The controversy stems from a 2023 agreement between Related Group and the city of Miami. Under this agreement, the developer was granted permission to proceed with its project in exchange for a commitment to preserve, catalog, and display key artefacts locally. However, tribal leaders now claim that Related has failed to uphold its end of the deal, having missed two deadlines to present a formal preservation plan.
"They refuse to listen to the tribes, to the descendants of those whose history these artefacts represent. We do not want them showcased in universities; they should be reburied," said Betty Osceola, a Miccosukee tribe member and environmental activist.
Osceola criticized Related Group’s archaeological approach, stating that the company is prioritizing academic and commercial interests over Indigenous perspectives. "To them, these are mere objects to be studied and displayed. To us, they are sacred, and their rightful place is back in the ground," she added.
Frustration Over Downplaying the Site’s Significance
Tribal leaders also accuse Related Group of initially downplaying the site’s historical importance, dismissing its connection to the Miami Circle. However, as evidence mounted, the company acknowledged the site’s significance, albeit without engaging in meaningful dialogue with Indigenous groups.
Robert Rosa, chair of the American Indian Movement of Florida, expressed further frustration over the lack of transparency. "We were promised a full inventory of the artefacts, with the opportunity to determine which items are of cultural and ceremonial importance. That has not happened," he said. "Instead, they’re quietly trying to send these items away for ‘research’—something we fundamentally oppose."
Developer’s Response and Ongoing Dispute
The Related Group has yet to publicly respond to the growing controversy. However, during a recent meeting of Miami’s historic and environmental preservation board, the company’s land-use attorney, Iris Escarrá, described their outreach to external institutions as "preliminary" and "exploratory."
"We were simply gathering proposals to explore our options—nothing more," she assured the board. Nonetheless, Related has pledged to present a formal plan, including exhibition proposals along Brickell’s waterfront, at the board’s next meeting on March 4. The company also intends to link the construction site with the Miami Circle via an educational pathway named the Tequesta Trail.
Meanwhile, local academic institutions, including the University of Miami (UM) and Florida International University, are still awaiting a response to their joint proposal for a conservation and research center dedicated to the artefacts.
Calls for Ethical and Respectful Handling of Indigenous History
Traci Ardren, a professor of anthropology at UM, criticized Related’s handling of the situation, calling their latest presentation "disorganized." "They are not engaging with museum curators, scholars, or the archaeological community—and most importantly, they are not engaging with Indigenous groups," she stated.
Ardren emphasized that outsourcing the artefacts’ curation to institutions outside South Florida is deeply inappropriate. "This is not just about historical preservation; it’s about a fundamental unwillingness to invest in the education and preservation of Indigenous history. That work requires funding, and it appears they are unwilling to make that commitment."
As tensions escalate, Native American communities, academics, and preservation advocates continue to call for accountability. The tribes remain steadfast in their demand: the artefacts should be handled with the respect they deserve, in a manner that honors the wishes of their rightful stewards—the Indigenous peoples of Florida.
