Final_CRAS_Old_Town_Santa_Rosa_Reg_SMF_Walton.pdf

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY

OF THE OLD TOWN SANTA ROSA REGIONAL

STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT FACILITY AND EVENT VENUE PROPERTY,

WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA

Performed for:

Halff Associates, Inc.

2255 Killearn Center Boulevard

Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32309

Prepared by:

Florida’s First Choice in Cultural Resource Management

Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A

Sarasota, Florida 34240

(941) 379-6206

June 2023

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY

OF THE OLD TOWN SANTA ROSA REGIONAL STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT FACILITY AND EVENT VENUE PROPERTY,

WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA

Prepared for:

Halff Associates, Inc.

2255 Killearn Center Boulevard

Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32309

Prepared by:

Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A

Sarasota, Florida 34240

Marion Almy – Project Manager Elizabeth A. Horvath – Project Archaeologist

Alec Potter – Archaeologist Madeline Westrom-Simons – Architectural Historian

June 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) of the Old Town Santa Rosa Stormwater Management Facility and Event Venue property in Walton County for Halff Associates, Inc. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is located on the south side of Chat Holley Road, north of Lullaby Loop. The property is proposed for stormwater management facilities, passive recreation, and an events venue. This CRAS does not cover the proposed connector roadways outside of the current APE. The archaeological and historical field surveys, completed in March and April 2023, were conducted in anticipation of permitting requirements from the County, Northwest Florida Water Management District, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

The purpose of this investigation was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the

APE and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part § 800.16(d), the APE is the “geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” Based on the scale and nature of the activities, the project has a limited potential for any indirect (visual or audible) or cumulative effects outside the immediate footprint of construction. Therefore, because of the project type and location of the proposed work, the archaeological and historical APE are limited to the property. All work was conducted in accordance with the standards contained in the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual: Module 3 (FDHR 2003). The resulting survey and report meet the specifications in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code, and complies with Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes, as well as Florida’s Coastal Management Program and local regulations. The Principal Investigators meet the Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (48 Federal Register 44716) for archaeology, history, architecture, architectural history, or historic architecture.

Background research and a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) and the NRHP indicated that two previously recorded archaeological sites have been recorded within one mile of the APE; neither is within the APE. Given the known patterns of aboriginal settlement, the APE was considered to have a moderate to low probability for aboriginal archaeological site occurrence. Most of the APE occurs on poorly and very poorly drained soils, none of which has a positive correlation with sites. The types of sites expected would include small lithic or artifact scatters. There is a low probability for post-Contact archaeological sites, although evidence of the naval stores or timber industries may be encountered. These investigations, which included surface reconnaissance and the excavation of 137 shovel tests, discovered no archaeological sites.

Historic background research, including a review of the FMSF and NRHP databases, indicated that no historic resources were previously recorded within the APE. A review of relevant historic United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps, historic aerial photographs, and the Walton County property appraiser’s website data revealed the potential for two new historic resources 50 years of age or older (constructed in 1973 or earlier) within the APE (Google Earth 2023; Gregor 2023; U.S.

Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1941, 1949a, 1949b, 1974; USGS 1970).

The historical/architectural field survey resulted in the identification and evaluation of three historic resources (8SR02731, 8SR02732, and 8SR02733) within the APE. These include two earthen drainage ditches (8SR02731 and 8SR02732) and one drainage district (8SR02733), all of which were constructed in or prior to 1941. A closer evaluation of the two anticipated historic resources revealed that Drainage Ditch DOT 2 (8SR02731) and Drainage Ditch DOT 2B (8SR02732) are part of the same network of ditches. Therefore, the resources were recorded as contributing features of the South Walton

County Mosquito Control District (SWCMCD) (8SR02733). Overall, the newly identified historic resources lack sufficient engineering features and are not significant embodiments of a type, period, or method of construction. In addition, background research did not reveal any historic associations with significant persons and/or events. Thus, the resources do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP, either individually or as a part of an historic district.

Given the results of background research and field survey, including the excavation of 137 shovel tests, no archaeological sites were discovered within the APE. As a result of the historical/architectural field survey, three historic resources (8SR02731, 8SR02732, and 8SR02733) were newly identified, recorded, and evaluated within the APE. These include two earthen drainage ditches (8SR02731 and 8SR02732) and one drainage district (8SR02733). The resources are common examples of their respective engineering methods and lack unique structural features or characteristics.

Background research did not reveal any historic associations with significant persons and/or events.

Thus, the resources do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP, either individually or as a part of an historic district. As such, there are no cultural resources that are listed, determined eligible, or that appear potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP within the APE. Therefore, it is the professional opinion of ACI that the proposed undertaking will result in no historic properties affected.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Location and Physical Setting ....................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Geology and Geomorphology ................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Soils and Vegetation .................................................................................................. 2-3

2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations .......................................................................... 2-6

3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Paleoindian ................................................................................................................ 3-2

3.2 Archaic ...................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 Woodland .................................................................................................................. 3-4

3.4 Mississippian ............................................................................................................. 3-7

3.5 Colonialism ............................................................................................................... 3-7

3.6 Territorial and Statehood ........................................................................................... 3-9

3.7 Civil War and Aftermath ......................................................................................... 3-10

3.8 Twentieth Century ................................................................................................... 3-13

3.9 Project Area Specifics ............................................................................................. 3-16

4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATION AND METHODS ........................................................ 4-1

4.1 Archaeological Considerations .................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Historical Considerations .......................................................................................... 4-6

4.3 Field Methodology .................................................................................................... 4-7

4.4 Procedures to Manage Unexpected Discoveries ....................................................... 4-7

4.5 Laboratory Methods and Curation ............................................................................ 4-8

5.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Archaeological .......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Historical/Architectural ............................................................................................. 5-3

5.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 5-7

6.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................... 6-1

APPENDICES

Appendix A FMSF Forms Appendix B Survey Log iv

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND PHOTOS

Figure Page

Figure 1.1. Location of the APE, Walton County. .............................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1.2. Proposed plans for the APE. ............................................................................................ 1-3 Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the APE..................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2.2. Soil type distribution. ........................................................................................................ 2-5 Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions. ....................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3.2. 1849 plat showing the APE. ............................................................................................ 3-11 Figure 3.3. 1936 USGS quadrangle map showing the APE. ............................................................. 3-15 Figure 3.4. 1949 aerial photographs of the APE. .............................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3.5. 1974 aerial photo showing the APE. ............................................................................... 3-18 Figure 4.1. Location of the previously recorded archaeological sites near the APE. .......................... 4-3 Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests within the APE. .................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5.2. Location of the newly recorded historic resources within the APE. ................................. 5-4

Table

Table 4.1. CRAS projects conducted within one mile of the APE. ..................................................... 4-1 Table 4.2. Site distribution by water type and distance. ...................................................................... 4-2 Table 4.3. Site distribution by drainage and soil type. ........................................................................ 4-4

Photo

Photo 2.1. Planted pine in the northwestern APE, facing northeast. ................................................... 2-1 Photo 2.2. Hammock in the northcentral APE, facing south. .............................................................. 2-3 Photo 2.3. Wetland in the southeastern APE, facing south. ................................................................ 2-3 Photo 2.4. Southwestern swamp, facing northeast. ............................................................................. 2-4 Photo 2.5. North/south canal, facing south. ......................................................................................... 2-4 Photo 5.1. Shovel test in the northwest portion of the APE. ............................................................... 5-1 Photo 5.2. Shovel test in the southwestern APE.................................................................................. 5-1 Photo 5.3. Drainage Ditch DOT 2 (8SR02731), looking south. .......................................................... 5-3 Photo 5.4. Drainage Ditch DOT 2B (8SR02732), looking northwest. ................................................ 5-5 Photo 5.5. South Walton County Mosquito Control District (8SR02733), looking northwest. .......... 5-6

ACI 1-1 June 2023 CRAS Old Town Santa Rosa P23005

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) of the Old Town Santa Rosa Stormwater Management Facility and Event Venue property in Walton County for Halff Associates, Inc. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is located on the south side of Chat Holley Road, north of Lullaby Loop (Figure 1.1). The property is proposed for stormwater management facilities, passive recreation, and an events venue (Figure 1.2). This CRAS does not cover the proposed connector roadways outside of the current APE. The archaeological and historical field surveys, completed in March and April 2023, were conducted in anticipation of County, Northwest Florida Water Management District, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection permitting requirements.

The purpose of this investigation was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the

APE and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part § 800.16(d), the APE is the “geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” Based on the scale and nature of the activities, the project has a limited potential for any indirect (visual or audible) or cumulative effects outside the immediate footprint of construction. Therefore, because of the project type and location of the proposed work, the archaeological and historical APE are limited to the property. All work was conducted in accordance with the standards contained in the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual: Module 3 (FDHR 2003). The resulting survey and report meet the specifications in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code, and complies with Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes, as well as Florida’s Coastal Management Program and local regulations. The Principal Investigators meet the Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (48 Federal Register 44716) for archaeology, history, architecture, architectural history, or historic architecture.

The background research provided an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of cultural resources that might be anticipated within the APE, as well as a basis for evaluating any newly discovered sites.

ACI 1-2 June 2023

Figure 1.1. Location of the APE, Walton County.

ACI 1-3 June 2023

Figure 1.2. Proposed plans for the APE.

ACI 2-1 June 2023

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

Environmental factors such as geology, topography, relative elevation, soils, vegetation, and water resources are important in determining where archaeological sites are likely to be located. These variables influenced what types of resources were available for utilization in each area. This, in turn, affected decisions regarding settlement location and land-use patterns. Because of the influence of the local environmental factors upon the aboriginal inhabitants, a discussion of the effective environment is included.

2.1 Project Location and Physical Setting

The 220-acre APE is located in Section 26 of Township 02 South, Range 20 West (United States Geological Service [USGS] Freeport 2013 (Figure 2.1). The APE is located on the south side of Chat Holly Road, north of US 98, and east of SR 393. The major environmental setting was planted pines interspersed with wetlands and swamps. A few patches of uncleared mixed hardwood forests (pine, scrub oak, magnolia, and palmetto) were in the northeast and southwest portions of the APE.

Numerous drainage canals have been excavated throughout the APE (Photos 2.1-2.5).

Photo 2.1. Planted pine in the northwestern APE, facing northeast.

2.2 Geology and Geomorphology

The APE is located within the Gulf Coastal Lowlands (Puri and Vernon 1964), which is described as a relatively undissected, nearly level plain. The coastal lowland is divided into eight terraces based upon elevation. The APE is situated on the Silver Bluff Terraces, which is less than 10 feet [ft] above mean sea level (amsl) (Healy 1975). The APE sits at five to 10 ft amsl. The area is underlain by undifferentiated Pleistocene and Holocene sediments consisting of medium fine sand and silt (Schmidt 1979; Scott 2001; Scott et al. 2001).

ACI 2-2 June 2023

Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the APE.

ACI 2-3 June 2023

Photo 2.2. Hammock in the northcentral APE, facing south.

Photo 2.3. Wetland in the southeastern APE, facing south.

2.3 Soils and Vegetation

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the APE occurs within the Rutlege-

Leon soil association, which is characterized by very poor and poorly drained sandy soils that occur in broad flatwoods (Overing and Watts 1989). The native vegetation consists of longleaf pine, gallberry, ACI 2-4 June 2023 yaupon, and palmetto. Davis depicts the area as being with a zone of pine flatwoods (Davis 1980).

Specifically, the APE is underlain by Hurricane sand, 0-5% slopes and Rutlege fine sand, 0-2% slopes (USDA 2021). The former is a somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on slightly elevated areas on the flatwoods. The latter is nearly level and very poorly drained. It occurs in shallow depressions, on stream or creek floodplains, and on upland flats. It also occurs on the poorly drained Leon sand, 0-2% and the very poorly drained Pickney sand, depressional. Leon sand occurs in the flatwoods and Pickney sand occurs in drainageways and depressional areas in the flatwoods. Their locations are depicted in Figure 2.2 (USDA 2021).

Photo 2.4. Southwestern swamp, facing northeast.

Photo 2.5. North/south canal, facing south.

ACI 2-5 June 2023

Figure 2.2. Soil type distribution.

The soils support different vegetative regimes that in turn provide habitats for the local animal population, and thus provide essential food resources. However, the soils have variable suitability for openland, woodland, and wetland habitats (Overing and Watts 1989: Table 9). The habitat for openland wildlife consists of cropland, pasture, meadows, and areas that are overgrown with grasses, herbs, shrubs, and vines. These areas produce grain and seed crops, grasses, legumes, and wild herbaceous plants. The wildlife attracted to these areas include bobwhite quail, meadowlark, bobcat, deer, field sparrow, cottontail, and fox. Leon sand is rated fair for openlands. Woodland wildlife habitat includes area of deciduous plants or coniferous plants or both and associated grasses, legumes, and wild herbaceous plants. Wildlife attracted to these areas include turkey, bobwhite quail, woodcock, thrushes, woodpeckers, squirrels, fox, cottontail rabbit, racoon, deer, and bear. Hurricane and Leon sands are rated fair for this type of habitat. The habitat for wetland wildlife includes areas of open, marshy, or swampy shallow water areas. Wildlife in these areas include ducks, herons, shore birds, otter, mink, and beaver. Rutlege sand is rated fair while Pickney sand is well suited to wetland habitats. Those soils not mentioned above are poorly or very poorly suited for those habitats.

ACI 2-6 June 2023

2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations

The early environment of the region was different from that seen today. Sea levels were lower, the climate was arid, and fresh water was scarce. An understanding of human ecology during the earliest periods of human occupation in Florida cannot be based on observations of the modern environment because of changes in water availability, botanical communities, and faunal resources. Aboriginal inhabitants would have developed cultural adaptations in response to the environmental changes taking place, which were then reflected in settlement patterns, site types, artifact forms, and subsistence economies.

Due to the arid conditions between 16,500 and 12,500 years ago, the perched water aquifer and potable water supplies were absent. Palynological studies conducted in Florida and Georgia suggest that between 13,000 and 5000 years ago, this area was covered with an upland vegetation community of scrub oak and prairie (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975). However, the environment was not static. Evidence recovered from the inundated Page-Ladson Site in north Florida has clearly demonstrated that there were two periods of low water tables and dry climatic conditions and two episodes of elevated water tables and wet conditions (Dunbar 2006c). The rise of sea level reduced xeric habitats over the next several millennia.

By 5000 years ago, a climatic event marking a brief return to Pleistocene climatic conditions induced a change toward more open vegetation. Southern pine forests replaced the oak savannahs.

Extensive marshes and swamps developed along the coasts and subtropical hardwood forests became established along the southern tip of Florida (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Northern Florida saw an increase in oak species, grasses, and sedges (Carbone 1983). At Lake Annie, in south-central Florida, wax myrtle and pine dominated pollen cores. The assemblage suggests that by this time, a forest dominated by longleaf pine along with cypress swamps and bayheads existed in the area (Watts 1971, 1975). Surface water was plentiful in karst terrains and the level of the Floridan aquifer rose five feet above present levels. With the establishment of warmer winters and cooler summers than in the preceding early Holocene, the fire-adapted pine communities prevailed. These depend on the high summer precipitation caused by the thunderstorms and the accompanying lightning strikes to spark the fires (Watts et al. 1996; Watts and Hansen 1994). The increased precipitation also resulted in the formation of the large swamp systems such as the Okefenokee and Everglades (Gleason and Stone 1994). After this time, modern floral, climatic, and environmental conditions began to be established.

ACI 3-1 June 2023

3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY

A discussion of the culture history of the region provides a framework within which the local archaeological and historic record can be examined. Archaeological and historic sites are not individual entities but are the remains of once dynamic cultural systems. As a result, they cannot be adequately examined or interpreted without reference to other sites and resources in the area. In general, the culture history of an area (i.e., an archaeological region) outlines the sequence of archaeological cultures through time. These cultures are defined largely in geographical terms but also reflect shared environmental and cultural factors. The APE is situated within the Northwest Archaeological Region, which includes the Florida Panhandle west of the Aucilla River (Milanich 1994) (Figure 3.1). The Paleoindian, Archaic (Early, Middle, and Late), Woodland (Deptford, Swift Creek, Weeden Island), and Mississippian (Fort Walton) Stages have been defined based on unique sets of material cultural traits such as stone tool forms and ceramics, as well as subsistence, settlement, and burial patterns (cf., Bense 1989; Brose and White 1999; Milanich 1994).

Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions.

The local history of the region is divided into four broad periods based initially upon the major governmental powers. The first period, Colonialism, occurred during the exploration and control of Florida by the Spanish and British from around 1513 until 1821. At that time, Florida became a territory of the U.S. and 21 years later became a State (Territorial and Statehood). The Civil War and Aftermath (1861-1899) period deals with the Civil War, the period of Reconstruction following the war, and the late 1800s, when the transportation systems were dramatically increased and development throughout the state expanded. The Twentieth Century period is divided into subperiods based on important historic events such as the World Wars, the Boom of the 1920s, and the Depression. Each period evidenced differential development and utilization of the region, thus effecting the historic archeological site distribution.

ACI 3-2 June 2023

3.1 Paleoindian

The Paleoindian stage is the earliest known cultural manifestation in Florida, dating from roughly 16,250-11,700 calibrated years before present (cal yr BP) (Anderson et al. 2019:258).

Archaeological evidence for Paleoindians consists primarily of scattered finds of diagnostic lanceolate-shaped projectile points. The Florida peninsula at that time was quite different than today. In general, the climate was cooler and drier with vegetation typified by xerophytic species with scrub oak, pine, open grassy prairies, and savannas (Milanich 1994:40). When human populations were arriving in Florida, the sea levels were still as much as 130-200 ft below present levels and coastal regions of Florida extended miles beyond present-day shorelines (Faught 2004). Thus, many sites have been inundated (Dunbar and Thulman 2019; Faught and Donoghue 1997).

The Paleoindian period has been sub-divided into three horizons based upon characteristic tool forms (Anderson et al. 2019). Traditionally, it is believed that the Clovis Horizon (13,250-12,850 cal yr BP) represents the initial occupation of Florida and is defined based upon the presence of the fluted Clovis points. These are somewhat more common in north Florida. Research suggests that Suwannee and Simpson points may be contemporary with or predate Clovis (Dunbar 2006a, 2016; Stanford et al.

2005). Research at the Page-Ladson site, in the Aucilla River, has provided evidence of a pre-Clovis occupation as early as 16,250 cal yr BP, with the latest dated level from 4100 to 3400 years ago (Halligan et al. 2016; Webb and Dunbar 2006). Pre-Clovis materials were also reported from the Sloth Hole site, also within the Aucilla River (Hemmings 1999). The Suwannee Horizon (12,500-12,100 cal yr BP) is the best known of the three Paleoindian horizons. The lanceolate-shaped, unfluted Simpson and Suwannee projectile points are diagnostic of this time (Bullen 1975; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987;

Purdy 1981). The Suwannee tool kit includes a variety of scrapers, adzes, spokeshaves, unifacially retouched flakes, and blade-like flakes as well as bone and ivory foreshafts, pins, awls, daggers, anvils, and abraders (Austin 2001:23).

Following the Suwannee Horizon is the Late Paleoindian Horizon (12,1000-11,700 cal yr BP).

The smaller Tallahassee, Santa Fe, and Beaver Lake projectile points have traditionally been attributed to this horizon (Milanich 1994). However, many of these points have been recovered stratigraphically from Late Archaic and Early Woodland period components and thus, may not date to this period at all (Austin 2001; Farr 2006). Florida notched or pseudo-notched points, including the Union, Greenbriar, and Hardaway-like points may represent late Paleoindian types, but these types have not been recovered from datable contexts and their temporal placement remains uncertain, although Anderson and colleagues place them in the Late Paleoindian period (Anderson et al. 2019; Dunbar 2006a).

Archaeologists hypothesize that Paleoindians lived in migratory bands and subsisted by gathering and hunting, including the now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna (Marrinan and Peres 2019).

In addition, they likely trapped smaller animals such as mink, muskrat, and rabbit for their fur and medium sized mammal such as deer for food as well as raw materials for bone tools (Dunbar 2016;

Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007). It is likely that these nomadic hunters traveled between permanent and semi-permanent sources of water, such as artesian springs, exploiting the available resources. These watering holes would have attracted the animals, thus providing food and drink. In addition to being tied to water sources, most of the Paleoindian sites are close to good quality lithic resources. The settlement pattern consisted of the establishment of semi-permanent habitation areas and the movement of the resources from their sources of procurement to the residential locale by specialized task groups.

Although the Paleoindian period is generally considered to have been cooler and drier, there were major variations in the inland water tables resulting from large-scale environmental fluctuations.

There have been two major theories as to why most Paleoindian materials have been recovered from

ACI 3-3 June 2023 inundated sites. The Oasis theory, put forth by Wilfred T. Neill, was that due to low water tables and scarcity of potable water, the Paleoindians, and the game animals upon which they depended, clustered around the few available water holes that were associated with sinkholes (Neill 1964). Whereas Ben Waller postulated that the Paleoindians gathered around river-crossings to ambush the large Pleistocene animals as they crossed the rivers (Waller 1970). This implies periods of elevated water levels. Based on the research along the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, it appears that both theories are correct, depending upon what the local environmental conditions were at that time (Dunbar 2006b, 2016). As such, during the wetter periods, populations became more dispersed because the water resources were abundant and the animals that they relied on roamed over a wider range.

Some of the information about this period has been derived from the underwater excavations at two inland spring sites in Sarasota County: Little Salt Spring and Warm Mineral Springs (Clausen et

al. 1979). Excavation at the Harney Flats Site in Hillsborough County has provided a rich body of data concerning Paleoindian life ways. Analysis indicates that this site was used as a quarry-related base camp with special-use activity areas (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). It has been suggested that Paleoindian settlement may not have been related as much to seasonal changes as generally postulated for the succeeding Archaic period, but instead movement was perhaps related to the scheduling of tool-kit replacement, social needs, and the availability of water, among other factors (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:175). Investigations along the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, as well as other sites within the north Florida rivers, have provided important information on the Paleoindian period and how the aboriginals adapted to their environmental setting (Webb 2006). Studies of the Pleistocene faunal remains from these sites clearly demonstrate the importance of these animals not for food alone, but as the raw material for their bone-tool industry (Dunbar and Webb 1996).

3.2 Archaic

As the Paleoindian period gradually ended, climatic changes occurred, and the Pleistocene megafauna disappeared. The disappearance of the mammoths and mastodons resulted in a reduction of open grazing lands, and thus, the subsequent disappearance of grazers such as horse, bison, and camels.

With the reduction of open habitat, the more solitary, woodland browser, the white-tailed deer replaced the herd animals (Dunbar 2006a:426). The intertwined data of megafauna’ extinction and cultural change suggests a rapid and significant disruption in both faunal and floral assemblages and the Bolen people represent the first culture adapted to the Holocene environment (Carter and Dunbar 2006). This included a more specialized toolkit, and the introduction of chipped-stone woodworking implements.

However, because of a lack of excavated collections and the poor preservation of bone and other organic materials in the upland sites, our knowledge of the full range of the Early Archaic tool assemblages is uncertain (Carter and Dunbar 2006; Milanich 1994). Discoveries at the Page-Ladson, Little Salt Spring, and Windover sites indicate that bone and wood tools also were used (Clausen et al.

1979; Doran 2002; Webb 2006). The archaeological record suggests a diffuse, yet well-scheduled, pattern of exploiting both coastal and interior resources. Because water sources were much more numerous and larger than in earlier times, the Early Archaic peoples could sustain larger populations, occupy sites for longer periods, and perform activities that required longer occupation at a specific locale (Milanich 1994:67).

By approximately 6500 years ago, marked environmental changes, which had profound influence upon human settlement and subsistence practices, occurred. Humans adapted to this changing environment and regional and local differences are reflected in the archaeological record (Russo 1994a, 1994b; Sassaman 2008). Among the landscape alterations were rises in sea and water table levels that resulted in the creation of more available surface water. In addition to changed hydrological conditions, ACI 3-4 June 2023 this period is characterized by the spread of mesic forests and the beginnings of modern vegetation communities including pine forests and cypress swamps.

The archaeological record for the Middle Archaic is better understood than the Early Archaic.

Among the material culture inventory are several varieties of stemmed, broad blade projectile points including those of the Newnan, Levy, Marion, and Putnam types (Bullen 1975). Population growth, as evidenced by the increased number of sites and accompanied by increased socio-cultural complexity, occurred during this time (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980).

Middle Archaic sites recorded throughout the state include large base camps, smaller special-use campsites, quarries, and burial areas. The most common sites are the smaller campsites, which most likely were used for hunting or served as special-use extractive sites for activities such as gathering nuts or other botanical materials. At quarry sites, aboriginal populations mined stone for their tools.

They usually roughly shaped the stone prior to transporting it to another locale for finishing. Larger artifact assemblages and a wider variety of tool forms define base camps.

During the Late Archaic period, the population increased and became more sedentary. The broad bladed, stemmed projectile styles of the Middle Archaic continued to be made with the addition of Culbreath, Lafayette, Clay, and Westo point types (Bullen 1975). A greater reliance on marine resources is indicated in coastal areas. Subsistence strategies and technologies reflect the beginnings of an adaptation to these resources. By about 2000 BCE, there is evidence of fired clay pottery in Florida.

The first ceramic types were tempered with fibers (Spanish moss or palmetto) and are referred to as the Orange or Norwood series. Initially, it was thought that the ceramics lacked decoration until about 1700 BCE when they were decorated with geometric designs and punctations. However, research has called this chronology into question; AMS dating of a series of incised Orange sherds from the middle St.

Johns River valley, have produced dates contemporaneous with the plain varieties (Sassaman 2003).

Milanich (1994:86-87) suggests that while there may be little difference between Middle and

Late Archaic populations, there are more Late Archaic sites, and they were primarily located near wetlands. The abundant wetland resources allowed larger settlements to be maintained. It is likely that the change in settlement patterns is related to environmental changes. By the end of the Middle Archaic, the climate closely resembled that of today; vegetation changed from those species, which preferred moist conditions to pines and mixed forests (Watts and Hansen 1988). Sea levels rose inundating many sites located along the shoreline. The adaptation to this environment allowed for a wider variety of resources to be exploited and a wider variation in settlement patterns. No longer were the scarce waterholes dictating the location of sites. Shellfish, fish, and other food sources were now available from coastal and freshwater wetlands resulting in an increase population size.

The Transitional stage of the Late Archaic refers to that portion of the ceramic Archaic when sand was mixed with the fibers as a tempering agent. The same basic settlement and subsistence patterns were being followed. It has been suggested that during this period there was a diffusion of cultural traits due to the movement of small groups (Bullen 1959, 1965). This resulted in the appearance of several different ceramic and lithic tool traditions indicative of the beginning of cultural regionalism.

3.3 Woodland

The Deptford period (500 BCE to 150 CE [Common Era]) has been well documented as a coastal culture along the Gulf and Atlantic shorelines. Deptford has been described as having a coastal-riverine subsistence base, a Hopewellian religious complex, and a base camp-satellite camp settlement pattern (Bense 1989). The presence of shell middens marks the coastal base camps. Typically, they

ACI 3-5 June 2023 were live oak/hickory hammocks on barrier islands near brackish or fresh water (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Sea level rise since the Deptford period had inundated some sites and formed islands out of others. Smaller inland sites, probably for hunting, are also known, but less well understood. This settlement pattern, begun in the Late Archaic, marks a definite shift in settlement toward the coastal lowlands. The collection of specialized non-coastal resources such as nuts, berries, and freshwater fish was conducted in the interior pine forests and river valleys. Archaeologists believe the Deptford people spent most of the year along the lagoons and salt marshes. Seasonally, small groups may have moved inland and up the rivers to exploit the riverine and hammock resources (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:72). By about 100 CE, the Deptford settlement pattern began to change; villages were now being established in the interior as opposed to only the special-use campsites (Milanich 1994:114).

Deptford pottery is easily identified and is characterized by linear patterns of small rectangles or squares on the outside of pots. Simple stamp, linear check stamp, and check stamp patterns were applied by pressing a carved wooden paddle into the moist clay prior to firing. Other pottery was decorated by wrapping the wooden paddle with a cord and pressing it into the moist clay. Spanish moss had been replaced by better tempering agents such as sand and grit. Stone, worked shell, and worked bone artifacts tend to be scarce at Deptford sites, suggesting that wood was primarily used as the raw material for their tools (Milanich 1994:126).

Evidence of culture change is seen beginning around 100 BCE by increased trade and interaction, construction of burial and ceremonial mounds, and the movement of peoples into the interior on a permanent basis. Deptford peoples, along with contemporaneous Woodland cultures, participated in an exchange of exotic items such as copper, mica, conch shells, ear spools, and ceramics and began to construct burial mounds. This Yent ceremonial complex has been described by Sears (1962) for the Panhandle and North Peninsula Gulf Coast area based upon the excavations at the Crystal River, Yent, and Pierce Mounds. Not all late Deptford sites appear to be associated with that complex as cremations and midden burials have been reported from non-mound sites.

Following Deptford is Santa Rosa/Swift Creek, which occurred around 150-350 CE. In the archaeological record, the introduction of complicated stamped pottery evidences this period. Bense (1992) suggests that the replacement of Deptford ceramics with the new types was a gradual process.

In addition to the readily discernible changes in the material record, there also were changes in mortuary ceremonialism (Sears 1962). Burial mounds with east-side ceramic caches replaced the continuous use mounds of the late Deptford and there is a marked increase in the inclusion of exotic ornaments and ceramics with individual burials.

Weeden Island (100-1000 CE) evolved out of the preceding Swift Creek culture. Originally, the Weeden Island culture was divided into two chronological periods, I and II based on village midden ceramic assemblages (Willey 1949; Willey and Woodbury 1942). Weeden Island I was identified by the presence of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped ceramics and the Weeden Island Incised and Punctate types. The Weeden Island II period was identified by the lack of complicated stamping, a reduction in the frequencies of the Weeden Island Incised types, and the appearance of check-stamped ceramics in the archaeological record. Hunting, shellfish gathering, and wild plant food collecting continued and there is some evidence for an increasing reliance on domesticated plants. Early Weeden Island sites were occasionally located back from the coast in forested locales, but still within easy walking distance of the coast (Milanich 2002:358). Later, villages were established in the interior forests and river valleys as well as along the coast and were likely occupied on a year-round basis (Milanich 1994). These are evidenced by horseshoe or circular midden deposits and may have an associated burial mound. Coastal villages may have a similar site plan as the inland villages, or they may be evidenced by large linear shell middens. In general, oyster and/or marsh clam are the main components of the shell middens, with other midden debris interspersed. In addition to villages, small

ACI 3-6 June 2023 special-use campsites are scattered throughout the region, including inland hunting camps and smaller coastal shell middens. Inland sites are generally found near streams or lakes. By Late Weeden Island times, agriculture became essential to the inland populations while marine resources remained the significant dietary staple for coastal populations (Percy and Brose 1974). They also suggest that in the Late Weeden period, new settlements appeared in the upper reaches of the bay systems. These consisted of several small villages and an associated burial mound. The appearance of these settlements may be the result of increased populations and resulting pressures on the food resources of the lower bays.

Ceremonialism and its expressions, such as the construction of complex burial mounds containing exotic and elaborate grave offerings, reached their greatest development during this time.

Similarly, the subsistence economy, divided between maritime and terrestrial animals and perhaps horticultural products, represents the maximum effective adjustment to the environment. The settlement pattern resembles that of the preceding Swift Creek culture, although there are more Weeden Island sites (Milanich 1994). Coastal sites are located on barrier islands as well as on the adjacent mainland coast proximate to freshwater and salt marshes. It may be during this time period that the dichotomy between coastal and inland adaptations intensified (White 1986a:173).

The interior villages are often located in the same location as the preceding Swift Creek villages, such as at the Aspalaga mound-village complex located along the Apalachicola River (Milanich 1994; Moore 1903; Percy and Brose 1974). These “may represent the continued occupation of the ecologically more productive locales by growing populations. As villages became too large to function effectively, new villages budded off and at time older villages were abandoned” (Milanich 2002:358). Sites were located next to a permanent source of water within a mesic hammock. It has been noted that villages were also proximate to other aquatic habitats, sand hills, pine scrub, and flatwoods (Milanich et al. 1984; Sigler-Lavelle 1980). This would have provided the optimal setting for collecting the resources required by the site occupants.

The presence of Weeden Island ceramic types distinguishes the artifact assemblage. These are among some of the finest ceramics in the Southeast; they are often thin, well-fired, burnished, and decorated with incising, punctations, complicated stamping, and animal effigies (Milanich 1994:211).

These ceramics can be divided into three categories - mortuary, prestige/elite, and utilitarian wares. It should be noted that undecorated ceramics are most common in the village areas whereas the decorated types are most often associated with the burial mounds. Milanich and his colleagues note that greater time and effort was spent on the manufacture of the certain decorated wares as opposed to the undecorated wares and the elite pottery was almost always better made (Milanich et al. 1984).

The late Weeden Island period in northwest Florida is referred to as Wakulla Weeden Island based upon the predominance of check-stamped ceramics in the non-mound ceramic assemblages. This period revealed not only changes in the secular ceramics, but in mound ceremonialism, settlement patterns, and economic systems as well (Milanich 2002:362). This period, circa (ca.) 700-1000 CE, reflects the adoption of maize agriculture into the Weeden Island subsistence economy (Milanich 1994:194). It is not certain, however, whether agriculture became an important part of the coastal people’s economy. Within the interior portions of the Panhandle, the number of sites increased, and site locations were now located in areas previously uninhabited. This may have been due to an increase in population and a need for suitable agricultural lands. Nucleated villages and mound centers became scarce; although mounds were still used, they were no longer associated with extensive ceremonialism but were for interment of family members (Milanich 1994:197).

Wakulla Weeden Island sites are more common, but smaller in size than the preceding Weeden

Island sites. This may be due to the use of slash and burn maize agriculture that would have resulted in

ACI 3-7 June 2023 rapid soil exhaustion, requiring the periodic relocation of the fields. This system did not support the nucleated settlement patterns of the previous eras (Milanich 2002:362).

3.4 Mississippian

Mississippian societies in general had an economy based on intensive maize agriculture, a chiefdom political system, and participated in long-distance trade and interaction. However, not all Mississippian groups depended on agriculture due to their locations where such subsistence strategies were not viable, such as along the Florida Gulf coast. The western panhandle of Florida is mixture of the Pensacola culture to the west, which was centered at Bottle Creek in Alabama, and the Fort Walton culture. The latter has two variants, one located along the Apalachicola River, and the other centered in the Tallahassee Red Hills region. Pensacola was initially defined by Willey as having plain and decorated shell-tempered pottery that was related to the Moundville cultural of Mobile Bay (Willey 1949). The Fort Walton ceramics were tempered with sand and grit. From east to west, shell tempered pottery increases steadily through time and space from west of the Apalachicola River and begin to dominate Middle Mississippian period assemblages in the Choctawhatchee Bay (Harris 2012:278.).

Settlement along the western panhandle generally occurred around the St. Andrews, Choctawhatchee, and Pensacola Bays. These are drowned river valleys with at least one major river and multiple streams feeding into bayous that empty into the bays with live oak-magnolia hammocks located along the higher elevations. Within the St. Andrews Bay area, Harris reports that there are at least 16 mounds and two Mississippian cemeteries in the area. Most of the sites, however, consist of linear or circular oyster shell middens located along the shore. Subsistence was dependent upon the shellfish and fish of the local waters as well as some use of the inland resources such as deer and small mammals; shell and lithic tools were rare (Harris 2012:281). Although occupation of the interior areas was documented in the earlier Weeden Island period, it seems as if there was a migration to the coast during the Mississippian period. This may have been due to the lack of major rivers that extended inland; with no rivers, communication and transportation would have to occur along the coastal waters.

Evidence of communication with the wider Mississippian network is seen in the iconography of the pottery, especially as used for ritual and burial furniture (Harris 2012:293).

The introduction of Lamar Complicated Stamped pottery from central Georgia, about 1400 CE, is thought to represent the ceramics of the protohistoric ethnic Lower Creek peoples (Tesar 1980).

Bryne (1986:113) notes the aboriginal settlement pattern remained basically unchanged but many changes were occurring in the Southeast as a result…