FL 1A-32 Permit No. 2324.042

INTENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCE REMOTE SENSING

SURVEY FOR THE FLAGLER COUNTY, FL

BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT

FLAGLER COUNTY, FL

PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY:

Olsen Associates, Inc. PaleoWest, LLC d/b/a Chronicle Heritage Jacksonville, Florida Pensacola, Florida

FINAL REPORT JULY 2024

Page intentionally blank

FINAL REPORT

INTENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCE REMOTE SENSING SURVEY

FOR THE FLAGLER COUNTY, FL

BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT

FLAGLER COUNTY, FL

1A-32 PERMIT NO. 2324.042

PREPARED FOR:

Olsen Associates, Inc

2618 Herschel St.

Jacksonville, FL 32204

PREPARED BY:

PaleoWest, LLC d/b/a Chronicle Heritage

1406 West Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32514

Paleowest Report No. 24-PC-01778

AUTHORED BY:

Ms. Sienna Williams, Mr. Matthew Lowe, M.A., RPA, Mrs. Rikki Oeters Milewski, M.A., RPA, and Mr. Francis Stankiewicz, M.A., RPA

Francis Stankiewicz, M.A., RPA Principal Investigator

JULY ♦ 2024

Page intentionally blank i

ABSTRACT

Olsen Associates, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida (OAI) is proposing the Dune/Beach Berm Restoration Project between R-65.4 (Osprey Drive in the Town of Beverly Beach) and R-43.5 for Flagler County, Florida. Project activities, such as beach and dune restoration, have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources (e.g., archaeological sites and buried shipwrecks) in the Project Area, which encompassed a Near-Shore Placement Area and an On-Shore Placement Area.

The goal of this project was to determine the presence of potentially significant cultural resources that may be located within the project area before the implementation of any project activities.

PaleoWest, LLC of Pensacola, Florida d/b/a Chronicle Heritage, under subcontract to OAI, conducted submerged and terrestrial remote sensing surveys.

The terrestrial magnetometer survey utilized a Geometrics MagEx Magnetometer. The submerged remote sensing survey equipment included a magnetometer, side-scan sonar, and a subbottom profiler. Archaeologists located 153 On-Shore magnetic anomalies, 84 Near-Shore magnetic anomalies, 17 side-scan sonar contacts, and four (n=4) subbottom impendence contrast features within the project area. This investigation identified eight (n=8) potentially significant targets.

Three (n=3) of these targets were in the On-Shore Placement Area, and the remaining five (n=5) targets were in the Near-Shore Placement Area. Avoidance of the potentially significant targets is recommended. If avoidance is not feasible, further investigation is required.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The successful completion of this project is the direct result of the input and hard work of numerous individuals. The authors would first like to specifically thank Mr. Christopher Creed with OAI for allowing Chronicle Heritage the opportunity to conduct this investigation.

The authors would also like to thank Mr. James Duff for his participation in this investigation. He is thanked for his hard work and for maintaining a safe work environment at all times.

In-house Chronicle Heritage personnel who must be thanked for their assistance with this report production include Ms. Kate Gilow, Office Manager, and Erin K. Stinchcomb, Editor.

Finally, the good people of Flagler Beach and St. Augustine, Florida, are thanked for the hospitality shown to the survey crew during our stay. We hope to return in the future to sample that hospitality once again.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... viii

I. INTRODUCTION

II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

GEOLOGY AND PALEOENVIRONMENT

Sinkholes Offshore

CONSIDERATIONS OF SEA LEVEL FLUCTUATION

PRECONTACT CONTEXT

Paleoindian and Early Archaic (12,000– 9000 ybp) Middle Archaic (8,000–5,000 ybp) Late Archaic (5,000–3,000 ybp) Woodland (3,000–1,000 ybp) Mississippian

HISTORIC PERIOD

First Spanish Period (1513–1763) British Period (1763–1783) Second Spanish Period (1783–1821) Territorial Period (1821–1844) Statehood Period Civil War Period Post-Civil War Period Twentieth Century

MARITIME HISTORY

Intracoastal Waterway Historic Shipwrecks

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS

Previous Maritime Cultural Resources Investigations Previous Terrestrial Cultural Resource Investigations

PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES

Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System Other Shipwreck Sources

CARTOGRAPHIC REVIEW

iv

III. METHODS

PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENTS

Terrestrial Magnetometer Survey: On-Shore Placement Area Maritime Remote Sensing Survey: Near-Shore Placement Area

PERSONNEL

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY EQUIPMENT

Terrestrial Magnetometer Survey Equipment Maritime Remote Sensing Survey Equipment

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY PROCEDURES

Terrestrial Magnetometer Survey Procedures Maritime Remote Sensing Survey Procedures

DATA ANALYSIS

Data Processing Magnetic Data Collection and Processing Side-scan Sonar Data Collection and Processing Subbottom Profiler Data Processing and Analysis Geographic Information Systems Analysis

DATA ANALYSIS CRITERIA, THEORY, AND COMMENTARY

Magnetometer Side-scan Sonar Clustering Subbottom Profiler Analysis

METHOD AND THEORY FOR RECOGNITION OF A SUBMERGED PRECONTACT SITE

IV. INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS

MAGNETOMETER RESULTS

SIDE-SCAN SONAR RESULTS

SUBBOTTOM PROFILER RESULTS

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT TARGETS

Target 1 Target 2 Target 3 Target 4 Target 5 Target 6 Target 7 Target 8

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

PROCEDURES TO DEAL WITH UNEXPECTED DISCOVERIES

VII. REFERENCES CITED

v

APPENDIX A: SCOPE OF WORK

APPENDIX B: FLORIDA 1A-32 PERMIT

APPENDIX C: PROJECT PERSONNEL VITAE

APPENDIX D: MAGNETIC DATA TABLE

APPENDIX E: SONAR DATA TABLE

APPENDIX F: SONAR REPORT

APPENDIX G: SURVEY LOG

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-01. Map of the On-Shore and Near-Shore Placement Area (Project Area) Figure 2-01. Information layers from Phelps et al. (2006) Figure 2-02. Reproduction of the Siddall et al. (2003) global eustatic sea level curve Figure 2-03. Series of GIS-based maps of sites in the Florida Master Site File Figure 2-04. Map depicting Sir Francis Drake’s attack on St. Augustine on 28 and 29 May 1589 Figure 2-05. Aerial view of the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument Figure 2-06. Ponce de Leon Hotel, now part of Flagler College Figure 2-07. Undated photo of a dredge in operation on the East Coast Canal Figure 2-08. Photo of the Rufus B. Raney, later the Northwestern while in Great Lakes service prior to 1916 Figure 2-09. The wreck of the four-masted schooner Tamarco off Flagler Beach,.September 21, 1929 Figure 2-10. Map illustrating the location of previous maritime cultural resources investigations Figure 2-11. Map illustrating the location of previous terrestrial cultural investigations Figure 2-12. Map illustrating the location of previously identified archaeological sites Figure 2-13. Map illustrating the location of AWOIS/ENC wrecks and obstructions Figure 2-14. Map excerpt of chart published in 1776 (Chart No. 83-992-1776) Figure 2-15. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1863 (Chart No. P-937-00-1863) Figure 2-16. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1882 (Chart No. LC00013-08-1882) Figure 2-17. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1905 (Chart No. LC00159-12-1905) Figure 2-18. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1907 (Chart No. CP1784C) Figure 2-19. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1924 (Chart No. LC00159-11-1924) Figure 2-20. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1925 (Chart No. 159-3-1925) Figure 2-21. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1928 (Chart No. 3258-9-1928) Figure 2-22. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1930 (Chart No. 1244-2-1930) Figure 2-23. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1952 (Chart No. 1244-4-1952) Figure 2-24. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1969 (Chart No. 1244-2-1969) Figure 2-25. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 1978 (Chart No. 11486-1-1978) Figure 2-26. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 2010 (Chart No. 11486-11-2010) Figure 2-27. Map excerpt of a navigational chart published in 2023 (Chart No. 11486-1-2023) Figure 3-01. Terrestrial survey conditions at the southern end of the On-Shore Placement Area Figure 3-02. Survey conditions within the On-Shore Placement Area Figure 3-03. Terrestrial survey conditions in the southern half of the On-Shore Placement Area, looking south Figure 3-04. On water survey conditions, looking southwest Figure 3-05. Inter tidal zone of Flagler Beach, looking west Figure 3-06. Geometrics MagEx Magnetometer employed in the Flagler Beach terrestrial magnetometer survey. . 51 Figure 3-07. SBG Systems Ellipse2-D navigation and inertial compensator used during the investigation Figure 3-08. Vessel schematic illustrating instrument positions relative to the tracking point Figure 3-09. Survey instruments employed during the investigation Figure 3-10. Chronicle’s 25-foot Parker employed for the remote sensing survey vii

Figure 3-11. Pre-planned survey lines for the Project Area Figure 3-12. Remote Sensing Specialist with the Geometric MagEx Magnetometer and Getac tablet Figure 3-13. HYPACK Magnetometer Editor magnetic data display of a survey line Figure 3-14. SonarWiz 7 software with mosaic example in the background Figure 3-15. SonarWiz 7 sonar contact tabular format, automatically generated Figure 3-16. SonarWiz subbottom profile image showing the seismic profile-digitizing window Figure 3-17. Geographic Information System database example Figure 3-18. Magnetic contour maps of six wreck sites documented during recent Commonwealth Projects Figure 4-01. Map key of the magnetic contours maps Figure 4-02. Magnetic contours map 1 Figure 4-03. Magnetic contours map 2 Figure 4-04. Magnetic contours map 3 Figure 4-05. Magnetic contours map 4 Figure 4-06. Side-scan sonar coverage mosaic of Near-Shore Placement Area Figure 4-07. Erosional features present in the southern extent of the Near-Shore Placement Area Figure 4-08. Subbottom profiler features within the Project Area Figure 4-09. Location of identified Targets Figure 4-10. Map highlighting the magnetic contours associated with Target 1 Figure 4-11. Map highlighting the acoustic image (left) and magnetic contours (right) associated with Target 2 Figure 4-12. Map highlighting the magnetic contours associated with Target 3 (Bond Wheeler Wreck) Figure 4-13. Map highlighting the magnetic contours associated with Target 4 Figure 4-14. Map highlighting the acoustic image (left) and magnetic contours (right) associated with Target 5 Figure 4-15. Map highlighting the magnetic contours associated with Target 6 Figure 4-16. Map highlighting the magnetic contours associated with Target 7 Figure 4-17. Map highlighting the magnetic contours associated with Target 8 Figure 5-01. Location of potentially significant targets identified during the remote sensing survey viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-01. General Precontact Cultural Sequence for Florida Table 2-02. Previous Maritime Cultural Resources Investigations Table 2-03. Previous Terrestrial Cultural Resources Investigations Table 2-04. Identified Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project Area* Table 2-05. AWOIS/ENC Wrecks and Obstructions within One Mile of the Project Area Table 2-06. Vessels Listed as lost off or near Flagler Beach Table 3-01. Compilation of Magnetic Data from Various Sources Table 3-02. Magnetic Data from Steamboat Wreck Sites Table 4-01. Potentially Significant Targets in the Project Area Table 5-01. Potentially Significant Targets and Avoidances in the Project Area

I. INTRODUCTION

Olsen Associates, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida (OAI) is proposing a Dune/Beach Berm Restoration Project between R-65.4 (Osprey Drive in Town of Beverly Beach) and R-43.5 for Flagler County, Florida. Project activities have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources (i.e., archaeological sites and buried shipwrecks) in the Project Area, which encompassed a Near-Shore Placement Area and an On-Shore Placement Area. PaleoWest, LLC of Pensacola, Florida d/b/a Chronicle Heritage conducted an intensive submerged remote sensing survey of the Near-Shore Placement Area and a terrestrial magnetometer survey of the On-Shore Placement Area associated with project. The remote sensing survey encompassed both the On-Shore and the Near-Shore Placement Areas north of Flagler Beach, an area approximately 25,000-feet long by 4,500 feet wide (Figure 1-01).

The goal of this project was to determine the presence of potentially significant cultural resources that may be located within the Project Area before the implementation of any project activities.

Chronicle Heritage, under subcontract to OAI, conducted submerged and terrestrial remote sensing surveys. In response to the scope of work (SOW) entitled Intensive Cultural Resource Remote Sensing Survey for the Flagler County, FL Beach and Dune Restoration Project, Flagler County, FL (Appendix A), Chronicle Heritage conducted these remote sensing surveys under Florida 1A- 32 Permit No. 2324.042 (Appendix B).

Work completed for this cultural resources investigation was conducted in compliance with federal statutes including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (PL 89-665); the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1987; the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CFR Part 800);

and the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987.

The terrestrial remote sensing magnetometer survey of the On-Shore Placement Area was conducted from 1 March 2024 to 4 March 2024. The maritime remote sensing survey of the Near- Shore Placement Area was conducted from 6 April 2024 to 26 April 2024. The terrestrial magnetometer survey utilized a Geometrics MagEx Magnetometer. The submerged remote sensing survey equipment included a magnetometer, side-scan sonar, and a subbottom profiler.

Archaeologists located 153 on-shore magnetic anomalies, 84 near-shore magnetic anomalies, 17 side-scan sonar contacts, and four (n=4) subbottom impendence contrast features within the Project Area. This investigation identified eight (n=8) potentially significant targets. Three (n=3) of these targets were in the On-Shore Placement Area, and the remaining five (n=5) targets were in the Near-Shore Placement Area. Avoidance of the potentially significant targets is recommended. If avoidance is not feasible, further investigation is required.

The following report presents the investigation's results, divided into chapters: Historical Background, Methods, Investigative Findings, and Conclusions and Recommendations.

Flagler Beach Survey

Figure 1-01. Map of the On-Shore and Near-Shore Placement Area (Project Area) associated with the Beach and Dune Restoration Project, Flagler County, Florida.

II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

This section on historical context provides information about the local geology and evolution of the environment, precontact cultural history relevant to modeling for submerged precontact sites, and historical narratives to predict the range of historic resources potential for the Project Area.

The potential for precontact sites is based on the local geologic setting and the abundance of evidence for precontact presence when the project area would have been an exposed landscape, based on local sea level history models. The Project Area is located along Flagler Beach and extends approximately 0.8 miles offshore into the Atlantic Ocean.

GEOLOGY AND PALEOENVIRONMENT

The Florida Atlantic coast is a complex set of sediment ridges that overlie karstified limestone bedrock. The sediment ridges were formed from multiple sea level oscillations over the last 2,000,000 years of the Pleistocene epoch. The cyclical nature of low stands of sea level resulted from glacial accretion, and high stands of sea level were a result of those glaciers melting. These cycles occur roughly every 100,000–125,000 years because of orbital parameters.

The most prominent of these ridges is the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, which was formed with sea levels 30 feet higher than what it is today, probably during the last high stand of sea level, called the “Sangamon” (White 1970:86). The most well-known and last sea level high stand deposit of the Florida Atlantic coast is the Pleistocene-aged Anastasia Formation (Burdett et al. 2009), a cemented, shelly, beach sedimentary rock—called Coquina—often used for construction in historic times. Locally, the Anastasia Formation outcrops along and near shore, and it forms the core of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. At the beach, and immediately offshore, the shoreface and beach sands are active, recent deposits.

Extremely relevant to the Near-Shore Placement Area, Meisburger and Field (1975) studied for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) a large area of the Atlantic continental shelf with seismic remote sensing and vibracoring from Cape Canaveral to Georgia in a search for sand of beach quality to mine for replenishment of east coast beaches. They note the paucity of studies before theirs, which allows for a base for the geology of the offshore area. Remnants of an earlier barrier island complex are preserved locally (intermittently) offshore of central and northern St. Johns County and confirm that there were past configurations of coastline with lowered sea levels, but they are altered by the dynamic character of the Atlantic shelf.

Sand resources on the inner continental shelf are arranged in oblique sets of linear sand waves that possess significant relief, forming shoals. Genesis of the shoals (massive sand waves) in the near-shore and littoral environs is a combination of tidal inlet migration and sea level rise during the Holocene sea level transgression.

Phelps et al. (2004, 2005, 2006) also conducted a study in search of sand resources for beach replenishment in an area relevant to the current Project Area. Phelps et al. (2004, 2005, 2006) produced seismic data, beach samples of native sand, seabed grab sampling, and vibracoring collected from offshore of Nassau and Duval counties to the north of the Project Area. Channels mapped offshore of the present Project Area during a remote sensing survey by Panamerican Consultants, Inc. in 2019 differed in configuration from those recorded by Phelps et al. 2006, which is illustrated in Figure 2-01 (Wilson et al. 2019). One radiocarbon sample gathered by Phelps et al. (2006) from “organic material of a woody nature” at 16.8 feet in a core (VDU-01- 16.8RC) at a water depth of 45 feet was dated to 14,140 ±60 (Beta-188958). Isobaths considered this site submerged 8,000 years before present (YBP; 9,000 cal. YBP).

Figure 2-01. Information layers from Phelps et al. (2006) showing the northeastern Florida coastline, drainage systems, inferred paleochannels, and core locations north of the Project Area.

SINKHOLES OFFSHORE

Because people are drawn to reliable potable water sources, sinkholes possess high potential for archaeological sites, and they would be of interest if new sinkholes were discovered. There are two known sinkholes offshore: Red Snapper Sink, located 28 miles offshore of St. Augustine, and Crescent Beach Spring to the southwest of the Offshore Ocean Borrow Area, some 2.5 miles offshore Crescent Beach in 60 feet of water (Popenoe et al. 1984). These sinkholes are considered potential attractions, or resource foci, for people during the periods in which the continental shelf was exposed. The Red Snapper Sink sinkhole is a collapsed doline or cenote.

The Crescent Beach Spring sinkhole is a freshwater spring vent connected to the Floridan Aquifer and is 59–115 feet deep (Swarzenski and Reich 2000). The flow can be seen on the surface of the ocean from some distance.

Historical Background

CONSIDERATIONS OF SEA LEVEL FLUCTUATION

As described, Florida’s eastern coastline has seen repetitive regressing and transgressing seas over several glacial cycles, but only the last transgressive sequence is of concern for submerged precontact cultural resources. This transgression occurred over late Pleistocene and Holocene time. In general, the magnitude of melting included rapid glacial melting (sea level rise) in two major pulses, then slowing down after 7,000 YBP (7,800 cal. YBP).

To reconstruct past landscape configurations, it is important to know the chronology and rates of sea level rise from the latest Pleistocene through the Holocene. Water depths along the seaward boundary of the present Project Area reach 15 meters but more consistently average 3–12 meters.

Use of the Gulf of Mexico sea level data, such as Balsillie and Donoghue (2004) or Joy (2019)— while not reflective of eastern seaboard sea level fluctuations—does indicate, like the eastern coast of Florida data, that the 20-meter depths were submerged between 8000- and 7000-years BCE. Although Balsillie and Donoghue agree that 15-meter depths were submerged at approximately 7,500 YBP, revised sea level curves for the Gulf of Mexico, as compiled by Joy (2019), indicate an earlier date between 8,500 and 7,500 YBP.

Siddall et al.’s (2003) global eustatic model is appropriate, as the eastern Florida continental shelf should be stable. Figure 2-02 shows the portions of the curve where the offshore portion of the Project Area would have been exposed. Data by Toscano and McIntyre (2003) mostly agree because both use Barbados data from the Caribbean. Colquhoun et al.’s (1995) data show pertinent fluctuations later in time when the conditions are shallower.

Figure 2-02. Reproduction of the Siddall et al. (2003) global eustatic sea level curve. Showing areas in grey/lilac that would indicate exposure of the Project Area for human occupation and the zone at 20 meters, the depth of the Project Area’s deeper central portion.

On average, eustatic sea levels—those sea levels related to glacial melting—globally were about 20-meters below the present sea level around 8000 BCE, which was during a third pulse of glacial melting and ensuing sea level rise that slowed between 6,000 and 7,000 YBP, resulting in sea levels somewhat lower than today (DePratter and Howard 1981; Faught and Donoghue 1997;

Hoyt et al. 1990; Siddall et al. 2003). The rate of transgressing seas slowed around and after 7,000 BCE (7,800 cal. BCE), triggering the formation of most North American barrier islands (Parkinson and White 1994:408), and sea levels reached their present base between 3000 and 4000 BCE. Therefore, the offshore shelf was available for Paleoindian through Early Archaic times (12,000 to 9,000 BCE/14,000 to 10,200 cal. BCE), and it was submerged around or just after the time of the Windover Site (BR246), and it was unavailable for most Middle Archaic and later inhabitants. Located south of the Dive Targets near the eastern coast in Brevard County, the Windover Site, which dates to 8000 BCE (9000 cal. BCE), is a shallow water peat burial site, a custom that is a hallmark of the Middle Archaic in Florida.

PRECONTACT CONTEXT

The earliest occupants in Florida, referred to as Paleoindians, were hunter-gatherers, often specializing in hunting large fauna. Changes in faunal resources due to environmental change necessitated new hunting techniques, lithic technologies, and settlement patterns. The Archaic groups that followed are generally thought to be more generalized hunter-gatherers. Late Archaic peoples were the first to manufacture a crude, fiber-tempered ceramic called Orange series pottery. Most evidence for late Archaic settlement in the area comes from coastal shell middens. However, a growing body of evidence supports the occupation of interior swamp margins during this period (Milanich 1994). The Archaic groups were followed by Woodland populations who manufactured ceramics and were characterized by increasing sedentism. Table 2-01 summarizes the general Precontact chronology of Florida relative to the Project Area.

Table 2-01. General Precontact and Historical Period Cultural Sequence for Florida.

Stage Period General Dates

Paleoindian 12,000–8500 BCE Transitional 8500–8000 BCE

Archaic Early 8000–5000 BCE Middle 5000–3000 BCE Late 3000–500 BCE

Woodland

Early 500 BCE–300 CE Middle 300–450 CE Late 450–1500 CE Late/Protohistoric 1500–1700 CE

Colonial First Spanish 1528–1763 CE British 1763–1781 CE Second Spanish 1781–1821 CE

Early American Territorial-Civil War 1821–1865 CE KEY: BCE=before Common Era; CE=Common Era

PALEOINDIAN AND EARLY ARCHAIC (12,000– 9000 YBP)

A discussion of nearby Clovis-related Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement patterns to identify the locations of areas potential for site discovery are of limited use as no site, and few isolated points indicating the presence of these Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene people have been found in northeastern Florida. From a wider perspective, Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites and isolated finds (i.e., fluted and unfluted lanceolates, notched Bolen points, and a familiar plethora of formal uniface tools) occur to the north in Georgia and South Carolina, and to the west in a crescentic pattern apparently focused on the Gulf of Mexico side of the peninsula (Miller 1992:102). As illustrated in Figure 2-03, the majority of Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites occur within the western side of the peninsula, where the water table is nearer the surface (Thulman 2008).

Figure 2-03. Series of GIS-based maps of sites in the Florida Master Site File that show distribution for Paleoindian to Late Archaic sites.

Dunbar reports one fluted point found on Jacksonville Beach in the 1950s (James Dunbar, personal communication, 2009). One conclusion from this lack of data is that Paleoindian and Early Archaic people were not utilizing the area in numbers sufficient for archaeological visibility. That chipped-stone resources, seemingly important to these early people, are also not known as being present in this region (Austin and Eastabrook 2000; Endonino 2007) and that freshwater resources may not have been as abundant are factors that are consistent with a lack of early archaeological sites (Miller 1998; Thulman 2008).

Elsewhere in the state, Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites are found around groundwater connected by freshwater sources in exposed or shallowly buried karst, especially where chipping stone resources were available (Dunbar 1991). The geomorphology of the Project Area is not conducive to that pattern. Sand covers most of the areas relevant to this project. Chert quarries have not been identified anywhere near the Project Area, but the possibility remains that quarries are present, but covered by rising sea levels or shifting sediments remains. This is possible as hard limestone rock is known to have been impacted by dredging operations in the St. Johns River to the west (Buker 1980). Furthermore, one of the subbottom targets investigated by Faught and James (2010) was bedrock exposures. Nevertheless, the potential for encountering Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites remains low for the Project Area. This contrasts with the likelihood of the Middle Archaic site remains, which is higher. With that said, the presence of Red Snapper Sink southeast of St. Augustine Inlet and Crescent Beach Spring suggests the potential for submerged Paleoindian and Early Archaic site types within the Project Area.

MIDDLE ARCHAIC (8,000–5,000 YBP)

The Middle Archaic period, roughly 8,000 to 5,000 YBP, coincides with continued gradual sea level rise and the establishment of large estuarine systems in Florida (Schuldenrein 1996). The changing environment influenced Middle Archaic subsistence. As sea level rose and river channels infilled, “critical resource zones emerged” (Schuldenrein 1996:3). New estuaries, inlets, and other rich biotic communities offered abundant marine resources. Large piles of shells and other refuse demonstrate the increased shellfish use in the Middle Archaic.

Trends in the greater Southeast show that Middle Archaic populations ate more fish than Early Archaic populations (Styles and Klippel 1996: 132–133). Middle Archaic period groups were fishers, hunters, and gatherers with seasonal patterns of shellfishing and camp relocation (Russo 1994).

Between the Early Archaic and the Middle Archaic, technological organization and mobility strategies changed. Residential mobility—moving camp to exploit new resources rather than sending out task groups—increased (Amick and Carr 1996:53). This is evidenced at the Harris Creek site in the St. John’s River drainage, where oxygen and strontium isotope analysis suggest that some of the individuals interred at the site spent their earliest years in non-local environments with different environmental isotopic signatures, with possible origins as far south as the Lake Okeechobee area (Quinn et al 2008; Tucker 2009).

The Atlantic coastal lagoons in the St. Johns River valley became more densely populated during the Middle Archaic, perhaps because of increased utilization of river and forest resources or from a migration of peoples from other places (Milanich 1994).

In terms of cultural materials, the Middle Archaic is distinguished by the occurrence of a variety of artifacts, including well developed bone-and shell-tool industries, mostly expedient chipped-stone tools, and the production of bifacially flaked projectile points; grooved ground stone axes, stone pendants, and bannerstones are known but not as frequent. Middle Archaic projectile point types include stemmed broad-bladed points, of which two types occur most frequently in the area, Newnan, and Marion (Bullen 1975).

The custom of shallow water burial in peat is a hallmark of the Middle Archaic in Florida with sites, such as Windover, Bay West, Little Salt Spring, etc. (Beriault et al. 1981; Clausen et al.

1979; Doran 2002). This appears to be an earlier burial method, with burials in terrestrial middens occurring at later sites, such as Tick Island and Gauthier (Milanich 1994). These kinds of sites could be present in the Project Area. Panamerican Consultants, Inc. remote sensing investigations in 2019 identified one such terrace-like feature offshore that may be analogous for these features (Wilson et al. 2019).

LATE ARCHAIC (5,000–3,000 YBP)

By approximately 5,000 years ago, sea level rise abated, and the climate became much like it is today. Like their Middle Archaic predecessors, Late Archaic groups continued to make large shell middens, often in ring or horseshoe shapes (Milanich 1994:97; Russo and Heide 2001).

These large monuments became places of feasting and ritual and had a clean, midden-free plaza.

Archaic period shell rings indicate that communities settled permanent villages (Russo 1991, 2006a, 2006b). Shell mounds continued to be burial places for Late Archaic period groups, while some groups buried their ancestors in cemeteries adjacent to water features (Russo 1994).

The most significant technological change dating to the Late Archaic in Florida is the invention of pottery. Late Archaic peoples developed ceramic technology by about 4,500 cal B.P.

(Sassaman 2002), spreading rapidly across the Southeast after its advent. This first pottery was fiber-tempered and made of a chalky paste called Norwood on the Gulf Coast and Orange in eastern and peninsular Florida.

Late Archaic changes in other technological materials were more subtle. Populations returned to a reliance on formal hafted bifaces and expedient flake tools. In addition, Late Archaic stone tools are often made of nonlocal material. The increase in extra local material has been interpreted as a Late Archaic return to logistic mobility (Amick and Carr 1996:53). Bone remained an important material, with assemblages featuring bone pins and awls. Some bone tools were decorated with motifs found on pottery (Milanich 1994:93).

An increase in the number, area, and density of sites provides evidence of the overall trend toward larger and more sedentary populations in the Late Archaic (Milanich 1994:86–87). Late Archaic coastal midden sites may have been common in coastal Florida but are now inundated.

However, most Late Archaic sites are found near or in wetland environments (Milanich 1994:85- 86). Regionalization increased in the Late Archaic, with the formation of regional cultural adaptations that would appear to persist for the next several thousand years (Milanich 1994:85).

WOODLAND (3,000–1,000 YBP)

The Woodland period spans approximately 3,000 to 1,000 radiocarbon years ago. During this period, regional cultures diversified, and distinctive traditions emerged in different regions. The earliest of these archaeological cultures is Deptford, a tradition seen across Florida and into the greater Southeast. Swift Creek and Weeden Island cultures follow Deptford.

The Deptford culture dates from 500 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. (Milanich 1994). A transition from fiber-tempered pottery to sand-tempered pottery with check-stamping is the most apparent material cultural difference between Deptford and the Late Archaic (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:65). Deptford sites are frequently located on the coast between salt marshes and forests, and they span from Tampa to South Carolina. Hypothesizing that the high tide line has eroded or inundated sites, Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:68–69) posited that the coastal location of Deptford sites and subsequent sea level rise and subsidence may explain the small amount of Deptford material. Inland Deptford sites are typically small and can be found underneath later occupation layers. These sites may represent special-use sites, such as hunting camps or resource extraction sites. The relationship between the coastal and inland Deptford sites is poorly understood, but a connection is inferred based on physical proximity.

Oysters and other shellfish were important food sources, indicated by large middens with oyster shells, broken tools, animal bones, and other refuse. Sometimes, shell middens are circular in shape, reflecting the circular organization of the village around which people dump trash. Two types of structures are present at Deptford sites and have been interpreted as summer/coastal houses and winter/inland houses. Summer villages contained five or more individual households with about five or six persons living in each house. Winter houses are large, oval structures with substantial posts placed in trenches. Mobility was probably seasonal, with residential movement from coastal locations in the summer to inland sites during the winter (Milanich 1994:120–128).

Following and overlapping Deptford, St. Johns I sites date between 500 B.C. to approximately 750 A.D., depending on location. In the St. Johns River basin, sponge-spicule tempered ceramics remained constant through the contact era, but surface decorations changed (Milanich 1994:246– 247). This continuity is reflected in the chronological periods for the region, simply called St.

Johns I (500 B.C. to 750 A.D.) and St. Johns II (as early as 750 A.D.–Contact) (Goggin 1952:68;

Milanich 1994:247). Aside from the chalky St. Johns wares, other pottery is often recovered at St. Johns sites. The other ceramic traditions from Woodland to Contact are Deptford, Swift Creek, Dunns Creek Red, Weeden Island, Fort Walton, Safety Harbor, and Mississippian-influenced shell-tempered wares. Distinct cultures emerged in different geographic areas, even within the St. Johns Region (Milanich 1994:247–248).

St. Johns I and II Periods are similar to preceding cultural periods but show resource intensification, population growth, and increasing social complexity. St. Johns I sites were often in the same locales as Late Archaic sites, indicating local cultural change (Milanich 1994:254).

People continued collecting shellfish and foraging, but the manipulation of plants increased over time. By the end of the St. Johns I Period, people were growing plants, especially in the northern soils (Milanich 1994:262). Woodland Period and Mississippian Period populations increased.

Groups buried their dead—and sometimes their leaders—in sand burial mounds. Ceremonialism accompanied funerals (Goggin 1952:79; Milanich 1994:260), and the long-distance exchange of objects and ideas continued (Goggin 1952:79; Sassaman 2002:398). For example, stylized bird motifs on St. Johns pottery are also found in pottery traditions to the north (Milanich 1994:260).

MISSISSIPPIAN

Continuity between St. Johns I and St. Johns II cultures is even more pronounced than in previous periods (Milanich 1994:263). St. Johns II groups produced huge snail middens, followed by post-contact era mussel shell middens (Milanich 1994:265). The population continued to increase during this period, and some parts of this cultural region developed complex political organizations. Clay effigies of the era illustrate Mississippian influence;

among the effigy forms are corncobs, squashes, gourds, acorns, and animals (Milanich 1994:264). Conspicuous “pyramidal” mounds also show Mississippian influence. Elaborate artifacts illustrate St. Johns II period imagery. For example, a copper breastplate with forked eyes and concentric circles was recovered from the Mount Royal mound site (Milanich 1994:271). This expression of broader Mississippian cultural practices demonstrates that the expansive culture extended south of Peninsular Florida.

HISTORIC PERIOD

FIRST SPANISH PERIOD (1513–1763)

During the “Age of Discovery” and European colonization, the New World was greatly affected by the rise of European nation-states. Various European nations were vying for new lands that would produce quantities of wealth for the homeland. Spain and Portugal had the New World split between them, with the blessing of the Pope, by the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494.

However, other non-Catholic nations did not necessarily recognize the Papacy in these matters.

The French, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, and English were among the European powers that sponsored voyages of exploration and settlement into the region.

The first European known to visit and explore Florida was Ponce de Leon. With permission from King Ferdinand to find new lands, de Leon left Puerto Rico in 1513 to search for wealth and “The Fountain of Youth.” After traveling through the Bahamas, he landed just above the midpoint of the eastern coast of Florida in early April. Turning south, de Leon coasted along Florida’s Atlantic Coast, through the Keys, and approximately one-third of the way up the Gulf Coast. After being attacked by the local inhabitants, who had no knowledge of the Fountain of Youth, he left Florida in mid-June after a month and a half of exploration (Morison 1974a:507- 511). Later, in 1521, de Leon attempted to settle a colony in Florida, believed to be on Sanibel Island, but died after receiving a fatal wound during an attack by the Native population (Morison 1974a:515); thus, began the Spanish settlement on the North American mainland.

After the de Leon expedition, several attempts were made by Europeans to capture the natives along the eastern coast of Florida for use as slaves (Hall 2001:7) and to colonize the Southeastern Atlantic Coast. In 1521, Francisco de Gordillo sailed up the Atlantic coast, reaching the sea islands of coastal Georgia and as far as the Carolinas. Spain’s first attempt at colonizing lands north of St. Augustine came several years later when Lucas Vasques de Ayllon established a colony on the Atlantic coast. This settlement was abandoned in 1527 as disease reduced the population of the colony and killed its leader. The location of this colony is not certain, but a location on the northern Georgia Atlantic coast is favored by current scholars (Coleman 1991:9;

Coker 1987:2).

By 1530, due to numerous exploratory expeditions, the Florida coast and the southeastern coast of North America were comparatively well known. The 1516 Martin Waldseemuller map depicts Florida's outline lying north of Cuba. Thirteen years later, a more accurate map of Florida was produced by Diego Ribero, showing the considerable improvement in European understandings of the Southern and East Coasts of North America in the intervening period (Whitfield 1996:28-31).

The sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries represented a time of dramatic change for American Indians living along the southern Atlantic seaboard. Changes in trade networks, the spread of disease (Smith 1987), and the demographic and political collapse of chiefdoms with numerous satellite settlements (Worth 1995) were some of the most prominent changes experienced by the native peoples before the mid-1600s. Establishing several small-scale settlements throughout Florida, principally as missions, increased contact between Native populations and the Spaniards. Many of these initial settlements were short-lived due to either native resistance or simple abandonment. Later, the Franciscans attempted a concentrated effort to place missions among the natives. Approximately 80 sites were set up over the years of Spanish domination of the area, most of which failed largely because of disease, foreign interlopers, and native resistance (Hall 2001:8).

Spanish exploration and the failed Spanish Atlantic coast settlement prompted the French to try their hand at colonization of the Atlantic coast. In 1562, the French sent two vessels to explore the coast of the Carolinas. Jean Ribault took possession of the area in the name of Charles IX, King of France. His original settlement of Santa Elena (Port Royal, South Carolina) did not survive long, as there was internal dissension, and the post was abandoned. The French were not to be discouraged, and two years later, a second attempt, under Rene de Laudonnière, established a settlement at Fort Caroline, on the St. Johns River in Florida (Coker 1987:3), close to present-day Jacksonville.

The French settlement in Florida endangered the homeward fleets carrying New World wealth to Spain. King Philip II of Spain dispatched Menendez de Aviles to eradicate the problem in 1565.

St. Augustine was founded in 1565 by Pedro Menendez de Aviles as a base of operations against the French at Fort Caroline to the north, along the south bank of the St. Johns River near what is now Jacksonville. To extend control over the southeastern coast, the Spanish established a settlement at Port Royal in what is now Beaufort County, South Carolina, in 1566.

At the same time King Charles sent Jean Ribault with a powerful seven-vessel fleet (although the number of ships is in dispute) along with 1,000 colonists and troops to re-supply Fort Caroline.

Meeting at the mouth of the St. Johns River, Ribault immediately sailed southward to attack St.

Augustine, but his fleet was destroyed by a hurricane which wrecked his ships along the coast between Cape Canaveral to Matanzas Inlet (Meide et al. 2014), the inlet being just south of the current Project Area. Subsequently, Fort Caroline was taken by the Spanish in a land assault, and the defenders were all put to death. The French avenged this treachery three years later when the fort was retaken, and all Spanish prisoners were murdered (Morison 1974b:470).

When Francis Drake captured and burned St. Augustine in 1586 (Figure 2-04), this post was abandoned; however, the raids of other European powers and brigands were only irritants, and the Spanish temporarily halted encroachment to the south by other European powers settling the coast further north.

In 1607, the English colony of Jamestown was founded in Virginia on land claimed by the Spanish Crown, which did nothing to remove them aside from issuing harsh words. Encouraged by Spain’s inability to mount resistance to English expansion, Charles II of England expanded the Carolina Grant in 1663 to include all Guale in present-day Georgia and even the Spanish town of St. Augustine. Seven years later, Charles Towne was established on the South Carolina coast on the Ashley and Cooper rivers. Although the Spanish managed a weak response, they did little to stem this encroachment on their territory. Left alone, Charles Towne flourished, and its success began to cause major problems for the Spanish missions in Georgia as the English expanded south into Spanish lands and those of the American Indians who had allied with the Spanish (Coleman 1991:12).

Figure 2-04. Map depicting Sir Francis Drake’s attack on St. Augustine on 28 and 29 May 1589. This map is the oldest item in the Florida State Archives, and it was drawn by Italian cartographer Baptista Boazio in 1589 (courtesy of the State Library and Archives of Florida).

English pressure continued to increase on the northern Spanish border as the seventeenth century progressed. In 1680, an attack on the town of Santa Catalina was repelled, but the inhabitants were ordered to pull back to the south, out of range of attack. This move may have protected Spanish settlements from English attack, but the Spanish departure also encouraged a revolt against Spanish rule by the Native population in 1683, resulting in a Spanish withdrawal into the territory of Florida (McKivergan and Fryman 1996:70; Coleman 1991:13).

In the initial 100 years after the founding of St. Augustine, the settlement was defended by nine successive wooden forts. Following the 1668 attack by English pirate Robert Searle, construction of a masonry star fort, the Castillo de San Marcos, was begun (Figure 2-05). Coquina quarried on Anastasia Island, was used in the construction, which lasted some 23 years.

In 1702, European politics spilled over into the colonies with the eruption of Queen Anne’s War (The War of Spanish Succession). This war had a devastating effect on Spanish colonial holdings in America. In this war, the Governor of Carolina, James Moore, swept through Georgia and into Florida. When the war ended in 1713, most Spanish missions in Georgia and Florida were destroyed. St. Augustine was again captured by the British and destroyed with only the fortress at St. Augustine escaping destruction.

After the fort passed its first test in 1702, the Spanish reconstructed and expanded the fort in 1738, adding more guns and increasing the height of the walls. That same year, the Spanish Governor of Florida, Manuel de Montiano, established the fortified town of Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose (Fort Mose), two miles north of St. Augustine, as a settlement for freed slaves who had fled the plantations of the British colonies to the north. In turn for their enlistment in the colonial militia and conversion to Catholicism, escaped slaves were freed by the Spanish authorities. In turn, these freedmen provided an additional bulwark against the English to the north (Florida Museum 2017). Shortly after, the British declared war on Spain (The War of Jenkins’ Ear). The British captured several forts in Spanish Florida but failed to take St.

Augustine despite being besieged.

The British would take possession of the fort, along with the rest of Florida in 1763, at the end of the French and Indian War with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Under the terms of the Treaty, Spanish Florida was ceded to Great Britain. The majority of Spanish inhabitants departed for Cuba, largely depopulating the town.

Figure 2-05. Aerial view of the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, construction of which began in 1668 by the Spanish.

BRITISH PERIOD (1763–1783)

With the ceding of Florida to the British in 1763 as part of the Treaty of Paris, ending the French and Indian War, more settlement and economic activities are recorded in the area (Johnson 2002:35). The British split Florida into eastern and western territories, with St. Augustine designated as the capital of “East Florida.” The name of the fort, Castillo de San Marcos was changed to Fort St. Mark.

St. Augustine and the territory of East Florida were of secondary importance among Britain’s North American holdings until 1775, when unrest in the British colonies of North America resulted in the Declaration of Independence. East Florida, a colony loyal to King George III, came to be of strategic importance to Britain. Fort St. Marks became the regimental headquarters and served as a prison for captured American soldiers. In 1779, Spain entered the conflict against Britain, hoping to regain its former lands, and distracted the British at St. Augustine enough that they were not able to mobilize efficiently against the rebellion to the north. Fighting east from Louisiana, Spanish forces took Mobile and Pensacola. As part of the terms of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the Bahamas were returned to Britain while British control of Florida was ceded back to Spain.

SECOND SPANISH PERIOD (1783–1821)

Although Spain regained control of Florida after the American Revolution, they soon faced increasing pressure on the border with the new republic. Florida became a refuge for runaway slaves, destitute Native Americans, and criminals from north of the border. Despite this, Spain maintained a military presence in the area, upgrading and improving the defenses at St.

Augustine and the fort, which was once again named Castillo de San Marco. However, following the Peninsular War in Spain, in which Spain fought against Napoleon between 1807 and 1814, a series of revolutions within its Central and South American colonies and financial problems all contributed to declining Spanish interest and investment in Florida.

The political situation along the border with the United States was complicated.