Miami Circle Archaeological Site, Miami, Florida, and Criticisms of Published Articles Thereon

FAS Scientific Publishing Protocol | Supplemental Graphics |

Some Comments on "Special Issue: The Miami Circle"

B. W. Powell

Abstract.As a onetime member of the original excavation at 8/DA/12, I would like to comment briefly on four of the six articles appearing in The Florida Anthropologist, V.53, No. 4, Dec. 2000 edition, further subtitled “Special Issue: The Miami Circle”. As the editor has characterized these papers “… the first scientific discussion of the Circle and its context.” (Editor’s Page, ibid.), my objective then is to extend the published record and offer additional perspective on aspects of the dig. It is a special concern of mine, that unsupported and sensational statements and views about 8/DA/12 – whatever omission of same has been made in these “first scientific discussions” – unduly influenced widespread popular notions about this site, aroused minority agitators and others, and invited the posturing of local and state politicians with a final result the scientific investigations at the site were quite inhibited, perhaps permanently. All moreover, I might add, at the taxpayers’ expense. In the interest of space, I group my views by category (boldface headings), and not by authors primarily, though documenting their prior and stated positions and comments where appropriate. I hope the issues are such as to invite rational rejoinder.

Site Discovery

Though it is stated “The Miami Circle was not an accidental discovery…” (Carr, et al, p.260) where the authors go on to murkily attribute its discovery to a local ordinance (?), the fact is that the discovery was rather entirely fortuitous, as outlined later by the same authors (p.261), where they report that by late September 1998, after uncovering dozens of relatively small holes as well as some larger ones in square test units in extant building-footer trenches, it was apparent that some of the latter were “…obviously arranged in an arc.” Their summary view in their “Conclusions”(p.282), that “Salvage excavations at the Brickell Point site led to the discovery of the Miami Circle…” accords more closely with actual events.

These same authors, the primary investigators, (p. 260) state at the outset “…the extensive media coverage …dispersed much misinformation about the site.” In this I agree, but it is a bit disingenuous in my opinion if this is to imply that site misinformation necessarily originated with the media. One of the most untoward onsite speculations, which set the tone for many of the misapprehensions which later dogged the Circle saga as it was reported, was that of the site surveyor (not archeologist), T. L. Riggs, convinced as he was, on never subsequently formalized (published) grounds to my knowledge, the site was an astronomical observatory related to a Mayan presence. (Boston Globe, 12/24/98). As questioning these views onsite was discouraged, and the directors themselves never set forth clear counter-arguments or views, the way was open for scientifically uninformed writers and reporters to have their own way. (See, for instance, M. Mertzer byline in Miami Herald of 01/03/99; others). The entire thesis, apparent from the outset, was simply an exercise of the fallacy scientists know as “selective data manipulation.”

I would like to note also that where Carr, et al (p.263), also write to this issue that “This initial deluge of media coverage, without the benefit of any factual press releases or coordinated media events, resulted in much speculation and misinformation, including a Mayan origin for the site and the Circle’s description as the “Miami Stonehenge,” it is also a fact that I early-on offered to Carr to undertake precisely this kind of representation on his (the ‘dig’s”) behalf, and was quite pointedly ignored. (I was for some years in my own career, a professional publicist with several major Mad Ave agencies). That he was “without the benefit” of council here is not from oversight or lack of opportunity. Further illustrative of a generally negative attitude towards the media, is this quote from an interview with him which may be accessed in entirety on the Web at http://www.historical-museum.org/history/circle.htm.

“…you can never confuse the media with the truth or with information. It can work for you or against you, and it’s really difficult to say. But sometimes it can definitely get in the way. I have to say that as a personal policy I tend to minimize press releases about projects and what we’re doing, at least if it’s really important enough, until the very end…”

The Midden

The midden at 8/DA/12 might be said, like Caesar’s wife, to “…have been all things to all men”, for certain it has appeared to many who have dug here. Carr, et al (p. 265) state that ”Apparently the uppermost levels of the midden deposits also were graded flat, thereby removing much of the most recent historic components in many areas and possibly the most recent prehistoric deposits.” (Apparent gradings cannot remove anything: only actual gradings can do this). And rigorous scientific assessment is always alert to the trap presented by “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” But these may be only unhappy accidents of editing and I would not disagree with their general conclusion.

It is indisputable that there was churning of parts of this midden, this moreover in areas closely adjacent later excavated areas. Speaking of earlier building demolition activities which included trench digging to remove building footers, and which preceded the archeological investigations, Carr, et al (p. 267) write “This also generated numerous spoil piles consisting of a mix of demolition debris, modern fill, and midden material” (italics mine). It was indeed from a similar mixed spoil pile that one of the celebrated “Mayan axes” (originally so-called) was recovered. And these axes (celts) have played a key role in interpreting the site to date (cf. Dixon, et al).

These authors state “…profile drawings were typically not drawn because stratigraphic variation or features were rarely observable in profile…” (Carr et al, p. 269) but I have several good onsite photos of vertical faces which do, in fact, show discrete if faint (probable) trampling or weathering layers, lenses, and sectioned features. (cf. Sup7 – Sup10, in Supplemental Graphics). This statement seems curiously at variance with their further statement (p. 281) that, “Evidence of a living surface was noted in the midden deposits excavated within Area #1 and consisted of a discrete layer of cultural material….” and continues to the effect of its horizontal orientation and contents, and to its extent, which lay both inside and outside (italics mine) the Circle boundary. No profile of this apparently extensive phenomenon accompanies their report. Nor again, is the issue addressed as to whether this “living surface” might alternatively be a “weathering surface” – or how discriminated, if so.

Wheeler, in his accompanying article (Wheeler, R.J. , p. 303, 307), provides profile drawings (Figures 7 and 11) for some portions of the site he investigated. He does however, in a plan view certainly mis-plot the locations of the east and west “trench extensions” as I have been forced to call them in my own notes, for the exploratory trenches that lay either side of the Circle proper. He shows them (ibid, Fig. 2) as aligned due E/W, while in fact their common axis was actually offset each from the other, and they were further aligned much more on a WNW by ESE axis. Also, the East extension was by no means as “regular” in plan as he suggests. (Again, I prepared the individually drawn and labeled plats of both of these extensions in the field, posted at http://bwpowell.com/archeology/miamicircle/plats.html as early as February 1999, and openly available there ever since.)

Referring further to difficulties in locating post molds, stains, or other intrusions in the black midden soil overlying the many holes in the bedrock, the authors (Carr, et al, p. 275) favor observational difficulties over complete absence of such phenomena, thus favoring (again ) “a lack of evidence (i.e., observations) as somehow evidence of (some) presence.” None of these investigators seem to consider the option that natural weathering processes over (long) periods of intermittent site abandonment, might fill these holes both with black earth matrix and random mixes of shell and bone fragments…

Further to stratigraphic recording, Carr, et al state (p. 275) “Several core samples of midden deposits also were taken using four-inch diameter aluminum pipe driven into the ground by hand.” However, unless I am much mistaken, he refers to cores which I largely took, and my notes show that we used 3-inch irrigation tube, not 4-inch. The tube was, moreover, kindly furnished gratis by geologists of the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science on Key Biscayne, to whom a much belated acknowledgement is hereby extended.

As might be anticipated, the center of the Circle was logically presumed to harbor possible evidence in the way of post molds, markers, deposits, offerings and/or objects, and most especially a firepit or other central feature permitting inferences to like phenomena cited elsewhere (Ocmulgee Earth Lodge, Talahassee find, etc.). The authors state (p. 275) “A small trench also was dug in this manner in the approximate center of the Circle in an effort to locate a possible central post or hearth features. None was found.” Actually, the small trench was a ragged pit rapidly chopped into the center of the site by a backhoe one morning. This, however, must be seen against the then-presumed short working time we would have on the site and its over-arching “salvage” protocols. Likely expressing the authors’ concern for the confusion potential for churned and inverted stratigraphic relations is their further comment that “An attempt was made to preserve at least a minimum of provenience information for the artifacts uncovered during this process by placing the excavated midden soil immediately adjacent the backhoe trench from which it was removed” (italics mine). The potential for inverted relations is apparent. In truth, it was rather chaotic.

A statement that conflicts directly with my personal recall, is that (p.275) “Ricisak’s initial belief that all of the holes in the bedrock were natural solution varieties, rather than the result of human manufacture…” and notes this affected early excavation strategies until the “..significance of the features and their association with the Circle became apparent.” This is interesting since it is diametrically opposed to my own personal recollection. It is my distinct recall that Ricisak (and others) early on favored idea of anthropogenic origin for the majority of the holes. Another popular view onsite at this time, picked up and even illustrated by the press (Miami Herald, 01/03/99), was that the plan profiles of many of the basins were zoomorphic. I have reason to recall this, since I myself originally was much disinclined to attribute the holes at any event, to human activity, and of the basins to zoomorphic configurations – it being my view such spec had no more going for it than that which holds for faces in clouds! (A rather elegant onsite demonstration (by Ricisak) with a shell spud and lance at a later date, convinced me in the end of the anthropogenic origin for many of the holes).

I do not however, recall that (p. 275) “All midden was removed with a representative composite sample of the midden from each basin retained unscreened”, though this was certainly done on some occasions. Truth is, the loose control over (volunteer) excavators and the many conflicting directives often resulted in variable recovery methods. Certainly the double wash through (ibid) “… both ¼ inch and 1/8 inch mesh” for “the remaining midden” was never resorted to or so-implemented. In fact, I recall no double washes specifically onsite at all.

Perhaps it is (again) only unhappy editing that (p. 275) has the total number of features during salvage excavation at Brickell Point given in one place as 688, and further down the same page as “almost 700”, which is not as precise as might be desired in a scientific report.

Measurement Confusion

An unhappy decision that dogged excavation and recording till the end, was that concerning site measurement scales. As they relate (Carr, et al, p. 267) “Standard English surveying units (my italics) of measurement (feet and tenths) were used for recording proveniences ….the rationale being that the locations of archeological excavations could be more easily related to construction plans…” I cannot address why this was felt to be such a paramount matter, but that an archeological problem (confused enough these days with inch vs metric system conflicts) was redefined into an engineering (feet and tenths) “problem,” bespeaks to the undue influence, in my opinion, of engineering concepts at this site. To this may be added (p. 269) “…excavation in each unit generally proceeded in arbitrary levels of four-tenths of a foot (10.16) cm). In a few instances this was reduced to two-tenths of a foot (5.08 cm).” The tenths (engineering) scale was very confusing to beginners (and to many others) and introduced a needless confusion, while implying an unrealized precision.

If this is not dismaying enough, it is finally recorded (ibid), “During the latter stages of the project, levels were sometimes combined or disregarded (my italics) for the sake of expediency.”

In short, the measuring systems at 8/DA/12 were chaotic from the start, in my opinion. Excavators used inch rules, metric rules, and broken sections of metal engineers’ tapes indiscriminately picked up by unsupervised volunteers onsite.

Features

Carr cites “two features of particular note”(p. 278) within the Circle. Yet cites little in the way of support as to why they are of note. The first, an articulated shark skeleton, he refers to as “deliberately interred” (Carr, et al, p. 281). However, garbage bulldozed at the Municipal Dump is “deliberately interred,” and lacking further clarification and the landmarks for determination of a deliberate interment, his citation seems hollow. It is offered that it was “articulated” but even so it might yet have been merely cast aside or even covered by natural events (admittedly in a tropical climate these would presumably be rapid). Onsite and informally, the burial has often been called “sacred” – but no named corollary finds such as fetishes, mortuary furniture, broken or “killed” weapons, deposits of ocher or clean sand, crystals or indeed anything at all that could support such inference was cited. It lay on an east-west axis, but the significance of this is not stated either (though supposedly “oriented” shark burials have sometimes been reported elsewhere, i.e. Spanish Point, and in the Bahamas). Of course, anything at all that “pointed” or lay vaguely to the “east” was frequently hailed as relating to the “sun” or to the “direction” of sunrise. The shark again has been listed as one of the notable components in an inventory of finds in a newspaper article hailing the “Circle’s sacred use” (Miami Herald, 2/11/99). But again, association by inclusion in a list does not establish anything significant, let alone “sacred” about the shark burial. A radiocarbon date obtained subsequently (A.D. 1560-1680) and cited by Carr, et al (p.281) pretty well suggests the burial is altogether unrelated to activities of the site’s creators or even to the Circle itself, as he later admits.

The second feature he cites (p. 281) is a “sea turtle carapace, also was uncovered in what appears to be a deliberately interred , possibly a ritual offering. It too, was placed in an east-west alignment.” No radiocarbon date is yet offered. I was the primary excavator of this carapace, and initiated in fact its en bloc removal, utilizing scrap materials commandeered onsite, all over the director’s objections. I have been much bothered by the hype it subsequently received in the same cited Herald article, (“Discovery of sea turtle shell points to sacred use of Circle, expert says,” Miami Herald, p. 2B, 02/11/99). My misgivings were posted separately (9/22/99) at an open Web address, where they may be accessed yet (http://bwpowell.com/archeology/miamicircle/demurrer.html). Despite claims to the contrary, no determination other than an eyeball check was made for the find’s very general “orientation” on an east-west axis. (Everything on earth here below is perforce oriented along some axis or another…). The head was not “exactly aligned to the east”. There were no accompanying offerings, objects or dispositions to suggest in any way that the carapace was other than just another in the (probable) food scrap remains of the aborigines, let alone “sacred.” (A designation incidentally, used indiscriminately on the site for many finds and dispositions, but curiously never further defined).

Some Recoveries

Carr, et al, p. 269) state that “Recovery from the general units was confined to all diagnostic material…” and go on to list ceramics, worked bone, (any) human bone, glass, metal, et al but “diagnostic” is not clear in this sense. The imposition is always “archeologically diagnostic” – but this requires clarification. Bone, for instance, can hold clues to many archeologically significant data: age and gender of species taken, hunting and fishing strategies, climate and season of site occupation (for migratory species) etc. etc. Yet no table of recovered faunal species accompanies their report. Onsite, bone was routinely discarded in wholesale amounts by the sifters. With Carr’s permission, I personally retained samples from the discards after hours, and submitted this material myself to professional zoologists at The Florida Natural History Museum. Dr. Kelley Reis identified some 17 different species alone here – a table for which was posted by me at an open website, http://bwpowell.com/archeology/miamicircle/verttable.html , as early as 9/3/99, and is available there yet.

I agree with Carr, et al that most “Non-modern historic period material …” (p. 276) at the site appears to date primarily to the late nineteenth century. Again, however, one wonders at his reluctance to describe, if not illustrate some of these finds. One celebrated item was the kaolin so-called “Irish pipe bowl.” – accepted as such for its Irish motifs of a harp, likely shamrock plant and the word ‘Erin’ raised on its surface. (cf. Sup6 in Supplemental Graphics). Working only with a quick snapshot permitted at time of its finding, I am able to say that to my own satisfaction anyway, this bowl is likely British manufacture, despite its Irish motifs: I ultimately was able to run down an Australian colleague and pipe authority who, believe it or not – has the identical bowl around 1856 A.D. there, from a dig of his own on tiny Norfolk Island in the far Pacific – half a world away, and almost the antipodes of downtown Miami! (Personal communication, Dr Robert V. J. P. Varman, 6/15/00). As a sometime traditional re-creation blacksmith, I too, was much interested in the many “nails” recovered and indiscriminately discarded in the sifters (cf.. Sup3 – Nails in http://www.themiamicircle.f2s.com/supgraphics/01.html ).

The Celebrated Celts

A statement by the Editor (Editor’s Page, V 53(4) to the effect that “Jackie Dixon and her colleagues, in the fifth article, present the results of their analysis of the stone axes found at the site… The conclusion that the basaltic axes originated somewhere near Macon, Georgia – originally reported in a September, 1999 newspaper article – helped steer discussions away from a Mayan origin for the Circle’s builders”, while true in the end, is not true in the beginning – for Carr himself is quoted (Miami Herald, 4/14/99) as saying (rather ‘testifying’) that “Basalt ax heads found at the Miami Circle appear to have come from somewhere in Central America…” and the article goes on to say that “geological testing” of the basalt and matching to various source regions did not “support” an Appalachian provenience.

I have specific reason to recall all this, for very shortly after we had begun excavation of the basin ring in earnest, I remarked to both the field director and the director the vaguest “reminiscence” (that most beloved of archeological buzz words..) to the conceptual idea of “ringed basins in the ground” as known personally to me from visits to the (restored) Mississippian Ocmulgee Earth Lodge near Macon, Georgia. My recall is even more specific: I took WWII infantry basic at Camp Wheeler there – and the Earth Lodge was almost on our rifle range, so to speak! This view was greeted with much hilarity onsite – as perhaps it might best have been – as the observation is only the most tenuous in nature.

But not so tenuous that I did not obtain drawings and plats from Sylvia Flowers, the archeologist/ranger at Ocmulgee (personal communication) for my own personal reference and was bemused to find that the diameters of the two “circles” are within a foot of one another… I know, however, of no other “similarities” as the basins there are much smaller, more regular, in soil, and generally demonstrated to have been vomitoria, none of which applies to the Miami Circle basins. But it is the case that Macon lies within the Appalachian province, and celts that to the eye appear much as do the ones at issue, occur northward in this province even to New England.

It is then with some interest that I read Dixon’s characterization (Dixon, et al, p. 333) that hydrous fluids released from a subducting plate “…impart(s) a characteristic geochemical fingerprint to the magmas.” (continuing) “Basalts from the Caribbean region and ENA (Eastern North America – my note) are texturally distinct” (italics mine).

Her further statements (same page) that “…the massive, non-vesicular texture of the stone source for the celts suggests derivation from a North American source” and yet again, “Figure 4 shows that the ENA and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge basalts have distinctly lower total alkalis…than do most basalts from Mexico, Central America, and the Lesser Antilles,” (italics mine) cannot but prompt the query: if this is so, how was all this missed the first time around?

The question is neither rhetorical nor ill-tempered: the Miami Circle Site was strongly portrayed as having a Mayan link if not an outright origin almost from the start, and this stimulated or more properly perhaps, over-stimulated a wide and interfering popular movement and misinformation about the site on actually an international scale. Some of the fallout from this unhappy mis-representation includes heightened tensions with local Indian ethnic groups and their interferences on the grounds that sacred lands were being defiled (everyone remembers Geeta, in fact, the “Mayan priestess” who burned incense and chanted at the site gate daily). The turmoil spilled on occasion into the streets, and onto the Late News. Acrimony arose over what to do with the site and who was to do it. Politicians intruded. Factions formed. Fringe groups and professional discontents appeared from every quarter: UFOlogists, Atlanteans, anti-science and religious zealots (often one and the same), etc. appeared out of nowhere. Everything went forth but the continued impartial scientific investigation of this site, eventually closed by Court order. It remains today an unresolved investigation, largely for these and related factors, in my opinion. The early details as they unfolded here, are as much a part of the history of the 8/DA/12 dig, as “final” summation from arbitrary later dates.

The restudy of the basalt axes was not announced (Miami Herald, 9/24/99) until over five months after the original announcement that the axes were Central American in origin – more than enough to fix in many of the heads of the shakers-and-movers that the site was “something” out of all proportion to anything it has ever been actually demonstrated (yet) to be.

I would be less than human if I did not add that the restudy while modestly declining (p. 333) to “pinpoint an exact quarry site,” did go on to suggest “…the largest concentration of these NW-SE trending dikes in the Georgia Piedmont area occurs within a 50 X 50 km area north of Macon, Georgia….”

I would also take minor issue with the geologist Dixon’s characterization (Dixon, et al, p. 335) that in Florida, “…ground stone artifacts made of any material other than native limestone are, by definition, evidence of long distance exchange” where “exchange” is meant as “trade” – for there are other ways materials might be one-way transported away from their homelands (i.e, no reciprocal “trade”) as materials taken in conquest, or by simple forays, exploration, and mining expeditions with quite the opposite social implication from “trade” (exchange).

Site Origin

In a final paper, (Weisman, et al) offer some descriptions and interpretations of the basin ring phenomena at 8/DA/12. Though I dug there almost daily through the initial excavation, I can recognize but few of their landmarks, and understand almost none of their presentation or inferences. They boldly state (Weisman, et al, p. 343), “Field observations indicate that the Miami Circle can be divided into roughly symmetrical north and south halves, each consisting of pairs of large and small basins that are roughly rectangular in plain-view.” I submit this simply cannot be done without the most egregious of “data selection.” The best and most succinct support I can give for this criticism is to invite the impartial comparison of their (ibid) Figure 1 drawing to the unretouched “official” aerial photo counterparts of the Circle itself. (cf. Sup2, 4 and 5 in Supplemental Graphics).

Carr, et al also (p. 278) state flatly that “The patterning of the large basins and the attendant smaller holes is reversed on the northern and southern halves of the Circle, giving the impression of a mirror image. This arrangement points to the intentional layout and design of the feature.” This is quite meaningless. “Reversed” – how? (top to bottom or left to right?). In fact, since mirrors in the well known mirror paradox, don’t “reverse” anything top to bottom (i.e., north to south) if it is to have any meaning at all, one has to say “reversed” left to right or east to west… which is not what they state. Perhaps they mean “flipped image.” Even were this so, as I hope to suggest it is not immediately below, it were still bad science to say it would “…point to the intentional layout and design of the feature.” Lacking further criteria, it makes just as much sense here to say that lack of a reversed or mirror image, points to intentional layout and design as well (i.e., maybe the putative creators were at pains to prevent a mirror image…???). The fact of the basin ring alone, with its remnant traces here and there of anthropogenic manufacture, is evidence enough of intentional layout if not design.

Carr, et al (p. 278) tantalize with their further statement here that , “The basin walls that are closest to the Circle’s interior slant slightly toward the Circle center, while those (sic) on the outer walls are typically vertical or even slightly undercut.” Ignoring the grammatical glitch, if this is so, it is a most interesting and curious observation. I was never aware of same when at the dig. Of course, it is a consequence – as any craftsman knows – that when working (chopping, reaming, drilling, etc.) in resistant materials (stone, wood, plaster) by hand, “holes” typically take on slanted wall profiles, becoming somewhat conical in cross-section – tapering downwards as consequence of repeated tool insertions, working, etc. The many small holes onsite are not, it is to be noted, perfect parallel-sided cylinders in cross-section: all taper toward the bottom more or less to some degree. That the larger basins might so taper might also be anticipated. My only question now being: slant which way (from top or bottom?) as Carr, et all do not specifically say. Convention, if not editing I suppose, favors “from top.”

To explore this possibility of replicated or mirrored Circle halves further, I “halved” both the Weisman, et al drawn image (i.e., Figure 1) and the “official” unretouched aerial photo of the site along their midpoint east-west lines. I have then tried to juxtapose them as arc quarters to permit close comparison of the statements about them. (See Supplemental Graphics). Reference to Sup2 shows a flipped photo image of the NW quadrant basins arc juxtaposed alongside the normal aspect of the SW basins arc quadrant It is readily apparent that the whole schema breaks down: there are no 1:1 flipped (or “mirrored”) images. Not even “roughly.” What often appear as discrete intermediate basins in the “Drawn Arcs” illustration (Sup 4, discussed next), are in reality physical continuances or extensions of primary basins and not separate basins. Now reference to the “Drawn arcs” illustration (see), in which I have reproduced and flipped the arcs the same way as for the “Photo arcs” comparison, to aid in comparison, might suggest some very vague “matches” or parallels, almost after the manner of shapes in a Rorschach test ( i.e., variable for every viewer). The authors themselves admit any postulated patterning is obscured in the SE quadrant. The most charitable explanation I can offer is that any resemblances (all the phenomena at hand are, after all, basins) are just artifacts of the way in which they were interpreted and later drawn. The unretouched aerial photo certainly lends no support to a notion of mirror imaging or reversals.

There is even a further curious observation to make: if one rotates one’s “map image” of the site 90 degrees (either way) and then plays the “halving” game – one gets curious new configurations indeed. Now the former non-flippable halves become flippable (antiparadox) and the non-reversible sides, reversible. When the superposed arcs are compared this way (not reproduced online), it is possible to imagine they do not complement or duplicate each other side by side at all: they “seem to be” sometimes in fact, this time, reversed from end to end, each to each, when compared! Maybe this was the “schema” the ancient creators had in mind and not the (arbitrary) one of a north/south split! In truth, Carr, et al, and Weisman, et al, offer us no clue whatsoever as to why the traditional map convention of our culture (north at top), is taken as their departure point for interpreting this site. If one were so inclined, one might “halve” the Circle along any number of infinite axes, boxing the compass like a mariner, and going clear around, possibly giving rise to many new speculative schemes.

Weisman, et al, further offer absolutely no criteria (p. 343) for how they determine (i.e., which of a great many holes) are the holes they illustrate as “… round hole(s) lying immediately outside the circle defined by the basins (Figure 1)” which they say occurs for “Most of the paired basins…” which they show in the same drawing. At the risk of a purely semantic dispute, I would add that in my opinion most (not all!) of the basins moreover are not “rectangular” but rather elongated ovoids really , but to dispute plan views of these basins is just not productive.

Where they write (p. 343) that, “This series consists of large, approximately rectangular holes or basins, that are fairly regularly spaced and that alternate (italics mine) with smaller approximately rectangular holes or basins” they are simply wrongly describing the phenomena. Recourse to the unretouched aerial photos clearly shows that by contrast to their drawing, the “alternate” (small) basins are in many cases, simple necked-extensions or clearly physically linked to, or part of, the “adjacent” larger basins. It is a distortion to imply there is a “series” of alternate-sized separate basins here. As an aside, it is interesting to recall the classic “lumper vs splitter” issue in archeology so well developed in the tedious arguments we have all known perhaps, over projectile point typologies, where “lumpers” see at best one or two general conceptual ideas at work, and the “splitters” hold for near-infinite variations on every theme. Seemingly, according to this thesis, most researchers are either lumpers or splitters by nature. The favorite Golden Mean in all this is to always hold for ”intergrades” as the resolution. Something very like this could be advanced for this issue of the basin morphologies. The drawback being that acceptance of “intergrades” does not resolve the matter as to lumping vs splitting: it merely introduces a third indeterminate category… Our more mathematicized engineering brethern say, simply, “Where little is known, theories are many.” And this latter may more truly fit interpretations of the many holes, outlines, undulations and cavities at 8/DA/12).

Weisman, et al also write (p. 343) of another “less-visible circle”, concentric with the 38-foot circle, and lying “a foot or two” outside the 38-foot circumference. They add that “These circular holes, from 12-15 cm in diameter, can be traced around the northern half of the circle and around part of the southern portion of the circle. The holes seem to be (are they, or are they not?) regularly spaced at about (how much “about”?) as the larger holes in the 38-foot circle” (italics mine). With the same level of definition, I submit one might find “traces of an inner circle, too – some members of which, like the outer circle, are only “about” where the larger holes are, too.”

The point is that this is the most egregious of “data selections” here, as I have said, and without further definition of what is “qualified” and what is not qualified for inclusion, all this is as speculative as the onetime zoomorphic outlines thesis for the basins, alluded to earlier. As to Wiseman, et al’s further statement their outer ring can be traced “around the northern half” as well as part of the southern half, this too is most debatable. It is a fact, that arcuate “runs” of holes may be traced for a short distance only in both the NW and SE quadrant circle quadrants. What, if anything, this might signify is unclear. There are no clear, unbroken ‘runs” clear around either of the two halves.

Finally, Weisman, et al are certainly straining our credulity once again when they say (their Figure 1 caption) “A series of double holes crosses the Circle’s north half, and a possible series of single holes crosses the Circle’s south half.” This matter of the “double holes” was much discussed onsite. The constraint on Weisman, et al’s supposition is that they provide no criteria whereby they determine what is and is not a double hole. The truth of the matter (I dug there!) is that the inner surface of the Miami Circle is like nothing so much as the randomized hole pattern of a slice of Swiss cheese. The artful “connecting of the dots” that went on for months on end suggested (again like Caesar’s wife) “… many things to many people”. I ask: are Weisman, et al’s “doubles” actual doubles or apparent doubles – i.e., maybe the problem is like that of binary stars and optical doubles in astronomy: how close (and how distant) must any given “pair” of holes be, to be considered “doubles?” The question is not academic.

If one is attempting to establish linear runs, or curved or arcuate alignments and whatnot – then one is apt to “see” any convenient holes as the “ones that they meant to use” etc. This will not do. Some criterion must be set down for inclusion/exclusion in the concept “double holes.” To suggest what I mean, a representative set of such holes might first be agreed upon (based on yet other criteria) and then one might include them within a maximum given radius of one another, say. The double hole plot or area so determined, might then be taken as a limiting control (more mathematicized approach) to determination here, and applied to subsequent candidate holes. In this fashion, one might build yet entirely different castles – pardon! – Circles - in the air!

Literature Cited

Preliminary Report on Salvage Archaeological Investigations of the Brickell Point Site (8DA12), Including the Miami Circle. Robert S. Carr and John Ricisak. The Florida Anthropologist. Volume 53, Number 4, p. 260 ff. December 2000. Tallahassee.

The Archaeology of Brickell Point and the Miami Circle. Ryan J. Wheeler. The Florida Anthropologist. Volume 53, Number 4, p. 294 ff. December 2000. Tallahassee.

Provenance of Stone Celts from the Miami Circle Archaeological Site. Jacqueline Eaby Dixon, Kyla Simons, Loretta Leist, Christopher Eck, John Ricisak, John Gifford, and Jeff Ryan. The Florida Anthropologist. Volume 53, Number 4, p. 328 ff. December 2000. Tallahassee.

The Origin and Significance of the Brickell Point Site (8DA12), also Known as the Miami Circle. Bret R. Weisman, Herschel E. Shepard, and George M. Luer. The Florida Anthropologist. Volume 53, Number 4, p. 342 ff. December 2000. Tallahassee.

Bernie Powell
North Miami Beach
September 28, 2001