ELGART

MIAMI CIRCLE ANIMAL FEATURES 181

 

 

other turtles, rusted square iron nails, and rusted metal
fragments. Some nails and a rusted metal sheet were
adhering to the bone. A fragment of clear glass also
was present. Although the presence of the ash and the
turtle bone suggests that the carapace may have been
used as a cooking hearth, the shell itself is not charred.
The fact that historic artifacts were attached to the bone
in the deepest part of the deposit (the apex of the
carapace) indicates that they were not intrusive. A
radiocarbon date of 420 + 80 B.P. (A.D. 1330-1650, 2
sigma calibrated age range) dated charcoal recovered
from the deposits within the carapace. However, this
does not actually date the carapace itself, nor does it
accurately date the deposits within the carapace, which
definitely date to the recent past. The age of the
carapace remains in question.

The turtle carapace has been tentatively identified
as belonging to a sub-adult loggerhead sea turtle
(Caretta caretta) (Wheeler 2004b:32). The carapace
measures 65 cm in length and 50 cm in width, which is
small considering that adult female loggerheads nesting
in Broward County measured 97-100 cm in length with

Figure 2. Frontal view of the reconstructed dolphin cranium (Feature an average of 68 cm in width (Fletemeyer 1984:32 in

218) from the Miami Circle at Brickell Point (8DA12).

southeastern quadrant of the Miami Circle (Figures | and 4).
The remains were oriented east-west in units 30 and 35 at a
depth of 2.02 m (6.64 ft) NGVD, within the midden, 9 cm
below the top of the midden layer (Carr and Ricisak 2000).
The teeth representing the position of the head were located
toward the west end and the vertebrae extended eastward. A
shallow footing for a twentieth-century apartment complex lay
atop the shark remains, which seemed to be intact below it.
Morphology of the teeth indicates that the remains belong to a
requiem shark of the genus Carcharhinus (Wheeler 2004b).
The feature measured 1.3 m in length. A sand-tempered plain
pottery sherd was found directly below the vertebrae at an
elevation of 2.04 m (6.7 ft). Bone collagen from the shark
yielded a radiocarbon date of 670 + 30 B.P. (A.D. 1560-1680,
2 sigma calibrated age range). Nearly all coastal sites in
southern Florida contain shark teeth and vertebrae, but recover-
ing remnants of an entire shark is fairly rare.

Sea Turtle Carapace

A large marine turtle carapace (Feature 689; FS #1028),
lying dorsally, was recovered in the southwest part of Unit 64
in the northeast quadrant of the Miami Circle (Figures 1 and 5).
The rim of the carapace was found at an elevation of approxi-
mately 2.0 m (6.56 ft) NGVD (Level 1), and the carapace was
20 cm deep. The carapace was surrounded by black dirt
midden, but the southeast corner of the unit was disturbed by
former construction work. The whole carapace was removed en
bloc and was excavated at a later date by the author.

The dorsal, inverted position of the carapace and the
contents within the carapace indicate that it served as some kind
of container or repository. The carapace contained an unstrati-
fied deposit consisting of ash, vertebral and limb bones from

Wheeler 2004b). Adult loggerheads average about 136

km in weight, and are exceeded in size by leatherback
sea turtles and green turtles (Ernst and Barbour 1972:231). All
of the sea turtles are edible, and the loggerhead is exploited for
its food value (Ernst and Barbour 1972:238). In historic times,
as in the present, the closest beach to the Miami Circle where
loggerheads would have nested was Key Biscayne (Florida
Marine Research Institute 2002).

Another possible interment at the Miami Circle site was
uncovered in Trench 11, located northwest of the Miami Circle
feature. It consists of the articulated lower portion of a raccoon
(Procyon lotor), and was only partially excavated since the
remainder of the remains extended into the trench wall
(Wheeler 2000a:305). Because it remains to be seen whether
this is an interment, it will not be dealt with in this paper.

Discussion
Archaeological Perspectives on Animal Burials

For animal remains to be classified as an interment, a
complete or partial body of an animal must demonstrate
intentional burial in an archaeological context and be devoid of
any type of modification that would suggest a utilitarian role.
An animal burial will be in anatomical position, unlike the
faunal bone found in middens, which is randomly deposited,
with disparate elements of different species commingled. Such
mortuary treatment of remains can include burial within a pit
specifically prepared for the body of the animal, or burial in a
special location, such as a structure or a human grave. In North
America, animal burials date from as early as 8,500 B.P. at the
Koster site in the Illinois River Valley (Morey and Wiant
1992). Dog burials are the most common type of burial in
archaeological sites, and are more often buried with humans
than any other taxon. Canid burials have been found world-