from ... ANCIENT AMERICAN - Issue #29
(The following is a response by Mr. J. P. Grimes to my earlier rejoinder to his article on The Miami Circle,and I present it here in all fairness to its author. I really see no necessary response indicated on my behalf for any of the putative "points" raised here - and invite readers to judge for themselves.)
Response to Mr. Powell
A Bernie Powell wrote a Letter to the Editor in TAA, Issue #28, rather severely criticizing my article on The Miami Circle in the previous issue (#27). I feel it is necessary to respond to it.
Mr.Powell (hereafter called "BP") took great umbrage on my calling the site a "Stonehenge". I didn't. I submitted the article with a title of "The Miami Circle". An editor at The Ancient American changed it to "Florida's Stonehenge? Stone Circle found at Miami". I assume this was to give the title more punch.
I did not use the word Stonehenge once in the text of the article. The closestI got to this is the statement " .. That some are calling Miamihenge or Biscaynehenge."
Nowhere did I equate the Circle to Stonehenge. This must have been a big worry to BP as he critically complains of the use of Stonehenge eight times in five different paragraphs in his letter.
My only response to BP is to use one of the quotes in his letter: "I am sure this is all inadvertent on Mr. Grime's behalf, but it is really a variant of what is sometimes inelegantly called the "Big Lie" technique: if an untruth or an un-fact is repeated often enough, it eventually comes to be accepted." He, not I, mentioned it eight times. The possessive of Grimes is Grimes'.
BP next takes exception to the statement "An unverified report states that at least one of the stone posts or columns of the site's original fifty or more pillars was recovered nearby." I agree with his objection. It is in the caption for the lead picture in the article. This caption was added by TAA staff without my knowledge. If I had known I would have vetoed it. An editor is supposed to clarify, improve comprehension and if necessary condense, not add a completely new dimension to the paper. He was out of line. I do note that he did say 'An unverified report."
I am bemused by BP's conversion of the words "columns" and 'pillars" in the caption to the words 'slabs' and "shafts" mentioned by BP a total of five times in two paragraphs within the context of the pillars of Stonehenge, although neither word was in the caption, I never used the word slab, and used the word shaft only once, while discussing a possible second structure (shaft) on the property.
BP wrote 'That "large slabs" (shafts?) may once have been stacked or seen (I have a reliable eyewitness who has told me the same within the month),piled near the water's edge here (there is now a seawall around the N and E perimeter of the site)" and then elsewhere he wrote: "Finally his inclusion of the Valentine material is permissible since there apparently exists documentation for these comments. (Documentation that is, as to other literature, not documentation as to physical facts)."
AmI missing something here? BP is willing to accept some unnamed but "reliable" witness' story about some slabs but not a published account from Mr. Valentine, a world renowned archaeologist and curator of the Miami Museum, about a second structure. I am intrigued. Were his slabs incised pillars? Were they prehistoric? Were there 50 of them? When were these seen? I believe the seawall has been here since at least the 1950's. Before then? or have they been around since the apartment building was built? I have seen or heard no mention of them by the current archaeological team.
I was taken back by the criticism that I used the word "carved" instead of his more proper "incised" or even "cut" so I did a little investigation: My American Heritage Dictionary tells me: in-cise (in-siz) tr.v. in-cised,in-cis-ing, incis-es.
1. To cut into, as with a sharp instrument: incised the tablet with chisels; a plateau that had been deeply incised by streams.
2. a. To engrave (designs or writing, for example) into a surface; carve. b. To engrave designs,writing, or other marks into. carve (kdrv) v. carved, carvings, carves.2. To cut into a desired shape:fashion by cutting: carve the wood into a figure.
3. To make or form by or as if by cutting: carve initials in the bark; carved out an empire.3. To decorate by cutting and shaping carefully.
I then looked through seventeen Circle articles of various kinds and authors and found dozens of instances mentioning creating the holes and basins. Most used "cut" though "carved" was right behind "cut" in popularity. "Incised" was not used even once. This included direct quotes from archaeologists and historians. I feel that if I am wrong I am in good company.
BP didn't like my post holes: "gratuitous designation as 'post holes' is another example of creating by naming since we don't really know if they were -or are - post holes yet. This is not an unreasonable assumption: I am just saying it is unreasonable to speak of them with finality that way at this stage." (his quote). I believe my text explained my position: "The perimeter holes range in diameter from six to twelve inches and could have been for a fence, lodge poles or, as some think, observation posts."(my quote). This is "finality?"
BP objects to my use of the word "structure" for the Circle. My AmericanHeritage says: structure (struk-cher) .
1. Something made up of a number of parts that are held or put together ir a particular way: hierarchical social structure.
2. The way in which parts arranged or put together to form a whole; makeup: triangular in structure.
3. The interrelation or arrangement of parts in a complex entity: political structure; plot structure.
Rather he wants me to call the Circle: "a 'multiple scattered arrangement' of basins in a circle". This looks the same as definition 2. (above)to me except for circular instead of triangular. Also, the basins did not look scattered to my eyes.
I cannot believe that he can state that his test of cutting, oops incising,one small test hole as BP did can lead to a proper conclusion that the actual incising of many hundreds of holes, most much larger than the testhole, plus 20 intricate basins and cutouts within a perfect circle is not a major undertaking as he posited. I would use another BP quote:"There has been much selective data manipulation in interpretations for this site and related phenomena...."
I do agree with BP's comments about the spurious (and wrong) inclusion of the fish facing Bimini and the supposed puma skeleton in the article. Again, these words were added as the caption for the second picture by the TAA staff without my knowledge or certainly my approval. Another case of somebody adding their own history agenda to my article.
BP asserts the so called carved eye isn't incised. The head archaeologist himself said he wasn't sure whether it is or not. I'm getting to like the word "incised".
BP's quote that "Horizontal holes cannot, by definition alone, 'face' north,east, west, or south" appears to me to be wrong, as in "the cave in the cliff faced north." I think he means vertical holes.
The words in my article about a Carthaginian harbor is within a specific quote by Charles Berlitz. I chose to include the entire quote even if the Carthaginian harbor part is certainly in question.
And finally, I am very puzzled by one of BP's quotes: "An abortive attempt to locate an unknown quarry for these "slabs" and/or the mystery shaft"(i.e., a dug shaft, that is) referred to below, was made by backhoe briefly at the site one day not long ago and was totally negative." Briefly? Totally negative? Is this the proper scientific method to conclude whether something as important as a possible ancient 30-ft diameter, 60ft deep stone shaft published by several honorable professional people back in the 50's does or does not exist? Although the land in question is 2.2 acres in size, only a few hundred square feet have been officially excavated to date. It must have been a big backhoe.
I must close with another quote from BP: "Grimes overwrites in my opinion,as so many in this genre." I can only wonder if we don't have this backwards.
Jupiter, FlJames P. Grimes,
end