What was the Miami Circle: Letter to the Editor 2


Letter to the Editor	"What was the Miami Circle?" September 28, 1999
by Christopher R. Eck

I read with alarm and disappointment your magazine's recent article, "Much Ado About A Circle," by Jerald T. Milanich regarding the renowned Miami Circle site at Brickell Point. I was alarmed because the content of Milanich's article contains a number of factual errors and is disingenuous about the objectivity of his comments. I am also disappointed that your editorial staff did not see fit to exercise good journalistic practice by checking on the accuracy of his information with those principally involved, Robert S. Carr and John M. Ricisak, or by offering them the courtesy of responding to Milanich's points (even as a sidebar). As Milanich alludes, a debate over the conclusions regarding any discovery is healthy, but his article was not a debate as much as it was a monologue by someone who has had no connection with this find and who had only a single brief (half-hour) viewing of the project.

To start, Milanich's article is fraught with inaccuracies, ranging from the mundane to the important. Among the most basic mistakes, for example, is that he states that the "building project would destroy whatever was left of the shell middens of the Brickell Point." Unlike the middens of central and north Florida with which Milanich may be familiar, the Miami Circle site is a "black dirt" midden, not a shell midden, where the presence of black organic soil and faunal bone are predominant.

On a more consequential level, Milanich makes a number of false declarations and demonstrates his poor grasp of the facts. One prime error is his declaration that the Granada site "no longer exists," when the reality is that a substantial portion of the site still remains in a deliberately created conservation area within the hotel property. This is a fact that is clearly described in the final report of the excavations and abundantly clear to anyone who has taken the time to even skim its pages. Another Milanich misapprehension is that he states that "no archaeologists had ever found postholes cut into limestone," which is patently false. Though he is unfamiliar with the archaeology of the Miami area, at least two other excavations of prehistoric sites in the proximity of the Miami Circle site have discovered postholes cut into the limestone.

More troubling is the fact that Milanich ignores at least two independently-produced site evaluation reports, that were provided him by the state archaeologist James Miller (his companion during his brief visit to the site), written by several highly respected archaeologists (Randolph Widmer, Brent Weisman, and George Luer) and an architectural historian (Herschel Shepard), who refute the septic-tank theory. All of these individuals spent more time examining the site, studying its artifacts and fieldnotes, and having open and in-depth discussions with the excavators regarding the work. Milanich did not do any of this.

Additionally, the article impugns the skill, integrity, and rational ability of Carr, an archaeologist with three decades of archaeological research and expertise throughout Florida and whose work has been often cited in Milanich's own publications, when he writes in his opening paragraph, "Figuring out what the circle is or is not has become less important than preserving it any cost." You might ask yourself why Carr, the current authority on the archaeology of southeastern Florida and the former director of this office (he retired in March 1999 after 22 years of service with the county), would place his reputation on the line for, of all things, a septic-tank drainfield. After all, it was Carr and Ricisak who provided Milanich with official recorded copies of the now-razed apartment complex plans detailing the septic tank's design scheme that clearly demonstrates that any relationship between the two features is merely proximity of space.

In the realm of utter speculation, Milanich states that the developer of the site, "who paid nearly $10 million for the property [it was $8 million], stands to make more than 20 times that amount if allowed to develop his apartment complex." How does he know what the developer will make; is he prescient? By stating this he assumes a number of things: that this development was properly permitted (an open question which has been raised in the court case); that it would be constructed as planned (not a single foundation has been poured); that the company would continue to remain solvent and bank-financed despite the vagaries of both the business world and the economy; that $200,000,000 (the "20 times" figure) is after-cost profit; and, that he would even be able to sell his development five to six years down the road for what he optimistically projects to make now. Am I to believe that in addition to his position as a curator at a museum, he is also a legal, financial and economic expert?

I would not be so frank in my writing to you if the issues surrounding the Miami Circle were of small consequence. They are not. As you know, and largely now as a result of the article published by your magazine, quite a lot is at stake with this site. I request and believe that it is your responsibility to provide the archaeologists that actually worked on the site with a fair opportunity to respond to the Milanich article. This response should also be allowed space equal to that provided Milanich to present the evidence and reasoning that we believe plainly "debunks" his septic-tank theory.

Truly yours,
Christopher R. Eck, M.A., J.D.
Director, Miami-Dade Historic Preservation Division

Back