428

New Evidence and Understanding of the Antiguan Preceramic

Christy de Mille

Abstract: In this paper, I further outline results of my dissertation research on the Preceramic of Antigua in honour of Desmond Nicholson whose tireless work cataloguing and describing the archaeological sites on Antigua has allowed the islands rich history to be appreciated. This paper describes the characteristics of the Antiguan Preceramic in more detail, expanding on the general outline previously presented. This includes a discussion of the ground stone tools in addition to the better-known blade technology. Résumé: Dans ce papier, je vais résumer les resultats de mon recherche de thèse sur la Précéramique de Antigua en honneur de Desmond Nicholson qui avec son travail infatigable de catalogage et ses descriptions des sites archéologiques sur Antigua a permis la riche histoire des îles d’être apprécié. Ce papier décrit les caractéristiques de la Précéramique de Antigua en plus de détail, en développant le plan général présenté auparavant. Ci-inclus est une discussion des industries lithiques polies, ainsi que la technologie de lame plus connu. Resumen: En este papel, yo resumo aún más resultados de mi investigación de disertación en el Preceramic de Antigua en honor a Desmond Nicholson cuyo catalogar incansable de trabajo y describir los sitios arqueológicos en Antigua han permitido las islas la historia rica ser apreciada. Este papel describe las características del antiguano Preceramic en más detalle, expandiendo en el resumen general anteriormente presentado. Esto incluye una discusión del suelo herramientas de piedra además de la mejor tecnología conocida de hoja.

429

Introduction

In this paper, I will highlight some of the main conclusions of my dissertation work that focused on the Preceramic occupation of Antigua in honour of Desmond Nicolson who inspired and supported by research.

Antigua has a very high density of Preceramic sites. The identification of some 50 Preceramic sites is particularly striking when compared with the handful of sites found on neighbouring islands of the Lesser Antilles. In addition to the high number of sites distinguishing Antigua, so to does the presence of a large blade technology that is virtually unknown outside of the larger islands of the Greater Antilles. The coincidental presence of abundant and high quality chert sources on Antigua, the sole such source in the Lesser Antilles, has not gone unremarked (Pantel 2003). However, despite this privileged position, little actual data have been available to document the Preceramic occupation of Antigua, beyond its obvious presence in the first place.

As mentioned, the unique position of Antigua is strongly associated with the abundant lithic raw material present on the island and the associated blade core technology. Consequently, very detailed technological analysis of the Preceramic lithic assemblages from Antigua was undertaken in my dissertation. A set of blade core reduction experiments was also completed to provide a comparative assemblage. An investigation of Preceramic subsistence strategies was also undertaken and focussed on faunal remains.

The data for this dissertation come from two main sources (Table 1). The first source is from excavations undertaken by the author through the University of Calgary Antigua Field School over the course of three field seasons at the site of North Crabb’s Bay located on the northeastern coast of Antigua. Eight shovel test pit transects and 12 1-x-1 metre test units were excavated at this site. The second relevant source is a dataset and artifacts collected by researcher Bruce Nodine who formerly conducted archaeological research in Antigua. After deciding to pursue life goals other than archaeology, he kindly provided the author with access to all of the data and artifacts he had collected in the course of his Ph.D. research. Much of Nodine’s data was collected from limited excavations from eight sites. Results of a survey of all the known Precermic sites, completed by Nodine, were also included in my study. Collections from the Museum of Antigua and Barbuda, particularly with respect to the ground stone tools (see below), were also utilized.

Time and Place of the Antiguan Preceramic Occupation

Thirteen radiocarbon dates are available from Preceramic sites on Antigua (Table 2). Previously reported dates (Davis 1982; Nodine 1990) established a long history, approximately 2500 years, of Preceramic occupation on the island. Most sites have dates approximately between 2000-1000 BC. Two sites are younger than 1000 BC, with one site’s dates extending into the first millennium AD. One site has the oldest date extending past 3000 BC (Birgit’s PH-33). In comparison with Preceramic dates obtained from other islands in the Lesser Antilles, it is clear that the dates from Antigua encompass the range of dates for the Preceramic occupation in this region.

If we now turn our attention to site location on the island, the Antiguan Preceramic sites have a strong coastal focus, which is a well established pattern reported from other similarly aged sites in the Lesser Antilles. The presence of the Long Island Chert source just off of

430

Antigua provides an additional factor that must be considered. Indeed, if a map of Preceramic site location is examined (Figure 1), the strong association between Preceramic site location and shallow marine (prevalent along the highly indented coastline) and chert resources is very apparent. This association is particularly striking when compared to the other two major periods of precontact occupation on Antigua, the Saladoid and Post-Saladoid Periods (Figures 2 and 3).

The Discerning Preceramic Palate

The information from Antigua confirms previous models, suggested both for Antigua and the broader Lesser Antilles, of a marine oriented subsistence strategy heavily focused on shellfish exploitation. Although obviously only one aspect of the total subsistence system, the results of the invertebrate, and to a lesser degree, vertebrate, faunal analyses is highly revealing. The most notable recurrent and consistent pattern is the high degree of selectivity displayed in the assemblages. In most of the sites, the majority of the assemblages are made up of only several species. Variation in the identity of the primary species strengthens the interpretation of human selection versus taphonomic issues. A total of 13 species are present in the NCB shellfish assemblage. Nine main species are reported from the Nodine material. The overall breadth of species exploitation is not great, particularly when mollusc remains appear to be the main archaeologically visible subsistence remain. As a point of comparison, for example, at one of the Post-Saladoid sites in Antigua, known for high marine reliance (Muddy Bay), 24 different taxa of mollusc were identified (Murphy 1996:115). Even in the Antiguan Saladoid sites, where shellfish play a decidedly minor role in the overall subsistence strategy, a greater breadth of species was recovered. For example, at the site of Royall’s, 18 shellfish species were identified (Murphy 1999:172). The high degree of shellfish focus among the Preceramic sites is highlighted even more if proportional representation is considered. In most of the sites, one to three species made up the large majority of the assemblage. This is a highly consistent pattern of species focus across all of the sites, which likely can be used as a characteristic of Preceramic on Antigua.

What is also notable is what is not in the assemblages. The absence of the land crab, an abundant and easily obtained resource, has been remarked upon for the Jolly Beach site (Davis 2000) and this pattern is observed for all of the sites examined in this study. Marine vertebrate remains are also rarely recovered. Despite good preservation conditions and fine screening at NCB, no fish bone was recovered. Only two of Nodine’s sites have limited fish remains recovered and reported. There is a definite pattern on Antigua, which appears to be echoed in the other sites in the Lesser Antilles where numerous potential resources are ignored in favour of selected ones.

My interpretation of the known data for the Preceramic subsistence strategy on Antigua builds on previous models. The Preceramic settlers were marine adapted people, exhibiting very deliberate choice. They were highly selective because they could be – there was likely very little resource stress. In the long-term they were living well due to a small population size and a certain degree of mobility within islands and possibly between islands as well. Plant resources were likely very important in their diet. However, settlements were organised around shellfish species to be closer to them and be able to move among those resources.

431

The Preceramic Lithic Industry

The analysis of the Preceramic lithic assemblages undertaken for this study provides a preliminary understanding of the lithic technology utilised by these people. This analysis seems to indicate a regularised and consistently patterned method of producing large percussion blades utilising almost exclusively Long Island chert as the raw material. In addition to the blade core technology, the expedient production of usable flakes was also practiced. Blades were produced with hard hammer percussion utilising small oval cobbles of Long Island chert as hammerstones. There is minimal evidence for early stages of core preparation from cores discarded in early stages of reduction (all recovered cores were exhausted) or remnants of specific techniques of ridge set up such as crested blades/flakes. This coincides nicely with evidence from the Long Island source area (Van Gjin 1993:193), which indicates flintknapping activities, geared toward raw material cobble testing, and the initial preparation of large blade cores suggesting that the cores were prepared for transport off the island to be reduced elsewhere. At the site of North Crabb’s Bay, the lack of early stage cobble and blade core preparation debitage is consistent with the use of imported cores initially prepared elsewhere, although there is also evidence for the reduction of raw material cobbles at the site, possibly for the purposes of producing the expedient flakes.

Blade reduction proceeded unidirectionally or bidirectionally until cores were too small and/or the core face was ruined by multiple hinge/step scars (Figures 5 and 6). Complete decortication before target reduction of the core did not seem to have been a high priority, given the frequent occurrence of cortex on the cores as well as in the assemblages as a whole. Throughout reduction frequent platform rejuvenation was undertaken by the removal of core tablets. This resulted in the overwhelming presence of flat/plain platforms on the flakes and blades, as well as on the cores. All cores recovered were heavily exhausted; many were actually fractured, possibly in a final attempt to produce flakes. Core rotation to opportunistically use different platforms in late core reduction was quite common. Small multidirectional cores are also common and appear to be the result of opportunistic core rotation to strike off desired flakes. The remnants of parallel to subparallel scars on some of these cores might suggest that they originally were blade cores.

Three particularly distinctive features of the Preceramic debitage assemblages observed during my research include: wide flake platforms, what I refer to as short hinge blades, and a particular core face rejuvenation flake. I suggest that these features result from a highly distinctive practice of blade core maintenance. When making large percussion blades, common flintknapper and analyst wisdom cites the need for constant core edge trimming in order to remove the thin platform edges/overhang left over as a result of the negative bulbar scar, to both ensure a successful removal, and increase the accuracy of the blow (Collins 1999:23). This would be particularly important for hard hammer percussion. In direct opposition to the constant trimming observed in the blade experiments, there was very little evidence for core trimming in the Antiguan assemblages. I suggest that the Preceramic flintknappers utilised two strategies to mitigate the potential issues posed by overhangs and the hard hammer percussion resulting in characteristic signatures observed in the lithic assemblages.

The first strategy is that of striking the blow quite far into the core in order to avoid collapsing the platform. This produced characteristically thicker platforms consistently observed in the archaeological assemblages that differed from the experimental assemblages. As blows struck further back from the core face require more force to remove a successful blade/flake, this

432

may have had the effect of increasing hinge and step fractures and could explain the frequent presence of short hinge blades in the Preceramic assemblages.

The second strategy is a highly distinctive practice of blade core maintenance observed in the assemblages which I suggest can be viewed as a distinguishing characteristic of the Antiguan, and possibly, Preceramic blade industry. When making large percussion blades, common flintknapper and analyst wisdom cites the need for constant core edge trimming in order to remove the thin platform edges/overhang left over as a result of the negative bulbar scar, to both ensure a successful removal, and increase the accuracy of the blow. There was very little evidence for core trimming in the Antiguan assemblages. The alternate technique chosen was to strike off a platform rejuvenation flake perpendicular to the main direction of percussion. This flake was struck off along the core platform/face edge and is a long flake with the two main dorsal surfaces being remnants of the core platform and the other dorsal bearing remnants of blade removal scars from the core face. Removal of these flakes removed the irregular junction between the core platform and face. These rejuvenation flakes, highly recognisable and distinctive, were recovered archaeologically and reproduced experimentally.

The structured production indicated by the Preceramic assemblages is not echoed in the, admittedly limited, functional information. No formal retouched tools are present. The retouch that does exist is limited to the edge of the tool, and seems to focus on altering the edge shape slightly. Tools generally seem to have been expedient and were apparently chosen on the basis of an appropriate edge. The expedient nature of the tools seems to indicate a strategy of tool selection/use based on usable edges as opposed to modification of an item through retouch towards a specific form. However, three recurring patterns of retouched edges were observed:

1. Flakes were removed from a cortex surface to produce a better cutting/scraping edge than would be possible with the cortex present

2. Several flakes were removed, sometimes bifacially, to produce a sinuous edge 3. Several flakes were removed to produce a concave edge

Ground Stone Tools

One artifact class that has not been previously presented in any detail are the formal

ground stone tools. Although little can be offered at this point beyond description, the mere presence of these artifacts is both suggestive of plant processing and possibly cultural connections. Ground stone tools have been reported from Antigua previously. In Desmond’s (1976:264-268) short essay on Preceramic artifact types of Antigua, he identifies several Preceramic sites where groundstone artifacts have been recovered. At the site of Jolly Beach, Davis (2000:57-62) reported a small ground stone tool assemblage.

Few ground stone stools have been recovered from excavated contexts on Antigua. There are however, numerous ground stone artifacts collected from surface contexts in the Museum of Antigua and Barbuda. Only a small portion of the ground stone tools can be provenienced to a specific site. Most have merely been labelled as coming from Preceramic contexts on Antigua, as a result of surface collection. While the lack of strong contextual data could be seen as problematic, in that the Preceramic identity cannot be argued for on the basis of association with a known site of that period, I have a high degree of confidence that the tools do belong to the Preceramic. This confidence is based on the fact that the known sites that have produced the particular type of ground stone tools described below have all been Preceramic. Complementary

433

to this is the observation that at none of the better studied and documented Ceramic Age sites has any of the distinctive ground stone tools ever been recorded.

Seventy-nine (n=79) ground stone artifacts identified as Preceramic in the collections from the MAB in St. Johns, Antigua, W.I., were examined and only nine are identified to site. All ground stone artifacts were classified by: general morphology (pestle (74), axe (2), mortar (1), hammerstone (2), completeness (whole, >half present, <half present), and degree of modification recorded. Pestles, which formed the largest number of artifacts, had a number of additional attributes recorded for them. Within pestles a variety of shapes are represented, but most seem to be broadly triangular in shape with varying degrees of roundness (Figure 7). A small number are more cylindrical in shape. The pestle artifacts are further broken down into the seven defined shape categories (shouldered flat cone, flat cone, round cone, cylinder, irregular shape, and double shouldered pestle). Except for the shouldered variety, the pestle bases are flat. In contrast, the shouldered pestles are convex towards the centre and rock slightly on a flat surface. Most of the tops do not have a sharp point, but the degree of bluntness varies. Many have indications of battering at the top, with some being very heavily battered and damaged.

Despite reports of the existence of Preceramic sites throughout the Lesser Antilles only a few sites contain assemblages with ground stone tools and most of these tools were formed through usewear, rather than by intentional shaping (see for example; Crock and Petersen 1999; Crock, Petersen and Douglas 1995; Hofman and Hoogland 2003; Knippenberg 1995:108; Lundberg 1989, 1991; Nokkert, Brokke, Knippenberg, and Hamburg 1995:333-351). There is obviously a broader range of artifacts described from the Greater Antilles than is present on Antigua. However, those that are present in Antigua, particularly the more formal types such as pestles and axes, closely resemble illustrations from the bigger islands to the west (see for example Kozlowski’s 1974; Moore 1982; Rainey 1941; Rouse 1939, 1941;1982, 1992; Veloz Maggiolo and Ortega 1973:16.) As for the possible function of these artifacts, I will merely reiterate previously suggested associations of ground stone tools and the processing of plant resources such as the grinding of small grains (i.e. panicoid grasses; Newsom and Wing 2004:78).

Summary

My research attempted to synthesize all of the known data on the Preceramic occupation of Antigua focussing strongly on the analysis of material excavated by the author as well as that held in collections on the island. In terms of the general understanding of the Antiguan Preceramic that Desmond would present (marine adapted, shellfish focussed, large blade technology), these fundamentals remain unchallenged. It is in the details, however, that some intriguing patterns are revealed. I will conclude by offering a number of observations and hypotheses suggested by this research.

One such intriguing pattern is the presence of a formalised and quite standardized blade reduction sequence, with what appears to be quite an opportunistic and expedient pattern of tool use. It will be interesting to further explore this contradiction between production rigidity and functional flexibility.

As mentioned, I consider abundance as a concept and a circumstance encountered by the Preceramic settlers on Antigua, to be of considerable importance in our attempt to understand these people. Resource abundance likely played a large role in the deliberate and highly selective choices made by the Preceramic settlers on Antigua both in terms of choice within exploited

434

resources as well as what was ignored. Toolstone abundance, I think is most obviously reflected in the presence of the large blade technology. The almost perfect correlation of blade production with suitable raw material sources in the wider Caribbean area suggests that where the resources supported it, blade technology, a hypothesized part of a Preceramic culture repertoire, was practiced.

In the context of the wider Caribbean, the distinctive blade technologies as well as the ground stone tools, have correlates found only in the Greater Antilles. On the closer islands of the northern Lesser Antilles, the toolstone that so distinguishes Antigua, Long Island Chert, is well known and was utilised with a heavy degree of raw material conservatism. Blades are known, but mainly in finished form. In addition the subsistence strategies are similar and the non-blade strategy that involved the flexible and opportunistic use of suitable edges, prevalent on the islands in these small islands was pursued alongside and as part of blade technology on Antigua. A satisfying model encompassing history of movement and interaction of these people remains to be formulated.

To conclude, my study has aimed at better understanding and characterising the Preceramic occupation of Antigua, and because of Antigua’s apparently privileged position as favoured by the Preceramic people, the wider Caribbean region as well.

435

Bibliography Collins, M. B. 1999 Clovis Blade Technology. University of Texas Press, Austin. Crock, J. G., J. B. Petersen, and N. Douglas 1995 Preceramic Anguilla: A View from the Whitehead’s Bluff Site. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Congress of Caribbean Archaeology, ed. by R. Alegria and M. Rodriguez, pp. 283-294. Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe Crock, J. G., and J. B. Petersen 1999 A Long and Rich Cultural Heritage: The Anguilla Archaeology Project, 1992-1998. A report prepared for the Anguilla Archaeological and Historical Society. The Valley, Anguilla, British West Indies. Davis, Dave D. 1982 Archaic Settlement and Resource Exploitation in the Lesser Antilles: Preliminary Information from Antigua. Caribbean Journal of Science 17(1-4):107-122. 2000 Jolly Beach and the Preceramic Occupation of Antigua, West Indies. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 84. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Hofman, C.L., and M.L.P. Hoogland 1999 Archaeological Investigations on St. Martin (Lesser Antilles): The Sites of Norman Estate, Anse des Peres and Hope Estate with a contribution to the”‘La Hueca Problem”’. Archaeological Studies Leiden University 4. Leiden. Knippenberg, S. 1995 Norman Estate and Anse des Peres: Two Precolumbian sites on St. Martin. Masters Thesis, Leiden University. Leiden. Kozlowski, J. K. 1974 Preceramic Cultures in the Caribbean. Zeszyty Naukowe, Uniwerstytetu Jagiellonskiego, Vol 386, Prace Archeologicze, Zeryt 20. Krakow, Poland. Lundberg, Emily R. 1988 Preceramic Procurement Patterns at Krum Bay, Virgin Islands. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne. 1991 Interrelationships among Preceramic complexes of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Proceedings of the 13 th Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, ed. by E. N. Ayubi and J.B. Haviser, 73-85. Anthropological Institute of the Netherlands Antilles, Curacao. Moore, C.

436

1982 Investigations of Preceramic sites on Ile á Vache, Haiti. The Florida Archaeologist 35:186-199. Murphy, Arthur Reginald 1999 The Prehistory of Antigua, Ceramic Age: Subsistence, Settlement, Culture and Adaptation Within an Insular Environment. PhD. dissertation, University of Calgary, Calgary. Newsom, Lee A., and Elizabeth S. Wing 2004 On Land and Sea: Native American Uses of Biological Resources in the West Indies. The University of Alabama Press, London. Nicholson, Desmond V. 1976 An Antigua Shell Midden with Ceramic and Archaic Components. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles, ed. by Ripley P. Bullen, pp. 258-263. Florida State Museum and University of Florida, Gainesville. Nodine, B.K. 1990 Aceramic Interactions in the Lesser Antilles: Evidence from Antigua, West Indies. Paper Presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology; Las Vegas. Nokkert, Mark, Alexis Brokke, S. Knippenberg, and Tom D. Hamburg 1995 An Archaic Occupation at Norman Estates, St. Martin. Proceedings of the 16 th Congress for Caribbean Archaeology:333-351. Pantel, A. G. 2003 The First Caribbean People: Part II: The Archaics. In General History of the Caribbean, Volume I, Autochthonous Societies. Edited by Jalil Sued-Badillo, pp. 118-133. Macmillan Caribbean, London and; UNESCO, Paris. Rainey, F.G. 1941 Excavations in the Ft. Liberte Regions, Haiti. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 23. New Haven. Rouse, Irving 1939 Prehistory in Haiti, a Study in Method. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 21. New Haven. 1941 Culture of the Ft. Liberte Region, Haiti. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 26. New Haven. 1982 The Olsen Collection from Ile a Vache, Haiti. Florida Anthropologist 35(4):169-185. 1991 The Tainos. Yale University Press, New Haven. van Gijn, A.L.

437

1993 Flint Exploitation on Long Island, Antigua, West-Indies. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 26:183-197. University of Leiden. Veloz Maggiolo, Marcio, and Elpidio Ortega 1973 El preceramico de Santo Domingo. Neuvos lugares y suposible relacíon con otros puntos del area Antilliana. Museo del Hombre Dominicano, papeles ocasionales 1

438

439

Figure 1: Location of Preceramic Sites on Antigua

440

Figure 2: Location of Saladoid Period Sites in Antigua

441

Figure 3: Location of Post-Saladoid Period Sites in Antigua

442

Figure 4: Shellfish Representation at Three Representative Preceramic Sites

443

Figure 5: Selection of Blades Artifacts and Tools Illustrated

444

Figure 6: Examples of Lithic Artifacts related to Blade Production from North Crabb’s Bay

445

Figure 7: Expedient Blade (top) and Flake (bottom) from Antiguan Preceramic Sites

446