186 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2006 VOL. 59(3-4)

 

The majority of bone artifacts found at the Miami Circle
were shark-derived (Wheeler 2004a:134-135). The 103
perforated shark or ray centra and 131 modified shark teeth
recovered are predominantly from several species of requiem
sharks, as well as from lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris),
tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvieri), and sand-tiger sharks
(Odontaspis taurus). These two types of artifacts are common
in southern Florida sites, and represent practical uses for shark
remains: perforated centra may have been used as beads or
earspools (Richardson and Pohl 1982:93), and shark teeth were
probably hafted and used as tools and weapons (Wheeler
2004a: 137).

The shark skeleton recovered from the Miami Circle
constitutes an animal burial, but it is difficult to determine
whether it falls under the animal sacrifice/ceremonial trash or
simple interment category. The fact that whole shark carcasses
were transported to sites in order to utilize many parts and the
occurrence of shark carcasses at other sites that are not “inter-
ments” supports the “simple interment” categorization. Further-
more, the shark was interred in midden, not in any prepared pit,
and is not associated with any obvious structures.

However, there is evidence that sharks were revered and
highly valued in Tequesta culture and this shark was not utilized
for its parts (evident by the remains present), which would give
credence to categorizing it as an animal sacrifice or ceremonial
trash. Widmer (2004:52-53) recovered a “dedication cache”
consisting ofa shark steak (represented by six vertebrae) placed
inside of a ceramic vessel at the Miami Circle. According to
Widmer, the vessel was placed at the base of a posthole prior to
the insertion of a post and represents ritual behavior surround-
ing sharks. Shark teeth were also used as adornments as well as
tools and were placed within human burials in both Calusa and
Tequesta cultures during the terminal Glades complex. Grave
goods at many southern Florida sites have included single-
drilled and double-drilled shark teeth of both extant and fossil
sharks (Carr et al. n.d.; Wheeler 2004a). Metal pendants in the
form of shark teeth, constructed from either sheet silver or
larger pieces of silver, have been found at several sites in
Glades, Palm Beach, Osceola, and Charlotte Counties (Wheeler
2000b and references therein). At the Granada site (3DA!1),
located on the north side of the Miami River, a bone pin was
recovered, the head of which consists of an effigy of shark
vertebrae (Wheeler 1996:144). No human burials were
recovered from the Miami Circle site (Elgart and Carr, this
issue), but if the area was considered sacred or used ceremoni-
ally by the Tequesta, as Widmer and Carr suggest, then perhaps
the shark was ceremonially trashed here.

Sea Turtle Carapace. The sea turtle carapace does not appear
to be an animal burial. The carapace contains a single, thick
layer of ash, rusted metal, glass, and turtle bone, but the bone
itself was not charred, indicating that it was not used for
cooking nor was it burned. The rusted square nails and rusted
pieces of metal were not intrusive, they were found throughout
the deposit, and some of this metal was still adhering to the
shell. The radiocarbon date of 420+ 80 B.P. (A.D. 1330-1650,
2 sigma calibrated age range) from charcoal within the ash
indicates that it is possible that the carapace served some ritual
or utilitarian purpose during the Late Glades period, but it is

more likely that the carapace never served any purpose until
historic times, when it was used as a receptacle. Either way, it
was not buried until after nails were deposited into it during the
historic period.

Sea turtle bone served different purposes in prehistoric
American cultures. At El Meco, Mexico, a small, ceremonial-
habitational site dating to the early Classic period, turtle
carapaces were used as containers (Andrews 1986:69).
Hawksbill tortoiseshell, which is composed of the epidermal
scutes that overlie the bony carapace, was used for hairpins and
ornaments in the southeastern U.S. (Frazier 2003:19).

Marine turtle remains are very common in Florida and
Caribbean sites (Frazier 2003), and most likely represent food
refuse. At the Granada site, remains of 63 sea turtles were
found (Wing and Loucks 1982:277), and at the Riviera Com-
plex, a large portion of a turtle was uncovered in the cooking
area (Wheeler 1992b:5). Several turtle interments have been
found as well. Two sea turtle crania, one of which was from a
loggerhead, were found within a human burial at the Palm
Beach 3 Burial Mound (8PB26) (Johnson 1952:36), and parts
of a loggerhead turtle were found at the Santa Lucea site
(8MT37) in St. Lucie County (Carr and Steele 1993:14). Atthe
Golden Rock site on St. Eustatius in the Caribbean, the skeleton
of a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) was found
upside down, similar to the orientation of the carapace found at
the Miami Circle, but it was much more complete (Van der
Klift 1992:74).

Conclusions

Interments of a dolphin cranium, a shark, and a sea turtle
carapace recovered at site 8DA12 were discussed. The
radiocarbon dates for the dolphin and shark interments place
them within the late Glades III to European Contact periods.
The date of the sea turtle carapace is uncertain, but associated
artifacts attest to its use during the historic period.
Stratigraphically, the interments were located in the upper
levels of the site, which is a disturbed level, containing both
prehistoric and historic deposits. The interments post-date the
extensive midden deposition at the site. Analysis of the Miami
Circle site artifacts and ethnographic evidence suggest that the
Tequesta moved the center of their village to the north side of
the river (to 8DA11) by the Glades [I-III period. However,
after the Miami Circle site no longer served as a focal point for
habitation, the Brickell Point area may still have been used for
ceremonial purposes.

The capture of dolphins and sharks required advanced
technology, and was most likely a costly but valuable pursuit.
These animals were apparently prized for their teeth, which
were wom ornamentally, and used for tools as well.
Ethnographic evidence from Tequesta sites, and material
evidence from Calusa sites suggests that dolphins and sharks
were revered by the Tequesta.

The animal interments were assessed using Hill’s (2000)
categorization of animal burials and were compared to other
interments in North America and Florida. The survey of animal
interments in Florida and the U-S. described here reveals that
many of the Florida interments, although not all, fall into Hill’s
ceremonial trash and animal sacrifice category because they