This article was downloaded by: [Thompson, Victor]

On: 9 April 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 921131104]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100767

History, Complex Hunter-gatherers, and the Mounds and Monuments of

Crystal River, Florida, USA: A Geophysical Perspective
Victor D. Thompson a;Thomas J. Pluckhahn b
a
Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA b Department of
Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

Online publication date: 09 April 2010

To cite this Article Thompson, Victor D. andPluckhahn, Thomas J.(2010) 'History, Complex Hunter-gatherers, and the
Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida, USA: A Geophysical Perspective', The Journal of Island and Coastal
Archaeology, 5: 1, 33 — 51
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15564890903249811
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564890903249811

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5:33–51, 2010
Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online
DOI: 10.1080/15564890903249811

History, Complex
Hunter-gatherers, and the
Mounds and Monuments of
Crystal River, Florida, USA:
A Geophysical Perspective
Victor D. Thompson1 and Thomas J. Pluckhahn2
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010

1
Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
2
Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

ABSTRACT

Crystal River (8CI1) is one of Florida’s most famous archaeological

sites. Yet, after over a century of investigations, its place in the history of
Florida and the southeastern United States is not well understood. Crystal
River is an important example, in terms of world archaeology, of a
monumental landscape constructed by complex hunter-gatherer-fishers
along the coast of the southeastern United States. Here, we present the
results of our remote sensing program at the site. This research includes
topographic mapping, a resistance survey, and ground-penetrating
radar transects over various architectural components at the site. These
data lend insight into the scale and rapidity of landscape modification at
the site, as well as information on the location of previous archaeological
excavations and modern disturbances. Further, the data illustrate the
potential of shallow geophysical survey to the investigations of shell
architecture.

Keywords ground penetrating radar, resistance survey, shell architecture, Southeastern

United States

A central theme in the study of socio- monument construction by hunter-gatherer-

political complexity is the role that mon-
umental architecture plays in structuring
social relations. Recently, archaeologists
working in coastal and wetland areas around
the world note the precocious appearance of
fishers as well as their role and relation-
ship to coastal resources (e.g., David and
Badulgal 2006; Gaspar et al. 2008; Russo
1994, 2008; Sassaman 2004; Thompson and
Turck 2009). Thus, to understand how

Received 20 Jan 2009; accepted 13 July 2009.

Address correspondence to Victor D. Thompson, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University,
4048 Smith Laboratory, 174 W. 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. E-mail: thompson.2042@osu.edu

33
 Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn
monuments structure and are structured by
social relations within and among hunter-
gatherer societies, archaeologists must exam-
ine the construction histories of individual
structures, as well as their relationship to
one another across the landscape (Thomp-
son 2009). The southeastern United States,
specifically Florida, is one region of the
world where hunter-gatherers constructed
monuments of shell and earth since at least
the Late Archaic period (ca. 3000 to 1000
BC) (Milanich 1994; Russo 1994; Sassaman
2004, 2008). While well known in Florida,
the scale and type of monument construction
has not been widely published outside of
local and regional journals (e.g., Florida
Anthropologist, Southeastern Archaeology,
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010
etc.). Since many of the monuments in this
area are constructed of shell, they should be
of interest to archaeologists working in other
regions of the world where shell was used as
a construction material.
Based on the above points, this paper
has two specific goals. First, we wish to
spotlight the site of Crystal River (8CI1) as
one example of a monumental landscape in
the coastal zone of the southeastern United
States. A subsistence base primarily depen-
dent upon hunting, gathering, and fishing
supported the labor force that constructed
these monumental works of shell and earth,
as well as the concomitant ritual activities.
Thus, understanding the role and history
of these monuments will lend insight into
the broader world history of monuments
in coastal areas and socio-political complex-
ity in general among hunter-gatherer-fishers.
Our second goal is methodologically based
and is to illustrate the potential of shallow
geophysical survey, particularly with regards
to the investigations of shell architecture.
In what follows, we first present a brief
description of Crystal River and the history
of research at the site. Next, we define our
theoretical perspective, research agenda, and
how they articulate with the methods used in
our most recent research at the site. After this,
we describe the results of our geophysical
survey and topographic mapping of the site
and offer some preliminary interpretations re-
garding the construction of the mounds and
monuments. Finally, we put forward some
34 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010
suggestions for future research at Crystal
River and the implications and importance
of the site for the study of complex hunter-
gatherers in coastal environments.
THE MOUNDS AND MONUMENTS OF
CRYSTAL RIVER: A BRIEF HISTORY OF
RESEARCH
The Crystal River site is located in west-
central Florida and represents one of the
most important Woodland (1000 BC to AD
1000) sites in the region (Figure 1). A quick
perusal of the artifact plates in the sections
concerning Crystal River from C. B. Moore’s
work during the early twentieth century
indicate why this site holds so prominent a
place in Florida archaeology. Elaborately dec-
orated painted and incised pottery, worked
copper, plummets, as well as a variety of
shell artifacts, are found on these pages
(Mitchem 1999; Moore 1903, 1907, 1918). In
addition, the site’s hypothesized connections
to Mesoamerica (Bullen 1966; Ford 1966),
the speculation that it functioned as a so-
lar observatory (Hardman 1971; Williamson
1984), and finally its large shell and earthen
monuments and stone stelae make Crystal
River deserving of the designation a “fa-
mous” Florida site (see Bullen 1953; Milanich
1999:1).
The site, at a minimum, covers 6.9
hectares and comprises numerous architec-
tural features. Depending on how you count
them (some of the mounds are actually
complexes of architectural features), Crystal
River contains at least six mounds: two burial
mounds (Mound G and the Mound C-F com-
plex), and four platforms mounds (Mound A,
H, J, and K). The largest of these eminences
is Mound A at over nine meters tall. There is
also a curvilinear shell feature more midden-
like than intentional architecture (Feature
B). In addition to the mounds, three stone
monuments are also located at the site.
C. B. Moore (1903, 1907, 1918) con-
ducted the earliest archaeological excava-
tions at Crystal River. Despite the limitations
in his field methods and reporting, Moore’s
excavations remain the most intensive work
ever conducted at Crystal River and the
 Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Crystal River and other important Woodland Period sites in
the southeastern United States. Inset map shows Crystal River and related sites and their
location along the Gulf Coast.

baseline for the interpretation of the site
(Weisman 1995:12–14). Most importantly,
Moore produced the first map of the site,
assigning the letter designations that are still
used today for the major features of the site;
however, this map does not mention the two
earth/shell works known today as Mounds J
and K, nor the presumed stelae (Moore 1903;
Weisman 1995:12–13).
Moore’s 1903 work at Crystal River fo-
cused on the main burial mound complex,
which he labeled Mounds C-F. While work
was conducted in all parts of the complex,
he concentrated on the central sand mound
(Mound F). The excavations here produced
many of the exotic artifacts for which Crystal
River has become famous. Returning in 1906
(Moore 1907; Weisman 1995:13), he con-
tinued excavating the main burial complex,
focusing his efforts to the “elevation” or
platform (Mound E) surrounding the central
burial mound and to a lesser extent in

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35

 Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn
the circular embankment (Mound C). Both
locations contained a number of burials;
however, most lacked the exotic artifacts of
copper and quartz crystal found in Mound F.
In 1917, Moore made his final visit (Moore
1918; Weisman 1995:13) and continued
working in the circular embankment (Mound
C), where he identified more burials, shell,
and limestone rubble.
No archaeologists conducted investiga-
tions at Crystal River for more than three
decades following Moore’s work. Neverthe-
less, the site was occasionally visited and de-
scribed in print (Weisman 1995:25). During
the 1930s and 1940s, archaeologists began
assessing the significance of the site through
studies of its material culture, chronology,
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010
and apparent connections with the Hopewell
phenomenon, an archaeological complex
concentrated in the midwestern states of
Ohio and Illinois and renowned for its
geometric mound centers, burial mounds,
and elaborate and exotic artifacts. Greenman
(1938) recognized the affinities between
artifacts from Crystal River (as reported by
Moore) and those from Hopewell sites in
Ohio.
Willey (1948a; Willey and Phillips 1944)
eventually would help partially clarify the
temporal assignment of Crystal River pottery
and identify it as belonging to the Deptford,
Santa-Rosa Swift Creek, and Weeden Island
complexes (Willey 1949). Further, he would
suggest that Crystal River pottery is ancestral
to Mississippian types (ca. AD 1000 to 1500)
(Willey 1948b). Despite these revelations,
the dating of Mound A was still unresolved
as Willey’s investigations were limited to sur-
face collections of Mounds C and F (Weisman
1995:28; Willey 1949).
A complicating factor in these early
attempts to situate Crystal River in the de-
velopmental sequence of the southeastern
United States was the shortened chronology
of the day and the related assumption that
Weeden Island was contemporaneous with
fully developed Mississippian (ca. AD 1000
to 1500) cultures in the interior. Indeed, as
Knight and Schnell (2004:3–4) have pointed
out, in the 1940s the Woodland and Mis-
sissippian sequence for the Gulf Coast was
compressed into an interval of around 1500
36 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010
years (ca. AD 500 to 1500), compared to
the 3000 years it is now known to span. A
second complicating factor in the dating of
Crystal River was the presence of flat-topped
mounds. The perceptions of archaeologists
at this time was that such mounds dated
predominantly or exclusively to the Temple
Mound, or Mississippian period (Phillips et al.
1951). Only within the last twenty years
has the existence of pre-Mississippian plat-
form mound construction become widely
accepted (e.g., Jefferies 1994; Knight 1990).
To resolve questions about the relative
ordering of the pottery series and mound
construction at Crystal River, Hale Smith
conducted limited work at the site in 1951
(Smith 1951; Weisman 1995:14, 28–29). His
investigations included excavations in the
midden area (Mound B), Mound H, Mounds
C and E, and a surface collection of Mound
A. Smith’s analysis suggested that at least a
portion of the Mound C embankment was
constructed late in the Weeden Island period,
refining Willey’s earlier temporal assignment.
Shortly after this in 1951, Ripley Bullen
initiated the first of several seasons of field-
work at Crystal River (Bullen 1953; Weisman
1995:28–29). These investigations included
two stratigraphic excavations in the midden
(Area B) to test his idea that the site (and par-
ticularly the burial mound complex) was in
use for more than one period (Bullen 1951).
Based on this work, Bullen postulated three
periods of occupation and mound construc-
tion: Santa-Rosa Swift Creek (lower levels
of Mound F), Weeden Island (the Mound E
platform and Mound C embankment), and
late Weeden Island or Safety Harbor (the
upper levels of Mound F).
Bullen completed extensive excava-
tions at Crystal River in 1960 (Weisman
1995:37–38). Perhaps most significantly,
these investigations included topographic
mapping that led to the identification of
two additional mounds and an extension of
the midden area (Mound B) to the north
of Mound A. Bullen described Mound J as
an “irregularly shaped imminence of shell”
(Weisman 1995:37), while Mound K was
described as a flat-topped deposit resembling
a small temple mound. Tests were excavated
into these two mounds. Another test was
 Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida
excavated into Mound G, where 35 burials
were dandified in a 10 foot by 20 foot
trench. Finally, Bullen identified undisturbed
burials in the Mound F platform and Mound
C embankment. Unfortunately, the 1960
investigations by Bullen have never been
thoroughly reported.
In 1964, as the site was being cleared
for the creation of the state park, two lime-
stone stelae were discovered south and east
of the main burial complex (Bullen 1966;
Weisman 1995:31–32). Bullen excavated the
area around Stelae 1, a 2.15 m long upright
irregular block that contains a pecked and
incised representation of a human face. The
identification of these and a third possible ste-
lae (Hardman 1971) have fueled speculation
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010
about connections between Crystal River and
Mesoamerica (Bullen 1966; Ford 1966, 1969).
Contemporary fieldwork at Crystal River
has been limited. In 1985, Brent Weisman
and Jeffrey Mitchem excavated core samples
and two 2 × 2 m test units in the midden
north of Mound A, with the goal of obtain-
ing samples from the Mississippian (Safety
Harbor) component on the site (Weisman
1995:35–36). These excavations have never
been thoroughly reported. More recently,
Gary Ellis has conducted work at Crystal
River in response to natural disasters and
general park maintenance (Ellis 2004; Ellis
et al. 2003).
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE AND
RESEARCH GOALS
As illustrated in the above discussion, despite
numerous minor investigations, the Crystal
River site remains poorly understood. The
paucity of systematic, comprehensive inves-
tigations, coupled with the lack of adequate
reporting, has confounded interpretation of
the site and diminished the importance of
Crystal River outside of Florida. Our research
was designed to address these deficiencies
and restore Crystal River to its rightful
prominence.
The overarching theoretical framework
for this and our ongoing research is a
modified form of historical processualism
(sensu Pauketat 2001, 2007; Pauketat and
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY
Loren 2005) or what we refer to as syncretic
processualism. Such a framework seeks to
understand the historical trajectories and
genealogies of a given local area and articulate
these local histories with larger regional
ones with regards to the actions of both
group and individual agents. Critics of strict
historical processual approaches argue that
such inquires are largely unsystematic and
insufficiently generalizing (O’Brien and Ly-
man 2004). Indeed, interpreting landscape
histories is not without difficulties, and de-
mands more than a superficial acknowledge-
ment of the spatial distribution of monu-
ments and other features across the land
(cf. Tilley 1994). As such, a fine-grained
temporal understanding of places, including
their developmental and construction history
is required to fully understand their role
in regional social relationships, as well as
gain insight into overarching socio-political
trajectories, so that comparisons between
past and present societies can contribute to
a global understanding of larger processes.
Such a perspective differs from more strict
versions of historical processualism, as one
of its main goals is comparative. Further,
methodologically it requires the formulation
and evaluation of explicit research questions
rather than inductive reconstructions of spe-
cific histories.
In order to implement our approach
for the Crystal River site, our first research
objective must be to understand the site’s
developmental sequence. Specifically, we
need to understand the construction history
of many of the mounds and monuments at
the site as well as their spatial relationships
at a given time in the site’s history. This
research goal, however, has one specific
methodological problem. Like many large
mounds sites around the southeastern United
States, Crystal River is a state park and large-
scale excavations, especially in the mounds,
are strongly discouraged.
Increasingly, archaeologists are turning
to the use of geophysical methods and high-
resolution topographic mapping as a way
to evaluate not only large-scale architecture,
but also the space around these structures
(e.g., Hargrave et al. 2007; Johnson 2006;
Thompson et al. 2004). For example, the
37
 Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn
recent mapping work by Kidder (2002) and
the geophysical investigations by Hargrave
et al. (2007) at Poverty Point illustrate how
such research sheds light into the nature of
even some of the most well-known archaeo-
logical sites in the United States. Thus, while
not an end in and of itself, such surveys
provide a first line of inquiry into the nature
of the built environment. We would also
like to point out that when such techniques
are clearly articulated with a theoretical
perspective and research goals, what we
term inquiry-based archaeogeophysics, the
chance of a successful research project is
greatly enhanced. We do not wish to dis-
abuse archaeologists of the utility of simple
geophysical prospection. Instead, we suggest
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010
that recent advances in software allow us to
use such techniques in more sophisticated
and nuanced ways. In other words, we
suggest that the use of this technology should
be driven by research questions, not by the
technology itself.
It is with these ideas in mind that we
began our research at Crystal River. For our
initial research, we have several major goals.
Specifically we wanted to: first, assess the
impact of various recent historic activities
(house construction, mining, etc.) at the
site prior to and since its development
as an archaeological park; next, identify if
the mounds evidence different construction
stages and/or techniques; third, define spatial
relationships vis-à-vis the mounds and mon-
uments; and finally, evaluate the utility of
geophysical techniques for this area.
Our research questions seek information
that is vital for any archaeological project.
However, our second and third research
questions specifically provide the prelimi-
nary information that is required by our
theoretical framework. In order to achieve
these research goals we surveyed the site
using a total station instrument, conducted
a resistance survey over a large portion of
the site, and finally, used ground-penetrating
radar (GPR) over select areas of the site.
SURVEY METHODS
Descriptions of the geophysical survey meth-
ods used in this study can be found in
38 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010
numerous recent publications (e.g., Gater
and Gaffney 2003; Johnson 2006; Kuvamme
2003). While the reader is directed to these
publications for more in-depth overviews,
we provide a brief description of our sur-
vey methodology and how each instrument
aids archaeological research in this specific
context.
The research team conducted the resis-
tance mapping portion of the geophysical
survey at Crystal River in 20 × 20 m collection
grids set in using a total station. Collection
grid sizes for the GPR varied. These grids were
often located on the tops of mounds that have
irregular shapes. In these cases, rectangular
collection grids of various sizes were shot in
using the total station; however, many were
not oriented along the axis of the site grid.
The use of total station mapping is
now common in archaeology and does not
warrant description here. Resistance survey
and GPR are less well known and necessitate
an overview. Both resistance survey and GPR
work to identify local physical differences
in the ground that may or may not indicate
buried archaeological deposits, depending
on soil characteristics and the nature of
human induced disturbance (e.g., hearth,
burned house, buried shell filled pit). Often
the detected disturbances in the geophysical
data are termed anomalies. Usually, archae-
ologists are hesitant to make interpretations
based solely on geophysical data; however, in
certain cases when the quality of the data is
exemplary, initial interpretations may be put
forth (see Thompson et al. 2004).
After the initial establishment of our
baseline grid, we began topographic map-
ping, resistance survey, and the collection
of GPR data. Thompson (Thompson et al.
2004) has described both GPR and resistance
elsewhere. What follows is taken, in part,
from these overviews.
Our resistance survey used a Geoscan
RM-15 Advanced Resistance meter. This ma-
chine induces a known electrical current and
detects the ease of flow or resistance. These
values (measured in ohms) are recorded in a
data logger along with their spatial location
(Somers 2006). Human-induced disturbances
such as pits, house basins, and shell middens,
can either be of higher or lower resistance
 Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida
than the surrounding soil matrix. As we
will show at Crystal River, where shell is
one of the primary archaeological deposits,
higher resistance values indicate, in part,
this material. Similar resistance surveys at
other sites in the southeastern United States
and elsewhere, corroborate this observation
(Dalan et al. 1992:51; Thompson et al. 2004).
We collected data with the RM-15 using
a twin electrode array, which uses two pairs
of current and potential electrodes (Somers
2006). One pair of electrodes is mounted
to a mobile frame, which the archaeologists
move along at evenly spaced intervals within
the collection grid. In our case, data were
collected at 50 cm intervals along transects
spaced 1 m apart. The other pair of probes
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010
is inserted in the ground 20 to 30 m away
from the grid. The probe spacing on the
mobile probes is directly related to the depth
the machine can detect below the surface.
For our survey, we used a spacing of 50 cm
for the mobile probes that allows the record-
ing of information up to a depth of approx-
imately 50 cm below the surface. In total,
we surveyed 25 20 × 20 m collection grids,
which resulted in coverage of 1 ha over the
site’s core area.
ArcheoSurveyor was used to process
all resistance data following the procedure
outlined in Gater and Gaffney (2003:104, fig.
49). The raw resistance data were reviewed,
then a high pass filter was applied and
the readings despiked for outliers. Finally,
we enhanced the data for presentation by
smoothing and interpolating the values.
The GPR survey at Crystal River was
used to complement the resistance survey.
In contrast, to resistance data, GPR provides
both horizontal as well as vertical information
regarding the distribution and thickness of
archaeological features below the surface.
Readers are directed to Conyers (2004, 2006)
for a detailed explanation of GPR. Briefly, the
GPR propagates radar pulse from a surface
antenna. The waves then travel though the
near ground and are reflected back when they
encounter physical differences in the earth,
which may represent buried archaeological
deposits (Conyers 2006).
A Geophysical Survey Systems Inc. SIR-
3000 GPR with a 400 MHz antenna was
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY
used to complete the survey. GPR data were
collected in transect lines that were spaced
50 cm apart; however, collection grid size
varied as previously mentioned. Following
collection, data were processed using GPR-
SLICE and GPR Viewer software. Radar data
are presented either as individual profile
slices or as a series of plan view slice maps
showing how anomalies vary according to
depth. Amplitude slices, here, are shown as
both profile and plan view images that are
based on the thickness of anomalies and
the wave travel time. As space limitations
restrict the number of images, in most cases
the authors chose the GPR slice that best
represents the phenomena under discussion.
RESULTS
Our fieldwork covered a sufficient portion of
the Crystal River site to allow for the produc-
tion of the first comprehensive topographic
map of the site, showing all the mounds,
monuments, and relevant features (Figure 2).
This map is based on over 18,000 elevation
readings collected over a two-week period
with three total stations. There are several
differences between the location and the
representation of certain features between
our map of the site and previous maps. We
will not dwell on these differences here,
as it is the subject of another publication
(Pluckhahn and Thompson 2009); however,
we present our topographic map as a way
of orienting the reader in space with regards
to our geophysical survey vis-à-vis the site’s
architectural features.
Resistance Survey
The resistance survey covered approx-
imately one hectare of the site’s core
(Figure 3). Our 20 × 20 m survey blocks were
generally contiguous, allowing for a broad
view of distribution of archaeological de-
posits at the site. Comparisons between the
resistance survey and the topographic map
show a striking correspondence. Thus, it ap-
pears that topographic relief corresponds to
the higher resistance readings (i.e., the dark
grey to black areas) on our resistance map.
39
 Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010

Figure 2. Topographic map of the Crystal River site showing all architectural features. The dark grey
lines and blocks are modern park sidewalks and buildings.

One of the interesting characteristics of
Crystal River is that it lacks a clearly defined
central plaza, in contrast with many other
major Woodland ceremonial centers across
the southeastern United States (e.g., Milanich
et al. 1997; Pluckhahn 2003). Indeed, plaza-
oriented sites have considerable time depth
in the Southeast, extending as far back as the
Late Archaic (e.g., Kidder 2002; Russo 2004;
Thompson 2007). Therefore, one of our main
research goals was to evaluate if Crystal River
did indeed have a plaza.
Plazas are important, as they are not
merely empty spaces, but rather are “one of
the central design elements of community
planning and intrasite spatial organization”
(Kidder 2004:515). For the southeastern
United States, plazas are identified as flat areas
that evidence no domestic occupation and
are usually, but not necessarily, flanked by
some form of architecture (e.g., domestic or
monumental) (Kidder 2004:515–516). The
area southwest of Mound H and flanked
by Mound G and the main burial mound

40 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010

 Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010

Figure 3. Map showing the location of and correspondence between the resistance survey and
topographic mapping at Crystal River. Darker (black) areas represent high resistance.

complex (Mounds C-F) is suggested by Bullen
(1965:225) to be a plaza. In order to test this
idea we completely covered this area in our
resistance survey (Figure 4). The resistance
survey produced no obvious geophysical
anomalies in this area except for a very
small anomaly that appears halfway between
Mounds G and C-F. This anomaly could possi-
bly represent the large posts that are typical
features in plazas of later time periods in the
Eastern United States (e.g., Cook 2008:39) or
possibly another buried stelae. However, for
now, this is speculative Further, this does
not mean that no archaeological deposits
are present in the area that comprises the
rest of the plaza, but rather they are not
detectable by this machine. However, based
on the available data, we suggest that our
work supports the identification of this area
as a plaza.
If, indeed, the area south of Mound H
represents a plaza, it is interesting that it is
offset from some of the other main architec-
tural elements at the site, specifically Mound

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 41

 Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010

Figure 4. Resistance map showing the featureless plaza. Dark areas represent high resistance areas
associated with Mound G to the west and Mound C to the south.

A (the largest platform mound at the site).
While interesting, an offset plaza such as this
is not out of the ordinary for Woodland sites
in Florida. Fort Center, another Woodland
center, also has an offset plaza (see Sears
1982). The placement of offset verses central
places surely would have implications for
structuring social relations as well as the
historical trajectory of the site in general. We,
however, only have space to note this aspect
of the site; further comments and implica-
tions must await future investigations.
Throughout the course of our survey, we
covered most of Mound G. This section of the
survey is important as it reveals the excava-
tions conducted by Bullen in the 1960s, the
precise locations of which were previously
unknown (see Figure 4). This information
informs one of our research goals, to define
the impact of past historic activities at the site
and thus provides a context for Pluckhahn’s
current collections-based research at the site.
We covered a number of other archi-
tectural features during our survey. These
features included Mounds J and K, which
are clearly defined in the resistance data
(Figure 5). These features are highly resis-
tant and evidence well-defined semi-straight
line boundaries from the surrounding ma-
trix, suggesting purposeful construction.

42 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010

 Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010

Figure 5. Resistance map showing Mound J, Mound K, and the remnant of Feature B.

Weisman (1995:60) notes that there was
some speculation that these features may
have been bulldozer piles of shell based
on the idea that they were not located on
Moore’s earlier maps. Given that these archi-
tectural features are so clearly defined and are
not smeared, as one would expect with bull-
dozer piles, we argue, following Weisman
(1995:60), that these are of Native American
origin.
In addition to these mounds, the burial
mound complex Mounds C-F was also cov-
ered (Figure 6). As this portion of the site was
heavily excavated and then reconstructed,
we did not cover the entire architectural
complex. Our results, however, do show that
perhaps a small portion of the circular mound
C remains intact.
The final insight provided by our resis-
tance survey is with regards to Feature B (see
Figure 5), a long, curvilinear midden deposit.
Modern construction activities prior to the
establishment of Crystal River as an archae-
ological park heavily impacted this feature.
Our goal was to evaluate the degree to which
archeological deposits were present in this
area. Based on our survey, it appears that
there are several portions of Feature B intact;
however, unlike previous descriptions and
maps that show this feature as contiguous,
deposits seem to be segmented and discreet.
We suggest that this is due, in part, to the

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 43

 Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010

Figure 6. Resistance map of the Mound C-F complex. Topographic inset with lines shows the
reconstruction of the mound based on Moore’s 1903 description.

historic construction and modification to this
area for a trailer park.
GPR Survey
We selected four areas for our GPR
survey to evaluate if certain architectural fea-
tures remained intact, as well as to investigate
the nature of construction activities at the
site. Two of these areas are located along
the tops of Mounds K and H, another located
between Mound A and K near Feature B, and
one more in the vicinity of where the ramp
for Mound A should be located.
Mound H is an elongated mound with
a ramp leading to the southwest into our
tentative plaza area. This mound, with its
long, narrow summit and extended ramp,
is in our opinion virtually unique for its
shape in the southeastern United States.
It is reminiscent of Prehispanic structures
found in parts of Mesoamerica; however, we
leave such speculations aside for now as our
GPR survey is intriguing on its own without
contact from afar.
We surveyed two collection blocks
on Mound H, a western and eastern
grid. The GPR results of Mound H re-
veal differential layering in the mound. In
both areas surveyed, a highly reflective
horizon is indicated between 10 and 20
nanoseconds (na) (ca. 45–50 cm) below the
surface of the mound (Figure 7). Yet another

44 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010

 Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010

Figure 7. GPR sample profiles from Mound H.

highly reflective horizon is indicated in the
western grid at around 30 ns (ca. 90 cm). This
layer is also present in the eastern collection
grid, but is less clear as other highly reflective
anomalies are noted in some of the GPR
profiles just above this layer. Although we
cannot say for sure at this time, we suggest
that these anomalies possibly represent struc-
tural remains or features, perhaps limestone
blocks, on a previous mound surface. On a
final note, the easternmost portion of the
GPR profiles from the western grid indicate a
strong anomaly that extents from the surface
of the mound to a depth of over a meter. We
suggest that this represents one of Bullen’s
previous excavation units as it is in the
general vicinity of his test in this mound.
Based on our GPR survey, we suggest
that Mound H was constructed in at least
three stages. We propose that the highly
reflective layers represented in the GPR data
represent layers containing higher quantities
of shell and/or limestone boulders. This
interpretation in based on our knowledge of
shell layering at other shell bearing sites (e.g.,
Thompson et al. 2004) and photographs of

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 45

 Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn

Bullen’s excavation that clearly show layers
of dense shell deposits in this mound. We
argue that the layers that contain less reflec-
tive material are areas that contain greater
amounts of sand than shell. Furthermore,
the indication that these levels are present
in both the west and east collection blocks
support a view that, in terms of the length
of the platform, Mound H was conceived
as we see it today. Such information is
important regarding the size and rapidity of
architectural construction.
In contrast to Mound H, our GPR survey
of Mound K provides an altogether different
view of architectural construction (Figure 8).
The radar profiles of this mound indicate that
it is composed primarily of high reflectors,
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010
constructed using a different technique or
under different circumstances than Mound
H. If the construction material is indeed
mostly shell which was collected during one
season, then this mound indicates a more
rapid construction than Mound H. Future
research using isotopic studies of the shellfish
should be conducted to evaluate this hypoth-
esis (see Thompson 2006 for methods).
Our GPR survey of Feature B further
indicates that many of the architectural fea-
tures at Crystal River formed as a result
of varying depositional histories (Figure 9).
Our survey results suggest that the upper
layers of this feature appear to be similar
to what we might expect for a dispersed
sheet midden; however, there are anomalies

which we interpret to be high-density shell that suggest deeper subsurface deposits. In

deposits. Thus, it seems that this mound was particular, we located a large basin-shaped

Figure 8. Sample GPR profile of Mound K. The topographic inset shows the survey block. Note the
difference between the GPR profiles from Mound H and K. Mound K most likely is comprised
of fill that contains more shell than those of Mound H.

46 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010

 Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010

Figure 9. GPR results for Feature B vicinity. Topographic inset shows location of the survey block.

feature in the southwest corner of our survey
block. Regardless, this area stands in marked
contrast to Mounds K and H and thus should
be thought of as midden deposits rather than
planned architecture.
Our final survey area was in the vicinity
of the ramp for Mound A (see map inset of
Figure 9). Our purpose here was to identify,
if present, the remnants of mound A’s ramp.
Nearly one third of the fill that comprised
Mound A was removed during the recent
past for various construction projects, an un-
fortunately common early practice in Florida
and many other parts of the world (Claassen
1998:81). While our GPR survey of this area
did indicate several anomalies in the area,
none suggest sufficient structural formality
to indicate that they were part of the ramp.
Further, modern disturbances in this area also
complicated our results. Future geophysical
survey and testing in the area may reveal that
some of the deposits do indeed represent the

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 47

 Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn
basal levels of Mound A; however, for now we
can only speculate as to the nature of these
anomalies.
CRYSTAL RIVER, COMPLEX
HUNTER-GATHERERS, AND THE
MONUMENTS OF COASTAL RIVER
Returning to some of our earlier statements,
we argue that the results of this geophys-
ical survey lend insight into the historical
trajectories of monument construction and
landscape use at the Crystal River site. Based
on our survey we have identified differential
construction techniques between some of
the platform mounds at the site, such as
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010
Mounds K and H. Furthermore, these results
indicate that Mound H was constructed in
stages. We have also identified potential
differences in the formation processes of
other features at the site, such as Feature B
which appears to be more of an accretional
midden rather than a planned architectural el-
ement. In addition, we have provided added
support for the interpretation of the plaza;
however, additional coring in the area will be
necessary to verify this idea. While we now
have many more questions than answers, we
suggest that the quality of our data and the
information gleaned from this work is, in
part, because we began our survey with clear
questions. Thus, our use of these techniques
was explicit (what we termed “inquiry-based
archaeogeophysics”). We argue that this is
the most productive way to incorporate
geophysics, as well as any other specialized
method, into archaeological research.
The survey allows us to make some
preliminary statements regarding the nature
of ceremonial centers during the Woodland
period in Florida and perhaps the south-
eastern United States more generally. As
noted in the introduction to this paper, the
mound construction at Crystal River must
be understood in terms of the meaningful
practice of individuals and groups. Southeast-
ern archaeologists often conceive of Wood-
land mound sites as ceremonial centers for
single, autonomous, and rather homogenous
social groups (typically individual lineages)
(Milanich et al. 1997). To the contrary,
48 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010
we believe that the scale and diversity of
mound constructions at Crystal River argue
for the social practice of multiple and varied
social groups. As Dillehay (1992) has argued
for the Mapuche in Chile, we suggest that
the spatial layout of Crystal River—with its
similarities to other prominent Woodland
sites—served to facilitate participation in
extra-local ceremonies and social networks
in Florida and beyond. Indeed, participation
in at least extra-local exchange networks is
evident in the number and variety of non-
local, Hopewellian artifacts recovered from
the site.
While the overarching similarities of
Crystal River to other sites with offset plazas
and platform mounds would have given
it a sense of familiarity to outsiders, the
tempo and scale of construction of these
monuments would have been determined
largely by the local group. Key architectural
distinctions between Crystal River and other
similar Woodland sites, such as the unique
shape of Mound H and the presence of
stelae, appear to have been intentionally
integrated into the overall site plan, perhaps
to underscore the uniqueness of the com-
munity and the ceremonial practices that
took place there. Thus, on the one hand,
modification of the landscape by local groups
and individuals provided a familiar setting for
outsiders coming to the site for ceremonies,
while on the other hand, it also served to
distinguish Crystal River from other regional
centers and provide a unique experience for
visitors to the site (see Dillehay 2004 for
parallels in Formative Peru).
While not an end in itself, our survey
adds to understanding the historicity of the
site and marks a point of departure for future
considerations of the place of Crystal River in
the larger region. Thus, we view these data
as the beginning of a long-term research pro-
gram aimed at understanding the sociality of
the monuments during the Woodland period.
Our future work will include excavations, as
well as radiocarbon dating of the mounds to
place them within their proper sequence at
the site, thus helping to understand the social
history of Crystal River.
In terms of sites with monumental works
of shell and earth constructed by complex
 Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida
hunter-gatherers, the southeastern United
States, and Florida in particular, has one of
the highest densities of such structures in
the world. Yet, few archaeologists outside of
Florida, much less the southeastern United
States, recognize this important aspect of
the southeast’s archaeological record (see
Weisman 2003). This is changing, partic-
ularly with regards to some of the work
that has been done regarding Archaic Pe-
riod complexity (e.g., Russo 1994, 2004,
2008; Sassaman 2004, 2008; Thompson 2007;
Thompson et al. 2008); however, the full
breadth and diversity of these sites is far from
complete. Indeed, while Archaic period mon-
uments are gaining more attention, the later
elaboration of such traditions in coastal areas
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010
during the Woodland period remains grossly
underrepresented in the broader literature
outside the southeast.
Our survey and description of the
mounds and monuments of Crystal River
could be easily mistaken for a description of
an interior ceremonial complex supported
by intensive agriculture. Perhaps, it is for this
very reason that southeastern scholars have
not explicitly framed sites like Crystal River
in terms of hunter-gatherer studies. The key
point, however, is that Crystal River is the
result and actions of people who supported
their labor force, derived their ideology, and
emerged from a history that was rooted in the
coastal environment. Thus, the processes and
histories of the coastal regions of Florida and
other areas of the southeast have much to
inform the world regarding the emergence
and role of monuments and monumental
landscapes in coastal environments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A number of individuals and institutions
made this research possible. First, we thank
Nick Robins (Park Manager, Crystal River
Archaeological State Park) for his sup-
port.For permission to work at the park, we
also thank Parks Small (Chief, Bureau of
Natural and Cultural Resources), Dr. Ryan
J. Wheeler (Chief, Bureau of Archaeological
Research and State Archaeologist), and
William Stanton (Archaeologist, Bureau
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY
of Natural & Cultural Resources). We are
indebted to Chris (Paula) Carpenter, Jamie
Gridwain, Mike Petellat, and Leroy Smith,
the staff of Crystal River State Archaeolog-
ical Park. Rich Estabrook of the Florida
Public Archaeology Network provided cru-
cial logistical support. The University of
South Florida Office of Research through
the New Researcher Grant Program, in
part, supported this work. Both the Uni-
versity of South Florida and University
of West Florida Departments of Anthro-
pology provided additional support. The
Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources
of the Florida Department of Environmen-
tal Protection provided space for us to
camp. Our field crew Amanda Roberts, Nick
Laracuente, Sarah Mitchell, Adrienne Sams,
the USF Field School, and the UWF Field
School all, ultimately, made the research
possible. We thank Dr. Lawrence Conyers
and an anonymous reviewer for their
thoughtful comments and critique of this
article. As always, the authors are solely
responsible for all errors, omissions, and
mistakes.
REFERENCES
Bullen, R. P. 1951. The enigmatic Crystal River site.
American Antiquity 17:142–143.
Bullen, R. P. 1953. The famous Crystal River site.
The Florida Anthropologist 6:9–37.
Bullen, R. P. 1965. Recent Additional Information
[p. 10], in Crystal River Indian Mound Museum.
Mimeograph prepared for the opening of the
Crystal River State Archaeological site. On
file, Ford Library, Florida Museum of Natural
History.
Bullen, R. P. 1966. Stelae at the Crystal River Site,
Florida. American Antiquity 31:861–865.
Claassen, C. 1998. Shells. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Conyers, L. B. 2004. Ground-Penetrating Radar
for Archaeology. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.
Conyers, L. B. 2006. Ground-penetrating radar. In
Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly
North American Perspective (Jay K. Johnson,
ed.):131–160. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of
Alabama Press.
Cook, R. 2008. Sunwatch: Fort Ancient Develop-
ment in the Mississippian World. Tuscaloosa,
AL: University of Alabama Press.
49
 Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn
Dalan, R. A., J. M. Musser, Jr., and J. K. Stein. 1992.
Geophysical exploration of a shell midden. In
Deciphering a Shell Midden. San Diego (Julie
K. Stein, ed.):43–59. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
David, B. and M. Badulgal. 2006. What hap-
pened in Torres Strait 400 years ago? Ritual
transformations in an island seascape. Journal
of Island and Coastal Archaeology 1:123–
143.
Dillehay, T. 1992. Keeping outsiders out: Public
ceremony, resource rights, and hierarchy in
historic and contemporary Mapuche society.
In Wealth and Hierarchy in the Intermediate
Area (F. W. Lange, ed.):379–422. Washington
DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Dillehay, T. 2004. Social landscape and ritual
pause: Uncertainty and integration in for-
mative Peru. Journal of Social Archaeology
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010
4:239–268.
Ellis, G. D. 2004. Storm Damage Assessment on
Mound G, Crystal River State Archaeological
Park, Crystal River, Florida. Gulf Archaeolog-
ical Research Institute, Crystal River, Florida.
Submitted to Crystal River Preserve State Park,
Crystal River, Florida.
Ellis, G. D., J. Dean, and R. Martin. 2003. Dis-
placed Midden Recovery Project, Crystal River
Mounds State Park. Gulf Archaeological Re-
search Institute, Crystal River, Florida. Submit-
ted to Crystal River Preserve State Park, Crystal
River, Florida.
Ford, J. A. 1966. Early formative cultures in Georgia
and Florida. American Antiquity 31:781–99.
Ford, J. A. 1969. A Comparison of Formative
Cultures in the Americas. Smithsonian Contri-
butions to Anthropology 11. Washington DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Gaspar, M. D., P. DeBlasis, S. K. Fish, and P. R.
Fish. 2008. Sambaqui (Shell Mound) societies
of coastal Brazil. In The Handbook of South
American Archaeology (H. Silverman and W.
Isbell, eds.):319–335. New York: Springer.
Gater, J. and C. Gaffney. 2003. Revealing the
Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists.
Wiltshire: Tempus.
Greenman, E. F. 1938. Hopewellian traits in
Florida. American Antiquity 3:327–32.
Hardman, C., Jr. 1971. The primitive solar obser-
vatory at Crystal River and its implications. The
Florida Anthropologist 24:135–168.
Hargrave M. L., T. Britt, and M. Reynolds. 2007.
Magnetic evidence of ridge construction and
use at Poverty Point. American Antiquity
72:757–769.
Jefferies, R. W. 1994. The Swift Creek site and
Woodland platform mounds in the Southeast-
50 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010
ern United States. In Ocmulgee Archaeology
1936–1986 (D. J. Hally, ed.):71–83. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia Press.
Johnson, J. K. (ed.). 2006. Remote Sensing in
Archeology: An Explicitly North American Per-
spective. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama
Press.
Kidder, T. R. 2002. Mapping Poverty Point. Amer-
ican Antiquity 67:89–102.
Kidder, T. R. 2004. Plazas as architecture: An exam-
ple from the Raffman Site, Northeast Louisiana.
American Antiquity 69:514–532.
Knight, V. J., Jr. 1990. Excavation of the Trun-
cated Mound at the Walling Site: Middle
Woodland Culture and Copena in the Ten-
nessee Valley. Report of Investigations 56.
Division of Archaeology, Alabama State Museum
of Natural History, University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa
Knight, V. J., Jr. and F. T. Schnell. 2004. Silence
over Kolomoki: A curious episode in the history
of Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern Ar-
chaeology 23:1–11.
Kuvamme, K. L. 2003. Geophysical surveys as
landscape archaeology. American Antiquity
68:435–457.
Milanich, J. T. 1994. Archaeology of Pre-
columbian Florida. Gainesville, FL: University
Press of Florida.
Milanich, J. T. 1999. Famous Florida Sites: Crystal
River and Mound Royal. Gainesville, FL: Uni-
versity Press of Florida.
Milanich, J. T., A. S. Cordell, V. J. Knight, Jr., T. A.
Kohler, and B. J. Sigler-Lavelle. 1997. Archaeol-
ogy of Northern Florida, A.D. 200–900. New
York: Academic Press (Orig. pub. 1984).
Mitchem, J. M. 1999. The West and Central
Florida Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield
Moore. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama
Press.
Moore, C. B. 1903. Certain aboriginal mounds of
the Central Florida west coast. Journal of he
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
12:440–494.
Moore, C. B. 1907. Crystal River revisited. Journal
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadel-
phia, Second Series 13:406–425.
Moore, C. B. 1918. The northwest Florida coast
revisited. Journal of the Academy of Natu-
ral Sciences of Philadelphia, Second Series
16:514–581.
O’Brien, M. J. and R. L. Lyman. 2004. History and
explanation in archaeology. Anthropological
Theory 4:173–197.
Pauketat, T. R. 2001. Practice and history in archae-
ology: An emerging paradigm. Anthropological
Theory 1:73–98.
 Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida
Pauketat, T. R. 2007. Chiefdoms and Other Ar-
chaeological Delusions. Walnut Canyon, CA:
AltaMira Press.
Pauketat, T. R. and D. DiPaolo Loren. 2005.
Alternative histories and North American ar-
chaeology. In North American Archaeology
(T. R. Pauketat and D. DiPaolo Loren, eds.):1–29.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Phillips, P., J. A. Ford, and J. B. Griffin. 1951. Ar-
chaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi
Alluvial ValleyArchaeological Survey in the
Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Cambridge:
Harvard University, Papers of the Peabody Mu-
seum of American Archaeology and Ethnology
25.
Pluckhahn, T. J. 2003. Kolomoki: Settlement,
Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.
D. 350 to 750. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of
Alabama Press.
Downloaded By: [Thompson, Victor] At: 19:26 9 April 2010
Pluckhahn, T. J. and V. D. Thompson. 2009.
Mapping Crystal River: Past and present. Florida
Anthropology 62:3–22.
Russo, M. 1994. A brief introduction to the study of
Archaic mounds in the Southeast. Southeastern
Archaeology 13:89–92.
Russo, M. 2004. Measuring shell rings for social in-
equality. In Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural
Complexity in the Southeast (J. Gibson and P.
Carr, eds.): 26–70. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of
Alabama Press.
Russo, M. 2008. Late Archaic shell rings and society
in the Southeast U.S. The SAA Archaeological
Record 8:18–22.
Sassaman, K. E. 2004. Complex hunter-gatherers
in evolution and history: A North American per-
spective. Journal of Archaeological Research
12:227–280.
Sassaman, K. E. 2008. The new Archaic, it ain’t
what it used to be. The SAA Archaeological
Record 8:6–9.
Sears, W. 1982. Fort Center: An Archaeological
Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Gainesville,
FL: University Press of Florida.
Smith, H. 1951. Crystal River revisited, re-
visited, revisited. American Antiquity 17:
143–144.
Somers, L. 2006. Resistivity survey. In Re-
mote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly
North American Perspective (J. K. Johnson,
ed.):109–130. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of
Alabama Press.
JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY
Thompson, V. D. 2006. Questioning Complexity:
The Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of Sapelo
Island, Georgia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Lexington,
KY: University of Kentucky.
Thompson, V. D. 2007. Articulating activity areas
and formation processes at the Sapelo Island
shell ring complex. Southeastern Archaeology
26:91–107.
Thompson, V. D. 2009. The rhythms of space-
time and the Making of Monuments and Places
during the Archaic. In Trend, Tradition, and
Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern
Archaic? (D. Hurst Thomas and M. Sanger,
eds.):in review. New York: Anthropological
Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History.
Thompson, V. D., M. D. Reynolds, B. Haley, R.
Jefferies, J. K. Johnson, and L. Humphries. 2004.
The Sapelo shell rings: Shallow geophysics on a
Georgia sea island. Southeastern Archaeology
23:192–201.
Thompson, V. D., W. D. Stoner, and H. D. Rowe.
2008. Early hunter-gatherer pottery along the
Atlantic Coast of the Southeastern United States:
A ceramic compositional study. Journal of
Island and Coastal Archaeology 3:191–213.
Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscapes:
Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.
Weisman, B. R. 1995. Crystal River: A Ceremonial
Mound Center on the Florida Gulf Coast.
Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of State,
Division of Historical Resources, Florida Archae-
ology Series, Number 8.
Weisman, B. R. 2003. Why Florida archae-
ology matters. Southeastern Archaeology
22:210–226.
Willey, G. R. 1948a. The cultural context of the
Crystal River negative-painted style. American
Antiquity 13:325–328.
Willey, G. R. 1948b. A prototype for the
Southern Cult. American Antiquity 13:
328–30.
Willey, G. R. 1949. Archaeology of the Florida
Gulf Coast. Washington DC: Smithsonian Mis-
cellaneous Collections 113.
Willey, G. R. and P. Phillips. 1944. Negative-
painted pottery from Crystal River. American
Antiquity 10:173–185.
Williamson, R. A. 1984. Living the Sky: The
Cosmos of the American Indian. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
51