ELGART MIAMI CIRCLE ANIMAL FEATURES , 187 were used ceremonially and were in association with or were near ceremonial areas. The dolphin cranium and shark skeleton from the Miami Circle are unlike many of the recorded animal burials in Florida, which are associated with human burials, although, they qualify as ceremonial trash. Before being buried, the dolphin skull may have been kept for extracting teeth, which are all missing from the cranium (Wheeler 2004b:33), or for warding off evil spirits from the burial grounds located immedi- ately south of the Miami Circle site. The shark interment is tentatively termed an animal sacrifice or ceremonial trash only on tenuous evidence of ritual use of sharks within Tequesta and Calusa culture. It was found within disturbed midden and is similar to the shark interment uncov- ered at the Riviera Complex in Palm Beach County, and there is evidence of ritual activity with shark parts at the Miami Circle site (Widmer 2004). Often, whole sharks were brought to living areas because so much of the shark was used. It is likely that this shark’s meat was not consumed because the skin, teeth and vertebrae remain, and nothing was extracted for use as tools, jewelry, or weapons. The sea turtle carapace was determined not to be an intentional animal interment, but instead it is postulated that it served as a receptacle that was used during the historic period. This assessment is based on the presence of historic artifacts adhering to the carapace. None of the animal interments recovered from the Miami Circle were considered dedicatory interments. This is because they date to over 1000 years after the main construction of the Miami Circle feature, post-date the main occupation period of the site, and were not found in prepared pits or in association with any structures. Two of the three animal interments described here were deemed to be associated with ceremonialism. It is possible that they were interred as ritual trash at the Miami Circle site because it was considered sacred ground to the Tequesta during the Glades III Period, after the main period of habitation. Animal interments may have been present at other Tequesta sites, but they were not recognized as such in the past. In the future, it is vital to treat any animal found whole or nearly whole in an archaeological context as a potential animal burial. Notes ' All elevations were measured in feet and tenths of feet, using the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 as a datum. Acknowledgments Thanks to James Mead of the Smithsonian Institution, who first identified the species of the dolphin. Blair Mays of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) graciously lent me a dolphin skull. Jorge Zamanillo from the Historical Museum of Southern Florida helped with the photographs and allowed me to examine the dolphin and turtle numerous times. Ryan Wheeler, William Straight, and Jim Clupper of the Monroe County Library helped a great deal with background research. James Pepe provided useful comments on the manuscript. Finally, the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy allowed meto reconstruct and excavate, where needed, the interments themselves. References Cited Andrews, AP, 1986 La fauno arqueolégico de El Meco. In Excavaciones Arqueoldgicas en El Meco, Quintana Roo, 1977, edited by A.P. Andrews and F. Robles C., pp. 67-75. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. Serie Arqueologia. Ault, Jerald S., Steven G. Smith, Geoffrey A. Meester, Jiangang Luo, and James A. Bohnsack 2001 Site characterization for Biscayne National Park: Assess- ment of fisheries resources and habits. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-SEFSC-468. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Miami, Florida. Bullen, Ripley P. and Adelaide K. Bullen 1976 = The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society Publica- tion Number 8, Gainesville. Bullen, Ripley P., and Frederick W. Sleight 1960 Archeological investigations of Green Mound, Florida. The William L. Bryant Foundation American Studies Report #2. Orlando. Carr, Robert S., Jeff Ransom, and Alison Elgart-Berry n.d. Archaeological Investigations and Monitoring of the Long Lakes Estates Parcel Broward County, Florida. Technical Report of the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy (in preparation). Davie, Florida. Carr, Robert S., Jeff Ransom, Mark Lance, and Alison Elgart-Berry 2001 A Due Diligence Archaeological Assessment of Brickell Park, Miami, Florida. Technical Report of the Archaeolog- ical and Historical Conservancy #312. Davie, Florida. Carr, Robert S., and John Ricisak 2000 =‘ Preliminary report on salvage archaeological investigations of the Brickell Point Site (8DA12), including the Miami Circle. The Florida Anthropologist 53(4):260-285. Carr, Robert S., and Willard Steele 1993 An Archaeological Assessment of the Hutchinson Island Site (8MT37), Martin County, Florida. Technical Report of the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy #68. Davie, Florida. Childers, R. Wayne 2003 = Historical Notes and Documents: Life in Miami and the Keys: Two reports and a map from the Monaco-Alafia Mission, 1743. Florida Historical Quarterly Vol. 82 (1):59- 81. Coleman, Wesley F. 1989 Salvage excavations at the Trail Site, Dade County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 42(3):257-262. Cushing, Frank Hamilton 1896 = Exploration of Ancient Key Dwellers’ Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Proceedings of the American Philosophi- cal Society 35. Elgart, Alison A., and Robert S. Carr 2006 = An analysis of the prehistoric human remains found at the Miami Circle at Brickell Point site (3DA12). The Florida