Doing Archaeology Publicly:
The Bayshore Homes Project, Florida
Robert J. Austin*
What is Public Archaeology and Why Should
We Do It?
It can be argued that all archaeology is public archaeology
and that public archaeology therefore has always been
with us. The term itself was introduced initially by Charles
McGimsey (1972) to refer to (primarily) public funding
and support for archaeological research and preservation
legislation. Since then the term has come to encompass a
much wider array of definitions and goals. Just a brief review
of the public archaeology literature reveals the variety
of meanings that have come to be attached to the term:
sharing of archaeological findings; engaging the public;
promoting stewardship; making archaeology relevant; increasing
public awareness; archaeology in service to the
present; sharing control of resources and knowledge; heritage
tourism; the commoditization of the past; and the
empowerment of disenfranchised peoples (e.g., Bense,
1990; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson, 2008; Hoffman
et al., 2002; Layton,1994; Lipe, 2002; Little, 2002,
2009; Moshenska, 2009; Rowan and Baram, 2004; Slick,
2002; see also http://archaeologyincommunity.com/ and
http://www.flpublicarchaeology.org/).
For me, the simplest definition is the best: public archaeology
is archaeology for all (Flatman, 2009:51). By
making archaeology accessible to non-archaeologists and
allowing the public to participate in a hands-on experience,
we break down the barrier of elitism that tends to
separate professional archaeologists from the public
whose support we covet. By interacting with the public
outside of lecture halls, classrooms, and museums, we demythologize
the profession and make the past relevant.
This paper summarizes an archaeological excavation and
research project that I and several of my colleagues have
been conducting for over a decade in an environment
where interaction with the public is not a choice, but a
necessity: the front and back yards of a residential subdivision
on the Gulf coast of Florida. Involving the residents as
partners in the process of discovery about the neighborhood’s
ancient past has been an essential component of
the project since its inception, and it has reaped rewards
that have benefited the residents as well as archaeologists.
Archaeology in the Public Eye: Bayshore Homes
1879-1999
The Bayshore Homes site is a large precolumbian (ca. A.D.
250-1250) mound and midden complex located in the
Parque Narváez subdivision and an adjacent public park
on Boca Ciega Bay in Pinellas County, Florida (Figure 1).
Because it is near the intersection of two major roads in
one of Florida’s most densely populated counties (Figure
2), the Bayshore Homes site has been in the public eye for
over a century. The site was visited by archaeologists in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Bushnell,
1926; Moore, 1900; Wainright, 1916; Walker, 1880a,
b), was well known to early residents (Fuller, 1972:21-22),
and was occasionally the subject of outlandish newspaper
articles (St. Petersburg Times, August 13, 1914)1. Its accessibility
also made it an easy target for looters, and both
Walker and Moore noted evidence of previous digging
when they visited the site in 1879 and 1900, respectively.
Looting continued right through the 1950s when construction
of the subdivision began.
This construction was the impetus for the only major
professional excavation at Bayshore Homes prior to 1999.
A local developer and historian, Walter Fuller, who knew
that the site was going to be developed, contacted William
Sears at the Florida State Museum and put him in
touch with Richard Key, whose company, Bayshore Homes
Development, was the origin for the site’s official name.
Key gave Sears permission to excavate at the site while development
was going on around him (Sears, 1960). Sears
dug mostly in the large burial mound, Mound B, where he
uncovered over 100 burials, most of which were part of
a single mass interment. He also dug a 10-x-10 foot test
unit in the large shell midden that borders Boca Ciega Bay.
Present Pasts Vol. 3, 2011, 35-41 doi: 10.5334/pp.39
* Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc.
The Bayshore Homes site is a precolumbian mound and midden complex located in the Parque
Narváez neighborhood of Pinellas County, Florida. Over the past decade, archaeological excavation
and research have been conducted in a very public environment: the front and back yards of
the subdivision’s residents. Involving the residents as partners in the process of discovery about
the neighborhood’s ancient past has been an essential component of the project since its inception.
This paper discusses the results of such involvement, from the use of volunteers to educating
residents about the importance of preserving the neighborhood’s Native American heritage.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 36
The site also contained a large platform mound (Mound A)
and a smaller burial mound (Mound C). Sears did no excavation
in these mounds, but he was shown pottery sherds
by local collectors who had dug in Mound C, and when
Key was clearing the area his bulldozers leveled a portion
of the mound exposing burials and more pottery. Mound
C continued to be dug into by collectors until eventually
the property was completely developed.
Sears spent two seasons excavating Mound B. The excavation
received a lot of publicity in the local press
and visitors to the site were common, particularly as the
neighborhood grew up around the mound. Before he
started excavating Sears attempted to convince Key to sell
the property containing Mound B to the County in order
to preserve it (St. Petersburg Times, December 19, 1955;
March 30, 1956). Although Key was amenable to the idea,
the County chose not to pursue the land purchase (St. Petersburg
Times, April 3, 1956). Sears also discussed with
Key the possibility of creating a museum with a covered
walk-in exhibit so that visitors to the site could view the
mound’s contents (Sears to Key, January 6, 1958). This
idea also failed to materialize. After Sears’s work was completed
in 1958, no professional archaeology took place at
Bayshore Homes until 1999.
The Bayshore Homes Project, 1999-2010
As is often the case in the public’s imagination, most
neighborhood residents thought there was nothing left of
any importance since the site had been excavated “by the
state.” In reality, Sears excavated only a small fraction of the
site and although the Parque Narváez2 subdivision covered
much of the archaeological site, large portions remained
undisturbed in the yards of the local residents (Figure 3). I
and my colleagues began work at the site in 1999 and over
the past 11 years we have done an extensive survey of the
entire subdivision as well as the neighboring public park.
The survey not only expanded the boundaries of the site
substantially, it identified a number of intrasite features of
which Sears was unaware. We have also conducted test excavations,
obtained a dozen radiocarbon dates, and refined
the site’s chronology, as well as gathering subsistence and
environmental data from the shell midden. The results of
this work have been presented at several conferences (e.g.,
Austin and Mitchem 2008; Austin et al. 2007) as well as in
a summary report (Austin et al., 2008) which is available
for downloading (http://www.cgcas.org/bayshore/). Here
I want to focus on how we involved the Parque Narváez
neighborhood in our project, how they have reacted to our
work, and how we overcame wariness about our motives
and the issue of private property rights.
Fig. 1: Bayshore Homes archaeological site in Pinellas County, Florida, USA.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 37
There are 112 individual home owners in the Parque
Narváez subdivision and gaining access to these private
properties was essential to our goal of better understanding
the site. We were fortunate in this regard because we
were able to enlist several local residents to intervene on
our behalf. A member of the Central Gulf Coast Archaeological
Society (CGCAS), an organization with which I
worked closely and which provided much of the volunteer
labor for this project, introduced me to the owners of a
large shell mound that lies just south of Sears’s midden
test. A meeting was arranged and I discussed what I had
in mind and reassured them that our work would not destroy
their yard.
I also assured them that any artifacts that we recovered
would be returned to them after we completed our
analysis. In Florida there is no law that vests ownership
of artifacts with the state if they are recovered from private
property; archaeological sites and their contents are
the property of the landowner. We felt it was important
to gain landowner trust by informing them of their legal
right to keep any artifacts from their property. We made
this agreement with every homeowner on whose property
we excavated. We did suggest that they donate their
artifacts to a local museum, the Weedon Island Preserve
Cultural and Natural History Center. Most homeowners
willingly donated the artifacts; only a few asked to have
them returned. In my opinion, it was a fair tradeoff for
being allowed to excavate on their property.
We also contacted another well known neighborhood
resident whose home is situated on an elevated part of the
midden and who was responsible for erecting several signs
promoting the neighborhood’s prehistory, including one
in his front yard. He and the owners of the shell mound
signed a letter introducing us to the neighborhood which
was hand delivered to all 112 households along with a
form that requested permission to dig shovel tests in their
yards, indicated whether the land owners wanted to be
home when we were excavating, asked for information
about where we should not excavate, as well as whether
any artifacts we recovered should be returned or donated.
Out of 112 landowners, 71 gave their permission; only
nine said no, and the rest did not respond.
Following our 1999 test excavation, we surveyed the
public park in 2001, and the summer of 2006 was spent
digging shovel tests in the front and back yards of the 71
residents from whom we received permission. Several residents
volunteered to help, which gave us an opportunity
to talk to them about the site, what we were trying to accomplish,
and build a relationship for any future work
we wanted to do. Most of the residents knew about the
Fig. 2: Aerial photograph showing the urban character of the Bayshore Homes project in Pinellas County, Florida.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 38
mounds and the shell midden, and several told us about
shell and sometimes artifacts that they had dug up in their
yards. We photographed many of these and made notes
on all of the information. We also contacted collectors
who had dug at the site during the 1950s and documented
their artifacts.
Based on the results of the survey, we selected four locations
for more formal test excavations and received signed
permission from all four landowners to proceed (Figure
4). We publicized the project through a newsletter that
was distributed to the homeowners. We received favorable
press coverage and gave several public presentations,
including two meetings held specifically for the Parque
Narváez residents. We developed a 14-page summary
with plenty of graphics that was geared to the public and
was made available on the CGCAS web site. In 2007 we
received a grant from the Florida Division of Historical Resources
which helped pay for radiocarbon dates and soil
coring in the midden. In 2009, we returned to conduct additional
test excavations and gather data on the site’s earliest
component. In addition to help from local residents,
we also had several students on our crew from the University
of South Florida and Eckerd College. Currently, we are
processing the large volume of artifacts, fauna, and environmental
data that we collected during the 2009 season.
Engaging the Public: Lessons Learned
A lot of what we have learned about working in a residential
neighborhood is just good anthropology. Making
contact with respected members of the community
is key to getting access to land, people, and collections.
So is respecting people’s private property. We used tarps
to collect screened sediment, carefully replaced sod, watered
the cut sod so it wouldn’t die, and in a few cases,
even bought new sod. These small acts did wonders for
our reputation in the neighborhood and have made the
homeowners comfortable with our presence.
We also spend a lot of time communicating our finds to
the neighborhood. All of our regular volunteers are capable
of conversing in detail about the site, about what we
are doing and why, as well as about archaeological methods.
The typical question we hear is “Did you find anything
interesting?” Which means “did you find any cool
artifacts?” I try to keep a stash of cool artifacts (projectile
points, worked bone, decorated ceramics) that we have
found on hand to show visitors and then use these as a
way to lead into a more nuanced discussion of chronology,
subsistence, climate and sea level changes, and other topics
that we are interested in pursuing with our research.
The newsletters, web site, and formal talks are also appreciated
by the community. While not everyone attends
the talks or accesses the web site, the fact that we make
the attempt to inform the community about what we are
doing has been well received. The time it takes to chat with
visitors or write up a brief description for a newsletter or
web site, repays itself many times over when you want access
to someone’s yard or when they bring you a curious
find that they dug up while planting that rose bush.
Because Bayshore Homes is a precolumbian Native
American site, the people who live in the neighborhood
today have no direct historical relationship to the people
who lived there 1000-2000 years ago. Consequently,
their relationship to the site is multifaceted. For example,
I think that the cooperation and interest in our work
displayed by the site’s current residents can be explained
partly by the fact that they view the archaeological site as
part of their community, providing it with a unique identity.
On the other hand, this does not necessarily translate
into respectful stewardship, as most residents do not appear
to consider the effects of their home maintenance
and improvement projects on the archaeological resource.
It has also been difficult to convince the County that archaeology
needs to be done in advance of improvement
projects, despite the fact that the County does have an archaeological
preservation ordinance. These contradictory
views reflect in microcosm the contradictory attitudes
that many Americans have about archaeological sites, particularly
those of precolumbian Native Americans. Inherent
curiosity is contrasted with a view of archaeological
sites as resources to be exploited (e.g., through looting,
as “value-added” promotion for development or tourism),
and is shot through with a healthy dose of private property
rights.
Neither is there an archaeologically documented direct
historical relationship between the ancient residents of
Bayshore Homes and the contemporary, federally recognized
tribes in Florida3. Because the site is on private
property and did not involve disturbance of human bur-
Fig. 3: Wall profile of a test unit excavated in the front
yard of a Parque Narváez homeowner showing nearly
two meters of intact midden.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 39
ial remains, there are no legal consultation requirements
that provide a mechanism for formal connections with
tribal governments. Although we continue to encourage
participation and involvement from individuals of Native
American ancestry, we recognize that formal relationships
with tribal governments might not be appropriate or even
sought by them.
Conclusion
Although I honestly cannot say that our project has
changed conflicting attitudes among the residents of
Parque Narváez, I do believe that many now have a greater
appreciation for what lies beneath their flower beds and
manicured lawns. I also believe that involving people in
the excitement of doing archaeology, even peripherally,
provides an opportunity to indoctrinate; to explain the
value (in non-economic terms) of the past, and ignite a
spark of understanding and respect for archaeological
sites as both information repositories and as tangible expressions
of our human past. It is an opportunity that we
cannot afford to pass up.
Notes
1 The article in question, titled “Race of Giants Once Inhabited
the Peninsula,” was but one of several early local
newspaper accounts that portrayed Native Americans
as “giant” savages. See Harris (1927) for another with a
nearly identical title.
2 Historical documents (Cabeza de Vaca, 1993) indicate
that Spanish explorer Pánfilo de Narváez probably
landed on the Pinellas peninsula near Boca Ciega Bay in
1528, and local developers have eagerly employed the
Narváez name to promote their building efforts. In the
1920s, developer Walter Fuller erected a large sign commemorating
Narváez’s landing that still stands near a
large mound about 1.5 km south of the Parque Narváez
subdivision. Fuller used the sign to promote his many
housing developments in this part of the County. On
the other side of the Pinellas peninsula, E. M. Elliot’s
proposed development on Weedon Island was called
Narváez Park for the same reason. Elliott also claimed
Hernando de Soto stopped there and was not averse to
promoting the Smithsonian Institution’s 1923 excavations
at the famous Weedon Island archaeological site to
entice visits by tourists and prospective investors (E. M.
Elliott and Associates, c. 1923).
3 Florida’s two federally recognized tribes are the Seminole
Indian Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
of Florida. Both tribes are active in asserting their rights
and concerns regarding archaeological sites that they
consider part of their native heritage (e.g., Cypress, 1997;
Cypress et al., 2002; Dayhoff and Terry, 2002). The tribes,
in concert with the Florida Governor’s Council on Indian
Affairs, were instrumental in amending Chapter 872 of
the Florida Statutes (Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and
Graves) to make it a felony to “willfully and knowingly”
damage or destroy Native American cemeteries and burial
Fig. 4: Volunteers excavating in the back yard of one of the Parque Narváez homes.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 40
mounds (Quetone, 1987; Tesar, 1987). Unlike the federal
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), which applies only to federal and tribal lands,
the Florida law extends protection to archaeological sites
that contain human remains on private land.
Acknowledgments
The Bayshore Homes project has been funded in part by
Historic Preservation Survey and Planning Grant SO819
provided by the Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources. Additional funds were provided by
the IBM Corporation and an anonymous donor. Brent
Weisman, Uzi Baram, and an anonymous reviewer provided
comments on earlier drafts of this paper that substantially
improved the final product. I would like to thank the
Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society for the many
hours of volunteer labor they have contributed to the
project; the Weedon Island Preserve Cultural and Natural
History Center for providing laboratory space; and last,
but certainly not least, the residents of Parque Narváez for
their cooperation and interest.
References
Austin, R J, and J M Mitchem 2008 Site Formation and
Chronology at Bayshore Homes: A Late Weeden Island
Mound Complex on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Paper
presented at the 65th annual meeting of the Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, NC.
Austin, R J, J M Mitchem, and A Fradkin 2007 Recent
Research at Bayshore Homes (8PI41), St. Petersburg,
Florida. Paper presented at the 71st annual meeting of
the Florida Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, FL.
Austin, R J, J M Mitchem, A Fradkin, J E Foss, S Drwiega,
and L Allred 2008 Bayshore Homes Archaeological
Survey and National Register Evaluation. Report
prepared for the Bureau of Historic Preservation,
Florida Department of State. On file, Florida Division
of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, FL.
Bense, J A 1990 The Search for the Lost Rectors: A Public
Archaeology Project – Overview and Project Description.
The Florida Anthropologist 43(2):127-130.
Bushnell, D I, Jr. 1926 Investigations of Shell and Sand
Mounds on Pinellas Peninsula. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collection 78:125-132.
Cabeza de Vaca, Á N 1993 The Account: Álvar Núñez Cabeza
de Vaca’s Relación. An annotated translation by
Martin A. Favata and José B. Fernández. Houston, TX:
Arte Público Press.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C, and T J Ferguson 2008 Collaboration
in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendent
Communities. Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press.
Cypress, B L 1997 The Role of Archaeology in the Seminole
Tribe of Florida. In Native Americans and Archaeologists:
Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Nina
Swindler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S.
Downer, pp. 156-160. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Cypress, B, T Underwood, and E Doonkeen 2002 Native
American Views on Significance. In Thinking about Significance,
edited by Robert J. Austin, Kathleen S. Hoffman,
and George R. Ballo, pp. 113-119. Riverview, FL:
Florida Archaeological Council, Inc.
Dayhoff, F E and W S Terry 2002 Miccosukee Tribal
Beliefs Concerning Archaeological Significance. In
Thinking about Significance, edited by Robert J. Austin,
Kathleen S. Hoffman, and George R. Ballo, pp. 105-112.
Riverview, FL: Florida Archaeological Council, Inc.
E M Elliott and Associates c. 1923 Tourists! You are Invited
to Visit the Smithsonian Excavations. Copy of
promotional flyer on file, Weedon Island Preserve Cultural
and Natural History Center, St. Petersburg, FL.
Flatman, J 2009 The Economics of Public Archaeology –
A Reply to “What is Public Archaeology?” Present Pasts
1:50-52, doi:10.5334/pp.9.
Fuller, W P 1972 St. Petersburg and Its People. St. Petersburg,
FL: Great Outdoors Publishing.
Harris, T 1927 Giant Savages Once Inhabited This Peninsula.
St. Petersburg Times, Pinellas County Section, p. 1,
September 25, 1927.
Hoffman, K S, G R Ballo and R J Austin 2002 The Past
in Service to the Present: Some Concluding Thoughts.
In Thinking about Significance, edited by Robert J. Austin,
Kathleen S. Hoffman, and George R. Ballo, pp. 215-
225. Riverview, FL: Florida Archaeological Council, Inc.
Layton, R 1994 Introduction: Who Needs the Past? In
Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology,
edited by Robert Layton, pp. 1-20. London and
New York: Routledge.
Lipe, W D 2002 Public Benefits of Archaeological Research.
In Public Benefits of Archaeology, edited by
Barbara J. Little, pp. 20-28. Gainesville, FL: University
Press of Florida.
Little, B J 2002 Archaeology as a Shared Vision. In Public
Benefits of Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little, pp.
1-19. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Little, B J 2009 What Can Archaeology Do for Justice,
Peace, Community and the Earth? Historical Archaeology
43(4): 115-119.
McGimsey, C R III 1972 Public Archeology. New York,
Seminar Press.
Moore, C B 1900 Certain Antiquities of the Florida West
Coast. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences Journal
11:349-394.
Moshenska, G 2009. What is Public Archaeology? Present
Pasts 1:46-48, doi:10.5334/pp.7.
Quetone, J A 1987. Chapter 872, Florida Statutes (“Offenses
Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves”): A Native
American’s Perspective. The Florida Anthropologist
40(4):328-329.
Rowan, Y and U Baram (eds.) 2004 Marketing Heritage:
Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Walnut
Creek: AltaMira.
St. Petersburg Times 1914 Race of Giants Once Inhabited
this Peninsula. August 13, 1914.
St. Petersburg Times 1955 Indian Mound May be Historical
Park, Museum. December 19, 1955.
St. Petersburg Times 1956 Indian Site Wanted for Park
Area. March 30, 1956.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 41
St. Petersburg Times 1956 Indian Mound Proposal Draws
Cold Shoulder. April 3, 1956.
Sears, W H 1958 Letter from William Sears to Richard
Key, January 6, 1958. Papers of William H. Sears, Bayshore
Homes, 8PI0041. Collections of the Anthropology
Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History,
Gainesville, FL.
Sears, W H 1960 The Bayshore Homes Site, St. Petersburg,
Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum,
Social Sciences Number 6, Gainesville, FL.
Slick, K 2002 Archaeology and the Tourism Train. In Public
Benefits of Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little,
pp. 219-227. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Tesar, L D 1987 Chapter 872, Florida Statutes (“Offenses
Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves”) Amended: the
Law and Its Significance. The Florida Anthropologist
40(3):221-223.
Wainright, R D 1916 Two Months Research in the Sand
and Shell Mounds of Florida. Archaeological Bulletin
7:139-144.
Walker, S T 1880a Preliminary Explorations among the
Indian Mounds in Southern Florida. Smithsonian Institution
Annual Report 1879:392-413.
Walker, S T 1880b Report on the Shell Heaps of Tampa
Bay, Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report
1879:413-422.
The Bayshore Homes Project, Florida
Robert J. Austin*
What is Public Archaeology and Why Should
We Do It?
It can be argued that all archaeology is public archaeology
and that public archaeology therefore has always been
with us. The term itself was introduced initially by Charles
McGimsey (1972) to refer to (primarily) public funding
and support for archaeological research and preservation
legislation. Since then the term has come to encompass a
much wider array of definitions and goals. Just a brief review
of the public archaeology literature reveals the variety
of meanings that have come to be attached to the term:
sharing of archaeological findings; engaging the public;
promoting stewardship; making archaeology relevant; increasing
public awareness; archaeology in service to the
present; sharing control of resources and knowledge; heritage
tourism; the commoditization of the past; and the
empowerment of disenfranchised peoples (e.g., Bense,
1990; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson, 2008; Hoffman
et al., 2002; Layton,1994; Lipe, 2002; Little, 2002,
2009; Moshenska, 2009; Rowan and Baram, 2004; Slick,
2002; see also http://archaeologyincommunity.com/ and
http://www.flpublicarchaeology.org/).
For me, the simplest definition is the best: public archaeology
is archaeology for all (Flatman, 2009:51). By
making archaeology accessible to non-archaeologists and
allowing the public to participate in a hands-on experience,
we break down the barrier of elitism that tends to
separate professional archaeologists from the public
whose support we covet. By interacting with the public
outside of lecture halls, classrooms, and museums, we demythologize
the profession and make the past relevant.
This paper summarizes an archaeological excavation and
research project that I and several of my colleagues have
been conducting for over a decade in an environment
where interaction with the public is not a choice, but a
necessity: the front and back yards of a residential subdivision
on the Gulf coast of Florida. Involving the residents as
partners in the process of discovery about the neighborhood’s
ancient past has been an essential component of
the project since its inception, and it has reaped rewards
that have benefited the residents as well as archaeologists.
Archaeology in the Public Eye: Bayshore Homes
1879-1999
The Bayshore Homes site is a large precolumbian (ca. A.D.
250-1250) mound and midden complex located in the
Parque Narváez subdivision and an adjacent public park
on Boca Ciega Bay in Pinellas County, Florida (Figure 1).
Because it is near the intersection of two major roads in
one of Florida’s most densely populated counties (Figure
2), the Bayshore Homes site has been in the public eye for
over a century. The site was visited by archaeologists in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Bushnell,
1926; Moore, 1900; Wainright, 1916; Walker, 1880a,
b), was well known to early residents (Fuller, 1972:21-22),
and was occasionally the subject of outlandish newspaper
articles (St. Petersburg Times, August 13, 1914)1. Its accessibility
also made it an easy target for looters, and both
Walker and Moore noted evidence of previous digging
when they visited the site in 1879 and 1900, respectively.
Looting continued right through the 1950s when construction
of the subdivision began.
This construction was the impetus for the only major
professional excavation at Bayshore Homes prior to 1999.
A local developer and historian, Walter Fuller, who knew
that the site was going to be developed, contacted William
Sears at the Florida State Museum and put him in
touch with Richard Key, whose company, Bayshore Homes
Development, was the origin for the site’s official name.
Key gave Sears permission to excavate at the site while development
was going on around him (Sears, 1960). Sears
dug mostly in the large burial mound, Mound B, where he
uncovered over 100 burials, most of which were part of
a single mass interment. He also dug a 10-x-10 foot test
unit in the large shell midden that borders Boca Ciega Bay.
Present Pasts Vol. 3, 2011, 35-41 doi: 10.5334/pp.39
* Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc.
The Bayshore Homes site is a precolumbian mound and midden complex located in the Parque
Narváez neighborhood of Pinellas County, Florida. Over the past decade, archaeological excavation
and research have been conducted in a very public environment: the front and back yards of
the subdivision’s residents. Involving the residents as partners in the process of discovery about
the neighborhood’s ancient past has been an essential component of the project since its inception.
This paper discusses the results of such involvement, from the use of volunteers to educating
residents about the importance of preserving the neighborhood’s Native American heritage.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 36
The site also contained a large platform mound (Mound A)
and a smaller burial mound (Mound C). Sears did no excavation
in these mounds, but he was shown pottery sherds
by local collectors who had dug in Mound C, and when
Key was clearing the area his bulldozers leveled a portion
of the mound exposing burials and more pottery. Mound
C continued to be dug into by collectors until eventually
the property was completely developed.
Sears spent two seasons excavating Mound B. The excavation
received a lot of publicity in the local press
and visitors to the site were common, particularly as the
neighborhood grew up around the mound. Before he
started excavating Sears attempted to convince Key to sell
the property containing Mound B to the County in order
to preserve it (St. Petersburg Times, December 19, 1955;
March 30, 1956). Although Key was amenable to the idea,
the County chose not to pursue the land purchase (St. Petersburg
Times, April 3, 1956). Sears also discussed with
Key the possibility of creating a museum with a covered
walk-in exhibit so that visitors to the site could view the
mound’s contents (Sears to Key, January 6, 1958). This
idea also failed to materialize. After Sears’s work was completed
in 1958, no professional archaeology took place at
Bayshore Homes until 1999.
The Bayshore Homes Project, 1999-2010
As is often the case in the public’s imagination, most
neighborhood residents thought there was nothing left of
any importance since the site had been excavated “by the
state.” In reality, Sears excavated only a small fraction of the
site and although the Parque Narváez2 subdivision covered
much of the archaeological site, large portions remained
undisturbed in the yards of the local residents (Figure 3). I
and my colleagues began work at the site in 1999 and over
the past 11 years we have done an extensive survey of the
entire subdivision as well as the neighboring public park.
The survey not only expanded the boundaries of the site
substantially, it identified a number of intrasite features of
which Sears was unaware. We have also conducted test excavations,
obtained a dozen radiocarbon dates, and refined
the site’s chronology, as well as gathering subsistence and
environmental data from the shell midden. The results of
this work have been presented at several conferences (e.g.,
Austin and Mitchem 2008; Austin et al. 2007) as well as in
a summary report (Austin et al., 2008) which is available
for downloading (http://www.cgcas.org/bayshore/). Here
I want to focus on how we involved the Parque Narváez
neighborhood in our project, how they have reacted to our
work, and how we overcame wariness about our motives
and the issue of private property rights.
Fig. 1: Bayshore Homes archaeological site in Pinellas County, Florida, USA.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 37
There are 112 individual home owners in the Parque
Narváez subdivision and gaining access to these private
properties was essential to our goal of better understanding
the site. We were fortunate in this regard because we
were able to enlist several local residents to intervene on
our behalf. A member of the Central Gulf Coast Archaeological
Society (CGCAS), an organization with which I
worked closely and which provided much of the volunteer
labor for this project, introduced me to the owners of a
large shell mound that lies just south of Sears’s midden
test. A meeting was arranged and I discussed what I had
in mind and reassured them that our work would not destroy
their yard.
I also assured them that any artifacts that we recovered
would be returned to them after we completed our
analysis. In Florida there is no law that vests ownership
of artifacts with the state if they are recovered from private
property; archaeological sites and their contents are
the property of the landowner. We felt it was important
to gain landowner trust by informing them of their legal
right to keep any artifacts from their property. We made
this agreement with every homeowner on whose property
we excavated. We did suggest that they donate their
artifacts to a local museum, the Weedon Island Preserve
Cultural and Natural History Center. Most homeowners
willingly donated the artifacts; only a few asked to have
them returned. In my opinion, it was a fair tradeoff for
being allowed to excavate on their property.
We also contacted another well known neighborhood
resident whose home is situated on an elevated part of the
midden and who was responsible for erecting several signs
promoting the neighborhood’s prehistory, including one
in his front yard. He and the owners of the shell mound
signed a letter introducing us to the neighborhood which
was hand delivered to all 112 households along with a
form that requested permission to dig shovel tests in their
yards, indicated whether the land owners wanted to be
home when we were excavating, asked for information
about where we should not excavate, as well as whether
any artifacts we recovered should be returned or donated.
Out of 112 landowners, 71 gave their permission; only
nine said no, and the rest did not respond.
Following our 1999 test excavation, we surveyed the
public park in 2001, and the summer of 2006 was spent
digging shovel tests in the front and back yards of the 71
residents from whom we received permission. Several residents
volunteered to help, which gave us an opportunity
to talk to them about the site, what we were trying to accomplish,
and build a relationship for any future work
we wanted to do. Most of the residents knew about the
Fig. 2: Aerial photograph showing the urban character of the Bayshore Homes project in Pinellas County, Florida.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 38
mounds and the shell midden, and several told us about
shell and sometimes artifacts that they had dug up in their
yards. We photographed many of these and made notes
on all of the information. We also contacted collectors
who had dug at the site during the 1950s and documented
their artifacts.
Based on the results of the survey, we selected four locations
for more formal test excavations and received signed
permission from all four landowners to proceed (Figure
4). We publicized the project through a newsletter that
was distributed to the homeowners. We received favorable
press coverage and gave several public presentations,
including two meetings held specifically for the Parque
Narváez residents. We developed a 14-page summary
with plenty of graphics that was geared to the public and
was made available on the CGCAS web site. In 2007 we
received a grant from the Florida Division of Historical Resources
which helped pay for radiocarbon dates and soil
coring in the midden. In 2009, we returned to conduct additional
test excavations and gather data on the site’s earliest
component. In addition to help from local residents,
we also had several students on our crew from the University
of South Florida and Eckerd College. Currently, we are
processing the large volume of artifacts, fauna, and environmental
data that we collected during the 2009 season.
Engaging the Public: Lessons Learned
A lot of what we have learned about working in a residential
neighborhood is just good anthropology. Making
contact with respected members of the community
is key to getting access to land, people, and collections.
So is respecting people’s private property. We used tarps
to collect screened sediment, carefully replaced sod, watered
the cut sod so it wouldn’t die, and in a few cases,
even bought new sod. These small acts did wonders for
our reputation in the neighborhood and have made the
homeowners comfortable with our presence.
We also spend a lot of time communicating our finds to
the neighborhood. All of our regular volunteers are capable
of conversing in detail about the site, about what we
are doing and why, as well as about archaeological methods.
The typical question we hear is “Did you find anything
interesting?” Which means “did you find any cool
artifacts?” I try to keep a stash of cool artifacts (projectile
points, worked bone, decorated ceramics) that we have
found on hand to show visitors and then use these as a
way to lead into a more nuanced discussion of chronology,
subsistence, climate and sea level changes, and other topics
that we are interested in pursuing with our research.
The newsletters, web site, and formal talks are also appreciated
by the community. While not everyone attends
the talks or accesses the web site, the fact that we make
the attempt to inform the community about what we are
doing has been well received. The time it takes to chat with
visitors or write up a brief description for a newsletter or
web site, repays itself many times over when you want access
to someone’s yard or when they bring you a curious
find that they dug up while planting that rose bush.
Because Bayshore Homes is a precolumbian Native
American site, the people who live in the neighborhood
today have no direct historical relationship to the people
who lived there 1000-2000 years ago. Consequently,
their relationship to the site is multifaceted. For example,
I think that the cooperation and interest in our work
displayed by the site’s current residents can be explained
partly by the fact that they view the archaeological site as
part of their community, providing it with a unique identity.
On the other hand, this does not necessarily translate
into respectful stewardship, as most residents do not appear
to consider the effects of their home maintenance
and improvement projects on the archaeological resource.
It has also been difficult to convince the County that archaeology
needs to be done in advance of improvement
projects, despite the fact that the County does have an archaeological
preservation ordinance. These contradictory
views reflect in microcosm the contradictory attitudes
that many Americans have about archaeological sites, particularly
those of precolumbian Native Americans. Inherent
curiosity is contrasted with a view of archaeological
sites as resources to be exploited (e.g., through looting,
as “value-added” promotion for development or tourism),
and is shot through with a healthy dose of private property
rights.
Neither is there an archaeologically documented direct
historical relationship between the ancient residents of
Bayshore Homes and the contemporary, federally recognized
tribes in Florida3. Because the site is on private
property and did not involve disturbance of human bur-
Fig. 3: Wall profile of a test unit excavated in the front
yard of a Parque Narváez homeowner showing nearly
two meters of intact midden.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 39
ial remains, there are no legal consultation requirements
that provide a mechanism for formal connections with
tribal governments. Although we continue to encourage
participation and involvement from individuals of Native
American ancestry, we recognize that formal relationships
with tribal governments might not be appropriate or even
sought by them.
Conclusion
Although I honestly cannot say that our project has
changed conflicting attitudes among the residents of
Parque Narváez, I do believe that many now have a greater
appreciation for what lies beneath their flower beds and
manicured lawns. I also believe that involving people in
the excitement of doing archaeology, even peripherally,
provides an opportunity to indoctrinate; to explain the
value (in non-economic terms) of the past, and ignite a
spark of understanding and respect for archaeological
sites as both information repositories and as tangible expressions
of our human past. It is an opportunity that we
cannot afford to pass up.
Notes
1 The article in question, titled “Race of Giants Once Inhabited
the Peninsula,” was but one of several early local
newspaper accounts that portrayed Native Americans
as “giant” savages. See Harris (1927) for another with a
nearly identical title.
2 Historical documents (Cabeza de Vaca, 1993) indicate
that Spanish explorer Pánfilo de Narváez probably
landed on the Pinellas peninsula near Boca Ciega Bay in
1528, and local developers have eagerly employed the
Narváez name to promote their building efforts. In the
1920s, developer Walter Fuller erected a large sign commemorating
Narváez’s landing that still stands near a
large mound about 1.5 km south of the Parque Narváez
subdivision. Fuller used the sign to promote his many
housing developments in this part of the County. On
the other side of the Pinellas peninsula, E. M. Elliot’s
proposed development on Weedon Island was called
Narváez Park for the same reason. Elliott also claimed
Hernando de Soto stopped there and was not averse to
promoting the Smithsonian Institution’s 1923 excavations
at the famous Weedon Island archaeological site to
entice visits by tourists and prospective investors (E. M.
Elliott and Associates, c. 1923).
3 Florida’s two federally recognized tribes are the Seminole
Indian Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
of Florida. Both tribes are active in asserting their rights
and concerns regarding archaeological sites that they
consider part of their native heritage (e.g., Cypress, 1997;
Cypress et al., 2002; Dayhoff and Terry, 2002). The tribes,
in concert with the Florida Governor’s Council on Indian
Affairs, were instrumental in amending Chapter 872 of
the Florida Statutes (Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and
Graves) to make it a felony to “willfully and knowingly”
damage or destroy Native American cemeteries and burial
Fig. 4: Volunteers excavating in the back yard of one of the Parque Narváez homes.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 40
mounds (Quetone, 1987; Tesar, 1987). Unlike the federal
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), which applies only to federal and tribal lands,
the Florida law extends protection to archaeological sites
that contain human remains on private land.
Acknowledgments
The Bayshore Homes project has been funded in part by
Historic Preservation Survey and Planning Grant SO819
provided by the Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources. Additional funds were provided by
the IBM Corporation and an anonymous donor. Brent
Weisman, Uzi Baram, and an anonymous reviewer provided
comments on earlier drafts of this paper that substantially
improved the final product. I would like to thank the
Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society for the many
hours of volunteer labor they have contributed to the
project; the Weedon Island Preserve Cultural and Natural
History Center for providing laboratory space; and last,
but certainly not least, the residents of Parque Narváez for
their cooperation and interest.
References
Austin, R J, and J M Mitchem 2008 Site Formation and
Chronology at Bayshore Homes: A Late Weeden Island
Mound Complex on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Paper
presented at the 65th annual meeting of the Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, NC.
Austin, R J, J M Mitchem, and A Fradkin 2007 Recent
Research at Bayshore Homes (8PI41), St. Petersburg,
Florida. Paper presented at the 71st annual meeting of
the Florida Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, FL.
Austin, R J, J M Mitchem, A Fradkin, J E Foss, S Drwiega,
and L Allred 2008 Bayshore Homes Archaeological
Survey and National Register Evaluation. Report
prepared for the Bureau of Historic Preservation,
Florida Department of State. On file, Florida Division
of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, FL.
Bense, J A 1990 The Search for the Lost Rectors: A Public
Archaeology Project – Overview and Project Description.
The Florida Anthropologist 43(2):127-130.
Bushnell, D I, Jr. 1926 Investigations of Shell and Sand
Mounds on Pinellas Peninsula. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collection 78:125-132.
Cabeza de Vaca, Á N 1993 The Account: Álvar Núñez Cabeza
de Vaca’s Relación. An annotated translation by
Martin A. Favata and José B. Fernández. Houston, TX:
Arte Público Press.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C, and T J Ferguson 2008 Collaboration
in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendent
Communities. Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press.
Cypress, B L 1997 The Role of Archaeology in the Seminole
Tribe of Florida. In Native Americans and Archaeologists:
Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Nina
Swindler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S.
Downer, pp. 156-160. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Cypress, B, T Underwood, and E Doonkeen 2002 Native
American Views on Significance. In Thinking about Significance,
edited by Robert J. Austin, Kathleen S. Hoffman,
and George R. Ballo, pp. 113-119. Riverview, FL:
Florida Archaeological Council, Inc.
Dayhoff, F E and W S Terry 2002 Miccosukee Tribal
Beliefs Concerning Archaeological Significance. In
Thinking about Significance, edited by Robert J. Austin,
Kathleen S. Hoffman, and George R. Ballo, pp. 105-112.
Riverview, FL: Florida Archaeological Council, Inc.
E M Elliott and Associates c. 1923 Tourists! You are Invited
to Visit the Smithsonian Excavations. Copy of
promotional flyer on file, Weedon Island Preserve Cultural
and Natural History Center, St. Petersburg, FL.
Flatman, J 2009 The Economics of Public Archaeology –
A Reply to “What is Public Archaeology?” Present Pasts
1:50-52, doi:10.5334/pp.9.
Fuller, W P 1972 St. Petersburg and Its People. St. Petersburg,
FL: Great Outdoors Publishing.
Harris, T 1927 Giant Savages Once Inhabited This Peninsula.
St. Petersburg Times, Pinellas County Section, p. 1,
September 25, 1927.
Hoffman, K S, G R Ballo and R J Austin 2002 The Past
in Service to the Present: Some Concluding Thoughts.
In Thinking about Significance, edited by Robert J. Austin,
Kathleen S. Hoffman, and George R. Ballo, pp. 215-
225. Riverview, FL: Florida Archaeological Council, Inc.
Layton, R 1994 Introduction: Who Needs the Past? In
Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology,
edited by Robert Layton, pp. 1-20. London and
New York: Routledge.
Lipe, W D 2002 Public Benefits of Archaeological Research.
In Public Benefits of Archaeology, edited by
Barbara J. Little, pp. 20-28. Gainesville, FL: University
Press of Florida.
Little, B J 2002 Archaeology as a Shared Vision. In Public
Benefits of Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little, pp.
1-19. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Little, B J 2009 What Can Archaeology Do for Justice,
Peace, Community and the Earth? Historical Archaeology
43(4): 115-119.
McGimsey, C R III 1972 Public Archeology. New York,
Seminar Press.
Moore, C B 1900 Certain Antiquities of the Florida West
Coast. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences Journal
11:349-394.
Moshenska, G 2009. What is Public Archaeology? Present
Pasts 1:46-48, doi:10.5334/pp.7.
Quetone, J A 1987. Chapter 872, Florida Statutes (“Offenses
Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves”): A Native
American’s Perspective. The Florida Anthropologist
40(4):328-329.
Rowan, Y and U Baram (eds.) 2004 Marketing Heritage:
Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Walnut
Creek: AltaMira.
St. Petersburg Times 1914 Race of Giants Once Inhabited
this Peninsula. August 13, 1914.
St. Petersburg Times 1955 Indian Mound May be Historical
Park, Museum. December 19, 1955.
St. Petersburg Times 1956 Indian Site Wanted for Park
Area. March 30, 1956.
Austin: Doing Archaeology Publicly 41
St. Petersburg Times 1956 Indian Mound Proposal Draws
Cold Shoulder. April 3, 1956.
Sears, W H 1958 Letter from William Sears to Richard
Key, January 6, 1958. Papers of William H. Sears, Bayshore
Homes, 8PI0041. Collections of the Anthropology
Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History,
Gainesville, FL.
Sears, W H 1960 The Bayshore Homes Site, St. Petersburg,
Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum,
Social Sciences Number 6, Gainesville, FL.
Slick, K 2002 Archaeology and the Tourism Train. In Public
Benefits of Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little,
pp. 219-227. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Tesar, L D 1987 Chapter 872, Florida Statutes (“Offenses
Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves”) Amended: the
Law and Its Significance. The Florida Anthropologist
40(3):221-223.
Wainright, R D 1916 Two Months Research in the Sand
and Shell Mounds of Florida. Archaeological Bulletin
7:139-144.
Walker, S T 1880a Preliminary Explorations among the
Indian Mounds in Southern Florida. Smithsonian Institution
Annual Report 1879:392-413.
Walker, S T 1880b Report on the Shell Heaps of Tampa
Bay, Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report
1879:413-422.
Bahan Kuliah Proses Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Arkeologi, UGM 2012.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar