• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Cover
 Membership Information
 Table of Contents
 The Miami Circle: Fieldwork, Research...
 Archaeological Investigations at...
 FAS Chapters
 Geoarchaeological Analysis of Sediment...
 Chipped Stone Artifacts from the...
 Bone Artifacts from the Miami Circle...
 Shell Artifacts from the Miami...
 The A. E. Douglass Cup From the...
 Book Reviews
 About the Authors
 Back Cover






Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00182
 Material Information
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title: Fla. anthropol.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Anthropological Society
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology
Publisher: Florida Anthropological Society.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Frequency: quarterly[]
two no. a year[ former 1948-]
quarterly
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Summary: Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1- May 1948-
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027829
Volume ID: VID00182
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01569447
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Cover
        Cover
    Membership Information
        Unnumbered ( 3 )
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    The Miami Circle: Fieldwork, Research and Analysis
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Archaeological Investigations at the Brickell Point Site, 8DA12, Operation 3
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
    FAS Chapters
        Page 58
    Geoarchaeological Analysis of Sediment Samples from the Brickell Point Site (8DA12)
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
    Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Miami Circle Excavations at Brickell Point
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
    Bone Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12)
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
    Shell Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12)
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
    The A. E. Douglass Cup From the Brickell Mound
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
    Book Reviews
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
    About the Authors
        Page 194
    Back Cover
        Page 195
Full Text





COPYRIGHT NOTICE

2000 Florida Anthropological Society Inc.


The Florida Anthropological Society Inc. holds
source text of the Florida Anthropologist
considered the copyright holder for the text
these publications.


all rights to the
and shall be
and images of


The Florida Anthropological Society has made this publication
available to the University of Florida, for purposes of
digitization and Internet distribution.

The Florida Anthropological Society reserves all rights to this
publication. All uses, excluding those made under "fair use"
provisions of U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107 are restricted.

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL


VOLUME 57, NUMBERS 1-2


SOCIETY, INC.


MARCH-JUNE 2004


Special Issue: The Miami Circle: Fieldwork, Research and Analysis


13, 7521







THE FLORIDA ANTIIROPOLOGIST is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., P.O. Box 6356, Tallahassee, Florida 32314.
Subscription is by membership in the Society. Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United States
of America. Membership may be initiated at any time during the year, and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall be
payable on the anniversary of the initial dues payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications distributed by the Society during
the 12 months of their membership year. Annual dues are as follows: individual $25, family $35, institutional $25, sustaining $35 or
more, patron $100 or more, and life $500. Foreign subscriptions are an additional $5 U.S. to cover added postage and handling costs
for individual, family, or institutional membership categories. Copies of the journal will only be sent to members with current paid dues.
Please contact the Editor for information on recent back issues.

Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms, and notifications of changes of address should be sent to the
Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer or may be routed through the Editor to facilitate acknowledgment in
subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editor. Publications
for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style guide (49[1], 1996,
pp. 37-43) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editor with specific questions. Submit four (4) copies
for use in peer review. Only one set of original graphics need be submitted. The journal is formatted using Word Perfect 8.0. All
manuscripts must be submitted in final form on DOS-formatted 3.5 inch diskettes or CDs in Word Perfect, Word, or ASCII format.
Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to the mailing of the next issue. The post office will not forward bulk mail
nor retain such mail when "temporary hold" orders exist. Such mail is returned to the Society postage due. The journal is published
quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year.


OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY

President: David Burns, 15128 Springview St., Tampa, FL 33624 (daveburns@prodigy.net)
First Vice President: Scott Mitchell, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-7800
(mitchell flmnh.ufl.edu)
Second Vice President: Phyllis Kolianos, 880 Seminole Blvd., Tarpon Springs, FL 34689 (koliano@attglobal.net)
Corresponding Secretary: Gordon Davis, 2200 N. Oleander Dr., Avon Park, FL 33825 (gordondavis@hotmail.com)
Membership Secretary: Terry Simpson, 9907 High Meadow Ave., Thonotosassa, FL 33592 (tsimpson@luna.cas.usf.edu)
Treasurer and RegisteredAgent: Kelly Driscoll, 5313 Johns Road, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33634 (k.driscoll@mindspring.com)
Directors at Large: Gloria Fike, 2815 SE St. Lucie Blvd., Stuart, FL 34997 (GloriaFike@prodigy.net)(One Year); Linda Allred,
5460 43"r Ave. N., St. Petersburg, FL 33709 (llrred@juno.com)(Two Years); Chuck Wilde, 195 Huntley Oaks Blvd., Lake Placid,
FL 33852 (pillpot@strato.net)(Three Years)
Immediate Past President: Sheila Stewart, 2130 Burlington Avenue North, St. Petersburg, FL 33713 (sjstew@gte.net)
Newsletter Editor: Sheila Stewart, 2130 Burlington Avenue North, St. Petersburg, FL 33713 (sjstew@gte.net)

JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF

Editor: Ryan J. Wheeler, P.O. Box 6356, Tallahassee, FL 32314-6356 (rwheeler@nettally.com)
Book Review Editor: Keith Ashley, P.O. Box 350225, Jacksonville, FL 32225-0225 (akashley@fdn.com)
Technical Editor: vacant
Editorial Assistant: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239-5019 (gluer@grove.ufl.edu)
Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304
Bulk Mail: Capital City Mailing, 4013 Woodville Hwy, Tallahassee, FL 32311
Back Issue Sales: Graves Museum of Archaeology and Natural History, 481 S. Federal Highway, Dania, FL 33004, (954) 925-7770,
FAX (954) 925-7064

EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD

Albert C. Goodyear, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (goodyear@sc.edu)
Jerald T. Milanich, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 (jtm@flmnh.ufl.edu)
Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (jeffmitchem@juno.com)
Nancy Marie White, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100 (nwhite@chumal.cas.usf.edu)
Robert J. Austin, P. O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (bob@searchinc.com)

NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial Review Board members, the review comments of others knowledgeable in a manuscript's
subject matter are solicited as part of our peer review process.








THE FLORIDA


ANTHROPOLOGIST



Volume 57 Numbers 1-2
March-June 2004


UL
0
C
()
Y


SPECIAL ISSUE
THE MIAMI CIRCLE: FIELDWORK, RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS



U OF F LIBRARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS


The Miami Circle: Fieldwork, Research and Analysis. Ryan J. Wheeler and Robert S. Carr 3

Archaeological Investigations at the Brickell Point Site, 8DA12,
Operation 3. Randolph J. Widmer 11

Geoarchaeological Analysis of Sediment Samples from the Brickell Point Site
(8DA12). John Gifford 59

Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Miami Circle Excavations at Brickell Point. Robert J. Austin 85

Bone Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12). Ryan J. Wheeler 133

Shell Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12). Ryan J. Wheeler 159

The A. E. Douglass Cup from the Brickell Mound. William M. Straight 187


BOOK REVIEWS


Cusick: Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Cameron B. Wesson 191

Anderson and Mainfort: The Woodland Southeast. Neill Wallis 192

About the Authors 194


Cover: The Miami Circle at Brickell Point, view from a crane, July 2000. The Miami Circle feature is in the foreground,
while Randolph Widmer's Operation 3 excavations can be seen in the background.

Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

3 1262 07390 034 1









THE MIAMI CIRCLE: FIELDWORK, RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

RYAN J. WHEELER' AND ROBERT S. CARR2

' 2026 Chuhb ene. Tallahassee, FL 32301
E-mail: rwheelerai nettallv.coim

- Archaeological and Historical Conservancv, Inc.
4800 SIW 64th Avenue, Suite 107, Davie, FL 33014
E-mail: archlgcla:bellsouth.net


Introduction

This issue of The Florida Anthropologist is dedicated to
articles that focus on additional fieldwork, research and
analysis of materials from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point
site (8DA12). The Miami Circle feature was discovered
during archaeological salvage excavations at the Brickell Point
site in 1998 conducted by the Historic Preservation office of
Miami-Dade County and the Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc. (see Figure 1). Holes and basins carved into
the shallow Miami Oolite limestone formation form the
unusual feature dubbed "the Miami Circle." Archaeologists
have suggested the 38 ft (11.6 m) diameter feature represents
the foundation of a prehistoric structure made by the Tequesta
Indians or their ancestors (Carr and Ricisak 2000) (Figure 2).
Stratified accretionary midden deposits occur over and in the
holes that make up the Circle. This midden is comprised of
organically stained soil, dense deposits of faunal bone, and
occasional lenses of marine bivalve shells. Artifacts found
during excavations are typical of the Glades Area, including
sand-tempered ceramics and some early decorated Glades
series sherds. as well as bone and shell implements. Exotic
items, like basaltic stone celts, galena, pumice, and chipped
stone artifacts, also have been recovered, representing items of
regional and long-distance exchange. Several features
encountered in the midden include the buried carapace of a sea
turtle, the articulated interment of a shark, and a buried
bottlenose dolphin skull.
Public outcry over the impending destruction of the Miamni
Circle and development of the property led to additional
research at the site, which documented the limestone forma-
tion with cut holes on about 70% of the property and intact
accretionary midden deposits on at least 35% of the property
(Wheeler 2000a. 2000b). Research suggests that further
analysis of the site and associated cultural materials will help
broaden our understanding of American Indian architecture,
long-distance exchange networks, and patterns of animal
interment in Florida and the Caribbean basin. A cooperative
effort between the State of Florida, Miami-Dade County, and
many other public and private organizations and individuals
led to the state's acquisition of the Brickell Point site and
Miami Circle feature in 1999 (Levinson 2000: Miami-Dade
County Historic Preservation Division 1999; Stroup and


Brown 2000). While some writers have criticized the decision
to preserve this important site, the affects seem to be posi-
tivedevelopment in downtown Miami has continued, but the
publicity surrounding the Miami Circle has raised awareness
of the early history and American Indian heritage of the
region.
Additional fieldwork, along with analysis of artifacts and
other data recovered from the Miami Circle excavations has
been funded by a State of Florida, Division of Historical
Resources special category grant (#SC158) awarded to the
Historical Museum of Southern Florida in 1999-2000. The
special category grant also facilitated development of a new,
permanent exhibit at the museum titled "First Arrivals: The
Archaeology of Southern Florida." The exhibit features
objects from the Historical Museum's collections, including
many artifacts from the Miami Circle (see Figure 3). Some of
the research funded by the grant is presented in this volume.

The Tequesta and their Ancestors

The Miami Circle at Brickell Point site is associated with
the Tequesta and their ancestors. The Tequesta represent a
significant culture within the history of the United States. Not
only were they recorded in one of the first accounts of North
America (Davis 1935; True 1944). their cultural patterns
persisted for over 250 years following European Contact. This
is unusual in Florida and the Southeast, where American
Indian groups changed drastically after the introduction of
European diseases and resettlement in missions. Persistence
after contact seems to be a distinguishing feature of most of the
native groups of southern Florida, though ethnohistorical and
archaeological evidence suggests that distinct cultural patterns
of each group (i.e., Tequesta, Calusa, Jeaga, Ais) governed
their responses to contact and their ways of dealing with new
technologies and cultural patterns (Hann 2003:175-177;
Wheeler 1996:364-366). The Tequesta were one of several
powerful, non-agricultural chiefdoms of southern Florida when
the Spanish arrived in the sixteenth century. Most studies of
socio-political complexity in southern Florida have focused on
the Calusa of southwestern Florida, however, the Tequesta
appear to have been a significant rival for power, and studies
of Tequesta socio-political complexity may be rewarding.
Some indications for complexity among the Tequesta and their


VOL. 57(1-2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH-JUNE 2004


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


MARCH-JUNE 2004


VOL. 57(1-2)






Thr FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VoL. 57(1-2)


Figure 1. Location of the Miami Circle at Brickell Point site (after Dixon et al. 2000:329).


ancestors include earthwork building, temple mound construc-
tion, and the construction of the canoe canals at Cape Sable.
Archaeological excavation demonstrates that the patterns
of Tcquesta life developed during the Archaic (perhaps even
the Early Archaic) in sync with the subtropical environment of
southeastern Florida and the Everglades. The relationship of
the Tequesta to the Everglades is perhaps one of the most
significant aspects of this group. The Everglades has been
recognized as a virtually unique environmental system and
archaeological evidence is now demonstrating that the
Tequesta and their ancestors may have had an active role in
the development of tree islands, which support characteristic
upland subtropical hammock ecosystems of the Everglades
(Carr 2002). While the unique adaptation of the Tequesta to
subtropical southeastern Florida had long earned them a
reputation for parochial and conservative ways, new evidence


indicates that they participated in regional and long-distance
exchange networks. Materials controlled or contributed to
exchange included pumice and Strombus conch shells: in
return they obtained chert. basaltic axes. galena. and copper.
The ancestors of the Tequesta even participated in the Middle
Woodland Hopewellian exchange network, as evidenced by
some of the exchange goods. as well as ceramic platform pipes
that are replicas of Hopewellian pipes. The Tequesta role in
exchange is significant, and current and future studies of
exchange goods may provide new information on routes of
exchange and exchange patterns.
The articles presented in this issue add to our understand-
ing of the Miami Circle at Brickell Point site, and to our
knowledge of the Tequesta and their ancestors. The Brickell
Point site was part of a large village complex located at the
mouth of the Miami River. This was the village Tequesta or


TnE FLORrDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)





MIAMI CIRCLE: FIELDWORK, RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS


Figure 2. Aerial view of the Miami Circle in 1999 (photograph by John Ricisak).


Chequescha first mentioned in the account of Ponce de Leon's
exploration, and the site of later Spanish mission attempts
(Davis 1935:21; Parks 1982). Investigations of the Granada
site on the north side of the river have documented extensive
Glades II and III period (ca. A.D. 750-1763) occupation, while
the deposits around the Miami Circle appear to date to the
early history of the village, ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 750, with
some later occupation as well. This makes research at the
Miami Circle important in understanding the development of
the Tequesta village, which persisted at the mouth of the
Miami River for almost 2,000 years. The articles in this
volume address details of site formation, chronology, and
architectural features, as well as shell and bone tools of daily
life, and chipped stone tools made from materials gained


through regional exchange networks.

Operation 3 Fieldwork

Randolph Widmer, professor of anthropology at the
University of Houston, conducted two three-week field school
sessions at Brickell Point during June and August 2000. His
article, "Archaeological Investigations at the Brickell Point
Site, 8DA12,
Operation 3" presents a summary of that fieldwork. Widmer
focused his excavations on the area between the "Valley of the
Holes," a concentration of carved holes found during the State
of Florida investigation of the site, and the Miami Circle
feature. A large block excavation (18 2 x 2 m units) was


WHEELER AND CARR





TuE FLORInA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


b-4-0


Figure 3. "First Arrivals" mural by John LoCastro (courtesy the Historical Museum of Southern Florida, Miami).


opened in this area in the hopes of finding additional struc-
tures like the Miami Circle. Numerous holes and basins (n =
507) carved into the limestone were encountered, along with
artifacts and accretionary deposits, but no definite posthole
patterns were recognized. Seventeen additional radiocarbon
dates and some diagnostic ceramics indicate a fairly uniform
age for the Brickell Point midden, consistent with the previous
two excavation operations. Widmer's report also provides a
series of questions and directions for future research that help
in understanding the significance of the Miami Circle at
Brickell Point site. Widmer posits questions about structure
size, why holes were carved in the limestone, why holes cluster
in pairs, how to interpret artifacts found in holes and basins,
how long might structures have persisted, and he suggests
some fascinating hypotheses to address these questions. His
article also makes comparisons to excavations and posthole
patterns at the Key Marco site, and emphasizes the density of
postholes at the Brickell Point site and the potential for using
the site to understand American Indian architecture.

Radiocarbon Dating

Widmer's work at the Miami Circle at Brickell Point site
included an extensive series of 18 radiocarbon assays con-
ducted on lucine (Lucina sp.) clam shells recovered from
various contexts in the Operation 3 excavations. Many of
these shell samples were removed from cut hole features.
Based on the radiocarbon dates from his study and previous
dates, Widmer proposes five prehistoric chronological phases
for the site. The dates confirm that the site deposits are
primarily from the Glades I early period (ca. 760 B.C. to A.D.
550). The major break in dates comes between Phases IV and
V, with the later phase representing a much later occupation,
ca. A.D. 1330-1680 (approximately the Glades IIIb and c
periods).


Additional Fieldwork and Analysis

John Gifford of the University of Miami conducted a soils
analysis of material from the Brickell Point site, presented here
in his article "Geoarchaeological Analysis of Sediment
Samples from the Brickell Point Site (8DA 12): Final Report."
This analysis focused on ten samples collected from
proveniences within the Miami Circle feature, the Area 2
excavation block to the northwest of the Circle, and the
Operation 3 excavations to the east of the Circle. Gifford
identified seven constituent particle categories in the samples
and also examined particle size, adjusting for the larger size
materials and the anthropogenic origins of the midden.
Gifford reports two major groupings-one lacking very coarse
to coarse sand size fractions, and a second that has a substan-
tial percentage of these fractions, with one sample transitional
between the two. This suggests the possibility for two
depositional events, but also points to the relative uniformity
of the deposits across the site. Gifford continued his analysis
by comparing the size fractions using a multivariate statistical
method involving hierarchical linkage of the size fractions by
particle types. This analysis shows little correlation with the
initial groupings. Gifford continued the analysis by focusing
on four new data sets dealing solely with the sand-size
fractions of the ten samples, which demonstrated a more
comprehensible pattern based on one size fraction (+1 to +2 on
the Phi ((p) grain size scale); the result is three major groups,
with two samples being dissimilar to all three groups and from
one another. Gifford also had two separate fractions from one
soil sample radiocarbon dated, suggesting some additional
complexities of the deposits that needs to be considered in
future analysis. He suggests several directions for future
research, including focusing on the medium sand fraction in
a larger number of samples. Directions for future soils
research include focusing on the medium sand fraction in a
larger number of samples, bulk radiocarbon dating of the soils,


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)





MIAMI CIRCLE: FIELDWORK, RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS


Figure 4. Columbia biface found during State of Florida
investigations at the Miami Circle at Brickell Point site.

as well as tests such as % organic, pH, chemical analysis,
magnetic susceptibility, and micromorphology. These tech-
niques may help in discerning site stratification and deposition
episodes.

Artifact Analysis

Artifact analysis presented in this issue includes studies of
chipped stone material, bone artifacts, and shell artifacts.
Ongoing research, to be published in a future issue, includes
sourcing and analysis of pumice artifacts, sourcing and
analysis of galena artifacts, analysis of ceramic and historic
artifacts, an analysis of features using 3D laser scanning
technology, as well as zooarchaeological and paleobotanical
studies of samples from the Miami Circle.

Chipped Stone

Sites in southern and southeastern Florida are typically not
associated with large assemblages of chipped stone artifacts.
Contrary to this pattern, the Miami Circle produced a large
quantity of chipped stone debitage and some finished tools (n
= 1,431). Archaeologist Robert Austin, in his article "Chipped
Stone Artifacts from the Miami Circle Excavations at Brickell
Point," presents his analysis of the chipped stone assemblage
from the site. He identified cherts from cobbles originating in
the Tampa Limestone outcrops of Hillsborough and Pinellas
counties; cherts from cobbles typical of the Suwannee and


Ocala formations found in Polk, Pasco, extreme northeastern
Hillsborough counties, and outcrops of the Ocala Arch; as well
as non-cobble forms of the same formations and a few silici-
fled corals from outcrops in Hillsborough, Polk, and Pasco
counties. These localities are located in the central Gulf Coast
part of Florida, approximately 320 km from the Miami Circle
at Brickell Point site. Artifact forms included numerous
flakes, thermal shatter, cores and unmodified cobbles,
hammerstone fragments, bifaces, unifaces, microliths, modi-
fied flakes, and utilized flakes (Figure 4). Austin indicates
that the cobble-based chipped stone technology evident at the
Miami Circle has only one analog in southern and central
Florida-the Fort Center site on Fisheating Creek. This site
is located approximately 170 km from the Miami Circle, on
the western side of Lake Okeechobee. Austin hypothesizes
that the Miami Circle cobbles were obtained through exchange
with the Fort Center peoples.
Austin also suggests that down-the-line or redistributional
forms of exchange could have characterized the exchange
system in place in southern Florida. He explains that in down-
the-line exchange, the chert cobbles would have moved from
the source area to Fort Center and then on to the Miami Circle,
while in a more formal redistributional system, one community
would serve as a redistribution center for other communities
within the exchange network. Austin's analysis of materials
from the Miami Circle leads him to conclude that a
redistributional exchange system was in operation, with Fort
Center serving as a center for redistribution of cobbles and
other cherts. The Miami Circle site may well have had a
similar role in the redistribution of pumice.

Bone Artifacts

Ryan J. Wheeler, in his article "Bone Artifacts from the
Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12)," presents a morpho-
logical and microscopic wear pattern analysis of 554 bone and
tooth artifacts recovered from all three excavation operations
at the site. Thirty-one major tool and ornament categories
were recognized, based on comparison to other analyzed
collections, including Richardson and Pohl's (1982) study of
bone artifacts from the Granada site, located on the north side
of the Miami River. The two sites share many categories of
bone implements, though the Brickell Point assemblage has
few examples of carved and decorated bone in contrast to 38%
of the material from the Granada site, which was decorative or
ornamented in some way. One small, decorated pendant from
the Miami Circle provides evidence for connections to decora-
tive shell working at the Crystal River site and other Middle
Woodland sites in neighboring areas. Most of the bone tools
from Brickell Point are utilitarian objects associated with fiber,
leather and woodworking, and are typical of bone tool assem-
blages from other Florida sites. The collection was particu-
larly significant because of the large number (n = 131) of
modified shark teeth; few other assemblages have over 100
teeth, making the Brickell Point useful as a representative
sample and for comparison with other large samples of worked
shark teeth from sites like Granada, Jupiter Inlet 1, and Fort


WHEELER AND CARR







TIiF FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Figure 5. The Miami Circle at Brickell Point site in July 2003.



Center. Some bone working debitage was recovered at the site
as well, suggesting that bone tool making occurred at the site.
The assemblage also suggests that the accretionary midden
covering the Miami Circle and comprising the Brickell Point
site represents fairly mundane household activities like
weaving, woodcarving, and bone working.

Shell Artifacts

Ryan J. Wheeler, in his article "Shell Artifacts from the
Miami Circle atBrickell Point (8DA12)," presents his analysis
of 135 shell artifacts from the site. These artifacts were
recovered from each of the three excavation operations
conducted at the site. Analysis considered form, traces of
manufacture, use wear, and species represented. Comparison
with other analyzed collections was made, with attention to the
Granada site assemblage and Marilyn Masson's (1988) study
of Strombus celt production and use. Most of the shell tools
identified from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point site are
related to woodworking, and represent recognized types


characteristic of southeastern Florida. Tools made of the
Strombus sp. conch were most common in the assemblage,
followed by the large gastropod Pleuroploca gigantea.
Assemblages dominated by Strombus conchs are typical of
southeastern Florida, since this coincides with the animal's
biogeographic range in the continental United States. Other
shells used for tool making include the whelk Busycon
sinistrum, and rare examples of the bivalve Lucina pectinata,
the helmet shell Cassis sp., and the West Indian chank shell
Turbinella angulata. The latter shell is a rare find in south-
eastern Florida, where it is occasionally found in the Florida
Keys. Recent research has shown that some sites have
examples of plummets made from the distinctive three-plaited
columella of the Turbinella angulata, including several Gulf
Coast sites and the Belle Glade site near Lake Okeechobee.
Fourteen artifact categories were identified in the analysis
of shell tools from the Brickell Point excavations. Debitage
from shell reduction and tool manufacture suggests that many
of the shell artifacts were produced at the site. Many of the
tools were identified as woodworking tools, with analogies to


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST






MIAMI CIRCLE: FIELDWORK, RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS


metal wedges, gouges, and adzes found in nineteenth century
American toolboxes. Interestingly, the tool forms showed
distinct geographic patterns within the site, with tools like
Strombus celts found in closer proximity to the historic Miami
River shoreline. This likely represents discard and breakage
of these tools near the water's edge, where woodworking
activities would have focused on production of canoes and
other large carvings requiring heavy reduction. Like fhe
analysis of bone artifacts, the shell tool and ornament assem-
blage suggests rather mundane tool production and use at the
site.

Associated Sites

Dr. William Straight's contribution to this issue, "The A.
E. Douglass Cup from the Brickell Mound," adds to the early
history of archaeological research and exploration at Brickell
Point. His piece focuses on an unusual ceramic vessel recov-
ered by A. E. Douglass from the Brickell Point Mound
(8DA15). Dr. Straight's work is a good companion to Christo-
pher Eck's (2000) article about Jeffries Wyman's early
investigations at sites in the Brickell Point vicinity. Both of
these studies are important in understanding the configuration
and layout of the large Tequesta village site that dominated the
mouth of the Miami River before the development of the
modern City of Miami (Figure 5 shows the appearance of the
site in July 2003).

The Future of the Miami Circle

Following acquisition of the Miami Circle at Brickell Point
property in 1999, then Secretary of State Katherine Harris
appointed the Miami Circle Planning Group to receive public
input and make recommendations regarding future plans for
the Miami Circle. This group has met four times, and has
made several important decisions regarding the future of the
Miami Circle site. In June 2003 the planning group approved
plans to rebury the Miami Circle in order to better protect the
feature from the elements; prior to this, in May 2002, they
endorsed a bill proposed by U.S. Senator Bob Graham.
Senator Graham, on January 9, 2003, introduced Senate bill
111 to the U.S. Senate. The bill was considered and approved
by Congress and President George W. Bush signed the bill into
law on October 2, 2003 (Public Law 108-93). S. 111 directs
the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study
to determine the national significance of the Miami Circle site
in the State of Florida as well as the suitability and feasibility
of its inclusion in the National Park System as part of Biscayne
National Park.
The study, to be conducted by the Secretary of the Interior
through the National Park Service, would include analysis and
recommendation with respect to including the Miami Circle as
part of Biscayne National Park. The feasibility study would
also assess additional resources needed, if any, to administer
the acquisition of Miami Circle and the local impact that
would result from the inclusion. S. 111 would require the
Secretary to submit a report to Congress detailing the findings


and recommendations in the study. In June 2004 the Florida
Division of Historical Resources entered into an agreement
with the Denver Service Center of the National Park Service
to fund the Special Resource Study authorized by Congress
and the President.
An important component of the Special Resource Study
includes assessing the national significance of the Miami
Circle at Brickell Point site. In September 2003, the Florida
Division of Historical Resources contracted with Panamerican
Consultants, Inc. to prepare a National Historic Landmark
theme study for the Tequesta and their Ancestors, including a
National Historic Landmark nomination for the Miami Circle
at Brickell Point. This study was completed and revised in
May 2004 and submitted to the National Park Service for
review.
The Special Resource Study will help answer important
questions about the future management and interpretation of
the Miami Circle at Brickell Point site. The study is estimated
to be completed within the next two years. Members of the
Florida Anthropological Society and other interested individu-
als are encouraged to participate in the public input component
of the study.

References Cited

Bawaya, Michael
2002 The Amazing Tale of the Miami Circle. American Archae-
ology 6(2):12-19.

Carr, Robert S.
2002 The Archaeology of Everglades Tree Islands. In Tree
Islands of the Everglades, edited by Fred H. Sklar and
Arnold Van der Valk, pp. 187-206. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston.

Carr, Robert S., and John Ricisak
2000 Preliminary Report on Salvage Archaeological Investiga-
tions of the Brickell Point Site (8DA12), Including the
Miami Circle. The Florida Anthropologist 53(4):260-284.

Davis, T. Frederick
1935 Juan Ponce de Le6n's Voyages to Florida. The Florida
Historical Quarterly 14:3-70.

Dixon, Jacqueline Eaby, Kyla Simons, Loretta Leist, Christopher
Eck, John Ricisak, John Gifford, and JeffRyan
2000 Provenance of Stone Celts from the Miami Circle Archaeo-
logical Site. The Florida Anthropologist 53(4):328-341.

Eck, Christopher
2000 A Picturesque Settlement: The Diary Notes of Dr. Jeffries
Wyman's Visit to Miami and the First Archaeological
Excavations in South Florida, 1869. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 53(4):286-293.

Hann, John H.
2003 Indians of Central and South Florida, 1513-1763. Univer-
sity Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Levinson, Pamela
2000 Will the Circle be Unbroken? The Miami Circle Discovery


WHEELER AND CARR







TI-w FLORIDA A4THIROPOLOGIST 2004 ~V0L. 57(1-2)


and Its Significance for Urban Evolution and Protection of
Indigenous Culture. St. ThonmasLawReview 13(1):283-340.

Masson, Marilyn A.
1988 Shell Celt Morphology and Reduction An Analogy to
Lithic Research The Florida Anthropologist 41(3) 313-
335.

Miami-Dade County Historic Preservation Division
1999 Miami Circle Conservation and Recreation Lands
(C.A.R.L.) Application On file, Bureau of Archaeological
Research, Florida Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee

Parks, Arva Moore
1982 IWhere the River Found the Bay, Historical Study of the
Granada Site, Miami, Florida. Archaeology and History of
the Granada Site Vol. 2, Prepared for The City of Miami by
Division of Archives, History and Records Management,
Tallahassee.

Richardson, Sue B., and Mary Pohl
1982 The Bone Tool Industry from the Granada Site. hi Excava-
tions at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History of the
Granada Site, Volume 1, edited by John W Griffin, pp.
83-170. Prepared for the City of Miami by the Division of
Archives, History and Records Management. Tallahassee

Stroup, Richard L., and Matthew Brown
2000 Deciding the Future of the Past: The A liann Circle and
Archaeological Preservation. Backgrounder Policy Report
No 26. The James Madison Institute, Tallahassee.

True, David O
1944 The Freducci Map of 1514-1515. Tequesta No. 4:50-55.

Wheeler, Ryan J
1996 Ancient Art of the Florida Peninsula: 500 B.C. to A.D.
1763. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

2000a The Archaeology of Brickell Point and the Miami Circle.
The Florida Anthropologist 53(4):294-322.

2000b Cultural Resource Assessment of Brickell Point and the
AMiami Circle. Florida Archaeological Reports No. 10.
Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical
Resources, Tallahassee.


THF FLORIDA A-NTHROPOLOGIS-1


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)









ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE BRICKELL POINT SITE, 8DA12,
OPERATION 3

RANDOLPH J. WIDMER

Department of. l,;ai. ...,' i, University of Houston, 233 McElhinney Hall, Houston, TX 77204-5020
E-mail. rwdmer(@uh.edu


Introduction

In June of 2000, archaeological excavations were initiated
at the Brickell Point site, 8DA12 in an area adjoining the
"Valley of the Holes" excavations to the southwest. These
excavations have been labeled Operation 3. Operation 1 refers
to the excavations and testing conducted between 1998 and
1999 by Miami-Dade County and the Archaeological and
Historical Conservatory, Inc. This involved the formal
excavations in three areas of the property including Excavation
Area 1. where the Miami Circle was uncovered. Operation 2
refers to the archaeological research conducted by the State of
Florida in October and November 1999. It involved the
extensive systematic auger testing on a 12-ft grid system.
These auger tests resulted in extraordinarily important and
useful data regarding the bedrock depths and contours, the
thickness of the overlying aboriginal deposits. It also included
the thickness of remaining modern fill over the property. The
locations of these operations are mapped in Figure 1.
Despite the controversy, confusion and speculative inter-
pretations that have been postulated regarding the Miami
Circle feature, the following statement highlights the archaeo-
logical importance of this discovery:

The Miami Circle represents the most complete remains to
be identified archaeologically in southeastern Florida of what
appears to be a Native American archaeological structure. As
such, it is a rare and possibly unique cultural resource.
[Welsman et al 2000:343]

Unfortunately, because of the eminent danger of the
destruction of the feature, the site had to be excavated in very
short order under very trying situations with too few field
workers. Since the kind of detailed archaeological data
necessary to have some understanding of the nature and
function of the Miami Circle feature was lacking from the
Operation 1 excavations it was decided that additional, more
careful excavations would be undertaken to obtain information
that could possibly relate to the function of the Circle and
more importantly, to determine if any other structures or
features, whether similar or different where present at the site.
It was felt that regardless of the precise functional interpreta-
tion of the Miami Circle feature it nonetheless had to represent
a structure of some type. Furthermore, the over 200 additional
cut holes that where encountered in the Area 1 excavation of
Operation 1 clearly indicated that other structures were present


at the site, although it was not known if they were contempo-
rary with the Miami Circle feature. In any event, the Miami
Circle feature was never though to be a solitary architectural
feature at the Brickell Point site and it seemed that there
should be other structures contemporary with the Miami Circle
feature and multiple episodes of aboriginal construction.
The Brickell Point site is now known to be quite extensive
with occupation extending for over 300 m (1000 ft) along the
Miami River and for a similar distance south along the eastern
shoreline of Biscayne Bay from the confluence of the Miami
River and Biscayne Bay (Carr and Ricisak 2000:266). Even
more significant is the finding of cut holes in the area of the
Sheridan Hotel just to the south of the Miami Circle parcel.
This distance is at least 45 m south of the center of the Miami
Circle feature, and if the cut hole features are contemporary
suggests a habitation site with a considerable number of
structures. It can be argued that if the Miami Circle feature
was the largest structure at the Brickell Point site then it
should have been constructed when the site was at the maxi-
mum size of area and population since this would have been
the time when the most number of individuals would have
been available for labor in the Miami Circle features construc-
tion.

Research Goals

The specific research goals of the excavation were as
follows: 1) to provide additional archaeological context for the
previously excavated circle feature that has informally become
known as the "Miami Circle," 2) to determine if additional
circular features were present at the site, 3) to determine if
features or other structures might be associated with the Miarm
Circle feature and to 4) determine their function, 5) to deter-
mine the chronology of occupation at the site and to 6)
determine the length of time over which cut holes were made
at the site, 7) to provide a detailed stratigraphy of the site
under controlled stratigraphic excavations, 8) to provide
radiocarbon dates for features and structures at the site, and 9)
to determine why the prehistoric inhabitants carved holes into
the bedrock. These goals would provide the type of informa-
tion that was missing from the original excavation of the
Circle feature.
Our research methodology was to remove overlying
sediments to expose as much of the bedrock as possible
looking for other cut holes and basin features and then
carefully excavate them stratigraphically. Hopefully it would


VOL. 57(1-2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH-JUNE 2004


VOL. 57(1-2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


MARCH-JUNE 2004






















































Figure 1. Map of the location of the various operations at the Brickell Point Site (8DA12) along with the survey lines for the Operation 3 grid.







Wm~R BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3


be possible to find spatial patterns of postholes that would
indicate additional structures and determine their floor plan.
Our excavations were focused in the area between the "Valley
of the Holes" excavation of Operation 2 (Wheeler 2000) and
the Miami Circle feature (Carr and Ricisak 2000) (see Figures
1, 2, and 3). The excavation units would be contiguous with
the "Valley of the Holes" excavations and move towards the
Miami Circle feature; this would permit the incorporation of
the feature and cut hole information revealed in those excava-
tions and thereby increase our exposed excavation area by 15
mi, the area of the "Valley of the Holes" excavation. The
excavation strategy was based on the auger survey performed
by Ryan Wheeler in Operation 2 (Wheeler 2000) that found
that the overlying "midden" and modern historic fill was
thinnest in this area. The plan was to remove the overlying
modern fill with a front end loader and then excavate through
the hopefully thin overlying "midden" deposits to reveal cut
holes and basins. These deposits would be stratigraphically
excavated and then their stratigraphic relationships would be
placed into a Harris Matrix, a technique that graphically
displays the stratigraphic relationships of archaeological
deposits (Harris 1989).
It was also hypothesized that there would be more than one
occupation or phase that utilized cut holes for structures and
posts. This was surmised by the fact that other cut holes were
found in the Area 1 excavation that could not be associated
with the Miami Circle feature and so were probably not
contemporary with it (Carr and Ricisak 2000; Weisman et al.
2000).
Another consideration of the Operation 3 research design,
and perhaps the most important, was to obtain radiocarbon
samples that could clearly date some of the cut holes that are
on the Brickell Point site. The radiocarbon dates that had been
obtained from the Operation 1 excavations were few in number
and mostly came from contexts above the bedrock surface and
therefore not directly associated with the Miami Circle feature.
Those dates suggested a wide, and somewhat ambiguous age
determination for the Miami Circle feature. While we in no
way were suggesting that we could obtain dates that would
directly date the Miami Circle feature, we could nonetheless
establish the range of dates for cut holes encountered at the
site. This would be accomplished by obtaining dates from
distinct sediments in the bottom of cut holes that were filled in
and sealed by later deposits.
An additional hypothesis was presented for testing follow-
ing commumty patterning observed at sites on the southwest-
ern Florida coast, more specifically 8CR48, the Key Marco site
(Widmer 1996, 1999, 2000). Here, research indicated that the
dwellings and temples were constructed on stilts and/or pilings
with their occupational floors elevated above the surface of the
ground. This suggests that potential tasks and activities
performed within a community would occur on two planes.
One above the ground surface that is associated with indoor
activity, and one on the ground surface and associated with
outdoor activities. The importance of this distinction is that
unlike typical archaeological situations where indoor and
outdoor activities take place on the same ground level, the


indoor deposits associated with structures are elevated and
therefore will not be directly associated with the ground
surface where the structure exists. This is very different from
archaeological situations where the actual ground surface is
used as a floor because artifacts and more importantly,
facilities such as hearths or fire pits and other interior activity
areas, will not be directly associated with the site surface.
Therefore, a positive test implication for an elevated floor
would be the lack of fire hearths and other facilities typically
associated with interior space. Although it is difficult to
identify domestic structures utilizing these attributes, this does
not preclude the loss of small items through cracks in the
floors of such elevated structure. It might even be the case that
ash and other small artifacts and refuse sweepings will be
deposited through these cracks, a phenomenon recorded in
Operation 3 of the Key Marco site (Widmer 2001). If this ash
were deposited in a way that would surround a number of
closely spaced posts that occupy open area, it would indicate
an elevated floor above and open area above piles and stilts.

Mapping Operation 3

A new metric grid system was created for the Operation 3
excavations. The new grid was tied to the center of the Miami
Circle feature and to the "Valley of the Holes" excavation.
Reference points were established as needed. Grid squares
were 2 x 2 m in area and the southwest corner of each unit was
used to designate the grid location. Nails were utilized for the
corners of each unit.
Two vertical benchmarks were established and utilized for
taking elevations in the Operation 3 excavations (see Figure
1). One of these, BM# 1 (benchmark number one) was on top
of the northwest corner of the septic tank wall that is in the
southwest quadrant of the circle feature. This benchmark has
an elevation of 2.04 m above the National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (NGVD) of 1929. The other benchmark, BM# 2, was
located on top of a concrete slab south and adjacent to the sea
wall northwest of the circle feature. This benchmark had an
elevation of 0.86 m above NGVD 1929.

Excavation Strategy

Operation 3 at the Brickell Point site was excavated
stratigraphically. To control stratigraphy in our excavations,
units they were dug as natural or culturally distinct strata. All
strata are initially identified by the physical composition and
the characteristics of their sedimentary matrix to include
artifact content. This is referred to as a Zone and is given a
Roman numeral and a description. These are then subdivided
into arbitrary 10 centimeter levels and excavated level by level
until a new sedimentary matrix is encountered, at which point
a new zone designation is assigned. If the underlying new
stratum is sloping the new stratum is exposed by excavating
the overlying stratum separately from the new strata. Each 2
x 2 m excavation unit would then have a Zone and Level
designation. For example, Zone I, Level 1 would be the first
10 cm within the particular matrix characterizing the Zone.


WIDMER


BRICICELL POINT OPERATION 3






TuE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Figure 2. Photograph of 8DA12, Operation 2, Operation 3 and the Miami Circle feature to the east of the Brickell Avenue
Bridge.


Of particular importance this Zone and Level stratigraphic
control was also applied to basins and cut hole features. In
point of fact, it was suspected, based on the previous work of
Ryan Wheeler in the Operation 2 "Valley of the Holes"
(Wheeler 2000:302, Figure 6) that there would be little if any
intact aboriginal deposits directly lying on the bedrock surface.
Instead, only modern fill was anticipated on the bedrock
surface. I did however, anticipate, that there would be intact
aboriginal deposits in the low-lying basins and cut holes.
Because stratigraphic units were not level, elevations were
more precisely controlled by taking transit readings for each
Zone and Level. Benchmark 1 was used for all elevations; it
has a point provenience in the Operation 3 grid system of
N47.55E98.83. It had an elevation of 2.45 m above NGVD
1929. All elevations were taken as absolute readings relative
to this benchmark. These will be converted to Mean High
Water values, since the two are not the same. Thus we have
absolute elevations on the tops and bottoms of all of our
proveniences. This has the added advantage that all elevations
throughout the excavation can be instantly related to each
other since they all use the same datum. They can also be
correlated with any other excavation on the site to include


Operations 1 and 2.
In addition to these stratigraphic and spatial controls we
also utilized Feature designations for those discrete strati-
graphic deposits, which were smaller than our Zones, and
individual artifacts that needed to have more specific proveni-
ence control. When discrete stratigraphic units were encoun-
tered within a Zone, and were different than the Zone matrix,
such as lenses of shell, ash, or bone concentration, they where
designated as Features. To be classified as a Feature they had
to have areas smaller than the original excavation unit they
were found in, although they could be found in more than one
unit. Practically, there is no real difference between these
types of features and a Zone. All individual shell tools were
plotted in situ, mapped and assigned feature designations. The
inclination and declination of all gastropod tools were re-
corded to determine if they were lying flat on a floor, upright
as anvils, or oriented in some pattern that might reflect
function or perhaps disturbance. Limestone and sandstone
tools were also mapped in situ and assigned feature numbers
as were any chert or other lithic artifacts. Decorated or
chronologically distinct ceramic sherds were also treated as
features, as were ceramic sherd concentrations or clusters.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






WIDMER BRICKELL Poiwr OPERATION 3


Figure 3. Photograph of 8DA12, Operation 3, located to the east of the Miami Circle feature.


WIDMER


BRiCKELL POINT OPERATION 3





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Cut holes also were considered features. Although these
cut holes are treated as features in that they were separately,
numbered they were not assigned feature numbers. Instead,
cut holes were assigned sequential numbers based on their
order of discovery within each 2 x 2 m excavation unit and
distinct field specimen numbers were assigned to the strata that
they contained. This was done because it was easier for the
individual excavators of each unit to keep sequential track of
the numerous postholes in their own excavation units rather
than having the field director try to assign sequential numbers
across the site, particularly since postholes appear at the same
time in more than one unit making errors highly likely. The
posthole number in this case actually refers to the stratigraphic
event, which is the actual cutting of the hole, not the sediments
inside of them. These are separate and later stratigraphic
events (Harris 1989:59-60). However, the cut hole was
typically not assigned a field specimen number because it was
not an actual deposit. The only exception to this rule pertains
to cut holes that where not excavated. Here, the cut holes itself
were assigned a field specimen number by default because no
sediments where excavated or removed from the posthole. In
such cases we tried to obtain the depth of the posthole by
inserting a thin probe until it struck the bottom. Of course in
these examples we did not obtain cross sections of the post-
holes.
Cut holes were mapped in situ, their depths were recorded,
and cross-sections were drawn. Elevations were taken on the
top and bottom of each stratum within them. Soil samples of
150 cm2 were also collected from each stratum within the
postholes and assigned sequential soil sample numbers. Often,
there was less than 150 cm2 of soil available and so only the
available amount was retained. The goal of this strategy was
to be able to physically and chemically characterize the
different sediments within the postholes.
The highly unusual distinct permanent nature of the cut
holes at the Brickell Point site permits them to be discussed
and analyzed in two parts: 1) the actual cut hole and 2) the
sediments and artifacts that they contain. The former will be
treated in the section on community patterning, while the later
will be discussed in the section on stratigraphy and features
(for the artifacts within them). This is deemed appropriate
because the natural sediments within the cut holes post-date
the original use of these cut holes as bases and supports for
architectural members (i.e., posts and as such represent two
distinct depositional and functional events).
One extremely important field technique that was utilized
with the cut holes is that they were excavated stratigraphically.
The holes cut into the bedrock at the Brickell Point site are
very different than traditional post molds that are typically
encountered in the sand and shell matrix of sites along the
southwestern Florida coast. At Brickell Point, holes are cut
into solid, hard, limestone bedrock and so hold their shape,
and more importantly are open. Therefore, when the wooden
post inside rots away or is removed they are empty and will fill
with sediments. In effect they become sediment traps and will
accumulate sediments stratigraphically. This is a very
important aspect of the site formation process at the Brickell


Point site because these cut holes will contain a clear strati-
graphic sequence. It is therefore imperative that each distinct
stratum contained within these cut holes be removed sepa-
rately, particularly if one is trying to determine the date when
the hole was cut and utilized for holding a wooden post.
Basin features, which are shallow natural depression that
occur in the bedrock formation, were also mapped in situ and
elevations were taken on their surface and bottom so that their
geometrical shape could be determined. Basin features that
contained multiple strata were excavated stratigraphically,
with separate field specimen numbers assigned to each distinct
stratum. Soil samples of at least 2 liters were collected for
flotation and fine screening from each distinct stratum within
basin features and assigned sequential soil sample numbers.
If there was not sufficient quantity of sediment matrix to obtain
all of the samples, the 150 cm2 soil samples had priority,
followed by the flotation sample and finally the 6 mm2 screen-
ed samples. We also would screen the remaining matrix, if
any, through 6 mm2 mesh hardware cloth to recover larger
artifacts. Field data were recorded on systematized field
specimen forms. A total of 860 field specimen numbers were
assigned.
Fieldwork occurred in two sessions. Phase 1 commenced
on Monday, June 12, 2000. The first three days were spent
removing much of the modern fill overburden with a front-end
loader under the supervision of John Ricisak. This proceeded
slowly so that the underlying bedrock would not be damaged.
After the overburden was removed the site was mapped and the
grid was laid out.
One of the most important considerations in excavating
archaeological sites in south Florida is the use of conjoining
excavation units, block excavations, rather than a dispersed
"shotgun" placement of excavation units. This is essential for
following and linking the complex stratigraphy and for
uncovering floor patterns of structures, both important goals of
this research. At the Brickell Point site linking stratigraphy is
not as much of an issue since most or all of the deposits lie
below the bedrock surface in shallow basins or holes and
because of this are not spatially connected. Nonetheless, it is
useful to have conjoining squares for uncovering floor patterns
by tracing out posthole patterns. Seven excavation units was
initially established with four of them along the N52 line
starting from El 18 extending east, and three adjoining 2 x 2
m units at N54E118, N54E120, and N54E122. These were
later augmented by the addition of more units heading north to
meet up with and overlap the Operation 2 "Valley of the
Holes" excavation.
In all, 18 2 x 2 m excavations units were excavated or
cleared to bedrock. The excavations formed a block excavation
with a core size of 8 x 8 m with additional 4 contiguous units
added to it. The easternmost of this unit was cleared to
bedrock, but time prevented mapping or excavating any
features or postholes within it.
After excavation, detailed contour maps of the bedrock
were prepared from hundreds of elevations taken directly on
the bedrock surface together with those taken by Ryan Wheeler
in the Operation 2 excavations (Wheeler 2000). A series of


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






WIDMER BRICKELL Poiwr OPERATION 3


Contour Interval 5 Cm


Scale In Meters


Figure 4. 2D contour map of Operation 2 and 3, 8DA12.


I I i


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3



















































Figure 5. 3D contour map of Operations 2 and 3, 8DA12.






WIDMER BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3


contour maps was then produced using the computer contour-
mapping program Surfer 8.0. A two dimensional contour map
is presented in Figure 4 and a 3-D map is illustrated in Figure
5.
Results of the Excavation

A total of 860 separate proveniences were recorded with a
corresponding 860 field specimen numbers assigned. Twenty
six different types of strata, designated Zones, were identified.
Zone numbers are not necessarily correlated with depth below
the ground or stratigraphic sequence, but instead represent the
sequential order in which they were discovered and hence
assigned numerical designations.
A total of 124 feature numbers where assigned and they
contain 168 proveniences, since some have more than one
stratum associated with them. There were 528 soil samples
taken. A total of 507 aboriginal postholes were recorded and
674 separate field specimen numbers were assigned to either
the cuts themselves or the distinct strata that they contained.
Five hundred and seven postholes is the highest number
recovered in any of my excavations at the three Operations at
the Key Marco site (Widmer 1996a, 1999, 2001).

Stratigraphy

As mentioned previously, most of the aboriginal cultural
sediments encountered at the Brickell Point site in the Opera-
tion 3 excavation were isolated in the cut holes and shallow
basins that dot the bedrock surface. As such, each feature or
posthole represents a unique stratigraphic event and there is
neither necessary depositional similarity among them nor any
sedimentary evidence that the holes where cut at the same or
differing times. This is because it is argued here that the site
had no sediments covering the bedrock proper when the holes
were originally cut into the limestone formation. Nevertheless,
we tried to characterize the sediments and group them to-
gether, if possible, based on similar shared attributes. The
attributes utilized to create these strata types included sediment
texture, organic content, shell content and density, artifact
density, compaction, and to a lesser extent, color. Our
excavations clearly revealed patterning of the sediments into
a number of distinct types of stratum or deposits. Some of
these were meaningless, but for the most part they allowed us
to separate chronologically distinct deposits and create
extremely robust and unambiguous dating of the excavations.
Ideally, we would like to be able to more specifically date the
strata either directly through radiocarbon assays or else by
distinctive datable artifact styles exclusive to a stratum. As
mentioned previously, each distinct type of stratum was
referred to as a Zone and labeled with a Roman numeral. A
total of 27 distinct strata where observed in the excavations
and are described in the following section. A brief summary
of their context and phasing is provided in Table 1 and a more
complete description of the strata characteristics are provided
below. It should be remembered that the order of the Zones
does not represent stratigraphic relationships but only the order
in which the deposits where uncovered.


Description of the deposits

Detailed description of the physical characteristics of the 27
distinct sedimentary deposits encountered in the Operation 3
excavations are provided below.

Zone L This stratum designation refers to the historic fill that
was utilized to create a level property after the demolition and
removal of the Brickell Point apartments (Carr and Ricisak
2000:265). Wheeler (2000:304) also labeled this stratum as
Zone 1 and notes that it is light colored sand with modem
debris. A brief description of the uppermost fill matrix is
provided by the geologists that assessed the sedimentary nature
of the site (Means and Scott 2000:324). They describe it as "a
thin veneer of recent fill material.., it consists of sand,
concrete and other materials hauled onto the site during past
and recent construction. It appears to be strictly anthropogenic
in origin" (Means and Scott 2000:324).
Our excavations provide additional descriptions of the fill.
The fill sediments are characterized by brownish gray sand
with limestone gravel. The gravel varies from marble to fist
size pieces. The upper portion of the soil is very loose, but the
sediments close to the bedrock are extremely hard packed and
were difficult to excavate through. This would suggest that
they have some clay or dissolved limestone silt content that has
made them hard. It could also be the case that drying of the
soil creates this hard compact character. Over 20 cm of Zone
I deposit was removed from the Operation 3 excavation area
and even after this anywhere from 5 to 20 cm of fill deposit
remained over the bedrock. The deposit was thicker in the
south than in the north and sloped with the bedrock grade.
The entire area of our excavation was covered with Zone I fill.
This was removed by hand excavation to reveal underlying
zones.

Zone IL This stratum consists of brownish gray fine silty sand
located at the interface between Zone I above and the bedrock
below it. Some cultural material from the modem historic era
occur in this stratum. There are some tiny flecks of Lucina
shell within the matrix with a few whole Lucina shells as well.
The deposit is thin, ranging between 1 and 3 cm in thickness
and at first was thought to represent a possible early historic
activity surface. This is clearly just the lower boundary of the
modem fill horizon and once this was recognized it was not
differentiated from Zone I. This stratum is in no way compa-
rable to the Zone 2 that was identified in Operation 2 (Wheeler
2000:304) and instead is merely the bottom of Zone I.

Zone II. This stratum consists of concreted compacted white
limestone gravel that has formed a Macadam surface over a
sloping low spot in the limestone bedrock. It is only found in
units N54E122 and N54E124. It is clearly historic era in
context and is thought to date to the earliest historic occupation
of the site. It probably represents fill brought in to create a
road surface or driveway.

Zone IV. This stratum represents the so-called "Black Earth


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Table 1. Summary of Zones and Strata in Operation 3, 8DA12.


Stratum Deposit Context Phase
I Modem fill Contemporary
II Modem fill Contemporary
III Road fill Pioneer Historic
IV Truncated occupational surface IV-V
V Aboriginal shallow basin fill IV V
VI Posthole fill III V
VII Posthole fill IV V
VIII Posthole fill I III
IX Posthole fill I III
X Posthole fill I -III
XI Posthole fill I III
XII Posthole fill I III
XIII Posthole fill I -III
XIV Posthole fill I -III
XV Posthole fill I -III
XVI Posthole fill I III
XVII Aboriginal shallow basin fill I III
XVIII Posthole fill I -III
XIV Posthole fill I -III
XV Posthole fill I III
XVI Posthole fill I -III
XVII Posthole fill I III
XVIII Posthole fill I -III
XIX Posthole fill I -III
XX Posthole fill I III
XXI Posthole fill I -III
XXII Posthole fill I II
XXIII Posthole fill I -III
XXIV Pioneer Historic shallow basin fill Pioneer Historic
XXV Posthole fill I -III
XXVI Posthole fill I III
XXVII Mixed Prehistoric/Pioneer fill Prehistoric/Pioneer Historic


Midden" that has been referred to in earlier reports (Carr and
Ricisak 2000; Wheeler 2000). It is identical with the stratum
labeled Zone 3 in the Operation 2 excavations (Wheeler
2000:304). It is charcoal in color and is organically stained
fine sand with limestone silt within the matrix. It is very hard
packed and contains ample bone. It also contains small pea to
walnut sized limestone gravel in its matrix and has a whitish
color. This gravel was originally thought to be modem having
been pushed down into the matrix from the lower Zone I fill
just above it since there are some historic artifacts that are
typically found in the upper layers of the Zone. However, since


this limestone gravel is found deeper in the deposit after the
modem historic material disappears it seems that the limestone
gravel is prehistoric, not modern in context and is associate
with use of the site a considerable time after the holes were
cut. This is because gray gravel with duricrust formation was
encountered in deposits associated with sediments inside of the
cut holes and probably originates from the tailings of cut hole
excavations. It is difficult to ascertain whether this limestone
gravel is found throughout all areas of the Brickell Point site,
but is was ubiquitous in the Operation 3 area. There is some
fragmentary Lucina shell in the matrix as well. Zone IV is a


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






WIDMER BRJCICELL PoINT OPERATION 3


distinct, easily identifiable stratum.

Zone V. This stratum was found in a basin in the bedrock,
Feature 2, in unit N54E120. The soil is characterized as
containing much more organic content than Zone IV. The
compaction is much softer than found in Zone IV as well. It
is much darker having a jet-black appearance and the density
of the fauna in this horizon is much less it is in Zone IV.

Zone VI. This stratum is similar to Zone IV with two impor-
tant differences. First of all, it contains no limestone gravel of
any kind. Secondly, it has no Lucina shell fragments or whole
valves in its matrix. No historic artifacts are found in its
sediments. This stratum is interpreted as an aboriginal deposit
with some modem or historic contamination. Only five Zone
VI proveniences, containing a total of only 11 fragmentary
artifacts, were noted. Two postholes had historic material in its
Zone VI matrix. Posthole 8 in N56E118 had 2 fragments of
coal in its Zone VI matrix and Posthole 42 in N56E120 had a
single nail in Zone VI, level 2. Three shallow basins, Feature
32, 79, and 100 contained historic material and here only
small fragments of nails and glass. It seems that these historic
artifacts represent isolated intrusive fragments into a totally
prehistoric stratum. Zone VI lies directly under Zone IV and
is only found in basins and postholes. Of note is the fact that
what few historic artifacts are found they appear to be early
historic rather than modem in age.

Zone VII. This stratum is similar texturally to Zone IV but is
much lighter in color, being a light gray. It also has less
organic content. It has a drier, looser consistency as well. The
texture and color of the deposit is similar to that of cement.
The deposit is found only in a basin in N54E124 and the
lighter color is though to result from the percolation of lime
sediments from the Macadam gravel matrix of Zone III, which
is above it. It appear to be fill and would therefore predate
Zone III above it since Zone IV is found below it.

Zone VIII. This deposit was found in unit N54E120. It is soft
and has a distinct salt and pepper appearance. It is a fill
deposit found below Zone V and very distinct from it. Its
stratigraphic position beneath Zone V suggests an earlier
temporal assignment for this stratum, at least earlier than
Phase IV.

Zone IX. This is a gray salt and pepper stratum found in
Posthole 1 of N52E122, FS# 236, SS# 16. It is shallow
posthole fill.

Zone X. This deposit is black organic stained silty sand. It is
distinguished from other strata at the site by its Lucina shell
content. About 90 percent of the matrix of Zone X consists of
Lucina shell, with most of it fragmentary. It was found in
Posthole 12 in N52E122 under Zone IV, level 2.

Zone XI. This deposit is black organic sand with a salt and
pepper appearance. It is identical to Zone VI in texture,


compaction and color. It is differentiated from Zone VI based
on its artifact content. It contains 30 times the faunal bone
that Zone VI contains. About 65% of the faunal bone is
burned. There is very little shell in the matrix hence its
similarity with Zone VI. This is clearly a midden and substan-
tiates the claim that the artifact density of Zones IV and VI and
not high enough to constitute a midden classification. This
deposit type was first encountered in Feature 26 of N24E124.
It was also found in Posthole 19 of this unit.

Zone XII. This stratum was first identified in Posthole 11 of
N54E122. It is somewhat similar to Zone IV, which it is found
under but there are important differences. First, it contains
lots of whole and fragmentary Lucina shell that comprises
about 10% of the matrix. Even more distinctive is that it
contains copious amounts of limestone gravel. This gravel is
very different in appearance than the limestone gravel found in
Zone IV. The gravel is a dark gray or charcoal in color and
much more eroded or rounded than the gravel that is seen in
Zone IV. It is not modern fill material and instead is thought
to have derived as tailings from the original excavation of the
cut holes. This is clearly the case because gravel was not found
in the strata above this zone. Zone VI, a deposit that is void of
limestone gravel, is also found above this stratum.

Zone XIII. This zone is similar to Zone VI except like Zone
XII, it contains dark eroded limestone gravel, it is different
from Zone XII in that it contains no Lucina shell, only a little.
It does, however, like Zone VI contain abundant faunal bone.
The limestone is though to be associated with the cutting of the
postholes representing the tailings from their excavations.

Zone XIV. This stratum is a "clean" black silty sand. No
shell, faunal bone or "old gravel" was found within its matrix.
The deposit contains no artifacts. It has a very soft and has
little compaction. It is completely distinct from any other
deposit type discovered previously. It was found under Zone
XII in Posthole 11 of N54E122.

Zone XV. This stratum has a similar texture to Zone VI but
differs from it because it in that it has large aboriginal gravel.
It was found initially in N54E122, Posthole 10 under Zone VI,
level 2. It is also found in Posthole 6 of N54E116.

Zone XVI. This stratum was found in Posthole 10 under Zone
XV and also in N52E116. There is no gravel in the matrix.
Instead, the sediments are composed of about 30 percent loose
broken Lucina shell lying flat. The remaining sediments
consist of loose black fine silty sand. There is more silt than
is present in Zone VI. The proportions of silt and sand are
about 50 percent each.

Zone XVH. This stratum consists of a crumbling encrustation
that is disintegrating from the limestone crust in Feature 33 of
N54E124. This eroding crust is mixing in with what looks
like typical Zone VI matrix and comprises approximately 75
percent of the matrix. This pulverized, crumbly limestone


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


encrustation is quite homogenously mixed with the remaining
Zone VI-like matrix.

Zone XVIII. This matrix was found in Posthole 27 of
N52E120. It is similar in texture and color to Zone VI but
contains both Lucina shell and aboriginal limestone gravel.
One articulated Lucina was also found in this stratum and was
utilized for a radiocarbon date. There are some artifacts in this
Zone.

Zone XIX. This stratum is identical to Zone XVI except that
is has unburned bone in it as well. The bone is about equally
abundant as the Lucina shell. It was found in N52E10, Feature
16 Posthole 30 under Zone XVIII. There is very clear strati-
graphic separation between the two zones. There is no
limestone gravel in the matrix and it is very loose. There are
increasing numbers of tree roots with depth in this zone.

Zone XX. This stratum is characterized by loose "salt and
pepper" colored sand that has very distinct separate black and
white sedimentary granules. The sediment is distinct in that
it contains oyster shell in it, the first encountered in the
excavations. This oyster shell includes both whole valves and
fragmentary valves. The matrix contains small amounts of
unburned faunal bone and included a stone crab claw frag-
ment. This stratum was found in Posthole 32 of N52E120
under Zone VI.

Zone XXI. This stratum has a soil matrix similar to Zone VI.
It differs from it, however, in that it contains a much higher
Lucina shell frequency than Zone VI. This Lucina shell is
mostly broken and has been concreted together. This stratum
differs for Zone X in that is has less shell, only 75 percentage,
has no whole shell, has the shell cemented together, and also
contains faunal bone in the same percentage, 10 percent, as
seen in Zone VI. This stratum was first found in N56E122.

Zone XXII. This stratum refers to pockets of cemented Lucina
shells that have fused to the bottoms of limestone basins and
postholes. They consist of about 50% Zone VI-like matrix and
50% fused Lucina shell. What is important about this deposit
is that it has fused to the bottom of cut postholes. This means
that there was no soil in the bottom of the postholes when the
shell was deposited. Therefore, the shell predates the filling of
the postholes with sediments indicating that this zone predates
the accumulation of soil in the deposits and represents the
period shortly after, if not during, the period when the cut
holes contained wooden posts. They where found in Feature
44 ofN56E120, in the southern arm-like extension of Feature
44, in Posthole 10 of Feature 27, and in Posthole 20. This is a
very important deposit and was utilized to obtain radiocarbon
dates on the empty postholes prior to their filling in with other
sediment. The results of the radiocarbon dates unambiguously
support the above stratigraphic interpretation of these deposits.

Zone XXII. This stratum is similar to Zone VI except that it
has lots of bone in it, comprising approximately 30 percent of


the matrix, and it is void of gravel and shell. It was found in
Posthole 16 of unit N56E122.

Zone XXIV. This stratum is gray mottled sand with a matrix
texture like Zone VI. This is the only stratum to have this type
of colored sediment. It contained a square cut nail in its
matrix and so this deposit is interpreted as representing a
Pioneer Period historic component of the late nineteenth early
twentieth century.

Zone XXV. This stratum consists of a salt and pepper loose
sand matrix containing about 30 percent broken and whole
Lucina shell and aboriginal limestone gravel. The gravel is
gray in color and not whitish like that found in Zone IV. This
might be the result of duricrust formation on the gravel itself.
It appears that this gravel is the debris from the excavation of
the cut holes. The matrix also contains about 5 percent faunal
bone in its matrix. This deposit was found in Posthole 1
N52E11 under Zone XVI. The stratum has a very loose
compaction.

Zone XXVI. This stratum is similar in many ways to Zone
VIII particularly its texture and salt and pepper coloration. It
is differentiated from Zone VIII in its high faunal bone
content, which comprises about 30 percent of the matrix. The
deposit also contains some Lucina shell. This stratum is
compacted.

Zone XXVII. This stratum is a sepia colored fill deposit
containing lots of small historic artifacts mixed together with
prehistoric aboriginal artifacts. Historic artifacts include
brickbats, square cut nails, and brown and blue glass sherds.
This deposit type probably represents a disturbed Pioneer
deposit that was on top of a prehistoric aboriginal sedimentary
horizon that was truncated or mixed by clearing and leveling
activities for the construction of the Brickell Point Apartments.
It could also be the case that this fill was brought in from a
location foreign to the Brickell Point site since its texture and
color do not match any other deposit type on the site in the
location where we excavated. In any case, the deposit is
clearly disturbed and so its origin or original context is
obscured and will remain unknown.

Zone XXVIII. This stratum is very similar to Zone XXVI
except that it contains more shell. The deposit type was
initially found in N50E118. It has very loose sediments unlike
those found in Zone XXVI and contains the same amount of
faunal bone as in Zone XXVI. No aboriginal gravel was found
in the matrix.
There can be little doubt that the deposits and sediments
that are within postholes differ considerably from the sedi-
ments resting directly on top of the bedrock and even with that
in the upper levels of the postholes themselves. This indicates
a different depositional environment within the postholes than
above the unmodified bedrock surface. This is an extra-


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)





BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3


Figure 6. Duricrust formation over postholes 11, 16, and 17 in Unit N52E116, 8DA12, Operation 3.


ordinary finding that has allowed for important insights into
the stratigraphy of this site.

Site Deposit Characterization and Zonation

Ironically, the Circle feature uncovered in the Area 1
Excavation of Operation 1, which is thought to be unique by
both professional and ordinary citizens alike, is actually a very
common type of stratigraphic situation found in prehistoric
habitation sites in the eastern United States. There is no
difference in the stratigraphy of the Miami Circle feature and
other cut-hole features found at the Brickell Point site and
those post molds and pit features that occur at the typical
archaeological site found in plowed agricultural fields! Such
sites have had their upper aboriginal sediments disturbed and
their integrity destroyed by plowing. What remains intact
then, are pits and post molds that extend into sterile geological
deposits. This is exactly the situation that exists at the Brickell
Point site! The only difference is that the underlying geological
deposit at the Brickell Point site is the solid lithic oolite phase
of the Miami Limestone (Means and Scott 2000:324) thought
to be formed during the higher Sangamon sea stand dated
about 125,000 years ago (Osmond et al. 1965), not the cultur-


ally sterile B and/or C soil horizons typically found under
cultural deposits on plowed agricultural fields.
The Brickell Point site, at least in the Operation 3 area,
also differs from the typical plowed field site described above
in that in most areas of the site there are sedimentary deposits
with cultural material in them that are not disturbed. The
difference here, and it is an extremely important difference, is
that cut holes, classified here as postholes, were cut into the
Miami Limestone when there was little or no soil or sediment
on its surface. There are several lines of evidence to support
this interpretation. In one area of Operation 3 duricrust
actually formed over postholes 11, 16 and 17 in N52E116 (see
Figure 6). There was no soil sandwiched between the two
crusts. In Posthole 3 ofN52E16, a large 51 cm cut hole, a floor
or surface was observed 4 cm below the limestone origin of the
cut hole where three sherds, including one Ft. Drum Punctated,
and a sharks tooth are lying flat on this distinct Zone XXVI
surface that differs from the Zone IV sediments above (see
Figure 7). Other cultural material is found resting in situ on
the bottom of this cut hole (Figure 8). Even in the mid-
twentieth century is was necessary to dig a large hole into the
limestone bedrock in unit N52E122 so that a tree could be
planted (see Figure 2). This further testifies to the shallow


WIDMER





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Figure 7. Soil horizon below top of Posthole 3, N52E116 with sherds lying flat on the surface, 8DA12, Operation 3.


nature of the soil in this area of the Brickell Point site. I argue
that it is precisely for this reason that, in lieu of any substantial
soil, it was necessary to cut holes into the limestone bedrock so
that posts could be placed into the "ground" in lieu of typical
deep soil that could be dug into for this purpose. The evidence
for this statement will be presented later.
Because these holes were cut when there were little or no
soil sediments above the limestone bedrock the deposits that
they contained where distinctly different from those sediments
that accumulated after the postholes and basins were aban-
doned. The permanent walls of the cut posthole features do
not loose their shape or integrity when the posts that they
contained rot away or are removed and are able to trap and
collect sediments. Indeed this was the case. It was not uncom-
mon for postholes to contain multiple layers of different
deposits much like a parfait. The placement of deposits and
artifacts in the holes prior to the placement of posts was also
observed in our excavations. This sediment trapping makes it
possible to determine a rate of sedimentation within the
postholes by utilizing the radiocarbon dates of the surfaces of
deposits within them and correlating it with the depth of
sediments that have accumulated below the samples. This
discussion will be evaluated more fully in the chronology
section.


Stratigraphic Relationships of Zones

There are clear distinctions in the stratigraphic relation-
ships of the various zones. Zone I is clearly the final and
uppermost stratigraphic unit. It is very recent and associated
with fill brought in for raising and leveling of the property for
the construction of the mid-twentieth century Brickell Point
Apartments. The next stratigraphic unit is Zone IV. This
zone is very shallow in the Operation 3 area as indicated by the
auger survey (Wheeler 2000:302, Figure 6). There does not
appear to be any evidence that modern scraping and demolition
activities have truncated Zone IV aboriginal stratum in this
area of the site and what is present appears to be intact. There
are obvious modern excavations that cut through Zone IV in
Operation 3, notably the septic tank and the tree excavation.
The recovery of Pioneer historic artifacts were found in situ on
top of Zone IV suggests the Operation 3 area was not truncated
by mid-twentieth century construction activities. However, this
does not rule out the possibility of this area being modified or
truncated by Pioneer occupation. However, we found no
evidence of historic material, other than what we are assuming
is limestone gravel, in the matrix. It might even be the case
that this is actually aboriginal in context. It does differ from


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






WIDMER BRICKELL Poir'rr OPERATION 3


Figure 8. In situ cultural material resting on the bottom of Posthole 3, N52E116, 8DlA12, Operation 3.


limestone gravel, which is darker in color and more eroded,
that is found in deeper strata underneath Zone VI. However,
since this gravel is found exclusively in posthole sediments it
may actually be the spoil from their excavation and so would
be much older than similar sized gravel deposited in much
more recent aboriginal sediments such as Zone IV, but if this
is the case, what is the origin of the later limestone gravel and
why was it deposited in the sediments of Zone IV?
Since Zone IV clearly postdates the creation and use of the
cut holes at the Brickell Point site what then is the origin of the
gravel since it could not come from the tailings of the exca-
vated holes? Zone IV is found in the upper levels of some
postholes and basins. This is important because it indicates
that not all postholes and basins were completely filled by
sediments when the bedrock was exposed because Zone IV is
found resting directly on top of the higher elevations of the
bedrock surface in our Operation 3 excavations. Zone VI has
identical sedimentary characteristics as Zone IV except that it
lacks the limestone gravel. The absence of this gravel is the
distinguishing characteristic of Zone VI. Zone VI is found
beneath Zone IV and like it, it is restricted to the lower
depressions and postholes of Operation 3. The stratigraphic
relationships of the various zones are presented in Figure 9.


Features

A total of 127 features were recorded in the Operation 3
excavations. These features include multiple Field Specimen
Numbers, with 172 Proveniences assigned to the Features.
Features were comprised of a number of different categories
(Table 2). These include deposits within natural basins, shell
tools, limestone rocks used as wedges in postholes, limestone
pendants, sandstone abraders, ceramic sherd scatters, bone
tools, ochre, bone concentrations, Lucina shell concretions,
and offerings of stone, shell, and bone. The frequencies of
these feature categories for each of the various types of deposit
are presented in Table 3. The locations of these features at the
Brickell Point site in our Operation 3 excavations are presented
in Figure 10.

Tools

Most shell tools received their own provenience designa-
tions as features. Twenty shell tools or tool clusters were
identified. The declination of these tools was measured using
the spire of the gastropod tools, such as Busycon and


WmDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Table 2. Categories of Features Recovered from 8DA12, Operation 3.


Articulated Shark Vertebrae 2 2
Limestone Pendant 1 1
Yellow Ochre 1 1
Schist 1 1
Chert 1 1
Lucina Shell 3 3
Turtle Shell 1 1
Limestone Rock 10 10
Lucina Shell Encrustation 10 10
Posthole Matrix 3 3
Total 127 172


Pleuroploca picks, hammers, and adzes, to denote the azi-
muth. In addition, the inclination of each tool was also
recorded with a range from -90 degrees to 90 degrees. The
orientation of the aperture was also recorded. Choices include
up, down, left, and right, relative to the direction of the spire.
These data were recorded in the hope that they could reveal
patterns of activities and activity areas. They would also
indicate potential disturbances as well. For example, often
times Busycons are placed on end into the ground so that the
spire is oriented up. These are thought to be used as anvils or
working platforms. Likewise, shell debitage was not assigned
feature designation unless it was concentrated or clustered in
an area with other shell tools.
Limestone rocks that appear to have been used for either
tools or architectural elements were also plotted in situ. Bone
tools were also plotted in situ and assigned feature designations
to help in the delineation of activity areas. Ochre fragments
were also plotted in situ and designated as features. Their
location could indicate an activity area where pigment was
being ground or utilized in a finished state or instead might
represent offerings as were noted in Operation 1 at the Key
Marco site (Widmer 1996a).
The pattern of distribution, however did not form any
distinctive craft or work activity areas. Most tools are ex-
hausted or broken and smaller tools seem to have been lost
either by dropping through suspended floors or while engaged
in activities on the ground surface and many of them end up


trapped in postholes or shallow basins.

Middens and Discrete Refuse Dumps

Most of the distinctive strata encountered at the Brickell
Point site have low density of artifacts and represent sheet
middens. The artifact densities and their small relative size in
general preclude the classification of any of the deposits
encountered in the excavations being discrete isolated trash
dumps. The small size of the artifact indicates trampling and
incorporation of modest amounts of refuse into site sediments
forming a sheet midden. Only a single zone, consisting of a
solitary provenience, was however, classified as a discrete
trash. This is Zone XI, which contained 30 times the density
of bone as any of the other deposit types encountered in the
Operation 3 excavations.

Offerings

One of the more distinctive classes of features found in the
Operation 3 excavations are offerings. These are typically
small, complete tools, food, or exotic raw material such as
schist, which are intentionally placed at the bottom of cut holes
as offerings prior to the placement of wooden posts. These I
have found in archaeological sites in southwestern Florida as


Type of Feature Category of Feature Number of Number of
Features Proveniences
Geologic Feature Shallow Basin 62 103
Deep Basin 1 4
Tools Shark Teeth 2 2
Shell Tools 20 20
Limestone Abrader 1 1
Refuse Ceramic Sherd Scatter Shell 2 2
Debitage 2 2
Faunal bone 2 2
Limestone 2 2


Offerings


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)


















TRUNCATED PREHISTORIC
DEPOSIT WITH MODERN
GRAVEL INTRUSIONS


PREHISTORIC DEPOSIT
ACCUMULATED OVER CUT
HOLES AND BEDROCK


PREHISTORIC DEPOSIT
ACCUMULATED WITHIN CUT
HOLES AND BASINS


.UCINA SHELL CONCRETIONS
"EMENTED TO BOTTOM OF CUT


PREHISTORIC ANTHROPOGENIC
CUT HOLES INTO LIMESTONE
lu oles BEDROCK


BedrockMIAMI OOLITE LIMESTONE
GEOLOGICAL FORMATION


Figure 9. Harris matrix showing stratigraphic relationships of Zones at the Brickell Point Site, 8DA12, Operation 3.















W12 F123

-i

e ole in
F122 0
PIPE O-S




5

Scale in Meters


Figure 10. Map of the locations of features in the 8DA12, Operation 3 excavations with modern disturbances.





BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3


well as at the Brickell Point site and have termed them
dedication caches (Widmer 1996, 2002). These were also
found in the Miami Circle feature cut holes in Operation 1
most notably in the form of basalt celt (Carr and Ricisak 2000;
Dixon et al. 2000). These features will be discussed in greater
detail in the architectural section. One very important general-
ization from the Operation 3 offerings is that none of the
offerings are as exotic, large, or "costly" as those associated
with the Miami Circle feature. This suggests that the social,
religious, and/or political significance of the Miami Circle
feature is much greater than any feature associated with
architecture recovered in the Operation 3 excavations. The
Operation 3 offerings are much less substantial. The un-
worked schist fragment in Posthole 8 of N54E122 is the most
exotic offering recovered and is in no way "valuable" as the
celt from the Miami Circle feature.
Not only is the occurrence of various types of features
importance, so is the lack of certain types of features. Of
particular importance is the complete absence of evidence of in
situ controlled fires such as fire hearths, or fire burned areas of
the limestone surface, or smudging pits. Numerous locations
of ash, including broad areas, were noted and many strata
contained wood charcoal fragments and burned bone and shell,
but without exception this material was incorporated into soil
matrices that included unburned shell and bone. This mixing
of burned and non-burned fauna in the various deposits clearly
indicates that the process by which the remains became
burned, as well as the original location of the production of ash
and charcoal, i.e. the original place of burning, was not on the
surface of any of the of the stratigraphic deposits which we
excavated. This indicates that the controlled use of fire did not
take place on the ground surface in Operation 3. Although
limestone and fossil coral is plentiful in the Brickell Point site
area there is no evidence of large scorched hearth stones, nor
were any exhausted large gastropods such as Busycon
sinistrum or Plureoploca gigantea used for this purpose either
evidenced by in situ circular ring of burned gastropods or even
isolated burned gastropods been found in Operation 3 or any
other excavation on the Key Marco site. Furthermore, large
burned gastropods in general are infrequent at Brickell Point,
and when present they are typically on the exterior of dippers
indicating their use as cooking utensils rather than heath liners
or fire retainers. The question remains as to the location for
burning activities.
It is argued here that fires for cooking, heating, lighting or
other domestic activities takes place in shell and/or sand filled
wooden fireboxes or else within ceramic containers such as
bowls that were elevated above the surface of the site on the
floors of the pile structures. In excavations at the Key Marco
site (Widmer 1996, 1999, 2001) we found numerous examples
of ordinary domestic ceramic bowls used as braziers. Evidence
for this classification comes from smudging and charcoal
residues on the interior surfaces of the vessels. This could only
mean that these vessels were exposed to fire. This hypothesis
would account for the mixing of both burned and unburned
shell and bone in the deposit matrix and also for the complete
lack of in situ hearths or for that matter any evidence of


hearths at all. However, this interpretation brings up another
important question. Why use fireboxes rather than hearths on
the ground surface for fires? I am convinced that the reason
for this is quite simply because the living surface for residences
on the Brickell Point site is not the ground surface but instead
wooden floors which are elevated above the ground surface by
the means of pilings and/or stilts. This would explain the lack
of hearths at the site and is also consistent with the lack of
storage facilities dug into the ground. However, it might also

be the case that these features were in upper deposits that were
truncated by modern disturbances, but this disturbance did not
appear to happen in the Operation 3 area.
No storage pits were found in the Operation 3 excavations
nor have they been any found in any of the other excavations
at the Brickell Point site (Carr and Ricisak 2000; Wheeler
2000). This is not a function of being able to discern them
archaeologically because three intrusive modern pits where
clearly identified and excavated separately. Lack of hearths
and storage pits are important because they are test implica-
tions of the lack of any domestic activity involving fire on the
surface of the excavated area and below ground storage.
However, it would be expected that many craft activities to
include those associated with household production would
occur outside of structures. Most notable would be the firing
of ceramic vessels. However, since several houses have been
found and firing areas are not associated with any of them it
would appear that this task and its associated activity area
would serve more than one household and possibly be located
distant from any residence. Such activity areas have been
found in southwestern Florida at the Key Marco site (8CR48).
John Beriault encountered one such area in his salvage
operation in conjunction with the removal of the parking lot of
the Olde Marco Inn. I suspect that this area served a number
of residences in this vicinity including the structures excavated
in Operations 2 and 3 at the Key Marco site (Beriault 2001).

Historic Structures

Historic bricks and concrete structures placed directly on
the bedrock surface, rather than placed in excavated trenches,
were plotted in situ because it is thought that they are related
to late nineteenth early twentieth century settlement, since
most contemporary footings are placed into excavatedtrenches.
Their specific location also will help in identifying the extent
of historic disturbance and the location of contemporary soil
horizons.

Chronology

Since there are no continuous superimposed aboriginal
strata that covered the entire area of our excavation it was
difficult to periodize the site on stratigraphic grounds alone.
However, in conjunction with artifact styles found in certain
deposit types and the clear stratigraphic separation and
superpositioning of some deposit types, mostly within post-
holes, and more importantly the radiocarbon dating of many of
the strata surfaces and deposits, it was possible to come up


WEDMER






Tins FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Table 3. Location of Temporally Diagnostic Ceramics from Operation 3, 8DA12.


FS# Unit Zone, lvl Fea# Feature Type No. Ceramic Type Period
662 N52E116 IV, 1 78 Shallow Basin 4 Fort Drum Punctated Glades I late
709 N54E116 VI, 1 79 Shallow Basin 1 Fort Drum Punctated Glades I late
727 N52E116 XXVI, 1 93 Shallow Basin 1 Fort Drum Punctated Glades I late
225 N52E118 IV,1 6 Shallow Basin 3 Gordon's Pass Incised Glades I late
223 N56E118 IV, 1 4 Shallow Basin 5 Opa Locka Incised Glades IIa
749 N58E118 IV, 1 2 x 2 1 Opa Locka Incised Glades IIa


with a strong understanding of the temporal occupation of site
and its dating.

Chronology based on Artifact and Stratigraphic Data

Very few chronologically sensitive artifacts were recovered
from the excavations. Only 16 sherds that are temporally
diagnostic where recovered from seven proveniences in the
Operation 3 excavations. The FS#, Zone and Level, feature
number, feature type, number of sherds, their type classifica-
tion, and their temporal period are presented in Table 3.
Decorated, temporally diagnostic ceramics are rare in the
Operation 3 excavations and more importantly are restricted to
upper aboriginal strata, all of which are above the postholes.
Of particular interest is Feature 78 in unit N52E116 initially
a nebulous basin-like feature. Four Fort Drum series pot-
sherds, a Glades I late marker, were found in Zone IV deposit
of the feature. that had an upper elevation of 2.07 m and a
lower elevation of 2.04 m. Several shark teeth were also found
in this deposit. All of these pieces where lying flat within the
zone matrix suggesting that they were deposited on a level
surface (see Figure 7). At the bottom of Zone IV and resting
on top of Zone XXVI was a scatter of sherds including a Fort
Drum Punctated sherd. This was designated Feature 93 in
square N52E116. This feature turned out to be inside of an
extremely large posthole, Posthole 3 with a diameter of 51 cm.
The sherds were clearly lying on a level surface within the
posthole. Of particular importance is that this surface is not
the bottom of the posthole. Zone XXVI sediments continue
down in this posthole to a depth of 1.84 cm. In other words a
20-centimeter thick deposit accumulated in this hole prior to
the deposition of the Fort Drum Punctated sherds on its
surface. It is argued that the depth of 2.04 m, the top of Zone
XXVI represents a Glades I early surface upon which Glades
I late and later cultural material accumulated over. This
contention is supported by more stratigraphic data and more
importantly, radiocarbon dates.
The Zone IV stratum, which clearly overlies and in no way
is associated with the cutting or even initial filling in of the cut
holes contain predominately Glades I late marker types
including 3 sherds of Gordon's Pass Incised and six sherds of


Opa Locka Incised sherds a Glades IIa marker (Griffin
2002:139). A single Fort Drum Punctated sherd was found in
a Zone VI context. It seems that the Zone IV stratum, the last
of the prehistoric deposits dates primarily from Glades I Late
to Glades Ila and that there is no evidence of occupation after
Glades IIa. Of greater significance is that the accumulated
sediments of Zone IV clearly post date the cutting of the holes
and was deposited subsequent to A.D. 500 the date of the
appearance of Glades I late (Griffin 2002:142).

Radiocarbon Sample descriptions and Results

One of the specific goals of the Operation 3 excavation was
to obtain a suite of radiocarbon samples that could unambigu-
ously date the cut holes encountered in our excavations and
hopefully shed light on the occupational history of the site if.
Eighteen radiocarbon samples were collected for dating from
the Operation 3 excavations. All of the samples are Lucina
shells that are in primary, sealed context in strata that is below
the Zone IV Glades IIa deposit. Many of these samples were
fused to the walls of the cut holes at their bottom clearly
indicating that they are associated with the cut holes rather
than falling into them subsequent to their use. Others are fully
articulated shells with both valves in the living position
indicating that they were intentionally placed into the cut holes
with no chance of accidentally falling into the holes or
migrating downward from more recent contexts. Furthermore,
all of the samples are from the interior of postholes cut into the
limestone bedrock and as such actually date the structures that
were uncovered. It was deemed absolutely essential that these
samples come from unquestionable contexts that are not
disturbed or intruded into by other overlying deposits not
associated with the cut holes. A detailed description of the
context of each sample was recorded and stratigraphic profiles
and plan drawings of all the sample locations within cut holes
and basins were made (Widmer 2002b). Two sets of profile
drawings and plan maps are presented to illustrated the exact
horizontal and vertical provenience of each sample and its
relationship to the stratigraphy within the cut hole or basin
(see Figures 11, 12 and 13). Both of these samples illustrate
how they specifically date an actual post since the shell


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)





WIDMER BRICKELL Poirir OPERATION 3


N054E122

Post Hole #9/10

RC Sample #4


Scale in Centimeters


Feature 27
A' ZONE XXII
Level 2
FS# 395


#3 M
U


Feature 27
ZONE XXII
Level 2
FS# 395


Figure 11. Plan map and cross-section of radiocarbon sample 4, 8DA12, Operation 3.


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3





Tis FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


~~QT .t
1 ..


Figure 12. Photograph of the location of radiocarbon sample 4 in Posthole 9 encircling Posthole 10, in unit N56E122, 8DA12,
Operation 3.


utilized for the sample has accumulated around the original
post. Each of these samples came from a cut hole that was
inside of another cut hole. The post that was dated was the
second post in that position since the shell accumulated in the
larger of the two cut holes. The smaller diameter and deeper
post had to be the second hole since the shell accumulated
inside of the larger cut hole. The location of the samples at the
site is presented in Figure 14. The radiocarbon dates from
Operation 3 are presented in Table 4.


Chronological Phases at the Brickell Point Site

The Operation 3 radiocarbon dates where divided into
chronological phases based on the clustering of radiocarbon
dates (Table 4, Figure 15). Four chronological divisions for
Operation 3 were made based on these radiocarbon dates. The
radiocarbon ages range from 760 B.C. to A.D. 540 (cal
corrected at 2 sigma) a period of continuous occupation
spanning 1300 years. Only a single date is later than A.D.
240. There are no gaps in the occupation and it is important


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)





WIDMER BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3


N056E118
RC Sample #15
Feature 94
Post Hole# 19
Zone XXII, Level 1
FS# 532


2.00m
.1.97m


iO CM


Feature 59
ZONE IV, Level 1
FS# 729, SS# 298


PH#
27
1.89m"


ZONE VI, Level 1
FS# 576, SS# 311
ZONE XIII
Level 1 C
FS# 560
SS# 298
11,89m


~ -.1


1.86m e '


Fused Lucina
Shell Mass
Surrounding PH# 19
Feature 94
Zone XXII, Level 1
RC Sample #15
FS# 732


ZONE XIII,Leve 1 \
FS# 729, SS# 298
ZONE X Fused Lucina
ZONE XIII Shell Mass
Level 1 She(( Mass
FS# 763 /Surrounding PH# 1
Sss# 460 Feature 94
Zone XXII, Levell
PH# RC Sample #15
\19 FS# 732


1.66

1 OM


Scale in Centimeters


Figure 13. Plan map and cross-section of radiocarbon sample 15, in unit N56E118, 8DA12, Operation 3.


20CM


I I


I I


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3


\









RC #13
C#il

C #
RC15 7 RC #18

RC #16 RC# C#8 RC #1
N056E116 I N056E118 N056E120 N056E122 N056E124

RC #4 RC 2


.C #9
.---.. #3
N054E116 N054El-8--_ N054E120 tE122 N054E124




RC #5 C #1

N052E116 N052E118 N 52E120 N05 122 N052E124


N050E118


N050E120


Scale in Meters


Figure 14. Map of the locations of radiocarbon samples in 8DA12, Operation 3.


N058E116


N058E118


N058E120


N058E122






WIDMER BRICKELL PoINT OPERATION 3


Table 4. 8DA12, Operation 3, Brickell Point site radiocarbon dates.


OP# RC # FS# Lab# Material Context Conventional 13C/12C 2 Sigma Calibrated Phase
(Beta-) Radiocarbon Ratio (o/oo) Age'
__Age
3 11 558 166858 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2770 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 760 370 BC I
3 2 343 146939 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2720 +/- 70 BP -0.5 Cal 740 340 BC I
3 4 395 166850 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2720 +/- 70 BP -0/5 Cal 740 340 BC I
3 1 274 146938 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2710 +/-70 BP -2.1 Cal 730 340 BC I

3 4 395 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2650 +/- 100 BP3 -0.5 Cal 500-300 BC II
3 3 355 146940 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2600 +/-40 BP -0.1 Cal 760-170 BC II
3 4 395 146941 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2570 +/- 70 BP -0.5 Cal 400-230 BC II
3 5 434 166851 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2570 +/-70 BP 0.0* Cal 410-135 BC II
3 18 493 166856 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2560 +/-60 BP 0.0* Cal 400-150 BC II
3 16 778 165684 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2580 +/-60 BP 0.0* Cal 400-160 BC II
3 17 883 165685 Lucina shell Basin 2520 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 350-50 BC II
3 13 615 165681 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2470 +/- 60 BP 0.0* Cal 350-30 BC II
3 10 529 166857 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2460 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 350 BC-AD 10 II

3 14 685 165682 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2390 +- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 160 BC-AD 10 1m
3 .15 732 165683 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2280 +/- 80 BP 0.0* Cal 150 BC-AD 240 III
3 8 481 166854 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2270 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 100 BC-AD 240 I
3 9 487 166855 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2270 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 100 BC-AD 240 m

3 7 473 166853 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2020 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal AD 180-530 IV
SCalibrations using INTCAL98 (see Stuiver and van der Plicht 1998; Stuiver et al. 1998; Talma and Vogel 1998). All of the dates, being
marine shell, were adjusted using a local reservoir value (delta R) of -5 A 20 years (see Stuiver and Braziunas 1993).
SThis date represents the average of two combined C14 dates on the same sample.
* 13C/12C ratios were not calculated and were assumed to be zero.


to note that these radiocarbon dates specifically date architec-
tural elements in cut holes indicating the age of structures on
the site. If we discount the single post-A.D. 240 date, all of the
chronometric architectural evidence predates the Glades I late
decorated ceramic era occupation in the sedimentary deposits
that lie above the bedrock surface. This seems to indicate that
either the later occupation did not involve use of architectural
structures or that these structures were placed in the sediments
rather than the cut holes. This seems highly unlikely in the
Operation 3 area because of the shallow depth of the aboriginal
sediments, which typically were less than 10 cm, too shallow
for containing posts. The low frequency of artifacts in the
supra bedrock deposits indicates that the Brickell Point site
was not utilized as a permanent settlement subsequent to A.D.
540 if not slightly earlier.
Next, the Operation 3 radiocarbon dates were combined
with radiocarbon dates from earlier excavations at the Brickell
Point site. These combined data are presented in Table 5 and
Figure 16. All of these additional dates are on contexts from
deposits above the bedrock surface and are nut associated with


cut hole features. Four additional Phase IV dates are added
indicating that there is use of the Brickell Point site during this
time period. The range of occupation has been extended by 40
years to A.D. 580. Four dates are also added to the Phase III
range. All of these were supra bedrock deposit in context and
were charcoal rather than shell. This would seem to suggest
that loose sandy sediments began to accumulate over the
bedrock surface during Phase III possibly by 100 B.C. but
certainly before A.D. 200.
Seven archaeological phases were established for the
Brickell Point site. Five of these are prehistoric in age and are
based on radiocarbon assays for all of the excavations at the
site. Two phases are historic in context. These include the
modern fill deposit, previously designated Zone 1 in the
Operation 2 excavations, that was bought into the site when
the Brickell Point Apartments where constructed in 1950
(Wheeler 2000:304). The other is a Pioneer late eighteenth
early nineteenth century phase. This is not equivalent to the
Zone 2 disturbed deposit recorded in the Operation 2 excava-
tions that are similar in age (Wheeler 2000:304). The Pioneer


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3














LAB #
Beta-166858-
Beta-146939-
Beta-166850-
Beta-146938-
b
Beta-146940-
Beta-146941-
Beta-166851-
Beta-166856-
Beta-165684-
Beta-165685-
Beta-165681-
Beta-166857-
Beta-165682-
Beta-165683-
Beta-166854-
Beta-166855-
Beta-166853-


8DA12 OP3, Brickell Point Site (a)

Radiocarbon Age Ranges

OP 3, FS# 558, RC# 11
OP 3, FS# 343, RC# 2 PHASE I
OP 3, FS# 395, RC# 4(Run 2)
OP 3, FS# 274, RC# 1
S OP 3, FS# 395, RC# 4 (Mean of 2 runs)*
S OP 3, FS3 355, RC #3
OP 3, FS# 395 RC# 4(Run 1)
OP 3, FS# 434, RC# 5
PHASE II
OP 3, FS# 493, RC# 18
OP 3, FS# 778, RC# 16
OP 3, FS# 883, RC# 17
OP 3, FS# 615, RC# 13
OP 3, FS# 529, RC# 10
SOP 3, FS# 685, RC# 14
OP 3, FS# 732, RC# 15 PHASE III
OP3, FS# 481, RC# 8
OP 3, FS# 487, RC# 9
OP 3, FS# 473, RC# 7 PHASE IV


1000 BC 500 BC BC/AD 500 AD 1000 AD 1500 AD
AGE RANGES ARE BC/AD CALIBRATED (2 SIGMA)
a Age ranges are calibrated dates using INTCAL98, see Stuiver and van der Plicht (1998),
Stuiver et al. (1998), and Talma and Vogel (1993).
b This date represents the average of two combined C14 dates (Beta-166850 & Beta-14694) on the same sample.


Figure 15. 8DA12, Operation 3 radiocarbon age ranges.


I0
2000 AD









Table 5. Brickell Point Site radiocarbon dates.

OP# RC # FS# Lab# Material Context Conventional 13C/12C 2 Sigma Calibrated Phase
(Beta-) Radiocarbon Ratio (o/oo) Age'
Age
3 11 558 166858 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2770 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 760 370 BC I
3 2 343 146939 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2720 +/- 70 BP -0.5 Cal 740 340 BC I
3 4 395 166850 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2720 +/- 70 BP -0/5 Cal 740 340 BC I
3 1 274 146938 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2710 +/-70 BP -2.1 Cal 730 340 BC I
SHC2 690 02452 Charcoal ? 2350 +/- 50 BP3 Cal 520 370 BC I

3 4 395 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2650 +/- 100 BP4 -0.5 Cal 500-300 BC II
SHC 700D 1675 Lucina shell ? 2700 +/- 110 BP Cal 760-170 BC II
3 3 355 146940 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2600 +/-40 BP -0.1 Cal 760-170 BC II
3 4 395 146941 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2570 +/- 70 BP -0.5 Cal 400-230 BC II
3 5 434 166851 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2570 +/-70 BP 0.0* Cal 410-135 BC II
3 18 493 166856 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2560 +/- 60 BP 0.0* Cal 400-150 BC II
3 16 778 165684 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2580 +/- 60 BP 0.0* Cal 400-160 BC II
3 17 883 165685 Lucina shell Basin 2520 +- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 350-50 BC II
3 13 615 165681 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2470 +/-60 BP 0.0* Cal 350-30 BC II
3 10 529 166857 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2460 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 350 BC-AD 10 II

3 14 685 165682 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2390 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 160 BC-AD 10 Il
3 15 732 165683 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2280 +/- 80 BP 0.0* Cal 150 BC-AD 240 I
3, 8 481 166854 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2270 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 100 BC-AD 240 Il1
3 9 487 166855 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2270 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal 100 BC-AD 240 11
SHC 689 02451 charcoal ? 2080 +- 50 BP Cal 200 BC-AD 30 Il1
1 514 128477 charcoal ? 1950 +/-150 BP Cal 365 BC-AD 415 Ill
1 515 128478 charcoal ? 1920 +/-70 BP Cal 45 BC -AD 245 III
SHC 847 02450 charcoal ? 1910 +/- 60 BP Cal 40 BC-AD 240 III

3 7 473 166853 Lucina shell Cut-hole 2020 +/- 70 BP 0.0* Cal AD 180-530 IV
1 807-B 134546 bone midden 2040 +/- 40 BP Cal AD 250-440 IV
collagen-sea
turtle bone
SHC 700+ 1674 shell ? 1980 +/-70 BP Cal AD 250-580 IV
columella
SHC 667 02449 charcoal ? 1710 +/- 60 BP Cal AD 220-440 IV
1 585-A 134544 charcoal 7 1600 +/- 40 BP Cal AD 390-550 IV

1 1028 167166 charcoal Feature 420 +/- 80 BP Cal AD 1330-1650 V
"A"-turtle
carapace
1 495 161899 bone Feature 690 +/- 40 BP Cal AD 1550-1680 V
collagen 218-
dolphin
skull
1 519 134544 bone Feature 670 +/- 30 BP Cal AD 1560-1680 V
collagen 234-shark
_____ interment_
Calibrations using INTCAL98 (see Stuiver and van der Plicht 1998; Stuiver et al. 1998; Talma and Vogel 1998).
2 SHC dates from Carr and Ricisak 2000:267, Table 1, OP# 1 dates from Carr and Ricisak (2000:282, Table 2).
3 SCH FS# 690 has an early appearing date range due to flatness in the calibration curve at this point.
4 This date represents the average of two combined C14 dates on the same sample.
* 13C/12C ratios were not calculated and were assumed to be zero. Where no values are given, data was from published sources that did not
report 13C/12C ratios.


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


8DA12 Brickell Point Site


LAB # Radiocarbon Age Ranges (a)
N OP 3, FS# 558, RC# 11
Beta-146939- OP 3, FS# 343, RC# 2
Beta-166850- OP 3, FS# 395, RC# 4(Run 2) PHASE I
Beta-146938- OP 3, FS# 274, RC# 1
Beta-02452 _____ --SHC, FS# 690*
Beta-166850- -- OP 3, FS# 395, RC# 4 (Mean of 2 runs)**
Beta-1675 SHC, FS# 700D
Beta-146940- m OP 3, FS3 355, RC #3
Beta-146941- OP 3, FS# 395 RC# 4(Run 1)
Beta-166851- OP 3, FS# 434, RC# 5
PHASE II
Beta-166856- OP 3, FS# 493, RC# 18
Beta-165684- m OP 3, FS# 778, RC# 16
Beta-165685- OP 3, FS# 883, RC# 17
Beta-165681- OP 3, FS# 615, RC# 13
Beta-166857- OP 3, FS# 529, RC# 10
Beta-165682- OP 3, FS# 685, RC# 14
Beta-165683- OP 3, FS# 732, RC# 15
Beta-166854- OP3, FS# 481, RC# 8
Beta-166855- OP 3, FS# 487, RC# 9
Beta-02451 SHC, FS# 689 PHASE III
Beta-128477- OP 1, FS# 514
Beta-128478- OP 1, FS# 515
Beta-02450 SHC, FS# 847
Beta-166853- OP 3, FS# 473, RC# 7
Beta-134546- OP 1, FS# 807-B
Beta-1647 SHC, FS# 700+ PHASE IV
Beta-02449.- SHC, FS# 667
Beta-134545- OP 1, FS# 585-A
Beta-161899- Dolphin Cranium m OP 1, FS# 495
Beta-167166- Sea Turtle Carapace OP 1, FS# 1028
Beta-134544- Articulated Shark Vertebrae OP 1, FS# 19
PHASE V


1000 BC 500 BC BC/AD 500 AD 1000 AD 1500 AD 2000 AD
AGE RANGES ARE BC/AD CALIBRATED (2 SIGMA)
a Age ranges are calibrated dates using INTCAL98, see Stuiver and van der Plicht (1998),
Stuiver et al. (1998), and Talma and Vogel (1993).
b SHC FS# 690 has an early appearing date range due to a flatness in the calibration curve at this point.
c This date represents the average of two combined C14 dates (Beta-166850 & Beta-14694) on the same sample.
SHC dates are from Carr and Ricisak 2000:267 Table 1, OP 1 dates are from Carr and Ricisak 2000:282 Table 2.


Figure 16. 8DA12 radiocarbon age ranges for all operations.


THE FwIRInm ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






WIDMER BRICKELL Poi~r OPERATION 3


Table 6. Radiocarbon date phases by zone.


Phase I Phase H Phase HII Phase IV Phase V
Zone X (RC# 1) Zone VI, Ivl 2 (RC# 3) Zone VI, Ivl 1(RC# 8) Zone VI, Ivl 1(RC# 7) None

Zone VI, lvl 3 (RC# 2) Zone XXII (RC# 4) Zone XIV, Ivl 2 (RC# 9)
Zone XXII (RC# 4) Zone XVIII (RC# 5) Zone XXII (RC# 14)
Zone XXII (RC# 10) Zone XIV, Ivl 1 (RC# 10) Zone XXII (RC# 15)

Zone XXII (RC# 11) Zone XXII (RC# 13)
Zone XXII (RC# 16)
Zone XXII (RC# 17)
Zone VI (RC# 18)


phase that we recorded in the Operation 1 excavation was in
situ and undisturbed. It was only found in a few places and
consisted of three distinct deposit types; Zones III, VII, and
XXIV. The disturbed Zone 2 that was identified in the
Operation 2 excavations was grouped here into Zone I, since
it could not be stratigraphically separated from it. However,
this may not be the totality of phases present at the site. For
example, there is a very large temporal gap in radiocarbon
dates between Phase IV and Phase V and Phase V is repre-
sented exclusively by the remains of an articulated shark, sea
turtle carapace and dolphin cranium, which post date the
period of cut holes at the site (Carr and Ricisak 2000). It
seems clear that there is a hiatus, if not complete abandonment
of the Brickell Point site after A.D. 580 and habitation shifted
across the river to the north bank of the Miami River at the
Granada site where there is copious evidence of intense
occupation from Glades I late to the European Contact Period.
This is exactly the period subsequent to A.D. 500 that radio-
carbon dates are absent and occupational data poorly repre-
sented at the Brickell Point site.

Dating the Zones

At this stage of analysis it is difficult to date the various
Zones from the site. The data in Table 6 indicate that zones
are not necessarily exclusively associated with a single phase.
There is some evidence to suggest that Zone VI for example,
represented by six radiocarbon dates is the most ubiquitous
found in the excavations, dating from Phase I through Phase
III depending primarily upon depth of deposit. Zone XXII is
clearly Phase I and II in date but also ranges into Zone III.
Since this stratum is associated exclusively with the bottom of
cut holes it actually directly dates the cut holes rather than any
deposit within them. Zone XIV dates to both Phase II and
Phase III, but is represented by dates on only two examples.
Zone X clearly seems to be Zone I in age but there is only a
singe date on this deposit. A tentative stratigraphic position-
ing of the Zones has already been presented in the Harris


Matrix for the site in Figure 9 but this represents only the
relative positioning of the zones not their chronometric date.

Summary of the Chronology

There can be little doubt of the prehistoric context of all of
the cut holes features found at the Brickell Point site, other
than the easily recognizable modem disturbances. Moreover,
it is clear that all of these cut hole features predate A.D. 200
and most of them, if not all of them where made in the Early
Woodland Period. Of course it is highly likely that their use
continued into the Middle Woodland Period. There is no
evidence, whatsoever, that the cut hole features were utilized
as postholes during the Glades II and later period and it is
doubted that they were even used during the Glades I Late
Period, although this is not as well established. It is argued
that the larger cut holes uncovered in Operation 3 are early in
the construction sequence at the Brickell Point site and that
this pattern holds true for the circle feature uncovered in
Operation 1. This means that the circle feature dates to the
Early Woodland Period. This is not all that surprising since
circular features, although differing in nature and function,
have been found at the Fort Center site near Lake Okeechobee
and probably date to the Early Woodland Period as well (Sears
1982).
If we assume that Zone XXII was always deposited in the
bottom of cut holes without loose sediment fill, since this zone
is shell that is fused to the cut hole bottom, then these dates
should provide some idea of the age over which holes where
cut into the limestone bedrock. There are eight radiocarbon
dates directly on Zone XXII with two dates run on the same
sample. Phase I has 3 dates, Phase II has 4 dates and Phase III
has 2 dates. It the frequency of dates of these samples is any
gauge of the actual frequency of aboriginal posthole excavation
than we would expect holes were cut at roughly the same rate
through all three phases. This spans a period from 760 B.C.
to A.D. 240 or some 1000 years.


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3






ThE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Figure 17. Photograph of Busycon columella pick broken off and fused in situ in Posthole 24, N54E122, 8DA12,
Operation 3.


Community Patterning

One of the goals of the research at the Brickell Point site
was to determine the existence of other structures at the site
and to provide information on the floor plans of these struc-
tures and their integration into a community layout. It was
suspected that, based on the additional cut postholes in both
Operation 1 and the Valley of the Holes Operation 2 excava-
tions, there would be additional structures present at the site.
The patterning of the cut holes would provide the information
necessary to discern this community patterning.

Posthole Data

The most important class of data, besides the radiocarbon
dates, from the Brickell Point site is the cut holes that litter the


surface of the Miami Limestone bedrock. There is now
absolutely no question that these holes are anthropogenic in
origin, having been produced by humans rather than the
product of natural processes and that considerable time has
passed since the postholes were anthropogenically cut through
the original duricrust of the limestone formation (Means and
Scott 2000:326). Moreover, the thickness of the duricrust on
all of the cut holes encountered in our excavations that have
been cut through by modern disturbance is great enough to
indicate considerable antiquity of the holes, clearly earlier than
the arrival of the earliest European explorers and most likely
over 2000 years in age.

Why were holes cut into the Miami Limestone bedrock?

Perhaps one of the most perplexing question about the


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST





WIDMEII BRICKELL Poiwr OPERATION 3


Brickell Point site and the Miami Circle feature that it con-
tains, and frankly the one that led to all the controversy, is why
did the occupants of the site cut holes into the bedrock in the
first place? The answer is actually obvious, there was little or
no soil over the bedrock when the original structures where
erected and so the initial settlers cut holes into the bedrock as
footings for posts. What is the evidence for this interpretation?
One line of evidence is the discovery of a Deptford Linear
Check Stamped sherd scatter lying directly on the bedrock
surface (Carr and Ricisak 2000:271, Figure 10). This ceramic
type dates from 500 B.C. to A.D. 200 (Bense 1998; Milanich
1984:114; Stephenson et al. 2002:18) and is directly contem-
porary with all but one of the Operation 3 Radiocarbon
assessments that directly date the postholes. In addition, as
mentioned previously, Zone IV was observed in many areas of
the site resting directly on top of the limestone bedrock surface.
This deposit has been dated by its ceramic content to the
Glades I Late/ Glades IIA time period suggesting that the site
surface was barren of sediments. Numerous cut holes also had
Zone IV deposits extending into their interior yet rested on top
of underlying older deposits indicating that the rims and upper
portions of postholes where exposed and lacked sediments.
This clearly establishes that the site was barren of soil except
perhaps in some shallow basin features and, of course the
postholes. This was revealed clearly in our excavation.
There is additional evidence that bedrock was exposed
when structures erected. In square N56E122 there is a small,
mound-like quadrilateral area that is surrounded by four
postholes. These are postholes 8, 9, 10 and 11 and have top
elevations of 1.95 m to 1.97 m while the high dome-like area
has an elevation that is five to seven cm higher. The close
proximity of these postholes to each other yet their spacing
around the high area to avoid it seems to indicate that there
was knowledge of this high spot when the holes were cut and
the high spot was avoided because of the extra labor required
to remove it. This could only be directly known a priori if the
bedrock was exposed without soil over it.

How were the cut holes made?

There can be little doubt about how the postholes were cut
into the Miami Oolite bedrock. In Posthole 24 in unit #
N54E122 a columella pick fragment of a Busycon tool had
broken off in the bedrock itself in the actual orientation of
striking the bed rock, i.e. 90 degrees! It was buried so deep
and had fused with the bedrock that it could not be removed.
It was obviously broken off in the use of the shell tool to cut the
hole. Even though it could not be removed it was carefully
mapped and photographed and later assigned a feature number
so that it could more easily be identified and not "lost" in the
maps. The nice thing about it is that it now serves as a
permanent fixed display of exactly how the holes were cut!
The embedded tool fragment is illustrated in Figure 17. Of
course just because this one hole was cut using a shell tool does
not automatically mean that every posthole was cut with shell
tools. However, we have little evidence of any other media
available in sufficient quantities or capabilities to perform this


task. Casts made of cut holes by Ryan Wheeler provide a
detailed inverse texture contour of the posthole bottoms. The
cut mark casts are clearly consistent with pitting that could be
made with large gastropod picks.

Were there other structures at the site and what were their
floor plans?

One of the research goals at the Brickell Point site is the
piecing together of the community layout. What kinds of
outlines or patterns do the holes cut into the limestone bedrock
make? What kinds of structures or features are present at this
site? What kinds of activity areas are associated with the site?
I have been addressing these same questions in my research on
the southwestern Florida coast by excavating wherever and
whenever it is possible to do so. Usually this is because the
location on the site is scheduled for building and construction.
While this may seem like a very unusual research strategy, to
my way of thinking it is just as appropriate as any other
sampling strategy. The way I envision the Brickell Point site,
as well as other large shell bearing archaeological sites along
the southwestern Florida coast is that they are densely popu-
lated village sites. As such they should be densely settled and
have numerous closely spaces houses or structures on them.
Therefore, anywhere you excavate should result in the location
of a structure or dwelling. By piecing the information together
from these haphazard excavations it is possible to gain abetter
understanding of later prehistoric village organization on the
southwestern Florida coast. When this information is added to
that recovered from the Operation 1 and Operation 2 excava-
tion and testing, it is possible to determine quite a lot about
community patterning.
The basic unit of analysis in trying to determine the
community patterning at the Brickell Point site is the posthole.
It is argued that each one represents an architectural structural
element and that taken together their pattern can determine the
density of structures at the site and their range of sizes and
layouts. Furthermore, by correlating associated deposits and
substrate data (i.e. proximity to the circular structure, features
and offerings within the postholes) it is possible to infer the
functions and activities associated with each structure. It is
also argued that the cut holes found at the Brickell Point site,
all of them including circular and "rectangular" forms are
indeed post molds. The evidence for this will be presented in
the following section. I will begin by reviewing the posthole
information and then inferring structure layout and function.

Comparison of Postholes with Key Marco (8CR48)

A total of 507 postholes where recorded in 8DA12,
Operation 3. Their spatial location is presented in Figure 18.
The total of 507 postholes is over 2.5 times the number of 179
post molds encountered in 8CR48, Operation 3 excavations.
It also is greater than the number of postholes recovered in the
either the 8CR48, Operation 1 excavation, where there were
over 350 were recorded, and in Operation 2 where 197
postholes where recovered. The frequency per unit at Brickell


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3





Tm~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Figure 18. Map of the locations of postholes in Operations 2 and 3, 8DA12.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)





WIDMER BRICKELL Poi~r OPERATION 3


Point is 27.72 post molds per unit, which is slightly higher
than 8CR48, Operation 3 where it is 25.57 post molds per unit.
This compares with an average of 21.16 postholes per unit for
8CR48, Operation 2 and 12.5 post molds per unit in the
8CR48 Operation 1 excavations. The greatest number of post
molds in any unit in 8DA12, Operation 3, was 66. This is
somewhat greater than in 8CR48, Operation 3 where the
highest number of post molds in any unit was 51, and much
greater than in 8CR48, Operation 2 where the highest number
of post molds in any unit was 27, but compares closely with 55
post molds recorded in one unit in 8CR48, Operation 1. The
mean post mold data of 8CR48, Operation 2 become even
closer in density to 8DA12, Operation 3 and 8CR48, Operation
3, when the area of Operation 2 is adjusted for the lack of
baulks. This increases the area per unit by 0.76 square m or
19%. When 8CR48, Operation 2 is adjusted for the discrep-
ancy in area, the average number of post molds per unit
increases to 25.18 which compares favorably to the average of
25.57 post molds per unit in 8CR48, Operation 3, and more
importantly the average of 27.72 for postholes at 8DA12,
Operation 3. The lower density of the 8CR48, Operation 1
post molds would also increase if only the mound summit area
post mold densities where utilized rather than including
mound slope areas. What is interesting is that although the
frequency is similar in all four examples, the stratigraphy in
which the post molds recorded was very different. In 8CR48,
Operation 2 post molds were recovered well into the deeper
strata of the shell ridge. But we only excavated to the top of
the shell ridge in 8CR48, Operation 3.
At the Brickell Point site, all postholes where excavated
into bedrock so if any post molds were missed they would have
been in the overlying midden that was removed for modem
construction. This is just the opposite of the situation at
8CR48, Operation 3. This would tend to suggest that the post
mold density is higher in 8CR48, Operation 3. However, even
in 8CR48 Operation 2 over half of the post molds were
encountered in the first shell layer. In fact, 128 of the 197 post
molds in 8CR48, Operation 2 were encountered in the initial
shell bearing deposit, Zone IV. This is a much greater number
than the 49 post molds that were found in the initial shell
bearing deposits of Operation 3, Phase 5, that is comprised of
Zones X, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, and XX. It is
perhaps inappropriate to compare post mold/posthole densities
in the two different sites because the stratigraphy is so differ-
ent, not only between the sites but even within different areas
within the Key Marco site, 8CR48. The main difference
between the postholes at the Brickell Point site and the post
molds at the Key Marco site is that they are permanent in the
case of former and temporary or shifting in the case of the
later. That is, once a hole is cut into the limestone bedrock it
is always there. However, when a post is replaced at Key
Marco, a new hole has to be dug. The previous hole itself may
disappear and this evidence of the hole, in the form of a post
mold, might not always be preserved in looser sediments
because the sediments can leach their organic contents or in
the case of shell loose their integrity entirely, if the rotted post
is removed.


Posthole Clustering

Postholes were assigned to five categories based on their
grouping and arrangement with one another. These were 1)
solitary postholes that did not cluster with any other posthole,
2) paired postholes, 3) postholes that occurred in groupings of
three (see Figurel9), 4) postholes that occurred in groupings
of four and 5) postholes that were inside of other postholes.
Often times, postholes that were inside of other postholes also
were paired with a posthole. If this occurred they were not
grouped, but simply assigned to the single category of post-
holes inside of postholes. Table 7 presents summary data of
the percentages of pairing, multiple clustering, and postholes
within postholes in each of the units in Operation 3 of the
Brickell Point site.

Why are there paired postholes?

An interesting pattern emerges from the posthole data of
8DA12, Operation 3. Of the 507 postholes that where recorded
in the excavations 199 of them (34.5%) are clustered into
paired holes, holes within holes, and even multiple grouping
sometimes of as many as four together. The pairing of
postholes is not a new observation and is common at the Key
Marco site (Widmer 1996, 1999, 2001). Why are postholes
inside of postholes and why are there paired and multiple
clustered postholes at the Brickell Point site?
In spite of obvious differences between the Key Marco and
Brickell Point sites there are clear similarities between the
patterning of post placement at the two sites. Namely the
pairing of postholes and the pairing of post molds. It is easy
to see why post molds would be paired because if one post is
replaced the new post would be put adjacent or nearby the old
post. But why would this be the case for holes cut into bedrock
since the hole has already been cut? Why not simply but a new
post in the original pre-existing posthole? A possible answer
lies in some feature or characteristic that is common to the
structures that the posts themselves relate to at both sites. The
answer is that in both cases the posts are actually used to
support elevated dwelling with floors above the sediment
surfaces that are natural in the case of the Brickell Point site
and cultural deposits in the case of the Key Marco site. In both
cases new posts are actually being erected prior to the original
post rotting out so it is still in place. Because the original pole
is still in place the new post cannot be placed in the original
hole. Instead it is placed adjacent to it because ultimately it
will provide a load bearing support where the original load
bearing post was also located.

Why are there postholes inside ofpostholes?

One pattern that was not observed in the Key Marco
excavations, but was seen at Brickell Point was the posthole
within a posthole. Why is this pattern present and why do
even single postholes have different depths? A possible answer
here is a pragmatic one. If the hole that the original post is in
is shallow it might be possible to remove the rotting post


WIDMER


BRiCKELL POINT OPERATION 3








Table 7. Frequencies of posthole clustering and pairing in units of Operation 3, 8DA12 Brickell Point site.

Unit Total Solitary Paired Tripled Quadrupled Postholes Totals**
Postholes inside
postholes
N50E118 50 28 (73.7%) 5 (13.1%) 4 (10.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1(2.6%) 38 (99.9%)

N52E116 7 3 (60%) 1(20.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1(20.0%) 5 (100.0%)

N52E118 37 31(91.2%) 3 (8.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 34 (100.0%)

N52E120 42 34 (89.4%) 2 (5.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (5.3%) 38 (100.0%)

N52E122 8 3 (60.0%) 1 (20.0%) 1 (20.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (100.0%)

N52E124 16 10 (76.9%) 3 (23.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 13 (100.0%)

N54E116 32 16 (69.6%) 4 (17.4%) 1(4.3%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (8.7%) 23 (100.0%)

N54E120 14 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 13 (100.0%)

N54E122 46 13 (43.3%) 7 (23.3%) 3 (10.0%) 1(3.3%) 6 (20.0%) 30 (99.9%)

N54E124 21 15 (83.3%) 1(5.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (11.1%) 18 (100.0%)

N56E116 36 22 (78.6%) 4 (14.2%) 1(3.6%) 0 (0.0%) 1(3.6%) 28 (100.0%)

N56E118 66 36 (69.2%) 9 (17.3%) 2 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (9.6%) 52 (99.9%)

N56E120 32 18 (72.0%) 5 (20.0%) 1 (4.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (4.0%) 25 (100.0%)

N56E122 48 31(77.5%) 6 (15.0%) 1(2.5%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (5.0%) 40 (100.0%)

N58E116 17 15 (93.7%) 1(6.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 16 (100.0%)

N58E118 17 14 (93.3%) 0 (0.0%) 1(6.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 15 (100.0%)

N60E116 18 14 (93.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1(6.7%) 0 (0.0%) 15 (100.0%)

Totals 507 315 (77.2%) 53 (13.0%) 15 (3.7%) 2 (0.5%) 23 (5.6%) 408
S_(100.0%)
*Total postholes per unit
** Total posthole groupings
Note: Some postholes grouping cross cut excavation units but groupings only counted once.


without disrupting the structural integrity of the dwelling and
thereby have the old hole available for placement of a new
post. But why is it that in 20 percent of the multiple posthole
cases, an additional hole was cut into the original hole? I


suspect the reason is that workers will go out and cut down a
tree to replace the old decaying post whenever the situation
arises. However, since the dwelling is above the ground
surface, perhaps by as much as 2.5 to 9 m to avoid the effects


11m FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






WIDMER BRICKELL PoINT OPERATION 3


Figure 19. Three grouped postholes all with differing depths in N56E118, 8DA12, Operation 3.


of tidal surges, and supported by existing posts it is important
to err on the conservative side by having a post too long than
too short. If it is too short, the post can't be used at all because
its length when erected will be below the elevated floor surface.
If it is too long, however, all one needs to do is simply excavate
the hole deeper. This is an important observation, because it
means that when postholes are paired the deeper posthole will
be the more recent posthole of the pair. This is not just a
logical assumption but is actually corroborated by empirical
examples from the Brickell Point site.
In unit N54E122, Posthole 10 was inside of Posthole 9 and
there was no doubt whatsoever that Posthole 10 was cut after
Posthole 9 was abandoned (see Figures 11 and 12). The larger,
shallower Posthole 9 had within it a circular ring of Lucina
shell that defined the circumference of the deeper inner
Posthole 10. This means that the smaller diameter post that
was in the deeper Posthole 10 had to be in place for the Lucina
shell to have accumulated in the outer, larger diameter,
shallower Posthole 9 without it falling into the cavity of
Posthole 10. Here is an actual example of a later posthole
being deeper and smaller in diameter than the earlier posthole.
A similar situation is found in unit N56E118. Here also, a
larger posthole (#27) had a smaller deeper posthole inside of


it and like in the case in N54E122 Lucina shell had accumu-
lated in the earlier larger, shallower hole around the post in
Posthole 19 while it still had a post in it. Thus in two cases we
can empirically document that smaller diameter and deeper
postholes were cut into shallower larger diameter postholes.
Furthermore, we had no examples to the contrary. Therefore
it seem clear that when postholes are paired or inside of other
postholes the deeper, smaller diameter holes are more recent.
The posthole diameters from the Brickell Point site have a
mean diameter of 12 cm and a standard deviation of 7 cm.
This mean diameter is similar to those for all of the post molds
excavated from the three operations on the Key Marco site. As
can be seen in Table 8, the means and standard deviations for
the post molds in all three operations at 8CR48 is the same: a
mean post mold diameter is 11 cm and the standard deviation
is 0.3 cm. The mean from the Brickell Point site is 1 cm
higher and the standard deviation is over twice as great. This
is in no doubt due to the few very large postholes that are not
found in the loose shell and sand sediments of southwestern
Florida sites. I argue that the solid bedrock base at the Brickell
Point site made the use of these large diameter posts structur-
ally feasible. This is supported by the observation that even
temple structures in southwestern Florida had 11cm diameter


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3




THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


15


9

13


17


Figure 20. Drawings of posthole profile types at 8DA12, Operation 3 (not to scale).


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)


16
\









Table 8. Comparative post mold summaries for 8DA12, Brickell Point site and 8CR48, Key Marco site.


posts. The close similarity in diameter clearly indicates that
the cut holes indeed functioned as postholes and had no other
purpose or function. Of course the posts could have had been
used for a number of different architectural purposes; for
dwellings, storage sheds, palisades, drying racks or other
conceivable architectural purposes. However, they all clearly
have architectural context.
The surprisingly uniform diameter of posts in all sites that
have been excavated in southern Florida, even on both coasts,
has important implications that I have alluded to earlier in my
archaeological research on the southwestern Florida coast
(Widmer 1996, 1999, 2000). There clearly appears to be a
selection of trees of a certain diameter for use as stilts or
pilings for building elevated structures or, the natives are
making posts of a necessary size for the their buildings. The
array of shell tools for wood working suggests they could make
posts of any manner they desired. It might be that the boles of
certain trees that are a specific diameter, 11 cm, are straighter
and without lateral branches, or perhaps they are of a certain
species. Whatever the reason there is a clear preference for
boles of this diameter. It would be interesting to know what
species of trees were selected. Were they a single species or
were more than one species being chosen? Also, what are the
natural distribution of these species and the age of the respec-
tive trees? Species identification of the wood charcoal remains
that we recovered in our flotation samples would possibly
provide a clue to this question.
It seems that there must be some structural reason for using
posts with similar diameters. Since I have argued that elevated
stilt/piling structures have floors suspended over the ground by
as much as 2.5 to 3 meters, their 11-12 cm diameter might be
the best compromise between structural support capacity of the
vertical pole and the ability to join horizontal beams to it so
that flooring can be placed across the beams. In other words,


larger diameter posts, while providing greater support and
weight bearing capacity would make it difficult to tighten and
grip the horizontal pole since the diameter of the strap or rope
used to secure the horizontal pole would have to be larger.

Posthole Profiles

It is not possible in all cases to profile post molds in the
large shell-bearing sites of the southwestern coast because the
organic material spreads in the shell making it impossible to
see the outlines clearly in most cases. Furthermore, the loose
nature of the shell matrix makes it even more difficult to obtain
accurate profile drawings. There can be little doubt about the
shape of the cut holes used for the placement of posts because
they are literally cut into the stone. All of the cut holes
encountered in the excavation have been interpreted as
postholes. Measurements and profiles where taken on most of
the postholes. Actually, the resulting drawings are cross-
sections rather than profiles since the holes where not sec-
tioned or cut through. However, some of the postholes where
not excavated due to lack of time and so profile drawings are
missing. In many cases the postholes were probed to obtain
their approximate depth and this information is utilize. A
decision was made to group the cross-section drawings into
types instead of drawing each posthole cross-section individu-
ally. This allows the data to be placed into nominal scales
where they can be statistically correlated with diameter and
depth to see if any patterns emerge. One very important
observation is that all postholes without exception have vertical
centerlines! There was not a single example of a hole cut at
other than a 90-degree angle into bedrock. This is a pattern
also observed in the shell bearing sites of southwestern Florida
although it is more difficult to be absolute sure there because
of the loose shell matrix. The shapes of these profile types are


Operation Count Mean Diameter Diameter Standard
Deviation
8CR48 Op 1 351 0.llm 0.03 m
8CR48 Op 2 197 O.llm 0.03 m
8CR48 Op 3 178 0.11 m 0.03 m
Total 8CR48 726 0.llm 0.03 m


8DA12 Op 3 507 0.12 m 0.07m


Total 8CR48 & 1234
8DA12


WmMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3

















































Figure 21. Map of 8DA12, Operation 2 and 3 showing possible structures with circular alignments.






WIDMER BRICKELL PoINT OPERATION 3


Table 9. Frequencies of posthole profile types.

Posthole Profile Frequency Percent
Type
1 69 22.0
2 24 7.6
3 23 7.3
4 28 8.9
5 42 13.4
6 35 11.1
7 10 3.2
8 46 14.6
9 11 3.5
10 5 1.6
11 7 2.2
12 7 2.2
13 2 0.6
14 1 0.3
15 2 0.6
16 1 0.3
17 1 0.3
Total 314 100.0


described below and their forms are illustrated in Figure 20.
The frequencies and percentages of posthole profile types
for 314 cross-sectioned postholes have been presented in Table
9. Profile Type 1, with flat bottom and straight vertical walls,
is the most common form in Operation 3 at 22 percent of the
postholes. Profile Type 8, with incurving walls forming a
pointed bottom is the next most common form with 14.6
percent followed by Profile Type 5, with concave bottom and
straight vertical walls at 13.4 percent. At this stage in the
analysis it is not known whether there is any association of
these posthole forms with chronology or size of the post.

Structure Layout and Orientation

AutoCad was used to analyze posthole data for community
patterning, based on the diameter of the postholes. I focused on
the layer of the mean diameters; namely the 9, 10, 11, 12 and
13-centimeter diameters since the mean diameter is 11 cm.
Straight lines were then superimposed over four or more
postholes in as many instances as possible. I then turned on
more of the layers on either side on the mean, one by one, until
other lines of postholes emerged or postholes were added to the
lines. This exercise proved fruitless and no obvious floor plans
could be determined. I suspect the reason for this is twofold.
First we did not open up an area large enough to capture a
house floor plan and secondly, the septic tank and modern tree
hole excavations eradicated posthole information in areas that
could have been incorporated into the posthole plan layout. In
spite of this problem it is possible to make some important
statements about the posthole analysis.
Although no clear floor plan or structure layout was


discernable from our excavations, it was possible to determine
the relative use life of the structures that were erected on the
site. It was also possible to crudely determine the use life of
the structures on the site and whether multiple structures
existed contemporaneously. Multiple structures existed
contemporaneously in the Operation 2 area. Some of these
where clearly contemporary with the Miami Circle feature
uncovered in Operation 1.

Are any cut holes in Operation 3 associated with the Miami
Circle feature?

Of particular interest were a number of extremely large
postholes that were over 50 cm in diameter. These postholes
were dispersed in the excavation and their pattern formed no
obvious house outline, neither circular nor quadrilateral, with
the other cut holes in the Operation 3 area. I then considered
the possibility that these might be associated with the Miami
Circle feature found in Operation 1. I drew a circle with its
center in the center of the Miami Circle feature and extended
the radius so that the circumference would intersect each of the
large postholes.
Six circles ranging in diameter from 36.05 m to 46.56 m
extending from the center of the Miami Circle feature in
Operation 1 intercepted cut holes larger than 40 cm in diame-
ter. However, none of the circles intercepted more than a
single cut hole. This clearly indicates that the larger cut holes
encountered in Operation 2 and Operation 3 are in no way
associated with the Miami Circle feature found in Operation 1.
Instead, these large cut holes are associated with independent
structures, with at least one containing structural elements
larger than those seen in the Miami Circle feature. Also, the
extension trench on the east side of the Miami Circle has few
cut holes.

Are structures circular or quadrilateral?

Next, circles of varying diameters were superimposed over
the postholes to see if any patterns emerged (Figure 21).
Initially a circle the diameter of the original Operation 1
Miami Circle feature 11.75 m was chosen. Only a single "fit"
was observed and it is not very strong with numerous gaps due
to lack of coverage. Other "fits" were observed, but similarly
were not very robust. It seems unlikely that structures in this
area of the site were circular and so quadrilateral structure
outlines were explored.
The procedure was to start with the largest diameter
postholes and connect them with lines that intercept three or
more cut holes. Initially, lines were drawn through postholes
25 cm or larger. I felt that these larger diameter holes would
perhaps be basic structural elements and so structure outlines
could be more easily identified. Eight lines were revealed. One
of these lines is quite convincing, intersecting 11 postholes
over a span of 7.66 m (see Figure 22). Two lines cross and are
roughly perpendicular to this line. This line has an azimuth of
298 degrees 8 minutes. Another line is parallel with this line
with an azimuth of 298 degrees 11 minutes, and intersects the


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3






TuE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Figure 22. Line of 11 postholes in northwest area of 8DA12, Operation 3.


two perpendicular lines. Postholes of decreasing diameter
were added to the map and then lines placed through them.
No clear structure outlines emerged, although more lines
roughly parallel to the large initial lines emerged, as did lines
roughly perpendicular to them (see Figure 23).
The lack of a clear structure outline is the result of three
factors. First is the extraordinary density of postholes that
blurs any clear structure outlines (see Figure 24). Second, the
relatively small area exposed makes it difficult to see an entire
structure outline. The third factor is the large modern distur-
bance formed by the septic tank and tree excavation in the


excavated area, which is considerable and has obliterated
important posthole data in the central portion of the excava-
tions. However, in spite of the lack specific structure outline,
there is little doubt that most if not all of the construction in
Operation 2 and Operation 3 area is quadrilateral in shape. It
is also seems that the structures are oriented along an azimuth
of 290 to 300 degrees. Numerous parallel lines of postholes
are closely space together and they maintain the 290 to 300
degree azimuth orientation. The structures also seem to be
relatively large; at least their outlines cannot be completely
contained in an area of 80 m2. The structures that were in the


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)





Wm~R BRICKELL PoINT OPERATION 3


5
I I


Scale in Meters


Figure 23. Map of 8DA12, Operation 2 and Operation 3, showing possible structures with quadrilateral alignments.


WIDMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Figure 24. 8DA12, Operation 3 general site view showing density of exposed postholes. Note the posthole cast made by Ryan
Wheeler in lower right of photo.


Operation 2 and 3 area seem to have had a size of over 60 m2
in area.

How long did a structure persist once erected?

The individual structure or structures that were in the
Operation 3 area were clearly structures that were built to last
and were functioning for a considerable period of time,
perhaps a century or more. Evidence for this argument is in
the form of the clustering of postholes and fact that there are
numerous postholes within postholes. As discussed earlier, the
multiple posthole clustering indicates that a structure that was
in place and was being repaired over its use-life. If one
assumes that a post will last 50 years before it rots and needs
to be replaced then the number of clustered holes should
indicate the length of time the structure was in use.
Most postholes (77.2%) are single, suggesting a structure
use-life of 50 years. However, 13.0 % of the postholes are
paired and 5.6% of postholes are within other postholes
indicating 100 years of use. There are also 15 examples
(13.0%) of tripled postholes suggesting 150 years of use and
there are two examples of quadrupled postholes that would


indicate up to 200 years of continuous use. In summary, it can
be stated that structures had use-life that averaged 50 years but
some structures were continually used for 100 to 200 years.
This is consistent with the radiocarbon dates, many on shell
surrounding the original posts and therefore actually dating
these posts. That indicates long periods of use for the struc-
tures and that structures were erected and used over a total
span of 1000 years.

Functions and Activities Associated with Structures

The only functions that are associated with the structures
that were revealed in the Operation 3 excavations were those
relating to ritual behavior. More specifically, the results of
these behaviors are referred to as dedication caches (Friedel
and Schele 1989; Widmer 1996). Numerous examples were
found and consist primarily of the placement of useful artifacts
at the base of the posthole prior to the insertion of the post. An
example of this is seen in Feature 115 where a shark steak
consisting of 6 articulated vertebra was placed in a ceramic
vessel that in turn was placed in Posthole 21 in N54E 116 (see
Figure 25). Notice how this feature is in the center of the


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST






WIDMER BRJC1~ELL POINT OPERATION 3


Figure 25. Photo of offering of six articulated shark vertebra inside of ceramic vessel, Feature 115, in Posthole 21 of N54E116,
8DA12, Operation 3.


posthole away from the edges indicating that it did not
accidentally get swept or deposited into this posthole but
instead was deliberately placed inside this cut hole. The
dedication cache is a quite common ritual behavior through out
the Americas (Friedel and Schele 1989; Greber 1996; Hall
1979; McAnany 1996; Schele and Miller 1986, Schele and
Freidel 1990; Schnell et al. 1981) and has been observed in
Operation 1 in the Miami Cir Circle feature with the celebrated
greenstone celts (Carr and Ricisak 2000; Dixon et al. 2000), at
the Key Marco site in the form of yellow and red ochre and an
unused chert projectile point placed as three separate caches in
platform fill (Widmer 1996), and now in the 8DA12 Operation
3 excavations. Most typically the artifact is a shell tool, or
food offering of shark or mollusk, and rarely exotic stone like
chert, and in one case even an unworked piece of schist
(Feature 126) placed in the bottom of Posthole 8 in N54E111.
No other types of activity areas of any kind where found in the
Operation 3 excavations that could be linked with the architec-
ture to determine the types of activities that took place within
them. In point of fact, no activity areas of any kind could be
isolated and identified. I suspect that this is because most
activities occurred on the elevated floors and most refuse ended


up conveniently deposited in the river or bay. The same holds
true for activities that would have occurred over the bedrock
surface. Without sediments to trap and bury them any refuse
on the surface could be easily swept or removed by native
residents into the water and I suspect this would have typically
been the case. There is of course the ceramic vessel on the
bedrock surface, but such examples would be rare exceptions.
Once sediments begin to accumulate on the site, more artifacts
become trapped and buried but even in the instances in which
we investigated most artifacts were small, indicating active
removal of refuse by the inhabitants, what one typically
associates with permanent sedentary residence.

Summary

The Operation 3 excavations at Brickell Point have
revealed evidence of intense and extensive architectural
building involving the cutting of circular holes into the Miami
Oolite bedrock for wooden post supports. This activity started
around 700 B.C. and appeared to cease at around A.D. 200.
Most of the building activity occurred during the Early
Woodland Period, including the construction and use of the


WmMER


BRICKELL POINT OPERATION 3





TIrE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Miami Circle feature uncovered in the Operation 1 excava-
tions. The earlier architectural units are characterized by
having larger, shallower postholes than later building phases
where holes are deeper but diameters are smaller. It is
suggested that this is a function of either dwindling large tree
sources or the standardization of smaller diameter posts as is
seen on the southwestern Florida coast.
No individual structure plan or layout could be revealed
based on the 507 postholes that were recorded. A single line
of posts was noted in the northwestern section of the excava-
tion similar to those found in the Sheridan Hotel excavations
and in the Operation 1 excavations (Carr and Ricisak 2000;
Weisman et al. 2000) but not associated or linked with them.
The lack of any on-ground features, hearths, or firing activity
and any clear posthole pattern strongly argue for structures
having floors elevated above the ground surface on stilts. I
suggest that the floors of these structures are at least 2.5 m
above the ground surface. This minimum elevation allows the
area under the elevated structure to be used as a shaded work
area and protected storage area for canoes, nets and other
fishing gear. It also provides some protection for the structures
from tidal surges associated with hurricanes and storms, which
can be as much as 4 m. These structures, once erected where
continually maintained by replacing posts in the same location.
This often involved excavation of new postholes, often inside
of the previous posthole or sometimes directly adjacent to it.
This clearly argues that the structures were substantial, and
more importantly permanent, indicating that this was a
sedentary community during the Early Woodland Period.
It appears that the site was abandoned shortly after A.D.
200 and sediments began to accumulate over the exposed
bedrock surface after this date. It seems that this sedimenta-
tion was facilitated by vegetation colonizing the abandoned site
area after an apparent hiatus of about 300 years the site was
late reoccupied at around A.D. 500. However, this was a
different occupation. Holes were no longer cut into the
bedrock for the erection of structures. This was either because
the soil was deep enough now for holes to be dug into it rather
than the bedrock or else the site was only seasonally occupied
and without any building of structures. It could also be the
case that permanent occupation shifted to the other side of the
river at the Granada site.

Conclusions

There can be absolutely no doubt that the cut holes at the
Brickell Point site are prehistoric and, more importantly, date
to the Early Woodland Period with perhaps some overlap into
the Middle Woodland Period. It might actually be the case
that the circular feature known as the "Miami Circle" is
anomalous with respect to its layout. However, it was not the
only large substantial structure at the site. It is possible that
there were even larger structures adjacent to it as suggested by
postholes that are greater than 40 cm in diameter. However,
there was not enough area of exposed excavation to reveal the
pattern, shape or size of these other structures. There were
also other structures that utilized smaller diameter posts and


these were both later in date as well as contemporary to the
larger structures. I have documented the intensive and
extensive construction of structures over a continuous 1000-
year period spanning from 760 B.C. to A.D. 240. This
construction reveals that existing buildings are constantly
being repaired with new posts placed into existing postholes,
or else in new holes cut into the old hole or adjacent to it. This
process has been repeated many times. This has also occurred
in the Miami Circle feature in Operation 1 where smaller
postholes were cut into the larger rounded rectangular holes.
This is to replace the larger rotted posts. The same pattern of
smaller diameter, longer posts replacing shorter posts with
larger diameters is seen at Operation 1.
The suite of 17 tightly cluster radiocarbon dates taken from
contexts of unquestionable association with the actual struc-
tures appears unprecedented. In one case, the shell that
accumulated around a post was left in situ when the post rotted
away, helping to date an actual post. The careful selection of
the dates has provided the dating of the construction at the site
in Operation 3. It might also indirectly provide a general
dating context for the Miami Circle feature if one assumes that
all cut hole activity at Brickell Point took place during the
same time period as it did at Operation 3. If this assumption
were true it would suggest that the Miami Circle feature dates
some time between 760 B.C. and A.D. 240. The Operation 3
excavations also demonstrate conclusively that the Miami
Circle feature is not an anomaly but is contemporary with other
structures at the site. This can only mean that the site was a
permanent village during the Early Woodland Period.
Unfortunately, only architectural features (cut holes) and
offerings associated with them could be recovered in our
excavations. We found no features or archaeological deposits
that were associated with living, storage, refuse (with one
exception), or activity areas associated with the Miami Circle
feature or other features or structures associated with the early
occupation of the Brickell Point site. This is not at all surpris-
ing considering that the structures had elevated floors and that
there was no sediments on top of the Miami limestone forma-
tion that the holes were cut into so artifacts would not be
trapped in the sediments. The propinquity of the Miami River
and Biscayne Bay to the settlement make a convenient location
for refuse discard and so there would be no reason for numer-
ous artifacts to accumulate. The exposed bedrock surface of
the site would also not be conducive to the preservation of
many classes of organic artifacts that would typically survive
in soil matrices of archaeological sites in the area, even that of
the Granada site on the opposite side of the river (Griffin et al.
1982).
This situation of few associated artifacts, activity areas and
non-architectural features is not likely to be remedied by more
excavation on the site. This is the pattern of archaeological
village settlements that are in similar geological settings.
However, this type of settlement can provide important
information regarding structure layout and community layout
when holes are cut into the limestone for post supports. This
is particularly useful in regions where sites are situated on deep
soils that have dark organic stained sediments that often mask


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






WIDMER BRICKELL Poi~r OPan.&TIoN 3


the ability to discern postholes. The shock of the discovery of
the Miami Circle feature at the Brickell Point site and even the
question of its aboriginal context was created by the lack of any
previous structure found in southeastern Florida. It is probably
the case that numerous structures were erected in prehistoric
southeastern Florida in the dark stained organic soils but left
no visible archaeological evidence of their existence. After all,
none were reported from the Granada sitejust on the other side
of the Miami River, though they are reported in early Spanish
accounts (Parks 1982)!
The architectural evidence from the Brickell Point site,
including the Miami Circle feature and other architectural
features, provides important data to utilize as models and
templates for work at other sites in the area. The bias in the
archaeological knowledge of the region is that the prehistoric
inhabitants of southeastern Florida were nomadic or semi-
nomadic at best. This view was not without justification based
on the existing data and research from the area. However, this
research did not focus on house type and settlement layout.
Research from the Brickell Point site now forces archaeologists
in the area to consider sedentary villages with permanent
houses a viable settlement type in southeastern Florida.

Recommendations for Future Research

Our excavations have solved many questions at the site but
more questions were raised. I am confident that the Miami
Circle feature dates to the Early Woodland Period based on the
history of architecture that was documented at the site and the
similarities with those seen in Operation 3. However, not all
skeptics will be satisfied because there is still no direct dating
of the Miami Circle feature. First of all it is absolutely
imperative to obtain more Radiocarbon dates from the large cut
holes that formed the Miami Circle feature. The large cut
holes should be carefully examined for Lucina shell that is
fused to the limestone walls of the cut holes.
All of distinct strata that we identified during our field
excavations are qualitative assessments only and need to be
corroborated and quantitatively characterized utilizing chemi-
cal and geological techniques. This has been done for a couple
of our strata designations but needs to be performed for all of
the distinct Zone designations. It is naive to assume that our
field assessments are completely accurate, particularly because
we have so many separate and horizontally isolated deposits.
It would be useful to see the utility or errors in our classifica-
tion to better inform field excavations not only at this site but
other archaeological sites in southern Florida.
More area needs to be opened up and excavated to find
more postholes and more importantly, the structural patterns
that would be revealed. Our excavations, even though adjacent
to the Operation 2 excavation, failed to uncover enough area
to obtain reasonable structural patterns. It is imperative that
any excavations in the future proceed adjacent to the area of
Operation 2 and 3 and join at the area of the Miami Circle
feature in Operation 1. It is absolutely imperative that any
future excavations at the Brickell Point site be carried out
under modern stratigraphic methods. The great success of our


Operation 3 excavation was the ability to differentiate, isolate,
and excavate separately these distinct strata even inside of
postholes and basins. If this were done during the Operation
1 excavation all of the controversy surrounding the context of
the Miami Circle feature would have been laid to rest.
Unfortunately, the uncertain the fate of the property and this
important site that undermined the careful, stratigraphically
controlled excavation that is so important for obtaining useful
archaeological data. The time allowed prior to the acquisition
of the site simply did not allow the archaeologists to excavate
in the appropriate manner. However, now that the site has
been preserved, there is no reason not to excavate carefully and
stratigraphically, and any future plans must have this as part
of the excavation strategy.
Future excavations should focus on discerning areas where
firing and burning on the bedrock surface have occurred. This
is essential to further test the hypothesis that most burning and
fire use took place on the elevated floors in sand filled fire-
boxes. However, some activities such as ceramic production
could and probably would have taken place on the bedrock
surface and so we should search for the signature of these
activity areas.

Acknowledgments

Numerous people and organizations have made this research
possible. I would like to thank Robert S. Carr and the Archaeological
and Historical Conservancy, Inc for sponsoring and funding this
project. I would particularly like to thank Ted Riggs for setting up
our grid system and for generously providing a class on surveying for
the field school students. Thanks also goes to George Zamanillo for
providing the logistical support for this project. I would also like to
thank John Ricisak for his supervision of the site fill removal and for
providing important background information regarding the site, his
helpful suggestions throughout the project, and his support for the
students. Many thanks go to Ryan Wheeler for his helpful sugges-
tions for providing access to his field notes and maps from the
Operation 2 excavations and for his advice during the- excavation
phase. He also made the casts of postholes at the site. I thank the
Sheridan Hotel for allowing the project members use of the employee
cafeteria, their changing room, and access to water for our wet
screening. I would also like to thank the Florida Department of
Transportation for allowing us to use the space under the Brickell
Avenue bridge to store our field equipment. I thank the University of
Houston field school students for their truly excellent and dedicated
excavation and recording. These were Rollie Elizondo, Kelcy Jones,
Jean Sorrell, Chris Holzhauser, Kelley Bums, Nick Somoano, Terri
Perez, Evette Fox, Lance Ruth, Michelle Gonzalez, Margaret Briggs
and Tim Long. I would like to thank Vic Longo from Archaeological
and Historical Conservatory, Inc for his field participation and Jorge
Garcia-Herreros who volunteered his time at the site. A special
thanks goes to Dr. Rebecca Storey of the University of Houston for
help in the excavation as well. Finally, I would like to thank the
reviewers and editors for their thorough and excellent comments on
my manuscript.

References Cited

Austin, Robert J.
1993 The Royce Mound: Middle Woodland Exchange and
Mortuary Customs in South Florida. The Florida Anthro-


WIDER


BRiCKELL POINT OPERATION 3






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VoL 57(1-2)


pologist 46:291-309

Bense, Judith A.
1998 Santa Rosa Swift Creek in Northwest Florida. In A World
Engraved: Archaeology ofthe Swift Creek Culture, edited
by J. Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp. 247-273.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Carr, Robert S., and John Ricisak
2000 Preliminary Report on Salvage Archaeological Investiga-
tions of the Brickell Point Site (8DA12), Including the
Miami Circle. The Florida Anthropologist 53:261-284.

Carr, Robert S., and John G. Beriault
1984 Prehistoric Man in South Florida. In Environments ofSouth
Florida: Present and Past II, edited by Patrick J. Gleason,
pp. 1-19. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables.

Carr, Robert S., and Mark S. Green
1961 Excavations at the Brickell Site. Unpublished report on
file, Historical Museum of Southern Florida, Miami,
Florida.

Dixon, Jacqueline Eaby, Kyla Simons, Loretta Leist, ChristopherEck,
John Ricisak, John Gifford, and Jeff Ryan
2000 Provenance of Stone Celts from the Miami Circle Archaeo-
logical Site. The Florida Anthropologist 53:328-341.

Ehrenhard, J. E., R. S. Carr, and R. C. Taylor
1978 The Archeological Survey of the Big Cypress National
Preserve: Phase I. Southeastern Archeological Center,
National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Tallahassee.

1979 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archeological Survey
Season 2. Southeastern Archeological Center, National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Tallahassee.

Ehrenhard, J. E., and R. C. Taylor
1980 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archeological Survey
Season 3. Southeastern Archeological Center, National
Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, Tallahassee.

Ehrenhard, J. E., R. C. Taylor, and G. Komara
1980 Big Cypress National Preserve Cultural Resource Inven-
tory Season 4. Southeastern Archeological Center, National
Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, Tallahassee.

1981 Big Cypress National Preserve Cultural Resource Inven-
torySeason 5. Southeastern Archeological Center, National
Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, Tallahassee.

Friedel, David A., and Linda Schele
1989 Dead Kings and Living Temples: Dedication and Termina-
tion Rituals among the Ancient Maya. In Word and Image
in Maya Culture, edited by W. F. Hanks and D. S. Rice,
pp. 233-243. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Goggin, John M.
1951 The Snapper Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist 3:50-
64.

n.d. Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida, circa


1949, with additions. Mauscript on file, Southeastern
Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Greber, N'omi B.
1996 A Commentary on the Contexts and Contents of Large and
Small Ohio Hopewell Deposits. In A View From the Core:
A Synthesis ofOhio HopewellArchaeology, edited by Paul
J. Pacheco, pp. 150-173. Ohio Archaeological Council,
Columbus.

Griffin, John W.
1982a Archaeological Excavations at the Granada Site. In Excava-
tions at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History of the
Granada Site, Volume 1, by Griffin, J. W., S. B. Richard-
son, M. Pohl, C. D. McMurray, C. M. Scarry, S. K. Fish, E.
S. Wing, L. Jill Loucks, and M. K. Welch, pp. 11-24.
Florida Division ofArchives, History and Records Manage-
ment, Tallahassee.

1982b Conclusions. In Excavations at the Granada Site: Archae-
ology and History of the Granada Site, Volume 1, by
Griffin, J. W., S. B. Richardson, M. Pohl, C. D. McMurray,
C. M. Scany, S. K. Fish, E. S. Wing, L. Jill Loucks, and M.
K. Welch., pp. 365-394. Florida Division of Archives,
History and Records Management, Tallahassee.

2002 Archaeology of the Everglades. University Presses of
Florida, Gainesville.

Griffin, J. W., S. B. Richardson, M. Pohl, C. D. McMurray, C. M.
Scary, S. K. Fish, E. S. Wing, L. J. Loucks, and M. K. Welch
1982 Excavations at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History
of the Granada Site, Volume 1. Florida Division of Ar-
chives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee.

Hall, Robert L.
1979 In Search of the Ideology of the Adena-Hopewell Climax.
In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference,
edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Geber, pp. 258-265.
Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Harris, Edward
1989 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. 2nd ed. Aca-
demic Press, New York.

Jones, B. Calvin, Daniel T. Penton, and Louis D. Tesar
1998 1973 and 1994 Excavations at the Block-Stems Site, Leon
County, Florida. InA World Engraved: Archaeology of the
Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel
T. Elliot, pp. 223-246. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa

McAnany, Patricia A.
1996 Living with the Ancestors: Kinship andKingship in Ancient
Maya Society. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Means, Guy H.., and Thomas Scott
2000 A Geological Assessment of the Miami Circle. The Florida
Anthropologist 53:324-326.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1999 Much Ado About a Circle. Archeology 52 (No.
5,September/October):22-25.


THE FLORIDA ANTuROPOLOGIST


2004 Voi. 57(1-2)






WIDMER BRICKELL PoIu OPERATION 3


Osmond, J.K., J. R. Carpenter, and H. L. Windom
1965 230Th/234Ur Age of the Pleistocene Corals and Oolites of
Florida. Journal of Geophysical Research. 70:1843-1847.

Parks, Arva Moore
1982 Where the River found the Bay. Archaeology and History
of the Granada Site, Volume 2. Florida Division of
Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee.

Russo, Michael, and Gregory Heide
2002 The Joseph Reed Shell Ring. The Florida Anthropologist
55:67- 87.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel
1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya.
William Morrow, New York

Schele, Linda, and Mary E. Miller
1986 Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. George
Braziller, Fort Worth.

Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, and Gail S. Schnell
1981 Cemochechobee: Archaeology ofaMississippian Ceremo-
nial Center on the Chattahoochee River. University Press
of Florida, Gainesville.

Sears, William H.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake
Ockeechobee Basin. University of Florida Presses,
Gainesville.

Stephenson, Keith, Judith A. Bense, and Jackie Snow
2002 Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek of the South Atlantic
and Gulf Coast Plains. In The Woodland Southeast, edited
by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp 318 -
351. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Stuiver, M., and T. F. Braziunas
1993 Modeling Atmospheric 14C influences on 4C ages of
Marine Samples, 0 to 10,000 BP. Radiocarbon 35(1):137-
189.

Stuiver, M., and H. van der Plicht
1998 Editorical Comment. Radiocarbon 40(3):xii-xiii.

Stuiver, M., P.J. Reimer, E. Bard, J. W. Beck, G.S. Burr. K. A.
Hughen, B. Kromer, G. McCormac, J. van der Plicht, and M. Spurk
1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP.
Radiocarbon 40:1041-1083.

Talma, A. S., and J. C. Vogel
1998 A simplified Approach to Calibrating "C Dates. Radiocar-
bon 35:317-322.

Van Beck, J. C., and L. M. Van Beck
1965 The Marco midden, Marco Island, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 18:37-54.

Weisman, Brent R., Herschel E. Shepard, and George M. Luer
2000 The Origin and significance of the Brickell Point site
(8DA12) also known as the Miami Circle. The Florida
Anthropologist 53:342-346.


Wheeler, Ryan J.
2000 The Archaeology of Brickell Point and the Miami Circle.
The Florida Anthropologist 53:292-316.

Widmer, Randolph J.
1986a Prehistoric Estuarine Adaptation at the SolanaSite,
Charlotte County, Florida. Florida Division of Archives,
History, and Records Management, Bureau ofArchaeologi-
cal Research, Tallahassee.

1986b Sociopolitical implications of off-shore fishing in Aborigi-
nal Southeast Florida. The FloridaAnthropologist 39:244-
252.

1988 Evolution of the Calusa: A Non-Agricultural Chiefdom on
the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.

1996 Recent excavations at the Key Marco Site, 8C48, Collier
County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 49:10-25.

1999 Archaeological Investigations at the Olde Marco Inn Area
of the Key Marco Site, 8CR48, OP2, Collier county
Florida. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
Technical Report No. 228. Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Miami.

2001 Archaeological Investigations at the BamesParcel, Opera-
tion 3, the Key Marco Site, 8CR48, Collier County,
Florida. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
Technical Report No. 241. Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Miami.

2002a The Woodland Archaeology of South Florida. In The
Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and
Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 373-397. University of Ala-
bama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2002b Archaeological Investigations at the Brickell Point Site,
8DA12, Operation 3. Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy Technical Report, Special Miami Circle
Publication No. 1. Archaeological and Historical Conser-
vancy, Miami.


WIDMER


BRicKELL POINT OPERATION 3






Florida Anthropological Society Chapters


9 7-






1) Archaeological Society of Southern Florida
2495 NW 35th Ave., Miami, FL 33142

2) Broward County Archaeological Society
481 S. Federal Highway, Dania Beach, FL 33004

3) Central Florida Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 947544, Maitland, FL 32794-7544

4) Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 82255, St. Petersburg, FL 33682

5) Indian River Anthropological Society
3705 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, FL 32952


6) Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
195 Huntley Oaks Blvd., Lake Placid, FL 33852


7) Emerald Coast Archaeological Society
333 Persimmon Street, Freeport, FL 32435

8) Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee
c/o The Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation
423 E. Virginia Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301

9) Pensacola Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 13251, Pensacola, FL 32591

10) St. Augustine Archaeological Association
P.O. Box 1301, St. Augustine, FL 32085

11) Southeast Florida Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 2875, Stuart, FL 34995

12) Southwest Florida Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 34101


" ,40-


13) Time Sifters Archaeology Society
P.O. Box 25883, Sarasota, FL 34277-2883

14) Volusia Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 1881, Ormond Beach, FL 32175

15) Warm Mineral Springs Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 7797, North Port, FL 34287







GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM
BRICKELL POINT (8DA12)

JOHN A. GIFFORD

Division ofMarine Affairs & Policy, Rosenstiel School ofMarine andAtmospheric Science,
University ofMiami, Miami, Florida 33149
E-mail: jgifford@rsmas.miami.edu


Introduction

This is a report on the grain size and scanning electron
microscope analyses often sediment samples from archaeolog-
ical site 8DA12 at Brickell Point, Miami, which includes the
Miami Circle feature. Seven of the ten samples were collected
during a site visit by the writer on 8 May 2002, and three other
samples, from Randolph Widmer's excavation of Operation 3
at the site in 2000. The focus of this paper is on a formal
characterization of the ten samples in terms of their particle
size components and size distribution, with the objective of
elucidating the depositional processes that resulted in the
"black-dirt midden" that forms the bulk of the cultural strata
at the site.

Sediment Grain Size Analyses

The midden sediments overlying the Miami Circle were
deposited directly on the Miami Limestone (late Pleistocene;
Hoffmeister et al. 1967). Originally called the Miami Oolite
(Sanford 1909), it was subdivided by Hoffmeister and his
colleagues into an upper oolitic facies and a lower bryozoan
facies. It exhibits cross-bedding characteristic of an oolitic
shoal and is a close depositional analog-essentially a mirror
image across the Florida Straits-of the modem oolitic shoals
on the Great Bahamas Bank (Hoffmeister et al. 1967). This
cross-bedded oolitic facies is the bedrock type on which the
Miami Circle midden sediments rest. A summary assessment
of the site's geology is given in Means and Scott (2000), who
describe the sediment cover as follows:

The limestone bedrock at the Miami Circle is covered by
black, organic-rich, sandy, fossiliferous sediment referred to
as black midden material. The thickness of this unit is
variable and is no more than half a meter thick in the limited
area where excavation has exposed it. It contains cultural
material, shell, bone, and limestone fragments. This material
has filled in all the primary and secondary holes at the site.
Further excavation by archaeologist is needed to determine
the areal extent of this deposit. [Means and Scott
2000:324]

Subsequent excavation of Operation 3 was begun by Ryan
Wheeler in 1999 and completed by Randolph Widmer in
2000; this excavation area is east-northeast of the Miami
Circle and adjacent to the "N34 Area" excavated by Wheeler


(2000: 310).
Seven samples of midden deposits in Area 1 (the Miami
Circle proper) and Area 2 (immediately NW of the Miami
Circle) were collected on 8 May 2002. Figures 1-5 document
locations of these samples. Figure 1 shows the approximate
location of Feature # 690, from which samples FS 1030 (0-25
cm deep) and 1031 (25-40 cm deep) were removed (Figure 2);
Figure 3 is a close-up of the emptied Feature #690; Figure 4
shows the clearing of a vertical section in Area 2 from which
FS 1033-1035 were taken; and Figure 5 shows the section
below the concrete footer in Area 1 (see Figure 1) where FS
1036 and 1037 were collected.
Visible in the northwest quadrant of Area 1 is the cementa-
tion of coarse midden material inclusions (mostly bone
fragments, marine shell fragments, and limestone pebbles)
directly onto the oolitic bedrock. This is apparently of very
limited extent, essentially only in Unit 04 (just west of Unit 66;
see Figure 1); such cementation was not observed anywhere
else in Area 1 nor in the other two excavation areas where
bedrock was exposed. Palmer & Williams (1977) describe this
phenomenon for shell middens in Florida, and they further
propose that some of these concretions were created by
"aboriginal fires." As the quantity offire-derived charcoal and
smaller carbon particles is so extensive in this midden deposit,
their other proposed explanation-solution and reprecipitation
of calcium carbonate-would seem more likely here.

Samples Analyzed

A total of ten samples was analyzed; seven were collected
by AHC staff during a site visit on 8 May 2002, and three were
chosen from a group of ten sediments samples that was
submitted by the AHC on 9 July 2002. Table 1 summarizes
them. In the following paragraphs the provenience of the
seven samples collected on 08 May 2002 is described in detail:

Samples from the NW Quadrant of the Miami Circle. FS 1030
and FS1031 were taken from a posthole (Feature 690) in
limestone bedrock discovered on 08May 2002 and located just
inside the remaining midden baulk forming the north wall of
Unit 66 (Figure 1). Figure 2 shows this posthole and the two
samples, FS1030 comprising the posthole fill of the upper 25
cm, and FS1031 the next 15 cm.


VOL. 57(1-2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH-JUNE 2004


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


MARCH-JUNE 2004


VOL. 57(1-2)



























0




I









A 0











Figure 1. Miami Circle vertical photograph taken in 1999. White asterisk at the 11:30 position marks approximate location of Feature 690 (discovered 8 May
2002) from which samples FS 1030 and 1031 were removed. k
4.n
6K












Figure 1. Miami Circle vertical photograph taken in 1999. White asterisk at the 11 30 position marks approximate location of Feature 690 (discovered 8 May ,
2002) from which samples FS 1030 and 1031 were removed.





GEOARCHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES


Figure 2. Miami Circle, 8 May 2002. Area 1, Feature 690, showing samples FS 1030 (0-25 cm deep) and FS 1031 (25-40 cm
deep) just removed from the feature.


Samples from the Southeast Quadrant of the Miami Circle.
FS 1036 and FS1037 were collected from an exposure of
midden material underlying the modem N-S concrete footer on
the east side of the Miami Circle (Figure 1). Figure 3 shows
the collection of FS1037, 20 cm above bedrock. FS1036 was
taken directly on the bedrock surface.

Samplesfrom Area 2. FS1033, 1035, and 1036 were collected
from a fresh exposure cut into the east wall, starting at the
bedrock contact (114-120 cm B.S.), then 100 cm B.S., and
finally 80 cm below surface. Figure 4 shows the exposure
from which these three samples were taken.

Samples from Area 3. Three samples were chosen from a
collection of 10 made available to the writer on 8 July 2002;
they are all described as postholee fill."

Sediment Particle Size Analysis: background

The purpose of particle-size analysis is to determine the
size distribution of grains that compose a sediment sample.
Particle size distribution is a fundamental physical property of
sediments, because this distribution is substantially controlled
by the physical environment wherein the sediment was


deposited. The fact that midden deposits represent "non-
natural" (i.e., artificially influenced) processes must be taken
into account when interpreting size analyses of cultural
sediments such as these.
Particle size analysis can be performed in a variety of ways,
including sieve analysis (the determination of the particle-size
distribution in a sediment sample by measuring the weight
percentage of particles that pass through and are retained on
a standard set of sieves of various sizes), and sedimentation
analysis (the determination of particle settling velocity by
allowing particles to settle in a water-filled column called a
settling tube).
There are four principal size categories of natural sedi-
ments: gravel, sand, silt and clay. Gravel is composed of
particles 2 mm to 64 mm in size, sand particles range in size
from 2 mm to 0.063 mm, silt ranges in size from 0.063 mm to
0.002 mm, and clay is composed of particles finer than 0.002
mm. Mud is the component of sediment that consists of silt
and clay. Particle size analysis techniques are dependent on
the size classes being analyzed, and range from simple particle
counting or the segregating of particles through a stacked set
of wire mesh sieves, to modern techniques based on the
settling of particles or particle suspensions. In sedimentation
analysis one must distinguish between the settling of a


GIFFORD





ThE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Figure 3. Miami Circle, 8 May 2002. Clearing a vertical section in Area 1, immediately below the modern North-South
concrete footer on the East side of the Circle. Samples FS 1033 (on bedrock), 1034 (20 cm above bedrock), and 1035 (40 cm
above bedrock) were taken from this section.


homogeneous suspension or particles introduced at the top of
a column. Fine-grained particles also may be counted with
modem techniques such as laser-based particle counters or
image analyzers employing traditional light or scanning
electron microscopy, although those techniques were not
employed here.

Description ofParticle Size Analysis procedure

For this project, all ten samples were treated as follows: 10-
20 grams of the bulk sample were placed in water containing
a small amount of Calgon (a water softener and dispersant)
and gently agitated to disaggregate the sediment particles.
The sediment slurry was then washed through a set of 3-inch-
diameter, nested stainless steel wire-mesh screens of the
following sizes (coarsest to finest): 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.25
mm, 0.125 mm, and 0.0625 mm.
All of the sediment grains and other particles types
retained on each screen were transferred to small aluminum
cups and dried overnight at 80 C. Each dried size fraction
was then weighed on a precision digital balance (to the nearest
one-thousandth of a gram) and stored in a labeled paper


envelope (certain particles have been removed from specific
size fractions and transferred to labeled, small glass vials, as
noted below).
The summary results of the above particle size analysis are
graphed in Figure 5, which shows ten frequency curves
derived from a histogram of the weights of each of the sam-
ples. The X-axis plots the size fractions in micrometers, from
coarsest (larger than 2 mm, or 2000 micrometers) on the left
to finest (smaller than 0.0625 mm, or about 63 micrometers)
on the right, and the Y-axis shows the percentage of total
sample weight for each size fraction.
In general terms, Figure 5 illustrates how the ten samples
differ with respect to the relative percentage of granule-sized
(> 2000 micrometers) versus fine- and medium-sand size (125-
500 micrometers) particles. For example, sample FS 1037 is
the finest-grained one, and FS 313 is the coarsest-grained.
However, because the size fractions weights are graphed as
percentages of total sample weight, this type of display is
strictly relative, and does not provide any insight into more
subtle differences among the samples' size distributions.
In conventional sedimentological analysis there are several
scales for expressing sediment particle size. More commonly


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






GIFrom GEOARCHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES


Figure 4. Miami Circle, 8 May 2002, Area 2. Measuring depth below surface to the bedrock contact, at which level
sample FS 1033 was removed. FS 1035 and 1036 were taken 20 cm and 40 cm, respectively, above 1033.


GIFFORD


GEOaRcHaEOLOcrAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIV[ENT SAMPLES






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VoL. 57(1-2)


Table 1. Miami Circle/Brickell Point Sediment Samples for Particle Size Analysis.


Classes compared to metric


Wentworth
Size Class millimeters Phi size
GRANULES -1 to -2(p
SAND
Very coarse 37987 0 to +19
Coarse 0.5-1.0 +1 to Op0
Medium 0.25-0.50 +2 to +l(p
Fine 0.125-0.250 +3 to +29
Very Fine 0.0625-0.1250 +4 to +3(p
MUD > +4(p


used than the particle diameter in millimeters or micrometers
(as in Figure 5) is the Phi (p) grain-size scale, which equals
the negative logarithm to the base two of the particle diameter
expressed in millimeters ((p = -log2[particle diameter in mm]).
On the Phi scale, a one-mm diameter particle (at the
boundary between very coarse and coarse sand) has a (p size
of 0; and the smaller the particle size, the larger the Phi size.
This study focuses on analysis of the sand-size particles (-19


to +4(p). A summary of the seven size fractions discussed in
subsequent sections is given below, in terms of the three
common grain-size scales.
Mud, the finest fraction, is composed of two particle size
sub-categories, silt (0.0039-0.0625 mm diameter) and clay
(0.0006-0.0039 mm diameter). In these ten samples essen-
tially all of the mud-size fraction is medium to coarse silt, not
easily studied except under a scanning electron microscope,
and not likely to shed much light on the formation of the
midden deposit due to the near impossibility of identifying the
origin of such small particles. All subsequent particle sizes in
this report are expressed in the Phi scale.
In order to summarize and present the distribution of
particle sizes in a sample either graphical or statistical
methods are employed. The most common graphical presenta-
tion is the cumulative particle size curve, which is a curve of
the accumulated weights of the individual size fractions, from
coarsest (here, all sediment particles coarser than -l(p) on the
left to finest (here, all sediment finer than +4p) on the right.
In theory a cumulative curve should begin at 0 cumulative
percent, but in the analysis of several of these 10 samples the
topmost (coarsest) screen trapped a very large percentage of
the entire sample (e.g., FS 313, 329, 1033). This aspect of the
analysis is considered further below.


1) Sediment Samples collected 08 May 2002
FS # Weight (gms)
1030 Excavation Area 1, Unit 66, N wall, Level 1, 0-25 cm deep in Feature # 690 >5,000
1031 Excavation Area 1, Unit 66, N wall, Level 2, 25-40 cm deep in Feature # 690
vation Area 2, East wall, bulk sample from 114-120 cm below surface (on bedrock) 1084
1033 Excavation Area 2, East wall, bulk sample from 114-120 cm below surface (on
bedrock) rea 2, East wall, bulk sample from 100 cm below surface (middle of
exposure) 97
1034 Excavation Area 2, East wall, bulk sample from 100 cm below surface (middle of
exposure) 68
1035 Excavation Area 2, East wall, bulk sample from 80 cm below surface (top of
exposure) 125
1036 Excavation Area 1, S end of concrete footer, bulk sample directly on bedrock 104
1037 Excavation Area 1, S end of concrete footer, bulk sample from 20 cm above
bedrock 111

2) Posthole Matrix Samples collected during 2000 excavations (subsampled 09 July 2002)
FS # Weight (gms)
313 Op3, Square N52, E120, PH #9, Soil Sample #83, Zone VI, Lvl 1, 29 June 2000, K.
Jones 313
329 Op3, Square N52, E120, PH #13, Soil Sample #99, Zone VI, Lvl 1, 29 June 2000,
K. Jones 241
379 Op3, Square N52.58, E120.37, PH #23, Soil Sample #145, Zone VI, Lvl 1, 8-1-0,
YF 113


Table 2. Wentworth Size
diameter and Phi sizes.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)








70
** .,:, -, -.._. _.,- .. :,,- *.. ,. :'; .- .. ,
60 FS1037
SFS1034

S-- FS1030

20 0-. ,,- -- FS1030

L0 -m FS379
0: ~ A.;.5 ; -" -, Y ~" ".- '- .Q .

-, .- ..- 1 FS 1030
20 FS379










Figure 5. Summary of particle size analysis of ten samples. Most of the weight percentage of every sample lies either in the coarsest fraction (greater than 1000
micrometers, or 1 mm), or the medium sand size range (250 to 500 micrometers).
_1'.
Figure "a "sie ',yssofte s mpe.-osotewegh ,.enagoeey.am leliseih,,,,hc-.s.tf.. ...(.er.h, ,'






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


100




-X
80












40 -37
//




60 329



60 -- '
/












1031 36



0 2 4
Particle Size (Phi units)


Figure 6. Unmodified cumulative size curves for the ten samples.


In addition to the particle size analysis described above,
two samples (FS1030 and FS1036) also were analyzed for
percentage of general constituents. In this case the above-
described laboratory steps were redone on a new subsample,
then:

1) After separation, the size fractions caught on each screen
were placed in a glass container and 10% HCI was added to
dissolve calcium carbonate.
2) The residue was rinsed with distilled water, washed into
small aluminum cups and placed overnight in a drying oven at
800 C.
3) Each size residue was then weighed to determine the weight
loss representing the percentage of calcium carbonate lost.
4) Each size residue was placed in a porcelain crucible and
ashed at 550C for 2 hours, causing combustion of all
organic.
5) After cooling the residue was weighed and the weight loss
of all organic was calculated.


All sample particle size fractions coarser than 3(p were
examined under a binocular microscope at 12x, 25x, and 50x
magnification. Appendix 1 is a summary of the size fraction
descriptions for each of the ten samples.

Constituent Particle Categories

In addition to the summary in Appendix 1, some general
discussion of the most common constituents comprising the
size fractions is warranted. There are six:

1) Friable carbon aggregates. These are lumps of black,
finely-comminuted charcoal that cement smaller limestone
and quartz sand fragments in a sort of "microconcretion" (cf.
Figure 13). In theory, all such aggregates should have been
dispersed in the preparation of the samples for particle size
analysis, but some aggregates are harder than others, due to
variable cementation by calcium carbonate.

2) Tabular calcium carbonate fragments. These are usually


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)





GEOARCHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES


100 -





80-





5 60


M-


3 40





20-


329 /

329 /


/
o4-~i


SI I


2
Phi Size


Figure 7. Modified cumulative size curves for the ten samples, recalculated to exclude coarsest size fraction.


pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark yellow orange (10 YR
6/6) in color, when not covered by carbon coatings, and often
show micro-laminations in section. Most of them represent
fragments of a weathering coating or rind that commonly
develops on mollusk shells and shell fragments, and tends to
spall off over time. A minority of these tabular fragments
apparently are derived from a different source: weathered
pieces of the laminated crust associated with paleosol forma-
tion on Pleistocene bedrock in southern Florida, as described
in Multer and Hoffmeister (1968), and termed "duricrust" by
Means and Scott (2000: 325).

3) Quartz grains. Two types of this mineral are present in the
ten samples: subangular to subround, transparent quartz
grains, and subround to round, frosted quartz grains, often
associated with opaque carbonate grains. These correspond
exactly to the observations of Hoffmeister (1974:103-103)
regarding quartz sediments of northern Biscayne Bay. Quartz
grains rarely show a black carbon coating. It may be that the
transparent, subangular quartz grain population is derived


from weathering of the Miami Limestone (described below)
whereas the frosted and more rounded ones represent quartz
grains transported southward along the coast by longshore
currents.

4) Mollusk shell fragments. These occur in size fractions all
the way down to 2(p (0.25 mm), and appear to be predomi-
nantly from pelecypods, with occasional gastropod shell
fragments. They most likely represent a mixture of shellfish
refuse and fragments of naturally present terrestrial snails;
they frequently do not show the black carbon coating that was
observed on almost all other particle types. Only in the
coarsest size fractions might itbe possible to identify the shells
to generic level, and as there are much larger shell fragments
than these for such identification it does not seem warranted
in the future.

5) Charcoal fragments. Charcoal fragments show a distinctive
"glassy" reflection on fresh faces, and well-preserved vascular
structure. These exist in all size fractions and are easily


GIFFORD





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Table 3. Grouping of sediment samples based on subjective similarities in particle size curves of Figure 7.

FS # Provenience Group
313 Area 3, posthole matrix 2
329 Area 3, posthole matrix 2
379 Area 3, posthole matrix 2
1030 Area 1, Unit 66, Feature # 690, posthole matrix, 0-25 cm 1
1031 Area 1, Unit 66, Feature # 690, posthole matrix, 25-40 cm transitional
1033 Area 2, East wall, on bedrock (120-114 cm below surface) 2
1034 Area 2, East wall, middle of exposure (100 cm below surface) 1
1035 Area 2, East wall, top of exposure (80 cm below surface) 1
1036 Area 1, S end of concrete footer, directly on bedrock 1
1037 Area 1, S end of concrete footer, 20 cm above bedrock 1


broken (cf. Figures 13-15). Presumably, when very finely
comminuted, these particles contribute (along with the friable
carbon aggregates) to the black coating found on many of the
other particle types. It is also apparent from microscopic
examination that the charcoal fragments represent several
different wood species, which might be identified by a
paleoethnobotanist.

6) Oolitic bedrock fragments. Oolitic bedrock fragments are
weathered from the Miami Limestone bedrock underlying the
cultural deposits. They disappear in size fractions smaller
than fine sand (i.e., 3(p diameter), at which point they are
almost all abraded or dissolved away, freeing their included
quartz and other mineral grains.

In addition to these six categories, miscellaneous particle
types were observed in some of the ten samples; these include
microfaunal bone fragments and nearly intact skeletal ele-
ments (notably several examples of millimeter-sized, conical
animal teeth, in one instance still embedded in a jaw frag-
ment). These should be identifiable by a vertebrate zoologist
or zooarchaeologist.

Discussion of Particle Size Analysis statistics

Appendix 2 summarizes the weight percent distribution of
the seven size fractions for each of the ten samples. The
corresponding unmodified cumulative particle size curves are
displayed in Figure 6 (note that "+5(p" as plotted on this graph
is equivalent to "finer than +4(p").
For non-natural, anthropogenic sediments such as these, a
fundamental analytical problem involves the coarsest size
fraction (here greater than -l(p in diameter), which invariably
comprises non-sedimentary, ecofactual components such as
faunal bone, shell, as well as rock fragments and concretions.
While it is important to isolate and study this size fraction in
order to understand depositional processes, the fact that the
majority of the samples' weight is concentrated here results in
very skewed (i.e., unrepresentative) particle size distributions,


such as Figure 5. The size distribution curves are,
sedimentologically speaking, incompatible; they cannot be
compared with one another in terms of the sand-size fractions,
and it is the size distribution of sand in a sample that is even
more important in understanding how it was deposited.
To allow valid comparisons among samples, a further
mathematical transformation was made to the particle size
analysis statistics: each sample's coarsest fraction (i.e., > -lp)
was subtracted from its total weight and the cumulative
weights of the remaining size fractions were recalculated to
100% and replotted. The results, presented in Figure 7, are
directly comparable and show two general groups of size
curves (again, note that "+5'p" as plotted on this graph is
equivalent to "finer than +4(p"). Samples FS 1030, FS 1031,
FS 1034, FS 1035, FS 1036 and FS 1037 appear to constitute
one group characterized by a lack of sediment particles in the
very coarse to coarse sand size fractions (-l(p to +1(p).
Samples FS 379, FS 313, FS 329, and FS 1033 constitute
another group having substantial weight in those size frac-
tions. This is interpretable in terms of where the samples were
collected, as summarized in Table 3.
Note that sample pair FS 1034 and FS 1036 are essentially
identical in their unmodified particle size distributions, as are
two other pairs: FS 1035 and FS 1030; FS 329 and FS 313.
It is not assumed that the subjective groupings of Table 2,
based on visual comparison of sediment particle size distribu-
tions among these ten samples, indicate an actual stratigraphic
correlation, i.e., that Group 2 sediments represent one
depositional event and Group 1 another. However, as a
working hypothesis this idea was further investigated using a
fundamentally different means of comparing the samples' size
fractions: automatic classification of the samples into "natural"
groups on the basis of multivariate statistical analysis of the
component particle categories described previously. This
involved hierarchical linkage analysis of sample size fractions
(cases) by particle types (variables). No assumptions had to be
made about either the number or members of the clusters.
This method is described in Doran and Hodson (1975: 176) as
"single-linkage cluster analysis," and is the only procedure


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)





GEOARCHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES


Table 4. Ten samples (by four size fractions) by the first five principal constituents.

FS Number$ Size Frac$ friable C Tabular CaCO3 Qtz Clear qtz Frost mollusc Shell
313 -ltoO 30 40 0 5 10
313 Oto+1 40 20 0 5 5
313 +lto+2 20 5 60 5 5
313 +2to+3 20 10 60 5 0
329 -ltoO 10 60 5 0 15
329 Oto+l 50 15 10 0 0
329 +lto+2 40 5 40 0 0
329 +2to+3 40 10 40 0 0
379 -ltoO 35 15 0 10 5
379 Oto+l 35 10 10 15 0
379 +lto+2 20 5 35 25 5
379 +2to+3 45 5 30 5 0
1030 -ltoO 35 10 35 0 5
1030 Oto+l 40 15 40 0 0
1030 +lto+2 10 5 75 0 0
1030 +2to+3 10 5 80 0 0
1031 -lto0 25 50 5 0 0
1031 Oto+l 45 5 35 0 0
1031 +lto+2 15 0 75 0 0
1031 +2to+3 20 0 80 0 0
1033 -ltoO 0 40 0 0 5
1033 Oto+1 30 0 10 30 5
1033 +lto+2 5 5 40 30 0
1033 +2to+3 20 0 70 0 0
1034 -ltoO 0 20 0 0 0
1034 Oto+1 5 15 20 30 0
1034 +lto+2 15 0 70 5 0
1034 +2to+3 10 0 85 0 0
1035 -ltoO 15 5 0 5 0
1035 Oto+1 40 5 0 40 0
1035 +lto+2 10 0 80 0 0
1035 +2to+3 10 0 80 0 0
1036 -ltoO 10 20 0 30 0
1036 Oto+l 20 0 10 30 0
1036 +lto+2 0 10 75 0 0
1036 +2to+3 20 0 80 0 0
1037 -ltoO 5 20 0 20 10
1037 Oto+l 30 10 10 20 5
1037 +lto+2 10 5 60 20 0
1037 +2to+3 20 0 80 0 0


applicable to a data set with as many missing values as this
one contains.

Hierarchical Linkage Cluster Analysis of Sample Size Frac-
tion Composition

The data matrix that served as input to the hierarchical
linkage cluster analysis is shown in Table 4; the constituent


variables tabulated above are identified as follows:


friable_C
tabular CaCO3
qtz_Clear
qtz_Frost
mollusc Shell
charcoal
oolitic RF


friable carbon aggregates (Category 1)
tabular calcium carbonate fragments (Category 2)
Quartz grains, transparent type (Category 3a)
Quartz grains, frosted type (Category 3b)
mollusc shell fragments (Category 4)
charcoal fragments (Category 5)
oolitic bedrock fragments (Category 6)


GIFFORD





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Table 4 (continued). Ten samples (by four size fractions) by the remaining four constituents.

FSNumber$ SizeFrac$ Charcoal oolitic RF Microfauna MammalBF
313 -ltoO 5 10 0 0
313 Oto+1 5 5 0 0
313 +lto+2 5 0 0 0
313 +2to+3 5 0 0 0
329 -ltoO 0 15 5 0
329 0to+1 0 15 5 0
329 +lto+2 0 10 0 0
329 +2to+3 0 5 5 0
379 -ltoO 0 0 15 20
379 Oto+1 15 5 10 0
379 +lto+2 5 0 5 0
379 +2to+3 10 0 5 0
1030 -ltoO 0 10 5 0
1030 Oto+1 0 5 0 0
1030 +lto+2 0 0 5 0
1030 +2to+3 0 5 0 0
1031 -ltoO 0 5 15 0
1031 Oto+1 5 0 10 0
1031 +lto+2 5 0 5 0
1031 +2to+3 0 0 0 0
1033 -ltoO 0 40 5 10
1033 Oto+l 0 20 5 0
1033 +lto+2 0 20 0 0
1033 +2to+3 5 0 5 0
1034 -lto0 10 55 15 0
1034 Oto+1 0 20 5 0
1034 +lto+2 5 0 5 0
1034 +2to+3 0 0 5 0
1035 -ltoO 0 40 0 30
1035 Oto+l 5 0 10 0
1035 +lto+2 5 0 5 0
1035 +2to+3 5 0 5 0
1036 -ltoO 0 20 0 20
1036 Oto+l 10 5 10 0
1036 +lto+2 0 0 5 0
1036 +2to+3 0 0 0 0
1037 -ltoO 5 20 0 20
1037 Oto+l 5 10 10 0
1037 +lto+2 0 0 5 0
1037 +2to+3 0 0 0 0


In addition to the original six categories, two more were
created for this analysis, from the descriptions given in
Appendix 1:

microfauna microfaunal bone fragments (non-mammalian)
mammal_BF mammalian bone fragments

Table 4 tabulates the percentage of each of the nine constitu-
ents in the four sand-size fractions of each of the samples, as


given in Appendix 1. This 40 case x 9 variable data matrix
served as input to the software program, Systat 7.0 for Win-
dows.
To keep the influences of all variables (i.e., constituent
components) comparable, the percentage values were standard-
ized to z-scores (SYSTAT Statistics Manual 1996:339). The
cluster analytical routines in Systat 7.0 compute all distances
with pairwise deletion of missing values (SYSTAT Statistics


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)










1031

379

1037

1035

1036

1033

1034

1030

313

329


Figure 8. Permuted data matrix showing hierarchical
clustering of all four sand-size fractions of the ten
samples by the nine constituent particle types.


Figure 9. Permuted data matrix showing hierarchical clustering of the +1 Phi
to +2 Phi size fractions of the ten samples by the nine constituent particle types.


61


329

1033

379

313

1035

1031

1034

1037

1030
*4
-2 1036
0
6-1
0-2


.4
. 3
-2
ai
*-1
1-2


OIKVO r Z AOIO MT -







Tur FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Manual 1996:337). Hierarchical clustering of cases and
variables simultaneously into a permuted data matrix (i.e., the
most similar rows and columns are displayed next to one
another) was chosen as the statistical analysis procedure;
Single linkage and Euclidean distance were chosen as the
clustering parameters.
Figure 8 is the permuted data matrix of all 40 cases (four
sample size fractions for each of 10 samples) by nine variables
(the constituent particle types defined previously). The colors
represent the magnitude of each number in the matrix, with
red representing the strongest correlation and dark blue the
weakest. Figure 8 shows FS 1036 & FS 1033 to be most
similar, followed by FS 1035, FS 1030 & FS 1034, which are
next linked to FS 1037, FS 313 & FS 379, which are finally
linked to FS 1031 (top) and FS 329 (bottom) the two least
similar of all the samples.
When this analysis of the ten samples, based solely on
clustering of similarities of percentages of the component
particle types, is compared with Table 2, there appears to be
little correlation between the two sets of results. In order to
investigate this problem further, four new data sets were
extracted from Table 3, one for each of the four sand-size
fractions isolated for each of the ten samples (i.e., -l(p to 09p,
0Q to +l(p, +l(p to +2p, and +2(p to +39().
The new objective was to determine if there might be one
of the four sand-size fractions whose similarities (and differ-
ences) among the nine constituent particle categories would
better group the ten sediment samples. On the basis of that
statistical analysis, one size fraction-+1 p to +2(--was found
to generate a comprehensible clustering of the samples.
Figure 9 is the permuted data matrix of the ten sediment
samples' +lp to +2p size fractions by the nine constituent
particle types. As in the preceding figure, the colors represent
the magnitude of each number in the matrix.
On the basis of this single-link hierarchical cluster analy-
sis, samples FS 1031, FS 1034 and FS 1035 are most similar,
followed by samples FS 1030, FS 1036 and FS 1037. Samples
FS 313 and FS 379 form a third group, with samples FS 329
and FS 1033 being dissimilar to all three groups, as well as to
each other.
This objective grouping is more realistic than the subjective
attempt based on similarities in particle size curves (Table 2).
As usual, its archaeological significance is not immediately
apparent, but it is interesting to note that: (1) there is some
internal consistency among the samples in each group, and (2)
the first two groups represent subdivisions of the initial
"Group 1" particle size categories, while samples FS 313 and
FS 379 were in the initial "Group 2" (see Table 2).
No explanation is possible, based on the available evidence,
for the relatively great difference between these three groups
and samples FS 329 (Area 3 posthole matrix) and FS 1033
(from the middle of the stratigraphic exposure in Area 2).
What can be said in comparing the two analytical approaches
is that similarities in particle size distributions do not neces-
sarily imply similarities in constituent particle compositions.
In summary, neither the traditional particle size analysis
nor the more experimental use of hierarchical cluster analysis


of sediment samples by similarities of constituent particle types
allows a clear correlation of the ten samples collected. The
clustering of FS 1031, FS 1034 and FS 1035 together might
possibly reflect a general similarity of depositional environ-
ments comprising the lower fill of Feature 690 and the upper
half of the midden deposit of Area 2, which might be distin-
guishable in time from the deposition of sediment samples FS
1030, FS 1036 and FS 1037 (the later filling of Feature 690
and the midden deposits in the southeast sector of Area 1).
The three sediment samples from Operation 3 are more similar
tone another than the above samples, except for FS 1033,
which represents the earliest deposit above bedrock in Area 2.
As usual, it would be interesting to construct a new
research program focused on the isolation of the medium sand
(+l(p to +2(p size fraction of a larger number of sediment
samples from known or suspected correlative units, in order to
further investigate the validity of this approach.
On a more definitive note, not a single example of marine
microfauna (e.g., foraminifera, diatoms, ostracods) was
observed in the +l(p to +4q( size fractions of any of the sam-
ples, where they would have been concentrated had they been
present. Neither were any marine microfauna observed in the
ESEM study of FS 1031 (from the bottom half of Feature 690;
see below for further discussion). This is strong evidence
against the overwashing of the site by hurricane storm surges,
at least during the periods of deposition of these sediment
layers.

Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope
Study of Sample FS 1031

It was decided to look much more closely, both literally and
figuratively, at a subsample of the black midden fill from the
lower half of one of the artificial holes cut into the Miami
Limestone bedrock (Feature 690) for two reasons: it comes
from a very secure depositional context that was sampled on
08 May 2002; it also served as an interesting experiment in
bulk radiocarbon dating (see final section).
On 10 and 12 September 2002 two subsamples of FS 1031
were examined in the writer's presence by Dr. Matt Lynn
under the Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope
(ESEM) at the University of Miami's Center for Advanced
Microscopy. The Center for Advanced Microscopy operates a
new Philips XL30 ESEM-FEG. This instrument combines the
enhanced resolution and low-kV capabilities of a Field
Emission Gun with the ease and utility of a modern Environ-
mental SEM. Samples can be imaged in a more "natural,"
uncoated state at chamber pressures up to 20 Torr. Combined
with the Peltier cooling stage, this environmental chamber
permits the observation of organic materials at relative
humidities up to 100%; liquid water can be tolerated as well.
The instrument resolution is 2 nanometers, for both the
conventional high vacuum and environmental modes.
Additional accessories include a solid-state backscattered
electron detector, a Link/Oxford X-ray analysis system for
Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy, and an Oxford CT1500HF
Cryotransfer unit.


THE FLORIiDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






GWFoRD GEOARCHAEOLOCIAI. ANALYSIS OF SEDiMENT SAMPLES


Figure 10. Widefield view at low magnification (x75) of bulk subsample of FS 1031, under 1.0 mBar.


Figure 11. Widefield view at low magnification (x200) of bulk subsample of FS 1031, under vacuum.


GIwFORD


GEOARCHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Figure 12. Bulk subsample of FS 1031: bone fragment approx. 0.1 mm long under medium magnification (xl000).


Figure 13. Bulk subsample of FS 1031: two bone fragments approximately 0.05 mm maximum dimension, under medium
magnification (xO000).


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






GIFFo1U GEOARCHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SErnM~wr SAMPLES


Figure 14. Widefield view of FS 1031 silt subsample: composite particles of carbon from Beta Analytic pretreatment
procedure.


Figure 15. Silt subsample of FS 1031 from Beta Analytic pretreatment; x400 magnification of charcoal fragments making
up composite particles.


GIFFORD


GEOARCHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Figure 16. Silt subsample of FS 1031 from Beta Analytic pretreatment; x1000 magnification of single, well-preserved
charcoal fragment.


Figure 17. Silt subsample of FS 1031 from Beta Analytic pretreatment; x1000 magnification of single, well-preserved
charcoal fragment.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)





GEOARCHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES


The Oxford L300QI-Link ISIS fully quantitative and
imaging x-ray microanalysis system. The system is built
around an Oxford/Link Pentafet detector with Super Atmo-
spheric Thin Window for light-element detection. Tested
resolution (Full Width Half Max) of this detector is 133eV at
MnK (5.9 keV). In addition, the system is operated through
a user-friendly Windows interface. Software enhancements
include: automatic peak identification; element quantification
using built-in or user-supplied reference standards; and
imaging through remote control of the microscope. Once
electron images are acquired, X-ray linescans or dot maps can
be collected and overlain to simplify comparisons. Spectra and
images can be printed and/or saved as TIFF digital files for
later work.
The bulk FS 1031 sample, unmodified, except for having
been passed through a 2mm mesh screen to remove very large
particles, was simply suspended in distilled water and a drop
of the slurry was deposited in a metal stub and dried. It was
scanned at 1000-2000x, with a few scans at higher, and some
wide-field views at very much lower, magnifications.
Figures 10 and 11 are low-power, wide-field views of the
bulk subsample of FS 1031, under both humid and vacuum
conditions. In general it was found to contain only three
identifiable particle types, far fewer than had been expected;
quartz grains and bone particles (Figures 12 and 13), plus a
few possible charcoal fragments, were all that could be
definitively identified.
The other subsample of FS 1031 scanned with the ESEM
represents the silt-sized fraction remaining from Beta Ana-
lytic's pretreatment of a bulk sample for conventional radio-
carbon dating (see discussion, below). This subsample was
received as a dry lump from Beta Analytic; a small fragment
of the lump was broken off, mounted in a sample stub, and
observed under natural environmental conditions due to its
very large composite particle fragments (Figure 14).
This second subsample did show numerous charcoal
fragments (Figures 15-17), and suggested that the standard
Beta Analytic pretreatment procedure for samples of this type
would yield a reasonable conventional radiocarbon date (as it
did). It should be noted that no phytoliths were observed in
either the bulk sample or the Beta Analytic pretreated subsam-
ple of FS 1031.

Radiocarbon dating of FS 1031

The silt fraction studied under the ESEM at the University
of Miami (see above) allowed verification that many of its
constituents particles are finely comminuted charcoal. The
possibility of obtaining reliable radiocarbon dates on bulk
samples of the "black dirt midden" sediments that constitute
much of the archaeological deposits in and overlying the
Miami Circle site is attractive, as it could lead to a finer
distinction of depositional events than might otherwise result
from simple stratigraphic analysis of the uniform black
deposits. As an experiment in such bulk dating, a 150-gram
subsample of the very large FS 1031 (bottom half of Feature
690 infilling) was submitted to Beta Analytic on 12 August


2002.
The standard Beta Analytic pretreatment process for this
type of sample is: 1) an acid (HC1) wash followed by 2) an
alkali wash (NaOH), followed by 3) a weak acid rinse (HC1)
and bulk filtration of the fine particle fraction. For sample FS
1031, this produced about 8 g of black silt plus 1.5 g of
identifiable particulate (sand-size) charcoal. They were dated
separately, the silt by conventional radiocarbon analysis (with
extended counting) and the charcoal by AMS. Results are
given in Table 5.
The 770-year difference between the two size fractions is
remarkable and interesting. As the silt matrix is that much
younger than the included sand-sized charcoal particles, one
possibility is that the silt size fraction represents a mixture of
"old" carbon-based silt that is about 2300 radiocarbon years
old, plus younger carbon-based silt from stratigraphically
higher levels that has percolated down into the lower sediment
fill of Feature 690 and been redeposited there. In other words,
while the older charcoal date may generally represent the age
of the earliest infilling of Feature 690-2300 '4C years
ago-the younger date probably does not reflect some specific
depositional event that happened 1500 4C years ago.
If, in the future, a similar dual-dating ofFS1030 (the upper
25 cm of Feature 690) were to be conducted two outcomes are
possible: 1) its charcoal fraction is found also to date to ca.
1500 "'C years ago, and its silt fraction to some even younger
age, which would imply that we are dealing with at least two
periods of infilling of Feature 690; or 2) its charcoal fraction
is found to be roughly comparable in age to that of FS
1031-around 2300 '4C years BP-and thus we are dealing
with a single infilling event of this particular hole, with
younger silt-size carbon being redeposited in the upper part of
Feature 690 from higher levels.

Conclusion

A sediment analysis was conducted on ten samples
collected from proveniences within the Miami Circle feature,
the Area 2 excavation block to the northwest of the Maimi
Circle, and the Operation 3 excavations to the east of the
Miami Circle. This study identified six constituent particle
categories in the samples, including 1) friable carbon aggre-
gates (microconcretions of charcoal, limestone and quartz
sand); 2) tabular calcium carbonate fragments (weathering
rinds from marine shell and fragments of the laminated
duricrust); 3) quartz grains (two types, likely related to the
weathering of the parent limestone bedrock and sands trans-
ported by longshore currents from Biscayne Bay); 4) mollusk
shell fragments (food refuse from the midden deposits); 5)
charcoal fragments (representing several wood species); 6)
oolitic bedrock fragments; 7) miscellaneous materials (in-
cludes fauna bone fragments and some microfauna). Interest-
ingly, no evidence (e.g., no marine microfauna) was found to
suggest over-washing of the Brickell Point site by storm
surges.
The analysis also examined particle size, adjusting for the
larger size materials and the anthropogenic origins of the


GIFFORD






THE FLORA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Table 5. Radiocarbon dates from FS 1031 (bottom half of Feature 690 infilling).


Measured
Radiocarbon Age


13C/2C
Ratio


Conventional
Radiocarbon Age


Beta 169797 1500 110 BP -24.6 o/oo 1510 + 110 BP
SAMPLE: DA12 FS1031-SILT
ANALYSIS: Radiometric-Standard delivery (with extended counting)
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT: (organic sediment): acid/alkali/acid
2 SIGMA CALIBRATION: Cal AD 330 to 700 (Cal BP 1620 to 1250)

Beta 171116 2310 40 BP -26.9 o/oo 2280 40 BP
SAMPLE: DA12 FS1031-CHARCOAL
ANALYSIS: AMS-Standard delivery
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT: (charred material): acid/alkali/acid
2 SIGMA CALIBRATION: Cal BC 400 to 350 (Cal BP 2350 to 2300) AND
Cal BC 310 to 210 (Cal BP 2260 to 2160)


midden. Two major groupings were identified-one lacking
very coarse to coarse sand size fractions, a second that has a
substantial percentage of these fractions, with one sample
transitional between the two. This suggests the possibility for
two depositional events, but also points to the relative unifor-
mity of the deposits across the site.
The study was continued by comparing the size fractions
using a multivariate statistical method involving hierarchical
linkage of the size fractions by particle types. This analysis
shows that samples 1036 and 1033 were most similar to one
another, followed by 1035, 1030, and 1034, which are next
linked to 1037, 313, and 379, and finally linked to 1031 and
329, which are the least similar of all. This analysis shows
little correlation with the initial groupings. To address this
problem, the study focused on four new data sets dealing solely
with the sand-size fractions of the ten samples. This analysis
demonstrated a more comprehensible pattern based on one size
fraction (+1 to +2 on the Phi grain size scale); the result is that
samples 1031, 1034, and 1035 are most similar, followed by
samples 1030, 1036 and 1037. Samples 313 and 379 form a
third group, with samples 329 and 1033 being dissimilar to all
three groups and from one another. There is some correlation
between the particle size groups initially identified and the
hierarchical cluster analysis groups, though it is not possible
at this point to explain the differences between the three
groups and the two outlier samples (320 and 1033).
One soil sample of the very large FS 1031 (bottom half of
Feature #690 infilling) was selected for bulk radiocarbon
dating. The standard Beta Analytic, Inc. pretreatment process
produced two fractions-about 8.0 g of black silt plus 1.5 g of
identifiable particulate (sand-size) charcoal. They were dated
separately, the silt by conventional radiocarbon analysis (with
extended counting) and the charcoal by AMS. The conven-
tional ages of the two dates differ by 770 years and the 2 sigma
calibrated ranges do not overlap. The difference in age
between the silt and charcoal fractions has important implica-


tions for understanding the depositional history of the site-it
may represent two depositional episodes or be related to
downward migration of the silt fraction within the soil column.
Directions for future research include focusing on the
medium sand fraction in a larger number of samples, addi-
tional bulk radiocarbon dating of the soils, as well as tests such
as % organic, pH, chemical analysis, magnetic susceptibility,
and micromorphology.

Acknowledgments

This study would not have been possible without the interest of
Bob Carr in pursuing new pathways to understanding South Florida's
prehistoric midden deposits. For her careful sedimentological
analyses of these samples I thank Ms. Tina Manne, a graduate
student in the Division of Marine Geology and Geophysics of the
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Lastly, I
thank Dr. Matt Lynn, Associate Director of the University of
Miami's Center for Advanced Microscopy.

References Cited

Doran, J.E., and F.R. Hodson
1975 Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.

Hoffmeister, J.E
1974 Land from the Sea: the Geologic Story of South Florida.
University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.

Hoffmeister, J.E., K.W. Stockman, and H.G. Multer
1967 Miami limestone of Florida and its Bahamian counterpart.
Geological Society ofAmerican Bulletin 78: 175-190.

Masson, M., R.S. Carr, and D.S. Goldman
1988 The Taylor's Head site (8Bd74): sampling a prehistoric
midden on an Everglade tree island. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 41(3): 336-350.


Sample Data


TBF, FLORIiDA ANTjHROPOLOGIST


2004 Voi- 57(1-2)







Means, G.H., and T.M. Scott
2000 A geological assessment of the Miami Circle site. The
Florida Anthropologist 53(4):324-326.

Mowers, B.
1972 Concretions associated with Glades prehistoric sites. The
Florida Anthropologist 25(3): 129-131.

Multer, H.G., and J.E. Hoffmeister
1968 Subaerial laminated crusts of the Florida Keys. Geological
Society ofAmerica Bulletin 79:183-192.

Newman, C.L.
1993 The Cheetum Site: an Archaic burial site in Dade County,
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46(1):37-42.

Palmer, J., and J.R. Williams
1977 The formation of goethite and calcareous lenses in shell
middens in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist, 30(1 ):24-
27.

Sanford, S.
1909 The topography and geology of southern Florida. Second
Annual Report, Florida Geological Survey, pp. 175-231.
Tallahassee.

SPSS, Inc.
1996 SYSTAT 7.0 for Windows Statistics Manual, Chicago.

Wheeler, R.J.
2000 The archaeology of Brickell Point and the Miami Circle.
The Florida Anthropologist 53(4):294-322.

Appendix 1. Binocular Microscope Description of Sample Size Fractions

Note that for size fractions coarser than (i.e., >) -l(p, a numeric count of particles is given, for all other size fractions percentage
estimate of constituent types is given, accurate to approximately 5%, and based on microscopic identification of at least 100
particles. Also note that, in both the +3(p to +4(p (very fine sand) and the <+4p (silt) fractions of all ten samples, more than 80% of
these fractions consists of friable carbon aggregates and charcoal. When rubbed between the fingers these fractions are ground into
fine silt or clay-size particles that blacken everything with which they come in contact.

FS0313 (Area 3, posthole matrix)
qp size fraction
Coarser than -1: 1 pelecypod shell (possibly Cerastoderma sp.), 2 cm max. diameter; 10-15 pelecypod shell fragments, most coated
with black midden material; 3 subround, small pebble-sized, oolitic limestone fragments, pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark
yellow orange (10 YR 6/6) inside and coated with black midden material; 8 angular to subangular mammal or reptile/amphibian
bone fragments, all coated with black midden material; 5 friable carbon aggregates; 6 subangular to angular charcoal fragments,
2-4 mm in diameter.
-1 to 0: -40% pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark yellow orange (10 YR 6/6) iron-stained angular, tabular carbonate
fragments; 30% friable carbon aggregates; 10% oolitic limestone fragments (white, angular); 10% mollusk shell fragments; 5%
charcoal fragments; 5% subround, frosted quartz grains.
to +1: -40% friable carbon aggregates; 20% pale yellow orange to dark yellow orange, iron-stained angular, tabular carbonate
fragments; 5% subround to round frosted quartz grains and opaque carbonate grains; 5% mollusk shell fragments; 5% charcoal
fragments.
+1 to +2: -60% subangular to subround transparent quartz grains; 20% friable carbon aggregates; 5% pale yellow orange to dark
yellow orange iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments); 5% angular to subangular charcoal fragments; 5% mollusk
shell fragments; 5% subround to round frosted quartz plus opaque carbonate grains.
+2 to +3: 60% subangular to subround transparent quartz grains; 20% friable carbon aggregates; 10% pale yellow orange to dark
yellow orange iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments; 5% subround to round frosted quartz plus opaque carbonate
grains; 5% subangular charcoal fragments.


GIFFORD


GEoARcHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIffNT SAWPLES







FS0329 (Area 3, posthole matrix)
9p size fraction
Coarser than -1: 2 subround, small pebble-sized oolitic limestone fragments, pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark yellow orange
(10 YR 6/6) inside and coated with black midden material; 4 gravel- to small pebble-sized mammal or reptile/amphibian bone
fragments with discontinuous black carbon coating; 5 mollusk shell fragments, angular and unburned or blackened; 1 fish trunk
vertebra, 15 mm max. dia., not burned or blackened.
-1 to 0: relatively few grains; -60% pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark yellow orange (10 YR 6/6) iron-stained angular,
tabular carbonate fragments (probably from laminated crust); 15% mollusk fragments; 10% friable carbon aggregates; 15%
oolitic limestone fragments (white, angular); 5% microfaunal bone fragments; 5% subangular to subround transparent quartz
grains.
to +1: -50% friable carbon aggregates; 15% oolitic limestone fragments (white, angular); 15% pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to
dark yellow orange (10 YR 6/6) iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments; 10% subround to subangular transparent
quartz grains; 5% microfaunal bone fragments (including conical teeth, unknown flat teeth).
+1 to +2: -40% friable carbon aggregates; 40% subangular to subround transparent quartz grains; 10% oolitic limestone fragments
(white, angular); 5% pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark yellow orange (10 YR 6/6) iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate
fragments (probably from laminated crust); 5% biogenic carbonate grains (microshell fragments).
+2 to +3: -40% friable carbon aggregates; 40% subangular to subround transparent quartz grains; 5% oolitic limestone fragments
(white, angular); 10% pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark yellow orange (10 YR 6/6) iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate
fragments (probably from laminated crust); 5% biogenic carbonate grains (microshell fragments).

FS0379 (Area 3, posthole matrix)
qp size fraction
Coarser than -1: 10-12 subround to round mollusk shell fragments (largest 3 cm max. dim.); 1 fish trunk vertebra; 9 subangular to
subround oolitic limestone fragment; 5 tabular carbonate fragments; 4 subangular mammal or reptile/amphibian bone fragments;
-1 to 0: -35% friable carbon aggregates; 20% subround mammal or reptile/amphibian bone fragments; 15% tabular carbonate
concretions; 15% microfaunal bone fragments; 10% subround, frosted quartz and opaque carbonate grains; 5% subangular
mollusk shell fragments.
0 to +1: ~35% friable carbon aggregates; 15% subangular to angular charcoal fragments; 10% subangular to subround transparent
quartz grains; 10% tabular carbonate concretions; 10% microfaunal bone fragments; 15% subround, frosted quartz and opaque
carbonate grains; 5% subangular to subround oolitic rock fragments.
+1 to +2: 35% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 25% subround, frosted quartz and opaque carbonate grains; 20%
friable carbon aggregates; 5% mollusk shell fragments; 5% pale yellow orange to dark yellow orange iron-stained, angular,
tabular carbonate fragments; 5% microfaunal bones; 5% angular charcoal fragments.
+2 to +3: ~30% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 45% friable carbon aggregates; 10% subangular to angular
charcoal fragments; 5% pale yellow orange to dark yellow orange iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments; 5%
subround to round frosted quartz plus opaque carbonate grains; 5% microfaunal bones.

FS1030 (Area 1, Unit 66, Feature # 690, posthole matrix, 0-25 cm)
p size fraction
Coarser than -1: 1 broken, small pebble-sized, rounded, oolitic limestone fragment, broken to show interior with quartz grains of
size 3-4 p; 5-6 subround mammal or reptile/amphibian bone fragments; 10-12 tabular mollusk shell fragments; 2 microfaunal
bone fragments.
-1 to 0: -35% friable carbon aggregates; 35% subangular to subround transparent quartz grains; 10% oolitic limestone fragments
(white, angular); 10% pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark yellow orange (10 YR 6/6) iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate
fragments (probably from laminated crust); 5% mollusk shell fragments; 5% microfaunal bone (jaw fragment w/conical teeth).
to +1: -40% friable carbon aggregates; 40% subround to subangular transparent quartz grains; 5% oolitic limestone fragments
(white, angular); 15% pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark yellow orange (10 YR 6/6) iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate
fragments.
+1 to +2: -75% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 10% friable carbon aggregates; 5% oolitic limestone fragments
(white, angular); 5% pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark yellow orange (10 YR 6/6) iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate
fragments; 5%microfaunal bones (including two curved, conical teeth).
+2 to +3: -80% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 10% friable carbon aggregates; 5% oolitic limestone fragments
(white, angular); 5% pale yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) to dark yellow orange (10 YR 6/6) iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate
fragments.


2004 Voi. 57(1-2)


TBE FLOREDA ANrTHROPOLOGIST





GEOARCHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES


FS1031 (Area 1, Unit 66, Feature # 690, posthole matrix, 25-40 cm)
q' size fraction
Coarser than -1: 1 pebble-size mammal bone fragment coated with carbon; 2 pebble-size oolitic limestone fragments coated with
carbon; 6-10 pebble-size mollusk shell fragments and small bone splinters, all coated with carbon.
-1 to 0: ~50% angular, tabular carbonate fragments coated with carbon; 25% friable carbon aggregates; 15% carbon-coated
microfossil bone fragments; 5% subangular to subround transparent quartz grains; 5% oolitic limestone fragments (angular,
carbon-coated).
to +1: -45% friable carbon aggregates; 35% subangular to subround transparent quartz grains; 10% microfaunal bone and tooth
fragments; 5% charcoal fragments; 5% iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments.
+1 to +2: -75% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 15% friable carbon aggregates; 5% microfaunal bone fragments;
5% charcoal fragments.
+2 to +3: -80% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 20% friable carbon aggregates.

FS1033 (Area 2, East wall, on bedrock, 120-114 cm below surface)

Coarser than -1: 8 subround oolitic limestone fragments (1 2.5x1.5x1 cm); 3 tabular carbonate fragments; 1 subround fragment of
light tan, clayey sediment with included quartz grains.
-1 to 0: Relatively small sample of -40% iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments; 40% subround to subangular oolitic
limestone fragments, carbon-coated; 10% mammal or reptile/amphibian bone fragments; 5% microfaunal bone fragments; 5%
mollusk shell fragments.
to +1: -30% friable carbon aggregates; 30% subround to round frosted quartz plus opaque carbonate grains; 20% subround to
subangular oolitic limestone rock fragments; 10% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 5% mollusk shell
fragments; 5% microfaunal bone fragments (inc. conical teeth).
+1 to +2: -40% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 30% subround to round frosted quartz plus opaque carbonate
grains; 20% subround to subangular oolitic limestone rock fragments; 5% iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments;
5% friable carbon aggregates.
+2 to +3: -70% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 20% friable carbon aggregates; 5% microfaunal bone fragments;
5% charcoal fragments.

FS1034 (Area 2, East wall, middle of exposure, 100 cm below surface)
q( size fraction
Coarserthan -1: 12 subround to subangular oolitic limestone fragments, carbon-coated; 12 tabular carbonate fragments; 7 subangular
charcoal fragments; 5 subround to subangular mammal or reptile bone fragment, carbon coated; 3 microfaunal bone fragments
(with identifiable teeth); 1 friable carbon fragment.
-1 to 0: ~55% subround to subangular oolitic limestone fragments, carbon coated; 20% pale yellow orange to dark yellow orange
iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments; 15% microfaunal bone fragments; 10% angular charcoal fragments. (<1%
quartz.)
to +1: 30% subround, frosted quartz and opaque carbonate grains; 20% subangular to subround transparent quartz grains; 20%
subangular to subround oolitic rock fragments; 15% pale yellow orange to dark yellow orange iron-stained, angular, tabular
carbonate fragments; 5% microfaunal bone and tooth fragments; 5% friable carbon aggregates.
+1 to +2: -70% subround to subangular transparent quartz; 15% friable carbon aggregates; 5% microfaunal bone fragments; 5%
charcoal fragments; 5% subround to round, frosted quartz grains plus opaque carbonate grains.
+2 to +3: -85% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 10% friable carbon aggregates; 5% microfaunal bone fragments.

FS1035 (Area 2, East wall, top of exposure, 80 cm below surface)
p size fraction
Coarser than -1: 1 angular, small pebble-size mammal or reptile bone fragment, carbon coated; 1 angular, small pebble-size tabular
pelecypod fragment, white; 4 microfaunal bone fragments (with identifiable teeth); 10-12 subround to subangular oolitic
limestone fragments, carbon-coated; 10-12 tabular carbonate fragments.
-1 to 0: -40% subround to subangular oolitic limestone fragments, carbon coated; 30% angular mammal or reptile bone fragments;
15% friable carbon aggregates; 5% pale yellow orange to dark yellow orange iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments;
5% subround frosted quartz grains.
to +1: -40% friable carbon aggregates; 40% subround, frosted quartz and opaque carbonate grains; 10% microfaunal bone and tooth
fragments; 5% charcoal fragments; 5% iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments.
+1 to +2: ~80% subround to subangular transparent quartz; 10% friable carbon aggregates; 5% microfaunal bone fragments; 5%
charcoal fragments.
+2 to +3: 80% subround to subangular transparent quartz; 10% friable carbon aggregates; 5% microfaunal bone fragments; 5%


GIFFORD







charcoal fragments.

FS1036 (Area 1, S end of concrete footer, directly on bedrock)
q size fraction
Coarser than -1: 4 subround to subangular oolitic limestone rock fragments, carbon-coated; 3 mammal or reptile/amphibian bone
fragments; 2 tabular carbonate fragments.
-1 to 0: Very small sample consisting of-30% subround to round, frosted quartz grains; 20 % subround to subangular oolitic
limestone fragments, carbon-coated; 20% mammal or reptile/amphibian bone fragments; 20% iron-stained, angular, tabular
carbonate fragments; 10% friable carbon aggregates.
0 to +1: -30% subround to round, frosted quartz grains; 10% subangular to subround transparent quartz grains; 20% friable carbon
aggregates; 10% charcoal fragments; 10% microfaunal long bone fragments; 5% oolitic rock fragments.
+1 to +2: Relatively large sample consisting of-75% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 10% tabular carbonate
fragments; 5% microfaunal bone fragments.
+2 to +3: -80% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 20% friable carbon aggregates.

FS1037 (Area 1, S end of concrete footer, 20 cm above bedrock)
qp size fraction
Coarser than -1: 3 microfaunal bone fragments, carbon coated; 4 microfaunal bone fragments (with identifiable teeth); 8-10
subround to subangular oolitic limestone rock fragments, carbon-coated; 5tabular carbonate fragments; 6 mollusk shell
fragments; 2 unidentified biogenic fragments (possibly from echinoid).
-1 to 0: Relatively small sample consisting of-20% subround to subangular oolitic rock fragments, carbon-coated; 20% subround
frosted quartz grains; 20% mammal or reptile/amphibian bone fragments; 20% iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate
fragments; 10% mollusk shell fragments; 5% charcoal fragments; 5% friable carbon aggregates.
0 to +1: Relatively large sample consisting of-30% friable carbon aggregates; 20% subround to round, frosted quartz grains; 10%
subangular to subround transparent quartz grains; 10% subround to subangular oolitic limestone rock fragments; 10% pale yellow
orange to dark yellow orange iron-stained, angular, tabular carbonate fragments; 10% microfaunal long bone fragments; 5%
charcoal fragments; 5% mollusk shell fragments.
+1 to +2: Relatively large sample consisting of--60% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 20% subround to round
frosted quartz plus opaque carbonate grains; 10% friable carbon aggregates; 5% microfaunal bone fragments; 5% tabular
carbonate fragments.
+2 to +3: -80% subround to subangular, transparent quartz grains; 20% friable carbon aggregates.


DiE FLORIDA ANTiiROPOLOGIST


2004 VoL 57(1-2)






GWFoiw GEOARCHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES


Appendix 2. Weight Percent Distribution for 10 Sediment Samples.


............................... .... ..... .....
(urn) weight Weight % Cum Wgt % grain size(um) weight Weight % Cum Wgt %
..................... ........... ................................ : ...................................... .................................................................. : ..............................................................
0.533: 3.2i 14.5: 1000-2000 0.508: 2.6 13.1
!...... ...6. 0! 9..7 ... .......24.2. 50. !00 ........ ............ ............2.
1.601 9.7; 24.2 500-1000 1.799 9.2 22.3
6.402 38.6 62.81 250-500 7.766 40.1: 62.4
4.221 25.5 88.3 125-250 5.439 28.1 90.5
0.931 5.6 93.9 63-125 1.079 5.6 96.1
1.033 6.2 100.1 <63 0.757i 3.9 100
16.588 100.1 19.375 10
;'"""""2 7psi T ; :


grain size(um)
>2000
1000-2000
500-1000
250-500
125-250
:63-125
<63

FS1033
grain size(um)
>2000
i1000-2000
500-10006
250-500
125-250
63-125
<63


weight
3.333
0.736
1.59
5.668
3.685
0.79:
0.763:


Weight % Cum Wgt % grain size(um) weight Weight % Cum Wgt %
20: 20i >2000 1.28. 6.9 6.9
4.4; 24.4 1000-2000 0.466 2.5 9.4
9.6. 34: 500-1000 1.61 8.7 18.1
34.2; 68.2 250-500 8.13 43.7 61.8
22.21 90.4; i125-250 5.155 27.7 89.5
4.8 95.2 63-125 0.979 5.3 94.8
4.6i 99.8 <63 0.969 5.2 100


16.565 99.8: 18.589; 100
FS313
weight Weight % Cum Wgt % grain size(um) weight Weight % Cum Wgt %
8.552 50.4: 50.4 l>2000 7.185i 59.7 59.7
0.567 3.4 53.8 1000-2000 0.5 4.2 63.9
0.. .. .......... .. ......... 3 .4...... ......8..... :i 0 0. .20 0 0.............. ......5...... ......................... 6 ...

3.513 20.1: 819. :250-500 1.729 14.4 .86
2.115 12.5 93.5 125-250 1.124 9.3 95.3
,. .. .. ....... .. .. .. .. .. ..... ....... ... ... .: ....... .. .. ......... ......... .... .... .... ........ .... .. ......... ...... ... ... ....
0.516. 3 96.5: 63-125 0.37 3.1 98.4
0.51. 3 99.5: <63 0.215 1.8 100.2
16.978 99.5 : 12.045 100.2


FS1034 FS329
grain size(um) weight Weight % Cum Wgt % grainsize(um) wei eight % Cum gt
>2000 1.359 8.2 8.2 >2000 6.4 57.5: 57.5:
1000-2000 0.592 3.6 11.8: 11000-2000 0.528 4.7 62.2
S... .. ..... ...... ............. .... ... .. .. ........... .. ... : ....... ...... ....... ............... ...... .. ........ ......... .. .
:500-1000 1.845. 11.1 22.9 :500-1000 0.909 8.2 70.4
250-500 7.171: 43 65.9 :250-500 1.637 14.7: 85.1
125-250 4.276 26 91.9 125-250 1.165 10.5 95.6
:63-125 0.711 4.3 96.2: 163-125 0.32 2.9; 98.5;
<63 0.61 3.7 99.9 <63 0.178 1.6 100.1
.................................. ............... ........................9. ....................... ................................................... 3 : ..............o o. ...... .....................................
16.564 99.9: 11.137 100.1
FS1035 FS379
grain size(um) weight Weight % Cum Wgt % grain size(um) weight Weight % Cum Wgt %
>2000 1.803 11 11 >2000 3.849 36.4 36.4:
1000-2000 0.898 5.4 16.4i 1000-2000 0.453: 4.3i 40.7
i500-1000 1.925 11.5 27.9 500-1000 0.983 9.3 50
250-500 6.553 39.3 67.2: i250-500 2.415 22.9: 72.9
125-250 4.02: 24.11 91.3: :125-250 1.895 17.9: 90.8.
.... .... ....................................................................... .......... .................... ............ ..................................................... .................. ..................... ........................................ .
63-125 0.96: 5.8 97.1 63-125 0.594 5.6 96.4
<63 0.534 3.2: 100.3: <63 0.4: 3.8 100.2
16.693: 100.3: 10.589 100.2:


|FS1030
grain size
:>2000
1000-200(
500-1000
250-500
125-250
63-125
.<63

.F .n. .


GIFFORD


GEoARcHAEOLOCIAL ANALYSIS OF SEDBME4T SAMPLES










CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS FROM THE MIAMI CIRCLE EXCAVATIONS
AT BRICKELL POINT

ROBERT J. AUSTIN

Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc., P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568
Email: bob@searchinc.com


Introduction

In this paper I provide a descriptive analysis of the chipped
stone artifacts from the Miami Circle excavations at Brickell
Point. The results indicate that the assemblage consists of
waste flakes and debris resulting primarily from the bipolar
reduction of small chert cobbles to make flake tools and
microliths that were used for drilling, engraving, and scraping.
Although several bifaces and biface fragments were recovered,
there is very little evidence for on-site biface production
beyond a few crude reforms made from cobble chert.
Analysis of the horizontal distribution of cobble cherts and
microliths suggests that the microliths may have been used in
the manufacture of craft items, specifically shell beads.
Since chert resources are non-existent in southeast Florida,
all siliceous stone is presumed to have entered the site via
some sort of exchange mechanism. The similarity of the
distinctive chert cobbles at Brickell Point to cobbles recovered
during Sears's excavations at Fort Center (Steinen 1982) led
to the development of several working hypotheses that can be
used to guide future research in south Florida. The hypothesis
that is currently supported, albeit with limited data, is one that
posits a redistributional mode of exchange, with Fort Center
possibly serving as a center of redistribution and Brickell Point
representing one of several end points in a regional exchange
network.

Sample Composition and Methods of Analysis

The sample for this analysis included all chipped stone
artifacts recovered during excavations conducted at Brickell
Point between 1998 and 2000 by the Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy (AHC), the Florida Bureau of Archae-
ological Research (FBAR), and the University of Houston
(UH) field school. All of the lithic artifacts underwent
cleaning, numbering, and cataloging at the AHC laboratory in
Miami. During this process, chipped stone artifacts were
separated from other materials and later submitted to the
author for analysis. After receipt of the artifacts from the
AHC, all items were separated into one of several general
classes: shaped tools (bifaces, unifaces, modified flakes,
microliths), unshaped tools (utilized flakes), cores, hammer-
stone fragments, and debitage (waste flakes).' The debitage
was further separated into one of four morphological catego-
ries B complete, proximal fragment, medial-distal fragment,


and non-orientable B using the criteria of Sullivan and Rozen
(1985). In addition to these four flake-form categories, I
added a fifth thermal shatter. Included in this category is all
lithic material that has suffered the effects of rapid and
uncontrolled heating or cooling. Pot-lid flakes and non-
orientable fragments that display crazing lines, pot-lid scars,
and/or created fractures are characteristic of thermal shatter
(Purdy 1975). This category was considered necessary because
of the large amount of lithic material that appeared to have
been damaged by exposure to uncontrolled heat. Since the
resulting angular, blocky fragments did not result from any
technological process, it was necessary to separate these from
the other non-orientable fragments that presumably originated
during flintknapping activities.
The Sullivan-Rozen flake-form categories provide an
initial basis for examining structure within a debitage assem-
blage, similar to separating lithic tools into morphological
categories such as bifaces, unifaces, modified flakes, utilized
flakes, etc. Patterning in the distribution of flakes between the
five flake-form categories may suggest different kinds of tool
or core reduction activities, which can then be examined
further through reclassification using more conventional
attributes. The waste flake typology used in this second phase
of analysis is shown in Table 1 along with the attributes used
to classify individual specimens.
Dimensional variables (maximum length, width, and
thickness) were recorded for all shaped and unshaped artifacts
and all artifacts were weighed. Waste flakes were placed into
one of several sequential size categories by using a series of
nested squares drawn on a piece of metric graph paper. The
interval between square sizes was set at 5 mm. Individual
flakes were assigned to a size category by placing each flake
on the graph paper with its ventral surface down, and then
moving the specimen into the square in which the long axes of
the flake would fit regardless of orientation. The use of size
categories enables both length and width to be combined into
a single measure of flake size, and is particularly useful for
graphing and comparing flake size distributions between
assemblages (Patterson 1990; cf., Austin 1995, 1997, 1998,
n.d.; Estabrook and Williams 1992).
In addition to size, several other attribute states were
recorded for each specimen. Debitage attributes included the
presence or absence of dorsal cortex (primary, secondary, or
none). Tool attributes included condition (broken or complete),
type of fracture(s), edge angle, type, placement and


VOL. 57(1-2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH-JUNE 2004


VOL. 57(1-2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


MARCH-JUNE 2004






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Table 1. Waste-flake Typology Used in the Brickell Point Analysis.


invasiveness of edge wear, and presence of secondary retouch
or resharpening. Determination of probable tool function was
based on a microscopic examination (10x-70x) of edge damage
in conjunction with edge-angle measurements. Tool edge
angles were measured with a protractor and rounded off to the
nearest degree. Identification of raw-material type and
geographic provenance was attempted for all artifacts using
the method devised by Upchurch et al. (1982; see also Austin
1997; Austin and Estabrook 2000).

Lithic Raw Materials

The various raw materials identified in the sample are
listed in Table 2 and are organized by excavation area.2 The
most common cherts at Brickell Point are small, water-
rounded cobbles (Figure 1). The cherts from these cobbles
tend to be opaque and moderately coarse textured, light gray
to dark gray in color, with substantial variation in fossil
content and secondary inclusions between individual speci-
mens. Most of the cobbles possess characteristics diagnostic
of cherts derived from the Miocene age Tampa Limestone


Member of the Arcadia Formation. Peneroplid foraminifera
tests are common in many of the specimens; pelycypods and
gastropods are less common. Quartz sand inclusions vary
from rare to abundant; voids and burrows filled with quartz
crystals and chalcedony also may be present. Rock fabric is
variable, ranging from mudstones and wackestones through
packstones and grainstones.
Figure 2 shows major chert quarry locations in Florida in
relation to Brickell Point. The closest major source area for
Tampa Limestone cherts is Hillsborough and Pinellas counties.
Chert outcrops are present in abundance along the
Hillsborough River and its major tributaries (e.g., Blackwater
Creek, Flint Creek, Cypress Creek, Cow House Creek), as well
as the Alafia River, Six Mile Creek, and around the shores of
Tampa Bay (Goodyear et al. 1983; Upchurch 1980; Upchurch
et al. 1982). Tampa Limestone cherts also may outcrop in the
Peace River valley, although the most common cherts in this
area are quartz replacements of opaline sediments associated
with the Peace River Formation. In addition to a lustrous,
opaline appearance, Peace River Formation cherts often
include phosphate pellets and abundant quartz sand inclusions.


Flake Type Identifying Criteria
Biface-thinning Thin with a marked curvature, feathered margins, small, low-angled, and often
flake faceted striking platform, pronounced lipping on the ventral edge of platform,
diffuse bulb of force, multiple facets on its dorsal surface (House and Ballenger
1976:Figure 15; Muto 1971:71.).
Biface retouch flake Possesses many of the same characteristics as biface-thinning flakes but is much
smaller, generally less than 1 cm square. The dorsal margins of the striking
platforms often display evidence of grinding to prepare the platform for removal
and/or dulling from use.
Uniface retouch Retains a portion of the unifacially modified edge, usually as a striking platform.
flake Platform surface typically flat with a pronounced bulb of force on the ventral
surface (Shafer 1970).
Core-reduction flake A flake that has been removed during the reduction of a bipolar or amorphous
core. Typically displays a limited number of dorsal facets, may possess dorsal
cortex, has a cortex-covered or flat, unfaceted platform and a prominent bulb of
force.
Bipolar flake Results from resting the core on an anvil. Diagnostic attributes include a
shattered or pointed platform with little observable surface area; distal battering
and force lines that originate from the distal end; an absence of a distinct bulb of
force; a polyhedral cross-section with steep lateral margins; and the absence of
distinct dorsal and ventral surfaces (Ahler 1989:7; Boksenbaum 1980:12-13;
Crabtree 1972:10, 92; Kobayashi 1975:117).
Core-rejuvenation A large flake that is the result of creating a new striking platform on a core.
flake Retains a portion of the original core platform on its dorsal surface.
Other flakes Debitage that does not conform to any other flake type definition. Tend to be
thick in cross-section, possess flat, unfaceted striking platforms, pronounced
bulbs of force, a limited number of dorsal facets, and often have margins that
terminate abruptly rather than feathering out. Most of these flakes were probably
produced during core reduction or early-stage tool production.
Indeterminate Small flake fragments that lack any diagnostic attributes.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






AUSTIN CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS


Figure 1. Sample of chert cobbles used to manufacture many of the chipped stone tools at Brickell Point: a) MDC 1.1009.9(2);
b) MDC 1.1009.9(1), note central void; c) MDC 1.989.11(1); d) MDC 1.989.11(2); e) MDC 1.596.7; f) MDC 1.498.6.


A small but significant proportion of the cobble material
contains fossils diagnostic of the Suwannee and Ocala lime-
stone formations. The Suwannee cherts are characterized by
a grainstone fabric consisting of very small fossils dominated
by the family Miliolidae. Quartz sand is sometimes present in
these cherts, but is not abundant. Secondary porosity caused
by the dissolution of calcite crystals is a diagnostic feature.
The Ocala cherts are identified by the presence of distinctive
Orbitoid foraminifera, particularly the species Lepidocyclina.
Exposures of Suwannee Limestone cherts are present through-
out Polk, Pasco, and extreme northeastern Hillsborough
counties. The Ocala Limestone Formation outcrops along the


Ocala Arch and west to the Gulf of Mexico. Significant
exposures are located around Ocala, Gainesville, and Lake
Panasofikee.
The mix of cherts from several different chert-bearing
formations makes identification of the source of these cobbles
difficult. Two possibilities exist: 1) they were all collected
from the same general source location, i.e., a single stream or
a few streams within a circumscribed geographic area; or 2)
they were collected from a number of different locations, i.e.,
from streams that flow through regions where exposures of
Tampa, Suwannee, and Ocala limestones exist. The evidence
in support of the first hypothesis includes the uniformity in


AUSTIN


CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


QUARRY CLUSTERS
1 Wrights Crook
2 Marianna
3 Wacisa
4 Upper Suwaneoo
5 Alapana River
6 Swift Creek Swamp
7 White Springs
8 Lower SuwanncioLoko Ponsoffkco
9 Santa Fe
10 Ocala
11 Brooksvillo
12 Upper Withlcoochee
13 Ciadcsi
14 Hmsborough River
15 Turtlecraw Point
16 Peac Rivet


0 SO miles


0 50 kiMom(ers


Figure 2. Map of chert "quarry clusters" in Florida after Upchurch et al. (1982:Figure 1; as modified by Austin 1997:Figure
19).


0


size, shape, color, and water-worn exteriors among all the
specimens recovered from Brickell Point and the fact that the
overwhelming majority of cobbles display characteristics that
indicate they were derived from Miocene age limestones (i.e.,
Tampa Limestone Member or possibly the Peace River
Formation). Evidence in support of the second hypothesis
includes the variety of host fabrics represented and the fact
that there are few known rivers that cut through all three of the
identified chert-bearing formations.
While localized rapids and shoals are present in some


creeks and rivers in central and southern Florida, including the
Hillsborough, Alafia, and Peace rivers and Horse Creek, most
rivers and streams are slow-moving and water-worn chert
cobbles are not particularly common. One possible clue as to
the source of the cobbles is the presence of occasional phos-
phate pellets embedded in the water-worn exteriors of a few
specimens. These pellets are not part of the chert matrix, but
were apparently embedded in crevices in the cobble surfaces
while being tumbled in a stream bed. The Alafia River, Peace
River, and Horse Creek all flow through areas of abundant


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VoL 57(1-2)










Table 2. Lithic Raw Material Types Represented in the Chipped Stone Assemblage.


Excavation Areas"

CL t

.S *G fe -o
Q ___ a__ 0 rj &Q _6_
DC Area 1 591 441 2 103 18 14 2 89 1 1261
DC Area 2 10 10 16 2 3 2 43
DC Area 3 1 3 4
DC Misc. 16 17 1 3 2 1 1 41
AR"V of H" 8 2 3 7 2 1 1 1 25
AR Septic Tank 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 12
BARTr-ll 2 1 6 2 5 16
FBAR 026 1 1
OP3 14 4 1 1 3 2 1 2 28
otals 644 477 3 136 31 19 3 103 8 4 3 1431
Percent 45.00 33.33 0.21 9.50 2.17 1.33 0.21 7.20 0.56 0.28 0.21 100.00
' See Note 2 for a description of these abbreviations.





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


phosphate deposits, but only the Peace River and Horse Creek
have been observed to contain small to medium-size cobbles of
limestone, dolomite, and chert. Unfortunately, no cherts
resembling those from Brickell Point have been observed in
samples collected from these streams. Thus, while the Peace
River basin or the Alafia River are considered as possible
source areas for these cobbles, a definitive conclusion is not
possible at present.
The identification of artifacts as having been manufactured
from cobble cherts was accomplished in two ways. The most
definitive evidence was the retention of part of the weathered,
water-worn exterior cobble surface. Many artifacts, however,
retain no exterior rind. For these specimens, it was necessary
to compare color, rock fabric, and inclusions to those artifacts
that do retain the distinctive water-worn surfaces in order to
determine whether or not they are cobble material. This
approach was considered to be most valid when used to
identify artifacts from a single provenience (or a group of
contiguous proveniences) where a large amount of definite
cobble material was present. For those decorticated artifacts
that resembled cobble material but which were recovered in
isolation or without accompanying cortex-covered specimens
from the same provenience, a designation of "possible" cobble
material was used.
Non-cobble forms of Tampa Limestone, Suwannee Lime-
stone, and Ocala Limestone cherts also are present in the
assemblage. These artifacts tend to have a finer texture than
the cobble cherts and the exterior cortex, when present, is
rough and granular. Colors are more variable, with brown,
tan, white, and various shades of gray all present.
Three artifacts of silicified coral were recovered. Coral
heads are contained in limestone deposits, primarily those of
Miocene and Oligocene age. Silica-enriched fluids filtering
through these coral heads eventually replace the coralline
skeletons with silica, preserving the skeletal structure of the
original coral. The closest known outcrops of silicified coral
are in the Hillsborough and Upper Withlacoochee quarry
clusters of Hillsborough, Polk, and Pasco counties (Goodyear
et al. 1983; Upchurch et al. 1982).
The final category of chert used in this analysis is a
catchall for those artifacts that could not be associated specifi-
cally with a particular geological formation because of an
absence of diagnostic criteria. The vast majority of these
"unidentified" cherts are probably derived from the chert
cobbles described above as they tend to be moderately coarse
textured and gray to white in color. Many of the specimens
are very small fragments of flakes, which contributed to the
difficulty of identifying diagnostic fossils. A few artifacts
made from non-chert materials also are present. These include
poorly silicified limestone, dolomite, and three quartz flakes.
These last artifacts are the only definite non-Florida materials
in the assemblage.

Artifact Descriptions

Table 3 provides data on the number and types of lithic
artifacts recovered by excavation area. The vast majority


(88.12%) were recovered from Area 1, the midden overlying
the Miami Circle feature. The following section provides
descriptions of the lithic artifacts by class.

Debitage

The debitage assemblage recovered from the site consists
of 1114 waste flakes and 179 pieces of thermal shatter. Of this
total of 1293 pieces of debitage, 89.6% (n = 1158) are from
Area 1, the largest excavation area. Eighty-eight percent of
the waste flakes are smaller than 2-x-2 cm and mean flake
weight is 1.3 gm (Table 4). Over 50% of the artifacts in the
assemblage possesses primary or secondary cortex on their
dorsal surfaces (Table 5). This is unusually high for a site
located so far from any known chert outcrops and is the result
of a dependence on the small chert cobbles that were imported
to the site for use as a raw material for tool making. This is
exemplified by comparing the ratio of cortex to noncortex
(C:NC) flakes for cobble and possible cobble cherts with a
similar ratio for all other lithic raw materials in Table 5. Sixty
percent of all cobble/possible cobble flakes are cortex covered
for a C:NC ratio of 1.46, while all other flakes have a C:NC
ratio of only 0.27. Removal of the exterior rind of the chert
cobbles contributed to the high C:NC ratio for the cobble
cherts. On the other hand, the low C:NC ratio for all other
cherts indicates that these raw materials entered the site
primarily in a decorticated condition; i.e., as partially worked
cores, early stage reforms, or finished tools.
Just slightly over 6% of the waste flakes display the
characteristic surface luster and color change associated with
intentional thermal alteration (Table 6). About 3.5% were
identified as "possibly" heat-treated. While the evidence for
intentional thermal alteration is scant, there is abundant
evidence of exposure to uncontrolled heat. Over 30% of the
entire waste flake assemblage displays potlids, crazing lines,
or created fractures, and almost half (179, or 45.8%) of these
have been identified as "thermal shatter."

Cores and Unmodified Cobbles

Thirty-two bipolar cores or core fragments are present in
the assemblage (Figure 3). This includes 22 cobble cores, nine
cores of possible cobble material, two non-cobble Tampa
Limestone core fragments, and three non-cobble fragments
that could not be positively identified as to chert type. Three
unmodified chert cobbles and four split cobbles also are
present. As with the debitage, the greatest number of cores (n
= 30) comes from Area 1.
Nine of the cores (16.3%) display evidence of thermal
modification or damage (Table 6). This is a lower proportion
than is present in the debitage assemblage and it remains
unclear whether the cobbles were exposed to heat intentionally
in order to improve their flaking qualities, or if the exposure
was unintentional, perhaps caused by proximity to a hearth or
fire pit. Another possibility is that heat was used to fracture
the cobbles into pieces usable as cores or tools. Whatever the
cause, thermal damage does not seem to have inhibited use of


TnE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)











Table 3. Chipped Stone Artifacts by Excavation Area.


Excavation Areasa


log-



MDC Area 1 1158 14 1 26 11 15 4 30 2 1261 88.12
MDC Area 2 38 1 2 1 1 43 3.00
MDC Area 3 2 2 4 0.28
MDC Misc. 29 1 3 3 4 1 41 2.87
FBAR "V ofH" 20 3 1 1 25 1.75
FBAR Septic 10 1 1 12 0.84
FBAR Tr-11 14 1 1 16 1.12
FBAR 026 1 1 0.07
OP3 21 1 1 1 1 3 _28 1.96
otals 1293 19 3 32 13 24 5 39 3 1431 100.00
Percent 90.36 1.33 0.21 2.24 .91 1.67 0.35 2.73 0.21 100.00 --
a See Note 2 for a description of these abbreviations.






Thx FLORInA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Figure 3. Sample of cobble cores from Brickell Point: a) unmodified cobble (MDC 1.989.11[1]); b) split cobble; note central
void (MDC 1.1000.15); c-d) cores with single, normal platforms (MDC 1.58.6 and MDC1.421.14); e-f, i-j) cores with double,
opposed platforms (MDC1.994.9, MDC 1.426.9([1], MDC1.390.11, and MDC 1.459.5); g) core with double, right angle
platforms (MDC 1.560.10); h) core with multiple platforms (MDC 1.585.13).


this material since some cobbles and cobble flakes display
evidence of continued flintknapping after thermal shattering.
Some of the cores display large, quartz-lined voids in their
interiors (Figures lb and 3b) and these would have limited the
number, size, and form of usable flakes that could be removed
from these cores.
Although the interior surfaces of the split cobbles would
have provided excellent striking platforms for the removal of
flakes, none of the worked cores display this type of striking
surface. Some of the complete cores display narrow, tapered
platforms (commonly referred to as "point" platforms) typical
of bipolar production (Figure 3, lower left). Others display
ring cracks and battering at the point of applied force. Many
have flakes removed from a single platform (Table 7), al-


though the use of two or more platforms also was common.
Battering marks, ring cracks, and small flake removals
opposite the primary striking platforms are visible on many of
the cores indicating that they were rested on an anvil during
reduction. Dimensional data for complete cores, organized by
platform type, are presented in Table 8.
Eleven small core fragments appeared at first glance to be
proximal flake fragments, but on closer inspection they were
identified as the probable detached platforms from bipolar
cores (Figure 4). Scars from prior flake removals are present
on both surfaces and the distal ends typically possess hinge
terminations. The comparatively large number of these "core
tops" suggests that they are a byproduct of core platform
rejuvenation. An example of a complete core with a narrowed


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST












Table 4. Size Distribution of Waste Flakes by Raw Material Types.


Flake Size Totals Percents Cum. Pct. Mean Weight
Classes Q in gm

A
.n 1 MCI I
00 4o C e 0e O =
<1 77 85 0 18 3 1 1 20 1 0 0 206 18.49 18.49 0.22
1-1.5 219 201 0 51 17 5 0 35 5 0 2 535 48.03 66.52 0.58
1.5-2 143 56 0 22 5 3 0 9 0 1 1 240 21.54 88.06 1.52
-2.5 57 15 0 4 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 84 7.54 95.60 3.79
.5-3 30 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 37 3.32 98.92 6.68
-3.5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.45 99.37 10.34
.5-4 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.45 99.82 9.83
-4.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.09 99.91 10.65
4.5-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.09 100.00 53.80
Totals 536 361 1 96 26 11 1 69 7 3 3 1114 100.00 -- 1.33
Thermal 61 76 0 8 3 2 1 28 0 0 0 179 -- -- --
Shatter
rand Totals 597 437 1 104 29 13 2 97 7 3 3 1293 -- --






Tm~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL 57(1-2)


Table 5. Cross-tabulation of Dorsal Cortex Condition by Raw Material Types.


Raw Material Types Primary Secondary None Totals Percents Cortex:Non
Cortex
Cobble 138 299 99 536 48.11 4.41
Possible Cobble 18 77 266 361 32.41 0.36
Peace River 1 1 0.09 --
Tampa 3 17 76 96 8.62 0.26
Suwannee 1 3 22 26 2.33 0.18
Ocala 1 3 7 11 0.99 0.57
Silicified Coral 1 1 0.09 0.00
identified Chert 1 11 57 69 6.19 0.21
Limestone 2 5 7 0.63 0.40
Dolomite 1 1 1 3 0.27 2.00
Quartz 1 2 3 0.27 0.50
Fotals 163 415 536 1114 100.00 1.08
Percent 14.63 37.25 48.11 100.00 -- --
Cobble/Possible Cobble 156 376 365 897 80.52 1.46
All Other 7 39 171 217 19.48 0.27


Table 6. Comparison of Thermal Alteration and Thermal Damage on Debitage, Cores, and Tools.

Artifact Thermal Alteration Thermal Totals
Class Damage
Yes Possible No
N Pet. N Pet. N Pct. N Pct.
All Debitage 80 6.19 45 3.48 777 60.09 391 30.24 1293
Coresa 2 5.13 0 0.00 30 76.92 7 17.95 39
Tools 6 6.25 2 2.08 73 76.04 15 15.63 96
Totals 88 6.16 47 3.29 880 61.62 413 28.92 1428
"Does not include three unmodified cobbles.


Table 7. Cross-tabulation of Core Platform Types by Amount of Exterior Cortex.


Core Platform Types Amount of Exterior Cortex Totals Percents
100% >75% 50-75% 25-50% <25% 0%
Unmodified Cobble 3 3 7.14
Split 3 1 4 9.52
Single, Normal 4 1 3 5 1 14 33.33
Double, Right Angles 2 2 4.76
Double, Opposed _3 2 6 14.29
Multiple 1 1 2 4.76
Broken 1 10 11 26.19
Totals 3 9 3 5 9 13 42 100.00
Percent 7.14 21.43 7.14 11.90 21.43 30.95 100.00 --


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






AUSTIN CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS


h i


CMM M I f

Figure 4. Examples of core platforms removed during the process of core rejuvenation: a) MDC 1.576.11(7); b) MDC
1.576.11(2); c) MDC 1.576.11(3); d) OP3 1.569.3; e) MDC 1.372.10; f) MDC 1.426.9(2); g) MDC 1.576.11(4); h) MDC
1.560.9(3); i) MDC 1.560.9(5). A core (FBAR 1.62.17) that retains this narrowed platform is shown for comparison at lower
left. Expanded side views of core platforms f) MDC 1.426.9(2) and h) MDC 1.560.9(3) are shown at lower right. Note hinge
terminations.


AUSTIN


CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS







TI-ix FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2004 VOL. 57(1-2)


Figure 5. Biface and uniface tools from the Brickell Point Midden: a) Hernando (FBAR 1.178.1); b) possible Columbia
(FBAR 1.175.1); c-d) proximal ends of possible hafted drills (MDC 1.589.7 and MDC 1.560.9[4]); e) distal drill fragment (OP3
1.605.4); f) blank or preform (MDC 1.560.10[11); g-h) small unifacial scrapers (MDC 1.161.5 and FBAR 1.53.13).


TmE FLOREDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)






AUSTIN CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS
striking platform prior to rejuvenation is shown in Figure 4


striking platform prior to rejuvenation is shown in Figure 4
(lower left).

Hammerstone Fragments

Hammerstones are represented by only five small frag-
ments: two from Unit 61 and one each from Units 62 and 64
in Area 1, and a fifth from the west half of 84N/37E in the
FBAR septic tank excavation area. All of the fragments are
cobble chert and all are rather small in size. Essentially, these
are flakes that were removed incidentally during hammering
activities. They were identified as hammerstone fragments
because of the intensive battering that was observed on their
remnant exterior surfaces. No complete hammerstones were
recovered, although it is possible that some of the cores also
were used as hammerstones. Several display battering marks
on their water-worn surfaces, but it was difficult to determine
if these were the result of hammering or of tumbling in a
steam bed.

Bifaces

Among the 19 bifaces recovered during the various
excavation and testing projects are 2 hafted bifaces (projectile
points/knives), 4 other bifaces (2 production rejects, 1 drill, 2
possible hafted drills), and 12 biface fragments. The two
hafted bifaces a Hernando and a possible Columbia were
recovered during the FBAR testing project. The Hernando
point (FBAR 1.178.1; Figure 5a) was recovered from Post
Hole (PH) "Jr' in the "Valley of the Holes" between 0 and 25
cm below ground surface. It displays a transverse blade
fracture, a broken blade corner, and a small break on its
opposite blade corner. All of these are use-related fractures
probably resulting from impact (Odell and Cowan 1986).
Rounding and crushing are observable on edge prominences
along one remnant margin. These may be the result of
production-related platform preparation and/or rubbing of the
margin against a haft binding. Some very light rounding also
is present on the remnant blade corner and stem. This speci-
men is made from chert that outcrops in northeastern
Hillsborough County. Numerous fossil charophyte oogonia,
the reproductive apparatus of a fresh-water plant that is
diagnostic of Tampa Limestone cherts from this area, are
visible. Hernando points are dateable to the late Archaic
through late Woodland periods in Florida, or from about 1000
B.C. to A.D. 900 (Ste. Claire 1996).
The second hafted biface (FBAR 1.175.1; Figure 5b) was
recovered from PH "HH" at a depth of 19 cm. This is a large,
percussion-flaked implement with straight, parallel blade
edges and tapered lower blade margins. The blade has
snapped transversely and the stem is missing. Both fractures
are the result of use. Based on its size and general form this
specimen has been identified as a possible Columbia point (cf.
Bullen 1975:19), although the lack of a stem makes this
identification tentative. Wheeler (2000:314) identified the
same artifact as a Hamilton point (cf. Bullen 1975:38). My
identification is based on the sloping lower blade margins,


which are more characteristic of Columbia points. However,
without a stem it is impossible to make a definitive identifica-
tion. Columbia points are common in Woodland components
in south Florida. At Pineland, two Columbia points were
recovered from Caloosahatchee IIa deposits, dateable to about
A.D. 500/650-800 (Austin n.d.). Columbia points also were
recovered from Mound A at Fort Center (Austin 1997) in
deposits that are believed to date to about A.D. 200-600/800
(Sears 1982). Hamilton points are conventionally assigned to
the Middle Archaic period, ca. 6000-5000 B.P., and Wheeler
(2000:314) suggests that it could have been collected by the
inhabitants of Brickell Point from an earlier site located
nearby. Acquisition through trade also is a possibility.
Edge wear on the Brickell Point specimen consists of
extreme rounding and abrasion of both lateral margins, but no
observable polish or striations. Rounding of flake scar
margins extends up to 4 mm onto the interior blade face in
localized areas indicating the depth of penetration of the blade
into the worked material. Small feather- and step-terminated
scars have removed some of the abraded edge in isolated spots
along both margins. This type of wear is suggestive of sawing
of a relatively yielding material, perhaps a soft wood such as
pine or cedar. Additional wear damage is observable on the
broken blade margin where it intersects with the remnant
blade edge. Step-terminated scarring extends from the apex
back onto the broken surface and is oriented parallel to this
surface, away from the point of contact. This wear damage
indicates use of this sturdy, high-angled juncture as a possible
graver after the biface broke. The raw material used to make
this biface is a peloidal chert with abundant quartz sand
inclusions. It closely resembles Peace River Formation chert
found in outcrops along the Alafia River in southern
Hillsborough County.
One thick biface (MDC 1.575.8) represents a salvaged
fragment that was subsequently reflaked into a roughly
triangular form. Differential patination is observable on this
specimen, with the more recent flake scars along the margins
appearing lighter in color than the darker interior surfaces.
The retouch is steep and semi-invasive. Use wear consists of
severe rounding and abrasion of the distal end with polish and
striations visible on edge prominences. One small area
displays striations that are oriented perpendicular to the
working edge, indicating that the tool was used in a rotary
motion on rather hard materials, possibly shell. Some light
edge rounding and abrasion are visible on the proximal margin
and these may be the result of having been hafted. This
implement was made from Tampa Limestone chert.
Two small, slightly oval bifaces (MDC 1.589.7 and MDC
1.560.9[4]; Figures 5c-d) possess what appear to be transverse
fractures of what were narrow, possibly resharpened, blades.
In form these implements resemble what are sometimes called
"finger drills" or hafted drills. Unfortunately, only the
proximal portions of these hypothetical drills are present and
without examination of the used "bits" no definitive functional
interpretation is possible. Both are made from possible cobble
chert. Two crudely flaked bifaces (MDC 1.559.11[3] and
MDC 1.560.10[1]) are apparently aborted reforms of cobble


AUSTIN


CHIPPED SToNE ARTIFACTS





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Table 8. Dimensional Data for Complete Cobble Cores.

Core Types Maximum Maximum Maximum Weight in
Length in Width in Thickness gm
mm mm in mm
Unmodified Cobble (n=3)
Mean 48.43 45.30 27.70 60.30
Standard Deviation 14.22 16.56 8.43 39.28
Coefficient of Variation 0.29 0.37 0.30 0.65
Split (n=4)
Mean 28.14 36.18 21.66 24.00
Standard Deviation 8.82 10.94 9.89 21.61
Coefficient of Variation 0.31 0.30 0.46 0.90
ingle, Normal (n=14)
Mean 29.76 29.65 20.34 23.32
Standard Deviation 9.84 13.02 12.24 19.76
Coefficient of Variation 0.33 0.44 0.60 0.85
double, RightAngles (n=2)
Mean 38.68 42.03 32.70 56.15
Standard Deviation 9.29 1.17 7.85 0.35
Coefficient of Variation 0.24 0.03 0.24 0.01
Double, Opposed (n=6)
Mean 25.23 24.61 12.50 10.07
Standard Deviation 6.44 11.58 5.87 7.11
Coefficient of Variation 0.26 0.47 0.47 0.71
Multiple (n=2)
Mean 26.93 37.73 15.53 19.30
Standard Deviation 0.04 0.18 1.38 8.34
Coefficient of Variation 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.43

Table 9. Microlith Blank Types.


chert. One has a small notch that may be the start of a stem
(Figure 5d).
One small biface fragment (MDC 1.449.22[2]) displays
step-terminated scarring at the juncture of two fracture planes.
The scarring is oriented parallel to the broken margin indicat-
ing that the spur resulting from the intersection of the fractures
was used in a downward motion, possibly to engrave wood or
bone. This fragment is made from chert that could not be
positively identified as to source. A distal biface fragment
(OP3 1.605.4; Figure 5e) displays rounding and scarring of the
tip and adjacent lateral margins suggesting use as a drill on
materials of medium to hard resistance. This specimen was


made from possible cobble chert and was fractured by exposure
to uncontrolled heat. Numerous "potlids" and a created
fracture are present. A third fragment (MDC 1.449.23)
displays rough bifacial flaking and may represent an aborted
preform. In addition to a lateral snap fracture, numerous
stacked hinge- and step-terminated scars are present on both
surfaces. The edge of the fracture termination was used as a
scraper as evidenced by small step- and hinge-terminated scars
along this margin. The scarring originates on the inner
(ventral) aspect of the fracture plane and extends onto the
dorsal surface. This tool was probably used to scrape medium-
to-hard resistance materials such as wood or bone. This biface


Blank Types N Percents
Side-struck flakes 2 6.25
End-struck flakes/blades 14 43.75
Possible end-struck flakes 2 6.25
Flake fragments 9 28.13
Indeterminate 5 15.63
Tota Is, _32 100


2004 VOL. 57(1-2)




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs