HomeMy WebLinkAboutArchaeological and Historical AssessmentAn Assessment of Potential Archaeological Impacts
On Miami One -Parcel D, Miami, Florida
by
Robert S. Carr
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
for
Miami One, -Inc.
AHC Technical Report # 263
July, 2002
Table of Contents
List of Figures
ii
Consultant Summary 1
Project Setting
Previous Research - 6
Summary of Archaeology and History of the Area 8
Methodology 1 2
Results and Conclusions 15
Recommendations
References Cited
Appendix 1. Test Hole Log
Appendix 2. Artifact Inventory
Appendix 3. Archaeological Investigations/Monitoring Projects in Downtown
Miami and Vicinity. and Their Impacts on Development
18
19
22
29
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Project Area 3
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph (1999) of Project Area 4
Figure 3. Plat Map (1925) of Project Area 5
Figure 4. Map of Historic Overlay 13
Figure 5. Map of Archaeological Test Holes on Parcel D 14
Figure 6. Map of Archaeological Test Results on Parcel D 17
ii
Consultant Summary
In February -March, 2000, an archaeological assessment was conducted of Parcel D of the Miami
One project. This assessment included an archival review and test hole augering of the entire
parcel. A total of 35 auger holes six inches in diameter were dug. All of the recovered
sediments were screened and all cultural materials collected.
These tests and the archival review indicate that Parcel D is highly disturbed from the previous
construction of the Royal Palm Hotel and its subsyquent demolition. Nonetheless, auger hole
evidence indicates that prehistoric and late 19th and 20`h century historic refuse occurs across the
parcel. However, unlike the deep black dirt middens that characterize the Granada and Dupont
Plaza components of site 8DA11, Parcel D revealed minimal evidence of black dirt midden
deposits except towards the southern boundary of the property. In fact, Parcel D may compare
favorably with the Southeast Bank parcel located directly to the east. When construction began
there archaeological monitoring was conducted. Although pockets of black dirt middenwere
uncovered there along with prehistoric artifacts, no work delays or obstructions occurred.
It is recommended that the development of Parcel D be conducted in a manner that will minimize
any possibility of a work stoppage or obstructions relative to the archaeological recording and
recovery of any significant artifacts and/or features that might occur on the parcel. A proactive
mitigation plan is presented in this report. This plan recommends dividing the parcel into at least
four sub -parcels, with the archaeological consultant recording any possible features in each of
the parcel quadrants prior to construction activities. Although monitoring by archaeologists of
initial groundbreaking and construction excavation activities will still be a requirement, this pro-
active archaeological program will reduce and minimize any potential work obstructions that
might occur during construction.
There should be comfort in the fact that of the nineteen previous archaeological excavations and
monitoring projects conducted at developments in downtown Miami and along Brickell Avenue,
which included the discovery of human remains at four of these sites, only one discovery, the
Miami Circle, resulted in any obstruction or delay to a developmental project (see Appendix 3).
1
Project Setting
The project parcel is located in downtown Miami near the mouth of the Miami River and
encompasses 1.74 acres. The rectangular parcel measures 325 feet along its east -west alignment
and about 225 feet along its north -south boundaries. The property islocated in Section 1 of
Township 54S, Range 42E, and is bounded on the north by SE 2"d Street, on the east by SE 3rd
Avenue, on the south by SE 3r:d Street, and on the west by SE 2nd Avenue.
The USGS soil map for the parcel describes the parcel as Urban land, or an area where more
than 85% of the surface is covered by shopping centers, parking lots, streets, sidewafls.
buildings, houses, and other structures where natural soils are not easily observed. The soils in
the remaining open areas are mainly Udorthents. These soils have generally been altered by land
grading and shaping or have been covered with about 18" of extremely stony, loamy fill: Test
holes dug on the parcel indicate that construction debris and fill of various types occur across the
property, but remnants of light to medium gray sand occur there indicating the typical pinewood
environment that would have existed there prior to development.
The parcel is located on a natural limestone ridge, known as the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, which
underlies most of urban Miami. Elevations on the parcel average 8-10 feet above sea level. The
parcel's elevation is high enough and sufficiently distant from the river (about 600 feet), that fill
requirements prior to the construction of the Royal Palm Hotel would have been minimal, if non -
extant.
The property is a vacant parcel used for commercial parking. The parcel has been used for
parking for at least 50 years. Prior to that use, it was the site of the Royal Palm Hotel, built by
William Flagler in 1896, and demolished after the 1926 hurricane. The hotel extended beyond
Parcel D, but a major part of the hotel complex, including an elevated swimming pool were
located on the subject parcel (see Figure 4). The pool house measured approximately 80 feet by
180 feet and was located on the northwest corner of the parcel. A railroad spur built to bring
materials for building the Royal Palm Hotel entered Parcel D from its west boundary and
extended Pastward on the north side of the hotel (see Figure 4). The hotel proper had a basement
cut into the limestone bedrock.
Prior to the construction of the hotel, the parcel was part of the pioneer Miami settlement
associated with Ft. Dallas, a military encampment that was occupied intermittently between 1836
to 1858 on the north bank of the Miami River, and although most of the principal structures
associated with the fort were located closer to the river and the bay, some outbuildings may have
been located on Parcel D.
f8.' fk� `"'Ya.Citc11 t Basin
\CI,
v o
m`
CO
Libra
38-
Figure 1. Map of Project Area
Township 54 South, Range 42 East
Section 1
Source: U.S.G.S. Miami, h1. (Rev.1969)
1iZ
1 MILE
3
4
J."
• .
• r— i (./
[Li
'2d;' i • r
--I
449- . ; SW/MMING POOL
6.VE• / L
r'
r-
,
•
\
•
•
;
r-
KC Y.4 .L PA LM HUTEL
GROPLIET
CCURr
TT/viva
cower
-,,E,F4A-rd4 • -
--its. •
--I I'
i •
1.
I
70
77:
I
!
-
r .
.1 l
i , \ •
/n,' ' r
1 1 \\
II •\\ \ • 0// 1 ,
! '
8/17.
(,1
k \ 1 . 's ' '.. ' ... '... ' • : .1. " - • 0.. - - - — - -- - - - - - 1 1
I I
r-• 1 ---- 7, /-
. I
I - / / •
Figure 3. Plat Map (1925) of Project Area
Source: G.M. Hopkins Plat Book of Greater Miami and Suburbs. Florida. 1925
Feet
0
100
200
5
Previous Research
A review of Florida's Division of Historic Sites file in Tallahassee, and files in Miami -Dade
County's Historic Preservation Division indicates that site 8DA11 is recorded in the immediate
vicinity of the subject parcel. A component of 8DA11, Iocated adjacent and directly east of the
parcel was monitored in 1983 during the construction of the Southeast Bank Building. In
addition, burial mound 8DA14, previously destroyed, was located 600 feet east-southeast of the
project parcel. Several other prehistoric and historic sites are located within '/4 mile of the parcel
on both the .north and south banks of the Miami River. In addition, the parcel is located within
one of the City of Miami's Archaeological conservation areas.
The earliest investigations of archaeological sites on the Miami River occurred in 1884 when
Andrew Douglass on his ship Seminole visited six different mounds in the area and excavated a
sand burial mound south of the mouth of theriver uncovering only a ceramic bowl. Douglass
classified the Miami mounds into two categories: sand and rock, and was of the opinion that only
the sand mounds were of significance (Douglass 1884). One of the mounds he visited was
8DA14 located, prior to its destruction, east or southeast of the subject parcel.
In 1949, archaeologist John Goggin created Florida's first site inventory and recorded seven.sites
at or near the mouth of the Miami River, including the historic village of the Tequesta, 8DA11,
on the north bank of the river, and 8DA12 at Brickell Point on the south bank. Goggin and
several of his students did some limited testing at Brickell Point although he published no reports
on this work (Goggin 1949).
In September 1956, avocational archaeologist Dan Laxson conducted excavations at the north
bank of the Miami River at the site of the Dupont Plaza prior to its construction. His excavations
uncovered a deep black dirt midden (Laxson 1968). In September 1958 through February 1959,
Laxson dug at Brickell Point, stirred by the pending construction of the Elks Club there. He also
conducted tests on the black dirt midden near the south bank of the Miami River in the vicinity
of the Customs House.
In 1961, test units were dug near the last remaining Brickell house by students Robert Carr and
Mark Greene who made extensive surface collections from beneath the house. - They also
documented a significant prehistoric site, 8DA1067, at the present location of the US Customs
House on the south bank of the river. In 1962-1963, Carr collected several Spanish artifacts
from the grounds of the Granada Apartments at the present location of the Hyatt Knight Center.
All of the artifacts collected by Carr and most of those collected by Greene repose at the
Historical Museum of South Florida.
In 1978, Florida's Division of Historic Resources directed salvage excavations of the Granada
site, located on the west side of the Brickell Avenue Bridge. This site represents the western
portion of site 8DA11. This work resulted in the recovery of tens of thousands of artifacts, shell
refuse, and animal bone elements (Griffin et al. 1985).
In 1979-1980, the Dade County Historic Survey was initiated, which resulted in the documenting
of several hundred sites across the country and the creation of a county historic preservation
ordinance in 1981. In 1980, the county agency directed salvage excavations at the site of the last
Brickell House prior to the construction of a Holiday Inn (now the Sheraton Hotel), as well as the
recovery of archaeological material during the excavations of pilings for the Hyatt swimming
pool.
In 1998-1999, the Miami Circle associated with an extensive black dirt midden was uncovered
after the demolition of the Brickell Apartments at Brickell Point. This represented the northeast
component of the Brickell site, 8DA12. - •
A review of archaeological investigations and monitoring indicates that since 1956, a total of 19
major archaeological investigations and monitoring have been conducted on properties located in
downtown Miami and adjacent to Brickell Avenue (see Appendix 3). Of these, 18 have been
conducted since 1978. Fourteen of these archaeological projects encountered significant artifacts
and/or features, but only four (19%) encountered human remains. No discovery of human
remains resulted in a work stoppage. All four of the human skeletal discoveries resulted in the
recovery of the remains, and in one case, the preservation of the burials within the parking island
entrance at the Atlantis Condominium. In fact, only the discovery of the Miami Circle, a unique
prehistoric feature cut into the bedrock, has resulted in an adverse impact on a project
development.
7
Summary of Archaeology and History of'the Area
The project parcel is located within the Glades area which was originally defined by M. W.
Stirling in 1936 as a distinctive cultural area to include all of Southern Florida. John M. Goggin
defined more specific boundaries for the area and identified three inclusive sub -areas (1947).
These were the Calusa sub -area in southwest Florida, the "Teketa" sub -area for Southeast
Florida and the Florida Keys, as well as the Okeechobee sub -area around Lake Okeechobee.
Goggin classified these sub -areas on the basis of his recognition of their distinctive natural
environments, the different tribes in those regions during historic times, and differences in the
archaeological record.
A redefinition of the Glades culture area was offered using the term Everglades Area by Beriault
and Carr to encompass only southeast, Florida (Carr and Beriault 1984: 1-11). In 1988, Griffin
concurred by using Everglades Area in his recent synthesis of South Florida archaeology (1988).
This revision confines the Everglades Area to southeastern Florida and the Florida Keys. It is
difficult to determine an exact western boundary for the area, but Beriault and Carr suggest one
somewhere west of the Shark River and east of Turner River, probably near the eastern boundary
of Big Cypress Swamp. A northern boundary would be somewhere near the Broward-Palm
Beach County line (Carr and Beriault 1984:2).
Paleo Indian Period (10000 B.C. to 8000 B.C.
The Paleo-Indian lived in southern Florida in probable association with mammoths, bison, and
other. types of megafauna. Deposits of fossilized Pleistocene bone have been uncovered by
dredging operations from several locations in South Florida and from solution holes in southern
Dade County. Martin and Webb (1974) note tI- wide range of grazing ungulates and sloths
indicating more extensive grasslands than present. With the extinction of the megafauna by
about 11,000 years ago, the Paleo-Indian apparently made an effective adaptation to the
emerging wetlands of southern Florida, and began to establish the pattems of subsistence that
were to provide the basis of resource procurement for the subsequent 10,000 years. Evidence of
the Paleo-Indian in southern Florida is now well established with the discovery of a late
Paleo/Early Archaic site at Cutler in South Dade County (Carr 1986). Radiocarbon dates of
9,640 +/- 120 years were determined for this site which yielded evidence of exploitation of deer
and rabbit, some marine fauna, and some indication of hunting extinct horse and peccary.
However, the majority of data from this site reflects an Indian adaptation to the post -extinction of
New World megafauna.
Archaic Period (6500 B.C. to 1000 B.C.)
During the Post Glacial era, the sea level rose and greatly diminished Florida's land size. It has
been calculated that the rate of sea level rise was approximately 8.3 cm per 100 years from 6000
to 3000 years ago. That rate has decreased to about 3.5 cm per 100 years from 3000 years ago to
present (Scholl et al. 1967). By 5000 years ago, cypress swamps and hardwood forests
characteristic of the sub -tropics began to develop in southern Florida (Carbone 1983, Delcourt
and Delcourt 1981). The Archaic Period was characterized by an increased reliance by the
8
native populations on the shellfish and marine resources on the coast, and a generally expanded
hunting, fishing, and plant gathering base throughout southern Florida. Archaeologists were not
aware until recently of the extent and nature of Archaic Period sites in southern Florida. The
earliest dated mid -Archaic archaeological materials are from the Bay West site, a cypress pond
mortuary situated -in Collier County northeast of Naples (Beriault et al. 1981). It is likely that the
Bay West site was a hydric sinkhole that provided an "oasis" and water hole during the much
drier mid -Archaic period. Radiocarbon dates recovered there indicate a temporal range of 5500
to 7000 years ago. This chronology and the cultural materials, particularly the preservation of
organic materials, are very similar to those recovered from Little Salt Spring 110 km to the north
(Clausen et al. 1979). The mortuary pond is undoubtedly one of the characteristic types of
cemeteries of the Archaic Period throughout central and southern Florida.
A mid -Archaic Period site was recently discovered in Broward County, the first site from this
period discovered in southeast Florida (Carr and Sandler 1991). The site, 8BDI119, was
discovered on Pine Island Ridge. Characterized by a scatter of chert flakes and several
mid -Archaic projectile points, the site appears to be lithic workshop for reshaping tools.
Sites from the Late Archaic Period are becoming increasingly evident in Southeast Florida. Sites
dating from as early as 4000 years ago have been located along Biscayne Bay (Carr 198lc), but
Late Archaic horizons appear to be common place on Everglades sites. Radiocarbon dates in the
Everglades indicate early ages of 3050 years ago, +/- 140 years for the Peace Camp site (Mowers
and Williams 1972: 18), and 4840 years ago +/- 210 years for Taylor's Head (8BD73) (Masson et
al. 1988:346).
The Late Archaic Period is distinguished by the development of fiber -tempered pottery. The
Orange series of fiber -tempered pottery is well documented by Cockrell on Marco Island (1970),
and undecorated fiber -tempered pottery has been recovered on the southeast coast at the Atlantis
site (Carr 1981b). Sites containing fiber -tempered pottery have been dated from as early as 3400
+/- 100 years ago on Marco Island, and dates of ca. 2500 years ago at the Firebreak site in
Collier County, and 3000 +/- 4000 years ago along Biscayne Bay (Carr 1981b). Partial fiber and
sand tempered pottery has been recovered from interior sites such as the Honey Hill site
(8DA411) and the 202nd Street site in northern Dade County, and the Markham Park (8BD183)
site in Broward County.
The Glades Period (Ca. 750 B.C. -1750 A.D.)
Goggin (1947) defined three periods for the Formative Era. Using decorated pottery types that
have proven to be effective time markers, he created the Glades I, II and III 'periods. These
divisions have proven most useful in extreme southern Florida. The Glades I Early period (750
B.C. ca. A.D. 200) is characterized by the use of undecorated sand -tempered pottery. Ceramic
decorations in extreme southern Florida were developed by 500 A. D. with the inception of the
Ft: Drum decorated series. While decorated types' begin during Goggin's Late Glades I period,
future revisions of the Glades period may simply make the first appearance of decorated wares
coincide with the inception of the Glades II Period.
9
During the Glades II period (A. D. 750 - A. D. 1200), there were shifts in ceramic styles that
allow archaeologists to accurately divide the period into three sub -periods based on the relative
frequency of certain decorative styles (i.e., Key Largo Incised, Miami Incised, Sanibel Incised,
etc.). Mound construction was also common place during this period, reflecting the rise of a
stratified society with a select ruling and/or priest class.
During the Glades II and III periods (A.D. 1200 - A.D. 1750), there was a shift in ceramic
decorations and vessel shape in extreme southern Florida. Griffin reports the near absence of
decorated pottery between A.D. 1000 - A.D. 1200 (1974). Occurrences of St. Johns tradeware
and Belle Glade Plain increase along the east coast; and in general, a thriving trade network that
brought a variety of exotic resources, such as lithic tools and ornaments, is evident.
Historic Period (A.D. 1513 - A.D. 19001
The earliest historic reference to the town of Tequesta is on the Herrera map of 1514; where the
town of "Chequesta" is depicted opposite the river's mouth. Although supporting documents are
elusive, it is apparent that this place name is a result of Ponce de Leon's first Florida voyage in
1513, when he apparently anchored near Key Biscayne (Santa Marta), and perhaps either visited
or leamed from a Native informant of the large Indian town at the river's mouth.
In 1567, Pedro Menendez initiated contact with the chief (cacique) of Tequesta through the help
of Spanish mutineers who had been protected by the Tequesta during their landing there (Parks
N.D.: 24). Menendez left a contingent of Spaniards who built a chapel for a Jesuit cleric and
built houses for the Christians. Menendez's settlement contained twenty-eight houses enclosed
by a stockaded fort (True 1945). After fighting broke out between the Spanish and Indians, the
settlement was abandoned in 1570.
In 1743, a second mission was attempted when Father Joseph Maria Monaco and Joseph Xavier
Alaiia left Cuba, and began a new settlement on the north bank of the Miami River. This
attempt, which included the construction of a triangular wood fort, also failed. Alafia found the
native populations severely reduced in number encompassing remnants from different tribes
around south Florida. These tribal remnants migrated to Cuba when Spain ceded Florida to
England in 1763 (Romans 1962). The depopulated town of Tequesta was soon occupied by
English and Bahamian adventurers who began to visit and exploit the resources of the South
Florida coast.
The Seminoles and Miccosukis did not arrive into southern Florida in mass until the Second
Seminole War, although some north Florida tribes, such as the Alachua, may have had
settlements in the area earlier in the 19th century. The Seminoles never occupied the mouth of
the Miami River because of the presence of white settlers and the establishment of Ft. Dallas
which operated intermittently from 1836-1858. After the Civil War, Seminoles began to trade at
the frontier Miami settlement, bringing alligator skins, pelts, and plumes to trade for food, cloth
and guns. The Ewan store, located in the old Ft. Dallas site, and the Brickell store on the south
bank of the site, became focal points for Seminole trade (Carr 1981a).
10
The City of Miami's incorporation in 1896 was stimulated by the arrival of Flagler's railroad and
the building of the Royal Palm Hotel. The hotel would be the only building to occupy the Miami
One parcels in the twentieth century.
11
Methodology
The assessment of Parcel D encompassed two principal tasks: an archival -literature review and a
field investigation. The archival and literature review focused on all available relevant records.
including site forms, archaeological reports, maps, aerial photographs (some dating back to
1918), and historical documents. This review of documents was very important because it
resulted in the creation of a map overlay that revealed the location of the Royal Palm Hotel
relative to the project parcel (Figure 5). Demonstrating the spatial relationship between the
parcel and the hotel is important because it is probable that the construction of the Royal Palm
Hotel and its subsequent demolition resulted in some intensive disturbances to the parcel's
subsurface. The extent of those disturbances, depending upon their location, the depth of fill and
natural soils relative to the limestone bedrock was used to determine the potential for in -situ
significant archaeological features surviving on the property.
After the completion of the map overlay a field assessment was conducted. Since the parcel is
completely paved with asphalt and currently used for parking six days out of the week, it was
decided to use an augering sampling technique. Our surveyor first created a grid across the
parcel, and then marked points at 50-foot intervals across the parcel. This resulted in 35 test
points being located across the parcel. Because of cars, two of the test holes were offset from
their grid locations (holes 17 and 18).
Prior to digging, utility companies were contacted to determine whether any utility alignments
were within the parcel. Their review indicated that all known utilities are located at or near the
sidewalks around the peripheral of the property, and thus would not be impacted by our tests.
Sampling was done using a six-inch metal auger with athree-foot length mounted behind a
tractor. Although there was some concefn that the three-foot length would be insufficient to
penetrate to a sufficient depth to reach the limestone bedrock, the subsequent testing
demonstrated that many of the holes were able to reach bedrock and/or natural sterile sediments
with a two to three foot depth. In fact, the auger operator indicated verbally at the completion of
each test hole whether rock was encountered, all of which was recorded in the test hole log (see
Appendix 1).
All soils and debris that was uncovered from each test hole was sifted through a '/" screen and
any cultural material, including artifacts, historic refuse and construction debris was recorded
and generally collected. Each collection was placed in a self-sealing bag and assigned an FN
number. Subsequently, each collection was cleaned, quantified and classified at the AHC lab in
Miami, so that the parcel's cultural deposits could be described and interpreted.
All test holes were observed in regard to their associated strata or levels described, and then
refilled (see Appendix 1).
12
swimming pool
coal bin
11
S.E. 2nd Street
.......
property line
_ - - -
I
—1 railroad spur
pipe line
- Royal Palm Hotel
•
(— )
fountain
I !,
paved brick. I
driveway
S.E: 3rd Street
Figure 4.
Map of Historic Overlay
of Parcel D
ri Footprint of historic Royal Palm Hotel structures
and features
8" water main
Fcct
50
100
S.E. 3rd Avenue
property line
02 03
013
05
S.E. 2nd Street
06 07
012 . 011 .10 09 08
.16 .19
.20 .21
017 018
28 0 27 _ .26 .25 0 24 .23 022
" y .30 .31 .32 0 33 034
S.E. 3rd Street
l`-J Met/I:Mover 0l
Support Columns 1
7
Figure 5.
Map of Archaeological Test Holes on Parcel D
Feet
W
0 w
IOU
Results and Conclusions
An archaeological and historical assessment and archival review was conducted of Parcel D of
the Miami One project. This assessment resulted in the determination that the subject parcel has
been intensely impacted by the prior construction and demolition of the Roy -al Palm Hotel. Of
the 35 test holes dug across the parcel, 24 revealed evidence of the hotel debris or related
construction activity. Unlike some parcels closer to the river (ie. Brickell Point, Alandco), there
was no evidence of a deep mantle of fill. The limestone bedrock was encountered, according to
the auger operator, within most of the test holes at a two to three foot depth below the current
asphalt surface, although some test holes did not -reach rock indicating an undulated bedrock
surface within deeper pockets of soil. It is also possible that other holes encountered limestone
or construction debris that the operator mistook for bedrock.
Evidence of prehistoric activity occurs across much of the parcel as indicated by eighteen of the
holes revealing evidence of prehistoric refuse, specifically marine shell fragments such as lucine
clam or Strombus, and faunal bone. No artifacts, such as pottery sherds or worked shell or bone
were encountered, and evidence of the rich and loamy midden soil typical of Brickell Point
(8DA12), and the Miami One site's Granada and Dupont Plaza components (8DA11) was only
observed in one of the test holes (#34) located near the southern boundary of Parcel D.
It is the consultant's opinion that Parcel D is highly disturbed. The Sanborn map indicates that
the hotel had a large basement area beneath the building footprint. This basement resulted in
intensive disturbances into the bedrock, thus destroying any archaeological context within the
soil mantle. Evidence of the hotel was uncovered in. 20 of the test holes, each producing
construction fill, brick fragments, and in one case a small piece of finished pine. Also found
were numerous pieces of coal and some coke, some of which was associated with the general
location of the railroad spur.
The parcel does not appear to represent a major black midden component of site 8DA11. This is
not surprising considering its distance to the river and the bay. Based on these tests and other
evidence from archaeological investigations in the vicinity, it is probable that Parcel D represents
part of the north periphery of site 8DA11. Prehistoric refuse. (ie., animal bone and shell refuse)
occurs across much of the parcel, but the lack of artifacts and visible midden soil encountered
during these tests reinforce the fact that the principal black midden deposits occur south of the
subject parcel.
The principal historic feature that characterizes the parcel is the Royal Palm Hotel. The plotting
of the location of brick observed in the test holes (see Figure 6) reveals a high correlation with
the reconstruction of the location of the Royal Palm Hotel (Figure 4). Although artifacts and
features of earlier historic activities documented to occur in the vicinity could occur, particularly
from the Seminole War occupation of Ft. Dallas (ca. 1836-1858), and from two Spanish attempts
in the 16`h and 18th centuries at placing a mission and fort in the area. Most archival evidence,
however, suggests these historic occupations occurred closer to the river. If artifacts or features
associated with these historic occupations occur on Parcel D, these can be documented and
collected without adversely impacting the development of Parcel D.
15
No evidence of human burials was uncovered as a result of either the archival or field
investigation of Parcel D, but at least two cemeteries are documented in the adjacent areas. The
prehistoric sand burial mound, 8DA14, was located about 600 feet east of Parcel D, but was
destroyed by clearing in 1894 prior to the construction of the Royal Palm Hotel. This mound
also served as the cemetery for many of the soldiers who died at Ft. Dallas. A single nineteenth
century grave was found during the archaeological investigations prior to the construction of the
Hyatt Center. This discovery did not result in any impact to the parcel's development.
16
fence
(°
61 •2
S.E. 2nd Street
property line
S.E. 2nd Avenue
6,
-44 +5 ci 6 c, 7
I o 14 • 13 +12 +t t +10 .9 -♦8
•15 •16
i• 28 +27
-417
+26
29 -+-30 31
.—prn.4.www.\.w•w. w+wrn.\.rITT5 rt.TT• .rren. .••••.••.
+19
+18
o20 -+.21
+25 024 ♦.23 +22 .
S.E. 3rd Street l`J
(1 MetroMover
tt:JJ Support Columns
Figure 6. Map of Archaeological
Test Results on Parcel D
n Negative/no material observed
• Brick fragment(s)
ff .- Prehistoric refuse
S.E. 3rd Avenue
(0) %
0
Fort
50 100
//
N
Recommendations
It is the consultant's opinion that the goal of minimizing and eliminating any delays or work
stoppages relative to any archaeological discoveries and subsequent monitoring is best obtained
by conducting a -proactive archaeological recovery program prior to construction activities. This
can be done without interfering with the full loss of parking revenues, but some losses will be
necessary to affect this plan. This plan requires the use of a backhoe to excavate systematically
placed trenches across the parcel with the goal of uncovering any significant archaeological and
historical features that may occur there, and thus allow the archaeological team to record and
recover these materials prior to construction activities.
This recovery program, ideally, will remove no more than 25% of the parking lot from active
parking at any one time, although smaller areas can be investigated if necessary. The positive
aspect of this recovery program is that it provides extensive recordation and mitigation prior to
the archaeological monitoring that will be required during initial construction phases, thus
minimizing, if not eliminating, any work obstructions -although it should be clear that it will be
the consultant's intent that any significant discoveries made during monitoring of construction
work will not result in overall project stoppage, but rather a shifting of the relevant construction
task to other parts -of the project parcel if the discovery requires recording and/or recovery by the
archaeologist. I would recommend that a period of four months be allowed to investigate all of
the quadrants, thus providing approximately one month per quadrant, although much of this
actually may be completed prior to those deadlines.
The negative aspect of this plan is diminished parking revenues. Also, the damage done to the
parking surface as a result of this backhoe trenching will incur the cost of grading and re-
surfacing if the parking use is to continue there Lfter the excavations are completed. It may be
ideal to time this archaeological recovery plan approximately three to four months prior to
implementation of construction activities.
18
References Cited
Beriault, John G., Robert S. Carr, Jerry J. Stipp, Richard Johnson and Jack Meeder
1981 The Archaeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 34(2):39-58.
Carbone, Victor A.
1983 Late Quaternary Environments in Florida and the Southeast. The Florida Anthropologist
36(1-2).
Carr, Robert S.
1981a The Brickell Store and Seminole Indian Trade. The Florida Anthropologist 34(41:180
199.
1981b Dade County Historic Final Report: The Archaeological Survey. Metropolitan Dade
County Office of Community and Economic Development, His.toric Preservation
Division. Miami, Florida.
1981c Salvage Excavations at Two Prehistoric Cemeteries in Dade County, Florida. Paper
presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Florida Academy of Sciences. Winter Park.
1986 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Excavations at the Cutler Fossil Site in Southern
Florida. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology. New Orleans.
Carr, Robert S. and John Beriault
1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida In Environments of South Florida, Present and
Past. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, pp. 1-14.
Carr, Robert S., Amy Felmey, Richard Ferrer, Willard Steele, and Jorge Zamanillo
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Broward County: Phase I. AHC Technical Report #34.
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami
Carr, Robert S. and Mark Greene
1961 Field Notes on Excavations at Brickell Point. Notes on file at the Historical Museum of
Southern Florida.
Carr, Robert S. and Debra Sandler
1991 Archaeological Investigations at Westridge, Broward County, Florida. AHC Technical
Report #37.
Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman and J. J. Stipp
1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida a Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:609-614.
19
Cockrell, Wilburn A.
1970 . Settlement and Subsistence Patterns on Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. Thesis
submitted to Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.
Delcourt, P. A. and H. R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for. Eastern North America: 40,000 yr. .B.P. to the present.
Geobotany H. Edited by R. C. Romans. Plenum Publishing Corp.
Douglass, Andrew
1884 Diary on file at the P.K. Yonge Library, Uniyersity of Florida, Gainesville.
Gaby, Donald C.
1993 The Miami River and Its Tributaries. Miami, FL: the Historical Association of Southern
Florida.
Goggin, John M.
1947 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Florida. American
Antiquity 13:114-127.
1949 The Archaeology of the Glades Area. Typescript on file at the Southeast Archaeological
Research Center, U.S. National Park Service, Tallahassee,Florida.
1950 Stratigraphic Tests in the Everglades National Park. American Antiquity 15:288-246.
Griffin, John W.
1988 The Archaeology of Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. National Parks Services,
Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.
Griffin, John W., Sue B. Richardson, Mary Pohl, Carl D. McMurray, C. Margaret Scarry,
Suzanne K. Fish, Elizabeth S. Wing, Jill Loucks, and Marcia K. Welch
1985 Excavations at the Granada Site. Archaeology and History of the Granada Site, vol. 1.
Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee.
Laxson, D. D.
1959 Three Salvaged Tequesta Sites in Dade County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
12(3): 57-64.
1968 The Dupont Plaza Site. The Florida Anthropologist 21(2&3): 55-60.
Martin, R. A. and S. D. Webb
1974 Late Pleistocene Mammals of Florida. Edited by S. David Webb, pp. 114-145.University
Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
20
Masson, Marilyn, Robert S. Carr, and Debra Goldman
1988 The Taylor's Head Site (8Bd74): Sampling a Prehistoric Midden on an Everglades Tree
Island. The Florida Anthropologist 41(3):336-350.
Milanich, Jerald_T. and Charles H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Mowers, Bert and Wilma B. Williams
1972 The Peace Camp Site, Broward County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25:1.
Noble, Chris V., Robert W. Drew, and James D. Slabaugh
1996 Soil Survey of Dade County Area, Florida. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.'
Parks, Arva Moore
1983 Excavations at the Granada Site. Volume 3, History. Florida Division of. Archives,
History and Records Management, Tallahassee.
Romans, Bernard ,
1962 Natural History of Florida. Facsimile of 1775 ed., University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.
Scholl, D. W. and M. Stuiver
1967 Recent Submergence of Southern Florida. Geological Society of America Bulletin
78:437-454.
Stirling, M. W.
1936 Florida Cultural Affiliations in Relationship to Adjacent Areas. In Essays in
Anthropology in Honor of Alfred Louis Kroeber, pp. 351-357. Berkeley.
Sturtevant, William C.
1953 Chakaika and the 'Spanish Indians': Documentary Sources Compared with Seminole
Tradition. Tequesta 13:35-73.
True, David O., Editor
1`945 Memoir of Do. d'Escalante Fonteneda Respecting Florida, Written in Spain about the
Year 1575. Translated by Buckingham Smith. Glade House, Coral Gables, Florida.
21
Appendix 1. Test Hole Log
Hole # Description (Depth in cm) Artifacts*
FN#
#1
Level I 0-7 Asphalt None
Level II 7-20 Crushed rock fill
Level III 20-40 Construction debris
#2
Level I
Level II
Level III
#3
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
#4
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
#5
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
#6
Level I
Level II
Level III
#7
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
0-5 Asphalt
5-16 Crushed rock fill
16-44 Gray sand w/ crushed
rock fill and brick
0-4 Asphalt
4-19 Crushed rock fill •
19-70 Medium gray sand w/ crushed
rock fill and lt. brown sand
70 Limestone bedrock?
0-4 Asphalt
4-15 Crushed rock fill
16-60 Medium gray sand — some fill
60 Limestone bedrock
0-4 Asphalt
4-32 Crushed rock fill
47-57 Medium gray sand
57 Limestone bedrock
0-4 Asphalt
4-20 Crushed rock fill
20-53 Misc. fill
0-4 Asphalt
4-15 Crushed rock fill
15-46 Light gray sand
46 Limestone bedrock
None
bricks, shell refuse
clam, brick
clam (not collected)
None
None
24
20
* All cultural materials recovered are fragments unless otherwise noted. This log indicated those artifacts
observed in the field. A more extensive and comprehensive list is provided in Appendix 2.
22
Hole # Description
Artifacts FN#
#8
Level I
Level II
Level III
#9
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
#10
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
#11
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
#12
Level I
Level II
Level II
Level IV
#13
Level I
Level II
Level III.
Level IV
#14
Level I
Level II
Level III
#15
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
0-4 Asphalt
4-21 Crushed rock fill
21-90 Dark gray sand
0-4 Asphalt
4-27 Crushed rock fill
27-36 Light gray sand (natural)
36 Limestone bedrock
brick, oyster, nails
brick
0-4 Asphalt clam 21
4-20 Crushed rock fill
20-52 Medium gray sand (natural)
52-60 Orange sand (natural)
0-4 Asphalt slate frag.? 23
4-22 Crushed rock fill
22-56 Medium gray sand (natural)
56-62 Orange -yellow sand (natural)
0-4 Asphalt iron nail 25
4-18 Crushed rock fill
18-61 Brown sand (natural)
61-67 Orange -yellow sand (natural)
0-4 Asphalt • coal • 1
4-18 Crushed rock fill
18-58 Brown sand (natural)
58-64 Orange -yellow sand (natural)
0-4 Asphalt
4-20 Crushed rock fill
20-55 Coal and coke debris
0-4 Asphalt
4-13 Crushed rock fill
13-20 Solid brick
.21-44 Brick, crushed rock fill, sand,
construction debris
23
coal, coke 2
brick
Hole # Description Artifacts FIV#
#I6
Level I
Level II
Level III
#17
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
0-4 Asphalt green glass, coal 3
4-12 Crushed rock fill
12166 Construction debris, light gray
sand
0-4 Asphalt lucine clam frag., glass, 4
4-14 Crushed rock fill - coal, nails, brick
14-62 Construction debris
62 Light tan sand
#18
Level I 0-4 Asphalt square nail, lucine clam,
Level II 4-14 Crushed rock fill glass
Level III 19-61 Construction debris, light tan sand
#19 FN#6
Level I 0-4 Asphalt glass, slate, lucine shell, . 6
Level II 4-16 Crushed rock fill nail
Level III 16-53 Dark gray organic soil
Level IV 53-80 Brown sand (natural)
#20
Level I
Level II
Level III
#21
Level I
Level II
Level III
#22
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
#23
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
0-4 Asphalt
4-16 Crushed rock fill
16-48 White limerock fill
0-4 Asphalt
4-25 Crushed rock fill
25-80 Medium gray sand (natural)
0-6 Asphalt
6-26 Crushed rock fill
26-54 Construction debris, tan sand
54 Limestone bedrock
0-4 Asphalt
4-19 Crushed rock fill
19-40 Light tan sand (natural)
40 Limestone bedrock
24
None
glass, brick, faunal bone, 7
Strombus, lucine shell
lucine clam, coal
brick, iron nail, lucine 9
clam
Hole # Description Artifacts FN#
#24
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level V
#25
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level V
#26
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
#27
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
#28
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Level V
#29
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
#30
Level I
Level II
Level III
0-4 Asphalt
4-9 Crushed rock fill
9:16 White limestone fill
16-40 Orange sand (natural)
40 Limestone bedrock
0-4 Asphalt
4-16 Crushed rock fill
16-51 Construction debris
51-61 Medium gray sand (natural)
61 Limestone bedrock
None
coke, coal, brick,
Strombus
10
0-4. Asphalt brick, charcoal 11
4-15 Crushed rock fill
• 15-50 Construction debris
50-68 Light gray, sand (natural)
0-4 Asphalt
4-14 Crushed rock fill
14-52 Construction debris
53-68 Light gray sand (natural)
0-4 Asphalt
4-21 Crushed rock fill
21-26 Construction debris
26-45 Solid brick structure or debris
45-60 Loose brick and light gray sand
0-4 Asphalt
4-17 Crushed rock fill
17-32 construction debris
32-40 Dense brick layer, light gray
sand
0-6 Asphalt
6-18 Crushed rock fill
18-90 Construction debris, medium
gray sand
25
brick, coal, shell
brick, nail, charcoal
bricks, lucine clam, coal
clam, coal, brick
12
13
14
15
Hole # Description Artifacts F.V#
#31
Level I 0-4 Asphalt nail, coke, brick, 16
Level II 4-12 Crushed rock fill conch shell
Level III 12:45 Construction debris with light
to medium gray sand
#32
Level I 0-3 Asphalt glass, shell 17
Level II 3-16 Crushed rock fill
Level III 16-60 Construction debris
Level IV 60-72 Limestone (unclear if it's fill
or bedrock)
#33
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
0-4 Asphalt
4-15 Crushed rock fill
15-60 Construction debris, light gray sand
60-68 Limestone? (unclear if it's fill
or bedrock)
small lucine shell
(not collected)
#34
Level I 0-5 Asphalt lucine clam, brick 18
Level II 5-15 Crushed rock fill oyster
Level III 15-90 Dk. gray midden w/ some brick
and crushed rock fill
#35
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
0-4 Asphalt
4-15 Crushed rock fill
16-24 Construction debris
24-45 Limestone bedrock (?)
26
brick (not collected)
Appendix 2. Artifact Inventory
FN
Provenience
1 Test Hole 13
2 Test Hole 14
3 Test Hole 16
4 Test Hole 17
5 Test Hole 18
6 Test Hole 19
7 Test Hole 21
Test Hole 22
9 Test Hole 23
10 Test Hole 25
11 Test Hole 26
12 Test Hole 27
13 Test Hole 28
14 Test Hole 29
15 Test Hole 30
16 Test Hole 31
Description
brick fragrnents (3/3. lg), round iron nail fragment (1/1.4g), coal
coke (2/4.1g), coal (2/1.1g)
green bottle glass (1/1.2g), aqua bottle glass (1/1.2g), concrete
w/small amount of brick stuck to it (1/5.3g), coal (3/3.1 g)
white tile fragment (1/1.2g), clear pane glass (1/.5g), iron nail
(2/7.4g), marine shell (2/1.0g), coal (4/6.4g)
olive bottle glass, 19th century (2/.9g), clear bottle glass base
fragment (1/2.0g), iron nail/spike fragrnents (2/2.0g), marine
shell; oyster, lucine clam (5/3.5g), coal (1/.2g)
clear (modern?) bottle glass (1/1.5g), roofing tile slate fragments
(1/.3g), faunal bone (1/2.0g), clam shell (1/.5g), coal (1/.2g)
oxidized iron nail fragments (square) (5/11.9g), fish vertebra •
(1/.2g), marine shell; clam, conch (8/8.3g)
marine shell; lucine clam (1/.5g), coal (2/.8g)
oxidized iron nail, round (1/4.1g), concrete chip? (1/.2g)
brick fragments (2/3.1 g), iron nail, probably round (1/2.5g),
marine shell; Strombus, Busycon, (4/30.1g), coal (1/8.8g)
iron square nail fragment (1/6.5g), round iron nail fragment
(1/.7g), marine shell; lucine clam (2/.9g), coal (1/.3g)
oxidized round iron nail fragments (2/5.9g), oxidized
unidentified iron object (1/2.8g), marine shell; Busycon (1/3.9g),
coal (1/.2g)
oxidized square nail (1/9.4g), roofing tar fragments (2/.6g)
clear bottle glass (2/4.3g), marine shell fragments; lucine clam
(2/1.1g)
clear pane glass (1/.8g), coal fragments (3/1.4g), marine shell
(2/.2g)
clear bottle glass (3/2.1g), light green bottle glass (1/.1g), iron
nail fragments (heavily oxidized wire nail) (3/4.7g), iron sheet
fragments (heavily oxidized), (6/5.4g), porous unidentified
metal -aluminum? (1/.7g), concrete fragment (1/28.1g), roofing
27
tile slate fragment(1/.6g), marine shell-Busvcon (2/6.1g)
17 Test Hole 32 white porcelain? tile (1/3.6g), cream tile (1/.4g), clear pane glass
1/.4 ( g), roofing slate? (1/.3g)
18 Test Hole 34 marine shell; lucine clam, some burnt (37/21.6g)
19 Test Hole 8 brick pipe fragment (1/10.0g), clear pane glass (4/2.7g), oxidized
iron nails, round and square (2/6.1g), lead slag (1/14.5g), lithic
flake, unidentified (1/2.9g), marine shell -clam (9/4.1 g)
20 Test Hole 5 marine shell; lucine clam (1/1.7g)
21 Test Hole.10 marine shell; lucine clam (5/4.1g)
22 Test Hole 4 marine shell (3/.8g)
23 Test Hole 11 iron wire nail (1/1.2g), coal fragment (1/1.3g), marine shell -clam
(1/.lg)
24 Test Hole 3 clear bottle glass (1/.5g), marine shell; clam, oyster (3/1.3g),
pine wood fragment (1/.1 g)
25 Test Hole 12 oxidized iron clumps (2/15.2g), marine shell (2/1.3g)
Appendix 3. Archaeological Investigations/Monitoring Projects in Downtown Miami and
Vicinity and Their Impacts on Development
Significant Effect on
Archaeological Development
Project Name .Materials Found Human Burials Schedule
Atlantis Yes Yes None
Bristol Tower No No None
Santa Maria Yes Yes
None
Coscan Yes No None
Four Season Hotel Yes No None
Brickell Towers Yes No Yes
City of Miami -Jose Marti Yes Yes None
Park
Dupont Plaza Yes No None
Hyatt Center Yes Yes None
Southeast Bank Building No No None
Sheraton Hotel Yes No None
Tommy's Boat Yard- Yes No None
Environmental Cleanup
People Mover Construction Yes No None
Brickell Bridge Widening Yes None
Miami -Dade Community No No None
College Parking Garage
Arena No
No None
A-1 Parking Lot Yes No None
Imperial Condominiums Yes No None
Hyatt Swimming Pool Yes No None
29
No