The 2,000-year-old site remains under temporary protection laid in 2003.
But today, the Circle--a series of loaf-shaped holes chiseled into the limestone bedrock at the mouth of the Miami River--is interred beneath bags of sand and gravel, laid over the formation in 2003 to protect it from the elements.
And though taxpayers shelled out $27.6 million to purchase the 38-foot Circle and its surrounding two acres, visitors to the site's planned archaeological park likely will never see the actual work of some of Miami's earliest inhabitants.
And Catherine Hummingbird Ramirez, a self-styled Carib tribal queen, still conducts a purification ceremony there every Tuesday. Waving a smoldering pot of sacred grasses over anyone who shows up, she says she is honoring her ancestors and imbuing visitors with the site's "powerful positive energy." Sometimes, dozens come; sometimes just one.
Lately, her meditations are barely audible over the rumble of cement mixers and cranes building a 56-story condo-hotel next door. It casts a long shadow over the Circle property, but the archaeologist who helped save it finds that fitting.
"That's an incredible statement about the balance between development and preservation," Carr said.
Note: I'd say the Miami Circle lacks the gravitas of Chaco Canyon and the Newark Earthworks (America's Stonehenge nos. 1 and 2). But at least it's circular, like Stonehenge but unlike the Earthworks.
Writerfella here --
ReplyDeletewriterfella disagrees that the Miami Circle is 'America's StoneHenge No. 3.' It instead must be the trace remains of a 'woodhenge,' with the loaf-shaped holes being where the long-vanished wooden uprights once were placed...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Do the two (development and preservation) even cross here? The condo is being built on other land, not on top of the circle.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, the "America's Stonehenge" label requires 1) monumental size and 2) astronomical indicators. The thing doesn't have to look like the original Stonehenge, although that would help. If it looks enough like the original, perhaps it doesn't even have to have astronomical indicators.
ReplyDeleteDevelopers were going to build "two luxury apartment towers" on the site until the state bought it. So it was a development vs. preservation conflict. If the Circle is no longer threatened, it can still inform us about development vs. preservation issues.
Writerfella here -
ReplyDeletewriterfella's archaeology reference text states that a 'henge' was any circular, sub-circular, or semi-circular prehistoric ENCLOSURE (emphasis writerfella's), and consequently a wooden ENCLOSURE made it a 'woodhenge' and a stone ENCLOSURE made it a 'stonehenge.' Ipso facto...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Do you understand the concept of an analogy, Russ? No one is saying the candidates for "America's Stonehenge" are circular enclosures of monolithic stones. They're saying these candidates resemble Stonehenge conceptually because they're ancient, monumental, and were used to measure astronomical phenomena. Duh.
ReplyDeleteYou yourself said we should consider the Piasa Bird and various medicine wheels as "America's Stonehenge." So you used to get the point. Unfortunately, you must've forgotten what you wrote before. Oops.
Writerfella here --
ReplyDeleteYes, writerfella did say those very things. BUT -- does that mean those things would be considered, or even entertained, as he indicated? By your answer, no, simply because they do not fit YOUR parameters...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
"My parameters" are what the public (not me) uses to determine what they consider "America's Stonehenge." I've explained why they identified the Newark Earthworks and the Miami Circle (and not the Piasa Bird or various medicine wheels) as candidates.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, you haven't come up with a rationale for including the Piasa Bird but excluding the Miami Circle. As usual, you're carping destructively, like a petulant little boy, not criticizing constructively.
Writerfella here --
ReplyDelete"The public?" Like The Little Old Lady From Pasadena? The Farmer in the Dell? A Boy Named Sue? The Girl From Impanema? Joe Blow from Kokomo? "The public?" Wow, that's yet another glib but senseless generality very much akin to saying, "The Media!" Which you said because it was easy to say, required no extra thought effort, and boy, did it sound good while you practiced it in front of your mirror...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
You'd know glib but senseless generalities, since that's about all you ever offer.
ReplyDeleteSo if my comments are long and thoughtful, you criticize them. And if they're short and "glib," you criticize them. The only constant is that you're a critical boor--a leech on the underside of your intellectual superior.
I didn't designate any monument "America's Stonehenge," doofus. So your idiotic comment about "my parameters" is just that...idiotic. Clearly you're carping for the sake of carping because you have nothing intelligent to say.
The media reported the designations and members of the public made the designations. If you can't address this fact, you might as well keep quiet. With your stupid contradictions--the Piasa Bird should be "America's Stonehenge" even though it doesn't fit your definition of "henge"--you're only embarrassing yourself.