Rethinking Weeden Island: Designing Research for the 21st Century
A Draft Archaeological Research Plan for Weedon Island Preserve
February 2008
List of Appendices
Appendix A The Roundtable Topics
Appendix B Summary and Compilation of Roundtable Discussions
Appendix C What Does Weeden Island Mean at Weedon Island (Robert Austin)
Appendix D What Does Weeden Island mean in Florida and the Southeast (Tom
Pluckhahn)
Appendix E Who is the Public and What do They Want to Know? (Rich Estabrook).
Appendix A
The Roundtable Topics
What Does Weeden Island Mean at Weedon Island? Exploring the concept of Weeden
Island as expressed at the type site and in the greater Tampa Bay Region.
Facilitated by Robert Austin.
What Does Weeden Island Mean in Florida and in the lower Southeast?
Facilitated by Tom Pluckhahn.
Who is the Public and What do they Want to Know? Issues and challenges in public
archaeology and interpretation.
Facilitated by Rich Estabrook.
What Can We Know About Weeden Island Symbolism and How Can We Know It?
Facilitated by Jim Knight
How Have Historic Environments and Human Occupation Impacted Each Other at
Weedon Island?
Facilitated by Eric Oches.
Finding the Way Forward: Who Will Fund Research at Weedon Island?
Facilitated by Bruce Rinker.
Appendix B
Summary and Compilation of Roundtable Discussions
What Does Weeden Island Mean at Weedon Island? Exploring the concept of Weeden
Island as expressed at the type site and in the greater Tampa Bay Region.
Facilitator: Robert Austin
Main Concept
How do we define WI?
How did the WI concept come about?
How do we recognize it?
Pottery assemblage, mortuary customs, world view, settlement/community plan/
associated social structure
Core-periphery relationship
o Was Weedon Island and points south a periphery or did it begin here and
expand north?
o Was adoption of WI pottery clinal (i.e., originating in a source area and
considered “cool” to copy and adopt) or does it represent the influence
of a larger phenomenon?
o Sears’s sacred-secular concept: how valid is it?
o sacred-secular (some prefer to use prestige/utilitarian) separation of
ceramic wares is strong on the southern periphery but no so in the
heartland
o north Florida, Georgia, Alabama has more of a tripartite division:
mortuary/prestige/utilitarian
o however in south Florida the separation is more mortuary/utilitarian, rare
evidence for prestige association outside of burial mounds
o What does this mean? Are there non-burial prestige areas at southern
WI sites? How do we identify these in the absence of prestige ceramics?
Methodology
o mineralogical analysis of mortuary/sacred wares to determine trade from
north
o could also do the same for non-mortuary wares to identify intra site
spatial patterning of trade wares
o implications for how WI was adopted by local culture(s)
o need clay source surveys
Subsistence
o Coastal resources important in Florida, not so in north Florida, Alabama, Georgia;
what are the implications?
o Corn in late Weeden Island in Georgia/Alabama, no evidence in Florida; how did this
affect how WI-ism was adopted by local cultures
o Is absence for evidence of corn a preservation issue or environmental (poor soils, no
need due to abundant marine resources)
o bioarchaeology another way to look for maize, stable-isotope analysis of human
remains (stable isotope analysis of Bayshore Homes skeletons by Kelley & Tykot
suggest maize consumption at that site)
o Inability to raise corn may have limited the influence to mortuary sphere only
o Effect of population increase and resource intensification on subsistence base;
implications for site abandonment, later reoccupation
Date needs at Weeden Island
o very little information from areas other than burial mound (Fewkes) and
midden near burial mound (Sears)
o only one C14 date (AD 400)
o no subsistence data
o no intensive, systematic survey with subsurface testing to identify all
internal site components
Comparison with other WI sites
o several sites in Pinellas County span the period from early Manasota
through late Safety Harbor: Yat Kitischee, Maximo Beach, Weeden
Island, Pinellas Point Mound, Bayshore Homes, Anderson
Mound/Jungle Prada, Maximo Point, Safety Harbor
o Establish temporal, social, political relationships between these sites
o waxing and waning of population density through time
o need radiocarbon dates and ceramic seriation data from sites to place
them in time and examine relationships
o need dates from intra-site components at individual sites to develop
chronology of change in site layout and structure through time
o gather together existing data (dates, ceramics, subsistence, community
planning & internal structure) from WI site, WI sites in Tampa Bay area,
and compare these with WI sites farther north
o some of this information is being gathered piecemeal and needs to be
compiled.
-Radiocarbon dates from Yat Kitischee, Anderson Mound, Bayshore Homes, Weedon
Island
-Ceramic data from these sites as well as Maximo Beach, Maximo Point, Safety Harbor
subsistence data from Yat Kitischee, Anderson Mound, Bayshore Homes
What Does Weeden Island Mean in Florida and in the lower Southeast?
Facilitator: Tom Pluckhahn
How is it defined?
o Sacred ceramics
o Caches of pottery
o Plazas/rings
o Platform mounds
How is it shared?
o Trade
o Intermarriage
o Specialized production
o Sodalities and clans
What should we call it?
o “Ceremonial/religious complex”
o “Gulf Coast Middle Woodland”
Who is the Public and What do they Want to Know? Issues and challenges in public
archaeology and interpretation.
Facilitator: Rich Estabrook
Public – Stakeholders
o Public land administrators
o Children
o Collectors
o Advocational archaeologist
o Teachers/schools
o Recreational users
o Transportation planners
o Families – ecotourists
o Public officials
o Tax payers
Actions/Implementation:
o Bring in school groups
o Archaeology in action – Hands-on
o On-going research – Lab/field
o How people used tools (artifacts)
o Ability to see research being done
o Arch Month events
o Artifact demonstrations
o Public buy-in programs
o Site docents
o Have a natural environment focus
o Weedon Island as an “endangered species”
o Archaeological visioning
o Not sandbox archaeology
o Teacher involvement
o Hands-on with artifacts
o Demonstrations
o Focus on households/family activities
o Move beyone the artifact focus
o Deal with climate change
o Weeden Island kids’ lifeways
Public Archaeology in 25 years (2032)
o Arch sites valued by the public
o Increase the value people place on sites
o Integrated into school programs
o Emphasize the destruction that has already occurred
o Teacher training
o Podcast/electronic distribution
o Promote career opportunities
o Reconstruction
o Favorite archaeological sites
o Anti site looting programs
o Video reconstruction of lost sites
Public Buy-in
o Heritage evaluation
o Public survey
o Integration of past with present
o Rotating exhibits
o Signature Arch Month events
o Quarterly events
o Scout events
o Local school outreach positions
o Making replicas; Lending Reproductions
o Experimental Archaeology
o Include public in data collection
o Better marketing
o Friends of WI website
o Strong web presence
o Non-excavation public involvement
o Tours
o School outreach
o Collections management
o Media issues
o update exhibits
Public Archaeology “The others.” Do they need to be involved in public outreach?
o Need a positivist scientific approach
o Put limits on involvement
o Looters as “others”
Implementation
o Increase class visits
o Hands-on materials
Getting across how we know what we know
o Develop themes of interest
o Invite Native American presence
Public Archaeology – What works!
o Public ID Days
o Explain the “value” of artifacts/information
o Work with collectors
o Increasing educational outreach
o Target outreach to key stakeholders
What Can We Know About Weeden Island Symbolism and How Can We Know It?
Facilitator: Jim Knight
Approaches to Weeden Island symbolism:
What are the genres of Weeden Island Art?
o Vessel shapes/incising/modeled effigies
o Carved bone pins
o Carved stone
How much of Weeden Island art is representational?
Requires detailed study of W.I. style or styles
How do you go about studying Weeden Island style/iconography?
Compiling the corpus
o Collecting data bases of images, spatial data (maps), contextual data
How to collect the images?
Sources of rollouts:
C.B. Moore
Mallory McCane O’Connor
Ryan Wheeler
Malinda Stafford
Problems with rollouts
Laser scanning technology – expensive
The next step: An annual workshop on style/iconography
Archaeologists
Art historians
Folklorists
Structural linguists (art as metaphor for thought)
Anthropologist of Art (non-American)
Ethnographic Analogies
After structural relationships/style is understood
Which myths/beliefs are relevant?
How Have Historic Environments and Human Occupation Impacted Each Other at
Weedon Island?
Facilitator: Rick Oches
Characterize dune-ridges and shell cover interfaces
Cultural significance of inter-dune lowlands
o Detailed, contemporary topographic survey
Comparison with Fewkes for 20th century changes
o Compile database of reports, surveys, publications, gray-literature, data
synthesis
o Geophysical survey
GPR
Resistivity
Hypothesized living sites and ground truthing
o Ages of freshwater sources and changes through time
(expansion/contraction)
o Explore anecdotal reports of clay deposits as pottery resource
o Age, cultural use of Boy Scout Lake as portage?
o Canals – Pre-mosquito ditches? (Human excavated to enhance
navigation)
o Freshwater – cultural significance; location in regards to mounds, living
sites
o Cultural significance of circular mounds vs. linear ridges
Tools
o
o
o
o
o
o
Phytoliths
Chemical analysis
Faunal analysis of middens
S(18)O of midden shells; paleotemp proxy
Lidar map – process available data for mapping and survey
Subsurface map – pre-dunes, lower sea level, pre “white sand”
Archaic environments vs. Woodland environments
Much different sea-level, extent, topography, proximity to bay and fresh water
To what degree is W.I. landscape/landforms superimposed on Archaic (or earlier)
human influenced landforms (succession)?
o Paleoenvironment significance of barrier islands and changes/evolution with
Mid-Holocene
o Core lakes, springs for paleoenvironment proxy
Impacts of storms on landscape and occupation
Seasonality impacts on resources, water, and livability
Seasonal vs. permanent occupation
Construct spatial – temporal map of landscape
Changes – GIS layers over time
Public education – Dynamic landscape of Weedon Island and potential future changes
Development
Global warming and sea level rise
Resource Evaluation of stress - abandonment
Finding the Way Forward: Who Will Fund Research at Weedon Island?
Facilitator: Bruce Rinker
Major areas/topics for funding
Public interest ( surprise about archaeology in Pinellas County)
Integrated incremental exposure (K-12)
Internship programs
Ambassadors in community
Research – involve the public (Earthwatch, Explorers Club, Citizen Science)
Weedon Island Preserve goals in management plan
o Play the ecology card “restore environment to pre-conquest period”
o Survey/testing the entire preserve for baseline interpretation
o Regular conferences; professional and popular papers
o Teacher lesson plans: Godmother and Godfather
o USF internships; St. Pete Campus
o Start with professionals with research interest and long-term commitment.
o Market entire project to solicit $, national visibility, give public something to
see
o Models – Kampsville, IL, Center for American Archaeology, Archaeology
Conservancy, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
o County Archaeologist
o Photo ops for County Reps in field; dig it; Charlie Christ with pith helmet
o Long-term commitment by 1-2 local professionals with students, research
assistantships, grad school $
o Research field station – Research plans (competitive) invited annually – Student
$; resident artist, musicians
o Randell Research Center; Pine Island =model; retirees, w/skills, time, $
What are we selling? Who’s buying?
Opportunities: history and pre-history
Ecotourism
Public involvement
“Sell the experience”
Two – three projects for consideration
o Fewkes collection
o Burial material
o Artifacts and archival – improve documentation
Finish old , starting new
o Survey systematically
o Map “holes”, profile and date, then fill methodically (low tech, cost effective)
o Core from tip to bottom of middens
o Detailed topo map of what’s at WIP – deposits; NEH, NSF grants $ for baseline
work for future projects; coordinate with university – PI
o Gateway Tract as part of the WIP studies
o Continuous surveys at WIP; constant stream of information – constant $ money
stream
o Build native houses in disturbed area
o Kids build “mound”
o Value of ethnobotanicals
o WIP “laboratory for climate change over 1000s of years (tap into the green
commitment)
o Parallels to ecology with long-term research
o Landscape evolution/ ecology; WIP shoreline, dunes, etc.
o Clear the site; It’s protected in part by Progress Energy and mangroves.
o Reconstruction = Living history project; “Sun Watch” ancient village in
Cincinnati; Kelso; Moundville; Jamestown; Does not have to be definitive;
Tatham, Citrus County + Story of European contact
o Complete baseline survey
o Synthesize WIP data: Fewkes, Sterling, Willey, Sears, CRM, Graduate student,
USF. This is a chronology for master plan and much needed.
Weedon Island Preserve and beyond
o Ideal location for research
o Link WIP site to other sites, e.g. Safety Harbor
o Think globally, act locally
o Map of cultural treasures; driving tour; such as battlefield tours/patterns and
narrative in SE USA and beyond.
o Break through the “noble savage” myth
o Archaeology – finding patterns; public to see SE pattern
Funding considerations/constraints (staff, equipment, space, and infrastructure)
Over-successful issues: growth and development management, protect from high
demand
Marketing/promotions
Show value of what you have
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Florida NPR television/radio = PR = “buzz” topics
Historical connection between people and WIP
Heritage tourism “1000 Friends in Florida”
Trails for tourist “Native American Heritage trail” – Links with outside
organizations with similar interests
Websites links to/from organizations
“Powwows”
Archaeology Week in March: speakers, contributors, walking tours, artifact
identification - involve Friends of WI (fundraiser)
Website
Competitive applications for public retirees – AARP/elderhostel for fieldwork
Security issues
Work with local collections
Connect with school programs – Legacy funding SWFWMD
Support already present in County Government; Communications, marketing,
publications
Use of popular publications to increase public interest
Creative artists environment/program/workshop with WIP as inspiration.
Progress Energy to promote stewardship goals
Funding Sources
o Florida Humanities Council - $
o “Visit Florida” $
o In-kind materials - $
o State grants – special category grants
o Survey and planning grants (small matching grants)
o National Science Foundation
o Florida Anthropological Society, USF example projects
o Get professional community interested in site again – money will follow
o National Humanities L nomination – coop agreement with SEAC, SERD,
WASO
o List on congressional record, world heritage listing
o Academic grants – NEH preservation and access; funding for archaeology
o Progress Energy involvement (mitigation projects)
o Corporate Sponsorships
o Gulfstream involvement $
o Florida Public Archaeology Network grant to FPAN to support Research
Station at WIP
o “Cocktail” events
o Arts/crafts fairs
o Seminole investment
o FAS chapter alignment
o Corporate sponsorships
o Model – Al Goodyear; Topper site;
o Earthwatch students
o Endowed position with WIP Research Center (last to be funded, first to go);
endowment needs Foundation involvement; public commitment FPAN.
Black tie fundraiser via Friends of WI for projects, endowment, research station.
Get WI on cultural calendars of well-heeled supporters.
State money for support – friendly legislator
Appendix C
What Does Weeden Island Mean at Weedon Island? (Robert Austin)
Main Concept
How do we define WI?
How did the WI concept come about?
How do we recognize it?
Pottery assemblage, mortuary customs, world view, settlement/community plan/
associated social structure
Core-periphery relationship
o Was Weedon Island and points south a periphery or did it begin here and
expand north?
o Was adoption of WI pottery clinal (i.e., originating in a source area and
considered “cool” to copy and adopt) or does it represent the influence of a
larger phenomenon?
o Sears’s sacred-secular concept: how valid is it?
sacred-secular (some prefer to use prestige/utilitarian) separation of
ceramic wares is strong on the southern periphery but no so in the
heartland
north Florida, Georgia, Alabama has more of a tripartite division:
mortuary/prestige/utilitarian
however in south Florida the separation is more mortuary/utilitarian, rare
evidence for prestige association outside of burial mounds
What does this mean? Are there non-burial prestige areas at southern
WI sites? How do we identify these in the absence of prestige ceramics?
Methodology
o mineralogical analysis of mortuary/sacred wares to determine
trade from north
could also do the same for non-mortuary wares to identify intra site
spatial patterning of trade wares
o implications for how WI was adopted by local culture(s)
need clay source surveys
Subsistence
o Coastal resources important in Florida, not so in north Florida,
Alabama, Georgia; what are the implications?
o Corn in late Weeden Island in Georgia/Alabama, no evidence in
Florida; how did this affect how WI-ism was adopted by local
cultures
Is absence for evidence of corn a preservation issue or environmental
(poor soils, no need due to abundant marine resources)
bioarchaeology another way to look for maize, stable-isotope analysis of
human remains (stable isotope analysis of Bayshore Homes skeletons by
Kelley & Tykot suggest maize consumption at that site)
Inability to raise corn may have limited the influence to mortuary sphere
only
Effect of population increase and resource intensification on subsistence
base; implications for site abandonment, later reoccupation
Date needs at Weeden Island
o very little information from areas other than burial mound
(Fewkes) and midden near burial mound (Sears)
o only one C14 date (AD 400)
o no subsistence data
o no intensive, systematic survey with subsurface testing to
identify all internal site components
Comparison with other WI sites
o several sites in Pinellas County span the period from early
Manasota through late Safety Harbor: Yat Kitischee, Maximo
Beach, Weeden Island, Pinellas Point Mound, Bayshore Homes,
Anderson Mound/Jungle Prada, Maximo Point, Safety Harbor
o Establish temporal, social, political relationships between these
sites, waxing and waning of population density through time
o need radiocarbon dates and ceramic seriation data from sites to
place them in time and examine relationships
o need dates from intra-site components at individual sites to
develop chronology of change in site layout and structure
through time
o gather together existing data (dates, ceramics, subsistence,
community planning & internal structure) from WI site, WI sites
in Tampa Bay area, and compare these with WI sites farther
north
some of this information is being gathered piecemeal and needs to be
compiled.
-Radiocarbon dates from Yat Kitischee, Anderson Mound, Bayshore Homes, Weedon
Island
-Ceramic data from these sites as well as Maximo Beach, Maximo Point, Safety Harbor
subsistence data from Yat Kitischee, Anderson Mound, Bayshore Homes
Appendix D
What Does Weeden Island Mean in Florida and the Southeast? (Tom Pluckhahn)
I began by noting that our archaeological predecessors had left us a lot of classificatory
baggage in regard to “Weeden Island.” For example, the term “Weeden Island” was
defined by Willey (1949:6) as simultaneously a ceramic “series,” a ceramic “complex,”
and a “culture period.” The series was the more restrictive term, applied to “a number of
types which bear a very obvious relationship to one another” (Willey:1949:6). For the
Weeden Island series, this included WI Plain, WI Incised, IPI, KI, and a few other. Other
types that we often associate with WI, but which exhibit different tempers or “ware
qualities”, were assigned to different series such as Papys Bayou.
For Willey (1949:6) the term complex was a more inclusive term that referred to a “group
of pottery types or the various series of types that occur together in the same general area
at the same time.” Thus, the Weeden Island complex combined the series of the same
name with other series like Papys Bayou, Little Manatee, and Hillsborough. Willey
equated the ceramic complex with the “culture period.” But is also obvious, if not
explicitly stated, that the latter term included similarities beyond just ceramics, including
settlement patterns, economy, social organization, and disposal of the dead. A few years
after Willey, John Goggin subsumed Weeden Island as part of the “Gulf Tradition” along
with Santa-Rosa Swift Creek. So both Willey and Goggin recognized a larger Weeden
Island “tradition” or “complex” comprised of a number of smaller traditions or series.
Milanich formalized this idea with his definition of a number of Weeden Island regional
variants: McKeithen WI, Wakulla WI, Kolomoki WI, etc. I noted that in recent years, the
emphasis seems to have been more on this diversity within Weeden Island than the unity
of the concept as a regional phenomenon.
With this in mind, for the first two groups I posed the basic questions: Does the term
“Weeden Island” have any meaning as a regional phenomenon? Is it just a ceramic
tradition/phase/period/series/complex like “Lamar” or “Fort Walton” or does “Weeden
Island” have a broader meaning? Reaction to these questions was mixed, but there
seemed to be a consensus that “Weeden Island” does have meaning as more than just a
ceramic series or period and that there was something distinctive and perhaps more
meaningful culturally about “Weeden Island.”
In subsequent groups, I generally started from the position that the term Weeden Island
did have meaning as more than ceramic series and then focused on what that meaning
entailed. Various groups raised four defining characteristics: 1) sacred ceramics; 2)
pottery caches in mounds; 3) plazas and ring-shaped middens; 4) platform mounds. With
the exception of pottery caches, none of these are truly unique to Weeden Island. Nor is
the appearance or character of these traits uniform across the Weeden Island area.
Further, with the exception of a few sites (Kolomoki, McKeithen) these four traits do not
generally occur together. However, there was general agreement that these characteristics
could be seen to overlap and concentrate within the Weeden Island area.
I then tried to challenge people to think about the social significance and meaning of
these presumed Weeden Island traits. I asked the question, What does “Weeden Island”
mean in terms of specific social processes? Here, we were less successful, but we
discussed a number of possibilities to account for the sharing of these traits across the
region, including trade, intermarriage, clans, and sodalities.
Finally, we considered the question of how the larger concept should be conceptualized
or termed. This was perhaps the least successful of all. Many of the participants are
happy to continue calling Weeden Island a “ceremonial complex” or “religious complex,”
consistent with the idea that the defining traits seem to be ceremonial in nature. A few,
however, seemed emphatic about reserving the term Weeden Island for a ceramic series.
It was suggested that any larger phenomenon could be referred to as “Gulf Coast Middle
Woodland” instead of a “Weeden Island ceremonial complex” or similar.
Questions:
1) should we talk about a larger “WI complex” or does this posit a false sense of
uniformity?
2) Jim Knight has recently called for us to stop using the term SECC. How would WI
complex any different?
3) What would define a WI complex internally?
4) How does a WI complex differ from neighboring and overlapping
traditions/phases/periods like Swift Creek, Coles Creek, Glades, etc?
Appendix E
Public Archaeology Roundtable (Richard Estabrook)
Implementation
o Year-round activities
o Teacher involvement
o Move beyond the artifact focus
o Reaching students by adopting a “kids in prehistory” perspective
Public archaeology in the year 2023 (25 years into the future)
o Increase the value people place on sites
o More re-enactment
o Possible reconstruction of an Indian village or settlement
o Strong anti-looting site program
Implementation (Part II)
o Signature events
o Monthly events
o Experimental archaeology
o Non-excavation public involvement
Public Archaeology to the “others” (non-traditional participants)
Native Americans, Ethnic populations, Non-traditional peoples
o Do we need to specifically involve these groups?
o Provide a “scientific” approach to interpretation
o Implemented by
o Developing themes of interest
o Increased class visits/participation
o Invite Native American and other groups to present their interpretations
Public Archaeology – What Works!
o Artifact ID Days (there was some concern about these events)
o Working with Collectors
o Increased educational outreach
o Targeting outreach to specific stakeholders (getting the key people involved)