal laws concerned with natural and cultural heritage 75 Table 5.2. Stewardship level representation in the Big Hammock 120 Table 5.3. Big Hammock recorded archaeol ogical site percenta ges by stewardship level 124 Table 5.4. Recorded cultural site components in the Big Hammock Area 168 Table 5.5. Summary of National Re gister evaluations for the Big Hammock Area 169 Table 6.1. Big Hammock recorded functional site types and percentages compared to those on conservation lands in the Big Hammock 182
vi List of Figures Figure 2.1 Goggins proposed ar chaeological regions in Florida 37 Figure 2.2 Milanichs adaptation of Goggin s culture areas 39 Figure 4.1. The Big Hammock region of Florida, shown classified by environmental features 84 Figure 4.2 Historic hammocks of North-Central Florida 86 Figure 4.3. The three hammocks of the Big Hammock 87 Figure 4.4. Quarry clusters in Florida 91 Figure 4.5. Map of Nicholson Grove (8PA114) site area, Pasco County, FL. 97 Figure 4.6. Seminole period glass beads in private collection, reportedly from the Nicholson Grove site (8PA114) 97 Figure 4.7. Stone tools made from coral and chert 99 Figure 4.8. Stone tools made from coral and chert 100 Figure 4.9. Cultural resource assessment surveys that have been conducted in the Big Hammock 101 Figure 4.10. Comprehensive Watershed Management (CWM) boundaries in the Southwest District area of Florida 106 Figure 5.1. The Big Hammock delineated boundary with recorded archaeological sites (n=302) 116 Figure 5.2. Conservation lands in the Big Hammock region of Florida, totaling 17,010 acres 118 Figure 5.3. Cartographic model for the GIS land st ewardship in the Big Hammock 121 Figure 5.4. Stewardship levels and archaeology in the Big Hammock 123 Figure 5.5. FMSF recorded artifact scatters in the Big Hammock, (n=64) 128 Figure 5.6. FMSF Recorded lithic scatte rs in the Big Hammock, (n=105) 129
vii Figure 5.7. FMSF listed locations for prehistoric quarries in the Big Hammock (n=10) 131 Figure 5.8. FMSF recorded mound site locations in the Big Hammock, (n=7) 133 Figure 5.9. FMSF recorded mound locations in the Big Hammock with human remains identified, (n=4) 134 Figure 5.10. FMSF recorded historic site locations in the Big Hammock, (n=42) 135 Figure 5.11. FMSF recorded locations of prehistoric campsites in the Big Hammock, (n=100) 137 Figure 5.12. FMSF recorded habitation site locations in the Big Hammock, (n=19) 139 Figure 5.13. FMSF recorded locations in the Big Hammock of the other and indeterminate category sites, (n=16) 140 Figure 5.14. FMSF recorded site locati ons in the Big Hammock for unknown or unspecified category sites, (n=9) 141 Figure 5.15. FMSF site functional types 142 Figure 5.16. FMSF Recorded in the Big Hammock of Paleo-Indian site Locations, (n=4) 145 Figure 5.17. John Foss of Soils International in South Ca rolina (left) examines exposed strata along the North S uncoast Expressway construction corridor in Hernando County in 2001. 146 Figure 5.18. FMSF recorded Archaic period sites in the Big Hammock (n=82) 148 Figure 5.19. Artifact assemblage collected from the Pottery Hill site (8PA172) 151 Figure 5.20. Vessel A 3233 from the vicin ity of Trilby-Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida 152 Figure 5.21. Vessel A 3234 from the vicin ity of Trilby-Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida 153 Figure 5.22. Vessel A 3235 from the vicin ity of Trilby-Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida 153
viii Figure 5.23. Vessel A 3236 from the vicin ity of Trilby-Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida 154 Figure 5.24. FMSF locations for Safety Harbor period sites and those sites with recorded artifact assemblages that li kely relate to this period 156 Figure 5.25. Brushed sherd from 8PA9 158 Figure 5.26. Turquoise blue glass b eads reportedly from the 8HE14, Andersons Mound site. 159 Figure 5.27. Incised chevron design cerami c rim sherd from the 8PA8 site location collection made in 1915 by Edgar Nelson and curated at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gain esville 161 Figure 5.28. FMSF recorded Seminole com ponent sites in the Big Hammock, (n=3) 163 Figure 5.29. Military roads can be derived from General Land Office Maps to show present-day location 165 Figure 5.30. Mackay and Blake Military Ma p of 1839, with depiction of the Fort Cross location in the Big Hamm ock indicated 167 Figure 5.31. FMSF locations of archaeol ogical sites in the Big Hammock area with National Register Ineligible determinations made by the archaeological surveyor, (n=195) 173 Figure 6.1. FMSF recorded archaeological sites on conservation lands in the Big Hammock, (n=19) 181 Figure 6.2. Pasco County Environmental Lands Program map showing areas delineated for protection strategy development (EPU) and those thought to be protected in agricultural holdings 185 Figure 6.3. Conversion of agriculture lands to residential use in eastern Pasco County 186 Figure 6.4. Multiple Planned Use Developments (MPUDs) from previous agriculture lands and orange grove alte ration into residential development in eastern Pasco County 186 Figure 6.5. Cropland and Pasture land use in the Big Hammock in 1995, totaling 72,395 acres 188
ix Figure 6.6. Cropland and Pasture land use in the Big Hammock in 2004, totaling 60,461 acres 189 Figure 6.7. FMSF recorded archaeological si te locations on cropland and pasture land use in the Big Hammock in 2004, totaling 195 sites 190 Figure 6.8. Cartographic model for GIS archaeological sensitivity mapping in the Big Hammock 193 Figure 6.9. Agricultural land cover and arch aeological site locations in the sub area Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock 195 Figure 6.10. Dominant soil typol ogies associated with r ecorded archaeological site locations in the Pasco County sub-ar ea of the Big Hammock 197 Figure 6.11. Recorded archaeological site locations in the Pasco County sub area of the Big Hammock found within 100 meters of a non-ephemeral water sources 198 Figure 6.12. Relative elevation and associated soils with recorded archaeological site locations in the Pasco County sub-ar ea of the Big Hammock 200 Figure 6.13. Areas of high archaeological potential in the Pasco County subarea of the Big Hammock 201 Figure 6.14. Land use data combined with archaeol ogical sensitivity 202 Figure 6.15. Agricultural lands in the Big Hammock Pasco County sub area 204
x Understanding and Closing the Gaps: A GAP Approach Linking Archaeology and Land Acquisition Strategies Lori D. Collins ABSTRACT The population in Florida is projected to double over the next 50 years. Large land areas now in rural settings will become residential and urban areas. More than seven million acres of agriculture and open space will convert to housing developments, shopping malls, and business space. At stake ar e natural and cultural resources, which are lost or fragmented in this growth process. New planning measures are called for in order to grow in ways that minimize and least impact resources. Archaeological value in preservation projec ts is often examined after priorities for natural resources have been set, relegating archaeology to a role of added-on value in acquisition targeting. Decisions are made daily by planners cultural resource managers, and agencies, about what resources get saved and what get destroye d. These decisions are based on subjective evaluations such as archaeological significance, without a clear understanding for what resources exist and wh at resources have al ready been protected. In this dissertation, I use a GAP audit approach, more commonly used in natural resource planning and management, to look at what the record of protection is for archaeology. I examine the region of the Big Hammock in North-central Florida, where agricultural land holdings are shown to be critical to ar chaeology, with ne arly 65 percent of the recorded sites there, found on agricu lture crop and pasturelands. In the Pasco County portion of the region, more than 63 pe rcent of agricultural lands have been
xi converted to residential land over the last decade. Agricultural lands are often purposefully overlooked in land acquisition prioritization, w ith planners sometimes not looking at the long range land use changes that can occur and cause cumulative impacts to resources. The reality is that every year, nearly 150,000 acres of Florida farmland statewide is developed into ne w subdivisions and strip malls. This GAP audit, applied to the archaeological resources in one region in Florida, shows that lands holding the most archaeological diversity and pot ential, may not coincide with lands targeted for other resource acquisition priorities. Treating arch aeology as an added-on value in the land preservation process is therefore, not an adequate means of resource conservation.
xii Preface I owe my love for learning and passion fo r all things Florida to my Father. He retired to the Sunshine State after a career as an officer in the United States Air Force. He brought his five children with him, I bei ng the baby. My Mother, who couldnt wait to water ski and play tennis and golf as so ma ny retirees even today envision, was the first to point out how fast Florida would change as more and more people flocked here for the warm weather and to live out their dreams. We moved to a ne w way of life in a subdivision, which at the time was somethi ng completely new, but that today has changed the face of Florida forever, and ar e in part a topic of this dissertation. My Father loved roadside attractions. Fr om the giant pink dinosaurs and miniature golfing, to the Flagler Mansion, Marine La nd, Weeki Wachee, Silver Springs, and the Fountain of Youth. I was four when we moved here, and we went to all the state parks and attractions, stopped at numerous free orange juice stands, and vi sited archaeological sites like Crystal River and th e Castillo de San Marcos in Saint Augustine. My Father loved history and Tebeaus Hi story of Florida along with my wildlife encyclopedias had me spouting Florida historical trivia and leaving me to im agine that I was encountering duck billed platypus in the Flor ida lakes we lived and played on. My Dad had a part time job after his retirement from the service, owning a motel supply company that had him traveling all over the state. He took me with him on what fo r me were adventures, and I soon knew all the back roads of Florida. It was a time before the construction of the interstates and rampant development. It was during these trips that I began to see and appreciate the beauty and fragility of the landscape.
xiii I owe to my Mother the idea that as a woman, you can still accomplish anything you set your mind to do. She made me promise to go to college and I never forgot her strength and courage, which have contribu ted to who I am today. I know she would be proud to have her youngest daughter be th e familys first Ph.D. In the book The Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom, he says parents rarely let go of their children, so children let go of them. They move on. They move away. The moments that used to define them a mothers approval, a fathers nod are covered by moments of their own accomplishments. It is not until much later, as the skin sags and the heart weakens, that children understand; their st ories, and all their accomplishments, sit atop the stories of their mothers and fathers, stones upon stones, beneath the waters of their lives. My Mother first, and then my Father ta ught me lessons about love, life, and death, and I am a better person because of them a nd their accomplishments. This dissertation and my Ph.D. was something they both want ed and for which my Father hung on to life in order to see. I am grateful I was able to tell him of this di ssertation completion and share its dedication that is to him, before hi s death three days after my successful defense. My family, brothers Tom and Ed, and sister s, Peg and especially Vicki Rae and Judy, also provided the support and love that was needed through these times, and have shown me the true value of family. My love for Florida also is owed to my studies in environmental science and my earlier career with the Florid a Department for Environmen tal Protection. I came to DEP at a time when ecosystem management prin ciples, integrating disciplines, were being experimented with as the way to consider natural resources in Florida. Environmental
xiv specialists at DEP, Allen Burdett, Ro se Poynor, Ken Huntington, Jemy Hinton, Don DePra, and Dianne McCommons-B eck, trained me in so many ways, and their friendship and direction were crucial to my personal and professional development. Also along the way, I met two people who would introduce me to archaeology, Barry Wharton, an Instructor at the time at Saint Leo College, and archaeologist, Dr. Robert Austin. Both sparked new interests and kept me busy learning and reading ev erything I could about Florida archaeology, and both have become lifelong friends and mentors. At Barrys insistence, I was told to take a class with Brent Weisman at USF, and this would forever change my lifes ambition. I wanted to be an archaeologist, but one who saw things from the perspective of relationships to the environment and to the present-day landscape. Along the course of this dissertation, many others helped me and should be thanked. Dr. Jeffrey Mitchem, George Luer, Bob Carr, Chip Birdsong, and Dr. Ryan Wheeler are among those whose feedback was invaluable. My Ph.D. Committee was also incredible, with comments, suggestions, and di rections that always were for my best interest. Karla Davis-Salazar provided a shared in terest and enthusiasm in regard to environmental perspectives, Christian Wells lent his diverse knowledge and command of archaeological literatu re and theory, and Dr. Paul Za ndbergen, who taught me how GIS can help examine and answer questions and how archaeology is not so dissimilar from other resource management interests. Graham Tobin, who would serve as the Chair of my defense, always helped in pushing me al ong. Elizabeth Bird was always there with encouragement and has been the best boss imaginable. Linda Whiteford, David Himmelgreen and Nancy Romera-Daza also were always supportive to this process and shared their own stor ies with me. Debbie Roberson has always been my friend, in good
xv and bad times, and always believed in me even when I did not. Daisy Matos helped with all the logistics and communications during my travels and in the completion of the document and requirements. My students also played a special role in that they were always interested in hearing about my research and allowed me to share my work with them. I hope that along the way I also leant to their development a nd growth and helped these future graduate students in the process. Fellow grad stude nts Luca Lai and Sharon Watson also proved invaluable in their support and confidence building, as we shared our processes and experiences. Chris Bell and Toni Carrier, al so fellow and former students, were there through this experience and have proven to be true friends. Deep appreciation goes to Travis Doeri ng, who shared in it all. This included listening to my rants, readi ng, and revising run-on sentences, and making me rethink and appreciate what I was accomplishing. He inspir ed belief in me as a person. Without his support and his care, I would not have been able to see this through. Dr. Brent Weisman, my major professor and mentor for many years, has shaped not only the academic professional I am today, but has helped teach me lessons such as handling adversity and perseverance. He has alwa ys shown me he has my best interest at heart. You could not ask for more from a mentor and he will always remain the person who taught me to think beyond boundaries, a con cept so prevalent in this work. His own passion for Florida archaeology is something that inspires me and I hope I pass the same enthusiasm to my own students, because he taught me the importance of being a mentor and a teacher, and to pass on what we learn.
xvi At the end of this process, it was the la st lessons learned from my Dad that have had the biggest impact. As I finished this disse rtation in his absence, I remember some of his last bits of wisdom. Although mostly sports clichs they have helped me in this time of grief. Lori, never quit because quitters never win, and the game has to go on. Thank you, Dad.
1 Chapter 1. The Role of GAP Analysis in Landscape and Archaeological Conservation in Florida One basic weakness in a conservati on system based wholly on economic motives is that most members of the land community have no economic value (Leopold 1949: 246). Introduction Florida is in a time of unprecedented growth and development and, along with pressures on natural resources, archaeologica l resources are being impacted and lost. Floridas rich cultural heritage is facing an assortment of threats for which current conservation measures cannot keep pace. Deci sions concerning heritage management and protection are made daily, in part by permitti ng agencies, local governments, developers, and cultural resource management firms. Thes e decisions range from choices in research designs, sampling strategies, and field test ing methods in compliance situations, to determination of site significance and valu e, which can equate to which sites get protected and conserved and what resources are lost. Yet, despite the daily occurrence of these decisions, few widely used tools are available to assist in the overview and understanding of the implicati ons of these choices. As Al do Leopold so eloquently states in the quote above, valuation of land resources and, in this case, archaeological resources, should not be driven only by economic considerations. A Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is a scientific assessmen t and methodology to identify the degree to which cultural resources, here defined as archaeological sites, are
2 represented by current public land holdings fo r conservation. The types of resources not represented constitute a conservation gap. Th e Gap Analysis Program, as conceived by the United States Geological Survey was impl emented to examine the level of protection and diversity of plant and animal species as afforded by natural landscape conservation. I apply the GAP concept to the diversity a nd level of protection to archaeological landscapes and sites based on an examination of land use patterns in relation to the archaeology of a defined region. The met hodology proposed in this dissertation will move toward the operationalization of landscap e theory and valuation systems to better assess archaeological phenomena. A spatial an alysis or audit of the current knowledge and understanding is investigated as a fr amework for identifying under-represented resources in terms of functional type and geographical and temporal contexts. The goal of my dissertation research is to show the effectiveness of a GAP approach for archaeological planning a nd stewardship. I will examine the known archaeological record as demonstrated in the Florida Master Site File in relation to land use and preservation in an ar ea that is facing rapid landscap e changes. Through this case study application of a GAP audit for archaeolo gy, several key questions and issues will be considered, including: (1) given increasing rates of impacts to cultural resources and the limited financial means to effect in situ preservation, how can we better target land acquisitions and more effectively manage resources; (2) how can historic contexts, which are overviews of prehistory that in form archaeological research questions, be improved and refined through the systematic incorporation of environmental modeling to more effectively guide archaeological site preservation and acquisi tion; (3) how can a landscape perspective and scale of analysis improve the applicat ion of the National
3 Register of Historic Places significance concept as a pr eservation tool? and, (4) are current efforts of archaeological preservati on successfully protecting and reflecting the diversity and range of cultural resources? These concepts and issues are examined using a GAP audit approach to view how and where archaeological sites occur in combin ation with conservation land areas. This scale of understanding ensures that critical areas of concern facing environmental and resource pressures are comprehensively consider ed. This type of an audit also ensures the diversity of cultural reso urces, defined here as the variety of types, temporal, and cultural affiliations of archaeological sites, are re presented and understood more evenly across regions with more effective conservation pr iorities. Although this dissertation includes a case study on one selected area in Florida, this project has statewide relevance and perhaps national level implications for de veloping an effective methodology for the operationalization of less subj ective archaeological significance determinations based on available data. The approach I present provide s researchers, cultural resource managers, and planners, a more fluid framework fo r significance assessment, responsive to a broader range of archaeo logical temporal and cultural representation and a more inclusive range of the heritage values of public im portance, that facilitate conservation. Without an understanding of what types of archaeological resources there are, in what number, what threats exist, and what im pacts or level of protection are present for those resources, archaeological si tes are lost without a view of the overall implication of their loss. Are these site types scarce? Do many (or any) occur on public lands? Are the time period and cultural affiliation of the resources adequately represented on lands under public ownership? Should lands containing these types of site s be targeted for
4 acquisition? Many of these questions may appear separate from the archaeological discipline and more from a la nd planning and resource perspe ctive, but in fact a land perspective is intertwined w ith archaeological concerns. Consequences of Floridas growth and development and its changing la ndscapes occur differentially, with some regions under more pressure and some resources more imperiled. Yet an audit of archaeological resources, which includes th e spatial location and relation to land use pressures, especially for areas of critical concern due to rapid la nd use changes, has not been undertaken in Florida. The developmen t of criteria for recognizing these regions, examining resources and their archaeologi cal value, and assessing the gaps in archaeological preservation has not occurred. This disserta tion is a pilot study for how this analysis can be undert aken for Florida archaeology. Preservation programs for archaeological resources act more opportunistically, acquiring resources largely as added value during environmental conservation, rather than proactively examining where resources ar e likely to be pressu red by development or even quantifiably understanding what kinds and types of resources ar e protected on lands owned or targeted by the public for acquisi tion. I propose that archaeological resource protection and investigation should occur differentially in response to development pressures, and I will use a GAP audit, to be described in the preced ing section, across an area in Florida that is faci ng many land decision pressures. Using this case study region, I will show gaps that exist in archaeological preservation in relation to land use and acquisition strategies. I will demonstrate how this GAP audit analysis, inclusive of stewardship mapping that considers the degree and likelihood for preservation and conservation of land and the ownership and mana gement of land, can be a useful tool for
5 planners, land managers, policy makers, and cu ltural resource practitioners, and allow for better-informed assessments for archaeological preservation and acquisition. A GAP Analysis for Florida Archaeology GAP analysis techniques are commonly used with natural systems resource planning (Scott et al. 1996; Stoms 1991). For example, a GA P might be conducted by an agency to assess the ecological representa tion of a species, and used by conservation planners to protect and acquire critical habitat areas important for that species. This analysis involves the prediction of where that species distribution is likely to occur in relation to certain variables, such as la nd cover vegetation or certain landform types (Iacobelli et al. 2003). GAP analysis emerge d from the realizati on that a species-byspecies approach to conservation was not e ffective and that regi onal landscape protection of species habitat was needed, as was an audit approach to id entify what was being protected and what was potentially be ing lost (USGS 2007). When applied to archaeological resource management, this type of analysis offers a scientific means for assessing the extent to which archaeological sites are being consider ed and protected in current acquisition strategies. The analys is provides a formal method of reducing subjective decisions concerning significance determina tion and preservation. The goal of a GAP analysis or model for archaeology is to iden tify culture periods and affiliations, and site types, that are not adequately represented in conservation areas and to examine areas where archaeological resources occur, in order to develop conservation priorities. The way in which I us e the term model here, as in many other social science endeavors, is to provide a picture of wh at would happen if certain
6 conditions were met. The model is used as a device that shows what a simplified version of reality may look like. For example, if we know that proximity to non-ephemeral or permanent water sources along w ith the elevation are useful for determining areas of high likelihood for archaeological site location, then those criteria would be examined in a GIS to show zones of archaeological probability (Austin et al. 2001; Horvath 1986; Jones 1981; Scurry 2003; Stone 1984; Weisman a nd Collins 2004; Wescott and Brandon 2000). In this way, sensitivity or predictive modeling can be a follow-up to a GAP audit. Although I will demonstrate a simplistic versi on of this second step to a GAP audit by using existing known archaeologi cal and environmental correla tes for a particular region, the sensitivity model can be used as a basis for examini ng deviations from the predictions (Barber 1994), thus refining a GAP audit. Th e predicted areas along with the recorded archaeological site location data can be ex amined in relation to publicly owned land boundaries or lands that are targeted for acquisition, to see where gaps exist in preservation strategies. The GAP analysis presented here utilizes the recorded archaeological data from the Florida Master Site file, and also demonstrates, in a simplistic way, how archaeological sensitivity areas can be considered using predictive factors. I have used known environmental variables of archaeological association with the predictive modeling addition to my GAP analysis, and this predictive modeling is shown as a direction for future refinement and c onsideration, with more comprehensive model development beyond the scope of this dissertation. Primary advantages of a GAP audit ar e that it would allow for an improved knowledge of spatial and temporal distributi ons of cultural resources in relation to landscape variables, and it would bring Florida archaeology into a consistent
7 management and preservation frame of referen ce as that used for environmental planning. This tool of analysis applie d to Florida archaeology would provide a means for assessing to what extent cultural resources are bei ng protected. A GAP analysis can be done at a variety of temporal and spatial scales. This type of strategy overcomes deficiencies of culture area studies and arbi trary boundary assignation (M arquardt and Crumley 1987). The goals of a GAP analysis for Florida archaeology are to assi st researchers in identifying areas of investigative questions and to look at site representativeness on public lands, including temporal and cultural affiliations, a nd formal and functional site types that are not adequately represented in public land holdings or land acquisition priority targets. By identifying not only cultural resources but the environment in which they are found, a GAP analysis provides land managers, planners, scientists, and policy makers the information they need to make better-informed decisions when identifying priority areas for conservation and protecti on. In this way, land acquisition priorities would be balanced between environmental and cultural resources, and the archaeological potential of preservation under programs such as Florida Forever could be more easily examined in relation to developed priorities for natural resource conservation. Currently, the archaeological value of proj ects is examined after natura l resource priorities have been developed (Wisenbaker 2006). A GAP a udit applied to Florida archaeology would allow priorities to be developed and used as a separate assessment or in conjunction with land acquisition goals for natural system protection. Decisions over land use changes often occu r at the local level, such as counties (Theobald et al. 2000). A GAP audit of archaeological resources can support conservation decisions at these local scales with regional and sub-regional analysis
8 commonly used for biodiversity GAP mode ls (Iacobelli et al. 2003; Jennings 2000; Opdam et al. 2002; Scott et al. 1996). A GAP audit allows for a view of how and where archaeological sites occur in relation to cons ervation strategies, ensu ring that regions are viewed comprehensively and that the diversity of cultural resources is represented and understood more evenly. A GAP is performed in an attempt to iden tify cultural and land gaps that should be conserved and managed to allow for the long-term viability of key components of Floridas cultural heritage. The analysis as sists with the establishment of conservation and acquisition priorities based on both the known archaeo logical setting and the expectations for defined archaeological areas This analysis is accomplished in part through the identification of ar eas critical to the protecti on of both significant and underrepresented types of cultural resources as de fined by previous archaeological surveys and developed from models for arch aeological potential within a landscape context. A further consideration are differential impact potential s on cultural resources within the defined landscape area. For example, a GAP study for cultural and natural resources could be linked with future land use planning and made applicable to an administrative boundary such as a district, county, or project corri dor (Nizeyimana et al 2002). Archaeological GIS predictability models and significance ma trix models have been approached in similar ways, with counties and state agen cies showing interest in long range management strategies and resource aud its done in conjunction with land use and development planning (Austin et al. 2001; Hudak et al. 2000; Weisman and Collins 2003, 2004; Weisman 2002b).
9 One way to accomplish this type of audit analysis for Florida archaeology is through the use of a Geographic Informati on System (GIS). A GIS allows for the examination of the interactions between e nvironmental variables and cultural site occurrences. A GIS has a spatial component that allows the capture, manipulation, analysis, mapping, and storage of information. By storing separate thematic map layers containing values for environmental variable s like land cover types, a GIS allows for multiple variables to be considered ac ross a landscape (Wansleeben 1988). Following a GAP audit, or inventory of archaeol ogy in relation to conservation lands, environmentally based predictive models can be developed that work by correlating the location of known archaeological sites with the ecol ogical landscapes within which they are found. It can also be predicted, for ex ample, where unknown sites should be present in areas of the same or similar sets of characteristics (BRW 1996). Defining the landscape characteristics that influence or have correlati on with archae ological site distribution becomes the goal. Because envir onmental variables are regionally specific for particular models, the understanding of th e ecological and physical nature of an area under investigation is of paramount concern. An understanding of a lterations and changes to an area also is critical in the ad aptation of a predictability model. In this dissertation, I make use of exis ting predictive models that have been developed for my case study area (see Aus tin 1991; Austin et al. 2001; Horvath 1986; Jones 1981; Weisman and Collins 2004; Wharton 1984). These archaeological predictive variables are the currently accepted associativ e variables and are used to demonstrate how predictive modeling can work in conjunction with a GAP audit approach. The GAP audit remains the goal of this research, w ith policy statement in regard to Florida
10 archaeology, preservation, and land acquisition strategy that will emerge from this work. As part of this Florida archaeological po licy and program dimension, issues such as archaeological significance de termination, boundary and scale considerations, and their conceptual meanings, will be explored. A GAP analysis will assist in si gnificance determination by developing a prioritization strategy for conservation, consid ering multiple ideas and meanings imbued on the landscape from perspectives beyond the criteria in the National Historic Preservation Act (Scott et al. 1996; Stoms 1991). In this way, significance can be not only a legal federal designati on, but a local or regional co nstruct for land managers, planners, scientists and policy makers. The strengthening of si gnificance understanding blends also with conservation strategies and acquisition priori tization. Site-by-site focused approaches to heritage management and conservation are not effective ways of examining the loss and fragmentation of natura l and cultural landscapes It is through the protection of regions rich in representation of site types and ranges, and having suitable areas for cultural resources, that we can improve our understandings of culture regions and contexts with reliable decisions em erging from understanding the relationship between the landscape and archaeo logy. This method allows for examination of strategies for research question development, and th e conservation and acqui sition of important cultural and natural resources. Once gaps are recognized and identifie d, they can be filled through acquisition, significance determinations can be strengthened or bolstered, and changes can be made in development, land use, or management prac tices. Understanding archaeological diversity and natural systems connections and interc onnections on and across the landscape is a
11 proactive planning approach. Consideration of archaeology ahead of impacts and land use changes also can mean our conservation dollars are better spent as opposed to reactionary and emergency acquisition approaches. A GAP allows a baseline to be developed, which can be used to compare changes and determine trends (Stoms 1991). The relationship of archaeological site diversity can also be linked to natural resource, environmental information and land use designation, to forecas t predicted effects of change and to see where cultural resources are at greatest risk. GAP analyses are not without problems. A GAP is a power ful first step in setting land management priorities and is a common tool in conservation planning (Burley 1988), but it is not a panacea. In natural resource applications, GAP analyses have been criticized because they rely on GIS data that can be incomp lete, outdated, performed at too coarse of a scale, or lack accuracy assessments (Maxwell 2005; Schmidt 1996). As applied to archaeology, concerns exist over scale of study, use of culture chronologies, and the historic contexts that are used within the GAP design. GIS data that are utilized to examine unprotected areas and determine gaps in the archaeological preservation record, come from multiple sources and are collected using a variety of accuracy standards. Not only can there be problems inherent with the GIS data that serve as the foundation for the analysis, but incomplete and differential unders tandings of the archaeological record, also exist across regions. These limitations should be addressed through the refinement of archaeological contexts, chronologies, and culture regions, in a way that allo ws the GAP analysis to be more effective and reliable at recognizing unp rotected or underrepresented archaeological resources. The analysis should also be suppl emented with ground-truthing and should not
12 be performed in a vacuum without knowledge of current land use conditions. Predictive model development, examining where archaeolog ical resources are likely to exist, can also be a useful follow-up consideration fo r GAP audit planning, allowing for future preservation targets to be refined. It is clear that new frameworks me rging information about physiographic unit areas and cultural landscapes are needed to be able to document th e range and diversity of cultural resources and ecological proce sses in ways that will have meaningful implications for conservation, planning and management. A GAP audit is one such way to improve these frameworks (historic contex t developments and ecological, and cultural characterizations), and in so doing has the potential to be used by archaeologists and other research and planning interests to deve lop, direct, and answer overarching questions and to evaluate the subjective concept of significance in valuation assessments and determinations. Decisions concerning value, significance, and preservation of archaeological resources remain largely subjective. In th is dissertation, I propose a way of viewing archaeological remains as part of the larger environmental landscape. I begin by making several observations about the current way of understanding archaeology in Florida, and then examine ways we can develop a methodol ogical framework to help assess threats and prioritize concerns. The foundational ideas for this dissertation came from the time I served as the Coordinator for the Department of Environmental Protection overseeing planning for large-scale devel opmental and state and federal projects in the southwest portion of Florida. From this perspective, as a participant observer, I have noted that
13 many resource planners and land manage rs do not fully understand how and why archaeological resource management relates to other resource planning strategies. In Chapter 2, I will grapple with issu es of long-standing debate in cultural resource management (CRM) and public ar chaeology, including site significance and boundary and scale determination. Geographic units of archaeological an alysis have been an area of disagreement in Florida archaeology, with culture regions carved out that rely primarily on ceramic pottery type dist ribution and do not necessarily reflect environmental landscape considerations. Fu rther complicating the situation is that differing scales of analysis and considerati on are used by natural resource managers as compared to archaeologists, making communi cation and the linking of goals difficult. Differing frames of reference, such as ecore gions, watersheds, culture regions, historic contexts, and political bounda ries all muddy the dialog. Poli cy makers, the public, and even cultural and natural resource managers th emselves, are left uncer tain of basic spatial definitions and criteria. Moving beyond and across boundaries, I examine concepts of representativeness and underrepresentation of cultural resources. Th ese concepts are cons idered in terms of temporal and cultural site diversity that are protected on public lands, looking at whether or not there is diversity of t hose sites on preserved lands or protected for future research. I define representativeness as having a divers ity of archaeological sites that accurately reflect the range of cultures and activi ties within a region, a concept tied to archaeological significance and value (Briue r and Mathers 1996). I further address the critical call for archaeological audits at a re gional scale (Mathers, et al. 2005), examining significance of archaeological resources with similar approaches us ed for other valued
14 natural phenomena, such as endangered and threatened plant and animal species (Mathers, et al. 2005:184). In Chapter 3, I discuss the current prog rams, agencies, and processes that are in place for archaeological planning and conser vation in Florida, and examine existing strategies for acquisition and pr otection at local, regional, and state levels. This overview of the current system shows how cultural res ources are considered in existing planning processes, and examines limitations and constr aints of those processes. An integrative stewardship approach that considers archaeol ogy in terms of presen t and future land use is presented as a way to better facilitate the linking of environmental and archaeological planning. A conservation strategy of priori tization, with protection, preservation, and land use planning for cultural and natural areas, is proposed. In Chapter 4, I examine and explore issues of regional archaeological and environmental dynamics. I have selected a case study area of defined critical concern to demonstrate the GAP analysis application fo r Florida archaeology. An overview of this regions archaeology and the e nvironmental setting is presented, allowing for a more timely consideration of pending threats to resour ces that will assist in the development of better archaeological and environmental land planning for conservation and protection of natural and cultural resources. In Chapter 5, I demonstrate a GAP audit approach in the pilot case study area selected, looking at archaeological site di versity and significance determination in relation to land use planning, through the kinds and types of sites occu rring in the defined area that are protected on public lands. The GAP approach is proposed to provide a more systematic, objective, and precise way of dealing with intangibl e issues such as value and
15 significance in archaeology a nd is demonstrated as a way of moving away from individual site treatments. The GAP ar chaeological audit is shown to promote comparative and regional analysis and unders tanding in relation to stewardship, which includes aspects of land use, ownership, acquisition potential, and management. The approach establishes a more objective way of considering archaeological value in project planning and acquisition strategies, using the Big Hammock region of Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties as a dem onstrative region for analysis. Linking land use with archaeology is the theme of Chapter 6. Looking at a defined sub area within the Big Hammoc k, I demonstrate how rapid development pressure and land use changes are impacting cultural resources. Using sensitivity maps that use currently accepted predictive variables for archaeological and environmental association, areas of archaeol ogically sensitive zones are displayed based on the recorded archaeological record. I show how archaeolo gists can be proactive in planning for preservation. Analysis of parcel level detail, including economic feasibility for purchase versus other forms of set-aside, such as conservation easements and the purchase of development rights, allow for an audit of resource potenti al and preservation considerations. In the concluding chapter, I examine the potential benefits and wider use for GAP audit analyses in Florida arch aeology, and explore this method as a future direction of historic preservation. Concepts of varying scales of analysis and landscape ecology are integrated with archaeology to prom ote stewardship beyond boundaries and to proactively approach and plan for preser vation. I look at poten tial mechanisms for management and preservation that take a dvantage of existing infrastructure and
16 organization, and show how archaeology in Florida can benefit from being more inclusive of the public and other resource planners and pol icy makers concerned with natural resource protection. Background Currently, archaeological sites are recorded and their significance determined largely on a case-by-case basis. Consideration is given to a regional setting in the states historic contexts (FDHR 1993), which are es sentially a framework and overview of the prehistoric and historic peri ods in Floridas history and serve as justification for evaluations of significance of cultural resources. These contexts, however, are often skewed toward coastal environments and inco mplete in more interior portions of the state. The context construct it self is viewed larg ely in terms of the known or recorded archaeology of a re gion, often without a thorough unders tanding of the environmental setting. The contexts were not meant to be static, and should be c onstantly revised and updated to reflect new data, knowledge, me thods, and theories (Milanich and Payne 1993; Yates 2002). The reality in Florida is th at decisions are made without regard to cumulative impacts to archaeological resource s and other regionalized concerns, with no tool for easily assessing archaeological site protec tion across landscapes. An understanding of resources cannot be accomplished by viewing sites in isolation. The landscape, at a regional scale of analysis, must be considered to allow sites to be viewed in relation to one another and to the environmental cont ext. Modern realities of politics, land use changes, and planning also must be taken into account if a realistic conservation ethos and resource management po licy is to emerge. Landscapes have been
17 used as frameworks for understanding heri tage resources in many European regions (Crumley and Marquardt 1990; Deeben et al 1999; Groenewoudt and Bloemers 1997). But although much discussed, landscapes have not been adequately recognized in decision making processes or readily applied to management strategies whose purpose is to assess archaeological value and significance. A New Direction A GAP audit is performed as a way to im prove knowledge of spatial and temporal distributions of cultural resources in relati on to landscape variables and to bring Florida archaeology into a consistent management a nd preservation frame of reference with other environmental and resource planning. A GAP audit of Florida archaeology provides a means for assessing to what extent cultural resources are being protected. Although I here restrict the analysis to a defi ned area of critical concern fr om an impact standpoint, this analysis can be done at a state, local, regional, or national level. This type of strategy overcomes deficiencies of culture area studies and arbitrary boundary assignation (Marquardt and Crumley 1987), and can consid er different time periods and different cultural affiliations across environmental regi ons. The goals of this analysis for Florida archaeology are to identify research questi ons, temporal and cultu ral affiliations, and functional site types that are not adequately preserve d. By identifying not only the cultural resources but the la ndscape in which they are found, a GAP analysis provides land managers, planners, scientis ts, and policy makers the information they need to make better-informed decisions when identifying pr iority areas for cons ervation and protection.
18 Landscape variables and human adaptations to local ecosystems are often overlooked concepts when considering regi onal cultural boundary distinctions. Although historic and archaeological pl anning contexts are meant to provide us with a framework for preservation goals, they largely do not ta ke into account spatia l relationships and the effects of environmental variables in a way that allows for a more complete, landscape level of understanding. In Florida, a shift from sta tic cultural boundaries to one that examines the archaeological record for a defined environmental region is proposed to provide better context for the management of archaeological resources. This type of boundary understanding can be useful in dovetailing with the ecosystem-based approaches used by many state and local agen cies and can be useful in understanding cultural resources thr oughout the state. More effectiv e communication of archaeological resources will assist with the development of more user-friendly historic context planning documents between agencies and land planners Stronger contexts can prove beneficial in lessening criticisms of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires that all federal planning, decisionmaking, and project ex ecution take into account the effects of their actions on histor ic properties. Criticisms of other permitting and compliance issues will also lessen as archaeology moves away from an emphasis on a site-by-site approach. Eval uation decisions concerning archaeological significance and impacts will also be dramatically improved with a more complete understanding of a given context (King 2000). In a rapidly developing state like Florid a, where multi-agency consideration for environmental protection is central to the role of most archaeological investigations that take place, linking environmental and archaeologi cal resource strategies is crucial, and
19 has been pointed out to be important in other similar areas (Crumley and Marquardt 1990; Lipe 1995). Regional consistency in the issues related to the common good of archaeological understanding and environmental protection is needed. A more consistent level of organization will ultimately result in a better understanding of archaeology, and should lead to a greater protection for archaeo logy as a result of increased understanding and involvement with other agencies and land managers. Future policies, regulations, or actions for different types of lands can be decided from a cultural as well as an environmental and ecological context. Areas of responsibility encompassing cultural resources can then be better linked with state, regional, and local preservation planning. The Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation plan (FDHR 1993), which is designed, in part, to look at av ailable programs that can be used to achieve preservation goals, can utilize this approach to better in tegrate cultural and environmental resource protection issues, thereby bette r achieving its preservation go als. Fundamental to this approach is the understanding of the role of archaeology in the preservation planning process and the ability to move beyond st atic cultural boundary imposition to unify archaeology with environmenta l protection processes. At the center of this rese arch are issues of boundary definition and determination, scale, archaeological significance, and conser vation value, that will be examined and related to their use and adaptation in Fl orida archaeology. Although these key concepts provide a framework for understanding archaeo logical resources, they ultimately place dynamic and adaptive cultural systems within a static constrai nt, with valuation determined largely in a subjective an d case-by-case manner (Butzer 1982, 1990).
20 Cultural resource management archaeologist s are at the forefront of many of the significance determinations made in Florida, while working under the often conflicting values of development and conservation. I ssues of value and si gnificance must be examined critically as they are the basis for ongoing selectiv e preservation (Mathers, et al. 2005a; Schiffer and Gumerman 1977). What ha ppens to archaeological sites that are not regarded as important? Si nce not all cultural resources ca n be treated equally nor can they all be preserved, so selective pro cesses including prioritization and planning strategies have to be utilized. It is our inability to effectively comm unicate priorities and planning for cultural resources to the public and agencies that is weakening heritage preservation, and will lead to archaeologists being ineffect ual partners in conservation processes unless we begin to examine archaeology as part of a larger pi cture (Deeben et al. 1999; Mathers, et al. 2005b). A GAP audit will provide a method of fo cus for future archaeological research and be an impetus for conservation planning that includes archaeology as a primary resource of consideration. Through the understa nding of the gaps in our knowledge and broadening of our consideration of place to a landscape level, we encourage preservation of diversity of site types, geographical contexts repr esented, and even the publics involved in the conservation process. A spatial analysis or audit of th e current archaeological knowledge and understanding is investigated as a framewor k for examining significance and value across larger areas. Appropriate scale for significan ce assessment has been an issue of debate among researchers (Mathers, et al. 2005: 159). The identification of underrepresented resources, in terms of functional type, ge ographical, and temporal contexts that are
21 currently preserved across defined areas of cr itical environmental concern, will allow a more operational view of archaeological si gnificance and value to emerge, and the analytical framework for significance determ ination to be expanded beyond the site. As Florida continues to face grow th and development impact con cerns and areas continue to experience those impacts differentially, I look to what the future of cultural resource preservation and management could become, an d I question if we are doing a reasonable and responsible job of stewardship and conservation.
22 Chapter 2. The Use of Boundaries, Scale Dependence, and Significance Determination in Florida Archaeology The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals or collectively: the land. It is not only the boundaries that disappear, but also the thought of being bounded (Leopold 1949: 239). Conceptual Meanings Central to my dissertation are concep ts of boundaries, value, significance, and conservation strategies as they relate to cultural resource mana gement. In archaeology, we use boundaries to define spatial extents of sites, to delimit cultu re areas or regions, and to create manageable units of analysis and political jurisdiction in which cultural phenomena can be described and evaluated. But culture is dynamic, as reflected in the material remains at archaeological sites, know n as the archaeological record. Therefore, the stewardship of archaeological sites is also subject to dynamic infl uences. As naturalist Aldo Leopold states in the opening quote, a land ethic moves within, between, and outside implied boundaries. The rigidity and fluidity of boundaries and their multiple, sometimes conflicting meanings and applications in anthropology and archaeology need to be examined first if we are to move beyond their spatial constraints. Types of Boundaries Early in the disciplines history, anthr opologists were interested in boundaries as defining edges of culture and as a means to define and study socially and culturally
23 discrete populations through the examination of practices and beliefs within a given bounded locale. In defining boundaries, field work areas could be distinguished, allowing a classificatory process for anthropologi cal understanding of culture within a spatial construct (Willey and Sabloff 1980). Thus, cultural boundaries were seen as a way in which to study how social rela tions were ordered and served as separators of worlds of meaning and as a way to study a populati on or subject matter (Barth 1969; Donnan 1999). But these boundaries did not have to be of physical construction. Barth (1969) points to the idea of social construction and meaning of et hnic identity, and how ideas and identity are still nonetheless associat ed with boundary formation. Social boundary studies continue to show how boundaries extend beyond spatial concerns and that a boundary of any kind implies two sides, at once steadfast, moveable, and permeable depending on the circumstan ces (Dietler and Herbich 1998; Donnan and Wilson 1999; Kowalewski et al. 1983; Okely 1983; Stark 1998) Just as cultures are not concrete, neither are boundaries, further complicati ng the understanding of boundary constructs. Boundaries can also be a way of marking pol itical spaces, such as is seen with present day counties, states, territories, count ries, and nations, for example. Territorial boundaries and borders are often thought of as more real or tangible with a spatial connotation implicit. But it is important to note, that while th ese boundaries can be mapped, viewed, and considered, this tangibility does not imply or s uggest that they are somehow more important than symbolic bound aries of a cultural realm, which perhaps lack such clearly defined demarcation, but are no less real in the c onstruction of identity (Cohen 1986).
24 Theoretical perspectives within an thropology, such as diffusionist and acculturation theories, brought consideration of interactions across boundaries and the influence of one area on another (Bohannan 1967). In todays increasingly globalized world, boundaries become even less clear, seemingly losing their constraining and defining characteristics. Travel, communication, and other facets of modernity have opened boundaries or made them more porous, with physical space becoming less a dimension of consideration. Yet, even in modern settings, boundaries of all sorts exist, be they physical, mental, or symbolic, or social and cultural. It is the movement between and within boundaries, and the methods of boundary shifting that have ch anged rather than the phenomenon (Donnan 1999), and this way of examining boundaries is an area of increasing interest to anthropolog ists and social scientists a like. Focus is being placed on the relationships between social and sy mbolic boundaries and on how boundaries are created and classified (Lamont and Molnar 2002), to examine issues of identity, inequalities, borders, and community dynamics. Archaeology often examines material culture, technology, and spatial patterning as a proxy for understanding social boundaries. In fact, archaeologists often use stylistic attributes in the material reco rd as a way to distinguish wh ere social groupings start and stop (Stark 1998:2). But do artif act patterns and stylistic attrib utes actually reflect social boundaries? Using middle-range theory and ethnoarchaeological techniques, anthropologists have examined this debate and have looked at social boundary formation in the past based on present analogies (Stark 1998; Welsch and Terrell 1998). Understanding how to see boundaries archaeologically has led a number of researchers to examine the question of scal e, regional diversity, and cultural units
25 (Willey and Sabloff 1980:172-182). The spatial and temporal distribution of artifacts has been used by archaeologists as a means of exploring cultural boundaries. Stylistic attributes, for example with lithic or ceramic assemblages, have been examined as a way to understand cultural sources of variation and distribution. The object becomes a way to arrive at the social process a nd the social context, which, in turn, are involved in social boundary creation and maintenance (Cohen 2000; Parkinson 2002). Boundaries examined through material culture patterning, artifact types, and trait distributions are often seen thr ough the lens of a culture area or other regional construct. Cross-cultural ethnographic research has le d some to note that archaeological boundaries often exceed the scale of social boundaries. Work in the southwestern United States, for example, has shown how stylistic attributes alone are not reflectiv e of social boundaries. Work here has concentrated on technologica l traditions and styles, more resistant to change than stylistic varia tion (Rice 1987), as one method of extracting more information about localized, prehistoric social boundaries (Stark et al. 1998). Ceramicists have long noted that cultural choices are encoded in pottery (Rice 1996), and decorative variability has been the focus of much archaeological inquiry in regard to boundary definition with somewhat less attention paid to technologi cal attributes. Technologies are sometimes considered only in light of environmental cons traints, reflecting res ource availability. An examination of technical behaviors and aspects of material culture can assist in looking for social boundaries (Gosselain 199 8:79; Hegmon 1998:267; Sassaman 1995). Archaeologists examine and try to develop an understanding of the ways in which material culture affects social process and the role of material culture in identity and
26 expression. In this way, material culture can be useful in examining social groupings and boundaries, examining how technological choi ces reflect social boundaries (Stark 1998), and how these reflections occur as part of applied social processes (Dietler 1998). But social boundaries are not just ma terial constructs and, as previously mentioned, have an ideological dimensi on. Boundaries are recognized differently by different people and in this way are elusiv e of any one definition and add to the complexity of an archaeological understanding (Goodby 1998:162-163). Still, boundaries are often view ed as lines that divide territories, set limits and demark social groupings, and allow categoriz ation (Barth 2000). Wh en considered as a linear concept or tangible natural boundary, the distinction of areas seems attainable, yet even natural boundaries are elusive and fuzzy in construct when a temporal consideration is added. For example, a shoreline, where the land meets the Gulf of Mexico in Florida, might be thought of as a boundary, yet the shor eline and water levels have changed many times in the past. Boundaries for wetland deli neations are another contentious example, with conflicting interests such as state regul atory agencies and deve lopers, often at odds over how wetland areas are recogni zed and conserved, and what legislation prescribes as the policy (USGS 2007). Individual differences in boundary comprehension may also vary based upon ones sense of place. Differences in the meaning of boundaries between sedentary and nomadic societies, for example, may be significant. Boundaries may be fluid and transitory to one group and more permanent and affixed to another. Meanings imbued on places can vary from individual to individual and culture to culture. What is defined as an amorphous hinterland for one group may be an area of distinct place to another. In this
27 way, cultural images and conceptual constr ucts of place may supersede the idea of definable boundary (Barth 2000). Boundaries should also not be thought of only as demarking separation, but can represent areas where groups merge or come together. The concept of borders in anthropology is an area of growing research, as is the concern with boundaries between nation-states for political scie ntists and geographers (see Donnan 1999; Kowalewski et al. 1983; Lamont and Molnar 2002; Stark 1998). The area of interface, where one system meets another brings with it an identity com ponent, with individuals identifying with one group or another, or in some cases both gr oups. Thus, boundaries are not clear-cut with an us and them inclusion or exclusion, but also are areas of blurred social identity, with a degree of permeability, porosit y, and social interface often seen (Donnan 1999:23). Anthropologists are interested in bounda ries as a way of looking at social processes, helping to answer larger research questions involving ethnic groups, linguistics, migration, economics, and state formation (Hensler 1998; Kowalewski et al. 1983; Low and Lawrence-Zuniga 2003; Ma rcus 1993; Stark 1998). But, because boundaries are not always visible or circumscribed, this ar ea of research is not an easy undertaking. Synthesizing approaches, which pull together th e North American archaeological tradition of examining stylisti c variability with that of the European emphasis on cognition and techni cal choice, are allowing a ne w view of social boundaries at different scales (see Dietler 1998; Goodby 1998; Hegmon 1998; Stark et al. 2000; Stark et al. 1998).
28 In these examples, a multi -faceted approach that incorporated artifact compositional analysis and ethnoarchaeological perspectives allowed social boundaries to become more visible, with technical choices styles and systems found to mirror social boundaries and provide fresh insights into the relationship that ex ists between these boundaries and material culture patterning (Stark et al. 2000:8-9). This type of compositional and quantitative approach is us eful not only with ceramics and material applications, but in areas of activity wher e artifacts may not readily be encountered. Researchers can examine soils and clays for ex ample, to help determine activity areas, site structure, and function. This type of anal ysis can allow for an examination of social processes and boundaries at a variety of shif ting scales from household, to community, to region. The variety of scales provides insigh t into the behaviors and practices affecting societal boundary formation and how thos e natural and artifi cial boundaries and landscapes are understood at a community leve l, including perceptions of identity and community(Cowgill 1993:565; Davis-Salazar 2003:280). Understanding the meaning of boundaries drawn on maps by archaeologists to indicate site areas or even culture regions is another challenge for the discipline. It is often the distribution of a partic ular type of artifact or materi al that shapes the idea of cultural boundaries and is used as a proxy for understanding the existence and maintenance of a social boundary. The material culture is reflective of the past and the examination of spatial distribu tions, stylistic, and chronologic al variations are seen as a way to examine the social processes associ ated with the material record (Deetz 1965, 1968). This reliance on stylistic examination a nd type distribution is not only used in prehistoric contexts, but has been applied to historic ar tifacts and structural space
29 analysis, where a documentary record allows elaboration and advancement of social dynamic understanding (D eetz 1963; Glassie 1975). Boundary modeling approaches that focus on centeredness and non-centeredness have used stylistic variables and distribut ion of artifact types as a way to examine boundary maintenance through time and as a way to define and view a study area (Hodder and Orton 1979; Parkinson 2002). Th ese approaches have even included dimensions of analyzing stylistic variability for design elements indicative of personal identity, function, and in teraction, with some designs argued to better reflect social group interaction and affiliations than others, and as capable of being seen as delineators of regions (see Voss 1995). Relative visibility and distribution of the stylistic variable are thus often used by archaeologists to m odel the changing nature of boundaries through time and across space (Carr 1995; Janusek 2002; Parkinson 2002). Social boundaries are often modeled us ing archaeological data obtained from stylistic and technological attr ibutes, and archaeological site s can be distinguished from surrounding areas with boundaries often viewed in terms of physical features and artifact densities. But in this sense, boundaries are actually a compromise between what we see today in the way of physical remains, and what types of activ ities and beliefs constitute a site or place. Activities in places can differ through time, although use of space can be consistent, resulting in landscapes that pe rsist through time (Schla nger 1992: 92). There is also a genre of literature and theory con cerning non-sites, negative survey data, and the places in-between, that further complicates and muddies our interp retations of boundaries and how best to model them (Crumley a nd Marquardt 1987; Ebert 1992; Hudak et al. 2000; Wells et al. 2004).
30 Boundaries can be physical, cultural, social and artificial distinctions and can be hard to denote, but they ar e still worthy of study and inve stigation. Boundaries offer a way to spatially understand cultural processe s. A boundary is not all about centers and distinctions, but can also be about edges and peripheries and areas that shift, blend and merge together, changing or being cha nged through time. Shif ts in boundaries can exemplify a shift in priority and even reve al changing conceptions in regard to the environment (Crumley and Marquardt 1990). Cultural processes can run along lines of boundary demarcation and sometimes even cross-cut the separation; therefore, boundaries may simultaneously serve as both centers and edges (Savage 1990:336). Problems in examining boundaries include reliance on macro scales of analysis, not examining boun daries in terms of porosity, interface, and two-way behavior, and expectations for sharp demarcations rather than blended areas of unclear distinction (Lightfoot and Martin ez 1995). It is precisely because of the ephemeral nature of boundaries that archaeological research be pursued at a variety of scales, both spatial and tempora lly, as what may appear to be a center at one scale may be a boundary at another (Crumley and Mar quardt 1987; Madry and Crumley 1990:73-79). So, how do we decide where to draw the li nes and call it a boundary ? It depends on the scale of the question being asked. Boundaries and Archaeological Signatures The concept of an archaeological signat ure is defined here as a discernable artifact residue pattern that can be used to distinguish location, land use, or settlement patterns for temporal and cultural affiliati on. Archaeological signatures are used in
31 boundary determinations, and need to be di scussed in terms of how archaeologists delineate and interpret space and place through the use of these signatures. For example, areas of discrete artifact concentration, dateable and di agnostic artifacts, spatial arrangements and configurations, site plans and relation and interaction with other areas and sites, can all be used to discern an arch aeological signature. These signatures, such as house form and spatial layout, can be useful in examining social identity and diversity and represent a type of social boundary (A ldenderfer and Maschner 1996; Bawden 1993; Janusek 2002). Archaeological signatures can more broadly be viewed as landscape signatures when the material remains from human activity are considered across landforms in a given region and at a particular time, the result of the relationship between people and the environment (Marquardt a nd Crumley 1987). In this way, social boundaries and natural environmental boundaries come together archaeologically. These boundary overlaps occur at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. To effectively see these boundaries and the landscape signature, scalar or spatial approaches should be multidimensional. The approach can be taken from a small, localized or household view, to large areas, pe rhaps delineated by natura l features such as watersheds, ecosystems, or ecotonal interf aces. Landscape signatures are not static entities, but are complex systems that can vary temporally as well as spatially. Shifts in these signatures can occur, sometimes abrupt ly, and have been documented in a variety of environmental zones (Wilkinson 2003). To examine culture change and how it is manifested spatially, any scale in which recognizable, discernable patterns emerge can be a useful scale of analysis (Amerlinck 1998; Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Boyden 1979; Crumley et al. 2001; Marquardt and
32 Crumley 1987). Archaeologists are of ten able to correlate natural and material features at different scales, with associ ated boundaries often co-occurring with cultural residues. For example, in Florida, known Paleo-Indian period (ca. 13,000 B.C. to 7,900 B.C) sites have been found to correlate with karstic areas where chert lim estone outcrops are numerous. This area ranges from northern Hillsbor ough County to Alachua County and in the Panhandle portions of the state (Dunbar 1983). Additional karstic area s can be delineated by the occurrence of first magnitude springs, sinkholes, and surface water availability. These features reflect a natu ral boundary evident dur ing this period, namely a sea level much lower than present and inland fresh water sources scarce. Models that examine archaeological bounda ry patterns in relation to natural boundaries are useful, with the caveat that it is understood that they consider the known archaeological record and may not be reflective of the actua l settlement pattern in all instances. Paleo-Indian sites in Florida may also be found most often in karstic areas, because these are areas that have subsurface e xpression that can be readily seen in areas such as river cuts and sinkholes. These ar eas also tend to be where we look for these types of sites. However, Paleo-Indian sites can also be found offshore in Tampa Bay or in deeply-buried terrestrial settings where it is not as easy to look for sites. Therefore, ease of survey and expectations of site locations in certain areas need to be considered as factors affecting our perception of settlement patterns from this period (Goodyear et al. 1983; Milanich and Payne 1993:17). For this re ason, models of life ways, such as the Paleo-Indian example, should be viewed at multiple scales, considering such factors as paleoclimate, vegetation, subsistence and ra w material resource potential, physiography,
33 and other location evaluative factors like slope, relative elevation, and hydrography (FDHR 1990; Sassaman and Anderson 1996). Archaeological examples of natural boundari es and social boundaries intersecting are numerous and have been used in predicta bility modeling effectively in a variety of settings. Yet, it should also be noted that in many cases, distinctions between natural and social boundaries are vague and ephemeral, so metimes symbolic and intangible (Lamont and Molnar 2002:167). Mountain ranges, riveri ne corridors, lacaustrine and wetland areas, and other areas of ecotone difference, can function as natural boundaries where the archaeological record reflects distinctly differe nt life ways and mate rial differences and stylistic variability. For example, Milanich (1978) developed a model for the Cades Pond culture in north central Florida based on settlement and subsistence strategies bounded by wetland and aquatic habitats. The environmenta l setting was shown to play an important role in the cultural development and materi al culture expression of Cades Pond people (Milanich 1978). Catchment zones surrounding archaeologica l sites, sometimes based on arbitrary distances or radiuses aro und sites, can also be based on natural boundaries. Site catchments consider potential or actual resource s in relation to travel distance, bringing in an economic dimension and examined through least-cost analysis (Savage 1990). While this method of analysis has its merits, ther e are problems inherent to presupposing these types of boundaries. For example, is distance to a resource the limiting fa ctor, or is travel time more important? If a resource is located uphill versus downhill, then travel time might very well be more important than distance.
34 Examination of social processes and behaviors, settlement patterns, artifact distributions, stylistic variations, subsis tence models, and bounda ries come under the broad heading of landscape archaeology. When a Geographical Information Systems (GIS), which is hardware and software that allows the viewing, laye ring, and analysis of spatial or geographical data, is used to exam ine the landscape, these multiple layers of spatial and contextual consideration are able to be viewed together or separately, in a horizontal or heterarchical way, as opposed to a vertical or hierarchical examination that can often overlook complex relationships that may exist among variables of analysis. The term heterarchy is defined here as a way of organizing the landscape in to an area that has variables of consideration that are all or in large part unranked. In this way, boundaries that project beyond lines and are salient can be examined in terms of multiple characteristics that simultaneously reflect the whole. Use of a GIS as a tool that allows for this type of multi-layered analysis, help s in examining cultural landscapes (Crumley and Marquardt 1987; Green 1990:358; Madry and Crumley 1990:367; Marquardt and Crumley 1987; Savage 1990:331). Thus, a la ndscape archaeology approach should encompass multiple scales from differing temporal and cultural considerations. The ability to visualize multiple layers and levels of information in a GIS enables a view of the landscape as an aggregate, providing a br oader perspective of the patterning of human activity that is occurring acr oss space. An examination of the physical structures, site functions, locations, natural system associ ations, soils and landforms, social and administrative boundaries, and the spaces in between and surrounding known archaeological sites, can be examined collectiv ely. The synthesis of these data facilitate a
35 more rapid and accurate way of connection analysis (Crumley et al. 2001; Kvamme 1989:149; Madry and Crumley 1990:73-79). Choice of spatial extent should be at an effective scale that demonstrates pattern in a recognizable way so that inferences can be made (Marquardt and Crumley 1987). A GIS can help integrate se veral layers of information co llected at different scales, including archaeological, ecological, and land use data. Examining these layers of data at varying spatial and temporal scales, afford s decision makers the ability to interpret information, recognize patterns that emerge, a nd determine how to best manage resources (Fahig 1992). One example would be from a la ndform, or physiographic unit perspective. A physiographic unit is defined as an area that possesses internal homogeneous natural characteristics while exhibiting degrees of contrast with adjacent areas (Frye and Schoewe 1953). The case study presented in this dissertation is one such unit area. A variability of scale is al so needed so that we do not emphasize boundaries in their relative importance while potentially con cealing a boundary that may mean much more. A multiscalar, landscape orientation does not impose or delineate boundaries arbitrarily in advance and integrates social theory with natural systems in a multi-perspective archaeological investigati on (Marquardt and Crumley 1987). A landscape orientation may be thought of as a heterogeneous assemb lage or a mosaic of internally uniform elements or patches (Fahig 1992). Meaningf ul patterns of cultural activity combined with environmental regions can occur across variable scales. For example, it may make sense from a modern day political perspective to examine archaeology within a circumscribed county boundary, yet still be ab le to understand and look for patterns as part of a larger regional cu ltural and environmental setting.
36 Boundaries as Used in Florida Archaeology The idea of archaeological regions in Florida, as proposed by Goggin (1947), was the relationship of prehistoric cultures to the geographical environment through time. Prior to Goggins preliminary work and dissertation on the topic, early attempts at defining regions were made by Holmes (1903), Stirling (1935), Kroeber (1916) and Wissler (Kroeber 1931) Goggins classifications gave consider ation to space, time, and tradition, changing the dimensions of archaeology. Tradition is the pe rsistence of traits or elements of culture that persist through time. This concept of tradition, as put forward by Willey (1945), was broadened by Goggin to encompass whole culture areas in Florida (space) and to include a temporal depth (Goggin 1948a, 1949; Willey and Sabloff 1980). Goggin relied heavily on natural geographical features in his a pplication of the culture area concept to archaeologically defined cultures (G oggin 1948a:37; 1948b, 1949). His proposed archaeological areas and regions originally incl uded Floridas East Co ast, West Coast and southern tip. He then subdivided the West Coast in two, and added four intermediate regions that he explained helped account for cultural interplay and interaction (Goggin 1948b) (Figure 2.1). Goggin pointed to the concept of cultural hearths, which served as main centers of development. These hearth areas were the No rthern St. Johns, the Northwest Gulf Coast and the Glades area (Goggin 1947b). His dissert ation work at Yale led to a statewide archaeological perspective de velopment (Goggin 1948a). In the conception of this perspective, Goggin had access to severa l space-time archaeological framework
Figure 2.1 Goggins proposed arch aeological regions in Florida (after Goggin 1964:109). constructs through his cont act and exposure to the wo rks of Gordon Willey and John Griffin (Weisman 2002a). As Goggin was quick to note, however, these archaeological areas and regions were not of permanent value and should be viewed only as a starting point or a tool for further research. Early on, he recognized that these classifications were merely a way to organize available data and should be subject to refinement and change. These ideas were born out of two dominating schools of thought: geographical determinism and human adaptation to the environment, which held the environment as the limiting factor. To Goggin, the environment presented broader in terpretive opportunities. He made it clear that he did not subscribe to the idea of envir onmental determinism, stating that he viewed 37
38 the environment as permissive in the underlying consideration of Florida prehistory, especially as it relates to issues of subsis tence and availability of natural resources (Goggin 1948a:17-18). Goggins attention to vari able landscape scales was present even in this early synthesis. He was heavily infl uenced by his mentor Donald Brand, a cultural geographer that he studied under at the Univ ersity of New Mexico (Weisman 2002a). His ideas had elements of landscape understanding and were framed in terms of environmental possibilism, a concept that has come full-circle and is a prevailing theme in landscape ecology today (Sanderson and Harris 2000). Goggin also focused on material cultur e, in areas of seriation and chronology development, but always tied anthropological theory into reconstructing the culture and life ways of those who left the artifact record (Weisman 2002a). His ideas regarding archaeological areas and regions have served as the foundation for t odays refinement of archaeological regions, which are based largel y on distinctive pottery styles and show some correlation to geographical and envir onmental zones (Milanich 1994) (Figure 2.2). These regions admittedly do not fit all cases, but serve as a framework for understanding the known archaeological record. Because there remains uneven archaeological information across the state, some regions ar e better known than others. As we continue to learn about areas and gather more arch aeological data, refinements then, should be made. But we should remember, as Goggin st ated early on, that these boundaries are subareal units and should be considered as arbitrary and reflective only of the present knowledge (Goggin 1948a:68).
Figure 2.2. Milanichs adaptation of Goggins culture areas (after Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Milanich 1994). The idea of culture areas and regions were and continue to be influential to our understanding of Florida archaeology, and have served as the foundation in the development of the state historic contexts. These broad overviews of traits across time and space are used to infuse cultural meani ng to the landscape. Historic contexts are essentially an overview of the prehistori c and historic periods, and are extremely important because of their link to the significance determ ination process, where the contexts are used as justification for eligibil ity for listing of sites on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Florida Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan considers archaeological sites in the state by these categories, or contexts, with units 39
40 consisting of definable time periods or archaeological cultu res (Weisman 1999). Preservation planning needs hist oric contexts, as they are foundational to the organizing of information into a form that assists with understanding the significance of resources. These contexts are also used to analyze cultur al change through time in given areas. It is through the development of historic contexts that issues are identified, goals are developed, and preservation priorities are to be established (FDHR 1990). Historical contexts bridge between the archaeological r ecord and the National Register criteria for archaeological significance dete rmination, and understanding of these context is therefore crucial to the discussion of significance as an archaeologi cal concept (Weisman 2002b). Archaeology addresses such broad them es as the reconstruction of past life ways, the discovery of processes that underlie human behavior and the construction of cultural chronologies (Renfrew and Ba hn 2000). Historical c ontexts are bounded by cultural chronology, geographical se ttings and cultural themes and attributes. The general organization in the histori cal context descriptions in cludes information on setting, material culture, subsistence practices, a nd settlement patterns. Each context also includes information such as significant and diagnostic sites, potential research questions and preservation goals. Data from numerous sites and time periods across a defined region are needed to construct cultural chronologies, which are an integral part of the contexts. These chronologies have to also consider inform ation from new archaeological surveys and excavation, which will continue to modify and augment our understandings. Because contexts use existing knowledge they require evaluation and re-evaluation. Researchers
41 have called for regional appr oaches and use of new technol ogies and methodologies, such as computer assisted analyses, to refine and update the contexts (Milanich and Payne 1993). Ideally, information sources used to de velop archaeological contexts should include survey and excavation reports, archaeological literature, environmental impact assessments, land use plans, and ethnographi c research. Sources such as the Florida Master Site File location da ta, county, state and federal agency plans, registers and landmark inventories, Section 106 assessments and compliance reports, information from local historians, groups and organizations can all be us ed to augment the regional understanding and provide specific information regarding the history and prehistory of the region (Milanich and Payne 1993). Realisti cally, some of these gray literature sources are hard to obtain and to synthesi ze into a spatial construct. Additionally, archaeology has been criticized for being disconnected from other fields of inquiry, performing investigations and critically exam ining research questions of value only to archaeology. The presente d results and interpreta tions are often done in ways that are not formatted for use by others, such as environm ental resource planners, policy makers, and the public (Klein 1999). The historic contexts themselves are representative of this criticism, with boundaries and nomenclature specific to archaeological understanding but they are not easily integrated with regional considerations of environmental management plans and policies in Florida. As previously mentioned, contexts ar e, in concept, supposed to be living documents that are continuously developing and added upon. As more is learned about the archaeology and environmental attributes in a region, modifications to the contexts
42 and culture regions should be made. The developm ent of historic contexts are said to be accomplished by identifying the concept, time period, and geographical limits for the context; synthesizing information about the historic context in a written narrative, supplemented with maps and graphics; identifying research goals that will fill gaps in our knowledge of the context; identifying preserva tion goals that will help to protect the range of site types known and expected for th e context; listing general references which are important to the context; and listing site s which are recorded for the context along with their National Register status, and th eir known and expected distribution (FDHR 1990, 1993). Historic contexts organize this inform ation into three components: a cultural theme, the geographical limit, and the chronolog ical limit. These big picture overviews in theory should assist the unders tanding of the resource and aid in evaluating issues such as significance determination. Historic contexts sometimes cause confusion for researchers when they are incomplete or define areas without evenness in knowledge across regions. Many archaeological sites or areas can repres ent several contexts, with archaeologists sometimes not recognizing all of the possibilities. Historic contexts have also been criticized for their lack of planning, mostly presenting what is known rather than relating archaeology to management plans or policies (King 1998:234). The reality of the historic contexts in Florida is that although they are very descriptive of geographical and chronological extents, there has been no holistic, bridgi ng approach to understanding these constructs in spatial relationship to the environment, nor has there been an integration of GIS for spatial understanding of these cultural phenomena, that remain essentially verbally described. Maps, when us ed, are primarily for visualization purposes
43 rather than analysis. Although visualizing da ta has merits for general pattern display, analytical tools and modeling that a GIS affords would create stronger contexts on which to make planning decisions, including bot h proactive and reactive elements (King 1998:235). Historic and archaeological planning cont exts are meant to provide us with a framework for preservation goals, but they largely do not take into account spatial relationships and influencing environmental va riables in a way that allows for a more complete, multiple scale and larger regional level of understanding. In Florida, a shift from hard-to-define cultural boundaries to a more multiple scale environmental setting approach is proposed as providing a more effective and efficient framework for the management of archaeological resources. This type of a mu lti-level view of understanding cultural resources in the state will prove bene ficial in lessening criticisms of Section 106 of the National Historic Pres ervation Act, which requires that all federal planning, decision-making, and project executio n take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties. Understanding how archaeology and cu ltural resources are part of the landscape, and how the landscape is pa rt of the cultural resources, will assist in preservation prioritization and impact assessme nts, especially as th e latter often involves natural and cultural resource considerations. Criticisms of other permitting and compliance issues will also lessen as arch aeology moves away from an emphasis on a site-by-site approach. Evalua tion decisions concerning arch aeological significance and impacts will also be dramatically improved with a more complete understanding of a given context (King 2002).
44 The Significance Debate Significance evaluation plays a pivotally important role in archaeological investigation, protection strategy development, and resource management. The idea of significance in archaeo logy is at once clarifying a nd confounding. Significance is a subjective judgment and it may be at on ce a concept, a quality, and a designation. Significance in archaeology mean s that a site is capable of providing scientific or humanistic understandings of past human behavior, cultural adaptation, and related topics through the application of sc ientific or scholarly tec hniques such as controlled observation, contextual measurement, controlled collection, analys is, interpretation and explanation (FDHR 1993). Signifi cance refers to meeting the requirements for eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in archaeology in the United States. The NRHP is a national list ing of cultural resources that are deemed worthy of preservation as authorized by the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. The list is coordina ted to identify, evaluate and protect historic and archaeological resources and is formally ad ministered by the National Park Service. According to King (1998:75) [a]rchaeological properties do not have to be large, impressive, or rich in artifact s or data to qualify for the NRHP, nor do they have to be suitable for public interpretati on. Any archaeological resource is potentia lly eligible if one can legitimately argue that it is likely to be associated with a cu ltural pattern, process, or activity important to the hi story or prehistory of its lo cality, the United States, or humanity as a whole, provided its study can contribute to an u nderstanding of that pattern, process, or activity.
45 Subjectivity, intended to allow flexibilit y, has instead created problems with the definition of significance and complicated th e significance determination process. For example, just as you can say that a resource may be eligible for listing, you can also say that another resource is not eligible, and ther efore not significant based on a yes or no answer. These judgments in value are made all the time in archaeology and cultural resource management as a way to prioritize and preserve, but thes e judgments should be tempered with caution and use the best available information (King 1998:90). The solution to making good judgments is having localized and area specific information that can assist with resource id entification and definition that will allow a more informed analysis of significance as a concept. Essentially, hi storic contexts and their use in significance determination rela tes to how much we know; about a site, a region and the archaeological re search issues for that regi on. This information is then combined with how much of an effort we wa nt to take in making a case or argument for significance (Glassow 1985). There is also the problem of c onveying the meaning of archaeological significance to those outside of archaeology with a vested interest, namely planners, policy makers, and the public. The divide w ithin archaeology between how research and academia and cultural resource management in terpret archaeological significance has also has been pointed to as problematic (Darvill 2005; Klein 1999). The challenge is to make significance determination meaningful to non-archaeologists (D eeben et al. 1999). Under the current system, the focus is centered largely on single sites and the significance determination is more a reflection of the research agendas of the archaeologists performing the assessments In the present system, the familiar sites are
46 out competing the unfamiliar or unknown sites whose value as resources are not clearly understood. Therefore, only existing fram es of knowledge are being protected, with diversity being unrecognized and eventually lost (Glassow 1985; Weisman 2002b). The value ultimately assigned to th e resource can be more an in terpretation and value of the evaluator than anything intrinsi c to the archaeological reco rd (Moratto and Kelly 1978). Whole categories of sites can be summarily di smissed as not significant, before they are ever understood or considered on anything but a site-level basis. Th is loss of knowledge often happens with sites that are consider ed by some to be unspectacular with few artifacts, or that are hard to categorize. The problem extends beyond sites and types to entire regions, where there is unevenne ss in the archaeological understanding. For example, many interior portions of Florid a are less archaeologically understood than coastal areas. Without developed referen ce and comparison information, sites and settings are sometimes blurred and compar tmentalized into familiar categories with values assigned based on the known rath er than new categories of understanding developing from the evidence. Significance can on ly be interpreted th rough the use of an explicit frame of reference (Schiffer and Gumerman 1977:239), showing once again the basic need for developed historic contexts for use at multiple, landscape levels of analysis. As part of the significance evaluation and to be eligible for listing on the NRHP, the site also must have integrity as well. Integrity is defined as having seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanshi p, feeling and association. Integrity then, is the ability of a prope rty or site to convey its signifi cance in this manner (National Park Service 1991). Integrity must be determined by understanding the c ontext and research
potential and knowing when, where, and why th e property is significa nt (Little et al. 2000). There are four evaluating criteria that are used in the significance determination process (Table 2.1). For archaeological resources, it is the Criterion D that is of primary application to sites that are 50 years of age or older. But wh ile research potential is the most commonly used, it may not adequately address such concepts as whether an archaeological site or district has traditional, social, or religious significance to a particular group or community (Seibert 2002) The criteria are very broad based by design and able to incorporate new informa tion and techniques. The generality of the determination criteria can be a confounding too, as the criteria are so broad that a defined threshold for significance is not always deve loped. This generality was intentional, so Table 2.1. National Register of Historic Places evaluation cr iteria used for significance determination Criteria for evaluation: The quality of significance in American history, architec ture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of lo cation, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and; (a) that are associated with events th at have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represen t a significant and dist inguishable entity whose components may l ack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likel y to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Source: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/listing.htm 47
48 that a one-size-fits-all procedure for determination was not mandated, making the development of regional contexts and multiple other scales of analysis and research problem orientation even more impo rtant in the process (Glassow 1985). How these criteria are implemented by CRM firms, evaluators, and agencies can vary widely, with determinations incumben t upon informed cases able to be made by evaluators, who work to make the criteria meaningful with problem-oriented research (Raab and Klinger 1977; 1979:329). Oftentimes, it is the field arch aeologists initial assessment that attests to the archaeological value and is crucial to the significance determination chain of events. This step in the process is where decisions with implications are made. For example, if signi ficance determination is part of a Federal undertaking, then adverse imp acts to significant sites must be avoided, minimized or mitigated. Sites that are not deemed significant are often lost to the bulldozer or otherwise destroyed (Austin and Hoffman 2002; M iller 2002). In the case of Florida, the master site file database shows that a majo rity of sites have not been evaluated for significance by the State Histor ic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and it is the survey evaluation and the assessment of the evaluator that most often stands as the site valuation record (Florida Master Site File 2006)(see also Austin et al. 2001). Criticisms and challenges continue to resonate from within the field of archaeology and call for an examination of archaeological site significance not only under the Criterion D determination, but from th e aspect of societa l value. Contribution to overall management and planning should also be considered in the significance determination, and in promoting a land or c onservation ethic (Darvill 1995; Deeben et al.
49 1999; Hardesty and Little 2000; King and Lyneis 1978; Leone 1992; Lipe 1984; Mathers, Darvill et al. 2005a). Archaeologists and officials are not alone in this determination process. The Native American Graves Protection a nd Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), along with state-level acts such as Floridas state statute Chapter 872 (Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves), underrepresented new voices are emerging in the process. Native Americans, African Americans, and stakeholders are helpi ng to shape the discourse on significance and the idea s of value and importance in arch aeology (Mathers, Darvill et al. 2005a). More vocal public debate and input ha s been central to this process with one result being a look inward. Archaeologists and the public are begi nning to again examine hierarchal ranking and value beyond the compliance setting of significance determination. Renewed focus on the significance topic follows nearly a d ecade of reflection after much attention and debate was given to the issue largely from the CRM point of view in the late 1970s and 80s (Glassow 1977; King 1977; Lipe 1984; Lynott 1980; McGimsey 1972; Raab and Klinger 1977, 1979; Sharrock 1979; Tainter and Lucas 1983). Significance is, after all, intrinsically linked to a valuat ion or value system, and plural ity and inclusion of opinions and voices can only broaden appreciation for th e complexity of the decision process. Despite this opportunity for public inclus ion from the legal processes now in place, it is still largely the Cultural Resource Management professionals who are dealing with compliance projects on a daily basis a nd are examining concepts of significance regularly. In particular, they are looking for and assessing si tes significant to American history that could be impacted by federal undertakings or federally-assisted projects
50 under the Section 106 review pro cess of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). There are processes outside of the federal system for cultural resource preservation, and Florida has many examples of archaeological acquisition (Florida Department of State, 2002). Florida, for example, emphasizes hist oric preservation with state and local mandates and ordinances th at exist to encourage pr eservation, stewardship and acquisition, and establish protection laws especially relati ng to state owned or controlled lands and for offenses concerning dead bodi es and graves (see Chapter 872 Florida Statute relating to Dead Bodies and Grav es, Chapter 253 of the Florida Statutes concerning emergency acquisition, and Chapter 267 Florida Statute concerning state or state-assisted undertakin gs and state permits). Significance is essentially a way of unde rpinning value. As significance is applied to cultural resources, the context, who is ev aluating the resource, and qualities inherent to the resource, are all factors. The attribut es and values used by archaeologists in examining the concepts of significance have ranged from scientific, historical, ethnic, legal and monetary (Mathers et al. 2005b). With the inclusion of native peoples in the significance consultation process, symbolic and sacred values across larger areas are now more often being considered on a national basi s. Cultural resources offer a way to view human use of a landscape, tying activities a nd people to a place. The legal aspect of significance determination means that the utmost care needs to be afforded to the process. As well, archaeological contexts need to be understandable to non-ar chaeologists in order for the concept to play a relevant role in heritage and resource management, protection, and planning (Briuer and Ma thers 1996; Darvill 1995; D eeben et al. 1999; Glassow 1985).
51 Although a site-focused mentality prev ails in archaeological significance determination and recordati on, there is an example of a landscape dimension of consideration in the National Register pro cess. Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) deemed significant to Native American cultu res, exemplify how a landscape can be viewed from a variety of perspectives, but this designation is u nder-utilized by cultural resource managers in Florida (Robert Austin personal communication, November 2006). TCPs may include such things as trail system s, sacred areas, and site clusters. Evidence for these areas can come from both scientific and survey based data, and from oral histories, ethnography, and from religious and traditional practices (Seibert 2002). TCPs could be examined under different criteria, but the imposition of these criteria to the sometimes ephemeral nature of these s ites can be problematic, as significance conveyance required under criteri a A, B, and C is more rigi d than the site integrity requirement under criteria D. The significance of a TCP is from the perspective of those who value the property rather than those who evaluate the property. Significance can also be considered outside of the realm of the National Register. Archaeological resources which reflect culture, society, and even the individual are no less significant if viewed outside the federal arena. Archaeolog ical investigations in other countries still have a subjective considerat ion toward the significance of archaeological sites; examining merit, value, information potential, size, structure, symbolism, inter and intra-site relationships and othe r factors. Public investment a nd cultivation of a tie to the past, a sense of place, and a relevance of arch aeology to the present is possible. Yet, in the United States the fact that we have a fede ral register list establ ishes some degree of heritage promotion and has been demonstrat ed as a way of bri nging archaeology more
52 easily into the public sphere (Little 2002). The National Register and the compliance processes previously discussed offer a le gal role for archaeology. In this manner, significance is also a concept tied to res earch, stewardship, and preservation planning (Seibert 2002). Representativeness and Significance The concept of representativeness is used in archaeology and CRM to mean that a sample of sites from a given geographic ar ea accurately reflects the range of human cultures and activities that have occurred there th rough time (Mathers et al. 2005). Although the concept remains an arbitrary and often ill-defined pretense, the idea of a representative sample for both research c onsideration and for pl anning and preservation issues is important. Both representativeness and significance convey the idea of value, with representativeness reflective of the accurate depiction of the range of human culture and activity within a geographical contex t (Briuer and Mathers 1996; Glassow 1977). Still, questions concerning archaeological knowledge in a region and significance determination remain: How much is enough? How much do we need to know before we know? And, what is it that is lost if we are wrong (Weisman 2002b)? The reality in Florida is that decisions regarding representativeness of resources, cumulative impacts, and other regionalized c oncerns are oftentimes not made. The yes or no answers to significance determination in the NRHP process can lead to the preservation of sites reflecting more the re search agendas created by the archaeological community than the value of the cultural re source. Difficult topics to be sure, but
53 significance and representativeness need to be considered if we are going to protect archaeological dive rsity and heritage (Mathe rs et al. 2005a). Lacking an audit of this diversity, we could be differentia lly protecting some types of archaeological phenomena, while perhaps poorly representing site types reflective of a diversity in et hnicity, site function, class, overall site size, chronology and numerous other overlooked variables that make our ultimately preserved record unrepresentative (Mathers et al 2005a). This lack of protect ion is often seen with the ephemeral and inconspicuous site types, like li thic and artifact scatte rs, with assessments being made arguably based on the wrong criter ia; material expression over behavioral (Tainter and Bagley 2005:63-69). Sites can be summarily dismisse d as not significant whose value as a resource is not understood. In this example, the NRHP process is establishing a procedure for more familiar type s of archaeological sites out-competing the unfamiliar or unknown site types, with only existing frames of knowledge protected (Austin and Hoffman 2002; Mather s et al. 2005a; Weisman 2002b). To avoid this problem, some have calle d for a labeling of more or less significant rather than giving a yes or no answer to signi ficance that could change through time (Mathers et al. 2005:172). In th is sliding scale approach, labels such as lithic scatters would be downplayed and more specific characterizations such as site size, location, and functional terms would be a pplied so that sites, non-sites, and distributions, which could all be represented in the process (Goodyear et al. 1978) rather than narrowed research interests reflecting wh at is considered as significant (Sharrock 1979). Still, subjective terminology such as mor e or less come with value judgments
54 an beliefs that can ultimately skew the preservation record toward what is more understood. A way to address preservation planning and the issue of represen tativeness and of formal and functional site diversity would be through a multiple-scale settlement pattern analysis. For example, the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) has information available as GIS data layers with more than 26,932 ar chaeological sites record ed (Florida Master Site File 2006b). For each of these sites, spat ial location or general vicinity is given, as are the size (when determined), site type, cultural affiliation and time period. Other databases exist for diagnostic artifacts by site number, allowing the spatial analysis to extend to the material culture record. Utilizi ng this information in a GIS format where spatial queries and attribute information can be examined, analyses can be made at a variety of scales (administrative, cult ure region, ecosystem-level, archaeological landscape level, watershed, etc.) to see what kind of meaningful patterns emerge. Settlement pattern analysis can enable archae ologists to reconstruct past life ways, examining where people lived and why they mi ght have lived there. Many factors come into consideration in this an alysis including an environmen tal characterization, resource availability, economic practices (trade and ex change), and technologies. The next part of the analysis examines patterning and cluste ring of settlements and sites by type, size, function, and temporal and spatial configura tion over a defined area. These areas of inquiry afford an understanding of social di mension, specialization, stratification and political organization (FDHR 1990). Ideally, these factors can be combined with suitability concepts across a landscape, examining resource proximity and availability, and distance to other settlement clusters.
55 Site types reflect both the spatial pattern and the presumed behavior arising from things like the artifact type. Co llectively over an area, site types have been classified into social patterns (Willey and Sabloff 1980). An archaeological site does not exist in isolation. For the same reason that an objects meaning is diminished if it is taken from its original provenience, archaeological sites s hould not be considered out of the context of their larger cultural, geographic, or e nvironmental scale (Mathe rs et al. 2005:165). The Landscape Scale and Archaeology The GAP analysis I conduct in this disse rtation is applied to a physiographic unit scale that is used as a case study. This case study area is one that is facing pressures from development and land use changes, and will use an approach that considers environmental and land use issues and will relate these to archaeological planning and policy. The Big Hammock physiographic area is defined in part by restricted topography and environmental variables. I have consid ered the scale as a landscape study as well, using the definition that a la ndscape-scale study is one that looks at the effect of landscape context on a response variable, in this case archaeology (Fahrig 1992). I consider the archaeology in terms of th e geographical context, leaving room for comparisons to other defined landscapes in future studies. The term landscape can be vague and its meaning sometimes confusing a nd nebulous, with researchers often setting it aside as too problematic. N onetheless, as Hirsch (1995:2) states [t]he black box of landscape requires opening and its conten ts themselves brought into view. In anthropology, the definition of landscape is us ed in two ways; the first is as a framing mechanism to bring people into view, and th e second as a way of getting at the meaning
56 with which people imbue meaning to their surroundings. The landscape concept can then be viewed as a social construction of place, infusing the natural environment with social meaning and identity (Low and Lawrence-Zuniga 2003:16). Regional approaches emphasizing settlement pattern analysis have been central to archaeology for decades. This concept of a larger than the archaeological site level examination, came largely after the efforts of Gordon Willey and James Ford in the Viru Valley Program (Willey 1953), which was the firs t settlement pattern study conducted in the Americas (Billman 1999). As archaeologists moved beyond cultural historical approaches and began to consider more social and cultural processe s, regional settlement pattern analysis came into focus. In recent years, landscape approaches in archaeology have become more popular in part because of quantitative and spatial analysis applications with GIS (Ashmore and Kn app 1999; Bender 1993; Fisher 1999; Harris 2002; Kvamme 1989; Llobera 2001). These applications make it easier to study largerscale areas, with remotely sensed data, such as aerial and satellite imagery assisting in studying landscape structural variables (Fahrig 1992). Landscapes are the spatial manifestation of the relations between humans and their environment (Marquard t and Crumley 1987). Landscape archaeology examines issues such as how people have purposely or unintentionall y shaped their environs and how they have organized space for reasons of economics, environment, subsistence, social aspects, politics and religion (F isher et al. 2005; Ucko and Layton 1999). Landscapes are therefore not onl y natural but cultural constructs as well (Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Bender 1993; Deetz 1990). When co mbined with a multiple scale approach,
57 landscape archaeology affords greater insight in to these relationships and factors than does a site-specific approach (Wells et al. 2004). In geography, the emphasis in landscape study is traditionally the interaction of humans with the physical landscape; anthr opology adds the dimension of culture to landscape. There are numerous areas of congruency and overlap between geography, archaeology, and anthropology, and many applied projects have involved integrative approaches to understanding landscape-level cultural issues and responses (Tobin and Whiteford 2004). Geographys perspective, lik e anthropologys, is broad, critically addressing issues of human manipulation a nd transformation of the environment. Geography is concerned with location and place-oriented viewpoints, and landscape perspectives are part of this dimension. Spatial organization and built environment are issues dealt with at this a nd other scales of analysis, as are physical processes occurring in the natu ral environment, including cult ural dimensions of human interaction. Regions and places are studied th rough the examination of physical processes and human relationships across space, including a variety of scales from ecological units, such as watersheds, to landscapes or political or administrative areas, such as nations, states, and counties. Cultural landscapes as defined in geography are ubiquitous and act as repositories and collections of evidence of societal information (Cosgrove 1989; Knox and Marston 1998). Landscapes are viewed as interacting with cu lture. Geography looks at landscapes from the perspective of those who create, construct and modify, as well as from the view of those who consume the m eanings, perceptions, values and behaviors communicated by and through landscapes (Knox and Marston 1998). Landscapes can be
58 viewed from a variety of scal es, both individual and as interconnected linkages to other landscapes (Mitchell 2002). Landscapes are also viewed in terms of conflict and struggle and other meanings imbued by society. Concerns of power, iden tity, and control over the meaning of landscapes are questions revealed thr ough landscape analysis. These underlying landscape meanings and issues are as relevant today as in the past (Mitchell 2000). A landscape scale of analysis may not be appropr iate for all inquires. Arguments have been made for example that show how a landscape scale analysis can conceal power relations and may not be an appropriate scale for cons idering certain types of research questions addressing power concerns (Daniels 1989). The concept of landscape has its roots in Flemish landscape paintings and rendering of nature and panoramic vistas and views, and so the word often is used to connote nature. But landscape terminology is now often used as meaning more than topography and the viewable landscape. It is used as a metaphor meaning to grasp the whole of a subject matter. Landscapes are a way of seeing geography and are often dealt with in a cartographic way, but because of the dual nature of landscapes that both presupposes a viewer as well as being an observable phenomena, some have called for caution to be exercised in mapping these en tities (Cosgrove 1985; Wood 1992). Caution is necessary when mapping landscapes because there are different ways of knowing and seeing the landscape. These different ways of perception can have negative consequences when conservation and environmental manageme nt considers landscape and maps it in a geographic, natural sense, l eaving out social and cultural resource dynamics as separate domains. The mapping of resources without re ference to the activit ies and practices of
59 Native peoples is often a cri ticism of developed management strategies, and has been blamed in part for political separation of Native peoples from the land (Braun and Wainwright 2001:54). There are also examples of geogr aphers working in conjunction with archaeologists and anthropologists to produ ce landscape views. These views took into account more than natural resources. Oral hi stories help to infuse the landscape with meaning and intent and can be an inclusive part of visualizing a nd mapping the landscape (Braun and Wainwright 2001). In ecology, landscape approaches are often thought of in terms of watershed and ecosystem level studies. Landscapes in fact are defined as two or more ecosystems with an ecotone (Forman and Godron 1986). An ecosyst em is subjective in that it is a bounded unit of analysis inclusive of all the biotic and abiotic and interact ing pieces at various scales. Ecosystems are also sometimes delin eated by natural boundaries, such as a river, lake, watershed, vegetative a ssociation or other naturally delineated border. This organizational level emphasizes interacti on and, when brought together to include cultural interactions, can be provide one type of unit of analysis that shows physical processes in relation to the cultural, environmenta l, and temporal setting. An ecosystem perspective is integrative and allows for the consideration of multiple and interacting dynamics. Emerging patterns and processes allow ecologists to study landscapes. These processes include both geographical and ecolo gical approaches to understanding spatial issues and biotic processes on and within a landscape. Ecological landscape studies are conducted to examine multiscalar and tem poral models, depending on the research
60 questions and problem orientation (Opdam et al. 2002). In this way, landscape patterns and interactions between systems can be cons idered at varying levels. The interaction between ecosystems has the propensity to imp act ecological processes and for this reason a landscape approach that bri ngs this system complexity in to view is warranted (Opdam et al. 2002). In ecology, a landscape perspe ctive broadens from a species focused approach to include spatial and temporal dynamics of interaction and exchange (Bridgewater 1993; Forman and Godron 1986). Landscape ecology and the landscape approach put forth, have been adopted as a meaningful ways of organi zing land management. It has brought a broader, more inclusive perspective to ecosystem management guidelines in policies, particularly in the United States National Park Service (Grumbin e, E. R. 1994), and in Europe where largescale working landscapes are ma naged both in terms of biodiversity and sustainable use (Miller 1996). This idea of landscape as a scale of anal ysis is not new to archaeologists, but consideration of landscapes ha s often been limited to discussions of viewsheds. My intention here is to use the term from an ecological perspective, emphasizing the interaction between archaeol ogical spatial patterning and ecological and environmental processes (Crumley and Marquardt 1990; Cr umley et al. 2001; Marquardt and Crumley 1987). As philosophies such as Ecosystem Mana gement become intrinsically part of land management and public policies, archaeologi cal studies should respond by focusing on the interrelationships between culture and th e environment. Thus, a landscape perspective gives a more integrated view of natural a nd human processes (Winthrop 1999). It also
61 affords more involvement from diverse groups representing a vari ety of publics and opinions, allowing for different voices to be heard in the development process (Krech 2005). In Florida archaeology, a lands cape scale of analysis has not been widely used. The definition and identification of regiona l archaeological bounda ries in Florida has largely relied on ceramic t ypes and styles. The addition of a landscape perspective allows for refinement of these regions to include a relationship to the environment. Rather than a paradigm shift, it is an outgrow th of regional-scale archaeological research that focuses on interconnections (Crumley a nd Marquardt 1987). The current Florida model uses ceramic area boundary definitio ns, that are cultural historical in approach and do not easily fit with environmen tal management and conservation needs. The proposed organizational framework will defi ne smaller scale ecological models, in which archaeology is then considered. This a pproach is particularly effective for the interior regions where there is an incomple te understanding of the archaeological record. As with archaeology and geography, issues of scale in landscape analysis are important in ecology and environmental scienc es as well. How we see the landscape may be different than the utiliza tion of the landscape by organisms, especially in areas of patches and corridors which may have complex species relationships (Urban et al. 1987). Ecological systems are scale dependent and unde rstanding their spatial relationships is crucial in understanding lands cape ecologies (Forman 1995). The definitions of landscapes between the different fields of archaeology, geography, ecology and environmental sciences are fairly congruent. It is the associated processes and interacting phenomena that diffe r slightly, yet are perceived and can be
62 seen through similar methodological appro aches to landscape dynamics. A GIS can be used to explore multiple scales of variation, both spatial and temporal ranges, and spatial and process heterogeneity, providing a synthe sizing approach for resource management, impact assessment, and conservation of natu ral and cultural resour ces (Bridgewater 1993; Crumley and Marquardt 1990). Using a landscape approach considering multiple spatial and temporal scales, we are better able to study interc onnections and examine represen tative examples of site types and culture affiliations, size, and other factors. Examination of temporal periods at different scales is necessary to see la ndscape settlement patterns, which can be heterogeneous at one scale and homogeneous at another (Marquardt and Crumley 1987). People can move across a landsca pe at different times for different reasons. Archaeology on a sliding level of analysis can focus on ar chaeological contexts in relation with the environment and other defined variables (Whitley 2000) to examine patterns. Through the implementation of these broade r analyses that ex amine the settlement pattern across variable spatia l and temporal scales, an enhancement in the understanding of archaeological significance is possible. Im plications for research and preservation planning and management will emerge from using this variable scale perspective (Mathers et al. 2005b). The understanding of what kinds of archaeological sites are present across multiple scales, and analysis in terms of representativeness, function, and form, can assist in linking state, regional, and local conservation and preservation plans for environmental and cultural resource mana gement strategies. It is increasingly important to close these cu ltural and environmental knowle dge gaps in this era of intensification and changing land use.
63 A further consideration for representativeness is the relationship between preservation strategies for archaeological resources based on significance evaluation versus input of archaeological site valuation by native and minority communities. In this way, developing evenness in our understanding and our conservation strategies with a methodology that is inclusive of archaeological representativeness allows for better management of a collective and inclusive heritage (Mathers, Schelberg et al. 2005:161165). In practice, especially in the realm of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) and compliance archaeology, the approach to ar chaeological resources continues to be primarily a site-by-site assessment, often with focus applied to areas of potential effect rather than a landscape or multiple scale position. Significance determination and listing on the NRHP shows an overwhelming majority of National Regist er properties (80 percent) are historic struct ures, calling some to wonder whether archaeological sites themselves are underrepresented on the National Register and are in fact reflecting a gap in the national memory. Archaeologists in this way have the chance to add many silenced voices to the public memory (Little 2005). These percentages continue to trend towa rd prehistoric site under-representation in the NRHP significance determination when re sults from eligibility criterion application are reviewed over large-scale surveys. In Florida, for example, one gas pipeline survey that cross-cut the state re sulted in the CRM firm considering only six of the 118 archaeological sites encountered as being eligib le or potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP (Federal Energy Regulator y Commission 2001; Miller 2002).
64 As a way to combat the loss of site diversity and of the familiar sites outcompeting the unfamiliar, a GAP audit of Florida archaeology can decrease the subjectivity of significance dete rmination through the use of a formal procedure that examines sites within larger contexts. Emer ging patterns of sites across time and space can be evaluated in the process, using a GI S platform to consider acquisition, protection, and management strategies. Others have pos ited matrixes and keys for significance evaluative procedures (see Da rvill 2005; Weisman 2002b). Thes e matrixes trend toward yes and no answers, or have ranked numbering systems based on questions involving significance evaluation determinations. Matrix evaluations have largely lacked specific spatial orientations or have been conducted at scales too coarse fo r local application, and have proven difficult to use in CRM practice (Robert Austin, personal communication, November 2006). A GAP for archaeological resources provides a more spatially oriented way of handling the matrix concepts and demons trates the levels of threats and protection by including a public and cons ervation lands component. In this way, landscape level archaeological theories (Cosgrove 1985; Crumley and Marquardt 1990; Marquardt and Crumley 1987) can be operationalized. A GAP analysis dovetails with watershed management and natural systems concepts as well as the significance evaluation process of the NRHP and responds to criticisms of selective preservation and the subjective nature of significance determination and ar chaeological value assi gnation (Hardesty and Little 2000; Lipe 1995; Mather s et al. 2005a). In this way, boundaries become less constrictive, as we are able to consider issues such as stewardship and preservation of resources within, across, and between boundaries and borders using la ndscape principles.
65 In the next chapter, I discuss the evol ution of Floridas archaeological and land use planning agencies, programs, and practi ces, and provide an overview of the current setting. I discuss cultural and land acquisi tion and preservation in the State, and the interconnectedness with environmental pr ograms. Linking together archaeological strategies for preservation w ith land management and environmental resource planning, I will focus on the merits and role for a GAP methodology as a way to allow more informed decisions and anal ysis of regional dynamics.
66 Chapter 3. Planning for Preservation in Florida Archaeology: Resource Protection and Preservation Strategies Past, Present and Future Directions The laws and policies which govern historic preservation challenge archaeologists to engage in regi onal planning, participate in agency decisions, and emphasize conservation over excavation, develop explicit statements of research potential and perform in a businesslike and professional manner. Particularism on the part of archaeologists, and procedural fossilization on the part of agencies, may hamper the development of balanced programs of preservation and scientific research (King and Lyneis 1978: 1). Introduction In the quote above, King and Lyneis cal led for inclusiveness on the part of archaeologists in land use pla nning and resource management processes. This appeal was made in order to prevent archaeology from becoming irrelevant in the preservation process. Yet, after nearly three decades, archaeology continues to remain on the periphery of planning strategies. Archaeologi cal scale, both spatial and temporal, are sometimes seen as incongruent with environmental planning, and decisions regarding cultural resources are frequen tly made only after planning for environmental and natural resources has taken place (Barnes 1981; Hardin 2002; Weisman 1994; Weisman 2002; Yates 2002). The lack of proactive planning for cultural resources and the need for coordination with other evaluative strategies is a result of what King and Lyneis (1978:1) referred to as particularism, or a cons tricted focus. For example, in Florida,
67 Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) are large-scale projects that may have crossjurisdictional impacts to economic environmental, and cultural resources. These projects are cooperatively reviewed by agencies and regional planners to determine and reduce their effects. Cultural resource assessments o ccur subsequent to the environmental review and are segregated from other considerations. Further, the re view for impacts to cultural resources is often concerned only with s ite-level issues (Barnes 1981). Even when archaeologists actively participate in ac quisition and planning processes along with environmental and natural resource specialists at the state level, cultural resources are commonly regarded only as added value benefit (Michael Wisenbaker, personal communication, 2006; Weisman 1994, Weisman 2002b). Thus, the process continues to target the well-developed environmental pr iorities, while archaeology often remains a secondary consideration. Significance, as an archaeological concept discussed in the last chapter, remains largely defined on a site by s ite basis rather than by studyi ng the site in relation to a larger, regional perspective Barnes 1981; Miller 2002). American archaeology continues to need regional and theoretical perspectives that can be incorporated more readily into ecosystem and environmental management la nd use and planning strategies. As King and others have indicated, well-developed regi onal contexts are needed for significance determinations and a whole range of values to be reasonably and responsibly considered and represented (Comptroller General 1981; Darvill 1995; Glassow 1977; Goodyear et al. 1978; King and Lyneis 1978; Lipe 1974; Lyno tt and Wylie 2000; Mathers et al. 2005a). In order to develop a direction for preservation planning in American archaeology, we first need to understand the evolution of the processes and policy
68 development. Examination of the interconnected ness of legislation, agencies, and policies relating to archaeology and the environment is also of para mount concern. As we move toward a more inclusive strategy for pr otection and conservation of resources, consideration of both the cultural and natura l elements should lead to the enhancement and benefit of each. Often, at the local and regional levels, th ere is an apparent disconnect between the cultural and environmental resource pla nning. For example, developed regional ecosystem management plans consider only na tural resources despite the coexistence of archaeological resources (SWFWMD 2002a, b). In this chapter, I examine the evolution of policy and planning for preservation strategi es in Florida. I also illustrate that connections between cultural resource pl anning and policy are frequently overlooked. Understanding areas of resource planning congruency and overlap, and also where environmental and cultural concerns have or s hould be considered separately, will allow the development of frames of flexible refe rence that can incorporate both archaeology and environmental variables. This inclusive resource planning will help shape new directions for preservation and for the examination of archaeological value and importance, operationalizing more regional theoretical approaches in archaeology (Mathers et al. 2005a:6). The Rise of Florida Resource Management The roots of resource management are deep in this nation, and an understanding of the broader sense of the American manageme nt ethos is essential to the concepts of significance and valuatio n of resource conservation pla nning development in Florida.
69 Much of the cultural resource management f oundation is interwoven with the American environmental movement of the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries, with laws, legislation and programs developing in Florida in dire ct correlation with broader environmental concerns. Nature had previously been seen as something to be tamed, utilized, and exploited (Castree and Braun 2001). Why, after all, should anything be preserved? This question was initially addressed in environmental writings th at called for a new ethic (Leopold 1949), one that went beyond purely economic considerations. The intrinsic value of nature itself fed into the rising cons ciousness that examined actions in regard to environmental consequences. In Florida, the failure to understand the c onsequences of actions that were taken primarily to facilitate and accommodate growth in the Sunshine State led directly to environmental crises. Catlin (1997:1) states that by the late 1960s it became clear that Floridas postwar growth was creating seri ous and possibly irre versible problems. From the Everglades drainage and alteration projects that were drying up the River of Grass to the resulting muck fires, the major surge in large-scale development projects threatened to forever change the face of Florida. Projec ts such as the Cross Florida Barge Canal and the Miami jetport made Florida face growth pr oblems that had dire consequences to the environment and also to cultural resources. Ditching, dredging, and draining became the methods of choice for taming wetlands across the stat e. These crises had been recognized long befo re bulldozers and dredgers were on the scene, however, were ignored by most. Awareness of unbridled development and attempts at conquering nature were noted as early as the late 1800s and into the 1900s with writings, drawings, and photographs by se veral explorers and naturalists illustrating
70 the extensive alterations to the landscape and damage to ecosystems and cultural resources that were occurring. By the late 19 th century, Florida was not the same primitive and unmodified land described by William Bartram in his travels a century before (Harper 1998: 32). Drastic landscape changes were occurring as a resu lt of the push for development. Hamilton Disston began purchasing what would be more than four million acres of Florida swamp lands shortly after the Civil War, starting a large-scale dredging and filling campaign. Florida millionaire and railroad baron Henr y Flagler, was beginning to penetrate the peninsula with his rail system (Derr 1989). Wint er visitors were flocking to the sunshine for their health, with resorts, spas, and sani tariums springing up to cater to the sick and infirmed tourist (Brinton 1869). Traders and hunt ers were also attracted to Florida, often described and depicted as gluttonously exploiting natural resources. Commercial hunters nearly wiped out several bird species during th is time despite legislation in the 1890s, all in quest of plumes for womens hats. Bears, panthers, alligators, and other large game species were also taken in great numbers, with Florida providing an affordable Africanlike safari experience (Derr 1989:136-142). As early as the 1870s, writers and advertisements created a lure to bring mo re people to primitive and undeveloped Florida (Rembert 1964:xii), and Florida had thousands of tourists coming to the state via the new rails and steamships. The changes evident in Floridas na tural and cultural resources did not go unnoticed. Several conservationists, scientists, and writers would tell th e tale of witnessed destruction, and would lay the foundations for environmental consciousness and ultimately protective legislation efforts. For example, in From Eden to Sahara: Floridas
71 Tragedy botanist John Kunkle Small (1929), showed before and after scenes depicting devastation caused by land boom development. Smalls interests ex tended beyond plants to include archaeology, and his photographs and de scriptions stand as the only record of many of Floridas shell heaps a nd middens that were utilized for road fill or treated as an impediment to progress. From his firsthand witnessing of destruction and devastation to natural and cultural resources across the state, Small (1929:114) calls for steps to be taken by the state and federal government to begin a preservation program to protect important features while it was [n]ot yet too late to act. John Mann Goggin, whose ideas were crit ical to the foundation and development of Florida archaeology as a discipline, was al so a naturalist of similar persuasions. His dissertation had shown the cri tical linkages that existed between the environment and cultural resources (Gogg in 1948a), but it was his time in th e wilds of South Florida that in part helped shape his understanding of the natural and cultural past (Weisman 2002a:5). Several like-minded writers and resear chers during this period influenced each others work. Goggin, for instance, knew of Smalls work and of other naturalists and conservationists, such as Marjory Stonem an Douglas, to whom he would provide background materials and correspondence for us e in her environmental landmark piece on the Florida Everglades (Douglas 1947). Florida writers, scientists, academics, students, and the public, were also being influenced by the development of ideas relating to ecology, conservation, and environmental protection that was happening on the national stage. John Muir was one such influential writer and naturalist who transformed the idea of wilderness into a popular movement with far-reaching influence. He is perhaps best known for his walks
72 all over the country in the late 19 th and early 20 th century, and for helping to establish the Sierra Club. He was highly influenc ed by Henry David Thoreaus (1854) Walden and by the early North America explorations of the botanist William Bartram, whose travels he followed into Florida among other places. Muir espoused the intrinsic value of wilderness. These ideas were radically di fferent from the tangible understanding that science offered. His writings pushed for the setting aside in pe rpetuity, pure and undespoiled land for public ownership. Wilderne ss and nature for Muir were tantamount to a religious experience (O elschlaeger 1991:176). Aldo Leopold furthered the wilderness intellectual framework put forth in America by Thoreau, Muir, and others w ho preceded him, by changing our humancentered views of natural resources through hi s writing. The idea of humans at the center of the universe, more important that all other living things, ha d shaped the cultural context of the early 20th century (Leopold 1949; Oelsch laeger 1991). Unlike Muir, Leopold came from a science tradition. He held a Ph.D. in Wildlife Management and Forestry. Rather than a religious connotation for nature as put forward by Muir, Leopold had a secular notion that was ba sed on science and tied to ethi cs. It was from that context that he saw things in different perspectiv e than those pushing anth ropocentric resource management philosophies of the time (Oelschlaeger 1991:235). Leopold saw the land as a community of liv ing organisms acting together. He felt a moral and ethical value existed for land cons ervation. He saw the incompatibilities that existed between Judeo-Christian beliefs a nd land conservation and pointed to problems with land use and economical consideration (Oelschlaeger 1991:236). Perhaps his most influential writing was A Sand County Almanac (Leopold 1949). Here, Leopold, unlike
73 Muir, looked not to a divine power but to in dividual awareness as the spark for ecological change of conscience. He argue d that humans should only act in ways that are beneficial to all ecosystems, an idea that would later resonate with the biocentrism of deep ecologist philosophies. His proposed aesthetic bridged the divide that science created between culture and nature, while his land ethic remain ed rooted in the discourse of management and tended to cling to the familiar separation of science and nature. Although both Muir and Leopold s ideas originated from different inspiration and thought, taken together, their views served to bring about a new awareness and environmental consciousness in America. Not only were their ideas important in this transitory time, but they we re instrumental in founding environmental organizations whose reach and influence continue even today. Both men campaigned for federal wilderness preservation, and it is largely through their legacy and impact that the Wilderness Preservation Act was passed in 1964, initiating preservation at the national scale. Following the growth of the American environmental consciousness, which traces its origins to writings of Emerson, Thoreau, Muir, and Leopold, the American perspective of the environmental movement focused on preservation of wilderness areas for recreational benefit. This be nefit, however, tended to be exclusionary, promoting enjoyment for an elite populous of predominat ely white males, at the expense of females and non-whites (Oelschlaeger 1991). This recr eational focus for preservation lead to a gendered construction of nature (Moeckli and Braun 2001:113). Rachel Carsons (1962) Silent Spring showed that understanding and appreciation for nature is not gender or cu lture specific. Carson put forw ard the Thoreau-like idea that human beings were not in control of nature, but were a part of it. She further connected
74 humans and nature by saying that the survival of one actually depended on the survival of the other (Carson 1962). She was at once attack ed and labeled as hysteric, an alarmist. Her arguments were criticized for being too ro mantically portrayed and not written using science jargon that was peer-reviewed and testab le. She lacked credentials in that she was outside the scientific community, without a Ph.D., and female (Moeckli and Braun 2001:112-113). Still, the American p ublic was listening to her arguments. Carsons central idea was that nature is not only of a natural dimension but is also a social construct. She considered words su ch as wilderness and nature in terms of imagined connotations and by culturally base d knowledge. She thought that to deny the social dimensions of nature was to ignore the impact of perspec tive on reality and to avoid the linkages between power struggl es, domination, and the environment. The social nature discourse is tigh tly bound to politics, management, and preservation concerns, with perhaps the central question relating to understanding the kind of natures we envision for the kind of future we want (Braun and Wainwright 2001:42; Castree and Braun 2001; Demeritt 2001; Proctor 1998). This discourse became a prominent focus in Florida. State and fe deral legislation emerged that would shape environmental and cultural preservation and stewardship, and would continue in dynamic discussions to form Floridas rules and strategies for the fu ture. Growth and Development La ws and Land Acquisition Florida was not alone in r ealizing there were environmental and cultural resource consequences to growth. Other states had, in fact, spearhead ed environmental movements
75 as a result of witnessing similar problems and resulting federal legislation had huge impacts for state archaeological and cultura l resource management planning and policy (Table 3.1). One such reflection led to the materialization of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was signed into law in 1969. The act, with its section 106, was of crucial importance to both natural and cultural resource protection. This section required that all major projects that used federal dollars, support, or permits, must consider impacts to resour ces, usually through an assessm ent of impact study. This federal law set the stage for policy developm ent in the rapid growth state of Florida (Tesar 1990). The earlier National Historic Preserva tion Act (NHPA) of 1966 was of crucial importance for Florida archaeology, including todays cultural resource management efforts and preservation progr ams involving cultural resour ces. Among other things, the NHPA gave authority to the National Park Se rvice to expand and maintain a National Table 3.1. List of major foundational U.S. federal laws concerned with natural and cultural heritage (Mat hers, et al. 2005a:3). Federal Law Year Enacted Wilderness Act 1964 National Historic Preservation Act 1966 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 1969 Clean Water Act 1972 Endangered Species Act 1973 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 1974 Federal Land Policy and Management Act 1976 Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979
76 Register of Historic Places th at includes properties of local, state, and national historical, cultural, and architectural significance (Ki ng and Lyneis 1978). An Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was also established as part of the NHP A, with input at the state level coming from what would later be known as the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Additionally, states were required to conduct surveys to find and record sites eligible for the list and were encouraged to acquire and protect significant properties using federal funds that were made available for such purposes (King 1998:15-16). The NHPA in Florida led to the establ ishment of the Division of Archives, History and Records Management, which in 1986 would become the Division of Historical Resources (DHR) now within the Department of State. And while the NHPA provided for the establishment of the SHPO, the Historic Re sources Act, chapter 267 of the Florida Statutes, broadened the SHPOs re sponsibilities to include state and federal lands, including even the poorly defined sove reign submerged lands of the state (F.S. 267.061 [b]). This vested ownership of hist orical resources on state lands, provides DHR with input into land conservation pr ocesses, management of state lands, and permitting and regulatory control involving cultural resources on state owned or controlled lands. The Florida Division of Historical Resources is divided into four units that work together as the primary hist oric preservation agency in the state: the Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR), the Bureau of Historic Preservati on, the Florida Folklife Program and the Museum of Florida Hist ory. Along with the Bureau of Historic Preservation, the BAR assists with complian ce review activities and has land acquisition and management roles of interest in Fl orida. The BAR program is charged with
77 administering the Florida Master Site File the Shipwreck Salvage Program and permits for archaeological research on state owned or controlled lands and sovereign submerged lands. The Bureau Chief functions as the St ate Archaeologist. The Bureau of Historic Preservation serves as staff for the SHPO. This position is an important link between state level archaeology and the national hi storic preservation program through the National Park Service. The office includes sta ff dealing with survey and registration of National Register properties, which examine, evaluate, and nominate properties to the register. The SHPO office also maintains da ta on historic properti es that have been identified but not yet nominated to the natio nal register, and they conduct consultations with Federal agencies as part of the Secti on 106 process. The Bureau also has the Grants and Education Section, the Architectural Pres ervation Services Section, and the Historic Preservation Compliance Review Section. The Compliance Review Section works to provide local governments with planning a nd permit review assistance, develops responses for environmental reviews invol ving cultural resource consideration, and address issues relating to cu ltural resources in the state land acquisition and management programs (Tesar 1990). The Florida Master Site F ile is the states archive of information about recorded archaeological sites and historic structures. The file was star ted in the late 1940s as part of the Florida Park Service under the directi on of John W. Griffin, and then became part of the Florida State Museum now known as the Florida Museum of Natural History, archives in Gainesville. The site file at that time consisted of cat alog cards and notes of hundreds of sites visited by early archaeol ogist pioneers in Fl orida like John Goggin, Hale Smith, John Griffin, Ripley Bullen, Charles Fairbanks, and Gordon Willey. The
78 development of the Division of Historical Resources in the mid 1960s as part of the NHPA federal legislation would formalize the si te registration process and centralize the archive in Tallahassee (Milanich 1994). Toda y, in addition to paper files and tabular datasets, GIS data with spatial locations ar e available to researchers through the FMSF. More than 7,000 new sites are added to the FMSF annually (FMSF 2006). Other important federal legislation with involvement for land acquisition, management and cultural preservation incl uded the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the Archaeological Re sources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, both of which were essential for clarifying ma nagement responsibilities of archaeological sites, features and objects on federal and trib al lands. The ARPA re quired agencies with land holdings to identify and eval uate the National Register of Historic Places nomination potential or significance. The ARPA also established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, with reviews and recommendations on issues involving hi storic activities of all agencies reported directly to the President (King 1998). At the state level, the Environmenta l Land and Water Management Act of 1972 defined regulations that dealt with areas of critical concern and with Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). These regulations led to the Land Conservation Act, which provided millions of dollars for the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands. In Florida, areas of critical concern were, in part, defined as those areas containing or having significant impact upon environmental, historical, natural, or archaeological resources of statewide importance. This act set a mandate that emerged from a push from Florida citizens that environmental concerns were important and that the state now should purchase sensitive lands instead of just creating regulations regarding them. Management
79 of those lands would be a large task and presently involves numerous agencies and programs. The provision of the act relating to the DRI was included to contend with large-scale, regional projects that, because of their size, character, and location, could have substantial effects on the ci tizens of Florida (Catlin 1997). The Water Resources Act of 1972 establis hed five regional Water Management Districts in Florida, alon g with local and county level water management boards examining impacts from consumptive use of water. Today, the Water Management Districts are proactive player s in land conservation and pr eservation, with the linkage between ground water and land use and development prompting a push for land acquisition and stewardship. Lands throughout Florida that are purchased and managed for water resources also are important from other natural and cultu ral resource functions (Catlin 1997). The Florida Comprehensive Planning Act eventually allowed for the development of a State Plan in 1985. The plan examines goals, objectives, and policies relating to growth management and is utilized as a li tmus test for consistency by local governments developing their own plans for such purposes These local comprehensive plans were important because the DRI criteria stipulate th at development must be consistent with the local plan provisions. Impacts to cultural res ources are considered in the DRI process, and the Division of Historical Resources ha s input into the revi ew (Stiftel 1999). The Division of State Lands oversees the primary lands acquisition program. The program is now called Florida Forever, which evolved in 1999 as the Florida Forever Act. It is the worlds largest conservation program with more than one million acres acquired in the past five years alone (Wis enbaker 2006). The Florida Forever program is
80 a continuance of land acquisition initiatives in the state that included the Save Our Rivers, Preservation 2000, and the Conser vation and Recreational Lands (CARL) acquisition programs. The CARL program, enacted in 1979, speci fically mentioned the preservation of significant archaeological and hist orical sites. Dedicated staff and the Division Director at DHR began working on land acquisition issues an d serving on advisory panels in 1983 to help develop and rank priority projects fo r CARL. The CARL program was replaced by the Preservation 2000 program, with a mandate in the 1990s to use new funding to buy conservation lands, including matching dolla r programs from local governments. In 1998, the Florida Forever Act brought about today s Florida Forever Program, which expanded on the Preservation 2000 program and included aspects of restoration, conservation and recreation, as well as water resource developm ent, historical pres ervation and capital improvement projects (Wisenbaker 2006). The st rong focus on water resources has led to heavy involvement in the land acquisition ar ena by the states five water management districts. Priorities for purc hase are developed based on fact ors such as strategic habitat for threatened, rare and endangered speci es, water management and groundwater recharge, coastline protection, recreation, greenways and trails, and historic and archaeological preservation. The Acquisition and Restoration Counc il (ARC) is a five-member interagency group with four of the members being Gover nor appointees. The focus of the ARC is selecting and ranking Florida Forever ac quisition projects. The ARC also has responsibilities of reviewi ng management plans for state-owned lands. Biological significance is largely examin ed through use of the Florida Natural Areas Inventory
81 (FNAI), a database of conservation lands, target s of interest, and occurrences of rare and endangered plant and animal sp ecies in the state. These da ta are available in a GIS format, which allows for proactive planni ng concerning species preservation. Input on historical and archaeological preservation is sought prim arily from the Division of Historical Resources repres entative and through nominati on of proposed lands from archaeologists participa ting with the program. There is no FNAI analogous cultural re source planning tool, other than the Historic Contexts, which are wri tten descriptions of ideal priori ties that were last revised in 1993. Although GIS and spatial data are avai lable from the Florida Master Site File, for reasons previously discussed in Chapter 2, the information is not readily available to researchers and planners. The FMSF GIS informa tion also has not been analyzed in large detail or produced in a format that depict s archaeology in relation to managed lands with the idea of conservation priorities base d on the acquisition of representative and significant resources. As of 2006, Florida has purchased more than three million acres of land for conservation purposes (Wisenbaker 2006). Nume rous cultural resources have been included in these state acquisitions, but thes e resource purchases ha ve occurred primarily as an added-on, opportunistic value, without directives or prioritization developed for archaeological acquisition and preservati on (Weisman 1994; Wisenbaker, personal communication 2006). More than 12,000 of Floridas 26,932 record ed archaeological sites are located within managed lands stat ewide (Florida Master Site File 2006b), yet there remains the need for a basic audit as to what kinds and types of resources are
82 preserved, what is missing, and how that information can allow for a preservation strategy with priorities to be de veloped across a variety of scales. Landscapes have largely not been utili zed as an archaeological framework for contributing to policy making and planning in the United States despite a continuing call for action in reassessing how significance a nd valuation systems are viewed. There has additionally been strong criticisms of curre nt archaeological significance determinations that are being done with the single site focus (Glassow 1977; Glassow 1985; Hardesty and Little 2000; Jameson 1997; Lipe 1978; Lipe 1984; Lipe, W. D. 1995; Mathers, et al. 2005a; McGlade 1999; McManamon and Ha tton 1999; Redman and Kinzig 2003; Sharrock 1979; Tainter and Lucas 1983). Th e single site focus deters from the understanding of a larger cultural and geogra phic frame of reference, a criticism leveled by archaeologists who are calling for the significance concept to be explored at the landscape level (Mathers et al. 2005b). The case study landscape area I have chos en is one that is facing large-scale developmental pressures as a Tampa bedr oom community, meaning a residential area on the outskirts of a major city, where commute rs tend to live. The Big Hammock area of Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus County is underg oing a land use transformation. Small and large-scale residential developments, and multiple planned use developments, are altering the rolling hills of this region that once were populated not by suburbanites, but by orange trees and cattle. It is because of this rapid growth in an area shown to be rich in cultural resources, that a GAP analysis is dem onstrated as a way to plan for preservation and to look at where development best fits. In the next chapter, I will discuss the value of this case study from both a na tural and cultural perspective.
83 Chapter 4. Case Study: The Big Hammock Region The significance of a particular site is seldom definable by study of the site itself; regional and theoretical persp ectives are needed. Preservation, by motivating archaeologists to look beyond individual sites into regional studies and anthropological theory as sources for evaluation, may thus make a substantial contribution to ar chaeology's theoretical depth (King and Lyneis 1978:880). Environmental Setting The Big Hammock area of Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus counties, is a naturally bounded area due to physiographic and envi ronmental variables that are highly contrastive to surrounding regions. The area is discussed here both in terms of its unique physiography, which includes topography, soils climate and vegetation, and as an archaeological landscape. The region is di stinctive from surrounding areas, with high rolling topography, karstic feat ures, clay-lined lakes, fert ile soils, and other ecological contrasts (Figure 4.1). These types of unique locales on the natural landscape, which are readily distinguishable from areas around them can be viewed as a physiographical unit. The distinctive environmental features, sp ecies, and vegetative cover that can be analogous to island ecologies can also lead to an increase in species diversity. This richness of resources can correspond to an in crease in cultural settlement, with people literally mapping themselves onto areas of diversity and exploiting the available resources (Osborn and Kornfeld 2003).
Figure 4.1. The Big Hammoc k region of Florida, with boundary reflecting environmental features (after Whart on and Dooris 1987). 84
85 The diversity of environmental resources a nd distinctive habitat settings of the Big Hammock area can be examined in relati on to known cultural settlement patterns and site locational expectations for the area. Presently, the Big Hammock is split into two separate archaeological regions (to be discussed in a later section), the North and Central Peninsular Gulf Coast. Neither of these regions characterizes nor reflects accurately the archaeological record. The name Big Hammock comes from early accounts of state geographer Roland Harper (1911). The region lies between the W ithlacoochee River and the Gulf Coast and includes the physiographic provinces referre d to as the Hernando Hammock and the Brooksville Ridge. The Big Hammock was origina lly considered to be an outlier of the Middle Florida hammock belt near presentday Alachua County (Harper 1911). Earlier characterizations of the region also alluded to striking similarities with areas to the north (Smith 1881) (Figure 4.2). Based on its substa ntial locales of distinctive upland hardwood hammocks, Harper later defined the region as a separate geological feature (Harper 1921). The Big Hammock is the most southerly body of extensive hammock land within peninsular Florida and is comprised of three named hammock bodies: Chocochatti, Annuteliga, and Toachudka. The Annutteliga Ha mmock, located in the northern half of the Big Hammock, has been the target of st ate acquisition due to land use activity, which threatens and has fragmented the hammo ck system (SWFWMD 1992)(Figure 4.3). The Chocochatti Hammock is located in the area southeast of Brooksville, and is comprised of a mix of hammock, scrub a nd xeric pine forest. The rol ling topography includes areas
Figure 4.2 Historic hammocks of North-Centra l Florida. Map produced by Barry Wharton. 86
87 Figure 4.3. The three hammocks of the Big Hammock (after Dooris et al. Boundary defined by Harper (1921), using best available assessment of hammock soil and land cover extents 1999:60), with the bounded ar ea indicating how Harper (1921) defined this region.
88 of high hills and valleys, where lakes are frequently encountered. The Toachudka Hammock begins near the present-day Hern ando County line and continues south into eastern Pasco County. Hydrologically, lake-prairie basins simila r to that of Paynes Prairie in North Florida occur throughout the Big Hammock. These basins are especially prevalent in the Annutteliga and Chocochatti areas. The karst geology of the region is manifest here by numerous vertical-walled sink holes. One of these was listed in early tourist books as a state attraction, but has sin ce been obliterated by rock mining operations. The Devils Punch Bowl, as it was called, was of the sa me magnitude as the 230 feet deep and 500 feet wide Devils Millhopper, a geological State Park in Alachua County (Dooris et al. 1999). Other natural features of the hammock in clude hillside seeps and springs, fertile loamy and clayey upland soils, and widespread chert and coral outc rops. In addition to the previously mentioned sink features and prairie basins, the Bi g Hammock also has numerous clay lined permanent lakes (Whart on and Dooris 1987). The soils are similar to those occurring in the hammock bodies found in the North-Central region of the state, and differentiate the Big Hammock from the more coastal and riverine settings to the east and west. Soils are classified into 12 soil orde rs taxonomically, and the Big Hammock region has two of these 12 defined soil orders pr esent. Entisols are a class of soil in the Big Hammock region that can support a variet y of vegetation and are found to occur on steep slope areas. Spodosols are also found in this region of Florid a and are found to be poorly to very poorly drained (IFAS 2007). The fertile, loamy and rich hammock soils
89 along with the striking elevation in this area are a defining f eature in the region. Historic settlements took advantage of the agricultura lly productive soils and the striking vistas and views afforded by the rolling topogra phy. The Big Hammock is mantled with clay rich soils, which may in part have slowed the weathering process of the underlying limestone compared to surrounding areas, creati ng the high areas of what is today called the Brooksville Ridge (SWFWMD 2002a). Th ese soils, considered with hydrography, help to define the extent of the natural boundary of the region. The Big Hammock covers roughly 200 square miles, which is essentially bisected relative to regional archaeological boundaries, part in the North Pe ninsular Gulf Coast and part in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast. Geologically, environmentally, and archaeologically, however, the area is similar to the North-Central archaeological region described by Goggin (1947b). In particular, the Alachua tradition settlement pattern with lakeside clustering centering on exploitation of upland habitats, fertile soils, and karstic features (Milanich 1971) is seen in both the North-Central region and in the Big Hammock area. Also present in both locales is Alachua Plain, cob-marked, and cordmarked ceramic varieties, which are diagnosti cally important indicators of the Alachua tradition (Milanich 1971 ). Although not as well documented in the Big Hammock area possibly due to a lack of professional surv ey and controlled excavations, work conducted at lake sites in Pasco and Hernando Counties ha s shown these varieties to occur in similar environmental settings (Mitchem 1989a; Toni Carrier, personal communication, November 2006; Wharton 1990; Whitney 1985). The lithic raw materials in the Big Hammock are of two primary material types, silicified limestone or chert and silicified coral, both of which formed during Miocene and
90 Oligocene and were utilized extensively by pr ehistoric populations (Upchurch et al. 1982). Silicified coral has a distinctive look, with coral polyps appearing like stars in the silicification process. Coral is more difficult to flake than chert, and so is often thermally altered or heat treated. Thermal alteration bri ngs out lustrous colors of pink and red iron oxides, and can also cause crazing or potlid fracturing (Upchurch 1980; Upchurch et al. 1982). There are two quarry clusters in th e Big Hammock vicinity, the Upper Withlacoochee Quarry and the Hillsborough River Quarry. Hillsborough River cherts contain few diagnostic fossils, a nd vary widely from translucent to opaque and dark grey and black to red and brown in color (Upchur ch 1980). The Withlacoochee Quarry Cluster has been called "probably the most significant source of silicified coral in peninsular Florida" (Upchurch et al. 1982: 132). Numerous coral outcroppi ngs associated with this cluster occur in the Wesley Chapel and Buddy and Pasadena Lake portions of the southern Big Hammock. Coral outcrops can be found anywhere in the Tampa or Suwannee Limestone formations. There are massive silicified boundstones found in the Wesley Chapel and Buddy Lake vicinity of present-day Pasco County that make excellent material for flake tool produc tion (Robert Austin, personal communication, 2006). These areas of chert and coral outcr ops are within the Hillsborough and Upper Withlacoochee quarry clusters (Figure 4.4). Archaeological Setting The Big Hammock area is currently divi ded into two archaeological regions, which are basically an overview of the sequence of archaeolo gical cultures through time.
Known Q uarr y Clusters Figure 4.4. Quarry clusters in Florida (after Austin and Estabrook 2000:116). 91
92 Important to the relationship of thes e culture areas are the geographical and environmental settings. As previously discu ssed, these regions were developed first by Goggin (1947b) and later refined by Milanich and Fairbanks (1980), and then Milanich (1994) again. The Central Peninsular Gulf Coast st retches from Pasco County to Charlotte Harbor and is considered the region of the Ma nasota culture. The Manasota culture had a coastal orientation although inland sites ar e known (Luer and Almy 1982; Luer and Almy 1979). In very broad and general terms, th e characteristics of the Manasota culture include a pottery described as being primarily that of undecorated wares with quartz inclusions with flattened-globular bowls and pots common. Their subsistence was based on fishing, hunting and shellfish-gathering, and shell and bone tool assemblages (FDHR 1990). Historical planning contex ts describe this region larg ely in terms of coastal and riverine settings, with soils not well suited for agriculture. This is strikingly different from the Big Hammock interior setting, whic h has fertile, rich, loamy soils that are conducive for agriculture. The North Peninsular Gulf Coast is a re gion that lacks environmental and cultural homogeneity through both space and time, and resists definition as a single archaeological area. It stretches from the Auci lla River in Taylor County south to include part of Pasco County. The region include s the Crystal River Mound complex and numerous large shell middens and mounds (FDHR 1990). To the north, within the vicinity of the Big Hammock, is the Cove of the Withlacoochee. Archaeological research in the Cove region included a strong focu s on environmental resources (Weisman and Marquardt 1988; Weisman 1986). But, while the historic planning contexts go into great
93 detail describing the coastal and riverine settings of this region, the interior areas are not well characterized. The contexts point to the need for consideration of sub areas within the North Peninsular Gulf Coast region due to its heterogeneous nature. The North-Central region, unlike the Peni nsular Gulf Coast regions, has well defined archaeological boundaries. The area ex tends from the Sante Fe River east to portions of Putnam and Marion Counties and west to the coastal flatlands line, with the Middle Florida Hammock Belt being a promin ent and defining feature of the region (FDHR 1990). Settlement patterns in relation to the environmen t were used to define this area. This illustrates the unevenness of scale in the current historical planning contexts. Like the Big Hammock, the North-Central re gion is also characterized by its karst topography, numerous lakes and wetlands and fertile loamy soils. The cultural sequence is well defined, ranging from Deptford to Cade s Pond and Alachua trad itions to the later Potano I and II periods. Similarities in arch aeological settlement between this area and the Big Hammock exist. For example, the Cade s Pond settlement pattern is said to center around aquatic resources and of ten contain mound sites (Cumbaa 1972). This is similar to settlement occurring in portions of the Big Hammock, especially around lake areas in eastern Pasco and Hernando Counties. The No rth-Central regions Alachua tradition is noted for site clusters with villages often found on higher ground next to lakes, ponds and sinkholes with nearby streams, again showing similar settlement as occurs in the Big Hammock. Ceramics for the Cades Pond cultu re consist of largely undecorated wares with quartz inclusions (sand-tempered plai n) or St. Johns paste, while the Alachua tradition exhibits prairie cord marked, Alachua cob marked and pl ain varieties. The Alachua tradition culture took advantage of si nks, which offered chert outcrops and water
94 resources, and also extensiv ely exploited the resources of the hardwood hammocks and lakes (Milanich 1994). The Big Hammock region is characteriz ed by striking elevations and rolling topography. The area has extensive permanent, or non-ephemeral, wetland and aquatic areas, sinks and karst features fertile soils, and numerous outcrops of coral and chert resources. The richness of resources in this physiographical area was a factor in the settlement pattern, with recorded site loca les relating to a variety of environmental resources. The Big Hammock encompasses 247,701 acres As of October, 2006, which is the date for the GIS data used in this disse rtation, a total of 302 ar chaeological sites are recorded in the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) within this region. Prior to further analysis, it should be noted that there are a number of limitations to the Master Site File data and care and caution are required in its evaluation. There are discrepancies in recording techniques and interp retative differences between individual surveyors, which can affect assignation of site function and temporal period. As well, varying levels of survey coverage, dispari ties in the spatial exte nt of the investigati on, and the accuracy of stated site locations must be considered. These factors can lead to problems in the determination of significance, impact assessmen t, and in answering research questions of archaeological interest. It is therefore impor tant not only to understand the limitations and coarseness of the FMSF data, but also to in clude other sources of information in the development of a spatial understanding of the region. Possible sources of additional information include the documentation of local informant material and collections, and field-truthing with spatial cont rol when called for (e.g., a site listed as general vicinity or
95 in need of location, attribute or condition assessment clarif ication). Additi onally, the site file is not representative of all archaeological site s in the region, but ra ther only those that have been recorded. Use of these known data along with the envi ronmental setting, can allow the development of predictions for areas where archaeological sites are likely to occur. Temporally, sites in the Big Hammock span periods from the Archaic to Safety Harbor and post-contact Semi nole and Historic periods. Th e known archaeological record in the Big Hammock area includes a number of earthen mounds and features, many of which are associated with lakes and sinks. Th e distinctive adaptations to the landscape and the similarity in the environment appear to more accurately fit the description of the North-Central Florida region than either the North or Central Peni nsular Gulf regions. Although further systematic survey is needed to evaluate this claim, analysis of existing data suggests other similarities to the North-Central Florida region. The ceramic assemblages from many of the Big Hammock s ites are similar to those of the Alachua Tradition. Prairie cord-marked, Alachua plai n, St. Johns paste types, along with sand tempered plain are present in many assembla ges from both regions. Also present is the limestone-tempered Pasco series, which is ubi quitous in adjacent coastal and riverine settings. Its presence in the Big Hammock demonstrates the ecotonal nature of the regions position as an edge area between coasta l and riverine setti ngs. Ecologically, edge areas are often used by a number of mammals and birds. White-tailed deer, which were an important prehistoric subsistence resource in this region, would have preferentially been drawn to edges and transitional boundari es between ecological communities. These edge and transitional areas also offer model development potential for understanding the
96 archaeology, subsistence, and settlement stra tegies at this regional scale (Osborn and Kornfeld 2003). In contrast to the North-Central regi on however, later Safety Harbor wares are known from both surveys and from private collections. Additionally, Weeden Island period vessels curated at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville are attributed to this area. A strong Seminole influence is evident from the ceramics and other artifacts from private collections and surveys of the Big Hammock. The Nicholson Grove site (8PA114), for example, is located west of Lake Pasadena in Pasco County on agricultural land that is quickly being converted to resi dential housing developments (Figure 4.5). This site had a large quantity of Europ ean glass beads (Figure 4.6), tablewares, and earthenwares, as well as na tive pottery with exam ples of Chattahoochee Brushed and sand-tempered wares (Day ton 1998; Weisman 1989), and could be important in understanding Seminole settlement and life ways in this area (Carr and Steele 1993; Weisman 1989). Arch aeological and historical data show occupation by the Chukochati Seminole in the Annutelliga Hammock in the northern reaches of the Big Hammock region, likely another important se ttlement area of the Seminole (Wharton and Dooris 1987). Lithic assemblages from the Big Hammock, including much of which is in private collections, range from Paleo-Indian to Early and Middle Archaic stemmed and side-notched stone tool varieties, to later types of hafted knives and scrapping tools and Pinellas points. Areas in th e eastern Pasco portion of th e Big Hammock are long known to collectors as rich havens for Florida Arch aic, Newnan and Pinellas projectile points
Figure 4.5. Map of Nicholson Grove (8PA 114) site area, Pasco County, showing closeness of new housing development. Ex act locale intentionally not provided. Figure 4.6. Seminole period glass beads in private collection, reportedly from the Nicholson Grove site (8PA114) (Frank Hoff private collection, photos by Travis Doering, August, 2006). 97
98 made from distinctiv e coral outcrops around the Lake Buddy and Lake Pasadena areas near present day Dade City (Figures 4.7 and 4.8). Archaeological Survey in the Big Hammock According to the FMSF data, there have been 109 cultural resource assessment surveys conducted in the Big Hammock area (Figure 4.9). The spatial extent of these surveys as depicted in the GIS data can be misleading. For example, on first analysis of areas surveyed in the Big Hammock, it appear s that a large percentage of the region has been surveyed, but an understanding of the limitations of coverage and methodologies is required. Many surveys appear circular in ex tent. These are performed for cellular tower impact analysis and methodologies involve primarily historic stru cture and viewshed impact consideration. In other instances, bounda ries for surveys can appear quite large, but may reflect more a property extent rather than intensity or level of survey conducted. As indicated in Appendix A, the majority of these surveys have been completed in fulfillment of federal and state regulations and in response to county and municipal preservation ordinances. An additional series of assessments and regional syntheses of portions of the Big Hammock area have also been conducted and were used in this dissertation along with the FMSF data. These supplementary projects included evaluative surveys conducted for the S outhwest Florida Water Manage ment District (SWFWMD), which was performed to assist with land management and acquisition strategy development (SWFWMD 1992; Wharton and Dooris 1987). Mitchems (1989a) doctoral dissertation on the Safety Harbor peri od overviewed findings, including private collections, from sites in and around the Big Hammock. A Florida Department of
Figure 4.7. Stone tools made from coral and chert that came from the Buddy Lake area of eastern Pasco County. (Top): Possible Bo len variant, small lanceolate (Paleo or Dalton) and a Putnam point. (Bottom): Mari on, Citrus and Culbreath thermally altered coral points (Frank Hoff private collecti on, photos by Travis Doering, August, 2006). 99
Figure 4.8. Stone tools made from coral and ch ert that came from the Lake Pasadena area of eastern Pasco County. (Top): Possible Brad ford or Ocala varian t and a Marion point. (Bottom): Pinellas points and drill, all th ermally altered coral (Frank Hoff collection, photos by Travis Doering, August 2006). 100
Figure 4.9. Cultural resour ce assessment surveys that have been conducted in the Big Hammock (n = 109). 101
102 Transportation right-of-way significance evaluation project was conducted for multiple districts in the Big Hammock region (Weisman 1999) and resulted in two Masters theses (East 1999; Hopper 1998). A summary of know n cultural resources occurring on lands belonging to the SWFWMD as of 1988 was prepared (Weisman and Marquardt 1988), and a review of the archaeological data re lating to the Seminole period sites throughout Central Florida was compiled (Carr and Steele 1993). Additionally, a book documenting the culture history of the Seminole in Fl orida and containing information on sites occurring in the Big Hammock was writte n by Weisman (1989). There were also a number of large-scale surveys conducted for land managing agencies and other research purposes that covered areas adjacent to the Big Hammock region that improve the understanding of the transitional environments and culture areas (Weisman 1986; Wharton 1979). Various other documents, field notebooks, and unpublished surveys reports, provide important information about the ar chaeology of the region. Private collection documentation, especially collections where some level of provenience has been recorded, help in the deve lopment of the archaeological understanding of the Big Hammock. I studied the field notebooks of archaeologist John Goggin(1947a), which are held in Special Collections at the University of Florida in Gainesvill e. I also located the field notes and artifact colle ctions of Charles and Alice Hunt (Hunt and Hunt 1957). The Hunts worked for the United States Geologica l Survey in the 1940s and 50s and had an avid interest in archaeology as well as geology. Their collect ions and field notes were discovered while searching through boxes and card files at the Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. I also utilized private collec tions of the Hernando County
103 Historical Society and Robert Marsh, the Da de City Historical Society and Bill Dayton, and collections and field notes of Frank Ho ff and Brian Evensen, to augment the general understanding of the archaeol ogical diversity and setting of the Big Hammock region. Goggin was the first professional archaeologi st to record site locations in the Lake Pasadena area in the 1930s and 1940s. He was urged by locals, including church representatives from Saint Leo Abbey, to i nvestigate several low sand mounds containing burials. Collections from these visits include sherds of St. Johns check stamped and plain wares, grit tempered and scored wares a nd sand tempered brushed wares. Additionally collected were a few lithic flakes and Busycon fragments that are often found in mortuary contexts (Goggin 1947a). The Pottery Hill site (8PA172) is within this rapidly changing area around Lake Pasadena, and is said by local informants to be associated with a platform mound structure that is now largel y destroyed (Dayton 1998). Pottery from the site includes examples of sand tempered plain, St. Johns pl ain and check stamped, prairie cord marked and Safety Harbor incised. Proj ectile points from this site, in the possession of local collectors, include Pinellas, Tampa, Hern ando, Bolen, Lafayette, Newnan and Florida Archaic Stemmed point types (Mitchem 1989a). This lake setting has a clustering of contemporaneous sites, which could be importa nt in the understanding of Safety Harbor inland variations. Additionally, many Seminole occupation sites are known in this same vicinity (Weisman 1989), as ar e trails and travel corridors which might have ties to European contact including the de So to entrada (Milanich and Hudson 1993).
104 Sub areas Defined and Relations to Other Landscape Areas Explored Analysis of existing land management boundaries and strategies in the Big Hammock region indicates that, although the hammock can be shown as a distinct physiographic unit, it has been largely overl ooked as such in ecosystem management strategies. Ecosystem management is done by watershed delineation, based on the use of surficial water expression to demar cate boundaries. Under this boundary decision process, the region does not quite fit with the ecosystem boundaries as defined by the Southwest Florida Water Management Dist rict, which purchases, owns, and manages much of the conservation lands in the southwes t district of the stat e. The Big Hammock is again cut into two parts, splitting it north to south with the western side falling into the Springs Coast Comprehensive Watershed Management area (CWM) and the eastern half falling into the Withlacoochee CWM. This watershed natural boundary choice does not accurately reflect this physiographical area, as it looks only at surface waters without making a distinction for the internally dr ained, karstic area of the Big Hammock. This error is further brought to light wh en examining the boundary definitions for the CWMs, which show overlap in discu ssion for the Brooksville Ridge area, which represents the Big Hammock. The Springs Co ast CWM is defined as having the eastern and central portions of the watershed dominated by the Brooksville Ridge, a sandy remnant of previous higher sea levels, characterized by its karst geology with scattered sinkhole lakes and depressional wetla nds (SWFWMD 2002a). Meanwhile, the Withlacoochee CWMs primary physiographic features are also defined as the Brooksville Ridge, but additionally include the Tsala-Apopka Plain, Coastal Lowlands,
105 Webster Limestone Plain, and the Dade City Hills (SWFWMD 2002b), which are actually part of the Big Hammock area in eastern Pasco County (Figure 4.10). In sum, although the Big Hammock area ca n be characterized in terms of its archaeological landscape and in terms of a naturally bounded physiographic unit area, it has not been treated as such by either archaeologists or by state agency and land managers. Boundaries, despite all the detractors and limitations previously discussed that result from their imposition, are necessary fo r management and resource considerations. Various agencies and entities in Florida involved with both archaeological and environmental resource management have made their assessments of the Big Hammock region using different scales of analysis a nd different boundary scales of analysis shows the problems inherent in the imposition of boundaries and the difficu lties in developing synthetic perceptions that take into account cultural and natural features. Archaeology must function within the re alm of natural resource management, not apart from it or on the fringes of natural sy stem consideration. Archaeology needs to be strongly linked to land management and more comprehensible to non-archaeologists, if we are to be effective players in planning fo r the future of preservation in Florida. A variable scale analysis, crosscutting boundaries and tailored to region-specific research questions, can provide a usef ul framework for understandin g that links cultural and natural systems. The challenge is to de velop a system readily understandable to archaeologists, land managers, policy makers and the public. Examination of concepts such as archaeological significance, value a nd importance should be viewed from not
Figure 4.10. Comprehensive Watershed Management (CWM) boundaries in the Southwest District area of Florida (after SWFWMD 2002a, b). 106
107 only a sites research potential as prescribed under the NRPH criterion (d), but under a more general value system and contributi on to overall management, planning, and land ethic consideration (Darvill 2005:39; Deeben et al. 1999; Lipe 1984). Site by site approaches to conservati on are not effective and do not address the continual loss and fragmentation of la ndscapes (Jochim 1990). Only by protecting regions rich in archaeology and natural resources can we protect more than just the sites themselves. If we are only concerned with what is worth protecting because of a subjective determination of significance, and not concerned with the larger scope of the area in between, then fragmentation and is lands of unconnected conservation areas will result (Clark 2005:318).
108 Chapter 5. Closing the Gaps "The most unhappy thing about conservation is that it is never permanent. If we save a priceless woodland today, it is threat ened from another quarter tomorrow" (StonemanDouglas 1990). The Archaeological Inventory of the Big Hammock As previously discussed, because the hi storic contexts in many cases fail to adequately represent the archaeology of regions, especially non-coastal regions, I have chosen to use a landscape approach for arch aeology applied to the case study area of the Big Hammock. I examine a methodology for conserving critical locations of archaeological value, while also considering such issues as archaeological diversity, natural systems linkages, and economic feas ibility. In this wa y, regional planning principles and archaeological information sp ecific to areas of critical concern can be developed and viewed from a cont extual and spatial reference. The first step in the inventory process i nvolves the basic need to evaluate the state of cultural resources. Examinations are made that specifically eval uate the risks that archaeological and natural resour ces are facing in order to allo w informed decisions to be made that affect policy considerations and prioritization strategies The audit, or GAP, conducted here on a landscape level, can be combined with other analyses to complete the picture of where the State of Florid a is in terms of archaeological resource preservation and planning. This audit dem onstrates the operationalization of landscape
109 archaeological theory, which can be used to refine and improve hi storic contexts and significance evaluation procedures. This GAP audit approach is a way to empirically assess the extent to which archaeological sites are being protected, by usi ng available data from the Florida Master Site File in conjunction with locations of publicly owned lands or lands targeted for acquisition. In this way, an inventory audit can be conducted to determine the kinds and types of archaeology that we are preserving or are targeting for preservation. Identifying where sites are in relation to the type of conservation and le vel of stewardship can then enable land managers, planners, policy make rs, and archaeologists to make better informed decisions concerning acquisition a nd protection prioritization. By examining the archaeology in regions at risk from stressors such as development and land use change (Noss and Cooperrider 1994), this analysis can be used as a forecast, predicting where conservation should be directed and where sustainable deve lopment and use are appropriate (Scott et al. 1996). I have combined archaeological site di stribution maps with land stewardship and ownership information, and used this to examine the degree and likelihood for conservation and preservation of land areas and to assess the state of archaeological representation on public land holdings. The degree to which archaeological sites are represented in the present mix of conservation lands was also examined in this GAP audit approach. Those archaeological site types, cultural affiliations, and temporal ranges not represented where there is lik elihood for occurrence, cons titute conservation gaps on public land holdings. The purpose of this GAP audit, as applied to archaeology, is to
110 provide broad geographic information on the status of archaeological preservation as depicted through management and ac quisition strategies in a region. Archaeological diversity is defined here as the number of different site functional types, cultural affiliations, and temporal periods represented. This diversity can occur across any scale from a localized to a regi onal or larger analytical scale (Culpepper 1997). Diversity is stressed here as a critical consideration, so that the preservation record is more reflective of the range of site types a nd cultural affiliations that exist, rather than a reflection of a particular researchers intere st, or the understanding of the taxonomy of site types and their subjec tive determination of importa nce (Mathers et al. 2005:172). Diversity also holds potential for more representative stakeholder values to emerge, involving not just the archaeo logist making the NRHP si gnificance determination, but local communities, interested people, and the land resource managers in the process (Clark 2005:321). One issue addressed in this dissertati on is where are the locations of where the highest archaeological divers ity for sites exists in the Big Hammock and how this diversity relates to conservation lands and th eir management. Comparison of the recorded archaeological site distributions using GIS data from the Florida Master Site File, along with Big Hammock region stewardship areas that I have defined using GIS data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, is examin ed to see what the representation of archaeological diversity is, and in what way gaps in that representation can be filled through targeted acquisition strategies. The know n record of archaeological site locations is useful here to show what is actually preserved versus those with a potential for preservation. Archaeological sites preserved are found on lands owned or presently
111 targeted for acquisition, while potential acquisition targets can be examined by looking for areas that show high levels of recorded archaeological sites of diverse types and cultural affiliations. Archaeo logical potential, or likeli hood for archaeological site occurrence as shown through predictive mode ling for example, can then be developed and discussed in relation to the audit performed here, as a means for strengthening arguments and targets for future preservation goals. It is the known archaeological site locations that are used here as the primary information tool as a first point of reference for GAP development. Fully-developed archaeological predictive models for the region are beyond the scope of this dissertation. Here I focus on the GAP audit as the critical first means of developing archaeological and land use understanding for the Big Hammock case study region. A GAP audit also can include an aspect of predictive modeling to examine where unknown sites are likely to be located or discovered, and what type and cultural affiliation is likely to be represented across a given space. Various types of data from the Florida Master Site File were collected and entered into a GIS, and a sensitivity model, albeit simplistic, was developed to dem onstrate the usefulness for archaeological preservation planning. Categories considered in this model came from previously developed criterion of environmental asso ciative importance for this region from previous CRM surveys. These criteria cons idered came from the FMSF GIS data and included archaeological site locations, ar chaeological survey information, and chronologically diagnostic arti facts that were used to ex amine the location of sites by temporal and culture affiliation. As well, th e level of inquiry, purpos e of the survey, and types of artifacts recovered (when provided) were examined. Environmental layers, such
112 as lakes and non-ephemeral wetlands, eleva tion and terrain models, and soils, were evaluated in a GIS, as these have been dem onstrated as factors of archaeological location association. Examination of soil drainage, elevation, and distance to water or wetland resources, are important aspects in the regional prehistoric settlement pattern of this area (Almy 1978; Austin et al. 2001; Horvath 1986; Jones 1981). Land use layers, including land cover, land use (past, present, and fu ture), conservation and public land holdings, and development and infrastructure planning laye rs, were also utilized to consider the natural and cultural environments in rela tion to land use planning and management strategies in the Big Hammock. Using th is approach, issues of archaeological significance and value, scale, threat, repres entation and rarity, re search potential, preservation planning, and ma nagement were examined for the Big Hammock region. The GAP audit, which is the primary focus of this dissertation, was used to identify areas critical to the protection of both significant and under-rep resented types of cultural resources as defined by previous archaeol ogical surveys and developed models for archaeological potential within a defined area. Also considered are differential impact potentials on cultural resources, such as l ooting and vandalism, development pressures, and land use and zoning changes. Particular focus on a distinct sub area of the region was given to a portion of Pasco County, in the southeast portion of the Big Hammock. Here, developmental pressure and land use change are evident, cons ervation and public land gaps exist, and the case for archaeological and environmental pr eservation considerations can be made. Using a GAP audit approach for the Big Hammock and the Pasco County sub area, potential areas of archaeological richness, de fined here as areas containing or likely
113 containing sites representative of multiple temporal and cultural affiliations representative for the region, are identified. This analysis conducted for demonstration purposes to show the usefulness of region-spec ific predictive modeling, is performed here to identify cultural gaps and la nds that should be conserved and managed to allow for the long-term viability of key components of Flor idas cultural heritage It is conducted to assist with the establishment of conservation and acquisition priorities based on both the known archaeological setting and the expectatio ns for defined archaeological phenomena. This protocol for identifying potential habita t has been demonstrated in conjunction with plant and animal species location audits as a way to protect full ranges of biodiversity and communities (Scott et al. 1987; Scott et al. 1996 ). Here, I apply the diversity concept to archaeological richness rather than biologi cal richness, which is the more familiar application of GAP audits. I also show, that while archaeology certainly benefits from land acquisition strategies primarily focused on environmental variables, the ability to create archaeological priorities and plans for acquisition development can change conceptions of the land acquisition. For example, lands targeted for acquisition for habitat value may not reflect the highest archaeological potential. In this dissertation, I rely on multiple va rieties of data from state, county, and local levels (Appendix B). The accuracy of data and the scale of analysis can be problematic when receiving data input from multiple sources. Often, these data are in different projections, which is a mathematical formula that allows a three-dimensional spherical object to be displayed in two dimensions (Environmental Systems Research Institute 2006c), or the projec tions are not defined resulti ng in the inability to line up layers for viewing in a GIS. These data so metimes lack complete metadata, which is
114 detailed information about these data such as coordinate system us ed, projection, scale, and other details about their limitations and use. To address this pr oblem and facilitate area calculations, I have crea ted a geodatabase for these datasets. A geodatabase requires the same projection or spatial scale, so all data are brought into a consistent southwest Florida State Plane projection, with feet as the standard unit of s cale. The geodatabase created is a data management tool in ArcGIS software that defines how data are stored, accessed, and managed and affords ease in m odeling of spatial relationships between different types of data (Environmenta l Systems Research Institute 2006a). GAP Analysis Development Methods After aligning all the layers of analysis into a consistent frame of spatial reference projection and using them to create a geodataba se, layers of inquiry were then clipped using the ArcToolbox clip function, to match thei r extents to the defined perimeter of the Big Hammock. As discussed in Chapter 4, the Big Hammock has been defined as a physiographic unit based primarily on environmental variables of elevation, soil association, drainage, and surface water char acteristics (Dooris et al. 1999; SWFWMD 1992; Wharton and Dooris 1987). The Big Hamm ock extent was georeferenced, scaling an image to match a particular size a nd position with a spatial location assigned (Environmental Systems Research Institute 2006b). In this case, georeferencing was based on a paper map produced by Wharton (n. d.), with the information digitized and projected to southwest Florida State Plane West. The area total for the Big Hammock is 233,477 acres. All environmental an d cultural layers used in the analysis, with the exception of the County outline that was used as a base map, were then clipped to this
115 Big Hammock outline extent, to allow analysis of the resources in the region. Inquiries were performed to the alliance level, meani ng a natural assemblage of resources were explored for emerging or known associated patterns, displayed in relation to the occurrence of archaeological resources (Iacobelli et al. 2003; Jennings 2000; National Biological Information Infrastructure 2006; Scott et al. 1996)(Figur e 5.1). Environmental and natural systems data layers were exam ined along with archaeological layers to determine how they relate to the land scape of the Big Hammock. Associated environmental variables examined included ve getative landcover, soil s and soil drainage characteristics, proximity to water and we tlands, elevation and slope, and proximity to resources such as chert and coral outcroppings. Next, the distribution of ar chaeological resources was examined within the Big Hammock range. These archaeological range maps were produced for each of the cultural and temporal affiliations and functional site ty pes to illustrate thei r location within the Big Hammock area. Predicted distributions wi thin a sub area of the Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock were based on the best available environmental data layers with previously-developed and known correlation to archaeological settlement in this area (Austin 2000; Horvath 1986; Weisman and Collins 2004; Wharton and Dooris 1987). These were combined with recorded locat ion information from the FMSF and from primary contact with local informants and doc umentation of private collections, so that an archaeological sensitivity map could be developed.
Figure 5.1. The Big Hammock delineate d boundary with recorded archaeological sites (n=302). 116
117 Stewardship includes examining lands curre ntly in public holdings and those that are targeted for future acquisition, and eval uates management and acquisition aspects on those lands. Land stewardship and ownership we re delineated using the Florida Managed Lands data layer and the Florid a Acquisition Priorities data layer from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). These data layers de pict parcel polygons of public land holdings and priorities for conservation land purchase in Florida. These polygons were clipped to depict lands in public ownership within th e Big Hammock boundary, with the lands in public holdings found to tota l 17,010 acres, representing 7.3 percent of the Big Hammock (Figure 5.2). Ownership is defined as lands currently owned and managed in some form of public holding. In the Big Hammock, lands are owned by the Divisi on of Forestry, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Hernando County, the Nature Conservancy, and the State of Florida Truste es. Metadata for the Managed Lands data layer states that local and county-level holdi ngs may not be indicated. A cross-check of other available GIS data sour ces was made, but there was no indication of other public land holdings in the Big Hammock other th an those depicted in this layer. Lands in conservation holdings were targ eted for their high quality resources, and protect large areas of sandh ills, long-leaf pine and flatwood areas, upland mixed forested systems and areas of high surface and gr ound water recharge potential. Only one management plan, for the Annutteliga Ha mmock conservation area in the northern portion of the Big Hammock, was found to me ntion cultural resour ce importance. The CARL and SWFWMD proj ect reports for this area also discuss cultural resource benefit for this acquisition (SWFWMD 1992).
Figure 5.2. Conservation la nds in the Big Hammock region of Florida, totaling 17,010 acres. 118
119 A differentiation can be made between la nd that is already ac quired and land that is targeted for acquisition or has stewards hip value. Additionally, it is important to examine this value from a risk standpoint of land use changes th at can occur if the land is not acquired or ranked with priority. For exam ple, in the Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock, large tracts of lands held currently for agricultural production, such as orange groves, are being rapidly convert ed to residential use. These lands should be viewed as having a guarded stewardship valuation because of this potential for alteration to the land use designation in the future. Stewardship leve ls can be examined over large areas, and are especially important for archaeological conservation in the Bi g Hammock or other rapidly developing areas, where current la nd use and zoning are likely to change. Examination of stewardship based on permanence of protection, such as low conversion of land cover or land use alterations through time, can be made. In the Big Hammock analysis, the devel oped stewardship index was derived from GIS data provided by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). The FNAI provides support for the Florida Forever land acquisition program. Their data and models are used to develop resource conservati on priorities in the state a nd to assess Florida Forever projects (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2007). Using the data that the FNAI provide on acquisition priority and ownership information, a stewardship value was developed that ranged from values of one to six. Lands cu rrently managed as conservation areas were assigned the stewardship value of one and la nds with no priority for acquisition or protection were assigned a value of six. Alt hough some of this land does have a current degree of protection as agricultural area (Tab le 5.2), zoning and land use changes can
Table 5.2. Stewardship Level Repr esentation in the Big Hammock Level Type Acreage Percentage 1 Conservation Lands 17,010 7.3 2 FNAI 1 5,288 2.2 3 FNAI 2 260 0.1 4 FNAI 3 16,491 7.1 5 FNAI 4 70,844 30.3 Low FNAI 5 and 6 110,205 47.2 Water 13,379 5.8 Totals 233,477 100.0 rapidly occur, therefore the st ewardship value in the Big Ha mmock area is actually low. Areas of permanent sources of water were not assigned a value and were delineated from the land area of consideration. Land ruled out for preservation by the FNAI was not assigned a stewardship level, but is designated as lowest priority with land area calculated. Figure 5.3 details the cartographic model outlining the steps in the GIS stewardship mapping. Other considerations when exploring stewardship are the le vel of protection. Protection here means what factor or factors the land primarily used for, and to what 120
Figure 5.3. Cartographic model for the GIS la nd stewardship mapping GAP audit of the Big Hammock. 121
122 degree, intent, and authority the land is managed (National Biological Information Infrastructure 2006). Consideration was also given to where the highest archaeological diversity was located. Also of importance was the location of NRHP eligible or potentially eligible, significant sites, or wher e sites that could be argued as significant exist. Ownership and use of the land both presen tly and in the foreseeable future is also considered using past and pres ent land use GIS data. Using the Managed Lands data laye r shown for the Big Hammock area, I explored how the archaeological record comp ares to publicly owned lands. I used the recorded archaeological site data from the FMSF, as these site locations are known to occur on these conservation properties and provi de a set of measurable data. Using the recorded locations, I examined the representation of cultural affiliations, functional site types and temporal periods on publicly owne d lands in the Big Hammock. These site locations were also examined according to managing entity and management status, as depicted in the stewardship map (Figure 5.4) How does the site distribution on public lands in the Big Hammock compare to othe r areas of the Big Hammock that are not publicly owned and managed? Are the sites that are currently protecte d representative of the diversity of functional site types, cultural affiliations, a nd temporal ranges that exist across the area? To understand diversity and representation, a complete audit of the known archaeological record must first be c onducted and then comp ared to the known archaeological record on publicly owned lands and to varying stewardship levels (Table 5.3). How might archaeologists be tter direct acquisition stra tegies to correlate with environmental resources acquisition? An understanding for what the archaeological record is within the Big Hammock region is a necessary first step, ju st as understanding
Figure 5.4. Stewardship levels and archaeology in the Big Hammock. 123
124 Table 5.3. Big Hammock recorded archaeologica l site percentages by stewardship level. Land Stewardship Level Nu mber of Pct. of Total under Archaeological Sites Stewardship Stewardship Level 1 19 3.8 Stewardship Level 2 22 4.4 Stewardship Level 3 0 0.0 Stewardship Level 4 53 11.0 Stewardship Level 5 198 39.7 Low Stewardship Potential 206 41.1 Totals: 498 100.0 biodiversity is a first step in environmental conservation strategies (National Biological Information Infrastructure 2006; Orians 1993; Scott et al. 1996). Analysis of Archaeological Site Types in the Big Hammock Region The Florida Master Site File of the Divisi on of Historical Resources is the central repository for documentation, including sp atial location information concerning archaeological sites and historic al structures in Florida. The FMSF has converted survey reports into readily accessible PDF files for rese arch review purposes. Along with site file paper forms, the FMSF has created GIS data la yers by digitizing paper map site locations that are provided by the recorders of the archaeological sites on 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. The GIS datasets from the FMSF depicting recorded archaeological site locations, statewide archaeological surveys conducted, and National Register data layers were clipped to the extent of the Big Hammock using the ArcToolbox clip feature. These data reveal a diversity of site types, temporal ranges, and cu ltural affiliations across the area. The frequency and percen tages of types are discussed, with maps depicting this diversity shown by site type and cultural affiliation.
125 There are a total of 302 recorded archaeol ogical sites in the Big Hammock as of October 2006 (Florida Master Site File 2006b)(Appendix C). Several of these contain multi-temporal and multi-functional components. For example, a site may be recorded as both an artifact scatter and a campsite and ma y also show cultural affiliations with Archaic and Weeden Island periods. Multi-compone nts at sites explain what appear to be excessive values of recorded locations, but are instead duplicate numbers of site types and designations counted under several categor ies. Taxonomic decisions are complicated by similar site functional types being split into separate classifications in the FMSF. For example, prehistoric mounds, platform m ounds, and burial mounds are distinguished depending on how the recorder coded the site. The splitting of categories and classifications in the FMSF and allowing numer ous categorical choices on site file forms increases the difficulty in the differentia tion between what are often ephemeral and subjective site function categorie s. I have combined some of these comparable categories in my queries, which are explained for each of the maps produced. One such combination would be the mound type example. Mounds are recorded as prehistoric, burial, temple, and middens. I have grouped the locations into a single category. However, I make a distinction for those mounds that are known to contain human remains, as these locations are crucial for management and preser vation concerns. Further compounding the nomenclature confusion with the site file data is the fact that data are accepted from a number of sources, including avocational and professional archaeologists. There are also no requirements for method of collection or accuracy of spatial locations for archaeological sites, other than the site boundary must be hand-drawn on a 1:24,000 scale
126 topographic map. Examination of the level of survey, purpose of survey, and methods of recording is necessary, as survey inte nsity and accuracy varies widely. The way in which the archaeologist de termines the functional category and cultural affiliation of the site can influence i ssues such as significance determination and ultimately site preservation and mitigation of im pacts. For example, a site determined to be a lithic scatter as oppose d to a lithic quarry, which can be a difficult determination depending on the sampling and survey strate gy used, could be summarily dismissed and not preserved. This dismissal of lithic s catters is potentially due to a lack of understanding of site function coup led with the lack of research interest on the part of the survey archaeologist, rather than a reflecti on of true significance arguments under NRHP criteria (Robert Austin, pe rsonal communication, November 2006; Robert Carr, personal communication, February 2007; Miller 2002). Fo r this reason, a discussion of site functional categories and cultural affiliations in the Big Hammock is provided with an overview for depicting how surveys and arch aeological site recorders document site function and cultural affiliation. Examination of spatial patterns for some of these functional site types and affiliations is meaningful, while in other instances, the disproportionate numbers could reflect biases in the system and in r ecorder inte rpretation. To examine those biases, the assignation and distribution of recorded sites in the Big Hammock by functional category and cultural affiliation is discussed and the spatial distribution shown. Each category is consider ed in terms of its numerical and spatial representation in the Big Hammock area with inherent problems in the current recording methodologies discussed.
127 Artifact Scatters Artifact scatters are listed with the FMSF in several different ways, such as by the determination of artifact density by the recorder. For purposes of this analysis, I have collapsed the category to reflect scatterings of variable density of ceramic sherds and lithic tools as well as manufacturing debris. Most archaeologists would associate artifact scatters with campsites for hun ting and fishing activities, howe ver, it should be noted that these sites may also reflect more permanent village or habitation settings. For this reason, I have chosen to consider the FM SF functional categories of campsites and prehistoric habitation areas as separate from artifact scatters, even though they may be one in the same. In the Big Hammock region there are 64 artifact scatters (Figure 5.5). Lithic Scatters Lithic scatters are a subset of artifact scatters but ar e comprised solely of stone tools and waste flakes. These scatters may or may not be fr om a pre-ceramic time origin. In the Big Hammock, the FMSF records indi cate 105 lithic scatte rs although some of these sites may have been misidentified by field recorders, and may actually function as quarry or specialized extracti on sites (Figure 5.6). Incorrect functiona l assignments are common with this type of site due not onl y to recorder judgment errors, but to the confusion created by distinctive categories that are combined on site file forms (e.g., lithic scatters/quarries and lithic scatters or quarries as opposed to prehistoric lithic
Figure 5.5. FMSF recorded artifact scatters in the Big Hammock (n=64). 128
Figure 5.6. FMSF Recorded lithic scatters in the Big Hammock (n=105). 129
130 scatters and prehistoric quarri es). Although this lumping together of dissimilar site types gives the site recorder a way to specify a functional category wit hout differentiation of function or type, this procedure has led to th e lumping of lithic scatters with the lithic quarry category. The system does not provide a way to easily distinguish between the two without referring back to the original survey notes and artifact anal ysis (Robert Austin, personal communication, October 2006). Lithic s catters are the most numerous site functional type in the Big Hammock, representi ng 28 percent of the to tal recorded sites. Prehistoric Quarries Prehistoric quarries represent areas fo r the extraction of chert and coral from natural outcrops, where native peoples would re duce the pieces into a transportable size. Field recorders distinguish quarry sites as areas with abundant lithic waste, or debitage, but with very few to no finished tools present. This presence of few finished tools is a feature that distinguishes quarries from lithic tool manufacturing sites. Most of the quarry sites in the Big Hammock are located in the southeastern portion of Pasco County, where there is correspondence with abundant chert and coral outcrops Field truthing and evaluation of this site functional assignati on is warranted when possible, and accurate GPS spatial location of outcrop areas could assist in archaeological suitability and predictability modeling for the region. There are 10 sites recorded as quarries in the Big Hammock region (Figure 5.7).
Figure 5.7. FMSF listed locations for prehistoric quarries in the Big Hammock (n=10). 131
132 Mounds Mound sites in the Big Hammock region in clude several types that may or may not contain human skeletal mate rials. A number of these sites have been completely or near completely destroyed by amateur excavators a nd looters in quest of artifacts. Some of these sites were recorded decades ago and their exact location is listed as general vicinity or is unclear, calli ng for field-truthing with GP S when possible to correct inaccurate site locations. Mounds are sensit ive resources due to the potential for encountering human remains, and knowing their exact locations is needed for effective land use planning, avoidance, and preservation. There are a total of seven sites listed in this functional component with the FMSF fo r the Big Hammock region (Figure 5.8), four having been identified as contai ning human remains (Figure 5.9). Historic The historic site functional category is used here to subsume a number of postcontact, European occupationa l sites and features. The category includes turpentine camps, stills, historic refuse or scatter areas, lumber camps, forts, burials, earthworks, towns, cisterns, mills, and pioneer homesteads. In the Big Hammock, many of the sites listed in this functional category are from a Seminole period historic context, although recorders of sites do not always make this observation. For this reason, further analysis of diagnostic artifacts from these sites comp ared with historical documents and maps would be helpful in securing the context de termination. There are 42 sites in the Big Hammock with a historic site f unctional component (Figure 5.10).
Figure 5.8. FMSF recorded m ound site locations in the Big Hammock (n=7). 133
Figure 5.9. FMSF recorded mound locations in the Big Hammock with human remains identified (n=4). 134
Figure 5.10. FMSF recorded historic site locations in the Big Hammock (n=42). 135
136 Campsites The campsite functional category is assi gned by the archaeological recorder to represent sites thought to be temporary use lo cations. This category often is given to areas of low density and variable density arti fact and lithic scatters, with density of artifacts recovered correlating to the field determination despite the fact that most identifications are made with limited su rvey data. Although th e subjectivity of assignation makes this category almost meaningless, it is listed and described here to demonstrate the bias that can exist in the functional determination process. Campsites are a large functional category in the Big Ha mmock, with 100 sites recorded in the FMSF with this description, making it the second largest f unctional category after lithic scatters (Figure 5.11). Prehistoric Habitation Habitation sites are sugg estive of longer-term occupa tion compared with the aforementioned campsite functional designation. Most archaeologists recording sites in the FMSF use artifact densities and diversity as an indicator of this identification, along with the presence of structural elements and features, like post holes, hearths, and faunal remains. But with prehistori c sites that are being discovered through shovel testing rather than block area excavation, it is not likely that this functional category can be accurately determined. These data suggest that this bias, or inability to identif y these types of sites based on standard testing methodologies, may be reflected in the low number of recorded
Figure 5.11. FMSF recorded locations of prehistoric campsites in the Big Hammock (n=100). 137
138 sites with habitation components in the Big Hammock. There are 19 recorded prehistoric habitation sites in this category as co mpared to the 100 campsites (Figure 5.12). Other and Indeterminate Site functional classifications that are not commonly encountered are often lumped into the other or indeterminate functional category in the FMSF, and could include components such as habitation site s that are not easily distinguished using standard testing procedures. In the Big Hammock, the other functional category is primarily used in the case of ge neral vicinity locale s of historic towns. This category in the Big Hammock is also used as a secondary component for lithic and artifact scatter sites that are not distinguisha ble by the site recorder. A total of 16 sites in the Big Hammock have a category of other or indeterminate as a functional component (Figure 5.13). Unspecified or Unknown A total of nine sites in the Big Hammock regi on have no site-type designation assigned in at least one site functional category. These cat egories are assigned when no verifiable method of assigning a site function was possible in the field, or was used in instances where the site was not able to be spatially located. Some of the sites with these designations were not recorded through professional arch aeological survey, or were recorded prior to CRM survey requirements (Figure 5.14).
Figure 5.12. FMSF recorded habitation site locations in the Big Hammock (n=19). 139
Figure 5.13. FMSF recorded locations in the Big Hammock of the other and indeterminate category sites (n=16). 140
Figure 5.14. FMSF recorded site locati ons in the Big Hammock for unknown or unspecified category sites (n=9). 141
Additional site type designations in the FMSF exist, such as canoe, land-terrestrial, and underwater categories. However, these are less functional type s than they are descriptive of the feature or environmental setting, and ar e another area of problem in the FMSF data sorting for GIS analysis. Canoe locations are sensitive due to the high level of disturbance from looting that can occur with these fragile resources that are often left in situ after documentation due to preserva tion problems created upon removal. An overview of the archaeological f unctional types, as I have outlined for the region with the addition of the one recorded canoe in easte rn Pasco County, shows the functional site type range in this region (Figure 5.15). The percentage of representation is compared to the 373 recorded functional designations cons idered in this eval uation. The functional designation number is larger than the overall site number of 302 because of the multifunctional possibilities at locations. Site Type Identification64 105 10 1 7 100 19 16 9 42 17 28 3 1 2 27 5 4 3 11 0 20 40 60 80 100 120Ar tifa ct Sc atte rs Lithic Sc atters Pr eh istoric Q uarrie s Ca noe Mounds C a mpsites Prehis to ric Habitation Ot h er Unspecified/Un k nown H is toric n % Figure 5.15. FMSF site functional types by condensed categories for the Big Hammock Area. 142
143 Culture Periods in the Big Hammock The FMSF gives a number of broad temporal unit designations for culture affiliation or phases, which are discussed below. Many of these periods are temporally specific and are assigned based on the presen ce of diagnostic artifacts collected or documented during a survey. Other designati ons provided by the FMSF are designed to be vague to provide flexibility in the recording of sites that lack diagnostically dateable materials, but can be determined to be, fo r example, prehistoric or historic. For the purposes of this analysis, I have chosen to examine definabl e temporal periods in the Big Hammock, but acknowledge that many sites reco rded as prehistoric could alter numbers derived in several categorical areas consid ered. Culture periods examined within the hammock as part of this audit are: Paleo-Indian (c. 12,000 B.C. 7,500 B.C.); Archaic including Early, Middle, and Late periods (c. 7,500 B.C. 500 B.C.); Ceramic Period (post 500 B.C.) including Weed en Island (A.D. 300 900) and Safety Harbor (c. A.D. 900 1725); and the Seminole Period (c. 1720s). The historic aboriginal culture is Seminole, and again, some sites recorded temporally only as historic could actually belong in the Seminole component designation. Paleo-Indian Period (c. 12,000 7,500 B.C.) Paleo-Indian sites in Florida are thought to range from roughly 12,000 to 7,500 B.C (Milanich 1994), and are the earliest recorded culture pe riod represented in the Big Hammock. There are four Paleo-Indian sites within the Big Hammock area as listed in the FMSF, each having at least one of their cultural components assigned to this period
144 (Figure 5.16). As with the site functional categories, there are up to eight culture period entries allowed for each site recorded to acc ount for sites with multiple components. Site locations in the Big Hammock with this component recorded include three from Hernando County (8HE241, 8HE463 and 8HE520) and one site from the Pasco County portion of the hammock (8PA2060). Most site culture periods are determined based on the presence of diagnostic artifacts. In the case of the Pale o-Indian locations, finds of projectile points such as Clovis, Suwannee, and Simpson are often associated with this period (Milanich 1994:49). The presence of these lithic tools were used to secure culture period determinations by archaeological surv ey recorders in the Big Hammock (ACI 2002; Stokes 2005; Watters 2005). Local collectors report many more Paleo -Indian site finds in the Big Hammock. These sites are likely deeply buried and not found through standard testing methods such as one-meter shovel testing (Albert Goody ear, personal communication 2000). Goodyear, along with soil specialist, John Foss, and archaeologists Robert Austin and Barry Wharton, accompanied me on site visits to se veral locales within the Big Hammock area in early 2000. We looked specifi cally at the likelihood for deep ly buried site occurrences and examined the general geology at areas of interest (Figure 5.17). S ites visited included several exposed deep strata areas along th e construction path of the North Suncoast Expressway Project, in the northern Hern ando County portion of the Big Hammock, as well as several locales in eastern Pasco County in the Dade City vicinity.
Figure 5.16. FMSF Recorded in the Big Hammock of Paleo-Indian site locations (n=4). 145
Figure 5.17. John Foss of Soils Internationa l in South Carolina (left) examines exposed strata along the North Suncoast Expressway construction corridor in Hernando County in 2001. A local collector (right) shows arch aeologist Robert Austin numerous Archaic and possible Paleo-Indian period lithics, including a Suwannee point with basal-end beveling, that were reported unearthed by the project. On-site soil examination by Foss showed that in the Big Hammock, a well developed soil accumulation zone suggests long-term stability in the landscape. A fragipan horizon, which is a dense subsurface layer of hard soil containing a high level of iron and concretions and hard to penetrate, was en countered in the soil stratigraphy from approximately 96 to 150 cmbs. The archaeologica l potential for Paleo-Indian period site locations is found below this zone and could bias sampling because many surveyors may not attempt to dig below this concreti on level (John Foss, personal communication, 2000). Outside the Big Hammock area in Herna ndo County, Paleo-Indian materials have been found in a number of karst settings, su ch as Hospital Hole on the Weeki Wachee 146
147 River, the Bayport area where the Weeki Wach ee meets the bay, and a number of other sites along the Weeki Wachee and Chassa howitzka Rivers (Robinson 1979:82,100). Several other sites have been found along riverine corridors a nd karstic settings, such as the Withlacoochee River and spring sites no rth of the Big Hammock in Marion County (Hemmings 1975; Neill 1958, 1964). There are less than 198 Paleo-Indian site s recorded in all of Florida (Florida Master Site File 2006b). Research ers believe that many more of these sites possibly exist, found offshore, along wetland interior resources deeply buried. Finding these sites, both in the Big Hammock area and statewide, rais e new challenges to old survey methods and research techniques, which in the past may have biased our understanding of settlement locations and life ways of Paleo-Indian culture (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1981; FDHR 1993:14; Goodyear et al. 1978; Goodyear et al. 1983). Archaic Period (c. 7,500 500 B.C.) Archaic period sites are nu merous in the Big Hammock, with 82 sites in the area having one or more cultural components recorded for this period (Florida Master Site File 2006b)(Figure 5.18). The Archaic period (7,500 500 B.C.) has been divided into three periods that are based primarily on differe nces in lithic tool production. The Early Archaic (3,000500 B.C.), is characterized by projectile points of the Dalton, Bolen, and Kirk varieties. The Middle Archaic (5,000 3,000 B.C.) has projectile points that are large and triangular in shape, with ste mmed ends for hafting. The Newnan, Marion, Citrus, Hillsborough, Levy, Putnam and Alachua va riety types are classic for this period.
Figure 5.18. FMSF recorded Archaic period sites in the Big Hammock (n=82). 148
149 The third division is the Late Archaic (3000500 B.C.), when regional differences begin to emerge along with the presence of pottery (Bullen 1954, 1959; Milanich 1994). Bullen (1954) further delineates the Late Archaic in to Orange and Transitional periods, showing the beginning of regional va riations with the emergen ce of ceramics. Although still referred to in the literature, the transitiona l construct that differentiates between Late Archaic and the emergence of regional ceramic tradition cultures are no longer considered viable (Austin 2000). Transitional period sites are still denoted in the FMSF and have been recorded in the Big Hammock. These sites have semi-fiber and semi-sand tempered pottery and Late Archaic lithic assemblages. The Blackwater Pond Site (8HE66) near Brooksville (Whitney 1985) and the Canyon Swallow Site (8HE247) locate d along the North Suncoast Expressway (Wharton and Dooris 1987:36) are identified with this cultural component. The post-Archaic in the Big Hammock area has Deptford and Weeden Islandrelated periods that date from 500 B.C. to A.D. 900. The distinctive linear, stamped and checked patterns on Deptford pottery are ch aracteristics period markers, made through the use of wooden paddles pressed into th e wet clay before fi ring (Milanich 1994:111). Soils better suited for agriculture and cultivati on may play a role in the interior Deptford settlement pattern (Kohler 1991). Interior sites also are t hought to represent small, seasonal-use hunting and butchering activity s ites (Tesar 1980). There are no recorded sites with Deptford cultural components identified in the FMSF, although local collections without specific pr ovenience suggest a presence of this culture period in the western Hernando County portion of the Big Hammock.
150 Weeden Island Period (A.D. 300-900) The Weeden Island cultures evolved from the Deptford period cultures, with ceremonialism evidenced in part through complex burial mounds and ornate and elaborate ceramics and burial goods. Many site s from this period consist of village complexes with associated mounds. Well-fire d ceramics are sometimes highly decorated with stylized animal effigies, punctations, and other surface decora tions, and are often slipped or incised (Milanich 1994:185). Inland Weeden Island sites have been noted as being in proximity to well-drained agricultu ral-type soils (Kohler and Johnson 1986). The Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock has six sites listed as ha ving a Weeden Island cultural affiliation, based on diagnostic artifact evidence from pottery (Florida Master Site File 2006a). These sites (8PA172, PA222, PA191A, B, and C, and PA199) all are found to cluster around lake settings in the southeast portion of the Big Hammock, with use likely extending into the later Safety Harbor period, ev en when not recorded as such (Jeffrey Mitchem, personal co mmunication, November 2006). The Pottery Hill site (8PA172) was reco rded by avocational archaeologist and attorney William Dayton in 1984. Numerous findings of Archaic stemmed projectile points, Pinellas projectile points, and sand-tempered and check-stamped ceramics were made, as Daytons drawing in the FMSF depi cts (Figure 5.19). Seve ral sites in this vicinity were revisited by archaeologists Brent Weisman and Jeffrey Mitchem in 1985. Researchers believe the area to be a probable settlement site area during the late Weeden Island and subsequent Safety Harbor peri od (Jeffrey Mitchem, personal communication, November 2006) (Mitchem 1989a:46).
Figure 5.19. Artifact assemblage collected from the Pottery Hill site (8PA172). Drawing by William Dayton and used with his permission. In the Hernando County portion of the Big Hammock where there are an additional seven sites with recorded Weed en Island components, including one burial mound location (8HE13). The Hart Pond site (8HE251) is a recorded multi-component site with Weeden Island and Seminole cultura l affiliations based on surface finds. The location of the site is just out side the investigated impact corridor of the North Suncoast Expressway. The site was recorded based on a cursory examination and find of lithic debitage and three ceramic sherds, two diagnostic for the Weeden Island period and one Seminole (Wharton 1990:104). Other recorded sites with Weeden Island components in the Hernando County portion of the Big Hammock include 8HE489, HE527, HE511, HE529 and HE507. 151
Additional Weeden Island period artifacts lacking exact provenience are in the curation of the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. Vessels with ornate Weeden Island designs with large basal holes are said to have come from a mortuary context from a burial mound in the Trilby-Lacoochee area in the eastern portion of the Big Hammock. Vessel A-3233 (Figure 5.20), is described as a St. Johns Plain ware with basal kill hole and lacking a neck portion. Vessel A-3234 is a Weeden Island highly incised ware with a prominent basal hole (Figure 5.21). Vessel A-32 35 is listed in the museum accession file as a Weeden Island Plain ware with a basa l hole present. Examination of the vessel revealed three lines of punctations that encircle the piece (Figur e 5.22). Vessel A-3236 is a square, four-lobed punctuated piece with prominent basal hole (Figure 5.23). All were donated by a private individual and said to co me from the same mound location (Florida Museum of Natural History n.d.). Figure 5.20. Vessel A 3233 from the vicinity of Trilby-Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida. Black and White photo (left) taken by Ripley Bullen, on file Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 152
Figure 5.21. Vessel A 3234 from the vicinity of Trilby-Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida. Black and White photo (left) taken by Ripley Bullen, on file Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. Figure 5.22. Vessel A 3235 from the vicinity of Trilby-Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida. Black and White photo (left) ta ken by Ripley Bullen, on file Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 153
Figure 5.23. Vessel A 3236 from the vicini ty of Trilby-Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida. Black and White photo (top) ta ken by Ripley Bull en, on file Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. North of the Big Hammock in the Alac hua and Marion County area, Milanich (1978) relates that the earlier Deptford cu lture evolved into the Cades Pond regional culture, followed by the Alachua culture tradition (Milanich 1971). Cades Pond people were highly adapted to extensive wetland re sources in the area, and through extensive excavation and environmental and faunal dietar y analysis, a boundary for this region was able to be delineated (Milanich 1978; Smith 1971). Whether this regionalism is seen in the Big Hammock, with the noted environmen tal similarities to the Alachua hammock areas, including extensive inte rior wetlands and village mound clusters present in eastern Pasco County, awaits further field investig ation. For now, the areas that could hold 154
155 archaeological information about this possibl e regional variant remain on private land holdings which are not available for excavation or more detailed analysis, and include agricultural land holdings in jeopardy of land use cha nge to residential zoning. Safety Harbor Period (A.D. 900-1725) The Safety Harbor culture is named for the type site in Pinellas County. Originally defined by Willey (1949:475-488), and later redefined by Mitchem (1989a), this culture period has distinctive pottery fr om mortuary contexts with Mississippian motifs and often have dateable European artifacts (Milanich 1 994:389). Archaeologists believe that the Weeden Island-related cultures evolved into Safety Harbor, with the period divided into four phases: Englewood (A.D. 900-1000) Pinellas (A.D. 1000-1500) which are pre-contact, and Tatham (A.D. 1500-1567), and Bayview (A.D. 1567-1725) in the post contact era (Mitchem 1988, 1989a). The inland habitation manifestation of Safety Harbor is not well understood, w ith burial mounds often found isolated from living contexts (Mitchem 1988; 1989a:557-565; 1989b). Functional hypotheses for the interior region north of Tampa Bay depicts the burial mound structures as larg ely isolated spots for interm ent, possibly used by specific kin-based groups or clans, or by reside nts from surrounding areas (Mitchem 1988). Future investigation of Safety Harbor pe riod habitation and burial sites in the Big Hammock could provide important insight into the life ways and settlement patterns of people from this period. A clustering of sites with artifacts diagnostic for this period, exist in the southeas t portion of the Big Hammock (Fi gure 5.24). In 1946, several low burial mounds were destroyed in this area while clearing land for orange groves. The
Figure 5.24. FMSF locations for Safety Harbor pe riod sites and those sites with recorded artifact assemblages that likely relate to this period. The eastern Pasco County site clustering area is denoted, with locations for 8PA7 and 8PA8 not shown as these sites are not recorded in the FMSF GIS data (n=6 in the cluster, and n=10 in the Big Hammock including the PA7 and PA8). 156
157 location is listed in the FMSF as general vicinity, and was investigated by John and Robert Goggin in 1934 and recorded as 8PA9. Many of these sites re corded lack assigned cultural affiliation on the FMSF data, and it is only through a reexamination of field notes and artifact collections that temporal com ponents can be assigned to these settlement areas. Goggin collected several artifacts from the surface of the 8PA9 site, described in his field notes as a sand mound and a burial mound two miles southeast of Saint Leo, Pasco County. The low sand mounds that contai ned burials were described by Goggin as being impacted slightly by orange grove pr eparation and scraping, but that he felt the burials themselves remained intact (Goggin 1947a). The PA9 site is said to be in the same general vicinity as the PA6 and PA7 sites, and a note in the paper file of the FMSF indicated that all three sites may actually be the same location. Howe ver, careful review of Goggins field notes held in Special Collec tions at the University of Florida reveals that Goggin lists the site locations as separate, located on a hilltop in the Lake Pasadena vicinity. He visited all th ese sites twice, in 1934 and again in 1946 (Goggin 1947a). Goggin lists a collecti on of seven plain and decorated potsherds, a basal portion of a spearhead, a drill and a heavily patinated shell bead. The collections in the possession of the Florida Museum of Natural Histor y (accession #99658 and 104902) do not include the shell bead, but do contain several chert flakes and busycon shell fragments, a St. Johns Check Stamped and Pasco Plain sherd, a nd a partially reconstructed sand tempered vessel with a brushed surface exterior which is likely from a later Seminole occupation (Figure 5.25). Interestingly, this reconstructed vessel is not noted in Goggins field book
Figure 5.25. Brushed sherd (above) from the 8P A9 site, investigated by Goggin (1947a). This large rim piece from a Seminole period ve ssel was found in the vicinity of Lake Pasadena, Saint Leo, in Pasco County. (Co llection #104902), Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. as coming from the 8PA9 location, but ra ther from a nearby multiple temporal component site (8PA172) that was visited the same day (Goggin 1947a). Numerous ceramics from these visits also were sent to the University of Michigan ceramics repository according to notes in the site fi le and notebooks, however no record of these collections exists today. The Pasco Plain a nd St. Johns wares recovered from the 8PA9 location are consistent with the Safety Har bor period, and the proximity of these mounds and burial mounds to the 8PA172 Pottery Hill habitation area are suggestive of Safety Harbor period settlement around the Lake Pasadena and Buddy Lake area of eastern Pasco County (Jeffrey Mitchem, personal communication, August 2006) (Mitchem 1989a:46). Artifacts recovered from orange groves in this area and in private collections 158
also suggest Safety Harbor pe riod association, with numerous Pinellas projectile points, Pasco Plain wares, Prairie Cord Marked and Busycon shell fragments found in this area (Mitchem 1989a:48). A number of sites with probable Safety Harbor components and containing contact era beads are also in this southeas tern portion of the Big Hammock. Based on this evidence, these sites could be associated with the de Soto expedition, which headed north from Tampa Bay and passed through areas near present day Dade City and Lacoochee in Pasco County, and Istachatta in Hernando County (Milanich 1995:77). A site known as Andersons Mound (8HE14) is listed in the FM SF as being destroyed by local treasure hunters. Local collectors who have allowed documentation of items reportedly from this site have numerous turquoise blue beads (Figure 5.26). Figure 5.26. Turquoise blue glass beads reportedly from the 8HE14, Andersons Mound site. (Frank Hoff pr ivate collection, photo by Travis Doering. 159
160 Other turquoise blue glass beads have s hown up in sites in the Southeast as early as 1560 to 1570 (Mitchem 1989a:42), but could al so be consistent with a later missionperiod assemblage, similar to those in North Florida from sites dating to 1650-1704 (Jeffrey Mitchem, personal communicat ion, August 2006). Early Englewood pottery consistent with the earliest phases of the Sa fety Harbor period (Mitchem 1989a:559) was also reported by local collectors as comi ng from this site (William Dayton, personal communication, June 2006). My field visit to the site, located on private property, detected only looter spoil hol es and a densely overgrown a nd disturbed area that could not be explored. The 8PA8 site is said to be located in the vicinity of Blant on, but is not shown on the FMSF GIS data layer. The site was record ed by an avocational archaeologist, Edgar Nelson, in 1915. Records from items donated to the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville show that the site likely ha d a Safety Harbor and later Seminole of the artifacts that Nelson collect ed, along with descriptions. The artifacts themselves are component. Specimens listed in the accession car d file at the museum include drawings largely not able to be located at the muse um, and the card file records provide the primary detail of the site. One incised sherd remains in collections from the site, and shows tentative Weeden Island to Safety Harbor component (Fi gure 5.27). Based on the other artifact descriptions ceramic types include St. Johns Check Stamped, Carrabelle Incised, Chattahoochee Brushed, and St. J ohns Linear Check Stamped wares. The 8PA7 site, which was visited by Goggin in 1934 and 1946 (Goggin 1947a), is said to have been two low, sand burial mounds located near present-day Saint Leo University. Saint Leo students in the 1920s loca ted the mounds and would later bring the
Figure 5.27. Incised chevron design ceramic ri m sherd from the 8PA8 site location collection made in 1915 by Edgar Nelson and cu rated at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. site to Goggins atten tion. Materials from the mounds were said to have been used for road fill when Prospect Road was paved. Collectors report caches of polished celts and pottery from the site (William Dayto n, personal communication, December 2006). Examination of these unprovenienced collec tions by professionals shows a possible Safety Harbor period component (Barry Wharton, personal comm unication 1999). Other sites listed with the FMSF as having Safe ty Harbor components include 8HE14, HE511 and HE241C. The sites 8PA7 and 8PA8 disc ussed here have no known location and are not listed in the FMSF GIS data layer. Both sites have been confused in the FMSF with the general vicinity location of 8PA9, however PA7 a nd PA9 were listed by Goggin as discrete areas (Goggin 1947a) and PA8 was said to be in the Blanton ar ea that is several miles to the north of the Saint Leo general area. 161
162 Seminole Period (post 1700) By the end of the Bayview phase (A.D 1567-1725) of the Safety Harbor period, indigenous populations were deva stated by disease and European contact-related issues. Creek Indians and affiliated groups, forced from other areas to the north such as Alabama and Georgia were in North Central Florid a by A.D. 1700, and are the likely descendents of the historic Seminoles of Florida. Alachua savanna ar eas were first settled, with Seminoles next locating along the Brooksville Ridge in the Big Hammock (Weisman 1989:4) There are three recorded sites in the FMSF that have a Seminole period component. Seminole sites are hard to detect due to their low artifact density and shallow deposition that is easily di sturbed. Seminole component sites are often located near Alachua tradition or Safety Harbor component prehistori c settlements (Weisman 1989). Site locations are often based on the presen ce of diagnostic artif act items encountered during survey, such as brushed ceramic wares. The sites with a recorded Seminole co mponent located in the Big Hammock and listed on the FMSF are 8PA114 (Nicholsons Grove), 8HE248 (Curlew South) and 8HE251 (Hart Pond). These site s were recorded by two surveyors, Brent Weisman and Barry Wharton, both with substantial expe rience in dealing with Seminole period archaeology. The use of a direct-historic ap proach, utilizing documents and maps in combination with archaeological survey, is ne cessary to locate the often ephemeral and remote Seminole locales (Weisman 1 986, 1989; Wharton 1990). Artifacts in the possession of local collectors that are repor ted to be from locations within the Big Hammock area point to the possi bility that this component is being largely underreported, and are not being found or recognized by archaeological surv eys (Figure 5.28).
Figure 5.28. FMSF recorded Seminole co mponent sites in the Big Hammock (n=3). 163
164 Eighteenth and 19th century documents and military maps show a Seminole occupancy in the Big Hammock with the Chocochatti Semi nole group of Eufala Creeks located near present-day Brooksville from around 1767 to 1836 (Weisman 1989; Wharton 1990). The group was decimated by raids conducted by other bands of Creeks and by the Second Seminole War fought between 1835 and 1842, which ev entually led to th e demise of this once prosperous group (Wharton and Dooris 1987). Maps also illustrate numerous trails and military fortifications were located within the Big Hammock and surrounding area Historic trails and ro ads are considered an important factor in locating the route taken by Spanish conquistadors su ch as de Soto, as it is speculated they would not have wa ndered aimlessly but would likely follow established paths (Tesar 1980). Ancient indigenous pathways and trails were reused, maintained, and improved over extended periods of time (Trombold 1991); thus, many of these paths and trails may persist and are revealed on military and later survey maps such as the General Land Office Survey (GLOS) ma ps made of Florida in the early to mid1800s. An example of these prominent trails in the area is the Fort King military road, which parallels present-day U.S. 301, and likel y ran adjacent to the Lake Pasadena and Buddy Lake prehistoric settlement areas. Usi ng environmental descri ptions and township plat maps, these paths and trails can be di gitized and shown with present-day locations (Figure 5.29). The scenario shows that bi furcating military roads came within close proximity to the Safety Harbor and later Se minole occupation areas near Lake Pasadena and Buddy Lake, and could explain the beads and other Spanish trade goods that have turned up in private coll ections from this area.
Figure 5.29. Military roads can be derived from General Land Office Maps to show present-day location. Shown here is the Lake Pasadena and Buddy Lake area of eastern Pasco County. Map produced by Barry Wharton. 165
166 There are four forts dating to the Sec ond Seminole War located within the Big Hammock and the surrounding area: Fort Cross, Fort Annutteeliga, Fort Broom and Fort Dade near Lacoochee. Examination of General Land Office Survey Maps and military maps such as the Mackay and Blake map of 1839 (Figure 5.30) show Fort Cross to be located near present-day SR50 and the S uncoast Expressway. Additionally, Fort Annutteeliga is though t to be located near Stafford Lake, eight miles to the northwest of Brooksville in Hernando County (Wharton 1990, 2001). Fort Dade is located in the vicinity of Lacoochee just outside the Big Hammock and along the Withlacoochee River (Bell 2004). Fort Broom, named after a one-time Governor of Florida, is located near southeast of Dade City (Florida Master Site File 2006b). Local histor ians have indicated the site is on private property near Larkin Lake, but it is listed as general vicinity with the FMSF (Florida Master Site File 2006b). Seve ral military camps and block houses, built to provide shelter for civilian settlers, are also likely located within the Big Hammock area. There are a total of 101 FMSF listed Eu ropean component sites in the Big Hammock area. These sites are dateable to the 18th through the 20th centuries with the majority being 19th and 20th century including thr ee from the Spanish period that likely are Seminole sites. The European category makes up a large majority percentage of recorded sites, with 22.2 percent of all recorded site locations in the Big Hammock having this component.
Figure 5.30. Mackay and Blake Military Map of 1839 (above), with depiction of the Fort Cross location in the Big Hammock indicated an d shown in closer detail in the enlarged image (below) (after Mackay and Blake 1839). 167
168 The largest cultural affiliation category of recorded sites in the Big Hammock is designated as prehistoric. The prehistoric cate gory is used for site locations with and without ceramics being found, and is used by recorders when a cultural affiliation is not obvious or discernable. There are 220 preh istoric component sites recorded, or 48.5 percent of sites, within the Big Hammoc k. Another 23 sites, or 5.1 percent, have unknown or unspecified cultural affiliations. All FMSF recorded site cultural components in the Big Hammock and their percent of representation are presented in Table 5.4. The National Register in the Big Hammock National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility determination for recorded archaeological sites is performe d by the archaeological surveyor and is determined by the State Historic Preserva tion Office and the Keeper of the National Register (King 1998:90). The surveyor consider ation is not then, technically a formal determination, but often does stand as the only significance evaluation of the site. The Table 5.4. Recorded Cultural site components in the Big Hammock Culture Periods n % Paleo-Indian 4 0.9 Archaic 89 19.6 Weeden Island 13 2.9 Safety Harbor 2 0.4 Seminole 2 0.4 European 101 22.2 Prehistoric (undifferentiated) 220 48.5 Unknown 23 5.1 Totals 454 100
169 SHPO often defers making any evaluation of significance unless deemed necessary from an impact, conflict or formal NRHP de termination submission request. Surveyor recommendations are performed on nearly all sites, and offer the better assessment for significance determination, especially as it is rare for the SHPO to not concur with the surveyor recommendations when determinati ons are made. Categorie s of consideration include: National Register listed, eligible, po tentially or likely eligible, ineligible, insufficient information, and no evaluation made Selections of category choice are also provided to surveyors for more work r ecommended, preservation recommended, and for no further work recommended. These selections have been assigned to categories of likely, and potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP (Table 5.5). SHPO review for the National Register is not as useful as the surveyor review. A large percentage of sites, bot h within the Big Hammock and statewide, are not evaluated by the SHPO for the National Register. When sites are evaluated by the SHPO, results from review of the Big Hammock area data indicate that there is a high degree of consistency between the field evaluation and the SHPO evaluation. Determinations were not made on site significance by the SHPO in many cases, with no evaluations on nearly Table 5.5. Summary of National Register Evaluations for the Big Hammock Area Evaluation Category SHPO Archaeological Surveyor Number Percentage Number Percentage NRHP-listed 0 0.0 0 0.0 NRHP Eligible 0 0.0 3 1.0 Potentially Eligible 5 1.6 3 1.0 Ineligible 142 47.0 195 64.6 Insufficient Information 36 1.4 48 15.9 No Evaluation 119 39.4 53 17.5 TOTALS 302 100.0 302 100.0
170 57 percent of the archaeological sites r ecorded in the Big Hammock. The SHPO concurred with the field evalua tion of ineligiblity for listing on the National Register in all cases. When a SHPO significance determination for eligibility was actually made, there were only four instances when ther e was disagreement with the archaeological surveyors evaluation. During a 2004 survey for the Ashley Gr oves Multiple Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Property, in Pasco County, a prehisto ric lithic site, (8PA2140), was determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register by th e surveyor (Austin 2004). The SHPO later determined the site was potenti ally eligible for listing, and not eligible outright, meaning that further archaeological work would be necessary to determine eligibility. This decision does not actually constitute a differing of opinion, with the SHPO recommendation of potentially eligible regarded by the Keeper of the NRHP as being actually eligible for the Register (King 1998:90). In the second case of disagreement between the surveyor and the SHPO recommendation, a compliance archaeol ogy project in Hernando County for a development project led to the discovery of a multiple component site with prehistoric and historic contexts. The si te, 8HE271, was said by the archaeological surveyor to not have enough artifact density to be consider ed for listing on the Na tional Register (ACI 2004). The SHPO determined that there was not enough information provided to render a decision in the case, with more work recommended. The third case involved a possible PaleoIndian and Early Archaic site that was discovered as part of a compliance proj ect in Hernando County in 2005. The site, 8HE520, was recommended by the archaeological surveyor to be eligible for listing on
171 the National Register (Stokes 2005). The SHPO determined the site was potentially eligible for listing but not eligible outright for listing. Again, this decision does not actually constitute a reversal of recommendation, but requires more work to be conducted for a determination. Lastly, the Canyon Swallow site 8He247, does show a reversal in recommendation between surveyors and the SH PO. The site was originally recommended potentially eligible for the National Register during a Phase I assessment for the North Suncoast Expressway project (Wharton 1990). The site was large, covering nearly 150 plus acres in size, but had cl usters of activity areas. One such area bordered a sink hole feature and was used in prehistoric times as a lithic procurement, but the overall site had multiple cultural components represented, ex tending through the 20th century (Wharton 1990). About 43 acres of the site were within the area of potential effect (APE) from the planned road corridor. Phase II investigators argued that the majority of the site lay outside the APE, and the portion within the corridor was less dense and did not demonstrate a potential to yield new research information (Almy et al. 1995:16-17). The opinion of the original surveyor was reversed by the SHPO following the reevaluation study, with the site area within the corridor requ iring no further investigation and cleared for impact. The SHPO did not conc ur with the surveyors determination and the site outside the impact corridor, and upheld the overa ll site recommendation. Canyon Swallow is now considered potentially eligib le for listing on the Na tional Register, and a recent field check revealed the property containing the majority of the site surrounding the sink hole has since been acquired by the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
172 There are no prehistoric sites in the Big Hammock that are actually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Five potentially eligible sites as determined by the SHPO include three in Pasco County and two in Hernando County. Of these, one is in public ownership and the others are all on private lands and we re discovered as part of compliance archaeological surveys for development or transportation impact projects. The sites include a Middle Archaic lithic sc atter or quarry site (8PA2017), a prehistoric lithic site (8PA2140), a Late Archaic, multi-co mponent site (8HE247), an historic 20th century site (8HE335) and a the possible Paleo-Indian site on the Gr egg Mine tract near Brooksville. These data show the importance of the archaeological surveyor determination in the significance process, with the decisions made in the field and by the investigators generally standing, in all but these exceptions, as the main line of evidence for site significance and therefore the potential for preservation or loss. The majority of archaeological sites in the Big Hammock have been determined to be ineligible for listing, largely using the previously discussed National Register Criterion D, research potential, in the recommendation (Figure 5.31). In the next chapter, I illustrate the im portance of other factors that serve to link archaeology to land use and environmental pl anning. This linkage is of vital importance to the future of archaeological preservation and conservation in Florida, where landscape change and loss of resources happens at a rapi d pace. Part of this GAP audit process must also consider the unevenness of the archaeologi cal record across regions. For this, I will examine issues such as level of survey conducte d in order to better ta rget areas for future survey and conservation priority. Environmenta l acquisition priorities in Florida are well
Figure 5.31. FMSF locations of archaeologi cal sites in the Big Hammock area with National Register Ineligible determinations made by the archaeological surveyor (n=195). 173
174 developed and archaeology must move toward a more inclusive evaluation process for archaeological acquisition prioritization, or ar chaeology will be perc eived as a secondary and separate consideration.
175 Chapter 6. The Need for a Basic Inventory Understanding Archaeologists are no longer simply doing research on an accelerated schedule in advance of a construction projec t; now they are making crucia l, selective decisions on behalf of the whole discipline about what will and will not be preserved, and what will or will not be salvaged (King and Lyneis 1978:877). Targeting Future Preservation Goals In the above quote by King and Lyneis, it is implied that arch aeologists are active participants in selective preser vation planning and that they are aware that decisions they make can have impacts on what is preserved or not preserved. Although planning for preservation is happening in archaeology, it often occurs differentially with disparity between research, academics, policy pla nners, and cultural re source management dimensions. Often decisions that are ma de in the field by project archaeologists concerning sampling strategies and significance de terminations have critical implications for future land use and management decisions. These determinations are made in isolation from other sources of input and other voices of inclusion, and can overlook social, aesthetic, community, economic, a nd environmental values, which all could strengthen significance determination and lead to stronger sust ainable planning for cultural resource protecti on and more active participation fr om a variety of stakeholders (Clark 2005:328).
176 Differences in Archaeological Survey and Discovery The level of archaeological survey conducted can be influe ntial to the significance determinations made by the investigator (Darvill 2005; Hardin 2002). A Phase I shovel testing survey, for example, may miss features and ephemeral phenomena that might be detected through different methodologies or survey intensity. For this reason, it is important to consider the number, types, a nd location of surveys in the Big Hammock. A total of 109 archaeological surveys have been conducted in the Big Hammock. Of these, 43, or 39.5 percent, were perfor med for compliance review of mixed use housing and large-scale regional developmen ts. Another 28 cultural surveys, or 26 percent of projects, were conducted in respons e to proposed road impacts. Infrastructure projects such as gas, water, and sewer serv ices accounted for anot her 13, or 12 percent of cultural surveys conducted. There were a total of 10 cell tower and communication projects comprising nine percen t of the total surveys. Cell tower surveys are depicted as circular in dimension, as they are often con cerned with viewshed impacts to historical resources and are required to perform an impact buffer analysis from the proposed location (Florida Master Site File 2006a). Projects for the mining of peat and limerock resources accounted for 4.5 percent, with five surveys conducted. Mining surveys examine the area of proposed impact and ofte n include an on-site monitor to watch for unanticipated impacts during the mining proces s. Five surveys were also performed for historical and architectural planning purposes, and five conducted for modeling, predictability, and research projects representing 4.5 percent each of the total archaeological surveys in the Big Hammock.
177 These survey category percentages in the Big Hammock region illustrate that most surveys are Phase I, or cursory in nature. Methodologies used on these surveys consist primarily of shovel testing to one me ter in depth. Impacts are considered largely on a site by site basis, with little to no emphasis on synthetic approaches that examine research questions, which should be driven by well-developed historic contexts. When viewing the spatial extent of the surveys as provided in the GIS datalayer with the FMSF (see Figure 4.9), the caveat must be given that these extents are often of the project property area and does not necessarily cons titute complete archaeological survey coverage. The differences in level of surv ey across space also means that large areas considered as surveyed in the FMSF records, have in reality received little to no scrutiny or field testing. Comparison of the Big Hammock Archae ological Surveys to Statewide Data In Cultural Resource Management (CRM ) in the United States, decisions are made daily, through the process of significan ce determination, about what kinds and types of sites get preserved, and what is allowed to be destroyed. Often, these assessments of significance are made based on insufficient evidence or inaccurate criteria, with archaeologists c hoosing to examine the material content of sites rather than the behavior that went into the making of the archaeological site (Tainter and Bagley 2005:63). The level of archaeologi cal inquiry and survey can al so directly impact this determination assessment, and has led to a perceptible division between compliancebased archaeological work and resear ch driven academic archaeology.
178 A comparison of the previously discussed level of survey in the Big Hammock to that occurring statewide will help in the assessment of whether unevenness in the archaeological record is localized or wide -ranging. There have b een 9,148 professional surveys conducted statewide as reported in the October 2006 GIS database for Field Surveys (Florida Master Site File 2006b). R easons for the surveys range from compliance archaeology to academic research, with th ese differing levels of survey affording different results, especially in regard to significa nce determinations. Statewide there are 26,932 archaeological sites record ed in the FMSF, with 302 in the Big Hammock area (Florida Master Site File 2006b). The num ber of National Regist er recorded sites statewide is much less than the thousands of sites recorded overall. Including historic structures and sites with ar chaeological sites, there are 1,492 sites listed on the National Register. This number includes 104 archaeologica l sites with the remainder comprised of historic structures or sites (Florida Ma ster Site File 2006b). There are no National Register archaeological sites recorded in the Big Hammock. Of the 26,932 sites listed on the FMSF stat ewide, 19,032 have not been evaluated for National Register eligibility by the SH PO. Further examination shows 6,475 have been determined at the SHPO level as inel igible for listing, with 1,282 having insufficient information for determination and another 1,025 being deemed e ligible for listing according to the SHPO (Florida Master Site File 2006b). The typing and consideration of site eligibility for the National Register is largely subjective and can vary from region to region. In the Big Hammock, elig ibility recommendations by the surveyors are similar to statewide SHPO trends noted, with the majority of sites found ineligible for the National Register. In other counties, where the leve l of survey differs from the Big Hammock,
179 with surveys conducted for conservation land pu rchase or for large-scale research and modeling, regional differences are reflected in the surveyor and SHPO recommendations and evaluations. For example, Collier County has had a number of archaeological surveys conducted in support of land acquisition and cultural resource planning at a regional level. In this area, ther e are 663 recorded archaeologi cal sites, with 336 being recommended by the surveyors as eligible fo r NRHP listing (Florida Master Site File 2006b). In this region, high preservation quality and obvious site expression in the form of mounds and middens, has made the use of Criterion D less subjective for surveyors (Robert Carr, personal communication, 2006). Linking Land Use and Archaeology In the examination of what kinds and types of archaeology are being protected and preserved for future research and appr eciation, we cannot st op at just examining current conditions of protection such as is afforded by public land holdings and present open space such as agricultural land designati on. Land use changes and so we must also consider the security of resources where existing conservation la nds do not adequately protect or reflect the archaeological diversity of a region. By linking land use and the archaeological resource record, as is done in other resour ce protection planning (Kautz and Cox 2001), we can begin to identify areas on private lands that c ould best satisfy and enhance an archaeologica l preservati on strategy. Conservation lands in the Big Hammock are disproportionately located in the northern half of the region, with land acquisition targeting the Annutteliga Hammock in Hernando and Citrus counties. Here, the focus of preservation strate gies has related to
180 ground water protection and rech arge (SWFWMD 1992). The southern portion of the Big Hammock, and all of the portion of the Big Hammock that lies within Pasco County, is devoid of any current public land holdings. There are a total of 19 recorded archaeo logical sites that are located on the 17,010 acres of conservation lands in the Big Ha mmock area (Figure 6.1)(Appendix D). Further analysis of these protected sites show there are 40 functional component s recorded at this site locations, ranging from hi storic refuse, towns, farmsteads and homesteads, to prehistoric lithic and artifact scatters. There are 15 functiona l categories, or 38 percent, that relate to 19 th and 20 th century historic homestead and refuse and town sites on conservation lands. Another 40 percent of site functional categories relate to prehistoric sites, with 16 categories relating to raw mate rial procurement sites, lithic and artifact scatters, and habitation sites. An additional eight functional com ponents are listed as unknown, unspecified or other and on e site is listed as a specialized rock shelter or cave site. Culture affiliation representation on c onservation lands incl udes 37 recorded temporal ranges. The majority of the cultu ral affiliations rela te to historic 19 th and 20 th century sites, with 62 percent of sites on c onservation lands relating to this era. Nine recorded archaeological sites are listed simply as prehistoric, with only one site relating specifically to the Middle Archaic period. Four other sites are listed in the FMSF as unspecified or indeterminate cultural affiliation. Comparison of the cultural and temporal a ffiliations and functi onal site types that are represented on conservation lands with the diversity of site types and cultural affiliations found within the Big Hammock, s how many areas of preservation gaps in
Figure 6.1. FMSF recorded archaeological sites on conservation lands in the Big Hammock (n=19). 181
182 relation to the archaeological record (Tab le 6.1). Additionally, sensitive archaeological features, such as canoe locations, sand m ounds, and burial mounds, all remain on private lands. Field investigation s hould be conducted on conserva tion lands where sites are listed only as prehistoric or functional dete rmination has not been provided. Some sites listed as historic could also relate to Se minole occupation in the Big Hammock, however, site representation is still lacking even assuming this in correct assignment to be a possibility. Conservation lands are restricted to the northern half of the Big Hammock, with consideration only given to one of three hammock bodies comprising the overall physiographical unit. The Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock, with its diverse range of Safety Harbor and European-contac t period sites, burial and sand mounds, lithic quarries, procurement sites, habitation areas and scatters remains unrepresented and unprotected, with all of its cultural resources contained on private land holdings. Table 6.1. Big Hammock recorded functional s ite types and percentages compared to those on conservation lands in the Big Hammock. Site Type Big Hammock Pct. Conservation Pct. Pct. of Total Number Lands Functional Site Types Preserved Artifact Scatters 64 17 3 7.5 0.8 Lithic Scatters 105 28 6 15.0 1.6 Prehistoric Quarries 10 3 2 5.0 0.5 Canoe 1 1 0 0 0.0 Mounds 7 2 0 0 0.0 Campsites 100 27 0 0 0.0 Prehistoric Habitation 19 5 5 12.5 1.4 Other 16 4 3 7.5 0.8 Unspecified/Unknown 9 3 6 15.0 1.6 Historic 42 11 15 37.5 4.0 Totals: 373 100.0 40 100.0 10.7
183 The Pasco County sub area portion of the Big Hammock contains 150 recorded archaeological site locations, but each site can fall within di fferent stewardship categories based on boundary determinations. This sub area has a low stewardship value for a majority of the recorded archaeological site locations, with 138 or 43 percent, occurring on stewardship levels five lands. These cate gories of lands afford little to no long term protection strategy or acquisition potential as measured by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. The FNAI provides the primary sc ientific support for the Florida Forever program in determining land acquisition prio rities (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2007). Another 93 recorded site locations, or 37 percent, fall on lands with no stewardship potential as indicat ed by the FNAI GIS data. Ther e are 17 site locations with a level four stewardship value, representing seve n percent of the recorded site locations in the Pasco County portion of the Big Hamm ock with this medium stewardship and acquisition potential. The disparity that exists between lands deemed of value for natural habitat and corridor function as seen by the FNAI, and those of importance for cultural resource protection reasons is crucial to understand. The FNAI assessments of land resources are used in Florida Forever acquisition priori tization. In the Big Hammock, I found lands currently in private holding with little to no chance of acquisition based on FNAI targets and stewardship mapping, were the lands that often held the highest archaeological potential based on recorded si te locations. Cultural resources are considered in FNAI decision support, but after sing le resource ranking is performed for all natural resource evaluative areas (Knight and Oetting 2005). A se parate consideration is then done for cultural resources, perf ormed by the Florida Division of Historical Resources because the
184 ranking criteria used for archaeological site s are subjective and not easily examined by non-archaeologists. Archaeo logical resource potential is also viewed in terms of proposed Florida Forever project areas, ra ther than proactively consider ing gaps in the conservation of the resource and targeting areas of prio rity for archaeological resource protection. Another problem lies in the assumption of protection based on present land use. For example, a large percentage of land in the Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock falls under the agriculture land use category, which has been viewed by county planners and policy makers as affording a high degree of protection for resources contained on those lands (Pasco County 2006a). The Pasco County Environmental Lands Program differentiates between land that should be acquired in its Environmental Planning Unit analysis, and land that is in agriculture hol dings and therefore viewed as potentially protected. When these areas are examined in conjunction with current development plans, another picture emerges, showing that crop a nd pasturelands are bei ng converted to largescale residential development. There are 11,342 acres that ha ve been converted from crop and pasturelands to residential in Pa sco County (Pasco County 2006b), and 9,794 acres are large-scale MPUD and DRI areas. These converted land areas contain 90 recorded archaeological sites totaling 281 acres of cultural resource loca tions (Florida Master Site File 2006b)(Figure 6.2). Unlike Hernando C ounty, the Pasco County Environmental Lands Program does not use cultural resour ces as a measure of acquisition potential (Pasco County 2006a). The acquisition plan al so fails to consider the rapid rate of agricultural land convers ion, which cannot be relied upon as an effective stewardship mechanism for natural or cultural res ource protection (Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4).
Figure 6.2. Pasco County Environmental Lands Program map showing areas delineated for protection strategy development (EPU) and those thought to be protected in agricultural holdings. MPUD and DRI developments are overlain to depict the conversion of agricult ural lands to residentia l property in this area. 185
Figure 6.3. Signs advertising the conversion of agriculture lands to residential use in eastern Pasco County. Figure 6.4. Multiple Planned Use Developments (MPUDs) arise from previous pasturelands and orange gr oves, converting agricultural land use into residential development in eastern Pasco County. 186
187 Cropland and pasture land has historically provided a degree of protection for both cultural and natural resources, with large acreage areas in the Big Hammock comprised of land used for tree crops and cattle grazing. Recent land use trends are changing in the Big Hammock, as they are else where in Florida, with agricultural lands being converted to residential areas. Crop and pasturelands are being converted to residential use at a rate of 11,934 acres between 1995 and 2004 (Figure 6.5 and 6.6). In 1995, the total crop and pastureland area in the Big Hammock was 72,395 acres, or 31 percent of the 233,477 acres in this area. In the 2004 land use data, that number had decreased to 60,461 acres or 26 percent of the overall land use. The majority of this conversion however, has occurred in the Pasco County sub area of the Big Hammock. Here more than 7,500 acres, or 63 percent of the agricultural to resi dential conversion in the Big Hammock has occurred. Examining the 2004 land use data, there are 195 recorded archaeological sites located on this land type within the Big Hammock area, and 114 of those site locations are in the Pasco County sub area (Figure 6.7). Archaeological Sensitivity Mapping in a Sub area I have chosen the Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock as a sub area to examine in greater detail based on the dem onstrated factors of impending threats from land use conversion, the lack of conservation la nds, the lack of representation of cultural resources in stewardship prot ection areas, and the rich dive rsity and range of functional site types and cultural affiliations which occu r in this area. The sub area contains 150 recorded archaeological sites, but private co llections I have documented from this area indicate the potential for many more unrecorded site lo cations. Additionally, FMSF
Figure 6.5. Cropland and Pasture land use in the Big Hammock in 1995, totaling 72,395 acres. 188
Figure 6.6. Cropland and Pasture land use in the Big Hammock in 2004, totaling 60,461 acres. 189
Figure 6.7. FMSF recorded archaeol ogical site locations on cropland and pasture land use in the Big Hammock in 2004, totaling 195 sites. 190
191 recordings may not be reflectiv e of the size and extent of ar chaeological site resources in this area, when private, albeit unprovenien ced collections are examined. The recorded site locations in the FMSF may also represent biased differential survey by archaeologists, especially since the major ity of surveys are conducted for compliance reasons in this area. Areas in the Big Hamm ock showing an absence of site locations more likely reflects an absence of survey s conducted. For this reason, I have used predictive model factors previ ously developed by CRM and academic researchers for this region (Austin et al. 1991; Austin et al 2001; Horvath 1986; J ones 1981; Wharton 1984; Wharton 1990; Weisman and Collins 2004), and have applied these factors to the sub area. I have relied on known s ite location associative environmental variables from these previous works, and depicted areas where the current understanding of cultural resources is undervalued when based on the FMSF data. As previously discussed, a fully-developed predictive model for archaeology is beyond the scope of this dissertation, whic h focuses on a GAP audit application for Florida archaeology. However, a simplistic Boolean model, using non-weighted known environmental variables of archaeological asso ciation is presented for the chosen sub area of the Big Hammock to show how models coul d be applied and developed for predictive purposes. My example model uses Boolean opera tions, meaning I have combined a series of input map layers into a single output la yer through the us e of and, or, and not operators (Worboys 1997). Although this model is not sophisticated, I have utilized known environmental associativ e variables in the Centra l Florida area have been examined in previous research (Austin 1991; Austin 2000; Austin et al. 2001; Horvath
192 1986; Jones 1981; Wharton 1984), and are shown in this example for how a more robust model could be developed and refined in th e future to correspond with a GAP study. Examination of environmental factors such as soil and drainage characteristics, proximity to water and wetland resources, prox imity to exposed chert and coral outcrop areas, and relative elevation were all examined using equal variable weighting. Chert and coral outcrop location data is not readily av ailable, so Pasco County data locating water streams and sources was used, as this was f ound during field-truthing of site locales by the author to be a proxy for karstic-like areas that often have exposed limestone chert and coral areas in this region. These factors were then used to produce a simplified model of archaeological site sensitivity area, or an area where archaeological site locations are likely to be encountered. This type of asso ciative modeling has proven useful in other regional testing strategies in Florida, and ha s been ground truth verified for effectiveness in predicting archaeological s ite locations (Austin et al. 1991; Austin et al. 2001; East 1999; Horvath 1986; Jones 1981; Weisman and Collins 2004). The sensitivity maps produced utilized existing known environmental associative data such as types of soil, t opography and elevation, and proxim ity to water, in relation to the recorded archaeological data from the FMSF. A cartographic model, depicting the steps in the GIS analysis procedure was created (Figure 6.8). The geoprocessing and overlay of these data layers allowed for th e creation of sensitivity maps, which were produced to show areas of archaeological po tential, and to demonstrate how sensitivity mapping can augment and strengthen GAP audit approaches. The landcover of the past often is diffe rent than present-day conditions, but it is important to consider current environmental conditions in relation to archaeology for
Figure 6.8. Cartographic model for archaeol ogical sensitivity ma pping using existing frames of reference for environmental a ssociations with archaeology in the Big Hammock sub area of Pasco County. GAP analyses. Present and future land use, a nd knowing where archaeological sites are in relation to particular types of land use, such as grassland and pasture for example, is an important management consideration. Land cover mapping in the State of Florida has been performed using LANDSAT thematic mapping techniques, basically assigning values to color signatures that are eviden ced by different vegetation classes seen in satellite imagery. This analysis was conduc ted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to verify plant habitat communities of importance to wildlife 193
194 species (Gilbert 1998). There are 22 different plant classi fications including upland, wetland, aquatic and disturbed communities. Us ing the land cover data clipped to the extent of the Big Hammock, an analysis was performed intersecting the archaeological site location data with the land cover values This analysis shows that the 406 acres containing archaeological loca tions are found on grassland an d pasture settings, which are an agricultural land use, and more than 211 acres of archaeological site locations in Pasco County occur on cleared agricultural lands. Another 78 acres of archaeological sites are found on former pineland and comme rcial tree planting areas. Archaeological site area calculations for the Pasco County Big Hammock area combine to total more than 882 acres, with nearly 79 percent of recorded site areas associated with agricultural lands (Figure 6.9). This factor, while not a pr edictor of where sites are likely located, is important for stewardship and future land us e planning in regard to cultural resource protection. Soils and soil drainage characteristics ar e useful in examining archaeological site location choices. Well-drained soils, today ofte n associated with agricultural lands in the Big Hammock area, were important to prehistori c settlement pattern choice in this region as well (Austin et al. 2001; Horvath 1 986; Jones 1981; Weisman and Collins 2004; Wharton and Dooris 1987). In the Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock, a GIS analysis of soil types intersected with archaeological site locations show the dominant typologies to be Pomona fine sand (200 acres associated with recorded archaeological site locations), Sparr fine sand 0-5 percent slopes (154 acres), Millhopper fine sand 0-5 percent slopes (127 acres),
Figure 6.9. Agricultural land cover shown in association with recorded archaeological site locations in the sub area Pasc o County portion of the Big Hammock. 195
196 and Kendrick fine sand 0-5 percent slopes ( 79 acres). The model provided for the sub area does not attempt to determ ine the strength of this as sociation, and more rigorous analysis would be required to develop a region specific predictive model. These associations are pointed out using the intersect of the FMSF data with environmental data, and discussions of regional archaeologi cal and environmental associations from archaeological survey have been used as a proxy for further verifica tion. It should also be noted that, as with land cover types, ar eas of archaeological s ite locations can have more than one soil type association. These four soil typologies compose 63.5 percent of archaeological soil types for recorded locati ons in the Pasco portion of the Big Hammock (Figure 6.10). The presence of permanent or semi-perma nent (non-ephemeral) sources of water are known to be a settlement pattern factor in regional site locati on models, with a 200 meter distance often used in archaeological predictability modeling (Austin et al. 1991; Austin et al. 2001; Horvath 1986; Jones 1981; Weisman and Collins 2004). Stream locations in this portion of the Big Hammock sub area were found during field reconnaissance to highly corre spond with karst features a nd areas where chert and coral outcroppings frequently occurred. Stream loca tions are considered in the final sub area archaeological sensitivity model, as are non-ephemeral water sources, which were distinguished from stream locales and consist primarily of lakes and ponds (Figure 6.11). Elevation has been found to be another known predictor of archaeological site location. Both soil type and el evation are related to water drainage, with better drained soils located on sloping land el evated above surrounding areas found to be better suited
Figure 6.10. Dominant soil typologies associ ated with recorded ar chaeological site locations in the Pasco C ounty sub area of the Big Hammock. 197
Figure 6.11. FMSF recorded archaeol ogical site locations in th e Pasco County sub area of the Big Hammock that are found within 100 meters of a non-ephemeral, or permanent, water sources, including stream lo cation proxy data for karst expression. located on hilltops, ridges and knolls (Wharton 1984:78). 198
199 for prehistoric habitation (Almy 1976, 1978; Austin et al. 2001:51; Tesar 1980; Wharton 1984:72). Researchers in this region have al so found that a large proportion of sites are Archaeological site locations can cover more than one elevation. Exam ining elevations in the sub area Pasco County portion that were gr eater than 75 feet amsl, it was determined that 468 site loci ranged from 180 to 240 feet amsl (Figure 6.12). These sensitivity areas are combined to provide a map depicting areas of archaeological sensitivity for this sub area (Figure 6.13). Exam ination of areas was then compared with the land use parcel data laye r information from the Pasco County Property Appraiser. Parcel examination of land use wa s conducted to investigat e the feasibility for land acquisition from areas with similar land use designation. Market valuation in this portion of Pasco County is much higher th an the assessed values, especially for agricultural lands, but this c onsideration demonstrates how cultural resources can be examined using similar conservation strategi es employed in other resource acquisition modeling development (Knight and Oetting 2005; Knight 2007; Weisman 1994). The examination of land use in conjunction with the archaeological sens itivity mapping, show that this entire area const itutes a conservation gap, as no public land holdings exist. However, examination of the sensitivity ma p in conjunction with property parcel data from high archaeological value areas provide s a way of operationa lization landscape and cultural valuation, linking land use planning to archaeology (Figure 6.14). Further examination at the sub area leve l in the Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock using land use data, shows the importa nce of agricultural la nd stewardship and conservation to preservation planning. The total land acreage in th e sub area is 101,263
Figure 6.12. Elevation (180m 240m) shown in association with recorded archaeological site locations in the Pa sco County sub area of the Big Hammock. 200
Figure 6.13. Areas of archaeological se nsitivity overlay shown for the Pasco County sub area of the Big Hammock. 201
Figure 6.14. Land use data combined w ith the archaeological sensitivity area of Pasco County. 202
203 acres, of which 66,204 acres are designated as agricultural lands, representing 65.4 percent of the land acreage in this porti on of the Big Hammock. Within this sub area agricultural land portion, there are 9,794 acres of proposed and existing Multiple Planned Unit Developments and Developments of Regional Impact, represented by 17 MPUDs and four DRIs (Pasco County 2006b). A small portion of the sub area, consisting of 8,725 acres, has been targeted as environmentall y sensitive by the Pasco County Environmental Lands program planners, but this land has not been acquired(Pasco County 2006a). Using the latest available planning data from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, this targeted area of future acquisition already has 1,822 acres, or nearly 21 percent of the targeted acquisition properties that have been consumed by Multiple Planned Unit Developments (Pasco County 2006b)(Figure 6.15 ). Conversion of ag ricultural lands to residential areas is therefore outpacing any efforts of land acquisiti on in this portion of the Big Hammock. Discussion of Results The Big Hammock is a region that is not accurately described by the current archaeological historic contexts. These contex ts, which are overviews of prehistory that inform research questions, show a boundary between two archaeological culture regions that divide the hammock in tw o sections (see Figure 2.2), neither of which captures the diversity nor range of archaeology or the sim ilarity of the environmental setting that exists. The area is of critical concern to land and resource managers due to rapid development pressures and fragmentation of the hammock system (Dooris et al. 1999; Wharton 1990). Archaeologists have previously called for the need to identify significant
Figure 6.15. Agricultural lands in the Big Hammock Pasco County sub area are shown in relation to large-scale developments. 204
205 sites and important resources in areas faci ng rapid development and other pressures, ideally before acquisition and preservati on become too costly to consider. These identified needs should be guided by inform ed, context-driven strategies, using the Florida Comprehensive Historic Preserva tion Plan for direction (Weisman 1994; Wisenbaker 2006). In my GAP analysis of the Big Ha mmock area, I have shown how the archaeology of the region is not represente d in current public land holdings, constituting a conservation gap. To perform this analys is, it was necessary to use recorded archaeological site location information to asse ss the potential for kinds and types of sites and temporal and cultural affiliations that were likely to exist in the area. The majority of functional site types in the Big Hammock ar e lithic scatters and campsites, together accounting for 55 percent of the site types recognized and recorded by archaeologists. Problems with bias and interpretation error could be a cause for over-representation of these types of sites in the FMSF data. Under-re presentation of site types such as lithic quarries and prehistoric habitation sites are al so likely, given the level of survey, which was found to predominately be Phase I shovel testing. Shovel testing may not be able to distinguish the kinds and types of sites that are likely to oc cur in the Big Hammock area. In particular, research in the Big Hammock conducted by the author and affiliates of the Big Hammock Archaeological Foundation, has de monstrated that temporally older sites and extractive resource sites may be deeply buried and not encountered using standard field testing methodologies (John Foss, pers onal communication, 2000) (Goodyear et al.
206 1983). Documentation of private collec tions, although from uncontrolled and unprovenienced settings, reflects a wider dive rsity and density of archaeology in this region. Temporally, sites range from Paleo-Indian to the Historic er a (see Table 5.4). Undifferentiated prehistoric component sites co mpose nearly half of those sites recorded in the Big Hammock, with another 22 percent of sites recorded as European period. The FMSF undifferentiated prehistoric component si te category is commonly a large, with recorders often unable to dis tinguish between cultural affili ations when finds are not diagnostic of a temporal period. The predomin ance of the Euro-American category sites in the Big Hammock is suggestive of a bias in the archaeological recorders ability to locate and document 18 th through 20 th Century sites more easily than many types of prehistoric component sites. There are a large amount of reco rded Archaic period sites in the Big Hammock, with 19.6 percent of recorded cultural affiliations assigned to this period. Several factors could play a role in these numbers, in cluding that there are a large percentage of Archaic sites in the Big Hammock area in correspondence to chert and coral outcrops common to the region and that archaeologist s are likely bette r at assigning a time period with the specific types of dia gnostic lithic tools th at are differentially preserved in the material culture record. Taken together, a review of the spatial, temporal, and functional site recording within the Big Hammock is important in the analysis not only of the archaeology of the region, but in the critique of survey methods and documentation procedures that exist in Florida archaeology. Examination of the record in relation to eligibility determination for listing on the National Register of Historic Places speaks to the effectiveness of
207 significance determination in the Big Hamm ock region and can be used in cross comparison to other regions and to the entire Florida record. Trends noted in the Big Hammock that were also c onsistent statewide were th e importance of the field determination, with the SHPO not concurring with the field determination in only a small percentage of cases (see Table 5.5). In most instances (57 percen t), the SHPO makes no determination of significance and the field de termination stands as the only level of scrutiny for significance, which can often be e quated with preservation versus destruction of archaeological sites (Miller 2002). Those same trends in SHPO concurrence and no determination were upheld in examination of the statewide archaeo logical data, with exceptions noted in counties such as Collier, where there are many more large-scale archaeological surveys conducted for purposes of research and acquisition assessment, as opposed to Phase I and II cultural compliance su rveys (Florida Master Site File 2006b). After synthesizing a complete picture of the archaeologi cal possibilities in the Big Hammock, the record was reviewed in terms of conservation land holdings and stewardship. Stewardship mapping is a cr itical component in the understanding of conservation gaps, as it takes into account potential for acquisition, current ownership and land use factors in relati on to the resource being c onsidered (Knight and Oetting 2005; Knight 1998; Lynott and Wylie 2000) In the Big Hammock, there are 302 archaeological sites recorded in the Florid a Master Site File. The Hammock covers 233,477 acres in a three county area, with 17,010 acres in public land holdings. All of these publicly owned and manage d lands are located in the northern half of the Big Hammock area, with the Pasco County por tion lacking any preservation planning
208 strategies for natural resour ce acquisition. All areas of identified acquisition targets in Pasco County lie outside the defined Big Hammock area (Pasco County 2006a). The FMSF data, although problematic in term s of recorder error and bias, is the best record of data we have on spatial locati on of cultural resources in Florida. Using this data in conjunction with the location of conservation lands, we can assess the effectiveness of conservation land purc hases for preserving and reflecting the archaeological value of a region. In the Big Hammock, it was found that less than 11 percent of the ranges of site types known in the region are located on public lands. Additionally, it is important to note that no NRHP listed si tes are located on public lands in the Big Hammock. There are five sites in the Big Hammock that are potentially eligible for the NRHP, with only one prot ected on public lands. Only 19 out of 302 recorded site locations are found on public lands, showing the need for working with private landowners in the promotion and pr otection of cultural resources in the Big Hammock area. When consideration is given to stew ardship and land acqu isition priorities, 77.5 percent of land area in the Bi g Hammock is designated in the lowest potential categories for acquisition based on the use of data prov ided to the Florida Forever program for acquisition priority development (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2007)(see Table 5.2 and Figure 5.4). The Big Hammock area, esp ecially the Pasco Count y portion, is facing rapid developmental pressure as indicated by the number of DRIs and MPUD projects occurring (Pasco County 2006a, b). Land use changes, especially agricultural land conversions to residential desi gnations, are occurring with development and urban sprawl encroachment from Tampa and bordering Hi llsborough County. Current strategies for
209 land preservation at the count y level do not include cultura l resource consideration; however, there is a compliance program that requires archaeology to be considered for county permitting of smaller scale development. Ultimately, this development project by project focus leads to archaeological sites perhaps being recorded, but not preserved. In my GAP analysis, I f ound that agricultural land holdings in the Big Hammock were critical to archaeology, w ith nearly 65 percent of the recorded sites in the Big Hammock found on agriculture crop and pastur elands. In the Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock alone, there are 114 site loca tions on this current land use. Stewardship and linking our archaeological understanding and evaluation to land use is of vital importance for agricultural land categories, as these lands are rapidly disappearing, with a 63 percent conversion rate to residential land over the last decade seen in the Pasco County portion of the Big Hammock. Agri cultural lands are often purposefully overlooked in land acquisition prioritizati on (Pasco County 2006a), with planners sometimes not looking at the long range land us e changes that can oc cur and the impacts that are cumulative to an areas resources (Fischel 1982; Maehr and Cox 1995). Yet, the reality is that every year, nearly 150,000 acres of Florida farmland is developed into new subdivisions and strip malls (Cons ervation Trust for Florida 2007). Using methodologies such as sensitivity mapping for archaeological resources, which can be further enhanced and strengt hened using statistical consideration and regression analysis in more developed and spec ific GIS predictive models for regions, we can examine where sites are or are likely to occur in relation to land use designations. These models, combined with a GAP audit fo r archaeology, will in th e future of Florida archaeology, prove useful at more effec tively targeting acqui sition and incentive
210 programs such as conservation easements, tax credits, and the purchasing of development rights. In this way, archaeol ogical land acquisition is not just as an added value on environmentally desirable lands, but is inte ntionally targeting landscape areas that are primarily of archaeological value but likely have a variety of environmental and natural resource value functions. The approach pres ented in this disser tation, of a GAP audit analysis of Florida archaeol ogy as applied to a case study area, shows how knowing what and where resources are in relati on to land use is an important first step in the process of preservation.
211 Chapter 7. Conclusions and Future Research While it will always be true that ar chaeologists need to communicate among themselves, it is now abundantly clear that unl ess they also communica te effectively with the general publicall else will be wasted effort (Jameson 1997:9). The Conservation Big Picture As Jameson states in the opening quote, archaeologists cannot work in isolation if they wish their work to be relevant. Wh at archaeologists do is only beneficial and worthwhile if they can communicate to a larger audience incl uding other resource managers and planners. Detailed informa tion concerning the temporal and cultural affiliation, site functional type and associat ed environmental variables in combination with information relating to landscape stewar dship can help to prioritize and conserve cultural resources. We can determine the extent of threat in diffe rent places and use available data that link land use planning to cultural resource protection, so that we can better direct conservation st rategies. Land acquisition programs in Florida do sometimes include cultural resources in evaluation sche mes, but archaeology is often viewed as an added value benefit with m odeling and proactive approaches to planning conducted primarily for water, wildlife and environm ental protection (Knight and Oetting 2005; Weisman 1994; Wisenbaker 2006). By conducting a cultural resource GAP analysis at local and regional levels acro ss Florida, we can improve hi storic context development, which serves as the foundation for signifi cance determinations and National Register
212 eligibility. Knowing what resources are repr esented in the current mix of conservation lands as they relate to landscape areas of defi ned critical concern will help us better plan for conservation and will bring archaeology in to the same resource evaluation matrix as other resource management planning in Florid a. Conservation strategies can then be targeted for different types of archaeological sites, examining aspects of representation and diversity of archaeology on public and private lands across areas of interest. Understanding where the lack of representati on and diversity of s ite types and cultural affiliations exist will assist with understanding the gaps in our cultural heritage protection strategy. This knowledge will enab le us to target acquisitions to better include needed archaeological site acquisitions as part of a larger mix of resource management. Stewardship is needed across boundaries, with counties, local governments, and regional entities working together in an integrated ecosystems management approach (Grumbine 1994; Jochim 1990:75; Knight 1998; Moran 1990: 6), which includes archaeology as part of the land acquisition and management plan. Planning for Preservation Why should we care about archaeological diversity and deve loping better historic contexts? What benefits come from having diversity preserved? We need to have a framework in place to guide our decisions. This framework is the historic contexts, which now must include spatial and environmental dynami cs at a variety of scales to be useful to more than archaeologists. We need a t ool that can be uti lized by other resource
213 management planners to examine archaeol ogy in terms of stewardship and land use across regions. The GAP analysis presented in this dissertation, which includes land use and stewardship information, is for one region th at is facing critical pressure. Statewide considerations, along with other scales of analysis, are need ed to dovetail with growth and management plans at local, regional, and state levels. Major weaknesses exist to the current historic contexts that should be the planning tool for archaeological understanding, research questions and significance determinati ons. A lack of integrative spatial information in historic contexts and de veloped priorities lead s to the inability of these data to be useful to anyone outside of archaeology. We need a clear and concise planning policy framework that inventorie s the current state of Florida archaeology. These regional frameworks must be updated at established intervals, due to the changing nature of our understanding of the archaeological record, and new availability of data on the number and types of resources discovere d and encountered. Additionally, we must link the archaeological understa nding to land management principles with integration of land use data with the archaeological record to better understand what resources are being lost and what resources are being protected. In this way we can target and prioritize acquisition and protectio n strategies and provide more quantitative consistency to better work with regional policy planne rs and land resource managers to foster a land ethic that is inclusive of archaeology. A GAP audit, including a stewar dship analysis as presented here for the Big Hammock area of Citrus, Hernando and Pasco County, can be implemented across a variety of scales. This ability to move betw een scales of analysis reduces the dependence
214 on boundary delineation in Florida archaeo logy and the subjectivity involved archaeological significance determination. Boundaries scale dependence, and significance determination issues, shown in Ch apter 2 as being problematic in Florida archaeology, would to a large extent be mitigated against through the use of a GAP analysis. Boundaries could be examined in terms of the research questions asked, the management plans examined, and by the political jurisdiction that exists. All of these ways of considering the archaeo logical record would then bett er reflect an applied setting that could bring archaeology in to the realm of other resour ce management and acquisition strategies. A landscape scale study approach, as presen ted here for one case study area, helps to tell the story of an area by examining br oader perspectives in human settlement and activity (Fisher et al. 2005). This ability to examine the landscape, allows for variability in not only the spatial scale, but in temporal scale. This variability is important, as landscapes can be constructed to mean differe nt things to different people through time and across space (Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Bender 1993; Deetz 1990; Mitchell 2002). Landscapes can also reflect a persistence of pl ace, with consistency in use or occupation of an area through time (Schlanger 1992:92). Th is landscape type approach that links land use to the archaeological record, was a pplied to the Big Hammock region in Florida, but could have applications anywhere fo r archaeological research, and provides a framework for operationaliz ing landscape theory. This type of analysis can also assist with evaluating archaeological acquisitions in terms of how well they represent the archae ological contexts identified in the Florida Comprehensive Historic Pres ervation Plan (Weisman 1994). This analysis can also
215 evaluate the level of protec tion for archaeological resources in terms of where land use and landscape changes are occurring and wher e archaeological sites are found or are likely to be found. We can examine which c ontexts or areas can most benefit from acquisition or management planning strategies. Preservation of the past is important b ecause the past holds learning experiences for the present. For example, issues such as environmental sustainability, development impacts, population, overuse of resources, a nd the consequences of human action might only be reflected upon and addressed through an understanding of the past. Archaeology is one part, one resource of c onsideration, of what I propose in this dissertation to be an integrative approach to land acquisition st rategies in Florid a. Through the active participation of archaeology with other land management strategies in a way that is understood and inclusive, not only will there be benefits to cultural resource preservation, interpretation, and education, but Flor idas land preservation programs will be strengthened and more reflectiv e of the past. In a state such as Florida facing escalating growth and development demands, clear underst andings are needed for direction as are integrated approaches toward environmen tal and cultural resource management. The GAP audit approach presented here for one case study region, provides an example of how we can better direct future land us e through an understanding of knowing what resources are present and a sp atial inventory of where thos e resources are in terms of current and future land use activities.
216 Focus and Implementation A statewide assessment of publicly owned archaeological resources is needed to recognize, document, and appreciate impor tant areas like the Big Hammock. A GAPbased approach that considers ownership a nd stewardship or leve l of protection, along with representation of site types and cultural and temporal affiliations, is a way in which we can quickly perform such an audit for cultu ral resources. In performing this audit, regions shown to be at risk, vulnerable, or fragile in regard s to pressures from development and land use changes need to be identified. Boundaries become less important especially when cultural and natu ral considerations ar e merged. In our reexamination of historic context development in the state, archaeology should not focus on the delineations of culture regions, but rath er on the examination of the environmental and cultural areas deemed at risk, so that we might better plan for the future of archaeological preservation. Otherwise there is the chance that we will ignore areas like the Big Hammock, where the fuzziness of cultu re region delineations is seen. There are rarely sharp boundaries between defined cultur e regions, but instead more of a blending effect at edges, phenomena often seen w ith environmental areas (Kasperson et al. 1995:24). Therefore, we must have variable sc ales of analysis and perspectives that reflect a variety research questions, identify critical resources, and are consistent with procedures and considerations of other resource planning activ ities in the state.Using the approach presented here in a case study, a GAP audit could be conducted statewide, with land use planning linked to archaeology. Regions of critical concern due to development and other pressures can be examined and the archaeological preservation picture can be understood. In this way, archaeologists can assi st at both the statew ide and local level
217 with planning measures that are able to show archaeology in quantifiable ways, rather than through intangible terms like archaeological significance. In developing a larger statewide mode l for historic context improvement, case study selection protocol should include the use of regional ap proaches that are congruent with environmental and ecosystem management considerations so that we are able to effectively work with other resource management planning teams rather than separate from them. Otherwise, archaeology will continue to be considered an added value or afterthought in the planning pro cess. Comparative analyses ar e needed at a variety of scales to provide a systematic approach to linking land use and archaeological understanding. Another important factor for archaeologist s to consider is the aggregate or the whole rather than using a pr oject-to-project, site-by-site focused mentality. Clearer understanding at the regional le vel is needed to develop ba seline planning information. Historic contexts that reflect spatial representation, or where archaeology is found, is needed in relation to land and environmental variables. Significance determinations must also be cross-comparative to these re gional understandings, with known, quantifiable parameters of stewardship a nd preservation at scales avai lable for comparison (Mathers, et al. 2005). Comparability will allow more informed determinations especially as significance is often equated with preservation or destruction of archaeological resources. The ability to evaluate land stewardship as well as land use pressure and trends across regions in relation to the arch aeological record, and to examine areas where we have gaps in the archaeological understan ding, will allow for prioritizat ion planning and strengthen the significance determination process.
218 We need to examine how archaeology f its with other management criteria and programs and be participatory and not separate or apart from the process. Archaeological cultural regions and study areas may have boundaries established through archaeological interpretation, but we must be able to be dynamic in our approach to boundaries and spatial scales, so that we can work within the realities of the present-day environment, including political jurisdictions and authority. Major initiative s with a focus on issues of integrated management, resource acquisiti on prioritization, sensitiv ity and stewardship mapping, and GAP conservation analysis should be applied to cultural resources if archaeology is going to have a place at the ma nagement table and an effective input into the management and preservation of resources. Mechanisms for Linking Archaeology to Land Use Planning Strategies It has been shown that the more divergent a proposal for change is from the status quo, the less likely it is that the proposal will be considered and implemented (Stiftel and Boswell 1999). Linking archaeology more ti ghtly to land use planning at regional landscape levels in a consistent framework as other resource management in Florida, requires a blending of current procedures and methodology with new ones. The existing infrastructure can be used so as not to pl ace yet another layer of consideration into the decision making mix. New, updated historic context planning for archaeology in Florida, must be performed at defined intervals. These contexts must consider more than the archaeological record, and include an elemen t of resource planning by area. This process would allow planners and other natural resour ce managers can utilize the information that includes archaeology in the preservation and conservation dialog. A GAP analysis,
219 inventorying and auditing by region and including areas of critical growth management concern, should be implemented at a statewide level. Aspects of land stewardship, including present and future land use, ow nership and management, and potential for acquisition need to be an integral pa rt of this planning consideration. Florida has placed strong emphasis on land use planning, permitting and regulation, and land acquisition for more than three decades since the passage of the Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1973 (380 Florida Statutes). If archaeology in Florida is to do more than respond to the cr isis of growth, for example purchasing sites like the Miami Circle for a record $27 million dollars after uncovering the feature during the developm ent of a condominium project, then we must plan for the future and deal with issues of prioritization of resource acquisition needs. Otherwise, as the Miami Circle example illu strates, it is costly to wa it for archaeological sites to become endangered to purchase them and the sites sometimes can become islands in a sea of development making interpretation and understanding of such a preserved site potentially problematic (Collins and Doeri ng 2006.). Because we cannot possibly buy all important archaeological sites th at are unearthed, we need to plan for the best way to understand archaeology in Florida and work with other existing management entities. In this way, archaeology can merge with other natural resource management frameworks and work together for the protection and pl anning for preservati on and conservation. One such existing framework is the Comprehensive Watershed Management (CWM) planning at the State Water Manage ment District level. The CWM concept brings together land and water resource planni ng to achieve a coor dinated approach to watershed management through working t eams using a science-based approach,
220 including the appli cation of Geographic Informati on System technology and other modeling tools within each defined watershed (SWFWMD 2002a). The CWMs have representatives from local governments and other interested organizations along with citizens. Together, the groups work to devel op plans to identify watershed improvements and protection. Watersheds, defined as the ar ea that drains to a common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary, wetland, aquife r, or other water source, are potentially delineated differently than regions such as the Big Hammock area. Participation in the process by archaeologists may require worki ng in more than one watershed area to capture a regional focus such as the one propos ed here. Primary areas of concern for each CWM, while not directly targeting archaeology and cultural resources, do include natural systems. Through the linking of archaeology with land use using a natural systems management approach, archaeology could work within such a related infrastructure system. In the Southwest District, plans for each defined watershed have been developed and will be updated and reviewed with continui ng input from interested groups. A benefit noted by the SWFWMD to this type of gr oup interaction and pla nning at a watershed level, has been the ability to focus on problem s and solutions in smaller defined areas and target fiscal sources for management and implementation. The CWM process has allowed the development of long-term goals for large e nvironmental areas. Part icipants have also noted that an interconnected approach to act ivities involving natural systems is more compatible with basic ecological principl es (SWFWMD 2007). I served on two CWMs, the Withlacoochee and the Springs Coast, as the representative for the Florida
221 Department of Environmental Protection, and wa s able to observe how cultural resource consideration can be incorpor ated into this process. The reality at the Florida Division of Historical Resources is that staffing limitations and travel restrictio ns do not allow for participati on at local and regional level planning, and most FDHR partic ipation occurs with groups in the Tallahassee capitol area. Inclusion of the newly founded Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) as a partnering member in such managing strate gies is one way in which archaeology can have a stronger voice at the land manageme nt table. The FPAN has regional locations similar to that of other resource management agencies, and travel a nd participation at the regional level is perhaps more feasible than the FDHR. In fact, two of the three FPAN organizational goals are consistent with such participation: (1) support local governments, and others whose actions may a ffect archaeological resources, in their efforts to protect and preserve the archaeo logical record in their areas as well as assistance and advising from pr ofessional archaeologists when desirable, and (2) provide assistance for the Division of Historical Resources through promotion of DHR programs, distribution of DHR literature, training opportunities and cons ideration of archaeological sites for the National Register of Historic Places (Florida Public Archaeology Network 2007). The FPAN can have a vital and important role in working with counties and local governments to assist with the development of historic preservation ordinances, update existing rules and land use regul ations, and work to promote and educate officials and the general public alike concerning preservation and protection for cultural resources. The FPAN working in concert with other archaeol ogical and environmental interest groups
222 can also further this educational mission. A ssistance with grant writing and partnering with universities and researchers will a ssist in funding surveys and initiatives. Recommendations for county-level archaeological surveys that target and focus areas with proposed and changing land use woul d help refine and direct archaeological research. These surveys should identify sens itive areas of archaeo logical potential, including GIS predictability modeling components followed by field-truthing. Additionally, publicly owned lands should receive similar levels of professional archaeological survey to thoroughly identify, record, and document cultural resources. These public land surveys will also promote more effective management of cultural resources, as well as provide new ar chaeological data about the region. Land purchase can be expensive, especially in areas where there are high growth demand pressures such as in the Big Hammock. Private foundations and organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy, the Semi nole Wars Foundation, Inc., the Archaeological Conservancy, the Trail of the Lost Tribes, and the Big Hammock Archaeological Foundation, Inc. could all play roles in the promotion and integrat ion of archaeology in land acquisition and management strategies The Conservancy foundational approach uses land acquisition as a strate gy of protection. Local correlates to this approach can also be very effective in protecting site s of local and regional importance. While we cannot purchase every archaeology site, we can take steps to represent and preserve archaeology in Florida in a way th at reflects the divers ity of site types and time periods important for various landscape areas. The development of historic contexts that reflect spatial understandi ngs of cultural resources is needed and the understanding and delineation of boundaries br ought into a framework that is consistent with other
223 resource management and planning units of anal ysis in Florida. As state dollars become more competitive and scarce, archaeology will need to be able to convey information and research questions in ways that are unders tandable to the public and to other resource planners and policy makers. Cultural Re source Managers, planners and academic researchers will need to be able to eff ectively show and communicate the need for cultural resource protection as part of a wider dialog on ecosystem management if archaeology is to be considered in preservation planning.
224 References Cited Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Gregg Mine Extension, Hernando County, Florida Conducted for: Florida Crushed Stone, Brooksville, Florida. Archaeological Consulting, In c. Ms. on file: Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 2004 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Griggs Property, Hernando County, Florida Ms. on file: Division of Hist orical Resources, Tallahassee. Aldenderfer, M. and H. Maschner (editors) 1996 Anthropology, Space, and Ge ographic Information Systems. Oxford University Press, New York. Almy, M. M. 1976 A Survey and Assessment of Known Ar chaeological Sites in Sarasota County, Florida. Unpublished MA thesis, University of South Florida. 1978 The Archeological Potentia l of Soil Survey Reports. The Florida Anthropologist 31:75-91. Almy, M. M., D. Delahaye and J. G. Deming 1995 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Suncoast Parkway Re-evaluation Areas, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Hernando Counties, Florida Ms. on file: Division of Historical Resources. Amerlinck, M. J. 1998 Anthropological Approaches to Landscape. Current Anthropology 39(5):738-740. Ashmore, W. and A. B. Knapp (editors) 1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Massachusetts. Austin, R. J. 2000 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Lake Jovita Golf & Country Club Phase 2A, Pasco County, Florida Ms. on file: Division of historical Resources, Tallahassee. 2004 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Ashley Groves MPUD Property, Pasco County, Florida Ms. on file: Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
225 Austin, R. J. and R. W. Estabrook 2000 Chert Distribution and Exploitation in Peninsular Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53:116-130. Austin, R. J., H. F. Hansen and C. Fuhrmeister 1991 An Archaeological and Historical Sur vey of the Unincorporated Areas of Pinellas County, Florida Ms. on file Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Austin, R. J. and K. S. Hoffman 2002 Thinking About Significance: An Introduction In Thinking About Significance. Papers and Proceedings, Florida Archaeological Council, Inc., Professional Development Workshop edited by R. J. Austin, K. Hoffman and G. Ballo., pp. 3-14. Florida Archaeolo gical Council, Inc, Tampa. Austin, R. J., L. Carlson and L. Collins 2001 An Archaeological Survey of Uninco rporated Alachua County, Florida (Phase 1 and 2) Report on file SEARCH, Inc, Gainesville, Florida. Barba, L. 1994 A Methodology for the Study of Buri ed Archaeological Sites. Paper presented at the Archaeometry of Pre-Columbian Sites and Artifacts : Proceedings of a Symposium. Organized by the UCLA Institute of Archaeology and the Getty Conservation Institut e, March 23-27, 1992, Los Angeles, California. Barber, R. J. 1994 Doing Historical Archaeology: exer cises using documentary, oral, and material evidence Prentice Hall, Upper Sa ddle River, New Jersey. Barth, F. (editor) 1969 Introduction. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. George Allen and Unwin, London. 2000 Boundaries and Connections In Signifying Identitie s: Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values edited by A. Cohen, pp. 1-34. Routledge, New York. Bawden, G. 1993 An Archaeological Study of Social Structure and Ethnic Replacement in Residential Architecture of the Tumilaca Valley In Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarit y in the South-Central Andes, edited by M. Aldenderfer, pp. 42-54. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
226 Bell, C. 2004 Investigating Second Seminole War S ites in Florida: Identification Through Limited Testing Masters thesis on file: University of South Florida, Tampa. Bender, B. (editor) 1993 Landscape: Politics and Perspectives Berg Publishers, Oxford. Billman, B. R. and G. M. Feinman (editor) 1999 Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas : Fifty Years Since Vir Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Bohannan, P. and F. Plog (editor) 1967 Beyond the Frontier; Social Process and Cultural Change Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. Boyden, S. 1979 An Integrative Ecological Approach to the Study of Human Settlements UNESCO publication series. Braun, B. and J. Wainwright 2001 Nature, Poststructuralism, and Politics. In Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics, edited by N. Castree and B. Braun, pp. 41-63. Blackwell, Massachusetts. Bridgewater, P. B. 1993 Landscape Ecology, Geographic Information Systems and Nature Conservation In Landscape ecology and geogr aphic information systems, edited by R. Haines-Young, S. Cousins and D. R. Green, pp. 23-36. Taylor & Francis, New York. Brinton, D. G. 1869 A Guide Book of Florida and the South for Tourists, Invalids, and Emigrants, Philadelphia. University Press of Florida, Gainesville; Facsimile edition (June 1978). Briuer, L. and C. Mathers 1996 Trends and Patterns in Cultural Res ource Significance: an Historical Perspective and Annotated Bibliography US Army Corps of Engineers, Virginia. Report 96-EL-1). BRW, Inc. 1996 Draft Research Design for the D evelopment of a High Probability Predictive Model for Identi fying Archaeological Sites Report on file: Minnesota Department of Transportation.
227 Bullen, R. P. 1954 Culture Changes During the Fi ber-tempered Period in Florida. Southern Indian Studies 6:45-48. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 6:43-53. Burley, W. F. 1988 Monitoring Biological Diversity for Setting Priorities in Conservation In: Biodiversity edited by E. O. Wilson, pp. 227-230. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Butzer, K. W. 1982 Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1990 A Human Ecosystem Framework for Archaeology In: The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: from concept to practice edited by E. F. Moran, pp. 91-130. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Carr, C. 1995 A Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design In: Style, Society, and Person, edited by C. Carr and J. Neitzel, pp. 171-258. Plenum, New York. Carr, R. and W. Steele 1993 Seminole Heritage Survey, Seminole Sites of Florida Ms. on file Division of Historical Resources. Carson, R. 1962 Silent Spring Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston & New York. Castree, N. and B. Braun (editors) 2001 Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Mass. Clark, K. 2005 The Bigger Picture: Archaeology and Values in Long Term Cultural Resource Management. In Heritage of Value, Archae ology of Renown: Reshaping Archaeological Assessment and Significance edited by C. Mathers, T. Darvill and B. J. Little, pp. 317-330. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Cohen, A. 2000 Signifying Identities: Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values. Routledge, New York.
228 Cohen, A. P. (editor) 1986 Symbolising Boundaries: Identity and Diversity in British Cultures Anthropological Studies of Britain ed 2. Manchester University Press, Manchester. Collins, L. and T. Doering 2006 Integrated Spatial Technologies: High Definition Documentation of the Miami Circle and Royal Palm Circle. Florida Anthropologist v. 12. Comptroller General 1981 Are Agencies Doing Enough or Too Much for Archeological Protection? Guidance Needed Ms. on file: U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Conservation Trust for Florida 2007 www.conserveflorida.org Cosgrove, D. 1985 Prospect, Perspective and the Evolution of the Landscape Idea. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 10:45-62. 1989 Geography is Everywhere: Culture and Symbolism in Human Landscapes In Horizons in Human Geography edited by D. Gregory and R. Walford, pp. 118135. Barnes and Noble Books, Totowa, NJ. Cowgill, G. L. 1993 Distinguished Lecture in Ar chaeology: Beyond Criticizing New Archaeology. American Anthropologist 95(3):551-573. Crumley, C. L. and W. H. Marquardt 1987 Regional Dynamics in Burgundy In Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective edited by C. L. Crumley and W. H. Marquardt. Academic Press, San Diego. 1990 Landscape: A Unifying Con cept in Regional Analysis In: Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology edited by K. M. Allen, S. W. Green and E. B. Zubrow pp. 73-79. Taylor & Francis, London. Crumley, C. L., E. van Deventer and J. J. Fletcher (editors) 2001 New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, Calif.
229 Culpepper, R. B. 1997 Better Planning Through GIS: Battl efield Management Efforts for CAST. Cultural Resources Management, 20(5). Daniel, R. I. and M. Wisenbaker 1981 Test Excavations at 8Hi450(D) in Hillsborough County, Florida Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeological Reports 1. Ms. on file Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Daniels, S. 1989 Marxism, Culture, and the Duplicity of Landscape In New Models in Geography: The Political Economy Perspective. edited by R. Peet and N. Thrift, pp. 196-220. Hyman, London. Darvill, T. 1995 Value Systems in Archaeology. In Managing Archaeology:, edited by M. A. Cooper A. Firth J. Carman a nd D. Wheatley, pp. 40 -50. Routledge, New York. 2005 'Sorted for Ease and Whiz'? : Approaching Value and Importance in Archaeological Resource Management In Heritage of Value, Archaeology of Renown: Reshaping Archaeologica l Assessment and Significance edited by C. Mathers, T. Darvill, and B. J. Little, pp. 21-42. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Davis-Salazar, K. L. 2003 Late Classic Maya Water Manage ment and Community Organization at Copan, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 14(3):275-299. Deeben, J., B. J. Groenewoudt, D. P. Hallewas and J. Willem 1999 Proposals for a Practical System of Significance Evaluation in Archaeological Heritage Management. European Journal of Archaeology 2(2):177-199. Deetz, J. 1963 Style Change in New England Colo nial Gravestone Design: An Experiment in "Historic Archaeology" Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics Illinois Studies in Anthropology No. 4. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1968 Cultural Patterning of Behavior as Reflected by Archaeological Materials In: Settlement Archaeology, edited by K. Chih Chang, pp. 31-42. National Press Books, Palo Alto, CA.
230 1990 Landscapes as Cultural Statements In Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology edited by W. M. Kelso and R. Most, pp. 1-4. University Press of Virginia,, Charlottesville. Demeritt, D. (editor) 2001 Being Constructive about Nature Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA. Derr, M. 1989 Some Kind of Paradise: A Chronicl e of Man and the Land in Florida W. Morrow, New York. Dietler, M. and I. Herbich 1998 Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries In: The Archaeology of Social Boundaries edited by M. Stark, pp. 232-263. Sm ithsonian Press, Washington, DC. Dietler, M., Ingrid Herbich 1998 Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries In: The Archaeology of Social Boundaries edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 232. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Donnan, H. and T. M. Wilson 1999 Borders: Frontiers of Identity, Nation and State Berg, New York. Dooris, P. M., B. R. Wharton and G. Dooris 1999 The Hammock Ecosystem of Hernando County, Florida. Florida Scientist 62(1):58-76. Douglas, M. S. 1947 The Everglades River of Grass. Rhinehart & Company, Inc., New York. Douglas, M. S. 1990 Facing Florida's Environmental Future. Newsletter, April 1990. Dunbar, J. S. and B. I. Waller. 1983 A Distribution Analysis of the Cl ovis/Suwannee Paleo-Indian Sites of Florida-A Geographic Approach. The Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2):18-30. East, A. 1999 Rethinking Compliance Archaeology: A GI S Study of the Validity of Using FDOT Road Right-of-Ways as Research Transects. Masters thesis on file, University of South Florida, Tampa.
231 Ebert, J. I. 1992 Distributional Archaeology University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Environmental Systems Research Institute 2006a Geodatabases. www.esri.com 2006b Georeference. www.esri.com 2006c Projections www.esri.com Fahig, L. 1992 Relative importance of spatial a nd temporal scales in a patchy environment. Theoretical Population Biology 41: 300-314. Florida Division of Hi storical Resources 1990 Florida's Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1993 Florida's Comprehensive Historic Pr eservation Plan (Historic Contexts, Version of 9-27-93) Florida Division of Histor ical Resources, Tallahassee. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2001 Gulfstream Pipeline Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. Fisher, P. F. 1999 Geographical Information Systems: Today and Tomorrow? In: Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology edited by M. Gillings, D. Mattingly and J. Dale n, pp. 5-11. Oxbow Books, Oakville, CT. Fischel, William A. 1982 The Urbanization of Agricultural Land: A Review of the National Agricultural Lands Study. Land Economics. Vol. 58, No. 2 (May, 1982), pp. 236-259. Florida Master Site File 2006a Geographic Information System Ar chaeological Site Di agnostic Artifact Tabular Data Layer. Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 2006b Geographic Information System Arch aeological Site Locations Layer. Florida Division of Historic al Resources, Tallahassee.
232 Florida Museum of Natural History n.d. Accession Card File University of Flor ida, Gainesville. Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2007 www.fnai.org Florida Public Archaeology Network 2007 http://www.flpublicarchaeology.org/cc/mission/ Forman, R. T. 1995 Some General Principles of Landscape and Regional Ecology. Landscape Ecology 10(3):133-142. Forman, R. T. and M. Godron 1986 Landscape Ecology. Wiley, New York. Frye, J. C. and Walter H. Schoewe 1953 Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 246-252. Gilbert, T. 1998 Descriptions of Plant Communities for Landsat Habitat Mapping Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Glassie, H. H. 1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia : Structural Analysis of Historic Artifacts University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Glassow, M. A. 1977 Issues in Evaluating the Signifi cance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity 42:413-20. 1985 Comments on Tainter and Lucas's Epistemology of the Significance Concept. American Antiquity 50(4):879-880. Goggin, J. M. 1947a Field Notes Florida University of Florida Special Collections, Gainesville. 1947b A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13:114-127. 1948a Culture and Geography in Florida prehistory. Ph.D., Yale University, New Haven, CT.
233 1948b A Revised Temporal Chart of Florida Archaeology. The Florida Anthropologist 1:57-60. 1949 Cultural Traditions in Florida Prehistory In The Florida Indian and His Neighbors, edited by J. W. Griffin, pp. 13-44. Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida. 1964 Indian and Spanish Selected Writings University of Miami Press, Miami, Florida. Goodby, R. G. 1998 Technological Patterning and Social Boundaries: Cerami c Variability in Southern New England, A.D. 1000-1675 In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries edited by M. Stark, pp. 161-182. Sm ithsonian Press, Washington, DC. Goodyear, A. C., L. Raab and T. C. Klinger 1978 The Status of Archaeological Re search Design in Cultural Resource Management. American Antiquity 43:159-173. Goodyear, A. C., S. B. Upchurch, M. J. Brooks and a. N. N. Goodyear 1983 Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Tampa Bay Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 36(1):40-66. Gosselain, O. P. 1998 Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries edited by M. Stark, pp. 78-106. Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC. Green, S. W. 1990 Settlement in Southeast Irela nd: Landscape Archaeology and GIS In: Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. Allen, S. W. Green and E. Zubrow, pp. 356-363. Taylor & Francis, London. Groenewoudt, B. J. and J. F. Bloemers 1997 Dealing with Significance: Concep ts, Strategies a nd Priorities for Archaeological Heritage Mana gement in the Netherlands In Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands edited by W.J.H. S Willems H. Kars and D. P. Hallewas, Assen-Amersfoortpp. 119 -172. Grumbine, E. R. 1994 What Is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology, 8(1):27-38.
234 Hardesty, D. L. and B. Little 2000 Assessing Site Significance: A Guid e for Archaeologists and Historians, Heritage Resource Management Series AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, MD. Harper, F. (editor) 1998 The Travels of William Bartram: Naturalist's Edition University of Georgia Press, Athens. Harper, R. M. 1911 Preliminary Report of the Peat Deposits in Florida Florida Geological Survey, Third Annual Report, Florida Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee. 1921 Geography of Central Florida Florida Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee. Harris, T. M. 2002 GIS in Archaeology In: Past Time, Past Plac e: GIS for History edited by A. K. Knowles, pp. 131-144. ESRI, Redlands, CA. Hegmon, M. 1998 Technology, style, and social prac tices: Archaeological approaches. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 264. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Hemmings, E. T. 1975 An Archaeological Survey of the Sout h Prong of the Alafia River, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 28:41-51. Hensler, K. 1998 Social Boundaries Set in Clay: Trade Ware Patterning in the Tonto Basin of East-Central Arizona. Journal of Anthropological Research 54:477-496. Hirsch, E. 1995 Landscape: Between Place and Space In The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space edited by E. Hirsch and M. O'Hanlon, pp. 1-30. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Hodder, I. and C. Orton 1979 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology Cambridge University Press, UK. Holmes, W. H. 1903 Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 20, Washington, DC.
235 Horvath, E. 1986 The Archaeological Resources of Hernando County: A Site Location Predictive Model. Masters thesis on file Univer sity of South Florida, Tampa. Hudak, J. G., E. Hobbs, A. Brooks, C. Sersland and C. Phillips (editors) 2000 A Predictive Model of Precontact Ar chaeological Site Location for the State of Minnesota Minnesota Department of Transportation. Hunt, C. and A. Hunt 1957 Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Some Florida Soils. United States Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. Iacobelli, A., A. Hussein, A. Blasutti and K. HKavanaugh 2003 A Landscape-Based Protected Areas Gap Analysis and GIS Tool for Conservation Planning. World Wildlife Fund, Canada. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 2007 Key to Soil Orders in Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SS113 Jameson, J. H. 1997 Presenting Archaeology to th e Public: Digging for Truths Altamira Press, London. Janusek, J. W. 2002 Out of Many, One: Style and Social Boundaries in Tiwanaku. Latin American Antiquity Volume 13(Number 1). Jennings, M. D. 2000 Gap Analysis: Concepts, Methods, and Recent Results. Landscape Ecology 15(1):5-20. Jochim, M. 1990 The Ecosystems Concept in Archaeology In The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: from concept to practice edited by E. F. Moran, pp. 75-90. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Jones, J. S. 1981 An Archaeological Site Predictive Model for Marion County, Florida. Masters thesis on file, Univers ity of South Florida, Tampa. Kasperson, R. E., J. X. Kasperson, B. L. Turner, K. Dow and W. Meyer 1995 Critical Environmental Regions: Concepts, Distinctions, and Issues. In Regions at Risk: Comparisons of Threatened Environments edited by J. X. Kasperson, R. E. Kasperson and B. L. Turner, pp. 1-41. United Nations University Press, Tokyo.
236 Kautz, R. S. and J. A. Cox 2001 Strategic Habitats for Biodive rsity Conservation in Florida. Conservation Biology 15(1):55-77. King, T. F. 1977 Resolving a Conflict of Values in American Archaeology In Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies edited by M. B. Schiffer and G. J. Gumerman, pp. 87-95. Academic Press, New York. 1998 Cultural Resource Laws and Practic e: An Introductory Guide AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. 2002 Thinking About Cultural Resource M anagement: Essays from the Edge Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham. King, T. F. and M. M. Lyneis 1978 Preservation: A Developing Fo cus of American Archaeology. American Anthropologist 80:873-893. Klein, T. H. 1999 A Curse or a Blessing in Dis guise: Cultural Resource Management, Archaeology's Future? The Problem and Promise of Cultural Resource Management in the United States Paper presented at the WAC4 Symposium. Knight, A. and J. Oetting 2005 Single Resource Ranking: An Evaluation Method for Florida Forever Land Acquisition Projects Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Knight, G. R. 2007 Preliminary Evaluations of Januar y 2007 Florida Forever Proposals. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Knight, R. (editor) 1998 Stewardship Across Boundaries Island Press, Washington, DC. Knox, P. and S. Marston 1998 Places and Regions in Gl obal Context: Human Geography. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ:. Kohler, T. A. 1991 The Demise of Weeden Island and Post-Weeden Island Cultural Stability in Non-Mississippiani zed Northern Florida In: Stability, Transformation, and Variations: the Late Woodland Southeast edited by M. S. Nassaney and C. R. Cobb, pp. 91 -1 10. Plenum Press, New York.
237 Kohler, T. A. and G. M. Johnson 1986 Dixie County Archaeological R econnaissance, Winter 1985-86 Florida Division of Historical Resources. Kowalewski, S. A., Richard E. Bl anton, Gary Feinman, Laura Finsten 1983 Boundaries, Scale, a nd Internal Organization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:32-56. Krech, S. 2005 Reflections on Conservation, Sustaina bility, and Environmentalism in Indigious North America. American Anthropologist New Series, Vol. 107, No. 1, pp. 78-86. Kroeber, A. L. 1916 Zuni Potsherds Anthropological papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 18. 1931 The Cultural Area and Age Area Concepts of Clark Wissler In Methods in Social Science edited by S. A. Rice, pp. 248-265. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kvamme, K. L. 1989 Geographic Information Systems in Regional Archaeological Research and Data Management In Archaeological Method and Theory edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 139-203. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Lamont, M. and a. V. Molnar 2002 The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences. Annu. Rev. Sociology 28:167. Leone, M. P., and Potter, P.B. 1992 Legitimation and the Classi fication of Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 57:137 -145. Leopold, A. 1949 A Sand County Almanac Ballantine Books, New York. Lightfoot, K.G. and Antoinette Martinez 1995 Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 24, pp. 471-492. Lipe, W. D. 1974 A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. The Kiva 39:213-243.
238 1978 Contracts, Bureaucrats, and Re search: Some Emerging Problems of Conservation Archaeology in the United States In Archaeological Essays in Honor of Irving R. Rouse edited by R. C. Dunnell and E. S. Hall, pp. 121-147. Mouton, The Hague. 1984 Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources. In Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage edited by H. Cleere, pp. 1-11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1995 The Archeology of Ecology: Taking the Long View. Federal Archeology Spring:813. 1995 Preserving and Strengthening Our National Archaeological Program. Bulletin of the Society for American Archaeology 13(4):16-17. Little, B., E. M. Seibert, J. Townsend, J. H. Sprinkle and J. Knoerl 2000 Guidelines for Evaluating and Regi stering Archaeological Properties National Register Bulletin, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC. Little, B. J. (editor) 2002 Public Benefits of Archaeology University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2005 The U.S. National Register of Hi storic Places and the Shaping of Archaeological Significance In Heritage of Value, Archaeology of Renown: Reshaping Archaeological Assessment and Significance edited by C. Mathers, T. Darvill and B. J. Little, pp. 114-124. Univer sity Press of Florida, Gainesville. Llobera, M. 2001 Building Past Landscape Per ception With GIS: Understanding Topographic Prominence. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1005. Low, S. M. and D. Lawrence-Zuniga (editors) 2003 The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Luer, G. M. and M. Almy 1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 35:3458. Luer, G. M. and M. Almy 1979 Three Aboriginal Shell Middens on Longboat Key, Florida: Manasota Period Sites of Barrier Island Exploitation. The Florida Anthropologist 32:34-45.
239 Lynott, M. J. 1980 The Dynamics of Significance: An Example from Central Texas. American Antiquity 45:117-120. Lynott, M. J. and A. Wylie 2000 Stewardship: The Central Pr inciple of Archaeological Ethics In Ethics in American Archaeology edited by M. J. Lynott an d A. Wylie, pp. 35-39. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. Mackay, J. and J. Blake 1839 Map of the Seat of War in Florid a. Compiled by order of Zachery Taylor, Principally From the Survey and Reconna issance of the Officers of the U.S. Army, Washington, DC. Madry, S. and C. L. Crumley 1990 An Application of Remote Sensi ng and GIS in a Regional Archaeological Survey In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. Allen, S. W. Green and a. E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 364-380. Taylor & Francis., London. Maehr, David S. and James A. Cox 1995 Landscape Features and Panthers in Florida. Conservation Biology Vol. 19, No. 5 (Oct. 1995), pp. 1008-1019. Marcus, J. 1993 Ancient Maya Political Organization In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., edited by J. Sabloff and J. Henderson, pp. 111-172. Dumbarton Oaks Research Librar y and Collection, Washington, D.C. Marquardt, W. H. and C. L. Crumley 1987 Theoretical Issues in the Analysis of Spatial Patterning In Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective edited by C. L. Crumley and W. H. Marquardt. Academic Press, San Diego. Mathers, C., T. Darvill and B. J. Little 2005a Archaeological Value in a World Context In Heritage of Value, Archaeology of Renown: Reshaping Arc haeological Assessment and Significance edited by C. Mathers, T. Darvill and B. J. Little, pp. 1-19. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2005b Heritage of Value, Archaeology of Renown: Reshaping Archaeological Assessment and Significance University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
240 Mathers, C., J. Schelberg and R. Kneebone 2005 Drawing Distinctions: Toward a Scalar Model of Value and Significance In Heritage of Value, Archaeology of Renown: Reshaping Archaeological Assessment and Significance edited by C. Mathers, T. Darvill and B. J. Little, pp. 159-191. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. McGimsey, C. R. 1972 Public Archaeology Seminar Press, London. McGlade, J. 1999 Archaeology and the Evolution of Cultural Landscapes: Towards an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda. In The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape edited by P. J. Ucko and R. and Layton, pp. 458-482. Routledge, London. McManamon, F. P. and A. Hatton (editors) 1999 Cultural Resource Management in C ontemporary Society: Perspectives on Managing and Presenting the Past Routledge Publishers, New York. Milanich, J. T. 1971 The Alachua Tradition of North-Central Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum:Anthropology a nd History, Tallahassee, Florida. 1978 Two Cades Pond Sites in North-Centra l Florida: The Occupational Nexus as a Model of Settlement. The Florida Anthropologist 31:151-173. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Milanich, J. T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Milanich, J. T. and C. Hudson 1993 Hernando de Soto and the Indians of Florida. University Press of Florida, Florida Museum of Natu ral History, Gainesville. Milanich, J. T. and C. Payne 1993 Introduction to Historic Contexts In Florida's Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan (Historic Contexts, Version of 9-27-93) edited by Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
241 Miller, J. J. 2002 Thoughts of a State Ar chaeologist on Significance In Thinking About Significance : Papers and Proceedings, Florida Archaeological Council Inc., Professional Development Workshop, St. Augustine, Florida edited by R. J. Austin, Kathleen S. Hoffman and G. R. Ballo, pp. 65-71. Florida Archaeological Council, Tampa. Miller, K. R. 1996 Conserving Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes In: Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes: Theory and Practice, edited by R. C. Szaro and D. W. Johnston, pp. 425-441. Oxford Univ ersity Press, Oxford, UK. Mitchell, D. 2000 Cultural Geography: A Critical Introduction Blackwell, Malden, MA. 2002 Cultural Landscapes: the Dialec tical Landscape Recent Landscape Research in Human Geography. Progress in Human Geography 26(3):381-389. Mitchem, J. M. 1988 Some Alternative Interpretations of Safety Harbor Burial Mounds. Florida Scientist 51:100-107. 1989a Redefining Safety Harbor : Late Preh istoric/Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1989b The Ruth Smith, Weeki Wachee, and Tatham Mounds: Archaeological Evidence of Early Spanish Contact. The Florida Anthropologist 42(4):317-339. Moeckli, J. and B. Braun 2001 Gendered Natures: Feminism, Politics, and Social Nature In: Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics edited by N. Castree and B. Braun, pp. 112-132. Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts. Moran, E. F. 1990 Ecosystem Ecology in Biology and Anthropology: A Critical Assessment In: The Ecosystem Approach in Anthr opology: from concept to practice edited by E. F. Moran, pp. 3-40. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Moratto, M. J. and R. E. Kelly 1978 Optimizing Strategies for Eval uating Archaeological Significance In: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory pp. 1 -30. vol. 1. National Biological Information Infrastructure 2006 http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov United States Geological Survey.
242 National Park Service 1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation U.S. Department of Interior, Interage ncy Resource Division, Washington, DC. Neill, W. T. 1958 A Stratified Early Site at Silver Springs, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 11 (2):35-52. 1964 The Association of Suwannee Points and Extinct Animals in Florida The Florida Anthropologist 14(3-4):17-32. Nizeyimana, E., Gary W. Petersen and J. C. Looijen 2002 Land Use Planning and Environm ental Impact Assessment Using Geographic Information Systems In Environmental Modelling with GIS and Remote Sensing edited by A. Skidmore, pp. 227-251. Taylor & Francis, New York. Noss, R. F. and A. Cooperrider 1994 Saving Nature's Legacy: Prot ecting and Restoring Biodiversity Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington, DC. Oelschlaeger, M. 1991 The Idea of Wilderness: From Pr ehistory to the Age of Ecology VailBallou Press, Binghamton, New York. Okely, J. 1983 The Traveller-Gypsies. Changing Culture Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Opdam, P., R. Foppen and C. Vos 2002 Bridging the Gap between Ecology and Spatial Planning in Landscape Ecology. Landscape Ecology 16: 767. Orians, G. H. 1993 Endangered at What Level? Ecological Applications 3(2):206-208. Osborn, A. J. and M. Kornfeld 2003 Biogeographical Islands and Ecological Patches: Seeing the Great Plains from the Inside Out In Islands on the Plains : Ecologi cal, Social, and Ritual Use of Landscapes edited by M. Kornfeld and A. J. Osborn. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
243 Parkinson, W. A. 2002 Integration, Interaction, and Trib al 'Cycling': The Transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies edited by W. A. Parkinson, pp. 391348. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI. Pasco County 2006a Environmental Lands Acquisition Taskforce Summary Report Pasco County Environmental Lands Pr ogram, Pasco County, Florida. 2006b MPUD and DRI Development GIS Datalayer vol. 2006. Pasco County, Florida. Proctor, J. D. 1998 The Social Construction of Nature: Relativist Accusations, Pragmatist and Critical Realist Responses. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 (3):352-376. Raab, L. M. and T. C. Klinger 1977 A Critical Appraisal of "Signi ficance" in Contract Archaeology. American Antiquity 42:629-634. 1979 A Reply to Sharrock and Grayson on Archaeological Significance. American Antiquity 44:328-329. Redman, C. L. and A. P. Kinzig 2003 Resilience of Past Landscapes: Resilience Theory, Society, and the Longue Duree, pp. 14. 7 th ed. vol. 2004. Conservation Ecology Rembert, P. W. 1964 Introduction. In Guide to Florida edited by "Rambler". vol. A Facsimile Reproduction of the 1875 Edition: Floridian Facsimile & Reprint Series. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn 2000 Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice Thames and Hudson, New York. Rice, P. M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: a Sourcebook University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1996 Recent Ceramic Analysis: 2. Composition, Production, and Theory. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:165.
244 Robinson, M. D. 1979 Outlines and Other Data on West Central Florida Projectile Points Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, St. Petersburg. Sanderson, J. and L. D. Harris 2000 Landscape Ecology: A Top-Down Approach Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. Sassaman, K. E. 1995 The Social Contradictions of Traditional and Innovative Cooking Technologies in the Prehistoric American Past In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies edited by W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes, pp. 223-240. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Sassaman, K. E. and D. G. Anderson 1996 The Need for a Regional Perspective In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Savage, S. 1990 Modeling the Late Archaic Social Landscape In Interpeting Space: GIS and Archaeology edited by K. Allen, S. Green, and E. Zubrow, pp. 330-355. Taylor & Francis, New York. Schiffer, M. B. and G. J. Gumerman (editors) 1977 Conservation Archaeology: A Guid e for Cultural Resource Management Studies Academic Press, New York. Schmidt, K. 1996 Biodiversity: Some Biologists see Holes in GAP Analysis. Science. Vol. 8, no. 5289, p. 917. Schlanger, S. 1992 Recognizing Persistent Places in Anasazi Settlement Systems. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by J. Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider. Pp. 91-112. Plenum Press, New York. Scott, J. M., B. Csuti, J. D. Jacobi and J. E. Estes 1987 Species Richness. BioScience 37(11):782-787. Scott, J. M., T. H. Tear and F. W. Davis 1996 Gap Analysis: A Landscape Approach to Land Management Issues. American Society of Photogrametry and Remote Sensing Bethesda, Maryland.
245 Scurry, J. D. 2003 Integrating Geographical Informa tion Systems (GIS) and Modeling: Validating Prehistoric Site-Settlement Models for the South Carolina Coastal Plain Using a GIS University of South Carolina. Seibert, E. M. 2002 The National Register and Arch aeological Significance in the 21st Century In: Thinking About Significance. P apers and Proceedings, Florida Archaeological Council, Inc., Pr ofessional Development Workshop edited by R. J. Austin, K. Hoffman and G. Ballo., pp. 37-52. Florida Archaeological Council, Inc, Tampa. Sharrock, F. W., and D. K. Grayson 1979 "Significance" in Contract Archaeology. American Antiquity 44:327-328. Small, J. K. 1929 From Eden to Sarah: Florida's Tragedy The Science Press Printing Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Smith, E. A. 1881 Tenth Census U.S., pp. 238. vol. 6., Washington DC. Smith, S. D. 1971 A Reinterpretation of the Cades Pond Archeological Period. Masters thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Stark, M. 1998 Technical Choices and Social Boundar ies in Material Cu lture Patterning: An Introduction. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries edited by M. Stark, pp. 1-11. Smithsonian, Washington D.C. Stark, M. T. 1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries Smithsonian Press, Washington D.C. Stark, M. T., R. L. Bishop and E. Miksa 2000 Ceramic Technology and Social Boundaries: Cultural Practices in Kalinga Clay Selection and Use. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4). Stark, M. T., M. D. Elson and J. J. Clark 1998 Social Boundaries and Technica l Choices in Tonto Basin Prehistory In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries edited by M. T. Stark, M. D. Elson and J. J. Clark, pp. 208-231. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
246 Stiftel, B. and M. Boswell 1999 Assumptions and Alternatives Test ing in Florida Comprehensive Plans: Do We Plan the Future or Project the Present? In Charting Florida's Future edited by L. deHaven-Smith and D. Hurs t. Florida Institute of Government, Tallahassee, FL. Stirling, M. W. 1935 Smithsonian Archeological Pr ojects Conducted under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1933-1934. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution (1934):371-400. Stokes, A. 2005 Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey of the Gregg Mine Expansion Areas, Hernando County, Florida Conducted for: Rinker Mate rials Corporation. Ms. on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources. Stoms, D. M. 1991 Mapping and Modeling of Regional Patterns of Species Richness from Geographic Information. Ph.D. dissertation, Universi ty of California, Santa Barbara. Stone, D. F. 1984 A Regional Synthesis and Archaeological Site Lo cation Prediction Model for South Coastal Santa Barbara County, California. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. SWFWMD 1992 Annutteliga Hammock: Resource Evaluation Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWM D), Brooksville, Florida. 2002a Springs Coast Comprehensive Wa tershed Management Action Plan Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWF WMD), Brooksville, Florida. 2002b Withlacoochee Comprehensive Wa tershed Management Action Plan Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWF WMD), Brooksville, Florida. 2007 www.swfwmd.state.fl.us Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), Brooksville, Florida. Tainter, J. A. and B. Bagley
247 2005 Shaping and Suppressing the Archaeological Record In Heritage of Value, Archaeology of Renown: Re shaping Archaeological Assessment and Significance edited by C. Mathers, T. Darvill and B. J. Little, pp. 58-76. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Tainter, J. A. and G. J. Lucas 1983 Epistemology of the Significance Concept. American Antiquity 48:707719. Tesar, L. D. 1980 The Leon County Bicentennial Survey Re port: An Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of Leon County, Florida. Misc ellaneous Project Report Series 49. Florida Bureau of Historic S ites and Properties, Tallahassee. 1990 The Historic Preservation Compliance Review Program of the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. Draft Manual. Theobald, D. M., N. T. Hobbs, T. Bearly, J. A. Zack, T. Shenk and W. E. Riebsame 2000 Incorporating Biological Informati on in Local Land use Decision Making: Designing a System for Conservation Planning. Landscape Ecology 15(1):35-45. Tobin, G. A. and L. M. Whiteford 2004 Chronic Hazards: Health Impacts Associated with On-Going Ash-Falls Around Mt. Tungurahua in Ecuador Papers and Proceedings of the Applied Geography Conferences 27:84-93. Trombold, Charles D. 1991 An Introduction to the Study of New World Road Networks. In Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hi erarchies in the New World edited by Charles D. Trombold, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ucko, P. J. and R. Layton (editors) 1999 The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape Routledge, New York. Upchurch, S. B. 1980 Chert Origins and Availability, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, Florida. In: Guidebook vol. 32. Southeastern Geol ogical Society, Tallahassee. Upchurch, S. B., R. N. Strom and M. G. Nuckels 1982 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, FL. Urban, D. L., R. O'Neill, H. J. Shugart
248 1987 Landscape Ecology: A Hierarchical Perspective Can Help Scientists Understand Spatial Patterns. Bioscience 3(2):119-127. United States Geological Survey 2007 GAP Analysis Program. http://gapanalysis.nb ii.gov/portal/server.pt Voss, J., Young, R. 1995 Style and the Self In Style, Society, and Person edited by C. Carr and J. Neitzel, pp. 77-100. Plenum, New York. Wansleeben, M. 1988 Applications of Geographical In formation Systems in Archaeological Research In Computer and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology edited by S. Q. Rahtz, pp. 435-451. Vol. 446(2). British Ar chaeological Reports, International Series, Oxford. Watters, G. 2005 Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment, Yang Parcel Hernando County, Florida Conducted for: Coastal Engineeri ng Associates, Inc. Ms. on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. Weisman, B. and L. Collins 2003 A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Ten Thousand Islands Ms. on file: University of South Florida, Tampa. 2004 A GIS Archaeological Model and Te sting of Nine ELAPP Preserves, Hillsborough County, Florida Ms. on file: University of South Florida, Tampa. Weisman, B. and W. H. Marquardt 1988 Archaeology of the SWFWMD Projec ts: A Comprehensive Archaeological Resource Inventory for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville Department of Anthropology, Flor ida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida. Weisman, B. R. 1986 The Cove of the Withlacoochee: A First Look at the Archaeology of an Interior Florida Wetland. The Florida Anthropologist 39(1-2):4-23. 1989 Like Beads on a String: A Culture Hi story of the Seminole Indians in Northern Peninsular Florida University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1994 Purchasing the Past: The Effectivene ss of Protecting Archaeological Sites through Acquisition in Florida. Paper presented at the 1994 SEAC Conference, Lexington, Kentucky.
249 1999 Archaeology at the Crossroads: Ne w Directions in Transportation Archaeology in Florida: An Introduc tory Companion Report for the SevenVolume FDOT Series. University of South Florida, Tampa. 2002a Pioneer in Space and Time: John Mann Goggin and the Development of Florida Archaeology. The Ripley P. Bullen Series. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2002b Using an Evaluation Matrix to Manage Archaeological Sites: An Alternative to Significance? In Thinking About Significance. Papers and Proceedings, Florida Archaeological Counc il, Inc., Professional Development Workshop edited by R. J. Austin, K. Hoffman and G. Ballo, pp. 187-198. Florida Archaeological Council, Inc, Tampa. Wells, E. C., G. E. Rice and J. C. Ravesloot 2004 Peopling Landscapes between Villages in the Middle Gila River Valley of Central Arizona. American Antiquity 69(4):627-652. Welsch, R. L. and a. J. E. Terrell 1998 Material Culture, Soci al Fields, and Social boundaries on the Sepik Coast of New Guinea In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries edited by M. Stark, pp. 50-77. Smithsonian Press, Washington, D.C. Wescott, K. L. and R. J. Brandon (editors) 2000 Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists: A Predictive Modeling Toolkit Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia. Wharton, B. R. 1979 An Archaeological Assessment Survey of the Construction Impact Areas of the Upper Hillsborough Flood Detention Area, Southeastern Pasco County, Florida University of South Florida, Tampa. 1984 Archaeological Resources of the Upper Hillsborough Flood detention Area, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties, Florida. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville. 1990 An Archaeological and Historical Re source Assessment of the Proposed North Suncoast Expressway: Hillsborough, Pasco, and Hernando Counties, Florida Florida Department of Tran sportation District 7, Tampa. 2001 Applications of the Original Publ ic Lands Survey Records in CulturalHistorical Studies: Examples from North-Central Florida In 65th Annual Florida Academy of Sciences Meeting Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida. n.d. The Big Hammock Boundary. A GI S Shapefile of the Big Hammock.
250 Wharton, B. R. and P. M. Dooris 1987 Hernando County's Big Hammock Region: an Ecological and Historical Overview Hernando County Planning Depa rtment, Brooksville, Florida. Whitley, T. G. 2000 Dynamical Systems Modeling in Archaeology: A GIS Approach to Site Selection Processes in the Greater Yellowstone Region University of Pittsburgh. Whitney, T. 1985 The Blackwater Pond Indian Site, Hernando County, Florida. Bulletin, Chenango Chapter, New York Stat e Archaeological Association, 21(3). Wilkinson, T. J. 2003 Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Willey, G. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Pattern s in the Viru Valley, Peru. BAE Bulletin (155). Willey, G. R. 1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113, Washington, DC. Willey, G. R. and J. A. Sabloff 1980 A History of American Archaeology W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. Winthrop, K. R. 1999 Archaeological Watershed. Anthropology Newsletter 40(4):18-19. Wisenbaker, M. 2006 Florida's Land Conservation Programs and Historical Resources Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Wood, D. 1992 The Power of Maps. Guilford, New York. Worboys, M.F. 1997 GIS: a Computing Perspective. Taylor and Francis, New York.
251 Yates, B. 2002 The Role of Florida's Historic Contexts in the Determination of Site Significance In Thinking About Significance. Papers and Proceedings, Florida Archaeological Council, Inc., Pr ofessional Development Workshop edited by R. J. Austin, K. Hoffman and G. Ballo, pp. 53-64. Florida Archaeological Council, Inc, Tampa.
253 Appendix A. Archaeological Survey s Conducted in the Big Hammock SURVEY# TITLE YEAR AUTHOR1 SPONSOR 3130 Historical and Architectural Survey of the Southeastern Quadrant of Citrus County Phase I. 1987 LAURIE, MURRAY D. Fl Div of Historical Resources 6547 WITHLACOOCHEE STATE FOREST ARCHAEOLOGICAL MODELING STUDY FOR CITRUS, HERNANDO, SUMTER AND PASCO COUNTIES 1998 ELLIS, GARY D FLORIDA DEPT OF AGRIGULTURE 7221 SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF A DISPOSAL AREA ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOOP G PORTION OF THE PROPOSED FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY PHASE V EXPANSION IN CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA 2002 Labadia, Catherine FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO. 7525 Supplemental Information Regarding a Proposed Disposal Area Associated with the Loop G Portion of the Proposed Florida Gas Transmission Company Phase V Expansion in Citrus County, Florida 2003 Labadia, Catherine Florida Gas Transmission Company 7790 WITHLACOOCHIE 7013 CELLULAR TOWER SURVEY, CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA 2000 BURNS, SHEILA CROWN CASTLE INTERNATIONAL 8001 SURVEY AND EVALUATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ONE-MILE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED HOPKINS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, LECANTO, FLORIDA 2001 PARKER, BRIAN DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOC. 12807 A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Florida Gas Transmission Company Phase VII Expansion Project 2005 Stokes, Anne V. Florida Gas Transmission Company 1461 An Environmental Assessment Survey for Brooksville West Water Treatment and Elevated Storage Tank Site. 1977 MARSH, ROBERT G. 1463 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed McKethen Park Site, Hernando County, Florida. 1980 MARSH, ROBERT G. City of Brooksville 140 An Archaeological Survey of the Br ooksville 201 Facilities Plan, Hernando County, Florida. 1976 MARSH, ROBERT G. City of Brooksville 720 [Letter Report on Carl D. McMurray] Archaeological Survey of Florida Highway Patrol and Drivers License Office Building, Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida. 1979 MCMURRAY, C. D. MR ROGER G WEEKS, ARCHITECT 1442 US 98/SR 700 from Yontz Road Northeast to CR 491 [Hernando County, Florida]. 1987 BROWNING, W. D. Fla. Dept. of Transportation 1747 Preliminary Historic and Architectural Survey of downtown Brooksville, Florida. 1985 WERNDLI, PHILLIP Hernando Historical Museum Ass 1928 Archaeological Assessment of SR 50/50A in Hernando County Including National Register of Historic Plac es Determination of Eligibility for 8HE00241, the Colorado Site. 1989 BALLO, GEORGE R. Fla. Dept. of Transportation 2785 Excerpts from the Hernando County Comprehensive Plan, Historical and Archaeological Element. 1990 HERNANDO CO. DEPT. OF PLANNING Hernando Co. Dept. of Planning 4889 A CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY, SUNCOAST PARKWAY REEVALUATION AREAS, HILLSBOROUGH, PASCO, AND HERNANDO COUNTIES, FLORIDA 1995 ALMY, MARION FLORIDA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 6547 WITHLACOOCHEE STATE FOREST ARCHAEOLOGICAL MODELING STUDY FOR CITRUS, HERNANDO, SUMTER AND PASCO COUNTIES 1998 ELLIS, GARY D FLORIDA DEPT OF AGRIGULTURE 6987 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING OF THE TUCKER HILL TRAILHEAD RESTROOM FACILITY IN THE WITHLACOOCHEE STATE FOREST, HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2002 DAVIS, MCMILLAN COLEEN WERNER 8636 Installation of a Fiber Optic Cable from Law Enforcement Building to Inmate Shop Building, WIthlacoochee State Forest, Hernando County, Florida 2002 Werner, Colleen Withlacoochee State Forest 7718 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED LAKE STAFFORD TOWER LOCATION IN HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2000 ESTABROOK, R. W. EPAC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 8377 Archaeological Investigation Report Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis Former Brooksville Turret Gunnery Range Hernando County, Florida 2001 Lorenzini, Michele US Army Corps of Engineers Huntsville Center 8019 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED CYPRESS POND TOWER LOCATION IN HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2001 SIMS, CYNTHIA L. ATC ASSOCIATES, INC. 8257 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Gregg Mine Extension, Hernando County, Florida 2002 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Florida Crushed Stone 8445 Proposed Cellular Tower Replacement: Brooksville FHP 11319 Youth Drive, Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida 2001 Pracht, Jodi B. URS Corporation 8712 Technical Memorandum: Cultural Resource Assessment SR 50 ponds13 Site Alternatives (plus ditch treatment) Hernando County (State Project no. 08002-1501; WPI No. 7112122) 1994 Deming, Joan Post Buckley Schuh and Jernigan 8714 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Cobb Road (CR 485)/ US 98 PD&E Study From SR 50 to Suncoast Park in Hernando County, Florida 2003 Deming, Joan FL Department of Transportation, District 7 8715 Memorandum: PD&E Reevaluation, Cultural Resources SR 50 Floodplain Mitigation Site, Hernando County (Parcels 102, 105 and 106) 1993 Deming, Joan PBS&J
254 Appendix A. Archaeological Surveys Conduc ted in the Big Hammock (Continued) SURVEY# TITLE YEAR AUTHOR1 SPONSOR 10852 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Griggs Property, Hernando County, Florida 2004 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Cornerstone Communities, Inc. 10863 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Cobb Road Mine Property, Hernando County, Florida 2004 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Florida Crushed Stone Company 9193 Final Cultural Resource Assessment Survey S.R. 50 Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study Reevaluation from U.S. 19 (S.R. 55) to the East S.R. 50/50A Intersection, Hernando County, Florida 2003 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Florida Department of Transportation, District 7 9481 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Southern Hills Project Area Hernando County 2003 Janus Research King Engineering Associates, Inc. 9533 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Technical Memorandum Pond and Floodplain Compensation Site Alternatives US 41 (SR 45) from SWFWMD Entrance to South of Powell Road Hernando County, Florida 2001 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Florida Department of Transportation, District 7 10188 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Technical Memorandum Roadway Transfer of US 98/ SR 700 From US 41 (Broad Street) to CR 485/ Cobb Road Hernando County, Florida 2004 Hutchinson, Lee Florida Department of Transportation, District 7 10472 Tucker Hill Day Use Area New Waterline 2005 Werner, Colleen Withlachoochee State Forest 10591 An Intensive Cultural Resource Survey of the Majestic Oaks Tract Hernando County, Florida 2004 Handley, B. M., and Ferrell, S. Majestic Oaks Partners, LLC 10758 Archaeological Monitoring Results/Letter of Transmission, Chinsegut Wildlife and Environmental Area, Hernando County, Florida 2004 Werner, Colleen Florida Park Service 10929 Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey of the Gregg Mine Expansion Areas, Hernando County, Florida 2005 Stokes, Anne Rinker Materials Corporation 10998 Cultural Resource Assessment Surv ey, Hickory Hill Property, Hernando County, Florida 2004 Horvath, Elizabeth Sierra Properties, LLC 11035 Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment, Cemex-Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida 2004 Dickinson, Martin F. Vulcan Materials Company, Southern & Gulf Coast Di 11285 Assessment of Potential Effects Upon Historic Properties: Proposed Cheyenne Asphalt Wireless Telecommunications Tower (Verison Wireless 088270-1), Hernando County, Florida. 2005 Florida Archaeological Consulting Dynamic Environmental Services 11344 Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment, The Cascades at Southern Hills Plantation, Hernando County, Florida 2005 Dickinson, Martin F. Coastal Engineering Associates, Inc. 11375 Chinsegut Wildlife and Environmental Area, Hernando [County, Florida] 2005 Matthews, Tom Chinsegut Wildlife and Environmental Area 11441 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT, YANG PARCEL HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2005 WATTERS, GIFFORD COASTAL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 12961 A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of the Highway 98 and Cobb Road Tract, Hernando County, Florida 2006 Runyan, Catherine Bay Pines Investments 11947 Section 106 Assessment (FCC Form 620) of the Head and Heel Ranch Telecommunications Tower Site (Verison Wireless ), Hernando County, Florida 2005 Florida Archaeological Consulting Dynamic Environmental Associates, Inc 12058 Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment, Hernando Oaks Phase 5, Hernando County, Florida. 2005 Dickinson, Martin F. Coastal Engineering Associates, Inc. 12155 CRAS of the Brook Haven Apartments Project Area, Hernando County 2005 Janus Research The Richman Group of Florida, Inc 12512 Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment, Pine Cabin Road Hernando County, Florida 2005 Dickinson, Martin F. Coastal Engineering Associates, Inc. 12807 A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Florida Gas Transmission Company Phase VII Expansion Project 2005 Stokes, Anne V. Florida Gas Transmission Company 12857 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Oakbrook/Argus Development Hernando County, Florida 2006 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Oakbrook/Argus Development, LLC 12862 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Report, Project Development & Environment (PD&E)Study, Interstate 75 (I-75) (State Road [SR] 93) From North of SR52 to South of County Road (CR) 476B in Pasco, Hernando, and Sumter Counties, Florida 2006 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. H. W. Lochner 13041 Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment, Southern Hills IV, Hernando County, Florida 2006 Dickinson, Martin F. Coastal Engineering Associates, Inc. 13277 Cultural Resources Survey and Asse ssment, Southern Hills McAteer, Hernando County, Florida 2006 Dickinson, Martin F. Coastal Engineering Associates, inc. 4464 Church Street Historic District, Survey and National Register Nomination, Dade City, Florida 1996 SCHWARZ, REBECCA SPAIN City of Dade City 4889 A CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY, SUNCOAST PARKWAY REEVALUATION AREAS, HILLSBOROUGH, PASCO, AND HERNANDO COUNTIES, FLORIDA 1995 ALMY, MARION FLORIDA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 5178 FINAL CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY REPORT, PD&E STUDY, I-75 (S.R. 93) FROM SOUTH OF S.R. 56 TO NORTH OF S.R. 52, PASCO COUNTY 1997 ALMY, MARION FLORIDA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 5194 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT OF THE THOMAS PRAIRIE MINING PROJECT, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA 1998 MAYO, KAREN L. THE STEARNS PEAT COMPANY
255 Appendix A. Archaeological Surveys Conduc ted in the Big Hammock (Continued) SURVEY# TITLE YEAR AUTHOR1 SPONSOR 5603 CITY OF ZEPHYRHILLS HISTORIC PRESERVATION SURVEY 1999 QUATREFOIL CONSULTING CITY OF ZEPHYRHILLS 5881 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE LAKE JOVITA GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PHASE 2A DEVELOPMENT SITE, PASCO COUNTRY, FLORIDA 2000 AUSTIN, ROBERT J. ROBERT TRINKLE 6060 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY UPDATE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, S.R. 39 FROM I-4 TO U.S. 301, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT (PD&E) STUDY, HILLSBOROUGH AND PASCO COUNTIES, FLORIDA 1999 DEMING, JOAN FLORIDA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 6191 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE HILLCREST PRESERVE PROPERTY, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2001 DEMING, JOAN KING ENGINEERING, INC. 6210 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE U.S. 98 DADE CITY BYPASS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT (PD&E) STUDY FROM U.S. 301 SOUTH TO U.S. NORTH, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2000 DEMING, JOAN FLORIDA DOT, DISTRICT 7 6547 WITHLACOOCHEE STATE FOREST ARCHAEOLOGICAL MODELING STUDY FOR CITRUS, HERNANDO, SUMTER AND PASCO COUNTIES 1998 ELLIS, GARY D FLORIDA DEPT OF AGRIGULTURE 7704 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES AS SESSMENT SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED ZEPHYRHILLS WEST BYPASS EXTENSION, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2001 BURGER, B.W. PASCO CTY TRANSPORTATION DEPT. 7829 PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ST. LEO #801862 PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2000 BURNS, SHEILA CROWN CASTLE INTERNATIONAL 7879 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED SPRING VALLEY LAKE ESTATES IN PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2002 AMBROSINO, JAMES N. STEVEN SMITH 8075 A CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF A PROPOSED STUDENT HOUSING AREA ON THE CAMPUS OF SAINT LEO UNIVERSITY, PASCO COUNTY, FLOIRDA 2002 AUSIN, ROBERT ST. LEO UNIVERSITY 9360 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED PALM COVE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2003 AUSTIN, ROBERT J HEIDT & ASSOCIATES 9158 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Southport Springs Mobile Home Park Expansion Project in Pasco County, Florida 2003 Estabrook, Richard W. Towson-Rogers Engineering, Inc. 9284 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Epperson Property, PAsco County, Florida 2003 Austin, Robert J. Heidt & Associates 1243 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Proposed Stagecoach Run Resort Community, Phase I, Pasco County, Florida. 1986 HORVATH, ELIZABETH A. King Engineering Associates 1323 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Two Proposed Road Improvement Areas, Pasco County, Florida. 1986 AUSTIN, ROBERT J. CH2M Hill, Inc. 1456 Proposed Improvement of U.S. 301 from SR 39 South of Zephyrhills to CR 54 East, North of Zephyrhills, in Pasco Co unty, Florida. 1987 BALLO, GEORGE R. Fla. Dept. of Transportation 1512 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Proposed Cannon Ranch Development Site, Pasco County, Fl orida. 1986 AUSTIN, ROBERT J. Florida Technical Services 1927 Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of SR 52 from SR 55 (US 19) to SR 93 (I-75) [Pasco County, Flor ida]. 1985 BROWNING, WILLIAM D. Fla. Dept. of Transportation 2025 An archaeological and historical survey of the Brown property, Pasco County, Florida. 1989 ALMY, MARION M. King Engineering Assoc., Inc. 2810 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Proposed Alignment Corridors for State Road 54, Cypress Creek to the Zephyrhills Bypass (U.S. 301), Pasco County, Florida. 1991 DETHLEFSEN, EDWIN S. FL Depart. of Transportation 3618 A Cultural Resources Survey of State Road 39 From I-4 to US 301 In Hillsborough and Pasco Counties. 1992 ALMY, MARION M. FL. Dept. of Transportation 9470 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Old Pasco Road From South of Overpass Road to SR 52 Including Eight Stormwater Ponds and Two Mitigation Areas Pasco County, Florida 2003 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. King Engineering 9570 A CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE COMAS TRUST MPUD PROPERTY, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA 2003 AUSTIN ROBERT J; HEIDT AND ASSOCIATES 10134 Letter Report for the Reconnaissance Survey and Desktop Analysis of the Rolling Ridge Estates Project Area, Pasco County 2004 Janus Research Pasco Properties, Inc. 10000 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Bellamy Land Trust #083100 Pasco County, Florida 2004 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Cornerstone Communities, Inc. 10146 Archaeological Site Testing and Evaluation of Site 8PA202 in Pasco County, Florida 2004 Carty, Thomas J. Professional Land Development, LLC. 10247 Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment, Oak Creek Phase I, Pasco County, Florida 2004 Dickinson, Martin F. Coastal Engineering 10809 Cultural Resource Assessment Surv ey Rucks Parcels Pasco County, Florida 2003 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Heidt and Associates, Inc. 11054 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Hammett Property, Pasco County, Florida 2005 Stokes, Anne v. Heidt & Associates, Inc.
256 Appendix A. Archaeological Surveys Conduc ted in the Big Hammock (Continued) SURVEY# TITLE YEAR AUTHOR1 SPONSOR 11097 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Proposed Bird Lake 1 Tower Location in Pasco County, Florida 2005 Carty, Thomas J. Damiano Long Consulting Engineers 11101 [Final] Assessment of Potential Effects Upon Historic Properties" Proposed Wesley Chapel Wireless Telecommunications Tower (Ridan Industries FL-1102), Pasco County, Florida 2004 Parker, Brian T. Dynamic Environmental Associates, Inc. 11146 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Ashley Groves MPUD Property, Pasco County, Florida 2004 Austin, Robert J. Centex Homes 11214 [Final Report] Cultural Assessment Survey of the Wesley Chapel Park Project Area, Pasco County 2005 Janus Research Wannamacher Russell Architects, Inc. 11380 An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the 40Acre Evans Tract, Pasco County, Florida. 2005 Nash, Jennifer LF Environmental Services, Inc. 11607 DRAFT Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, State Road 52 PD&E Study from I-75 (SR 93) to E. of EMMAUS Cemetery Road 2004 Driscoll, Kelly A. WilsonMiller 13130 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Prosser Road Project Area in Pasco County, Florida 2006 Carty, Thomas J. Burcaw and Associates, Inc. 11798 Historic Resources Survey of East Pasco County 2005 Streelman, Amy Pasco County Growth Management/Zoning Department 11808 DRAFT Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Proposed Pond Locations for State Road 52 PD&E Study from I-75 (SR 93) to E. of EMMAUS Cemetery Road in Pasco County, Florida 2004 Driscoll, Kelly A. Pasco County Engineering Services Department 11925 An Archaeological and Historical Su rvey of the Arlington Hills Project Area in Pasco County, Florida. 2005 Ambrosino, Meghan L Darby Trails Venture, LLC 12102 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Silverado Ranch Property, Pasco County, Florida 2005 Archaeological Consultants, Inc Silverado, LLC 12223 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Chapel Creek Property, Pasco County, Florida 2005 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Maconi Crosland Chapel Creek, LLC 12246 Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment, Hayden/Rubin/Pittman, Pasco County, Florida. 2005 Dickinson, Martin F. Coastal Engineering 12544 Cultural Resource Assessment of Berry Hill Estates, Pasco County, Florida 2006 Frashuer, Anya C. Gaylor Engineering 12692 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Pasco Town Centre DRI Project Area in Pasco County, Florida 2006 Dixon, Anna The Shailendra Group, LLC 12694 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Stanley Meadows Project Area in Pasco County, Florida 2006 Ambrosino, James N. ECS, LLC 12743 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Valley Oaks Property in Pasco County, Florida 2006 Ambrosino, Meghan L. Priority Developers 12842 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Links of Hidden Creek Project Area in Pasco County, Florida 2006 Hughes, Skye W. Links of Hidden Creek, LLC 12843 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Columns at Cypress Point Project Area in Pasco County, Florida 2006 Hughes, Skye W. ECI Capital, Inc. 12862 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Report, Project Development & Environment (PD&E)Study, Interstate 75 (I-75) (State Road [SR] 93) From North of SR52 to South of County Road (CR) 476B in Pasco, Hernando, and Sumter Counties, Florida 2006 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. H. W. Lochner 12976 Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Highland Lakes Property, Pasco County, Florida 2006 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Metro Development Group, Inc. 13077 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Geiger Hill Master Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Property, Pasco County, Florida 2004 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Landbuilder Corporation 13122 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Gore's Dairy Property in Pasco County, Florida 2006 Ambrosino, Meghan L. Metro Development Group
257 Appendix B. Data Layers Data Layer Source Type Archaeological Sites Florida Division of Historical Resources Polygon, Vector Archaeological Surveys Florida Division of Historical Resources Polygon, Vector National Register Sites Florida Division of Historical Resources Polygon, Vector Diagnostic Artifacts Florida Division of Historical Resources Tabular dataset Landcover Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Raster Land use 1995 Southwest Florida Water Management District Polygon, Vector Land use 2004 Southwest Florida Water Management District Polygon, Vector Color DOQQ Imagery Southwest Florida Water Management District Raster Conservation Lands Southwest Florida Water Management District Polygon, Vector Parks & Recreation Land Southwest Florida Water Management District Polygon, Vector Major Roads Southwest Florida Water Management District Line, Vector Lakes Southwest Florida Water Management District Polygon, Vector District Lands Southwest Florida Water Management District Polygon, Vector Ecosystem Management Areas Southwest Florida Water Management District Polygon, Vector FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory Polygon, Vector Environmental Plan Units Pasco County Polygon, Vector Pasco MPUDs Pasco County Polygon, Vector Pasco Parcel Detail Pasco County Property Appraiser Line, Vector Hernando Plan Layers Hernando County Polygon, Vector Citrus Planning Layers Citrus County Polygon, Vector Color DOQQ Imagery labins.org Raster Elevation Southwest Florida Water Management District Line, Vector Soils Southwest Florida Water Management District Polygon, Vector Big Hammock Outline HDR Engineering, B. Wharton Polygon, Vector
258 Appendix C. Archaeological Sites Id entified in the Big Hammock Area SITE ID SITE NAME SITE ID SITE NAME 1 HE00230 FDOT PARK 64 HE00261 HAMMOCK HILLS 2 HE00271 EAST BROOKSVILLE 65 HE00262 HAMMOCK SCHOOL 3 HE00272 EXPERIMENTAL FARM 66 HE00263 INDIAN MOUND 4 HE00273 FORT DESOTO 67 HE00264 MAPLE 5 HE00274 HIGGINS FLAG STATION 68 HE00265 RINGGOLD 6 HE00275 COOPER MINING TOWN 69 HE00266 ST JOSEPH'S CHURCH 7 HE00276 MINING TOWN SITE 70 HE00267 STAFFORD 8 HE00567 Southern Hills #1 71 HE00268 STAFFORD CHRUCH 9 HE00568 Southern Hills #2 72 HE00269 CHINSEGUT HILL 10 HE00573 Keith's Last Hurrah 73 HE00270 CHOACACHATTE TOWN 11 HE00341 PARCEL 102 NW 74 HE00277 MINING TOWN SITE/MINE 12 HE00342 PARCEL 102 NE 75 HE00278 MONDON HILL 13 HE00349 NN 76 HE00279 PROVIDENCE 14 HE00325 NEW TOWN 77 HE00280 SICILY 15 HE00326 PIERCEVILLE 78 HE00286 HOWELL 16 HE00327 SAWMILL 79 HE00299 BLUE SINK 17 HE00328 SPRING HILL (OLD) 80 HE00301 LAKE LINDSEY 18 HE00329 TURPENTINE STILL 81 HE00304 TIGER HILL 19 HE00330 WISCON 82 HE00311 TWIN LAKES 20 HE00013 HORSE LAKE MOUND 83 HE00312 BAY SPRINGS/SCHOOL 21 HE00014 ANDERSON'S MOUND 84 HE00313 DIXIE 22 HE00016 MCPHERSON'S 85 HE00314 MT PLEASANT CHURCH 23 HE00017 NN 86 HE00315 SCHOOL 24 HE00018 LAKE LINDSEY 87 HE00316 SPRING LAKE 25 HE00024 CENTRALIA ROAD 88 HE00317 BIG PINE TRACT 26 HE00025 BUCZAK ROAD 89 HE00318 BISHOP HOMESTEAD 27 HE00027 GARDEN GROVE 90 HE00334 BAILEY HILL 28 HE00028 HARRIS POND 91 HE00335 GARRISON 29 HE00029 WILLOW PRAIRIE 92 HE00336 HANNIBAL 30 HE00038 OLD SPRING HILL 93 HE00337 MELENDEZ 31 HE00039 GORDON SPRATT FLINT KNAP QUARRY 94 HE00372 TWIN LAKES 32 HE00066 BLACKWATER POND 95 HE00401 HOLLEY 33 HE00067 HILLSIDE SOUTH 96 HE00430 GOLF BALL CHASE 34 HE00068 LONESTAR 97 HE00432 LAKE STAFFORD 35 HE00069 HARRIS POND WEST 98 HE00435 WILLOW PRAIRIE LAKE 36 HE00070 HARRIS POND SOUTH 99 HE00438 RIVARD 37 HE00072 CATERPILLAR TRACTOR 100 HE00461 RINGHAVER 38 HE00073 RAILROAD SPUR 101 HE00463 BROOKSVILLE CEMETERY 39 HE00074 TANK LAKE 102 HE00477 STAFFORD LAKE EAST 40 HE00231 POND EDGE 103 HE00478 TATUM ROAD EAST 41 HE00232 HIDDEN POND 104 HE00479 LEVEE BOTTOM 42 HE00233 WPA ROAD 105 HE00480 GUM SPRING 43 HE00234 CLAYTON ROAD 106 HE00481 DRY GULCH 44 HE00235 DORSEY SMITH ROAD 107 HE00482 NOTKWYTAH 45 HE00236 HILTON CEDAR 108 HE00483 GREGG 18C 46 HE00237 HORSELAKE ROAD 109 HE00484 GREGG 18D 47 HE00238 SHOPPING CENTER 110 HE00485 GREGG 19B 48 HE00239 PUNPING STATION RD. 111 HE00486 SPRINGHILL-19A 49 HE00240 SARDIS ROAD 112 HE00487 GREGG 13C 50 HE00241A COLORADO AREA A 113 HE00488 GREGG 14A 51 HE00241B COLORADO AREA B 114 HE00489 GREGG 24A 52 HE00241C COLORADO AREA C 115 HE00491 Calitonia 53 HE00241D COLORADO POND 3 116 HE00498 Pine Cabin Road SIte 54 HE00244 SUH SITE 117 HE00499 Southern Hills 55 HE00245 DAVIS/KELLY 118 HE00507 Hickory Hill Spring Site 56 HE00246 CANADA GOOSE ROAD SITE 119 HE00508 McDonald Cow Dip Site 57 HE00247 CANYON SWALLOW 120 HE00509 Little Tony Spring Site 58 HE00248 CURLEW SOUTH 121 HE00510 The Working Girl Site 59 HE00251 HART POND 122 HE00511 The Sea Pond Site 60 HE00252 MINCKLER SINKS 123 HE00512 The Long Pond Site 61 HE00253 WOODARD FIELD 124 HE00513 Mr. Wayne Site 62 HE00259 TIGERTAIL HILL 125 HE00515 Hickory Hills Golf Club 63 HE00260 ADD 126 HE00516 Griggs
259 Appendix C. Archaeological Sites Identifie d in the Big Hammock Area (Continued) SITE ID SITE NAME SITE ID SITE NAME 127 HE00517 House Fall 187 PA00204 CANNON RANCH 128 HE00519 Gregg Mine #1 188 PA00205 BAYOU BRANCH 1 129 HE00520 Gregg Mine #2 189 PA00206 BAYOU BRANCH 2 130 HE00521 Gregg Mine #3 190 PA00207 BAYOU BRANCH 3 131 HE00522 Gregg Mine #4 191 PA00208 BAYOU BRANCH 4 132 HE00523 Gregg Mine #5 192 PA00209 NOT MUCH 1 133 HE00524 Cemex 1 193 PA00210 NOT MUCH 2 134 HE00525 Cemex 2 194 PA00211 TOO HOT 135 HE00526 Cemex 3 195 PA00213 ZEPHYRHILLS SHORES 136 HE00527 Cemex 4 196 PA00460 HAM SLAM 137 HE00528 Cemex 5 197 PA00215 GATES 138 HE00529 Cemex 6 198 PA00222 MIDDLE LAKE 139 HE00532 Chinsequt WEA 199 PA00249 BROWN 8 140 HE00535 Lake Lindsey Road 200 PA00250 BROWN 9 141 HE00536 Old Brooksville Road 201 PA00253 BROWN 12 142 HE00542 Dickinson Watering Hole 202 PA00254 BROWN 13 143 HE00547 Rutledge Yard 203 PA00265 BROWN 14 144 HE00551 October Well 204 PA00382 BUFFALO STANCE 145 HE00574 Chicago Hotdog 205 PA00444 DBD 146 PA01235 LAKE JOVITA 1 206 PA00446 San Antonio Park 147 PA01236 LAKE JOVITA 2 207 PA00448 COMAS # 8 148 PA02005 COMAS # 1 208 PA00461 ALBERTO 149 PA02006 COMAS # 2 209 PA00462 LITTLE MERMAID 150 PA01118 ZEPHYRHILLS CANAL 210 PA00463 WILDCAT GROVES 151 PA01374 SERENOA 211 PA00464 MILLH OPPER CORAL 152 PA01375 RUT SPOT 212 PA00483 KENZIE-BETMAR 153 PA01376 PINE KNOLL 213 PA00595 BOB 154 PA01377 TWISTED PINE 214 PA00620 TRIPLE SAND TRAP 155 PA01378 BROWN'S DUMP 215 PA00621 AREA 8 WEST 156 PA01383 SMALL 216 PA00622 ISLAND HAMMOCK 157 PA00242 BROWN 1 217 PA00623 GOLDEN GROVE 158 PA00243 BROWN 2 218 PA01316 DEPUE QUARRY 159 PA00244 BROWN #3 219 PA01317 TRAILER WELL 160 PA00245 BROWN 4 220 PA01318 EAGLE 161 PA00246 BROWN #5 221 PA01319 WINDMILL 162 PA00247 BROWN 6 222 PA01320 CALF SLOBBER 163 PA00248 BROWN 7 223 PA01321 TRIP GRASS 164 PA00009 NN 224 PA01322 PIG LEG 165 PA00019 ADAMS LAKE 225 PA01323 GOPHER SHELL 166 PA00114 NICHOLSON'S GROVE (ELECHUTEKA) 226 PA01324 FROSTY 167 PA00165 POTHOLE CITY (MISS PASADENA MERCOT GROVE) 227 PA01325 BIG BROWN 168 PA00166 WILLS HOMESTEAD (BOB SEAY GROVE) 228 PA01326 CATFISH HOLES QUARRY 169 PA00167 MCCA BE (LAKE KERSEY) 229 PA01327 ISLAND 170 PA00168 EVANS CREEK (SECOND CREEK) 230 PA01328 CRANES 171 PA00169 BAISDENS CREEK (HIMMELWRIGHT GROVE) 231 PA01329 BIG SINK 172 PA00171 OLD STILL 232 PA01330 PIDLEY 173 PA00172 POTTERY HILL 233 PA01331 RYALS HOMESTEAD 174 PA00173 CONGLETON 234 PA01332 CALLING CRANES 175 PA00174 A S HAWES GROVE 235 PA01333 KERSEY HOMESTEAD 176 PA00189 M & E TAYLOR 236 PA01334 LITTLE CORAL RUN QY. 177 PA00190 HANCOCK LAKE 237 PA01335 BIG CO RAL RUN QUARRY 178 PA00191 NUKED GROVE 238 PA01336 TREATMENT PLANT 179 PA00192 STAGECOACH LANDING 239 PA01337 HANDCART ROAD 180 PA00193 TURKEY TAIL 240 PA01340 HILLCREST PRESERVE #1 181 PA00194 SKUNK COW 241 PA01341 HILLCREST PRESERVE #2 182 PA00199 RED ROCK 242 PA01342 HILLCREST PRESERVE #3 183 PA00200 GATE 243 PA01343 HILLCREST PRESERVE #4 184 PA00201 PECKER TREE 244 PA01344 HILLCREST PRESERVE #5 185 PA00202 EGG HOLE 245 PA01345 HILLCREST PRESERVE #6 186 PA00203 CORAL HILL 246 PA01359 KING LAKE EAST CANOE
260 Appendix C. Archaeological Sites Identifie d in the Big Hammock Area (Continued) SITE ID SITE NAME SITE ID SITE NAME 247 PA01419 SPRING VALLEY 275 PA02356 Icing Site 248 PA01477 Southport Springs 276 PA02361 Silverado 1 249 PA02007 COMAS # 3 277 PA02362 Silverado 2 250 PA02008 COMAS # 4 278 PA02363 Silverado 3 251 PA02009 COMAS # 5 279 PA02364 Silverado 4 252 PA02010 COMAS # 6 280 PA02365 Silverado 5 253 PA02011 COMAS # 7 281 PA02366 Silverado 6 254 PA02014 Palm Cove #1 282 PA02367 Silverado 7 255 PA02015 Palm Cove #2 283 PA02368 Chapel Creek #1 256 PA02016 Palm Cove #3 284 PA02369 Chapel Creek #2 257 PA02017 Palm Cove #4 285 PA02393 Berry Hill Estates 1 258 PA02028 KING LAKE EAST 286 PA02394 Berry Hills Estates 2 259 PA02029 KING LAKE NORTH 287 PA02397 Town and Country 260 PA02030 KING LAKE SOUTH 288 PA02398 Centre Field 261 PA02031 CURLEY ROAD 289 PA02399 Around Town 262 PA02032 ELAM ROAD 290 PA02400 Front and Centre 263 PA02060 Six Turkeys 291 PA02401 Centre of Attention 264 PA02069 Old Pasco Road 292 PA02402 Going to Town 265 PA02079 Bellamy Lone Oak 293 PA02403 Town Fair 266 PA02106 Geiger Sink Site 294 CI01056 HISTORIC ONE 267 PA02139 Ashley Grove 1 295 CI00083 FLORAL CITY 10MI WEST 268 PA02140 Dick Lake South 296 CI00153 LIZZIE HART SINK 269 PA02141 Ashley Grove 2 297 CI00154 WITHLACOOCHEE STATE FOREST ROCK SHELTER 270 PA02142 Ashley Grove 3 298 CI00155 TOM CASON FLINT KNAPPING QUARRY 271 PA02143 Ashley Grove 3 299 CI00156 BRUSH SINK 272 PA02144 Ashley Grove 4 300 CI00157 WITHLACOOCHEE STATE FOREST QUARRY 273 PA02145 Dick Lake North 301 CI01111 BECK PRAIRIE 274 PA02151 Hammett 302 CI01221 Till Hill Citrus Tract Withlacoochee SF
261 Appendix D. Identified Archaeological Sites Located on Conservation Lands in the Big Hammock Area FMSF ID SITE NAME SITE TYPE 1 SITE TYPE 2 SITE TYPE 3 SITE TYPE 4 SITE TYPE 5 SITE TYPE 6 HE00276 MINING TOWN SITE Specialized site for procurement of raw materials Habitation (prehistoric) Historic earthworks Historic town Unknown Unspecified by the recorder HE00039 GORDON SPRATT FLINT KNAPPING QUARRY Lithic scatter/quarry (prehistoric: no ceramics) HE00261 HAMMOCK HILLS Building remains Habitation (prehistoric) Homestead No field investigation-reported by remote sensing Historic town HE00269 CHINSEGUT HILL Habitation (prehistoric) No field investigation-reported by remote sensing Historic town HE00277 MINING TOWN SITE/MINE Specialized site for procurement of raw materials Historic earthworks Historic town HE00299 BLUE SINK Habitation (prehistoric) No field investigation-reported by remote sensing Historic town HE00317 BIG PINE TRACT Unknown Unspecified by the recorder HE00318 BISHOP HOMESTEAD Building remains Homestead Landterrestrial Other Historic refuse Unknown HE00334 BAILEY HILL Homestead HE00532 Chinsequt WEA Unspecified by the recorder CI01056 HISTORIC ONE Farmstead Habitation (prehistoric) Landterrestrial Historic refuse Artifact scatter-low density ( < 2 per sq meter) Artifact scatterdense ( > 2 per sq meter) CI00083 FLORAL CITY 10MI WEST Lithic scatter/quarry (prehistoric: no ceramics) CI00153 LIZZIE HART SINK Lithic scatter/quarry (prehistoric: no ceramics) CI00154 WITHLACOOCHEE STATE FOREST ROCK SHELTER Cave or rockshelter CI00155 TOM CASON FLINT KNAPPING QUARRY Lithic scatter/quarry (prehistoric: no ceramics) CI00156 BRUSH SINK Lithic scatter/quarry (prehistoric: no ceramics) CI00157 WITHLACOOCHEE STATE FOREST QUARRY Lithic scatter/quarry (prehistoric: no ceramics) CI01111 BECK PRAIRIE Artifact scatter-dense ( > 2 per sq meter) CI01221 Till Hill Citrus Tract Withlacoochee SF Farmstead Land-terrestrial Other
262 Appendix D. Identified Archaeological Site s Located on Conservation Lands in the Big Hammock Area (Continued) FMSF ID SITE NAME CULTURE 1 CULTURE 2 CULTURE 3 CULTURE 4 CULTURE 5 CULTURE 6 SURVEY EVAL SHPO EVAL HE002 76 MINING TOWN SITE Nineteenth century American, 1821-1899 Twentieth century American, 1900-present Middle Archaic Historic Prehistoric with pottery SpanishAmerican War, 18981916 Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO HE000 39 GORDON SPRATT FLINT KNAPPING QUARRY Indeterminate Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO HE002 61 HAMMOCK HILLS SpanishAmerican War, 1898-1916 Insufficient Information Not Evaluated by SHPO HE002 69 CHINSEGUT HILL Statehood and Antebellum, 1845-1860 Insufficient Information Not Evaluated by SHPO HE002 77 MINING TOWN SITE/MINE SpanishAmerican War, 1898-1916 Insufficient Information Not Evaluated by SHPO HE002 99 BLUE SINK SpanishAmerican War, 1898-1916 Insufficient Information Not Evaluated by SHPO HE003 17 BIG PINE TRACT Prehistoric lacking pottery Unspecified on form by the recorder Not Evaluated by Recorder Insufficient Information HE003 18 BISHOP HOMESTEAD 19 th century American, 1821-1899 Prehistoric lacking pottery Unspecified on form by the recorder Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO HE003 34 BAILEY HILL 19 th century American, 1821-1899 Insufficient Information Not Evaluated by SHPO HE005 32 Chinsequt WEA Unspecified on form by the recorder Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO CI0105 6 HISTORIC ONE 19th century American, 1821-1899 American, 1821-present Ineligible for NRHP Not Evaluated by SHPO CI0008 3 FLORAL CITY 10MI WEST Prehistoric Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO CI0015 3 LIZZIE HART SINK Prehistoric Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO CI0015 4 WITHLACOOCHE E STATE FOREST ROCK SHELTER Prehistoric Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO CI0015 5 TOM CASON FLINT KNAPPING QUARRY Prehistoric Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO CI0015 6 BRUSH SINK Prehistoric Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO CI0015 7 WITHLACOOCHE E STATE FOREST QUARRY Prehistoric Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO CI0111 1 BECK PRAIRIE Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO CI0122 1 Till Hill Citrus Tract Withlacoochee SF 19th century American, 1821-1899 20th century American, 1900-present Not Evaluated by Recorder Not Evaluated by SHPO
About the Author Lori D. Collins is an Instructor in the A pplied Anthropology Program at the University of South Florida, where she teaches a variety of archaeology courses. She received her Masters of Arts in August 2002 at USF. He r thesis research focused on Historical Archaeology at Indian Key Historic State Pa rk. As a former environmental specialist and the Development of Regional Impact Coor dinator for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Ms. Collins ha s an extensive background in Florida environmental legislation and rules. She is the Co-coordinator of the Alliance for Integrated Spatial Technologies at USF, with interest in non-invasive documentation techniques in archaeology and heritage ma nagement. She has experience with threedimensional laser scanning, GPS, spatial tec hnologies, and GIS software and extensions. Ms. Collins is an executive board memb er and a co-founder of the Big Hammock Archaeological Foundation, Inc., a non-prof it corporation, devot ed to education, outreach, and preservation of na tural and cultural resources.