In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

LIVING OFF THE LAND dates to 2000 B.C., and he believes the area probably was populated prior to that date (1982:46-59, 81). A similar inference is made for the Palmer site (Bullen and Bullen 1976:49). In neither case is there any hard evidence. An oyster and clam midden at Useppa Island contained a burial dated to 2160 B.C. (Marquardt 1987c:4). Another group of Southeast Florida radiocarbon dates are bunched at roughly 2000 B.C. Four come from Dade County sites, two tree islands in the west and a midden and cemetery on Biscayne Bay south of Miami River (Carr 1979:10, 1981:4). Wesley Coleman has reported (personal communication), but not published, a similar date for a site in western Broward County. Given the attractiveness ofthis new environment, it is strange indeed that after 2000 B.C. there appears to be another SOO-year gap in the archaeological record. Milanich (personal communication ) thinks this gap is illusory, and it could easily be explainedby the difficulty offinding late nonceramic sites. Significantly , the one site from that period-Palmer-also is one ofthe earliest ceramic sites in South Florida. Fiber-tempered pottery definitely was on hand by 1500 B.C., both at Palmer and at Caxambas Point on Marco Island (Bullen and Bullen 1976:13, Table 2; Cockrell 1970:60). It also is known in stratigraphic context at Useppa Island; Marquardt (personal communication) believes this pottery could date as early as 1500 B.C. Within another 500 years, by roughly 1000 B.C., there are numerous sites marked by the presence of pottery tempered with fiber or fiber and sand. Such sites are relatively common in Sarasota, Charlotte, and Brevard counties and are found elsewhere as well (Site cards, Bureau of Historic Preservation, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee). Could the SOO-year gap preceding the first ceramic sites be due to a lack of continuity that reflects the arrival of a new people, moving into a land vacated by the earlier inhabitants for reasons unknown? Ifso, did these newcomers arrive from the north or from the south? One argument against the arrival of a new population is the persistence of a generalized subsistence pattern and of artifact types, though this situation also could be 66 HUNTING AND GATHERING SOCIETIES explained by the constraints of the environment. A better argument is the apparent persistence of the burial tradition. Amy Felmley (1990:265) believes that the uniformity of burials throughout the region ··suggests continued interbreeding between culturally distinct populations" from the Late Archaic through European contact. Still, the question remains open in the absence of further research. If there were intruders, however , they almost certainly came from the north. There have been over the years a number of theories about migration from the south, some of them fanciful.4 The most credible scenario is that put forth by William H. Sears. He argues that as early as 2000 B.C. small groups of people from the south had entered Florida through the Everglades and migrated northward through the middle of the state. Among other things, he believes these people were responsible for the introduction of the first Florida pottery, fiber-tempered ware that makes its appearance about 2000 B.C. in the St. Johns River valley and even earlier in the Savannah, Georgia, area (Sears 1977:3, 5; Ford 1969:12).5 Additional evidence in support of that view comes from Robert W. Long (1984:118), who has pointed out that 61 percent of South Florida's plant species come from the south, 4Fanciful writings on possible southern origins for South Florida cultures generally were written some years back by non-archaeologists. Notable among such writings are George A. Hewitt's claim (1898:137) ofAztec origins for people of the upper Keys, the idea of Mayan origin for a Key Largo site as put forth by John c. Gifford and Alfred H. Gilbert (1932:313), and Doris Stone's contention (1939:218) that the use ofshell tools diffused from the Bahamas and the West Indies. Regarding the Stone idea, environmental similarities make independent invention a more logical explanation. 5The thoughtful earlier analyses, aside from that of Sears, discount southern origins. Hrdlicka (1922:114-116, 127, 130-131) says the head shape is wrong. John W. Griffin (1943:89) cites the lack ofmanioc cultivation, and Rouse (1940:63) notes that the Melliac, the type of Antillean pottery found closest to Florida, is not found in Florida. Sturtevant concludes (1960...

Share