Item C31 C.31
t, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of Monroe YFfi� Mayor Sylvia Murphy,District 5
The Inollda,Keys �� � �l'U ��� ��� Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage,District 1
�pw° Michelle Coldiron,District 2
Heather Carruthers,District 3
David Rice,District 4
County Commission Meeting
August 21, 2019
Agenda Item Number: C.31
Agenda Item Summary #5925
BULK ITEM: Yes DEPARTMENT: Budget and Finance
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Janet Gunderson (305) 292-4470
No
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Acceptance of the Monroe County Cultural Resource Assessment
II report as reference material to be utilized by County staff. The assessment was conducted for
Monroe County under a grant awarded to the Historic Florida Keys Foundation from the Florida
Division of Historical Resources. The grant funded the survey project to re-survey and update
previously recorded archaeological sites and historic structures in unincorporated Monroe
County/Florida Keys.
ITEM BACKGROUND: From January through May, 2019, the Archaeological & Historical
Conservancy, Inc. (AHC) conducted a cultural resource survey and update of selected previously
recorded terrestrial archaeological sites and historic structures located in the Florida Keys within
unincorporated Monroe County. The assessment included a survey of previously undocumented
historic structures that had turned 50 or more years old since the last assessment in 2016 (Carr et al.
2016). The study reviewed numerous previously recorded archaeological sites within the selected
project areas and archaeological sites throughout the Keys to determine the impacts of Hurricane
Irma in 2017. The principal focus of the historic architectural assessment was Duck Key, Conch
Key, and Indian Mound Estates on Sugarloaf Key to determine whether any of those areas may
qualify as a historic district. Future implementation of any recommendations of the Cultural
Resource Assessment Update report (reference material) will require BOCC approval. This
assessment was conducted to fulfill historic and cultural resource requirements for Florida's Chapters
267 and 373 and cultural resource requirements of the Monroe County Historic Commission.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On November 22, 2016, Agenda Item F.50 the
Board of County Commissioners accepted a report of the Monroe County Cultural Resource
Assessment Update as reference material to be utilized by County Staff. The report was for a
cultural resource survey conducted January through June 2016 by the Archaeological & Historical
Conservancy, Inc.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
No
Packet Pg. 825
C.31
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
DOCUMENTATION:
2019-06-28 FINAL REPORT_Keys_CRA_II
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: N/A
Expiration Date: N/A
Total Dollar Value of Contract: N/A
Total Cost to County: N/A
Current Year Portion: N/A
Budgeted: N/A
Source of Funds: N/A
CPI: N/A
Indirect Costs: N/A
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: N/A
Revenue Producing: N/A If yes, amount: N/A
Grant: N/A
County Match: N/A
Insurance Required: N/A
Additional Details: N/A
REVIEWED BY:
Tina Boan Completed 08/06/2019 2:41 PM
Christine Limbert Completed 08/06/2019 3:13 PM
Maria Slavik Completed 08/06/2019 3:16 PM
Kathy Peters Completed 08/06/2019 3:29 PM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 08/21/2019 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 826
MMw lip wp��,
r f
r.ry
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuui ��,
uuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu� ;� � uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuir
MONROE COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT 11 , CERTIFIED LOCAL
GOVERNMENT GRANT #19.h .sm.200-040
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
� 1 I
I
�1 lllllllll� r111�i O%�llllllll IIIDIIIDIII�ll if 11 II !! �Nkh9i N J 1 IIIIIIIIIII 1!„NNNIIIII II III II N ff 11 Jlll1!1111 1 II IIIIIIIIII 111111111J1111 JJJ JJJ JJ II II IIII IIU IU III II II II
I
I
I I
fr 11 I I
w�v3
i
��� / � �� i, � i/ 11 do ✓/p✓ fr a lf',
��� /�, f� � �ff!l,lf�` na���i � IYl/��IGrI �;1;��� i�IL��^� 'a9��� � , , �' ,1'�"✓
���>(,(f�/1 ✓��l�l�f�'� �UtUi, 1 /%�/ � � "�r«''r, 4w r r �.Ulll�/O4 is%Y„
a
y
i Q
t
r' it i
Y �
f �
MONROE COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT II
CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT
GRANT #19. h .sm.200-040
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Robert S. Carr, M.S.
Timothy A. Harrington
Alan Michael Noe, B.A.
Earl "Mark" Jacobs, B.S.
John Wesley White, B.A.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CONSERVANCY, INC.
4800 SW 64th Avenue, Suite 107
Davie, Florida 33314
954-792-9776
archlgcl@bellsouth.net
For:
MONROE COUNTY
AHC PROJECT NO. 2018.167
AHC TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 1230
JUNE 2019
N N '
4 P'.
p' lQ
ti �d
�'a9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
CONSULTANT SUMMARY 1
PROJECT SETTING 4
CULTURAL SUMMARY 8
PREVIOUS RESEARCH 14
METHODOLOGY 18
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 20
ARCHITECTURE IN THE FLORIDA KEYS 69
SURVEY OF POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS 72
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 92
RECOMMENDATIONS 95
REFERENCES CITED 99
APPENDIX L LIST OF DESTROYED SITES 109
APPENDIX II: FLORIDA SURVEY LOG 111
i
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Cover: Top to bottom— Conch Key looking south in 2019. Lobster Crates at
Conch Key (State Archives of Florida/Johnson), looking south 1957.
Big Pine Fishing Lodge, M06616. Worked shell found at M06616.
Figure 1. Map of the Florida Keys showing location of project area division 3
Figure 2. Conch Key in 1954 from a picture postcard 73
Figure 3. Conch Key, August 6, 1956 74
Figure 4. Small business area at Conch Key 74
Figure 5. The Conch Keys 1969, aerial photo 75
Figure 6. Map of potential Conch Key historic district 76
Figure 7. M03703 at 55 Seaview Avenue, Conch Key 78
Figure 8. M06571 at 53 North Conch Avenue, Conch Key 78
Figure 9. M03708 at 73 North Conch Avenue, Conch Key 79
Figure 10. M06566 at 110 West Conch Avenue, Conch Key 79
Figure 11. M06573 at 34 Seaview Avenue, Conch Key 79
Figure 12. Duck Key in 1954 80
Figure 13. Duck Key in 1969 81
Figure 14. Map of Duck Key historic resource group 82
Figure 15. M06593 at 226 West Seaview Drive, Duck Key 84
Figure 16. M06585 at 146 Bimini Drive, Duck Key 84
Figure 17. M06595 at 249 West Seaview Circle, Duck Key 84
Figure 18. M06594 at 248 West Seaview Drive, Duck Key 85
Figure 19. M06592 at 192 South Indies Drive, Duck Key 85
ii
Figure 20. The Indian Mound Estates study area in 1959 86
Figure 21. The Indian Mound Estates study area in 1969 87
Figure 22. Map of Indian Mound Estates historic resource group 88
Figure 23. MO3767 at 19582 Aztec Drive, Indian Mound Estates 90
Figure 24. MO6636 at 19580 Tequesta Street, Indian Mound Estates 90
Figure 25. MO6635 at 19594 Caloosa Street, Indian Mound Estates 91
Figure 26. MO6637 at 19648 Caribe Street, Indian Mound Estates 91
Figure 27. MO6653 at 19421 Canal Street, Perez Subdivision 91
Table 1. Potential Conch Key historic district resources (buildings) 77
Table 2. Duck Key historic resource group (buildings, bridges, canals) 83
Table 3. Indian Mound Estates historic resource group (buildings, canals) 89
Table 4. Tabulation of Sites by Key for 2019 Assessment 93
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CREDITS
This assessment was aided substantially by assistance, information and imagery provided
by Diane Silvia, Executive Director of the Historic Florida Keys Foundation; Jim Gale,
GIS Technician with the Monroe County Property Appraiser's Office; the Monroe
County Public Library, Key West and Marathon; and Ed Swift III for access to the photo
archives of Marathon photographer Ed Swift, Jr. A special thanks to Brad Bertelli,
Curator of the Florida Keys History and Discovery Center, and Alice Allen, member of
the Monroe County Historic Preservation Commission and of the Board of Directors of
the Historic Florida Keys Foundation. The authors would also like to thank the numerous
residents and property owners who volunteered important information on the location and
evolution of archaeological and historical sites, and commentary on the subject of
preservation in the Keys.
FUNDING
The activity for this cultural resource assessment and report has been financed in part
with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the
Department of the Interior.
NONDISCRIMINATION
This activity receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of
historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the
U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, or age in its federally assisted program.
If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as
described above, or if you desire further information,please write to:
Office of Equal Opportunity
National Park Service
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
iv
CONSULTANT SUMMARY
From January through May, 2019, the Archaeological & Historical Conservancy, Inc
(AHC) conducted a cultural resource survey and update of selected previously recorded
terrestrial archaeological sites and historic structures located in the Florida Keys within
unincorporated Monroe County. The assessment included a survey of previously
undocumented historic structures that had turned 50 or more years old since the last
assessment in 2016 (Carr et al. 2016). The study reviewed numerous previously recorded
archaeological sites within the selected project areas and archaeological sites throughout
the Keys to determine the impacts of Hurricane Irma in 2017. The principal focus of the
historic architectural assessment was Duck Key, Conch Key, and Indian Mound Estates
on Sugarloaf Key to determine whether any of those areas may quality as an historic
district. The assessment was conducted for Monroe County under a grant from the
Florida Division of Historical Resources.
The project area consists of a chain of islands extending 180 miles from Key Largo
southwest to Key West. The project excluded the municipalities of Key West, Marathon,
Layton and Islamorada (Figure 1). Excluded from the assessment were State and Federal
properties.
This assessment was conducted to fulfill historic and cultural resource requirements for
Florida's Chapters 267 and 373 and cultural resource requirements of the Monroe County
Historic Commission. This assessment was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended in 1992,
and 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. The work and the report conform
to the specifications set forth in Chapter IA-46, Florida Administrative Code.
The Florida Keys total 65,443 acres with current population concentrated in Key West,
Stock Island, Boca Chica, Marathon, Key Largo and Islamorada and in a string of
communities distributed along the Overseas Highway (U.S. 1). Most of the upland areas
are developed or impacted with the exception of Federal and State preserves; the largest
upland preserve being the Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock State Park containing
2454 acres (Wilder et al. 2014).
This assessment included an archival review and pedestrian surveys, both architectural
and archaeological, and completion of Florida Master Site File (FMSF) forms. Twenty
nine previously recorded archaeological sites and 13 previously recorded historic
structures reviewed for changes since 2016. Two historic structures were determined to
have been destroyed (Appendix I). Additionally, eight archaeological sites and 90 historic
structures were newly documented. A total of eight archaeological site forms and 104
historic structure forms were completed or updated for this assessment.
1
Recommendations are provided in this report regarding the protection of significant
cultural resources including a potential historic district for Conch Key, resource groups
on Duck Key and in Indian Mound Estates on Sugarloaf key, and guidelines for the
effective protection of archaeological sites.
2
KEY LARGO
TAVERNIER
ISLAM ORADA
PLANTATION KEY'
WINDLEY KEY
UPPER AND LOWER'.
MATEC'UMBE KEYS
�+ LONG KEY'
xx CONCH KEYS
x x DUCK KEY
ww. wx GRASSY KEY
wx CRAWL KEYS
`w
w
ww w
w x
x
FAT DEER.'KEY
MARATHON
KNIGHTS KEY
y'w
," xx BAHIA HONDA KEY
w
NO NAME KEY
x , BIG PINE KEY
c.
r` w
r
+ wx
—;'RAMROD KEY'
TORCH KEYS• SUMMERLANID KEY
a a
CUD.JOE KEY.kax SUGARLOAF KEY
k x
w x x
wx
xy
w
x w
c
w
wx w
KE'YVVEST .......,
Figure 1. The Florida Keys showing location of projectarea divisions.
=PROJECT AREA
w
ASSESSED KEY OR(PART OF KEY
EXCLUDED(FEDERAL,STATE,MUNICIPAL)AREA
6 4 6 16 Miles approx.
01 6 12 25 Km.approx.
3
PROJECT SETTING
The Florida Keys consist of an island chain that extends approximately 180 miles from
Soldier Key in southern Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade County south to Key Largo in and
west to Key West in Monroe County, and west to the Marquesas Keys and the Dry
Tortugas. The chain has about ninety-five percent of its land mass in Monroe County.
The current study addresses the unincorporated portions in Monroe County from northern
Key Largo south and west to Boca Chica east of the City of Key West. Excluded from
this study are the municipalities of Islamorada (which encompasses Plantation Key,
Windley Key, and Upper and Lower Matecumbe Key), Layton, Marathon, and Key West.
Also excluded are all State and Federal lands.
The Florida Keys total 65,443 acres with current population concentrated in communities
such as Key West, Stock Island, Boca Chica, Marathon, and Islamorada and in a string of
communities along the Overseas Highway (U.S. 1). A large portion of the upland areas
are developed and intensely impacted. The largest upland preserve is the Dagny Johnson
Key Largo Hammock State Park containing 2454 acres (Wilder et al. 2014).
The climate of the Florida Keys is characterized as seasonally wet with warm humid
summers and mild-dry winters. Rainfall averages 42 inches per year due to the relatively
small land mass. The climate can be unstable with storm surge, heavy rains and high
winds associated with tropical hurricane activity (Marlowe and Henize 2007).
The Atlantic Ocean borders the southern and eastern shore of the Keys and Florida Bay
abuts to the north and west of the keys. The Florida Keys can be separated into two
distinct physiographic divisions: the first comprising the Upper and Middle Keys and the
second the Lower Keys. The Upper and Middle Keys are narrow and elongated or
rounded islands that extend in a southwesterly arc The Lower Keys are large, irregular
islands with their major axis (north/south) oriented at right angles to the Keys island
chain.
The Florida Keys are formed of two geological substrates. The Upper and Middle keys
are mantled by the Key Largo Limestone, a porous Pleistocene era "raised coral reef'
(Randazzo and Halley 1997) which is the oldest geologically. The Lower Keys beginning
at or about Big Pine Key are formed surfacially by Miami oolite, a medium to hard
limestone comprised of denser calcium carbonate particles.
The Upper and Middle Keys have a central upland ridge of fossilized coral rock(the Key
Largo formation) that extends the full length of the island. The elevation of the
ridge is up to 12-16 feet above sea level, but most locales are considerably less, generally
4-6 feet. The coral rock bedrock is heavily eroded with solution holes, the result of
4
millennia of acid leaching and erosion from water action on the underlying rock
substrata. Despite the appearance of occasional freshwater pockets in the numerous
solution holes, Key Largo limestone does not retain fresh water due to numerous lateral
fissures in the rock which allow increased outflow. In addition, these fissures allow salt
water intrusion in response to tidal influence resulting in increased mixing and
dissipation of any fresh water(Monroe County 1986:16).
The Lower Keys were formed as the result of a formerly submerged oolite bank (the
Miami oolite formation) dated to 110,1000 +20,000 BP (Broecker and Thurber 1965).
Since the oolite has fewer lateral connections than the Key Largo limestone, outflow is
slower. Tidal amplitude is lower as well, resulting in less mixing. Cementation crusts
within the oolite also tend to limit evaporation (Monroe County 1986:16). This allows
the occurrence of freshwater lenses in the Lower Keys. In addition, pothole wells with
fresh water are common throughout these Keys. The Miami oolite being the younger
formation slightly overlies or overlaps the Key Largo Limestone and geological
formation extends into the recent period (U.S. Geologic Survey 2013).
The soils of the Keys are alkaline and consist of shell, organic matter, with either
disintegrated coral rock or Miami oolitic limestone (Craighead 1971:81). At present,
overlying sediments are conspicuously sparse, often being less than 10 cm in depth.
Deeper sediment deposits occur in solution holes, and these deep sediment solution holes
often were targeted by early settlers as agriculture plots for pineapples and citrus plants.
Some deep sediment deposits contain black earth midden soil associated
with prehistoric occupation. Early settlers often borrowed from these middens to acquire
the organically rich soil for their gardens. Formerly, soil composed of hammock peat and
litter, about 6 to 18 inches thick, covered high, well drained limestone rock outcrops that
supported tropical hardwood hammock(Craighead 1971:81-2).
Vegetative communities are characterized as six distinct types: Mangroves; beach
berm/dunes; transitional wetlands; tropical hardwood hammocks; transitional
pineland/hardwood hammocks;pine rockland; and freshwater wetlands (Henze 2007).
The Florida Keys have extensive offshore reefs, patch reefs, seagrass flats, tidal zones,
and mangrove swamp areas that are important to area fish and wildlife. The prehistoric
Indians and early settlers extensively exploited these ecological zones.
Much of the upland Keys area was covered by hardwood hammocks prior to
development. Primary climax hammocks are now rare because these areas were
selectively logged and cleared during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However,
many areas of vigorous secondary hardwood hammock communities have regenerated. A
comprehensive survey of the surviving Keys hardwood hammocks was done by Art
Wiener in 1980 (Wiener n.d.).
5
Botanical studies, notably that done by George Wilder in upper Key Largo (Wilder et al.
2014) has inventoried in the largest contiguous, relatively undisturbed Keys hammock a
total of 417 species, of which 300 are native to Florida. Many of these species are
tropical to neo-tropical and are found only in the immediate area.
Hammock covers the upland community of most of the islands of the Keys and is
bordered by a transitional zone. This transitional zone may be composed of either a salt
marsh or a buttonwood association or both. If both are present, the salt marsh is usually
closer to the shoreline. The buttonwood association is usually composed primarily of
buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), grasses, and halophytic ground cover. The marsh is
primarily composed of non-woody plants although mangrove and buttonwood may be
present. Common species to the marsh include saltwort, salt grass, chestnut sedge, key
grass, glasswort, sea purslane, and cordgrass.
Closer to the shoreline can be found the three mangrove species common to the Keys. In
some keys, the mangroves encompass a considerable area of the key. In addition, small
areas of freshwater wetlands can be noted in Key Vaca. These are usually the circular
pothole wells that are found in the hammock and are characterized by either red or white
mangrove or buttonwood growing in the middle of a dense hammock.
Keys hammocks are communities of succulent or deciduous plants that have adapted to
growth on nearly bare rock and in seasonally xeric (dry) conditions. These plants are
frequently thorny and/or poisonous (ex. Cacti, wild lime, poisonwood, manchineel) that
further defends against being eaten or disturbed. The plants grow on terrain that is
solutioned, exposed limestone in a topography called karstic (with holes, crevasses, and
eroded surfaces). Leafy detrital matter, and material such as decomposed seagrass carried
in by storm surges form pockets of soil in solution holes and crevasses in the rock,
allowing this plant community a scant growing medium. Hammocks can be characterized
as palm hammocks, cactus hammocks, and low or high hammock depending on
vegetative makeup or situation. Where soils are deeper(such as prehistoric midden sites),
the tropical hardwood hammocks can be much more luxuriant with high canopy growth
and increased diversity of species. Pristine climax hardwood hammocks of tall canopy
height are of limited extent. Some of the shrubs and trees present are Jamaica thatch
palms, pigeon plum, wild tamarind, gumbo limbo, Jamaica dogwood, willow bustic,
poisonwood, blolly, mastic, short-leafed fig, black ironwood, wild dilly, darling plum,
stoppers (Eugenia spp.), crabwood, wild coffee, randia, hog plum, Jamaica and limber
caper, princewood, strongbark, lancewood, soldierwood, milkbark, cinnamon bark, and
as many as fifty other species characteristic of mature tropical hardwood hammocks.
These trees form a dense coppice with little understory vegetation and abundant leaf
litter.
6
Keys pinelands or rockland pinelands are maintained by two factors: periodic fires which
perpetuate the pineland plants and prevent the transition to hardwood hammock and
underlying lenses of fresh water which are characteristic of Miami Oolitic formations in
the Lower Keys. The vegetation consists of mature slash pines; young pines; other trees
and shrubs (such as poisonwood, black bead, locustberry, pisonia, and long-stemmed
stopper), and palms (which are generally keys thatch or silver palms), together with an
understory of grasses, golden creeper, bluestem, dropseed, three-awn grass, adderbrake,
pine ferns, a few cabbage palms, and possibly partridge pea and wild croton. (Henze
2007)
Pinelands are found presently in the Lower Keys, although a stand of pines was reported
on Key Largo by Stevenson (1969:7). The pines are located over the freshwater lenses of
the Biscayne aquifer that exists on the Lower Keys. Slash pinelands are a fire climax
community, that is, in absence of fires they will be replaced gradually by tropical
hardwood hammock(Monroe County 1986:161).
Freshwater pothole wells are common in the Lower Keys. These are usually vegetated by
sawgrass and/or cattails as well as the more ubiquitous buttonwood or mangroves. These
wetland communities are found usually in hardwood hammocks or pinelands (Monroe
County 1986:165). A notable example in the middle Keys is found at Crane Hammock in
a large permanent ponded feature that was the source in both pre- and post- historic times
for freshwater (Carr et al. 2003). Many freshwater marsh plants such as pond apples,
leather ferns, and sawgrass can atypically occur in these isolated wetlands.
Beach berms, many caused by hurricane and storm surges, occur throughout the shorelines of
the Keys and are composed of calcareous sand and/or shell and coral hash. They may range
in height from mean high water to more than eight feet above sea level (Monroe County
1986:165-6). Common berm plants include sea oats, cordgrass, Keys spider lily, scaevola,
bay cedar, sea lavender and in some cases, coastal hardwood hammocks.
7
CULTURAL SUMMARY
The Florida Keys are situated within the Glades culture area originally defined by M.W.
Stirling (1936) as a distinctive cultural area to include all of southern Florida. John M.
Goggin defined more specific boundaries for the area and identified three inclusive sub-
areas (1947). These are the Calusa sub-area in southwest Florida, the "Tekesta" sub-area
for southeast Florida and the Florida Keys, and the Okeechobee sub-area around Lake
Okeechobee. Goggin classified these sub- areas on the basis of his recognition of their
distinctive natural environments, the different tribes in those regions during historic
times, and differences in the archaeological record between the areas.
Since Goggin's work, there have been several amendments to these definitions, perhaps
one of the most important being the recognition of the Okeechobee sub-area as a
distinctive cultural area apart from the Glades area. Research there by William Sears at
the Fort Center site on Fisheating Creek identified maize pollen in association with a
major complex of mounds and earthworks (Sears and Sears 1976). Intensive agriculture
is not recognized as part of the Glades tradition of hunting, fishing, and gathering
subsistence that is considered typical of southern Florida(Goggin 1949). This area is now
referred to as the Belle Glade cultural area even though the occurrence of maize
agriculture in the area has been discredited(Thompson et al. 2013).
The area north of Naples to Cape Haze has been reclassified as the Caloosahatchee Area
(Sears 1967; Griffin 1974). Milanich and Fairbanks (1980) identified this area as
extending southward to near Cape Sable. However, archaeological research in the Ten
Thousand Islands, including test excavations at the Turner River site (Ehrenhard et al.
1979) and test excavations at Addison Key (Beriault and Carr 2009) indicates a
distinctive ceramic tradition for the Ten Thousand Islands area. Preliminary analysis
indicates that during the period of ca. AD 800-AD 1000, the predominant decorated types
of pottery in the Ten Thousand Islands were Gordon's Pass Incised, Sanibel Incised, and
Fort Drum Incised. These decorated ceramic types are found infrequently, at best, in the
Gulf area north of Wiggins Pass or within the Florida Keys or other parts of southeast
Florida. This distinctive ceramic tradition during that period undoubtedly reflects a
separate tribal group in the Ten Thousand Island area from those using the plain,
undecorated pottery typical of the Caloosahatchee area to the north or the decorated
pottery types of Opa-locka Incised, Key Largo Incised and Dade Incised typical of
southeast Florida. The lack of awareness by archaeologists of the distinctive ceramic
traits of present day Collier County reflects the minimal amount of stratigraphic research
that has been conducted there. Furthermore, because the area's ceramic types became
more similar to those of southeast Florida by ca. AD 800-1000, there is the appearance of
uniformity between southwest and southeast Florida by the middle of the Glades II period
and through part of the Glades III period. This apparent cultural uniformity during the
Late Formative Period has misled some investigators (i.e., Milanich and Fairbanks 1980)
8
who have failed to note the distinctive trait assemblages between the various South
Florida areas through time.
PALEO-INDIAN PERIOD (14,000 - 8500 BP)
Archaeological evidence indicates that the Paleo-Indian arrived in Florida at least 14,000
years ago (Halligan et al. 2016). Most of the evidence from South Florida has been
confined to the Cutler fossil site in Dade County (Carr 1986, 2012, 2015) and from
southwestern-Florida, particularly from Little Salt Spring (Clausen et al. 1979), and
Warm Mineral Springs (Cockrell and Murphy 1978),
A growing body of paleoecological data indicates that during the Late Pleistocene,
Florida would have been drier with cooler summers and relatively warm winters
(Carbone 1983). Reduced cyclonic activity, because of cooler temperatures, would have
made southern Florida more hospitable, but a scarcity of fresh water may have reduced
areas selected for habitation. Carbone (1983)presents data indicating that Florida and the
entire Southeast was an environmental mosaic of diverse microhabitats. Delcourt and
Delcourt (1981) hypothesized that 18,000 years BP southern Florida was covered with
scrub vegetation consisting of xeric herbs and shrubs (rosemary and sandhill polygonella,
etcetera), with interspersed scrub oak. By 10,000 BP forests of oaks and pines were
expanding and the scrub vegetation was being replaced by oak savannah (Delcourt and
Delcourt 1981).
The Paleo-Indian may have lived in southern Florida in association with mammoths,
bison, ground sloths, and other types of megafauna. Deposits of fossilized Pleistocene
faunal bones have been uncovered by dredging operations from several locations in
southwestern Florida, and on the southeast coast, from solution holes in south Dade
County. Martin and Webb (1974) noted the wide range of grazing ungulates and sloths
indicating more extensive grasslands than present. With the extinction of the megafauna
by about 11,000 BP, the Paleo-Indian apparently made an effective adaptation to the
emerging wetlands of southern Florida, and began to establish the patterns of subsistence
that were to provide the basis of resource procurement for the subsequent 8000 years.
Cockrell and Murphy (1978) provide an excellent location model for Early Man sites
throughout Florida, and present a convincing case for the existence of submerged sites off
the Florida coastline — since proven to be correct. These submerged sites are evidence of
extensive sea level changes ranging from between 30 m to 100 m below the present level
(Fairbridge 1974). This sea level decline would have greatly expanded the area of the
Florida peninsula. The present day Florida Keys would have been part of a connected
land mass of the southern peninsula. Any Paleo-Indian sites would probably be
submerged and closer to the Late Pleistocene shores although one site at Grassy Key,
8MO1297, suggests the possibility of Paleo sites on the current island mass.
9
ARCHAIC PERIOD (8500 -2500 BP)
During the Wisconsin Post Glacial, the sea level rose and greatly diminished Florida's
land size. It has been calculated that the rate of sea level rise was approximately 8.3 cm
per 100 years from 6000 to 3000 BP That rate has decreased to about 3.5 cm per 100
years, from 3000 BP to present (Scholl et al. 1969). By 5000 BP cypress swamps and
hardwood forests characteristic of the subtropics began to develop in southern Florida
(Carbone 1983; Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). The Archaic Period was characterized by
an increased reliance by the native populations on shellfish and marine resources and a
generally expanded hunting, fishing, and plant gathering base throughout southern
Florida.
Archaeologists were not aware until recently of the extent and nature of Archaic Period
sites in southern Florida. The earliest dated archaeological materials of this period are
from the Bay West site (8CR200), a cypress pond mortuary situated in Collier County
northeast of Naples (Beriault et al 1981). It is likely that the Bay West site was a water-
filled solution hole that provided a fresh water source during the much drier mid-Archaic
period. Radiocarbon dates recovered there indicate a temporal range of 5500 BP-7000 BP
This chronology and the cultural materials, particularly the preservation of organic
materials, are very similar to those recovered from Little Salt Spring, 110 km to the north
(Clausen et al 1979). These mortuary ponds, sinkholes, and springs are the principal
known type of cemeteries of the Archaic Period throughout central and southern Florida.
Extensive shell middens were formed throughout southwestern Florida from 5000-4000
BP Horseshoe-shaped ridges similar to the archaic shell rings of the Georgia and South
Caroline coast occur along the southern Gulf Coast, specifically on Horr's island
(McMichael and Milanich 1979) and at Bonita Springs (Goggin n.d.). Preceramic cultural
horizons on tree-island sites have been reported within the eastern Everglades (Mowers
and Williams 1972). Radiocarbon samples dating peat strata that were intermixed with
cultural material suggest that occupation may have begun on certain tree islands while
they were still inundated (Carr et al 1979). It is likely that prehistoric occupation of these
"wet" tree islands may have been an important contribution toward their physiographic
and floristic development.
The Late Archaic Period is distinguished by the development of fiber-tempered pottery,
the precursor of a ceramic tradition that provides chronological markers for the
subsequent three millennia. The Late Archaic Orange series of fiber-tempered pottery is
well documented by Cockrell on Marco Island (1970), and undecorated fiber-tempered
pottery has been recovered on the southeast coast from several sites (i.e., 8DA1081, Carr
1981). Sites containing fiber-tempered pottery have been dated from as early as 3400+
100 BP on Marco Island, and dates of ca. 2500 BP at the Firebreak site ( Beriault et al
unpublished) and 3000-4000 BP along Biscayne Bay (Carr 1981). Fiber-tempered
10
pottery has been reportedly at 8M025 on Key Largo (Eyster personal communication)
but that claim has not been confirmed.
GLADES PERIOD (2500 BP - 500 BP)
Goggin (1947) defined three time periods for south Florida's prehistory. Using decorated
pottery types that have subsequently proven to be effective time markers, he created the
Glades I, II, and III periods. These divisions have proven most useful in extreme southern
Florida. The Glades I early period (500 BC- ca. AD 200) is characterized by the use, of
undecorated sand tempered pottery. Ceramic decorations in extreme southern Florida
were developed between AD 200 and AD 500 with the inception of the Fort Drum
decorated series. While decorated types begin during the Late Glades I period, future
'revisions of the Glades period could simply make the first appearance of decorated ware
coincide with the inception of the Glades III period as Goggin had originally intended.
During the Glades II period (AD. 750-AD. 1200), there are shifts in ceramic styles that
allow the archaeologist to accurately divide the period into three subperiods based on the
relative frequency of certain decorative styles (i.e., Key Largo Incised, Miami Incised,
Sanibel Incised, etcetera). Mound construction was also initiated during this period,
reflecting the rise of a stratified society with a select ruling and/or priest class.
During the Glades III period (AD 1200-1500), there is a shift in ceramic decorations.
Griffin reports the near absence of decorated pottery between AD 1000 and AD 1200
(Griffin 1974). Occurrences of St. Johns tradeware increased along the east coast, and a
thriving trade network that brought a variety of exotic resources such as lithic tools and
ornaments is evident. Tainos may have arrived in south Florida from eastern Cuba and/or
the Bahamas in AD 1575. Such a visit is described by Fonteneda(True 1946).
EUROPEAN CONTACT PERIOD (CA. AD 1513 - 1763)
The European contact period coincides with Goggin's Glades IIIc period and is
distinguished in extreme southeastern Florida by the appearance of Glades tooled pottery
and a general introduction of European materials into the Indian artifact assemblage.
When the Europeans arrived in the sixteenth century they encountered a thriving
population with at least five separate tribes in southern Florida: the Tequesta in southeast
Florida, the Calusa in southwest Florida, and the Jeaga and Ais along the east coast north
of the Tequesta, and the Mayami near Lake Okeechobee. European accounts indicate that
the Calusas maintained political dominance over these other tribes. It has been estimated
that there were about 20,000 Indians in South Florida when the Spanish arrived (Milanich
and Fairbanks 1980). In the eighteenth century the Indians of the Keys were referred to as
the Matecumbes (Wilkinson N.D.)
11
By 1763, when the English gained control of Florida, that population had been reduced to
only several hundred. The Keys were the last refuge of South Florida tribes. Harassed by
raids from Creeks, who as allies of the English ventured southward to take slaves, the last
of the south Florida tribes migrated to Cuba with the Spanish (Romans 1775). Some of
these Indians, reportedly unhappy in Cuba, returned to Florida and became known as the
Spanish Indians (Sturtevant 1953). The Spanish Indians eventually became part of the
Seminoles, who had fled into South Florida during the early nineteenth century.
LATE COLONIAL (1763-1819)
The Florida Keys were sparsely populated during this period. The exodus of the South
Florida Indian tribes from the area had been completed by the time of the inception of
British rule in 1763-most had left for Cuba between 1709 and 1763 (Worth 2003). Some
Creeks and other North Florida Indians were reported in the area, but their use of the
Keys was largely for hunting and fishing. During the twenty years of British rule over
East Florida, no settlements were attempted in the Keys, although a stream of Bahamians
began to use the Keys for fishing, wrecking, logging, and settlement. It was during this
period that the surveyor Gerald De Brahm completed a coastal map of East Florida. Other
Europeans frequented the area by ship for water and provisions. The reintroduction of
Spanish rule in 1783 did not change the growing use of the Keys by native Bahamians.
EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD (1819-1865)
The United States purchase of Florida from Spain was the impetus for the American
settlement of the Florida Keys. An exodus of Bahamians to the Keys occurred during this
same time period. The U.S. Navy established its anti-piracy headquarters in Key West
early in the early 1820s. Key West retained its strategic military significance through the
end of the Civil War. Cuban fishermen were using the area and many maintained dual
citizenship in accord with the Florida purchase stipulations between the U.S. and Spain.
Early in this period a settlement of blacks—possibly escaped slaves was reported on
Key Largo. These blacks may have migrated with Seminoles to Andros Island in the
Bahamas ca. 1819-1821.
It was during this period that the Seminole Indian Wars were fought. That included the
dramatic raid on Indian Key by Spanish Indians in 1840. The wars caused the
depopulation of the Keys with most of the displaced people moving to Key West. Prior to
the raid on Indian Key, the residents of the islands had temporarily separated from
Monroe County,joining newly-formed Dade County with Indian Key as the county seat.
12
LATE PIONEER PERIOD (1865-1920) — 1950s
This time period includes the construction of the Florida East Coast Railroad through the
Keys. The building of the Key West extension began in 1905 and was completed in 1912.
It was the principal economic stimulus for the Keys in the early 20th century, increasing
the population with workers, many of whom settled in the Keys after its construction.
Islamorada was farmed with pineapple, fostering early communities such as Tavernier,
Rock Harbor, and Knights Key which coalesced along the railway line. When the railroad
was destroyed in the 1935 Labor Day hurricane the Overseas Highway was built in its
right-of-way. Opening the Keys to automobile traffic led to a new boom in development
and an expansion of tourism. In the 1940s and 1950s many resorts, trailer parks, and
other facilities were constructed on Islamorada and gradually throughout the Keys to
accommodate tourism and sports fishing.
13
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Prior to the 1980's, archaeological assessments in the Florida Keys had not been
extensive. Early travelers noted unusual ruins and rock works in the Keys as early as the
eighteenth century (Romans 1775; Elliott 1803). Local residents "opened" several
mounds in Key West in the nineteenth century (Anon. 1839; Whitehead n.d. :97).
Whitehead reports that "bones are very often found when digging foundations" (n.d. :97).
It appears that Whitehead is the source for the "giant Calusa" myth based on the large
size of the bones. Whitehead also reported "embankments along the western and southern
shore (which) seem to bear evidence of aboriginal activity" (Peters 1965:37).
The botanist John K. Small (1913) documented two sites in the Keys, one on Big Pine
and the other on Key Largo. Stirling visited some sites in the Keys but did not excavate
(Goggin and Sommer 1949:28) and discusses the archaeology of the Keys in a general
paper on cultural affiliations. Smithsonian zoologist Gerrit Miller pioneered biological
archaeology in the West Indies. He also visited sites in the Keys in 1935 including one
site in Plantation Key (1936:22). He also collected artifacts at Upper and Lower
Matecumbe and at Tea Table Key (Goggin and Sommer 1949:28). Surveyor Karl Squiers
made large collections from several sites in the Keys and he published a monograph that
described mainly sites in Key Largo (1941:39-46).
Goggin and Sommer excavated at Upper Matecumbe in 1944 (8MO17). The analysis of
this site is still the basis for the present synthesis of Keys prehistory. Goggin continued
his research in the Keys and surveyed much of the Keys between 1944 and 1948. This
work led to a short article on the Upper Keys (1944) and contributed to his unpublished
survey of the Glades area (1949). The importance of the Keys to Goggin's cultural
reconstruction of South Florida is probably best reflected in his choice of 8MO17 as the
site for his archaeological excavation project in conjunction with Yale's Caribbean
anthropological program. The 1941 project was conducted as part of the Florida work
component to:
obtain information on the archaeology of a relatively unknown part of
the Southeastern United States. It was hoped, in addition, that the data
obtained would provide some indication as to the presence or absence
of connections between Florida and the West Indies (Rouse 1949:5)
Avocational archaeological investigations represent most of the subsequent Keys work.
The Miami-West India Society conducted excavations at the Wesumkee Site (8MO124)
on Summerland Key in the early 1970s (n.d.). The same site was also excavated by
Charles Dugger (Dugger 1972a, 1972b). Bill Former excavated at 8M04 and Watson's
Hammock between the 1940s and the early 1960s making extensive collections.
Fournier's notes were destroyed after his death with the sole exception of the Watson's
14
Hammock notes which were recovered by R. Blazevick. These were published in the
Griffin, Fryman and Miller report on the Key Deer refuge survey (1975). This survey was
performed in response to anticipated development at the Refuge.
Irving Eyster excavated at 8MO25, the Key Largo Site, in the 1960s. In 1975 to 1980 he
directed an excavation there with the Archaeological Society of Southern Florida. Due to
vandalism, reported by Irving Eyster, only two pits were completed (Foote, Luer and
Allerton 1982). Eyster conducted excavations at Stock Island 8MO2, in 1972 when that
site was threatened with being covered by fill, but vandalism and lack of resources from
the State prevented an analysis of recovered material or completion of a full report
(Eyster n.d.).
Historic archaeological investigations in the Florida Keys are highlighted by excavations
at Indian Key (Baker 1973) and several surveys at nearby Lignumvitae Key (i.e. Carr
n.d). Recognition of the importance of the nineteenth century pioneer settlements of the
Keys is reflected by Eyster's survey and recording of the village of Planter (8MO1972),
the first archaeological site of the pioneer period to be recorded in the Keys.
Other professional archaeological surveys include Felton and Tesar's survey of the
Lower Keys (1968). In 1979 Lynn Nidy performed an archaeological survey of Key West
for the Historic Key West Preservation Board of Trustees (Nolan Shiver and Nidy 1979).
The first systematic archaeological survey of the Florida Keys was undertaken by the
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy in 1985, beginning with Key Largo (Carr
1985), and subsequently, the Middle Keys (Carr, Allerton and Rodriguez 1987).The
results of these projects and a final summation was prepared for the South Florida
Regional Planning Council (Carr, et al. 1988).
In the 1980s several surveys were done in response to specific developments. These
included Eyster's work on the Long Key Quarry property (1978), Chance's survey of 30
acres on Islamorada(1980), and Hall's survey of the Florida East Coast Railway property
on Windley Key (1980).
Previous architectural surveys in the Keys include the Key West historic sites inventory
previously cited, and an architectural survey of Tavernier by Sharon Wells (1984).
Surveys were conducted by Carr, Allerton, and Rodriguez in 1988; by Henry et al. in
2003; by Otten and Hyland in 2008; and by Hyland in 2009.
The mid 1980s marked the beginning of contract archaeological work in the Florida
Keys. This increase was due in part to a greater public awareness of the fragile and finite
archaeological resources present in the Florida Keys and was aided by State and County
ordinances legislated as part of comprehensive planning to protect those resources. Well
15
over one hundred cultural resource assessment surveys have been performed in the
Florida Keys since the mid-1980s.
The most useful information about the cultural resources of the Florida Keys has been
gathered by broad surveys. Examples are work commissioned by municipalities or the
United States government, specifically surveys and inventories performed on various
military facilities on and around Key West and the Lower Keys (ex. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1995; Griffin and Logriaru 2012). Other surveys have compiled
comprehensive archaeological or architectural information. An excellent example is
Henry's 2003 architectural survey on the unincorporated areas of Monroe County (Henry
2003).
Other CRM surveys are of specific parcels of land scheduled for development. A limiting
factor in much of the archaeological work attempted in the Florida Keys is the shallow
nature of the soil mantle which can vary from a few inches to none at all. Frequently the
areas surveyed are already highly disturbed by clearing and filling. An example of a well-
crafted CRAS survey is provided by Dearborn's 2008 report on a compound of 1930s to
1940s fishing cabins on Sugarloaf Key (Dearborn 2008) that incorporated extensive
documentation. Other excellent reports include the 2009 archaeological and architectural
survey for the Villages of Islamorada included research and collaboration with local
village staff(Miller 2009).
In the last decade there has been a shift toward focusing on broader theoretical
implications of prehistoric settlement/subsistence strategies among indigenous
populations in both the Florida Keys and elsewhere in southern Florida. Detailed
environmental as well as archaeological studies by William Marquardt and Karen Jo
Walker of the Florida State Museum at Pineland (Lee County) and other sites in
southwest Florida begun in the 1980s and 1990s have laid some of the groundwork for an
intense analysis of how and why the early Indians of pre-contact times operated as they
did in those unique environments (Marquardt 1992; Marquardt and Walker 2012, 2013).
This initial work has been picked up, added to and refined by the latest generation of
researchers such as Margo Schwadron (Schwadron 2010), Victor Thompson (2017),
Thomas Pluckhahn (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2014). They and others have built on the
earlier studies of resource utilization. An example of concise and useful research in the
Florida Keys is the 2018 paper by Traci Ardren and others which examines ongoing work
and analysis being performed in the Florida Keys specifically in a reevaluation of the
Clupper Site, 8MO17, on Upper Matecumbe Key (Ardren et a12018). The study provides
a valuable first step in careful studies on specific determination of environmental and
cultural factors at play in non-agrarian chiefdoms in pre-contact to contact times in the
Florida Keys.
16
Another key player in analyzing, monitoring and helping preserve archaeological
resources on public land in the Florida Keys and elsewhere has been the Conservation
and Recreational Lands Program or (CARL) which was an outgrowth of the Land
Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF) established by the State of Florida in 1964. Since 1989
archaeologists affiliated with the Division of Historic Resources (DHR) have
systematically surveyed much of the recent State land acquisitions and advised preserve
managers on identifying and protecting archaeological sites and remains. As the Division
of Historic Resources states:
Between 1990 and 2014, PLA (CARL) program staff surveyed 1,268,249
acres of land on 273 state-managed properties. As a result of PLA surveys, a
total of 1,441 archaeological and historical sites have been recorded or
updated. (Florida Division of Historic Resources website 2018)
Specifically, in the Florida Keys, CARL has investigated archaeological sites
ranging from the Dynamite Dock historic/archaeological site area in the Upper
Keys to Curry Hammock in Key Vaca, the Coupon Bight State Buffer Preserve
southeast of Big Pine Key, and the origins of the Stone Wall Site (8MO1446) on
Lignum Vitae Key. (Van Der Ploeg 2018)
Many CRAS surveys focused on road rights or way, bridges, and associated utilities.
Most of these have been performed by Janus Research for the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) and other agencies. A lesser type of cultural resource survey are
cellular tower locations, and many of these tend to be limited to Federal Communication
Commission forms kept on file by the Florida Division of Historic Resources (FDHR) in
Tallahassee.
In 2016 AHC conducted a cultural resource assessment update of the Keys in
unincorporated Monroe County under a Certified Local Government grant to Monroe
County from FDHR, of which the current assessment is a continuation.
17
METHODOLOGY
Prior to conducting fieldwork for the Monroe County Florida Keys project, relevant
archives and literature were reviewed. This included, but was not limited to, studying
previous cultural resource reports for sites in the Florida Keys, reviewing information
from the Master Site File concerning previously-recorded sites, and examining black and
white as well as color aerial photographs of the project area, that aid in revealing
anthropogenic changes to the topography and floral communities.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The principal project goal was to re-survey and update selected previously recorded
archaeological sites and historic structures in the Florida Keys within unincorporated
Monroe County excluding incorporated municipalities and State and Federal lands, and to
locate and assess any archaeological sites previously undocumented and potentially
significant historic structures that have turned 50 years old or older since the last survey.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
This cultural resource survey incorporated the use of certain predictive archaeological
site models based on topographic and vegetative attributes that are associated with
prehistoric and historic sites in the Florida Keys. These models postulate that tropical
hardwood hammocks, elevated beach berms, and transitional zones in close proximity to
estuarine systems and deep channels are medium to high probability areas for
archaeological sites. The elevation information on the USGS quadrangle maps for the
Keys area was also used to identify higher probability areas.
HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL SITES
The historical architectural assessment included a pedestrian survey of Conch Key, Duck
Key, and the Indian Mound Estates area of Sugarloaf Key to reassess previously recorded
sites, document potentially significant structures that had been overlooked or that have
turned 50 years old since the most recent survey in 2016, and to assess the potential for
historic districts in each of the three focus areas. Previous reports, review of historical
aerial photographs, and interviews with residents were incorporated into this
methodology.
FIELDWORK
Pedestrian surveys were conducted at previously-recorded archaeological sites and likely
locations of unrecorded sites. Additional information was gleaned from informant
interviews. All previously recorded sites were assessed as to their attributes and
18
preservation condition. Collections were minimal and artifacts deemed diagnostic were
sparingly collected or photo documented. All sites were photo documented and field
maps created. FMSF forms were updated or newly recorded based on information
acquired in the course of the assessment.
The results of research and fieldwork on sites are also described in individual site
summaries (see following section); preservation quality was evaluated on a scale of 1-10
with 1 being pristine and 10, destroyed. All notes and photographs are on file with AHC.
Previously recorded historic structures were reassessed as to current condition and
historical integrity, and potentially significant structures that had not been documented or
that had turned 50 years old since the most recent survey were assessed. All significant
structures were evaluated against the criteria for individual listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NHRP) and for potentially contributing to an NHRP eligible
historic district. When an individual structure of interest was not located in an actual or
proposed historic district, and was not evaluated as individually NHRP eligible, it was
assessed as to its significance on the local or county level. All assessed structures were
photo documented and Florida Master Site File forms updated or newly recorded based
on information acquired in the course of the assessment. All notes and photographs are
on file with AHC.
COLLECTIONS
Samples of diagnostic cultural material were collected and accessioned, and are archived
at the AHC office and lab in Davie, Florida. Some materials will be transferred to the
Florida Keys History Museum.
INFORMANTS
AHC is grateful to several local informants and professional Monroe County staff,
notably Alice Allen, Diane Silvia, and Jerry Wilkinson, who were interviewed and
provided information about sites and structures in the Keys. Information that was
provided by residents of Conch Key, including Linda Sasser and Terry Temperton, and
by Sugarloaf Key resident Jeremiah Shaffer, is also greatly appreciated.
19
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Site Name: Ramrod Key
State Site Number: 8M06
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock/shoreline
Location: Ramrod Key: Township 66S, Range 29E, Section 31
Site Type: Prehistoric shell scatter
Site Function: Habitation, subsistence
Description: On the western shore of Ramrod Key just south of the boat
basin, a large prehistoric shell scatter was observed. The
scatter consists predominately of whole and fragmentary
conch shells (Strombus gigas) and is interspersed with
Busycon and Pleuroploca shells. The conch shells were
scattered for about 150 feet along the open rocky
transitional zone. The area shows evidence of having been
scraped. It is possible that a midden may have been
destroyed when the road and/or the boat basin were built.
In 1988 Conch shell was noted along the edge of the road
adjacent to the scatter. Reports suggest that freshwater
ponds were found in the upland hammock(Norris 1987:
pers. com.). No changes were observed in 2019.
Historic Context: None noted
Chronology: Prehistoric: Indeterminate
Collections: Material collected by AHC in 1988 includes Strombus
outer tips, columella tips, columella; Pleuroploca
columella, crown, tip; and a Melongena(king's crown)
shell. Similar shell refuse was observed in 2016.
Previous Research: Goggin 1949: n.p.; Carr et al 1988, Carr et a12016
Preservation Quality: 3 —Fair to poor: 1988 evaluation suggested additional
testing is needed to determine the remaining integrity of the
site. The site shows evidence of having been bulldozed in
the past. No change in 2019.
Ownership: Private
20
Significance and
Recommendation: Unknown eligibility for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. Site is recommended for additional
subsurface testing. Any development of the site should be
subject to archaeological documentation including testing
and monitoring.
21
Site Name: Key Largo 42. Key Largo Rock Mound Midden
State Site Number: 8MO26 (also listed as resource group
MO1258)
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock
Location: Key Largo: Township 61 S, Range 39E, Section 28
Site Type: Black dirt/shell midden
Site Function: Habitation, resource procurement
Description: This black dirt midden encompasses a peninsula of elevated
coral rock approximately 400 feet by 100 feet that extended
into a mangrove swamp. Originally the site supported a
lush hardwood hammock, but the development of the
Calusa Trailer Park has cleared and leveled much of the
site, although the lowest strata of the midden remains intact
on portions of the trailer park. It is estimated that the
midden's original depth was 50-70 cm. Midden deposition
appeared in 1988 to average 20-50 cm. in areas where the
site still existed. In 2016 it was observed that most of the
site had been removed and the coral rock substrate leveled
up to one meter removing all sediments, allowing for
expansion of the trailer park to the south on a flat surface.
No changes were observed in 2019.
Historic Context: None noted
Chronology: Prehistoric: Glades Ilb
Collections: No collections were made during the 2019 survey.
Goggin reported that collections he made repose at the
Yale Peabody Museum and the Florida State Museum in
Gainesville.
Previous Research: No formal archaeological excavations have been conducted
on this site. John Goggin documented the site in numerous
publications (Goggin 1944:17, Goggin and
Sommer1949:92; Carr, et al 1988, Carr et al. 2016)
Preservation Quality: 8 —Upper levels of the site have been removed by
bulldozing, but some portions of the site survive with
22
accompanying artifacts and features in the community park
and beneath trailer lots in the northern part of the site.
Ownership: Private
Significance
Recommendation: Listed on National Register of Historic Places
All ground disturbances at this site should be
conditional on prior archaeological documentation and
monitoring during construction as a permit condition.
23
Site Name: Key Largo Rock Mound, Key Largo 43
State Site Number: 8MO27 (Also listed in FDMRM as part of resource group
MO1258)
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock
Location: Key Largo: Township 61 S, Range 39E, Section 28
Site Type: Constructed rock mound
Site Function: Ceremonial? Mortuary?
Description: This site lies about 600 feet east of MO26. The mound is
composed of loose coral rocks and soil. The mound was
flat-topped and kidney-shaped measuring about 100 feet by
55 feet. The top of the mound is about 8 feet above the
surrounding terrain. On the east side of the mound appeared
a sloping ramp which was partially bulldozed in 1972.
Goggin reported that the ramp led to a"stone pathway or
causeway about 14 feet wide and 1 foot high."He stated
that the causeway could be discerned for a distance of
about 25 feet(1949:35). This feature was no longer visible
in the 1988 AHC survey either due to the dense hammock
understory or because the land had been cleared since
Goggin" observations. Several large holes dug by treasure
hunters are located on top of the mound. These excavations
reveal that beneath the mantle of rock boulders are
interspersed areas of soil and ash. In 2016 it was observed
that the northern tip of the mound had been destroyed by
the construction of a property boundary fence. No changes
observed in 2019
Historic Context: None known
Chronology: Prehistoric: Glades 11-III. No absolute dates have been
determined for this site.
Collections: Reports of obsidian knives being found there in the 1930s
were regarded as spurious by Goggin (1949:37). Faunal
bone and ceramics collected in 2016. No collections in
2019.
Previous Research: Goggin 1944:31, 1949:36; Carr, et al 1988.
24
Preservation Quality: 5—Site vandalism and bulldozing have affected about 20
percent of the site
Ownership: Private, multiple owners
Significance and
Recommendation: This is among the last of the known rock mounds in
southern Florida and the United States. The site is listed in
the National Register of Historic Places. Its preservation
should be maintained by acquisition as a county park.
25
Site Name: Knights Key
State Site Number: 8MO77
Environmental Setting: Filled uplands/bay bottom
Location: Knights Key: Township 665, Range 32E, Section 17
Site Type: Prehistoric shell and artifact scatter; historic refuse—
Gulf/Channel site
Site Function: Resource procurement
Description: Goggin reports that a small site was discovered by Plowden
who found prehistoric pottery sherds at the water's edge in
the beach sand. However, Goggin observed no appreciable
refuse deposit.
The key is the site of one of the earliest pioneer settlements
on Key Vaca(ca. 1823), and was used by Flagler's railroad
in the early 20th century as one of the major points for rail
line transfers.
Most of the key is a popular campground and has been
altered by fill. The 1988 and 2016 AHC surveys observed
conch shells and glass bottle fragments at the surface near a
manmade boat basin. No changes observed in 2019.
Historic Context: 1823 settlement; Flagler railway transfer point ca. 1906-
1910
Chronology: Prehistoric: Glades I11, Historic: 19th century —early 20th
Collections: A collection made at this site is housed at the University of
Florida Anthropology Laboratory that includes 2 Glades
Plain, 1 Belle Glade Plain, and 9 olive jar sherds as well as
historic ceramics such as blue featheredge and blue
transferware(Goggin: n.p.). Goggin also suggests that a
lithic projectile point collected by Ed McCain and in the St.
Clair Whitman Collection, is from this site. (1949: n.p.).
Dan Laxson reported that prehistoric bone tools and bone
ornaments were dredged from the adjacent channel about
50 years ago. Gail Swanson made collections here. Jim
Clupper reported a Surfside Incised sherd coming from the
site in 2005. In 2016 faunal bone and a worked Strombus
columella were observed on the bay bottom near the shore.
26
Previous Research: Goggin documented the site in unpublished work(1949:
n.p.), Carr et al 1988, Carr et al. 2016
Preservation Quality: The site's preservation integrity has not been determined
because the site is covered by fill. Part of the site extends
into the bay bottom.
Ownership: Private, Public
Significance and
Recommendation: Any ground disturbing activities proposed for the park of
this site should be subject to archaeological testing and/or
monitoring. Knights Key is a potential archaeological zone
and is worthy of local designation. Site may potentially
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places, but further documentation is needed.
27
Site Name: West Summerland Key 4 1
State Site Number: 8MO124
Environmental Setting: Estuarine tidal swamp
Location: West Summerland Key: Township 665, Range 30E Section
32
Site Type: Midden
Site Function: Habitation, extractive site
Description: Located on the west end of West Summerland Key, north
of U.S. 1,just inside the buttonwood/mangrove transition
on a beach hash berm. The berm runs parallel to U.S. 1 for
about 20 meters. Previous excavations recovered
prehistoric pottery, notably Surfside Incised and Glades
Plain. During the 2016 survey no subsurface testing was
conducted but turbation from crab burrows exposed
prehistoric ceramic sherds, including a Surfside Incised rim
lug. A diffuse shell scatter of Strombus and Busycon
extends about 40 meters from the area of the berm
northeast into a red and black mangrove tidal area.
Historic Context: N/A
Chronology: Prehistoric: Glades II, III
Collections: 1 Surfside Incised rim lug
Previous Research: Greene, Mark 1972, Wesunekee Site Excavation (8MO88);
Dugger, Charles 1972„ Eyster, Irving, 1980, Florida
Archaeological Site Form; Carr, Robert, 1988, unpublished
field notes on record at AHC.
Preservation Quality: 7-Previous excavations by avocational archaeologists have
destroyed 20% of the site. Site could not be assessed during
2019 study because of storm debris.
Ownership: Girl Scouts of America
28
Significance and
Recommendation: Prehistoric middens in the lower keys are rare and this site
should be preserved. Eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places based on criterion D.
29
Site Name: Big Pine Key 4 10, Big Pine Key Rockworks
State Site Number: 8MO1263
Environmental Setting: Estuarine tidal marsh
Location: Big Pine Key: Township 66S, Range 29E, Section 26
Site Type: Rockworks
Site Function: Directional Guide
Description: The site is located in an exposed bedrock tidal lowland on
the southern portion of Big Pine Key, north of Coupon
Bight. This site consists of two rock arrows constructed of
limestone rocks on a tidal flat south of Highway 1 on Big
Pine Key. One arrow is 11' 5" long, 8' 6" at the base and
points to the northeast. Local informants state that this was
one of two such arrows but a visit to the easternmost one
showed it to be disturbed by treasure hunters and it is no
longer distinguishable as an arrow. It is unclear as to what
the arrows pointed. It is most likely the arrows pointed
towards fresh water wells. No artifacts were found with the
arrows so it is difficult to determine their cultural context or
age. The site could not be located in 2016 nor in 2019 after
Hurricane Irma.
Historic Context: Unknown
Chronology: Historic: Unknown
Collections: None
Previous Research: Carr et al. 1988, CARL Survey 1994
Preservation Quality: Unknown - Site could not be found either in 2016 or in
2019. It may have been destroyed by treasure hunters.
Ownership: Unknown
Significance and
Recommendation: Significance is undetermined. The area is worthy of further
investigation.
30
Site Name: Middle Torch Key # 1
State Site Number: 8MO1277
Environmental Setting: Rockland Hammock
Location: Middle Torch Key: Township 665, Range 29E, Section 20
Site Type: Well
Site Function: Historic Homestead
Description: The site is dominated by a large Sapodilla tree visible from
the roadway and is approximately 100 meters west of the
road, in a dense hammock. Three meters east of the large
Sapodilla tree is a circular well cut into the bedrock
surrounded on three sides by large limestone rocks. one
hundred meters W.N.W. of the well, along the open
buttonwood-black mangrove transition is evidence of
charcoal burning and a fallen rock wall running parallel to
the shoreline for about 18 meters.
Historic Context: Unknown
Chronology: Historic: early 20th century
Collections: None during 2019 survey
Previous Research: Carr et al 1988
Preservation Quality: 1- Site area is undisturbed.
Ownership: Unknown
Significance and
Recommendation: Site area should be preserved. Any permits for ground
disturbance and development that area should be subject to
conditions of archaeological documentation.
31
Site Name: No Name Key # 3
State Site Number: 8MO1280
Environmental Setting: Marine hammock
Location: No Name Key: Township 66S, Range 29E, Section 13
Site Type: Historic homestead: Building remains, cisterns, surface
scatter
Site Function: Habitation
Description: The site consists of two cisterns,(one metal and the other
concrete), a square cut well into the bedrock, two modified
solution holes and historic surface scatter including
foundational debris. The surrounding vegetation includes
exotics such as sapodilla and tamarind. Small concentrated
Strombus scatters exist on the eastern margins of the site
area, interspersed within low piles of coral rocks. Across a
north-south footpath to the east along the eastern shoreline
of No Name Key is a mixed coral rock/limerock causeway
leading roughly from the footpath to the water's edge
among red mangroves. Observed there in 2016 was a
concentrated scatter of historic bottle fragments. In 2019 it
was observed that one of the cisterns had been damaged by
Hurricane Irma.
Historic Context: Unknown
Chronology: Historic: Early 20th century
Collections: None during 2016 survey
Previous Research: Carr et al. 1988
Preservation Quality: 5- The area appears to have been bulldozed in the past.
Some collecting has occurred by visitors.
Ownership: Unknown
32
Significance and
Recommendation: This site area and its significant features should be
preserved. The site is eligible for local designation and
potentially qualifies for the NR based on criterion A. Site
area should be subjected to monitoring if future
development is to take place.
33
Site Name: Sugarloaf Key 4 4, Lupo Site
State Site Number: 8MO1292
Environmental Setting: Rockland Hammock
Location: Sugarloaf Key: Township 665, Range 28E, Section 31,
Site Type: Historic Settlement: building remains, cistern
Site Function: Habitation
Description: The site consists of building foundations and historic refuse
dispersed throughout a dense hammock. The entire site
area shows evidence of bulldozing and clearing activities
and multiple spoil berms with foundational and household
debris run throughout the area. Notable features include
two large cement capped solution holes, several densely
concentrated historic refuse piles containing whiteware
bearing the manufacturers mark"John Maddock& Sons
Ltd" ca. 1896, fragmented aqua, milk and cobalt glass and
<15 Strombus shells. A large above ground cistern reported
to be on site was not located. No changes observed in
2019.
Historic Context: N/A
Chronology: Historic: ca. 1900 to 1930
Collections: None during 2019 survey
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 5- Site area bulldozed but some foundation features
remain intact.
Ownership: Unknown
Significance and
Recommendation: This site is potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP both
individually and as part of a potentially eligible district or
resource group. It is also eligible for local designation. The
site area provides an example of a pioneer settlement and
valuable data on early settler daily life can be gleaned from
further investigation. The site should be subject to intensive
34
archaeological documentation if future development is to
occur there, and the structural features should be preserved.
35
Site Name: West Summerland 4 2
State Site Number: 8MO1294
Environmental Setting: Marine hammock, estuarine tidal swamp
Location: West Summerland Key: Township 66S, Range 30E,
Section 32
Site Type: Shell scatter
Site Function: Resource extraction
Description: The site consists of a coralline beach hash berm on the
bayside of West Summerland Key. The berm is located on
the channel shoreline, since altered by the construction of
the extant Overseas Highway and enclosed by a Red
Mangrove strand. A scatter of Strombus shell exists along
the berm. In 2019 the site area was fully exposed as a
result of Hurricane Irma and the subsequent clean-up.
Historic Context: N/A
Chronology: Prehistoric: unknown
Collections: None during 2019 survey
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 3- Site was disturbed by Hurricane Irma and subsequent
clean-up.
Ownership: Boy Scouts of America
Significance and
Recommendation: Phase I testing is required to determine extent and exact
nature and significance of the site.
36
Site Name: Garden Cove
State Site Number: 8MO1970
Environmental Setting: Beach berm, maritime hammock
Location: Key Largo: Township 605, Range 40E, Section 31
Site Type: Black dirt/shell midden; historic foundations, cistern
Site Function: Habitation, resource procurement
Description: Located adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, this significant site
has both a prehistoric and historic component. The historic
component is obvious because a poured concrete cistern
occurs. The cistern is well preserved and suggests a date of
ca. 1920s-1940s. Despite the cistern's 20th century
occupation attributes, there is a high probability that the
historic occupation may have begun considerably earlier. A
single black glass bottle base, typical in manufacture to
those from about 1860, was found on the shore opposite the
cistern. Although such remains could be explained by
floating bottles, other small pieces of glass, etc. recovered
by subsurface testing suggested the possibility of an
occupation that predated the cistern. The location of this
site is ideal it is likely that the early "conch"pioneers
would have used the site.
The prehistoric component is of an unknown size or extent,
but a cursory surface inspection performed in 1982 by
AHC located a scattering of broken Strombus shells along
the shoreline between a mangrove tree fringe and upland
hammock. This scatter is located about 50 meters south of
the cistern. Subsurface testing performed in 1982 about 5
meters inland from the shore uncovered gray-black soil
with a high quantity of Strombus shell fragments beginning
at a depth of 10 cm. This midden zone continued to a depth
of 20-25 cm. Bedrock was just below the cultural zone. The
cistern was still intact in 2016 however a large ficus tree
had grown over and enveloped its S.E. corner. No changes
in 2019.
Historic Context: Homestead
Chronology: Prehistoric: undetermined; historic: mid-19th through 20th
centuries
37
Collections: Shell refuse and historic glass were uncovered in the
1982 AHC survey. Eyster and Southard reported faunal
bone on the site(1981:11).
Previous Research: Eyster and Southard 1981:11; Carr 1982, Carr et al. 2016
Preservation Quality: In 2019 3- Cistern is well-preserved. Subsurface
component of the midden shows good state of preservation.
No char were observed.
Ownership: Private
Significance and
Recommendation: This is a potentially significant site that needs further
research and testing. The cistern should be preserved and
additional testing to determine the site's full extent and
nature of both historic and prehistoric remains. Site is
worthy of local designation.
38
Site Name: Munson Island
State Site Number: 8MO1981
Environmental Setting: Beach Berm/Rocky Flat
Location: Munson Island: Township 67S, Range 29E, Section 8
Site Type: Midden, shell scatter
Site Function: Habitation, resource procurement
Description: The site is located on the Atlantic shore of Munson Island.
The site is located on a beach berm and was discovered in
1990 after the erosion of a dune exposing a black earth
midden. After Hurricane Irma that dune had been destroyed
and cultural material redeposited along the beach. The site
extends along the entire island but is concentrated at the
island's southern end. Shell refuse and artifacts occur
sparsely across the full length of the berm and on the rocky
flats behind the dune.
Historic Context: None known
Chronology: Prehistoric: Glades III
Collections: Prehistoric pottery: Busycon adz, Pleuroplaca anchor sand
tempered plain, non-local plain
Historic: Olive jar sherd, bottle glass
Previous Research: Site was discovered in 1990 by Carr and Beriault. Report
on file at AHC
Preservation Quality: 5- Much of the site has been eroded and redeposited by
Hurricane Irma. Other parts of the site may be buried.
Ownership: Private
Significance and
Recommendation: Site is of local significance.
39
Site Name: Harry Harris Site
State Site Number: 8M02063
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock
Location: Key Largo: Township 62S, Range 38E, Section 23
Site Type: Cistern. Homestead
Site Function: Habitation
Description: This single-cell concrete cistern is located in a hardwood
hammock about 200 feet from the Atlantic Ocean. Historic
refuse is scattered around the cistern. The cistern is
constructed as a rectangle with well finished plaster walls
on top of concrete. Several linear alignments of coral rock
representing fallen rock walls are located north of the
cistern. No changes were observed in 2019.
Historic Context: Unknown
Chronology: Historic: circa 1880-1930s
Collections: None
Previous Research: Carr et al. 1988, Carr et al. 2016
Preservation Quality: 1- Cistern is in fair condition with weathering and
deterioration of surface finish, exposing admixture. Several
cracks exist along interior walls resulting from bio-
turbation.
Ownership: Public: Monroe County
Significance and
Recommendation: Site should be preserved. It is a well preserved example of
a pioneer homestead. Site is worthy of local designation.
40
Site Name: Newport 42
State Site Number: 8M02066
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock, Rockland interface
Location: Key Largo: Township 61 S, Range 39E, Section 28
Site Type: Prehistoric shell refuse, artifact scatter, historic homestead
Site Function: Habitation, resource procurement
Description: This dual component site is located along the Atlantic
shoreline in the rocky interface that separates the
mangroves from the upland hardwood hammock. The shell
refuse is about 400 feet in length along the interface and
continues inland into the hammock for about 15-20 feet.
Historic refuse litters the ground surface and a pile of coral
rocks suggests agricultural activities related to the historic
occupation of the site. No changes were observed in 2019.
Historic Context: Unknown
Chronology: Prehistoric: period unknown; Historic: circa 1890-1920
Collections: Several sand tempered pottery sherds were collected by the
1988 AHC survey at the site.
Previous Research: Carr et al. 1988
Preservation Quality: 5- Site area has been subjected to collecting.
Ownership: Private
Significance and
Recommendation: The site area should be monitored if cleared for
development and during ground disturbing activities.
41
Site Name: Swine Cistern
State Site Number: 8M02067
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock
Location: Key Largo: Township 61 S, Range 39E, Section 28
Site Type: Historic homestead, cistern
Site Function: Habitation
Description: This cistern is located within a hardwood hammock
approximately 100-120 feet west of the mangroves. The
elevation of the ground around the cistern was
approximately 1 to 2 feet above sea level. The site was not
assessible during the 2016 assessment. No changes
observed in 2019.
Historic Context: Unknown
Chronology: Historic: circa 1880-1920
Collections: None
Previous Research: Carr et al. 1988, Carr et al. 2016
Preservation Quality: Unknown
Ownership: Private
Significance and
Recommendation: The cistern should be preserved. Area should be subjected
to monitoring if clearing and development is planned. Site
is worthy of local designation.
42
Site Name: North Tavernier
State Site Number: 8M02070
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock
Location: Key Largo: Township 62S, Range 38E, Section 34
Site Type: Historic homestead, cistern,
Site Function: Habitation, resource procurement
Description: This site complex is situated on an upland peninsula jutting
seaward into the Atlantic Ocean. A mangrove swamp
separates this upland peninsula from the central length of
Key Largo. In 1988 the site contained two cisterns and
concrete slabs representing the visible remnants of a
homestead complex that once encompassed the full extent
of the 2-3 acre peninsula. Extensive prehistoric refuse is
visible throughout much of the site surface that includes
broken glass, metal refuse, and Strombus shells. During a
2016 visit to the site AHC personnel observed that the
northernmost cistern, along with the remnants of a cook site
and a cement capped solution hole have been cleared for
the construction of two houses on the property. No
archaeological requirements were made by the County in
the permits to develop this property. The southernmost
cistern is preserved by the land owners. No changes since
2016.
Historic Context: Unknown
Chronology: Historic: circa 1840-1940
Collections: None
Previous Research: Carr et al. 1988, Carr et al. 2016
Preservation Quality: 6 - Only the southernmost cistern, a concrete pad and
adjacent well still remain. Other components have been
destroyed since 1988.
Ownership: Private
43
Significance and
Recommendation: Site may be worthy of local designation This site should be
subject to further research to determine its significance..
Any ground disturbance or development should be subject
to additional archaeological documentation and monitoring.
44
Site Name: Crawl Key # 1
State Site Number: 8M02091
Environmental Setting: Rocky Flats, Mangroves
Location: Crawl Key: Township 65S, Range 33E, Section 35,
Site Type: Black earth midden
Site Function: Habitation, resource extraction
Description: The site is located south of U.S. 1 and west of Banana Blvd
on Crawl Key. Most of the site appears redeposited as a
berm along the western and southern shoreline of Crawl
Key,just inside the mangrove transition. A diffuse shell
scatter predominates the open rocky buttonwood flat to the
north. A shovel test pit was excavated on the western
portion of the berm yielding Strombus and Busycon shell
artifacts were recovered in addition to Key Largo Incised
pottery sherds. No changes since 2016.
Historic Context: N/A
Chronology: Prehistoric: Glades II, III
Collections: Strombus and Busycon shell tool, Glades Plain, Key
Largo Incised, Surfside Incised rim lug
Previous Research: Carr et al. 1988, Carr et al. 2016
Preservation Quality: 5 - Most of the site has been redeposited; however, cultural
material occurs in around the site edges,particularly to the
south and east.
Ownership: Unknown
Significance and
Recommendation: Any development on this site should be subjected to
monitoring. The site may be eligible for local designation.
45
Site Name: Ballast Trail Cemetery
State Site Number: 8M02332
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock
Location: Tavernier: Township 62S, Range 38E, Section 34,
Site Type: Cemetery
Site Function: Mortuary
Description: The site is located along the northern edge of a private road
in Tavernier,just north of 8M03391. The site consists of
two weathered graves sectioned off by low concrete
bollards supporting a metal pipe that is now only visible on
the northern portion of the site. The parcel to the south of
the cemetery was under construction and includes a 1935
Red Cross house adjacent to the construction.
Historic Context: Pioneer cemetery
Chronology: Historic: early 20th century
Collections: None
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 3 - The grave stones are badly weathered. The site could
not be accessed in 2019.
Ownership: Private
Significance and
Recommendation: The graves should be preserved and not relocated if
possible. Any further development in the area should be
subjected to archaeological monitoring.
46
Site Name: Ballast Trail Cistern
State Site Number: 8M03391
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock
Location: Tavernier: Township 62S, Range 32E, Section 34
Site Type: Cistern, historic homestead
Site Function: Habitation
Description: This cistern is located in the Tavernier Oceanside Historic
District 50 meters west of the Red Cross House (coast.
century 1935)in proximity to the Ballast Trail Cemetery
(8M02332)which is 15 meters SE. The cistern is poured
concrete with wooden slat impressions on the interior and
exterior and has a concrete top with a square access
opening on the southern portion. Cistern is in excellent
condition. No artifacts were observed in the immediate area
of the cistern, but a nearby construction spoil pile contained
historic red house brick and broken glass. Site could not be
assessed in 2019 because of locked gate.
Historic Context: Pioneer
Chronology: Historic: ca.1935
Collections: House brick observed and the top of a historic glass bottle
recovered.
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 1- In 2016 the cistern was in excellent condition.
Ownership: Private
Significance and
Recommendation: The cistern should be preserved. Area should be subjected
to monitoring if clearing and development occurs. Site
is worthy of local designation.
47
Site Name: North Carolina Fishing Club Cistern
State Site Number: 8M03392
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock, mangrove shoreline
Location: Key Largo: Township 61 S, Range 39E, Section 28
Site Type: Historic homestead, boatyard wharves, cistern
Site Function: Habitation, fishing
Description: This cistern is located on what local informants call the Old
Newport Boat Yard. The cistern is located about 20 meters
NE of the central access into the property in a hardwood
hammock. The cistern belonged to the"North Carolina
Fishing Club", which was the first subdivision platted in
Key Largo in the 1920s. It is in good condition with enough
integrity to hold water, however Mosquito Control has
punched a hole in the southern wall to allow water to drain
from the cistern.
Historic Context: Fishing
Chronology: Historic: circa 1920s
Collections: The 2016 survey recovered shell refuse, house brick,
and glass from a scatter that showed signs of prior
bottle collecting.
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 2- Some damage to cistern and signs of bottle collecting.
No changes since 2016.
Ownership: Private
Significance and
Recommendation: The cistern should be preserved. Area should be subjected
to monitoring if clearing and development will happen. Site
is worthy of local designation.
48
Site Name: Caribbean Club Chimney
State Site Number: 8M03393
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock, mangrove shoreline
Location: Key Largo: Township 60S, Range 38E, Section 12
Site Type: Historic homestead, chimney(s)
Site Function: Habitation, resource procurement
Description: This site is located north to the Caribbean Club at Mile
Marker 109. At the approximate center of the parcel is a
stacked coral rock chimney adjacent to remains of a newer
concrete/stucco chimney. The coral rock chimney likely
dates to the mid 20th century, with the stucco chimney
likely mid 20th century.
The stacked rock chimney is 2 meters tall mortared with
hand-laid cement. The mouth of the chimney faces north.
The observed artifacts around this feature were low to
none.
The more modern chimney lies 20 meters SE and is
concrete/stucco with a faux brick exterior finish. The parcel
was not assessed in 2019.
Historic Context: Unknown
Chronology: 20th century, circa-1950s
Collections: The 2016 survey recovered glass and historic ceramics
from a nearby construction spoil pile.
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 2 - Some damage from construction may have occurred as
development has occurred on parcel after 2016.
Ownership: Private
Significance and
Recommendation: The coral rock chimney should be preserved. Area should
be subjected to monitoring if clearing and development
occurs.
49
Site Name: Old Settlers Park
State Site Number: 8M03403
Environmental Setting: Maritime hammock
Location: Tavernier: Township 62S Range 38E, Section 34
Site Type: Historic homestead
Site Function: Homestead/farmstead
Description: The site is a county park incorporating the foundations of a
prominent keys settler family, the Alburys, who occupied
the property ca. 1911-1960. All that remains of the house
are poured concrete steps.
An inspection of the parcel in 2019 did not indicate any
damage to the site since 2016.
Historic Context: Albury residence 1911-1960
Chronology: Historic: 20th Century
Collections: None
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 5 - Disturbed
Ownership: Monroe County
Significance and
Recommendation: Potentially undisturbed archaeological deposits; site should
be preserved and future ground-disturbing activities in the
park monitored.
50
Site Name: Coupon Bight
State Site Number: 8M03407
Environmental Setting: Beach berm/tidal flat
Location: Big Pine Key: Township 66S Range 29E, Section 26
Site Type: Shell scatter
Site Function: Habitation, resource procurement
Description: The site is a diffuse scatter of queen conch and lightning
whelk shell refuse along a beach berm in a remote area. It
is likely a prehistoric deposit, but Phase I testing is needed
to determine its extent and significance.
Historic Context: Unknown
Chronology: Prehistoric: period unknown
Collections: None
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 2- Subject to tidal erosion and storm
surge events may have affected the site.
Ownership: Unknown
Significance and
Recommendation: Unknown, further assessment recommended.
51
Site Name: Garden Cove Tracks
State Site Number: M03411
Environmental Setting: Estuarine tidal marsh
Location: Key Largo: Township 60S, Range 40E, Section 31
Site Type: Boat yard
Site Function: Boat building
Description: The site consists of several sections of rail tracks along the
shoreline southeast of Atlantic Blvd in Key Largo. One
section is almost completely inundated at high tide. The
other sections are out in the water approximately one meter
and appear to be in situ. A historic surface scatter can be
observed at low tide in the surrounding red mangroves that
predominate on the shoreline and includes railroad spikes,
historic bottle fragments, and whiteware sherds.
Historic Context: Boat building
Chronology: Historic: early 20th century
Collections: None
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 2 - Overall, fair to good; one section of track is out of situ
and some evidence of collecting exists. No changes since
2016.
Ownership: Unknown
Significance and
Recommendation: The site area should be preserved; further testing is
recommended to determine full extent and nature of the
site.
52
Site Name: No Name Ferry Landing
State Site Number: M03413
Environmental Setting: Marine hammock, estuarine tidal swamp
Location: No Name Key: Township 66S, Range 30E, Section 18
Site Type: Building remains, cisterns
Site Function: Passenger ferry landing
Description: The site is located at the far eastern end of Old State Road
4A on No Name Key and consists of a diffuse historic
debris scatter, three cisterns and the remains of an office
and large ferry landing used to transport passengers prior to
the construction of the extant Overseas Highway.
Historic Context: Flagler railroad
Chronology: Historic: ca 1910-1940
Collections: None
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 2 - The cisterns are largely intact. Most of the associated
structures have been destroyed by storms. The area appears
to have been heavily collected.
Ownership: Unknown
Significance and
Recommendation: The site area should be preserved and is eligible for local
designation. The area should be subjected to archaeological
documentation and monitoring if any development or
clearing is to take place.
53
Site Name: REEF Environmental
State Site Number: M03415
Environmental Setting: Rockland hammock
Location: Key Largo: Township 62S, Range 39E, Section 5
Site Type: Building remains, cistern
Site Function: Historic homestead
Description: The site is located on an vacant parcel overgrown with
Brazilian pepper, adjacent to REEF Environmental and
consists of foundational remains and an above ground
concrete cistern. The cistern appears to have been later
modified from its original use of storing water. There is a
sparse artifact scatter around the site suggesting the area
has been heavily collected. No changes since 2016.
Historic Context: Pioneer homestead
Chronology: Historic: early to mid 20th century
Collections: None
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 3 - Large portion of the site including the cistern threatened
by Brazilian pepper overgrowth. The site has been heavily
collected. No change since 2016.
Ownership: Unknown
Significance and
Recommendation: The site area should be preserved and is eligible for local
designation. The foundation and cistern are likely
contemporary with the REEF Environmental non-profit
housed in the oldest standing house in the upper keys built
in 1913 out of Dade County Pine. Archaeological
monitoring should be required if any alterations to the site
are to be made.
54
Site Name: Key Largo Rock Mound Pond 1
State Site Number: M03416
Environmental Setting: Rockland hammock
Location: Key Largo: Township 61 S, Range 39E, Section 28
Site Type: Solution hole pond
Site Function: Mortuary ?
Description: The site is a large solution hole feature located on the
southeastern corner of the Calusa Campground Trailer Park
in Key Largo. The solution hole is likely associated with
8M026 and 8M027. The solution hole measures about 10
meters in diameter. A shovel test uncovered Glades Plain
ceramic sherds directly on top the bedrock under
approximately 1.5 meters of accumulated organic muck. A
single shovel test was dug in both 2016 and 2019.
Historic Context: None known
Chronology: Prehistoric: period unknown
Collections: 2016: 1 Glades Plain ceramic sherd, 1 wooden fragment,
liguus snail, marine shell
2019: Apple snail
Previous Research: Carr et al. 2016
Preservation Quality: 1 or 2 - Area around the surface of the solution hole has
been graded and disturbed, however, sediments beneath the
surface are undisturbed.
Ownership: Private: Calusa Campground Trailer Park
Significance and
Recommendation: This solution hole feature is likely associated with 8M026
and 8M027, and could have been a source of fresh water
for Keys Indians. This site may offer a rare opportunity
afforded by the pond's anaerobic environment that could
yield organic artifacts that would have otherwise degraded
over time.
55
Site Name: Key Largo Rock Mound Pond 2
State Site Number: M03417
Environmental Setting: Rockland hammock
Location: Key Largo: Section 61 S, Range 39E, Section 28
Site Type: Solution hole pond
Site Function: Mortuary?
Description: The site consists of a large, natural solution hole pond
located on an undeveloped wooded parcel east of the
Calusa Campground Trailer park. Five shovel tests were
dug in 2019, but further investigation is needed to
determine its full extent and significance. Pond is about 20
meters in diameter.
Historic Context: None known
Chronology: Prehistoric: Period unknown
Collections: 2018; Busycon shell tool observed—not collected.
2019: Faunal bone, shell refuse
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 1 - Site is undisturbed.
Ownership: Private
Significance and
Recommendation: Site significance is unknown, but given its proximity to
8M026 and 8M027 it is likely that it was a freshwater
source for Keys Indians. Considering the anaerobic
environment within solution holes it is possible that organic
artifacts such as wood could be recovered.
56
Site Name: Chase
State Site Number: M03472
Environmental Setting: Buttonwood rocky flats
Location: Sugarloaf Key: Township 65S, Range 35E, Section 25
Site type: Building remains
Site Function: Habitation
Description: This site is characterized by a scatter of historic refuse and
concrete foundations. One preserved rectangular concrete
foundation ca. 1920s-40s, occurs north of County Road 4A
near the Chase House. No changes were observed to the
site since 2016.
Historic Context: Town of Chase, subsequently renamed Perky
Chronology: Historic: ca. 1890s to 1930
Collections: Bottle glass, whiteware ceramics
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 5- Site is subject to tidal erosion and storm surges.
Ownership: Private
Significance and
Recommendation: Site is of local significance and worthy of local designation.
No permits for ground-disturbing activities should be
issued without conditions for archaeological documentation
and subsequent monitoring.
57
Site Name: Big Pine Fishing Lodge
State Site Number: MO6618
Environmental Setting: Coastal Berm
Location: Big Pine Key: Township 675, Range 30E, Section 6
Site type: Shell scatter, historic refuse
Site Function: Habitation, subsistence
Description: This multicomponent site is located on a shell and coral
beach berm over one meter high that measures 1000 meters
by 35 meters. This high berm is located near the Atlantic
and a deep channel, ideal for receiving prevailing breezes.
Vegetation includes gumbo limbo, Jamaican dogwood, sea
grape,poisonwood, Keys blue porterweed, and Bahamian
nightshade. Behind the berm are buttonwoods and
mangroves. Conch fragments were found along entire
berm, diminishing toward the southwestern end of the
berm. Several whole conchs with prehistoric kill holes were
found along the berm and near the shore at the Big Pine
Fishing Lodge campground. Fishing Lodge staff reported
that hundreds of whole conchs washed up on the berm after
hurricane Irma and most had been collected by visitors of
the Fishing Lodge. A whelk shell with a cut hole and used
as a ladle was found at the base of a tree near the shore at
the campground. The site continues onto the adjacent state
property, but no collections were made there.
Historic Context: Overseas Railroad?
Chronology: Historic: ca. 1890s to 1930. Prehistoric: period unknown
Collections: Busycon shell tool observed, not collected, shell refuse;
historic refuse: whiteware, drinking glass
Previous Research: None
Preservation Quality: 3- Site has been disturbed by clearing and collecting. The
site has been greatly altered by the development of the Big
Pine Fishing Lodge. The initial clearing and subsequent
placement of fill has had an adverse impact on the site.
58
Ownership: Private,public
Significance and
Recommendation: Site significance is unknown. Phase I testing is
recommended as well as monitoring of ground-disturbing
activities.
59
Site Name: Hover Bight
Site Number: 8MO6620
Location: Key Largo: Township 61 S Range 39E Section 14
Environmental Setting: Maritime Hammock
Site Type: Building remains
Site Functions: Homestead/Fishing camp
Description: This site consists of the remains of a structure and cement
seawall along a dredged boat basin and a nearby cement
slab, likely foundational remains of another structure. The
site was located through a local informant who reputed that
the site has been in similar condition since the early 1970's
and suggested that it was a defunct fishing camp. The
standing structure may never have been completed and
shows signs of intentional demolition in some areas. The
structure is adjacent to a cement capped coral-rock seawall
that partially encircles the boat basin and runs for
approximately 18 meters. There is a metal washtub
cemented into the seawall,possibly serving as a fish
cleaning station that partially obscures an inscription in the
cement reading, "CAM-LOW"which the informant
believes is "Camp Lowe", referencing the prominent Lowe
family whom were early settlers in the upper Keys.
The canal leading into the boat basin is almost completely
grown in by red mangroves and is approximately 80m in
length, running roughly W-E. The corresponding dredge
makes up a spit of high ground to the south, abutting Largo
Sound. There are several road segments just visible
through the overly detritus and evident within the
surrounding hammock vegetation. One leads from the boat
basin due north to Transylvania Ave.
The surrounding area did not produce any significant
surface scatter of artifacts and no material could be directly
tied to the structure. Since this area is a well known local
"hang out" spot it is likely that the site has been subject to
heavy collecting.
Chronology: Historic: 20th century
60
Collections: No collections were made
Ownership: Unknown
Preservation Quality: Good
Significance: This site has local significance and may be an example of
development similar to nearby Port Bougainville.
Recommendation: Additional assessment is needed in order to determine a
more precise chronology and its significance. Any activity
in this area should be subject to archaeological monitoring.
61
Site Name: Point Lowe
Site Number: 8M06621
Location: Key Largo: Township 63S Range 38E Section 3
Environmental Setting: Key Largo Maritime Hammock
Site Type: Historic Refuse Scatter
Site Functions: Homestead
Description: This site consists of a surface scatter of historic refuse east
of the intersection of Coconut Row and Ocean Ave within
the hammock just inland of open buttonwood transition,.
Observed were stoneware sherds, amethyst and aqua glass
fragments as well as whiteware ceramic sherds. The scatter
likely continues north into private property.
Chronology: Historic: late 19th, early 20th century
Collections: No collections were made
Ownership: Unknown
Preservation Quality: Good
Significance: The site lies 50-100m south of the location of the historic
Lowe family homestead settled in 1880 and was one of the
prominent upper keys families. The site can provide
valuable insight into early keys pioneer life and is of local
significance. The site is potentially eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places.
Recommendation: This area needs to be subject to archaeological testing prior
to any ground disturbing activities.
62
Site Name: Refugee Key
Site Number: 8M06622
Location: Big Pine Key: Township 67S, Range 29E, Section 11.
Environmental Setting: This site is on a high beach berm on the southern point of a
mangrove key, west of and separated from Big Pine Key by
a narrow channel, west of the end of Long Beach Road.
Site Type: Shell refuse
Site Function: Habitation, subsistence
Description: This prehistoric site is undisturbed by development or
modern human activity. The site is on a relatively isolated
beach berm and is part of a network of Atlantic facing
beach berm prehistoric sites found along the Newfound
Harbor Keys, including the previously recorded site of Big
Munson Island, as well as sites to the east on Big Pine Key
and West Summerland Key.
This site is located on a high shell and coral beach berm
that measures 80 meters by 35 meters and rises over one
meter above high tide level. A rocky point extends offshore
with patches of mangroves and the remainder of the key's
shoreline is mangroves. The center of the key has a small
open buttonwood area. Vegetation on the berm includes sea
grape and Australian pine. This high berm, located near the
abundant resources of the nearshore patch reefs of the
Atlantic waters, and receiving prevailing breezes to abate
the insects and heat, was a prime location for prehistoric
habitation. Several whole conchs with round shaped kill
holes and numerous conch fragments were found on the
beach berm surface identifying this site as having
prehistoric occupation. This site has been subject to
disturbance from storm events.
Chronology: Prehistoric: Period unknown
Collections: None
Ownership: Private
Preservation Quality: Good other than natural disturbance from hurricanes.
63
Significance: Based on available data, this site is not eligible for listing
on the National Registry of Historic Places.
Recommendation: Due to private ownership this site could be under threat
from development and any proposed development should
be monitored and subject to additional testing.
64
Site Name: Sugarloaf East
Site Number: 8M06623
Location: Sugarloaf Key: Township 67S Range 27E Section 14
Environmental Setting: Coastal Berm/Maritime Hammock
Site Type: Shell Scatter
Site Functions: Campsite/Homestead
Description: The site is located at the easternmost end of a natural coral-
hash berm that runs roughly parallel with Old State Rd 4a.
The site consists of a mixed marine shell and historic glass
scatter interspersed throughout the shoreline and within the
berm. There is significant evidence of storm surge activity
and portions of the berm have redeposited further inland.
A roughly 700m2 square area of graded fill lies just inland
of the berm and connects to the neighboring house via a
gravel rd. Artifacts observed include early-mid 20th
century bottle fragments and Strombus and Busycon shell
refuse. This site could is likely associated with an early
keys homestead and is located approximately 350m east of
another known historic scatter/homestead site.
Chronology: Prehistoric: period unknown
Historic: early to mid-20th century
Collections: Glass bottle stopper
Ownership: Private
Preservation Quality: Fair
Significance: Based on available data there is insufficient data to
determine the site's National Registry eligibility.
Recommendation: This site is under threat of development and any future
ground disturbing activities should be subject to
archaeological monitoring. Further testing is required to
determine extent and nature of the site.
65
Site Name: West Summerland Key Southeast Berm
Site Number: 8M06624
Location: West Summerland Key: Township 67S, Range 28E,
Section 7
Environmental Setting: This site is on a beach berm facing south towards the
Atlantic
Site Type: Shell scatter
Site Function: Habitation, subsistence
Description: This site is on the eastern part of the West Summerland
Keys, also referred to as the Spanish Harbor Keys,
Horseshoe Beach Park is on the other side of US 1. The site
is on a high broad beach berm, on the south side of the key,
facing the Atlantic. The site measures 400 meters long by
120 meters at the widest section of berm. The interior of the
berm has a mature gumbo limbo hammock and a small
pond. The shoreline beyond the berm on the Atlantic side is
rocky and parts remain above water at high tide. Two
whole conch (Strombus gigas)with prehistoric kill holes
were found near the high tide line. Other conch fragments
were found on the berm surface. A fragment of ballast
stone was found on the surface of the interior berm. The
ocean side of this site may have been eroded from the
rocky shoreline beyond the present berm.
Chronology: Prehistoric: Period unknown
Historic: 16'h— 19'h Century
Collections: Ballast stone fragment
Ownership: Public: Monroe County
Preservation Quality: Good: Site is within a Monroe County park and is secure
from development but at risk from collectors.
Significance: There is insufficient data to determine whether this site is
potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Recommendation: Phase I testing to document the site extent.
66
Site Name: Pelican Key
Site Number: 8M06626
Location: Saddle Bunch Keys: Township 67S Range 26E Section 25
Environmental Setting: Coastal Berm
Site Type: Shell Scatter
Site Functions: Habitation, subsistence
Description: Pelican Key is located east of Saddlehill Key, south
southeast of Bird Key and makes up the southern portion of
Saddlebunch Harbor. The site consists of a surface scatter
of marine shell (Strombus, Busycon, Lucinidae etc.)within
a coral-hash berm that follows the southern contour of the
key, 20-40m inland from the mangroves. The shell scatter
(n=50)is diffuse although concentrates in the western
portion of the berm. The berm is surrounded by mangroves
but is accessible from the south.
Chronology: Prehistoric: period unknown
Collections: Worked palm-sized pumice(abrader?)
Ownership: Private
Preservation Quality: Good
Significance: The site significance is unknown based on available data.
Recommendation: The key should be subject to archaeological monitoring and
testing.
67
Site Name: Tom's Harbor Key
Site Number: 8M06627
Location: Tom's Harbor Key: Township 65S Range 34E Section 20
Environmental Setting: Mangrove
Site Type: Habitation, subsistence
Site Functions: Campsite
Description: The site is located within the open buttonwood flat on the
northern of the two keys known as Tom's Harbor Keys,
west of Duck Key. It consists of a relatively concentrated
surface scatter of Strombus and Busycon shell (n=>25)
embedded in the silt just inland from the mangrove
transition of the western side, roughly south of center. The
overall spread is approximately 350m2. The open area in
the center of the key is very low and tidal with slight
occasional rises in elevation dominated by sea purslane and
a low density of buttonwood.
Chronology: Prehistoric: period unknown
Historic: mid-20th century
Collections: Demijohn
Ownership: Private
Preservation Quality: Good
Significance: The site significance is unknown based on available data.
Recommendation: Eastern Tom's Harbor is currently being developed into a
private residence. This site area needs to be subject
archaeological testing and monitoring in the event of any
future ground disturbing activities.
68
ARCHITECTURE IN THE FLORIDA KEYS
The "Monroe County Cultural Resource Assessment Update" provides examples of
architectural styles, most of which are typical of structures built in south Florida between
the 1920s and 1960s. These include Frame Vernacular, Masonry Vernacular, Mission,
Minimal Traditional, Ranch, Mid-Century Modern and British Colonial styles. In the
unincorporated portion of Monroe County little is left from the Late Pioneer Period
(1865-1920). Many of the buildings that do remain are later in date and were developer
driven, arranged in platted subdivisions and connected to the rise of tourism and increase
in Keys population after the construction of the Overseas Highway and after World War
IL The majority of the structures that were reviewed represent domestic architecture.
Commercial buildings cluster along the Overseas Highway (US1) and will be discussed
on an island by island basis.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
FRAME VERNACULAR
Wood Frame Vernacular buildings represent the typical method of construction used by
pioneers in South Florida. Vernacular architecture is ordinary architecture. It does not
adhere to a particular school of design and is not architect driven. The builder's
experience coupled with local material creates a useful and practical building. In Monroe
County, these frame vernacular structures are usually rectilinear in form and noted for
their simplicity. Built on foundations of masonry or stone piers they can be one, one and
a half, or two stories in height, and often have a raised front porch. Exterior walls are
faced with vertical board and batten, horizontal clapboard, weatherboard or shingles.
Early examples of this style have high gabled or hipped roofs. A lower pitched gable roof
usually indicates construction after 1920. Although many of the original roof coverings
were wood shingles, now most roof coverings have been changed to composition
shingles or metal roofs. Windows are typically double hung sash and doors are simple,
sometimes with a glazed panel. Oolitic limestone details, chimneys and sometimes roof
brackets are the only common decoration in this style. Attic louvers are also visible, but
their addition is a practical application for ventilation rather than strictly for decoration.
MASONRY VERNACULAR
Masonry Vernacular was also a common form of construction in South Florida and the
Florida Keys. Nationally brick was used in this style of construction, but the scarcity of
brick in Florida precluded its use in this area. Hollow clay tile, oolitic limestone, and
concrete block were the most common types of material used locally. Structures are both
symmetrical and asymmetrical with some variation due to the arrangement of interior
spaces. Roofs are predominately gabled or hipped with composition shingles or wood
shingle coverings. In Monroe County many of these roofs have been re-roofed with
standing seam 3 or 5v crimp metal coverings. There are some masonry vernacular
buildings with flat roofs in Monroe County but most of these are commercial rather than
69
residential. Windows traditionally were double hung sash or casement, but later in the
1940s and 1950s, aluminum awning and jalousie windows were used.
MISSION REVIVAL
The Mission Revival style is a subtype of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, inspired by
eighteenth century Spanish Mission style churches in California. The style became
popular throughout the United States when it was used as the "California Building" at the
Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, and its use was widespread by 1915. In
Florida, the style reached its peak in popularity during the 1920s. The Mission style is
noted for simplicity. The roofs are traditionally flat, with interest given to an occasional
secondary roof feature such as a dormer or a looping porch. Sometimes there is a bell
tower. Exterior walls are generally hollow clay the or wood frame which is covered with
smooth or rough cast stucco. Arched openings are common. Porches are prominent
feature. Scuppers are also frequently found below the roof line.
BRITISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
British Colonial Revival architecture, also sometimes called the Bermuda style, was
inspired by the traditions of the English colonists' architectural heritage. It was adjusted
to the character of local building materials and climate. Ornamental details were kept to a
minimum and in South Florida and the Florida Keys, West Indian influences were
prevalent. These included long cool verandas and small porches with upper balconies.
Decorative quoins at the corners of exterior walls are also found. Windows in this style
have traditionally been casement or double hung sash, but many in the Florida Keys were
changed to aluminum awning and jalousies. Roofs in the British Colonial Revival style
also usually covered with cement tile.
MINIMAL TRADITIONAL
During World War II most of the construction of domestic architecture in the United
States came to a halt because of the lack of building supplies. When the war ended and
building resumed, many of the historical precedents of earlier styles were largely
abandoned. Instead, builders simplified forms building small practical houses for
returning service men who bought housing under the GI Bill. Many of these houses have
a front facing gable roof and few decorative ornaments. Roof pitches are low and eaves
are close. These houses are built of a variety of materials and were popular as tract
housing throughout the late 1940s and early 1950s.
RANCH
A uniquely American domestic architectural style, the Ranch home gained popularity in
the 1940s to become the dominant style of architecture throughout the country during the
1950s and 1960s. Its popularity was undoubtedly related to a move away from the box-
like houses of the Minimal Traditions style to a house with a more flexible plan. Ranch
70
style houses are generally long, one story houses with low gable or hip roofs and deep
eaves. A rectangular, L, U, or splayed plan is common. These houses often have shallow
front porches, sometimes running the length of the house. A garage or carport at one end
is a common feature reflecting the importance of the automobile in the mid twentieth
century. Decoration on these houses is sparse, rarely consisting of more than shutters and
porch enhancements. The most common exterior wall material is stucco.
MID-CENTURY MODERN
Mid-Century Modern is an architectural style that generally reflects modern development
in the middle years of the twentieth century. Although the term first appears in the 1950s,
a further investigation shows that the period of importance for these designs is from 1933
to 1965. The style is the American interpretation of the International and Bauhaus
movements. It is generally simple in form and related to nature, having ample windows
and open floor plans. Sometimes there are outlandish porte-cocheres, built in planters,
abstract stucco relief patterns and parabolic arches. In South Florida and the Florida
Keys, concrete brise-soleils and intricate metal sun grilles protect interior spaces from the
tropical sun while letting in the light.
OTHER
Various "Other" architectural styles also punctuate Monroe County. Although they are
not found in great numbers, they add interest and variety to the streetscape. They will be
discussed individually on an island by island basis.
71
SURVEY OF POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS
Unincorporated Monroe County represents a diverse mixture of histories and
architectural styles. While Key West, the Key's largest city, was built around the square
grid pattern of the William A. Whitehead survey of 1829, most other islands and
communities in the "Monroe County Cultural Resource Assessment Update" were built
later with more informal settlement patterns. (Day et al. 1998). Most of the structures
that are included in this report are updates of previous Florida Master Site File (FMSF)
forms. Others that were fifty years or older from a strictly visual evaluation were added.
These newly recorded buildings can be dated from the Late Pioneer Period through the
1960s, and for the most part, retain their architectural integrity.
Construction in unincorporated Monroe County was stimulated by the building, first, of
the Florida Overseas Railroad and later by the Overseas Highway. After the completion
of the second Overseas Highway in 1938, that road (US 1), connected by forty-two
bridges, became the "Main Street" of the Florida Keys, offering a direct connection
between islands and communities as far away from each other as Key Largo and Key
West. An increase in tourism followed the building of the new road. Motels, camp
grounds, and fishing camps sprang up along the islands. Some winter visitors stayed and
settled in Monroe County. Others bought property for vacation homes and became
seasonal residents. Each island its unique character, development pattern, and
architectural milieu—was individually evaluated in the Monroe County Cultural
Resource Assessment Update (Carr et al. 2016).
Unincorporated Monroe County's single historic district is the Tavernier Historic
District, designated in 2005. In the 2016 cultural resource update the district was
reassessed and nine historical structures were added to the inventory of resources
potentially contributing to the district (along with three archaeological sites, including
Old Settler's Park).
This historical architectural section of Monroe County Cultural Resource Assessment II
addresses recommendations from the 2016 assessment update to study the feasibility of
establishing historic districts on Conch Key and Duck Key in the Middle Keys, and in the
Indian Mounds Estates subdivision on Sugarloaf Key in the Lower Keys. These studies
were conducted from April to May, 2019, and are summarized below.
CONCH KEY
The Conch Keys are two small islands situated on either side of the Overseas Highway at
the western foot of Long Key Bridge. Both islands are entirely occupied by residential
development. The smaller island on the Atlantic side is artificial, having been dredged
and filled after 1947, and has fewer homes, with a preponderance of modern construction.
72
The Conch Keys referred to in 1849 in Reconnaissance of the Florida Reefs and All the
Keys by F.W. Gerdes are the larger bay side island and a much smaller island entirely in
the Ocean known as Little Conch Key or Walker Key (Wilkinson N.D.).
Conch Key, aka Big Conch Key, on the bay side, was a first occupied by a construction
camp for the Florida East Coast Railway, and had a log cabin built of railroad ties, which
burned down in 1942. Two cottages and a pump house were there when Frank M.
Coward bought the island in 1944 from the State of Florida. Coward, who built a house
and kept his 44-foot ketch there, died in 1966. There was little growth until the 1950s
when the island gradually became a more populated fishing and retirement community
Figures 1-4. Retaining its quiet and unpretentious character, Conch Key has several
homes built in the 1930s-50s that have not lost their historical integrity, including one
Monroe County Historic Landmark, the coral rock Hodgman House, now the Conch Key
Chalet.
Ilil, i
Figure 2. Conch Key in 1954 from a picture postcard, collection of the Archaeological
and Historical Conservancy. The photo shows that Little Conch Key/Walker Island has
not yet been created, and that Conch Key itself is in an intermediate stage of
development. Seaway Avenue on the north is not much more than a slightly elevated
path. Several of the structures built on stilts over water in this photo are today standing on
dry land (fill).
73
v e
i I
i
iiilpl�!!!'Ilpuu�y""Y;�
Figure 3. Conch Key, August 6, 1956, by Edwin O. Swift, Jr., courtesy of Edwin O. Swift
III and the Florida Keys Library.
f/
f,
1%
"
,
i
�Im u
Figure 4. Small business area at Conch Key, 1957. State Archives of Florida/Johnson.
74
y;r
r
u
���/���� / �� ✓ � I�. ,alp ,i. .,
0
➢� yy/��IJJ� 7A �
r/
°F I
%'�'� +.r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ml �u iiiVYl
i
t
I
� w
w
Figure 5. The Conch Keys 1969, aerial photo courtesy of the Monroe County Property
Appraiser. Little Conch Key was vacant fill in 1959. Since 1969 it has been redeveloped
more than once.
Of the three areas assessed for the feasibility of establishing historic districts, Conch Key
has the most potential. The island has 14 structures that were previously recorded with
FMSF, the site forms for which were updated in this assessment. In addition, 26
structures 50 years old or older were newly documented with site forms. Of these 26 only
three are considered non-contributing to a potential historic district. Nine structures are
modern. Five are mobile homes. One property is an open dock/storage area stacked with
lobster traps, one is a trailer park. There are six vacant lots, four of which are used to
store lobster traps or fishery equipment.
In this analysis, there are 29 structures contributing to a potential historic district and 19
non-contributing structures (Table 1). Contributing structures range from 1930s-40s
wood frame vernacular houses to 1950s-60s masonry vernacular apartments/hotels. The
relatively even distribution of contributing structures across the island argues for a
potential historic district that circumscribes the entire island and abuts the US 1 right-of-
way (Figure 6). A more limited boundary would leave the district vulnerable to runaway
or incompatible development.
75
34
" , I N
Y2
15
25
° 30
i
10 C p
111111128
Q 29
26
��23 r24 278 P w°
6 39
22 19
12 ��, 1 40
21 20 w�
18 17 16
1)314� MM 63
"
s:
V%O 1
Map of'C oncla Key showing potential historic district avitlr contributing resources and
non-contribUting(modern, ailt.ered, mobile liorne, or varcarrn) properties.
CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE
NON-CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY
-- =DISTRICT BOUNDARY
=CANAr 0 100 2 400 Feet apprrrx.
0 30 60 120 Wers approx.
Figure 6. Map of potential Conch Key historic district. See table.
76
Table 1. Potential Conch Key historic district resources (buildings).
KEY SITE # ADDRESS CONTRIBUTING/NON-CONTRIBUTING
1 MO3701 35 Seaview Ave Contributing
2 MO3702 44 Seaview Ave Contributing
3 MO3703 55 Seaview Ave Contributing
4 MO3704 85 Seaview Ave Contributing
5 MO3705 42 N Conch Ave Contributing
6 MO3706 52 N Conch Ave Contributing
7 MO3707 63 N Conch Ave Contributing
8 MO3708 73 N Conch Ave Contributing
9 MO3709 130 W Conch Ave Contributin
10 MO3710 120 W Conch Ave Contributin
11 MO3711 81 S Conch Ave Contributing
12 MO3712 61 S Conch Ave Contributing
13 MO3713 30 S Conch Ave Contributing
14 MO3714 20 S Conch Ave Contributing
15 MO6558 97 N Conch Ave Contributing
16 MO6559 40 S Conch Ave Contributing
17 MO6560 50 S Conch Ave Contributing
18 MO6561 60 S Conch Ave Contributing
19 MO6562 71 S Conch Ave Contributing
20 MO6563 70 S Conch Ave Contributing
21 MO6564 80 S Conch Ave Contributing
22 MO6565 100 W Conch Ave Contributin
23 MO6566 110 W Conch Ave Contributin
24 MO6567 111 W Conch Ave Contributin
25 MO6568 95 N Conch Ave Contributing
26 MO6569 82 N Conch Ave Contributing
27 MO6570 72 N Conch Ave Contributing
28 MO6571 53 N Conch Ave Non-contributing
29 MO6572 43 N Conch Ave Contributing
30 MO6573 34 Seaview Ave Contributing
31 MO6574 64 Seaview Ave Contributing
32 MO6575 74 Seaview Ave Contributing
33 MO6576 84 Seaview Ave Contributing
34 MO6577 75 Seaview Ave Contributing
35 MO6778 95 Seaview Ave Contributing
36 MO6779 96 Seaview Ave Contributing
37 MO6780 15 Seaview Ave Non-contributing
38 MO6781 15 N Conch Ave Non-contributing
39 MO6782 7 N Conch Ave Contributing
40 MO6783 3 N Conch Ave Contributing
77
Conch Key residents, probably with little or no training in historic preservation, have
adapted their homes somewhat willy-nilly to circumstances, yet somehow without
diminishing their historical integrity to the extent of altering the character of the island. In
response to Hurricane Irma only one home went out on a stylistic limb where it teeters in
value as a contributing resource (Figure 8). In their inherent unpretentiousness, most of
the island's historic structures do not appear to be eligible for individual listing in the
NRHP. But, in the sense that they adhere to the type, period, scale, setting, and feeling of
historic Conch Key, they contribute to a potential Conch Key historic district. In fact,
they do collectively maintain the historic character of the island—even the newer stilt
homes are mostly one-story and do not appreciably stick out as incompatiblea place
that has often been compared to Key West in its charm.
Below are some examples conveying the diversity of resources that make up the fabric of
the island and contribute, or not, to a potential Conch Key historic district.
Figure 7. MO3703 at 55 � '� '" ""
Seaview Ave exemplifiesw� �
simplerthe
built on the island in lg
the
1940s. It also shows the
f i
type of renovations done,
usually in response to
weather damage, that are
out of keeping with the
historical character of the
house while not entirelyaa
,
detracting from it.
-'y11A�r IarJl ✓ i i!.�w""�"`F✓�� � y� x��� �a r� i' i ( i������ �%;���ba
Figure 8. MO6571 at 53
North Conch Ave is an
example of a house that
loses all of its historical
character in a post-Irma
rAM
renovation. The original
� house was much like the
�. ; 'd, one above, an elongated
box, almost a shotgun
' house. Alterations to the
i
above are superficial
' ti v and could be reversed,
as opposed to the below.
78
Figure 9. MO3708 at
73 North Conch Ave
looking east along the
canal. Conch Keyers
regard this as one of
g �
their landmarks. It has
a plaque naming it the
Preacher's House. It is o".
said to have been built
in 1933, although that
may be too early. It is
an example of a more
formal vernacular type
found on the island. """7
Figure 10. MO6566 at
110 West Conch Ave is
err° a typical Keys 1950s-
y
M� 60s masonry vernacular
hotel with exposed pre-
cast concrete beams,
limited to two stories
r
high, with lots of docks.
Like many vacation
rentals on the island
Conch Key Villas thrive
by word of mouth.
Figure 11. MO6573 at
34 Seaview Ave is an
example of a structure
that is a home atop its A �
stilts and a fishery in
`-7 d
between stilts below. �
Many residents of the
island live and works
out of their homes as
commercial fishermen
>
with their boats along '
»xr;
side, yards piled high ,
with lobster traps.
79
DUCK KEY
Duck Key is located 1.8 miles south of Conch Key on the ocean side of the Overseas
Highway. Most casual observers perceive the island only as the site of the modern
Hawk's Cay Resort. But there is more to Duck Key than new development. Historically
the island was included as part of the Key Vaccas in Spanish charts, and was noted as
Duck Key by George Gauld on his 1775 map. Although research into the history of the
island shows that it had a small settlement and saltworks during the nineteenth century,
the place was largely abandoned when the original owner, Charles Howe, died in 1837.
Because the railroad did not connect to Duck Key, it stayed abandoned until 1951 when
Bryan Newkirk bought the property and built a wooden bridge. It was officially
connected to the Overseas Highway in 1953 (Figure 12). Newkirk was an associate of
George Merrick, the developer of Coral Gables and his aim was to build a "residential,
motel, apartment, and business center" He succeeded and called the resort Indies House
(duckkeyonline.com).
I
i
�j
71
*ri
u
y
r�
Figure 12. Duck Key in 1954, the year after the island was connected by a wooden bridge
to the Overseas Highway. Key, June 24, 1954, by Edwin O. Swift, Jr., courtesy of Edwin
O. Swift III and the Florida Keys Library.
80
Y (%//o / � „ �% �//%�///� Il lu w I IN9➢IVNIUNlY iwi��yywswwu�^uo '.'Fw,.„ .•",,,..'; I VV.....iii IIIIIIIVuuV,V III m°u.I°
��// wvrul wraWrU�w
: a6r RWufczw rwrrN�rFo �`�GGU�N,
N�„ppiOvmVdi�6b?OyyW�V! r �
�/ y '�^'I. a^��m it �"✓ iN N �,� � /���
V III
//i / I� PIIV101
I,1
N�N�I�I� �� IIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIuuuuuuuuuuumpp
���3 / ��i �',VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV�VVVVVVVVVVVVVVI
U
Figure 13. Duck Key in 1969. Aerial photo courtesy of the Monroe County Property
Appraiser.
The Monroe County Cultural Resource Assessment Update in 2016 identified and
recorded three historic structures, recommended a more comprehensive historic sites
survey on the island to assess the feasibility of preserving the 1950s and 1960s character
of the resort island in the form of a Duck Key historic district.
Duck Key is unique not only for its architecture, but also for the engineering and design
of the canals that separated the resort into four island sections with decorative bridges,
allowing the water to flush with tidal change and the marina breakwater that was built to
protect the housing. The four bridges that cross these canals were recorded in the Historic
Highway Bridges of Florida 2010 update and evaluated as individually eligible for listing
in the NRHP (Lund 2012). They are recorded with FMSF as MO02135-38. The
causeway from US 1 to Duck Key Drive over Tom's Harbor Channel was a built as a
wooden bridge in 1953, later replaced by a concrete structure; in its existing form (FDOT
Bridge 4904600) it dates to 1967. Although completing site forms for bridges was not
81
within the scope of this assessment, the Duck Key bridges are tabulated along with other
contributing resources (Figure 14, Table 2).
K
r 1
r'
93
Y"
fir; /�/
i oo //or,
/G�� aid rs
FW/
A@ N
a
/�%fir ,
h
Mal)aal'Mick key historic resource g,routr showing contrilat,rtirag resources aarad.
taon-comrukaartirag(modern, altered,or vacant)properties.
=CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE
=NOWCONTRIBUiTINO PROPERTY
=CANAL(CONTRIBUTING) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
— =RESOURCE GROUP(BOUNDARY S 253 500 15rOFaa[appax.
U PU 155 300 Malars approx.
Figure 14. Map of Duck Key historic resource group. See table.
82
Table 2. Duck Key historic resource group (buildings, bridges, canals).
KEY SITE# ADDRESS TYPE CONTRIBUTING/NON-CONTRIBUTING
1 None US 1 BR Non-contributing
2 M02135 Harbor Dr BR Contributing
3 M02136 Bimini Dr BR Contributing
4 M02137 Duck Key Dr BR Contributing
5 M02138 Seaview Dr BR Contributing
6 M03987 61 Hawks Cay Blvd SS Contributing
7 M03988 1128 Greenbriar Rd SS Contributing
8 M03989 61 Hawks Cay Blvd SS Contributing
9 M06584 102 N Indies Dr SS Contributing
10 M06585 146 Bimini Dr SS Contributing
11 M06586 1104 S Indies Dr SS Contributing
12 M06587 132 Bimini Dr SS Contributing
13 M06588 1124 Greenbriar Rd SS Non-contributing
14 M06589 1126 Greenbriar Rd SS Non-contributing
15 M06590 1143 Greenbriar Rd SS Non-contributing
16 M06591 1100 S Indies Dr SS Contributing
17 M06592 192 S Indies Dr SS Contributing
18 M06593 226 W Seaview Dr SS Contributing
19 M06594 248 W Seaview Dr SS Contributing
20 M06595 249 W Seaview Cir SS Contributing
21 M06596 244 W Seaview Cir SS Contributing
22 M06597 274 W Seaview Dr SS Contributing
23 M06598 212 W Seaview Cir SS Non-contributing
24 M06599 210 W Seaview Cir SS Non-contributing
25 M06600 314 E Seaview Ln SS Contributing
26 M06601 312 E Seaview Cir SS Non-contributing
27 None None Canal Contributing
The buildings that were recorded in 2016 as exemplifying the island's history and
architecture are the Indies House Hotel/Hawk Cay Resort (8M03987), "Jamaica House"
(8M03988), and The Hawk's Cay Administration Building (8M03989) all newly
recorded sites. All three buildings are within the area between the causeway and Truman
Bridge (M002137)built in 1955.
In this assessment all buildings 50 years old or older as ascertainable on the property
appraiser's website were documented on FMSF forms. Twenty historic properties were
recorded. The distribution of these structures across Duck Key is scattered and not
conducive to the formation of a cohesive historic district (Figures 13, 14). However, the
sites are also recorded as a resource group which, if protected and updated, could
eventually form the basis of a district.
83
The following are some examples of historic structures that contribute to a Duck Key
resource group (apart from the 1954 Administration Building, the 1956 Jamaica House,
and the 1960 Indies House Hotel, which were discussed in the 2016 assessment.)
Figure 15. M06593 atx7
226 West SeavleWp�u '
Drive, the pool and
boat house looking �
from the canal. This y
building and its mains
residence were the first
to be built on Duck Key „
on the other side of
Truman Bridge. It , w�
r J%
alone among later
r
homey comes C10Se t0 ...
the style of architecture
envisioned by Newkirk.
'r Figure 16. M06585 at
146 Bimini Drive, one of
the first homes built
post-1959, a decade after
M06593 one of a few
Ir F of grander homes built
with attempts at classical
proportions and styling.
Only four homes appear
/' n !r"%l rf�%fit✓. !/� !, r ri riQ
of r i ,r r �r r/rinrr w u ✓
on this side of Truman
1�
��rii�//i/4/ Bridge in the 1964 aerial
photo.
' Ix
9
Figure 17. M06595
at 249 West Seaview
Circle, is an example
of a smaller home
built in 1967. It is on
the 1969 aerial photo � -
/dI1Y5IFIlry% r
among only twelve
f r
others. It shows a ' r,
trend to gull wing
roofs and porches.
84
a
w'
'NOW d7Nfll�
ar, unw
a m
r
nee ,
Figure 18. MO6594 at 248 West Seaview Drive was built around 1968 and it appears on
the 1969 aerial photo. It combines sweeping roofs with wide eaves, curvilinear shapes,
and stilt construction, features that increasingly typify the Duck Key vernacular.
oou 'i 71
r
/
J
l/ r
/ r
v
Figure 19. MO6592 at 192 South Indies Drive built in late 1969 just qualifies as historic.
In the 1970s these houses proliferate. They deserve to be documented in a 2029 resurvey.
85
INDIAN MOUND ESTATES
Two previous surveys (Henry et al. 2003, Carr et al. 2016) recommended that Indian
Mound Estates subdivision on the Gulf side of Upper Sugarloaf Key be assessed as a
potential historic district, due to a concentration of historic frame vernacular houses. The
earliest aerial photograph available of the area was taken in 1959 and shows the
development of canals and land clearing along Canal Drive (Perez subdivision) and Date
Palm Drive (Gulf Shores subdivision), with more than twice as many homes built there as
in Indian Mound Estates subdivision to the north (Figure 20).
r
Figure 20. The study area in 1959: Date Palm Drive and Canal Drive running east/west.
The origin of Indian Mound Drive as a road that snakes across the entire are can be seen.
Broken by the canals, it runs south until it meets US 1 at the junction of Old State Road
4a. Only a quarter of its original mile remains; the rest visible on modern aerials as a trail.
86
ol��
/
tr t,t
prfiiunii�uu+rcm rvGiy,;imi9ioii
I
i
l G
al
1 ,
G1i
1Ir
1
i
b 0'
Figure 21 The Indian Mound Estates study area including Canal n Date Palm drivesin
1969. The northern area has been developed on a par with the southern. It shows that the
historic fabric of the area is 50-60 years old and, to continue the metaphor, is rather
loosely woven.
In 2016, nine FMSF forms were updated (nine in Indian Mound Estates and two reported
destroyed on Date Palm Drive, of 11 previously reported). One historic property was
newly recorded on Date Palm Drive in the Gulf Shores subdivision to the south
(MO04003). In this assessment, all structures 50 years old or older were documented in
the Indian Mound Estates study area (including Perez, and Gulf Shores subdivisions) in
order to evaluate the potential for creating a historic district. In addition to the nine site
forms updated in 2016, 13 historic structures were newly recorded in Indian Mound
Estates, with one previously recorded resource found to have been destroyed (MO03762
at 19556 Navaho Street). On Canal and Date Palm drives 16 historic structures were
newly recorded (not including MO04003, recorded in 2016). In total, for the greater area,
29 historic structures were newly recorded. As in the case of Duck Key, historic
87
properties in greater Indian Mound Estates are rather scattered, making the case for
establishing a historic district a difficult one (Figure 22, Table 3).
12
tw 15
1a ,
6
3
a s
„
> � 51
A
r 10 �25�
3, 5
�w mwdti,
41
39� 3,0 31
4O 29I �28 27 26�
39 M 33
Map of hidiarI MOUnd Estates historic; resource group shol,r hig contributing resod c,es wid
non-cootribUtirg(modern,paltered or vacant) properties .
CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE —_ =STU }Y AREA INCDIAN MOUND ESTATE'S,
PEREZ AND GULF SNORES SUBDIVISIONS,
SUGARLOAF`KEY
INSUFFICIENTIINFORMATIONUTING RTY 1ff =CANAL t�
DESTROYED 0 100 200 400 Feet apprax
0 30 60 120 Wera app ox.
Figure 22. Map of Indian Mound Estates historic resource group. See table.
88
Table 3. Indian Mound Estates historic resource group (buildings and
canals).
KEY SITE# ADDRESS TYPE CONTRIBUTING/NON-CONTRIBUTING
1 M03762 19556 Navajo St SS Destroyed
2 M03763 19580 Mayan St SS Contributing
3 M03764 19672 Indian Mound Dr SS Contributing
4 M03765 19591 Aztec St SS Contributing
5 M03766 19616 Aztec St SS Contributing
6 M03767 19582 Aztec St SS Contributing
7 M03768 19572 Aztec St SS Contributing
8 M03769 19583 Seminole St SS Contributing
9 M03770 19658 Seminole St SS Contributing
10 M03771 19520 Te uesta St SS Contributing
11 M04003 19657 Date Palm Dr SS Contributing
12 M06602 880 Cherokee St SS Insufficient Information
13 M06603 19519 Navajo St SS Contributing
14 M06604 19557 Mayan St SS Non-contributing
15 M06605 19629 Indian Mound Dr SS Contributing
16 M06606 19653 Indian Mound Dr SS Non-contributing
17 M06607 19570 Mayan St SS Non-contributing
18 M06631 19552 Aztec St SS Contributing
19 M06632 19542 Aztec St SS Contributing
20 M06633 19512 Aztec St SS Non-contributing
21 M06634 19567 Caloosa St SS Contributing
22 M06635 19594 Caloosa St SS Contributing
23 M06636 19580 Te uesta St SS Contributing
24 M06637 19648 Caribe St SS Contributing
25 M06638 19681 Te uesta St SS Contributing
26 M06640 19748 Canal Dr SS Non-contributing
27 M06641 19728 Canal Dr SS Insufficient Information
28 M06642 19686 Canal Dr SS Non-contributing
29 M06643 19442 Canal Dr SS Non-contributing
30 M06644 19641 Canal Dr SS Contributing
31 M06645 19481 Canal Dr SS Non-contributing
32 M06646 19812 Date Palm Dr SS Insufficient Information
33 M06647 19780 Date Palm Dr SS Insufficient Information
34 M06648 19720 Date Palm Dr SS Insufficient Information
35 M06649 19760 Date Palm Dr SS Insufficient Information
36 M06650 19943 Date Palm Dr SS Non-contributing
37 M06651 19933 Date Palm Dr SS Insufficient Information
89
Table 3 continued.
KEY SITE# ADDRESS TYPE CONTRIBUTING/NON-CONTRIBUTING
38 M06652 19861 Date Palm Dr SS Non-contributing
39 M06653 19421 Date Palm Dr SS Contributing
40 M06654 411 Crane Blvd SS Contributing
41 N/A Crane/Date Palm Dr CANAL Insufficient Information
Development is happening apace in Indian Mound Estates as on Duck Key, but there is
less a sense of compatibility, of neighbor copying or fitting in with neighbor, as on the
island. Nevertheless these historic properties are also recorded here as a resource group.
A resurvey in 10 years may present a different picture.
Below are some examples of contributing structures to an Indian Mound Estates historic
resource group.
Figure 23. M03767 at
19582 Aztec Drive, a
k
1950s frame vernacular
home typical of the ten
that were recorded in
2016 numbers 1-10 onr /��
the map The aerial
photography shows that
home building in Indian �l
N
Mound Estates did not l
really began until the
1960s. Development was
earlier around the canals
in the Perez and Gulf
Shores subdivisions.
g' Figure 24. M06636 at 19580
r Teq uesta Street was also listed
�
as built in the 1950s, but like the
house above, does not appear on
the 1959 aerial photo. Indian
Mound Estates is a densely
wooded area and many of homes
are also screened from view by
f fences. Most of homes are
modern and they primarily
display individuality.
*,n,
90
Figure 25. M06635, 19594
Caloosa Street, listed as
built in 1968. This house is
one of several masonry
vernacular structures that
seem to typify their period
and to feel in place in they
study area. This house has
tall windows that make the '
awning glass attractive and
functional. Rafter tails arep °�
exposed under the eaves.
No window trim adds a bit
of pueblo look.
Figure 26. M06637, 19648
Caribe Street, is a 1957
, !, r
masonry vernacular house
that fits the study area and
its period. It is one of the
very few houses in Indian
Mound Estates on the 1959
aerial photo. Isolated and
k
concealed glimpses of it
and a sketch of the plan
reveal it has a clerestory
ii
over an enclosed porch
wrapped on three sides by a
flat roof.
Figure 27. M06653, 19421
Canal Drive, listed as built p,
in 1943, had, unless it was
moved, to have been built
between 1959 and 1969. r�
Post-hurricane repairs give
it a newness, but the house
retains its basic character, - ,
and the alterations are
reversible. It is regarded as ,
a contributing resource.
91
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
RESULTS
In January through June, 2019, the Archaeological & Historical Conservancy, Inc. (AHC)
conducted a cultural resource survey and assessment of archaeological and architectural
(historical) sites in the Florida Keys in Monroe County excluding the municipalities of
Key West, Marathon, Layton, and Islamorada, and all State and Federal properties
including the Overseas Highway and bridges.
This assessment included an archival review, pedestrian surveys, both architectural and
archaeological, and completion of FMSF forms for sites along an approximate 80-mile
stretch of the Florida Keys. Fourteen previously recorded historic structures not
documented during the 2016 cultural resource assessment update were assessed and their
site forms updated. Eight archaeological sites and 90 historic structures are newly
documented, for a total of eight archaeological site forms and 104 historic structure forms
updated or newly created in this assessment. Twenty nine archaeological sites
documented during the 2016 cultural resource assessment update were visited, and as no
changes had occurred their site forms were not updated. Thirteen historic structures
documented during the 2016 assessment, three on Duck Key and ten on Sugarloaf Key,
were visited, and as no changes were noted their site forms were not updated. Two of the
thirteen structures and no archaeological sites were determined to have been destroyed
since 2016.
This assessment of the Keys historic and prehistoric cultural resources resulted in
determining that archaeological sites continue to degrade from a variety of forces
including hurricanes, development, collecting, metal detecting, natural erosion, and
bioturbation. Archaeological sites have degraded significantly since the comprehensive
survey conducted in 1988. The most significant loss has been the continued destruction of
the Key Largo Rock Mound, 8M026 and associated prehistoric village site, 8M027.
Adverse impact on these sites by development has occurred despite their listing in the
NRHP, apparently without any conditions for archaeological documentation by approved
construction permits by Monroe County. The Recommendations section of this report
details some of the strategies and actions believed necessary to protect the remaining
Florida Keys archaeological sites.
This assessment of historical architectural resources resulted in determining that one of
three areas studied for the feasibility of establishing historic districts there was potentially
viable: Conch Key. Historic resources on Duck Key and in the greater Indian Mound
Estates area were too dispersed for the formation of cohesive districts; however, the
historic structures in each of these two places were recorded as resource groups as well as
individually.
92
The number of site forms updated, sites newly recorded, and sites determined in the field
to have been destroyed in the course of this assessment are tabulated by key below (Table
4). Sites are divided according to location into archaeological sites (AR) and historical
architectural structures (STRUCTURE). Structures newly recorded in the 2016 survey
were reviewed but not updated unless there were significant changes. Totals for
archaeological sites include destroyed sites; a historic house that had been destroyed
since 2016 was not included in the structures total. By the list in Appendix I, FMSF is
notified of sites field assessed in this survey that were determined to have been destroyed.
Table 4. Tabulation of Sites by Key for 2019 Assessment
Location Site Form Updated* Newly Recorded Site Destroyed Site Total Assessed
AR SITE STRUCTURE AR SITE STRUCTURE AR SITE STRUCTURE AR SITE STRUCTURE
Key Largo 2 2
Conch Key 14 26 40
Duck Key 0 25 25
Big Pine Key 2 2
Summerland I I
Key
Sugarloaf Key 1 39 2 1 39
Saddlebunch I I
Key
Tom's Harbor Key I I
Total 14 8 90 2 8 104
CONCLUSIONS: KEYS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE MODEL
A review of the prehistoric archaeological sites of the Florida Keys as assessed in the
2016 and 2019 studies indicates that sites occur across three different geographic locales.
They are summarized below.
Atlantic Ocean Sites
These sites are located abutting the Atlantic Ocean: or what is generally the windward
side of the island. Sites recorded to date on the Atlantic side include black earth and shell
middens and shell scatters. Sites have been found on the beach berms and on the beach.
The associated cultural materials often appear to be redeposited.
Some Atlantic sites occur within the upland hammock nearest the ocean, but are often
bordered by mangrove forest that has expanded from the prehistoric period when these
sites were likely in closer proximity to access to the ocean. These hammock sites are
most apparent on north Key Largo where development has been minimal and where
much of that land is under public ownership.
93
Gulf Side Sites
Gulf side sites occur on the Gulf of Mexico side of the Key which is generally the
leeward side of the island. There are at least three major black earth middens that occur
on the gulf side including Key Largo and Plantation Key. Two sites, 8MO24 and
8MO26, are on Key Largo. The most northerly of the two, 8MO24, is on an upland
hammock abutting the mangrove forest with no apparent access to the sea. The site is
also among the earliest known sites of the Keys dating from the Glades I and terminating
in Glades IL The other Key Largo site is 8MO26, a black earth/shell midden associated
with the rock mound, 8MO25, representing a Glades II occupation. The third site, the
Plantation Key Site, 8MO22, represents a Glades II and III occupation.
Channel Sites
The channel site is an important geographic location because it provides expedient access
to the sea, but most importantly is a strategic location that maximizes fishing
opportunities because channels with their changing tides are favored by mullet and other
fish that concentrate there allowing net fishing efficiently. An example is Munson Island,
where an intact midden was discovered on the beach in 1988. The site at that time was
largely eroded as a result of wave action. In 2019, the site was gone and only redeposited
artifacts were found along the beach.
One of the more noteworthy channel sites is 8MO2, a small island close to Stock Island
opposite Key West. Other important channel sites include Lignumvitae Key, Indian Key,
Lower Matacumbe Key site,. Channel sites can occur on smaller discrete islands and on
the channel shore of the larger islands, such as Watson's Hammock on Big Pine Key.
94
RECOMMENDATIONS
This assessment identified not only the current conditions of previously recorded sites
and newly recorded sites within the survey area, but also deficiencies in the Monroe
County historic preservation programs as mandated in the County comprehensive plan
and growth management act as well as implementation of historic preservation
objectives. Recommendations are provided below to address these deficiencies and
identifying additional cultural resources for protection and as potential tourist
destinations.
It is important that the public funds spent on this assessment result in prioritizing
preservation of surviving significant historic and archaeological sites in the Keys, and in
expanding heritage tourism for visitors beyond Key West to all of the Florida Keys.
ARCHAEOLOGY
The archaeological sites of the Keys have been greatly degraded by development in the
last century.
It is recommended that the Keys archaeological sites of the Florida Keys be protected by
creating archaeological conservation areas. This protection is similar to the protection
currently in use by the municipalities of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Palm Beach where
any proposed ground disturbing activities and permits for construction or tree removal are
subject to review by historic staff. Based on those reviews a determination is made as to
what any potential impacts may occur from the proposed ground disturbing activities.
The determination would be made either a county archaeologist (one with a degree in
archaeology) and/or a consultant archaeologist who will provide a written assessment of
potential impacts based on archival review and a field assessment that could include
shovel testing and/or pedestrian survey. The report would include conditions that would
be attached to the permit approval that could include additional testing archaeological
excavations and monitoring of ground disturbing activities.
Effective protection of recorded and potential archaeological sites should be implemented
by a County review of all permits for ground disturbing activities including new
construction, demolition, tree removal, clearing and grubbing, landscaping, utility
excavations and requiring archaeological testing and or monitoring as a condition of
permit approval. These reviews should be a standard check-off in the planning and
zoning applications, as is already a procedure with other local governments. The Planning
Department needs to create a GIS map overlay of known sites and areas of archaeological
sensitivity, based on models provided by archaeologists within Monroe County. This map
creation should be done with the aid of archaeologists familiar with the Keys. The FDHR
database should be reviewed to identify all known archaeological sites.
Unanticipated discoveries should be reported to the Historic Keys Foundation and the
Florida Division of Historical Resources, Archaeological Research Division. If human
95
remains are uncovered during any ground disturbing activities or erosion events, then the
provisions of Section 872.05, Florida Statutes, will apply.
ARCHITECTURE
Because unincorporated Monroe County is spread over a long distance, it is prudent to
focus on areas where the preservation goals and principles will be accomplished for the
best effect, highest public purpose, and visitor reward. These newly selected target areas
for historic assessment are summarized below.
Conch Key
An intensive cultural resource survey was conducted on Conch Key, bay side, where an
enclave of 1930s-50s historic structures are anchored by a Monroe County landmark, the
Hodgman House. Based on this assessment, a cohesive historic district is distinctly
possible. Conch Key residents are commercial fisherman, people who came for sport
fishing and decided to stay, long time residents who like fishing and love the place,
vacationers who find lodging mainly by word of mouth, owners of hotels or vacation
rentals most of whom live on the premises, and a few people who have second/vacation
homes there. These people appreciate their history and have stories to tell. The best way
to reach out to them in the beginning will be through an oral history project. Bringing
them on board the ship of a historic district will be require clear explanation of
guidelines, benefits and incentives such as the Historic Property Tax Exemption, and the
grandfathering in of historic structures when building codes stiffen after natural disasters
such as Hurricane Irma. A generous interpretation of guidelines and eligibility will be
necessary if this unselfconscious gem of a mini Key West is to be preserved.
Duck Key
A comprehensive cultural resource survey was conducted on Duck Key that provides an
overview of all historic resources on the island. This mid-twentieth century resort
development consists of residential architecture, commercial architecture, and a hotel
originally designed by Morris Lapidus. A certain Caribbean flavor established by the
hotel, the administration building, and the Jamaica House is somewhat diluted after
crossing over Truman Bridge to the rest of the island, although the bridges themselves
uphold the theme. Despite this dilution, Duck Key tends to maintain a certain style. There
is no feasible district in a cohesive sense. However, a coherent type of 1970s masonry
vernacular will add interest and texture to the Duck Key resource group, if a re-survey is
done in 2029. At that point a district based on a 1950-70s time frame could be
considered. And, as previously recommended, the venture should be coordinated with the
Duck Key Property Association, guidelines should be clearly explained, and benefits and
incentives such as the Historic Property Tax Exemption emphasized.
96
Indian Mound Estates, Sugarloaf Key
Indian Mound Estates, including the Perez and Gulf Shores subdivisions, were
thoroughly surveyed due to a concentration of historic frame vernacular residences.
Although this building inventory is relatively intact, its resources are dispersed across the
area. They are not as scattered as those on Duck Key; but, unlike Duck Key, they are
interspersed and surround with new development that seems not necessarily to
sympathize with its neighbors in type, scale, setting, or feeling. Therefore, a cohesive
historic district in greater Indian Mound Estates does not appear to be feasible.
Nevertheless, its historical resources are recorded here as a resource group. It is not as
likely as on Duck Key that a resurvey in ten years will tip the scales. But coordination
with neighborhood associations on the subject of an oral history of the area and of the
guidelines, benefits, and incentives for historic preservation should be undertaken.
Overseas Highway Historic Roadside Attractions Trail - Reboot
As an addendum to the previous assessment (Carr et al. 2016), an alternative means of
preserving the Sugarloaf Lodge and other historic mid-century modern or masonry
vernacular hotel/motels that AHC staff could not help notice having staying in them
during these surveys, would be as contributing resources to an Overseas Highway
Historic Roadside Attractions Trail, as proposed. For that reason, it is worth reiterating
the concept, with the imaginary addition of a body of unrecorded hostelries that retain
their integrity of type, scale, setting, and feeling, and retain a base of return visitors who
get it.
Most visitors are unaware of the history of the Keys outside of Key West. Many historic
resources are spread from Key Largo to Key West on the Overseas Highway; others are
off the beaten track. Their historical or architectural importance varies, but they represent
a history of commerce that catered to the automobile culture of the twentieth century, the
quirkiness of the Florida Keys and are a link to all that the Keys has to offer- history, fun
and a unique sense of place. It is imperative to protect and maintain these buildings and
businesses encouraging their preservation with the monetary incentives offered by the
Historic Property Tax Exemption and the Federal Income Tax credit. In this survey we
identified the following buildings for inclusion in this linear designation:
Caribbean Club, Key Largo
Mrs. Mac's Kitchen, Key Largo
Harriette's Restaurant, Key Largo
Copper Kettle (Cafe Moka), Tavernier
No Name Pub, Big Pine Key
Mangrove Mama's, Sugarloaf Key
Babalou's Southern Cafe, Big Coppitt Key
Because this assessment identified resources in the unincorporated portion of Monroe
County, it is important for this recommendation's success that the County reach out to the
97
incorporated cities and towns to include all of the historic roadside attractions in a
designation, and to develop promotional materials, and phone and tablet applications.
98
REFERENCES CITED
Anonymous
1839 Hunt's Merchant Magazine, July 26, 1838.
1907 "Trains Run Now on Long Key",Miami Metropolis October 16.
1907 "The Steam Horse Now at Long Key Viaduct". Miami Metropolis October 23.
1907 "Rushing Work to Knight's Key" Miami Metropolis December 3.
Anonymous
1960 Donna's Visit to Conch Key. The Key West Citizen. September 25. Key West,
Florida.
1966 Conch Key sees development. The Key West Citizen. November 20. Key West,
Florida.
Ardren, Traci, Victor D. Thompson, Scott M. Fitzpatrick, Joseph Stevenson, Roger Sierra
2018 When Foragers are Managers: Social Complexity and Persistent Foraging in the
Florida Keys. In The Archaeology of Caribbean and Circum-Caribbean Farmer,
311-326. Basil A. Reid ed. Routledge: New York.
Baker, Henry
1973 Archaeological Investigations at Indian Key, Florida. FDAHRM, Bureau of
Historic Sites and Properties,Miscellaneous Project Report Series 7.
Beriault, John, Robert S. Carr, Jery Stipp, and Richard Johnson
1981 Archaeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. Florida
Anthropologist 34 (2) 39-58.
Born, George
2007 "Sugarloaf Key's Historic Resources",Key West Citizen, March 25, 2007.
2007 "Big Pine Key History",Key West Citizen, May 6, 2007.
Carbone, Victor A.
1983 Late quaternary environments in Florida and the Southeast. The Florida
Anthropologist, 36.
Carr, Robert S.
1971 The Archaeological Significance of Lignum Vitae Key. Report on file at the
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy.
1980 Dade County Historic Survey Final Report: The Archaeological Survey.
Metropolitan Dade County Office of Community and Economic Development,
Historic Preservation Division, Miami, Florida.
99
1981 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Key Largo: Interim Report 41.
Geoarchaeological Research Center, Department of Geology, University of
Miami.
1985 An Archaeological, Historical, and Architectural Survey of Key Largo, Monroe
County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #4A Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc., Miami, Florida.
1986 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Fossil Site (8DA2001) in
Southern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist. 39:231-232.
1987 An Archaeological, Historical, and Architectural Survey of the Middle Keys.
AHC Technical Report #4. Archaeological & Historical Conservancy, Inc.,
Miami, Florida.
2012 Digging Miami. University Presses of Florida: Gainesville Florida.
2015 Archaeological Assessment at the Cutler Fossil Site, 8DA2001, Miami-Dade
County, Florida.AHC Technical Report#1070.
Carr, Robert S. and John Beriault
N.D. Archaeological Excavations at Big Munsons Key (8MO1981). Report on file at
the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy.
Carr, Robert S., John G. Beriault, and Jim Clupper
2002 An Archaeological Survey of the Long Key Parcel, Monroe County,
Florida. AHC Technical Report#357.
Carr, Robert S., John G. Beriault, Irving Eyster, and Margot Ammidown
1979 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Site 14 Replacement Airport and
its Proposed Access Corridors, Dade County, Florida. Report submitted to the
Federal Aviation Administration by Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff.
Carr, Robert S., David Allerton, and Ivan Rodriguez
1988 An Assessment of the Archaeological and Historic Resources of the Florida Keys.
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy.
Carr, Robert S., Jane Day, Timothy Harrington, John Beriault, Alan Noe, and John White
2016 Monroe County Cultural Resource Assessment Update, Certified Local
Government Grant 4F 1503, Monroe County Florida.AHC Technical Report No.
1114
Chance, Marsha
1982 Sochet and Rosenburg, Islamorada: An Archaeological Survey. Typescript on
file at Florida's Division of Archives and History.
100
Clausen, Carl J., Arthur D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. Alan Holman, and Jerry J. Stipp
1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: a unique underwater site. Science, 203(4381), 609-614.
Cockrell, Wilburn A.
1970 Glades I and pre-Glades settlement and subsistence patterns on Marco Island,
Collier County, Florida. Florida State University thesis, Department of
Anthropology.
Cockrell, Wilburn A. and Larry Murphy
1978 Pleistocene man in Florida.Archaeology ofEastern North America, 6, 1-13.
Day, Jane S.
2008 Site 8MO1901: Upper Matecumbe Key. Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee,
Florida
Day, Jane S., Susan P. Krassy, Sandra L. Norman and Astrid M. Whidden
1998 City of Key West, Florida: Historic Sites Survey. Report on fill at Research
Atlantica, Inc., and the Monroe County Library, Key West, Florida.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation maps for eastern North America: 40,000 yr BP to the present. In:
Romans, R.CENTURY (Ed.), Geohotany IT Plenum, New York,pp. 123-165.
Douglass, AE
1890 Mounds in Florida. American Antiquarian 12:105-107.
Dugger, Charles
1972a A Tequesta Site at West Summerland Key, Monroe County, Florida. Bound
transcript in possession of the author.
1972b Wesamkee site excavation (MO88): first phase, July 23, 1972 to July 28, 1972.
Xerox of transcript in possession of the author.
Ehrenhard, JE, RS Carr and RC Taylor
1978 The Archaeological Survey of the Big Cypress National Preserve: Phase I
Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
1979 The Archaeological Survey of the Big Cypress National Preserve: Season 2.
Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
Ellicott, Andrew
1803 The Journal ofAndrew Ellicott. Philadelphia.
Epstein, Bob T.
2013 A History of Fishing in the Florida Keys: Angler's Paradise. Charleston, South
Carolina: The History Press.
101
Eyster, Irving
1978 Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Long Key Quarry. Typescript on file
at Florida's Division of Archives and History.
Fairbridge, Rhodes W.
1974 The Holocene sea-level record in south Florida. Environments of South Florida:
Past and Present. Miami Geol. Society, Memoir 2, 223-232.
Fales, Richard
1969 At the Edge of the Railroad. Jeannie's Magic Printing, Layton, Florida.
Felton, James and Louis Tesar
1968 An Archaeological Survey of Lower Florida Keys, Phase I. Florida Division of
Historical Resources.
Florida Division of Historic Resources
2018 Website: https:Hdos.myflorida.com/historical/archaeology/public-lands/what-we-
do/
Fonte, J., G. Luer, and David Allerton
1983 The Archaeology of the Florida Keys: an interview with Irving Eyster. The
Florida Anthropologist 35: 105-114.
Fournier, William
N.D. Watson's Hammock Account. In Griffin, Fryman, and Miller, The National Key
Deer Wildlife Refuge: Cultural Resources Reconnaissance, 73.
Gibbs, Steve
2011 Residents call historic cottages home. The Key West Citizen, July 10. Key West,
Florida.
Goggin, John
1944 Archaeological Investigations on the Upper Florida Keys. Tequesta 4: 1335.
1947 A preliminary definition of archaeological areas and periods in Florida.American
Antiquity, 13(2), 114-127.
1949 The Archaeology of the Glades Area. Typescript on file at the Southeast
Archaeological Research Center, U.S. National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Goggin, John and F.H. Sommer, III
1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology 41.
Griffin, J. W.
1974 Archaeology and environment of South Florida.Environments of South Florida,
present and past. Miami Geological Society, Miami, 342-346.
102
Griffin, JW ML Fryman and JJ Miller
1979 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge.
Interagency Archaeological Services, Atlanta, for the US fish and Wildlife
Service.
Hall, John E.
1979 Archaeological-Historical Survey of"The Old Florida East Coast Railroad
Quarry. Typescript on file at Florida's Division of Archives and History.
Halligan, Jessi J., Michael R. Waters, Angelina Perrotti, Ivy J. Owens, Joshua M.
Feinberg, Mark D. Bourne, Brendan Fenerty et al.
2016 Pre Clovis Occupation 14,500 Years Ago at the Page-Ladson Site, Florida and the
Peopling of the Americas. Science Advances. Vol 2 No. 5 (May, 2106)pp. 1-8.
Henry, Geoffrey B. et al.
2003 Final Report: Historic Architectural Survey of Unincorporated Areas of Monroe
County, Florida. Historic Florida Keys Foundation, Key West, Florida.
Historic American Building Survey
1980 Perky Bat Tower, Library of Congress, accessed on line
Hyland, Matthew G.
2009 Islamorada Historical and Archaeological Survey, Islamorada, Village of Islands,
Florida. Report 4 16805, on file at Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee,
Florida.
Key West Citizen
1907 "At Long Key" October 17.
Krome, William
1905 F.E.CENTURY Map of Lower Matecumbe and Long Key from STA 4310 + 67.6
to STA 4792 +70.
Marlowe, Betsy and Tina Henize
2007 Climate in Getting to Know the Keys, website maintained by IFAS Extension,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Marquardt, William
1992 Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, Monograph 1. Institute of
Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida; Gainesville,
Florida.
Marquardt, William and Karen Jo Walker
2012 "Southwest Florida During the Mississippian Period" in Late Prehistoric Florida:
Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World, eds. K.H. Ashley and N.M.
White, 25-61. University Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida.
103
2013 "The Pineland Site Complex: An Environmental and Cultural History," In The
Archaeology of Pineland; A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50-
1710, eds. W.H. Marquardt and K. J. Walker, Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.
Martin, R. A., & Webb, S. D.
1974 Late Pleistocene mammals from the Devil's Den fauna, Levy County. Pleistocene
Mammals ofFlorida, 114-145.
McAllester, Virginia and Lee
1989 A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A, Knopf, Inc.
McLendon, James
2 On the Keys: Conch Key. The Key West Citizen. April 2 . [dates illegible] Key
West, Florida.
McMichael, Alan E. and Jerald T. Milanich
1979 Archaeological and Historical Survey of Horr's Island, Collier County, Florida.
Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles Herron Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press.
Miller, Gerritt S. Jr.
1963 Mammals of the Florida Keys. Smithsonian Explorations and Fieldwork
for 1935: 19-32.
Miller, Paula M.
2009 Final Report Islamorada Historic and Architectural Survey, Islamorada, Village of
Islands, Florida. Report 416805 on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee.
Monroe County Public Library
1960 AERIAL VIEW OF CONCH KEY E.V. JONES OWNED THE CONCH KEY
BOAT YARD IN 1954. HE DIED IN 1978. Caption to photo in scrapbook on
Marathon area history. Marathon, Florida.
Morrell, L. Ross.
1978 Letter from the Florida Division of Historic Sites from Gail Gron, May 28th,
1978.
Mowers, B., & Williams, W. B.
1972 Peace Camp Site, Broward County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist, 25: 1-20.
Nash, Eric P. & Randall CENTURY Robinson, Jr.
2004 MIMO: Miami Modern Revealed. San Francisco, California: Chronicle Books.
104
Nolan, Terence H., W.H. Shiver, and L.S. Nidy
1979 Cultural Resource Survey of Key West. Florida Division of Archives, History,
and Records Management, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties.
Miscellaneous Project Report Series 48, Tallahassee.
Otten, Megan L. and Matthew G. Hyland
1984 Discovering Tavernier: History and Architecture in Tavernier's Historic District.
Historic Keys Foundation, Key West, Florida.
Peters, Thelma, ed.
1965 William Adee Whitehead's Reminiscences of Key West. Tequesta 25.
Randazzo, A.F. and R.B. Halley
1997 Geology of the Florida Keys. In A.F. Randazzo and D.S. Jones, eds. The Geology
ofFlorida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Romans, Bernard
1775 A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida. New York.
Rouse, Irving
1949 Editor's Foreward in Goggin and Sommer, Excavations on Upper Matecumbe,
Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 41.
Schene, Michael G.
1973 History of Indian Key. FDAHRM, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties,
Miscellaneous Project Report Series 8.
Schwadron, Margo
2010 Landscapes of Maritime Complexity: Prehistoric Shellwork Sites of the Ten
Thousand Islands, Florida. PhD Dissertation, Department of Archaeology
University of Leicester, Leiscester, England.
Sears, Elsie and William H. Sears
1976 Preliminary report on corn pollen from Fort Center, Florida. Southeast
Archaeology Conference Bulletin 19:53-56.
Sears, William H
1967 Archaeological Survey of the Cape Coral Area at the Mouth of the
Caloosahatchee River. The Florida Anthropologist 20: 93-102.
1971 Archaeological Perspectives on Prehistoric Environment in the Okeechobee Basin
Savannah. Anthropology Dept., Florida Atlantic University.
1982 Fort Center:An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Gainesville:
University of Florida Press.
105
Small, John K.
1913 Flora of the Florida Keys. New York, N.Y.
1924 The Land Where Spring Meets Autumn: A Record of Exploration in Florida in
December, 1921. Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 25:53-94.
Smith, G
1995 A Search for Remains of the Florida East Coast Railroad, Monroe County,
Florida. Overseas Heritage Trail Research Report No. 66. Copy on file at
the Islamorada Library.
Squires, Karl
1941 Pre-Columbian Man in Southern Florida. Tequesta No. 1: 39-46.
Stevenson, George B.
1970 Key Guide To Key West and the Florida Keys. Tavernier, Florida: George B.
Stevenson.
Stirling, Matthew W.
1936 Florida cultural affiliations in relation to related areas. In Essays in Anthropology
in Honor ofAlfred Louis Kroeber,pp. 351-357. Berkeley.
Straight, William M.
Archaeological Investigations at Lignum Vitae(2/11/67-2/12/67) and April 16-
18, 1967. Typescript in possession of the author.
Sturtevant, William CENTURY
1953 Chakaika and the'Spanish Indians.' Tequesta, 13: 35-73.
Tesar, Louis D.
1968 Archaeological Survey of the Lower Keys, Phase L Xerox of unpublished field
notes in possession of the author.
Thompson, Victor
2017 Conceptualizing Anthropogenic Islands Through LIDAR in Southern Florida, in
New Approaches to Anthropological Remote Sensing, eds. D. Mckinnon and B.
Haley, 127-140 University of Alabama Press; Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Thompson, Victor and Thomas Pluckhahn
2014 The Modification and Manipulation of Landscape at Fort Center, in Precolumbian
Archaeology in Florida; New Approaches to the Appendicular Southeast, eds. N.
Wallis and A. Randall, 163-182. University Presses of Florida: Gainesville,
Florida.
Thompson, Victor, Kristen Gremillion, and Thomas Pluckhahn
2013 Challenging the evidence for prehistoric wetland maize agriculture at Fort Center,
Florida.American Antiquity, 78(1), 181-193.
106
The Times-Union
1907 "Local Inspectors Visit Long Key" April 27.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2016 Key Deer Tearsheet. https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pubs/Keydeer-tearsheet.pdf
Van Der Ploeg, Cody
2018 Correspondence on the CARL Archaeological Program pertinent to the Florida
Keys (Monroe County) 6-24-19.
Venable, WM
1907 The Long Key Viaduct. The Engineering Record 56(21):72-74.
Viele, John
1996 The Florida Keys:A History of the Pioneers. Maple press: York Pennsylvania.
2001 The Florida Keys: The Wreckers. Pineapple Press: Sarasota, Florida.
2011 The Florida Keys; True Stories of the Perilous Straits. Pineapple Press: Sarasota,
Florida.
Wells, Sharon
1984 Survey Report of Tavernier, Florida. Historic Key West Preservation Board, Key
West, Florida
Whitehead, William A.
N.D. Memorandums of peregrinations for my own amusement. n.p.
Wilder, George J. et al.
2014 A Floristic Inventory of Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State
Park and Immediately Adjacent Lands, Monroe County, Florida.Journal of the
Botanical Institute, Vol 8 Issue 1.
Wilkenson, Jerry
N.D. All accessed on line at KeysHistory.org.:
History of Big Pine Key
History of Key Largo
History of Lower Matecumbe Key
History of No Name Key
History of North Key Largo
History of Rock Island
History of Stock Island
History of Sugarloaf
History of Tavernier
Religion in the Upper Keys
107
Williams, Joy
2003 The Florida Keys:A History and Guide. New York: Random House Trade
Paperbacks.
Windhorn, Stan and Wright Langley
1987 Yesterday's Florida Keys. Langley Press: Key West, Florida.
Worth, John E.
2003 "The Evacuation of South Florida, 1704-1760." Paper presented at the 60th
annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina,
November 13.
108
APPENDIX I: LIST OF DESTROYED SITES
109
�� ryM16'+N�(ddJr-�
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
4800 SW 64th Ave, Suite 107 Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954-792-9776 Fax: 954-792-9954
Email: archlgclbellsouth.net Web: www.flarchaeology.com
MONROE COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 11
CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT 419.H.SM.200-040
APPENDIX L LIST OF DESTROYED SITES
Two historic structures updated in 2016 were found to have been demolished. No
archaeological sites assessed in the field were determined to have been destroyed:
HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL SITES
8MO00228 Bat Tower, Bat Tower Road, Sugarloaf Key
8MO03762 19556 Navajo Street, Indian Mound Estates, Sugarloaf Key
110
APPENDIX II: FLORIDA SURVEY LOG
111
Page 1
Ent D (FMSF only) " `, . Survey Log Sheet Survey# (FMSF only)
Florida Master Site File
Version 4.1 1107
Consult Guide to the Survey Log Sheet for detailed instructions.
1. I
0 oal o o n oo 11 o 1 al o
Survey Project (name and project phase) Florida Keys/Monroe County CPA II
Report Title (exactly as on title page) Monroe County Cultural Resource Assessment II, Certified Local
Government Grant #19.h.sm.200-040
Report Authors (as on title page,last names first) 1. Carr, Robert S. 3. Noe, Alan Michael
2. Harrington, Timothy A. 4. Jacobs, Earl
Publication Date (year) 2019 Total Number of Pages in Report (count text,figures,tables,not site forms) 110
Publication Information (Give series,number in series,publisher and city.For article or chapter,cite page numbers.Use the style of American Antiquity.)
AHC Technical Report #1230
Supervisors of Fieldwork (even if same as author) Names Robert S. Carr
Affiliation of Fieldworkers: Organization Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. City Davie, FL
Key Words/Phrases (Don't use county name,or common words like archaeology,structure,survey,architecture,etc.)
1. Florida Keys 3. 5. 7.
2. 4. 6. 8.
Survey Sponsors (corporation,government unit,organization or person directly funding fieldwork)
Name Monroe County Organization
Address/Phone/E-mail
Recorder of Log Sheet Tim Harrington Date Log Sheet Completed 6-27-2019
Is this survey or project a continuation of a previous project? ❑No ❑X Yes: Previous survey#s(FMSF only)
III
ann o
Counties (List each one in which field survey was done;attach additional sheet if necessary)
1. Monroe 3. 5.
2. 4. 6.
USGS 1:24,000 Map Names/Year of Latest Revision (attach additional sheet if necessary)
1. Name CARD SOUND Year 4. Name TAVERNIER Year
2. Name BLACKWATER SOUND Year 5. Name PLANTATION KEY Year
3. Name ROCK HARBOR Year 6. Name LOWER MATECUMBE KEY Year
i
I
Dates for Fieldwork: Start 10-1-2018 End 6-22-2019 Total Area Surveyed (fill In one) hectares 65,443acres
Number of Distinct Tracts or Areas Surveyed 1
If Corridor (fill in one for each) Width: meters feet Length: kilometers miles
HR6E066R0107 Florida Master Site File,Division of Historical Resources,Gray Building,500 South Bronough Street,Tallahassee,Florida 32399-0250
Phone 850-245-6440,FAX 850-245-6439,Email:SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us
Page 2 Survey Log Sheet Survey#
I
a o 00
Types of Survey (check all that apply): Oarchaeological Oarchitectural Ohistoricallarchival ❑underwater
❑damage assessment ❑monitoring report ❑other(describe):
ScopellntensitylProcedures Review of all previously-recorded sites; identification and assessment of new
sites, both archaeological and historical. Exempted from this study were the municipalities of
Islamorada, Marathon, Layton and Key West, as well as State and Federal lands.
Preliminary Methods (check as many as apply to the project as a whole)
OFlorida Archives(Gray Building) []library research-loca/public []local property or tax records ❑other historic maps
[]Florida Photo Archives(Gray Building) []library-special collection-nonlocal []newspaper files Osoils maps or data
OSite File property search OPublic Lands Survey(maps at DEP) Oliterature search Owindshield survey
[R]Site File survey search Olocal informant(s) ❑Sanborn Insurance maps Oaerial photography
❑other(describe):
Archaeological Methods (check as many as apply to the project as a whole)
❑Check here if NO archaeological methods were used.
[]surface collection,controlled []shovel test-other screen size []block excavation(at least 2x2 m)
[]surface collection,uncontrolled []water screen []soil resistivity
Oshovel test-114"screen ❑posthole tests []magnetometer
[]shovel test-118"screen []auger tests []side scan sonar
[]shovel test 1116"screen []coring Opedestrian survey
[]shovel test-unscreened []test excavation(at least 1x2 m) []unknown
❑other(describe):
Historical/Architectural Methods (check as many as apply to the project as a whole)
❑Check here if NO historical/architectural methods were used.
[]building permits []demolition permits Oneighbor interview Osubdivision maps
[]commercial permits Oexposed ground inspected Ooccupant interview ❑tax records
[]interior documentation Olocal property records []occupation permits []unknown
[]other(describe):
�
MI.
�
Site Significance Evaluated? Dyes []No
Count of Previously Recorded Sites 14 Count of Newly Recorded Sites 112
Previously Recorded Site#'s with Site File Update Forms(List site#'s without"8".Attach additional pages if necessary.) see attached pages
Newly Recorded Site#'s (Are all originals and not updates?List site#'s without"8".Attach additional pages if necessary.) see attached pages
Site Forms Used: ❑Site File Paper Form R Site File Electronic Recording Form
***REQUIRED: ATTACH PLOT OF SURVEY AREA ON PHOTOCOPY OF USGS 1:24,000 MAPS)***
PO USE ONLY SHPO USE ONLY SHPO USE ONLY
Origin of Report: ❑872 ❑CARL ❑LIW ❑1A32# []Academic []Contract ❑Avocational
[]Grant Project# []Compliance Review: CRAT#
Type of Document: []Archaeological Survey ❑Historical/Architectural Survey []Marine Survey []Cell Tower CRAS []Monitoring Report
❑Overview []Excavation Report []Multi-Site Excavation Report ❑Structure Detailed Report ❑Library,Hist.or Archival Doc
❑MPS ❑MRA ❑rG ❑Other:
Document Destination: Plotability:
HR6E066R0107 Florida Master Site File,Division of Historical Resources,Gray Building,500 South Bronough Street,Tallahassee,Florida 32399.0250
Phone 850.245.6440,FAX 850.245.6439,Email:SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us
KEY LARGO
TAVERNIER
.s
I S LAM ORADA:
PLANTATION KEY
WINDLEY KEY
UPPER AND LOWER
MATECUMBE KEYS
LONG KEY
�. CONCH KEYS
DUCK KEY
GRASSY KEY
CRAWL KEYS
FAT DEER KEY
MARATHON
KNIGHTS KEY
y
. BAHIA HONDA KEY
` NO NAME KEY
,
` BIG PINE KEY
` RAMROD KEY
TORCH KEYS SUMMERLAND KEY
CUDJOE KEY T— SUGARLOAF KEY
KEY WEST
The Florida Keys showing location of project area divisions.
' = PROJECTAREA
=ASSESSED KEY OR PART OF KEY
= EXCLUDED(FEDERAL, STATE, MUNICIPAL)AREA
0 4 8 16 Miles approx.
0 6 12 25 Km.approx.
MONROE COUNTY CRA II SURVEY LOG
List of USGS Maps
Additional USGS Maps Consulted:
GRASSY KEY
MARATHON
SEVENMILE BRIDGE
BIG PINE KEY
SUMMERLAND KEY
SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
BOCA CHICA KEY
KEY WEST
MONROE COUNTY CRA II SURVEY LOG
Previously MO06568 MO06607
Recorded Sites MO06569 MO06631
(Structures): MO06570 MO06632
MO06571 MO06633
MO03701 MO06572 MO06634
MO03702 MO06573 MO06635
MO03703 MO06574 MO06636
MO03704 MO06575 MO06637
MO03705 MO06576 MO06638
MO03706 MO06577 MO06639
MO03707 MO06578 MO06640
MO03708 MO06579 MO06641
MO03709 MO06580 MO06642
MO03710 MO06581 MO06643
MO03711 MO06582 MO06644
MO03712 MO06583 MO06645
MO03713 MO06646
MO03714 Duck Key MO06647
MO06648
Newly Recorded MO06584 MO06649
Archaeological MO06584 MO06650
Sites: MO06585 MO06651
MO06586 MO06652
MO06618 MO06587 MO06653
MO06620 MO06588 MO06654
MO06621 MO06589
MO06622 MO06590
MO06623 MO06591
MO06624 MO06592
MO06626 MO06593
MO06627 MO06594
MO06595
Newly Recorded MO06596
Structures: MO06597
MO06598
Conch Key MO06599
MO06600
MO06558 MO06601
MO06559
MO06560 Indian Mound
MO06561 Estates
MO06562
MO06563 MO06602
MO06564 MO06603
MO06565 MO06604
MO06566 MO06605
MO06567 MO06606