Were they used as tools? An exploratory functional study of abradedpotsherds from two pre-colonial sites on the island of Guadeloupe,

northern Lesser Antilles

ANNELOU VAN GIJN1 AND CORINNE L. HOFMAN2

1Laboratory for Artefact Studies, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden,The Netherlands

2Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlandsc.hofman@arch.leidenuniv.nl

ABSTRACT.—Abraded potsherds from Caribbean archaeological sites have rounded, square or oval shapesdue to human modification. Microscopic analysis of traces of wear was performed on the abraded potsherdsfrom two sites on Guadeloupe, Anse à la Gourde and Morel. Explorative experiments proved the sherds tobe very effective for pottery production but considerably less functional for other activities. High power usewear analysis of the archaeological sherds has revealed identifiable traces of wear that are interpreted to havebeen due to scraping leather hard clay. The application of high power use wear analysis to broken sherds hasrarely been done before and indicates that broken sherds, rather than being discarded, had a second life astools.

KEYWORDS.—Caribbean archaeology, pottery, manufacturing tools, use wear analysis

INTRODUCTION

Many sites in the Caribbean islands3

yield abraded potsherds, characterized byrounded, square or oval shapes that aredue to intentional modification. They dis-play one or more heavily abraded edges.The worn appearance cannot be attributedto a taphonomic origin because the abra-sion is very localized and limited to one ortwo edges. Moreover, sherds with freshbreaks have been found in the immediateproximity of the abraded sherds. It is sug-gested that these sherds were recycled afterthe vessel was discarded.

The potsherds discussed in this paper de-rive from two settlement sites, Anse à la

Gourde and Morel on Guadeloupe, north-ern Lesser Antilles (Figs. 1-4). The pot-sherds are obtained from midden contextsin both cases and belong to the Saladoidand post-Saladoid series dating roughly be-tween 400 B.C. and A.D. 1400. Research ofcomparable pottery fragments reported atthe Late Classic Maya site of K’axob sug-gested that the potsherds were used astools for the shaping and finishing of ves-sels (López Varela et al. 2002). This func-tional inference was made through lowpower analysis of traces of wear by meansof a stereomicroscope and their effective-ness as tools was studied through experi-mentation. This approach has now been ex-tended by incorporating a wider range ofexperiments and by using a high power ap-proach towards use wear analysis.

CERAMIC SEQUENCE OF THELESSER ANTILLES

Ceramics are estimated to make up ap-proximately 90% of the artifacts in CeramicAge sites in the Caribbean (Rouse 1977).

3Abraded sherds have been encountered in manysites in Guadeloupe, Saba and St. Lucia excavated byHofman and Hoogland. After the completion of thisanalysis we received two abraded sherds from Wil-liam Keegan and Betsy Carlson from the Río Tanamasite (AR-39) from the municipality of Arecibo in west-ern Puerto Rico. These sherds also indicate that the useof pottery tools was widespread in the pre-colonialCaribbean.

Caribbean Journal of Science, Vol. 44, No. 1, 21-35, 2008Copyright 2008 College of Arts and SciencesUniversity of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

21

The vast majority of the ceramics in the Ca-ribbean originates from settlement sites,most often from midden contexts, and to alesser extent from ceremonial sites, caves orspecial activity sites. Ceramic assemblagesfrom these sites include numerous sherdsfrom broken vessels, figurines, griddles,pot stands, incense burners, spindlewhorls, clay disks, body stamps and asmall number of miscellaneous clay objects.Spindle whorls and clay disks are often sec-ondary used potsherds. Other materials,which were probably of prime importancesuch as wood, cotton, and feathers aremore susceptible to deterioration in this

area and are seldom preserved. Thus it isnot surprising that the cultural develop-ments in this region have been describedon the basis of pottery.

The Ceramic Age is represented by anumber of series and sub-series defined ina culture-chronological framework estab-lished by Irving Rouse (Rouse 1964, 1986;1992). Series and subseries are defined by agroup of styles, complexes or wares relatedthroughout space and time that are knownto have descended from one common an-cestor. Each style or complex is defined bya unique set of attributes of material, shapeand/or decoration (Rouse 1964, 1972, 1989).

FIG. 1. Map of the Lesser Antilles with Grande-Terre, Guadeloupe highlighted. The sites of Morel and Anseà la Gourde are located in the north-eastern part of Grande-Terre (Map by Medy Oberendorff).

A. VAN GIJN AND C. L. HOFMAN22

Saladoid ceramics were introduced to Puer-to Rico and the northern Lesser Antillesaround 400 B.C. from the mainland ofSouth America, in a first instance probablybypassing the islands of the southernLesser Antilles (Hofman and Hoogland2004; Hofman et al. 2006a).

The Ceramic Age in the Lesser Antillescan be subdivided into three periods. Dur-ing the first period (approximately 400B.C.-A.D. 600/850), the Saladoid seriesdominates with a well-defined Cedrosansubseries and a less well-defined so-calledHuecan subseries. The second period datesfrom A.D. 600/850 to 1200, and is charac-terized by a Troumassoid series. Theformer can be divided into a Mamoran,Troumassan and Suazan subseries (Rouseand Faber Morse 1995). The third periodextends from A.D. 1200 to 1492 and is char-acterized by the Suazan Troumassoid sub-series and a number of individual com-plexes (i.e. Cayo complex, Morne Cybèlecomplex) in the southern Lesser Antillesand the Chican Ostionoid subseries in thenorthern Leewards (Hofman and Hoo-gland 2004; Petersen et al. 2004; Rouse 1992;Rouse and Faber Morse 1995).

MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES OF THEPOTTERY FROM MOREL AND ANSE ÀLA GOURDE

During the last decade the study of ce-ramic technology has been accorded in-creased attention. Most of these studieshave focused on paste recipes and tempermaterials (Arts 1999; Carini 1991; CoxO’Connor and Smith 2001; Donahue et al.1990; Goodwin 1979; Hofman et al. 1993;Petersen and Watters 1991; Reed and Pe-tersen 1999; Van As and Jacobs 1992; Wal-ter 1991) but others have investigated theintrinsic aspects as how pottery was madein the past (Bonnissent 1995; Bloo 1997; Cu-ret 1997; Fuess 2000; Harris 1995; Hofman1993, 1999; Hofman and Jacobs 2000/2001,2004; Jacobson 2002; Van As and Jacobs1992).

Recently, a series of experiments havebeen carried out by the Ceramic Laboratoryand the Laboratory for Artefact Studies,both of Leiden University, to examine thedifferent stages of pottery production and

FIG. 3. Worn tools from Morel, Guadeloupe (photo-graphs by Annelou van Gijn).

FIG. 2. Ceramic tools from Anse à la Gourde,Guadeloupe (photograph by Annelou van Gijn).

POTSHERDS FROM GUADELOUPE 23

the range of possible tools for potterymanufacture available to the potters duringpre-colonial times. Experiments werecarried out to understand the varioussteps in the manufacturing process of theMorel and Anse à la Gourde pottery (Hof-man and Jacobs 2000/2001:17-35). Other, asyet unpublished experiments, were per-formed with tool replicas made of flint,stone, shell, coral, bone, and pottery sherds.An attempt was made to assess the rolesthat tools of various raw materials couldhave played in the different stages of pot-tery production.

Ethnoarchaeological observations in theislands as well as on the South Americanmainland provide an important source ofadditional information that can help to con-ceptualize pottery production, techniquesand tool use in traditional Amerindian so-ciety (Duin 2000/2001; Harris 1995; Hof-

man and Bright 2004; Van Bel 1995; Vre-denbregt 2002; 2004). Such studies arebelieved to closely approximate the organi-sation of pottery production and socio-cultural behavior of the Ceramic Age soci-eties in the Caribbean (Hofman and Jacobs2000/2001; Hofman et al. 2006). This infor-mation has been very useful in experimen-tal context (Briels 2004; Hofman and Jacobs2000/2001; Hofman et al. 2006b; Lammers-Keysers in prep.).

The pottery in the studied sites is hand-made and fired in an open fire under par-tially controlled oxidizing and neutral con-ditions at temperatures reaching 800°C(Hofman and Jacobs 2000/2001). Manufac-turing techniques include coiling, flatten-ing, slab building, pinching and moulding.These techniques have not only been usedside by side, but also in combination witheach other. The technological study and ex-

FIG. 4. Ceramic tools from Morel (illustrations drafted by E. Van Driel).

A. VAN GIJN AND C. L. HOFMAN24

periments suggest that in a number of casesmolds probably were used during the firststage of production (Hofman and Jacobs2000/2001). The mold served as a supportfor the soft clay and made it possible, de-spite the softness of the clay, to obtainrather thin, large and standardized vessels.The advantages of molding, compared tocoil building, are that this technique is lesstime-consuming and that even poor clay-sand mixtures can be used. In comparisonwith coiling it is easier to make a vesselwith moulds. Experiments have shown thatthese moulds could have been made fromcalabash or gourd (Cresentia cujete; [see alsoCarini 1991:31; Hofman 1993:163; Hofmanand Jacobs 2000/2001]). When a calabash isscraped clean, it gets light, dry and porousand therefore becomes very suitable toserve as a mould. The leatherhard clay canbe removed easily from the calabash; dueto its porosity, the clay will dry ratherquickly and then shrink and separatelyfrom the mold. In addition to calabash, ce-ramic molds probably also were used.These are, however, hardly recognizable inthe archaeological record because they canbe mistaken for utilitarian dish-shaped ves-sels.

Experiments have demonstrated that bi-valve shells (e.g., Codakia orbicularis) arevery effective for the subsequent shapingprocess (Lammers-Keijsers in prep.). Re-sults from these experiments demonstratedthat shells are useful for removing the ex-cess clay during vessel construction in aleather-hard stage.

Decorating techniques include excising,impressing, scratching, appliqué and paint-ing. The first three have been applied toobtain different modes of incision depend-ing on the drying condition of the clay.Painting includes monochrome-red, bi-chrome white-on-red or polychrome paint-ing. Scratching, smoothing, burnishing andpolishing are the most common finishingtechniques. These techniques have techno-logical advantages but in some cases mayalso have been applied solely to embellishthe vessel surface. Tools, made of flint,stone, coral and bone probably were usedduring finishing and decorating the vessel(e.g., spatulas, primes, polishing stones).

These hand-held tools may be used to in-cise, impress and scratch the surface of avessel. There is always the possibility that atool might have had multiple functions(Hofman and Jacobs 2000/2001; Kelly2003). In this paper we focus on tools madeof sherds from broken vessels that probablywere used in similar ways.

Yet many of the tools used for potteryproduction would be very difficult to rec-ognize in an archaeological context.Wooden rolling sticks and calabash moldsand scrapers, for example, are expectedto have been used during the preparationphase of the clay and the shaping process(Fig. 5). These would not have been pre-served in most archaeological contexts.Nevertheless, tools made of shell, coral andflint frequently survive in archaeologicaldeposits.

USE-WEAR ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGY

Until the mid 1970s the functional inter-pretation of prehistoric tools was fre-quently based on analogies with known,present-day tool types. Semenov (1964)was the first to systematically explore thefunction of stone, bone and antler imple-ments. His experiments showed that recog-nizable traces of wear resulted from use.These wear traces varied in appearance de-pending on the contact material workedand the motion exerted. They include edgeremovals, edge rounding and abrasion,polish and striations, all features that canbe studied by means of a microscope. Onthe basis of the pioneering work of Se-menov, two approaches to functionalanalysis developed in the 1970s: thosebased on inferences from macroscopic fea-tures of wear observed by stereomicros-copy, and those based on inferences fromfeatures only observable with high magni-fications using an incident light micro-scope. The first approach is generally re-ferred to as low power analysis, the secondas high power analysis (for an overview seeOdell 2001 and Van Gijn 1990). In the lastfifteen years these approaches often wereused in combination, and were supple-mented by residue analysis (e.g., Briels2004; Fullagar 1998; Nieuwenhuis 2006).

POTSHERDS FROM GUADELOUPE 25

Until about five years ago use-wearanalysis predominantly was directed atflint tools, certainly within Europe, al-though elsewhere in the world tools of shell(Barton and White 1993) or bone and antler(Lemoine 1994) were studied as well, forthe most part by means of the low powerapproach (Bartone and Crock 1991; Lund-berg 1985; Walker 1980, 1983). The weartrace analysis of flint implements is nowrelatively well established. We are reason-ably well acquainted with the limits of in-ference, the range and extent of tapho-nomic agents (Levi-Sala 1986; Plisson andMauger 1988) and other methodologicallimitations of the method (for an overviewsee Odell 2001). When the number of in-stances in which a match occurs betweenexperimental and archaeological traces ishigh we can assume that our experimentalprograms are relevant. Wear trace analysisof tools made of materials other than flint isin its infancy. Methodological procedureshave not yet been extensively established,the range of traces that can be distin-guished has not yet been fully explored andthe extent to which taphonomic modifica-tions hamper analysis has not always beenaddressed. However, it is very clear thatwear traces can be distinguished on toolsmade of “other” materials (e.g., Kelly 2003,2004; Lammers-Keijsers 1999; Lopez Varelaet al. 2002; Van Gijn 2005; Van Gijn et al.2006). Initially much of this research wasdone by means of the low power approach,based on the premise that, for example,pottery is too coarse grained to allow usewear polish to develop. It is now becomingincreasingly clear that polish is visible onmore coarse grained raw materials likehard stone (Van Gijn and Houkes 2006),coral (Kelly 2003, 2004; Kelly and Van Gijn2006) and pottery sherds.

The methods of use-wear analysis, boththe low and the high power approach, relyon experimentation to obtain a referencecollection of experimental wear traces. Thecharacteristics of these experimental weartraces can subsequently be compared to thetraces seen on archaeological implements.When these traces show sufficient similari-ties in terms of polish characteristics, abra-sive features and edge removals, we can

infer that the function of the archaeologicaltool was the same as the experimental one.However, it can never be fully excludedthat the same combination of wear traceswas caused by an activity not yet addressedexperimentally. This pertains even morefor the “other” materials for which an ex-tensive reference collection is not yet avail-able. The present research should beviewed in this light. The experimental ref-erence collection does not totally cover thepossible range of activities to which sherdscan be put to use. Also, not all relevantvariables have been explored, the most rel-evant of which are the hardness of thesherds, the kind and size of temper and thetype of clay.

The techniques and procedures used forthis analysis conform to the standard prac-tice at the Laboratory for Artefact Studies(Van Gijn 1990). Stereomicroscopes fittedwith both oblique and incident light andwith magnifications of 10× to 160× allowthe examination of the rounding, abrasionand larger striations (low power method).Traces of residue are also best localized bymeans of a stereomicroscope. In order toexamine use-wear polish and smaller stria-tions, the sherds also were studied with ametallographic microscope at magnifica-tions up to 560x (high power method).Cleaning of the experimental implementswas done in an ultrasonic tank and waskept to a minimum so as not to damage thesherds.

EXPERIMENTS WITH SHERDS AS TOOLS

A total of 22 experiments tested the useof ceramic sherds with pottery manufactur-ing, another seven evaluated their perfor-mance on other contact materials. These ex-periments build on the experience gainedwith replications of the ceramic tools foundat the Late Classic K’axob Maya site in Be-lize (Lopez-Varela et al. 2002). In order toobtain sherds comparable in technologicalfeatures to the archaeological context, wedecided to perform some of the experi-ments with archaeological sherds originat-ing from Caribbean midden deposits. Thismaterial was chosen because it had thesame fabric characteristics as the probable

A. VAN GIJN AND C. L. HOFMAN26

tools and therefore, comparable abrasiveproperties. Normally this is not a preferablesituation because of the theoretically pos-sible scenario of using a sherd that alreadyhas been used in the past, resulting in weartraces that overlap. However, by selectingand breaking the archaeological sherdsvery carefully, we feel confident that thisproblem was avoided. Also, prior to theirexperimental use all tools were examinedby microscope in order to ensure that thesherds were in mint condition. Two ce-ramic artifacts were intentionally abradedon a slab of sandstone to give the sherd amore regular edge prior to use.

Using sherds for pottery manufacture

For the experiments in pottery produc-tion, we selected potsherds of a rathersmall size that could be held easily. Thesmaller the tool the higher the pressure itexerts and the more effective the tool is.Furthermore, attention was paid to the in-tended shape of the vessel because the toolhas to fit the curve of the vessel profile. It isevident that different tool shapes are re-quired for different parts of the vessel.Therefore, during the selection of the ex-perimental potsherds it was tried to obtaina diversity of shapes (i.e. triangular, square,rectangular, rounded).

A total of 22 experiments were con-ducted, involving various steps in the pot-tery-making process (Figure 5-6a-b). Theseexperiments were carried out to observe

the formation of diagnostic traces on theexperimental sherds as a result of smear-ing, scraping, pressing and smoothing theclay in several dry stages of the paste. Mostexperimental tools were used for only onetask (e.g., scraping leather-hard clay in onedirection, polishing the surface), while twowere used for the entire process of smear-ing, scraping, pressing and smoothing.Two were used for engraving in leather-hard clay, two for boring leather-hard clay,and three for polishing the surface. Theclay body of the vessels was prepared fromcommercially available clay with tempermaterial added to create a paste more com-parable to the pre-colonial clays. This is im-portant because, apart from the plastic con-dition of the clay, the size, shape and typeof the inclusions influence the abrasivequalities of the paste.

The experimental vessels were built us-FIG. 5. Experiment: scraping the clay with a cala-

bash tool (photograph by Loe Jacobs).

FIG. 6a-b: Experiments: scraping the clay with a ce-ramic tool (photograph by Loe Jacbos).

POTSHERDS FROM GUADELOUPE 27

ing the coiling technique. The base wasmade by pressing the clay in a mold madeof pottery or calabash. Alternatively, thebase part was made by flattening out claybetween the hands (Hofman and Jacobs2000/2001). Because the potsherds in theexperiments were used not only for scrap-ing in the final stages of the shaping pro-cess, but also during construction of thevessel wall when the clay was still soft, theabrasive quality of the paste on the pot-sherds could be observed in several stagesof clay condition. No tools other than theexperimental potsherds were used duringthe shaping and finishing process of thevessels. All tools were effective, although itis clear that the softer archaeological toolsare less suitable for polishing the surfacethan the recently baked counterparts.Scraping the leather-hard surface seems tobe the application that results in abradededges that most closely resemble some ofthe archaeological artifacts. Polishing theedge of the tool on sandstone before usemakes the tool more effective because it de-velops a smooth surface with which to pol-ish. Such a surface, however, also isachieved through use due to the abrasive-ness of the leather-hard clay. If we comparethese results to the K’axob study, it is clearthat the relative hardness of the sherds de-termines their suitability for different tasks.The sherds used in the K’axob study werefired at higher temperatures. They weretherefore harder and less easy to break dur-ing experimental use. These sherds turn outto be effective for boring clay in leather-hard condition and also for incising and en-graving a dried vessel (for a detailed de-scription of these experiments, see LópezVarela et al. 2002).

Using pottery sherds for other activities

Although it was hypothesized that theceramic tools were used in the process ofpottery production, a small number of ex-periments were conducted with differentcontact materials such as skin and plants.Three pieces were used for cleaning rabbitskin (for 15, 90 and 150 minutes respec-tively), and one was used for the cleaningof roe deer skin (15 minutes). It was noted

that the sherds were not very appropriatetools to work hide because the edge quicklywas covered in grease that had to be takenaway continuously to keep the edge evensomewhat effective. It was possible toscrape off grease, especially when a roughedge was used, but the tool did not grip theremnants enough to be removed very well.Furthermore, even after 150 minutes of usethe relatively limited deterioration of theused edge of the sherd did not resemble theabraded edges of the archaeological pieces.In fact, the amount of wear was virtuallyundetectable.

Two sherds were used to scrape wood.One experiment involved the debarkingand subsequent polishing of campeche (40minutes per task), while another experi-ment was aimed at debarking fresh willow(50 minutes). The campeche, a tropicalhardwood, proved to be especially hard towork using a ceramic tool. It crushed andbroke the edge of the sherd immediatelyupon contact. It was thus extremely diffi-cult to debark the wood, even though avery hard, experimental sherd was used.Debarking the willow was easier, butsharper tools are more effective for thistask. Even debarking by hand is easier thanusing a pottery tool. One piece of potterywas used to flatten fresh reed for five min-utes in order to make the fibres supple.Clear traces of abrasion are visible, as wellas a bright polish with transverse direction-ality, and the task could be carried outquite effectively, suggesting that more ex-periments should be done to examine simi-lar patterns of use wear. Another edge ofthe same tool was used to peel yam, andalthough the effectiveness was more or lesssatisfactory, there are many artifacts pres-ent in Caribbean sites, such as bivalveshells, that are much more suitable for thisactivity. It should be noted that the toolsused on wood and plant material involvedsherds of experimental vessels made at theLeiden Ceramic Laboratory. They werefired at higher temperatures and were farless brittle and much sharper than the ar-chaeological sherds from the midden de-posits used for the experiments with pot-tery production.

The experiments indicate that ceramic

A. VAN GIJN AND C. L. HOFMAN28

tools are not appropriate for a great varietyof tasks. Harder contact materials such aswood, bone and shell, cannot be workedeffectively. Still, ceramic tools clearlyare very effective in pottery production.Preliminary experiments on plants sug-gest that sherds could have played a rolein processing soft plants. More experi-ments with processing plants need to bedone. However, it is unlikely that this ac-tivity caused the severe rounding and abra-sion displayed on the archaeologicalsherds. The experiments also made clearthat the use of sherds for pottery manufac-turing produced clear wear traces thatcould be distinguished by microscope inthe form of rounding and faceting of theedge.

ANALYSIS OF THEARCHAEOLOGICAL SHERDS

Thirty-eight possible implements fromMorel were examined for the presence ofwear, as were 17 from Anse à la Gourde.The Morel tools probably have been af-fected to some extent by wave action, asevidenced by extensive cracking of the sur-face. However, several potsherds were suf-ficiently preserved to allow them to be ana-lyzed by stereomicroscope. High powermicroscopy, allowing for a more detailedstatement about contact materials, was pos-sible in only one case. The tools from Anseà la Gourde were in better condition be-cause much of the original sherd surfacehad remained intact. Only three of the 17tools examined were considered too weath-ered for examination by means of highpower microscopy.

Anse à la Gourde

Microscopic analysis of the abradedsherds from Anse à la Gourde did not re-veal any traces of manufacture. Although itis assumed that the sherds were to someextent modified by breaking them inten-tionally or by rubbing them on a slab ofsandstone or coral, there is no evidence forthis type of modification. Three completelyrounded pieces were found whose shapesuggests intentional modification, but it

cannot be excluded that the rounding iscompletely due to extensive use. Apartfrom the three artifacts that were tooabraded for analysis, all sherds displaytraces of use such as polish, striations andsevere edge rounding. The polish is locatedon the edge, not on the outer and innersurface of the sherd. The latter are too se-verely affected by scratches due to tram-pling, overlying deposits and possibly eventhe manufacturing processes of the originalvessel. The edges are completely rounded,and in some cases also displaying a facet.Most edges have a U-shaped cross-section.Incidentally, the dorsal aspect of the sherdwas harder than the ventral, causing anoverhanging, asymmetrical cross-section.The polish was smooth and bright, and dis-tributed in patches all along the roundededges displaying a distinct directionality(Figure 7). The polish follows every inden-tation of the edge, indicating a soft and pli-able contact material. The abrasion and thewell-developed polish indicate that a veryabrasive contact material was used. Thepolish resembles experimental traces re-sulting from scraping clay. Experimentalclay working tools display the same stria-tions and polish directionality, caused bythe fragments of temper in the clay, as seenon the archaeological counterparts.

It is therefore argued that the roundedsherds found at Anse à la Gourde werelikely used as tools. There are no indica-tions for intentional modification, as thesewould have been worn away by subse-quent use. The polish and striations, as wellas the heavily abraded edge, indicate thatwe are probably dealing with implementsused in the process of pottery production.More specifically, the tools were employedon different sides to scrape leather-hardclay, smoothing the inside and possiblyeven the outside of the vessels.

Morel

As mentioned above, the material fromMorel was preserved less well than that ofAnse à la Gourde. All sherds displayed acracked surface, making a high poweranalysis of the polishes virtually impos-sible. However, the abrasion and the gen-

POTSHERDS FROM GUADELOUPE 29

FIG. 8. Wear traces on tool 21 and tool 18 from Morel. Note the striations and rounding (photographs takenby stereomicroscope at 10× magnification) (photograph by Annelou van Gijn).

FIG. 7. Traces on ceramic tools from Anse à la Gourde. Top photographs taken by stereomicroscope (10×) oftool 21 (left) and tool 9 (right). Bottom photographs taken by incident light microscope (200X) of tool 3 (left) andtool 14 (right). Note the striations in the polish (photographs by Annelou van Gijn).

A. VAN GIJN AND C. L. HOFMAN30

eral shape of the tools had remained intactso several sherds could still be examined bystereomicroscope. A total of 16 artifacts dis-played traces of having been used, all in atransverse motion. The edges were abradedand striations were sometimes visible, inone case the same kind of smooth andbright polish with transverse directionalityseen on the Anse à la Gourde implementswas observed (Figure 8). There does, how-ever, seem to be more variation in the waythe edges are abraded than seen on thetools from Anse à la Gourde. Four differenttypes of abraded edges can be distin-guished: 1. asymmetrically rounded edges;2. symmetrically worn edges with a squarecross-section; 3. symmetrically worn edgeswith U-shaped cross-sections and 4. facet-

ted edges. The asymmetrically abradededges display wear that is very similar toexperimental pieces used to scrape clay(Figure 9). Rounding is most pronouncedon one side of the sherd and the angle be-tween the two aspects is usually around 80degrees. The striations are located on theedge itself, suggesting that the tool washeld at quite a high angle to the clay sur-face. Most likely, however, this asymmetryis due to differential hardness of the twosurfaces of the sherd, causing one surface towear in a more rounded fashion. This issuggested by the observation that the resis-tant aspect sometimes overhangs the rest ofthe edge. Differential wear also may be dueto always using the sherd in one particularway, whereas the symmetrically worn

FIG. 9. Wear traces on experimental clay scraping tools (photographs taken by incident light microscope 200×)(photograph by Annelou van Gijn).

POTSHERDS FROM GUADELOUPE 31

implements were used on both sides andfor perhaps a longer time. The U-shapedcross-section seems to be confined to thesofter, more easily abraded sherds and thesquare cross-section to the more resistantsherds. Lastly, the facetted variety may berelated to scraping clay in leather-hard con-dition because the increased hardness ofthe clay wears the edge in facets rather thanrounding it.

Based on our observations the abradedsherds from Morel should be consideredtools as well, most likely for use in potterymanufacture. The larger variety of edgeshapes displayed by the Morel sherds ispartially linked to different use, and also tothe differential hardness of the sherds. Thefacetted variety indicates that the sherdsalso were used on clay that already wasquite hard (leather-hard), something thatwas not observed on the Anse à la Gourdesherds. However, the characteristic polishindicative of pottery scraping was found ononly one sherd, with the others too poorlypreserved to observe polishes.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The use of pottery tools for the manufac-ture of ceramic vessels recently has come tolight in the study of Late Classic K’axobMaya pottery from Belize by López Varela,van Gijn, and Jacobs (Lopez Varela et al.2002). In that study the tools were clearlyintentionally shaped and revealed a re-markable resemblance to the toolkit of amodern potter. Low power analysis of thewear traces on the archaeological tools con-firmed this interpretation. The identifica-tion of similar potsherds in Caribbean siteshas led us to postulate comparable use ofthese sherds in the manufacturing processof pottery. However, compared to theK’axob tools, where the tools were associ-ated with pottery kilns, all of the imple-ments at Anse à la Gourde and Morel camefrom midden contexts. Caribbean tools arealso much larger, although they still have abasically geometrical or at least regularshape, indicating that they are not simplypotsherds. The contextual evidence for thesherds from Anse à la Gourde and Morel

was therefore less suggestive than atK’axob. For this reason, the experimentalprogram was broadened to include the useof sherds for other tasks than potterymanufacturing.

A large number of the abraded sherdsboth from Morel and Anse à la Gourdewere undoubtedly used as tools. They dis-play characteristic rounding as well asstriations and polish. Such traces cannot beattributed to anything but intentional use.The sherds that could be interpreted astools were all used in a scraping motion.The contact material must have been quitesoft and pliable and at the same time abra-sive. Experiments have shown that ceramictools, even sherds fired at high tempera-tures, are not resistant enough to work theharder contact materials such as wood orbone. Hide working is almost impossiblewith a ceramic tool, and cutting motionsare generally not feasible because the edgeis simply not sharp enough. This leaves uswith clay and soft plants as possible contactmaterials, but the plant material is probablynot abrasive enough to cause the regularlyrounded and abraded edges. Moreover, theexperimental traces from different activitieswithin the pottery production process beara striking resemblance to the traces on thearchaeological implements. This applies es-pecially to the asymmetrically roundedpieces that most likely were used for scrap-ing clay. However, the three other types ofangled rounding seen on several Moreltools have not been experimentally repro-duced. Whether these tools served in thepottery production process is likely, but notcertain until further experimentation isdone.

The relatively small number of potterytools in ceramic assemblages and their rela-tively strong abrasion suggest that theymust have been used in combination withtools made from other materials. In thisway it may be possible to reconstruct a pre-historic pottery production tool kit (see VanGijn et al. 2006). Presently, a series of ex-periments is being carried out to furtherassess the functionality of implementsmade from different raw materials in vari-ous stages of pottery production. Attentionwill also be paid to the angle worked (ges-

A. VAN GIJN AND C. L. HOFMAN32

ture), in order to assess the meaning of thedifferent types of rounding displayed bythe ceramic tools. A detailed study of themanufacturing traces seen on sherds result-ing from the use of different tools will alsobe an integral part to this program.

In sum, technological and functionalstudies have so far received insufficient at-tention in pottery studies in the Caribbean.Technology is a significant parameter be-cause it involves the entire sequence of op-erations of the manufacturing process. Assuch, it is deeply embedded in the socio-cultural realms of society. Techniques areregarded to be primarily dependent on thepersonal choices of the potter and the socialand cultural environment in which theyparticipate (see also Lemonnier 1986, 1993;Stark 1998). Looking at pottery productionfrom a more holistic perspective, in whichtool use and microscopic analysis are apart, can reveal the technological interde-pendence of various tools and techniques.In the case of the pottery tools from Anse àla Gourde and Morel, such an approach hasdemonstrated the flexibility of the prehis-toric tool users who chose tools suitable forthe task at hand, sometimes in ways unex-pected from an etic perspective. By apply-ing a more holistic perspective, the study ofceramics can evolve from serving as a toolfor establishing local chronologies or fordetermining the spatial organization of re-gional developments to one putting potteryproduction in a wider socio-cultural andeconomic context.

Acknowledgments.—The authors are verymuch indebted to Yvonne Lammers-Keysers, Harold Kelly and Loe Jacobs forcarrying out several experiments. The ar-ticle builds upon the research done in col-laboration with Sandra Lopez Varela, towhom we are grateful for her constructivecomments. We would also like to acknowl-edge Scott Fitzpatrick and Emily Lundbergfor their suggestions and comments on anearlier version of this paper. Alistair Brightand Bill Keegan are thanked for his correc-tions of the original English text. The analy-ses presented in this article are part of apluri-annual project under the direction ofA.L. Van Gijn and financed by the The

Netherlands Organization for Scientific Re-search entitled “The use wear analysis ofprehistoric artefacts: an integral approachtowards the study of material culture”(NWO 015-000-095).

REFERENCES CITED

Arts, J. 1999. Morel I revisited. A study of Huecan andCedrosan Saladoid ceramics found at the site of Morel,Guadeloupe, French West Indies. MA thesis, Leiden:Leiden University.

Barton, H., and J. P. White. 1993. Use of stone and shellartifacts at Balof 2, New Ireland, Papua NewGuinea. Asian Perspectives 32(2):169-181.

Bartone, N. R., and. J. G. Crock. 1991. Flaked stoneindustries at the early Saladoid Trants site, Mont-serrat, West Indies. In Proceedings of the XIVth In-ternational Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, 124-146. Barbados.

Bloo, S. 1997. Een morfologische en technologische studienaar de functie van het aardewerk van Anse à laGourde, Guadeloupe (F.W.I.). MA thesis, Leiden:Leiden University.

Bonnissent, D. 1995. Les caractéristiques de la cérami-que de Hope Estate, Ile de Saint Martin. In Proceed-ings of the XVIth International Congress for CaribbeanArchaeology, 333-344. Basse Terre.

Briels, I. 2004. Use-wear analysis on the Archaic flint as-semblage of Plum Piece, Saba: a pilot study. Ma thesis,Leiden: Leiden University.

Carini, S. P. 1991. Compositional analysis of West Indianceramics and their relevance to Puerto Rican prehistory.Ph.D. Diss. Storrs: University of Connecticut. AnnArbor: University Microfilms.

Cox O’Connor, B., and M. S. Smith. 2001. ComparativePetrography of pottery from St. Croix UnitedStates Virgin Islands: Aklis, Salt /river, Prosperityand Northside Sites. In Proceedings of the XIXth In-ternational Congress for Caribbean Archaeology 19:29-42. Aruba.

Curet, L. A. 1997, Technological changes in prehistoricceramics from Eastern Puerto Rico:

an exploratory study. Journal of Archaeological Science24:497-504.

Donahue, J., D. R. Watters, and S. Millspaugh. 1990.Thin Section Petrography of Northern Lesser An-tilles Ceramics. Geoarchaeology 5(3):229-254.

Duin, R. 2000-2001. A Wayana potter in the tropicalrain forest of Surinam/French Guyana. Leiden:Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology18/19:45-58. Leiden.

Fuess, M. T. 2000. Post-Saladoid age pottery in the north-ern Lesser Antilles. Lessons learned from thin sectionpetrography. MA Thesis, Pittsburgh: University ofPittsburgh.

Fullagar, R. , ed. 1998. A closer look. Recent Australianstudies of stone tools. Sydney: Sydney University Ar-chaeological Methods Series 6.

Goodwin, R. C. 1979. The Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of

POTSHERDS FROM GUADELOUPE 33

St. Kitts, West Indies: A Case Study in Island Archae-ology. Ph.D. Diss. Tempe: Arizona State University.Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

Harris, P. O’ B. 1995. Ethnotypology: the Basis for aNew Classification of Caribbean Pottery. In Pro-ceedings of the XVIth Congress of the International As-sociation for Caribbean Archaeology II:345-366. BasseTerre.

Hofman, C. L. 1993. In search of the native population ofpre-Columbian Saba (400-1450 A.D.). Pottery stylesand their interpretations. Ph.D. Diss. Leiden: LeidenUniversity.

Hofman, C. L. 1999. Pottery. In Archaeological investi-gations on St. Martin. The sites of Norman Estate, Ansedes Pères and Hope Estate. Part III. Hope Estate, edsC.L. Hofman and M.L.P. Hoogland, 149-187.Leiden: ASLU 4.

Hofman, C. L., A. Boomert, A. J. Bright, M. L. P.Hoo-gland, S.Knippenberg, and A. Samson. 2006a. Tieswith the ‘homeland’: archipelagic interaction andthe enduring role of the South American mainlandin the pre-colonial Lesser Antilles. Paper presentedat the Opening Session of the 71st meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, San Juan Puer-to Rico April 26-30, 2006.

Hofman, C. L., and A. J. Bright. 2004. From Suazoid tofolk pottery. Pottery traditions in a changing socialand cultural environment. New West Indian Guide,78 (1-2):73-104.

Hofman, C. L., and M. L. P. Hoogland. 2004. Socialdynamics and change on the northern Lesser An-tilles. In Late Ceramic Age Societies in the eastern Ca-ribbean, eds A. Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, 47-58.Oxford: BAR International Series 1273.

Hofman, C. L., A. J. D. Isendoorn, M. Booden and L.Jacobs. 2006b. In tuneful threefold. Combining con-ventional archaeological methods, geochemicalanalysis and ethnoarchaeological research in thestudy of pre-Columbian pottery of the Caribbean.Paper presented at the symposium” New methodsand techniques in the study of archaeological ma-terials in the Caribbean’ at the 71st meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, San Juan Puer-to Rico April 26-30, 2006.

Hofman, C. L., and L. Jacobs. 2000/2001. The dynam-ics of technology, function and style: A study ofEarly Ceramic Age pottery from the Caribbean.Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology18-19: 7-43.

Hofman C. L., and L. Jacobs. 2004. Different or Alike?A technological comparison between late-prehistoric and modern-day folk pottery on St.Lu-cia, (W.I). Leiden Journal of Pottery Technology 20:23-52.

Hofman, C. L., L. Jacobs, and P. van Olst. 1993. Tech-nological aspects of the pre-Columbian potteryfrom Saba. In In search of the native population ofpre-Columbian Saba (400-1450 A.D.). Pottery stylesand their interpretations, by C. L. Hofman, 159-196.Ph.D. Diss. Leiden: Leiden University.

Jacobson, K. 2002. L’étude des formes et des décors de la

céramique précolombienne du site de l’embouchure deBaillif (Guadeloupe). MA thesis. Paris: UniversitéParis I/Sorbonne.

Kelly, H. 2003. Amerindian Coral Tools. A pilot study inexperimental archaeology on coral artifactsartifacts fromAnse à la Gourde, Guadeloupe. Ma thesis. Leiden:Leiden University.

Kelly, H. 2004. Experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis: understanding the effects of coraltools on shell. In): The archaeology of Aruba: Marineshell heritage, eds A. C. F Dijkhoff and M. S. Linville10:125-131. Aruba: Archaeological Museum ofAruba.

Kelly, H., and A. L. Van Gijn. 2006. Understanding thefunction of coral tools from Anse à la Gourde: anexperimental approach. In New methods and tech-niques in the study of archaeological materials. Pa-per presented at the symposium” New methodsand techniques in the study of archaeological ma-terials in the Caribbean’ at the 71st meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, San Juan Puer-to Rico April 26-30, 2006.

Lammers-Keijsers, Y. M. J. 1999. Excavations on Anseà la Gourde. Use wear on pre-Columbian shell ar-tifacts. In Proceedings of the XVIIIth InternationalCongress for Caribbean Archaeology 18:179-186.Grenada.

Lammers-Keijsers, Y. M. J. in prep. Tracing traces frompresent to past. A functional analysis of Pre-Colombian shell and stone artefacts from Anse a laGourde and Morel, Guadeloupe, FWI. Ph.D. Diss.Leiden: Leiden University.

LeMoine, G. M. 1994. Use wear analysis on bone andantler tools from the Mackenzie delta, Northwest-ern territories, American Antiquity 59 (2):316-334.

Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture to-day: towards an anthropology of technical sys-tems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:147-186.

Lemonnier, P. 1993. Introduction. In TechnologicalChoices, Transformation in Material Cultures since theNeolithic, ed. P. Lemonnier, 1-35. London/NewYork: Routledge.

Levi-Sala. I. 1986. Use wear and post-depositional sur-face modification, Journal of Archaeological Science13:229-244.

López Varela, S. L., A. van Gijn, and L. Jacobs. 2002.De-mystifying Pottery Production in the MayaLowlands: Detections of Traces of Use-Wear onPottery Sherds Through Microscopic Analysis andExperimental Replication. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 29(10):1133-1147.

Lundberg, E. R. 1985. Observations on Strombus Colu-mella fragments cautionary notes and experimen-tal microwear analysis. In Proceedings of the Xth In-ternational Congress for the Study of pre-ColumbianCultures of the Lesser Antilles:347-361. Martinique.

Nieuwenhuis, C. 2006. The significance of starch andphytolith studies: an example from Plum Piece,Saba. Paper presented at the symposium” Newmethods and techniques in the study of archaeo-

A. VAN GIJN AND C. L. HOFMAN34

logical materials in the Caribbean’ at the 71st meet-ing of the Society for American Archaeology, SanJuan Puerto Rico April 26-30, 2006.

Odell, G. H. 2001. Stone tool research at the end of themillennium: classification, function and behavior.Journal of Archaeological Research (9/1): 45-100.

Petersen, J. B., C. L. Hofman, and L. A. Curet. 2004.Time and Culture: Chronology and Taxonomy inthe Eastern Caribbean and the Guianas. In The LateCeramic Age in the eastern Caribbean, eds A.Delpuech and C. L. Hofman, 17-32. Oxford: BARInternational Series1273.

Petersen, J. B., and D. R. Watters. 1991. Amerindianceramic remains from Fountain Cavern, Anguilla,West Indies. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 60(4):321-357.

Plisson, H., and M. Mauger. 1988. Chemical and me-chanical alteration of microwear polishes: an ex-perimental approach. Helinium 28:3-16.

Reed, J. A., and J. B. Petersen. 1999. A comparison ofhuecan and cedrosan Saladoid ceramics at Trantssite Montserrat. In Proceedings of the XVIIIth Inter-national Congress for Caribbean Archaeology 18: 253-267. Grenada.

Rouse, I. B. 1964. Prehistory of the West Indies. Science144:499-513.

Rouse, I. B. 1972. Introduction to Prehistory: a systematicapproach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rouse, I. B. 1977. Pattern and Processes in West IndianArchaeology. World Archaeology 9(1):1-11.

Rouse, I. B. 1986. Migrations in Prehistory. InferringPopulation Movement from Cultural Remains. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

Rouse, I. B. 1989. Peoples and cultures of the Saladoidfrontier in the Greater Antilles. In Early CeramicPopulation and Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in theCaribbean, ed. P. Siegel, 383-403. Oxford: BAR In-ternational Series 506.

Rouse, I. B.1992. The Tainos. The rise and decline of thepeople who greeted Columbus. New Haven: Yale Uni-versity Press.

Rouse, I. B., and B. Faber Morse 1995. The Mill Reefperiod: a local development of the Island of Anti-qua. In Proceedings. of the XVth International Con-gress for Caribbean Archaeology 2:322-333. PuertoRico.

Semenov, S. 1964. Prehistoric technology. London:Moonraker Press.

Stark, M. T., ed. 1998. The Archaeology of Social Bound-aries, Washington D.C./London. Smithsonian In-stitution Scholarly Press.

Van As, A. van and L. Jacobs 1992. A technologicalstudy of the Golden Rock pottery. In The Archaeol-

ogy of St. Eustatius: The Golden Rock Site, eds A. H.Versteeg and C. Schinkel, 230-236 Amsterdam:Publication of the St. Eustatius Historical Founda-tion 2 /Publication of the Foundation for ScientificResearch in the Caribbean Region 131.

Van den Bel, M. 1995. Kamuyune. The palikur potters ofFrench Guyana. MA thesis. Leiden: Leiden Univer-sity.

Van Gijn, A. L. 1990. The wear and tear of flint. Prin-ciples of functional analysis applied to Dutch Neo-lithic assemblages. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia22. Ph.D. Diss. Leiden: Leiden University

Van Gijn, A. L. 2005. A functional analysis of someLate Mesolithic bone and antler implements fromthe Dutch coastal zone. In From hooves to horns, frommollusc to mammoth. Manufacture and use of bone ar-tefacts from prehistoric times to the present, eds H.Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lougas.Proc. of the 4th Meet. of the ICAZ Worked Bone Re-search Group at Tallinn, 26th-31st of August 2003,Tallinn. Muinasaja teadus 15, 47-66.

Van Gijn A. L., and R. Houkes, 2006. Stone procrure-ment and use. In Schipluiden—Harnaschpolder. A Mid-dle Neolithic Site on the Dutch Coast (3800-3500 BC),eds L. P. Louwe Kooijmans and P. F. B. Jongste,177-204. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 37/38.

Van Gijn, A., Y. Lammers-Keijsers, and I. Briels, 2006.Tool use and technological choices: an integral ap-proach towards the analysis of Caribbean tool as-semblages. Paper presented at the symposium”New methods and techniques in the study of ar-chaeological materials in the Caribbean’ at the 71stmeeting of the Society for American Archaeology,San Juan Puerto Rico April 26-30, 2006.

Vredenbregt, A. 2002. ORI:NO KARI:NA WENA:PO.The symbolic content of Kari:na material culture: Anethnoarchaeological case study. MA thesis. Leiden:Leiden University.

Vredenbregt, A. H. L. 2004 From myth to matter: Theceramic tradition of the Kari’na of Northeast Surin-ame. Leiden Journal of Pottery Technology 20:75-96.

Walker, J. 1980. Analysis and replication of lithic arti-facts from the Sugar Factory Pier site, St. Kitts.Analysis and replication of the lithic artifacts fromthe Sugar Factory Pier site, St. Kitts, West Indies.MA thesis, Pullman: Washington State University.

Walker, J. 1983. Use-wear analysis of Caibbean flakedstone tools. In Proceedings of the IXth InternationalCongress for the Study of the pre-Columbian Culturesof the Lesser Antilles:239-247.

Walter V. 1991, Analyses pétrographiques etminéralogiques de la céramique précolombiennesde Martinique. Caribena 1:2-54

POTSHERDS FROM GUADELOUPE 35