University of South Florida
Scholar Commons
Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School
3-10-2016
Archaeology of Silver Springs State Park, Marion County, Florida
Rudy J. Westerman
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd
Part of the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons
Scholar Commons Citation
Westerman, Rudy J., "Archaeology of Silver Springs State Park, Marion County, Florida" (2016). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6156
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact scholarcommons@usf.edu.
Archaeology of Silver Springs State Park, Marion County, Florida by
Rudy J. Westerman
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Masters of Arts in Applied Anthropology
Department of Anthropology
College of Arts and Sciences
University of South Florida
Major Professor: Nancy White, Ph.D.
Brent R. Weisman, Ph.D.
Sarah Taylor, Ph.D.
Date of Approval:
March 9, 2016
Keywords: Silver River, Oklawaha River, archaeological survey, persistent place Copyright © 2016, Rudy J. Westerman
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair, Nancy White, for her constant guidance with all aspects of the project, as well as my committee members, Brent Weisman and Sarah Taylor. Thank you to Diane Wallman for visiting and providing her opinions on the Marshall Plantation and Silver River State Park sites. I am grateful for the hard work of the volunteer field crew: Michelle Assaad, Christine Bergmann, Ted Gold, Ryan Harke, Rick Haviland, Scott Javorski, Kelsey Kreiser, Jessica Miller, Matthew Rooney, Aurelien Tafani, and Rachel Thompson. Local expert Mickey Summers granted me a large amount of his time for interviews, showed us where many unrecorded sites were located, and donated a small salvage collection from a few of the sites – this project would not have been nearly as successful without his help. Guy Marwick and the Felburn Foundation of Ocala, Florida, have my sincere gratitude for funding the project through a generous grant. Scott Mitchell of the Silver River Museum and Education Center is thanked for proposing this project to the USF Department of Anthropology and providing assistance, direction, and resources. Thanks to Park Manager Sally Lieb, Assistant Park Managers Daniel Willis and Nicky Aiken, and all the rangers and park staff for allowing us to explore their beautiful park, providing campground accommodations, and coordinating field visits. Thanks to the Friends of the Silver River Museum and Education Center, who provided a stipend to assist with initial fieldwork costs. Thank you to Jennifer Briggs for assistance with grant management. I am grateful to Julia Byrd and Mary Glowacki with the Bureau of Archaeological Research and to the Florida Master Site File Staff. Thank you to John and Debby Westerman, Robert Gryder, and Charles McGraw for their support through this process, without which my sanity would have been even more precarious.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................vii Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................xxi I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Theoretical Considerations ......................................................................................................................... 4 Case Studies on Persistence ................................................................................................................ 5 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................12 Toward a More Holistic Perspective ...............................................................................................17
III. Environmental Setting of the Silver Springs State Park ......................................................................21 Boundaries ...........................................................................................................................................21 Springs and Water Resources ...........................................................................................................22 Soils, Geology, and Chert Sources ...................................................................................................25 Soils .........................................................................................................................................25 Geology ..................................................................................................................................29 Chert Sources ........................................................................................................................29 Land Cover, Flora, and Fauna ..........................................................................................................30
IV. Prehistory ...................................................................................................................................................33 Paleo-Indian ........................................................................................................................................33 Archaic .................................................................................................................................................35 Early Archaic .........................................................................................................................35 Middle Archaic ......................................................................................................................37 Late Archaic ...........................................................................................................................37 Woodland ............................................................................................................................................38 Deptford ................................................................................................................................38 St. Johns ................................................................................................................................. 39 Cades Pond ............................................................................................................................40 Weeden Island on the Peninsular Gulf Coast ..................................................................41 Late Prehistoric ...................................................................................................................................41 St. Johns II .............................................................................................................................41 Alachua ...................................................................................................................................42 Suwannee Valley ...................................................................................................................44 Safety Harbor ........................................................................................................................45
V. Historical Background ...............................................................................................................................47 Protohistoric: The Timucua ..............................................................................................................47
i
Spanish .................................................................................................................................................48 Hernando de Soto ................................................................................................................48 Missions ................................................................................................................................. 49 United States Expansion and Seminole Wars ................................................................................50 Fort King ...............................................................................................................................51
Payne’s Landing ....................................................................................................................53 Second Seminole War ..........................................................................................................55 Armed Occupation Act and Early Settlement ..................................................................56 Plantations and the Civil War ...........................................................................................................57 Marshall Plantation and Raid ..............................................................................................57 Road, Rail, and River Transportation and Tourism ......................................................................64
Hart’s Steamers .....................................................................................................................64 Lodging ..................................................................................................................................66 Glass Bottom Boats .............................................................................................................67 C. Ed Carmichael and his Daylight Line ...........................................................................68 Local Economy...................................................................................................................................69 Cattle .......................................................................................................................................69 Ray and Davidson: Silver Springs’ Entrepreneurs.........................................................................70 Competition from Porter ....................................................................................................71 Affiliated Attractions ............................................................................................................71 Paradise Park .........................................................................................................................73 Advertising .............................................................................................................................75 Hollywood .............................................................................................................................76 Bruce Mozert .........................................................................................................................77 Changes in Ownership ......................................................................................................................78
VI. Timeline of Previous Archaeological Research ....................................................................................81 Initial Investigations ...........................................................................................................................81 Discoveries and Site Inventories of the 1930s-70s........................................................................82 Cultural Resource Management and “Gray Literature” Reports and Investigations ...............83
VII. Methods ....................................................................................................................................................86 Background Research ........................................................................................................................86 Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Review ...........................................................................86 Historical Maps and Documents ........................................................................................87 Sites .........................................................................................................................................87 The 2014-2015 Archaeological Survey ............................................................................................89 Fieldwork ...............................................................................................................................89 Local Expert Interview ........................................................................................................94 Lab Methods .........................................................................................................................95
VIII. Site Descriptions ....................................................................................................................................97 Mound Near Silver Springs, 8Mr33 ................................................................................................. 97 Silver River Run Midden / Silver River #3 Site, 8Mr53 ............................................................105 Silver Springs Site, 8Mr59 (aka Cavern Site) ................................................................................114 NN Site, 8Mr83 ................................................................................................................................120 Paradise Park Site, 8Mr92 ...............................................................................................................123 Impala Site, 8Mr93...........................................................................................................................136
ii
Silver River Mammoth Site (Guest Mammoth Site), 8Mr130 ...................................................142 Silver River #2 Site, 8Mr532 ..........................................................................................................147 F65 Site, 8Mr1081 ............................................................................................................................153 Franklin 15 Site, 8Mr1082...............................................................................................................156 F67 Site, 8Mr1083 ............................................................................................................................168 Franklin 93 Site (F68), 8Mr1084 ....................................................................................................175 Cactus Flower Site, 8Mr1878 ..........................................................................................................178 Oak Hammock Site, 8Mr1920........................................................................................................196 Silver River State Park Site, 8Mr1921............................................................................................203 Canoe Launch Site, 8Mr1922 .........................................................................................................210 Junk Car Site, 8Mr1923 ...................................................................................................................221 Recent Trash Dump Site, 8Mr1924...............................................................................................223 Concrete Structure (Probably Dip Vats) Site, 8Mr1925.............................................................226 Boardwalk Site, 8Mr2195 ................................................................................................................235
Combined Sites: No Name (Mr83), Impala Site (Mr93), Oak Hammock (Mr1920), and Boardwalk (Mr2195) .................................................................................................................237 Sharps Ferry Office Site, 8Mr2402 ................................................................................................266 Friendly Tortoise Site, 8Mr2451 ....................................................................................................273 Suburban Sanctuary Site, 8Mr2452................................................................................................276 Ishti Semoli Site, 8Mr2703..............................................................................................................280 Silver River Run Canoe Site, 8Mr3173.......................................................................................... 296 Marshall Plantation Site, 8Mr3214................................................................................................. 298 Mystery Snail Midden Site, 8Mr3266.............................................................................................308 SR 40 / CR 326 Site, 8Mr3477.......................................................................................................314 Paradise Park Resort, 8Mr3746......................................................................................................318 Silver Springs RR and Hotel Site, 8Mr3855 .................................................................................323 Carmichael Ridge Site, 8Mr3902....................................................................................................327 Hardy Croom Site, 8Mr3903 ..........................................................................................................334 Knobby Site, 8Mr3904 ....................................................................................................................347 Silver River Sink Site, 8Mr3905......................................................................................................353 Trifoliate Orange Ridge Site, 8Mr3906 .........................................................................................361 River Trailhead Agricultural Complex, 8Mr3911: River Trailhead Artifact Scatter (8Mr3907); River Trailhead Cattle Dip Vat (8Mr3908); River Trailhead Trough (8Mr3909), and River Trailhead Vat (8Mr3910)..........................................................................371 Little Palm Ridge Site, 8Mr3919 ....................................................................................................380 Cypress Swamp Foundations, 8Mr3920 .......................................................................................385
IX. Pulling it all Together: Landscape History of the Park, Research Questions, and Recommendations .........................................................................................................................................389 Theoretical Applications for Resource Management ........................................................................389 Landscape History ..................................................................................................................................392 Additional Research and Recommendations ......................................................................................411
X. References ..................................................................................................................................................416 XI. Appendix I: Site Table ............................................................................................................................428 XII. Appendix II: Shovel Test Table ..........................................................................................................436
iii
XIII. Appendix III: Artifact Catalog. ..........................................................................................................460
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Soils found within the Silver Springs State Park (adapted from Soil Survey Staff 2014)..............................................................................................................................................26
Table 2: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr33. .............................................................................................103 Table 3: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr53. .............................................................................................112 Table 4: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr59. .............................................................................................118 Table 5: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr83 (Previous Investigations). ................................................122 Table 6: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr92. .............................................................................................130 Table. 7: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr93 (Previous Investigations). ................................................139 Table 8: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr130. ...........................................................................................145 Table 9: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr532 ............................................................................................151 Table 10: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr1082. .........................................................................................162 Table 11: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr1083. .........................................................................................173 Table 12: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr1878. .........................................................................................185 Table 13: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr1920 (Previous Investigations). ............................................198 Table 14: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr1921. .........................................................................................209 Table 15: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr1922. .........................................................................................218 Table 16: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr1924 (none collected) ............................................................225 Table 17: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr1925 ..........................................................................................234 Table 18: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr2195 (Previous Investigations) ............................................. 236
v
Table 19: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr83/93/1920/2195 (current investigation only) .................256 Table 20: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr2402 ..........................................................................................270 Table 21: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr2451 ..........................................................................................275 Table 22: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr2452 ..........................................................................................279 Table 23: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr2703 ..........................................................................................290 Table 24: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3214 ..........................................................................................307 Table 25: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3266 .........................................................................................312 Table 26: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3477 ..........................................................................................317 Table 27: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3746..........................................................................................322 Table 28: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3855: .........................................................................................325 Table 29: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3902. .........................................................................................332 Table 30: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3903. .........................................................................................344 Table 31: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3904. ........................................................................................ 351 Table 32: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3905. .........................................................................................358 Table 33: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3906. .........................................................................................369 Table 34: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr:3907. ........................................................................................379 Table 35: Materials recovered, Site 8Mr3919. .........................................................................................384
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map showing locations of Ocala and Marion County within Florida ................................... 2
Figure 2: Map showing site locations and waterbodies within and adjacent to Silver Springs State Park. ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Silver Springs State Park boundaries shown on Ocala East, Florida, and Lynne, Florida, 1991 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. ................................................................21
Figure 4: View across Silver Springs Main Boil toward the Silver River..............................................22 Figure 5: Select springs of the Silver Springs Group (adapted from Munch et. al. 2006). ................23 Figure 6: Map showing major rivers relevant to the project area. ........................................................24
Figure 7: Flooding in the north and the southeastern portions of the park is extensive during the rainy season. ..............................................................................................................25
Figure 8: 2014 soil survey map of the Silver Springs State Park area (adapted from Soil Survey Staff 2014) ........................................................................................................................26
Figure 9: Geological map of the Silver Springs State Park area, (adapted from Scott 1992)............29 Figure 10: Cooperative Land Cover map showing natural communities within the park ...................31 Figure 11: Troop of rhesus macaques gathered near the park. ...............................................................32 Figure 12: Portion of 1825 Joshua Coffee map. ........................................................................................52
Figure 13: Portion of Johnson’s 1836 map, Seat of War in Florida, showing the Agency and Fort King relative to the Silver and Oklawaha Rivers. ..........................................................53
Figure 14: Sketch by John Sprague depicting the rebuilt 1837 version of Ft. King (Ft. King Heritage Association 2016). .......................................................................................................56
Figure 15: Portion of 1844 GLO survey plat map (Accessed through LABINS). ...............................57 Figure 16: Letter from J. Foster Marshall to the governor of Florida (Marshall 1862). ......................59
Figure 17: Early twentieth century glass bottom boats with hotel and wharf in the background (photo from floridamemory.com). ......................................................................68
vii
Figure 18: Paradise Park advertisement featuring young Reginald Lewis, Eddie Vereen’s grandson (Vickers and Wilson-Graham 2015:11; State Archives of Florida,
Florida Memory). .........................................................................................................................74 Figure 19: View from spring-side mall east toward glass-bottom boat docks. .....................................78 Figure 20: Map of previous survey coverage within and in close proximity to the park. ....................87 Figure 21: Map showing previously recorded cultural resources within the park. ...............................88
Figure 22: Stream across the Bike Trail in the southeastern part of the park, puddling in the forest, and damp ground throughout. ......................................................................................90
Figure 23: Shovel test locations, along with previously existing and newly determined site boundaries. ...................................................................................................................................92
Figure 24: Portion of Moore’s 1895 map ...................................................................................................99 Figure 25: N. White and M. Summers at the recorded location of Mr33. ...........................................100
Figure 26: Map of Mound Near Silver Springs (8Mr33) as plotted in the FMSF and showing revised plot based on survey. ...................................................................................................101
Figure 27: Shovel Test 109 stratigraphy. ...................................................................................................102 Figure 28: T. Gold excavating Shovel Test 109. ......................................................................................102 Figure 29: 8Mr33, looking west. .................................................................................................................102 Figure 30: Microtool from Shovel Test 109. ............................................................................................102 Figure 31: Many fallen trees at 8Mr53 have caused disturbance. ..........................................................108 Figure 32: Map of 8Mr53. ...........................................................................................................................108 Figure 33: 8Mr53, midden adjacent to cypress swamp. ..........................................................................109 Figure 34: Clearing near 8Mr53, Shovel Test 57 in this area did not yield artifacts. ..........................109 Figure 35: Shovel Test 58, west wall. .........................................................................................................110 Figure 36: Chert scraper recovered from Shovel Test 58. .....................................................................111
Figure 37: Net-impressed sherd (right) and its positive impression (left) in a piece of fresh clay. ..............................................................................................................................................112
viii
Figure 38: Map of the Silver Springs Site. ................................................................................................. 117 Figure 39: View from glass-bottom boats near the submerged Silver Springs site. ...........................117 Figure 40: The recorded location of 8Mr83 (within the University of Florida project area). ...........122
Figure 41: Map showing Mr92 in light purple where it is plotted by the FMSF, and the site relocated according to our coordinates during surface inspection outlined in pink. .............................................................................................................................................129
Figure 42: Sloped bank at Paradise Park (8Mr92). ..................................................................................130 Figure 43: Site 8Mr93 is shown in light purple as currently plotted in the FMSF ..............................139
Figure 44: Guest Mammoth site (8Mr130) shown within Silver River and backswamp, along with its relation to nearby sites 8Mr53, Mr1922, and Mr3266. ...........................................145
Figure 45: Slope at Silver River #2 site .....................................................................................................148 Figure 46: Map of Silver River #2 Site (8Mr532). ...................................................................................149 Figure 47: Shovel Test 11, note dark midden above concreted rocky clay. .........................................150 Figure 48: Grog-and-limestone-tempered sherd. ....................................................................................150 Figure 49: Alachua Cob-Marked sherds. ...................................................................................................150 Figure 50: Probable core tool. ................................................................................................................. 151 Figure 51: Possible graver. ..........................................................................................................................151 Figure 52: Probable adze. ............................................................................................................................151 Figure 53: 8Mr1081 showing mounded areas where zoo animals are buried. ....................................154
Figure 54: Map showing 8Mr1081 with the original “GV” plot in the FMSF and the revised location pinpointed. ..................................................................................................................155
Figure 55: Map showing the expanded boundaries of Franklin 15 (8Mr1082; original FMSF plot in purple, and new boundaries in pink.) .........................................................................159
Figure 56: Filled area where Shovel Test 100 was excavated. ................................................................160 Figure 57: 8Mr1082 near Shovel Test 101; note high weedy vegetation. .............................................161
Figure 58: Shovel Test 101, showing large limestone rocks in situ prior to complete excavation. ..................................................................................................................................162
ix
Figure 59: Large biface found in Shovel Test 101 (each division in the scale is 2 cm). .....................162
Figure 60: F67 (8Mr1083) with the original “GV” plot shown in purple and approximate boundaries based on surface collection outlined in pink. ....................................................170
Figure 61: Sterile Shovel Test 86. ...............................................................................................................171
Figure 62: Location of F67 Site, palmettos dominate and shell is eroding out in addition to artifacts. .......................................................................................................................................172
Figure 63: Moss-covered “field stone” and brick at the southern end of F67....................................172 Figure 64: St. Johns Incised rim sherd. .....................................................................................................173 Figure 65: St. Johns Check-Stamped body sherd. ...................................................................................173 Figure 66: Probable Lochloosa Punctated sherd .....................................................................................173 Figure 67: Possible cob-marked sherd. .....................................................................................................173 Figure 68: Map showing the recorded location of 8Mr1084 ................................................................. 177
Figure 69: Map showing Site 8Mr1878, with the FMSF plot in purple and the revised boundaries in pink. ....................................................................................................................182
Figure 70: Site 8Mr1878. .............................................................................................................................183 Figure 71: Unifacial microtool (probable awl). ........................................................................................184 Figure 72: Shovel Test 99 at 8Mr1878, east wall. ....................................................................................184
Figure 73: Original plot of Oak Hammock site in light purple, portion of expanded site boundary in pink. ....................................................................................................................... 198
Figure 74: 1949 aerial photograph showing Long Field and approximate location of 8Mr1921 at its northern end. ...................................................................................................204
Figure 75: Silver River State Park site plot; note original plot in purple and revised plot based on survey outlined in pink. ............................................................................................206
Figure 76: Brick wall fragment at 8Mr1921..............................................................................................206 Figure 77: Brick foundations uncovered at 8Mr1921. ............................................................................206 Figure 78: Portions of concrete at 8Mr1921. ...........................................................................................207 Figure 79: Close-up showing chert flakes in concrete ............................................................................207
x
Figure 80: Two possible boiler fragments ................................................................................................207 Figure 81: Close up showing riveted edge. ...............................................................................................207 Figure 82: Pipe running through brick scatter. ........................................................................................208 Figure 83: Ancient Age whiskey bottle. ....................................................................................................209 Figure 84: Rusted can. ................................................................................................................................. 209 Figure 85: Map of the Canoe Launch site (8Mr1922). ............................................................................212
Figure 86: Close-up map showing select historic artifact or architectural areas within the Canoe Launch site. ....................................................................................................................213
Figure 87: View from the former landing to the river, red swamp lobelia flower in the foreground. ................................................................................................................................. 213
Figure 88: Brick and limestone block scatter at 8Mr1922. .....................................................................214 Figure 89: Shovel Test 60, north wall. .......................................................................................................214 Figure 90: ST 60 with glass in wall below soil change. ...........................................................................214 Figure 91: Glass, nail, and brick fragments from Shovel Test 60. ........................................................214 Figure 92: Sand-tempered plain sherds from 8Mr1922. .........................................................................215 Figure 93: Hand-colored postcard showing Carmichael’s bungalow, c. 1910-1927. ..........................216 Figure 94: Metal pipe fitting........................................................................................................................217 Figure 95: Brick foundation at 8Mr1922. ................................................................................................. 217
Figure 96: Carmichael bungalow, pole barn bearing Carmichael name, landing, and possibly Pasteur house in the background. ...........................................................................................217
Figure 97: Hog enclosure along the river road leading away from Mr1922. .......................................218 Figure 98: Mapped location of Junk Car site (8Mr1923). .......................................................................222 Figure 99: Miscellaneous historic glass and ceramics. .............................................................................224 Figure 100: Author with boot or shoe sole. ...............................................................................................224
Figure 101: Map of 8Mr1924 as recorded in FMSF and location of historic scatter identified in the field. ..................................................................................................................................225
xi
Figure 102: Concrete Structure (Mr1925) north of bike trail. .................................................................. 227 Figure 103: Sketch of the layout of 8Mr1925. ............................................................................................228 Figure 104: Above-ground concrete structure with three vats. ...............................................................229 Figure 105: Drain on east side of tall vat. ...................................................................................................229 Figure 106: Location of drain at bottom of tall vat. ..................................................................................229
Figure 107: Structures with drains looking toward tall vat. ......................................................................230 .
Figure 108: Well and groove on the top of structure. ...............................................................................230 Figure 109: Bergmann exposing a portion of the concrete and brick wall. ...........................................231 Figure 110: Wall in foreground and concrete structures in background. ...............................................232 Figure 111: Concrete and brick leaned up against wall. ............................................................................233 Figure 112: Side view of concrete and brick. .............................................................................................233 Figure 113: Line of light brick scatter. ........................................................................................................233 Figure 114: 1940 aerial, possible activity at 8Mr1925 (bottom center). ..................................................234 Figure 115: 1979 aerial near 8Mr1925. ........................................................................................................234
Figure 116: Original recorded location for Boardwalk (Mr2195) with shovel tests expanding boundaries. ................................................................................................................................. 236
Figure 117: Shovel Tests 1 and 18-22 south of previously recorded Mr93. ..........................................239 Figure 118: Shovel Tests conducted south of previously recorded portion of Mr93. .........................240 Figure 119: Denticulate tool from ST 19, possible spokeshave. .............................................................240 Figure 120: Utilized flake from Shovel Test 1. ..........................................................................................240 Figure 121: Large scraper with possible hafting on primary flake. .........................................................240 Figure 122: Disturbed area at Shovel Test 79 with surface scatter. ........................................................241
Figure 123: Map showing areas where surface scatter was conducted within the UF survey area at Mr93. ...............................................................................................................................242
Figure 124: Portion of Ft. King Waterway Pioneer Village reconstruction. ..........................................242
xii
Figure 125: “Indian lodge” area within the site Mr93...............................................................................243 Figure 126: Mammoth bone fragment displayed at “Brinton site” within site 8Mr93. .......................243
Figure 127: Shovel testing at large site between recorded locations of Mr83, Mr93, and Mr2195, including around possible burial mound site Mr33. .............................................244
Figure 128: Sand-and charcoal-tempered sherd. ........................................................................................245 Figure 129: Grog-tempered sherd with holes, maybe from limestone temper. ....................................245 Figure 130: Shovel Test 107, typical test within this portion of the site. ...............................................246 Figure 131: Possible core tool from Shovel Test 114. ..............................................................................246 Figure 132: Scraper and utilized flake from ST114. ..................................................................................246 Figure 133: Biface fragment from ST115. ..................................................................................................247 Figure 134: Possible graver on secondary flake from ST115. ..................................................................247
Figure 135: Shovel tests excavated near the Boardwalk portion (8Mr2195) of the large combined site. ............................................................................................................................248
Figure 136: Vegetation in the Boardwalk part of the site. ........................................................................248 Figure 137: Edge of the swamp near the Boardwalk site. ........................................................................248 Figure 138: Large unifacial tool from ST 40. .............................................................................................249 Figure 139: Utilized flakes from ST 40. ......................................................................................................249 Figure 140: Bifacially worked and possibly hafted tool from Shovel Test 42. ......................................249 Figure 141: Alachua Cob-Marked sherd from ST45. ................................................................................250 Figure 142: Fine sand tempered sherd from ST46. ...................................................................................250 Figure 143: Sand-tempered pottery from ST47. ........................................................................................251 Figure 144: Sand-and-charcoal tempered sherd. ........................................................................................251 Figure 145: Biface fragment with rectilinear base. .....................................................................................251 Figure 146: Typical vegetation near the Oak Hammock portion of the site. ........................................252 Figure 147: Shovel tests in the vicinity of the Oak Hammock Site (8Mr1920). ....................................252
xiii
Figure 148: St. Johns Check-Stamped rim sherds. ....................................................................................254 Figure 149: Biface fragment. .........................................................................................................................254 Figure 150: Biface from 171 to 181 cm deep in Shovel Test 125. ..........................................................254 Figure 151: Shovel Test 126 at 70 cm deep. ...............................................................................................255
Figure 152: Combined site from Mr83, 93, 1920, and 2195 in pink with FMSF plots in purple. .........................................................................................................................................256
Figure 153: Map of the Sharps Ferry Office site. ......................................................................................268 Figure 154: Vegetation at 8Mr2402 .............................................................................................................269 Figure 155: Shovel Test 24, east wall. ..........................................................................................................269 Figure 156: Historic glass and ceramics. .....................................................................................................270 Figure 157: 1940 aerial showing historic activity in the area. ...................................................................270 Figure 158: Friendly Tortoise (8Mr2451) site map. ...................................................................................274 Figure 159: Vegetation at Friendly Tortoise site. .......................................................................................275 Figure 160: Map of Suburban Sanctuary site (8Mr2452). .........................................................................278 Figure 161: Suburban Sanctuary site (8Mr2452) with oak, pine, and palmetto vegetation. ................278
Figure 162: Backhoe excavation 22 ft. (6.7m) deep near the campgrounds within Ishti Semoli. .........................................................................................................................................284
Figure 163: Volunteers and construction crew screening in vicinity of Cabin 9. ................................. 284
Figure 164: Map of previous (light purple) and extended boundaries (pink outline) of Ishti Semoli site. ..................................................................................................................................285
Figure 165: Pine flatwoods environment within Ishti Semoli site. .........................................................286 Figure 166: Secondary flakes from ST71. ...................................................................................................286 Figure 167: Core from ST71. ........................................................................................................................286 Figure 168: Possible blade from ST71. .......................................................................................................287 Figure 169: Possible spokeshaves from ST71. ...........................................................................................287 Figure 170: Portion of Ishti Semoli site adjacent to Marshall Swamp. ...................................................287
xiv
Figure 171: Edge of probable borrow pit area where ST 74 was excavated. ........................................288 Figure 172: Shovel Test 75. ...........................................................................................................................289 Figure 173: Probable Lafayette point base. ................................................................................................289 Figure 174: Probable Lafayette point base (opposite side). .....................................................................289
Figure 175: The box showing the Silver River Run Canoe (8Mr3173) indicates the general vicinity of the canoe as plotted in the FMSF. .......................................................................297
Figure 176: Marshall Plantation map. ..........................................................................................................300
Figure 177: Close-up map of Marshall Plantation site with approximate locations of the brick scatters and foundations. ..........................................................................................................301
Figure 178: Cut limestone foundations at Marshall Plantation. ..............................................................302 Figure 179: Closer photograph of limestone foundations. ......................................................................302 Figure 180: Depression adjacent to foundations. ......................................................................................302 Figure 181: Author next to upright iron rods. ...........................................................................................302 Figure 182: Close-up of metal rods. ............................................................................................................303 Figure 183: Brick scatter at the probable location of another structure. ................................................303 Figure 184: Metal artifact found near brick scatter. ..................................................................................303 Figure 185: Possible plow blade (not collected). .......................................................................................304 Figure 186: Metal artifacts (not collected). ................................................................................................. 304 Figure 187: Sketch of the layout of the Marshall Plantation ruins. .........................................................305 Figure 188: Example of hog damage sustained at the Marshall Plantation site. ...................................306
Figure 189: Map showing the recorded location of Mystery Snail Midden (Mr3266) and nearby sites Mr53 and Mr532. ................................................................................................. 310
Figure 190: Canoe launch and view to the west along the Silver River. .................................................311 Figure 191: Shovel Test 9. .............................................................................................................................311 Figure 192: Cypress, palm, and palmetto swamp. .....................................................................................311
xv
Figure 193: Gopher tortoise burrow near ST 10. ......................................................................................311 Figure 194: Examples of shell types from the Mr3266. ............................................................................312 Figure 195: Sterile Shovel Test 112 filling with water. ..............................................................................312 Figure 196: Swampy land south of Mr3477. ...............................................................................................315 Figure 197: Shovel Test 59. ...........................................................................................................................315
Figure 198: Map of 8Mr3477 showing Shovel Test 59 that did not contain artifacts and the Cactus Flower site to the west. ................................................................................................316
Figure 199: Looking north toward State Road 40 and the location of Mr3477. ...................................316
Figure 200: Map of Paradise Park Resort (Mr3746) outlined in pink (area is within larger Mr83/93/1920/1921 site). .......................................................................................................320
Figure 201: Foundations at former park entrance. ....................................................................................321 Figure 202: Fill pile near Paradise Park .......................................................................................................321 Figure 203: Historic artifacts (Nehi bottle lower center). .........................................................................321 Figure 204: Former beach area overlooking canal. ....................................................................................321
Figure 205: Artifact scatter at Paradise Park Resort with swimming ladder in foreground and remains of park benches at center. .........................................................................................321
Figure 206: Foundations from gator enclosure. .........................................................................................322 Figure 207: Segment of cable from Tarzan’s rope swing. ........................................................................322
Figure 208: 1887 photograph by Stanley J. Morrow of the hotel and railroad lines at Silver Springs .........................................................................................................................................324
Figure 209: Location of Silver Springs RR and Hotel and close proximity of other archaeological sites. ...................................................................................................................325
Figure 210: Carmichael Ridge Site (Mr3902) and its proximity to other sites (Mr130 and Mr1922). ......................................................................................................................................328
Figure 211: Carmichael Ridge (8Mr3902) overlooking lower terrace and Silver River. .......................329 Figure 212: Possible adze found in road at 8Mr3902................................................................................329 Figure 213: Indeterminate grit-tempered incised ware. ............................................................................329
xvi
Figure 214: Cob-marked sherds (refit) from MS Collection. ...................................................................331 Figure 215: Sand-tempered body sherds (examples). ................................................................................ 331 Figure 216: Interior of sand-tempered plain rim sherd. ...........................................................................331 Figure 217: St. Johns Check-Stamped sherd. .............................................................................................331 Figure 218: Biface fragment ..........................................................................................................................331 Figure 219: Faunal remains from the Carmichael Ridge site. ..................................................................331
Figure 220: Map of Site 8Mr3903, showing other archaeological sites along the south bank and an outparcel (southwest corner). .....................................................................................335
Figure 221: Hardy Croom site, near ST96. ................................................................................................. 336 Figure 222: Close-up map showing select historic artifacts from the Hardy Croom site area. ..........336 Figure 223: Abandoned vehicle frame at Hardy Croom site (8Mr3903)................................................337 Figure 224: Spikes on wheels of car at Hardy Croom site (8Mr3903). ...................................................337 Figure 225: Rusted barrel. .............................................................................................................................338 Figure 226: Terra cotta pipe. .........................................................................................................................338 Figure 227: Bottle dump at Hardy Croom site. .........................................................................................339 Figure 228: Rhesus macaque observing our shovel testing at the Hardy Croom site. .........................339 Figure 229: Oklawaha Incised rim sherd. ...................................................................................................339 Figure 230: St. Johns Plain sherd with thick folded rim. ..........................................................................340 Figure 231: Miscellaneous sherds with St. Johns paste. ............................................................................340 Figure 232: St. Johns Check-Stamped sherd. .............................................................................................340 Figure 233: Sand tempered rim sherd, uneven rim. ..................................................................................341 Figure 234: Sand-tempered rim sherd. ........................................................................................................341 Figure 235: Sand-tempered plain pottery sherds. ......................................................................................341 Figure 236: Possible cores from Summers’ collection. .............................................................................341 Figure 237: Probable utilized flakes. ............................................................................................................341
xvii
Figure 238: Utilized flake, possibly hafted. ................................................................................................. 341 Figure 239: Historic glass and whiteware sherd. ........................................................................................342 Figure 240: Transfer-printed whiteware. .....................................................................................................342 Figure 241: Shovel Test 96. ...........................................................................................................................342 Figure 242: Drill fragment .............................................................................................................................342 Figure 243: St. Johns Incised rim sherd. .....................................................................................................343 Figure 244: White and Summers at Knobby site (8Mr3904). ..................................................................348 Figure 245: Map of Knobby site. .................................................................................................................349 Figure 246: Pasco grog-and-limestone-tempered rim sherd. ...................................................................349 Figure 247: Scraper recovered from ST102. ...............................................................................................350 Figure 248: Lighter non-organic soil in sterile ST104. ..............................................................................351 Figure 249: ST 102, artifacts were found in black soil. .............................................................................351 Figure 250: Silver River Sink site map. ........................................................................................................355 Figure 251: View of standing water at bottom of sinkhole. .....................................................................356 Figure 252: Typical oak and pine vegetation at 8Mr3905. ........................................................................356 Figure 253: Bifacial tool recovered on the south edge of the sinkhole in Shovel Test 25. .................356
Figure 254: Thick grog-tempered pottery from Shovel Test 82, limestone tempering may have leached out. .......................................................................................................................357
Figure 255: Possible Pinellas point ..............................................................................................................358 Figure 256: Opposite side of point. .............................................................................................................358 Figure 257: Map of Trifoliate Ridge site. ....................................................................................................362 Figure 258: Ripe trifoliate orange on tree and palmettos on ridge. ........................................................363 Figure 259: Duraglass jug. .............................................................................................................................363 Figure 260: Shovel Test 131 east wall; note sherd protruding from north wall. ...................................363
xviii
Figure 261: Sample of unwashed pottery from Shovel Test 131. ...........................................................364 Figure 262: Sketch of Shovel Test 131, 10 cm floor. ................................................................................364 Figure 263: ST 131 feature, north at top. ....................................................................................................364 Figure 264: Sand-tempered plain vessel interior. .......................................................................................366 Figure 265: Exterior of vessel showing roughening. .................................................................................366 Figure 266: Thick sand tempered plain sherds from Shovel Test 131. ..................................................366 Figure 267: Trestle Point Shell-Impressed pot fragment. ........................................................................367 Figure 268: One Trestle Point sherd may be from a different pot. ........................................................367 Figure 269: Alachua Cob-Marked sherds. ...................................................................................................367 Figure 270: Possible fabric-impressed sherd. .............................................................................................367 Figure 271: St. Johns Plain pottery. .............................................................................................................368 Figure 272: St. Johns Check-Stamped sherd. .............................................................................................368 Figure 273: Pasco limestone-tempered sherd. ............................................................................................368 Figure 274: Possible Tampa point ...............................................................................................................368 Figure 275: Side of Tampa point with cortex.............................................................................................368 Figure 276: Concrete trough moved to location. .......................................................................................372 Figure 277: Sketch of the River Trailhead Agricultural Complex layout. ..............................................372
Figure 278: River Trailhead Agricultural Complex (8Mr3911) map showing three structures (8Mr3908-8Mr3910); historic scatter (8Mr3907) extended to the west beyond the structures. ....................................................................................................................................373
Figure 279: Sketch of the River Trailhead Cattle Dip Vat (8Mr3908). ...................................................374
Figure 280: River Trailhead Cattle Dip Vat showing the ramp dropping off into the vat, facing northwest. .......................................................................................................................375
Figure 281: May 1951 engraved into the drip vat of the River Trailhead Cattle Dip Vat. ..................375 Figure 282: Sketch of River Trailhead Trough (8Mr3909). ......................................................................376 Figure 283: River Trailhead Trough, facing south .....................................................................................376
xix
Figure 284: Historic artifacts collected from the clearing where a former structure stood. ................377 Figure 285: Sketch of the River Trailhead Vat (8Mr3910). ......................................................................378 Figure 286: River Trailhead Vat, facing SSE. .............................................................................................378 Figure 287: Map of Little Palm Ridge site (8Mr3919). ............................................................................. 381 Figure 288: Author at Little Palm Ridge site. ............................................................................................382 Figure 289: Possible limestone adze found at the base of the ridge. ......................................................382 Figure 290: Possible Alachua fabric-impressed rim sherd........................................................................383 Figure 291: Indeterminate punctated sherd. ...............................................................................................383 Figure 292: Map of Cypress Swamp Foundations (new structure). ........................................................ 386 Figure 293: Looking northwest at structure. ..............................................................................................387 Figure 294: Structure on landward side. ......................................................................................................387 Figure 295: Sketch of Cypress Swamp Foundations (8Mr3920). ............................................................388 Figure 296: Paleo-Indian sites within the park. ..........................................................................................394 Figure 297: Early Archaic sites within the park. ........................................................................................396 Figure 298: Possible Middle Archaic sites within the park. ......................................................................397 Figure 299: Late Archaic sites within the park. ..........................................................................................398 Figure 300: Woodland sites within the park ...............................................................................................400 Figure 301: Late prehistoric sites within the park ......................................................................................402 Figure 302: Seminole sites within the park ................................................................................................. 407 Figure 303: Nineteenth century sites within the park ...............................................................................408
Figure 304: Twentieth century sites within the park .................................................................................410
xx
ABSTRACT
An archaeological survey was conducted of the Silver Springs State Park in Ocala, Florida, between August 2014 and December 2015. The project goals were to relocate and assess the previously recorded archaeological sites in the park and attempt to discover new sites. Background research, archaeological fieldwork including surface collection, shovel testing, and informant interview were conducted with this aim. Each site is described and addressed, and most were relocated; twelve new resources were added to the inventory. The Silver Springs and Silver River watershed have been occupied from the Paleo-Indian period at least 13,000 years ago through the twentieth century. Sites from each time period are discussed to detail how use of the landscape developed through time but still remained a persistently occupied place with important, albeit changing roles. Finally, management and research recommendations are provided to assist the state park staff and future archaeologists working in the area.
xxi
I. INTRODUCTION
Peering over the side of a glass-bottom boat as it disembarks from the dock at Silver Springs, one sees the silvery sparkle across the water, cooters resting on logs, an anhinga stretching out its wings to dry, and perhaps even a monkey hiding in the trees. Attracting one’s attention down, the glass bottom allows a remarkably clear view to the deep limestone floor of the headspring pool, perhaps interrupted by some of the many fish swimming past underneath. In addition to the natural beauty, signs of human use of the springs emerge – huge statues from an old Sea Hunt set and a decaying rowboat. The true antiquity of human occupation of the springs is not apparent from this ride, but people have been visiting these springs, the largest of their kind worldwide, for as long as humankind is known to have lived in Florida.
Silver Springs, in north-central Florida near Ocala (Figure 1), has been persistently occupied for over 13,000 years, from the first Paleo-Indian inhabitants through the entirety of prehistory and history to contemporary times. As such, over forty sites have now been identified within the over 4500 acre Silver Springs State Park (Figure 2). This document serves to compile and synthesize information already known about the archaeology of this project area, expand upon this knowledge using data collected during my own survey, and provide recommendations for both management and further research.
Chapter 2 explains theoretical considerations that helped to shape interpretations. Chapter 3 discusses the environmental conditions of the park and issues of natural resources. Chapter 4 addresses prehistoric cultures relevant to the parkland and Chapter 5 gives an overview of the history of the area. Chapter 6 discusses previous archaeological research at the park. Chapter 7 outlines methods for the current survey, which sought to relocate all previous terrestrial
1
archaeological sites in the park and to identify new archaeological resources. Chapter 8 provides site descriptions, including both previous and current research, maps, photographs, and artifact tables intended to report on the raw data for sites. Chapter 9 attempts to pull all this information together in a conclusion that discusses some hypotheses about how the use of the Silver Springs area has changed and persisted through time. Furthermore, both general and specific recommendations for further studies and for management and in some cases, interpretation are outlined. Unless otherwise indicated, all photographs were taken by the author.
Figure 1. Map showing locations of Ocala and Marion County within Florida.
2
Figure 2. Map showing site locations and waterbodies within and adjacent to Silver Springs State Park.
3
II. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
People have inhabited the Silver Springs and Silver River Watershed in north-central Florida for over 13,000 years (Baker 1990; Collins et. al. 2010; Martin 1966; Milanich 1994; O’Donoughue and Sassaman 2013). Evidence for occupations as diverse as Paleoindian megafauna kill sites all the way up to historical and contemporary recreational sites, and a broad spectrum of other prehistoric and historic settlements in between, populate the landscape. Groups were certainly attracted to this region for the freshwater springs and the local ecosystem services they support (Neill 1964). Given the long occupation span, this region could be considered what Sarah Schlanger (1992) and others (Anschuetz et. al. 2001; Dooley 2009; Shiner 2009; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012; Wells 2004) refer to as a “persistent place.” This is defined as a place that people have “used repeatedly during the long-term occupation of a region, with repeated abandonments and reoccupations … population retreats and returns” (Schlanger 1992:92). While people persist in using the place, the nature of the occupation often shifts throughout its history.
Over the course of the Late Holocene, the natural environment of Silver Springs has changed dramatically, from a watery oasis in a relatively cool and dry climate to a forested riverine floodplain fed by one of the world’s largest limestone springs (Martin 1966:19). To understand better the future trajectory of this important resource, the coupled human-environmental record warrants study, comparing settlement patterns and landscape use with environmental change (e.g., Balée 2006; Barton et. al. 2004; Crumley 1994; Marquardt 1994; Winterhalder 1994). In this chapter, I examine the varied ways in which archaeologists have employed the notion of persistent places and how they have recognized persistence in the archaeological record. I also consider the implications for operationalizing the concept at multiple social and spatial scales, including site, region, and
4
landscape. Drawing on a historical ecological framework to explain why some places endure in regional settlement systems, I argue that persistent places is an important concept for contemporary management of cultural and environmental heritage resources.
Case Studies on Persistence
Schlanger (1992) identified three types of persistent places: ones with “unique qualities” that make them particularly well suited for one or more activities, ones “marked by certain features that serve to focus reoccupations,” and ones that form based on the “presence of cultural materials” (Schlanger 1992:97). While persistent places are reoccupied many times, Schlanger argued that their specific functions may change, such as when people move to a new habitation site but continue to use the old one as a satellite camp, seasonal camp, or special use area, for example a hunting ground (Schlanger 1992). She suggested that people would move as a result of environmental or climate change (Schlanger 1992). Schlanger noted that permanent water sources, access to varied biotic environments, and productive environments are ripe for persistent occupations; however, these factors do not differ greatly from environmental conditions that denote high potential for archaeological sites in general (Schlanger 1992:105).
The most universal and obvious way to identify persistence is through the presence across a landscape of multi-component sites and temporally diagnostic artifacts that date to a broad time span, which was the starting point for Schlanger (1992:105). Within the Silver Springs State Park, there are many multi-component sites evidencing the persistence of settlement near the springs and the Silver and Oklawaha rivers. These include the Cactus Flower site (8Mr1878), which has yielded diagnostic artifacts from the Middle Archaic through late prehistoric Alachua periods (Chance 1988; Chance 1991; Chambless 2008; Collins et. al. 2010), and the Paradise Park Site (8Mr92), which contains evidence of Paleo-Indian through Middle Woodland occupation (Dunbar, Doran, and Rink 2010; Faught 2003; Hemmings 1975; Neill 1958:36-47; O’Donoughue and Sassaman 2013).
5
Schlanger also looked for isolated projectile points that would be indicative of hunting activities more so than use within a habitation site, partly to test her hypothesis about the evolving nature of land use. During previous investigations near Silver Springs (e.g., O’Donoughue and Sassaman 2013), as well as our own, archaeologists have likewise recovered scattered lithic artifacts suggesting similar long term persistent use of the entire landscape. The broad artifact scatter along the southern bank of the Silver River making up the combined Impala (8Mr93), NN (8Mr83), Boardwalk (8Mr2195), and Oak Hammock (8Mr1920) sites, and the adjacent Ishti Semoli site (8Mr2703) along the west of the Marshall Swamp show broad use of the landscape. Likewise, the Franklin 15 (8Mr1082) and Cactus Flower (8Mr1878) sites cover the northwest bank of the Silver River.
Schlanger’s three types of persistent places could also be described as stages of persistence. People would have been attracted to a particular area because it was naturally well-suited to some activity, be that access to fresh water, useful plant resources, a strategic natural shelter or viewshed, availability of raw materials, or productive hunting grounds, among other things. If populations continued to return and successfully accomplish their aims, then their use of the landscape would shape it into one containing “features that serve to focus reoccupations” (Schlanger 1992:97). Schlanger noted that she was unable to determine if the features constitute the place or if the place is “marked by the features” (Schlanger 1992:97). Either way, regular use and “engagement” of the material features of the space could give it meaning as a place and serve to structure, enable, and constrain activities, constituting a habitus for its occupants (Bourdieu 1977; Renfrew 2004:24). In this way, persistent places across time and space are the physical manifestation or materialization of the discursive relationship between structure and agency (Giddens 1984:244-245).
After people have occupied the landscape in one form or another over a sufficient period and have either cached reusable artifacts or discarded waste that could be recycled and repurposed by a later group of people, Schlanger’s third type of persistent place would emerge. Schlanger’s
6
reasoning behind the creation of persistent places is a highly techno-functional one; notably missing is any discussion of ritual or spiritual importance that places could come to embody. Even if a place no longer served as a habitation or place to procure raw materials, its persistence, possibly facilitated by landscape features, such as mounds or natural landmarks, could lead it to become a type of
persistent place not identified by Schlanger, one linked to meaning rather than utilitarian value. Such a place could be imbued with spiritual power or thought of as a traditional homeland, place of ancestors, or representative of a family, group, or ethnic identity. In a case where such an identity or ritual use extends into contemporary time, the place could even constitute a traditional cultural property, defined as a property having “association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that community’s history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker and King 1990:1).
Schlanger’s theory, largely echoed by Marquardt (1994) and Crumley (1994), placed the impetus for change in settlement patterns almost exclusively on environmental or climate change. Any number of cultural, political, economic, or spiritual reasons could have triggered a group’s plans to move or to return. Those changes could correlate with environmental or climate-based ones, but they would by no means have to do so. Environmental or climate change need not be the sole, or even primary, impetus for a group to move or to alter their use of a landscape. For example, Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012:50) interpreted the Fort Center collection of earthworks as an example of a persistent monumental place where “emplacement” occurs through a “dialectical relationship between practice and ecology.” They stressed that themes in monumental construction over Fort Center’s long occupational history were repeated even as the forms and functions of the earthworks changed dramatically in ritual, mortuary, and residential contexts (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012:52). By investigating the different types of earthworks at the site, they postulated an Early Woodland beginning of ritual use and building, which would change how people viewed the
7
landscape. Later, ritual specialists appear to emerge during heavy use of a mound and mortuary pond complex, and subsequently multiple residential mounds suggest more stratification, possibly as the Calusa chiefdom emerged. They suggested that Fort Center could be an intentionally built microcosm of the surrounding environment that both shapes and is shaped by human agency, practice, and structure (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012:63).
Wandsnider (1992) used an economic framework based on ethnographic analysis to model when people will reoccupy a site and when they will not. She examined several factors: how long a “facility,” such as a structure, is usable (facility use-life) and how long it takes to fall into decay after abandonment (facility decay interval), as well as how long a physical site is usable, productive, and not too polluted to be occupied (site use-life), and finally how long the site would take to recover from human exploitation and be available for habitation again (site regeneration interval). Wandsnider (1992:258-259) used these factors to explain the “tempo of local reuse” and degrees of “spatial congruency” and “temporal continuity.” She provided rules for reoccupation based on an economic cost-benefit model (Wandsnider 1992:265).
According to Wandsnider, if facilities are usable, the site has resources, and it is sufficiently hygienic, the facilities and site will be reoccupied. If the facilities are in good condition but not the site, people will relocate and possibly move the facilities. If the site is in good condition but the facilities are not, a slightly different area of the site may be reoccupied but the facilities will be scavenged as needed. If the facilities are in need of repair and the site is not habitable, the facilities could still be scavenged, but the population will relocate. Finally, if the facilities have decayed, the site’s resources have revived, and the site is not polluted, the area is ready for reoccupation (Wandsnider 1992:263-264). Wandsnider used these assumptions to create computer-generated models of settlement patterning by inputting different combinations of factors. However, these are
8
necessarily simplistic and cannot take into account the myriad other elements that attract and/or constrain settlements.
Wandsnider’s cost-benefit model is based on the assumption that people are rational maximizers, a concept adopted by formalist economic anthropologists from traditional microeconomics (Wilk and Cliggett 2007:7-11). Attributing this type of rationality to pre-capitalist, non-Western communities has been critiqued. Rationality is difficult to quantify since decisions are always culturally and situationally contingent. People must base decisions upon knowledge that is limited by perception; these decisions may also entail unseen and unintended consequences. The very concept of a modern Western style of rationality that would suggest a cost-benefit model may not be universal, but rather an ethnocentric assumption (Wilk and Cliggett 2007:72-74). Despite these problems, Wandsnider’s factors may have utility for understanding persistence.
Her considerations could well have structured people’s decisions about whether or not to reoccupy a site. Still, there are less easily identified motivations such as emotion, memory, spirituality, or personal preferences that may have impacted relocation choices (Wilk and Cliggett 2007:76; McCloskey 1993). Wandsnider’s rules do allow us to consider ways that a place could become persistent. For instance, extremely productive environments that would regenerate their utility quickly would be candidates for reoccupation sooner than more fragile biomes. Additionally, enduring facilities such as monumental works would not diminish as quickly as more expedient facilities constructed of perishable materials. From a resource procurement standpoint, Silver Springs was probably consistently viable.
Camilli and Ebert (1992), for example, identified archaeological visibility in general as a quality that could refocus settlement in an area. They found more evidence of reuse and recycling of both chipped stone and groundstone in areas, especially those on high ground, where prehistoric people would have been more likely to have seen the remains left by previous occupations (Camilli
9
and Ebert 1992). They concluded that “the reuse of areas and the secondary use of discarded materials can be extended as basic behavioral processes to most places used in the past” (Camilli and Ebert 1992:133). This observation corroborates Schlanger’s third type of persistent place.
Shiner (2009) also investigated reuse and recycling of lithics to research a persistent place in New South Wales containing surface stone assemblages lacking diagnostic artifacts that would allow for chronological control and are also scattered over a broad spatial extent without vertical integrity or strict boundaries. Based on radiocarbon dates in hearths, the landscape was occupied over a long duration, and Shiner looked at variability in density and diversity of core types, core to flake ratios, cortical to non-cortical flakes and cores, raw material types, and amount of reworking on tools to identify persistently-occupied places. He noted that many depositional events by people engaged in different behaviors on the same landscape over time, site formation processes, and the likely recycling, reuse, and movement of the same artifacts by different people at different times all contribute to the variegated nature of many deposits. Shiner posited that the variation in use of the landscapes reflect consistencies and inconsistencies caused by both environmental and behavioral factors. He raised the question about the appropriate durations of interpretative scales for investigating patterns “consistent with persistent but varied use of the locations” (Shiner 2009:39).
Shiner’s description of how landscapes are transformed is related to the accumulation of materials from persistent use. As Knapp and Ashmore (1999:18) described, “it is the repetitive use and structured modification of an ideational landscape that yields the palimpsest archaeologists study.” Dooley advocated for non-site approaches to archaeology to investigate the “spatial palimpsests” on the landscape formed over long term persistent use. Dooley (2008) also explored the problem of time perspective in archaeology: our ethnographic analogies take place over too short a duration to be represented in the archaeological record and we lack specific knowledge of how long term processes are demarcated on the landscape. He pointed out the importance of the
10
“cultural landscape” either to draw or to repel people, based on signaling that resources are available, be they environmental or manufactured materials that could be recycled or reused. He calculated the persistence of stone ring sites in central North Dakota based on the degree to which lichen had accumulated on the stones, the amount of siltation that built up to partially cover the stone rings, and the completeness of the rings, since it was common practice to take from the old rings to construct new ones, meaning older rings would likely be less complete (Dooley 2008:99-105). Based on this analysis, Dooley concluded that early cultural features are often persistent and that persistence decreases as one moves farther away from the early persistent place (Dooley 2008). The argument that early settlements tend to be persistent is a rather obvious conclusion, since an area occupied at an early date has more potential to become persistent than one not occupied until later. However, if seemingly attractive areas surrounding these persistent areas are then avoided, the observation may have more important connotations regarding power and control by human groups in relation to the landscape and to other groups.
Wells and colleagues (2004), for example, investigated another type of persistent place in the Middle Gila River Valley. They divided artifact scatters into four categories—habitation, camp, diverse activity area, and specialized activity area—based on a combination of artifact density and diversity (Wells et. al 2004:633-637). The authors found that there were large and unoccupied areas outside of the main villages that met the criteria for specialized activity areas and may have been persistent places (Wells et. al 2004: 646). They stressed the need for further investigation of areas that people continually revisit, but do not inhabit, as important elements of the total cultural landscape; these areas can contain data about a greater variety of activities, some of which may have been restricted to non-habitation locations (Wells et. al. 2004:646). The nature of such specialized activities could also confer specialized meaning.
11
Wells and colleagues used artifact density and diversity to recognize multiple types of places, as did Barton and colleagues. Barton et al. (2004) employed statistical analysis of sites in Mediterranean Spain to calculate both the ubiquity of landscape use, or the simple presence of human occupation at different times, and the intensity of land use, which can be determined by artifact density. These two factors determine the group’s degrees of dispersion and of persistence on the landscape. Depending upon the spatial scale focusing the research, places could have relatively higher or lower degrees of persistent use (Barton et. al 2004).
Discussion
Schlanger introduced the concept of persistent place partly as a reaction to the limitations of site-based archaeology; the persistent place encompasses both sites and isolated artifacts as well as multiple components and site types. As Wells and colleagues (2004) have shown for central Arizona, the archaeological record can be characterized as continuous but with varied densities of artifacts that incorporate both sites and isolated finds or features, all of which may be behaviorally meaningful.
Dunnell (1992) also challenged the concept of an archaeological site on ontological, epistemological, and theoretical grounds. He argued that the site as the unit of analysis or interpretation leaves out portions of the archaeological record and obscures the reality that sites are constituted through accumulation rather than a single depositional event (Dunnell 1992: 26-29). Dooley (2008: 95) similarly advocated for non-site approaches to archaeology to investigate the “spatial palimpsests” on the landscape formed over long term persistent use. He noted the difficulty that archaeologists have had in interpreting cultural processes that take place over the long term (Dooley 2008:95). Expanding the scale of our spatial unit of analysis from site to landscape may also increase our abilities to expand our thinking about greater time depths since time and space are connected concepts.
12
Dunnell (1992) pointed out that the site is a concept created by archaeologists, not an “empirical unit.” This becomes clear in the many instances wherein it is difficult to determine boundaries of distinct sites or the minimum number of artifacts that constitute a site (Dunnell 1992:29-31). Because of these issues, Dunnell believed that using the site as a basic unit of analysis is not efficacious, and instead suggested that the artifact is a better one. While his critique about the limitations of examining only archaeological deposits that are characterized as sites should be taken into account, Dunnell’s suggestion of using the artifact as a basic unit to the point of abandoning the site concept also has the potential to exclude a significant portion of the record, such as features, charcoal or other datable carbon remains, and faunal or botanical remains. These are data that would be collected in most site-based excavations, but are not artifacts and would thus be ignored under Dunnell’s approach. Also, managing a catalog of archaeological data in a format such as a site file inventory would be cumbersome and challenging without a clear definition of site and isolated find.
Binford (1992) took up this issue, agreeing that the artifact is the basic observational unit for archaeologists but that recognizing features tends to entail a different type of investigation (Binford 1992:44-46). He argued that archaeological methods developed to intertwine two different types of investigations based on conflicting assumptions: seriation and settlement pattern studies. The first assumes homogeneity of sites and the ability to constrain them to a type and a culture, whereas the second assumes variability (Binford 1992:48-49). Binford did not share Dunnell’s concern with the ontological aspects of the site concept, but agreed that there are benefits to examining the archaeological record at the different scales of site and landscape (Binford 1992:50-54). His concern was to explain how the archaeological record is organized at “different tempos and different rates” (Binford 1992: 54). While he did not abandon the site concept, Binford agreed that incorporating landscape approaches may allow archaeologists to observe both change and stability in the
13
archaeological record (Binford 1992:52-57). However, Binford warned that there is a potential risk of mistaking simple variability and fluctuation for evolutionary change.
Schlanger’s approach is closer to Binford’s than to Dunnell’s in that she sought to use both sites and isolated finds, or “archaeological occurrences” in the parlance of compliance-based archaeology in Florida, to construct a prehistoric landscape. Not only does the inclusion of isolated artifacts with sites challenge ideas about boundaries and exclusion of areas that lack significant physical signatures left by past occupants, it also challenges the division of the archaeological record into site types, since use of persistent places spans long periods of occupation and entails shifting use of the landscape (Schlanger 1992:92-93). Schlanger differentiated between habitation loci, limited activity loci, and seasonal loci, but some of the same areas could also be characterized as any of these during different periods of occupation (Schlanger 1992:98). While she used a landscape approach, Schlanger did not complicate the landscape concept or address many of its meanings, which could have a role in characterizing persistent places beyond the simple definition of an area of continued reoccupation. The multiple meanings of landscapes could help explain why certain places become persistent whereas others with similar environmental characteristics do not. Therefore, a closer look at landscapes is warranted.
Anschuetz and colleagues (2001:159) called for an interdisciplinary landscape approach to archaeology that they believed could “accommodate, if not integrate, contrasting theoretical perspectives,” processual and post-processual. They outlined four premises that underlie a “landscape paradigm:” “landscapes are not synonymous with natural environments,” they are “worlds of cultural product” and “the arena for all a community’s activities” (Anschuetz et. al. 2001:160-161). They are also “dynamic constructions, with each community and each generation imposing its own cognitive map on an anthropogenic world” (Anschuetz et. al 2001:161). To summarize, landscapes are both natural and cultural products that serve as dynamic spaces for
14
everything that groups of people do; we “transform physical spaces into meaningful places” (Anschuetz et. al 2001:161).
The authors recognized three ways that the landscape concept can aid archaeological research. First, landscape perspectives can be useful in escaping the restrictions of site-based archaeological methods. Reading the landscape can help us to recognize the agency of the people who created and shaped that landscape, and then the resultant structural constraints that the constructed landscape then exerts back upon them (Knapp and Ashmore 1999:3). Finally, speaking about a landscape as a lived place rather than as an archaeological site for scientific study could facilitate communication with descendent communities because it is more likely to be compatible with their own understanding of the significance and meaning behind it (Anschuetz et. al. 2001:162- 163).
Anschuetz and colleagues wrote that, because the landscape concept is not geographically or temporally bounded, it can encompass intersections of nature and culture; objective and subjective resources; past, present, and mytho-historical time (Anschuetz et. al 2001). The authors incorporated the idea of persistent places into the landscape, saying, “Although a landscape approach recognizes the inherent fluidity and permeability of narrowly delimited boundaries, the persistence of particular places may serve to define a landscape” (Anschuetz et. al. 2001:186). Visible remains of past occupation (Camilli and Ebert 1992), such as the monumental earthworks at Fort Center (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012), or even less dramatically hearths (Shiner 2009) or stone rings (Dooley 2008), could easily be characterized as defining the landscape.
In their broader approach to landscape, the authors allowed room for ritual landscapes, ethnic landscapes, and sociocultural change as a catalyst for creation of persistent places rather than a strict focus on environment (Anschuetz et. al. 2001). Since ritual is repetitive, a place that is ritually significant would be a strong candidate to become persistent, especially if the ritual is enacted over
15
generations and becomes tradition. Seasonal rituals taking place yearly, or even less frequently, could leave a unique signature on a landscape as well.
Julian Thomas drew out the contradictions and multiple meanings of the term “landscape” – “an object, an experience, or a representation,” as well as lived environments and imagined or idealized ones; Thomas suggested “holding these elements in a productive tension” (Thomas 2001:167-169). He historicized ideas of landscape and environment from being a god’s creation to a passive object that people can dominate and exploit, but somewhat contradictorily also inhabit as a home (Thomas 2001:169-170).
Thomas takes a more contentious view of the landscape concept by comparing landscape painting and geographical information system (GIS) representations of landscapes as both engaging in an androcentric power relationship that separates humans from environment and characterizes modern views of landscapes (Thomas 2001:169-173). Thomas argued that “lived landscapes are relational entities constituted by people in their engagement with the world,” from which it follows that all persons perceive and understand landscapes in their own ways, giving the same physical space multiple meanings (Thomas 2001:177). Thomas also discussed using experiential archaeology to try to imagine and empathize with past by “being in the world” and using the present as an analogy for the past as it relates to constructing meaning and a sense of place (Thomas 2001:179- 182). While this sense of place is hard to identify archaeologically, phenomenological effects should not be wholly discounted. We may not be able to confirm what feelings a place elicited in past people, but it is clear that they were emotionally impacted by their engagement with constructed landscapes (Bender 1993). The environment manifests itself as landscape only when people create and experience space as a complex of places (Knapp and Ashmore 1999:20-21).
16
Toward a More Holistic Perspective
While a landscape approach is a step in the right direction, it still falls short of taking into account a broad historical perspective in which people and the entire ecosystem of which they are a part continually shape one another. The landscape itself is the current product of these long term interactions, and houses the record that archaeologists have to work with, but it is the people, not just their remains, whom we study. Because an investigation of a persistent place needs to take into account a broad span of history and study of the environment and humans’ interactions with and within it, historical ecology is a salient theoretical framework to use (Balée 2006).
The study of persistent places is by necessity a particularist one (Schlanger 1992:92). Each persistent place is a product of historical contingency; according to Barton and colleagues (2004:284- 285), “because landscapes are the cumulative products of the operation of socio-ecosystems in the physical world, humans must always contend with (and frame their decisions in the context of) the outcomes of their predecessors’ behaviors.” They made a strong case for an emphasis on history, because the environment alone does not explain away differences in the archaeological record; instead, we need to consider the ways past humans have impacted the landscapes as well as the past and present social dynamics among humans that have shaped behavior (Barton et. al 2004: 289-291).
Crumley (1994:6-9) defined the concept of landscape history or historical ecology variably as “the study of past ecosystems by charting the change in landscapes over time,” “the ongoing dialectical relations between human acts and acts of nature, made manifest in the landscape,” and “the practice of globally relevant archaeology, ethnohistory, ethnography, and related disciplines.” Crumley’s position is not fully environmentally deterministic by any means, although she argued that anthropology suffers from a contradiction of considering early human evolution as environmentally driven but later human life as divorced from nature and solely culture driven (Crumley 1994:2). Because archaeological research is interdisciplinary and studies a broad temporal span, Crumley
17
argued that it is the ideal avenue for studying past impacts on the environment and predicting future ones (Crumley 1994). Historical ecology is compatible with the study of persistent places because people’s long term use and reuse of areas alters entire landscapes, not just a constricted site. Also, both natural and cultural changes, if such a distinction is even worthwhile, can shape and structure future human use of sites and even be a causal factor in persistence (Marquardt 1994:206).
Marquardt (1994) echoed Crumley’s enthusiasm for archaeology’s role in human environmental research but, in addition to her reasons, his argument includes more of a humanistic element. For Marquardt (1994:204), the “environment is cognized” and “sociohistorical contexts” and “power relations” impact how we understand this cognized environment and then seek to constitute our relationship with it. Marquardt’s work also focused on stewardship of cultural and natural resources, an attitude that stems from people identifying a place as their own. Cognizing a place as “ours” puts it into a relationship with one’s self or group identity. Knapp and Ashmore (1999:13-14) described landscape as the “materialization of memory” and argued that “these places create and express sociocultural identity.” Identification with a place might make it a strong candidate to become a persistent place.
Balée (2006:76) provided four postulates underlying research within historical ecology: almost all environments have been impacted by human action, humans are not predisposed to either benefit or harm the environment, societies with different socioeconomic, political, and cultural attributes will affect their environments differently, and that human and landscape interaction in a variety of contexts can be studied as a whole system. Balée (2006:77-81) described the landscape as having human history inscribed upon it; different scales of human agency, the event, the cycle, and the long term, all have levels of impact that change the character of the environment in both intentional and unintentional ways. These landscape alterations then serve to reshape human life as well; because landscapes are historically contingent and emerging, landscape approaches are
18
particularist and require study over a long duration, similar to the study of persistent places (Balée 2006:81-85).
Winterhalder problematized certain ecological concepts, which were formulated in a neo Darwinian framework using misguided assumptions such as those of Herbert Spencer (Winterhalder 1994:28). The ecosystem and ideas about environmental succession are rooted in the assumption that entire environments operate as organisms writ large and are ordered towards maintaining an equilibrium state (Winterhalder 1994:29-30). This idea is reminiscent of similar ideas about human societies tending towards balance and equilibrium, largely because they emerged from similar intellectual trajectories (Flannery 1972). However, neither stands up to empirical and especially historical scrutiny.
Winterhalder proposed using the concepts of patchiness, persistence, and predictability rather than succession, equilibrium, and stability (Winterhalder 1994:33-36). Patches in an environment or landscape are distinct locations occupied by organisms that make up a heterogeneous, dynamic landscape (Winterhalder 1994:33). Certain environmental patches can be the unique features that characterize Schlanger’s first type of persistent place. Barton and colleagues (2004) used the concept of patches to organize their archaeological investigation in Spain; they chose patches of the environment and collected both cultural and environmental data regardless of the presence or absence of sites in order to understand the entire landscape.
Persistence describes the ebb and flow within specific environmental parameters and predictability is a measure of how regularly those conditions recur, be it on a cyclical basis or otherwise corresponding to measurable phenomena (Winterhalder 1994:34-36). The concept of persistence is useful, because it does not imply stasis. These concepts address the concerns that Binford had with non-site-based archaeology, wherein variability could be mistakenly identified as change (Binford 1992). While environmental persistence and predictability may correlate with
19
persistence of human reoccupation, this possibility does not appear to have been explored. If human groups can depend upon a place to provide certain resources or be environmentally suited for habitation on at least a seasonal basis, incorporating it into a subsistence and occupational strategy may be desirable.
We will return to discuss the management applications of these theoretical concepts and models in Chapter 9, after presenting the environmental, cultural, and historical contexts, details from the survey, and the specific data collected during this and previous archaeological investigations at the Silver Springs State Park.
20
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE SILVER SPRINGS STATE PARK Boundaries
Roughly, the boundaries of Silver Springs State Park (Figure 3) are State Road 40 to the north, the Oklawaha River to the east, County Road 314 to the south, and State Road 35 to the west, except for a few privately owned outparcels. The parkland totals 4,666.5 acres (1,888.5 hectares), with 4583.18 acres (1854.7 hectares) of uplands and 83.32 acres (33.7 hectares) submerged (FDEP 2015a). The complete Silver Springs system and the entirety of the Silver River is contained within park boundaries.
Figure 3. Silver Springs State Park boundaries shown on Ocala East, Florida and Lynne, Florida, 1991 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. Adapted from Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2015a.
21
Springs and Water Resources
Silver Springs (Figure 4) is the largest first magnitude limestone artesian spring system in the country and possibly the world, expelling about 766 cubic feet of water per second (21.69 kl/s; Martin 1966:19; Munch et. al. 2006:ES-1; Stamm 1994:14-16). The main spring flows from a vent at the base of a limestone ledge leading to an underground cave system and is the headwaters and main source for the Silver River (Scott et. al. 2004:244). At least 15 additional springs (Figure 5) discharge into the Silver River in its first kilometer: Reception Hall (aka Abyss), Blue Grotto, Jacob’s Well Spring (aka Spring of the Stars), Bridal Chamber, Devil’s Kitchen (aka Alligator Hole), Geyser Spring, Christmas Tree Springs, Sunfish Shelf, Second Fisherman’s Paradise, Catfish Hotel, Paradise Park, Catfish Convention Hall, Turtle Hook, and several unnamed springs (Scott et. al. 2004:243- 246; 577-581).
Figure 4. View across Silver Springs Main Boil toward the Silver River.
Artesian springs develop in areas with a limestone cap created by calcium and magnesium carbonates from marine life that perished in the water formerly covering the Florida Plateau. Acidic fresh water dissolved through the limestone, creating underwater caverns and tunnels like those at the mouth of Silver Springs, and many others found throughout the Floridan aquifer. When water
22
pressure from the aquifer causes a flow through the limestone to the surface, it creates artesian springs. Five different underground rivers converging provided the water pressure to create Silver Springs. Similar processes of limestone dissolution cause the sinkholes characteristic of karst topography, which are also present within the Silver Springs State Park. Ponds forming in these sinkholes were sometimes a freshwater resource for prehistoric people (Stamm 1994:14-18). Historic populations had a tendency to use sinkholes as natural landfills – such has been the case at sinkholes on the Silver Springs State Park property.
Figure 5. Select springs of the Silver Springs Group (adapted from Munch et. al. 2006).
Silver Springs is the main water source for the Silver River, a tributary of the Oklawaha, which in turn flows into the St. Johns River (Figure 6). The serpentine Silver River overflows into vast front and back swamps which vary in breadth. During the rainy season, much of the park is
23
saturated with standing water pooled across the surface (Figure 7). Marshall Swamp, named after the former owner of a sugar plantation, covers the south-central portion of the park. These bodies of water and other small creeks and drainages, such as Halfmile Creek flowing into the Silver River from the north, constitute the rest of the park’s water resources (FDEP 2010). Uplands bordering all these water sources have a high probability for cultural resources, but in particular those areas with enough elevation to avoid flooding during the rainy season.
Figure 6. Map showing major rivers relevant to the project area.
24
Figure 7. Flooding in the north and the southeastern portions of the park is extensive during the rainy season. Soils, Geology, and Chert Sources
Soils
The Web Soil Survey website from the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, provided a soils map (Figure 8; Table 1) and descriptions for the Silver Springs State Park project area based on a soil survey dated September 14, 2014. Also included in Table 1 are the drainage classes of the soil types, which impact their arability and suitability for settlement. The acreages of soil types within archaeological sites are listed; they are not expressed as percentages because they include portions of sites within as well as outside of the park boundaries. Also, since most site boundaries are rough estimates, these acreages must be understood as approximations only. None of the soils within the park is considered to be prime farmland (Soil Survey Staff 2014).
Twenty-three (23) different soils are present within the Silver River State Park, with Candler sand, Bluff sandy clay, Eureka loamy fine sand, and Paisley loamy fine sand constituting the majority of the acreage. Candler sands are excessively drained upland soils common on ridge and flatwood environments with oak and pine vegetation and formed from eolian or sandy marine deposits. Eureka soils are poorly drained and slowly permeable, formed from clayey and loamy marine
25
deposits, and common in low, flat, or depressional areas. Paisley soils are also poorly drained and slowly permeable soils usually found on low and broad Coastal Plains and formed from clayey marine sediments overlying limestone or other carbonate rock (Soil Survey Staff 2015). Bluff soils are discussed in more depth below.
Figure 8: 2014 soil survey map of the Silver Springs State Park area (adapted from Soil Survey Staff 2014). Project area boundaries are outlined in light green.
Table 1. Soils found within the Silver Springs State Park (adapted from Soil Survey Staff 2014). Map Unit
Symbol
Soil Name Acres Percent of Acreage
Drainage Class Acres in Sites
2 Adamsville sand, 0-5% slopes 45.5 1.0 somewhat
24.2
poorly drained
3 Anclote sand, depressional 70.7 1.5 very poorly
0
drained
4 Anclote-Tomoka complex, depressional
87.1 1.9 very poorly drained
34.6
5 Apopka sand, 0-5% slopes 1.3 0.0 well drained 25.1 7 Udalfic Arents, 0-5% slopes 41.6 0.9 well drained 11.8
26
Table 1. (Continued)
Map Unit
Soil Name Acres Percent of
Drainage Class Acres in
Symbol
Acreage
Sites
9 Arredondo sand, 0-5% slopes 21.9 0.5 well drained 0.3
19 Bluff sandy clay, frequently flooded
1117.3 23.9 very poorly drained
44.8
22 Candler sand, 0-5% slopes 797.6 17.1 excessively drained
207.9
25 Eaton loamy sand 30.7 0.7 poorly drained 6.9
26 Electra sand, 0-5% slopes 157.8 3.4 somewhat
77.7
poorly drained
27 Eureka loamy fine sand 1039.2 22.3 somewhat
0.3
poorly drained
28 Eureka loamy fine sand, depressional
21.7 0.5 very poorly
0
drained
40 Holopaw sand 12.2 0.3 poorly drained 4 48 Lynne sand 72.4 1.6 poorly drained 24.2 54 Paisley loamy fine sand 803.4 17.2 poorly drained 14.1
58 Placid sand, depressional 81.0 1.7 very poorly drained
38.2
61 Pomona sand 73.9 1.6 poorly drained 27.7
63 Pompano fine sand, depressional
12.2 0.3 poorly drained 0
64 Samsula-Martel complex, depressional
17.5 0.4 very poorly
3
drained
65 Sparr fine sand, 0-5% slopes 30.2 0.6 somewhat
7
poorly drained
69 Tavares sand, 0-5% slopes 56.2 1.2 moderately well
44.9
drained
70 Terra Ceia muck, frequently flooded
10.7 0.2 very poorly drained
0.5
79 Udorthents, excavated 3.1 0.1 somewhat well
3.1
drained
99 Water 61.0 1.3 n/a 2.7
Ax Astor sand 0.0 0.0 very poorly drained
0
27
In 2006, AEV Consulting, LLC, sampled soils along four transects across the Silver River in order to understand its hydrology and soil formation processes, as well as temporal aspects of floodplain and river stages. Within the two transects east of the Marshall Swamp (see Figure 2), the terrace bluffs on both sides of the river had relatively steep slopes and Bluff sandy clay. Bluff sandy clay is mollic, having “dark and relatively thick topsoil with ample organic matter (Stoddard 2007:5).” The soil contains horizons of marl, which is a chalky substance created from buried freshwater periphyton organisms (Stoddard 2007:1-6). Periphyton organisms include algae, bacteria, microbes, and other detritus that affix themselves to plants or materials near the marine floors. The official soil description indicates that the Bluff series formed in “thick beds of alkaline loamy marine sediments” and are “subject to frequent flooding for long duration, but do not receive appreciable sediments,” explaining the lack of alluvial sand deposition typical of many riverine environments (Soil Survey Staff 2015). The amount of calcites or carbonates within the Silver River floodplain is likely a factor in the development of these soils (Stoddard 2007:19).
At a transect across the Silver River just west of where it meets Marshall Swamp, a similar terrace with Bluff sandy clay was present on the north bank, but the south side sloped up more gradually to a relict natural levee with submerged and depressional Fluvaquent/Aquent and Anclote Series soil types across the wet prairie. This area passes near the Silver River Run Midden site (8Mr53) and the Mystery Snail Midden (8Mr3266), which is significant because shell makes up over half of the sand-sized components in the natural river soils here, suggesting that not all of the shell was discarded as refused from human consumption. Uplands begin with Pomona Series sands on the Central Florida Ridge, near the recorded location of the Oak Hammock site (Stoddard 2007:9- 12; see Figure 2).
A final transect crossed the Silver River near its first main southeasterly bend, with the northern bank within the Cactus Flower site (8Mr1878) and the south bank within a continuous
28
artifact scatter near the recorded site of the Mound Near Silver Springs (8Mr33). Extensive floodplain front-swamps ran from the river to the sandy bluffs of the Central Florida Ridge formation on either side. The sands lie over the Hawthorn formation of loamy and clayey marine sediments and some of the differences between the north and south banks of the river stem from the Hawthorn formation being less deeply buried on the north side (Stoddard 2007:17-19). Geology
Based on the Marion County map from the Florida Geological Survey (Scott 1992), the Silver Springs State Park contains three geological areas beneath the soils discussed above. On Figure 9, “Th” refers to Hawthorn Group sediments, and corresponds with better drained sandy soil types. “QTu” represents undifferentiated sands overlying Hawthorn Group or Ocala Limestone, often with karst features. Cypress swamps can be found here, and these portions of the park are often saturated or have standing water for much of the year. “Qr” represents Holocene fluvial sands, clays, marls, and peats and corresponds to swampland and rivers on the surface (Scott 1992).
Figure 9. Geological map of the Silver Springs State Park area (adapted from Scott 1992).
Chert Sources
Silver Springs State Park is slightly east of the Ocala Quarry Cluster as defined by Upchurch et al. (1982:11, 122-125). Chert from this source is often opaline and comes from the Crystal River Formation of Ocala Limestone (Upchurch et. al. 1982:17,122-125). Endonino (2007:89-90) refined the quarry cluster designations in this part of central Florida, but the closest cluster to the park
29
continues to be called the Ocala cluster, which “stretches from just south of Orange Lake to southern Marion and northern Sumter County and from the just east of Silver Springs westward to SR 41 in western Marion County.” The Gainesville Quarry Cluster and Lake Panasoffkee Quarry Cluster are the closest neighbors to the north and south respectively. In addition to the typical Ocala chert, atypical chert deriving from the Hawthorn formation can be quarried in the general area and outcrops of silicified coral are locally available as well (Endonino 2007:88).
Land Cover, Flora, and Fauna
According to the 2010 management plan for the Silver River State Park, natural communities include mesic flatwoods, sandhill, scrub, scrubby flatwoods, upland mixed forest, xeric hammock, depression marsh, dome swamp, floodplain forest, floodplain swamp, wet flatwoods, blackwater stream, spring-run stream, sinkhole, ruderal areas, and developed areas (FDEP 2010:18-34). The current Cooperative Land Cover map (Figure 10) is slightly less precise, but includes the total park acreage. The sinkhole in the southwest quadrant of the park is not depicted, and the Marshall Swamp in the south-central park area is shown as freshwater forested wetlands rather than floodplain swamp. Also, certain disturbed or now-forested areas were mapped as ruderal (plant communities that first colonize disturbed land) in the management plan.
North of the Silver River and its floodplain, freshwater forested wetlands (mixed wetland hardwoods) and wet flatwoods cover the largest part of the acreage. The southwestern portion of the park mainly supports sandhills, although areas of mixed hardwood-coniferous forest, scrubby flatwoods, xeric hammock, and mesic flatwoods occur as well. Hydric hammock makes up much of the southeastern area of the park, although the southeastern-most corner has tree plantations (planted pine) and mixed forest. These various communities support cypress, several oak species, pine varieties, palm species, magnolia, beech, bay species, cedar, maple, pignut hickory, elm, and
30
others, which would have supplied timber and mast resources. Various palmettos, grasses, and berry plants would also have provided fibers and food (FNAI 2010).
Figure 10. Cooperative Land Cover map showing natural communities within the park.
Aquatic and terrestrial fauna are abundant and provided another important food source. They include black bear, deer, manatee, armadillo, fox, alligator, and many birds, rodents, frogs, reptiles, fish, and shellfish, especially snails (FDEP 2010; Martin 1966:199-212). Gopher tortoises and burrows are found throughout the park, and cooter and soft-shell turtles are abundant; turtle carapace fragments were frequently found in the faunal assemblages at archaeological sites as well (Munch et. al. 2006:ES-x-xi). Largemouth bass, bluegill, and shiners are some of the most ubiquitous fish species in the contemporary Silver River, but catfish, striped mullet, sunfish, shad, and gar were
31
highly represented in older studies (Munch et. al. 2006:ES-x-xiii, 5-73 – 5-81). A total of forty-one (41) different fish and five mussels have been identified in the river (Munch et. al. 2006:3-24). Feral orange trees persist in select areas as a relic of many attempts at citraculture, and other exotic trees are present, including some which may have been planted as ornamentals. Wild hogs were introduced by Europeans and Rhesus macaques have made Silver Springs home since they were introduced in the 1930s by the Jungle Cruise’s Colonel Tooey. He purchased the monkeys from a New York wildlife dealer with the intent of having a monkey island for his excursion, but did not know that the monkeys were skilled swimmers (Gillespie 2015; Pittman 2013). In the 15 years between 1998 and 2012, a trapper formerly permitted to work on parkland caught 772 monkeys, which he sold to biomedical research companies (Gillespie 2015). According to the University of Florida biologists conducting a multi-year study of the monkey population (Figure 11), many of whom carry the deadly herpes-B virus, they now number around 200 and have been expanding their range to other parts of Central Florida (Gillespie 2015; Pittman 2013).
Figure 11. Troop of rhesus macaques gathered near the park.
32
IV. PREHISTORY
Paleo-Indian
Silver Springs was occupied by the first known inhabitants of Florida, the Paleo-Indians, possibly 14,500 years ago or more. The environment during that time, at the end of the Pleistocene, was vastly different from modern conditions. Florida was nearly twice as wide as it is today and the lower water level impacted both the shoreline and the availability of freshwater sources inland. Sinkholes and springs in regions with karst topography (including some that are now submerged) provided the only reliable freshwater (Faught 2004:275-276; Milanich 1994:38, 46). Maps of Paleo Indian artifact finds by Waller and Dunbar (1977:80) show sites concentrated in areas overlying the karstic Ocala Limestone formation in Central Florida. Further studies identified a Silver Springs/Oklawaha cluster of sites; they are one of a subtype of clusters within lowland karst areas having “trough-like” river-basin depressions with spring caverns, relatively steep banks, and wide clayey floodplains that have tendencies to hold moisture for long durations (Dunbar and Waller 1983:26).
Both humans and their animal prey would have been drawn to water. Diver and avocational archaeologist Ben Waller (1970) collected a large number of Paleo-Indian points from rivers in north and central Florida and suggested that kill sites were located at natural river crossings for megafauna. These now-extinct animals hunted by Paleo-Indians, as evidenced by their associations with diagnostic projectile points, included mastodons, mammoths, giant tortoises, giant sloths, bison, and horses (Milanich 1994:45-48; Neill 1964:17-19). The association of Paleo-Indian sites with the limited water sources in an arid environment is known as the Oasis Hypothesis (Dunbar 2006:405;
33
Milanich 1994:40-41; Neill 1964). Nomadic Paleo-Indian groups are thought to have moved between oases hunting and gathering wild food sources.
Thulman (2009) compared the locations of Paleo-Indian finds with those likely to provide freshwater access and with the locations of chert sources for toolmaking to test which model has better predictive strength. Although the data do probably suffer from some sampling and preservation biases, including high potential that site formation processes deeply buried some terrestrial Paleo-Indian sites, the study suggests that access to freshwater was the stronger driver than quarry presence in Paleo-Indian site selection (Neill 1958; Thulman 2009:243, 271). Through examination of several environmental and geological factors, Silver Springs was determined to have high potential for surface water during the Middle Paleoindian period. First magnitude springs communicate with the Floridan Aquifer and are generally resilient water sources – Silver Springs also provides the water source for the Silver and Oklawaha Rivers (Thulman 2009:251, 263-264). Silver Springs does not provide access to chert quarry sites, but the Ocala quarry cluster is defined by Endonino (2007:88) as “just east of Silver Springs” (Thulman 2009:259). The presence of Paleo Indian sites in the now-submerged cavern and ledge at the springhead (8Mr59), at the prehistoric proboscidean kill site in the Silver River (8Mr130), at the nearby deeply buried and stratified site south of the Silver River (8Mr92), as well as isolated diagnostic Paleo-Indian points at other sites near the springs provides further support for the Oasis Hypothesis (Dunbar 2006:405). Paleo-Indian diagnostic artifacts include large lanceolate spear points, often with fluting and sometimes with basal ears, basal grinding, waisting or beveling. Clovis, Suwannee, and the rarer Simpson points are diagnostic of the Paleo-Indian period, but are not found at the same sites and the precise chronology is still a topic of debate (Dunbar 2006:408-410). In addition to these types, another likely Paleoindian point, Page-Ladson, has been identified and named after its type site in Jefferson County (north Florida; Dunbar 2006:421). Carved ivory foreshafts for hafting these points
34
are also considered diagnostic (Dunbar 2006:410-411, 422-423; Dunbar and Waller 1983; Milanich 1994:49). Large, steeply-flaked, unifacial tools which probably had multiple functions, such as adzes, scrapers, and spokeshaves, have been found in Paleo-Indian toolkits (Milanich 1994:48-53). Blade like, side-notched flakes with unifacial retouch and evidence of hafting have become known as Waller knives and date to the Paleo-Indian period (Milanich 1994:51; Waller 1971). Paleo-Indian bone and ivory tools like the pins found at sites such as Guest Mammoth site (Mr130), as well as artifacts made from wood or other substances with poor preservation are lesser known but would have been part of Paleo-Indian material culture (Hart 1974; Milanich 1994: 51-52). Archaic
Early Archaic
Toward the close of the Paleo-Indian era and beginning of the Early Archaic, smaller projectile points began to replace the larger lanceolate Suwannee, Simpson, and Clovis points. Likewise, mammoths, mastodons, and other megafauna probably hunted with these points went extinct and gave way to smaller mammals. Point types such as Tallahassee, Santa Fe, Beaver Lake, and Dalton remained lanceolate shaped, albeit smaller than their precursors (Milanich 1994:53-59).
Paleo-Indian points seem to have phased out completely by 7500 B.C. and early Archaic people began making stemmed points like Kirk, Wacissa, Hamilton, and Arredondo types, and possibly Florida Spike, Thonotosassa, Hardee Beveled, and Savannah River, Florida Morrow Mountain, and Sumter. The cultural change coincided with the transition from the arid Pleistocene to the warmer and wetter Holocene around 8000 B.C. Early Archaic components are often found at the same locations as Paleo-Indian sites, such as at the Paradise Park site (8Mr92) near Silver Springs, but they also began to spread to new areas (Milanich 1994:63-66). Water remains an important factor in site selection, but an increase in surface water availability would have provided more choices for settlement locations with the resources to support large populations for longer
35
durations. Water may have also been important in burial rituals, as suggested by the underwater cemetery at Windover Pond in Brevard County on the Atlantic coast (Milanich 1994:67-75). Basally-ground and side-notched Bolen points are clear diagnostics of the Early Archaic. Bolen Plain points were converted to Bolen Beveled points with serrated edges through continual resharpening by pressure flaking, allowing them to be useful for an extended amount of time (Carter and Dunbar 2006:494, 503-504, 511). These types of points were not recovered during the current survey, but Summers informed me that he has found Bolen points at several areas within the park, and they have been documented at the Sharps Ferry Office site (8Mr2402).
Some sites have yielded microlithic assemblages as well (Milanich 1994:53-59). Ovoid-shaped groundstone club-like artifacts that could be bola stones were found at the Silver Springs (8Mr59) sites (Milanich 1994:51; Neill 1971:63-66). Neill attributed these groundstone artifacts to the Paleo Indian period, but Carter and Dunbar (2006:505-507) found similar artifacts (they called them dimple stones) in the Early Archaic context at the Page-Ladson site. In a rare case, a bone barb was recovered from the Oklawaha River, and other bone, wood, and antler tools were probably common (Milanich 1994:67). At the Page-Ladson site, direct evidence of woodworking was found, in concert with Dalton-like adzes and other formalized implements for woodworking (Carter and Dunbar 2006:499-502, 510-511).
Many of their stone tools were large, heavy, and crudely made, but Early Archaic people produced a greater variety of stone tools than their predecessors, suggesting possible new types of industry (Milanich 1994:66-67). Carter and Dunbar (2006:511) compared Paleoindian with Early Archaic technology, saying, “These represent distinctly different strategies, one that is a more generalized, multipurpose Paleoindian approach and the other a more formalized, subsequent Early Archaic development.”
36
Middle Archaic
Around 5000 B.C., the environment in Florida became drier again, but not as severely as during the Pleistocene, and then a wetter climate gradually returned (Milanich 1994:75). During this time, Middle Archaic populations continued to spread out, and some of the first shell middens (some containing burials) appeared on the banks of the St. Johns River (Milanich 1994:76). Projectile points with broad blades and stems are diagnostic of the Middle Archaic period, especially Newnan points but also Putnam, Levy, Marion, and Alachua (Milanich 1994:76-77). Use of silicified coral for stone tools and thermal alteration techniques became more common during this period (Milanich 1994:76). With a larger proliferation of sites, differences between small camps or specialized use areas, larger base camps with higher density and diversity of tools and other artifacts, and quarry sites become identifiable (Milanich 1994:77-79). Both unifacial and bifacial tools appear to be more specialized to specific tasks (Milanich 1994:79). At the Newnan type site close to Payne’s Prairie were found not only very large numbers of this diagnostic point, but also an especially large quantity of blades (Milanich 1994:79-80).
Late Archaic
As the environmental conditions began to approximate modern ones starting around 3000 B.C., populations continued to grow and expand into more environments, including the St. Johns River basin (Milanich 1994:85). Easily exploitable snails and mussels contributed to diets, as evidenced by the composition of shell middens along the St. Johns and Oklawaha rivers (Goggin 1952:43; Milanich 1994:91). Late Archaic populations were the first to make pottery in Florida around 2000 B.C. Orange pottery was fiber-tempered and produced in both plain and decorated forms, the latter of which included incised lines and punctations (Goggin 1952:44; Milanich 1994:86- 87). Orange pottery has been found at many sites within the park, and the St. Johns and Oklawaha area river valleys are known to have been heavily used (Milanich 1994:89). Shell picks and hammers
37
and bone pins, awls, and points have been found. Impressions on Orange pottery left evidence of fabric and basketry technology (Goggin 1952:45-46; Milanich 1994:92-95).
Woodland
Beginning in the Woodland period, around 500 B.C., greater regionalization is observable in prehistoric Florida societies. Different pastes, surface treatments, vessel shapes, and tempering agents in pottery are archaeologists’ best evidence of this regional differentiation. Goggin (1947:114, 124) divided Florida into regional cultures, but boundaries were ill-defined. In a later publication, Goggin (1952:15-19) specifically placed Silver Springs within Subarea IV of the St. Johns culture area: the Oklawaha River drainage, river bottom swamps, hammocks, and scrub pine forests “dotted with unique crystal-clear springs and lakes.” Silver Springs remains in the St. Johns area in the model later refined by Milanich (1994). Sites in each of these broadly defined cultural areas contained examples of pottery typical of other areas in their assemblages, but there was usually a dominant local ware. It is convenient, as a shorthand and convention, to discuss archaeological cultures of regions of Florida to present a general idea of the material culture and lifeways of groups of people. However, John Worth’s (2012:150-151) discussion of Suwannee Valley culture probably applies to most of the Woodland and late prehistoric cultures of Florida in that each is less a “neatly bounded political or ethnic or even linguistic unit,” but are rather comprised of people “whose lives were intertwined on a daily basis,” leading to commonalities in style and ways of life. Deptford
Silver Springs is near the easternmost extent of Early Woodland Deptford-related sites, and some Deptford style pottery has been found at sites in the park (Milanich 1994:113-114). Deptford potters used the coil method for their sand- or grit-tempered pottery and used paddles to smooth the coils and apply a surface treatment, often a check-stamped pattern (Milanich 1994:113, 129). Stone tools were relatively rare, but bannerstones and medium-sized projectile points have been
38
recovered (Milanich 1994:126-127). Evidence of shell tools, bone tools, and cord-making has been found and wooden artifacts were probably ubiquitous (Milanich 1994:126-127). Deptford people tended to prefer living in oak-magnolia hammock environments, where nuts, fruits, and game were available (Milanich 1994:113-119). Later, Deptford people established some villages in the interior of north-central Florida and some created ceremonial centers with mounds (Milanich 1994:135). The Sunday Bluff and Colby sites in Marion County are cited as inland Deptford settlements north of Silver Springs (Milanich 1994:120-121). The Colby site is a freshwater shell midden adjacent to the Oklawaha River backswamp only about 1.6 km (0.5 mi.) north of the Silver Springs park boundary (Cumbaa and Gouchnour 1970:43). It had a Late Archaic Orange component, early St. Johns styles, Pasco sherds, and some Deptford, as well as a late prehistoric occupation (Cumbaa and Gouchnour 1970:43-46). However, many of the sherds that Cumbaa and Gauchnour attributed to the Deptford culture were sand-tempered plain sherds that are made throughout the Woodland and late prehistoric periods. This, combined with the fact that they occur in the same context as late prehistoric St. Johns Check-Stamped and Alachua Cob-Marked suggests that the Deptford affiliation here may be overstated. A large amount of stone tools were also found at this site, suggesting it had been occupied at least intermittently from the Middle Archaic through late prehistoric (Cumbaa and Gauchnour 1970). The Sunday Bluff midden had a potential wall trench that could indicate a more substantial round house built with a series of posts, maybe with a central hearth as was common in Deptford houses (Milanich 1994:124-125). St. Johns I
The St. Johns cultural area covered the river valley of the same name, and extended into the land surrounding its largest tributary, the Oklawaha, as well as the northern Atlantic Coast of Florida (Milanich 1994:243). Silver Springs is located in the western periphery of this area, but the typical St. Johns sponge spiculate tempered pottery is very common at sites in the park. St. Johns I (c. 500 B.C.
39
to A.D. 750) is characterized by mostly plain varieties of the chalky ware, but also styles decorated with incising (St. Johns Incised, Oklawaha Incised) or red painting (Dunn’s Creek Red); frequencies of decorated varieties decreased through time (Goggin 1952:48-49, 102; Milanich 1994:246-247, 257). Goggin (1952) divided St. Johns I into Ia early, Ia late, and Ib subperiods, largely based on seriation of ceramic type frequencies.
Some shell middens and mounds were constructed during the Archaic, but mound building, especially of low sand burial mounds expanded after the transition to St. Johns I. Evidence suggests that charnel house processing of deceased bodies preceded secondary interment in mounds, sometimes with hematite (Goggin 1952:48). By about A.D. 100, exotic materials, some suggestive of Hopewell or wider Middle Woodland interaction, were included in burial mounds which had also increased in size. Increased population, long-distance trade, and ceremonialism have been suggested as reasons (Goggin 1952:48-50). Later, early Weeden Island style items were more frequently found in mounds, followed by copies of these styles on pottery made with local pastes (Milanich 1994:260- 262). Shell middens and mounds on the coast as well as on riverbanks increased in numbers as well. Villages became more numerous as population continued to grow (Milanich 1994:256-257). Despite these changes in material culture, the fishing, hunting, and gathering subsistence economy of eastern Floridians did not seem to change much from that of their Archaic ancestors (Milanich 1994:254- 256).
Cades Pond
Early Weeden Island ceramics, particularly their distinctive incised, punctated, stamped, or effigy mortuary varieties, were commonly found in many related cultures in west and northwest Florida during the Woodland period (Milanich 1994:155-241). The Cades Pond regional manifestation of early Weeden Island/Middle Woodland is north of Silver Springs near Payne’s Prairie, but is the closest Weeden Island-related neighbor (Milanich 1994:27-241). Cades Pond sites
40
had mostly plain pottery, but also some St. Johns and Weeden Island forms (Milanich 1994:228). Site locations are strongly associated with wetland forest environments, where they fished, hunted, and gathered nuts and other wild foods (Hemmings 1978:144; Milanich 1994:230-232). Cades Pond sites tended to occur in village and mound clusters that were occupied year-round (Hemmings 1978:145-148; Milanich 1994:235-241).
Weeden Island on the Peninsular Gulf Coast
To the west of Silver Springs lies another Weeden Island affiliate that must be mentioned because its characteristic pottery style is sometimes found within the park. Most of the larger sites that have been identified are distant from the springs, located on or near the Gulf itself, but sites
have also been found near the Cove of the Withlacoochee, about 50 km southwest of Silver Springs (Milanich 1994:208-214). Ecology in this region varied significantly, leading to diverse subsistence strategies; the sites nearest to Silver Springs would probably have focused on riverine resources (Milanich 1994:208-215). In addition to sand-tempered wares, Pasco styles of pottery, tempered with limestone or Fuller’s Earth and sometimes containing grog temper are typical of this region (Mitchem 1986:68-71). It is not unusual for Pasco pottery sherds to have holes in their paste since limestone can leach out when exposed and leave openings (Mitchem 1986:70). Late Prehistoric
St. Johns II
In many ways, St. Johns area cultures maintained similar lifestyles through the St. Johns II period, which lasted from approximately A.D. 750 until European Contact (Goggin 1952:53; Milanich 1994:263). Fishing, shellfish collection, hunting, and gathering persisted, and small effigies suggest importance of gourds, squashes, and acorns (Ashley 2012:103-104; Milanich 1994:264-265). Populations had increased more or less steadily, leading to a further proliferation of sites or site components dating to St. Johns II (Milanich 1994:263). The appearance of St. Johns Check-Stamped
41
pottery in artifact assemblages signals the beginning of the St. Johns II period, which Goggin (1952:53-55) divided into IIa, IIb, and IIc (protohistoric). Pinellas points indicate the use of bow and-arrow technology (Milanich 1994:265-266). Non-local pottery from Weeden Island, Alachua, and Safety Harbor have all been recovered from St. Johns II sites, although these were relatively rare (Goggin 1952:53-57; Milanich 1994:268-269).
Starting in St. Johns IIb, Mississippian influence and evidence of Southeastern Ceremonial Cult symbolism has been recovered from several large mound centers in northeastern Florida, such as Mount Royal and the Grant and Shields Mounds (Ashley 2012; Milanich 1994:269-272). The St. Johns II people clearly had a role in the larger Mississippian sphere of interaction, and some models suggest the presence of an elite-controlled prestige goods economy for the region, focused on exotic items. Worth (1998:20-21) suggested that they may have been similar to true Mississippian chiefdoms. Alternatively, Ashley (2012) argued that high levels of social difference are not supported by the archaeological record, and that exotic items seem mainly confined to mortuary contexts and may have had a role in maintaining the larger community rather than elevating the roles of individual elites (Ashley 2012). The nature of interaction between people living in the St. Johns area and the aboriginal Floridians to the west is not entirely clear. By the St. Johns IIc period, European goods were starting to appear in St. Johns II-style burial mounds (Goggin 1952:58). Alachua
The southern tip of the north-central Florida late prehistoric Alachua culture area extends to the Silver Springs area, and diagnostic cob-marked pottery has been recovered at numerous sites within the park (Milanich 1994:311). Alachua sites are found within karstic regions, and soils with tendencies to accumulate standing water also have the potential to drain quickly in the event of solution sinkhole formation, which could have altered the available or preferred locations for settlements (Rolland 2012:128-130). In many respects, the Alachua people continued a Late
42
Woodland lifestyle; they had contact with their Florida neighbors (a fairly large percentage of pottery at eastern Alachua sites has St. Johns paste) but lacked exotics and did not seem to participate in Mississippian networks (Rolland 2012:126-127, 147). The Alachua culture, however, differs from the previous local Woodland Cades Pond culture in stark ways, leading some to argue that they must have migrated from elsewhere (Milanich 1994:335).
The Alachua cultural period tends to be divided into the earlier Hickory Pond and later Alachua phases, mostly based on ratios of cob-marked to cord-marked pottery (Worth 1998:26). Prairie Cord and Fabric Marked, Lochloosa Punctated, and Punctated-over-Cord-Marked dominated during Hickory Pond. Cord marking was a novel surface treatment in Florida, so it is possible that people from the Ocmulgee area of Georgia migrated to the south and brought cord-marking with them (Milanich 1994:335-336). However, the chronology has not yet been reconciled and development of cord-marking in the region is a possible scenario (Rolland 2012:137-139). Lochloosa Punctated continued to be produced, with the addition of Alachua Cob Marked, and minority Alachua Plaited or Twined Impressed and Alachua Net Marked wares in the Alachua phase (Rolland 2012:130-132). In some cases, multiple surface treatments were applied over one another, obscuring them (Rolland 2012:132). Maize agriculture was part of the Alachua subsistence economy, but probably was not widespread until the A.D. 1400s (Rolland 2012:127).
Maize agriculture could be a reason for the location of Alachua sites, which tend to be in upland areas with fertile soils, as opposed to the wetland-associated Cades Pond site locations (Milanich 1994:334-335). However, there is some possibility that environmental changes in lower areas caused the Alachua people to move into the upland ridge environments they are known to have inhabited (Rolland 2012:139). Alachua hunters seem to have avoided shellfish, did not heavily depend upon fish, and focused on fewer types of game, seemingly emphasizing deer and turtle (Milanich 1994:338-339; Rolland 2012:139-140). They hunted with arrows tipped with small
43
triangular Pinellas, Tampa, and Ichetucknee points, and had an assemblage of other stone tools for chopping, cutting, and grinding that “exhibit a certain expedient and unfinished quality” (Rolland 2012:140).
It is possible that site locations could have been chosen for access to these lithic resources, or for the hematite commonly found in limestone. Hematitic pebbles and sandstone are very commonly found within shovel tests at Silver Springs. Alachua groups used hematite in their mound burial rituals, and burning seems to have been an important element as well. Burials were generally interred on the east side of the mound, and the structures were expanded in width rather than height with the addition of bodies. Special sacred pottery types or exotic grave goods were eschewed by the Alachua, and mounds do not seem to be part of a village complex (Rolland 2012:140-145, 147-148). Suwannee Valley
North of the Alachua lived a closely associated group, the Suwannee Valley people. Silver Springs is well outside of the Suwannee Valley region, but the Trifoliate Orange Ridge site (8Mr3906) identified during the survey had a partial vessel of a minority early Suwannee Valley ceramic type, Trestle Point Shell-Impressed (Worth 2012:159-160). Typical pottery types are largely similar to those in the Alachua area: Alachua Cob Marked, Alachua Plain, Lochloosa Punctated, Prairie Cord-Marked (Milanich 1994:352-353; Worth 2012:158). However, another major component in Suwannee Valley assemblages is Fig Springs Roughened, which was probably decorated using scallop shells or stick bundles (Worth 2012:158). Fig Springs Roughened was named for the mission site in Columbia County where a portion of the aboriginal village area had a single component Suwannee Valley assemblage (Weisman 1992:127). As with Alachua ceramics, multiple surface treatments are commonly applied over one another (Worth 2012:161-162). St. Johns, Pasco, and Fort Walton sherds appear as well, but like Alachua, Suwannee Valley does not appear to have much Mississippian influence (Worth 2012:148, 159). Suwannee Valley ceramic forms are mostly
44
limited to unadorned jars and bowls; the partial Trestle Point Shell-Impressed vessel found in the current survey (see discussion of 8Mr3906) appears to have had a jar form (Worth 2012:162-163). Trestle Point Shell Impressed, other minority wares, Fig Springs Roughened, and Prairie Cord Marked appear to become less popular over time, while Alachua Cob-Marked and possibly Lochloosa Punctated increase in frequency, maybe due to the introduction or increased intensity of maize agriculture (Worth 2012:158, 164-165).
Both indirect (pottery decoration) and direct (charred corn kernels) evidence of maize agriculture has been found in the area (Worth 2012:168-169). However, faunal assemblages suggest that hunting and fishing were still important subsistence activities, as was gathering nuts and other wild foods (Worth 2012:167-169). Stone tool assemblages also approximated those of the Alachua culture, and were geared toward bow-and-arrow hunting with small Pinellas, Ichetucknee, and Tampa points (Milanich 1994:353). While the Suwannee Valley area as it is currently known does not outwardly suggest chiefly levels of sociopolitical organization such as signs of differential status or specialization, their descendants, the Timucua were organized into chiefdoms; this begs the question about archaeological visibility of organizational systems (Worth 2012:169-171). Safety Harbor
Like their predecessors, Safety Harbor people on the peninsular Gulf coast southwest of Silver Springs continued to favor Pasco limestone-tempered pottery, so these sherds found at the park could also date to the late prehistoric (Milanich 1994:392; Mitchem 2012:176). Gathering, fishing, and hunting using the ubiquitous Pinellas points were practiced in this region (Milanich 1994:392-394; Mitchem 2012:181). Mitchem (2012:181) noted that the lack of alluvium from spring fed rivers and blackwater streams in the area made maize agriculture an impossibility there. Charnel house preparation, mound construction and burial, and inclusion of exotic items and decorated mortuary pottery are characteristic of Safety Harbor both on the coast and inland, even persisting
45
into proto-historic times (Milanich 1994:400-412). Unlike Alachua and Suwannee Valley peoples, they were participants in Mississippian trade and interaction networks, probably supplying marine conch and whelk shell and receiving exotic items in return (Milanich 1994:404-412; Mitchem 2012:181-184).
46
V. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Protohistoric: The Timucua
At European contact, the Timucua were occupying a large area in what is now south Georgia and north and central Florida. Their territory extended south close the current Marion and Lake county border, placing Silver Springs toward its southern boundary (Hann 1996:1-3). All these areas were known for their agricultural fertility, but despite having maize agriculture, the Timucua lacked many Mississippian characteristics and were probably organized as small-scale chiefdoms (Hann 1996:12-13; Worth 1998:13-18). Silver Springs may have fallen within the Ocale district, from the Ocala National Forest west to the Withlacoochee River. The Acuera district was adjacent, between the Oklawaha and St. Johns Rivers near Lake Weir, and the Potano district farther north close to modern day Gainesville in Alachua and northern Marion Counties (Hann 1996:10-13; Milanich 1995:82).
According to Worth (1998:2), “the distribution of late prehistoric regional cultures in the sixteenth century corresponds quite well with the contemporary social geography of northern interior Florida as interpreted from early European written accounts, suggesting that in most cases these archaeologically defined cultures can be directly associated with one or more of the named Timucuan chiefdoms of the early colonial era.” The Acuera probably correspond archaeologically with the St Johns II cultural area while the Potano fall within the Alachua area and the Ocale may be associated with the Safety Harbor culture (Hann 1996:13-14; Milanich 1995:93). Silver Springs falls near the suggested borders of all these groups, so it is possible that any one of them, or possibly more than one, or various amalgamations of more than one, lived there or benefitted from its resources.
47
Spanish
Hernando de Soto
It is possible that the first Europeans at Silver Springs were the Spanish. The various chroniclers of Hernando de Soto’s expedition wrote about his company’s encounters with the Native Americans in the settlement of Ocali (also called Ocale or Etocale), which was probably in the vicinity of its namesake, the city of Ocala. Carita Corse, director of the Florida Writers’ Project, wrote Shrine of the Water Gods, A Historical Account of Silver Springs, Florida in 1935, a booklet that was distributed widely and sold at the Silver Springs gift shop (Corse 1935; Hollis 2006:6). In her history, she suggested that Hernando de Soto and his army must have seen Silver Springs, but that nature did not interest or impress them (Corse 1935:6). Ott and Chazal (1966:8) disagreed, arguing, “with numerous other details recounted, the lack of any mention would indicate that the army did not see it but passed to the west of Silver Springs.” Since it is the largest limestone spring formation in the world (Martin 1966:15), it seems highly unlikely that the Spanish encountered it but not one of them had even given it a passing mention in his account.
According to Hann (1996:29), Ocale was probably in southwest Marion County but has not been identified archaeologically. Hann also noted discrepancies in the chronicle by Garcilaso de la Vega as compared with other chroniclers. Also, peculiarities regarding geography suggest that the Garcilaso account is unreliable (Hann 1996:32). He cautioned readers that the Garcilaso de la Vega account was frequently “cited uncritically as authoritative” by earlier historians, which probably partially explains Corse’s booklet (Hann 1996:32).
De Soto and his army had hoped that Ocale could provide enough food to sustain them, but their resources were insufficient for a Spanish winter camp. A contingent of his followers remained at Ocale and raided surrounding settlements, including Acuera villages, while others pressed on in an advance party (Milanich 1995:130-131; Worth 1998:21). During these raids, Spanish soldiers could
48
have been near Silver Springs. Eventually the entire army advanced to the north, although the exact route is unclear. Both of the possible routes north, either to the west or east of Payne’s Prairie, seem to be located too far west to pass close to Silver Springs.
Missions
The Timucuans close to Silver Springs were initially unfriendly to the Spanish, but in 1597, chiefs from Potano, Acuera, Ocale (Eloquale), and Tucuru began to acquiesce to Spanish rule, both providing labor and engaging them in trade (Hann 1996:147-163; Worth 1998:50-56). This involved “rendering of obedience,” which included gift exchange, conversion of leaders to Catholicism, and then founding missions to convert the population. The various Timucuan chiefdoms likely saw the process as a way to increase their political power by gaining a formidable ally and access to Spanish goods (Worth 1998:36-43). They were by no means an allied force, but were often at war with one another and each wanted the Europeans to assist their polity in battle against others.
The San Francisco de Potano mission was the first mission founded in the Central Florida region, probably close to Orange Lake, in 1606 (Hann 1996:165-166,300-302). Missions at Avino, Tucuru, Utiaca, and Eloquale were probably situated along the Oklawaha River and may have been part of their own chiefdom or possibly loosely affiliated under or with Acuera as well (Worth 1998:65-66). San Luis de Eloquale was opened in the Ocale province between 1616 and 1630, and appears to have been close to the Santa Lucia de Acuera mission (Hann 1996:185-191; Milanich 1995:176; Worth 1998:69-75). San Luis de Eloquale may have been established on the Oklawaha near the relocated city of Ocale, maybe north of the Silver River (according to a map in Worth 1998:70), with Santa Lucia on the Oklawaha south of the park (Worth 1998:65-71).
Missions tended to be founded at administrative centers of caciques (Timucuan chiefs) first, and then additional ones were often established in the area under the cacique’s control (Worth 1998:43). The fact that a mission was not established at Silver Springs suggests that it was not a
49
regional political center during the first half of the 17th century. Whether or not a mission was actually operating in the vicinity of Silver Springs, anyone living there would have had some contact with missionized Indians. They may also have been involved with some of the Spanish-run cattle ranches in Central Florida (Milanich 1995:211). All of them would have been affected by the upheaval in the region and the population loss from waves of epidemic disease during the 1600s (Hann 1996:231; Milanich 1995:213-220).
English and Creek raiders under Moore’s command destroyed the Spanish missions and killed large numbers of the indigenous mission inhabitants (Mahon 1967:3; Milanich 1995:224-227). San Francisco de Potano, the first Central Florida mission, was also the last abandoned in 1706 as the British and their Indian allies made their way into Central Florida (Hann 1996:300-302). This loss of population created a vacuum to be filled by native Florida Indians’ former aggressors, the Yamassee, Apalachee, and Lower Creeks, some of whom were seeking refuge after the Yamassee War against their former English allies (Hann 1996:306; Milanich 1995:228-229; Weisman 1999:13- 14). Many entered Florida at the invitation of the Spanish who wanted to replenish the native population who might help protect their territory (Mahon 1967:3; Milanich 1995:229). United States Expansion and Seminole Wars
The United States’ interest in Florida stemmed partly from the expansionist belief in Manifest Destiny (Mahon 1967:19; Weisman 1999:43). However, it was also largely spurred by problems with slaves escaping from American plantations and receiving asylum in Spanish Florida either with the Spanish themselves or with the Indians, descendants of the Creeks and various other native groups who immigrated to Florida and became known as the Seminoles (Mahon 1967:19-20, 41, 59-60; Weisman 1999:43-44). The First Seminole War between the US and the Seminoles proved the weakness of Spain’s defense of Florida and led to the Adams-Onis Treaty ceding Florida to the United States in 1821 (Knetsch 2003:40; Weisman 1999:44).
50
For the most part, the Silver Springs and Ocala area was ignored by white settlers until Florida became United States Territory. The Treaty of Moultrie Creek, signed in 1823 by the United States and the Seminoles, designated a reservation within Central and South Florida as Indian Territory and outlined the federal government’s obligations, including provisions to be supplied (Mahon 1967:43-49; Martin 1966:63-64; Weisman 1999:45-47). In 1822, Gad Humphries became the Indian Agent for the nearly 9,000 Seminoles in Florida. He chose the vicinity of Silver Springs to build his agency in 1825 (Berson 2011:86; Mahon 1967:63-64; Martin 1966:63-64). Elevation, fertile land, and proximity to the Oklawaha River for navigation and to Silver Springs for a supply depot were factors in his decision. The proximity to several trading paths and Indian villages made it geographically situated for ease of communication between European-Americans and Native Americans (Berson 2011:86; Knetsch 2003:52-53; Ott and Chazal 1966:19). Humphreys hired Joshua Coffee to survey the area, and the resultant map (Figure 12) was the first to show the springs with the name Agent Humphries gave it, Silver Springs (Ott and Chazal 1966:19; Knetsch 2003:52). Though he was not granted the full funding that he requested from his superiors, Humphreys and his Indian helpers constructed the hewn-log agency building that year.
Fort King
Colonel Duncan Clinch directed the construction of Camp King between the Indian Agency and Silver Springs, about 600 yards (550 m) from the Agency (Figure 13; Berson 2011:87; Knetsch 2003:53; Mahon 1967:64; Ott and Chazal 1966:24). James Glassell led the troops to the location where they would build Fort King in 1827, and an early sketch map called Silver Springs “Glassell’s Spring” (Knetsch 2003:63; Ott and Chazal 1966:23). Glassell was also tasked with clearing debris from the Silver and Oklawaha Rivers so that supplies could be transported to the fort and Indian agency, but this was likely not accomplished quickly (Berson 2011:87-88; Ott and Chazal 1966:23- 24). Knetsch (2003:52-53) said, “with little effort, both the spring run and the river were cleared of
51
debris and made suitable for large boat traffic,” but Berson (2011) cited a series of letters from Humphreys, Clinch, Newcomb, and Glassell about clearing the waterways, indicating that it still had not been accomplished by March 1828. Instead, supplies were being transported over land. Fort King was built as a fairly substantial compound, but the US government had not intended it to be a permanent military installation. As with the Indian agency, they balked at issuing funds for its construction, writing to Glassell “labor already bestowed is now to be regretted” (Ott and Chazal 1966:24). Cantonment King was closed in 1829 but reopened in 1832 and would be important in the coming violent years (Mahon 1967:67; Ott and Chazal 1966:25).
Figure 12. Portion of 1825 Joshua Coffee map. Trails from the Agency led to other nearby villages (adapted from Knetsch 2003:52).
Aggression was imminent at this time, as the recently resettled Seminoles in a desperate state, the expansionist American government was continuing to exert pressure for emigration to the western reservations, and white settlers were antagonizing the Seminoles. The Indian agent, Gad Humphreys, was struggling to obtain sufficient supplies for his charges to meet the stipulations of the government’s treaty with the Seminoles, and the Indians were starving as a result (Knetsch 2003:53-54; Mahon 1967:59, 61, 73-74). Furthermore, white settlers from the north were raiding the Seminoles for their cattle, horses, and slaves and in turn, the Seminoles were raiding white
52
settlements (Knetsch 2003:56-58). Humphreys’ superiors were unsatisfied with his progress in getting Seminoles to emigrate, as well as his handling of the Black Seminoles, who were not offered emigration to Oklahoma despite Humphreys’ opinion that their inclusion would be necessary to effect the rest of the Seminoles’ cooperation (Knetsch 2003:54). The relationship of the Seminoles and the enslaved populations was central to the dispute with the federal government as white slave owners accused the Seminoles of harboring fugitives, but also laid claim to enslaved persons that the Seminoles considered to be their own (Mahon 1967:59-61, 64, 70-72; 93-94; Weisman 1999:43-47). Humphreys was fired from his position in 1830 for being too sympathetic to the Seminoles and other accusations regarding apprehension and return of runaway slaves – this move may have had dire consequences (Knetsch 2003:59-60; Mahon 1967:71; Ott and Chazal 1966:23). Figure 13. Portion of Johnson’s 1836 map, Seat of War in Florida, showing the Agency and Fort King relative to the Silver and Oklawaha Rivers.
Payne’s Landing
Instead of Humphreys, it was Colonel James Gadsden who met with Seminole leaders at Payne’s Landing on the Oklawaha River in 1832 (Knetsch 2003:60; Ott and Chazal 1966:25; Mahon 1967:74-86). From the government’s standpoint, the Treaty of Payne’s Landing was an agreement to emigrate west. After Payne’s Landing, Seminole representatives visited the Oklahoma Territory and then signed the Treaty of Fort Gibson, supposedly indicating their satisfaction (Knetsch 2003:60; Mahon 1967:75-86). However, the Seminoles did not even consider the Treaty of Fort Gibson
53
signatories to have the authority to make such an agreement, and several chiefs claimed that they had been coerced into signing both treaties or had not signed them at all (Knetsch 2003:61; Mahon 1967:75-86). They considered the treaty contingent upon tribal council approval that their new home was acceptable. Considering the government’s failure to uphold their end of the Treaty of Moultrie Creek, including the payment of annuities, the fact that the Seminoles would have to live with their Creek enemies in Oklahoma, and the problem of the vulnerability of the Black Seminoles to be captured and sold into slavery to whites, the Seminoles were divided in their decision about emigration (Knetsch 2003:61; Mahon 1967:74-86). A former slave named Abraham, who served as interpreter for the Seminoles, may have exerted his influence in both treaties. Some evidence suggests that he accepted a bribe from the federal government, but he also seems to have been actively recruiting slaves on plantations to join the Seminoles (Mahon 1967:76-78, 128). Former Congressman Wiley Thompson was designated the new Indian agent in 1833, replacing John Phagan, who was dismissed for defrauding the government out of the unpaid Seminole annuities (Knetsch 2003:60-63; Mahon 1967:71-72, 84-85). Thompson began to pressure the Seminoles to emigrate, citing the Treaty of Payne’s Landing (Knetsch 2003:65; Mahon 1967:85- 86; Ott and Chazal 1966:26). In response, the Seminoles held a council at their camp at the Silver Springs, where young Osceola, though not a chief nor an elder, spoke passionately and convinced many of his compatriots to resist emigration (Knetsch 2003:65-66; Mahan 1967:91-92; Ott and Chazal 1966:26). An enduring, although unverified, legend tells of a meeting between the Seminoles and Thompson, when Osceola famously thrust his knife through the treaty, declaring that this was the only mark he would make (Martin 1966:64-66; Ott and Chazal 1966:26-27). Tensions grew between Thompson and Osceola; Thompson had Osceola arrested and Osceola and an aggressive anti-emigration group of Seminoles killed other Seminoles, like Charley Emathla, who acquiesced to emigration. (Knetsch 2003:67-69; Mahon 1967:96-101; Ott and Chazal 1966:27-29).
54
Second Seminole War
Finally, tensions boiled over in 1835 when Osceola and around 60 others attacked and killed Agent Thompson, Lt. Constantine Smith from the Second Artillery, sutler’s store manager Erasmus Rogers, and four others, scalping most of them (Knetsch 2003:70-71; Mahon 1967:103-104; Ott and Chazal 1966:28). The Seminoles had been planning this attack for more than a year, and it was to
occur concurrently with one on Major Dade’s forces near the Cove of the Withlacoochee, which came to be known as the Dade Massacre. Both incited the Second Seminole War (Knetsch 2003:70- 72; Mahon 1967:104-106; Martin 1966:64).
While Fort King was considered the Seat of War for the Second Seminole War, most of the fighting took place to the south. Fort King was evacuated due to widespread illness, burned by the Seminoles in 1836, but then rebuilt the next year (Figure 14; Knetsch 2003:92; Mahon 1967:173; Ott and Chazal 1966:34). In 1840, General Walker Keith Armistead named it the headquarters of the Army of the South and stationed large numbers of troops at the location (Mahon 1967:276). Another fort, Fort Fowle, was located on the east side of the Oklawaha River for defense of the bridge at Sharpe’s Ferry; this installation was across the river from what is now the southeastern corner of the Silver Springs State Park (Ott and Chazal 1966:34). Historic maps show a military road crossing the park, but no fortifications are shown within the park boundaries. Although most of them lost their lives or at least their lands in the Second Seminole War, many as the result of dishonorable trickery and by breaking their own rules of engagement on the part of the Army, Seminole chiefs and war leaders are memorialized in the names of the glass bottom boats at Silver Springs and a statue of the formidable Osceola at the headspring (Mahon 1967:214-218; Martin 1966:66; Ott and Chazal 1966:35-38).
55
Figure 14: Sketch by John Sprague depicting the rebuilt 1837 version of Ft. King (Fort King Heritage Association 2016). Armed Occupation Act and Early Settlement
The year 1842 saw the official end of the Second Seminole War and the passage of the Armed Occupation Act, which opened the area to white homesteaders, granting land to any adult male 18 years or older who could bear arms, occupy, and improve the land for five years (5 U.S. Statutes 502). A man named F. C. Humphrey filed a claim for the tract of land at the Silver Springs headspring in 1842, arguing that he had sufficiently completed the requirements before leaving to enlist in the military. However, James Rogers from Baldwin, Georgia, filed for a patent for the same land in 1845 under the Preemption Act of 1841 wherein he paid $1.25 per acre as a preemptive claim. Rogers won the dispute for the land (Berson 2011:96; Martin 1966:105; Ott and Chazal 1966:41). Based on a General Land Office Map from 1843 (Figure 15), Wiley Ballard owned the northeast quarter of Township 15S, Range 23E, Section 6. James Ballard owned the southeast quarter section of Township 15S, Range 23E, Section 17, and Param Moody claimed the northeast quarter of that same section (GLO 1844). As Baker notes, grantees did not always stay within their property lines, so while Section 17 is not within park boundaries, Moody’s homestead could extend into the parkland (Baker 1990:3).
56