Miami Circle Board	1999

re: "Much Ado About a Circle"

Posted by John Ricisak on October 21, 1999 at 07:15:49:

The answer to Jerald Milanich's question "Could Miami's heralded Indian site be a 1950's septic tank drain?" is, unequivocally, No. This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a large body of archaeological and other evidence and is supported by the independent assessment of numerous professional archaeologists, geologists, and plumbing specialists. Dr. Milanich's hypothesis, first promulgated by "The Amazing Randi" no less, is supported by nothing other than the fact that a septic tank and the so-called Miami Circle happen to share the same location.

If Dr. Milanich wants to impugn the authenticity of the site, he is free to do so. Unfortunately, he has chosen a route which, in my opinion, places him among the "cranks" he denounces in his article. His article selectively and often erroneously presents information which apparently bespeaks of both a personal bias and a complete lack of field experience in southern Florida.

Dr. Milanich inexplicably makes little or no mention in his article of important facts (about which he was aware) which support the site's antiquity, authenticity, and significance. Milanich does not mention plumbing permits and plan sketches which clearly indicate that the septic tank had no drain field. These plans show that it discharged directly to nearby Biscayne Bay, a common practice in south Florida coastal areas prior
to the 1960's. He states that the site produced no evidence of a living floor and that no archaeologists had ever found postholes cut into limestone, both of which are incorrect. He fails to mention the enormous
quantities of pre-Columbian midden material recovered from the over 600 hundred intact posthole features excavated on site, and that none of them produced a single modern artifact. He fails to mention that these features were found in several locations throughout the 2.2 acre parcel, including beneath the now-razed apartment buildings and in areas well away from any of
the site's multiple septic tanks. He also fails to mention the endorsement of several professional archaeologists and geologists who have examined the
site, all of whom spent far longer than Dr. Milanich's half-hour visit (during which he limited his inquiries to the septic tank.) He omits the findings of an independent panel of experts who concluded that the site "is significant on the local, state, and national levels of criteria, and that [its] further archaeological investigation and preservation would be of
enormous public benefit." And I could go on....

Dr. Milanich also fails to address what is perhaps the most fundamental question of all; would it make sense to construct a nearly perfectly circular and particularly patterned arrangement of holes, using hand tools,
if the purpose was to merely facilitate drainage? Would not a random arrangement do just as well? Why not make the job easier by using a mechanical drill or backhoe? Why not construct a conventional drainfield?

Dr. Milanich provides no contrary evidence to support his hypothesis and depends entirely on conjecture that has little or no factual basis. He clouds the issue by suggesting that the site's geological conditions are
somehow exceptional (they are not) and that septic tanks installed in limestone may require special measures (they do not). He states that "at least one" of the site's posthole features appeared to have been dug using metal tools. One out of over 600? Which one?

Worst of all, Dr. Milanich presented his ideas in a forum which did not provide Robert Carr and myself an equal opportunity to review or respond to his article. Dr. Milanich is correct that more archaeological investigation of the site is necessary. The irresponsible publication of Dr. Milanich's
article seriously jeopardized efforts to preserve the site and the possibility that such investigation would ever take place.

If Dr. Milanich deems the reputation of Florida archaeology to be at stake over the Miami Circle issue, it is because he has helped to put it there.
Peer review and a healthy dose of skepticism are the lifeblood of good archaeology, but personal bias has no place in it.

Say what you will about T.L. Riggs' equally baseless theory that the Circle is of Mayan origin, but at least Mr. Riggs knows something old when he sees it.

Sincerely,

John Ricisak
Field Director
"Miami Circle" Archaeological Project

Back to Board