No Stone Unturned: Lithic Resource Use in South Florida

Robert J. Austin
Alliance for Weedon Island Archaeological Research and Education, Inc. (AWIARE)

Paper prepared for the symposium

Finding Middle Ground: Emerging Ideas about Interior Wetlands, Florida
75th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Augusta, GA
November 15, 2018
 South Florida is sometimes referred to as a “land without stone” because of its lack of

knappable raw materials.1 But exposed in stream beds and washed up on beaches are

limestone, dolostone, sandstone, and Pleistocene fossils, not to mention chert artifacts that

also got washed up or were left behind at ancestral sites on land. Native peoples exploited all

of these for a range of uses, from the mundane to the ritualistic. 2 Some of these materials

were fashioned into identifiable artifacts, but the vast majority were lightly used or display use-

related wear patterns that are difficult to see without magnification.3 Many display no visible

evidence of use or modification but their appearance in archaeological contexts is highly

suggestive of intentional collection for some purpose. Examples include small pebbles and

waterworn rocks, ferrous rocks and concretions, pieces of coral, amorphous fragments of

sandstone or limestone, “tubes” or cylinders of limestone and coral, and fossils.4 These items

are often ignored or selectively collected by archaeologists and yet they are common at sites in

south Florida. Their potential uses can be inferred by use-wear analysis, historical accounts,

and archaeological context.

The ethnohistoric iterature is replete with references to small pebbles, fossil bones, and

unusual or colorful stones used by native peoples as talismans, charm stones, medicine stones,

or, in the case of pebbles,5 functional components of rattles or slings. In his Indians of the

Southeastern United States, John Swanton mentions the use of pebbles as pottery smoothers,

gaming stones, and counters (Swanton 1946:243, 549, 551-552), noting that a good smoothing

stone was treated with great care (Swanton 1946:549). Cabeza de Vaca’s chronicle of the 1528

Narvaez expedition mentions the use of slings by natives in the Pensacola and Mobile area

(Favata and Fernandez 1993:52; cf. Bandelier 1905:48). He also relates being asked to heal sick

1
natives. When he refused, he was told that even “the stones and other things that the fields

produce have powers” (Adorno and Pautz 2003:93). Since the Spanish were such great and

powerful men, surely they had greater powers than the rocks and could heal their sick.

6Adrienne Mayor, in her excellent book, Fossil Legends of the First Americans (2005),

documents knowledge of and use of fossil bones and shells by Native Americans throughout

North America. Fossils were considered powerful medicine used in rites and ceremonies, and

often were ground up for use in healing.

7Scattered throughout C.B. Moore’s reports on the many, many burial mounds he

excavated in Florida are references to waterworn pebbles, bits of unworked quartz, sandstone,

limestone, coral, and chert, “masses” of pebbles, shells, and fossil bones (in addition to sharks

teeth), fossilized wood, “smoothing stones,” and abraders or hones. These are sometimes

described as being near or in immediate association with burials. Occasionally they were found

in red-stained soil (Moore 1894:182).

Some specific examples include the Green Point Mound were 44 waterworn pebbles

were found together that Moore suggested were sling stones. Also in the mound, and situated

between two burials, were bits of sandstone, two rectangular pieces of fossilized wood, a

sandstone hone, fragments of chert, and a piece of shelly limestone resembling a deer antler

tine (Moore 1902:251). At the Yent Mound he recovered a turtle shell rattle containing

flattened bits of chert in association with a burial (1902:269). And from a Mound near

Anderson Point “bits of rock, pebble hammers, smoothing stones, broken bones, four bits of

Fulgar [shell], a pebble with a circular space worn in the side, and numerous pebbles” were

found together in a single deposit (1902:160). In an aside, Moore remarks that small pebbles,

2
round or cylindrical in shape and “seemingly too small for use as pebble hammers,” often are

found in mounds “lying together as though at one time deposited within a receptacle”

(1902:160-161).

The fact that these items were found together and in close association with human

interments is highly suggestive of intentional collection and deposition even if we don’t know

for certain what they were used for.

8Turning to south Florida, Karl Steinen (1982) reported several ground stone artifacts

from Fort Center -- hones, grinding stones, abraders – but my reanalysis of the site’s lithic

materials found many other stone items that were not reported or were only briefly mentioned

(Austin 1997, 2010). These include quartz pebbles,9 modified and unmodified pieces of

sandstone and limestone, a fragment of a fossil mammoth tooth (lower right), 10and this

phallic-looking piece of limestone from Mound A in the mound-pond complex.

11Limestone and sandstone fragments and flattened pebbles that may have been used

for grinding, abrading, and smoothing have also been identified at the Boca Raton Inlet Midden

(Endonino et al. 2009), Perico Island (Austin et al. 2018), Estero Island (Austin 2007), 8HN696

(SEARCH 2016), and Mt. Elizabeth (Austin 2008a). When identifying use wear on sandstone and

limestone, the experimental work of Jenny Adams (2014) has been crucial. 12Briefly, wear

resulting from abrasion and surface fatigue is the most common on artifacts I have analyzed.

These result in alteration of the surface topography of hard, granular stone. The loosened

grains become abrasive agents creating scratches and gouges on the tool’s contact surface.

Continued movement between the two surfaces causes grain surfaces to collapse and become

crushed resulting in cracks, pits, and step fractures that create an appearance similar to frosted

3
glass. Finally, extensive movement and pressure results in rounding and flattening of

constituent grains. In extreme cases the grains may become level with the surrounding

interstitial matrix. Surface polish may also be visible on stones that have been used as pottery

smoothers or hide-working tools.

Five pieces of limestone and sandstone that I identified as possible abraders and

grinding stones based on use wear were analyzed by Brian Kooyman from the University of

Calgary. All five contained either starch grains or plant phytoliths and two also contain non-

human hair (Theresa Schober, personal communication, 2018). This specimen had starch grains

embedded in its surface. These results are preliminary and additional analysis to identify

specific species if possible is ongoing.

Cutting and scraping tools are sometimes made of fossil bone, micritic limestone, and

hard dolostone. 13At the Cutler Ridge site, a fairly substantial assemblage of non-chert artifacts

and flaking debris was identified (Austin 2008b; Dunbar 1988; Masson 1987). These are made

primarily from limestone and include celts, grinding stones, scrapers, cores, and flaking debris.

Several hafted bifaces and scrapers are made from micritic limestone, a hard, microcrystalline

sedimentary rock that visually resembles chert and can fracture conchoidally but will react to

dilute HCL identifying it as an unsilicified carbonate rock. Hard pieces of dolomite can be

similarly worked. While both materials flake relatively easily, they don’t hold an edge for very

long and would be considered inferior tool-stones if silicified material was available. 14In

addition to Cutler Ridge, flakes of micritic limestone and hard dolostone have been recovered

from the Pineland site (Austin 2013), Fort Center (Austin 1997), the Wedgworth Midden (Austin

2014), Perico Island (Austin et al. 2018), and the Brickell Point Midden (Austin 2004).

4
 Fossil bones, including artifacts and waste flakes, are relatively common at south Florida

sites, particularly on the southwest coast. Waste flakes are often misidentified as chert or, if

identified as fossil bone, put in the faunal category. 15At Pineland, I identified 46 pieces of

unmodified fossil bone in the lithic collection, but Rob Patton (2013), who analyzed the faunal

collection, identified an additional 8 flakes and 4 very well-made artifacts. Flakes and cores of

fossil bone have also been identified at Perico Island and Fort Center, and this beautiful

pendant of fossil bone on the right is from the Yat Kitischee site on Tampa Bay.

Fossil bone is less than ideal as a tool stone. It is very hard and brittle, which makes

these artifacts all the more amazing to me. 16My own experiments in flaking fossil bone show

that it can be done relatively easily, but it is wasteful in that a lot of unusable, angular waste is

produced, hinge and step-terminated scarring are typical, and cores quickly become exhausted.

Like unsilicified limestone, it was an ancillary material, used only when better material was

unavailable.

17
I want to turn now to Big Mound Key, a Manasota, Weeden Island, and Safety Harbor

shellworks located in southwest Florida near Charlotte Harbour. I analyzed a large collection of

lithics collected by George Luer and his team during several years of survey and excavation

(Austin 2016; Luer 2007, 2014). Fortunately, all stone material was collected, whether it was

considered modified or not, providing a robust and relatively unbiased sample. Big Mound Key

is important because it is completely anthropogenic with geological coring showing that it rests

on a base of sand, mud, and shell (Upchurch et al. 1992). Non-chert stone is not part of the

natural geological substrate and consequently all stone contained in the site’s shell mounds,

middens, and pit features was collected by humans from materials washed up on the island,

5
from mainland beaches, rivers, or streams, or they were acquired through some type of

exchange. Big Mound Key thus serves as an important case study in the procurement, use, and

discard of both siliceous and non-siliceous stone.

18Among the 1225 pieces of stone, limestone and sandstone are the most abundant,

followed by chert, fossil bone, and ferrous concretions. Limestone and isolated deposits of

sandstone are locally available within the Tamiami, Fort Thompson, and Caloosahatchee

formations with known outcrops along Alligator Creek, Shell Creek (DuBar 1958, 1962; Puri and

Vernon 1964) and the pre-channelized Caloosahatchee River (Heilprin 1887). Fossil bone and

sharks teeth are commonly found along southwest Florida beaches as well as in the Peace

River, which cuts through the Bone Valley Formation, well known for its marine and vertebrate

fossils (McFadden 1997). Ferrous concretions result from the reduction and oxidation of iron

compounds in acidic soils after saturation with water and subsequent drying (Grunwald n.d.;

Vasilas et al. 2010). They may also be precipitated in shell middens, although this is less

common because of the high pH (Palmer and Williams 1977).

Chert constitutes only about 3% of the assemblage, which is no surprise given the

distance to the nearest chert outcrops in Tampa Bay and the Middle Peace River Valley. Most

of the chert is from the Hillsborough River Quarry Cluster.

Only 139 specimens were identified as modified or possibly modified, or about 11%.

This includes all but one of the 42 pieces of chert. There were also 188 pieces of fire-cracked

rock, all but one of which were fine-grained limestone.

19Chert was used in tasks requiring a sharp cutting edge that could be refurbished when

it became dull through resharpening -- projectile points, flake knives and scrapers, and

6
perforating tools. Chert also was used in hammering tasks. 20 Fossil bone was used primarily to

produce flakes suitable for cutting or scraping and occasionally for net mesh gauges or pressure

flakers. Limestone and sandstone were used for tasks for which shell and chert were not

suited, specifically, 21plummets or sinkers, anchors, 22grinding and abrading tools and

23hammers. 24Waste debris – flakes and cores – of chert, fossil bone, and limestone – also was

common.

25Unmodified pieces of stone may have been collected and stockpiled for future use as

abraders, anchors, weights, cooking and heating stones, or to help support structural elements.

The various water rounded rocks and fossils, unusual pieces of stone, coral, and small pebbles

may have been collected as curios, personal charmstones, or to be used as powerful medicine

in rites or ceremonies. As mentioned, rounded pebbles could have served as projectiles in

slings and the smaller ones as functional components of rattles.

26There is a reasonable likelihood that the ferrous oxide concretions, and perhaps

stones with ferrous oxide surface accumulations, were purposefully gathered and processed for

red pigment. Experiments demonstrate that these materials can be processed easily and made

into a fine powder, i.e., into ochre. 27Ceramic sherds with ochre on their interior surfaces have

been found at Bayshore Homes, Perico Island, and Big Mound Key. I hope to be able to use

instrumental analyses to test these residues and compare the results to samples of ochre

prepared from local ferrous rocks as well as ochre from outside of Florida to test this idea.

The importance of stone to the inhabitants of Big Mound Key exceeds that of utilitarian

function, however. When one considers the various behaviors that can be inferred from

artifacts, the raw materials used to make them, and their functions, a myriad of relationships

7
emerges: 28knowledge of the natural landscape; the modes of transportation necessary to

travel to and from source areas; the political relationships and alliances that provided access to

non-local resources and allowed direct procurement or exchange to occur; the use of stone to

procure, manufacture, or modify other raw materials; to procure, process, and cook plants and

animals for food; to make the tools necessary to fish, hunt, and obtain other raw materials; use

in rituals or to prepare other materials for rituals, ceremonies, and special functions; and finally

the decisions that all societies have to make regarding where and how to dispose of its refuse.

To greater and lesser degrees, all of these behaviors (and others too numerous to

mention) are dependent on things for their realization and, conversely, things are dependent

on humans for their existence and maintenance when they break or fail to operate as expected.

Ian Hodder (2012) defines this dialectic as one of entanglement arguing that the degree to

which humans become entrapped by these various entanglements is a major contributor to

cultural change.

The extent to which stone was entangled with other materials, actions, and behaviors at

Big Mound Key is diagrammed in this figure. The messiness of this “tanglegram” illustrates how

enmeshed stone was with other material things and the activities they facilitated. Nodes in the

diagram, having greater or lesser numbers of arrows pointing to and from them, indicate how

intensively they are linked to other material items as well as the activities and social

relationships that shaped and directed their use. The social relationships operated at different

scales beginning with the household and encompassing the larger community, the regional

settlement system, and potentially the greater political landscape.

To take just one example, making a stone tool requires knowledge of the surrounding

8
landscape and particularly the locales where suitable stone is likely to be exposed or the best

collecting areas along a beach. A specific piece of stone may be manufactured into a useful

implement using other tools, or it may be used as is, such as a pebble to smooth the surface of

a clay pot. The arrows connecting natural stone to tools and then to pots indicate that the pot

is dependent on the stone for its existence. Similarly, the pebble smoother exists because of its

dependence on pottery to be manufactured as well as knowledge regarding the best place to

find water worn pebbles of the appropriate size. The pot may be used for cooking and so has a

dependency relationship with various foodstuffs, which in turn require certain tools for capture

or collection, processing, storage, and eating. The pot also depends on clay for its existence.

Collection of clay, foodstuffs, and fuel wood requires knowledge of the landscape where these

resources are found and the tools necessary to procure and process them. Eventually the

pebble smoother, pot, food remains, and hearth ashes will be discarded either in refuse pits or

in a midden, so the midden and refuse pit are dependent on these other items for their

existence and the discarded materials have a dependency relationship with the midden and

refuse pits in that these provide socially accepted areas for the discard of refuse.

The tanglegram could be extended to include many other relations, but I include this

limited version here to provide an indication of the degree to which stone was enmeshed

within a wide range of dependency relationships. 29The number of links pointing to and from

tools illustrates the importance of this node to others in the tanglegram, as well as the larger

economic and social environment. The interactions between nodes are what define the

dependencies between humans and things (Hodder 2012:18). If for some reason there was a

decrease in the availability of stone for ground stone implements, or a decrease in access to

9
clay for pottery making, these changes would have considerable effects on other parts of the

economic and social system as the links between the nodes are cut. Without tools made of

durable materials many other tools could not be made, used, or repaired, and the activities

dependent on these material things could not be carried out.

In the end, it’s not my goal to argue how important stone was to prehistoric peoples,

but instead to highlight the relationships between material culture and behavior, relationships

that extend far beyond technology and function.

References Cited
Adorno, Rolena, and Patrick Charles Pautz (editors and translators)
2003 Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, The Narrative of Cabeza de Vaca. University of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln.
Austin, Robert J.
2004 Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Miami Circle Excavations at Brickell Point. The Florida
Anthropologist 57:85-132.
2007 Lithic Materials from Estero Island, 8LL4, Lee County, Florida. Report prepared for Town
of Fort Myers Beach, Cultural & Environmental Learning Center, and Fort Myers Beach.
2008a Analysis of Lithic Materials from Mt. Elizabeth, 8MT30. Report prepared for Martin
County Parks & Recreation, Stuart.
2008b Lithic Artifacts from the Cutler Site, 8DA2001. Report on file, Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy, Davie, FL.
2013 Lithic Acquisition and Use at Pineland. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal
Southwest Florida Village Complex, A.D. 50-1710, edited by William H. Marquardt and
Karen J. Walker, pp. 657-717. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies,
Monograph Number 4. Gainesville: University of Florida.
2014 Analysis of Lithic Materials from the Wedgworth Midden, 8PB16175. Report submitted
to the Lawrence E. Will Museum, Belle Glade, FL.
2016 Siliceous and Non-siliceous Raw-Material Use at Big Mound Key. Report submitted to
George Luer, Sarasota.
Austin, Robert J., Geoff DuChemin, Bradley Lanning, Kristina Altes, Lee A. Newsom, and Nicole
A. Cannarozzi
2018 Phase III Data Recovery and Archaeological Monitoring, 8MA6A, Perico Island North
Midden, Harbour Isles Marina Project, Manatee County, Florida. Report prepared by
southeastern Archaeological Research for Minto Marina LLC. On file, Florida division of
Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Austin, Robert J., Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arlene Fradkin, John E. Foss, Shanna Drwiega, and Linda
Allred

10
2008 Bayshore Homes Archaeological Survey and National Register Evaluation. Report
prepared for the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Florida Division of Historical
Resources. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Bandelier, Fanny (editor and translator)
1905 The Journey of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca...translated from his own narrative by Fanny
Bandelier. A. S. Barnes and Co., New York.
DuBar, Jules R.
1958 Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Late Neogene Strata of the Caloosahatchee River
Area of Southern Florida. Geological Bulletin No. 40. Florida Geological Survey,
Tallahassee.
1962 Neogene Biostratigraphy of the Charlotte Harbor Area in Southwestern Florida.
Geological Bulletin No. 43. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.
Dunbar, James S.
1988 Cutler Site Lithic Artifact Analysis. Unpublished notes and date sheets in author’s
possession.
Endonino, Jon C., Robert J. Austin, Brian Worthington, Linda Scott Cummings, Kathryn Puseman,
and R. A. Varney
2009 Data Recovery Excavations at the Boca Raton Inlet Midden 3 site, 8PB6, Palm Beach
County, Florida. Report prepared for Luxury Resorts, Inc. by Southeastern
Archaeological Research, Inc. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee.
Favata, Martin A., and Jose B. Fernandez (translators)
1993 The Account: Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca’s Relación. Arte Publico Press, Houston.
Gillbreath-Brown, Andrew, and Tanya Perez
2018 An Experimental Study of Turtle Shell Rattles and the Implications for Archaeofaunal
Assemblages. PLoS ONE 13(8):1-32 e021472. https://doi.orw'!0.1371/joumaJ.pone.
02014n
Goggin, John
n.d. The Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. Unpublished manuscript (ca.
1948) on file, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.
Griffin, John W., Sue B. Richardson, Mary Pohl, Carl D. McMurray, C. Margaret Scarry, Suzanne
K. Fish, Elizabeth S. Wing, L. Jill Loucks, and Marcia K. Welch
1983 Excavations at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History of the Granada Site, Volume I.
Report on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Grunwald, Sabine
n.d. eSoil Science: Oxides and Hydroxides.
https://soils.ifas.ufl.edu/faculty/grunwald/teaching/eSoilScience/oxides.shtml.
Accessed May 30, 2016.
Heilprin, Angelo
1887 Explorations on the West Coast of Florida and in the Okeechobee Wilderness.
Transactions of the Wagner Free Institute of Science, volume 1, Philadelphia.
Hodder, Ian
2012 Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Wiley-
Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

11
Luer, George M.
2007 Mound Building and Subsistence during the Late Weeden Island Period (ca. AD 700-
1000) at Big Mound Key (8CH10), Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Luer, George M. (editor)
2014 Big Mound Key near Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society
Publication No. 17, Hobe Sound, FL.
Masson, Marilyn
1987 Chipped Limestone Artifacts from Dade County, Florida. Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc., Technical Report No. 26, Davie, FL.
Mayor, Adrienne
2005 Fossil Legends of the First Americans. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.
McFadden, Bruce J.
1997 Fossil Mammals of Florida. In The Geology of Florida, edited by Anthony F. Randazzo
and Douglas S. Jones, pp. 119-137. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Moore, Clarence B.
1894 Certain Sand Mounds of the St. Johns River, Florida, Part II. Philadelphia Academy of
Natural Sciences Journal 10:129-246.
1902 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast, Part I. Philadelphia
Academy of Natural Sciences Journal 12:127-355.
Palmer, Jay, and J. Raymond Williams
1977 The Formation of Goethite and Calcareous Lenses in Shell Middens in Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 30:24-27.
Patton, Robert B.
2013 Use of Bone at the Pineland Site Complex: Expanding the Caloosahatchee Bone Artifact
Typology. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Village Complex,
A.D. 50-1710, edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker, pp. 719-740.
Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph Number 4,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Puri, Harbans S., and Robert O. Vernon
1964 Summary of the Geology of Florida and a Guidebook to the Classic Exposures. Special
Publication No. 5 (Revised). Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.
SEARCH
2016 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Alico
Property, Hendry County, Florida. Report prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Steinen, Karl T.
1982 Other Non-Ceramic Artifacts. In Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake
Okeechobee Basin, by W. H. Sears, pp. 68-110. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 137, Washington, DC.
Upchurch, Sam B., Pliney Jewell IV, and Eric Dehaven
1992 Stratigraphy of Indian “Mounds” in the Charlotte Harbor Area, Florida: Sea-level Rise

12
 and Paleoenvironments. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited
by William H. Marquardt, pp. 59-103. Monograph No. 1. Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Vasilas, L. M., G. W. Hurt, and C. V. Noble (editors)
2010 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and
Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soils.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology Number
42, New Haven.

13
South Florida Sites in Relation
to Chert Quarry Clusters
Bayshore Homes

Perico Island
Estero Island

Fort Center
Boca Raton Inlet Midden
Perico Island
 Pineland

Bayshore Homes

From “An Experimental Study of Turtle Shell Rattles and the

Implications for Archaeofaunal Assemblages” (Gillbreath-Brown
and Perez 2018)

Boca Raton Inlet Midden

 Big Mound Key
Perico Island
 Boca Raton Inlet Midden

Estero Island
Fort Center
Fort Center
Fort Center
 Mt. Elizabeth 8HN696

Boca Raton Inlet Midden Estero Island

 Mt. Elizabeth

Photograph courtesy of Theresa Schober

From Ground Stone Analysis (2nd Edition) (Jenny L. Adams 2014)

 Cutler Site
Photograph courtesy of Jim Dunbar
Wedgworth Midden Perico Island
 Yat Kitischee

Pineland

From “Use of Bone at the Pineland Site Complex: Expanding the

Caloosahatchee Bone-Artifact Typology” (R. L. Patton 2013).
 700

600

500
Frequencies

400 Modified
Fire-cracked
Unmodified
300

200

100

Lithic Materials