Miami Circle Board	1999

A Rejoinder to J. T. Milanich

Posted by Bernie Powell on October 27, 1999 at 14:01:31:

A Rejoinder to J. T. Milanich

B. W. Powell

(This rejoinder was originally submitted 9/15/99 as an electronic draft to the email address suggested for same on its masthead by this publication. For more than a month it went unacknowledged despite subsequent calls to both the editor and ultimately the publisher, who did reply on 10/14/99, citing problems with their automated system. On 10/21/99, E. Himelfarb of the editorial staff invited me to post my submission direct on this Bulletin Board, which I have elected to do. I note this solely for the record and continuity and priority in discussion as might develop.….BWP)

IN AN INTERESTING, if provocative, article in the September issue of Archaeology, noted Florida archeologist Dr. Jerald T. Milanich, through a series of somewhat artfully put questions, re-emphasizes his earlier view that the basins at 8/DA/12, or the "Miami Stone Circle Site" as it is sometimes variously known, may not be creations of ancient Indians at all but perhaps artifacts of the modern era - specifically cavities relating to a 50-year-old septic tank installation.

Of this view, the dig's Project Director, Bob Carr, has recently said, (as quoted in The Miami Herald, 9/3/99) " We've already refuted this business about the septic tank and now we have to do it again, on a national level. What he (Milanich) ignores are the facts he's been presented with".

To all of which I would like to artfully pose a question of my own: can it really be reasonable at this late date, that the pursuit of Field Archaeology, based on tested paradigms of science generally, can so singularly fail to provide a verifiable interpretation for the phenomenon at issue here? Is it even conceivable that the "effects" related to a buried object so large as a modern septic tank, one moreover so recently interred (archeologically speaking) as perhaps a mere fifty years ago, can be all this difficult to determine?

It is said , of course, that "Fools rush in…," but as one of the archeological team which excavated at 8/DA/12, I would like to comment on these matters, and in any event I would like to challenge anew (as I have elsewhere) some widely held erroneous notions about 8/DA/12, and offer some facts not heretofore made public.

I will be as brief as possible and try to restrict myself to the salient points, but not at the expense of glossing over much that has been glossed over before

At the outset, Dr. M states in his September article in this magazine, that "…the story broke in early January." Actually it broke sometime before that: a Boston Globe article ("In Fla., circle in stone has historians talking") ran under date of 12/24/98, preceding the more laggard local Miami Herald ("Rock-Solid Evidence - Markings carved into ancient piece of circular stone reshape experts' theories about Miami's history") four days later. (The Herald, for whatever reason, has consistently emphasized form over content in most subsequent reports on the excavations).

But further as to the particulars Dr. M goes on to cite: he says Mike Baumann, the developer, was given a "permit" before any archaeology was done. This was certainly not my understanding onsite. There is a certain "…what did he know and when did he know it" air about the issuance of this permit as covered by the local press. Perhaps there is even more than one kind of "permit" at stake here (?) or maybe Dr. M has different sources for his information, but it is a fact that the Miami Herald said in an article on 01/31/99 that Baumann "…received a foundation permit from the city late Thursday to start building…". Now this would have been nearly seven months after archaeological work had in fact been going forth at 8/DA/12, and at least five months after I, myself, had joined the daily excavations there.

Describing the archeological phenomena present, Milanich next says "What remained of the midden was buried beneath twentieth-century slabs of concrete, old pipes, and reinforcing rods." This situation being occasioned of course, by the razing of extant buildings, swimming pool, and other structures formerly on the site. Nevertheless, he continues, "Intact midden deposits were indeed present under the recent debris." With this I would have no essential quarrel. But the discrimination of disturbed and undisturbed portions might be another affair, and their probable "contacts" debatable. The basic excavation strategy adopted by the Project Directors was the familiar horizontal strip-by-arbitrary-level method in numbered units within a standard grid . There was not much emphasis on vertical profile analysis through the midden (in my opinion) and this may have missed some critical relations. This is not a specific criticism of the dig strategy and is provided in hindsight; there is no perfect way to excavate any site. But stricter control of vertical relations might have more clearly illumined the inherent nature of deposition for this obscure, grossly homogenous, dense black, organic midden. That the midden did therefore present with some anomalous relations in its upper portions need be kept in mind: recovered at various loci were (probable) Colonial Spanish glass fragments, a variety of apparently forged and wire-drawn iron nails, bottle "kicks", kaolin pipe fragments and other materials largely of the post-Contact period.

It is also incorrect to refer to the basin holes proper as "rectangular" as does Milanich in these same pages. Nor did all of them have the "…small, shallow, round impressions…" in their bottoms as also written there. My own informal field notes on these basins recognize at least three basic types: rectanguloid., ovoid, and irregular. Further, our (official) Dig Feature Log, the last time I used it, would challenge Dr. M's citation of "…200 other holes two to three inches in diameter…", for the Log was tallying somewhere then upward of 600 or more "features" here at that time and these largely consisted of just these holes he cites. (The Log series may have begun at 100 for all I can recall to the contrary, but this would not be a substantive challenge to my point here).

A matter of some personal irritation is the circumstances reported (by others also) concerning the recovery of a sea turtle carapace here (cited by Dr. M as "…a complete sea turtle carapace…"). It was in fact, not "complete," being absent some elements but this is not substantive. What is irritating is first that its onsite recovery which I undertook to do en bloc was done really in the face of indifference by those in charge - having only the enthusiastic support of the only non-archeologist present that day: the builder, Michael Baumann himself. My own field log records the strategems I had to resort to onsite to secure a suitable bottom sheet with which to undercut the en bloc, improvisation and "liberation" of interim jacketing materials, etc. and then the en bloc's eventual recovery and removal as a staggering weight to a (temporary) "shelter" under a nearby bridge abutment. (Where presumably it still languishes under Court injunction.) All I say, in the face of a turn down by the Field Director of a freely volunteered transport to any named safer storage site by a volunteer bystander with a truck.

Within days, the Herald ( 2/11/99) was trumpeting a story about this mundane recovery , and quoting Dig authorities to the effect it was evidence of the site's "sacred use" and that it was "…placed squarely on the Circle's east/west axis…" etc. In point of fact it was only most indifferently "oriented" generally to the east (head end) and rather angularly disposed (not flat) where it was buried within the midden. All most suggestive that it in no significant way varied one jot from the associated thousands of similar turtle carapace fragments and osseous remains which likely comprise the bulk fraction of (food butchering) faunal material at this site. No precise determinations as to orientation or attitude were made at all prior to removal (nor indeed were any such called for, in my opinion).

Now true, Dr. M. does not go into all this detail per se, but his inaccuracies and the Herald's lapses to fact in its many stories - and the many rumors onsite and elsewhere that have plagued interpretation of this site have combined, again in my opinion, to give a most distorted view in many people's minds of the probable nature of the finds so far recorded at 8/DA/12.

Dr. M, for instance, mentions in his article that two small axes or celts were found here, too. Actually, spalls of a third were also reported; only one of these celts was in a tight context and it was not in a basin hole proper, if that is what Dr. M means by "circle hole" in his Archaeology article. The axe in question was in one of the "other" type holes lying just outside the basin ring proper - on its East side, I recall specifically. A great deal of other speculation (not all Dr. M's) has attended these axes - which were unfortunately early-on dubbed "Maya axes" or "Maya-like axes" onsite - despite their obvious generic similarity to a type of axe widely distributed in the Eastern Archaic up and down the Appalachian chain and into New England, where I myself have recovered same in many rockshelter excavations. But it was presumed these basaltic artifacts, perhaps by their gratuitous designations, might indeed actually be from Central America, so petrographic determinations were undertaken locally. (Interestingly perhaps, a leading Mayanist at Yale, had told me early on (personal comm., 4/26/99) "The problem is that the Maya almost never utilized basalt", but in the general press to identify the site with exotic relations, my information went ignored).

And early assessments of the axe fragments - based on anomalies in the titanium fractions, as I understand - did seem to support a Central American origin, as was announced in the Herald (4/14/99). However, it was then finally announced by the same research group in late September that the basalt in the axes actually comes from a site "very near Macon, Georgia". More than a year before I had pointed out at least gross similarities between 8/DA/12 and the famed Mississippian Earthlodge at Ocmulgee Old Fields near Macon, but my observations had gone ignored.

Dr. M makes some mention in his article of the "…Maya astronomical observatory…" notion that was floated here early-on in the uncovering of the Circle - perhaps humorously dismissing it as "… a sort of. South Florida Limestonehenge". Here I am in complete agreement with him. Though this thesis remains an orally expressed view or series of views by its originator, T. Riggs (to the best of my knowledge, for I have seen nothing published on it myself), I believe it's key component is the presumption of using (fortuitously selected) "alignments" of holes across the site to determine sightings on solstice phenomena and possibly other celestial "landmarks". No less a pundit than James Randi, the popular watchdog of scientific protocols, exposes the major flaw in this assumption: the inherent fudge factor in aligning handheld "sighting posts" in these over- and under-sized holes… He (Randi) may have wandered somewhat from his watchdog role however, in his separate endorsement himself earlier of the "septic tank thesis" as being involved here in the basin creations… It remains to note that Miami's own popular TV Astronomy Show personality (nationally syndicated, I believe) one Jack Horkheimer, visited the site and gave an enthusiastic endorsement before a number of witnesses one day when I was present, of the astronomical significances possibly here displayed - and mentioned it all moreover in the same breath with Stonehenge and the less-familiar "Medicine Wheels" and other archeological phenomena of our own continent…

Milanich mentions in his write-up in Archaeology, the many false starts and stops in moves at the popular level to "Save the Circle." This, too, has been a misgiving of mine which I have aired elsewhere: fund-raising efforts and popular outcries to "save" this piece of real estate fail to carry strongly worded endorsements from "on high" pledging a continuance and conclusion of the full scientific investigation now begun on this site, cosmetic disturbances to the land and other inconveniences notwithstanding. Some of these "concerns" include supposed disturbances to "energy vortices", "sacred qualities" and other non-verifiable properties alleged by many activists to be matters at issue here.

This is a distressing state of affairs, from my own view of this matter, and I can only presume a number of like science-minded individuals might concur with me. To me, if the site is not to be saved for scientific study, then in point of fact, there is actually nothing here to be "saved" at all. Those desiring to wrest the site from the builder on grounds that it would be more justified as a "people's park" or "hallowed sacred grounds" or whatever ought to pursue these interests separately and openly in the Courts and not intrude these concerns into the case for scientifically studying the site.

And this has not obviously been made clear by or to the politicians, do-gooders, Native Person activists and supporters, and others - all of whom have interested themselves in the conduct of affairs at 8/DA/12.

Turning to what the "postholes" might be, and what they might be for, I find I am much in agreement with Milanich. He states, in the September article in these pages, that "All the Precolumbian postholes I had ever seen were round or oval". I think most field archeologists would agree with this general observation and that it is simply a consequence of (later) earth filling in around round trunks and saplings used in construction that gives them their circular cross-sections when exposed long after as organic stains in the earth. Since postholes would largely be unanticipated in stone, it is quite possibly a problem of language (in this case, the fallacy of reification) which designates them as postholes here. I believe a similar laxity onsite permitted the suggestion of the "Mayan" origin for the axes.

As to any putative structure here, I must say I agree with his reservations and his misgivings about the absence of "living floors." I early-on raised many of these same questions onsite, but the partyline there was that we have here a defacto council or ceremonial dwelling foundation circle of some kind and that is that! One has only to look at a true-copy plat (as I have posted elsewhere) or any of several available aerial shots of the Circle proper, to see the "Swiss cheese" nature of the enclosed putative living floor. It is really ludicrous (as I again often there pointed out) to name or assume this a "living floor" inside a circular wall! Underscoring this are the many trips and nasty falls some of us took (myself included) in and around these numerous holes as they were progressively cleared during our work at the site! To suppose this once was a dance or gathering area, or living floor of a compound for men, women and children perhaps even the elderly, just won't wash.

It is my own suggestion that if this idea of the dwelling structure be insisted on, that then one must "explain" the interior holes as a concomitant. I suggested in that case then that maybe, after the manner of New World Tropical Climate indigenes today, there might have been a raised living platform here of smooth logs and saplings, in which case the numerous holes might have supported a labyrinth of props and withes for support in turn of such a putative floor.

A strong limiting factor on all interpretations to date might be the lack of a chronological "seriation" for the holes - any of them - basin holes and secondary holes alike. We really do not know how they came into being, in what order, or over what period of time. The central Circle area for instance may once have had far fewer secondary holes or was perhaps even nearly "holefree". Different configurations over time here may have been accompanied by very different usages by the aborigines, etc.

Dr. Milianich gives a brief rundown of some of the "alternate hypotheses" that have been offered here to explain the basin holes. I myself had suggested onsite over a year ago one that he does not list: there is even literature support for it in the Southeast generally (which certainly sets it apart from oddities like the railroad bridge abutment thesis, Mayan Observatory, etc.) and that is that the basins may relate to something like a precursor Black Vomit Ceremony (consumption of Nux vomica teas…) There is in fact, a restored Black Drink Ceremonial Lodge at Ocmulgee Old Fields near Macon, GA, which I visited once - and where an excavated ring of basins - at least as to the basic notion of a "ring of basins" - was at least grossly reminiscent of the 8/DA/12 phenomenon we exposed to view. In light of the axes now being said to be from very near Macon, GA themselves, this may be more than just an interesting coincidence...

Next, warming to his thesis of the septic tank explanation for these basins, Milanitch relates his first visit to the site (which incidentally was nearly two months after the site was formally closed by the Court). Here he remarks of the septic tank intrusion: "Why was it aligned with one edge of the circle and lying on a north-south bisecting line?" It is unclear what significance, if any, Dr. M is asking about here. He really sounds to me like he is succumbing to the "orientation mania" (see preceding) which has seen everything from individual holes to "runs" and alignments of them as significantly "oriented" here. For myself, I am reminded of the legendary Archie Bunker, who remarking on the unusualness of anyone who would choose to live in NJ, finally concluded that , "After all , somebody has to live in NJ!" And that is my sentiment here: After all, everything - including turtle carapaces, septic tanks and slices of pizza pie must perforce lie in some "orientation" or other to the compass points! Lacking any further relevant observation, the mere fact of lying on a given bearing is inconsequential. It is navigators and not archeologists who need to be forever boxing the compass!

(Would the tank have drained (its function) any better for having been further along the circle at some other cardinal point?)

Now Milanich finally reveals his central thesis when he states well down in his article: "With millions of dollars and the reputation of Florida archaeology on the line, I pushed the septic-tank issue."

He floats a number of questions, only partly rhetorical I take it, and asks: "Was it once standard practice for Miami septic tanks to be installed in holes in impermeable limestone?" (Italics mine).

And again,

"Were all those little holes in and around the circle actually seep holes drilled into the limestone?"

Now it is here I think he has gone seriously astray, as do all others who hold for the basins as impermeable catchment phenomena for any number of cited reasons - ancient or modern.

For the Miami Oolite is not an "impermeable limestone:" - it is in point of fact a "permeable limestone!" It is a sort of sponge, into which it would be impractical and largely pointless to dig catchment basins or seep holes - for as a sponge, it is going to take up effluent in spite of everything by the nature of its very porosity!

A leading area geologist with whom I have discussed the limestone at this site at some length over the duration of this dig, has humorously remarked that "…the only impermeable layers we have here in Miami are our city streets after a rain!" A check with authorities of the U.S. Geological Survey verifies this fact about the Miami Oolite. In my opinion it moots Milanich's position, and places a stricture on his advocacy of a perceived need to run down all these further extraneous details about who put the tanks in, and when, and how, and various presumptions relative to any putative drainfields and so on.

If the limestone is pervious there was really no point to be served by excavating an elaborate surrounding ring of basins here. Geologists have apparently long known this fact (USGS Water Resources Investigations Report-90-4108); that it is practical or "working knowledge" of septic tank installers and indeed any number of area residents, would seem a safe assumption.

Milanich for instance asks, "Did the Brickell Apartment septic tanks, installed in limestone, not have traditional fields? " I personally cannot recall any verifying observation at the time of the tank's exposure. It is possible I suppose, but I do not recall it. No gravel-filled distributory trenches were uncovered, either with or without blunt-ended drain tiles (not the bell mouth kind) which are standard for drainfields. It seems these could not have been overlooked, though in truth, a backhoe was used to remove overburden in and near this part of the Circle.

There were subterranean runs of pipe (not across the Circle, however, as I recall) and these lay west and east of the Circle proper. The latter run was a 9-inch bell-mouthed sanitary soilpipe run exposed in what I have called the East Extension Trench. The run to the west stands revealed as a small- diameter pipe, broken off flush with the north face of the West Extension Trench - near its opening at the Circle's west perimeter….

Further to this matter of the possible "uses" for the basins as adjuncts to septic tank operation, there are soil tests which detect anomalies in phosphorous, potassium and nitrogen on sites suspected of former human presence. Surely these or similar chemical evaluations could establish whether sustained quantities of human urine and body wastes were ever long resident in the entrained soil of the basins and perhaps even the stone lining of their walls and bottoms

In his closing remarks , and in fairness to the (current) difficulties of the Dig Directors and the matters going forth in Court here locally, Dr. M states "The Miami-Dade team currently does not even have access to the artifacts they (sic) excavated; those belong to the landowner until the court case is settled."

All this is true and all this is deplorable as far as science is to be served. I have referred earlier to the inadequacies of storage for artifacts and tools onsite, and that long after field investigation had been closed (or suspended) here, to know that these materials are still exposed thus indifferently to weather and possibly even pilfering and thievery - is distressing indeed and might call into question the interim roles of the Court and/or the landowner or whomever is charged as the Inventory Warden for the present.

Milanich recommends that in the future we should, "Cross section some of the holes and compare the presumed toolmarks on their walls with the tool marks apparent on the inside of the hole cut into the limestone containing the septic tank." It is to be noted that SOP for our field operations was to do just this cross-sectioning of holes on both a north/south and an east/west axis. Space for this was provided on all field forms, and excavators were repeatedly urged to record these data for every "feature" hole excavated.

As to the further matter of the appearance of toolmarks, hard shell-spuds made from the columellae of marine whelks, mounted in replicated digging lances, were able (by a basically percussive reduction technique) in limited demos onsite to duplicate aspects of many of the original small holes. This emulated many of the "toolmarks" so-called, and even yielded the central "nipple" or mound remarked at the bottom of so many of the smaller ancient holes. Milanich says a metal tool may have been used to dig "…at least one of the holes." But I take this to mean in context he must be refer to the shape, not the texture of the hole. The bucket-teeth on excavation equipment have left occasional characteristic square-sectioned cavities in the oolite - both earlier (50 years ago) and more recently, but these are easily discriminated from other cavities.

That some of the holes might have an etiology other than an anthropogenic one was an early surmise of mine but I have largely suspended this as I have not so far been able to establish the reasonableness for a distribution of holes in a ring pattern. But strikingly similar holes do occur elsewhere in marine limestones - even as far distant as Bermuda, and the last word may not yet be in on just how the holes arose - whether or no early cultures further modified extant ones or not or began them in many cases de novo (perhaps the natural ones provided the model for undertaking the (tedious?) duplication of so many others right amongst them?). I have elsewhere listed some futher observations as to the uniqueness of these holes and possible uses for them, but it would not really be germane to introduce that here.

Bernie Powell
North Miami Beach, FL 33160
Originally submitted Sept. 13, 1999
Resubmitted Oct. 14, 1999
Posted to Bulletin Board Oct. 27, 1999

• Anvilbangr's

Back to Board