NPS Form 10-900-bOMB Approval No. 1024—0018 

(Rev. Aug 2002) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places 

Multiple Property Documentation Form 

 

This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the 

Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For 

additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items.

__X__ New Submission ____ Amended Submission 

A. Name of Multiple Property Listing

Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

B. Associated Historic Contexts

 (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) 

Archaic Origins of the Tequesta ca. 10,000-500 B.C. 

Development of Glades Pottery 500 B.C.-A.D. 1763 

Settlement Patterns 2500 B.C.-A.D. 1763 

Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta 500 B.C.-A.D. 1763 

Mortuary Practices 500 B.C.-A.D. 1763 

Earthwork Building 500 B.C.-A.D. 1763 

Exchange Networks 2500 B.C.-A.D. 1763 

Tequesta Art and Aesthetics 500 B.C.-A.D. 1763 

Sociopolitical Development 500 B.C.-A.D. 1763 

Culture Contact A.D. 1500-A.D. 1763 

C. Form Prepared by

name/title Ryan J. Wheeler, Ph.D., Chief, Bureau of Archaeological Research 

organization Florida Division of Historical Resources date May 2004 

street & number 500 South Bronough Street telephone 850.245.6300 

city or town Tallahassee state FL zip code 32309-0250 

D. Certification 

As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that 

this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the 

listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and 

professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation. (G See continuation sheet for additional comments.) 

______________________________________________ ____________________ 

Signature and title of certifying official Date 

______________________________________________ 

State or Federal Agency or Tribal government

I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing 

in the National Register. 

_______________________________________________ ___________________ 
NPS Form 10-900-bOMB Approval No. 1024—0018 

(Rev. Aug 2002) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

Signature of the Keeper Date of Action 
NPS Form 10-900-bOMB Approval No. 1024—0018 

(Rev. Aug 2002) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

Table of Contents for Written Narrative 

Provide the following information on continuation sheets. Cite the letter and the title before each section of the narrative. Assign 

page numbers according to the instructions for continuation sheets in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation 

Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Fill in page numbers for each section in the space below. 

E. Statement of Historic Contexts 

(If more than one historic context is documented, present them in sequential order.) Page Numbers

Introduction 3 

Modern American Indian Perspectives 4 

Archeology, History and the Tequesta 5 

Archaic Origins of the Tequesta 6 

Development of Glades Pottery 8 

Settlement Patterns 11 

Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta 15 

Mortuary Practices 26 

Earthwork Building 30 

Exchange Networks 32 

Tequesta Art and Aesthetics 34 

Sociopolitical Development 36 

Culture Contact 

Summary 

37 

41 

F. Associated Property Types 

(Provide description, significance, and registration requirements.) 

Significance of the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

NHL Thematic Framework 

Criteria for the Evaluation of Tequesta and their Ancestors Sites 

Establishing Significance 

Levels of Significance 

43 

43 

44 

45 

46 

Accretionary Middens 46 

Knoll sites 49 

Burial Mound sites 50 

Cemetery sites 52 

Temple Mound sites 54 

Prehistoric Earthwork sites 56 

Constructed Habitation Mound sites 58 

Aboriginal Water Course or Canal 59 

Significant Sites of the Tequesta and their Ancestors/Potential NHL Sites 64 

G. Geographical Data 68 

H. Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods 

(Discuss the methods used in developing the multiple property listing.) 69 

I. Major Bibliographical References 

(List major written works and primary location of additional documentation: State Historic 

Preservation Office, other State agency, Federal agency, local government, university, or 

other, specifying repository.)

71 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties 

for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in 

accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _5_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 120 hours per response including the time for reviewing 

instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form 

to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.0. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of Management and Budget, 

Paperwork Reductions Project (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _6_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

E. HISTORIC CONTEXTS

Introduction 

This NHL theme study, Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors, was developed to 

provide the archeological and historical context for the National Historic Landmark (NHL) nomination of the Miami 

Circle at Brickell Point site. Discussions among archeologists who worked at the site and the Florida Division of 

Historical Resources National Register of Historic Places survey and registration staff in mid-2003 led to the 

conclusion that the Miami Circle site was significant at the national level, but that it would be difficult to nominate the 

site since existing NHL theme studies did not reflect the unique character of the ancient Tequesta people who once 

occupied southeastern Florida, their role in the early history of the United States, and the potential contribution of 

archeological sites in the region to understanding broader patterns of American Indian architecture, exchange, and 

ceremonialism. 

 Sites of the Tequesta and their ancestors were recognized as regionally and nationally significant for several 

reasons. The first reason is the association between the Tequesta and the Everglades. Considerable attention has 

recently been focused on restoration of the Everglades ecosystem, a unique hydrological system found in large 

portions of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Today, the coastal portions of these counties are 

dominated by the urban and suburban development of West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami—making it 

difficult to visualize the estuarine lagoons; narrow, sandy beaches; and streams draining the Everglades marsh that 

were home to the Tequesta people. Development has pushed westward from the coast, and now the remnants of the 

Everglades are preserved in three major water conservation areas, the Arthur G. Marshall Loxahatchee National 

Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park. Unfortunately, recent historical and environmental perspectives on the 

Everglades have ignored the role of the Tequesta in shaping and controlling the Everglades system (see McCally 

1999). Archeological investigation of Everglades tree island communities indicates that the Tequesta may have 

intentionally contributed to the formation of these islands. Better understanding of tree island formation, and the 

integral relationship of the Tequesta and the Everglades, may aid in developing restoration strategies. 

Secondly, some sites of the Tequesta and their ancestors exhibit considerable engineering accomplishments 

related to the construction of long-distance canoe canals. This accomplishment is equivalent to irrigation canals built 

by prehistoric cultures in the American Southwest (Busch et al. 1976), raised causeways connecting some Maya sites 

in Mesoamerica (Coe 1987: 64, 104, 113-114; Sabloff 1989:212), or irrigation canals built by some coastal South 

American cultures (Moseley 1983:189-190, 234-235), representing a major element of the aquatic adaptation that 

developed during the Archaic. Archeologists John Griffin (1988:308) and George Luer (1989) also suggest that the 

construction of these long-distance canoe canals is archeological evidence for social complexity. 

Thirdly, the Tequesta were one of the first American Indian groups encountered by Ponce de Leon in the early 

sixteenth century. Some Tequesta sites contain materials associated with this period of early European contact and 

exploration, as well as later evidence of settlement, missionization, and exchange. These sites are significant, since 

they may harbor the relatively rare patterns related to culture contact and change. Unlike many other Southeast 

Indian groups, the Tequesta and their neighbors preserved traditional cultural patterns well into the early eighteenth 

century. This makes them an important case study in comparison to native southeastern peoples that were subjected 

to more intensive missionization, disease, and slavery. The Miami Circle at Brickell Point site can be considered in 

this continuum, since it is part of a much larger village site—called Tequesta—that was the periodic focus of Spanish 

contact and missionization in the sixteenth century. Much of the site represents the earliest occupation of the locale, 

though several animal interments at the site indicate late, possibly European Contact Period, use of the site. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _7_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

This document is intended as a framework for understanding sites associated with the Tequesta and their 

ancestors, and for evaluating significance of these sites. Of course, not all Tequesta sites are nationally significant. 

Many sites discussed here contain information relating to patterns of subsistence, settlement, and technology that 

make them significant at the local and possibly regional level. Sites significant at the regional level include those that 

relate to the earliest, Archaic Period occupation of southern Florida, as well as those that relate to broader, regional 

patterns of earthwork building, mound construction, chronology, technology, exchange, aesthetics, nutrition and 

health, and mortuary activity. Nationally significant sites include those with rare evidence of architecture, materials 

related to patterns of long-distance exchange, and those sites harboring European Contact Period artifacts and 

patterns of continuity or change associated with culture contact. Sites with unique features or exceptionally 

preservation may be distinguished for National Historic Landmark designation. 

Review of records maintained by the Florida Master Site File indicates that few sites in southeastern Florida have 

been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places and that no archeological sites are designated National 

Historic Landmarks (see discussion in Section F). Five American Indian sites in Florida have received National 

Historic Landmark status: Crystal River (6-21-90), Fort Walton Mound (7-19-64), Safety Harbor (7-19-64), San Luis de 

Talimali (10-9-60, updated in 2004), Windover (5-28-87), as well as several other sites that are associated with the 

more recent American Indian occupation of the state. Crystal River and the Fort Walton Mound are significant 

because they are outstanding and well-preserved examples of indigenous architecture and because of their 

association with broader cultural patterns that link some Florida cultures with those of the Southeast and Midwest. 

The Windover site is significant because of its early date, the unusual wet-site preservation that has allowed study of 

perishable artifacts like fabric and wood, and because of the preservation of human DNA in brain tissue. The Safety 

Harbor site is significant because of a possible association with the European Contact Period Tocobaga Indians. 

Mission San Luis is significant because of extensive research at this site and its importance in understanding and 

interpreting Spanish-Indian interactions in Florida and the Southeast. What these sites share is an association with a 

broader cultural tradition, often one that reaches well beyond Florida. It is possible that the low number of NRHP sites 

and the lack of NHL designated sites in southeastern Florida are related to the absence of an understanding of the 

broader cultural patterns that link sites of the Tequesta and their ancestors with neighboring parts of the Caribbean, 

southeastern, and Midwestern United States. The goal of this theme study is to provide a context for regional and 

national significance for Tequesta sites. 

In addition to identifying nationally significant sites of the Tequesta and their ancestors, this study is also intended 

to serve archeologists and historic preservation planners working at the local and state level in assessing significance 

of these sites. Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami both have aggressive historic preservation ordinances, 

including mechanisms for designating locally significance sites. Information on locally significant sites has been 

incorporated into Section F of this document, along with data on sites within Everglades National Park. It is hoped that 

some of the sites identified here can be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, in order to aid in site 

protection and interpretation of the role of the Tequesta in the history of the United States. 

Modern American Indian Perspectives 

This study is designed to create a scientific-archeological-anthropological context for sites built and occupied by 

the Tequesta Indians and their ancestors. While modern descendants of the Tequesta have not been recognized, 

there are clearly modern American Indian individuals and groups that harbor specific ideas, feelings, and viewpoints 

about these sites (for example, see Billie 2000; Cypress et al. 2002; Dayhoff and Terry 2002; Sacred Song 2000). 

Their statements clearly indicate that there are other values (beside scientific) associated with these sites. This study, 

however, focuses on sites significant under National Register of Historic Places Criterion D and National Historic 

Landmark Criterion 6, though it is recognized that some sites may be eligible for listing under other criteria that deal 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _8_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

with traditional cultural properties (see Parker and King 1998). If sites are identified for nomination that qualify as 

traditional cultural properties, or are associated with American Indian beliefs, values, and practices, consultation with 

appropriate tribal groups should be initiated in the early stages of the nomination process. 

Archeology, History and the Tequesta 

 Spanish accounts from the sixteenth century describe a powerful Florida Indian tribe, the Tequesta, whose main 

village was at the mouth of the Miami River, near the shore of Biscayne Bay (Griffin et al. 1982; McNicoll 1941; Parks 

1982; Sturtevant 1978). Today, this area is the heart of downtown Miami and the location of several important 

archeological sites, including Granada and the Miami Circle. 

 The Tequesta were not a simple band of hunter-gatherers. Historic accounts indicate that their society was 

sociopolitically complex. Archeology reveals that their economy was based on fishing, hunting, and gathering, with a 

reliance on dugout canoes, which the Tequesta used along the coast and in the Everglades. How did this complex 

society evolve? When did it first appear? What can we learn about the nature of Tequesta society? These are 

nationally significant questions. 

 Archeology is beginning to yield clues about the Tequesta and their ancestors. Fish remains from middens show 

that the Tequesta caught diverse fishes, including large fish such as mako shark and swordfish (Wing and Loucks 

1982). Caches of shell celts suggest an honored role for makers of Tequesta dugout canoes (Carr and Reiger 1980). 

Paleobotanical analysis indicates that the Tequesta utilized the abundant supply of semi-tropical fruits that are 

characteristic of southeastern Florida (Masson and Scarry 1990; Scarry and Newsom 1992:395). The Tequesta were 

expert wood carvers, as shown by two wooden clubs dredged from buried deposits, including one from the Miami 

River (Goggin 1942; Purdy 1991:236, Figures 89 and 90). 

Art styles on carved bone artifacts indicate that the Tequesta participated in widespread traditions of Florida Indian 

art (Wheeler and Coleman 1996). Ceramic platform pipes reveal that, almost 2000 years ago (during the Middle 

Woodland horizon), the ancestors of the Tequesta had links to far-ranging Hopewellian influences (Luer 1995). Such 

influences might have led to construction of large, circular earthworks (Carr 1985). Other artifacts pointing to such 

extra-local connections include galena and diabase/basalt stone axes. The Tequesta also built mounds and linear 

ridges (Carr et al. 1995:24-25; Harrington 1909:139-140). 

Historic accounts describe the importance of the Tequesta. The Tequesta were encountered by Ponce de Leon 

during his first voyage to Florida in 1513 (Davis 1935). In the 1560s, the Spanish established a fort and mission 

among the Tequesta, and they took the brother of the principal Tequesta chief to Spain, where he became a Christian. 

He returned to Florida and helped mediate relations between the Spanish and Indians (Lewis 1978:28; Solís de Merás 

1923:232, 236, 242-243; Zubillaga 1946:322-324, 333-340, 371). 

During this period, the Tequesta engaged in tributary and political relationships with neighboring tribes. The 

Tequesta were sometimes allied with their neighbors in the Florida Keys, and they used dugout canoes to hunt right 

whales, drying their meat for barter with inland groups (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964:180, 184-185, 188; Larson 

1980:146-156; Worth 1995). Alliances were often cemented through marriages, and the chief of the Tequesta was a 

Anear relative@ of the chief of the Calusa, with whom the Tequesta were sometime allied and sometimes hostile 

(Goggin and Sturtevant 1964:187-189; Lewis 1978:27-29; Solís de Merás 1923:210, 222). 

The theme “The Tequesta and their ancestors” encompasses a number of temporal, geographic and cultural 

historic contexts. The Tequesta were the American Indian group first encountered by the Spanish upon exploring the 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _9_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

Florida coastline in the early sixteenth century. They are known only from documents written by contemporary 

European explorers, priests, soldiers, and scholars, as well as from archeological excavation. Study of the Tequesta, 

who persisted for almost 200 years after the incursion of the Spanish, is important in understanding culture contact, 

adaptation, and acculturation. Archeological research in the area demonstrates considerable cultural continuity 

extending back at least 2,000 years, and perhaps well into the Late Archaic (ca. 5,000 to 2,500 years ago). The 

Everglades has been recognized as a unique environment, with few parallels elsewhere in the world. The Tequesta 

developed an equally distinctive adaptation, which involved habitation of Everglades tree islands, as well as large and 

small settlements along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. Thus, the geographic area considered here includes portions of 

Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties (Figures 1 and 2). Although the geographic focus is southeastern Florida, 

some of these sites contain information that can be used to address nationally significant questions regarding longdistance exchange, patterns of culture contact and culture change, and indigenous architecture. 

In order to address the significant contribution and potential contribution of the Tequesta and their ancestors, this 

overview is organized into ten themes, including the Archaic origins of the Tequesta, specific aspects of their unique 

adaptation to the Everglades and adjacent coastline, and culture contact with Europeans. Additionally, under each of 

these study-specific themes, the appropriate NPS thematic framework theme is identified (see National Park Service 

1999:79-83). Each theme is followed by a series of research questions that can be addressed with existing data, or by 

further study of extant collections or study of particular sites or groups of sites. 

Archaic Origins of the Tequesta 

 The theme Archaic Origins of the Tequesta has been identified as a regionally and nationally significant topic since 

the specific Archaic adaptations encountered in southeastern Florida may be unique and may be important in 

understanding Archaic traditions in neighboring parts of Florida and the broader Southeast. This theme falls under the 

National Park Service’s Thematic Framework theme I. Peopling Places (NPS 1999:81). 

Until recently, it appeared that there was little, if any, occupation of southern Florida prior to the Late Archaic (circa 

5,000 years ago) (see Griffin 2002:144-149). In fact, Widmer (1988:201-202) argued that sites like Little Salt Springs 

in Sarasota County, which may have been occupied by PaleoIndians prior to 10,000 years ago, were abandoned 

along with much of southern Florida by the Early Archaic (circa 9,000 to 7,000 years ago). Pollen profiles for southern 

Florida suggest that the environment at this time was very arid, and Widmer (1988:202) hypothesizes that fresh water 

may have been scarce or difficult to find. The demise of the Pleistocene megafauna may be tied to these 

environmental conditions. Around 5,000 to 6,000 years ago increasing sea level helped raise the potentiometric 

surface of local water tables, helping to create modern hydrologic conditions. It is at this time that scientists believe 

major aquatic features of southern and eastern Florida formed, including Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, and the 

St. Johns River (Brooks 1974:256; Miller 1998:64-69). 

Several sites have been found in Miami-Dade County, however, that suggest human occupation of the area during 

the Late PaleoIndian and Early Archaic periods (Figure 3). Interestingly, these sites are associated with karstic 

features and landforms unlike the tree islands that formed as part of the Everglades. At the Cutler Fossil site 

(8DA2001) investigators found bones of animals from the late Pleistocene Rancholabrean fauna (a possible dire wolf 

den); burned limestone boulders—a possible hearth; limestone and chert bifaces identified as Dalton-like and Bolen 

Beveled Corner Notched; bone artifacts; and human remains of five individuals (Carr 1986; Emslie and Morgan 1995) 

(Figure 4). A radiocarbon date from the hearth level, which contained evidence of human occupation, was 9,670 +/- 

120 B.P. The artifacts and radiocarbon date are consistent with late PaleoIndian/Early Archaic period occupation, 

though additional radiocarbon dates on the human remains suggest they may be more recent (Emslie and Morgan 

1995:80-81). The Cutler site is located on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, at about 5 m above current mean sea level. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _10_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

During the Early Archaic, however, the ridge would have been even more elevated above sea level, and the fauna 

recovered suggest a forested environment surrounded by open, savannah-like grasslands and open marshes and 

wetlands (Emslie and Morgan 1996:81). This suggests that water sources were available at this time in southeastern 

Florida and that other early sites might be associated with similar karstic features that predate the Everglades and its 

tree islands, which were heavily occupied by later populations. 

Carr et al. (Carr et al. 1991:7; Carr, Steele and Stone 1993:3-4; Carr 2002:193-195) located a limestone ridge or 

series of ridges in the eastern Everglades of Broward County that also have sites dating to the Early Archaic (Figure 

3). Tree islands, often occupied by the later Glades people, are present here and have formed around erosional 

remnants of the limestone ridges. Dalton bifaces, characteristic of the Early Archaic, were found associated with 

limestone surfaces at two of the tree islands along the rock ridge (sites 8BD2150 and 8BD1873) (Carr 2002:194-195; 

Carr and Masson 1989). Excavations at the Weston Pond site, a 125-m wide sink hole pond flanked by Late Archaic 

middens (8BD2132), had faunal and floral remains preserved in peat. Radiocarbon dates indicate the pond formed 

around 7,000 years ago and that the bone deposit occurred around 5,000 years ago (Carr 2002:194-195). It is not 

clear if the deposits represent cultural activity, but at the very least it is clear that fresh water resources were available 

during the Early and Middle Archaic periods. 

Archeological sites dating from the Middle to Late Archaic (from 5,000 to 2,500 years ago) are better known. Carr 

(1981:20) identified 3 sites from this time period in his archeological survey of Miami-Dade County. Similarly, other 

surveys in Miami-Dade and Broward counties have identified at least 11 radiocarbon dated sites from this era, located 

within the Everglades and on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge (Carr 2002:201; Carr et al. 1991:11-12; Masson et al. 

1988:339; Mowers and Williams 1972; Newman 1993). Carr et al. (1991:11-12) describe site 8BD1119, located on 

the Pine Island Ridge in Broward County, that had a scatter of lithic flakes and Middle Archaic biface tools. Other sites 

are characterized by midden deposits, often overlying limestone bedrock, or cemetery sites (see discussion of 

mortuary patterns, below). Interestingly, fiber-tempered ceramics are rare or absent at many of the Late Archaic sites 

from the area. At Peace Camp, Mowers and Williams (1972:9) recovered 16 sherds of fiber-tempered pottery from 

their Strata 4 and 5, and report a date of 3,050 +/- 140 B.P. from Strombus shell celts found in a deeper stratum. 

Elsewhere in Florida, especially along the St. Johns River, fiber-tempered ceramics had appeared by 4,500 years ago, 

and sherds of this type are well-represented at sites in southwestern Florida (Cockrell 1970; Russo 1991; Widmer 

1974) and also in coastal Martin and Palm Beach counties (see Wheeler et al. 2002). At Taylor’s Head, however, no 

fiber-tempered ceramics were found. To explain this dichotomy between Late Archaic Everglades area sites that lack 

fiber-tempered pottery and large, coastal shell mounds that have abundant examples of early ceramics, Pepe and 

Jester (1995:19) propose that there are two, distinct Archaic traditions in southeastern Florida. In this model the fibertempered pottery tradition is largely a coastal phenomenon associated with shell mound building, while the aceramic 

Archaic or Glades Archaic is a more widespread tradition, perhaps giving rise to the distinctive regional culture of the 

Tequesta and their ancestors (also see Russo and Heide 2002:80 and Wheeler et al. 2002:143-144). Extending this 

model further into the past is possible, especially considering the new evidence for Early Archaic sites in southeastern 

Florida. It seems likely that the later, divergent fiber-tempered and aceramic Archaic traditions are grounded in an 

earlier, Early to Middle Archaic tradition. This is supported by studies of bone and shell artifact complexes of the Early 

Archaic and Middle to Late Archaic Mount Taylor Culture found in the upper St. Johns River basin (see Wheeler and 

McGee 1994 on materials from Lake Monroe) and similar tool complexes identified in southeastern Florida during the 

Glades periods (Richardson and Pohl 1982; Wheeler 2002a, 2002c). 

Research Questions 

! Despite recent advances in recognizing an Archaic occupation in the Tequesta homeland, this period needs 

considerable additional study. Important questions that should be addressed include: 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _11_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

! What is the relationship between the aceramic “Everglades Archaic” and the fiber-tempered using cultures in the 

nearby East Okeechobee, Ten Thousand Islands, and Caloosahatchee areas? 

! What is the source of lithic raw materials at Archaic sites in southeastern Florida? 

! How does the shell and bone working technology of the Everglades Archaic compare with later technologies in the 

area? How does it compare with the Archaic technologies in neighboring areas? 

! Are Florida Transitional Period sites or site components, as defined by Ripley Bullen (1959; 1971), present in the 

area? If so, what role do they have in the development of later cultures? 

! What is the relationship between the Cutler Fossil site (8DA2001) and the Everglades Archaic? 

! What is the geographic distribution of Everglades Archaic sites in southeastern Florida? Is it possible, through 

radiocarbon dating, to determine that aceramic sites also date to the Everglades Archaic? 

! What patterns of plant and animal use can be recognized for the Archaic Period of southeastern Florida? How do 

these patterns compare with those of neighboring Archaic cultures? How do they compare with patterns recognized 

for the later Glades culture occupation of the area? 

Development of Glades Pottery 

 The theme Development of Glades Pottery has been identified as a regionally and nationally significant topic since 

the Glades series has been important in developing chronologies for the area, and because it stands in contrast to 

other ceramic traditions in neighboring areas that are tied more closely to broader ceramic styles of the Caribbean, 

Southeast and Midwest. Particularly Glades ceramic types that might be related to broader styles—like Surfside 

Incised and its possible affiliation with Mississippian ceramics—suggest that some types may contribute to broader 

understanding of ceramic patterns found across much of the southeastern United States. This theme falls under the 

National Park Service’s Thematic Framework themes I. Peopling Places: ethnic homelands and III. Expressing 

Cultural Values (NPS 1999:81, 82). 

Archeologist John Goggin (1939) recognized the chronological value of simple incised designs found on some 

ceramics of the Glades series, the dominant sand and grit-tempered pottery produced in southern Florida (see original 

description by Stirling 1936:353) (Figures 5 and 6). Sherds with a feather-like motif, named Gordon’s Pass Incised, 

were the first decorated Glades pottery type recognized by Goggin to have chronological significance. Largely based 

on stratigraphic excavations in the homeland of the Tequesta and their ancestors, Goggin identified additional 

decorated types, at least three ceramic series, and development of a local chronology (Goggin 1944a, 1944b, 1947, 

1950, 1952; Goggin and Sommer 1949). Subsequent excavations and collections led Goggin (1948, 1949, n.d.) to 

revise his Matecumbe chronology to include not only sites of southeastern Florida and the Florida Keys, but also much 

of the rest of southern Florida, which he termed the Glades Area. Goggin’s Glades ceramic chronology, developed 

prior to the advent of radiocarbon dating, was a significant tool in the developing understanding of Florida archeology 

during the mid-twentieth century. Goggin (1940) also recognized the presence of St. Johns pottery (called Biscayne 

ware at that time) in southern Florida, noting its differential distribution throughout the area. This is significant, since 

the distribution (or relative distribution) of the decorated Glades types also is important in distinguishing the 

geographic subareas of the region. Archeologist John Griffin (1988, 2002:141-144), using Goggin’s chronological 

framework, data collected by subsequent researchers, and radiocarbon dates, presented a revised Glades 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _12_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

chronology. Tables 1 and 2 present the Glades sequence as referred to in that study and the ceramic types by period. 

Griffin (1988, 2002:75-93) includes descriptions of the initial types defined by Goggin as well as types recognized by 

other researchers. 

Table 1. Glades chronological sequence. 

Period Date Range 

Glades IIIc A.D. 1513-1763 

Glades IIIb A.D. 1400-1513 

Glades IIIa A.D. 1200-1400 

Glades IIc A.D. 1100-1200 

Glades IIb A.D. 900-1100 

Glades IIa A.D. 750-900 

Glades I late A.D. 500-750 

Glades I early 500 B.C.-A.D. 500 

Table 2. Glades pottery types by period. 

 Glades III Glades II Glades I 

 C B A C B A Late Early 

Historic Ceramics X 

Glades Tooled X X 

Surfside Incised X 

Plantation Pinched X 

Key Largo Incised X X 

Matecumbe Incised X 

Miami Incised X 

Opa Locka Incised X X 

Fort Drum Incised X 

Fort Drum Punctated X 

Cane Patch Incised X 

Sanibel Incised X 

Gordons Pass Incised X 

Glades Plain X X X X X X X X 

Goodland Plain X X X 

Widmer (1988) presents the most useful way to understand the space and time significance of the Glades pottery 

sequence. Numerous other researchers have attempted to refine and subdivide the Glades Area originally proposed 

by Goggin, including Goggin’s own definitions of subareas (n.d.), often using ceramics and other traits. Widmer 

(1988:78-88), however, recognizes three distinct areas in southern Florida based exclusively on ceramic trajectories: 

Glades, Caloosahatchee, and Belle Glade. Widmer’s (1988:79) Glades or Circum-Glades area includes the territory 

occupied by the Tequesta and their ancestors, as well as the Ten Thousand Islands area to the west. Griffin 

(2002:132-133) explains that Widmer’s Glades or Circum-Glades is characterized by the decorated ceramic tradition 

that Goggin initially identified and used to develop the broader areal chronology. Interestingly, ceramic paste and form 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _13_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

seem to change little through time, suggesting considerable continuity within the tradition. Vessels are often shallow, 

open bowls, made of sand and grit tempered clays or mucky soils. 

Griffin (2002:149, 154-160) discusses the development of this ceramic trajectory, which is first distinguished by the 

appearance of sand-tempered pottery (also called Glades Plain) around 500 B.C. Glades I late (A.D. 500-750) is 

characterized by the appearance of several incised and punctated ceramic types. Griffin (2002:154-155) recognizes 

three groups or complexes of designs at this time—Gordon’s Pass, Fort Drum, and Cane Patch. Interestingly, Carr 

and Beriault (1984:3) argue that Gordon’s Pass Incised, Sanibel Incised, and other sherds of the period are largely 

confined to southwestern Florida—the Ten Thousand Islands. Griffin (2002:155-156) adds that the Cane Patch 

Complex is mostly known from southwestern Florida, but points out that all these sherd types occur in southeastern 

Florida as well. Carr and Beriault (1984:3) argue that the geographic trends noted in decorated ceramics from A.D. 

200 to 800 suggest the Ten Thousand Islands is a distinct area occupied by a different tribal entity. Griffin (2002:132, 

156) counters that this distinction is only a brief one, and prefers to refer the Ten Thousand Islands to a district of the 

larger Everglades area. The Fort Drum complex, however, is more widely represented across southern Florida, and 

Griffin (2002:156) acknowledges that it is the first widely distributed ceramic complex of the Glades periods. Griffin 

(2002:156) concludes that the decorated ceramics of southern Florida originate with Gordon’s Pass and Cane Patch 

complexes in southwestern Florida, and that Fort Drum emerges from these and spreads more widely across southern 

Florida. Opa Locka Incised (the motif is rows of inverted arcs) appears during Glades I late and persists into Glades 

IIa (A.D. 750-900), seemingly providing a base for the other incised designs of the Glades II Period. It is worth noting 

that extra-local sherds, likely derived through exchange networks, also appear during the Glades I Period; these 

include sherds of the Deptford series, typically associated with early and middle Woodland contexts on the central and 

northern Gulf Coasts (see Milanich 1973; Willey 1949a; also Carr and Ricisak 2000:271, 276). 

Griffin (2002:157) suggests that the appearance of Opa Locka Incised represents a significant design shift from the 

earlier ceramic complexes of the Glades I late Period; he speculates that this design shift may correlate with broader 

changes in other cultural systems that occur at this time. The continuous, open loop motif of Key Largo Incised likely 

evolves from Opa Locka Incised; Griffin (2002:157) notes that this widespread type is characteristic of the Glades II 

Period (A.D. 750-1200). Several incised types of the Glades II Period seem to have geographic implications; Dade 

Incised is only known from southeastern Florida, as are a number of poorly defined types including Arch Creek Incised 

and Natural Bridge Incised. There are likely a number of other, unnamed types present in this period; for example, 

both Griffin (2002:87; and Robert Carr, personal communication, 2000) recognize a “noded” ceramic type that has 

small appliqué or embossed nodes around the rim. Also, there is considerable variation within some of the defined 

types. Beiter (2001:37, 40) has recently illustrated the variation within Key Largo Incised sherds from one site. Griffin 

(2002:158) notes the considerable number of sites dated to the Glades II period, suggesting this is a time of 

technological and economic stability. Ceramics of the Glades IIc Period (A.D. 1100-1200) are characterized by the 

rare Plantation Pinched type; Griffin (2002:158) notes that the earlier complex of incised ceramics appears to be 

abandoned during the Glades IIc Period and suggests some correlation in broader cultural patterns. Griffin (2002:158-

159) notes some divergence in site occupation during the Glades IIc/Glades IIIa periods, and suggests a possible 

correlation with a climatic event. It is of interest, too, that sherds of the chalky St. Johns series appear in Florida 

during the Glades II Period. By the end of the period, circa A.D. 1000-1200, St. Johns Check Stamped is found in 

southeastern Florida sites. Early in his research, Goggin (1940) noted the appearance of this type in southern Florida, 

and suggested it was a result of exchange with neighboring areas of the Atlantic Coast where this is a predominant 

ware. Griffin (2002:87-90) discusses the debate on the significance of St. Johns ceramics in southern Florida, noting 

Espenshade’s (1983) research, which argued for local production of both chalky and sand-tempered wares. Both 

Goggin (n.d.:449-451) and Griffin (2002:88-89) suggest that the co-existence of these two ceramic trajectories, with no 

apparent mingling, is difficult to accept unless the St. Johns series is viewed as an extra-local import. More recent 

attempts to understand the origins and role of St. Johns pottery in eastern Florida have demonstrated that the chalky 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _14_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

texture is related to an abundance of sponge spicules in the paste. Rolland and Bond (2003) have argued, based on 

the lack of clay sources with similar quantities of sponge spicules and ethnographic analogy, that St. Johns potters 

added sponge spicules to their clays. In light of Luer’s (1989:119-121) argument concerning the distribution of Belle 

Glade ceramics and its possible role in transport of exchange items, a similar function might be argued for the St. 

Johns series. In either case, a connection with the neighboring area to the north is indicated. 

The ceramic complex of the Glades IIIa Period (A.D. 1200-1400) is quite different from that of preceding periods. 

Incised motifs reappear, characterized by the type Surfside Incised. Surfside Incised, however, has parallel lines 

(usually in groups of two or three) encircling the rim and the addition of shelf-like rim lugs or projections. Grooves or 

rim ticking also is common with this type. Griffin (2002:159) notes a possibly Antillean influence in Surfside Incised, as 

did Goggin (n.d.:437-439), though the design motif also is similar to incised and engraved ceramics found elsewhere 

in the Southeast during the Mississippian Period (cf. descriptions for Fort Walton Incised, Point Washington Incised, 

and Pensacola Incised in Willey 1949a:460-466). The recent discovery, however, of a Surfside Incised sherd from the 

Old Marco Inn midden in Collier County suggests a clear connection with Point Washington Incised ceramics; I 

examined this sherd at the office of the Archeological and Historical Conservancy in Miami—it exhibited a Surfside 

Incised rim lug and attendant incising, but modeled and engraved to look like a hawk or similar large bird. Additional 

changes in the ceramic sequence characterize the Glades IIIb Period (A.D. 1400-1513). Surfside Incised gives way in 

favor of Glades Tooled ceramics. Incised decoration in absent, but Glades Tooled sherds have elaborate, thickened 

rims, with scalloped, crimped, or grooved lips. Griffin (2002:159) cites A. James McGregor’s (1974) thesis, in which 

he suggests a connection between Glades Tooled and the modified lips of sherds from adjacent ceramic traditions of 

the Gulf Coast, like Pinellas Plain. 

The decorated ceramic complex, which is primarily centered in the Ten Thousand Islands and Everglades areas, 

roughly coincides with the area occupied by the Tequesta and their ancestors. This ceramic tradition has been 

important in establishing a local and regional chronology and suggests the basic geographic distinction between the 

three major cultural regions or subareas of southern Florida. Griffin (1988, 2002) has very concisely summarized the 

major trends in the decorated ceramic trajectory, noting some possible correlations with environmental and broader 

cultural patterns. Additional work since Griffin’s synthesis may help in refining the chronological and geographic 

aspects of the Glades ceramic tradition. Major questions that can be addressed include the relationship and role of 

the chalky St. Johns series in the area; the significance of the decorative motifs; further study of the variation within 

motifs and possibilities for additional types or subtypes; and testing of the model developed by Griffin regarding the 

shifts in decorative treatments at the Glades I late/Glades II and Glades IIc/Glades IIIa junctions. 

Research Questions 

! The Glades ceramic sequence, described above, has been a powerful tool for distinguishing distinct regional 

cultures in southern Florida and for relative dating of sites. Despite this, the sequence and its ceramic types could be 

studied in a number of ways. Research questions include: 

! What materials were used in manufacturing Glades ceramics? What are the sources of these materials? 

! What tempering agents, if any, were added to the ceramics? Are there recognizable geographic or temporal 

variations in tempering? Are other major or minor trace elements present in the ceramics associated with particular 

sites or raw material sources? Can petrographic methods (e.g., thin sections) be used to investigate manufacture of 

ceramics? 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _15_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

! What variations exist within the recognized design motifs? Do these variations have any geographic or temporal 

significance? Are there additional, un-named, ceramic types? 

! What relationships and influences exist between the ceramics of southeastern Florida and neighboring areas? 

What is the origin and relationship of Surfside Incised pottery? 

! What is the relationship between sand-tempered (e.g., Glades Plain and Glades decorated types) ceramics and 

chalky (sponge spicule bearing) ceramics (i.e., St. Johns series)? How does this compare to areas farther to the 

north, like the East Okeechobee Area. 

! What vessel shapes are present in the area? Can vessel shape and traces of use (e.g., spalling, mending, staining, 

carbon residues, etc.) be used to investigate function within sites and assemblages? 

! What exchange wares are present in the area? 

! Are there relationships between ceramics of southeastern Florida and Cuba or other parts of the Caribbean? Can 

these relationships be investigated with chemical element or petrographic methods? 

Settlement Patterns 

 The theme Settlement Patterns has been identified as a regionally and nationally significant topic since sites of the 

Everglades can be readily dated with relative and chronometric techniques and represent a largely intact settlement 

system associated with the unique Everglades ecosystem. Some sites also preserve rare examples (e.g., earthworks, 

mounds, as well as post hole remains of structures) of indigenous architecture that can be compared and contrasted 

with architecture in neighboring parts of the Caribbean, Southeast and Midwest. Both inter- and intrasite settlement 

patterns have been shown to reflect indigenous social, political, and cosmological patterns. This theme potentially falls 

under two of the National Park Service’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling Places, and, III. Expressing 

Cultural Values (NPS 1999:81, 82). 

Griffin (1988:327) notes that the sites of the Everglades are significant since they constitute “a largely intact 

settlement pattern over a large land area.” This pattern has been preserved largely because of land conservation 

involving Everglades National Park and the large water conservation areas that run through western Miami-Dade, 

Broward, and Palm Beach counties. Extensive survey work in Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade and Broward 

counties has helped fill in the settlement pattern, and the chronologically sensitive ceramics of the Glades tradition 

have helped in tracking settlement through time. Griffin (1988:269-273), as part of his Everglades National Park 

archeology synthesis, created a series of maps that shows site locations through time; what emerges from this graphic 

analysis are 2 clear settlement systems within Everglades National Park. The first district is associated with the Shark 

River Slough drainage, a major aquatic system that runs diagonally from northeast to southwest, ultimately connecting 

with the coast. Sites within the Shark River Slough are situated on tree islands (Figure 7). The other settlement 

district involves a large concentration of sites in the Ten Thousand Islands, including shell works and larger shell 

midden sites. 

Griffin (2002:278) concludes that Everglades accretionary midden sites follow a similar typology to that developed 

by Athens (1983) in his study of the Big Cypress Swamp. This is essentially a hierarchical model of habitation sites 

that recognizes 1) large, thick, complex middens with distinct mounded areas; 2) thick midden accumulations that lack 

distinct mounded areas; and 3) thin middens with evidence of occasional and subsequent use. These types translate 

into larger villages, smaller hamlets and family camps, and special use sites or resource procurement stations. Griffin 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _16_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

(2002:279-280) notes that most of the Shark River Slough tree island sites are best described as the second and third 

type. But Everglades National Park only includes a small part of the area inhabited by the Tequesta and their 

ancestors. Several large accretionary middens occur within the coastal sector of Broward and Miami-Dade counties, 

and in some cases there are clusters of these sites along with sand mounds and other site types. Griffin (2002:281) 

notes at least three of these clusters in coastal Miami-Dade County—one at the mouth of the Miami River, a second at 

the north end of Biscayne Bay, and a third cluster on the very northern islands of the Florida Keys that form the 

southeastern border of Biscayne Bay (Elliott and Sands keys). These site complexes are usually found around the 

mouths of small creeks and streams that drain the Everglades interior or on the barrier island. This pattern is similar 

to the settlement system observed in coastal Martin and Palm Beach counties (Wheeler et al. 2002:144-145), within 

the area occupied by the Jeaga and Jobé peoples (the East Okeechobee Area). Sites also are clustered around 

these creeks where they breach the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and within the interior Everglades, especially on tree 

islands of the southern Everglades. Compared to the East Okeechobee Area, however, there is a much higher 

number of sites and an apparent greater concentration as well. Also, shell mounds are found within the East 

Okeechobee Area, at least as far south as Palm Beach and Riviera Beach (ca. central Lake Worth, about midway 

through Palm Beach County), while they are absent from the area occupied by the Tequesta and their ancestors. 

Interior sites typically are associated with natural drainages and also, perhaps, canoe trails. Griffin’s (2002:281) map 

of site distribution in southern Florida demonstrates a connection between the Shark River Slough drainage and the 

coastal sites, likely via the Miami River, Little River and canoe trail routes (Figure 7). Interestingly, Griffin’s (2002:285)

mapping of site clusters within Everglades National Park parallels the broader patterns noted in Broward and MiamiDade counties. While there are clusters of sites along interior drainages, there also are several major site complexes 

located well away from these clusters, usually along the coast (Figure 8). Within Everglades National Park these 

include the Monroe Lake and Bear Lake site groups. Examples in Broward and Miami-Dade counties include the 

Emerald Towers-Pompano Beach Burial Mound site group and the Surfside midden and mound group. Along with 

these site complexes, two closely related clusters of sites found on Long Key and Pine Island in Broward County have 

the potential to contribute to studies of settlement pattern. Like the sites of the Shark River Slough, the Pine Island 

and Long Key sites are linked by a physiographic feature; in this case, relict limestone “islands” that provided 

extensive, dry land for several thousand years. Since Everglades Area sites can be assigned to a chronological 

period rather easily (due to the decorated Glades ceramic series), the ability to evaluate temporal trends is particularly 

significant. The identification of sites linked by geographic parameters, like the Shark River Slough, Pine Island, and 

Long Key sites, provide a significant opportunity for study of a group of sites. These sites (potential districts) can be 

used to model and test ideas about trends in plant and animal use, contact with the coast, mortuary patterns, and 

trends in technology. 

The potential Pine Island-Long Key District involves at least 25 sites, including seven sites located on the 

distinctive Pine Island Ridge feature and twelve sites located on the Long Key island of Broward County (see Table 3 

and Figure 9). Carr (1986:2) explains that prior to modern drainage the Pine Island group was a major series of 

upland islands in the Everglades, with some elevations near 30 ft above mean sea level. Continued archeological 

investigations have demonstrated long-term occupation of the Pine Island group, ranging from Middle Archaic Period 

sites to nineteenth century Seminole occupation (Carr et al. 1991:7, 124-127, 131). The Pine Island and Long Key 

island group are significant since they represent a rare opportunity to study Everglades occupation over a long period 

of time, represent a very dense concentration of sites (at least 25 recorded sites), and may represent a unique 

environmental/geological environment. 

Integrity is moderate to high for sites in the potential Pine Island-Long Key Archeological District. Significant 

portions of both landforms have been preserved in the 101-acre Pine Island Ridge Natural Area owned by the State of 

Florida and managed by the Broward County Parks and Recreation Division and the 157-acre Long Key Natural Area, 

also managed as a county park. The integrity of these sites, their significance in understanding settlement patterns, 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _17_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

and their unusual, if not unique, physiographic setting, suggests they could be significant at the national level. A 

separate study should be conducted to evaluate the district and prepare the appropriate nomination. 

Table 3. Sites contributing to the potential Pine Island-Long Key Archeological District (based on a list 

provided by Robert S. Carr). 

Site 

Number 

Site Name 

Long Key Group 

8BD12 Pine Island 1 

8BD108 Spooners Ridge 

8BD2117 Long Key 

8BD2123 Kapok 1 

8BD2124 Kapok 2 

8BD2125 Kapok 3 

8BD2126 Kapok 4 

8BD2127 Flamingo 1 

8BD2128 Flamingo 2 

8BD2129 Museum Site/Flamingo 

3 

8BD2137 Robbins 

8BD2147 Zacher 

Pine Island Group 

8BD95 Pine Island 2 

8BD1110 

8BD1112 Pine Island Landing 

8BD1113 East Midden 

8BD1114 Pine Island Ridge 

8BD1115 Charlie Willey’s Island 

8BD1119 Ranch Ridge 

Site layout and configuration has not been well studied among sites of the Tequesta and their ancestors (Griffin 

2002:290-291). It is apparent, however, from the descriptions of nineteenth and early twentieth century observers that 

the larger site complexes—the Granada and Brickell Point sites at the mouth of the Miami River, for example—

exhibited distinct patterning, with components or precincts dedicated to different functions. These included habitation 

areas, sand mounds (some for burial and others, perhaps, platform mounds), cemeteries, and possibly other areas or 

precincts. Excavations by the Broward County Archeological Society at the Margate-Blount site (8BD41), an inland 

site in northern Broward County, revealed at least three distinct areas—a habitation midden, a burial mound or 

cemetery, and a “ceremonial precinct” that included burials of animals and several highly decorated antler and bone 

artifacts (Gypsy Graves, personal communication 1991; also see Felmley 1991:101-102 and Wheeler 1992:89-90). 

Evidence for structures is commonly found at Tequesta sites, though often in seemingly random patterns of 

postmolds or in isolated postmolds. In the East Okeechobee Area, to the north of the region inhabited by the 

Tequesta and their ancestors, Browning (1975:17-22) uncovered an area at the Rocky Point 2 site (8MT33) that had a 

large number of posthole and associated features (n = 86) preserved in a midden. Despite the large number of 

features related to structure building, Browning (1975:20-21) concluded that only one structure could be discerned, 

possibly a rectangular building of 6.5 m (21 ft) in length. He attributes the large number of additional postholes in the 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _18_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

area to the method of construction practiced in the area during the seventeenth century, when Quaker shipwreck 

survivor observed quick additions to structures to accommodate visitors and guests. Further north, in the Indian River 

Area, Handley (2001) used mechanical stripping to uncover a large portion of sheet midden at the Blue Goose site 

(8IR15). This allowed documentation of at least 13 structures, comprised of postmolds or posthole features. The 

structures ranged in size from 3.5 to 13 m in diameter, including at least three examples in the 8 to 11.25 m diameter 

range. Rocky Point 2 and Blue Goose are significant for comparison to structure remains found in the area occupied 

by the Tequesta and their ancestors. At the Miami Circle at Brickell Point site (8DA12) excavators uncovered a large 

number of posthole features carved into the shallow limestone bedrock (Carr and Ricisak 2000:277-278). A circular 

structure, 11 m in diameter, was located on a prominent part of the site, comprised of 24 large basins, many of which 

contained smaller holes and cobbles of limestone apparently used as wedges. The large basin features are very 

complex, and appear to reflect considerable planning and intentionality of design. Auger testing and additional 

excavations revealed that some areas of the site harbored large concentrations of cut posthole features, though in 

many cases no discernable pattern was identified (Wheeler 2000a:304-312; Widmer 2003). The area occupied by the 

Miami Circle feature has evidence of several additional structures, including two linear arrangements of paired 

postholes. Paired post structures are known in other Southeastern cultures, and are characteristic of some Adena 

structures (Clay 1998:6-9). Several American Indian visitors to the Miami Circle expressed the opinion that paired 

posts were related to screens or similar enclosures in which the two posts supported a woven fence or barrier (Ted 

Riggs, personal communication, May 2002). 

Research Questions 

! A basic model of Everglades area settlement is present by Griffin (2002). There are a number of additional 

questions that can be addressed regarding settlement in the area: 

! Can distinct settlement clusters, like the Shark River Slough group identified by Griffin (2002), be identified in other 

parts of the area? If so, what relationship do these clusters have to major coastal sites or sites located on the Atlantic 

Coastal Ridge? 

! Are there temporal changes in settlement pattern, as suggested by Griffin (2002)? What are these changes related 

to? Is it possible to use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to understand geographic and temporal 

changes in settlement pattern? 

! What is the relationship between coastal and inland sites? Is it possible to demonstrate that these sites were 

occupied by the same tribal group, but on a seasonal basis, or do the coastal and inland sites represent some actual 

division within a broader tribal entity? 

! What physical forms are represented among sites of the Tequesta and their ancestors? How do these compare 

with site configurations in neighboring areas? Is there evidence that major sites had a bipartite form, similar to that 

noted in the Ten Thousand Islands and Caloosahatchee areas (see Torrence 2000)? 

! What types of architecture existed among the Tequesta and their ancestors? How do structures compare in layout, 

size, and location to structures in neighboring areas? Do some sites harbor more evidence of structures than others? 

Can structure size and shape be used to distinguish rank, status, or function? 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _19_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta 

 The theme Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta has been identified as a regionally and nationally significant 

topic since sites of the area often contain well-preserved zooarcheological and paleobotanical materials, including 

some sites that contain rare, wet site preservation that includes preserved wooden artifacts. The subtropical 

environment of southeastern Florida also seems to have fostered a distinct cultural use of plant foods, which is 

different from patterns in neighboring areas. The technological use of plants and animals in material culture also is 

significant, especially in understanding the origins and relationships of the Tequesta with neighboring groups. This 

theme falls under one or more of three National Park Service’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural 

Values, V. Developing the American Economy, and, VII. Transforming the Environment (NPS 1999:82, 83). 

Plant and animal use among the Tequesta and their ancestors has been explored in several ways: 

zooarcheological analysis of animal remains used in subsistence; paleobotanical analysis of plant remains used for 

fuel, subsistence, and artifact construction; and studies of bone and shell artifacts. Paleobotanical and 

zooarcheological studies in southeastern Florida began with analysis of materials excavated in the late 1970s and 

early 1980s from the Granada site (8DA11); additional studies have been conducted since that initial work and several 

important examples will be discussed below. Regarding bone and shell artifacts, John Goggin (n.d.) recognized that 

southern Florida had greater artifact variability than almost any comparable area in North America. Significant studies 

of bone and shell technology will be discussed below. 

Plant Use and Paleobotany 

Sites with well-preserved plant remains in southeastern Florida are rare. Some of this may be due to alternate 

wetting and drying of deposits, which would damage carbonized plant materials. There are indications, however, that 

archeological wet sites are present in the area of the Tequesta and their ancestors. Purdy (1991:2-5) explains that 

archeological wet sites, due to anaerobic environmental conditions, have excellent preservation of plant remains, 

including nuts and seeds; wooden artifacts and wooden debitage from artifact manufacture; and cordage. Griffin 

(2002:271-273) notes that just such a site (8DA3451) was found in Everglades National Park near the Anhinga Trail 

Visitor Center. Unfortunately, the artifacts from the site were misplaced, but Griffin (2002:271-271) indicates that 

dredging in Taylor Slough in 1968 produced bone and shark tooth artifacts, preserved pine logs (2 to 4 of these were 

10 cm in diameter), and several pottery sherds, including Glades Tooled. Carr (2002:196) found splinters and small 

pieces of pine wood in a wet site component of the Late Archaic Silver Lakes site (8BD1873), suggesting canoe 

making or other woodworking activities adjacent to the tree island. Isolated finds of wooden artifacts preserved in peat 

deposits include a dugout canoe (now recorded as 8DA68) reported by botanist John Kunkel Small from the George 

Brett estate in Coconut Grove (Florida State Archives, Photo #SMX0019; Small 1931:134-135) (Figure 10), as well as 

a carved wooden bowl or mortar reported by the Archeological and Historical Conservancy from a deposit near 

Sawgrass Mills in Broward County (Anonymous 1995). Two carved wooden artifacts recovered from boat slips 

excavated into 8DA11 (the Granada site), are on exhibit at the Historical Museum of Southern Florida (Figure 11). 

One is a club or cudgel carved from a burl, while the other resembles a horn (also see Purdy 1991:236, 244). Goggin 

(1942) reports on another wooden club, identified as mangrove wood, recovered in 1913 during the dredging of the 

Collins Canal on Miami Beach. This specimen, also on exhibit at the Historical Museum of Southern Florida, is 

surmounted by a crenulated crest and has a beak-like extension on one side, both features suggestive of a bird. 

Williams (1983:145, 147) reports that three burials at the Margate-Blount site (8BD41) were accompanied by wooden 

artifacts, including a canoe paddle, a double-ended pestle, as well as the remains of a log tomb. The wooden artifacts 

from the site are on exhibit at the Historical Museum of Southern Florida. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _20_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

Formal studies of plant remains from archeological sites have been made at the Granada (8DA11) and Honey Hill 

(8DA411) sites. Scarry (1982:181), in her analysis of plant use at the Granada site, notes that ethnohistoric accounts 

of the Tequesta mention their lack of agriculture but frequent use of native, wild plants, including collection of wild fruit 

and making a bread from roots. She provides a detailed reconstruction of the native environments that once 

surrounded the Granada site, and a review of edible and useful plants within the pineland, hammock, mangrove and 

other nearby plant communities. Charcoal and carbonized plant materials recovered from the Granada site 

excavations indicate wood types used for fuels or for structures, as well as seeds and nuts used for food. Pine was 

identified as the dominant wood species represented through time at the site, with red mangrove, sea grape/pigeon 

plum, buttonwood and other local woods represented in minor amounts (Scarry 1982:211, 221). Interestingly, the 

pattern of wood species present and their consistency through time led Scarry (1982:221-222) to conclude that local 

environments were relatively stable during site occupation and that pineland and mangrove species were preferred to 

coastal hammock species. Scarry (1982:221-222) offers several explanations for this pattern, including selection of 

wood species for combustibility and structural integrity. Regarding edible plants, Scarry (1982:222, 230) found that 

remains of false mastic (Mastichodendron foetissidum), cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco), cabbage palm (Sabal 

palmetto), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), sea grape/pigeon plum (Coccoloba sp.), and hog plum (Ximenia 

americana), accounted for the majority of seeds recovered; acorns and red mangrove pods also were found at the 

Granada site. These species reflect pineland and hammock environments and Scarry’s (1982:235, 244) statistical 

analysis of the remains suggests some pattern variability that may be due to seasonality or collection strategy. Scarry 

(1982:245-246) concludes that the plant remains indicate repeated fall occupation during which time a narrow 

spectrum of plant resources was exploited, as opposed to year-round site occupation. She specifically notes that no 

cultigens (e.g., corn, squash, etc.) or candidates for the “bread of roots” mentioned in Spanish accounts were found 

(Scarry 1982:245-246). Suzanne Fish’s (1982) analysis of pollen from the Granada site provides an important 

complement to Scarry’s work. Few sites in southern Florida have been investigated through pollen analysis, making 

the Granada study particularly significant. Fish (1982:250) also found considerable environmental stability through 

time, and suggests that the numerous weedy plant pollen grains indicate a fairly well cleared site, with pine forests 

some distance away. Fish (1982:252) concludes that the Granada site inhabitants may have intentionally manipulated 

their environment by clearing the area, perhaps with fire, and retaining some favored hammock vegetation. Like the 

macrobotanical remains, there were no cultigens, but one grain of gourd (Cucurbita) pollen was identified, and green 

briar (Smilax) pollen also was present, presenting a possible candidate for the bread of roots discussed by Scarry. 

Fish (1982) also found “clumps” of pollen grains that she suggests may represent remains of edible or useful plants, 

including water lily (Nyphaea), cattail (Typha), nightshade (Solanum), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia), and chickweed 

(Stellaria). This adds to the list of edible plants represented in the macrobotanical remains, though still supports 

seasonal use of the site. The first two species mentioned (Nyphaea and Typha) represent freshwater plants, which 

have both edible parts and parts used in mat and basket weaving. 

Paleobotanical analysis of materials from the Honey Hill site (8DA411) provides a significant comparison to the 

Granada analysis. Like the Granada site, Honey Hill is a large midden located on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, though 

in this case it is farther to the west, on the edge of the Everglades. Botanical samples from Honey Hill represent 

aceramic, Late Archaic, Glades I-III, and Seminole occupation (Masson and Scarry 1990:9). Interestingly, Masson 

and Scarry (1990:14) found that the plant species exploited did not change through time, though they describe an 

intensification of plant use when comparing lower and upper levels of column samples. Their analysis also indicates 

that the fruit, false mastic (Mastichodendron foetissidum), was the most common edible plant represented, and that 

the plant remains do not indicate a specific season of occupation for the site. False mastic also was the most 

important edible species identified at the Granada site, suggesting a broader, cultural preference that transcends the 

coastal versus interior locations of the two sites (Masson and Scarry 1990:21). Comparison to the samples from 

historic Seminole Indian occupation indicate a considerable change in plant use patterns, including continued use of 

the plants from earlier eras, the addition of maize and several fruits like Vitis, and decreasing importance of false 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _21_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

mastic. This suggests that the pattern observed for the earlier periods is not simply an artifact of preservation, but 

reflects the cultural utilization of plants. 

Analysis of plant remains from sites within the Caloosahatchee Area of southwestern Florida helps to put the 

Granada and Honey Hill data in broader perspective. Comparing the two datasets, Scarry and Newsom (1992:395) 

note that populations living in southwestern Florida (the Calusa and their ancestors) seemed to employ an 

opportunistic strategy that involved gathering a wide-range of available fruits; the Calusa and their ancestors gathered 

many of the same fruits found in the southeastern Florida assemblages, but included many other species. This is in 

contrast to the people of southeastern Florida (the Tequesta and their ancestors), who seemed to target six fruit 

plants, with particular focus on false mastic. Scarry and Newsom (1992:395) also note that fruit seeds are more 

abundant in the samples from southeastern Florida. Taking these observations together, they conclude that the 

Tequesta and their ancestors had a more intensive, more deliberate pattern of fruit collection than the neighboring 

Calusa. Studies of plant remains from sites in southeastern Florida are extremely limited at this point, but existing 

work suggests that the area has the potential for significant contribution to paleobotanical study. This is particularly 

true of sites that exhibit wet site preservation, which appear to be present in the area. 

Zooarcheological Studies 

Zooarcheological studies, unlike paleobotanical analyses, have been conducted more regularly in southeastern 

Florida. These include analysis of both coastal and interior sites, as well as sites dating from the aceramic Archaic to 

the Glades III period, which allows for a diachronic comparison of these two major environments. The available 

analyses also include large coastal and interior sites, as well as smaller Everglades tree islands. Important studies 

include analysis of remains from the Granada site (8DA11) (Wing and Loucks 1982); Miami Circle at Brickell Point 

(8DA12) (Quitmyer and Kennedy 2002); Honey Hill (8DA411) (Masson and Hale 1990); Bear Lake (8MO33) (Griffin 

1988, 2002); Guy Bailey (8DA4752) (Keel 1990); Sheridan Hammock (8BD191) and MacArthur #2 (8BD2591) 

(Fradkin 1996). Studies of materials from the Granada and Miami Circle at Brickell Point sites are particularly 

important, since diagnostic ceramics and radiocarbon dates indicate that the Miami Circle midden primarily dates to 

the Glades I Period (500 B.C.-A.D. 500), while the Glades II (A.D. 500-1200) and Glades III (A.D. 1200-1763) period 

assemblages dominate the Granada remains. These sites are located in close proximity to one another, and taken 

together represent a fairly complete chronological sequence. 

Analysis of the Miami Circle at Brickell Point site (Quitmyer and Kennedy 2002) and Granada site (Wing and 

Loucks 1982) faunal remains represents an important benchmark in studies of subsistence in southeastern Florida. 

Together, these sites represent Glades I through Glades III period occupation at the mouth of the Miami River. 

Quitmyer and Kennedy’s (2003:26-29) analysis indicates that marine bony fish, sharks, and rays are the most 

ubiquitous animals represented at the Glades I Period Miami Circle site; freshwater turtles, marine turtles, terrestrial 

turtles and snakes were the second most common group of animals represent, while mammals (including squirrel, 

rabbit, deer, dog, and Caribbean monk seal), birds and amphibians were occasionally present in the samples. Most of 

the animals identified came from brackish water habitats, like those adjacent to the site in Biscayne Bay; the lower to 

upper reaches of the Miami River also contributed freshwater resources, and terrestrial species likely came from pine 

flatwoods and maritime hammocks. Quitmyer and Kennedy (2002:28) indicate that a variety of methods were used in 

capturing the vertebrate fauna, including harpoons, nets, hook and line fishing, gathering, as well as fish weirs or 

traps. They note that watercraft would have been important in accessing both marine and freshwater environments 

and in moving animals once caught. In terms of human impacts to the environment, Quitmyer and Kennedy (2002:25-

26, 28-29) note that a large portion of the Miami Circle aquatic species biomass came from high level predators—

shark, snook, and freshwater bass—possibly indicating the first intensive use of the local environment. Comparison to 

the Granada site assemblage, dominated by Glades II and III period occupation, indicates a similar focus on local 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _22_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

resources, including brackish and nearshore reef species. Wing and Loucks (1982:278-279) indicate that fish, similar 

to those found today in Biscayne Bay, were the most common fauna used by the Granada site residents. 

Interestingly, however, they conclude that the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) was the most important animal in the 

prehistoric economy of the site, representing 36 % of the bone weight in the samples analyzed. Also interesting is the 

fact that the sea turtles represented tend to be small, juvenile individuals, suggesting that these animals (who inhabit 

the area year-round) were captured on the nearshore reefs and in the turtle grass beds of Biscayne Bay (Wing and 

Loucks 1982:318). A similar trend was noted in the Bear Lake faunal assemblage (Griffin 2002:233, 238). 

Comparison of the faunal composition of the site through time indicates little change in subsistence patterns. 

Comparison to Quitmyer and Kennedy’s (2002) analysis of trophic level at the Miami Circle suggests a similar high 

trophic level at the Granada site based on the percentages of sharks, freshwater bass and reef predators like grouper, 

snapper, and jack. This suggests, however, that despite maintaining a high trophic level (subsistence on animals 

higher on the food chain), there may have been a shift from Glades I to Glades II and III periods; this shift may have 

been from brackish fauna to nearshore reef species. 

Collection and analysis of mollusk remains from both the Miami Circle and Granada is, unfortunately, limited. 

Despite the presence of marine shells in coastal sites like Granada, the Miami Circle, and Bear Lake, it is clear that 

these sites are not shell mounds, which are more commonly encountered in neighboring areas to the north and west. 

At Bear Lake, Griffin (2002:230, 232) notes some major collecting episodes of mollusks, like oyster, but indicates that 

shellfish contributed far less to the diet than fishes and turtles. Quitmyer and Kennedy (2002) note the poor condition 

of mollusk remains from the Miami Circle site, and Griffin (note in Welsh 1982:364) notes that shell was selectively 

retained from excavations at the Granada site. Despite some problems with the available data, Griffin (see Welsh 

1982:362, 364) concludes that the Granada inhabitants collected locally available mollusks, with particular 

concentration on larger gastropods like Strombus gigas and Pleuroploca gigantea. Apparently, the Granada samples 

indicate a decrease in size of these animals through time that is inversely proportional to their MNI (Minimum Number 

of Individuals). In other words, there is some indication for over-harvesting of larger specimens that seems to have 

resulted in even greater pressure on smaller individuals. 

The analysis of faunal remains from the Honey Hill site (8DA411) is particularly important, since the aceramic 

Archaic and later Glades periods are represented (Masson and Hale 1990:11-13). Definite patterns of animal use 

were detected in the column samples studied; overall, freshwater turtles and bony fish were the main animals utilized 

by the site inhabitants. Masson and Hale (1990:23) indicate that the species utilized were typical of the local, 

Everglades environment, and do not reflect extensive utilization of coastal resources. The primary turtles represented 

were mud and musk turtle (Kinosternidae), softshell turtle (Apalone sp.), and pond turtle (Pseudemys spp.); important 

bony fish include bowfin (Amia calva), gar (Lepisosteus platyrhinchus), sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), catfishes 

(Siluriformes), and bass (Micropterus salmoides). Following turtles and bony fish at Honey Hill, snakes (3-4 %) and 

mammals (2-3 %) were represented in small quantities; snakes and mammals were more common in the lower and 

upper midden levels. Birds, alligators, amphibians, and sharks represented 1 % or less of most samples (Masson and 

Hale 1990:22). Interestingly, shark and alligator were only represented in the lowest site levels (aceramic Archaic) 

and upper midden levels. In the lowest levels of the site (aceramic Archaic), turtles contributed more biomass than 

bony fish. Lower midden levels (earlier Glades periods, presumably Glades I and II) indicate an increase in the use of 

bony fish, while the upper midden levels (Glades II and III) show an increase in turtle use and a decrease in the 

importance of bony fish. Masson and Hale (1990:21) suggest this pattern may be due to overexploitation of turtles, 

followed by a broader procurement strategy that included increased reliance on bony fish and other resources. The 

aceramic Archaic MacArthur #2 site (8BD2592) exhibited a similar pattern of resource use, with reptile remains (turtle 

and snake) the dominant category collected, followed closely by bony fish (Fradkin 1996). Keel’s (1990) analysis of 

faunal remains from the Guy Bailey site (8DA4752), a small Everglades tree island dating to the Glades IIa and IIb 

periods, follows the pattern documented at Honey Hill as well. Keel (1990:53-56, 99) indicates that freshwater bony 

fish and reptiles accounted for the majority of the biomass at Guy Bailey, with fish representing 62 % of the MNI and 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _23_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

36 % of the biomass, followed by reptiles, representing 22 % of the MNI and 56 % of the biomass (snakes accounted 

for 28 % of the total estimated biomass). At the Sheridan Hammock site (8BD191), another tree island site dating to 

the Glades IIIa and IIIb periods, Fradkin (1996) found that freshwater fish and reptiles were the most significant 

classes represented, with meat weight/biomass contributions almost equal for the two groups. This pattern, evident at 

not only Honey Hill, but also at other Everglades sites, suggests a broader change in food procurement through time. 

The presence of marine species at inland sites is rare, and often is confined to modified shell and shark tooth 

artifacts. In some cases, marine species (e.g., marine turtles, fish, lucine clams, oysters) are represented in such 

small amounts that they are not included in the samples used for faunal analysis. Shark centra (i.e., vertebrae) are 

rare or absent at both Honey Hill and MacArthur #2, especially when compared with coastal assemblages like the 

Granada site; shark teeth, however, are present. This fits Kozuch’s (1993:32-35) model for exchange of shark teeth, 

suggesting that this pattern of coastal procurement and redistribution was already active in the Archaic in southeastern 

Florida. Regarding season of occupation, Masson and Hale (1990:23-24) suggest several possible scenarios, 

including net capture of turtles and fish during the wet season and collection of the same species from isolated water 

holes during the dry season. Masson and Hale (1990:23-25) conclude that Honey Hill subsistence followed an 

extremely localized, intensive, inland, wetland focus. Analysis of the other Everglades sites indicates a similar 

subsistence pattern (Fradkin 1996; Keel 1990). Masson and Hale (1990:23-25) further note that the exploitation 

pattern is strikingly different from that observed at coastal sites like Granada and Bear Lake, which exhibit an intensive 

marine focused pattern, and suggest that the inland-coastal dichotomy represents a seasonal cycle of exploitation. 

Alternatively, this could represent two closely related groups, occupying and exploiting the neighboring inlandfreshwater and coastal-marine environments. Masson and Hale (1990:24-25) compare the Honey Hill exploitation 

pattern with one documented by Elizabeth Wing’s (1984) analysis of resource exploitation in the Big Cypress (another 

interior wetland, east of the Caloosahatchee Area). They note that the heterogeneity of the Honey Hill sample, which 

incorporates aquatic and terrestrial species, is quite different from the Big Cypress pattern, which suggests that sites 

served as seasonal extraction points for one primary species (usually either aquatic or terrestrial fauna). Considering 

the broader patterns of resource exploitation and Masson and Hale’s (1990:25) observation that the Honey Hill 

scenario is “the complementary inland version of seasonal exploitation in localized resources,” it seems more likely 

that the coastal and inland subsistence systems represent two coeval traditions that may or may not involve the same 

groups of people. This is one question that needs further research, though other data (e.g., ceramics, Archaic origins, 

bone and shell technology) suggests these are closely related, Tequesta peoples. 

Ethnohistoric Accounts 

Several ethnohistoric accounts speak to the question of subsistence and economy. A young shipwreck survivor, 

Escalante Fontaneda, left a record of his captivity among the Calusa and neighboring tribes, enumerating many of the 

foods used in southeastern Florida and the Florida Keys, including fish, turtles, shellfish, tuna, whales, lobster, seal, 

trunkfish, deer, and raccoon (in True 1944a:12). Hann (2003:70, 80, 149-150) describes several independent, 

sixteenth century accounts of whale hunting in southeastern Florida, noting that dried whale meat was an item of 

exchange with groups residing inland. Several of the accounts relating to subsistence indicate that some animals, 

including turtles (or some types of turtles?) and seals, were reserved for chiefs, leaders or other higher-status 

individuals (Hann 2003:140-150), and that the bones removed from whale skulls were interred with deceased chiefs 

(Escalante Fontaneda in Worth 1995:344-345). Monk seal (Monachus tropicalus) remains are known from several 

southeastern Florida sites, including Granada (Wing and Loucks 1982:278) and the Miami Circle (Quitmyer and 

Kennedy 2002:16). Perhaps most interesting is the testimony of the Jesuit lay brother who participated in the 1567-

1568 Tequesta mission; Brother Villareal indicates that the Tequesta did not occupy the principal village year-round, 

but moved to islands of the Florida Keys in order to collect resources from those areas for several months (Hann 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _24_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

2003:146). These ethnohistoric observations are consistent with the archeological record, as well as records from a 

later mission attempt in the area in 1743, suggesting considerable continuity in subsistence patterns. 

Bone Technology 

Bone artifacts are ubiquitous at most archeological sites in southeastern Florida. Artifacts carved from the long, 

straight bones of a deer’s foreleg (metapodial bones), perforated shark teeth, and cut rectangles of turtle bone are 

found at the aceramic Archaic sites already mentioned (Johnson et al. 1995). This suggests that bone technology of 

the Tequesta and their ancestors is rooted in the widespread middle to late Archaic bone working tradition that has 

been studied in other parts of the Florida peninsula (Penders 2002; Wheeler and McGee 1994). Large analyzed 

collections of bone and tooth artifacts from the Miami Circle and Granada sites allow for a diachronic perspective on 

Tequesta bone technology (see Griffin 2002:108-117; Richardson and Pohl 1982; and Wheeler 2002) (Figure 12). 

Analysis of these collections involved study of wear patterns and comparison to other world-wide traditions of bone 

tool use. Study of the Miami Circle collection also included microscope examination of wear patterns, which is 

infrequently conducted on bone tools from Florida. Five-hundred and twenty-one (521) bone and tooth artifacts from 

the Miami Circle at Brickell Point were analyzed by Wheeler (2002), while Richardson and Pohl (1982) present an 

analysis of 3,066 modified bone objects from the Granada site. Similar methods of categorizing modifications were 

used in each analysis, with 31 main categories recognized among the Miami Circle materials and 74 categories 

recognized among the Granada site remains. 

Species Selection. Species used for bone implements and ornaments at the Miami Circle and Granada sites suggest 

considerable continuity between the two. Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was an important animal used in bone tool 

making, usually contributing the long, straight metapodial or modified toe bones. In many respects, deer metapodials 

are at the core of prehistoric bone working throughout Florida. Other deer long bones are represented in the worked 

bone from both sites, helping to affirm the importance of this animal in prehistoric bone technology. 

Ray (Rajiformes) tail spines augmented deer metapodials in tool making at both sites. Wear patterns demonstrate 

that tools made from deer bones and ray tail spines had similar uses in fiber or fabric working. Interestingly, the shark 

species utilized for tools are very similar at Granada and the Miami Circle. Shark teeth were a particularly important 

element used at both sites. 

Tibias of small mammals, primarily the raccoon (Procyon lotor) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), were 

used at the Miami Circle and the Granada site to make socketed bone implements. These tools are less frequently 

encountered than the deer metapodial tools, but their presence at both sites points to broader trends in bone tool 

making. 

One of the most obvious differences between Granada and the Miami Circle is the greater diversity in species used 

for tools at the former site. This probably reflects the larger sample size for the Granada site, and most of the 

additional species recognized are represented by only one or two examples. Additional species used for tools and 

ornaments at the Granada site include the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum), whale (Cetacea), bear (Ursus 

americanus), manatee (Trichecus manatus), with more examples of bird and turtle bone artifacts, as well as more 

examples of carved or utilized fish bone (see Richardson and Pohl 1982:136-139). 

Technology. Bone working debitage from the Miami Circle and the Granada site is related to reduction of deer 

metapodials, and is consistent with bone tool manufacturing techniques documented at other sites throughout Florida, 

and extending temporally back to the Middle and Late Archaic, circa 6000 years ago (Mitchell 195, 1998; Wheeler and 

McGee 1994). Interestingly, stingray tail spines were used in large numbers at both Granada and the Miami Circle, 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _25_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

and the wear, haft and breakage patterns indicate they were being used for many of the same tasks as the mammal 

long bone implements. Modified shark teeth are another large class of artifacts, representing an array of carving tools 

and possible weapons. Like the other bone tools, modified shark teeth are known from early sites (e.g., Windover, 

Republic Groves), indicating that this bone and tool technology originated in the Early to Middle Archaic, and perhaps 

even earlier. 

Fiber Working and Weaving. The vast majority of the bone tools considered in the Miami Circle study have forms, 

wear patterns and breakage patterns associated with fiber processing, fabric working, weaving, and skin working 

(Wheeler 2002a). A similar trend is evident in the material from the Granada site, though a lot of the long bone 

artifacts from that site are hair and clothing pins. The prevalence of weaving tools at both sites is not surprising since 

the items most frequently mentioned in ethnographic accounts of Florida Indians are woven fabrics, mats, and baskets 

(see Sturtevant 1977). Doran and Dickel (1988:274, 276-277) report that seven different styles of woven fabrics were 

identified at the 7000 year old Windover site in Brevard County; a variety of fabric and mat patterns are found 

impressed on ceramics throughout the state (Benson 1959; Ray M. McGee, personal communication 1999), and knot 

and braid motifs are known on bone and wood artifacts from southern Florida (Luer 2000:4-5; Wheeler 1992:112-113; 

Wheeler and Coleman 1996:49-50, 51, 54). The bone tools associated with these industries at Brickell Point show 

considerable variation, suggesting development of very specialized tools. For example, implements with wear 

patterns indicative of use as fids (tools used in fabric and net making) have a range of distinct morphological forms, 

including the hafted mammal long bone implements, the spatulate bone tools, as well as the socketed bone tools. 

Wood and Bone Working. Bone and tooth tools associated with wood and bone working are present at the Miami 

Circle. A few mammal long bone gouges, probably used in finer woodcarving, are known from the site. These tools 

were probably hafted in wood, bone or antler handles, like most of the other long bone implements. A large collection 

of shark teeth is present, showing a diverse array of modification styles to facilitate hafting. Brown (1994:102-104) 

demonstrates the efficacy of shark tooth knives in woodcarving, and Cushing (1897:370-371) points out that many of 

the wood artifacts from Key Marco retain traces of shark tooth carving tools. Some of the bone artifacts from Brickell 

Point retain traces of shark tooth knives, which is a trace of manufacturing and finishing noted on bone tools from 

many sites. Barracuda teeth and sawfish rostral teeth probably were used for carving wood and bone much like the 

shark teeth, and may have been hafted in similar ways. 

Stone Working. Antler tools with wear patterns indicative of use as chipped stone flaking tools are present at the 

Miami Circle, but largely absent from the Granada site. These tools are often found in small numbers at other Florida 

sites. Chipped stone working is usually not associated with sites in southeastern Florida, where the nearest chert and 

silicified corals are several hundred miles away in the Tampa Bay and Peace River areas. Despite this, a large 

number of chert flakes were recovered from the Miami Circle (Austin 2002). It seems likely that the antler tools 

discussed here were involved in the lithic reduction and retouching that occurred at the site. Chipped stone was 

infrequent at the Granada site, perhaps explaining the lack of antler flaking tools. 

Ornaments. The paucity of decorated and ornamental bone artifacts from the Miami Circle is interesting when 

compared to the Granada site. Richardson and Pohl (1982:138) note an increase in carved and incised bone in the 

later levels (late Glades II/Glades III) of the Granada site, and a similar trend is noted for Hontoon Island in the St. 

Johns River basin (Wheeler 1992:33-34). Polished bone pins, however, are frequently encountered in southern 

Florida sites, and their almost complete absence at the Miami Circle is interesting. The lack of decorated and 

ornamental bone may reflect a very specialized use of the habitation areas that produced the site’s black earth midden 

deposits. The carved and incised bone pendant found in the midden deposit near the center of the Miami Circle, 

however, is extremely informative. It is stylistically related to carved shell pendants from the Hopewellian Crystal River 

site. Similar shell pendants are known from other sites in Lee and Collier counties, suggesting that Hopewellian 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _26_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

contacts may have been with groups along the Florida Gulf coast. The presence of other exotic materials at the site—

like galena artifacts—along with the radiocarbon dates indicate some participation in the Hopewellian Yent complex as 

defined by Sears (1962). 

Geographic and Temporal Trends. Table 4 was developed in order to quantify some of these comparative 

observations between the Miami Circle and the Granada site. The Old Enterprise site of the St. Johns River basin is 

included as a middle to late Archaic comparison, to the Glades I Period Miami Circle component and the primarily 

Glades II and III period Granada site. 

Table 4. Comparison of modified bone categories (count/percent) at Brickell Point, Granada, and Old 

Enterprise sites. 

Site Unclassified Debitage Fiber work/ 

weaving 

Wood & 

bone 

working 

Stone 

working 

Ornament

s 

Miami 

Circle 

228 

44% 

23 

4% 

110 

21% 

146 

28% 

5 

1% 

9 

2% 

Granada 915 

31% 

262 

9% 

121 

4% 

551 

19% 

 1122 

38% 

Old 

Enterpris

e 

172 

43% 

82 

20% 

54 

13% 

42 

10% 

3 

<1% 

49 

12% 

In many respects, the proportions of the modified bone categories represent the nature of the sites. For example, 

the large percentage of debitage at Old Enterprise reflects the function of the deposit investigated—primary discard of 

midden material and debris. The absence of antler flaking tools for retouching chipped stone at Granada is not 

surprising, since very few chipped stone artifacts were recovered, while both Old Enterprise and Brickell Point have 

many small chert flakes, byproducts of reduction and tool retouching. The varying proportions of the other 

categories—like ornaments, wood and bone working, and fiber working and weaving—may actually represent different 

kinds of activities represented in the site’s deposits and features. 

Mitchell’s (1998:235-240) study of 104 bone and tooth artifacts from the Jungle Prada site (8PI54, NR listed 2003) 

on the Florida Central Gulf Coast is similar to the Granada assemblage in its bias toward decorated bone, polished 

bone pins, and other ornaments like beads. Comparison of the Narvaez/Anderson and Granada assemblages also 

reveals some shared motifs on incised bone. At the very least, the Narvaez/Anderson assemblage demonstrates that 

some midden deposits can be almost dominated by decorative items. The Brickell Point midden is at the other end of 

the spectrum, with a preponderance of utilitarian tools. Since middens are complex sites, it is difficult to completely 

understand what the varying proportions of modified bone represent, though it is tempting to associate the polished 

pins, ornaments, carved and incised bones, pendants, and beads with individuals of high rank or social status, though 

perhaps they are merely indicators of primary habitation areas where these items would be broken, lost or discarded. 

The wood and bone working implements, fiber processing, weaving and fabric working implements, and bone working 

debitage, hint at areas or individuals involved in manufacture of tools and other products, and discard of broken tools 

and tool components. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _27_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

Shell Technology

Shell artifacts are a distinctive technology prevalent in several parts of Florida and neighboring areas with easy 

access to large marine gastropods (Figure 13). Southern Florida has a particularly rich and diverse technology of 

shell tools and ornaments (e.g., Marquardt 1992; Patton 1994; Torrence 1999). Griffin (2002:93-108) recognized 

around 60 types of shell artifacts from the Everglades and neighboring areas, and Marquardt (1992) discusses at least 

52 major categories of shell tools found in southwestern Florida and neighboring areas. Important studies of shell 

tools in southeastern Florida include Goggin’s (n.d.; Goggin and Sommer 1949:53-64) initial work that identified some 

of the more prominent shell tool forms; Willey’s (1949b:105-109) consideration of shell artifacts from the WPA 

excavations in Dade and Broward counties; Griffin’s (1982) consideration of shell tools from the Granada site, as well 

as his discussion of Goggin’s typology for the region (Griffin 2002:93-108); Masson’s (1988) important study of 

Strombus celts; and Wheeler’s (2002c) analysis of shell artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point. 

Celts made from the thickened lip of the Strombus spp. are one of the most ubiquitous shell tool forms in 

southeastern Florida (Figures 14 and 15). Keegan (1982:79-80) notes several size phases of Strombus gigas, 

including an adult form with a well-developed lip and a gerontic form with a very thin lip. Both forms seem to have 

been targeted for making shell celts. Carr and Reiger (1980) discuss several types of shell celt and celt blank caches 

that are known from southern Florida, which are perhaps analogous to chipped stone tool and tool blank caches 

known from other parts of the state (Alexon 1988; Watson et al. 1990). These caches point to the importance of 

Strombus celts in the local culture. Wheeler (1993) notes that during the Middle through Lake Archaic Strombus tools 

were distributed widely throughout Florida, but after the Archaic Strombus lip tools are largely restricted to 

southeastern Florida and neighboring regions that seem to have maintained exchange relationships with the source 

area. 

Mollusk Species Selection. The mollusk species targeted for shell tool production are largely a function of their 

biogeographic ranges. Shell tool assemblages from the area are dominated by Strombus gigas, the queen or pink 

conch (Laxson 1964; Wheeler 2002c; Willey 1949b:105). This is consistent with the biogeographic range of this large 

gastropod, which is more typically a Caribbean species, but occurs frequently from the Florida Keys to Jupiter Inlet 

(Abbott 1974:144; Keegan 1982). This reliance on Strombus gigas for tool making in southeastern Florida is unlike 

other parts of Florida, especially the southwestern Gulf Coast and St. Johns River areas, which have a greater number 

of tools made from various Busycon species. At the Miami Circle site for example, Busycon sinistrum shells were 

most frequently used to produce plummets and two of the three shell disks, all of which may be ornamental. Only a 

few cutting-edge tools and adzes were made from Busycon sinistrum. This may be due to the more gracile nature of 

the Busycon shells available in southeastern Florida. Shell celts are occasionally produced from Strombus costatus, 

the milk conch. For example, S. costatus accounted for 12% of the species represented at the Miami Circle site, but 

among Strombus lip tools its occurrence was 26%. This is very high when compared to the occurrence noted in the 

Cheetum-Flagami collection at 3%, which probably reflects the relative frequency of this species in the local 

environment (Masson 1988). Pleuroploca gigantea, the horse conch, also is well represented in some site collections 

(Wheeler 2000c), and seems to have been favored for its heavy columella. Many of the columella tools from the area 

are produced from this shell, including plummets, hammers, and columella cutting-edge tools. The horse conch 

appears to have the greatest diversity of uses for shell tools and ornaments. Other shells that were used for tools and 

ornaments include the crown conch (Melongena corona), the quahog or hard clam (Mercenaria campehiensis), the 

sunray venus (Macrocallista spp.); as well as other species of bivalve, including Codakia orbicularis and Lucina 

pectinata (see Griffin 1982:77; Reiger 1979, 1981; Wheeler 2002c). 

Manufacture of Shell Artifacts. The recovery of shell working debitage from some sites allows for discussion of the 

design and manufacture of shell tools. Unfortunately, shell working debitage is often overlooked and discarded in the 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _28_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

field. For example, analysis of shell artifacts from the Granada site did not include a category for shell working 

debitage, though it seems likely that tools were made at the site. At the Miami Circle, however, a small number of 

shell debitage fragments indicate that shell tools were being made at the site (Wheeler 2002c). Detached columella 

(n=14) from Busycon sinistrum and Pleuroploca gigantea form the largest category of shell debitage. It is not clear 

how these detached columella fit into the sequence of shell reduction and tool making, but they may be blanks for 

making columella hammers or cutting-edge tools or blanks for bead making as suggested by Torrence (1999:70-71). 

The second major category of shell working debitage (n=12) at the Miami Circle is related to the reduction and 

manufacture of tools from the Strombus conchs. Broken body whorls and conch shells with detached lips both point to 

primary reduction and manufacture of the Strombus celts, which form one of the largest tool categories in the Miami 

Circle assemblage. The broken or carefully cut anterior sections of the Strombus gigas appear to be blanks related to 

production of Strombus gouges. 

Shell Ornaments. Shell ornaments are relatively rare in southeastern Florida. Laxson (1961) reports on a carved 

Busycon shell disk from a site on the Uleta River in Miami-Dade County, and Coleman et al. (1983) report on a carved 

shell pendant in the form of a bird from site 8DA141. This latter specimen is probably within the tradition of animal 

effigies discussed below. Goggin and Sommer (1949:63-64) illustrate a cup-shaped node from Upper Matecumbe 

Key carved from a Strombus shell. More typical ornament forms include plummets and disks, though these are rather 

rare. For example, at the Miami Circle shell ornaments include 8 plummets and 3 shell disks (Wheeler 2002c). 

Interestingly, the smallest shell disk may be a shell node like the one from Upper Matecumbe, cut and carved from 

one of the spines or protuberances of a Strombus gigas. Gilliland (1975:184) interpreted these shell nodes as “shell 

mask eyes,” since they were found set into the eye sockets of some of the carved and painted wooden masks at Key 

Marco. At other sites that lack wood preservation, these shell nodes may be an indication that carved wooden masks 

were in use. We know from the account of the 1743 Spanish mission located near present-day Miami that the natives 

of this area were using wooden masks in their religious observances, as had their neighbors in southwestern Florida 

(see Alaña’s account translated in Hann 1991:422 and Childers 2003:76). 

Unperforated shell disks remain a mysterious artifact type. The larger example from the Miami Circle has evidence 

of a tab-like extension on one margin that has broken away (Wheeler 2002c). Shell disks with these tab-like 

extensions are known from other sites in southeastern Florida and on the Florida Gulf Coast (Moore 1903:397-398, 

Fig. 43; 1907a:417; Sears 1962:8; Willey 1949a:Pl. 24f). Typically they have a central perforation and incised 

concentric circles, though plain examples are known. These appear to have some association with Hopewellian 

contexts. An example of the more typical form, but carved in bone, was recovered from the center of the Miami Circle 

(see Wheeler 2002a:28-29). 

Shell plummets are occasionally encountered at sites in southeastern Florida, and Reiger argues that this is a rare 

artifact throughout southern Florida (Reiger 1990:228). There are two general notions about what plummets 

represent—one suggests they are pendants worn around the neck or suspended from clothing, while the opposing 

view suggests they are sinkers for hook-and-line fishing (compare arguments in Reiger 1990 and Walker 2000). At 

the Granada site, 41 plummets were identified among the collection of 1,918 shell artifacts, representing 2 % of the 

total. The eight shell plummets from the Miami Circle represent around 6 % of the shell artifact inventory. This seems 

to support Reiger’s assertion that plummets are rare, despite Walker’s (2000:30-31) assertion that grooved columella 

plummet-form artifacts are commonly found at coastal sites. In fact, plummets of shell and stone seem quite rare in 

southern Florida, though they are often better represented at larger, more complex sites. Bullen (1952:49) and 

Wheeler (2000:45-47, 48-57) demonstrate that plummets are often found in large numbers accompanying burials at 

Gulf Coast sites, suggesting a personal relationship between these objects and individuals. Examples found at 

habitation sites may have been lost or discarded as suspension knobs became worn down, just as broken fragments 

of decorated bone are found at these sites. Reiger (1999) discusses the possible use of plummets in divination as 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _29_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

well as their symbolism. Interestingly, he concludes that certain marine shells may have been selected for plummet 

making because of symbolic qualities they held for the native peoples (Reiger 1999:236-237). This is largely based on 

ethnographic analogy with cultures in other areas, like the Santa Barbara Indians of California, where plummets were 

used in rainmaking, curing, and divining the future. Reiger (1999:236) suggests that in the case of shell plummets, the 

spiral form of the columella may have been associated with broader southeastern Indian symbolism linking spiral 

motifs to the underworld (cf. Dye and Wharey 1989:322). 

Shell Tool Technology. Table 5 summarizes the major shell artifact categories in the Miami Circle assemblage and 

some possible uses. Comparison to the Granada site assemblage indicates that the Miami Circle collection is fairly 

representative of the area. The majority of shell artifacts are tools, designed to aid in making other articles or to be 

used in composite artifact forms. Study of the bone tools from the Miami Circle reveal a great number of implements 

involved in various types of weaving. The cut and polished shell rectangles are likely part of this weaving toolkit and 

probably were used in producing nets of uniform mesh (Walker 2000:32-33). The perforated bivalve shells probably 

served as net weights for these nets of knotted cordage. As Cushing (1897:366) notes at the Key Marco site, 

perforated bivalves were found tied to the bottoms of “coarse-meshed, comparatively large and long gill-nets.” The 

three examples of this artifact type from the Miami Circle represent only a small sample of those that occur there. 

The remainder of the shell tools represents woodworking tools for a variety of tasks, ranging from rough work and 

primary reduction to finer carving and smoothing of artifact surfaces. Many of the shell tool forms have analogies in 

the metal woodworking tools used in Europe and America in the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries (see 

Goodman 1964; Sloane 1964; Wildung 1957). The heavy Strombus lip celts likely represent tools used in primary 

reduction, for chopping away large portions of material when roughing out an architectural beam, for removing char 

during the manufacture of a dugout canoe, or as a froe or wedge to split blocks of wood. As Masson (1988:326) 

illustrates, shell celts could have been hafted in a variety of axe or adze-like fashions, or they could have been used 

unhafted, perhaps in concert with a wooden mallet. Some of the Strombus celts from the Miami Circle exhibit lateral 

wear that is consistent with hafting on a T or L-shaped wooden handle. These handles would have placed the celt 

blade perpendicular to the axis of the handle (more like an adze than an axe) at an angle between slightly less than 90 

degrees to 45 or 50 degrees (see illustrations in Goodman 1964:13, 18). 

Some of the Strombus celts and the Busycon adzes were likely used for finer carving and finishing of beams or 

other large wooden artifacts. Sloan (1964:26-27) explains that an adze would produce a wooden beam with a smooth 

surface, leaving little in the way of scoring marks. It has been suggested that the Miami Circle feature was carved into 

the limestone in order to receive timbers for a structure or enclosure (Carr and Ricisak 2000:281-283). The Strombus

celts and Busycon adzes certainly could have been used in finishing wooden architectural elements like poles or 

timbers that would have been involved in such a structure. 

The Strombus gouges, columella cutting-edge tools, and hafted cutting-edge tools were likely equivalents of hand 

adzes, gouges, and chisels, and may have been used in carving wooden containers and vessels (see Sloan 1964:28-

27). These tools, with a curvate or straight blade, would have been used to scrape away wood to create the hollowedout bowl form. While ceramic vessels were used for cooking and storage, wooden vessels represent an even older 

tradition and beautifully made examples are known from across the state. Purdy (1991:238-242, 245,) illustrates and 

discusses a number of these wooden containers, and a variety of bowl and trough-like forms were present at Key 

Marco (Gilliland 1975:48-64). 

Several other shell tools likely are specialized woodworking implements. One tool categorized as a “columella 

plane” was present in the Miami Circle collection. This tool was probably not used like a block plane, but was likely a 

specialized gouge or chisel (Sloan 1964:54-55). Considering the rabbetted box sides present at Key Marco it is 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _30_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

possible that tools like this were used in such joinery, possibly in conjunction with a wooden mallet or mounted in a 

wooden handle (see Gilliland 1975:137, 142, Plates 90). As noted above, two broken Strombus celts had been 

reworked so that an incurvate blade was present on the distal end of the tool. These could have been used like a 

drawknife in finishing the ends of boards, or in making tool handles (Sloan 1964:38-39; Wildung 1957:54-55). 

It is more difficult to find analogies to the gastropod hammers and columella hammers. Shell reduction, especially 

the removal of the columella, requires a few precise hammer blows, and the heavier gastropod hammers may have 

been used in this fashion. The smaller, hafted columella hammers are a mystery. It seems that for many hammering 

tasks a wooden mallet or maul would have been used (Wildung 1957:1). The burlwood club found across the river 

from the Miami Circle would have been an admirable mallet to have used in conjunction with many of the shell tools 

discussed above (see Purdy 1991:236, Figure 90). Torrence (1999:Figure 14) illustrates an artist’s concept of the 

columella hammers being use in shell tool reduction. This is one possible use, and they may have been utilized in 

reduction of bone for bone tool making as well. Speculation suggests they could have been used in leather and hide 

working or even to tenderize meat. 

Research Questions 

! What shell tool types are characteristic of southeastern Florida? How do these types compare with those of 

neighboring areas? What temporal trends can be identified among shell tools? How do shell tool assemblages from 

coastal and inland sites compare? 

! Is it possible to identify chemical residues on shell tools that may help in identifying the function of mysterious 

artifact types, like shell disks? 

! Bone tools are fairly well studied within the area occupied by the Tequesta and their ancestors, however, it would be 

interesting to apply the typologies and functional categories developed for analysis of the Granada and Miami Circle 

assemblages to collections from inland sites. How do bone tool assemblages differ between coastal and inland sites? 

Are there temporal trends in bone tool technology? 

! Is it possible to use isotopic signatures to identify the origins of shark teeth from coastal and inland sites? 

! Analysis of the zooarcheological materials from Honey Hill and Granada suggest some distinct patterns in the use of 

fish and turtles. Are these trends evident at other sites? 

! Is it possible to recognize human impacts to prehistoric plant and animal populations? 

! How do ethnohistoric accounts complement or contradict zooarcheological and paleobotanical analysis? Is it 

possible to find evidence for exchange of certain food items, such as dried meat from marine mammals and fish? 

! Can pollen analysis be used to study the use of plants at Everglades sites? Can phytoliths (fossil silica plant parts) 

be used to study plant use at these sites? 

! What patterns of plant use are reflected in Everglades area sites with wetsite components? How do these patterns 

compare with patterns at wetsites in neighboring areas? How do these patterns compare with those recognized in 

non-wetsite deposits? 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _31_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

Table 5. Shell artifact categories and possible uses, Miami Circle at Brickell Point. 

Artifact type Count Possible uses 

Debitage 29 shell working and tool production 

Plummets 8 ornaments 

Disks 3 ornaments 

Beads 1 ornaments 

Perforated bivalve shells 3 net weights, fishing 

Rectangles 3 net making, fishing 

Busycon adze 2 woodworking 

Strombus gouge 5 woodworking 

Columella Plane or Gouge 1 woodworking 

Columella cutting-edge tools 4 woodworking 

Cutting-edge tools 1 woodworking 

Gastropod hammers 4 shell working? 

Columella hammers 13 stone, shell and bone working 

Strombus lip tools and celts 58 woodworking 

Mortuary Practices 

 The theme Mortuary Practices has been identified as a regionally and nationally significant topic since sites with 

human burials can answer questions regarding social and political organization, health and nutrition, and aspects of 

ritual behavior. Some Archaic cemetery sites in southeastern Florida are highly significant, since they can provide 

data on these aspects of early Florida life, and can be augment skeletal populations from other parts of Florida and the 

Southeast from this time period. This theme falls potentially falls under three of the National Park Service’s Thematic 

Framework themes: II. Creating Social Institutions and Movements, III. Expressing Cultural Values, and, IV. Shaping 

the Political Landscape (NPS 1999:81, 82). 

 The burial sites of the Tequesta and their ancestors are well-known compared to neighboring areas. Of at least 71 

prehistoric sites with human remains in Broward and Miami-Dade counties, 40 have been studied by physical 

anthropologists and archeologists (based on data from the Florida Master Site File). Human burials from sites in 

southeastern Florida have been studied in a variety of ways. Physical anthropologists have examined skeletal 

material for evidence of disease and trauma, dietary stress, and variation in mortality. Archeologists have studied 

burial patterns and broader temporal changes in types of burial. 

Physical anthropology 

Physical anthropologists have examined skeletal material from several late Archaic cemeteries in Miami-Dade 

County. Carr et al. (1984) report on an assemblage of 6 individuals from the Santa Maria site (8DA2132), located 

about 2.5 km to the south of the mouth of the Miami River. The individuals were intentionally interred in solution holes, 

with limestone boulders then piled on top of the graves. Calibration of the five radiocarbon dates from the site indicate 

the burials date from 3885 to 1000 B.C. Physically, the population was similar to other late Archaic and Florida Indian 

groups. Paleopathological conditions observed include evidence for extraction of teeth during life; extreme dental 

wear; no evidence of caries (cavities); periodontal disease and abscesses; infectious conditions in the long bones 

similar to osteomyelitis; and evidence of severe degenerative joint disease. ¤Õcan et al. (1995) report on burials from a 

late Archaic and Glades cemetery at the Flagami South site (8DA1053); unlike Santa Maria and the Brickell Bluff site 

(8DA1082), this site is located inland, about 16 km from Biscayne Bay. Artifacts and radiocarbon dates indicate 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _32_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

burials were made during several periods. In this case 16 individuals were represented, also exhibiting extensive 

tooth wear and infrequent evidence for dietary stress. ¤Õcan et al. (1993) report on 4 individuals from a late Archaic 

cemetery at the Brickell Bluff site, located on Biscayne Bay, about 5 km south of the mouth of the Miami River. Eight 

radiocarbon dates indicate occupation of the site from 2000 B.C. to A.D. 200. As with the other late Archaic mortuary 

assemblages, male, female, and juvenile individuals were represented. Some evidence of nutritional deficiency was 

noted (e.g., cribra orbitalia, iron deficiency anemia). 

¤Õcan (1983) reports on an assemblage of 49 individuals from the burial mound and cemetery at the MargateBlount site (8BD41) in Broward County. In contrast to the late Archaic cemeteries discussed above, the MargateBlount site represents occupation during the Glades periods well into the time of European contact. ¤Õcan (1983:156) 

reports an equal distribution of males and females, but notes a low number of juveniles represented. Apparently, the 

groups was physically similar to other Florida populations, though perhaps shorter and more robust (¤Õcan 1983:163). 

Ante-mortem tooth loss was evidenced, as in the late Archaic populations, though at Margate-Blount this condition 

was more frequent in females. Cavities were rare, and the extensive wear typically noted was less severe. Bone 

pathologies were limited to evidence of arthritis, osteophytosis, osteitis, and a healed fracture. At least one possible 

case of treponemal disease was noted. 

Elgart-Berry (2003) recently utilized teeth collected from sites in Miami-Dade, Broward, and southern Palm Beach 

counties to assess health of these populations. The teeth came from several of the collections discussed above 

(Brickell Bluff or Atlantis site, and Flagami North and Flagami South), as well as the Miami Circle/Brickell sites 

(8DA12/8DA98), Pine Island (8BD1113), Dolphin Stadium (8DA411) and North Ridge (8DA3678), Cheetum 

(8DA1058) and Cheetum-Coleman (8DA141), Kendall-Coleman (8DA2131), Long Lakes Estates (8BD3283), and 

Highland Beach (8PB11). Elgart-Berry (2003) examined the teeth for linear enamel hypoplasia and hypoplastic pits, 

which are related to dietary stress; she also assessed the age at which the enamel disruptions occurred. Twenty 

percent of the teeth examined showed evidence of enamel disruption. The enamel disruptions occurred between 2.2 

and 7 years of age, with the average age in the fourth year. Site by site comparison revealed considerable variation in 

frequency of enamel disruption, ranging from 9 to 31%. The greatest frequency of enamel hypoplasia occurred at 

Pine Island, Miami Circle/Brickell, Brickell Bluff, and Cheetum. Pine Island and Cheetum also show more severe 

episodes of hypoplasia; these sites also exhibit the earliest mean onset ages for hypoplasia. The cause of the 

hypoplasia may be due to protein deficient diets or stress associated with weaning. The study demonstrates, 

however, generally good dental health for the southeastern Florida populations. 

Burial patterns 

Felmley’s (1991) Master’s thesis study is unique in southern Florida. She compared data from 44 burial 

components at 40 burial sites in Broward and Miami-Dade counties, roughly corresponding to the ancestral homeland 

of the Tequesta. Variables considered include distance from coast, site type, spatial confinement of burials, 

associated habitation sites, chronological position, and burial form. Additional variables studied include orientation of 

burials, direction, sex, and presence of grave furniture. A diachronic approach allowed discussion of burial patterns in 

late Archaic and Glades I periods as opposed to Glades I through III periods. 

Felmley’s (1991:69) results indicate that primary and secondary burial forms were present in both the late Archaic 

and Glades I and later Glades periods. She notes, however, that grave goods are more common with primary, 

extended burials during the earlier period. Felmley (1991:71) suggests that high status burials of the Glades periods 

may be distinguished by their interment in mounds, instead of through grave goods and burial form. Secondary 

burials increase considerably from 33% in the late Archaic/Glades I periods to 60% in later Glades periods. Felmley 

(1991:71) indicates that this may be due to increased use of charnel houses of other burial programs that included 

storing remains prior to interment. It should be noted that perishable grave goods, including wood carvings, 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _33_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

featherwork, textiles, and basketry, may have been included with burials, but are absent due to preservation 

conditions. 

Late Archaic cemeteries are typically found at inland sites, though coastal and inland sites exhibit similar patterns. 

In most cases (85%) the cemeteries are located in habitation sites, typically within spatially confined areas, showing 

little preference for the part of the site they occupy. Felmley (1991:72-73) concludes that corporate lineage groups 

utilized these formal cemeteries, noting that there is little evidence of sociopolitical ranking. Distribution of grave 

goods, however, indicates some recognition of individual status and rank. In some cases these graves goods 

included shell bowls with food remains, turtle shells and snail shell deposits (Felmley 1991:86). The osteological 

analysis, discussed above, suggest’s similar burial treatment of males, females, and juveniles. This typically indicates 

inherited status, and Felmley (1991:74-75) concludes a non-egalitarian sociopolitical organization existed during this 

time period, with several autonomous groups inhabiting the broader Everglades area. The presence of formal 

cemeteries during the early period indicates structured lineages with specific ties to land and resources. Felmley 

(1991:85) notes that while there are some shared patterns between the late Archaic/Glades I period cemeteries and 

Archaic period mortuary ponds like Bay West and Windover, the association between water and burial is absent. She 

suggests this may be due to increasing power of village chiefs who wanted to link religious and political power. 

In the post-Archaic period, Felmley (1991:76-77) notes that burial sites are evenly distributed across the study 

area, but that there is a clustering of burial mounds on the coast in the northern Biscayne Bay area. The 

concentration of sites and mounds in this area suggests development of a local or regional center. Many of these 

mounds are associated with habitation middens, and in some cases, burials are found in both mounds and in adjacent 

cemeteries. Interior habitation sites exhibit a different pattern, with cemeteries located in the primary midden area. At 

least three different types of burial are recognized during the later Glades periods: primary burial within a habitation 

site, secondary interment within a habitation site, and interment within a constructed mound. Felmley (1991:78-79) 

concludes that the different coastal and inland burial patterns reflect ranking between lineages and evidence for 

increasing sociopolitical complexity, with coastal groups having exclusive right to the higher status burial program. 

She notes that this is consistent with Binford’s (1971) assertion that variety in a mortuary assemblage will increase 

proportionately to an increase in the number of social positions symbolically recognized. Felmley (1991:88) notes that 

excavation of the Surfside Mound (8DA22) indicates that the mound was the continuous use type as defined by Sears 

(1958:277, 280-281). This indicates a less rigidly organized society. Research by other archeologists indicates that 

when higher status individuals are interred in mounds, lower status individuals are buried in habitation area 

cemeteries. This pattern seems to be the one evident in the later Glades periods (Felmley 1991:88). Interestingly, 

data from neighboring areas suggest some significant differences when compared to the Tequesta: data from the 

Florida Keys indicates that midden burials are rare or absent; both mound and midden burials appear rare in 

Everglades National Park; and mound burials, including deposits or caches of ceramics, are much more common in 

the Ten Thousand Islands. These differences are significant, since they help distinguish the Tequesta and their 

ancestors from neighboring groups, and in defining the boundaries of the area they occupied. 

Ethnohistoric evidence 

One of the best descriptions of mortuary practices in the Tequesta area comes from Jesuit Father Joseph Javier 

Alaña’s account of the 1743 mission attempt made near the mouth of the Miami River (see Hann 1991:418-431; 

Sturtevant 1978). The mission settlement, called Santa Maria de Loreto, was made at an Indian village that included 

remnants of Keys, Calusa, and Boca Raton tribal groups. Alaña (in Hann 1991:422) describes two “idols” held by the 

Indians, including the principal one, “a board sheathed in deerskin with its poorly formed image of a fish that looks like 

the barracuda and the other a figure like tongues.” The other idol is described as the god of the cemetery, “a head of 

a bird, sculpted in pine,” which the missionaries destroyed along with a temple building (Alaña in Hann 1991:422). 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _34_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

Sturtevant (1978:148-149) suggests that the temple destroyed by the Spanish was actually within the bounds of the 

cemetery, though this is not clear from translations of the account. Alaña (in Hann 1991:423-424) also notes that child 

sacrifice was practiced upon the death of the cacique or other leading men, and that the names of the dead were 

taboo. Offerings of food, tobacco, reed mats and other gifts were placed daily on graves (Note: items like tobacco, 

corn and precious metals were introduced via trade with passing European ships and from salvage of shipwrecks); the 

guarded cemetery was situated somewhat distant from the village and visited during frequent pilgrimages. Sturtevant 

(1978:149) notes that the Francisco Alegre version of the story indicates that the graves were decorated with “turtles, 

barracudas, and other animals” in order to appease the dead. A slightly different version of the same account 

indicates that “the skulls of stags, turtles, barracuda, and other animals” were placed around the cemetery (Alaña in 

Childers 2003:77). 

This description is consistent in many ways with the archeological record. The evidence for differential treatment of 

high status individuals described by Felmley (1991) as mound interment is likely reflected in Alaña’s description of 

child sacrifice for caciques and principal men, another mortuary practice reserved for high status individuals. The 

cemetery described by Alaña may very well be one of the formal cemeteries established within a midden or nearby a 

habitation area; it is unlikely the Jesuit was describing a mound. The food and other offerings may well be reflected 

archeologically in the caches of turtle carapaces or shell bowls with food remains that Felmley (1991:118, 122-124) 

notes for several sites. The fish and bird imagery also may be found in wood in bone carvings known from southern 

Florida (see discussion of art and aesthetics below). 

Research Questions 

! Is it possible to use biological distancing studies (based either on statistical analysis of metric and non-metric 

features, or through DNA or other chemical means) to evaluate relationships between individuals within and between 

mortuary assemblages? 

! How do the mortuary patterns recognized by Felmley (1991) compare with neighboring areas? 

! What is the relationship between Stombus celt caches and mortuary areas? 

! Is it possible to locate cemeteries with wetsite preservation? Such sites occur in neighboring areas (e.g., Belle 

Glade Mound near Lake Okeechobee) and at the Margate-Blount site on the northern border of the area occupied by 

the Tequesta and their ancestors. Do these sites contain perishable grave goods not typically found at dry sites? 

How will wetsite assemblages change ideas about status? 

! How do skeletal markers of health and nutrition, within mortuary assemblages of the Tequesta and their ancestors, 

compare with neighboring cultures? 

! What significance do animal interments (other than dogs) have? How are they related to mortuary areas? How are 

they related to sacred or ritual space? 

Earthwork Building 

 The theme Earthwork Building has been identified as a regionally and nationally significant topic since earthwork 

sites are rare in southeastern Florida, though share forms with earthwork sites found in neighboring areas, including 

circle-ditch sites and circular-linear earthworks. Circle-ditch sites are known in southeastern Florida and represent an 

extremely rare type of earthwork of southern and central Florida believed to be the earliest form of earthwork 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _35_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

constructed in Florida. These sites are significant regionally and nationally since earthwork building traditions are 

widespread in the midwestern and eastern United States; southeast Florida earthwork examples may be able to 

answer broader national question regarding the origins of earthworks, why they were built, and what connections may 

exist between regional earthwork traditions. This theme falls under the National Park Service’s Thematic Framework 

theme III. Expressing Cultural Values (NPS 1999:82). 

 Construction of earthworks in southern Florida is most closely associated with the Belle Glade or Lake 

Okeechobee region—the inland area around Lake Okeechobee and northward to include the Kissimmee River basin 

(Carr 1985; Goggin 1947:120-121; Goggin and Sturtevant 1964; Hale 1984, 1989; Johnson 1996). There are, 

however, a number of sites occupied by the Tequesta and their ancestors that have similar earthworks. Within the 

broader area of southern Florida, these earthworks occur in seven major forms: 1) circular ditches, often associated 

with habitation sites and located on wetland margins; 2) long-distance canoe canals, constructed to link natural bodies 

of water and frequently associated with major site complexes and other travel routes, like foot paths and trails; 3) 

borrow pits, geometric borrows and effigy borrows, which are often associated with mounds and mound complexes 

(see Johnson 1996:253); 4) linear embankments associated with mounds; 5) mounds and mound groups; 6) earthen 

embankments enclosing mounds; and 7) circular-linear earthwork complexes, which exhibit at least two subtypes (see 

Johnson 1996:253, Fig. 8, 9). 

As noted in the previous discussion of mortuary practices, constructed earthen mounds are found in some portions 

of Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. Felmley (1991:75-77, Fig. 6) notes that dirt and sand mound 

construction increases considerably during the later Glades periods, though these features are much less frequent 

than in neighboring areas, including in the Florida Keys and Ten Thousand Islands. Flat-topped temple mounds also 

are extremely rare in the area, represented at only two sites—8DA19 and 8DA45. This disparity in constructed mound 

features is an important difference between the Tequesta and neighboring groups. It is, however, significant that 

these two sites occur within the area, especially since they are outside Everglades National Park and are therefore not 

addressed in Griffin’s (2002) synthesis of the Everglades. 

Despite the relative scarcity of constructed mounds, there are a number of other earthwork types that are found in 

the area. Anthropologist Mark Harrington (1909:139-140) described a site at the forks of the New River (present-day 

Fort Lauderdale’s Sailboat Bend neighborhood) that included a shell mound and at least 6 sand mounds, the largest of 

which was 8 ft high and 50 ft in diameter. Numerous potsherds and shell implements were found in the area. 

Extending from this, or one of the other large mounds, were “low embankments.” Earlier excavations in one of the 

large mounds had left scattered human remains, though Harrington was unable to find anything upon excavation of 

one of the other mounds. Research by Carr et al. (1991:24, 1995:24-25, 38-39) uncovered an 1895 map by A.P. 

Knowlton that depicts the configuration of this site, including the linear embankments extending from the large earthen 

mound (Figure 16). Components of the site are recorded as 8BD3 and 8BD203; sherds from extant portions of the 

midden include St. Johns Plain and St. Johns Check Stamped, suggesting Glades III period occupation. At least two 

other sites with linear embankments are known in the area, the Holatee Trail site (8BD104), which has two sand 

mounds connected by a 15 ft wide and 1.5 ft high sand causeway (Felmley 1991:106) (Figure 17) and the Coral 

Gables earthworks (8DA2112), which had a group of mounds and one or two paired linear embankments (Carr 

1981:15, 121-123). 

Carr (1985:296, 298) recorded two circle-ditch sites in Miami-Dade County. The Dade Circle was discovered during 

the 1979 archeological survey of Miami-Dade County (Carr 1981:15-16; 1985:298). This is one of three rare circleditch sites outside of the Lake Okeechobee basin. Carr (1985:298) states that the site was noted on a 1925 aerial 

photograph, located in an area that was once Everglades prairie near the headwaters of the Miami River. Like many 

of the other circle-ditch sites, the Dade Circle does not form a complete circle. It is not clear if this represents 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _36_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

intentional construction or disturbance from groves and fields evident on the 1925 aerial (Carr 1985:296). The 

diameter of the circle-ditch is estimated between 180 and 187 m. Development has since obscured the site, which 

was located in the vicinity of NW 7 Street and NW 42nd Avenue. 

The Miami Circle-Ditch (8DA2148) was originally reported by Carr (1981:15-16; 1985:298), based on the 

nineteenth century survey notes of George Mackay (1845). Like the Dade Circle, it is a rare example of a circle-ditch 

outside of the Lake Okeechobee basin. Mackay (1845:56) encountered the site during his survey of the exterior 

boundaries of Township 54 S, Range 41 E. In his notes of the survey of the northern boundary line he describes the 

site as an “old redoubt encircled by a ditch—center embankments in form of a cross—diameter of circle 200 feet—

large pines have grown since it was completed.” He describes the setting on the south side of the Miami River, located 

on a pine ridge. Based on Mackay’s chain measurements, and the mile and half-mile posts he established, the 

earthwork was located just over 1.5 miles from the northeast corner of Township 54 S, in what would eventually 

become Section 2. Today the site location would be roughly at the southwestern corner of the intersection of NW 7th

Street and NW 12th Avenue, a few blocks east of the Orange Bowl Stadium. 

Long distance canoe canals also are known within the area inhabited by the Tequesta and their ancestors. 

Wheeler (1998) summarized earlier observations on two of these canals, both located at Cape Sable in Everglades 

National Park (Figure 18). Information on the canals was gleaned from the work of botanist John Kunkle Small 

(1924:82), and archeologists John M. Goggin (n.d.:185-186), John Griffin (1988:182-183; 2002:187-189), and William 

Sears (1966). The 6.3 km long Mud Lake Canal (8MO32) passes near the Bear Lake mound group, and connects 

Mud Lake and the waters of Whitewater Bay with Florida Bay (Figure 19). Small (1924:82-83) remarked that the canal 

essentially made Cape Sable an island, allowing an Indian canoeist to avoid a long trip around the treacherous waters 

of the cape. Measurements of the canal and prior descriptions indicate the channel is 8.8 m in width and 0.3 to 0.6 m 

in depth, bounded on either side by sandy spoil banks. Only a small portion (about 0.85 km) of the nearby Snake 

Bight Canal (8MO29) can be detected on aerial photographs. Measurements and descriptions indicate it has a 

channel 6 m in width and similar in depth to the Mud Lake Canal. Wheeler (1998:22-23) hypothesized that the Snake 

Bight Canal represented an earlier construction that had been destroyed by a hurricane, and was subsequently 

replaced by the Mud Lake Canal. Both features served to control canoe traffic at a critical point, where travelers from 

the Florida Keys, Gulf Coast and Everglades regions would have ventured. These canal features are extremely 

significant, since they represent the only examples in North America of a long-distance canoe canal and they 

represent the culmination of 5,000 to 6,000 years worth of adaptation to Florida’s aquatic landscape (Wheeler et al. 

2003:547-548). 

The presence of the circle-ditch, linear embankment, and canoe canal sites within the area occupied by the 

Tequesta and their ancestors is significant. Students of the area suggest that the circle-ditch sites represent the 

earliest earthwork form constructed in southern Florida (Carr 1985; Hale 1989:69-70; Johnson 1996:255-256, 258-

259). Excavation of circle-ditch sites at Fort Center and Whitebelt 1 confirm that they date to the Florida Transitional 

and Glades I periods. Wheeler (2003) has argued that the circle-ditches were built to facilitate drainage and allow 

settlement in or adjacent to wetlands. Their presence in the homeland of the Tequesta emphasizes the shared 

cultural patterns of the broader Glades Tradition, especially early in the development of the regional cultures. The 

presence of the linear embankment earthworks is more puzzling, but seems related to influences from neighboring 

areas. Goggin and Sturtevant (1964:194-197) suggest all these earthworks are ceremonial, but recognize the 

considerable leadership effort involved in planning and organizing the labor to build the features. They further see the 

earthworks and canals as evidence for the development of cultural complexity (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964:207-208). 

Luer (1989:113) has pointed out that the canoe canals represent a significant investment of labor, and likely were 

important for regional and interregional exchange. He further suggests that construction and use of the canals may be 

tied to the development of political-military authority within southern Florida. Wheeler (1995:278, 1998:22-23), 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _37_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

following Luer’s argument, has suggested that the canals were placed at strategic locations where other travel routes, 

like overland trails, natural water bodies, or canoe trails, came together, giving some communities control of certain 

travel corridors. Luer (1989:124-125) suggests that regional centers developed after A.D. 1000 (at least along the 

Gulf Coast), replacing earlier, and more numerous independent polities; he hypothesizes that the development of 

canals is related to increasing reliance on interregional exchange that occurred as the regional centers emerged. 

Research Questions 

! What types of earthworks are present in the area occupied by the Tequesta and their ancestors? How do these 

earthworks compare with those found in neighboring areas? 

! Is it possible, through radiocarbon dating and/or relative dating techniques, to assess the age of earthwork sites? 

! What is the geographic distribution of earthwork sites in the region? 

! What possible functions did the earthworks serve? How do their configurations and placement on the landscape 

compare with similar earthworks in neighboring areas? 

! Can soil science be used to better understand earthwork construction and use? Can pollen or phytolith analysis be 

used in studying circle-ditch earthworks, and possible changes to local hydrological and vegetation patterns? 

Exchange Networks 

 The theme Exchange Networks has been identified as a regionally and nationally significant topic since some sites 

of southeastern Florida contain materials that can aid in understanding regional and long-distance exchange, as well 

as materials that can address questions regarding the forms of indigenous exchange networks. This theme falls under 

the National Park Service’s Thematic Framework theme V. Developing the American Economy (NPS 1999:82). 

The role of exchange networks among the Tequesta and their ancestors have recently been investigated in several 

ways. Luer (1989:113-114, 116-121; 1995) has pointed out both local and broader regional patterns of exchange in 

southern Florida. Notably, these have included participation in Hopewellian exchange networks best known to operate 

in the Lake Okeechobee/Kissimmee River basin and parts of the Florida Gulf Coast. Wheeler (1993) pointed to early 

exchange of Strombus shells likely originating in southeastern Florida and the Florida Keys. Dixon et al. (2000) 

conducted a sourcing study on basaltic/diabase celts recovered from the Miami Circle. Kish (2002) and Wheeler 

(2002b) have examined the distribution and geochemical/petrographic relationships of pumice artifacts in southern 

Florida. This recognition of the Tequesta and their ancestor’s participation in exchange networks is in contrast to 

previous ideas about the inhabitants of southeastern Florida. Archeologist John Goggin (1949:28, 31, n.d.:696) 

considered the people of the area to be parochial, though he acknowledges influences and relationships with 

neighboring areas. The synthesis of archeological resources in Everglades National Park also follows Goggin’s model 

of the Tequesta (Griffin 1988, 2002). Other students of the area, however, recognize participation in broader 

exchange networks. Willey (1949b:128) saw the presence of ground stone celts in Tequesta sites as evidence for 

contact with Hopewellian and Mississippian-influenced Weeden Island and St. Johns River area cultures to the north. 

Luer (1989:113, 116-121), in his discussion of aboriginal canoe canals in southern Florida, notes the role that these 

structures could have played in interregional exchange. His model proposes that the labor involved in building the 

canals was justified by their role in transporting roots, fish, wood, and other local exchange items. Luer (1989:116-

121) suggests that evidence for interregional exchange is found in the occurrence of certain materials in areas where 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _38_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

they would not normally be found, including whelk shell drinking cups; cypress wood; deer bone; marine fish and turtle 

bone at inland sites, including shark teeth; shell tools; smoking pipes of a similar pattern; and Belle Glade Plain 

vessels, which may have been involved in transporting foods. Following Luer’s model, other researchers have traced 

the distribution of some likely exchange goods that originated in southeastern Florida. For example, Wheeler (1993) 

noted that shell celts made from the queen conch Strombus gigas were widespread in several parts of Florida during 

the Late Archaic. The Strombus gigas, however, is more closely linked with the Caribbean biogeographic province, 

and only occurs in Florida in the southeastern part of the state and in the Florida Keys (see Keegan 1982). During 

later periods, however, tools made from Stombus gigas are common only in southeastern Florida; this may be due to 

the introduction of ground stone tools from northern exchange sources. This does suggest, however, that (as 

suggested above) southeastern Florida was inhabited during the Late Archaic and perhaps earlier, and these people 

participated in exchange with their neighbors to the north. In contrast to this, Kozuch (1993:32-35), in her study of 

shark utilization in southern Florida, concludes that people of southeastern Florida were not exchanging shark teeth 

with inland groups, but rather teeth found at sites like Fort Center were coming from southwest Florida. The further 

studies discussed below indicate that exchange systems in southern Florida may have been quite sophisticated. 

Dixon et al. (2000) used direct coupled plasma (DCP) and inductively-coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICPMS) to assess major and trace elements in basaltic stone axes and axe fragments recovered from the Miami Circle. 

Similar ground stone tools are rare, but present, in many southern Florida and Atlantic Coast sites (Dixon et al. 

2000:335-336; Willey 1949b). Comparison to 776 chemical analyses conducted on American basalts indicates that 

the axes originated in the area around Macon, Georgia. This study served to quell speculation about South or Central 

American origins for the stone axes, but also indicated that geochemical techniques might be useful in studying 

exchange systems in southern Florida. 

Kish (2004) and Wheeler (2002b) recognized that a large number of pumice fragments and artifacts recovered 

from the Miami Circle might afford another opportunity to use geochemical and petrographic analyses to explore 

exchange systems in southern Florida (Figure 20). Prior to excavation of the Miami Circle, archeologists would 

occasionally report the occurrence of pumice abraders in southern Florida sites, believing they had been made from 

pumice clasts washed ashore from the Lesser Antilles (Wheeler 2002b:1-2). Specimens from the Miami Circle and 

museum collections from other sites were used in a sourcing study that considered index of refraction, petrography, 

and major and trace element analysis (Kish 2004). Results of the study indicate at least three sources for the pumice, 

two from the Gulf Coast of Mexico and the third from the Canary Islands. Most of the pumice seems petrographically 

and chemically similar. Review of the distribution of pumice artifacts indicated occurrence at 39 sites, primarily in 

southeastern and eastern Florida, and in the area around Lake Okeechobee. While most sites have only a few such 

artifacts, the Miami Circle produced 173 fragments of pumice, representing 121 artifacts. Wheeler (2002b) 

hypothesized that the large number of pumice artifacts from the Miami Circle is associated with either a major eruption 

or a major storm event. Considering the source of the pumice, the latter mechanism is the most likely, since 

volcanoes in the Mexican Gulf Coast area were most active before 4,000 years ago. The geographic distribution of 

pumice suggests a “bull’s eye” pattern, indicating that a large number of pumice clasts became available at one time 

and were then distributed throughout the exchange system. Unlike local materials, which could be difficult to discern 

in archeological contexts, the pumice acts like a tracer dye in a liquid system, showing the linkages in the exchange 

network. Not surprisingly, this pumice was present at sites in the Florida Keys, Everglades, and Miami-Dade and 

Broward county coasts. Interestingly, the study shows that pumice similar to that recovered at the Miami Circle also is 

present at sites like Fort Center and Whitebelt 1, which occur on the western and eastern sides of Lake Okeechobee, 

respectively. Examples of pumice from southwestern Florida were rare, and none could be located in museum 

collections. This suggests that ancestral Tequesta exchange networks were active during the Glades I period, and 

reached well into the interior of the neighboring Lake Okeechobee area. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _39_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

Austin’s (2002) analysis of 1,431 chipped stone artifacts from the Miami Circle supports the above assertion that 

the Tequesta and their ancestors participated in interregional exchange networks. No outcrops of cherts or similar 

stone are found in southeastern Florida. Austin identified cherts from cobbles originating in the Tampa Limestone 

outcrops of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties; cherts from cobbles typical of the Suwannee and Ocala formations 

found in Polk, Pasco, extreme northeastern Hillsborough counties, and outcrops of the Ocala Arch; as well as noncobble forms of the same formations and a few silicified corals from outcrops in Hillsborough, Polk, and Pasco 

counties. Artifact forms included numerous flakes (n=1,111), thermal shatter (n=179), cores and unmodified cobbles 

(n=43), hammerstone fragments (n=5), bifaces (n=17), unifaces (n=2), microliths (n=32), modified flakes (n=12), and 

utilized flakes (n=23). Austin (2002:18-19) indicates that the cobble-based chipped stone technology evident at the 

Miami Circle has only one analog in southern and central Florida—the Fort Center site on Fisheating Creek. He 

hypothesizes that the Miami Circle cobbles were obtained through exchange with the Fort Center peoples. 

Austin (2002:18-19) suggests that down-the-line or redistributional forms of exchange could have characterized the 

system in place in southern Florida. He explains that in down-the-line exchange, the chert cobbles would have moved 

from the source area to Fort Center and then on to the Miami Circle, while in the more formal redistributional system, 

one community would serve as a redistribution center for other communities within the exchange network. Austin’s 

(2003:20) analysis leads him to conclude that a redistributional exchange system was in operation, with Fort Center 

serving as a center for redistribution of cobbles and other cherts. The Miami Circle site may well have had a similar 

role in the redistribution of pumice. 

Research Questions 

! What exotic materials were used in exchange among the Tequesta and their ancestors? 

! What native materials were used in exchange among the Tequesta and their ancestors? 

! Can elemental or isotopic analysis be used to source exchange goods in southeastern Florida? 

! Can specific exchange networks be identified temporally and geographically? Can specific routes or corridors be 

identified based on the presence of materials at sites? Is it possible to identify canoe trails or foot path routes? 

! What relationship exists between the Tequesta and their ancestors and Middle Woodland (Hopewellian) exchange 

networks? 

! Is there evidence for earlier (Archaic) and later (Mississippian-era) exchange networks? 

! What forms of exchange exist in southeastern and southern Florida? How do these patterns of exchange reflect 

socio-political development? 

! Can sites be identified that served as centers for redistribution of certain goods? 

Tequesta Art and Aesthetics 

 The theme Tequesta Art and Aesthetics has been identified as a regionally and nationally significant topic since 

some sites of southeastern Florida contain materials carved bone, antler, shell and wood artifacts that can be used to 

address questions of indigenous art and aesthetic systems. Models of local art and aesthetics suggest that there may 

be material expressions of behavior that relate to the way the Tequesta and their neighbors handled contact with other 

cultures, including the Spanish. This may be important in understanding broader patterns of acculturation, 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _40_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

assimilation and resistance to culture contact. Decorated objects, especially those of bone and antler, indicate 

potential chronological changes in artistic forms that can be used in relative dating and that may reflect shifts in 

sociopolitical systems. This theme potentially falls under two of the National Park Service’s Thematic Framework 

themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values, and, Shaping the Political Landscape (NPS 1999:82). 

 Evidence for Tequesta decorative arts has been limited, especially when compared with neighboring areas. The 

Key Marco site on Florida’s southwestern Gulf Coast, likely related to the Muspa or a similar tribal group, produced 

carved and painted wooden masks, figureheads, and other utilitarian and ceremonial objects (see Cushing 1897; 

Gilliland 1975). The Fort Center site, located on the western side of Lake Okeechobee, and associated with the 

Mayaimi or other tribe of the area, had carved wooden bird and animal effigies in a mortuary context (Schwehm 1983; 

Sears 1982). Other neighboring tribal groups participated in traditions of decorated ceramics, like Safety Harbor and 

Weeden Island, which are more typically associated with decorative arts in the southeastern United States. As 

discussed above, Glades series pottery remained relatively simple in form, with a series of distinctive (though simple) 

incised designs. Wheeler (1992, 1994; Wheeler and Coleman 1996), however, discovered several well-developed 

traditions of decorated bone work, several of which appear to have origins with the Tequesta and their ancestors. 

 Wheeler (1992, 1993) recognized a number of major chronological and geographic bone working traditions 

throughout the Florida peninsula. The earliest of these involve rectilinear designs usually carved on antler, followed by 

another tradition characterized by more flamboyant geometric designs incised on bone pins and other ornaments. 

The first of these is associated with the Middle to Late Archaic mortuary pond-cemetery tradition, and not surprisingly, 

is absent from southeastern Florida. Objects of the Late Archaic bone working tradition, however, are found 

occasionally in southeastern Florida. During the Late Archaic and Glades I periods, a distinctive carving style 

emerges that is a departure from the earlier traditions. This is when small, in-the-round and bas-relief carvings of 

animals begin to be made, usually ornamenting bone pins and pendants (Wheeler 1994:57-58) (Figure 21). This 

tradition of carving is well-developed by the Glades II Period, and the list of animals represented includes deer, 

opossum, duck, hawk or eagle, eel-like fish, rattlesnake, turtle, and shark (this creature is typically only depicted by 

very realistic, miniature versions of spinal column segments surmounting a bone pin). The carvings are very sensitive, 

naturalistic miniature portrayals. The tradition broadens to include neighboring areas, where bone animal carvings 

appear in later periods. Animals represented in southwestern Florida, the East Okeechobee region, and the St. Johns 

River area include turtle, rattlesnake, serpent, bottlenose dolphin, deer, bear, shark, stringray, pelican, turkey, 

shorebird, and other unidentified birds. By the Glades III Period, rare portrayals of the human form are added to the 

repertoire. Wheeler (1996:135) suggests that these animal carvings are related to Hopewellian imagery. The small, 

personal nature of the carvings is quite unlike the larger wooden carvings from Key Marco and Fort Center, though the 

same animals appear to be depicted. Wheeler (1996:371-372) suggests that the pervasive animal imagery is not 

linked only to clan totems, but also to broader beliefs regarding animal souls or “animal owner” spirits, and likely to 

shamanistic beliefs and ancestor worship. 

 Wheeler and Coleman (1996) recognized at least two other decorated bone traditions that seem to have their 

origins with the Tequesta and their ancestors. All of these are later traditions, primarily associated with the Glades II 

and III periods. The first of these is termed “peninsular geometric tradition,” referring to its ultimate widespread 

presence throughout much of Florida. Primary motifs include rectilinear and curvilinear forms that may have their 

origins in mat, textile, and featherwork. The earliest examples of these forms are found in southeastern Florida during 

the Glades IIc period, other occurrences are all associated with the European contact period (Wheeler and Coleman 

1996:51). This suggests the Tequesta innovation of these designs had considerable influence on bone carvers in 

neighboring areas; also, these bone artifacts are a significant temporal marker as demonstrated by their subsequent 

recovery at other European contact period sites (see Mitchell 1998:223-224, 236-237). Comparison to similar designs 

elsewhere indicates that mat and featherwork designs are often associated with elite status individuals (Howard 1981, 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _41_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

1984; Robicsek 1975). The “Everglades tradition,” also defined by Wheeler and Coleman (1996:50-55), includes a 

broader array of motifs and is more closely associated with sites in Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. 

Motifs include knot-and-braid forms (Figure 21b-c), punctations, zoned-punctations, interlocking designs, loop and 

pendent loop, and zoned-hatched forms. Many examples of this tradition were recovered in Glades II and III period 

contexts at the Granada site (Richardson and Pohl 1982:136, 138). It is unclear what the meanings of these designs 

are, though their proliferation during the later Glades periods suggests possible correlation with evolving sociopolitical 

complexity. 

 One final group of decorated antler artifacts from the Margate-Blount site is difficult to classify (Figure 21a, d). 

Interviews with the excavators indicate that these objects were recovered from a “ceremonial precinct” associated with 

a village midden, burial mound and cemetery (see Felmley 1991:101-102; Wheeler 1992:89-90). This ceremonial 

precinct included intentional burials of an alligator, decapitated and coiled rattlesnakes, turtles, raccoons and other 

animals. The carved and engraved antlers depict a very stylized vulture and a rattlesnake (Wheeler and Coleman 

1996:55, 57, 58, 60). Interestingly, the engraved designs on the rattlesnake carving are similar to stylized rattlesnake 

imagery found on the Citico and Lick Creek style shell disks known from very late protohistoric contexts elsewhere in 

the Southeast (Brain and Phillips 1996:94-102; Muller 1966:123, 147-148). Besides the fascinating animal burials of 

Margate-Blount, the antler carvings suggest the Tequesta had gained some knowledge of artistic systems working in 

other parts of the Southeast, and had reinterpreted interesting designs in a local media and manner. 

Research Questions 

! Can art styles in bone and wood be more specifically tied to temporal and geographic trends? 

! Can other sites (like the Granada site) be identified that contain large numbers of decorated bone artifacts? 

! What relationships exist between art styles of the Tequesta and their ancestors and those of neighboring areas? 

What mechanism(s) are responsible for the rapid spread of particular art styles? 

! How are the animal carvings of bone and antler related to carvings of Hopewellian and Mississippian cultures? 

! Do changes in bone carving styles reflect changes in socio-political organization? 

Sociopolitical Development 

 The theme Sociopolitical Development has been identified as a regionally and nationally significant topic since the 

Tequesta and their ancestors are one of several southern Florida groups that developed a chiefdom or incipient 

chiefdom based on hunting and gathering, primarily aquatic, freshwater and marine resources. Sites with potential 

environmental and cultural materials that can be compared to the southwestern Florida Calusa are highly significant, 

since models of the Calusa have been largely constructed in terms of the few socially complex, non-agricultural 

societies in other parts of the United States. This theme falls under the National Park Service’s Thematic Framework 

theme IV. Shaping the Political Landscape (NPS 1999:82). 

Information on sociopolitical organization is limited, but available in several of the Spanish accounts. Several 

scholars have reviewed the ethnohistoric record for indications of political hierarchy and sociopolitical relationships 

among the native groups of southern Florida (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964; Griffin 2002:313-327; Marquardt 1986, 

1987, 1988; Widmer 1988). Goggin and Sturtevant (1964) recognized the Calusa of southwestern Florida as having a 

hierarchical, stratified, chiefdom-level society, similar to, but more elaborate and distinct from neighboring tribes. They 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _42_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

recognized that, unlike similarly organized societies in most of the world, the economic basis of Calusa society rested 

on marine resources and not on agriculture. These two important ideas—that of a stratified society with a nonagricultural economic basis—would set the stage for later researchers like Widmer (1988) and Marquardt (1986, 1987, 

1988), who have been interested in Calusa sociopolitical organization. Widmer (1988:261-265) pursued an 

environmental approach to the question of sociopolitical development in southwestern Florida, suggesting that reliable 

coastal, aquatic resources allowed for a population increase with attendant political control over the resources. 

Widmer (1988:278-279) argues that the complexity of the Calusa chiefdom emerged and grew in response to reliable 

food resources and a growing population. He suggests that the coastal adaptation began by 500 B.C., and that by 

A.D. 800 coastal carrying capacity had been reached and that the Calusa chiefdom extended its hegemony over 

interior groups at this time. In contrast to Widmer’s environmental model, Marquardt (1987:111) emphasizes the 

“estate-based, tributary mode of production” in evidence among the Calusa in the sixteenth century. He suggests that 

the timing of the development of complexity is unclear, but that decentralizing and reconsolidating trends recognized in 

the ethnohistoric accounts of the Calusa between 1550 and 1763 may be responses to contact with the Spanish and 

the introduction of European goods. 

Specific studies of Tequesta sociopolitical organization and development are lacking. The models of Calusa 

sociopolitical development discussed above, however, tend to marginalize neighboring groups like the Tequesta, 

Mayaimi, and Jeaga, suggesting that at times they are under the hegemony of the broader Calusa chiefdom (e.g., 

Marquardt 1985:64). McGoun (1981) suggested that the distribution of metal ceremonial tablets was related to the 

expansion of the Calusa chiefdom. Luer (1994:184), however, demonstrated that these small, embossed, tablets of 

silver (with occasional examples in gold) were concentrated in the area around Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee 

River. Examples of tablets in other media, like stone and wood, also are known, and may be pre-contact 

predecessors of this artifact type. They are absent (except for one stone example from the Florida Keys) from the 

area occupied by the Tequesta. The distribution of tablets and other materials from shipwrecks, however, indicates 

that redistribution may have favored groups other than the Calusa. Wheeler (2000:16) has suggested that a model of 

chiefdoms in the protohistoric Southeast, advanced by David Anderson (1996:170-176), may be applicable to 

southern Florida. This model suggests that there is a cycling between simple and complex chiefdoms, as polities 

expand to encompass a number of independent chiefdoms into a large entity, with allegiances to a paramount chief. 

Limiting factors, like alliance through kinship and the economic burden of tribute, result in the dissolution of these 

complex chiefdoms back into independent or simple chiefdoms. The tribes of southern Florida may also be 

comparable to the early eighteenth century Cherokee of Georgia, Tennessee and the Carolinas, where a number of 

geographically distinct areas contained 10 to twelve independent towns (Schroedl 2000:204). Parallels between the 

two areas merits further study, perhaps akin to Marquardt’s (1987) comparison of the Calusa and Aztec. 

Research Questions 

! Can changes in cultural patterns (e.g., mortuary practices, art styles, ceramic types) be associated with changes in 

socio-political organization? 

! Is there evidence for development of a chiefdom level social organization among the Tequesta and their ancestors? 

How do estimates of population size (and other indicators used as evidence of complexity in neighboring areas) 

compare for the Tequesta and their ancestors? What is the temporal and geographic extent of the Tequesta 

chiefdom? 

 

! Is it possible to develop models of developing social complexity for the Tequesta and their neighbors? Are models 

based on archeological and ethnohistoric evidence from other parts of the Southeast or Caribbean applicable to 

southern Florida? 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _43_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

Culture Contact 

 The theme Culture Contact has been identified as a regionally and nationally significant topic since the Tequesta 

are one of the first indigenous North American groups contacted by Ponce de Leon in 1513. Southeastern Florida 

was identified as strategically important to the Spanish early in their settlement of Florida when Spanish treasure ships 

and other vessels were routinely lost along this coast during storms. Despite repeated attempts to establish outposts 

and missions, the Tequesta and their neighbors were able to resist incursions and persist culturally for nearly 250 after 

initial contact. This makes European Contact Period sites of southeastern Florida highly significant, since they may 

afford the opportunity to understand the archeological aspects of Tequesta cultural persistence. This theme potentially 

falls under two of the National Park Service’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling Places, and, VIII. Changing 

Role of the United States in the World Community (NPS 1999:81, 83). 

European contact with the Tequesta and their neighbors is recorded primarily in Spanish documents. The 

Tequesta are one of the earliest American Indian groups of North America mentioned by the Spanish. The historian 

Antonio de Herrera (see translation in Davis 1935) provides an account of Ponce de Leon’s 1513 and 1521 

exploratory trips to Florida, including a mention of a place called “Chequescha,” which is likely Tequesta. Several 

writers have pointed out that the natives of the area were probably already familiar with the Spanish, due to illicit slave 

raids and from Indians fleeing the Caribbean. The Herrera account of Ponce de Leon’s encounter with the Calusa 

indicates that there was “an Indian who understood the Spaniards, who, it was believed, must be from Hispaniola or 

from another island...” (in Davis 1935:20). Despite these early encounters, intensive contact did not begin until 1567 

when Pedro Menéndez de Avilés founded a mission at Tequesta. 

The 1567 mission at Tequesta was part of a broader plan formulated by Menéndez de Avilés to establish a 

permanent Spanish presence in Florida. Missionary and military outposts were established at four villages in southern 

Florida, including 1) Santa Lucia near modern-day Jupiter Inlet, 2) San Antonio at Carlos—modern day Mound Key, 3) 

Tocobago at modern-day Tampa Bay, and 4) Tequesta at modern-day Miami. Even before the mission outpost was 

officially established at Tequesta, the natives of the town played host to several groups of Spanish mutineers who had 

fled the Ais and Santa Lucia outposts to the north. The Tequesta mission was abandoned after hostility broke out 

between the Indians and the Spanish soldiers garrisoned there, and was reestablished briefly until being abandoned 

again in 1570 (Hann 2003:157, 161; Parks 1982:24-25, 37-41). The documents generated during these extended 

periods of contact between the Spanish and the Indians provide interesting insights into the daily lives, beliefs, 

economy, and sociopolitical organization of these southern Florida natives. While the Calusa are perhaps best 

represented in these accounts, the Tequesta figured prominently in the Spanish plans for Florida. Parks (1982) and 

Hann (2003) have used these ethnohistoric accounts to provide good ethnographic reconstructions of the Tequesta 

and their neighbors. 

Anthropologists have also used ethnohistoric accounts to reconstruct the population of southern Florida and the 

individual tribes encountered by the Spanish. For example, Goggin and Sturtevant (1964:186-187, 209-210) cite royal 

cosmographer López de Velasco’s 1570 population estimates of 10,000 Calusa, 1,000 Guarugunbe (Florida Keys 

group), 40 Cuchiyaga (Florida Keys group), and 80 Tequesta. Interestingly, Dobyns (1983:259-260) suggests that 

Florida native populations may have changed dramatically after the extensive small pox epidemics of 1519. He 

suggests that lower east coast tribes, including the Ais, Jeaga, Tequesta and Florida Keys groups should have 

numbered around 48,800 prior to 1520, with the neighboring Calusa numbering at 97,600 (Dobyns 1983:131-132). 

Widmer (1988:257-260) took a different approach to this question, by looking at site size and distribution in the 

Caloosahatchee and Ten Thousand Islands regions. His calculations indicate a collective population of 10,000, with 

population densities of 6.0 persons/km2

 for the Charlotte Harbor-Pine Island Sound area and 9.44 persons/km2 for the 

Ten Thousand Islands area. Lack of temporal control, unfortunately, limits a diachronic approach to the problem, 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _44_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

though Widmer’s figures are more consistent with the ethnohistoric record. Wheeler et al. (2002:146) modeled 

population in a similar way for the Jeaga and Jobé of modern-day Palm Beach County; the result was a population 

estimate of 2,225 people for coastal Palm Beach, with a density of 8.9 persons/km2. Similar attempts to model 

population of the Tequesta may be more sensitive to diachronic changes, since the decorated Glades pottery series 

allows sites to be more easily placed chronologically. 

Relationships with neighboring groups also are addressed in some of the mid-sixteenth century accounts of the 

Tequesta. Several of the chiefs of the various southern Florida polities appear to have been related, through blood or 

marriage. Chiefly alliances through marriage seem to have been quite important; for example, there is a French 

account of the natives of the Lake Okeechobee area intercepting the daughter of Oathchaqua, an Ais Indian chief of 

the Atlantic coast, while she and her party were traveling to meet her intended, the Calusa chief (Bennett 1975:111-

112). Likewise, the Tequesta chief appears to have been related to the Calusa chief, since after Pedro Menéndez de 

Avilés alliance (through marriage) to Carlos, the Tequesta protected Spanish shipwreck victims and mutineers within 

their territory (Barrientos 1965:120; Solís de Merás 1964:210). These alliances appear to have created a system of 

tribute or redistribution. Later in time, shipwreck survivor Jonathan Dickinson (in Andrews and Andrews 1945:31-32) 

notes an obligatory relationship between the chief of Jobé (Jupiter Inlet area) and the paramount Ais chief. These 

relationships, however, appear to have been very tenuous. Solís de Merás (1964:222) documents a situation in which 

the Calusa chief demanded that the Tequesta hand over for sacrifice several Spanish mutineers. When the Tequesta 

refused, the Calusa sent warriors to kill or retrieve the Spanish, but these agents were in turn killed by the Tequesta. 

Considering the significance of alliances forged from marriages, it is not surprising to find that the relatives of the 

chief were important among the Tequesta and their neighbors. For example, Hann (2003:153-154) notes that 

Menéndez de Avilés, upon his first visit to the Calusa, had rescued a young daughter of the Tequesta chief who was 

apparently being held as a hostage of sorts. The accounts of the same time period mention the prominence of Don 

Diego, the brother of the Tequesta chief, who was sent for baptism and education to Spain by Menéndez de Avilés 

(Hann 2003:157-158). Upon his return, the Spanish priests hoped that Don Diego would help in reestablishing 

missions; despite his influence among the Tequesta and other neighboring groups, this effort was unsuccessful. 

Interestingly, Hann (1992:194-195) notes that leadership terms among the peoples of southern Florida are significantly 

different from those used by Timucuan and Apalachee peoples of northern Florida. 

Accounts of the Tequesta become infrequent after the flurry of contact with the Spanish in 1566-1570. Hann 

(2003:162-163) notes a number of cases where the Tequesta killed shipwreck victims, and others where the Spanish 

authorities in St. Augustine were able to ransom the captives. Hann (2001) discusses the account of Carmelite friar 

Andres de San Miguel, who sailed through the area in 1595. San Miguel mentions an encounter with Chief Don Luis, 

who Hann (2003:163) suggests may well have been the Tequesta leader of that time. Interestingly, the name 

“Tequesta” seems to fall into disuse in Spanish documents after 1600. Around 1600 there are a number of documents 

and at least one map that refer to the natives of the “Bocas of Miguel Mora,” which apparently was a reference to the 

group occupying the Biscayne Bay area (Lyon 1967:2b; Seckinger 1965:386-387; Swanton 1922:342-343). These 

documents are related to Spanish Governor Ybarra’s attempts to gain favor with the natives of southern Florida in 

order to assure the safety of shipwreck victims. The accounts mention Chief Don Luis, who apparently visited the 

governor in St. Augustine with a contingent of other native leaders. 

Bishop Díaz Vara Calderón describes the area in 1675, and indicates that the people of southern Florida are “13 

tribes of savage heathen Carib Indians, in camps, having no fixed abodes, living only on fish and roots of trees” (in 

Wenhold 1936:11-12). Among these he lists “Vizcaynos,” apparently a reference to those natives living on Biscayne 

Bay. Following the collapse of the Spanish missions in north Florida, increasing attacks and slave raids by Uchise and 

Yamasee Indians led a large group of native Floridians to petition for evacuation to Cuba (Parks 1982:52-53). Two-
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _45_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

hundred and seventy Indians, including the leaders of Carlos, Jove, Miami, Concha, Muspa, and Rioseco, moved to 

Cuba in 1711, though many died there of disease and the remainder returned to Florida. Several accounts of natives 

of the Florida Keys and southeast coast of the 1720s-1730s mention the Chief Don Diego (Charlevoix 1761:326-327, 

330-331; Hann 1991:394, 396-397). When the Spanish reestablish a mission in 1743 the site appears to be within the 

territory of the Tequesta, though the inhabitants of the mission town are described as remnants of three groups—

Keys, Carlos, and Bocaraton (Hann 1991:420). Goggin (1940b:278) suggests that “Rio Ratones” may refer to the 

Little River of northern Miami-Dade County. The accounts of this late mission attempt are fascinating, since they 

demonstrate considerable historical continuity with the archeological record and earlier accounts of the sixteenth 

century. Final mentions of the natives of southern Florida, however, indicate that in 1763, as the territory was turned 

over to the British, most of the surviving Indians moved to Cuba with their Spanish allies (see Adair 1775:134; Romans 

1961:194). 

Recent review of the European and Indian interaction in southern Florida reveals several important trends and 

patterns. Unlike northern Florida, where most natives became incorporated into the mission system, missions likely 

had little long term impact on the Tequesta and their neighbors. Also, the trend that Hann (2003:162-163) notes 

regarding the decline in use of the term “Tequesta” following the close of the sixteenth century is mirrored in the area 

immediately to the north, where the tribal designation “Jeaga” is used almost exclusively in the sixteenth century and 

then is supplanted by a number of terms, including “Jobe.” Wheeler and Pepe (2002:237-238) argued that this 

change may reflect actual changes in local tribal and village organization; the influx of materials recovered from 

shipwrecks, which were prevalent in the area in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century, may have been 

responsible for altering traditional relationships between villages, allowing some to assume more prominent roles in 

the local exchange systems. This may be the case with the main village of the Tequesta and other villages in the 

immediate vicinity. A review of cartographic sources reveals few maps that designate the village of Tequesta, though 

a number of settlements are shown in the modern-day Ft. Lauderdale and Miami areas (Wheeler and Pepe 2002). By 

the mid-seventeenth century a number of mapmakers indicate the southern part of the Florida peninsula as “Tegesta 

Province” (Wheeler and Pepe 2002:225). Despite some apparent changes in sociopolitical organization due to the 

influx of shipwreck material, the ethnohistoric record indicates patterns of considerable conservatism among the 

Tequesta and their neighbors (see Hann 2003:175-177). Similar patterns were detected by Wheeler (1996:364-366) 

in his study of artistic traditions in southern Florida; he concluded that while new mediums and designs might have 

been introduced to the native artists of the area, they were quickly incorporated and reinterpreted in traditional ways. 

Despite the strong adherence to traditional ways and the ability to incorporate new ideas, material, and motifs, the 

Tequesta and their neighbors were likely doomed by the collapse of the Spanish mission system in northern Florida 

between 1702 and 1704. Several writers mention the impact of slave raiding by the English and their Indian allies on 

the populations of the Florida peninsula (for example, see Thomas Nairne’s account in Moore 1988:75, and the 

Herman Moll map of 1720, which includes a narrative of such a raid, in Wheeler and Pepe 2002:223). Hann 

(1988:301-304) indicates that many of the Florida natives taken as slaves were kept in the Carolinas, while others may 

have been exported to British colonies in Barbados or New England. As noted above, writers like Romans (1961:194) 

document the departure of the last remnants of the southern Florida natives, noting that 80 families of the “Caloosa 

nation” left for Cuba with their Spanish allies. Adair (1775:134) is even more specific, when he states, “the Muskoghe 

who have been at war, time out of mind, against the Indians of Cape Florida [near present-day Miami], ... at length 

reduced them to thirty men, who removed to the Havannah along with the Spaniards.” 

Despite the accounts that indicate a close to the native traditions of southern Florida, it seems likely that some 

descendants of the Tequesta and their neighbors persisted in southern Florida after 1763 (Goggin 1940b:22). For 

example, Swanton (1922:344) felt that mentions of “Spanish Indians” in southern Florida during the late eighteenth 

and early nineteenth centuries were likely remnants of the Calusa who remained in Florida. Both Neill (1955) and 

Sturtevant (1953) further investigated the link between the “Spanish Indians” and the native peoples of southern 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _46_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

Florida (i.e., Calusa, Tequesta, etc.). Sturtevant (1953:64) concludes that the “Spanish Indians” might have been 

Choctaw, a Calusa remnant, or an independent Seminole band. He indicates that the latter hypothesis is the 

strongest, since Seminole tradition identified Chakaika and his band (considered Spanish Indians) as Mikasuki 

Seminole. Neill (1955:53) provides additional evidence to support the idea that the “Spanish Indians” were not 

remnant native groups, but rather Mikasuki Seminole who were closely involved with the Cuban fishing industry that 

utilized southern Florida coasts part of the year. Despite the apparent resolution of the identity of the “Spanish 

Indians,” several sources indicate that the eighteenth century Seminole were aware of the Florida natives who 

preceded them. For example, William Bartram (in Waslekov and Braund 1995:255-256) interviewed an older 

Seminole leader during his travels through Florida (1773-1778) who recalled the “Calos ulges” of the Caloosahatchee 

River area, noting that they were a remnant of the original denizens of the area. Frances Densmore’s (1956:59-60, 

90-91, 211) study of Seminole music indicates that the Seminole and Calusa may have been well acquainted with one 

another, and provides several songs that the former group attributes to the Calusa. This suggests that some natives 

of southern Florida—like remnants of the Calusa and Tequesta—may have been closely associated with the Seminole 

early in their history in the state. 

Research Questions 

! How do the Tequesta change after contact with the Europeans early in the sixteenth century? What cultural 

patterns are preserved? 

! Can Tequesta archeological sites be identified that have evidence of European contact? Is it possible to recognize 

patterns of culture change or continuity within the material assemblages of these sites? 

! Are additional Spanish documents preserved in archives that can shed light on the culture and character of the 

Tequesta? 

! What significance do European contact period place names and tribal names have? Is it possible to recognize 

patterns of socio-political change in terminology used to denote the natives of southeastern Florida? Are these trends 

evident in neighboring areas? How do these trends compare with anthropological theory on culture contact and 

culture change? 

! What impact or influence did the introduction of European shipwreck materials have on the Tequesta? How does 

this compare with the introduction of shipwreck material in neighboring areas? 

Summary 

The ten themes, NPS thematic framework themes, and associated research questions identified and discussed 

above for the Tequesta and their ancestors help to form a basic understanding of this native group, their 

distinctiveness, significance in current and future research, and place in broader patterns of Florida and United States 

history. Until recently, the Archaic (and possibly earlier) origins of the Tequesta were poorly understood. The recent 

identification of Middle and Late Archaic sites in southeastern Florida is significant in understanding the development 

and origins of the Tequesta, and may have implications for research in the development of Everglades tree islands. 

Unlike neighboring areas, where Late Archaic sites are characterized by fiber-tempered pottery, this artifact type is 

rare or absent at contemporary sites in southeastern Florida. This has led to a hypothesized Everglades Archaic, 

which should be the subject of further study. The development of the decorated Glades series of pottery also is 

significant, since it has allowed for cross-dating of many sites. Future research into the design motifs and shifts in 

patterns of decoration may help in answering questions about the meaning of the geometric decorations and possible 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _E_ Page _47_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their 

Ancestors 

links to ceramic traditions in neighboring areas. Archeologist John Griffin suggested a possible link between the 

Glades ceramic trajectory and settlement pattern shifts. Griffin’s observations should be re-evaluated with new site 

data collected since the 1980s and through Geographic Information Systems (GIS) models. 

Other aspects of material culture that lend to the distinctiveness of the Tequesta and their ancestors are welldeveloped industries in bone and shell. Studies of bone artifacts have supported archeologist John Goggin’s 

assertion that the culture of southeastern Florida demonstrates considerable continuity with earlier, Archaic traditions. 

Future studies should address the possible relationships between the bone working complexes of the St. Johns River 

Archaic (Mount Taylor culture) and that of southeastern Florida. Shell tool assemblages of the Tequesta and their 

ancestors are dominated by tools made from the lip of the large, queen conch (Strombus gigas). This is largely a 

biogeographic coincidence, since the Tequesta peoples occupied the one area of mainland North America where the 

Strombus conch occurs at the limits of its more tropical range. The reliance on the Strombus conch, however, 

exemplifies the Tequesta relationship with tropical species, which is not known in neighboring areas. Paleobotanical 

research has shown that the Tequesta and their ancestors targeted six specific subtropical fruit species, which formed 

an important part of their diet. This is different from neighboring groups who occasionally used some of these species. 

Studies of human remains from southeastern Florida demonstrate a generally healthy population, and no evidence 

has been found for major shifts in nutrition or health when comparing Archaic and more recent skeletal assemblages. 

Burial patterns suggest a possible dichotomy between coastal and inland sites, since coastal sites typically have 

associated burial mounds and cemeteries, while cemeteries predominate at inland sites. Burial patterns also are 

distinct from neighboring areas (e.g., Ten Thousand Islands, Florida Keys), where burial mounds are more common. 

Despite the differences between the Tequesta and neighboring groups, there are indications of relationships through 

exchange networks, some shared artifact types, and the construction of earthworks and long-distance canoe canals. 

The Tequesta and their ancestors apparently participated in regional and long-distance exchange networks, 

contributing items like pumice (obtained from beach flotsam and jetsam), marine shells, shark teeth, and dried whale 

meat (based on ethnohistoric accounts). In return they received items like chert for chipped stone tools, basaltic 

ground stone celts, and galena. Archeologist Robert Austin’s research into the cobble technology of chipped stone 

tools from the Miami Circle site indicate the exchange networks may have involved down-the line or redistributional 

systems. Research at the Miami Circle site indicates that the Tequesta and their ancestors participated in the Middle 

Woodland Hopewellian exchange network, which linked numerous cultures across the southeastern and midwestern 

United States. 

Studies of Tequesta art and aesthetics also indicate that Hopewellian animal symbolism had parallels in small bone 

and antler carvings found in the area. The Tequesta may have originated several bone carving art styles later in time, 

which spread throughout Florida and can be used as chronological markers. Interestingly, patterns of artistic 

conservatism evident in southeastern Florida are detected in the ethnohistoric accounts of the native’s dealings with 

the Europeans and each other. The Tequesta were one of the first groups of natives of mainland North America 

encountered by the Spanish in the early sixteenth century. Ethnohistoric accounts demonstrate considerable 

continuity with data collected from pre-European Contact Period sites. Accounts also indicate that different times the 

Tequesta resisted and acquiesced to their neighbors the Calusa. Evidence suggests that the Tequesta were one of 

several groups that had developed a chiefdom-level social organization prior to European Contact. Further study is 

needed to explore this archeologically. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _43_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

F. ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES 

Significance of the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

The Tequesta and their ancestors represent a significant culture within the history of the United States. Not only 

were they recorded in one of the first accounts of North America (Davis 1935; True 1944b), their cultural patterns 

persisted for over 250 years following European Contact. This is unusual in Florida and the Southeast, where American 

Indian groups changed drastically after the introduction of European diseases and resettlement in missions. Persistence 

after contact seems to be a distinguishing feature of most of the native groups of southern Florida, though 

ethnohistorical and archeological evidence suggests that distinct cultural patterns of each group (i.e., Tequesta, Calusa, 

Jeaga, Ais) governed their responses to contact and their ways of dealing with new technologies and cultural patterns. 

Interestingly, independent studies by Hann (2003:175-177) and Wheeler (1996:364-366) have documented the cultural 

conservatism exhibited in southern Florida, which likely helped in this cultural persistence after contact. Wheeler’s 

(1996:364-366) study of prehistoric art identified three important processes underlying the aesthetic and cultural 

systems of the American Indians of peninsular Florida—traditionalism, reinterpretation and creativity. The Tequesta 

may provide a particularly good case study of these processes. Archeological excavation demonstrates that the 

patterns of Tequesta life developed during the Archaic (perhaps even the Early Archaic) in sync with the subtropical 

environment of southeastern Florida and the Everglades. The relationship of the Tequesta to the Everglades is perhaps 

one of the most significant aspects of this group. The Everglades has been recognized as a virtually unique 

environmental system, and archeological evidence is now demonstrating that the Tequesta and their ancestors may 

have had an active role in the development of tree islands, which support characteristic upland subtropical hammock 

ecosystems of the Everglades. While the unique adaptation of the Tequesta to subtropical southeastern Florida had 

long earned them a reputation for parochial and conservative ways, new evidence indicates that they participated in 

regional and long-distance exchange networks. Materials controlled or contributed to exchange included pumice and 

Strombus conch shells; in return they obtained chert, basaltic axes, galena, and copper. The ancestors of the Tequesta 

even participated in the Middle Woodland Hopewellian exchange network, as evidenced by some of the exchange 

goods, as well as ceramic platform pipes that are replicas of Hopewellian pipes. The Tequesta role in exchange is 

significant, and current and future studies of basaltic axes, chipped stone, and pumice artifacts may provide new 

information on routes of exchange and exchange patterns. The relationship between changes in settlement pattern and 

changes in Glades decorated ceramics that occurs around A.D. 1110-1200 is another significant aspect of the Tequesta 

and their ancestors. As John Griffin (1988:327) notes in his study of Everglades National Park, sites of southeastern 

Florida and the Everglades are significant since they represent a largely intact settlement system. With the advent of 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) new approaches to study of settlement pattern may help elucidate cultural 

changes that may have occurred during the transition from Glades II to Glades III periods (ca. A.D. 1200). Study of 

archeological sites from this period may be particularly significant, since they may harbor evidence for development of 

increasing complex socio-political organization. This is particularly significant, since the Tequesta were one of several 

powerful, non-agricultural chiefdoms of southern Florida when the Spanish arrived in the sixteenth century. Most studies 

of socio-political complexity in southern Florida has focused on the Calusa of southwestern Florida, however, the 

Tequesta appear to have been a significant rival for power and studies of Tequesta socio-political complexity may be 

rewarding. Some indications for complexity among the Tequesta and their ancestors include earthwork building, temple 

mound construction, and the construction of the canoe canals at Cape Sable. 

NHL Thematic Framework 

 Section E introduced ten major themes and identified appropriate NPS thematic framework themes that can be used 

for understanding archeological sites associated with the Tequesta and their ancestors. These themes also form the 

core of the NHL thematic framework used in evaluating the significance of these sites. Each theme and its appropriate 

NPS thematic framework theme is listed again below and each is addressed in a special sub-section of the associated 

property types here in Section F: 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _44_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Archaic Origins of the Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme I. Peopling Places)

Development of Glades Pottery (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values) 

Settlement Patterns (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and III. Expressing Cultural Values)

Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values, V. 

Developing the American Economy and VII. Transforming the Environment) 

Mortuary Practices (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: II. Creating Social Institutions and Movements, III. Expressing 

Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political Landscape) 

Earthwork Building (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values) 

Exchange Networks (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme: V. Developing the American Economy)

Tequesta Art and Aesthetics (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the 

Political Landscape).

Sociopolitical Development (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme IV. Shaping the Political Landscape)

Culture Contact (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes I. Peopling Place, and VIII. Changing Role of the United States in 

the World Community)

Criteria for the Evaluation of Tequesta and their Ancestors Sites 

Information contained in this theme study may be used to evaluate significance of archeological resources of the 

Tequesta and their ancestors for designation of National Historic Landmarks and as properties possessing National, 

State, and Local significance in the National Register of Historic Places. Archeological sites and districts of the 

Tequesta and their ancestors considered for National Register nomination must possess integrity of location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association at national, state or local levels of significance relating to one 

or more of the following criteria: 

A Association with events, activities or patterns; 

B Associations with important persons; 

C Distinctive physical characteristics of design, construction, or form; or 

D Potential to yield important information. 

NRHP eligibility for archeological sites is typically determined by Criterion D, the potential of a property to yield 

information important to understanding the past (Grumet 1988). Properties related to the Tequesta and their ancestors 

theme should typically be evaluated for NRHP status under Criterion D, whether they “have yielded, or may be likely to 

yield, information important in prehistory or history.” 

National Historic Landmark criteria reflect similar but more rigorous evaluative framework appropriate for properties 

possessing the potential to contain information of the highest level of national significance. Guidelines for meeting these 

criteria are found in 36 CFR 65.4, and are as follows: 

1 Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to, and are identified with, or 

that outstandingly represent, the broad national patterns of United States history and from which 

an understanding and appreciation of those patterns may be gained; or 

2 Are associated importantly with the lives of persons nationally significant in the history of the 

United States; or 

3 Represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _45_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

4 Embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable 

for a study of a period, style or method of construction, or that represents a significant, distinctive 

and exceptional entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 

5 Are composed of integral part of the environment not sufficiently significant by reason of historical 

association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but collectively compose an entity of 

exceptionally historic or artistic significance, or outstandingly commemorate or illustrate a way of 

life or culture; or 

6 Have yielded or may be likely to yield information of major scientific importance by revealing new 

cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas of the United States. 

Such sites are those that have yielded, or which may be reasonably expected to yield data 

affecting theories, concepts, and ideas to a major degree. 

Resources associated with the Tequesta and their ancestors, like all other archeological properties, in particular must 

address Criterion 6 in order to be nominated as National Historic Landmarks. Therefore, NHL designation additionally 

requires that information from such sites must be “of major scientific importance.” NHL nominations must address two 

questions: 

1. What information is the site likely to yield? 

2. Is the information nationally significant? 

Establishing Significance 

To be considered eligible for National Historic Landmark status in this theme study, a site of the Tequesta or their 

ancestors must demonstrate 1) location within the defined geographic boundaries, 2) research potential of national 

significance, 3) appropriate dating, and 4) high integrity. 

1) To be considered under this theme study, a site should be located within the area occupied by the Tequesta and their 

ancestors. This includes the Atlantic Coastal Ridge in Broward and Miami-Dade counties, as well as the adjacent 

Everglades in those counties as well as in Monroe County. Small portions of the Everglades are present in extreme 

southwestern Palm Beach County. Sites located in this area should be considered as well. 

2) Archeological investigations and/or mapping should demonstrate that sites of the Tequesta and their ancestors have 

the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the prehistory of southeastern Florida and a better understanding 

of the prehistory of the United States. Research potential can be identified from the research questions provided from 

the Florida State Historic Context for the Glades Culture or the cultural contexts discussed in Section E. Sites that are 

nationally significant should contain patterns that are unique or unusual or relate to broader patterns of prehistory and 

American Indian history. 

3) Archeological investigations should demonstrate that the Tequesta site contains appropriate diagnostic ceramic, shell, 

bone or stone artifacts identified with southeastern Florida (see Section E). Pottery should include sand-tempered plain 

and/or decorated sherds of the Glades series. Archaic sites will likely not contain ceramics, even if they are coeval with 

Orange Period sites in neighboring areas. Radiocarbon dates should place the site within the Archaic or Glades 

periods. Sites dating to post-A.D. 1763 are likely not associated with the Tequesta and their ancestors and should be 

nominated under other cultural contexts not included in this cover (e.g., Seminole sites should be nominated under 

another, appropriate cover). 

4) Sites eligible for listing should exhibit high integrity. Some deterioration is likely to have occurred due to natural and 

anthropogenic factors, but the site configuration and contents should remain well preserved. Larger sites can endure 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _46_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

greater disturbance and still harbor significant deposits, while smaller sites are more susceptible to damage (see Bense 

and Mattick 1994). Carr (2002:202) discusses the effects of fire on Everglades sites, noting that fires can destroy and 

deflate once thick cultural deposits. Periodic wetting and drying of deposits also is likely to degrade carbonized remains. 

Carr (2002:203) also points out that wetland restoration and mitigation efforts may adversely impact Everglades 

archeological sites by demucking areas that potentially contain wetsite resources. To be eligible for NHL nomination, a 

Tequesta site must minimally exhibit, through archeological investigations and/or mapping, that deposits are intact and 

that a significant amount of archeological remains are undisturbed for future research investigations. 

Levels of Significance 

Sites of the Tequesta and their ancestors may be designated at three progressive levels of significance. Some sites 

are significant at the local level. These sites contain information that contribute to understanding of local patterns, but 

lack the artifacts, ecofacts, or features that relate to broader regional or national patterns. For example, a tree island 

site might be significant at the local level since it contains well-preserved faunal material, but does not appear to contain 

other data sets that might relate to broader regional or national patterns. Sites significant at the regional level contain 

information that relates to broader regional cultural patterns. For example, sites that have constructed mound features 

or earthworks may be significant at the regional level, since questions related to mound construction and earthwork 

building extend to both the regional and national levels. The differences or similarities of constructed mound or 

earthwork features among the Tequesta and their ancestors and other areas may be important in understanding 

regional traditions of earthwork construction. Sites that help in understanding regional exchange patterns also may be 

significant at the regional and national levels. These sites may help in testing models of exchange and/or may have 

evidence of long-distance exchange. Likewise, sites that contain recognizable structural features may be significant at 

regional and national levels of significance, especially if they contribute to understanding of aesthetic or architectural 

patterns that are typically difficult to discern or share attributes with neighboring or distant cultures. 

F1.1 Name of Property Type: Accretionary Middens, Shell or Earth, and Black Earth Middens 

F1.2 Description: 

Accretionary Midden sites include features, artifacts, ecofacts, and refuse accumulated from residential and habitation 

activities. As such, these sites represent the archeological manifestation of daily life. Features that might be contained 

in a midden include storage and refuse pits, posts and postmolds from structures, burials, and artifact caches. Middens 

also preserve faunal and floral material and may harbor artifact concentrations related to activity areas or specific 

patterns of refuse disposal. Other artifacts typically found in middens of southeastern Florida include marine shell tools 

and ornaments; ceramic sherds; and bone tools and ornaments. 

Throughout southern Florida, Accretionary Midden sites take at least two major forms: those dominated by shell 

(freshwater or marine species) and those composed of black, organically stained earth (black earth) that contain little to 

moderate amounts of shell. Interestingly, most of the Accretionary Midden sites in southeastern Florida are black earth 

middens, though some have large, discrete lenses of clam or oyster shell. Everglades tree island sites are typically 

black earth middens with dense deposits of faunal bone. Even coastal habitation sites are typically black earth middens, 

with lenses of marine shells. This is in contrast to neighboring areas occupied by non-Tequesta peoples, where shell 

middens and shell mounds are well represented. Shell middens are quite common in the Ten Thousand Islands and in 

southwestern Florida, and are common in the East Okeechobee Area. 

Athens (1983; also see Griffin 2002:277-278), in his analysis of Big Cypress Swamp settlement patterns, recognized 

three types of Accretionary Midden site: 1) Primary habitation sites are middens that contain one or more refuse 

mounds produced through extensive accumulation of midden or refuse material; 2) Secondary habitation sites are 

midden accumulations more than 20 cm thick, but lack refuse mounds; and 3) Resource procurement and processing 

stations are middens less than 20 cm in thickness, exhibiting occasional and subsequent periods of use. Griffin 

(2002:277-278) compares this typology to one developed by Widmer (1988:256-257) for analysis of settlement patterns 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _47_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

in southwestern Florida, which recognized large nucleated villages, smaller villages, and hamlets or collecting stations. 

Griffin (2002:278) concludes that Everglades sites follow a similar typology. 

F1.3 Significance 

Accretionary Midden sites may be significant under National Register Criterion D and under National Historic Landmark 

Criterion 6. These sites are significant because they contain information on chronology, subsistence, settlement 

patterns, mortuary patterns (in some cases, see Cemetery sites below), economy, technology, structure and house 

pattern/type, refuse disposal, and sociopolitical organization. Sites with preservation of pollen and floral material may be 

especially important, since paleobotanical investigations have revealed some definite patterns and trends in this area. 

Sites with data on architecture also are especially significant, since this aspect of Tequesta life is not well known or 

studied. Sites that have evidence of European contact (Glades IIIc Period) also are significant, since they may allow for 

study of the interaction between the two groups and any changes that may have occurred. 

F1.4 NHL Thematic Framework Elements 

Accretionary Midden sites have the potential to answer questions related to many of the ten theme study specific NHL 

themes and their appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes identified and discussed in Section E: 

1) Some middens may preserve evidence associated with the Archaic Origins of the Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme I. Peopling Places) —this is a nationally significant theme, since the Everglades seems to have 

harbored one or more distinct expressions of the Archaic, including an aceramic Archaic that is quite different from 

the fiber-tempered pottery tradition expressed in Archaic cultures in neighboring parts of the Southeast. The 

relationship between the aceramic and ceramic Archaic cultures may help in addressing broader questions of the 

origins of pottery and differences in social organization among coeval Archaic peoples. 

2) The theme Development of Glades Pottery (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values) 

 may be addressed through ceramic assemblages from Accretionary Middens. In general, this theme is most 

associated with sites evaluated at local and regional significance, however, some of the ceramic styles associated 

with the Tequesta and their ancestors, like Surfside Incised, may be related to broader Mississippian ceramic 

traditions. Sites with large assemblages of Surfside Incised may be nationally significant because of this possible 

association. 

3) Individual Accretionary Middens may be associated with the theme Settlement Patterns (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and III. Expressing Cultural Values), especially if they contain evidence of 

American Indian dwellings or other structures, if they exhibit a distinctive or intentional site plan, or if they are related 

to other sites and can be understood in terms of a settlement group or settlement system. This latter element is 

exemplified in the potential Pine Island-Long Key Archeological District, where a large number of sites are 

concentrated on a unique and unusual landform. Sites with evidence of American Indian architecture are extremely 

rare in southeastern Florida (and in much of the state), suggesting national significance for these sites. The Miami 

Circle at Brickell Point is a unique example of such a site, where post holes are preserved in limestone bedrock. 

Sites with evidence for architecture can be compared with other such sites in adjacent areas of the Caribbean, and 

southeastern and midwestern United States. Ethnographic studies indicate that dwellings often contain clues to 

broader patterns of cosmology and social organization, making all examples highly significant. 

4) Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values, V. 

Developing the American Economy and VII. Transforming the Environment) is another theme associated with 

Accretionary Midden sites where preservation of paleobotanical and zooarcheological specimens usually occurs. 

This theme is most likely to be associated with local and regional significance. 

5) Accretionary Middens may contain materials associated with the theme Mortuary Practices (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework themes: II. Creating Social Institutions and Movements, III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping 

the Political Landscape), but this theme is best addressed through Burial Mound sites and Cemetery sites discussed 

below. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _48_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

6) Accretionary Middens may be associated with earthwork sites, but the theme Earthwork Building (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values) is best addressed through Temple Mound sites, Prehistoric 

Earthwork sites, and Constructed Habitation Mound sites discussed below. 

7) The theme Exchange Networks (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme: V. Developing the American Economy)

 is also associated with Accretionary Middens where materials associated with local, regional and long-distance 

exchange may be preserved. In many cases, this theme may be associated with sites significant at the local and 

regional level, but in some cases may contribute to a site’s national significance. For example, sites that contain 

materials like copper or galena are associated with patterns of long-distance exchange. These sites are significant 

in understanding broader patterns of exchange throughout the Southeast and Midwest. Some Accretionary Midden 

sites may harbor exchange materials that allow further theoretical discussion of the types of exchange that occurred 

amongst the Tequesta and their neighbors. These sites are highly significant, because they allow for modeling of 

regional exchange networks and may contribute to a broader understanding of American Indian exchange systems 

in the United States. 

8) Tequesta Art and Aesthetics (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping 

the Political Landscape) is another theme tied closely to Accretionary Middens, where carved bone and shell 

artifacts are typically encountered. Sites producing large numbers of decorated artifacts may be significant at the 

regional or national level, especially if design motifs can be linked to broader patterns of artistic expression, 

chronology, exchange, or demographics. 

9) The theme Sociopolitical Development (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme IV. Shaping the Political Landscape)

 requires integration of data from many types of sites, including Accretionary Middens, in order to address questions 

of demography, changes in settlement patterns, interaction with the environment, and relationships to neighboring 

groups. This theme is most associated with sites significant regionally, but may be related to sites at the national 

level, especially if they are important in models of sociopolitical development that can be compared and contrasted 

to groups in other parts of the United States. 

10) Some Accretionary Middens contain the rare evidence of Indian-European contact. While several of the sites listed 

 in Table 6 have produced artifacts from this time period, little study has been devoted to questions of contact and 

 the resulting changes. Sites associated with the theme Culture Contact (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes I. 

 Peopling Place, and VIII. Changing Role of the United States in the World Community) may be nationally significant, 

 especially if they contain features or artifacts that can be used to address broader questions of Indian-European 

 contact in adjacent parts of the Southeast. Initial documentary research shows that the Tequesta may have 

 adopted specific strategies, related to deeper cultural patterns, to deal with incursions by the Spanish. This may 

 bring an important perspective to studies of contact and culture change in other parts of the Southeast, where 

 natives had to deal with changes brought by the Spanish mission system. 

F1.5 Registration Requirements 

For Accretionary Midden sites to be eligible for nomination they must demonstrate site integrity, with considerable 

portions of the site intact. Some past disturbance from ancient human activity, erosion or other natural processes, or 

more recent human activity (e.g., land clearing, site vandalism or looting) may be in evidence, but the site form should 

be discernible. Bense and Mattick (1994:12-13) note that larger midden sites within the upper St. Johns River area may 

exhibit considerable disturbance, yet still harbor significant deposits. The same is clearly true of Accretionary Midden 

sites in southeastern Florida: at the time of excavation, both the Granada and Miami Circle at Brickell Point sites had 

been reduced from their original extent, and yet produced significant information. As Bense and Mattick (1994:13) note, 

smaller sites may be more vulnerable to disturbance, since they are thinner and smaller in extent. Some Accretionary 

Midden sites may be burned or have evidence of extensive burning, which can significantly reduce the potential to 

produce important information. Accretionary Midden sites need to have intact, uncontaminated materials that can be 

dated via a variety of methods in order to demonstrate their age. Nominations of Accretionary Midden sites should be 

accompanied by a topographic map documenting the size and shape of the site (including plan and elevation), data on 

stratification (if excavations have been made or old profiles are available for study), data on burial patterns within the site

(if available), groups (at least 3) of radiocarbon dates demonstrating site antiquity, and analysis of cultural remains (if 

any have been recovered or are available for study). 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _49_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Despite the ability to contribute significant information to many of the ten theme study specific NHL themes and the NPS 

thematic framework themes discussed above, only a few Accretionary Midden sites will be considered significant at the 

national level. These nationally significant Accretionary Midden sites should have materials that can answer or address 

questions associated with three or more of the NHL study specific themes and exhibit moderate to high integrity. Sites 

that are nationally significant and eligible for NHL status should be outstanding examples of the Accretionary Midden site 

type, have unique or unusual features or components, and exhibit a high level of integrity. 

F2.1 Name of Property Type: Knoll sites 

F2.2 Description: 

Carr et al. (1991:125-126) identified Knoll sites during their survey of western Broward County in 1990-1991. They 

explain that Knoll sites are small, natural elevations found in some parts of the eastern Everglades; they provided dry 

ground during the Late Archaic (circa 3000-1000 B.C.), but were ultimately covered by rising water levels. The Knoll 

sites were used by Late Archaic peoples for habitation, subsistence activities, and in some cases, burials. Most of these 

sites are only 50 to 70 cm above the surrounding land, with a thin mantle of soil between 10 and 75 cm thick. Carr et al. 

(1991:91) describe the Cleveland Clinic site (8BD2122) as an example of a Knoll site. This site is located on a rocky 

knoll and is roughly peanut-shaped, approximately 30 m at its narrowest point and approximately 1 m above the 

surrounding terrain. Faunal remains of bone (fresh water and marine species) and fresh water snail shells were 

recovered from shovel tests along with limestone pebbles. Like other sites with similar assemblages, Carr et al. 

(1991:91,114) suggest a Late Archaic temporal assignment. 

F2.3 Significance 

Knoll sites are extremely significant and represent a type of site only recently recognized within the eastern Everglades 

Knoll sites may be significant under NRHP Criterion D and/or under National Historic Landmark Criterion 6. These sites 

represent occupation dating to the Late Archaic, which has been poorly known within the area historically occupied by 

the Tequesta and their ancestors. Knoll sites will likely be very important in understanding the earliest widespread 

occupation of the area. The lack of fiber-tempered pottery at Knoll sites needs to be further investigated as well. The 

lack of this pottery type, one of the main indicators of Late Archaic occupation, may be related to the co-existence of 

several Archaic traditions within southern Florida. 

F2.4 NHL Thematic Framework Elements 

Knoll sites have the potential to answer questions related to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes and their 

appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes identified and discussed in Section E: 

1) Knoll sites are closely associated with the Archaic Origins of the Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme I. 

Peopling Places) —this is a nationally significant theme, since the Everglades seems to have harbored one or more 

distinct expressions of the Archaic, including an aceramic Archaic that is quite different from the fiber-tempered 

pottery tradition expressed in Archaic cultures in neighboring parts of the Southeast. The relationship between the 

aceramic and ceramic Archaic cultures may help in addressing broader questions of the origins of pottery and 

differences in social organization among coeval Archaic peoples. 

2) Knoll sites rarely have ceramic artifacts, so are nominally related to the Development of Glades Pottery theme 

(NPS’s Thematic Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values).

3) Knoll sites may be significant, at least locally and regionally, in understanding early aspects of the theme Settlement 

Patterns (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and III. Expressing Cultural Values). Archaic 

Period settlement in southern Florida is poorly known, so Knoll sites may be significant in modeling settlement 

during this time period. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _50_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

4) Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values, V. 

Developing the American Economy and VIII. Transforming the Environment) is another theme associated with Knoll 

sites where preservation of paleobotanical and zooarcheological specimens may occur. This theme is most likely to 

be associated with local and regional significance. 

5) Knoll sites may contain materials associated with the theme Mortuary Practices (NPS’s Thematic Framework 

themes: II. Creating Social Institutions and Movements, III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political 

Landscape), but this theme is best addressed through Burial Mound sites and Cemetery sites discussed below. 

6) Knoll sites do not seem to be closely associated with earthwork sites, therefore, the theme Earthwork Building

(NPS’s Thematic Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values) is best addressed through Temple Mound sites, 

Prehistoric Earthwork sites, and Constructed Habitation Mound sites discussed below. 

7) Knoll sites do not seem closely associated with the theme Exchange Networks (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme 

V. Developing the American Economy), though some Knoll sites may produce chipped stone materials that could be 

important in understanding earlier exchange networks and chronology. 

8) Knoll sites do not seem closely associated with the theme Tequesta Art and Aesthetics (NPS’s Thematic Framework 

themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political Landscape). 

9) The theme Sociopolitical Development (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme IV. Shaping the Political Landscape)

requires integration of data from many types of sites, including Knoll sites, in order to address questions of 

demography, changes in settlement patterns, interaction with the environment, and relationships to neighboring 

groups. This theme is most associated with sites significant regionally, but may be related to sites at the national 

level, especially if they are important in models of sociopolitical development that can be compared and contrasted 

to groups in other parts of the United States. 

10) Knoll sites do not seem closely allied to the theme Culture Contact (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling 

Places and VIII. Changing Role of the United States in the World Community). 

F2.5 Registration Requirements 

For Knoll sites to be eligible for nomination they must demonstrate site integrity, with considerable portions of the site 

intact. Some past disturbance from ancient human activity, erosion or other natural processes, or more recent human 

activity (e.g., land clearing, site vandalism or looting) may be in evidence, but the site form should be discernible. Some 

Knoll sites may be burned or have evidence of extensive burning, which can significantly reduce the potential to produce 

important information. Knoll sites need to have intact, uncontaminated materials that can be dated via a variety of 

methods in order to demonstrate their Archaic age. Nominations of Knoll sites should be accompanied by a topographic 

map documenting the size and shape of the site (including plan and elevation), data on stratification (if excavations have 

been made or old profiles are available for study), data on burial patterns within the site (if available), groups (at least 3)

of radiocarbon dates demonstrating site antiquity, and analysis of cultural remains (if any have been recovered or are 

available for study). Additional information on the geological origins of the limestone knolls would be significant, as well. 

Despite the ability to contribute significant information to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes and their 

appropriate NPS thematic framework themes discussed above, only a few Knoll sites will be considered significant at 

the national level. These nationally significant Knoll sites should have materials that can answer or address questions 

associated with three or more of the NHL themes and exhibit moderate to high integrity. Sites that are nationally 

significant and eligible for NHL status should be outstanding examples of the Knoll site type, have unique or unusual 

features or components, and exhibit a high level of integrity. 

F3.1 Name of Property Type: Burial Mound 

F3.2 Description: 

Carr (1981:8, 15) recognizes three types of constructed mounds in southeastern Florida: sand mounds, rock mounds, 

and mounds constructed of midden soil or dirt (also see Felmley 1991:54). Burial Mound sites of each type are 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _51_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

extremely rare within the area occupied by the Tequesta and their ancestors. Carr (1981:15) notes that of 10 Burial 

Mound sites recorded in Miami-Dade County, only 4 remain. Felmley (1991) documented 23 Burial Mound site 

components among the 42 sites considered in her study of mortuary patterns in Broward and Miami-Dade counties. 

Only two of these were constructed from black, midden-like soil, while the others were sand. The sand and earth Burial 

Mounds range in size from 8 to 100 ft (2.4 to 30.5 m) in diameter, and 2 to 8 ft (0.6 to 2.4 m) in height. Most are 

described as round or oval, though two much larger, rectangular, platform mounds are described (Felmley 1991:114, 

119-120). The rock mound features of the area have been the subject of some controversy; early investigators 

discovered historic period interments in both the rock mounds at the mouth of the Miami River and at Key West, and 

speculated a more recent construction (see Eck 2000). Test excavations in the Key Largo Rock Mound, however, 

demonstrate construction by Native peoples and recovered artifacts similar to those from a nearby habitation site 

(Newman and Tesar 1996). This supports Carr’s (1981:15) suggestion that the rock mounds are analogous to sand and 

dirt mounds, but are built of limestone cobbles in those areas where this material was common at or near the ground 

surface. Preservation of human remains within Burial Mound sites varies considerably; in some cases skeletal material 

is well preserved, other sites have very fragmentary long bones and teeth preserved, and some sites have only teeth 

and occasional bone fragments. Grave goods are rare, but some Burial Mound interments are covered with limestone 

slabs (Williams 1983:144). Williams (1983:145) notes that three burials at the Margate-Blount site (8BD41) were 

accompanied by wooden artifacts, including a canoe paddle, a double-ended pestle, and a log tomb or burial enclosure. 

8DA14, a large sand mound on the north side of the mouth of the Miami River, included burials with European-derived 

material—glass beads, as well as small silver and gold ornaments (Eck 2000:291). 

F3.3 Significance 

Burial Mound sites may be significant under National Register Criterion D and/or National Historic Landmark Criterion 6. 

Burial Mound sites are significant within the area of the Tequesta and their ancestors since the appearance of 

constructed mounds may be related to a significant shift in sociopolitical organization during the Glades II Period. 

Geographically, Burial Mound sites are significant since they appear to be rare within those portions of Broward, MiamiDade and Monroe counties considered here and more numerous in the neighboring Florida Keys and Ten Thousand 

Islands regions. Burial Mound sites also are significant since they have provided, and may provide, information on the 

health and mortality of prehistoric populations, beliefs about death and the afterlife, marriage and residency patterns 

(based on biological distance of interred individuals) and social rank and status. Future studies may be able to isolate 

DNA from human bone to allow for detailed inter- and intra-site comparison of the biological relationships between those 

interred in Burial Mound sites. 

F3.4 NHL Thematic Framework Elements 

Burial Mound sites have the potential to answer questions related to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes 

and their appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes identified and discussed in Section E: 

1) Burial Mound sites have nominal association with the theme Archaic Origins of the Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme I. Peopling Places). 

2) Burial Mound sites may have some limited association with the theme Development of Glades Pottery (NPS’s 

Thematic Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). 

3) Burial Mound sites may be locally and regionally significant in answering questions related to the theme Settlement 

Patterns (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and III. Expressing Cultural Values). Some Burial 

Mound sites may be nationally significant if they are involved in models of Settlement Patterns that can be compared 

and contrasted with those of other parts of the Southeast and Midwest. At issue may be site integrity, since very few 

extant Burial Mound sites are known in southeastern Florida. 

4) Burial Mound sites may have some limited association with the theme Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta

(NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values, V. Developing the American Economy and 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _52_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

VIII. Transforming the Environment) since preserved wooden artifacts may be found in burial contexts. This theme 

is most likely to be associated with local and regional significance. 

5) Burial Mound sites are closely associated with the theme Mortuary Practices (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: 

II. Creating Social Institutions and Movements, III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political 

Landscape). This theme is most likely to be associated with local and regional significance. 

6) Burial Mound sites may be associated with earthwork sites, indicating some association with the theme Earthwork 

Building (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). If these associations exist, a particular 

site may be regionally or even nationally significant, since earthworks are rare in southeastern Florida, but may be 

related to broader patterns of earthwork building in the Southeast and Midwest. 

7) Burial Mound sites have nominal association with the theme Exchange Networks (NPS’s Thematic Framework 

theme V. Developing the American Economy). 

8) Burial Mound sites have nominal association with the theme Tequesta Art and Aesthetics (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political Landscape). 

9) The theme Sociopolitical Development (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme IV. Shaping the Political Landscape)

requires integration of data from many types of sites, including Burial Mounds sites, in order to address questions of 

demography, changes in settlement patterns, interaction with the environment, changes in health and nutrition, and 

relationships to neighboring groups. This theme is most associated with sites significant regionally, but may be 

related to sites at the national level, especially if they are important in models of sociopolitical development that can 

be compared and contrasted to groups in other parts of the United States. 

10) Burial Mound sites may be associated with the theme Culture Contact (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. 

Peopling Places and VIII. Changing Role of the United States in the World Community) if they contain European 

artifacts or other evidence for contact. These sites may be nationally significant, since they may contain evidence of 

patterns of acculturation, assimilation or resistance, as well as evidence for changes in health and nutrition before 

and after contact. 

F3.5 Registration Requirements 

For Burial Mound sites to be eligible for nomination they must demonstrate site integrity, with considerable portions of 

the site intact. Some past disturbance from ancient human activity, erosion or other natural processes, or more recent 

human activity (e.g., land clearing, site vandalism or looting) may be in evidence, but the site form should be discernible 

and a significant percent of the burials and associated grave goods should be undisturbed. Nominations of Burial 

Mound sites should be accompanied by a topographic map documenting the size and shape of the mound feature 

(including plan and elevation), data on stratification or construction sequence (if excavations have been made or old 

profiles are available for study), data on burial patterns within the mound (if available), and osteological analysis of 

human remains (if any have been recovered or are available for study). 

Despite the ability to contribute significant information to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes and their 

appropriate NPS thematic framework themes discussed above, only a few Burial Mound sites will be considered 

significant at the national level. These nationally significant Burial Mound sites should have materials that can answer or 

address questions associated with three or more of the NHL themes and exhibit moderate to high integrity. Sites that 

are nationally significant and eligible for NHL status should be outstanding examples of the Burial Mound site type, have 

unique or unusual features or components, and exhibit a high level of integrity. 

F4.1 Name of Property Type: Cemetery 

F4.2 Description: 

Cemetery sites appear during the Archaic in southeastern Florida and represent formal interment within habitation sites. 

Felmley (1991:72) notes that there is little patterning within sites related to the placement of cemeteries, though they 

appear to be located at lower elevations near the water line. In some cases, like Margate-Blount, this placement has 

facilitated preservation of wooden artifacts (Williams 1983). Felmley (1991:78) notes that of four habitation sites with 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _53_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

contiguous cemeteries considered in her study, three occurred on the south to southwest part of the site, while the fourth 

was centrally placed. Cemetery sites persist in southeastern Florida in the post-Archaic, and in some cases are located 

near or adjacent to constructed Burial Mound sites. Felmley (1991:72) notes a strong correlation between Cemetery 

sites and habitation sites. Ethnohistoric accounts of mortuary practices in the area indicate that traditions of cemetery 

burial persisted into the eighteenth century and involved a carved bird image as well as pilgrimages to leave offerings to 

the deceased. 

F4.3 Significance 

Cemetery sites may be significant under National Register Criterion D and/or National Historic Landmark Criterion 6. 

Cemetery sites, like Burial Mound sites, are significant within the area of the Tequesta and their ancestors since they 

have provided, and may provide, information on the health and mortality of prehistoric populations, beliefs about death 

and the afterlife, marriage and residency patterns (based on biological distance of interred individuals) and social rank 

and status. Cemetery burials appear to represent an earlier pattern of burial that relates to broader mortuary patterns of 

the Archaic. Geographically, Cemetery sites are significant since they appear to be more numerous within those 

portions of Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties considered here, especially when compared to Burial Mound 

sites. Neighboring areas have fewer examples of Cemetery sites. Cemetery sites also are significant since future 

studies may be able to isolate DNA from human bone to allow for detailed inter- and intra-site comparison of the 

biological relationships between those interred in Cemetery sites. 

F4.4 NHL Thematic Framework Elements 

Cemetery sites have the potential to answer questions related to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes and 

their appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes identified and discussed in Section E: 

1) Cemetery sites may be locally, regionally or nationally significant in association with the theme Archaic Origins of the 

Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme I. Peopling Places). A number of Archaic Period Cemetery sites 

already have been identified in southeastern Florida. These early cemeteries can answer questions about Archaic 

Period health and nutrition, early adaptation to the Everglades area, as well as questions related to broader patterns 

of Archaic settlement, demographics, and sociopolitical organization. 

2) Cemetery sites have nominal association with the theme Development of Glades Pottery (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). 

3) Cemetery sites may be locally and regionally significant in answering questions related to the theme Settlement 

Patterns (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and III. Expressing Cultural Values). Some Burial 

Mound sites may be nationally significant if they are involved in models of Settlement Patterns that can be compared 

and contrasted with those of other parts of the Southeast and Midwest. 

4) Cemetery sites may have some limited association with the theme Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta

(NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values, V. Developing the American Economy and 

VIII. Transforming the Environment) since preserved wooden artifacts may be found in burial contexts. This theme 

is most likely to be associated with local and regional significance. 

5) Cemetery sites are closely associated with the theme Mortuary Practices (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: II. 

Creating Social Institutions and Movements, III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political 

Landscape). This theme is most likely to be associated with local and regional significance. 

6) Cemetery sites have nominal association with the theme Earthwork Building (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme III. 

Expressing Cultural Values). 

7) Cemetery sites have nominal association with the theme Exchange Networks (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme V. 

Developing the American Economy). 

8) Cemetery sites have nominal association with the theme Tequesta Art and Aesthetics (NPS’s Thematic Framework 

themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political Landscape). 

9) The theme Sociopolitical Development (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme IV. Shaping the Political Landscape)

requires integration of data from many types of sites, including Cemetery sites, in order to address questions of 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _54_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

demography, changes in settlement patterns, interaction with the environment, changes in health and nutrition, and 

relationships to neighboring groups. This theme is most associated with sites significant regionally, but may be 

related to sites at the national level, especially if they are important in models of sociopolitical development that can 

be compared and contrasted to groups in other parts of the United States. 

10) Cemetery sites may be associated with the theme Culture Contact (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling 

Places and VIII. Changing Role of the United States in the World Community) if they contain European artifacts or 

other evidence for contact. These sites may be nationally significant, since they may contain evidence of patterns of 

acculturation, assimilation or resistance, as well as evidence for changes in health and nutrition before and after 

contact. 

F4.5 Registration Requirements 

For Cemetery sites to be eligible for nomination they must demonstrate site integrity, with considerable portions of the 

site intact. Some past disturbance from ancient human activity, erosion or other natural processes, or more recent 

human activity (e.g., land clearing, site vandalism or looting) may be in evidence, but the site form should be discernible 

and a significant percent of the burials and associated grave goods should be undisturbed. Nominations of Cemetery 

sites should be accompanied by a topographic map documenting the size and configuration of the cemetery feature 

(including plan and elevation), data on stratification or construction sequence (if excavations have been made or old 

profiles are available for study), data on burial patterns within the cemetery (if available), and osteological analysis of 

human remains (if any have been recovered or are available for study). 

Despite the ability to contribute significant information to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes and their 

appropriate NPS thematic framework themes discussed above, only a few Cemetery sites will be considered significant 

at the national level. These nationally significant Cemetery sites should have materials that can answer or address 

questions associated with three or more of the NHL themes and exhibit moderate to high integrity. Sites that are 

nationally significant and eligible for NHL status should be outstanding examples of the Cemetery site type, have unique 

or unusual features or components, and exhibit a high level of integrity. Cemetery sites dating to the Archaic Period 

may always be nationally significant, since they can contribute substantially to limited skeletal populations from this 

period. 

F5.1 Name of Property Type: Temple Mound 

F5.2 Description: 

Temple Mound sites are composed of sand, and based on descriptions of similar sites in other areas, may include layers 

of shell or midden soil. Laxson (1957:1-2) describes the mound feature at Maddens Hammock (8DA45) as “a natural 

sand hillock, the top of which is nineteen feet above sea level. This sand mound is shaped somewhat like a truncated 

pyramid with the top fifty feet wide and one hundred and fifty feet long (15.2 by 45.7 m) (also see topographic maps in 

Gifford 1989). Sides slope gently at an angle of from eight to ten degrees for a distance of eighty-five to one hundred 

feet.” The total height is from 17 to 19 ft (5.1 to 5.8 m). He notes two caches of turtle bone, primarily carapaces of 

gopher tortoise, terrapin, and soft shell turtle, on the sides of the mound (Laxson 1957:4). Goggin (n.d.:123-124) 

suggests that the sand mound is a constructed feature—an alteration of the natural ridge. Laxson’s excavations at the 

site and adjacent midden indicated a strong Glades IIIb and IIIc occupation. Carr (1981:47-49) notes that human bones 

have been found in the mound. Miami Sand Mound #3 (8DA19), unfortunately destroyed by development, also is 

described as a truncated sand mound, 150 feet long by 50 feet wide (15.2 by 45.7 m), with two levels—the primary 

platform at 4 ft (1.2 m) in height and a more elevated area at 11 ft (5.8 m) in height (Felmley 1991:114; Goggin n.d.:123-

124). Goggin (n.d.:123-124) notes that the elevated summit is around 10 ft (3 m) wide, points out the similarity to the 

Madden site, and suggests the mound may be part of a broader ceremonial tradition. Comparison to the Temple Mound 

site typology created by Luer and Almy (1981) for sites of the Tampa Bay area, the two Miami-Dade County mounds are 

most similar to their Class C, Group III mounds, which have a low height, relatively narrow platforms, and small volumes. 

The Weeden Island mound is most comparable, with dimensions of 1.4 m high, 14 m wide, and 46 m long. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _55_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

F5.3 Significance 

Temple Mound sites may be significant under National Register Criterion D and/or National Historic Landmark Criterion 

6. Temple Mound sites are significant within the area of the Tequesta and their ancestors since the appearance of 

constructed mounds may be related to a significant shift in sociopolitical organization during the Glades II Period. 

Temple Mound sites are extremely rare within the study area—only two are known; Miami Sand Mound #3 (8DA19) and 

Maddens Hammock (8DA45). Temple Mound sites are more typically known from adjacent areas, especially the Gulf 

Coast. For example, Luer and Almy (1981) describe size, form, and location of 15 Temple Mound sites within the 

Tampa Bay region. Temple Mounds are typically associated with Mississippian era ceremonialism, serving as platforms 

for important political or religious structures, or as precursors of the ritual space “square-grounds” of historic period 

Southeastern Indians (Luer and Almy 1981:143-145). Typically, researchers have noted a lack of Mississippian artifacts 

and cultural patterns in southern Florida (Mitchem 1996:234-235). The presence of Temple Mound sites in the 

homeland of the Tequesta and their ancestors suggests they may have more actively participated in this broader cultural 

horizon. Documentation and research at Temple Mound sites in this area would be important in answering questions 

about possible participation in the Mississippian horizon. 

F5.4 NHL Thematic Framework Elements 

Temple Mound sites have the potential to answer questions related to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes 

and their appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes identified and discussed in Section E: 

1) Temple Mound sites are nominally associated with the theme Archaic Origins of the Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme I. Peopling Places).

2) Temple Mound sites are nominally associated with the theme Development of Glades Pottery (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). 

3) Temple Mound sites may be locally and regionally significant in answering questions related to the theme 

Settlement Patterns (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and III. Expressing Cultural Values). 

Some Temple Mound sites may be nationally significant if they are involved in models of Settlement Patterns that 

can be compared and contrasted with those of other parts of the Southeast and Midwest. 

4) Temple Mound sites are nominally associated with the theme Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta (NPS’s 

Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values, V. Developing the American Economy and VIII. 

Transforming the Environment). 

5) Temple Mound sites may have some association with the theme Mortuary Practices (NPS’s Thematic Framework 

themes: II. Creating Social Institutions and Movements, III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political 

Landscape). These sites are poorly known in southeastern Florida, but in neighboring areas Temple Mounds may 

contain human burials. 

6) Temple Mound sites have nominal association with the theme Earthwork Building (NPS’s Thematic Framework 

theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). 

7) Temple Mound sites have nominal association with the theme Exchange Networks (NPS’s Thematic Framework 

theme V. Developing the American Economy). 

8) Temple Mound sites have nominal association with the theme Tequesta Art and Aesthetics (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political Landscape). 

9) The theme Sociopolitical Development (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme IV. Shaping the Political Landscape)

requires integration of data from many types of sites, including Temple Mound sites, in order to address questions of 

demography, changes in settlement patterns, interaction with the environment, social organization, and relationships 

to neighboring groups. This theme is most associated with sites significant regionally, but may be related to sites at 

the national level, especially if they are important in models of sociopolitical development that can be compared and 

contrasted to groups in other parts of the United States. Since Temple Mound sites are so rare in southeastern 

Florida they may always be nationally significant, especially if they have high integrity. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _56_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

10) Temple Mound sites have nominal association with the theme Culture Contact (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: 

I. Peopling Places and VIII. Changing Role of the United States in the World Community). 

F5.5 Registration Requirements 

For Temple Mound sites to be eligible for nomination they must demonstrate site integrity, with considerable portions of 

the site intact. Some past disturbance from ancient human activity, erosion or other natural processes, or more recent 

human activity (e.g., land clearing, site vandalism or looting) may be in evidence, but the site form should be discernible. 

Nominations of Burial Mound sites should be accompanied by a topographic map documenting the size and shape of 

the mound feature (including plan and elevation), data on stratification or construction sequence (if excavations have 

been made or old profiles are available for study), data on artifact caches or burials within the mound (if available), and 

data on features (e.g., postmolds, postholes) (if available). 

Despite the ability to contribute significant information to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes and their 

appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes discussed above, only a few Temple Mound sites will be considered 

significant at the national level. These nationally significant Temple Mound sites should have materials that can answer 

or address questions associated with three or more of the NHL themes and exhibit moderate to high integrity. Sites that 

are nationally significant and eligible for NHL status should be outstanding examples of the Temple Mound site type, 

have unique or unusual features or components, and exhibit a high level of integrity. Temple Mound sites may always 

be regionally or nationally significant since they occur so rarely in southeastern Florida. 

F6.1 Name of Property Type: Prehistoric Earthwork 

F6.2 Description: 

Two forms of Prehistoric Earthwork are known in the area occupied by the Tequesta and their ancestors: 1) Circle-ditch 

sites, and 2) Linear embankments. Circle-ditch sites consist of a large, circular (or semi-circular) ditch, often excavated 

adjacent to a natural water body (e.g., lake, marsh, slough). Some examples have distinctive berms bordering either 

side of the ditch channel, though most examples lack berms. Diameters range from 60 to 380 m. Habitation middens 

are usually in close association, and some circle-ditch sites have associated mound and borrow pit features as well 

(Carr 1985). While typically associated with the area around Lake Okeechobee, circle-ditch sites are one of the most 

widespread Prehistoric Earthwork sites known in southern Florida, with examples in southeastern and southwestern 

Florida, as well as in the Kissimmee River basin. Johnson’s (1996) earthwork typology suggests that circle-ditch sites 

represent one of the earliest earthwork types constructed in southern Florida, probably during the Late Archaic and 

Glades I early periods (ca. 500 B.C. through A.D. 500), while linear embankment sites may be late sites, perhaps dating 

to the Glades III Period (A.D. 1200-1763). Linear embankment sites, like circle-ditch sites, are widely distributed. The 

typical configuration involves a sand mound partially enclosed by a crescent-shaped earthwork and paired linear 

embankments emanating from the sand mound. 

F6.3 Significance 

Prehistoric Earthwork sites may be significant under National Register Criterion D and/or National Historic Landmark 

Criterion 6. In southeastern Florida they are significant since this site type is more commonly found in the area around 

Lake Okeechobee and in the Kissimmee River basin (see Hale 1989; Johnson 1996). Despite the fact that these 

earthworks have been known to archeologists since the 1940s, there has been little systematic mapping and excavation 

at these sites. Work at Ortona (Carr et al. 1995) and Fort Center (Sears 1982) indicates some connection with the 

Hopewellian Middle Woodland horizon. Some Prehistoric Earthworks, like the circle-ditches, may be the earliest type of 

earthwork built in southern Florida and may relate to the early development of regional cultures in the area. The 

presence of Prehistoric Earthworks in the area inhabited by the Tequesta and their ancestors suggests some 

relationship with broader cultural patterns of southern Florida. Investigation of these sites, outside of the area of their 

typical occurrence, may help in better understanding the phenomenon of earthwork building in southern Florida. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _57_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

F6.4 NHL Thematic Framework Elements 

Prehistoric Earthwork sites have the potential to answer questions related to some of the ten theme study specific NHL 

themes and their appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes identified and discussed in Section E: 

1) Prehistoric Earthwork sites are associated with the theme Archaic Origins of the Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme I. Peopling Places), since circle-ditch earthworks occur in southeastern Florida and are thought to 

be the some of the earliest constructed earthworks in Florida. Circle-ditch sites with moderate to high integrity may 

be regionally and nationally significant, especially if examples contain well-preserved cultural materials that can be 

dated through chronometric and relative dating techniques. 

2) Prehistoric Earthwork sites are nominally associated with the theme Development of Glades Pottery (NPS’s 

Thematic Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). 

3) Prehistoric Earthwork sites may be locally and regionally significant in answering questions related to the theme 

Settlement Patterns (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and III. Expressing Cultural Values). 

Some Prehistoric Earthwork sites may be nationally significant if they are involved in models of Settlement Patterns 

that can be compared and contrasted with those of other parts of the Southeast and Midwest. 

4) Prehistoric Earthwork sites are nominally associated with the theme Plant and Animal Use among the Tequesta

(NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values, V. Developing the American Economy and 

VIII. Transforming the Environment). 

5) Prehistoric Earthwork sites are nominally associated with the theme Mortuary Practices (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework themes: II. Creating Social Institutions and Movements, III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping 

the Political Landscape). 

6) Prehistoric Earthwork sites are closely associated with the theme Earthwork Building (NPS’s Thematic Framework 

theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). Prehistoric Earthwork sites are rare in southeastern Florida, but share forms 

with earthworks in neighboring parts of the state. These sites may be significant at the local and regional level, 

especially if they contain materials that explain the link between earthwork builders in different areas. 

7) Prehistoric Earthwork sites have nominal association with the theme Exchange Networks (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme V. Developing the American Economy). 

8) Prehistoric Earthwork sites have nominal association with the theme Tequesta Art and Aesthetics (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political Landscape). 

9) The theme Sociopolitical Development (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme IV. Shaping the Political Landscape)

requires integration of data from many types of sites, including Prehistoric Earthwork sites, in order to address 

questions of demography, changes in settlement patterns, interaction with the environment, social organization, and 

relationships to neighboring groups. This theme is most associated with sites significant regionally, but may be 

related to sites at the national level, especially if they are important in models of sociopolitical development that can 

be compared and contrasted to groups in other parts of the United States. Since Prehistoric Earthwork sites are so 

rare in southeastern Florida they may always be nationally significant, especially if they have high integrity. 

10) Prehistoric Earthwork sites have nominal association with the theme Culture Contact (NPS’s Thematic Framework 

themes: I. Peopling Places and VIII. Changing Role of the United States in the World Community). 

F6.5 Registration Requirements 

For Prehistoric Earthwork sites to be eligible for nomination they must demonstrate site integrity, with considerable 

portions of the site intact. Some past disturbance from ancient human activity, erosion or other natural processes, or 

more recent human activity (e.g., land clearing, site vandalism or looting) may be in evidence, but the site form should 

be discernible. The earthworks should be visible in aerial photographs and on the ground. Nominations of Prehistoric 

Earthwork sites should be accompanied by a topographic map documenting the size and shape of the earthwork 

features (including plan and elevation), historic (if available) and contemporary aerial photographs that help document 

the antiquity and configuration of the earthworks, data on stratification or construction sequence (if excavations have 

been made or old profiles are available for study), and data on associated sites (if available). 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _58_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Despite the ability to contribute significant information to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes and their 

appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes discussed above, only a few Prehistoric Earthwork sites will be 

considered significant at the national level. These nationally significant Prehistoric Earthwork sites should have 

materials or forms that can answer or address questions associated with three or more of the NHL themes and exhibit 

moderate to high integrity. Sites that are nationally significant and eligible for NHL status should be outstanding 

examples of the Prehistoric Earthwork site type, have unique or unusual features or components, and exhibit a high 

level of integrity. Prehistoric Earthwork sites may always be regionally or nationally significant, since they are so rare in 

southeastern Florida and may substantially contribute to understanding of earthwork building in neighboring areas or to 

broader patterns of earthwork building in the eastern United States. 

F7.1 Name of Property Type: Constructed Habitation Mound 

F7.2 Description: 

Initial models of Everglades habitation suggested that people camped on tree islands that form naturally within the 

Everglades hydrologic system. As additional survey and evaluation work has been conducted, the variety of site types 

located in the Everglades has increased. This includes the traditional tree island site, as well as knoll sites, sites located

on larger sand and limestone ridges, as well as intentionally Constructed Habitation Mounds or artificial tree islands. 

Constructed Habitation Mound sites are described in the eastern Everglades in both Miami-Dade and Broward counties. 

At the Refugee Island site (8DA2102), Beiter (2003) found that fresh water marl had been excavated from the 

surrounding marsh to construct a mound and ramp, apparently augmenting a developing tree island. Artifacts and 

radiocarbon dates suggest this site was constructed and occupied from Glades I late (A.D. 500-750) through Glades IIb 

(A.D. 900-1100) periods. The Cibi site (8DA1068) also has evidence for a constructed ramp and mound with associated 

borrow pits (New World Research Inc. 1988), as does the Bear Lake Mound (8MO33) (Griffin 2002:192, 207, 211-

212,240). At the Sheridan Hammock site (8BD191) in Broward County, Carr et al. (1994:22-24) documented a circular 

mound of muck soil and associated borrow pit; the constructed muck mound was overlain by a deposit of faunal bone 

and pottery likely dating to the Glades II-III periods. 

F7.3 Significance 

Constructed Habitation Mound sites may be significant under National Register Criterion D and/or National Historic 

Landmark Criterion 6. These sites suggest that significant labor may have been involved in the construction of 

habitation sites in the interior Everglades. Carr et al. (1994:29) suggest that Constructed Habitation Mound sites, like 

the Sheridan Hammock site, may have been constructed in proximity to canoe trails where no natural islands were 

present. This also has been suggested for the Refugee Island site in Miami-Dade County (Beiter 2003). If this 

association is true, Constructed Habitation Mound sites may be important in identifying canoe trails through the 

Everglades and in reconstructing broader travel routes and patterns. 

F7.4 NHL Thematic Framework Elements 

Constructed Habitation Mound sites have the potential to answer questions related to some of the ten theme study 

specific NHL themes and their appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes identified and discussed in Section E: 

1) Constructed Habitation Mound sites are associated with the theme Archaic Origins of the Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme I. Peopling Places), since circle-ditch earthworks occur in southeastern Florida and are thought to 

be the some of the earliest constructed earthworks in Florida. Circle-ditch sites with moderate to high integrity may 

be regionally and nationally significant, especially if examples contain well-preserved cultural materials that can be 

dated through chronometric and relative dating techniques. 

2) Constructed Habitation Mound sites are nominally associated with the theme Development of Glades Pottery (NPS’s 

Thematic Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _59_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

3) Constructed Habitation Mound sites may be locally and regionally significant in answering questions related to the 

theme Settlement Patterns (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and III. Expressing Cultural 

Values). Some Constructed Habitation Mound sites may be nationally significant if they are involved in models of 

Settlement Patterns that can be compared and contrasted with those of other parts of the Southeast and Midwest. 

These sites also may be significant in understanding the relationship between the Tequesta and the Everglades 

ecosystem, since the builders of these sites may have significantly contributed to the formation of some tree islands. 

4) Constructed Habitation Mound sites are nominally associated with the theme Plant and Animal Use among the 

Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values, V. Developing the American 

Economy and VIII. Transforming the Environment). 

5) Constructed Habitation Mound sites are nominally associated with the theme Mortuary Practices (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework themes: II. Creating Social Institutions and Movements, III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping 

the Political Landscape). 

6) Constructed Habitation Mound sites are closely associated with the theme Earthwork Building (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). Constructed Habitation Mound sites are rare in southeastern 

Florida, but share forms with platform mounds in neighboring parts of the state. These sites may be significant at 

the local and regional level, especially if they contain materials that explain the link between mound builders in 

different areas. 

7) Constructed Habitation Mound sites have nominal association with the theme Exchange Networks (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme V. Developing the American Economy). 

8) Constructed Habitation Mound sites have nominal association with the theme Tequesta Art and Aesthetics (NPS’s 

Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political Landscape). 

9) The theme Sociopolitical Development (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme IV. Shaping the Political Landscape)

requires integration of data from many types of sites, including Constructed Habitation Mound sites, in order to 

address questions of demography, changes in settlement patterns, interaction with the environment, social 

organization, and relationships to neighboring groups. This theme is most associated with sites significant 

regionally, but may be related to sites at the national level, especially if they are important in models of sociopolitical 

development that can be compared and contrasted to groups in other parts of the United States. Since Constructed 

Habitation Mound sites are so rare in southeastern Florida they may always be nationally significant, especially if 

they have high integrity. 

10) Constructed Habitation Mound sites have nominal association with the theme Culture Contact (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and VIII. Changing Role of the United States in the World Community). 

F7.5 Registration Requirements 

For Constructed Habitation Mound sites to be eligible for nomination they must demonstrate site integrity, with 

considerable portions of the site intact. Some past disturbance from ancient human activity, erosion or other natural 

processes, or more recent human activity (e.g., land clearing, site vandalism or looting) may be in evidence, but the site 

form should be discernible. Nominations of Constructed Habitation Mound sites should be accompanied by a 

topographic map documenting the size and shape of the mound feature (including plan and elevation), data on 

stratification or construction sequence (if excavations have been made or old profiles are available for study), data on 

radiocarbon date and relative date (if available), and data on features (e.g., postmolds, postholes) (if available). 

Despite the ability to contribute significant information to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes and their 

appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes discussed above, only a few Constructed Habitation Mound sites will be 

considered significant at the national level. These nationally significant Constructed Habitation Mound sites should have 

materials that can answer or address questions associated with three or more of the NHL themes and exhibit moderate 

to high integrity. Sites that are nationally significant and eligible for NHL status should be outstanding examples of the 

Constructed Habitation Mound site type, have unique or unusual features or components, and exhibit a high level of 

integrity. Since Constructed Habitation Mound sites are rare in southeastern Florida, they may always be significant at 

the regional or national level, especially if they can contribute to understanding of the relationship between the Tequesta 

and the Everglades tree island communities. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _60_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

F8.1 Name of Property Type: Aboriginal Water Course or Canal 

F8.2 Description: 

Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites have been documented primarily in southern Florida, with one known example in 

the Florida panhandle (Luer 1989; Wheeler 1998). These sites consist of an excavated channel with spoil banks on 

either side. Dimensions are variable, ranging from 0.3 to 2.4 m in depth, and 3 to 9 m in maximum width. Lengths 

range from 1.26 to 6.3 km. The ancient builders often curved or bowed channel courses to avoid low or high spots that 

would interfere with functioning of the canals. Profiles of the canals suggest a trapezoidal cross-section for the channel. 

Studies of topography and engineering characteristics indicate that some canals were fed by water from natural 

drainages, while others relied on ground water (Luer and Wheeler 1997; Wheeler 1995). Aboriginal Water Course or 

Canal sites often link natural bodies of water and are often associated with major habitation centers. No examples of 

simple, sea-level canals have been found, suggesting that considerable knowledge of local topography and hydrology 

went into the planning and construction of these features. Wheeler (1995:278) suggests that canals were constructed in 

areas that lacked natural water routes, and that construction of canals allowed for local or regional centers to control 

access along important transportation routes. Canals are largely absent in areas where numerous natural water bodies 

occur, although these areas probably harbor more transient and difficult to detect canoe trails (see Williams and Mowers 

1979:26, 29-30 on identification of historic Everglades canoe trails). 

F8.3 Significance 

Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites may be significant under NRHP Criterion D and/or National Historic Landmark 

Criterion 6. Long-distance canoe canals also may be significant under NRHP Criterion C and/or NHL Criterion 4, which 

deal with distinctive physical characteristics of design, construction, or form, and distinguishing characteristics of an 

architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction. Review of 

literature suggests that Florida is the only place that long-distance canoe canals were constructed in North America 

during pre-Columbian times. Luer (1989:124-125) has indicated that a significant amount of labor is involved in planning 

and constructing functioning canoe canals. He also suggests that canals were important in exchange networks that 

relied on movement of goods primarily along aquatic routes, and that the construction of the canals may have relied on 

labor provided as tribute to political leaders (Luer 1989:116-121). The canals also represent an engineering feat, since 

they involve a detailed and complex understanding of local topographic and hydrologic conditions. 

F8.4 NHL Thematic Framework Elements 

Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites have the potential to answer questions related to some of the ten theme study 

specific NHL themes and their appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes identified and discussed in Section E: 

1) Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites are nominally associated with the theme Archaic Origins of the Tequesta 

(NPS’s Thematic Framework theme I. Peopling Places), since none of the known canal sites seem to date to this 

early period. Additional research may change this, especially if canals or other waterways dating to the Archaic 

Period are identified. 

2) Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites are nominally associated with the theme Development of Glades Pottery

(NPS’s Thematic Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). 

3) Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites may be locally and regionally significant in answering questions related to 

the theme Settlement Patterns (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and III. Expressing Cultural 

Values). Some Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites may be nationally significant if they are involved in models of 

Settlement Patterns that can be compared and contrasted with those of other parts of the Southeast and Midwest. 

4) Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites are nominally associated with the theme Plant and Animal Use among the 

Tequesta (NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values, V. Developing the American 

Economy and VIII. Transforming the Environment) though dugout canoes used in canoe canals could be considered 

under this theme. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _61_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

5) Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites are nominally associated with the theme Mortuary Practices (NPS’s 

Thematic Framework themes: II. Creating Social Institutions and Movements, III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. 

Shaping the Political Landscape). 

6) Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites are closely associated with the theme Earthwork Building (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme III. Expressing Cultural Values). Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites represent one form of 

prehistoric earthworks and are extremely rare in southeastern Florida, but share forms with canals in neighboring 

parts of the state. These sites may be significant at the regional and national level, especially if they contain 

materials or share forms that explain the link between earthwork builders in different areas. 

7) Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites are closely associated with the theme Exchange Networks (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework theme V. Developing the American Economy). Archeologists have argued that such canals may have 

been important in local and regional exchange. 

8) Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites have nominal association with the theme Tequesta Art and Aesthetics

(NPS’s Thematic Framework themes: III. Expressing Cultural Values and IV. Shaping the Political Landscape). 

9) The theme Sociopolitical Development (NPS’s Thematic Framework theme IV. Shaping the Political Landscape)

requires integration of data from many types of sites, including Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites, in order to 

address questions of demography, changes in settlement patterns, interaction with the environment, social 

organization, and relationships to neighboring groups. This theme is most associated with sites significant 

regionally, but may be related to sites at the national level, especially if they are important in models of sociopolitical 

development that can be compared and contrasted to groups in other parts of the United States. Since Aboriginal 

Water Course or Canal sites are so rare they may always be nationally significant, especially if they have high 

integrity. 

10) Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites have nominal association with the theme Culture Contact (NPS’s Thematic 

Framework themes: I. Peopling Places and VIII. Changing Role of the United States in the World Community). 

F8.5 Registration Requirements 

For Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites to be eligible for nomination they must demonstrate site integrity, with 

considerable portions of the site intact. Some past disturbance from ancient human activity, erosion or other natural 

processes, or more recent human activity (e.g., land clearing, site vandalism or looting) may be in evidence, but the site 

form should be discernible. Nominations of Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites should be accompanied by a map 

documenting the size and shape of the feature, aerial photographs documenting the course of the canal and local 

environmental conditions, profiles or cross-section diagrams, models or hypotheses describing the supposed functioning 

of the canal, data on radiocarbon date and relative date (if available), and data on associated sites or other cultural 

features (e.g., canoe trails, footpaths) (if present). 

Despite the ability to contribute significant information to some of the ten theme study specific NHL themes and their 

appropriate NPS Thematic Framework themes discussed above, only a few Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites will 

be considered significant at the national level. These nationally significant Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites 

should have materials that can answer or address questions associated with three or more of the NHL themes and 

exhibit moderate to high integrity. Sites that are nationally significant and eligible for NHL status should be outstanding 

examples of the Aboriginal Water Course or Canal site type, have unique or unusual features or components, and 

exhibit a high level of integrity. Since Aboriginal Water Course or Canal sites are rare in southeastern Florida (and do 

not occur in other parts of North America), they may always be significant at the regional or national level. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _62_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Table 6. Listing of Known Significant Sites of the Tequesta and their ancestors (also see Figure 22). 

Site Name Site 

Type 

Periods 

Represented 

Site No. Register 

Status 

NRHP Level of 

Significance* 

Potential 

NHL? 

Pompano Beach 

Mound 

Burial mound; 

cemetery 

Glades III 8BD7 Not evaluated local, regional 

Rio Vista/ 

Rivermount 

Accretionary 

midden 

Glades 8BD38 Not evaluated local, regional 

Margate-Blount Accretionary 

midden; burial 

mound; 

cemetery 

Glades I, II, III 8BD41 Not evaluated local, regional 

Peace Camp Accretionary 

midden 

Late Archaic; 

Glades I, II, III 

8BD52 Eligible for 

Listing 

regional, national Yes 

Emerald Tower Cemetery; 

accretionary 

midden 

Glades II 8BD57 Not evaluated local, regional 

Holatee Trail Constructed 

habitation 

mound; 

earthwork 

Glades 8BD104 Not evaluated local, regional 

Clam Shell 

(Sunrise Stadium) 

Accretionary 

midden 

Glades 8BD186 Not evaluated local 

DCA (Sunrise 

Stadium) 

Accretionary 

midden 

Glades II, III 8BD187 Not evaluated local 

Plantation Golf Accretionary 

midden 

Glades 8BD190 Not evaluated local 

Sheridan 

Hammock 

Accretionary 

midden 

Glades 8BD191 Potentially 

eligible 

local, regional, 

national 

Everglades 

Corporate Park 

Accretionary 

midden; 

cemetery 

Glades I, II, III 8BD1453 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional 

Weston Pond Accretionary 

midden 

Archaic 8BD2131 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional, 

national 

Blue Cow Archaic; 

Glades II 

8BD2150 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional 

Monarch Lakes 1 Cemetery; 

accretionary 

midden 

Archaic 8BD2570 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional 

Monarch Lakes 4 Accretionary 

midden 

Archaic 8BD2573 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional 

Sands Key sites Accretionary 

midden 

Glades; 

Glades III 

8DA2, 

8DA4582 

Not evaluated local, regional 

Cutler Key Accretionary 

midden 

Glades I, II, III 8DA7 Not evaluated local, regional 

Cutler Mound Burial mound Glades II, III 8DA8 Not evaluated local, regional 

Snapper Creek Accretionary 

midden 

Glades I, II, III 8DA9 Not evaluated local, regional 

Granada Site Accretionary 

midden; 

cemetery 

Glades I, II, III 8DA11 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional 

Miami Circle at 

Brickell Point 

Accretionary 

midden 

Glades I 8DA12 Listed 2/5/02 regional, national Yes 

Little River/El 

Portal Burial 

Mound & Midden 

Accretionary 

midden; burial 

mound 

Glades II 8DA20 Not evaluated local, regional 

Arch Creek South Accretionary 

midden 

Glades I, II, III 8DA23 Listed 7/15/86 local, regional, 

national 

Oleta River 3 Accretionary 

midden 

Glades I, II, III 8DA25 Not evaluated local, regional 

Oleta River Mound Burial mound Glades 8DA24 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional 

Chakika Park Accretionary Glades II, III 8DA28 Not evaluated local, regional 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _63_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Site Name Site 

Type 

Periods 

Represented 

Site No. Register 

Status 

NRHP Level of 

Significance* 

Potential 

NHL? 

midden 

Trail Site Accretionary 

midden 

Glades 8DA33 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional 

Trail Site Accretionary 

midden; burial 

mound 

Glades I, II, III 8DA34 Not evaluated local, regional 

Madden Site Accretionary 

midden; 

temple mound 

Glades I, II, III 8DA45 Not evaluated regional, national Yes 

Lehigh Portland Accretionary 

midden 

Glades 8DA93 Not evaluated local, regional 

Bamboo Mound Accretionary 

midden 

Glades II, III 8DA94 Not evaluated local, regional 

Turtle Mound Accretionary 

midden 

Glades II, III 8DA140 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional 

Arch Creek North 

Site 

Accretionary 

midden; 

cemetery 

Glades I, II, III 8DA398 Listed 7/15/86 local, regional, 

national 

Honey Hill Accretionary 

midden 

Glades I, II, III 8DA411 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional 

Oleta River 2 Accretionary midden Glades I 8DA1024 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional 

Greynolds Park Accretionary midden Glades 8DA1028 Not evaluated local, regional 

Black Creek 2 Accretionary midden Glades I, II, III 8DA1031 Not evaluated local, regional 

Sutton Accretionary midden Glades I, II, III 8DA1034 Not evaluated local, regional 

Long Hammock Accretionary midden Glades 8DA1042 Not evaluated local, regional 

Beale Smith Accretionary midden Glades II, III 8DA1043 Not evaluated local, regional 

Prasado Accretionary midden Glades I, II 8DA1052 Not evaluated local, regional 

Flagami South Accretionary 

midden; 

cemetery 

Archaic; 

Glades 

8DA1053 Not evaluated local, regional 

Cook’s Hammock Accretionary 

midden; 

cemetery 

Glades I, II 8DA1054 Potentially 

eligible 

local, regional 

Pig Island Accretionary 

midden 

Glades I, II, III 8DA1057 Not evaluated local, regional 

Cibi Site Constructed 

habitation 

mound; 

accretionary 

midden 

Glades I, II, III 8DA1068 Not evaluated local, regional, 

national 

Donna Accretionary 

midden 

Glades 8DA1075 Not evaluated local, regional 

Jane Gray Accretionary 

midden 

Glades II, III 8DA1651 Not evaluated local, regional 

Cutler Fossil Site Accretionary 

midden; 

cemetery 

Archaic; Early 

Archaic 

8DA2001 Not evaluated regional, national Yes 

Refugee Island Constructed 

habitation 

mound; 

accretionary 

midden 

Glades I, II 8DA2102 Eligible for 

Listing 

local, regional, 

national 

Levee Cut Accretionary 

midden 

Glades II, III 8DA2104 Not evaluated local, regional 

El Portal Glades 8DA3214 Not evaluated local, regional 

Double Island Glades 8DA3221 Not evaluated local, regional 

Anhinga Trail Accretionary 

midden; 

archeological 

wetsite 

Glades 8DA3451 Listed 11/5/96 local, regional, 

national 

Lyons-Lord Site Accretionary Glades I, II, III 8DA5128 Not evaluated local, regional 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _64_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Site Name Site 

Type 

Periods 

Represented 

Site No. Register 

Status 

NRHP Level of 

Significance* 

Potential 

NHL? 

midden; 

cemetery 

North Arch Creek Accretionary 

midden 

Glades 8DA5130 Not evaluated local, regional 

Bear Cut Accretionary 

midden 

Glades III 8DA5247 Not evaluated local, regional 

Key Biscayne Glades 8DA5249 Not evaluated local, regional 

Indian Hammock Glades 8DA6239 Not evaluated local, regional 

Deering Estate 

Midden 

Accretionary 

midden 

Glades III; 

Spanish 

8DA6519 Not evaluated regional, national Yes 

Snake Bight Canal Aboriginal 

water course 

Glades 8MO29 Not evaluated regional, national Yes 

Mud Lake Canal Aboriginal 

water course 

Glades 8MO32 Not evaluated regional, national Yes 

Cane Patch Constructed 

habitation 

mound 

Glades I, II, III 8MO42 Listed 11/5/96 regional, national 

Rookery Mound Accretionary 

midden 

Glades II, III 8MO118 Listed 11/5/96 regional, national 

 

Monroe Lake 

Archeological 

District 

 Listed 11/5/96 

Bear Lake Mounds 

Archeological 

District 

 Listed 11/5/96 

Shark River Slough 

Archeological 

District 

 Listed 11/5/96 

Pine Island-Long 

Key Archeological 

District 

 

* NRHP level of significance based on review of sites made during this study. 

Significant Sites of the Tequesta and their Ancestors/Potential NHL Sites 

Seven archeological sites were identified during this study that could be nominated as National Historic Landmark sites 

under the criteria developed for the Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors theme. 

Each site is discussed briefly below: 

Peace Camp (8BD52) 

Peace Camp site is a nationally significant example of an accretionary midden as defined in this study. Peace Camp 

is nationally significant under NHL Criterion 6 and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criterion D for its 

demonstrated and potential archeological significance. The site, once part of an island within the Everglades, is located 

in Broward County and a large portion of the site is preserved in a park within the Weston community (Archaeological 

and Historical Conservancy, Inc. 1988, 1989). Mowers and Williams (1972:1) describe Peace Camp as a low mound, 

about 4 ft (1.2 m) high, with maximum horizontal dimensions of 170 ft (52 m) by 190 ft (58 m). Material culture is 

dominated by ceramics, faunal material, bone and shell tools, with post mold and hearth features present as well. 

Excavations documented six strata, including one extensive layer of concreted midden, sand and marl. Palmer and 

Williams (1977) discuss the phenomenon of concretion in southern Florida sites, explaining that these layers are related 

to changes in water levels and leaching/precipitation of carbonate materials from the midden deposits. Pottery was 

infrequent below the concreted stratum and includes examples of fiber-tempered pottery, indicating an early occupation 

dating to the Late Archaic and Glades I periods. Radiocarbon dates on shell celts from the deeper deposits confirm 

occupation around 3,000 years ago (Mowers and Williams 1972; Williams 1978). Decorated Glades ware ceramics from 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _65_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

the upper part of the site demonstrates occupation during the Glades II and III periods. Peace Camp is significant since 

it preserves a ceramic sequence incorporating the Late Archaic through Glades III periods. It has the potential to 

contribute to understanding the Archaic in southeastern Florida, the development and evolution of the Glades ceramic 

sequence, and the formation processes involved in the genesis of archeological sites in the region. 

Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12) 

The Miami Circle at Brickell Point site is a nationally significant example of an accretionary midden as defined in this 

study. The Miami Circle at Brickell Point is nationally significant under NHL Criterion 6 and National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) Criterion D for its demonstrated and potential archeological significance. Research at the site has 

produced an impressive body of data, which will likely make it one of the most intensively studied sites in southern 

Florida. Some of the studies have been significant in their use of raw material sourcing, and in using advanced 3D laser 

scanning and modeling technology. The Miami Circle at Brickell Point can be considered under “Peopling Places” within 

the National Park Service’s thematic framework for history and prehistory, especially within the “ethnic homelands” subtheme. The site contains early and late components of the primary village of the Tequesta people, who were one of the 

first Native North American groups encountered by Juan Ponce de Leon in 1513 (Davis 1935). Considerable research 

has been conducted at the site since the discovery of intact deposits and features in 1998. The site’s significance lies in 

well-preserved evidence of American Indian architecture, considerable materials related to patterns of regional and longdistance exchange, elements of ceremonialism involving animal interments, and association with the Tequesta people, 

who are significant because of their cultural persistence following European Contact and their association with the 

unique environment of the Everglades. 

The Miami Circle was discovered during archeological salvage excavations at the Brickell Point site (8DA12) in 1998 

(Carr and Ricisak 2000). The Miami Circle is comprised of holes and basins carved into the shallow Miami Oolite 

limestone formation. Stratified accretionary midden deposits occur over and in the holes that make up the Circle. The 

midden is comprised of organically stained soil, dense deposits of faunal bone, and occasional lenses of marine bivalve 

shells. Artifacts found during excavations are typical of the Glades Area, including sand-tempered ceramics and some 

early decorated Glades series sherds, as well as bone and shell implements. Exotic items, like basaltic stone celts, 

galena, pumice, and chipped stone artifacts, also have been recovered. Public outcry over the impending destruction of 

the Miami Circle and development of the property led to additional research at the site, which documented the limestone 

formation with cut holes on about 70% of the property and intact accretionary midden deposits on at least 35% of the 

property. Research suggests that the Miami Circle represents the “footprint” of a prehistoric structure, and further 

analysis of the site and associated cultural materials should help broaden our understanding of American Indian 

architecture, long-distance exchange networks, and patterns of animal interment in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean 

basin. A cooperative effort between the State of Florida, Miami-Dade County, and many other public and private 

organizations and individuals led to the state’s acquisition of the Brickell Point site and Miami Circle feature in 1999 

(Levinson 2000; Miami-Dade County Historic Preservation Division 1999; Stroup and Brown 2000). 

Madden Site (8DA45) 

The Madden site is a nationally significant example of a temple mound and accretionary midden as defined in this 

study. The Madden site, or Madden’s Hammock, is nationally significant under NHL Criterion 6 and National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) Criterion D for its demonstrated and potential archeological significance. Archeologist John 

Goggin (n.d.:159-160) recognized the unusual relict sand dune formation within the Everglades that provides a substrate 

for the Madden site; he notes that “islands like this are not common in the Everglades, but it probably represents a dune 

remnant formed in a low water period of late Wisconsin times of the Pleistocene epoch,” and further compares the island 

to the Pine Island group in Broward County (see discussion of the potential Pine Island-Long Key NRHP Archeological 

District in this study). The most notable and unusual feature of the Madden site is a sand mound constructed on the 

western end of the sandy ridge. Avocational archeologist Dan Laxson (1957:1) describes the mound a truncated 

pyramid, with a platform 50 ft wide and 150 ft long; the sides have a gentle slope of 8 to 10 degrees. Laxson suggests 

that the mound at the Madden site may be a temple mound, similar to those of the Mississippian period sites of the 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _66_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Tampa Bay area. Midden deposits are located near the mound, and excavators have documented accretionary midden 

deposits, with artifacts typical of the Everglades Area, including marine shell tools, Glades ceramics, and faunal 

remains. Glades Tooled and St. Johns Check Stamped sherds date the site to the Glades II and III period, and Spanish 

majolica sherds indicate a European Contact Period component. Laxson (1957:11) notes that the site is more than a 

mere midden, but “literally a Glades III metropolis.” Recoveries of human remains from the accretionary midden suggest 

the presence of a cemetery in the southeastern part of the site (Gifford 1989:10). The Madden site is significant 

because of the rare occurrence of a temple mound in the area occupied by the Tequesta. The extensive deposits, the 

presence of the cemetery, and the occurrence of Spanish artifacts also contribute to the site’s significance. The 

temporal assignment to the Glades IIIc Period is significant because of a direct association with the historic Tequesta 

people. The 5.4 acre hammock is a passive park in the city of Miami Lakes. 

 

Cutler Fossil Site (8DA2001) 

The Cutler Fossil Site is a nationally significant example of a cemetery and an accretionary midden as defined in this 

study. The Cutler Fossil Site is nationally significant under NHL Criterion 6 and National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) Criterion D for its demonstrated and potential archeological significance. The Cutler Fossil Site was discovered 

in 1985 by amateur fossil collectors when they climbed into a 5 by 6 m sinkhole on the Charles Deering Estate in MiamiDade County (the site and the Deering Estate are now owned by the State of Florida) (Carr 1986, 1987). Excavation of 

22 square meters of the site by archeologists and study by paleontologists documented a late Pleistocene 

Rancholabrean fossil deposit, including remains of extinct vertebrates like the dire wolf, cave bear, sabertooth cat, 

horse, mastodont and mammoth (Emslie and Morgan 1995). Interestingly, paleoecological analysis, based on the 

species present, suggest that a hardwood hammock and/or pinelands existed near the sinkhole around 15,000 years 

ago, similar to modern conditions. Carr (1986) describes three areas of human activity at the site, including a deposit of 

burned limestone boulders and faunal bone; a deeper deposit with some human remains in association with extinct 

animal bones; and one area that may contain the intentional burials of several individuals. Emslie and Morgan (1995) 

describe this burial area, noting that human remains, representing three adults and two children were recovered from 

the deposit, about 1 m below the surface. The area of burned limestone and faunal bone produced one radiocarbon 

date of 9,670 +/- 120 years B.P. and stone tools reminiscent of the Early Archaic Dalton complex. Emslie and Morgan 

(1995:81) suggest the human remains found even lower in the deposits, in associated with the remains of extinct 

animals like the dire wolf, may be mixed from upper strata. The Cutler Fossil Site is very significant in its contribution to 

our understanding of early environments in southeastern Florida and remains as the only site with evidence for 

occupation of the area during the Early Archaic. Further analysis of the human remains and the archeological deposits 

from the site may aid in refining the early chronology of southeastern Florida and in understanding the possible 

relationship between humans and extinct animals in the area. 

Deering Estate Midden (8DA6519) 

The Deering Estate Midden is a nationally significant example of an accretionary midden as defined in this study. 

The Deering Estate Midden is nationally significant under NHL Criterion 6 and National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) Criterion D for its demonstrated and potential archeological significance. The site was recorded in 2001 by 

archeologist Richard Haiduven (2001:21) and is likely associated with a number of other mound and midden sites in 

close proximity, including the Cutler Burial Mound (8DA8), the Cutler Midden (8DA7). The Deering Estate Midden 

represents occupation of Brickell Hammock, bordering Biscayne Bay, about 12 miles (19 km) south of the Miami Circle 

at Brickell Point site. Monitoring at the site documented intact deposits of black earth midden, Glades ceramic sherds, 

marine shell and bone artifacts, as well as Spanish artifacts, including green-glazed olive jar sherds, San Luis 

Polychrome majolica sherds, a faceted carnelian bead and two heavy iron spikes. Haiduven (2001:27) suggests the 

Spanish materials (faceted carnelian beads have typically only been found in Florida in Spanish contexts in St. 

Augustine or from the 1733 Spanish plate fleet wrecks of the Florida Keys [Deagan 1987:181-182]) may have been 

acquired by the Tequesta via exchange with the Spanish, from shipwreck salvage, or from the Spanish mission outposts 

in the area. Two radiocarbon dates on charcoal and shell corroborate occupation of the Deering Estate Midden in the 

fifteenth through seventeenth centuries. Haiduven’s preliminary work at the site suggests it is a horizontally and 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _F_ Page _67_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

vertically extensive midden deposit, and may be particularly important in understanding the Tequesta people during the 

period of European Contact. Some of the Spanish artifacts suggest a very late occupation, perhaps between A.D. 1650 

and 1750. This late occupation is extremely rare in southern Florida, though is suggested by the ethnohistoric and 

historic documents, and may be significant in understanding the terminal period of Tequesta culture. The Deering 

Estate Midden is located on the 420 acre Charles Deering Estate Park, which is owned by the State of Florida and is 

managed by the Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Division. 

Mud Lake Canal (8MO32) and Snake Bight Canal (8MO29) 

The Mud Lake Canal (8MO32) and Snake Bight Canal are nationally significant examples of aboriginal canals or 

watercourses as described in Section F8.1 of this study. The Mud Lake and Snake Bight canals are nationally 

significant under NHL Criterion 6 and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criterion D for its demonstrated and 

potential archeological significance. The canal is located on Cape Sable, at the southernmost extremity of mainland 

Florida (Wheeler 1998a). The canal was first recognized by several early twentieth century visitors to the Cape Sable 

area, including eminent physical anthropologist Aleš Hrdlička (1922:47) and botanist John Kunkle Small (1924:82, 

1929:54-55). Archeologist John Goggin (n.d.:185-186) described the canal in 1950, noting that it is 20 to 30-ft wide and 

1 to 2-ft deep. Like other long distance canoe canals in Florida, the Mud Lake Canal was dug by American Indians—

likely the Tequesta or their ancestors—and may have been designed to provide safe passage, easy access to aquatic 

resources, and courses for exchange or tribute (see Luer 1989; Wheeler 1995). The Mud Lake Canal stretches 6.3 km 

(3.9 miles) across Cape Sable, linking Bear Lake and the waters of Whitewater Bay with Florida Bay; the course of the 

canal bends and curves to avoid high and low areas, indicating the canal builders understood conditions of local 

topography and hydrology. A remnant of another prehistoric canal—the Snake Bight Canal (8MO29)—is located 

nearby. Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) radiocarbon dates made on samples collected from cores in both the 

Mud Lake and Snake Bight Canals indicate that both features had begun to fill with detritus and had likely fallen into 

disuse by the Glades IIIa Period (A.D. 1200-1400) (Ferik 2003:59-60). The placement of canals on the landscape 

provides clues about the significance of natural and artificial watercourses in the world view of southern Florida Indians. 

The Mud Lake Canal appears to be associated with the Bear Lake Mound group (8MO33, 8MO34, and 8MO35), and 

may have allowed the site inhabitants to control travel through the Cape Sable area. Also, the association of canal 

features with archeological sites may be related to broader patterns of site layout and planning. 

 Research into the placement and size of the Mud Lake Canal reveals that, like other long-distance canoe canals, this 

feature was a major undertaking in terms of planning and construction (and possibly maintenance). The Mud Lake 

Canal was not a simple ditch connecting two sea level bodies of water. Like the other Florida canoe canals, the Mud 

Lake Canal traversed several different environments and crosses areas of differing elevation. The Mud Lake Canal also 

is the longest of the Florida canoe canals at 6.3 km (3.9 mi). This suggests that the canoe canal builders possessed a 

detailed knowledge of the local hydrological and topographical conditions and were able to create an engineering 

feature that dealt effectively with changes in elevation, differences in soil conditions, details of local hydrology, and other

important changes in environment. This accomplishment is equivalent to irrigation canals built by prehistoric cultures in 

the American Southwest, raised causeways connecting some Maya sites in Mesoamerica, or irrigation canals built by 

some coastal South American cultures. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _G_ Page _68_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

G. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA 

The geographic extent for the Tequesta and their ancestors National Historic Landmark nomination is derived from 

the distribution of sites with attributes discussed above, as well as major physiographic and environmental zones. 

Therefore, this area encompasses Broward and Miami-Dade counties, as well as portions of Monroe, Palm Beach and 

Hendry counties. This includes the lower Everglades marsh and portions of the adjacent Atlantic Coastal Ridge. The 

Florida Keys (part of Monroe County), northern Everglades (primarily in Palm Beach County), Immokalee Rise (in 

Hendry County), and Big Cypress Swamp (in Collier and Hendry counties) are outside the territorial limits considered 

here. This geographic boundary is consistent with previous considerations of the “Everglades Area,” which is typically 

linked with the contact-period Tequesta (see Carr and Beriault 1984:5-6, 12; Griffin et al. 1979:24-25, 30-37; Griffin 

2002:123-134). [Griffin et al. 1979:24-25 note that tree islands of the northern Everglades formed in a different manner 

than those of the southern Everglades and appear to be “younger,” perhaps explaining the different settlement pattern 

for the two areas]. Notable exceptions include the exclusion of the Ten Thousand Islands and the Florida Keys, which 

seem, based on ceramic types, site type frequencies, and ethnohistoric accounts, to have been occupied by distinct 

groups. Consensus is difficult to find on both areas—Carr and Beriault (1984:4-5) argue convincingly for a distinct Ten 

Thousand Islands Area, Griffin (2002:123-135) seems to subsume all three areas into an Everglades Area, while Hann 

(2003:140) recognizes distinct tribal groups in both the Ten Thousand Islands and Florida Keys. The boundaries of the 

Tequesta and their ancestors NHL are the best approximation of the cultural and natural features that coincide with this 

American Indian group. The area is not the broadest interpretation possible of the geographical limits of the Tequesta 

people, but rather the “best fit” regarding all cultural traits and associated environmental features. The boundary, as 

shown on maps accompanying this study, is a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) shapefile (tequestanhlboun.shp) 

that is stored electronically at the Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida Division of Historical Resources. The 

shapefile can be overlain on any map at any scale, including United States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangle maps (see Figure 23). The shapefile can be used in geographic analysis of southern Florida sites, in 

planning and land management, and in preparation of NHL and NRHP nominations. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _H_ Page _69_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

H. SUMMARY OF IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION METHODS 

The Tequesta and their ancestors National Historic Landmark cover document was prepared based on an extensive 

list of previous investigations, excavations and analyses. John Griffin’s synthesis of the archeology of Everglades 

National Park, first published in a limited distribution report format in 1988 and more recently as a book (2002) served as 

a benchmark in this study. Griffin (1988, 2002) provides an overview of early observation and investigations in southern 

Florida, and also provides a synthesis and updating of archeologist John Goggin’s unpublished manuscript on the 

“Glades Area.” Griffin’s work also incorporates data gleaned from other investigations of the 1940s-1980s, including 

avocational archeologist Dan Laxson’s numerous reports on archeological sites of Dade and Broward counties 

published in The Florida Anthropologist; excavations conducted by members of local archeological societies, like the 

Broward County Archaeological Society and the Miami-West India Archaeological Society; surveys of Everglades 

National Park conducted by the National Park Service; Griffin’s own studies of Everglades sites; and some of the initial 

cultural resource management surveys conducted in the area in the 1980s. 

John Griffin’s work with the data recovered from the Granada site (8DA11), located on the north bank of the Miami 

River, not far from where the river meets Biscayne Bay has been extremely important in preparation of this document as 

well. Documentary and archeological evidence suggests this was the site of “Tequesta,” one of the main villages 

occupied in the sixteenth century when Europeans first ventured to Florida. Two volumes dealing with the site were 

produced in the early 1980s after the excavation and analysis was complete. The analyses include discussion of 

ceramics, bone artifacts (Richardson and Pohl 1982), zooarcheology (Wing and Loucks 1982), plant remains (Fish 

1982; Scarry 1982), as well as historian Arva Moore Parks’s (1982) synthetic discussion of the contact-period Tequesta. 

 The 1980s through 1990s saw considerable addition to our knowledge of the Tequesta and their ancestors as 

archeological sites were identified, evaluated, and excavated under mandates from local, state, and federal laws. This 

phenomenon created a large “gray” literature of unpublished reports, many of which are available in the manuscript 

collection of the Florida Master Site File. Important studies include archeologist Robert Carr’s (1981) survey of MiamiDade County, as well as a number of surveys of Broward County conducted by the Archaeological and Historical 

Conservancy (Carr et al. 1991; Carr et al. 1993). One of the most important studies conducted during this time was the 

excavation and analyses of the Honey Hill site (8DA411), which exhibited a subsistence economy based on the aquatic 

resources of the Everglades, rather than the ocean (Carr 1990). As a complement to the studies available for the 

Granada site, the zooarcheological (Masson and Hale 1990) and paleobotanical (Masson and Scarry 1990) studies of 

Honey Hill are significant in establishing the distinct plant and animal use patterns of the Tequesta and their ancestors. 

 Other significant surveys and studies of the 1980s through present include the identification of Archaic occupation in 

southeastern Florida, including analysis of human burials (Carr et al. 1984; İşcan et al. 1993, 1995), and identification of 

occupation sites producing artifacts and dates from the Middle through Late Archaic (Carr 2002; Masson et al. 1988). 

Pepe and Jester (1995) designate this aceramic Archaic culture as the “Glades Archaic.” 

 Analyses related to the excavation of the Miami Circle site also have been extremely important in completing this 

study. Representing another large excavation project, the site has included analyses of chipped stone (Austin 2002); 

basaltic celts (Dixon et al.); zooarcheological material (Quitmyer and Kennedy 2002); bone and shell artifacts (Wheeler 

2002a, 2002c); and geochemical sourcing and analysis of pumice artifacts (Kish 2002; Wheeler 2002b). Since the site 

primarily dates to the Glades I Period (500 B.C.-A.D. 750), it provides an important contrast to the nearby, later Granada 

site (with components primarily of the Glades II-III periods, ca. A.D. 750-1763). 

 Ethnohistoric documents relating to the Tequesta have been presented and synthesized in a number of important 

studies. Zubillaga (1946) presents a number of important transcriptions of primary documents related to the initial 

sixteenth century mission attempt to the Tequesta, while Hann (1991) and Childers (2003) provide translations of 

documents dealing with the 1743 mission attempt, which was located within the territory historically occupied by the 

Tequesta. Parks (1982) and Hann (2003) provide overviews of the contact-era Tequesta, and both studies were 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _H_ Page _70_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

important in developing the discussion of the contact period included here. The pioneering analysis of the Calusa and 

their neighbors presented by Goggin and Sturtevant (1964) also was important in discussing the relationship between 

the Tequesta and their neighbors. 

 Important collections of archeological materials relating to the Tequesta and their ancestors can be found at the 

Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee (including the Granada site collection); the Historical Museum of 

Southern Florida, Miami (includes the largest collection of materials from sites in Miami-Dade and Broward counties); 

the Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee (includes collections from surveys and 

excavations in Everglades National Park); the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville (includes collections of 

documents and artifacts by John Goggin, as well as some materials collected by Dan Laxson); the Graves Museum of 

Archaeology and Natural History, Dania Beach (houses many of the collections made by the Broward County 

Archaeological Society, including materials from Margate-Blount); and Florida Atlantic University (most collections relate 

to Palm Beach County sites, though some materials from Broward County sites can be found here as well). Most of 

these collections have been utilized in preparation of this document. 

 The cultural contexts developed for Florida’s Draft Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan (see Milanich and 

Payne 1993) also were used in determining some of the research questions for this theme study. Christopher Eck, 

Broward County Historic Preservation Officer and Gary Beiter, Archeologist for the Miami-Dade County Office of Historic 

Preservation provided information on significant sites within Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Robert S. Carr, Director 

of the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. also provided a list of significant sites. The form was prepared by 

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. in conjunction with the Florida State Historic Preservation Office. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _71_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

I: MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES 

Abbott, R. Tucker 

 1974 American Seashells. 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 

Adair, James 

 1775 The History of the American Indians. Edward and Charles Dilly, London. 

Alexon, Roger C. 

 1988 Gingery Cache Site (8Ta99): A Cache of Possible Paleolithic Tools found with Mastodon Bones. The Florida 

Anthropologist 41(4):483-485. 

Anderson, David G. 

 1996 Chiefly Cycling and Large-Scale Abandonments as Viewed from the Savannah River Basin. In Political 

Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F. Scarry, pp. 150-191. 

University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Andrews, Charles M. 

 1943 The Florida Indians in the Seventeenth Century. Tequesta No. 3:36-48. 

Andrews, Evangeline Walker, and Charles M. Andrews (editors) 

 1945 Jonathan Dickinson=s Journal. Yale University Press, New Haven. 

Anonymous 

 1995 Possible Seminole Wood Mortar Found Near Shopping Mall. Florida Antiquity, The Newsletter of the 

Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. 19:1. 

Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. 

 1988 Weston Archaeological Park Opened. The Florida Archaeological Newsletter. 3(1):1. 

 

 1989 Weston. The Florida Archaeological Newsletter. 4(1):2. 

Athens, William P. 

 1983 The Spatial Distribution of Glades Period Sites within the Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. 

Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. 

Austin, Robert J. 

 2002 Analysis of Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Brickell Point Midden, 8DA12. On file, Archaeological and 

Historical Conservancy, Inc., Davie. 

 2004 Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Miami Circle Excavations at Brickell Point. The Florida Anthropologist 57(1-

2):85-131. 

Barrientos, Bartolome 

 1965 Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, Founder of Florida, translated by Anthony Kerrigan. University of Florida Press, 

Gainesville. 

Beiter, Gary N. 

 2001 Salvage and Excavation of Bamboo Mound (8DA94), Dade County, Florida: A Multi-Component Site. The 

Florida Anthropologist 54(1):30-48. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _72_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

 2003 Excavations at Refugee Island (8DA2102), Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist

56(4):277-292. 

Bennett, Charles E. (translator) 

 1975 Three Voyages, Rene Laudonniere. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 

Bense, Judith, and Barbara E. Mattick 

 1994 Archeological Resources in the Upper St. Johns River Valley, Florida. National Register of Historic Places 

Multiple Property Submission. On file, Florida Master Site File, Florida Division of Historical Resources, 

Tallahassee. 

Beriault, John G. 

 1986 Observations Concerning Shell Mounds and a System for Classifying Shell Material. In Shells and 

Archaeology in Southern Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 160-163. Florida Anthropological Society 

Publication No. 12. Florida Anthropological Society, Tallahassee. 

Billie, Bobby C. 

 2000 The Miami Circle and Beyond. St. Thomas Law Review 13(1):113-115. 

Brain, Jeffrey P., and Philip Phillips 

 1996 Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Southeast. Peabody Museum Press, 

Cambridge. 

Brooks, H. Kelly 

 1974 Lake Okeechobee. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past, edited by Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 

256-286. Memoir 2. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables. 

Browning, William 

 1975 Archaeological Investigation at the Rocky Point 2 Site: 8Mt33. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 21. 

Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Florida 

Department of State, Tallahassee. 

Bullen, Ripley P. 

 1952 Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County, Florida. Report of Investigations 8. Florida Geological 

Survey, Tallahassee. 

 1959 The Transitional period in Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 6:43-53. 

 1971 The Transitional Period of Southern Southeastern United States as viewed from Florida, or the Roots of the 

Gulf Tradition. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 13:63-70. 

Busch, C.D., L. Mark Raab, and R.C. Busch 

1976 Q=A V: Prehistoric Water Canals in Southern Arizona. American Antiquity 41(4):531-534. 

Carr, Robert S. 

 1981 Dade County Historic Survey, Final Report: The Archaeological Survey. Metropolitan Dade County Office of 

Community and Economic Development, Miami. 

 1985 Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 38:288-301. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _73_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

 1986 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Fossil Site in Southern Florida. Paper presented at the 38th

annual meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Gainesville. 

 2002 The Archaeology of Everglades Tree Islands. In Tree Islands of the Everglades, edited by Fred H. Sklar and 

Arnold Van der Valk, pp. 187-206. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. 

Carr, Robert S. (editor) 

 1990 Archaeological and Historical Investigations at Honey Hill, Dade County, Florida. Technical Report No. 25. 

Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. 

Carr, Robert S., and John G. Beriault 

 1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past, revised ed., edited 

by Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 1-14. Miami Geological Society Memoir No. 2, Coral Gables. 

Carr, Robert S., Joe Davis, and Willard S. Steele 

 1994 A Phase II Archaeological Survey of Pembroke Meadows, Broward County, Florida. Technical Report No. 

95. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. 

Carr, Robert S., Amy Felmley, Richard Ferrer, Willard S. Steele, and Jorge Zamanillo 

 1991 An Archaeological Survey of Broward County: Phase I. Technical Report No. 34. Archaeological and 

Historical Conservancy, Miami. 

Carr, Robert S., Kim Heinz, Don Mattucci, and Willard S. Steele 

 1993 An Archaeological Survey of Northeast Broward County: Phase II. Technical Report No. 67. Archaeological 

and Historical Conservancy, Miami. 

Carr, Robert S., M. Yaşar İşcan, and Richard A. Johnson 

 1984 A Late Archaic Cemetery in South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 37(4):172-188. 

Carr, Robert S., and Marilyn A. Masson 

 1989 Archaeological Survey of the Silver Lakes Project, Broward County. Technical Report No. 12. Archaeological 

and Historical Conservancy, Miami. 

Carr, Robert S., and John F. Reiger 

 1980 Strombus Celt Caches in Southeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 33:66-74. 

Carr, Robert S., and John Ricisak 

 2000 Preliminary Report on Salvage Archaeological Investigations of the Brickell Point Site (8DA12), Including the 

Miami Circle. The Florida Anthropologist 53(4):260-284. 

Carr, Robert S., W.S. Steele, and Peter Stone 

 1993 A Phase II Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Weston Pond Site, 8BD2132, Broward County, 

Florida. Technical Report No. 72. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. 

Carr, Robert S., Patsy West, and Willard Steele 

1986 Archaeological and Historic Survey of Pine Island, Broward County, Florida. Report prepared for Sea Ranch 

Properties, Inc., on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. 

Carr, Robert S., Jorge Zamanillo, and Willard S. Steele 

 1995 An Archaeological Survey of Southeast Broward County, Florida: Phase 3. Technical Report No. 117. 

Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _74_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Childers, R. Wayne 

 2003 Historical Notes and Documents: Life in Miami and the Keys: Two Reports and a Map from the MonacoAlaña Mission, 1743. The Florida Historical Quarterly 82(1):59-82. 

Charlevoix, Pierre Francois Xaxier de 

 1761 Journal of a Voyage to North America undertaken by Order of the French King. R. and J. Dodsley, London. 

Clay, R. Berle 

 1998 The Essential Features of Adena Ritual and Their Implications. Southeastern Archaeology 17(1):1-21. 

Cockrell, Wilburn A. 

 1970 Glades I and Pre-Glades Settlement and Subsistence Patterns on Marco Island. Unpublished Master’s 

thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. 

Coe, Michael D. 

 1987 The Maya. 4th ed. Thames and Hudson, New York. 

Connor, Jeannette Thurber 

 1923 Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, Memorial by Gonzalo Solís de Merás. Florida State Historical Society, Deland. 

 1925 Colonial Records of Spanish Florida. Vol. 1. Florida State Historical Society, Deland. 

Covington, James W. 

 1967 Some Observations Concerning the Florida-Carolina Indian Slave Trade. The Florida Anthropologist 20(1-

2):10-18. 

Cumming, William P. 

1958 The Southeast in Early Maps. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 

Cypress, Billy L., Ted Underwood, and Eula Doonkeen 

 2002 Native American Views on Significance. In Thinking About Significance: Papers and Proceedings, Florida 

Archaeological Council, Inc. Professional Development Workshop, St. Augustine, Florida, edited by Robert J. 

Austin, Kathleen S. Hoffman, and George R. Ballo, pp. 113-119. Special Publication Series No. 1, Florida 

Archaeological Council, Inc., Riverview. 

Davis, T. Frederick 

1935 Juan Ponce de León’s Voyages to Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly 14:3-70. 

Dayhoff, Fred E., and W. Stephen Terry 

 2002 Miccosukee Tribal Beliefs Concerning Archaeological Significance. In Thinking About Significance: Papers 

and Proceedings, Florida Archaeological Council, Inc. Professional Development Workshop, St. Augustine, 

Florida, edited by Robert J. Austin, Kathleen S. Hoffman, and George R. Ballo, pp. 105-112. Special 

Publication Series No. 1, Florida Archaeological Council, Inc., Riverview. 

Deagan, Kathleen 

 1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800. Volume 1: Ceramics, Glassware, 

and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Densmore, Frances 

 1956 Seminole Music. Bulletin 161. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _75_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Dixon, Jacqueline Eaby, Kyla Simons, Loretta Leist, Christopher Eck, John Ricisak, John Gifford, and Jeff Ryan 

 2000 Provenance of Stone Celts from the Miami Circle Archaeological Site. The Florida Anthropologist 53(4):328-

341. 

Dye, David H., and Camille Wharey 

 1989 Exhibition Catalog. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by Patricia 

Galloway, pp. 321-378. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Eck, Christopher 

 2000 A Picturesque Settlement: The Diary Notes of Dr. Jeffries Wyman=s Visit to Miami and the First 

Archaeological Excavations in South Florida, 1869. The Florida Anthropologist 53(4):286-293. 

Elgart-Berry, Alison 

 2003 Hypoplastic Insults in Prehistoric Teeth from Eight South Florida Sites. The Florida Anthropologist 56(4):253-

266. 

Emslie, Steven D., and Gary S. Morgan 

 1995 Taphonomy of a Late Pleistocene Carnivore Den, Dade County, Florida. In Late Quaternary Environments 

and Deep History: A Tribute to Paul S. Martin, edited by David W. Steadman and Jim I. Mead, pp. 65-83. 

Scientific Papers Vol. 3. The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, Hot Springs, South Dakota. 

Espenshade, Christopher T. 

 1983 Ceramic Ecology and Aboriginal Household Pottery Production at the Gauthier Site, Florida. Unpublished 

Master=s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Felmley, Amy 

 1991 Prehistoric Mortuary Practices in the Everglades Cultural Area, Florida. Unpublished Master’s thesis, 

Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

Ferik, Catherine A. 

 2003 The Canals at Cape Sable: A Remote Sensing Perspective. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of 

Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

Fish, Suzanne K. 

 1982 Palynology of the Granada Site. In Excavations at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History of the Granada 

Site, Vol. 1, by John W. Griffin, pp. 249-258. Prepared for the City of Miami by the Division of Archives, 

History and Records Management, Tallahassee. 

Fradkin, Arlene 

 1996 Animal Resource Use Among Early Human Inhabitants of the “River of Grass:” The Faunal Assemblages 

from the Everglades Archaeological Sites of MacArthur #2 (8BD2591) and Sheridan Hammock (8BD191). 

Furey, John F., Jr. 

 1972 The Spanish River Complex: Archaeological Settlement Patterning in Eastern Okeechobee Sub-Area, 

Florida. Unpublished Master=s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

Gifford, John 

 1989 Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Madden’s Hammock (8Da45). Prepared for Lowell Dunn 

Company, on file Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _76_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Gilliland, Marion S. 

 1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 

Goggin, John M. 

 1939 A Ceramic Sequence in South Florida. New Mexico Anthropologist 3:35-40. 

 1940a The Distribution of Pottery Wares in the Glades Archaeological Area of Southern Florida. New Mexico 

Anthropologist 4:22-33. 

 1940b The Tekesta Indians of Southern Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly 18(4):274-284. 

 1941 Some Problems of the Glades Archaeological Area, Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference 

Newsletter 2(4):24-26. 

 1942 Prehistoric Wooden Club from Southern Florida. American Anthropologist 44:327-328. 

 1944a Archaeological Investigations on the Upper Florida Keys. Tequesta No. 4:13-35. 

 1944b A Tentative Formulation of Pottery Types for the Glades Area, Florida. Unpublished manuscript on file, 

Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 

 1947 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13(2):114-127. 

 1948 A Revised Temporal Chart of Florida Archaeology. The Florida Anthropologist 1(3-4):57-60. 

 1949 Cultural Traditions in Florida Prehistory. In The Florida Indian and His Neighbors, edited by John W. Griffin, 

pp. 13-44. Inter-American Center, Rollins College, Winter Park. 

 1950a The Indians and History of the Matecumbe Region. Tequesta No. 10:13-24. 

 1950b Stratigraphic Tests in the Everglades National Park. American Antiquity 15(3):228-246. 

 1951 The Snapper Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist 3(3-4):50-64. 

 1952a Archaeological Sites in the Everglades National Park, Florida. Laboratory Notes 2. Anthropology Laboratory, 

University of Florida, Gainesville. 

 1952b Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology, Florida. Publications in Anthropology 47. 

Yale University Press, New Haven. 

 n.d. Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. Typescript on file, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, 

University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Goggin, John M., and Frank H. Sommer III 

 1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Publications in Anthropology 41. Yale University Press, New 

Haven. 

Goggin, John M., and William C. Sturtevant 

 1964 The Calusa, A Stratified, Non-Agricultural Society (with Notes on Sibling Marriage). In Explorations in 

Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdock, edited by Ward H. Goodenough, pp. 179-

219. McGraw-Hill, New York. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _77_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Goodman, William L. 

 1964 The History of Woodworking Tools. David McKay Company, New York. 

Graves, Ottilie Cosden 

 1982 The Rolling Oaks II Site (8BD73): A Tequesta Sub-Area Habitation Site. Unpublished Master’s thesis, 

Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

Griffin, John W. 

 1982 Shell Artifacts from the Granada Site. In Excavations at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History of the 

Granada Site, Vol. 1, by John W. Griffin, pp. 71-81. Prepared for the City of Miami by the Division of 

Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee. 

 1988 The Archeology of Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. National Park Service, Southeast Archeology 

Center, Tallahassee. 

 2002 Archaeology of the Everglades, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and James J. Miller. University Press of Florida, 

Gainesville. 

Griffin, John W., James J. Miller, and Mildred L. Fryman 

 1979 A Survey of the Archeology and History of Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Performed by 

Cultural Resource Management, Inc., Tallahassee for Interagency Archeological Services, Atlanta and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serivce. 

Grumet, Robert S. 

 1988 Archeology in the National Historic Landmarks Program. Technical Brief No. 3. National Park Service 

Archeology and Ethnography Program, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

Haiduven, Richard G. 

 2001 Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation at the Charles Deering Estate Park for Beauchamp Construction, 

Inc, Part II. Ms. No. 6617 on file, Florida Master Site File, Florida Division of Historical Resources, 

Tallahassee. 

Hale, H. Stephen 

 1984 Prehistoric Environmental Exploitation around Lake Okeechobee. Southeastern Archaeology 3(2):173-187. 

 1989 Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies and Settlement Patterns in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of the South 

Florida Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Handley, Brent M. 

 2001 The Blue Goose Midden (8IR15): A Malabar II Occupation on the Indian River Lagoon. The Florida 

Anthropologist 54(3-4):103-121. 

Hann, John H. 

 1988 Apalachee: The Land between the Rivers. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 

 1991 Missions to the Calusa. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 

 1992 Political Leadership among the Natives of Spanish Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly 71(2):188-208. 

 2001 An Early Florida Adventure Story by Fray Andrés de San Miguel. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _78_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

 2003 Indians of Central and South Florida, 1513-1763. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Harrington, M. R. 

 1909 Archeology of the Everglades Region, Florida. American Anthropologist n.s. 11(1):139-142. 

Hrdlička, Aleš 

 1922 The Anthropology of Florida. Publication No. 1. Florida State Historical Society, Deland. 

Hudson, Charles 

 1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 

İşcan, M. Yasar 

 1983 Skeletal Biology of the Margate-Blount Population. The Florida Anthropologist 36(3-4):154-166. 

İşcan, M. Yasar, Morton H. Kessel, and Robert S. Carr 

 1993 Human Remains from the Archaic Brickell Bluff Site. The Florida Anthropologist 46(4):277-281. 

 1995 Human Skeletal Analysis of the Prehistoric Flagami South Site. The Florida Anthropologist 48(1):54-60. 

Ives, Lt. J.C. 

 1856 Memoir to Accompany a Military Map of the Peninsula of Florida. M.B. Wynkoop, New York. 

Jaffee, Howard 

 1976 Preliminary Report on a Midden Mound and Burial Mound of the Boynton Mound Complex. The Florida 

Anthropologist 29(4):145-152. 

Johnson, Robert E., B. Alan Basinet, and Robert J. Richter 

 1995 Phase III Excavation of the MacArthur #2 Site (8BD2591), Broward County, Florida. Florida Archaeological 

Services, Inc., Jacksonville. 

Johnson, William G. 

 1996 A Belle Glade Earthwork Typology and Chronology. The Florida Anthropologist 49(4):249-260. 

Keegan, William F. 

 1982 A Biological Introduction to the Prehistoric Procurement of the Strombus gigas. The Florida Anthropologist

35(2):76-88. 

Keel, Frank J. 

 1990 A Comparison of Subsistence Strategies in Coastal and Inland Sites. Unpublished Master’s thesis, 

Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. 

Kennedy, W. Jerald, and M. Yasar İşcan 

 1987 Archaeological Investigation of the Nebot Site (8PB219), Palm Beach, Florida. Florida Scientist 50(3):136-

146. 

Kerrigan, Anthony 

 1951 (1723) Chronological History of the Continent of Florida by Andres Gonzales de Barcia Carballido y Zuniga. 

University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _79_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Kessel, Morton H. 

 2001 A Bibliography of Human Burial Sites Curated at Florida Atlantic University. The Florida Anthropologist

54(1):24-29. 

Kish, Stephen A. 

 2004 Geochemical and Petrologic Characterization of Pumice Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point 

(8DA12)—Relationship to other Pumice Artifacts in Florida and Potential Provenance Locations. Prepared for 

the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. and the Historical Museum of Southern Florida, Miami. 

Kozuch, Laura 

 1993 Sharks and Shark Products in Prehistoric South Florida. Monograph No. 2. Institute of Archaeology and 

Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Larson, Lewis H. 

 1980 Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeastern Coastal Plain during the Late Prehistoric Period. 

University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 

Lawson, Edward W. 

 1946 The Discovery of Florida and Its Discoverer Juan Ponce de León. Privately printed, St. Augustine. 

Laxson, Dan D. 

 1957 The Madden Site. The Florida Anthropologist 10(1-2):1-16. 

 1961 Two Worked Shell Objects from a Uleta River Shell Midden. The Florida Anthropologist 14(3-4):65-68. 

 1962 Excavations in Dade and Broward Counties, 1959-1961. The Florida Anthropologist 15(1):1-10. 

 1964 Strombus Lip Shell Tools of the Tequesta Sub-Area. The Florida Anthropologist 17(4):215-220. 

Le Baron, J. Francis 

 1884 Prehistoric Remains in Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1882, pp. 771-790. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Levinson, Pamela 

 2000 Will the Circle be Unbroken? The Miami Circle Discovery and Its Significance for Urban Evolution and 

Protection of Indigenous Culture. St. Thomas Law Review 13(1):283-340. 

Lewis, Clifford M. 

 1978 The Calusa. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia During the Historic 

Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 19-49. University Presses of Florida, 

Gainesville. 

Lorant, Stefan 

 1965 The New World: The First Pictures of America. Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York. 

Lowery, Woodbury 

 1911 The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the United States, Florida 1562-1574. G.P. Putnam=s 

Sons, New York. 

 1912 A Descriptive List of Maps of the Spanish Possessions within the Present Limits of the United States, 1502-

1820. Edited and annotated by Philip Lee Phillips. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _80_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Luer, George M. 

 1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of Tribute and Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist

42(3):89-130. 

 1994 A Third Ceremonial Tablet from the Goodnow Mound, Highlands County, Florida; with notes on some 

peninsular tribes and other tablets. The Florida Anthropologist 47(2):180-188. 

 1995 Pipe Fragments from Ortona, South Florida: Comments on Platform Pipe Styles, Functions, and Middle 

Woodland Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist 48(4):301-308. 

Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy 

 1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida Anthropologist 34(3):127-155. 

Luer, George M., and Ryan J. Wheeler 

 1997 How the Pine Island Canal Worked: Topography, Hydraulics, and Engineering. The Florida Anthropologist

50(3):115-131. 

Lyon, Eugene 

 1967 More Light on the Indians of the Ays Coast. Typescript on file, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, 

University of Florida, Gainesville. 

 1976 The Enterprise of Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 

Mackay, George 

 1845 U.S. Fieldnotes: Florida. Volume 84, pp. 55-60. Township 54 South, Range 41 East. Florida State Archives, 

Tallahassee. 

Marquardt, William H. 

 1986 The Development of Cultural Complexity in Southwest Florida: Elements of a Critique. Southeastern 

Archaeology 5(1):63-70. 

 1987 The Calusa Social Formation in Protohistoric South Florida. In Power Relations and State Formation, edited 

by Thomas C. Patterson and Christine W. Gailey, pp. 98-116. American Anthropological Association, 

Washington, D.C. 

 1988 Politics and Production among the Calusa of south Florida. In Hunters and Gatherers 1: History, Evolution 

and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn, pp. 161-188. Berg, Oxford. 

 1992b Shell Artifacts from the Caloosahatchee Area. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, 

edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 191-227. Monograph No. 1. Institute of Archaeology and 

Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Masson, Marilyn A. 

 1988 Shell Celt Morphology and Reduction: An Analogy to Lithic Research. The Florida Anthropologist 41(3):313-

335. 

Masson, Marilyn A., Robert S. Carr, and Debra S. Goldman 

 1988 The Taylor’s Head Site (8BD74): Sampling a Prehistoric Midden on an Everglades Tree Island. The Florida 

Anthropologist 41(3):336-350. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _81_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Masson, Marilyn A., and H. Steven Hale 

 1990 Faunal Remains from the Honey Hill Site (8DA411): Reconstructing a Prehistoric Wetland Foraging 

Economy in the Everglades. In Archaeological and Historical Investigations at Honey Hill, Dade County, 

Florida, edited by Robert S. Carr. Technical Report No. 25. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, 

Miami. 

Masson, Marilyn A., and C. Margaret Scarry 

 1990 Carbonized Seeds and Corn Cobs from the Honey Hill Site (8DA411): A Diachronic Glimpse of Plant Use in 

Everglades Subsistence. In Archaeological and Historical Investigations at Honey Hill, Dade County, Florida, 

edited by Robert S. Carr. Technical Report No. 25. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. 

McCally, David 

 1999 The Everglades: An Environmental History. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

McGoun, William E. 

 1981 Medals of Conquest in Calusa Florida. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida 

Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

McGregor, A. James 

 1974 A Ceramic Chronology for the Biscayne Bay Region of Southeast Florida. Unpublished Master’s thesis, 

Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

McKinley, Daniel 

 1977 Archaeozoology of the Carolina Parakeet. Central States Archaeological Journal 24(1):5-26. 

McNicoll, Robert E. 

 1941 The Caloosa Village Tequesta: A Miami of the Sixteenth Century. Tequesta 1:11-20. 

Miami-Dade County Historic Preservation Division 

 1999 Miami Circle C.A.R.L. Application. On file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida Division of Historical 

Resources, Tallahassee. 

Milanich, Jerald T. 

 1973 The Southeastern Deptford Culture: A Preliminary Definition. In Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, 

Bulletin No. 3, pp. 51-63. Florida Department of State, Tallahassee. 

Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 

 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 

Milanich, Jerald T., and Claudine Payne 

 1993 Archaeological and Historic Contexts. Draft prepared for the Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation 

Plan for Florida. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 

Miller, James J. 

 1998 An Environmental History of Northeast Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Mitchell, Scott 

 1998 Culturally Modified Bone and Other Skeletal Elements. In The Narvaez/Anderson Site (8PI54): A Safety 

Harbor Culture Shell Mound and Midden—AD 1000-1600, edited by Terrance L. Simpson, pp. 202-251. 

Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, Tampa. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _82_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 

 1996 The Old Okahumpka Site (8LA57): Late Prehistoric Iconography and Mississippian Influences in Peninsular 

Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 49(4):225-237. 

Moore, Alexander 

 1988 Nairne=s Muskhogean Journals: The 1708 Expedition to the Mississippi River. University Press of Mississippi, 

Jackson. 

Moore, Clarence B. 

 1903 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Central Florida West-Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia 12:361-438. 

 1907a Crystal River Revisited. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 13:406-425. 

Moseley, Michael E. 

 1983 Central Andean Civilization. In Ancient South Americans, edited by Jesse D. Jennings, pp. 179-239. W.H. 

Freeman and Company, New York. 

Mowers, Bert 

 1972 Concretions Associated with Glades Prehistoric Sites. The Florida Anthropologist 25(3):129-131. 

Mowers, Bert, and Wilma B. Williams 

 1972 The Peace Camp Site, Broward County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25(1):1-20. 

Muller, Jon D. 

 1966 An Experimental Theory of Stylistic Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard 

University, Cambridge. 

Murdoch, Richard K. 

1952 Documents Concerning a Voyage to the Miami Region in 1793. The Florida Historical Quarterly 31(1):16-32. 

National Park Service (NPS) 

1999 National Register Bulletin, How to Prepare National Historic Landmark Nominations. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service. National Register, History and Education – National Historic Landamarks 

Survey. 

Neill, Wilfred T. 

 1955 The Identity of Florida’s “Spanish Indians.” The Florida Anthropologist 8(2):43-57. 

New World Research, Inc. 

 1988 Condition Assessment of the Cibi Site (8Da1068) Dade County, Florida. Prepared for Florida Power & Light 

Company, Miami by New World Research, Inc., Pollock, Louisiana. 

Newman, Christine L. 

 1993 The Cheetum Site: An Archaic Burial Site in Dade County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46(1):37-42. 

Palmer, Jay, and J. Raymond Williams 

 1977 The Formation of Geothite and Calcareous Lenses in Shell Middens in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist

30(1):24-27. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _83_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King 

 1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. Rev. edition. National Register of 

Historic Places Bulletin No. 38. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

Parks, Arva Moore 

 1982 Where the River Found the Bay: Historical Study of the Granada Site, Miami, Florida: Archaeology and 

History of the Granada Site II. Prepared for the City of Miami by the Division of Archives, History and 

Records Management, Tallahassee. 

Patton, Robert B. 

 1994 The Temporal Contexts of Prehistoric Shell Artifacts from Southwest Florida: A Case Study of the Pineland 

Site Complex. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Pepe, James P. 

 1993 Ceramic Analysis of the AEast Okeechobee@ Archaeological Area. Paper presented at the Fiftieth Annual 

Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

 1999 Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34): A Test Case in the Use of Ceramic Frequencies and Discriminant Analysis in 

Determining Cultural Affinity. Unpublished Master=s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic 

University, Boca Raton. 

Pepe, James P., and Linda Jester 

 1995 An Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Mt. Elizabeth Site 9MT30, Martin County, Florida. 

Technical Report No. 126. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. 

Purdy, Barbara A. 

 1973 The Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Bone Points in the State of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 

26(4):143-152. 

 1977 Weapons, Strategies, and Tactics of the Europeans and the Indians in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century 

Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly 55(3):259-276. 

 1991 The Art and Archaeology of Florida=s Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 

Quitmyer, Irvy R., and Erin E. Kennedy 

 2002 The Zooarchaeology of the Miami Circle, Brickell Point (8DA12), Florida. Environmental Laboratory, 

Department of Natural History, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 

Reiger, John F. 

 1979 The Making of Aboriginal Shell Tools: Clues from South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 32(4):130-138. 

 1981 An Analysis of Four Types of Shell Artifacts from South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34(1):4-20. 

 1990 “Plummets”—An Analysis of a Mysterious Florida Artifact. The Florida Anthropologist 43(4):227-239. 

 1999 Artistry, Status, and Power: How “Plummet”-Pendants Probably Functioned in Pre-Columbian Florida—and 

Beyond. The Florida Anthropologist 52(4):227-240. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _84_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Richardson, Sue B., and Mary Pohl 

 1982 The Bone Tool Industry from the Granada Site. In Excavations at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History 

of the Granada Site, Vol. 1, edited by John W. Griffin, pp. 83-170. Prepared for the City of Miami by the 

Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee. 

Roberts, William 

 1976 [1763] An Account of the First Discovery, and Natural History of Florida. University Presses of Florida, 

Gainesville. 

Rolland, Vicki L., and Paulette Bond 

 2003 The Search for Spiculate Clays near Aboriginal Sites in the Lower St. Johns River Region, Florida. The 

Florida Anthropologist 56(2):91-111. 

Romans, Bernard 

 1961 [1775] A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida. Pelican Publishing, New Orleans. 

Rouse, Irving 

 1951 A Survey of Indian River Archeology, Florida. Publications in Anthropology 44. Yale University Press, New 

Haven. 

Russo, Michael 

 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study from Horr’s Island. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of 

Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Russo, Michael, and Gregory Heide 

 2002 The Joseph Reed Shell Ring. The Florida Anthropologist 55(2):67-87. 

Sabloff, Jeremy A. 

 1989 The Cities of Ancient Mexico: Reconstructing a Lost World. Thames and Hudson, New York. 

Sacred Song, Geeta 

 2000 Forces of Light: the Spiritual Battle for the Miami Circle. St. Thomas Law Review 13(1):221-224. 

Seckinger, Ron L. 

 1965 Observations on the Origin and Date of a Seventeenth Century Florida Map. The Florida Historical Quarterly

43(3):385-387. 

Scarry, C. Margaret 

 1982 Paleoethnobotany of the Granada Site. In Excavations at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History of the 

Granada Site, Vol. 1, by John W. Griffin, pp. 181-248. Prepared for the City of Miami by the Division of 

Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee. 

Scarry, C.Margaret, and Lee A. Newsom 

 1992 Archaeobotanical Research in the Calusa Heartland. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the 

Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 375-401. Monograph No. 1. Institute of Archaeology and 

Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Schroedl, Gerald F. 

 2000 Cherokee Ethnohistory and Archaeology from 1540 to 1838. In Indians of the Greater Southeast, edited by 

Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 204-241. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _85_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Schwehm, Alice Gates 

 1983 The Carved Wood Effigies of Fort Center: A Glimpse of South Florida’s Prehistoric Art. Unpublished Master’s 

thesis, Department of Art, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Sears, William H. 

 1958 Burial Mounds on the Gulf Coastal Plain. American Antiquity 23(3):274-284. 

 1962 Hopewellian Affiliations of Certain Sites on the Gulf Coast of Florida. American Antiquity 28(1):5-18. 

 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Presses of Florida, 

Gainesville. 

Seckinger, Ron L. 

 1965 Observations on the Origin and Date of a Seventeenth Century Florida Map. The Florida Historical Quarterly

43(4):385-387. 

Singer, Steven D. 

 1992 Shipwrecks of Florida. Pineapple Press, Sarasota. 

Sloane, Eric 

 1964 A Museum of Early American Tools. Wilfred Funk, New York. 

Small, John K. 

 1924 The Land Where Spring Meets Autumn. Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 25:53-94. 

 1929 From Eden to Sahara, Florida’s Tragedy. The Science Press, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 

 1931 The Cypress, Southern Remnant of a Northern Fossil Type. Journal of the New York Botanical Garden

32:125-135. 

Solís de Merás, Gonzalo 

 1964 Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, Memorial. Translated by Jeannette Thurber Connor. University of Florida Press, 

Gainesville. 

Stirling, Matthew W. 

 1936 Florida Cultural Affiliations in Relation to Adjacent Areas. In Essays in Anthropology I Honor of Alfred Louis 

Kroeber, pp. 351-357. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Stroup, Richard L., and Matthew Brown 

 2000 Deciding the Future of the Past: The Miami Circle and Archaeological Preservation. Backgrounder, Policy 

Report No. 26. The James Madison Institute, Tallahassee. 

Sturtevant, William C. 

 1953 Chakaika and the “Spanish Indians:” Documentary Sources compared with Seminole Traditon. Tequesta No. 

13:35-73. 

 1978 The Last of the South Florida Aborigines. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern 

Georgia During the Historic Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 141-162. University 

Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _86_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Swanton, William C. 

 1922 Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors. Bulletin 73. Bureau of American Ethnology, 

Washington, D.C. 

 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bulletin No. 137. Bureau of American Ethnology, 

Washington. D.C. 

Torrence, Corbett McP. 

 1999 The Archaic Period on Useppa Island: Excavations on Calusa Ridge. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island, 

edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 23-76. Monograph 3. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental 

Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

 2000 Caloosahatchee Landscapes: An Architectural Analysis of Precolumbian Social Structure in Southwest 

Florida. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Fort Myers. 

True, David O. (editor) 

 1944a Memoir of Do. d'Escalente Fontaneda Respecting Florida, Written in Spain, about the Year 1575. Translated 

and annotated by Buckingham Smith. University of Miami and Historical Association of Southern Florida, 

Coral Gables. 

True, David O. 

 1944b The Freducci Map of 1514-1515. Tequesta No. 4:50-55. 

Vargas Ugarte, Rubén 

 1935 The First Jesuit Mission in Florida. United States Catholic Historical Society, Historical Records and Studies

25:59-148. 

 1940 Los Mártires de la Florida 1566-1572. Lima, Peru. 

Walker, Karen Jo 

 1992 Bone Artifacts from Josslyn Island, Buck Key Shell Midden, and Cash Mound: A Preliminary Assessment for 

the Caloosahatchee Area. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H. 

Marquardt, pp. 229-246. Monograph 1, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University 

of Florida, Gainesville. 

 2000 The Material Culture of Precolumbian Fishing: Artifacts and Fish Remains from Coastal Southwest Florida. 

Southeastern Archaeology 19(1):24-45. 

Waselkov, Gregory A., and Kathryn E. Holland Braund (editors) 

 1995 William Bartram on the Southeastern Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Watson, Mary Lou, Tom Watson, and Louis D. Tesar 

 1990 A Cache of Points from Bay County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 43(1):63-70. 

Welsh, Marcia K. 

 1982 Molluscan Fauna at the Granada Site. In Excavations at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History of the 

Granada Site, Vol. 1, by John W. Griffin, pp. 347-364. Prepared for the City of Miami by the Division of 

Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _87_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Wenhold, Lucy L. 

1932 A 17th Century Letter of Gabriel Diaz Vara Calderón, Bishop of Cuba, Describing the Indians and Missions of 

Florida. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 95(16). 

Wheeler, Ryan J. 

 1992a Decorated Bone Artifacts, Florida Archaeology, and the Greater Southeast. Paper presented at the Fortyninth Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Little Rock, Arkansas. 

 1992b The Riviera Complex: An East Okeechobee Archaeological Area Settlement. The Florida Anthropologist

45(1):5-17. 

 1992c Time, Space and Aesthetics: Decorated Bone Artifacts from Florida. Unpublished Master’s thesis, 

Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

 1993 Spatial and Temporal Distributions of Shell Tools from the East Okeechobee Area. Paper presented at the 

Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

 1994 Early Florida Decorated Bone Artifacts: Style and Aesthetics from Paleo-Indian through Archaic. The Florida 

Anthropologist 47(1):47-60. 

 1995 The Ortona Canals: Aboriginal Canal Hydraulics and Engineering. The Florida Anthropologist 48(4):265-281. 

 1996 Ancient Art of the Florida Peninsula: 500 B.C. to A.D. 1763. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 

University of Florida, Gainesville. 

 1998a Aboriginal Canoe Canals of Cape Sable. The Florida Anthropologist 51(1):15-24. 

 1998b Walker’s Canal: An Aboriginal Canal in the Florida Panhandle. Southeastern Archaeology 17(2):174-181. 

 2000a The Archaeology of Brickell Point and the Miami Circle. The Florida Anthropologist 53(4):294-322. 

 2000b Treasure of the Calusa: The Johnson/Willcox Collection from Mound Key, Florida. Monograph No. 1. 

Monographs in Florida Archaeology, Tallahassee. 

 2002 Pumice Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12): Part 1. Prepared for the Archaeological and 

Historical Conservancy, Inc. and the Historical Museum of Southern Florida, Miami. 

 2004a Bone Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12). The Florida Anthropologist 57(1-2):133-158. 

 2004b Shell Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12). The Florida Anthropologist 57(1-2):159-186. 

Wheeler, Ryan J., and Wesley F. Coleman 

 1996 Ornamental Bone Carving of Southern Florida: Some Late Styles and their Associations. The Florida 

Anthropologist 49(2):49-63. 

Wheeler, Ryan J., Wm. Jerald Kennedy, and James P. Pepe 

 2002 The Archaeology of Coastal Palm Beach County. The Florida Anthropologist 55(3-4):119-156. 

Wheeler, Ryan J., and Ray M. McGee 

 1994 Technology of Mount Taylor Period Occupation, Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County, 

Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):350-379. 
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 

(8-86) 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

CONTINUATION SHEET

Section _I_ Page _88_ Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors 

Wheeler, Ryan J., James J. Miller, Ray M. McGee, Donna Ruhl, Brenda Swann, and Melissa Memory 

 2003 Archaic Period Canoes from Newnans Lake, Florida. American Antiquity 68(3):533-551. 

Wheeler, Ryan J., and James Pepe 

 2002 The Jobé and Jeaga of the Palm Beach County Area. The Florida Anthropologist 55(3-4):221-241. 

Widmer, Randolph J. 

 1974 A Survey and Assessment of Archaeological Resources on Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. 

Miscellaneous Project Report Series 19. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Florida Department of 

State, Tallahassee. 

 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa, a Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. University of 

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

 2003 Archaeological Investigations at the Brickell Point Site, 8DA12, Operation 3. The Florida Anthropologist 57(1-

2):11-57. 

Wildung, Frank H. 

 1957 Woodworking Tools at Shelburne Museum. Museum Pamphlet Series 3. Shelburne Museum, Shelburne, 

Vermont. 

Willey, Gordon R. 

 1949a Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. 

 1949b Excavations in Southeastern Florida. Publications in Anthropology 42. Yale University, New Haven. 

Williams, Wilma B. 

 1978 Peace Camp Chronicle. Broward Legacy 2(3-4):10-13. 

 1983 Bridge to the Past: Excavations at the Margate-Blount Site. The Florida Anthropologist 36(3-4):142-153. 

Williams, Wilma B., and Bert Mowers 

 1979 Bishop’s Hammock, Broward County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 32(1):17-31. 

Wing, Elizabeth S. 

 1984 Faunal Remains from Seven Sites in the Big Cypress National Preserve. In Deuxièmes Rencontres 

d'archéoichtyologie, edited by Nathalie Desse-Berset, pp. 169-181. Notes et Monographies Techniques No. 

16. Centre de Recherches Archéologiques, Paris. 

Wing, Elizabeth S., and L. Jill Loucks 

 1982 Granada Site Faunal Analysis. In Excavations at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History of the Granada 

Site, Vol. I, edited by John W. Griffin et al, pp. 259-345. Prepared for the City of Miami by the Florida 

Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. 

Worth, John E. 

 1995 Fontaneda Revisited: Five Descriptions of Sixteenth-Century Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly

73(3):339-352. 

Zubillaga, Felix 

 1946 Monumenta Antiquae Floridae (1566-1572). Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, Rome
Figures 

Figure 1. Territory occupied by the Tequesta and their ancestors. 

Figure 2. Archeological areas of southern Florida (after Carr and Beriault 1984:12). 

Figure 3. Archaic period sites in southeastern Florida (based on data from the Florida Master Site File, September 

2003). 

Figure 4. Paleoindian and Archaic stone tools from the Cutler Fossil site: a) Suwannee-like biface; b) Dalton Colbertlike biface; c) Bolen Beveled Corner-Notched. 

Figure 5. Glades decorated ceramic types (after Goggin 1950). 

Figure 6. Photograph of Glades ceramics from Bamboo Mound (8DA94) (courtesy Gary Beiter). 

Figure 7. John Griffin’s (1988:329) map showing settlement clusters in the Shark River Slough and Ten Thousand 

Islands and other major sites. 

Figure 8. Distribution of Glades sites in southeastern Florida (based on data from the Florida Master Site File, 

September 2003). 

Figure 9. Potential Pine Island-Long Key Archeological District in Broward County (based on data from the Florida 

Master Site File, September 2003). 

Figure 10. John Kunkle Small’s photograph of a large, dugout canoe from the Brett Estate in Miami-Dade County 

(Florida State Archives, Catalog # SMX0019). 

Figure 11. Wooden clubs from Miami-Dade County (photograph courtesy the Historical Museum of Southern Florida). 

Figure 12. Representative Tequesta bone artifacts from the Miami Circle: a-d) pointed bone tool fragments with 

notching wear, possible “splitting knives;” e-h) pointed bone tool fragments with fid-like morphology and wear; i-p) hafted 

bone tools with awl-like wear; q-v) spatulate bone tools; w-x) socketed bone tools; inset) circular bone pendant, obverse 

and reverse. 

Figure 13. Representative Tequesta shell artifacts from the Miami Circle: a) hafted cutting-edge tool, Busycon 

sinistrum; b) gastropod hammer, Pleuroploca gigantea; c) adze, Busycon sinistrum; d) reworked Strombus gigas celt, 

possibly a drawknife. 

Figure 14. Photograph of Strombus gigas celts from the Ft. Lauderdale area (collection of Florida Atlantic University, 

Boca Raton). 

Figure 15. Two hypothetical methods of hafting Strombus gigas celts, based on wear patterns, wooden handles from 

archeological sites, and analogy with nineteenth century carving tools (from Wheeler 2002c). 

Figure 16. Knowlton’s map of the New River Earthworks (from Carr et al. 1995:25). 

Figure 17. Plan map of the Holatee Trail Earthworks (8BD104) (after a plan map prepared by the Archaeological and 

Historical Conservancy, 1991). 

Figure 18. Plan of the Cape Sable Canals (after Wheeler 1998a:17). 

Figure 19. Oblique aerial photograph of the Mud Lake Canal (from Wheeler 1998a:18). 

Figure 20. Pumice artifacts. 
Figure 21. Decorated bone artifacts from southeastern Florida: a) phallic/rattlesnake carving, antler, Margate-Blount 

site (8BD41); b) pendant with eye and braid motif, 8DA140; c) plume holder with knot motif; 8DA140; d) stylized vulture 

carving, antler, Margate-Blount (8BD41); e) bas relief carving of opossum, Lyons-Lord site (8DA5128); f) hawk or 

peregrine falcon carving, antler, Florida Portland/Bamboo Mound (8DA94) (see McKinley 1977:6, 10); g) carving of 

freshwater eel, Margate-Blount (8BD41); h) deer head carved to ornament a bone pin, Onion Key (8MO49); and i) 

dabbler duck, antler, Margate-Blount (8BD41). 

Figure 22. Location map of significant sites in the area inhabited by the Tequesta and their ancestors, including NHL 

boundary as defined in this study (also see Table 6). 

Figure 23. NHL boundary for Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their ancestors projected on 

United States Geological Survey 1:250,000 scale maps of southern Florida (base maps include West Palm Beach and 

Miami 1 x 2 degree 1:250,000 scale maps). 
Figure 1. Territory occupied by the Tequesta and their ancestors. 
Figure 2. Archaeological areas of southern Florida (after Carr and Beriault 1984:12). 
Figure 3. Archaic period sites in southeastern Florida (based on data from the Florida Master Site File, September 

2003). 
Figure 4. Paleoindian and Archaic stone tools from the Cutler Fossil site: a) Suwanne-like biface; b) Dalton Colbert-like 

biface; c) Bolen Beveled Corner-Notched. 
Figure 5. Glades decorated ceramic types (after Goggin 1950). 
Figure 6. Photograph of Glades ceramics from Bamboo Mound (8DA94) (courtesy Gary Beiter). 
Figure 7. John Griffin’s (1988:329) map showing settlement clusters in the Shark River 

Slough and Ten Thousand Islands and other major sites. 
Figure 8. Distribution of Glades sites in southeastern Florida (based on data from the Florida Master Site File, 

September 2003). 
Figure 9. Potential Pine Island-Long Key Archaeological District in Broward County (based on data from the Florida 

Master Site File, September 2003). 
Figure 10. John Kunkle Small’s photograph of a large, dugout canoe from the Brett Estate in Miami-Dade County 

(Florida State Archives, Catalog # SMX0019). 

Figure 11. Wooden clubs from Miami-Dade County (photograph courtesy the Historical Museum of Southern Florida). 
Figure 12. Representative Tequesta bone artifacts from the Miami Circle: a-d) pointed bone tool fragments with 

notching wear, possible “splitting knives;” e-h) pointed bone tool fragments with fid-like morphology and wear; i-p) hafted bone tools with awl-like wear; q-v) spatulate bone tools; w-x) socketed bone tools; inset) circular bone pendant, obverse and reverse. 
Figure 13. Representative Tequesta shell artifacts from the Miami Circle: a) hafted cutting-edge tool, Busycon 

sinistrum; b) gastropod hammer, Pleuroploca gigantea; c) adze, Busycon sinistrum; d) reworked Strombus gigas celt, 

possibly a drawknife. 
Figure 14. Photograph of Strombus gigas celts from the Ft. Lauderdale area (collection of Florida Atlantic University, 

Boca Raton). 
Figure 15. Two hypothetical methods of hafting Strombus gigas celts, based on wear patterns, wooden handles from 

archaeological sites, and analogy with nineteenth century carving tools (from Wheeler 2002c). 
Figure 16. Knowlton’s map of the New River Earthworks (from Carr et al. 1995:25). 
Figure 17. Plan map of the Holatee Trail Earthworks (8BD104) (after a plan map 

prepared by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, 1991). 
Figure 18. Plan of the Cape Sable Canals (after Wheeler 1998a:17). 
Figure 19. Oblique aerial photograph of the Mud Lake Canal (from Wheeler 1998a:18). 
Figure 20. Pumice artifacts. 
Figure 21. Decorated bone artifacts from southeastern Florida: a) phallic/rattlesnake 

carving, antler, Margate-Blount site (8BD41); b) pendant with eye and braid motif, 8DA140; c) plume holder with knot motif; 8DA140; d) stylized vulture carving, antler, Margate-Blount (8BD41); e) bas relief carving of opossum, Lyons-Lord site (8DA5128); f) hawk or peregrine falcon carving, antler, Florida Portland/Bamboo Mound (8DA94) (see McKinley 1977:6, 10); g) carving of freshwater eel, Margate-Blount (8BD41); h) deer head carved to ornament a bone pin, Onion Key (8MO49); and i) dabbler duck, antler, Margate-Blount (8BD41). 
Figure 22. Location map of significant sites in the area inhabited by the Tequesta and 

their ancestors (also see Table 6).
Figure 23. Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta and their Ancestors NHL boundary plotted on U.S.G.S 

topographic maps.