Comments on Some Ceramic Pastes of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast more

68 COMMENTS ON SOME CERAMIC PASTES OF THE CENTRAL PENINSULAR GULF COAST Jeffrey M. Mitchem Introduction The purpose of this paper is to reex- amine several assumptions which archae- ologists have made in interpreting pot- tery from sites in Central Peninsular Gulf Coast Florida. The study of new and overlooked data from Florida and else- where reveals the need to question some past interpretations as well as to inves- tigate certain aspects of pottery in more detail. Much of the archaeological literature from Florida deals with pottery. It is used to date sites, to infer cultural connections, and to identify patterns of trade and interaction, among other things. Often, ceramic artifacts are the only source of such information from a site, and are therefore exceedingly valuable for interpreting past human behavior. Gordon R. Willey (1949a) produced the first major work describing and classi- fying the types of pottery found in archaeological sites along the Florida Gulf Coast. Many of his descriptions are still used today, and even though subse- quent work has altered some of his ori- ginal interpretations (Bullen 1968; Luer and Almy 1980, 1982), his basic chrono- logy stands unmodified. Mica In peninsular Florida, the presence of mica in the paste is often considered evidence that a particular vessel was manufactured in northwest Florida or Georgia and traded south. Ripley P. Bullen (1971:8) made this assumption in discussing the results of his analysis of artifacts from the Sarasota County Mound, where he stated: Micaceous material is commonly found in clay deposits of the Apalachicola region of northwest Florida, and vessels found in pen- insular Florida which contain mica- ceous inclusions are assumed to have been imported from that region. Later in the same article, he expressed this idea as fact: "The micaceous paste sherds indicate trade from northwest Florida" (1971:28). In discussing ceramics from the Crystal River site, William H. Sears (1973:33) also states this assumption: "Following it in the main mound is some Weeden Island material, some sherds of which... are made with a micaceous paste of north- west Florida or south Georgia origins". In neither of these cases is any other supporting evidence cited. A search of the geological literature reveals that these interpretations based on the presence of mica might not be true In all cases. An early publication dis- cussing the clays of Florida suggests that mica is quite common in Florida clays: It [mica] is abundant in the clays of Florida. Few clays of the State are free from it, while in some of those in the western counties it is present in large quantities. The chief mica is muscovite because it is less easily weathered (Bell 1924:73). More recent publications indicate that extensive deposits of kaolinitic clay containing small amounts of mica are known from parts of Clay, Putnam, Marion, Lake, and Polk Counties (Calver 1949:2, 1957:57; Pirkle 1960). These deposits are in a belt approximately 40 km wide and 241 km long running along the Lake Wales Ridge, with an eastern boundary about 16 km west of the St. Johns River. No micaceous clays have been discovered on the Gulf Coastal Plain or the Atlantic Vol. 39 Numbers 1-2 March-June, 1986 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Coastal Plain of peninsular Florida, and there are apparently no deposits located close to the surface south of Polk County (Calver 1949:2; Pirkle 1960:1382). How- ever, this could be due to the lack of sampling of clays and searching for de- posits in these areas. At least one researcher has hypothesized that there might be micaceous clay de- posits along the peninsular Gulf Coast (B. William Burger cited in Mitchem and Welch 1983:144). According to Burger, changes in sea levels in the past and consequent greater erosion of the Appalachian Mountains by the Apalachicola River may have resulted in the redeposi- tion of sediments (including micaceous clays) along various sections of the Gulf Coast (B. William Burger cited in Mitchem and Welch 1983:144). This would seem unlikely, however, because in some areas along the Florida Gulf Coast, littoral (in-shore) currents (the main agents of sediment transportation) move north rather than south (Johnson 1956: 2222, 2225). Regardless of whether such clays occur on the coast, it is not always safe to as- sume that pottery with micaceous paste found in peninsular Florida represents exchange with northwest Florida or Georgia. Obviously, if a classic (in terms of decoration and vessel form) Fort Walton Incised vessel with micaceous paste was found on a Safety Harbor site south of Tampa Bay, it would be reason- able to suggest that the vessel had been traded from northwest Florida. But in the absence of such evidence as vessel form and/or decoration, a central Florida origin must be considered possible. Sponge Spicules Several archaeologists have noted the presence of large numbers of sponge spicules in St. Johns pottery. First mentioned by John M. Goggin (1952:101), the spicules seem to be responsible for the "chalky" feel of St. Johns ware. Spicules are silica or calcium carbonate structures which form part of the skele- tal tissue of sponges (Borremans and Shaak 1986; Johnson 1945:13-14). The spicules in St. Johns pottery are silica, indicating that they are from freshwater sponges. Though identification of spe- cies from spicules is difficult, Curtiss E. Peterson (1971:6) was able to identify the sponge spicules present in some St. Johns pottery to the class Demospongiae and family Spongillidae. Therefore, the deposits from which the clays were ob- tained were probably originally riverine or lacustrine sediments (Borremans and Shaak 1986). Several authors have argued that St. Johns ware was manufactured solely in the northern St. Johns region and traded elsewhere. James B. Griffin (1945:220) was the first to suggest this hypothesis, followed by Vera M. Ferguson (1951:49). Some later authors continued uncritically to accept and restate the hypothesis that whenever St. Johns pottery is found out- side of the St. Johns River drainage, it indicates trade with the people of the northern St. Johns region (Crusoe 1971: 41; Sears 1982:25-27). Some recent studies have challenged this hypothesis with new data. Borremans and Shaak (1986) conducted research in 1976- 1977 which revealed that the spicules present were from freshwater sponges and that spiculite clay deposits were there- fore likely to occur in many different parts of Florida, not just the northern St. Johns area. Thin-section and micro- scopic study of "chalky" sherds from several counties in Florida revealed that all contained quantities of spicules. They further suggested that the spicules act as a natural aplastic, generally making the addition of other tempering agents unnecessary. The use of crushed and burned freshwater sponges as temper in potter's clay is known from ethno- graphic accounts of several South American Indian groups (Linne 1965:29- 31). In a study of St. Johns pottery from Brevard County, Christopher T. Espenshade (1983:185-188) argues that "chalky" wares resulted from the use of local mucks in pottery production. Muck includes soils MITCHEM CERAMIC PASTES OF THE CENTRAL PENINSULAR GULF COAST 69 with large amounts of organic matter present, and are often associated with peat deposits (Griffin et al. 1982). Many of these deposits probably represent old lake bottoms, which would be likely to have had sponges living in them. Based on geological literature and field experience, he was able to compile a map of known and probable muck deposits in Florida (Espenshade 1983:Figure 8.1), which suggests that such deposits are widespread. The frequently noted dark coring of St. Johns pottery (Ferguson 1951:23; Goggin and Sommer 1949:44; Willey 1949a:445, 1949b:98) would seem to fit with Espenshade's hypothesis about the use of muck, because the dark coring would be related in part to the high carbon content of the clay (Rye 1981:114- 118; Shepard 1956:106). The hypothesis that all St. Johns ware originated in the St. Johns River Basin is outdated. Though spiculite clays have not been reported from west peninsular or south Florida, this is undoubtedly due to the lack of collection and study of sur- face clay samples from these areas. "Limestone" Tempering Limestone tempered pottery is found in many areas of the Southeast (Haag 1939), and was produced for long periods in some regions. In Florida, Goggin (1948:8-9) named and described the Pasco Series of pottery, characterized by large numbers of fragments in the paste. He referred to these fragments as limestone, noting that they often leach out of the sherds, leaving numerous holes (1948:8). Pasco pottery is most common along the Gulf Coast north of Tampa Bay, but is also found in smaller quantities to the east and south. Willey (1948:215, 1949a:364-365) de- scribed a similar sand and limestone tempered Florida ceramic series, which he named Perico, based on collections from Perico Island in Manatee County. Though there are differences in vessel form and decoration between the Pasco and Perico series, the paste is oftlen indistin- guishable, both being characterized by large numbers of white, red, and/or brown fragments. The difficulty of distin- guishing sherds of Pasco and Perico pottery has been discussed by Goldburt (1966:55-62, 73). From a technological standpoint, the use of limestone as aplastic ("temper") in pottery is of interest because it has several drawbacks. First, the large particles make a clay mass difficult to shape into a vessel. Second, since lime- stone has a high pH, it can react to acids and leach out of the vessel, leav- ing pitted surfaces or even producing holes extending through the vessel wall (Goggin 1948:8). This has been observed in shell tempered pottery as well (McKern 1935; Shepard 1936). The third, and most significant disadvan- tage of limestone inclusions is a pheno- menon known as "lime-popping" or "lime- blowing". This is a chemical reaction which occurs when limestone or shell is heated to high temperatures (such as during the firing of a pottery vessel), causing changes in the chemical structure which result in rapid expansion of the materials as they cool (Avery 1983:17; Mitchem 1982; Rye 1976:120-121; Shepard 1956:30; Steponaitis 1983:20). Lime- popping can produce detrimental effects on vessels ranging from simple spalling off of surfaces to total destruction of the vessel. Several archaeologists have conducted experiments and recorded ethno- graphic examples of techniques employed by potters to mitigate this effect (Avery 1983; Mitchem 1982; Rye 1976). The last two drawbacks could be avoided by substituting some other mineral in place of limestone. It appears that this may have occurred in some cases, though it is impossible to determine on the basis of present knowledge whether the substitution was intentional. Deming (1975:24), in discussing pottery from a mound in Manatee County, cites one example: These wares were mostly plain and marked by numerous holes, originally believed to indicate places where the assumed lime- 70 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 39(1-2) stone temper had leached out. A negative reaction with hydro- chloric acid followed by closer examination under a microscope and consultation with a geologist revealed the temper to be a sili- cate clay, commonly referred to as "Fuller's earth", rather than limestone. The presence of holes in the sherds probably indicates that some of the ori- ginal inclusions were limestone, which later leached out. But it is important to note that many of the inclusions were not limestone. Recent work on Pasco Series ceramics from many Florida sites has revealed that this is true for a large number of the Pasco sherds examined (Mitchem 1982). Many of the inclusions in the sherds studied did not react to a 5-10% solution of hydrochloric acid, in- dicating that they were not composed of limestone. Many of the sand- and grog-tempered plain ceramics from the central peninsular Gulf Coast region referred to by Luer and Almy (1980:212-213) may actually contain in- clusions of fuller's earth or other sub- stances (identified as "grog"). Fuller's earth has been found at Moundville, Alabama, in contexts strongly suggesting its use as aplastic in pottery manufac- turing (Peebles 1974:79), and it would seem reasonable to assume that west peninsular Florida could also have used it in manufacturing some of the pottery archaeologists call Pasco or Perico ware. But even if we accept that such non- limestone raw materials were used in some cases, it is still unclear whether the choice was intentional or not. There is some question as to whether the inclu- sions in Pasco ware were intentionally added as temper, or whether they occur naturally in the clay. At present, we have no data with which to address this problem. What is needed is study of a large number of clay sources, concen- trating on the area north of Tampa Bay. By obtaining samples of clay sources near sites with predominantly Pasco ceramics, it should become apparent after studying only a few sites whether the inclusions are natural or not. If they appear to be purposely added as temper, the next logical step is to search for sources of limestone, fuller's earth, and other suitable raw materials which the potters may have exploited near their homes. Such data could lead to the recognition of settlement patterns based on the location of those specific re- sources. Conclusions and Implications The major points of this article can be summarized as follows: 1) The assumption that micaceous paste pottery in peninsular Florida sites represents trade ware from Northwest Florida or Georgia is probably not valid in all cases. 2) St. Johns ("chalky") ware found outside of the St. Johns River Basin does not necessarily indicate contact or exchange with the cultures of the St. Johns Basin. 3) Pasco and Perico pottery types may contain fragments of material other than limestone, and the type descriptions for these should be broadened according- ly. These three issues can be studied most effectively by focusing on data on re- source use and procurement. These are the very kinds of data which we are lacking for west peninsular Florida. Earle and Ericson (1977:5) discuss the study of raw materials, using chemical characterization as a means of deter- mining sources and proposing testable hypotheses about prehistoric exchange. Some elemental analysis of Florida sherds has been conducted (Doran 1984), and shows great promise, but similar studies of raw materials have not yet been at- tempted. Specific methods of research can be pro- posed to investigate questions of the manufacture and exchange of pottery in MITCHEM CERAMIC PASTES OF THE CENTRAL PENINSULAR GULF COAST 71 west peninsular Florida. The results of such studies could greatly expand our knowledge of the development and inter- action of Florida's aboriginal cultures. Most importantly, attempts should be made to locate clay sources near known sites. Studies by Arnold (1975:192, 1985:50) have indicated that potters tend to ob- tain the primary raw materials for pot- tery making from within a five to seven kilometer radius of their place of resi- dence. Following Espenshade's (1983) example, archaeologists should first consult soil survey maps to determine if known clay sources are in the vicinity of the site(s) under study. When promising locations are visited, exposed areas (especially river or stream beds or sinkholes) can be examined to search for likely clay sources. Samples can be taken, allowed to dry, and examined by whatever techniques are available to obtain data for comparison with sherd data. A similar technique can be used to search for and study other raw materials available near sites, such as limestone outcrops or fuller's earth de- posits. Though sophisticated chemical and physi- cal analyses are very useful, the identi- fication of mica or sponge spicules can be performed using a microscope. Spic- ules can be identified at lOx or greater magnification, as can flecks of mica. Limestone can be identified by testing suspected fragments with a 5 or 10% solution of hydrochloric acid (HC1), making sure that the sample is free of small fragments of shell or other cal- careous substances which would produce a bubbling reaction like that of limestone. The discovery of clay sources containing mica or sponge spicules near sites where sherds exhibit these inclusions would of course suggest local manufacture rather than trade. However, interpretations should be made with caution when sampled local clays do not contain the inclu- sions. This could be the result of sam- pling error due to only small amounts of the aplastics being present or their presence only in certain strata or parts of the clay deposit (which might not have been included in the sample). In terms of limestone and other materials used in Pasco and Perico ceramics, the major question involves whether these materials were intentionally added or whether they occur naturally in the clays. This should become quickly ap- parent upon the collection and examina- tion of several clay samples. Other questions follow logically. Did the potters specifically try to collect limestone for use as temper? Did they try to avoid its use, and use fuller's earth or some other material instead (due to the lime-popping problem)? Did they first begin using limestone, then switch to some other material as problems with the use of limestone became apparent? All of these questions can be addressed by the use of technological analyses of clays and sherds. For instance, if the potters consistently used limestone, and it does not occur naturally in the local clays, then they would have had to miti- gate the lime-popping problem by either keeping the temperature low, adding salt, or using some other method (Avery 1983; Mitchem 1982; Rye 1976). Replicative experiments using local materials and refiring of sherds for comparison could be used to address this issue. The study of Florida ceramics offers a great deal of valuable cultural infor- mation. But studies are limited if they are concerned only with sherds (ignoring raw materials) and unsubstantiated pub- lished statements are uncritically taken as fact. It is hoped that future studies will include consideration of the local environmental contexts of pottery as well as the cultural contexts. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank Bonnie G. McEwan and three anonymous reviewers, who read and commented on earlier drafts of this paper. 72 THE FLROIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 39(1-2) REFERENCES CITED Arnold, Dean E. 1975 Ceramic Ecology of the Ayacucho Basin, Peru: Impli- cations for Prehistory. Current Anthropology 16:183- 205. 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Avery, George E. 1983 Salt, Potti and Dlatt Replication Studies of Late Prehistoric Shell-Tempered Ceramic. Unpublished H.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Bell, 0. G. 1924 A Preliminary Report of the Clays of Florida. 15th Annual Report. Florida State Geological Survey, Tallahassee. Borremans, Nina Thanz and Graig D. Shaak 1986 A Preliminary Report on Investigations of Sponge Spi- cules in Florida "Chalky" Paste Pottery. Ceramic Notes No. 3, in press. Bullen, Ripley P. 1968 Report of the Florida-South Georgia Group. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 8:7-10. 1971 The Sarasota County Hound, Englewood, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 24:1-30. Calver, James L. 1949 Florida Kaolins and Clays. Information Circular No. 2. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee. 1957 Mining and Mineral Resources. Geological Bulletin No. 39. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee. Crusoe, Donald L. 1971 A Study of Aboriginal Trade: A Petrographic Analysis of Certain Ceramic Types from Florida and Georgia. The Florida Anthropologist 24:31-43. Deming, Joan 1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Beker Phosphate Corporation Property in Eastern Manatee County, Florida. Mlscellaneoua Project Report Series No. 33. Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee. Doran, Glen H. 1984 Proton Induced X-Ray Emission Analysis of Prehistoric Florida Ceramics. The Florida Anthropologist 37:115-119. Earle, Timothy K. and Jonathan E. Ericson 1977 Exchange Systems in Archaeological Perspective. In Exchange Syatems in Prehistory, edited by Timothy K. Earle and Jonathan E. Ericson, pp. 3-12. Academic Press, New York. Espenshade, Christopher Thomas 1983 Ceramic Ecology and Aboriginal Household Pottery Production at the Gauthler Site, Florida. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Ferguson, Vera Masius 1951 Chronology at South Indian Field, Florida. Publications in Anthropology No. 45. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven. Goggin, John M. 1948 Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Bulletin No. 1. Gainesville Anthropological Association, Gainesville. 1952 Space and Time Perspective In Northern St. Johns Archeology, Florida. Publications in Anthropology No. 47. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven. Goggin, John M. and Frank H. Sommer III 1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Publications in Anthropology No. 41. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven. Goldburt, Jules S. 1966 The Archeology of Shlred Island. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Griffin, G. M., C. C. Wieland, L. Q. Hood, R. W. Goode III, R. K. Sawyer, and D. F. McNeill 1982 Assessment of the Peat Resources of Florida, with a Detailed Survey of the Northern Everglades. Governor's Energy Office, Tallahassee. Griffin, James B. 1945 The Significance of the Fiber-Tempered Pottery of the St. Johns Area in Florida. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 35:218-223. Haag, William G. (editor) 1939 Pottery Type Descriptions. Southeastern Archaeo- logical Conference Newsletter 1(1). Johnson, J. V. 1956 Dynamics of Nearshore Sediment Movement. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 40:2211- 2232. Johnson, Margaret Crile 1945 The Freshwater Sponges of Alachua County, with a Summary of the Known Florida Forms. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Linn*, S. 1965 The Ethnologist and the American Indian Potter. In Ceramics and Man, edited by Frederick R. Mat son, pp. 20- 42. Viking Fund Publications In Anthropology, No. 41, Sol Tax, general editor. Aldine, Chicago. Luer, George M. and Marion M. Almy 1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 33:207-225. 1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 35:34-58. McKern, W. C. 1935 Cell-Tempered Pottery. American Antiquity 1:152-153. Mltchem, Jeffrey M. 1982 Experiments in the Manufacturing Technology of Pasco Series Ceramics from Peninsular Florida. Paper presented at the 39th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, MemphiB. Mltchem, Jeffrey M. and James M. Welch 1983 Ceramics. In Mitlgative Excavations of the South Prong I Site, 8-H1-418, and the Cates Site, 8-H1-425, Hillsborough County, Florida, by James M. Welch, pp. 141- 166. Archaeological Report No. 13. Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Peebles, Christopher S. 1974 Moundvlllei The Organisation of a Prehistoric Community and Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Peterson, Curtiss E. 1971 Summary Report of Microscopic Examination of Aboriginal Chalky-Paste Ware in Florida. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. Pirkle, E. C. 1960 Kaolinltic Sediments in Peninsular Florida and Origin of the Kaolin. Economic Geology 55:1382-1405. Rye, Owen S. 1976 Keeping your Temper under Control: Materials and the Manufacture of Papuan Pottery. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11:106-137. 1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Manuals on Archeology No. 4. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C. Sears, William H. 1973 The Sacred and the Secular In Prehistoric Ceramics. In Variation in Anthropology: Essays in Honor of John C. McGregor, edited by Donald W. Lathrap and Jody Douglas, pp. 31-42. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Ripley P. Bullen Monographs In Anthropology and History from the Florida State Museum No. 4. University Presses of Florids, Gainesville. MITCHEM CERAMIC PASTES OF THE CENTRAL PENINSULAR GULF COAST 73 Shepard, Anna 0. 1936 "Cell-Tempered" Pottery. American Antiquity 2:137- 139. 1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication No. 609. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1983 Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An Archaeological Study at Moundville. Academic Press, New York. Willey, Gordon R. 1948 Culture Sequence in the Manatee Region of West Florida. American Antiquity 13:208-218. 1949a Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol. 113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1949b Excavations In Southeast Florida. Publications in Anthropology No. 42. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven. Jeffrey M. Mitchem Florida State Museum University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 74 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 39(1-2)