onset of pottery in the subsistence economy of …
TRANSCRIPT
ONSET OF POTTERY IN THE SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY OF PREHISTORIC
HUNTER-GATHERERS OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER VALLEY
By
SEAN P. CONNAUGHTON
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2004
Copyright 2004
by
Sean P. Connaughton
For John James Connaughton
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am eternally grateful to Ken Sassaman for the opportunities that he has bestowed
upon me since I was a neophyte sophomore at the University of Florida. Without his
insight, comments, encouragement, and the generous use of his figures and tables from
the 2003 Blue Spring report (see References), this thesis would have never come to
fruition. Copious appreciation goes to Michael Heckenberger for challenging me to ask
better questions in the anthropological arena. I tip my ball cap to Irv Quitmyer for his
instructiveness and assistance in observing my data set, and for offering the resources and
tools to quantify said data at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Many, many thanks
go to Meggan Blessing for her major contribution of vertebrate faunal analysis to this
thesis. Thanks must also go to the 2000 and 2001 St. Johns Archaeological Field School,
without whose effort in the dirt, none of this analysis would have been possible. I’d like
to recognize all my friends in the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology at the
University of Florida, for their support, discussions, comments, and companionship
during my time at UF. A most gracious “thank you” is warranted to Vijay Villavan for
his sincere help in formatting this thesis. I’d also like to acknowledge my close friends
through the years, who have always tended to me when I was down or frustrated, and
never stopped supporting me, and always took the time to listen. I thank them all.
Finally, I’d like to acknowledge my loving parents and two younger sisters, who have
always encouraged me in my endeavor of becoming an archaeologist.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1
Early Years ...................................................................................................................2 Subsistence ...................................................................................................................3 The Site and Environment ............................................................................................8 Summary.......................................................................................................................9
2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................10
Interpretive Sketch of Archaic Prehistory ..................................................................10 Early Archaic.......................................................................................................10 Middle Archaic....................................................................................................12 Mt. Taylor Period ................................................................................................16 Late Archaic and Orange Period .........................................................................17
Early Pottery ...............................................................................................................19 3 BLUE SPRING MIDDEN B (8VO43).......................................................................23
4 METHODS AND MATERIALS ...............................................................................37
Vertebrate Fauna.........................................................................................................37 Invertebrate Fauna ......................................................................................................40
5 RESULTS...................................................................................................................42
Variation in Fish Size .................................................................................................46 Standard Length..........................................................................................................48
vi
6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................51
Alternative Explanations ............................................................................................53 Future Study................................................................................................................56
APPENDIX A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA ...........................................................................57
B STANDARD LENGTH DATA .................................................................................66
LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................81
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................................90
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 4-1 Volume of Matrix from All Four Subsistence Columns ..........................................38
5-1 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Vertebrate Fauna by General Taxa and Component, Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43). .........................................................43
5-2 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Fish by General Taxa and Component, Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43)........................................................................................45
5-3 Descriptive Statistics of Lateral Atlas Width (mm) of Fishes from Cultural Components, 8VO43. ...............................................................................................47
5-4 Student t-Test Values on Lateral Atlas Widths of Fish from Cultural Components, 8VO43. .....................................................................................................................48
5-5 Descriptive Statistics for Standard Length (mm) of Fishes from Cultural Components..............................................................................................................49
A-1 The List of Taxonomic and Common Names ..........................................................57
A-2 MNI Count of Taxon as One Whole Assemblage....................................................59
A-3 MNI and NISP..........................................................................................................61
B-1 Modern Reference Measurements and Weights Taken from FLMNH Comparative Collection .................................................................................................................66
B-2 Atlas Width Measurements and Standard Length Calculations...............................68
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 3-1 Site map, Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43). .............................................................24
3-2 Stratigraphic drawing and photograph of north wall of Test Unit 1, 8VO43. .........26
3-3 Stratigraphic drawing and photograph of south wall of Test Unit 2, 8VO43. .........29
3-4 Stratigraphic drawing of north wall of Test Units 3 and 4, 8VO43.. .......................32
3-5 Stratigraphic drawings of all walls of Test Unit 5, 8VO43......................................34
ix
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts
ONSET OF POTTERY IN THE SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY OF PREHISTORIC HUNTER-GATHERERS OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER VALLEY
By
Sean P. Connaughton
May 2004
Chair: Kenneth E. Sassaman Major Department: Anthropology
I investigated changes in the subsistence economy of hunter-gatherers in Florida
accompanying the introduction of pottery. Data on vertebrate fauna from four
subsistence columns excavated from Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) in Volusia County,
Florida provide an opportunity to examine the economic consequences of the onset of
Orange fiber-tempered pottery. Since Orange fiber-tempered pottery is arguably some of
the oldest pottery in North America, dating to at least 4000 radiocarbon years before
present (rcybp), its presence in the archaeological record allows one to observe if any
change is evident in the subsistence record from preceramic cultures to ceramic cultures.
Questions to consider with the inception of pottery are (1) Were any species added to the
diet? (2) Were any species dropped from the diet? (3) Did the proportions of species
change? (4) Did the size of any species change? Focus is placed on technological change
and its implications for economic stress given the growing archaeological evidence for
x
increasingly intensive human occupation of sites in riverine and coastal zones throughout
the Southeastern United States as early as 5500 years ago (Brown 1985; Russo 1996).
Permanent settlements of these Middle Archaic populations appear to have been
predicated on the efficient use of aquatic resources (notably shellfish and fish) with
pottery historically being viewed as a subsistence technology that marks the innovation of
improved boiling techniques over nonceramic containers (Sassaman 1993:15).
Nevertheless, if no change is evident in the faunal assemblage through time at Blue
Spring Midden B, then alternative explanations must be proffered for the development
and adoption of a ceramic technology. Data presented here show no significant change in
the subsistence record with the inception of pottery. Alternative explanations for the
adoption of pottery, such as social intensification and ritual, need to be entertained.
1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
In this thesis I evaluate what changes in subsistence, if any, attended the onset of
pottery making and using in the middle St. Johns River Valley. It is important to discuss
the relationship between subsistence and technology in terms of scale and time. Do
technological advancements truly affect subsistence lifeways? Emphasis is placed on
resource selection, the frequency of resource use by human populations, and changes in
species size (if any) before and after the advent of pottery.
Shell middens are found along many of Florida’s major river systems and coastal
areas. Once thought to have been naturally occurring, shell middens are the subject of
ongoing debate regarding their cultural significance. Florida’s prehistoric human
occupation dates from about 11,000 years ago. Some 5,500 years ago, certain populations
began to establish relatively permanent settlement along the coast, and on the St. Johns
River. Intensive habitation of sites along the river and associated wetlands display
histories of repeated occupation on the same sites, leaving behind evidence in the
archaeological record: discarded remains of shellfish, fish and other food resources, along
with bone, shell and/or stone artifacts. Archaic peoples also began to inter their dead in
sites that would later be covered by massive piles of shellfish remains and earth.
Monumental in size, perhaps they marked the resting place of the dead and/or functioned
in a capacity to facilitate ritual and ceremony. By about 4000 B.P., some river-dwelling
groups began to make and use pottery. Human populations were also increasing in size
around this time, potentially dividing into several distinct ethnic groups, yet sharing
2
similar traditions of fishing, shell fishing, and mound building (Sassaman 2003b:7). The
accumulation of refuse and continual land use through time, along with mound
construction, was easily visible on the landscape at the time of contact, and intrigued
many early naturalists and antiquarians interested in the deep past of early Florida
inhabitants (Trigger 1987).
Early Years
John Bartram and his son William first ascended the St. Johns River in 1765.
John Bartram published an account of the journey, and made frequent mention of the
shell mounds or bluffs on which they camped. He wrote of the abundance of pottery
scattered around and within these mounds, yet he offered no explanation of their origin
(Wyman 1875). Bartram supposed the mounds to be of natural formation, perhaps
caused by wind. This view was typical to the profession in which John Bartram
practiced, for he was a naturalist. It was not until 100 years later that an archaeologist
from the Peabody Museum noticed the significance of these shell mounds.
Jeffries Wyman, having heard about these shell mounds, traveled down south and
stayed in L.P. Thursby’s home along the Blue Spring River in DeLand, Florida, to
investigate the shell midden on which the Thursby house was built. Wyman found the
bones of deer, opossum, turtle, and alligator. He also found chisels made of shell, with
the beak ground down and a hole in the back; along with bifaces and fragments of pottery
scattered throughout the mound (Wyman 1875). Wyman conducted limited excavations
in the area, and noted the stratigraphy, along with the vast amount of freshwater shellfish.
Wyman also described two species of snail, which today are known as the Banded
Mystery Snail (Viviparus georgianus) and the Applesnail (Pomacea paludosa). Jeffries
3
Wyman believed these mounds were the consequence of human consumption; a bold new
view, considering that he lived in the age of the Moundbuilder Myth.
Wyman’s work was influential to Clarence B. Moore, who did extensive shell
midden studies along the St. Johns River. Moore was particularly attentive to the stratum
of these shell middens, but concluded that stratification in the shell heaps to be a matter
of “accident.” Moore states,
The Aborigines doubtlessly made use of species of shellfish for the time being the most abundant, and such layers are of necessity local and not traceable throughout the entire heap. The condition of these shells often varies greatly in different portions of the same mound. At times, large quantities are found unbroken, without admixture of sand or loam and so loosely thrown together that they can be literally scooped from the hole. Again other portions of the mound are met with where fragments of shell and sandy loam are found in such close connection that a pickaxe is necessary. It is apparent, therefore that some parts of the shell heaps grew under the aborigines dwelling upon them, and were beaten down and made solid by the pressure of many feet for long periods of time, during which periods of refuse of organic matter mingled with shells. Other parts owe their existence to the dumping of masses of shell by natives not dwelling immediately upon them (Moore 1892:914).
Moore’s observation conveys images of subsistence practices, and alludes to the
possibility that all these middens housed populations. The issue of permanent settlement
is still an enigma today, for the evidence is not overwhelming (or rather, it is
inconspicuous). Nonetheless, Moore attempted to explain the existence of shell middens
as trash heaps, where the river inhabitants disposed of their refuse.
Subsistence
Cumbaa (1976) appears to be the first to quantify shellfish from the Archaic
period in the St. Johns River Valley. Cumbaa discussed shellfish as an energy base in his
report on Kimball Island in Lake County, Florida. He stated that shellfish collecting
would not be conducive to long-term sustainability; and that the proper caloric intake of
snails for one day to feed 13.4 individuals would require the collection of nearly 24,000
4
snails and an expenditure of 10-20 people hours (Cumbaa 1976:53). Comparatively, one
140 lb. white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is equitable in calories to 24,000 snails
(this estimation was based on a 3,000 calorie diet) (Cumbaa 1976:53). It can be inferred
that human populations who harvested snails this intensely would surely have to relocate,
for the snail populations could not replenish themselves quickly enough to sustain the
human population. Clearly, human populations were not exclusively consuming snails,
but rather supplementing snails into their daily diet. Russo et al. (1992:104) at Groves’
Orange Midden (8VO2601) used allometric calculations on shell weight to ascertain meat
weight for shellfish; revealing it as a major contributor to the faunal aspect of the diet,
representing 98% of the dietary meat weight, with fish making up a small contribution.
Wheeler and McGee (1994), conducting further research at 8VO2601, and using larger
samples than Russo et al. (1992), demonstrated that shellfish still dominated, but larger
proportions of fish and other aquatic vertebrates were also represented.
A recent study at Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) evaluated freshwater snail
exploitation, concluding that resource depression potentially occurred at the site
(Connaughton 2001). Resource depression is characterized by human populations
experiencing diminishing returns on their selected resources, and must either relocate or
intensify further (e.g., expand diet breadth, or improve subsistence technology). Data on
shellfish exploitation from Blue Spring Midden B displayed a decrease in mean apex
length of Viviparus georgianus from preceramic times to ceramic times (Connaughton
2001:18). This decrease in V. georgianus at 8VO43 may be a response to human over-
exploitation, whereby human populations were depleting their resources (aquatic snails)
before the snails could adequately replenish their own populations (Connaughton
5
2001:22). The result was diminished food potential for humans. If mobility was limited
within the St. Johns River Valley, and human populations were placing strain on their
aquatic resources, then it seems plausible that a new technology would be needed to
alleviate such stress. This leads to the possible origins of pottery.
A potential hypothesis for the advent of pottery is that it developed out of
subsistence stress. Pottery can be used to facilitate resource intensification, which is a
process by which the total production per areal unit of land is increased at the expense of
overall declines in return rates or foraging efficiency (Broughton 1999). This can be
viewed as an investment in labor time and energy, for the time spent procuring these
resources must be regained and exceeded in the consumption of resources. Otherwise,
populations will experience diminishing returns and must relocate or intensify further.
Harvest pressure on shellfish populations causes declines in mean size and age, which
can be quantified. Empirical evidence for over-exploitation has been documented in
many cultural settings (Cumbaa 1976; Broughton 1999). “Since age is also correlated
with size among species that continue to grow throughout life, such as fishes and
molluscs, increasing harvest rates can be indicated by decreases in mean size”
(Broughton 1999:16).
Was pottery the technology needed to extract more from the existing resource
base? It appears that with the onset of pottery came the decrease in shell size of
Viviparus through time. Initially pottery was a new technology for the addition of new
resources to the diet breadth. Pottery also appears to serve double duty in that as the
snails get smaller, pottery can facilitate resource intensification for the consumption of
these smaller snails and still get the nutrients from the snails.
6
If freshwater snails are getting smaller through time, will this subsistence trend
also be reflected in the vertebrate fauna with the onset of pottery? It is plausible that at
Blue Spring Midden B, no distinguishable change will be evident in the vertebrate
subsistence record, suggesting that pottery may not be as efficient (cooking wise) as it is
believed to be compared with nonceramic containers. Evidence that marine shells, such
as Busycon, were used as vessels for direct-heat cooking may lend insight into the
historical trajectory of pottery (Sassaman 2003b). Marine shells may have served as a
precursor to pottery whereby human populations who did not have access to marine
resources developed pottery as a response to the inability to acquire marine shell. Further
data are needed into this inquiry.
Florida sites with a significant accumulation of midden volume, such as the Old
Enterprise (8VO55), Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601), Lake Monroe Outlet Midden
(8VO53) and Harris Creek at Tick Island (8VO24), provide the opportunity to evaluate
long-term subsistence practice in the St. Johns River Valley (Quitmyer 2001). However,
detailed systematic studies of animal resource use and frequency in the archaeological
record are lacking (Quitmyer 2001:3). Although past research has been skewed in favor
of large mammals (e.g., white-tailed deer) and shellfish, recent data are conveying the
importance of fish as essential to the subsistence economy of fisher-hunter-gatherers in
the St. Johns region (Cumbaa 1976; Russo 1992; Wheeler and McGee 1994).
Cultural ecology weighs in heavily on subsistence practice given that cultures and
environments are part of the total web of life (Steward 1955). Resource utilization is
purported by Steward to be more strongly related to environmental conditions rather than
other cultural phenomena, so characteristics associated with subsistence and economics,
7
especially technological ones constitute the cultural core, that is, resources of specific
habitats should be the focus in order to identify subsistence and demographic patterns
that influence sociopolitical relationships (Reitz and Wing 1999:14). Steward assumed
that significant regularities exist in cultural development and ecological adaptation was
critical for determining the limits of variation in cultural systems (Trigger 1989:291).
Furthermore, Steward claimed common features of cultures can be explained at similar
levels of development rather than as unique, historical trajectories. Steward’s perspective
was an explicitly materialistic view of human behavior that made aware the role played
by ecological factors in shaping prehistoric societies (Trigger 1989:279). However,
historical trajectories do matter when dealing with human populations, for explanations
of why certain groups embody certain social elements and technological achievements
when compared to others groups may not be in part to their mental capabilities but could
possibly be a social or ideological reason, for example, resistance (Sassaman 2001a).
In recent decades archaeologists focusing on subsistence, particularly in Florida,
are evaluating the idea of monumentality, with implications for ritual feasting (Aten
1999; Russo 1994; Russo 1996b). The idea is that food processing and consumption
patterns may possibly differ at domestic sites and mound sites and future subsistence data
will help resolve such issues. Seasonal use, ecological circumstances, and sociopolitical
alliances can potentially be inferred from better understanding how subsistence activities
correlate with social action. Even more so, if subsistence demonstrates no significant
change over time in the St. Johns River Valley then more rigorous modes of inquiry must
be employed, such as attention to microstratigraphy and other fine-grained contexts,
8
along with multiple scales of comparison, to expose this hidden variation (Sassaman
2003b:6).
The Site and Environment
Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) in Volusia County, DeLand, Florida is situated
between the eastern bank of the St. Johns river and the southern bank of Blue Spring Run
just north of the site. A lagoon sits juxtaposed to the southwest end of the site having
developed from the St. Johns river. It is a state park equipped with picnic tables, a
playground, restrooms and a boardwalk that runs the length of the run.
Archaeological investigations at Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) were conducted
by the St. Johns Archaeological Field School of the Department of Anthropology at the
University of Florida. Two field seasons were conducted to map, core and perform
subsurface testing under the Thursby House to collect data on the size and extent of the
midden itself and any nearby midden deposits. Since the Thursby House was scheduled
to have its pier foundations repaired, thus damaging the underlying midden, the first field
school in 2000 focused on midden underneath the house. Two 2 x 2-m test units (TU 1 &
TU 2) on the south and north side of the house respectively, revealed two distinct
stratigraphic sequences only 16-m apart from one another. At the request of State Park
officials, another test unit was opened at a site deemed to be the location of a Wastewater
Treatment Area (WWTA) and revealed a shell midden, largely preceramic in age,
beneath one meter of alluvial sand. WWTA, a 1 x 2-m unit, is located southwest of the
Thursby House, towards the lagoon. The 2001 field season focused on better
understanding the uncertain relationship between TU 1 and TU 2 as well as the extent of
buried midden discovered in WWTA. Two 1 x 2-m test units (TU 3 & TU 4) were
opened on the west side only of TU 2. Another 1 x 2-m test unit (TU 5) was opened
9
equidistant from the Thursby House and the Wastewater Treatment Area. Ground
penetrating radar (GPR) was employed to help locate stratigraphic signatures containing
data relevant to the above concerns. Excavation was done with trowel and shovel in 10-
inch arbitrary levels and processed through ¼-inch waterscreens. Column samples were
removed in 10-cm intervals within defined natural stratigraphy from all test units except
TU 3 and processed through 1/8-inch waterscreens. Bulk samples were taken from
column levels and the remaining fill was passed through 1/8-inch waterscreens.
Summary
The relationship between pottery and the subsistence economy at Blue Spring
Midden B is uncertain; this goes for the greater St. Johns River Valley as well. Pottery,
being a subsistence technology, is expected to have an effect on the subsistence diet, but
to what degree is unknown? For this reason, vertebrate fauna are empirically evaluated
and quantified to observe if changes are evident with the onset of pottery. If no
significant changes exist, then alternative explanations, such as the use of pottery in ritual
practice need to be explored.
10
CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND
Interpretive Sketch of Archaic Prehistory
Archaic prehistory in the Southeastern U.S. can be divided into three subperiods,
(Early, Middle and Late) and is highlighted by a shift in mobility and settlement patterns,
from foraging hunter-gatherers to semi-sedentary groups with emphasis placed on lithic
and ceramic technology as well as cultural elaboration through modes such as shell
middens and long-distance trade (Jefferies 1996; Goggin 1998). Although a fishing-
hunting-gathering lifestyle was generally followed by all Archaic peoples, any changes in
lifestyle from earlier Paleo-Indian peoples to the Archaic populations coincides, on some
level, with the environmental shifts and developing changes in vegetation and the
fluctuation of sea level having an effect on present day shorelines and lake shores as well
as the aquifers which control the flow of rivers and streams. Undoubtedly, the
environment had an effect on human behavior yet it was not the only factor that
contributed to human cultural signatures left on the landscape.
Early Archaic
Early Archaic (10,000-7000 B.P.) (Sassaman 2003b) people began to be recognized
as culturally different from their Paleoindian predecessors around 10,000 B.P., coinciding
with the onset of generally less arid conditions than the preceding period (Milanich 1994;
Watts et al. 1996). It is speculated that much of the Early Archaic vegetation in the
greater Southeastern U.S. consisted of oak forests and oak-dominated scrub with a low
diversity in overall woody species with the occasional openings dominated by herbs or
11
prairie (Watts et al. 1996). Watering holes or access to freshwater sources were probably
limited to substantially deep lakes since the water table was considerably lower and the
rate of precipitation is believed to be less than today, whereby evaporation allowed for a
slow recharge of the water table (Watts et al. 1996). Thus, given the lack of surface
water, humans would have been inclined to live close to cenotes, along the shores of what
are today deep lakes or river banks, as well as along the major river systems (Watts et al.
1996). Consequently, with the warming and drying period that would soon follow during
the Middle Archaic in the lower Southeast, it is quite possible that many of these Early
Archaic sites are currently buried under lake deposits (e.g., Crescent Lake, FL) as well as
shorelines (Sassaman 2003c). Nevertheless, material remains of these Early Archaic
people are recovered and display a transition from lanceolate technology to stemmed
projectile points across the Southeast, with emphasis on side-notching and corner-
notching (Milanich 1994). Pottery is not associated with these early people, but worked
bone, awls, pins and antler projectiles have been found (Goggin 1998). Subsistence is
characterized by hunting, fishing and gathering, with all big-game Pleistocene fauna gone
by 10,000 B.P. A shift in subsistence practice is evident in the initial accumulation of
shellfish and diversification of species, yet this would not be further developed until more
stable, riverine-environmental conditions prevailed; thus the subsistence pattern is
speculated to have undergone initial changes from a nomadic Paleoindian strategy to the
more semi-settled coastal and riverine sites associated regimes of the Middle Archaic
(Milanich 1994; Goggin 1998). More data are needed however, for very little
information is available concerning the range of plants and animals utilized by Early
Archaic peoples (Smith 1986). Early Archaic sites are found with Paleoindian sites and
12
the distribution of Early Archaic land sites and artifacts is greater than that of Paleo-
Indian materials. Early Archaic populations appear to be moving between the Atlantic
Coast and the St. Johns and Central Highland, but the evidence is not sufficient to support
this claim. This is potentially a product of inundation and sampling survey. Therefore,
questions concerning mobility and settlement patterns are in desperate need of more data.
Sites have been found to contain hearths, middens, burials and processing areas but no
signs of long-term investment or labor in the form of structures or monuments have been
evident (Milanich 1994).
Middle Archaic
The Middle Archaic (7000-5000 B.P.) (Sassaman 2003b) period in the
Southeastern U.S. is demarcated by the post-glacial reduction in sea level provoking
braided streams to become meandering rivers, the onset of wetland expansion, pine and
swamp vegetation replacing oak and herb vegetation, and a general trend toward
warming and drying known as the Altithermal. This change in the environmental setting
took about 3000 years to be fully completed in the greater Southeast (Brown 1985;
Schuldenrein 1996; Watts et al. 1996). Middle Archaic sites are found in a variety of
locations including riverine and lagoonal sites. Moreover, lithic technology associated
with these new sites suggest changes in projectile point style and signal new traditions
across space and time (Milanich 1994) Caves and rockshelters, in Alabama, Tennessee
and Kentucky for example, were being occupied more intensely than the previous period
as habitation sites and added to the diversity of special-use sites and central-base
settlements relative to seasonality and human territoriality (Brown 1983; Milanich 1994).
Within the Southeast, interior riverine and upland sites become more densely occupied as
fluvial systems became more stable and productive for aquatic resources, particularly the
13
intense exploitation of freshwater shellfish and the intentional mounding of shell
(Cumbaa 1976; Claassen 1991; Claassen 1996; Russo 1996b; Sassaman 2003b).
Shell middens marked the inception of the Shell Mound Archaic (SMA). The
SMA is a cultural manifestation of mounded shell, some containing burials some not,
prevalent across the Southeast along major rivers (e.g., Tennessee, Green, Savannah &
St. Johns) and wetlands and lasting for about 6000 years (Claassen 1996). The copious
amounts of shell middens located along the St. Johns River clearly attest to the use of
shellfish by Middle Archaic hunter-gatherers (Sassaman 2003b:11). This intensification
of shellfishing and potential ceremonialism breeds contentious debate among scholars as
whether “mounding” was intentional or rather the simple discarding of shell onto a
cumulative refuse garbage-mound (Russo 1994). Evidently, environmental conditions
were primed for Middle Archaic populations to opportunistically exploit abundant
shellfish adding to the diet breadth and broadening their predation pattern in the face of
shrinking human territories (Claassen 1996). With populations increasing and expanding,
cultural boundaries were being created and distinct ethnic groups appear to be leaving
their mark on landscape (Claassen 1996; Jefferies 1996; Marquardt 1985; Russo 1994;
Russo 1996b; Sassaman 1996). Shellfish proved to be a bountiful and reliable resource
that it is considered to have been a staple product providing a foundation base for
sedentism and the development of social complexity (Russo 1994). Curiously, some of
the most productive shell beds in the Southeastern United States were not as intensively
exploited as other sources, leading archaeologists to infer other conclusions about why
shellfish was exploited and then mounded (Claassen 1991; Claassen 1996). Shell midden
sites do display repeated occupation through time and some scholars infer that they could
14
possibly be sedentary villages; however, it is more likely they were inhabited seasonally
as part of a residential mobility strategy (Russo 1994; Claassen 1996). But why would
shell middens be continually reoccupied? Is it purely subsistence economics? Or does
social/cultural ideology play a role?
Human populations and the culture in which they exist are filled with substance.
The essence of who they are is revealed in how they behave—in what they make, teach,
cherish, build and use. These representations are perpetuated through time and “can be
objectively “regulated” and “regular”…collectively orchestrated without being the
product of the orchestrating action of a conductor” (Bourdieu 1977:72). This is not to
imply a lack of social sophistication among Archaic people, but rather their beliefs are
structured and practiced through what Bourdieu would call the “habitus”—ideas,
thoughts and beliefs learned and reiterated generation to generation via human action.
Social action may potentially be inculcated onto the landscape in differing modes of
practice but with a common ideological template, that is, mundane daily subsistence
practice may differ from ritualize practice in form and function of technology and land
use. Archaeological sites may hold the potential to distinguish such modes of action by
observing domestic sites with utilitarian material objects from ritual or ceremonial sites
with highly decorated material objects. Therefore, shell midden sites of the Archaic may
quite possibly be the result of ancient human populations’ acting out their ideological
belief system, imbuing symbolic meaning onto the landscape via shell mounds. Hofman
(1985:2) suggested that groups’ rituals and aggregations may have been important
elements in the formation of shell midden sites in the Southeast and may account, in part,
for their recurrent occupation. Hofman believed that aggregation can not only serve
15
economic needs but also social and ideological functions. At the Ervin shell midden in
Tennessee, Hofman uncovered burials, particularly, cremated bodies with no evidence of
in situ burning. Among the burials were “diagnostic artifacts and overlapping interments
attributable to a single cultural tradition indicating the cemetery or a single lineage or
descent group may be represented” (Hofman 1985:9). Over periods of time these
populations would make seasonal trips to bury cremated bodies, thus reiterating their
ideologies as well as enculturating their youth into cultural practices and potentially
reaffirming social ties to neighboring groups who take part in the ceremonies.
Although evidence for intentional mounding in the Archaic is mounting, there is
opposition which firmly believes that Archaic peoples had neither the social organization
nor power to carry out such elaborate constructions (Hamilton 1999). Frankly, the fact
people are mounding shell instead of earth creates tension for it is considered more labor
intensive to mound earth than shell (food byproduct)—requiring organization (Russo
1994; Hamilton 1999). Evolutionary concepts have been used to explain the inception of
midden building. Hamilton (1999:344) asserted that the construction of mound building
“will occur in temporally variable environments” whereby human populations will divert
energy into activities that do not contribute directly to the biological reproduction of
offspring in order to maintain stable populations and increase survival rates during lean
times of environmental and resource instability. Although the Middle Archaic period did
undergo environmental change, its trajectory was toward present-day conditions
(Schuldenrein 1996). The implication that Middle Archaic populations engaged in
mound building as “wasteful behavior” to preclude them from copulating and placing
pressure on the group size to alleviate ecological stress seems unlikely given what we
16
know about hunter-gatherer complexity (Hayden 1994; Lourandos 1995). Hamilton
(1999) insinuates an inability for Archaic peoples to organize themselves, lacking the
social power to control or motivate people, while ignoring historical processes at play.
Evidently, large-scale public works can be built under the direction of related and socially
allied groups, not just high levels of social complexity (Russo 1994). Sedentism is not
necessary for monumental construction, although archaeological observation conveys a
trend towards sedentism during the Middle Archaic, it is nevertheless plausible that
mobile human populations would use adaptive strategies for resource locations, thus,
investing effort into frequented locales, along with increases in length of occupation
seasonally, facilitating that trash be cleaned and possibly organized in the construction of
symbolic/cultural markers across the landscape via shell mounds (Brown and Vierra
1983:188).
Mt. Taylor Period
The Mt. Taylor period is comprised of the late Middle and preceramic Late
Archaic period defined as an archaeological construct derived from the Mt. Taylor site of
Volusia County signaling the beginnings of shellfishing and mortuary mounding (Goggin
1952; Milanich 1994; Wheeler et al. 2000). The date for the beginning of Mt. Taylor
culture is uncertain but evidence for adequate resources suggests that the St. Johns River
could have supported local populations by 6000 years ago and maybe longer (Milanich
1994; Wheeler et al. 2000:154). Mt. Taylor peoples focused heavily on aquatic resources
and sites are concentrated along the upper reaches of the St. Johns River and on the
Atlantic Coast. Although settlement pattern information is lacking, most Mt. Taylor
period sites are characterized by ovoid or elliptical midden-mound and/or ridges of shell
midden (Wheeler et al. 2000). Multicomponent sites, such as The Old Enterprise Site
17
(8VO55) and Harris Creek at Tick Island (8VO24) display large shell mounds with
adjacent shell ridges and shell fields (Wheeler et al. 2000:143). Material culture
associated with these sites demonstrates the practice of long-distance exchange as a
mechanism for redistribution of raw materials, particularly marine shell (e.g. Strombus
gigas and Busycon spp.) found in Mt. Taylor assemblages. Marine shell tools were used
for a variety of functions such as implements for wood working, in the form of shell celts
and cutting-edge tools, as well as shell receptacles (i.e., bowls, cups, etc.) (Wheeler et al.
2000:148). It is interesting to point out that with the onset of pottery at Blue Spring
Midden B, marine shell tools drop out of the archaeological record. Worked and
decorated bone is also recovered from Mt. Taylor sites along with groundstone artifacts,
shark tooth implements and baked clay objects. Mt. Taylor burials reveal the interment
of the dead in prepared sand platforms on shell mounds (Aten 1999). Some burials have
been located in shallow ponds dating to the Early Archaic period, and seem to be a
precursor to Mt. Taylor times. Overall, the artifact assemblage recovered from these sites
of Mt. Taylor culture appear very similar between coastal sites and riverine sites,
suggesting that populations of Mt. Taylor culture could have potentially originated on the
Atlantic coast and traveled seasonally to the St. Johns Basin (Wheeler et al. 2000:155).
Late Archaic and Orange Period
The Late Archaic period (5000-2500 B.P.) (Sassaman 2003b) is the cultural
manifestation of social reproduction and continuity stemming from the preceding Middle
Archaic period. Intentional shell mounding continued as did a fishing, hunting and
gathering lifestyle. A new technology emerged in the form of Orange fiber-tempered
pottery (4200 B.P.) which is believed to have increased cooking efficiency as well as
serving needs, promoting variations in style that reflected growing cultural diversity
18
(Bullen 1972) . However, little change is evident in the lifeways of Late Archaic peoples
with the onset of pottery (Milanich 1994:86). Orange fiber-tempered pottery is found
throughout northeast Florida and is easily identified by its temper of plant fiber, usually
palmetto fiber or Spanish moss (Milanich 1994:86). Bullen (1972) divided Orange
pottery into five distinct subperiods based on form, paste and decoration. Orange 1 is
characterized by hand modeled, flat-bottomed and rectangular shaped vessels with plain
surface treatment. Orange 2 is similar in form to Orange 1 but with the appearance of
incised designs akin to vessels found at Tick Island. Orange 3 is demarcated by rounded
vessels with flat bottoms and rims that are thick and flanged. Incised designs are still
common. Coiling is evident in Orange 4 as well as the appearance of sand-temper in the
paste, incised motifs persist. Orange 5 displays sandy and chalky pastes with bowl forms
predominating. Although Bullen’s unilineal sequence has in the past been very useful,
new AMS dates on Orange Incised demonstrate that plain vessels and decorated vessels
in the Orange 1-3 sequences are virtually coeval (Sassaman 2003a). More data are
needed to sufficiently explain what is taking place but knowing that these sites and
ceramic vessels are contemporaneous opens the door for future inquiry on functional or
ethnic difference.
During the Late Archaic period, groundwater levels continued to increase and so
too did wetland expansion, reaching present day conditions. Interior riverine valleys
increased in occupancy as did coastal sites, whereby shellfish exploitation intensively
continued, yet permanent habitation is still lacking. Site types were essentially the same
in the Late Archaic period as they were in the Middle Archaic period except that they
were probably occupied for longer periods of time in the Late Archaic. Artifact
19
assemblages, with the exception of pottery, are very much the same as that of the
previous period. However, one pattern is observed in the archaeological record of the St.
Johns region with the inception of pottery.
As pottery increases in frequency, marine shell decreases in frequency; interesting
since marine shell tools were common to Mt. Taylor assemblages found through out the
middle St. Johns (Wheeler et al. 2000). What is important to note is that the preceramic
levels contain these marine shell tools and that marine shell does not show up in the
Orange component. Why is this so? It appears that transhumance travel between the
coast and river valley ceased with the onset of pottery and that populations could possibly
have had no need to travel to the coasts for food or other resources. Semi-permanent
settlement patterns potentially could have commenced during Mt. Taylor times with more
emphasis being placed on interriverine mobility and decreases in the frequency of travel
between the coast and middle St. Johns with the onset of the Orange period.
Future research on settlement patterns are needed and will greatly aid in facilitating
our understanding of this issue. Nevertheless, the Late Archaic, comprised of
millenniums of cultural traditions and trajectories, is marked by larger populations, semi-
sedentary villages and the development of regionalization that continued through time.
With the aid of more study and research being concentrated in the Late Archaic
Southeast, it is feasible that levels of social complexity and diversity will be ascertained,
allowing for better questions to be asked of such a little known era of human history.
Early Pottery
The earliest ceramic technology in the Southeastern United Sates appeared during
the Late Archaic (5000-2500 B.P.) and was initially situated in three locales: the South
Atlantic Slope, peninsular Florida (particularly the St. Johns River) and the Midsouth
20
(Sassaman 1993). The invention of pottery is thought to have derived from variants of a
preexisting container form or the transfer of clay linings to stand-alone form in the
Midwest between 4500 and 2500 B.P. (Brown 1989:203). These early vessels were
typically fiber-tempered although some were sand-tempered along the eastern seaboard.
The earliest pottery tradition in the Southeast is Stallings, which dates from 4500 B.P. in
the Savannah River. The early form of Stallings pottery is “shallow, open bowls with
slightly rounded or flattened bottoms” and straight or incurvate rims (Sassaman 1993:19).
Manufacturing techniques included pinching, slab modeling and coiling; surface
treatments are distinguished by punctated, incised, stamped and plain. Stone-boiling is
associated with early Stallings wares and it was once thought soapstone vessels were the
technological precursors of pottery in the Savannah River Valley. It is now evident that
pottery did indeed precede soapstone vessel technology and that soapstone vessel use
may be a form of social resistance to fiber-tempered pottery (Sassaman 1993).
In Florida, Orange fiber-tempered pottery appears in the archaeological record by
4000 B.P. and continues through until 3000 B.P. when it was replaced by sand and fiber-
tempered, limestone-tempered and most notably St. Johns sand-tempered (Milanich
1994; Goggin 1998; Sassaman 2003b). Orange pottery is characterized by shallow, flat-
based and straight sided circular bowls and rectangular trays with thin walls. Although
Bullen (1954) provided a cultural-historical sequence for Orange pottery from initial
plain wares to highly decorated motif wares covering a time span of 1000 years, new data
is challenging this notion which would place the variation of pottery to be coeval
manifestations rather than unilineal changes over time (Sassaman 2003a).
21
Early pottery appears to have functioned as an alternative container to indirect heat
cooking given the common element of flat-based bottoms suited ideally for stone boiling
or roasting perhaps. Interestingly, the emergence of pottery in the Southeastern U.S. as a
technological innovation added to the hunter-gatherer economy conveys no evident
change in subsistence organization (Sassaman 1995:223). That is, no apparent change in
the subsistence diet of hunter-gatherers is noted with the onset of pottery. Pottery in
peninsular Florida has been associated with massive shellfish exploitation (Wyman 1875;
Moore 1892; Milanich 1994; Goggin 1998). This is true for most sites in the Southeast
located near riverine environments; however in some areas shellfishing predates pottery
(Sassaman 1995). Nevertheless, techno-functional variation among pottery form in the
St. Johns Basin must be addressed to ascertain functions relative to cooking, storing
and/or serving but also the social relationship that pottery had with domestic sites and
ritual/ceremonial sites (i.e., plain vessels versus decorated vessels).
Evidence for feasting becomes apparent when emphasis is placed on the designs
and shapes of serving vessels as well as where these types of vessels are situated
archaeologically. If orifice diameters and ornamentations are more prevalent regionally
on large shell middens with burials as opposed to household floors, this could potentially
indicate a different use and symbolic meaning of these vessels. Blitz (1993) observed
that when comparing mound material elements with village elements, the mound was a
more focused site of specialized activities centered on rituals, feasts and storage.
Moreover, the “generation of food surpluses need not be a demographic or environmental
imperative but rather a social strategy to extend alliances, reinforce obligations and
promote prestige” (Blitz 1993:80). Although this is a Mississippian example, it can be
22
agreed, on some level, that the cultural continuity and social reproduction observed in the
Mississippian period is potentially the product of earlier pottery traditions in the
Southeast. Ultimately then, pottery development and use may potentially be centered on
serving practices and rituals as an alternative to technofunctional efficiency.
23
CHAPTER 3 BLUE SPRING MIDDEN B (8VO43)
Blue Spring Midden B, or 8VO43, is a shell midden site located at Blue Spring
State Park in Volusia County, Florida. It is considered a shell midden site due to the vast
amount of inedible shellfish remains that have accumulated over time as the result of
dumping episodes by human populations. A part of the site is situated beneath the 19th-
century Thursby House. Proposed repairs to the foundation of the Thursby House
required State Park officials to assess potential impacts to the underlying shell deposits.
This thesis is based on data derived from excavations of the 2000 and 2001 University of
Florida St. Johns Field School . This chapter focuses on the stratigraphic sequences of
the column samples observed in four of the six test units excavated at Blue Spring
Midden B.
Before the 2000 field excavation no information on the depth of this site was
recorded, nor was the site ever mapped. From the existing literature it was thought that
8VO43 was no more than 100 x 100m and centered on the Thursby House. Figure 3-1
shows how extensive the site actually is due to subsurface testing with a 4-inch bucket
auger. Shell-bearing deposits from the surface to depths as great as 1.5-m were recorded
in all cores near the Thursby House and along the western slope (Sassaman 2003:23).
Orange period shell midden is prevalent underneath and adjacent to the Thursby House.
At the request of State Park officials, some site deemed to be the location of a new
Wastewater Treatment Facility was tested and revealed a shell midden, largely
24
Figure 3-1. Site map, Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) (dashed line demarcates site boundary). Map courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.
preceramic in age, beneath one meter of alluvial sands (Sassaman 2003b). This
discovery enhanced our knowledge of the range size of the site as 300-m long and 140-m
wide, encompassing most of the landform between the southern lagoon and the Blue
Spring run to the north. Six test units were excavated from 8VO43, two 2 x 2-m units
(TU 1 & TU 2) and four 1 x 2-m units (TU 3, TU 4, TU 5 & WWTA).
To reiterate again, all excavation was done with trowel and shovel in 10-inch
arbitrary levels and processed through ¼-inch waterscreens. A 50 x 50-cm column
25
sample was removed in 10-cm intervals within defined natural stratigraphy from all test
units except TU 3 and processed through 1/8-inch waterscreens. Bulk samples were
taken from column levels and the remaining fill was passed through 1/8-inch
waterscreens.
Test Unit 1 (TU 1), situated along the south elevation of the Thursby House, was a
2 x 2-m unit. In the northwest corner of the test unit a 50 x 50-cm column was left
standing until sterile sands were observed and then the column sample was removed.
Overall, TU 1 displays a relatively uncomplicated profile of shell midden about 120 cm
deep overlying sterile sands (Figure 3-2). Five major stratigraphic units were observed,
representative of at least three ethnostratigraphic units, including the historic era
(Sassaman 2003b:26).
Strata I and II of TU 1 in the north profile are distinguished by discontinuous
lenses of silty sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod and bivalve shells. Plain
fiber-tempered pottery is intermixed with historic-era artifacts (Sassaman 2003b).
However, no historic-era artifacts were observed below 40 cm below surface. Stratum III
is comprised a 40-cm thick homogeneous midden of silty sand with moderate density of
Viviparus shell and plain fiber-tempered pottery representing an intact ethnostratum of
Orange cultural affiliation (Sassaman 2003b:26). Stratum IV reflects a 45-cm thick
preceramic component of the site marked by homogenous midden of fine sand with an
increase in apple snail and charcoal compared to Stratum III with marine shell tools, bone
pin fragments and traces of chert. A single plain fiber-tempered sherd was recovered
26
Figure 3-2. Stratigraphic drawing and photograph of north wall of Test Unit 1, 8VO43.
Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.
27
Table 3-1 Stratigraphic Units of North Profile of Test Unit 1, 8VO43. Max. Depth Munsell Stratum (cm BS) Color Description I 25 10YR2/2-4/1 surface stratum of silty sand midden with whole and crushed
gastropod and lenses of bivalve shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts
II 40 10YR4/1 silty sand with lenses of charcoal and 10YR5/4 silty sand;
plain fiber-tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts; delineated clearly on north profile only
III 80 10YR4/3-5/2 homogeneous midden of silty sand with moderate density of
gastropod shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery IV 125 10YR3/2-4/2 homogeneous midden of fine sand with increased apple snail
and charcoal over Stratum III; includes marine shell tools, bone pin fragments, and traces of chert, but no pottery; C14 assay of 4360 ± 120 rcybp
V 165 10YR6/4-7/3 sterile fine sand with flecks of charcoal in upper 10-15 cm;
terminated at 165 cm BS Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman. from Level J (90-100 cmbs) but that represented the only pottery recovered from Stratum
IV. Charcoal from the base of Stratum IV was carbon-dated and returned an assay of
4360 ± 120 rcybp approaching the beginning of the Orange period as currently dated
(Sassaman 2003b:30). Stratum V is marked by yellow-brown to pale-brown fine sterile
sand with charcoal flecking in the upper 10-15 cm but otherwise represents the basal sand
on which the midden accumulated. Excavation ceased at 165 cm below surface.
Test Unit 2 (TU 2), situated along the north elevation of the Thursby House, was a
2 x 2-m unit. A 50 x 50-cm column samples was cut into the south wall profile since the
initial column sample, which was left standing in the southeast corner, collapsed.
Stratigraphy in TU 2 is far more complex when compared to TU 1 and displays thirteen
discrete stratigraphic units as well as three ethnostratigraphic units, including the historic
era (Figure 3-3) (Sassaman 2003b). Plain fiber-tempered pottery was recovered
28
throughout TU 2, and although it was not abundant, it was distributed much more deeply
than TU 1 (Sassaman 2003b).
Stratum I consists of fine sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod and
minor bivalve shell with plain fiber-tempered intermixed with historic-era artifacts.
Historic-era artifacts are interspersed throughout the 40-cm thick stratum with some
penetrating to 65-cm below surface however, at 40-cm below the midden is relatively
undisturbed and highly differentiated (Sassaman 2003b:35). Stratum II reveals charcoal-
rich fine sand with whole gastropod. Stratum III too has whole gastropod shells in a fine
sandy matrix with minor lenses of crushed shell, including Pomacea (Apple Snail).
Stratum IV is fine sandy matrix with a lower frequency in whole gastropods. Stratum V
is a discontinuous lens of charcoal-rich fine sand. A carbon-14 assay of 3510 ± 70 rcybp
was returned from this level. Stratum Va is fine sand with moderate gastropod shell.
Stratum VI contains burned and crushed gastropod shell and bivalve shell in an ashy sand
matrix. Strata VIa and VIb revealed discontinuous lens of finely crushed and burned
shell while strata VII and VIIa have finely crushed shell in a fine sand matrix. Stratum
VIII and IX is fine sandy matrix, slightly ashy with moderate whole gastropods. Stratum
X is comprised of fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropods and charcoal. A C-
14 assay of 3730 ± 40 rcybp was returned on charcoal from this level. Stratum XI has
fine sandy matrix with diminished whole gastropod shell but increased Pomacea and
marine shell fragments and tools; there was no pottery recovered. Stratum XII and XIII
beginning at 140 cmbs is sterile fine sand and sterile basal clay, respectively.
29
Figure 3-3. Stratigraphic drawing and photograph of south wall of Test Unit 2, 8VO43.
Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.
30
Table 3-2. Stratigraphic Units of North Profile of Test Unit 2, 8VO43. Max. Depth Munsell Stratum (cm BS) Color Description I 40 5YR2/2 surface stratum of fine sand midden with whole and crushed
gastropod and minor bivalve shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts
II 45 2.5YR2/0 charcoal-rich fine sand with whole gastropod; plain fiber-
tempered pottery III 54 10YR2/2 abundant whole gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix with
minor lenses of crushed shell, including apple snail; plain fiber-tempered pottery
IV 61 10YR3/2 fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropod shell; plain
fiber-tempered pottery V 61 10YR2/1 discontinuous lens of charcoal-rich fine sand; plain fiber-
tempered pottery; C14 assay of 3510 ± 70 rcybp Va 58 7.5YR3/2 fine sand with moderate whole gastropod shell; plain fiber-
tempered pottery VI 70 10YR4/2 burned and crushed gastropod and bivalve shell in ashy sand
matrix; plain fiber-tempered pottery VIa 65 10YR6/1 discontinuous lenses of finely crushed and burned shell; plain
fiber-tempered pottery VIb 66 10YR4/1 discontinuous lens of finely crushed and burned shell; plain
fiber-tempered pottery VII 72 10YR3/3 finely crushed shell in fine sand matrix; plain fiber-tempered
pottery VIIa 74 7.5YR4/4 finely crushed shell and charcoal in fine sand matrix; plain
fiber-tempered pottery VIII 84 10YR3/2 fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropod shell; plain
fiber-tempered pottery IX 99 10YR4/2 fine sandy and ashy matrix with moderate whole gastropod
shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery X 120 10YR3/4 fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropod shell and
charcoal; plain fiber-tempered pottery; C14 assay of 3730 ± 40 rcybp
XI 138 10YR3/2 fine sandy matrix with diminished whole gastropod shell but
increased apple snail and marine shell fragments and tools; no pottery
XII 140 10YR5/3 sterile fine sand Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.
31
Test Unit 4 (TU 4) situated to the west of TU 2 was a 1 x 2-m unit. A 50 x 50-cm
column sample was removed from the north wall of this unit (Figure 3-4). A large pit
designated as Feature 7 and a smaller pit designated as Feature 12 were both observed at
the base of TU 4. Hickory nutshell was recovered from Feature 7 and carbon-dated
returning an AMS assay of 3780 ± 50 rcybp (Sassaman 2003b:43). Plain fiber-tempered
pottery was recovered throughout the entire test unit (Table 3-3).
Strata I, II & III consisted of fine sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod
and minor bivalve shell with both prehistoric and historic-era artifacts interspersed
throughout. The 36-cm thick Stratum IVa revealed abundant whole gastropod shell with
a high frequency of fish bone and charcoal flecking, while Stratum IVb displayed
abundant whole, crushed and burned gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix. Stratum V
contained whole and crushed gastropod shell while Stratums VI and VIIa had a lower
frequency of whole gastropod shell. Stratum VII marked the termination of TU 4 at 184
cmbs.
Test Unit 5 (TU 5) located equidistant between the Thursby House and the
Wastewater Treatment Area (WWTA) was a 1 x 2-m test unit. A 50 x 50-cm column
sample was removed from the north wall upon completion of the unit. Fine alluvial sands
in dark bands of varying thickness lay atop the buried shell midden. Seven stratigraphic
units were observed, including the alluvial sands, and represent at least three
ethnostratigraphic units, including the historic era (Figure 3-5) (Sassaman 2003b:45).
32
Figure 3-4. Stratigraphic drawing of north wall of Test Units 3 and 4, 8VO43. Courtesy
of Kenneth E. Sassaman.
33
Table 3-3. Stratigraphic Units of North Profile of Test Units 3-4, 8VO43. Max. Depth Munsell Stratum (cm BS) Color Description Ia 11 10YR3/1 surface humus of fine sand with minor gastropod; prehistoric
and historic-era artifacts interspersed throughout Ib 21 10YR2/2 surface stratum of fine sand midden with whole and crushed
gastropod and minor bivalve shell; prehistoric and historic-era artifacts interspersed throughout; trench for copper gas line
Ic 28 10YR4/3 fine sand midden with burned whole and crushed gastropod
shell II 41 10YR3/2-4/2 fine sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod shell;
occasional crushed bivalve lenses; occasional burned and crushed gastropod shell lenses; plain fiber-tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts
III 59 10YR3/2-4/3 fine sand midden with whole gastropod shell; plain fiber-
tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts IVa 59 10YR3/2 abundant whole gastropod shell and high density of bone
(mostly fish) in fine sandy matrix with charcoal flecks throughout; plain fiber-tempered pottery
IVb 71 10YR3/2 abundant whole, crushed, and burned gastropod shell in fine
sandy matrix; occasional concreted shell midden; plain fiber-tempered pottery
V 95 10YR3/2-4/2 abundant whole and crushed gastropod shell in fine sandy
matrix; plain fiber-tempered pottery VI 87 10YR3/2 low density whole and crushed gastropod shell in fine sandy
matrix; plain fiber-tempered pottery VIIa 131 10YR3/2 low density whole gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix; plain
fiber-tempered pottery VIIb 126 10YR4/2 low density whole gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix;
intermixed with Stratum VIII below; plain fiber-tempered pottery
VIII 84 10YR6/3 sterile fine sand Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman. Stratum I and II are comprised of alluvial sands with historic artifacts and St. Johns sherd
with the occasional vertebrate faunal remains. Stratum III represents the buried A
horizon at 88 cmbs. Stratum IV has abundant whole and crushed gastropod shell
34
Figure 3-5 Stratigraphic drawings of all walls of Test Unit 5, 8VO43. Courtesy of
Kenneth E. Sassaman.
35
Table 3-4. Stratigraphic Units of Test Unit 5, 8VO43. Max. Depth Munsell Stratum (cm BS) Color Description I 30 10YR4/2 to construction fill; fine sands with thin surface humus, abundant 10YR6/2 roots, historic- era artifacts, and features associated with park utilities II 85 10YR7/1 w/ fine alluvial sands in dark bands ranging of varied thickness; 10YR2/2 historic-era artifacts, St. Johns sherds and occasional
vertebrate faunal remains III 88 10YR2/1 buried A horizon/surface IV 145 10YR4/1 abundant whole and crushed gastropod shell with faunal
remains, infrequent pottery (upper 10-15 cm of stratum) and lithic artifacts, burned limestone, and marine shell fragments in fine sandy matrix
V 159 10YR3/1 largely shell-free, organically enriched fine sand with
abundant faunal remains, charcoal, and occasional lithic flakes; no pottery; C14 assay of 4210 ± 50 rcybp
VI 170 10YR5/1 shell-free fine sands with organic enrichment from Stratum V
above; sparse faunal remains and lithic flakes VII 180 10YR4/2 relatively sterile fine sand Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman. with faunal remains, lithic artifacts, burned limestone, marine shell fragments and
infrequent pottery in the upper 10-15 cm of the stratum, with no pottery occurring below
this point. Stratum V is largely shell free with organically enriched fine sand with
abundant faunal remains and no pottery. A charcoal sample from the subsistence column
was carbon-dated and returned an AMS assay of 4210 ± 50 rcybp (Sassaman 2003b:47).
Stratum VI is shell free with sparse faunal remains. Stratum VII marks the termination of
TU 5 at 180 cmbs, below which sterile sands were encountered (Table 3-4).
It is important to recognize that different strata from different test units across the
site are radiometrically contemporaneous. For example, Stratum V from TU 5 within a
one-sigma range overlaps with Stratum IV of TU 1 by 70 years, while TU 1 Stratum IV
possesses shell, Stratum V from TU 5 is shell free potentially signifying the onset of shell
36
fish exploitation. Stratum VII of TU 4 is well within a one-sigma range of overlap with
Stratum X of TU 2, contextually the stratigraphy of Stratum X is akin to Stratum VII.
Understanding the depositional structure of the site lends itself to demarcating periods of
occupation and history allowing one to evaluate the cultural components that lay within
the midden. Furthermore, multiple profile sequences facilitates observing changes in
technology where modified marine shell tools in the basal layers of TU’s 1, 2, and 4 can
potentially signify a change in tool technology with marine shell tools acting as a
precursor to pottery technology. That is to say, stratigraphic subsistence columns
spanning the preceramic to early ceramic allow the observer to control for variation in
place. Comparing two or more sequences in different places aids in partially controlling
for larger forcing variables such as regional climate and hydrology but more so enables
one to search for broader patterns of change and control for taphonomic factors.
37
CHAPTER 4 METHODS AND MATERIALS
Vertebrate Fauna
This study is based on the identification and analysis of vertebrate faunal remains
greater than 1/8-inch in size of waterscreened portions from four subsistence columns
(TU 1,2,4, & 5) of 50 x 50-cm each excavated from Blue Spring Midden B (8V043).
Vertebrate faunal analysis for TU 1, 2, and 5 was conducted by Meggan E. Blessing
while TU 4 was conducted by the author, who rigorously followed the methods employed
by Blessing for consistency. Each test unit varies in maximum depth with TU 1 at 1.65-
m, TU 2 at 1.4-m, TU 4 at 2.0-m and TU 5 at 1.0-m with 87-m of fine alluvial sands
sitting atop the buried midden. The 1.0-m deep column from TU 5 is preceramic in age,
as is the basal strata of TUs 1 and 2. The 2.0-m deep column from TU 4 is ceramic in
age. The ceramic component is demarcated as follows for each test unit: TU 1 Stratum
III; TU 2 Stratum III to X; TU 4 Stratum IVa to VIIb; TU 5 0 to 20 cm. The preceramic
component is as follows: TU 1 Stratum IV to V; TU 2 Stratum XI to XII; TU 5 20 to 90
cm. Table (4-1) displays cultural component breakdown by test unit and strata as well as
volume of soil per column sample.
Guidelines for analysis of the faunal material followed accepted zooarchaeological
procedures (Reitz and Wing 1999). Identifications of the animal remains were made by
referencing the vertebrate comparative collection at the Florida Museum of Natural
History. Every effort was made to identify all the skeletal elements into their respective
38
Table 4-1 Volume of Matrix from All Four Subsistence Columns 8VO43 Pre-Pottery Period Orange Pottery Period TU 1 Strata IV to V Stratum III volume 0.1 m3 .1125 m3
TU 2 Strata XI to XII Strata III to X volume .005 m3 .165 m3
TU 4 Strata IVa to VIIb volume .1675 m3
TU 5 20 cm to 90 cm 0 cm to 20 cm volume .175 m3 .05 m3
Total volume .28 m3 .495 m3
major classes (i.e. Mammalia, Aves, Reptilia, Amphibia and Osteichthyes) including to
the lowest taxonomic level of species, if possible. Data on diagnostic elements were
recorded as: taxon, element, portion, side, modification, burning, count and weight. For
classes such as Mammalia and Aves, those non-diagnostic elements that could be
discerned were noted, counted and weighed. However, this was not the case for the class
Osteichthyes; whose elements, many being of a fragmentary nature, were only counted
and weighed (Sassaman 2003b:129).
Quantification of the identified remains was done to natural strata within each
column sample and included a count (NISP) and weight of identified specimens and
calculation of the minimum number of individuals (MNI). MNI is the smallest number
of individuals that is necessary to account for all of the skeletal elements of a particular
taxon found in the sample usually distinguished by diagnostic elements and size (Reitz
and Wing 1999). Levels within natural strata (e.g. Level B or stratum III [Stratum IIIb])
were analyzed and enumerated separately and then collapsed into subtotals (Sassaman
2003b:129). In addition to the relative frequencies for NISP and MNI that were
39
calculated for strata and their subtotals, MNI was also calculated for the entire faunal
assemblage disregarding space and time to observe every resource utilized at 8VO43.
However, when calculating MNI of the entire assemblage as a whole, regardless of space
and time, it assumes that the assemblage is synchronic and ignores cultural and historical
processes. Although descriptive, it precludes investigation into the breadth and
frequency of resources selected over time.
Resource use and degree of specialization were observed via employing the
Shannon Weaver Index and the Sheldon Index to describe diversity and equitability. The
range of diversity for the Shannon Weaver Index is from 0 to 5 with five being the
greatest faunal diversity. The range for the Sheldon Index is from 0 to 1; values closest
to zero denote heavy reliance on a single resource, while one indicates an evenness of
resource use. These indexes were used for comparative purposes of diversity and
equitability between the preceramic and ceramic components of 8VO43 to observe any
differences in resource selection and frequency use by humans.
Size range of fishes in the archaeological record was evaluated by measuring their
lateral atlas width. Such data provide an opportunity to characterize and compare the size
of different species of fish across strata and cultural components. For comparative
purposes, the size class of fish atlases was measured and then the mean and 95%
confidence interval for preceramic and ceramic fishes were calculated. Pairwise
comparisons of mean values for lateral atlas width were statistically evaluated with
Student’s t-Test. Furthermore, the atlas widths of the archaeological fish assemblage
were corroborated with modern fish references relative to Family and/or Genus to
ascertain standard length. Widths of atlases correlate well with standard length and can
40
be used as a proxy for the sizes of individual fish in the archaeological record. Size
distributions of Amia calva, Centrarchidae, Erimyzon sucetta and Notemigonus
crysoluecas from preceramic and ceramic components were compared. Every attempt
was made to record a sample of 30 atlas widths from the comparative modern skeletal
specimens housed in the Florida Museum of Natural History, although this was
unattainable for Amia calva, Erimyzon sucetta and Notemigonus crysoluecas due to the
simple fact that there was not an adequate sample in the collection. Consequently,
samples of at least eight modern atlas widths were recorded for the above-mentioned
species. Measurements of modern reference skeletons that correlate allometrically with
standard length were taken to generate allometric constants (Reitz and Wing 1999).
These constants were then applied to lateral atlas width measurements from the
archaeological material to estimate standard length of the fishes represented in the faunal
samples.
Analysis proceeded by the comparison of all preceramic vertebrate fauna with
ceramic vertebrate fauna relative to MNI, NISP, atlas width and standard length. At no
point were preceramic samples mixed with ceramic samples when measuring atlas width
and Student’s t-Test.
Invertebrate Fauna
In addition to this thesis, prior study of observed changes in the shell size of snail
populations due to human predation are corroborated with vertebrate data to better
understand subsistence at Blue Spring Midden B (Connaughton 2001). Five strata from
two of the column samples were chosen for analysis. These were Stratum III and Stratum
XIa and XIb from TU 2 and Stratum III (20-30 cm) and Stratum III (70-76 cm) in
WWTA. All column samples are dominated by shell from species of Viviparus, as well
41
as fish remains. The focus here is on the snail species Viviparus georgianus. Preliminary
fractionization was done with ½-inch screen and ¼-inch screens. Each strata unit was
broken down into four basic categories: whole snails >½-inch, whole snails >¼-inch but
<½-inch, fragmented snails >½-inch, and fragmented snails >¼-inch but < ½-inch. After
being sorted, each category was weighed in grams and hand counted. These numbers
were then examined for a preliminary size decrease in weight per unit. After the hand and
weight count, a minimum of one hundred snails were randomly selected as a sample size
from each column sample to be measured. Five different measurements were taken for
each snail: shell height, aperture width, aperture height, apex length, and spire height
(Claassen 1999:101). All measurements with “whole snails” >½-inch were then
quantified into mean, standard deviation, minimums and maximums.
42
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS
Initial analysis of zooarchaeological data from Blue Spring began by observing the
MNI count for the entire vertebrate assemblage as a whole, lumping ceramic with
preceramic levels, thus disregarding space and time (Appendix A-2). The results display
a MNI count with fish, particularly sunfish, dominating the assemblage yet the resources
taken are somewhat diverse and moderately equitable (H’ = 2.96; E = 0.71). However,
compounding the column samples from all four test units ignores historical processes and
cultural markers that have left their imprint on the landscape. Observing the faunal
assemblage in this light tells us nothing about subsistence use through time, rather it
merely describes what was recorded. To ascertain any patterns in the Blue Spring faunal
material analytical divisions need to be made for interpretative purposes from a
diachronic perspective.
Table 5-1 lists the NISP and MNI by general taxa for each cultural component.
The data conveys that the vertebrate differences are virtually insignificant in their relative
frequencies across general taxa. Fish clearly dominate both cultural components,
followed by turtle, deer, other mammal, snake and bird. Other reptiles and amphibians
account for a relatively smaller frequency. The result from the vertebrate material
between the preceramic and ceramic demonstrates a low level of diversity and
equitability with a slight trend of decreasing diversity from the preceramic to the ceramic
(preceramic: H’ = 0.93, E = 0.45; ceramic: H’ = 0.84, E = 0.40) suggesting a slight
change in resource selection and frequency of use. Even with a slight decrease in
43
Table 5-1 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Vertebrate Fauna by General Taxa and Component, Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43).
Number of Individual
Minimum Number of
Specimens (NISP) Individuals (MNI) n % n % ORANGE COMPONENT Deer 77 0.3 15 2.3 Mammal 681 2.9 23 3.5 Bird 52 0.2 13 2.0 Turtle 1077 4.6 40 6.2 Snake 213 0.9 21 3.2 Reptile 32 0.1 4 0.6 Amphibian 39 0.2 11 1.7 Fish 21,310 90.8 523 80.5 Total 23,481 100.0 650 100.0 PRECERAMIC COMPONENT Deer 24 0.1 7 1.4 Mammal 227 1.2 22 4.5 Bird 79 0.4 12 2.5 Turtle 908 4.6 37 7.6 Snake 154 0.8 17 3.5 Reptile 13 0.1 4 0.8 Amphibian 21 0.1 12 2.5 Fish 18,283 92.8 377 77.3 Total 19,709 100.0 488 100.0
diversity the data still reflect an overall continuity in the subsistence economy through
time encapsulating potentially five centuries (Sassaman 2003b). It is interesting to note
that if one were to add the invertebrate fauna say, Viviparus, for example, to this mix,
which is an abundant shellfish recovered from Blue Spring Midden B, that resource
selection was undoubtedly placed on aquatic fauna. This should come as no surprise
given the literature on subsistence in the middle St. Johns River Valley (Cumbaa 1976;
Russo 1988; Russo et al. 1992; Wheeler and McGee 1994).
Fish make up a great majority of the resources procured at Blue Spring and the
composition of the fish assemblages is likewise very similar between components (Table
44
5-2). Sunfish are responsible for approximately half of the MNI in both samples with
suckers, catfish and shiners making up other well represented taxa. Gar, bowfin, pike and
shad/herring occur in lesser frequencies but remain consistent throughout both samples.
Diversity is characterized for both assemblages as relatively low while equitability is
moderately high among fishes taken with a decreasing trend from the preceramic to the
ceramic; again both fish assemblages display continuity in the subsistence economy
through time (preceramic: H’ = 1.74, E = 0.70; ceramic: H’ = 1.61, E = 0.67).
Sassaman (2003b:132-133) noted two subtle differences in composition of the fish
assemblages. First, American eel (Anguilla rostrata), a minority species throughout the
samples, is concentrated largely in strata of the preceramic component. Out of a total of
28 NISP and 8 MNI for eel, only two elements from a likely single individual were found
outside of preceramic context. TU 5 accounted for most of the eel elements, but some
elements were also found in the basal, preceramic components of TU 1 and TU 2. The
use of eel, albeit in low frequency, appeared widespread spatially across preceramic
contexts.
The second noticeable difference is the increased proportion of suckers in the
Orange component. Thirty-seven (MNI) Lake Chubsuckers (Erimyzon sucetta) were
recovered in one level of the column from TU 2. Generally, most suckers prefer flowing
water, but Lake Chubsuckers prefer quiet, slowly moving water with soft bottoms, and
abundant organic debris and aquatic vegetation. These differences in frequency of taxa
from the preceramic to the ceramic period may suggest a change in habitat exploitation at
Blue Spring.
45
Table 5-2 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Fish by General Taxa and Component, Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43).
Number of Individual
Minimum Number of
Specimens (NISP) Individuals (MNI) n % n % ORANGE COMPONENT Shark 1 0.0 1 0.2 Skate/Ray 0 0.0 0 0.0 Eel 5 0.1 2 0.4 Gar 427 7.3 19 3.7 Bowfin 159 2.7 19 3.7 Shiner 312 5.3 40 7.8 Shad/Herring 72 1.2 17 3.3 Sucker 467 7.9 66 12.8 Catfish 352 6.0 55 10.7 Pike 71 1.2 17 3.3 Sunfish 3999 68.0 270 52.5 Mullet 19 0.3 8 1.6 Total 5884 100.0 514 100.0 PRECERAMIC COMPONENT Shark 3 0.1 3 0.8 Skate/Ray 2 0.1 2 0.5 Eel 23 0.5 6 1.6 Gar 957 20.0 18 4.8 Bowfin 231 4.9 17 4.5 Shiner 248 5.2 30 8.0 Shad/Herring 68 1.4 11 2.9 Sucker 249 5.2 37 9.9 Catfish 323 6.8 39 10.4 Pike 44 0.9 16 4.3 Sunfish 2591 54.5 189 50.5 Mullet 14 0.3 6 1.6 Total 4753 100.0 374 100.0
“Considering that the American eel inhabits streams with strong flow, then the
decrease in eels and increase in suckers through time may signal less reliance on
harvesting of the main river channel and Blue Spring Run and increased dependence on
the nearby lagoon” (Sassaman 2003b:133). This scenario is certainly plausible given that
after 6000 rcybp sea level slowed its rate of rise, enabling development of a broader,
lagoonal habitat resource patch, but subject to fluctuations in production due to changing
46
water levels. Sassaman (2003b:133) observed that during the dry summer of 2000, the
lagoon situated on the south margin of Blue Spring Midden B was subject to water
fluctuation and, given the successive dry seasons it had endured, the water’s edge had
receded several meters. Thus, lagoonal resources, such as the Lake Chubsucker, were
probably related to levels of precipitation, river flow, and groundwater that the lagoon
received.
These subtle variations mentioned above might reflect short-term responses to
changes in the availability of resources present, yet aside from this variation, the
preceramic and ceramic components appear nearly the same (Sassaman 2003b). Shellfish
fauna too appear similar in both components, with the only exception of marine shellfish
found nearly exclusive in the preceramic levels as a raw resource for tool production and
use rather than a subsistence item. Interestingly, previous data on shellfish exploitation
from Blue Spring Midden B display a decrease in mean apex length of Viviparus
georgianus from preceramic times to ceramic times (Connaughton 2001:18). However,
this mean decrease in size is not observed in lateral atlas width of fish at Blue Spring
Midden B.
Variation in Fish Size
Lateral atlas widths were recorded for a total of 612 fish from all four column
samples comprising both cultural components (preceramic & ceramic) at Blue Spring.
Table 5-3 presents the descriptive statistics on the fish atlases recorded. Student’s t-Test
was employed to statistically evaluate the mean values for lateral atlas width of fish from
the preceramic and the ceramic and to see if human populations were acquiring fish from
independent fish populations relative to taxa. The results illustrate that there is no
47
Table 5-3. Descriptive Statistics of Lateral Atlas Width (mm) of Fishes from Cultural Components, 8VO43.
CERAMIC Group Count Mean Median StdDev Min Max RangeAmeiurus/Ictalurus spp. 14 4.49 4.23 1.14 3.11 6.87 3.76Amia calva 9 8.38 7.52 2.80 4.1 13.12 9.02Centrarchidae 92 2.84 2.75 0.66 1.83 6.1 4.27Clupeidae 6 4.05 3.93 0.66 3.35 5.15 1.8Dorosoma sp. 1 3.83 3.83 0Erimyzon sucetta 27 5.02 5.06 0.65 3.24 6.08 2.84Esox sp. 1 3.34 3.34 0L. auritus 29 2.64 2.55 0.48 1.89 4.04 2.15L. gulosus 9 3.15 3.32 0.41 2.26 3.63 1.37L. macrochirus 28 2.92 2.71 0.62 2.06 4.57 2.51L. microlophus 4 3.63 3.48 0.80 2.84 4.71 1.87L. punctatus 4 2.68 2.69 0.43 2.28 3.06 0.78Lepomis spp. 99 2.73 2.66 0.44 1.95 4.44 2.49Lepisosteus spp. 4 4.96 4.88 1.17 3.78 6.29 2.51M. salmoides 14 4.14 3.61 1.64 2.67 7.74 5.07N. crysoleucas 32 3.01 3.04 0.44 2.43 4.05 1.62P. nigromaculatus 32 3.70 3.58 0.84 1.93 5.23 3.3 PRECERAMIC Group Count Mean Median StdDev Min Max RangeAmeiurus/Ictalurus spp. 12 4.60 3.90 1.91 2.73 8.92 6.19Amia calva 2 11.58 11.58 4.89 8.12 15.04 6.92Centrarchidae 59 2.84 2.77 0.60 1.75 4.7 2.95Clupeidae 2 3.81 3.81 0.88 3.18 4.43 1.25Dorosoma sp. 0 Erimyzon sucetta 22 5.22 5.24 0.75 3.95 7.02 3.07Esox sp. 1 5.43 5.43 0L. auritus 6 2.84 2.87 0.28 2.48 3.17 0.69L. gulosus 0 L. macrochirus 0 L. microlophus 0 L. punctatus 6 2.63 2.64 0.31 2.15 3.04 0.89Lepomis spp. 56 2.78 2.65 0.52 2.02 4.95 2.93Lepisosteus spp. 2 4.48 4.48 0.52 4.11 4.85 0.74M. salmoides 10 5.50 4.69 2.25 3.95 11.26 7.31N. crysoleucas 17 3.33 3.36 0.47 2.19 3.95 1.76P. nigromaculatus 12 3.48 3.56 0.75 2.05 4.76 2.71
48
Table 5-4. Student t-Test Values on Lateral Atlas Widths of Fish from Cultural
Components, 8VO43. PRECERAMIC CERAMIC
Group mean n mean n dfP(T<=t) one-
tail All Lepomis 2.77 68 2.79 173 130 0.404 Centrarchidae 2.84 59 2.84 92 132 0.480 M. salmoides 5.5 10 4.14 14 16 0.062 P. nigromaculatus 3.48 12 3.7 32 22 0.205 N. crysoleucas 3.33 17 3.01 32 31 0.013 E. sucetta 5.22 22 5.02 27 42 0.161 Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 4.6 12 4.49 14 17 0.429 A. calva 11.6 2 8.4 9 1 0.268
significant difference between similar fish taxa from the preceramic and ceramic periods
with the exception of one, the Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas). Knowing that
the fish atlases represented in both components comprise of at least five centuries of
occupation, it is intriguing that subsistence, for the most part, remains unchanged. Table
5-4 demonstrates this nicely with t-Test’s one-tail values.
Standard Length
With lateral atlas width effectively conveying no significant change between
preceramic and ceramic occupation, standard length was allometrically calculated on
Amia calva, Erimyzon sucetta, Notemigonus crysoleucas and Centrarchidae to ascertain
the size of these fishes taken from Blue Spring. Standard length is redundant data,
having been derived from atlas width; nevertheless, it provides the observer with a virtual
metric scale for the size range of fish selected by humans. Table 5-5 reveals the
descriptive results from the allometric calculations. A slight decrease is evident in mean
standard length of these fish but essentially the fish populations exhibit no significant
difference. Although A. calva, E. sucetta, and N. crysoleucas have low counts which
may augment or skew the data, Centrarchidae which account for roughly over three-
49
Table 5-5 Descriptive Statistics for Standard Length (mm) of Fishes from Cultural Components
CERAMIC Group Count Mean Median StdDev. Min. Max. Range Amia calva 9 342.2 311.8 103 180.9 513.8 332.9 Centrarchidae 303 120.1 116.4 18.2 89.9 218.3 128.4 Erimyzon sucetta 27 224.1 225.9 24.7 155.6 263.5 107.9 Notemigonus crysoleucas 32 155.9 157.1 18.6 130.9 198.8 67.8 PRECERAMIC Group Count Mean Median StdDev. Min. Max. Range Amia calva 2 457.5 457.5 174.5 334.1 580.8 246.8 Centrarchidae 149 121.7 117.4 22.4 87.5 274.9 187.4 Erimyzon sucetta 22 231.6 232.5 27.9 183.7 297.2 113.5 Notemigonus crysoleucas 16 167.9 170.3 19.3 120.3 194.8 74.5
fourths of the fish atlases represented in the faunal assemblage encompass an acceptable
count and clearly display no substantial change in mean standard length between the
preceramic and ceramic components. Furthermore, the sizes of the above mentioned fish
that were selected for consumption are apparently of smaller size than normal size
ranges of modern species today (Page and Burr 1991). Clearly, standard length size did
not change significantly through time and the evidence from vertebrate fauna
demonstrates this at Blue Spring Midden B.
It is speculated that mean fish atlases would decrease significantly in size over
time, and they decrease very subtly in this assemblage, which may be due to over-
exploitation placing high strain on fish populations affecting their fecundity and rate of
growth (Broughton 1999). Yet fish have high fecundities, especially sunfish, which
make up the dominant part of the fish assemblage.
Centrarchids (sunfish) are found in a variety of habitats such as vegetated lakes,
rivers, ponds, swamps, and creeks. They prefer muddy or sandy bottoms, along with
50
underwater structural debris, such as sunken logs. They generally tend to school together
as a littoral species but some, like Pomoxis nigromaculatus and Lepomis macrochirus,
have also been observed in deep, open water. Since most sunfish are found schooling
near shore, capturing such resources seems feasible by humans. Spawning season for
sunfish usually begins in February or March and can last until October. Nests are built
near shore and typically guarded by the male. The sunfish diet can consist of
zooplankton, algae, vascular plants, aquatic insects, larvae, small invertebrates, fish, frogs
and small birds. Sunfish are observed as thriving in diverse habitats and adapting to
changing conditions (Hoyer 1994).
The vast amount of sunfish remains recovered at Blue Spring demonstrates their
importance in the subsistence economy as a viable and dependable population in which
humans can exploit repeatedly. The size of Centrarchidae selected by humans at 8VO43
does not significantly change through time as illustrated by the lateral atlas mean and
substantiated by Student’s t-Test. It seems prehistoric peoples were focusing on near
shore species of a smaller size range than average sizes of sunfish given the evidence
from standard length and what zooarchaeologists know about modern samples today, for
when compared to the faunal assemblage from Blue Spring Midden B, modern samples
are on average bigger today than in the past.
51
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Data have been presented that demonstrate an overall continuity in resource
selection through time at Blue Spring Midden B. Fish and shellfish appear as the bulk of
this subsistence strategy and even with the advent of increasing human populations and
cultural elaboration, particularly the onset of pottery, there are no significant effects on
the subsistence record itself. Lateral atlas widths of fish, from both the preceramic and
ceramic components, have been evaluated and show no significant change through time.
However, there are a couple of subtle differences observed in the vertebrate fauna.
Changes in resource frequency are noted at Blue Spring with a lessening in frequency of
American eel from the preceramic to the ceramic and an increase in frequency of Lake
Chubsuckers from the preceramic to the ceramic, potentially signifying a minor response
to the resources available in the local environment. Although habitat exploitation may
have changed slightly with the advent of pottery, the vertebrate faunal data still show no
major change. It would seem, at least at the domestic level, pottery had no substantial
bearing on the subsistence regime.
Shellfish data from Blue Spring Midden B display a decrease in apex mean through
time (Connaughton 2001). Even though the vertebrate faunal data show no change
through time, the invertebrate data demonstrate a reduction in size from preceramic levels
to ceramic levels. Shellfish may potentially be more sensitive to strain caused by human
consumption and/or ecological stress than fish, nonetheless, this correlation poses another
52
question: Was pottery a human response to resource depression, thus keeping the status
quo? Or was pottery independently created within another context?
Considering the data presented here, pottery as a subsistence technology, may not
have played a direct role in food procurement and processing techniques. Technological
development may not always be the product of ecological stress, necessitating change;
the social environment must too be considered contextually as cultures change or stay the
same through time. Material assemblages associated with site subsistence provide a
potential clue in how the site was used by human populations.
The disappearance of marine shell tools in the Orange period from Mt. Taylor
times possibly demonstrated a shift in mobility and settlement. Potential sociopolitical
relationships could have feasibly placed strains on interriverine human populations
whereby marine shell acted as a precursor to pottery given its inaccessibility. The fact
that marine shell is recovered from the Mt. Taylor component and not found associated
with the Orange component is of interest and needs further study.
New data have come to fruition on pottery making cultures in the middle St. Johns
River, revealing that Bullen’s Orange pottery sequence should be rethought given the
AMS assays on incised fiber-tempered pottery, demonstrating a coeval existence with
plain Orange fiber-tempered temper pottery, thus providing new implications for the
cultural-history of the region (Sassaman 2003a). With highly decorated wares from Tick
Island (8VO24) and Mouth of Silver Glen Run (8LA1) being coeval with plain wares
from Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) and Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601) such
distinct sites with different pottery may be attributed to differing uses between decorated
wares and utilitarian wares. More data are needed to sufficiently explain what is taking
53
place but knowing that these sites and ceramic vessels are contemporaneous opens the
door for future inquiry on functional difference.
It is important to consider that pottery, at the domestic level, shows no significant
change in the subsistence economy of prehistoric hunter-gatherers. While pottery
associated with large middens and mortuary practice reveal decorated forms being
recovered, possibly from ritual feasting. If feasting is occurring with decorated (e.g.,
incised) Orange vessels at large midden sites and then plain, utilitarian vessels are being
used at domestic sites, this reflects divergent spatial patterns of ideological practice
between ritual and daily life. Although ideological structure may be similar in daily
practice and ritual practice, it is performed or lived in differing ways given the social
environment where human populations participate in ritual behavior by using the
appropriate pottery stipulated by cultural traditions. Since pottery is argued to have no
substantial effect on the subsistence economy at Blue Spring, and the aforementioned
data on vertebrate fauna appear to strengthen such an assertion, what, then, is the
significance of pottery appearing in the archaeological record in the middle St. Johns
River Valley if it is displaying no effect in subsistence practice?
Alternative Explanations
Pottery in the St. Johns River Valley may potentially have more to do with
ritual/ceremonial feasting than with actual day to day subsistence practice. Thus, pottery
may serve as a symbolic marker of distinct ethnic groups throughout peninsular Florida,
signaling identities, reproducing social ties or relaying information. The following
examples can potentially provide avenues in which archaeologist can explore the role of
pottery in prehistoric Florida. Although both examples have to do with beer
consumption, it is the role of pottery as a symbolic marker that is on interest.
54
Pottery itself can be a medium for information exchange, conveying symbolic
meaning and thus highlighting heterarchical social complexity. Ceramic vessels within
the domestic household have long been assumed to represent a form of ‘passive style’
with no inherent symbolic statement or political affiliation (Bowser 2000:219). Bowser
(2000) has demonstrated that pottery can be used as political playing cards, whereby
women assert their identity into the political alliances, accentuating their political
behavior into pottery style. In the small-scale, segmental society in the Ecuadorian
Amazon, women decorate their polychrome pottery bowls (used primarily for drinking
manioc beer) relative to their political affiliation, not ethnicity, whereby, in some cases,
some women are politically ambiguous (Bowser 2000). How is this physically done?
Chicha, an alcoholic beverage, is fundamental to Ecuadorian-Amazonian social relations.
Each woman is responsible for making their own bowls for drinking use, and decorates
them according to their political affiliation (Quichua or Achuar). Women use these bowls
in serving guests and their husbands’ chicha. Bowser insinuates that these women make
sociopolitical decisions when choosing which bowl to offer her guests. These bowls do
not merely serve an economic-subsistence function, but rather align and contest people
through their decorative patterns and symbols. Furthermore, the designs and symbols on
these bowls reinforce the Amazonian worldview of male and female binary opposition
and complementarities (Bowser 2000:228). The simple act of women sitting together and
drinking chicha from pottery beer bowls allows for shared information and opinions
concerning daily events and current issues; whereas when a women serves male guests,
she can signal her social distance, status or political disfavor with them while the family
looks on (Bowser 2000:229). Through these sociopolitical strategies, social identity is
55
constructed and negotiated while social boundaries are maintained with the passing of
people across them (Bowser 2000).
Pottery can also be a means for social reproducing structures of meaning that
conceal behavior, cosmology or ideology which has long passed and has been
transformed and internalized into a new context. The hosting of a feast or ani shreati in
the Conibo-Shipibo signifies the “puberty rite” of young girls into womanhood (DeBoer
2001). Historically, it used to mark and celebrate the marriageability age of young
pubescent girls to older men. A clitoridectomy is performed by specialized female
surgeons in a special structure situated away from the main plaza, which has implications
for male and female opposition in nature and settlement (DeBoer 2001). The preparation
for such a feast is an arduous one, sometimes planned ahead 2 to 3 years and is usually
hosted by the fathers of the girls going through the ritual. Part of the preparation includes
planting manioc, sweet potato and sugarcane so as to be harvested and later fermented for
a liquid drink. However, it is the process of fermenting and serving such libations that
place emphasis on the ceramic manufacturing of new vessels, mainly large beer jars and
beer-serving mugs (DeBoer 2001). The manufacturing of such vessels for purely
ceremonial use strengthens social and biological reproduction, prompting production of
material goods which would otherwise not be produced (DeBoer 2001:232).
Furthermore, those invited to the feast are not obliged to bring gifts for exchange nor do
the hosts have gifts; simply put, the only thing required of the hosts is plenty of drink.
This potentially opens doors for continued relations and the possible emergence of future
leaders, spouses and rivals (DeBoer 2001). Essentially, the feast has an equilibrating role
whereby meaning congealed in special moments is elaborated among an aggregate group
56
of humans who share similar ethos and lifestyles, thus preserving their social and cultural
identities despite encapsulation by the Western world.
Future Study
Future research is sorely needed to either support or reject the data provided. Sites
like Grove’s Orange Midden and Hontoon Island for example, could potentially be
explored to evaluate the significance of pottery in the subsistence record. Distinguishing
between domestic sites with utilitarian wares and ceremonial sites with highly decorated
wares may signal differences in subsistence practice reflecting spatial patterns separating
ritual practice from daily life. Clearly, pots are more than tools; they represent the many
identities of distinct cultures and ethnicities (Gosselain 1992b; Bowser 2000). Through
analysis of vessel type, function, and context within site(s) archaeologist can investigate
questions related to site activities, the size, composition and social standing of domestic
groups, food habits of a community, and the stylistic nature and technological variability
of a ceramic culture (Hally 1986:267). By understanding the cultural–historical
development of early pottery in the Southeastern United States, archaeologist can
hopefully gain insight into the production and use of ancient pots as social barometers for
behavior.
57
APPENDIX A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA
Table A-1 The List of Taxonomic and Common Names Taxonomic Name Common Name Sigmodon spp. Rat Sigmodontinae Rat Subfamily Muridae Rat Family Sylvilagus palustris Marsh Rabbit Sylvilagus spp. Rabbit Rodentia Rodents Sciurus carolinesis Eastern Gray Squirrel Didelphis virginiana Virginia Opossum Procyon lotor North American Raccoon Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray Fox Lutra canadensis North American Otter Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer Mammalia Mammals Nycticorax spp. Heron Podilymbus podiceps Pie-billed Grebe Anas americana American Wigeon Fulica americana American Coot Anatidae Ducks Aves Birds Chelydra serpentina Snapping Turtle Kinosternidae Mud/Musk Turtles Deirochelys reticularia Chicken Turtle Pseudemys floridana Florida Cooter Trachemys scripta Yellowbelly Slider Pseudemys/Trachemys spp. Cooters Terrapene carolina Box Turtle Apalone ferox Soft-shelled Turtle Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise Testudines Turtles Alligator mississippiensis Alligator
58
Table A-1 Continued Taxonomic Name Common Name Nerodia spp. Water Snake Elaphe spp. Rat Snake Colubridae Non-Poisonous Snakes
Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake
Crotalus spp. Rattlesnakes Agkistrodon piscivorus Cottonmouth Viperidae Pit Viper Family Serpentes Sankes Anolis spp. Iguanian Lizards Squamata Lizards and Snakes Reptilia Reptiles Amphiuma means Two-toed Amphiuma Siren lacertina Greater Siren Caudata Salamanders Anura Frogs and Toads Rana sp. True Frogs Amphibia Amphibians Odontaspis taurus Sand Tiger Shark Carcharhinidae Requiems Lamniformes Sharks Rajidae Skates and Rays Anguilla rostrata Freshwater Eel Lepisosteus spp. Gar Amia calva Bowfin Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Dorosoma spp. Shad Clupeidae Shad/Herring Family Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. Catfish Ameiurus catus White Catfish Ameriurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Catfish Ameiurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead Catfish Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Esox spp. Pike Lepomis spp. Sunfish Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish
59
Table A-1 Continued Taxonomic Name Common Name Lepomis punctatus Spotted Sunfish Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Micropterus sp. Bass Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Centrarchidae Bass/Sunfish Family Mugil spp. Mullet Osteichthyes Bony Fish UID Vertebrata Vertebrates
Table A-2 MNI Count of Taxon as One Whole Assemblage Taxon MNI Sigmodon spp. 1 Sigmodontinae 1 Muridae 1 Sylvilagus palustris 1 Sylvilagus spp. 1 Sciurius carolinesis 1 Rodentia 1 Didelphis virginiana 1 Procyon lotor 1 Urocyon cinereoargenteus 1 Lutra canadensis 1 Odocoileus virginianus 3 Nycticorax spp. 1 Podilymbus podiceps 1 Anas americana 1 Fulica americana 1 Anatidae 1 Chelydra serpentina 1 Kinosternidae 2 Deirochelys reticularia 1 Pseudemys floridana 1 Trachemys scripta 1 Pseudemys/Trachemys spp. 1 Terrapene carolina 1 Apalone ferox 1 Gopherus polyphemus 1
60
Table A-2 Continued Taxon MNI Alligator mississippiensis 1 Nerodia spp. 1 Elaphe spp. 1 Colubridae 2 Crotalus adamanteus 1 Crotalus spp. 1 Agkistrodon piscivorous 1 Anolis spp. 1 Amphiuma means 1 Siren lacertina 1 Caudata 1 Anura 1 Rana sp. 1 Carcharhinidae 1 Lamniformes 1 Rajidae 1 Anguilla rostrata 6 Lepisosteus spp. 18 Amia calva 17 Notemigonus crysoleucas 49 Dorosoma spp. 1 Clupeidae 8 Erimyzon sucetta 62 Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 26 Ameiurus catus 5 Ameriurus natalis 9 Ameiurus nebulosus 2 Ictalurus punctatus 3 Esox spp. 7 Lepomis spp. 155 Lepomis auritus 35 Lepomis gulosus 9 Lepomis macrochirus 28 Lepomis microlophus 4 Lepomis punctatus 10 Micropterus salmoides 24 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 44 Centrarchidae 151 Mugil spp. 3
Total MNI 721 Total Taxa 65 H' = 2.96 E = .71
61
Table A-3 MNI and NISP PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES TU 4 STR. Ia Mammalia 6 1.4 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. Ia Kinosternidae Kinosternon sp. 1 0.2 1 0.1 TU 4 STR. Ia Testudines 52 12.2 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. Ia Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 1 0.2 1 0.1 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. Ia Catostomus Erimyzon sucetta 2 0.5 1 0.1 2 pieces fused TU 4 STR. Ia Esocidae Esox sp. 1 0.2 1 0.1 TU 4 STR. Ia Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus spp. 6 1.4 1 0.1 TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus 1 0.2 1 0.1 atlases TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus 3 0.7 1 0.1 TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides 1 0.2 1 0.1 dentary (L) TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae 9 2.2 1 0.1 TU 4 STR. Ia Osteichthyes 164 38.6 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. Ia Vertebrata 178 42.0 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. Ia Total 425 100.0 9 100.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Procyonidae Procyon lotor 1 0.0 1 1.4 tibia {L} TU 4 STR. IIb Mammalia 3 0.1 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Aves 1 0.0 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Serpentes 2 0.0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Trionychidae Apalone ferox 1 0.0 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Emydidae Pseudemys floridana 7 0.1 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Emydidae Trachemys scripta 1 0.0 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Testudines 197 4.1 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 1 0.0 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Amiidae Amia calva 7 0.1 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus 6 0.1 4 5.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus 1 0.0 1 1.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus 20 0.4 16 21.6 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Lepomis micrlophus 19 0.4 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides 40 0.8 10 13.5 atlases
62
Table A-3 Continued PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 1 0.0 1 1.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Lepomis spp. 14 0.3 4 5.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae 353 7.4 12 16.2 articular {L} TU 4 STR. IIb Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus spp. 40 0.8 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta 51 1.1 7 9.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Esocidae Esox sp. 3 0.1 1 1.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas 2 0.0 2 2.7 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 6 0.1 3 4.1 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. IIb Ictaluridae Ameiurus nebulosus 1 0.0 1 1.4 quadrate {R}
TU 4 STR. IIb Ictaluridae Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 2 0.0 2 2.7 articular {L}
TU 4 STR. IIb Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus 1 0.0 1 1.4 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. IIb Ictaluridae 9 0.2 1 1.4 pect. spine {L} TU 4 STR. IIb Osteichthyes 3628 76.0 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Vertebrata 358 7.5 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Total 4776 100.0 74 100.0 TU 4 STR. III Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 4 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Mammalia 44 0.9 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. III Aves 3 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Kinosternidae Kinosternon spp. 1 0.0 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Emydidae Pseudemys floridana 1 0.0 1 1.1 femur {R} TU 4 STR. III Testudines 62 1.2 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. III Serpentes 5 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 7 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Amiidae Amia calva 7 0.1 1 1.1 ectopterygoid {R} TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus 7 0.1 7 7.5 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus 4 0.1 3 3.2 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus 17 0.3 17 18.3 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus 15 0.3 2 2.2 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepomis punctatus 9 0.2 8 8.6 atlases
63
Table A-3 Continued PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides 8 0.2 2 2.2 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 3 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepomis spp. 15 0.3 7 7.5 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae 431 8.7 15 16.1 atlases TU 4 STR. III Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus spp. 32 0.6 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta 30 0.6 2 2.2 atlases TU 4 STR. III Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas 16 0.3 11 11.8 atlases TU 4 STR. III Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 8 0.2 4 4.3 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. III Ictaluridae Ameiurus catus 1 0.0 1 1.1 pectoral spine {R} TU 4 STR. III Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus 1 0.0 1 1.1 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. III Ictaluridae 14 0.3 4 4.3 quadrate {R} TU 4 STR. III Osteichthyes 2109 42.3 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. III Vertebrata 2131 42.7 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. III Total 4985 100.0 93 100.0 TU 4 STR. V Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 6 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Procyonidae Procyon lotor 1 0.0 1 1.1 phalange {L} TU 4 STR. V Leporidae Sylvilagus palustris 1 0.0 1 1.1 mandible {L} TU 4 STR. V Mammalia 130 2.0 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. V Anatidae Anas americana 1 0.0 1 1.1 radius {L} TU 4 STR. V Rallidae Fulica americana 1 0.0 1 1.1 coracoid {L} TU 4 STR. V Aves 9 0.1 1 1.1 radius {R} TU 4 STR. V Trionychidae Apalone ferox 7 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Kinosternidae Kinosternon spp. 8 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Emydidae Trachemys scripta 4 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Testudines 157 2.4 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. V Viperidae Crotalus adamenteus 1 0.0 1 1.1 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. V Serpentes 21 0.3 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Ranidae Rana spp. 1 0.0 1 1.1 tibio-fibula TU 4 STR. V Sirenidae Siren lacertina 8 0.1 1 1.1
64
Table A-3 Continued PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES TU 4 STR. V Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 1 0.0 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Amiidae Amia calva 8 0.1 1 1.1 ectopterygoid {L} TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus 16 0.2 15 15.9 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus 4 0.1 4 4.2 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus 9 0.1 9 9.5 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus 7 0.1 1 1.1 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis punctatus 2 0.0 2 2.1 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides 11 0.2 4 4.2 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 5 0.1 2 2.1 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis spp. 35 0.5 2 2.1 vomers TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae 580 8.9 21 22.1 atlases TU 4 STR. V Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus spp. 92 1.4 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta 26 0.4 3 3.2 atlases TU 4 STR. V Esocidae Esox sp. 5 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Clupeidae 1 0.0 1 1.1 atlases TU 4 STR. V Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas 16 0.2 9 9.5 atlases TU 4 STR. V Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 1 0.0 1 1.1 2nd dorsal spine TU 4 STR. V Ictaluridae 11 0.2 4 4.2 basioccipitals TU 4 STR. V Osteichthyes 2512 38.4 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. V Vertebrata 2851 43.5 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. V Total 6549 100.0 95 100.0 TU 4 STR. VIIa Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 11 0.3 1 1.9 astragolis {L} TU 4 STR. VIIa Mustelidae Lutra canadensis 7 0.2 1 1.9 teeth TU 4 STR. VIIa Leporidae Sylvilagus palustris 4 0.1 1 1.9 dentary {L} TU 4 STR. VIIa Mammalia 170 5.3 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. VIIa Aves 7 0.2 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Trionychidae Apalone ferox 5 0.2 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Kinosternidae Kinosternon spp. 3 0.1 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Testudines 35 1.1 0 0.0
65
Table A-3 Continued PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES TU 4 STR. VIIa Serpentes 11 0.3 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Sirenidae Siren lacertina 3 0.1 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 2 0.1 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Amiidae Amia calva 10 0.3 1 1.9 basio TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus 5 0.2 5 9.6 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus 2 0.1 2 3.8 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus 9 0.3 9 17.3 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus 23 0.7 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Lepomis punctatus 2 0.1 2 3.8 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides 10 0.3 2 3.8 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 3 0.1 1 1.9 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae 222 7.0 5 9.6 vomers TU 4 STR. VIIa Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus spp. 56 1.8 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta 13 0.4 1 1.9 atlas TU 4 STR. VIIa Esocidae Esox sp. 20 0.6 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas 55 1.8 7 11.6 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 2 0.1 2 3.8 2nd dorsal spine TU 4 STR. VIIa Ictaluridae Ictalurus catus 1 0.0 1 1.9 pectoral spine {L} TU 4 STR. VIIa Ictaluridae 2 0.1 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Clupeidae 2 0.1 1 1.9 atlas TU 4 STR. VIIa Mugilidae Mugil spp. 3 0.1 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Osteichthyes 933 29.3 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. VIIa Vertebrata 1554 48.8 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. VIIa Total 3185 100.0 53 100.0
66
APPENDIX B STANDARD LENGTH DATA
Table B-1 Modern Reference Measurements and Weights Taken from FLMNH Comparative Collection
# Taxa Freshwght(g) SL (mm) Atlas (mm) Z4498 Lepomis gulosus 124 151 5.98 1803a Lepomis gulosus 231.5 190 3.8 4223 Lepomis gulosus 110 141 5.88
Z4412 Lepomis gulosus 62.3 118 4.37 Z4460 Lepomis gulosus 48.6 120 4.22 Z4461 Lepomis gulosus 61 121 4.61 Z4464 Lepomis gulosus 57.7 113 4.71 Z4465 Lepomis gulosus 64.6 111 4.45 Z4502 Lepomis gulosus 38.9 109 3.96 Z4608 Lepomis gulosus 160.8 158 7.52 Z3843 Lepomis microlophus 32.5 101 3.3 1804a Lepomis punctatus 80.5 130 2.55 2634 Micropterus salmoides 2497 457 13.43 2554 Micropterus salmoides 710 318 9.19 2555 Micropterus salmoides 412.9 243 6.53
Z3485 Micropterus salmoides 346 242 5.45 Z4433 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 31.6 103 2.01 2519 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 185.7 185 4.57 2520 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 91.9 160 3.58 1804c Lepomis punctatus 36.8 100 2.09 1804d Lepomis punctatus 15.8 80 1.17 2518 lepomis macrochirus 38 108 2.06 3320 lepomis macrochirus 302.9 199 4.59
Z4406 lepomis macrochirus 8.9 68 1.21 2515 lepomis macrochirus 60.8 120 2.59
Z4499 Lepomis gulosus 42 112 2.12 Z4500 Lepomis gulosus 24.9 90 1.76 Z4501 Lepomis gulosus 14.8 75 1.41 Z4503 Lepomis gulosus 6.2 62 1.21 Z4504 Lepomis gulosus 23 92 1.72 Z4506 Lepomis gulosus 28.1 91 1.92 Z4416 Micropterus salmoides 36.7 111 2.25 1799c Notemigonus crysoleucas 242.6 235 4.35 2522 Notemigonus crysoleucas 38.9 125 2.21 2526 Notemigonus crysoleucas 38.5 125 2.34
67
Table B-1 Continued # Taxa Freshwght(g) SL (mm) Atlas (mm)
2528 Notemigonus crysoleucas 28.8 113 1.99 2530 Notemigonus crysoleucas 20.5 110 1.81 2531 Notemigonus crysoleucas 22.1 109 1.87 2557 Notemigonus crysoleucas 220 195 3.94 2558 Notemigonus crysoleucas 170 150 3.27 2559 Notemigonus crysoleucas 135 155 3.01 2562 Notemigonus crysoleucas 48 115 2.41 2935 Amia calva 2292 545 11.92 1815 Amia calva 535 300 10.55
Z3376 Amia calva 2040 497 10.89 3377 Amia calva 1297 450 10 3646 Amia calva 1120 397 9.44 3647 Amia calva 1120 412 10.72
Z4417 Amia calva 179.2 220 5.7 Z4418 Amia calva 56.9 156 3.26 Z4614 Amia calva 85.2 184 4.14 Z7152 Amia calva 933 347 8.57 1801a Erimyzon sucetta 580 305 5.7 1801b Erimyzon sucetta 382 275 5.6 1801c Erimyzon sucetta 88.3 164 3.63 1801d Erimyzon sucetta 56.6 143 3.12 1801e Erimyzon sucetta 23.3 110 2.17 3331 Erimyzon sucetta 404.5 260 5.89 3379 Erimyzon sucetta 526.3 345 8.23 3380 Erimyzon sucetta 473.7 250 7.56
SL = standard length (mm) freshwght = fresh weight (g) atlas = atlas width (mm)
68
Table B-2 Atlas Width Measurements and Standard Length Calculations Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 1 STR. IVc N. crysoleucas atlas 3.7 pre 184.7 TU 5 20--30cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.72 pre 185.5 TU 5 30-40cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.95 pre 194.8 TU 5 30-40cm N. crysoleucas atlas 2.83 pre 148.3 TU 5 40-50cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.62 pre 181.4 TU 5 40-50cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.72 pre 185.5 TU 5 40-50cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.34 pre 169.8 TU 5 40-50cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.07 pre 158.5 TU 5 50-60cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.72 pre 185.5 TU 5 60-70cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.43 pre 173.6 TU 5 70-80cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.28 pre 167.3 TU 5 70-80cm N. crysoleucas atlas 2.8 pre 147.1 TU 5 70-80cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.36 pre 170.7 TU 5 70-80cm N. crysoleucas atlas 2.93 pre 152.6 TU 5 70-80cm N. crysoleucas atlas 2.19 pre 120.3 TU 2 STR. XIb N. crysoleucas atlas 3.14 pre 161.5 TU 4 E/V N. crysoleucas atlas 2.49 ceramic 133.6 TU 4 E/V N. crysoleucas atlas 2.57 ceramic 137.1 TU 4 F/V N. crysoleucas atlas 3.09 ceramic 159.4 TU 4 F/V N. crysoleucas atlas 3.08 ceramic 159.0 TU 4 F/V N. crysoleucas atlas 2.59 ceramic 138.0 TU 4 G/V N. crysoleucas atlas 2.53 ceramic 135.4 TU 4 H/V N. crysoleucas atlas 3.56 ceramic 178.9 TU 4 I/V N. crysoleucas atlas 2.78 ceramic 146.2 TU 4 K/V N. crysoleucas atlas 3.34 ceramic 169.8 TU 4 J/VIIa N. crysoleucas atlas 3.5 ceramic 176.5 TU 4 J/VIIa N. crysoleucas atlas 2.43 ceramic 131.0 TU 4 J/VIIa N. crysoleucas atlas 2.7 ceramic 142.8 TU 4 J/VIIa N. crysoleucas atlas 2.48 ceramic 133.2 TU 4 K/VIIa N. crysoleucas atlas 2.79 ceramic 146.6 TU 4 K/VIIa N. crysoleucas atlas 3.02 ceramic 156.4 TU 4 M/VIIa N. crysoleucas atlas 2.7 ceramic 142.8 TU 1 STR. IIIa N. crysoleucas atlas 2.48 ceramic 133.2 TU 1 STR. IIIc N. crysoleucas atlas 2.69 ceramic 142.3 TU 5 0-10cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.18 ceramic 163.2 TU 5 0-10cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.49 ceramic 176.1 TU 5 10-20cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.22 ceramic 164.8 TU 5 10-20cm N. crysoleucas atlas 3.4 ceramic 172.3 TU 2 STR. III N. crysoleucas atlas 2.52 ceramic 134.9 TU 2 STR. IV N. crysoleucas atlas 3.37 ceramic 171.1 TU 2 STR. IV N. crysoleucas atlas 3.8 ceramic 188.7 TU 2 STR. IV N. crysoleucas atlas 2.98 ceramic 154.7 TU 2 STR. V N. crysoleucas atlas 3.42 ceramic 173.2 TU 2 STR. VIIIa N. crysoleucas atlas 3.06 ceramic 158.1 TU 2 STR. VIIIa N. crysoleucas atlas 3.05 ceramic 157.7 TU 2 STR. VIIIb N. crysoleucas atlas 3.52 ceramic 177.3 TU 2 STR. VIIIc N. crysoleucas atlas 2.51 ceramic 134.5
69
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 2 STR. Xa N. crysoleucas atlas 4.05 ceramic 198.8 TU 5 30-40cm L. auritus atlas 2.81 pre 117.1 TU 5 70-80cm L. auritus atlas 2.48 pre 108.5 TU 5 70-80cm L. auritus atlas 2.92 pre 119.9 TU 5 70-80cm L. auritus atlas 2.57 pre 110.9 TU 5 70-80cm L. auritus atlas 3.1 pre 124.4 TU 5 70-80cm L. auritus atlas 3.17 pre 126.1 TU 5 30-40cm L. punctatus atlas 2.63 pre 112.5 TU 5 30-40cm L. punctatus atlas 3.04 pre 122.9 TU 5 30-40cm L. punctatus atlas 2.64 pre 112.7 TU 5 30-40cm L. punctatus atlas 2.84 pre 117.9 TU 5 70-80cm L. punctatus atlas 2.48 pre 108.5 TU 5 70-80cm L. punctatus atlas 2.15 pre 99.4 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.84 pre 117.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.31 pre 129.5 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.57 pre 110.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.4 pre 106.3 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.35 pre 104.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.1 pre 97.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.84 pre 117.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.6 pre 111.7 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.13 pre 98.8 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.43 pre 107.1 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.03 pre 95.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.32 pre 104.1 TU 1 STR. IVc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.72 pre 114.8 TU 1 STR. IVc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.65 pre 113.0 TU 1 STR. IVc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.35 pre 104.9 TU 5 30-40cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.64 pre 112.7 TU 5 30-40cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.62 pre 112.2 TU 5 30-40cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.43 pre 107.1 TU 5 30-40cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.43 pre 107.1 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.52 pre 109.5 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.56 pre 110.6 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.4 pre 106.3 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.69 pre 114.0 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.89 pre 119.2 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.33 pre 104.4 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.34 pre 130.3 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.86 pre 118.4 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.41 pre 106.6 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.54 pre 110.1 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.8 pre 141.0 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.38 pre 131.2 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.18 pre 126.4 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.69 pre 114.0 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.52 pre 134.5
70
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.02 pre 122.4 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.08 pre 123.9 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.36 pre 105.2 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.65 pre 113.0 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.57 pre 110.9 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.49 pre 108.7 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 4.95 pre 165.9 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.94 pre 120.4 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.33 pre 130.0 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.11 pre 124.7 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.28 pre 128.8 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.39 pre 106.0 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.52 pre 109.5 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.82 pre 117.4 TU 5 80-90cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.04 pre 122.9 TU 2 STR. Xia Lepomis spp. atlas 3.59 pre 136.2 TU 2 STR. Xia Lepomis spp. atlas 3.31 pre 129.5 TU 2 STR. Xia Lepomis spp. atlas 2.74 pre 115.3 TU 2 STR. Xia Lepomis spp. atlas 2.02 pre 95.6 TU 2 STR. Xib Lepomis spp. atlas 3.59 pre 136.2 TU 2 STR. Xib Lepomis spp. atlas 2.7 pre 114.3 TU 2 STR. Xib Lepomis spp. atlas 2.31 pre 103.8 TU 1 STR. Iva Centrarchidae atlas 1.78 pre 88.5 TU 1 STR. Iva Centrarchidae atlas 1.99 pre 94.7 TU 1 STR. Iva Centrarchidae atlas 2.02 pre 95.6 TU 1 STR. Iva Centrarchidae atlas 2.38 pre 105.8 TU 1 STR. Iva Centrarchidae atlas 2.5 pre 109.0 TU 1 STR. Ivb Centrarchidae atlas 1.75 pre 87.5 TU 1 STR. Ivc Centrarchidae atlas 3.69 pre 138.5 TU 1 STR. Ivc Centrarchidae atlas 2.97 pre 121.2 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.49 pre 108.7 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.2 pre 126.9 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.77 pre 116.1 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.89 pre 119.2 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.6 pre 111.7 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.73 pre 115.1 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.25 pre 102.2 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.42 pre 132.2 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.01 pre 95.3 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.85 pre 118.2 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 1.91 pre 92.4 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.43 pre 107.1 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.85 pre 142.1 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.7 pre 114.3 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.18 pre 126.4 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.54 pre 110.1 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.16 pre 99.6
71
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 3.3 pre 129.3 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.59 pre 111.4 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.76 pre 115.8 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.96 pre 120.9 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 3.17 pre 126.1 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 3.02 pre 122.4 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.31 pre 103.8 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.63 pre 112.5 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.42 pre 106.9 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 4.7 pre 160.7 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 3.19 pre 126.6 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 3.38 pre 131.2 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.77 pre 116.1 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.48 pre 133.6 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.76 pre 115.8 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.91 pre 143.5 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.54 pre 135.0 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.82 pre 117.4 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.65 pre 113.0 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.92 pre 119.9 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.72 pre 114.8 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.54 pre 110.1 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.96 pre 120.9 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.68 pre 138.3 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.5 pre 134.1 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.22 pre 127.4 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 3 pre 121.9 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.76 pre 115.8 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 4.25 pre 151.0 TU 5 80-90cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.97 pre 121.2 TU 5 80-90cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.19 pre 126.6 TU 2 STR. XIa Centrarchidae atlas 1.87 pre 91.2 TU 2 STR. Xib Centrarchidae atlas 2.38 pre 105.8 TU 2 STR. Xib Centrarchidae atlas 2.45 pre 107.7 TU 5 20-30cm M. salmoides atlas 4.87 pre 164.2 TU 5 20-30cm M. salmoides atlas 4.78 pre 162.4 TU 5 30-40cm M. salmoides atlas 5.3 pre 173.0 TU 5 30-40cm M. salmoides atlas 4.59 pre 158.4 TU 5 40-50cm M. salmoides atlas 3.95 pre 144.4 TU 5 50-60cm M. salmoides atlas 7.42 pre 212.8 TU 5 50-60cm M. salmoides atlas 4.32 pre 152.6 TU 5 60-70cm M. salmoides atlas 4.25 pre 151.0 TU 5 60-70cm M. salmoides atlas 11.26 pre 274.9 TU 5 80-90cm M. salmoides atlas 4.21 pre 150.2 TU 1 STR. Ivb P.nigromaculatus atlas 3.76 pre 140.1 TU 5 20-30cm P.nigromaculatus atlas 4.76 pre 161.9
72
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 5 30-40cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.58 pre 135.9 TU 5 40-50cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.31 pre 152.4 TU 5 40-50cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.92 pre 119.9 TU 5 50-60cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.54 pre 135.0 TU 5 60-70cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.67 pre 113.5 TU 5 70-80cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.05 pre 146.6 TU 5 80-90cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.9 pre 143.3 TU 5 80-90cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.05 pre 96.5 TU 5 80-90cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.02 pre 122.4 TU 2 STR. XIa P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.14 pre 125.4 TU 4 E/V L. auritus atlas 3.11 ceramic 124.7 TU 4 E/V L. auritus atlas 2.96 ceramic 120.9 TU 4 F/V L. auritus atlas 3.3 ceramic 129.3 TU 4 F/V L. auritus atlas 1.95 ceramic 93.6 TU 4 G/V L. auritus atlas 4.04 ceramic 146.4 TU 4 G/V L. auritus atlas 2.55 ceramic 110.3 TU 4 G/V L. auritus atlas 2.38 ceramic 105.8 TU 4 H/V L. auritus atlas 2.94 ceramic 120.4 TU 4 H/V L. auritus atlas 3.11 ceramic 124.7 TU 4 H/V L. auritus atlas 3.26 ceramic 128.3 TU 4 H/V L. auritus atlas 1.89 ceramic 91.8 TU 4 I/V L. auritus atlas 2.81 ceramic 117.1 TU 4 I/V L. auritus atlas 2.21 ceramic 101.1 TU 4 I/V L. auritus atlas 2.42 ceramic 106.9 TU 4 J/V L. auritus atlas 2.41 ceramic 106.6 TU 4 K/VIIa L. auritus atlas 3 ceramic 121.9 TU 4 K/VIIa L. auritus atlas 2.63 ceramic 112.5 TU 4 L/VIIa L. auritus atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 4 M/VIIa L. auritus atlas 1.97 ceramic 94.2 TU 4 M/VIIa L. auritus atlas 2.47 ceramic 108.2 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.13 ceramic 98.8 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 3.2 ceramic 126.9 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.42 ceramic 106.9 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.89 ceramic 119.2 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.21 ceramic 101.1 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.39 ceramic 106.0 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.7 ceramic 114.3 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.47 ceramic 108.2 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.29 ceramic 103.3
73
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 4 E/V L. gulosus atlas 3.45 ceramic 132.9 TU 4 H/V L. gulosus atlas 3.63 ceramic 137.1 TU 4 H/V L. gulosus atlas 3.34 ceramic 130.3 TU 4 I/V L. gulosus atlas 2.94 ceramic 120.4 TU 4 J/VIIa L. gulosus atlas 3.35 ceramic 130.5 TU 4 K/VIIa L. gulosus atlas 2.26 ceramic 102.5 TU 2 STR. III L. gulosus atlas 3.32 ceramic 129.8 TU 2 STR. III L. gulosus atlas 3.21 ceramic 127.1 TU 2 STR. III L. gulosus atlas 2.83 ceramic 117.6 TU 4 G/V L. macrochirus atlas 3.54 ceramic 135.0 TU 4 G/V L. macrochirus atlas 2.66 ceramic 113.2 TU 4 G/V L. macrochirus atlas 2.19 ceramic 100.5 TU 4 I/V L. macrochirus atlas 3.17 ceramic 126.1 TU 4 I/V L. macrochirus atlas 2.52 ceramic 109.5 TU 4 I/V L. macrochirus atlas 2.73 ceramic 115.1 TU 4 J/V L. macrochirus atlas 2.55 ceramic 110.3 TU 4 K/V L. macrochirus atlas 3.02 ceramic 122.4 TU 4 K/V L. macrochirus atlas 2.61 ceramic 111.9 TU 4 J/VIIa L. macrochirus atlas 3.03 ceramic 122.7 TU 4 K/VIIa L. macrochirus atlas 2.9 ceramic 119.4 TU 4 K/VIIa L. macrochirus atlas 4.57 ceramic 157.9 TU 4 L/VIIa L. macrochirus atlas 2.39 ceramic 106.0 TU 4 L/VIIa L. macrochirus atlas 3.04 ceramic 122.9 TU 4 L/VIIa L. macrochirus atlas 2.32 ceramic 104.1 TU 4 L/VIIa L. macrochirus atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 4 L/VIIa L. macrochirus atlas 2.06 ceramic 96.8 TU 4 M/VIIa L. macrochirus atlas 3.12 ceramic 124.9 TU 2 STR. III L. macrochirus atlas 3.08 ceramic 123.9 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochirus atlas 3.66 ceramic 137.8 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochirus atlas 2.91 ceramic 119.7 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochirus atlas 3.7 ceramic 138.7 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochirus atlas 4.55 ceramic 157.5 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochirus atlas 2.69 ceramic 114.0 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochirus atlas 2.41 ceramic 106.6 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochirus atlas 2.65 ceramic 113.0 TU 2 STR. V L. macrochirus atlas 2.35 ceramic 104.9 TU 2 STR. V L. macrochirus atlas 2.67 ceramic 113.5 TU 4 F/V L. microlophus atlas 3.68 ceramic 138.3 TU 1 STR. IIIa L. microlophus atlas 3.27 ceramic 128.6 TU 1 STR. IIIb L. microlophus atlas 4.71 ceramic 160.9 TU 2 STR. IV L. microlophus atlas 2.84 ceramic 117.9 TU 4 H/V L. punctatus atlas 3.06 ceramic 123.4 TU 4 I/V L. punctatus atlas 3.04 ceramic 122.9 TU 4 K/VIIa L. punctatus atlas 2.28 ceramic 103.0 TU 4 K/VIIa L. punctatus atlas 2.33 ceramic 104.4 TU 1 STR. IIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.73 ceramic 115.1
74
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 1 STR. IIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.45 ceramic 107.7 TU 1 STR. IIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.24 ceramic 127.8 TU 1 STR. IIIc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 1 STR. IIIc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.66 ceramic 113.2 TU 1 STR. IIIc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.13 ceramic 98.8 TU 1 STR. IIIc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.25 ceramic 102.2 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 2.85 ceramic 118.2 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 3.22 ceramic 127.4 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 3.11 ceramic 124.7 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 2.72 ceramic 114.8 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 2.43 ceramic 107.1 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 2.23 ceramic 101.6 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.1 ceramic 124.4 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.57 ceramic 110.9 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.11 ceramic 124.7 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 4.44 ceramic 155.2 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.14 ceramic 125.4 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.66 ceramic 113.2 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.68 ceramic 113.8 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.77 ceramic 116.1 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.99 ceramic 121.7 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.52 ceramic 109.5 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 4.37 ceramic 153.7 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.92 ceramic 119.9 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.2 ceramic 100.8 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.04 ceramic 122.9 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.49 ceramic 108.7 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.41 ceramic 106.6 TU 2 STR. IV Lepomis spp. atlas 2.47 ceramic 108.2 TU 2 STR. IV Lepomis spp. atlas 2.42 ceramic 106.9 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.98 ceramic 121.4 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.64 ceramic 112.7 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.46 ceramic 107.9 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.72 ceramic 114.8 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.17 ceramic 99.9 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.18 ceramic 100.2 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.72 ceramic 114.8 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.21 ceramic 101.1 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.62 ceramic 112.2 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.94 ceramic 120.4 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.2 ceramic 126.9 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.33 ceramic 130.0 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.5 ceramic 134.1 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.03 ceramic 122.7 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.98 ceramic 121.4 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.11 ceramic 124.7
75
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.77 ceramic 116.1 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.41 ceramic 106.6 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.3 ceramic 103.6 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.33 ceramic 104.4 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.69 ceramic 114.0 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.74 ceramic 139.6 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.01 ceramic 122.2 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 1.95 ceramic 93.6 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.59 ceramic 111.4 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.22 ceramic 127.4 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.55 ceramic 110.3 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.32 ceramic 129.8 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.32 ceramic 129.8 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.59 ceramic 111.4 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.48 ceramic 108.5 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 3.17 ceramic 126.1 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.94 ceramic 120.4 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.99 ceramic 121.7 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.74 ceramic 115.3 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.95 ceramic 120.7 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.99 ceramic 121.7 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.6 ceramic 111.7 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.9 ceramic 119.4 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.09 ceramic 97.6 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.85 ceramic 118.2 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.16 ceramic 99.6 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.71 ceramic 114.5 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 3.05 ceramic 123.2 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.3 ceramic 103.6 TU 2 STR. VIIIc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.26 ceramic 102.5 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 2.33 ceramic 104.4 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 3.31 ceramic 129.5 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 2.02 ceramic 95.6 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 2.2 ceramic 100.8 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 2.66 ceramic 113.2 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.86 ceramic 118.4 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.81 ceramic 117.1 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.25 ceramic 128.1 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.67 ceramic 113.5 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.63 ceramic 112.5 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.46 ceramic 107.9 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.55 ceramic 110.3 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 3.32 ceramic 129.8 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.3 ceramic 103.6
76
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.49 ceramic 108.7 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.14 ceramic 99.1 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.19 ceramic 100.5 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.49 ceramic 108.7 TU 4 E/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.72 ceramic 139.2 TU 4 E/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.73 ceramic 115.1 TU 4 F/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.45 ceramic 107.7 TU 4 F/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.77 ceramic 116.1 TU 4 F/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.4 ceramic 106.3 TU 4 F/V Centrarchidae atlas 2 ceramic 95.0 TU 4 G/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.82 ceramic 117.4 TU 4 G/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.69 ceramic 114.0 TU 4 G/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.64 ceramic 112.7 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.33 ceramic 130.0 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.92 ceramic 143.7 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.79 ceramic 116.6 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.45 ceramic 132.9 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.34 ceramic 104.7 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.29 ceramic 103.3 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.35 ceramic 104.9 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.68 ceramic 113.8 TU 4 I/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.67 ceramic 138.0 TU 4 I/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.49 ceramic 133.8 TU 4 I/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.41 ceramic 106.6 TU 4 I/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.27 ceramic 102.7 TU 1 STR. IIIc Centrarchidae atlas 2.24 ceramic 101.9 TU 1 STR. IIIc Centrarchidae atlas 2.84 ceramic 117.9 TU 1 STR. IIId Centrarchidae atlas 3.46 ceramic 133.1 TU 1 STR. IIId Centrarchidae atlas 2.18 ceramic 100.2 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.04 ceramic 122.9 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.78 ceramic 116.4 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 4.07 ceramic 147.1 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 4.81 ceramic 163.0 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.5 ceramic 109.0 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.08 ceramic 123.9 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.23 ceramic 127.6 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 1.91 ceramic 92.4 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.4 ceramic 131.7 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.76 ceramic 115.8 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.66 ceramic 113.2 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.38 ceramic 131.2 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.67 ceramic 138.0 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 4.22 ceramic 150.4 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.24 ceramic 127.8 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.94 ceramic 120.4 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.53 ceramic 134.8 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.17 ceramic 126.1
77
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.46 ceramic 133.1 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.65 ceramic 113.0 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.79 ceramic 116.6 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.52 ceramic 109.5 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.8 ceramic 116.9 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.78 ceramic 116.4 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.77 ceramic 116.1 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 1.83 ceramic 90.0 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.93 ceramic 120.2 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.08 ceramic 97.4 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.64 ceramic 112.7 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.17 ceramic 99.9 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.32 ceramic 104.1 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.49 ceramic 133.8 TU 2 STR. IV Centrarchidae atlas 3.33 ceramic 130.0 TU 2 STR. IV Centrarchidae atlas 2.39 ceramic 106.0 TU 2 STR. IV Centrarchidae atlas 2.59 ceramic 111.4 TU 2 STR. IV Centrarchidae atlas 2.24 ceramic 101.9 TU 2 STR. IV Centrarchidae atlas 1.92 ceramic 92.7 TU 2 STR. V Centrarchidae atlas 1.93 ceramic 93.0 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.81 ceramic 117.1 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 6.1 ceramic 188.6 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.8 ceramic 116.9 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.98 ceramic 121.4 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.77 ceramic 116.1 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.42 ceramic 106.9 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 1.83 ceramic 90.0 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.68 ceramic 113.8 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.31 ceramic 103.8 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 3.29 ceramic 129.1 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.98 ceramic 121.4 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.6 ceramic 111.7 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.71 ceramic 114.5 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.53 ceramic 109.8 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.74 ceramic 115.3 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.63 ceramic 112.5 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.24 ceramic 101.9 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Centrarchidae atlas 3.33 ceramic 130.0 TU 2 STR. IX Centrarchidae atlas 2.39 ceramic 106.0 TU 2 STR. IX Centrarchidae atlas 2.67 ceramic 113.5 TU 2 STR. IX Centrarchidae atlas 1.85 ceramic 90.6 TU 4 H/V M. salmoides atlas 3.56 ceramic 135.5 TU 4 H/V M. salmoides atlas 3.8 ceramic 141.0 TU 4 I/V M. salmoides atlas 3.62 ceramic 136.9 TU 4 K/V M. salmoides atlas 3.6 ceramic 136.4 TU 4 J/VIIa M. salmoides atlas 7.74 ceramic 218.3 TU 4 J/VIIa M. salmoides atlas 3.25 ceramic 128.1
78
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 1 STR. IIIa M. salmoides atlas 3.08 ceramic 123.9 TU 2 STR. III M. salmoides atlas 5.24 ceramic 171.8 TU 2 STR. III M. salmoides atlas 3.89 ceramic 143.0 TU 2 STR. V M. salmoides atlas 7.72 ceramic 218.0 TU 2 STR. VIIIa M. salmoides atlas 2.69 ceramic 114.0 TU 2 STR. VIIIb M. salmoides atlas 3.65 ceramic 137.6 TU 2 STR. IX M. salmoides atlas 3.41 ceramic 131.9 TU 2 STR. Xb M. salmoides atlas 2.67 ceramic 113.5 TU 4 H/V P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.26 ceramic 151.3 TU 4 I/V P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.03 ceramic 146.2 TU 4 L/VIIa P. nigromaculatus atlas 5.05 ceramic 167.9 TU 1 STR. IIIa P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.02 ceramic 122.4 TU 1 STR. IIId P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.41 ceramic 131.9 TU 5 0-10cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.1 ceramic 147.7 TU 5 0-10cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 5.06 ceramic 168.1 TU 5 0-10cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.49 ceramic 156.2 TU 5 0-10cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.49 ceramic 133.8 TU 5 10-20cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.12 ceramic 124.9 TU 5 10-20cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.64 ceramic 112.7 TU 5 10-20cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.69 ceramic 114.0 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.79 ceramic 162.6 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatus atlas 5.13 ceramic 169.6 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.63 ceramic 137.1 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.59 ceramic 136.2 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.17 ceramic 149.3 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.81 ceramic 141.2 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.5 ceramic 109.0 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.71 ceramic 114.5 TU 2 STR. IV P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.11 ceramic 148.0 TU 2 STR. IV P. nigromaculatus atlas 1.93 ceramic 93.0 TU 2 STR. V P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.79 ceramic 140.8 TU 2 STR. V P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.36 ceramic 130.7 TU 2 STR. VI P. nigromaculatus atlas 5.23 ceramic 171.6 TU 2 STR. VI P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.49 ceramic 156.2 TU 2 STR. VI P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.26 ceramic 128.3 TU 2 STR. VI P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.19 ceramic 126.6 TU 2 STR. VIIIa P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.33 ceramic 130.0 TU 2 STR. VIIIb P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.81 ceramic 117.1 TU 2 STR. VIIIb P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.56 ceramic 135.5 TU 2 STR. VIIIc P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.52 ceramic 134.5 TU 5 60-70cm Amia calva atlas 8.12 pre 334.1 TU 5 60-70cm Amia calva atlas 15.04 pre 580.8 TU 1 STR. IIIa Amia calva atlas 6.18 ceramic 261.5 TU 5 0-10cm Amia calva atlas 7.52 ceramic 311.8 TU 5 0-10cm Amia calva atlas 6.71 ceramic 281.5 TU 2 STR. III Amia calva atlas 13.12 ceramic 513.8 TU 2 STR. III Amia calva atlas 9.86 ceramic 397.6
79
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 2 STR. III Amia calva atlas 10.32 ceramic 414.3 TU 2 STR. III Amia calva atlas 10.7 ceramic 427.9 TU 2 STR. III Amia calva atlas 6.94 ceramic 290.2 TU 2 STR. VIIIc Amia calva atlas 4.1 ceramic 180.9 TU 5 20-30cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.23 pre 232.3 TU 5 20-30cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.65 pre 210.5 TU 5 20-30cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 3.95 pre 183.7 TU 5 40-50cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.69 pre 212.0 TU 5 40-50cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.46 pre 203.3 TU 5 50-60cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 6.37 pre 274.0 TU 5 50-60cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.44 pre 240.1 TU 5 50-60cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.14 pre 228.9 TU 5 60-70cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.27 pre 233.8 TU 5 60-70cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.76 pre 251.8 TU 5 60-70cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 7.02 pre 297.2 TU 5 60-70cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.45 pre 240.4 TU 5 60-70cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.2 pre 193.3 TU 5 70-80cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.22 pre 231.9 TU 5 70-80cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.86 pre 255.5 TU 5 70-80cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.88 pre 256.2 TU 5 70-80cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.24 pre 232.7 TU 5 70-80cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.63 pre 247.1 TU 5 80-90cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.81 pre 253.7 TU 5 80-90cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.57 pre 207.5 TU 5 80-90cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.13 pre 190.6 TU 2 STR. Xia Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.89 pre 219.6 TU 4 H/V Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.65 ceramic 247.8 TU 4 H/V Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.65 ceramic 210.5 TU 4 I/V Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.79 ceramic 252.9 TU 4 L/VIIa Erimyzon sucetta atlas 6.04 ceramic 262.0 TU 1 STR. IIIa Erimyzon sucetta atlas 3.81 ceramic 178.2 TU 5 0-10cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.12 ceramic 228.2 TU 5 0-10cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.95 ceramic 221.8 TU 5 0-10cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.89 ceramic 219.6 TU 5 0-10cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 6.08 ceramic 263.5 TU 5 10-20cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.37 ceramic 237.5 TU 5 10-20cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.06 ceramic 225.9 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.82 ceramic 254.0 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.46 ceramic 240.8 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.37 ceramic 237.5 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5 ceramic 223.7 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.94 ceramic 221.5 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.28 ceramic 234.1 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.89 ceramic 219.6 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.01 ceramic 186.0 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.58 ceramic 207.9 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.58 ceramic 207.9
80
Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 3.24 ceramic 155.6 TU 2 STR. VI Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.5 ceramic 204.8 TU 2 STR. VI Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.08 ceramic 226.7 TU 2 STR. IX Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.28 ceramic 234.1 TU 2 STR. Xa Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.66 ceramic 210.9 TU 2 STR. Xb Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.35 ceramic 236.7
AW = Atlas Width (mm) Cult. = Cultural Component (e.g., preceramic vs. ceramic) SL = Standard Length (mm)
81
LIST OF REFERENCES
Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman 2003 Early and Middle Holocene. In Handbook of North American Indians, Southeast Volume. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Aten, Lawrence E. 1999 Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island, Florida: Ripley P. Bullen’s 1961 Excavation at Harris Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist 52:131-200. Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smokes and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.
Blitz, John H. 1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58:80-95. Bourdiue, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bowser, Brenda J. 2000 From Pottery to politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political Factionalism, Ethnicity, and Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:219-248. Braun, David P. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by J.A. Moore and A.S. Keene, pp.108-134. Academic Press, New York. Broughton, Jack M.
1999 Resource Depression and Intensification During the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay: Evidence from the Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate Fauna. Anthropological Records Vol. 32 University of California Press, Berkeley.
82
Brown, James A. 1985 Long-Term Trends to Sedentism and the Emergence of Complexity in the
American Midwest. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, pp. 201-224. Academic Press, New York.
1989 The Beginnings of Pottery as an Economic Process. In What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation, edited by S.E. van der Leeuw, pp. 203-224. Unwin Hyman, London. Brown, James A., and Robert K. Vierra 1983 What Happened in the Middle Archaic? Introduction to an Ecological Approach to Koster Site Archaeology. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers In the American Midwest, edited by J.L. Phillips and J.A. Brown, pp.165-
195. Academic Press, New York. Bullen, Ripley P. 1954 Culture Changes during the Fiber-Tempered Period of Florida. Southern Indian Studies 6:45-48. 1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida. In Fiber-Tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern-Columbia: Its Origins, Context, and Significance, edited by Ripley P. Bullen and James P. Stoltman, pp. 9-33. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 6. Gainesville. Cashdan, Elizabeth
1980 Egalitarianism among Hunter and Gatherers. American Anthropologist 82:116-129.
Claassen, Cheryl 1991 Gender, Shellfishing, and the Shell Mound Archaic. In Engendering
Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Margeret W. Conkey, pp. 276-301. Blackwell, Oxford.
1996 A Consideration of the Social Organization of the Shell Mound Archaic.
In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 235-258. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Clastres, Pierre 1998 Chronicle of the Guayaki Indians. Zone Books, New York. Connaughton, Sean P. 2001 Resource Depression in the Subsistence Economy of Prehistoric Hunter- Gatherers of the St. Johns River Valley, Florida. Senior Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
83
Cumbaa, Stephen L. 1976 A Reconsideration of Freshwater Shellfish Exploitation in the Florida
Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 29 (2): 50-59. DeBoer, Warren R. 2001 The Big Drink: Feast and Forum in the Upper Amazon. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 215-239. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Ellen, Roy 1995 Foraging, Starch Extraction and the Sedentary Lifestyle in Lowland
Rainforest of Central Seram. In Hunters and Gatherers Volume 1: History, Evolution and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches and James Woodburn, pp. 117-134. Berg, Oxford.
Goggin, John M.
1998 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology, Florida. Reprinted. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Originally Published 1952, Volume 47 Publications in Anthropology. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Gosselain, Oliver P. 1992a Bonfire of the Enquiries. Pottery Firing Temperatures in Archaeology: What For? Journal of Archaeological Science 19(3):243-259.
1992b Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Among the Bafia of Cameroon. Man 27:559-586. Hally, David J.
1983 Use Alteration of Pottery Surfaces: An Important Source of Evidence for the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 4:3- 26. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51:267-295. Hamilton, Fran 1999 Southeastern Archaic Mounds: Examples of Elaboration in a Temporally Fluctuating Environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18: 344-355. Hawkes, K, K. Hill, and J. O’Connell 1982 Why Hunters Gather: Optimal Foraging and the Ache of Eastern Paraguay. American Ethnologist 9:379-398.
84
Hayden, Brian 1994 Competition, Labor and Complex Hunter-Gatherers. In Key Issues in
Hunter-Gatherer Research, edited by E.S. Burch, Jr., and L. J. Ellanna, pp. 223-239. Berg, Oxford.
2002 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon To The Importance Of Feasting. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 23-64. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Hendon, Julia A. 2000 Having and Holding: Storage, Memory, Knowledge and Social Relations. American Anthropologist 102:42-53. Hofman, Jack L.
1985 Middle Archaic Ritual and Shell Midden Archaeology: Considering The Significance of Cremations. In Exploring Tennessee Prehistory: A Dedication to Alfred K. Guthe, edited by T. Whyte, C. Boyd, and B. Riggs, pp.1-21. Report of Investigations 42. Knoxville: Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee.
Hoyer, Mark V. 1994 Handbook of Common Freshwater Fish in Florida. University of Florida Co. Extensive Services, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, Florida. Ingold, Tim
1999 On the Social Relations of the Hunter-Gatherer Band. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, edited by R.B. Lee and R. Daly, pp. 399-410. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jefferies, Richard W. 1996 The Emergence of Long-Distance Exchange Networks in the Southeastern United States. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 222-234. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Jochim, Michael A.
1981 Strategies for Survival: Cultural Behavior in an Ecological Context. Academic Press, New York.
Joyce, Rosemary A. 1998 Performing the Body in Pre-Hispanic Central America. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 33:147-165.
85
Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways.
Smithsonian Institution press, Washington, D.C. Loney, Helen L. 2000 Society and Technological Control: A Critical Review of Models of Technological Change in Ceramic Studies. American Antiquity 65:646- 668. Lourandos, Harry 1995 Palaeopolitics: Resource Intensification in Aboriginal Australia
and Papua New Guinea. In Hunters and Gatherers Volume 1: History, Evolution and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches and James Woodburn, pp. 148-160. Berg, Oxford.
Marquardt, William H. 1985 Complexity and Scale in the Study of Fisher-Gatherer-Hunters: An Example from the Eastern United States. In Prehistoric Hunter- Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, edited by T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, pp.59-98. Academic Press, Orlando. Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Mills, Barbara J. 1999 Ceramics and Social Contexts of Food Consumption in the Northern Southwest. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by James M. Skibo and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 99-114. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Moore, Clarence B.
1892 Certain Shell Heaps of the St. John’s River, Florida, Hitherto Unexplored. The American Naturalist. (November) pp. 912-922.
Page, Lawrence and Brooks M. Burr 1991 A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes. Houghton Mifflin, New York. Quitmyer, Irv R. 2001 The Mount Taylor Period Zooarchaeological Record of the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53): Middle Holocene Subsistence in Central-East Florida. Report Prepared for Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Sarasota, And for the Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee. Reitz, Elizabeth J., E.S. Wing
1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
86
Rice, Prudence M. 1986 Pottery Analysis: A Source Book. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1996 Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style and Origins. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:133-163. 1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6:1-54. Russo, Michael 1988 A Comment on Temporal Patterns in marine Shellfish Use in Florida and Georgia. Southeastern Archaeology 7(1):61-68. 1994 Why We Don’t Believe in Archaic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We
Should: The Case from Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13:93-108. 1996a Southeastern Mid-Holocene Coastal Settlements. In Archaeology of the
Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 177-199. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
1996b Southeastern Archaic Mounds. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 259-287. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Russo, Michael, B. Purdy, L. Newsom, and R. McGee
1992 A Reinterpretation of Late Archaic Adaptations in Central-East Florida: Groves’ Orange Midden (8Vo2601). Southeastern Archaeology 11(2): 95-108.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1995 The Social Contradictions of Traditional and Innovative Cooking Technologies in the Prehistoric American Southeast. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes, pp. 223-240. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1996 Technological Innovations in Economic and Social Contexts. In
Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 57-74. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
87
2001a Hunter-Gatherers and Traditions of Resistance. In The Archaeology Of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, edited by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 218-236. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2001b Articulating Hidden Histories of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. In Archaeology of the Appalachian Highlands, edited by L.P. Sullivan and S.C. Prezzano, pp.103-119. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 2003a New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1):5-14. 2003b St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2000-2001: Blue Spring and Hontoon Island State Parks. Technical Report 4. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2003c Crescent Lake Archaeological Survey 2002: Putnam and Flagler Counties, Florida. Technical Report 5. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Sassaman, Kenneth E., and Wictoria Rudolphi 2001 Communities of Practice in the Early Ceramic Traditions of the American Southeast. Journal of Anthropological Research 57:407-425. Schiffer, Michael B. and James M. Skibo 1987 Theory and experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28:595-622. Schrire, Carmel 1984 Wild Surmises on Savage Thoughts. In Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies, edited by Carmel Schrire, pp. 1-25. Academic Press, New York. Schuldenrein, Joseph 1996 Geoarchaeology and the Mid-Holocene Landscape History of the Greater Southeast. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K.E. Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 3-27. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Sewell, William H., Jr. 1992 A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology 98:1-29.
88
Smith, Eric Alden 1995 Risk and Uncertainty in the ‘Original Affluent Society’: Evolutionary
Ecology of Resource-Sharing and Land Tenure. In Hunters and Gatherers Volume 1: History, Evolution and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches and James Woodburn, pp. 222-251. Berg, Oxford.
Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to
deSoto. In Advances in World Archaeology (vol. 5), edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close, pp.1-92. Academic Press, Orlando.
Stark, Miriam T., Ronald L. Bishop., and Elizabeth Miksa 2000 Ceramic Technology and Social Boundaries: Cultural Practices in Kalinga Clay Selection and Use. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:295-331. Steward, Julian H. 1955 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. Trigger, Bruce
1987 Native Shell Mounds of North America: Early Studies. Garland Publishing Inc., New York.
1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press. Watts, William A., Eric C. Grimm, and T.C. Hussey 1996 Mid-Holocene Forest History of Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K.E. Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 28-38. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Wheeler, Ryan J. & Ray M. McGee
1994 Report of Preliminary Zooarchaeological Analysis: Groves’ Orange Midden. The Florida Anthropologist 47 (4): 393-403.
Wheeler, Ryan J., Christine L. Newman, & Ray M. McGee 2000 A New Look at the Mount Taylor and Bluffton Sites, Volusia County with an Outline of the Mount Taylor Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 53 (2-3):132-157. Wiessner, Polly 1982 Risk, Reciprocity and Social Influences on !Kung San Economics. In Politics and History in Band Societies, edited by Eleanor Leacock and Richard Lee, pp. 61-84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
89
Winterhalder, Bruce 1993 Work, Resources, and Population in Foraging Societies. Man 28:
321-340. Winterhalder, Bruce and Eric A. Smith
1992 Evolutionary Ecology and the Social Sciences. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, edited by Eric A. Smith and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 3-24. Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY.
Wright, Rita P. 1991 Women’s Labor and Pottery Production in Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey, pp. 194-223. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge. Wyman, Jeffries
1875 Freshwater Shell Mounds of the St. John’s River, Florida. Memoirs of the Peabody Academy of Science. Fourth Memoir Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.1-83. Harvard University, Cambridge.
90
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Sean P. Connaughton graduated from Eau Gallie High School, Melbourne, FL in
1997. He attended the University of Florida (UF) for his undergraduate education
majoring in anthropology. Upon completing his senior thesis, he graduated from UF in
2001 and was admitted to the graduate program in the Department of Anthropology at
UF. He will graduate in May 2004 with his Master of Art degree in anthropology. In the
fall of 2004 he will attend Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, to pursue his
Ph.D. in Archaeology. His area of focus will be in the South Pacific, particularly Fiji and
Tonga.