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

EARTHWORKS AND EFFIGIES as opposed to middens, which are simply trash dumps-to have been constructed in South Florida. That in itselfis an important link, if only stylistically, with the Adena and Hopewell populations ofthe Midwest, which traditionally have been identified in the literature as the Burial Mound people. Sears believes (1982:197) that Fort Center may have functioned as a ceremonial center for a society that encircled the lake and extended up the Kissimmee River. While lending support to the extent ofthe society, the work ofCarr and Hale in identifying other similar complexes suggests that Fort Center may have been only one of a number of ~oughly coequal sites. Unfortunately, we have virtually no data for any of the other sites, with one notable exception, the Belle Glade site, for which Sears himself sees the possibility of a role similar to that of Fort Center. It consists of a habitation mound and a burial mound that had been built in three stages. Human skeletal remains were found in all three stages (Sears 1982:197; Stirling 1935:374376 ). In addition to a wide range of pottery, the site yielded an abundance of stone, bone, shell, and wood-artifacts. There were stone projectile points, weights or sinkers, tools, pipes, tubes, pendants or plummets; bone projectile points, daggers, pins, awls, adze sockets, punches, ornaments, headdresses; shell tools, dippers, ornaments; wood implements and effigies (Willey 1949:19-21). This last is especially interesting in light of the discoveries at Fort Center. Here again, birds were important; fragments of possibly five figures were found and the eyes appear to have been emphasized (Willey 1949:56-57). One bird from Belle Glade is identical to one from Key Marco (Purdy, personal communication). Another carving represents what Gordon R. Willey says is probably a dog but is more likely one of his alternate suggestions (deer, fox) due to the lack of evidence for dogs in aboriginal South Florida. Also, there are three plaques, one of which apparently contained a bird, and two human figures (Willey 1949:55-58). Other human effigies have been reported for Lakeport near Fort Center (Willey 1949:78), and for Pahokee, on the east side of Lake Okeechobee (Purdy, personal communication). Willey 88 HOPEWELLIAN-RELATED SOCIETIES (1949:78) says the Lakeport object ~~resembles the two human figures from Belle Glade in style andproportions althoughbetter made." Belle Glade is the type site for the crudely polished pottery mentioned previously. Based upon an analysis of that pottery, Willey (1949:71) identified two periods of occupation, though there is no bre3;k between the two. Stirling, basing his analysis on sequential use offirst the habitation area and then the burial mound, identified (1935:375) three periods at each area. Milanich and Fairbanks believe (1980:186) the site was occupied from A.D. 500 into historic times. That would make Belle Glade a bit late to have been subject to the ceremonial center at Fort Center. On the other hand, this connection provides a possible explanation of the human effigies , in that they may indicate a change in the religious system over time. Willey (1949:78) cites the Lakeport object's flattened skull, headdress style, and posture as Ureminiscent of the larger stone figures, from other parts of the Southeast, done in the Middle Mississippian style." Anthropologists believe the Mississippian pattern-the name now used for the phenomenon known in Willey'S day as Middle Mississippian-was in place by A.D. 900 (Chard 1975, 386), making Willey's observations consistent with the Milanich-Fairbanks dating. Unfortunately, sites aside from Fort Center are either greatly disturbed or destroyed, which means there is virtually no chance of ever establishing conclusively what relationship there may have been with Fort Center. In fact, much ofwhat we think we do know must be treated with caution. Many Glades I sites differ from pre-Glades sites only in the presence of plain sand-tempered pottery. In fact, the entire scheme of Glades periods, ranging from I (early) to IIIc (historic), is based solely upon variations in that pottery, almost entirely in the decorations of rims (Goggin m.s.:415). These differences may signify nothing more than a preference for a new style of rim. Also, the seeming proliferation of sites in Glades I timesWidmer (1988:76) speaks ofua rapid expansion ... in all areas of south Florida at this time"-may indicate nothing more than the relative ease with which occupation can be detected when pot89 [3.22.249.158] Project MUSE...

Share