New Histories of Pre-Columbian Florida

2. Deconstructing and Reconstructing Caloosahatchee Shell Mound Building

2 Deconstructing and Reconstructing Caloosahatchee Shell Mound Building Theresa Schober Remnants of elevated mounds and ridges, sculpted canals, and watercourts are a visible yet subtle reminder of the once-thriving Calusa chiefdom in today’s southwestFloridalandscape .TheCalusaheartlandwascenteredontheGreaterCharlotte Harbor watershed from the Peace River to the north and the Cocohatchee River to the south, encompassing the large estuaries of Charlotte Harbor proper, Pine Island Sound, and San Carlos and Estero Bays while spreading inland along the Caloosahatchee River (figure 2.1). The Calusa and their predecessors exploited and intensified the natural abundance of coastal and estuarine systems to establish a highly stratified, politically complex tributary chiefdom. Its sphere of influence and alliances incorporated the southern third of the Florida peninsula by the sixteenth century(Fontaneda1944;Laudonnière1975;SolísdeMerás1923;Zubillaga1946; Goggin and Sturtevant 1964; Hann 1991, 2003; Marquardt 1988; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Models devised to explain the characteristics of maritime hunting and gathering societies repeatedly acknowledge that marine environments provide an abundant and stable resource base (Murdock 1968; Yesner 1980) and that subsistence stress in such societies is buffered by resource scheduling (Arnold 1992) and food storage (Schalk 1981; Testart 1982). Where documentation exists, both ethnohistoric and archaeological data demonstrate that these societies are represented to greater or lesser degrees by the presence of semi-sedentary to sedentary village sites, high population densities, social and political hierarchies, hereditary chiefs, exchange networks between villages, occupational specialization, and warfare (Fiedel 1992). Not surprisingly then, interpretations of the Calusa archaeological record and discussions of the development of social formations are heavily interwoven with an understanding of resource availability and stability across time and space. Thispartialitytoenvironmentalexplanationsofsocialchangeisreinforcedbythe 39 Deconstructing and Reconstructing Caloosahatchee Shell Mound Building nature of the archaeological record in the Caloosahatchee region. Torrence (2001) argued that archaeological sites composed predominantly of shell “manipulate the mind.” In contrast to the earthen architecture among Hopewellian and Mississippian sites in northern Florida and beyond, the piling of food refuse into elevated mounds and ridges lends itself to mundane interpretations of accumulation rather than intentional construction. If shell-bearing sites are gradual accumulations, detailed studies of the specific dietary, seasonal, and environmental characteristics of these sites directly explore human-environmental interactions through time in the Caloosahatchee region (e.g., Marquardt 1992; Walker 1992) and can be extrapolated as proxies for environmental change(e.g.,Walkeretal.1995).However,ifshell-matrixsitesaretheproductoflandscape shaping and reshaping at monumental scales (Cushing 2000; Hrdlicka 1922; Torrence 1999; Torrence and Schober 2008), the relationship of site composition to subsistence and settlement patterns becomes more complex. Instead of integrative studies that focus on identifying depositional characteristics of shell-bearing deposits to test both cultural and natural processes, a Figure 2.1. Locations of Estero Bay archaeological sites mentioned in text with inset of study region. Map inset courtesy of Asa Randall. 40 Theresa Schober polarizing debate has developed across the Southeast among researchers who explore the purposeful use of shell for cosmological, ritual, or sociopolitical reasons and those who focus on the functional and ecological consequences of collecting, consuming, and discarding shellfish (see summaries by Thompson and Worth 2011; Randall 2010). Essentially, where some see platforms for elite structures, others see midden accumulations on storm surges (e.g., the Wightman site; see Widmer 1988, 93–94 and Walker et al. 1994 for contrasting perspectives), and where some see intentional construction, others see the opening of ocean passes (e.g., Useppa’s Collier Ridge; see Milanich et al. 1984 and Marquardt 1999, 89–91 for contrasting perspectives). The contrast in paradigms is also borne out in debates about the development of Calusa complexity. Marquardt (1988, 1987) interpreted the intensified tributary characteristics of the Calusa chiefdom as a by-product of heightened economic interaction and the influx of Spanish goods in the late contact period (Marquardt 2004, 210). Viewing the variety of Caloosahatchee site types, including mound complexes such as Pineland, as representative of gradual accumulation (Marquardt 2010a, 2010b) is consistent with this model. Widmer (1988) viewed the complex CalusachiefdomasaculturalphenomenonofdeepertimethatemergedbyAD800. Both researchers correlate site distribution with fluctuations in sea level. However, despite the environmental causation embedded in Widmer’s model, he attributes the construction of shellworks, changes in burial patterns, and the development of regional trade networks to solidification of social hierarchies for resource regulation . More recently, a number of economic models have focused on craft specialization , transportation, and trade as catalysts for changes in social formation (Dietler 2008; Patton 2001; Torrence and Schober...