The Florida Anthropologist Volume 64, Number 1 March 2011 Table of Contents From the Editors 3 Articles The Yellow Bluffs Mound Revisited: A Manasota Period Burial Mound in Sarasota 5 George M. Luer Radiocarbon Dating the Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4), Sarasota, Florida 33 George M. Luer and Daniel Hughes An Incised Antler Artifact from Little Salt Spring (8SO18) 47 John A. Gifford and Steven H. Koski The Florida Radiocarbon Database 53 Steve J. Dasovich and Glen H. Doran Climate: The Key to Discovering the Food Plants Foraged by Florida s Paleoindians and Archaic People 63 I. Mac Perry About the Authors 77 Cover: A view of Yellow Bluffs Mound in Sarasota, Fl. Compare the pergola on top of the mound in both pictures. Top: Postcard view toward the pergola at the Acacias residence in the 1910s. Bottom: A half century later, a similar view was taken during archaeological excavations at the Yellow Bluffs Mound in early April 1969. Henry Sheldon holds a shovel in the trench s northwest corner and Doris Dottie Davis wears a hat. Bottom image courtesy of the Sarasota County History Center. See the George Luer article beginning on page 5 for more information. Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. ISSN 0015-3893
The Florida Radiocarbon Database Steve J. Dasovich 1 and Glen H. Doran 2 1 Director of Archaeology and Assistant Professor, Dept. of Sociology/Anthropology, Lindenwood University, St. Charles, Missouri 63301 Email: sdasovich@lindenwood.edu 2 Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Email: gdoran@fsu.edu Archaeologists have been using radiocarbon dates since the technique s inception in the 1950s. Dates were and are often used individually or with others from the same archaeological site to help interpret the cultural chronology of multi- and single-component sites and to date a specific component, strata or feature. As the number of dates increases, tabulations of this information become increasingly useful in archaeological research. This paper describes such tabulation for the state of Florida. The utilization of radiocarbon assays has always been within the framework of useful data. From the first use of radiocarbon dates, most researchers seemed to be interested only in how a date, or suite of dates, effected the interpretation of their site or component(s). Until 1988 there was apparently little effort to compile large series of dates, or databases, though the number of dates within some regions was expanding rapidly (Kra 1988). Date compilation aids in the interpretation of cultural chronologies and often leads to additional research questions. A single date, when viewed within a suite of supposedly related dates, may more quickly stand out as aberrant or questionable. This can be particularly valuable given the volume of gray literature that continues to be generated by cultural resource management work. Second, the ability to compare cultural component dates from several sites helps frame the tradition s chronological span. These are both issues identified by Dasovich (1996). Date Collection Reasons for the absence of such databases lie in the often idiosyncratic nature of archaeological specialization ( my region, my topic, my research focus ). Additionally not all dates appear in reports or published articles. Many radiocarbon labs regard their dates as proprietary client information and do not publish or release the information except to the client. Another factor limiting the widespread evolution of these databases also lies in the time required to compile them. Dasovich spent over two years collecting the 940 dates used in his thesis (Dasovich 1996) and this update, adding 313 dates, took an additional year and a half. Compilation becomes an elaborate scavenger hunt where you never know if you have all the dates and you always assume you are missing some. Equally demanding is the time required for continuous database updating. As soon as a database is completed it is out-of-date because new dates are constantly being produced. In almost every published and online discussion of radiocarbon databases these challenges are noted. To give some sense of the magnitude of the problem, Beta Analytic, one of the world s most productive radiocarbon labs, runs approximately 12,000 dates a year of which roughly 6,000 are from the United States. Several hundred come from Florida alone (Darden Hood, personal communication 2006). Though not all dates are from archaeological contexts this is still a large number of dates to track. Part of our hope in posting the database and providing this brief description is to encourage the archaeological community to help us update and keep the database current. Participation of the broadest group of users will aid in the accuracy and completeness of the database and improve its utility for all. Dates were collected from published literature, particularly the Florida Anthropologist, Florida Scientist, Southeastern Archaeology Bulletin, university publications, Florida site file reports and unpublished documents. The majority of practicing archaeologists with research interests in Florida were contacted and many provided unpublished date lists. A more complete discussion of the methodology and details can be found in Dasovich (1996) and only a brief discussion is provided here. This compilation specifically includes dates attributed or associated with archaeological investigations and does not include dates specifically obtained in association with geological or paleontological studies or dates obtained by archaeologists not specifically attributed to an archaeological context. For example, the basal date on the Windover (8BR246) peat is well below the zones with evidence of human cultural material and is not included here because it is more specifically a geological date (Pleistocene/ Holocene boundary) rather than a cultural date (Doran 1988, 2002). The goal was to collect radiocarbon dates specifically on archaeological traditions and cultures. With the cooperation of many archaeologists, 940 radiocarbon dates from 51 counties were compiled (15 were dropped for incomplete reporting of information; for a complete discussion on this see Dasovich 1996). This initial effort compiled dates through 1993. More recently, we reinventoried publications since 1994 (Florida Anthropologist, Southeastern Archaeology, etc.) and included dates recorded at the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research. We also Vol. 64(1) The Florida Anthropologist March 2011
54 The Florida Anthropologist 2011 Vol. 64(1) solicited updates through the Florida archaeology news group. The database now contains 1,253 dates. Two dates are excluded from this discussion but are included in the online database. One, a date of 40 and a standard deviation of 50 comes from the Newnan s Lake Canoe Project (CANOE 4, Beta-146269- Wheeler et al. 2003). Similarly, a Little Salt Springs date of 17,340 B.P. (the extinct tortoise, Beta-25430; John Gifford, personal communication) is excluded from this discussion although it is included in the database. Some argue the date may not reflect human activity although it dates the megafauna remains (John Gifford, personal communication) and might, strictly speaking, be paleontological in nature. The following discussion thus focuses on the remaining 1,251 dates. In the future we will try to include more problematic dates and highlight the issues associated with them rather than simply excluding them. Cultural Chronologies; Chronological Issues In his 1996 study, Dasovich s main research goal was not to re-write the Florida prehistoric cultural chronology (as seen in Milanich and Fairbanks 1980) but to identify time intervals where such a re-writing might be warranted. In the process, further, unanticipated research questions became apparent, most notably the longer duration of the southern Florida Late Archaic tradition. This large scale date tabulation would allow for more careful assessment of the beginning and ending of cultural traditions. This would make it easier to identify poorly dated traditions which would benefit from careful chronometric scrutiny. Several cultural periods showed significant discrepancies. The thesis suggested some cultural periods be re-evaluated chronologically to better match the time periods archaeologists used in their publications. Dasovich argued that the Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Orange, Deptford, Glades II, Glades IIB, Glades III, Ft. Walton, and Safety Harbor intervals should have their temporal boundaries expanded. Others, specifically Caloosahatchee, Weeden Island, and Glades IIA should have their time frames narrowed. The Late Archaic period was moved almost completely out of its original time frame (from 4,000-5,000 B.P. to 2,400-4,100 B.P.), as was the Glades IIA period. The interesting aspect of the Late Archaic change is that the later dates all came from southern Florida, supporting the proposition that Archaic lifeways continued much longer in the southern peninsula than in the north where the Orange period started almost 1,000 years earlier than the equivalent tradition in southern Florida. These suggested revisions are solely based upon the association of radiocarbon dates with these cultural periods. Additional discussions of such differences are found in the thesis. Database Structure and Protocol Database variable names and a brief description are provided in Table 1. The earliest radiocarbon dates were not calibrated, and in many cases information on 13 C ratios do not exist. In the last 20 years, we have begun to avail ourselves of the refined interpretations possible with radiocarbon calibration studies. Darden Hood of Beta Analytic was very helpful and ran calibrations on all the dates in the database and these calibrations are included in the database. Beta s web page provides an overview of the calibration protocol and as new dates are entered they will be handled similarly (http:// www.radiocarbon.com/calendar.htm). The Beta webpage notes that they use the Radiocarbon 1998 calibration data (from Intcal98: Stuiver et al. 1998) for their calibrations and the Talma and Vogel (1993) cubic spline fit mathematics. The intent is to update the database once a year after processing the new dates and identifying and fixing any errors or comments that we receive. The file posted on the webpage contains the variable list in Table 1 (http://digitool3.lib.fsu. edu/r/?func=collections-result&collection_id=1104). Where no site number was known to us, but a county ascription was available, the site designation follows the format 8BRx. Where dates are from multiple unspecified sites, an additional x is added per additional site (i.e., 8BRxx). In a few cases, multiple site numbers for a specific date were reported and both sites are included (e.g., 8VO24/25). Sometimes, published or unpublished reports provide lab numbers with dates at variance with each other. Short of obtaining copies of the original lab sheets we could see no straightforward way of resolving these discrepancies and have included both dates in the database. Out of the 1,251 dates there are only 13 which exhibit this problem. For example, Beta- 12896 has two different dates reported (in the grey literature), 570 and 670 B.P. The other 12 duplicates with apparently contradictory dates include Beta -36705, I-5935, DIC-655, Gx-155, UM-1153, UM -1154, UM -1370, UM -1373, UM -1451, UM -1549 and UM -2359. We are continuing to attempt to resolve these discrepancies and we have included a PROBLEM field identifying what issues exist with a date and we continue to resolve the issues. Reader input on this would also be appreciated. Some of the other interesting statistical aspects of the database include the sparse number of old dates. Of the 1,251 dates, only 78 are older than 6,999 radiocarbon years B.P. (uncalibrated) and these 78 dates come from only 11 sites one unidentified site in Marion County, Little Salt and Warm Mineral Spring, Windover, the Bison Kill site in Jefferson County, Bay West, Cutler Fossil (Ridge) site, Devil s Den, J and J Hunt site, and the Page/Ladson site. Conversely, most of the dates (n=721; 57%) are less than 2,000 years old and come from 248 sites. Clearly (Figure 1), most of the dated samples and sites fall into the more recent periods and reflect site density, population expansion (development) and archaeological research orientation. The slightly elevated number of dates between 6,000 and 7,000 B.P. and between 9,000 and 10,000 B.P. indicate repetitive dating strategies from a handful of sites such as Windover, J and J Hunt, Warm Mineral Spring, and Little Salt Spring. Fifty-two of Florida s 67 counties have sites or materials which have been dated but statewide, geographic and chronological distribution is hardly uniform (Table 2 and Figure 2). Reported dates are concentrated in areas where more sites have been more intensively excavated, where development has been significant, and where researchers
Dasovich and Doran Florida Radiocarbon Database 55 Table 1. FSU archaeological radiocarbon database variable list and variable description. Variable Name Variable Description UID Unique numeric identifier specific to this database. 1-1,251 were calibrated by Hood in 2004 DATE Uncorrected conventional radiocarbon date SE Standard error AUTHCUL Submitters attribution of culture SITE Florida Site File number SNAME Reported site name COUNTY County, following standard abbreviation format MATERIAL Type of material dated if reported WEIGHT Weight (gm) if reported CONTEXT Archaeological context if reported LABNUMBER Laboratory radiocarbon number YEAR Year sample run SUBMITTER Name of submitter if reported ACCELERATE y = date is AMS date, n = not an AMS date COMMENTS Comments about date or context pertinent to interpretation CALIBRATE Source of the calibration C13ADJ 13 C adjustment if reported DIAGNOSTIC Associated diagnostic artifacts BIBLIO Bibliographic reference (see Dasovich 1996 for complete citation) FSSF Florida Site File Manuscript Number (if known) ORIGIN Source of the date either Dasovich 1996 or the date of inclusion and name of person providing the information. The following calibrations use a date of 9220 + 180 as a model: C95ADMAX Calibrated maximum A.D. date, 95 % confidence interval, 2 sigma 9120 C95ADMIN Calibrated minimum A.D. date, 95% confidence interval, 2 sigma 9000 C95BPMAX Calibrated maximum B.P. date, 95% confidence interval, 2 sigma 11070 C95BPMIN Calibrated minimum B.P. date, 95% confidence interval, 2 sigma 10950 CALAD1MIN Calibrated minimum A.D. date, 1 sigma 8890 CALAD1MAX Calibrated maximum A.D. date, 1 sigma 8880 CALBP1MAX Calibrated maximum B.P. date, 1 sigma 10840 CALBP1MIN Calibrated minimum B.P. date, 1 sigma 10830 CALAD2MIN Calibrated minimum A.D. date, 2 sigma 8840 CALAD2MAX Calibrated maximum A.D. date, 2 sigma 8150 CALBP2MAX Calibrated maximum B.P. date, 3 sigma 10800 CALBP2MIN Calibrated minimum B.P. date, 3 sigma 10100 CALAD3MIN Calibrated minimum A.D. date, 3 sigma 8140 CALAD3MAX Calibrated maximum A.D. date, 3 sigma 7970 CALBP3MAX Calibrated maximum B.P. date, 3 sigma 10090 CALBP3MIN Calibrated minimum B.P. date, 3 sigma 9920
56 The Florida Anthropologist 2011 Vol. 64(1) 400 300 Count 200 100 0 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 1500 4500 7500 10500 13500 14C YEARS BP (uncalibrated) 0.3 Proportion per Bar 0.2 0.1 0.0 Figure 1. Distribution of uncalibrated archaeological radiocarbon dates (n=1251). felt it important to obtain dates. Lee (n=124 dates, 12.0% of the total), Volusia (n=111, 10.8%), Collier (n=107, 10.4 %), Dade (n=87, 8.4%), and Sarasota (n=90, 8.7%) counties have produced the greatest number of dates and account for 40% of the current database. Some counties (n=15), such as Baker, Union, Flagler etc. do not have a record of radiocarbon dates. Others, like Orange County where development has been rampant, have only a handful of dates (n=4). Distribution by county is also clearly not associated with the density of sites or even time intervals represented within the county. To illustrate the point, Lee County contributes 12% of all Florida dates and has less than 2% of the total number of Florida sites within its borders (site density and count information based on a 2001 downloaded version of the Florida Site File inventory). Extremes on the other end of the spectrum also exist. For example, Leon County with over 2,000 recorded sites has only 15 reported dates. For the purpose of this discussion (sites per county) we are including both prehistoric and historic sites. Fifteen counties account for 75% of all identified dates. Interestingly, radiocarbon sample submitters (or authors of the individual reports where the dates are discussed) reported or only provided cultural affiliation for 70% (n=868; AUTHCUL) of the dates (Table 3). Some cultural traditions are more frequently dated than others. The Glades (n=142) Archaic (n=166), St. John s (n=91), Caloosahatchee (n=79) and Paleoindian traditions (n=45) have a disproportionate number of dates while others are more ephemerally tied to an absolute chronology. Again, this does not reflect overall site chronological frequencies but instead, we believe, researcher interest. We are reporting the submitter s assessment of cultural affiliation and make no evaluation of legitimacy (e.g., Hopewell, Colorinda, Kolomoki?). When material composition (MATERIAL) was reported (n=1136-90%), wood or charcoal accounted for nearly half the samples (n=530) with shell (n=475) accounting for nearly as many dates. Species identification has generally not been reported with the dates. Where type of date (standard or accelerator) was reported, only eight AMS dates are identified. Roughly half (n=650) of the dates were run by Beta Analytic of Coral Gables, Florida. We have not included optically stimulated luminescence dates (OSL) or thermoluminescence dated (TL) though this is being considered as these techniques become more widely applied in Florida. As noted, it is common for multiple dates to be run on sites, particularly those with a more extensive excavation record. A tabulation of the number of sites which have dates provides a different perspective on radiocarbon dating in Florida. Of the 1251 dates in the total series, there are only 361 dated sites. The other 890 dates are repetitive dates within individual sites. A total of 152 sites have single dates on them and another 84 have two dates, while 38 have three dates. Viewed from another perspective, 75% of all dates in Florida archaeological contexts come from 350 sites and another nine sites produce the other 25% of the dates in Florida. Obviously, there are many reasons for multiple dates for individual sites and most cautious researchers prefer to deal with multiple dates. What is striking to us is the surprisingly small absolute and relative number of sites that have been dated. This is even more obvious when the unevenness of geographic and chronological distributions are taken into account (Figure 2). Loosely speaking, there are 16,555 recorded prehistoric sites in Florida (Chip Birdsong, personal communication 2006). Thus, our dating framework is based on fewer than 3% of the known sites. It seems to us that we clearly need more dates for more sites from all over the state. Part of the reason for the paucity of dated sites, we believe, is that as more sites are investigated during the course of compliance driven projects, the lack of dates is often due to a lack of funding and time. Radiocarbon dating is not something that is required by agency guidelines and reviewers. Therefore, it is likely that
Dasovich and Doran Florida Radiocarbon Database 57 Figure 2. Florida radiocarbon date distribution by county. First number is the number of samples dated and second is the number of sites dated in each county. Darker shading corresponds to higher totals of radiocarbon dates by county. the dating framework will remain relatively static. This being said, there are strategies that might be employed by cultural resource management companies to add a date or two to a project where dating would be beneficial and any such strategy should be considered. Given the diversity of cultural traditions and the early occupation of Florida, one of the conclusions the thesis reached, and is reiterated here, is that additional dates for most cultural traditions would be a valuable contribution to increasing chronological precision. This would improve our ability to more accurately document geographic differences and occupation and tradition duration. Many cultural traditions have very few dates and chronological precision is limited and based on a great deal of inferential reasoning. We hope this synthesis, and the accessible database format, will be of use to the widest possible audience. We are preparing more detailed analyses and comparisons of the Florida database but we felt it useful to provide the database to the public so we can get feedback and assistance in its expansion. This brief discussion is meant to be introductory to the possibilities of the database. The original research conducted to compile this database for Florida could not have been possible without the cooperation of many archaeologists. Those archaeologists who forwarded dates for the Dasovich compilation were told that they would receive a usable database for their personal use. The publication of this study and the posted database, now including more dates than the original study, fulfills
58 The Florida Anthropologist 2011 Vol. 64(1) Table 2. Distribution of dated sites and number of dates by county in fl142009v1.xls. COUNTY NO. OF DATED SITES PERCENT OF DATED SITES NO. OF DATES PERCENT OF DATES Alachua 2 0.6 57 4.6 Bay 7 1.9 9 0.7 Bradford 2 0.6 2 0.2 Brevard 9 2.5 35 2.8 Broward 6 1.7 14 1.1 Calhoun 2 0.6 9 0.7 Charlotte 3 0.8 14 1.1 Citrus 11 3 25 2 Clay 5 1.4 5 0.4 Collier 39 10.8 117 9.3 Columbia 3 0.8 6 0.5 Dade 24 6.6 103 8.3 Dixie 1 0.3 1 0.1 Duval 21 5.8 40 3.2 Escambia 1 0.3 2 0.2 Franklin 7 1.9 11 0.9 Glades 2 0.6 12 1 Gulf 3 0.8 4 0.3 Hardee 2 0.6 9 0.7 Hendry 1 0.3 1 0.1 Highlands 3 0.8 8 0.6 Hillsborough 6 1.7 16 1.3 Indian River 4 1.1 7 0.6 Jackson 7 1.9 17 1.4 Jefferson 9 2.5 33 2.6 Lake 4 1.1 7 0.6 Lee 13 3.6 124 9.9 Leon 5 1.4 15 1.2 Levy 1 0.3 2 0.2
Dasovich and Doran Florida Radiocarbon Database 59 Table 2 continued. Distribution of dated sites and number of dates by county in fl142009v1.xls. COUNTY NO. OF DATED SITES PERCENT OF DATED SITES NO. OF DATES PERCENT OF DATES Liberty 3 0.8 21 1.7 Madison 1 0.3 4 0.3 Manatee 2 0.6 24 1.9 Marion 7 1.9 16 1.3 Martin 4 1.1 13 1 Monroe 11 3 39 3.1 Nassau 4 1.1 6 0.5 Okaloosa 13 3.6 49 3.9 Orange 2 0.6 4 0.3 Palm Beach 8 2.2 16 1.3 Pinellas 6 1.7 18 1.4 Polk 8 2.2 11 0.9 Putnam 7 1.9 7 0.6 Santa Rosa 4 1.1 6 0.5 Sarasota 11 3 95 7.6 Seminole 4 1.1 5 0.4 St. Johns 8 2.2 16 1.3 St. Lucie 1 0.3 4 0.3 Suwannee 1 0.3 1 0.1 Taylor 3 0.8 4 0.3 Volusia 35 9.7 147 11.7 Wakulla 4 1.1 9 0.7 Walton 11 3 30 2.4 Totals 361 100.0 1251 100.0
60 The Florida Anthropologist 2011 Vol. 64(1) Table 3. Submitter s (AUTHCUL) attribution of cultural affiliation.* Affiliation Count (n) Percent Adena 1 0.1 Alachua 2 0.2 Archaic 166 13.3 Belle Glade 13 1.0 Cades Pond 3 0.2 Caloosahatchee 79 6.3 Colorinda 1 0.1 Deptford 19 1.5 Elliots Point 1 0.1 Ft. Walton 38 3.0 Glades 142 11.4 Hopewell 2 0.2 Kolomoki 4 0.3 Malabar 2 0.2 Manasota 38 3.0 Mississippian 1 0.1 Affiliation Count (n) Percent Mt. Taylor 23 1.8 Norwood 1 0.1 Orange 38 3.0 Paleo 45 3.6 Safety Harbor 7 0.6 Santa Rosa 22 1.8 Seminole 1 0.1 Spanish 2 0.2 St. Johns 91 7.3 Swift Creek 6 0.5 Transitional 25 2.0 Unspecified 441 35.3 Weeden Island 36 2.9 Woodland 2 0.2 Total 1251 100 * Cultural traditions grouped i.e., Archaic, Early combined with Archaic, Middle, Archaic, Late; St. Johns I, II, etc. combined into St. Johns; etc. that obligation. The authors have diligently reviewed and rereviewed this database to fix any mistakes or inconsistencies. Any errors or corrections should be reported to us and we will attempt to address them. Records with known problems which we are trying to resolve are noted in the PROBLEM field. We are continuing to clean up the database.we have recently discovered some duplications and are trying to update the carbon-13 adjustments where possible (this minimally involves double checking the original publications). In other, particularly earlier dating efforts, they were not reported at all. Florida State University has posted the database online in an Excel file and Adobe PDF file format (http://digitool. fcla.edu/r/bcxqc66h6itlgcika1pp6cs8y8e7du V2GQDT2S9C13CNTNER4B-02298?func=collectionsresult&collection_id=1460). As new dates are added the file name will be numerically incremented the current file name is fl142007v1.xls. With the anticipated addition of more dates soon, the new file name iteration will be fl1420xxv1.xls, with the 20XX reflecting the update year. We request all readers to forward us new dates or dates we have inadvertently missed. Please forward them to Doran at gdoran@fsu.edu. Submission ideally should include the radiocarbon lab report and all pertinent archaeological information included in the database (FS, context, level, material, etc.). This information,
Dasovich and Doran Florida Radiocarbon Database 61 the laboratory date forms, and associated archaeological information can also be faxed to Doran at 850-645-0032. Hopefully, this article, and our request, will generate sufficient interest that there will be an outpouring of dates and the next update will be a substantial increase over the current inventory. References Cited Dasovich, Steve 1996 Compilation and Analysis of Florida s Prehistoric Radiocarbon Database. Master s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Doran, Glen H. and David N. Dickel 1988 Radiometric Chronology of the Archaic Windover Archaeological site (8BR246). The Florida Anthropologist 41:365-380. Doran, Glen H. (editor and contributor) 2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Kra, Renee. 1988 Updating the Past: The Establishment of the International Radiocarbon Data Base. American Antiquity 53: 118-125. Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, New York. Stuiver, Minze, Paula J. Reimer, Edouard Bard, J. Warren, G.S. Burr, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Johannes van der Plict, and Marco Spurk 1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000 0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40:1041-1083. Talma, A.Steve and J.C. Vogel 1993 A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 dates. Radiocarbon 35:317-322. Wheeler, Ryan, James J. Miller, Ray M. McGee, Donna Swann Ruhl, and Melissa B. Memory 2003 Archaic Period Canoes from Newnans Lake, Florida. American Antiquity 68: 533-551.