PREHISTORIC CAVE ART FROM FLORIDA

Jan F. Simek, Alan Cressler, Jason M.O'Donoughue, Sarah A. Blankenship, Allen

Mosler, and Matt Kalch

in 2007, a group ofavocational cavers sau> engravings on thewalls of a cave in the eastern Florida Panhandle. Theycontacted the Cave Archaeology Research Team from theUniversity of Tennessee, who visited the site and documentedeight petroglyphs on the walls of the cave. Given the subjectmatter of the petroglyphs, artifacts found on the floor, andthe extent of weathering of the petroglifphs, it is likely thatthese images are prehistoric, perhaps Late Woodland, in age.This is the first instance of cave art south of the Fall Line andonly the second example of prehistoric rock art in Florida.

Introduction

Prehistoric use of caves in the karst lands ofsoutheastern North America has been a topic of greatinterest to science in general, and to archaeologists inparticular, since the early nineteenth century, whenPleistocene megafauna and mummified human burialswere discovered in deep Kentucky and Tennessee caves(Meloy 1984; Mercer 1897; Miller 1812). Over the nearlytwo centuries since those discoveries, much explorationand analysis has been done, notably by Watson and hercolleagues in the 1960s in the Mammoth Cave region,where, we would argue, modem American cavearchaeology was bom (Watson 1969, 1974). We nowknow of thousands of cave sites in the Southeast, somewitnessing prehistoric human activity many miles intothe dark zone recesses of great karst systems (Simek2008). Prehistoric people explored caves, used caves forhuman burial and deposition into vertical shafts, minedminerals, chert, and clay from deposits deep under-ground, and undertook ceremonies of profound sacredcharacter in the darkness (Simek 1998; Watson 1986). Intothe ceremonial category of cave use we place the nownumerous examples (more than 60) of prehistoric caveart sites that have been documented in the Southeastover the past two decades (Simek and Cressler 2005).Until recently, nearly all of the known cave art sites werelocated in the limestone tablelands of the AppalachianPlateaus physiographic province (Figure 1), comprisingthe Cumberland Plateau, the Ridge and Valley Province,and the Highland Rim, and their equivalents from

Alabama and Georgia to Kentucky (Simek and Cressler2001). A few sites are known on the western side of theMississippi Valley (Boszhardt 2003; Diaz-Granados andDuncan 2000) and three in Virginia and West Virginia(Simek et al. 2000). No cave art sites were known belowthe Fall Line on the Coastal Plain of the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2007, a group of avocational cavers exploring asmall cave on private land near Florida Caverns StatePark in Jackson County, Florida, saw fine engravingson the walls and ceiling of the cave. They contactedAlan Cressler, who visited the site and, based on whathe saw there, arranged for Jan Simek to come to Floridafrom Tennessee to see the engravings. In September2007, we visited the cave and documented thepetroglyphs. We also saw artifacts from the cave,which we were allowed to show to Jason O'Donoughue(then at the University of Tennessee), who is familiarwith the prehistoric archaeology of northern Florida,before returning the artifacts to the owners. Based onthe nature of the petroglyphs and their artifactassociations, we believe that the engravings representprehistoric art, the first cave art documented in Floridaand only the second rock-art site of any kinddiscovered in the state. We designated this site 59thUnnamed Cave, according to a naming convention thatwe have used for many years (Simek et al. 1997).

Prehistoric cave use in Florida has been known forsome time. Clarence Simpson and Charles Fairbankssurveyed and excavated at various localities in FloridaCaverns State Park near Marianna in northern Florida asthe Park was being developed in the 1940s (Fairbanks1941; Simpson 1941). Ripley Bullen also undertookarchaeological work in several caves around the sametime (BuUen 1949). Florida caves, especially the deepkarst springs related to the Florida Aquifer, have yieldeda rich archaeological record extending back into thePaleoindian period (Clausen et al. 1979). Archaic andlater peoples also used Florida's caves wherever theywere available (BuUen and Benson 1964). As in thenorth, Florida caves were used for habitation (in theentrance chambers), were explored to depth, may havebeen mined for clay and other minerals, and were placesfor human burial. The one aspect of Southeast cave usethat was not known in Florida until now is cave artproduction. Indeed, prehistoric rock art generally is veryrare in Florida, in contrast to states farther to the north.The only known example is a human face effigy on Stele1 from the Crystal River Mound Site, which may beWoodland in age (BuUen 1966). Thus the discovery ofengravings in 59th Unnamed Cave is important from avariety of perspectives.

78

FLORIDA CAVE ART

Figure 1. Map showing the distribution of known prehistoriccave art sites in the Southeast before the discovery of 59thUnnamed Cave in Florida.

The Geologic and Archaeological Context ofthe Petroglyphs

59th Unnamed Cave is a small solution karst featureformed in Marianna limestone. This sedimentary rock,laterally equivalent to the Lower Suwannee limestonein north-central Florida, is of Lower Oligocène age (ca32-33 Mya). It is a light-colored, argillaceous marinedeposit that is quite fossil if erous, containing richforaininifera, mollusks, and rare vertebrates (Huddle-stun 1993). This character will be seen easily in some ofthe figures that accompany this article. Inside 59thUnnamed Cave, the walls formed by karst processeshave loose and friable surfaces, and preservation ofengravings is, we believe, problematic.

A number of artifacts were recovered from thesurface of sediments in 59th Unnamed Cave, includingmarine mollusk shells, a few lithics, and twenty-twoprehistoric ceramic sherds. The lithics are nondiagnos-tic debitage, but the ceramics do contain somechronological information, and they merit a briefdescription. All specimens have a con:ipact paste withmoderate to abundant amounts of very fine to medium(1/16 to 1/2 mm) sand. Coarse sand and largersubangular quartz inclusions are present in mostsherds, generally ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 mm. Onesherd, specimen 59-001, is unique in having abundantsubangular and angular quartz inclusions as large as5 mm. Sherd thickness measures between 5 and10 mm; for rim sherds, the thickness measurementswere taken 1 cm below the lip, and for all other sherdswe calculated an average of the maximum andminimum values.

Surface treatment can be categorized generally ascheck stamped (n = 10), plain (n = 4), or indetermi-nate/weathered (n = 8). Of the eight sherds catego-

Figure 2. Ceramic sherds from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida.

rized as indeterminate/weathered, three are possiblycheck stamped. All of the decorated sherds exhibitrelatively fine check stamping (2-5 mm), which rangesfrom square to rectangular in shape (Figure 2). On atleast two sherds the checks are oriented at a diagonal tothe orifice. One specimen, 59-009, exhibits checkstamping that has been smoothed over.

The sample includes five rim sherds, most of whichare direct or slightly inverted, folded, and thinned. Lipmorphology varies from flattened to rounded orpointed. Four of the five rim sherds are check stamped,while the surface treatment of the fifth is indeterminatebut possibly check stamped. One body sherd and onerim sherd were tentatively cross-mended (59-014 and59-015), and several other sherds are similar enough inpaste characteristics and surface treatment to suggestthat they originate from the same vessel.

The plain and weathered specimens exhibit greaterpaste variation than the check stamped sherds andcannot be assigned confidently to a specific ceramicseries or type. However, the decorated sherds showstrong affinity to the type WakuUa Check Stamped,which dates to the Late Woodland Weeden Islandperiod in northwest Florida, ca. A.D. 750-1000. Wilieyand Woodbury (Wiliey and Woodbury 1942:243-44;also Wiliey 1945,1949:437-38) deflned this type, which

79

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009

Deep Passage

8 7

N

Î

EntranceFigure 3. Schematic plan map of 59th Unnamed Caveshowing locations within the first interior chamber of thepetroglyphs discussed in the text. A schematic map is used toconceal the identity of the cave from those who mightrecognize a detailed plan.

exhibits a hard, compact paste tempered with fine tocoarse sand and larger pieces of quartz. Fine checkstamping (1-5 mm) was lightly executed and typicallycovers the entire exterior of the vessel. WakuUa CheckStamped pottery appears in the latter portion of theWeeden Island period and becomes the dominant typeas the frequency of complicated stamped, punctated,and incised vessels declines in northwest Florida(Milanich 1994:194-204, 2002:361-3).

Thus the prehistoric ceramics from 59th UnnamedCave can generally be described as plain or checkstamped, and while the plain specimens might hint atearlier Woodland use of the cave, they are notdiagnostic of a specific temporal period. 59th UnnamedCave may have seen some earlier use, but it was mostlikely visited and decorated during the Late Woodlandperiod.

The Petroglyphs

A total of eight individual petroglyphs were record-ed in 59th Urmamed Cave. All are in the twilight zoneof the entrance chamber either on the ceiling or onvertical wall segn:\ents along a "curtain" where thecave narrows toward its deeper recesses (Figure 3). Allglyphs are composed of fine lines incised into therelatively friable surface of the limestone; some arequite eroded, and it is possible that other petroglyphs

Figure 4, Glyph 1 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. Thispetroglyph is a rectangular form with interior lines: (a) rawphotograph; (b) engraved lines indicated in white.

were present in the cave but no longer visible today. AHbut one glyph are geometric figures; the one represen-tational image appears to us to be a serpent. In thepassages beyond the deepest glyphs, contemporaryconditions are much wetter than at the front of the cavenear the entrance, and wet conditions have probablycharacterized the cave interior for a very long time,given the erosion of surface sediments and speleothemformation in the deeper passages. In general, theglyphs are scattered around the first chamber of thecave with no evident clustering of the petroglyphdistribution. We will consider the glyphs in terms ofthe numbering system plotted within Figure 3. Thereis, however, no real order to the glyph numbers exceptour recording sequence.

Glyph 1 (Figure 4) is a trapezoidal figure about20 cm in its longest dimension with a number ofinterior lines. It is positioned on the cave ceiling, and ofall the petroglyphs, it is closest to the cave opening.Along one long side, a series of four line segmentsextend outward from the figure's edge.

Glyph 2 (Figure 5) is also a rectilinear figure aboutthe same size as Glyph 1 and also on the cave ceiling. Ithas two constricting curved lines inside an outer box.

FLORIDA CAVE ART

'Mm*

Figure 5. Glyph 2 from 59th Unnamed Cave, ilurid.1. This petroglyph is al.so o lecUingie lui m v\iih interior lines: (a) rawphotograph; (b) engraved lines indicated in white.

with a trapezoid shape crossing the interior curves. Asubrectangular piece is positioned at one end. Threeline segments, not attached to the rectangle in this case,are positioned as a parallel series alongside the longside of the image. As for Glj^h 1, this form, while notrepresentational to our eyes, is very similar to a numberof forms seen in the corpus of Southeastern cave art.Rectilinear shapes, including filled rectangles andtrapezoids of various configurations, are a commonelement in southeastern North American prehistoriccave art as we have documented it north of the FallLine in the Appalachian Plateau. Glyphs 1 and 2 from59th Unnamed Cave in Florida would not be out ofplace in a number of Appalachian caves.

Glyph 3 (Figure 6) consists of a series of 18 linesincised in groups of either two or four parallelsegments over an area on the cave wall approximately70 X 35 cm in size. There are three groups of two andthree groups of four. The lines are short but relativelypronounced. In fact, they resemble so-called tallymarks, often seen in Southeastern caves associatedwith historic saltpeter mining operations (Figure 7).However, these lines differ significantly from "tallymarks" in several important ways. First, there is noevidence for saltpeter mining in 59th Unnamed Cave.Indeed, the cave today is certainly too wet to haveserved usefully for that purpose and was probably in asimilar state in historical times. Only two saltpetermines are known from historic records in Florida(Smith 1995), and while neither has been relocatedtoday, as far as can be determined they were not near tothis cave or region of the state. Second, in her work at

Cagle Saltpetre Cave in Tennessee, Sarah Blankenship(Blankenship 2008) has shown that tally marks wereused to count units of niter earth removed from themining areas for transport to leeching vats. As countingsymbols, they frequently comprise groups of five, notthe twos and fours illustrated here. In short, the 59thUnnamed Cave lines are unlikely to be related tohistoric niter mining in the cave.

Glyph 4 (Figure 8) is the only representafionalimage from 59th Unnamed Cave, at least the onlyone recognizable from our point of view, a figure weinterpret as a serpent. The serpent is described by atear drop-shaped oval with a central depression,perhaps indicating an eye, connected to a long singleincised line defining the sinuous body; this line curvesacutely three times over an area of about 40 cm^. Thisimage is, admittedly, very simple in style andexecution, but it is quite in line with many suchimages documented in Southeastern caves. Figure 9ashows one of a number of serpent images from MudGlyph Cave (Faulkner 1986) (this one has horns); andFigure 9b is a simple example from 1st Unnamed Cavein Tennessee, where the snake iniages can be small(around 20 cm in length) or quite large (over 5 m inlength). Serpents appear in caves as mud glyphs,petroglyphs, and pictographs. We have argued else-where (Simek et al. in press), that serpent depictionsappear rarely in open-air rock art in the Appalachianregion but are common in dark zone cave art contexts.It is interesting that the only representafion in thisFlorida cave is of a subject associated specifically withcaves farther to the north.

81

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009

K-:A ^ .

' ' 1 . \-<-.i

i-igiire n. k.i}pn .1 rrom vivm unnamed Ca\'e, i-ionda. Ihispetroglyph is a series of 18 vertical line segments invarious groupings.

Glyph 5 (Figure 10) is an area on the cave's easternwall that contains numerous faint lines, perhapsgeometric shapes, and groups of lines, over an areanearly 1.0 m in width and 30 cm high. Low down onthe wall, this area is heavily eroded and difficult tointerpret. It may have at one time contained a numberof petroglyphs, but we could not distinguish any oneimage from within the mass of shallow lines visible inthe area. We therefore assigned the area a singlenumber.

Glyphs 6, 7, and 8 are all positioned on vertical rockfaces along the curtain at the back of the vestibulechamber. Glyph 6 (Figure 11) is a diamond-shapedimage produced by four concentric pairs of lines. Thereare several more lines outside the diamond, includingthree to its upper right that may have comprised orwere intended to form more elements in the image.This cannot be verified today. This glyph is a'bout22 cm wide.

Glyph 7 (Figure 12), located about 1.0 m from Glyph6, is an almost identical image. A diamond is described

Figure 7. UISKXIL saltpeter mining "tally marks" from 37thUnnamed Cave, Tennessee. (Photo Joseph Douglas.)

Figure 8. Glyph 4 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. Webelieve that this petroglyph is a serpent effigy: (a) rawphotograph; (b) engraved lines indicated in white.

by concentric sets of paired lines. In this case, there areno exterior lines associated with the image. Glyph 7 isslightly larger than Glyph 6.

Diamonds are not common in Southeastern cave art,although this form is known in rock art from Wisconsin(Lowe 1996) and Illinois (Wagner 1996), nor is thediamond characteristic of cave or rock art in theCaribbean region, so it is curious that this is the mostcommon and well-defined element in 59th UnnamedCave. There is a grouping of diamonds painted on arock cliff along the Tennessee River in northernAlabama, where they occur in an assemblage of nearly100 pictographs. There are also concentric diamondpetroglyphs very similar to those from 59th UrmamedCave, in 14th Unnamed Cave, West Virginia (Fig-ure 13). In our experience, the 14th Unnamed Cavepetroglyphs, at the extreme northern edge of theSoutheastern cave art distribution, are themselvesdistinctive when compared to the images found inthe Appalachian Plateau region. In fact, the 14thUnnamed Cave assemblage is dominated by geometricshapes, groups of lines, and abstract forms, none ofthem representational to our eyes but in nnany wayssimilar to those we see in the Florida cave. Why these

82

FLORIDA CAVE ART

Figure 9. Serpent effigies from Southeastern cave art sites: (a)horned serpent mud glyph from Mud Glyph Cave, Tennessee(Faulkner 1986) (Photo Bill Deane); (b) serpent mud glyphfrom 1st Unnamed Cave, Tennessee (Simek et al. 1997).

two sites, so dispersed in space, should be so similar isnot clear to us, and we will not speculate now as to anexplanation.

Glyph 8 (Figure 14) is a single deeply incised verticalline, about 20 cm in length, with a loop at the upperend. It is positioned on the vertical curtain at the backof the entrance chamber. The engraving processcomprised several overlapping grooves to define and

Figure 10. Glyph 5 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. Thispetroglyph comprises a number of lines and shapes that areheavily eroded and may, at one time, have included a numberof individual images not visible today.

Figure 11. Glyph 6 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. Thispetroglyph is composed of concentric diamond forms and afew lateral line segments: (a) raw photograph; (b) engravedlines indicated in white.

deepen the line. This glyph is clearly of human originand weathered to the same extent as the otherpetroglyphs, suggesting a similar age. It may representa second serpent effigy, although a rather simplifiedversion when compared to Glyph 4.

The petroglyph assemblage inside 59th UnnamedCave is, admittedly, rather simple and obscure.However, the weathered condition of the imagesespecially compared to the freshness of nineteenth-century graffiti on the same walls (Figure 15), andsimilarity to images present in prehistoric cave artfound farther north, all indicate considerable antiquity.The archaeological record in the cave indicates cave useduring the Late Woodland period, an era that sawincreasing cave art production in Tennessee thatculminated in numerous and diverse Mississippianperiod ritual cave art sites.

Summary and Conclusions

59th Unnamed Cave represents the first probableprehistoric cave art site identified in Florida, indeed

B3

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009

^ J3 i ' - ' '-''^JL. ~~ ï t * '-' í*"^ ' . • ' 'r ' 'JÍ . i-- ' ' ' ' l i ^

'*'' /. ^'' '7'

Figure 12. Glyph 7 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. Like Glyph 6, this petroglyph is of concentric diamond shapes: (a) rawphotograph; (b) engraved lines indicated in white.

south of the Fall Line. It immediately doubles thenumber of known rock-art localities in Florida andprovides encouragement that other similar sites remainto be discovered in the limestone karst features of thestate. While it is nearly impossible to confirm aprehistoric attribution, it seems most likely to us thatthe art is prehistoric given the assemblage's nature,context and condition.

This is an exciting development in the ongoingdiscovery of American cave art. The location of 59thUnnamed Cave extends the known geographical range

Figure 13. Concentric diamund petroglyph from 14th Un-named Cave, West Virginia. This image shares lateral linesegments with the 59th Unnamed Cave Glyphs 6 and 7.Unlike the Florida images, this one has a central cross insidethe diamond configuration.

of cave art sites into the karst regions of the FloridaPanhandle, far south of the Appalachian Plateau,where the majority of known sites are located. Wesuspect that this find indicates (as we have arguedelsewhere) that prehistoric peoples in the Southeastmade cave art wherever caves were available to do so(Simek 2008; Simek and Cressler 2005). It is true that ageographic gap is evident between cave art in theupper South and this new find in Florida, but wesuggest that the gap is more apparent than real. Thatcave art was previously unknown south of theAppalachian region is probably due to several causes.First, the absolute number of caves south of the Plateau,Ridge and Valley, and Highland Rim provinces ismuch smaller when compared to the AppalachianPlateau itself. Thus there are fewer caves in which tomake cave art. This is true in Florida, but even more soin south Georgia and south Alabama. Second, archae-ologists have examined very few of those caves that doexist between the Plateau and the Gulf of Mexico forthe presence of ancient rock art. This is likely becausethe potential for cave art has not been recognized orappreciated by regional scholars. Third, the limestonesthat characterize karst formation south of the Appala-chian Plateau are often quite poorly cemented andfriable, providing poor preservation context for ancientpetroglyphs. The Marianna limestone in 59th UnnamedCave is a good example of this, and, as we have noted,even in this cave art site preservation of engravingsmay not be all that good. Thus there may have been

FLORIDA CAVE ART

Figure 14. Glyph 8 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. This petroglyph comprises a vertically oriented line segment with a loopat the upper end. It may represent a second serpent effigy: (a) raw photograph; (b) engraved lines indicated in white.

more cave art sites in the lower South that are no longervisible today. Still, we suspect that more cave art siteswill be discovered as the region's caves are surveyedwith this possibility in mind.

We are convinced that cave art production was acentral component of very widespread prehistoriccultural traditions in southeastern North America andthat prehistoric ceremonial landscapes in the GulfCoastal Plain, including Florida, as elsewhere in theSoutheast, integrated the world underground (Simek2008). The cave art in 59th Unnamed Cave supports

l-igiM"i' IT. rii^torii.' ininetL'L'nth-century) sígn¿itiire trom thewall of 59th Unnamed Cave in Florida. Note how fresh theedges of the incised lines are in this engraving compared tothe glyphs depicted above. This signature is positioned justahove Glyph 5 (Figure 10) on the same wall.

that conviction. We encourage archaeologists in theregion to examine caves for these remarkable prehis-toric resources.

Note

Acknowledgments. The authors thank the owners of 59thUnnamed Cave for allowing us to study the site. They willremain anonymous here to protect the site's location. We arealso grateful to David G. Anderson for his help with theartifacts. Carol Diaz-G rana dos, lim Knight, Bill Marquardt,and a fourth anonymous reviewer for Southeastern Archaeologymade great suggestions for improvement of this report.

References Cited

Blankenship, S. A.2008 Cagle Saltpeter Cave in Van Buren County, Tennessee:

The Archaeology of Nineteenth-Century Saltpeter Cavesin the Midsouth. In Cave Archaeology in the EasternWoodlands: Essays in Honor of Patty ¡o Watson, edited byD. Dye, pp. 219-34. University of Tennessee Press,Knoxville.

Boszhardt, R. F.2003 Deep Cave Rock Art in the Upper Mississippi Valley.

Prairie Smoke Press, St. Paul, MN.Bullen, R. P.1949 Indian Sites at Florida Caverns State Park. Florida

Anthropologist 2(l-2):l-9.1966 Stelae at the Crystal River Site, Florida. Ameriean

A7itiquity 31(6):861-65.

85

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009

Bullen, R. P., and C. A. Benson1964 Dixie Lime Caves Numbers 1 and 2: A Preliminary

Report, Florida Anthropologist 17(3):153-65.Clausen, C, J., A, D. Cohen, C. Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J.

Stipp1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site.

Science 203(4381):609-14,Diaz-Granados, C , and J. R. Duncan2000 The Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Missouri. University

of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Fairbanks, C. H,1941 Report of Collections from Florida Caverns State

Park, Marianna, Florida, Florida Bureau of Archives,Tallahassee.

Faulkner, C. H,, ed.1986 The Prehistoric Native American Art of Mud Glyph Cave.

University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Huddlestun, P. F.1993 A Revision of the Lithostratigraphic Units of the

Coastal Piain of Georgia-The Oligocène. Georgia Geolog-ical Survey Bulletin 105:1-152.

Lowe, D. C.1996 Ancient Images of Wisconsin. In Rock Art of the Eastern

Woodlands, edited by C. H. Faulkner, pp. 39-46. AmericanRock Art Research Association, San Miguel, CA.

Meloy, H.1984 Mummies of Mammoth Gave. Micron Publishing, Shel-

byville, IN,Mercer, H. C.1897 The Finding of the Remains of Fossil Sloth at Big Bone

Cave, Tennessee, in 1896. Proceedings of the AmericanPhilosophical Soeiety 36:36-70.

Milanich, J. T.1994 Archeology of Precolumhian Florida. University Press of

Florida, Gainsville.2002 Weeden Island Cultures, In The Woodland Southeast,

edited by D. G. Anderson and R. C. Mainfort, pp. 352-72.University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Miller, P. M.1812 Preservation of Human Bodies in a Cave, in Tennessee:

In a Letter from Pleasant M. Miller, Fsq. of Knoxville,Dated May 1st, 1811, Medical Repository 3(3):147-149.

Simek, J, F.1998 Prehistoric Use of Caves, In Teiuwssee Encyclopedia of

Histori/ and Culture, edited by C. Van West, pp, 749-50.Rutledge Hill Press, Nashville, TN.

2008 Afterward: Onward Into the Darkness (Still Followingthe Light of Pat Watson's Lamp, of Course). In GaveArchaeologi/ in the Eastern Woodlands: Essays in Honor ofPatty }o Watson, edited by D. Dye, pp. 261-70. Universityof Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Simek, J. F., S. Blankenship, N. Herrmann, S. C. Sherwood,and A. Cressler

In press New Gave and Rock Art Sites in Tennessee: 2007, InSpecial Issue of Tennessee Anthropologist: Papers in Honor ofGharles H. Faulkner, edited by T. Baumann and M.Groover, Nashville.

Simek, J, F., and A, Cressler2001 Issues in the Study of Prehistoric Southeastern Cave

Art. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 26(2):233-50.2005 Images in Darkness: Prehistoric Cave Art in South-

eastern North America. In Discovering North AmericanRock Art, edited by L. Loendorf, C. Chippendale, and D.Whitley, pp. 93-113. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Simek, J. F., A. Cresster, S. C, Sherwood, and N, Herrmann2000 Cave Art in West Virginia, Cave Archaeology Sympo-

sium presented at the National Speleological SocietyAnnual Meeting, Elkins, WV, June.

Simek, J. F,, C. H. Faulkner, S. R. Frankenberg, W. E. KHppel,T, M. Ahlman, N, P. Herrmann, S. C. Sherwood, R, B.Walker, W. M. Wright, and R. Yarnell

1997 A Preliminary Report on the Archaeology of a NewMississippian Cave Art Site in East Tennessee. Southeast-ern Archaeology 16(l):51-73.

Simpson, J. C.1941 A Report of an Archeological Investigation at Florida

Caverns State Park, Marianna, Florida. Florida Bureau ofArchives, Tallahassee.

Smith, M. O.1995 Confederate Nitre Bureau Operations in Florida.

Florida Historical Quarterhj 70:40-46.Wagner, M, J.1996 Written in Stone; an Overview of the Rock Art of

Illinois. In Rock Art of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C.H. Faulkner, pp. 47-79. American Rock Art ResearchAssociation, San Miguel, CA.

Watson, P. J.1969 The Prehistory of Salts Gave, Kentucky. Illinois State

Museum, Springfield.1986 Prehistoric Cavers of the Eastern Woodlands. In The

Prehistoric Native American Art of Mud Glyph Gave, editedby C. H. Faulkner, pp. 109-16. University of TennesseePress, Knoxville,

Watson, P. J-, ed.1974 Archaeology of the Mammoth Gave Area. Academic Press,

New York.Willey, G. R.1945 The Weeden Island Culture: A Preliminary Definition.

American Antit^uity 10(3):225-254.1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Goast. Smithsonian

Miscellaneous Collecrions No. 113. Smithsonian Institu-tion, Washington, DC.

Willey, G. R., and R. B. Woodbury1942 A Chronological Outline for the Northwest Florida

Coast. American Antiquity 7(3):232-254.

86