Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2 (2015) 507–516

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

j ourna l homepage: ht tp : / /ees.e lsev ie r .com/ jas rep

Radiocarbon dating the pace of monument construction and villageaggregation at Garden Patch: A ceremonial center on the Florida Gulf Coast

Neill J. Wallis a,⁎, Paulette S. McFadden a, Hayley M. Singleton b

a Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, United Statesb Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, United States

⁎ Corresponding author.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.05.0092352-409X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 17 December 2014Received in revised form 22 April 2015Accepted 8 May 2015Available online 13 May 2015

Keywords:AMSBayesian ModelingCommunityMonumentalityMoundingRadiocarbonSettlementTemporality

On the Gulf coastal plain of the southern United States, the Middle Woodland period (ca. AD 100 to 500)witnessed the widespread growth of relatively large village communities. At the largest sites, earthen and/orshell mounds dot the perimeters of circular plazas defined by arcs of midden. The impetuses toward aggregationare still poorly understood, but the establishment of grand site plans through construction of monuments by ini-tial occupants indicates that ritual practices seem to have been paramount. This article discusses results of 23AMS assays from an equal number of discrete contexts at the Garden Patch site, a coastal multi-mound centerwith accompanying circular village and plaza. The dates, which are modeled using Bayesian statistics, enablean assessment of the full chronology of mound and village construction and occupation. Two Bayesian modelsare formulated: a four phase model that defines the total site occupation and a two phase model that assessesthe specific timing and tempo of platform mound construction. Results indicate that following an initiallysmall and isolated settlement next to the freshwater pond (Phase I), the organized site plan was made manifestquickly during the 4th century (Phase II). Over a period of no more than a few decades, structures were built atthe future locations ofmounds at opposite ends of the site and the circular village was constructed and occupied.The two investigated mounds were constructed sometime over the following 50 years, with the village andmound complex occupation persisting through the 6th century (Phase III). During Phase IV, another villagewas established de novo on the western edge of the site sometime during the 8th century. The later inhabitantsseem to have entirely avoided the formerly occupied areas of the site butmade use of themounds for ceremonialpurposes. This study corroborates the ritual associations of initial village aggregations in the region and the rapidcreation and multi-century persistence of original site plans.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

During the Middle Woodland period (ca. AD 100 to 500) in thesouthern areas of the American Southeast, formerly dispersed and mo-bile populations increasingly congregated in larger village settlements(Anderson andMainfort, 2002). Circular layouts of villages are commonand are delimited by the arrangements of continuous midden or dis-crete midden piles in rings or horseshoe shapes surrounding plazasmostly devoid of cultural materials (Pluckhahn, 2010; Russo et al.,2014a,b; Stephenson et al., 2002). Larger villages are associated withmounds constructed of earth or shell situated on the perimeter ofplazas. Considerable labor was required to build some of the biggestmounds and the largest sites are conservatively estimated to havebeen home to many hundreds of people (Pluckhahn, 2003). Althoughthe similarities in plan and architecture among Middle Woodlandvillages are widely recognized, the impetuses for aggregation andthe pace of settlement and construction at these sites are less well

known. This study documents the chronology of village settlementand mound construction at the Garden Patch site, a Middle Woodlandcircular village and multi-mound center on the northern Gulf coastof peninsular Florida (Fig. 1). AMS assays taken from 23 proveniencesdocument the rapid pace of construction that followed a pre-conceivedsite plan, occupation of the complex up to 300 years, followed by aban-donment and reoccupation of new areas of the site. This site historyhas important implications for explaining Middle Woodland villageaggregations.

Why did Middle Woodland populations congregate in large circularvillages? Many explanations for aggregation in other regions and timeperiods do not pertain to the Middle Woodland period on the Gulfcoastal plain (e.g., Bandy, 2004; Birch, 2012). A total population increasefor the region has not been demonstrated. Horticulture may haveplayed some role on interior sites, but was not a factor on the Gulfcoast where evidence of domestic plants does not exist (Ruhl, 2000).Warfare was apparently minimal during the Woodland period as thedefensive fortifications, skeletal traumas and warrior iconography ofthe later Mississippi period are also entirely lacking (Knight, 2001).Instead, the common association of villages with mounds and plazas,

Fig. 1. Location of Garden Patch and other sites mentioned in the text.

508 N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2 (2015) 507–516

both the focus of ritual and ceremony in the American Southeast, indi-cate that ritual practicemay have been a “centripetal force” that broughttogether people into larger communities (Pluckhahn, 2010).

Why southern ceremonial centers included large residential popula-tions, unlike the “vacant” Hopewell centers to the north (e.g., Carr,2006), remains unclear. But a close correlation between population ag-gregation and ritual practice is unmistakable at some sites whereplanned site designs were established during initial occupation. Forexample, at Kolomoki in southwest Georgia, by far the largest ofthe Woodland village centers, the basic site plan was establishedduring the earliest phase of occupation, ca. AD 350–450 (Pluckhahn,2003:183–196). During this initial occupation, the plaza, a surroundingcircular embankment, and several small burial mounds were construct-ed and together delimited the layout of the circular village thatwould be occupied for at least two more centuries. While the ultimatecauses for population aggregation at Kolomoki remain uncertain, mor-tuary rituals and other ceremonies clearly were used to establish thegrandiose site plan that quickly became home to many hundreds ofpeople.

In the size of its mounds and the scale of its settlement, coveringnearly one square kilometer, Kolomoki arguably dwarfs all otherMiddleWoodland sites in the American Southeast. Numerous smaller aggre-gated villages may have had similar initiatory construction projects,but few have been adequately dated. With more assays than anyother contemporaneous site in the region, the Garden Patch site chro-nology provides a new opportunity to evaluate the timing and pace ofcoalescent village construction and occupation within a prominentMiddle Woodland community.

Several lines of evidence indicate that residents of Garden Patchwere connected to the larger Middle Woodland social landscape andplayed a significant role in it. First, Garden Patch contains potterytypes of the Swift Creek and Weeden Island cultures, two regionalarcheological cultures associated with aggregated villages inWoodlandperiod northern Florida and southern Georgia (Milanich, 2002;Stephenson et al., 2002). Although closely related in cultural historicalterms, the two cultures can be differentiated on the basis of pottery

assemblages and burialmoundpractices (Wallis, 2013). Swift Creek cul-ture is characterized by complicated stamped pottery and accretionalburial mounds that often contain Hopewell-related non-local artifacts(Brose, 1979). Weeden Island culture is defined by the addition of nu-merous punctated and incised pottery types and quickly constructedburial mounds that contained bundle burials and elaborate mortuarypottery. While the beginnings of Swift Creek culture at ca. AD 200 pre-date Weeden Island, the temporal overlap and historical transition be-tween the two cultures remain poorly understood.

Second, Garden Patch is demonstrably connected to several sites byway of “paddle matches” on Swift Creek Complicated Stamped pottery,in which vessels at more than one site were each stamped with thesame carved wooden paddle (e.g., Snow and Stephenson, 1998; Walliset al., 2010; Wallis, 2011). Paddle matches with the Garden Patch siteinclude one with Kolomoki and one with Block-Sterns, another largeresidential and ceremonial center. Both sites are located hundreds of ki-lometers from Garden Patch. Beyond this direct evidence of connection,Garden Patch also shares at least four general features that are commonat major Middle Woodland residential and ceremonial centers: ahorseshoe-shaped “ring” of midden that defines the layout of resi-dences, a central plaza where artifacts are scarce, multiple burialmounds, and a platform mound. Moreover, diagnostic pottery of theWeeden Island culture is abundant at Garden Patch and denotes a cul-tural affiliation that links the site to other major centers such asKolomoki and McKeithen, the latter in north-central peninsular Florida(Fig. 1). At both sites, elaboratemortuary rituals were amajor emphasisof the community (Milanich et al., 1997; Pluckhahn, 2003). Other con-temporaneous centers to the south of Garden Patch, such as CrystalRiver located some 90 km away (Pluckhahn et al., 2015), undoubtedlyalso played a part in region-wide networks and trends in communityaggregation. But in its direct evidence of connection, site layout, andtiming of monument construction, Garden Patch clearly shows norther-ly affiliations. In this study, a robust chronology at Garden Patch docu-ments the timing of mound building and village occupation to betterunderstandhow the village communitywas founded andhow its spatialarrangement shifted through time.

509N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2 (2015) 507–516

2. Site description and research background

The Garden Patch site (8DI4) is located approximately three kilome-ters inland from the Gulf of Mexico on an upland area overlooking theextensive saltmarsh that borders Horseshoe Cove (Fig. 2). The site con-sists of six mounds associated with a horseshoe-shaped arrangement ofmidden, a central plaza with few cultural materials, and a separate dis-crete village area on the site's western edge (Fig. 3). A freshwater pondflanks the northernmostmound. In total, the site coversmore than 6 ha,but the core of the initial site plan defined by the mounds is about halfthis size.

Garden Patch has been the focus of severalfield investigations, manyof which suffer from poor reporting. More than 100 years ago, C.B.Moore (1902:346–348) excavated threemounds at this location and re-corded burials in two of them, onewith caches of ornate MiddleWood-land pottery vessels in association. Following an initial cursory siterecord made by John Goggin in the 1940s (Willey, 1949:306), test

Fig. 2. Contour map of the Garden Patch site with locations of test excavati

excavations were conducted in several areas of the site during theearly 1970s by University of Florida graduate students (Kohler, 1975).More recently, the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (FBAR)Public Lands Archaeology (PLA) program made a detailed map of thesite and undertook limited test excavations (Public Lands Archaeology2011). Finally, the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) con-ducted a comprehensive shovel test survey across the site and test exca-vations in several areas (Wallis and McFadden, 2013, 2014). Theradiocarbon dates reported in this study result both from the FBAR test-ing (n = 2) and FLMNH excavations (n = 21).

Ten site areas have been defined based on previous research (Kohler,1975;Wallis andMcFadden, 2014). These areas include four distinct lociof midden and village occupation (Areas I, III, and X, andMound IV), thefreshwater pond (Area IX), and five anthropogenic mounds (Mounds II,V, VI, VII, and VIII).

The western edge of the mound complex is defined by Mound II, alow platform mound of sand and shell less than two meters high with

on units. Contour interval is 25 cm and derived from LiDAR coverage.

Fig. 3. Interpolation of pottery density based on shovel test survey. Shovel tests were 30 × 30 cm square and one meter deep. Count does not include sherds less than 2 × 2 cm. Contourinterval at mounds is 50 cm.

510 N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2 (2015) 507–516

a sub-platform or ramp extending toward the southeast. Mound IV isactually a natural rise that formed through Aeolian deposition ofPleistocene sands and is covered by midden and residential featuresdating to the Woodland period. Mound V is a nearly 2.5 m high oval-shaped burial mound of sand and shell on the eastern end of the site.Mounds VI and VII are small and heavily damaged sand mounds of un-known function, possibly also containing burials. Finally, Mound VIII is alow sand burial mound.

A shovel test survey on a 20 m grid interval defined the site bound-aries and artifact distributions across the site (Wallis and McFadden,2013; Fig. 3). Viewing the distribution of pottery sherds, a horseshoe-shaped zone of occupation is evident in the site's center and connectsMounds II, IV, and VIII. A later occupation is evident southwest ofMound II at Area I, and a central area with few artifacts may define an-other smaller plaza space. Four areas of the site—three habitation areas(I, IV, and X) and one mound (II)—were explored with test excavationsalong with bulk sampling for dating and laboratory analysis of flora,fauna, and sediments. All test units were 1 × 2 m in horizontal extent(two contiguous units in Area I (TU7 and TU8), two in Mound II (TU2and TU3), one in Area X (TU1), and two in Mound IV (TU4 and TU6)(Fig. 2)). Mound V was also investigated through re-excavation of a1970 trench in the northern edge of the mound for which recordswere incomplete. After cleaning the profiles, the re-excavated trenchmeasured a maximum of 4.84 m in length and 2.0 m in width (Figs. 4;5; 6). From within Mound V, profiles were documented and bulk sam-ples from features were retrieved for analysis. Finally, a sixth area, thefreshwater pond, was investigated with a continuous sediment core inthe pond's center.

The test excavations and trench re-excavation identified culturalstrata and features that were the basis for radiocarbon dating therange of occupation and mound construction sequence. Briefly, investi-gations of the habitation areas identified shell midden and dark earthmidden with sparse shell, along with numerous architectural featurescomprised mainly of postholes and pits. The Area I excavation revealeda dense cluster of features associated with a structure located 50 mnorth of contemporaneous dense midden deposits. Mound IV containsstratified shell midden, dark earthmidden and numerous post holes as-sociated with domestic structures. Area X is stratified shell midden anddark earth midden with occasional post holes and discrete middendumps. On the basis of pottery typological frequencies, the Area X andMound IV habitation areas were roughly contemporaneous while AreaI, dominated by distinctive Weeden Island series pottery, clearly post-dates both of the former loci.

The two investigated mounds on either end of the site share similari-ties in their construction sequences. Both began with the construction ofa post structure on the original ground surface (Figs. 4; 5). At Mound II,construction proceeded with removal of the topsoil—denoted bymissingA and E horizons—with the resulting depression subsequently filled witha thick stratum of shell midden. Themiddenwas then topped with alter-nating lenses of sand and shell midden, with a final gray sand cap thatformed an elevated flat-topped summit.

At Mound V, the remains of at least one individual were interred ad-jacent to or within the structure on the original ground surface. A pitmore than 1.5 m wide was dug into the ground surface near the struc-ture and then mound construction proceeded with a thick stratum ofshellmidden capped by yellow sand. Burials and potterywere emplaced

Fig. 4. Scaled drawing of plan view of features encountered during the re-excavation ofMound V trench. Contour interval of key is 15 cm.

511N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2 (2015) 507–516

in the yellow sand stratumon theMoundV summit. Thus,MoundVwasa mortuary monument throughout its construction history, while thefunction of Mound II is currently less clear. Woodland period platformmounds served variously as elevated surfaces for ceremonies, charnelplatforms, and ritual buildings (Jefferies, 1994; Knight, 2001; Milanichet al., 1997), and Mound II is expected to have functioned in one ormore of these ways.

The sediment core within the pond at Area IX revealed six facies,identified by visual observation of differences in color, texture, and con-tent. Down to 45 cm below surface, Facies I and II are characterized bydense concentrations of sponge spicules, a high percentage of dark

Fig. 5. Northernmost east profile in Mound V trench showing postholes from sub-moundstructure and adjacent pit. The excavated area is 3.40 m long.

organic matter, and presence of carbonate, consistent with an aquaticenvironment. In the remainder of the core, sediments are lighter incolor and sandier, and carbonate is absent. However, between 45 cmand 73 cm below surface, Facies III and IV show linear beds indicativeof periods of anoxic conditions and periods of dry conditions. Watersamples from the pond revealed that it contained potable fresh water,with conductivity of 700–750 μS/cm (micro-Siemens/cm), well withinthe range of domestic tap water (Mark Brenner, personal communica-tion, July 2013).

3. Radiocarbon dating

Twenty-three AMS assays were obtained from across the site. Takenfrom cultural features or discrete midden strata, sixteen samples de-rived from charred wood fragments and two were from deer bone.Three samples were obtained from soot or residue accumulated onthe surfaces of pottery sherds. Finally, two samples came from organicsediments in the pond core. Three additional dates were also obtainedin an earlier study (PLA, 2011), two onmarinefish bone and one onma-rine shell, but all are plagued by unknown reservoir effects and requiredetermination of local reservoir correction factors before they can be se-riously considered.1

Samples were chosen to maximize chronological control of strati-graphic sequences in each area.Where possible, specimenswere select-ed from column samples collected from the top, middle, and bottom ofanthropogenic deposits. The Area I habitation area is dated by six sam-ples: two on deer bone from the top and middle of the shell midden,three on charred wood within cultural features associated with a struc-ture, and one from soot on a pottery sherd within the structure. FromMound II, five charred wood samples were analyzed, four from discretestrata from top to bottom of the sequence, and one retrieved from alarge posthole that penetrated the original ground surface. Four sampleswere analyzed fromMound IV and date the top and bottom of themid-den in two locations. Two samples came from soot on pottery and twoothers were charred wood fragments. Mound V was dated by threecharred wood samples that were contained in features underneath themounded strata, including two postholes and one large pit. Threecharred wood samples came from the Area X midden and representthe top,middle, and bottomof the stratigraphic sequence. Finally, organ-ic sediments in the pond core were selected from two elevations, onethat reflects the time when the pond first held water (69–71 cmbt)and another that represents the onset of continuous freshwater reten-tion (44–45 cmbt).

Samples were processed and analyzed by Beta Analytic Inc. Calibra-tion of the acquired 14C ages was completed for all samples using theIntCal13 curve (Reimer et al., 2013). In order to refine the site chronol-ogy, two Bayesian models were developed and implemented using theOxCal v 4.2.4 program (Bronk Ramsey and Lee, 2013). The first modeldescribes the total occupation of the site in four phaseswhile the secondevaluates the construction of Mound II in two phases. Both models usestratigraphic positioning and typological frequencies of diagnosticartifacts as constraints informing the prior probability functions(Buck et al., 1991; Bronk Ramsey, 2009b). Outliers were identified by

1 The Public Lands Archaeology (2011) program submitted for dating one marine fishvertebra from Mound II, one marine fish vertebra from Area III, and an oyster shell(Crassostrea virginica) from Mound V, all from upper strata. The conventional agesreturned for these materials were 2070 +/− 30 BP, 2020 +/− 30 BP, and 2660 +/− 40 BP, respectively. In comparison to the first date at Mound II, charred wood fromthe same stratum taken approximately 15 m distant gave a conventional age of1650 +/− 30 BP, more recent by 420 radiocarbon years. No additional dates have beenretrieved from Area III to evaluate the second date on a fish vertebra, but similarities ofthe artifact assemblage to that ofMound IV indicates that this age is likely too old by a sim-ilar margin as the Mound II sample. Finally, the oyster sample from Mound V was takenmore than ameter above the charredwood samples from postholes and pits but is at least930 radiocarbon years earlier. Reservoir effects clearly hamper the ability to interpret the-se results andmust await development of a local correction (e.g., Cherkinsky et al., 2014).

Fig. 6. Scaled drawing and description of stratigraphic units shown in Fig. 5.

512 N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2 (2015) 507–516

individual agreement indices (Ai), with Ai b 60% considered to beoutliers (Bronk Ramsey, 1995). Likewise, the agreement index ofthe model was evaluated, with Amodel N 60% considered to expressoverall agreement and satisfactory model structure (Bronk Ramsey,2009a,b). We report the resulting phase ranges using the beginningof the 68% highest probability density of the earliest assay and theend of the 68% highest probability density of the latest assay foreach phase.

4. Results and discussion

Among the 23 AMS assays, the calibrated date ranges give a totalmaximum span of cal 1055 BC to AD 981 (Table 1). As reflected by thepropinquity of dates from all occupied parts of the site except Area I,the period from ca. cal AD 320 to 600was one of especially intensive ac-tivity. By ca. cal AD 730, all domestic activity shifted to Area I on thewestern edge of the site.

The earliest date range of cal 1055 to 899 BC, obtained from charredwoodwithin a discrete posthole emanating from the earliest occupationsurface underneath Mound V, is anomalous. The occasional presence ofsmall Late Archaic period sherds in theMound V fill indicates that earlymaterial was included in some strata and might have descended intothe post hole. Alternatively, perhaps old wood was salvaged from anearby wetland to make the post. In either case, the date range doesnot relate to the event of placing the post in the ground, as further indi-cated by an associated posthole at the same depth and with identicalmorphology that dates more than 1200 years later (Figs. 4; 5; 6).

The next earliest assays derive from thepond core. The pondwas ini-tially a dry depression but starting 791 to 540 cal BC it was periodicallyfilledwithwater and accumulated organic detritus. By 429 to 235 cal BCthe pondwas filled with water more or less permanently and thereaftersteadily accumulated organic sediment.

The remaining ages were used to construct a four phase model forthe site occupation. The model shows good overall agreement andmodel structure, with Amodel = 74.1% and no individual agreement

indices less than 60% (Table 1; Fig. 7). For several centuries after the for-mation of the freshwater pond, the Garden Patch site remained unoccu-pied. Aside from rare Late Archaic Orange crumb sherds in mound fill(ca. 4000 years BP), the earliest significant evidence of occupation(Phase I) comes from near the base of the midden on the east end ofMound IV. Soot from a Deptford Cord Marked sherd yielded a posteriordensity (68.2%) in the model of cal AD 64 to 127. This initial occupationof the site was small in extent and characterized by domestic debris ofpotsherds, lithic debitage, and occasional vertebrate faunal remains. In-terestingly, the date of this small early occupation is roughly coevalwitha pulse in sea level rise around cal AD 150 documented in WacassassaBay and the Suwannee Delta (Goodbred et al., 1998; Wright et al.,2005).

Following about two centuries after an initially small occupationwasa flurry of activity that gave shape to themost prominent features of thesite. Five AMS assays from three different parts of the site are nearly sta-tistically indistinguishable. Using the 68.2% posterior densities for PhaseII, sometime between cal AD 324 and 375, Mound IV became denselyinhabited, and structures were built at the future locations of Mound IIand Mound V (Table 2). A burial that was interred in a shallow pit be-neath the former ground surface was associated with the Mound Vstructure and is presumably contemporaneous. The large pit dug intothe ground surface on the other side of the structure also dates to thisphase.

Construction of Mound II and Mound V commenced soon after, dur-ing the beginning of Phase III. At Mound II, large quantities of middenwere piled up in several distinct strata above the initial midden andrazed structure. The potential for reverse stratigraphy is weakly indicat-ed by the 2-sigma calibrated date ranges, which give the earliest range(cal AD 264 to 533) near the top of the uppermost shell stratum andthe latest range (cal AD 430 to 622) in the middle of the mound se-quence (Table 1). Two AMS assays on charred wood from the lower-most midden stratum give its age somewhere between these tworanges. These discordant dates are consistent with the idea that themound was constructed with existing nearby midden materials

Table 1Radiocarbon dates from the Garden Patch site and results of Bayesian model.

Beta Lab#

Provenience Material C13/C12 ratio(o/oo)

Conventional C14age

Calibrated date(95.4%)

Posterior density(68.2%)

Ai (%)

384568 Mound V, Feature 9 Charred wood −26.1 2820 +/− 30 BP 1055 to 899 cal BC381536 8DI4, pond core, 69–71 cmbt Organic sediment −25.7 2510 +/− 30 BP 791 to 540 cal BC384266 8DI4, pond core 44–45 cmbt Organic sediment −24.7 2320 +/− 30 BP 429 to 235 cal BC

Phase I382228 Mound IV, TU4, Stratum IV/V, 90–100 cmbs Residue from sherd −25.2 1920 +/− 30 BP cal AD 3 to 204 cal AD 64 to 127 97

Phase II (submound)338163 Mound V, Feature 1, 100–110 cmbs Charred wood −25.6 1730 +/− 30 BP cal AD 243 to 386 cal AD 324 to 378 97.9383176 Mound II, Feature 4, 110–120 cmbs Charred wood −25.1 1720 +/− 30 BP cal AD 248 to 391 cal AD 326 to 379 108.7384570 Mound IV, TU6, Stratum IV, 45–50 cmbs Charred wood −25 1720 +/− 30 BP cal AD 248 to 391 cal AD 326 to 378 108.8382227 Mound IV, TU4, Stratum III/IV, 50–60 cmbs Soot from sherd −24.1 1690 +/− 30 BP cal AD 256 to 416 cal AD 331 to 376 108.7383174 Mound V, Feature 8, 130–140 cmbs Charred wood −24.7 1670 +/− 30 BP cal AD 258 to 428 cal AD 332 to 375 87.5

Phase III (mounding)383175 Mound II, Stratum III, 28–33 cmbs Charred wood −26.3 1650 +/− 30 BP cal AD 264 to 533 cal AD 387 to 506 96.6386496 Area X, TU1, Stratum IV/V, 77–82 cmbs Charred wood −24.7 1650 +/− 30 BP cal AD 264 to 533 cal AD 387 to 506 96.6386089 Mound II, Stratum VI, 98–103 cmbs Charred wood −26 1640 +/− 30 BP cal AD 336 to 535 cal AD 391 to 527 98.2384569 Mound IV, TU6, Feature 5, 108–118 cmbs Charred wood −27.8 1600 +/− 30 BP cal AD 399 to 539 cal AD 414 to 535 101.5386088 Mound II, Stratum VI, 158–163 cmbs Charred wood −26 1580 +/− 30 BP cal AD 410 to 546 cal AD 428 to 536 100.6384264 Area X, Feature 3, 40–68 cmbs Charred wood −26.3 1540 +/− 30 BP cal AD 426 to 588 cal AD 432 to 563 100.6386087 Mound II, Stratum IV, 83–88 cmbs Charred wood −24.6 1510 +/− 30 BP cal AD 430 to 622 cal AD 475 to 598 100.3384265 Area X, TU1, Stratum III, 27–32 cmbs Charred hickory nut −24.7 1450 +/− 30 BP cal AD 561 to 651 cal AD 556 to 615 73.1

Phase IV299329 8DI4, Area I midden, 30–40 cmbs Deer bone −20.3 1260 +/− 30 BP cal AD 669 to 865 cal AD 729 to 855 69.5385476 8DI4, Area I, Feature 20, 60–79 cmbs Charred wood −24.8 1250 +/− 30 BP cal AD 676 to 870 cal AD 730 to 857 76.5385474 8DI4, Area I, Feature 14, 60–68 cmbs Charred wood −26.9 1210 +/− 30 BP cal AD 695 to 891 cal AD 770 to 848 107.4385475 8DI4, Area I, Feature 16 (post), 60–64 cmbs Charred wood −25.8 1210 +/− 30 BP cal AD 695 to 891 cal AD 770 to 848 107.4299327 8DI4, Area I midden, 10–20 cmbs Deer bone −20.4 1140 +/− 30 BP cal AD 777 to 981 cal AD 774 to 895 60385477 8DI4, Area I, 20–30 cmbs, Swift Creek rim sherd Soot from sherd n/a 1140 +/− 30 BP cal AD 777 to 981 cal AD 774 to 895 60.1

513N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2 (2015) 507–516

(Kohler, 1975). However, an alternative possibility is that all of the as-says from Mound II strata date the same rapid series of constructionevents sometime during the early AD 400s. A Bayesian analysis pro-duced a two phase model that supports the latter possibility (Fig. 8).Using the submound dates for the first phase and the Mound II stratafor the second phase, the latest date was identified as an outlier (Ai =43.2). With this date removed, the model has a very strong agreementindex (Amodel = 93.3) and the posterior densities (68.2%) give a daterange formound construction between cal AD 398 and431. The veracityof this model is further supported by the artifact assemblages in eachMound II stratum, which exhibit no changes in typological frequenciesby depth.

While the structure and pit underneath Mound V are demonstrablycontemporaneouswith posts beneathMound II, the potential for distur-bance from illicit digging prevented retrieval of uncompromised sam-ples for dating from upper Mound V strata. Nonetheless, the potteryassemblage recovered from Mound V in earlier excavations containsfrequencies of diagnostic pottery sherds similar to Mound II and indi-cates its general contemporaneity (Wallis and McFadden, 2014).Mound V is also similar to Mound II in containing a major shell middenstratum and overlying sand stratum cap. Unlike Mound II, stratigraphicprofiles indicate that Mound V was never a platform and served as acemetery both before and after construction.

On the north and south sides of the central plaza, a series of threedates indicate that village midden was deposited contemporaneouswith, and after, the mound construction projects. Phase III of the site-wide model gives posterior densities (68.2%) for Mound IV and Area Xof cal AD 414 to 535 and cal AD 387 to 615, respectively. Thus, the fullextent of the habitation ring seems to have been first occupied whilethe mounds were constructed and subsequently inhabited for as manyas two centuries.

The site footprint that had been fully established by at least the early5th century was abandoned early in the 7th century, after which do-mestic occupation shifted west of Mound II with the establishment ofthe Area I village. The more than one century gap between Phase III

and Phase IV may represent a site abandonment, which is further sup-ported by the stark disparity in pottery assemblages between Area Iand other habitation areas at the site. The Area I pottery assemblage in-cludesmanyWeeden Island series types not found elsewhere at the site.This distinctive assemblage is commensurate with the date range forPhase IV: cal AD 729 to 895 (68.2%). However, the occupation mayhave been shorter than indicated by the model given the lack of signif-icant midden stratification and a plateau in the calibration curve thatgives particularly large calibrated date ranges for this period. Notably,conventional ages from the midden are nearly identical to those fromthe structure located approximately 50 m to the north. The formerages are 1260 ± 30 BP and 1140 ± 30 BP, while the latter range from1250 ± 30 BP to 1140 +/− 30 BP.

The Weeden Island village occupation of the Garden Patch site leftvery little evidence outside of Area I. Except in Area I, no calibrateddates in this range have been documented and pottery diagnostic ofthe Weeden Island complex is extremely rare except in the burialmounds. In fact, beyond Area I only two Weeden Island series sherdshave been recovered: one from the Area X habitation and anotherfrom the north side of Mound II. Thus, the Weeden Island villagerswho lived at the site sometimeduring the 8th and 9th centuries avoidedliving upon the footprint of the earlier village and mound complex.However, the location and orientation of the Weeden Island villagewas evidently structured around Mound II. In addition, Mound VIIIand Mound V are likely to have received pottery vessels and human re-mains during this time as indicated by the assemblages from Moore(1902) and private collectors.

Reasons for the stark shift in settlement at Garden Patch during theAD 700s are unclear butmajor natural and cultural transitions show ap-parent correlations. A series of droughts occurred across the lowersoutheastern United States during the late 7th century (Cook andKrusic, 2004, 2008; Cook et al., 1999; Smith, 2009). Moreover, like atGarden Patch, recent dating efforts at several sites in the Florida pan-handle indicate that Weeden Island material culture post-dates themid-7th century (Russo et al., 2014a,b). Notably, dramatic shifts

Fig. 7. Four phase Bayesian model of the Garden Patch site.

514 N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2 (2015) 507–516

between ‘Swift Creek’ and ‘Weeden Island’ settlement patterns are doc-umented in this region aswell, perhaps reflecting a regional-scale eventthat was related to the proliferation of theWeeden Islandmortuary andceremonial program.

5. Conclusions

The Garden Patch site contains four phases of occupation that spannearly all of the first millennium. In Phase I (cal AD 64 to 127), a smallsettlement was built adjacent to the freshwater pond that had existedfor centuries. During Phase II (cal AD 324 to 375) structures were builtat the future locations of Mounds II and V, at least one burial wasemplaced in Mound V, and the horseshoe-shaped midden began to bedeposited in the center of the site. In Phase III (cal AD 387 to 615) atleast two, and perhaps all five, of the anthropogenic mounds were con-structed and midden continued to be deposited in a horseshoe-shapedorientation. Finally, during Phase IV (cal AD 729 to 895), occupation be-came confined exclusively to the western portions of the site that hadbeen previously uninhabited, with the exception of mortuary activities

Table 2Culture, location, and activities associated with the four phases at Garden Patch.

Phase Diagnostic material culture Site location Activity

I Deptford Mound IV Initial occupationII Swift Creek Mounds II, IV, and V Building of submounIII Swift Creek Area X, Mounds II and IV Mound constructionIV Weeden Island Area I New village occupat

at Mound V and Mound VIII, which seem to have contained WeedenIsland pottery.

The history of the Garden Patch site bolsters understandings ofWoodland residential-mound centers in three ways. First, the site wasoccupied and constructed very quickly, with the initial site planestablished as soon as people aggregated in large numbers (Phase II).This observation matches the history of other well studied centerssuch as Kolomoki and McKeithen (Milanich et al., 1997; Pluckhahn,2003). The evident trend is of rapid population aggregation associatedwith monument building and mortuary ritual rather than the gradualgrowth of a community over time.

Second, the timing of village initiation at Garden Patch sometimeduring the 4th century is roughly contemporaneous with that ofKolomoki and McKeithen. Pluckhahn (2003) estimates the foundingsettlement at Kolomoki to have been comprised of several hundred peo-ple between ca. cal AD 350 to 450. Large error ranges for dates fromMcKeithen make the timing of village settlement there less certain.Calibrated 2-sigma ranges for the site span a period from ca. AD 200to 650, with AD 300 to 400 a very likely initial occupation (Milanich

Date range (posterior density 68.2%)

cal AD 64 to 127d (and other) structures; village occupation cal AD 324 to 375and village occupation cal AD 387 to 615ion cal AD 729 to 895

Fig. 8. Two phase Bayesian model of sub-mound occupation and mound construction.

515N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2 (2015) 507–516

et al., 1997). All told, these three residential-mound centers, and proba-bly many others that have yet to be adequately dated, seem to haveemerged within a century or less of each other. The social and environ-mental conditions that led to this regional trend toward aggregationtherefore deserve greater scrutiny.

Finally, the formally arranged residential mound complex at GardenPatch was inhabited at least 200 years and as many as 300 years. Com-munities living within the original site plans of centers like Kolomokiand McKeithen show similar durations. At these sites, the spatial ar-rangement of later inhabitants did not conform to the earlier site plan.What is more, at Garden Patch after a brief abandonment the entiresite seems to have become hallowed ground where no cultural debriscould be deposited. Given the likelihood that human remains andmaterial accoutrements were added to the burial mounds within theoriginal village center at Garden Patch, the scrupulous avoidance of ar-tifact deposition by later populations within the surrounding areas isremarkable.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research came from the Florida Museum of NaturalHistory, a James C. Waggoner Jr. Grants-in-Aid award (Department ofAnthropology), and the Hyatt and Cici Brown Endowment for FloridaArchaeology. We thank one anonymous reviewer and Tom Pluckhahnfor constructive comments that improved the paper.

References

Anderson, D.G., Mainfort, R.C., 2002. An Introduction to Woodland Archaeology in theSoutheast. In: Anderson, D.G., Mainfort, R.C. (Eds.), TheWoodland Southeast. Univer-sity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 1–19.

Bandy, M.S., 2004. Fissioning, scalar stress, and social evolution in early village societies.Am. Anthropol. 106, 322–333.

Birch, J., 2012. Coalescent communities: settlement aggregation and social integration inIroquoian Ontario. Am. Antiq. 77, 646–671.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCalprogram. Radiocarbon 37 (2), 425–430.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009a. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51 (1),337–360.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009b. Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating. Radio-carbon 51 (3), 1023–1045.

Bronk Ramsey, C., Lee, S., 2013. Recent planned developments of the program OxCal. Ra-diocarbon 55, 720–730.

Brose, D.S., 1979. An interpretation of the Hopewellian traits in Florida. In: Brose, D.S.,Greber, N. (Eds.), Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent UniversityPress, Kent, OH, pp. 141–149.

Buck, C., Kenworthy, J., Litton, C., Smith, A., 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocar-bon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65 (249), 808–821.

Carr, C., 2006. The Tripartite Ceremonial Alliance among Scioto Hopewellian Communitiesand the Question of Social Ranking. In: Carr, C., Case, D.T. (Eds.), Gathering Hopewell:Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction. Springer, New York, pp. 258–338.

Cherkinsky, A., Pluckhahn, T.J., Thompson, V.D., 2014. Variation in radiocarbon agedeterminations from the crystal river archaeological site, Florida. Radiocarbon 56,801–810.

Cook, E.R., Krusic, P.J., 2004. The North American Drought Atlas: A History of Meteorolog-ical Drought Reconstructed from 835 Tree‐Ring Chronologies for the Past 2005 Years.Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the National Science Foundation (http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.LDEO/.TRL/.NADA2004/.pdsi-atlas.html).

Cook, E.R., Krusic, P.J., 2008. North American Summer PDSI Reconstructions, Version 2a.IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2008‐046. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA (Available athttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pdsi08_ts.html).

Cook, E.R., Meko, D.M., Stahle, D.W., Cleaveland, M.K., 1999. Drought reconstructions forthe continental united states. J. Clim. 12, 1145–1162.

Goodbred Jr., S.L., Wright, E.E., Hine, A.C., 1998. Sea-level change and storm-surge deposi-tion in a late Holocene Florida Salt Marsh. J. Sediment. Res. 68, 240–252.

Jefferies, R.W., 1994. The Swift Creek site and woodland platform mounds in the South-eastern United States. In: Hally, D.J. (Ed.), Ocmulgee Archaeology 1936–1986. Univer-sity of Georgia Press, Athens, pp. 71–83.

Knight Jr., V.J., 2001. Feasting and the Emergence of Platform Mound Ceremonialism inEastern North America. In: Dietler, M., A.B.H. (Eds.), Feasts: Archaeological and Eth-nographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C., pp. 239–254.

Kohler, T., 1975. The Garden Patch Site: AMinorWeeden Island Ceremonial Center on theNorth Peninsular Florida Gulf Coast. Department of Anthropology, University ofFlorida, Gainesville.

Milanich, J.T., 2002. Weeden Island Cultures, The Woodland Southeast. University of Ala-bama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 352–372.

Milanich, J.T., Cordell, A.S., Knight Jr., V.J., Kohler, Timothy A., Sigler-Lavelle, Brenda J.,1997. Archaeology of Northern Florida, A.D. 200–900: The McKeithenWeeden IslandCulture. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Moore, C.B., 1902. Certain aboriginal remains of the Northwest Florida coast, Part II.J. Acad. Natl. Sci. Phila. 12, 127–355.

Pluckhahn, T.J., 2003. Kolomoki: Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D.350 to 750. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Pluckhahn, T.J., 2010. The Sacred and the Secular Revisited: The Essential Tensions ofEarly Village Societies in the Southeastern U.S. In: Brandy, M., Fox, J. (Eds.), BecomingVillagers: Comparing Early Village Societies. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,pp. 100–118.

Pluckhahn, T.J., Thompson, V.D., Cherkinsky, A., 2015. The temporality of shell-bearinglandscapes at Crystal River, Florida. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 37, 19–36.

Public Lands Archaeology (PLA) Program, 2011. Big Bend Wildlife Management Area Ar-chaeological Site Atlas. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Ramsey, C.B., Buck, C.E., Cheng,H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas,I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer,B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff,R.A., Turney, C.S.M., Plicht, J., 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibra-tion curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55, 1869–1887.

Ruhl, D.L., 2000. Archaeobotany of Bernath Place (8SR986) and other Santa Rosa/SwiftCreek-RELATED SITES IN COASTAL AND NON-COASTAL Southeastern U.S. locations.Florida Anthropol. 53, 190–203.

Russo, M., Dengel, C., Shanks, J., 2014a. Northwest Florida Woodland Mounds and Mid-dens: the Sacred and Not So Secular. In:Wallis, N.J., Randall, A.R. (Eds.), NewHistoriesof Pre-Columbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 121–142.

Russo, M., Dengel, C., Shanks, J., McFeaters, A., 2014b. Archaeological Determinations ofBoundaries and Cultural Affiliations at the Hare Hammock 8BY31 Site. Report onfile, Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee Florida.

Smith, K.Y., 2009. Middle and Late Woodland Period Cultural Transmission, ResidentialMobility, and Aggregation in the Deep South. University of Missouri, Columbia(Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation).

Snow, F., Stephenson, K., 1998. Swift Creek Designs: A Tool for Monitoring Interaction. In:Williams, M., Elliott, D.T. (Eds.), A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift CreekCulture. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 99–111.

Stephenson, K., Bense, J.A., Snow, F., 2002. Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek on theSouth Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In: Anderson, D.G., Mainfort, R.C. (Eds.), TheWoodland Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 318–351.

Wallis, N.J., 2011. The Swift Creek Gift: Vessel Exchange on the Atlantic Coast. Universityof Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Wallis, N.J., 2013. The Materiality of Signs: Enchainment and Animacy in WoodlandSoutheastern North American Pottery. Am. Antiq. 78, 207–226.

516 N.J. Wallis et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2 (2015) 507–516

Wallis, N.J., McFadden, P.S., 2013. Archaeological Investigations at the Garden Patch site(8DI4), Dixie County, Florida. Miscellaneous Report No. 63, Division of Anthropology,FloridaMuseum of Natural History. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Wallis, N.J., McFadden, P.S., 2014. Suwannee Valley Archaeological Field School 2013: TheGarden Patch Site (8DI4). Miscellaneous Report No. 64, Division of Anthropology,Florida Museum of Natural History. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Wallis, N.J., Boulanger, M., Ferguson, J.R., Glascock, M.D., 2010. Woodland Period CeramicProvenance and the Exchange of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped Pottery in theSoutheastern United States. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 2598–2611.

Willey, G.R., 1949. Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Institution,Washing-ton D.C.

Wright, E.E., Hine, A.C., Goodbred Jr., S.L., Locker, S.D., 2005. The effect of sea-level and cli-mate change on the development of a mixed siliciclastic-carbonate, deltaic coastline:Suwannee River, Florida U.S.A. J. Sediment. Res. 75, 621–635.