lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e2924

Contents lists avai

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http: / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

Using hearths for temper: petrographic analysis of Middle Woodlandcharcoal-tempered pottery in Northeast Florida

Neill J. Wallis a,*, Ann S. Cordell a, Lee A. Newsomb

a Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Box 117800, Gainesville, FL 32611-7800, United StatesbDepartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 4 March 2011Received in revised form25 May 2011Accepted 28 May 2011

Keywords:CeramicsPotteryTemperPetrographyPaleoethnobotanyFloridaWoodland period

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 352 273 1920; faxE-mail address: nwallis@flmnh.ufl.edu (N.J. Wallis

1 Neill Wallis initiated the project and selectedconducted the petrographic analysis and sherd refirinthe analysis of wood species preserved in the pottery

0305-4403/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.05.024

a b s t r a c t

Charcoal-tempered pottery is uncommon in North America, but was produced with notable frequency inNortheast Florida from ca. AD 300e600. Thirty-six thin sections of pottery were analyzed by petrographicanalysis and compared to 10 clay samples in order to characterize the paste of charcoal-tempered waresin terms of charcoal and mineralogical composition and abundance, assess the number of clay sourcesused to make the pottery, identify the species of wood represented in charcoal inclusions, and infertechniques of ceramic production. This analysis identified four temper categories, three texture groups,and three distinct clay resources used to make charcoal-tempered pottery, all of which were likely local toNortheast Florida. Identified wood taxa include pine (Pinus sp.), cedar (cf. Juniperus sp.), cypress (cf.Taxodium sp.), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum), with pine suspected to be the most common. Thesegenera of charred wood, which exhibit minimal shrinkage in the samples, along with the prevalence ofbone and grog inclusions, indicate that hearth contents were processed as temper, sometimes incombination with quartz sand. Potential reasons for the use of hearth contents as temper are considered.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Wood charcoal is widely available inmany parts of theworld butgenerally has not been a common choice of tempering materialin the production of pottery. Charcoal temper is associated withonly a few archaeological cultures in Africa (Murphy et al., 2001;Robbins et al., 1998:149), South America (Evans and Meggers,1962; Versteeg, 2008:307), the Caribbean (Hoffman, 1982) andChina (Wang et al., 2010). In North America, where charcoal-tempered wares are normally rare, the occurrence of charcoal asa tempering agent appears particularly conspicuous and puzzling.This article presents the first detailed analysis of charcoal-tempered pottery in North America and outlines the probabletechniques of its production.1

A notable fluorescence in the production of charcoal-temperedpottery occurred in a circumscribed area of northeast Floridaduring the lateMiddleWoodland period, ca. cal. AD 300e600. Here,as much as half of all pottery in some site assemblages was

: þ1 352 392 3698.).the samples; Ann Cordellgs; Lee Newsom carried outthin sections.

All rights reserved.

tempered with charred wood, commonly referred to as charcoal,while the remainder was mostly sand-tempered (Ashley andWallis, 2006; Wallis, 2011). The local adoption of charcoal-tempered pottery appears to be coincident with the beginnings ofother cultural practices that continued for 600 years, such ascomplicated stamping on vessel surfaces, mortuary-specific vesselforms, and the initiation of a series of low earthen burial mounds(Wallis, 2011). While an important part of a distinctive culturaltradition in northeast Florida, charcoal-tempered pottery remainsenigmatic owing to cursory descriptions of the ware and lack ofcomparable North American examples.

The purposes of this article are to (a) characterize the paste ofcharcoal-tempered wares in terms of charcoal and mineralogicalcomposition and abundance; (b) infer the number of clay sourcesused to make the pottery; (c) identify the species of wood repre-sented in charcoal inclusions; and (d) infer techniques of ceramicproduction in terms of temper acquisition and processing. Theresults of petrographic analysis of thin sections taken from 36pottery sherds are presented. Each thin-sectioned sherd isconsidered to represent a separate individual vessel. A variety ofpaste recipes are represented in four temper categories and threetexture groups that were distinguished among the samples. Basedon the abundance, in pottery, of mineralogical inclusions that arenaturally occurring in clays, at least three distinct clay resources

N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e2924 2915

were exploited to make charcoal-tempered pottery in the presentsample. Comparisons with raw clay samples and pottery fromadjacent regions demonstrate that all clay resources represented incharcoal-tempered vessels were probably local to the lower St.Johns River area, and sampled vessels at sites in adjacent regionsmay have been locally made as well. Identified wood taxa includepine (Pinus sp.), cedar (cf. Juniperus sp.), cypress (cf. Taxodium sp.),and sassafras (Sassafras albidum), with pine suspected to be themost common. These genera of charred wood, which exhibitminimal shrinkage in the samples, along with the prevalence ofbone and grog inclusions, indicate that hearth contents were pro-cessed as temper, sometimes in combination with quartz sand.

Fig. 2. Distribution of sites included in the study.

2. Archaeological occurrence of charcoal-tempered pottery

Although charcoal-tempered pottery has been recovered fromsites in northeast Florida for many decades, it was identified as suchonly recently (Ashley, 1992; Russo, 1992; Russo et al., 1993). Thisdelay was due to distinctive physical characteristics of theware thatmisled previous researchers. On both interior and exterior surfaces,charcoal particles often appear to have been burned to ash, leavingholes or voids (Ashley, 1998:202; Russo et al., 1993:35e36). Thesecharacteristic surface features led to the misidentification of char-coal as limestone temper, which has a similar appearance when iterodes from vessel surfaces (Sears, 1957, 1959). The ware was alsogiven the simple descriptive appellation “hole-tempered pottery”(Wilson, 1965). Since that time, researchers discovered charcoaltempering by making fresh breaks and examining cross sectionswhere charcoal particles remained intact (Fig. 1; Ashley, 1992;Russo, 1992; Russo et al., 1993). In addition, occasional specimensexhibit intact charcoal particles on vessel surfaces.

Charcoal-tempered pottery has been recorded primarily at sitesalong the lower St. Johns River in northeast Florida; however, it isalso present in minor amounts at sites to the north and south alongthe Atlantic coast (Fig. 2). A series of AMS assays from soot on fourvessels date charcoal-tempered pottery to the Early Swift Creekphase in northeast Florida, approximately cal. AD 300e600 (Ashleyand Wallis, 2006). These dates are corroborated by diagnostic rimson some charcoal-tempered vessels that are notched, nicked, orscalloped, all hallmark forms of Early Swift Creek pottery (Willey,1949). Surface treatments on sand-tempered and charcoal-tempered vessels are most often plain, but complicated stampingcharacteristic of the Swift Creek archaeological culture is alsocommon (Fig. 3; Ashley, 1998:200; Russo, 1992:115; Sears,1957:29).

Sand tempering predominates at many Early Swift Creek sitesbut charcoal-tempered pottery is a consistent minority ware on thelower St. Johns River. The multi-component character of most sitesleads to difficulties in estimating the exact proportions of charcoal-

Fig. 1. Digital scan of a charcoal-tempered thin section (sample CH2005-23; 2.4 cmlong).

tempered wares, but two sites on the Lower St. Johns River withmostly Early Swift Creek components indicate high percentages.Between 28 percent (n ¼ 347) and 44 percent (n ¼ 54) of sherds intwo loci at 8DU17245, and nearly 75 percent (n ¼ 119) of sherdsfrom a sealed midden at 8DU5543 were charcoal tempered(Hendryx andWallis, 2007; Johnson and Ashley, 1994). A minimum

Fig. 3. Charcoal-tempered sherds, Early Swift Creek Complicated Stamped (top), andplain (bottom).

Table 1List of sites and pottery samples used in the petrographic analysis.

County Site name Site number Type Sample numbers

Duval, FL n ¼ 26 Browne’s tract 8DU59 Plain 2005e10Browne Burial Mound 8DU62 n ¼ 12 Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 2005e11, 2005e14, 2005e15, 2005e16

Plain 2005e12, 2005e13, 2005e17, 2005e18, 2005e19, 2005e20,2005e21, 2005e22

Dent Mound 8DU68 n ¼ 3 Plain 2005e24, 2005e25, 2005-31Mayport Mound 8DU96 n ¼ 4 Plain 2005e1, 2005e3, 2005e26

Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 2005e2Greenfield site #7 8DU5543 n ¼ 4 Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 2005e23, 2005e32, 2008e17, 2008e19Tillie Fowler 8DU17245 n ¼ 2 Plain 2008e9

Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 2008e11Nassau, FL n ¼ 2 MacArthur Estates 8NA32 n ¼ 2 Plain 2005e8, 2005e9St. Johns, FL n ¼ 5 Palencia/Marshall Creek 8SJ3149 n ¼ 4 Horseshoe Bayou Comp. Stamped 2005e4

Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 2005e5, 2005e6Plain 2005e7

River Point 8SJ4790 Plain 2005e27Camden, GA n ¼ 3 Sadlers Landing 9CM233 n ¼ 3 Plain 2005e28, 2005e29, 2005e30

3 This sand size index is a variation of that specified by Stoltman (2000:314), inorder to take into account the abundance difference between very fine and fine

N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e29242916

number of vessels calculated during a vessel analysis for these siteassemblages indicated that 66 percent (n ¼ 93) of vessels at8DU17245 and 53 percent (n ¼ 85) of vessels at 8DU5543 werecharcoal-tempered (Wallis, 2011:188). Outside the region,charcoal-tempered pottery is much less common. For example, at8SJ4790, on the St. Johns River about 30 km south of sites with highfrequencies of charcoal-tempered pottery, only 12 percent (n ¼ 20)of sherds were tempered with charcoal (Hendryx et al., 2003). At9CM233, 50 km from the St. Johns River and the northernmost sitewhere charcoal temper has been discovered, only three sherdswere charcoal tempered out of thousands recovered from the site(Kirkland, 2003).

Charcoal tempering seems to have been a local, circumscribedtradition among groups making Early Swift Creek pottery along thelower St. Johns River. This tempering tradition arose amidst majortransformations in material practice, marking the initiation ofmortuary landscape studded with numerous burial mounds, theproduction of new vessel forms used in ceremonial contexts, andincreasing long-distance exchange (Wallis, 2011). While many ofthese cultural traits are similar to Swift Creek cultures to thewest inthe Florida panhandle (e.g. Willey, 1949), the likely source regionfromwhich complicated stamped pottery was probably introduced,charcoal tempering appears to be an entirely autochthonoustradition.

3. Sampling and methods

Petrographic analysis was conducted on thin sections froma total of 36 vessels from 10 sites (Table 1). Twenty-three sampleshave plain surface treatments while 13 are complicated stamped.These proportions mirror the typical percentages of surface treat-ments among charcoal-tempered wares, where plain sherds aretwice as common as complicated-stamped examples (Ashley andWallis, 2006). The sampled sites represent the known geographicrange of charcoal-tempered pottery, deriving from three countiesin Florida and one in Georgia. However, the majority of samples(n ¼ 26) were taken from Duval County sites, where charcoal-tempered pottery is most common.

The petrographic analysis was conducted to evaluate composi-tional and textural variability in the samples. Point counts weremade for quantifying relative abundance of inclusions.2 Thisprocedure utilized a petrographic microscope with a mechanicalstage and followed recommendations by Stoltman (1989, 1991,

2 Point-count data are on file at FLMNH-CTL.

2000). A counting interval of 1.0 mm by 0.5 mm was used, witha minimum count of 200 points. Each point or stop of the stage wasassigned to one of the following categories: clay matrix, void, siltparticles, charcoal temper, grog temper, bone temper, biogenicsilica (sponge spicules, phytoliths, diatoms), and very fine throughvery coarse quartz and other aplastics of varying compositions.Most of the point counts were made using the 10� objective, butthe 25� objective (with plane-polarized light) was used to searchfor occurrence of siliceous microfossils such as sponge spicules,phytoliths, and diatoms. Size of aplastics was estimated with aneyepiece micrometer with reference to the Wentworth Scale (Rice,1987:38). A comparison chart of percentage of particle abundance(Rice, 1987:349, figure 12.2) was also used for estimating relativeabundance of constituents occurring in low frequency. Point-countdata were used to calculate a “sand size” index for each samplefollowing Stoltman (2000:314).3

Microscopic analysis of charcoal constituents was also con-ducted to identify the wood taxa represented in the sample. Thisentailed examination of sherd thin sections by transmitted-lightmicroscopy at magnifications ranging from 40 to 600�, detailingthe cellular characteristics preserved in individual sections, andprocessing the anatomical data through a series of published keysand computerized databases for wood identification (e.g. InsideWood, 2004; Panshin and de Zeeuw, 1980).

In addition to the petrographic analyses, pottery samples ofsufficient size were refired to standardize color comparisonsbetween samples and to assess relative iron oxide content of theclays represented by the samples. This method follows recom-mendations from Shepard (1939, 1953, 1976:105) and Rice(1987:344) to infer gross clay composition from color class ofoxidized clays. It has been used with some success in analysis ofarchaeological ceramics in Florida and the southeastern US(Cordell, 1984, 1992, 2001), but especially in the southwestern US,where this method is referred to as oxidation analysis in studies ofpottery color and composition (e.g. Beck, 2006). A lapidary sawwasused to control the desired size of fragments for refiring, but not allsherds in the sample were large enough to spare removal of pieces.Sherds were refired in an electric furnace at a temperature of 800� Cfor 30 min, conditions that probably exceeded those of the original

sand inclusions. In this version, very fine grains are given a value of 0.5 while finegrains retain a value of 1. Counts of sponge spicules, silt and other matrixconstituents were excluded from this calculation.

Table 2Gross temper groups and surface treatments.

Temper group Type categories Total

Plain Stamped

Charcoal 11 10 21Charcoal & grog 6 3 9Charcoal & bone 3 e 3Charcoal, bone & grog 3 e 3Total 23 13 36

N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e2924 2917

firings.4 Three nominal refired color categories were distinguishedon the basis of gross visual differences and correspondwith relativeiron oxide contents ranging from low to high.5

4. Results

4.1. Paste characterization

Three gross tempers were identified: charcoal, grog, and bone.Twenty-one of the samples contain charcoal temper only, ninecontain charcoal and grog temper, three contain charcoal and bonetemper, and three contain charcoal, bone, and grog temper(Table 2). Charcoal is the predominant temper in all but one casethat is primarily bone-tempered. Although less prevalent amongthe gross temper groups, grog and bone appear to be addedtempers rather than incidental constituents. In contrast, among thesamples with charcoal temper only, grog or clay lumps are inci-dental in three samples, and bone is incidental in another threesamples. In one case, most of the bone fragments were constituentsof grog temper particles. Grog particles containing charcoal temperwere also present (Fig. 4).

In addition to the above tempers, quartz sand occurs in allsherds in varying particle size and abundance, primarily fine andvery fine. The status of quartz sand as an added temper or a natu-rally occurring constituent, or some combination of both, isuncertain. Subangular to angular grains are common in thesamples, but this does not necessarily indicate tempers on the basisof analyses of several Florida clay samples in which angular grainsare common (Cordell, 2004:72; Cordell and Koski, 2003:119[Table 3]). Point-count data for sand constituents6 fall into threetextural categories: low sand, very fine sandy, and fine-to-mediumsandy (Table 3). These textures differ in terms of total amount ofsand constituents and/or relative abundance of very fine and finesand. “Low sand” sherds contain half as much quartz sand as thesandy textures. Very fine sandy texture contains at least two timesas much very fine sand as the other two textures, and fine tomedium sandy sherds contain more fine and medium sand sizes.Mean sand size indices range from 0.66 to 1.37. The very fine sandytexture has the lowest mean at 0.83 and fine to medium texture hasthe highest mean at 1.04. Low sand texture is intermediate, witha mean of 0.92. The differences between textural categories arestatistically significant for mean sand size indices, mean ratio ofvery fine to fine sand, and mean percentages of very fine throughmedium-coarse particle sizes. The statistical significance of thedifferences in textures may indicate conscious selection and/ormanipulation of clays to achieve certain textural ranges. Perhaps“low sand” approximates natural, untempered (except for charcoaltemper) clay sources, whereas the sandy textures may representclay sources towhich very fine and fine-medium sandswere added.Alternatively, each texture category could represent various pointsin a continuum of naturally occurring aplastics. Comparisons showthat there is no significant association between textural category

4 The kiln temperature was initially set at 275 �C and held for 10 min with thekiln door slightly open to allow for the escape of water vapor. The kiln door wasthen shut completely and the temperature was raised to 800 �C. After about 15 min,the 800 �C temperature was achieved and maintained for 30 min. The total firingtime was approximately 75 min.

5 Refired color ranges are as follows: low iron oxide colors have Munsell colorsranging 10 YR7.5/4 to 7.5 YR 7/6 (very pale brown to reddish yellow); moderate ironoxide colors have Munsell colors ranging 7.5 YR 5.5/6 to 7.5 YR 6.5/6 (strong brownto reddish yellow); moderate to high iron oxide colors have Munsell colors ranging5 YR 5/6 (yellowish red to reddish yellow).

6 Sand constituents consist primarily of monocrystalline quartz grains, but alsoinclude polycrystalline quartz or quartzite, feldspars, and other non-opaque crys-talline grains.

and gross temper groups. Each textural category is represented ineach temper grouping, and vice versa. There is a weak correlationbetween texture categories and surface treatment (x2 ¼ 5.21;df ¼ 2; p ¼ .0739) (Table 4). Complicated stamped sherds aregenerally finer in texture than plain sherds on the basis of a lowerpercentage of sand in general and fine-medium grain sizes inparticular. This is reflected in a slightly lower sand size index forcomplicated stamped sherds, but only the differences in the formercriteria are statistically significant.

The percentage of charcoal temper for the pottery sampleranges from a low of 2% to a high of 28%, but the sample breaksdown into four abundance groupings ranging fromvery low to high(Table 5). Samples with low sand texture contain more charcoaltemper, with a mean of 15%, compared with the sandier textures,with means of 8%. Differences in mean percent charcoal abundanceare statistically significant (Table 6).

Particle size of charcoal fragments (and temper voids) was alsorecorded during the petrographic analysis with reference to theWentworth Scale. Themean percentages (frompoint-count data) ofthe different particle sizes are 16% very fine, 20% fine, 24% medium,31% coarse, and 9% very coarse. Medium and coarse sizes werepredominant in most cases. The very fine charcoal fragmentsgenerally lacked the cohesion of the larger grains, although frag-ments separated along predictable anatomical boundaries. Ifcharred wood was indeed processed and added as temper to clay, itis likely that medium and coarse particle sizes were the preferredsizes. Disintegration of fragments during pottery production, frommanipulation of the clay and abrasion from constituent sand grains,might account for most of the smaller charcoal fragments, espe-cially very fine fragments.

A charcoal size index, comparable to the sand size index, wascalculated for charcoal particle size data. The charcoal size indices

Fig. 4. Grog particle containing charcoal (sample CH2005-24; 100�; width of field ofview approximately 0.75 mm).

Table 3Sand6 texture categories.

Texturecategories

Numberof cases

Mean% sand

Mean sandsize index

Mean% silt

Mean ratiovf to f sand

Mean % sand sizes

% Very fine sand % Fine sand % Medium-coarse sand

Low sand 11 13% 0.92 3% 0.50 4% 8% 1%Very fine sandy 12 28% 0.83 3% 1.03 12% 14% 1%Fine-medium sandy 13 32% 1.04 2% 0.30 6% 21% 4%Total 36 25% 0.94 3% 0.61 8% 15% 2%

Table 4Sand texture categories and surface treatments.

Type Sand texture categories Total Mean% sand

Mean sandsize index

Lowsand

Very finesandy

Fine-mediumsandy

Plain 4 9 10 23 28% 0.95Stamped 7 3 3 13 20% 0.91Total 11 12 13 36 25% 0.94

N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e29242918

fall into four categories ranging from fine, with a mean of 1.31, tovery coarse, with a mean of 3.06 (Table 7). Very fine and fine sizesare modal in the “fine” grouping, whereas coarse and very coarsesizes are modal in the very coarse grouping. There is a weak rela-tionship between charcoal size and sand textures. Low sandsamples show a narrower range of charcoal sizes, whereas very fineand fine-medium sandy samples show variable charcoal sizes(Table 6). However, mean charcoal size indices for each texture arenot statistically different from one another. In contrast, there isa stronger correlation between surface treatment and charcoal sizeindex (x2 ¼ 7.3; df ¼ 3; p ¼ .0629), with complicated stampedsamples tending to have finer charcoal particle sizes than plainsamples (Table 8). This difference mirrors the trend between sandtexture groups and surface treatment, where less sandy texturesare also more common among complicated stamped samples.Moreover, bone temper is not present in any of the complicated-stamped sherds in the sample. Thus, surface treatment doesappear to be associated with temper and textural categories.

The ratio of charcoal temper to sand constituents falls into threecategories ranging from very low to low with a mean of 0.29 (less

Table 5Charcoal temper frequency groups.

Charcoalfrequency group

Numberof cases

Mean %charcoal

Mean ratiocharcoal to sand

Mean charcoalsize index

Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range

Very low 6 3% 2e4% 0.10 0.07e0.14 1.78 1.00e2.88Low 12 7% 5e9% 0.29 0.14e0.55 2.32 1.75e3.75Moderate 15 12% 10e16% 0.66 0.30e1.80 1.94 1.23e2.74High 3 25% 23e28% 2.18 1.59e2.88 2.10 1.93e2.39Total 36 10% 2e28% 0.57 0.07e2.88 2.05 1.00e3.75

Table 6Sand6 textures compared to charcoal temper traits.

Texture categories Numberof cases

Mean% charcoal

Charcoal frequency groups Mean chsize inde

Verylow

Low Moderate High

Low sand 11 15% e 3 5 3 2.00Very fine sandy 12 8% 2 5 5 e 1.89Fine-medium

sandy13 8% 4 4 5 e 2.25

Total 36 10% 6 12 15 3 2.05

than 3 parts charcoal to 10 parts sand) to high with a mean of 2.08(more than 2 parts charcoal to 1 part sand) (Table 9). Each ratiogrouping is highly variable in terms of charcoal size index category.Ratio of charcoal to sand is obviously related to amount of sand, andcharcoal temper, but is also somewhat related to the differenttextures (Table 6). Low sand samples show variable ratios of char-coal to sand, but primarily moderate to high ratios. Very fine andfine-medium sandy samples show mainly very low to low-moderate ratios of charcoal to sand. The differences between lowsand and sandier textures are statistically significant (Table 6).

Despite the variability in sand and charcoal temper frequency,the samples cluster together fairly well when proportions of matrix(plus silt), sand, and charcoal temper are plotted on a ternarydiagram (Fig. 5). In terms of the geographic variability in thesample, the textural and temper data are mostly comparable. Thesamples from the two northernmost counties, Camden County, GA,and Nassau County, lack “low sand” textures, include grog and/orbone along with charcoal temper, and represent only clay resourcegroup A. The significance of these characteristics is questionable,however, since this subsample is represented by only five cases.They are otherwise similar to the Duval County samples. The St.Johns County samples have the lowest mean charcoal size index(1.41), but there are only five cases, which are otherwise similar tothe Duval County samples. Perhaps larger samples from the studyregion will reveal trends not apparent in the present sample.

4.2. Identifying clay resources and provenance

Other identified constituents include mica, feldspars, phytoliths,and sponge spicules. These were rare to occasional constituents inmost cases and are most likely naturally present in exploited clays,primarily Pleistocene-age deposits of fluvial and marine origin.Limestone lumps occurred in one case, but these were likely a post-depositional void filler. Three petrographic paste groups wererecognized on the basis of these natural inclusions (Table 10). Thesegroups were previously defined in a prior study of 69 ceramicsamples and 10 clay samples from northeastern Florida andsoutheastern Georgia (Wallis, 2011). Group A (n ¼ 22) is comprisedof the most samples and contains rare to occasional mica, absent orrare sponge spicules, and absent to rare phytoliths. Group B (n ¼ 2)is distinctive in having rare to occasional sponge spicules andoccasional to frequent phytoliths. Group C, characterized by

arcoalx

Charcoal size group Mean ratiocharcoalto sand

Ratio charcoal to sandgroups

Fine Medium Coarse Verycoarse

Very lowto low

Equal High

e 7 4 e 1.21 4 3 43 5 2 2 0.34 11 1 e

3 3 3 4 0.24 13 e e

6 15 9 6 0.57 28 4 4

Table 7Charcoal size groups and mean charcoal size index.

Charcoalsize groupa

Numberof cases

Mean charcoal sizeindex

Mean % charcoal sizes Mean ratio charcoalto sand

Mean % charcoal

% Very fine % Fine % Medium % Coarse % Very coarseMean Range Mean Range Mean Range

Fine 6 1.31 1.00e1.49 32% 35% 19% 14% e 0.33 0.09e0.85 9% 4e16%Medium 15 1.83 1.59e2.00 19% 23% 26% 30% 2% 0.72 0.07e2.88 11% 2e28%Coarse 9 2.25 2.14e2.45 9% 15% 29% 38% 8% 0.69 0.08e2.06 10% 3e23%Very coarse 6 3.06 2.60e3.75 <1% 5% 17% 43% 34% 0.25 0.07e0.46 7% 3e10%Total 36 2.05 1.00e3.75 16% 20% 24% 31% 9% 0.57 0.07e2.88 10% 2e28%

a Group names are shorthand descriptors; fine has modal sizes of very fine and fine; medium has modal sizes of fine, medium and coarse; coarse has modal sizes of mediumand coarse; very coarse has modal sizes of coarse and very coarse.

Table 8Charcoal size index groups compared to surface treatment.

Type Number of cases Charcoal size index groups Charcoal size index Ratio of charcoal to sand

Fine Medium Coarse Very coarse Mean Range Mean Range

Plain 23 2 8 7 6 2.24 1.48e3.75 0.45 0.07e2.06Stamped 13 4 7 2 e 1.73 1.00e2.29 0.78 0.09e2.88Total 36 6 15 9 6 2.05 1.00e3.75 0.57 0.07e2.88

N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e2924 2919

variable frequency of phytoliths and occasional to frequent spongespicules, was not observed in the present sample. Group D (n ¼ 12)is defined primarily by occasional to frequent mica and the absenceof sponge spicules and phytoliths.

The provenance of the clay deposits represented in thesepetrographic groups can be inferred through comparisonwith dataderived from previous research. Wallis (2011:127) notes that clayswith the constituents of Group A are ubiquitous in northeasternFlorida, with four analyzed raw clay samples fitting this profile,along with a predominance of ceramic samples in this groupderiving from the two northernmost Florida counties, Duval andNassau. Group B is not represented by any clay samples, but ceramicsamples in Group B aremost common in southeastern Georgia nearthe Altamaha River, about 100 km north of the lower St. Johns River,Florida. Group D is also not yet matched to any raw clay samples butceramics from this group are overwhelmingly from lower St. JohnsRiver sites.

Thus, the three analytical groups represent at least two local clayresources, Group A and Group D, each of which is likely representedby extensive and multiple clay deposits across the sampled region.The local attribution of these groups is also corroborated byInstrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) of 313 pottery and22 clay samples (Wallis, 2011; Wallis et al., 2010). Two majorchemical groups were defined by INAA, one centered on the lowerSt. Johns River, Florida, and the other near the Altamaha River,Georgia. Among the petrographic samples in this previous study,nearly all samples with the chemical signature of the Lower St.Johns River exhibited Group A or Group D mineralogical profiles.The third resource group identified by petrographic analysis, GroupB, appears much more common in southeastern Georgia, but INAAdata derived from the two charcoal-tempered samples in this group

Table 9Ratio of charcoal temper to sand.

Ratio charcoal/sand group

Numberof cases

Ratio charcoalto sand

% charcoal Charcoal sizeindex

Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range

Very lowto low

28 0.29 0.07e0.56 8% 2e15% 2.09 1.00e3.75

Equal 4 0.99 0.85e1.17 14% 12e16% 1.71 1.49e1.98High 4 2.08 1.59e2.88 22% 14e28% 2.14 1.93e2.39Total 36 2.05 1.00e3.75 10% 2e28% 0.57 1.00e3.75

indicate that they are likely local productions. As might be expec-ted, therefore, charcoal-tempered pottery was made, perhapsexclusively, from local clay resources. The samples from sitesoutside the immediate vicinity of the lower St. Johns River are alsoGroup A and Group D members and may have been imported;however, more sampling is needed to document the range ofvariation in clay resources nearest to these sites in order to rule outproduction at each location. The local resource groups A and Dexhibit comparable ranges of relative iron oxide content on thebasis of refired colors, withmoderate iron oxide content beingmostcommon in both groupings (Table 10). In the present sample, therange of refired colors may represent a continuum in terms of ironoxide content within the given resource clays.

Notably, sand texture categories are correlated with petro-graphic paste groups (Table 11). Omitting Group B, which has only 2samples, Group A is mostly represented by fine-medium sandytexture, while Group D contains samples mostly with very finesandy texture. These distributions are statistically significant(x2 ¼ 9.5; df ¼ 2; p ¼ .0085). This correlation supports the notionthat quartz sand in these samples represents natural inclusionswithin clay deposits rather than intentionally added temper. In

Fig. 5. Ternary diagram (after Graham and Midgley 2000) plotting proportions ofmatrix (plus silt), sand, and charcoal temper.

Table 10Clay resource groups.

Petrographicpaste group

Samplesize

Estimated silt Very finequartz

Mica Sponge spicules Phytoliths Refired color (modal)5

A 22 3e5% 6% Rare to occasional Absent or rare Absent or rare Low to moderate-high ironoxides (moderate)

B 2 3e5% 5% Rare to occasionalin most

Rare to occasional Occasional to frequent Low to moderate iron oxides

D 12 3e10% 11% Occasional to frequent Absent to rare Rare to absent Low to moderate-high ironoxides (moderate)

Table 11Texture categories compared to petrographic paste groups.

Texture categories Petrographic paste group Total

A B D

Low sand 6 2 3 11Very fine sandy 4 e 8 12Fine-medium sandy 12 e 1 13Total 22 2 12 36

N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e29242920

comparison, five clay samples from northeast Florida showedquartz proportions ranging from 14 percent to 43 percent (Wallis,2009:308). Fine sand was the most frequent size category inthese samples, but very fine, medium, and coarse inclusions werealso present in varying frequencies. Therefore, differences in sandtexture among pottery samples may simply reflect variation amongthe three different clay resource groups identified in this study. Analternative, and apparently less likely explanation, is that sandtexture is related to various clay processing techniques and pasterecipes.

4.3. Wood taxonomic assignments

All sherds in a subsample of 21 contained carbonized plantparticles with sufficient preservation of the cell structure to classify(minimally) individual specimens to the correct spermatophyte(seed plants) group, i.e. gymnosperms (conifers, a/k/a “softwoods”)or angiosperms (“hardwoods”) (Table 12). Preservation of theanatomical structure, including the details of small groups of

Table 12List of identified woods by sample number and site.

Sample Site Wood taxa

Conifers Hardwoods UID

Pine Cedar Cypress Uid Sassafrass Bark

CH-1 8DU96 X X XCH-2 8DU96 XCH-3 8DU96 X XCH-4 8SJ3149 X XCH-7 8SJ3149 XCH-11 8DU62 X XCH-12 8DU62 X XCH-13 8DU62 X XCH-15 8DU62 XCH-17 8DU62 XCH-18 8DU62 XCH-20 8DU62 XCH-21 8DU62 XCH-22 8DU62 XCH-23 8DU5543 X X XCH-24 8DU68 XCH-25 8DU68 XCH-27 8SJ4790 XCH-28 9CM233 XCH-29 9CM233 X XCH-30 9CM233 X

macerated cells, is generally very good. In some cases it waspossible to specify genus or suggest potential genera based on therelative anatomical structural integrity. In one sample (CH2005-11;site 8DU62), a ring-porous hardwood (angiosperm) was observedin all three anatomical aspects (transverse, radial, tangential[Fig. 6]), facilitating classification to sassafras (Sassafras albidum[Lauraceae]), native to eastern North America, where it is mono-typic. The same hardwood appears to be present in two othersamples (CH2005-12 and CH2005-13) from the same site (8DU62)as well as one other from the Mayport mound (8DU96; CH2005-1),but much less of the structure is preserved in these cases.

The secondary xylem (wood) preserved in other sherds is clearlyconiferous and appears to indicate two or more genera represen-tative of two families (Fig. 7). Numerous separated early and latewood portions of growth increments highly suggestive of the pinegenus (Pinus sp.) are present throughout the sherd assemblage.Neither axial nor radial resin canals were clearly observed in any ofthe samples, although a few sections appeared to preserve remnantsof these structures. Individual ray tracheids from CH2005-4 (site8SJ3149) with their circular bordered pits and pronounced dentatewall thickenings definitively indicate the hard pines (subgenus Pinusor Diploxylon), which includes all the southern “hard” or “yellow”

pines (e.g. longleaf pine, Pinus palustris; slash pine, Pinus elliottii,etc.). The combination of smaller diameter tracheids and weakgrowth ring structure, alongwith, in some cases, intercellular spacesat the rounded corners of the longitudinal tracheids, ray paren-chyma with nodular end walls, and possibly axial parenchyma,signal the presence of one or more additional softwood taxa. Thecedar family (Cupressaceae), including Atlantic white-cedar (Cha-maecyparis thyoides), but particularly red cedar (Juniperus silicola,Juniperus virginiana) is indicated as a very probable match (Fig. 8).Alternatively, other coniferous tissue with larger diameter, moreangular (square outline in transverse perspective) axial tracheidsmost likely represents cypress (Taxodium sp., Taxodiaceae), anothernative conifer (Fig. 9). Bark, specifically secondary phloem, andpossibly conifer, is indicated for one sample (Fig. 10).

In summary, carbonized wood fragments identified as pine,along with others that are very likely also pine, are ubiquitousthroughout the assemblage, while cedar, cypress, and sassafras arealso indicated for a few specimens. The abundance of southern hardpine, a common fuel wood in the southeastern coastal plain region(Newsom, 1998; Newsom and Ruggiero, 1998; Trieu and Newsom,2000), supports the contention that hearth contents were usedfor temper. The other represented taxa were probably not usedroutinely in hearths and require other explanations. Cypress is nota common fuel wood in Florida and Georgia hearths perhaps owingto its comparatively low density7 and lack of resins. Cypress incarbonized wood assemblages conceivably represents either an

7 For example, the average specific gravity (ameasure of relative density) of longleafpine is 0.59 (ovendry) compared with 0.46 for bald cypress.Woods with basic specificgravities of 0.36 or less are considered to be light (low density); 0.36 to 0.50, moder-ately light to moderately heavy; above 0.50, heavy (Panshin and de Zeeuw, 1980).

Fig. 7. CH2005-12, transverse (cross) section (100�), conifer, showing one completegrowth increment bordered by two incomplete increments (width of field of viewapproximately 0.80 mm).

Fig. 6. Sample CH2005-11, sassafras, 100�: (a) transverse (cross) section, width of fieldof view approximately 0.75 mm (b) radial section, width of field of view approximately0.90 mm (c) tangential longitudinal section, width of field of view approximately0.75 mm.

Fig. 8. CH2005-1, transverse (cross) section (250�), possibly cedar (width of field ofview approximately 0.30 mm).

N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e2924 2921

occasionally convenient wood source that was proximate to somesites near wetlands, or waste wood from the manufacture of toolsor other artifacts (Purdy,1991). Cedar and sassafras, rather than fuelwood, per se, also might have been placed in hearths as thecombustible byproducts of wood technology, preparation ofmedicinal substances and/or for their aromatic properties (Elias,1980:154e155; 210; Moerman, 1986:241e249; 444e445). Inaddition, both cedar and sassafras may have been chosen for their

distinctive red-tinted heartwood, aromatic and perhaps alsocombustion properties. Because of extremely flammable exudates,red cedar in particular burns intensely at high temperatures,producing a bright red flame.

Sassafras wood is moderately heavy, moderately hard, andbrittle, thus it is considered an inferior wood for construction orfuel wood purposes; however the essential oil (“oil of sassafras”) ispresent nearly throughout the plant, especially the bark of theroots, rendering all parts of the tree aromatic, including fresh-cutwood surfaces (Elias, 1980:210; Panshin and de Zeeuw,1980:587e588; Record and Hess, 1943:216). In historic andethnographic accounts, sassafras was widely used by NativeAmericans throughout its range in the eastern Woodlands, espe-cially as a curative, which was often made by infusions (“sassafrastea”) of the root and root bark (Moerman, 1986:444e445; Recordand Hess, 1943:216; Swanton, 1928:657). Cedar wood likewise islightweight, brittle and weak, but all parts of the tree were usedtraditionally for medicinal purposes (Moerman, 1986:241e249)and the leafy branches burned as a smudge in ritual practice(Herron, 2002). The oil of cedar prevalent throughout the plant ishighly aromatic (Elias, 1980:154e155). Cedar wood also reportedly

Fig. 9. CH2005-29, transverse (cross) section (40�, possibly cypress, showing growthrings. Wood is considerably burn distorted (width of field of view approximately1.88 mm).

Table 13Shrinkage variability for charcoal temper by sand texture.

Texture group Shrinkage Total

None to low None to moderate Moderate to high

Low sand 1 10 e 11Very fine sandy 4 8 e 12Fine-medium

sandy4 5 2 11a

Total 9 23 2 34a

a Two cases with just charcoal temper voids (shrinkage unknown).

N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e29242922

has been used to make dye in some cases (Densmore, 1928:370).Cedar only occurs in one sample, from a burial mound (8DU96).Sassafras occurs in the same sample from 8DU96 and in threeadditional samples from another burial mound (8DU62). The lattersite, however, postdates the Early Swift Creek phase by severalcenturies and the sampled sherds were probably inadvertentlyincorporated with mound fill (Ashley, 2006; Sears, 1957, 1959).Regardless, cedar and sassafras show a restricted distribution thatmay be related to ceremonial andmortuary contexts inwhich thesewoods were used in hearths for their bright red colors and/oraromatic properties. However, the small sample size precludesfurther discussion of the significance of this distribution.

4.4. Shrinkage variability

Charcoal inclusions within the paste of charcoal-temperedvessels are sometimes surrounded by void space that is the resultof partial recombustion and shrinkage of charcoal fragments duringvessel firing or use over fire. Shrinkage was evaluated subjectivelyduring petrographic analysis and varied from none (for example,Fig. 8), low (Fig. 7), moderate (Fig. 6b [low to moderate], Fig. 6c

Fig. 10. CH2005-3 (40�), longitudinal section, secondary phloem (bark) (width of fieldof view approximately 2.12 mm).

[moderate to high]) to high (Figs. 6a and 10). Most samples dis-played some combination (e.g. Fig. 9). Shrinkage among charcoalfragments within a single pottery sample was often highly variable,some exhibiting no shrinkage and others a moderate amount. Thesamples were assigned to one of three categories, taking intoaccount this variability (Table 13). In fact, the most variable cate-gory, “none tomoderate”was themost common, followed by “noneto low.” This within-sample variation indicates that wood atvarious stages of combustion was added to the paste duringmanufacture. Shrinkage was not significantly correlated withsurface treatment or paste characteristics. The generally low degreeof observed shrinkage indicates that charcoal, rather than unfiredwood, was added to the paste during manufacture. In addition, thevariability of shrinkagewithin a given sample is consistent with theidea that hearth contents were processed as temper, as hearths arelikely to have contained wood charcoal in various states ofcombustion.

5. Summary and conclusions

To summarize the findings of this study, the paste of charcoal-tempered vessels is characterized by frequent to common char-coal inclusions and quartz sand, of varying proportions, as well asgenerally smaller amounts of bone and grog temper. Four grosstemper categories and three sand texture categories were identi-fied. Comparisons show that each gross temper grouping (charcoal;charcoal and bone; charcoal and grog; charcoal, grog, and bone) ischaracterized by variable quartz sand texture, ratio of charcoal tosand temper, and charcoal sizes. Charcoal sizes ranged from veryfine to very coarse (Wentworth scale), with coarse and mediumsizes the most common. Sand and charcoal sizes are weaklycorrelated with surface treatment, with complicated stampedsamples generally having smaller quartz grains and charcoal frag-ments. Wood charcoal was added to clay in variable ratios, rangingfrom 0.3 to 2 in charcoal/quartz ratio. Relative amounts of recordedshrinkage were variable, even within samples, but shrinkage wasprimarily absent or low.

Three clay resource groups are represented in the sample,comparable to groupings defined in a larger study of Early and LateSwift Creek pottery (Wallis, 2011). All of these clay resources werelikely derived from local deposits near the lower St. Johns River. Astatistically significant correlation between clay resource groupsand sand sizes indicates that quartz sands may be natural inclu-sions in clays rather than added temper. Refiring results indicatethat most samples have moderate iron oxide content.

The identified woods are dominated by conifers, primarily pine,along with two additional taxa, almost certainly red cedar andcypress. At least one type of hardwood, sassafras, was also repre-sented in the sample. Cedar and sassafras were identified onlywithin assemblages from burial mounds, but only one of thesesamples was intentionally deposited within the mound.

In sum, charcoal temper is of fairly consistent size but widelyvariable proportions, often associated with bone and grog

N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e2924 2923

inclusions, showsminimal (though variable) evidence of shrinkage,and primarily consists of conifers (mostly pine). Thus, inmost cases,it appears that wood charcoal from hearths was crushed to rela-tively uniform sizes for use as temper. While charcoal seems tohave been the primary desired constituent, in the course of pro-cessing hearth contents the detritus of repeated cooking (bone andgrog) was also incorporated. Ash from hearths also may have beenincluded as temper, but if ash were specifically targeted we wouldexpect to see much smaller charcoal fragments, an abundance ofphytoliths, and much greater porosity in the samples. Given theconsistent size of temper particles, charcoal, along with commensalconstituents of hearths, was likely processed by pounding, andpossibly, sieving. Processing the hearth contents appears to havebeen conducted with more consistency for the production ofcomplicated-stamped vessels, in which finer charcoal particlesseem to have been desired. A possible reason for this correlation isthat fine charcoal particles allowed for more discernable impres-sions from carved wooden paddles, as opposed to the severelypocked vessel surfaces caused by large charcoal particles thatburned out during firing and cooking.

These data seem to indicate that charcoal temper derived fromhearth contents, but the reasons for this practice remain enigmatic.Why was charcoal selected as temper? Charcoal is widely availableand relatively easy to process, but quartz sand, the temper used inthe majority of contemporaneous vessels, is probably even moreubiquitous and requires less preparation. Technofunctionalconsiderations may have been the impetus for the use of charcoal.Generally, organic tempers strengthen greenware bodies, yieldlighter finished vessels, and have an insulating effect. In contrast,mineral tempers tend to weaken unfired vessels, make themheavier, and are conductive, rather than insulating (Schiffer andSkibo, 1987; Skibo et al., 1989). However, charcoal-temperedvessels do not seem to have been designed for unique cookingtasks. Vessel morphology among sand-tempered and charcoal-tempered vessels is nearly identical (Wallis, 2011). Most charcoal-tempered and sand-tempered vessels are thin-walled, sub-conical, and designed for direct-heat cooking. Moreover, non-cooking vessel forms that were deposited within burial moundscome in both sand-tempered and charcoal-tempered forms. Thus,the functions of charcoal-tempered vessels seem to have beenidentical to sand-tempered ones. However, theweight and strengthof vessels may have been an actual consideration. Perhaps charcoaltemper imparted added strength during vessel forming yet offereda lightweight constituent that was an important consideration formobile Early Swift Creek groups or for producing items forexchange. The improved wet strength imparted by charcoal temperalso may have enabled stamped designs to be more clearly applied,but for this advantage to be realized, potters would have used smallparticle sizes that did not leave pocked vessel surfaces after firing.

There may have been also symbolic reasons to adopt charcoal astemper. For example, sacred fire was at the center, literally andfiguratively, of the life of protohistoric and historic southeasternIndian towns (Hudson, 1976:126; Lankford, 2008:21). Fire wasviewed as a reflection of the sacred sun of the Above World andcarried considerable symbolic potency (Lankford, 2008:21). Redcedar, especially, may have been symbolically linked to sacred firedue to the red color of its heartwood and the flames it producedwhen burned. Perhaps its aroma was also important. Hearths werealso central to the practices of houses and families, providingessential heat for warmth and cooking as well as light during thenight. Assuming some degree of continuity in the significance offire among Middle Woodland populations, incorporating into thepaste of vessels the spent fuel of sacred fire that also had indexicallinks to particular houses or families may have been a salientsymbolic act. Given the apparent circumscribed distribution of

charcoal-tempered pottery, it is tempting to view the incorporationof hearth contents into vessel paste as an affirmation of particularsocial groups who lived near the lower St. Johns River. In any case,such possibilities will requiremore archaeological evidence and arebeyond the scope of this article.

For the future, we intend to look more closely at hearths in SwiftCreek contexts to further address the question of whether hearthcontents or specific wood species were selected for temper. Largersample sizes will help explore the possibility of chronological andgeographical differences in the amounts of charcoal and wood taxathat were added to pottery. As preserved hearth contents, charcoaltemper may prove to be a paleoenvironmental proxy and alsoimplicate the use of particular types of wood in particular contexts,as might be indicated among habitation sites and burial mounds.

Acknowledgments

Pottery samples weremade available courtesy of EnvironmentalServices Inc. (ESI), Florida Archeological Services (FAS), FloridaMuseum of Natural History (FLMNH), Jacksonville Museum ofScience and History (MOSH), Southeastern ArchaeologicalResearch, Inc. (SEARCH), and the Southern Georgia ArchaeologicalResearch Team (SOGART). For their help with each of these orga-nizations’ respective collections, we especially thank Brent Handley(ESI) and Greg Hendryx (formerly of ESI), Robert Johnson (FAS),Elise LeCompte (FLMNH), Christy Leonard (MOSH), Betsy Carlsonand Anne Stokes (SEARCH), and Dwight Kirkland (SOGART). Wealso thank Keith Ashley and two anonymous reviewers, whosecomments significantly improved this work.

References

Ashley, Keith H., 1992. Swift Creek Manifestations along the lower St. Johns River.The Florida Anthropologist 45, 127e138.

Ashley, Keith H., 1998. Swift Creek traits in northeastern Florida: ceramics, mounds,and middens. In: Williams, M., Elliott, D.T. (Eds.), A World Engraved: Archae-ology of the Swift Creek Culture. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa,pp. 197e221.

Ashley, Keith H., 2006. Colorinda and its place in northeastern Florida history. TheFlorida Anthropologist 59 (2), 91e100.

Ashley, Keith H., Wallis, Neill J., 2006. Northeastern Florida Swift creek: overviewand future research directions. The Florida Anthropologist 59, 5e18.

Beck, Margaret E., 2006. Linking finished ceramics to raw materials: oxidized colorgroups for lowland desert clays. Kiva: The Journal of Southwestern Anthro-pology and History 72 (1), 93e118.

Cordell, Ann S., 1984. Ceramic Technology at a Weeden Island Period Site in NorthFlorida. Ceramic Notes, No. 2. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Tech-nology Laboratory, Florida State Museum, Gainesville.

Cordell, Ann S., 1992. Technological investigation of pottery variability in southwestFlorida. In: Marquardt, William H. (Ed.), Culture and Environment in theDomain of the Calusa. Monograph, vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology and Paleo-environmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 105e189.

Cordell, Ann S., 2001. Continuity and Change in Apalachee Pottery Manufacture. In:University of South Alabama Anthropological Monograph, vol. 9 Mobile.

Cordell, Ann S., 2004. Paste variability and possible manufacturing origins of fiber-tempered pottery from Florida. In: Saunders, R., Hayes, C.T. (Eds.), Early Pottery:Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast. Universityof Alabama Press, pp. 63e104.

Cordell, Ann S., Koski, Steven H., 2003. Analysis of a spiculate clay from LakeMonroe, Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56, 113e125.

Densmore, Frances, 1928. Uses of Plants by the Chippewa Indians. In: SmithsonianInstitution, Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report, vol. 44 WashingtonD.C.

Elias, Thomas S., 1980. The Complete Trees of North America: Field Guide andNatural History. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

Evans, Clifford, Meggers, Betty J., 1962. Use of organic temper for carbon 14 datingin lowland South America. American Antiquity 28, 243e245.

Graham, David J., Nicholas, G. Midley, 2000. Graphical Representation of ParticleShape using Trianglular Diagrams: An Excel Spreadsheet Method. TechnicalCommunication in Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 25, 1473e1477.

Hendryx, Greg S., Seip, Ryan, Nash, Jennifer, 2003. Cultural Resource Managementat River Point P.U.D. Parcel: Survey and Site Testing at 8SJ4790 and 8SJ4791.Report on file, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Hendryx, Greg S., Wallis, Neill J., 2007. The woodland period in northeastern Flor-ida: a view from the Tillie Fowler site. The Florida Anthropologist 60, 179e200.

N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 2914e29242924

Herron, Scott M., 2002. Ethnobotany of the Anishinaabek northern Great LakesIndians. Ph.d. dissertation, Department of Plant Biology, Southern IllinoisUniversity, Carbondale. University Microfilms International.

Hoffman Jr., Charles A., 1982. Trash tempering in Aboriginal west Indian pottery.Caribbean Journal of Science 18, 129e131.

Hudson, Charles, 1976. The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press,Knoxville.

Inside Wood. 2004-onwards. Published on the Internet. http://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search [accessed march 2005].

Johnson, Robert E., Ashley, Keith H., 1994. Phase II Archeological Investigations atSites 8DU5541, 8DU5542, and 8DU5543 at the Queen’s Harbour Yacht andCountry Club, Duval County, Florida. Report on file, Division of HistoricalResources, Tallahassee.

Kirkland, S. Dwight, 2003. Human Prehistory at the Sandlers landing site, CamdenCounty, Georgia. Early Georgia 31, 107e192.

Lankford, George E., 2008. Some cosmological motifs in the southeastern ceremo-nial complex. In: Kent Reilly, F., Garber, James F. (Eds.), Ancient Objects andSacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography. University ofTexas Press, Austin, pp. 8e38.

Moerman, Daniel E., 1986. Medicinal Plants of North America. Research Reports inEthnobotany, Contribution 2. In: University of Michigan Museum of Anthro-pology Technical Reports, vol. 9 Ann Arbor.

Murphy, L.A., Murphy, M.L., Robbins, L.H., 2001. Pottery from the White PaintingsRock Shelter, Tsodilo Hills, Botswana. Nyame Akuma 55, 2e7.

Newsom, L.A., 1998. Archaeobotanical research at the Shell Ridge Midden, Palmersite (8So2), Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 51 (4),207e222.

Newsom, L.A., Ruggiero, L., 1998. Archaeobotany. Chapter 8. In: Hargrave, M.,McGimsey, C.R., Wagner, M.J., Newsom, L.A., Ruggiero, L., Breitburg, E., Norr, L.(Eds.), The Yuchi Town Site (1RU63), Russell County, Alabama: An Assessmentof the Impacts of Looting U.S. Army COE, USACERL Special Report 98/48,Champaign, Illinois.

Panshin, A.J., de Zeeuw, Carl, 1980. Textbook of Wood Technology: Structure,Identification, Properties, and Uses of the Commercial Woods of the UnitedStates and Canada, fourth ed. McGraw- Hill, Inc., New York.

Purdy, Barbara A., 1991. The Art and Archaeology of Florida’s Wetlands. CRC Press,Boca Raton, Florida.

Record, Samuel J., Hess, Robert W., 1943. Timbers of the New World. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven, Conn.

Rice, Prudence M., 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.

Robbins, Lawrence H., Murphy, Michael L., Campbell, Alec C., Brook, George A., 1998.Intensive mining of specular hematite in the Kalahari ca. a.d. 800e1001. CurrentAnthropology 39, 144e150.

Russo, Michael, 1992. Chronologies and cultures of the St. Marys region of northeastFlorida and southeast Georgia. The Florida Anthropologist 45, 107e126.

Russo, Michael, Cordell, Ann S., Ruhl, Donna L., 1993. The Timucuan Ecological andHistorical Preserve Phase III Final Report. National Park Service, SoutheastArcheological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Schiffer, Michael B., Skibo, James M., 1987. Theory and experiment in the study oftechnological change. Current Anthropology 28, 595e622.

Sears, William H., 1957. Excavations on the lower St. Johns River, Florida. In:Contributions of the Florida State Museum, vol. 2 Gainesville.

Sears, William H., 1959. Two Weeden Island Period Burial Mounds, Florida. Gain-esville. In: Contributions of the Florida State Museum, vol. 5.

Shepard, Anna O., 1939. Technology of La Plata pottery. In: Morris, Earl H. (Ed.),Archaeological Studies in the La Plata District, Southwestern Colorado andNorthwestern New Mexico. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication, vol.519, pp. 249e287. Washington, D.C.

Shepard, Anna O., 1953. Notes on color and paste composition. In: ArchaeologicalStudies in the Petrified Forest National Monument, by Fred Wendorf. Museumof Northern Arizona Bulletin, vol. 27, pp. 177e193. Flagstaff.

Shepard, Anna O., 1976. Ceramics for the Archaeologist. In: Carnegie Institution ofWashington Publication, vol. 609 Washington, D.C.

Skibo, James M., Schiffer, Michael B., Reid, Kenneth C., 1989. Organic-temperedpottery: an experimental study. American Antiquity 54, 122e146.

Stoltman, B. James, 1989. A quantitative approach to the petrographic analysis ofceramic thin sections. American Antiquity 54 (1), 147e160.

Stoltman, B. James, 1991. Ceramic petrography as a technique for documentingcultural interaction: an example from the Upper Mississippi Valley. AmericanAntiquity 56 (1), 103e120.

Stoltman, B. James, 2000. The Role of Petrography in the study of archaeologicalceramics. In: Goldberg, Paul, Holiday, Vance T., Reid Ferring, C. (Eds.), EarthSciences and Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 297e326.

Swanton, John R., 1928. Religious Beliefs and Medical Practices of the Creek Indians.In: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report, vol.42 Washington D.C.

Trieu, D.A., Newsom, L.A., 2000. Analysis of Archaeologically Recovered PlantMaterials from Ft. Stewart, Georgia (9BN33 and 9BN36). Report to M. Russo,Southeast Archaeological Center (NPS), Tallahassee, Florida.

Versteeg, Aad H., 2008. Barrancoid and Arauquinoid mound builders in coastalSuriname. In: Silverman, Helaine, Isbell, William Harris (Eds.), The Handbook ofSouth American Archaeology. Springer, New York, pp. 303e318.

Wallis, Neill J., 2009. Locating the Gift: Swift Creek Exchange on the Atlantic Coast,AD 200 to 800. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University ofFlorida, Gainesville.

Wallis, Neill J., 2011. The Swift Creek Gift: Vessel Exchange on the Atlantic Coast.University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Wallis, Neill J., Boulanger, Matthew, Glascock, Michael D., Ferguson, Jeffrey R., 2010.Woodland period ceramic provenance and the exchange of Swift Creekcomplicated stamped pottery in the Southeastern United States. Journal ofArchaeological Science 37, 2598e2611.

Wang, Wei-Ming, Ding, Jin-Long, Shu, Jun-Wu, Chen, Wei, 2010. Exploration of earlyrice farming in China. Quaternary International 227, 22e28.

Willey, Gordon R., 1949. Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. In: SmithsonianMiscellaneous Collections, vol. 113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Wilson, Rex L., 1965. Excavations at the Mayport Mound, Florida. In: Contributionsof the Florida State Museum, vol. 13 Gainesville.