ANALYSIS OF CERAMICS FROM BRICKELL POINT, 8DA12 ROBERT S. CARR Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc., 4800 SW 64” Avenue, Suite 107, Davie, FL 33314 E-mail: archlgcl@bellsouth. net Introduction In this paper an analysis of the ceramics recovered from the Brickell Point component of Miami Midden No. 2 (8DA12) is conducted. The principal goals of this analysis were to identify the ceramic types associated with the site, to compare the Brickell Point ceramic assemblage with other sites in the area, and to identify non-local wares that indicate possible exchange across the region. Another goal was to use the ceramic assem- blage to provide relative dating for deposits associated with the Miami Circle and across the site and also to compare the assemblage to other sites in the area. Ceramics were sorted by type but no attempt was made to conduct a chemical, PIXE, or microscopic analysis of paste. Research Design One of the important questions about the feature known as the Miami Circle, which most archaeologists agree is the footprint of a circular structure, is its age. The feature is characterized by 24 basins cut into the limestone bedrock. Each basin has multiple circular postholes cut into the rock at the basin bottom. There is no direct way to date the feature since it cannot be assumed that the midden mantle above the Circle is necessarily younger. In theory, it is possible that when the structure was built that existing sediments could have been dug up and the basins and holes then cut into the exposed bedrock. If that were the case, one might anticipate some type of mixture of cultural materials within the basins and their vicinity. A review of the field records and an analysis of associated ceramic types might indicate whether reverse stratification occurred in the basin areas. In contrast, the hypothesis that the Circle’s creation predates the deposition of all or most of its overlying sediments would support the likelihood that ceramic types occur in a “correct” sequence (with Glades I types below and Glades I] and Glades HI types above) or that all the ceramic types within the basins would reflect a limited temporal range. Of course, even if the latter hypothesis is correct, habitation sites are subject to numerous disturbances from daily prehis- toric activities (such as from digging pits and bioturbation) and particularly in this case, the construction associated with over 700 hundred postholes uncovered in Block 1. Complicating this review is the partial removal of, and disturbances to, the soil mantle in Block 1. This occurred during the construction of the Brickell Apartments in 1949, and the subsequent mechanical removal of much of the sediments above the basins by archaeologists with the Miami-Dade County Historic Preservation Division (MDC) and the Archaeo- VOL. 59(3-4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST logical and Historical Conservancy (AHC). Archaeologists were under pressure to finish uncovering the circle feature when the developer gave them only two weeks to complete the excavations in August 1998. Any attempt to associate the Circle’s ceramic assemblage with the age of its construction and use is fraught with chal- lenges because of probable disturbances to the sediments during the Circle’s construction, not to mention during and after its use. However, the one component that is the least likely to be disturbed are those sediments trapped within the individual basins that characterize the Circle’s circumference. These basins vary from 56 to 74 cm in length, and are cut into the bedrock 30 to 45 cm below the bedrock surface. Serving as footer trenches, the basins have smaller circular cut holes at the basin bottom, suggesting that each basin contained numerous wooden posts. Helping to support these posts were numerous limestone rocks pushed and wedged into the basins, many of which are cemented together and concreted from ground water. In addition, shell refuse, faunal bones, and pottery occur in the sediments within the basins, and in some instances artifacts and other cultural material are also cemented onto the limestone bedrock or individual rocks. The general appearance of the | cemented materials and the duracrust within the basins suggests considerable antiquity, although no method for accurately dating the concretion has yet been identified, in part, because the concretion represents secondary material redeposited from unknown sources of unknown age. It is hypothesized that the basin sediments and associated cultural material are largely coeval with the Circle’s construc- tion. The basins provide a protective environment for any materials deposited within them, and particularly from bioturba- tion as the basins are horizontally sealed by their construction into the limestone bedrock. However, any post-Circle holes dug directly on top of a basin could introduce new materials and/or remove associated materials. It is hypothesized that sediments within the basins largely contain materials including pottery of a similar age as the Circle, which is hypothesized to be approximately 2000 years old. In contrast, it is hypothesized that sediments above the basins and in other parts of Block 1 contain a wider variety of ceramic types reflecting more recent use of the site. Contexts This assessment reports the ceramics recovered from three different archaeological investigations of the Miami Circle parcel (Figure 1). A total of 26,281 prehistoric pottery sherds are récorded for the site, of which 23,326 are sand-tempered SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2006