ERROR LOADING HTML FROM SOURCE (http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu//design/skins/UFDC/html/header_item.html)

Constructing a Public Archaeology at Historic Spanish Point in Osprey, Florida

Permanent Link: http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu/NCFE004098/00001

Material Information

Title: Constructing a Public Archaeology at Historic Spanish Point in Osprey, Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Garte-Wolf, Steven
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2009
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Archaeology
Public
Osprey
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In this thesis, I explore Historic Spanish Point, an outdoor archaeology site in Osprey, Florida for its unique and relevant importance to Florida's history and its relatively few residents of Sarasota visit the site or know of its existence or importance, while their children are being educated as to its importance as an archaeology site through Sarasota County's social studies curriculum. The notion that archaeology, and thus Historic Spanish Point, is more important to children than to adults is evident of a larger plight in archaeological discourse. While particular evidence exists at Historic Spanish Point for this problem, I use this site to theorize a different method in which site administrators might interact with their visitors. My hypothesis is that archaeology can benefit, and increase its pool of supporters by actively engaging adult visitors through a discourse on politically relevant ideas. I conclude my argument with a recommendation to the administration of Historic Spanish Point to contribute more actively to adult participation and engagement at the site.
Statement of Responsibility: by Steven Garte-Wolf
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2009
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO NCF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Baram, Uzi

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2009 G3
System ID: NCFE004098:00001

Permanent Link: http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu/NCFE004098/00001

Material Information

Title: Constructing a Public Archaeology at Historic Spanish Point in Osprey, Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Garte-Wolf, Steven
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2009
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Archaeology
Public
Osprey
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In this thesis, I explore Historic Spanish Point, an outdoor archaeology site in Osprey, Florida for its unique and relevant importance to Florida's history and its relatively few residents of Sarasota visit the site or know of its existence or importance, while their children are being educated as to its importance as an archaeology site through Sarasota County's social studies curriculum. The notion that archaeology, and thus Historic Spanish Point, is more important to children than to adults is evident of a larger plight in archaeological discourse. While particular evidence exists at Historic Spanish Point for this problem, I use this site to theorize a different method in which site administrators might interact with their visitors. My hypothesis is that archaeology can benefit, and increase its pool of supporters by actively engaging adult visitors through a discourse on politically relevant ideas. I conclude my argument with a recommendation to the administration of Historic Spanish Point to contribute more actively to adult participation and engagement at the site.
Statement of Responsibility: by Steven Garte-Wolf
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2009
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO NCF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Baram, Uzi

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2009 G3
System ID: NCFE004098:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

CONSTRUCTING A PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AT HISTORIC SPANISH POI NT IN OSPREY FLORIDA BY STEVEN GARTE WOLF A Thesis Submitted to the Division of Social Sciences New College of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts Under the Sponsorship of Uzi Baram Sarasota, Florida April, 2009

PAGE 2

ii I dedicate this thesis to my Bubbie who had unbounded faith in me.

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to acknowledge several individuals whose support throughout this thesis was unwavering. I thank my parents, Dayvee and Craig, for their sup port in helping me as best as they could, my fiancŽ for believing in me, and my friends and family for putting me on a pedestal, though I am always afraid I will fall. I have a great deal of gratitude for my professors, particularly Maria Vesperi, Anthony "Tony" Andrews. I thank Felicia Silpa, Sherry Svakis, and Lisa White for their moral support as alumnae and as models for my own research. I would especially like to thank, Lisa, Hope, Terisa, Laura, Mike, Nancy and Linda at Historic Spanish Point for thei r generous support throughout this experience. I thank Jan Wheeler for her kindness, and her careful no holds barred editing and critique of all that I have brought her throughout my New College career. Without her, I would probably have left New College w ithout ever learning to write good well. To Uzi Baram, I have immense gratitude; as my academic advisor and thesis sponsor he has given me, and those in his charge, more attention than any other professor could; I could not have come this far in my academi c career without his careful and thoughtful guidance. And, to anyone whose name I forgot to mention, thank you!

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS: D edication ii Acknowledgement iii Table of contents iv L ist of illustrations vi A bst ract vii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Thesis Summary 4 Chapter 2: A History of Public Archaeology 9 Chronology of Public Archaeology in the United States 10 The "Public" in Public Archaeology 17 Applied Archaeology and Public Archaeology 23 Ethics and Public Archaeology 25 Chapter 3: Exploring the Public Presentation of the Past at Historic Spanish Point 31 Chapter 4 : Historic Spanish point as a Heritage Site 43 The History of Native Inhabitants in Osprey, Flor ida 44 Sarasota and Osprey Before the Pioneers At Spanish Point 53 The Webb Family Settle in Osprey, Florida 56 Bertha Honore Palmer Arrives in Florida 60 Gulf Coast Heritage Assoc. is Charged with Spanish Point 64

PAGE 5

v Chapter 5: Historic Spanish Poin t: Hidden in Plain Sight 66 Chapter 6 : A Case for a Dialectic Approach to Public Archaeology 83 Appendix A: Major Archaeological Laws and Acts 97 Appendix B: American Philosophical Society (APS) 1799 Circular 111 Appendix C: Archaeology Resources 113 Appendix D: Historic Spanish Point Extended Chronology 114 Bibliography 116

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATION S AND TABLES Figure 3.1 Showing Children Artifacts and Asking the Children Questions 33 Figure 4.1 Google Earth (N ASA) I mage/Map of Florida 45 Figure 4.2 Placement of the 3 middens and 1 burial mound at th e Palmer Site 47 Figure 4.3 Historic Spanish Point map with modern implements 48 Figure 4.4 Major Archaeological Sites attributed to the Calusa cultur e in SW Florida 51 Figure 4.5 Cross section of a shell midden 52 Table 4 .1 "Generalized Ch ronology for Caloosatchee Area and Immediate Environs" (Marquardt 1992, 13; highlights added) 49 Figure 5.1 Display photograph o f village life 74 Figure 5.2 "Adventures in Learning" Dig Site 78

PAGE 7

vii CONSTRUCTING A PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AT HISTORIC SPANISH POI NT IN OSPREY, FLORID A Steven I. Garte Wolf New College of Florida, 2009 ABS TRACT In this thesis, I explore Historic Spanish Point, an outdoor archaeology site in Osprey, Florida for its unique and relevant importance to Florida's history and its value as an archaeological site. I examine how relatively few residents of Sarasot a visit the site or know of its existence or importance, while their children are being educated as to its importance as an archaeology site through Sarasota County's social studies curriculum. The notion that archaeology, and thus Historic Spanish Point, is more important to children than to adults is evident of a larger plight in archaeological discourse. While particular evidence exists at Historic Spanish Point for this problem, I use this site to theorize a different method in which site administrators might interact with their visitors. My hypothesis is that archaeology can benefit, and increase its pool of supporters by actively engaging adult visitors through a discourse on politically relevant ideas. I conclude my argument with a recommendation to t he administration of Historic Spanish Point to contribute more actively to adult participation and engagement at the site. ________________________ Uzi I. Baram Division of Social Sciences

PAGE 8

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Historic Spanish Point is a site of interest to Florida archaeologists, historians, and scholars; it should also be a site of interest to those who live, work, and/or visit Sarasota. Unfortunately, it seems that few who live in Sarasota are aware of the site, much less understand the sites historical importance to the city and to understanding Floridas prehistoric past. The sites ability to contribute actively to public archaeology is hindered by the myriad of other attractions that compete for the support of Sarasotans. In my thesis, I will present a means to enliven the site as well as to evaluate public archaeology in the United States Public archaeology is, in the broadest definition, the movement within the field of archaeology that seeks to promote civic engagement within local and descendant communities (Little and Sha ckel 2007). Archaeologists are not the only group concerned with material history. This group is comprised of political lobbyists, philanthropists, city council members, decendents and countless others who ar e concerned with the preservation of heritage. The concept of civic engagement within archaeology evolved out of a growing need for historical accountability and the preservation of shared sites of historical wealth (Little and Shackel 2007: 5). The purpos e of this thesis is to explore how a dialectical approach to archaeological exhibition might uncover key facets of history not fundamentally encountered on a traditional presentation of an archaeological site. I will accomplish this by examining the curren t presentation of the past to the public.

PAGE 9

2 The inclusion of dialectics and acknowledgement of subjectivity, I argue, may be useful in creating an active, if not enlivened dialogue between the visitor to an archaeological site and those who give the tours or establish the presented data. My argument will primarily hinge upon the dialectic notion of archaeological presentation outlined by Randall McGuire (2008), Dean Saitta (2007), and Mark Leone and Parker Potter (1999). I will examine the interactive role be tween the visitor and the docent at Historic Spanish Point as my case study, and analyze whether or not this form of dialogue is useful or should indeed be practiced at a site such as this. Through my research I hope to better define the role of the public in the field of public archaeology and examine the usefulness of current and proposed techniques of dialogue between archaeologists and the many forms of the public. I found it useful to examine Historic Spanish Point; a site that has the form and functioning of a small outdoor archaeological museum and park. It is my hope that this case study in Osprey, Florida will serve as a foundation for exploring larger issues for public archaeology in the United States. It is not my main purpose in writing t his thesis to examine the site based on its effectiveness in conforming to any particular model, but any contrast that emerges should bolster the overall argument for achieving a more interactionist approach to todays public archaeology. Thus, any evaluat ion of Historic Spanish Point is not meant to undermine its administration of archaeological tourism, nor of anyones roles as administrators of the site.

PAGE 10

3 The issues that seem to inhibit Historic Spanish Point from being as important to Sarasota as it sh ould be are found outside the staffs discretion. Visitors to the site do not question the archaeology or history of the site because they expect a degree of professionalism from the staff, which means that the staff in turn must produce a knowledge base of the site. This system, not administrators at Historic Spanish Point, is to blame for this cycle. Archaeology should have the ability to entice members of the public based on its appeal as an integral piece of the human puzzl e. Instead, what I ha ve often observed at sites such as Historic Spanish Point is a past presented to visitors that often seems disparate and disconnected. The sites past is exoticised and made foreign to the visitor, even as the living history actors engage the visitors and draw th em into the narrative. Docents, curators, and staff at museum sites are also confronted with a dilemma in presenting an incomplete picture of the past due to the sites unique chronological landscape (Appendix D ). It appears more important to the writers o f history at Historic Spanish Point to present a congruous (even if somewhat constructed) history to the visitor, than to present a history that has unanswered questions, concerns, or definitive periods. What I have derived from my observations of various historic and prehistory representations of history is that the museums staff members appear to be under considerable pressure to present to the public a past that has no gaps, no unresolved issues, and has answered most of the conspicuous questions. This can be deleterious to the overall goal of archaeolo gists and historians who piece together histories rich in observable data and presentable evidence.

PAGE 11

4 Archaeologys value is that, in its very nature, it is often contested, usually never interpreted in a s ingle way, and can elicit little from some and effusive emotions from others. What makes archaeology so valuable is the ability of the material past to elicit the affection and care of the public. What the public demands of museum sites in exchange for their (financial) support becomes greater as the information age brings new vehicles of interpretation and presentation of the past. As the economy becomes evermore dire, there is a palpable increase among those who aspire to meet the adage getting more for your buck. The job of doing archaeology, which examines each archaeological issue carefully and discretely is not immune from this climate either, and would aptly benefit from keeping this in mind when thinking of how to preserve artifacts with greater thought into how they might draw more of, and engage, the public. Thesis Summary The first chapter will outline the history of public archaeology in the U.S. as well as the different meanings applied to different forms of archaeology involving, collabor ating with, or engaging the public. The latter part of the chapter will examine four main contributors to the research on the subject of public archaeology and end with an interpretation of the Society for American Archaeologys statement on ethics as it relates to public interaction and involvement.

PAGE 12

5 The second chapter will describe, in depth, the Historic Spanish Point outdoor archaeological site, and will explain the reasoning behind my involvement with this site. I will then briefly outline my methods and the process I went through to obtain the data for this thesis. I will also introduce data and statistics relevant to heritage tourism in Sarasota, Florida. The third chapter will explore the history of H istoric Spanish Point by examining the key events in H istoric Spanish Points history that make the site meaningful both to the history of the region and to the residents of Sarasota. I will outline the prehistoric past as well as the historic events that have shaped H istoric Spanish Point. As this thesis involves a redefinition of public archaeology, I will include a brief background on the work done by archaeologists and historians on the site. Chapter Four will focus on the tours at H istoric Spanish Point and explore the site using Felicia Silpas (2003) model for visitor interpretation of an a rchaeological site based on her thesis on the Gamble Plantation in Palmetto, Florida. This chapter will be a comprehensive run -through of an average tour including pertinent information on the four Ps, Prehistory, Pioneer, Palmer, and Plants, which characterize HSP as an outdoor museum. Lastly, Chapter Five will examine Ra ndall McGuires dialectic approach as an example of how archaeology can benefit from conspicuous subjectivity in archaeological interpretation. Chapter Five will be both a critique of this method, as well as a conclusion

PAGE 13

6 for this thesis. In this chapter I hope to tie together my observations of community engagement in the site, and show how the dialectic approach can specifically benefit HSP by opening up a new form of dialogue between the visitor and the meaningfulness of an archaeological site. Here, a Ma rxist approach such as McGuires can lead to a redefinition of public involvement and interpretation at an archaeological site preeminent to a citys history. Archaeology continuously infuses the field of history and anthropology by examining the voices t hat hav e not been heard. Some have explicitly commented that archaeology serves the purpose of searching for material evidence to verify historical events (Barbara Little, Paul Shackel). The assessment that archaeology serves as what is commonly referred t o as the handmaiden to history model does not fully explain the scope of research that archaeologists are involved with, nor does this concept recognize the inverse, that historical sources are only subjective interpretations of the past aside from those which can be linked, archaeologically, thus proving the historical documents significance. Alison Wylie describes Bruce Triggers situated knowledge thesis. S he states, he argued for a structural understanding of the relationship between archaeologi cal narratives and the contexts in which they arise, a point that is particularly salient today (Wylie 2008: 201). This theme of understanding the contexts of how and where these narratives arise is as important an issue to the interpretation of archaeolo gy as archaeology is to writing better histories.

PAGE 14

7 As is the case with any event recalled in history, no one voice is capable of telling a single narrative; but invoking others within a story, they too become heard. These previously silent voices reshape history, encourage the identity of many individuals within this society, and reflect the necessity for discussion among archaeologists and museum staff and volunteers as to the need for more techniques to hear these voices. Therefore, the Aristotelian noti on that any narrative in whole is greater than the sum of its parts may be the key to organi zing a sustainable dialogue; any research involving the public must also include public voices if those parts are to be more salient within the archaeological and h istorical record. In writing this thesis, I wish to accomplish the following six goals: 1. Consider the value of public archaeology 2. Develop a methodology useful for analyzing public interpretation at Historic Spanish Point, and create a purposeful approach b y which this methodology can be evaluated and/or repeated. 3. Examine the research advocating public archaeology and civic engagement. 4. Describe a case study of public archaeology in action at H istoric Spanish Point. Analyze the tour at H istoric Spanish Point in light of the concerns of both archaeologists and the public. 5. Evaluate a critical and dialectical approach in civic engagement and public interaction.

PAGE 15

8 6. Explore several methods by which archaeology can be used to impact local communities and help put an e nd to the ignorance of differences. I propose that as archaeologists include, collaborate, and engage the past with the public, so too can archaeologists learn from the public in more progressive ways. Thus, this thesis examines the convergence of both a rchaeologists and non -archaeologists in exploring the past as well as the techniques that are extant for this sort of intersection of audiences. Collaborating, engaging, and including the public in archaeological research provides an opportunity to help archaeologists learn from the public and to assist the public as they try to understand the contexts and the complications within the archaeological record. I will use the concept of the tour at H istoric Spanish Point as a vehicle toward developing a successful and inclusive schema for archaeological exploration and interpretation. The term public will be used interchangeably throughout this thesis to reference those who are not, by profession, considered archaeologi sts. It is not my goal to showcase the many publics involved in collaboration, but to acknowledge the fact that multiple voices and narratives exist within the framework of what is considered the public.

PAGE 16

9 CHAPTER 2: A HISTORY OF PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY Over the last three decades, there has been an expansion of public archaeology across the globe. Now, local community organizations explore archaeological sites; interactive models of the exhibition of artifacts and even archaeological theme parks construct the past in an evolving model that continually restructures the ideals of past archaeological approaches. It may seem odd to speak of public archaeology as an old concept, but since McGimsey first coined the phrase in a 1972 publication, there have been almost four decades of the existence of this approach, and an even longer amount of time spent including the public in archaeological matters. With the extensive and growing literatur e on public archaeology, we can critique its growth and its aptness to t ransform a reclusive profession of a select group of individuals (who present our material past and tell our history ) to the larger public through interactive models of exploring the manner in which archaeologists excavate, preserve, and construct the past with communities. In this chapter, I will delve into the meaning of public archaeology by exploring the history of public archaeology from Thomas Jefferson, who was also thought to have created the first public forum for archaeological investigation, to the current state of public archaeology in the present by focusing on key contributors to the current public archaeology debate: Bruce Trigger, Nick Merriman, Barbara Little, and Erve Chambers. I conclude the chapter with a discussion of the role of ethic s in public archaeology.

PAGE 17

Chronology of Public Archaeology in the United States Intellectuals, academics, and later cultural resource management professionals (Patterson 1995:18) have been involved in exploring and interpreting our surroundings to inform the public for well over two centuries. Via the vehicles of modem information technology, the media, and the Internet, archaeologists are more than ever able to accomplish this goal. No new invention, however, is immune to the ill effects of improper usage. New problems emerge with these vehicles such as misinterpretation, miscommunication, and intentional deception by agents of political, moral, and institutional beliefs that censor broadcasted knowledge, allowing only their version of the truth to emerge. It is essential to know our past in order to know where we intend to go. Thus, it is also the case with understanding the history of public archaeology in the United States Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States and founder of one of the first secular universities in the country, began the first of what was considered a "controlled" excavation of one of the many mounds found in the Eastern United States. According to the National Park service, Thomas Jefferson began this "excavation" on a mound on his property in Virginia in 1784 in part due to George Louis Leclerc, the Compte de Buffon's public criticism of the United States. This led Jefferson to promote the study of all American natural and cultural resources including such misunderstood sites as the numerous Native American mounds, and prompted the President himself to 10

PAGE 18

write his only published book, Notes On The State Of Virginia (1785, Library of Congress 2003). In 1797, additional applications of controlled excavation led to the first applied archaeological case in the U.S., settling a political dispute between Britain and the U.S. about where the boundaries lay on the island of St. Croix, a French settlement (NPS AP 2003). More importantly, the American Philosophical Society (APS), of which Jefferson was the president, sent out a circular to its members in 1799 asking for descriptions of any sites located within their local areas (see Appendix B). The science of archaeology grew after that circular into a changing art form to be refined more with every new individual and with evolving new approaches. Classical archaeology, mainly concerned with excavating Ancient Grcece and Rome, was the predominant archaeology up to the point that Jefferson publicized the importance of archaeology in North America. One of the primary benefits to the field of archaeology was the creation of parks in the 1800s, ushering in a new concept of preserving natural resources and cultural resources for the public and for posterity. The wave of preservation began in the United States as Arkansas designated Hot Springs Reservation as a state park in 1832 (NPS AP 2003). In 1849, the Deparlment of the Interior was formed; national parks and reserved lands were designated across the country. As the Europeans began to explore, they noticed many earthworks that dotted eastern North America. These middens or mounds had slowly become used as perches for 11

PAGE 19

homes, gardens, and crops, and as they dug into the mounds, they noticed natural processes did not create them. The new inhabitants recorded their first interpretations in writing of what these mounds were thought to have been as early as Jefferson's 1784 excavation (NPS AP 2008). One of the first references to a race of "moundbuilders" appeared in a poem by William Cullen Bryant in 1832. More of a misinterpretation than a myth per se, the Moundbuilder myth emerged from a socially-charged context where Native Americans were being driven out of their land and relocated or killed. Many believed these "Indians" could not be intelligent enough or have lived on the land long enough to create such massive structures. The fact that the Europeans were trying to drive out the Native Americans blinded them to any other interpretation. Luckily, today we have since abandoned these nonsensical claims that had become so pervasive as to emerge in scholastic form for as long as they did. Archaeological surveys conducted since the mid1800s shows meaningful evidence that Native Americans (and their ancestors, as is still claimed) indeed created these various earthworks. Although grave robbing most likely began with the pilgrims, as filmmaker and professor Patty Leow so bravely pointed out in November of 2008. With the publishing of the first archaeological discoveries in the early 1800s, sponsored in large part by the APS, came an even larger number of grave robbers. Searching for lost treasures, many uninformed individuals started destroying the ancient earthworks, mounds, and other archaeological sites of importance that were increasingly described in books, looting T2

PAGE 20

them in any way they could, to find gold or other precious arlifacts. Grave robbing has been an issue in the global community since Ancient Egypt, as robbers came to steal treasures from the pyramids or to rub away the name of the pharaoh, an ancient form of besmirchins someone's name. In 1880, the Archaeological Institute ofArnerica acknowledged Adolph Bandelier's investigation on the looting and vandalism that had occumed at Pecos National Park as evidence for a growing national problem (NPS AP 2008). Throughout the 1880s, such investigations became more frequent, and finalli'during the 1890s, attempts to push the congress to enact laws against the destruction of national resources became serious. The 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago and the subsequent 1904 Louisiana Purchase Expo in St. Louis introduced Americans and the world to American antiquities, advocated their preservation and condemned their destruction (IJPS AP 2008). In 1906, Congress passed a bill to protect and preserve antiquities on federal lands (American Antiquities Act of 1906 see Appendix B). From 1906 to about 7929, archaeological sites were increasingly being designated by acts of the legislature and by President Theodore Roosevelt, who began the executive branch's role in natural and cultural land preservation. In 1907, Mesa Verde National Park was created in Colorado. in Wyoming, Devils Tower National Monument was created, and in New Mexico, El Morro National Monument was established. In Arrzona. Montezuma Castle was designated for its ethno-historical importance. This upward trend came to a halt in 1929 as the nation focused on the economic crisis (NPS AP 2008). Even t3

PAGE 21

this could not stop the mobility of preservation endeavors. In 1930, unemployment efforts and relief projects enacted during Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency gave jobs to individuals charged with the care of national monuments including national parks, historic structures. and archaeological sites C.IPS AP 2008). Until the Second World War, archaeological sites had been a constant source of employment, and a growing interest among many within and outside the field of archaeology (NPS AP 2008). Therefore, with the New Deal came a "corporatist state structure" that further defined the role of who was responsible for sustaining archaeology by a state-sponsored division of labor (Patterson 1995:69). After the war, legislation was enacted to create a network of dams and water reservoirs. This sizable plan posed an enormous threat to unprotected and yet-to-be-discovered archaeological sites. The Committee for the Recovery of Archaeological Remains (CRAR) was established to allow archaeologists to voice their concern over these major aqua-projects of the state Q{PS AP 2008). Various laws were passed, and organizations developed during the '40s, '50s, and'60s that would combat the increasing population boom including the 1946 Bureau for Land Management (BLM), the National Trust for Historic Preservation (1949), the Reservoir Salvage Act (1960), the National Historic Preservation Act (1966), and the Society for Historical Archaeology (1967) formed to increase dissemination of archaeological knowledge (NPS AP 2008). In 1970, LINESCO held a convention that designated international legislation on looting, pillaging, and illicit trade of artifacts and other cultural properly (-IJPS AP 2008). 1A ta

PAGE 22

The 1974 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) was created to give the Secretary of the Interior ultimate oversight over archaeological and historic preservation. This act gave archaeologists a means by which to receive government money to help preserve cultural resources on government land and increased the need for transparency and accountability on the pafi of archaeologists, which as a result, led to a professionalism of archaeology and a source of stable money to fund research proiects. Accountability for tax money being spent on projects led to the hiring of more professional archaeologists and a tighter concern for ho*archaeology is to be done by Cultural Resource Management (CRM) professionals. Society for Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) created a Code of Ethics and Standards of Performance in 1974 OIPS AP 2008). In 7979. the Archaeology Resource Protection Act (ARPA) finally made a concession to the 1906 Antiquities Act, which heretofore had been an unrefined act without defined provisions for three-quarlers of a century. The 1980s was a time when laws became more progressively defined regarding international trade of archaeological materials, leading to a set of a defined technique for curation of fbderally owned artifacts in a law passed in 1990 (\lPS AP 2008). In 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act QIIAGPRA) was created to repatriate grave remains and items held in federal collections. NAGPRA became a controversial act for archaeologists who believed it was their role to research lost or living civilizations through the material remnants now slowly being repatriated back to the ancestors or caretakers of Native American graves. Archaeologists on either side of the NAGPRA debate became entangled in a moral battle, still unsettled to this day. In 1992, ARPA was amended to 15

PAGE 23

include Native American consultation in the curation of oresumed Native American artifacts and remains. In i999. the NPS creates National NAGRA. an online database that contains infbrmation on repatriation, the process, and tribal consultation procedure. In 2000, archaeoiogists commissioned a Hanis Poll of the American public to access their knowledge, perception of, and attitudes toward archaeology. In 2004, NPS created the publicly accessible "Interpretation for Archaeologists: A Guide to Increasing Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities" website devoted to helping archaeologists disseminate knowledge to the public (\lPS AP 2008). The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) and the National Park Service (NPS) also has various resources available to the public fbr those who wish to become more involved in their local and national archaeology (refer to Appendix C). The professionalization of archaeology has been defined by public archaeology's whole history fiom Thomas Jefferson's call for individuals to shed light on their local cultural products to the 1930s state-sponsored programs that created jobs in industries necessary for economic survival to the 1960s and'70s nhich saw an increase in legislative action that led to an increased awareness of the archaeologist's accountability, procedures, and dissemination of knowledge. Today, archaeologists in the field on average hold, on average, a master's or doctorate degree, are held accountable by association, society, and union ethics, as well as by federal regulations (Bureau of Labor and Statistics). It)

PAGE 24

The "Public" in Public Archaeology The role of public archaeology as a tool fbr archaeological research and dissemination of archaeological knoi.l,ledge is a relatively new one, which itself derives from-and is par1ly a consequence of-the pedagogical debate of adult learning and archaeological civic engagement. The first major publication to address the notion of public archaeology and its practice as a technique for addressing who should perform archaeology and for whom archaeology should be conducted was Charles McGimsey's 1972 publication Public Archaeology. McGimsey begins by stating, "There is no such thing as 'private archaeology"' (.1972:5). Archaeologists cunently seek to invoive as many individuals as are interested in the art and science of interpretation to view archaeological remains and ask meaningful questions regarding the material ideology of artifacts. Archaeologists invite such individuals to observe, relate, and comment on archaeological data, as they provide not only intellectual stimuli, but also both financial and community support. Why is archaeology so important that we involve so many individuals in the study of our past? McGimsey has an answer: "Knowledge of this four shared] past, just as knowledge about our environment, is essential to our survival, and the right to that knowledge is and must be considered a human birthright" (1972:5). Although Patterson explicates howthe year 1900 saw the complete professionahzatton of archaeology into a scientific discipline (1995 52), archaeology. as a t7

PAGE 25

whole, has continued to go through a metamorphosis both in terms of how it is done, and imporlantly for this thesis, by whom and for whom archaeology is intended. It takes specialized knowledge to understand the archaeological record, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics website lists under archaeolosists and similar social scientists' educational attainment that "the educational attainment of social scientists is among the highest of all occupations, with most positions requiring a master's or Ph.D. degree" (Bureau of Labor and Statistics). That the primary duty of the archaeological profession is to translate the archaeological record to the yearning public may not be so widely assumed, though the proponents for public archaeology are many. Francis P. McManamon explains that the ability to translate the facts within the archaeological record is an "important and legitimate professional activity" (1991:122), one that should begin with educating our youth to prevent misinterpretations of the meaning of our shared archaeological heritage and an activity that promotes more concern for these non-renewable resources b1, adults. Many proponents of public archaeology in primary, secondary, and post-secondary education (Brauer and Jeppson 2003, Derry 2003. Jameson 1998, Lee, Lewine, and Salem 2003. and many others) reahze the unique potential of utilizing education to create a concerned public willing to combat the destructive forces of commerce, vandalism, and looting, and who are privy to the questions one must ask of the archaeological record and of history in general. Barbara Little is a historical archaeologist who works for the National Park Service and is an advocate for public engagement in archaeology. In Hislorical l8

PAGE 26

Archaeology, Little (2007) elaborates on the issue that our history is made for the public and that most accept it at face value. The book was created, as she explains in her preface, because she became interested in individuals' use of selective archaeology for the purpose of justifying the present and suppofting "the status quo, with all its intolerance, injustice, and inequality" (Little 2007 9). Her main point is that individuals who do not question any of the gray spots in the predominantly Anglo-American history of the United States are unaware of the breadth of power relations that cause this lack of visibility of other cultures and negligence about issues of race, class, or gender (2007). There are voices silenced in history, purposefully or unintentionally. Whichever the case, archaeologists are most useful to the science when they bring fbrth those namatives that were forgotten. These reanimated stories depict the lost or neglected past of many individuals not represented as fully in the annals of history or in the archaeological record and help rectify or reconcile the identities of those who have been stripped of a past. Nick Meniman, a professor at the institute for archaeology at University College London, is another advocate for public archaeology. Merriman utilizes two conceptual definitions of the word "public" to analyze the role of "the public" in public archaeology, especially in light of current dialogue on the success of engaging the public in this manner. In addition to classifying the term in relation to its antonym "private," the term originally, Merriman suggests, has come to define public in terms of those who are l9

PAGE 27

classified as non-professionals who hold an interest in archaeology and those who are professionals and take the role of caretakers on behalf of the public (Merriman 2004). The first "public" is deflned as a group of paraprofessional archaeologists who inform public opinion by debating and consuming cultural products (Merriman 2004: 1); this concept was developed by J.V.H. Melton when studying the rise of the public in enlightenment Europe (Melton 2001, in Merriman 2004: 1). The second concept has developed in light of the cultural resource management (CRM) movement evolving from the 1965 Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act. the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (revised 1992), and the \974 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (FWS see Appendix B), which amended the 1965 act and allowed CRM to gain a foothold in the field of archaeology in general. This second concept of the public is of an indirect, state-run group of CRM prof-essionals educated in professional archaeology and involved in "saving" archaeology "on behalf o1.' the public. Thus, this public is the whole body of people who pay taxes to support state-run regulation of cultural heritage monuments, sites, and other artifacts versus the more corporatist function of the first structure. In light of these new acts, and the work done by CRM professionals. the sites were being preserved "for the public"; "therefore we have a notion in which the state assumes the role of speaking on behalf of the public and of acting 'in the public interest"' (Merriman 2004: 1). Many professionals working in the archaeological field still believe archaeologists are the most qualified people to examine and comment on archaeological )n

PAGE 28

materials. Although they are still evident, the exclusionary methods in public archaeology are beginning to fade out of the picture as archaeologists are now considering other options of collaborating with the public. As public archaeology becomes more considerate about defining what makes up the public sphere, the next step is to define v,fut lhe public is. Merriman examined the role Marxism and post-modernism played in the "opening-up" of archaeology to a wider audience (Merriman 2004:3). He concluded that this journey of public archaeological thought "led to a recognition of the historical contingency of archaeological work, and the multivalency of interpretation" (Merriman 2004: 3). Since Native American Graves Protection and Reoatriation Act (NAGPRA see Appendix A) laws have been enacted, indigenous anA -inori,y *.o.,0, are now responding to the repatriation of cultural materials and have begun to show a growing level of interest in studying their own pasts. Sites with known extant material culture and heritage such as museums, archaeological sites, and parks are now beginning to compete for visitors along with other venues of leisurely activity within the commercial market. In Marketing Heritage, Little explains that "those who work at the intersection of archaeology must be aware of the public search for a usable past and be explicit about their role in creating and promoting such a past" (Little 2004:282 in Baram and Rowan 2004). Due to this growing competitive market, archaeological sites are at odds with both an increased need for government grants to fund these sites and the congruent need for 21

PAGE 29

accountability for such "public" funds, which makes it even more difficult to obtain grants in the first place (Merriman 2004:4). Currently. archaeology draws upon more methods of civic engagement and concerned citizens than ever before. The Society for American Archaeology's current stance on the role of public engagement (Kintigh 1996) is that such an engagement is more than a mere necessity of ethical archaeological training, it is at the core of current archaeological research and training. Already, the SAA acknowledges the effectiveness that undeniably denotes this fact that public engagement is necessary with its increasing awareness of the public demand through internet engagement, public programs, and the like. As Weismann argues, Florida may be at the forefront of public archaeology. Florida's 12,000-year-old history, its state of modern tourism, and its unique success stories of public participation, such as The Pineland project in southwest Florida, have contributed to "amplify general themes in world prehistory and history, and in parlicular, broaden our understanding of alternative or unexpected cultural responses to the dominant forces shaping human life" (Weismann 2003:224). The definition of public archaeology is illustrated by additional functions of the system in place in Florida and around the country that work toward larger anthropological goals of exploring and understanding human diffbrence. The process by which public archaeology draws the public together in understanding the differences among people. yet noting their stark similarities, unifles or reconciles individual identities, increases enthusiasm among interested individuals, and provides 22

PAGE 30

individual/philanthropic support of archaeological sites or projects. Engaging the public is not only a most important step in organizing the structure of a new archaeology, it is now integral to the continuing success ofany archaeological endeavor. In conclusion, defining the pubiic within public archaeology is essential to defining the margins of the field and for defining whom we include in archaeological interpretation and why. Not everyone may have a chance to be heard. Many voices are silenced, not only because of active disenfranchisement, but by passive disregard. it is believed that allowing any alternative interpretation might prove deleterious to achieving a harmony of voices working together to form an engaging nanative (McGuire ). We will lose sight of the existence of social inequalities in our past and present that have been preserved through human material evidence if we allow deprecatory alternative interpretations of our material past to slip through. It is, however, useful for archaeologists to recognize that some alternative theories prove as beneficial to archaeology as their own. Thus, we must find equilibrium in archaeological investigation and acceptance of some alternative theories that advance the field of archaeology. Applied Archaeology and Public Archaeology Applied Archaeology is a concept developed alongside Public Archaeology to address the issues that developed out of a positivistic processual archaeology. The terminology slowly became fused, and while applied archaeology exists mostly as a new form of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) work, public archaeology is involved ^a L-)

PAGE 31

rvith tire pubiic sphere lnore generall,v. Both maintain the goals of serving public interest and furthering ner,v researcir ot-I our engagement rvith the past. After all. acaden-Lics are a paft of the public; they go to and care about museluns. heritage sites. etc. aud there are malty interested individuals, academics or othei'q'ise u,ho share cournton interests rvith archaeologists in preserving heritage resources. It is not irnporlant to differentiate the tr'vo terms because of the similarit,r' i1 their goals. Public archaeoiogy is a forll of applied archaeology, more closely related to the study of public and civic involvement in the production of functioual history. Appliecl anthropologists directly efl-ect the progress of the decisions of those interested i1heritage use and management by' "transferring" anthropological "knou'ledge or skills from the realm of antluopology to auother realm(s) of interest" (Charnbers 2004:194). This questions the pulpose of archaeology. Chambers notes, as allv applied science is measured bv its efl-ectiveness in transfeming knor,vledge fiom otle respective field to arlother. Archaeology has. as he puts it. the abilit.v to transfer knorvledge of tire use ancl management of heritage resources. Thus, r.vhat becomes a significant part of archaeology is its ability to heip the field of cuitural anthropology reach out to modern cultures to unite a forgotten material past, as rvell as its ability in relating and relaying the context of a heritage site to the public. Engagement rvith those interested in helping preserve specific heritage resources is the best method fbr applied archaeology (Erve Charnbers 2004:194). 24

PAGE 32

Ethics and Public Archaeology The principles of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) ethics statement indicate the basis for a redefinition of archaeological method and theory in light of modern archaeological goals. The statement was made for and by those who recognize that a change must be made to further the effectiveness of the current practice of archaeology. By publicizing these ethical facets of archaeology, those within and outside the professional field may promote the discourse of these tenets by utilizing broader interdisciplinary knowledge. I will discuss each principle of SAA's ethical concerns in light of public archaeology and education to show the imporlance of these ideals. On April 10'n 1996, the Society of American Archaeology met and agreed upon the newly appropriated "Principles of Archaeological Ethics." Public outreach is at the heart of most of the SAAs endeavors. The ethics committee, formed in 1991, held a public forum in Anaheim, California to discuss the ethics of archaeological practice and has since developed a full website devoted to public engagement exhibiting resources to become better involved and informed (saa.org/public). The SAA has eight archaeological principles in its code. The first ethical principle involves stewardship. A steward is an advocate for the archaeological record. This is the common term for those who have a generally vested concern for the preservation of and dissemination of knowledge about certain archaeological sites. A steward is usually responsible for caring for and advocating for a 25

PAGE 33

site. A stakeholder, someone r,vho is sornehor.r, connected or interested in a site. rnay not be as involr'ed, but may be nonetheless as concerned. Both types of individuals are members of arciraeology groups. curators. museum staff^ volunteers. phiianthropists. and so or1. In Florida. stervards of archaeological sites l.rave legai duties that include ploviding technical. archaeoiogical, historical. and scientific assistance in site managenent and interpretation as declared by' a legally-binding Site Steward Agreement. They are also responsible for working rvith lar.l' enfbrcement on site disturbances and protectiou. maintenance of the site. and recognizing the site's ou'ner's commitment to the site. Many individuals who own or live on a site fnnction as site steu ards themseives. Ster,vards and stakeholders help define the cor.nplex interaction betr.veen the professional arciraeologist and the public; they ale otien nole generall,v involved members of the public. Just u'hat the term impiies, a stakeholder of any archaeological material or site is someone or some group that is particularly concerned rvith a particuiar artifact whether for purposes of education, protection. or even destruction preveution. Deveiopers har,e a stake in a site if tbund on land tirey wish to develop. The second principle is accoturtability which, although only briefly discussed (in one sentence), is one of the more impoftant principles of archaeological practice. Accountability involves respotlsible research. active coliaboration with descendants of archaeological sites and of the surrounding comrnurrity. transparerlcy during the entilety of any archaeological project. and the goodwill effort to make a committnent to the above ideals. zo

PAGE 34

The third principle involves commercialization of archaeological materials. The buying and selling of artifacts, and any method b-v which to increase the perceived monetary value of artifacts, is strictly discouraged by the SAA. The belief is that commercialization of and "personal enjoyment or profit," as stated by the SAA, results in the purposeful destruction of archaeological sites of importance, and inhibits the flow of information to the public. Artifacts that are removed from their context are missing pieces of a larger puzzle. as well as the ultimate destruction of history at a particular site. Principle number four involves public outreach and public education. This principle is the primary focus of this paper and is integral not only to achieving other ethical goals on the SAA's list, but also to creating an environment in which dialectic archaeology can flourish. The stated goals of this principle are to "reach out to. and participate in cooperative efTorls with the aim of improving the preservation, protection. and interpretation of the record." The stated agenda calls for a signilicant push to: "1) enlist public support for the stewardship of the archaeological record; 2) explain and promote the use of archaeological methods and techniques in understanding human behavior and culture; and 3) communicate archaeological interpretations of the past." The principle notes that the public includes: "students and teachers, Native Americans and other ethnic, religious, and cultural groups who find in the archaeological record important aspects of their cultural heritage; lawmakers and government officials; reporters. journalists, and others involved in the media; and the general public." Public outreach and public education is one of the most pertinent aspects of performing 27

PAGE 35

archaeology. Archaeology is imporlant for the whole world as a global community, but before mass media and globalization, it was more important to a nation of people and a particular community. Public outreach, synonymous with global public outreach, and archaeology are integral to attaining the resources needed to maintain and protect the archaeolosical site and record. Principle five interprets intellectual property to mean anything written, discussed, or studied of archaeological importance. The principle treats any intellectual properly as part of the archaeological record, and thus it too must be equally protected and maintained. The principle stipulates that any archaeological discovery (now having become part of the archaeological record) be submitted for public and peer review within "a limited and reasonable time." If, however, one does not submit this material to the public in due time, there is no ethical principle that states that another author cannot publish this information. In fact, it would seem that this parlicular principle would condone such behavior. There is an obvious amount of clout given to public divulgement, which harkens back to the degree to which archaeologists now seek civic engagement. The sixth principle also involves publication and public reporting behavior. persuading archaeologists to seek publicly accessible forms of publication or posting by other means. The exact location of archaeological materials that are being studied or have been studied must remain discreetly published to protect the site and further study of it. The site must also be responsibly accessible to the public. Public archaeology benefits the simultaneous research capability and public accessibility of a site when the public is 28

PAGE 36

invited to participate in excavation, seminars, and/or discussion of a site's preservation and meaning to the community. This dual practice of public research is relatively new, and has the potential to redefine the science of archaeology altogether. Chapter Five extends the discussion of how this can be accomplished at Spanish Point. Principle seven involves advocating for ever-better ways in which archaeological sites, repofts. records, and collections of materials can be preserved. Principle eight involves the proper training and resources available to archaeologists. To protect the archaeological record and lessen its destruction, it is important that archaeologists receive adequate training and experience and have the necessary facilities, programs. and support for their research (For resources regarding ethics. please see Appendix C). This chapter discussed the history of public archaeology in the United States, a history of public engagement, interaction, and concern. Since Thomas Jefferson's 1799 call for archaeological information that would benefit the study of this fUnited States] land, many have responded with a wealth of information that has led to the creation of the archaeological record, an intellectual compendium of knowledge on human civilization, our diversity, and our interaction. In the 2l" century archaeologists have begun studying our material past with even more theories, methods, and goals. One of the best turns yet made on this road to knowledge is observing human diversity, not as an inefi story. but as a dynamic process. The debate within archaeology as to who archaeologists consider the public to be is relatively settled; how to target this audience and create a beneficial interaction between the public and the archaeological record is yet to be agreed upon. The 29

PAGE 37

answer lnay be as simple as creating a clual fratnervork fbr archaeology w-here research and observation become one aud the satne thing. 30

PAGE 38

CHAPTER 3: EXPLOR.ING THE PUBLIC PRESENTATIOI{ OF THE PAST AT HISTORIC SPANISH POINT At first glance, Historic Spanish Point is somewhat unstructured. Given its location directly off US-4, sandwiched between a church and a community of luxury estates, the site offers passersby no Disneyesque grand entrance. The site itself, a complex of 32 acres of historic buildings, prehistoric structures, and gardens, is hidden within a forest of Florida scrub. Regardless of Historic Spanish Point's visibility, the site is more than a mere interpretation of the past. The stafi volunteers, and, sometimes, even the visitors share a connection with the site and the past preserved at the property, yet few locals from Sarasota County visit the site. Few Sarasotans know of Spanish Point, and an even fewer number acknowledge the significance of the site as a piece of Florida's heritage. A small, yet efficient, staff manages the site including a director, marketing director, and education outreach person. The true anomaly of the site is how few visitors frequent the site despite the valiant attempts by the marketing director to promote the site. Having grown up 250 miles southeast of Sarasota, I have a more justified explanation as to why I had not heard of Historic Spanish Point. Up until college, I had not heard of most archaeological sites of importance; not even those in my own state. My interest in Historic Spanish Point came from this new form of archaeology that I heard about in class; public archaeology, as it was called, was a way to engage the public, and 31

PAGE 39

at Spanish Point I fbund an opportunity to examine the application of this theory. Soon, I became involved in the site as a volunteer in the classroom dig program. The program was designed to give local elementary school children an idea of what archaeology is and how it is done. The program was part of a larger effoft, as a supplement to the social studies curricula, to involve students in the process of "making" history. My principal duties involved uncovering the "dig site," as the staff and volunteers termed it, and leading 3'd grade students and their teachers through a set program. We began by getting the children to group together into three or four groups at tables. My fellow volunteer and I would exchange giving the instructions on how to dig properly in the dig site. and supervise the children on how to dig. Before any of this occurred, one of us would briefly go over some basic archaeological principles by having children answer questions related to archaeology: "Why don'tyou see any wooden objects onthis table of artifacts?" "Yes, you're correct. because wood rots. It wouldn't survive 3000 years in our midden; wood lasts no more than a century in the warm, humid Florida climate." "Why are these shells shiny and shaped oddly?" "No, they didn't find them that way; they became shiny after many months or years of rubbing as they used this shell as a tool." The children were often very engaged in their 'Job" to sift through our arlifact-stocked dirt pit, and I was very engaged in trying to understand not only how to answer their myriad questions, but why I would feel the need to answer them in a parlicular way (see figure 3. 1). Often, the children would ask me whether something was an arlifact or not. A good 90 percent of the items in the dig site were not artifacts; that was to give the children a more "real" experience. Many volunteers answered this question with a aa )L

PAGE 40

"Maybe. it possibly cor"rld irave been used as a hair pin, or sule, maybe that could be a r.vhaie bone or shark's tootlt." N{ore often than not" they u'ould hand off the question to one of the tnore experienced r,olunteers or stafL not because tliey figured tire more experieuced volunteer n'ould knorv u'hat the itenr rvas, but because the volurteer had more experience telling a child that u,hat they lvere holding \\,asn't iirdeed a mammotir tooth or a raccoon femur. that it n'as probabiy nothing ltlore than parl of a seasheil. This u'as difficrilt to tell the children because they often thought they fbund an arlifact. .a: *;$ :.. ;tu .:.{ -' :. i-. ..-t..1'*:. ts_= r-i .-,-...i nl -E;+ .F--t a ,,:E. :'., : ,t. F* Figure 3.1 Shor,r,ing Children Artifacts and Asking The Children Questions JJ

PAGE 41

As much as we wanted to make this as close to a real experience as was possible for a group of 3'd graders, we wanted them to have some fun before they would tackle the larger questions a few years later. It didn't escape the minds of the three New College students who were part of this volunteership that telling the kids anything but the truth might be a disservice both to the validity of archaeological science and to the learning of the 3'd grade student. After all, the 3'd grade student was to become a 4th grade student and come back to the site to view the site in terms of the historical (rather than prehistoric) elements. While only a page or two in the school's history books cover the entire prehistoric period of the state, Historic Spanish Point, alone, has the capability of generating thousands of pages of data. This signifies the will of the state more than anything. What Tallahassee considers appropriate teaching material is most notably not what many archaeologists or historians would consider appropriate in the context of social studies classrooms (as evidenced in my experience as a volunteer in the Adventures in Learning program and throughout my New College education). My involvement ended after a few months. I had been also involved with helping the curator catalogue various miscellaneous shells and artifacts that had been pulled out ofcontext from a hole dug out for a signpost. I left the education program to pursue other interests for a time and due to a scheduling conflict with my classes. I could not help thinking about the classroom dig and how the site was being presented to the students. It 34

PAGE 42

was not long befbre I also becarne interested in horv the site rvas being presented aduits. Alter many brief discussions r,vith chaperones and teachers about the classroom dig. I realized that there was a consensus among these adults that lve u'ere "doing a good job," that "archaeology is important lor kids," and that "this is really neat that rve allorv the children to perform a dig." The dig r,vasiust tirat: a performance. Although I doubt the teacher meant it that u'ay. I think she helped me see the dig in a new light. Tire adults seerned to think that archaeology rvas nothirlg rnore than pla-ving in the dirt. The volunteers and I were part of a special theatre troop performing a shor,v lbr tlie students that f-eatured men and women from all over the world r'vhose occupation meant that lrom sandbox to a post-doctorate education, arciraeologists nould not ever have to stop "playing" in the dir1. What r,vith the small amount of time betu,een one FCAT section and another. '"r,e simpl,v did not have the time to spend edr-rcating these children about useful rnethods and theories in archaeoloqy. The ciassroom dig perpetllates this concept of archaeology being.lor kids (but &1' Ph.D.s in the field of archaeology). This is a common feeling among many people whom I've cotne across during HSP tours. In one particular intervierv I aslied r,r,ho archaeologl, u,as meant fbr. The following is an excerpt from this intervierv: I (interviener): Great. Who do 1'ou think archaeoiogy is rneant for? Do you think lt ls lor all of humanity. for concerned individuais oniy, r,vho do you think it's meant fbr? Y(younger rvoman): Well. rneant fbr, or benefit to? Is that the sarne thing? 35

PAGE 43

I: I rvould say let's start u,ith 'rvho is it meant for' and tiren rve'll rnove on to u'ho it benefits. W (older woman): I think it's meant for educators and students. It benefits e\/eryolle. Y: I wouid agree. Nzi (older man): You could split hairs on the definition, but it goes back to the previous question. Which is basically. if it helps you learn rvhat helped people in the past, and what to avoid in the past. and horl,they survived and ail that kiud of thing. to an extent it can help you learn things and literally. it's benefiting you. I: Who wouid you say the public is, or are the groups that make up the public... (aw'kward pause) that u'orild come to sights like this. W: School children. interested individuals? I: Interested how? W: People w'ho enjo,v history and enjoy learning about the places that they're visiting or the surroundings lin which] they live... to know as much about it as possible. M: I'm ok with that. Y: That's a good ans\\'er. I: Can yoti explain the deflnition of public arciraeologv. I knor,r'l already talked to you a littie bit abor.rt it before. but lvhat's your take on public archaeology? Y: I think it's creating envirorunents for the everyday person to parlicipate in tire past. Y: rather than a site that's secluded just for scientists or academics. it's a place fbr anyolle to participate in, and be a palt ol. W: I think it's also a wa), not only to get peopie to parlicipate in learniug about the past. but to get peopie interested in supportin-q and funding those things. which if they knerv anything about they'd certainly be interested in firnding. I: That's definitell, one of tire goals. M: Let me add one thing. I think the public, in general. has very little trndelstanding of what archaeology is, or what peopie do. And, to the extent that more people are exposed to rvhat archaeoiog)'is, they'11have a better appreciation of the resuits that the archaeologists determine. (recorded: 12:30 31412048) 36

PAGE 44

Many archaeologists, such as the ones mentioned in the last chapter, advocate teaching archaeology to children via classroom activities and interactive field trips. The phenomenon is not that archaeologists promote archaeology within k-12 schools; it is that many adults seem to believe that the creative, critical thought of our material history, of the archaeological imagination, should stop at childhood education. While i do not have the answers to why this is so, I argue that this is one reason HSP is frequented more by Sarasota's children than by its adults. While children are apt at learning through tactile exhibits such as Historic Spanish Point's archaeological dig program, adults may associate this interaction with child's play. It is along this vein that I suggest a more "adult" form of interaction. Adults may be better equipped fbr a dialogical exploration of an archaeolosical site. As much as what I observed at Spanish Point has to do with what people did know of archaeology, I was equally concerned w-ith what people did not know of the site or of archaeology. There are many methods of understanding the reasons for this observation. I could easily have drawn conclusions from handing out surveys at the site, or by asking each tour several questions about their experience. Those who do not know much about the site seem most embarrassed and compensate by feigning to be expefis coming from one perspective or another. I am not so sure that those who act this way should be ignored. I believe it is imporlant to engage the observer at this point in the dialogue of issues that have been thought ofby researchers on the site, or on issues that are still debatable. This harkens back to the notion of a dialectic exchanee between observer and docent. While the docent or archaeolosist is trained to understand and aa J/

PAGE 45

explain the site. it is important for the sake of stimulating visitors and provoking a critical analy-sis that the guide explains u'hat parts o1'tire puzzle are incomplete and hor.v the visitor may interpret the archaeological record from a different perspective. For exarnple. the docetrts expiain the Pah'ner period of Spanish Point by r.nentioning that Mrs. Pahner was a u'idow. rancirer. entrepreneur. and fighter for women's rights: none of these iterns. in particular. lend to a ner,v interpretation of her roie in Sarasota. Modern minds n-ray wonder why Mrs. Palrner sought a secluded farm life so far from the hustle and bustle of the city where sire ied the life of an admired socialite. My nethodoiogy for data collection arises out of a concel'n fbr the value and elfectiveness of presenting outdoor nrnseum and heritage marketing. Marketing becomes a concern for such sites that seek to transfoun the heritage value of a site into a conrrnodifled one (Baram and Rowan 2A0q. This brand concept corres out ol a trencl of marketing that takes into account a site's particular identity r,vithin the iristorical or conmunity's perception of the site (Scott 2000:115). Scoit suggests there are three fbrms of branding: prodr"rct and corporate. as rvell as a values brand which she and others associate parlicularly with the museum site (Scott 2000: Kiely and Fialliday 1999). Sarasota is touted as being the culturai capital of Florida. In a public document entitied: Where We Stand: Pubiic Policy Positions of The Greater Sarasota Chamber of Cornrnerce. the chanrber expiains its position on the arls and culture: 38

PAGE 46

"The arts, as an industry, provides hundreds of millions of dollars in economtc impact to the local economy on an annual basis. Because of the breadth and scope of cultural activities available in the Sarasota area we are rightly positioned as Florida's "Cultural Coast." The Chamber believes "The Arts" improve our quality of life and make our community a more vital place to live and work. Being able to expose our children to such a diverse array of cultural experiences helps them become more resourceful and creative, forming the foundation for our future." (Sarasota Chamber of Commerce 2002) Branding is an important concept to consider, as Historic Spanish Point is a site that has little brand power in a community that prides itself on its ability to showcase many facets of culture. There is a reason for Historic Spanish Point not being branded a must-see site in Sarasota. The site's low attendance may be the lack of the site's brand power. Nightingale's theory that other non-heritage leisure activities are being visited in lieu of heritage sites may be a good argument for Spanish Point, but this fails to consider other factors such as the valiant efforls of the marketins coordinator to draw both visitors and attention to the site. The question is why this is the case. The reason for this lack of concern about HSP may be deeper and more complex than the marketing and commercialization of the site. It may be that this community is fragmented culturally and divided socio-economically. Although Sarasota has a wealth of arts and culture, it lacks the diversity of culture experienced by different demographics of the community; oflen 39

PAGE 47

what comes across as "culture" is what the more fiscally fbrtunate members of the community would appreciate. The site, located 10 miles away from the city of Sarasota, is relatively remote. The admission to the site is around $8, which is moderately expensive for the period this study took place (2007-2008). It is not clear who the site is for, this may be Spanish Point's greatest problem. I{istoric Spanish Point may just be victim of falline in between this socio-economic and cultural divide. I sought a method for understanding what was getting across from the site to the visitor. I realized after a couple months that interviews were limited and often too subjective. Those who came to the site represented one segment of society. There was a surprisingly lack of diversity among those I met who came to the site. Most were snowbirds or visitors from out of the country. I soon reahzed that my methodology should change, and my new plan began to observe the visitors at the site and take tours with them. If a question was asked of the visitor's own volition, I noted what questions were being asked, and how this fit into the context of the tour guide's presentation of the site. I was no longer concerned with the past experiences of the visitor (archaeological or otherwise). I realize that this may be a fault in my adequately obtaining data on any particular visitor, but I am confident I can still attain my goals of understanding how the site is presented, what is interesting to the average tour parlicipant, and what methods of presentation are most enlightening to the average site-goer. I fuither explored the topic of leisure and of Florida's tourist industry examining Lhe 200718 Florida Almanac, which surveys show that leisure was by the 40

PAGE 48

prevailing reason for most visits to the state (McGovern 2007:317). The average amount of time spent on any given trip was slightly more than 5 nights (tourists who came by air spent on average half a day longer). The survey participants "listed their favorite activities as shopping. going to the beach, visiting theme parks, touring, and sightseeing (McGovern 2007:317). Furlher statistics on tourism from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research show that, in 2002, about $193 million were spent on arts, entefiainment, and recreation; whether that includes archaeological or heritage tourism is not clear (2007:621). What is clear from the research is that in 2005, 5.9o/o of visitors to Florida went to state parks during their trip, 4.Io/o went to museums or art sites, and 3.90% to historic sites. While those who visited museums and arl sites increased by 1.2 percent from 2004, visitors to historic sites fell by 1%.lt is not evident from the statistics whether a site like Spanish Point would refer to the museums or the historic sites category. 46.2% of visitors' households made between $50,000 and $99,000 a year. Less impoverished (5.6%) visited Florida than the l5oh of the other extreme at $125,000 a year or more (BEBR 2007:629). The unemployment payroll for museum and historic sites employees rose by $700,000/month from 2005 to 2006 (BEBP. 200:647). Sarasota is the fourth best grant-funded county for culture and the arts. Thus, the concern for analyzing Historic Spanish Point and the role of public interaction and engagement is also concerned with observing not only the multiple narratives the site provides in terms of its branding, but which groups are being targeted as potential visitors and moral/financial supporters of archaeology. The methodology for this thesis began with interviews directed at the visitors, but failed to account for the true 4l

PAGE 49

receptiveness of the visitors and docents that is more evident by observing the visitors throughout the tour. Though Sarasota's Chamber of Comrnerce recognizes Sarasota as the "Cultural Coast." its definition rnay be relative to the kind of afis and culture that are enjoyed by a select feu,. HSP does not outwardly direct its brand to a specific segment of the population. Though this may not fully' explain why Sarasotans have not heard of or rarely visit Spanish Point. it may explain r.n.hy many have a difficult time knowing whether or not the site's heritage ''belongs" to Sarasota's cornmunity as a r+'hole. 42

PAGE 50

43 CHAPTER 4: HISTORIC SPANISH POI NT AS A HERITAGE SIT E Historic Spanish Point is a 32-acre outdoor museum site comprised of approximately 5 layers of history: a late archaic period, the Manasota/Late Woodland period, a pioneer (Webb family) period, the Palmer period, and the present. The site is valuable for a number of reasons, but fo r the caretakers at the site, the greatest emphasis is on the historic periods (the pioneer and Palmer periods). Historical archaeology at Spanish Point offers a unique perspective on Floridas pioneer life. Much of the historic period is emphasized, as wh at is visible on the surface gives the visitor an immediate perception of the settlement. Houses remain from the Webb pioneer family, Mrs. Bertha Palmer, the wealthy, early 20th century socialite who purchased the Webbs land built more upon the site, as well as on the Indian mounds that both parties understood to have been there long before the pioneers had arrived. Upon closer examination, there are more layers of history that do not fit quite as cohesively. I will begin with prehistoric Historic Span ish Point and proceed to the present (For a linear chronology of settlements and events at Historic Spanish Point, please see Appendix D). What is presented in this chapter is a description of the site, its notable individuals, and the major events that le d to its current state as a heritage site in Southwest Florida. Spanish Point, as it was referred to before being made into an archaeological park in 1980, has a long history dating back to about 2500BCE when the first native Floridians set foot upon the fertile area now known as Lemon Bay. This ecological zone is home to

PAGE 51

44 some of the richest sea life in southwest Florida and probably played a significant role in the lives of each settlement to have called this site its home. The complexity of the sites occupational history begins with a gap in time between the Late Archaic (5000 -3500yrs ago) and Manasota/Late Woodland (up to 1000yrs ago) settlements. There is little evidence for the termination of either settlement. After prehistoric times, the area was vacant of human activity, since about 1000CE; the first settled people after that time that have documented evidence was the Webb pioneer family. The History of Native Inhabitants in Osprey, Florida Native peoples lived in and around what is today Saras ota County (see location on figure 4.1). Shell middens and mounds last as a tribute to their long occupation of this land before any person of European descent arrived on this continent. The native inhabitants form a different layer of civilization entirel y, one that set the stage for the modern city of Osprey and the county of Sarasota. The historical landscape of Historic Spanish Point did not develop as it stands today until pioneers from the northern states came to this area in the mid to late 19th cent ury.

PAGE 52

45 Figure 4 .1 Google Earth (NASA) Image/Map of Florida Osprey, FL is pinpointed on image The Late Archaic period at Historic Spanish Point is characterized by a single, wide ring -shaped mound made up of shells found locally. Shell middens, also known as kitchen middens or garbage middens, are an important piece of human history. Appearing along the coasts of rivers, seas, and bays, these middens are various in their shape. They show an obvious activity: eating (Hirst 2007) It is debatable what these middens were created for, what part of the local ideology they fit into, or whether they are accurately explained given the ecological or material paradigms that archaeologists usually use to determine their significance. It is clear that prehistoric groups created these

PAGE 53

46 shell mounds from many generations worth of eating and living and discarding the shells, tools, and other artifacts that were no longer useful to them in daily life. There are three middens and a burial mound at the Palmer site ranging in age from 5000 years old to about 1000 years old. The oldest midden the archaic midden is under and around another monument of historic origin, the Guptill house (1901). There are two other elongated shell middens lining t he coast of the small peninsula that juts into Little Sarasota Bay and a small burial mound (see figure 4.2 & 4 .3). The ring shape of the late archaic midden is thought to have been due to a natural freshwater spring that the inhabitants would have used as a freshwater source. The area has since become a swamp like pond. There have been no attempts to verify whether or not this was indeed a spring that the archaic inhabitants used for their drinking water. During the Palmer period, various ferns were added to the landscape along with an elevated aqueduct system that brought water from the pond to a fountain made of tabby and lightning whelks. The two elongate shell middens are not as tall as the archaic midden, but they are much larger in surface area, whic h may signify a larger population during the period that corresponded to the settlement that lived upon the midden. The mounds are adjacent to the shoreline and act as a barrier against tidal surges. Evidence suggests that much of the habitation during thi s second (Manasota/Late Woodland) period was directly on top or near the top of these two middens. The burial mound is located between the two ends of middens 8s02C and 8s02B, and a bit farther off from both middens a bit farther northeast. The entrance to the park begins along the eastern side of the burial midden (see figure

PAGE 54

47 4.2). The burial mound was partially excavated (about excavated) by Ripley P. and Adelaide Bullen, an archaeologist husband and wife team who examined the site in 195962. During t his time, the Bullens excavated 429 individuals, 4 dogs, and a Florida alligator (Bullen and Bullen 1976). The Osprey collection at the University of Floridas Museum of Natural History is one of the largest skeletal assemblages in the southeastern United States (Gulf Coast Heritage Association 2008). Figure 4 .2 Placement of the 3 middens and 1 burial m ound at the Palmer Site W S HSP (The Palmer Site 8s02) Shell Midden 8s02 B Shell Midden 8s02 C Burial Mound 8s02 D Archaic Midden 8s02 A N S

PAGE 55

48 Figure 4 .3 H istoric S panish P oint ma p with modern implements There are no known genetic descendents of the inhabitants at the site, as the last of the inhabitants are thought to have left or died off prior to 1100CE. The closest inhabitants to the sites inhabitants were the Calusa. The Calusa people were a vast chiefdom of settled fishing people who had a rich, vibrant culture living in and around the present-day Charlotte Harbor area in South West Florida (see figure 4 .4). Many believe, given the similarities in artifacts of Historic Spanish Point that the Calusa inhabited the midden sites. However, there i s not enough substantial evidence, as the Calusa readily traded with their neighbors to the north and south. Whoever inhabited the Palmer Site (the archaeological identification for the site of Historic Spanish Point) may have acquired some Calusa goods through trade as well.

PAGE 56

49 Archaeologists have developed a cultural chronology to date material remains (see table 4.1) in the southwest region of Florida from what is known as the Early Paleo Indian period (11500BC-8500BC) to the Caloosahatchee V period during AD1500 -1750 (Marquardt 1992, 13). The Palmer site is suggested to fall in the Late Archaic period (2000BC-1200BC) due to the predominance of ceramic pottery that app ears at other sites at the same time (Marqu ardt 1992:14). Date Period Present at Some Diagnostic Artifacts A.D. 1500 1750 Caloosahatchee V Big Mound Key, Mound Key, Galt Island and Pineland burial mounds, Useppa Island European artifacts (e.g., metal, beads, olive jar sherds) A.D. 1350 1500 Caloosahatchee IV Pineland, John Quiet, Buck Key Safety Harbor, Glades Tooled, and Pinellas Plain pottery present; Belle Glade Plain diminishes A.D. 1200 1350 Caloosahatchee III Buck Key, Galt Island, Josslyn Island, Pineland St. Johns Check Stamped, Englewood ceramics; Belle Glade Plain prominent A.D. 800(?) 1200 Caloosahatchee IIB Big Mound Key, Galt Island, Josslyn Island, Pineland, Useppa Island Belle Glade Red present; Belle Glade Plain prominent A.D. 650 800(?) Caloosahatchee IIA Cash Mound, Galt Island, Josslyn Island, Pineland, Useppa Island Beginning of Belle Glade Plain and SPCB ceramics, Glades Red, thinner ceramics 500 B.C A.D. 650 Caloosahatchee I Cash Mound, Josslyn Island, Useppa Island, Pineland Thick sand tempered plain pottery with round and chamfered lips 1200 B.C. 500 B.C. Terminal Period (transitional) Useppa Island, Wightman, 8CR107 Fiber tempered pottery; semi fiber tempered pottery 2000 B.C. 1200 B.C. Late Archaic Palmer Useppa Island, 8CR107, 8CR110, 8CR111, 8CR112 Orange Plain, Orange Incised, Perico Incised, Perico Plain, St. Johns Plain, steatite 5000 B.C. 2000 B.C. Middle Archaic Bay West, Horrs Island, Little Salt Spring, Useppa Island Coastal sites, but no ceramics, broad stemmed bifaces, e.g. Newman mortuary ponds 6500 B.C. 5000 B.C. Early Archaic Horrs Island, West Coral Creek Sites on coastal dune ridges ca. 5000B.C.; earlier coastal sites probably inundated by rising sea level 8500 B.C. 6500 B.C. Late Paleo Indian Little Salt Spring, Warm Mineral Springs, West Coral Creek Dalton and Bolen bifaces, bone points, non returning boomerang, socketed wooden point, oak mortar, atlatl spur

PAGE 57

50 11500 B.C. 8500 B.C. Early Paleo Indian Little Salt Spring Only Wooden tools known Table 4 .1 Generalized Chronology for Caloosatchee Area and Immediate Environs (Marquardt and Payne 1992, 13; highlights added) Among the Calusa sites dating between A.D. 500 -1000 (Caloosahatchee I -IIB), the Calusa were building their middens up higher than they had previously, possibly to prevent enemies from attacking and to contain storm surges. More than likely, the height may have indicated the prestige for a ruling chief or headperson ; (MacMahon and Marquardt 2004, 96) the higher the midden or mound, th e more wealth or power an individual or group had Before A.D. 500 there was another unique cultural period that is reflected by the wider middens found at Historic Spanish Point (see figure 4.2). As this period predates much of what has been recorded by or inferred by the Spanish colonists in the 1500 s, there is much less definitive historical data to support any claim that the middens were created for the same purposes as they were for the Caloosahatchee I -IIB culture period. Archaeology in this area su ggests that the only tie to the Calusa culture is a similarity in the style of pottery found at the Palmer site. There are not any historical or oral records of the people inhabiting the Palmer site.

PAGE 58

51 Figure 4 .4 Major Archaeological Sites attributed to the Calusa culture in SW Florida The uniqueness of each middens shape, size, and location determine s its significance in archaeological research (see figure 4.5). Middens are formed in an upward and outward process (MacMahon and Marquardt 2004, 96), which becomes apparent upon observing the cross -section of a midden, which is almost always that of a bell

PAGE 59

52 shape. Layers can often be complicated due to post -depositional processes such as wind, water, or storm surge erosion, animal burrowing, removal by humans, or tree rooting (Stein 1992; Claassen 1998; and MacMahon and Marquardt 2004). The shape of the mound may also have had other effects on the culture of the p eople who deposited them. Figure 4 .5 Cross section of a shell midden One of the archaeologic al analyses of shell middens is performed by superposition (MacMahon and Marquardt 2004, 98): a means of identifying shells based on their location within the midden in relation to those underneath and above them (ceteris paribus this would give a rough idea of when the shell s were deposited). Archaeologists might also use Electric Resensitivity Methods (ERMs) such as Horizontal Electric Profiling (HEP), Vertical Electrical Soundings (VES), or the Seismic Refraction Method to study the shell midden (Stein 1992, 44) or decide that a m idden is not analyzable due to a significant amount of post -depositional forces (Bowdler 2006, 319). Each process, although they are all performed in a scientific manner, seems to require that a subjective analysis be made to each piece of data as each stu dy results in slightly 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0ft. The Bell Shape of a Common Shell Midden Plateau & Dispersal Zones

PAGE 60

53 different measurements; outside geomorphic and taphonomic factors must also be accounted for. Geomorphic conditions such as stratigraphic disruption by settling, earthquakes (not quite the case in Florida), hurricanes/ storms, bulldozing, etc. create the need to further the interpretive approach in analyzing shell middens. Sarasota and Osprey Before the Pioneers At Spanish Point Floridas history is one of vicious battles fought in vast forests, tall grasslands, or on the sandy beach es; it is one of agriculture, settlement, and a frontier way of life. Florida is home to beautiful coasts, as well as bountiful water and soil, but Florida is also home to slaveholders on one of the countrys southernmost plantations and two of the bloodie st battles in the history of the United States land expansion. Florida is a dynamic land, changing from a land of agricultural wealth and pristine natural beauty to what we see today, a landscape of tourism, agriculture, and snowbirds. Florida is a land fu ll of history both prehistoric and historic. Uncovering the layers of Floridas history can be difficult in urban sprawl. As it was customary for the native people to build their hearths upon another generations hearth, so have we covered up Floridas his tory with layers of concrete, asphalt, and rebar. Luckily, Historic Spanish Point is a uniquely well -preserved site amidst many others that have been lost. Already inhabited with some of North Americas first Spanish forts and trading posts, Florida had served manifold functions for the Spanish during the 15th and 16th centuries when Florida became a reputedly important location of trade, passage, and

PAGE 61

54 military outposts. St. Augustine, Americas first city, had been around for 260 years before the United States began its sovereignty over the state, and on the other end of the state, Key West remained one of the largest trade ports in Florida all throughout Floridas many wars. Floridas Spanish rule ended in 1763 when the treaty of Paris awarded Florida an d much of present -day North America to the British (Matthews 1983: 63). That same year, the British moved fast to map the regions by calling upon Britains cartographers and geo -surveyors. Britains Royal Proclamation split Florida into two separate politi cal jurisdictions, East and West Florida (64). Florida was under British rule for only twenty years (1763 1783) during which time British Loyalists fled the North to escape the violence of an environment increasingly hostile to anti -revolutionists. Dur ing the 20 -year British occupation of Florida, the Spanish remained in parts of the Keys and in other locations along the coasts in west East Florida. Many Spanish and Native Americans, bitter under British rule, fueled a renewed campaign to recapture Flor ida for Spain. In 1779, Spain went to war with the English, and in 1783, after four years of fighting, the Treaty of Paris gave Florida, again, to the Spanish (Matthews 1983:70). In the midst of the First Seminole War (1814 -1819), in 1818, the US and Spa in negotiated with each other for Florida. The Spanish King Ferdinand VII gave three large parcels of land to three court members, and the rest to the United States in 1819 through the Adams-Onis treaty. One victim of the change in sovereignty over Florida was a maroon settlement in Sarasota that had been around since 1812 in what was called Oyster

PAGE 62

55 River (Matthews 1983: 71, Canter Brown 1990). Joaqun and Jos Caldez, Spanish fishermen, lived in Southern Sarasota Bay on opposite sides of a location that the y called Angola and left records of this settlement. The maroons, or ex -slaves/runaway slaves escaped to found this community and lived with the Spanish fisherman and some citrus growers (72). Angola was destroyed in 1821 after the U.S. began its occupat ion. Caldez had been fishing in the Sarasota waters for 47 years when William Whitehead, who was appointed tax collector in Key West (in 1830), met him at what is today Useppa Island in 1831 after he began surveying the coast of Florida (72). The Spanish fishermen located throughout Florida had been living peaceably with the native people for generations by this point in history, but were also devoted to opening up trade relations with the Americans who now owned most of Florida. In 1835, the Second Seminole War began. As Janet Matthews notes of the remaining Spanish fisherman, When the two forces American and Indian became enemies, they [the Spanish] were caught in the middle. Their way of life was ultimately destroyed by the American soldiers and the In dian warriors (Matthews 1993:78). At the end of the Second Seminole War (1835 -1842), the Seminoles had been pushed farther south into what is now known as Big Cypress Swamp. Fort Myers stood as the boundary to their new territory. The Seminoles have nev er officially lost the war, and the Seminoles of Florida are known to be the only Native American tribe not to have been defeated in battle. The United States government, only about 65 years old by the time, had made every effort possible to prevent the Se minoles from taking back the land;

PAGE 63

56 in doing so they created one of the most violent legal sanctions of the 19th century: the Armed Occupation Act. The Armed Occupation Act was meant to prevent the Seminoles in Florida from living on the last frontier that they had been constrained to emigrate to. Essentially, the act made any person who would doggedly defend his homestead for five years (presumably with arms as defense and the extermination of the Seminole tribe as an assumed result) the legal owner of a 160 -acre parcel of land. Matthews quotes Senator Thomas Hart Benton, Military Affairs Committee Chairman, introduced to the Senate just two years earlier in 1840: Armed occupationis the true way of settling and holding a conquered country The heart of the Indian sickens when he hears the crowing of the cock, the barking of a dog, the sound of the axe (Matthews 1983: 127). The Webb Family Settle in Osprey, Florida It was not long before the next chapter of Sarasota history brings us the first settlement to the Osprey area since 1100CE. The first pioneers came to Spanish Point in 1867 from Utica, New York. The family, John and Eliza Webb, along w ith their five children and Elizas sister Emily, were the first recorded pioneers to Osprey, Florida. They settled in Spanish Point in the late summer of 1867 after the familys long and eventful journey.

PAGE 64

57 Eliza and John Webb left the state of New York w ith their five children: Anna, Will, Lizzie, Jack, and Ginnie Webb. They began their lives in the northern city of Utica, New York where the family already owned land (273). Eliza had an asthmatic condition that doctors at the time believed to be aggravated by the cold winters and the harsh climate of the north. In 1858, John began planning a trip to Virginia in order to scout out whether or not the climate would be more conducive to his wifes health. There, John had been introduced as a skilled merchant a man of standingalso a well skilled chemist (Matthews 1983:275). They were introduced to a group of families, one in particular, the Cabells who were related to the Gambles in Florida, continued communication with their new friends and asked that they move down to be their neighbors. It was during this time that John became interested in Robert Gambles writings. In 1862, the Homestead Act was passed, and the Civil W ar began putting pressure on his farm and his familys lives. It was not before long that the Webb s decided to leave for Florida. Most o f Florida was a wilderness and known to be a frontier land in the 1860s. In 1866, they began the first of many long steps toward leaving New York for Florida and selling off what they could, packing what th ey could not, or did not want to sell, and in January 1867, they went by train to New York City to sail to their new destination in Florida ( Matthews 1983:276). They took everything that seemed necessary to set up a homestead and clear land in faraway F lorida--family papers, the Bible, books, keepsakes, furniture, farming implements, an apple corer --and a pen of chickens (Matthews 1983:275). The family

PAGE 65

58 decided to board a sailboat to their Manatee River destination; although slower, i t would cost $375 for the family, $200 dollars less than by steamer. Sailing also mandated that they debark at Key West before the journey was over. John Webb spoke with locals at Key West about Florida before meeting a Spanish trader who told him of an id eal settling location with small bluffs overlooking the pristine waters of the Gulf of Mexico. This initially obviated having to search for an ideal location to settle. Frontier landscapes are not without unforeseen circumstances, and John Webb did not find Spanish Point as easily as he would have today. From Key West the boat first landed in the port of the small town of Tampa unloading cargo before dropping the Webbs and their belongings off in the little settlement village of Manatee ( Matthews 1983:278). Although the settlement was far from any major battles, the war had not spared the sparsely settled village. When the Webbs arrived, there was reportedly only one store, almost no traffic, and a small sloop to haul in passengers. Seven months had elap sed since they began their long journey from New York City, and the family was ready to settle down. The Webb s soon found Tera Ceia Island after John and his son explored south of the M anatee settlement. The land on t he island was wild, and is still wild to this day in some parts. There were rolling bluffs (Native American shell middens and burial mounds) amidst a lush landscape overlooking t he Gulf of Mexico. After they paid a Spanish fisherman who resided on the island for the land and built a large pa lmetto house

PAGE 66

59 made from lumber shipped across the river, the fisherman gave back the gold and refused to give the land to the Webbs ( Matthews 1983:279). It was then that the towns people started to become increasingly ill. Between Tampa and Manatee, 65 b ecame ill and 15 died of the Yellow Fever. The Webbs went south and eventually found the land that the Spanish trader had referred to. One of the daughters wrote to one of her suitors about the long and treacherous journey. It took three days by boat (the only method of transit ) to get to their new location. The coastal location was a natural venue for the study of nature and for enjoying warm winters. This gave the Webbs a perfect opportunity to host guests during the wintertime in a boarding house. John Webb, himself fascinated by the sciences, was lauded for his efforts and interests in both researching (digging up) skulls and shells as well as for hosting various scientists from the Smithsonian at his winter resort ( Matthews 1983:292-298). This inclu ded Al !s Hrdl"ka, a Smithsonian scientist who was the first to study the Spanish Point. The Webbs had moved to Florida for a variety of reasons including Elizas health, the Civil War, the Homestead Act, as well as John Webbs interest in nature and scie nce. Each reason is mutually exclusive, yet nevertheless each compelled the Webbs to move to Florida. Issues of race, class, and gender are relatively neutral in th e history of the pioneers; this may speak in and of itself in explicating this issue-neutral type of history. From the archived letters, childbearing, for example, may be one issue that could be

PAGE 67

60 addressed as a gender issue ; the fact that the Webb family was able to escape the civil war, to the extent that they did, may also have been facilitated by the Webb familys socio-economic capabilities Far removed from their neigh bors, the family was independent, but not completely. They made their own clothes, grew their own food, and supplied their own labor, but t hey also received packages from famil y and friends of shoes, initial provisions, seeds, etc. which were not, or could not, be obtained easily from the area. In new surroundings, the family was forced to make do with what they had; any move to a new environment is an experiment in social chang e. As part of a larger movement within the state in the early years of the 20th century, th e Webb family helped facilitate Floridas burgeoning trade economy, agriculture, and tourism industry with their orange crops and winter resort. Soon, the Webbs wer e taking in visitors from across the northern United States from areas that were hit hardest by the winter. The Webbs guests to the site can be seen in numerous photographs playing at the beach, walking along the property, and enjoying Floridas winters. Bertha Honore Palmer Arrives in Florida It was not long before the next chapter in Sarasota history unfolds. These pioneers attracted a wealthy socialite named Mrs. Palmer. Bertha Mathilde Honor Palmer was born in Louisville, Kentucky in 1849 on May the 22nd. Berthas father was a wealthy man who built his empire by developing real estate. He moved his family to Chicago as his

PAGE 68

61 real estate business, and the city of Chicago began to grow exponentially. Bertha was only six when she moved to Chicago in 1855. Bertha Honor grew up among some of the wealthiest and influential people during the time (Mansperger and Matthews 1999:2). Bertha grew up in an unsurprisingly large family of six children, and went to school at the Convent of the Visitation in Georgetown, Washington D.C. Bertha was thirteen years old when she met Potter Palmer, a successful and wealthy Chicago businessman. Potter Palmer is said to have fallen in love with Bertha since they first met eight years before he asked her to marry him in 1870. She was 21, he was 23 years older than she. Potter Palmer was born in 1826 ; and raised in New York till he made his way to Chicago He soon opened up a store of dry goods. His shrewd business skills enabled him to quickly become the owner of the largest mercantile empire in the Midwest. Potter Palmer was instrumental in creating less stringent consumer credit and r eturn policies. By 1865 he had amassed enough wealth to begin another career in real estate after selling his mercantile business to a couple of businessmen, Levi Leiter and Marshall Field. Palmer began his first hotel of 225 rooms which opened September 26th, 1871 (Mansperger and Matthews 1999:3). The Great Chicago Fire burned down his building and the rest of the city the same year. Palmer took a loan out for about $1 million, which was a hefty amount for the time, and he rebuilt most of the business district along State Street revitalizing the city. Bertha and Potter had two children soon thereafter. Honor was born in 1874 and Potter Junior was born in 1875. Cap or Cappy as Potter, Jr. was called, win tered in

PAGE 69

62 Florida near Sarasota B ay in their home Immokalee (Mansperger and Matthews 1999:3). After Berthas death, Potter, Jr. inherited her house The Oaks, which was once part of the land that is now a community near Historic Spanish Point of the same name (Mansperger and Matthews 1999:4). Gordon Palmer, Potter Juniors son, eventually left the 32-acre parcel to the Gulf Coast Heritage Association who now operates Historic Spanish Point. Bertha was not just a socialite recognized in her hometown of Chicago. She is known to have associated with kings, princes, other notable women, and was a frequent guest to many events at the White House. Berthas only sister, Ida, married the oldest son of Ulysses S Grant, Fredrick Dent Grant. Bertha was the only female appointed commissioner for the 1900 Paris Expo. She was the third woman to ever receive the Legion dhonneur from France (Mansperger and Matthews 1999:5). Berthas clout granted her the chair of the Board of Lady Managers for the Worlds Columbian Exposition (Mansperger and Matthews 1999:5). Although this role was more honorary than it was particularly useful, she used the title to assert herself a nd make womens voices heard in the 1893 Columbian Exposition. Palmer had one of the few positions where her voice for womens suffrage would be listened to; she made haste to use it. Bertha Palmer stated that women have no desire to be helpless and depen dent. Having the full use of their faculties they rejoice in exercising them. This is entirely in conformity with the trend of modern thought (Mansperger and Matthews 1999:6 -7).

PAGE 70

63 Eight years after Potter Palmers death Bertha followed relatives to Sar asota and fell in love with Sarasota Bay. What had interested the native people about the land, and what had interested the Spanish trader and the Webbs soon interested Bertha Palmer. In 1910, Bertha began her buying spree of Sarasota land in the hopes tha t she would follow in her father and late husbands footsteps and develop the land. In a time when Henry Flagler built rails and Henry Ford built cars, Floridas economy was at the beginning of a real estate boom. Lord, an associate of Berthas brother Adr ian, had been buying and developing land in Sarasota Bay for decades (Mansperger and Matthews 1999:10). It was only a matter of time before Bertha bought as much as a quarter of present-day Sarasota County or 90,000 acres (Mansperger and Matthews 1999:11). It took Bertha seven years time to do this, all the while selling off smaller, developed tracts of land from her beautiful residence named The Oaks which was near Sarasota Bay. Bertha spent her last years at her home in Osprey building formal gardens that had been inspired by Fredrick Law Olmstead, designer of Central Park in New York and tending to her sizab le ranch. What is most intrigu ing about Bertha Palmer is that she had 15,000 acres upon which she grazed about 2200 head cattle (Mansperger and Ma tthews 1999:21). Not only was she a shrewd developer, but she was also an inventor of husbandry practices that were considered revolutionary for the time. She developed a trough with an insecticide bath used to walk her cows through. She also gated h er property for safety and security, a feature that her neighbors did not like.

PAGE 71

64 Bertha Palmer died in 1918 from breast cancer. Her legacy lives on in the contributions she made to the museums to which she donated her many pieces of art in the concern for preserving the integrity of the pioneers b uildings, and in her descendant s efforts to do the same. Bertha Palmer was an enigmatic individual who helped reshape the way t his country views women, and brought or enlivened the industries of tourism, agricu lture, and beef, which are still Floridas top industries. After Bertha died, her grandson, Gordon Palmer, who had a landscaping business on the site of her residence, inherited her land. It was he who planted the litchi trees of which two remain in the back of t he litchi field. The archaic midden begins near the litchi field; its middle is where Bertha built her aqueduct system and fern garden in 1915. Gulf Coast Heritage Association is Charged with Spanish Point In 1980, by the time the Palmer family donated the 32 -acre parcel of historic land to the Gulf Coast Heritage Association (GCHA), much of the site was in disrepair. Throughout the 1980s, the GCHA made extensive plans and investigations into rebuilding the sites historic buildings and preserving the si tes middens. In the 1990s, much of the site was rebuilt according to old drawings, photographs, or memory. Some homes were not as damaged as other s and could be repaired. One of the first archaeological reconstructions was the Webbs packinghouse, based on photographs of the building. The only remnants of the site were 4 postholes in the ground where the old building stood. In addition to the packinghouse, Bertha

PAGE 72

65 Palmers sunken garden also had to be almost entirely reconstructed. The pillars had all fallen, and the garden was overgrown. The GCHA did a full renovation on the White Cottage, Acorn Cottage (storage facility), and the Point Cottage (used for childrens activities). Of all the construction work done at the site, no piece was more vital to expla ining the past than the Windows to the Past exhibit, which opened the public up to what was not visible of the site, the archaeology of Spanish Point. In the next chapter I will describe the t our at Historic Spanish Point and introduce the layout of the site as it is seen today. I will also try to explain why the site, although easily accessible to anyone who has a car, seems hidden to the consciousness of Sarasotans.

PAGE 73

66 CHAPTER 5: HISTORIC SPANISH POI NT: HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT Those who undertake to write histories, do not, I perceive, take that trouble on one and the same account, but for many reasons for some of them apply themselves to the part of learning to show their skill in composition others of them are who write histories, in order to gratify those that happened to be concerned in them but others there are, who, of necessity and by force, are driven to write history, because they are concerned in the facts, and so cannot excuse themselves from committing them to writ ing, for the advantage of posterity to produce them for the benefit of the public (Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews) This next chapter will outline the tour at Historic Spanish Point, and reintroduce many of the same people, places, and events discussed in the previous chapter. What follows is a narrative loosely accounted by myself from various guides. Discrepancies in the interpretation of any particulars of the site gathered from different guides are sometimes, though not always, discussed. My goal for this chapter is to distinguish why what is perceived to be a congruous and complete history is considered as such, and why it may be important to recognize, evaluate, and reconsider the gaps at the site. I argue that the guides at the site s hould, instead of filling in gaps between the layers of history heedlessly, pose useful questions that might be addressed of Historic Spanish Points history.

PAGE 74

67 This thesis is about the intersection of archaeology, Sarasotas knowledge of the past, and the people who observe, take part in, or otherwise contribute to the field of archaeology. After researching multiple modes by which I would introduce my case study, I chose to recant the tour of the site. My inspiration for this method was motivated by Felicia Silpas vivid description of the nations southernmost slave plantation in her 2003 thesis. As is so adequately put in Silpas thesis on the Gamble Plantation in Palmetto, Florida (Silpa 2003), there are intersectionalities brought out by each separate tour that highlight a particular context for the observer. What impressed me most about Silpas thesis was its ability to draw a clear distinction between the tour that the state -funded docents give of the site, and the tour given by Silpa. In her thesis, Silpa sought to understand the slaves at the site by examining the fine archaeological details, many of which were casually dismissed in the standard tour in order to achieve a fuller, more complete picture of Floridas antebellum past. Silpas tour creates a more balanced picture of both Robert Gambles life as well as the lives of his slaves. The performance of the tour is immediately more important to the visitor than the actual history of the site. As Silpa tried to find the most honest mode of interpretation, she purposefully created an alternative narrative to the site that embedded dialectical questions throughout the tour. By understanding the ultimate subjectivity of the tour, Silpa utilized archival research to gain an insight into how t he history is presented through writing. This is not unlike my own route in understanding Historic Spanish Point. I will draw similar

PAGE 75

68 conclusions with the evidence of material past left by the inhabitants at the site. I will avoid a personal commentary on observations garnered from my own point of view as an anonymous member of a tour group aside from how it results in misinterpretation. This tour does not represent any one particular tour, but a summary of all of the tours I have been given at Historic Spa nish Point. I have participated in two tram tours and six walking tours of the site. The tram tours are one hour earlier (9:30am) and are often reserved by the handicapped, the elderly, or the warm -air weary. The walking tour, due to the extra breaks, is a nywhere from 15 minutes to 1 hour longer than the tram tour which omits locations only accessible by stairs (Palmers fern garden, the blue garden). Only one tour made it to the geographical point of Historic Spanish Point overlooking Little Sarasota Bay (the tram tour). The site is 10 miles south of the center of Sarasota, between Osprey and the southern end of Sarasota. The visitor first drives onto a small tabby road, past the guards gate, into the Historic Spanish Point parking lot that is adjacen t to a church cemetery. The museums main building, Ospreys first schoolhouse, is another relic of the areas past, and is headquarters to a majority of the sites staff. There is also a small gift shop which sells items such as shirts, books, nature -rela ted gifts, childrens toys, etc. Most of the goods at the museum shop, aside from the books, are unrelated to the site. Each tour group begins by paying admission (around $8 a person without their dollar off coupon) and watches a short film in a room of th e schoolhouse converted into a small theatre.

PAGE 76

69 The tour begins at a tall, open -aired white pavilion with benches on its periphery, and a large colored map with each significant location at the site marked with clear black text and symbols that correspond to a legend on the map. The same map is given to you upon paying for entry to the site. To get to the pavilion one must traverse a winding wide single-lane tabby road for a little under half a mile. Once there, it is easily understood that the pavilion is the tours beginning. There are on average two tours held each day, each ranging between 2 and 3 hours long, and each delving more into either the historic or prehistoric aspects of the site; it usually depends upon the particular interests of the docent. The website for Historic Spanish Point (appendix D) notes the four Ps at the site: Prehistory, Pioneer, Palmer, and Plants. Plants seems to have just served to keep the number of Ps even. In fact, plants are hardly discussed at the site during the t ours if only to explain that Historic Spanish Point has been savvy enough to weed out invasive or foreign plant species. The tour guide sometimes notes that the foliage at present may barely resemble the landscape during the first or second prehistoric occupations at Spanish Point. Even the historic period may have been different. Sometimes the guide does not tell the visitor. I assume this is because the guide wants the visitor to feel more a part of the native environment. Tours are never alike. Parti cipation ranges from around 2 to 12 people. As Historic Spanish Point is not local to most major hotels, and the directions can be challenging for those who are unfamiliar with the area, weather usually dictates how

PAGE 77

70 much effort someone will put in driving to the site, and how many people show up (and usually what mood theyre in). The hotter it gets, the less the visitors seem interested in the history of the site. I honestly could not blame them. Senior citizens who have taken up Historic Spanish Point as a hobby usually lead the tours. One such individual is very interested in archaeology and part of the local archaeology group; another older woman began guiding as a docent when she retired and has now logged over 1000 hours. The area is quite beautiful ov erlooking Little Sarasota Bay with its gentle breeze and manicured foliage. It is no wonder so many of the areas retired people come to give tours. Occasionally, a docent will have more of an interest in a particular aspect at the site. For some, it i s the plants; for others, it may be the archaeology, for most, it is Mrs. Bertha Potter Palmer. There is an intriguing quality about her that draws many volunteers into her particular past. It may help that the museums collection has a considerable number of her material possessions. The visitors are told that there were three eras at the site, the prehistoric, the pioneers, and the Palmer eras, respectively. The visitors or guests are walked along a long tabby path that ends in a three -way fork. Three quarters along on the left is the burial mound where John Webb kept his chicken coop. It was here that John Webb found a skull while clearing this slightly elevated area for planting his sugarcane crop. Another tour guide explained that John Webb found the skull in what is now an example of a Florida wetland environment on the other side of the tabby pathway bordering the

PAGE 78

71 present-day The Oaks luxury estate community (named after Mrs. Palmers 30+ acre residence of the same name). In both narratives, i t is said that this is when John Webb, an educated person, understood the sites value and sent correspondence to the Smithsonian. Al !s Hrdl"ka arrived from the Smithsonian in 1906 to explore the site. Hrdl "ka was a physical anthropologist at the National Museum of Natural History working on New World humans and responded to the letter and skull he received from John Webb. The tour guide explains that there are two middens used as garbage dumps by the inhabitants of the prehistoric period. She then expl ains that in addition, there is also a burial mound. The first midden stretches the length of the site moving from the south and westward out toward the point of the peninsula (see figures 4.2 and 4.3). The tour guide does not make any distinction between the mound that moves westward on the point (8so2-B) and the coastal midden (8so2-C). The guide notes that the archaic midden located north toward the Guptill house is about 18 feet high and is approximately 5000 years old, and that the second, larger midde n, is 40-60 feet wide, 15 feet at its highest point, and was inhabited from 500BC till about 1000AD. The guides use the terms BC and AD or Before Christ and Anno Domini when referring to time periods due to their familiarity for visitors. The guests are brought off the walkway and into the vicinity of the burial mound. Carved into the grass is an island of sun -bleached shells, where a three -paneled display is anchored. There is no pathway leading to the display. On the display are disparate artifact replicas that include an alligator -vertebrae necklace, sherds of pottery, and shell tools. On

PAGE 79

72 the other two boards of the display are illustrated scenes of village life from the sites prehistory, and a bulletin board hanging from a nail which has a laminated sheet of paper clipped on. On one side of the sheet is a diagram of stick drawings depicting the death positions of the bodies of the excavated portion of the mound. On the other side of the laminated sheet is a black and white picture of a calcified skull of one of the bodies within the mound. The guide explains that Ripley and Adelaide Bullens first dig was at the burial mound site from which emerged the theory that, when the people at the site left the area, they capped the mass grave ceremonially by placing an alligator and pottery near the surface of the mound. Sometimes while explaining the display or while walking on top of the first midden, the tour guides mention that the inhabitants fished and collected seafood and berries. Evidence for the enor mous seafood diet is located below your feet as you traverse one of three large shell mounds called shell middens which were created many hundreds to thousands of years ago by the native people. The tour guides also point out the scene of village life at the site about 4000 years ago. The picture is of village life with half-naked women, men, and nude children run around with feathers in their hair and paint on their skin sitting in canoes and harvesting plants and seafood. Their bodies are tattooed, and their outfits oddly reminiscent of the Amazonian Yanomam tribe. It is not clear at this point where the evidence is to verify this scene, but the shell midden under your feet gives clear evidence that this scene might be true in its entirety.

PAGE 80

73 Figure 5.1 Display photograph of village life. At this point the road forks into three separate paths; one that veers to the far left leading to Marys Chapel along shell midden 8so2 -C (see figure 4.2), another leading straight ahead toward the White C ottage and the larger shell ridge 8so2 -B (figure 4.2), and the last road that leads to the far right down a longer road that traverses what was mostly developed by Bertha Potter Palmer toward the Guptill House which sits atop the archaic shell midden 8so2 -A (figure 4.2). Depending on the tour guide, you might see Marys Chapel and the pioneer cemetery first, or you may go to the shipping house (near 8so2-B), or alternatively, you might end up at the Guptill house. Sometimes, areas of the site are omitted by the guides to save time for other areas they want the tour group to see or because the tour may be running too long. This tour leads us to the packinghouse first, briefly walking atop the shell ridge.

PAGE 81

74 At the packinghouse, which had been newly reconstruc ted atop the old wooden foundation in 1990, John Webb graded, sized, and packaged oranges and shipped them from the dock (across from the entrance into the house). The tour guide pauses, pushes a small black button in the side of the wooden wall, and as a loud voice tells of John Webbs small -time agribusiness in first-person speech, motions at the props described in the voices dialogue. As the voice explains the grading procedure, the docent rolls plastic oranges down slanted planks of wood where they fal l in between the planks and into boxes with different sizes marked on the sides. Whenever children come to this part of the tour, they cannot help but play with the oranges. It may be that they look like little orange softballs, but they do have a remarkab ly striking resemblance to the plastic balls in the playpens at McDonalds. After the electronic message, the tour guide pauses and asks if there are any questions. There are no questions; there is no context for there to be questions. John Webb was a pioneer; he grew and sold oranges, and that is all the tour is told at this point. Another tour guide decides not to play the electronic message and explains the process herself, also noting that John, along with his wife Eliza, her five children, and her sister came to this area in 1867. John Webb had graduated Hamilton College, Eliza had asthma, and Virginia soon became unsuitable for their relocation when the Civil War broke out. The guide explains the Homestead Act, which awarded 160 acres of frontier land to anyone who would build a house and a crop on this land and live there for 5 years. The guide notes that John and his two boys scouted the area for land and found Spanish Point. Also, during the initial years, the shipping service John Webb had paid for lost a

PAGE 82

75 boatload of cabbages; after which, he decided to build his own boats and ship them himself to Casey Key and to Key West. The guide explains how John Webb had to travel to the village of Bradenton every time he needed to retrieve his mail. Thi s trip took three days through the thick Florida scrub. John applied for a post office in the name of Spanish Point, but was told any new offices must have a one-word name. Thus, the city of Osprey received its name and its first post -master. Emily, John s second wife, became post -master after John. The guide also noted that John became a Manatee county commissioner and judge. The tour then proceeds to the pioneer cemetery and Marys Chapel. The guide explains that a graveyard refers to family burials and because this burial place has community members, it is called a cemetery. Eliza Webb was one of the first to be buried in the early 1880s. The guide notes that Eliza had helped fight a fire that swept through one of the Webbs crops and died later on from exhaustion and the illness that followed. The guide suggests that her asthma played a role in her passing. After this event, Emily left for Utica, as she felt that it was inappropriate that she remains alone with John at Spanish Point. John later went to Utica to profess his love for Emily, and she soon became his second wife. Next to the pioneer cemetery where various members of the Osprey settlement now rest is a small church with a small bell. This, aside from the bell and a few windows, is a reconstruction of Marys Chapel. After arriving on the footsteps, the tour guide

PAGE 83

76 presses another black button. This time it is Marys voice in first -person. Mary tells the visitors eerily and enthusiastically about her untimely death, and the constructio n of the chapel. Mary was a young woman who came to Florida with her mother in hopes of curing her tuberculosis after the Webbs began hosting winter visitors. It is said that the price for room and board for a stay was about $35. Mary fell ill and died after five weeks. Marys Chapel was created in memory of her visit to the Webbs winter boarding house. It was widely thought, throughout the 19th century, that warmer climates offered respite for the ill. People with incurable illnesses like tuberculosis w ere especially attracted to places such as the Webbs. In Marys honor, her Church group back home sent money for a small chapel to be built on-site. At the cemetery is also buried William, the oldest of John Webbs sons who married his second cousin Margh erite. They had a daughter named May Belle as she was born on a date coinciding with the installation of Marys bell. The bell was sent from Marys hometown, Louisville, Kentucky in 1895. May Belle later changed her name to Mabel and is the last to be buried in the pioneer cemetery in 1993. The chapel was used as a multi -purpose community center for the Webbs, Guptills, visitors, and friends. After leaving the cemetery and Marys chapel, the tour group arrives back at the beginning fork in the road and takes the longer path on the right toward the Duchene Lawn. The Duchene Lawn was across from the site of Bertha Potter Palmers house facing the bay. A garden portal stands tall between trees and scrub that obstruct whatever

PAGE 84

77 view Mrs. Palmer saw from her hom e which is now also gone from the site. The tour moves on, hardly acknowledging this location. As the tour proceeds, it eventually arrives at the litchi field where Palmer had several fruiting litchi (or lychee) trees. One can barely make out what this fie ld looked like, as it is now a large empty lawn with two litchi trees barely alive toward the back. The resident horticulturist set up a beautiful butterfly garden, which is carved out of part of this field. At the back of both the lawn and the butterfly garden is what looks like a campsite. The tables are not for eating, and the tarp is not meant to be a tent. This is what is called the classroom dig site. Off comes the tarp to reveal a triple -wide sandbox with dirt and sand and shells poking through the ground (see figure 5.2). This site is used for children to come and play in the dirt and sift for artifacts. The volunteers and staff place raccoon bones, old pottery shards, shells and bones that have been collected out of context (or so I was told), into the mock dig site. After the tour group gets an idea of what is meant for kids to do and what is meant for adults to observe, we are back on the path and proceed toward the Guptill house, which is perched atop the highest point of the oldest midden.

PAGE 85

78 Figure 5.2 Adventures in Learning Dig -Site At the Guptill house, we are told the story of Frank Guptill, a boat -builder and seaman from Maine, who arrived near Osprey to homestead and met the Webb brothers. Frank soon fell in love with Ginnie, one of John Webbs daughters. Ginnie died along with her baby 18 months after her marriage with Frank Guptill after having fallen down the stairs. Frank Guptill then marries Ginnies sister, Lizzie, with whom he builds his house (the Guptill house 1901). The original, refurbished house still stands where it originally did at the apex of the archaic midden overlooking Little Sarasota Bay and the boatyard he and the Webbs used to build the boats they would use for work and play.

PAGE 86

79 Next we are introduced to Bertha Honor. The guide mentions that Potter Palmer was famous for being a progressive merchant, and that Potter was the first to extend credit to customers at his stores. Potter Palmer meets with Berthas father to discuss the land development business, he falls in love with Bertha upon first sight of her (she is 13 years old), and waits until she is 21 to propose marriage. They get married in 1870. In 1871, Chicago burns, and both families lose their fortunes. Potter Palmer borr owed 1 million dollars, and rebuilt Chicago and built the now -affluent Chicago Northside. Later, Bertha eventually has two boys with Potter, Honore and Potter Jr. Because of her husband, Bertha became a famous woman; her sister Ida married Fredrick Dent Grant, president Ulysses S. Grants oldest son. She enjoyed many dinners at the White House and was Chair of the Womens pavilion in Chicagos World Fair. The guide notes that after Potter died in 1902, Bertha spent eight years involved with the family till she read about land in Florida. She went to Florida with her father, brother, and visits Sarasota eventually buying a quarter of the current county of Sarasota. Spanish Point was the site of her residence. Bertha first built a four -room home, which sh e enlarged in time to a 32-room mansion. The home has since been demolished. The exact location of the home is unknown, but was in the vicinity of The Oaks luxury home community bordering Historic Spanish Point today. The guide notes that Ms. Palmer ha d 35 gardeners working on her residence manicuring gardens and helping to install patches of grass for the Duchene Lawn, a test site for experimental grasses Palmer later used to cover the land where she

PAGE 87

80 fed her 1000+ head of cattle on her ranch near the Myakka River. Ms. Palmer had hoped to lead a life as long as her husbands and planned numerous other experiments in farming, gardening, and maintaining her land development business. It came as a surprise, however, when this tough, enterprising, frontier woman died of breast cancer in 1918. The tour continues over an historic bridge (Cocks Bridge) toward the point of Historic Spanish Points peninsula. The point cottage is a small cottage not usually visited on most tours, and thus is omitted from thi s description. Another cottage, the acorn cottage built in the 1930s, houses artifacts and is not accessible by visitors. The next stop is the Windows to the Past exhibition, where we are ushered into an air conditioned room and told to sit down and watch a short video on the prehistoric people. After watching the video, we are given some time to explore the various boards, panels, tactile features, and newly installed technological features of this museum within a museum. Windows to the Past is an exhibit that was built by the Gulf Coast Heritage Association with the help of archaeologists, site designers, artists, and Florida State Curators in 1992. The exhibit is built within a carport that was made by cutting into the midden sometime (at the docents best guess) around the 1920s for someone who wanted to park his or her automobile. Since this act of destruction was so harmful to the midden, it is thought that neither the pioneers nor Ms. Palmer did the digging. It seems both are touted as being aware of the middens uniqueness and sought to preserve it as best as they

PAGE 88

81 could. This is the site of a small museum exhibit of the prehistoric people complete with an engaging video presentation, a window to view the stratigraphy of the midden, and various learning devices such as a chronological chart of native habitation, a touch -screen computer which shows native craft -making, and a glass display case with real and fake specimens of archaeological material similar to or like the ones found at Historic Spa nish Point. Although this appears to be the highlight of the tour for children, as well as adults, adults and older children are much more interested in the video, while younger children are more interested in the tactile portion of the exhibit. There is no doubt that this vehicle for learning about the prehistory of the site is useful on many levels. However, the video, display case, and even the dialogue explicated to the audience is not the entire story. It is at this junction that most of the narrativ e is constructed. This is both due to a lack of more substantial archaeological knowledge of the site, as well as no historical knowledge of the people who lived here around 1000 years ago. Much of what is presented at the Windows to the Past exhibit is de rived from local (and therefore similar in the minds of the staff) cultures such as the Calusa, whom I previously referenced. The tour ends at the White Cottage. The White Cottage was built by Jack, John Webbs oldest son, and sold to his father for John to use in his winter resort business. When Palmer arrived and acquired the White cottage, she added to the building. It is unknown from the tours what exactly was added. The White Cottage houses the curators lab and an exhibition of some of Bertha Palmer s belongings.

PAGE 89

82 The tour at Historic Spanish Point, while a useful vehicle for disseminating knowledge of the site, appears to have a few flaws. Explicating a narrative of the prehistory, history, and present foliage of the site may be sending a confusing message to the visitors. While most seem to take what they like from the site, a structured dialogue between the staff and the visitors might enliven the narrative and discover new means by which to attract more Sarasotans to the site. This conce pt, integral to Historic Spanish Point, as a case study, will be discussed further in the next chapter. It is my hope that Public archaeology, with its various forms of community involvement, may give Historic Spanish Point the potential for reaching grea ter Sarasota. There are many levels to engaging the public, and Historic Spanish Point has the potential for quite a few. In the next chapter I will focus on visitor-engaged dialectical theory as one such method, and explore its potentiality at a site with intersectionalities in history and a low community involvement. I will also explore strategies for ameliorating issues of authenticity and nondisclosure, which plague the representation at Historic Spanish Point. A history is never as whole as it seems, a nd never as concrete as one might perceive it. Disclosure of all relevant information to the visitor may give the visitor a sense of reality, but it may also leave the visitor overwhelmed or confused.

PAGE 90

83 CHAPTER 6: A CASE FOR A DIALECT IC APPROACH TO PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY While Historic Spanish Point, as an archaeological site, meets the ethical standards laid out by the Society for American Archaeology (p.25 -29), these standards by no means exclude the site from becoming lost ideologicall y to the genre of sideshow attractions that pervade our country, those that offer us everything from Sarasotas Jungle Gardens to the Weeki Wachee City of Mermaids, and a metaphysically -steeped Coral Castle in Homestead, Florida; Historic Spanish Point is not such a site of transient and aimless meaning. As I will attempt to outline in this chapter, public archaeology, observed from a dialectic perspective, can create a means by which visitors and professionals can benefit from an active dialogue with the h istory of a site and with each other. This collaborative approach, informed by a postprocessual archaeology, and amalgamated with the theories of a few major scholars in public and political archaeology, can create a schema by which Historic Spanish Point can more actively engage with its visitors and become more meaningful to Floridas residents and visitors. The postmodern leap in archaeology went from processual archaeology to a postprocessual archaeology that was informed by an interpretation of arc haeological sites as being inherently deep in meaning and never fully able to be deconstructed (Hodder 1986/1991, Preucel 1995, Shanks and Tilley 1987, and Trigger 1989). With this came a new approach of observing the structure in which archaeology represe nts history.

PAGE 91

84 As the very function of archaeology was threatened, a few archaeologists became contributors to a methodology that utilized postprocessual archaeology to examine new functions brought out by the scholarship of postprocessualists (Baram and Yor ke 2004, Little 2007, McGuire 2008, Saitta 2007). These modern scholars attempted to examine sites of heritage, meaning, and information in light of the sites meaning to the community. While David Lowenthal (1996), in The Heritage Crusade, contends that history is beset with heritage, and explicates how concrete histories are becoming a thing of the past (no pun intended), more recently, McGuire argued that the concept of heritage is endowed with an inherently political nature (McGuire 1992; 2008). In tr ying to make sense of why the past has such a volatile interpretation, we must, as Randal McGuire notes, acknowledge that archaeologists and others involved in interpreting human history critique the world in ways that reflect our social, cultural, and pol itical points of view (McGuire 2008:48). McGuires argument hinges on the fact that while postprocessualism may have destabilized the science of archaeology, this has created new avenues for alternative means by which scholars can construct meaning from th e past. Public archaeology is one such alternative methodology. Thus, I reinforce my argument in this chapter with an analysis informed by McGuires dialectic approach and Littles notions of public archaeology to evaluate the dialectic approachs signi ficance in being able to solve the issues of authenticity and nondisclosure while also enriching the experience of a visitor to Historic Spanish Point.

PAGE 92

85 Randall McGuire notes that archaeology is a social product and a process that is inherently engendered w ith multiple narratives that will always address interests in the present (McGuire 2008:48). Little argues that the multivocal nature of an archaeological site can function as a positive medium in which the past can become meaningful, but also points out t hat frequently the normative interpretation wins out and dominates over any multivocal history (Little 2007). Multivocality becomes problematic when interpretations create conflict or introduce terms that interfere with the material (archaeological evide nce) at the site. Philip Kohl (2004 in Baram & Rowan 2004) explains that at Colonial Williamsburg (similar to other sites that have been reconstructed to present the past to its visitors), differing notions of what should constitute the past are at odds wi th one another. At one point or another, the sites authenticity was questioned, and one of the ways the staff sought to revivify the past was to allow the horses (used as part of the historic presentation) to defecate around the Williamsburg site, thus cr eating a more authentic experience. Kohl tries to make sense of the interfering notions of authenticity at Colonial Williamsburg by noting undoubtedly they [the planners] could do a better job, including possibly presenting more perspectives and voices on this experience. A too critical perspective, however, seems unfair; the planners are sort of damned if they try or damned if they dont. The quest for authenticity is not the problem, but rather the simplification (Kohl 2004:297). Kohl argues that sit es should reduce their multivocality when it reaches the point of confusion.

PAGE 93

86 While I am not advocating a multivocal approach that verges on such confusion, I am arguing for an ordered presentation of the sites disorder. There are as many tours as there a re tour guides, each giving his or her own version of the Spanish Point tour, and each trying to explicate the entire parks history in under two hours. Giving a substantial account of the sites history is an impressive feat. I wonder, though, how much is left out for the convenience of a shorter tour. This is a problematic structure taking into account again the issue of authenticity and disclosure of information (archaeological data) in presenting a coherent narrative. Truncating a tour makes some visito rs disquieted, as does specializing tours for specific purposes (e.g. an archaeological tour as opposed to a history tour). A question that appears evident, yet not necessarily a direct concern for this project is whether or not visitors would be satisfi ed with only a partial account of the sites history (for example, a history of the prehistoric inhabitants, the Webb family, the archaeology, the Palmer era, etc.) as the main tour given at the site. Put another way: whether or not to present one histor y or the other. The layered narrative at the site might be more beneficial than detrimental in that better organization of Historic Spanish Points tours by the administration, as well as better marketing of specific tours to specific audiences may allow m ore active participation. Using well -marketed strategies may initially be the answer to obviating the need for a dialectical approach. Explicitly structuring the tours to explain one part or aspect of Spanish Points history may be of interest to some, b ut others who desire the full tour may be disappointed by a tour that does not adequately cover a portion of the whole in enough detail.

PAGE 94

87 One answer that may be more beneficial to both the representation of the site and its perception is to introduce complex elements related to issues of race, class, or gender. Little deconstructs the meaning of presenting heritage to the public as being one of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness (2007). The face of heritage is potentially isolating as a set of memories into which it is possible for people to withdraw and exclude others or make invisible some parts of the past (Little 2007: 143). Litt les purpose is to revise the presentation of heritage to be in a way, emancipatory (Saitta 2007). Little explains, We are surrounded by layers upon layers of varying and sometimes conflicting material expressions about history. These places and objects o n the landscape are an important part of our public memory because such commemoration is the explicit creation of heritage memorialized in the built environment (2007:138-9). The history, as the staff and volunteers at Historic Spanish Point convey it, i s one of neutrality; and the explanation is assigned to hide the narratives truly convoluted nature. For one, history is a subjective and often arbitrary vehicle of conveying und understanding the past. History, as is much of Floridas history, is overru n with issues of social conflict. A good example of this is the exclusion of escaped and freed African slaves who fought with and for the Spanish at Fort Mos near St. Augustine. Florida history has been written in such a way as to exclude the contribution of Africans/AfricanAmericans to the states history. History books often gloss over Native Americans contributions as well, instead advocating for a predominantly Anglo -American contextual history.

PAGE 95

88 Historic Spanish Point does not escape this model of exclusion. In reality, little has been discovered of the prehistoric material at the site after Ripley and Adelaide Bullen in the early 1960s, So many questions remain unanswerable. What is most obvious about this scenario is the relative lack of concern about new archaeology at Spanish Point. What should be the most useful in conveying the historical aspects of the site is properly conveying the messages of the historical documents, which are full of history that is not adequately conveyed. Certain stories can be deemed acceptable while others are not. This is one place where the outsider the heritage professionalmay play an invaluable role as facilitator (Little 2007: 143). As Matthews explains, though history doesnt change, the way we look at it does (Matthews 1996: 2). What should be noted in reading the story of Florida is the perception of how the past is viewed now, versus how historians viewed Floridas narrative in the past. Most anthropological manuscripts dealing with primary or secondary hi storical sources will include a message explaining the explicit subjectivity of historical representation. For example, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act requires that any goods, objects, or remains of Native Americans that were found on federal, state, or federal or state -funded lands are subject to a series of laws that sanction their handling and repatriation to the descendant Native American communities (see Appendix A). The act does not stipulate anything regarding the depict ion of human

PAGE 96

89 remains and is a constant concern for several staff members at Historic Spanish Point as well as myself. The skull that is depicted near the burial mound on the clipboard as described in Chapter 4 does not break NAGPRA, but it does pose an ethical question: is it satisfactory to display skeletal remains of a people who have no connection to any present Native American or descendant community? If even one incensed visitor saw this photograph, would the site discontinue using it? This question is just one of many such questions that I believe should be brought forward. Other concerns about the inaccurate or inadequate representation of the lives within each separate layer of history that have not been answered in any of the tours continue to haunt the overall narrative at Historic Spanish Point. There is no central source of information about the site. This generates, in my opinion, the most confusion for the docents, the staff, and the living historians who portray the lives, as accurately as they may, of the pioneer family. The curator, marketing coordinator, and others are each trying to organize a narrative from the archives and archaeological materials, but the result has been to build a substantially weak narrative. I argue that the staff and volunteers should work toward creating a framework for a narrative instead and allow visitors to intuit the information previously filled in by the staff. If there are gaps, filling them may be more beneficial than harmful, for it allows the interpreters (the public and the community) to imagine what possibly could have happened or what evidence could be found to support the current framework. An obvious impediment to forming the framework more fully are the missing pieces from the collection, as well as those that are

PAGE 97

90 being curated far away at the University of Florida, the over -arching housing agent for Floridas archaeological and material past, and the Smithsonian Institute. All histories have subjection and are told with a degree of political agenda; this is one of the basic principles laid out by McGuire (2008). After all, as Winston Churchill is commonly noted for having said, history is written by the victors. Thus, although the manner by which history is viewed now has changed, for the purpose of posterity, archaeologists must continue to revisit historic sources and examine not what has been written so much as what has not (Little 2002). Two major kinds of benefits derive from archaeologythe commemorative or associative benefits of heritage and the knowledge benefits of history (Little 2002: 31). As the practice of archaeology intersects with the voices of history, sometimes new voices or modes of speaking are obtained. Historic Spanish Point should actively seek to revise its depiction of its history to include some form of skepticism of its subjective interpretation. The usefulness of archaeology and of depicting the historic and prehistoric past to the children who come to Spanish Point serves to imbue skills necessary for living in an increasingly complex, and often ambiguous, world. The children are given a framework in which to build the narrative more fully. The staff should extend the concept to adults. Going beyond the facts to see contradictions and paradoxes and still coming up with generalizations is what archaeologists do every day. Archaeologists are the synthesizers, putting things together, combining and recombining. Consequently,

PAGE 98

91 archaeologists are great role models for students who will have to puzzle out how to make decisi ons in the twenty-first century (Metcalf 2002: 175 in Little 2002: 145). Critical thinking and analysis are two qualities that are invaluable in education and serve the purpose of allowing a critical theory to dominate both children and adults interpreta tion of history. Similarly, Little (2007) and McGuire (2008) both recognize the emancipatory and educational benefits of asking new questions of the past, Such learning can open ones eyes to diversity in the present (Little 2007: 145). Sadly, what is evident in many of the visitors to Historic Spanish Point is their belief that archaeology serves more of a purpose for children than for adults. While this may seem true, as children are often more intellectually pliable and actively engaged than adults, it is nevertheless important to educate adults about a world that they may view from a narrower perspective. Barbara Littles argument explains a struggle between archaeologists and historians in picking apart why and how either should stimulate thinking of the past (Little 2007: 21). Archaeologists are not in the business of making meaning; they ask the same q uestions and search for the meaningfulness of a site through technical analysis. It often surprises me how many visitors to Historic Spanish Point believe everything the docents or staff tell them about the site. Another concern that is equally surprising is that the visitors do not question the history; even more interesting is the fact that the

PAGE 99

92 opportunity to do so is not usually given. History is not as clear -cut as it may seem at Spanish Point. History is rarely as clear -cut as it seems. In 1984, Bru ce Trigger published Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, and Imperialist. That article was pivotal to a burgeoning archaeology that began to question the perspective of archaeological interpretation and proposed that even the most appare ntly unbiased narratives had nationalist, colonialist, or imperialist raison dtres. Archaeologists began examining the effects of national interest in archaeology that finally led to a new understanding of subjected pasts. Trigger explained nationalist perspectives of archaeology as those that strengthened national or ethnic morality. Trigger cited countries such as Denmark, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, China, and Germany as having traditions of nationalist archaeologies (Trigger 1984 in C. Fawcett et al. 2008:1). Colonial archaeologies were and are used to bolster the inequitable treatment and discrimination of colonial campaigns; the United States, New Zealand, and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa are cited as examples of this behavior (2008:1). Finally, imperialist archaeologies are those that have a large reach over economic, political, and most importantly, the cultural capital of a worldwide network. The point here is that the universality and unquestionable nature of certain archaeological interpretat ions becomes problematic in terms of other, alternative interpretations that may fall short of being representative of a dominant political agenda. C. Fawcett et al. recognize that there are advantages and limitations of the theory and method of multivocality that should be analyzed in relation to a variety of cultural

PAGE 100

93 and historical settings (C. Fawcett et al. 2008:5). While their argument is in relation to exploring outside what they consider a dominant Anglo-American archaeology where America and Britain have hegemonic authority, it can reify the notion of multivocality at Historic Spanish Point. By examining Triggers argument in light of multivocal theory, archaeologists explore a public engagement that is informed and conscientious of political motivations, infused with a kind of Foucauldian rsistance, and capable of invigorating the archaeological site to be, again, an interesting feature of our shared heritage. Within Archaeology as Political Action Randall McGuire follows a similar path. Just as Trigger was concerned with nationalist perspectives on archaeological interpretation, McGuire notes that within each of us lies another bias that colors how we view archaeological material or which may leave us colorblind when perceiving certain materials. McGuire is speaking of political agendas and biases. McGuire is less reluctant in embracing these feelings that color our interpretation. He suggests self -reflection upon these feelings and posits that there may be a use for them in creating political praxis. This notion is not so much of being afraid of ones inclination, as it is with understanding the inherent underlying biases of each independent and/or collective interpretation of archaeological materials. It seems that this notion of McGuire s may function as a catharsis to awaken individuals to their preconceived political ideologies, and allow the individual to understand better why he or she is in the field.

PAGE 101

94 Clare Fawcett, Junko Habu, and John Matsunaga edited a volume on the subject of these interdependent narratives that serve to interpret the past in ways meaningful to a particular political agenda, and for those who dominate the field of archaeology (Habu, et al. 2008). Questioning whether archaeologists have a political agenda or not is no longer a question. The answer among many is that they unquestionably do! It is problematic to have a dissembled version of objective archaeology in this modern era that embraces the fields unique penchant for subjective interpretation. Archaeology t hat is inherently nationalistic, colonialist, or imperialist reproves the multiple narratives of a particular archaeological endeavor and disenables what Randall McGuire (2008), Dean Saitta (2007), and others consider a viable option for archaeological res earch: emancipatory archaeology. Emancipatory archaeologys primary function is to serve the marginalized, non-dominant minorities that have a stake in evaluating history under a different light, one that highlights their inalienable right to have a hist ory and a heritage. Consider two such marginalized viewpoints at Spanish Point that beg attention at the site: the notion of gender and sexuality. While it seems that no one outwardly expresses the fact that life for the Webb -era women at the site was e asy, it appears from the context that the men had more accomplishments given their legacy that remains at the site. Life for the Webb -era women involved childbirth, auxiliary help for the men, and their contribution to maintaining a frontier family life. Bertha Palmer is another example of gender and sexuality. One might say that she is an anomaly, acting as an inventor, real estate mogul, businessman, rancher, and

PAGE 102

95 frontiersman. It might even be plausible that she sought such a life apart from the hubbub of busy Chicago because of, what may have been considered for the time, gender bending tendencies. Bertha Palmer was a person whose gender and sexuality appeared out of place in the highly formal and patriarchic society that dominated the late 19th and early 20th century. Questions from queer theory, for example, may enliven this aspect of the site as engaging individuals to try to understand the nature of Berthas trend -setting style and her refusal to submit to the normative culture. Archaeological int erpretation is conceivably a part of human exploration and the quest for knowledge and insight into our own culture and those that interest us for the sake of better understanding the universal links that tether us to one another culturally and otherwise. Archaeology is also unique in its authoritative position as a facilitator to those who create meaning: descendant communities, marginalized peoples, and other communities. Archaeologists help parry some alternative theories that subvert others and help reify the verity of those theories that become archaeologically commensurable. What seems to follow interpretation beyond this collaboration between the archaeologist(s) and the communities they serve is the representation of the cultural material in a truthf ul, dialectical, and productive way. In conclusion, being earnest is by no means an effortless task, but as Oscar Wilde would have had us understand it, there is an importance of being earnest that cannot be denied to the public. Archaeological represent ation logically follows this example. As part of larger anthropological goals, archaeology promotes cultural awareness and

PAGE 103

96 sensitivity, the dissemination of scholarly knowledge, and the discovery of cultural universals, those traits among every culture that represent humanity and the human culture. The public demands that the media be free from bias. Why should archaeology be any different in this aspect? A purposeful engagement with the public can serve to interest the public, and all the while it should b e useful for enriching the dialogue normally only tangential to the tour of an archaeological or museum site. Asking informed questions of a site might propagate a new wave of engagement with the public that contributes to the sites public meaning.

PAGE 104

97 APPENDICES Appendix A Major Archaeological Laws and Acts: American Antiquities Act of 1906 More at < http://www.nps.gov/history/local -law/anti1906.htm> 16 USC 431-433 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without t he permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic an d prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limi ts of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected: Provided, That when such objects are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fied unperfected claim or held in privat e ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of the Government of the United States.

PAGE 105

98 Sec. 3. That permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of archaeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity upon the lands under their respective jurisdictions may be granted by the Secr etaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and War to institutions which the may deem properly qualified to conduct such examination, excavation, or gathering, subject to such rules and regulation as they may prescribe: Provided, That the examinations, excavati ons, and gatherings are undertaken for the benefit of reputable museums, universities, colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational institutions, with a view to increasing the knowledge of such objects, and that the gatherings shall be made for permanent preservation in public museums. Sec. 4. That the Secretaries of the Departments aforesaid shall make and publish from time to time uniform rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. Approved, June 8, 1906 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended through 1992 (Section 1) More at < http://www.nps.gov/history/local -law/nhpa1966.htm> Public Law 102 -575 AN ACT to Establish a Program for the Preservation of Additional Historic Properties throughout the Nation, and for Other Purposes, Approved October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89 -665; 80 STAT.915; 16 U.S.C. 470) as amended by Public Law 91-243, Public Law 93 -54, Public Law 94 -422, Public Law 94 -458, Public Law 96 199, Public Law 96 -244, Public Law 96 -515, Public Law 98 -483, Public Law 99 -514, Public Law 100 -127, and Public Law 102 -575). Italics indicates new text.

PAGE 106

99 Strikeout indicates text removed. Section 1 (16 U.S.C. 470) (a) This Act may be cited as the "National Historic Preservation Act." (b) The Congress finds and declares that (1) the spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic heritage; (2) the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and develo pment in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people; (3) historic properties significant to the Nation's heritage are being lost or substantially altered, often inadvertently, with increasing frequency; (4) the preservation of this irrepla ceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans; (5) in the face of ever-increasing ext ensions of urban centers, highways, and residential, commercial, and industrial developments, the present governmental and nongovernmental historic preservation programs and activities are inadequate to insure future generations a genuine opportunity to ap preciate and enjoy the rich heritage of our Nation; (6) the increased knowledge of our historic resources, the establishment of better means of identifying and administering them, and the encouragement of their preservation will improve the planning and ex ecution of federal and federally assisted projects and will assist economic growth and development; and (7) although the major burdens of historic preservation have been borne and major efforts initiated by private agencies and individuals, and both should continue to play

PAGE 107

100 a vital role, it is nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities, to give maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking preservation by p rivate means, and to assist State and local governments and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States to expand and accelerate their historic preservation programs and activities. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 19 74 (more at http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal13/archpreserv.htm ) 469. Purpose 469a. Notice to Secretary of the Interior 469a-1. Data Recovery 469a-2. Survey by Secretary of the Interior; data recovery; compensation for delays and temporary loss of use of land 469a-3. Progress reports by Secretary of the Interior; disposition of relics and specimens; coordination of survey and recovery activities; annual report 469b. Contracts or agreements; services of experts, consultants, or organizations; accept ance of funds 469c. Use of project funds 469c-1. "State" defined 469c-2. Costs with respect to historic properties 469. Preservation of historical and archeological data threatened by dam construction or alterations of terrain It is the purpose of sections 469 to 469c -1 of this title to further the policy set forth in sections 461 to 467 of this title, by specifically providing for the preservation of

PAGE 108

101 historical and archeological data (including relics and specimens) which might otherwise be irreparably lost or destroyed as the result of (1) flooding, the build ing of access roads, the erection of workmen's communities, the relocation of railroads and highways, and other alterations of the terrain caused by the construction of a dam by any agency of the United States, or by any private person or corporation holdi ng a license issued by any such agency or (2)any alteration of the terrain caused as a result of any Federal construction project or federally licensed activity or program. 469a. Notice of dam construction to be given Secretary of the Interior by United States agencies Before any agency of the United States shall undertake the construction of a dam, or issue a license to any private individual or corporation for the construction of a dam, it shall give written notice to the Secretary of the Interior (hereafter referred to as the Secretary) setting forth the site of the proposed dam and the approximate area to be flooded and otherwise changed if such construction is undertaken: Provided, That with respect to any flood water retarding dam which provides less than five thousand acre -feet of detention capacity and with respect to any other type of dam which creates a reservoir of less than forty surface acres the provisions of this section shall apply only when the constructing agency, in its preliminary s urveys, finds, or is presented with evidence that historical or archeological materials exist or may be present in the proposed reservoir area. 469a-1. Threat of irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archeological data by Federal construction projects; notice to Secretary of the Interior; survey; recovery, preservation, and protection of data (a) Notification and request for preservation of data Whenever any Federal agency finds, or is notified, in writing, by an appropriate historical or archeological

PAGE 109

102 authority, that its activities in connection with any Federal construction project or federally licensed project, activity, or program may cause irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archeological data, such agency shall notify the Secretary, in writing, and shall provide the Secretary with ap propriate information concerning the project, program, or activity. Such agency may request the Secretary to undertake the recovery, protection, and preservation of such data (including preliminary survey, or other investigation as needed, and analysis and publication of the reports resulting from such investigation), or it may, with funds appropriated for such project, program, or activity, undertake such activities. Copies of reports of any investigations made pursuant to this section shall be submitted t o the Secretary, who shall make them available to the public for inspection and review. (b) Survey of site; preservation of data; compensation Whenever any Federal agency provides financial assistance by loan, grant, or otherwise to any private person, a ssociation, or public entity, the Secretary, if he determines that significant scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archeological data might be irrevocably lost or destroyed, may with funds appropriated expressly for this purpose conduct, with the con sent of all persons, associations, or public entities having a legal interest in the property involved, a survey of the affected site and undertake the recovery, protection, and preservation of such data (including analysis and publication). The Secretary shall, unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing, compensate any person, association, or public entity damaged as a result of delays in construction or as a result of the temporary loss of the use of private or any nonfederally owned lands. 469a-2. Survey by Secretary of the Interior; recovery and preservation of data; compensation for delays in construction and for temporary loss of use of land

PAGE 110

103 (a) Survey conducted; preservation of data The Secretary, upon notification, in writing, by any Federa l or State agency or appropriate historical or archeological authority that scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archeological data is being or may be irrevocably lost or destroyed by any Federal or federally assisted or licensed project, activity, or program, shall, if he determines that such data is significant and is being or may be irrevocably lost or destroyed and after reasonable notice to the agency responsible for funding or licensing such project, activity, or program, conduct or cause to be conducted a survey and other investigation of the areas which are or may be affected and recover and preserve such data (including analysis and publication) which, in his opinion, are not being, but should be, recovered and preserved in the public interest. (b) Emergency projects No survey or recovery work shall be required pursuant to this section which, in the determination of the head of the responsible agency, would impede Federal or federally assisted or licensed projects or activities undertaken in co nnection with any emergency, including projects or activities undertaken in anticipation of, or as a result of, a natural disaster. (c) Initiation of survey The Secretary shall initiate the survey or recovery effort within sixty days after notification t o him pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or within such time as may be agreed upon with the head of the agency responsible for funding or licensing the project, activity, or program in all other cases. (d) Compensation by Secretary The Secretary shall, unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing, compensate any person, association, or public entity damaged as a result of delays in construction or as a result of the temporary loss of the use of private or nonfederally owned land.

PAGE 111

104 469a-3. Progress reports by Secretary of the Interior on surveys and work undertaken as result of surveys; disposition of relics and specimens recovered; coordination of survey and recovery activities; annual report (a) Progress reports to funding or licensing age ncy The Secretary shall keep the agency responsible for funding or licensing the project notified at all times of the progress of any survey made under sections 469 to 469c of this title or of any work undertaken as a result of such survey, in order that t here will be as little disruption or delay as possible in the carrying out of the functions of such agency and the survey and recovery programs shall terminate at a time mutually agreed upon by the Secretary and the head of such agency unless extended by m utual agreement. (b) Disposition of relics and specimens The Secretary shall consult with any interested Federal and State agencies, educational and scientific organizations, and private institutions and qualified individuals, with a view to determining the ownership of and the most appropriate repository for any relics and specimens recovered as a result of any work performed as provided for in this section. (c) Coordination of activities; annual report The Secretary shall coordinate all Federal survey and recovery activities authorized under sections 469 to 469c -1 of this title and shall submit an annual report at the end of each fiscal year to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and Committee on Energy and Natural Resour ces of the Senate indicating the scope and effectiveness of the program, the specific projects surveyed and the results produced, and the costs incurred by the Federal Government as a result thereof.

PAGE 112

105 469b. Administration; contracts or agreements; services of experts, consultants, or organizations; acceptance of funds In the administration of sections 469 to 469c -1 of this title, the Secretary may (1) enter into contracts or make cooperative agreements with any Federal or State agency, any educationa l or scientific organization, or any institution, corporation, association, or qualified individual; and (2) obtain the services of experts and consultants or organizations thereof in accordance with section 3109 of title 5; and (3) accept and utilize fu nds made available for salvage archeological purposes by any private person or corporation or transferred to him by any Federal agency. 469c. Assistance to Secretary of the Interior by Federal agencies responsible for construction projects; authorization of appropriations (a) Assistance of Federal agencies To carry out the purposes of sections 469 to 469c-1 of this title, any Federal agency responsible for a construction project may assist the Secretary and/or it may transfer to him such funds as may be agreed upon, but not more than 1 per centum of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for such project, except that the 1 per centum limitation of this section shall not apply in the event that the project involves $50,000 or less: Provided, Tha t the costs of such survey, recovery, analysis, and publication shall be considered nonreimbursable project costs. (b) Authorization of appropriations for preservation of data For the purposes of section 469a -1(b) of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated such

PAGE 113

106 sums as may be necessary, but not more than $500,000 in fiscal year 1974; $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1975; $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1976; $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1977; $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1978; $500,000 in fiscal year 1979; $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1980; $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1981; $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1982; and $1,500,000 in fisca l year 1983. (c) Authorization of appropriations for surveys and investigations For the purposes of section 469a-2(a) of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated not more than $2,000,000 in fiscal year 1974; $2,000,000 in fiscal year 1975; $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1976; $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1977; $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1978; $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1979; $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1980; $3,500,000 in fiscal year 1981; $3,500,000 in fiscal year 1982; and $4,000,000 in fiscal year 1983. (d) Availa bility of appropriations Beginning fiscal year 1979, sums appropriated for purposes of this section shall remain available until expended. 469c-1. "State" defined As used in sections 469 to 469c -1 of this title, the term "State" includes the several States of the Union, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 469c-2. Costs for identification, surveys, evaluation and data recovery with respect to historic properties Notwithstanding section 469c(a) of this title, or any other provision of law to the contrary

PAGE 114

107 (1) identification, surveys, and evaluation carried out with respect to historic properties within project areas may be treated for purposes of any law or rule of law as planning costs of the project and not as costs of mitigation; (2) reasonable costs for identification, surveys, evaluation, and data recovery carried out with respect to historic properties within project areas may be charged to Federal licensees and permittees as a condition to the issuance of such license or permit; and (3) Federal agencies, with the concurrence of the Secretary and after notification of the Committee on Natural Resources of the United States House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate, are authorized to waive, in appropriate cases, the 1 per centum limit ation contained in section 469c(a) of this title. Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 AS AMENDED More at < http://www.nps.gov/history/local -law/FHPL_ArchRsrcsProt.pdf > This Act became law on October 31, 1979 (Public Law 96 -95; 16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm), and has been amended four times. This description of the Act, as amended, tracks the language of the United States Code except that (following common usage) we refer to th e Act (meaning the Act, as amended) rather than to the subchapter or the title of the Code. 16 U.S.C. 470aa, Findings and purpose Section 2

PAGE 115

108 (a) The Congress finds that (1) archaeological resources on public lands and Indian lands are an accessible a nd irreplaceable part of the Nations heritage; (2) these resources are increasingly endangered because of their commercial attractiveness; (3) existing Federal laws do not provide adequate protection to prevent the loss and destruction of these archaeolog ical resources and sites resulting from uncontrolled excavations and pillage; and (4) there is a wealth of archaeological information which has been legally obtained by private individuals for noncommercial purposes and which could voluntarily be made avai lable to professional archaeologists and institutions. (b) The purpose of this Act is to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having collections of archaeological resources and data which were obtained before October 31, 1979 [the date of the enactment of this Act] Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Original 1990 Act at < http://www.nps.gov/history/local -law/FHPL_NAGPRA.pdf > Final Regulations 1995 at

PAGE 116

109 2003 update at < http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/MANDATES/43_CFR_10_10 1-03.pdf > From 2003 update: Subpart AIntroduction 10.1 Purpose and applicability. (a) Purpose. These regulations carry out provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Rep atriation Act of 1990 (Pub.L. 101601; 25 U.S.C. 30013013;104 Stat. 3048 3058). These regulations develop a systematic process for determining the rights of lineal descendants and Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to certain Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony with which they are affiliated. (b) Applicability (1) These regulations pertain to the identification and appropriate disposition of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony that are: (i) In Federal possession or control; or (ii) In the possession or control of any institution or State or local government receiving Federal funds; or (iii) Excavated intentionally or discovered inadverte ntly on Federal or

PAGE 117

110 tribal lands. (2) These regulations apply to human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony which are indigenous to Alaska, Hawaii, and the continental United States, but not to territories of the United States. (3) Throughout these regulations are decision points which determine their applicability in particular circumstances, e.g., a decision as to whether a museum controls human remains and cultural objects within the meaning of the regulations, o r, a decision as to whether an object is a human remain, funerary object, sacred object, or object of cultural patrimony within the meaning of the regulations. Any final determination making the Act or these regulations inapplicable is subj ect to review pursuant to section 15 of the Act. [60 FR 62158, Dec. 4, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 41293, Aug. 1, 1997]

PAGE 118

111 APPENDIX B AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (APS) 17 99 CIRCULAR 1799 Circular Letter: The American Philosophical Society have alwa ys considered the antiquity, changes, and present state of their own country as primary objects of their research; and with a view to facilitate such discoveries, a permanent committee has been established, among whose duties the following have been recomm ended as required particular attention. 1. To procure one or more entire skeletons of the mammoth 2. To obtain accurate plans, drawings, and descriptions of whatever is interesting, (where the originals cannot be had) and especially of ancient Fortifications, Tumuli, and other Indian works of art: ascertaining the materials composing them, their contents, the purposes for which they were probably designed, &c. 3. To invite researches into the natural history of the earth 4. To inquire into the Customs, Manners, Lan guages and Character of the Indian nations, ancient and modern, and their migrations. The importance of these objects will be acknowledged by every Lover of Science, and, we trust, sufficiently apologize for thus troubling you: for without the aid of gentlemen who have taste and opportunity for such researches, our means would be

PAGE 119

112 very confined. We therefore solicit your communications, now or in future, on these subjects ; which will be at all times thankfully received, and duly noticed in the publications of the society (APS Circular Letter 1799: xxxvii -xxxviii).

PAGE 120

113 APPENDIX C Archaeology Resources Interpretation for Archaeologists: A Guide to Increasing Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (NPS) http://www.nps.gov/archeology/IforA/index.htm National Park Service: Archaeology for the Public Website http://www.nps.gov/archeology/PUBLIC/INDEX.HTM Society for America n Archaeology: Ethics Resources (including codes, charters, websites, syllabi, news, etc.) http://www.saa.org/aboutSAA/committees/ethics/Int roduction.html Society for Americ an Archaeology (SAA) Public Archaeology Website http://www.saa.org/public Historic Spanish Points Website http://www.historicspanishpoint.org

PAGE 121

114 APPENDIX D Historic Spanish Point Extended Chronology LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD 2000BCE-1200BCE WOODLAND (A.K.A.TRAN SITIONAL) PERIOD 1200BCE-500BCE MANASOTA PERIOD 500BCE-800CE WEBB FAMILY PIONEER SETTLEMENT 1867CE-1910CE BERTHA PALMER SETTLEMENT AND RANCH 1910CE-1980CE GULF COAST HERITAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. 1980CE-PRESENT WEBB FAMILY PIONEER SETTLEMENT CHRONOLOGY 1867-1910 1867 Webb Family moved to Osprey location 1868 Anna webb marries Robert Griffith (Manatee village local) 1869 Florence Griffith was born 1873 Will and Jack Webb meet Frank Guptill, began longstanding relationship 1877 Frank Guptill marries Ginnie Webb, died later that year after fall down stairs 1877 Will Webb marries second cousin, Marguerite Webb. 1881 Frank Guptill marries older sister Lizzie 1881 John Webb applies for post office location 1884 Osprey Post Office established on Webb Homestead in dormitory 1884 Eliza Webbs asthma aggravated during fire, died after becoming ill 1885 Jack Webb marries Emm a Andrews, builds White Cottage ~1885 Dr. Andrews (Emmas father) mixed up in murder in Sarasota, broke out of Jail, and fleed to California 1887 John Webb travels to New York and marries Elizas sister, Emily 1888 Florence Griffith died, buried in Pioneer Cemetery 1890 Jack and Emma sell White Cottage to John (father) for winter resort expansion, moved to California to be with Andrews family 1892 Mary Sherrill visits winter resort with TB from Louisville, died, family donated money, stained -glass windows for chapel construction 1894 Freeze befell Florida, killed Webb familys citrus crop 1895 Bell for chapel donated by Mary Sherrills Louisville Family, same day bell was installed, Will and Marguerite have baby, May Belle 1901 Guptills built a house overlooking bay 1908 John and Emily Webb died, buried in Pioneer Cemetery 1910 Will Webb (son of John) sells property to Bertha Palmer 1916 Mabel (May Belle) married in Marys Chapel 1932 Will died, buried in pioneer cemetery 1950 Chapel destroyed by termites 1986 Marys Chapel reconstructed BERTHA MATILDE HONOR PALMER CHRONOLOGY 1910-1980

PAGE 122

115 1849 Bertha Matilde Honor born May 22nd in Louisville, Kentucky 1855 Honor family relocated to Chicago 1867 Bertha graduated from t he Convent of the Visitation in Georgetown, Virginia 1870 Bertha married Potter Palmer on July 29th 1871 Palmer House grand opening September 26th 1871 Great Chicago Fire on October 8th 1873 Grand Opening of second Palmer House November 8th 1874 Honor Palmer born February 1st 1875 Potter Palmer, Jr. born October 8th 1885 The Castle, Palmers home completed 1890 November 20th elected as president of the Board of Lady Managers 1892 Purchased Renoirs Acrobats at the Cirque Fernando 1900 Designated as the only female member of the U.S. National Commission to the Paris Exposition 1901 Received French Legion dHonneur 1902 Potter Palmer death May 4th 1910 Traveled to Sarasota Bay in February 1910 Purchased 12 acres of John Webb Homestead creating center of Osprey Point estate 1918 Death at Osprey Point, May 5th 1935 1920 acres donated to State of Florida by Honor Palmer to form Myakka River State Park nucleus HISTORIC SPANISH POI NT AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE & RESTORATION CHRONOLOGY 1975-1996 1975 Historic Spanish Point is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as Osprey Archaeological and Historical Site 1980 Palmer family donates 30 acres (including National Register location) to Sarasota County Historical and Natural Science Center, Inc. (what is know known as Gulf Coast Heritage Association, Inc.) 1982 Historic Spanish Point is opened to public 1983 Guptill House Restoration 1986 Marys Chapel Reconstruction 1988 Guptill House Kitche n, Pergola Restoration, Point Cottage Renovation 1989 Sunken Garden, Guptill House (second floor) Restoration 1990 Jungle Walk, Duchene Lawn Restoration, Citrus Packing House, Cocks Footbridge reconstruction, Shepard Associates create Second Master Pl an 1992 Window to the Past archaeological exhibit opened 1996 Osprey School becomes visitor center (Excerpted from Marquardt and Payne; Mansperger and Matthews,

PAGE 123

116 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barton, Benjamin Smith !1799 Circular. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society(4):181215. Brown, Canter Jr. 1990 The "Sarrazota, or Runaway Negro Plantations": Tampa Bay's First Black Community, 1812 1821. Tampa Bay History 12(2):519. Bryant, William Cullen! 1832 T he Prairies. Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Bullen!1976 The Palmer Site. Gainsville, Florida: Gainsville: Florida Anthropo logical Society Bureau of Economic and Business Research! 2007 Florida Statistical Abstract 2007.University of Florida. Bureau of Labor and Statistics! 2009 Social Scientists, Other. Electronic document, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos054.htm accessed 3/30, 2009. Chambers, Erve! 2004 Epilogue: Archaeology, Heritage, and Public Endeavor. In Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. Paul A. Shackel and Erve J. Chambers, eds. Pp. 193208. New York: Routledge. Fagan, Brian! 1998 Perhaps we may Hear Voices. Electronic documnt, http://www.nps.gov/archeology/Cg/Vol3_num1/voices.htm Florida Public Archaeology Network! 2007 Electronic document, http://www.flpublicarchaeology.org/ accessed 2008.

PAGE 124

117 Gulf Coast Heritage Association! 2008 Prehistory. Electronic document, http://www.historicspanishpoint.org/Prehistory.htm accessed 1/20, 2009. http://www.flpublicarchaeology.org/ 2008 Gulf Coast Heritage Association, Inc. 2007 2008 Board of Directors!Historic Spanish Point. Electronic document, http://www. historicspanishpoint.org/index.php?pr=Gulf_Coast_Heritage_Asso ciation accessed 11/24, 2007. Habu, Junko, Clare Fawcett, and John M. Matsunaga, eds. !2008 Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies. New York NY: Springer. Hirst, K. Kris! Shell Middens in Archaeology: What are Shell Middens? Electronic document, http://archaeology.about.com/od/boneandivory/a/shellmidden.htm 2007. Jameson, John H. Jr! 2004 Public Archaeology in the United States. In Public Archaeology. Nick Merriman, ed. Pp. 21 58. New York: Routledge. Jeppson, Patrice L. 2001 'Pitfalls, Pratfalls, and Pragmatism in Public Archaeology', Paper presented at: Annual Mee tings of the Society for Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Long Beach, California, 2001. Jeppson, Patrice L. and Brauer, George 2003 Hey, did you hear about the teacher who took the class out to dig a site? Some common misconceptions about archaeolo gy in schools', In Derry, L. and Malloy, M. (eds), SAA Community

PAGE 125

118 Partnership Handbook, Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology. Jeppson, Patrice L. 2004 'Doing Our Homework: Rethinking the Goals and Responsibilities of Archaeology Outreach to S chools', Paper presented at: Annual Meetings of the Society for Historical Archaeology and Underwater Archaeology, St.Louis, MO, 2004, St. Louis, MO, 2004 Kiely, M., and M. Halliday! 1999 Values: New Brand for the Millennium. Executive Excellence 16(3). Leone, Mark P., and Potter B. Parker! 1999 Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. New York: Kluwer Academic: Plenum Press. Library of Congress! 2003 Creating a Virginia Republic Thomas Jefferson (Library of Congress Exhibition) !. Electronic document, http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffrep.html accessed 1/13, 2009. Little, Barbara !2007 Historical Archaeology: Why the Past Matters. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Little, Barbara! 2002 Public Benefits of Archaeology. Gainsville: University of Florida Press. Little, Barbara J.! 2004 Interpreting Archaeology in U.S. National Parks. In Marketing Heritage. Uzi Baram and Yorke Rowan, eds. Pp. 269 286. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Little, Barbara J., and Paul A. Shackel, eds. !2007 Archaeology as a Tool for Civic

PAGE 126

119 Engagement. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira. Lowenthal, David!1996 Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. New York: Free Press. MacMahon, Darcie A., a nd William H. Marquardt! 2004 The Calusa and their Legacy: South Florida Peoples and their Environments. Gainsville, FL, US: University Press of Florida. Mansperger, Linda, and Janet Snyder Matthews! 1999 Mrs. Potter Palmer: Legendary Lady of Sarasota. Osprey, FL: Gulf Coast Heritage Association. Marquardt, William H., and Claudine Payne! 1992 Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. Gainsville: Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida. Matthews, Janet Snyde r! 1996 Sarasota Over My Shoulder. Matthews, Janet Snyder!1983 Edge of Wilderness: A Settlement History of Manatee River and Sarasota Bay 1528 1885. 2nd ed. Sarasota, FL: Coastal Press. McGimsey, Charles! 1972 Public Archaeology. New York: Seminar Press. McGimsey, Charles "The Value of Archaeology," in Ethics and Values in Archaeology ed. E. L. Green (New York: Free Press, 1984), 171 174. McGovern, Bernie, ed. !2007 Florida Almanac. Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing Company.

PAGE 127

120 McGuire, Randall! 2002 A Marxist Archaeology. Clinton Corners, New York: Percheron Press. McGuire, Randall H. !2008 Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. McManamon, Francis P. 1991 The Many Publics for Archaeology. American Antiquity 56(1):121 130. Melton, J. V. H.! 2001 The Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Merriman, Nick, ed. !2004 Public Archaeology. London, New York: Routledge. Nightingale, J.! 1999 Cultural Therapy for Sale. Museums Journal:39 42. NPS AP (National Park Service Archaeology Program)! 2008 Public Archaeology in the United States: A Timeline. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/archeology/ timeline/timeline.htm accessed 1/6, 2009. Patterson, T.! 1995 Toward a Social History of Archaeology in the United States. Ft. Worth, Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company. Rowan, Yorke, and Uzi Baram! 2004 Marketing Heritage. Alta Mira Press. Saitta, Dean !2007 The Archaeology of Collective Action. Gainsville: University Press of Florida. Sarasota Chamber of Commerce! 2002 Where we Stand: Public Policy Positions of the

PAGE 128

121 Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce Electronic document, http://www.sarasotachamber.com/issues/where westand.cfm accessed 1/24, 2009. Scott, Carol !2000 Branding: Positioning Museums in the 21st Century. Marketing Management 2(3):3539. Shackel, Paul, and Erve Chamb ers, eds. !2004 Places in Mind: Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. NY: Routledge. Trigger, Bruce G. 1984 Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. Man, 19, 355370. US Fish and Wildlife Services! Historic Preservation Acts Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Electronic document, http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/HISTORC.HTML 2008. William H. Marquardt, with the assistanc e of Claudine Payne !1992 Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. Gainsville, FL, US: Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental S tudies (University of Florida). Wylie, Alison! 2008 The Integrity of Narratives: Deliberative Practice, Pluralism, and Multivoca lity. In Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies. Junko Habu, Clare Fawcett and John M. Matsunaga, eds. Pp. 201212. New York, NY: Springer.

PAGE 129

122 Zimmerman, Larry J. !2006 Consulting Stakeholders. In Archaeolog y in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analysies. Jane Balme and Alisair Paterson, eds. Pp. 39. US, UK, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd


ERROR LOADING HTML FROM SOURCE (http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu//design/skins/UFDC/html/footer_item.html)