156 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2006 VOL. 59(3-4)

 

|

represented because of a data bias caused by site distur-
bances—specifically the construction of the Brickell Point
Apartments in 1949, which leveled much of the site and
removed the most recent cultural horizon (presumably off-site).
However, there are several lines of evidence that indicate that
a significant Glades IH horizon never existed on the Miami
Circle or anywhere on the overall Brickell Point site. If con-
struction activities had impacted and removed a Glades UI
horizon, then it would be anticipated that the numerous areas of
redeposited midden that were encountered across the site during
excavations and monitoring would include some representation
of the Glades II ceramic assemblage. That was not the case
during the three investigations conducted on the Circle parcel.
In fact, only a single Glades Tooled sherd and a single
Matecumbe Incised sherd were found, despite extensive
collections of redeposited midden areas during monitoring and
the overall phase 1 assessment by FBAR.

Reinforcing these observations is the large quantity of
redeposited and in-situ nineteenth century artifacts found in a
horizon that would have been on top of, and probably physi-
cally associated with, the Glades III horizon. If the Glades HI
horizon had been destroyed or removed off-site, then the
nineteenth century assemblage should have suffered a similar
fate, but that is not the case. Disturbances to Block | encom-
passing the Miami Circle were extensive, with an estimated 20
to 30 centimeters of midden removed by 1949 apartment
construction activities, but even these disturbances did not
remove all of the numerous nineteenth century historic artifacts
uncovered there, even though no significant quantities ‘of
Glades ITI ceramics were encountered.

Block 2 encompasses the historic riverbank, part of which
was sealed beneath fill and a limestone rock road that were
placed there during Flagler’s dredging of the mouth of the
Miami River ca. 1900. There is no evidence of the removal of
in-situ sediments since that time. Thus, large quantities of
historic artifacts were recovered from the upper levels of Block
2 units during the MDC excavations. However, no Glades I
markers were uncovered, only Late Glades I and Glades 1
types such as Key Largo Incised, Opa Locka Incised, Miami
Incised, and Dade Incised.

Further evidence of the chronology of the overall Brickell
Point site (DA12) and sites along the south bank of the Miami
River are the numerous investigations of undisturbed midden
components and the monitoring of construction there that have
yielded no significant evidence of Glades III occupation
anywhere on the south bank of the Miami River. Monitoring of
the Holiday Inn construction at Brickell Point in 1981 and
Phase If investigations conducted after the hotel demolition in
2005 (report pending), and at Brickell Park (Carr et al. 2002)

indicate intensive Glades I and II activities, but no Glades IIT -

Period artifact assemblage.

This overall 8DA12 site chronology is important because it
differs from the 8DA11 site chronology on the opposite, north
side of the Miami River (Table 3). Site 8DA11 has extensive
evidence of a Glades III occupation. It is mentioned in various
historic accounts as being the town of Tequesta, which was
occupied from the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries
(Griffin et al. 1983). It also has yielded a large quantity of

Glades Ill pottery types excavated at the Granada and Dupont
Plaza site components (Griffin et al. 1983).

In regard to the specific age of the Circle feature, a review
of the ceramics recovered from 21 of the Circle’s 24 basins
indicate that of 224 pottery sherds only fifteen (7%) are
decorated (Figure 24). Only three decorated sherds from the
basins had been identified during the field investigations
according to the field notes (Features 77, 78, 81). A total of
fifteen decorated sherds was documented during the artifact
cataloguing. During the artifact cataloguing, an additional
decorated sherd (MDC.1.363) was identified from Basin 140.
It is worth noting the Basin 79 decorated sherd (MDC.1.315)
was not recognized by the cataloguers and consequently was
missing from the initial ceramic analysis. Seven decorated
sherds are in the Deptford tradition, specifically two Deptford
Check Stamped (erroneously identified as St. Johns Check
Stamped in the field notes) and the others being St. Johns
simple stamped (n=3) and St. Johns linear check stamped (n=5).

Of particular interest is the number and percentage of St.
Johns ware (n=83; 41%) to sand-tempered plain ware from the
basins (n=108; 55%) (see Table 4). This ratio of St. Johns
Plain is exceptionally high for ceramic assemblages from
southeast Florida, with the exception of the several Late
Archaic/Glades I transitional sites on Biscayne Bay such as the
Santa Maria (DA2132) and Atlantis (DA1082) sites. It should
be noted that the cataloguers identified only 13 St. Johns Plain
in the basins compared to a count of 75 in the final review by
the author, suggesting that the actual number of St. Johns Plain
was under-represented in the initial count and may be four or
five times higher across the site.

In contrast, the percentage of St. Johns sherds at the
Granada site is 17%, which largely represents a Glades II and
If assemblage. Griffin (Griffin et al. 1983:44-45) notes that
the sample is largely biased, since about 90% of the sample was
discarded because the sherds were considered too small or
plain. Thus, the St. Johns ceramic assemblage at the Granada
site is probably less than 10%.

One unusual sherd (MDC.1.985), a chalky ware tetrapod
with check stamping, was found in the spoil in Block 1 near the
Circle. This tetrapod is a classic Deptford trait. A similar
tetrapod has been found in the Oak Knoll Burial Mound
8LL729 (Dickel and Carr 1991 :Figure 13). Ceramic pipes, like
those from near the Circle, also are known in Florida on the
Deptford horizon (Luer 1995).

This high incidence of St. Johns ware, the Deptford influ-
enced decorated types, and the absence of Glades series
decorated pottery associated with the basins strongly suggests
an age range of ca. 700 B.C. to A.D. 200 for the Circle’s
construction. The Deptford types represent almost 27% of the
site’s decorated wares. This supports the author’s hypothesis
that the basins contain cultural material of a limited temporal
range that probably represent the age of the Circle’s construc-
tion or activities occurring shortly after its construction.

The Deptford influence at Brickell Point, particularly with
the construction and use of the Miami Circle structure, is of
particular interest since Deptford ceramic assemblages have
been rarely reported in southern Florida. Among the few sites